The Correspondence between Peter the Venerable and Bernard of Clairvaux

A Semantic and Structural Analysis

Gillian R. Knight

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780754600671
• eBook ISBN: 9781351892308
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

Starting from the premise of the letter as literary artefact, with a potential for ambiguity, irony and textual allusion, this innovative analysis of the correspondence between the Cluniac abbot, Peter the Venerable, and the future saint, Bernard of Clairvaux, challenges the traditional use of these letters as a source for historical and (auto)biographical reconstruction. Applying techniques drawn from modern theories of epistolarity and contemporary literary criticism to letters treated as whole constructs, Knight demonstrates the presence of a range of manipulative strategies and argues for the consequent production of a significant degree of fictionalisation. She traces the emergence of an epistolarly sequence which forms a kind of extended narrative, drawing its authority from Augustine and Jerome, and rooted in classical rhetoric. The work raises important implications both for the study of relations between Cluniacs and Cistercians in the first half of the 12th century and for the approach to letter-writing as a whole.

Chapter 1
Letter-writing and Friendship Reconsidered

The primary aim of this chapter is to situate the Peter/Bernard correspondence within the tradition of epistolary writing, as derived from antiquity and assimilated within the early Christian period and throughout the Middle Ages. As stated in the introduction, an underlying concern of this study is a re-evaluation of the value and nature of these letters as historical documentation, through an examination of the parameters surrounding the use of epistolary discourse. The question will be approached initially through a consideration of the relevance and applicability of models and precepts to be found in classical and medieval rhetorical handbooks. This will be set alongside modern critical theory, in particular, contemporary concepts of epistolarity as developed around the notion of the epistolary relationship pertaining to letter-writer and addressee. The second part of the chapter will consider the relationship between the activity of letter-writing and the development of classical and Christian ideals of friendship, focusing on two aspects in particular: the terminology employed to express such ideals, and the enshrinement of the latter in what can be seen as a form of epistolary etiquette. It will start from the premise that epistolary ‘friendship’ can in itself be viewed as a construct, utilising a range of standard devices and serving a variety of purposes. This will be demonstrated through selected examples drawn from sources both prior to and contemporaneous with the correspondence in question, together with passages taken from letters of Peter and Bernard addressed to other recipients.

Before this is undertaken, it may be helpful to consider briefly both the circumstances surrounding the study of letters in general and the approaches which have been taken to this correspondence in particular. The difficulties, if they can be viewed as such, would seem to reside principally in the question of generic definition. ‘Literary’ letters, identified here with letters preserved in edited collections, as is generally recognised, straddle the boundary between history and literature.¹ Rooted in a particular set of historical circumstances, they none-the-less draw on a network of conventions and expectations which can be seen as forming part of a literary tradition. Despite this, there would seem to have been a certain reluctance to acknowledge and take seriously the implications of this literary element, as signalled by Hutchinson in his recent, self-proclaimed ‘literary’ study of the letters of Cicero.² This attitude is beginning to change, as a number of recent studies show. As academic disciplines, history and literature have moved much closer in recent years, as evinced by the work of such contemporary writers on Cluniac history as Constable, Rosenwein and Iogna-Prat, and, on Cistercian history, of Lekai, Holdsworth, Auberger and Cowdrey. It may be noted, however, that this rapprochement is not necessarily universally perceived. To cite the words of Clanchy in relation to the twelfth-century ‘autobiography’ of Abelard: ‘The historian is trained to search for a single factual narrative in a text like Historia Calamitatum, whereas the literary specialist will question – sometimes perversely in the historian’s opinion – whether there is a single meaning in the text or any clear dividing line between fact and fiction.’³

'Overstated in general terms as this view may seem to be, in the case of the correspondence between Peter and Bernard, a confluence of particular factors may seem to lend it a degree of validity. Traditionally, this correspondence has been taken as providing documentary proof of a personal friendship. This view, as Bredero points out, can be traced back to the comments of Clémencet in his introduction of 1773.⁴ The most influential expression of this approach, however, was probably that of Leclercq, who prefaced his 1946 discussion with the statement that despite apparent disagreements ‘their friendship did not cease to grow; it showed itself in affectionate declarations which make it, in the lives of both, a particular friendship.’⁵ A strong challenge to this view was issued some seven years later by Lortz, who argued that the complimentary language should be read as ceremonious rhetoric, bridging deep-seated underlying tensions.⁶ Further criticism of the autobiographical approach was launched by Piazzoni, who dismissed the question of a personal relationship as unsuitable for the historiographer.⁷ In consequence, perhaps, the brief study of the letters made in 1986 by Torrell and Bouthillier draws attention to the problem of ‘penetrating the rhetorical veil’.⁸ More recently, Bredero has also strongly espoused this position.⁹ In spite of this, however, the autobiographical tendency has continued to make its presence felt,¹⁰ to the extent that casual references to the ‘friendship’ often appear in scholarly studies.¹¹

