Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270 303086944X, 9783030869441

Citation preview

Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270

John B. Wickstrom

Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270

John B. Wickstrom

Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270

John B. Wickstrom Kalamazoo College Kalamazoo, MI, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-86944-1 ISBN 978-3-030-86945-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Fra Filippo Lippi, Saint Benedict Orders Saint Maurus to the Rescue of Saint Placidus, c. 1445/1450. Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to Eleanor Huzar my undergraduate mentor: notam fecit mihi viam in qua ambulem; and Cynthia Hahn who first introduced me to Saint Maurus many years ago

Acknowledgments

I am first and foremost indebted to the Library of the University of Chicago, whose generous Guest Services opens their immense resources gratis to faculty from a small colleges in the Midwest. The Interlibrary Loan Offices at Western Michigan University and Kalamazoo College for many years obtained items from sometimes quite inaccessible venues. I am particularly indebted to Joisan DeHaan of Kalamazoo College’s ILL department, who worked assiduously, during the COVID-19 shutdowns especially, to secure materials during those difficult times. The riches of the Bibliothèque nationale de France were also made available to me, without which this book could not have been written. Charlotte Denöel, head of the BnF manuscript division and herself a scholar of the cult of Maurus, was especially helpful. Professor Guy Jarousseau of the Université catholique de l’Ouest, Angers, shared generously with me his deep knowledge of Glanfeuil and of early Angevin history. Professor Pierre Gillon, of the University of Picardy, contributed his expertise regarding the cult of Saint Maurus at abbey of Fossés. My thanks also to Constance Brittain Bouchard, who read an early draft and offered important advice. Finally, to my spouse, Elaine, whose encouragement and eagle-eyed editing skills made this a better book.

vii

Contents

1

1

Introduction: “Facts,” “Fictions,” and “History”

2

A Perfect Monk and the Mission to Francia

11

3

Constructing the Shrine and Its Story

33

4

Ruin, Restoration, and Reform

71

5

The Bishop and the Abbot: Inventing the Cult

101

6

Appropriating the Cult: Glanfeuil, Fleury, and Fossés

131

7

Patronage and Prosperity

167

8

New Freedoms, New Liturgies, and Expansion

207

9

The Cult of Maurus and the Monastic “Empires”

251

10

Glanfeuil and Montecassino: Fictive Histories and Constructed Memories

281

Maurus at Montecassino: Friction, Exemptions, and Crisis

317

Epilogue: Redefining Maurus and His Shrine for the Modern World

341

11 12

Bibliography

357

Index

375 ix

Abbreviations

AASS ABR Ann. cass arr BHL BnF ms. lat cant Cart. de S-M CHMM

Chron. cass DACL

GC.

HT

LM

Acta Sanctorum. 68 volumes Antwerp. 1643 American Benedictine Review Annales casinensis, MGH., SS. 19. 2. 16 arrondissement Bibliotheca hagiographica latina antiquae et mediae aetatis, Brussels: Soci´et´e de Bollandistes, 1898–1901 Bibliothèque nationale de France, codex latina canton Le cartulaire de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire, ed. Paul Marchegay, Archives: d’Anjou 1 (1843), 319–429 Cambridge History of Medieval Monasticism in the Latin West, 2 vols. Ed. Alison Beach and Isabelle Cochelin. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P. 2019 Chronica monasterii casinensis, ed. Helmut Hoffmann. MGH: SS. 34, Hannover, 1980 Dictionnaire d’arch´eologie chr´etienne et de liturgie, ed. Henri Cabrol and H. Leclercq. 15 vols. in 30. Paris: Letouzey et An´e, 1907–1953 Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa qua series et historia archepiscoporum, episcoporum, & abbatum Franciae. 1856–1999. 16 vols, Paris (Historia translationis ), Miracula auctore eodem Odone, AASS, Januarius I. See also John Wickstrom, Life and Miracles of Saint Maurus. Cistercian Publications, 2008 (Life of Maurus ) Vita auctore Pseudo—Fausto, reapse Odone Abbate Glannafoliensi, AASS, Januarius I. See also John xi

xii

ABBREVIATIONS

MCMA MGH NCMH PL RA RB 1980 R. bén. Rec.CC

Wickstrom, Life and Miracles of Saint Maurus. Cistercian Publications, 2008 Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, Cambridge MA: Harvard U.P., 1988 Monumenta Germaniae Historia. ( SS: Scriptores, “in folio.”) New Cambridge Medieval History, 8 vols., Cambridge U.P., 1995–2005 Patrologia latina Revue de l’Anjou RB 1980: Rule of Benedict in Latin and English, ed. Timothy Fry (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press), 1980 Revue bénédictine Recueil des actes de Charles le Chauve, roi de France, ed. Georges Tessier. 3 vols. Paris. 1943–1955

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.1 4.2 7.1 8.1

Fig. 8.2

Saints Maurus and Romanus at the ascent of Saint Benedict (MS Troyes, Bibliotheque municipale, MS 2273, fol. 57r.). Courtesy Médiathèque Jacques Chirac, Troyes De la Croix’s schematic of the Glanfeuil excavation (From DACL 6/1, cols. 1291–92) Structure beneath Saint Martin’s twelfth-century chapel: (DACL 6/1, 1294, Fig. 5314.) Stone sarcophagus from Glanfeuil: tomb of Saint Maurus(?) (From DACL, 6/1, cols. 1295–96) “Church of Saint Severinus” (From: de la Croix, Fouilles, PL IV.) “nymphaeum” (schematic): (de la Croix, Fouilles, Planche V) “nymphaeum” (drawing). From DACL 6/1 col. 1289–90, Fig. 5309 The Carolingian Empire c. 840 (Daniel Huffman) Genealogical chart of Rorigonid familia (by author) Map of Glanfeuil possessions (Daniel Huffman) Glanfeuil antiphonary page (Courtesy Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. lat. 12,584, fol. 245r) Progress of the cult of Saint Maurus, 900–1200 (Daniel Huffman)

31 54 56 57 59 60 61 76 83 206 238 245

xiii

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 12.1

Glanfeuil community departs for Belgium, September 1901 (Clervaux. C. Ig.II. MS.Chronique de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil, année 1901. Text of photo: “Farewell, thou stream of purest wave, sparkling silver, that God has granted us for this closure, farewell, Farewell, my beauteous Loire, farewell”)

354

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: “Facts,” “Fictions,” and “History”

Context and Methodologies In the early spring of 862, the monks of the abbey of Glanfeuil abandoned their home, a small monastery built atop a steep slope above the Loire River in Anjou. They were fleeing Viking raiding parties whose advances were becoming ever more threatening as they set up winter camps throughout the region. The monks’ subsequent five-year exile recalls the biblical Exodus, urged on by their charismatic leader, Abbot Odo, in a seeming aimless wandering, punctuated by dramatic miracles and sudden dangers. They carried with them, the abbot later wrote, precious cargo—the relics of the abbey’s founder and heavenly protector, St Maurus. Like the Ark of the Covenant, Maurus’s relics constituted the core of the community’s identity. In his memoir of the community’s flight, Abbot Odo suggested parallels with other famous pilgrimages of the past: the wanderings of the patriarch Abraham, who “left his house and his relatives by God’s command and afterwards received the land of his pilgrimage as an inheritance.” More significant was his reference to the self-exile of Saint Benedict of Nursia who “left forever his house and the possessions of his homeland […] longing to please God alone.” Just so, Odo would conclude, “rejoicing to have undertaken our own pilgrimage, we, as truly devoted servants, expect consolation from the Lord as we try, through it all, to follow the footsteps of our most holy father, Benedict.” Creating such connections not only provided consolation for the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_1

1

2

J. B. WICKSTROM

loss of its home to a community created only thirty years earlier but, more importantly, made intelligible—and so more bearable—the trauma of exile.1 In fact, Odo was to provide his monks with a prestigious past as well as a contemporary identity. Soon after the community found refuge at the Parisian abbey of Fossés in 868, Odo composed two works; the first, a Life of the founder of Glanfeuil Abbey, Saint Maurus, and second, a Historia of the evolution of his shrine at Glanfeuil in his own day, which included a miracle-infused account of the community’s wanderings. Odo’s Life of Maurus identified this figure as the first known and best loved of St Benedict’s disciples, who carried the Rule of Benedict to France some 300 years earlier, thereby creating the first monastery beyond Benedict’s Italian abbey at Montecassino to observe the Rule of Benedict. From there the Rule was carried throughout France and eventually adopted by most European monasteries. With this richly detailed and audacious hagiography, Glanfeuil became, in Brian Stock’s well-known phrase, a “textual community.”2 The Life of Maurus provided Glanfeuil with a history and identity that evolved over the next thousand years and earned its heavenly patron a Europe-wide reputation. The success of the abbey and its founder’s cult is the more remarkable in that the Life of Maurus was, for the most part, a product of Abbot Maurus’s imagination. Indeed, Odo claimed that the narrative of Glanfeuil’s foundation was in fact written some 300 years earlier by one of Maurus’s fellow missionaries to France, a monk named Faustus, bestowing on it an additional patina of antiquity and so of legitimacy.

1 The preceding quotations are taken from sections 33–34 of AASS, Vita auctore Pseudo-Fausto, Januarii, I: 1039–50 (BHL, 5773). This edition is based on BnF. ms. lat. 3 (“Le bible de Rorigon”) fols. 395r–401v, along with its companion piece, the Historia eversionis (translationis), BnF. ms lat.3, fols. 402r–407r (BHL, 5775). These two works have been translated in The Life and Miracles of Saint Maurus, Disciple of Benedict, Apostle to France, trans. John Wickstrom (Cistercian Publications, 2008). There is no critical edition, so my translation uses the section numbers of the more easily accessible AASS edition. All citations in this book, both to Odo’s Life of Saint Maurus (LM ) and his Historia translationis (HT), refer to these AASS section numbers. (Oswald Holder-Egger published a partial edition of the Historia tranlationis as Historia translationis: Ex Odonis Miraculis S. Mauri, MGH. Scriptores 15. 1. 462–72. Since his edition omits the miracle stories that form the core of this work, it has been of limited use to this project.) 2 Brian Stock, The Implications of Literacy (Princeton, 1983), 88–90.

1

INTRODUCTION: “FACTS,” “FICTIONS,” AND “HISTORY”

3

The few modern historians who have turned their attention to Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus use the terms “forgery” and even “fraud” to describe Odo’s work. Such epithets misunderstand the abbot’s motives and techniques.3 “Forgery” suggests an intention to deceive by presenting false information as if it were true. The Life of Maurus is more accurately understood as “fictional” or “imagined.” As we shall see, Abbot Odo creatively reshaped local memories of an earlier religious house and its shadowy patron, then “filled in the gaps” with imagined events and personalities that would inspire veneration of Saint Maurus and promote his cult at Glanfeuil. Idealizing the lives of outstanding men and women for the purpose of veneration or imitation had been an accepted approach to biography from Classical antiquity on into the Christian era—and not infrequently appears in modern biography as well. The techniques of memory studies have revolutionized historical analysis of texts such as the Life of Maurus . Memory studies hold that whether a document is historically accurate or not matters less than its inclusion in the individual and collective memories which fashion historical identities.4 This idea intrigued Saint Augustine long before the advent of

3 There are a few useful works on the history of the cult of Saint Maurus and of Glan-

feuil Abbey. Still valuable are the early twentieth-century monographs of Dom François Landreau, particularly his two multipart studies, “Les vicissitudes de l’abbaye de SaintMaur aux VIIIe et IXe siècles,” L’Anjou historique 5 (1904/5): 113–32, 223–44, 337–56 and “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil du Xe au XIIIe siècle, ses relations avec le Mont-Cassin:” 1: “Le Prieuré.” RA., 51 (1905): 177–205 and 2: “L’Abbaye.” 409–29. 3: “Saint-Maur sous la dépendance du Mont-Cassin.” RA., 52 (1906): 49–76. More recently, Guy Jarousseau’s “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire,” (unpublished thesis: Mémoire de maîtrise, Angers, 1988) and his “Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire [debut du XII siècle] état, reconstitution et fondements de son organization” (Mémoire de D.E.A. Sorbonne, 1990). Jarousseau’s work contains the most reliable discussions of the cult of Maurus and his shrine at Glanfeuil. Earlier monographs by Erich Caspar, Petrus Diaconus und die Monte Cassineser Fälschungen (Berlin, 1909). Herbert Bloch, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, 3 vols (Harvard U.P., 1986), II, 941–1059 and Otto Gerhard Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin von Poitiers und seine Verwandten,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 3/1 (1969), 138–210, remain useful. Professor Pierre Gillon of the University of Picardy has long been preparing a history of the medieval cult of Saint Maur at Fossés abbey, but it has not yet appeared. His communications with the author have been especially helpful throughout this project. 4 Seminal titles from this perspective that have influenced this study include Patrick Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance (Princeton, 1994), Rosamund McKitterick, History and Memory in the Carolingian World (Cambridge U.P., 2004), and Constance Bouchard, Rewriting Saints and Ancestors (U. of Pennsylvania, 2015). An earlier article by Giles

4

J. B. WICKSTROM

modern literary theory: In his famous fifth-century memoir, The Confessions, Augustine noted: “There [in memory] I meet myself and recall what I am, what I have done, and when and where and how I was affected.”5 Augustine went on to observe that “there are three times; a present of things past; a present of things present and a present of things to come. In the soul there are these three aspects of time, and I do not see them anywhere else. The present considering the past is memory; the present considering the present is immediate awareness, the present considering the future is expectation.”6 For Augustine then, the past is a present memory or an “image” in the memory. As a mental construction or a “spiritual state” (Augustine would say), memory may or may not be connected to any present or past “reality;” it is essentially a set of beliefs about the past which can be formed by either actual or imagined events. These are then manipulated by memory: they are promoted, forgotten, or reordered. The historian has thus to establish how beliefs about received texts influenced behavior. From this the identity of individuals and institutions formed by such texts can be understood. As we shall see, this approach is particularly valuable in approaching many of the documents analyzed in this book, since they are often forged or otherwise altered to suit contemporary needs and evolving cultural contexts. Adopting these methods has allowed historians to redefine their traditionally central task of assessing the credibility of evidence. Problems arise, however, in using as historical evidence what Amy Remensnyder has called “imaginative memory”—particularly for medieval religious writings.7 If modern historians may disregard the issue of the veracity of ancient documents, early medieval writers could not. They were highly sensitive to issues of historical truth and falsehood. Eighth-century Lombard laws prescribed amputation of the offending hand of forgers.8 The core Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages,” Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel-und Wappenkunde, 29 (1983): 1–41, anticipated many of the ideas of “memory studies,” while expressing reservations about the newer approach which still deserves attention. 5 Saint Augustine, Confessions, 10.8, 14. 6 Confessions, 11. 20, 26. 7 Amy Remensnyder, Remembering Kings Past: Monastic Foundation Legends in Medieval Southern France (Cornell, 1995), 4. 8 Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism,” 17.

1

INTRODUCTION: “FACTS,” “FICTIONS,” AND “HISTORY”

5

problem for early medieval religious texts was that, owing to the historical nature of central Biblical narratives, discerning the arc of God’s action in history presumed that texts that were dependent on Scripture were also truthful. Abbot Odo showed his awareness of this requirement at several points in his narratives. For example, in his opening letter to Archdeacon Adelmodus he states: “I pray by that truth, which is in Jesus, that they [Odo’s readers] will believe completely in what I have truthfully published without deceit.”9 Steven Knapp has put the same concern somewhat differently: “It is the supposed permanence of God’s intentions —not a source of authority located in the past as such— that keeps the past alive and gives it a derived authority over the present.”10 So, the truthfulness of monastic foundation-stories was required as validation of their providential origin and the sanctity of their founders. Although there are many reasons for the massive exodus from European Christian churches and monastic orders in the last century, one fundamental cause has been the success of critical assaults on the facticity of the Bible and so of foundational monastic accounts and hagiographies whose credibility depended ultimately on Biblical veracity. Even modern historians who advocate moving historical enquiry away from issues of facticity admit that “if origin stories are to succeed as bases for identity formation, they must ring true at some level.”11 As a religious reformer and self-conscious historian, Abbot Odo clearly felt the need to offer proof for the reliability of his hitherto unknown narratives. He clearly anticipated that his readers were likely to ask “why should anyone believe these stories?” and tried to assuage such concerns, as we shall see, by a variety of literary stratagems. Because of his success in addressing such questions, Odo’s Life of Maurus was almost universally accepted for centuries as a truthful account of the ancient origins of Glanfeuil and the cult of Saint Maurus. Even before modern source-criticism appeared, however, a few voiced skepticism: the twelfth-century monk-scholar, Sigebert de Gembloux, noticed several chronological problems that caused him to harbor reservations about Odo’s reliability: “as for his [Faustus] writing down what he had 9 “A Letter of Abbot Odo,” Life and Miracles, 61. 10 Steven Knapp, “Collective Memory and the Actual Past,” Representations, 26 (1989):

131. 11 Cassandra Potts, Monastic Revival and Regional Identity in Early Normandy (Boydell Press, 1997), 2.

6

J. B. WICKSTROM

seen and how that might correspond with history, let whoever is able, turn his attention to that issue and explain it.”12 By the seventeenth century, some Catholic scholars had begun to fret over such issues. In his 1668 edition of the Life of Maurus, Jean Mabillon footnoted several factual and chronological errors, but he was unwilling to examine critically the stories surrounding one of the earliest heroes on which Benedictine identity rested; he thus attributed any difficulties to a lack of reference materials available to early medieval writers or to mistakes in Abbot Odo’s “corrections” of “Faustus’s” original text.13 Nonetheless, in 1696, the archbishop of Paris hesitated to print excerpts from the Life of Maurus in his new Breviarium Parisensis . Although Mabillon assured him of the Life’s overall reliability, the bishop nonetheless prefaced the texts with the reservation, “it has been believed for many centuries that ….”14 It was left to Protestant scholars and polemicists to launch a headlong assault on the veracity of Odo’s work. It was one instance of their campaign to discredit Catholic monasticism as unscriptural in its “works theology” and histories, often resting on fictional material. Thus in 1699, Jacques Basnage, a Calvinist pastor and historian (1653–1723), subjected the Life of Maurus to a thorough historical and textual critique, pointing out that many of the dates given for events and figures in the Life were incorrect. The chronology of Maurus’s journey to France was confused; long distances supposedly covered in a day or two were impossible. Basnage dismissed Maurus’s miracles as “a naïve copying of the major miracles of Christ.” Finally, he noted that, despite all these miracles and his supposed establishment of the Rule of Benedict in Francia, Maurus was not mentioned in a single written source from his first appearance as a minor character in Pope Gregory the Great’s Dialogues from around 600 CE until the Life of Maurus appeared in the 860s. How could a text that enjoyed great popularity for a thousand years thereafter have been totally ignored for over 350 years after its supposed composition? Basnage

12 Sigebertus Gemblacensis, Incipit Chronica Domni Sigeberti Gemblacensis Monachi, PL., 160: 96. 13 Acta Sanctorum ordinis sancti Benedicti, ed. Jean Mabillon, 6 vols (Paris, 1668), 1. 275, note 6. 14 Edmond Martène, Histoire littéraire de la Congrégation de Saint-Maur, 9 vols (Paris, 1770), 7, 160.

1

INTRODUCTION: “FACTS,” “FICTIONS,” AND “HISTORY”

7

concluded that “no one of any sense could regard this as anything but a fable,” most likely concocted by Abbot Odo himself.15 Benedictine scholars rose to the defense of Odo’s work and debate continued through the nineteenth century, but by the early twentieth century, most scholars had accepted Basnage’s view that the Life of Maurus was a fiction composed by Abbot Odo in the late 860s.16 This discrediting of Odo’s Life of Maurus was the first of several blows to Benedictine identity, which had been largely formed from Late Antique and Early Medieval texts. Three Lives of Saint Placid, written in the twelfth century as parallels to the Life of Maurus were, by the early 1900s, also exposed as forgeries created by Montecassino’s archivist and forger extraordinaire, Peter the Deacon.17 Finally in the late 1980s, Francis Clark revived a sixteenth-century argument that the Dialogues of Gregory the Great themselves, a major source for the Life of Maurus, were not his

15 Jacques Basnage, sieur de Beauval, Histoire de l’Eglise depuis Jesu-Christ, 2 vols (Rotterdam, 1699), 2, 1261–63. Later historians added other issues to Basnage’s critique: for instance, to strengthen Maurus’s association with Saint Gregory, Odo bestowed on Maurus’s four companions on the journey to Francia, names that were similar or identical to three of the four monks whom Pope Gregory had identified as the informants for his Life of Benedict: Valentinianus, Simplicius, and Constantinianus (Constantinus in Gregory), Gregory I, pope, Dialogues, ed. and trans. Adalbert de Vogüé. 3 vols Sources chrétiennes, no. 260 (Editions de Cerf, Paris 1979), 2. 128. See also HT , 1. Odo may have borrowed the character of Faustus from the supposed sixth-century author of the Life of Saint Severinus of Agaunum, another ninth-century forgery, for whom one of Glanfeuil’s churches may have been named: See below, pp. 43–44. Severinus was an early sixth-century abbot of the monastery at Agaunum, the cult center of Saint Maurice and the Theban Legion, with which the abbey of Glanfeuil and its cult had a longstanding relationship. See below, pp. 26–28. Henri Leclercq, “Glanfeuil” in Dictionnaire d’archéologie et liturgie chrétienne, 15 vols in 29, VI/1, 1285 (hereafter cited as DALC ) put forth an argument that Odo had borrowed not only the figure of “Faustus” but also the details of Maurus’s Life from the Life of Saint Severinus (BHL, 7655). This is not a convincing argument; for a lengthy critique, see Dom Albert L’huillier, “Etude critique des actes de Saint-Maur,” RA., 4 (1902): 359–74. It is also possible, even likely, that the Saint Severinus in question was an obscure sixth-century Italian abbot associated with Montecassino; See below, Chapter 3, 44. 16 The classic defense of Odo’s work was Dom Thierry Ruinart’s “Apologie de la Mission de saint Maur,” Appendix Prima of Annales ordinis s. Benedicti occidentalium monachorum patriarchae, 6 vols (Paris, 1702), I, 629–72. A succinct modern refutation of Ruinart’s views is Leclercq’s entry “Glanfeuil” in DALC, 6./1; cols 1285–86. Leclercq also provides a summary of modern scholarly critiques with references to the literature. 17 Caspar, Petrus Diaconus, 47–104.

8

J. B. WICKSTROM

work but were produced anonymously in the seventh century.18 Clark’s argument has generated a heated scholarly debate, which continues to this day. If his position prevails—and it is gaining support—it follows that “Faustus,” the putative author of the Life of Maurus, could not have used a seventh-century text as its main source, which he supposedly composed at the end of the sixth.19 The critiques of these and other foundational Benedictine texts have been so effective that one modern Benedictine scholar concluded that while “it would be an exaggeration to say that the [historical] structure [of Benedictine identity] has been completely destroyed… it has been profoundly modified.”20 Some contemporary Benedictines nonetheless simply go on with their traditional practices and traditions as if none of this criticism existed. From the ninth century to the present, Benedictine houses and individual monks and nuns have chosen Saint Maurus as their patron saint.21 Others, however, have attempted to accommodate such criticisms, adopting modern literary theory to argue that every age must “remember” ancient monastic traditions anew, according to its own cultural situation. It must respect the conclusions of modern historical criticism, while continuing to privilege core documents of Benedictine identity.22 Nonetheless, for almost a thousand years the Life of Maurus was accepted as the authentic, divinely supported account of the ancient origins of Glanfeuil abbey and the cult of its founder. Odo’s Life of

18 Francis Clark, The “Gregorian” Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism

(Brill, 2003). For a bibliography of the controversy, Marilyn Dunn, The Emergence of Monasticism: From the Desert Fathers to the Early Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 131, note 87. 19 Indeed, even if the traditional date of 593 for the publication of Gregory’s Dialogues is retained, “Faustus” would have been over 80 years old when he composed the Life of Maurus on his return to Montecassino after Maurus’s death, which, according to the internal chronology of the Life, occurred in 584. 20 Claude Peifer, “Origins of Benedictine Monasticism: State of the Question,” ABR, 51 (2000): 293. 21 The earliest monk known to bear the name “Maurus” was Hrabanus Maurus (c. 780–856), who believed that the name connected him spiritually to Gregory the Great, Bruno Judic, “Gregoire le Grand, Alcuin, Raban et le surnom de Maur,” Raban Maur et son temps, ed. Philippe Depreux et al. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), 31–48. 22 Matthew Casey, “Tradition, Interpretation, Reform: The Western Monastic Experience,” ABR, 69/4 (2018): 400–28.

1

INTRODUCTION: “FACTS,” “FICTIONS,” AND “HISTORY”

9

Maurus soon took a prominent place among early medieval hagiographies and Maurus became one of the two or three best known and revered of Benedictine founder-saints.23 For centuries, the Life of Maurus was read through at the Office of Matins on Maurus’s feast day (January 15th) and during its octave in houses following the Rule of Benedict.24 It eventually spread to virtually all Latin-rite monasteries and its contents were periodically embellished.25 That the authenticity of the Life was accepted throughout the Middle Ages and beyond was owing in large measure to the sophisticated historical and literary techniques employed by its creator, Abbot Odo. The small, rural shrine of Saint Maurus at Glanfeuil survived and, on the whole, prospered throughout the vicissitudes of its history and identity for almost twelve centuries. Its success was due primarily to the genius and ambition of Abbot Odo, especially to his creation of the Life of Saint Maurus; it is to this extraordinary work that we first turn our attention.

23 Prof. Pierre Gillon, an expert on the cult of Saint Maurus at Fossés abbey, calculates

that 40 to 45 manuscripts of the Life of Maurus were in existence by the eleventh century (private communication to author, April 2012). 24 In the Rule of Benedict, the term for the Night Office was Vigilia (Vigils) rather than the more familiar term Matutina (Matins) used in non-monastic Offices. More confusing, the monastic term for the Morning or Dawn Office was Matutina (Matins) rather than the familiar term Laudes (Lauds) of the secular or “cathedral” rites. The liturgical manuscripts used in this book follow the monastic usage. However, for ease of readers, I will follow the secular or “Roman” nomenclature. Note that the monastic Night Office of Vigils in the Middle Ages (usually) consisted of 12 psalms and 12 readings rather than the nine psalms and lessons of secular or “Roman” Matins. The Rule of Saint Benedict in Latin and English, ed. Timothy Fry OSB (The Liturgical Press), 1980, chapters 8–13, 203–209, hereafter cited as RB. Also Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West (The Liturgical Press, 1986), Part I, 3–218. 25 For example, as late as 1655, a French Benedictine claimed that Maurus had founded not one but 160 new monasteries and reformed 40 others, a claim repeated in subsequent histories: François Landreau, “Les deux histoires manuscrits de l’abbaye de saint-Maur,” RA., 54 (1907): 464.

CHAPTER 2

A Perfect Monk and the Mission to Francia

Structure and Art in the Life of Maurus In the early decades of the ninth century, the workshop of the abbey of Saint Martin of Tours had become one of the first European centers to produce pandects : complete Latin bibles. Created on commission and elegantly executed, several copies were destined for the Carolingian court.1 One of these bibles contained a tenth-century note on its final folio, asking the reader to “pray for the soul of Count Rorigo who gave this book to the abbot with his own hand.” This codex thus became known as the Rorigo Bible, after the Frankish nobleman who in the 830s restored the abbey of Glanfeuil, a small monastery located on the Loire River close to Angers. The unnamed abbot to whom Count Rorigo gave this valuable gift was likely his brother, Gauzfred, a monk from Fossés abbey in Paris, who ruled Glanfeuil from 838 to his death, likely in

1 Rosemond McKitterick, “The Rorigo Bible in its ninth-century context,” in L. Gatto and Supino Martini ed. Studi sulla societa e le culture del medioevo per Girolamo Arnaldi (Rome, 2002), 409–422. That manuscript itself is now in Paris: BnF, MS lat. 3. The bible itself was the product of eight different scribes: David Ganz, “Mass production of early medieval manuscripts: the Carolingian Bibles from Tours,” in Richard Gameson ed. The Early Medieval Bible (Cambridge UP, 1994), 53–62 esp. 57.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_2

11

12

J. B. WICKSTROM

845.2 The Rorigo Bible later made its way to the Parisian abbey of SaintMaur-des-Fossés, likely when the Glanfeuil community moved there in 868, having fled the Viking advances through the Loire Valley. When Fossés was closed in the seventeenth century, the bible was sent to Saint Germain-des-Prés. It survived the dissolution of that abbey in 1789 and at present rests in the Bibliothèque nationale de France as MS Latin 3.3 This particular bible, containing the Vulgate Latin version “carefully corrected,” exhibited in its calligraphic hierarchies and its additional, didactic materials, the Carolingian concern for correctio.4 This term has been put forth as the central idea of the intellectual and religious reform initiated by Charlemagne: “to correct what is in error…and right what is wrong.”5 This all suggests that the Rorigo bible was produced for an individual or community that was involved in these reforms. Following the biblical books, an additional quire of sixteen folios was inserted. Here, written in a later ninth-century hand, was the text of a Life of Saint Maurus, the legendary founder of Glanfeuil, followed by a Historia of that abbey. As Rosamund McKitterick noted, with the addition of these texts to the Scriptural books, the Rorigo bible became “a comprehensive expression of the identity of the community”.6 The text of the Life of Maurus immediately follows the explicit of the Book of the Apocalypse and is written in the same hand as the latter’s final pages, making the Life of their founder and the Historia of their abbey appear to participate in the sacred narratives of Christ’s life and the larger biblical history of salvation.7 It is preceded by a lengthy prefatory letter

2 The erasure of the dedicatory note by some Fossés official sometime in the tenth or eleventh centuries while the abbey was controlled by enemies of the Rorigonid family was likely intended to conceal the original ownership of the bible by Glanfeuil. A problem with this identification is that, in Abbot Odo’s Historia of the abbey, Gauzfred acted as abbot but did not hold the title. 3 “La Bible de Rorigon,” fols 393v–407v. 4 Alcuini Epistolae, MGH , Epist., Karol. Aevi 2, 419 (no. 261); for the bible’s

connections with revival and reform, McKitterick, “The Rorigo Bible,” 412. 5 Charlemagne, Admonitio generalis of 789: MGH Capit. reg. franc. I , 52, (no. 22). 6 McKitterick, “The Rorigo Bible,” 420. 7 The Life of Maurus and the Historia Translationis were written in the same hand as the final portions of the book of the Apocalypse. Two quires were added to the Rorigo Bible at fol 391r, McKitterick,“The Rorigo Bible,” 414.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

13

that professes to explain how it came to the abbey of Glanfeuil.8 Written by “Odo,” who identifies himself as the monastery’s abbot, the letter immediately plunges the reader into the dangerous and unpredictable world of ninth-century Neustria. The “savage race of Northmen,” he wrote, had pillaged and burned their way through most of the abbey’s possessions, forcing the monks to flee with the precious relics of their patron, Saint Maurus, to Burgundy, some 300 miles east of Glanfeuil. Once the community had settled in, Odo tells us that he determined to return to Glanfeuil alone, presumably to assess the situation after the Vikings had departed. Shortly after setting out, he happened on a group of pilgrims returning from Rome. One of these, a priest named Peter, produced a bundle of documents which he claimed to have acquired in Rome. On inspection, the bundle turned out to contain the famous Life of Saint Benedict by Pope Gregory the Great, bound together with biographies of five of Benedict’s early disciples.By extraordinary coincidence, one of these turned out to be a Life of St Maurus, the founder and saintly patron of Odo’s own monastery of Glanfeuil. Odo tells us that he bought the entire lot. Shortly thereafter, probably in 868, Odo led his monks to a more secure refuge at the royal abbey of Fossés, just outside Paris, where the abbot had leisure to examine his purchase more carefully. He claimed that the folios were almost unreadable owing to their antiquity and consequent poor condition. Moreover, the Life of Maurus, he claimed, was “corrupted as much by an uncultivated style as by the errors of scribes.” Consequently, the abbot undertook to “correct” or “edit” (corrigere) the text, explaining that “while I remained faithful to the words and miracles reported there, I rephrased and expressed them so that a reader today could understand everything more clearly.”9 Odo’s “correction” of the Life of Maurus resembled the practice of Carolingian hagiographers who rewrote earlier lives of Merovingian saints. While they venerated the early saints of Francia, these scholars found the earlier biographers’ style uncouth and so undertook what French scholars have termed réécritures of early Frankish saints’ Vitae.10 Odo could have easily admitted that he himself had composed the Life of Maurus (as he did for 8 “A Letter of Abbot Odo,” LM , p. 60 and HT, 1. In BnF. ms lat. 3, this letter precedes the Life of Maurus, beginning on fol. 407v. 9 Ibid. 10 Jamie Kreiner, The Social Life of Hagiography in the Merovingian Kingdom,

(Cambridge, 2014), 230–37; on the possibility that BnF MS Latin 3 is an autograph copy

14

J. B. WICKSTROM

his Historia of the restored Glanfeuil of the ninth century), but instead he “updated” a supposed ancient text, showing the importance to Carolingian writers of linking their present institutions to the ancient past, the world of great monastic founders and classic texts such as the Rule of Benedict and Gregory the Great’s Life of Benedict and ultimately to the world of Scripture, on which the validity of all subsequent religious texts depended. The Life of Maurus at its core is a remarkable tale of how the Rule of Benedict supposedly first came to Francia. After Saint Benedict had founded his monastery at Montecassino and written his Rule for the community, the bishop of Le Mans in Anjou sent envoys to Montecassino to request that Benedict send a party of monks to Francia to create the first abbey outside of Italy that would follow Benedict’s Rule. The patriarch chose his “best-beloved” monk, Maurus, to head that delegation. After a long “pilgrimage” from southern Italy to northern Francia, a journey punctuated by human obstacles and miraculous events, Maurus and his companions, with the assistance of Frankish nobles, constructed the abbey of Glanfeuil on the shores of the Loire River, close to Angers. There for many decades, Maurus presided over an ever-growing community of monks in accord with Benedict’s Rule.

The purposes of Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus Such a narrative would have had particular appeal in the mid-ninth century, as the Rule of Benedict had been prescribed for all monastic houses in the Carolingian empire by the synods of Aachen (816–19) inspired by Saint Benedict of Aniane (747–821) and his enthusiastic partner in reform, the emperor Louis the Pious. This reform led to a question in the minds of Carolingian monks: how did the Rule of Benedict first come into Francia? Neither the Rule nor Pope Gregory’s Life of Benedict offered an answer. The modern answer to this question, complex and still controversial, posits a slow evolution and merging of monastic traditions from Ireland, England, and Italy.11 This process was, however, by Abbot Odo, see Herbert Bloch, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, 3 vols (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986) ii, 1027. Hereafter cited as MCMA. 11 A detailed if sometimes tendentious account of this evolution is Dunn, Emergence, 191–208. See also Claude Peifer, “The Origins of Benedictine Monasticism: State of the Question,” ABR, 51/3 (2000): 293–317.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

15

largely unknown to the ninth century. In 811, for instance, Charlemagne inquired whether there had been any monks in Francia before the coming of the Rule of Benedict.12 Several decades before Odo’s Life of Maurus appeared, the abbey of Reichenau had published a document purporting to show that Simplicius,the second successor to Benedict at Montecassino, had been the first of Benedict’s disciples to spread the Rule beyond Montecassino.13 Such stories show the interest in explaining how the Rule of Saint Benedict came to Francia. Odo’s writings offered an answer to this question that was accepted almost universally: it was the work of Benedict’s beloved disciple and chosen successor, Saint Maurus. Odo’s story filled in important details of the evolving myth of the early Benedictine past. Odo’s hagiography of Maurus also served additional purposes: like other ninth-century “editors” of saint’s lives, Odo understood the importance to Glanfeuil of possessing a Life of its patron to strengthen them in their exile from their home abbey. The Life also supplied evidence for claims to properties supposedly acquired, and often lost, by the abbey from the time of its supposed foundation in the 540s, for which no written evidence was available—and probably never existed.

The Art of Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus Odo employed another common literary technique to establish the antiquity of his narrative: he included large sections of a much-revered text, in this case the Life of Benedict from Book II of Gregory the Great’s Dialogues, composed around 600. Odo’s genius in telling Maurus’s story as an expansion of, or appendix to, Gregory’s work also allowed Odo’s hero to share in the pope’s increasingly popular Life of Saint Benedict. Gregory’s text had introduced Maurus as an adolescent, offered by his noble Roman father to be formed in the monastic life by Benedict, along with a younger boy named Placid.14 Maurus was the first of Benedict’s disciples to be identified in Gregory’s Life of Benedict. While Odo’s text faithfully copied these scenes, he rearranged details so that the narrative

12 Quoted in Peifer, “Origins,” 309. 13 Nicolas Huyghebaert, “Simplicius, ‘propagateur’ de la Règle bénédictine. Légende

ou tradition?” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 73 (1978): 45–54. 14 Dialogues, II, 150.

16

J. B. WICKSTROM

focus shifts from Benedict’s pedagogy to Maurus’ growth in monastic virtue. For example, Odo text raised Maurus’s father to the rank of Roman senator and also introduced the figure of his noble mother, whom he named Julia. All this evoked Roman imperial history, lending an air of high antiquity and nobility to the origins of the young oblate. Odo omitted mention of the reception of Placid entirely to further focus the reader’s attention on Maurus. Odo then introduced an original theme: that Benedict “loved Maurus more dearly than all others.”15 This motif illustrated the Rule’s admonition the abbot is to love no one of his monks over the others, “unless he finds someone better in good actions and obedience.”16 The extraordinary virtues that elicited this special love followed: Maurus’s ascetic practices of long periods of private prayer, keeping vigil, and severe fasting. This was a topos more common in Carolingian saints’ lives than in the sixth century when the Life of Maurus was supposedly written. In fact, this section of the Life of Maurus closely resembles the mortifications of Saint Benedict of Aniane, the major reformer of monastic life in Francia during the decades preceding Odo’s career.17 This identification of monastic virtue with extreme asceticism likely came into Carolingian hagiography from Irish sources. The Life of Benedict contained no penitential material of this sort, nor were Maurus’ practices recommended in Benedict’s Rule. Perhaps for this reason, Odo goes to some lengths to justify Maurus’s self-denial: Benedict himself practiced such austerities, he claimed, and Maurus limited his own to whatever Benedict allowed. Maurus also strictly observed periods of silence and lectio, as prescribed by Benedict’s Rule. This section illustrates Odo’s ability to fuse the ideals of Carolingian monasticism with the more moderate asceticism of the Rule of Benedict and the age of Gregory the Great. Gregory had stated that Maurus was made Benedict’s adjutor or assistant early in his monastic development. Odo adopted this term but indicated a further intimacy by claiming that Maurus soon became the cooperator of Benedict’s miracles. This term appears only occasionally in

15 LM , 8. 16 RB 1980, 175. 17 LM , 8. cf. [BHL 1096], Vita Benedicti abbatis Anianenses et Indensise autore Ardone,

ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach (1887), MGH, Script. 1, 15, 1, no. 15, 202.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

17

hagiographical narratives, likely because it suggests equality between two individuals in a genre where the holy hero usually rises above all others.18 Odo, however, employed this term seven times in the early chapters of his Life of Maurus. It did imply a partnership, though not necessarily among equals. Odo thereby bound together Benedict, Maurus, and the followers of his Rule into a uniquely cooperative relationship which would function beyond the grave. Benedict, in his final speech to Maurus and the Montecassino community, states that he will be their cooperator even more fully after his death.19 Odo also used the term in reference to Saint Romanus, who had been, according to one tradition, Benedict’s own first teacher, and with whom Maurus would have a life-changing meeting at the end of his journey to Francia. Gregory had used the figure of Maurus to demonstrate through example rather than abstract ideas the growth of a young oblate in monastic virtue. He therefore emphasized Maurus’s participation in various miracles worked by Benedict at Subiaco. The first of these occurs in Dialogues II, 4. A monk of one of Benedict’s foundations had the habit of wandering about during community meditation, distracting the other monks. Called in by the abbot, Benedict discovered that the monk had been possessed by an invisible demon. Neither Maurus, whom Benedict had brought along, nor the abbot of the monastery could see the demon. Benedict then said, “Let us pray that you also may see whom this monk is following.”20 After two days of prayer, the demon became visible to Maurus but not to the abbot. Benedict then exorcized the demon with a blow from his abbatial rod. This detail of Benedict praying that the eyes of the abbot and Maurus be opened was borrowed from an incident recorded in 2 Kings 6:17, involving the prophet Elisha. It has been persuasively argued that many of the incidents in Gregory’s Life of Benedict were taken from Old Testament stories involving the prophet, Elijah, and his chosen successor,

18 A search of the Acta Sanctorum (AASS) database returned the following results for

usage of the term cooperator: it appears 117 times in 93 Vitae. All of these represent only one or two usages per text. In the Patrologia Latina database, the term is used 228 times by 176 different authors. Again, the term is used only once or twice in any one work, with the exception of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History (3 times). 19 LM , 17. 20 Dialogues, II, 150–152.

18

J. B. WICKSTROM

Elisha.21 As we shall see, Odo was aware of this tradition and reshaped it to illumine the relationship between Benedict and Maurus. In this story, Gregory illustrated two elements of Maurus’s growth in monastic virtue: first, his increasing ability to share in Benedict’s power of discernment and, secondly, to find the truth in ambiguous situations. This latter virtue was traditionally regarded as one especially needed in an effective monastic superior. As a young monk, Maurus was already surpassing his elders in virtue, symbolized here by the abbot who was unable to see the demon while Maurus could. Gregory had allowed this first miracle to speak for itself. Odo, however, in the Life of Maurus adds, “and let no one doubt that the holy Maurus took part in this miracle, for his most blessed master chose him as the witness and partner (testem et consortem) of such a great sight and display of his power.”22 Thus Odo refocused the point of the story away from Benedict’s power over demons to Maurus’s unique participation in his master’s virtues and miracles. Still, this first miracle highlighted Maurus’s passivity and his apprentice status. In the next miracle, however, Maurus and Benedict shared responsibility. It is one of the best-known passages in Gregory’s Life of Benedict, the subject of many later paintings and sermons, Maurus’s fellow oblate, Placid, was sent to fetch water for the community. However, he fell into the lake and was in danger of being swept away. Although Benedict was a long distance off, he sensed Placid’s plight and ordered Maurus to rescue him. Maurus obeyed so promptly that he ran over the surface of the lake, pulled Placid to the surface, and returned to shore before realizing that anything unusual had occurred. Gregory reminded his readers at this point of the Petrine character of Maurus’s walking on water: “a strange thing never heard of since the time of Peter the Apostle.”23 Gregory added that, after Placid’s rescue, “a friendly contest of mutual humility,” took place between Benedict and Maurus. The holy abbot asserted that Maurus’s perfect obedience had made the rescue possible, citing the famous statement in the Rule, “They carry out the superior’s order as promptly as if the command came from God himself. The Lord

21 Maximilien Mähler, “Evocations bibliques et hagiographiques dans la Vie de saint Benoît par saint Grégoire,” R. bén 83 (1973): 398–429. 22 LM, 10. 23 Dialogues, II, 156–61.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

19

says of men like this, “No sooner did he hear than he obeyed me.” 24 Maurus, on the other hand, insisted that Benedict’s power of seeing far-off events was responsible for Placid’s rescue. Odo’s version of this story added a lengthy comment that refocused the story on Maurus’s attainment of perfection in monastic virtue. Odo concluded that while Benedict had indeed worked the miracle by his own powers, he attributes it to Maurus’s obedience in order to draw attention to the latter’s growing powers: through his progress in virtue “he would be able to perform even greater miracles.”25 The final miracle involving Maurus also involved an aquatic rescue. While working in brushland, a monk dropped the head of a scythe into the same lake into which Saint Placid had fallen. Unable to retrieve it, he ran to Maurus, who was in charge of the work detail, to report the problem. Maurus immediately went to Benedict, who pulled the scythe-head from the lake bottom and reattached it to its handle. Odo’s version, however, minimized Maurus’s role here in comparison with his source. Gregory’s longer version indicates that Maurus was already serving as Benedict’s second in command, the person through whom the monks approached the Master, justifying Odo’s and other later writers’ identification of Maurus as the “prior” “at Montecassino under Benedict.”26 This section, recounting Maurus’s “developmental” miracles, ends with a scene in which he came to Benedict announcing with joy that his master’s great enemy, the evil priest Florentius, had been cast down to his death by God’s power. Benedict rebuked Maurus for rejoicing over anyone’s death, however well deserved. This potentially embarrassing behavior in Odo’s hero, however, had its own Petrine echoes. Maurus’s embrace of violence to right a wrong evokes the scene of Peter drawing his sword on the night of Christ’s betrayal and being rebuked by the Master. Like the biblical incident involving Peter, this small incident suggests that for all his advance in virtue, Maurus was still far from perfect, a judgment that is confirmed in the following section of Odo’s narrative.

24 RB 1980, 187, citing Ps. 17 [18]: 45. 25 LM, 12. 26 See below, Chapter 11, pp. 315–338.

20

J. B. WICKSTROM

According to Gregory’s narrative, the plotting of the evil priest Florentius had caused Benedict to leave Subiaco and move some 70 miles to the south where he would found his famous monastery at Montecassino. Maurus makes no further appearance in Gregory’s Life of Benedict after this point, so the reader could assume that Maurus was left behind in charge of one of the 12 monasteries Benedict had founded at Subiaco. This shift of location presented Odo with a narrative difficulty: for Odo’s Life of Maurus to continue, Maurus needed to be present with Benedict at Montecassino during his later years when Odo’s narrative would elevate him to the status of Montecassino’s prior and Benedict’s designated successor. Odo solves this difficulty by ignoring the existence of any of Benedict’s foundations except Montecassino; he thereby leaves the impression that all the events involving Maurus and Benedict took place at Montecassino.27 Since Maurus did not accompany Benedict to Montecassino in Gregory’s Life, Odo necessarily abandoned his dependence on Gregory’s plot at this juncture. The Life of Maurus from this point becomes an original narrative, whose richness of detail and symbolism often rivals those of Gregory’s writing. Maurus’ first independent miracle well exemplifies these characteristics. The reader is taken to a later time at Montecassino, shortly before Benedict’s death. The patriarch, having been called away to perform an exorcism, left Maurus in charge of the community. One day, as Maurus and the monks were returning from work in the fields, they encountered a boy who was mute and lame. His father and mother begged Maurus to heal him; but he demurred, stating that he was a sinner and that such miracles “are the work of the apostles and other perfect men.” However, he was moved to action at the insistence of the parents and of the other monks that Maurus’s “perfection” and “merits” were sufficient to perform the miracle.28 Maurus therefore touched the boy’s neck with

27 Odo’s account probably also influenced the Cassinese Chronicle’s eleventh-century narrative of Benedict’s journey from Subiaco to Montecassino, claiming that he took “a few brothers” along with him: Die Chronik von Montecassino (Chronica monasterii Casinensis) ed. Helmut Hoffmann, MGH : Script. SS. 34, 17 (Hereafter Chron. cas.). In the twelfth century, Peter the Deacon’s Life of Placid, which was modeled on Odo’s Life of Maurus, states that both Maurus and Placid accompanied Benedict to Montecassino and were co-founders with him of that monastery: Pseudo-Gordianus, Acta Ss. Placidi et fratrum ejus, AASS, October III. 117. 28 LM, 15.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

21

his deacon’s stole, invoking the aid of the Trinity and of his master, Benedict. The lame and mute boy immediately “began to walk about in front of us, perfectly healthy. He blessed God in a voice of rejoicing and praise, saying, ‘Blessed be God, the Creator of all things, who by the merits of his most holy servant Benedict, through his most blessed disciple Maurus, has willed to restore my health’.”29 This miracle symbolized Maurus’s emergence as a peer of the ancient wonderworkers whom he had just mentioned. His use of his deacon’s stole and his invocation of Benedict’s merits, on the other hand, suggest that his own virtues were as yet insufficient to effect such a miracle. It required the assistance of Benedict’s powers and of the levitical authority recently conferred on him by the Master. The details of this first miracle were borrowed from a similar cure performed by Benedict elsewhere in Gregory’s Life.30 The master and the community had been returning from working in the fields when a peasant approached, begging the patriarch to restore his dead son to life. As his disciple Maurus would do, Benedict initially refused to act, pointing out that “the holy apostles are the only ones who can raise the dead,” referencing Peter’s raising of Tabitha (Acts 9:36–43). Maurus’s cure of the lame boy, however, rather recalls Peter’s first miracle, the cure of a cripple in Acts 3:1–16. Benedict’s revival of the dead child in Gregory’s text recalled Peter at the height of his powers while his disciple’s parallel cure of a lame child represented an earlier stage of the apostle’s mission.

Maurus’s Mission to Francia: Reform Ideas and the Concept of Religio After narrating this transitional miracle, Odo revealed Maurus’s life’s work: the carrying of the Rule of Benedict to Francia. A delegation from Bertrand, the bishop of Le Mans in Anjou, appeared at Montecassino, requesting that Benedict send him a group of monks who were “perfected in monastic life.” They would built a monastery in his diocese where they would “observe the discipline of the Rule.” Benedict agreed and entrusted the task to Maurus along with four companions.31 29 LM, 15. 30 Dialogues, II, 227–29. 31 LM, 17.

22

J. B. WICKSTROM

Scholars agree that the Rule of Benedict had little if any influence outside of central Italy at the time of Gregory the Great.32 The imposition of the Rule of Benedict throughout Francia was, however, as we have seen, at the core of the reforms enunciated by Benedict of Aniane and the Synods of Aachen. Abbot Odo’s narrative appeared in the late 860s as the reforms of Aachen were making slow and uneven progress in Frankish monasteries. Odo’s Life of Maurus thus provided a powerful, if imaginary, historical precedent for “remembering together” the times of Gregory and Benedict and the age of the Carolingian reformers. The first half of the ninth century was a period of significant monastic reform in the Carolingian world.33 Support for monastic renewal had, however, appeared much earlier. Carloman, major domo in the East, had encouraged all monasteries to adopt the Rule of Benedict as early as 742.34 However, it was his grandson, Louis the Pious, who mandated the observance of the Rule of Benedict in all imperial monasteries. Louis, who became King of Aquitaine in 781, was made aware of the work of Benedict of Aniane, who, in the 780s had founded a monastery on his family estates there. After experimenting, he settled on the Rule of Benedict and went on to found or reform 12 monasteries where the Rule and common monastic customs were adopted. Louis appointed Benedict as “abbot superior” over all royal monasteries in Aquitaine. With that authority, Benedict reformed twenty-six additional monasteries. When Louis became emperor in 813, he built Benedict a new abbey called Inde (Cornelimünster), next to the royal quarters at Aachen. On Benedict’s advice, Louis ordered that the customs of Inde be adopted by all royal monasteries throughout the empire. This common customary was formally ratified at the second Synod of Aachen in 816–17.35 While the legislation dealt largely with formal and practical details of cenobitic life, these were intended to inspire a conversatione morum according to the

32 See, for example, Dunn, Emergence, 191–93. 33 A recent overview of the subject is Mayke de Jong’s “Carolingian Monasticism: the

power of prayer,” NCMH, 2. 622–53. 34 Karlomanii principis capitulare (Apr 21, 742): MGH: Capitularia regum Francorum, 1,.2. no. 10, 26. “That the monks and handmaids of God order their monasteries and live according to the Rule of Saint Benedict of Nursia and to be zealous in disciplining their own lives.”. 35 Ardo, Vita Benedicti, 215–16.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

23

Rule of Benedict.36 So, Benedict of Aniane wrote that faithful observance of the Rule of Benedict, as the distillation of ancient monastic wisdom, brought the monk to perfection in the monastic life and thus to salvation.37 The first Carolingian commentaries on the Rule, such as those by Smaragdus of Saint Mihiel and Hildemar of Corbie, also stressed the need to internalize the observances of the Rule. Smaragdus urged prayer “from the heart” rather than external recitations.38 Hildemar urged the monk to consider the deeper meaning of observatio, quoting Gregory the Great, “They then eat bread in his [God’s] house, when they put aside the observance (observatio) of the letter which is inferior and feed, as it were, on the marrow of the grain of mystical teaching in Holy Church.”39 Odo’s writings on Maurus and Glanfeuil abbey show him to have been in sympathy with the Carolingian commentators on the Rule. Odo’s hagiographical writings exemplified “the Rule in action”.40 He presented Maurus’s early achievement of holiness as a result of “perfect observance” of the monastic regulations at Montecassino. His acts of physical asceticism: fasting, watching, sleeping upright, as well as making time for silence and sacred reading (lectio) had made Maurus “second to none”.41 The interior disposition which the monk was to bring to his external adherence to the Rule was often indicated by the term religio. The term has come into English as “piety” or “devotion,” but in a monastic context retains its Classical connection with “duty” or “compliance.” This term, so central to medieval monastic piety, became the identifying term for a monk or nun: vir religiosis, in English, a “religious.” Ultimately, a truly religious observance of the Rule ends in perfect love of God:

36 RB 1980, 268 translates this famous phrase as “constant attention to his conduct.”. 37 Renie Choy, “The Deposit of Monastic Faith: The Carolingians on the Essence of

Monasticism,” Studies in Church History, 49 (2013): 74–86, esp. 78–80. 38 Smaragdi Abbatis, Diadema monachorum, PL 102: 594. 39 Ecce in domo ejus panem comedunt, quia in sancta Ecclesia sacri eloquii fruge

pascuntur, Hildemar of Corbie, Commentary on the Rule of Saint Benedict , Chapter 2, 26 (2.3). The Hildemar Project: http://www.hildemar.org/index.php?option=com_content& view=article&id=146&catid=15&Itemid=102 40 Ian Wood, “The Vita Columbani and Merovingian hagiography,” Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland 1 (1982): 68. 41 LM, 8.

24

J. B. WICKSTROM

Having climbed all these steps of humility, therefore, the monk will presently come to that perfect love of God which casts out fear. And all those precepts which formerly he had not observed without fear, he will now begin to keep by reason of that love, without any effort, as though naturally and by habit. No longer will his motive be the fear of hell, but rather the love of Christ.42

Odo pointed to this religio as the central virtue which Benedict had passed on to Maurus, and which made him Benedict’s best-loved disciple and chosen successor. While as yet a young monk, Maurus had been “quick to grasp the totality of monastic piety” (monasticæ religionis ).43 Maurus was chosen for the mission to Gaul because he was “a monk of the most perfect religio”.44 So fundamentally, Odo’s portrait of Maurus presented a model of monastic observance that was tailored to Carolingian reform ideas. Abbot Odo also used the occasion of Maurus’s departure for Francia to discuss the issue of transferring spiritual auctoritas . In the Middle Ages, the continuation of the original identity of an institution after the passing of its founder was often a critical issue. In medieval saints Lives, this issue was often addressed in a valedictory sermon by the founder shortly before his death.45 Odo’s Life of Maurus attributed to Benedict such an exhortation on the occasion of the departure of Maurus and his companions to Francia. The unifying theme was the concept of cooperatio, which, as we have seen, had been used repeatedly by Odo to define Maurus’s relationship with Benedict. In his valedictory, the holy patriarch promises that after his earthly demise, “I will be even more present to you once the heaviness of the body has been laid aside and, by God’s grace, I will be your diligent cooperator.” Odo here transfers the role of cooperator from Maurus back to Benedict, producing a complex reversal of their relationship that he will develop further during the mission to Francia. Benedict also extended the term to define the spiritual bond that would unite the community to himself (and Maurus) down through the 42 RB 1980, 201, 203. 43 LM , 9. 44 LM , 4. 45 Jacques Dalarun, “La mort des saints fondateurs: de Martin à François,” in JeanYves Tilliette ed. Les fonctions des saints dans le monde occidental (iii e -xiii e siècles) (Rome,

1991), 199–200.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

25

ages. The repeated use of this term by Odo also encouraged the Carolingian community to recall the essential unity of its life with the lives and works of the founders, Benedict and Maurus, that existed beyond time and space: “The vastness of the entire cosmos cannot separate us whom the peace of unity has joined together in holy charity… May your hearts be comforted by the holy Rule and monastic observatio.”46 As a symbol of this unity and continuity, Benedict presented to Maurus a copy of the Rule, written out in the patriarch’s own hand, as well as the measures for the daily allotments of bread and wine laid down in the Rule, giving instructions not to alter them. All this provided Maurus and the abbey he would construct in Francia with legitimacy and auctoritas.

On the Road to Anjou: Mishaps, Miracles, and Maturation Maurus’s party set out for Francia on Septuagesima Sunday, the beginning of the pre-Paschal penitential season. Maurus and four other monks from Montecassino, along with their servants, were accompanied by two envoys from Bishop Bertrand: Harderadus, the bishop’s vicedominus and Flodegarius, his archdeacon.47 The main theme of the journey involved the gradual transformation of Maurus from a hesitant disciple of Benedict into a fully independent wonderworker. This transformation was illustrated by four miracles that Maurus performed along the way. It is worth noting how these four miracles resembled in form and function the four wonders he worked with Benedict at Montecassino. The former perfected his monastic character at Montecassino, while the miracles he worked on the road to Francia completed his evolution from disciple into an independent holy man. 46 LM , 17. 47 Harderadus’s office of vicedominus (Frn: vidame) was an episcopal appointment

which originated in the sixth century. This official was responsible for the secular temporalities of the diocese and sometimes provided for its defense as well. It was likely that Harderadus was sent to Montecassino because of this expertise; he would be prepared to discuss the transfer of diocesan property for the new monastery. The office of vicedominus had similarities to both the diocesan vicarius and the advocatus, though the vicedominus was in the bishop’s service and usually lived near the episcopal palace. During the Carolingian period, the office was often occupied by a layman. This was likely owing to the increasing wealth and worldly involvements of bishops, the management of whose wealth was especially seen by reformers as unsuitable to a cleric: Maureen Miller, The Formation of a Medieval Church. ecclesiastical change in Verona, 950–1150 (Cornell, 1993), pp. 148– 49; also see entry: “vidame” in François Olivier-Martin, Histoire du droit français des origines à la Révolution (Paris, 1948).

26

J. B. WICKSTROM

The first of these was the healing of Harderadus, who had injured his arm in a fall.48 Neither his companions nor Maurus himself at first believed him capable of performing such a miracle. He undertook the task only when it became clear that Harderadus’s injury would otherwise require amputation. Maurus applied the relic of the True Cross, given to him by Benedict, to the injured arm, thereby curing his guide while highlighting his own continuing reliance on Benedict and Cassinese relics. Shortly thereafter, as the party crossed the Alps, one of the servants broke his leg, which Maurus immediately healed by a simple prayer invoking God’s help.49 Here there was no mention of Benedict or any use of relics. In the third miracle, Maurus replicated one of the major cures of Christ himself: the restoration of sight to a man born blind.50 This cure implied that Maurus had finished his apprenticeship as a holy man. Clearly, Maurus’s powers had grown: he is becoming an alter Christus, a position he would hold as an abbot in Francia under the Rule of Benedict.51 This third miracle brought up the issue of Maurus’s relationship to already established cults. It occurred at Agaunum, near the modern SaintMoritz in Switzerland, which was the ancient center of the cult of Saint Maurice and the Theban Legion, a military company of Christian converts who had been martyred in 296 during the Diocletian persecutions.52 A man born blind, who had been begging outside the shrine for eleven years, approached Maurus and begged for the gift of sight. Maurus reproached him, saying that Maurice and his Legion were particularly powerful saints whose works were greater than his own. The sufferer should simply continue to pray to them, “as all men should.” However, as the man continued to beg for help, Maurus consented to intercede, invoking Christ, Benedict, and the Theban martyrs themselves. The man suddenly received his sight, and Maurus ordered him to remain for his lifetime in the service of the martyrs’ church.

48 LM , 21–22. 49 LM , 24. 50 LM , 25–26. Cf. Mk. 8, Jn. 9. 51 RB 1980, 172–73: Christi enim agere vices in monasterio creditur (“ He is believed

to act as the presence of Christ in the monastery”). 52 BHL, 5737.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

27

With this miracle, Odo set up a complex situation in which Maurus effected a cure that the saintly patrons of the place had refused to undertake, even though he insisted that they could have accomplished it had they so wished. Moreover, Maurus performed the cure in the name of the Theban martyrs themselves, as well as that of Benedict. Finally, the healed man was ordered to serve the martyrs’ church for the rest of his life, becoming a permanent witness to Maurus’s power in another saint’s cult center.53 What did Odo intend to convey by means of this provocative story? First, that Maurus’s power to work wonders was equal to that of the Theban legions, though he was respectful of their earlier preeminence; second, that Maurus was the more accessible holy man, even at other saints’ shrine, some 500 miles east of Glanfeuil. The cult of Maurice and the Theban Legion had, however, become popular in the neighborhood of Glanfeuil during the eighth century. In the sixth century, Gregory of Tours had discovered relics of the Theban martyrs in the crypt of Saint Martin’s basilica and transferred them to his cathedral, which thereafter was dedicated to Saint Maurice.54 Feasts of Saint Maurice and Saint Martin had both been celebrated on May 12th. Later, stories began to circulate that Saint Martin had miraculously transferred the reliquary blood of the Theban martyrs to Tours as his cult began to complete with theirs, so the May 12th feast was thereafter reserved for Saint Martin. Angers had also rededicated its cathedral to Saint Maurice and his companions by the early ninth century.55 It thus seems likely that Odo’s story of Maurus and the Theban martyrs was of the same sort: an attempt was made to associate the two cults, while connecting the earlier veneration of the Theban martyrs to that of a new arrival in the area, Saint Maurus. A close relationship, moreover, had grown up in the 53 That a healed person would remain at the site of a cure as a living testimonial was a common feature in Carolingian hagiography: Amy Bosworth, “Criminals, cures, and castigation: Heiric of Auxerre’s Miracula sancti Germani and ninth-century Carolingian hagiography”(unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2008), 234–35. 54 Friedrich Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich. Kultur und Gesellschaft in Gallien, den Rheinlanden und Bayern am Beispiel der monastischen Entwicklung (4. bis 8. Jahrhundert) (Wien, Oldenbourg, 1965), 69. 55 Les premiers monuments chrétiens de la France, ed. Noël Duval, 3 vols (Paris 1995– 99), 2. 228; Guy Jarousseau, Églises , évêques et princes à Angers du V e au début du XI e siècle (Limoges, 2015), 113.

28

J. B. WICKSTROM

830s between the long-ruling bishop of Angers, Dodo (837–880) and Bishop Ebroin of Poitiers, lord of Glanfeuil.56 A story showing Glanfeuil’s founder to be the partner of the saintly patrons of Angers, its bishop’s seat, would solidify this friendship. Finally, the monks of the abbey Saint Maurice at Agaunum had voted to become a community of canons in the early eighth century, in order to avoid adopting the Rule of Benedict, of which Odo, as we have seen, was a strong supporter.57 So the story of the cure at Saint Maurice’s shrine by a saint associated with the spread of the Rule of Benedict would remind Odo’s readers and listeners of the power of that Rule, especially when the cure was accomplished despite the refusal, or perhaps inability, of its earlier saintly patrons to effect it.In sum, Odo’s story of Maurus’s interaction here with the ancient cults of Maurice and Martin would leave his Carolingian audience with the impression that Maurus’s cult was linked with the established monastic cult centers in the Anjou region: equally ancient, legitimate, and powerful. The fourth and final miracle performed by Maurus on the journey involved the revival of a widow’s son.58 Resurrection miracles were a sign of special holiness and power, reserved to the greatest saints.59 In the course of effecting this miracle, Maurus called on Christ, who had also raised a widow’s son.60 While this parallel powerfully associated Maurus’s wonderworking with Christ’s, the boy whom Maurus revived here had not actually expired, but was “close to death,” a point that Odo insisted on, implying that Maurus was not yet the equal of the greatest miracleworkers. At this point, however, Odo accorded to Maurus the title of vir dei, spoken by the mother of the revived boy. This famous epithet had been reserved for Benedict by Gregory the Great, and before Benedict to his Old Testament model, Elijah.61

56 Jarousseau, Églises, 211–16. 57 J. Semmler, “Benedictus II: una regula, una consuetudo:” Benedictine Culture

(Leuven: Belgium, 1983): 16–17. 58 LM , 27–28. 59 Most notably, Elijah and his disciple Elisha, on whose lives and miracles Gregory’s

Life of Benedict had been patterned. Cf. 1 Kings 17: 17–24; 2 Kings 4: 18–37; see Mähler, “Evocations,” 398–429. 60 Luke, 11: 7–17. 61 Joan Margaret Petersen, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in Their Late Antique

Cultural Background (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1984), 27–28.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

29

A Liminal Moment: Maurus’s Encounter with Saint Romanus Almost exactly half way through the Life of Maurus, Odo has his hero encounter Saint Romanus, a character also borrowed from Gregory the Great’s Life of Benedict, who, according to one tradition, had directed the young Benedict through his formation as a hermit-monk.62 He is described by Odo here as “the assistant (coadjutor) and co-worker (cooperator) of our most blessed father Benedict at the beginning,” positions earlier assigned to Maurus.63 This meeting displays many of the characteristics of a liminal experience, a way of understanding how societies manage major life transformations, usually associated with the work of Victor Turner.64 The fundamental claim is that, in traditional societies, an individual’s transformation from a lesser to a higher or more mature status consists of three stages: the first is the “normal’ status of early development, wherein the individual follows the norms of his or her cultural environment. The subject then enters a liminal phase, in which he leaves, in some sense, his traditional status/identity, and enters into a liminal or entryway status, leaving his previous identity behind, while preparing for a new one ahead. This stage is often associated with ritual behavior and extreme psychic states, to which the Turners apply the term “mystical.” There is often a sense of the unity of all being and of leaving behind conventional boundaries of rank and power. Emerging from this liminal state transformed, the subject is prepared to take on adulthood as a warrior or saint. Although Turner’s first examples of this were taken from traditional tribal societies, he also saw the essential steps of this process manifesting themselves in Christian pilgrimage rituals and values. Odo described Maurus’s journey to Francia as a pilgrimage. The culmination of Maurus’s progress in mission and power occurred in the context of the meeting with Saint Romanus at the mid-point of his life-journey and his “pilgrimage” to Francia. After Saint Romanus’s service as Benedict’s teacher and first cooperator had ended, Odo claimed, he had received a heavenly 62 Dialogues, II, 132. An eleventh-century Life of Saint Romanus by Ionannes Gislebertus, informed by Odo’s Life of Maurus, described Romanus as Benedict’s first spiritual teacher, BHL, 7905. 63 LM, 29. 64 Victor Turner, The Ritual Process, (Aldine: Chicago, 1969) and Victor and Edith

Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture, (Columbia UP., 1978).

30

J. B. WICKSTROM

command to establish a small monastery at Fonte-rouge (Fons-rogi), near Auxerre, presumably to enable the encounter with Saint Maurus. The party arrived on Holy Thursday, the opening day of the Triduum, the three days in which the transformative death and resurrection of Christ was ritually reenacted. On Good Friday, while his companions prepared for the liturgies, Maurus and Saint Romanus “held sweet converse together” for many hours. Maurus announced, following Gregory the Great’s Life of Benedict, that the Master would pass from this life on the following day. Accordingly, early on Holy Saturday morning, as Saint Romanus and Maurus’s companions began the pre-Easter fast and psalmody to assist Benedict’s passing, Maurus was “taken up in the Spirit” and was “mystically” transported to Montecassino where he had a vision of Benedict ascending to heaven: He beheld a road strewn with rich coverings and gleaming with innumerable torches. It stretched away from Benedict’s cell towards heaven on a straight easterly course. Two brothers of our congregation were his companions in the vision, with whom at the very same moment, he gazed at the identical vision. As they marveled greatly at the road they were gazing at, a shining figure of venerable aspect from above appeared, standing nearby, asked them whose road it was that they were gazing upon. Since they did not know, he said to them, “This is the way by which Benedict, the beloved of God, ascended to heaven.” One of the two brothers who saw this vision along with Blessed Maurus was living in our monastery, but the other, as Blessed Gregory writes, saw it from far off. {Dial. II, 37] Soon after this, he came to himself and immediately called us together with Saint Romanus. He told us everything which he had seen, just as it had occurred.65

The language and imagery employed in this dramatic scene all emphasized Maurus’s position as the central figure in the drama of the passing of Benedict and his own new status as dux monachorum.66 He experiences the passing and rise to heaven of his Master while “ in the spirit.” As this vision occurred in the context of the Easter commemoration of Christ’s death and resurrection, it implies Maurus’s own “death” as the 65 LM , 31. Odo’s account follows Gregory’s closely from Dialogues, II 243–435, but adding the figure of Maurus to the two monks who saw the passing of the Master in Gregory’s account. Also compare St Paul’s similarly described mystical ascent in 2 Corinthians 12. 66 See below, Chapter 8, 240.

2

A PERFECT MONK AND THE MISSION TO FRANCIA

31

disciple of Benedict and his emergence into his new status as a patriarchal founder-abbot like Saint Romanus and Benedict, and the agent for the spread of the Rule of Benedict. It is significant that in Odo’s narrative, Saint Romanus, Benedict’s first cooperator, did not experience the passing of Benedict himself but was only later told of it by Maurus. Odo thus artfully fashioned a complex “liminallike” experience in which Maurus replaces Saint Romanus as Benedict’s cooperator and his representative in Francia. An eleventh-century illustration of this scene from a Fossés manuscript dramatically illustrates the event: in the bottom panel, Maurus and Saint Romanus are seated with Maurus positioned on the left listening, while the top panel illustrates the vision of Benedict’s passing with their positions reversed: Maurus is now on the right, kneeling as he views the passing of Benedict, while Saint Romanus now on the left, lies prostrate with his eyes fixed on Benedict’s disciple ahead (Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.1 Saints Maurus and Romanus at the ascent of Saint Benedict (MS Troyes, Bibliotheque municipale, MS 2273, fol. 57r.). Courtesy Médiathèque Jacques Chirac, Troyes

32

J. B. WICKSTROM

Saint Romanus confirmed this transmission of authority by announcing his own approaching death (as Benedict had earlier done and as Maurus would do in his turn). He bestows on Maurus and his companions a valedictory blessing that recalls Moses’s farewell to the Chosen People on the verge of their entry into the Promised Land. It also echoed Christ’s promise that the Apostles would receive power from the Holy Spirit as they set out on the first Christian missions. Maurus’s encounter with Saint Romanus forms a fitting conclusion to the second stage of his career. The passing on of authority from the two Benedictine founders into his hands during his Eastertide liminal state provided Maurus with the authority necessary for his final challenges: the foundation and governance of Glanfeuil under Benedict’s Rule. These coming tasks will introduce themes that differ significantly from those we have seen so far. The presentations of monastic virtues and pilgrimage miracles give way to stories about the merits and failings of bishops and noble laymen. Issues of property, lordship, the law, and hospitality will also play a role. Finally, this second section of Odo’s Life introduces confusedly remembered historical events into his largely fictional narrative. These memories, as we shall see, likely provided an additional incentive for the Glanfeuil community to accept the Life of Maurus as its foundational story.

CHAPTER 3

Constructing the Shrine and Its Story

The second half of Odo’s Life of Maurus consists of two parts, both of which describe the adventures of the little company of monks as they struggled to construct a monastery in a new and unpredictable world. The first of these parts, which presents the events surrounding the construction of the abbey, the longest section of the Life, was arguably intended to form the centerpiece of the Life. Most important, Odo’s focus here shifts from Maurus’ performance of symbolic miracles to his intricate, evolving relationships with the lay rulers of Anjou. The attention given here to monastic-lay relationships strongly suggests that Odo crafted this foundation story, at least in part, as a model for such relationships in his own day.

Arrival and Disappointment Having traveled westward after leaving the monastery of Saint Romanus, Maurus and his four companions with their two noble guides, Harderadus and Flodegarius and a few servants, were approaching Orléans when they were informed that Bishop Bertrand of Le Mans, at whose request they had undertaken their long journey, had died. The new bishop, a certain Dumnolus, stated he had no interest in the project and even refused to meet with the monks. Harderadus went to speak to the bishop on their behalf, but without success. Maurus, at a loss, asked Harderadus © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_3

33

34

J. B. WICKSTROM

for guidance, “What should we do now, most noble sir? What do you think would be best?”1 In a surprising plot twist, Harderadus, the layman, takes the initiative. He encourages Maurus and his companions to lift their spirits, finds temporary lodging for them and sets off to inform his nephew, a certain Count Florus. Florus, he explains, as “viscount of Anjou,” was “first among the magnates of Francia” and an intimate of King Theudebert.2 Moreover, Florus had long hoped to find a group of monks “perfected in monastic discipline” for whom he could build a monastery. He would offer his son, Bertulf, to the new monastery as an oblate, and Florus himself, once his worldly affairs were settled, would also enter there. Odo adds at this point that Florus had married only under pressure from his family and had already sent away his wife, a topos reflecting the growing dominance of monastic values in Western religious life. That Florus should produce male offspring was also necessary to Odo’s story, since his son Bertulf would play a crucial role in the governance of the new monastery. So Odo’s narrative is dominated at this crucial point—and at others— by initiatives taken by local noblemen. All of them were more welcoming to the monks than were the bishops. Even the saintly bishop, Bertrand, who had requested the mission, had set aside land for the monastery that was not well suited to the observance of the Rule, being, Odo claims, a “rough and rocky place.”3 We shall see this theme of cooperation between reforming monks and pious lay nobles expand as this foundation story unfolds. Nobles were often insistent that monasteries adopt a reformed manner of living. Indeed, it has been argued that no monastic reform of any extent could be introduced in the late Carolingian period without the active support of the local lay powers.4 However, Odo’s work 1 LM, 37. 2 The title of “viscount of Anjou” that Odo that bestows on Florus is curious. The

existence of a “count of Anjou” is nowhere suggested in Odo’s LM . This is historically accurate, since that office was only created in 861 and bestowed on Robert the Strong, a fact which Odo might well have known. If so, he may have wanted to avoid suggesting that the Robertians, who were usually rivals of the Rorigonids in the mid-ninth century, had anything to do with the foundation of Glanfeuil. Odo, then, may have invented the fictitious office of “viscount” and bestowed it on an imaginary character, who could be acted as the main lay patron of the new abbey without offending current political alliances. 3 LM , 35. 4 David Cox, The Church and Vale of Evesham, 700–1215: Lordship, Landscape and

Prayer (Boydell, 2015), 48.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

35

in this regard also retains a distinctive feature of Merovingian hagiography, which frequently emphasized the work of Adelsheiligen, or saintly noblemen.5 This section of the Life, more than any other, shows Odo’s familiarity with Merovingian hagiography. It links the story of Glanfeuil’s foundation to the well-remembered era of Merovingian monastic/secular cooperation, which the Rorigonid restorers and rulers of ninth-century Glanfeuil would appreciate. This feature makes clear that this and other Carolingian saints’ lives were not wholly fictional. Evidence is mounting that they were in fact creative blends of fact and fantasy, which likely helped their widespread acceptance as truthful accounts. As we shall see, several members of the Rorigonid familia of Neustria (to which Abbot Odo himself likely belonged) would play key roles in the reconstruction of Glanfeuil in the early ninth century, not only in its physical restoration but also in the introduction thereof the Rule of Benedict. Odo’s emphasis on the central role of pious Merovingian lords in the construction and monastic rigor of Glanfeuil’s original foundation provided a template for, and perhaps an indirect appreciation of, the patronage of noble Carolingians in his own day. A second characteristic of this section is its narrative complexity. Odo’s symbolism and style are often subtle and allusive, but his storytelling is normally straightforward. At this point, however, he introduces what appear to be needless complications. Why encumber the narrative with the story of two inadequate bishops, Bertrand and Dumnolus, whose failure to accommodate the monks is redressed by pious laymen? Similarly, why describe a series of peripheral events and characters at Le Mans when Glanfeuil was eventually built 70 miles to the southeast in another diocese? The likely answer is that Odo’s story at this point was not fictitious but based on confused memories of the abbey’s actual foundation. This likelihood is, paradoxically, strengthened by several factual errors in this section: the actual dates of Bishop Bertrand’s episcopacy differed from those given by Odo. Bertrand was, in reality, bishop of Le Mans from 587 to 623, almost thirty years after the events of 543 which Odo is purporting to describe.6 Bishop Dumnolus was not in fact Bertrand’s 5 Anne-Marie Helvitius, “Les modèles de sainteté dans les monastères de l’espace belge du VIIIe au Xe siècle,” R. bén., 103 (1993): 51. 6 See the Excursus 1, pp. 67–68 below for a discussion of the internal chronology of Odo’s text.

36

J. B. WICKSTROM

successor, as Odo maintained, but rather held the see from 560 to 581, several years before Bertrand succeeded to it. This is the sort of chronological confusion that critics often cite to discredit Odo’s account. Such inaccuracies, however, could as easily be the result of Odo’s attempt to reconstruct a 300-year-old memory in the absence of written records or living witnesses. This hypothesis is strengthened by other facts involving the sixthcentury bishops of Le Mans. In the year that Maurus and his companions arrived in Francia—543, according to Odo—the actual bishop of Le Mans was not Bertrand but a certain Innocent II. He had been a saintly prelate who ruled the diocese from 532 until 543. So, there was in fact a change of bishops at Le Mans in the year of Maurus’s journey, just as Odo claimed; he was merely in error regarding their identities. Bishop Innocent, moreover, was remembered for two achievements: first of all, he founded eleven monasteries in his diocese, far more than any other bishop of his age (Bishop Bertrand sponsored only five).7 Moreover, Innocent II was remembered for introducing laymen as advocati or administrators of the property of his diocese, an office that had evolved into that of vicedominus by the ninth century, the title held by Harderadus in Odo’s narrative.8 Even more remarkable, one of Bishop Innocent’s charters contains the signature of his advocatus, a certain Hari(e)gaudus, a name strikingly similar to Harderadus.9 Finally, Innocent’s successor was not Odo’s supposedly uncooperative and selfish Domnolus but an infamous bishop named Scienfrède (543–560). The latter established not a single monastery in his seventeen years as bishop and may have obtained his office fraudulently.10 The historical Dumnolus in fact enjoyed a reputation for sanctity so unusual that Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks devoted an entire section to his episcopacy11 Finally, it is worth noting that Gregory, who was chronologically much closer to these events than 7 Thomas Cauvin, Etats du Maine (Le Mans, 1839), 133–4. 8 Cauvin, Etats, 117–19. 9 Cauvin, Etats, 118. 10 Actus Pontificum cenomannis ab urbe degentium, ed. G. Busson and A. Ledru (Mans,

1901–02), 53–141. (Partes vii–xi); summary in Paul Piolin, Histoire de l’église du Mans, 6 vols (Paris, 1851–65), 1. 240–46. 11 He conducted himself [as bishop of Le Mans] so that he rose to the summit of holiness.” Gregorii episcopi turonensis Libri Historiarum X . MGH, Scriptores rer. merov. 1, 1. ed. Bruno Krutsch (Hannover, 1951), 279.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

37

Abbot Odo, also confused the line of succession of sixth-century bishops of Le Mans.12 So Odo was most likely attempting to reconstruct an imperfectly remembered tradition about the sixth-century bishops of Le Mans. Such a reconstruction would give his story a rootedness in fact which would further its credibility with the ninth-century audiences to which he was presenting it as an authentic history. On the other hand, it is perhaps more likely that he “re–remembered” this Le Mans episcopal narrative negatively in order to reinforce his celebratory presentation of lay patronage. In either case, the Le Mans episode offers a glimpse of the interplay between historical memory and imagined events that likely shaped Odo’s narrative more fully than we can at this remove ascertain.

Building Glanfeuil with the Nobility These actual remembered incidents at Le Mans contrast strikingly with the largely fabricated sections that follow, which describe the abbey’s construction at Glanfeuil. Harderadus’s cousin, Count Florus, replaced his relative as the central lay figure at this point in the story. He first obtained permission from King Theudebert to build the abbey on his property, which was granted on the condition that the monks practice the monastic discipline that “by common report their master Benedict had handed on to them.”13 Again, one might also view this scene as an incentive from the remote and holy Merovingian past to Carolingian nobles for support of the contemporary monastic reform movement. Count Florus and Saint Maurus, the two main figures in this section of the Life, now meet for the first time. The scene imitates the encounter of Benedict with the Gothic King Totila in Gregory the Great’s Life of Benedict.14 As King Totila had been, Count Florus is splendidly arrayed, but on catching sight of the holy man dressed in the humble gown of a pilgrim-traveler, he leaps off his horse and prostrates himself, again as Totila had done with Benedict. As the Master had lifted up King Totila, so Maurus raises up Count Florus and embraces him. But whereas Benedict

12 Gregory of Tours claims that Dumnolus was the successor of Bishop Innocent, whereas the latter’s successor was in fact Bishop Scienfrède, Ibid. 13 LM, 38. 14 Dialogues, II, 182.

38

J. B. WICKSTROM

had continued to dominate the encounter with Totila, admonishing the king about his character, in Odo’s narrative the initiative is again taken by the pious layman. Count Florus takes Maurus by the hand, embraces him and, after a long welcoming speech, escorts him toward his house, which stood on the site of the future monastery.15 This last detail neatly matches the archeological indications that Glanfeuil was built on the foundations of a late Roman villa.16 Lay initiatives are again foregrounded in Florus’ bold claim to control the project. He tells Maurus that “we bless as well praise the glorious name of the Lord who sent you and your companions, these revered men, to assist us ” (italics added). Maurus and Florus then negotiate the transfer of the property on which the monastery would be built. Maurus began by inspecting the property for its suitability, since “the observance of our order demands the greatest quiet and security.”17 This language expressed the concerns of Carolingian reformers to site monasteries away from the centers of population, especially from the influence of noble and royal courts and to document property transfers. Such grants usually did not exempt religious houses from their obligations to their bishop or lay lords but rather described them carefully in order to preserve monastic solitude and peace as well as providing clear title.18 Maurus thus insisted on a written deed before witnesses whereby this property came into his seigneurial possession (in dominationem nostrum).19 The land on which the abbey was constructed rested on the crest of a high bluff on the southern shore of the Loire River, approximately 20 miles southeast of Angers, the ecclesiastical center of the region. The site was thus reasonably secure as well as positioned to profit from commerce on the always busy Loire.20 Eventually, however, the abbey became best known for its cultivation of the Chenin grape, which may have been cultivated there since its restoration in the ninth century.21 15 LM, 39. 16 See below, 61–62. 17 LM, 40. 18 The Carolingian legal world as a whole was requiring written records of property transfers. See Rose McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge UP., 1989), Part ii, “Law and the Written Word,” 23–76. 19 LM, 40. 20 See the various stories involving the abbey and commerce on the Loire, LM, 30–32. 21 Jancis Robinson, Julia Harding, and Jose Vouillamoz, Wine Grapes—A Complete

guide to 1,368 vine varieties, including their origins and flavours (New York, Ecco, 2012), 82, 236–238.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

39

In order to reinforce the connection between Benedict and Glanfeuil for his Carolingian readers, Odo presented the construction of the new abbey and the miracles that accompanied it as parallels to Montecassino’s foundation, again borrowing material from Gregory the Great. Odo compares Glanfeuil’s chapel of Saint Martin to the similarly named structure which Benedict had built at Montecassino. Odo then extended this parallel to the final resting places of the two patriarchs. “The most holy Benedict,” Odo wrote, “had placed an altar of the most blessed Martin in his own oratory after demolishing the altar of Apollo and ordered that he might be buried there. Following his example, his most excellent disciple ordered that his own body be laid to rest in an oratory of the same dedication.”22 However, Gregory’s text stated that Benedict was interred, not in the chapel of Saint Martin, but rather beneath the altar of the nearby oratory of St John the Baptist23 There is little chance that Odo mistook the location; he knew Gregory’s work intimately. He likely had two goals in making this change from Gregory’s text. First and foremost, it assured that Benedict’s best disciple would finally rest in a chapel of the same dedication as the funeral chapel of his master. Secondly by highlighting the fact that both Montecassino and Glanfeuil had churches dedicated to Saint Martin, Odo associated both Benedictine founders with Saint Martin, long since venerated as the founder and patron of monastic life in Francia, whose shrine was the most famous in the region and with which, as we shall see, Glanfeuil had, by Odo’s day, established significant ties.

Miracles During Construction The miracles which accompanied the construction of Glanfeuil were also adapted from Gregory the Great’s description of the building of Montecassino. The first was a revised version of Benedict’s resuscitation of a workman injured during Montecassino’s erection.24 However, the purposes of the two stories differed: Gregory’s original featured a young monk who was crushed by the devil during the construction of

22 LM , 42. For Martin’s chapel at Montecassino, Dialogues, II, 168. 23 Dialogues, II, 246. 24 LM, 43. Cf. Dialogues, II, 172–74.

40

J. B. WICKSTROM

the abbey, thus showing Benedict’s power to raise up what had been cast down by Satan. In Odo’s retelling however, the intimacy of laymonastic relationships in the Carolingian world is again foregrounded. Just prior to the accident, Maurus and Count Florus had been sitting together on the construction site discussing a book when suddenly the clerical overseer fell from the scaffolding. After praying over him the entire night, Maurus healed the cleric and sent him back to work. This was Florus’ first direct experience of the wonder-working powers of Maurus; he threw himself at the monk’s feet and “from that day forward held him in the greatest reverence and dared not approach too closely.”25 Such role-reversals are typical of Odo’s treatment of the relationship of monks with pious laymen. Sometimes one side dominated the action, sometimes the other, but monastic authority usually prevailed. The second miracle performed during the abbey’s construction was more complex. Three workmen had begun taunting Maurus, and demons took the opportunity to enter into them.26 One of the men was so violently possessed that he succumbed. Again, Maurus kept an all-night vigil with the body in the chapel of Saint Martin. In the morning, having ordered Mass to be said, he brought the dead man back to life. In this miracle, Maurus has reached the fullness of his powers. By raising the dead, he joined the highest rank of wonderworkers. The event was modeled on an earlier miracle, in which Maurus had revived a young man who was near death but had not yet succumbed. In this instance, however, Maurus revives a deceased person, and Odo explicitly equates Maurus’s achievement with Christ’s greatest miracle, the raising of Lazarus, as well as with Elijah’s revival of a widow’s son (1 Kings 17: 17–24). Moreover, the succession of Elisha, the heir of Elijah as chief prophet, was symbolized by Elisha’s revival of the Shunamite woman’s dead son27. Thus, Odo here presents Maurus as the successor of Benedict, often himself presented as a second Elisha, and his Master’s successor as a reviver of the dead.28

25 LM, 43. 26 LM, 44. 27 2 Kings 4:8–37. 28 See above, p. 18, note 21.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

41

The Place of Manual Labor at Glanfeuil The story of the construction of the abbey provides significant evidence of the role of manual labor in Carolingian abbeys. The topic is also important in that later debates on the issue often referred to the customs of Glanfeuil as described by Odo. The construction of the monastery was not the work of the monks themselves. Lay workmen were gathered from throughout the land by Count Florus under the authority of King Theudebert and, presumably, with his financial assistance. Indeed, nowhere in the narrative of the foundation of the monastery is there any mention of manual labor by the community, with the possible exception of preparing a meal for King Theudebert and his guests. Indeed, Odo implied that the monks subsisted on the produce and other assets of their properties, as did most Carolingian abbeys of any size. In Section 55 of the Life of Maurus, Odo tells us that Maurus limited the number of monks to 140, since that was the maximum number whose needs could be met with the resources of the property they had been given. It is surely not an accident that in that same chapter, he mentions that this number was mainly achieved by the many nobles from throughout the land who had joined the monastery themselves and often enrolled their sons there as oblates. This comment also confirms modern scholars’ conclusion that Carolingian monasteries consisted largely of upper-class members by the later ninth century.29 The evidence of Odo’s Life of Maurus regarding manual labor accords well with other evidence from the period. The influential commentary on the Rule by Hildemar of Corbie from the 830s suggests that only certain members of the community would be involved in heavy work.30 Moreover, Hildemar suggests that “the active life” which he equates with work should serve primarily as a preparation for, or balance within, a life devoted to reading and contemplatio. Finally, he implicitly rejects Benedict’s comment that monks who perform manual labor “are really monks when they live by the labor of their hands as our fathers and the apostles did.”31 Hildemar objects that nothing “he[Benedict] says should be 29 De Jong, “Carolingian Monasticism,” NCMH 2. 640ff. 30 HiIdemar, Expositio regulae sancti Benedicti, Chapter 48. Text and translation

online: http://hildemar.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&catid= 15&Itemid=102. 31 RB 1980, 248–50.

42

J. B. WICKSTROM

understood as if those who devote themselves to reading are not true monks.”32 Benedict should be understood as giving consolation to houses that are so poor that its monks cannot afford “to be intent on spiritual studies” but must work in order to survive. Hildemar noticed that the Rule’s chapter on lectio or contemplative reading followed the chapter on manual labor, reinforcing the view that it was merely a disciplinary preparation for contemplative activities.33 Odo himself described contemplatio as the core of the monk’s calling. Maurus had insisted to Count Florus that the vita contempliva required first of all “peace and security.” He therefore demanded that all donated properties be deeded over to him in full lordship in return for hospitality, prayers, and advice. As we shall see, this section of Odo’s Life of Maurus was remembered and elaborated by eleventh and twelfth-century Cluniac polemics against the Cistercian insistence on fieldwork as essential to the observance of Benedict’s Rule.34

The Four Abbey Churches Odo’s only detailed description of his new abbey involved its four churches: Four churches had been constructed within the monastery itself: The largest of these, in which the brothers gathered for the daily offices, was consecrated in honor of Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles; the second, as was noted earlier, in honor of Blessed Martin; and the third, smaller than the others, in veneration of Saint Severinus; and the fourth, which was constructed in the form of a lofty four-sided tower at the entrance of the monastery, was dedicated to the holy Archangel Michael.35

Abbey churches were at the center of the community’s identity. It was there that the core of the monks’ vocation—prayer—was carried on, first and foremost to praise God, then prayer for the forgiveness of the monks’ own failures and, increasingly, for the sins of others.

32 Hildemar, Expositio, Chapter 48. 33 Ibid. 34 See below, pp. 253–254 35 LM , 46.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

43

The patron saint or divine attribute for which a church was named provided a core element of its identity. This was especially true for monasteries, where individual and communal identity derived from membership in a particular house and its special holy patron. Saint Peter was the most popular church patron throughout the early Middle Ages. It is thus difficult to say what elements of his complex persona appealed to any particular house. Adopting Peter’s patronage was sometimes associated with a monastery’s claim of exemption from the local bishop.36 There was also a desire to link a remote northern monastery to the Church of Rome through Peter. In this regard it is noteworthy that in Odo’s story of the “discovery” of Maurus’ bones in 845, relics of Saint Peter were found nearby. The three other saintly patrons of Glanfeuil’s first churches were also common choices. Saint Martin was the best-known monastic saint in France and his shrine was closeby. The archangel Michael was primarily a northern French saint but was often named as the heavenly defender of early monastic churches as centers of the struggle against the powers of darkness. A covering from his altar at Montecassino was among the relics specially chosen by Benedict to accompany Maurus on his journey into Gaul.37 The identity of the patron of the fourth church, Saint Severinus, is uncertain. Several saints of this name were venerated in both Merovingian and Carolingian Francia. It seems most likely that the Severinus named as the patron of early Glanfeuil was a late fifth-century reformer abbot of the monastery at Noricum, close to Montecassino. His popular life by Eugippus (c. 500) contains a story with noteworthy similarities to Pope Gregory’s and Abbot Odo’s versions of Maurus’s rescue of Placid by Maurus: An official (aedituus) of the monastery church was named Maurus, whom Saint Severinus had redeemed from the hands of the barbarians. One day the man of God warned him, saying, “Take heed to-day not to go away any where: otherwise, thou shalt be in imminent peril.” But the porter, contrary to the warning of the great father, and persuaded by a layman, went out at midday to gather fruit at the second milestone from Favianis. Presently he and the layman were carried off by barbarians across

36 Remensnyder, Remembering, 78. 37 LM, 19. See also John Charles Arnold, The Footprints of Michael the Archangel: The

Formation and Diffusion of a Saintly Cult, c. 300–c. 800 (Palgrave MacMillan, 2013).

44

J. B. WICKSTROM

the Danube. In that hour the man of God (vir Dei), reading in his cell, suddenly closed the book, and said, ‘search out Maurus quickly!” When he was nowhere to be found, Severinus crossed the streams of the Danube in all haste, and hurried after the robbers, whom the people called Scamarae. Stricken with awe by his reverend presence, they humbly restored the captives whom they had taken.38

This story, originating near Montecassino, was possibly picked up and spread by Pope Gregory’s Life of Benedict, which could account for the choice of Severinus as a patron of one of Glanfeuil’s early churches. A monastic house’s heavenly patron was a fundamental identity marker to whom devotions were regularly offered and so was not easily altered. Whether the patrons of the four Glanfeuil churches were remembered from early Merovingian churches on the site or were invented later by Odo is uncertain. On the one hand, these particular patrons were more popular as church patrons in the Merovingian period than later, so choosing these patrons would help Odo root his narrative in the Merovingian era. Finally, it is worth noting here that the patron of the main church was renamed in honor of the Redeemer (Sanctus Salvator) in the 830s, when the main abbey church was rebuilt. This was likely aimed to please Louis the Pious, some thirty years before Odo wrote his Life of Maurus.39 That Odo was careful to name the previous patron of the abbey church (Saint Peter) in his 868 description of Glanfeuil’s original churches suggests that an original dedication to Saint Peter was a well-remembered event and so important to the authenticity of Odo’s narrative. This initially political rededication over time was transformed into a central element of Glanfeuil’s identity. Manuscript and archeological evidence indicates that devotion to the Holy Cross, the symbol of the

38 Eugippi Vita Sancti Severini, ed. Hermann Sauppe, MGH Auct. ant. 1.2 (Weidmann: Berlin, 1877), 13. Severinus also died of the same sort of illness, a “pain in the side,” that carried off Maurus. See BHL, 7655 below, p. 51, note 64. H. Leclercq believed that the Life of Saint Severinus was the model for Odo’s Life of Maurus, but his evidence for this conclusion is not persuasive, DALC, 6/2, cols. 1286–87. 39 “Glanfeuil’ in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de la géographie ecclésiastique, ed. Alfred Baudrillart, 32 vols (Paris, 1859–1942) xxi, col. 142. Also, Phillipe LeMaitre, “Image du Christ, image de l’empereur: L’exemple du culte du Saint Sauveur sous Louis Le Pieux,” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, 68 (1982), 201–12.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

45

Holy Savior, became a central feature of the community’s religious identity and devotion, alongside its veneration of Saint Maurus.40 It is also noteworthy that Odo mentioned neither Saint Michael nor Saint Severinus in his discussion either of the cult of Maurus or of the abbey in his own time.41 Odo stated that the abbey as rebuilt in the 830s contained only two churches: the chapel dedicated to Saint Martin and the main church, by then dedicated to the Holy Savior.

The King in the Cloister Odo omits any mention of the consecration of the main abbey church, usually the climactic moment in its foundation. It was at that point that the church became “sacred space,” separate from and above the natural and civic world. The anniversary of the consecration of a church was one of the primary acts of community memory, celebrated every year with a special liturgy of the highest rank, often followed by an octave of celebration.42 Odo chose to substitute a detailed description of a more unusual ceremony: the reception of its chief noble patron, Count Florus, as a monk of Glanfeuil, thereby again stressing a main theme of his foundation narrative: the centrality of lay patrons in the monastery’s construction. This particular scene is, in effect, a sermon in story, dramatizing the ideal roles of laymen in sacred monastic space. Glanfeul King Theudebert had expressed a desire to attend Florus’ reception ceremony. He first consulted his lay councilors with regard to its appropriateness. After receiving the Abbot Maurus’ permission to enter the newly consecrated space of the abbey, the king, clothed in royal regalia, prostrated himself before the abbot, begging for the community’s prayers; with tears in his eyes, he asked that he be enrolled in its confraternity of prayer (societatem suam) and that his name written in its

40 See below, 90, 116. 41 There is no mention of Saint Severinus in the Glanfeuil gradual and antiphonary of

the late eleventh century, and Saint Michael’s Mass (BnF, MS lat. 12,583, fols 196v–197r) and Office (fols 329r–331r) on September 29th has no indications of special status for the archangel at Glanfeuil. 42 Remensnyder, Remembering, 79–81.

46

J. B. WICKSTROM

book of remembrance.43 After this show of humility and respect before the spiritual authority, however, lay power dominated the proceedings. King Theudebert first presented his son and heir, Theudebald, to Abbot Maurus, admonishing the young prince to be generous to the abbey and to act as its adjutor et defensor. He then noticed Bertulf, Florus’ son, who had already been entrusted to Maurus for his monastic education, “just as he himself had been educated by his most holy master Benedict.” The king called the young oblate over and pressed him to his breast, commending him to Maurus and requesting that Bertulf be “most lovingly educated.”44 Here we see the king asserting his right, indeed his obligation, to oversee the spiritual health as well as the material security of the monastery. Indeed, Maurus acknowledges the king’s right to participate in the selection of the next abbot, if not to actually appoint him. The scene also served as a guarantee that the cooperation of the abbey’s founders, King Theudebert, Count Florus, and Abbot Maurus would continue under their respective heirs, young Theudebald and Abbotdesignate Bertulf, heir by blood to Count Florus and the spiritual son of Maurus. The most striking feature of this succession-tableau is its assumption that relations between the abbey and “the world” would be based on mutual esteem and common values rather than insistence on legal rights or setting limits to lay involvement in the monastery’s life. There were nonetheless legal formalities to be observed in the presentation of the royal gifts which followed this reception. King Theudebert made a circuit of the property, then he returned to the main abbey church of Saint Peter’s and before the high altar bestowed on the abbey a royal fisc, ordering his scribe to write out a deed of transfer so he could seal it with his signet.45 He granted Maurus free access to his person and also presented him with a precious covering for the high altar of the abbey’s main church and a golden cross encrusted with jewels. Then Florus approached the king for a charter enumerating the properties he

43 Oexle has emphasized the role of Carolingian monastic “brotherhoods” in creating complex spiritual networks between the abbeys and the Carolingian lay nobility: Otto Gerhard Oexle, “Les moines d’occident et la vie politique et sociale dans le haut moyen âge,” R. bén., 103 (1993): 255–72. 44 LM , 49. 45 This fisc was called Boscus, an unidentified location: Dieter Hägermann, Das Polyp-

tychon und die Notitia de Areis von Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, Beihefte der Francia, 23, (Sigmaringen, 1990), 39.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

47

would bestow on the abbey on the occasion of his reception as a monk. Then, with Maurus and the community gathered on one side of the altar and the king and his attendants on the other, Count Florus placed his knight’s buckler on the altar and requested from the king permission to embrace the monastic life “in reparation of the many sins that his activities in the world had brought about.” Maurus proceeded to tonsure Florus: the symbol of his renunciation of “the world.” This was all standard practice, but a most unusual ceremony followed. With Maurus’ consent, the king and any nobles who wished also clipped a lock of Florus’ hair, a dramatic demonstration of the religious auctoritas shared by lay lords and churchmen.46 The party then moved toward a building specially constructed for the reception of guests. Maurus prostrated himself before Theudebert and invited the king and his retinue to enter and enjoy a feast prepared by the monks with their own hands.47 The king demurred, not wishing to invade the cloister, but a counselor convinced him to accept the invitation of such holy men. Odo then set before the reader the climactic scene of this partnership of sacred and secular: King Theudebert called Florus before him, now dressed in a monk’s robes and delivered an exhortation (admonitio) to him regarding his conduct in the cloister: “just as when you dressed in worldly garb, you lived ever nobly with vigor and honor, so now may you progress daily ever higher in this holy monastic life.”48 This extraordinary statement, equating the virtues of the secular and religious life while maintaining their distinctiveness, was exemplary of “the early medieval equilibrium” in Norman Cantor’s famous phrase.49 After having received the blessing he had requested from Abbot Maurus, the king and his retinue departed. A primary question here is whether Odo’s narrative was here representing rituals and values of his own day, as was often the case, or did he

46 LM, 51. 47 In his contemporary commentary on the Rule of Benedict (53:7), Smaragdus of Saint

Mihiel stated that the abbot should greet noble guests with a full prostration: Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel, Expositio in Regulam s. Benedict i, ed. A. Spannagel and Englebert, Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum (Siegburg, R. Schmitt, 1974), 280–81. 48 LM, 53. 49 Norman Cantor, The Civilization of the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper

Collins, 1993), 205.

