Bibliography
Last updated
Was this helpful?
Last updated
Was this helpful?
G BNF. lat. 13876, fol. 75-87v. (SGdP, olim 363, N. 1300). 13thcentury manuscript with 163 fol., two columns of text. In addition to the first 62 statutes, it contains the texts of some of the letters by Peter the Venerable [28: f. 1-34; 111: f. 34-47v; 149: f. 48-50; 150: f. 50-53], letters of St. Bernard, Franciscan statutes and a later sermon.
N BNF. n.a.l 3012, fol. 50v-56v. (formerly n.a.l. 2481)13th/ 14thcentury manuscript written in a tiny hand on 126 folios of various Cluniac customs and statutes. Peter’s statutes fill f. 50v-56v
C BNF. lat. 10938, fol. 72-79v. (Cluny). 13thcentury manuscript written by several hands on 119 leaves, containing 119 folios, with various texts copied for Abbot Ivo of Cluny (1256-75): calendars, liturgical customs, the Rule of St. Benedict, the annals of Cluny. An incomplete choir of the statuta fill f. 72-79v.
bc ANF. LL 1345, fol. 1-14v. . 18thcentury copy of the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis version of the statuta.
B Bibliotheca Cluniacensis. 1614. Edited by Marrier and Duchesne.. “In transcribing these statutes we used two ancient manuscripts, one in the library of SGdP at Paris which, having been supplied by the humane and learned monk Jacques Dubreul, presented only sixty-two, the other belonging to Dom Henri Girard, the prior of St. Etienne de Nevers, which both supplied the remaining fourteen and showed by the name displayed that they were all by Peter the Venerable. Abbot Henry of Cluny clearly confirmed this in the other customs either made or renewed by him, where he said, “Et ut testatur venerabilis memoriae Petrus Clun. abbas, causa huius statuti fuit indiscreta et frequentissima susceptio personarum inutilium, etc.” For these very words are found in the preface to Peter’s statute 35. [Stat. p. 26].
Reprinted:
Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum. Lyon. 1677.
Statuta et consuetudines cum declarationibus…Paris. 1717.
Codex regularum monasticarum et canonicarum. L. Holste (Holstenius), ed. Augsburg: 1759.
Patrologia Latina. Migne. vol. 189.
Bibliotheca Cluniacensis Facsimile edition. Maçon, 1915.
Statuta Petris Venerabilis abbatis Cluniacensis IX (1146/7), Consuetudines Benedictinae Variae (saec. XI- XIV). Giles Constable, ed. CCM VI, (Siegburg, 1975): 19- 106.
Statuts, Chapitres Généraux et Visites. Vol. 1. Dom G. Charvin, ed. 20-40. 1965.
See also, Peter’s Dispositio rei familiaris.
In criticizing Cistercians, he says they stick to the letter of the Rule, like Jews did to the letter of the law (and thus ignoring subsequent revelations), and that there were many hypocrites among them.
Archibishop Thurstan of York (1132) (p. 22) in J.R. Walabran, ed. Memorials of the Abbey of St. Mary of Fountains1 Surtees Society. 42 (Durham, 1863) 1-129.
A description of the founding of Fountains which cites a speech, concerning “a recent change” at Cluny which proved, “that there are many things in its Customs which need properly to be changed”. Constable (in Stat. intro) suggests that the authenticity of this letter has been challenged, and may be a composite letter dating from 1143/7.
Pignot, J.H. Histoire de l’ordre de Cluny depuis la fondation de l’abbaye jusqu’à la mort de Pierre le Vénérable. 3 Autun-Paris. 1868: 135-142.
Valous, G. de. I, 22-23.
Besse, Dom J.M. “L’ordre de Cluny et son gouvernment.” Revue Mabillon1 (1905-06): 5-40; 97-138; 177-194; 1-22.
Constable, Giles. ‘Monastic Legislation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries.” Cluniac Studies: 151-161.
