Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:26:10.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘De Consideratione’ of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the Papacy in the Mid-Twelfth Century: A Review of Scholarship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Elizabeth Kennan
Elizabeth Kennan*
Affiliation:
Washington, D. C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

St. Bernard of Clairvaux is an unwilling enigma. No zealot in the Church's history has spoken more eloquently about right rule in the Church; none has been more fierce in his condemnation of the ecclesiastical truant. And yet, when this has been said, there remain the persistent questions of what Bernard actually conceived to be right rule in the Church, which truancy he would wholly exorcise and which merely prune. Oddly enough, in regard to his policies for reform, Bernard has become almost as well known among modern scholars for his ambiguities as for his doctrines. There now exists a rather bewildering garden of Bernardine studies from which a student can pluck an interpretation of his papal theory as Gregorian, anti-Gregorian, hierarchical, egalitarian, proto-Protestant, or any one of a variety of other hues. It will be the purpose of this paper to present the major interpretations of the De consideratione now extant and to attempt, where possible, to eliminate theories which are clearly specious, in the hope that future studies can proceed amicably and constructively.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 23 , 1967 , pp. 73 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vacandard, E., Vie de Saint Bernard (2 vols., Paris 1910); Williams, Watkin, St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Manchester 1935); Knowles, D., ‘St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090–1153,’ The Dublin Review 227 (1953) 104–121.Google Scholar

2 On changes in ecclesiastical policy, see Bloch, Herbert, ‘The Schism of Anacletus II and the Glanfeuil Forgeries of Peter the Deacon,’ Traditio 7 (1957) 159–264, and Klewitz, H. W., ‘Das Ende des Reformpapsttums,’ Deutsches Archiv 3 (1939) 371–442.Google Scholar

3 Haller, J., Das Papsttum II 1 (Stuttgart 1939); Fliche, A., La réforme Grégorienne I (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense: études et documents 6; Paris 1924); Tellenbach, Gerd, Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest (trans. Bennet, R. F., Oxford 1959).Google Scholar

4 Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London 1955) 262–272; Klewitz, H. W., ‘Die Entstehung des Kardinal-Kollegiums,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung (= ZRG Kan. Abt.) 56 (1936) 115–221.Google Scholar

5 Jordan, Karl, ‘Die Entstehung der römischen Kurie,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. (n. 4) 59 (1939) 96–152.Google Scholar

6 Saltman, Avrom, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury (London 1956), is especially helpful in showing how marked the degree of control from Rome was becoming in the mid-twelfth century. Although Anselm's spontaneous loyalty to the Holy See might convey a different impression, archbishops of Canterbury had had a large amount of personal control over ecclesiastical affairs in England prior to the 1130s. The pontificate of Innocent II, however, was determined to create a precedent for Roman authority and Theobald's precedence over his fellow bishops was made to rest largely on his repeated designation as papal legate. Decisions at his court, too, were regularly reviewed and not infrequently overturned in Rome.Google Scholar

That papal control was advanced with increasing insistence in the third and fourth decades of the twelfth century is affirmed by Haller, , Das Papsttum II 2 (Stuttgart 1939) 5, and Jordan, , op. cit. (n. 5 above) 148. The latter asserts that it was in the time of Innocent II that concerted attempts were made to bring all causae maiores before the Curia.Google Scholar

7 Scholars are far from agreed in their interpretation of the grounds upon which such superiority over the world could be claimed and the extent to which it was so claimed by the mid-twelfth century. Jean Rivière has suggested that at this time the notion was closely dependent upon the pope's responsibility to answer for the whole world on the day of judgment. This awesome task imposed upon him the corollary of overseeing the affairs of the world in the present, insofar as they touched moral issues. This would give the pope no direct political power, but would allow him to interfere indirectly in political affairs, on the grounds of morality. Rivière is careful to make it clear that this is a very real political power, even though it is termed ‘indirect’ and, indeed, led to an assertion of direct political power in later years.Google Scholar

Henri de Lubac has attempted to abolish any distinction between ‘indirect’ and ‘direct’ power when referring to the papal claims. Even if the pope should depose a king for ‘moral’ reasons, he deposes him nonetheless, and this is a direct application of real political power. By claiming even a moral right to initiate such actions, Gregory VII was claiming real control over the secular world.Google Scholar

Both Rivière and de Lubac saw the source of papal power in the secular world at this time as stemming from some sense of moral obligation for its welfare. Otto Gierke, on the other hand, has constructed a justification of the same phenomenon from political theory which he believes was already relevant to the situation by 1150. The emperor and other rulers, according to Gierke, derive their offices only mediately from God, but immediately from the pope (or other bishop) through the act of coronation. The pope, in this sense is God's vicegerent. Moreover, of the two types of authority, episcopal and secular, only the former is of eternal duration. The latter will be abolished as a matter of course, when God's plan for the world is realized. Thus, the temporal power is inferior to the ecclesiastical both in origin and destiny, and by virtue of its greater prominence, the chief ecclesiastical office can interfere, willy nilly, in the proceedings of the secular office.Google Scholar

Again using political analysis, Gerhart Ladner has traced the development of the thought on Church and State throughout the reform period. He argues that the popes gradually considered kings less and less as functionaries of the Church and more as leaders of peoples and holders of territories alone. They tried to make the emperor's protection of the Roman Church exclusively a matter of duty — not at all one of right — thereby eliminating all imperial claims to control it. Repeatedly, popes attempted to tie secular rulers to them by special ties, such as those of vassaldom, which would demonstrate papal superiority without raising doctrinal questions. Ladner sees this theory well developed in the work of John of Salisbury, but he does not claim that it had anything like universal acceptance even in ecclesiastical circles by 1150.Google Scholar

Indeed, , Carlyle, A. J. has vigorously rejected the notion that ecclesiastical theorists attributed de jure authority to the Church over the State, at least prior to the mid-twelfth century. By extensive quotation from works of the period, he has demonstrated considerable ambivalence on the part of clerics in dealing with this problem. He admits that some of Bernard's contemporaries allowed for the possibility of ecclesiastical interference into lay affairs in cases of extreme moral laxity, but he argues that this was viewed as a crisis situation, and not as a justification for regular exercise of political power per se. Google Scholar