48

J. B. WICKSTROM

in fact have knowledge of Merovingian rituals, or perhaps some combination of the two. Odo’s writing here resembles other accounts of royal visits to abbeys in the ninth and tenth centuries, and both Merovingian and Carolingian hagiographies showed local kings and nobles providing both funds and leadership in establishing or restoring religious houses.50 Constance Bouchard and others have, however, recently argued that there were major differences in Merovingian and Carolingian attitudes toward lay-monastic relationships. In the Merovingian era, these scholars argue, there had grown up a respect for the freedom and autonomy of monastic houses which contrasted with their Carolingian successors’ policy of forced “protection” and economic exploitation.51 As we shall see, Glanfeuil did suffer virtual destruction under a lay abbot appointed by Pepin III in the mid-eighth century. On the other hand, Odo’s narrative of the restoration of Glanfeuil in the 830s by pious Neustrian noblemen, which seems essentially accurate, embodies many of the ideals set out in the supposedly Merovingian monastic reception of Count Florus. It at least seems clear that Odo intended the scene of Florus’ reception to serve as a sort of mirror of princes, offering a story that dramatized the ideal behavior of secular rulers with respect to monastic needs and values. The Frankish nobles of Odo’s own day would have heard this story many times: in Odo’s own narrative read out several times a year in Glanfeuil’s abbey church during the Office, in the simplified versions of liturgical sermons, and in other stories of the founding Rorigonid family’s accomplishments.52 Overall, Odo’s approach to monastic-secular relations in his Life of St Maurus appears to support the older view of relations between reformed Carolingian monasteries and the saeculum offered by Richard Sullivan in 1989: The dynamic force shaping Carolingian monasticism was a conscious effort to recast in theory and in practice the traditional ascetic idealism in a way that would simultaneously allow all monks to identify with one another as a distinctive ordo dedicated to the quest of spiritual perfection. It would,

50 The hagiographer of Evesham Abbey, for example, wrote descriptions of its legendary early benefactors comparable to those in the Life of Maurus, Cox, Evesham, 20–23. 51 Bouchard, Rewriting, esp. Chapter 8, 126–51. 52 For an introduction to this complex topic, Katrien Heene, “Merovingian and

Carolingian Hagiography: Continuity or Change in Public and Aims.” Analecta bollandiana, 107 (1989): 415–27.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

49

on the other hand, also define a role for the ordo in terms that allowed its members to turn to mutual benefit the inevitable interactions that must link the cloister and the world.53

The Story of Saint Maurus’ Last Days Odo tells us that, in the troubled times after Clothar’s reign ended in 561, Abbot Maurus became increasingly solitary. He seldom left the abbey and “he had leisure for God alone in daily prayer and reading and devoted himself even more fervently than before to the holy Rule.”54 Twenty years passed in this fashion while the community grew and prospered, largely under the oversight of the abbot’s subordinates. In 581, according to the Life’s internal chronology, Maurus felt the end approaching, so he shut himself up in a small cell abutting the chapel of St Martin with two monks as companions. Thus, Odo presents Maurus’ final days as the flowering of the reformed monastic life: the contemplatio that was the goal of reformed Carolingian monasticism. The long missionary journeys, collaborations with the laity, and negotiating endowments were only preparations for this retired life of prayer in silence and solitude. However, it bears notice that Maurus did not withdraw entirely from the community but continued to live in its midst with two companions. Odo thus shows the fidelity of this first representative of Benedict in France to his Master’s legacy: to the end he remained a cenobite.55 Before Maurus could fully enter into his final solitude, the issue of his successor required attention. The community left the choice to Maurus, who, they agreed, best understood the merits of each monk. Maurus nominated Bertulf, the son of Count Florus, as a “noble monk” who had achieved perfect observance of monastic discipline, as Maurus himself had under Benedict. The community assented to their abbot’s choice.56 This is a sophisticated narrative which manages to reconcile conflicting Carolingian practices and ideals. Odo’s narrative respected the

53 Richard Sullivan, “What Was Carolingian Monasticism: The Plan of Saint Gall and the History of Western Monasticism,” In After Rome’s Fall, ed. Alexander Callander Murray (U. Toronto, 1998), 285. 54 LM, 62. 55 RB 1980, 168. 56 LM, 63.

50

J. B. WICKSTROM

Rule’s insistence on the free election of abbots by having the community surrender its election rights to Abbot Maurus and then confirm his choice. However, the procedure also took account of the reality that sitting abbots often chose their successors.57 Benedict himself had earlier chosen Maurus as his successor at Montecassino. The choice of Bertulf also reflected both the Merovingian and Carolingian practices of reserving the office of abbot to noble families with long associations with their local monastery. Indeed, on the death of Bertulf, the abbacy was bestowed on the son of Harderadus, kinsman to both Abbot Bertulf and his father, Count Florus. This third abbot was named Florianus, recalling his kinship with the original benefactor of the abbey, Count Florus. Maurus then ordered his four original companions to remain with Abbot Bertulf for the duration of his abbacy “that he might not by some mischance deviate from the right path of the Rule.”58 This was a final articulation of the reformer Odo’s concern for the centrality of Benedict’s Rule. Having settled the succession, Maurus entered into “solitary combat with the Devil,” which the Rule foresaw as the peculiar challenge of monks living alone.59 Odo explains that Maurus approached the chapel of Saint Martin to pray one evening, only to find his way blocked by the Devil and a crowd of demons. Satan announced a fearful vengeance would be taken in retaliation for Maurus’ attempt to break Satan’s long lordship over Francia: he would rain down death upon Maurus’ community. Satan and his attendants then departed with a huge clamor. An angel appeared and comforted Maurus, declaring, in a rare theological discourse for this work, that Satan was aware of some future events but did not cause them. God had allowed the Devil to reveal the future to Maurus so that he might prepare his monks for a good death and for their journey to a heavenly home.60

57 For various methods of choosing abbots in the Merovingian period, see Albrecht Diem, “Inventing the Holy Rule: Some Observations on the History of Monastic Normative Observance in the Early Medieval West,” in Western Monasticism ante Litteram, ed. Hendrik Dey and Elizabeth Fentress (Brepols, 2011), p. 70, esp. note 98. There are also the famous later examples of saintly abbots of Cluny appointing their successors, Berno, Odo, Odilo, and Hugh. 58 LM , 63. 59 RB 1980, 168. 60 LM , 65.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

51

Encouraged by this response, Maurus called the community together and gave his valedictory sermon.61 Overall, Maurus’ speech reflected the hagiological topos of a holy founder’s final exhortation to his community, reminding them of the awful Last Judgement and urging preparation through prayer and penance.62 Odo also shaped these scenes to recall a similar revelation made to Benedict at the beginning of the Life of Maurus. The Master had also been told by an angel that his monastery would soon be destroyed; the angel also stressed the omniscience of God and the inevitability of His plans. While Montecassino would be laid waste, in time missionary monks would spread the Rule to foreign lands and Benedict’s monastery would rise again to a greater eminence than before. Despite the obvious parallels between these two scenes, there was a major difference in tone. Maurus’ sermon lacked the optimism of the patriarch’s hopeful valedictory in which he promised that “the bonds of charity will unite the whole community beyond time and space, regardless of whether some members are departed from life or scattered abroad in foreign lands.”63 Maurus offered only the small consolation that the monks should be grateful for the warning of imminent death, so they might prepare themselves. Odo then tells us that only five months after the prediction of disaster, 160 members of the community succumbed, leaving only 25 monks alive. No cause for the mass deaths is given. Shortly after this, Maurus himself suffered “an affliction of his side” (dolor lateris ); he received the sacrament and died peacefully.64 From the earliest manuscripts, January 15 has been celebrated as the date of Maurus’ passing. Although this date may well have formed part of the community’s actual memory of an early abbot’s last days, Odo, or some earlier source, might well have chosen the date to connect Maurus with the earliest monastic heroes: January 15th had also long been memorialized as the death day Paul of Thebes, traditionally the first hermit; Paul himself was closely associated with Saint 61 LM , 17. 62 Dalarun, “La mort des saints fondateurs,” 199–200. 63 LM , 17. 64 The account of Maurus’ death may have been borrowed from Pope Gregory’s Dialogues, in which Saint Paulinus died of a similarly described cause: Dialogues, III, 264. The cause of death of Saint Severinus, for whom one of the original churches of Glanfeuil, was essentially identical to these.

52

J. B. WICKSTROM

Antony, the legendary “father of monks,” whose death was commemorated two days later, on January 17th. By Carolingian times, Paul, Antony, and Benedict traditionally formed a sort of holy trinity of Western founders of monastic life: for Maurus to share in their passing dates also promoted his inclusion in the evolving myth of monastic origins. Maurus was buried on the right side of the altar of the chapel of Saint Martin, as he had earlier requested, from whence his relics began to work many miracles. In a brief concluding section, Odo mentions the return of the two remaining companions of Maurus to Montecassino, then closes the Life with a brief chronology of Maurus’ career.65 This dark and abrupt conclusion to Odo’s otherwise optimistic narrative invites investigation. Most likely, actual remembered events required this dénouement. A major natural disaster had in fact fallen upon western Francia just at the time when, according to Odo’s chronology, mass death occurred at Glanfeuil. This was the so-called Justinianic Plague of the sixth and seventh centuries, recently estimated to have been as destructive as the more famous Black Death of the later Middle Ages.66 Outbreaks of smallpox and bubonic plague began in the 540s and continued until about 750. Most occurred during the sixth century, as we know from Gregory of Tours. Gregory reported that plague ravaged the Loire valley from the 540s to 590, dates that correspond with Odo’s chronology of Maurus’ career there. In the 580s at Marseilles, “like a fire in standing grain, it swept the whole city with the flame of disease,” and in 574 Gregory reported more than 700 bodies lay lined up in Saint Peter’s church at Clermont.67 An account strikingly similar to Odo’s appeared in a ninth-century Life of the seventh-century Saint Aichardus: 900 monks and 1500 servants, half of his large community, were said to have succumbed. Like Maurus, Aichardus was forewarned and prepared his monks for the calamity.68 It thus appears that Odo refashioned a confused memory of the Justinianic plague into a dramatic encounter between the aging abbot and the Devil over control of Francia. The story was probably so large an event

65 LM , 68. 66 Lester Little, Plague and the End of Antiquity (Cambridge UP., 2007), 9–11; 146–

47. 67 Libri Historiarum, 442. 68 See the “Excursus” below for a discussion of these similarities.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

53

in the abbey’s communal memory that Odo could not change its basic outlines, let alone ignore it entirely. Nonetheless, the final scenes bring Odo’s narrative to an abrupt and, for a saint’s Life, an unusually somber conclusion.

The Excavations of 1898–99: Support for the Life of Maurus or Perpetuating Odo’s Fictions? The widespread veneration of Maurus throughout the Middle Ages depended ultimately on the acceptance of Odo’s Life of Maurus as a truthful account. By the late nineteenth century, however, its veracity had been seriously undermined, first by Protestant polemics and later by secular critics. In an effort to respond to this skepticism and to reconstruct the early history of the abbey and its cult in a “scientific” way, in 1898 the abbot of Glanfeuil, Edouard-Jean Coëtlosquet, commissioned an archeological investigation of the abbey’s earliest levels. While that project was abandoned in 1900 and many of its conclusions contested, it produced substantial material evidence for the existence and contours of an early ecclesiastical site at Glanfeuil. It therefore requires attention as both a complement and challenge to Odo’s narrative. The archeologist chosen by the abbot, the Jesuit Camille de la Croix, was self-taught but well-regarded. He had investigated several other early medieval sites. Since de la Croix believed in the historical accuracy of the Life of Maurus, he shared the abbot’s partisan goal for the project. He would, in his own words “search for the remains of the monuments described by [Odo’s texts].”69 The project was thus compromised from the outset by preconceived ideas of what de la Croix expected to discover and the limits placed on his investigation by the abbot, which precluded excavating beyond the structures which appeared to confirm Odo’s text. As we have seen, the Life of Maurus described the original four churches of Maurus’ abbey thusly: Four churches had been constructed within the monastery itself: The largest of these, in which the brothers gathered for the daily offices, was consecrated in honor of Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles; the second, 69 Henri Leclercq, “Glanfeuil,” Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. Henri Cabrol, 15 v. in 29 (Paris: Letouzey et An´e, 1907–1953), 6/1, col. 1288. Hereafter cited as DACL.

54

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fig. 3.1 De la Croix’s schematic of the Glanfeuil excavation (From DACL 6/1, cols. 1291–92)

as was noted earlier, in honor of Blessed Martin; and the third, smaller than the others, in veneration of Saint Severinus; and the fourth, which was constructed in the form of a lofty four-sided tower at the entrance of the monastery, was dedicated to the holy Archangel Michael.70

In early July 1898, de la Croix began digging at the midpoint of the northern slope facing the Loire. He opened several trenches, totaling almost a mile, in several directions (see Fig. 3.1). Of the main church of the abbey, Saint Peter’s (later S. Salvator), de la Croix found no trace. He attributed the absence of this major structure by accepting Odo’s claim

70 LM , 46.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

55

that, in the mid-eighth century, Glanfeuil’s lay-abbot, Count Gaidulf, had destroyed it: He set about ruining the entire monastery. He even dug up the foundations of several buildings, as will be clear to anyone inspecting them today, as the gouged-out substructures of various buildings are still visible. In the end he did not spare even the churches of that holy place.71

The second church, however, dedicated to Saint Martin, still existed above ground in its twelfth-century form, though much reconstructed over the centuries, so de la Croix also began digging in that area (Fig. 3.2). 18 inches beneath the twelfth-century pavement of Saint Matins, he uncovered an earlier foundation composed of carefully fitted quarry stones bound by white mortar of high quality, which de la Croix identified as sixth century. The thick walls and arcade were strong enough to carry a stone vault. These elements formed part of a nave-like space consisting of a wide central aisle and two narrow side aisles, the whole structure measuring 65 feet in length by 40 feet wide. The extreme right rear pillar of the main arcade also remained. The small scale of these remains was typical of Merovingian churches.72 De la Croix saw parallels between the structural elements of this nave with that of the church of Saint Apollonaire in Classe (Ravenna) completed in 549. He therefore dated his find to that time, concluding that his “church of Saint Martin” shared the style of known “primitive” churches.73 However, it should be noted that this plan was not unique to the sixth century: it was widely used from the fourth through the seventh centuries.74

71 HT, 5. 72 Edward James, “Archaeology and the Merovingian Monastery,” Columbanus and

Merovingian Monasticism, eds. Howard Clarke and Mary Brennan (Oxford [Oxfordshire]: B.A.R., 1981), 44. 73 Croix, Comille de la, Fouilles archéologiques de l’Abbaye de Saint Maur de Glanfeuil: Maine-et-Loire: entreprises en 1898–99 d”après des textes anciens: mémoire lu à l’Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres dans la séance du 28 avril 1899, 13. Online at https:// books.google.com/books.). 74 For relevant examples: http://www.classichistory.net/archives/early-christian-archit ecture.

56

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fig. 3.2 Structure beneath Saint Martin’s twelfth-century chapel: (DACL 6/1, 1294, Fig. 5314.)

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

57

Fig. 3.3 Stone sarcophagus from Glanfeuil: tomb of Saint Maurus(?) (From DACL, 6/1, cols. 1295–96)

De la Croix also observed that the walls of a trapezoidal enclosure jutted out to the northeast to the right of the “nave” of Saint Martin’s chapel. He hypothesized that this was the cell to which Maurus had retired in preparation for death, described by Odo as “a small dwelling which had been constructed for him next to the church of Blessed Martin.”75 De la Croix said, however, that he did not insist on this identification.76 According to Odo’s Life of Maurus, the abbot was buried in the church of Saint Martín, and in the area of these remains de la Croix unearthed a sarcophagus of shell stone (Fig. 3.3). Its cover was decorated with interwoven chevrons, while the sides were of incised stone.77 De la Croix claimed that these elements showed that the piece was late Merovingian. Most scholars concurred.78 This sarcophagus is conceivably the first resting place of the bones which Abbot Odo’s predecessor, Abbot Gauzlin, would claim to have discovered in the church of St Martin in 845 and identified as those of Saint Maurus.79 However, Léon Maître, among others, was not convinced, arguing at the time that placing the relics of Maurus in a fairly plain tomb next to the altar was at odds with the elaborate crypts and

75 LM , 62. 76 LM , 96. 77 De la Croix identified the stones’ origin as the local quarry at Doue-la-Fontaine, which was a dependent priory of Glanfeuil by the ninth century. Fouilles, 14. 78 Leclercq, DACL, 6/1, col. 1296. In 1936, J. Hubert accepted this Merovingian dating, comparing the Glanfeuil sarcophagus with several other Nuestrian and East Breton tombs of the same style. Jean Hubert, L’art pré-roman (Chartres, 1936), 11. 79 HT , 22.

58

J. B. WICKSTROM

reliquaries with which Merovingian saints’ relics were usually honored.80 J. Hourlier responded that, if the burial had taken place in the atmosphere of danger and fear of disease that Odo described at the death of Maurus, there would have been no search for a more fitting tomb for the founder.81 De la Croix went on to observe that he found several other tombs in the same area, but this coffin was placed away from the others toward the side of the altar. The later tombs, he suggested, were of a very different style, likely those of persons privileged to be interred near the saint’s sarcophagus.82 500 feet to the northwest of his “church of Saint Martin,” de la Croix uncovered the foundations of a smaller church-like structure, which he identified as the small chapel dedicated to Saint Severinus in Odo’s text (Fig. 3.4). This structure is 35 feet in length by 10 feet wide, consisting of a single “nave” with a semicircular “apse.” A six-foot square hollowed out receptacle (B) occupied the middle of the nave, which de la Croix thought might have served for baptisms by immersion, noting that Merovingian monasteries served the local population for such events. He also asserted that the composition of the mortar of the columns and the style of their bases were identical to those of the nearby “church of Saint Martin,” indicating they were contemporary structures, datable to the sixth century.83 On either side of the “nave” of the “church of St Severinus” were two engaged columns which supported a triumphal arch. The bases of two of these pilasters, decorated with griffins’ feet, were visible; they were re-worked on one side, probably in the twelfth century, since they are identical to column bases found in the apsidal area of the main abbey church.84 Finally, de la Croix identified a structure with several large columns and wall sections (unshaded elements in Fig. 3.6) embedded in a circular structure, located in the northwest corner of the medieval cloister, as the 80 Leon Maitre, “Les fouilles du monastère de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil et les conclusions à en tirer,” RA, 41 (1900), 8. 81 J. Hourlier, “Les Fouilles de Glanfeuil et M. Léon Maitre,”RA, 41 (1900): 239. 82 De la Croix, Fouilles, 15. 83 De la Croix, Fouilles, 16. The English abbey of Evesham, for instance, had a baptistery in its nave for the surrounding community till the twelfth century, when the function was taken over by parish churches, Cox, Evesham, 190. 84 DACL, vi/1 col. 1297.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

59

Fig. 3.4 “Church of Saint Severinus” (From: de la Croix, Fouilles, PL IV.)

fourth church, dedicated to St Michael, and described by Odo as “constructed in the form of a lofty four-sided tower at the entrance of the monastery.”85 He assigned the embedded remains to the sixth century on

85 LM, 46.

60

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fig. 3.5 “nymphaeum” (schematic): (de la Croix, Fouilles, Planche V)

the basis of mortaring technique and brick decoration, while identifying earlier elements as “Gallo-Roman.”86 (Fig. 3.5).

86 De la Croix, Fouilles, 17–18.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

61

Fig. 3.6 “nymphaeum” (drawing). From DACL 6/1 col. 1289–90, Fig. 5309

These “earlier remains” in particular captured de la Croix’s interest. They formed a large basin, 15 feet across, with a stone pedestal in the middle. This was surrounded by a five-foot-wide ditch, behind which were two six-foot-thick buttressing walls. Behind the second of these, 40 columns extended upward, arranged in groups of two or three. Fragments of lead piping remained, which de la Croix identified as conduits for water to flow in and out of the structure. The style suggested to de la Croix a nymphaeum or monumental fountain dedicated to some Roman deity. He believed that tile fragments in the central area represented fastenings for a pagan cult statue that stood upon a “pedestal at the center of the structure.”87 (Fig. 3.6). De la Croix concluded that this “fountain complex” was part of a late Roman villa, based on the materials used in the walls, along with tile and 87 De la Croix, Fouilles, 9–11.

62

J. B. WICKSTROM

pottery remains. He also noted in an unpublished report that the foundation of the structure was on the same level as known Roman ruins about 60 feet to the south.88 He concluded that the monastery of Glanfeuil was erected around and above these structures in the sixth century. At some point, the level of the nymphaeum was raised to serve as a lavarum for the monastery, probably in the twelfth century.89 It was not unusual for early medieval monasteries to make use of existing buildings, and more recent excavations suggest that the occupiers tended to demolish and rebuild Roman work, rather than simply to settle within it.90 Indeed, de la Croix found far fewer Roman elements than exist in most excavated Merovingian sites. There were no Roman coins, inscriptions, or mosaics. There were techniques of masonry and wall construction and some pottery identified by de la Croix as late Roman, a dating which was confirmed by contemporary experts invited to the site.91 We do not know at what moment this site became a monastic community: monks often moved into such structures gradually and informally.92 Odo’s date for this event, 543, is dictated by his narrative rather than historical evidence. It is the traditional date of Benedict’s death and of the first appearance of his Rule in France. Nonetheless, de la Croix had established that ecclesiasticalappearing ruins existed on the site that likely dates from the Merovingian period. Other than the two church-like structures of “Saint Martin” and “Saint Severinus” and the “nymphaeum/tower church of Saint Michael,” de la Croix found little else: nothing which suggested monastic sleeping quarters or a refectory, a monastic enclosure or cemetery. It is likely, of course,

88 Jacques Mallet, L’art roman de l’ancien Anjou (Paris 1984), 175. 89 See below, p. 65. 90 J Percival: “Villas and Monasteries in Late Roman Gaul,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 48 (1997): 1–21. For a recent summary of scholarship on this issue, Sébastien Bully and Eleonora Destefanis, “Archaeology of the Earliest Monasteries in Italy and France,” The Cambridge History of Medieval Monasticism in the Latin Wes t (Cambridge, 2019, Kindle edition), 247, Kindle. (Hereafter cited as CHMM ). A remarkably similar reuse of an ancient structure is found at Susteren monastery in Germany, Janneke Raaijmakers, “Missions on the Northern and Eastern Frontiers,” CHMM , I, 488. 91 De la Croix, Fouilles, 10–11 and 21. 92 Bouchard, Rewriting Saints, 196–7.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

63

if these had existed, they were constructed of wood and so left no trace.93 Odo’s statement that the lay abbot, Gaidulf, laid waste to the abbey in the 750s would also help explain the paucity of the remains overall. After De la Croix had been digging for about six months, Abbot Coëtlosquet invited several members of French archeological associations to the abbey for the purpose of assessing his findings. They viewed both the excavations themselves and de la Croix’s daily summaries, though they do not appear to have independently explored the excavations.94 They reached the following conclusions: 1. Beneath the still visible twelfth-century abbey church, Gallo-Roman ruins exist, recognizable by the pattern of brickwork of the walls, the composition of the mortar and the character of the tiles and pottery shards. 2. Beneath the existing church of Saint Martin, there was an earlier, “primitive” structure consisting of a nave, with two side aisles. 3. Within that structure, on the right-hand side, there is an ancient sarcophagus whose characteristics identify it as Merovingian. It had been excavated and was separated from the other tombs in that area.95 Despite this expert confirmation of some of de la Croix’s central discoveries, his interpretations were strongly challenged at a meeting of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in April of the following year.96 M. Dieulafoy claimed that de la Croix presented no clear evidence that the “chapel of S Severinus” was a sixth-century structure, disputing de la Croix’s assertion that it was contemporary with the early “church of Saint Martin.” Rather it was, Dieulafoy argued, of the style of the

93 Darlene Brooks Hedstrom and Hendrick Dey, “The Archaeology of the Earliest Monasteries,” in CHMM , 89. 94 R. Triggers, “Notes sur les fouilles de l’abbaye de Glanfeuil,” Revue historique et archéologique de Maine, 44 (1898): 95. 95 De la Croix, Fouilles, 22–23. 96 Croix, Camille de la: “Fouilles du territoire de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil

(Maine-et-Loire),” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres, 43/2 (1899): 243–47.

64

J. B. WICKSTROM

“new” church of St Martin, which he claimed was thirteenth century.97 The elements of the Saint Severinus church, Dieulafoy argued further, were not otherwise found in France before the tenth century. The style of columns and walls of the “Saint Martin chapel,” on the other hand, were most likely later—from the time of Charlemagne rather than from the sixth century, as de la Croix claimed. However, Dieulafoy admitted that he had only examined the plans, not the actual excavations and that he was only suggesting possibilities. Léon Maitre, archivist of LoireInférieure, however, claimed that the large rectangular pillars of the “Saint Martin chapel,” with its thick walls, thin arcades, and narrow aisles were never seen elsewhere before the eleventh century.98 J. Hourlier argued, in response to Maitre, that there were too few remains of Merovingian French architecture to say with certainty that a certain structure could not come from that earlier period.99 In a separate review of de la Croix’s work in 1900, the architectural historian, Camille Enlart, went further, stating that the columns and their bases of “Saint Severinus” were “incontestably eleventh century.”100 Enlart went on to claim that if the structure was in fact sixth century, it “confounds all of our data on that period.” Its massive rectangular pillars, its thick walls, its modest arcades, and narrow side aisles were not characteristic of Merovingian (or Carolingian) churches: “At first glance, one thinks of the eleventh century.”101 In 1938, J. Hubert argued that the style of the “Saint Martin’s chapel,” that of a small, vaulted basilica, was not exceptional in the pre-Carolingian world.102 He argued, for instance, that the plan of the naves of Glanfeuil’s “church of Saint Martin” and of Saint-Victor de Marseilles are identical, dating the latter church to the mid-fifth century. Both naves, 97 These elements included the exterior buttress and the semi-circular apse, the narrow-

ness of the opening to the apse and the pillars lying between the apse and the nave. De la Croix, “Fouilles,” 244–45. 98 De la Croix, “Les fouilles,” 6–7. 99 Jacques Hourlier, “Les Fouilles de Glanfeuil et M. Léon Maitre,” RA, 41 (1900):

236. 100 Camille Enlart, “Review of C. de la Croix,” Mélanges archéologiques: Fouilles archéologiques de l’abbaye de Saint- Maur de Glanfeuil, Bibliothèque de l’école des Chartes,, 61 (1900): 209. 101 Enlart, “Review,” 210. 102 Hubert, L’art pré-roman, 11.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

65

Hubert adds, are small, entirely vaulted basilicas, examples of a Gallic style which had appeared in the fifth century. In their massive stone walls, they were “built to defy the centuries.”103 Saint Mary’s church at the seventhcentury abbey of Nivelles also had this two-aisle plan, which Edward James described as “most unusual for a Merovingian church.”104 James also concluded that the one-aisled rectilinear church with a hemispherical apse was typical of Merovingian churches.105 One might add in support of the view of the sixth-century date of the “church of St Martin” that most experts agreed that the sarcophagus found there was Merovingian (unless the sarcophagus had been placed there later). As for de la Croix’s nymphaeum, Enlart and others argued that the structure actually appeared to be a monastic lavarum dating from the eleventh or twelfth century. Such arguments, of course, do not prove that the structure was not originally Gallo-Roman, only that its elements had been extensively remodeled when the structure had been adapted for monastic use in later centuries. Edward James’ more recent (1981) conclusions on Merovingian monastic buildings reveal why such a variety of opinion existed regarding the style and dating of Glanfeuil: “Each monastic founder either had his own ideas of how a monastery ought to be built …or else he was, for economic or physical reasons, or through sheer convenience, persuaded to adapt existing structures.”106 De la Croix’s excavations were by no means completed when Abbot Coëtlosquet called a halt to the work in January of 1900, sensing that anti-clerical trends in French politics were threatening the very existence of monastic life.107 How is one to assess de la Croix’s excavations? First, the work was undertaken more than a century ago and was not conducted by a trained archeologist. The complexity of the site itself precludes solid judgments about its significance. If, as Odo claimed, many of the early buildings may have been destroyed by Glanfeuil’s predatory lay abbot, the site 103 Hubert, L’art pré-roman, 48–49. Hubert also includes in his comparison some sixth-century Asia Minor churches built in the same style. 104 Edward James, “Archaeology,” 43. 105 James, “Archaeology,” 44. 106 James, “Archaeology,” 36. 107 Christophe Rousseau-Lefebvre, “Quand les bénédictines de Solesmes étaient à Saint-

Maur de Glanfeuil,” Mémoires: Académie des sciences, belles-lettres et arts d’Angers, 8-S-239: 18, Supplément, T. 23 (2008), 210–12.

66

J. B. WICKSTROM

would have been largely rebuilt. Finally, the conduct of de la Croix’s work and his interpretations of his discoveries were not disinterested; they were confessedly intended to confirm the accuracy of Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus. De la Croix’s interpretation of elements in the nymphaeum as the remains of the tower-church of Saint Michael is only the most egregious example of his preconceived ideas directing his conclusions. De la Croix’s excavations in fact parallel Odo’s creation of the Life of Maurus in a suggestive way. Both the Carolingian abbot and the nineteenth-century archeologist were concerned to promote the cult of Maurus and thereby to advance the fortunes of Glanfeuil abbey. What de la Croix “discovered’ was made to conform to the narrative of Odo’s Life of Maurus. The many criticisms of de la Croix show that almost all of his work could be interpreted differently given a different set of assumptions. But while Odo’s narratives and de la Croix’s excavations had similar goals, the receptions of their work were entirely disparate: in the ninth century, when Carolingian monasticism was expanding and fashioning a new, reformed image, Odo’s work was eagerly accepted as a true account of the mission of Benedict’s first disciple to France. In the early twentiethcentury France, however, when monasticism was widely viewed with indifference or hostility, de la Croix’s excavations were widely criticized and never resumed.108 In summary, de la Croix did demonstrate that likely ecclesiastical structures lay beneath the site of Glanfeuil abbey and that at least some of these dated from Merovingian times. While nothing in de la Croix’s findings suggest a cult of Saint Maurus was associated with these structures, nothing he discovered definitively discredits Odo’s narrative.109 The existence of these ruins also reinforces the claim of this study that Odo’s Life of Maurus to some degree rested on real remembered events as well as on imaginative fictions. However, that may be, it was not these Merovingian ruins which provided either the material or spiritual foundation on which the cult of Maurus would be established. This was the achievement of the restorers

108 In 1970, after some accidents at the excavation pit, the site was filled in and given over to Chenin grape production. 109 This central point was made by Abbot André Renaudin in “Abbaye de Saint-Maursur-Loire au xix e siècle,” La Province d’Anjou, 7 (1932): 125–26.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

67

and rulers of the new abbey built over these ruins in the 830s; so, it is to the rebirth of this latter complex that we now turn. Excursus 1: The Chronology of the Merovingian Kings and the Life of Maurus In making the case that Life of Maurus was a Carolingian forgery, modern historians have made much of Odo’s chronological errors, arguing that they show that he was not familiar with the events he was narrating. My analysis, however, indicates that Odo was more attentive to chronology than is usually admitted and more in touch with local memories and traditions than historians have allowed. For example, the first of Odo’s chronological “errors” that modern critics cite involve the established fact that King Theudebert died in 547/8 and therefore could not have been present at the dedication of the monastery, which in terms of the Life’s internal chronology, occurred in 551. However, Odo was off by only four years, a minor error considering that the events had occurred 300 years earlier and that Odo had few sources to help him construct a chronology for the sixth century. It also has been remarked that no source other than Odo’s Life of Maurus suggests that King Theudebert ever ruled in Anjou.110 However, it is likely that he did in fact possess authority in Anjou in the 540s, though he was largely active to the south and east of Anjou. The territorial arrangements of this period are difficult to establish, and boundaries of royal authority appear to have been very imprecise, with many civitates owing service to more than one king.111 It also deserves notice that Odo’s ninth-century description of Theudebert’s piety and especially his generosity to Glanfeuil reflect that king’s sixth-century reputation as the most pious of the Merovingian rulers and a major patron of churches: Gregory of Tours said of him,

110 An additional chronological problem is presented in HT , 22, which states that Bertulf had been abbot during the time of King Chlothar. However, Chlothar died in 561, while the LM, 63 makes clear that Bertulf obtained the abbacy of Glanfeuil in 580, twenty years after Chlothar’s death. Again, it may be that Odo should not be held to accuracy regarding dates from three hundred years earlier but rather given credit for accurately describing the general political situation of that remote time. 111 Ian Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms 450–751 (London, 1964), 60–1.

68

J. B. WICKSTROM

And he [Theudebert] was established in his kingdom, and showed himself great, and distinguished by every goodness. For he ruled his kingdom with justice, respecting the bishops, making gifts to the churches, relieving the poor, and doing kindnesses to many persons with a pious and generous heart.112

A contemporary bishop, Aurelian of Avranches, also wrote a letter praising the king’s virtues in the highest terms.113 Finally, according to Odo’s narrative, Glanfeuil received several royal grants from these three kings during its first years, but that no further royal grants were mentioned between the death of Chlothar in 561 and the end of Odo’s life in 583 (according to the internal chronology of the Life of Maurus ). This twenty-two-year period, after the division of the Merovingian kingdom in 561 on Clothar’s death, was a time of increasing civil strife among the third generation of Merovingian kings. During such times, an absence of royal gifts to the abbey is exactly what one would expect. Excursus 2: Odo of Glanfeuil and the Anonymous Life of Saint Aichardus of Jumièges on the decimation of their monasteries The parallels between the final scenes of Maurus’ life at Glanfeuil narrated by Abbot Odo and those of another sixth-century holy abbot: Aichardus of Jumièges are striking.114 In the ninth-century Anonymous Life of St Aichardus, as the abbot was praying in the middle of the night, an angel announced that an evil spirit, referred to as a pestilential malignancy (maligno pestifero), was being permitted to carry of half of the community by means of a destructive plague (pestifera clade). God had willed this for the correction of the unfaithful: “whose bodies would be destroyed so that their souls might be saved.” Aichardus then announced the prophecy to the community, urging them to prepare for the approach of death, and emphasizing the unimportance of bodily destruction compared with the salvation of their souls. Shortly after the predicted disaster had struck, like Maurus, Aichardus succumbed after receiving the sacrament. Both

112 Libri historiarum, 123. 113 MGH , Epist. III: Epistolae Merow. et Karol. aevi (Berlin, 1892), 124–6. 114 BHL, 181.

3

CONSTRUCTING THE SHRINE AND ITS STORY

69

were buried “very quickly,” another detail which suggests the presence of plague. Miracles occurred at their gravesites thereafter. The two Lives also show some broad structural similarities. Both have, as their subject, a reformed abbot who moves from one monastery to another, but otherwise the treatments of their lives are not notably similar. The Life of Saint Aichardus’ account of their abbot’s death is much fuller than Odo’s, occupying ten sections in the Acta Sanctorum, compared to only three sections in Odo’s narrative. There is no description of the cause of Saint Aichardus’ death. If there was in fact a dependency between the two works, rather than a similarity in local traditions of the Great Plague, it is likely borrowings from Odo. His Life of Maurus was already in the libraries of nearby Frankish monasteries by the 870s, when the life of Saint Aichardus was composed.115

115 For the context of the Life of Saint Archardis, see John Howe, “The Hagiography of Jumièges,” L’hagiographie du haut moyen âge en Gaule du Nord, ed. Martin Heinzelmann (2001), 99.

CHAPTER 4

Ruin, Restoration, and Reform

Abbot Odo’s problematic Life of Maurus and the 1899 excavations undertaken by Père de la Croix provide the only testimonies to a preCarolingian establishment on the site of Glanfeuil abbey. However, we are fortunate to have a history of the abbey and the cult of Maurus, also written by Abbot Odo. Unlike the Life of Maurus, Odo admitted writing this work, which narrates the history of the abbey during his own times, from about 750 to 869. This text was, as we noted, inserted into the Rorigo bible immediately after the Life of Maurus and entitled A little book (libellus) that recounts a succession of miracles from the present time, which the Divine majesty willed to work through Blessed Maurus, set down in good faith by Abbot Odo.1 Ever since its inclusion in the AASS in the seventeenth century, however, the work has been referred to as the Historia translationis sancti Mauri or some similar title. While this title is an inaccurate description of the work’s contents, this title (hereafter abbreviated as HT ) will be used in this study in order to maintain continuity with earlier work and for ease of identification. In the Rorigo manuscript, the Historia was not formally divided into several lessonsections as was the Life of Maurus; instead, 12 divisions are indicated by majuscule initials placed at various points within the text. These were 1 BnF, MS lat. 3, fol. 402r. BHL entitles this work Miracula auctore eodem Odone. Following this, my translation of this work was entitled “The Little Book of Miracles,” Wickstrom, Life and Miracles, 115–43.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_4

71

72

J. B. WICKSTROM

likely intended to mark off 12 readings for use during the Office of Matins. The latest date mentioned by Odo in the Historia translationis is 869.2 Based on this, it is likely that both the Life of Maurus and the Historia were composed shortly after Abbot Odo and his community took refuge at Fossés in the previous year. The Historia opens with a statement that it was composed in response to the request of Adelmodus, archdeacon of Le Mans, who had earlier requested information on Maurus, to which Odo had responded by producing the Life of Maurus. In his earlier response to the archdeacon, Odo had promised to add a “little book” (libellus ) recounting “the restoration of the above-mentioned abbey, the regular observance that was re-instated there, and the wonders that occurred there which many men of high reputation who are still alive vouch for.”3 As this quote suggests, the Historia was by no means a simple chronicle of events. It was intended, along with the Life of Maurus to promote the saint’s cult, to serve as a consolation of his uprooted the community. It also served to celebrate the achievements of the Rorigonid familia who restored the abbey and governed it for 50 years after its restoration. Above all, it presented Glanfeuil as a model of how the general monastic reform regulations of Benedict of Aniane and the Aachen synods of 816–819 could be implemented locally in individual monasteries. While Odo’s Historia did not have the complex verification issues that the pseudonymous Life of Maurus presented, Odo was concerned about its credibility and so carefully presented its sources. Most important, he claimed that he had merely collected the oral testimony of witnesses and organized them into written form. This mode of presentation would have eased the acceptance of the Historia, in that he claimed that he did not author the work, but merely passed it on as a collation of oral testimony on the history of the Glanfeuil community. Thus, in the preface to the Historia, Odo takes great pains to name his informants and establish their bona fides. The testimony of eyewitnesses is still today a major tool for deciding “what happened” and carried even greater weight in an age when oral memories provided the major

2 HT , 41. 3 HT , 1.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

73

repository of community traditions.4 Odo describes his chief witnesses as especially “venerable and virtuous.” They were Godfrey, the abbot of Fossés, Bildechildis, the co-restorer of the abbey with Count Rorigo, and a priest from Glanfeuil named Berengar. The first of these, Abbot Godfrey, (or Gauzfred or Godfrid) of Fossés, “foremost among them both in high rank and in perfect holiness of life” who, Odo adds, had been a monk at Glanfeuil under Abbot Theodrad, “for a lengthy period.”5 The mention of this informant confirms other evidence that the Historia translationis was composed after Abbot Odo and the monks of Glanfeuil had come to Fossés in Paris, where Godfrey ruled until Odo replaced him sometime after the communities merged in 868. So, the two men had ample opportunity to discuss Glanfeuil’s history with each other. It is likely that Godfrey was a member of the Rorigonid familia himself.6 Odo’s second informant was Bildechildis, widow of Count Rorigo. Odo credits her, along with her husband, for supervising the rebuilding of Glanfeuil.7 Odo refers to her as “Abbess Bildechildis, now specially honored in her widowhood.” The prominence that her testimony is given here reflects the current view that “aristocratic and royal women characteristically acted as repositories of family memories… and intercessors for, and commemorators of, dead menfolk.”8 It also supports the suggestion of Herbert Bloch and others that the reconstruction of Glanfeuil may have been more her initiative than the count’s.9 It was of course not uncommon for noble widows to become abbesses, but acquiring this office after her active role in rebuilding Glanfeuil argues for a genuine 4 There is an extensive literature on the relationship of orality to writing. The particular issue here—the relation of oral testimony to written accounts based on it—is explored by Patrick Geary, “Oblivion between Orality and Textuality in the Tenth Century,” in Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual, Memory, Historiography, ed. Gerd Althoff, et al. (Cambridge UP, 2002), 111–122. 5 HT , 5. 6 Variants of the name “Godfrey” were common among the Rorigonids. Godfrey is

mentioned specifically in the text of HT as a witness to the appearance of a heavenly choir at Glanfeuil under Abbot Gauzlin (HT , 21). Hägermann also believes Godfrey ruled Fossés for some years after the Glanfeuil community arrived: Das Polyptychon, 9 esp. note 48. 7 HT , 5. 8 Michael Innes, “Memory, Orality and Literacy in an Early Medieval Society,” Past

and Present, 158 (1998), 26. 9 MCMA, ii, 270.

74

J. B. WICKSTROM

religious sensibility. Bildechildis ruled over an unnamed religious house, likely in Paris, where her stepson, Louis, royal chancellor had been the leading ecclesiastical figure from 840 until his death in 867, when he was replaced by Bildechildis’ own son, Gauzlin. The third informant was a priest named Berenger, apparently a longtime resident of Glanfeuil, but not a monastic. Odo bestows on Berenger a special status: honoring him with the title of “our venerable father owing to his wholly admirable life, especially his zeal for holy prayer.”10 Bestowing such high accolades on this obscure witness may have inclined readers to accept his testimony: as one who was present at the main events of the Glanfeuil community but standing somewhat apart from it. Odo then takes pains to explain that he named these informants, “known for their virtue and venerability” so that no one should doubt the truth of his narrative. To these three he added “almost all of the brothers of the community, who witnessed the miracles Maurus performed at his shrine.”11 As we shall see, miracles abound in the Historia and have multiple meanings. Odo usually has these as well vouched for by “virtuous witnesses” or other participants: on one occasion, however, he presents himself as a witness to a miracle. His account exhibits an uncharacteristically emotional response of wonder, further encouraging faith in his saint’s powers.12 Once he had constructed his prefatory material in a way that would “compel and encourage belief,” Odo presented the three major goals of the work itself: it was intended, he asserted, to be “about the restoration of the above-mentioned abbey, and of the regular observance that was reinstated there, and the wonders that [in consequence] occurred there”.13 The ensuing narrative makes clear that the second of these goals, monastic reform through adoption of the Rule of Benedict, was paramount—as it was for many authors of Carolingian hagiographies.14

10 HT , 5. 11 HT , 5. 12 HT , 35–36. 13 Life and Miracles, pp. 59–61 and HT , 1. 14 Kelly Gibson’s recent discussion of “rewritten” Carolingian monastic hagiogra-

phies demonstrates that monastic reform formed a major thread throughout many of

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

75

Odo’s commitment to reform dominates his narrative of the restoration of the abbey from its opening pages. He thus begins by stating that from the time of Maurus’ death to the reign of Pepin III in the 750s “the observance of monastic discipline was perfectly maintained.” Glanfeuil in consequence enjoyed a “golden age” with its full complement of 140 monks, enjoying “a great abundance of all things.”15 Odo’s claim that the community at Glanfeuil observed the Rule from its foundation by Maurus in the mid-sixth century is based on his assumption of a pure, primitive observance of the Rule “from the beginning,” a common stance among early medieval writers.16 His narrative of the destruction of Glanfeuil’s “golden age” and its restoration in the 830s is presented as a story of decline and revival in the observance of Benedict’s Rule (Fig. 4.1).

The Lay-Abbot Gaidulf; The Rule Abandoned Odo claimed that Glanfeuil’s original “golden age” came to an end with King Pepin III’s grant of the abbey around 750 to a certain Gaidulf, a warlord from Ravenna. There is little reason to doubt the essential accuracy of Odo’s account here. The grant resembled several made by Pepin III to help control the volatile situation in his newly conquered lands in Lombardy. In two expeditions to Italy, in 750 and 756, Pepin had twice defeated Aitulf, the Lombard king. After his second victory, Pepin rewarded faithful Italian allies with various properties in Francia as well as in Italy: these grants provided Pepin with a network of high-ranking supporters in his campaign to maintain control of northern Italy. Though no account of the Italian wars mentions any Gaidulf, a figure of the same name obtained two monasteries close to Glanfeuil in the 750s: SaintLézin (Blaison) and Saint Aubin (Angers) and perhaps other territories as well.17 Odo describes Gaidulf’s “cruelty” and “barbarism” at great length. Only 14 of the 140 monks established by Maurus as the maximum these works, Kelly Gibson, “Rewriting History: Carolingian Reform and Controversy in Biographies of Saints,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 2011, esp. 161–62. 15 HT , 8. 16 Bouchard, Rewriting, 2. 17 Leclercq speculates that Gaidulf may have received the entire county of Anjou. He

does admit there are objections to this view: “Glanfeuil,” DACL, 6/1, 1306 and note 4.

76

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fig. 4.1 The Carolingian Empire c. 840 (Daniel Huffman)

sustainable population of Glanfeuil survived his depredations. Soon, the few remaining monks could no longer live “the rigorous life provided for by the holy Rule,” so, after some discussion, they “put aside their monastic garments for the vestments of canons.”18 There are many examples from the Carolingian period of monastic communities becoming houses of canons (and vice versa).19 Odo’s implication that canons were 18 HT , 8. 19 Other examples of monastic communities replaced by canons in the early and

mid-Carolingian period include Saint-Marcel-lès-Chalon, Saint-Symphorien of Autun,

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

77

less “rigorous” in their community life than monks, however, was a later, ninth-century stance of monastic reformers. Martin Claussen has argued that, for the early Carolingians, monks and canons, at least as reflected in the Rule of Chrodegang, simply performed different functions in the church.20 This originally neutral distinction between monks and canons— that the latter could own property—was by the ninth century evolving into a negative judgment on canons, since ideals of holiness, based largely on the increasingly popular Rule of Benedict, were insisting on individual poverty. Thus, as a late ninth-century monastic reformer, Odo re-presented what may have been a shift in property rights under Gaidulf (if indeed the incident occurred at all) to a dramatic story of the forced abandonment of Benedict’s Rule. The story also allowed Odo to set the stage for the restoration of that Rule at Glanfeuil by the abbot and monks of Fossés in the 830s, a major narrative thread in the later chapters of Odo’s Historia. Odo completed this story of spiritual destruction by noting that finally even the few canons who remained were forced to leave. Lord Gaidulf allowed only five clerics “of the lowest sort” to remain and minimally maintain Maurus’ shrine. At that point, the physical destruction of the abbey began. Odo claims that. He even dug up the foundations of several buildings, as will be clear to anyone inspecting them today, as the gouged-out substructures of various workshops are still visible. In the end he did not spare even the church buildings of that holy place, saying, “As the Lord ordered the slaughter of the killing to begin at his holy place, [Cf. Ezk. 9:6] so the ruination of my demolition will begin in the holy places and move boldly to the remaining structures.”21

This seemingly straightforward narrative, however, conceals many difficulties. First, there is the appropriation of monastic lands by King Pepin III. Both later medieval writers and modern historians have usually remembered the Carolingians as pious protectors of the church, particularly after the time of Charles Martel. Likewise, Pepin III has been

Saint-Loup of Troyes, Sainte-Columbe of Sens, Montier-en-Der, Saint-Etienene of Dijon, listed in Bouchard, Rewriting, 234–240. Also Saint Denis and Fossés, Mayke De Jong, “Carolingian Monasticism: The Power of Prayer,” in NCMH, 2, 631f. 20 Martin Claussen, The Reform of the Frankish Church (Cambridge UP., 2004), 149. 21 HT , 8.

78

J. B. WICKSTROM

accorded high marks for limiting, if not entirely ending, the earlier Arnulfid practice of placing ecclesiastical properties at the disposal of lay soldiers to finance military campaigns.22 Yet later church reform councils sponsored by Pepin and his brother Carloman conceded that military crises might require the diversion of monastic assets that were not needed for the ongoing sustenance of religious communities.23 Constance Bouchard has recently challenged this narrative of Carolingians’ piety, maintaining that the Carolingians rather than their Merovingian predecessors were the oppressors and exploiters of churches and monasteries. Much of monastic life in western France, from 750 until the mid-ninth century, went into precipitous decline as a direct result, Bouchard argues, until it was rescued, often by wealthy noblemen under the later Carolingians.24 Odo’s narrative, which extols the pious generosity of the Merovingian kings and nobles while describing the rapacious nature of the lay ruler placed over Glanfeuil by Pepin III, lends support to this new view. It should be noted, however, that English monasteries later, in the mid-tenth century, suffered similarly, owing to grants by the Anglo-Saxon kings to local lords.25 That is to say, perhaps as the church councils said, economic and military exigencies rather than a greater willingness to exploit monastic resources may account for the more oppressive Carolingian practices toward Church lands. The primary goal of this section of the Historia was to provide evidence for Glanfeuil’s later land claims. One major reason for writing (or inventing) detailed lives of Merovingian founder saints was to provide an alternative, or a supplement, to written records of the properties of the saint’s shrine which had been lost or never existed. They were in fact sometimes quite effective in establishing such claims. Odo is careful to give several examples of just how Gaidulf and other forces caused the loss of abbey property deeds. Gaidulf burned some records of the abbey’s possessions, others he tossed into the Loire, while leaving a few in the nearby abbey of Saint-Aubin at Angers (which, we recall, Gaidulf also

22 J. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford UP., 1983), 139. 23 Wallace-Hadrill, Frankish Church. 139; Michael Innes, Introduction to Early Medieval

Western Europe (Routledge, 2007), 404. 24 Bouchard, Rewriting, particularly Chapter 8: 126–51. 25 Cox, The Church and Vale of Evesham, 46–47.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

79

held from King Pepin III).26 The monks would never again, he boasted, be able to reclaim their lands. Odo commented that he later traveled to Saint-Aubin to retrieve records deposited there by Count Gaidulf, only to discover that they had been destroyed by marauding Viking bands.27 To bolster claims to property is also likely the reason why, at this point, Odo added an additional “witness list” to the main informants he had earlier named. These informants provided living witness to the depredations of Gaidulf. They included the nephew of one of the monks expelled by Gaidulf, who was fond of telling the story of Gaidulf in family gatherings, from whence the nephew later, when he became a monk,.passed on the information to Odo. Naming this witness (Gerranus) adds to the story’s plausibility, since Odo’s monastic audience would know both of these monks. Odo claimed in addition that that many other (unnamed) “devout older persons” who were alive in Gaidulf’s day and “still survive” also remembered the events. Odo claims that he had interviewed two of them personally. One told Odo that “the count of Anjou and other men of arrogant and greedy feelings” further ruined the abbey (presumably after Gaidulf’s demise), by making off with “the estates and villas whose taxes had always sustained the abbey.”28 It is certainly possible that a nephew of a monk expelled by Gaidulf was living during Odo’s abbacy in the 860s; however, that Odo, who was likely born in the early 800s, also interviewed “older persons” who remembered the events of Gaidulf’s rule in the mid to later 700s is implausible. The essential point, of course, is that Odo, an esteemed abbot and historian, claimed to have received detailed testimony of many witnesses about the destruction of the written evidence of the abbey’s landed possessions. Odo concluded his dramatic narrative of these events from the otherwise shadowed seventh and eighth centuries by recounting the high price Lord Gaidulf paid for his insults to Maurus and his abbey. One night,

26 HT , 9. 27 HT , 9. 28 HT , 11. The title “count of Anjou” did not appear in other records until 927; Odo

probably improperly imputed the title of count, commonly used elsewhere in the ninth century, to refer to the dominant lord of Anjou. See Christian Settipane, “Les comtes d’Anjou et leurs alliances aux xe et xie siècles,” in Family trees and the Roots of Politics : the prosopography of Britain and France from the tenth to the twelfth century, ed. Katherine Keats-Rohan (Boydell, 1997), 214.

80

J. B. WICKSTROM

Gaidulf had invited some “friends and neighbors” to hours of “unmeasured indulgence” in food and drink to celebrate his destruction of the abbey. As the debauchery continued, Gaidulf began boasting that disposing of the monastic records would prevent the monks from ever regaining their rightful property. At that moment, the figure of an ancient monk appeared before him with a fiery countenance and glistening white hair, reminiscent of Moses in a rage at the infidelity of the Israelites.29 The apparition struck Gaidulf about the head and abdomen while the unhappy man cried out repeatedly, “Maurus, you are killing me.” Finally, Odo approvingly concludes that, like Judas and Arius, Gaidulf’s intestines burst and his soul was carried off to hell.30 The punishment of disembowelment was reserved for God’s most notorious enemies. The death that Gaidulf suffered as a punishment for his crimes is a Carolingian topos of the avenging patron saint, who returns to redress the injuries done to his shrine and his community.31 The warning to potential despoilers of monastic property was even more ominous and precise: Maurus chose for his revenge the moment at which Gaidulf was boasting of how he had destroyed the monastery records of property ownership. However unlikely some details of the Gaidulf stories appear, overall, the story deserves some credence: the gift of Glanfeuil by Pepin III is in accord with his general policy and independent sources suggest that Gaidulf was a real person who also held other lands in the area by royal gift. Without doubt, however, Odo fashioned his narrative to explain two issues: the disappearance of the Rule of Benedict from Glanfeuil and secondly, the absence of written evidence of early endowments. One intriguing question remains from Odo’s account of Gaidulf’s rule: why did this Italian count who exiled the community, destroyed its churches and property records allow a few clerics, admittedly “of the lowest sort” to maintain the shrine of Saint Maurus throughout his rule? Of what worth was a saintly patron who would allow his cult lay neglected for decades? Equally serious, some explanation was needed for the dramatic break between the “golden age” of the foundation and early 29 The post-mortem depictions of Maurus as an avenging spirit are quite at odds with the iconographic tradition of his earthy life, which usually depicted Maurus as a young man, more fitting to his fundamental identity as the disciple of S. Benedict. Likely his elderly appearance here served to associate him with his venerable master, Benedict. 30 HT , 10. 31 See the violent deaths of Wicherius and of Vulfuinus, HT , 31–32.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

81

decades of the abbey so grandly presented in the Life of Maurus and its state of dilapidation by the early ninth century. Any suggestion that the cult had lapsed needed to be countered lest suspicions arise that it was not of the antiquity that Odo claimed.

Glanfeuil Resurrected: The Calling of Count Rorigo and His Spouse Bildechildis Chapter 12 of the Historia translationis contains Odo’s dramatic account of the restoration of the ancient abbey: sometime in the 820s, the emperor Louis the Pious made a gift of Glanfeuil to Count Rorigo, the count of Maine, along with several other small properties. The abbey lay in ruins, described by Odo as “almost deserted and reduced to a wasteland,”32 a phrase often used to describe preferred sites for a monastic foundation, especially when associated with an intention to “flee the world” and to found or restore a reformed house. The count had been searching, along with his spouse, Bildechildis, for a place where they could renounce the world and “obtain perfection under a monastic Rule.” During their search, God inspired them to visit the shrine of Saint Maurus and, upon seeing it, the count and his spouse determined to restore it as their retreat.33 This sort of ideal, however, is more typical of a reformer-abbot’s agenda than a description of an aristocrat’s probable interests. Neither Count Rorigo nor his spouse retired to Glanfeuil during their lifetimes. The Count later decided to use the shrine as his final resting place and that of his family, an intention that was likely closer to at least one of the count’s actual hopes for the property.34 More important, the rebuilt Glanfeuil was to serve as the Rorigonid hausabtei, ruled by his relatives for at least 60 years. It was a common practice in Carolingian Neustria (and elsewhere), for noblemen to found or restore religious houses, then to rule over them, either themselves or through a member of their familia. Such acquisitions demonstrated not only noble piety and generosity but

32 HT , 12. 33 HT , 12. 34 HT , 19. In the eighteenth century, there was still a tomb between the sanctuary and the choir under the main lantern, a common resting place for a church’s patrons. Landreau, “Les Vicissitudes,” I, 131, and note 5.

82

J. B. WICKSTROM

also prestige and power.35 Significantly, Count Rorigo’s involvement with Glanfeuil in the late 820s and 830s began at the same time that he was acquiring high office in the Carolingian government. Founding or restoring a monastery was one of the major avenues for arriviste nobles to advertise their largess and piety.36 The couple had risen quickly from relative obscurity to the highest circles of the Neustrian aristocracy. The Rorigonid familia formed one of several clans which first appear in history during the chaotic transition from Merovingian to Carolingian Francia in the late 600s (See Fig. 4.2). The first family member to achieve prominence was Count Roger, who served as count of Le Mans under Charles Martel. His younger son, Gauziolin, Count Rorigo’s great-uncle, was a long-serving bishop of Le Mans of dubious reputation. He had purchased his office, distributed diocesan property to laymen—especially to his relatives—and was deposed by Pepin III in 771.37 The bishop’s relatives also obtained royal appointments to protect the Breton march. However, it was Count Rorigo himself who was the architect of the family’s great success. He had carried on a long liaison with one of Charlemagne’s daughters, Rotrude, which brought his family into the imperial court circle and also produced a son, Louis (d.867), who later became abbot of Saint-Denis and arch-chancellor to Charles the Bald. Count Rorigo’s early career was largely military: it began with royal appointments on the Breton march, likely as part of Louis the Pious’ ongoing attempts to secure that troublesome region.38 He was a count

35 McKitterick, Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987 (New York, Longman), 1983, 185; Régine Le Jan, Famille et Pouvoir dans le monde franc (vii e –x e siècle) (Paris 1995), 411. 36 Jonathon Lyon, “Nobility and Monastic Patronage: The View from Outside the Monastery,” CHMM , 848. 37 Bouchard, Rewriting, 135; Smith, Province and Empire, 46. More recently, Geoffrey Koziol has concluded that the rebellious early history of the Rorigonids was invented in the ninth century by Bishop Robert of Le Mans, to show that the Rorigonids and their allies were, from the beginning, hostile to the Carolingian kings and contrasting himself and the bishopric of Le Mans as dependable bulwarks of the Carolingian kings. Geoffrey Koziol, The Politics of Memory and Identity in Carolingian Royal Diplomas the West Frankish Kingdom (840–987) (Brepols, 2012), 381. 38 A good account of the politics of the reign of Louis the Pious can be found in Janet Nelson, “The Frankish Kingdoms, 814–898: the West,” NCMH , 2, 411–419.

Fig. 4.2 Genealogical chart of Rorigonid familia (by author)

4 RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

83

84

J. B. WICKSTROM

in Porhoët by 819, overseeing the western frontier that Louis had established by that time.39 Although Breton separatists repeatedly tried to assert their independence from imperial control, eastern Brittany and western Neustria consisted of a “cultural frontier” through which ideas, institutions, and persons flowed freely.40 This diverse border culture helped shape the rebuilt Glanfeuil, as we shall see. Made count of Le Mans (Maine) by 830, the count had joined the ranks of the major regional powers who controlled the civil and military institutions of West Francia.41 Louis the Pious’ gift of Glanfeuil came to Count Rorigo early in this series of military and political appointments. Most modern scholars have suggested the late 820s or early 830s.42 The plan for a “retreat” that the count and his spouse decided to construct on the site of Glanfeuil was not the act of a pious elderly couple who wished to embrace a late-in-life celibacy. Rorigo and Bildechildis were young and vigorous, expecting their first child, Gauzlin (who would become the first abbot of the restored abbey). Count Rorigo continued active in politics and military expeditions until his death around 840. Restoring holy places was itself often a matter of strategic expansion as well as an act of piety. 39 Smith, Province and Empire, 65, 68, 70. Porhoët (or Poutriciet) described a large area north of Vannes and west of Rennes. 40 J.-C. Poulin, “Les relations entre la Bretagne carolingienne et le reste du continent

d’après les sources hagiographiques,” in Voix d’ouest en Europe, souffles de l’Europe en ouest: actes du Colloque international Angers, 21–24 mai 1992 (Angers: Presses de l’Université d’Angers, 1993), 74–77. Although the frontier between Brittany and the West Frankish kingdom was fluid throughout the ninth century, it can be roughly demarcated as somewhere west of the line created by the Mayenne and Loire rivers from Laval to Nantes: Jen-Pierre Brunterc’h, “Geographie historique et hagiographie: la vie de saint Mervé,” Mélanges de l’ Ecole française de Rome. Moyen-Age, Temps modernes T. 95, N°1. 1983. 7–63, esp. 42–50 Chris Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages (Oxford UP, 2005), 192 argues that the entire area of Neustria was a “colonial” region throughout the ninth century and thus exhibited flexible frontiers. 41 The title “count” seems still to be associated with the ancient Roman concept of city, whereas the title of “duke” was associated with extensive authority over larger areas, usually with direct royal rule. Both offices had become essentially military in their identity and function by the Merovingian period, see Wickham, Framing, 196. 42 Guy Jarousseau dates the gift between 828 and 834. “Jus proprietarium et jus ecclesiasticum: la restauration de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire au milieu du IXe siècle,” Le pouvoir et la foi au Moyen Âge. Mélanges en mémoire du professeur Hubert Guillotel, ed. J Joëlle Quaghebeur et Silvain Soleil (Rennes, PUR, Britannia Monastica nos. 13–14, 2010), 21, note 2.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

85

From this perspective, Glanfeuil appears to have been part of the extension of Rorigonid influence southwards toward Poitou. The grant, from the emperor’s point of view, may well have been an element, though a minor one, in his ongoing concern to pacify and absorb the stubbornly independent lands of Brittany.43 As we shall see, Count Rorigo’s reconstruction of Glanfeuil was often interrupted by problems in Brittany that required his attention. The count’s commitment to the reconstruction of Glanfeuil appears to have waxed and waned: there were the long delays in finishing the project owing to the Count’s repeated absences. At one point the Count even rented out the still-unrestored properties to one of his vassals.44 For Odo, on the other hand, the goal of the restoration of Glanfeuil was the (re-)establishment of the Rule of Benedict, and he describes in great detail the heavenly missives warning the count to lay aside his worldly concerns and finish the holy task he had undertaken. On the other hand, an unwavering piety appears to have motivated Rorigo’s spouse, Bildechildis, whose participation in this project Odo repeatedly emphasizes and on whose memories he relied to shape his account. He mentions her active participation at every stage of the abbey’s reconstruction. It has even been proposed that she, rather than the Count, may have obtained the original grant from Louis the Pious.45 Once the couple had decided to rebuild Glanfeuil, they sent for two men to oversee the work. The first of these was a certain Lambert, “a devout (religiosis) monk” from the monastery of Saint Martin at Tours. Lambert thus had lived and worked at the most prestigious shrine in all of Frankish Gaul. Saint Martin’s attracted pilgrims of all ranks and was located only thirty miles east of Glanfeuil. The engagement of Lambert suggests that construction of a cult center at Glanfeuil may have formed part of the original rebuilding project, one which might eventually benefit from the propinquity of that of Saint Martin. The count and Bildechildis also

43 Julia Smith has argued for the strategic interest Louis the Pious had in strengthening imperial control over the Breton in the 830s, “Cult imperiale et politique frontaliere dans le vallée de Vilaine,” in Landévennec et le monachisme breton dans le haut moyen âge: actes du colloque du 15 e centenaire de l’abbaye de Landévennec, 25–26-27 avril 1985 (Association Landévennec, 1986), 129–139. 44 HT , 16. 45 Bloch MCMA, 2. 970. Oexle, however, dismissed the suggestion: “Bischof Ebroin,”

115, note 82.

86

J. B. WICKSTROM

brought in a certain Ebbo, “a man of considerable strength and one of their relatives.” Ebbo likely had experience of construction and served as the couple’s on-site manager. The count and his wife clearly did not intend to oversee the project in any detail. In fact, “certain problems,” which Odo does not describe, apparently halted work at the site early on. Rorigo and his spouse returned to their extensive properties in Brittany and remained there, alleging various reasons why they could not return to Glanfeuil.46 If we can date the initial phase of the restoration to the late 820s, Count Rorigo had good reasons to return to Brittany. There were disturbances on the Breton march in the late 820s, which eventually merged with the rebellion of Louis’ sons in 830. Rorigo likely obtained the county of Maine for his loyalty to the emperor during this crisis. He was in this capacity a strategic asset in Louis’ plan to integrate Brittany into his empire.47

A Divine Admonition via Cormery Abbey At this point Odo inserts a dramatic tale into his narrative designed to demonstrate divine concern over delays in the abbey’s restoration. As Count Rorigo kept putting off his return to Glanfeuil, a mysterious figure “with glowing countenance and milky white hair” suddenly appeared before James, the new abbot of Cormery.48 The figure ordered the abbot to travel to Brittany and reproach the Count for his abandonment of the project owing to “entanglement in the details of worldly affairs.” Abbot James, however, refused to go, claiming he did not know the count. It required two more apparitions and finally three lashes with a whip and 46 HT , 13. These properties, identified as at Brennowen, have been convincingly identified by Guillotel as present-day Bernéan (today, commune of Compénéac-Morbihan, canton Porhoët), where Rorigo was serving as count. Guillotel claims that these extensive lands served as a means for compensating him for his expenses. André Chédeville et Hubert Guillotel, La Bretagne des saints et des rois, ve –xe siècle, 242–43 (Ouest France, 1984). This rather vague description of Rorigo’s Breton properties strengthens a common view that the Carolingian nobles did not identify a self-consciously held “home-base.” All this would have transpired before Rorigo became count in Maine in 831/2. 47 Jean-Pierre Brunterc’h, “Le duché de Maine,” in La Neustrie: les pays au nord de la Loire de 650 à 850: colloque historique international, ed. H. Atsma, 2 vols (Sigmaringen, 1989) provides a good summary of the complexities of these years, 1, 54–61. 48 HT , 13.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

87

a threat of worse before the abbot complied. This heavenly apparition was clearly Maurus, his appearance and violent behavior reminiscent of his visit to Count Gaidulf at Glanfeuil many decades earlier. Stories of such appearances were not unusual.49 This was a common literary vehicle for revealing God’s will, based on the warnings of Old Testament prophets. Such models provided such stories with a semiscriptural character. A well-known example is the popular fifth-century Revelatio Sancti Stephani: there an angel appeared to a priest and instructed him to reveal to his bishop the location of the tomb of Saint Stephen and other saints, since it was God’s will that the tomb become a center for the great deacon’s veneration. A second and third visitation was needed before the priest carried out the task. The heavenly messenger then rebuked the priest and struck him three times with a golden rod for hesitating so long.50 One might wonder why Odo presented the abbot of Cormery as the messenger to Count Rorigo. Located approximately 60 miles southeast of Glanfeuil, Cormery was founded in 791 from the basilica of Saint Martin of Tours, as a rural retreat about ten miles to the northwest.51 In 798, Alcuin, Charlemagne’s famous court scholar, at that time abbot of Saint Martin of Tours, brought 20 monks from his friend Benedict of Aniane’s own monastery at Gothie in Aquitaine to form an observant Benedictine community at Cormery, about ten miles northwest of Tours.52 James was appointed its first abbot. A staunch supporter of the Aachen reforms, he 49 Such multiple appearances in similar contexts are not infrequent in early medieval hagiography and probably are rooted in 1 Samuel 3: 1–10, in which Samuel is called three times by God before he recognizes the divine voice. In the late eighth- or ninth-century work, the Liber de apparitione sancti Michaelis in monte Gargano, the archangel appeared several times (in dream visions), to the bishop of Siponto prior to the appearance in which the bishop is enjoined to bear witness to the existence of a newly created shrine. AASS Sept. VIII, cols 61E-62B. Similarly, Saint Michael appeared three times to Saint Aubert, bishop of Avranches, commanding him to build a shrine for him. AASS Junii III, 603D. 50 The apparition struck the priest while thrice repeating his name, Epistola Luciani ad omnem Ecclesiam de relatione corporis stephani martyris, PL, 41, s 809–11. 51 Annick Chupin, “Alcuin et Cormery,” Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest, 111/3 (2004), 103. 52 Alcuini Epistolae, 309 (no. 184): “I have just brought together a community about 8000 paces (around 7 miles) from the monastery of Saint Martin. They are living the monastic life according to the Rule of Benedict. The house is composed of bothers from Gothie. There the abbot Benedict of Aniane established a regular life. Now however, others are coming who are vowing themselves to consecrated service.”

88

J. B. WICKSTROM

immediately set out to rebuild the monastic buildings at Cormery to bring them into conformity with the norms of the Rule of Benedict.53 Another possible source of this story is Bildechildis. Odo tells us that abbot James spent two weeks with the Count and Bildechildis being nursed back to health from his beating at the hands of Saint Maurus. One might imagine Bildechildis telling Odo this story, which Odo later elaborated into this hagiographical topos. In addition to this scenario, Bruno Judic has suggested that there were other contacts between Glanfeuil and Cormery that help explain the latter’s interest in reform at Glanfeuil. While the two abbeys lay some 40 miles apart, they had overlapping interests in certain properties. Cormery held a valuable river fishing entrepot called villa de Rest, near today’s Montsoreau (arr. Saumur, cant. Saumur-sud,) about 20 miles east of Glanfeuil on the Loire river. Two twelfth-century lists of Glanfeuil possessions indicate that it held a church dedicated to Saint Peter on this same property. The two abbeys also held neighboring properties in the area around Montreuil-Bellay, notably the villa Antoniacum (today, the village of Antoigné, dep. Maine-et-Loire).54 Important Glanfeuil possessions also lay in the area, notably the land around Riliacum and the church of Saint-Cyr and its associated properties. These were mentioned in royal grants from 845, which, Judic suggests, might have been confirmations of earlier grants. He concluded that shared or neighboring properties in that area would naturally give the abbot of Cormery an economic incentive for the restoration and reform of Glanfeuil. Odo tells us that the abbot’s story convinced the couple that powerful spiritual forces were directing the restoration of the abbey. But, while they immediately returned to the building site, the count continued to delay completing the project. Odo at this point openly displays his disapproval of the Count’s behavior: the project which he “had had begun so well but…left unfinished through great negligence.”55 Gerard Oexle has shrewdly suggested that that Odo is here dramatically contrasting Count Rorigo’s dilatory attitude toward the shrine with the zeal shown by his successor as lord of Glanfeuil, his kinsman Bishop Ebroin, bishop 53 Landreau, “Les vicissitudes,” 1. 127, note 3. For the 831 date, see Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin,” 150, note 62. For the connection of the reform of Corvey and Benedict of Aniane’s monastery, see Judic, “Gregoire le Grand,” 41. 54 Judic, “Gregoire le Grand,” 44. 55 HT , 17.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

89

of Poitiers.56 The delays may also help explain why, sometime in the early 830s, Glanfeuil was abruptly removed from Count Rorigo’s control and given to Bishop Ebroin by Louis the Pious. Eventually the count and Bildechildis did recall Ebbo, their relative, and Lambert, the pious monk from Tours, to the site. It is remarkable that despite Odo’s detailed narrative of the events surrounding the abbey’s restoration, he says nothing of the physical reconstruction itself: nothing of the architecture of the building or of their possible relation to Maurus’ original abbey and the like. This omission is particularly noticeable since, as we have seen, Odo had described the supposed original, sixth-century structures of Maurus’ abbey in some detail. Instead, Odo here describes at length how the Rule of Benedict came to be (re-)established at Glanfeuil in the 830s. It is a clear indication that a primary purpose of Odo’s narrative was to show how the Rule of Benedict originally came to Glanfeuil and was then re-established there in the early ninth century.

Count Rorigo and Fossés Abbey (Re-) Establish the Rule at Glanfeuil As the rebuilding57 was concluded, probably in 832 or 833, Count Rorigo made a decision that influenced the history and identity of Glanfeuil abbey for centuries. On the advice of Ebbo and Lambert, the count invited Ingelbert, abbot of the Parisian abbey of Fossés (r.830–845), “a most holy man” to assist as cooperator in the restoration of observant monastic life at the abbey. Odo’s use here of the unusual term cooperator indicates his judgment that Abbot Ingelbert was one of the founding figures of Glanfeuil’s new existence. As we have seen, only Maurus, Benedict, and Romanus were accorded this epithet in Odo’s writings. There is, however, another story of this event which adds a second perspective. The Chronicle of Redon, produced at a Breton abbey about 100 miles west of Glanfeuil, recorded in the 860s that in 832 a holy

56 Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin,” 155. 57 For the 833 date, Henri Leclercq, “S. Maur-des-Fossés,” DACL, 15/1. 1307.

Although this forgery is based on Odo’s account, the date appears only in the charter, and may represent a traditional understanding. Brunterc’h likewise dates the expedition of Fossés monks to Glanfeuil between 832 and 834, when Pepin of Aquitaine received the duchy of Anjou from Louis the Pious, Brunterc’h, “Le duché de Maine,” 55.

90

J. B. WICKSTROM

man, named Gerfred, was living in a remote area of Brittany.58 Gerfred was inspired by God in a dream to visit the new abbey of Redon and teach the monks how to live secundam regulam, a phrase which modern scholars interpret as “according to the Rule of Benedict.”59 This reference links Gerfred to other zealous monks and abbots who were carrying the Rule of Saint Benedict to monasteries throughout Francia in the early decades of the ninth century under the inspiration of Benedict of Aniane and the synods of Aachen. The Chronicle placed Gerfred at Redon in 833, adding that Gerfert “lived the [monastic] life among them for two years, teaching them everything; afterwards, he returned to his community in the monastery of Saint Maur next to the river Loire.”60 Guy Jarousseau has suggested that this Gerfred had been a monk from Fossés, a house which had been sending out its abbots and monks for some time to spread the observance of the Rule of Benedict.61 When Gerfred had succeeded at Redon, he then went to Glanfeuil to join the colony of Fossés monks which had been established there one or two years previously, in 832 or 833. Two other facts make Jarousseau’s scenario likely: the name Gerfred contains elements associated with the Rorigonid familia: Gauzfred and Gauzbert , for examples. Second, there was a zealous hermit-monk living at Glanfeuil 20 years later with the same name, most likely the same person.62 Finally, one of the founding monks of Redon, a certain a certain Uuicalon, (Guincalon/Wincalon), before he became a monk, had been a “well-known and faithful friend and valued

58 The Monks of Redon: Gesta Sanctorum Rotnensium, ed. Caroline Brett (Boydell, 1989), 112–13. A possible variation of this name was common in the Rorigonid familia (Gauzfrid?). The term “hermit” was here used in a Breton source, which had more sympathy with the solitary holy man than did the emerging corporatism of Carolingian culture. Judith Nelson, “The Merovingian Church in Carolingian Retrospective,” in The World of Gregory of Tours, ed. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood (Brill, 2002), 251. Note that the Neustrian sources refer to Gerfred as a monk, perhaps from Fossés but certainly a member of Glanfeuil at a later point. 59 Brett, Monks, 113. 60 Brett, Monks, 112–13. Gerfred apparently lived for more than 20 years thereafter as

a hermit of Glanfeuil. He appears in the 840s in an aggressively protective role when the abbey is threatened, HT , 32. 61 Guy Jarousseau, “L’ermite Gerfred, missus monasticus, et l’introduction de la réforme,” Brittania monastica, 10 (2012), 187–214. 62 HT , 32.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

91

advisor” to Count Rorigo. A relative of Uuicalon’s may have lived at Glanfeuil in subsequent years.63 The abbey of Redon was conspicuous in its loyalty to the Carolingian kings during the years of Breton resistance in the middle 800s. It was known for spreading the Rule of Benedict to other Breton houses and maintained close relations with the rather distant Glanfeuil.64 For example, both abbeys had dedicated their new churches to the Holy Savior (S. Salvator) in the 830s, a favorite devotion of Louis the Pious.65 There was an ongoing interchange of personnel between the two abbeys; Odo mentions monks resident at Glanfeuil who bore Breton names known at Redon; Abbot Gauzlin of Glanfeuil took refuge at Redon during an uprising in 850 and experienced a miraculous cure while staying there.66 All this hints at a network of individual monks and associated abbeys working with the nobility to spread the Rule of Benedict—and loyalty to the Carolingian house—in the frontier atmosphere of Brittany/Neustria during the early ninth century. We also learn that Count Rorigo was familiar with Fossés abbey: his brother, Gauzbert, was a monk there, and one of outstanding virtue. It is likely these associations, as well as the advice of the onsite workers, moved Count Rorigo and Bildechildis to invite Abbot Ingelbert of Fossés to “restore” the observance of the Rule of Benedict at Glanfeuil. After expressing doubt about Glanfeuil’s ability to sustain a reformed regime, Abbot Ingelbert acceded to the urgings of the count and several friends.67 Accompanying Ingelbert to Glanfeuil were his “most holy” monks who repopulated the abbey and brought to it “their pursuit of monastic perfection.”68 They carried with them all that was needed for the foundation of a new monastic establishment, especially books and other supplies needed for liturgical ceremonies. It has been observed that an infusion of monks from an already reformed house was the best way to ensure the survival

63 HT , 27. 64 Smith, Province and Empire, 77, 163; Guillotel, La Bretagne, 243; on the adoption

of the Rule as a symbol of loyalty to the emperor, Smith, “Aedificatio sancti loci,” 389. 65 Jarousseau, “L’ermite Gerfred,” 204–5. 66 Brett, Monks, 200–1. 67 HT , 17. Abbot Ingelbert’s reluctance was mentioned in a later sermon from Fossés, not in Odo’s narrative: see below, Chapter 5. 68 HT , 17.

92

J. B. WICKSTROM

of a reformed monastic regime. It avoided the common problem of existing community members being unwilling to embrace reform, particularly the serious threat to the identity of a community reformed from the outside.69 One of the oldest religious houses in the Paris region, Fossés had originally been part of the Merovingian royal demesne. In 639, Queen Nanthilde, the regent for King Clovis II, granted a charter for a monastery to a certain Babolenus, who became its first abbot. Fossés suffered a significant decline in late eighth century, not unlike that at Glanfeuil: monastic observance had ceased, and the monks were likely replaced by canons.70 However, in 816, it was reformed by the powerful and pious Count of Paris Bego, with the support of Louis the Pious. Its first post-reform abbot, Benedict (r.816–829), revived several monasteries, and his successor Ingelbert, continued this tradition by installing a group of reforming monks at Glanfeuil. Ninth-century monastic reform focused not only on the detailed observance of the Rule of Benedict but also of community routines or customaries that more or less followed the decrees of the Synods of Aachen. However, as we saw in Chapter 2, these were the outward manifestations of an interior reformation. Odo’s Historia is a rare source, outside of the commentaries on the Rule that were beginning to appear, in its hints that strict external observances could bring about an interior transformation. Odo uses the term religio to describe the “reform attitude” with which devout monks approached the performance of external rituals “from the heart.” The term first appears in Odo’s Historia as a description of the spirit of monastic observance which Maurus brought to Glanfeuil from Montecassino: “God had decided to restore that place to its original religio.” 71 In a parallel passage from his Historia, Odo notes how, after Ingelbert had done his work at Glanfeuil, he returned to Paris, confident that the monks he left behind would be “constant in their pursuit of religio.”72 Either immediately or more likely at his departure, Abbot Ingelbert appointed Count Rorigo’s brother, Gauzbert, to rule over the restored

69 Remensnyder, Remembering, 263–66. 70 De Jong, “Carolingian Monasticism,” 631–32. 71 HT , 12. 72 HT , 18.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

93

abbey. Odo described Gauzbert as an outstanding monk, who “especially excelled both in divine contemplatio and in every other observance of the holy Rule.”73 While there is no reason to doubt that Gauzbert was a zealous monk, his appointment as ruler of Glanfeuil also ensured that the Rorigonid familia would control the newly restored abbey. Gauzbert’s appointment is an example of the intersection of secular ambition and monastic virtue that characterized this restoration of Glanfeuil, and indeed, of many ninth-century Carolingian monastic houses.74 Odo also employed the term religio to define Gauzbert’s approach as the first Rorigonid governor of the reformed monastery. He and the colony of Fossés monks “began to order and stabilize everything piously and honorably” within a short period of time. Then, “with great zeal, they brought together and united many monks for God through the observance of holy religio.” But Odo goes further, describing Gauzbert, along with his associate, Willem, as “outstanding among our order in holy contemplatio and the other observances of the holy Rule.”75 Odo uses this term only in this context. He is suggesting that the new leaders indeed established a genuine interior reform at the rebuilt abbey. Odo also defined contemplatio separately from the other “observances,” hinting at its interior nature and its centrality to genuine monastic virtue. From early in the monastic tradition, contemplatio was considered the core and goal of monastic life: it involved resting in the presence of God with the goal of union with the divine. It thus required withdrawal from “the world” and “quiet.” In the Life of Maurus, Odo stressed that these were Maurus’ reasons for accepting donations of property.76 Toward the end of his life, Maurus himself retired to the contemplative solitude of a single cell near the chapel of Saint Martin. There are several references in later black-monk commentators to Maurus and Glanfeuil as models for the practice of contemplatio.77

73 HT , 17. 74 Sullivan, “What was Carolingian Monasticism?” 251–87. 75 All quotes in this paragraph from HT , 17. 76 LM , 40. 77 See below, Chapter 9, 254-55.

94

J. B. WICKSTROM

Count Rorigo, Gauzbert and Bishop Ebroin: Who Controlled Glanfeuil? While Odo thus sets forth Gauzbert’s virtues with some detail, he says nothing in detail about the authority by which he ruled over the newly reformed monastery. This perhaps illustrates his concern for interior reform; however, reformers knew that the details of administration were crucial to successful reform. It may be that Odo did not clearly understand what appears on examination to have been a complex arrangement. While Abbot Ingelbert was still at Glanfeuil, and surely with his counsel, Count Rorigo decided that the new monastery should always (semper) remain under the guidance (providentia) of the abbots of Fossés “that the monastery should not in later times perchance stray from the uprightness of the path of the Rule through the negligence of its inhabitants.”78 Monks from Fossés should be appointed as “priors and other monastic officials by whose guidance and governance (nutu et regimine) all of the shrine’s affairs, internal and external, might be properly carried forth.”79 Odo goes on to say that at the count’s request, these terms were laid out in a diploma by Louis the Pious.80 78 This arrangement reflects current scholarly understandings of relations within and between associated Carolingian houses. A good overview of these issues is Daniel Pichot, “Prieurés et société dans l’Ouest, xie –xiiie siècle,” Annales des Bretagne et des payes de l’Ouest, 113/3 (2006), 9–32. The office of prior is by the ninth century evolving into the important second-in-command official in monastic houses; the term is not, however, yet identified with the heads of dependent houses, for which the term “priory” becomes common in the late eleventh or twelfth century. In our period, diverse names are given to dependent houses: ecclesia, locus, monasteriolum, cella, cellula abbatiola, whose variety illustrates their heterogeneous nature and connections with their “motherhouse”; AnneMarie Bautier, “De ‘praepositus ’ à ‘prior’, de ‘cella’ a ‘prioratus ’: évolution linguistique et genèse d’une institutio” in Prieurs et Prieurés dans l’occident médiéval ed. Jean-Loup Lemaitre (Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes: Geneva, 1987), 1–21, esp. 1–3. All but the last of these terms were employed to describe Glanfeuil during its periods of dependency under Fossés. It seems likely that because Glanfeuil was not a dependent house in the usual sense, the terms of such dependent houses which were set down at the Synod of Aachen in 817 were not applicable. A complete set of standardized terms and relationships for dependent houses and their governors were only established at the Third Lateran Council in 1179. 79 For the year 833 as the date of this imperial document, see MCMA, 2. 971. 80 A copy of Louis’ decree is now in the French national archives but has been consid-

ered a forgery, largely on stylistic grounds: Rec. CC., 2. 628–633 (#491), and there Tessier lays out the case for forgery, 629–630. More recently, Guy Jarousseau has argued that Louis’ decree was created at Fossés in the late eleventh century to substantiate its claim

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

95

In contrast to this precise constitutional language, it seems that Gauzbert’s authority was informal and fluid. He held no title and Odo merely says that Gauzbert and the resident Fossés overseers “began to order and establish everything piously and honorably within a short period of time.”81 A phrase from a somewhat later grant from Count Rorigo described the situation in similar terms: “Gauzbert, the most devout servant of God, who, along with the other monks is living according to the Rule.”82 Odo described Glanfeuil as “being governed well and piously by the foresight and the customs of the monks of Fossés and of Gauzbert and others.”83 Whatever the legal basis of Gauzbert’s authority, Odo has high praise for the religious leadership of the Fossés monks: “through their ministry (ministerium), the abbey progressed in spiritual growth daily and an abundant harvest of souls for God continued to ripen there in the rich soil of holiness.”84 The term ministerium suggests an atmosphere of pastoral care, which reflected another central feature of the Aachen reforms.85 Similarly, Odo typically described Gauzbert as “venerable father” and “servant of God” rather than using formal titles. In the story of a Breton pilgrim Annarowedh, who visited the shrine and was terrified by the splendor of Maurus’ miraculous appearance there, Gauzbert was to Glanfeuil at Pope Urban’s synod in 1098. Jarousseau, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur,” 45. These conclusions are important since, were the diploma genuine, it would provide the earliest (833) direct evidence that a cult of Saint Maurus, the disciple of Saint Benedict, existed at Glanfeuil before the 860s. The decree contains the phrase: Glannafolium…quo venerabili corpus sancti Mauri discipuli jacet humatum (Glanfeuil…where the body of the venerable disciple, Saint Maurus, lies buried.) The decree’s purported date of 833 indicates that this date was generally understood as the point at which the initial subjugation of Glanfeuil to Fossés occurred. Jarousseau argues that a second royal document, dated 868, was forged for the same purpose see Chapter 8, 211. 81 HT , 18. 82 Le Cartulaire de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire, ed. Charles Marchegay, Archives d’Anjou, 1

(1843), 378 (# 34). (Hereafter cited as Cart. de S-M ). 83 HT , 24. The establishment of this date comes from Odo’s reference in that section to the civil war after the death of Louis the Pious between Charles the Bald and his brother Lothar, which took place between 841 and late 842. 84 HT , 19. 85 Jan Frederik Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, 2nd ed., 2 vols (Brill,

2002), entry ministerium; also Renie Choy, “Praying by the Rules,” in Shaping Saintability: The Normation and Formation of Religious Life in the Middle Ages (Brepols, 2016), esp. 70.

96

J. B. WICKSTROM

portrayed as a sensitive pastor and healer, who kept the prostrate pilgrim at the abbey for several weeks for recovery and observation. He appointed two Breton-speaking monks to attend to him and personally attempted to get Annarowedh to take nourishment. Finally, Odo relates that, after some weeks, Gauzbert discerned that the pilgrim had genuinely repented the sins which had caused him to faint away at the vision of Maurus and urged him to return home. Gauzbert’s compassionate handling of the incident likely was instrumental in Annarowedh’s very substantial gifts to Glanfeuil and his own entry there as a monk in later years.86 It is noteworthy in this context that Odo mentions Gauzbert’s son, Gauzlin, who succeeded his father as abbot of Glanfeuil, as witnessing these events as a young monk; every source commends him as a particularly pious and learned abbot, the product of his father’s pastoral oversight.87 However, another story involving Gauzbert emphasizes his firmness and courage. During the civil war between the sons of Louis the Pious in 841–842, the Loire valley had been engulfed by general disorder, and the saintly bishop of Le Mans, Aldric, a staunch Rorigonid ally, had been ejected from his episcopal see.88 He took refuge at Glanfeuil, bringing some of his possessions with him for safekeeping. Two locals, emboldened by the general disorder, attempted to seize the bishop’s goods. They sent word to Glanfeuil that if the valuables were not handed over voluntarily, they would be taken by force. Gauzbert refused, stating that “a clear law concerning deposited goods had been set down by the Lord, so they were prepared to risk grave dangers to preserve everything that they held in safekeeping.” Whereupon the brigands flew into a rage and attacked 86 This unusual and very detailed miracle survives in three versions: one version is recounted in HT , 26–27.This is the only version that contains the story of the pilgrim’s two-week recuperation at the abbey, which suggests that Odo was an eyewitness or that he heard the story from Gauzlin who, according to Odo’s account, was present. A second version survives in the Glanfeuil Cartulary: Cart. de S-M , 363–64 (#21), written down in the 1130s; it was likely copied from a third version to be found in the final folio of the Rorigo bible (fol. 408v), since these two versions are virtually identical, whereas Odo’s account is significantly longer and different. Marcel Planiol, who studied the miracle in his “La Donation d’anouuareth,” Annales de Bretagne, (1884), 216–37, dated the Rorigo bible copy to the tenth century but written to look older. More recent scholarship has defended the tenth-century date (MCMA, 2. 970). 87 See, for example, Chapter 5 below, 111–112. 88 HT , 24. Count Rorigo had been instrumental in Aldric’s appointment to the see of

Le Mans: Margarete Weidemann, “Bischofsherrschaft und Königtum in Neustrien” in La Neustrie, 1, 188–89.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

97

he abbey with their men. In response, Gauzbert led the community in solemn procession out into the vineyards where they prayed to Maurus for aid. Suddenly a violent thunderstorm broke out, sending the robbers fleeing in confusion, with goods left strewn about the grounds in their terror to escape, as a warning anyone who would threaten the saint’s precincts.89 During the time of Gauzbert’s rule, the newly restored abbey experienced a dramatic change in governance which eventually was to entirely transform its core identity. Sometime in the early 830s, Count Rorigo was removed as lord of Glanfeuil.90 The formal cause was the reconciliation of Louis the Pious and his son Pepin after the latter’s participation in a series of rebellions in the early 830s. As a symbol of their new relationship, in 835, Louis turned over to Pepin the county of Anjou and the royal abbeys there.91 Pepin in turn granted one of these, Glanfeuil, to a faithful ally, Ebroin, an up-and-coming Poitevin cleric “then in the flower of his excellent youth and powerful in the clerical order” who had served as Pepin’s chancellor in Aquitaine during the 830s.92 He was also appointed bishop of Poitiers at about this same time.93 Ebroin also happened to be kinsman to Count Rorigo.94 Why was Count Rorigo deprived of the property which he had received from Louis and restored with such trouble and expense? Why did Louis, who had given Glanfeuil to Count Rorigo, confirm his son’s grant to Rorigo’s kinsman “in a hereditary and perpetual grant”?95 Some scholars have suggested that Count Rorigo supported Louis the Pious’ sons in

89 HT , 25. 90 Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin” 153; cf. DACL, 6/1, 1306 (835). 91 HT , 19 These abbeys had been held by Lambert, Count of Nantes, who was

deposed for leading rebellions in Brittany. Odo is the only witness to this concession, “Bischof Ebroin,” 153. See also Stuart Airlie, “The Political Behavior of Secular Magnates in Francia, 829–79,” (unpublished D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford University, 1985), 95. Louis’ concession of Anjou to Pepin along with his restoration as king of Aquitaine followed on Pepin’s abandonment of his rebellion against the emperor in 833–834. 92 HT , 19. 93 HT , 19. Levillain believed he may have obtained the see as early as 834, a date which

Jarousseau confirms, Églises, 176. Odo indicates Ebroin was bishop of Poitiers when he received custody of Glanfeuil in the early 830s: LM , 127. 94 See below Chapter 5, 101–102. for an analysis of this relationship. 95 HT , 19.

98

J. B. WICKSTROM

their 833–834 rebellion, as did most of the western Carolingian lords. But, if so, why would one of these sons then deprive him of Glanfeuil? No direct evidence links Count Rorigo to the 833–834 rebellions, but it is noteworthy that Count Lambert, a chief supporter of the revolt, lost his offices as count of Nantes in 834, the same year that Louis the Pious also replaced Rorigo as count of Le Mans, with his rival, Guy, head of the Wigonid familia. All of this suggests that Count Rorigo was involved in some aristocratic machinations during the rebellion whose details have not come down to us.96 Entrusting this abbey to a loyal bishop rather than leaving it the hands of the possibly untrustworthy count made sense. Moreover, it was in line with the emerging court policy of controlling more closely the kingdom’s monastic asserts, as described by Constance Bouchard and others.97 The transfer of lordship, however, appears to have been negotiated to reduce its impact on the count. Odo tells us that it was carried out with the count’s own “counsel and encouragement so that the foundation might not fall into alien hands and religio thereby be abandoned, as had happened before.”98 The count was, Odo continues, particularly concerned about this possibility since he had chosen the abbey as his final resting place. The monastic reformist language of this explanation, however, suggests it represents Odo’s “spin” rather than the principals’ actual goals. In his important 1969 monograph “Bishof Ebroin und seine Verwandten,” Otto Oexle also concluded that the transfer of Glanfeuil from the count to Bishop Ebroin was anything but voluntary. Otto’s statement, says Oexle, that Rorigo relinquished the abbey in order to preserve its monastic rigor “does not make sense.”99 However, the transfer to Bishop Ebroin was certainly a viable way for the count to retain some control over the abbey he had restored and planned to use as the Rorigo family mausoleum. The near total disappearance of Rorigo’s name from governmental records from the early 830s to his death around 840 suggests that he

96 Donald Jackman, “Rorigonid Right—Two Scenarios,” in Francia Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte, 26/1, 1999 (2000), 129–53. 97 Bouchard, Rewriting, esp. Chapter 8. 98 HT , 19. 99 Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin,” 155–56.

4

RUIN, RESTORATION, AND REFORM

99

lost influence more broadly. He is mentioned only once: in 838, he and Bishop Ebroin were members of a high-ranking embassy to adjudicate the rights of Bishop Aldric over the abbey of Calais. His membership in this embassy may signal his return to favor, especially after King Pepin died in 838 and was succeeded by Charles the Bald, to whom the Rorigonids always remained faithful. Indeed, during the civil wars between Charles and his brother Lothar in the early 840s, Count Rorigo and his ally Bishop Aldric had to flee Le Mans before the advancing forces of Lothar. The count died around this time, perhaps a casualty of this civil strife. For some years before the Count’s death, however, Bishop Ebroin had supplanted him as the most influential member of the Rorigonid familia, a distinction he would retain until his own passing in the early 850s.100 Though Abbot Odo’s account of the destruction and restoration of Glanfeuil from the mid-700s through the 830s is more credible than his story of its original foundation in the sixth century by Saint Maurus, it also raises many difficulties. His narrative of Glanfeuil under Count Gaidulf is unclear and formulaic. The motives of Count Rorigo in the restoration of the abbey, and the relationship of his political and military loyalties to this undertaking, are complex: many details remain obscure and Odo’s own reforming agenda further obscure the count’s intentions. This is even more likely with regard to Odo’s presentation of the activities of Abbot Ingelbert of Fossés and the governance of the new community by Rorigo’s brother Gauzbert. Overall, however, the trend of events at Glanfeuil in the 830s is clear enough: it follows the classic profile of institutional reform: enthusiastic charismatic and informal leaders shape the first years; in the second generation these are succeeded by more methodical figures who set down the legal and economic foundations of the new system. In the case of Glanfeuil, Bishop Ebroin was the leader of this second phase. So it is to his remarkable character and achievements that we now turn.

100 This view is shared by Jarousseau, “L’abbaye,” 55.

CHAPTER 5

The Bishop and the Abbot: Inventing the Cult

According to Otto Oexle, Bishop Ebroin’s most recent and reliable biographer, Count Rorigo’s reconstruction of Glanfeuil had been a half-hearted effort, filled with delays and interruptions. Ebroin’s proprietorship of Glanfeuil, on the other hand, was marked from the beginning by swift action in pursuance of clear goals.1 The bishop thereby likely saved the small abbey (monasteriolum) from an early failure and equipped it for a long and distinguished future.2 Ebroin made three essential contributions to Glanfeuil: first, he set it on a sound economic footing; second, he acquired the right of governance there by the Rorigonids in perpetuity; third, he likely created the cult of Saint Maurus at the abbey.

Bishop Ebroin: Background, Identity, and Goals Who was this new proprietor of Glanfeuil? That he was a close relative of Count Rorigo’s is unquestionable. Odo described him as “near kin” (propinquus ) to the count and “with a connection by blood relationship” (affinitate enim carnalis ).3 Count Rorigo himself described Ebroin as 1 Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin,” 152. 2 Charles the Bald’s decree of 847 used the term monasteriolum to describe Glanfeuil:

Rec.CC. i, 259 (#97). 3 HT, 19.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_5

101

102

J. B. WICKSTROM

“my blood relation (nostrique consanguinei).”4 Although these expressions do not define a precise relationship, they imply close cousinage.5 Ebroin was a common name in the Carolingian period, though not within the Rorigonid familia or its allies.6 Some scholars have speculated on more specific connections: he has, for example, been identified as the nephew of Adeltrude, Count Rorigo’s mother, or a brother of Bishop Ebroin of Bourges (r. 785–810). Settipani suggests that Ebroin was the brother or cousin-german of Wicfred, count of Bourges.7 All these possibilities place Ebroin’s origins in Poitou. It is there that he first appears, as chancellor at the court King Pepin of Aquitaine between 831 and 833.8 In terms of Ebroin’s later preferments by Pepin, it is likely that he supported the latter’s rebellion against his father, the emperor Louis the Pious, during those years. This would explain Ebroin’s loss of his chancellorship by October 833, at the same time that the emperor removed Pepin as king of Aquitaine.9 However, Pepin’s decision in 834 to return to his father’s party had the effect of restoring Ebroin to Louis the Pious’ favor. Shortly thereafter, as we have seen, the emperor restored the kingdom of Aquitaine to Pepin along with the county of Anjou, including the royal abbeys there. As a consequence, Ebroin become lord not only of Glanfeuil but also of the monastery of Saint-Aubin at Angers, “one of the most prestigious in the West.”10 By 838, Ebroin was described as vassus dominici, an imperial official, when Louis the Pious sent him to Aix along with two allies of the Rorigonid house to ratify his decision in favor of Bishop Aldric of Le Mans.

4 Cart. de S-M, 379 (#3). 5 Oexle agrees; “Bischof Ebroin,” 161, note 110. 6 Levillain suggested that the name was intended to evoke great figures of the Merovin-

gian past in a young noble destined for high ecclesiastical preferment, apparently a common practice, Léon Levillain, “L’archichapelain Ebroin, évêque de Poitiers,” Le Moyen Âge 34 (1923), 177. 7 Christian Settipani, La Noblesse du Midi carolingien: Etudes sur quelques grandes familles d’Aquitaine et du Languedoc du ixe au xie siècle, Toulousain, Périgord, Limousin, Poitou, Auvergne (Oxford, 2004), 264. 8 Levillain, “L’archichapelain Ebroin,” 178f. 9 Dodo, later bishop of Angers, replaced Ebroin as chancellor; the two bishops would

be close collaborators throughout their careers. Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin,” 156. 10 Jarousseau, Églises, 176.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

103

From an early point in his career, Ebroin began constructing both ecclesiastical and secular networks. An early goal was to extend Rorigonid influence into Poitou, a project with which his cousin Count Rorigo was also involved. The bishop arranged the marriage of Count Rorigo’s daughter Bildechildis II to Bernard, the count in Poitou, probably in the late 830s. She later married Bernard’s brother, Rainulf, also with the active assistance of Ebroin. The four sons of this alliance became leading figures both in Poitou and at the Carolingian court.11 One of Ebroin’s long-term allies, a certain Dodo, succeeded him as chancellor in Aquitaine in 832.12 In 837, Dodo obtained the bishopric of Angers, the diocese in which Glanfeuil was situated, a position which he occupied for the next 43 years. In 839, Dodo re-dedicated the restored main church of Glanfeuil. The patronage of the church was probably changed at this time from Saint Peter to the Holy Redeemer (Sanctus Salvator), a move likely to please Louis the Pious, with whom Ebroin was becoming close. The Carolingian kings, especially Louis, had a special devotion to Christ as Holy Redeemer.13 In 839, Bishop Dodo witnessed a charter along with Ebroin, in which Count Rorigo granted Glanfeuil extensive allodial properties as well as offering his son, Gauzlin, as an oblate.14 Six years later, Dodo ordained a second Gauzlin, the son of Gauzbert, the current ruler of Glanfeuil, to the priesthood shortly after Ebroin had raised him to the diaconate, preparatory to his elevation as the first abbot of the restored Glanfeuil.15

11 Keats-Rohan, “Two Studies in North French Prosopography,” Journal of Medieval

History, 20/1 (1994), 6, note 22. The eldest son, Rainulf, became count in Poitou, a younger son, Ebolus, became abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés and Saint Denis as well as archchancellor to King Hugh Capet. These were positions that had been held in the 840s by his great-uncle Louis, son of Count Rorigo and Rotrude. Foundation for Medieval Genealogy: Aquitaine: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/AQUITAINE.htm. 12 Jarousseau, “L’evêque d’Angers Dodon, (837–880),” Le haut Moyen Âge en Anjou, ed. Daniel Prigent et Noël-Yves Tonnerre ( Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2010), 157– 163. 13 Philippe Le Maître, “Image du Christ, image de l’empereur: L’exemple au culte du

Saint Sauveur sous Louis le Pieux,” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, 68 (181, 1982), 201–212. 14 Cart. de S-M., 378, (#34). In 782, Charlemagne asked Benedict of Aniane to dedicate the new church sponsored by the emperor to S. Salvator: Chronique d’Aniane ( Paris, BnF, lat. 5941), année 782. 15 HT , 21.

