ListofAbbreviations
AASSActaSanctorum,ed.J.Bollandusetal.(Antwerp,1643–).
AKDMDieAktendesKanonisationsprozessesDorotheasvonMontauvon1394bis 1521,ed.RichardStachnikwithAnnelieseTrillerandHansWestpfahl (Cologne:Böhlau,1978).
CCCMCorpusChristianorum,ContinuatioMediaevalis (Turnhout:Brepols,1966–).
CCSLCorpusChristianorum,SeriesLatina (Turnhout:Brepols:1953–).
CFCistercianFathersSeries
CSQCistercianStudiesQuarterly
DM/CH CaesariusofHeisterbach, TheDialogueonMiracles,trans.H.vonE.Scottand C.C.SwintonBland(London:GeorgeRoutledge,1929); Caesariusvon Heisterbach:DialogusMiraculorum,ed.Marc-AeilkoArisetal.(Turnhout: Brepols,2009).
DSBDoctorisSeraphiciS.Bonaventurae,S.R.E.EpiscopiCardinalisOperaOmnia, 10vols.(Florence:CollegiiS.Bonaventurae,1882–1902).
EETSEarlyEnglishTextSociety
GCOGiraldiCambrensisOpera,7vols.,ed.J.S.Breweretal.(London:Longman, 1861–77).
JMEMSJournalofMedievalandEarlyModernStudies
JMHJournalofMedievalHistory
JMRCJournalofMedievalReligiousCultures
JRHJournalofReligiousHistory
MGHSSMonumentaGermaniaeHistorica.Scriptoresrerumgermanicarum (Hannover:HahnscheBuchhandlung,1826–).
MEDMiddleEnglishDictionary
MMTMedievalMysticalTheology
MMTETheMedievalMysticalTraditioninEngland:ExeterSymposium
PLPatrologiaecursuscompletes:seriesLatina,221vols.,ed.J.P.Migne(Paris: Migne,1861–4).
SBOS.BernardiOpera,ed.JeanLeclercq,C.H.Talbot,andN.M.Rochais,8vols. (Rome:EditionesCistercienses,1957–77).
SCHStudiesinChurchHistory
Spec.incl. E.A.Jones,ed., SpeculumInclusorum,AMirrorforRecluses:ALate-Medieval GuideforAnchoritesandItsMiddleEnglishTranslation (Liverpool:Liverpool UniversityPress,2013),nowthestandardeditioninplaceofP.LivariusOliger, SpeculumInclusorum,AuctoreAnonymoAnglicoSaeculiXIV,Lateranum4.1 (1937),1–148.
ST ThomasAquinas, TheSummaTheologiaeofSaintThomasAquinas:LatinEnglish,trans.FathersoftheEnglishDominicanProvince,9vols.(Scots Valley,CA:NovAntiqua,2008–18).
VCMVitaChristinaeMirabilis, AASS,July24,637–60.
VCSVitaCatharinaSenensis, AASS,April30,863–967.
VDMVitaDorotheaeMontoviensisMagistriJohannisMarienwerder,ed.Hans Westpfahl(Cologne:BöhlauVerlag,1964).
VHVVitaB.HerlucaeVirginis,AASS,April2,549–54.
VJMCVitaJulianaeMontis-Cornelii, AASS,April5,435–76.
VLAVitaLutgardisAquiriensis, AASS,June16,187–209.
VMC JohnofMagdeburg, DieVitaderMargaretaContracta,einerMagdeburger Reklusedes13.Jahrhunderts,ed.PaulGerhardSchmidt(Leipzig:Benno, 1992).
VNMVitaSanctiNorbertiArchiepiscopiMagdeburgi, AASS,June6,791–845.
VSWVitaeSancaeWiboradae:DieältestenLebenbeschreibungenderheiligen Wiborada,ed.WalterBerschin(St.Gallen:HistorischerVereindesKntons St.Gallen,1983).
VVIVVitaVenerabilisIdeaVirginis, AASS,April2,156–89.
