The Letter Collection

Not proofread, needs work to standardize style, language and relevance.

Introduction

Peter the Venerable left for posterity one of the largest letter collections of the twelth-century.

Manuscripts

Using Constable's sigla:

A (Aquicinensis) ms Douai, Bibliothèque municipale, 381(s. XII3, Anchin). [110 letters in total]. Contains a collection of works by Peter the Venerable: 1-10v. Poems and panegyric material, letters of PV and Peter of Poitiers. 11v-12r. Table of Contents, 13r-66r, letter collection, 66r-108r Contra Petrobrusianos, 108r-120v Letter 28, 120v-127v, sermon on the Holy Sepulcre, 127v-131r, three visiones, 131v-177r, Contra Judeos, 178r-195r, Contra Sarracenos. It is an important manuscript and the sole source for a number of texts. It was compiled at the monastery of Anchin, and moved to the municipal library in 1791. The manuscripts at Anchin[1] were seen in the early 18th century by Martène and Durand, who commented on this particular manuscript.[2] Constable posits that the archetype of the manuscript came from Cluny and was perhaps, though unlikely, in contact with Peter of Poitiers.

C Lost. The largest collection of letters used by Peter de Montmartre for the 1522 edition. Constable suggests that many manuscripts were destroyed after its preparation into printed form, a relatively common practice of the 15thand 16thcenturies. Constable posits it derives from Cluny. It must have contained 27 more letters than A as well as the Contra Sarracenos which PM did not publish, since he believed it to be an incomplete version. This may be the version described in the Chronicon Cluniacense. In 1614, Marrier and Duchesne used no manuscripts, and no copy is mentioned among the works of Dom Anselme le Michel in 1645.

S (Sylviniaci) ms. le Puy, Cathédrale, unnumbered. (s. XV, Souvigny). 161 letters. Title page, index and letter collection. Ordered by Odo de la Perrière [Oddonus de Perreria], while Prior of Souvigny (1417-24) after which he became abbot of Cluny. There is no reference to this manuscript in a 15th cent. library catalogue at Le Puy and no indication of how it got there from Souvigny.[3] It is textually close to C-order with exceptions, follows A and C.

Cl (Clairvallensis). Troyes. Bibliothèque municipale, 2261. (s. XV, Clairvaux). 20 letters: letters from Peter to Bernard and Bernard to Peter. Follow same order as C and S. Does not include letter 28, or 65…

B (Blesensis) Paris, BNF lat. 2582. (XV, royal library at Blois). 85 letters (excluding 20 and 28 = first 87 letters of PV collection). Same family as A, carelessly copied.

• BNF Description and fiches

Sg (Sancti Germanis) Paris BNF lat. 13876. (s. XIII, St. Germain-des-Près). [SGdP, olim 363, n. 1300] Contains the letters from PV to Bernard. 1-34r, Letter 28; 34r-47v, 111 (breaks off) 48r-50r, 149; 50r-53r, 150. Also contains letters of Bernard, a copy of the Statuta, Franciscan Statuta, and later sermon.

• BNF Description and fiches

Cf. Constable's Letters, II, p. 63-69 for info. about manuscripts containing individual letters.

Early Editions

D. Petri Venerabilis, Integerrimae et vere Christianae doctrinae viri, Cluniacensis quondam Abbatis: opera haud vulgaria… Peter de Montmatre, ed. Paris: Damian Hichman, 1522.

Contains the editor’s (Peter of Montmartre’s[4]) preface and introduction[5]to the text, and begins with works letters and texts exchanged by PV and Peter of Poitiers, and contains further, the letters, poems and hymns, De miraculis and an index. [see Constable, intro. to edition]. The editor cites 1) the intrinsic merit of works, in particular against non-Christians, 2) the editor’s filial link to his spiritual father, 3) the suitability of one Peter being edited by another Peter.

Bibliotheca Cluniacensis. Martin Marrier and André Duchesne, eds. Paris: 1614.

This largely reprinted, with some changes, Peter de Montmartre’s text. The arrangement was revised, expunged his notes, added abbreviatians, and occaisionally emended the text. The text, therefore, is considerably less accurate, but more legible than the 1522 edition. They added an appendix of eight letters, drawn from various sources. Duchesne added considerable and helpful notes.[6] On the basis of the Chronicon Cluniacense description, Marrier and Duchense attempted to restore the original ordering.

Historiae Francorum scriptores. Vol IV. Duchesne, ed.

        Duchesne includes four letters of PV.

Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum. Lyons, 1677.

        Reprint of BC.

Patrologia Latina. Migne, ed. Vol. 189.

        Reprint of BC with a few more quotations and expanded appendix to 22 letters.

Critical Edition

The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Giles Constable, ed. Harvard Historical Studies 78. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Translations.

Sections of Letter 28. Samuel R. Maitland, The Dark Ages: a series of essays, London: 1844. [D 119 M23 1845 PIMS/ D 119 M24 1853 ROBA/ BQX 453 M25 Mike]

Prosper Lorain. Essai historique sur l'abbaye de Cluny, suivi de pièces justificatives et de divers fragments de la correspondance de Pierre le Vénérable avec saint Bernard. Dijon : Popelain, 1839. (dean of Faculty of Law @Dijon).

        As an appendix to this text, roughly 60 letters were translated into French.

Early Bibliography

Chronicon Cluniacense. [Francisco de Rivo?] ca. 1500 (BC): col. 590-1.

He [PV] wrote various letters of such importance and in so exalted a style that he appears to be another Augustine in his description of the Holy Places. The book of his letters is principally divided into six books. The first book contains 36 letters, the second 52, the third contains 7, the fourth contains 43, the fifth contains 9 and sixth contains 50. Among these he inserted the treatise … against the inveterate obstinacy of the Jews… Peter the Venerable also inserted the book which he collected and wrote against the Petrobrusian heretics. [Constable, trans. p. 17]

Dom Clémencet, Histoire Littéraire de saint Bernard … et de Pierre le Vénérable… Paris: 1773: 438-448.

        Provides detailed analysis of letter 28.

Bibliography.

Auniod, Jean-Bapiste. “L’Ami de Saint-Bernard.” Collectanea Cisterciensis(1956): 88-99.

• The friendship between Peter and Bernard enobled them both.

• Admits the rhetoric of friendship exists in letter 28, before they have even met, but posits that he must have heard already the vita of William of St. Thierry. The language, he suggests, identifies Peter as overcome and conquered by Bernard’s spirit. They loved one another and thus their spirits flourished, even convinced, as he puts it, to move to Cîteaux like William. He does admit, however, that the real friendship has been questioned, by J. Lortz, but says, surely they would rise above differences, quarrels in customs, problems of elections. Brings up letter 111 as a double apology. Overall completely in love with Bernard, and can only see Peter being the same.

Leclercq, Jean. “Pierre le Vénérable et les limites du programme clunisien.” Collectanea Cisterciensis (1956): 84-87.

• Cautions that Cistercians shouldn’t see the divide of Cîteaux and Cluny as always that way. He suggests that the Apologia shouldn’t be taken as too defining, since there was a later reconciliation of the two. He suggests that Cîteaux is very much in the same ‘logic’ as Cluny (idea of greater austerity/ harshness as defining virtue) and that they merely adopted a different way of realizing it (87)

Bouton, J de la Croix, “Bernard et l’ordre de Cluny,” Bernard de Clairvaux, 1953. Commission d’Histoire de l’ordre de Cîteaux. Paris: 1953: 193-217.

Bouton, J de la Croix, and J.B. Van Damme. Les plus anciens textes de Cîteaux, sources, textes et notes historiques, Cîteaux, Commentarii Cistercienses Studia et Documenta, 2. Archel: 1974.

Constable, Giles. “Cluny, Cîteaux, La Chartreuse; San Bernardo e la diversità delle forme di vita religiosa nel XII secolo,” Studi su S. Bernardo di Chiaravalle. Bibliotheca Cisterciensis 6. Rome: 1975, 93-114.

Constable, Giles. Letters and Letter Collections. Typologie des Sources du Moyen Age Occidental, 17. Turnhout: Brepols, 1976.

Constable, Giles. “Papal, Imperial and Monastic Propaganda in the Eleventh and Twelth Centuries.” Preaching and Propoganda in the Middle Ages: Islam, Byzantium, Latin West.Gerogre Makdisi, Dominique Sourdel and Janine Sourdel-Thoumine, eds. Paris: 1980: 181-2.

• Emphasizes persuasive power of the letter.

Evans, Joan. Monastic Life at Cluny.

• She refers to the letters as “the most accomplished and the most personal” of Peter’s writings in prose, “finished, graceful, almost artificial in style that already prelude Petrarch’s, though set in another key” (109)

Goodrich, W.E. “The Limits of Friendship: A disagreement between S. Bernard and Peter the Venerable on the role of charity in dispensation from the Rule,” Cistercian Studies, 16 (1981), 81-97.

        Accepting the idea of friendship between the two as real, she notes that on a theoretical level, the ideas of charity \(something expected to draw Cluny and Cîteaux together\) were fundamentally irreconcilable. He offers some good quotations \(translated\) from letter 28 about charity \(taken from 89-90, 93, 99\). In letter 28, there is a repition of the Cistercian critique of charity – which demands adherance to the letter of the Rule, to which Peter replies, “the office of charity is to seek human salvation by any means possible.” Letter 28 then contains the idea, similar to 111 that Divine love takes into account human weakness and thus does not demand perfection for all. She asserts 111 is warm in tone, and moves on to DPvD. Notes that in the Apologia he accepts Cluny as legitimate, but not equal to Cîteaux. \(94\) In her conclusion, she says that it was not only differing conceptions of monastic life which led to divide, but also fundamental differences in the understanding of charity. Peter was more tolerant, but proposed solutions not acceptable to the ‘better’ Cistercians.Mentions in conclusion the ‘overly optimistic view of their relationship” \(97\).

Grivot, D. ‘Saint Bernard et Pierre le Vénérable” in Saint Bernard et la recherche de Dieu. Bulletin de Littérature Ecclesiastique, 93 (1992) fasc. I, 85-99.