104

J. B. WICKSTROM

As we have seen, Ebroin also maintained an alliance with the other major bishop of the area, Aldric of Le Mans (r. 831–56). The importance of good relationships between the lord of Glanfeuil and such powerful, respected, and long-lived bishops can be seen in Glanfeuil’s later history, when poor relations between the abbot of Glanfeuil and the bishop of Angers seriously damaged the status and prosperity of the abbey.16 Ebroin’s network of alliances extended to the lords of Poitou and elsewhere. As bishop of Poitiers, he rallied the loyal bishops and magnates of Aquitaine to Louis’ cause against the rebellion of his grandson, Pepin II in 838–9.17 He may also have been entrusted with the safety of the empress Judith and young Charles the Bald during this crisis.18 In 844, this “warrior bishop” was captured fighting with Charles against the persistently rebellious Pepin II. After his release, Ebroin brokered a truce between Charles and his kinsman and seems to have acted as chief negotiator in the area.19 This fighting bishop may well have died defending Poitiers on behalf of Charles the Bald against yet another Aquitanian revolt in 854.20 Such loyal service earned Ebroin a string of high-level appointments. He became arch-chaplain to the young Charles the Bald, one of the highest offices of the realm, in 844. He also obtained the powerful and prestigious abbacy of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris about the same time, replacing the famous intellectual and politician, Hilduin. Ebroin himself gained a reputation for academic achievement in this position. These preferments made him one of the powerful figures at court along with his relative Louis, Count Rorigo’s natural son by Charlemagne’s daughter, Rotrude. Somewhat earlier, that Louis had obtained the important office of arch-chancellor to Charles the Bald and the abbacy of S Denis outside Paris. Thus, two Rorigonids occupied positions in the highest level of royal government from the early 840s until Ebroin’s death in the early 850s. 16 See Chapter 11, pp. 315–338. 17 Vita Hludovici, MGH , Script. SS 2, 52, 645. Airlie, “Political Behavior,” 97. 18 Jarousseau, “L’abbaye,” 58. 19 Levillain, “L’archichapelain Ebroin,” 193, esp. note 5. 20 Levillain, “L’archichapelain Ebroin,” 212. Janet Nelson believes it possible that as

a relative of Count Gauzbert, Ebroin led the Aquitanian rebels against Charles in 854. There was outrage in the clan owing to Gauzbert’s execution by Charles, which may have overcome Ebroin’s loyalty to the king. Charles the Bald (Routledge, 1992), 172. For the difficulty in establishing the year of Ebroin’s death, see Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin,” 189–90.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

105

The New Lord of Glanfeuil Compared to these preferments, Ebroin’s proprietorship of Glanfeuil may appear insignificant. Yet, Ebroin spent a good deal of time and effort improving Glanfeuil’s material situation and monastic observances. A flurry of activity occurred at Glanfeuil between 838 and 845, the years in which Ebroin was most active as rector of the monastery. In 839, Count Rorigo presented Glanfeuil with extensive gifts from his allod properties, with Bishops Ebroin and Dodo and members of his immediate family in attendance.21 He also offered his young son, Gauzlin, perhaps only nine or ten years old, to the abbey as an oblate, likely with the expectation that he would eventually become its abbot.22 The Rorigonid donations of 838–39 look like the legacy gifts of Count Rorigo to the abbey, as he died the following year. These were likely suggested by Ebroin as a proper (and necessary) endowment of his cousin’s foundation, just as he persuaded Charles the Bald to endow Glanfeuil a few years later. Guy Jarousseau has noticed in this regard that this gift was presented on March 1, the feast day of Saint-Aubin. That both Ebroin, by that time lay abbot of Saint-Aubin d’Angers, and Dodo, the bishop of Angers, were at Glanfeuil rather than officiating at Saint-Aubin’s liturgies at Angers on its patron’s feast day suggests the importance of this endowment.23 Count Rorigo’s 839 grant and the oblation of his son to Glanfeuil suggests, as do other events mentioned above, that he had regained some of his former influence. An important agreement likely carried through about the same time tends to confirm this. In section 20 of the Historia translationis , Odo states that Ebroin, “submitting to the order and obeying the will of the aforesaid count,” agreed that the abbey of Fossés should have “unimpeded power” (potentiam liberissimam) over Glanfeuil so long as the count remained alive.”24 This comment refers back to the imperial edict issued in 833: that the abbot of Fossés should “always provide the direction” of Glanfeuil.25 The new agreement suggests that Ebroin had already attempted to free Glanfeuil from this dependence on

21 Cart. de S-M., 378–79. 22 Estimate of his age from, Rec. CC., 3: 45. 23 Jarousseau’s observation, “Églises,” 214. 24 HT , 20. 25 See Chapter 4 above, p. 94.

106

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fossés as incompatible with his own position as its lord. This compromise suggests that the count’s improved political position in the later 830s temporarily blocked Ebroin’s attempt to place Glanfeuil entirely under his own authority.

Ebroin Seizes the Abbey of Glanfeuil from Fossés Sometime in the early 840s, however, Count Rorigo died. Louis the Pious, Abbot Ingelbert, and Gauzbert had also passed away. The way was open for Ebroin to act. He demanded to see proof that Glanfeuil was subordinate to Fossés. Unfortunately, Fossés could not produce the edict of Louis the Pious, since, Odo informs us, it had been stolen and burned some years earlier, most likely by Ebroin himself. The bishop thereupon expelled all but a few of the Fossés’ monks resident at Glanfeuil. This suggests both that, as Odo claimed, Gauzbert and his community had attracted new vocations but that some Fossés monks were still so valuable to the youthful community they were allowed to remain. Odo here expresses rare personal opinions. “I think I will keep silence rather than say anything more about this.” He later added that the edict was “deceitfully stolen.”26 Odo also claimed that Ebroin’s attack on Fossés was undertaken “by the influence of men of evil intent,” a common phrase used by medieval writers to reprimand powerful individuals indirectly.27 Odo’s criticism of Ebroin’s coup likely emerged from a genuine dismay at his actions, rather than any animus toward the bishop himself. Ebroin was, after all, his kinsman, whose career Odo otherwise treated in positive terms, at times referring to him as “a great prelate” and even “the holy bishop.”28 Ebroin’s fortunes were also on the rise in Paris in the mid-840s: his position as arch-chaplain to the newly installed King Charles required his presence in Paris; so it is likely that he removed Glanfeuil from under

26 HT, 20. Oexle also concluded that Ebroin was the perpetrator, “Bischof Ebroin,”

156. 27 HT, 20. Significant interaction between the two houses and their leaders nonetheless continued even after Ebroin had expelled the Fossés monks from Glanfeuil: Odo reports that a miracle that occurred at Glanfeuil under Abbot Gauzlin was witnessed by Abbot Gauzfred of Fossés and several of his monks “who testified that they often heard such things [there],” HT, 28. 28 HT , 20, 38.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

107

Fossés’ authority in order to ensure Rorigonid rule of the abbey in his absence. The very next year, as we shall see, he requested that the king appoint (praefieret ) Gauzbert’s son Gauzlin as abbot of Glanfeuil. “Much taken by Gauzlin’s erudition and very learned speech.” Charles constituted (constituit ) him abbot “in the presence of the nobles of the entire kingdom.”29 Gauzlin was then consecrated by the metropolitan bishop Orsmarus of Tours and two other prelates on the feast of Pentecost. Earlier in the year, Gauzlin had been ordained deacon by Bishop Ebroin, then raised to the priesthood by Bishop Dodo.30 Gauzlin’s appointment and installation as the first abbot of the restored Glanfeuil was thus a family affair from beginning to end. At the same time, Ebroin began taking steps to supply the new abbot and his house with a more adequate endowment. In October of 845, he obtained from Charles the Bald two large grants of lands in the neighborhood of the abbey.31 Measuring these donations against grants to other Angevin monasteries, Guy Jarousseau ranked them “among the most generous.”32 Both grants are divided into two portions: Ebroin, as rector of the abbey, was free to dispose of the first portion ad libitum; the second portion, the mensa, was restricted to supplying “the needs of the abbey and its inhabitants.” This mechanism ensured that neither Ebroin, nor any subsequent rector, could appropriate an unfair proportion of this grant to their own use. This abuse was frequently criticized by episcopal councils and was one of the major concerns of the reform councils of Aachen.33 The requirements in these grants demonstrate the desires of Ebroin to establish the abbey economically in accord with reformed monastic regulations. The grants also specified that the churches and other properties included in the grant should not be deprived of the income necessary for their own well-being and mission, another demand of the Aachen 29 HT, 21. 30 LM , 21. 31 The first grant consisted of the church of S. Vétérin de Gennes, along with several other properties and their serfs in and around the village of Gennes; the second involved churches, villages, and serfs in and around Bessé:, Rec. CC., 1. 219–23, (#78–79), Cart. de S-M . 361–62, (#19). 32 Guy Jarousseau, “Jus proprietarium,” 25. 33 Robert Berkhofer, Day of Reckoning: Power and Accountability in Medieval France

(U. of Penn., 2004) 14–23 has a good discussion of the nature and working of the mensa conventualis, 14–23.

108

J. B. WICKSTROM

reformers.34 The terms of these grants also demonstrated Charles the Bald’s own commitment to monastic reform. Indeed, as we shall see, his support was crucial not only to the well-being of the Glanfeuil community, but of the establishment and success of the cult of Maurus, both at Glanfeuil and later at Fossés.

Ebroin and Charles the Bald: The “Constitutional” Diploma of 84735 Two years later, to legitimize his seizure of Glanfeuil from Fossés, Ebroin approached his patron King Charles, requesting a confirmation of the diploma (testamentum) of Louis the Pious from the early 830s, whereby which Ebroin held Glanfeuil through right of ownership (iure proprietarium).36 Yet, the royal confirmation did far more than this. It sets down a “constitution” under which the Rorigonid family would permanently rule over Glanfeuil. The fundamental condition was that all future abbots observe the Rule of Benedict religiose, both personally and as governors of the monastery. The document’s first section confirmed Ebroin as rector of the abbey for life with proprietas (full ownership). This first section definitively excluded any claims on Glanfeuil by the abbey of Fossés. The specific rights of potestas (power, authority) and dominatio (lordship), which, according to Odo’s later account, had been enjoyed by Fossés, were conferred on Bishop Ebroin.37 Thus, despite the recent appointment of Gauzlin as abbot, Ebroin continued as its rector for his lifetime, assuring the abbey of a powerful patron and perhaps providing the bishop with significant income as well. The diploma goes on to authorize the transfer those rights on Ebroin’s death to his kinsman, Abbot Gauzlin, who would be not only lord jure proprietarium (by right of lordship) but abbot iure ecclesiastico (by church law). This legal autonomy was another goal of the monastic 34 Jarousseau, “Jus proprietarium,” 26. 35 Rec. CC., 1. 257–260 (#97). 36 HT, 20. 37 HT , 20. Lunven’s claim that it was the 847 decree of Charles the Bald which

ended Fossés “domination” of Glanfeuil is legalistic. The Rorigonid Ebroin had ruled the abbey since 841. Anne Lunven, “La donation d’Anarouuweth,” Bibliothèque de l’école des Chartes, 170 (2012), 346.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

109

reformers.38 On Gauzlin’s death, however, the abbey would revert to the king and enjoy free election of its abbot from among the community “as do all other royal abbeys,” thus fulfilling the demand of the Aachen reformers for free abbatial elections. The document goes on to say, however, that if a member of the Rorigo family could not be found “by God’s will,” the king or his successors could choose (subrogari queat ) that person as abbot. This last section is the first sign that the diploma represents a compromise between Ebroin’s desire for perpetual Rorigonid control of the abbey and the king’s wish to support the reformers’ demand for free election of abbots.39 This compromise, however, reveals a contradiction at the heart of the Glanfeuil’s reform and of Carolingian monastic reforms in general: the conditions governing abbatial elections and often, even the appointments of abbots were decided by royal authority, yet one of that Rule’s prominent requirements was free election of the abbot by the community. This ambiguity caused Guy Jarousseau to describe Glanfeuil’s reform as mitigé (lukewarm).40 The document, however, attempts to ameliorate this conflict by requiring that Rorigonid candidates for succession to the abbacy of Glanfeuil exhibit devout (religiosus ) observance of the Rule. Twenty years later, Odo summarized this important decree in his Historia. However, a significant discrepancy exists between the decree of 847 and Odo’s later summary. The former document states that later Rorigonid candidates “may be elected” (subrogari queat ) by royal authority even if it is not the community’s choice, whereas Odo’s later stated that “as long as someone of our family (progenie nostri) can be found who, while he lives, to govern the shrine according to the rule of Blessed Benedict, he and no other may legally discharge the office of abbot there.”41 That is, the electoral option of Charles’ decree becomes in

38 Jarousseau concludes this was a goal of a second-large grant secured for the abbey in 850. “Jus proprietarium,” 27–29. 39 Rec. CC, 1. 259. 40 Jarousseau, “Jus proprietarium,” 35. Jarousseau’s view is to be preferred to the

radical conclusion of Albrecht Diem that “the role abbots played in Carolingian power structures was too important to allow monastic communities to elect a leader from their own rank—as the Regula Benedicti prescribes.” “Carolingians and the Regula Benedicti,” in Religious Franks: religion and power in the Frankish kingdoms: studies in honour of Mayke de Jong, eds. Rob Meens, Dorine van Espelo (Manchester, 2016), 244. 41 HT, 20.

110

J. B. WICKSTROM

Odo’s summary of it a constitutional requirement. Odo’s more restrictive version suggests that during the twenty years since Charles’ decree of 847 and Odo’s version in his Historia in 868, Rorigonid control of Glanfeuil had become independent of royal oversight. Odo’s passing reference to the Rorigonids as his own family (progenie nostri) in his summary of the 847 decree is the only clue to his identity. He may well have been of the lesser relatives of the family or even related through marriage. The name “Odo” is not otherwise found among the Rorigonids. However, among the kindred of Robert the Strong and his relatives, the name is common.42 Moreover, several Robertians appear to have married into the Rorigonid family in the 860s, despite a growing rivalry between the two familiae.43 Odo’s sympathies certainly lie with the Rorigonids, though he did not hesitate to criticize both Count Rorigo and Bishop Ebroin on more than one occasion. The most striking feature of the decree of 847 is the middle section, which paraphrases an earlier “bishops’ statement”, which has not survived. It was likely composed by Ebroin during the consecration ceremonies of Abbot Gauzlin in 845, which Ebroin’s episcopal allies also attended: Bishop Dodo, Bishop Orsmarus of Tours, and two other unnamed prelates.44 The bishops’ document claimed that Ebroin, described here as Charles the Bald’s “principal and faithful councilor,” had “restored with great zeal in every way” monastic observance to the abbey “from the ground up,” to “its formerly honorable state,” and “renewed its abbatial status by setting up his kinsman Gauzlin in that office.” The bishops went on to require that, by their episcopal auctoritas, these changes be permanent and unalterable, giving a high legitimacy to Ebroin’s settlements. The statement also provided ecclesiastical approval

42 Among these: Count Odo himself, his father, Odo’s eldest son, and the younger son of Robert the Strong. 43 The daughter of Wicfeld, Count of Bourges, possibly the brother or cousin of Bishop Ebroin married Count Robert, Settipani, La noblesse, 189 (genealogical chart) and 264. Theodrade, the wife of Robert the Strong’s son Odo, might be identified as a Rorigonid on onomastic grounds. Robert the Strong and his allies were gaining influence at court throughout the 860s: Jean-Pierre Devroey, “La Villa Floriacus,” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, 82/84 (2004), 818–19. 44 HT, 23.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

111

to the appointment of Gauzlin as abbot by Bishop Ebroin and Charles the Bald.45 What is most remarkable about the bishops’ statement is its entire attribution of the religious reform of Glanfeuil to Bishop Ebroin. The bishops say nothing of Count Rorigo’s restoration of the abbey, the introduction of the Rule of Benedict at Glanfeuil by Abbot Ingelbert and its repopulation by monks from Fossés, nor does it mention the seizure of Glanfeuil by Bishop Ebroin, topics which dominate Odo’s Historia, written twenty years later. The decree of 847 was only the first of several alternative histories of the restoration of Glanfeuil, as we shall see. Still, Oexle largely accepted the assessments of the 847 diploma: that it was indeed Bishop Ebroin who orchestrated the long-term success of the abbey.46 His attribution to Ebroin of religious motives for his restoration of the abbey, reflecting the attitude of the diploma of 847, nonetheless requires modification. Ebroin’s long career, from the late 820s to the mid-850s, reveals a worldly wise, sometimes warlike, cleric, who collected prestigious preferments linked to the royal court. His major achievements were political, often even military, rather than religious. He seems to have been the sort of bishop that had recently been condemned by the council of Paris of 829, which admonished prelates who collected vast estates “out of avarice” to the neglect of their pastoral duties.47 He likely died in battle around 850, helping Charles put down yet another rebellion. Abbot Odo’s attitude in his Historia toward his powerful relative and predecessor at Glanfeuil was deeply ambiguous. Ebroin was described by Odo as “powerful in the clerical order,” covetous of the bishopric of Poitiers and likely guilty of destroying an imperial decree that had established “forever” the right of Fossés to rule over Glanfeuil. While Odo attributed the latter act to “certain men of evil intent,” these are never identified nor again mentioned.48 True, Odo described Ebroin elsewhere as a “holy bishop.” In assessing such an encomium, we should recall Odo likely had to tread carefully in discussing such an important member of the family, of which he himself was likely a lesser member. Fundamentally,

45 Rec.CC, 1. 259, (#97). 46 Oexle’s view is largely shared by Guy Jarousseau. 47 Quoted in Michael Moore, A sacred Kingdom: Bishops and the rise of the Frankish

kingdom, 300–850 (Catholic U. Press, 2011), 322. 48 HT , 20.

112

J. B. WICKSTROM

Odo was a member of the monastic reform party rather than a Rorigonid loyalist; the heroes of his narrative are pious monks and humble laymen devoted to monastic reform such as Gauzbert, Abbot Gauzlin and Abbess Bildechildis, Count Harderadus, and Count Florus. Ebroin had shown little interest in reforming the several other abbeys and bishoprics he had acquired. The only direct affirmation of his piety is the diploma of 847, which he likely wrote himself. It was Charles the Bald rather than Ebroin who inserted into this document the demand for strict observance of the Rule at Glanfeuil. In contrast to Ebroin, the king’s life-long concern for reform and his personal devotion to monastic cults are well-documented. Indeed, the settlement of 847 shows skill with which Charles the Bald oversaw the governance and discipline of his monasteries. He has been taken to task by modern writers for allowing non-resident and often lay abbots to rule important monasteries after Charlemagne and Louis the Pious forbade the practice.49 While Charles did turn Glanfeuil over to the non-resident abbot Ebroin, the king inserted requirements into the 847 diploma designed to perpetuate good governance and monastic discipline at Glanfeuil and later demonstrated a personal devotion and generosity to the shrine of Maurus at Fossés.50 In sum, the many achievements of Bishop Ebroin at Glanfeuil were a complex mixture of piety and calculation. The most important and striking example of his style was the invention of the cult of Saint Maurus at Glanfeuil.

Bishop Ebroin, Abbot Gauzlin, and the Origins of the Cult of Maurus Ebroin’s choice of his kinsman, Gauzlin, the son of Gauzbert and nephew of Count Rorigo, as abbot of Glanfeuil in 845, opened a decade of fundamental identity-formation in the life of the abbey. Odo’s description of Gauzlin’s preparation for the position of abbot is fulsome: he was formally presented to King Charles by Ebroin, probably at Paris, where Gauzlin much impressed the king with his “erudition and very learned speech.” Charles therefore appointed (constituit ) him abbot and promised 49 For example, Uta-Renate Blumenthal, Investiture Conflict (U. of Penn. 1991), 6–7. 50 Guy Jarousseau also sees the document as a compromise between Bishop Ebroin’s

concern for his familia and the king’s desire to ensure monastic observance, “Jus proprietarium,” 35.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

113

to bestow on him “even greater gifts” in the future.51 Odo then details the rituals preliminary to Gauzlin’s consecration as abbot and even gives exact date of his consecration: “on the day before holy Pentecost, the third of the kalends of June” [May 30th ]. This first abbot of the restored Glanfeuil was probably born about 815, from a marriage that his father, Gauzbert, had contracted during his career in the world, a period which Odo was careful to describe as “worthy,” however “secular” it was, thereby legitimizing both Gauzbert’s fatherhood and his son’s abbacy.52 That Gauzbert had a long career “in the world” before becoming a monk, which apparently included marriage, renders unnecessary the confusion of earlier scholars regarding his relationship to Gauzlin.53 Scholars also appear to have confused Gauzbert’s son with his cousin Gauzlin, Count Rorigo’s offspring of the same name.54 Odo opens his account of Abbot Gauzlin’s career by extolling the new abbot’s intellect and spiritual virtues: “erudite and learned in speech” and “instructed in the most devout (religioissime) monastic perfection,” the son of “the holy man, Gauzbert” Odo’s description stresses continuity in the zealous observance of the Rule introduced to Glanfeuil by Abbot 51 HT, 21. 52 If the canonical rule requiring candidates for the priesthood to have reached the age

of 30 was observed here, Gauzlin could have been born no later than 815. 53 As an example., Rec.CC, 3, 42–6. The confusion arose because earlier scholars had (inexplicably) overlooked Odo’s statement that Gauzbert had experienced a long secular career before becoming a monk at Fossés (HT, 17). Historians were thus compelled to find an explanation for why Gauzlin was described by Odo as Gauzbert’s son. Some suggested they were uncle and nephew, others that there was a “spiritual sonship”. 54 See as examples, Levillain, “L’archichapelain Ebroin,” 183, note 3 and, Rec.CC, 3, 43–4. Count Rorigo’s son, Gauzlin, had entered Glanfeuil as an oblate in 839, probably in anticipation of his eventual election as abbot. (Cart. de S-M., 378, (#34). This other Gauzlin does not appear again in Odo’s narrative; he likely left the abbey soon after Ebroin took control, who had other ideas about the succession. We know that he went to Reims where, under the illustrious archbishop and scholar, Hincmar, he prepared for a long and distinguished career at Paris as an influential courtier and political figure: He later became Abbot of Saint-Denis and Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris and of Jumièges. He later obtained the archbishopric of Paris and served as archchancellor to Charles Bald, Louis the Stammerer, and Carloman. He died in 886 defending Paris from a Viking attack. The standard modern account of this “other Gauzlin” is Karl Ferdinand Werner, “Gauzlin von Saint-Denis,” Vom Frankenreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs (Sigmarigen, 1984), 157–224. For more recent scholars who explained the relationship correctly. see Bloch. MCMA, 2, 971 and Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin,” 157.

114

J. B. WICKSTROM

Ingelbert and practiced by Gauzlin’s father, Gauzbert, on whom Odo bestows the epithet vir Dei, a title he had hitherto reserved for Benedict and then for Maurus. Odo adds that, once Gauzlin had accepted the pastoral care (cure pastorale) of the abbey, “it began nobly to increase in holy devotion (sancta religione) and in his day flowered before all others in holy worship (divinis cultibus ).”55 Though Odo paints Gauzlin’s character and achievements as particularly outstanding, they are not untypical of monastic rulers of his era in Neustria. After the treaty of Verdun in 843 eased the violence and insecurity of the previous decades, a revived monastic religio and attention to monastic saints’ cults revived.56 There was also an increase during the 700s and 800s in translations of the relics of Merovingian saintly patrons and founders from modest sepulchers to places of honor above or behind the high altar.57 Thus, Odo notes that the translation of Maurus’ relics from the south side of Saint Martin’s chapel to a new iron reliquary behind the high altar in 845 followed “the custom of our era.” However, most such transfers of Merovingian saint’s relics usually occurred only a few years after the establishment of their cults, another indication that the cult of Maurus was of recent vintage.58 Odo frames the translation of Maurus’ relics on March 12, 845, as the central event of Gauzlin’s abbacy. Names and exact dates were carefully recorded, including a lengthy quotation of Abbot Gauzlin’s own account of the event, along with descriptions of the miracles that occurred that day, symbolizing heaven’s approval.59 It was almost certainly the joint project of Bishop Ebroin and his newly appointed abbot, Gauzlin and was apparently an issue of some urgency: it was carried out even before Abbot Gauzlin was consecrated abbot.60 Ebroin understood what 55 H, 21. 56 Jean Heuclin, “Les abbés des monastères neustriens 650–850,” in La Neustrie, 1.

335. 57 John Crook, The architectural setting of the cult of saints in the early Christian West, c.300–1200 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 70–71, 94. 58 Crook, Architectural Setting, 245. 59 HT, 22. 60 Odo does not supply the date of Gauzlin’s appointment as abbot. The translation occurred on March 12th, 845, on the feast of Gregory the Great, while Gauzlin’s consecration by local bishops was carried out on the vigil of Pentecost (May 30th), HT , 23.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

115

modern hagiographers have also learned: that without a saintly patron and an attractive shrine, recently founded or revived monasteries had a difficult time surviving.” Odo highlighted the core importance of this event by quoting at length what he claimed was Abbot Gauzlin’s own account of the event: In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 845, in the eighth year of the indiction, on the fifth day of the week, in the fifth week of Lent, the fourth of the Ides of March [March 12th : the feast of Gregory the Great], the bones of the blessed deacon Maurus, enclosed in an iron chest, were translated by the servant of God Gauzlin and other priests into the place where they are now venerated. On that same day, they discovered the relics of the protomartyr Stephen, which had been enclosed for the purposes of veneration in a wooden reliquary next to Father Maurus’ tomb by Bertulf, abbot in the days of King Chlothar. These were so whole and without blemish that it was believed they had been placed there about the same time. During this process, a small fragment of ancient parchment was discovered, the writing of which over a very long time had become so faded and eroded that it could scarcely be made out, even by the most careful investigation. When the text was finally deciphered, it was discovered to contain these words: “Here rests the body of Blessed Maurus, monk and deacon, who in the time of King Theudebert came into Gaul, and on the eighteenth of the Kalends of February passed out of this world.” In like manner, relics of Blessed Peter the Apostle were discovered with a small marker set up at his head, covered over by a mound of sand to protect them, as one might expect.61

Whether this passage was truly the account of Abbot Gauzlin or yet another of Odo’s inventions, it represents the first detailed evidence of a cult of Saint Maurus at Glanfeuil. However, its wording suggests that this Maurus may not yet have been identified with the disciple of Saint Benedict.62 61 HT, 22. 62 The document does mention Abbot Bertulf, who succeeded Maurus as abbot of

Glanfeuil in Odo’s Life of Maurus , written in 868. His appearance in a document dated 845 either shows that Odo “edited” this “transcription” or that Bertulf was in fact an early abbot of Glanfeuil, whose name was still known in the ninth century. As evidence of the latter possibility, we recall that the final scenes of Odo’s Life of Maurus probably reflect the community memory of the abbey being decimated by the sixth-century century plague. Since Bertulf was, according to Odo, abbot at that time, his name very likely was remembered as a part of that traumatic event. The name is known from the seventh through

116

J. B. WICKSTROM

A few other references to a cult of Maurus at Glanfeuil appeared at this time—and not before. The earliest dates from 839, in the first donation of significant properties to the abbey. The grantor, Count Rorigo, gave to “God the Father, Jesus Christ our Savior, the most Blessed Virgin Mary and to Saint Peter at the monastery of Glanfeuil, where the bodily remains of the blessed confessor of Christ, Saint Maurus rest.”63 The language, likely drafted by Bishop Ebroin, who was present, at this early point still privileged the traditional patrons of Glanfeuil, Christ Salvator, and Saint Peter.64 The second reference to a cult of Maurus dates from 843, two years before the translation of Maurus’ relics. It was included as the climax of a pilgrimage to the abbey by a wealthy Breton pilgrim, Annowaredh.65 Entering the church during Vespers, the pilgrim saw Maurus, vested as a deacon, enter the abbey church from above through a window. He then delivered the liturgical prayers of the community to an angel, who transported them to the presence of God. Maurus thus functions here as a diaconal assistant to the angel. Annarowedh’s vision also described in some detail the levitical vestments of Maurus: “he wore the robes of a deacon and the holy stole had been properly draped.”66 Abbot Gauzlin’s 845 account of the “ancient parchment” found with the relics of Maurus contains similar language: “Here rests the body of Blessed Maurus monk and deacon.”67

the twelfth century. Saints and churchmen with this name were especially common in the Merovingian period: Sara Uckelman, ed. The Dictionary of Medieval Names from European Sources, Edition 2018, (http://dmnes.org/2018/1/name/Bertulf). 63 Cart. de S-M, 378, (#34). 64 For a discussion of the centrality of relic placement at a church dedication: Remen-

snyder, Remembering, 33. She notes, however, that consecrations were sometimes omitted from foundational legends, likely since the construction of the monastery itself created a sacred space, 79. 65 Three different versions of this donation were recorded: one in the Odo’s Historia, (HT , 26) another in the twelfth-century abbey cartulary: Cart.de S-M, 363 (#20), (#21) and a third at the end of the Rorigo bible (fol. 408v). The multiple records were likely intended to preserve the details of grants of land by Annowaredh, the largest in the abbey’s history. They may also have been specially preserved as the only records predating Odo’s 860s narratives to mention a miracle performed by a “deacon” Maurus. 66 Cart. de S-M 364, (#21). 67 HT, 22.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

117

Twin diplomas of Charles the Bald from 845 provide the next references to the cult of Maurus. The first described Glanfeuil as “the monastery of Saint Maurus” while the second referred to “the monastery of Glanfeuil, where Saint Maurus, reverently interred, is venerated.” It is also pertinent that these two diplomas, unlike the 839 document, mention Maurus alone as the abbey’s patron. A similar grant by Charles the Bald in 850 also refers to “the monastery of Saint Maurus.”68 The royal diploma from 847, discussed above, that established the Rorigonid governance of Glanfeuil, makes no mention of any Saint Maurus but another hand inserted “[at Glanfeuil] where the body of Saint Maurus was buried” over an erasure.69 None of these references from the late 830s to 850 identify this Maurus with the disciple of Saint Benedict. Indeed, they provide some grounds for suspecting that the Maurus mentioned in these documents referred to another person altogether. This suggestion is prompted primarily by their references to Maurus as a deacon. The discovery of relics of St Stephen next to Maurus’ tomb connected him to the most celebrated of the early Christian deacons. In the account of Annarowedh as well, Maurus is the first and foremost described as a deacon and his diaconal vestments are described in unusual detail. There is on the other hand no mention of Benedict’s disciple as a deacon in Gregory’s Life of Benedict, and Odo mentions Maurus as a deacon only once in the Life of Maurus , likely an attempt by Odo to conform his narrative to these earlier references. All this supports the suggestions of a few historians that memories of a holy man named Maurus or Maurice or Martin or Maurus had existed in the area from earlier times.70 Such similar names were common in Anjou and were often conflated. For examples, the high medieval cult of Saint Maur-des-Buissons in Burgundy was thought in the later Middle Ages to have originated with the community of Glanfeuil which took refuge there in 863; but the story has been shown to be a conflation with another saint 68 Cart. de S-M , 386 (#44). 69 Rec.CC, 1. 259 (#97). 70 A recent study of Glanfeuil and Fossés asserts that Odo identified Benedict’s disciple with another Maurus who founded the abbey in the sixth century: Michel Lauwers, “Mémoire Des Origines et Idéologies Monastique: Saint-Pierre-des-Fossés et Saint-Victor de Marseille Au xe Siècle,” Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome: Moyen-Age, Temps modernes, 115 (2003), 159.

118

J. B. WICKSTROM

named Maurus, venerated from an early date at Buissons, whose feast day was October 25th.71 Glanfeuil’s Maurus may have been conflated with the cult of Saint Maurice at Agaunum, which. as we have seen, figured prominently and somewhat mysteriously in the journey of Maurus and his companions to France. Maurice’s cult had spread to Angers in the early ninth century, at the time when Saint Maurus was first mentioned at Glanfeuil. Moreover, one of the four original churches attributed to Saint Maurus at Glanfeuil was dedicated to a Saint Severinus, which may refer to an early abbot of the monastery at Agaunum, who was associated with the cult of Saint Maurice. His Vita, in the opinion of Leclercq, influenced the structure of Odo’s Life of Maurus . Finally, the relics of Saint Victor Maurus, a second-century African martyr, were taken to Fleury in the early tenth century where they were, intentionally or otherwise, confused with the disciple of Saint Benedict.72 It seems probable that Bishop Ebroin and Abbot Gauzlin consolidated such memories to create Saint Maurus, deacon and monk, patron of Glanfeuil, by 845, or perhaps a bit earlier. Twenty-five years later, in his Life of Maurus and Historia, Abbot Odo firmly connected this holy man with St. Benedict’s young oblate. This cult was thus the achievement of extraordinarily talented individuals, who thereby provided the small abbey of Glanfeuil with a new and potent cultic identity. It would propel the figure of Maurus and his shrine into the history of the great abbeys of Europe and of the emergent papacy itself in a progress that Count Rorigo, and even Bishop Ebroin, could not have imagined.

The Miracles of Maurus at the New Shrine However impressive the actual or imagined origins of a saint’s cult might be, its long-term success stemmed from the saint’s ability to help its devotees with miraculous cures and other heavenly assistance. Odo’s Historia translationis emphasizes this reality by abandoning a chronological narrative of the restoration of Glanfeuil in the 830s in favor of a topical section which presents miracles which Saint Maurus performed during

71 V. de Buck, Acta Sanctorum octobris, t. xi, 1864, pp. 677–679. Cf. G. Moyse, “Les origines du monachisme,” 48 and note 2. 72 J. Dubois, Le martyrologe d’Usuard. Texte et commentaire (Subsidia hagiographica, Bruxelles: Société des bollandistes, 1965), 40, 227.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

119

the rule of Count Rorigo’s brother, Gauzbert, Gauzbert’s son Gauzlin, and Gauzlin’s younger brother, Theodrad.73 It was a prudent narrative turn. Now that Maurus’ cult had been set in place, it was now incumbent on him to demonstrate his protective powers. Odo announced at this point: “Now, however,the course of our story should turn to the distinctive signs of the divine power that were displayed in this monastery through this most blessed person.”74 Odo’s presentation of these miracles has a distinct theme: divine vengeance, whereby Maurus brings retribution on oppressors of the community; none describe cures of pilgrims or others at the shrine itself: why this omission of healing miracles at the shrine, which are the core of most such miracle collections? Most likely, since Odo was writing after his community had abandoned their abbey around 862 taking Maurus’ relics with them, cures at the abandoned shrine would be of little concern to his audience, the Glanfeuil community in exile at Fossés. These monks would have been far more impressed with examples of how Maurus had protected his community in the past, with the implication that he would continue to watch over them in exile. While Maurus’ intercession is requested in each instance, it is never Maurus himself who actually comes to the community’s assistance: it is instead some other natural or supernatural power: a thunderstorm, a sudden fatal illness, or devils who carry off persecutors of the abbey. It is as if the holy patron would not lower himself to deal with such miscreants, or that nature itself abhorred those who attacked monks. Moreover, Odo’s stories here involved local nobles or other Christian enemies of the abbey rather than pagan Vikings; in one instance Odo described the Christian offenders as “worse than pagans, persisting in every form of evil…beyond what the human heart can conceive or the tongue speak.”75 Pagans were not the intended audience of such stories, and they would scarcely be deterred by the supposed power of Christian saints. Odo never suggests, as did some contemporary sources, that the pagan attacks represented God’s punishment of monks. Odo’s monks were, after all, a new, reformed community observing the Rule of Benedict religiose.

73 That is, from 845 to about 860, according to the internal chronology of Odo’s Historia translationis . 74 HT, 23. 75 HT, 34.

120

J. B. WICKSTROM

A remarkable feature of several of these “vengeance” miracles is the violence of both the abbey’s oppressors and of the divine punishment that fell upon them. Most stories of this type involved Abbot Theodrad, who ruled Glanfeuil from the death of his brother Gauzlin about 855 to the accession of Abbot Odo in 862/3. It was a period of escalating violence between the great families of the Loire valley. Indeed, the assailants in one such attack have the same names as followers of Robert the Strong, who was the Rorigonids’ chief political rival from the 850s.76 In the most dramatic of these tales, Abbot Theodrad himself was attacked by a certain Raimbaud, who “began beating him almost to death, tearing his cowl and tunic with a lance.”77 However, self-defense was also recorded: Abbot Theodrad once fended off an attacker by hitting the assailant in the head with a reliquary he was carrying and ordering the intruders to be thrown off the monastery property.78 In these courageous responses, Abbot Theodrad reveals something of the energetic leadership and the fighting ability of the Rorigonids, including the clerics among them. Balancing these characteristics, however, is Odo’s description of Theodrad as “of holy memory” and the monks under him as sancti.79 In addition to the miracle stories, Odo tells us that during his decade as abbot (c.853–62/3) Theodrad extended abbey’s boundaries along the Loire riverbank and placed the relics of Saint Maurus in the neighboring church of Saint Julien, likely for safekeeping. All these stories hint at the complexity and competence of this otherwise shadowy figure. The wrath of heaven visited on the enemies of Maurus was often more dramatic than anything the abbey’s oppressors themselves had inflicted: four were driven mad by the violence of a storm, another died in convulsions, spraying bystanders with urine; a third was dragged out of a stolen boat by demons—fishermen discovered his body days later, the belly ripped open and the intestines missing. Still others had their eyes gouged out and their limbs pulled off.80 These graphic portrayals of violence were

76 HT, 33. Persons named Raimond, Frotmund, Ercanric, and Wanilo have the same names as followers of Count Robert the Strong, Oexle, “Bischof Ebroin,” 193. See also Jarousseau, Eglises, 268–9 for Frotmund as an “accomplice” of Robert the Strong. 77 HT, 34. 78 HT, 33. 79 HT , 5. 80 HT , 33, 34.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

121

surely intended to hearten the community in exile, perhaps even to entertain. But they also likely reflected the actual collapse of civil order at the time. Some actual incidents from 851 illustrate the similitude of historical events to the vengeance miracles. During a Breton rebellion in 851, its formidable leader, Nominoë, attacked Neustria, “scattering the friends of the king (amici regis ) in all directions.” He appeared at Glanfeuil and demanded that a bronze and silver statue of himself be placed on the abbey gable, facing the Carolingian capitol. This or some similar threat caused Abbot Gauzlin to flee to the Breton abbey of Redon with which Glanfeuil had kept up cordial relations ever since both houses had adopted the Rule of Benedict in the 830 s. He remained there for four months. Gauzlin’s retreat more likely resulted from his identity as a Rorigonid rather than as abbot of Glanfeuil. The Widonids, old rivals of the Rorigonids, were at the time also raiding Neustria “with unspeakable fury” in retaliation for the murder of their leader, Lambert, by Abbot Gauzlin’s brother, Gauzbert.81 One other vengeance miracle also seems to have reflected the tensions between the Rorigonids and competing noble families. Odo described the perpetrators of an attack on the abbey, probably in the service of the Rorigonids’ main rival, Robert the Strong, as “the most atrocious instigators of every sort of harassment and the worst plunderers of our possessions we have ever endured. They were all beyond redemption both in heart and action.” He singled out one of them, a certain Raimbaud, as “the worst of criminals, who could not pass a single day without being defiled by sin. in whose depths no Christian spirit survived.”82 Odo described the punishment visited on Raimbaud and his familia with unusual detail and perhaps satisfaction: Loathed by sun and air and unworthy of living in the common light, he was struck down by divine punishment for presuming such crimes and driven off to his demon companions. Frotmund and Hercanrick, along with their wives and sons and some of their servants, lost everything they had and were, moreover, held in captivity by the Northmen, tethered with huge iron chains. Thus, the Lord avenged himself on those who had set themselves against him and his servants. But Wanilo, a little less cruel than the rest, was freed from captivity while his wife and sons were detained 81 Nelson, Charles the Bald, 172. 82 HT, 34.

122

J. B. WICKSTROM

along with others. None of them believed in God or hoped in his salvation or tried to carry through the obligations of a Christian’s life. In all things may God be blessed, who hands over the impious?83

It is worth noting in this passage that Odo attributed to divine providence what was likely a Viking decision about how to deal with different types of prisoners. Such stories provide rare glimpses into the mostly unrecorded “daily life” in this turbulent time. We learn, for example, that the monastery was both a storehouse for local goods and a refuge for neighbors forced from their homes owing to feuds among the noble families.84 Glanfeuil maintained a landing for the large fishing boats plying up and down the Loire, with several servants attached to it.85 One of their responsibilities was to collect a fish tax “for the benefit of the monastery” during Lent, when the demand for fish was high..86 Several allusions to large quantities of wine stored at the monastery shows that the Loire valley was already producing high volumes of the product which would later define the area’s economic identity.87

The Miracles of Maurus on the road to Fossés Odo goes on to present a second group of supernatural events with a purpose quite different from those of the vengeance stories. He needed to show that Maurus had not lost his thaumaturgical powers when his relics were removed from their original cult center. The core of this story is another journey for Maurus: a six-year wandering of the community, bearing his relics, from Glanfeuil to the abbey of Fossés in Paris. Abbot Theodrad was dead by 863 at the latest88 Why or how Odo was chosen as his successor is unknown, except that, as discussed above, he

83 HT, 34. 84 HT, 24, 33. 85 HT, 30. 86 HT, 32. 87 HT, 25, 33. 88 Odo attended a council at Soissons as abbas in that year: François Plaine, “Odo de

Glanfeuil et l’authenticité de la mission de Saint Maur de Glanfeuil,” Revue historique de l’ouest, 13 (1897), 129.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

123

was likely a member of the Rorigonid familia.89 His accession coincided with the return of Viking raiders who, after a few years of relative inactivity, had begun to set up winter camps on the Loire, thus intensifying their menace.90 Thus, one of Odo’s first acts as abbot was to abandon his monastery, taking Glanfeuil’s most valuable possession, the relics of Maurus, along with community. Odo’s letter prefacing the Life of Maurus implied that the community had fled in fear of the Normans without a clear destination. As discussed above, Odo and his monks faced a serious threat in addition to the Norman attacks. Moving saint’s relics from their original shrine constituted a fraught moment for any cult’s survival, as we will see with the translation of Saint Scholastica’s relics to Le Mans. Since classical times, to access divine healing a petitioner had to travel, both physically and spiritually, from everyday reality to a shrine, a liminal threshold where heavenly powers and human need met. Early Christians had traveled to the great repositories of such power: Jerusalem, Rome, Bethlehem. As travel in the West became more difficult, local healing centers grew up as substitutes. There remained the belief, however, that healing power was concentrated in places where the saints’ remains rested. Aron Gurevich claims that, at the shrine of Saint Martin of Tours, “one can speak of a ‘force field’ within the bounds of which the virtus of a saint was active. Martin’s power to heal applied only so long as those who received it either came to Tours or remained there.”91 As late as 1000, Abbot Richard’s of Verdun’s Life of St Vanne said of the patron of his monastery, “how much more powerfully does the greatness of his sanctity shrine forth in the sanctuary of this basilica in which the dust of his sacred body had been known to have been buried since earliest times.”92 Odo was quite aware of the need to counter the danger to Maurus’ cult of this exile. He concluded his presentation of the first of three spectacular cures that Maurus performed “on the road” with the claim that “the body of the holy saint is as often visited and honored by the heavenly hosts wherever it is carried as it is at its tomb. The clearest signs have often

89 See above, 110. 90 Landreau, “Les Vicissitudes,” 344. 91 Aron Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture, (Cambridge UP, 1988), 42. 92 Quoted in Geary, Furta Sacra, rev. ed. (Princeton, 1991), 70.

124

J. B. WICKSTROM

demonstrated this.”93 The miracles that Maurus worked “on the road” were mostly cures. These were particularly complex cures, often reserved for difficult cases. Originally, the sufferer slept in the temple of some god, often Serapis or Asclepius, who visited the sufferer in his or her sleep and effected a cure. The shrines of late antique Christian saints became equally famous for such cures, and in the sixth and seventh centuries such centers proliferated. The shrine of Martin of Tours, with which Glanfeuil had long associations and the nearby shrine of Saint Julian, were famous for these.94 That the relics of Maurus could perform them while in transit demonstrated that his powers not only had not diminished, they had increased. The first such cure by Maurus was particularly dramatic and so, fulsomely described by Odo. At the community’s first stopover, a village named Scamaratus,95 about fifteen miles north of Glanfeuil, the monks were approached by a woman who had been vomiting blood for fifteen years, recalling the Gospels’ figure of a woman with a flow of blood.96 The community first employed all its intercessory tools: Mass was said over the relics of Maurus, followed by litanies and appropriate psalms. When these were of no avail, the sufferer was advised to spend the night in the presence of the saint’s relics.97 In the middle of the night, all the candles in the church spontaneously burst into flame, and the nave was “filled to overflowing with an assembly dressed in white.”98 One of the figures approached the terrified woman and announced that she had been cured through the merits of Saint Maurus. His reliquary was then opened, and a sweet fragrance suffused the entire area. Abbot Odo himself was awakened and rushed to the church where he saw the lights of the church

93 HT, 21. 94 Gregory of Tours, Libri quattuor in virtutibus Martini, MGH, Script. SS. Rer. merov.,

1.2, 137, and 159–60, and In virtutibus sancti Juliani, MGH, SS. rer. merov. 1,2, and 131– 32. Gregory of Tours himself was cured of a fever by S. Martin. Philip Burton, Sulpicius Severus. Vita Martini. ed. Philip Burton (Oxford: Oxford U.P)., 2017, 1. 32; 14. 298. i, 32. Raymond Van Dam, Saints and their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul (Princeton, 1993), 223–5. 95 Today: Echemiré, canton and arrondissement de Baugé, to the west of that town. 96 Matthew 9: 20–22; Mark 5: 25–34; Luke 8: 43–48. 97 For a discussion of incubation miracles, see Head, Hagiography, 166 and Hamilton, Incubation, Part II. 98 HT, 35.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

125

all ablaze and perceived the holy fragrance. The cured woman told the abbot everything that had happened, which he immediately wrote down. On the following night, Odo was awakened by chanting of “unutterable sweetness” but was unable to rise from his bed to investigate, a common effect on witnesses of particularly powerful miracles. Only during this miracle did Odo ever present himself as an eyewitness. The whole scene shows his ability to prove that Maurus could cure anywhere: a fulsome and dramatic description of a difficult cure supported by the eyewitness testimony of not only many others, but also of himself, as abbot, narrator, and participant. Finally, to drive home the point, Odo claimed that this paralleled a miracle which had occurred at Glanfeuil in the time of Abbot Gauzlin: that is, Maurus could perform the same miracles outside of his shrine as he had done within its confines.99 Odo immediately added a second incubation cure with a different focus. A nobleman suffering from an intractable fever was advised to spend the night before the relics of Maurus.100 After the man was cured, Odo announced that the power of Maurus was particularly effective against “every kind of fever.” This assertion seems unlikely at first hearing: none of the many other recorded miracles of Maurus involved fevers, nor were such cures often associated with his relics in later times. One might speculate that Odo’s inclusion of incubation and fever-cure miracles constituted an attempt to establish Saint Maurus with such healings, as a local alternative to Saint Martin’s and Saint Julian’s shrines at Tours, or to associate the reputation of the newly arrived Saint Maurus with those ancient and prestigious shrine centers. After the dramatic incubation miracle at Scamaratus, the community moved on, making its first extended stay at a villa named Merula (Merolle), close to Saumur. When they arrived, they found the bishop unable to receive them, since he was away commanding an expedition against the Normans.101 The community remained there, Odo tells us, 99 HT , 35, 37. 100 For the frequent association of this malady with incubation, Pierre Sigal, L’homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale, XI e -XII e siècle (Paris, 1985), 245–46. Sigal suggests

that this association may have occurred owing the tendency of fevers to resolve themselves after a night of sleep For several examples of fever cured by saints from various periods and places through incubation in the Early Middle Ages, see Hamilton, Incubation, 131, 140–42, 159. 101 HT, 38. Lot, La Loire, 474–75, note 5, has identified this incident with Charles the Bald’s summons to all the leading men of his kingdom to join him by June 1, 862,

126

J. B. WICKSTROM

for a year and a half. Here again, Odo reiterates that innumerable miracles occurred, among which, he adds, were many cures of noblemen. This last is a repeated claim in Odo’s Historia, suggesting a hope that the new shrine, located at Fossés in Paris when this was written in 868, might be attractive to noble pilgrims visiting the capitol. Despite these demonstrations of the saint’s power away from his home, Odo conveys the deprivation of exile and the continuing danger from of Viking raiders: the cult was only maintained at Merula, Odo explains, “as well as we could manage.” Odo tells us that the community was finally driven away “through fear of unexpected and repeated pagan incursions” and “there remained nowhere a safe refuge for us.” A sense of insecurity and urgency pervades the narrative here. Finally, Odo decided that the community needed to leave its own estates for a safer refuge in far-off Burgundy, “to save our lives.”102

Taking Refuge in Burgundy The precise location of the refuge offered to the Glanfeuil community by Odo, the count of Burgundy, is unknown. Abbot Odo merely states that it was “near the Saône” (citra Ararim), so over 300 miles east of Glanfeuil. The community probably remained in Burgundy for threeand- a-half years.103 It seems likely that the monks stayed on land that the count had obtained at Sennecé-lès-Mâcon, a short distance north of Mâcon.104 Despite his rank, this Count Odo is difficult to identify with

for the fortification of the Seine at the Point de Pîtres (modern Pont de l’Arche, south of Rouen). This summons would have required the bishop’s presence. 102 HT, 1. 103 Odo states that the community stayed on the estates of Count Odo per tres semis

annos, (LM , 142), but Landreau: “Les Vicissitudes,” 350, note 3, pointed out that this phrase can mean either a year- and- a-half, or three-years-and-a-half. He prefers the latter reading, which accords better with other evidence. F. Lot, La Loire, 474, note 5, agreed. This would comprise the time from early 863 to mid-867; Landreau points out that in this case, a gap of several months opens before the relics are deposited at Fossés on November 12th, 868. 104 Count Odo of Burgundy had received property here at some point from the hands of a certain Adalhard, who held them from the royal fisc. This Adalhard was likely Odo’s brother-in-law, the former seneschal of France, and uncle of the queen. He had fallen from power with the rise of the Saint to whom he was no friend. Lot, La Loire, 474, note 5, agreed.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

127

certainty, owing to the number of noblemen active in western France with that name. Levillain and Werner make him the son of Count Hardouin, a steadfast supporter of the Rorigonids from the 840s.105 This Odo is also likely the individual who was condemned for assisting in an 859 revolt against King Charles, along with Robert the Strong and Count Hervé, the latter a longtime ally of the Rorigonids.106 These rebels were reconciled to the king in 861 on the advice of two Rorigonid leaders: Count Rorigo I’s son, Gauzfrid, count of Le Mans, (Maine) and a relative named Guntfred. This peace was an early indication of the new alliance of Robert the Strong and his allies with the Rorigonids; as part of this pact, Count Odo received various estates in Burgundy, and it was likely on one of these that the Glanfeuil community found refuge. After the community had settled in and had constructed a suitable shrine where Maurus could be “decently venerated insofar as circumstances permitted.”107 Odo then traveled back to the Loire to determine whether the community could yet return to its ancient home. It was during this reconnoiter that Odo claimed to have encountered the party of pilgrims from Rome from whom he purchased the Life of Maurus . Odo presumably discovered that the Loire valley was under continual Viking pressure, since the community remained in Burgundy for two more years, given rise to the speculation that he may have begun writing the Life of Maurus and his history of Glanfeuil at this point.108 The long sojourn of Maurus’ relics in Burgundy produced at least one curious legend. It is an example of how a small piece of a saint’s story can be grafted on to a local community to create an entirely new

105 Léon Levillain, “Essai sur le comte Eudes, fils du Harduin et de Guérinbourg” Moyen Age, 47 (1937), 153 and 233. Karl Ferdinand Werner, “Untersuchungen zur Frühzeit des franzosischen Fürstentum, 9. bis 10. Jahrhundert,” Die Welt als Geschichte, 19 (1959), 154, note 35. 106 A letter written by the council of Savonnières to the rebels of 859 was addressed to “Rotberto, Odoni, Heriveo, Truando, Ingelboldo, Frotmundo, item Heriveo, Magenardo, Cadoloni et ceteris,” in “Epistola synodi Tullensis apud Salponarias,” printed in in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Léopold Delisle, 24 vols (Paris, Nouvelle edition, 1840–1904), 7, 585. 107 HT, 1. 108 HT , 1. Oexle also suggests a gradual realization on Odo’s part that a return to

Glanfeuil was impossible. “Bischof Ebroin,” 193. GC., 7, 283 suggests the exiles’ uncertain situation throughout, noting that the community arrived at Fossés “finally, after many journeys and many disturbances along the way.”.

128

J. B. WICKSTROM

shrine, especially if the story involves saints with the same or similar name. This tale involves the village of Saint-Maur-des-Buissons, about five miles southeast of Lons-le-Saunie, so some 60 miles east of the Saône. Maurus’ relics supposedly rested there and worked many miracles. This attracted crowds of pilgrims, which eventually gave rise to a small village. Out of gratitude to the piety and generosity of Count Odo and the local inhabitants, the monks supposedly left a portion of Maurus’ relics to the village. Part of a skull, a tibia and fibula are kept in a wooden reliquary in the ninth-century part of the Romanesque church in the village by Carmelite sisters.109 In 1864, however, the Bollandist Victor de Buck demonstrated that stories involving Saint Maurus’ relics at Saint-Maurdes-Buissons arose from a confusion in the fifteenth century or later between Glanfeuil’s Saint Maurus and a local saint of Jura with the same name.110 The community left set out for Paris sometime in the middle of 868 at the invitation of King Charles himself.111 The king had recently constructed a set of fortifications in the Paris basin that rendered the city temporarily safe from Viking raids, allowing time for the evacuation of important relics to various institutions in the capitol.112 The reception of the relics of Maurus at the royal abbey of Fossés sometime in 868 and the visit of King Charles to his new shrine there were defining events in the identity of the cult of Maurus: these events represented—to some—its formal translatio from Glanfeuil to a new shrine at Fossés.113 The arrival of the relics of Maurus at Fossés in 868 initiated a fundamental turn the history and identity of the cult of Saint Maurus. From this 109 After the relics were transferred to a new receptacle in 1840, an arm bone was given to Solesmes and a portion of a bone given to the monastic community of Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls: Landreau, “Le Vicissitudes,” 349; see also the Web page of Carmel de Franche-Comté á Saint-Maur, Jura http://carmelsaint-maur.blogspot.com/sea rch/label/Saint-Maur. 110 AASS. Oct, xi, Dies 25, S. Maurus, monachus in Burgundia Jurana, 677A–679A. 111 HT, 7. 112 Daniel DeSelme, “Unwilling Pilgrimage: Vikings, Relics and the Politics of Exile during the Carolingian Era, (c.830–940), (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, 2009), 172. 113 Later versions of the LM and the Sermo de translationis specify the Ides of November (Novomer 13) as the date on which Bishop Aeneas received the relics of Maurus in Paris. However, the original manuscript (BnF lat. 3) does not include this date; therefore the reception could have occurred any time in 868.

5

THE BISHOP AND THE ABBOT: INVENTING THE CULT

129

point, other shrines devoted to Benedict begin to establish connection to the cult of his “beloved disciple” and even attempted to appropriate the cult to their own purposes and traditions. It is to this story—Maurus in the wider world—that we now turn our attention. Excursus: Abbot Gauzlin and the abbacy of Saint-Germain-des-Prés An issue of some significance in evaluating Abbot Gauzlin’s policies and place in the history of Glanfeuil and its cult is whether or not, as Levillain and some others earlier claimed, he was abbot of Saint-Germain-desPrés at the same time he presided over Glanfeuil.114 The argument is that he succeeded Ebroin, who had been abbot of Saint-Germain since at least 845.115 Ebroin likely died in the early 850s. A charter from Saint-Germain, dated to 850, was signed “Gauzlin, Abbas.”116 René Poupardin, however, argued for dating the charter forward to the 870s because this charter is the only evidence for Gauzlin being abbot of Saint-Germain at this time, whereas the abbacy of his younger cousin, Gauzlin (II), at Saint-Germain in the 870s is richly attested. Moreover, another signer of the document was “Conrad, comte de Paris”; again, this is the only evidence of any Conrad being count of Paris around 850, whereas a person of that name is well attested in the 870s. Levillain nonetheless argued for the authenticity of the donation and so of Gauzlin’s abbacy. The more recent analysis of Oexle on this issue suggests that Ebroin lived until 853 or later and was succeeded directly at St Germain-des-Prés by Hilduin (II), who is generally recognized to have been abbot of S. Germain after 855. The arguments of Poupardin and Oexle seem more plausible for two additional reasons. First, Odo’s account of Gauzlin’s abbacy at Glanfeuil, which is quite detailed, never suggests that Abbot Gauzlin held this position, nor do any other sources, except the single charter from Saint-Germain. Moreover, Odo’s account suggests that Gauzlin was in residence and regularly active throughout his tenure as abbot of Glanfeuil, which would have been highly unlikely had he also been abbot of the major abbey of Saint-Germain in Paris.

114 Levillain, “L’archichapelain Ebroin,” 20, 216–18. 115 He was abbot when the Vikings attacked Paris in 845: Levillain, “L’archichapelain

Ebroin,” 193. 116 René Poupardin, Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Saint- Germain-des-Prés, 2 vols (Paris 1909), 1. 63, (#37).

CHAPTER 6

Appropriating the Cult: Glanfeuil, Fleury, and Fossés

Saint Maurus and the Cults of Saint Benedict and Saint Scholastica The identification at Glanfeuil of some Angevin holy man with the disciple of Saint Benedict from Gregory the Great’s Dialogues, however it happened, was almost certainly influenced by the neighboring cult centers of Saint Benedict at Fleury and of his sister Saint Scholastica at Le Mans. Both of these older cults were experiencing unprecedented activity just as the Rorigonids were developing the cult of Benedict’s disciple at Glanfeuil.1 The more prestigious of these two other centers was housed at the abbey of Fleury (Saint-Benôit-sur-Loire) some 150 miles upriver from Glanfeuil. Probably founded from Orléans in 651 by followers of Saint Columbanus on the site of a Gallo-Roman villa, Fleury in its early days observed a composite rule combining the Irish tradition of Columbanus and the Roman Rule of Benedict.2 Dedicated to the Virgin Mary and Saint Peter, it had no significant relics of its two patrons or of any other major saint. So, according to several early sources, in about the year 1 Also, in 826, the abbey of Saint-Médard at Soissons, about 200 miles from these centers on the Loire, had acquired the body of Saint Gregory the Great in a furta sacra from Rome, Geary, Furta Sacra, 152. 2 Head, Hagiography, 22–23.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_6

131

132

J. B. WICKSTROM

670 Abbot Mommulus of Fleury had dispatched a group of monks to the deserted abbey of Montecassino, where they located the neglected remains of St Benedict.3 They smuggled these back to Francia, evading pursuit by the pope himself. Benedict’s bones were solemnly installed in the main church at Fleury. The remains of his sister, Scholastica, were also recovered and, at some point, taken to Le Mans. Little evidence of the evolution of these cults predates the 860s. By that time, as we have seen, the veneration of Saint Benedict had undergone extraordinary expansion: his Life by Pope Gregory the Great was known throughout France and his Rule was being widely adopted. Fleury sources in the mid-ninth century claimed that, on Benedict’s feast day, the monks worried about whether they would have food sufficient for the crowds coming to venerate his relics.4 The abbey had begun actively promoting the cult at this time. Two works, among the most copied of their day, by Adrevald, were at the center of this project. The first of these, Adrevald’s Translatio sanctiBenedicti, recounted the dramatic abduction of Benedict’s relics from Montecassino. His account was based on eighth-century material, especially from the Cassinese writer, Paul the Deacon, in his History of the Lombards .5 This story was so widely known that it became the template for stories of the theft of saints’ relics throughout Western Europe.6 It is possible that Odo’s account of the journey of Saint Maurus from Montecassino to France was structured on Adrevald’s work: both record the journeys of Benedictine “patriarchs” to France: in the case of Benedict, it was his relics, in the case of Maurus, it was the still-living person. Both journeys were punctuated with miracles revealing the divine providence which had inspired the translations. One of these, the healing of a man blind from birth, is recounted at the climax of both journeys. Both authors wrote in part to encourage their respective monastic communities living in exile owing to Viking attacks in the mid-860 s. However, most of the events and miracles recounted in each of these two translation accounts are quite dissimilar, indicating that they were essentially independent works.

3 Montecassino was abandoned between 581 and 717, Head, Hagiography, 23. 4 Adrevald, Miracles de Saint Benoît, ed. Eugène de Certain (Paris, 1858), 51–2. 5 MGH, SS rer. Lang., 1. Pauli contin. lib. 6, 2. 6 A partial list can be found in Geary, Furta Sacra, 178.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

133

Adrevald’s Translatio was completed during or after 865, the year Fleury’s community fled to Orléans in the face of renewed Viking incursions.7 The Life of Maurus, as we have seen, was likely completed sometime after the Glanfeuil community took refuge at Fossés in 868. If we accept the suggestion that the Glanfeuil community stopped at Orléans on its journey to Paris, Odo may well have seen Adrevald’s work there, perhaps in draft.8 However, that might be, it was clear that both authors were engaged at the same time in creating narratives of their respective heroes’ journeys from the Mediterranean to Francia. If Odo’s Life of Maurus and Adrevald’s Translatio sancti Benedicti were written independently, Adrevald’s second work, the Miracula Sancti Benedicti, finished around 870, borrowed heavily—and with attribution— from Odo’s Life of Maurus, and its popularity served in turn to spread knowledge of Glanfeuil’s patron. Because Benedict’s relics had admittedly been stolen, Adrevald was particularly concerned to demonstrate that Fleury was the Saint’s chosen home.9 Stories of the miracles an abducted saint performed at a new shrine proved it was his or her preferred earthly location. Into the miracle accounts Adrevald provided for this purpose, he inserted a history of the abbey and an outline of secular history as well in order to establish Fleury’s antiquity and its significance in universal history. For this purpose, he borrowed significantly from ancient writers such as Einhard, Gregory the Great, and Paul the Deacon—again, with detailed attributions. Material in Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus was also useful to Adrevald’s agenda. It provided proof that divine providence was moving the center of monastic life from the Mediterranean to Francia in Benedict’s own lifetime. Adrevald, however, clearly had no interest in promoting the cult of Saint Maurus, which by the 870s might already have become a rival Benedictine shrine. So Adrevald’s account of Maurus’ journey to France focused on Benedict rather than on Maurus. His mission was, in Adrevald’s narrative, a response to Benedict’s foreknowledge of Montecassino’s imminent destruction. The patriarch needed to find a new

7 This is the last event mentioned by Adrevald; an appendix was added by another writer in 876. Jacques Hourlier, “La Translation d’apres les sources narratives,” Studia Monastica, 21, 1/2 (1979): 224. 8 Suggestion made in a private email from Prof. Gillon to the author. 9 Thomas Head has a good discussion of this issue in Hagiography, 141–42.

134

J. B. WICKSTROM

home for his Rule before this occurred. God provided that opportunity by means of the request of the bishop of Le Mans to send monks to his diocese, which Benedict had also foreseen.10 Adrevald thus mentions nothing of Maurus’ early training under Benedict or his monastic virtues and often described him as merely one of the four monks sent to France by Benedict. Adrevald also omits the several miracles that Maurus performed on the journey in Odo’s account. Adrevald’s version of Maurus’ mission also borrowed Odo’s narrative of the visit to Benedict’s’ first teacher, Saint Romanus at Auxerre. Adrevald also borrows Benedict’s valedictory sermons from Odo—often verbatim. He omits, however, Maurus’ construction of Glanfeuil and his decades-long rule as abbot there. Adrevald thus presents Maurus as simply the instrument of Benedict’s effort to spread his Rule to France before his own death and the dissolution of Montecassino. This advocate for Fleury was thus the first writer to recast Odo’s Life of Maurus to serve the purposes of other cult shrines with different constructed histories. Adrevald’s redefinition of Maurus as an agent of Saint Benedict was remembered and elaborated in the work of another of Fleury’s early historians, the early eleventh-century writer, Aimon, who, in his Historia Francorum, integrates the story of Maurus into a general account of Frankish history, transforming a local cult figure into a saint of significance for the whole of Frankish history: his story is inserted into an account of the Merovingian kings Colcothar and Theudebert.11 Aimon does retain Odo’s theme of monastic reform in Maurus’ mission, describing Maurus as Benedict’s “beloved disciple,” who led three other monks “proven in monastic conversatione” to bring the “stiff-necked” Gallic monks under “the gentle yoke of the Rule.”12 Aimon follows Adrevald in saying nothing of Maurus’ miracle-filled journey to France until the party reached the abbey of Saint Romanus at Auxerre. Aimon however surpasses both Odo and Adrevald in his vivid description of Maurus’ vision of Benedict’s death and entry into heaven. He presents a mystical interpretation of the events of Benedict’s passing: suggesting, for example, the affinity of Benedict’s carpeted path to Jacob’s ladder, on which ascending angels prefigured the monks who will follow Benedict. He compares

10 Certain, ed., Miracula S. B. 23–25. (1, vi). Compare LM, 4. 11 Aimoni Historiae Francorum Liber Quatuor, PL vol. 139, 681–82. 12 Aimoni Historiae, 681.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

135

Benedict’s virtues and miracles to those of other heroes of early monasticism, Pope Gregory and Saint Martin. Aimon’s celebration of Benedict’s life and miracles continues for several lines and closes this section of the Historia, supposedly dedicated to Maurus and his mission, with an elaborate encomium to Fleury’s patron, Benedict: “from whose teaching no one should be able to withdraw; what we have heard from him and seen with the eye of our mind, let us follow always.”13 Aimon’s account also revises Odo’s presentation in the Life of Maurus of the relationship between Maurus and Romanus. In Odo’s account, Maurus is presented as the successor to Romanus as Benedict’s cooperator, with the vision of Benedict’s death serving as a symbolic moment at which magisterium passes from Romanus and Benedict to Maurus. In Aimon’s account, however, Maurus simply recognizes Saint Romanus as his equal partner (participem) in their mutual joy at the vision of the passing of their magister, Saint Benedict.14 This alteration implicitly denied Odo’s presentation of Maurus as Benedict’s successor or as a new dux monachorum. Fleury’s revisions of the figure and mission of Maurus, reducing him to a lesser figure in the shadow of Saint Benedict, were of considerable significance. They were the texts whereby many came to know Maurus: Adrevald’s Miracula Sancti Benedicti was popular—Vidier lists twentyone early manuscripts, a figure which indicates a widely known work.15 From the early 900s forward, several Fleury manuscripts contain copies of Odo’s Life of Maurus as well as his Historia translationis. A frequent pairing of texts consisted of Odo’s Life of Maurus joined to Adrevald’s Historia Translationis S. Benedicti, an indication that monks at Fleury appreciated the connection of the two authors’ works.16 By the mid-tenth 13 Aimoni Historiae, 682. 14 Aimoni Historiae, 681. 15 Alexandre Vidier, L’historiographie à Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire et les miracles de Saint

Benoît (Paris, 1965), 151–52. Also, Robert-Henri Bautier, “La Place de l’abbaye de Fleury-sur-Loire dans l’historiographie français,” Etudes ligériennes d’histoire et d’archéologie médiévales : mémoires et exposés présentés a la Semaine d’études médiévales de Saint-Benôit-sur-Loire du 3 au 10 juillet 1969 (Auxerre, 1975), 26. Some of these manuscripts are divided into numbered sections, suggesting liturgical use. 16 As examples, Ms. Vatican Reg. 644 (a tenth-century manuscript. from Fleury): contains the following: Adrevaldus, Translatio Sancti Benedicti, Miracula S. Benedicti, Odo, LM; Johannes Hymonides, Life of Gregory the Great ; and a copy of a charter from Fleury, dating from c. 945. Ms. Vat. 456 (eleventh century, from Fleury) contains

136

J. B. WICKSTROM

century, Saint Maurus had been accepted as a part of Fleury’s cult of Saint Benedict: by 960 an altar dedicated to Saint Maurus had been set up at Fleury near the main shrine room of Saint Benedict.17

The Cult of Saint Scholastica at Le Mans : A Second Rorigonid Shrine? The complex tradition of the removal of Benedict’s relics and those of his sister, Scholastica, from Montecassino to France originated, as had so much of the developing Benedictine foundation legends, with Gregory the Great’s Life of Benedict; one such story originated from Gregory’s assertion in Chapter 34 that Benedict had his sister buried in the tomb he had prepared for himself, “since their spirits had been united in God, their bodies should not be separated by the tomb.”18 Pre-750 accounts of the theft from Montecassino, however, did not mention Scholastica at all. Paul the Deacon’s influential narrative of the event, however, written at Montecassino in 785, claimed that two delegations came there independently: one from Fleury to carry off Benedict’s bones and a second, from Le Mans, to obtain Scholastica’s relics, which were then taken to Fleury where separate churches were erected for each saint. Paul’s account was blended with others, then elaborated by Adrevald of Fleury during the 860s in his Translatio sancti Benedicti. He wrote that after the monks of Fleury had identified and separated the relics of Benedict from those of his sister at Fleury, a delegation from Le Mans transferred Scholastica’s there.19 The complexity of source material on this issue gave rise to uncertainty over the date at which a functioning cult of Saint Scholastica existed

Adrevald, Trans. S. Benedicti, Odo, LM; Ms. Vat. Reg. 493 (from Fleury) contains Adrevald, Trans. S. Benedicti, Odo, LM; BnF lat. 13,758 (from Fleury) contains Adrevald, Trans. S. Benedicti, and Odo, LM. 17 Vidier, L’hagiographie, 227, note 2. This dedication might represent a confusion of Maurus of Glanfeuil with an early Roman martyr of the same name whose relics were brought to Fleury about the same time: L’hagiographie, 98. 18 Dialogues, II, 234. 19 Les miracles de Saint Benoît, écrits par Adrevald, Aimoni, André, Raoul Tortaire et

Hughes de Saint Marie, moines de Fleury, ed. Eugène de Certain (Paris, 1858), 1–14.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

137

at Le Mans.20 There is no doubt, however, that an event of significance occurred with regard to the Saint in 832. In that year, Aldric, the emperor’s confessor and a steadfast supporter of the Angevin Rorigonids, was appointed Bishop of Le Mans. He was likely recommended for the position by Rorigo I, then count of Le Mans, who attended his consecration.21 One of Aldric’s first acts was to invite nuns from Entrammes to establish the Rule of Benedict at a convent which he had dedicated to Saint Scholastica. Two years later, he established a reliquary altar to her in his cathedral.22 Another ancient establishment of Le Mans, the monastery of Saint Peter, was also associated with the cult of Saint Scholastica. It was taken into the king’s hand in 832. As we shall see, this property was later controlled by Gauzfrid, Count Rorigo I’s son, likely as count of Le Mans, from 865 to 878. It is tempting to suggest that the lordship of St Peter’s monastery might have been bestowed on Count Rorigo earlier, as one of many properties in and around Le Mans that were distributed by Louis the Pious to his fideles in 832, shortly after Rorigo’s appointment as count of the region.23 Thus, there is evidence that Bishop Aldric, and perhaps also the count himself, was involved in establishing the Rule of Benedict and the cult of Benedict’s sister, Scholastica, in Le Mans in the early 830s. If so, this occurred while the count was carrying out the reconstruction of Glanfeuil that eventually would be dedicated to Benedict’s disciple Maurus, 60 miles to the southwest. The case for Count Rorigo’s involvement in establishing the cult of Scholastica at Le Mans in the 830s is largely conjectural, but it rests on connections to the later, well-documented Rorigonid control of Scholastica’s relics in the 870s. A fourteenth-century breviary from the monastery of Jumièges claimed that in 873 Charles the Bald’s second 20 Walter Goffart argued that there is no firm evidence for a cult of Scholastica before about 880: “Le Mans, St Scholastica and the literary tradition of the translation of Saint Benedict,” Rev. bén. 77 (1967): 107–141. esp. 128–31. Hourlier, reviewing a larger variety of sources, suggested a date in the early 830s: Jacques Hourlier, “La translation de Sainte Scholastique au Mans,” Studia monastica, 21/1–2 (1979), 331–33. 21 Margarete Weidemann, Geschichte des Bistums Le Mans von der Spätantike bis zur

Karolingerzeit: Actus Pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium und Gesta Aldrici, 3 vols (Mainz, 2002), 1. 120, note 7. 22 Weidemann, Geschichte, 1. 126. This was only one of many such altars dedicated to various Saints by this pious bishop. 23 For Louis’ grant of this and other properties to his fideles in 832: Gesta domni Aldric, ed. Robert Charles (Mamers, 1889), 34–44.

138

J. B. WICKSTROM

queen, Richildis, having heard Pope Gregory’s Life of Benedict read out, was determined to obtain the relics of the Master’s sister for the queen’s new house of nuns at Jumièges.24 So later that year, she traveled to Le Mans where she met with two of Count Rorigo’s sons, Gauzfrid, count of Le Mans and his brother, Gauzlin, archchancellor to Charles the Bald and abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Gauzlin had likely traveled with the king from Paris to help prepare Angers against an attack by the Northmen.25 The breviary states that the Rorigonid brothers were responsible for the defense and protection (tutela) of Le Mans.26 It was likely under this authority that they exercised some sort of patronage of the ancient monastery of Saint Peter/Saint Scholastica. The queen requested that the relics of Benedict’s sister be turned over to her, but the brothers refused in no uncertain terms.27 Richildis then petitioned the king for support, but he declined to intervene, likely hoping to keep the peace between two at-odds families: the Rorigonids and Bosonids. The queen was the sister of Boso, duke of Burgundy, who was coming to exert significant influence over Charles the Bald and functioned as a kingmaker after Charles’ death.28 Moreover, it is likely that king, needing the Rorigonids’ assistance in his current campaign, did not wish to oppose their refusal to release the relics. In fact, both Rorigonid brothers at this point appear to have again left the city to assist the king, which allowed the queen to pursue her project with the bishop.

24 Relatio translationis sanctae Scholasticae in abbatiam Iuviniacensem (BHL 7526), in GC. 13. 615–16 and in the “Instrumentum,” GC. 13. 311–13. Hourlier, “Ste. Scholastique,” 48, offers detailed arguments for the credibility of this text, despite its being a seventeenth-century copy of a fourteenth-century breviary from Jumièges: Jacques Hourlier, “La Translation de Sainte Scholastique à Juvigny,” Studia monastica, 21, 1/2 (1979), 335–38. 25 Hourlier, “La translation,” 339. 26 Ibid. The count may have also held this monastery as a personal benefice. 27 “They refused altogether, saying that no agreement was possible in the matter”

(abnegaverunt omnimodo, dicentes id nullo pacto perficere posset). GC. 13. “Instrumenta,” 312. 28 Constance Bouchard, “The Bosonids, or Rising to Power in the Late Carolingian

Age,” French Historical Studies 15 (1988): 410–11. In the 890’s, the archbishop of Reims wrote to Richildis, warning her about consorting with men involved in “brawling, dissentions, burnings, murders, debauchery, dispossession of the poor and plundering of churches.” Simon MacLean, “Queenship, Nunneries and Royal Widowhood in Carolingian Europe,” Past and Present, 178 (2003), 3.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

139

Bishop Robert, however, also opposed the queen and claimed that he did not know the whereabouts of Scholastica’s relics. By threatening a caretaker, Richildis finally located them buried below the altar of the neglected church of Saint Peter. The bishop then divided the relics with the queen, stating that, if they all were removed, the citizens would revolt. After the queen had departed with her portion of the relics, the remaining bones of Scholastica were put on display in the chapel of the count’s castle. Hourlier has suggested that the queen initiated their placement there to help smooth over her relationships with the Rorigonids. More significant, by their presence in the count’s castle at Le Mans’ highest point, the bones also became part of the palladium, as official guardians of that city.29 Though this story has long been known to historians, its significance has been underestimated. It now appears that Count Rorigo may have been involved both in the establishment of the cult of Saint Scholastica at Le Mans (his home base) and of the Rule of Benedict in the convent where her relics were kept. This connection may well have given the count or, more probably, his energetic successor at Glanfeuil, Bishop Ebroin of Poitiers (also a close associate of Bishop Aldric’s), the idea of creating a shrine to Benedict’s disciple at the restored monastery at Glanfeuil. While the details of this early Rorigonid involvement with the cult of Scholastica at Le Mans are conjectural, there is no question of their protection of her shrine there by the early 870s. The incident involving Queen Richildis illustrates the important role that relics sometimes played in the evershifting alliances between the Carolingian court and the magnates of West Francia. It also seems that this essentially political incident led to the promotion of the relics of Scholastica to be the guardians of the city. Finally, the story of Scholastica and the Rorigonids at Le Mans enriches our understanding of relationships between the three cult centers in the region. An earlier assumption—that the Rorigonid lords of Glanfeuil developed at cult of Saint Maurus at Glanfeuil in imitation of the cults of Scholastica at Le Mans and of Benedict at Fleury—in light of this analysis seems an oversimplified view. It appears that all three centers began to promote themselves at about the same time and that each helped to shape the identity of the others in ways that the sources do not always make clear. It is at least possible that the Rorigonids and their allies were

29 Hourlier, “La translation,” 341.

140

J. B. WICKSTROM

developing the cults of Saint Maurus at Glanfeuil and of Saint Scholastica at Le Mans simultaneously in the 830s, as extensions of Rorigonid influence though patronage of cult shrines as well as a manifestation of Frankish noble piety.

The Cult of Saint Maurus at Fossés Abbey Charles the Bald’s invitation to bring the relics of Maurus and the community of Glanfeuil to the abbey of Fossés in 868 presented Abbot Odo with difficult choices. The Parisian abbey would provide a more accessible venue for veneration of Benedict’s disciple than the rural house at Glanfeuil. While the Glanfeuil community appeared to be a weak and needy entity, its Rorigonid patrons still possessed powerful and accessible assets. At Paris, Count Rorigo’s son Gauzlin, a former oblate of Glanfeuil, had recently succeeded his half-brother, Louis, as archchancellor to the king. Gauzlin would later become abbot of Saint-Germain-desPrés, Saint-Denis and, finally, bishop of Paris. He was, arguably, the most powerful ecclesiastic in the capitol between the mid-840s and his death in 886. One of his elder brothers, Gauzfrid, was count of Le Mans and the other, Rorigo II, was count of Maine. Their younger sister had married into the comitial family of Poitou, as Rorigonids continued Bishop Ebroin’s expansion of the family’s influence. At the time when Odo and his community were abandoning Glanfeuil in 862/63, Fossés was under the control of Queen Ermentrude and her family, who were hostile to the Rorigonids. They would scarcely have welcomed refugees from Glanfeuil. Around this time, however, control of Fossés seems to have been shifting to the Rorigonid party. The Rorigonid, Gauzfred, became abbot of Fossés in 863 and ruled there until the later 860s. Also by this time, King Charles the Bald and the Rorigonids had settled quarrels dating back to the early 850s. Indeed, it seems likely that the king visited the refugee Glanfeuil community and its shrine in Burgundy, resulting in his invitation to settle at the royal abbey of Fossés in Paris. However, there were significant risks associated with a stay at Fossés, particularly if it turned out to be permanent, an unusual, but not unheard of, consequence of accepting such asylum. The new and smaller community of Glanfeuil might well be absorbed into the larger, more prestigious, and more ancient royal Parisian abbey. More serious, perhaps, the relics and cult of Maurus, might be either taken over by Fossés or, worse,

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

141

neglected and forgotten in favor of its own holy patrons. We know little about Odo’s views regarding these issues. It seems probable that he composed both the Life of Maurus and the Historia translationis at Fossés in 868 or shortly thereafter partly as a response to these challenges. The two works provided Maurus with a rich and complex identity in the tradition of Carolingian cult saints, rooting it in the ancient and contemporary history of Glanfeuil abbey and of the Rorigonid familia. It would appear, however, that someone, perhaps King Charles, perhaps Odo and Abbot Gauzfred, perhaps the communities themselves, decided that the monks of Glanfeuil and Fossés would be ruled jointly by Odo as abbot. The scanty evidence also suggests that they would not give up their separate identities but continue to develop “together but separately.” Odo describes the reception of the relics of Maurus by Paris and Fossés as a dramatic and symbolic event. The bishop of Paris, Aeneas (formerly secretary to the Rorigonid Louis, archchancellor to Charles the Bald, whom Odo here refers to as “saintly”), accompanied by a throng of vested clergy, welcomed the relics before a large crowd. He then carried them into the abbey church with his own hands, placing them in a specially prepared receptacle.30 Odo concludes: “They are now, by God’s help, venerated here with fitting and continuous service by the monks, to the praise and honor of the Lord’s name.”31 Thus, all elements of the Christian polity are shown as cooperating in the translation: the bishop of Paris, Abbot Odo, both monastic communities, and the clergy and people of Paris as well. Despite his physical absence, it was King Charles who dominated the event. It was he who had invited the Glanfeuil community with its relics to come to Fossés. On his return from Burgundy the following year, Charles visited the new saint’s shrine and publicly invoked the protection and blessing of Saint Maurus. This ritual was typical of Charles’ love of relics and their shrines, and a part of his campaign to preserve and protect those objects on which the kingdom’s safety and identity depended: the Vikings must not be seen as driving out the “holy bodies” of Christianity from the

30 Bishop Aeneas had served as deputy or notary to Charles the Bald and to the Rorigonid archchancellor, Louis, before he was elevated to the see of Paris, Rec. CC, 3. Introduction. 31 HT , 7.

142

J. B. WICKSTROM

Carolingian kingdom.32 This particular event, likely arranged by Abbot Odo, was designed to show reverence at the highest level for this arriviste saint. Its importance in Odo’s narrative is signified by his insertion of the exact date, February 5, 869, one of only three precise dates inserted into his writings.33 During his visit, the king “asked the protection of Christ at the reliquary of the holy man, displaying the greatest devotion.” A few days later, “owing to the great devotion which his most Christian soul has for Christ and his saints,” the king sent to the shrine two coverings (pallia) from the monastery of Saint-Denis “with which the holy man’s relics might be arrayed on procession days and for the festivities of all other solemn feasts.”34 Saint-Denis’s shrine was among the most prestigious in all of France.35 The king did all this, Odo claims, in order to “receive the reward of eternal life from the Lord through the holy one’s intercession.” This final petition implies that Saint Maurus could not only cure diseases of the body but, through him, a devotee might attain eternal life itself. The favor of the king and the presence at high levels in Paris of Rorigonid magnates likely persuaded Odo and the Glanfeuil community to remain at Fossés rather than simply returning home after the Viking threat had diminished, as most refugee communities did. Here was an opportunity to strengthen the family’s hold over this ancient and prestigious Parisian abbey as well as to enhance Maurus’ status and thereby the evolving identity of Fossés itself. To appreciate the consequences of Abbot Odo’s position as abbot of both communities in Paris requires a review of Fossés’ history. The abbey had been founded in 639 by the Merovingian royal family from new territories recently added to the royal demesne, a few miles southeast of central Paris. The foundation document from the queen-mother, Nanthilde, 32 This line of argument is convincingly analyzed by Daniel DeSelme, “Unwilling Pilgrimage,” 128–68. 33 HT , 41. The other two dates Odo gives were the translation of the bones of Maurus to a new shrine in the abbey of Glanfeuil on March 12, 845, (HT , 22) and the date of the installation of Gauzlin as the first abbot of the newly restored monastery on June 29, 845 (HT, 23.). 34 In the twelfth century, a chronicle from Fossés noted that it continued to safeguard the pallia from King Charles “as a perpetual memorial to this day.” Fragmenta historiae Fossatensis, MGH , SS 9. 6. 373. 35 On the death of Louis, the son of Count Rorigo I in 867, Charles the Bald assumed the abbacy of Saint-Denis, which he occupied till his death, Annals of St-Bertin, 138.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

143

stated the abbey was to observe the Rule of Benedict, “according to the usage of Luxeuil,” as was typical of seventh-century Merovingian foundations. The first abbot was a certain Babolenus, who was influenced by the observance of Luxeuil and perhaps had trained there. In the ninth century, he became Fossés’ major heavenly patron.36 By the late 700s, Fossés abbey had declined from its original fervor and it had become a “very small house” (coenobiolum) with “both the buildings and the observance in ruins.”37 The site may actually have been abandoned by the early 800s. So, this experience parallels Odo’s picture of Glanfeuil’s history during the same period. In 816, Bego, the powerful and pious count of Paris, restored and reformed the abbey. He imposed the Rule of Benedict and allowed free election of Fossés’ abbots; he provided a new church, begun by Abbot Benedict (r.816–29) and completed by his successor, Ingelbert (r.830–45), the reformer of Glanfeuil. The body of the now sainted Babolenus was solemnly transferred to the new church around 830.38 A school was opened there as well, and its abbots were prominent in Parisian royal circles.39 Fossés began to acquire more properties, as far away as Maine and Anjou. It was admired for the strictness of its observance and Abbot Benedict undertook reform of several monasteries. Indeed, the story of Fossés’ physical restoration and its adoption of the Rule of Benedict may have inspired Count Rorigo to undertake the rebuilding and reform of Glanfeuil only a few years later.40 The count could easily have known of developments at Fossés by way of his brother Gauzbert, a monk of Fossés at the time, who later became the restored Glanfeuil’s first ruler.

36 Pierre Gillon, “Le dossier de Saint-Babolein,” Le Vieux Saint Maur, 69/70 (1996– 97), 1–52. The charters of most important Merovingian monastic foundations of the seventh century specified that the Rules of Benedict and Columbanus be observed together owing to the extensive foundation work of monks from Luxeuil and perhaps, originally, from Bobbio. Prinz, “Frühes Mönchtum,” 269 and Dábaihí Ó Crínián, “A Tale of Two Rules: Benedict and Columbanus,” M. Browne and C. Ó Clabaigh, eds., The Irish Benedictines (Dublin: Columba Press, 2005), 1–24, at 6–7. 37 “Fossés,” in DACL, 10/2 2691. 38 Gillon, “Dossier,” 36. 39 On the new church and school, see Barbara Dirlam, Les sculptures médiévales de Saint-Maur-des-Fossés (Société d’histoire et d’archéologie le Vieux Saint-Maur, 1983), 22–24. 40 This is the view of Michel Lauwers, “Memoire,” 161, note 17.

144

J. B. WICKSTROM

After its reform in 816, Fossés became more closely connected to the Carolingian royal family, particularly Queen Ermentrude, who was descended from the abbey’s reformer, Count Bego. Indeed, Janet Nelson refers to Fossés in this period as the “family monastery” of Ermentrude and her uncle Count Adalhard, nephew to Count Bego and the powerful former seneschal of Louis the Pious.41 In the ninth century, religious writers were beginning to discuss the spiritual responsibilities of noble women who were in fact were increasingly assuming the patronage of religious institutions. Such a role was particularly apposite for Ermentrude, whose queenship Charles the Bald had “consecrated” in an unusual and dramatic liturgy in 842.42 By 853, the abbey had also received several royal properties through Count Adalhard.43 The following year, Charles confirmed an exchange of properties between the queen and Abbot Einhard of Fossés44 ; and there were also significant grants from Abbot Hilduin II of St Germain-des-Prés, Charles the Bald’s arch-chaplain. By 863, however, the Rorigonid party was replacing Queen Ermentrude and her uncle as major patrons of Fossés, a possible consequence of the Rorigonids’ successful rebellion against Charles the Bald and the court party in 859.45 The following year, the king issued a royal charter confirming a bequest to Fossés on behalf of Count Odo of Burgundy, a powerful Rorigonid ally whose sister would marry Charles the Bald’s rebellious heir, Louis the Stammerer in 862, a notorious union that marked the high point of Rorigonid influence at court.46 This figure may well be the Count Odo who gave refuge to the Glanfeuil community on his Burgundian estates in the 860s. The bequest by Odo was offered “for the welfare of the soul of the departed count Hardouin, senior.”47

41 Nelson, Charles the Bald, 205. 42 Simon Macclean, “Queenship, Nunneries and Royal Widowhood in Carolingian

Europe,” Past and Present, 178/1 (2003): 3–38. 43 Michel Lauwers, “Memoire,” 161, note 17. 44 Rec. CC, 1. 444–446 (#169). 45 The Robertian party along with Count Odo, Hervé and others joined with the Rorigonids against Charles the Bald, Annals of Saint-Bertin, 82, 88. 46 Count Odo that year was listed in a group of magnate “rebels” who reconciled with Charles in 861. See Chapter 5, p. 125. 47 Tardif, Monuments historiques, 107–8 (#170).

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

145

The language suggests Hardouin was Odo’s father, a known Rorigonid partisan.48 The Viking occupation of Fossés late in 861 or early in the following year also contributed to the fall of Adalhard and the advance of the Rorigonids. A group of Northmen were housed at Fossés, apparently with the cooperation, or even at the initiative of Adalhard.49 They were possibly brought in for use against opponents of the court, among whom were several Rorigonids and their allies. When Adalhard died in 865, Charles the Bald transferred his lands and offices in Neustria to Count Rorigo’s second son, Gauzfrid, count of Maine.50 Lands that Adalhard had held in the area of Macôn were transferred to Count Odo, probably already resident in Burgundy. Adalhard’s office of Count Palatine was given to Fulco, another supporter of the Rorigonids at court, as noted above. The witnesses to a charter which Abbot Gauzfred had obtained from Charles the Bald in 868, confirming Fossés’ claims to properties lost in the Viking attacks, included two powerful Rorigonid courtiers: Louis, Count Rorigo’s royal half-brother, abbot of Saint-Denis and Charles’ archchancellor, along with Count Fulco,51 Shortly, after the departure of the Vikings, Fossés was placed directly under Rorigonid control when Gauzfred (Godefred) was appointed abbot in October of 863, He succeeded Abbot Einhard, who had been a partisan of Queen Ermentrude and Count Adalhard.52 There is little doubt that Gauzfred was of the affinity of the Rorigonids. His name contains the praenomen syllable Gauz—the most common Namengut among the Rorigonids. He had also, as noted above, spent several years as a monk at Glanfeuil under Abbot Theodrad and was a frequent visitor 48 Margarete Weidemann, Geschichte 159–60. In 843, Hildouin had received from King Charles the estate that Odo and his mother donated to Fossés in 859. Rec. CC, 1. 59–61 (#24.). The gift was made in the presence of the Rorigonid partisan, the Count Palatine Fulco, who had served as a missus with Gauzfred, a son of Count Rorigo I, in the 830s, along with Count Hardouin and two other Rorigonid allies, Hervé and Boso. 49 Nelson, Charles the Bald, 205–06. 50 Koziol, Politics of Memory, 377. 51 Rec. CC, 2. 101 (#266). 52 Rec. CC, 2. (#258). For the equivalence of the names Gotefrid, Gauzfred, Gauzfrid,

Geoffrey, and their association with the Rorigonids, see Jackson, “Two Rorigonids,” 139 and note 61. Dicter Geuenich, however, argues that Gotfredus = Gausfrith: “Alphabetischer Gesamtindex und lemmatische Personnamenregister” in Das Polyptychon von Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Studienausgabe, ed. Dieter Hägermann (Koln, 1993), 277.

146

J. B. WICKSTROM

at Glanfeuil during his own abbacy at Fossés. Abbot Odo, who succeeded Gauzfred, wrote in praise of his predecessor: “First and foremost… both in high rank and in perfect holiness of life, stands Gauzfred, venerable abbot of the abbey of Fossés, who lived in the holy community [Glanfeuil] for a lengthy period under the rule of Theodrad of holy memory.”53 This encomium makes clear that Gauzfred was of high social status and displayed that religio which, as we have seen, was required of abbots of the Rorigonid family. Odo also named Gauzfred as a principal source for his Historia.54 Given the number of high-ranking Rorigonids at the capitol, Charles the Bald’s request that Odo bring the relics of Maurus and the Glanfeuil community to Paris in 868, may have constituted not only an act of piety but also a political recognition of the Rorigonid influence at his capitol. The Court Party Recovers Fossés In 878, the Vikings launched a particularly devastating attack on Paris and sacked the city. Several Parisian monasteries were evacuated during this assault. Earlier historians of Fossés concluded that the now-combined communities of Glanfeuil and Fossés were forced into exile by this assault.55 However, J-P. Devroey has more recently argued for moving the evacuation to 885, when the Northmen once again appeared at the gates of Paris.56 It is tempting to speculate that Abbot Odo himself might have died in 886, or perhaps somewhat earlier, since a certain Grimald is mentioned as abbot of Fossés in 886. A royal grant to Fossés from that year suggests either that the community was still in residence or at least that the abbot had returned to the capitol.57 Whenever the flight from

53 HT , 5. 54 See above, Chapter 4, p. 73. 55 “Fossés,” in DACL 10/2, 2694. 56 Devroey, “Villa Floriacus,” 822–24. 57 Tardif, Monuments historiques, 138 (#215). In early November of 886, Abbot

Grimald was in Paris, where he received various privileges in favor of Fossés from Charles the Fat, most significantly the subjection of Glanfeuil. Another 886 grant (from Karl III) suggests that community was already in exile or preparing for it: the privilege orders that wherever in the realm the community of Fossés might come, no tax or toll should be levied on their passage. MGH , Diplomata: Die Urkunden der deutschen Karolinger, 2: 240–41 (#149).

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

147

Paris occurred, monks of Fossés/Glanfeuil were given refuge in several monasteries, first in the Rhone valley and then in Burgundy, during almost four decades of exile. They returned to Paris around 921.58 Odo appears to have written nothing after completing the Life of Maurus and his Historia during the twenty years he was abbot of Fossés, and only one of his acts as abbot is recorded.59 One important document did appear during Odo’s rule, a polyptych, or inventory, of Fossés’ possessions.60 Such inventories of monastic holdings were intended to form a permanent record of what was owned and what was due. It may have been created to prevent claims on Fossés properties by monks of Glanfeuil. Devroey suggested it be dated sometime between 868 and the flight of the community from Paris in 885/886. He reasons from this that the addition of the Glanfeuil community during this time would have caused an increase in expenses, so a careful review of the abbey’s assets was in order.61 It is significant that no known possessions of Glanfeuil were included in this document. One might infer from this omission that Odo did not consider the union of the two communities under his abbacy to be permanent and so had the holdings of the host monastery kept separate. If this is true, it would also follow that he also did not intend the shrine of Maurus to be permanently located at Fossés.62

58 An undated document from Bishop Aurelian of Lyon (now lost) granted the community refuge in his abbey of Saint-Benôit-sur-Cessieu. He was bishop between 875/6–895. Devroey, “Villa Floriacus,” 824. note 81. Devroey suggests the community was in exile by late 885, “Villa,” 824–25. An important grant to the abbey by Charles the Simple is dated 921. See below p. 148. The date of return is given as 924 in Jean-François Goudesenne, “Montecassino-Glanfeuil-Paris. Circulation et différenciation d’un corpus romano-benedictine aux Xe -XIe siècles,” in Musica e liturgia a Montecassino nel Medioevo: atti del Simposio internazionale di studi (Cassino, 9–10 dicembre 2010), ed. Nicola Tangari, 202. 59 As a member of a council at Verberie in April of 869, Abbot Odo witnessed two donations to the abbey of Saint Vaast (Arras), MHG Leges: Concilia 4: Die Konzilien der karolingischen Teilreiche 860–874, ed. Wilfried Hartmann (Hannover, 1998), 336. 60 Hägermann, Das Polyptychon: the text itself was entered in fols 407v-408r of the Rorigo bible, following Odo’s Life of Maurus and his Historia. Only eight such documents survive from the ninth century, Bouchard, Rewriting, 53–62, esp. 54. It is useful to notice that Gauzfred, Odo’s predecessor as abbot of Fossés, had requested a similar document from Charles the Bald in 868, see above, p. 143. 61 Devroey, “Villa floriacus,” 822. 62 There is a forged document of Charles the Bald, dated 868, that purports to show

that Glanfeuil and all its possessions were subjected to Fossés, as a continuation of its

148

J. B. WICKSTROM

On the other hand, Constance Bouchard has argued that the appearance of polyptychs in the ninth century were attempts to “organize memory and make it unchanging.”63 From this perspective, the entries of Fossés’ properties look rather different, particularly given their location in the Rorigo Bible. The polyptych was entered into the Rorigo bible on folios 407v–408v, immediately following the end of Odo’s Historia translationis. This placement, alongside the foundational texts of Glanfeuil’s patron and its history, in one of the abbey’s most treasured possessions: Count Rorigo’s gift bible, suggests a common identity and future for the two communities was envisioned. A similar listing of Fossés properties, the Notitia de areis, was inserted into the front fly leaves of the Rorigo bible on blank pages immediately preceding the sacred texts of Bible, reinforcing this interpretation of the polyptych. The fact that this polyptych and the Notitia, unlike most such inventories, seems never to have been revised also suggests it functioned as a memorial of the economic situation of Fossés at the moment when, as we shall see, the two houses were legally joined.64 It bears remembering in this context that the Rorigo bible remained at Fossés after the repopulation of Glanfeuil, which may have occurred as early as the 880s, perhaps in connection with the flight from Paris in 885. Originally a symbol of the Glanfeuil community’s identity and history, the Rorigo bible appears to have become for Fossés a visible reminder that both Maurus and his shrine had been transferred there. The relationship between Fossés and Glanfeuil was formalized sometime between 879 and 884: an extant decree of Charles the Fat from 886 establishing their union confirmed a (lost) edict of Charles’ predecessor, Carlomann II, who ruled during those years. The edict was likely a consequence of the death of Abbot Odo, since it was issued at the request of the new abbot, Grimaud.65 Odo’s possible death in the Viking attacks of 885 could have occasioned the original, undated decree of King Carlomann II (789–886) The edict subjected (subdimus ) the “cellula” of S. Maurus on subjection to Fossés set down by Louis the Pious at the time of the restoration of the abbey. The document appears to have been created in 1096 to strengthen the claims of Fossés against Glanfeuil’s emancipation by Urban II. See below, Chapter 8, 211. 63 Bouchard, Rewriting, 53. 64 Most ninth-century polyptychs disappear from monastic records when later economic

circumstances rendered them irrelevant or incomprehensible: Bouchard, Rewriting, 62. 65 Tardif, Monuments historiques, 138 (#215).