The problem of St. Bernard's attitude in relation to the Church-State question will be dealt with below. For more general discussion of the problem, see: Rivière, Jean, Le problème de l‘Église et de l’État au temps de Philippe le Bel (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 8; Louvain 1926) 13–27; de Lubac, Henri, ‘Le pouvoir de l'Église en matière temporelle,’ Revue des sciences religieuses 12 (1932) 329–354; Gierke, Otto, Political Theories of the Middle Ages (trans, by Maitland, F. W., 2nd ed. rev., Cambridge 1951); Carlyle, R. W., The Theories of the Relation of the Empire and the Papacy from the Tenth Century to the Thirteenth (Carlyle, R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., History of Medieval Political Thought in the West IV; London 1922); Carlyle, A. J., ‘The Development of the Theory of the Authority of the Spiritual over the Temporal Power from Gregory VII to Innocent III,’ Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 5 (1923) 33–44; Ladner, Gerhart B., ‘Aspects of Medieval Thought on Church and State,’ Review of Politics 9 (1947) 403–422.Google Scholar

8 Fliche, Augustin, ‘L'influence de Grégoire VII et des idées Grégoriennes sur la pensée de Saint Bernard,’ Saint Bernard et son temps (ed. Association Bourguignonne des Sociétés Savantes, Congrès de 1927, Dijon 1927) 137–150; Fliche, A., ‘Bernard et la société civile de son temps,’ Bernard de Clairvaux (ed. Commission d'Histoire de l'Ordre de Cîteaux, d'Aiguebelle, Abbaye N. D., Paris 1953) 355–378; Fliche, A., Foreville, R., Rousset, J., Du premier concile du Latran à l'avènement d'Innocent III (1123–1198) (Fliche, A., Martin, D., Histoire de l' Église IX. 1; Paris 1948) 13–41. See also Villaret, Paul, ‘Les principes de l'activité de Saint Bernard,’ Bernard de Clairvaux (cit. n. 8 supra), and Williams, Watkin, op. cit., (n. 1 above) 241–262, who base their analysis upon Fliche.Google Scholar

9 Fliche, A., ‘L'influence de Grégoire VII…,’ op. cit. (n. 8 above) 137–150.Google Scholar

10 Ibid. 138.Google Scholar

11 Bernard, , Ep. 131 (PL 182. 286–87): ‘Plenitudo siquidem potestatis super universas orbis Ecclesias, singulari praerogativa apostolicae Sedi donata est. Qui igitur huic potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit. Potest, si utile judicaverit, novos ordinare episcopatus, ubi hactenus non fuerunt. Potest eos qui sunt, alios deprimere, alios sublimare, prout ratio sibi dictaverit, ita ut de episcopis creare archiepiscopos liceat, et e converso, si necesse visum fuerit. Potest a finibus terrae sublimes quascunque personas ecclesiasticas evocare, et cogere ad suam praesentiam, non semel aut bis, sed quoties expedire videbitur. Porro in promptu est ei omnem ulcisci inobedientiam si quis forte reluctari conatus fuerit.’ Google Scholar

12 Fliche, A., ‘L'influence de Grégoire VII…,’ op. cit. (n. 8 above) 140–41.Google Scholar

13 Bernard, , Ep. 244 (PL 182. 440–41): ‘Certainly kingship and priesthood could not have been joined together more sweetly or more lovingly or more closely than that the both equally came together in the person of the Lord, since He was made for us according to the flesh from each tribe, being both chief Priest and King. This was not all, however, but nonetheless He mixed these and joined them in his body, which is the Christian people, He himself being their head … .’ ‘Nec dulcius, nec amicabilius, sed nec arctius omnino regnum sacerdotiumque conjungi seu complantari in invicem potuerunt, quam ut in persona Domini ambo haec pariter convenirent; utpote qui factus est nobis ex utraque tribu secundum carnem summus et Sacerdos, et Rex. Non solum autem, sed et commiscuit ea nihilominus ac confoederavit in suo corpore quod est populus christianus, ipse caput illius… .’ Google Scholar

14 Bernard, , Ep. 225 (PL 182. 462); Fliche, A., ‘L'influence de Grégoire VII …,’ op. cit. (n. 8 above) 144: ‘Regna terrae et jura regnorum tunc sane sana suis dominis atque illaesa persistunt, si divinis ordinationibus ac dispositionibus non resistunt.’ Google Scholar

15 Bernard, Ep. 256 (PL 182. 463–64): ‘Exserendus est nunc uterque gladius in passione Domini, Christo denuo patiente, ubi et altera vice passus est. Per quam autem nisi per vos? Petri uterque est: alter suo nutu, alter sua manu, quoties necesse est evaginandus. Et quidem de quo minus videbatur, de ipso ad Petrum dictum est: “Converte gladium tuum in vaginam.” Ergo suus erat et ille; sed non sua manu utique educendus.’ Google Scholar

16 Bernard, , Consid. 4.3 (PL 182. 776; or Leclercq, J. and Rochais, H. M., ed., S. Bernardi Opera 3: Tractatus et opuscula [Rome 1963[454 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Leclercq’]): ‘Quid tu denuo usurpare gladium tentes, quem semel iussus es ponere in vaginam? Quem tamen qui tuum negat, non satis mihi videtur attendere verbum Domini dicentis sic: “Converte gladium tuum in vaginam.” Tuus ergo et ipse, tuo forsitan nutu, etsi non tua manu, evaginandus. Alioquin, si nullo modo ad te pertineret et is, Apostolis dicentibus: “Ecce duo gladii hic,” non respondisset Dominus: “Satis est,” sed “Nimis est.” Uterque ergo Ecclesiae, et spiritualis scilicet gladius, et materialis; sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille vero ab Ecclesia exserendus est. Ille sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sane ad nutum sacerdotis et jussum imperatoris.’ Google Scholar

17 Fliche, A., ‘Bernard et la société civile…,’ op. cit. (n. 8 above) 355–57: ‘En d'autres termes, la politique obéit aux lois de la morale chrétienne et c'est cette morale que l'homme de Dieu, suivant les circonstances, qu'il soit pape, évêque ou simple moine, a qualité pour rappeler à tous les laïcs, si haut placés qu'ils soient, lorsqu'elle vient à être violée.’ Google Scholar