Knight, G.R. “The language of retreat and the eremetic ideal in some letters of Peter the Venerable,” Archives D’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire, 63 (1996): 7-43.

Knight, G.R. The Correspondence between Peter the Venerable and Bernard of Clairvaux. Church, Faith and Culture in the Medieval West. Burlington, VT; 2002.

Lortz, Jospeh. Bernhards von Clairvux: Mainzer Kongress. (Wiesbaden, 1955).

        Argues that the letters only demonstrate an exercise in rhetoric, politeness and a Christian brotherly topos. He remains very suspicious of the existence of any kind of “friendship” in the modern sense.

McGuire, Brian P. Friendship and Community: the monastic experience 350-1250. Cistercian Studies Series, 95. Kalamazoo, 1988: 251-61. “A MidCentury Network of Friends: Troyes, Cluny and Clairvaux.”

        McGuire this section suggesting that while friendship and mutual support was never part of the monastic occupation, in times of dynamism and optimism, and the growth of community and individual consciousness, meant friendship developed in new ways, such as between Peter and Bernard. \[253\] “This elusive relationship, I am convinced, developed into a real friendship, with moments of hope, anger, trust, fear and mutual need.” He suspects that after having met in 1135 at Pisa, it allowed for a greater bond to be established. Is it “friendship verbiage” alone, or deeper? Combined sense of obligations, reconciliations, honesty and brotherhood, while also with a sense of suspicious and misunderstanding \(conscious or unconscious?\). McGuire suggests, however, “Peter was a genius at literary expression and could make almost any account of his actions convincing. A proof of his sincerity lies more in his attitude than his words. He wanted to respond directly to Bernard’s objections instead of denying them. In almost every line he combines respect for the passionate abbot with affection for a friend.”  \[How does this prove not just rhetorical discourse/ strategy? He seems to think that it is either flattery and flourish or reality- rather than the possibility that it could be an attempt to play on emotions,virtues- between the abbots and thus between the orders.\] For the strategy of friendship to work, must show trust, an atmosphere of sweetness. He criticizes \(258\) for going on repetetively and at length on same topics.

        Peter, with Peter of Poitiers, appeals to friendship in order to create an atmosphere for criticizing him. Uses discourse of friendship as means to project his loving intention- to cushion reception of the critique. “What one sentence concedes, however, the next takes back.” \(259\). \[This kind of discourse creates intimacy, impersonal subjects become personal, and rhetoric creates a context for the recreation of emotion/ identity.\]

Proux Lang, Ann. “The Friendship between Peter the Venerable and Bernard of Clairvaux.”: 35- 53.

        Analyis of the letters of Peter and Bernard \(it is a modified honour’s thesis from 1969\), basing itself in translated versions of Peter. It argues against Joseph Lortz \(though tending to make that source seem more valid\) that the two abbots had a deep and sustained relationship. Arguing that the terms of endearment go “far beyond ecclesiastical rhetoric” \(39\), she makes claims based on lack of evidence \(theorizing reasons for their absence\).

Schmitz, Dom. “Un conflit entre monastères Clunisiennes d’après la correspondance inedite de Pierre leVénérable.” Revue Bénédictine 49 (1937): 166-75.

        Discusses the conflict between two monasteries of Nuns in Italy living according to the ordinances of Marcigny. Peter really did not take sides \(a bit weak\), trusting others to do his bidding.

Zerbi, P. “Remarques sur l’epistola 98 de Pierre le Vénérable,” Pierre Abelard- Pierre le Vénérable. Les courants littéraires et artistiques en occident au milieu du XIIe siècle. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 546. Paris: 1975, 215-32.

[1]The first monastery in the province of Reims to adopt the Clunaic consuetudines under Abbots Alvisus (1111-31) and Goswing, (1131-36). [Constable, 53).

[2]Voyages Littéraires de deux religieux bénédictins de la congrégation de Saint Maur, II (1717-24): 78-9. Constable has citations (p. 50) further about the library at Anchin.

[3]Constable mentions that from LePuy, some manuscripts went to Cobert in 1681, and the rest were destroyed in a 1791 fire.

[4]Constable notes that Peter of Montmartre was a monk at Montmartre and a theologian (professor of sacred theology, perhaps at the College de Cluny) and perhaps the Cluniac monk who wrote a poem found in the collection made for Baluze in the seventeenth century [BNF ms. lat. 942, fol. 76v] The introductory letter was addressed to Grand Prior of Cluny, (also the Prior of La-Charité-sur-Loire, who in 1522 was Jean dela Magdelaine de Ragny).

[5]Peter de Montmartre mentions, “Should you compare this edition with the archetype, dear reader, do not be surprised if you find the order of the old copy reversed and altered… Principally in order that I may not be accused of publishing a work unsuitable for a theologian, I have placed in the front of the volume those works by which our Peter of Cluny may appear not least among the theologians.”

[6]Constable cites, “A. Dain, Les Manuscrits (Paris: 1949): 18 and Luchaire, Étudessur quelques manuscrits de Rome et de Paris. (University of Paris: Bibliothèque de la Faculté des Lettres), 8. Paris: 1899: 35.