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

149

the Loire “and everything belonging to it” to the monastery of Fossés and brothers residing there, that they “be one and governed by one abbot” (unum sint et ab uno abbate gubernentur). Abbot Odo had probably left the legal relationship of the two houses undefined under his joint abbacy. Once he was gone, a more permanent solution was likely deemed necessary, in part because the edict also suggests that Glanfeuil (described there as cellula) had been resettled by a few monks. The death of Abbot Odo and the resettlement of Glanfeuil would also have brought up the question of the proper location and identity of the shrine of Maurus. This issue in particular, though it was not mentioned, would likely have caused Fossés to subjugate Glanfeuil. However, it is worth noting that Glanfeuil was only one of several formerly independent abbeys which became dependent houses owing to the destruction which the Vikings had visited upon the region.66 Though Fossés had no discernible interest in claiming the cult at this time, later, whether Fossés or Glanfeuil was the proper home of Maurus became a central point of debate over the evolving identities of both monasteries. These edicts were also the consequence of the decline of Rorigonid influence at Fossés, which was surely accelerated, if not caused by, the death of the formidable Abbot Odo. It is clear that by the last decades of the ninth century, the descendants of its original reformer, Count Bego, had regained control of the abbey. The Begonid familia had been directed by Queen Adelaide, daughter of Count Adalhard, since her 875 marriage to Louis the Stammerer, the son of Charles the Bald. In later years, as we will see, the queen brought Fossés and the cult of Maurus even more firmly under her patronage. Adelaide’s son, King Odo (888– 90), also confirmed his predecessors’ decrees establishing Fossés’ lordship over Glanfeuil.67 The loss of Fossés was part of a larger downturn in Rorigonid fortunes, which were in full retreat by the late 880s. In 884, Gauzlin, the younger son of Count Rorigo I, had capped a distinguished career with an appointment as bishop of Paris. One of the most powerful men in the kingdom, he died two years later, defending Paris against a major Viking attack. No one of his stature would again appear within the Rorigonid familia. 66 As examples, the abbey of de Saint-Exupère de Gahard was given over to Marmoutier and that of Javon to Saint Julien de Tours. Daniel Pichot, “Prieurés,” 15. 67 Jarousseau, “L’abbaye,” 88. Odo was also the son of Robert the Strong, the major rival of the Rorigonids during most of his career.

150

J. B. WICKSTROM

The death of the son of Odo of Burgundy during the same siege ended that family’s long tradition of support for the Rorigonids. The moderate heir to the Robertian party, Hugh the Abbot, who had cooperated with the Rorigonid bishop of Paris, Gauzlin, on a number of issues, died the same year, further destabilizing the twenty-year, uneasy co-existence of the magnates of Neustria.68 King Robert I, the son of Robert the Strong, replaced Ebolus, the nephew of Bishop Gauzlin, as abbot of Saint-Denis in 903. Robert’s relative, Hugh the Chanter, had succeeded three generations of Rorigonids as count of Maine in 900. By the mid-tenth century, the Rorigonids had been put out of contemporary memory.69 They were replaced by new men of unknown ancestry, who pushed themselves forward during the “great divide” of the tenth century.70 We hear little of Fossés or Glanfeuil from the 880s until 921. In the latter year, a decree issued by the current king, Charles the Simple, revealed that the now queen-mother Adelaide and her chief ally, Count Hagano, were the dominant party at Paris.71 In her years as dowager queen, Adelaide, adhering to the contemporary ideal of pious noblewomen, had been an active patron of monastic establishments. The 921 decree shows that she had gained control over Fossés. She was likely assisted in this by Hagano, who had a reputation for seizing monasteries that had been under the patronage of noble families.72 The decree was issued at the request of the current abbot of Fossés, Rainaud, described as consanguineus of the queen. It describes how Abbot Rainaud, along with Count Hagano and Abbo, the bishop of Soissons, had rebuilt the abbey from a ruined condition (presumably the consequence of the fortyyear exile of its inhabitants) and imposed on its monks a regular life (monachico ordine). The decree linked the courtiers’ efforts to the original reformation of that abbey in 816 by Count Bego “the great grandfather of our mother [Queen Adelaide],” almost exactly a century earlier. 68 Karl Ferdinand Werner, Enquêtes sur les premiers temps du principat français (IXe-Xe siècles) = Untersuchungen zur Frühzeit des französischen Fürstentums (9–10. Jahrhundert) (Thorbecke, 2004), 272. 69 Werner, “Gauzlin von Saint-Denis,” 395–462. 70 Geary, Phantoms, 35–39; on Saint-Denis, 108. 71 Tardif, Monuments historiques, 144–45 (#230). 72 The appropriation of one of these acquisitions, that of Celles, from Rothilde, Charles

the Bald’s daughter, appears to have led to Charles the Simple’s repudiation by the nobility in 922, J. Dunbabin, “West Francia: the Kingdom” in NCMH , 3. 379.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

151

It claimed further that the Carolingian kings, from Louis the Pious down to the present, had reinforced Bego’s work by their patronage and protection. Earlier decrees subjecting Glanfeuil to Fossés are here confirmed as well. The decree of 921 was the first of several attempts during the next 150 years to present Fossés as a product of continual patronage and piety provided by the French royal court. This revision of the abbey’s past “forgot” the thirty-year domination of Fossés by the Rorigonids which had introduced the cult of Maurus there.73 With conscious irony and a sense of revanche, the decree of 921 applied the language of the 847 formula of Charles the Bald subjecting Glanfeuil to the Rorigonids to this 921 acquisition of Glanfeuil by Queen Adelaide’s familia. At its close, the 921 decree added a requirement that when Abbot Rainaud died, the monks were free to elect a successor of their choice, unless a member of the queen’s family (ex nostra genetricis progenie) could be found who would govern the abbey of Fossés regulariter, in which case such a person should always rule there. This clause evokes Abbot Odo’s summary of Charles’ edict of 847, in the Historia translationis, which provided that future abbots of Glanfeuil be chosen from among the descendants of the Rorigonid family.74 This decree shows that Ebroin’s “theft” of Glanfeuil from Fossés’ authority 80 years earlier and his denial of Fossés’ authority over the newly restored Glanfeuil had not been forgotten by the court party. The royal abbey of Fossés once again ruled Glanfeuil as it had almost a century 73 “[M]any of the texts from the Carolingian period were subsequently reworked in the seigneurial period in order to emphasize earlier royal oversight.” Isabelle Rosé, “Interactions between Monks and the Lay Nobility,” CHMM, 1. 580. 74 Odo’s summary of Charles’ decree: ut quamdiu aliquis de progenie nostra inueniri poterit, qui locum ipsum secundum auctoritatem Beati. Benedicti regere et gubernare valeat, regulariter ipse vivens, et nullus alius ibi rectoris fungatur officio. HT , 20. (As long as someone from our progeny can be found who is able while he lives to govern the shrine according to the Rule of Blessed Benedict, he and no other may legally discharge the office of rector there.) Diploma of Charles the Bald (847): talis eorum progenies inveniri possit qui secundum dei volutatem a nobis vel a successoribus nostris ei subrogari queat, Rec. CC, i, 260 (#97). (Such a person who can be found of their progeny, according to the will of God, may be nominated/elected/proposed by us or our successors.) Diploma of Charles the Simple (921): regulariter ipse vivens, qui semper inibi fungatur abbatis officio (He himself living according to monastic rule, who for that reason may be chosen for the office. of abbot)… Tardif, Monuments historiques 1. 144–45 (#230). The 921 decree likely used Odo’s language rather than Charles’ official statement either because Odo’s Historia was more available or because his summary contains a more absolute requirement of family rule. See above, Chapter 4, pp. 69–98.

152

J. B. WICKSTROM

earlier and both houses were once again under the control of the royal court. An air of revanche permeates the text of the 921 document. Glanfeuil is described in this document as a monasteriolum rather than a cellula, as it had been in Charles the Fat’s edict of the 886. This change in nomenclature implied that the repopulated Glanfeuil had become a larger and likely self-supporting house.75 The 921 decree’s use of phrases borrowed from Odo’s Historia translationis shows that the court was familiar with the abbot’s works. Fossés possessed several copies of the Life of Saint Maurus in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, though the active promotion of his cult there did not begin before the 1030s. Otherwise, we know little about Fossés in the tenth century. Lost properties were recovered, and new ones acquired, but monastic discipline declined from mid-century.76 By the 990s, it was clear that the reform program of the court party noted in the 921 decree had been abandoned. A famous series of events in the late 990s show the extent of the falling-off of monastic discipline. According to Eudes de Saint-Maur’s Life of Bouchard the Venerable, the major patron and reformer of Fossés (c. 943–1007). Once nobly enriched by the kings of the past, [Fossés] had fallen into great disorder and was, more than others, deprived of all the necessities of life, the cause being in part an absence of justice and in part the negligence of its abbots (rectorum). It was ruled at that time by Mainard, a nobleman of illustrious ancestry, according to the lights of this world. He did nothing in accord with the regime (imperium) of Saint Benedict but, conforming himself to the world, set aside everything that was necessary both to the monks’ bodies and souls. His pleasure lay in hunting wild animals, running dogs, or hawking. When he traveled abroad, he put aside the monks’ habit and clothed himself with fine furs and in the place of a humble cowl covered his head with a fancy headdress.77

75 For a discussion of this nomenclature, see Daniel Pichot, “Prieurés et société,” 21. 76 DACL, 10/2, 2694. 77 Eudes de Saint-Maur, Vie de Bouchard le Venerable, ed. Bourel de Roncière (Paris, 1892), 7.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

153

A Saintly Count of Paris, the Abbot of Cluny, and Reform at Fossés Abbot Mainard had significant connections with Glanfeuil. When Bouchard, as count of Paris, expelled him as abbot of Fossés in 998, he was sent to Glanfeuil, where he served as “pastor” to the monks. He remained there until his death and was buried “honorably” in the choir, facing the church’s crucifix.78 This was also the location of the sepulchers of Count Rorigo and Bildechildis. These details suggest that the Le Riche family, to which Mainard belonged, was connected to the Rorigonids. Count Bouchard’s spouse, Elisabeth de Corbeil, was also a member of the Le Riche family. Mainard’s appointment to Glanfeuil thus appears to have been a concession to his family’s connections both to the founders of Glanfeuil as well as to the count of Paris.79 After his dismissal of Abbot Mainard, Count Bouchard called in Abbot Maiolus of Cluny to reform the house. However, when Maiolus attempted to absorb Fossés into the growing network of Cluniac houses, the king gave the abbacy of Fossés to Thibaut, the abbot of Cormery, in 1000, ending Cluny’s supervision of the abbey in favor of local patronage and governance.80 Thibaut was not only Count Bouchard’s stepson but was also related by marriage to Fulk Nerra,81 the dynamic third count of Anjou (987–1040), who would become a great patron of Glanfeuil. Appropriating Saint Maurus for Fossés: The Sermo of 1033: The threat of absorption by Cluny appears to have galvanized Fossés into creating an identity that would be strong enough to resist such pressures in future. With its relative independence, a reformed observance and expanding assets, owing to the patronage of the king and the count of Paris, Fossés was well equipped to undertake this fundamental task by the 1030s. So, in 1030, the dedication of Fossés’ newly rebuilt abbey church culminated in a solemn re-enthronement of the relics of Maurus. In the

78 Eudes, Vie de Bouchard, 11. 79 Bouchard’s signature appears on documents alongside that of Mainard’s father,

Ansaud. The two noblemen lived in the same area of Paris and had become friends as royal councilors; in 1006, Ansaud assisted at the court of Corbeil where the old count dictated his will, Vie de Bouchard, 11, note 1. 80 Eudes, Vie de Bouchard, 22. 81 Thibaut’s half-sister Elisabeth (Adele) was Fulk’s spouse.

154

J. B. WICKSTROM

context of that liturgy, a major sermon was preached, likely by Abbot Odo II (1021–1038), though it was probably written by the prolific Eudes de Saint-Maur, who had spent time at Glanfeuil, presumably acquiring knowledge of Maurus and his shrine.82 He returned to Fossés “full of enthusiasm” for presenting the abbey’s history and its saintly heroes, whom, he asserted, had been neglected.83 The aim of the Sermo of 1030 was to establish Fossés as the authentic home of Maurus’ shrine.84 To build that case, the Sermo heavily revised the narratives of Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus and his Historia translationis. The first of these changes appears in Section 2, which alters the purpose of Maurus’ journey to Gaul. The Sermo entirely omits Bishop Bertrand of Le Mans’ request that monks from Montecassino travel to France and establish there a monastery under the Rule of Benedict. Rather, it claimed that, on his own initiative, Benedict sent Maurus to Gaul in order to “demonstrate to the fideles Christi there the practices of the monastic Rule.” The epithet fideles Christi is a term with feudal overtones used throughout the Sermo to define the monks of Fossés as loyal and noble followers of their Lord.85 The Sermo implies that Maurus’ mission to Gaul was not to found Glanfeuil, but to reveal to the monks of Fossés the Rule of Benedict, since, as fideles Christi, they were uniquely prepared to receive it.86 The Sermo thereby suggests that long after Fossés 82 Lauwers, “Memoire des origins,” 164, note 25. As for the Office, Eudes mentions that he inserted readings from a Fossés homiliary into the Office of Saint Babolenus, so it seems likely that this prolific author also composed the Office itself. Lauwers is also of this opinion, “Memoire des origins,” 164. 83 Lauwers. “Memoire,” 164. 84 BnF, MS latin 3778, Sermo de mirabilibus gestis sive translatione corporis sanctissimae

mauri abbatis; fols 165r,-173v. Sermo domni Odonis abbas eadem [Mauro] translatione, MS 2273, Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, fols 96v-102 (early twelfth century). Fol. 96 identifies the author as “Abbot Odo.” This is most likely Abbot Odo II, who ruled Fossés from 1029 to 1038/9. The Sermo thus can be dated any time between 1030 and 1038. In BnF, MS lat. 3778, the Sermo constitutes lessons five through eight of the feast of the rededication of the abbey church. This work is printed in Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum antiquorum, Bruxelles 2. vols. (1889), 1. 264–70. For ease of reference, I use the page numbers from this printed version. 85 Sermo, 265. The term fideles often appeared in late Carolingian documents as a description of honorable followers attached to a lord. 86 This passage suggests that the abbey of Fossés already existed in 543, the date given in the LM for Maurus’ journey to France, whereas the foundation of Fossés had traditionally been dated at 639.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

155

had inherited the genuine spirit of the Rule from Maurus’ appearance in the sixth century, it introduced the Rule to Glanfeuil only during its governance of the reconstructed monastery in the 830s. The Sermo goes on to reinterpret that 830s reform. It replaces Odo’s focus on Count Rorigo’s physical restoration of the abbey with an emphasis on its spiritual revival. According to the Sermo, the Count’s sole purpose in restoring Glanfeuil was to establish a reformed monastic community. Having made extensive inquiries and finding that Fossés “exceeded all the other monasteries of Francia in its observance of holy monastic life,” Count Rorigo petitioned Abbot Ingelbert to come to Glanfeuil and “take its lordship into his power in perpetuity.”87 However, the abbot professed himself reluctant to undertake the journey, citing his primary obligation to care for the Fossés community, whose main church had just been rebuilt.88 He also cited the remoteness of the region and his doubts about the ability of its inhabitants to sustain an observant monastic life. The Sermo says that, finally persuaded by the incessant pleas of Count Rorigo and Bildechildis, Abbot Ingelbert traveled to Glanfeuil and there immediately took over its governance (regendum). Odo’s account had said nothing of any such a formal assumption of lordship by the abbot of Fossés.89 Odo’s Historia had implied that some monks were already living at Glanfeuil when it was restored by Count Rorigo and so only a few monks from Fossés were needed to restore regular monastic life.90 The Sermo leaves the impression that Glanfeuil was entirely deserted and that the Fossés monks formed an entirely new community. The Sermo also omitted any reference to Count Rorigo’s brother, Gauzbert, who, in Odo’s narrative, assumed the leadership of Fossés after Abbot Ingelbert’s departure. Similarly, the Sermo fails to mention Bishop Ebroin’s usurpation of Fossés’ governance of Glanfeuil in the early 840s or his establishment of a dynasty of Rorigonid abbots there. The Sermo thus left the impression that Fossés had ruled over Glanfeuil from its reform by Abbot Ingelbert in the early 830s until the community merged with Fossés under Abbot Odo in 868.

87 Sermo, 266. 88 For Fossés’ rebuilt church, see Gillon, “Dossier,” 36. 89 Sermo, 266. Cf. HT , 7. 90 “After the monastery had been almost deserted and reduced to a wasteland,” HT ,

12.

156

J. B. WICKSTROM

Abbot Odo had also described several miracles Maurus worked at the restored monastery in the 830s and 840s. The Fossés Sermo omitted these entirely. Its concern to claim Saint Maurus for Fossés would not be served by an account of the many—often spectacular—miracles he performed at Glanfeuil under its Rorigonid abbots. The Sermo did however include the miracles that Saint Maurus performed during the community’s five-year journey from Glanfeuil to Fossés. As discussed earlier, Odo included these primarily to demonstrate that the saint retained his powers after his relics had been taken from their original home. The Sermo’s author was as invested as Odo had been in establishing this principle. Indeed, the Sermo repeated in detail the first and most important of these miracles, the incubation cure of the blood-vomiting woman.91 In particular, the Fossés author paraphrased Odo’s final comment on her cure: “therefore with all doubt cast away by these signs, we believe that the body of the blessed man is guarded and honored by the angels, in whatsoever place it may be brought.”92 This is one of only two quotations of Odo’s words in the entire Sermo. This claim of course helped to legitimize the transfer of the cult of Maurus from Glanfeuil to Fossés. Lastly, in his Life of Maurus, Odo had described the arrival of the relics of Saint Maurus at Fossés in a relatively brief paragraph.93 The Fossés author, on the other hand, presented a much more detailed and dramatic scene, shaping it into the climax of the entire Sermo.94 Abbot Odo and the bearers of the relics approached the abbey entrance “humbly” and laid them before the “saintly bishop” Aeneas, who elevated the relics for the crowd. Then, “surrounded by an ever-growing multitude,” Bishop Aeneas carried them inside, placing them in a new reliquary on the altar of the apostolic patrons of the church, Saints Peter and Paul, indicating that a new patron had joined these ancient protectors of Fossés. Odo had simply stated that the transfer was attended by a “dense and numerous assembly,” but the Sermo made a special point of the gathering of the

91 HT , 35. 92 HT , 35. 93 HT , 7. 94 Sermo, 268–69.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

157

“people (populus/plebs ) of Paris.” It has been suggested that the participation of such large crowds, a feature of urban rituals by the eleventh century, signaled public approval of the transfer of relics.95 Charles the Bald, the royal patron of Fossés, was given a more central role in the Sermo than in Odo’s account: the king himself discovered the community of Glanfeuil fleeing before the Vikings with its precious relics. Recognizing the extraordinary powers of Saint Maurus’ relics, the king ordered them sent to his royal abbey of Fossés in the capitol “so that there they might be venerated in perpetuity by the devotions of the monks, those faithful men of Christ.”96 Fossés was also described as the relics’ “longed-for destination,” implying that Odo and the community of Glanfeuil, and perhaps Maurus himself, had always intended to end their exile at Fossés and settle there. The Sermo asserted further that, at the king’s order, Bishop Aeneas personally met the procession, accompanied by a large crowd of clerics and laymen. He, along with the people of the city, gave thanks to God for granting them a treasure such as would “light up all of Gaul.”97 Finally, the Sermo mentioned an annuity later granted by Bishop Aeneas to Fossés from the prebend of his cathedral in Maurus’ name and his establishment of an annual procession of the cathedral clergy on the Wednesday of Passion Week in the saint’s honor. The procession formed part of the great Lenten circuit of the major churches of Paris, implying that Maurus had also become one of the permanent protectors of the imperial city.98 Every year, the Sermo was read as the historical lessons for Matins on the anniversary of the church’s dedication. Thus, the community and its visitors “remembered” every year another largely fictional history of Saint Maurus, though one much different from the imagined Life of Saint Maurus by Abbot Odo, from which it had been crafted.99

95 Louis Hamilton, A Sacred City: Consecrating Churches and Reforming Society in Eleventh-Century Italy (Manchester U., 2010), Chapter 1. 96 Sermo, 268. 97 Sermo, 268. 98 Leclercq, DALC, 10/2, cols 2693–94. 99 In this manuscript, the Sermo constitutes lessons 5–8 of the feast of the rededication

of the abbey church on November 13.

158

J. B. WICKSTROM

Saint Maurus—Heavenly Patron of Fossés Abbey The Sermo of 1030 inaugurated Fossés’ eleventh-century promotion of Maurus as its chief patron. Other writings linking Maurus with Fossés were later produced in the abbey’s flourishing school and elsewhere.100 For example, a classicizing, versified Life of Maurus composed about the same time and attributed to Foucoie, archdeacon of Meaux, just outside Paris, was likely commissioned by the abbey.101 A 12-lesson proper Office of Saint Maurus, composed at Fossés in this period, was adapted by Glanfeuil and later by monasteries throughout Western Europe.102 New accounts of miracles performed at Fossés by Maurus were created.103 Such works were bundled with other documents such as Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus and his Historia to form richly illustrated lectionaries celebrating the cult of Maurus at Fossés. Some of these appear to have been circulated to other monasteries to promote Fossés’ shrine to Maurus.104 The 57 illustrations of the Life of Maurus in one of these lectionaries comprise one of the glories of Romanesque figure drawing, recently attributed to Guido Oacrius, a leading artist of the twelfth-century Fossés 100 Vie de Bouchard, Introduction, xxi. The abbey produced outstanding works of various kinds from the mid-eleventh through the early twelfth centuries. See, for examples, Charlotte Denoël, “Guido Oacrius et l’enseignement du chant à Saint Maur des Fossés a debut des xiie siècle,” in Archivum Latinitatis medii aevi, 66 (2008): 151–61. Also see such productions mentioned in Pierre Gillon, “Quelques aspects de la vie quotidienne à Saint-Maur au Moyen-Age,” Vieux Saint Maur, 58 (1985): 1–18. A recent overview of the cultural importance of Fossés in the twelfth century is Anne Billy, “Le desir de Dieu” en images dans un antiphonaire de Saint-Maur-des-Fossés (Editions du Cerf, Paris, 2018), 36–38. 101 BnF, MS lat. 3778, Vita s. Mauri metrice descripta, fols 54r-67v, printed in Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum antiquorum, Bruxelles (1889), 1. 240–64. Gillon believes that this work was commissioned by Count William of Corbeil against the cult of Saint Babolenus, but a date of 1030 seems too early for that possibility. Gillon, “Dossier,” 38. The editors of Fulcoie’s poem date it between 1029 and 1043. Cat. Cod. i, 240. On the composition of hagiographies in epic poetic style, see Anna Lisa Taylor, Epic Lives and Monasticism in the Middle Ages, 800–1050 (Cambridge U.P., 2013). 102 BnF, lat. MS 12,584, fols 244v–247r, printed version in Corpus Antiphonalium

Officii, ed. R-J Hesbert, 6 vols (Herder: Rome, 1963–79), 2. 171–75 (4: Fossatensis ) The Office is discussed below in Chapter 8, below 235–239. A new Office in honor of Saint Maurus was produced at Montecassino and adopted in its area of influence, see Chapter 9 below, pp. 277–280. 103 See outline of Tours MS 2273 below, pp. 163–164. 104 See below, pp. 163–164. for a discussion of these lectionaries.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

159

liturgical atelier.105 (See Fig. 2.1 Chapter 2, p. 32, above). They are, however, limited to the career of Maurus at Montecassino and his journey to France. There are no portrayals of the construction and dedication of Glanfeuil abbey. Thus, like the Sermo of 1030, they promote Fossés’ memory of Maurus as the devoted disciple of Benedict who traveled to France, bringing the Master’s Rule to the fideles Christi awaiting it at Fossés. Saint Maurus vs. Saint Babolenus: Who Should Be the Patron of Fossés? While the Sermo of 1030 and the other works promoted Fossés as the rightful home of the cult of Maurus, by the end of the 1050s a conflict arose over who should serve as Fossés’ primary patron. Several works celebrating Fossés’ first abbot, Saint Babolenus, were composed at that time. The first of these was a new antiphon written for the commemoration of his translatio in 830, followed by a detailed Vita and an account of the miracles that he continued to perform at Fossés.106 Finally, a 12-lesson Office for the holy founder’s feast was also composed. Some sort of veneration of Saint Babolenus at Fossés dates back at least to the ninth century.107 However, nothing more is heard of his cult until the 1050s. Pierre Gillon, an authority on medieval Fossés, has speculated that Saint Babolenus’ relics might have been lost during the occupation of the abbey by the Vikings in 861. This, and the saint’s failure to protect his devotees curing that crisis may have discredited the cult.108 In any case, the reception of the relics of Maurus in 868 would have been particularly welcome: Fossés thereby acquired a more famous and powerful patron whose perfect monastic life and miraculous deeds had recently been recorded by Fossés’ new abbot, Odo. A shrine to Maurus was set 105 Troyes Bibliothèque municipale MS 2273. Images available online at. https:// bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?COMPOSITION_ID=933&corpus=decor& page=6. Also, a digital reproduction of the entirety of MS 2273 is available on a CD-ROM: Vie et Miracles de Saint Maur. For a recent analysis of the MS, Billy, “Le desire de Dieu,” 47–50. 106 Vita sancti Baboleni, ed. Martin Bouquet, in Recueil des Historiens de Gaule et de la France, dir. Léopold Delisle, 24 vols (Paris, 1840–1904), 3. 565–71; Miracula sancti Baboleni, AASS, June VII (Paris-Rome, 1867), 181E-184B. Officium s. Babolenii in BnF. ms. lat. 12,044, Antiphonalium ad usum Sancti Mauri Fossatensis, fols 146v––149v. 107 Gillon, “Dossier,” 36. 108 Gillon, “Dossier,” 36–37.

160

J. B. WICKSTROM

up immediately, as we have seen, though the sources say little of his cult at Fossés during the next 150 years. At the dedication of the new abbey church in 1030, culminating with the enthronement of Maurus’ relics and the Sermo of Eudes de Saint-Maur, Babolenus was not mentioned. Given all this, the reappearance of a cult of Saint Babolenus in the later 1050s is unexpected and requires some explanation. New hagiographical materials promoting ancient monastic saints’ cults became increasingly common throughout Western Europe as the eleventh century progressed: in England, for example, as the Viking threat receded, new lives of ancient Anglo-Saxon saints began to appear along with the revival of their cult centers.109 The rise of the cult of Saint Babolenus was likely part of the same historical development, though it had its specific local causes and consequences. Gillon believes that veneration of Saint Babolenus was revived by a party of Fossés monks rebelling against three decades of exactions by the abbey’s lay advocates, especially Count William of Corbeil, whom the monks accused of claiming several properties of the abbey as his own.110 The monks counterattacked by including in a newly composed Life of Saint Babolenus material supporting their property claims against the count. They also compiled a cartulary of property transactions to which they appended fictitious papal confirmations.111 At the same time, Eudes de Saint-Maur composed his Life of Bouchard the Venerable, the reformer of Fossés in the early part of the century, providing an example of a saintly lay patron to contrast with unjust advocati such as Count William.112 He also composed liturgical readings for an Office in Bouchard’s honor.113 This promotion of Saint Babolenus challenged the status of Maurus as Fossés’ major patron and appears to have divided the community. Serious disputes broke out in 1058. According to Eudes de Saint Maur’s Miracula sancti Baboleni, as the choir intoned Eudes’ new antiphon at the Night Office in honor of Saint Babolenus, the choirmaster attempted 109 Cox, The Church and Vale of Evesham, 62. 110 Gillon, “Dossier,” 21–23. 111 Gillon, “Dossier,” 37. 112 Gillon, “Dossier,” 37. 113 Michel Lauwers, “La Vie du seigneur Bouchard, comte vénérable, conflits

d’avouerie, traditions carolingiennes et modèles de Sainteté à l’abbaye des Fossés au xie siècle,” in Guerriers et moines: conversion et Sainteté aristocratique dans l’Occident médiéval, ed. Michel Lauwers (Antibes, 2002), 382.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

161

to drown out the choir by intoning another chant.114 When this failed, the choirmaster began hurling insults against Babolenus and swore that as long as he lived he would never permit the antiphon to be chanted in the church.115 Shortly afterward, the offended saint appeared to the choirmaster “shining like the sun” and asked how he dared publicly to refuse the honor that had been bestowed on him by God himself. He then declared that since the choirmaster had sworn never to allow the saint his due while he lived, he would soon die. The choirmaster promptly fell sick and expired three days later.116 Eudes then recounted a series of miracles performed by Saint Babolenus in and around the abbey, which finally converted those who “would not confess that the holy man reigned with Christ.”117 As Eudes’ writings indicate, others besides the malcontent choirmaster were unhappy with the new cult of Saint Babolenus. In fact, Abbot Robert himself opposed the “innovation” and personally overturned the altar dedicated to the saint. For this, he was immediately removed and imprisoned by King Henry I; his allies in the community were also expelled.118 However, the prior who succeeded Robert as abbot also condemned the cult, refusing to commemorate the translation of Saint Babolenus on December 7. In its place, he ordered the lesser Office of the octave of Saint Andrew to be celebrated.119 For this, he was immediately struck with a terrible death by intestinal hemorrhage, the divine judgment on traitors and blasphemers. That the revived cult of Saint Babolenus was intended to replace Maurus is implied by another entry in Eudes’ Miracula S. Baboleni. The passage claimed that four ancient monks of Glanfeuil had seen miracles worked by Saint Babolenus and testified that he was especially effective against those suffering from fever, a healing “specialty” formerly

114 Eudes condemned the choirmaster as one who “spoke arrogantly against the holy one of God,” Miracula sancti Baboleni, 183. 115 Miracula sancti Baboleni, 183. 116 Miracula, 183. 117 Miracula, 183. 118 Miracula, 182. 119 Miracula, 182–183.

162

J. B. WICKSTROM

attributed to Saint Maurus.120 The supporters of Saint Babolenus apparently prevailed, at least for a time. In 1067, his relics were once again solemnly translated into the church. A reading of the Life and Miracles of Saint Babolenus and the celebration of a proper Office likely formed part of this celebration. Around the same time, however, special indulgences were being offered to pilgrims at Fossés only on the feasts of Maurus and of the abbey’s original patrons, Saints Peter and Paul.121 An antiphoner from Fossés, containing the texts for the Divine Office throughout the year, also reflected the uneasy co-existence of these rival patrons.122 The antiphoner dates from the late eleventh or early twelfth century, though the texts were composed earlier. It may have been created under the direction of Fossés’ talented cantor, scribe, and musical scholar, Guido Oacrius.123 A comparison of the Offices of Saint Babolenus and Saint Maurus in this manuscript suggests their relative importance to the abbey. The Office of Maurus was transcribed by the main scribe and illustrator of the manuscript. The Office of Saint Babolenus, however, which was added to the manuscript later, was the work of a different and clearly superior artist: the major initials are painted in brilliant red and blue, surrounded by delicate filigree; the four-line musical staff morphs from a faded black to a striking scarlet.124 No other Office in this antiphoner was accorded such a splendid treatment. On the other hand, the opening folio of Maurus’ Office had experienced such heavy use that its bottom third was replaced.125 This damage was likely owing to the repeated use of the manuscript to chant votive Offices of Maurus and for other cultic ceremonies throughout the year. The folios of the Office of Saint Babolenus show no such signs of heavy use, though this was possibly owing to its later insertion. Similarly, the Fossés antiphoner contains proper Offices for several saints associated with the Merovingian royal house, which had founded the abbey: in addition to Saint Babolenus, these include Saint Eligius (Eloi), an important Parisian monastic saint and a counselor to the 120 Miracula, 182. For Maurus as a healer of fever, see Chapter 5 above, pp. 123–124. 121 Gillon, “Dossier,” 38. 122 BnF. MS lat. 12,044. 123 Billy, “Le desir de Dieu” en images, 46–50. 124 BnF, MS lat. 12044 fols 146v–149v. 125 BnF, MS lat. 12044 fol. 39r.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

163

Merovingian kings Chlothar and Dagobert; Saint Arnulf of Metz, the holy founder of the Carolingian dynasty, was also included. The presence of these feasts reflects the domination of Fossés by the Parisian court party from the early 900s, as we have seen. Finally, for November 13, the Fossés antiphoner contains an Office celebrating the re-dedication of the abbey church in 1030 and the enthronement of Saint Maurus’ relics. On the whole, the contents of this manuscript confirm other evidence that the relationship between Saint Maurus and Saint Babolenus as patrons of Fossés remained unsettled through the later eleventh century. Two unusual texts, roughly contemporary with the antiphoners, point in the same direction.126 Compiled from documents written at various times and sewn into single codices. They constituted a sort of breviarium of devotions to the major patrons of Fossés.127 Most are divided into eight or 12 lectiones, so were likely used as readings during the Night Office. These two are lavishly illustrated, suggesting that they served as show pieces for the liturgy, or perhaps as special gifts.128 BnF ms lat. 3778

Troyes Mun. MS 2273

1. Texts on Ss. Peter and Paul 2. Foucoie de Beauvais, Metrical Life of Saint Maurus 3. Odo of Glanfeuil, Life of St Maurus 3. Odo of Glanfeuil, Historia translationis

1. Gregory the Great’s Life of Benedict 2. Foucoie de Beauvais, Metrical Life of Saint Maurus 3. Eulogy of Guido Oacrius. scribe and head of music at Fossés (continued)

126 Although both copies are twelfth century, Lauwers has argued for a late eleventhcentury date for the composition of BnF, MS 3778 and perhaps of Troyes MS 2273 as well, “La Vie de seigneur Bouchard,” 378–80. Charlotte DeNoël, however, noted that two miracles described in 2273 are dated 1137, a terminus ad quem for that document, “Guido Oacrius,” 154. 127 Charlotte Denoël, “La vie de Saint Maur,” L’Art de l’enluminure, 12/2 (2005): 7

Most of the texts in both documents are written by different hands and with different decorative schemes, though they exhibit similarities which indicate a single artistic and scribal tradition. 128 A similarly luxurious libellus, BnF, MS lat. 5344, was produced at Glanfeuil at about the same time. It contains Odo’s Life of Maurus, and his Historia translationis, two additional miracles by Maurus, an Office in his honor (Version A), Fulcoie of Beauvais Metrical Life of Saint Maurus, Peter the Deacon’s third Life of Saint Placid (“Acta Altera,” see Chapter 9 below, pp. 249–278) and four letters from the same author’s Registrum Saint Placidi (see below Chapter 9, pp. 249–278), the Life of Saint Hilary and the Life of Saint Nicholas with several miracle stories added. For further details on MS 5344, see Chapter 10.

164

J. B. WICKSTROM

(continued) BnF ms lat. 3778

Troyes Mun. MS 2273

4. Sermon for All Saints’ Day,’from the homiliary of Paul the Deacon 5. Old Testament readings for a church dedication 6. Eudes de Saint-Maur, Sermo on the life of Maurus 7. Office of Saint Maurus, (from BnF MS lat. 12,044) 8. Eudes de St-Maur, Life of Bouchard

4. Odo of Glanfeuil: Life of Maurus (richly illustrated) 5. Odo of Glanfeuil: Historia translationis 6. Eudes de St-Maur: Miracles of Saint Maurus at Fossés 7. Eudes de St-Maur: Life of Saint Babolenus 8. Eudes de St-Maur: Miracles of Saint Babolenus

The contents of the Troyes lectionary seems to be an intentional imitation of the earlier BnF 3778. Both contain Vitae and Miracula of the major saints venerated at Fossés and center attention on Maurus but differ in their specific focus. So, MS 3778 features writings concerning Saint Maurus but contains no material regarding Saint Babolenus, while Troyes MS 2273 contains the same Maurus materials, while adding two major works on Saint Babolenus. The Troyes manuscript’s Life of Maurus contains thirty-one illustrations but only two of these—and three historiated initials—depict the construction of Glanfeuil itself, though it is the longest section of the Life. These differences are perhaps later echoes of the quarrels over Maurus and Saint Babolenus of a generation earlier. There similar lectionaries from Fossés found in other nearby monasteries, indicating that Fossés was promoting its hagiographical and liturgical traditions by circulating such publications.129 Additionally, a twelfth-century litany from Fossés ranked Benedict, Maurus, and Babolenus in that order. Moreover, a missal containing this litany as well as another from the same period contains no Mass texts for Babolenus’ feast day on June 26.130 These differences tend to confirm the evidence reviewed above: that different opinions continued to exist within Fossés regarding the relative importance of the two patrons. 129 Gillon, “Dossier,” 38. 130 For the three patrons, BnF, MS lat. 11591, fol. 197r. For Babolenus, BnF, MS lat.

11591, fol. 117v, BnF, MS lat. 12054, fol. 116v. The actual texts for this date in both missals are proper to Saints John and Paul, who share this date. MS 12054 has an entry for Saint Babolenus in its calendar. MS 11501 has no calendar.

6

APPROPRIATING THE CULT: GLANFEUIL, FLEURY, AND FOSSÉS

165

The underlying issues indicated by these two lectionaries involved nothing less significant than the core identity of Fossés. Was Fossés to be a Parisian monastery tied to its earlier identity as a royal Frankish monastery and to local patrons such as Babolenus and Bouchard, or would it become the main shrine of Maurus, and so identifying itself with St Benedict and his Rule and thereby with the larger Western Church? The answer appears to be that it continually attempted to become the main shrine to Saint Maurus but remained an abbey of an essentially local character. The veneration of Saint Babolenus never appears to have enjoyed much appeal beyond the abbey itself and its environs. One of the few examples comes from the abbey of Saint Germer-leFly (Oise). Reformed by Fossés in the eleventh century, it maintained a shrine to Saint Babolenus which endured for centuries, and the nearby parish church still maintains a window dedicated to Saint Babolenus, commissioned in the nineteenth century.131 By the mid-eleventh century, Maurus had emerged as Fossés’ main patron. In 1137, he formally replaced the Virgin Mary and Saint Peter as the chief heavenly patron of the abbey, supposedly when he ended a drought that neither the Virgin nor Saint Peter were able to alleviate.132 Thereafter, Fossés always presented itself as the true home of Maurus, boasting a large (and growing) collection of his relics until its suppression in 1749.133 A description of the abbey church from 1603 referred to a small chapel containing Saint Babolenus’ relics, which had been constructed behind a much larger shrine dedicated to Saint Maurus. When the reliquary containing the relics of Saint Babolenus at Fossés was opened in 1747, an “ancient” parchment was attached, indicating that the bones of Saint Babolenus had been placed in a reliquary originally

131 Marc Lemarchand, “Au Coudrey Saint Germer: la chasse de Saint Babolein,” in Cahiers de la société historique et géographique du bassin de l’Epte, 34 (1994), 59–63. There are a few copies of the Life of Babolenus and references to him in various sources from the later Middle Ages, Gillon, “Dossier,” 38–40. 132 Virginia Wylie Egbert, “Saint Nicholas: The Fasting Child,” The Art Bulletin 46/1 (March 1964), 69 note 4. 133 For a list of the relics claimed by Fossés in the seventeenth century, see below p. 218.

166

J. B. WICKSTROM

used for the bones of St Maurus, when the latter’s relics were moved to the larger and more elegant receptacle.134 Nonetheless, the Parisian abbey was never able to establish itself as the authentic shrine of Saint Maurus. For most pilgrims and writers, this remained at its original home of Glanfeuil. This recognition resulted from the repopulation and economic recovery of Glanfeuil and its insistence on Glanfeuil’s ancient identity as the true home of Saint Maurus. It is to that extraordinary revival that we now turn.

134 André Joseph Ansart, Histoire de Saint Maur, Abbé de Glanfeuil (Paris, 1772), 93–94.

CHAPTER 7

Patronage and Prosperity

Part I: Prosperity and New Ideas The lost decree of Carloman II (879–886), subjecting Glanfeuil to Fossés, implied that Glanfeuil had been repopulated. The decree’s confirmation in 886 by Charles the Fat described Glanfeuil as a cellula, a very small house, indicating that its inhabitants were few and likely not self-sufficient.1 A second confirmation of that document in 921 replaced the term cellula with monasteriolum, suggesting that significant expansion had occurred in the intervening 40 years.2 The repopulation may have been occasioned by the death of Abbot Odo, perhaps during the evacuation of Fossés in 885– 6, or even, as Landreau suggested, simply as a way for Fossés to oversee largely abandoned properties.3 Glanfeuil, Maurus, and the New Powers in Anjou The first years of Glanfeuil’s revival occurred during a fundamental transformation in Angevin political structures and power. During the early 1 Cellula: “A tiny church supporting only a few monks…monks might be rotated in and out of it from the mother church,” Constance Bouchard, Sword, Mitre and Cloister (Cornell UP, 1987), 102–3. 2 For the confirmation decree of 921, see above, Chapter 6, 150–52. 3 Landreau, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil du xe au xiiie siècle,” 1, 181.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_7

167

168

J. B. WICKSTROM

decades of the tenth century, Carolingian kingship collapsed, replaced in western France by local lords who vied with each other, often violently, to extend their territories ever more widely, effectively reversing Viking expansion. The aggressive Alan Crookedbeard, duke of Brittany (936– 952) had begun pushing the Vikings out of the lower Loire in the late 930s.4 Simultaneously, Fulk II, “the Good” (c.942–c.960) had brought a measure of peace and prosperity to the Loire valley, not only by force but also by restoring abbeys in Anjou that had fallen into difficulties. Several dispersed monastic communities had begun to return to the area in these years, and religious houses in and around Angers had restored the Rule of Benedict which had been largely abandoned in the disorder of the previous decades.5 The monks of Mont-Glonne in Angers, for example, returned during the 950s after almost a century and founded the monastery of Saint-Florent, with which Glanfeuil was to have important connections. The small community of Glanfeuil benefitted from this return of peace and order, though only indirect evidence for its situation survives; not even the names of its priors before the 980s have been preserved. Glanfeuil first reemerges in records from the last quarter of the tenth century. Acting like a free agent, it pursued property disputes with its neighbors in the bishop’s court, and, above all, it enjoyed the support of the rising counts of Anjou. We know Saint-Florent had been refounded by the count of Blois about 950, and its abbot, the politically astute Robert was a member of the Blésois comital family, perhaps a son of Count Thibaut.6 Abbot Robert had persuaded Bishop Renaud II of Angers (r.973–1005), formerly an adherent of the house of Anjou, to align himself with the. Blésois.7 Allies of Bishop Renaud and Abbot Robert had occupied several properties which Glanfeuil claimed to own

4 La chronique de Nantes, ed. Ren´e Merlet (Paris, 1896), 87–90. 5 Joseph Avril, Le Diocèse d’Angers, Histoire des diocèses de France, ed. François Lebrun,

nouv. sér. 13 (Paris, 1981), 17–18. 6 For the date of Robert’s accession see Bachrach, “Abbot Robert,” 125, note 1. For the abbot’s family background, “Abbot Robert,”124–5, note 6. 7 Bachrach, “Abbot Robert,” 126. The Renaud clan had descended from the late Carolingian Herbauge lords of Nantes, who had been strong supporters of the Rorigonid patrons of Glanfeuil: Stephen Fanning, A Bishop and His World Before the Gregorian Reform: Hubert Of Angers, 1006–1047 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1988), 16.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

169

near Doué-la-Fontaine.8 This move was part of the bishop’s attempts to strengthen the parts of his diocese which had suffered in the lawlessness of the preceding decades.9 It was also part of the larger Blésois goal of preventing the Angevin count from extending his influence further into southern Anjou.10 In this tense atmosphere, Bishop Renaud decided to resolve the dispute between Glanfeuil and Saint-Florent through a trial by ordeal. The outcome was decreed favorable to the house of Blois. At this point, the house of Anjou, aware of the dispute’s relevance to its own expansionist goals, intervened. Guy, the powerful count-bishop of Puy and uncle to Count Fulk Nerra, rode into Angers with an armed entourage and threw his support behind the Glanfeuil monks. Emboldened by this, they forcibly ejected the officers of Abbot Robert from the disputed property.11 Further machinations by Bishop Robert and the abbot of Saint-Florent caused King Hugh Capet, who was also concerned with the aggrandizement of the Blois family, to intervene on behalf of the Angevins and Glanfeuil.12 Capitulating in the royal presence, Abbot Robert of Saint-Florent conceded the disputed properties to Glanfeuil and in addition turned over to Fulk Nerra certain lands adjacent to properties which Glanfeuil held. When joined, these lands helped to secure a safe passage between Fulk Nerra’s home base at Amboise and the contested western regions of the Loire valley.13 Friction between Glanfeuil and Saint-Florent reemerged in 994. The issue involved Glanfeuil properties at Cru, where Bishop Renaud, having been cowed by Angevin and Capetian pressure, had given Glanfeuil permission to construct a church to be supported by a tax on property claimed by Saint-Florent.14 Abbot Robert vigorously objected, and Bishop Renaud, again reversing himself under pressure, not only found

8 Bachrach, “Abbot Robert,” 126, note 6. 9 Fanning, A Bishop, 5. 10 Bachrach, “Abbot Robert,” 127. 11 Altercatio inter monachos sancti Florenti et sancti Mauri, Archives départementales,

Maine et Loire, MS. H. 2191. Details of the trial summarized in Landreau, “Vicissitudes,” 1, 183–84. 12 Bachrach, “Abbot Robert,” 129. 13 Bachrach, Fulk Nerra, 33. 14 Documents of the dispute printed in Jarousseau, Eglises, 357–58.

170

J. B. WICKSTROM

for Saint-Florent on the tax issue but also ordered that Glanfeuil’s new church at Cru, which he himself had authorized, be demolished.15 This outcome represented a further victory of the Blésois party. Soon afterward, another property dispute also ended in a settlement that was unfavorable to Glanfeuil. The agreement was brokered by Queen Bertha, a member of the Blois familia; her marriage to King Robert II “the Pious,” (996–1031) effectively ended royal support for Angevin expansion in the Loire valley until 1003.16 Glanfeuil lost another powerful friend when Count Bouchard and his fideles chose to support King Robert, even during his 999 excommunication, though probably with some reluctance.17 With the death of Bishop Renaud in 1006, however, Glanfeuil’s fortunes changed for the better. A new bishop, Hubert de Vendôme, was appointed by Fulk Nerra. A staunch supporter of the count, he was a leading member of the Vendôme familia which, especially under Count Bouchard, enjoyed close relations with Fossés and to a lesser degree with Glanfeuil. The replacement of a hostile bishop with a sympathetic and powerful episcopal patron allied with the increasingly successful Angevin comital house inaugurated decades of increased prosperity and influence for Glanfeuil. Moreover, as we shall see, throughout this time Glanfeuil was reasserting its ancient identity as the true home of the cult of Saint Maurus against the claims of Fossés to that status. All this suggests that Fossés allowed Glanfeuil, perhaps perforce, considerable latitude in managing its own affairs during the first century or so of its revival. Evidence from elsewhere suggests the degree of freedom for dependent houses varied greatly, depending on local customs and conditions. It is clearer that Fossés, like many abbeys, helped its dependent houses to recover from the disorder of the late ninth and early tenth centuries.18 A curious side issue occurred during all this which may reveal early aspirations to independence at Glanfeuil: from the late 990s until 1006, 15 The bishop said, in defense of his reversal, that the condemnation of the church was in part punishment for the monks of Glanfeuil who had deceived him by lying in court regarding their rights. Even today there is a remnant of the ancient quarrel: A little hill in the area is still called le butte des chapelles. Jarousseau, Eglises, 358. 16 On the rise and influence of Queen Bertha, see Bachrach, “Abbot Robert,” 131–32. 17 Bachrach, Fulk Nerra, 71. 18 See below, 179.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

171

two priors of Glanfeuil, Mainard and his successor Renaud, were accorded the title of “abbot” in some documents.19 This surprising usage, given Glanfeuil’s status as a dependent priory of Fossés, occurred at the same time as the latter was being ruled by a prior appointed at Cluny. Landreau has speculated that Glanfeuil might have taken advantage of this “interregnum” at Fossés to assert its independence; if so, the moment passed and, with the appointment of Thibaut de Vendôme as abbot of Fossés in 1006, the rulers of Glanfeuil resumed the title of “prior” until the house’s emancipation in 1096. This usage of the title “abbot,” however, suggests that Glanfeuil’s desire for independence from Fossés, which was realized in 1096, may have been building for almost a century. The Glanfeuil Cartulary: Ancient Patrons and New Friends If one wishes to obtain eternal life, one must give oneself over to good works, leaving transitory for eternal rewards, and he who is worthy to be perfected with the poor men of Christ, should be assisted by the faithful in his necessities. And the poor men of Christ should be valued as those who, for love, having left the world, are restrained by voluntary poverty; even so they seem to possess something; for as the apostle Paul says: ‘Having nothing, they possess all things.’20

This Glanfeuil charter, recording a donation from 1090, contrasts sharply with the usual reasons mentioned in medieval records of giftgiving: the salvation of the donor’s soul and those of others.21 The ideas in this charter likely originated with the Glanfeuil scribe rather than the donor, revealing a moral sophistication which rises well above the usual do ut des language of such documents.22 Moreover, Glanfeuil was often identified in gift charters as the home of Saint Maurus, who had brought the strict observance of the Rule of Saint Benedict, on which potential

19 Landreau, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur,” i, 185. 20 Cart. de S-M , 383–84, (#40); cf. 2 Cor. 6:10. 21 Guillaume Mollat, “La Restitution des églises privées au patrimoine ecclésiastique en France du ixe au xie siècle,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 26 (1949), 405. 22 Another cartulary entry from around 1096 echoed the primacy of charity in donations: Cart. de S-M ., 373.

172

J. B. WICKSTROM

donors often insisted. All this helps to explain why Glanfeuil, always a relatively small monastery, managed to attract gifts sufficient to assure its survival, and often to prosper, even in difficult times, for centuries. These gifts, insofar as we can know them, were recorded in a cartulary compiled at Glanfeuil probably in 1125 and added to over the next seventeen years. In its current form, the cartulary contains copies of 67 charters and other documents, dating from Glanfeuil’s supposed foundation in the mid-sixth century to the mid-1140s. Perhaps the cartulary’s most remarkable feature is its bare survival. During the sixteenth-century Wars of Religion, it was dismembered—supposedly, at one point some of its folios were used to light a Huguenot officer’s pipe and to wrap his sausages. Later, during the course of the French Revolution, the remaining folios disappeared entirely.23 In 1841, the archivist of the Department of Maine-et-Loire, Charles Marchegay, discovered several folios of the cartulary in a bundle of uncataloged papers in the Archives Maine et Loire and identified others scattered among the archives. Marchegay gathered all these together, forming a collection of twenty-nine folios containing 62 entries, to which he assigned five more. He then published these as Le cartulaire de SaintMaur sur Loire in 1843, adding a French summary of each document.24 The order of the documents, which is crucial to the analysis of the charter, is not in every case certain. Marchegay discussed his approach to ordering the entries in the Introduction to Le cartulaire.25 Since only a few of

23 Cart. de S-M., Introduction, 320–22. 24 The folios are numbered, in what Marchegay identified as a sixteenth-century hand,

with three folios paginated in a fourteenth-century hand, which fit with the other pages, indicating that the original order of the entries has been preserved. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that only two folios from the existing four quires are missing. There are also relatively few lacunae in the extant pages, with only four entries clearly incomplete. It is, of course, possible that other quires existed which have entirely disappeared; however, the early and mostly continuous pagination as well as the internal organization of the entries makes this unlikely. The first 51 entries are from the same hand; however, beginning with #52, several different hands have been identified as transcribing the remaining 15 entries. These latter are arranged chronologically from 1125 to 1147, unlike the first 51 entries, which are arranged according to different criteria. See Cart. de S-M., Introduction, 322–25. 25 The cartulary is cataloged as H. 1773 in Archives Maine et Loire (original manuscript available online at https://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?reproductionId=1331). In a still-useful introduction, Marchegay detailed his method for retrieving and reproducing these charters in the Introduction to Cart. de S-M., 319–326. The French abstracts

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

173

the cartulary entries contain dates, Marchegay had assigned a tentative or approximate date through a variety of methods: for example, by references to individuals and events whose dates are known from other historical documents. Marchegay’s chronology for many entries is thus highly tentative. As Constance Bouchard has remarked in this regard: monks were not careful in dating cartulary entries, since the properties of the monastery were considered timeless.26 Two twentieth-century French authorities on Angevin history, Louis Halphen and Olivier Guillot, used Marchegay’s work extensively. While they expressed reservations about the chronology and the genuineness of several entries, they affirmed the overall utility of Marchegay’s restoration.27 This cartulary, like the many others composed about the same time, was intended to order and rationalize the monastery’s holdings in a century which prized classification.28 There were, however, unusual factors in Glanfeuil’s evolution which favored its appearance. First, it is surely connected with the emancipation of Glanfeuil from Fossés in 1096. Pope Urban had promised to support any efforts the abbey made to recover its historic possessions, some long since lost or abandoned. The cartulary presented these claims in a compact, easily accessible form. Secondly, the activist bishop Ulger of Angers (r.1125–49) adopted an aggressive attitude toward monastic exemptions; cartulary entries provided proof of the abbey’s possessions in the face of the bishop’s campaign to confiscate undocumented monastic property.29 So, while the chief motive for creating this cartulary, as with the many others which appeared in this period, was the preservation of property claims, it also served broader institutional purposes. As Patrick Geary, Constance Bouchard, and others have pointed out, monastic cartularies

of the charters need to be used with caution: they omit many details of the original Latin entries. 26 Constance Bouchard, “Monastic Cartularies: Organizing Eternity,” in Charters, Cartularies and Archives (PIMS, 2002), 30. 27 Halphen concluded in 1906 after examining the charters that “[Les] Archives d

Anjou sont fausses… mais elles tiennent sans doute lieu de pièces perdues et le fond peut en être exact à le prendre en gros.” Le comté d’Anjou au XIe siècle (Paris, 1906), 92–93, note 3. Guillot identifies some false entries but is accepting of the cartulary as a whole: Guillot, Le comte d’Anjou et son entourage au XI e siècle, ii, 98–99. 28 Bouchard, “Monastic Cartularies,” 29. 29 See below, Chapter 10, 282–83.

174

J. B. WICKSTROM

are usually less a transcription of original documents than a selective summary or paraphrase, often highly creative and tied to the concerns of the compiler and his times.30 They also often contain vignettes of past events and major figures, including detailed descriptions of landmark legal disputes, sometimes including verbatim testimony. Such collections are often presentations of the historical self-understanding of a monastic house as well as evidence of its landed possessions.31 The 67 entries of the Glanfeuil cartulary are by no means the entire corpus of its original charters: we know from other sources that its possessions were more extensive.32 The cartulary rather contains entries which were important for the abbey to remember—and perhaps to invent. Like many contemporary cartularies, Glanfeuil’s is organized primarily according to property location. This was likely the simplest way to catalog or reference the abbey’s properties. Therefore, it is not primarily chronological, though the latest entries, from its initial compilation around 1125 until the final entry in 1145, are entered chronologically because they form a record of recent transactions rather than composed reflections on the abbey’s history. Many entries in the second part of the Glanfeuil cartulary—from #17 through #62—are grouped together according to criteria other than chronology or location. As an example, an undated, forged charter of King Chlothar II granted to Glanfeuil an unnamed royal villa in Anjou. Since this property was not named, it seems likely that this fabrication was intended to provide a pedigree for an unnamed property that had recently been returned to the abbey from its lay lord. A later medieval hand made a revealing marginal annotation on this entry: “see here how the church of Saint Maur with its appurtenances was restored”.33 Entries #36 through #38 describe the counts of Anjou’s correction of various abuses of Glanfeuil possessions by comital officials which occurred over the space of 80 years. Gifts from important families at various times and places were also commonly entered together, such as donations by the counts of Anjou, (#37–39, 41), the bishop of Poitiers (#23–24), Bishop Renaud of Angers (#7–8), and local gentry (#17–18, 26–28, 30). Another entry recorded together several small donations made over time which were consolidated to create a new priority at Coural in 1144 (#60).

30 See for examples, Geary, Phantoms, 81–107. 31 Bouchard, Rewriting, 31–33. 32 See the Appendix at the end of this chapter. 33 Cart. de S-M ., 379–80 [#35]

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

175

New Patrons and Their Gifts The cartulary entries show that Glanfeuil owed many, if not most, of its gifts to its identity as the shrine of Saint Maurus. An early entry, probably dating from 1010, makes this especially clear: it describes a visit to the priory by the up-and-coming count of Anjou, Fulk Nerra, as he was setting out on his second pilgrimage to Jerusalem.34 The cartulary’s twelfth-century complier, however, likely invented—or least embellished—the dramatic details of this meeting, which was remembered in the cartulary as the beginning of a centuries-long relationship between the shrine of Maurus and the Angevin comital house. The emphasis in this text on the count’s piety was not entirely conventional. Despite his reputation for ruthlessness, Fulk Nerra was a man of intense devotion. He was particularly generous to monastic institutions, founding several new houses as well as reviving and patronizing existing abbeys.35 His son, Geoffrey, and the latter’s successor, Fulk Réchin, followed his example. Such donations were not motivated entirely by religious generosity. These new rulers lacked legitimacy, particularly after the fall of effective Carolingian kingship, so that the prayers and collaboration of the religious houses that they patronized supported their pretentions both materially and spiritually.36 Most significant, in this historic meeting, Odo’s Life of Maurus served as the catalyst for establishing the relationship between the count and the shrine. The cartulary’s account of the visit deserves full quotation:

34 The first pilgrimage occurred in 1003, a second in 1009–1010, and a third in 1035– 1036. The details of this charter pose problems for choosing any of these dates as the occasion of the visit, likely because the details were inserted by the cartulary’s compiler 150 years later. The details of the second pilgrimage of 1009–1010 agree best with the information in the cartulary entry. The two historians who have looked most closely at this material also prefer the second pilgrimage: Landreau, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur-deGlanfeuil,” 1, 186–87, note 4 and Halphen, Le Comté d’Anjou, 114, note 2. A good discussion of these dating difficulties can be found in Bachrach, “The Pilgrimages of Fulk Nerra,” in Religion, Politics and Society in the Early Middle Ages, (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications), 1987, 206–9. 35 Bernard Bachrach, “Fulk Nerra’s Exploitation of the facultates monarchorum, ca. 1000,” in Law, Custom, and the Social Fabric in Medieval Europe: Essays in Honor of Bryce Lyon, ed. Bernard Bachrach and David M. Nicholas (Kalamazoo, MI, 1990), 29–49. 36 See the still-trenchant insights of Richard Southern on the government of the counts of Anjou in The Making of the Middle Ages (Yale UP., 1953), 93–98.

176

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fulk, the count of Anjou, undertaking a journey to Jerusalem with the countess Hildegard and his son Geoffrey Martel along with other knights, was a guest of Saint Maurus for the first day on which he started the journey: the monks received him honorably as the defender and governor of the entire patria. Now a certain Renaud II, bishop of Angers, was there along with others. At the dinner hour, a reading was done for those who were dining. One of the brothers read the Life of the most blessed Maurus right through. The most holy bishop, hearing this, began to wonder within himself how the church might be raised up from its destruction, that it be not handed over to oblivion; so, after dinner, the aforesaid prelate began to set forth the accomplishments of the holy Maurus. The count, hearing these things with a glad heart, said to Bartholomew and Benedict of Gennes [two of the count’s fideles ] that they should remind him what private possessions he held in Gennes. Responding, they said that a cultivated field (terra) and some gardens, and a mill and an oven belonged to the count there. All these the count gave to Saint Maurus and his monks, placing his hand over the altar, with the countess Hildegard and his son Geoffrey Martell agreeing.37

The claim made at the beginning of the document that the guests were received honorably implies that by 1010 the priory had resources sufficient to entertain a ruler’s retinue with fitting ceremony and provision, but this assertion is likely the cartulary’s twelfth-century compiler backdating Glanfeuil’s prosperity. This claim is also balanced by Bishop Renaud’s statement that the count’s patronage was needed in order that the shrine might be “raised up from its destruction, that it not be not handed over to oblivion.” The titles given to the count in the document: defensor et rector totius patrie recognized that he was not merely a devout patron but the rightful lord of the region and so of Glanfeuil and its shrine. This was the sort of legitimization that the status-seeking Angevins coveted. Such titles implied not only seigneurial rights over the shrine but an obligation to protect it and to provide a court of appeal.38 Most surprising in this entry is the role played by Bishop Renaud. The document begins by giving him the title sanctissimus, a surprising epithet,

37 Cart. de S-M., 356. 38 Cart. de S-M., 356. Jean-Hervé Foulon, Église et réforme au Moyen Âge: papauté, milieux réformateurs et ecclésiologie dans les Pays de la Loire au tournant des xie –xii e

siècles (De Boeck: Brussels, 2008), 74.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

177

given the history of conflict between the bishop and Glanfeuil.39 Yet Bishop Renaud appears to have enjoyed a reputation for holiness despite his partisan activities: his entry in the book of remembrance at Angers cathedral described him as “illustrious, venerable, and generous.”40 He had in fact restored regular life in several Angevin monasteries and cathedrals. Around the year 1000 the bishop had experienced a conversion which caused him to oppose the diversion of Church lands to secular purposes, putting him at odds with Count Fulk.41 Even his opposition to Glanfeuil during the disputes discussed earlier in this chapter could be seen as the zeal of a bishop promoting the interests of his diocese and his familia. In addition, since this meeting was recorded in a twelfthcentury cartulary, the conflicts of Glanfeuil with the bishop may well have been deliberately “forgotten” in favor of promoting the bishop’s saintly reputation in order to emphasize the unity and concord of this meeting. The presence of a certain Renaud II miles among the signatories for the abbey may suggest the bishop’s familia had significant connections with Glanfeuil. Most important, the visit of Count Fulk in 1010—however embellished by the cartulary’s complier—shows that Glanfeuil was widely recognized as the true home of Benedict’s disciple, despite decades of decline and the increasing claims of Fossés to be the legitimate shrine of Saint Maurus.42 The actual properties bestowed on Glanfeuil by the count during this 1010 visit were small, consisting of a cultivated field (terra) and some gardens, a mill, and an oven at Gennes. The ownership of ovens and mills, however, implied banal rights and usually signified lordship.43 Such gifts suggest that, by the early eleventh century, Glanfeuil was becoming an economic force in the surrounding countryside.

39 Although his entry in the Book of Remembrance at Angers cathedral described him as “illustrious, venerable and generous,” quoted in Fanning, A Bishop, 1. Bishop Renaud II did attempt to restore regular life in some monasteries and cathedrals, but his political commitment to the Blésois party compromised his religious and pious activities. Fanning, A Bishop, 66–67. 40 Fanning, A Bishop, 1. 41 Bachrach, “Fulk Nerra’s Exploitation,” 32–33. 42 See the description of Saint Adalbert’s pilgrimage to Glanfeuil in 997, discussed

below, Chapter 8, 219. 43 Pichot, “Prieurés et société,” 27.

178

J. B. WICKSTROM

The presence of “Robertus, vicarius Sancti Mauri,” among the signatories for the count suggests that Glanfeuil had already amassed properties sufficient to require a resident overseer. In the decades that followed, extensive properties in the same area (near present-day Rosiers) were added to the count’s initial gifts of 1010. In 1036, at the request of Prior Cadilon of Glanfeuil and three laymen, Fulk Nerra’s son, Geoffrey Martel confirmed the possession by Glanfeuil of several fields and a church in and around Gennes.44 At some point, perhaps contemporary with these grants of nearby lands, the monks also obtained possession of the church of Saint Peter de Couture (in Culturis ).45 Between 1006 and 1016, the church of Solesmes was donated to Saint Peter’s in the presence of Bishop Hubert of Angers and his relative, Bishop Avesgaud of Le Mans, both supporters of Fulk Nerra. The proprietorship of Saint Peter’s at this point would have added significantly to Glanfeuil’s regional status.46 The question arises in this context about the extent of Fossés’ rights, as Glanfeuil’s lord, in its dependent priory’s assets. Again, there appears to have been no general rule regarding such rights. Records of other houses suggest that lordship rights sometimes included a share in dependent houses’ properties, but sometimes this was expressly prohibited.47 The royal decrees of the 880s and 921 seem to have given Fossés unlimited authority over Glanfeuil (“that they should be one and ruled by one abbot”), though the evidence suggests that Glanfeuil was allowed, under its Fossés-appointed prior, to acquire and manage its own property.48

44 Specifically, a plot of land at Moult en Vallée (Molium), Saint Mary’s Church in the midst of that field, the nearby field of Mortes-Eaux, (Mortuis Aquis ) and a plot near Authion, as well as the field called Chaintre de Saint-Marie, Cart. de S-M., 401. 45 See Glanfeuil property Lists from 1156 and 1203 in the Appendix below: “The Possessions of Glanfeuil”, This church may be identical to Saint-Pierre-en-Meigné involved in the 994 dispute, discussed above: Landreau, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur-de-Glanfeuil,” 1. 202, note 6. 46 Fanning, A Bishop, 53. 47 See examples of both situations cited in Susan Wood, The Proprietary Church in the

Medieval West (Oxford UP., 2006), 416–17. 48 See above, 170.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

179

A New Church for Saint Maurus In fact, the evidence indicates that far from exploiting its priory, Fosse contributed substantially to its improvement in the early eleventh century. In 1036, Glanfeuil’s main church was restored. The project was financed jointly by the bishop of Angers, Hubert de Vendôme, a staunch ally of the count of Anjou, and Odo II, the abbot of Fossés. The bishop had recently completed a 25-year-long rebuilding of his cathedral, which had been destroyed by fire in 1000. The project formed part of a surge in church building throughout western France, made possible by the booming French economy of the early eleventh century. This was the phenomenon which inspired the contemporary writer Rodulfus Glabar to comment that Europe was being covered with a “white mantle of churches.”49 A notable presence at the rededication of Glanfeuil’s church was Frederick, the abbot of Saint-Florent, probably also an ally of the Angevin counts.50 Frederick had been consecrated by Bishop Hubert in 1026. His appointment and his presence at the dedication indicated that the counts had beaten back the Blésois influence in the area. One consequence of this was a new friendship between Glanfeuil and Saint-Florent, who had been antagonists for much of the previous century. Count Fulk Nerra was an openhanded patron of both monasteries. However, it was not the count who restored the church at Glanfeuil but its lord, Abbot Odo II of Fossés, “to whom the monastery belonged.” Such largesse was not uncommon in this age of monastic expansion. Cluny, for example, upgraded several of its dependent houses at this time, viewing them as extensions of itself.51 Having rebuilt its own abbey church a few years earlier in 1030, Fossés had evidently decided to revitalize its most famous priory as well. His gift charter simply describes the restored church as a dependency (cella) of Fossés “where, in former times, Maurus served God along with the monks subject to him.”52 His benevolence should not suggest that Fossés intended to encourage the 49 Rodulfus Glaber, Historiarum libri quinque, ed. Neithard Bulst, trans. John France (Oxford, 1989), 116. 50 Fanning suggests that Frederick was a member of the Bélois familia., A Bishop, 49–50, 56; but see 18, 103, 135 for the close relationships between the two prelates. 51 Noreen Hunt, Cluny Under Saint Hugh (Notre Dame UP., 1968), 174–77, 181–82. 52 Cart. de S-M., 377.

180

J. B. WICKSTROM

cult of Maurus at Glanfeuil. There is no recognition in this document that a cult of Saint Maurus currently existed at Glanfeuil. Indeed, six years earlier, this same Abbot Odo had delivered the Sermo in which, as we have seen, he argued for the exclusive right of Fossés to possess the relics and to promulgate the cult of Maurus. Fossés does not appear to have considered Glanfeuil a competitor for the cult of Saint Maurus, but more as a lesser partner. As a likely sign of this relationship, Fossés returned an arm bone of Saint Maurus to Glanfeuil on the occasion of its rededication in 1036.53 In Fossés’ view, Glanfeuil would remain the original home of Maurus, a historic monument to the coming of theRule of Benedict into France, while the Parisian abbey would be the major depository of the wonder-working relics of the saint and so the destination of pilgrims and the sick. While the chief patrons of the rebuilt cella of Glanfeuil were Abbot Odo of Fossés and Bishop Hubert of Angers, the comital house of Anjou also participated. Geoffrey Martel, Fulk Nerra’s son and heir, attended the rededication ceremony along with his wife, Agnes, and several nobles, lending their status to the occasion and offering gifts as well.54 As the family’s contribution, Geoffrey handed over “to God and to the prior of Saint Maurus,” all rights and customary imposts (consuetudines ) for the villa of Cru,55 excepting the right of raising the men of the neighborhood against his enemies; Geoffrey ceded this latter right to the prior of Saint Maurus, who was first to warn the men of the neighborhood to prepare themselves and then to lead the familia of Saint Maurus into battle for the count.56 By this act, Geoffrey delegated to the monastery seigneurial rights that the counts had enjoyed over the territory of Cru. He also promised immunity from his own, often aggressive, officials. These donations suggest a systematic expansion of Glanfeuil’s influence in that area. Additional grants in 1036 placed the priory entirely in control

53 See below, p. 346. 54 Geoffrey held the title of comes while his father, Fulk, was on his third pilgrimage

to Jerusalem, Bachrach, “The pilgrimages of Fulk Nerra,” 208–9. 55 In the commune de Meigné, cant. de Doué, arr. de Saumur. 56 Cart. de S-M., 377.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

181

of Cru, displacing Saint-Florent as the chief monastic presence in that neighborhood.57 In the documentation of this event, Glanfeuil and its officials are described throughout as “of Saint Maurus.” Following on Count Fulk’s grants in 1010, this formula shows that the house of Anjou continued to recognize Glanfeuil as the authentic home of the cult of Saint Maurus. Such support was surely welcomed by the monks at the time, and it was instrumental in the monastery’s successful quest for independence from Fossés in 1096. When Fulk Nerra died four years after the rebuilding of the church of Glanfeuil, the architecture of his tomb adopted the style used for Glanfeuil’s new church.58 We do not know the extent of the restorations of 1036. There are extensive ruins from Glanfeuil datable between 1000 and 1250, but the absence of any modern excavation of the monastery renders precise dating of these materials difficult, if not impossible. Another, more extensive renovation of the church in the first half of the twelfth century, further complicates the interpretation of these intermingled remains. That a second, major rebuilding was undertaken only a half century later suggests that this earlier project was not a major effort. Still, some earlier scholars, mostly from the nineteenth century, have dated some of the most impressive remains, particularly the west façade, back to 1036. The second rebuilding of Glanfeuil was, in its turn, the result of 60 years of increased prosperity and influence. How and why that occurred is the subject of the following section. The Road to Prosperity: Requests and Donations, 1036–1096 The involvement of the abbot of Fossés in the rebuilding at Glanfeuil in 1036 was typical of the Parisian abbey’s active interest in the affairs of its priory on the Loire. In the late 1080s, the abbot of Fossés traveled more than 200 miles from Paris to hear a law case involving Glanfeuil, and in 1090, he personally inventoried the goods and services due from Glanfeuil’s vassals and tenants.59 57 William Ziezulewicz “A Monastic Forgery in An Age of Reform: A Bull of Pope John XVIII for Saint-Florent-de-Saumur (April 1004),” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 13 (1985), 29 and note 86. 58 Bachrach, Fulk Nerra 244–45. 59 Cart. de S-M., 375–77 and 353.

182

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fossés’ increasing interest in Glanfeuil as the eleventh century went on was likely in response to a swelling stream of donations and purchases which increased the latter’s assets markedly after 1036.60 Many of these acquisitions involved the recovery of properties which Glanfeuil had accumulated between its supposed foundation in the sixth century until its abandonment in 862/3. Many other properties were lost in the often chaotic late- eighth and ninth centuries when Glanfeuil was abandoned to the Vikings and the depredations of local lords. Beginning in the 1060s, Glanfeuil began requesting the return of such holdings, an initiative that appears to have been notably successful. Thus, adjacent entries in the cartulary record the return of alienated properties by the Francigeni family over a period of more than a century. The first of these were extensive properties associated with the church of Saint Martin de Bournan(d) in the diocese of Poitou. Lands in that area had been part of a large grant by Charles the Bald to the shrine of Maurus made at the request of Bishop Ebroin in 850.61 In a cartulary entry dated 1066, Warinus Francigenus, his fideles, and his spouse bestowed on Glanfeuil certain properties from the royal grants of 850 which they held of Count Geoffrey of Anjou near Bournan in Poitou.62 Glanfeuil’s prior at the time, Durandus, had protested that the property had “by an ancient right” been conferred on Glanfeuil “by clear writings.” On hearing this, Warinus Francigenus and his spouse deeded the property to Glanfeuil. In return, the monastery paid the Francigeni 200 solidi.63 The size of this consolatio suggests that it was payment for land that Glanfeuil coveted, likely to add to its already significant possessions in that area. The abbey’s reverse payment in this transaction also shows the reciprocity that was often part of “gifts” to the monastery.

60 This increased interest may also be a function of the increased availability of documentation in the eleventh century. 61 For the antiquity of the possessions, see B. Judic, “Grégoire le Grand, Alcuin, Raban et le surnom de Maurus,” Raban Maur et son temps, ed. Philippe Depreux (Brepols, 2010), 45–46. 62 Cart. de S-M., 358–59. Warinus appears to not only be a patron of Saint Maurus but a foe to its traditional adversaries. An entry in the cartulary of Saint-Aubin in Angers mentions a Warin Francigenus refusing to give up possession of a property that SaintAubin claimed as its own, Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Aubin d’Angers, éd. Bertrand de Broussillon (Angers, 1896), 303. 63 Cart. de S-M., 358–59.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

183

The prior’s request appears at first to have had a firm historical basis. Entry #44 in the cartulary is a copy of a charter granting various lands to Glanfeuil by Charles the Bald in 850. The copy contains the statement: et in villa Burnomo, in pago Pictivo, factos quinque et ecclesiam Saint Martini amplius mediam. The final phrase et ecclesiam is, however, missing from the original charter, which has survived.64 The two documents thus reveal that a church had been erected sometime after the original grant, likely by one of its lay lords, along with other improvements. These were handed over as well as the land itself. This and similar grants show that as demands by church reformers for the return of church lands grew, lay lords were giving up valuable, often improved properties “for the sake of their souls.”65 This response to a likely unwelcome request from the prior of Saint Maurus’ shrine was only the first of a series of freely given donations from the Francigenus familia. The next entry in the cartulary records a gift made years later by Simon Francigenus, the son of Warinus, and his spouse, Agnes.66 As established donors and friends (amici) of Glanfeuil, they stopped over at Glanfeuil one night on a journey to Le Mans and fell to discussing how they might benefit the abbey further. They decided to donate the income which Agnes enjoyed from the church of Saint Marie in Denée, just east of Angers. After the deaths of Simon and Agnes, likely in the 1120s, their two sons, Peter and William confirmed that donation in the name of their brother, Rolland, who had since become a monk at Glanfeuil. To ensure the gift’s legality, perhaps in the face of a challenge, they confirmed their parents’ gift at the bishop’s court, in the presence of Abbot Ranulf of Glanfeuil, and the bishop’s two archdeacons, who supervised all diocesan properties. Six other donors, including a relative, Ursus Francigenus, also offered properties on that occasion.67

64 “And in the villa of Bournan, in Poitou, five buildings and in addition half of the church of Saint Martin,” Rec. CC., 1, #134. 65 For a recent discussion of scholarship on this issue: Isabelle Rosé and Matthew Mattingly, “Interactions Between Monks and the Lay Nobility,” CHMM , 579–598. 66 Cart. de S-M., 360–61. Marchegay dates this entry the same year as the previous grant, but it is likely much later since his son Simon at the time of this grant was married to a wealthy wife. 67 Cart. de S-M., 360–61.

184

J. B. WICKSTROM

The donation involving income from Saint Marie in Denée was likely suggested by the monks as it added revenue from a complex of properties that Glanfeuil was consolidating in the neighborhood of Denée. The confirmation of this donation, made by Warinus’ grandsons several decades later, is of particular interest. It was confirmed in the presence of the abbot of Glanfeuil, officials of the bishop of Angers, and the former priest of the church, suggesting that the gift had been challenged in the interim, likely by the priest of the church in question, who claimed rights regarding the church. The Francigeni were moving up economically during the late eleventh and early twelfth century: their later donations contain the signatures of several vassal knights. The bonds of charitable friendship between the donor family and the abbey were perduring: members of the second generation stayed at the abbey periodically and a grandchild of the original donors became a monk there. The entry of Rolland Francigenus into the community suggests the cultivation of vocations from rising, but not noble, families in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Other Glanfeuil community members related to local nobility included Wu(i)lferius, obedientiary of Concourson, a relative of Bouchard, lord of Vihiers, and the Glanfeuil monks Thomas, Odo and Peter, relatives of the nobleman Guillaume Rufinus.68 More substantial gifts from a more distinguished family, the Borelles from Saumur, form another series of adjacent entries in the cartulary that highlight evolving family relationships and the increasingly complexity— and intimacy—of their connections to the abbey. The first entry, from about 1050, records the gifts by various Borrell family members “to Saint Maurus” of the church of Saint Hilary sur l’Arc and associated properties.69 These included all dependencies, a quantity of arable land, a meadow sufficient to feed eight cows and a windmill on the bank of the Arc River. The same entry adds that a certain Stabulus, a vassal of Robert Borrell had, with the consent of his lord, given to Saint Maurus a large parcel of land with meadows and other appurtenances. Somewhat later, Stabulus fell ill and requested burial in the monastic habit. His petition was rejected because his son Peter had taken the donated land back. On hearing this, Peter returned this property and in addition confirmed all

68 For Wulferius, Cart. de S-M., 383; for Thomas, Odo and Peter, Cart. de S-M., 375. 69 Cart. de S-M., 369–70.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

185

the other gifts his father had made to Glanfeuil (which implies the existence of other, unrecorded, grants).70 Count Geoffrey Martel confirmed all these gifts, over which he was lord, asking in return only that the monks pray for him and his family. Early in the twelfth century, after Glanfeuil had recovered its abbatial status, Borrell’s son, Borrell de Saumur and his brother, at the request of Abbot Ranulf and Hainard, another monk of Glanfeuil, granted to the abbey a parcel of land at Curtis-Gointhonus near Saint Hilary to supply the needs of the monks serving the church there. The church had become a dependency of Glanfeuil and its prior gave Borrell twenty-five sous in partial payment for his “donation.” An additional payment of twenty sous was made by Hainard on behalf of the abbey. The exchange was witnessed by a monk of Saint-Florent, who was likely related to the Borrells.71 A similar grant to the monks of Saint Maurus serving the nearby church of Saint Martin de l’ Arc was made by a certain knight named Peter Palpitrot, also a member of the Borrell familia. At the same time, Peter confirmed the gift of land that his mother had earlier given to Saint Hilary de l’Arc, adding a fourth generation of Borrell donors to Saint Maurus’ priories in Concourson.72 A few years later, Borrell de Saumur fell gravely ill and entreated Abbot Ranulf to visit and remain with him until he died. He asked in addition that the abbot clothe him in the monastic habit “in the name of SaintFlorent,” to which abbey the family was connected through a Borrell familiaris, who was a monk was there. Abbot Ranulf complied and Borrell was later interred in the monks’ cemetery at Saint-Florent with the entire Saint-Florent community and a large crowd in attendance.73 The request that the abbot of Glanfeuil secure Borrell de Saumur’s burial at the nearby abbey indicates that relationships between neighboring “rival” monasteries were more complex and flexible than is often recognized either by contemporary sources or modern historians. After Borrell’s death, his widow and sons confirmed the donations to Glanfeuil that Borrell had made during his lifetime. In return, Abbot 70 Attempts of laymen to recover donations from earlier generations, or from their own, were frequent, Mollat, “La restitution des églises,” 420. 71 The monk’s nephew also witnessed the charter on behalf of the Borrells, suggesting a familial relationship there as well, Cart. de S-M., 370–71. 72 Cart. de S-M., 395. 73 Cart. de S-M., 371–72.

186

J. B. WICKSTROM

Ranulf enrolled Borrell, along with all his family, living and dead, in Glanfeuil’s necrology.74 A large group of signatories, both from the Borrell familia and from the abbey, gathered in the Borrells’ castle to confirm all these agreements. In 1090, another Borrell relative, the castellan of Vihiers, Bouchard Pilosus, restored to Glanfeuil the important church of Saint-Just-des-Verchers in association with his relative, Galferius, a monk of Saint Maurus and obedientiary of Glanfeuil’s church at CurtisGointhonis. Bouchard made this important gift in the presence of Abbot Gautier and the entire community. Several of Glanfeuil’s major properties were located in this neighborhood, some of them donated by the Borrell family.75 A notable feature of these—and several other—transactions was the importance that the monastery placed on the confirmation of grants, lest donations later be altered or rescinded. The abbey’s refusal to bury Borrell’s vassal Stabulus in the habit until his grant was confirmed by his son illustrates the sanctions available to monastic houses against attempts to recoup donated property. An incident involving a powerful local ally of the Borrells, Geoffrey Bouchard, lord of Trèves, resident in Doué castle, which was surrounded by Glanfeuil possessions, provides an example of the interplay of spiritual and material issues between the abbey and its neighbors. Lord Geoffrey revived an old dispute with Glanfeuil in the early twelfth century over rights to profits from fishing and commerce on the Loire, since each party held one of the riverbanks at Glanfeuil.76 Bouchard withdrew when the monks proved they had held the rights for more than thirty years.77 In return, the monks provided the lord with a valuable horse and permitted certain alterations to be made in the river passages above Glanfeuil. It is worth noting that Bouchard’s wife, his heir, and some other family members, petitioned Glanfeuil for inclusion in its prayer fellowship during this conflict while Lord Geoffrey was occupied elsewhere.78

74 Cart. de S-M., 371–72. 75 Cart. de S-M., 383–84. 76 Cart. de S-M., 389–90. 77 In Roman law, the period beyond which rights could not be claimed. See Geary, “Oblivion Between Orality and Textuality,” Medieval Concepts of the Past, ed. G. Althoff et al. (Cambridge UP., 2002), 118. 78 Geary, “Oblivion,” 118.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

187

Conspicuous piety ran through the Bouchard family, whose connections with the shrine of Saint Maurus were ancient. An early lord of Trèves had accompanied Count Fulk Nerra on his inaugural visit to Glanfeuil in 1010.79 Geoffrey Bouchard had become lord of Trèves after his father had taken the habit at Saint-Florent de Saumur. Grants to abbeys, including the shrine of Saint Maurus, by his relatives were large and frequent. In 1096–1097, another member of this family, Heudonis de Trèves, witnessed a significant grant to Glanfeuil by his sister Lisoie and her husband, the noble Hugh de Saumoussay, who stated that “it appears that church teaching prohibited laymen from holding church property.”80 This exchange provides a local example of the success of the Gregorian reformers’ demand for the return of ecclesiastical property to the Church.81 Similarly, in 1090, Count Fulk Réchin visited Glanfeuil and, after being invited into the cloister, was informed from an “ancient account” (antiquus relatio) that Saint Maurus had possessed an island next to the monastery (the Île de Saint-Maur) and a church of Saint Mary Magdalen, donated by the counts’ ancestors. Fulk thereupon “returned” all this property to Saint Maurus for the sake of his soul and those of his predecessors. The monastery reciprocated by paying the count and members of his family 1120 solidi in installments. Thus this “donation,” like several others, appears to have been a disguised purchase by the abbey of desirable neighboring property.82 The exchange also marked the successful end of a long campaign by Glanfeuil to free the property of long-standing claims by the abbey of Saint-Aubin d’Angers.83

79 See above, 175–77. 80 Cart. de S-M., 373–74. 81 There had been many efforts by individual bishops and abbots as well as regional councils to end the possession of church property by laymen since the mid-ninth century, but Roman-led general reform efforts date only from the mid-1000s, Mollat, “La restitution des églises privées,” 411–12. 82 Cart. de S-M., 365–66. 83 In 1067, in the same count’s court, Glanfeuil lost a suit requesting that a beer house

on the Île owned by Saint-Aubin be prohibited: Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Aubin, i, 213–14.

188

J. B. WICKSTROM

Ordering Prosperity: Glanfeuil’s Estate Management System The first entries in the Glanfeuil cartulary present a sort of mis-en-scene of estate management structures developed in the eleventh century, likely at Fossés, for the exploitation of Glanfeuil’s properties and the orderly deployment of its human resources. Its core was “feudal,” in that its officials and soldiers held lands from Glanfeuil in return for various sorts of service (servitium debitum). Already in the early decades of the eleventh century, an official of the count of Anjou—first called the vicar and later the provost—had general oversight of the material possessions of the priory. This was often a heredity position.84 The provost also bore responsibility for workers in the priory fields, forests, and vineyards; he regulated the sale of wine and determined the priory’s share of the proceeds. The provost also represented the count’s interests as defensor et rector of the shrine of Saint Maurus.85 He raised the hostis —knights and other armed men owed to the count by the priory.86 The second tier of administrators consisted of the majores who, like the provost, had responsibilities for the allocation of agricultural production, but within the more limited sphere of individual domains or estates belonging to the monastery. The cartulary contains entries defining the duties of five of these majores, organized by defined areas, in which Glanfeuil’s properties were increasingly concentrated: two in Anjou: Bessé and Cru, and three in Poitou around Loudon: Hispania (Epennes), SaintDrémont, and Lambray.87 The majores’ duties involved both hospitality (hospitalitas ) and procurement (procuratio).88 These officials, under the authority of the monastery, usually lived on the estates for which they were responsible and were often granted extensive fiefs as recompense.89 84 Provost Renauld (1070–90) was succeeded by his son, John: Cart. de S-M., 360,

374. 85 In a court case from the 1080s, the abbot of Fossés confirmed that the shrine of Saint Maurus lay within the potestas of the count of Anjou: Cart. de S-M., 356. 86 Cart. de S-M., 353. 87 Cart. de S-M., 354–56. 88 Cart. de S-M., 354. 89 Robert Fossier, “Rural Economy” in NCMH , 3, 35–36. The majores evolved from a late Roman official in charge of a villicus and may be the origin of some municipal mayors, Landreau, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil du xe au xiiie siècle,” 1. 195, note 9. Niermeyer lists several Frankish sources describing the rank and duties of this officer: Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, see entry under major.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

189

Their duties varied from one domain to the other according to custom. For example, at least once a year, if the abbot of Fossés processed through the domain of Bessé, its major was to supply three types of fish for the monks who accompanied him and meat for the knights.90 The major had direct responsibility for all the commerce which occurred within his domain and provided hospitalitas for men sent by the cellarer to collect the produce which was owed to the priory.91 The cellarers were charged with establishing the quota and were usually laymen (although the cartulary of Saint Aubin named a monk of Glanfeuil as its cellarer in 1087.)92 In some domains, the majores allocated parcels of the estate to resident peasants.93 The exploitation of the areas for which the majores were responsible thus required the support of a complex administrative system consisting of both laymen and monks, many of whom were resident on the more remote estates. The cartulary evidence makes clear that by the end of the eleventh century, these properties were extensive. Landreau described them as vastes exploitations agricoles.94 The available sources yield little information on the situation of the laborers on these properties, but one entry in the cartulary dating from the early twelfth-century hints that fundamental changes were occurring in their status. Sometime during Abbot Ranulf’s tenure (1105–1123), a dispute arose with one of the abbey’s colliberts (colliberti), named Simon the Blacksmith, who refused to pay the four-denier tax that the other abbey dependents owed.95 The term and status of a collibert is not often found before the eleventh century and had largely disappeared by the mid-twelfth.96 Colliberts were bound to the estate but were often more skilled workers and sometimes held high position on their lord’s estates, such as the office of major. The abbot and his council of monks agreed

90 Cart. de S-M., 354. 91 Cart. de S-M., 354–55. 92 Cart. de Saint-Aubin d’Angers, 213–14. 93 Cart. de S-M., 354–55. 94 Landreau, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil,” 1. 195. 95 Cart. de S-M., 388. 96 J. Boussard, “Serfs et ‘colliberti’ (xie –xiie siècles),” Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes. 107/2 (1947–1948) cites five charters dealing with the class in the tenth-century, 105 in the eleventh and 17 in the twelfth century, 213.

190

J. B. WICKSTROM

to give Simon one day to appear with the tax. The man duly appeared and paid the tax, thereby admitting that he was a “man of Saint Maurus,” subject to the lordship of the abbey. Simon seems to have been concerned that he not be considered an ordinary serf.97 It may well be that he was attempting to assert his freedom, a frequent claim by colliberts,98 or was asserting that he was of a higher status owing to the lands and offices that he may have possessed.99 This dispute reveals that Glanfeuil shared in the general confusion about the status of unfree peasants evident throughout Western Europe in the early twelfth century. Jacques Boussard has concluded that the status of collibert disappeared because such individuals were being pushed into the ever-growing category of serfdom, probably owing to the uncertainty of the times and the consequent need for the security150 A similar sense of insecurity may have contributed to Glanfeuil’s decision in 1133 to subordinate itself to Montecassino, as we shall see. The Vassal Knights of Saint Maurus The estates of Saint Maurus were extensive enough by the 1090s to support several knights who provided the core of the military service owed to the count of Anjou by Glanfeuil. The primary interest of this section of the cartulary is its requirement that all these knights must obey “in all things,” not only the provost, but also the abbot or any one of the monks of the priory, a clear indication that the provost and the monks shared responsibility for the of the priory’s property. The cartulary states that, in 1090, Abbot Gautier of Fossés ordered that all knights holding fiefs of Glanfeuil appear before him at the priory and confirm his written record of the service owed for their holdings. This would be of special concern to the abbot, since the money payments associated with knight’s service were owed to Fossés from the properties of Saint Maurus. Each knight owed five sous per manor house (masura). Several cartulary entries detail the obligations of nine such milites, entered in

97 Cart. de S-M., 389. 98 Marc Bloch, ‘Les “colliberti,’ etude sur la formation de la classe servile,” Revue

Historique, 157/1 (1928), 233. 99 Boussard, “Serfs,” 211–12.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

191

descending order according to the amount of service each man owed.100 This seems a small number in comparison to the lands that Glanfeuil held; perhaps only those for whom the abbot of Fossés possessed a written contract were included in the cartulary entries.101 The knights were to assemble and orally confirm the abbot’s written records of service owed. The entries also show the growing importance of written documents for “remembering” the customs of the abbey’s administration. The service owed by these knights varied considerably: most were obliged to appear armed and mounted when summoned for a set term each year; one knight, however, held his fief in return for assisting the abbot and the provost in legal matters.102 Similarly, the familia of a knight from Blaison enjoyed special rights and obligations owing to their hereditary position as “bearers (delatores ) of the body of Saint Maurus.”103 Prior Cadilon had bestowed the honor on two of his nephews early in the century. Members of this familia continued to provide a sort of honor guard during processions of the patron’s relics. This entry also evidences the continued vitality of the cult of Maurus at Glanfeuil in the late eleventh century. A notable sign of changing times was the provision that knight service could be commuted into cash payment either to the count (as was customary), or to the monastery if required for building or purchasing new properties.104 The first recorded incidence of such a commutation took place in 1068, at the beginning of Count Fulk de Réchin’s rule, at a time when other comital prerogatives were being assumed by local lords.105 The entry describing the duties of the provost reflects the same trends. Both the provost and the majores of Saint Maurus had the right to summon knights and other homines of the monastery to assist the count 100 Cart. de S-M ., 357–358. The English abbey of Evesham, a significantly larger house

with 90 monks by the mid-eleventh century, had only five knights in its service. Cox, The Church and Vale, 81. 101 In one entry the abbot, after receiving the homage of one of Saint Maurus’ knights, asks if he still owed anything for his fief, suggesting that the abbot possessed few written records of such contracts, Cart. de S-M., 358. 102 Cart. de S-M., 357. 103 Cart. de S-M., 353–54. 104 Cart. de S-M ., 357. 105 Jarousseau, “Une seigneurie monastique au XIe s., le prieuré de Saint-Maur-surLoire d’après son cartulaire,” Les hommes et le pouvoir, 13 (1994), 27–41.

192

J. B. WICKSTROM

on his military expeditions.106 Since the army, assembled by the lord’s officials, was a foundational element of the Angevin state, these changes suggest significant concessions by Count Fulk to his vassal monasteries, and likely represented the price of their support in his years-long struggle against his brother, Gauzfrid the Bearded, for the lordship of Anjou.107 Despite these concessions, the Glanfeuil cartulary often complained of the count’s demands as exorbitant and burdensome.108 A charter from 1066, for example, attempted to define the relative jurisdictions of the count’s deputies and Glanfeuil’s monastic officials in regard to the priory’s roadways.109 The priory and the count had been sharing oversight of weights and measures for goods traded along the roadways as well as for prosecutions of crimes committed there. In this 1066 entry, Count Geoffrey claimed that his custodian of the tollways had the right to set the weights and measures which the monastery was to use for buying and selling produce. Mistrust had grown up between the prior and the count regarding the accuracy of these measures. Although procedures were set in place at this point to settle such disputes, twenty-five years later the monks were complaining that the count’s officials were ignoring the settlement. Count Fulk agreed to restrain his men.110 At the same time, the count recognized that Glanfeuil allowed his men pasturage and forage at Port-la-Vallée and at Culturis, where Glanfeuil held several properties, “out of charity and not legal necessity,” and limited the yearly provisions they could demand of the abbey.111 A similar entry provides evidence of the ongoing centrality of the feast of Saint Maurus in the neighborhood and of the abbey as the core of the region’s identity: on the annual festival of Saint Maurus, the provost of Beaufort castle “as if it were a custom” descended on the celebrations with “a very great multitude” demanding food and drink and causing “the greatest

106 Cart. de S-M 353. 107 Jarousseau, “Une seigneurie,”31. 108 Bernard Bachrach, “The Angevin Economy, 960–1060: Ancient or Feudal?” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 10 (1988), 13. 109 Cart. de S-M., 403–06. Halphen believes, on stylistic grounds, that #63 and #64 were written in the fourteenth century, but several genuine eleventh-century charters contain similar situations, Halphen, Le Comté, 341. 110 Cart. de S-M., 404–06. 111 Cart. de S-M., 380–81.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

193

distress to the monks on their festival day.”112 The count agreed that no more than four or five men accompanying his provost need be supplied with provisions. Such documents suggest that, while the counts themselves were generous lords and patrons of the priory and visited the house with some regularity, their officials were constantly testing the boundary between the sacred and the secular—though one may well suspect a deniable complicity between the count and his officials. The counts themselves could treat the abbey high-handedly. In the early 1060s, for example, Count Geoffrey Martel forcibly abducted three serfs belonging to Glanfeuil. After long negotiations, the count agreed to return them—for a fee—but neglected to carry out his promise. The serfs were not actually released to the abbey until several years later and then only after a new count had extracted further ransom.113 Such incidents notwithstanding, overall, the cartulary entries for the 60-year period between the reconstruction of Glanfeuil’s church in 1036 and its liberation from Fossés by papal decree in 1096 reveal a wellendowed and prosperous establishment with an increasing ability to defend its properties, its rights, and its ancient dignity as the true shrine of Saint Maurus.

112 Cart. de S-M., 380. 113 Cart. de S-M., 390–91. Owing to the several missing lines of the entry, the exact

dates are not known. Guillot, Le comte d’Anjou, ii, 302–3, declared this a forgery because of odd word usage; however, he offers no motive or alternative date to support his conclusion.

194

J. B. WICKSTROM

Appendix: A New Analysis of Glanfeuil Properties Introduction Calculating the number and value of Glanfeuil’s medieval property holdings is difficult and assessing its wealth relative to other houses with any precision is impossible, given the available evidence. It is clear, however, is that previous estimates of Glanfeuil’s possessions are too modest. Marchegay, who first collected and edited the twelfth-century Glanfeuil cartulary in the 1840s concluded that Glanfeuil “always occupied a position inferior to [that of] the other communities of its diocese.”114 François Landreau, the premier historian of the shrine of Saint Maurus during the turn of the last century, concluded that, in the late eleventh century, Glanfeuil held only twenty significant properties, and so was “one of the poorest in the province.”115 A 1967 French mémoire secondaire which focused entirely on Glanfeuil’s property concluded that Glanfeuil possessed only seventeen churches and was “very poor.”116 In 1984, Guy Jarousseau, a careful recent student of the monastery, limited his analysis to the cartulary evidence, listing twenty-six distinct properties; some of these were single tracts of land while others consisted of multiple parcels.117 All of these studies however, limited their investigation to the contents of Glanfeuil’s cartulary and a few royal charters. None took account of four extraordinary lists of Glanfeuil’s properties, compiled between 1133 and 1156. Bloch was aware of their importance for an accurate assessment of Glanfeuil’s possession but felt that a detailed consideration of their content went beyond the scope of his work.118 This appendix undertakes this task. A careful analysis of these four lists, along with the Cartulary and a few original texts, show that thirty-nine distinct properties are identifiable as belonging to Glanfeuil. Most were single possessions, but some included several distinct parcels, so the total number of individual holdings is much larger. Several of these possessions were held by Glanfeuil 114 Introduction to Cart. de S-M., 301. 115 Landreau, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil,” II, 417. 116 Michelle Le Berre, “Les possessions de l’abbaye de Saint Maurus sur Loire.”

Mémoire secondaire, Faculté des Sciences et lettres de l’université de Rennes, 1967, npn. 117 Jarousseau, “Le Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur,” 77 (map). 118 Bloch. MCMA, II, 982, n.3.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

195

for centuries, while others were lost. New properties were constantly being added, particularly as ecclesiastical properties alienated to laymen were being restored to Glanfeuil during the eleventh and twelfth-century periods of Church reform. The possession of 43 properties places the landed wealth of the shrine of Saint Maurus at the higher range of smaller French monasteries in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, that is, those whose holdings ranged from ten to forty churches. Despite this growing prosperity, it appears that no town or village grew up around the abbey in the medieval period; it remained a small rural abbey, with an unusually well-known patron and donations commensurate with its fame. The Four Property Lists The Glanfeuil cartulary and a few other documents supply a sampling of the possessions of the abbey over several centuries. These sources are supplemented by four detailed, though problematic, lists of Glanfeuil’s properties, all dating from the twelfth-century. List 1 An 1133 manuscript in the Registrum Petri Diaconi at Montecassino.119 It contains 71 entries, supposedly possessions of Glanfeuil. In the Registrum, it immediately follows a copy of the bull of Urban II from 1096, which had restored Glanfeuil as an independent abbey. List 2 Also from 1133, It has important affinities to List 1. It was also attached to a copy of Urban II’s 1096 decree, but this copy was s significantly modified by by Peter the Deacon in 1133. List 2 appears is thus a highly modified version of List 1, which contains many more property entries (111 versus 71). The extant copy is preserved in the Archives of Montecassino.120 List 3 Also from 1133, this list contains far fewer entries than the first two lists, 44. It was attached to a bull of Pope Anacletus II and is also preserved in the archives of Montecassino.121

119 Registrum Petri Diaconi, fol. 34v. Printed in MCMA, II, 1021. 120 Archives of Montecassino, Caps. II , no. 10. Printed in MCMA, II, 1018–19. 121 Archives of Montecassino, Cap 116, fasc. 5 no 38. Printed in MCMA, II, 1024–25.

196

J. B. WICKSTROM

List 4 This list of Glanfeuil properties comes from 1154 and contains only 30 entries. It is attached to a bull of Pope Anastasius IV. The extant copy is also preserved in the archives of Monte Cassino.122

Genuine Possessions of Glanfeuil 1. Properties mentioned in the cartulary of Glanfeuil or in other surviving charters, royal decrees etc. 2. Properties mentioned in all four of the twelfth-century Lists. 3. Properties found in the initial listings of any of the twelfth-century lists. The initial entries in each list correspond with the initial entries in the others, i.e. (a) List 1, entries #1–11 Registrum Petri Diaconi, fol. 34v. Printed in MCMA, II, 1021. (b) List 2, entries #1–24, 25–29, Archives of Montecassino, Caps. II , no. 10. Printed in MCMA, II, 1018–19. (c) List 3, entries #1–21, Archives of Montecassino, Caps 116, fasc. 5 no 38. Printed in MCMA, II, 1024–25. (d) List 4, entries #1–28, 30 Archives of Montecassino Caps. II , nos. 9 and 11. Printed in MCMA, II, 1038 Key, Title and year of acquisition a. Sources b. [Location] c. Details of properties 1. Anadone (Lézon) 845 (a) Rec. CC., I, #7; Cart de S-M., # 19. Jarousseau, Le Cartulaire, 77. (b) near Sion (Saint Cyr en Bourg) (c) five facti (arable lands and structures) for support of monks, given by Charles the Bald at request of bishop Ebroin, 845.