18 de Lubac, Henri, op. cit. (n. 7 above) 334.Google Scholar

19 Williams elaborates on this position. He notes that Bernard speaks of the pope as one called by duty ‘to direct princes… and to dispose of kingdoms and of empires.’ However, he suggests that to Bernard this secular responsibility was secondary and almost incidental. ‘There are then two swords, one spiritual, the other material. The pope controls the use of both; he uses the former himself in administering the discipline of the Church … the latter he entrusts to secular authorities to be used in his behalf and at his discretion… . The pope was not essentially, but only accidentally a secular prince at all…’ Williams, , op. cit. (n. 1 above) 257, 260.Google Scholar

20 Fliche, A., ‘L'influence de Grégoire VII…,’ op. cit. (n. 8 above) 142.Google Scholar

21 Fliche, , Foreville, , Rousset, , op. cit. (n. 8 above) 37.Google Scholar

22 Ullmann, Walter, op. cit. (n. 4 above) 262.Google Scholar

23 Ibid. 271.Google Scholar

24 Ibid. 271.Google Scholar

25 Ibid. 272.Google Scholar

26 Ibid . 426–37.Google Scholar

27 Ibid. 427. Evidence for this assertion is taken from Consid. 2.7 (PL 182. 752; Leclercq 3. 424): ‘Ergo juxta canones tuos alii in partem sollicitudinis, tu in plenitudinem potestatis vocatus es. Aliorum potestas certis arcatur limitibus, tua extenditur et in ipsos qui potestatem super alios acceperunt.’ Google Scholar

28 See above, p. 77.Google Scholar

29 Ullmann, , op. cit. (n. 4 above) 428.Google Scholar

30 Ibid. 429.Google Scholar

31 Ibid. 428.Google Scholar

32 Ibid. 429. See also Maccarrone, Michele, ‘Il papa “vicarius Christi,”’ Miscellanea Pio Paschini (2 vols.; Rome 1949) 429–500. Id., ‘Vicarius Christi: Storia del titolo papale,’ Lateranum, N. S. 18. 1–4 (Rome 1952) 85–103. Maccarrone notes that St. Bernard uses the term vicarius Christi twice directly and once indirectly to refer to the pope. He continues to use the older term, vicarius Petri, to describe the pope, but gives vicarius Christi greater importance. Interestingly, he also continues the traditional use of vicarius Christi in referring to lesser bishops, thereby showing that the formula was not a hardened one for him. The two direct references to the pope as vicarius Christi occur in the De consideratione 2.8 (PL 182. 752; Leclercq 3. 424): ‘Mare enim saeculum est, naves ecclesia. Inde est quod altera vice instar Domini gradiens super aquas, unicum se Christi vicarium designavit, qui non uni populo, sed cunctis praeesse deberet‘; 4.7 (PL 182. 788B; Leclercq 3. 466): 'De caetero oportere te esse considera formam iustitiae, sanctimoniae speculum, pietatis exemplar… vicarium Christi, Christum Domini.’ Google Scholar

Maccarrone interprets Bernard's use of the term as one intended to heighten the importance of the pope in relation to other bishops. Thus, Bernard contributed to the evolution of the term by using it to enlarge the concept of papal primacy within the Church. Since his De consideratione was so widely read, his usage was important for the future of the formula. However, in distinct contrast to Ullmann, Maccarrone does not suggest that the term vicarius Christi as Bernard used it had any implications whatsoever for the relationship between the government of the world and that of the Church.Google Scholar

33 See above, p. 79.Google Scholar

34 Ullmann, , op. cit. (n. 4 above) 430–433.Google Scholar

35 Arquillière, H.-X., ‘Origines de la théorie des deux glaives,’ Studi Gregoriani 1 (1947) 501–521, makes a distinction between the papal possession of the two swords complementary to the Fliche view of limited and infrequent intervention. The pope possesses the spiritual sword ‘ad usum,’ to use; the temporal ‘ad nutum,’ to advise. His commission in the latter case is not one of direct power but only of supervision, ‘le pape a, en conséquence, le droit de les juger et s'ils trahissent leur mission essentielle, “ils doivent craindre alors,” dit saint Bernard, “que ce qu'ils paraissent avoir d'honneur et de pouvoir leur soit enlevé.”’ (Arquillière 506); cf. Bernard, , Ep. 139 (PL 182. 283). The pope, then, according to Arquillière and Fliche, will never legislate on temporal matters per se. Google Scholar

36 Support for this system is found by Ullmann in Bernard's use of the concept discretio, which he takes to mean the implementation of functional order. His reference is to the Sermo XLIX in Cant. (PL 183. 1018; Leclercq 2. 76): ‘Discretio quippe omni virtuti ordinem ponit: ordo modum tribuit et decorem… est ergo discretio non tam virtus quam quaedam moderatrix … tolle hanc et virtus vitium erit.’ Again, in the same sermon: ‘Dum sibi et assignato officio nemo contentus erit, sed omnes omnia indiscreta administratione pariter attentabunt, non plane unitas erit, sed magis confusio’ (1019).Google Scholar

It is difficult to see, however, how Ullmann reaches his conclusion from these passages. The quotations are from a sermon dealing with the soul's experience of divine mystery. It is an exegesis on the phrase, ‘introduxit me rex in cellam vinariam, ordinavit in me charitatem’ (Cant. 2.4). Bernard admonishes his audience that, once fired with zeal from religious experience, one's soul must be tempered by charity. He introduces the term discretio not in a political or administrative sense, but as a term of psychology: ‘Ubi ergo vehemens aemulatio, ibi maxime discretio est necessaria, quae est ordinatio charitatis.’ Experience would overwhelm the soul without discretio, which is ordo charitatis. In this sense, one would like to change the emphasis in reading the passage cited by Ullmann: ‘Discretio quippe omni virtuti ordinem ponit…’ etc.Google Scholar

It would seem that the functioning of the secular princedoms is not in the remotest way implied here.Google Scholar

37 Pacaut, Marcel, Le Théocratie, l'Église et le pouvoir au moyen-âge (Paris 1957) 114.Google Scholar

38 Pacaut, (op. cit. 111) is substantially in agreement with Ullmann on this point. He says, ‘S'il sépare les deux domaines c'est par besoin d'ordre et parce que l'Église n'a pas la possibilité de s'occuper de tout. Il s'agit tout au plus d'une méthode d'administration de la chrétienté, car ce qui appartient à César c'est seulement de diriger les hommes vers le salut en organisant la sphère qui lui est réservée donc d'aider l'Église dont il doit être le ministre, non le maître.’ Google Scholar

