We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
In his fascinating paper, Professor Momigliano drew to our attention the degree to which the aristocracy of the late Roman Empire accepted within its religious ethos beliefs and practices which we would be inclined to label as ‘popular’. In doing so, he raised the recurrent problem of cultural diffusion. How far, in a given period, were intellectuals willing to accept as normative the piety of the simple faithful? Conversely, how far did the more critical attitudes of scholars influence popular devotion? These are permanent questions which we may ask of the history of the church, but perhaps the problem was never so acute as in the medieval church. Its intelligentsia (the humanists of the twelfth century, the philosophers of the thirteenth) had received a long and exacting formal education. The ordinary faithful, conversely, were illiterate, cut off, we might think, from the very sources of christian spirituality, for they could neither read the Scriptures nor follow the latin liturgy. Critics of the medieval church have been inclined to see two religions rather than one: a philosophical, indeed over-rational, religion of the intelligentsia, and a set of popular superstitions. A valuable piece of evidence in assessing the truth of this estimate is to be found in the first book of the treatise on The Relics of the Saints written in about 1120 by Guibert abbot of Nogent. Its significance lies, not only in the useful information which it contains about popular practice, but in the fact that it was an attempt to assess it, made by one of the more learned and attractive men of the time. Although Guibert made little direct impact on the history of the age, he was in close sympathy with many of the leaders of the twelfth-century Renaissance, and was a fine scholar in his own right.
page no 55 note 1 ‘Popular religious beliefs and the late Roman historians’, above, pp 1-18.
page no 55 note 2 de Pignoribus sanctorum, PL, CLVI, (1853) cols 607-80. The occasion for the treatise was the claim of Saint Médard to own one of Christ’s teeth, and therefore much of it is concerned with the doctrine of the body of Christ, the first book alone providing a discussion of popular religion. It is surprising that Guibert has not been more used as a source for the spirituality of his time; he appears only once in the excellent study by Leclercq, J., Vandenbroucke, F. and Bouyer, L., La Spiritualité du Moyen Age (Paris 1961)Google Scholar. The work is discussed by Monod, B., Le Moine Guibert et son temps (Paris 1905) pp 282ff Google Scholar, where the author claims with considerable justice, that ‘ cet ouvrage n’a point de similaires dans toute la littérature théologique du moyen âge’.
page no 56 note 1 He was taught for a time by Anselm of Bec, and knew personally Anselm of Laon. His ideas on interior religion are reminiscent of the new orders, among whom he particularly admired the Carthusians, while in other respects (such as his interest in autobiography and his concern with the doctrine of intention) he reminds one of his younger contemporary Abelard.
page no 56 note 2 For instance, the discovery of the Holy Lance encouraged the first Crusade at a critical moment in its fortunes (Gesta Francorum, ed R. Hill (London 1962) pp 59-60). The prosperity of northern France rested in part on the Lendit fair, a major commercial occasion which originated as a joint procession of the relics of Saint Denis and Notre Dame
page no 56 note 3 1, 2, col 621.
He instanced in particular the stringent tests which were applied before a martyr was recognised, and the Church’s unwillingness to proclaim the bodily assumption of our Lady, in spite of its obvious appropriateness, because there was no solid evidence. This last hesitation was only overcome in our own century. 1, 3, cols 623-4.
page no 57 note 1 1, 3, col 624.
page no 57 note 2 Ibid.
page no 57 note 3 ‘I swear to you that this is the body of Exupéry, but I will not swear to his sanctity, for many have that name who were in reality far from holiness.’ 1, 3, col 625.
page no 57 note 4 1, 4, col 627. Compare the views of Saint Bernard in his Apologia ad Guillelmum a few years later: ‘Money is spent, that it may be multiplied. It is expended to increase it.’ PL, CLXXXII (1854) col 915.
page no 57 note 5 1, 2, col 621.
page no 58 note 1 1, 4, col 630.
page no 58 note 2 Guibert was perhaps even more interested in intention than Abelard was, but his introduction of it at this point seems to collide with other parts of his argument, notably his exclusion of Donatists and Manichees from the title of martyr, and his anxiety lest secure faith be undermined by appealing to dubious saints. If an honest intention was all that was needed, historical reliability was perhaps not so important.
page no 58 note 3 See Forsyth, I. H., ‘Magi and Majesty. A study of Romanesque sculpture and liturgical drama’, Art Bulletin, L (New York 1968) pp 215-22Google Scholar.
page no 59 note 1 1, 2, col 617. The anecdote reveals a liking for tall stories which casts doubt on Guibert’s critical qualities; in his autobiography, he shows himself even more credulous. But he often cites his source, and the stories are not ones of the miraculous, but of visions and other manifestations which are not susceptible of historical tests.
page no 59 note 2 IV, 8, cols 678-9.
page no 59 note 3 1, 1, col 613.
page no 60 note 1 1, 3, col 623.
page no 60 note 2 Liber quo ordine sermo fieri debeat, attached as a preface to the Commentary on Genesis, cols 21-32, especially col 27.
page no 60 note 3 1, 2, col 619.
