No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Marginalia on the Norman Anonymous
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Extract
Some years ago, while preparing for one of John Mundy's medieval seminars at Columbia University and leafing through the pages of the Norman Anonymous, I was surprised to find myself reading a passage which I had read a short time earlier in an equally anonymous Pelagian work of the fifth century. While I found it a little disturbing to discover so pronounced an Augustinian as the Norman Anonymous silently borrowing material from a Pelagian source, there was nothing distinctively Pelagian about the passage itself, and I did not think the discovery important enough to deserve publication. I now feel that I was mistaken. I have recently found the latest editor of the Norman Anonymous, Karl Pellens, supporting his “pedagogic theory” of the purpose of the C.C.C. 415 tractates with the passage in question and, on looking closer, find that it has led others astray as well.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1973
References
1 The passage is on pp. 55–57 of Pellens', Karl edition of the tractates: Die Texte des Normannischen Anonymus (Wiesbaden, 1966).Google Scholar It occurs in tractate J9 (to use the way of designating the tractates of Corpus Christi College codex 415 adopted by George Williams), beginning with the words “Dominus et salvator noster suo nos tam verbo docuit quam exemplo” and closing with the words “si expedit crudelitatis professione vivamus.” The Pelagian work De divitiis from which it was taken was first edited by Iacobus Salvator Solanius, Sancti Sixti tertii pontificis maximi liber de divitiis (Rome, 1571), was printed in the various editions of Marguerin de la Bigne's Bibliotheca Patrum, and re-edited from the same manuscript used by Solanius by Caspari, C. P., Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums (Christiania, 1890).Google Scholar It has since been attributed to Pelagius himself and has therefore been reprinted in Hamman's, A. supplement to Migne, vol. 1 (Paris, 1958), cols. 1380–1418.Google Scholar The passage borrowed by the Anonymous is on cols. 1384–1387.
2 Pellens, 56, n. 1. His argument is based on the fact that the author addresses an opponent in the second person, a rhetorical device which is copied in the rest of J9. Pellens argues, “Diese gewollte Häufung [of second person pronouns] kann wohl nur als rhetorisch-pädagogische Anrede an Hörer und Schüler verstanden werden.” This, I think, would be a very debatable argument even if the passage were the creation of the Norman Anonymous.
3 The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D. (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), 83.Google Scholar
4 Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Anonymus von York (Würzburg-Aumühle, 1940), 54, n. 63.Google Scholar
5 The passage is to be found on pp. 18–20 of Pellens' edition. It is taken from St. Ambrose's Expositio evangelii secundum Lucan, X, 87–94, ed C. Schenkl, CSEL 32, 488–91, beginning “Cum de homine negat, in filium peccavit hominis” and ending “solvi se magis auctoris scelere quam teneri.” For St. Augustine's use of part of it against Pelagius see his De gratia Christi, 45, PL 44, 382. The passage once excited a good deal of adverse comment for its denying that Peter had sinned against the divine nature in Christ. Cf. the remarks of Jerome, Augustine, and Bede mentioned by Schenkl on pp. xvi-xvii of his introduction.
6 Sic et non, c. 25; Abelard's ascribing the other passage to Maximus helps confirm, incidentally, the arguments for ascribing it to Maximus rather than Ambrose given by Bruni when he edited the homily among the works of Maximus (cf. PL 57, 349–50).
The portion quoted by Abelard does not include Ambrose's defense of Peter's denial as being against only the human in Christ but not against the divine. Abelard's interest was in the passages in which Ambrose had underscored the fact that after denying Christ Peter had wept but had made no confessio oris or satisfactio—facts anachronistically taken in the twelfth century to argue that auricular confession was not a necessary part of the sacrament of penance.
7 Cf. Abaelardi, PetriOpera, ed. Cousin, V., 1 (Paris 1859), 633ff.Google Scholar
8 Lombardi, PetriLibri IV Sententiarum, 2 (ad Claras Aquas prope Florentiam, 1916), 849 (Lib. 4, dist. 17).Google Scholar