The recognition that these letters cannot be treated as straightforward factual documents is an important one, which has wider consequences: just as they cannot be seen as giving transparent information about the personal relationship of Peter and Bernard, so they cannot be used to give transparent information about the relationship between Cistercians and Cluniacs. The point has been made explicitly by Constable in relation to the polemical literature of the period, which he argues presents a ‘genuine but partial and distorted picture of the realities as the writers saw them’.¹² On the other hand, the minimalist approach which has been applied more recently brings its own problems. The discussion by Bredero, for example, appears to privilege a reconstruction of the historical contexts of the letters above a study of the letters themselves.¹³ His characterisation of the rhetoric as ‘high-pitched attestations of ... mutual friendship’,¹⁴ appears to miss the point that rhetoric is both a tool of manipulation and itself subject to manipulation. To dismiss it as empty verbiage is to risk divorcing the language from the content, the message from the medium.

As suggested earlier, the problems raised by the treatment of these letters can be related to a more general question of generic definition. This seems to encompass various aspects: what are the defining characteristics of a letter; what, if any, clear demarcation can be drawn between ‘real’ and ‘non-real’ letters; what critical framework(s) can be applied, with what sorts of structural and stylistic criteria? An influential attempt to deal with these issues was made by Deissman at the turn of the century. In a number of biblical studies he invoked a distinction between the ‘letter’ and the ‘epistle’. In essence, letters were said to be private and natural; epistles to be public and conventional. ‘Literary’ letters were thereby relegated to the category of ‘non-real’ letters, on the grounds that they were concerned with artistry rather than with direct communication.¹⁵ This rigid demarcation was challenged by Doty in 1969, who argued for a more flexible and inclusive definition to cover all forms of epistolary writing, and for a consequent degree of blurring of the polarities of private/public, natural/conventional.¹⁶

Doty defines the letter as a literary product, intended for a private or public reader/s. Letter form is said to be distinguished by being sent or intended for sending, from a writer or from writers to an addressee or addressees, containing greetings, conclusion, or other formally stylised components, usually with reference to or clear intent to be a letter.¹⁷ Central to Doty’s discussion is the identification of the epistolary situation, the desire of the writer to communicate with someone distant in space or time:¹⁸ as Doty seems to imply,¹⁹ the recognition of this is perhaps already inherent in ancient definitions of the letter as a substitute for dialogue.²⁰ This facilitates a further blurring, that of the boundary between ‘real’ and ‘non-real’ letters. Fictitious letters can be seen to imitate the epistolary situation, and thus to be differentiated only from real letters by the absence of Doty’s first category, that of being sent or intended for sending. His redefinition clears the air for a much broader approach to the whole question of letter-writing and provides a working hypothesis for the first two issues raised above. There remains the problem, however, of developing an appropriate critical framework.

The formal model applied to medieval epistolography is generally based on the rules of the dictamen, art of prose-writing, as laid down by various letter-writing manuals.²¹ These set down a standard five-part format for a letter comprising salutation (salutatio), securing of good-will (benevolentiae captatio), exposition (narratio), petition (petitio), conclusion (conclusio). The earliest surviving exampl...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Letter-writing and Friendship Reconsidered
• 2 Sanctity and Rebuke: the Relationship between Bernard's Apologia and Peter's Letter 28
• 3 The Proof of Caritas: Peter, Letter 65, Bernard, Ep. 147
• 4 Fraudulent Alms and Monstrous Election: Peter, Letter 29
• 5 Reproach, Iocus and Debate: Bernard, Ep. 228; Peter, Letter 111
• 6 The Salt of Caritas: Letter 111 Continued
• 7 Bitterness and Sweetness: Bernard, Ep. 387; Peter, Letter 149
• 8 Salvation, Damnation and Cohabitatio: Peter, Letter 150
• 9 A New Crusade: Bernard, Ep. 364; Peter, Letter 164
• 10 Duplicity or Simplicity: Peter, Letters 175 and 181; Bernard, Ep, 265
• 11 An Epistolary Closure: Peter, Letter 192
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index