Constable sees Cluny divided into two ages of monastic legislation- custom and statuta, with 1100 as the dividing date. He sees this not in the context of a shift from oral to written law. Speaking of Bernard and Hugh’s statutes, he says (152), “It is uncertain whether the customary derives from the statutes or whether the statutes represent a revision of material previously incorporated in the customary.” Constable sees written custom as developing hand and hand with the growth of the Cluniac network- a loose confederation of monasteries joined to Cluny, monasteries directly controlled by the abbot, and those following a parallel life. He agrees therefore, that the customaries were something hardly static (154), and sees how the abbatial statutes were worked into the first customaries. In note 8a he cites Idungus who criticized the mobility of Cluniac custom, saying that the authors were unknown except a “custom” implemented by Odilo [Con. sees Odilo:1 stat. in LT, and 4 in Ulrich explicitly cited; Odo also is cited for feast of St. Martin, Maj. (x2) modifying psalmody Ulr. I, 4, 41 & 43; Bernard cites nine measures of Hugh, Herrgott I, 23-24, II, 9, 24, 25. These seems to suggest the modulatability of Statutes and Customs at this time. Also, Constable suggests this may only be the tip of the iceberg (156), showing abbatial initiative in reform of customs. Bernard suggests, (I, 24 & 7421) “The aforesaid custom of burial may be changed, if required by some reasonable cause in accordance with time and place” or maintain custom, “unless perchance the need should be so great that it would be an impiety not to break the custom”. Constable notes that there seems to be a movement towards language denoting the authoritative power of the abbot- moving from a need for consensus in Odilo’s time, to Bernard and Urlich using terms like constitute, decree, order, establish more often. But even Hugh sought the consent of his monks for the decree of the mass of the Virgin. Peter is no different, needing a ‘universal chapter’ to promulate decisions (which through his abbacy met four times). Peter the Venerable, as well, was required by Pope Anastasius IV to withdraw various grants which he had made without the consent of the monks of Cluny (159- cf. PL 188, 1070). He concludes, despite the tenure of his argument (160) that the abbot had a ‘distinctive constitutional position” with an “exceptional degree of authority, performing within his order functions which in other orders were performed by the chapter-general” [about later Cluny?]. He sees that the “statutes of the abbots of Cluny, unlike the customaries, applied and could be in some measure enforced in all Cluniac houses.” Peter was, he suggests, aware of opposition, both at Cluny and elsewhere, and did not expect them to be uniformly obeyed.” By 1200, however, the situation was different.
The statutes, he sees, corresponded better to the growing emphasis on uniformity of observance and the power and independence of the abbot. They remained, in theory, modifications of custom- as Peter remarks in his Statuta as ‘certain customs changed in his time”, until the thirteenth century.
. “Cluniac Adminstration and Administrators in the Twelfth Century” Cluniac Studies, II, 17-30, 417-423.
This article takes as its premise a refutation of Dom Besse’s idea of Cluny as monarchial in its administration. He asserts this may have been true under Odilo, but not under Hugh and after. Peter, in letter 161 expresses his difficulty in overseeing all the monasteries under his purvey. Idungus, for example, decries the mutability of customs, unlike Cistercian uniformity, which Constable agrees with, saying it could be prejudice, distance of German monasteries to Cluny, but more likely, was more due to the individualistic nature of monasticism, and heritable lay and ecclesiastical proprietary rights over monasteries which hindered discourse or reality of centralization- thus leading to networks of customs, or prayer associations. What could Peter do, then, to govern his monasteries. (20)
Customary methods- itinerant courts, written letters.
General Chapter. 1132, 1140, 1144, 1150 [cf. Letters, II, 173-74, 208] Also, Alexandre Bruel, “Les chapitres généraux de l’ordre de Cluny depius le XIIIejusqu’ au XVIIIesiècle,” Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartres34 (1873): 542-579; or Besse, Revue Mabillon1: pgs. 97-138; or P. Anger “Chapitres généraux de Cluny,” Revue Mabillon8 (1912-13): 105-47, 213-252, Guy de Valous, II, 70-94; Jacques Hourlier, Le Chapitre général jusqu’au moment du Grand Schisme(Paris, 1936): 33-41, 68-78 and Jane Sayers, “The Judicial Activities of the General Chapter,”Jounral of Ecclesiastical History, 15 (1964), 29.
“Peter was the first abbot to gather his statutes into a body of generalized abbatial legislation, approved by the chapter-general, applying, for the most part, to the entire order”. (20)
Greater use of priors of important priories (Matthew of Albano, and prior of La Charité)
Through control over personnel of the order, contributing to monks becoming functionaries of the abbot. By drawing people to Cluny, Peter established their loyalty to the mother monastery, not their place of profession. The majority of Constable’s paper is devoted to emploring the changing careers of several Cluniac monks who are expected to serve all over the Cluniac network. Importantly often through ecclesiastical control, able Cluniac were appointed over Cistercian monasteries (25-26) and independent monasteries. Also, Peter attempted to attract great men to end their lives at Cluny, who are used in a very diplomatic fashion
Constable, Giles. “Statutes of Peter the Venerable.” Cluniac Studies. 21-25.
[cf. below, “dating”]
Constable, Giles. “The Monastic Policy of Peter the Venerable.” Cluniac Studies. 119-138.
This paper argues that the monastic policy of Peter the Venerable was designed not only to defend the old type of Cluniac monasticism and buttress it against the critics from the new monasticism, but also to adapt it to the new spirituality and emphasize those features which appealed to the religious needs of the time. (119-20) The scope of reform was limited by the nature of the institution and Peter’s own temperment, not a radical reaction to new currents. He criticizes historians (Knowles, for one) who has assumed from the letters 28 and 111 Peter’s tolerant and humane, but basically conservative attitudes. Rather, set in their polemical framework, they make sense, and elsewhere (letter 161 or Stat. 22, for example) he comes across as a much more harsh, less self-justificatory. His concern with personal simplicity, austerity, eremeticism, for poverty and friendship with new religious orders indicate a responsiveness to new religious values. Bernard’s recommendation of Peter to Eugenius III suggests a reforming spirit existing from the beginning, as does his 1130 support of Innocent over Anacletus II (a Cluniac Cardinal Peter Leonis) in the papal schism seem to demonstrate Peter siding with the new. [hmm. this seems questionable logic- support for one candidate does not mean for his ideas] Odericus Vitalis (1132) also promotes him as introducing novelties at the CG.
Then moves on to discuss the basic question of, how does his policy relate to two major themes of 12threligious change- 1. reduction and simplication of liturgy 2. increase in private devotions. First off, he remarks there is nothing especially longwinded about the Cluniac liturgy- and mirror the common practice of the time. No sense that the liturgy was toolong until elements of dissatisfaction in the end of the eleventh century (from Bernard and Ulrich). [Can this really be taken as evidence of something new, or just new kind of source allowed new things to be brought up]. But, Cistercians et al. attacked the Cluniacs and the tendancy was towards abbreviation. Peter can be cited as supporting both expansion and abbreviation- but focuses more on it being meaningful to his monks.
Constable asserts that Peter demands the primacy of the interior attitude over the exterior practice, but still accepts the need and legitimacy of ascetic devotions. [133] Likewise balanced cloister/ withdrawal with allowing in people. He concludes, “Monasticism in the twelfth century did not simply extend in a spectrum from old to new, or from least to most reformed, with Cluny at one end and Cîteaux at the other, as the friendships and alliances among its leaders show….. Peter the Venerable’s own friendships confirm this impression of the high prestige of Cluny in the monastic world of the twelfth century.” [137]. Furthermore, he sees any problems faced by Cluny as general ones facing Benedictine monasticism, and his policies paralleled those of many other monasteries. Peter’s ability to cope with problems is an indication of the strength of the institution, and real changes occurred not in the monasteries and their organization, but in the religious values and needs they were expected to fill.
[in final comments by Zerbi: Cluny est solidaire d’une veille tradition. Cîteaux n’est pas non lus du côté de la nouveauté. Ce n’est pas la qu’on trouve cette sensibilité au monde nouveau… Si Pierre le Vénérable n’est pas suffisament ouvert, Cîteaux ne l’est pas non plus. Cependent, la personalité de Pierre le Vénérable montre une sensibilité au monde nouveau, par example dans ce qu’il dit à propos de la bourgeoisie et dans son attitude pratique.”]
Cygler, F. “Règles, coutumiers et status (ve-xiiie siècles). Brèves considerations typologiques.” La vie quotidienne des moines. Wroclaw, 1995. 31-48.
. “Le chapitre général de Cluny (xiie-xive siècles) État de la question.” Anthropologiques juridiques. Mélanges Pierre Braun. Ed.J. Hoareau-Dodinau and P. Texier. Limoges: xxx, 1998, pp. 213-35.
Cygler, F., G. Melville, and J. Oberste. “Aspekte zur Verbindung von Organization under Schriftlichkeit in Ordeswesen.” Viva vox und ratio scripta. 205-280.
Iogna-Prat, D. “Coutumes et Statuts clunisiens comme sources historiques.” Revue Mabillon. n.s. 3 (1992): 23-48.
Knowles, David. “The Reforming Decrees of Peter the Venerable.” Petrus Venerablis 1156-1956. Giles Constable and J. Kritzeck, eds. Studia Anselmiana40 Rome, 1956: 1-20.
Competent account of Peter’s reforming works (Statuta and letters). This is the source for Denyse Riché’s account of the statuta. Uses PLso perhaps this accounts for the improper translations of the Statuta. Remarks on the importance of the prior Matthew of Albano (figuring prominently in the De mir.) in aiding in reforms; attempts to accounts for Odericus Vitalis. Considers St. 1, 10-15, 16-18, 19-22, 35, 36, 39, 40, 60, essentially a bare bones description cross referenced the Apologiaand letter 28.
Lamma, Paoli. Momenti di storiographica cluniacense. (Institutio Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo: Studi Storici, 42-44) Rome: 1961.
He describes Peter as having, “an attitude towards the meeting of the old and the new had to be taken at all times. There is found in this attitude, depending on the time and circumstances, either a nostalgia for the past, a sense of continuity of human values in time, or an effort to make the traditionalists and innovators live together, without conflict, in the diversity of their tasks. (31-32: trans. Constable, letters, II, 12).
Leclercq, J. Pierre le Vénérable. Figures monastiques. Abbaye S. Wandrille, 1946.
[148-] Peter shows the same preoccupation in the statuta as in the Dispositio rei familiaris: namely, moderation, modification- what is immutable, what must change. He suggests that, for example, rituals with forgotten significance represent a king of hyposcrisy which risks introducing the “pharisaîsme”. Each tradition must have a foundation (rational) on which to rest.
Lucet, B. La codification cistercienne de 1202 et son évolution ultérieure. Rome, 1964.
Melville, Gert. “Ordensstatuten und allgemeines Kirchenrecht”
Pinkl, E.M. “Der Statutenprolog des Petrus Venerabilis”
“Le retour aux sources” (Chapter from a book, french, I cannot remember by whom) 37-49. [I think: Torrell, J.P. Pierre le Vénérable et sa vision du monde. Sa vie, son oeuvre. L’homme et le démon. Louvain, 1986.]
Like Knowles, the author attempts to locate the statuta within a wider range of material. He remarks on the importance of Matthew, the prior of St. Martin-des-Champs in Peter’s reform efforts, and denies the Cistercian/ Bernardine influence, but posits rather the basis of it in Cluniac traditions of reform. Details Odericus Vitalis’ account of the 1132 meeting and highlights his bias, as anti-Peter and anti-changes, and linked Peter to Bernard as a means of discrediting the reforms. Highlights, as well, the connection of the Statuta to the reform ideas he would have come in contact with at Sauxillanfes, Vézalay, and Domène. He also emphasizes that the growing size of the Cluniac network , with monasteries given to be reformed, took up a lot of energy and may perhaps be a reason for the limitation of the litrugy etc.- an appeal to the lowest common denominator. The author suggests there is a certain search for truth- in materials, in gestures (true manual labour, no symbolic cleaning), in liturgy, asceticism, in interior attitudes. He suggests that Peter doesn’t do much because he didn’t have much he needed to reform. Peter isn’t about decendence and its reformation, but rather a period of new found fervor.
Odericus Vitalis. Historia Ecclesiastica, book xiii, 13.
Provides an account of the meeting of priors summoned by Peter to a general council, attended by (?) 1200 monks at which considerable resistence was shown to these reforming decrees, which acc. to Oder. were subsequently withdrawn. According to the “retour” author, Oder. describes the majestic procession of 1200 monks, 200 priors from France, Italy and Germany to hear the head of the Ordo Cluniacensis. Odericus suggests brethren had doubts, and appealed to Hugh, Majeul and Odilo who observed a strict manner of living, but also guided their disciples to Christ, and thus is it not enough to follow in their footsteps? Odericus cites Soloman, saying the Peter forgot his precept, “Do not transgress the limits established by your fathers.” Like Oder. many Cluniac monks regarded the novelties with suspicion, but already there was a reform movement shown at the 1131 Benedictine CG (acc. to “retour”). Oder. establishes connection of PV to Bernard of Clairvaux, perhaps as a means of discrediting PV’s reforms as Cistercian. He clearly lies when he says that PV retracted his decrees.
Zimmermann, G. Ordensleben und Lebensstandard. Die cura corporis in den Ordensvorshriften des abendländischen Hochmittelalters. Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens. 32. Münster, 1973.
Odericus writes about the Cistercians (book 8, c. 26): Many noble soldiers and persons who seek deeper truth, flock to them because of the novelty of their unusual behaviour… Together with good people there arrive also hypocrites who –dressed in white or motley clothing– mislead people and perform a great comedy for the crows. Most of them wish to emulate the true servants of God, not by their virtue but by their outward behaviour. Their number provokes the digust of those watching this, while in respect of the insufficient insight of people they make virtuous monks dispicable.
Constable, Statuta, p. 22, sees Odericus as accurately describing the statutes (Od. would not have seen the 1142 recension since he was already dead by then): “Peter of Cluny then sent couriers and letters to all his cells and summoned all the priors from England, Italy and other realms, ordering that they should come to Cluny on the third Sunday of Lent in order to hear stricter precepts of monastic life than they had held previously… He added fasts for his subjects, took away times of speech, and various supports of bodily infirmity which previously the moderate mercy of reverend fathers had allowed them. The monks, however, who were always used to obey their master and unwilling to oppose him, which would be contrary to religious custom, received the harsh commands but pointed out with reason that venerable Hugh and his predecessors Maiolus and Odilo had kep a strict way of life and tried by it to lead their Cluniac disciples in Christ… The austere master, however, …. rivalling the Cistercians and other seekers after novelties, persisted in his harsh endeavors and was ashamed to cease at that time what he had begun. Later, however he was softened and agreed with the view of his subordinates; and mindful of discretion … and merciful, he came to the aid of the weak and omitted many of the stern decrees which he had proposed.”
Provides useful notes, references and comparative material with other customaries. (esp. statuta 10-19; 24, 26-29, 34, 36, 39, 63, 65, 69 and A2)