39 Pacaut, ( Ibid. 112) resents what he feels is the disproportionate stress on the allegory in Bernard's political theory. He complains, ‘Malheuresement, ce simple argument ne suffit pas pour établir un principe d'une telle importance. Il est une preuve des insuffisances de la doctrine de l'abbé de Clairvaux.’ Google Scholar

40 Ibid. 11; Bernard, , Ep. 119 (PL 182. 264–65).Google Scholar

41 Ibid. 113.Google Scholar

42 Ibid. 114.Google Scholar

43 Vacandard, E., op. cit. (n. 1 above) II 453–495.Google Scholar

44 Ibid. 491.Google Scholar

45 Ibid. 470–480.Google Scholar

46 Bernard, , Consid. 3. 1 (PL 182. 160; Leclercq 3. 434): ‘Your emissaries who have often visited the lands to the south know, and they can tell you. They go and come back again through the heretics' midst, or they pass them by, but what good they have done with them, we have yet to hear. Though perhaps we might have heard, if their salvation had not been spurned for Spanish gold.’ Google Scholar

47 Bernard, , Consid. 3. 2 (PL 182. 782; Leclercq 3. 436): ‘Cases are being appealed without justice and right, without orderliness and the customary forms. Neither place nor means nor time nor reason nor even person is distinguished … . In the old days, weren't the ones who willed evil terrified by these instruments of the highest power? Now they have become a greater terror themselves by means of them, and even to the good. The medicine has turned to poison. This change is not of the right hand of the Most High.’ Google Scholar

48 ‘Appellationes venationes’ (Bernard, , Consid. 3.2), which Vacandard renders as ‘la chasse aux appels est devenue une industrie’ (II 472).Google Scholar

49 Bernard, , Consid. 3. 4 (PL 182. 766; Leclercq 3. 442): ‘I speak of the groaning and complaints of the churches. They cry out that they are being amputated and dismembered … . Because abbots are taken out from under their bishops, bishops from their archbishops … . You have been placed to preserve for each the rank and order of his honor and dignity, not to prejudice them… .’ Google Scholar

50 Vacandard, , op. cit. (n. 1 above) II 488–89.Google Scholar

51 Greenaway, G. W., Arnold of Brescia (Cambridge 1931) 111–118; Rousset, Fliche-Foreville, op. cit. (n. 8 above) 88–90.Google Scholar

52 Greenaway, , ibid. 147 ff.Google Scholar

53 Bernard, , Consid. 4. 3 (PL 182. 777; Leclercq 3. 455): ‘Puto nec paenitebit exsilii, orbe pro Urbe commutato.’ Google Scholar

54 Vacandard, , op. cit. (n. 1 above) II 489.Google Scholar

55 Jordan, Edouard, ‘Dante et saint Bernard,’ Bulletin du Jubilé (ed. Comité Français Catholique pour la célébration du sixième centenaire de la mort de Dante Alighieri, Paris 1921) 267–330. See also Masseron, Alexandre, Dante et Saint Bernard (Paris 1953).Google Scholar

56 Bernard, Consid. 1. 6 (PL 182. 736; Leclercq 3. 402): ‘Quidni contemnant judicare de terrenis possessiunculis hominum, que in coelestibus et angelos judicabunt? Ergo in criminibus, non in possessionibus potestas vestra: quoniam propter illa et non propter has, accepistis claves regni coelorum, praevaricatores utique exclusuri, non possessores.’ Google Scholar

57 Jordan, , op. cit. (n. 55 above) 293, n. 1.Google Scholar

58 Ibid. 292.Google Scholar

59 Ibid. 299.Google Scholar

60 Ullmann, , op. cit. (n. 4 above) 311, 318.Google Scholar

61 Bernard, , Consid. 4. 3 (PL 182. 776; Leclercq 3. 453): ‘In his successisti non Petro sed Constantino. Consulo toleranda pro tempore, non affectanda pro debito.’ Google Scholar

62 Bernard, , Consid. 3. 1 (PL 182. 758–59; Leclercq 3. 431): ‘Eis tu successisti in hereditatem. Ita tu heres et orbis hereditas. At quatenus haec portio te contingit, aut contigerit illos, id sobria consideratione pensandum. Non enim per omnem reor modum, sed sane quodamtenus (ut mihi videtur) dispensatio tibi super illum credita est, non data possessio. Si pergis usurpare et hanc, contradicit tibi qui dicit “Meus est orbis terrae et plenitudo ejus.” Non tu ille de quo propheta, “erit omnis terra possessio ejus.” Christus hic est, qui possessionem sibi vindicat, et jure creationis … . Cui enim alteri dictum est, “Postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae.” Possessionem et dominium cede huic: tu curam illius habe. Pars tua haec: ultra ne extendas manum tuam.’ Google Scholar

63 Jordan, , op. cit. (n. 55 above) 311, 317.Google Scholar

64 See above p. 79.Google Scholar

65 Jordan, , op. cit. (n. 55 above) 312–13.Google Scholar

66 Ibid. 295, n. 2.Google Scholar

67 Masseron, Alexandre, in a more recent study of St. Bernard and Dante, has come to the same conclusions as Jordan concerning Bernard's political dualism and, indeed, drew heavily on the earlier article for his reasoning. He points to the passage in Book Three, ‘kings of the nations have dominion over them, but you [Eugenius] are not one of these,’ as Bernard's last word on papal pretensions to temporal power. He further suggests that in Letter 244 to Lothair, Bernard is denying the right of any pope — not just the schismatic Anacletus — to create a king of Sicily. Masseron, A., op. cit. (n. 55 above) 236–250.Google Scholar

68 De Vooght, P., ‘Du De consideratione de saint Bernard au De potestate papae de Wyclif,’ Irenikon 25 (1953) 114–132.Google Scholar

69 Ibid. 118.Google Scholar

70 Ibid. 117.Google Scholar

71 Ibid. 119.Google Scholar

72 Ibid. 120. Contrary to Jordan, De Vooght believes that a great deal can be known about Bernard's position on the Donation of Constantine from the tone of the passage in which he deals with it. This tone, which he describes as one of bitterness and accusation is sufficient to show that he condemns it utterly. Cf. Bernard, Consid. 4. 3 (PL 182. 776; Leclercq 3. 453), or see above, n. 62.Google Scholar