VW/LW JohnofFord, WulfricofHaselbury,byJohn,AbbotofFord,ed.MauriceBell (SomersetRecordSociety,47,1933);JohnofForde, TheLifeofWulfricof Haselbury,Anchorite,trans.PaulineMatarasso,CistercianFathersSeries79 (Collegeville,MN:LiturgicalPress,2011).
VYHVitaJuettaeReclusae (YvetteofHuy), AASS,January1,145–69.
CharismaticsinaReformingCulture
Religiouselites,includingmonks,friars,andothers,occupiedacentralplace withinanchoriticculture,which flourishedasasetofcomplexspiritualand textualnetworksthroughoutmedievalEurope.⁵ Fromaninstitutionalandinterpersonalperspective,thereweregoodreasonsforanchorites’ closeaffiliations withclericsandreligiousorders.Althoughreclusionwasinseveralwaysprofoundlymonasticinitsexpressionandorigins,andwhilemanyformalreligious (nuns,mendicants,andothers)optedforreclusion,anchoriteswithinandbeyond Englandoftenhadlittleornopriormonastictraining,andhailedeitherfromlay societyor,likeWulfricofHaselbury(d.1154),fromtheranksofthepriesthood.⁶ Overall,thelifeofvoluntaryreclusionwasfarlesstightlygovernedbythe regulatorystricturesathomewithinEuropeanmonasteries,andnoanchoritic “rule” oradmonitorytexteverattainedanythingliketheculturalandspiritual authorityoftheBenedictine Rule.Describedas “beeswithoutaking,” anchorites alsofoundthemselvesattimeswithoutdirectandsustainedclerical,mendicant,or monasticoversightandthusbecamelivingsermonsontheneedforregular guidancefromreligiousauthorities.⁷ Directinterventionsoftentooktheformof visitationstotheanchorholdbylocalspiritualaffiliates,whileothers,including AnselmofCanterbury(d.1109),ÆlredofRievaulx(d.1167),andPeterthe Venerable(d.1156),turnedtocomposingworksofguidanceandencouragement forbothindividualanchoritesandwidernetworks.
Anotherestablishedfeatureofthisculturewasitsfascinationwithwhatmight becalledtheangelicimage,whichwaselaboratedinvariouswaysandacrossa rangeoftexts.Theserepeatedlyattestthatanchoriteswerenotonlyvisitedby spiritualelites,noronlyprovidedwithworksofspiritualinstruction(amongother
⁵ Whiletheinfluenceofwomen,includingthosewhowerenotthemselvesenclosed,ismoredifficult totrace,itwaspotentiallyfarstronger.Forexample,anchoresseswrote,copied,andreadtextsoftenasa consequenceoftheirtieswithotherwomen;evidenceofthisisfoundinÆlredofRievaulx’ s De institutioneinclusarum (seeChapter2),the Life ofthetwelfth-centuryanchoressJuttaof Disibodenberg(d.1136),andothersources.ForJutta’ s Life,seeAnnaSilvas, JuttaandHildegard: TheBiographicalSources (Turnhout:Brepols,1998),65–84,esp.77–80.
⁶ Onthediversityinclassandvocationamongthosewhowereenclosed,seeChapter1,n.84.For generalstudiesofEuropeananchoritism,seeesp.AnnekeMulder-Bakker, LivesoftheAnchoresses:The RiseoftheUrbanRecluseinMedievalEurope,trans.MyraHeerspinkScholz(Philadelphia:University ofPennsylvaniaPress,2005);and AnchoriticTraditionsofMedievalEurope,ed.LizHerbertMcAvoy (Woodbridge:Boydell,2010).
⁷ SeeMulder-Bakker, LivesoftheAnchoresses,1–23.Onanchoriticguidanceoradmonitorytexts, seeesp.Hughes-Edwards, ReadingMedievalAnchoritism,15–31;andBellaMillett, “CanThereBeSuch aThingasan ‘AnchoriticRule,’” in AnchoritismintheMiddleAges,11–30.Anchoritesalsoreceived materialassistancefromhigherprelates,thelowerclergy,andlocalmonasticandmendicantsupporters,whooftenpersonallyvisitedtheenclosure;seeWarren, AnchoritesandTheirPatrons,127–279. Fordiscussionofvisitationsbyreligioussupervisors,seeJoshuaS.Easterling, “Cistercians,Reclusesand SalvationNetworksintheThirteenthCentury,” Quadernidistoriareligiosamedievale 24.1(2021): 153–80.
texts),butwerealsogracedbythepresenceofangels.⁸ Anchoriticwritingsarealso inplacesmarkedbyavital “angelism, ” whichisexempli fiedintheliteratureof earlymonasticismandthusconnectedwiththehistoricalemergenceoferemitism andvoluntaryreclusion.Thenotiongainedcurrencyamongearlydesertfathers andmotherswhoaspiredtoliberationfromthe flesh(includingfreedomfromthe constraintsofsexandgender)byadoptingan “angeliclife” throughvarious asceticrenunciations.⁹ WhatorthodoxChristianitywouldeventuallyconfrontas atroublingassociationofangelswithvariousformsofspiritualfreedominforms manylatemedievalanchoriticworks.Moreover,persistentacrossthisperiodwas thebeliefthatangelsoftenfrequentedholyenclosures,whethermonasticor anchoritic.Theseinasense became angelicspaces:Gabriel’sgreetingofthe VirginMaryinherenclosureattheAnnunciation(Luke1:26–38);theangel whovisitedtheApostlePeter,imprisonedbycivilauthorities(seeepigraph);as wellastheradiant figureswhoappearedtothewomennearthetombatChrist’ s Resurrection(John20:12)gavenofewanchoritesthereassurancethattheirown angelwouldattendtheminlikefashion.Inpowerfulways,angelicvisitationswere acultural sinequanon;ontherareoccasionthatanchoriticwritingsdonotrefer toangelstheirpresenceisnonethelessassumed.Thesamewasoftentrueof eremiticlife.TheEnglishhermitRichardRolle(d.1349)openshis MeditationB bycommendinghimselftotheVirgin,MaryMagdalene,othersaints,andto “ my holyaungel.”¹⁰
Thisaspectofsolitaryreclusionanditstextualculturebelongswithina constellationofidealsandimagesthatrelatedtotheperennialandcontested issueofauthorityanditsinstitutionallocalities.Acrosslatemedievalwritings angelicvisitationsfrequentlyservedmanyinterrelatedfunctionsandaffordeda stageforboththerenegotiationofpersonalspiritualpowerandthecultural imperativesof imitatio.Inaletter(c.1102)addressedtotwoanchoresses,Edith andSeitha,ArchbishopAnselmofCanterburyencouragedthewomentoinvite theirangels(angelosvestros)intotheenclosureandeventoimitatethembyliving “asifyouweregazingupon[theangels]visibly.”¹¹Anauthoritycitedoftenin
⁸ Onthewritingsthatanchoritesaccessedbeyondguidancetexts,seeChapter1,n.95.
⁹ Fordiscussion,seeJeanLeclercq, “MonasticismandAngelism,” DownsideReview 85(1967): 127–37at128ff.Onthisidea’sdevelopmentwithinlatemedievalcontexts,seealsoBarbaraNewman, FromVirileWomantoWomanChrist:StudiesinMedievalReligionandLiterature (Philadelphia: UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1995),4etpassim.
¹
⁰ RichardRolle, RichardRolle:ProseandVerse,Ed.fromMSLongleat29andRelatedManuscripts, S.J.Ogilvie-Thomson,EETS293(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1988),VII.1–4.
¹¹AnselmofCanterbury, SanctiAnselmiOperaOmnia,ed.F.S.Schmidt,vol.4(Edinburgh: ThomasNelson,1949),Letter230,134–5: “[A]ngelicaminomnibusconsiderateetimitaminiconversationem.Haeccontemplatiositmagistravestra,haecconsideratiositregulavestra.Quaevitaeangelicae concordantsectamini,quaeabilladiscordantexsecramini.Angelosvestros sicutdixitdominus: ