Coda: Learning from Twice Told Tales

Summary

The monastic stories of Saint Peter’s, Saint-Denis, and Christ Church were selective constructions, contingent on present needs, and particular to each place. In each case, I traced how and why these stories crystallized in writing when they did, even if temporarily. At Saint Peter's in the mid-1030s, the new abbot, Wichard, a long-serving brother, was attempting to acquire (re)confirmations of his house's privileges. The political terrain of Ghent, on the border of the Empire and France, demanded confirmation by two kings, as well as the local lord, the count of Flanders. This situation was further complicated by rivals, the monks of Saint Bavo, who had contested local sacred and commercial space for nearly a century. Saint Peter's story is the clearest of the three under consideration because we have a mostly complete, perhaps autograph, manuscript containing narrative elements, guiding rubrics, and an elaborate chronological framework, allowing for direct reconstruction of its content, composition, and purposes. The story of Saint-Denis is less obvious because its dossier was a series of charter copies to support oral arguments and contained no narrative elements. Still, because it was composed for a particular occasion – rebutting the bishop of Paris’ arguments at the Lateran Synod of 1065 – its main purpose, and thus its story, can still be understood. In the case of Christ Church, Canterbury, a story must be deduced from three later copies of a now-lost manuscript, which contained a mixture of documents and rubrics with no narrative elements. Reconstructing its content is challenging and, inevitably, its story is more speculative. Still, the rich outpouring of texts from post-Conquest Canterbury allows some understanding of its goals.

None of these three monastic stories remained unchanged or unchallenged for long. Medieval monks were constantly rewriting their pasts. In each case, one finds a distinct monastic view of the past at a particular juncture in time. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable – if difficult – to study fleeting historical phenomena. Even so, these stories (or parts of them) were useful enough to provoke sequels. However, these three monastic stories also share features, despite having been composed at different places and times.