73 White, Hayden V., ‘The Gregorian Ideal and St. Bernard of Clairvaux,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (1960) 321–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 Klewitz, H. W., ‘Das Ende des Reformpapsttums’ (n. 2 supra) 371–412. The following is from Klewitz, passim. Google Scholar

75 White, , op. cit. (n. 73 above) 324.Google Scholar

76 Ibid. 332.Google Scholar

77 Ibid. 329–335.Google Scholar

78 White, , ‘Pontius of Cluny, the “Curia Romana” and the End of Gregorianism in Rome,’ Church History 28 (1958) 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 White, , op. cit. (n. 73 above) 335. White's construction of this letter seems somewhat extreme. It is true that the letter is an open condemnation of the practices at Cluny in the period before their reform by Peter the Venerable. However, its objection to the Curia is limited to a criticism of its judgment and procedure in the case of the extradition of Bernard's nephew to Cluny: ‘… judgment was made on a part [of the evidence] in the absence of the judged. Those who had done wrong were justified, those who had borne it were denied their case, the defendant was absolved without making satisfaction. This too clement sentence of absolution is confirmed by a cruel privilege by which, when it is reported back, the ill-advised stability and security of the hesitating, doubtful youth would be confirmed.’ (Bernard, , Ep. 1. 6 [PL 182. 73]) A bitter statement from the loser, but hardly an accusation that the Curia intended to undermine the entire Christian order.Google Scholar

Issue has also been taken with the assumption that the Gregorian reform was based on, and interacted with, the traditional Benedictine monasteries. See Cantor, Norman F., ‘The Crisis of Western Monasticism 1050–1130,’ American Historical Review 66 (October 1960) 47–67. The thesis presented here is that Gregory and his successors were part and parcel of the ascetic movement which inspired the foundation of Cîteaux, and were themselves opposed to the secularized habits and topheavy bureaucracy of Cluny.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 White, , ‘The Gregorian Ideal…,’ op. cit. (n. 73 above) 335: ‘At Étampes [he] imposed his solution on the Church.’ Our only source for Bernard's decisive influence at Étampes is the Vita Prima. Suger, who was also present, does not ascribe such influence to him. On the caution with which the Vita Prima should be used, see Bredero, A., Études sur la Vita Prima de Saint Bernard (Rome 1960).Google Scholar

81 White bases his argument here on the famous Letter 126, against Gerard of Angoulême (PL 182. 270–281). It is worth mentioning, however, that Bernard advances two precepts from canon law in favor of Innocent's election in that letter: that the candidate is to be preferred who was elected by the older, or greater party, and that once an election had been held, a second was not possible (280).Google Scholar

82 White, , op. cit. (n. 73 above) 337.Google Scholar

83 Ibid. 339.Google Scholar

84 For a criticism of the assertion that St. Bernard was untutored and uninterested in law, see Jacqueline, Bernard, ‘Bernard et l'expression “plenitudo potestatis,”’ Bernard de Clairvaux (cit. supra n. 8) 345–48, and Jacqueline, B., ‘St. Bernard et le droit romain,’ Revue historique de droit français et étranger 30 (1952), Stickler, A. M., ‘Il “gladius” negli atti dei concilii et dei RR. Pontefici sino a Graziano e Bernardo di Clairvaux,’ Salesianum 13 (1951) 414–445.Google Scholar

85 White, , op. cit. (n. 73 above) 342. White's conclusion is based upon Bernard, , Consid. 1. 6 (PL 182. 735–36; Leclercq 3. 401–2): ‘One could not point to a single instance of an apostle sitting as a judge of men, a fixer of landmarks, or a distributor of lands. In fact, I read that the apostles stood to be judged, not that they stood to judge.’ Google Scholar

However, in the very next paragraph White qualifies his conclusions by saying, ‘This did not mean that in Bernard's view the pope had no judicial function at all, but that the limits of that function are confined to the spiritual sphere!’ (342–43). I must confess that I can no longer understand the argument at this point. Does White mean that Bernard is condemning the court at Rome, per se, or only insofar as it overstepped the then very generous limits of spiritual authority? The difference between these two positions is marked.Google Scholar

86 White, , ibid. 343.Google Scholar

87 Ibid. 344.Google Scholar

88 Ibid. 346.Google Scholar

89 Ibid. 344.Google Scholar

90 Rivière, J., ‘“In partem sollicitudinis”… évolution d'une formule pontificale,’ Revue des sciences religieuses 5 (1925) 210–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 Ernaldus, , S. Bernardi Vita 2. 8 (PL 185. 773), cited in Rivière, , op. cit. 219: ‘Adfuit per omnia et consiliis et iudiciis et definitionibus omnibus sanctus abbas … ita ut videretur vir humilis et nihil sibi de his honoribus arrogans non esse in parte sollicitudinis, sed in plenitudine potestatis.’ Google Scholar

92 Post, Gaines, ‘Plena Potestas and Consent in Medieval Assemblies,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 355–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

93 Bernard, , Consid. 2. 8 (PL 182. 752; Leclercq 3. 424): ‘Ergo, juxta canones tuos, alii in partem sollicitudinis, tu in plenitudinem potestatis vocatus es. Aliorum potestas certis artatur limitibus; tua extenditur et in ipsos qui potestatem super alios acceperunt. Nonne, si causa exstiterit, tu episcopo coelum claudere, tu ipsum ab episcopatu deponere etiam et tradere satanae potes? Stat ergo inconcussum privilegium tuum tibi tam in datis clavibus quam in ovibus commendatis.’ Google Scholar

94 Rivière, , op. cit. (n. 90 above) 217.Google Scholar

95 Jacqueline, Bernard, Papauté et episcopat selon Saint Bernard de Clairvaux (Paris 1963), and Id., ‘Bernard et l'expression “plenitudo potestatis,”’ Bernard de Clairvaux (cit. supra n. 8) 345–48.Google Scholar

96 Cf. Bernard, , Ep. 213 (PL 182. 378): ‘Quis mihi faciet justitiam de vobis? Si haberem judicem ad quem vos trahere possem, jam nunc ostenderem vobis (ut parturiens loquor quid meremini. Exstat quidem tribunal Christi… .’ Google Scholar