122 Archives of Montecassino Caps. II , nos. 9 and 11. Printed in MCMA, II, 1038.

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

197

2. Anast, Saint Petrus de, 847 (a) Cart. de S-M ., 363–4, Rorigo Bible, fol. 408v.z. Lists: 1,6; 2,32; 3,29. (b) [Maure-en-Bretagne, arr. Saint Maurent de Redon, Ille-etVilaine]. (c) Gifts of pilgrim Annowaredh, church of Saint Peter, with its seven chapels and of nine vicarages or chapels of Bain, Brue, Carentoir, Comblessac, Guer, Saint-Malo. Secular lordship by 13th c. 3. Bessé, 845 + (a) Rec. CC., I, #79. (b) [Baazi, Bidisciacum] (c) Gift of Charles the Bald, Church of Ss. Gervaise and Protase with manor house and its dependencies; 10 facti and nine messauges of land for upkeep of the monks. Request of bishop Ebroin. By 1080, major estate. The lord of Posciacum (Pocé) owes abbot of Saint Maurus knight service for two months per year for land held in Bidisciaco (Bessé). (Cart. de S-M ., 358). 4. Blazon c. 560 (a) LM, 61; Lists: 1,3; 2,1; 3,1. (b) [Blaison-Gohier, Maine-et-Loire, arr. Angers, cant. Les-Pontsde-Cé]; (c) Supposed gift of royal villa by King Chlothar II (552); In c. 1125, Fulk, count of Anjou, at request, gives Glanfeuil, donation by the lord of Blaison (Blazonum) of 1/10 of his possessions there, with permission of Count of Anjou. One of ten priories Glanfeuil controlled in the seventeenth century. 5. Bournand 850 (a) Rec.CC., I, #134, Cart. de S-M ., 358–59; (b) [arr. Châtellerault, cant. Les Trois-Moutiers] (c) At the request of Ebroin, for the upkeep of the monks of Glanfeuil, Charles the Bald gave 7 ½ messauges (manses ) with the lord’s estate and in the villa of Bournand in Poitou, 4 messauges. In 1066, Count Geoffrey III of Anjou restored the church of Saint Martin de Bournand to Saint Maurus because

198

J. B. WICKSTROM

the land had belonged “by ancient right” to the abbey, with associated goods and monies and an oven where the peasants can bake their bread and the right to everything that is given or sold to the monks by the faithful of the parish. In 1105, charter of Bishop of Poitiers restores church of Saint Martin as held by Glanfeuil for 30 years and more. One of 10 priories Glanfeuil still held in the seventeenth century. 6. Boscus 552 (?) (a) LM . 50; Lists: 1,2; 2,3; 3,5. MCMA, II, 970, 986 (b) [Arr. Angers, cant. Beaufort-en-ville] (c) Supposed gift of Merovingian King Theudebert to the shrine of Saint Maurus (552 (?)). royal fisc called Boscus. Possibly an actual early property, lost at some point, then restored as Boscus Mariacum /Maze/Maziacum/Maciacum donated to the abbey by Count Rorigoi in 839. 7. Briensi 845 (a) Rec.CC., I , #79; List 1,18; 2, 39; 55; 3,36. (b) [Brion, arr. Angers, can. Beaufort-en-Vallé] (c) Churches of Saint Michael, Gervaise and Protase; one of six benefices Glanfeuil held in seventeenth century. 8. Canava, 845 (a) Rec. CC., I. #78; Lists: 2,33; 3,30. (b) [Coue Saint Maure, village of Gennes] (c) Gift of Charles the Bald of the church of Saint Pierre de Canavit and six facti of land next to the church of Saint Veterin in villa Canava with dependent facti. 9. Chaintre de Saint-Marie 1036 (a) Cart. de S-M., 401. (b) [near l’Authion] 10. Concourson c. 925 (a) Cart. de S-M., 369, 370, 395; Lists: 2,10; 3,10. and 4,11. (b) [Concourson-sur-layon, arr. Saumur, cant. Doué-la-Fontaine] (c) 925 gift by bishop Rainaud d’Angers of churches of Hilary Sur l’ Arc et Martin-sur-Aire, later two priories there. In 925,

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

199

Concourson lands given by counts of Anjou and their fideles. From fiefs of Lord of Thouars in 1043, gifts to church of Saint Hilary: vineyards, woods, house cave, windmill on Arc. Gift of church belonging to villa Curtis-Guthonis, two mills and cultivated land. In 1105, one of the six churches in Poitou returned to Glanfeuil by the bishop of Poitiers; a priory of Glanfeuil by that date. 1105–20, Borrell family makes gifts of lands at Concourson between church of Saint Hilaire de Piro and Bourg-neuf. Before 1124, Count of Anjou grants to Glanfeuil villa Curtis-Gonthonis; 1140, property close to Concourson given to monks who serve church of St Martinsur-Arc. One of ten priories still held in seventeenth century. One of six benefices Glanfeuil held in seventeenth century. 11. Corné, terra de (a) Lists: 2,29; 3,26. (b) [Corné, arr. Angers, cant. Beaufort-en-Vallée] (c) One of ten priories still held by Glanfeuil in the seventeenth century. 12. Cru. (Croce)(Meigné)c. 925+ (a) Lists: 1, 31. 2, 16+66; 3.13. (b) villa in Meigné [arr. Saumur, cant. Doué-la-Fontaine] (c) 925 quarrel with bishop Rainauld and Saint-Florent Abbey over tithes from Saint Pierre de Meigné. In 1036, count of Anjou renounces all taxes from Cru on occasion of rebuilding of Glanfeuil abbey church. By 1080, a major estate; in 1092, Count of Anjou renounces all customs rights at Cru except raising the host. 13. Culturis, S. Petri de (in Co(u)ture), twelfth-century (a) Lists: 2,98; 3,23. (b) [Coutures, arr. Saumur, cant. Gennes] (c) one of six benefices in Glanfeuil’s gift in seventeenth century. 14. Curalo, Priory of Lambertus de, 1125–40 (a) Cart. de S-M., 399–400; List 4,9. (b) [Le Corail, village in Le Voide, arr. Saumur, cant. Vihiers].

200

J. B. WICKSTROM

(c) In 1125–40, several small gifts to Saint Maurus consolidated to create priory of Couralo. 15. Saint-Cyr, et Sancta Maria de Salmo(n)sa 845 (a) Rec. CC., I, #79; III, # 845; Cart. de S-M., 381–2; Lists: 2,15; 3,12; 4,18. (b) [arr. Saumur. cant. Montreuil-Bellay] (c) Gift of Charles the Bald at request of Ebroin for support of the monks, land of Saint-Cyr at Sion and one factus close to Bessé. In 1096–97, gift of church of Saint-Cyr by Hugh of Saumur with land to build ten guest houses, vineyard, wood needed to build houses and for fuel. In 1105 one of six churches returned by bishop Poitiers as belonging to Glanfeuil for over 30 years. In 1135, further properties belonging to church returned by two knights on advice of Count Anjou for religious who perform Divine Office at Saint-Cyr, one of the ten priories and six benefices controlled by Glanfeuil in the seventeenth century. 16. Saint Marie in Dené, Before 1066 (a) Cart. de S-M , 395; Lists: 1,63; 2,28 (92); 3,25; 4,5; (b) [Dane/Denée arr. Angers, cant. Chalonnes-sur-Loire] (c) One of ten priories still held by Saint Maurus in the seventeenth century. Tithes from this gifted by local couple which descendants add. 1140, knight has ¼ of church income gifted to church of St Maria. 17. Doué, Church of Saint Marie 845/925 (a) Cart. de S-M., 372; Lists: 1, 27; 2, 34; 39; 4, 5. (b) [la chapelle sous Doué at Doué-le-Fontaine, arr. Saumur] (c) Gift of Charles the Bald in 845 at the request of Ebroin with the lord’s manor house vineyard and woods. 2 ½ manse, for monks’ maintenance. Church of Saint Marie possibly gift of bishop Renauld in 925. 1090, A knight gives a donation of a chapel of Our Lady at Doué in the diocese of Poitiers, with adjacent land for a house of monks, with the assent of his lord, the lord of Doué. 1105, one of the ancient church possessions returned by bishop of Poitiers. Priory by 1141/5 with monks

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

201

serving there. One of ten priories still held in seventeenth century 18. Euchaea Euchelia/Eucheria/ Euclielia, “552” (a) LM, 19. (b) [unidentified] (c) In LM 19, “one of our possessions.” 19. Fabriensi “552” (a) LM , 57; Lists: 1,66; 2,7 + 94; 3,3; 4,8. (b) [arr. Angers} (c) Gift of King Theudebert on dedication of abbey; one of Glanfeuil’s “ancient churches” returned by the bishop of Poitiers. One of the seventeenth-century priories of Glanfeuil. 20. Fano, (Fanum) 845 (a) Rec.CC., I , #79; Lists:. 1,11; 2,6; (b) [Fenêt] (c) Charles the Bald at the request of Ebroin gives Fano to Saint Maurus for the the needs of the monks: one factus. 21. Gaudiacum “552” (a) LM , 57 (b) [Unidentified] (c) “one of our possessions’” in LM , 57. 22. Gennes. 845 (a) Rec. CC., I, , #79; (b) [arr. Saumur, cant. Doué-la-Fontaine] (c) Church of Saint Veterin, gift of Charles the Bald in 845 to Glanfeuil for the monks’ welfare. Additional properties belonging to Saint Veterin added in 850. In 850, at Ebroin’s request, the king gave to Glanfeuil for the maintenance of the monks, 2 ½ manses at Soulanger in Anjou, 5 manses at Bournand in Poitou from the domains of Saint-Véterin at Gennes which the lords of Anjou had held. Before 1133, church of Saint Eusebius. Gift of church of Saint-Marie in Torre. i.e. Thoré, a village dependent on parish of Saint-Eusèbe

202

J. B. WICKSTROM

at Gennes. In 1010, gifts by Count of Anjou of cultivated field and some gardens and a mill house and an oven. 23. Hispaniis (Epennes), by 1080 (a) Cart. de S-M.,354; Lists: 2,21; 3,18, 4,23. (b) [Near Loudon, in Poitou] (c) Along with Saint Dremont and Lambray, collections of lands in Poitou mana ged by resident overseers (majores ) from Glanfeuil. 24. Île [insula] de Maurus 925? (a) Cart. de S-M., 384, 385, 387; Lists: 1,4; 2,48; 4,4. (b) [600 ft. south of the monastery] (c) 1167 or 1082, monks of Saint-Aubin dispute right of Glanfeuil monks to hold a boire (bar) on the Île de Saint Maur. The former upheld by a court of barons. Guillot, p 208. Four churches in area. Saint Mary Magdalene “de l’Îsle” possibly a gift of Abbot Renaud of Saint-Aubin in 925. By 1090, churches of (Marie) Chiriacus, and Saint Remi la Varenne in territory of church of Saint Jean-sur-Loire. 1090. Some of the Île property returned by Fulk Réchin as improperly in lay hands. 25. Lambri, by 1080 (a) Lists: 2,20; 3,17; 4,24; (b) [Lambrey, village in Bournand, arr. Châtellault, cant. LesTrois-Moutiers] (c) “villa” By 1080 a major estate. 26. Lectus Ansaldi,, 1124 (a) Cart. de S-M ., 364–65. (b) [Loudon, Poitou} (c) Donation by Fulk V of a vicarage called Lectus Ansaldi, in the territory of Loudun. 27. Longus Campus (Longchamp) “552” (a) LM ., 61; Lists: 1,1; 2,2; 3,4. (b) [unidentified]

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

203

(c) An estate, gift of King Chlothar II; since it is mentioned in all Lists: likely early possession, close to abbey. 28. Sancta Maria de Cingla in Normannia, (a) List: 4,26. (b) [Normandy(?)] (c) One of the six priories still in Glanfeuil’s gift in seventeenth century. One of three properties first appearing in List 4, 29. Meigne (Mange), Sancti Petri in 970s (a) Lists: 1,31; 2,66 (b) [Meigné, arr. Saumur. cant. Doué-le-Fontaine]. (c) In 970, dispute with Saint-Florent over its tithes. 30. Merola/Mirenola; 845 (a) HT ., 38. (b) [La Mimerolle. – arr. Saumur, cant. Gennes] (c) Likely the Mirahella of Annarowedh grant of 845. In 847, grant of Charles the Bald of a church of Saint Mary and Saint Martin and ten facti, possibly to round out Rorigonid control of property parcel in Anast. Possession of Glanfeuil when community stopped here, fleeing Vikings in 862/3. 31. Mortes-Eaux, 1036 (a) Cart de S-M ., #61. (b) “near L’Authion” 32. Ss. Petrus & Saint Remigius prope Glannafolium (a) Lists: 1,8 + 57; 2,9 +,50; 3,6. (b) [Saint-remy-la-Varenne, arr. Angers. cant. Les Ponts-de-Cé.] (c) Church of Saint Remigius, undated acquisition from abbey of Saint Aubin. One of ten priories still held in seventeenth century. A benefice in Glanfeuil’s gift in seventeenth century. 33. Posciatum (Pocé) 845 (a) Rec. CC., I, #79; Cart. de S-M ., 358. (b) [near Doué (?)] (c) Gift of Charles the Bald of one factus for monks’ welfare, requested by Ebroin 1090. Hugh lord of Posciaco (Pocé) gives Saint Maurus knight service of two months for tenure of

204

J. B. WICKSTROM

Castellum Karolum (Château-Charles) and land in Bidisciaco (Bessé) and elsewhere. 34. Riliacum 845 (Rillé) (a) Rec. CC., I, #79, Lists: 2, 62. (b) [Montsoreau, arr. Saumur, Cant. Saumur-sud]. (c) gift of deserted land and 5 ½ facti before 1133, also a church of Saint Peter. 35. Ss. Simplicius et Johannes supra Ligerim (a) Lists: 1, 61; 2,27; 3,24; 4,6. (b) [Île de Saint Maur)} 36. Soulanger, 850 (a) Rec.CC., I, #134; Lists: 2,10; 3,8; 4,15. (b) [arr. Saumur, cant. Doué-la-fontaine] (c) Gift from Charles the Bald 2 ½ manses; 7 ½ facti in the lordship of Soulanger with the manor house, seigneurial court, its vineyards and woods; lord’s manor house vineyard and woods, 2 ½ manses, for monks’ maintenance. 37. Saint-Dremont (Syndremo[nt]) (a) Lists: 2,22; 3,19; 4,21; (b) [Saint-Dremont (Vienne), village in Les-trois-Moutiers, chef. arr. Châtellerault] (c) by 1080, a major estate. 38. Verchers, by 1090 (a) Cart. de S-M., 383; Lists: 2,14; 3,11; 4,13. (b) [Les Verchers-sur-Layon, arr. Saumur, cant. Doué-la-Fontaine] (c) Gift of ½ tithes of church. Held in fief by priest. By 1105 One of several churches restored to Glanfeuil by Bishop of Poitiers. Three churches there, St-Just, John the Baptist, Saint Peter (with priory). One of the benefices in G;s gift in seventeenth century. 39. Vosda (Le Voida), “552” (a) LM , 94; Cart de S-M ., 385.; Lists: 1,68; 2,8; 3,2; 4,7. (b) [Terr. Mauges, comm. Lys-Haut-Layon.]

7

PATRONAGE AND PROSPERITY

205

(c) Gift of villa by King Theudebald. LM 5. 1099, villa of Vosda restored at abbot’s request. 1105, one of several churches restored to Glanfeuil by bishop Poitiers. One of the ten priories controlled by Glanfeuil in seventeenth century (Fig. 7.1).

206

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fig. 7.1 Map of Glanfeuil possessions (Daniel Huffman)

CHAPTER 8

New Freedoms, New Liturgies, and Expansion

Amidst increasing prosperity, and likely because of it, Glanfeuil’s unhappiness with its dependent status was evident. Eleventh-century documents suggest that a significant portion of its income may have been diverted to Fossés under the watchful eye of its abbot, who often visited his prospering priory on the Loire. These developments reflected a Europewide transformation of social and political relationships. The reforms, associated with the eleventh-century papacy, led to calls for freedom of all churches, not only from lay lordship but from oppressive episcopal and monastic lords as well. Interference in dependent houses’ affairs by both monastic and secular lords appears to have been decreasing owing to reform movements throughout western Europe emanating from the papacy.1 Yet these same forces were strengthening the idea of the Church as strictly hierarchical while the joining of monasteries in past times had often been a loose association of more or less equal partners: so the two tenth-century royal decrees subjecting Glanfeuil to Fossés vaguely stated that “they should be one.”2 By the eleventh century, however, such arrangements were being transformed into more hierarchical relationships 1 On the evolution of priors and priories in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, see Bautier, “De prepositus à prior,” 1–22. 2 Tardif, Monuments historiques, 138; 144–45.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_8

207

208

J. B. WICKSTROM

between “motherhouses” and their dependents were increasingly resented by the latter.3 An entry in the Glanfeuil cartulary from the mid-1080s illustrates the growing confusion and resentment caused by Glanfeuil’s subjection to Fossés. It involved a legal quarrel between Abbot Gautier of Fossés and three brothers over an island property near Bessé, about three miles south of Glanfeuil. As a plea involving possessions on the priory’s land, the case normally would have been heard in the abbot’s court. Gautier, however, refused to entertain the case because he was leaving for Fossés. Unwilling to suffer this delay, the plaintiffs took matters into their own hands and made off with the priory’s cattle, either as a sort of settlement of their land claim or, more likely, to pressure Glanfeuil into having the case heard. Bowing to this pressure, the prior and community of Glanfeuil agreed not to contest the seizure of the cattle until such time as the abbot returned to hear the case. When Gautier did return, the plaintiffs raised new objections and so the abbot tried to find a court that the plaintiffs would recognize. These included the bishop’s court, the count’s court, and an ad hoc court of local barons. When these attempts failed, the abbot said he would hear the case himself, but only after the priory’s cattle had been returned. The brothers refused, stating that this was a new condition; they withdrew their plea—and kept the cattle.4 The case reveals the difficulties that could arise under a remote abbot and the uncertain legal rights of priories.5 Abbot Gautier lost control of the procedure owing to his extended absence, while the prior and community of Glanfeuil apparently lacked the authority to settle the plea in his absence, so their cattle were lost. Incidents such as these and the shrine’s awareness of widespread monastic demands for libertas gave rise to the 1096 accusations before Pope Urban II of Fossés’ “incompetent and oppressive” lordship. Likely worrisome as well was Fossés’ aggressive promotion of its claim to be the rightful home of the cult of Maurus during the eleventh century, as discussed in Chapter 6 above.

3 Remensnyder, Remembering, 260. 4 Cart. de S-M., 375–77. 5 The pioneering work of Georges Duby and Stephen White on legal procedures in France from the eleventh through the twelfth century have been summarized by Patrick Geary: “Living with Conflicts in Stateless France,” Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Cornell U.P., 1994), 124–60.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

209

During the course of his procession across France in 1096 after attending the “crusading council” at Clermont, Urban stopped off at Glanfeuil. The priory, supported by local nobles, the bishop of Angers, and the Count of Anjou, petitioned the pope to free it from the lordship of Fossés. Shortly thereafter, at a synod held at the ancient abbey of Marmoutier just outside of Tours, the pope issued a decree of emancipation. Because of its central importance to the identity of Glanfeuil and to its future, a full translation of Urban’s decree follows: The libellus written as a monument to his life declare that the blessed confessor of Christ, Maurus, had been sent from the monastery of Cassino to Gaul by order of a divine revelation to the most glorious Benedict, the first leader of the monastic army. Therefore, that most holy man, by the bounty of the Lord, set up in the diocese of Anjou a distinguished monastery in a place called Glanfeuil, where he shown forth with many signs of virtue according to the divine plan, and where the span of his earthy life was reached, and where he was buried. After the passage of a few years, the venerable monastery was destroyed by Gaidulf and after that restored by the zeal of religious men; then seized once more, laid waste and despoiled by the incursion of barbarians. For a long time, its depopulation owing to the barbarians continued; then it was set down by the religious authorities that the monastery at Glanfeuil, which at that time was held to be unsuitable for a peaceful monastic observance, should be managed through the abbots of Fossés, which, whether it was an administrative remedy (provisio) or the presentation of a benefice (dispositio) of the rulers, it has continued up to our own time. But since the monastery of Fossés abandoned the observance of monastic rigor, it seems that the monastery of Glanfeuil is no longer being well-ordered (disposita) by the leaders of that abbey, but instead for a long time has been wasted (dissipatur). But it happened through the mercy of the divine plan that when, for reasons of Church business, we came over into Gaul, we should visit that monastery with our brothers, the bishops and cardinals of the Roman church. A crowd of the brothers serving God there and of noblemen who lived in the neighborhood surrounded us, complaining with one voice about the “squandering” (dissipatio) that was being inflicted by the officials [of Fossés] who should have been governing with zeal. The pleas of our venerable brother Geoffrey, bishop of Angers and our son, Fulk [IV le Réchin], count of Anjou having been added to these, we have restored to that monastery on behalf of those requesting it, its own proper abbot. They were not unreasonably hoping to increase the current

210

J. B. WICKSTROM

number of thirty monks in the future if they were freed from the tyranny of the abbot of Fossés to enjoy self-rule. Therefore, we established a definite day for the monks of Fossés to present before our assembly any privileges from Rome that they might have [regarding Glanfeuil]. With 44 archbishops, bishops, and abbots sitting together with us in the church of Tours, with the question of this issue having been brought up, the aforesaid brothers presented to us in a general session a diploma, supposedly of the Roman bishop Hadrian. This was judged by everyone from clear evidence to be false. It was thus pleasing to all the brothers who were sitting together in general session, seeing that the observance of a regular life in the monastery of Fossés had now for a long time been lacking and that the monastery of Glanfeuil under this arrangement seems not to have been brought to a better state but exposed to deterioration, that for the sake of ending this, it should be freed, and a cardinal abbot should be granted to the monks of Glanfeuil as a defense. Moreover, we have sanctioned by a public decree and have set it down now by apostolic authority through the legal and permanent form of the present privilege, that in that venerable monastery the abbot should for all time hold the higher title of cardinal abbot. To you, whom those brothers shall unanimously elect in a gathering of bishops or abbots, and to all who shall succeed you in the governance of that monastery by a lawful election, we confirm that you ought to rule over the monastery of blessed Maurus of Glanfeuil and to freely dispose of all that it now holds. In addition, in regard to possessions which are specifically mentioned in the Life of Saint Maurus by name and those which, after the restoration of the monastery, Annarowedh the Breton had granted to it from his own rule and possession: whatever of these having clear and legitimate boundaries you are able to redeem or re-acquire by your diligence, we decree should remain yours firmly and in perpetuity. Whenever you or whoever of your successors should die while abbot of that house, let no one be placed in command by violence or skillful deception. Let only that person rule who by common consent of the brothers or by the better part of the council, according to the fear of God and the rule of Benedict, is elected. Moreover, whatever you obtain through a concession from bishops or by the liberality of princes or offering of the faithful justly and lawfully should always remain firmly and unaltered in the possession of the monastery. Also, we set down that to no one whomever is it allowed to trouble that monastery by intimidation or carry off its possessions and retain them, or diminish them, or harass them with trespass or disturbances. But that everything of theirs be preserved entirely which has been given for their sustenance and governance of whatever sort in perpetuity.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

211

Also, we decree that burials in that monastery shall be free, that nothing should stand in the way of those who mention being buried there in their last will and with devotion, saving lawful deference to the bishop of Angers. If, however, in the future either an ecclesiastical or lay person, knowing of the charter of our constitution, rashly tries to move against it after a second or third warning, if he does not make good with appropriate recompense, let him be deprived of the honor and power of his rank, and let him be liable to the divine judgment concerning crimes he has committed and separated from the most sacred body and blood of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, and subjected in the end to the severe final judgment. For everyone else who serve this place faithfully, may they enjoy the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, while they both secure this fruit of a good act and at the final judgement find the reward of eternal peace. Given by the hand of John, cardinal deacon of the Roman church, at the monastery of Blessed Maxentius II kal. April 1096, the ninth year of the pontificate of our lord Urban II.6

Several statements in this “charter of liberty” deserve comment. First and foremost, there is Urban’s vagueness regarding the genesis and character of Fossés’ lordship over Glanfeuil. Count Rorigo’s placement of Glanfeuil under Fossés’ permanent direction in the early 830s is not mentioned. The later decrees of Charles the Fat and Charles the Simple, subjecting Glanfeuil to Fossés, are also passed over in silence. Instead, the pope referenced an undated decision by unnamed religious authorities (religiosos principes ) that Glanfeuil was unsuitable for a “peaceful monastic life” and decided, either formally or informally (provisio sive dispositio), that it should be “managed’ (disponeretur) by Fossés. This language was surely designed to obscure and thereby weaken Fossés’ claim to authority over Glanfeuil and thus to overturn it more easily. Such an approach was prudent since, as the later objections of Bishop Ivo of Chartres to Urban’s action make clear, overturning centuries-old agreements by papal decree was considered by many to be legally and ethically indefensible.7 A forged decree of the future emperor Charles the Bald, dated to 868, and probably created at Fossés for this occasion, was perhaps presented at some point during the proceedings as documentary proof of Fossés right to

6 Original text in Archives de Montecassino, Caps. 5, #39 copied into Peter the Deacon’s Registrum Petri Diaconi, fol. 33, #74. Printed in Bloch, MCMA 2. 1016–20. 7 For Bishop Ivo’s objections, see below, 216–217.

212

J. B. WICKSTROM

lordship over Glanfeuil—but to no perceptible effect.8 A decree of Pope Hadrian was also offered as evidence of Fossés’ rights but (correctly) rejected as spurious. The presentation of these “imperial” documents also suggests that the genuine royal decrees of Charles the Fat (886) and Louis the Simple (921) confirming Glanfeuil’s subjection to Fossés were, as the product of mere kings in this reforming age, insufficient warrant for the placement of Glanfeuil under Fossés’ authority. This undermining of Fosse’s historical claims to rule Glanfeuil was followed by Urban II’s charge that Fossés had been draining off Glanfeuil’s assets. Both the monks of Glanfeuil and local leaders had complained of dissipatio.9 Among the latter were, unsurprisingly, Fulk Réchin, the count of Anjou and Geoffrey de Mayenne, the bishop of Angers.10 Both would profit from Glanfeuil’s new independence, likely bringing the house under their authority. Freeing Glanfeuil would likely have given the count the right to choose its abbot. Indeed, the emancipation of the shrine of Saint Maurus also reflected the pope’s desire for improved relations with the rulers of Anjou. In 1094, he had lifted the excommunication of Fulk Réchin, imposed since his succession as a consequence 0f the imprisonment of his brother. He even presented a golden papal rose to the count in recognition of outstanding service to the Church.11 These and other papal favors are especially striking, given that Fulk Réchin had often dealt roughly with the churches and monasteries in his realm. The count would also have been concerned about the charge of “dissipation” of Glanfeuil’s assets by Fossés. A common complaint of patrons was the diversion of donations from their designated recipients or purpose. One must, however, balance these complaints against the evidence of Glanfeuil’s cartulary, which as we have seen presents a sophisticated system for managing the priory’s resources that had been in existence for decades before the pope’s visit.

8 Rec. CC., 2, 628–33 (#491). 9 The later decree of Anacletus II from Oct 1133, concerning these events, added the

accusation of plundering (direptione), MCMA 2. doc. #7, 1023–25. 10 Geoffrey had been appointed by Urban and was a strict enforcer of monastic discipline in his diocese. T. Pletteau, “Annales ecclesiastiques d’Anjou: Geoffrey de Mayenne,” Revue historique, littéraire et archéologique de l’Anjou, 14 (1875): 145–46. 11 Landreau, “Vicissitudes 2.” 415, note 1.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

213

There was an ongoing discussion in the eleventh century about the point at which economic exploitation of dependent houses became “wasting” and “dissipation.” Opinions and practices in regard to this varied widely.12 By the eleventh century, however, a consensus was forming that the property of dependent houses should be considered their own to manage and dispose of once customary dues had been paid.13 There was also the established legal principle, dating back at least to Carolingian times, that rectores of monastic houses could not take for their own use goods that were earmarked for the sustenance of a monastic community.14 The pope’s condemnation of Fossés then probed further: he charged that the root cause of this dissipatio was the abandonment of devout monastic observance (desisset a religionis observatione) at Fossés. There is some evidence to support this claim. In 1085, a reform was undertaken at Fossés by Abbot Gautier, but a decade later he complained to his friend Bishop Ivo of Chartres that the monks were ungrateful and cared little for their salvation. Ivo urged him to stay only if he thought he could alter his charges’ way of life. If not, he should leave, and at least save himself.15 One would also like to know why Abbot Gautier either resigned or was removed the year after Glanfeuil’s emancipation. Somewhat earlier, the prolific Fossés author, Eudes de Saint-Maur, had also considered leaving the monastery where he had lived since childhood, “owing to pervasive evil and the chilling of charity, anyone who attempts to live a devout life suffers persecution; the monastery [is]now on the verge of final collapse from its misery.”16 Urban’s bull also stated that future abbots of Glanfeuil were not to be elected “by violence or skillful deception,” but by common consent of the community. This caveat suggests that irregularities had occurred in the appointment of Glanfeuil’s rulers under Fossés’ lordship. On the other hand, shortly before Urban’s visit, the bishop of

12 R. Berkhofer, Day of Reckoning, esp. 10–52. 13 For how the priories functioned in a well-studied environment in northern France,

see Jacques Dubois, “Les dependances de labbaye du Mont Saint-Michel et la vie monastique dans les prieures,” Millenaire monastique du Mont Saint Michel, 2 vols ed. Jean Laporte (Paris, 1967), 1. 660, 671–72. 14 See Chapter 5, above, 105–106. 15 Letter from Ivo of Chartres, PL. 162: 38 (Letter #26). 16 Eudes de Saint-Maur, Vie de Bouchard, Prologue, 2.

214

J. B. WICKSTROM

Paris had ordered the abbot of Fossés to revive the abandoned monastery of Saint Eligius (Eloi), which had been ruined by immoral nuns.17 Accusations of monastic laxity would especially attract the attention of Pope Urban, a tireless advocate of Church reform in the Gregorian tradition. Urban’s pontificate was the high point of that reform in terms of pontifical grants of libertas to dependent churches and monasteries.18 Pope Urban’s emancipation of Glanfeuil was only one of several similar decrees issued during his tour through France in 1096.19 Though his rhetoric of libertas was usually directed against lay proprietors, it was employed more than once against ecclesiastical “oppressors” of churches as well.20 Although the term does not appear in Urban’s decree, it was clearly a major justification for his action, since the second charge he laid against Fossés was its antithesis: the “tyranny” with which Fossés was oppressing its priory. At the time, the term was often used to describe the spoliation of subjects’ goods and property.21 Most important for this study, Urban’s decree made clear that Glanfeuil was the rightful and genuine shrine of Saint Maurus, who had brought Saint Benedict’s Rule to France, the very Rule under which Urban had lived for decades as a monk and then governed as prior of Cluny, France’s premier center of Benedictine life. By the decree’s silence regarding Fosse’s claims to be the shrine of Saint Maurus, one may conclude that they were rejected.

17 Tardif, Monuments historiques, 196. 18 H. E. J. (Herbert Edward John) Cowdrey, Gregory VII (Oxford, 1998), 538–39. 19 H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford, 1970), 82–112,

185. See also the many similar exemptions and liberties conceded by Pope Urban in the mid-1090s: e.g. Beati Urbani II Pontificis Romani Epistolae et Privilegia. PL, 151 cols 398–404. 20 For several cases of episcopal oppression of churches and monasteries, see Mollat, “La restitution des églises privées,” 410–11. 21 Some 65 years later, John of Salisbury, in his Policraticus, famously defined tyranny,

(ecclesiastical as well as lay), as ruling without justice or lawlessly. (See esp. Policraticus, book VIII, ch 17: The Statesman’s Book of John of Salisbury trans. John Dickinson [New York, Russell and Russell, 1963], 335–48.) A good discussion of this term can be found in Kate Forhan, “Tyranny in John of Salisbury’s Polycraticus,” History of Political Thought, 11/3 (1990): 403–7.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

215

Somewhat surprisingly, Urban’s decree did not impose on Glanfeuil either formal papal protection or lordship.22 As H. E. J Cowdrey has noted: Medieval man was not content to regard liberty as a merely abstract or negative condition. It was the correlative of lordship, without which it was impossible for a man or an institution to prosper. A vacuum of lordship was unthinkable; in order to be free, and as the only guarantee of freedom, any individual or corporate body must enjoy the protection and share the peace of a lord. To be free from the positive claims of one lordship therefor, meant becoming subject to the positive claims of another and preferably a higher lordship.23

Instead of placing Glanfeuil under papal protection, Urban bestowed on the new abbot of Glanfeuil the special title of “cardinal abbot.” The adjective cardinalis, attached to an established ecclesiastical rank, was used by the Gregorian reform papacy for various purposes.24 Urban most often employed the title to establish a direct link between local prelates and the papacy which would preclude any claims of mediate lordship.25 He thereby backed away from Gregory VII’s policy of imposing papal lordship on monasteries freed from local lords. Urban was concerned to promote the Cluniac ideal of monastic freedom from all lordship, which he had absorbed during the formative period of his religious life.26

22 For Urban’s use of the term abbatia libera, see H. Hirsch, “The Constitutional History of the Reformed Monasteries During the Investiture Contest” in Medieval Germany, ed. Geoffrey Barraclough (London, Blackwell, 1938), 136–37. On libertas Romana, see Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform, 3–41. 23 Cowdrey, The Cluniacs, 37. 24 Stephen Kuttner, “Cardinalis: The History of a Canonical Concept,” Traditio, 3

(1945): 164–65. 25 A similar decision was made only a short time earlier during Urban’s procession through France. He had separated the two abbeys of Figeac and Conches, whose unification under Gregory VII had led to discord and confusion of authority. Urban conceded to each an independent rector with the rank of abbas cardinalis. The two communities would be ruled by the remaining cardinal abbot after the other had died, Kuttner, “Cardinalis,” 164–65. 26 See the discussion of these policies in Wood, Proprietary Church, 842.

216

J. B. WICKSTROM

The Dissent of Ivo of Chartres Urban’s act was roundly criticized by Bishop Ivo of Chartres. In 1105, this distinguished conservative canonist lodged a strong dissent to Urban’s emancipation of Glanfeuil on behalf of the Fossés community, which had appealed to Urbans’ successor, Paschal II, for a reversal of Urban’s decision. Ivo began by stating that judgments from Rome with which one disagreed must be accepted and then appealed, rather than seeking other, possibly violent remedies. Did his comment perhaps implied that some unrest had followed the decree of Glanfeuil’s emancipation? He then moved to the core of his objection, writing that [The monks of Fossés] complain that at the council of Tours they were unjustly treated, since, they say, at the suggestion of the count of Anjou, that the monastery of Saint Maurus, situated in Anjou, was snatched away by the lord pope Urban, which for 300 years and more had been under the jurisdiction of the abbey of Fossés. He withdrew it from the jurisdiction of that monastery, and, an abbot having been ordained, he set it free. This change was made despite the complaints of the monks of Fossés, who were crying out for their rights. Many who were at the council felt the same when they saw that the privilege which the monks of Fossés set out had been snatched out of their hands by the Angevins and cut into pieces. Strengthened by the interventions of many, the said monks supplicate your majesty to take up their cause and submit it to a lawful discussion in such a way that it may be resolved by the bestowal of mercy or according to the rules of justice.

This remarkable dissent opens up new possibilities for understanding the events of 1096. First, Ivo directly accuses Urban II of an illegal act: depriving Fossés of a long-standing jurisdiction over Glanfeuil. The core of Ivo’s dissent was couched in the language of the ongoing debate between conservatives such as Ivo, who maintained that papal power could not override long-standing local jurisdictions without serious cause, and the Gregorian “liberals,” who argued that the plentitude of papal power allowed exactly that. Ivo argued that legal decisions should be based on two principles: justice and mercy. His letter makes clear that he believes that Urban’s decree reflected neither of these. Ivo thus appeals

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

217

Urban’s decision to the new pope, asking that it be remedied using the traditional judicial categories.27 Nothing appears to have come of Ivo’s intervention. Some decades later however (anti) Pope Anacletus II, while reviewing the events in two papal bulls, declared that “the reasons of both parties were fully heard.”28 Anacletus’ statement was hardly non-partisan; he was actively involved at the time in helping to craft the alliance between Glanfeuil and Montecassino, which depended on Glanfeuil being at liberty to enter into such an agreement. Nonetheless, the pope’s statement seems to reject any need for a new hearing. It does, however, reveal that the emancipation of Glanfeuil remained a contested issue for at least a generation. The first abbot of Glanfeuil after emancipation, Girard, served in that position for the next nine years, until 1105. Girard was a new face at Glanfeuil, having served as prior of Saint Aubin d’Angers. The electors wisely placed the abbey in the hands of an outsider with significant administrative experience to guide Glanfeuil through its first years as an independent house.29

The Quest for Maurus’ Relics With its new freedom and its papally-confirmed identity as the true shrine of Saint Maurus, Glanfeuil began to act more aggressively in that capacity. There is evidence that it attempted again to recover the relics of Saint Maurus which Fossés had continued to retain since the two houses merged in 868.30 An early twelfth-century forgery, supposedly written in 868 by a Glanfeuil monk, recorded his fear that the relics would never be returned once the communities merged that year.31 According to this 27 The principles underlying Ivo’s objections are discussed in “Hierarchies of authority: Ivo’s views on divine law and the ecclesiastical hierarchy,” Chapter 5 of Christof Rolkers, Canon Law and the Letters of Bishop Ivo of Chartres (Cambridge U.P., 2010), 163–210. 28 MCMA, 2. 1023–25, #7. Pope Urban had, in fact, delayed his decision so that all parties could be heard. 29 For Maubert, see Cart. de S-M ., 366. For Girard as prior of Saint Aubin, Chronica

Rainaldi in Chroniques des églises d’Anjou ed. Paul Marchegay (Paris, 1869), 14. 30 There is no evidence of earlier attempts to recover these valuable possessions, but it is most unlikely that this issue, so central to Glanfeuil’s identity as the shrine of Maurus, had not been raised on multiple occasions. 31 From a libellus in honor of Saint Maurus, BnF, MS lat. 5344, fol. 53. See Chapter 6, 163–164, for a discussion of this document.

218

J. B. WICKSTROM

document, Charles the Bald swore, along with the bishop of Paris and the abbot of Fossés, that the latter’s possession of the relics was only temporary. They would be returned after the restoration of peace in the area. The forging of this document shortly after its emancipation suggests that the shrine at Glanfeuil was intensifying pressure on Fossés to return its relics once it had gained its freedom. Fossés had already returned an arm bone of Saint Maurus to Glanfeuil on the occasion of the rededication of the priory’s main church in 1036. In the seventeenth century, Jean Mabillon confirmed this tradition, stating that one arm bone of Maurus was still preserved at Glanfeuil in his day. Mabillon also said that the relics of the True Cross which had been given to Maurus by Benedict on his departure to France were also still housed at Glanfeuil, though he added that the ivory reliquary in which they had originally been contained had been retained by Fossés. This statement, as we will see below, was confirmed by an eighteenth-century examination of Fossés’ collection of Maurus’ relics.32 Still, Glanfeuil’s relics of its patron paled in comparison with those housed at Fossés. When Fossés was secularized in 1750, its relic collection was deposited at Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris. The objects inventoried for that transfer included two separate reliquaries: one containing a head and a tooth of Saint Maurus; a second held two more teeth and two groups of small bones.33 In addition, four richly embroidered envelopes of silk, taffeta, and canvas contained several other bones, including the radius of the right arm. A parchment in this container claimed that a small pile of nearby dust was the binding for the ivory box of relics which Benedict had given Maurus as he departed for France.34 This inventory is remarkably consistent with Mabillon’s description of Glanfeuil’s collection from a century earlier. The remains of other holy monks associated with Maurus’ mission to France were “discovered” at or near Glanfeuil in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, enhancing its status as the true shrine of Saint Maurus. In 1042, exactly 500 years from the founding of Glanfeuil (according to the chronology of Odo’s Life of Maurus), the body of Saint Romanus, Benedict’s first teacher and Maurus’ host on the journey to France was

32 Acta sanctorum OSB, 2. Saec. iv, 193. 33 Ansart, Histoire de Saint Maur, 88–89. 34 LM , 19.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

219

found near the shrine, likely in connection with the celebrations of this anniversary. Matins readings from a fourteenth-century breviary claimed that Romanus’ relics were found lying neglected in a nearby church, dishonored “from the unclean refuse of humans and animals.”35 There Saint Maurus appeared to a poor man and ordered him three times, with escalating threats, to go to Prior Cadilon of Glanfeuil and order him to remove the relics to a more suitable location.36 After initially dismissing the message, the monks began to fear the wrath of heaven and removed the bones to Glanfeuil, where they remained, working many miracles.37 This episode also suggests that a tradition may have existed in which Romanus had in fact followed Saint Maurus and his companions to Glanfeuil, as he had expressed a wish to do at the end of their visit to his hermitage in the Life of Maurus.38 Similarly, sometime before 1119, as noted above, the bodies of Constantinianus and Antonius, two of the monks who had accompanied Maurus in his original mission to France, had also been unearthed by happy chance in 1119 and displayed for the dedication of the new abbey church that year.39 So, if Glanfeuil had lost most of the remains of Maurus, it could still boast of having the bodies of Benedict’s first teacher and two of Maurus’ companions on the mission to France. Even as a dependent priory of Fossés, Glanfeuil had continued to be widely recognized as the authentic cult center of Benedict’s beloved disciple and a regional center of pilgrimage. Saint Adalbert, archbishop of Prague, had been living for a time as a hermit in a Benedictine monastery in Rome in the 990s. During his return trip to Bohemia, Adalbert visited several major shrine centers in western Francia, including Saint-Denis in Paris, Saint Martin at Tours, and Fleury. From there Adalbert travelled to Glanfeuil, where, the bishop’s biographer wrote, “the body of Benedict’s disciple had rested and where Abbot Maurus, that best of monks, ruled 35 Quoted in Landreau, “La Prieuré” 1. 189. 36 This book has disappeared, but it was copied into other manuscripts: BnF, MS lat.

12,694 fol. 178 and MS lat. 13,818, fol. 266–67. See also Landreau, “La Prieuré” 190. esp. note 1. 37 Note the similarity to the revelation to Abbot James of Cormery regarding the completion of Glanfeuil in the 830s: above, Chapter 4, 83–86. 38 LM, 32. 39 By 1300 at the latest, Glanfeuil claimed to possess an arm and a finger of Saint

Maurus, Arch. Maine et Loire, Ms. H. 1699, fol. 240.

220

J. B. WICKSTROM

over his flock, very like his master in his manifestation of holiness and the greatness of his miracles.”40 It is worth noting that Adalbert apparently did not visit Fossés, despite stopping at Paris to view the tomb of Saint Denis. This same conviction was expressed through entries in the Glanfeuil cartulary during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. They typically refer to Glanfeuil as “this place where Maurus and the monks subject to him fought for God” or as “the monastery where he happily went from his body to the Lord.”41 So, the routine language of these charters, mostly written by the monks themselves, also promoted the abbey’s identity as the true home of Maurus.

Glanfeuil and Church Reform After 1096: Alienated Property Restored Summarizing Cluny’s freedom from lordship, Gert Melville recently commented: “Liberty without protection—when used properly—offered more opportunity for expansion than did protection without liberty.”42 This conclusion could apply to Glanfeuil during its early years of emancipation from Fossés. In his decree freeing Glanfeuil, Pope Urban had stated that all lands mentioned in the Life of Maurus and in the donation of Annarowedh were rightfully the property of Glanfeuil. Any success the monks might have in reclaiming these properties the pope would recognize as legitimate. This promise and their new freedom galvanized the monks; it also helped to persuade both laymen and clerics who had acquired these lands over the centuries to restore them to the newly independent abbey. These restorations were also motivated by the long-standing demand of Western church reformers, traceable at least to the Carolingian period, to restore alienated monastic and episcopal properties to the Church. As we have seen, earlier efforts had been sporadic and local. By the mid-eleventh century they had become official Church policy and were aggressively pursued by Gregory VII and his successors, especially Urban

40 AASS. April 3, col. 194 A. 41 E.g. Cart. de S-M., 377 and 408. 42 Gert Melville, The World of Medieval Monasticism, trans. James Mixon (The Liturgical

Press, 2016), 15.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

221

II.43 Beginning in 1099, many gifts to the abbey recorded in the Glanfeuil cartulary as well as in the archives of the count of Anjou, involved the surrender of properties that had been in Glanfeuil’s possession before the abandonment of the abbey in the 860s. Of the twenty-six entries in Glanfeuil cartulary entries, from #19 through #44, no fewer than twenty, or 75%, involved the return of alienated properties. Such restitutions were occurring throughout Europe during this period and historians have analyzed the patterns of their appearance and their motivations. Susan Wood has reviewed the local studies of such gifts for various French regions as well as contributing data from her own extensive study of proprietary churches.44 She suggests that a “trickle” of such restorations in the eighth century gradually swelled to a “steady flow” by the tenth and eleventh centuries, reaching a high point in the waning years of the latter. The pattern of properties restored to Glanfeuil follows that trend closely, though a higher percentage of such gifts are recorded there during the early twelfth century than Wood found to be generally the case.45 Even so, the deeper question that Woods and others have raised concerns the motivations for these restorations. Modern historians have wondered about the actual impact of ecclesiastical reform ideas on donors, particularly the more radical program of the Gregorian reformers of the 1070s and beyond. Here Woods is hesitant to offer definite conclusions. She concludes that the Gregorian reform ideas, which she finds articulated much earlier in the eleventh and even tenth centuries, were not the sole motive for such restorations: [T]here were other factors: monasteries were flourishing (their religious prestige attracting donations, their economic wealth promoting [re]purchase of church as of other property); the laity needed ready money, not least for crusading. Relevant questions include whether there were significant changes in the proportion of church to other property [changing hands], or of sales to donations (itself a tricky business.46

43 See Urban’s decrees on these matters at the Council of Clermont in 1095, Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio, 53 vols (Florence, 1759–1798), 20, 815–19 (Decrees of the Council of Clermont, 1095). 44 Wood, Proprietary, 864–82. 45 Wood, Proprietary, 865. 46 Wood, Proprietary, 865.

222

J. B. WICKSTROM

The evidence of the Glanfeuil cartulary contributes valuable data regarding these issues. The most striking instance of a restoration made explicitly in response to ecclesiastical disapproval of lay ownership of churches involved the church of Saint-Cyr-en-bourg near Saumur, along with eight sextarii of land. In a charter dated by Marchegay between Sept 1096 and April 1097, Hugh, lord of Saumoussay (Saumur) stated that “it seems to pertain to Christian piety and genuine perfection to obey the sacred decrees of canon law and the precepts of apostolic men, by the teachings of which we [laymen] are forbidden to possess ecclesiastical property.”47 The donors added to this gift a site near the cemetery there for the purpose of building ten hospitia, likely lodgings for guests and pilgrims to Saint Maurus’ shrine. Pilgrimage to Glanfeuil increased after the abbey gained its freedom and began reasserting its status as the authentic shrine of Benedict’s disciple. The church of Saint-Cyr was an important possession: an ancient property alienated at some earlier time. It became one of the six priories of Glanfeuil still in existence in the seventeenth century. The gift, specifically directed to “the monastery of Saint Maurus where he happily left his body and went to the Lord,” again emphasized the centrality of the saint’s cult to the monastery’s identity. The monastery was “most holy owing both to its veneration of the holy confessor and to its divine celebrations.”48 This gift was made only a few months after Urban II had freed the shrine of Saint Maurus from the “tyranny” (tirannide) of the abbey of Fossés. Probably the pious donor, the Lord de Saumoussay, had either been present at that event or was otherwise informed of Roman views on lay church ownership and acted accordingly. This likelihood may account for the fact that this donation contains the only specific reference to reform ideas in the many restorations of property to Glanfeuil recorded during these years. Perhaps significantly, Lord Hugh had earlier made over the church to some of his followers, owing to its poverty and need of repair.49 Yet when he gave the church to Saint Maurus later, he stated that he did so for the salvation of the souls of departed members

47 Cart. de S-M., 373–74. 48 Cart. de S-M., 382. 49 Wood, Proprietary, 445. Donations of run-down, unwanted churches by lay lords to

monasteries were common: Mollat, “La restitution des églises privées,” 409.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

223

of his family.50 Thus, we see in this donation the complexity and even contradictions that restorations of church property often entailed. A year or two later, two laymen restored (redderent ) the church of Saint Peter at Voide (Vosda) to Saint Maurus, “assenting to the prayers and lawful petitions of the monks” who claimed that the property had been donated to the abbey by the Merovingian king Theudebald at the time of its foundation51 The monks had learned this by rereading (relegissent ) the Life of Saint Maurus. Now that Pope Urban had legitimized Saint Maurus’ right to his “ancient properties,” the monks were evidently searching Abbot Odo’s texts for evidence of these, confirming modern conclusions that early medieval hagiographies were in fact created, at least in part, to serve this very purpose. It is also instructive that the monks did not know that they had held this ancient property before they reread the Life of Maurus, in which they “discovered” (invenerunt ) this asset. This is the only record of the monks using this strategy, but it is unlikely to have been the only time it was employed. In several instances, properties were returned to Glanfeuil when lay lords themselves “discovered” that they were in possession of ancient properties of the abbey. In 1105, Abbot Ranulf of Glanfeuil had requested that the bishop of Poitiers confirm that nine churches in his diocese had been donated to Saint Maurus “by the generosity of faithful men.”52 The abbot was utilizing the decree of the 1096 Council of Clermont which exempted from episcopal authority any ecclesiastical property held thirty years or more by a monastic house.53 These were all, in reality, ancient possessions of Glanfeuil, some dating back to Merovingian times according to the Life of Maurus. In addition to the church of Saint Peter at Voide (Vosda), 50 Cart. de S-M., 382. 51 Cart. de S-M., 385–86. LM., 94 for the original grant. 52 Cart. de S-M., 367–68.

Loudon: Chapel dedicated to Holy Mary. At villa Bournon, the church of Saint Martin. Saumur: the church of Saint-Cyr. Doué: chapel of Holy Mary, Mother of God. Doué: at Verchers, the church of Saint-Just. Curtis-Gonthonis the church of Saint Hilary and Saint Martin. Vihiers at villa Fabrense and Vosda: two churches in dedicated in honor of Saint Peter. 53 Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, xx, 884 and 902. Thirty years was the limit in Roman law beyond which such claims could not be pleaded: Geary, Phantoms, 118.

224

J. B. WICKSTROM

the bishop’s charter included the churches at Faveraye, also, according to the Life of Maurus, originally donated to Glanfeuil by King Theudebald. To these properties, the bishop added several other churches and their estates which Glanfeuil had obtained after its restoration by the Rorigonids in the ninth century, notably the chapel of Saint Maurus at Loudon, the churches of Saint Mary de Vieil-doué and of Saint-Just de Vérchers, and two churches at Concourson: Saint Hilary and Saint Martin.54 On the other hand, at least fifteen other churches and chapels in the diocese of Poitiers mentioned in various lists of Glanfeuil possessions were not included in this request. Some of these are surely spurious listings; and others perhaps had been held for less than the requisite thirty years. At least two of these churches, however, clearly were ancient possessions of the abbey.55 Although this transaction indicates good relationships existed between the abbot of Glanfeuil and the bishop of Poitiers, shortly after this, the new bishop of Angers, Ulger (r.1125–1148), began an aggressive, sometimes even violent, campaign to bring monastic properties in his diocese under his authority. It is significant that Glanfeuil addressed no requests to Ulger for the return of alienated property in his diocese, although most of the abbey’s possessions lay there. Any such requests would likely have attracted the ire of the acquisitive bishop. A high point in the campaign to recover lost church lands occurred in 1124, when the pious count of Anjou, Fulk V le Jeune, visited the monastery with his son and fideles. There he gave up all of his seigneurial rights over Glanfeuil properties at Faveraye, Concourson, and Soulangé, whose ancient ownership by Glanfeuil the charter details. Count Fulk granted all this “to the monastery of Saint Maurus where the famous confessor departed to Christ” for the salvation of his own soul and those of his family. He also condemned harassment and trespasses by his officials, acknowledging the vulnerability of donations to the monastery, even in an age of increasing prosperity and stability: “[W]whatever is understood to be a gift to the churches of God should be very stable,” the

54 Cart. de S-M., 367–68. 55 Saint-Drémont (Les-trois-Moutiers, arr. Châtellerault, dept. Vienne), Saint-Pierre-de-

Verchers/(Les Verchers-sur-Layon, dept. Maine-et-Loire), Saint-Maurus-de-Loudon.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

225

Count affirmed, [but] “the greed of some men in its lust always strives to overturn what charity devoutly gives.”56 Fulk V also pledged to restrain the “groups of robbers” that he knew had seized these possessions of Glanfeuil and committed “felonies” there with impunity. The abbey appears to have taken the initiative in these matters, as the count promised to hang the prisoners already held in the abbey prison, lest the monks be polluted by the shedding of blood. Fulk’s charter is paradigmatic of the interplay of pious generosity, violent dispossession, and penitential restitution that permeated gift-giving in this period.57 Fulk V’s frankness about lawlessness and his determination to end it reflected the family tradition of piety of which he was exemplary. Caught up in the fervor of the early Crusades, in 1120 he went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where he was instrumental in founding the Knights Templar. By 1131, he had become king of Jerusalem. He also patronized the rigorous and innovative monastic life established at Frontevrault by Robert d’Arbrissel; his assurances to Glanfeuil exemplified his determination that his vassals and officials observe rules of hierarchy and deference.58 There is evidence that the counts of Anjou and other regional powers took the lead in returning alienated property to the churches and were effective in urging their followers to do likewise.59 All these initiatives argue for the effectiveness of the reformers’ demands for such action. They tend to show, in particular, that the Peace of God and other such movements on behalf of the advancement of peace were heeded by at least some lay rulers.60 A striking anecdotal example of this is the perception of Maurus’ shrine as an oasis of peace and security by the early twelfth century: in those years, at least one Angevin lord, the

56 Cart. de S-M., 411–12. 57 Jean-Marc Bienvenue, “Pauvreté, misères et charité, en Anjou aux

xie et xiie siecles,” Le Moyen Age, 73 (1967): 5–34; 189–216 emphasize the violence and instability which characterized eleventh-and-twelfth century Anjou, supposedly by this time having achieved a degree of stability. 58 Joseph Chartrou-Charbonnel, L’Anjou de 1109 à 1151: Foulque de Jérusalem et Geoffroi Plantagenet (Paris, 1928), 163. 59 Mollat, “La restitution des églises privées,” 409. 60 Wood, Proprietary Church, 452.

226

J. B. WICKSTROM

ailing Ansaldus de Blazon, who needed to “flee the wars,” took refuge there, along with his son and servants.61 The abbey did not depend entirely on voluntary surrender of its claimed lost properties. Glanfeuil’s cartulary records numerous lawsuits between the abbey and individuals who held those lands claimed by Glanfeuil as “ancient possessions.” These suits were initiated by the abbot and were settled, in Glanfeuil’s records at least, in favor of the abbey in both lay and ecclesiastical courts.62 By 1100 some of Glanfeuil’s restored properties had become significant income-producing assets in the abbey’s growing economy. Its possessions at Bessé, Hispaniis (Epennes), Lambré and Saint Dremont, were all held as familiae de s. Mauri and were managed, as we have seen, by majores appointed by the abbey.63 During the later eleventh and twelfth centuries, Glanfeuil is mentioned repeatedly as interacting with the major houses of the region: Saint-Aubin, Saint Nicholas, Saint-Serge at Angers, and SaintFlorent-le-Vieil. Its expanding regional standing was certainly the result of the expansion of Glanfeuil’s landed assets. By no means were all of the donations to Saint Maurus’ shrine in this period of growth earlier properties returned by laymen. Two charters from 1120 and two from 1140 mention donations of property by four knights who were about to be clothed as monks of the Glanfeuil community: two younger men and two older candidates.64 Given the selective nature of the cartulary, it is likely that the actual number of such donors was larger. In his emancipation decree, Pope Urban had expressed the hope that a free Glanfeuil would attract more monks, and this aspiration appears to have borne some fruit. Not only knights, but members of the higher aristocracy entered the house in its post-emancipation years.65 One of these, living in the priory of Concourson, was cousin to Bouchard de Velu (Pilosus), lord of Vihiers castle, “both illustrious and of distinguished birth.”66

61 Cart. de S-M., 389. 62 Cart. de S-M., 392–96, 398–401, 409–10. 63 See above, Chapter 7, 186. 64 Cart. de S-M., 396–99, 397–401. 65 Cart. de S-M., 396–97. 66 Landreau, “L’abbaye de Saint Maur de Glanfeuil”, 1. 197.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

227

Historians have noticed that the large gifts given by Carolingian kings and the local counts who succeeded them were being replaced by the twelfth century with smaller but more numerous gifts, many from lesser folk.67 Glanfeuil, as well as other houses, adapted to these changes creatively. Its cartulary described one set of such smaller grants and their cumulative impact. An entry dated to 1144 described the foundation of a new priory at Coural, created by consolidating a number of small donations obtained over time.68 Initially, a certain Vaslot Aglicios, a nobleman “inspired by his love of God” and with the consent of his spouse and sons, donated to Glanfeuil a small domain called Coural with its meadow, streams, and fields, as well as some forest, so that the monks could build a church there. Several years later, his son and heir, Sigbran, took the habit at Glanfeuil as he was approaching death and added six parcels of land to his father’s gift. Later, Sigbran’s brother, in the same circumstances, added three more. Another couple added two parcels and a certain Radegund, when taking the habit of a nun, added six more, as well as a building site for a house, along with a park, a meadow, and a garden. This property was adjacent to a meadow which already belonged to the monastery. Another couple gave additional land which was soon exchanged for property belonging to Saint-Florent de Saumur that bordered on the site planned for the new priory. In addition to all this, 12 other donors gave, at different times, additional meadows, vineyards, and rents in the vicinity.69 Several of these gifts were accepted with great ceremony, with many from the local community attending the presentations. Several of the parcels that made up the new priory were held in fee of various local lords, who often gave up their rights at the request of the abbot. Most prominent among these was Geoffrey Chariu. He did not wish, he stated, to stand in the way of this act of charity, so he not only allowed the donations but added his own. Abbot Ranulf later visited him when he was ailing and obtained a formal confirmation of these grants. Lord Geoffrey in turn warned his son not to trouble the monks regarding these properties, even if obligations with regard to them had not been promptly remitted. 67 Bouchard, Sword, Miter, and Cloister, 173–74, 189. 68 Cart. de S-M., 398–40. 69 Although the charter has a single date, the structure of the multiple grants, with an introduction to the donor and a list of witnesses for each, suggests a series of gifts given over an extended period.

228

J. B. WICKSTROM

After several years, the priory of Coural was constructed on the land acquired by these many small donations and consolidated over a generation. It is an unusual record of how a small but well-managed monastery could still extend its reach, even when the era of large donations from kings and magnates had largely ended. It is also an example of the generosity and loyalty of a score of less affluent neighbors over time, whose contributions inspired a paean of praise from the monks: In the face of the rising evil of this age, that most laudable of virtues, charity, is yet not dead but rules in the hearts of good men. It is like the sun whose blazing, because it is hidden by clouds, cannot be seen on earth but nonetheless shines forth in the heavens.70

New Church, New Liturgies for Maurus The Glanfeuil community responded to all this evidence of God’s blessings by erecting a grand new church.71 From this new temple, a creative blending of innovative and traditional architecture, prayers of gratitude to God, and petitions for patrons and pilgrims would rise continually and now in a worthy setting. Glanfeuil’s main church, built by Count Rorigo in the 830s, had been remodeled in 1036, as we have seen; that project was likely much more modest than this undertaking, which continued through the mid-twelfth century. It represented a major investment of labor and capital as well as an artistic achievement equal to the best work undertaken in the Loire valley. Pope Callixtus II’s dedication of this monumental new church in September of 1119 was surely one of the great events in the abbey’s long history. Travelling north to a church council at Reims, the pope had in his train several bishops and cardinals. A solemn procession to a new church with the abbey’s chief relics displayed normally marked a climax 70 Cart. de S-M., 398. 71 According to the conventional monastic understanding of the divine economy was

that material prosperity followed on the practice of virtue. The enrichment of divine worship was the appropriate response: the gold, silver and precious stones of the church, which wealth created, enriched the worship of God that occurred there. Moreover, the beauty of material religious objects brought worshippers to an appreciation of the spiritual beauty of the God that they reflected: Sugar, Abbot of Saint Denis, Abbot Sugar on the Abbey Church of St-Denis and Its Art Treasures, ed. and trans. Edwin Panofsky (Princeton UP., 2nd ed. 1979), 12–14, 24, and “De consecratione ecclesiae,” 83–121.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

229

to such rededication ceremonies. This presented a problem at Glanfeuil because the bones of Maurus had never been returned from Fossés. The abbey instead substituted the recently discovered remains of Constantinianus and Antonius, two of Maurus’ companions on the journey to France who, according to the Life of Maurus, had died and been buried at the newly constructed abbey. As we have seen, Maurus’ saintly companions’ relics were “discovered” just in time for this ceremony.72 Once these two saints had served their purpose in the dedicatory procession into the new church, they were apparently discarded. In 1702, the prior of Glanfeuil wrote to Mabillon: “We have neither any inscription or indication about the bodies of Antonius and Constantinianus. We don’t know where they are or where Pope Callixtus moved them, and we keep no feast for them.”73 The rebuilding of the abbey church at Glanfeuil in the late eleventh and early twelfth century elevated the abbey to the stature of a major regional institution, providing it with a central structure befitting its distinguished history and current prosperity. Moreover, the mixture of traditional monastic architecture from the Loire with “Gothic” inventions rooted in part in the abbey’s deep connections with Fossés. The new church, now sadly in fragments, displayed an architectural aesthetic at once forward looking yet conservatively monastic.74 It also revealed the talent that the abbey was able to enlist in its projects. A New Liturgy for Saint Maurus The primary purpose of rebuilding Glanfeuil’s new abbey church was to provide a more splendid environment for the celebration of the monastic liturgies, particularly the Divine Office, which was, in the words of Benedict’s Rule, the Opus Dei, the “work of God’, before which “nothing 72 HT , 5. MGH., SS. 34: 527. There are errors in Peter the Deacon’s account in the Cass. Chron., written several years later. The abbot of Glanfeuil in 1119 could not have been Girard, as the Chronicle asserted, since he was no longer alive after 1105. Rather a certain Ranulf was abbot of Glanfeuil from at least 1105 until 1123, Jarousseau, “Le Cartulaire,” 65–66. Peter the Deacon probably did not know the name of Glanfeuil’s abbot in 1119, so he borrowed the name of the abbot ruling at the time of Glanfeuil’s emancipation, to whom the famous bull of Urban II of 1096 was addressed, a document with which Peter was intimately familiar. 73 Landreau, “Deux histoires manuscrits de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur,” Revue de l’Anjou, 54/2 (1907): 466. 74 Mallet, L’art roman, 174.

230

J. B. WICKSTROM

should be preferred.”75 As a reformer promoting the adoption of the Rule of Benedict, Abbot Odo was particularly concerned to highlight the centrality of the Divine Office. At one point he asserted that devotion to the celebration of the Divine Office was the core of monastic reform.76 Odo wrote that, as a young monk, Maurus kept vigil for hours before the Night Office and prayed during the intervals between the other Hours, thereby integrating the liturgy with his personal prayer and other duties.77 The liturgical calendar structured the journey to France: Odo has the party depart on the day before Septuagesima, the first day of the pre-Lenten observance and arrive at the monastery of Saint Romanus during the Easter Triduum, where Maurus would witness the passing of Saint Benedict and inherit the Master’s authority. At their very first stop, while Maurus and his fellow missionaries were saying the Night Office, messengers from Benedict arrived, carrying additional relics for the journey. Despite his joy at the unexpected appearance of brother monks, Maurus permitted no discussion until the end of Lauds the next morning. By inserting this detail in the opening scene of the journey, Odo makes clear that not even this long and arduous journey relieved the monks from praying the eight daily Offices prescribed in the Rule. Several of the miracles Maurus performed on the journey from Montecassino to France and later at Glanfeuil occurred during the celebration of the Offices. After a blind man was cured by Maurus at Agaunum, he began chanting the Canticle of the Three Children, a central text for Lauds on Sunday and feast days; Odo’s text here compared the morning light of the world in the Office canticle with the restoration of light to the formerly blind man. The man explained that he had learned the Office texts over the years he had spent awaiting a cure in the courtyard of the church at Agaunum, possibly a reference to the laus perennis that was practiced there.78 Maurus’ cure of the widow’s son occurred “when the time for the morning Office was approaching” because her lamentations were distracting the monks as they prepared to celebrate Lauds in the adjoining 75 RB 1980, 202. 76 HT , 21. 77 LM , 8. 78 LM , 25. Laus perennis was a round-the-clock celebration of the Offices: Laurent

Ripart, “De Lérins à Agaune: le monachisme rhodanien reconsidéré,” Monachesimi d’Oriente e “d’Occidente nell’Alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 2017), 182–84.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

231

church.79 Afterwards, Maurus returned to the church to celebrate the delayed liturgy with his companions. A related miracle, the revival of a dying boy, another daunting task, occurred only after Maurus had ordered Simplicius, his ordained companion, to celebrate Mass, suggesting that the power of the liturgy was needed to strengthen Maurus for this major effort.80 The final episode before arriving at the site of Glanfeuil contained the story of the meeting between Maurus and Saint Romanus, during which Maurus saw in a vision the death and heavenly ascent of Saint Benedict. The events occurred within the liturgies of the Triduum, which are described in some detail. The first building Maurus had constructed at Glanfeuil was a chapel to Saint Martin so that the monks should have a “house of prayer” for the performance of the Divine Office (“that nothing should be preferred to the Work of God”).81 Much later, shortly before Maurus’ death, he cast out a demon that was harassing him. The devil’s departure made such a huge noise that the monks, roused from their slumbers by the din, rang the abbey bell and gathered to chant the Night Office, a protective reaction that occurred on other occasions as well.82 On other occasions, the monks chanted liturgical texts against human enemies that were threatening their lives or possessions.83 Liturgical themes were also prominent in Odo’s account of the rebuilding of Glanfeuil by Count Rorigo in the early ninth century. Odo began this narrative by claiming that although the lay abbot, Count Gaidulf, was ruining the abbey in the 750s, he allowed a few clerics to remain “to maintain some sort of divine liturgy before the relics of the holy man [Maurus].”84 Odo’s message here appears to be that, even if the Rule should not be kept in its integrity, the Office must go on. He is also assuring his readers that the core element of the Rule was maintained throughout the history of the cult. Much later in the Historia,

79 LM , 27. 80 LM , 28. 81 LM , 42. 82 LM , 64. 83 HT , 25, 32. 84 HT , 8.

232

J. B. WICKSTROM

Odo praised Abbot Gauzlin as the best of Glanfeuil’s abbots because “he appeared second to none as regards devotion to divine worship.”85 Odo’s most striking references to the liturgy at Glanfeuil occur in his account of a vision granted to the Breton pilgrim, Annowaredh, in 842. As we noted earlier, the pilgrim had entered the church and as the cantor was intoning the first antiphon for Sunday Vespers, He saw an angel enter, followed by St Maurus, dressed in the robes of a deacon “with the holy stole properly draped” in accord with proper liturgical protocol. Maurus then presented the angel with the prayers of the community, which the latter then delivered to the throne of God. Maurus then turned to the pilgrim and said, “Often do I come here and accomplish such things” and disappeared.86 This miracle informed potential patrons that it was the celebration of the liturgy that allowed Maurus to present the community’s prayers for its donors and patrons to the angel of God, who carried them to the divine throne. Odo recounted a similar miracle on the feast of the Holy Innocents, during the rule of Abbot Gauzlin. The abbot was reciting the twelfth lesson towards the end of the Night Office “as was the custom in monastic communities,” when suddenly “all the brothers heard voices resounding with song of prodigious and indescribable sweetness” in the chapel of Saint Martin where the body of Blessed Maurus lay. Nonetheless, the abbot continued reading the lesson to the end before going to investigate (“Let nothing be preferred to the Work of God.”). Two brothers were then sent to investigate and reported that the church where Saint Maurus rested was filled with light and music, as angels sang Matins along with the monks. This sort of heavenly scene was, Odo assures the reader, frequently reported thereafter.87

The Glanfeuil Antiphoner: Re-imagining Maurus in the Liturgy The survival of a complete, neumed antiphoner has made possible a detailed analysis of the liturgical life of Glanfeuil and of Maurus’ identity

85 HT , 21. 86 HT , 26. 87 HT , 141.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

233

as a ritualized figure. Laura Mancia has nicely summarized the historical value of liturgical evidence: Liturgy was a tool for broadcasting monastic identity both to a public (in the mass) and to its own community (in both the mass and the office). The most unique character of a monastery is often found in the divine office: in antiphons, responsories, readings for Matins, hymns, or lessons for particular feasts. In the mass, the communion offertory, chant introits, tropes, and sequences are often the most expressive of idiosyncratic (or, at least, regional) identity.88

Compiled in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, the Glanfeuil antiphoner contains the “propers”: special texts for both the daily Office and Mass.89 This antiphoner was for centuries thought to be a product of Fossés, where it was housed until the seventeenth century, I have elsewhere confirmed the suspicions of earlier scholars that this antiphoner originated at Glanfeuil.90 A similar codex from Fossés has also survived, from which the Glanfeuil manuscript likely derives.91 Just before or after its emancipation from Fossés, Glanfeuil evidently felt the need for liturgical books proper to the abbey; so, it appears to have borrowed the Fossés antiphoner and adapted it to its own needs.92 The Fosses antiphoner could have been composed at any time after the publication of Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus, since the office for Saint Maurus on January 15th consists almost entirely of material adapted from the Life of Maurus. However, it most likely originated in the famous liturgical workshop of Fossés in the first half of the eleventh century, when many new “proper” Offices were being composed, and Fossés was promoting the veneration of Maurus as its major patron. The Fossés antiphoner was being disseminated by the mid-eleventh century: proper

88 Lauren Mancia, “Sources for Monasticism in the Long Twelfth Century,” CHMM,

679. 89 BnF, MS lat. 12854. 90 John B. Wickstrom, “Reassigning an eleventh-century monastic antiphoner: from

Fossés to Glanfeuil” (Paris BNF MS lat. 12584), Manuscripta, 60/1 (2016): 73–92. 91 BnF, MS lat. 12044. 92 The Glanfeuil antiphoner seems to have been returned to Fossés sometime later and

revised to reflect current Fossés usages, but never returned to Glanfeuil.

234

J. B. WICKSTROM

Offices of St Maurus based on it began to appear at Monte Cassino at that time.93 The Glanfeuil antiphoner is a less elegant book than the Fossés exemplar; in particular, its illustrations, which often imitate those of the Fossés antiphoner, are far less refined. This difference makes clear the great disparity in the talent available in the large and illustrious Parisian abbey as compared with the small rural priory of Saint Maurus with its fewer than 40 inhabitants. Textual variants between the two antiphoners provide valuable insights into the different liturgical identities of Glanfeuil and Fossés. At Fossés, as an example, the feast of Saint Benedict, prescribed for July 11th , which commemorated the translatio of his relics to Fleury, was celebrated with much more solemnity than that of his dies natalis on March 21st . This usage was likely retained at Fossés in part owing to its long and close relationship with Fleury. Glanfeuil on the other hand followed a newer usage, solemnly celebrating Benedict’s transitus (death day) on March 21st . This choice may have reflected the developing affinity between Montecassino and Glanfeuil at a time when the Italian abbey was disputing the claims of Fleury to possess the bones of Benedict. The latter feast also centered on the death and ascent of Benedict, which was, in the Glanfeuil tradition based on Odo’s work, the vehicle for a transfer of leadership from Benedict to his disciple. A parallel dissimilarity can be found in the liturgy of Peter and Paul’s feast(s) on 29/30 June. At Fossés, both apostles were commemorated together on the 29th , following Roman usage. Glanfeuil, on the other hand, retained the ancient Gallic custom of giving Peter his own feast on July 29th , with a commemoratio of Saint Paul on the day following. Saint Peter had special significance for Glanfeuil: the largest church of the original abbey, according to the Life of Maurus, where the monks gathered to celebrate the Office, was dedicated to Peter.94 Moreover, Maurus’ famous rescue of Placid depicted him as a second Peter; not only for his ability to walk on water but also as the successor of the Master Benedict; Odo claimed that relics of Saint Peter were discovered along with those of Saint Maurus by Abbot Gauzlin in 845. At Glanfeuil, the feast of Peter had both a full vigil Mass and an octave, which were limited to

93 See below, Chapter 9, 277–80. 94 LM , 46.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

235

the most solemn celebrations.95 A large, decorated initial in green, brown, and gold adorns the introit incipit of Saint Peter’s Mass, one of the few such illuminations in the Mass texts of the manuscript.96 Another feast of high rank in the Glanfeuil antiphoner was that of Saint Maurice and the Theban legion. Observed on September 22nd, the martyrs’ Office has proper antiphons for First Vespers (almost never a part of this antiphoner’s Offices), introduced by a large, intricately decorated initial. The rubrics, outlined in red, are filled in with green ink.97 The presence of First Vespers antiphons and these design elements indicate a highly privileged feast, outranked by only the most solemn celebrations. As we have seen, Maurus’ cure of the blind man at the shrine of the Theban martyrs at Agaunum was one of the highlights of the journey to France, and this miracle is given similar prominence in the Glanfeuil antiphoner. All five antiphons of Lauds ad psalmos were borrowed from Odo’s narrative of this event in the Life of Maurus. Especially evocative of the Aguanum cure is the fourth antiphon of Lauds and its Canticle of the Three Children ( Dan 3: 47–88). This was the text that the blind man had chanted after his cure, which would be recalled at this point every year in the liturgy at the shrine of Maurus.98 The prominence of this cult in Odo’s Life of Maurus and its high-ranking liturgical celebration provides additional confirmation that the cult of the Theban Legion was intimately involved in Glanfeuil’s history and identity. But the state of the evidence precludes certainty regarding what that significance might have been.99 Beyond these individual feasts, one saintly category was also given special status in the Glanfeuil antiphoner: that of holy deacons, the clerical rank to which Maurus belonged, according to Odo’s accounts. Three ancient deacons, Stephen, Laurence, and Vincent each have full Offices and other evidence of special veneration at Glanfeuil. The first of these, Stephen the Protomartyr, was the most famous.100 His relics were among those Maurus had received from Benedict on his departure to France. In addition, the August 2nd feast of the Invention of 95 BnF, MS lat. 12,584, fol. 186r. 96 BnF, MS lat. 12,584, fol. 187r. 97 BnF, MS lat. 2584, fol. 327r. 98 LM , 25. 99 See above, Chapter 5, 115–16, for connections between the two cults. 100 BnF, MS lat. 12,584, fols. 230v–231v.

236

J. B. WICKSTROM

Saint Stephen, which commemorated the discovery of his relics outside Jerusalem, although a recent import to France, was observed with great solemnity at Glanfeuil.101 The feast may have been connected to the discovery or “invention” of the relics of Saint Stephen next to those of Maurus by Abbot Gauzlin in 845, a major event in establishing the identity of Maurus. Not only does a lavishly historiated initial decorate the first responsory of the Night Office, the usual place for illustrated initials, but unusually, a second, matching illustration was placed at the opening of First Vespers. An elaborately notated Office follows. Significantly, in the Glanfeuil antiphoner the feast of Saint Stephon on December 26th, celebrated most places as his chief remembrance-day, was less elaborately decorated in the Glanfeuil antiphonary than the August feast of his relics’ discovery. Similarly, the feast of St Laurence, the second most illustrious early Christian deacon, is given the unusual title of “archdeacon” in the Glanfeuil antiphoner. The presence of a vigil Office shows the high rank of this celebration at Glanfeuil. His full Office has, like that of Saint Stephen’s Invention, decorated initials at First Vespers as well as at the first responsory of the Night Office, another sign of high liturgical rank.102 The deacon whose feast is most prominently featured in the liturgy of the shrine of Maurus, however, was that of the Spanish martyr, Saint Vincent of Saragossa (died 304). His cult was widely adopted in the West as one of only a handful of northern martyrs and the only one from Spain.103 Vincent is here given the title of levita, the term most often used by Odo to describe Maurus’ diaconal status. The introit of his Mass opens with the large elaborate initial reserved for saints of higher rank in this manuscript, but it is the decoration of his Office texts that is of special interest.104 At the Night Office a full-body illustration of Saint Vincent, with his deacon’s stole prominently displayed, is entwined with the initial “s” of the first responsory of the Night Office. His arms are raised, representing the reception of instructions. In the margin is a line-drawing of a haloed episcopal figure, raising his left hand in a gesture of instruction or blessing. The versicle for the adjacent Responsory reads: “outstanding

101 BnF, MS lat. 12,584, fols. 312v–315r. 102 BnF, MS lat. 12,584, fols. 315r–317v. 103 Bouchard, Rewriting, 217–18. 104 BnF, MS lat. 12,584, fol. 251r.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

237

moreover in holiness, and having received the stole of a deacon, he carried out the duties of the bishop with diligence.” This would be Vincent’s bishop and teacher, Saint Valerius of Saragossa. Vitae of Stephen compiled between the fifth and seventh centuries explain that his bishop appointed Vincent to preach in his stead, leaving the holy prelate more time for contemplative prayer.105 Is the hearer perhaps expected to make parallels here with Benedict instructing his pupil, Maurus, another holy deacon, at Montecassino? The prominence of these three deacons’ feasts in the Glanfeuil antiphoner testifies not only to the centrality of Maurus’ possession of this rank but to its probable antiquity. The conservative nature of liturgical texts and the high ranks of these feasts tend to support other evidence that the veneration of Maurus as a deacon was an established Glanfeuil tradition rather than being invented by Abbot Gauzlin or Ebroin.106

The Liturgical Identity of Saint Maurus The feast of Saint Maurus (January 15th ) was the major sanctoral celebration of the Glanfeuil community. The decoration of its Office texts is, accordingly, the richest in the Glanfeuil antiphoner. The red pigment used for majuscule initials throughout the manuscript is here supplemented with half-fillings of green and blue; minuscule texts are treated similarly. The aesthetic is reminiscent of Irish Gospel books, a feature shared with the near-contemporary architecture of the new abbey church. A large and colorful “P” opens the first responsory of Matins, similar in design to incipits of other high-ranking Offices in this manuscript. If it is less elaborate than some others, its style and the pigments of red, blue, and green with Celtic-style interlacing create a page of rich and harmonious proportions (Fig. 8.1). A similarly well-integrated, illustrated “O,” which also exhibits Irish elements, appears at an unusual point: at the opening antiphon of Lauds. No decorated initials of such complexity and artistry appear elsewhere in the manuscript, nor is the Office of Saint Maurus similarly decorated in the antiphoner’s probable source, the antiphoner of Fossés. Indeed, the

105 See Victor Saxer, Saint Vincent diacre et martyr: culte et légendes avant l’An Mil (Brussels, 2002), 38. 106 See Chapter 2, 27–28.

238

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fig. 8.1 Glanfeuil antiphonary page (Courtesy Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. lat. 12,584, fol. 245r)

lavish decoration of the Office of Saint Maurus is the primary evidence that BnF, MS lat. 12584 was produced at Glanfeuil.107 The proper texts of the Office consist mostly of excerpts from Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus, either quoted verbatim or paraphrased. The Office therefore could have been composed any time after the late 860s, however it was likely composed sometime in the eleventh century at Fosses, during the religious and literary revival of that abbey, some time before the Glanfeuil antiphoner was compiled. The eleventh century was a period of extensive composition of liturgical Offices proper to both local and universally venerated saints. Variants of the Office of Maurus also began to appear in France, Italy, and England towards the end of the eleventh century and in the early twelfth, as we shall see. The Glanfeuil antiphoner contains no antiphons ad psalmos for First Vespers on Saint Maurus’ day. The absence of these does not necessarily

107 Decorated “O” at Bnf ms. lat. 12584, fol. 246v. For a fuller discussion, see Wick-

strom, “Reassigning,” 84–85. The Office of Saint Babolenus in the Glanfeuil manuscript is not specially decorated; the Office of Maurus in the Fossés antiphonary is similarly modest in its illustration, while the Office of Babolenus is the most elegantly decorated of all the Offices included there, paralleling the presentation of the Office of Maurus in the Glanfeuil manuscript.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

239

indicate a lesser-ranked feast. Several major celebrations, such as Pentecost and both feasts of Saint Benedict also lacked antiphons for First Vespers.108 (The antiphons ad psalmos of Lauds were often used at First Vespers without rubrical indications). The 12 Matins antiphons form a flowing, chronologically ordered meditation on Maurus’ life and miracles taken from Odo’s Life of Maurus. The first six recall Maurus’ maturation as Benedict’s novice at Montecassino while antiphons seven through eleven are extended reflections on his first miracles at Montecassino: his rescue of Placid (antiphons seven and nine) and his cure of the lame and blind boy (antiphons ten and eleven). All the Matins antiphons focus on the Cassinese period of Maurus’ life. This theme is summed up in antiphon 12, which quotes Benedict’s blessing of Maurus at his departure, drawn from Odo’s Life: “Now, have courage. As you are happy in departing, so you will be even happier in your arrival.”109 The remainder of Maurus’ life and miracles form the subjects of the later texts of this Office. Similarly, the 12 responsories for the Matins lessons begin with glosses on Maurus’ life at Montecassino: echoing material from the antiphons was a common characteristic of medieval Matins responsories.110 Beginning with responsory six, however, the responsories refer to his career after leaving Montecassino: from the journey to France, until his death as the venerable abbot of Glanfeuil. Taken as a whole, the Matins texts of the Glanfeuil antiphoner exhibit some clear characteristics: most notably an emphasis on the relationship of Maurus as Benedict’s disciple at Montecassino: all 12 of the Matins antiphons and five of the 12 Matins responsories reflect on this period of apprenticeship. There is also a focus on a few events rather than any attempt to summarize Odo’s biography; indeed, several texts trope the same event. The texts of Lauds are liturgically unusual: the five antiphons ad psalmos all refer to the cure of the blind man at the shrine of Saint Maurice 108 The antiphoner of Fossés usually contains four antiphons ad psalmos for First

Vespers, but they are generic texts used widely for feasts of Confessors. This suggests that the four proper antiphons for First Vespers were added when Maurus’ Office was raised to the first rank at Fossés. 109 LM , 20. 110 Ruth Steiner, “The Music for a Cluny Office of Saint Benedict” in Ruth Steiner,

Studies in Gregorian Chant, Variorum Collected Studies (#651), 84.

240

J. B. WICKSTROM

at Agaune, additional confirmation of the importance that the cult of Saint Maurice held for the shrine of Saint Maurus. The antiphon at the Benedictus, on the other hand, brings up quite a different event: Maurus’ vision of the ascent of Benedict upon his death: “Blessed Maurus, taken up in the spirit, perceived the road covered with pallia, and innumerable blazing lights, by which the beloved of the Lord, Benedict, rose up to heaven.” This is skillfully composed text, recalling, at the midpoint of the liturgy, the moment at which authority passed from Benedict to his pupil Maurus, which Odo positioned at the midpoint of Maurus’ career. The Glanfeuil antiphoner also lacks antiphons ad psalmos for Second Vespers of Saint Maurus, likely employing the antiphons from Lauds, as was the usual liturgical custom.111 The remaining material of Second Vespers displays the only significant variations in the texts between the Glanfeuil antiphoner and its exemplar from Fossés. For the Short Responsory after the capitulum for Second Vespers, the Glanfeuil verse-text praises Maurus as “most illustrious leader of monks” (clarissime dux monachorum), a liturgical title previously reserved for Saint Benedict.112 The parallel Fosses responsory text focusses on Benedict, venerating him as “our patron.”113 Thus, in the closing texts of the Office for Maurus, the Fossés text reaffirmed its ancient veneration of Benedict, while Glanfeuil, deriving its identity from Saint Maurus, transfers to him the venerable title of dux monachorum.114 Finally, we should note what this Office omits. There is no mention of the central role of pious nobles and rulers in Glanfeuil’s foundation, 111 Fosse’s contemporary antiphoner, 12044, the model for Glanfeuil’s, does supply four proper antiphons for Second Vespers. These were selected from the antiphons at Matins. This unusual procedure suggests that, after the Office was initially composed, there was a desire to have proper antiphons ad psalmos for Second Vespers, perhaps as the rank of the feast of Maurus rose, so perhaps as an interim solution, antiphons from Matins were re-used at Second Vespers. 112 For Benedict as monachorum pater et dux: BnF MS lat. 12584, fol. 263r (Matins Response 8); For Maurus, BnF MS lat. 12,584, fol. 246v. 113 See above, note 74. 114 The original Glanfeuil antiphoner (BnF 12584) does not contain lectionary material;

however, a contemporary manuscript, BnF MS lat. 5344, almost surely from Glanfeuil as well, does contain selections from Life of Maurus, divided into twelve lessons (fols. 1–29). The lessons contain the same or similar texts to the Responsories through Resp/lesson 5. They do not correspond in content from Resp 6 through 12 but follow different themes. From this it seems likely that the lessons and Responsories were only loosely connected or that an attempt to relate them was abandoned after the first nocturn.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

241

maintenance, or governance. Count Harderadus, Count Florus, his son Abbot Bertulf, King Theudebert and his sons are passed over in silence. These were themes that were perhaps considered best left unmentioned in this eleventh-century age of monastic unease about the role of the laity in monastic life and saintliness.

Liturgical Processions in Honor of Maurus One of the Glanfeuil antiphoner’s most unusual features is a separate section devoted to texts for monastic processions.115 Processions are poorly documented until the later Middle Ages. Processional texts were usually scattered in various liturgical books or memorized. Glanfeuil’s special section devoted to such texts is one of the earliest of such collections. Processions, both within the enclosure and beyond, were a distinctive feature of monastic life. In most houses, they occurred daily, usually in connection with the Office of Tierce, which preceded the magna missa, or main community Mass. At a minimum, on Sundays, the entire community, chanting antiphons and psalm verses, made a circuit around the shrines and altars of the nave, especially the area containing the relics of the monastery’s patron saint(s).116 Two charters from Glanfeuil, dating from 1090 and so contemporary with this antiphoner, record that the monks processed “with suitable splendor” from the abbey on Rogation Days, together with folk from the neighborhood. The procession moved from the abbey gates to a small chapel dedicated to the Virgin Mary on the Île de Saint-Maur, a spit of land jutting into the Loire 600 feet below the abbey.117 In the Historia translationis , Odo testified that, at Fossés, Maurus’ relics were covered with a rich cloth donated by Charles the Bald on unspecified “procession days” as well as on “all other solemn feasts.”118 The Glanfeuil antiphoner contains no texts for a procession to Maurus, although such events would surely have occurred regularly at his shrine. The processional texts in this manuscript were limited to the major feasts 115 MS 12584, fols. 373r–378r. 116 John Howe, Before the Gregorian Reform (Cornell UP.), 167–71. 117 Cart. de S-M , 387. For the Île de Saint-Maur, Guillot, Le comte d’Anjou, ii, 227. 118 HT, 41.

242

J. B. WICKSTROM

of the temporale: (Christmas, Easter, etc.)119 We know that, by the end of the eleventh century at Montecassino and at associated Beneventan houses, processions in honor of Saint Maurus were prescribed for every Sunday.120 At Montecassino, a shrine to Maurus lay beyond the church where the Office was performed to which the community regularly processed.121 Recent scholarship has suggested that the texts for processions were usually borrowed from the texts of the Office and Mass for that day, particularly from Matins, likely in order to tie the para-liturgical processions to the proper liturgy of the day.122 The texts were chosen in community chapter meetings in advance, and there is evidence that the cantors, at least in a later period, were required to have memorized the day’s texts. These circumstances would account for the absence of specialized books and texts for processions.123 The texts used for the processions to Maurus at Montecassino and Benventum in the twelfth century were likely similar to Glanfeuil’s undocumented usage. Montecassino MS 542 and Benventum MS 19 contain six shared antiphons, with MS. Beneventum 19 adding a seventh, rubricated for use on processions to Maurus; all were borrowed from liturgical texts that were also in use at Glanfeuil. Fittingly for processions, these texts emphasized the veneration of Maurus and requests for his intercession rather than reflections on his life or miracles. So, while the small monastery of Glanfeuil likely owed its rich trove of liturgical texts and music to its connection to the illustrious workshop of eleventh-century Fossés, it developed its own liturgical materials and rituals that emphasized its unique status as the genuine shrine of Saint 119 That processions to the saints were in fact common at Glanfeuil is established by the three antiphons preceding the Mass of the Purification of the Virgin in BnF, MS lat. 12584, fols. 136r–136v. Monastic processions in honor of this feast were probably the most common of all such occasions. The three antiphons (Ave gratia plena; Adorna thalamum; Responsum accepit ) were those most widely used for processions on this day; see CANTUS database under these titles, and Terence Bailey, The Processions of Sarum and the Western Church (Toronto, PIMS, 1971), 165. 120 Montecassino MS 542 and Beneventum MS 19. Texts printed in Thomas Kelly, The Ordinal of Montecassino and Beneventum: breviarium sive ordo officiorum, eleventh century (Fribourg, 2008), 327–28. 121 See Chapter 9 below, 252. The final antiphon in this procession was intoned ad portas ecclesiae. 122 Bailey, Processions, 27. 123 Bailey, Processions, 79–80.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

243

Maurus. Moreover, it subtly articulated in its liturgical calendar and texts an independence from Fossés traditions, likely some decades before its actual emancipation by Pope Urban II in 1096.

The Cult of Maurus Moves Across the West Beginning in the early decades of the tenth century, the cult of Maurus begin spreading, probably informally through complex networks that linked monastic houses, so attempts to trace this expansion with precision are unlikely to succeed. In 1965, Réginald Grégoire undertook to identify the points at which the veneration of Saint Benedict, Saint Scholastica, and Maurus first appeared in over 200 missals, mainly from France from the eighth through the twelfth century. Grégoire also included a few Belgian, Italian, German, and English sources.124 To these, the present study has reviewed approximately 200 additional manuscript citations. These sources indicate that, during the ninth century, veneration of Maurus was restricted to Glanfeuil and Fossés. In the mid-tenth century, five manuscripts from elsewhere include his name in some liturgical context (Chartres, Tours, Angers, Cluny, and Montecassino). The cult’s expansion began to accelerate in the eleventh century, with twenty-six additional houses celebrating his memory in some fashion. This rate was maintained through the twelfth century, with twenty-four additional houses mentioning Maurus in their liturgies. These numbers give only the roughest indication of the level and types of veneration of Maurus. For example, we know that the cult of Maurus was an integral part of Cassinese worship by the late eleventh century, but one of three Montecassino missals examined from that century omits him altogether. Similarly, an early twelfth-century Cassinese breviary mentioned Maurus in its litany of the Saints, but its calendar did not include his feast.125 The earliest evidence of the veneration of Maurus beyond Glanfeuil and Fossés comes from a lectionary of Cluny during the abbacy of Saint Odo (927–942), which contains readings from Odo’s Life of Maurus. There is a full Office and Mass texts in honor of Saint Maurus from Cluny from the early eleventh century, constructed largely from the common

124 Réginald Grégoire, “Prières liturgiques médiévales en l’honneur de saint Benôit, de sainte Scolastique et de saint Maur,” Studia anselmiana, 54 (1965): 1–85. 125 Ursmer Berlière, “Le culte de s. Placid,” Rév. ben., 33 (1921): 22.

244

J. B. WICKSTROM

Office for a Confessor, which was most likely used along with the tenthcentury lectionary (Fig. 8.2). Evidence of the veneration of Maurus in the tenth century also appears at Chartres, located less than 80 miles southwest of Fossés and with traditional ties to the Île-de-France. A late tenth-century sacramentary contains two hymns to Maurus, which are used in later manuscripts as the usual Vespers and Lauds hymns of the Fossés/Glanfeuil Office proper to his feast.126 The Chartres evidence, along with the Cluniac manuscripts, indicate that a full Office in honor of Saint Maurus was in use by the tenth century, though it did not yet contain specially composed proper texts: material taken from the Common of Confessors was commonly adopted. An eleventh-century missal, also from Chartres, contains a proper Mass for Maurus which was adopted by the college of Saint Stephen at Troyes by the early twelfth century, an example of how veneration of the saint spread.127 An outlying early adopter of the cult of Maurus was the cathedral of Florence, where a cathedral litany for All Saints from the tenth century mentioned Benedict, Maurus, and Placid.128 Ebner suggested this formula was borrowed from Bobbio, which itself likely was adapting an Anglo-Saxon source, given the many English saints mentioned in the litany.129 A libellus from the abbey of Marmoutier in Tours from the tenth century, possibly earlier, contains both Odo’s Life of Maurus and his Historia translationis . This manuscript reinforces this study’s conclusion that close ties existed between Glanfeuil and the shrine of Saint Martin.130 A libellus from the abbey of Saint-Serge d’Angers, datable to the tenth or eleventh century, contained the Lives of Saint Benedict and Saint Maurus along with Odo’s Historia.131 A similar manuscript from the nearby abbey 126 Luce refulgens aurea and Aeterna namque gaudia in Analecta hymnica Medii Aevi

ed. Guido Maria Dreves, 55 vols (Leipzig, 1886–1922), 12. 189–90 from Biblioteca civitatis Carnotensis, MS 37, fols. 182–85. 127 Gregoire, “Prières,” 77, from Troyes Bib. municipale, MS 894, fol.154. 128 Biblioteca Laurenziana Aedil, MS 122. fol. 138, printed in Adalbert Ebner, Quellen

und Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kunstgeschichte des Missale romanum im Mittelalter. Iter italicum 9 (Freiburg, 1896), 33. 129 Ebner, Quellen und Forschungen, 29. 130 Joseph van der Straeten, Les manuscrits hagiographiques d’Orléans, Tours et Angers

(Brussels, 1982), 99–100. 131 Van der Straeten, Les manuscrits, 272–73.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

245

Fig. 8.2 Progress of the cult of Saint Maurus, 900–1200 (Daniel Huffman)

246

J. B. WICKSTROM

of Saint Nicholas d’Angers containing the Life of Maurus, dates from the early eleventh century.132 Owing to the conservative nature of liturgical documents, the actual adoption of a cult usually predates, sometimes by a lengthy interval, its first appearance in a surviving source, The Cult of Saint Maurus in Anglo-Saxon England We are particularly well informed regarding the spread of veneration to Maurus in the British Isles. It appears to have spread more widely and sooner there than on the continent. A study of 26 English calendars from the 1020s to 1070s show Maurus mentioned in 14.133 That is, the feast of Maurus on January 15th constituted an established observance in English abbeys, if it was not yet universally celebrated. These calendars came primarily from Canterbury, Worcester, and Evesham, Winchester, Leominster, and Bury Saint Edmunds; that is, they emerged from the centers of English monastic reform of the tenth and eleventh centuries. That reform centered on bringing the observance of Benedict’s Rule to English monasteries. Several English reformer monks travelled to continental monasteries in the late tenth century, particularly to Fleury where veneration to Maurus was well established. Similarly, monks from Fleury came to English monasteries to assist in reform. There is a story in John of Salerno’s Life of Odo of Cluny that shows the awareness of continental influence in England: Benedict appeared in a vision to announce that he would be late for his feast day celebrations at Fleury as he was detained in England, fighting for the soul of a backsliding monk.134 This extended interaction between Fleury and the English reformers provides a most likely venue for the introduction of Benedict’s missionary-disciple, Maurus, into reformed English monastic houses. A study of eighteen English liturgical calendars produced between 1200 and 1550 shows that Maurus’ feast on January 15th was celebrated as a 12

132 Van der Straeten, Les manuscrits, 200. 133 Rachel Rushforth, Saints in the English Kalendars Before 1100, Henry Bradshaw

Society Series, 117 (Boydell, 2004), see esp. Table I, January. Saint Benedict is mentioned in all twenty-six calendars, on both March 21st and July 11th. 134 Recounted in Francis Wormald, “Aethelwold and his continental counterparts,” Saint Aethelwold: His Career and Influence (Boydell, 1997), 30.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

247

lesson (i.e. highly-ranked) feast in all but two of these.135 These calendars make clear that between 1200 and 1500, the feast of Maurus had spread from about one-half of the English monasteries to all of them and was almost everywhere listed as a major liturgical celebration. We know that one of these reformed houses, Winchester Abbey, was the source of several liturgical books containing a liturgy in honor of Maurus that were being used in the north of France by the eleventh century. For example, a sacramentary from Winchester, dated 1014–1023, the so-called missal of Robert of Jumièges, was in use at Rouen by the 1040s.136 It had been brought there between 1144 and 1151 from England by Robert, the Norman abbot of Saint Ouen and Jumièges at Rouen, while he was archbishop of London.137 By the twelfth century, but probably earlier, the monastery at Laon was using a missal originally intended for Winchester, adapted to local French customs.138 The monastery at Le Havre was using a missal from the same source.139 Such complex, usually unrecorded liturgical exchanges, reveal an important means by which the cult of Maurus spread to Western monasteries.

Further Expansion of Maurus’ Veneration on the Continent Since the abbey of Fossés was actively promoting itself as the proper shrine of Maurus in the eleventh century, it is no surprise that his feast was adopted by the two major Parisian monasteries, Saint Germain-des-Prés and Saint Denis, at that time. Few other Parisian institutions adopted his liturgy until later, however, and his cult spread no farther north than Paris

135 Francis Wormald, English Benedictine Kalendars After 1100, 2 vols (London, 1946). The two exceptions were Westminster abbey and at Muchelney (Somerset), where Maurus shared a feast day with Saint Bonittus. 136 Grégoire, “Prières,” 74 from Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 273. This socalled’ Missal of Robert of Jumièges,” from 1013 to 1023, was originally written at Canterbury or Peterborough, Rushforth, Saints in English Kalendars Before 1100, 32. 137 Rushforth, Saints, 32. 138 Victor Leroquais, Les sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits des bibliothèques

publiques de France, 3 vols (Paris 1924), de Laon, MS 238, fols. 74–76. 139 Leroquais, Les sacramentaires, 90.

i, 219, referencing Bibliothèque municipale

248

J. B. WICKSTROM

until the twelfth century.140 It did appear in two monasteries of Brittany. One of these, Saint-Mélanie, founded in the early twelfth century, was located on lands donated by the pilgrim-monk, Annarowedh, to Glanfeuil in 847.141 The most notable adoptions of the cult of Saint Maur in France during the twelfth century were in the north: Reims, Le Havre, Douai, Cambrai, Saint-Amand, and at Saint-Bove in Ghent and Saint-Trond in eastern Flanders, these adoptions undoubtedly also due to the influence of Fossés.142 Other important French monasteries that also took up the cult of Maurus at this time, such as Saint Philibert at Tournus, show the cult expanding to the south and west as well.143 As we shall discuss in a later chapter, Peter the Deacon was instrumental in promoting a major cult to Maurus at Montecassino in the 1130s. However, the abbey was venerating Maurus earlier. Tenth-century Cassinese calendars mention his feast day: one indicates proper mass prayers to him were in use by the early eleventh century, indicating that he was integrated into the Montecassino liturgy by then. An eleventhcentury Cassinese sacramentary, the psautier-rituel d’Oderise spelled Maurus’ name in gold letters along with Benedict’s in its Litany of the Saints.144 Other liturgical sources from eleventh-century Montecassino and its dependencies, however, fail to mention Maurus, suggesting that that he had not yet become a major presence in south-Italian hagiography. At least three neighboring monasteries around Montecassino and Benevento only adopted the cult of Maurus in the twelfth century. One of these, the abbey of S. Lupus at Beneventum, adopted the newly composed Office of Saint Maurus that had originated at Fossés/Glanfeuil rather than the Cassinese version. Finally, by 1100, the community of San Sisto at

140 Grégoire, “Prières,” 60–61 from BnF, MS lat. 9436 (Saint Denis, early eleventhcentury). Also “Anciennes litanies des saints” in Recueil d’etudes bollandiennes, ed. Maurice Coens, Subsidia hagiographica, 79 vols (Brussels, 1889–), xxxvii, 304. 141 Maure-en-Bretagne, Grégoire, “Prières,” 61–62; Marcel Planiol: “Le donation d’Anouuareth,” Annales de Bretagne, 9 (1894): 224. The other adopter was the abbey of Saint Malo, on the far northwestern edge of Brittany: Grégoire, Prières,” 62. 142 Grégoire, “Prières,” 62 for S. Amand, Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 14 (CANTUS database). 143 Saint Tournus, Grégoire, “Prières,” 42–43. Bourges: Grégoire, “Prières,” 44–45. 144 Gregoire, “Prières,” 54.

8

NEW FREEDOMS, NEW LITURGIES, AND EXPANSION

249

Rome was using a variant of the newly composed Office of Saint Maur from Montecassino.145 Veneration of Maurus was beginning an expansion into Germany and other Eastern European countries by the fourteenth century. Kremsmünster abbey and Saint Lambrecht in Austria and the abbey of Ss. Ulrich and Afra in Augsburg all included Maurus in their liturgical cycles.146 The evidence however suggests that Maurus was not regarded as a major saint in Eastern European monastic houses.147 The cult of Maurus was adopted primarily by black-monk houses. Only one other religious house, that of the Premonstratensian abbey at Troyes, was an early adopter. Few secular churches showed any interest in his cult.148 Maurus is conspicuous in his absence from the numerous Cistercian manuscripts examined for this study.149 The two major black-monk abbeys of this period, however, Cluny and Montecassino, made use of the cult of Maurus in particularly complex and identity-shifting ways. An examination of these problems will form the core of the following two chapters.

145 Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, C.5, fols. 69r–71r. (See CANTUS database under Vallenciennes ). 146 See the CANTUS database under these locations for entries concerning Maurus. 147 The paucity of evidence from Eastern Europe may in itself account for the apparent

lack of interest in the cult of Maurus there. 148 Grégoire, “Prières,” 61, from BnF, MS lat., 9437, fol. 72. 149 See Chapter 9, 255, below for a discussion of this issue.

CHAPTER 9

The Cult of Maurus and the Monastic “Empires”

In the half-century between 1090 and 1140, Glanfeuil experienced its most challenging times since its subjugation to Fossés in the late ninth century. Until the late eleventh century, Glanfeuil had been a small, though prospering, rural priory of primarily regional influence. However, after its emancipation in 1096, Glanfeuil became enmeshed in a much larger world: the nexus of large institutions and politics, which were themselves undergoing fundamental change. The papacy was emerging as a pan-European power, while secular regimes were becoming fewer, larger, and more powerful. The assets available to rulers such as the counts of Anjou and the duke of Normandy made possible a degree of local secular power that had not been seen since the time of the Roman Empire.

Reshaping Monastic Identities I: Saint Maurus and Cluny The monastic world was also consolidating and expanding. This is most evident in the unfolding story of Cluny. Originating as a small rural monastery in southern Burgundy in the early tenth century, the abbey had by 1050 become the center of a vast and still growing monastic ordo, consisting of over 200 dependent priories and allied houses, most sharing a monastic observance centered around elaborate liturgical ceremonies. The cult of Maurus had come to Cluny’s attention early: a lectionary © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_9

251

252

J. B. WICKSTROM

from Cluny from the abbacy of Saint Odo (927–942) prescribed Matins readings from Odo’s Life of Maurus on January 15th.1 The first extant Cluniac liturgical ordo, dating from the mid-eleventh century, contains a full Office for Saint Maurus using texts taken from the common Office for Confessors.2 A procession to a statio dedicated to Saint Maurus (an altar or niche located in the church precincts) was also prescribed for the end of Lauds on his feast day.3 Cluny had also acquired an arm bone of Maurus about the same time, which was exhibited on feast days along with symbols of Cluny’s local preeminence.4 The appearance of relics of Maurus and of a liturgy which told his story coincided with a growing movement in Cluny to re-present its past as one which adequately accounted for the splendor of its present. The earliest historians of Cluny were thus concerned to trace that abbey’s history back to Saint Benedict, showing thereby that Cluny’s phenomenal success was owing to its fidelity to the monastic life established at Montecassino. Odo’s Life of Maurus established this link. Thus, about 1030, its fifth abbot, Saint Odilo, prefaced a Life of his predecessor, Saint Maiolus, with a short history of monasticism, positioning Cluny directly in a lineage going back to Benedict through Maurus and Glanfeuil. In a topos that was in vogue at the time, Odilo began by asserting that monasticism was a continuation of the larger history of salvation: it began with the preaching of the apostles and martyrs, then continued through their successors, the first monks. Later, Benedict gave monasticism a Rule, which he then handed on to his chosen disciple, Saint Maurus, who then spread it throughout the monasteries. of Francia. Odo claimed that this observant monasticism attained an ever-higher standard through Maurus’s disciples until “through a long span of time that observance rose to the height of perfection.”5 Thereafter, however, a decline in discipline, in particular, negligentes et desidiosos slowly destroyed their

1 BnF, MS lat. 13371, fol. 89r. 2 Liber tramitis aevi Odilonis Abbatis, ed. Peter Dinter in Corpus consuetudinum

monasticarum, ed. Kassius Hollinger, 15 vols (Sieburg, 1963–), 10 (1980), 37–38. The customary is from Farfa in Italy, but its texts were adopted from Cluny: Susan Boynton, Shaping a Monastic Identity (Cornell UP., 2008), 111–119. 3 Boynton, Shaping, 38. 4 Jacques Hourlier, Saint Odilon, abbé de Cluny (Louvain, 1964) 85, note 28. 5 . Odilo V Cluniacensis, Vita B. Maioli Abbatis, PL, 142. 946.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

253

zeal, introducing wickedness and vice into the monastic life.6 This decline was only reversed, according to Odilo, when Duke William of Aquitaine donated his lands at Cluny to Abbot Berno, who restored there the monastic discipline of Benedict, Maurus, and their disciples. Another Cluniac source contemporary with Abbot Odilo offered a more detailed account of how this line of authentic monastic observance ran back from Cluny to Benedict through Maurus. This was an anonymous life of Saint Hugh of Anzy-le-duc produced at the Cluniac abbey of Autun. This source asserted that, after Maurus’s death, his disciples, fleeing the abbey of Glanfeuil for fear of the Vikings, took refuge in the Abbey of St-Savin-sur-Gartemps, presumably before ending their exile at Fossés.7 Once established at Saint Savin, they lost their zeal, but the young Hugh, who was brought up there, persevered in the strict monastic observance passed on to him by the monks from Glanfeuil and carried it to the abbey of Saint Martin of Autun. There he encountered Saint Berno, the future founder of Cluny. Together the two monks reformed the community at Autun. They then traveled to the abbey of Baume, where they restored the ancient monastic discipline, after which the two reformers went their separate ways. Saint Hugh ended his life as abbot of Anzy-le-duc, while Saint Berno went on to establish the Rule of Benedict at Cluny. This life of Saint Hugh thus presented the authentic monastic tradition as passing from Benedict through Maurus, then imparted by his disciples to Saint Berno, first abbot of Cluny.8 Such inventions proved useful in combatting the threat to traditional monastic life posed by the new Orders that were emerging in the later eleventh-and early twelfth centuries. Radical apologists of monastic observance, particularly the Cistercians, argued that tracing a monastic regime back to Saint Benedict did not itself establish its authenticity. What mattered was literal observance of Benedict’s Rule (ad litteram). This 6 “Negligence and sloth,” Odilo, Vita Maioli, 946. 7 A church dedicated to Saint Maurus lay nearby Saint-Savin, where relics identified as

his were venerated. Leclercq, “Glanfeuil,” DALC, 6/1, 1313–14. 8 The essence of this story was repeated by the monastic historian, Ranulf Glaber, in his Libri historiarum quinque in 1030, whose original source is either the Life of Saint Hugh or the tradition behind it, suggested by the phrase veridica traditio used by both Glaber and the Saint Hugh Life. As a monk for several years at Cluny and a friend of Abbot Odilo, Glaber’s work gave this story a wider audience so that it became part of Cluny’s tradition: Dominique Iogna-Pratt, “La geste des origines dans l’historiographie clunisienne des XIe -XIIe siècles,” R. bén, 102 (1992), 145–46.

254

J. B. WICKSTROM

argument, to Cluniac writers, was an “innovation,” a term which carried a negative connotation in traditional monastic circles. For these writers, true Benedictine monasticism consisted of fidelity to the example of the founders, as this was lived out over the centuries. The story of Maurus, Benedict’s best-loved disciple and chosen successor, provided powerful support for this position because neither the Cluniac writers nor their opponents knew that the Glanfeuil portrayed in Odo’s Carolingian Life of Maurus actually reflected the Carolingian monastic customs of his own day, not those of Benedict’s Late Antique world. Using the similarities between Cluniac customs and those of Glanfeuil, which were in turn (as they believed) continuous with Benedict’s customs at Montecassino, two generations of Cluniac writers energetically defended their customs against the recent monastic “innovators,” using Odo’s descriptions of monastic observance at Glanfeuil as a “gold standard.” The first of these was Abbot Rupert of Deutz, who in 1125 compiled the first commentary on the Rule of Benedict in three centuries.9 Concerned to defend the black monks against charges of laxity and excessive wealth, he launched the first full-fledged assault on the Cistercian reforming agenda.10 In Book III of his commentary, Rupert addressed the issues of manual labor and property ownership, which for Rupert defined most sharply the differences between the black (Cluniac) and white (Cistercian) monk traditions. He began by arguing that several patriarchs of Western monasticism, including Benedict’s biographer, Gregory the Great, allowed for enough income and property so that their monks did not have to work with their hands. No one would argue, Rupert continued, that those holy patriarchs thereby contravened Benedict’s Rule. He then noted that Odo’s Life of Maurus showed that Blessed Maurus had received property from lay lords sufficient to sustain 140 monks, adding that, as Benedict’s most obedient disciple, Maurus would never disregard the spirit of the Rule of Benedict, his “well-beloved Father” in setting up his own monastic regime.11 Rupert’s most original use of Odo’s Life of Maurus emerged from his argument that contemplation was the proper and highest obligation of 9 Ruperti Abbatis Tuitiensis, Super quaedam capitula regulae divi Benedicti abbatis, PL, 170. 10 John Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz (University of California Press, 1983), 306, 312–

13. 11 Super quaedam capitula, 515.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

255

the monk. Monks, he argued, may rightly make use of material assets to avoid any manual labor that would endanger this core monastic activity, which was for Rupert a “mystical” unfolding of Psalm 103: 16–17: The trees of the field drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon which he planted where the birds build their nests. Rupert commented on this passage: “We are, or we should be, those birds, small in our own eyes, but nonetheless soaring with the wings of contemplation; in this way, by means of the riches of the world, God has prepared the trees of the field and the cedars of Lebanon for his birds, that we might remain quiet in their resources.”12 Rupert ends his discussion by asserting that the omission of manual labor from the description of Glanfeuil by Maurus, Benedict’s chosen successor, clearly demonstrated that the Master had never intended that it should disturb the leisure of holy contemplation. In the late 1120s and again in 1144, the abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable, joined the debate with two famous letters addressed to Saint Bernard.13 Peter noted that the purpose of manual labor, quoting Chapter 55 of the Rule of Benedict, was to prevent the evil of idleness. Peter goes on to argue that the monks of his own day were much occupied in good works: prayer, reading, household duties, and the like, so the idleness that the Rule warned against was no longer a problem. Picking up Rupert of Deutz’s argument, he asserted that manual labor should never be preferred to contemplative work; if it were, he concluded, Christ would not have favored Mary’s sitting at his feet as “the best part” over Martha’s household cares. The observance of Maurus’s monastery at Glanfeuil reflects this understanding, Peter added: manual labor could be omitted since all necessities had been provided. The monks were thus free to busy themselves with “spiritual work.” Peter concluded that if these and other changes in the Rule made by Maurus at Glanfeuil had been a misunderstanding or, worse, a deliberate perversion of the Rule, God would never have worked such great miracles through him.14 These arguments, justifying modifications and elaborations of the Rule by the Carolingians and Cluny, were considerably strengthened by Abbot Peter’s claim to have found at Marmoutier the manuscript of Benedict’s 12 Super quaedam capitula, 515. 13 Giles Constable, ed. The Letters of Peter the Venerable, 2 vols (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press 1967) 1, 71–72, 274. 14 Constable, Letters, 1: 71. For Maurus’s modifications of Benedict’s Rule, Letters 1.

4.

256

J. B. WICKSTROM

Rul e which the Master had entrusted to Maurus when he left for Gaul. Attached to this was a monastic customary known as the Memorialis qualiter, which Peter believed had been composed by Benedict himself. In fact, this document is Carolingian, possibly connected to the reforms of Benedict of Aniane, so its usages varied considerably from Benedict’s Rule.15 Unaware that this customary was Carolingian in origin rather than from the age of Benedict, Peter the Venerable argued that mitigating the Rule was endorsed by the Master himself and was simply continued by his disciple, Saint Maurus.16 Similar themes were taken up and considerably elaborated upon by Orderic Vitalis in Book 8 of his Ecclesiastical History (1135), where, in Chapter 26, he constructed a sophisticated history of monasticism. Following the arguments laid down by Rupert of Deutz and Peter the Venerable, he admitted that when Maurus was sent to Gaul, he changed many of the requirements of Benedict’s Rule. Orderic adds, however, that Maurus did so owing to the chill of the climate in Gaul, which differed from the warm Mediterranean air of early monasticism, following the admonition of Benedict’s Rule that monastic clothing should be adjusted to local conditions.17 Such changes occurred, Orderic argues, because Maurus and other founding fathers of Benedictine monasticism wished to encourage monks who could not attain the high standard of early desert asceticism. This argument was intended to undermine the Cistercians’ presentation of early desert monasticism as the proper model for monastic life, from which, the Cistercians argued, Cluny was falling ever further away.18 Orderic Vitalis’s most original contribution to the debate, however, comes in his discussion of the evolution of monasticism. He asserts that many of the current “reformers” of his day were unaware that Irish monks had come into Gaul adhering to the Rule of their founder, Saint Columbanus. There they met their neighbors, Maurus and his disciples, and received from them the Rule of Benedict, “just as they received from 15 Matthew Mattingly, “The Memoriale Qualiter: An Eighth-Century Monastic Customary,“ ABR (2009), 63. 16 Giles Constable, Cluniac Studies (London: Variorum Reprints, 1980), 125, note 19. 17 The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Marjorie Chibnall, ed. and trans., 6 vols

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969–1980), 4, 316–17. 18 Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint Bernard’s Apologia to Abbot William, trans. Michael Casey, Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, I, Treatises, 1 (Shannon, 1970), 53 and 58.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

257

others [various] writings of masters designed to edify.”19 So, Orderic concludes, the Irish monks retained some of their practices from Saint Columbanus’s teachings (most notably their customs for reciting the Office), while they adopted other elements of monastic life from the Rule of Benedict, in particular the habit.20 Orderic was arguing in effect that Cluniac monasticism was less a direct descendent from Benedict through Maurus and other early fathers than an eclectic product of monastic wisdom borrowed from various sources. Tested through time and experience, a monastic usage evolved which was at the same time traditional and open to change. Orderic’s sophisticated research and argumentation in fact anticipated modern understandings of the evolution of monasticism in Merovingian France.21 Three important twelfth-century apologists for Cluny thus presented Maurus as a model abbot whose deviations from the Rule reflected the flexible approach of his teacher, Benedict. It is thus unsurprising that in Cistercian polemics against the black monks Maurus scarcely appears at all. He is mentioned in only one Cistercian literary source from the early twelfth century and in a rather inconsequential context.22 Maurus was commemorated in the earliest Cistercian breviary but does not appear in the several Cistercian liturgical sources from the tenth through the twelfth centuries surveyed for this study.23 Since all admitted that Maurus had mitigated the Rule, for the reformers who stressed ad litteram observance, he was an unsuitable model for authentic monastic life. Only at the end of the twelfth century did a Cistercian writer mention Maurus with unambiguous approval. This was the author of the Exordium 19 Chibnall, ed., The Ecclesiastical History, 4. 334. 20 Chibnall, ed., The Ecclesiastical History, 4. 334. However, a recent study of Merovin-

gian monasticism suggests that the Irish did not adopt elements of Benedict’s Rule before the 620s, Dunn, Emergence, 162, 173. 21 Anne-Marie Helvétius et al. “Re-Reading Monastic Traditions: Monks and Nuns, East and West, from the Origins to c. 750,” CHMM , 40–72. 22 This exception is Aelred of Rievaulx. In his Mirror of Charity, Aelred argued that any element of the Rule may be dispensed with, even though it was a core element, if the dispensation does not detract from charity and the elimination of vice that was the twofold goal of the Rule. As an example, he cites Benedict’s decision to send Maurus to Gaul, despite the Rule’s insistence on stability: Aelredus Rievallensis, Speculum charitatis, PL, 192. 608. 23 Konrad Koch. “Das Kalendar des Stephan-Breviers,” Cistercienser Chronik, 57/13 (December 1950): 92.

258

J. B. WICKSTROM

Magnum, a pioneering history of Cîteaux, complied between 1190 and 1210, and usually attributed to Conrad, abbot of Eberbach.24 Conrad located the initial impulse toward the monastic life in Christ’s teaching on penance. In a later phase of monastic evolution, Benedict drew up his Rule for the coenobitic life and sent Maurus to establish it in France. Conrad described Maurus’s abbey at Glanfeuil as famous “both for its observance and its wealth”—noting the latter without disapproval. He then repeats Orderic Vitalis’s assertion that, after Maurus’s death, observant monasticism continued to spread throughout France until the Viking invasions caused it to decline. This malaise was in due course reversed by the first abbots of Cluny, who restored Benedictine monasticism to its ancient rigor. Over the course of time, laxity gradually entered into Cluny as well, driving Robert of Molesme and his companions to found the New Monastery where, as the first Cistercians, they restored the literal observance of the Rule of Benedict. As a Cistercian of a later generation, Conrad held a less radical view of the rôle of Cîteaux in the history of monasticism than did his predecessors in the early twelfth century. For Conrad, Cîteaux was simply another chapter, however, glorious, of the ongoing reform of monasticism, a story in which Cluny also played a positive role. Therefore, Conrad could restore Blessed Maurus, by then closely linked to Cluny, to an honored place as one of the revered founders of the monastic tradition in which the Cistercians participated.

Shaping Monastic Identities II: Saint Maurus and Montecassino Unlike Cluny and other black-monk abbeys located near radical new establishments, Montecassino in its southern Italian mountain fastness was little affected by them until the mid-thirteenth century. The ancient and revered abbey shared with much of the Italian Church a patrician indifference to the quarrels that were convulsing monastic life north of the Alps. Montecassino never made use of the figure of Maurus in polemics against the new monastic Orders, but it did employ Maurus against Cluny’s claims of precedence in the monastic world. 24 Konrad von Eberbach. Exordium magnum Cisterciense; sive, Narratio de initio Cisterciensis Ordinis, auctore Conrado, monacho Claravallensi postea Eberbacensi ibidemque abate, ed. Bruno Griesser (Rome: Editiones Cisterciensis, 1961), 47–55.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

259

In the early eleventh century, Montecassino, the ancient home of Benedict and his Rule, was emerging from almost three centuries of invasion, consequent weak leadership, and indiscipline. By mid-century, however, it had largely recovered and was entering into a Golden Age, the apogee of which was the long reign of Abbot Desiderius II (r.1054– 1085). It was, however, somewhat earlier, during the abbacy of Theobald (r.1022–1035), that Montecassino issued its first challenge to Cluny’s primacy. The figure of Maurus was central to that initiative. According to the Cassinese Chronicle, Abbot Odilo of Cluny visited Montecassino in 1027 to pay homage to Benedict and to Maurus, as well as to Abbot Theobald. This visit was presented by the Chronicle as the point at which Montecassino adopted Saint Maurus as the abbey’s second patron, after Benedict. Having reached the venerable abbey, Abbot Odilo climbed the mountain on foot. In the chapter meeting, he kissed the feet of all the monks “as a suppliant.” He refused to say mass or to carry his abbatial crozier in the presence of Abbot Theobald, to whom he accorded the title, “abbot of abbots.” As he was about to return to Cluny, Abbot Odilo asked if he could send a relic of Blessed Maurus to the monastery of his Master, Benedict. The sequel, owing to its centrality in this ritual of the return of Saint Maurus to his “mother monastery,” deserves full quotation: After seven years had gone by, Odilo took care to send an entire arm bone of Maurus by six brothers of the monastery, fittingly encased in a silver reliquary of beautiful workmanship, made into a likeness of towers. At the coming of which a huge assembly of the population of the entire area came running together. Having been stirred up by a rumor that, just as Blessed Maurus long ago had been sent across the mountains in obedience, just so, when he had returned, one would most worthily go forth to meet him. Now our abbot had withdrawn, fleeing the persecution of the prince of Capua into the Marches, as we shall point out in due course. Indeed, the entire community of this holy place, filled up with this immeasurable joy, all dressed in solemn array, with many candles and censers, proceeding to the old gate at last to the area outside the monastery, they immediately went out into the road with great devotion to meet it. And…all alike venerated him, throwing themselves on the ground and rising up, they reverently kissed the reliquary with tears mixed with rejoicing and, following along, they led it into the monastery with hymns and praises, and with great honor and placed it on the altar of his venerable master, Benedict. But we leave to the devoted reader to determine how unlike and how different

260

J. B. WICKSTROM

was this procession of reception of the most blessed Maurus from that, wherein Father Benedict, with all the community following him to the gates of the monastery, had once sent him off beyond the mountains with pious tears.25

This account of the “homecoming” of Maurus to Montecassino had two clear messages: first, the figure of Maurus was redefined: he was a missionary, sent forth from Montecassino, now returned home after a too-long absence. The abbot of Cluny recognizes this fact by surrendering Maurus to Montecassino, or at least sharing him, symbolized by the gift of his arm bone which, as we have seen, had been displayed at Cluny during major celebrations of its identity. Secondly, the abbot of Cluny admitted that Montecassino, as the original home of Benedict, was superior in rank to Cluny. His use of the phrase abbas abbatorum (abbot of abbots) as the title for Montecassino’s ruler (according to the Cassinese Chronicle’s account), implied that Montecassino enjoyed a sort of imperium over the monastic world. As we shall see, this title will have a long history in the re-imagining of Montecassino’s identity and that of Maurus at Montecassino over the next century. This account of Abbot Odilo’s visit was entered into the Cassinese Chronicle only years later during the height of the renaissance of that abbey under Abbot Desiderius. Some historians have questioned the historicity of the words and actions of Abbot Odilo of Cluny, who was at the time a much more important figure than his host, Abbot Theobald.26 However that may be, the Chronicle’s account, like the infancy narratives of the Gospels, provided a fitting prelude to the full incorporation of Maurus into the pantheon of Cassinese founder-saints, which was accomplished during and after the “Age of Abbot Desiderius.” Montecassino’s wealth came primarily from the terra Sancti Benedicti, an agricultural territory of around 100,000 acres extending outward from the mountaintop abbey. Desiderius continued his predecessors’ policy of expelling squatter-lords, incastellating settled areas, and demanding the return of church lands, so that produce and income from the terra could flow more freely. Desiderius also ended the traditional hostility of the

25 Chron. cass., 266–70. 26 Hourlier, Saint Odilon, 123.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

261

abbey to the aggressive Normans of Sicily; so, as the latter gradually occupied all of South Italy, they became the abbey’s friends and generous patrons. At the core of Desiderius’s renewal of Montecassino was the revival of the cult of Saint Benedict, to which he joined that of Benedict’s disciple, Saint Maurus. Thus, in the course of excavating for his piece de resistance, a new abbey church, Desiderius “discovered” Benedict’s bones, thus challenging Fleury’s claims to possess them. In 1071, the new abbey church was completed. Raised over the newly discovered tomb of Benedict and Saint Scholastica, the church also featured relics of Saint Maurus, embedded in the great cross that dominated the western façade.27 Those attending the basilica’s dedication on October 1, 1076, included the pope, five cardinals, ten archbishops, forty-three bishops, and a crowd of abbots and monks.28 To commemorate the occasion, Desiderius commissioned a handsome illustrated libellus or lectionary containing Gregory the Great’s Life of Benedict, Odo’s Life of Maurus, and miscellaneous readings for Saint Scholastica, arranged as Matins lessons for their respective feast days.29 Two earlier manuscripts from Montecassino had already paired the Lives of Benedict and Maurus.30 Vat. Lat. 1202, however, raised the veneration of Maurus to a new level at Montecassino; it presented over 50 illustrations of the two saints’ Lives. The libellus thus accorded Maurus visibility next to with Saint Benedict. implying his status as the second person of a “holy trinity” of founder-saints of Montecassino,31 Other Cassinese codices produced in the period variously identified Saint Scholastica or, increasingly, Maurus’s young companion, Placid, as the

27 Chron. cass., 401. 28 Tomasso Leccisotti, Montecassino, trans. Armand Citarella (Montecassino, 1987), 57. 29 Vat. lat. 1202; a facsimile of this manuscript has been produced under the title The

Codex Benedictus: An Eleventh-Century lectionary from Montecassino, ed. Paul Meyvaert (Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, 1982). 30 Francis Newton, The Scriptorium and Library at Montecassino, 1058–1105, (Cambridge UP., 1999), 56. 31 The illustrator of Maurus’s Life was not the master artist who created the images for the Life of Benedict, but a less skilled illustrator. This may suggest that including the Life of Maurus (and the material on Saint Scholastica) in the libellus was a later decision. The miscellaneous materials honoring Saint Scholastica, which followed the Life of Maurus, are not illustrated.

262

J. B. WICKSTROM

third member. This deluxe volume is likely to have been displayed on the high altar as a memorial to the holy founders. In recognition of Desiderius’s achievements, in 1057, Pope Victor II (r.1055–1057) gave the abbot of Montecassino precedence when attending papal councils and tribunals.32 Two years later, Nicholas II (r.1058–1061) appointed Desiderius papal vicar for all monasteries south of Rome, in effect making him a “super-abbot” with authority over southern Italian monastic houses: “thereby he was allowed by the Roman Pontiff to appoint bishops and abbots from among his brethren in whatever churches or monasteries he desired.”33 This appointment, as we shall see, would serve as a self-conscious template for the vicarage over French monasteries granted to the abbot of Glanfeuil by Montecassino 75 years later.34 The towering reputation of Desiderius made him the unanimous choice to ascend the chair of Peter on the death of Gregory VII. As pope, Desiderius retained the abbacy of Montecassino and returned there for most of his brief papacy, making Montecassino, at least for a time, the center of the Western Church.35

Montecassino and Maurus in a Changing Religious Climate Toward the end of the eleventh century, the hegemony of the great blackmonk monasteries began to weaken. The causes were many. Changing economic conditions forced Montecassino to adopt unpopular economic policies in the terra sancti Benedicti. The monastery fortified several of its strategic settlements, becoming an increasingly resented landlord, while local lords emerged as competitors for control of the terra.36 Montecassino also initiated a policy of bringing smaller monastic houses more directly under its control, a trend of which the affiliation of Glanfeuil

32 H. E. J. (Herbert Edward John) Cowdrey, The Age of Abbot Desiderius: Montecassino, the papacy, and the Normans in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 59. 33 See Chapter 10 below, 290–91, note 33. 34 See below, Chapter 10, 292. 35 Leccisotti, Montecassino, 56. 36 G.A. Loud, “The Norman Count of Caiaizzo,” in Montecassino and Benevento in the

Middle Ages: essays in south Italian church history (Ashgate/Variorum, 2000), 4, 199–214.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

263

with Montecassino in 1133 was an example, as we shall see.37 Adding to these problems, building projects which had continued Desiderius’s initiatives began to stress Montecassino’s finances, as similarly grand projects were doing at Cluny. Montecassino’s properties also suffered significantly in decades of warfare between the advancing Normans, local lords, and papal and imperial armies.38 A clear warning of changing times came with the papal deposition in 1126 of the competent, if controversial, abbot of Montecassino, Oderisius II. His successor, Seniorectus, according to Peter the Deacon, was completely preoccupied with regaining lands and feeding the brethren.39 During this time, he claimed, the abbey had become so impoverished that the Rule could not be observed.40 One modern expert has concluded that Montecassino never recovered economically or psychologically from these material losses.41 Simultaneously, a new fervor was sweeping over monasteries and cathedral churches in the north, particularly in France and Western Germany. These were extraordinarily diverse in their details, from the strict new interpretations of the Rule of Benedict by the Cistercians to the novel structures of the Carthusians and other semi-eremitical groups. Reformed colleges of cathedral canons also appeared, adopting the semi-monastic Rules of Augustine and Chrodegang of Metz. All of these groups shared a single goal: the spiritual growth of the individual as against the black monks’ concentration on communal celebration of the liturgy and other ritualized activities. Montecassino had little interest in any of these new initiatives. The general tone of eleventh-and twelfth-century Cassinese polemical literature suggests that Montecassino continued to view itself confidently as the imperial “mother abbey” of Christendom, upholding traditional liturgical observances as the core of authentic monastic life.42 37 For examples, see G.A. Loud, The Latin Church in Norman Italy (Cambridge, UP., 2007), 434–35, 452–54, 462, 470. 38 Chron. cass., 543–46. 39 Chron. cass., 555. 40 Chron. cass., 550. 41 Petri Diaconi, Ortus et vita iustorum Cenobii Casinensis, ed. Robert Howard Rodgers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), Introduction, xxi. 42 For a discussion of the failure of the monastic reforms to take hold in central and southern Italy, Valerie Ramseyer, “Questions of Monastic Identity in Medieval Southern Italy and Sicily” (c. 500–1200), CHMM , 411.

264

J. B. WICKSTROM

However, the fundamental shift in attitudes toward the structure of the Western Church—of which the monastic revival was an element— did threaten Montecassino’s status and indeed her core identity. The eleventh-century Gregorian reformers insisted that the ancient ideal of a hierarchical church, headed by the pope, the vicar of Christ, with the bishops, the successors of the apostles, beneath him should become a quotidian reality. All other church structures, particularly monasteries, should be included in, and subordinate to, this hierarchy. The exemption of monasteries from this structure had led to a usurpation of episcopal authority and its rightful assets. The threat that this movement posed to Montecassino was dramatically illustrated, according to the Chronicle of Montecassino—there are no extant acta of the council itself—in the First Lateran Council in 1123. The newly elected abbot of Montecassino, Oderisius II had been summoned to the council to be confirmed by the pope. But he was confronted with a proclamation of the bishops in attendance which attacked the privileges and independence of traditional monasteries such as Montecassino: [T]hey keep for themselves the churches, villas, castles, the tithes, offerings for the living and the dead…all decency is gone, the high place of the canons is wiped out, the devotion of clerics is weakened, while monks, with the desire for heaven held in contempt, insatiably desire the rights of bishops, and they grasp everything for their own; they who have left the world and all its desires never cease coveting them. And to whomever a place for quiet is offered from the cares of the world through Blessed Benedict, he importunes in season and out, taking those things which are the bishops’.43

At the command of Abbot Oderisius, a monk from Montecassino arose to defend the traditional monastic privileges and perquisites: Our enemies are gathered together here and are glorying in their power, but thou, O Lord, reduce their power to nothing, so that they will see that it is none other but thou who fights for us. Indeed, what should the brothers of Montecassino do, if not to implore day and night the grace of God for the entire world. What should they do if the privileges which have been given them by the Roman popes are not honored? The abbots 43 Chron. cass., 542–43.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

265

of Montecassino have not been submissive to Rome so that in the time of your rule, we should lose and be disinherited from what the emperor, kings, princes, and popes have given to Saint Benedict.

At this point, Callixtus II, the first non-monastic pope in over 50 years, ordered the bishops to be silent and declared his strong support for traditional monastic privileges. He specifically upheld the supremacy of Montecassino, claiming a divine origin for the latter’s leadership of the monastic ordo: Montecassino was founded not by a single man or many, but through Jesus Christ, through whose imperium Father Benedict, coming to the same place and cleansing it from filthy idols, gave an outstanding gift to the whole world by his composition of the Holy Rule and wonderful miracles and the resting place of his holy body, and made it the head of the monastic Order. He founded this monastery which was restored by the Roman popes, and it remained unique among the sons of the Roman Church and its tranquility persisted as the solace of the Roman church in adversity and prosperity. We therefore decree, following in the footsteps of our holy predecessor Roman pontiffs, that Montecassino should remain always both free and at peace from the yoke of all men, with all its possessions and remain forever under the jurisdiction and defense of the Roman Church alone; we order the rest of the monasteries which were in that ordo from ancient times should remain so as well.44

As noted above, there are no genuine acta of the Council. This exchange was composed—perhaps invented—by Peter the Deacon, the famous Cassinese historian and forger, who entered it into the Cassinese Chronicle in the 1130s. It is in fact the first articulation of Peter the Deacon’s creative vision of a glorious past and present for his beloved abbey, which we will examine in detail in the following chapter. A key element in Montecassino’s identity was, as the above passage indicates, a historically close relationship with the Roman Church but, at the same time, it claimed a traditional freedom from papal authority. When the papacy challenged this autonomy, Montecassino resisted fiercely. The quarrel played out in a lengthy debate during a meeting in 1137 at Lago Pasale. Curial lawyers represented the pope in the presence

44 Chron. cass., 543.

266

J. B. WICKSTROM

of the emperor, Lothar III, as well as Saint Bernard and other European church leaders. The delegation from Montecassino was led by Peter the Deacon. Peter later wrote two accounts of the meeting in which he developed in detail his own historical claims regarding Montecassino’s “imperial” origins and nature and its consequent primacy over all Western monasteries.45 Peter’s ideas are of particular significance for this study primarily because Maurus and Placid, his fellow Cassinese oblate in Pope Gregory’s Life of Benedict, were given major roles in Peter’s re-imagining of Cassinese history during the Lago Pasale debates. Peter the Deacon was one of the premier forgers and “historical reconstructors” of the Middle Ages.He claimed to have been the nephew of the Count of Tusculum, the powerful head of a family of patrons of and protectors of Montecassino. Born around 1107, Peter was given to Montecassino as a five-year-old oblate. He was, however, exiled from the abbey in 1128, probably for supporting the deposed abbot, Oderisius II. However, Oderisius’ successor, Seniorectus, recognized Peter’s talents and recalled him in 1131, ordering him to continue the Chronicle of Montecassino, to take charge of its library, and to advise the abbot on various matters.46 Peter also compiled a cartulary for the abbey, the Registrum Petri Diaconi. He would eventually produce more than 40 other works; many of them substantial and most, at least in part, fictitious.47 Abbot Seniorectus was aware of Peter’s forgeries, at one point ordering him to “revise” Abbot Odo’s Historia translationis, which had notable consequences, as we shall see. Peter’s second account of the debate at Lago Pasale, in which he acted as chief spokesman for Montecassino, contains his specific claims regarding the “imperial” nature of Montecassino. On the death of Abbot Seniorectus in February of 1137, Pope Innocent II attempted to depose his community-elected successor, Abbot Rainald II. Early in the debate, Peter has the emperor revive a claim that had first appeared in the early

45 His first account was inserted into the Chronicle of Montecassino as the Altercatio pro

cenobio Casinensi in Chron. Cass., 574–90. A second, more detailed version was published later in 1144, printed in Casper, Petrus Diaconus, 248–80. 46 For an evaluation of Peter’s autobiography, see Peter the Deacon, Ortus, xxi–xxv. Also, Hartmut Hoffmann, “Petrus Diaconus, die Herren von Tusculum,” Deutches Archiv, 27 (1971), 1–109. 47 Peter lists his works in Chron. cass., 529–30.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

267

eleventh century: that Montecasino had been erected not by Benedict alone but with the assistance of “noble Romans,” Maurus and Placid: For we read in the deeds of our ancestors that Varro, consul of the Romans, chose this place from all of the locations in the Roman Empire; he built it and made it outstanding with many monuments. After his death, Caesar gave the fortress of Cassino to Antony, just as Cicero said in his Philippics. It might be presented to us that Benedict, who was its constructor, but not its auctor, was at the time an auditor of the Roman church. We respond that the monastery was built not alone [by Benedict], but along with noble Romans; by Blessed Gregory’s testimony, Blessed Benedict had been directed by God to build Montecassino along with Maurus, the son of Equitius the senator and Placid, the son of the patrician Tertullus. What could be greater?”48

The emperor argued from this that Montecassino was a camera imperii, a privately held imperial property and so immune from papal authority.49 This novel account of the origins and character of Montecassino involved several extraordinary propositions. The first is that the site for Montecassino was chosen because it had been a center of classical Roman culture and politics. The account seems to suggest, first, that an essential continuity existed between the pre-Christian Roman Empire and Montecassino; that they shared the same or at least similar characters and destinies. Second, an opinion existed that while Saint Benedict was the monastery’s constructor, or overseer of construction, he was not its auctor.50 That is, Benedict did not provide the essential charism of Montecassino because he was still only an auditor, a pupil or catechumen of the Roman church, as yet lacking the theological and ascetic training 48 Chron. cass., 551. 49 The idea of the camera imperii was to have a long history and came in later centuries

to describe any property (originally an abbey) that was exclusively an imperial possession and especially valued by the emperor for its moral as well as economic worth: Jean Schneider, “Chambre l’empereur -camera imperii -Jalons pour la reprise d’une enquête,” Media in Francia. Recueil de mélanges offerts à Karl Ferdinand Werner à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire (Maulévrier: Hérault, 1989), 453–70. The imperial diploma dated September 22, 1137, housed at Montecassino (Archives Montecassino, Caps. X, 49), is printed, along with Peter the Deacon’s interpolated additions, in Caspar, “Das Diplom Lothars III für Monte Cassino,” Petrus Diaconus, 239–47. 50 See entry constructor in DuCange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis, 3 vols (Basel, 1610–88).

268

J. B. WICKSTROM

to envision such a monastic institution. Peter’s account modifies this notion, claiming rather that Benedict built Montecassino in cooperation with Maurus and Placid, representatives of the old Roman aristocracy. In Peter’s contemporary biography of Placid, as we shall see, his father is described as a Republican patrician of ancient lineage with the right to carry the fasces in public processions. Placid claimed that his mother was a member of Augustus’s familia. (In the same source, Maurus’s father appears as a senior senator and his wife, Julia, as a member of the Imperial family.)51 These references thus make Maurus and Placid cousins, sharing common ancestors from the imperial Julian house. Creating such a genealogy reflected Peter the Deacon’s love of imperial Rome and his plan to connect it to Montecassino through Maurus and Placid.52 Peter claimed that another issue arose in the course of the 1137 debate that was settled by the authority of Abbot Odo’s Life of Maurus. There was a question about the validity of Abbot Rainald II’s election because he was only a sub-deacon. The argument began over what sacramental and liturgical powers an abbot needed to rule over his congregation. The issue was settled by reference to the Life of Maurus, in which Maurus had been ordained a deacon by Benedict before he was sent off on the mission to France. Presented with this text, the assembly at Lago Pasale agreed that to be elected abbot, a candidate must have attained at least the rank of deacon.53 Here the high status of Odo’s Life of Maurus is demonstrated: it had authority sufficient to function as a proof text for deciding legal issues in a major Church assembly. In a separate entry in the Cassinese Chronicle for the same year, Peter promoted Maurus and Placid as the major heavenly protectors of Montecassino after Saint Benedict. He invented two miracle stories from Montecassino, both involving attempts of King Roger II of Sicily to 51 Caspar, Petrus Diaconus, 59. 52 Peter’s imaginative linkage of Rome with Montecassino through Maurus and Placid

may have originated with his familiarity with Carolingian and later writers who promoted the idea of the essentially Roman and imperial character of Carolingian kingship: Peter also knew their imperial successors of the Saxon and Salian empires. See Anne Latowsky, Emperor of the World: Charlemagne and the Construction of Imperial Authority, 800–1229 (Cornell UP., 2015), esp. Chapters 3 and 4. See also Ramseyer, “Questions,” 400. Such heroes would, especially appeal to monastic audiences which, by the twelfth century, were largely aristocratic, Isabelle Rosé, “Interactions between Monks and the Lay Nobility,” CHMM , 582. 53 LM , 15. Chron. cass., 583–84.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

269

occupy the abbey. In the first miracle account, a certain Guerin, the chancellor of King Roger II of Sicily, was attempting to place a garrison in the abbey.54 He had threatened the monks, mocking their faith in Maurus and Benedict as its protectors. However, during the course of the assault, Benedict appeared to one of the monks, who was sleeping in the church of Saint Stephen after Lauds. He informed the monk that much damage and suffering would come upon his abbey from the assault, but that all danger would be eliminated if the community prayed earnestly to Saint Maurus. It was therefore decided in a chapter meeting that on every Sunday and feast day at which Benedict was commemorated with a proper antiphon and oration, similar commemorations of Saint Maurus would be added. A few days later, word reached the monastery that Chancellor Guerin had died suddenly and violently, while crying out, “Benedict and Maurus, why are you murdering me?” repeating the final words of the evil count Gaidulf, whom Maurus had dispatched as retribution for his spoliation of Glanfeuil in the 750s.55 Saints so commemorated in the daily Office were usually major patrons of the community. So in this miracle, Maurus is recognized as Montecassino’s chief protector after Benedict himself. Hereafter, Maurus would actively protect the Montecassino community as he had defended the monks of Glanfeuil in earlier centuries. This idea of Montecassino as the proper locus of Maurus’s protective powers was also promoted by the affiliation of Glanfeuil with Montecassino in 1133, as we shall see. Though the second miracle was richer and more complex in its imagery than the first, its goal was the same: to establish Maurus—here along with Placid—as co-operatores of Benedict at Montecassino. An older monk named Albertus, who had lost his sight from disobeying an order from Saint Maurus, was living in the infirmary at Montecassino when, one day, he heard sounds of rejoicing. Upon learning that a truce had been arranged between the abbey and King Roger, he began to sing Psalm 42; when he arrived at verse 3: “send forth thy light and truth” a great light appeared to him and his sight was restored.56 He was able to discern two 54 Chron. cass., 562. 55 Chron. cass., 563; LM , 10 for Gaidulf’s final words. 56 Donald Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge UP., 1992), 48–53

summarizes political and military events in the later 1130s. King Roger, in his prolonged struggle with the emperor Lothair and Pope Innocent II, had recently sacked the cities of Campania, inspiring terror in the still unconquered Montecassino. His partisans under

270

J. B. WICKSTROM

figures coming toward him though the open doors of the abbey church. “venerable in aspect and vesture and surrounded by a divine light.” Coming up to him, they immediately said, “Arise, Brother Albertus, and tell the abbot and the brothers to do penance with zeal for the sins they have committed and declare to them that, while chanting the antiphon of Blessed Mary, they should go forth with bare feet and recite litanies before the body of Blessed Father Benedict.57 Perhaps then God, forgetful of your sins by your laments and penance, may turn away such great calamities from these places.” One of the two figures then identified himself as Maurus and his companion as Placid, “disciples of our most blessed father Benedict.” Maurus then admonished the old monk to carry their message immediately to the abbot and the community. If he failed to do so, he would be again struck blind, as he had been earlier for a similar offense: at that event, the monk had a vision of Jesus and Mary occupying the seats of judgment in Montecassino’s chapter house. Suddenly, Saint Benedict also appeared, flanked by Maurus and Placid. The patriarch proceeded to complain before Christ of all the evils he foresaw would befall Montecassino, even though the Lord promised a great revival of the house thereafter. When Benedict had finished his laments, the ghost of a certain Count Crescentius appeared, from whose nostrils hung heavy smoking censors: the count had first taken these as pledges from Montecassino but later carried them off against the abbot’s wishes. Sometime later, Saint Maurus had returned to the old monk and condemned him to eternal punishment for having failed to report this earlier vision to the community. He would, however, be spared if he immediately reported both of his visions to the abbot. Albertus finally complied, and the community undertook the prescribed liturgical penance. It is noteworthy that both of these miracles, which aimed to present Maurus and Placid as saintly patrons of Montecassino, emphasized the primacy of corporate liturgical prayer that had always been central to Benedictine identity.

the former abbot of Montecassino, Rainald II, began attacking the abbey lands, Chron. cass., 600–1. 57 The emphasis on the presence of the body of Benedict at Montecassino in this passage and elsewhere reinforces Peter’s earlier writings, which had attacked the claims of Fleury to possess the patriarch’s remains. Paul Meyvaert, “Peter the Deacon and the Tomb of Saint Benedict. A Re-examination of the Cassinese Tradition,” R. bén, 65 (1955), 3–70.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

271

In this miracle, the penultimate scene of the entire cassinese Chronicle, Peter presented an expanded configuration of saintly founders and protectors of that abbey: Christ, the Virgin Mary, Benedict, along with Maurus and Placid, were all present in this vision in which they promised to rescue Montecassino from its enemies. The centrality of Maurus in both of these scenes is particularly striking. The details of the second miracle echoed major events in Odo’s Life of Maurus: the refusal of the monk Albertus to act until he was threatened with heavenly punishment recalls the similar story of Abbot James of Cormery, who declined to inform Count Rorigo of God’s intention for Glanfeuil until he was first warned and then assaulted by an angelic messenger.58 Peter the Deacon’s insertion of references to Maurus, now partnered with Placid, into the 1137 debates and these miracles established the two as the heavenly cooperatores of Benedict at Montecassino. Publicizing the miracles worked at Montecassino was especially important since the major relics of both Maurus and Placid were located at other monasteries (and the location of the relics of Saint Benedict himself was being contested between Montecassino and Fleury). The veneration of relics and the petitions to the saints whose powers were exercised through them were not available. New liturgies composed for the veneration of these saints and miracles attesting to their spiritual presence and power also helped overcome the cultic deficiencies caused by the absence of their major relics.

Peter the Deacon Creates the Cult of Saint Placid at Montecassino The most innovative feature of the miracles summarized above was the presence of Saint Placid. Peter the Deacon’s invention of the cult of Saint Placid far surpassed in both volume and creativity his promotion of Maurus as a Cassinese saint. Little material existed for creating this cult: Placid had appeared briefly as a young monk in Gregory’s Life of Benedict. He was “a boy of tender years” who was offered along with Maurus to Benedict to be brought up in the monastic life. Gregory treated him as a somewhat hapless foil for Benedict and Maurus: hauling water for Benedict to the top of Mount Cassino, then falling into a lake while fetching water, rescued by Maurus by the hair of his head. These two stories were

58 LM , 13.

272

J. B. WICKSTROM

extended in the early eleventh century by a brief entry in the Cassinese Chronicle, which claimed that Benedict had sent Placid south to manage some Sicilian properties bestowed on the abbey by his father, Tertullus.59 These inspired Peter the Deacon to create, as was his wont, a fantastical narrative, supported by massive, mostly fictitious documentation. At the center of this project was Peter’s creation of a “second Maurus” from this shadowy figure, who extended the imperium of Montecassino to south Italy and Sicily just as Maurus had into the Loire Valley in the North. From Gregory the Great’s passing comment that Placid was the offspring of a noble family, Peter created a genealogy linking him to the classical Caesars as well as the later Byzantine emperors. All of this, and much more, took shape in the form of three Lives of Saint Placid, amounting to over 35,000 words. The first of these Lives was supposedly written by a certain Gordianus, the name of Pope Gregory the Great’s father.60 This “Gordianus” played the same role of fictional author as pseudo-Faustus had in The Life of Maurus. This Gordianus, having escaped the Saracen attack that martyred Placid and his siblings in Sicily, produced a Life of Placid for the emperor Justinian, Placid’s supposed uncle. This Life, Peter claimed, was eventually translated and made its way back to Montecassino where Peter “discovered” it and, as Odo had done with the Life of Maurus, “edited” it for contemporary literary tastes.61 Borrowing material from Gregory’s Life of Benedict just as Odo had, Peter also refocused Gregory’s stories away from Maurus toward his own hero. For example, by connecting Placid with the Roman imperial families, Peter elevates him above Maurus, who was depicted as the son of a mere Roman senator. Similarly, in Odo’s version of the famous story of Placid’s rescue from drowning, the point of the miracle was to illustrate Maurus’s swift obedience. In the Peter/Gordianus version, the point is the wisdom of Placid in recognizing that it was Benedict’s supernatural power of seeing events from afar that saved him.62 59 Chron. cass., 63–65. 60 Peter does not specifically identify Gordianus as Gregory the Great’s father, but

his concern to identify his supposed authors with Gregory suggests this relationship was intended. 61 Peter later added this Life of Placid, entitled Petri Diaconi Placidi Vita to his collection of biographies of the great saints of Montecassino, Ortus, 6–16. 62 Ortus, 10.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

273

The main original thread in Peter’s first Life of Placid involves the supposed donation by Placid’s father of 18 manors and 7000 slaves to Montecassino on the occasion of Placid’s entry there as an oblate. In a second Life of Placid (attributed to an ancient translator), Peter expanded this list by adding the names of 80 additional villas. These were simply the names of ancient locations which Peter lifted from Cicero’s Verrine Orations and from an ancient Roman road map, the Itinerarium Antonini Augusti.63 Thus, Peter exaggerated the size of Montecassino’s holdings just as he had for Glanfeuil’s properties in his forged version of Urban II’s decree of 1096.64 Later in this first Life, Placid is sent by Benedict to govern the Sicilian lands donated by his father, in the course of which he founds a monastery at Messana, which strictly observed the Rule of Benedict, in imitation of Maurus Glanfeuil. Here, the abbey was built at the request of the governor of Sicily rather than of a French bishop as in Odo’s Life of Maurus. In his journey south, Placid performed many miracles, modeled on Maurus’s wonderworking while traveling north into France. Maurus, though, as we have noted, gradually ceased to invoke Benedict’s assistance in his cures, which highlighted his evolving independence and emerging Christ-like identity. Placid, however, continued to request the assistance of Benedict to effect his miracles and called upon the patriarch at the moment of his own martyrdom. These remind us that Peter the Deacon’s primary goal in this Life was to celebrate Placid’s connections to Benedict and Montecassino, not to establish him as an independent saint and founding abbot like Odo’s Saint Maurus. By 1137, Peter had vastly expanded this first Life into a long hagiographical romance of more than 25,000 words. This version centers on Placid’s martyrdom in Sicily, which did not figure in Peter’s first Life.65 63 For the list of additions to Tertullus’ gifts, see H. Bloch. “Tertullus Sicilian Donation and a Newly Discovered Treatise in Peter the Deacon’s Placidus Forgeries,” Fälschungen im Mittelalter. Internationaler Kongress der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, München, 16.–19. September 1986, IV: Diplomatische Fälschungen (II). ed. Wolfram Setz (MGH. Schriften, 33) (Hannover, 1988), 114–17 and 122–25. Caspar concluded that the original list of eighteen properties represented actual early possessions of Montecassino, as did the first entries of Peter’s lists of Glanfeuil holdings. Erich Caspar, “Zur ältesten Geschichte von Monte Cassino,” Neues Archiv, 34 (1909), 195–207. 64 See the Appendix to Chapter 7 above, 194–206. 65 A brief account of Placid’s martyrdom was added to the end of the first Life over an

erasure, Berlière, “Le culte de S. Placide,” 42. Peter the Deacon’s story of Placid’s Sicilian

274

J. B. WICKSTROM

So, for example, Peter recast the moral of the story of Placid’s rescue from drowning so that it was no longer an example of Placid’s wisdom but of how God had preserved him for the more glorious death of a martyr.66 Placid’s two brothers and a sister, figures invented de novo by Peter for this second Life, had come to visit his monastery when it was attacked by a Muslim fleet under the command of Muhammad (“Mamusha”) himself. After being tortured, Placid and his siblings were beheaded and the monastery destroyed.67 The origin of this story lay in a misidentification of Benedict’s disciple with an early Christian martyr of the same name in an eleventh-century Cassinese martyrology.68 This error suited Peter’s purposes admirably, since it would make Placid the Benedictine proto-martyr, a prestigious distinction that no holy man of the newer, supposedly more heroic, Orders could yet claim. The second Life of Placid boasted that “by this act, Saint Benedict’s monastery became scarlet, whereas before it had gleamed white through the works of Father Benedict.”69 Peter extended this topos to include several passages that celebrated Placid’s personal purity of body and heart, allowing Peter further literary flourishes juxtaposing the “whiteness” of his purity

adventures and martyrdom at the hands of the Muslim invaders was likely inspired by a tradition of such stories that began to circulate in Southern Italy from the ninth century: Ramseyer, “Questions,” 401. 66 After the destruction of Placid’s monastery, Maurus, who is portrayed by Peter as the prior of Montecassino, requested Gordianus to undertake the rebuilding of Placid’s monastery, Acta Ss. Placidi, AASS Oct III, 116A–116D. Peter then added an additional treatise which detailed this reconstruction of Placid’s abbey by monks sent from Montecassino. Entitled Series restaurationum et destructionum cenobii S. Placidi, this work was intended to parallel Odo’s second work, with the similar title of Historia eversionis et restaurationis coenobii beati Mauri. For a good discussion of these documents and Peter’s intentions, see Herbert Bloch, “Tertullus’ Sicilian Donation, 97–128. 67 Peter borrowed their names from other early martyrs who were not associated with Sicily or Placid: Bloch. “Peter the Deacon’s Vision of Byzantium and a Rediscovered Treatise in his ‘Acta S. Placidi,’” Bisanzio, Roma e l “Italia nell’ alto medioevo, 3–9 april 1986 Spoleto (Perugia), Centro italiano di studi sull’ “Alto Medioevo (CISAM) 1988 (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’ Alto Medioevo 34): 822. 68 Bloch, “Tertullus’ Sicilian Donation,” 99–100. 69 Acta Ss. Placidi et Fratrum, AASS, October III, 135–136. The association of the

monastic life (“white martyrdom”) with actual shedding of blood for Christ (“red martyrdom”) was an ancient one: Alfred Rush, “Spiritual Martyrdom in Saint Gregory the Great,” Theological Studies, 23 (1962), 569–60.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

275

with the “scarlet” of his martyrdom.70 Peter thus identified martyrdom and virginity—virginity or “purity” providing the spiritual strength that permitted the martyr to face a violent death.71 This new emphasis on purity likely also inspired Peter’s revival of Pope Gregory’s story of the temptation of Saint Benedict by dancing girls. This scene had been entirely omitted from Odo’s Life of Maurus. It reappears here in Peter’s narrative in a typically altered form: Satan’s attack on monastic chastity is here redirected away from Benedict toward Placid and Maurus “in order to destroy them.” Peter adds a typically fulsome description of the dancing girls, “seven young girls, naked, joining hands and for a long time teasing them and simulating wicked acts and speaking profane words.”72 Such passages wrapped the new founding father of Montecassino in heroic virginity, a virtue that was becoming central to twelfth-century monastic hagiography, particularly among the newer Orders.73 All three Lives of Placid emphasized the contemplative character of Placid’s monastic ascesis.74 This theme parallels the arguments made by contemporary Cluniac writers who celebrated Maurus as a champion of the contemplative element of Benedictine life, implicitly 70 For example, “that he (Benedict) might carry little streams of heavenly teaching to this youthful lily, and under his tutelage and guidance, a flower of virtue come forth in due course in maturity, so that it might give forth a martyr in due season. He brought forth one of whom we are describing as a lily of purity”: Acta altera, Altera Auctore Stephano Aniciensi, AASS, October 3, 140–140. “He led a heavenly life placed within him and, conforming himself to an angelic purity for the sake its power, while he still was journeying here in the flesh, his spirit already laid hold of heaven by his devotion.” Acta altera, 144. 71 M. Rubin, “Choosing Death: The Experience of Martyrdom in Late Medieval Europe,” Martyrs and Martyrology, ed. Diana Wood (Blackwell, 1993), 156–57. 72 Ortus, 11. 73 H. E. J. (Herbert Edward John Cowdrey), “Pope Gregory VII and the Chastity

of the Clergy,“ Medieval Purity and Piety, ed. Michael Frassetto (Garland, New York, 1998), 270–1; Robert Bartlett. Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things (Princeton UP., 2013), 202–3. It also seems likely that this emphasis on Placid’s purity borrows from the hagiography of female virgin-martyrs, particularly of the Sicilian martyrs Agnes and Lucy. Peter the Deacon’s accounts of the passio of Placid’s sister, Flavia, draws heavily on these famous stories. 74 For example, “from the contemplation of heavenly secrets he might drink in suitable methods of praying and the power of genuine prayer.” Acta Altera Auctore Stephano Aniciensi, 141. Also “Life[….] seemed a squalid and deformed collection of earthly things, and he was entirely carried off in the beauty of Jesus Christ to be contemplated and possessed.” Acta Altera, 145.

276

J. B. WICKSTROM

refuting claims by the reformed Orders to ownership of contemplative monasticism.75 On the other hand, throughout this second Life, Placid is given the title of milites. When Benedict sends him to oversee the estates that his father gifted to Montecassino, the Master instructed Placid to “gird up his loins like a man for the undertaking of the work of a milites.”76 In another passage, he is described as the first monk to struggle against the Saracens; thus this much-promoted Cassinese saint appears as an early exemplar of resistance to Islam, only a few decades after the opening of the Crusades and anticipating by some years Saint Bernard’s encomium on monkknights, De laude novae militiae (In Praise of The New Knighthood). These martial metaphors also were also likely intended to frame Placid’s martyrdom, a sacrifice which had evoked heroic military metaphors since the writings of Saint Paul. Shortly after completing this second Life of Placid, Peter the Deacon condensed it into a third version of about 8000 words, the Acta altera auctore Stephano Aniciensis. This Peter presented as a Latin version of Gordianus’s original Greek, translated by a certain Stephanus, supposedly a member of Pope Gregory’s own familia, the Anicii. This version was likely intended as a liturgical resource: the earliest manuscripts are divided into numbered sections, suitable for Matins readings at Montecassino. In the late 1030s, Peter gathered together all of these writings, along with others that concerned Placid, into a “dossier” on the saint, the Registrum sancti Placidi (Cod. Cas. 518). This collection featured seventeen sermons on Placid, admittedly composed by Peter himself, which occupy almost three-fourths of the collection, as well as many fictitious letters and other documents. Most of these were created in order to elaborate on and corroborate the events and claims of the three Lives. Peter the Deacon thus transformed the figure of Placid, a virtually unknown entity, into a hero of Cassinese history and equal partner of Maurus; at the same time, as we have seen, Peter was revising the image of Maurus from the first abbot of Glanfeuil into a Cassinese missionary, now a returned founder of Montecassino, second only to Benedict himself. Much of Peter’s massive hagiographical promotion was intended to support the historic rapprochement of Montecassino and Glanfeuil in the same decade. More broadly, all of these projects were part of the grand 75 For martyrdom, purity, and contemplation as related ideas in the Cistercian context: Bernard, Sermon on the Song of Songs, trans. Kilian Walsh, 4 vols (Cistercian Publications, 1970), 4. 4 (#47). 76 Ortus, 13.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

277

scheme of Peter and the abbey’s leaders to secure for Montecassino a reputation as the greatest of all abbeys in an era when its hegemony was being called into question.

New Cassinese Liturgies in Honor of Saint Maurus The simultaneous appearance of newly composed liturgies also formed a key part of Montecassino’s promotion of its saints. Prior to Peter the Deacon’s promotion of Maurus and Placid in the 1130s, several manuscripts appeared, containing a full Office in honor of Saint Maurus at Montecassino and at associated houses in central Italy.77 Thomas Kelly believes they were first composed as elements of the liturgical reforms carried out in the time of Abbot Desiderius II.78 The likely impetus for their appearance was the creation of the virtually identical proper Masses and Offices of Saint Maurus at Fossés and Glanfeuil. The Cassinese Office of Saint Maurus follows the Glanfeuil/Fosses version in featuring antiphons and other texts which paraphrased Odo’s Life of Maurus. These are interspersed with older material from the Common of Confessors, which was used in liturgies honoring Maurus before proper Offices were composed.79 However, the Cassinese Office is distinctively different from the Fossés/Glanfeuil model both in the texts chosen and the themes they developed.80 For example, the antiphons ad psalmos for First Vespers in the Fossés antiphonary were intercessory texts borrowed from the Common Office for Confessors. The five Cassinese antiphons for First Vespers, on the other hand, were historical in content and based on texts from Odo’s 77 See primarily the antiphonary from the mid-eleventh century, Montecassino MS 542. Its text of the Glanfeuil/Fossés office of Saint Maurus with local variations is printed in Thomas F. Kelly, The Ordinal of Montecassino and Benevento: Breviarium sive ordo officiorum, 11th Century (Freiburg, 2008), 39–41. 78 Kelly, Ordinal, 50. 79 There is a significant contemporary manuscript from Fossés that contains the Cassi-

nese version of this Office, BnF, MS lat. 3778. Goudesenne argued that, because MS. 3778 was produced at the Fossés workshop, it was the source of the Cassinese version. However, it is much more likely that the text of 3778 was produced at Montecassino and then made its way to Fossés. There it was inserted into a twelfth-century libellus from the Fossés workshop and dedicated to Maurus: Goudesenne, “Montecassino, Glanfeuil, Paris,” 210. 80 Goudesenne, “Montecassino, Glanfeuil, Paris,” 205–10.

278

J. B. WICKSTROM

Life of Maurus. They summarized his reception and growth at the abbey and his first miracles. Intercessory antiphons similar to those used at First Vespers of the Fossés manuscript appear in the Cassinese version as the five antiphons ad psalmos for Lauds. They are, however, textually different, again illustrating the independent development of the Cassinese Office. The Cassinese version achieves here a better stylistic and theological structure: first the life of the saint is recounted in the First Vespers and Matins antiphons. Only later, at Lauds, are intercessory antiphons addressed to him, highlighting the idea that Maurus’s post-mortem powers resulted from the virtues displayed during his life on earth. Such thematic variations from its Fossés model run throughout the Cassinese Office. So, in the Glanfeuil/Fossés Office for Matins, all 12 of the Matins antiphons celebrated events of Maurus’s life at Montecassino and, within that context, emphasized the master/pupil relationship of Benedict and Maurus. While these same themes appear in the Cassinese Office, they occur in the first five Matins responsories; the remaining four responsories deal with events in Maurus’s life after he left Montecassino. Also, unlike the pattern of Glanfeuil/Fossés Office texts, in which several Matins antiphons elaborate on a single event, each of the Cassinese antiphons refers to a different event. The Cassinese Office thus provided more broadly based reflections on key moments in Maurus’s life. Finally, responsories eight and nine of the Cassinese Office are creative and formally unusual, linking two sequential incidents through a connected poetic composition. Resp. 8: Ita per Mauri meritum/vini redundant vasculum/ut uni quod satis est/tot sitientes satis. Resp. 9: Sancti viri compasssio/solo crucis signaculoa foedo/cancri ulcere mire salvavit hominem.81

These two responsories focus on Maurus as a miracle worker, a theme which would later be central to Peter the Deacon’s promotion of his cult in the 1130s. As might be expected from the “mother abbey,” the Cassinese texts for Matins feature Benedict much more prominently than do

81 Thus, through Maurus’s merit, the small container of wine overflowed/so that what had been enough for one/satisfied as many as thirsted. The compassion of the holy man/with the sign of the cross alone/saved the man from the foul ulcer of the disease.

9

THE CULT OF MAURUS AND THE MONASTIC “EMPIRES”

279

the Glanfeuil /Fossés versions: one-half of the Cassinese Matins responsories center on Benedict’s words and deeds. They also avoided, as did the Fossés antiphonary, any suggestion that Maurus was replacing Benedict as a new dux monachorum, the title accorded to Maurus by the Glanfeuil Office manuscript.82 By the early twelfth century, local variations of the Cassinese Office had appeared. Most of these followed the Cassinese template closely, though one of them, a regional version surviving for the female monastery of Saint Sixtus in Rome, diverged more sharply from the Cassinese model. Only 11 of its 37 proper texts were borrowed from the Cassinese version. The Sistine texts of the Matins antiphons ad psalmos are both elegant and original: the first four meditate on the rescue of Placid from drowning. The first two are borrowed from widely used Offices of Saint Benedict, while the later three appear to be original compositions. The fifth of these antiphons fulsomely praises Maurus’s role as Benedict’s assistant and asks his intercession in that capacity. These antiphons all emphasized the close association of Maurus with Benedict, a feature of the Sistine Office texts overall. The most intriguing feature of the Sistine Matins is its resemblance to the Glanfeuil/Fossés tradition, which similarly devoted the antiphons ad psalmos at Matins to a single miracle, the cure of the blind man at Agaunum. It is tempting to suggest this implies knowledge of the Glanfeuil/Fossés Office in Rome, but there is no other evidence that the Sistine texts were directly influenced by that tradition. The fundamental significance of the Sistine Office and the other central Italian versions is that, by the early twelfth century at the latest, veneration of Maurus was spreading out from Montecassino and developing local variations. The assimilation of the cults of Saint Maurus and Saint Placid into the monastic cultures of Cluny and Montecassino was a complex and gradual development over the course of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries. The cult of Maurus was used at Cluny primarily to connect the latter’s history with Saint Benedict and to justify its usages against the radical monastic reformers. The materials were largely created by thoughtful Cluniac historians. Maurus and Placid were introduced to Montecassino by way of novel miracle stories, new liturgies, and the fictional Lives and letters of Placid created by Peter the Deacon. Both monasteries promoted

82 See above, Chapter 8, 240.

280

J. B. WICKSTROM

Maurus and Placid as foundational saints of traditional monasticism in the face of new challenges, not only from monastic reformers but from a newly aggressive papacy as well. At Montecassino, however, this assimilation went an important step further. A formal union was negotiated between Montecassino and Glanfeuil in 1133. This relationship, which endured for over 150 years, was also shaped by the fictions and forgeries of Peter the Deacon. His interpretation of the union and its identityshifting consequences to both abbeys form the primary themes of our two final chapters.

CHAPTER 10

Glanfeuil and Montecassino: Fictive Histories and Constructed Memories

Montecassino’s promotion of Saint Maurus—and Placid—in the 1130s aimed primarily to embellish the past and present of Montecassino. This project was occurring at the same time as a historic union between Montecassino and Glanfeuil was being negotiated, and the two projects reinforced each other: Maurus, the founder and heavenly patron of Glanfeuil, was assimilated into the canon of Cassinese patron saints just as his monastery was appropriated by its original “mother abbey.” A chief characteristic of this period is the abundance of documentation. It was an example of the so-called “documentary moment” of the twelfth century, during which written records replaced memory as a primary source. More profoundly, this transition allowed, and was likely caused by, the desires of monastic houses to immortalize themselves and their history, and in the process erasing existing histories, and constructing new identities. This was precisely the outcome, both for Glanfeuil and for Montecassino, of the 1133 negotiations over their union. This extensive documentation, however, is far from being dependable, so the fundamental reasons behind filiation remain uncertain. From its 1096 emancipation from Fossés until about 1120, Glanfeuil had experienced significant growth and prosperity. Its cartulary entries indicate significant additions to its assets. By 1119, Glanfeuil had amassed the funds to rebuild the abbey church on a large scale, and Pope Callixtus II himself attended its dedication. Despite these advances, or perhaps © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_10

281

282

J. B. WICKSTROM

because of them, by 1120 Glanfeuil was experiencing the insecurities of a small, newly independent abbey in a world of increasingly powerful and aggressive neighbors. There are indications from the early 1100s that Montecassino had begun to promote itself as Glanfeuil’s ally and protector. For example, the Cassinese Chronicle claimed that Cassinese monks travelling with Callixtus II in 1119 convinced him to stop off at Glanfeuil for the dedication of its new church. Ten years later, Glanfeuil sent a request through Montecassino for papal assistance against “the duke of Anjou and others,” who were invading its lands.1 As we have seen, problems with powerful neighbors were not new, but this is the first example of Glanfeuil petitioning leading church powers for assistance. These accounts, however, invite skepticism. Both were composed by Peter the Deacon in the 1130s and claimed, falsely, that Glanfeuil was already a subject of the Italian abbey in 1119—an early instance of Peter the Deacon’s practice of backdating events which occurred much later.2 On the other hand, the Glanfeuil cartulary did record several complaints by its abbot against the count of Anjou’s bailiffs.3 It also mentioned an increase in property disputes involving Glanfeuil in the early twelfth century, several of which Glanfeuil had lost.4 A document from the 1133 negotiations with Montecassino stated that the primary impetus for the union of Glanfeuil and Montecassino was the protection of the former’s lands, “that they [the monks of Glanfeuil] should retain the property they possess and be able to recoup what has been unjustly taken.”5 In addition to harassment from secular lords, increasing episcopal pressure was being applied against exempt monasteries, an issue which had been brought up at the First Lateran Council in 1123.6 In 1125, Ulger had become bishop of Angers. One of the early champions of a strong 1 Chron. cass., 801. 2 Chron. cass., 541. 3 The count promised to restrain his officials, however, and several other charters

suggest good relations obtained between the duke and the abbot in these years, e.g., Cart. de S-M., 380, 384, 393. 4 Cart. de S-M., 389–90, 392, 395. 5 See the (forged) bull of Hadrian II in the Appendix to this chapter. 6 There were, however, strong countervailing pressures in defense of the inviolability

of monastic exemptions. See, for example, the widely copied eleventh-century monastic canon law forgeries known as the “seventy-four titles,” printed in Christof Rolker, “The

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

283

and independent episcopacy, Ulger applied legal and personal pressure for decades on both lay lords and abbots whom the bishop felt were intruding upon his rights or avoiding their obligations.7 His concerns were not imaginary: three abbeys connected with Glanfeuil possessed forged documents of exemption from the bishop’s authority.8 Still, in 1140, Ulger was in fact suspended for a year by Pope Innocent II for aggression against the abbey of Fontevrault, which was under papal protection. Somewhat earlier, a violent dispute arose between Ulger and Abbot Geoffrey of Vendôme over the former’s attempt to collect tithes from parish priests who were connected to the monastery. At one point, the bishop placed all the abbey’s churches under interdict. Glanfeuil held several parishes of this sort.9 The abbey possessed several royal charters of immunity and there is no evidence that Ulger applied any such pressure to Glanfeuil. Moreover, Glanfeuil clearly recognized episcopal authority, if a limited one.10 It may also have assumed that it had obtained exempt status owing to its 1096 emancipation from the abbey of Fossés, though no explicit claim for exemption was made either at the time or in the negotiations for the agreements with Montecassino in 1133. Finally, by the early twelfth century, the pope and his canon lawyers were beginning to enforce the hierarchical mode of Church organization, insisting that every monastery and church occupy its proper place in subordination to the pope and its bishop. The decision of Glanfeuil’s abbot Drogo to seek a closer bond with Montecassino in 1133 was likely influenced by all these pressures which,

Collection in Seventy-Four Titles: A Monastic Canon Law Collection from EleventhCentury France,” in Readers, Texts, and Compilers in the Earlier Middle Ages: Studies in Law in Honour of Linda Fowler-Magerll, ed. Brett and Kathleen G. Cushin (Routledge, 2009), 59–72. 7 See, for example, Ulger’s placement of the abbey of Saint Peter in Angers along with all its possessions under the control of his cathedral: Guy Jarousseau, “Géographié religieuse de la ville d’Angers,” Mémoire, traces, récits, dir. Anne Prouteau, 2 vols (Paris, 2008), 1, Le passé revisité, 103. 8 Fleury, St-Florent-le-Saumur and Saint-Maurice d’Agaune: Ludwig Falkenstein, La papauté et les abbayes françaises au XI e et XII e siècles: exemption and protection apostolique

(Paris, 1997), 60–61. 9 Théodore- Pierre Pletteau, “Annales ecclesiastiques d’Anjou; Ulger, evêque de l’Angers,” Revue de l’Anjou, 15 (1875): 287–313. 10 Charles the Bald: 847 and 868–89 (forged), Charles the Fat: 886, and Duke William of Aquitaine: (1043): Jarousseau, “Le Cartulaire de Saint-Maur,” 24–25.

284

J. B. WICKSTROM

while they had not yet reached crisis proportions, did represent a threat to traditional liberties, especially to small monasteries such as Glanfeuil. Some sort of protective lordship by prestigious but remote Montecassino was probably considered preferable to the demands of a nearby aggressive bishop. Glanfeuil had, for the most part, prospered for over two centuries under the lordship of Fossés. Moreover, the promotion of the veneration of St Maurus both at Montecassino and its many associated monasteries, which was well advanced by 1133, could only benefit his small shrine on the Loire. Peter the Deacon is the primary source for these negotiations, and his “records” display the drama, exaggerations, and fictions that were trademarks of his work. Though similar in structure to his later, largely fictional, Registrum S. Placidi, Peter’s presentation of the union of Montecassino and Glanfeuil in Registrum Petri diaconi, is a more complex and audacious literary creation. It imposes his views of the past and present identities of Montecassino and Glanfeuil onto both real and imagined past events. These are all presented in the context of his narrative, itself punctuated by the insertion of 27 documents of different sorts, both genuine and fictitious. These documents were collected and edited by Herbert Bloch, most recently in his monumental three-volume work, Montecassino in the Middle Ages.11 Bloch entitled Peter’s presentation of the union The Dossier of 1133, a useful term which this study will adopt. While Bloch’s pioneering work has been rightly admired, his contribution consists of a careful collection, organization, and editing of the documents, and suggestions for further research. His discussion of the documents themselves is not extensive. To extend and deepen Bloch’s analysis of these texts is a major goal of the chapter which follows. It will also address the

11 This is a revision of Bloch’s monograph, “The Schism of Pope Anacletus II and the Glanfeuil Forgeries of Peter the Deacon,” Traditio, 8 (1952): 159–264. A critical edition of Peter’s work has recently appeared: Registrum Petri diaconi (Montecassino, Archivio dell’abbazia, Reg. 3), 4 vols (Roma: École française de Rome, Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2015). Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale. Antiquitates, 45. However, because Bloch’s edition arranges relevant documents from the Registrum chronologically with useful introductions and comments, along with other relevant materials from elsewhere, references in this book will be to Bloch’s edition. Montecassino has also published a facsimile of the Registrum: Il registrum di Pietro Diacono (Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, Reg. 3), commentario codicologico, paleografico, diplomatico par Mariano Dell’Omo, 2 vols (Montecassino, 2000).

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

285

political and religious ideas which undergird the Dossier, which Bloch did not examine in any detail.

The First Meeting of Abbot Drogo with Abbot Seniorectus, March 1133 Peter the Deacon wrote that, on 10 March 1133, Abbot Drogo of Glanfeuil appeared “at the gates of Saint Benedict…bearing gifts more precious than gold:” relics of Saint Maurus himself and a portion of the Rule written in Benedict’s own hand.12 Peter’s narrative here seems calculated to revive the memory of the visit of Cluny’s Abbot Odilo in 1027, who presented Montecassino’s abbot with a relic of Maurus and acknowledged his supremacy (which Peter the Deacon had also described). The abbey and its neighbors had rejoiced at the “homecoming” of Maurus. Drogo’s second gift to Abbot Seniorectus, a part of the Rule which Benedict supposedly wrote with his own hand, was more unusual and likely indicated his desire to bring the two houses into a closer union.13 This gift evoked Maurus’ departure for France when he had received from Benedict “a copy of the Rule written by his own holy hand.”14 There could be no more powerful symbol of the two abbeys’ common history than their shared possession of pages of the Rule from the master’s own hand that had once been entrusted to his disciple, Maurus. Now it had been returned by Benedict’s successor to its sacred point of origin.15

12 Registrum Petri Deaconi, #607, fol.253r. Printed in MCMA, 2. 1012. 13 As a possible indicator of the veracity of Peter’s account, or at least of its influence,

an ancient copy of the final chapter of the Rule and the last sections of the penultimate chapter were exhibited at Montecassino until the end of the eighth century. In the seventeenth century, Mabillon suggested this might be the document to which Peter was referring. Mabillon did not regard the script to be ancient enough to be an autograph of Benedict, but in a discussion of this fragment in 1959, Paul Mayvaert suggested that it might have been a twelfth-century forgery, manufactured by Drogo’s scriptorium at Glanfeuil to present to Montecassino: Paul Mayvaert, “Problems Concerning the “Autograph” Manuscript of Saint Benedict’s Rule,” R. bén. 69 (1959): 3–21. 14 LM , 18. 15 Bloch believed that Drogo had also brought to this meeting a copy of Urban II’s

diploma of 1096 as proof of the abbey’s independence from Fossés and perhaps a list of the abbey’s possessions as well, MCMA, 2. 989. This is a reasonable suggestion, though Bloch offers no evidence. The presence of this document at Montecassino in 1133 would

286

J. B. WICKSTROM

These gifts also expressed the spiritual bond between the two houses, emphasized in the speech that Abbot Drogo made immediately after these formalities in Montecassino’s chapterhouse. “I have no doubt that it is known to your venerable paternity how the monastery of Glanfeuil was built by the most Blessed Maurus, the disciple of holy father Benedict; it was both established in monastic observance and united with the abbey of Montecassino by an indissoluble bond of love (amoris vinculo sociata). Coming therefore for this matter to the gates of a common father, Benedict, we both wish and will that the love and union (delectionem conjunctionemque) of your monastery and ours may remain forever in every way.”16 It is difficult to know exactly what sort of relationship Abbot Drogo was envisioning here, since the central term “conjunctio” had a range of meanings, from “friendship” to “marriage” and even “vassalage.”17 However, the overall tenor of his words seems more congruent with the nuptial imagery often used in the monastic contemplative tradition to express spiritual unity. This gift-giving and the abbot’s language also show that Glanfeuil still identified itself fundamentally as the house founded by Saint Maurus. Moreover, underlying his words and gestures is an air of independence, which had surely been strengthened by almost four decades of freedom from domination of Fossés abbey. While Abbot Drogo was seeking a closer relationship with Montecassino, nothing in his words or ritual gestures suggests he was pressing for a formal affiliation with Montecassino, let alone submission to it. Thus, it is jarring to read Abbot Seniorectus’ response: “Privileges,” he responded, “created by the Roman pontiffs have declared the manner in which the ecclesia of Glanfeuil and Montecassino has been conjoined (conjuncte) from the beginning of its construction.”18 Though this is the same term Drogo had used, “conjunctio,” Seniorectus employs it in a legalistic sense, quite different from Drogo’s fraternal tone. It is also striking that Abbot Seniorectus used the singular “church” (ecclesia) here, as if the two abbeys had always been a single entity. Seniorectus’ account for the long list of genuine Glanfeuil possessions entered at this time in the Registrum Petri diaconi. 16 Registrum Petri diaconi, fol 253v, no. 607, printed in MCMA, 2. 1011–12; 1014. 17 See entry conjunctio in Albert Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens

(Turnhout, rev. ed. 2005). 18 Reg. Pet. diac. in MCMA, 2. 1011–12; 1015.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

287

response made clear that the leaders of Montecassino regarded this spiritual “union” which had been invoked by Abbot Drogo as a legal relationship, rooted in history and confirmed by papal decrees. These statements by the two abbots were only the opening phase of Peter the Deacon’s invention of an elaborate historical and legal connection between Glanfeuil and Montecassino. Peter’s narrative goes on to claim that Glanfeuil had always been subordinated to Montecassino because Maurus had founded Glanfeuil on Benedict’s orders, acting as his prior. Most essential was Peter’s claim that, in 787, Glanfeuil was “returned” (reddere) to Montecassino’s protection by papal authority. This latter assertion is supported by several fabricated documents which Abbot Seniorectus ordered to be read out loud to the Montecassino chapter meeting of March 10, 1133, in the presence of Abbot Drogo and his retinue. These documents, fabricated by Peter the Deacon with extraordinary skill, formed the foundation of Montecassino’s supposed lordship over Glanfeuil ab initio. They revised the history of Glanfeuil so convincingly that its identity was fundamentally altered, at least as far as Montecassino was concerned: from Abbot Odo’s narrative of an independent abbey founded by a Christ-like wonderworker into a dependent house founded by one of Montecassino’s officials.

The Documents of the “Dossier of 1133”: An Analysis 1. Bull of Pope Hadrian The first and most important of these fictions was a supposed bull of the eighth-century pope Hadrian I (r.772–795). Dated 787, it stated that Glanfeuil was formally “returned” (reddere) to Montecasino’s protection by papal authority in response to the complaints of the Abbot of Montecassino that Glanfeuil’s property was being unlawfully seized.19

19 Peter’s claim that these documents were issued in 787 was astute: Charlemagne and Hadrian were in fact in Rome together during the spring of that year: Einhard, Life of Charlemagne: The Latin Text, ed. H. W. Garrod (Oxford U.P., 1915), 13 (ch. 10). Moreover, LM , 11 stated that the duke of Anjou had invaded and occupied the lands belonging to Glanfeuil during the reign of Charlemagne. This statement likely inspired the claim in Hadrian’s forged bull that attacks on Glanfeuil properties occurred at that time.

288

J. B. WICKSTROM

That statement implies that Montecassino was responsible for the security of Glanfeuil, on whose behalf it was petitioning the pope.20 That responsibility was based on Hadrian’s next claim: that Maurus had been sent out to found Glanfeuil, acting as “prior” of Montecassino. There is no evidence in either Gregory the Great, or Odo’s Life of Maurus that Maurus was ever the Master’s permanent “second in command,” though Odo did, on one occasion, use the term “prior” in reference to Maurus. He explained that, during Benedict’s absence, Maurus took charge of the abbey, entrusted with the duties (officia) of prior (prior), overseer (procurator), and manager (administrator). Maurus was usually described by Odo as Benedict’s discipulus during his early life at Montecassino, later as abbas at Glanfeuil. Peter the Deacon here anachronistically applied the twelfth-century usage of the term prior as an abbot’s permanent lieutenant in order to establish Glanfeuil’s subordination to Montecassino from its foundation.21 Hadrian’s bull then goes on to supplement this claim with a more original argument for Glanfeuil’s dependence on Montecassino ab initio, which anticipates Peter the Deacon’s 1137 views on Montecassino’s imperial character. The bull asserted that since Glanfeuil was founded by Benedict’s magisterium, it should be “always ruled and protected by his imperium.” This foundational magisterium is a combination of spiritual and legal authority. In one of his Lives of Placid, Peter referred several times to Benedict’s magisterium spiritualis: his oversight of the moral life of those

20 One might suggest that Peter’s claim here had its origin in the complaint of Glanfeuil to Montecassino in 1122, in the Cassinese Chronicle, that Angevin officials were aggressing on Glanfeuil’s property; Chron. cass. 541. Montecassino duly passed the complaint on to Rome, where it was in fact acted upon. However, this incident was entered in the Chronicle by Peter the Deacon later and was likely invented to substantiate his claim that Montecassino was already the protector of Glanfeuil well before their union in 1133. 21 Janneke Raaijmakers, The Making of the Monastic Community of Fulda, c. 744–c. 900 (Cambridge UP., 2014), 182–83 discusses the evolution of this office; also. Schroll, Benedictine Monasticism, 62, esp. note. 41. Regarding this, Bloch’s statement that this bull “places Glanfeuil as a priory again under Montecassino” misapplies this term, MCMA, 2. 979. While Hadrian’s supposed bull defined Maurus as Montecassino’s prior, the Dossier documents do not describe Glanfeuil as a priory. They used various terms, all of which define Glanfeuil as an abbey or monastery ruled by an abbot who outranks all others, excepting only the ruler of Montecassino. The Dossier documents also make clear that abbots of Glanfeuil were simply honorary priors of Montecassino during their official visits there.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

289

subject to him and to the Rule 22 The forged decree of Charlemagne which follows Hadrian’s bull in this dossier described Montecassino as Glanfeuil’s magister et pater, bringing together the ideas of teaching ruler and authoritative father.23 In his seminal Life of Benedict, Gregory the Great had said: “Whoever wishes to understand more precisely his values and life, can find all the acts of his magisterium in the institution of that Rule, because in no way could that holy man have taught otherwise then as he lived.”24 Here, the term specifically linked the teaching of Benedict’s Rule with his virtuous life, which together constituted his magisterium. Peter the Deacon was, then, asserting that Glanfeuil was founded on Benedict’s God-given jurisdiction as abbot of Montecassino, the head of all monasteries and as magister, teacher, and father of his discipulus, Maurus. The second and more radical idea that Glanfeuil “should be always ruled and protected by his imperium” anticipates Peter’s claims at Lago Pasale in 1137: that by virtue of its dual origin in God’s providence and in the Roman empire, Montecassino and its abbot, the abbas abbatorum have supreme authority (imperium) over all other abbeys and their abbots. The correlative of imperium was unquestioning obedience, a core requirement of the Rule of Benedict and the virtue which both Gregory the Great and Abbot Odo presented as Maurus’ distinctive virtue, best exemplified in his rescue of Saint Placid from drowning. Peter then cleverly connects this idea of imperium with the obligation to protect subjects under that authority. Glanfeuil “should always be ruled (regatur) and protected (muniatur) by his [Benedict’s] imperium.” From this authority flows the particular responsibility of Montecassino to protect the property of Glanfeuil mentioned in the opening lines of Hadrian’s bull. Peter closes this “foundational authority” section of the supposed bull of Hadrian with the conventional phrase: “saving the honor and liberty 22 “Devoutly and with humility assisting in the school of [Benedict’s] spiritual magis-

terium,” Acta Altera auctore Stephano Aniciensi, 140E. “Also, who with the vanity and pomp of the world left behind, placed himself under his [Benedict’s] spiritual magisterium.” Acta Altera, 144E. 23 Privilegium of Abbot Rainald of Montecassino to Abbot William II of Glanfeuil, MCMA, 2. 1036–37 (#12). 24 Dialogues, II. 243.

290

J. B. WICKSTROM

(honore et libertate) of the abbey (ecclesia) of Glanfeuil.” While this was a conventional closing, it did have legal force. It guaranteed that, in its subordination to Montecassino, Glanfeuil would not suffer loss of its properties or its customary rights, immunities, and protections.25 This phrase perhaps also guarded against accusations that putting an ancient, independent monastery under lordship infringed on its “liberty.”26 2. A fictitious decree of Charlemagne Immediately after the supposed bull of Hadrian, a fictitious decree of Charlemagne, dated in the same year, was read out to the assembly. Peter apparently wanted the authority of both supreme powers, pope and emperor, to validate this union. He is also demonstrating his literary skills by presenting each document in appropriate language: a papal bull filled with legal subtleties and a plain-spoken document of a Carolingian king. Charlemagne’s decree simply states that “it is right that it [Glanfeuil] be governed by the will (arbitrio) of him by whose servant (adminiculo) it was constructed.”27 Here, the grounds for Montecassino’s rule over Glanfeuil rest not on legal ideas as in the bull of Hadrian, but on Maurus’ status as Benedict’s adminiculus , an unusual term which combines the idea of servant and assistant. It is never used elsewhere to describe Maurus’ relationship to Benedict, but it is fitting in this simply-worded secular document. The term also accords with the overall tone of the document, which sets forth their relationship in terms of informal, even familial, bonds. The use of the term arbitrium here is reminiscent of the auctoritas of the Roman paterfamilias which continued to function even after his children have departed the parental household. When the abbot of Glanfeuil visits Montecassino, the decree continued, “let him

25 The classic analysis of the medieval understanding of libertas is still Herbert Grundemann, “Freiheit als religiöses, politisches und persönliches Postulat im Mittelalter,” Historische Zeitschrift, 183 (1957): 23–53. Also Robert Benson, “Libertas in Italy”, 1152– 1226 in La notion de liberté au Moyen Age, Islam, Byzance, Orient: org. by Georges Makdisi et al., Penn-Paris (Dumbarton Oaks Colloquia IV, session des 12–15 octobre 1982) (Paris, 1985), 192, 197–200. 26 Wood, Proprietary Church, 847. 27 See entry in Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus

adminiculus .

for this usage of

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

291

offer as to a teacher and father, (magistro et patri) honor and obedience.” Similarly, the decree stated “that the church of Glanfeuil… should be subject to none other except its mother-abbey,” Montecassino. The use of this phrase to describe Montecassino’s relationship with Glanfeuil also appears in other dossier documents28 : we may recall in this context that the language of familial affection between the two monasteries formed the core of Drogo’s arrival speech to the Montecassino community. Employing familial terms to describe the relationship of believers was an ancient Christian custom and remained popular in medieval monastic writings. Contemporary Cistercian documents were the first to use familial language to express the legal relationships between their “mother abbeys” and their foundations or “daughter houses.”29 Intensely aware of Cistercian developments, Peter the Deacon appears to have appropriated these ideas to express yet another dimension of Glanfeuil’s bonds to Montecassino. After the fictive bulls of Pope Hadrian and the emperor Charlemagne had adumbrated the subjection of Glanfeuil to Montecassino in their different modes, they set forth, in very similar language, its authenticating ritual expressions: when the abbot of Glanfeuil died, a new abbot would be elected by the community. He then would proceed to Montecassino where he would receive the abbatial blessing, which conveyed both the priorate (praepositura) of Montecassino and a “vicariate” throughout Gaul (vicariatum per totam Galliam). The first of these perquisites was clearly intended to be honorary. The abbot of Glanfeuil was, of course, not the working prior of Montecassino. This is made clear by a later statement which explained that, when the abbot of Glanfeuil visited Montecassino, he was to sit in the prior’s chair. This carefully 28 The term was used both in the forged letter of Theodemar to Abbot Gauzlin of Glanfeuil and in the genuine letter of Seniorectus to Abbot John of Glanfeuil. See Appendix below. 29 Familial terms describing relationships between Cistercian abbeys are abundant in the Order’s early constitutional documents. See, for example, Summa cartae caritatis, II, 2, in Narrative and Legislative Texts from early Cîteaux, ed. Chrysogonus Waddell (Abbaye de Cîteaux, 1999), 404. For a general discussion of Cistercian use of familial language, Janet Burton and Julie Kerr, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages (Boydell, 2011), 96–97. Cluniac sources, though they describe complex relationships between unequal monasteries, do not use the language of family and love, but of lordship and legal obligations. (On this, see Guy de Valous, Le monachisme clunisien des origines au XVe siècle; vie intérieure des monastères et organisation de l’ordre, 2 vols (Paris, 1935), 2. Ch. 1.)

292

J. B. WICKSTROM

worded honor simultaneously lifted Glanfeuil’s abbot above all others, while subjecting him to Montecassino and its abbot. The authors of the 1133 dossier may have been inspired by a practice set forth in the Cistercian Carta caritatis from 1119. It stated that when the abbot of Cîteaux visited any of the daughter houses, he replaced the monastery’s own abbot for the term of his visit.30 There is evidence, however, that Glanfeuil’s high rank was a purely honorary title recognized only at Montecassino: in 1241, at a regional council at Tours, where the abbots of the major abbeys of the diocese were seated multis praerogativis, the abbot of Glanfeuil was relegated to the sixth place, behind the major abbots of the Touraine.31 The second of these perquisites, the “vicariate” over Gaul, is more certainly modeled on a precedent. In 1060, Pope Nicholas II had bestowed on Abbot Desiderius a vicariate over all the monasteries in southern Italy. In fact, Bloch noticed that two different descriptions of Glanfeuil’s vicariate in the 1133 dossier echoed two different statements of Nicholas II regarding Desiderius’ vicariate. The first description of Glanfeuil’s vicariate in the 1133 dossier was broad: any topic regarding the ordo monarchorum in Gaul was to be referred to the abbot of Glanfeuil. However, somewhat later, Peter the Deacon, in his “revision” of Odo’s Historia translationis, stated that the vicariate was limited to issues of monastic observance (observatio), likely referring to internal disciplinary reforms. Nicholas’ two decrees defining Desiderius’ vicariate had similarly moved from a broader to a narrower mandate.32

30 Thomas Merton, Charter, Customs, and Constitutions of the Cistercians: Initiation into the Monastic Tradition 7 , ed. Patrick F. O’Connell, Part II, “Visitations and Precedence Charter of Charity” (Cistercian Publications: Liturgical Press 2015), 33. 31 Cart. de S-M , 301. 32 Petrus Diaconus, 178–79. Several documents in Peter the Deacon’s dossier of 1133,

e.g., The Bull of Hadrian I defined the vicariate as qua vero de ordine monachorum tractandum fuerit arbitrio p;raepositi Casinensis et abbatis Mauri disiponatur; “if anything indeed ought to be decided regarding the monastic order, it should be dealt with by the will of the prior of Montecassino and abbot of St Maurus” However, in his “revision” of Odo’s Historia translationis, Peter substituted a narrower definition: e monachie religionis observantia tractandum esset: (if anything ought to be decided regarding the observances of reformed monks….) Bloch claimed that the first mandate imitated the language of the original mandatum that of Nicholas II on behalf of Desiderius: porre cupientes consulere monastica religioni, quae peccatis exigentibus passim depravat; te tantummodo diebus vita tuae vicarium nobis a correcionem omnium monasteriorum, (desirous of restoring monastic fervor, which is weakening by the spread of sins everywhere, you for your life only (hold) a vicariate from us for the correction of all the monasteries), quoted in Gattola, Hist.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

293

Desiderius’ 1060 appointment reflected Montecassino’s influence in its greatest days. Those days were long past by 1133. Glanfeuil’s supposed vicariate over French monastic houses was at best wishful thinking.33 Bloch and others have argued that this “vicariate” was a quixotic attempt to assert black-monk authority over the reformed Orders in France, most notably, the Cistercians.34 However, it seems more likely to have been directed primarily against Cluny. Montecassino largely ignored the reformed Orders but, as we have seen, it had been engaged in a running dispute with Cluny over leadership of black-monk monasticism for at least a century. Making Glanfeuil vicar over all monasteries was a clever, if entirely symbolic, challenge to claims to such hegemony by the great Burgundian house. Cassinese writers had also co-opted the title vicar of Saint Benedict to express the supremacy of the abbot of Montecassino.35 Glanfeuil’s vicariate over France in this context implied a delegation of Cassinese imperium to the abbot of Glanfeuil. Montecassino’s management of relations with its associated houses in fact invites comparison with its chief rival, Cluny, and opens a way to understanding more completely the nature of Montecassino’s union with Glanfeuil. In the Cluniac “empire,” most affiliated houses were bound to the mother-house by charters which spelled out mutual duties and privileges. Though most were ruled by priors appointed by, and responsible to, the abbot of Cluny, some older houses elected their own leaders, who continued to hold the title of abbot. Periodic visitations between the mother-house and the dependent monastery were the norm. Houses were related to each other in a quasi-feudal ascending chain of lordships, ending with the Abbot of Cluny as overlord. Cluniac houses were usually

abbatiae Casinensis, 1. 148). The later Bull of Nicholas II to Desiderius appointed him a superior abbot: archmandritum ad restaurandum atque conservandam in monastico ordine jam pene heu pro dolor lapsam religionem (archimadrate for the restoration and preservation of zeal in the monastic order—alas, for sorrow—now having nearly fallen away). Quoted in Paul Kehr, “Le bolle pontificie anteriori al’ 1198 che se conservano nell’ Archivio di Montecassino,” in Papsturkunden in Italien Reisesbericht zur Italia Pontificia, Misc. cass. 2 (1899): 47, (#9). For Bloch’s argument: MCMA, 2. 992–93. 33 Desiderius’ appointment, on the other hand, involved significant travel and executive power. See, as an example, his intervention at the abbey of Tremiti; Kelly, “Montecassino and the Old Beneventan Chant,” The Sources of Beneventan Chant, ed. Thomas Kelly (Variorum Collected Studies Series, vol. 980) (Ashgate, 2011), 78–82. 34 MCMA, 2. 993–94. 35 Peter the Deacon, Altercatio, 268. See above, Chapter 9.

294

J. B. WICKSTROM

required to support the dependent abbey, which not only profited the mother-house but also symbolized the subordinate status of the lesser houses.36 Like Cluny and its affiliated houses, Glanfeuil and Montecassino were not partners. The abbot of Glanfeuil was obliged to undertake an ad limina visit to Montecassino every five years. New abbots elected at Glanfeuil were to be blessed and, perhaps, confirmed at Montecassino, not by the local bishop. The fundamental link between Montecassino and Glanfeuil, however, was not one of personal lordship and dependency as it was in the Cluniac “empire.”37 It was a unique relationship, somewhat like that of a first-born son or daughter with its mother. Such familial language is a feature of the 1133 dossier. This bond was expressed primarily through ritual repetitions of ancient and ongoing connections between the two houses. While terms associated with subjection are used in the 1133 dossier, they are always balanced by statements that Glanfeuil and its abbot were to occupy the highest rank, above all other monasteries associated with Montecassino. Finance was another area in which the Montecassino-Glanfeuil agreement differed from Cluniac practices. Glanfeuil seems to have had no financial obligations to the mother-house. The clause protecting its traditional liberties and honor seem to have precluded any such payments. 3. Two auxiliary documents: The Letter of Abbot Theodemar and the Privilege of Pope Nicholas II Following the supposed decree of Charlemagne was a fictitious letter attributed to Theodemar (r.777–796), abbot of Montecassino during the reigns of Hadrian I and Charlemagne, addressed to Abbot Gauzlin of Glanfeuil. That Gauzlin in fact became abbot of Glanfeuil in 845, almost a half-century after Theodemar’s death, is not untypical of Peter’s indifference to accurate dating.38 Theodemar’s letter provides no information beyond that contained in the two previous documents ascribed to

36 Cowdrey, Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform, 73–74. 37 Cowdrey, Cluniacs, 256. 38 Peter includes Paul the Deacon as one of the supposed signatories. This famous

eighth-century historian was in fact resident at Montecassino when the supposed diploma was created. Was Peter perhaps implying that Paul had composed the text?

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

295

Hadrian and Charlemagne. Its function consisted of informing the abbot of Glanfeuil about the rituals for his reception at Montecassino after his election. It is an example of Peter’s thoroughness in the construction of his fictions: this is the sort of reminder that might have been sent on to Glanfeuil after Theodemar had received the papal and imperial documents regarding ad limina visits to Montecassino. The final document in the dossier is a supposed privilegium attributed to Pope Nicholas I (858–67), written to Bassacius, abbot of Montecassino from 837 to 856. (One might again note, as with the letter of Abbot Theodemar above, that Nicholas and Bassacius were not in fact contemporaries.) The privilege confirms, at Bassacius’ request, the documents of Hadrian and Charlemagne, and declares any gifts given either to Montecassino or Glanfeuil inalienable, and that any attempt to contravene this protection is punishable by papal anathema and eternal damnation.39 Again, Peter shows his thoroughness as a manufacturer of history: he here provides a document showing that the supposed “return” of Glanfeuil to Montecassino in 787 was confirmed by later popes, an important legitimizing device. It remains to demonstrate the fictive character of these dossier documents. In his still useful monograph from 1906, “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil,” Landreau focused on problems with the first of these, the supposed bull of Pope Hadrian I from 787: he noted that, first, no genuine document before 1133, neither from the papal chancery, the archives of Montecassino, nor the surviving documents from Glanfeuil mention his bull, supposedly published in 789.40 After 1133, however, references to it abound in both forged and genuine documents. Second, Landreau points out that, in 787, the year in which the supposed bull was written, Glanfeuil was in a ruinous state, owing to the depredations of the lay proprietor, Gaidulf. It had in fact no abbot who could “return” the abbey to Montecassino as the supposed papal bull of Pope Hadrian claimed.41 Moreover, as Bloch has more recently made clear, if the bull of Hadrian of 787 is shown to be a forgery, then so is any supposed Carolingian document which is aware of its contents—e.g., the decree of 39 Forged with the assistance of a genuine bull of Nicholas, MCMA, 2. 1013–14 (#4d). 40 Landreau, “L’abbaye,” 3. 53–55. 41 Landreau, “L’abbaye,” 3. 55. This problem likely explains why Peter addressed the letter to Abbot Gauzlin of Glanfeuil who ruled in the 840s: Gauzlin was the first abbot of the restored Glanfeuil.

296

J. B. WICKSTROM

Charlemagne, the letter of Theodemar, and the privilege of Nicholas II. Bloch uses italics in his edition of these three documents to demonstrate their dependence on Hadrian’s bull.42 Peter’s choice of 787 for dating both the bull of Hadrian I and Charlemagne’s decree again shows his attention to detail. Charlemagne had in fact spent the liturgical season from Christmas to Easter of 787 in Rome with Pope Hadrian. Peter dated Hadrian’s fictitious bull to 30 March, which was within the period of this visit. That same year, Charlemagne reportedly stopped at Montecassino and requested an “authentic copy” of the Rule of Benedict, demonstrating his growing interest in encouraging its use throughout his realm. He also received official measures for bread and wine and a written copy of Montecassino’s customs.43 Thus, 787 was an appropriate choice of a year in which to claim that Montecassino had been “reunited” with Glanfeuil, whose founder, Maurus, had received the very same gifts from Benedict’s own hand on setting out for Gaul in 543. These four documents well reflect Peter’s skills as a creator of historical fictions. They provide a multi-faceted account of the supposed “return” of Glanfeuil to Montecassino in 787. The documents of the Dossier legitimized this subjection in three different ways: first by the supreme authority of pope and emperor; second by applying historicolegal concepts of magisterium and imperium to Benedict’s status as Maurus’ magister; and finally by presenting a historical argument that Glanfeuil had always been a part of Montecassino, because it was founded by Montecassino’s “prior,” Maurus, acting under the authority of his abbot, Saint Benedict.