9 The Norman Anonymous, 153, n. 515. Pellens, unfortunately, fails to separate J3–1 from J3–11.
10 I should also mention here that the work referred to by J11 (ed. Pellens, 82) “Hinc de beato Ambrosio scriptum est, quod Rome positus ieiunabat, Mediolani non ieiunabat”—for which Böhmer searched in vain—is either Augustine's epistola 36, c. 32 or his epistola 54, c. 2 (PL 33, 151 and 201). The first of these was also quoted by Amalarius of Metz in his De ecclesiasticis officiis, 4, 37, PL 105, 1231. The dependence of the Anonymous on Augustine's epp. 36 and/or 54 is also pointed out by Roger E. Reynolds, The Unidentified Sources of the Norman Anonymous: C.C.C.C. Ms. 415, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, V, 2 (1970), 124.Google Scholar Professor Reynolds has very kindly called my attention to the fact that Amalarius' De ecclesiasticis officiis was well known in the Rouen area; cf. Delamare, R., Le De officiis ecclesiasticis de Jean d'Avranches (Paris, 1923)Google Scholar, Index bibliographique s.v. Amalaire, , and Nortier, Genevieve, Les bibliothèques médiévales des abbayes Bénédictines de Normandie (Paris, 1971)Google Scholar, under “Amalaire” in the Liste des oeuvres ayant figuré dans les bibliothèques étudiées.
11 J4 was first published by Böhmer under the title Apologia Archiepiscopi Rotomagensis in MGH, Libelli de lite, 3, 656–62. It is on pp. 35–45 of Pellens' edition.
12 Cf. Böhmer, Heinrich, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und XII. Jahrhundert (henceforward KuS) (Leipzig, 1899), 186–89.Google Scholar
13 Böhmer in Libelli 3, 656, citing Gregory's Registrum, 9, 1.
14 Cf. Pellens, 39: “Videamus, cur Rothomagensis archiepiscopus a Romano pontifice de inobedientia causetur. Quia, inquit, non recipit Viennensem archiepiscopum sicut magistrum.” That “Viennensem” is no mere slip of the pen is indicated by the fact that the tractate twice more so names the disobeyed archbishop.
15 The reference is to W. Gundach's Der Streit der Bisthümer Arles und Vienne, in the fifteenth volume of Neues Archiv.
16 Pellens, 15; KuS, 446.
17 KuS, 186.
18 Mansi, 20, 828–29.
19 KuS, 186–89.
20 Ibid., 263.
21 J29, printed by Böhmer in KuS, 478–81 (Pellens, 228–30). Cf. Williams, 62ff., who argues plausibly that the Anonymous does not write as he would have if he had been immediately involved in the controversy between Gerard of York and Anselm of Canterbury.
22 Cf. Williams, 125, and Scherrinsky, Harald, Untersuchungen sum sogenannten Anonymus von York (Würzburg-Aumühle, 1940), 123Google Scholar, who concludes that it would be “methodisch sicherer, von einem Anonymus von Rouen zu sprechen.” I am aware that, strictly speaking, it is no impossible to retain Böhmer's York thesis even if J4 is assigned to the early years of Paschal II, since Gerard or (as Böhmer later argued) one of his “Vertrauten” from Rouen could have retained in York an interest in the prerogatives of Rouen archbishops—or, for that matter, could have written in defence of Rouen even if he had never had any institutional connection with Rouen at all. By far the greater weight of evidence, however, points to our author's having Yorkist sympathies at Rouen than vice versa.
23 KuS, 187 and 291. In the latter place he dates Guy's appointment as legate to 1101. As Tillman has pointed out, however, Guy was so named in the preceding year; cf. Tillmann, Helene, Die päpstlichen Legaten in England bis zur Beendigung der Legation Gualas (1218), Bonn dissertation (Bonn, 1926), 22.Google Scholar There is no record of the reason for William's suspension at this time, our only information on it being Eadmer's statement: “Suspensus autem fuerat ab officio episcopali jam olim Willelmus archiepiscopus” (Historia Novorum, ed. Rule, Martin [London, 1884], Rolls Series 81, 177)Google Scholar and papal letters concerning its termination to Anselm and to William himself (PL 163, 186 and 188). Concerning Guy's position as legate we have Eadmer's statement: “Eodem anno [1101] venit in Angliam Guido, archiepiscopus Viennensis, functurus, ut dicebat, legatione totius Britanniae … Sicut venit ita reversus est, a nemine pro legato susceptus, nec in aliquo legati officio functus” (Ibid., 126). Cf. William, of Malmesbury, De gestis pontificum Anglorum, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A. (London, 1870), Rolls Series 52, 128 (I, 68)Google Scholar: “In principio regni Henrici venerat Angliam ad exercendam legationem Guido Viennensis archiepiscopus, qui postea fuit apostolicus.” These are the only references to Guy as legate in the period prior to 1106, aside from his designation as legate in a document dated between 1101 and 1105 (cf. Chevalier, Cyr-Ulysse, Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint-André-le-Bas de Vienne [Lyon, 1869], 279).Google Scholar Cf. Schieffer, Theodor, Die päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich, Historische Studien 263 (Berlin, 1935), 196Google Scholar: “für die wirkliche Ausübung einer Legatur finden sich keine Spuren.”