97 Bernard, , Consid. 2. 8 (PL 182. 752; Leclercq 3. 424): ‘Accipe aliud, quod nihilominus praerogativam confirmat tibi. Discipuli navigabant, et Dominus apparebat in littore; quodque jucundius erat, in corpore redivivo. Sciens Petrus quia Dominus est, in mare se misit, et sic venit ad ipsum, aliis navigio pervenientibus. Quid istud? Nempe signum singularis pontificii Petri, per quod non navem unam, ut ceteri quique suam, sed saeculum ipsum susceperit gubernandum. Mare enim saeculum est, naves Ecclesia. Inde est quod altera vice instar Domini gradiens super aquas, unicum se Christi vicarium designavit qui non uni populo, sed cunctis praeesse deberet; siquidem, aquae multae, populi multi. Ita cum quisque ceterorum habeat suam, tibi una commissa est grandissima navis, facta ex omnibus ipsa universalis Ecclesia, toto orbe diffusa.’ Google Scholar

98 Ullmann, , op. cit. (n. 4 above) 429 n. 5.Google Scholar

99 This conclusion is supported by the only other major passage in which Bernard uses the phrase (see above p. 77). Here, in the letter to the Milanese, he explicitly states that the Holy See has plenitude of power over the Churches of the world, and goes on to describe the ways in which it can exercise its power over bishops. It was on this letter that Fliche built his interpretation of the plenitude of power, an interpretation which still seems most apt.Google Scholar

100 Bernard, , Consid. 2. 6 (PL 182. 747; Leclercq 3. 417): ‘Blanditur cathedra? Specula est. Inde denique superintendis, sonans tibi episcopi nomine non dominium, sed officium.’ Google Scholar

101 Bernard, , Consid. 2. 6 (PL 182. 748; Leclercq 3. 418): ‘”Reges gentium dominantur eorum, et qui potestatem habent super eos, benefici vocantur,” et infert, “Vos autem non sic.” Planum est: Apostolis interdicitur dominatus.’ Google Scholar

102 Bernard, , Consid. 1. 6 (PL 182. 735; Leclercq 3. 401): ‘Itaque secundum Apostolum, indigne tibi usurpas tu, Apostolice, officium vile, gradum contemptibilium. Unde et dicebat episcopus, episcopum instruens, “Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus.”’ Google Scholar

On the term “apostolicus” see Wilks, M., ‘The “Apostolicus” and the Bishop of Rome,’ Journal of Theological Studies, N. S. 13 (1962) 290–317, 14 (1963) 311–354.Google Scholar

103 Bernard, , Consid. 1. 6 (PL 182. 736; Leclercq 3. 402): ‘Ergo in criminibus, non in possessionibus potestas vestra: quoniam propter illa et non propter has, accepistis claves regni coelorum, praevaricatores utique exclusuri, non possessores. “Ut sciatis,” ait, “quia Filius hominis habet potestatem in terra dimittendi peccata.” Quaenam tibi major videtur et dignitas et potestas, dimittendi peccata an praedia dividendi? Sed non est comparatio. Habent haec infima et terrena judices suos, reges et principes terrae. Quid fines alienos invaditis? Quid falcem vestram in alienam messem extenditis? Non quia indigni vos, sed quia indignum vobis talibus insistere, quippe potioribus occupatis. Denique ubi necessitas exigit, audi quid censeat Apostolus: “Si enim in vobis judicabitur hic mundus, indigni estis qui de minimis judicetis.”’ Google Scholar

104 Jordan, , op. cit. (n. 55 above) 292; Masseron, , op. cit. (n. 55 above) 236.Google Scholar

105 De Vooght, , op. cit. (n. 68 above) 117.Google Scholar

106 Ullmann, , op. cit. (n. 4 above), 434.Google Scholar

107 Bernard, , Consid. 2. 6 (PL 182. 749; Leclercq 3. 419): Exi in agrum Domini tui, et considera diligenter, quantis hodieque de veteri maledicto silvescat spinis ac tribulis … . Exi in illum, non tanquam dominus, sed tanquam villicus, videre et procurare unde exigendus es rationem… .' See Jacqueline, , Papauté et episcopat … (n. 95 above) 45 n. 3.Google Scholar

108 Spicq, C., ‘Note de lexicographie philosophique médiévale: dominium, possessio, proprietas chez saint Thomas et les juristes romains,’ Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 18 (1923) 263.Google Scholar

109 See also the appellation of the pope as amicus Sponsi, friend of the bridegroom, who cares for the Bride, who is the Church. See Congar, Yves, ‘L'ecclésiologie de S. Bernard,’ Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis 9. 3–4 (1953) 136–37; Jacqueline, , Papauté et Épiscopat … (n. 95 above) 48–49. In Bernard, , Consid. 3. 7 (PL 182. 788; Leclercq 3. 448): ‘Amicum Sponsi, Sponsae paranymphum.’ Also Ep. 161 (PL 182. 320): ‘Quid facis, amice sponsi, custos sponsae Christi, pastor ovium Christi?’ Google Scholar

110 See de Lubac, , op. cit. (n. 7 above), who denies that this distinction has any importance, and Rivière, op. cit. (n. 90 above) 330, who argues that no matter how limited this right of interference might have been, nonetheless it opened the way for the theories of papal temporal dominion which were to come. Despite this objection, it would seem relevant that Bernard's theory represents a prior stage. Even though it is not as explicitly pristine in its dualism as de Lubac would like, and though it may have suggested a means to total sovereignty to later theorists, still it is only in the light of those later developments that one can see any papal absolutism in the De consideratione. (It is interesting how often Ullmann makes his points by drawing comparisons between Bernard's treatise and works of Innocent III.) As far as Bernard himself was concerned, it is difficult to see that he thought in these terms at all.Google Scholar

111 Bernard, , Consid. 2. 6 (PL 182. 748; Leclercq 3. 417): ‘Nam quid tibi aliud dimisit sanctus Apostolus? “Quod habeo,” inquit, “hoc tibi do.” Quid illud? Unum scio: non est aurum neque argentum, cum ipse dicat, “Argentum et aurum non est mihi.” Si habere contingat, utere non pro libitu, sed pro tempore. Sic eris utens illis, quasi non utens. Ipsa quidem, quod ad animi bonum spectat, nec bona sunt, nec mala: usus tamen horum bonus abusio mala, sollicitudo pejor, quaestus turpior. Esto, ut aliis quacunque ratione haec tibi vindices: sed non apostolico jure.’ Google Scholar