The Final Settlement: October 1133 Abbot Drogo’s statement on March 10, 1133, at the opening of his visit had envisioned some sort of fraternal monastic association with Montecassino based on mutual regard and monastic charity. However, after the documents discussed above were read out to him, according to Peter the Deacon’s narrative, Abbot Drogo recognized Glanfeuil’s subordination to Montecassino. He resigned the office of Abbot as a sign of that recognition. After receiving his promise of obedience “as Blessed Maurus showed

42 MCMA, 2. 1012–13. 43 “Letter of Theodemar to Charlemagne,” Corpus consuetudinum, 1. 159–60.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

297

honor and obedience to the most holy father Benedict.” Seniorectus then re-invested Drogo as abbot of Glanfeuil with the priorate of Montecassino and the vicariate over France along with all the dignities mentioned in the bull of Pope Hadrian and the decree of Charlemagne “just as Abbot Theodemar had bestowed on his predecessor, Abbot Gauzlin.” (This latter is another of Peter’s historical fictions.) This ceremony transformed the claims of the dossier documents into a political reality. It also became the template for the inaugural visits of new abbots of Glanfeuil to the “mother abbey” for almost two centuries.44 The negotiations over the union were still not complete. Abbot Drogo remained at Montecassino throughout the next six months. Then, on October 1, the anniversary of the dedication of Abbot Desiderius’ new church, Abbot Drogo once again appeared before Seniorectus and the Montecassino community and again resigned the abbacy of Glanfeuil. In the interim since the March meetings, he had come to the conclusion, “touched by divine inspiration” that he should resign the office to which he had been reappointed by Seniorectus. He referred to its “burden and danger,” the responsibility of looking after the monks who were “soldiering on for Christ” under his guidance, and of being answerable for them to God. Finally, he said, there was his own lack of education. He found himself unequal (imparem) to the task.45 Drogo then made an extraordinary request: that a monk from the community of Montecassino be elected in his place. His petition was granted by Abbot Seniorectus with the encouragement of Pope Anacletus II. Abbot Seniorectus and the community of Montecassino then elected John Marsicanus to the office. He was invested with the abbatial staff and a copy of the Rule of Benedict, as abbot of Glanfeuil and as honorary prior of Montecassino with the right of vicarship over Gaul. Abbot Seniorectus then sent the new abbot off to Glanfeuil, along with its delegation, “just as Blessed Benedict sent his disciple Blessed Maurus to the parts of Gaul, however unequal the occasions might be.”46 What are we to make of these extraordinary scenes, which Peter the Deacon presented in great detail? The resignations seem historical rather

44 Reg. Pet. Diac. fol 253r, #607; printed in MCMA, 2. 1016. 45 Ibid. 46 All material above taken from Reg. pet. diac. fol. 253r, no., 607, printed in MCMA, 2. 1016.

298

J. B. WICKSTROM

than invented by Peter. Abbot Drogo likely understood that the small rural abbey of Saint Glanfeuil would likely be swept up in the grand projects of Seniorectus and his allies. For example, if the vicariate over all French monasteries became a political and administrative reality, legal duties would occupy much of the abbot’s time and energy. Drogo’s plea that he lacked the education and the time to carry out his responsibilities as an officer of Montecassino should perhaps be taken at face value. In a later bull addressed to John Marsicanus, Pope Anacletus II claimed that Drogo had acknowledged himself “useless” and “unworthy” of the burden of office.47 The choice of John Marsicanus as Drogo’s successor indicates that the relationship of Montecassino and Glanfeuil was being fundamentally rethought. Electing a Cassinese monk as abbot of Glanfeuil would tie the abbey to Montecassino much more tightly than the earlier negotiations envisioned. John was a member of the Marsi clan, which had served for generations both as lay patrons of Montecassino and as members of the community, often holding high office there. These included four recent abbots, Oderisius I (r.1087–1105), Girardus (r.1111–1123), Oderisius II (r.1123–26), and Rainald II (r.1137–66). Leo Marsicanus was the first editor of the Chronicle of Montecassino, and Seniorectus himself has also been associated with the family.48 John Howe concluded from all this that “Marsicans are in full control [of Montecassino] when the Chronicle of Montecassino ends” (i.e., 1138).49 An abbot with such a distinguished pedigree and wide connections would more effectively preserve Glanfeuil’s status and advance its interests. Indeed, the assembly decided at this point that the option of electing an abbot for Glanfeuil from the Montecassino community should be a permanent feature of the union.50 That three different dossier documents state that Abbot Drogo recommended Marsicanus replace him as abbot suggests that Peter felt the need to forestall objections to this significant alteration of the original terms of union. This concern may also explain the grant to Abbot Marsicanus by Pope Anacletus II of “the same libertas as Benedict gave to Maurus,

47 Bull edited in Bloch, MCMA, 2. 1023–25. 48 John Howe, Church Reform and Social Change in Eleventh-Century Italy: Dominic

of Sora and His Patrons (U. Penn. 1997), 141. 49 Howe, Church Reform, 141. 50 MCMA, 2. 1015 (#611).

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

299

saving the rights of Montecassino.” The exact significance of this privilege is unclear, but it was likely intended to show that the papacy itself was restoring the shrine of Maurus to its ancient independence, while recognizing Montecassino’s claim of lordship over it ab initio. As this privilege indicates, the dossier documents of 1133 “forgot” major events in the history of Glanfeuil and invented others in order to legitimize the union of the two abbeys. Three genuine papal bulls formed part of this effort. Two of these were promulgated by Anacletus II during the final days of the negotiations. Although their central purpose was to provide papal support for land claims by Glanfeuil, both bulls also contained summaries of the version of Glanfeuil’s history set forth in the other dossier documents. This provided genuine papal recognition of this version of Glanfeuil’s early history, reinforcing the spurious documents attributed to popes Hadrian, Nicholas, and Urban. Thus, the imagined historical relationship between Glanfeuil and Montecassino made its way into genuine Church documents, becoming unambiguously authoritative. These bulls influenced ideas and events not only at Glanfeuil and Montecassino but in Rome and elsewhere for almost two centuries, as we shall see. The third papal document involved in the 1133 revisions of Glanfeuil and Cassinese history was of greater significance. This was the genuine bull of Urban II, published on March 31, 1096, which had freed Glanfeuil from its subjection to Fossés. This document was Glanfeuil’s most important identity-forming record beyond Odo’s works. It contained a lengthy summary of Glanfeuil’s history and would have mentioned the “return” of Glanfeuil to Montecassino in 787 (as asserted in the 1133 dossier documents) had this event actually occurred. Urban’s bull, of course, contained no such reference, since Glanfeuil had no formal relationship with Montecassino before 1133. Peter the Deacon needed to reshape this major record of Glanfeuil’s history so that it agreed with the claims of the documents of the 1133 dossier. This “revision” of Urban’s bull is only the first of Peter’s revisions of Glanfeuil’s historical identity. Peter’s version of Urban’s bull, which he dated to March 21, 1097, the year after the pope’s genuine bull, was addressed to Abbot Oderisius I of Montecassino (r.1087–1105).51 It pretends to inform him of the emancipation of Glanfeuil from Fossés the previous year. Peter placed 51 Peter claimed that this forgery was issued on Benedict’s major feast day likely in order to add to its status and credibility.

300

J. B. WICKSTROM

one copy of this second bull in the Registrum Petri diaconi along with the other documents of the 1131 dossier; another was stored in the Montecassino archives along with the original bull of 1096, likely in yet another attempt to strengthen its authenticity. Urban’s original, genuine bull was likely brought to Montecassino by Abbot Drogo in anticipation of discussions about Glanfeuil’s status vis à vis Montecassino, then retained at Montecassino for safekeeping.52 This forgery revises Urban’s original narrative of the early history of Glanfeuil, stressing its supposed dependency on Montecassino from its foundation by Maurus. For example, after repeating the original bull’s description of the foundation of Glanfeuil, Peter’s “revision” adds: “he [Maurus] then returned it [Glanfeuil] to the monastery of Montecassino whence he had come forth.” Peter’s revision claimed that monastic discipline declined at Glanfeuil after Maurus’ death. The house therefore required constant connection with the pure source of monastic virtue at Montecassino. But this support was lost when Montecassino was abandoned to the Saracens in the late 600s. This had the most serious consequences: the ruination of Glanfeuil by the lay abbot Gaidulf was God’s way of driving out the vice which had overwhelmed the community once it was deprived of Montecassino’s guidance. Similarly, the later devastation of the monastery by the Vikings was the result of the “unfathomable judgment of God” on the laxity of the unsupervised abbey. Peter the Deacon also inserted new characters into his revised version of Urban’s bull. There was John, an illustrious abbot of Subiaco, whose name Peter added to the local Angevin leaders demanding Glanfeuil’s emancipation from Fossés in 1096. John likely was included because he had been a witness to the original, genuine bull in his position as chancellor of Urban II. He was also a good friend to Montecassino as well as a papal official.53 His presence implied that friends of Montecassino with high positions in Rome actively intervened in the process of Glanfeuil’s

52 The forged bull remains in the Montecassino archives: Archives of Montecassino, Caps. 2, #10. A copy is in the Registrum Petri diaconi, fol. 33v, #74. Urban’s genuine bull is in the Archives of Montecassino, Caps. 5, #39. The genuine and forged bulls are helpfully printed side-by-side in MCMA, 2. 1016–21. 53 Thomas Frank, “I Rapporti tra Farfa e Subiaco nel secolo xi,” in Farfa, abbazia imperiale: atti del convegno internazionale, Farfa-Santa Vittoria in Matenano, 25–29 agosto 2003, #38 ed. Rolando Dondarini (Verona, 2006), 223–26.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

301

emancipation from Fossés. Unidentified “monks of Montecassino” were also inserted into the revised version, forming a delegation sent from the “mother abbey” to keep watch over the emancipation proceedings. The main message was that Glanfeuil’s fortunes always rose or fell with the presence or absence of Montecassino’s wise oversight. A second element of Peter’s revision of Urban’s bull was a promotion of Glanfeuil’s importance—and thereby Montecassino’s—by overstating its wealth. Urban’s genuine bull had ratified and guaranteed Glanfeuil’s landed possessions, naming a few early grants mentioned in Odo’s Life of Maurus and the Historia translationis. Peter’s revision expanded this list dramatically. His list of the supposed possessions of Glanfeuil resembles a similarly long list of imaginary monastic possessions in Peter’s contemporary Life of Placid.54 Urban’s list was “evidence” that the small but illustrious monastery of Glanfeuil, having now been “returned” to its “mother abbey,” owned properties commensurate with its distinguished history and its status as Montecassino’s most favored possession. The forged bull of Urban II closed with a warning that no church or bishop except Montecassino had jurisdiction over Glanfeuil. This absolute claim is a unique feature of this document, but it followed logically from claims in the forged bull of Hadrian II and other 1133 dossier documents. As we shall see, this claim of absolute exemption would eventually occasion more trouble at Montecassino and Glanfeuil than any of the other assertions in this complex set of documents. The genuine bull of Urban, on the other hand, had limited Glanfeuil’s exemption: “saving the rightful reverence owed to the bishop of Angers.” The dossier of 1133, mostly fictional documents created by Peter the Deacon in concert with Abbot Seniorectus and perhaps others, offered “proof” of various sorts that the abbey of Glanfeuil had been under the direct rule of Montecassino since its supposed creation in the mid-sixth century. Six bulls of three popes over four centuries supposedly ratified the claim, a decree of the Emperor Charlemagne confirmed it, and both genuine and forged letters from the abbots of Montecassino referenced it. The dossier is a remarkable recognition of Patrick Geary’s insight that “those who can control the past could direct the future”55 : the bull was

54 See Chapter 9, 272–73. 55 Geary, Phantoms, 6.

302

J. B. WICKSTROM

cited frequently in law cases and property disputes over the next two centuries.

Peter the Deacon’s Revision of Odo’s Historia translationis However, there was one major, potentially embarrassing, source which flatly contradicted all these assertions: Abbot Odo’s Historia translationis, Odo’s narrative, of course, knew nothing of any Cassinese involvement in Glanfeuil’s revival in the ninth century; instead, it recorded in great detail how the formerly ruined abbey was restored and placed under the “perpetual” governance of Fossés in the 830s. In 868, it literally absorbed the Glanfeuil community and attempted to appropriate the shrine of Saint Maurus. Peter needed to “re-remember” this foundational document to bring its narrative into agreement with the history of Glanfeuil he had created in the dossier of 1133. Peter the Deacon’s revision of Odo’s Historia translationis fundamentally altered one of the two foundation narratives of Glanfeuil’s history. Landreau identified a document in the Bibliothèque nationale (MS lat. 5344) as likely a version of Odo’s Historia translationis which contained revisions by Peter the Deacon.56 Long thought to be lost, it is the only extant copy of Odo’s Historia translationis that contains these changes. It does not form part of the dossier of 1133, but it is contemporary with those documents and rewrites the early history of Glanfeuil to conform to their claims. Peter himself mentioned such a revision, claiming he had added this text to his Registrum, but no such document is to be found there. MS 5344 was produced at Glanfeuil and then, sometime later in the twelfth century, taken to Fossés, perhaps along with the Glanfeuil antiphonary.57 Dated to the twelfth century, it is a libellus containing

56 Reg. Pet. diac. fol 34r, no 75; Printed in MCMA 2. 983–84. 57 The attribution to Fossés without explanation is in the Sorbonne MANNO database:

http://saprat.ephe.sorbonne.fr/media/0cedf632d0baf4f32dbade1fc860fc9c/latin-5344. pdf. Odo’s Historia is entitled in this manuscript: Libellus miraculorum sancti Mauri. Marie-Noël Colette used characteristics of the neumes of the office to Saint Maur in this libellus to attribute the manuscript to a Glanfeuil scribe in the eleventh or twelfth century. Marie-Noël Colette, “Des signes cassiniens dans le manuscrit de Saint-Maur au

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

303

several documents promoting the cult of Saint Maurus at Fossés.58 Four folios of the version of Historia translationis included in the libellus (fols. 31r-54v) are entirely or partially crossed out and replaced by a new text, written in a different hand.59 There is no doubt that these alterations are Peter the Deacon’s work. In a summary of his literary achievements in the Cassinese Chronicle, Peter admitted that he had “revised” (emendavit ) the “history of the destruction and restoration of the monastery of Blessed Maurus” (a common description of Abbot Odo’s Historia translationis ) at the order of Abbot Seniorectus and wrote a prologue to it which has not survived.60 That Peter should claim that Abbot Seniorectus ordered him to undertake this project perhaps suggests some slight ethical reservation over the undertaking. XII siècle”, in Musica e liturgia a Montecassino nel Medioevo: atti del Simposio internazionale di studi (Cassino, 9–10 dicembre 2010), a cura di Nicola Tangari, 89. Another argument for its origin at Glanfeuil in the early twelfth century is offered below on p. 304. 58 For the dating of the manuscript, see Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum antiquiorum, Subsidia hagiographica, no.2. part 2 (Brussels, 1889–90), 270. Contents of BnF, MS lat. 5344: 1. Vita sancti Mauri, Abbatis: authore Fausto, Monacho (fols 1–29). — 2. Libellus miraculorum sancti Mauri: authore Odone, Abbate Glannafoliensi (fols 31r–54v) — 3. Officium sancti Mauri, cum notis musicis (fols 54– 57) — 4. Vita sancti Mauri, versibus ab anonymo scripta (Fulcoio) (fols 57–72) — 5. Vita Flori, Abbatis Glannafoliensis (fols 68–70) — 6. Vita sancti Placidi, Martyris (fols 73–83). Letters assoc with Vita Placidi (fols 83–88) — 7. Vita sancti Hilarii, Episcopi et Confessoris: authore Fortunato (fols 89–103) — 8. Vita S. Nicolai, Myrensis Episcopi (fols 104–28). A versified Vita s. Mauri by Fulcoie of Meaux is also included, along with a Vita Flori, abbas Glannafoliensis. The latter is in fact the portion of Fulcoie’s work that recounts Count Florus’ activities in the foundation of Glanfeuil. (Florus was never elsewhere referred to as abbas of that monastery.) The Life of Placid and the two vitae which follow: of Ss. Hilary and Nicholas, at the end of the manuscript, are written in a different hand than the preceding material. 5344 thus includes material of special importance to Glanfeuil, while omitting compositions contained in similar libelli from Fossés, such as the Vita Baboleni and the Sermo translationis for the rededication of Fossés’ abbey church in 1030, known to originate at Fossés (BnF, MS lat. 3778, for example). These additions and omissions all indicate that BnF, MS lat. 5344 originated at Glanfeuil. 59 The text on fols 38r–40r is crossed out or erased and rewritten. Bloch’s side-by side printing of Odo’s Historia translationis: the original and Peter the Deacon’s revised version (MCMA, 2. 1025–33, #8) is useful for comparison purposes, but his organization and pagination are confusing and sometimes inaccurate. Reference to the original manuscript (BnF, MS. Lat. 5344, available online from BnF/Gallica) is advisable. 60 Chron. Cass., 530. Peter added that “he put this and a prologue into the book of privileges” (i.e., he inserted the dossier of 1133 into the Registrum Petri diaconi, See Bloch. MCMA, 2. 983). However, nothing fitting this description is to be found there.

304

J. B. WICKSTROM

Peter’s revised version of Abbot Odo’s Historia translationis is divided into 12 lectiones (8 + 4), indicating that it was used for readings at Matins, almost surely on the feast of St Maurus: Odo’s revised Historia immediately precedes the Glanfeuil version of the Office in honor of St Maurus. In accord with the dossier documents of 1133, the revisions of Odo’s text portray Glanfeuil as subordinate to Montecassino from its foundation. All of this also indicates that this libellus originally belonged to Glanfeuil, where it would have been welcome during the era of Glanfeuil’s twelfth-century dependency on Montecassino. It then made its way, as did other Glanfeuil manuscripts, to Fossés later in the twelfth century.61 This transfer would account for the crossing out of Peter the Deacon’s emendations to Odo’s original text. Peter’s erasure of Fossés’ role in Glanfeuil’s history, substituting a dependency of Glanfeuil on Montecassino ab initio, would have been unacceptable at Fossés. Peter’s revisions of Odo’s Historia and the dossier of 1133 shared the goals of suppressing Fossés’ role in the revival and governance of Glanfeuil and of establishing Glanfeuil’s dependency on Montecassino ab initio. However, Peter’s actual revisions of Odo’s texts to these ends differed from his “proofs” of original dependence in the 1133 dossier. First, Peter alters his witnesses to Odo’s story of the restoration of Glanfeuil in the 830s. At the beginning of his Historia translationis, Odo had mentioned that Godfred, the abbot of Fossés, was his “first and best source” for these events. Peter the Deacon here substitutes the name of Abbot Theodradus. Theodradus was abbot of Glanfeuil immediately preceding Odo, so Peter in effect suppressed the one Fossés-based witness to Glanfeuil’s restoration. Peter then omits entirely the story of how, in the 830s, monks from Fossés were invited by Count Rorigo to repopulate and reform the restored abbey of Glanfeuil and to permanently oversee its government.62 Odo’s attribution of the spiritual growth of the new abbey to the cooperative efforts of the abbey’s governor, Gauzbert, and the overseers from Fossés is altered in Peter’s revision, which credits that growth to Gauzbert alone. Odo’s claim in Chapter 20 of his Historia translationis that Bishop Ebroin denied Fossés’ claims to govern Glanfeuil and expelled its monks from there is also omitted in Peter’s revision. It also suppressed Odo’s

61 Wickstrom, “Reassigning,” 73–75. 62 BnF, MS lat. 5344, fol. 38r to the end of fol.39v.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

305

statement that the abbot of Fossés and his monks were frequent visitors at Glanfeuil, even after Bishop Ebroin had removed Fossés’ monks.63 Peter goes on to embellish Odo’s account of the appointment of Gauzlin as abbot of Glanfeuil. After his election in 845, Peter claimed, Gauzlin “devoutly visited” Montecassino, the “head of all monasteries” and there accepted the priorate of Montecassino and the “vicariate of the monastic Order throughout all of Gaul.”64 He thereby claimed that in 845 the abbot of Glanfeuil had accepted all the offices and privileges which were in fact invented in the dossier of 1133. Finally, Peter rewrote the final section of Odo’s Historia (Chapter 41), which described the visit of Charles the Bald to Maurus’ relics in their new shrine at Fossés in 869.65 The king thereby recognized and approved of the saint’s new home. Peter the Deacon’s revision omitted Odo’s narrative of this vision entirely, “forgetting” that Fossés was the permanent new shrine of the cult of Maurus. Peter claimed instead that, after Charles the Bald had been informed of the placement of the relics at Fossés in 869, he called together the abbot and community of Glanfeuil and assured them that they might without concern entrust the relics of S. Maurus to Fossés while their own church was being rebuilt from its spoliation by the Vikings. As soon as that was accomplished, “you have full power and right to receive back the relics of Blessed Maurus and your treasure intact.” The king directed Bishop Aeneas and the abbot of Fossés to swear an oath to return all the possessions of Glanfeuil “without any controversy, whenever it might be requested.” That is, what Odo had described as a permanent new home for Maurus’ relics was in Peter’s revision only a temporary refuge while the Maurus’ original shrine at Glanfeuil was being reconstructed. The hesitation of the Glanfeuil monks about any such arrangement, and the king’s insistence that the Fossés leaders swear to restore the relics as soon as possible, revealed Peter’s twelfth-century knowledge that the relics had never been restored. His new version provided support for the ongoing attempts by Glanfeuil to recover the identity-defining relics of Saint Maurus. Finally, the erasures in MS 5344 provide a rare example of how such “revisions” were accepted. Glanfeuil, now subordinated to Montecassino,

63 BnF, MS lat. 5344, fol. 40v. 64 BnF, MS lat. 5344, fol. 40v. 65 BnF, MS lat. 5344, fols 53v–54v.

306

J. B. WICKSTROM

naturally accepted Peter’s revisions. When the manuscript later came into Fossés’ possession, however, Peter’s revisions were erased and replaced with Odo’s original text.66 Despite being stripped of its rights over Glanfeuil several decades earlier, Fossés had not “forgotten” its 250-year-long lordship over that house—which also provided Fossés with a prescriptive claim to be the genuine shrine of Saint Maurus. Peter the Deacon’s work in many ways paralleled Abbot Odo’s: both created fictions involving Saint Maurus in order to promote their respective abbeys. Both concealed their authorship of saints’ Lives to provide their narratives with the authority of antiquity. From another perspective, their writings differed dramatically: Abbot Odo was, at least in part, concerned to re-present a remote, half-forgotten past and to promote monastic reform in his own day. Peter the Deacon on the other hand was a clever and self-conscious forger: crafting scores of documents to substantiate his historical fictions and “revising” genuine works to suppress inconvenient facts. It bears note, too, that Peter’s abbot was aware of what his chronicler was doing and, in at least one instance, ordered him to “revise” Odo’s Historia. The volume and variety of Peter’s forgeries indeed suggest a personality that enjoyed revising the past. Still, he too was inspired by a serious purpose: the promotion of his beloved Montecassino, whose primacy among Western monasteries was in the first stages of permanent decline. The subordination of the shrine of Maurus to Montecassino in 1133 was one of the major transitions in its long history. How Glanfeuil viewed its new situation is uncertain, owing primarily to a lack of documentation. The terms of union with Montecassino, as expressed in the dossier of 1133, supported Glanfeuil’s claim to be the rightful shrine of Saint Maurus, while seriously weakening the claims of Fossés, despite its continued possession of most of the saint’s relics. It must have been a cause for rejoicing at Glanfeuil, at least for the moment, that its ancient identity had been so thoroughly vindicated by the most venerable of ancient abbeys, even though the price was the admission of Glanfeuil’s (and Maurus’) dependence on Montecassino. The hagiographical writings of Peter the Deacon had also promoted the veneration of both Maurus and Placid at Montecassino itself and their 66 See esp. BnF, MS 5344, fols 38 and 39, where a lengthy revision by Peter the Deacon, which occupied all of fol. 38, was crossed out and Odo’s original text inserted on a newly inserted, blank page.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

307

cults spread throughout “empire” of Montecassino during the next two centuries. Finally, there is no evidence that, at least until much later, Montecassino imposed the economic burdens that Fossés had exacted. Montecassino’s primary interest in Glanfeuil was to assimilate the cult of Maurus to its own history and identity. Finally, dependency on far-off Montecassino was likely more desirable than submission to the nearby and aggressive bishop of Angers. As corroboration of this suggestion, once Bishop Ulger had died in 1148, signs appeared that Glanfeuil was becoming restless under Montecassino’s hegemony. There is, as we shall see, abundant evidence that the abbots of Glanfeuil often delayed and, on occasion, resisted carrying out the rituals of dependency required by the 1133 agreement. Total libertas was an impractical goal for a small monastery in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, so Glanfeuil s concentrated on gradually reducing her obligations to Montecassino. However, by the early thirteenth century, Glanfeuil’s major challenge had shifted from friction with Montecassino to the increasing demands of the bishop of Anjou for submission. A new element in such conflicts was increasing support of bishops’ demands from a papacy equally concerned with expanding its reach. These struggles, first with Montecassino and then with its bishop and the papacy, fundamentally redirected the future of Glanfeuil abbey and the cult of Saint Maurus, as we shall see in the final chapter.

308

J. B. WICKSTROM

Appendix: The dossier of 1133 The following documents were preceded by Peter the Deacon’s narrative of the meeting between Abbot Drogo of Glanfeuil and Abbot Seniorectus of Montecassino. 1. A bull of Pope Hadrian67 Hadrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God to Theodemar, abbot of Montecassino, greeting and an apostolic blessing. Since it was fitting by means of an apostolic judgment that the relief of protection be provided to the servants of God, and that they should retain the property they possess and be able to recoup what has been unjustly taken, hence when at Rome together with our beloved son Charles, we were negotiating with regard to ecclesiastical possessions, you at that time complained that the church of Glanfeuil built by the most Blessed Maurus was being despoiled of its possessions. Perceiving which along with our beloved son, and acknowledging its truth, to restore (reddere) to Montecassino the aforesaid church built by the most Blessed Maurus, prior of Montecassino and to affirm by the apostolic authority that which was founded by the magisterium of Benedict, should always be ruled (regatur) and protected (muniatur) by his imperium, saving the honor and freedom of the church of Glanfeuil. When the abbot of Blessed Maurus dies, let his successor receive the blessing there, from where Maurus was sent forth. And thereby taking up the priorate of Montecassino and the vicariate of France let him return to his own monastery. And let him come every five years to the gates of Blessed Benedict, let him hold the place of Maurus, let no abbot sit above him, and let him be subject to no house except Montecassino. And if there should be issues of the monastic Order to be discussed, let them be settled by the decision of the prior of Montecassino and the abbot of Glanfeuil. If indeed anyone will presume to go against our decree, let him be consumed by eternal hellfire with the devil.

67 MCMA, 2. 1012 (#4a).

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

309

Given by the hand of Anastasius, librarian of the holy apostolic see on the third of the calends of April, the fifth year of pope Adrian, the eleventh indictment. [787]68 Farewell. 2. A forged decree of Charlemagne follows immediately, separated from Hadrian’s text by a rubricated title: A Decree of the emperor Charles between the church of Montecassino and Glanfeuil.69 In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit: Charles, king of the Franks and Lombards and patrician of the Romans, to all his faithful present and future. It is suitable to praise together the mercy of God and his churches in all realms, but especially in the realm of the Franks. He himself who makes from small things great ones sent Blessed Maurus from Montecassino for the salvation of our country. Remembering his good works (beneficia) and venerating the portals of Blessed Benedict, we have set down and confirmed in perpetuity that the church of Glanfeuil which had been destroyed by the impious Gaidulf should be subject to none other except its mother, Montecassino. For it is right that it should be ruled (regatur) by the will (arbitrio) of him by whose servant (aminiculo)70 it was constructed. Once an abbot of Saint Maur dies, let one be elected in his own monastery, and blessed at Montecassino, and every five years let him come to Montecassino and in that house, let him sit in the place of the prior. And let him offer as to a master and father, honor and obedience. In that same house, let no abbot sit above him, and in each of its cells except only Montecassino. When he has been blessed by the abbot of Montecassino, let him take up the priorate of Montecassino and the vicarate through all of Gaul, and thus let him return to his own abbey. And we order that he be subject to no place except Montecassino. And if there is any matter regarding the monastic Order in France to be dealt with, let it be settled by the abbot of Blessed Maurus who had been created prior of Montecassino and vicar of Montecassino. And if anyone

68 This Anastasius lived a century later than the events described here, but Peter the Deacon was fond of using his name as the author of various manufactured documents. MCMA, 2, 979, esp. note 1. 69 MCMA, 2. 1012–13, (#4b). 70 a[d]miniculo.

310

J. B. WICKSTROM

tries to go against this decree, let him give up the immunity which we have set up in all the churches. So that this may be more trustworthy, we have ordered our seal to be stamped beneath it. 3. Charles’ document is followed immediately by a letter, also fictional, from Abbot Theodemar, abbot of Montecassino from 777/8 to 796, addressed to Abbot Gauzlin of Glanfeuil (845–c.853).71 Decree of Theodemar, abbot. I Theodemar, unworthy abbot of Montecassino with the agreement and will of our brothers, here make this decree for you, beloved son, Gauzlin, concerning the monastery of Saint Maurus that at whatever time you shall come to the body of Blessed Benedict you shall sit in the place of the prior. And when you die, let the {new} abbot of the same place, after he has been elected, come to Montecassino for the blessing, and there let him take up the priorate and vicariate over all of Gaul, and thus return to his own monastery. And at all sessions, whenever you or your successors come to the gates of blessed Father Benedict, as it has been ordained by our lord Charles, you shall be subject to no other church except your mother, Montecassino, as was ordained by Pope Hadrian. Thus, all our successors are called to swear by God that it no way would they presume to remove these matters which have been set down by me and my predecessors. (Signed) I Theodemar unworthy abbot. I Oblatus, priest. I Joseph. I Paul the Deacon. 4. This text is immediately followed by a forged privilege of Pope Nicholas I (858–67), separated from the previous document by a rubricated initial and the rubricated title: Privilege of Pope Nicholas on the same matter.72 Nicholas, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Bassacius our beloved son, greeting and an apostolic blessing. Since indeed those things

71 MCMA, 2. 1013 (#4c). The chronology of this document is impossible: Theodemar was abbot of Montecassino from 778 to 796, while Gauzlin was abbot of Glanfeuil from 845 to 853. 72 Reg. pet .diac. fol 254r, no. 610, printed in MCMA, 2. 1013–1014.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

311

should always be conceded that are justly sought, it is just that what is requested to be brought forward with pious devotion. Therefore, since you have asked that we strengthen through our authority the agreement regarding the monastery of Saint Maurus that was established by our predecessor Hadrian and king Charles, acceding to your desires, which were set down and first fixed by them, we will that it should remain firm and unchanged in perpetuity. If something is offered or given to the church of Montecassino and Glanfeuil, let no one ever presume to diminish or carry off. If anyone tries to go against this our apostolic decree, unless he comes to his senses, let him understand himself to be bound by the chains of apostolic anathema, and separated from the kingdom of God and assigned with the devil and his fellows. But also, he who is the observer of this apostolic decree, let him be worthy to receive blessing from the Lord. Written by the hand of Leo the notary of the sacred palace. Given through Gualpetus bishop of Calais, in the sixth year of the lord Nicholas, the pious emperor Lothar reigning. Go well. (This entry closes with the word v a l e t e spread across the entire column.) These documents are followed by a continuation of Peter the Deacon’s narrative from Registrum Petri diaconi, fol.253r, #607. 5. Peter’s narrative is followed by a possibly genuine Letter from Abbot Seniorectus to Abbot John Marsicanus.73 I, Seniorectus, by the grace of God Abbot of Cassino, together with the will and consensus of our brothers and following the examples of our predecessors require the monastery of Blessed Maurus, which he himself built in the territory of Glanfeuil, where he had been sent by the most holy father Benedict, to honor and assist and celebrate according to the order of the lord Hadrian, pope of happy memory and of the lord Charles, most excellent king of the Franks, who restored the aforesaid monastery to the monastery of Cassino, on the one hand by the apostolic and on the other, the regal authority, affirmed it; adding that that church, just as it was founded on the magisterium of Blessed Benedict, should be ruled and defended by his imperium, saving the honor and liberty of the church 73 Reg. Petri diaconi. fols. 254r–254v, no. 611 Printed in MCMA, 2. 1015.

312

J. B. WICKSTROM

of Glanfeuil, and all the rest which was contained in the privilege of the Roman pontiff and King Charles. In addition, we decree to you, our most beloved son John, abbot of the monastery of Saint Maurus, that whenever you come to the monastery of Cassino, where the body of the most Blessed Benedict rests, you should sit in the place of the prior in memory of the holy confessor Maurus, who, coming to Gaul by order of the holy father Benedict, bore (gero) the office of the prior’s rank in the monastery of Cassino. When the abbot of Glanfeuil dies, after another from the same congregation has been elected, let him come to Casino to be blessed. But if someone suitable does not exist, let them come to the mount of Cassino and out of that same congregation of Saint Benedict, let them elect an abbot and let him be blessed there, and let him there accept the priorate and vicariate throughout all of Gaul and thus return to his monastery. And in every session when you come to the gates of Blessed Benedict, you and your successor, you will reside in the place of Blessed Maurus under the abbot of Montecassino, and let no other abbot sit above you. And every five years you and your successors should come to the gates of Blessed Benedict, as it was ordained by the Lord King Charles, nor may you be subjected to any other church except only your mother, Montecassino, as it was ordained by Blessed Pope Hadrian. Relying on the apostolic and regal authorities, we call our successors to witness by God, that no one should in any way presume to remove these decisions which have been set down by ourselves and our predecessors, but that they preserve them firmly and unshaken for all time. Done this year of the Lords’ Incarnation 1133, October 12 indiction. 6. First bull of Anacletus II (October 11, 1133)74 Anacletus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to the beloved son in Christ, Seniorectus and his successors going forward forever, as the lord gave it to mercifully admit the prayers of religious men and concerned to provide for their peace out of the custom of the apostolic see which we rule, with God as its authority, we learned from the benevolence from and the examples of the fathers before us strikingly encourage us. Wherefore, most dear son Seniorectus, abbot of Montecassino, accommodating 74 Archives de Montecassino, Caps 10, no 16. Printed in MCMAk 2. 1022–1023.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

313

to your petition with paternal affection, we confirm to you and to your monastery, the monastery of Glanfeuil, which holy Maurus, having been directed by the most blessed father Benedict through the order of divine revelation, constructed personally in the diocese of Anjou and when it had been built, committed it to Montecassino whence he had come forth. In truth, after the passing of many years, the aforesaid monastery was destroyed by a certain Gaidulf, but with the zeal and alms of religious men it was restored; where, at the time of Theodemar abbot of Montecassino a complaint about it being made, Pope Hadrian of blessed memory equally with Charles, king of the Franks and patrician of the Romans, the way to justice having been carefully considered, he returned it to the monastery and confirmed it with apostolic authority. Again, because God disciplines every son he takes in, the aforesaid monastery of Glanfeuil by the incursion of barbarians again is held destroyed and devastated. Then, it was provided by the providence of the princes and great ones of the region, that the monastery, little suited to monastic quiet, was managed through the monks of Fossés. This arrangement lasted unchanged until the time of Urban II. To whom, travelling in Gaul for the administration of the church when petitions were poured out by Bishop Geoffrey and Fulk that count of Anjou, that he would rescue that house from the power of Fossés and restore the ancient dignity of the abbey, in the assembly of the archbishops, bishops, and abbots numbering 44, gathering in the church of Tours, with the reasons of the parties fully heard, by his apostolic authority instituted and confirmed by a privilege, that in the monastery of Glanfeuil, he should be held as cardinal abbot forever. Certainly, in our times, when we arrived at Montecassino for the liturgy of Saint Peter [June 29], with our session in the Chapter of Montecassino on the anniversary of its church [October 1], Drogo, abbot of Glanfeuil arriving, aware of Cassinese authority, renounced the abbacy into your hand, most blessed son Seniorectus, and asked that our beloved son John, a monk of your abbot, be elected. The which, by our encouragement and that of our brothers, you and your monks carried out. Following in the footsteps of our predecessors Hadrian, Nicholas and Urban, bishops of Rome, let the forenamed Glanfeuil with all that it lawfully possesses at this, the present eleventh indiction, and in the future by the concession of the pope, the liberality of the princes, and offering of the faithful, that is able to obtain, to you and to your monastery, we confirm by our present privilege, setting down that, when the abbot of that monastery dies, no one should be put in charge there by the cunning of secrecy or violence,

314

J. B. WICKSTROM

except the one whom the brothers by common consent or of the brothers of the wiser group to the rule of Blessed Benedict, who is to be blessed at Montecassino according to the terms of his privileges. If by any chance. what we do not expect to happen, that someone worthy of the office cannot be found, let them elect for themselves someone from Montecassino, who would be similarly blessed and thus accepting the priorate of Montecassino and the vicariate over all of Gaul, let him return to his monastery. Also let him visit the gates of Blessed Benedict every five years, and let him be seated in the place of Blessed Maurus, and let no abbot be seated above him and let him be subject to no monastery except Montecassino. If something regarding the monastic Order is to be discussed, let it be decided by the prior of Montecassino and abbot of Blessed Maurus. If anyone presume to go against this our statute, unless he desists after the third warning, let him be burned with the devil and his angels forever. Who indeed keeps these statutes, may the blessed and grace of God be with him forever. I [Signed] Anacletus, bishop of the Catholic Church. Dated at Saint Germanus by the hand of Matthew cardinal presbyter and chancellor, the fifth of the Ides of October, 11th indiction, AD 1133, the fourth of the pontificate of Pope Anacletus II. 7. Second Bull of Anacletus II75 Second Bull of Pope Anacletus: October 11, 1133: Bishop Anacletus servant of the servants of God, to the beloved son John, abbot of the monastery of Glanfeuil, and his successors to be elected in perpetuity. The father and institutor (princeps ) of the monastic institution…with the help of God, shining forth, the end of his earthly life….was arranged through the monks of Fossés. Which situation persisted until the time of Pope Urban II unchanged. To whom travelling in Gaul for business and necessities of the apostolic see, when many petitions flowing forth from bishop Gauzfred and Fulk, count of Anjou, that he might rescue the same monastery from the plundering of Fossés and restore its ancient dignity of its abbot, he

75 Archives de MOntecassino, Caps 116, fascicle 5 no 38. Printed in MCMA, 2. 1023–

25.

10

GLANFEUIL AND MONTECASSINO: FICTIVE HISTORIES …

315

instituted by apostolic authority and confirmed by the charter of privilege in the assembly of archbishops, bishops, and abbots to the number of 44, sitting together in the church of Tours, with the reasons of the parties fully heard, that in the monastery of Glanfeuil the abbot should be considered a cardinal in perpetuity. Not long ago in our reign, when we had come to Montecassino for the observances of St Peter [June 29th] while we were presiding solemnly in the chapter room of Blessed Benedict, on the anniversary of the consecration of its church [October 1], Drogo, declaring himself useless and less than worthy of such a great burden, renounced the abbacy into the hand of our beloved son Seniorectus, abbot of Montecassino, and petitioned that you, most beloved son Abbot John, should be elected. Which with the wise counsel and our encouragement and that of our brother bishops and cardinals, who were with us, was granted reluctantly by our beloved son, the abbot, with the entire community gathered together. Following the footsteps of our predecessors of venerable memory, Hadrian and Urban, bishops of the Romans, we conceded to you dearest son, abbot John, that same liberty, and through you to the aforesaid abbey committed to you, and we confirm it by the present charter of privilege. Whom, having been elected, our dear son, Seniorectus, abbot of Montecassino directed, by the same order and intention by which Benedict directed Maurus to the burden of this abbatial dignity by the divine mercy, confiding in your uprightness. Saving the justice and obedience to the monastery of Montecassino and its presiding abbots as is contained in the privileges of Hadrian and Nicholas, bishops of the Romans and the emperor Charles. We confirm to you and your monastery all possessions, churches, villas, estates, fields, vineyard, woods and fishing rights and whatever it lawfully possesses now or in the future is able to secure rightfully and lawfully through gifts of bishops, the liberality of princes, and the offering of the faithful. Among which we enumerate these to be copied out, and all churches and possession concerning which you can show legal documents. Therefore, we discern that it is lawful to no man whatever to dare to disturbed that same church or to carry off its possessions or to keep or diminish what has been taken or to fatigue with audacious vexations, but everything be conserved entire of those things for whom sustenance and governance has been conceded for any sort of use in the future. And we make burial in the same place free, that whoever of them are considering burial there, no one shall obstruct their devotion and final

316

J. B. WICKSTROM

wishes, excepting the lawful reverence of the bishop of Anjou. But now when you die as abbot of this place or whomever of your successors, let no one be placed in command by the cunning of deception, but instead he whom the brothers by common consent or the part of the brothers of the wiser counsel according to the fear of God and the Rule of Blessed Benedict shall provide for election and to be blessed at Montecassino according to the terms of its privileges. Which should it occur, which we firmly believe will not happen, that no one suited to this office can be found in the congregation, let them elect an abbot from the monastery of Montecassino and let him be blessed similarly. If, however, in the future either an ecclesiastical or lay person, knowing of the charter of our constitution, rashly tries to move against it after the second or third warning, if he does not make good with appropriate recompense, may he be emptied of the honor and power of his rank, and let him be liable to the divine judgment concerning crimes committed and separated from the most sacred bod and blood of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, and subjected in the end to the severe final examination. For everyone else, who serve this place fairly, enjoy the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, while they both secure this fruit of a good act, and at the final judgment, find the reward of eternal peace. Amen.

CHAPTER 11

Maurus at Montecassino: Friction, Exemptions, and Crisis

In 1150 or shortly thereafter, two major abbeys in Angers, Saint-Serge and Saint-Aubin, were disputing possession of certain churches in Baugé. Saint-Serge appealed to the pope and received not only his support but that of the count of Anjou and the bishop of Angers. Nonetheless, Abbot William II of Glanfeuil intervened in the dispute to claim these same churches for Saint Maurus, as well as two others. He took the issue to Rome twice, in 1153 and 1155. In 1156, a meeting of all parties occurred at Glanfeuil, and the issues were argued in a chapter meeting before Stephen, the archbishop of Rennes. Abbot William had been a monk and officeholder at Saint-Florent, while Bishop Stephen was serving as abbot there. However, the monks of Saint-Serge presented their case so effectively that Abbot William agreed to drop his suit against SaintSerge. As a result, relations between the two houses became so cordial that, when Abbot William died, Saint-Serge performed obsequies for him as if for Saint-Serge’s own abbot.1 In later decades, several monks of Glanfeuil were enrolled in prayer fellowships with Saint-Aubin and other major abbeys in the region.2

1 Paul Marchegay, “Recherches sur la Vieil-Baugé,” Revue de L’anjou, 1 (1852): 286– 87. The churches were in Brain-sur-l’Authion (Anjou) and Juigné-Montandais in Brittany. 2 At least six monks of Glanfeuil obtained fellowship, enrollment in requiem masses and in Saint-Aubin’s martyrology around 1200: Cartulaire de Saint-Aubin, 2, 102, 104, 108.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_11

317

318

J. B. WICKSTROM

This story illustrates the status that the still small and rural abbey of Glanfeuil had achieved with senior houses of Angers by the mid-twelfth century. Its rise to such prominence was one result of its 1133 affiliation with Montecassino. If the Montecassino “empire” had passed its apogee, it was still one of the great monastic powers of Western Europe, and Glanfeuil benefited from that association. The latter’s identity and future, however, were now to a significant degree directed by the personalities and events of Montecassino’s larger world. By the mid-twelfth century, the great “mother abbey” was itself caught up in disturbances that were transforming much of Italy. Montecassino’s former Norman ally, Roger, now King of Sicily, plundered the abbey after it had abandoned its support of Pope Anacletus II in 1137. Constant warfare in the center of the peninsula subjected the great abbey to attacks by both traditional and new enemies.3 A single abbot dominated Cassinese activities during most of these years: Abbot Raynaud II Colimensis (r. 1137–66), a member of the ancient Marsi family, whose members, as we have seen, often dominated the leadership of Montecassino. He had been rewarded with a cardinal’s hat in 1141 for his recognition of the papacy of Innocent II, and King Roger’s reprisals fell on the Marsi family as well as the abbey. He confiscated the terra marsicorum in 1143.4 Despite these difficulties, Abbot Raynauld and his successors continued the expensive expansionist policies of Seniorectus and of other Italian abbots of central Italy. They reduced associated houses to dependency and tightened control over those which were already subjects. The attempts of the old Italian abbeys to control their subordinate houses more tightly were often met with counter-demands for more rights or even independence.5 These tensions explain several incidents involving Glanfeuil in the mid-twelfth century. The first of these was a decree from 1147, in which Pope Eugenius III confirmed that “the monastery of Saint Maurus” was to remain under obedience to the monastery of Casino in perpetuity, while absolving its abbot from any subjection to the bishop of Angers.6 Published on the occasion of William II of Normandy’s election as abbot of Glanfeuil, this was the first papal acknowledgment of the union of 1133

3 Annales casinensis, MGH., SS. 19: 309–12. 4 Ann. cass. 310. 5 Loud, Latin Church. 453–54. 6 Ann. cass. 310.

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

319

since the two decrees of Pope Anacletus II published that year. Since Anacletus had been generally condemned as an anti-pope and his bulls annulled on his death in 1139, Eugenius’ confirmation of the association of 1133, as a universally recognized pope, was likely actively sought by Montecassino.

Early Opposition to Montecassino at Glanfeuil? Glanfeuil’s new abbot, William II, apparently needed this reminder of its status. Three documents show that tensions had arisen between the two houses within fifteen years of the 1133 arrangements. These were lengthy narratives describing the events surrounding William’s election in 1147, one written by himself and the other by a certain Simon, “subdeacon of the church of Rome and humble monk of Saint Benedict of Montecassino.”7 According to Abbot William, Simon’s version was simply a confirmation of his own account.8 The abbot’s account stated that Simon was on a pilgrim’s visit to the shrine of Saint Maurus when he discovered that the abbey was suffering from a lack of an abbot to guide it. So “by the authority of the Roman church,” Simon ordered that an election be held. Once the abbot was elected, Simon personally escorted him to the bishop of Le Mans for his abbatial consecration, “freed from obedience to the bishop of Angers.”9 Simon then returned with the new abbot to Glanfeuil where he placed him in his abbatial chair as well as

7 MCMA, 2. 1033–35 (#9c). The documents are not dated, having been preserved in a Vidimus process from 1267. Bloch dated them to 1147 owing to their references to the election of William II which occurred no later than 1149, the date of Eugenius III’s letter to Abbot William II. 8 Simon’s account may be in response to Eugenius III’s letter of 1149, demanding that

Abbot William II show his “due obedience and respect” to the abbot of Montecassino to the satisfaction of Archdeacon Simon. 9 The sources, however, vary in regard to what part a local bishop played in the election of the abbot of Glanfeuil: this source, of course, states that the consecration was bestowed by the bishop of Le Mans at the request of the pope’s representative. The 1153 privilege of Abbot Raynauld of Montecassino stated that the blessing should occur at Montecassino, following the documents of 1133 (also authored by Peter the Deacon); the 1154 decree of Anastasius states that Montecassino was to issue confirmations with the blessing given by a bishop of the newly-elected abbot’s choice. A bull of Innocent III in 1203 repeats the orders of Pope Anastasius. On his official visit to Montecassino in 1153, Abbot William II received both his abbatial blessing and confirmation of his election (Ann. Cass. 311).

320

J. B. WICKSTROM

in the choir and chapterhouse. Then, William II and the entire community pledged their obedience to Montecassino, placing their hands within Simon’s. Both accounts end with the claim that the procedure was carried out at the pope’s order, who then restored the abbacy to Montecassino in perpetuum.10 These unusual rituals suggest that opposition to the agreements of 1133 already existed at Glanfeuil. That Simon was a monk of Montecassino and a relative of Montecassino’s powerful abbot, Raynaud, as well as a member of the papal curia, suggests a high level of concern at Montecassino about the situation at Glanfeuil. So, the abbot’s claim that Simon was simply undertaking a pilgrimage to Saint Maurus’ shrine likely conceals the reality that this high-ranking personage had been dispatched to Glanfeuil to hold an election whose outcome would be acceptable to Montecassino. The several ritual acts associated with that election demonstrated that Montecassino considered formal acts of “obedience and reverence” essential under the circumstances. The new abbot’s consecration by the bishop of Le Mans affirmed Pope Eugenius’ bull exempting Glanfeuil from obedience to the bishop of Angers. Abbot William II appears to have been in sympathy with resistance at Glanfeuil to its subjection to Montecassino. Two years later, Pope Eugenius III sent a sharply worded letter of rebuke to him, expressing displeasure that the “most disobedient” new abbot had not yet appeared at Montecassino for the abbot’s blessing, despite repeated requests from the pope. William wrote to Abbot Raynaud of Montecassino explaining that his failure to appear was the result of “heavy burdens,” the difficulty of the journey and its expenses, not from any contempt for Montecassino’s authority. As soon as his situation improved, the abbot promised that either he himself or a representative would undertake the journey. Meanwhile, he had offered “obedience and due reverence to your relative Simon.” In closing, Abbot William requested that the abbot of Montecassino “assist us in both spiritual and temporal matters. as befits a good and pious father.”11 Given the preceding correspondence, William’s reply seems more a delaying tactic than a genuine apology. Indeed, he did not appear at Montecassino for the abbatial blessing until five years after his election.

10 MCMA, 2. 1035 (#9c). 11 MCMA, 2. 1035–36 (#11).

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

321

A lengthy letter from Abbot Raynauld of Montecassino to Abbot William II, dated December 27, 1153, was most likely given to the latter on the occasion of his visit.12 Written for the abbot by Peter the Deacon, it rehearsed all of the legal and historical arguments for the subjection of Glanfeuil to Montecassino that had been set forth in the dossier of 1133. However, it added other ideas that suggest that Peter had rethought his earlier explanation of the abbeys’ historical union. He now claimed that the rule of Montecassino over Glanfeuil originated in God’s sovereignty (superni imperii). This claim significantly elevated the nature of the relationship between Glanfeuil and Montecassino: they were united not only by past historical events but by the divine will. Peter also added that Glanfeuil exercised the vicariate over all monasteries in Gaul with the same authority by which the abbot of Montecassino ruled his monks, thereby delegating plenipotentiary power to the home of Maurus. Peter’s assertions recall the adage that the less power an entity possesses, the greater its claims to authority become. A surprising statement at the end of the letter forbade anyone to impose a monk from Fossés on Glanfeuil as its abbot, suggesting that Fossés was still maintained its claims on Glanfeuil more than 50 years after the latter’s emancipation.13

The 1154 Decree of Anastasius IV and the Shrine of Saint Maurus The claims of the dossier of 1133 went into eclipse for a century after the death of Peter the Deacon in the late 1150s. In 1154, a decree of the newly elected Pope Anastasius IV issued a decree addressed to Abbot William II of Glanfeuil, confirming the subjection of Glanfeuil to Montecassino, as his predecessor Eugenius III, had done. It ignored all the arguments put forward in the 1133 dossier. Anastasius simply confirmed the abbeys’ relationship to Montecassino by his own authority. Anastasius’ decree was an indicator that papal authority, not precedent or historical

12 MCMA, 2. 1036–37 (#12). 13 Landreau believed that the main motive of Raynaud’s letter was to prevent Glanfeuil

from falling under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Angers. That may have provided one of Raynauld’s motives in writing the letter but absolving Glanfeuil from obedience to Angers was a commonplace in all the documents of this period, whereas the mention of a specific threat from Fossés is unique to this largely boilerplate repetition of 1133 claims, which suggests its importance. Abbaye of S. Maur, 3. 63–64.

322

J. B. WICKSTROM

evidence, was becoming the primary justification for papal decisions. The decree of Anastasius closed by placing Glanfeuil under papal protection because (he incorrectly asserted) Urban II had done so in 1096: “following in the footsteps of Pope Urban, we receive the monastery, which you are understood to govern, with God leading you, under Saint Peter and our protection.”14 The decree of Anastasius was issued at the request of Abbot William, who probably passed through Rome on his journey to Montecassino in 1153. The abbot’s purpose was likely to obtain from the pope an authoritative listing of the properties of Glanfeuil, rather than a decree of papal protection: the bloated lists of Glanfeuil possessions created by Peter the Deacon had likely lost any credibility they might have earlier had. Anastasius’ list of Glanfeuil properties was much shorter than Peter the Deacon’s and contained only genuine Glanfeuil possessions, though not all of them.15 The important point is that Anastasius guaranteed the protection of Glanfeuil’s properties because the abbey was a possession of “Saint Peter and his vicar, the pope.” This is a major shift in papal policy toward Glanfeuil and so of its union with Montecassino. Contrary to Anastasius’ assertion, Pope Urban had not taken Glanfeuil under papal protection when freeing it from Fossés in 1096. However, such protections had become a major tool in expanding papal control of monastic houses in the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries.16 Whether or not he was acting in good faith, Anastasius chose to interpret Urban’s liberation of Glanfeuil as an extension of papal protection which Anastasius stated he was merely confirming. Montecassino raised no objection to this extension of papal protection over Glanfeuil, perhaps because such protections did not normally grant exemption from obligations to other ecclesiastical lords.17

14 MCMA, 2. 1037–38 (#13). 15 See Appendix at the end of Chapter 7. 16 Ian Robinson, The Papacy 1073–1198: continuity and innovation (Cambridge U.P.,

1990), 235–36. A classic example of this development was the debate in 1137 at Lago Pasale, reviewed above in Chapter 9. 17 Kenneth Pennington, Pope and bishops: the papal monarchy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (UPenn., 1984), 154–56. There are numerous examples of popes ordering monasteries who held papal immunities to continue in subordination to other houses, Remensnyder, Remembering, 237.

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

323

The second part of Anastasius’ decree, establishing electoral procedures at Glanfeuil, also departed significantly from the rules set down in the 1133 dossier: Anastasius specifies consecration and/or blessing by a bishop of the newly-elected abbot’s choice, whereas the 1133 dossier documents required the blessing to be given at Montecassino by its abbot.18 This seems to be a significant reduction in Glanfeuil’s obligations to Montecassino, perhaps owing to the difficulty of the journey, which we have seen alleged by Abbot William some years earlier. However, Anastasius’ decree also omits any mention of the other rituals and privileges that had featured prominently in the 1133 dossier: i.e., the honorary priorate of Montecassino, the vicariate over the monasteries of France, or the possibility of electing a monk of Montecassino as abbot of Glanfeuil. Athanasius’ decree did confirm the 1133 obligation of a quinquennial visit to Montecassino, a central ritual of subordination. Assuming that the content of this reflected Abbot William II’s wishes, it would appear that the abbot was successful in reducing the obligations Glanfeuil owed to its “motherhouse,” perhaps with an eye to eventual emancipation from them all.19 For his part, Anastasius seems to have been attempting to balance the rights of an existing lord, Montecassino, with a dependent abbey’s desire for more libertas . His decree also specifically reserved the rights of Glanfeuil’s ordinary, the bishop of Angers. Such negotiations were becoming increasingly common in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Ian Robinson describes the situation well: “From 1120 s onward the papacy must safeguard the canonical jurisdiction of the bishop over the religious houses as zealously as he preserved the “liberty” of the religious houses themselves. Papal diplomacy must balance the rival claims of the religious houses and the episcopate.”20 On the other hand, Robinson

18 The bull of Innocent III from 1203, which essentially repeats the material of Anastasius’ decree, has slight variations in this procedure in the direction of greater freedom for the abbot-elect of Glanfeuil. It was likely issued at William II’s request, perhaps in anticipation of his death, which occurred the following year. MCMA, 2. 1038–39, #14. 19 “…therefore, beloved son, we accede to your rightful requests,” Decree of Anastasius, MCMA, 2. 1037–38 (#13). For a discussion of the loosening of bonds between the large black-monk monasteries and their affiliates in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Schmitz, Histoire de l’Ordre de Saint-Benoît, 2nd ed. 7 vols Maredsous, 1948–56), 3. 83. 20 Robinson, Papacy, 243.

324

J. B. WICKSTROM

adds, there was a feeling that the great exempt houses, such as Montecassino, “acted as if they were answerable to no one.”21 In response, popes and bishops increasingly took advantage of opportunities to curb the powers of these great houses. Anastasius’ decree is an early example of this policy. In sum, this decree exhibits the growing willingness of the papacy and diocesan bishops to introduce themselves into what had been essentially bilateral agreements between two monasteries. Over the next century, as we shall see below, the new alliance between expansionist popes and acquisitive bishops combined with rising Cassinese harassment of Glanfeuil to end its century-and-a half-long affiliation with the great “mother abbey.”

The Union in Jeopardy: The Pope, the Bishops, and Monastic Exemptions We know little about the shrine of Maurus in the 80 years between the decree of Anastasius of 1154 and about the crises that enveloped both abbeys beginning in the 1230s. The first of these was the emergence of new political turmoil in the Italian peninsula, which further weakened Montecassino’s sense of security. Between 1239 and 1266, hostile forces of the excommunicate emperor Frederick II and his son Manfred occupied Montecassino and, according to the abbey’s Registrum, “transformed the temple of the lord into a robbers’ den and damnably occupied it as a fortress.”22 Successive abbots were sent into exile and the monks expelled on several occasions during these twenty-six years. A consequence of this disorder was Montecassino’s inability to come to Glanfeuil’s assistance as it confronted the threat of losing its exemption from authority of the bishop of Angers. Since the time of Gregory VII, the idea of a hierarchical church with the pope at the apex and bishops as his subordinate ancillaries had been

21 Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford U.P., 1989), 545. In 1194, Montecassino obtained jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases in its territory: Historia diplomatica Friderici secondi, ed. Jean Louis HuillardBéholles 7 vols (Paris, 1852–), 2. 101–2. 22 Registrum Bernardi abbati abbatis Casinensis fragmenta ex Archivo Casinensi, ed. Anselm Marie Caplet (Rome 1890), 145, (#364).

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

325

increasingly elaborated and imposed on local churches and monasteries.23 Innocent III’s claims of plenipotentiary papal power set down the principle of papal intervention, but it was Innocent IV’s willingness to inject papal authority into all manner of local ecclesiastical and secular affairs that transformed the theoretical supremacy of the papacy into a political and institutional reality.24 This development was only one manifestation of the insistence on hierarchical lordship that had emerged during the eleventh century. All these changes encouraged episcopal attacks on monastic exemptions which had begun in earnest in the second half of the twelfth century: bishops’ claims to authority over churches and monasteries in their dioceses essentially paralleled papal claims over the entire Church, so bishops could readily obtain a hearing in papal courts which were increasingly likely to favor their cause.25 This was itself a reaction to monastic insistence on local “liberties.”26 Exempt monasteries were also accused— mostly by bishops—of corruption owing to a lack of episcopal oversight: exempt abbots, the bishops claimed, were arrogant and filled with pride; they grew wealthy from their tax exemptions, and they equated justice with whatever pleased them.27 The papacy’s responses to these initiatives varied. On the one hand, it saw the advantages of supporting a strong episcopacy that supported its own position as head of the hierarchical church; on the other hand, popes were keenly aware of the usefulness of exempt monasteries as a means to balance episcopal ambitions. It also reacted strongly against independent episcopal attempts to abolish monastic privileges that had been granted 23 [Monasteries] “were, at least in theory, under the firm control of the local bishop, who consecrated churches, acted as ordinary judge, and (nominally) controlled all monastic property, to name only some episcopal rights found in canon law from very early on.” Christof Rolker, “Monastic Canon Law in the Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Centuries,” CHMM, 618. 24 For modern discussions of these issues, see Ian Robinson, “The Institutions of the Church. 1073–1216,” NCMH, 4/1, 368–460; esp. 369–70. 25 Walter Ullmann, “Frederick II’s opponent Innocent IV as Melchisedek.” VII cente-

nario della morte di Federico II, imperatore e re di Sicilia, (10–18 dicembre 1950): atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Federiciani (Palermo: 1952), 55. 26 Remensnyder, Remembering, 252. 27 Giles of Rome, archbishop of Bourges, writing about the year 1300, was among the

most prominent and vocal critics of monastic exemptions: On Ecclesiastical Power, trans. Robert Dyson (Boydell, 1986).

326

J. B. WICKSTROM

by the Holy See.28 At the council of Vienne in 1310, for example, Pope Clement V would come out strongly in favor of monastic exemptions, while condemning the worldliness and corruption of the secular clergy, including the bishops.29 By the thirteenth century, the increasing influence of canon law on papal policies, however, had created a desire to simplify and rationalize the tangle of exemptions that had grown up over centuries. All these factors played a role in the complex maneuvers of the bishops of Angers in their century-long dispute over the exempt status of Glanfeuil abbey and the shrine of Maurus.

Internal Troubles at the Shrine of Saint Maurus By the 1230 s, these forces had begun to exert pressure on the relationship between Montecassino and Glanfeuil. In a letter dated 1234, Abbot Landulf of Montecassino congratulated the community of St Maurus on the election of a new abbot, Stephen I.30 His letter makes clear that Glanfeuil’s subjection to Montecassino was still in force, but it also reveals that destabilizing forces were at work. Since the 1140 s, Glanfeuil had won the right to have newly elected abbots blessed by some prelate other than the abbot of Montecassino. The confirmation of the new abbot, however, was to occur at Montecassino as was customary, likely during his stillrequired quinquennial visit ad limina S. Benedicti. A provocative rite had been made part of that ceremony. The new abbot of Glanfeuil would be invested with pontifical robes, which the abbot of Montecassino was already accustomed to wear.31 One of the treasured symbols of exempt

28 D. S. Buczek, “‘Pro defendendis ordinis’: The French Cistercians and Their Enemies,” Studies in medieval Cistercian history: Presented to Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, (Shannon, Irish U.P., 1971), see p. 100 for examples. 29 William Chester Jordan, Endless Strife, Unending Fear (Princeton UP., 2005), esp. ch. 3, “The Exemption Controversy at the Council of Vienne.”. 30 Letter of Abbot Landulf to Abbot-elect Stephen, BnF, Coll. Housseau, MS 2765, printed in Gallia Christiana, xiv, 160–61 (#20). Only part of this letter is edited in Bloch. MCMA, Studies in medieval Cistercian history: Presented to Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, 1039, #15. See also MCMA, 2, 1006, esp. note 1. 31 Peter the Deacon, “Altercatio,” ed. Caspar, Petrus Diaconus, 269. According to tradition, this was granted by Pope Zachary I (741–52) on the occasion of the rebuilding and repopulation of Montecassino in 748.

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

327

abbots was the right to wear such vestments.32 In the same letter however, while Abbot Landulf of Montecassino expressed his sympathy over the flooding and associated plundering which Glanfeuil had recently suffered, he offered no assistance; instead, he sent a discourse on the divine origin of human suffering. The letter overall suggests continued loosening of the connections between the two abbeys: fewer ritual gestures were being required of Glanfeuil while Montecassino felt no obligation to alleviate its dependent’s misfortunes. The tenure of Abbot Stephen I of Glanfeuil, whose election this letter had celebrated, was brief. The choice of his replacement in 1239 threw the abbey into a crisis that brought external forces into play with lasting consequences. According to a letter of complaint, sent to Montecassino by a group of senior monks, the new abbot, the former cellarer named Lysiard, was illegally elected. The letter accused him of giving the archdeacon of Angers a palfrey in return for installing him as abbot; this was not in fact the simoniacal act that the monks claimed it had been. Such a gift was customary at abbots’ installations.33 The real issue was that such a transaction implied recognition of the bishop’s jurisdiction over the abbey, a charge which the monks also laid against Lysiard. This seems unlikely. The abbot of Montecassino would surely have not confirmed the election if the new abbot of Glanfeuil had recognized the jurisdiction of the bishop. Whatever the merits of this charge, it shows that, by the 1240 s, the matter of the bishop’s authority over the abbey had become a contentious issue. In retaliation, Lysiard removed the complaining monks from their offices, which produced significant income for their holders. By June 1245, Montecassino itself was asking Rome to resolve the crisis. Pope Innocent IV ordered Abbot Lysiard to appear before the court of a papal subdeacon, Master John of Saint Germanus, at Lyons. There, by Master John’s order, Lysiard restored all the officers of the abbey whom he had removed. Lysiard was then himself removed from office and, at the request of the restored officers, excommunicated.34 32 Ludwig Falkenstein, La papauté et les abbayes françaises: exemption and protection

apostolique (Paris, 1997), 184–86. Mutatis mutandis, bishops were often forbidden to wear their pontifical robes in the precincts of an exempt abbey. William Jordan, “The Anger of the Abbots in the Thirteenth Century,” Catholic Historical Review, 96/2 (2010), 231. 33 Landreau, “Abbaye de Saint-Maur,” 3. 76, note 3. 34 Only six of the original eleven officers are listed among those who were restored,

and their restored positions often different than before.

328

J. B. WICKSTROM

However, Lysiard petitioned for absolution from these penalties which Master John granted, with the stipulation that Lysiard thereafter harbor no resentment against his accusers. Nonetheless, the crisis continued. By 1249, Lysiard had resigned, and the community was divided over the election of a new abbot, Peter, one of the officials who had been dismissed by Abbot Lysiard. At this point, Pope Innocent IV personally intervened, appointing the bishops of Nantes and Le Mans to investigate the circumstances of the election—bypassing, it bears notice, the abbey’s own ordinary, the bishop of Angers. The dispute was settled to the pope’s satisfaction by 1250.35 So, the leadership of Glanfeuil was unable to resolve its problems and had called on Montecassino for a solution. But when the mother abbey also failed to resolve the issue, it appealed to Rome for assistance. This is an example of the increasing resort to papal authority to solve problems which in the past had been dealt with locally by the concerned parties. This tendency further eroded local independence and strengthened the growing willingness of papal officials to intervene. The same is true of the bishops, and it is significant that the question of the intervention of the bishop of Angers was brought up at several points in this dispute. It is thus unsurprising that it was just at this time that the bishop of Angers launched an all-out attack on Glanfeuil’s exemption from his authority.

Glanfeuil’s Exemption Attacked: Preliminaries Shortly after the bishop of Le Mans had confirmed and blessed Abbot Peter, Michel Villoiseau (r. 1240–60), the bishop of Angers, warned the abbot he had the right to the obedience of Glanfeuil, claiming a “special mandate of the supreme pontiff.” This was legal language preliminary to claiming jurisdiction over an exempt religious house. A year later, in 1253, the bishop opened a direct campaign to end Glanfeuil’s exemption from his authority. Although, as we shall see, Villoiseau’s career was in large measure devoted to challenging monastic exemptions throughout his

35 Letter of Abbot Richard of Montecassino to Abbot Peter II of Glanfeuil, MCMA, 2. 1041–42 (#21).

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

329

diocese, it seems likely that he was exploiting the recent internal troubles at Glanfeuil as a clear example of the need for episcopal oversight.36 Before Villoiseau, bishops of Angers had not formally claimed jurisdiction over Glanfeuil. Villoiseau’s claim had support from emergent canon law, but little from history, as was the case with many contemporary episcopal claims. Bishops everywhere were reviving ancient declarations of jurisdiction over diocesan abbeys that had long since lapsed or had never been formally asserted. Strenuously objecting, monasteries stressed their historical independence.37 Abbots usually had not, however, informed Rome of their claims to exemption until these were challenged, leaving them vulnerable.38 The relationship of Glanfeuil to the bishops of Angers over the course of its history was typical of older monasteries: Abbot Odo’s narrative of Glanfeuil’s restoration in the ninth century considered it to be the property of the Rorigonid family: the pious Bishop Dodo of Angers was described as the ally of Bishop Ebroin, the Rorigonid rector of Glanfeuil. Dodo assisted in the installation of Ebroin’s successor, Abbot Gauzlin in 845. The royal diploma of 847, which recognized Glanfeuil’s status as a royal abbey under the king’s protection, clearly exempted it from the bishop’s authority, but its status was worked out in cooperation with local bishops, including Bishop Ebroin, the rector of Glanfeuil, as we have seen. The situation of Carolingian Glanfeuil was typical of exempt houses of that period. It had obtained exemption, supposedly on the insistence of the founder Maurus in the sixth century, from all lay lords’ demands, guaranteeing the peace required for monastic intercessory prayer.39 No special exemption from episcopal authority was necessary since, as we have seen, the involvement of the local bishop in Carolingian monastic life was usually limited to specialized liturgical duties and ultimate responsibility for monastic discipline.40

36 A remarkably similar excuse: the need to expel an admittedly libertine abbot had been used by the bishop of Worcester to attack the exemption of Evesham abbey in 1203: Cox, Evesham Church and Vale, 198. 37 Pennington, Pope and Bishops, 156–57. 38 Jean-Marc Bienvenu, “Renouveau,” 34. 39 LM . 40. 40 Kriston Rennie “The Normative Character of Monastic Exemption in the Early

Medieval Latin West,” Medieval worlds, 6 (2017), 61–77.

330

J. B. WICKSTROM

Since Glanfeuil was a priory dependent on Fossés in the tenth and eleventh centuries, questions of its exemption did not again arise until its emancipation in 1096. In Urban II’s decree of liberation, the bishop of Angers, unsurprisingly, appears as one of the supporters of Glanfeuil’s freedom from Fossés. Urban’s decree limited the bishop’s rights to a minor matter: the right of extending free burial in Glanfeuil’s cemetery. It seems likely that Urban’s unusual grant of the title “cardinal abbot” to the new abbot of Glanfeuil had not created a relationship with Rome but implied exemption from episcopal authority. The second bull of Urban, forged by Peter the Deacon, which asserted the lordship of Montecassino over Glanfeuil ab initio, unsurprisingly rejected all episcopal authority over the abbey. Pope Anastasius IV in 1153 claimed that Urban had taken Glanfeuil under his protection in 1096; but as we saw, Urban’s genuine bull of emancipation specified no such relationship. The issue of diocesan jurisdiction over Glanfeuil was first brought up in 1147 by Pope Eugenius III, who specifically declared Glanfeuil exempt from the authority of the bishop of Angers. The bull, surely requested either by Glanfeuil or Montecassino, suggests that a threat to its exemption had been perceived. In line with this statement, the pope appointed the bishop of Le Mans to consecrate and bless Glanfeuil’s new abbot, bypassing the bishop of Angers.41 Perhaps this specific papal exemption of Glanfeuil from the jurisdiction of Angers was in response to threats from the aggressive Bishop Ulger, who still ruled Angers in 1147. With the exception of Bishop Ulger, however, the bishops of Angers only rarely challenged monastic exemptions before the final decades of the twelfth century. Indeed, until then episcopal grants of exemption seem to have been much more common than challenges to them.42 In those unsettled times, the assistance of the abbeys was still useful to struggling bishops; exemptions were the price of cooperation. Although quarrels over exemption were becoming more common, relationships between twelfth-century bishops and the monastic institutions of Angers were usually peaceful.43

41 Mandatum of Eugenius III, 1147; Ann. Cass. 310. 42 J.-F. Lemarignier, Etude sur les Privilèges d’exemption et de juridiction eccésiastique

des Abbayes Normands depuis les origins jusqu’en 1140 (Paris, 1937), 84–98. 43 Jean-Marc Bienvenu, “Renouveau,” 28–29.

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

331

Challenges to exemptions increased under the long reign of William de Beaumont, who ruled Angers for thirty-eight years (r. 1202–40). In 1209, a dispute between Glanfeuil and Bishop de Beaumont over the patronage of the church of Saint Peter in Culturis was appealed to Pope Innocent III, who found in favor of Glanfeuil. However, de Beaumont usually approached these issues with caution and a spirit of compromise.44 Nonetheless, papal encouragement of episcopal challenges to monastic exemptions had become the default position by the early thirteenth century.45 Moreover, early in Bishop de Beaumont’s rule, the Plantagenet king John of England lost the county of Anjou to the Capetians (1204). This change in comital lordship had significant consequences for both the bishopric of Angers and Glanfeuil’s exempt status. Capetian officials exercised significantly less influence over the choice of bishops than had the Plantagenets.46 This laissez faire approach allowed the election of bishops who lacked family ties to the region. Thus, a man like Michel Villoiseau, with no discernable connections to either the court or the great families of Anjou, could thus achieve election as bishop. This may in part explain his constant attacks on ancient monastic exemptions in his diocese. They also emerged from his strong and relentless character, much commented upon by besieged abbots at the time. In addition, Villoiseau’s ability to manipulate legal and administrative machinery suggests a good education, perhaps in one of the law centers of Italy.47

Glanfeuil’s Exemption Challenged in Court In 1241, the very first year of his long episcopate, Bishop Villoiseau persuaded the papal legate to France to form a special delegation of inquisitors, which visited all the religious establishments in his diocese. Monasteries and houses of canons scrambled to find documentation for their exemptions demanded by the visitors and issued counter challenges. 44 Théodore-Pierre Pletteau, “Annales ecclesiastiques d’Anjou: Raoul de Beaumont, evêque d’Angers,” Revue de l’Anjou, 15/16 (1875–76): 248–71. 45 Tristan Sharp, “Bishops, Canon Law, and the Religious, 1140–1350, “ CHMM , 1084. 46 Odette Pontal, “Evêques dans le monde plantagenêt.” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 29 (1986): 131. 47 Jorg Peltzer, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest: Episcopal Elections in Normandy and Greater Anjou, c.1140-c.1230 (Cambridge U.P.), 208.

332

J. B. WICKSTROM

Villoiseau’s campaign was controversial, but he had in fact a nuanced view of exemptions. He was generous in awarding them to the newer religious Orders such as the Grandmontines, Cistercians (who had originally rejected all offers of exemption), and Dominicans. In fact, he was considered the patron-founder of the Dominicans in Angers and, at his request, was buried in the convent he had endowed. The bishop appears to have been one of the many patrons who were favoring the new Orders at the expense of traditional monastic houses.48 The issue was joined shortly after the problems with Abbot Lysiard came to the attention of Innocent IV. In his final judgment of the abbot’s case in 1247, Innocent declared that Glanfeuil was “in no way related to the diocese of Angers,” and that “nothing should be done to the prejudice of the rights of Montecassino.”49 This may have been purely formulaic, but it is also possible that the pope was responding to complaints by Glanfeuil and/or Montecassino against Villoiseau. In 1248, the bishop went on the offensive, demanding that Glanfeuil profess obedience to himself, accept him as episcopal visitor, and provide for his needs in that capacity. In response, Abbot Peter appeared before the bishop and formally denied his jurisdiction, stating that Glanfeuil was “immediately subject” (immediate subiecti) to Montecassino and “enjoyed the same privileges [of immunity] that Montecassino enjoyed.” This was a novel and controversial stance which was gaining some currency, particularly after the 1137 Lago Pasale debates. The abbot of Glanfeuil then appealed the bishop’s decision to Rome, placing the monastery and its holdings under papal protection. The pope accordingly appointed a member of the curia, John, cardinal of Saint Nicholas in Chains, to hear the abbey’s appeal.50 Without waiting for Rome’s decision, however, Bishop Villoiseau excommunicated the abbot of Glanfeuil, “in contempt of the appeal, merely to assert his own will,” in the words of the papal judge. This act was an audacious application of the bishop’s claim that Glanfeuil was not an exempt monastery, since papally protected entities could not be excommunicated or otherwise molested by the local bishop.51 To be

48 Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 4th ed. (New York Longman, 2015), 190–95. 49 Printed in Gattula, Historia, 1, 302. 50 Letter of Abbot Richard of Montecassino to Abbot Peter II of Glanfeuil from 1252,

MCMA, 2. 1041–42, #21. 51 Falkenstein, La paupauté, 112, 126ff.

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

333

fair, the bishop may well have seen this famous shrine, lying in the heart of his diocese, as a highly visible challenge to his authority in its exemption and allegiance to far-off Montecassino and was determined to subdue it.52 An expensive lawsuit followed which dragged on for four years. A notable feature of this suit was the absence of any accusation of laxity or corruption against the shrine of Maurus, a frequent element of episcopal attacks on monastic exemption. At its conclusion, Pope Innocent IV wrote a long letter to the bishop of Angers, to which he attached a “word by word” account of the proceedings, likely at the bishop’s request.53 Thus, the arguments of both sides can be analyzed in some detail. The lawyer for the bishop of Angers began by arguing that no one denied that the monastery lay in the diocese of Angers and that the bishop had in fact exercised jurisdiction over the abbey many times. The abbot’s advocate responded that whenever such authority was exercised, it was done over the protests of the abbey and therefore did not invalidate its exemption. This may have referred to the supposed recognition of the bishop’s jurisdiction by Abbot-elect Lysiard in 1239.54 The history of the abbey was then rehearsed by its advocate who made extensive use of the arguments put forth in Peter the Deacon’s dossier of 1133. The advocate argued that Glanfeuil had belonged to its “mother abbey” Montecassino since its foundation by Saint Maurus in the sixth century. The abbey’s advocate argued further that Pope Urban had granted Glanfeuil exemption in 1096 by his appointment of a “cardinal abbot” at Glanfeuil (taken from the genuine papal bull of 1196). The pope had also ordered Glanfeuil to show due obedience to its “mother,” Montecassino (a statement taken from the supposed decree of Urban II from 1097 forged by Peter the Deacon). It bears note how the accepted history of Glanfeuil was, by the mid-thirteenth century, a complex conflation of genuine and imagined events, based primarily on the 1133 dossier of Peter the Deacon. The bishop’s attorney argued that no papal privilege could undo the legitimate rights of a bishop in his diocese, a principle which had some standing in current canon law.55 Glanfeuil’s attorney responded that the 52 This sentiment was articulated by Villoiseau’s successor, Nicolas Gellent, Charter of concession, dated 15 may, 1271 (lost since 1843). There is a précis in MCMA, 2. 1048–49, (#27). 53 Registre d’Innocent IV , E. Berger ed., 4 vols. (Paris, 1884–) 3, 178–81 (#6348). 54 See above, 325. 55 Pennington, Popes and Bishops, 176.

334

J. B. WICKSTROM

abbey enjoyed the same exemptions as Montecassino, since papal privileges were customarily issued to Montecassino and “all its possessions,” of which Glanfeuil was one.56 The bishop’s lawyer retorted that a great abbey such as Glanfeuil, with its distinguished line of abbots and history, could not be treated simply as an asset of another abbey. This argument is one of the more telling points made by the bishop’s advocate, reflecting evolving legal thought about “proprietary” relationships between great abbeys.57 In fact, the dependencies of exempt abbeys were often not considered automatically exempt themselves, especially in France.58 Cardinal John, the papal auditor, declared himself convinced by the arguments of the bishop’s attorney and ordered the abbey to submit to the bishop of Angers. It is difficult at this distance to understand the cardinal’s decision and its confirmation by Innocent IV. Modern scholars agree that the bishop’s advocate did not effectively refute the arguments in favor of Glanfeuil’s exemption.59 Pope Innocent had, only a few years earlier, confirmed Glanfeuil’s exemption from Angers’ jurisdiction. Moreover, while it is true that the papacy was inserting itself regularly into issues of exemption, it was still a conservative institution that usually confirmed existing privileges.60 One should, however, perhaps not look to large historical trends or causes to understand this decision. History suggests that the law favors the wealthy, the well-connected—and the persistent. Bishop Villoiseau possessed all these advantages. It seems more than likely that he used his curial connections to obtain a favorable judgment in this case. On the other hand, there is some evidence that pastoral concerns may well have influenced the pope’s decision. Canon lawyers and spiritual writers of the period were developing notions of the popes and, especially, of bishops, as essentially shepherds of the faithful in a hierarchical church. 56 There is some evidence that only Montecassino’s Italian possessions were included in this exemption: Luigi Fabiani, La Terra di San Benedetto, Miscellanea Cassinese 33 (Montecassino, 1968): 359–63. The claim that an abbey’s exemption pertained to all its possessions was, however, common by the thirteenth century, Jordan, “Anger of Abbots,” 227–28. 57 Wood, Proprietary Church. 3–4. 58 Falkenstein, La papauté, 126ff. 59 Bloch, who has studied these documents carefully, also believed that Glanfeuil’s lawyer had made the better case, MCMA, 2. 1002. 60 Pennington, Popes and Bishops, 175.

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

335

Innocent’s announcement of the verdict to the Glanfeuil community in June of 1253 suggests that such concerns were on his mind: We command that the same bishop, constituted as it were a guardian in the house of God, follow with due concern the flock committed to him, that the same flock thereby be not deprived of the proper care of a pastor. Thus, it might be strong in its progress against the destructive force of the vices. Wherefore, since that bishop is your ordinary, in all things we order all of you, as limbs are to the head, to take care to be humbly and devoutly obedient and that you yield wholeheartedly to his episcopal rights.61

Though no charges of laxity or corruption were raised against Glanfeuil, the memory of disorder there under Lysiard’s disastrous decade (1239–49) as abbot was surely still fresh. Glanfeuil’s lord, Montecassino, along with other great monasteries, appeared to many as needing reform, seemingly more interested in their property than in observant monastic life. Montecassino had received an admonition to reform from Innocent III and in 1215 was obliged to accept a new constitution from him.62 Such larger issues may well have influenced the papal decision to end Glanfeuil’s exemption, thereby removing it from the protection of Montecassino. Abbot Peter complained after the trial that the case had so impoverished the abbey that he could scarcely continue. He claimed that he was not even able to make his quinquennial visit to Montecassino owing to a lack of funds. Moreover, on receiving word of the verdict, Bishop Villoiseau had the abbey’s possessions confiscated, further inhibiting any appeal.63 Montecassino at the time had been under intense military and political pressure from Emperor Frederick II, and so unable to defend its “daughter.” However, by 1266, nine years after Glanfeuil had lost its appeal for exemption at Rome, the situation at Montecassino had changed dramatically. Frederick’s son, Manfred, had been killed in battle and 61 Registre d’Innocent IV , 3. 248, #6672. The judgment also reaffirmed the influential statement of the First Lateran Council (1123) that “the cure of souls and the dispensation of ecclesiastical things should be in the judgement and power of the bishop,” Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum xxi, 283. 62 Federico II : enciclopedia fridericiana, 3 vols (Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2005–2008), 2. 366. 63 Letter of Abbot Richard of Montecassino to Abbot Peter II of Glanfeuil, MCMA, 2. 1041–42 (#21).

336

J. B. WICKSTROM

Charles I, count of Anjou (1226–85), had seized power in southern Italy. Three years earlier, Bernard Aiglerius (Agleyrio) had been elected abbot of Montecassino (r. 1263–82). A nobleman from the Lyonnaise, early in his life Bernard’s many talents had brought him to the attention both of the pope and of Count Charles. He became chaplain to Pope Hadrian IV in the early 1250 s and had acted as advisor to his fellow countryman, Charles, during the latter’s victorious campaign in the Italian peninsula. As a monk of Montecassino, Bernard had personally experienced the sufferings of the abbey under the occupying Hohenstaufen, who had, in his much-repeated phrase, turned “the temple of God into a den of thieves.”64 After spending his first three years as abbot in exile, on his return in 1266 Bernard found the abbey and its possessions in a state of “complete disorder…ravaged by a century of war.”65 Bernard was determined to reform the abbey’s spiritual life and restore its lost properties. Bernard’s two major literary works: a commentary on the Rule of Benedict and a Mirror for Monks (Speculum monachorum) display a spiritual maturity and an innovative use of canon law as a tool of spiritual renewal.66 They were among the most copied of all monastic texts in the later Middle Ages. Under Bernard, the number of monks resident at Montecassino grew to 180 and once again began contributing to the ranks of cardinals, archbishops and other high clerical officers.67 In a campaign to restore Montecassino’s properties and influence, he travelled widely, visiting the abbey’s houses in the course of his journeys throughout Europe. His Registrum, of which a good portion survives, shows his zeal in regaining lost properties through skillful political, legal, and even military maneuvering. At the core of his reform was a sophisticated bureaucracy for regaining and maintaining the abbey’s assets.68 64 Registrum Bernardi, 1. 145. (#364). 65 Jean-François Guiraud, Economie et société autour du Mont-Cassin au XIII siècle,

Miscellanea Cassinese, 81 (Montecassino, 1999), 50. 66 For an account of the many facets of Bernard’s career, see Hilarius Walter, “Das

Speculum monachorum des Abtes Bernhard I von Cassino,” Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte dem benedictiner- und cisterciener- Orden, vol. 21 (1900), 411–23 and vol 22 (1901): 32–47. Also, Agostino Sava, “Bernardo I Aygelario”: Miscellanea Cassinese 8 (Montecassino, 1931), 25–60. 67 Leccisotti, Montecassino, 68. 68 Guiraud, Economie, 51–54.

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

337

Among Abbot Bernard’s early goals in his campaign of revival was the recovery of Montecassino’s lordship over Glanfeuil. So, in March of 1267, less than a year after his election, Bernard was in Rome personally filing an appeal with the curia to restore the exemption of Glanfeuil which it had surrendered after losing its appeal in 1253. To appeal a lost case after 14 years surely indicates the enduring importance of Glanfeuil to Montecassino. Abbot Bernard clearly took pains with the case. He had several original documents copied at Montecassino and sent to Rome for the trial, for fear of sending the originals on an unsafe journey.69 He engaged Master William de Vivariis, chaplain to the influential cardinal-deacon of Saint Maria in Cosmedin, later Pope Honorius IV, as the abbey’s advocate. Master William’s notes for the case have been preserved, allowing a rare glimpse of an advocate’s preparation for arguing before the Roman curia.70

The Appeal of 1267 Master William outlined his case in 52 paragraphs, opening with Peter the Deacon’s fiction that that Montecasino had exercised lordship over Glanfeuil ab initio. Most of his arguments were other fictions borrowed from Peter’s dossier of 1133. It is likely that William had the dossier documents in hand since he often uses their exact language.71 The core of Master William’s argument repeated Ivo of Chartres’ defense of Fossés’ lordship in 1105: that centuries-long relationships could not legally be overturned by papal or episcopal fiat. His paragraph 40 contains information regarding the accord between Montecassino and Glanfeuil that is nowhere else recorded: that a vicar of the abbot of Montecassino could carry out the rituals of possessio and subjugatio at the election of a new abbot of Glanfeuil. This statement

69 Vidimus of documents relating to the relationship of Montecassino to Glanfeuil, MCMA, 2. 1043–44 (#24). 70 Notes of William de Vivariis’ defense of Glanfeuil’s exemption, printed in MCMA, 2. 1045–49 (#26). 71 These were probably the documents that Abbot Bernard had ordered copied and sent from Montecassino.

338

J. B. WICKSTROM

suggests that Glanfeuil’s status was that of a possessio in complete subjection to Montecassino.72 This is a much stronger assertion of Glanfeuil’s dependent status than any statement in the dossier of 1133. This may well account for the uncooperative attitudes of Glanfeuil abbots toward Montecassino during this period. Paragraphs 35 to 38 detailed confirmations of Montecassino’s lordship over Glanfeuil issued by various popes after Urban’s 1096 decree: Pascal (1105), Pope Clement III (1188), and Innocent III (1208).73 Their inclusion here shows again how thoroughly Peter the Deacon’s fictions were accepted as historical accounts of the relationship of the shrine of Maurus with Montecassino. Paragraphs 45–47 list several quasi-episcopal rights that Montecassino supposedly exercised over Glanfeuil. They included visitation, correction, reformation, removing and replacing officials, suspension, excommunication, and interdict; that is to say, all the traditional forms of oversight exercised by the bishop over non-exempt institutions. By their nature, they established exemption and precluded any claims of jurisdiction by the bishop of Angers. If these were true rather than courtroom rhetoric, they also show how thoroughly Glanfeuil lay under Montecassino’s control. Unlike Glanfeuil’s appeal hearing against Bishop Villoiseau in 1253, we know nothing of the arguments actually presented in the 1267 retrial, if indeed it took place at all. It is likely that Villoiseau’s successor as bishop of Angers, Nicholas Gellent, responded to the re-trial with vigor; he had been archdeacon of Angers under Villoiseau and kept a tight rein on the monasteries in his diocese, restoring discipline in three of the major monasteries of Angers, Saint-Florent, Saint-Serge, and Roncéray.74 He was openly hostile to the famous shrine of Saint Maurus, resenting its exemption from his authority while located in the middle of his diocese.75

72 The assertion that Glanfeuil was a possessio of Montecassino was also made in the appeal of 1253, Registre d’Innocent IV , 3. 180. 73 Bloch, MCMA, 2. 1004. 74 J. Avril, “L’église d’Angers,” 62. 75 Summary of the lost document in Marchegay, Cart. de S-M, 304.

11

MAURUS AT MONTECASSINO: FRICTION, EXEMPTIONS, AND CRISIS

339

The Results of the Re-trial The decision, if any, in the 1267 re-trial appeal is unknown. However, in 1271, four years after Abbot Bernard brought suit, Abbot Stephen II of Glanfeuil formally placed his abbey under the authority of the bishop of Angers.76 This decision was more likely the result of a deteriorating relationship between Glanfeuil and Montecassino than of a court judgment. As we have seen, Glanfeuil had vigorously opposed the attempt by Bishop Villoiseau to end its relationship with Montecassino in 1253. However, there is evidence that Montecassino had coerced Glanfeuil into supporting the appeal initiated by Abbot Bernard in 1267. We have a statement from Abbot Stephen II of Glanfeuil showing that he was present for the presentation of the case, likely summoned to Rome by Abbot Bernard.77 On the surface, the letter shows Glanfeuil’s support for the suit. Abbot Stephen enthused that if the court found in favor of Abbot Bernard, it would be “the herald of many liberties” (insignia multarum libertatum). He added that, owing to this anticipated benefit, Glanfeuil had agreed to pay to Montecassino the sum of 300 pounds tournois toward the latter’s expenses in prosecuting the case. In addition, he promised that his abbey would pay any fines or fees incurred by Montecassino in the process and pledged the monastery’s assets, “both moveable and immovable,” to secure the potential debt. Finally, Stephen agreed that, since his abbey was subject to Montecassino pleno jure, Abbot Bernard might excommunicate the abbot if he failed to honor these terms. These pledges by Abbot Stephen reveal that Glanfeuil was completely at the mercy of its lord, under which principle all its properties and goods could be forfeit.78 Abbot Stephen added multiple assurances that all this was promised freely. However, these obligations appear so burdensome that skepticism about their voluntary character seems warranted.79 Abbot Stephen’s obligations regarding this litigation likely illustrates Abbot Bernard’s policy of shifting administrative costs involving its possessions to the affected entities. In

76 MCMA, 2. 1048 (#27a). 77 MCMA, 2. 1044 (#25). 78 Pleno jure status is discussed by Wood, Proprietary Church, 903. 79 “…he promises by his own free initiative, voluntarily, and with complete under-

standing, neither by mistake or coercion or fear, either induced or concerned, purely, simply, in good faith and removed from any limitation of fact or of law.” Wood, Proprietary Church, 903.

340

J. B. WICKSTROM

addition, there were the ongoing legal costs that Glanfeuil’s earlier abbot had declared insupportable. The shrine of Saint Maurus was thus paying a high price to maintain its connection to Montecassino and its exempt status. So, it is not surprising that on May 15, 1271, four years after this re-trial had begun, Abbot Stephen formally offered his submission to Nicholas Gellent, current bishop of Angers. This document was lost after 1843, but two summaries were produced by nineteenth-century scholars. In one of these, Dom Etienne Housseau suggested that Abbot Stephen offered submission to the bishop of Angers “in order to avoid submitting to the abbey of Montecassino.” Paul Marchegay commented that “They [monks of Saint Maurus] gave themselves over to the lord who made them the best offer.”80 Despite these major upheavals in its identity and legal status, Glanfeuil appears to have enjoyed a reputation for faithful observance of the Rule: in 1272, the year after all these events, Abbot Stephen was appointed to reform the abbey of Saint-Leonard-de-Ferrières in Poitiers.81 The language of conflict dominates many of the documents that survive from the 150-year relationship of the shrine of Maurus with Montecassino. To some degree, this perception may be an accident of the surviving sources. Few sources survive from medieval Glanfeuil after its cartulary entries end in 1147. The available documents are primarily from the archives of Montecassino, which focus on problems between the two houses. Where similar sources exist in the early modern period, for example, the shrine’s correspondence with the Congrégation of SaintMaur, they also emphasize problems with the Congregation. We know little therefore about the cult of Saint Maurus in the later Middle Ages. However, it experienced a surprising revival in the early modern age. It is to that development that we turn, briefly, in the Epilogue.

80 Resumés of Abbot Stephen II’s subjection to the authority of Bishop Gellent of Anjou, May 15, 1271. Printed in Bloch. MCMA, 2, 1048–49 (#27b). 81 Archives Maine et Loire, ms. H. 1776, fol. 3.

CHAPTER 12

Epilogue: Redefining Maurus and His Shrine for the Modern World

By 1288, the abbots of Glanfeuil were being installed by the archdeacons of the Angers diocese.1 Comparing this modest occasion to the splendid receptions that new abbots of Glanfeuil had enjoyed at Montecassino captures some of the price of its independence from its great “mother abbey” of Montecassino. During the later Middle Ages and into the early modern period, Glanfeuil again found itself a small regional monastery at the mercy of acquisitive neighbors and of large historical forces. In the early seventeenth century, its security and prosperity returned, but, once again, at the cost of surrendering independence to a larger institution. Before this happened, however, Glanfeuil had to pass, largely unsupported, through crucibles of disease and unprecedented violence. The ancient abbey and its cult barely survived.

Bare Survival: 1300–1620 First, the abbey suffered causalities from the Black Death in the midfourteenth century, as did its neighboring religious houses. We do not know the extent of its depopulation, but indications are that it endured more from man-made depredations than from natural disasters in that 1 Summaries of the manuscripts of the Archives were published by Celestine Port: Inventaire sommaire des Archives Départmentales: Maine-et-Loire, Archives Ecclésiastiques, Series H, Tome 1, Angers 1898, 212.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8_12

341

342

J. B. WICKSTROM

turbulent period.2 In 1369, during the first phase of the Hundred Years War, an English garrison occupied Glanfeuil for a year, reducing the monks to such straits that they dispersed to the surrounding area, taking refuge with sympathetic neighbors. When the English decamped, they burned the abbey to the ground. The sixteenth-century religious wars brought even more serious trouble. The abbey was pillaged and burned by Huguenot Protestants in 1577, 1585, and 1589. Calvinist officers allegedly used its medieval charters to light their pipes and to wrap their sausages.3 The monks fled to Angers, where they were forced to find individual lodgings. The survival of the community seemed doubtful. Yet in 1591, only a short time after the Huguenots had left the abbey in ruins, an Angevin nobleman, Claude de Saint-Offange, was appointed abbot (r.1591–1624) and began the long restoration of the ancient shrine of Maurus. Later given the epithet “The Great” for his revival of Glanfeuil, Saint-Offange during his first few years as abbot carried on as a typical commendatory abbot, living on his family chateau at some distance from the abbey. As early as the 1540s, Glanfeuil had fallen victim to the spreading commende system, in which titular abbots, usually Parisian noblemen, ruled in absentia. Glanfeuil’s early absorption into this system probably testifies not only to its vulnerability but to its relative prosperity. Stéphanie Lemale has described the abbey as possessing “une richesse et un pouvoir considerable.”4 In the seventeenth century, it possessed at least twenty-four dependent priories and churches and probably more.5 This

2 Emile Farge, “La Peste noire en Anjou,” Revue de L’Anjou, 19 (1854), 91. 3 Cart. de S-M, Introduction, 310–12, 320. 4 Stéphanie Lemale, “La vie spirituelle à l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire (vers 1560– 1688),” (unpublished thesis: Memoire d’histoire moderne, Univsersité catholique de l’Ouest, 1997), 18. 5 As examples, the archives show that in the seventeenth century, Glanfeuil possessed at least twenty-four dependent priories and churches:

Diocese of. Angers: Denée and le Moult, Marie-Magdalene de l’Isle, Soulangé, Saint-Just-des-Vérchers, Saint-Remy-La-Varenne, Bessé, Couture, Denée, SaintMartin-de-Saint Maur, Saint-Vétérin de Gennes, Diocese of Poitiers: Coural, Faveraye, le Voide, Bournan, la Chapelle-sous-Doué, Concourson, Saint-Cyr en Bourg, and Saint-Maur de Loudun, Bournan, la Chapelle-sous-Doué, Concourson, Saint-Cyr, Saint-Pierre-de-Verchérs. All these properties were mentioned in medieval documents as possessions of Glanfeuil. The more extensive early modern

12

EPILOGUE: REDEFINING MAURUS …

343

patrimony is modest in comparison with the largest monastic landowners in the region, such as Saint-Aubin with its 38 priories and 44 benefices or Saint Nicholas with 40 priories and 30 benefices. Glanfeuil’s income of 4000 livres tournois in 1600 was far below the 30,000 livres of neighboring Saint-Aubin or even Saint Nicholas’ 12,000. Still, such figures suggest that Glanfeuil was a comfortable middle-level house. However, it probably shared the experience of most commendatory abbeys, whose assets and spiritual vitality were commonly drained off by non-resident, indifferent rulers.

The Saint-Offange Abbots and the Cult of Maurus However, in the early 1620s, likely touched by the spirit of reform sweeping across Catholic France, Abbot de Saint-Offange experienced a religious conversion. He moved into the abbot’s quarters and attempted to impose strict observance of the Rule of Benedict.6 The abbot encountered serious opposition when he attempted to abolish the benefices tied to monastic offices. Senior monks had become quite wealthy through administering these properties, sometimes constructing separate living quarters for themselves within the cloister, quite at odds with the communal life prescribed in the Rule of Benedict.7 In the early years of the seventeenth century, the community was small, perhaps a dozen professed monks, but several were from distinguished families and had received university training.8 Their opposition to Offange’s proposed reforms was persistent and, in 1624, he resigned evidence, however, unlike the medieval records, reveals the extent of these priories’ holdings: for instance, in 1545, the priory of Bessé alone held twenty-five specific “lands and tenures” along with unnamed “others.” Archives Maine-et-Loire MS, H . 1585. Three lists from the later sixteenth century mention 40 additional properties: Archives Maine-et-Loire MSS. H. 1586, 1587, 1588). For the eighteenth century, about 80 additional properties are named: H. 1589–1592. Some of properties are included in all the lists, but most are unique to each list. Similar entries exist for the other priories. 6 Archives de Maine et Loire, MS H. 1532, fols. 7–11. The text is printed in Renaudin, “Abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire au xviie siècle,” Province d’Anjou, 7 (1932), 281–298. 7 Lemale, “La vie spirituelle,” 121, Archives Maine-et-Loire, MS H. 1684, 13 avril 1632, “infirmerie.”. 8 Archives M-et-L. MSS. H. 1537: In 1510, two members are graduates of U of Angers (H 1538), six monks were authorized to attend U of Angers in 1515. See also Port, Inventaire, 216.