24 Pellens, 40: “eum adeo gravant et opprimunt, ut eundi Romam et conciliis suam exhibendi presentiam necessitatem cotidie imponant.”
25 These are the councils of Vienne and Anse; cf. Mansi, 21, 73–78 and 78–84, and Hefele-Leclercq, vol. 5, pt. 1, 534–37.
26 Cf. Ivo of Chartres' letter to Josseran in Libelli, 2, 649–54.
27 Three years later Geoffrey and his suffragans were excommunicated by the papal legate Cardinal-bishop Cono of Palestrina for refusing to appear at councils excommunicating Henry V to which they had thrice been summoned. See William of Malmesbury, De gestis pontificutn, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A. (Cambridge, 1870), 129Google Scholar: “Cono legatus in Gallia omnes episcopos et abbates Normanniae suspensionis nota implicuit, quod tertio vocati ad concilia sua non venerant,” Cf. Eadmer, Historia Novorum (p. 234 in Martin Rule's 1884 edition in vol. 81 of the Rolls Series): “Quidam Romanae ecclesiae cardinalis, functus legatione apostolicae sedis, Cono nomine, Franciam venerat, et ibi juxta suae legationis officia generalia concilia celebrans episcopos Normanniae ab episcopali officio suspensos excommunicavit, eo quod conciliis suis tertio vocati interesse noluerant.” The councils in question are probably the three held by Cono in 1115 to excommunicate Henry V; see Mansi, 21, 121 (Beauvais), 127 (Soissons), and 129 (Reims). Florence of Worcester says that Cono excommunicated bishops and abbots who failed to attend his last 1115 council, that of Chalons-sur-Marne, and this may well be the excommunication referred to by William, and Eadmer, ; cf. his Chronicon, ed. Thorpe, Benjamin (London, 1848–1849), vol. 2, 68Google Scholar: “Magnum concilium a Cono, Romanae ecclesiae cardinali Catalaunis celebratum est, in quo excommunicavit episcopos qui consilio non interfuere.” The excommunication of the bishops of Normandy is also referred to by Ivo of Chartres, in a letter to Cono asking that an exception be made in the case of the bishop of Bayeux: ep. 273, PL 162, 275–76, pleading that “sub alieno enim jure tanquam sub torculari positus dolet et gemit se nihil plus posse quam permittitur.” Henry II's refusal to recognize the jurisdiction of papal legates over his churches and his preventing the clergy (including the archbishops of Canterbury, York, and Rouen) from making the voyage ad limina apostolorum also brought him an angry letter from Paschal II (dated 1 April, 1115) asking, “Quomodo ergo vel agnos vel oves pascere possimus quos neque novimus nee videmus?” and threatening Henry and the English bishops with excommunication “si adhuc in vestra decernitis obstinacia permanere” (quoted by Eadmer, op. cit., 233). Because of the fragmentary nature of Rouen records for this period little is known of the pontificate of Geoffrey the Breton; cf. J. F. POMMERAYE, Histoire des archevesques de Rouen (Rouen, 1667), 301–12 and Gallia Christiana, 11, 41–43. Geoffrey's name is a frequent one in royal documents, both in Normandy and in England; cf. the index to Johnson, C. and Cronne, H. A., Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 1066–1154, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1956).Google Scholar
28 Epist. 254, PL 162, 259–60.
29 Cf. his letter to Hugh of Lyon in Libelli 2, 640–47.
30 This was the contention of the first canon of Guy's Council of Vienne (Mansi 21, 73). The bishops of the province of Sens, in a letter penned by Ivo justifying their refusal to go to Anse, expressed their fears that this subject would be discussed there (Ibid., col. 79 and Libelli 2, 647–54). Cf. Hefele, loc. cit., “Les français regardaient comme absolument nécessaire que l'investiture des laïques fût déclarée une hérésie et qu'on lançât l'excommunication solennelle contre Henri.”
31 Cf. Ivo's letter cited in the preceding note, 653–54.
32 Cf. Böhmer, KuS, 233, who says of the passages where the Anonymous treats investiture as a purely temporal act that this “scheint geradezu wie ein entlehnter Gedanke aus einem anderen, nicht klar begriffenen oder absichtlich nicht konsequent verwerteten, Lösungsversuch.” Böhmer goes on to argue that the Anonymous' source was Ivo's 1097 letter to Hugh of Lyon, a supposition which is supported by the fact that the Anonymous quotes a passage of that letter verbatim in J28 (Pellens, 219–20).
33 Mansi, 21, 79; Libelli, 2, 650. Cf. the Defensio Paschalis Papae, Libelli, 2, 655: “Habemus fundamentum tocius aecclesiae, quod, cum ad vocem mulieris magistrum veritatis negaverit et eum se non nosse iuraverit, flendo et penitendo pristinam gratiam et claves regni celorum recipere meruit.”