112 There is a considerable bibliography on this subject. See: Carlyle, A. J., ‘The Development of the Theory of the Authority of the Spiritual…’ op. cit. (n. 7 above); Carlyle, R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., op. cit. (n. 7 above); Arquillière, H.-X., op. cit. (n. 35 above); Lecler, J., ‘L'argument des Deux Glaives dans les controverses politiques du moyen âge: ses origines et son développement,’ Recherches de science religieuse 21 (1931) 299–339; Gilson, Étienne, La philosophie au Moyen Age (2nd ed. Paris 1947) 348 ff; Ladner, Gerhart B., op. cit. (n. 7 above); Id., ‘The Concepts of “Ecclesia” and “Christianitas” and their Relation to the Idea of Papal “Plenitudo Potestatis” from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII,’ Misc. Hist. Pont. 17 (October 1953) 49–78; Stickler, A. M., ‘De ecclesiae potestate coactiva materiali apud Magistrum Gratianum,’ Salesianum 4 (1942) 2–23; Id., ‘Sacerdozio e Regno nelle nuove ricerche ai secoli XII e XIII,’ Misc. Hist. Pont. 18 (1954) 1–26; Id., ‘Il “Gladius” …’ op. cit. (n. 84 above); Hartmut Hoffmann, ‘Die beiden Schwerter im hohen Mittelalter,’ Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 20 1 (1964) 78–114.Google Scholar

113 See above, p. 79.Google Scholar

114 See especially Stickler, , ‘Il “Gladius” …’ op. cit. (n. 84 above).Google Scholar

115 Ibid. , 418.Google Scholar

116 Ibid. , 428.Google Scholar

117 Ibid. , 428–29.Google Scholar

118 Ibid. 431, 434.Google Scholar

119 Ibid. , 441.Google Scholar

120 Ibid. , 443.Google Scholar

121 Hoffmann, Hartmut, op. cit. (n. 112 above) 78–114.Google Scholar

122 Ibid. , 80.Google Scholar

123 Ibid. , 81, 82.Google Scholar

124 Damian, Peter, Sermo 69: ‘Felix autem, si gladium regni cum gladio iungat sacerdotii, ut gladius sacerdotis mitiget gladium regis et gladius regis gladium acuat sacerdotis. Isti sunt duo gladii de quibus in Domini passione legitur: “Ecce gladii duo hic,” et respondetur a Domino, “Sufficit.” Tunc enim regnum provehitur, sacerdotium dilatatur, honoratur utrumque cum a Domino praetaxata felici confoederatione iniunguntur’ (cited in Carlyle and Carlyle, op. cit. [n. 7 above] 48).Google Scholar

125 Carlyle, and Carlyle, , ibid. 356.Google Scholar

126 John, of Salisbury, , Policraticus 4. 3: ‘Hunc ergo gladium de manu Ecclesiae accipit Princeps, cum ipsa tamen gladium sanguinis omnino non habeat. Habet tamen et istum, sed eo utitur per principis manum, cui cohercendorum corporum contulit potestatem, spiritualium sibi in pontificalibus auctoritate servata. Est ergo princeps sacerdotii quidem minister et qui sacrorum officiorum illam partem exercet quae sacerdotii manibus videtur indigna’ (cited in Carlyle and Carlyle, ibid 333).Google Scholar

127 One wonders why Ullmann, who linked St. Bernard and John of Salisbury together as extreme exponents of the ‘hierocratic’ theme, did not remark the difference between their respective uses of the sword image.Google Scholar

128 It is interesting also to contrast Bernard's approach to the direct statements made by Hugh of Victor, S. who made the thesis of spiritual dominion over the temporal world abundantly clear: Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis 2. 2 (PL 176.148): ‘Nam spiritualis potestas terrenam potestatem et instituere habet, ut sit, et judicare habet si bona non fuerit. Ipsa vero a Deo primum instituta est, et cum deviat, a solo Deo judicari potest … . Quod autem spiritualis potestas… et prior sit tempore; et major dignitate… primum a Deo sacerdotium institutum est; postea vero per sacerdotium (jubente Deo) regalis potestas ordinata.’ This assertion is explicitly denied by Bernard, , Consid. 2. 6; see above n. 102.Google Scholar

129 White, , op. cit. (n. 73 above) 337.Google Scholar

130 Ibid. , 342.Google Scholar

131 See Bernard, , Consid. 1. 10: the practices of lawyers; 2. 14: a rule of jurisprudence is maintained: regard for persons at law ought to be avoided; 3. 2: the sort of appeals which should be entertained, how to deal with appellants abusing the system, proper procedure in appealing, with abuses illustrated by lengthy reference to current cases.Google Scholar

132 One of the most celebrated of these occasions was the disputed election at Langres in 1138. When his appeal to Pope Innocent II was apparently unheeded, Bernard wrote asking, ‘Where are justice, law, the authority of the sacred canons, the reverence due to your Majesty? The right to appeal to you is not denied to any oppressed person, only to myself is it of no avail’ (Ep. 166 [PL 182. 526]).Google Scholar

133 Jacqueline, B., ‘Bernard et le schisme d'Anaclet II; Bernard de Clairvaux (cit. supra n. 8) 354; Innocent II (PL 185. 627).Google Scholar

134 Jacqueline, B., ‘Bernard et l'expression “plenitudo potestatis,”’ Bernard de Clairvaux (cit supra n. 8) 328.Google Scholar

135 Jacqueline, , ‘Bernard et le schisme…,’ Bernard de Clairvaux (cit. supra n. 8) 351–52.Google Scholar

136 Jacqueline, , ‘St. Bernard et le droit domain’ Bernard de Clairvaux (cit. supra n. 8) 429; Bernard, , Vita Malachi (PL 182. 1085).Google Scholar

137 Bernard, , De gradibus humilitatis 4. 14 (PL 182. 9490; Leclercq 3. 27. 16–18): ‘Et legibus humanis statutum, et in causis, tam ecclesiasticis quam saecularibus servatum scio, speciales amicos causantium non debere admitti ad judicium, ne vel fallant vel fallantur amore suorum.’ Google Scholar

138 This is particularly true of his construction of the two-swords theory, which has been largely confirmed by Stickler's work.Google Scholar

139 Barraclough, Geoffrey, The Origins of Modern Germany (Oxford 1946) 127–164.Google Scholar

140 Bernard, , Ep. 244 (PL 182. 440). See n. 13 above.Google Scholar

141 Petit-Dutaillis, Ch., The Feudal Monarch in France and England (New York 1965) 93.Google Scholar

142 de Pina, Fliche-Foreville, op. cit. (n. 8 above) 52–73.Google Scholar

143 Petit-Dutaillis, , op. cit. (n. 141 above) 94; Bernard, , Ep. 158 (PL 182. 315–319).Google Scholar

144 Petit-Dutaillis, , ibid. 95–99.Google Scholar

145 Poole, A. L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta (Oxford 1955) 167–192.Google Scholar

146 Ibid. 190.Google Scholar

147 Long enough, however, to cooperate with the legate, Alberic of Ostia, in appointing Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury. This turned out to be a critical appointment for it was Theobald who, in the face of royal opposition, forged close personal links with Rome.Google Scholar

148 Knowles, David, ‘The Case of St. William of York,’ in his The Historian and Character, and Other Essays (Cambridge 1963) 76–97.Google Scholar

149 Morey, Adrian, Bartholomew of Exeter, Bishop and Canonist: A Study in the Twelfth Century (Cambridge 1953) 72–134.Google Scholar

150 Saltman, , op. cit. (n. 6 above) 137–176.Google Scholar

151 See above, pp. 79 and 88.Google Scholar

152 Bernard, , Consid. 4. 3 (PL 182. 776; Leclercq 3. 454): ‘Dracones, inquis, me mones pascere, et scorpiones, non oves. Propter hoc, inquam, magis aggredere eos, sed verbo, non ferro. Quid denuo usurpare gladium tentes, quem semel jussus es reponere in vaginam?’ Google Scholar

153 Gerhoh of Reichersberg, Ep. 17 ad Alexandrum papam (PL 193. 568–69): ‘Cum essem Viterbii apud sanctae recordationis papam Eugenium et ille familiari alloquio mihi retulisset de sua vexatione, in qua Tiburtinis contra cives Romanos favens multas pecunias expenderat, et tandem satis miseram pacis compositionem fecisset, ego respondi: Licet sit misera pretio multo coempta pax ista, melior tamen est quam pugna vestra, quia cum Romanus pontifex praeparet se ad bellum per milites conductos agendum videor mihi videre Petrum evaginantem gladium ferreum. Sed cum ei sic pugnanti vel pugnaturo, non bene cedit, videor mihi audire Christum … Petro dicentem “Mitte gladium tuum in vaginam.”’ Google Scholar

154 See above, p. 77.Google Scholar

155 Haller, , op. cit. (n. 6 above) 7–13; Jordan, , op. cit. (n. 5 above) 140–152; Fliche, , Foreville, , de Pina, , op. cit. (n. 8 above) 70–86.Google Scholar

156 Haller, , ibid 7. Haller points out that all litigation involving exempt monasteries was now, as a matter of course, coming before the papal court. He further states that it was the avowed policy of Innocent II from 1135 to attempt to draw all important cases before the Curia in the first instance.Google Scholar

Bartholomew of Exeter was one of the first bishops to be assigned tasks as judge delegate in England. Morey, , op. cit (n. 149 above), gives detailed information concerning the procedures in his court.Google Scholar

157 Saltman, , op. cit. (n. 6 above) 133; Haller, , op. cit. (n. 6 above) 8.Google Scholar

158 Haller, , ibid. 4. Pope Urban II granted over fifty exemptions, Pascal II over sixty. This pace was maintained until the middle of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

Jacqueline, B., ‘Saint Bernard de Clairvaux et la Curie Romaine,’ Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 7 (1953) 32, details several of the more important legatine missions of the period. See also John of Salisbury, Policraticus 5. 15–16 (ed. Webb, C. C. J. [Oxford 1909]) for a contemporary observation on the frequency of legatine journeys.Google Scholar

159 Jacqueline, , ibid. 27–44; Jordan, K., op. cit. (n. 5 above) 150.Google Scholar

160 Jordan, K., ibid. 133, 150; Jacqueline, , ibid. 30.Google Scholar

Otto of Freising gives a vivid description of the cardinals' pretensions as they expressed them at the council at Rheims. ‘The holy senate of cardinals… all said to their pope with one voice: “You must realize that, being raised to the supreme power over the Church by us cardinals, around whom as around its cardinal points the axis of the Church universal moves, being made by us from a private person into the father of the entire Church, you cannot henceforth belong to yourself, but to us….”’ (Otto of Freising, The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa 1. 9, trans. Mierow, C. C. and Emery, Richard [Records of Civilization 69 (New York: Columbia University Press 1953) 99]).Google Scholar

161 Jacqueline, B., op. cit. (n. 158 above) 27–44.Google Scholar

162 Cf. White, , op. cit. (n. 78 above); Cantor, , op. cit. (n. 79 above) 47–67.Google Scholar

163 Bernard, , Consid. 3. 2 (PL 182. 761–764; Leclercq 3. 433–437).Google Scholar

164 Bernard, , Consid. 3. 4 (PL 182. 766–769; Leclercq 3. 441–446).Google Scholar

165 Bernard, , Consid. 4. 5 (PL 182. 776; Leclercq 3. 459–461).Google Scholar

166 Bernard, , Consid. 4. 6 (PL 182. 784; Leclercq 3. 461).Google Scholar

167 Bernard, , Consid. 4. 5 (PL 182. 784; Leclercq 3. 461): ‘Your servants ridiculously strive to take precedence over your fellow priests. There is no reason for this; no tradition behind it and no authority to justify it.’ Google Scholar

168 Congar, Yves, op. cit. (n. 109 above) 136–190; Kilga, , Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Bernard von Clairvaux, 'Cistercienser-Chronik 54 (1947) 46–64, 149–179, 253–271; 55 (1948) 39–45, 88–111, 156–187.Google Scholar

169 Cf. Bernard, , Sermons on the Canticles, especially Serm. 77. 1; 78. 6 (PL 183. 1155, 1162; Leclercq 1. 261–263, 266–271).Google Scholar