344

J. B. WICKSTROM

to become president of one of the burgeoning confederations of reformed abbeys. He appointed his young and energetic nephew, Claude-Magdalon de Saint-Offange, to succeed him as abbot of Glanfeuil. Here, as with the Rorigonid family in the ninth century, the desire of a prominent family to retain control of “their” abbey, despite the Rule’s insistence on free elections, had positive effects. Ruling over Glanfeuil as resident abbot for almost a half-century (r. 1624–71), Claude-Magdelon immediately took up his uncle’s campaign to reform the house; however, he wisely shifted its emphasis from economic to disciplinary and liturgical reform; even so, he needed twenty years to succeed. The abundant sources for this period say little about veneration of Saint Maurus, but they show that Abbot Claude-Magdalon was keenly aware of that ancient identity of the house. He often argued that, as the foundation of Benedict’s first disciple, the abbey should be a model of adherence to the Rule of Benedict.9 The efforts of the two Saint-Offange abbots to reform Glanfeuil did not occur in a vacuum. A movement for renewal of monastic life had been spreading through France since the beginning of the seventeenth century, with individual abbeys forming confederations for the purpose of effecting and sustaining reform. These so-called Congrégations were composed of exempt Benedictine monasteries and much resembled religious Orders: they set up strong centralized governments which imposed common customs on each member house.10

Saint Maurus and His Shrine Under ´ the Congregation de Saint-Maur The Congrégation de Saint-Maur gradually emerged as the largest and strongest of these confederations, taking its name in honor of Glanfeuil’s patron because he had brought observant monastic life to France, such as the Congrégation hoped to revive. Abbot Magdelon-Claude finally persuaded his community to join the Congrégation in 1668, but 12 of the 30 members of the house opposed the change.11 As was the Congregation’s policy, the dissidents continued to live in the abbey as a separate

9 Arch. M-et-L. MS. H. 1532 Ordonnance de 1645, fols 1, 3. 10 At some unrecorded point, Glanfeuil had regained its exemption from the bishop of

Angers. 11 Landreau, “Deux histoires,” 191–93.

12

EPILOGUE: REDEFINING MAURUS …

345

body until the last member died in 1725.12 Nine priories and 12 parishes located in the dioceses of Angers; Poitiers and La Rochelle remained in the abbey’s gift at the time of its acceptance into the Congrégation.13 Abbot Magdelon-Claude resigned in 1674, three years after the abbey had joined the Congrégation and, at his request, he was succeeded by his fifteen-year-old nephew, René-Magdelon de Saint-Offange, as commendatory abbot. On the face of it, this was a puzzling decision for an abbot who, along with his uncle, had struggled for more than a half-century to reform Glanfeuil; indeed, Magdalon-Claude repented his decision on his deathbed.14 However, there were compelling reasons for his action: keeping the abbacy in the family would guarantee that its considerable resources would continue to benefit the region. Secondly, there was the SaintOffanges’ family’s desire to retain this family property. Finally, since it was unable to abolish the system, the Congrégation de Saint Maur did allow for commendatory abbots. However, it strictly limited their authority and privileges, leaving them little more than an honorary title. The actual governance of the house was entrusted to a resident prior appointed by the Congrégation. And indeed, Glanfeuil appears to have flourished under the absentee abbot, René-Magdelon de Saint-Offange, for thirty-seven years (1671–1708), though René never lived at the abbey and visited rarely. The most visible example of this flourishing was the reconstruction of the entire monastery at Glanfeuil, except for the main church in 1685, at the expense of the Congrégation. The buildings were large and lavishly appointed for a small community such as Glanfeuil; within their new dormitory, the monks enjoyed individual cells “to allow more freedom for prayer and spiritual reading.”15 Included in the rebuilding of Glanfeuil was a new library to house its considerable collection of over 3600 volumes.16 The Maurists envisioned intellectual work as a fundamental 12 Juliette Grison, “La vie spirituelle à l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire de sa réforme à la Révolution: 1668–1790” (unpublished thesis: Memoire d’histoire moderne, Université catholique de l’Ouest, 1998), 49–50. 13 Grison, “La vie spirituelle,” 32. 14 Grison, “La vie spirituelle,” 57. 15 Grison, “La vie spirituelle,” 79–80 quoting Arch. M-et-L. MS H. 1511, “Travaux

de reconstruction de l’abbaye.” 16 Grison, “La vie spirituelle,” 84. Most Maurist houses held no more than 2000 books.

346

J. B. WICKSTROM

element of their reform, with a particular focus on the history of the Benedictine Order, and scholar-monks at Glanfeuil were prominent members of this enterprise. The first modern history of the abbey was produced in 1668: L’ Histoire abregée by Dom Pierre Lejeune de Bonneveau. In 1702, a major defense of Odo’s Life of Maurus was written by Dom Thierry Ruinart of Saint Germain-des-Prés: Apologie de la mission de Saint Maur en France. In 1748, another monk of Glanfeuil, Dom Jean-Martial Galand, completed a 400-page Histoire ou chronique de l’abbaïe roiale de Saint-Maur-de-Glanfeuil-sur-Loire. As one admiring historian of the time concluded: “in those houses in which laxity had obtained for so long, the Divine Offices were again chanted as in the lovely days of the Middle Ages, as one sees these exquisite buildings truly remarkable in the beauty of their lines and the austerity of their details.”17 The grand reconstruction of Glanfeuil brought about an increase in residents during the latter years of the seventeenth century. As the shrine of the Congrégation’s saintly patron, Saint Maurus, Glanfeuil was central to its identity. Three years after the Maurist reforms were introduced at Glanfeuil, the Congrégation held a solemn exposition of the relics of Saint Maurus there; the Congrégation’s Visitor solemnly affirmed that the abbey’s reliquary indeed contained the arm bone of Saint Maur, given to the monks by the abbot of Fossés on the occasion of the first reconstruction of the priory church in 1036. The Maurist officials then formally proclaimed Saint Maurus patron of the Congrégation. Several years later, in 1691 or 1692, the Maurists donated a new reliquary to Glanfeuil in which were placed the three fragments of the true cross which Saint Benedict had given to Maurus as he set out on his journey to France from Montecassino.18 Joining the Congrégation de Saint-Maur brought an end to the malaise and worldly individualism that had characterized Glanfeuil since the late Middle Ages. Glanfeuil experienced a flowering in piety and leadership from the late seventeenth into the early eighteenth century that has no recorded parallel in its long history. It was part of a larger revival which doubled the number of Benedictines in France to perhaps 18,000

17 Timothée-Louis Houdebine, Histoire religieuse de l’Anjou, (Société Anonyme des Éditions de l’Ouest, Angers, 1926), 205. 18 Grison, “La vie spirituelle,” 71 and LM , 74.

12

EPILOGUE: REDEFINING MAURUS …

347

men and women.19 Several talented and saintly men entered Glanfeuil, whose lives and works were included in the famous La Vie des Justes , a collection of pious but evidence-based biographies of 268 members of the Congrégation.20 The volume included, for example, a biography of Dom Bede de Fiesque (1599–1679) whose mother was the sister of the first SaintOffange abbot, Dom Claude. His parents assumed Bede would succeed to the abbacy, an ambition the young man initially shared. But shortly after entering, he experienced a conversion and left the as yet unreformed Glanfeuil, determined to follow a reformed Benedictine life in the Congrégation of Saint Maur. His combination of piety and administrative abilities led to a swift rise through the Congregation’s ranks. He served several terms as prior and abbot of various houses. In 1645, he became the General Visitor for the Province of France. In 1668, he was appointed Visitor to Glanfeuil for the purpose of introducing the Maurist reforms to the house. After negotiating these with Abbot Claude-Magdelon, Dom Bede expressed a wish to return to Glanfeuil, to do penance for his sins of ambition as a youthful monk. Leaving behind his distinguished career and reputation, he lived out his final years at Glanfeuil, serving in humble capacities as a mass server, refectory reader, and table server. At seventynine, having refused a dispensation from the Night Office, he caught cold in choir and died at Glanfeuil on February 22, 1679.21

A Second Decline: Jansenism, Freemasonry, Laxity Despite the piety of many Maurists, forces had been taking shape long before Glanfeuil joined the Congrégation that would bring it down, along with the shrine of Maurus. The most immediate problem was the involvement of the Congrégation in the Jansenist controversies. This rigorous view of the Christian life, despite its Calvinist roots, resonated with many of the monastic reformers. Although the Congrégation officially opposed 19 Jacques Hourlier, “Les bénédictins,” Les Ordres religieux, ed. Gabriel Le Bras, 2 vols.

(Paris, 1979–), 1. 268. 20 These pious biographies appear at intervals throughout Edouard Martène’s monumental Histoire littéraire de la congrégation de Saint-Maur, 10 vols (Ligug´e: Abbaye Saint-Martin, 1928–54). Hourlier and others have noted the Jansenist character of the asceticism of the Congrégation’s holy men, “Les bénédictins,” 277–78. 21 Martène, Histoire littéraire, v, 221–24.

348

J. B. WICKSTROM

the Jansenist movement, there is some evidence of sympathy for it at Glanfeuil (and elsewhere): its library contains several volumes from early Jansenist writers, though when those books were acquired is unknown. In 1718, a majority of the Glanfeuil monks publicly professed support for the Jansenist cause and several continued as vocal supporters over the next three decades of escalating controversy. By the 1750s, passions had begun to cool, but the almost century-long conflict had seriously weakened the Congregation. Quarrels within the Congrégation had eroded its authority. Many abbeys were adopting the laxity of their wealthy commendatory abbots and the custom of monks enjoying monastic offices for personal profit reappeared. The monks of Glanfeuil negotiated a significant increase in their annual pensions with their new commendatory abbot in 1729.22 There were reports of empty choirs at the Night Office and of monks refusing to wear their habits in public.23 In 1768, the Royal Commission for Religious Houses ordered Glanfeuil to reform its constitutions.24 From a different direction, the secularism of the Enlightenment was also infiltrating monastic thought and behavior. Glanfeuil seems to have welcomed such ideas, although its library remained largely religious in character. In 1787, Glanfeuil revised its medieval Office to accommodate Enlightenment literary canons.25 In 1771, a Masonic lodge was established at the abbey.26 Four members of the monastery were among its founding members.27 We do not know why the Lodge was founded there or what transpired at its meetings. However, senior members of the community had adopted the para-religious ceremonies and Enlightenment ideas of French freemasonry. Although eighteenth-century Masons were usually not atheists, their espousal of a vague “clockmaker” deity was vastly different from traditional Catholic doctrine and praxis.

22 Grison, “La vie spirituelle,” 110–111, quoting Arch. M-et-L, H. 1535. 23 Schmitz, Histoire, 4. 51. 24 Hourlier, “Les Ordres,” 289. 25 Hourlier, “Les Ordres,” 289. 26 Lamarque, “Une loge maçonnique dans un couvent,” dans Archives historiques de la

Franc-Maçonnerie, 13 (1975), 25–26; Also Anonymous, “La loge du Tendre Accueil à S. Maur et à Angers,” L’Anjou historique 24 (1924), 140–47. 27 Jean Legrand (Prior), Charles Davy, Henri Dupin, Pierre de Perricard.

12

EPILOGUE: REDEFINING MAURUS …

349

Aside from these glimpses, we know almost nothing of Glanfeuil during the decades immediately preceding the French Revolution. This is a telling silence compared to the extensive evidence of its spiritual and material well-being while the Congrégation was flourishing. Commendatory abbots interested primarily in prestige and profit ruled Glanfeuil during the later years of the eighteenth century while in the decades immediately preceding the French Revolution, discipline continued to decline. The percentage of Glanfeuil’s expenses devoted to the purchase of wine increased from 7% in 1715 to 30% by 1781; the abbey also spent significant sums in the late 1770s for tobacco.28 In 1779, the abbey ordered two marble tables and fireplace for the “great room” and for the “common room” a mirror and two dozen armchairs. Two years later, 700 livres were allotted for new mirrors and a chandelier.29 The monastery refectory had been replaced by a dining room “properly constructed with paneled walls ornamented with two small tables with marble surfaces and painted wooden bases, and a fireplace, also of marble with of which the surround was gilded and with eighteen chairs of fashioned of acacia wood.”30 The inventory of 1790 showed that each of the monks’ cells had a fireplace, though these had been forbidden by the Congrégation.31 Meanwhile, the population of the abbey had dwindled to seven or eight professed monks by 1768.32 Glanfeuil’s material assets had also declined. In 1765, the abbot of Lisle lamented that “the abbey of Saint Maurus, first in the kingdom of the Order of Saint Benedict, finds itself in the lowest rank in regard to revenue.”33 By 1790, the monks agreed to a reduction of their pensions from 5000 to 1000 livres owing to declines in the abbey’s income.34

28 Arch. M-et-L. H. 1681 and H.1666. 29 Arch. M.-et-L. MSS. H. 1666 and 1681. 30 Arch. M-et-L., ms. IQ. 719. These inventories were complied by the local

Revolutionary government. 31 Monique Bugner, Cadre architectural et vie monastique des bénédictins de la Congrégation de Saint-Maur, (Nogent-le-Roi, 1984), 87. 32 Arch. M-et-L. H. 1541. 33 Cart. de S-M., Introduction, 317. 34 Arch. M-et-L., H. 1531.

350

J. B. WICKSTROM

Catastrophe: The French Revolution The French Revolution of 1789 brought this gradual deterioration to an abrupt climax. Intensely hostile to monastic institutions and eager to access their wealth, local Revolutionary governments soon began confiscating monastic properties and dispersing the monks. Glanfeuil did not escape: by early 1791, all the monks had departed, and the property was sold off as a “national asset:” from Mass vestments, liturgical and scholarly books to the kitchen cutlery, from the inlaid wood wainscoting of the chapter room to the ancient vineyards and woods—all were lost. The sale of these assets realized over 160,000 livres, a considerable sum.35 In 1808, the last functioning element of the abbey, the chapel of Saint Martin, the first monastic building constructed by Saint Maurus according to Abbot Odo and where he was said to be buried was deconsecrated and left open to the elements. By mid-century, however, there were signs that the French were re-thinking the country’s medieval and religious past; consequently, Glanfeuil’s condition was somewhat alleviated. The Congrès de société des archéologiques de France allocated funds sufficient to reconstruct Saint Martin’s chapel. By 1865, Mass was once again offered there. In an effort to secure further support, Pius IX proclaimed a plenary indulgence for anyone visiting the chapel of St Martin on the feasts of Saint Benedict, Saint Maurus, or Saint Martin.36 Nonetheless, to one visitor in 1865, the abbey still presented a scene of desolation. He wrote that most of the abbey walls were still standing, but a large statue of Saint Maurus which dominated the wall fronting the river, to which passing ships had dipped their sails in respect, was gone, as were two of the four dormitory wings abutting the cloister; the library had also disappeared. The eighteenth-century abbot’s house and the guesthouse still remained, having been rented out as private apartments. Of the main abbey church, only part of the western facade remained, as we have seen. The abbey’s destruction, the visitor wrote, was so complete that even the location of the altars and tombs could not be discerned.37

35 L. Mousseau, “Le domaine de Saint-Maur pendant la Revolution et le XIXe siècle,” Memoires de I”Academie des Sciences, Belles-lettres et Arts d’Angers, neuvieme serie, tomes VII et VIII, Supplement aux Bulletins des années 1973–1974, 61. 36 Paul Jausions, Saint Maur et le sanctuaire de Glanfeui en Anjou (Angers, 1868), 189–90. 37 Jausions, Saint Maur, 170–72.

12

EPILOGUE: REDEFINING MAURUS …

351

A Final Reprieve: Catholic Revival, Dom Guéranger and Glanfeuil Glanfeuil was, however, once again saved owing to its identity as the shrine of Saint Maurus. This attracted the attention of the charismatic Benedictine reformer, Dom Prosper Guéranger (1805–75) who, like another Maurus, was committed to reintroducing observant Benedictine life to France. Soon after his ordination, Guéranger began a lifetime of reviving monastic life in France, especially in its medieval guises. As with the Maurists, to whom his ideas were much indebted, he promoted intellectual work in the cloister rather than manual labor. 38 The purchase and restoration of the shrine of Maurus, which Guéranger among many others believed had brought the Rule of Benedict to France, was one of his goals but, owing to financial constraints, it was not acquired in his lifetime. In 1890, his successor, Dom Charles Couturier, did succeed in obtaining much of the original property. According to Couturier’s contemporary biographer, the restoration of “the first Benedictine cloister in France” was “a duty and point of honor.”39 So, in the early autumn of that year, seven professed monks and two lay brothers from Solesmes travelled to Glanfeuil and on September 13, 1890, the ancient shrine of Saint Maurus was re-dedicated as a Benedictine abbey. However, the transplanted community’s self-understanding differed significantly from the shrine’s medieval identity. Most of the current monks were scholars, trained in the scholarly tradition of the Congrégation de Saint-Maur and Solesmes. Rather than identifying Glanfeuil with the veneration of the cult of Maurus, they dedicated themselves to scholarly investigation of the cult’s history. Thus, the first concern of the monks was to replace the library lost during the Revolution.40 They managed to acquire what became the core of one of the finer monastic libraries in Europe: over 100,000 volumes. With this resource, several members of the community published significant scholarly works in the

38 See the excellent study of the of the Guéranger/Solesmes movement by Jean

Leclercq, “Le renouveau solesmien et le renouveau religieux du XIXe siècle,” Studia Monastica, 18 (1976): 157–95. esp. 170. 39 Albert Houtin, Dom Couturier, abbé de Solesmes (Angers 1899), 223. 40 Christophe Rousseau-Lefebvre, “Quand les bénédictines de Solesmes étaient à Saint-

Maur de Glanfeuil,” Memoires —Academie des sciences, belles lettres et arts d’Angers, Supplement T. 2 (2005), 214–15.

352

J. B. WICKSTROM

1890s on the history of the cult of Saint Maurus and related topics. Dom Albert L’ Huillier produced his Étude critique des acts de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil (1903), an influential volume which attempted to refute the growing skepticism even among monastic scholars regarding the historical accuracy of Abbot Odo’s work. Abbot Edouard-Jean Coëtlosquet, despite his administrative responsibilities, wrote several scholarly works, including a lengthy treatise on Montecassino. A professionally trained historian, Abbot Coëtlosquet was also concerned over rising doubts about the historicity of Abbot Odo’s writings, even among Benedictine scholars. Thus, in 1898, he commissioned the Jesuit archeologist, Camille de la Croix, to undertake the excavation of the abbey’s earliest levels, a project examined in Chapter 3 above. This scholarly community enjoyed a sort of Indian summer for five years after Glanfeuil became an independent abbey in 1895. Most of this due to the talents and connections of Abbot Coëtlosquet. An aristocrat from an ancient Angevin family, which had purchased the abbey for Dom Couturier. Coëtlosquet had been sub-prior of Solesmes before his transfer to Glanfeuil. His younger brother, Jean-Baptiste, became prior. The number of monks rose from the original seven colonists to 27 by 1900.41 The ancient Chablis vineyards, renewed with American rootstock, were a commercial success.42 Several of the abbey’s pre-Revolution properties were reacquired with the help of wealthy local families. Funds began to accumulate, allowing the monks to envision large-scale renovations.43 However, Abbot Coëtlosquet sensed more political trouble ahead by January of 1900 and canceled further archeological work by Père de la Croix.

Glanfeuil Forgotten; Maurus Remembered Anti-clerical sentiment in France was once again on the rise in the late 1890s. In 1902, the anti-Catholic Radical Left party came into power, which had as its primary objective the removal of Catholic religious Orders from France. The Radicals ordered them to cease all activity and

41 Rousseau-Lefebvre, “Quand,” 217. 42 Rousseau-Lefebvre, “Quand”, 212–213. 43 Rousseau-Lefebvre, “Quand”, 210–11 details the actual and planned projects within

a discussion of the abbey’s sources of income.

12

EPILOGUE: REDEFINING MAURUS …

353

to turn their property over to the State unless they had obtained a license to operate, which was almost impossible to obtain.44 Some 200 religious houses, including most Benedictine monasteries, prepared to go into exile.45 Early the following year, Abbot Coëtlosquet received formal notice from the local authorities that the Glanfeuil community had three months to disband or leave the country. By the end of July, Abbot Coëtlosquet announced to his monks that he had managed to find temporary shelter in a Belgian castle.46 So again, as it first had done a thousand years earlier, the community of Glanfeuil prepared to abandon the shrine of Saint Maurus (Fig. 12.1). The library was sent on ahead by mid-August of 1901. On September 23, area priests, neighbors, and even local governmental officials gathered at the abbey to express their solidarity with the monks. The consul general of Maine-et-Loire delivered a farewell address. “With an air of serenity,” the monks deconsecrated the sacred precincts in the abbey, dismantled the choir stalls, and walked out of the main gate.47 The Belgian castle soon proved too small for a community which had grown to 47 professed monks, so the Coëtlosquet family constructed an entirely new abbey for the community, built in grand neo-Gothic style at Clervaux in Luxembourg. The small community, along with several new members, formally entered their new monastery early in 1909. After more than a century of upheaval, the few remaining monks of Glanfeuil had found a secure home in a welcoming country, with aspirants to the monastic life coming in from the surrounding region. There was no interest in returning to France. When the cornerstone of the new abbey was laid, Glanfeuil was not mentioned.48 The professed monks at Clervaux voted to end their association with Glanfeuil and renamed themselves the Benedictine community of Saint 44 In 1905, after a law separating Church and State, the government began to secularize all Church property, Robert Fuller, The Origins of the French Nationalist Movement, 1886– 1914 (McFarland, 2012), 182–202. 45 Quote from “Examen de conscience d’un religieux,” La Vérité français, July 24. 1901. 46 Rousseau-Lefebvre, “Quand,” 221. 47 Rousseau-Lefebvre, “Quand,’ 219. 48 “History of Clervaux” at abbey website, http://abbaye-clervaux.lu/upload/pdf/fr/

Histoire%20FRA.pdf.

354

J. B. WICKSTROM

Fig. 12.1 Glanfeuil community departs for Belgium, September 1901 (Clervaux. C. Ig.II. MS.Chronique de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil, année 1901. Text of photo: “Farewell, thou stream of purest wave, sparkling silver, that God has granted us for this closure, farewell, Farewell, my beauteous Loire, farewell”)

Maurice de Clervaux. On March 2, 1909, the Holy See declared the monastic community of Glanfeuil officially suppressed and transferred its rights and privileges to Clervaux.49 By this act, the thousand-year identification of the cult of Saint Maurus with the abbey of Glanfeuil came to an end. Veneration of Maurus did not become an identity marker of the new abbey. It was dedicated, not to Maurus, but to Saint Maurice, in honor of Abbot Edouard’s father, Viscount Jean-Baptiste Maurice du

49 French translation of Pius X’s Apostolic Letter at http://www.abbaye-clervaux.lu/ upload/pdf/fr/Histoire%20FRA.pdf.

12

EPILOGUE: REDEFINING MAURUS …

355

Coëtlosquet.50 The abbey flourished from its earliest years, enjoying the patronage of the Belgian aristocracy. The crown prince of the AustroHungarian empire, Otto von Hapsburg, received his early education there, often visiting the abbey in later years with his mother, the Empress Zita.51 Clervaux did, however, remain conscious of its historical connection to Saint Maurus, however, naming him co-patron of Clervaux in 1926. Scholarship on Glanfeuil and the cult of Saint Maurus continued well into the twentieth century at Clervaux, notably in the several publications by Abbot Paul Renaudin (1865–1947). The scholarly tradition that the Glanfeuil monks brought to Clervaux has been maintained, most notably by Dom Jean LeClercq (1911–1993), arguably the most influential historian of medieval monastic history in recent times. In 1969, the feast of Saint Maurus was made an optional memorial in the Catholic calendar, owing to doubt regarding his identity.52 The only evidence of Clervaux’s connection to Glanfeuil and St Maurus today is a small reliquary, supposedly containing some of Maurus’ relics, and a fifteenth-century clock which the monks had carried away from Glanfeuil to exile in Belgium.53 As for Glanfeuil itself, after the final dissolution in 1901, many of its core properties were bought by friends of the monks in hopes that they would someday return.54 Clervaux retained title to some of these until 1949, when they were purchased by the Belgium-based Assumption Fathers, who transformed the abbey’s elegant seventeenth-century dormitory into a minor seminary and later into boarding school.55 In 1958,

50 Jouffroy, “La famille,” 322. The current abbey archivist, Fr. Gérard Geray, claims

that the abbot’s step-brother, Maurice du Coëtlosquet, was the intended honoree (letter to author, Dec. 20, 2016.) For the family’s suggestion of St Maurice as patron, see http://www.abbaye-clervaux.lu/upload/pdf/fr/Histoire%20FRA.pdf. 51 Jean Leclercq, Memoirs: from grace to grace, (Kalamazoo, Cistercian Publications, 2000), 5. 52 Calendarium Romanum, (Vatican Press, 1969), 113. Maurus now shares an “optional memorial” with Saint Placid on October 4th , the latter’s traditional feast day. 53 Histoire de l’abbaye de Clervaux website: http://www.abbaye-clervaux.lu/upload/ pdf/fr/Histoire%20FRA.pdf. 54 Rousseau-Lefebvre, “Quand,” 221. 55 “Renseignements sur les diverses transmissions de propriété de l’abbaye de Saint-

Maur-sur-Loire,” Abbey Archives, Clervaux, Luxembourg.

356

J. B. WICKSTROM

the government of France, which had twice engineered its destruction as a living institution, declared Glanfeuil “un monument historique” and accorded its remaining buildings and adjacent property some legal protection. The abbey at present is leased by a private company, L’Association de l’Abbaye de Saint-Maur OVAL, which organizes educational vacation experiences for students.56 The Association does not permit access to the property. The cult of Saint Maurus had been created through imagination, duplicity, and half-forgotten memories, then reshaped by additional fictions and forgeries. Though it has been suppressed by the Catholic Church as unhistorical and has been largely forgotten by modern scholars, I hope this study has renewed its memory as one of the major monastic shrines of the Middle Ages with influence far surpassing its modest size. I have also attempted to present the story of the cult and its sources as a fascinating chapter in the hagiography and monastic history of the Middle Ages. Most of all, the cult of Saint Maurus and its shrine at Glanfeuil revealed itself as a treasure trove for approaching central scholarly problems of our time: displaying the consequences of memory and forgetting in history and the porous boundaries between fact and fiction.

56 https://www.asso-oval.com/nos-maisons/maine-et-loire/domaine-de-l-abbaye-de-stmaur.

Bibliography

Acta Altera Auctore Stephano Aniciensi. AASS. Oct. III. Acta sanctorum ordinis sancti Benedicti. ed. Jean Mabillon. 9 vols. Paris: Colet, 1733–1740. Acta sanctorum. 68 volumes Antwerp. 1643–. Acta SS. Placidi et Fratrum. AASS. Oct. III. Actus Pontificum cenomannis ab urbe degentium. ed. G. Busson and A. Ledru. Admonitio generalis 789. MGH. Capit. reg. franc. I. 52. no. 22. Aelred of Rievaulx. Speculum charitatis. PL., 192. Alcuin. Epistolae. MGH. Epistolae Karolini Aevi 2. ed. E. Dummler. 419, no. 261. Analecta hymnica Medii Aevi. ed. Guido Maria Dreves. 55 vols. Leipzig, 1886– 1922. Annales cassinenses, MGH. SS., 19. 2. 16. Annals of Saint-Bertin. trans. Judith Nelson. Manchester: Manchester U.P., 1991. Archives de Maine-et-Loire, H 2191. Altercatio inter monachos sancti Florenti et sancti Mauri Archives de Maine-et-Loire, H. 1773. Archives départementales. Maine-et-Loire. Ardo Smaragdus. Vita Benedicti abbatis Anianenses et Indensise. MGH . SS 1. ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, 1887. Augustine of Hippo. Confessions. trans. Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1998. Bernard of Clairvaux. Saint Bernard’s Apologia to Abbot William. trans. Michael Casey. Liturgical Press, 1970.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8

357

358

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bernard of Clairvaux, Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, vol. 1, Treatises I, Shannon: Cistercian Publications, 1970. Biblioteca Laurenziana Aedil. MS 122. fol. 138. ed. Adalbert Ebner. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kunstgeschichte des Missale romanum im Mittelalter. Iter italicum 9. Freiburg, 1896. Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Aubin d’Angers. ed. Bertrand de Broussillon. Angers, 1896. Cartulaire de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire. ed. Paul Marchegay. Archives d’Anjou, vols. 1, 2, 1843. Catholic Church. Calendarium Romanum. Vatican Press, 1969. Chronica monasterii Casinensis. ed. Helmut Hoffmann. MGH. SS. 34, Hannover, 1980. Chroniques des églises d’Anjou. ed. Paul Marchegay. Paris, 1869. Clervaux Abbey archives: “Renseignements sur les diverses transmissions de propriété de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire.” Codex Benedictus: An eleventh-century lectionary from Montecassino. ed. Paul Meyvaert. Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, 1982. Corpus antiphonalium officii. ed. René-Jean Hesbert. 6 vols. Rome: Herder, 1963–1979. Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum. ed. Kassius Hollinger. 15 vols. Sieburg, 1963–. Kaiserurkunde Karls III: MGH. Diplomata: Die Urkunden der deutschen Karolingen 2: Karl III. Dubois. Jacques. Le martyrologe d’Usuard. Texte et commentaire. Subsidia hagiographica. N°40. Bruxelles: Société des bollandistes, 1965. Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis. Marjorie Chibnall. ed. and trans. 6 vols. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969–1980. Englebert. Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum. Siegburg. R. Schmitt, 1974. Epistola Luciani ad omnem Ecclesiam de relatione corporis stephani martyris. PL. 41. Eudes de Saint-Maur. Vie de Bouchard le Venerable. ed. Bourel de Roncière. Paris, 1892. Eugippus. Vita Sancti Severini. ed. Hermann Sauppe. MGH Auct. ant. 1: 2. Weidmann: Berlin, 1877. Gallia christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa qua series & historia archiepiscoporum. episcoporum. et abbatum Franciae. 16 vols. 1856–1999. Paris. Giles of Rome. On Ecclesiastical Power. trans. Robert Dyson. Boydell, 1986. Gregory I. pope. Dialogues ed. and trans. Adalbert Vogüé. 3 vols. Sources chrétiennes. no. 260. Paris: Editions de Cerf, 1979. Gregory of Tours. Libri i Historiarum X. MGH. Scriptores. 1.1, Hannover, 1951.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

Hildemar of Corbie. Commentary on the Rule of Benedict. The Hildemar Project. chapter 48. Trans. David Ganz. http//hildemar.org/index.php?option =com_content&view=article&id=99&catid=15&Itemid=102. Historia diplomatica Friderici secondi. ed. Jean Louis Huillard-Béholles. 7 vols. Paris, 1852. Historia translationis: Miracula auctore eodem Odone (Historia translationis s. Mauri), AASS, Januarius I. Ioannes Gislebertus. Vita et Miracula sancti Romani. AASS. Maii VII. cols. 153D–165A. Konrad von Eberbach. Exordium magnum Cisterciense; sive Narratio de initio Cisterciensis Ordinis. ed. Bruno Griesser Rome: Editiones Cisterciensis, 1961. Les miracles de Saint Benoît. écrits par Adrevald Aimoin. André, Raoul Tortaire et Hughes de Saint Marie, moines de Fleury. ed. E. de Certain. Paris, 1858. Les premiers monuments chrétiens de la France. 1995–1999. ed. Noël Duval. 3 vols. Paris, 1995–1999. Letters of Peter the Venerable. ed. Giles Constable. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1967. Liber tramitis aevi Odilonis Abbatis. ed. Peter Dinter In Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum. ed. Kassius Hollinger. 15 vols. Sieburg, 1963–1980. MGH. Capitularia regum Francorum. Karlomanii principis capitulare. Paris, 1852–. MGH. Diplomata: Die Urkunden der deutschen Karolinger: Die Urkunden Karls III . ed. Paul Kehr, Berlin, 1937. Monks of Redon: Gesta Sanctorum Rotonensium and Vita Conuuoionis ed. Caroline Brett. Studies in Celtic History, x. Boydell, 1989. Narrative and Legislative Texts from early Cîteaux. ed. Chrysogonus Waddell. Abbaye de Cîteaux. 1999. Odilo V Cluniacensis. Vita B. Maioli abbatis. PL. 142. Odo of Glanfeuil. Life and miracles of Saint Maurus: Disciple of Benedict. apostle to France. transl. John B. Wickstrom. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008. Paris. Bibliothèque nationale de France. MS lat.3. Paris. Bibliothèque nationale de France. MS lat. 3778. Paris. Bibliothèque nationale de France. MS lat. 5344. Paris. Bibliothèque nationale de France. MS lat. 12044. Paris. Bibliothèque nationale de France. MS lat. 12053. Paris. Bibliothèque nationale de France. MS lat. 12066 Paris. Bibliothèque nationale de France. MS lat. 12583. Peter the Deacon. Ortus et vita iustorum Cenobii Casinensis. ed. Robert Howard Rodgers. Berkeley: U.P., Calif. Press, 1972. Pseudo-Gordianus. Acta SS. Placidi et fratrum ejus. AASS. October III.

360

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Recueil des actes de Charles le Chauve. roi de France. ed. Georges Tessier. 3 vols. Paris. 1943–1955. Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés. ed. René Poupardin. 2 vols. Paris, 1909. Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France. ed. Léopold Delisle. 24 vols. Paris. 1840–1904. Registre d’Innocent IV. ed. E. Berger. 4 vols. Paris, 1884. Registrum Bernardi abbati abbatis Casinensis fragmenta ex Archivo Casinens i. ed. Anselm Marie Caplet. Rome 1890. Registrum Petri Diaconi. Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia. ed. Jean-Marie Martin. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 2015. Rodulfus Glaber. Historiarum libri quinque; ed. Neithard Bulst and trans. John France Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1989. Roma. Biblioteca Vallicelliana. ms C.5. Rupert of Deutz. Super quaedam capitula regulae divi Benedicti abbatis. P.L., vol. 70. Sermo de mirabilibus gestis sive translatione corporis sanctissimae mauri abbatis; BnF. MS latin 3778. fols 165r.-173v., printed in Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum antiquorum. 3 vols. Bruxelles, 1889. Sigebertus Gemblacensis. Incipit Chronica Domni Sigeberti Gemblacensis Monachi. P.L., vol. 160. Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel. “Expositio in Regulam s. Benedicti.” ed. A. Spannagel and Pius Engelbert, Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum, vol. 8, Siegburg: Franz Schmitt, 1974. Smaragdus of Saint-Miliel. Diadema monachorum. PL., vol. 102. Sugar, Abbot of Saint Denis. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis and its art treasures. ed. Edwin Panofsky. Princeton: Princeton U.P., (rev. ed) 1979. Sulpicius Severus. Vita Martini. ed. Philip Burton Oxford: Oxford U.P., 2017. Tardif, Jules. Monuments historiques [Cartons des rois. 528–1789] Paris, 1866. Troyes. Bibliotheque municipal, MS 2273. Urban II, Pope. Epistolae et Privilegia. PL.vol. 151. Verberie. MGH. Leges: Concilia 4: Die Konzilien der karolingischen Teilreiche 860–74. #29. ed. Wilfried Hartmann. Hannover, 1998.

Modern Studies Anonymous. “La loge du Tendre Accueil à S. Maur et à Angers.” L’Anjou historique. 24 (1924): 140–47. Ansart, Joseph. Histoire de Saint Maur, Abbé de Glanfeuil. Paris, 1772. Avril, Joseph. Le Diocèse d’Angers. Histoire des diocèses de France. ed. François Lebrun. Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

Bachrach, Bernard. Fulk Nerra. The neo-Roman Consul. 987–1040. U. California Press, 1993. ———. “Fulk Nerra’s Exploitation of the facultates monarchorum. ca. 1000.” Medieval Europe: Essays in Honor of Bryce Lyon. ed. Bernard Bachrach and David M. Nicholas. 29–49. Kalamazoo, MI. 1990. ———.“The Angevin Economy 960–1060: Ancient or Feudal?” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History. 10 (1988): 3–55. ———.“The Pilgrimages of Fulk Nerra.” In Religion, Culture and Society in the Early Middle Ages. 205–17. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1987. ———.“Abbot Robert of Blois. Abbot of Saint-Florent-au-Saumur.” R. bén. 88 (1978): 123–46. Bailey, Terence. The Processions of Sarum and the Western Church. Toronto: PIMS, 1971. Bartlett, Robert. Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Princeton: Princeton U.P., 2013. Basnage, Jacques. Histoire de l’Eglise depuis Jesu-Christ. 2 vols. Rotterdam: Chez Reinier Leers, 1699. Benson, Robert. “Libertas in Italy, 1152–1226.” La notion de liberté au Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Orient. ed. Georges Makdisi et al. Penn-ParisDumbarton Oaks Colloquia IV. session des 12–15 octobre 1982, 191–213. Paris, 1985. Berkhofer, Robert. Day of Reckoning: Power and Accountability in Medieval France. Philadelphia: U. of Penn Press, 2004. Berlière, Ursmer. “L’exercise du ministere paroissial par les moines du XIIe au XVIIIe siècle.” R.bén. 39, no. 3/4 (1927): 240–64. ———. Le culte de S. Placide.” R. bén. 33, no. 1 (1921): 19–45. Bienvenu, Jean-Marc. “Pauvreté. misères et charité en Anjou aux xie et xiie siècles.” Le Moyen Age. 73 (1967): 5–34. Billy, Anne. “Le desir de Dieu” en images dans un antiphonaire de Saint-Maurdes-Fossés. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2018. Bloch, Herbert. “Tertullus’ Sicilian Donation and a Newly Discovered Treatise in Peter the Deacon‘s Placidus Forgeries.” In Fälschungen im Mittelalter: internationaler Kongress der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, München, 16.-19 September 1986. 6 vols., IV: Diplomatische Fälschungen (II). ed. Wolfram Setz (MGH. Schriften, 33), 97–128. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1988–1990. ———. Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. ———.“Peter the Deacon’s Vision of Byzantium and a Rediscovered Treatise in His ‘Acta S. Placidi’.” In Bisanzio, Roma e l’Italia nell’alto medioevo: 3–9

362

BIBLIOGRAPHY

aprile 1986 Spoleto, 797–848. Centro italiano di studi sull’ Alto Medioevo CISAM, 1988. ———.“The Schism of Pope Anacletus II and the Glanfeuil Forgeries of Peter the Deacon.” Traditio 8 (1952): 159–264. (Earlier version of Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages.) Bloch, Marc. “Les ‘colliberti:’ etude sur la formation de la classe servile.” Revue historique 157, no. 1 (1928): 225–63. Blumenthal, Uta-Renata. Investiture Conflict. Philadelphia: U. Penn. Press, 1991. Bouchard, Consrtance. Rewriting Saints and Ancestors: Memory and Forgetting in France, 500–1200. Philadelphia, U. Penn. Press, 2015. ———. “Monastic Cartularies: Organizing Eternity.” In Charters. Cartularies and Archives. ed. Adam J. Kosto and Anders Winroth, 22–32. Toronto: PIMS, 2002. ———.“The Bosonids. or Rising to Power in the Late Carolingian Age.” French Historical Studies. 15 (1988): 407–31. ———. Sword. Mitre and Cloister. Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 1987. Boynton, Susan. Shaping a Monastic Identity. Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 2008. Brunterc’h, Jean-Pierre. “Geographie historique et hagiographie: la vie de saint Mervé.” Mélanges de l’ Ecole française de Rome. Moyen-Age. Temps modernes. 95, no. 1 (1983): 7–63. Bugner, Monique. Cadre architectural et vie monastique des bénédictins de la Congrégation de Saint-Maur. J. Laget, 1984. Buczek, D.S. “ ‘Pro defendendis ordinis’: The French Cistercians and Their Enemies.” In Studies in Medieval Cistercian History Presented to Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, 89–109. Shannon: Irish U.P., 1971. Cantor, Norman. The Civilization of the Middle Ages. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. Casey, Matthew. “Tradition. Interpretation. Reform: The Western Monastic Experience.” American Benedictine Review 69, no.4 (2018): 400–28. Caspar, Erich. Petrus Diaconus und die Monte Cassineser Fälschungen. Berlin: J. Springer, 1909. ———.“Zur ältesten Geschichte von Monte Cassino.” Neues Archiv. 34 (1909): 195–207. Cezpregi, Ildicó. “Mysteries for the Uninitiated: The Role and Symbolism of the Eucharist in Miraculous Dream Healing.” In The Eucharist in Theology and Philosophy. ed. Ildicó Cezpregi, 97–130. Leuven, 2005. Chappée, Julien. “Le carrelage de L’abbaye de Saint-Maur-de-Glanfeuil d’après les pavés retrouvés dans les fouilles récentes.” Revue Historique et Archéologique du Maine. 50, no.2 (1901): 5–25; 215–24. Chartrou, Joseph-Charbonnel. L’Anjou de 1109 à 1151: Foulque de Jérusalem et Geoffroi Plantagene. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1928.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

363

Chazelle, Celia. The Crucified God in the Carolingian Era: Theology and Art of Christ’s Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001. Clark, Francis. The “Gregorian” Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Claussen, Martin. The Reform of the Frankish Church. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2004. Colette, Marie-Noël. “Des signes cassiniens dans le manuscrit de Saint-Maur au xiie siècle.” In Musica e liturgia a Montecassino nel Medioevo: atti del Simposio internazionale di studi. (Cassino. 9–10 dicembre 2010), a cura di Nicola Tangari, 79–89. Rome, 2012. Constable, Giles. “Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages.” Archiv für Diplomatik. 29, (1983): 1–41. ———. Cluniac Studies. London: Variorum Reprints, 1980. ———. The Letters of Peter the Venerable. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1967. Courajod, Louis. “Saint-Maur-de-Glanfeuil.” In Leçons professées à l’École du Louvre. 1886–1896. ed. Henry Lemonnier et André Michel, 2 vols. 1, 493. Paris: A. Picard, 1899. Cowdrey, H. E. J. (Herbert Edward John). Gregory VII . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1998. ———. “Pope Gregory VII and the Chastity of the Clergy.” In Medieval Purity and Piety, ed. Michael Frassetto, 269–304. New York: Garland, 1998. ———. The Age of Abbot Desiderius: Montecassino. The papacy. And the Normans in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1983. ———. The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1970. Cox. David, The Church and Vale of Evesham. 700–1215: Lordship, Landscape and Prayer. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell, 2015. Crook. John. The Architectural Setting of the Cult of Saints in the Early Christian West. c.300–1200. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2000. Dalarun, Jacques. “La mort des saints fondateurs: de Martin à François.” In Les fonctions des saints dans le monde occidental iii e -xiii e siècles. ed. Jean-Yves Tilliette, 193–215. Rome, 1991. de Jong, Mayke. “Carolingian Monasticism: The Power of Prayer.” In NCMH 3. 622–53. Cambridge, 1997. de la Croix, Camille. “Fouilles du territoire de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil Maine-et-Loire.” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 43, no.2 (1899): 243–47. Delehaye, Hippolyte. Les légendes hagiographiques. Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 1968 (4th ed).

364

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Denoël, Charlotte. “Les Evangiles de Saint-Maur-des-Fossés et la ‘peinture non officielle’ dans la première moitié du IXe siècle.” In Ars auro gemmisque prior. Mélanges en hommage à Jean-Pierre Caillet. ed. M. Jurkovic. 165–73. Zagreb, 2013. ---.“Guido Oacrius et l’enseignement du chant à Saint Maur des Fosses a debut des xiie siècle” In Archivum Latinitatis medii aevi. 66 (2008): 151–61. DeSelme, Daniel. “Unwilling Pilgrimage: Vikings. Relics and the Politics of Exile during the Carolingian Era. c.830–940.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Michigan, 2009. Devroey. Jean-Pierre. “La Villa Floriacus.” Revue belge de Philologie et d’Histoire. 82, no. 84 (2004): 818–19. Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie. ed. Henri Cabrol and H. Leclercq. 15 vols. in 30. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907–1953. Diem, Albrecht. “Inventing the Holy Rule: Some Observations on the History of Monastic Normative Observance in the early Medieval West.” In Western Monasticism ante litteram. ed. Hendrik Dey and Elizabeth Fentress. Brepols. 2011. Dominique-Pratt, Iogna. “La geste des origines dans l’historiographie clunisienne des XIe -XIIe siècles.” R. bén. 102 (1992): 135–91. Dubois, Jacques. “Les dependances de l’abbaye du Mont Saint-Michel et la vie monastique dans les prieures.” In Millenaire monastique du Mont Saint Michel. 2 vols. ed. Jean Laporte, 619–96. Paris.1967. Dunbabin, J. “West Francia: the Kingdom.” In NCMH, 2. 372–97. Cambridge U.P. 2000. Dunn, Marilyn. The Emergence of Monasticism: From the Desert Fathers to the Early Middle Ages. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. Fabiani, Luigi. La Terra di San Benedetto. Miscellanea Cassinese 33. Montecassino, 1968. Falkenstein, Ludwig. La papauté et les abbayes françaises: exemption and protection apostolique. Paris: Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes-études, 1997. Fanning, Stephen. A Bishop and His World Before the Gregorian Reform: Hubert Of Angers. 1006–1047. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1988. Farge, Emile. “La peste noire en Anjou.” Revue de l’Anjou, 19, no. 1 (1854): 82–96. Forhan, Kate. “Tyranny in John of Salisbury’s Polycraticus.” History of Political Thought. 11, no. 3 (1990): 397–407. Fossier, Robert. “Rural Economy and Country Life.” In NCMH , 3. 25–63. Cambridge U.P., 2000. Foulon, Jean-Hervé. Église et réforme au Moyen Âge: papauté. milieux réformateurs et ecclésiologie dans les Pays de la Loire au tournant des xi e -xii e siècles. Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

365

François, Gerhard. Martin. Economie et société autour du Mont-Cassin au XII e siècle. Miscellanea Cassinese. 81. Montecassino, 1999. Frank, Thomas. “I Rapporti tra Farfa e Subiaco nel secolo xi.” In Farfa. abbazia imperiale: atti del convegno internazionale. Farfa-Santa Vittoria in Matenano. 25–29 agosto 2003. ed. Rolando Dondarini. 215–32. Verona. 2006. Federico II: enciclopedia fridericiana. 3 vols. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2005–2008. Fuller, Robert. The Origins of the French Nationalist Movement. 1886–1914. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012. Ganz, David. “Mass Production of Early Medieval Manuscripts: The Carolingian Bibles from Tours.” In The Early Medieval Bible. ed. Richard Gameson, 53– 62. Cambridge U.P., 1994. Gàlffy, Laszlo. Angers au XIII e siècle. Hérault: Maulévrier, 2013. Gattola, Erasmus. Historia abbatiae Cassinensi. 2 vols. Venetiis: Sebastianum Coleti, 1733. Geary, Patrick. “Oblivion Between Orality and Textuality in the Tenth Century.” In Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual. Memory. Historiography. ed. Gerd Althoff. et al. 111–22. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002. ———. Phantoms of Remembrance. Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1994. ———. “Living with Conflicts in Stateless France.” In Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages. 124–60. Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 1994. ———. Furta Sacra. Princeton: Princeton U.P., Rev. ed. 1991. Gibson, Kelly. “Biographies of Saints.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Harvard University, 2011. Gillon, Pierre. “Le dossier de Saint-Babolein.” Le Vieux Saint Maur. 69, no. 70 (1996–1997): 1–52. ———. “Quelques aspects de la vie quotidienne à Saint-Maur au Moyen-Age. Le Vieux Saint Maur. 58 (1985): 1–18. Goffart, Walter. “Le Mans, St Scholastica and the Literary Tradition of the Translation of Saint Benedict.” R. bén. 77 (1967): 107–41. ———. The Le Mans Forgeries: A Chapter from the History of Church Property in the Ninth Century. Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1966. Goudesenne, Jean-François. “Montecassino-Glanfeuil-Paris. Circulation et différenciation d’ un corpus romano-benedictine aux Xe -XIe siècles.” In Musica e liturgia a Montecassino nel Medioevo: atti del Simposio internazionale di studi Cassino. 9–10 dicembre 2010. ed. Nicola Tangari, 199–228. Rome, 2012. Grégoire, Réginald. “Prières liturgiques médiévales en l’honneur de saint Benôit, de sainte Scolastique et de saint Maur.” Studia anselmiana. 54 (1965): 1–85. Grison, Juliette. “La vie spirituelle à l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire de sa réforme à la Révolution: 1668-1790.” Memoire d’histoire moderne. Angers: Université catholique de la Ouest, Angers. 1998.

366

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grundemann, Herbert.“Freiheit als religiöses. politisches und persönliches Postulat in Mittelalter.” Historische Zeitschrift. 183 (1957): 23–53. Guillot, Olivier. Le comte d’Anjou et son entourage au XI e siècle. 2 vols. Paris: A. Picard. 1972. Guiraud, Jean-François. Economie et société autour du Mont-Cassin au XIII e siècle. Miscellanea Cassinese. 81. Montecassino, 1999. Gurevic, Aron. Medieval Popular Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1988. Hägermann, Dieter. Das Polyptychon und die Notitia de Areis von Saint-Maurdes-Fossés. Beihefte der Francia, no. 23.Berlin: Sigmaringen, 1990. Halphen, Louis. Le comté d’Anjou au XI e siècle. Paris: A Picard, 1906. Head, Thomas. Hagiography and the Cult of the Saints: the diocese of Orléans, 800-1200. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1990. Hedstrom Brooks, Darlene and Hendrick Day. “The Archaeology of the Earliest Monasteries.” In Cambridge History of Medieval Monasticism in the Latin West. ed. Alison Beach and Isabelle Cochelin. 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2019. Kindle. Heene, Katrien. “Merovingian and Carolingian Hagiography: Continuity or Change in Public and Aims.” Analecta bollandiana 107 (1989): 415–27. Helvétius, Anne-Marie. et al. “Re-Reading Monastic Traditions: Monks and Nuns. East and West. from the Origins to c. 750.” In CHMM . 40–72. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2020, Kindle. Heuclin, Jean. “Les abbés des monastères neustriens, 650–850.” In La Neustrie. Les pays au nord de la Loire de 650 à 850. Colloque historique international. Tome 1. ed. Hartmut Atsma ed (Beihefte der Francia, 16/1). 321–40. Sigmaringen, 1989. Hirsch, H. “The Constitutional History of the Reformed Monasteries during the Investiture Contest.” In Medieval Germany, 911–1250. ed. Geoffrey Barraclough, 131–73. London: Blackwell, 1938. Hoffmann, Hartmut. “Petrus Diaconus, die Herren von Tusculum.” Deutches Archiv. 27 (1971): 1–109. Houdebine, Hilarius. Histoire religieuse de l’Anjou. Angers: Société Anonyme des Éditions de l’Ouest, 1926. Hourlier, Jacques. “La translation de sainte Scholastique au Mans.” Studia monastica, 21, no. 1–2 (1979): 313–33. Hourlier, Jacques. Saint Odilon, abbé de Cluny. Louvain, 1964. Houtin, Albert. Dom Couturier, abbé de Solesmes. Angers, 1899. Howe, John. Before the Gregorian Reform. Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 2016. ———. “The Hagiography of Jumièges.” In L’hagiographie du haut moyen âge en Gaule du Nord. ed. Martin Heinzelmann, 91–125. Sttutgart: Thorbecke, 2001. ———. Church Reform and Social Change in Eleventh-Century Italy: Dominic of Sora and His Patrons. U. Penn. Press, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

367

Hubert, Jean. L’art pré-roman. Chartres, 1936. Hunt, Noreen. Cluny under Saint Hugh. Notre Dame U.P., 1968. Huyghebaert, Nicolas. “Simplicius, ‘propagateur’ de la Règle bénédictine. Légende ou tradition?” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique. 73 (1978): 45–54. Innes, Michael. Introduction to Early Medieval Western Europe. Routledge, 2007. ———. “Memory, Orality and Literacy in an Early Medieval Society.” Past and Present. 158, no.1 (1998): 3–36. James, Edward. “Archaeology and the Merovingian Monastery.” In Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism. ed. Howard Clarke and Mary Brennan. 33–55. Oxford: B.A.R, 1981. Jarousseau, Guy. Églises, évêques et princes à Angers du Ve au début du XI e siècle. Limoges, 2015. ———. “L’ermite Gerfred, missus monasticus, et l’introduction de la réforme.” Brittania monastica. 10 ( 2012): 187–214. ———. “Jus proprietarium et jus ecclesiasticum: la restauration de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire au milieu du IXe siècle.” In Le pouvoir et la foi au Moyen Âge. Mélanges en mémoire du professeur Hubert Guillotel. ed. Joëlle Quaghebeur et Silvain Soleil, 21–44. Britannia Monastica no. 13–14. Rennes, 2010. ———. “L’evêque d’Angers, Dodon, 837–880.” In Le haut Moyen Âge en Anjou. ed. Daniel Prigent et Noël-Yves Tonnerre. 157–63. Rennes, 2010. ———. “Géographié religieuse de la ville d’Angers.” In Mémoire. traces. récits: Vol 1: Le passée revisitée. dir. Anne Prouteau. 97–123. Paris, 2008. ———. “Une seigneurie monastique au XIe siècle: le prieuré de Saint-Maur-surLoire d’après son Cartulaire.” Les hommes et le pouvoir. 13 (1994): 27–41. ———. “Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire [debut du XIIe siècle] état, reconstitution et fondements de son organization.” Mémoire de D.E.A. U. Paris: Sorbonne, 1990. ———. “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire.” Mémoire de maîtrise.Univ. d’ Angers, 1988. Jausions, Paul. Saint Maur et le sanctuaire de Glanfeuil en Anjou. Angers, 1868. Jordan, William. “The Anger of the Abbots in the Thirteenth Century.” Catholic Historical Review. 96, no.2 (2010): 231. ———. Endless Strife, Unending Fear. Princeton: Princeton U.P., 2005. Jouffroy,Christian. “La famille du Coëtlosquet. mécènes et bienfaiteurs. de Metz à Clervaux.” In Colloques: 50 ans de la section arts et lettres del’Institut GrandDucal, 317–28. Mémoires de l’Académie Nationale de Metz, 2013. Judic, Bruno. “Gregoire le Grand, Alcuin, Raban et le surnom de Maur.” In Raban Maur et son temps. ed. Philippe Depreux et al. 31–48. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

368

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kehr, Paul. “Le bolle pontificie anteriori al 11198 che se conservano nell Archivio di Montecassino.” In Papsturkunden in Italien Reisebericht zur Italia Pontificia, Miscellanea casinese 2. 1–90. Montecassino, 1899. Kelly, Thomas. The Ordinal of Montecassino and Benevento: breviarium sive ordo officiorum. Freiburg, 2008. ———. “Montecassino and the Old Beneventan Chant.” Early Music History. 5 (1985): 53–83. Knapp, Steven, “Collective Memory and the Actual Past.” Representations. 26 (1989): 123–49. Koch, Konrad. “Das Kalendar des Stephan-Breviers.” Cistercienser Chronik. 57, no. 13 (1950): 85–96. Koziol, Geoffrey. The Politics of Memory and Identity in Carolingian Royal Diplomas: The West Frankish Kingdom 840–987. Brepols, 2012. Kreiner, Jamie. The Social Life of Hagiography in the Merovingian Kingdom. Cambridge, 2014. Kuttner, Stephen. “Cardinalis: The History of a Canonical Concept.” Traditio. 3 (1945): 129–214. L’huillier, Albert. “Etude critique des actes de Saint-Maur.” Revue de l’Anjou. 44 (1902): 359–74. Lamarque, P. “Une loge maçonnique dans un couvent.” In Archives historiques de la Franc-Maçonnerie. 12 (1975): 25–26. Landreau, François. “L’abbaye de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil du Xe au XIIIe siècle, ses relations avec le Mont-Cassin:” I: “Le Prieuré.” Revue de l’Anjou. 51 (1905): 177–205. II: “L’Abbaye.” Ibid. 409–29. III: “Saint-Maur sous la dépendance du MontCassin.” Revue de l’Anjou. 52 (1906): 49–76. ———. “Les deux histoires manuscrits de l’abbaye de saint-Maur (1748 et vers 1702).” Revue de l’Anjou. 54 (1907): 181–98, 451–74. Levillain, Léon. “L’archichapelain Ebroin. évêque de Poitiers.” Le Moyen Âge. 34 (1923): 177–222. Latouche, Robert. Birth of the Western Economy. trans. E. M. Wilkinson. New York, 1966. Latowsky, Anne. Emperor of the World: Charlemagne and the Construction of Imperial Authority. 800–1229. Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 2015. Lauwers, Michel. “Mémoire des origines et idéologies monastique: Saint-Pierredes-Fossés et Saint-Victor de Marseille au xIe siècle.” Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome: Moyen-Age. Temps modernes. 115 (2003): 155–80. “‘La Vie du seigneur Bouchard. comte venerable,’ conflits d’avouerie, traditions carolingiennes et modèles de sainteté à l’abbaye des Fossés au xie siècle.” In Guerriers et moines: conversion et sainteté aristocratique dans l’Occident médiéval. ed. Michel Lauwers, 371–418. Antibes, 2003. Lawrence, C. H. Medieval Monasticism. 4th edn. Longman, 2015.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

369

Leccisotti, Tomasso. Montecassino. trans. Armand Citarella. Montecassino, 1987. Leclercq, Jean. Memoirs: From Grace to Grace. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2000. ———. “Le renouveau solesmien et le renouveau religieux du XIXe siècle.” Studia Monastica 18 (1976): 157–95. Lemale, Stéphanie. “La vie spirituelle à l’abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire vers 1560–1688.” Memoire d’histoire modern, Université catholique de l’Ouest, 1997. LeMaitre, Phillipe. “Image du Christ. image de l’empereur: L’exemple du culte du Saint Sauveur sous Louis Le Pieux.” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France. 68 (1982): 201–12. Le Jan, Régine. Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc (vii e- x e siècle). Paris, 1995. Lemarignier, J.-F. Etude sur les privilèges d’exemption et de jurisdiction eccésiastique des Abbayes Normands depuis les origins jusqu’en 1140. Paris: Picard, 1937. Lesueur, F. “Appareils décoratifs supposés carolingiens.” Bulletin monumentale. 124 (1966): 167–86. Levillain, Léon. “Essai sur le comte Eudes, fils du Harduin et de Guérinbourg.” Moyen Age. 47 (1937): 153–82, 233–71. Lot, Ferdinand. “La Loire: l’Aquitaine et la Seine de 862 à 866.” Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes. 76 (1915): 473–510. Loud, G. A. “The Norman Count of Caiaizzo.” In Montecassino and Benevent o in the Middle Ages: Essays in South Italian Church History, IV, 199–214. Ashgate/Variorum, 2000. ———. The Latin Church in Norman Italy. Cambridge. 2007. Lunven, Anne. “La donation d’Anarouuweth à l’abbaye Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil.” Bibliothèque de l’école des Chartes. 170 (2012): 343–75. Lyon, Jonathon. “Nobility and Monastic Patronage: The View from Outside the Monastery.” In CHMM, 848–64. Cambridge, 2019. Kindle. Mähler, Maximilien. “Evocations bibliques et hagiographiques dans la ‘Vie de saint Benoît’ par saint Grégoire.” R. bén. 83 (1973): 398–429. Maitre, Léon. “Les fouilles du monastère de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil et les conclusions à en tirer.” Revue de l’Anjou. 41 (1900): 5–8. Mallet, Jacques. L’art roman de l’ancien Anjou. Paris, 1984. Mancia, Lauren. “Sources for Monasticism in the Long Twelfth Century.” In CHMM , 667–83. Cambridge, 2019. Kindle. Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio. 53 vols, 1759–98. Martène, Edouard. Histoire littéraire de la Congrégation de Saint-Maur. 10 vols. Ligugé: Abbaye Saint-Martin, 1928–1954.

370

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Marchegay, Paul. “Recherches sur la Vieil-Baugé.” Revue de L’anjou. 2, no. 2 (1853): 71–81. Martindale, Jane. “Monasteries and Castles: the Priories of St-Florent de Saumur in England afer 1066.” In England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1990 Harlaxton Symposium. ed. Carola Hicks, 135–56. Stamford, 1992. Matthew, Donald. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1992. Mattingly, Matthew. “The Memoriale Qualiter: An Eighth Century Monastic Customary.” American Benedictine Review. 60, no. 1. (2009): 62–75. McKitterick, Rosamund. History and Memory in the Carolingian World. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2004. ———. “The Rorigo Bible in Its Ninth-Century Context.” In Studi sulla societa e le culture del medioevo per Girolamo Arnaldi. ed. L. Gatto and Supino Martini, 409–22. Rome, 2002. ———. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge, 1989. ———. The Frankish kingdoms under the Carolingians. 751–987, Longman, 1983. Merton, Thomas. Charter, Customs, and Constitutions of the Cistercians: Initiation into the Monastic Tradition, 7 . ed. Patrick F. O’Connell. Liturgical Press, 2015. Miller, Maureen. The Formation of a Medieval Church: Ecclesiastical Change In Verona, 950–1150. Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 1993. Moyse, G. “Les origines du monachisme dans le diocèse de Besançon (Ve-Xe siècles)", Bulletin de l’École des Chartes. 131 (1973): 21–104. Mollat, Guillaume. “La Restitution des églises privées au patrimoine ecclésiastique en France du ixe au xie siècle.” Revue historique de droit français et étranger. 26 (1949): 399–423. Morris, Colin. The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1989. Mousseau, L. “Le domaine de Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil pendant la Revolution et le XIXe siècle.” Memoires de l’ Academie des Sciences, Belles-lettres et Arts d’Angers. tomes VII et VIII. Supplement aux Bulletins des années 1973– 1974: 61–68. Nelson, Judith. “The Merovingian Church in Carolingian Retrospective.” In The World of Gregory of Tours. ed. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood, 241–59. Brill, 2002. ———. “The Frankish Kingdoms. 814–898: The West.” In NCMH, 2, 411–19. Cambridge U.P., 1995. ———. Charles the Bald. Routledge, 1992. Newton, Francis. The Scriptorium and Library at Montecassino. 1058–1105. Cambridge U.P., 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

371

Ó Crínián, Dábaihí. “A Tale of Two Rules: Benedict and Columbanus.” In The Irish Benedictines. ed. M. Browne and C. Ó Clabaigh, 1–24. Dublin: Columba Press, 2005 Oexle, Gerhard Otto. “Les moines d’occident et la vie politique et sociale dans le haut moyen âge.” R. bén. 103 (1993): 255–72. ———.“Bischof Ebroin von Poitiers und seine Verwandten.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien. 3, no.1 ( 1969): 138–210. Peifer, Claude. “ Origins of Benedictine Monasticism: State of the Question.”ABR 51, no. 3 (2000): 293–317. Peltze, Jorg. Canon Law, Careers and Conquest: Episcopal Elections in Normandy and Greater Anjou. c.1140-c.1230. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2008. Pennington, Kenneth. Pope and Bishops: The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. U.Penn Press, 1984. Percival, J. “Villas and Monasteries in Late Roman Gaul.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 48 (1997): 1–21. Planiol, Marcel. “Le donation d’Anouuareth.” Annales de Bretagne. 9 (1894): 216–37. Plaine, François. “Odon de Glanfeuil et l’authenticité de la mission de Saint Maur de Glanfeuil.” Revue historique de l’ouest. 12 (1897): 126–51. Plat, Gabriel. L’art de bâtir en France des Romains à l’an 1100 d’après les monuments anciens de la Touraine, de l’Anjou et du Vendomois. Paris, 1939. Pletteau, Théodore-Pierre. “Annales ecclesiastiques d’Anjou: Raoul de Beaumont. evêque d’Angers.” Revue de l’Anjou. 15, no. 16 (1875–76): 248–71. ———.“Annales ecclesiastiques d’Anjou: Geoffrey de Mayenne.” Revue historique. littéraire et archéologique de l’Anjou. 14 (1875): 131–46. Port, Celestine. Inventaire sommaire des Archives Departmentales: Maine-et-Loire. Archives Ecclésiastiques. Series H. vol. 1. Angers, 1898. Potts, Cassandra. Monastic Revival and Regional Identity in Early Normandy. Boydell Press, 1997. Poulin, J.-C. “Les relations entre la Bretagne carolingienne et le reste du continent d après les sources hagiographiques.” In Voix d’ouest en Europe. souffles de l’Europe en ouest: actes du Colloque international Angers. 21-24 mai 1992. 65–81. Angers: Presses de l’Université d’Angers, 1993. Poupardin, René. Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés. 2 vols. Paris, 1909. Prigent, Daniel. “Evolution de la construction médiévale en pierre en Anjou et Touraine.” In Anjou: Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology. ed. John McNeill, 14–33. Leeds, 2003. Raaijmakers, Janneke. “Missions on the Northern and Eastern Frontiers.” In CHMM , 485–501. Cambridge, 2019. Kindle. ———.The Making of the Monastic Community of Fulda. c. 744–c. 900. Cambridge, 2014.

372

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ramseyer, Valerie. “Questions of Monastic Identity in Medieval Southern Italy and Sicily c. 500–1200.” In Cambridge History of Medieval Monasticism. ed. Alison Beach, 399–414. Cambridge, 2019. Remensnyder, Amy. Remembering Kings Past: Monastic Foundation Legends in Medieval Southern France. Ithaca: Cornell, 1995. Rennie, Kriston. “The Normative Character of Monastic Exemption in the Early Medieval Latin West.” Medieval Worlds. 6 (2017): 61–77. Renaudin, André. “Abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire au xixe siècle.” La Province d’Anjou. 7 (1932): 121–27. ———. “Abbaye de Saint-Maur-sur-Loire au xviie siècle.” La Province d’Anjou. 7 (1932): 279–99. Ripart, Laurent. “De Lérins à Agaune: le monachisme rhodanien reconsidéré.” In Monachesimi d’Oriente e d’ Occidente nell’Alto Medioev, 123–92. Spoleto, 2017. Robinson, Ian. “The Institutions of the Church, 1073–1216.” In NCMH. 4. 368–460.Cambridge, 2004. ———. The Papacy 1073–1198: continuity and innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1990. Rolker, Christof. “Monastic Canon Law in the Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Centuries.” In CHMM , 618–30. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2019. Kindle. ———. “The Collection in Seventy-Four Titles: A Monastic Canon Law Collection from Eleventh-Century France.” In Readers, Texts, and Compilers in the Earlier Middle Ages: Studies in Law in Honour of Linda Fowler-Magerll. ed. Martin Brett and Kathleen G. Cushin, 59–72. Routledge. 2009. Rousseau-Lefebvre, Christophe. “Quand les bénédictines de Solesmes étaient à Saint-Maur de Glanfeuil.” Memoires — Academie des sciences. belles lettres, et arts d’Angers, 8-S:239. Supplement T. 23 (2008): 205–22. Rubin, M. “Choosing Death: the Experience of Martyrdom in Late Medieval Europe.” In Martyrs and Martyrology. ed. Diana Wood, 153–83. Blackwell, 1993. Rush, Alfred. “Spiritual Martyrdom in Saint Gregory the Great.” Theological Studies. 23 (1962): 569–89. Rushforth, Rachel. Saints in the English Kalendars before 1100. Henry Bradshaw Society Series, 117. Boydell, 2004. Sava, Agostino. Bernardo I Aygelario. Miscellanea Cassinese 8. Montecassino, 1931. Saxer, Victor. Saint Vincent, diacre et martyr: culte et légendes avant l’An Mil. Brussels, 2002. Schmitz, Philibert. Histoire de l’Ordre de Saint-Benoît. 2nd ed. 7 vols. Maredsous, 1948–56. Schneide, Jean. “Chambre l’empereur”-camera imperii-Jalons pour la reprise d’une enquête.” In Media in Francia. Recueil de mélanges offerts à Karl

BIBLIOGRAPHY

373

Ferdinand Werner à l’occasion de son 65 e anniversaire, 453–470. Maulévrier: Hérault, 1989. Settipane, Christian. “Les comtes d’Anjou et leurs alliances aux xe et xie siècles.” In Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century. ed. Katherine Keats-Rohan, 211–67. Boydell, 1997. Sharp, Tristan. “Bishops, Canon Law, and the Religious, 1140–1350.” In CHMM , 1093–1108. Cambridge U.P., 2019.Kindle. Sigal, Pierre. L’homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale: XI e -XII e siècle Paris. 1985. Smith, Julia. “Cult imperiale et politique frontaliere dans le vallée de Vilaine: le témoignage des diplômes carolingiens contenus dans le cartulaire de Redon.” In Landévennec et le monachisme breton dans le haut moyen âge: actes du colloque du 15eme centenaire de l’abbaye de Landévennec. 25–26–27 avril 1985, 129–39. Association Landévennec, 1986. Stock, Brian. The Implications of Literacy. Princeton U.P., 1983. Sullivan, Richard. “What Was Carolingian Monasticism: The Plan of St Gall and the History of Monasticism.” In After Rome’s Fall. ed. Alexander Callander Murray, 251–87. U. Toronto Press, 1998. Southern, Richard. Making of the Middle Ages. New Haven. Yale U.P., 1953. Steiner, Ruth. “The Music for a Cluny Office of Saint Benedict.” In Studies in Gregorian Chant. ed. Ruth Steiner, 82–113. Variorum Collected Studies #651, Aldershot, 1999. Thierry, Ruinart. “Apologie de la Mission de saint Maur.” Appendix Prima of Annales ordinis s. Benedicti occidentalium monachorum patriarchae. 6 vols., I. 629–72. Paris. 1702. Trigers, R. “Notes sur les fouilles de l’abbaye de Glanfeuil.” Revue historique et archéologique de Maine. 44 (1898): 93–97. Ullmann, Walter. “Frederick II’s Opponent Innocent IV as Melchisedek.” In Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Federiciani, 53–81. Palermo, 1952. Urseau, Charles. “Le croix de L’abbaye de Saint-Maur.” Bulletin archéologique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques. 31 (1898): 136–41. Valous, Guy de. Le monachisme clunisien des origines au XVe siècle; vie intérieure des monastères et organisation de l’ordre. 2 vols. Paris, 1935. Van Dam, Raymond. Saints and their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul. Princeton. Princeton U.P., 1993. Van der Straeten, Joseph. Les manuscrits hagiographiques d’Orléans, Tours et Angers. Brussels, 1982. Wallace-Hadrill, J. The Frankish Church. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1983. Walter, Hilarius. “Das Speculum monachorum des Abtes Bernhard I von Cassino.” In Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte dem benedictiner-und cisterciener-Orden. 21 (1900): 411–23 and 22 (1901): 32–47.

374

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wickham, Chris. Framing the Early Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford U.P., 2005. Wickstrom, John. “Creativity and History in the Life of Saint Maurus of Glanfeuil.” R. bén. 126, no. 2 (2016): 271–86. ———. “Reassigning an Eleventh-Century Monastic Antiphoner: From Fossés to Glanfeuil Paris. Bibliothèque nationale de France. MS lat. 12584.” Manuscripta. 60, no. 1 (2016): 73–92. ———. “Claiming Saint Maurus of Glanfeuil: An Eleventh-Century Sermon from Fossés.” R. bén. 123, no. 2 (2013): 274–90. ———. “Carolingian Monastic Reform and the Lay Nobility: The Case of Glanfeuil Abbey.” Cistercian Studies Quarterly. 46, no. 1 (2011): 3–12. ———. “Cluny, Cîteaux and Blessed Maurus of Glanfeuil.” R. bén. 113, no. 1 (2003): 124–34. Wood, Ian. “The Vita Columbani and Merovingian Hagiography.” Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland. 1 (1982): 63–80. ———. Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London, 1964. Wood, Susan. The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West. Oxford: Oxford U.P., 2006. Wormald, Francis. “Aethelwold and His Continental Counterparts: Contact, Comparison, Contrast.” In Saint Aethelwold: His Career and Influence, 13–42. Boydell, 1997. ———. English Benedictine Kalendars after 1100. 2 vols. London, 1939. Wylie, Virginia. “Saint Nicholas: The Fasting Child.” The Art Bulletin. 46, no. 1 (1964): 69–70. Ziezulewicz, William. “A Monastic Forgery in An Age of Reform: A Bull of Pope John XVIII for Saint-Florent-de-Saumur (April 1004).” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae. 13 (1985): 7–42.

Index

A Aachen, 14, 22, 72, 87, 90, 92, 94, 95 Adalhard, 144, 145, 149 Adelaide, 149 Frankish queen, 987–1004, 149 Adelsheiligen, 35 Adeltrude, 102 adminiculus , 290 Maurus’s supposed relationship to St. Benedict, 290 Adrevald, 132–136 author of History of the Lombards, c. 870, 133 author of Translatio s. Benedicti, 132 Aeneas, 141, 157 bishop of Paris, 858–70, 141, 156 Agaunum, 26, 28 cure of a man born blind, 26 Aimon of Fleury, 135 alters Odo’s narrative, 135 author of Historia Francorum. See Historia Francorum

Alan Crookedbeard duke of Brittany (936–952), 168 Alcuin, 87 connected to reform at Glanfeuil, 87 Aldric, 137, 139 ally of bp. Ebroin, 104 bishop of Le Mans 832–56, 96, 99 Rorigonid ally, 96 Anacletus II, 212, 217 and emancipation of Glanfeuil, 217 (anti) pope, 1130–38, 284, 297–299, 312, 314 Anastasius II, Pope mitigates Glanfeuil’s obligations to Montecassino, 323 Angers, 11, 14, 27, 102–105, 107, 110, 118 Annarowedh becomes monk at Glanfeuil, 96 Breton pilgrim at Glanfeuil, 95 B Basnage, Jacques (1653–1723), 6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. B. Wickstrom, Fiction, Memory, and Identity in the Cult of St. Maurus, 830–1270, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86945-8

375

376

INDEX

attacks veracity of Life of Maurus , 6 Bego reformer of Fossés abbey, 92 Bego, count of Paris, 143, 144, 149–151 Benedict reformer-abbot of Fossés, 820s, 143 Berenger, 74 holy priest at Glanfeuil, 74 witness to bona fides of Odo’s Historia, 74 Bernard Aiglerius (Agleyrio) policies forfeit lordship of Glanfeuil, 338–340 revival of Montecassino, 335–336 Bertha Queen of the Franks, 996–1010, 170 Bertrand, 21, 33–36 bp. of Le Mans (586–623), 33 Bertulf, 115 Bildechildis, 81, 84, 85, 88, 91, 103, 112 abbess as Count Rorigo’s widow, 73 co-restorer of Glanfeuil, 73 poss. sponsor of Glanfeuil’s restoration, 85 spouse of Count Rorigo I, 73 witness to veracity of Odo’s narrative, 73 Bildechildis II da. of Rorigo I, 103 m. Bernard, count of Poitou (830s), 103 m. Bernard’s brother, Rainulf, 103 Bloch, Herbert, Montecassino in the Middle Ages documentation of Glanfeuil-Montecassino union, 284 Blois familia, 168–170

BnF ms lat. 3778 and 2273 libelli promoting Fossés’ patrons, 163, 164 Bosonids, 138 rivals of Rorigonids in 860s, 138 Bouchard reformer-count of Paris c. 1000, 153 Bouchard familia connected to Fulk Nerra. See Fulk Nerra gifts to Glanfeuil. See Glanfeuil Breton separatists, 84 Breviarium Parisensis , 6 Brittany character of borderlands, 82 Count Rorigo I and, 82 Burgundy Glanfeuil monks take refuge in, 13

C Callixtus II, Pope, 228, 265, 281, 282 cardinal abbot, 210, 215 Carloman, 22 mayor of the Palace, (741–747), 22 Carloman II K. of the Franks, (879–886) lost decree of, 167 King of West Francia, 879–84, 148 Carolingian hagiographers rewrote Merovingian saints’ lives, 13 Carolingian hagiographies linked to ancient texts, 13 Carolingian kingship collapse of, 168 Carolingian nobles as oppressors of monastic communities, 78 Charles I count of Anjou (1226–85)

INDEX

French rule over central Italy, 336 Charles the Bald, 182, 183, 211, 218 endows Glanfeuil in 840s, 105 genuine commitment to religious reform, 112 provides Glanfeuil monks with refuge at Fossés, 146 visits Maurus’s shrine at Fossés, 141 Charles the Fat, 146, 152 emperor, 888, 148 Chartres early adoption of cult of Saint Maurus, 244 Cistercians, 256, 258, 263 evolving views of Saint Maurus, 257–258 Clark, Francis authorship of Gregory the Great’s Dialogues , 7 Clervaux Abbey new home of exiled Glanfeuil community, 353 Cluny adoption of Maurus office, 243 early adoption of cult of Saint Maurus, 243–244 redefines its past through writings of Odo of Glanfeuil, 257 Coëtlosquet, Edouard-Jean abbot of Glanfeuil, 1895–1906, 352 historian-scholar, 352 Colliberti, 189–190 commendatory abbots, 342, 343, 345, 348, 349 Congrégation de Saint-Maur Glanfeuil joins, in 1668, 344 purposes, 344 Congrès de société des archéologiques de France, 350 conjunctio

377

relationship of Glanfeuil to Montecassino, 286 Constantinianus and Antonius relics of, “discovered” in 1122, 229 Constitutional Diploma of 847 Ebroin and his successors as rulers of Glanfeuil, 108 contemplatio as goal of monastic life, 41 conversatione morum, 22 monks’ means to salvation, 23 cooperator, 16, 24, 29, 31, 271 an unequal partner, 17 Maurus as, of Benedict’s miracles, 16 Cormery, 86–88 and Glanfeuil, common interests of, 88 Couturier, Charles abbot of Solesmes, 1875–90 rebuilt Glanfeuil in 1880s, 351 Croix, Camille de la, 61, 63 assessment of his work, 66 assessment of his work, 65–66 early reactions to finds, 63–65 Gallo-Roman nymphaeum, 62 limitations placed on dig, 53 Maurus’ tomb discovered?, 57–58 preconceived ideas about finds, 53 cult of Saint Maurice at Agaunum, 118 cult of St. Maurus useful studies of, 3 D deacons and Saint Maurus in the Glanfeuil liturgy, 235 Desiderius vicar for abbeys of S. Italy, 262 Divine Office centrality of, stressed in Life of Maurus , 232

378

INDEX

Dodo bishop of Angers (837–870), 103 chancellor in Aquitaine, 103 lifetime ally of bp. Ebroin, 103 Drogo abbot of Glanfeuil (r. c. 1123–c. 1138), 285 discussion of union with Abbot of Montecassino, 285–287 not seeking affiliation with Montecassino in 1133, 286 replaced as abbot by John Marsicanus, 298 resigns office to abbot of Montecassino, 297 symbolic gifts presented to Seniorectus, 285 See also Cistercians duke of Anjou, 282, 287 Dumnolus bp. of Le Mans (560–81), 35

E Ebbo, 86, 89 Rorigonid builder of renovated Glanfeuil, 86 Ebroin, 102, 140, 151, 155, 182 abbot of Saint-Aubin, 102 arch-chaplain to Charles the Bald, 104 bishop of Poitiers c. 838–50, 88, 94, 97–99 claim to be restorer of Glanfeuil, 111 expels Fossés monks from Glanfeuil, 105 extern ruler of Glanfeuil c. 332–850, 97 given lordship of Glanfueil by Louis the Pious, c. 833, 89 kinsman to Count Rorigo I, 97

protected young Charles the Bald, 830, 104 warrior-bishop, 104 Einhard abbot of Fossés, 847–c. 863 supporter of court party, 144 Elijah, 28 as vir Dei. See Saint Benedict Elisha, 17, 28 revives widow’s dead son, 40 Equitius noble father of Saint Maurus in LM , 267 Ermentrude, 823–69 Queen to Charles the Bald, 20, 140 Eudes de Saint-Maur, 213 monk of Fossés author of Sermo of 1033, 154 supporter of Saint Babolenus, 160–162 Eugenius III, Pope decree of exemption for Glanfeuil, 318 rebukes abbot of Glanfeuil, 320 excavations atGlanfeuil 1898–1999 preconceived ideas about, 53

F facticity of the Bible, 5 Fiesque, Bede de (1599–1679) saintly Maurist of Glanfeuil, 347 First Lateran Council, 1123 attacks monastic privileges, 264 Fleury altar to Maurus at, by 950, 135 Flodegarius, 25, 33 archdeacon of Le Mans, 25 Florentius, 19, 20 Florus, Count enters Glanfeuil as monk, 45–47 example of lay chastity, 34

INDEX

land for building Glanfeuil given by, 38 meeting with Saint Maurus. See Totila tonsured by lay nobles, 47 Fossés Abbey, 92 accused of wasting Glanfeuil’s assets, 212 early history of, 142. See also Bego; Nanthild; Saint Babolenus forged documents support lordship over Glanfeuil, 1096, 211 given rule over Glanfeuil by Rorigo I, 89 Glanfeuil monks flee to, 2 monastic discipline declines, 152 monks as fideles Christi, 154 promotion of Saint Maurus, 11th c., 158 quarrel over primary patron, 160–166 Sermo of 1033 recast Odo’s Historia, 153–157. See also Rorigo I Foucoie archdeacon of Meaux versified Life of Maurus , 158 Fulk Nerra, 169, 170, 175, 177, 180 appoints bp. of Angers, ally of Glanfeuil, 170 appropriation of monastic lands, 169 connection with Bouchard family, 187 historic visit to Glanfeuil in 1010, 175–178 Fulk V count of Anjou (1109–43) returns alienated properties to Glanfeuil, 225

379

G Gaidulf, 75, 78–80, 87, 99 despoils Glanfeuil Abbey, 75 lay abbot of Glanfeuil c. 750, 75 Lombard war-chief, 75 Gautier, 208, 213 abbot of Fossés, 1086–1096, 186, 190, 208 quarrel with rebellious tenants, 208 Gauzbert, 90, 92–96, 99 brother of Count Rorigo I, 92 character of his authority, 95 first ruler of restored Glanfeuil, 155 former monk of Fossés, 91 Gauzbert, count of Le Mans, d. 851 Abbot Gauzlin’s brother, 121 Gauzfred abbot of Fossés, c. 863–68, 138, 140, 141, 145 count of Le Mans, 865–78, 127 Gauzfrid, 138, 140, 145 count of Le Mans, 865–878, 145 son of Rorigo I, count of Le Mans, 137 Gauzlin, 73, 91, 96, 97 and the abbacy of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, 129 bishop of Paris, 74 confusion over his relationship to Gauzbert, 113 reputation for holiness, 114 Geoffrey Martel, count of Anjou, 1040–60, 176, 178, 180, 185, 193 Gerfred, 90, 91 brought Rule of Benedict to Redon. See Redon Abbey hermit at Glanfeuil in 850s, 90 poss. missionary from Fossés, 90 Girard abbot of Glanfeuil, 1096–1105

380

INDEX

former prior of Saint’ Aubin d’Angers, 217 Glanfeuil, 45, 81 abbot of, as honorary prior of Montecassino, 291 abbot of, vicar over all French monasteries. See Desiderius alienated properties returned, 220–226 alternative to Saint Martin’s and Saint Julian’s shrines at Tours, 125 and commerce on the Loire, 122 and Jansenism, 347 and the Enlightenment, 348 antiphoner key to community identity, 232–237 as monasteriolum, 101 built over Roman villa ruins, 38 cardinal abbot, 215 cartulary of Glanfeuil purposes and content, 174 cellula in 880s, 148 chapel of Saint Martin, 39, 52 chapel of Saint Martin, compared to Montecassino chapel, 39 church of Glanfeuil restored by Fossés, 1036, 179 community flees from, c. 862, 1 conflicts with counts of Anjou, 192–193 construction miracles and lay-monastic relationships, 39 declared monument historique in 1958, 355 dedication of, 45 demands return of alienated properties ‘by ancient right’ (11th and 12th c.), 226 difficulties, 14th–16th c., 341–342

dissolved by French government, 1901, 353 during the French Revolution, 350 early properties held in full lordship (dominatio), 38 estate management system, 188–190 exemption appeal, 337–338 gifts from Borrell familia, 184–186 gifts from Bouchard familia, 186–187 gifts from Francigeni familia, 182–184 increasing difficulties of dependency on Fossés, 207–208 intended “perfection-retreat” for Count Rorigo and spouse, 81 lay tonsure of Count Florus at, 47 Merovingian and Carolingian elements in dedication of, 48 monks of, become canons, 76 monks of, settled at Clervaux Abbey (Belgium), 1901, 353 mostly upper class residents by ninth century, 41 mutual regard of king and abbot at dedication of (16–19), 45 new church, novel and conservative blended, 228 place of manual labor in, 41 pre-Revolution laxity, 349 production of Chablis renewed, 1890s, 352 property disputes with Saint Florent c. 1000, 167–170 property rights as dependent priory, 178 reconstructed by Congrégation de Saint-Maur, 345–346 regional status c. 1150, 317–318 reinvented as intellectual center, 1890s, 351–352

INDEX

Rorigonid hausabtai, 81 situation in early 12th c., 283–284 storehouse for regional wines, 122 tension with Montecassino, early 13th c., 326 the four chuches at, 42 twin towers, 228 Urban II supports return of lost properties, 220 vassal-knights of, 190–192 vicariate over all French monasteries. See Desiderius Godfrey, 73 abbot of Fossés, c. 860–868, 73 likely of Rorigonid familia, 73 monk of Glanfeuil, 73 Gregory of Tours, 36, 37, 67 History of the Franks , 36, 52 Gregory the Great, 131–133, 135, 136, 163 Grimald succeeds Odo as abbot of Fossés, 886, 146 Gueranger, Prosper abbot of Solesmes (1833–75) desire to restore medieval Glanfeuil, 351 Guido Oacrius, 163

H Hagano, Count Queen Adelaide’s agent, 150 hagiography, 2 Harderadus, 33, 36, 37, 50, 112 healing of, 26 takes initiative to build Glanfeuil, 33 vicedominus of bp. of Le Mans, 25 Hardouin, Count, 127 poss. father of Count Odo of Burgundy, 127

381

Rorigonid ally, 127 Hervé, Count Rorigonid ally, 127 hierachical idea of Church threatens monastic independence, 264–266 Hildemar of Corbie, 23, 41 Historia Francorum Maurus in context of Frankish and world history. See Aimon of Fleury Historia translationis , 2, 12, 71–73, 81, 105, 118, 119, 241, 244 witnesses to bona fides of, 72 Hubert de Vendôme bp. Angers, 1006–47 (5, 6), 179 Hugh Capet King of the Franks, 987–996, 169 Hugh the Abbot moderate Robertian party leader, early 10th c., 150 I Île-de-France, 244 imperium, 289, 293, 296, 308, 311 Benedict’s authority to rule so defined, 288 incubation miracles, 124, 125 Ingelbert, 89, 91, 92, 94, 106, 111, 114, 143, 155 abbot of Fossés, r. 830–45, 89 cooperator in reform of Glanfeuil, 89 Innocent II bp. of Le Mans (532–543), 36 pope, 1130–43, 283 Innocent IV increased involvement in local issues, 325 Ivo of Chartres, 211, 213, 216, 217 dissent from Glanfeuil emancipation process, 216–217

382

INDEX

J John Marsicanus elected abbot of Glanfeuil, 1133, 297, 298 Julia, noble mother of Maurus, 16 Justinianic plague, 52 K king-abbot relationships at Glanfeuil as ‘mirror of princes’, 48 knight service, commutation of, 191 L Lago Pasale conference Cassinese independence challenged, 265 Lambert, 85, 89, 97 architect of renovated Glanfeuil, 85 count of Le Mans and Nantes chief rival of Rorigonids 830–850s, 98 land transfer legal proceedings of, 47 La Vie des Justes Maurist hagiographies, 347 laymen as advocati, 36 Le Mans, 14, 21, 72, 82, 84, 96, 98, 99, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 154 Scholastica’s relics as guardians of the palladium, 139 libertas , 208, 214, 215, 290, 298, 307, 323 Life of Maurus , 115, 117, 118, 123, 127 Abbot Odo author of, 2 Abbot Odo ‘edits’ text of, 13 and biography, 3 as “imaginative memory”, 4 creates textual community, 2 exile as pilgrimage

exile and Abraham and Benedict, 1 prefatory letter to, by Abbot Odo, 12 pseudo-Faustus as supposed author of, 2 relationship to reforms of Aachen synod, 22 “uncultivated” style of, 13 Life of Saint Hugh of Anzy-le-duc Glanfeuil’s and Cluniac zeal compared, 253 Life of St Vanne, 123 Louis, d. 867 abbot of St-Denis, 74 archchancellor, 145 son of Count Rorigo I and Rotrude. See Rotrude Louis the Pious, 22 Emperor (814–840), 14 Louis the Stammerer king of West Francia, 877–79 m. da. of Count Odo of Burgundy. See Odo, count of Burgundy Luxeuil, 143 Lysiard, abbot of Glanfeuil, 1239–49 cause of internal crises, 327, 328, 332, 333 M Mabillon, Jean errors in the Life of Maurus , 6 magisterium, 288, 289, 296, 308, 311 Benedict’s teaching authority so defined, 288 Mainard dissolute abbot of Fossés, deposed, 990s, 152 exiled to Glanfeuil, 153 related to Rorigonids, 153

INDEX

Maiolus abbot of Cluny 964–994 rules Fossés, 153 majores , 188, 189, 191, 226 property managers at Glanfeuil, 226 Marchegay, Charles 19th c. editor of Glanfeuil cartulary, 172 Marsicani familia controls Montecassino by 1135, 298 Martin of Tours, 124 Memorialis qualiter supposed early monastic customary, 256 memory studies, 3, 4 and St. Augustine, 3 seminal titles in, 3 Merovingian hagiography, 35 Merula, 125, 126 Michel Villoiseau, 328, 331 appeals Glanfeuil’s exemption, 331–335 bp. Angers, 1240–60, 328 ministerium, 95 Miracula Sancti Benedicti dependent on Life of Maurus . See Adrevald Mommulus abbot of Fleury, c. 632–66 and translatio of Saint Benedict’s relics, 132 monastic mensa, 107 Montecassino, 51, 52, 92, 132, 133, 136, 147, 154, 158, 159 abbot of, as “abbot of abbots”, 259 attacks on, by emperor in mid-13th c., 324 challenges in mid-12th c., 318–319 claims imperium over all abbeys, 260

383

covering from, given to Maurus for journey to Gaul, 43 early adoption of cult of Saint Maurus, 248–249 early affinity with Glanfeuil, 234 functions in Office of Maurus, 239 illustrated libellus pairing Benedict and Maurus, 261 inconsistent mention of Maurus in liturgy of, 248 leading conservative monastic center, 259 Maurus to be Benedict’s successor at, 50 places relics of Saint Maurus in new basilica, 1070, 261 processions in honor of Maurus, c. 1100, 242 mother-abbey claimed as Montecassino’s relationship with Glanfeuil, 281, 291, 293, 294, 297, 301, 309, 310, 312 N Nanthilde, 142 founded Fossés abbey, 92 Merovingian queen, 610–42, 92 Nominoë Breton resistance leader, 121 Notitia de areis . See polyptych nymphaeum, 61, 62, 65, 66 later monastic lavarum?, 61 O Odo, Abbot Glanfeuil ambiguity in regards to Ebroin’s character, 106 as member of Rorigonid familia, 110 Odo, count of Burgundy

384

INDEX

familial relationships, 110 provides refuge for monks of Glanfeuil, 126 On telling the truth, 5 poss. relation of Robert the Strong, 110 Opus Dei. See Divine Office Orderic Vitalis Ecclesiastical History evolution of monasticism, 256

P Paul the Deacon, 132, 133, 136, 164 History of the Lombards , 132 Pepin III, 75, 77, 80, 82 king of the Franks, 751–68, 75 Peter the Deacon Benedict, Maurus and Placid as ‘holy trinity’ of Cassinese patrons, 269–271 career, 266 creates cult of Saint Placid, 271–277 Maurus as co-founder of Montecassino. See Saint Placid new claims of Montecassino’s authority over Glanfeuil, 1153, 321 Peter the Venerable Abbot of Cluny, 1122–56 Glanfeuil a model of monastic/contemplative life, 255 Petrine elements, 19 Poitou, 85 polyptych from Fossés c. 868, 147 Porhoët, 84, 86 pseudo-Faustus, 5, 7, 8 supposed author of Life of Maurus , 2

R Rainaud abbot of Fossés, early 10th c. relative of Queen Adelaide, 150 Ranulf abbot of Glanfeuil c. 1105–22 identity confused, 229 Redon Abbey, 89–91 Breton abbey, 121 long-time relationship to Glanfeuil, 91 loyal to Carolingian rulers, 91 réécritures , 13 Registrum Petri diaconi, 284, 286, 300, 303, 311 union of Glanfeuil with Montecssino, 284 Reichenau, 15 relic of the True Cross, 26 relics, 1 community identity and, 1 of Saint Romanus discovered. See Saint Romanus religio, 21, 23, 24, 92, 93, 98 definition of, and usage, 23 inner spirit of monastic reform, 92 reliquary as weapon, 120 Renaud bp. of Angers, 973–1006, 168–171, 174, 176, 177 Richildis, 138, 139 attempt to remove Scholastica’s relics, 138 Charles the Bald’s queen, 138 quarrel with Rorigonids, 138 Robert abbot of St.-Florent, 188 Robert I king of W. Francia 922–23 Abbot of S.-Denis 906–23, 150

INDEX

Robert II “the Pious” Frankish king, (996–1031), 170 Robert the Strong chief Rorigonid rival, 850s, 120 leader of plundering gangs, 121 Roger II King of Sicily, 1130–54 aggression against Montecassino, 319 Rorigo Bible, 147, 148 BnF. ms. latin 3, 12 Rorigo I brother, Gauzbert first ruler of Glanfeuil, 92 construction delays, divine intervention in, 88 count of Le Mans (Maine) c. 830, 84 given Glanfeuil property, 820s, 81 gives rule of Glanfeuil to Fossés, 89 liaison with Rotrude, da. of Charlemagne, 82 loses lordship of Glanfeuil to Ebroin c. 832. See Ebroin removed as count of Maine, c. 832, 97 Rorigonid familia, 35, 72, 73, 82, 90, 93, 99, 123 Rotrude Charlemagne’s daughter and Count Rorigo’s lover, 82 Rule of Benedict, 14, 16, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 74, 77, 80, 85, 87–92, 137, 139, 143, 154, 168, 180 brought to Le Mans by Bishop Aldric, 137 early observed at Fleury, 131 imposition of, Abbot Odo’s goal, 74

385

S Saint Adalbert archbishop of Prague (982–997) visits Maurus’s relics in 990s, 219 Saint Arnulf of Metz, 163 Saint-Aubin, 78, 79 Saint Babolenus, 92 cult remained local, 165 first abbot of Fossés, 638–c. 660, 143 libelli promote his cult, 163, 164 rivalry with Saint Maurus, 158–166 Saint Benedict, 13–15, 22, 23, 31, 118 feast of, in Glanfeuil antiphonary, 234 his imperium over all monasteries. See imperium Saint Benedict of Aniane, 14 Saint Berno founder of Cluny, 850–927, 253 Saint Columbanus Rule of, at Fleury, 131 Saint-Denis, 140, 142, 145, 150 Saint Eligius (Eloi), 162 Saint-Florent, 168, 169, 179, 181, 185, 187, 226, 227 Saint Julian shrine at Tours, 124 Saint Martin of Tours, 123 Saint-Maur-des-Buissons confused with Maurus of Glanfeuil, 128 Saint Maurice in Glanfeuil liturgy, 235 Saint Maurus, 26, 51 and revival of a widow’s son, 28 and the plague. See Justinianic plague as alter Christus , 26 as deacon, 18, 116, 117

386

INDEX

as dux monachorum. See Saint Benedict as vir Dei. See Elijah chooses his successor. See Bertulf connections with cults of Saint Martin at Angers and Saint Maurice, 27 cure of lame and deaf boy, 20 declared patron of Congrégation de Saint-Maur, 346 decoration of his Office texts, 237–238 diaconate required for abbatial office, 268 early veneration of Saint Maurus, 243–246 feast day, 7 final days, 48 first named disciple of Saint Benedict, 15 liturgical processions in honor of, 241–243 many cures of noblemen, 126 miracles beyond Glanfeuil, 122 mission to France, 21–28 mission to Francia, 21 offices supposedly held under Benedict, 288 perfect obedience of, 19 Petrine elements, 18 Proper Office of, analyzed, 237–241 relics at Fossés and Glanfeuil. See relics relics of, placed in new Cassinese basilica, 1070, 261 rescues Saint Placid from drowning, 18 veladictory sermon, 51 veneration of, adopted in northern France, 248

veneration of, in Anglo-Saxon England, 246–247 veneration of, in Eastern Europe, 249 vision of Benedict’s passing, 30 visit to Saint Romanus a liminal moment, 29–32 Saint Odilo, 252 Cluny and the history of salvation, 252 homage to Montecassino, 1027, 259 Saint Odo abbot of Cluny 927–42 Glanfeuil, the standard of monastic oservance, 252 Saint-Offange, Claude de abbot and restorer of Glanfeuil, 1591–1624, 342 resigns when reforms resisted, 344 Saint-Offange, Claude Magdelon de abbot of Glanfeuil, 1624–1671 imposes reforms of uncle, Claude, 344 Saint-Offange, René-Magdelon de non-resident abbot of Glanfeuil, 1671–1708, 345 Saint Peter, 116 Saint Placid, 16, 18, 19 as Italian counterpart to Maurus in France, 273 as model of contemplation, 275. See Peter the Venerable confused with early martyr of Sicily, 274–275 his cult created by Peter the Deacon, 271 supposed co-founder of Montecassino, 267 Saint Romanus, 17, 29–32. See also cooperator Benedict’s first teacher

INDEX

Benedict’s first cooperator, 17 Fonte-Rouge abbey (Auxerre), 30 Saint Scholastica Queen Richildis’ attempts to remove her relics, 137–139 Rorigo I and the cult of Scholastica, 137 Rorigonid officials protect her cult, 138 sometimes third member of ‘holy trinity’ of Cassinese patrons, 261 translation of, 123 uncertinty about cult origins, 136 Saint Severinus, 42, 43, 54 poss. abbot of Agaunum, 118 uncertain identity of, 43 Saint Sixtus Roman monastery with Cassinese based liturgy in honor of Maurus, 279 Saint Stephen Cassinese church of, 269 deacon and protomartyr, 115, 117 Scienfrède, 37 bp. of Le Mans (543–560), 36 Seniorectus, 303, 318 abbot of Montecassino, 1127–37, 285–287, 311–313, 315 appoints Glanfeuil’s abbot vicar of Gallic monasteries, 297 arranged union of Glanfeuil with Montecassino, 1133, 285 uses legal terms for Glanfeuil-Montecassino relationship, 286 Sennecé-lès-Mâcon poss. Burgundian refuge of Glanfeuil commuity, 126 Sigebert de Gembloux on Odo’s facticity, 5 Simon

387

agent of Montecassino at Glanfeuil, 319, 320 his account of William II’s election. See William II of Normandy Simplicius, 15 introduces Rule of Benedict to Reichenau, 15 Smaragdus of St. Mihiel, 23 T Tertullus, 267, 274 bestows south Italian properties on Montecassino, 273, 274 Theodrad, 119, 120, 122 abbot of Glanfeuil (c. 855–862), 73 Theudebald, King of the Franks (547–555), 223 early donations, 224 Theudebert, 37, 41, 45–48, 67, 68, 115 King of the Franks (500–547/8), 34 Thibaut abbot of Fossés relative of Fulk Nerra. See Fulk Nerra supporter of Count Bouchard. See Bouchard Three Lives of St. Placid, 7 as parallels to the Life of Maurus , 7 Totila Ostrogothic king Count Florus compared to, 37 Tours, 11, 27 pandects created at, 11 transferring spiritual auctoritas , 24 Troyes MS 2273 11th c. illustrated Life of S. Maurus , 164 tyranny, 210 Fossés rule over Glanfeuil described as, 210

388

INDEX

U Ulger, 173, 224, 283, 307, 330 union of Glanfeuil with Montecassino analysis of documents of, 287–296 Decree of Charlemagne (forgery), 290–291 Urban II, Pope, 211, 229, 243 analysis of Glanfeuil emancipation decree, 211–215

V vengeance miracles, 119–122 vicedominus definition of. See Harderadus Vikings, 13, 132, 133, 141, 142, 145, 146, 149, 157, 159, 160, 168, 182

W Wicfred count of Bourges, d. 838 poss. cousin of bp. Ebroin, 102

Widonids allys of the Rorigonids, 121 Willem, 93 assoc. governor of Glanfeuil. See Gauzbert William de Beaumont bp. Angers, 1202–1240 increasing pressure on Glanfeuil’s exemption, 331 William de Vivariis advocatus for Glanfeuil appeal of 1267. See Glanfeuil William II of Normandy abbot of Glanfeuil, 1147?–1203, 317, 320 account of his election, 1147, 319. See also Simon alienated from Abbot of Montecassino, 321 equal to other local abbots, 317 neglectful of duties to Montecassino, 319 William of Corbeil, 158 advocatus of Fossés, 11th c., 160