34 1 should make clear here, however, that I am far from believing that all the tracts date from Geoffrey's time. For those dealing with Fécamp, for instance, Böhmer's dating to the early 1090's still seems the most likely solution (cf. KuS, 183).
35 My sources for this and for what follows are William Hunt's article on Thurstin in the Dictionary of National Biography and M. Düball, Der Suprematstreit zwischen den Erzdiözesen Canterbury und York 1070–1126, Ebering's, Historische Studien 184 (Berlin, 1929), 68ff.Google Scholar
36 That J29II was composed by the author of J28 is made probable by the fact that J29II cites the same string of canons which J28 cites from Ivo's 1097 letter (cf. above, p. 281, n. 32). Ruth Nineham has also suggested that Thurstin's contacts with Rouen and Geoffrey were connected with J29II; cf. her The So-called Anonymous of York, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963), 34.Google Scholar
37 On this tract and on the similarities of its arguments to those in some of Gregory VII'S letters see Williams, George H., The Golden Priesthood and the Leaden State, Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957), 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, XII, 3, PL 188, 855. Cf. Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, 5, 1, 567.
39 Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, XII, 9, PL 188, 877. The other archbishop who accompanied Calixtus to Mouzon was the archbishop of Reims.
40 Ibid., XII, 13, col. 887.
41 I am afraid that Geoffrey seems to have had only a very relative success in reforming the Norman church. Innocent II, in a letter to Geoffrey's successor, asserted that “in provincia Normanniae … multa mala, prout accepimus, pullulant, quae in aliis locis vel omnino non fuerunt, vel sunt desuetudine obumbrata” (Mansi, 21, 421). Innocent fails, however, to mention clerical concubinage in his list of evil customs afflicting the Norman church.
42 This is not to say that Böhmer was unaware of the connection of C.C.C. 415 with Rouen. Karl Hampe, who first drew attention to these tracts, had described them in 1897 as “Kirchenpolitische Tractate, grösstenteils in Rouen um 1100 entstanden”; see his Reise nach England vom Juli 1895 bis Februar 1896, III, Neues Archtv 22 (1897), 669.Google Scholar Böhmer also published J4 in Libelli, 3 under the title: Apologia Archiepiscopi Rotomagensis. Böhmer's choice of Gerard of York, in fact, seems to have been dictated largely by the fact that Gerard had been connected with both Rouen and York.
43 The fact that C.C.C. 415 contains an English coronation ordo means very little. As Williams and Nineham have shown, the text used is undoubtedly from Rouen. Another argument for a French origin of the tracts b their use of Ivo's argument that investiture with ring and crook conferred only temporal things. As Cantor has rightly emphasized, the English solution, which denied investiture to the king, was based on the opposite premise that it conferred spiritual things. Cf. Williams, 36–46; Nineham, 34–37; Cantor, Norman, Church, State and Lay Investiture in England, 1089–1135 (Princeton, 1958), 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 On Normandy during this period cf. Böhmer, KuS, 283; “Wie das Land in politischer Hinsicht seit 1106 nur mehr ein Nebenland der englischen Krone war. so wurde es in kirchlicher seitdem mehr und mehr eine Domäne Frankreichs.”
45 In this respect the Anonymous inevitably reminds one of a North Italian borderlander, the ultra-imperialist Benzo of Alba, who is fully as imaginative in his imperialism as is the Anonymous of Rouen in his royalism.
46 Opusc. 35, De picturis principum apostolorum, PL 145, 589–96. For the place of this work in Damiani's thought see my Damiani and the Radicals (Columbia University dissertation, 1966), 112–14.Google Scholar
47 PL 145, 594A. Damiani's first editor, Caietanus, inserted after these words a warning: “Vide scholia ad calcem opusculi,” and, in the note referred to, attempted to explain away Damiani's giving to Paul the role more commonly given to Peter (Ibid., 595–96).
48 J23, KuS, 477, Pellens, 128; J4, Libelli 3, 659–60, Pellens, 42–43; J12, KuS, 457–62, Pellens, 84–90. Cf. Williams, 82f., who also suggests that the Anonymous was acquainted with De Picturis but does not connect the Jerusalem theme with it.
49 I take the conjectural identification of the hand as that of one of Parker's secretaries from Karl Hampe's description of C.C.C. 415 in the report mentioned earlier on p. 285, n. 42. Ruth Nineham is more cautious and ascribes it merely to a “sixteeth-century annotator”; cf. her Pellens', K. Edition of the Tracts of the Norman Anonymous, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, IV, 4 (1967), 309.Google Scholar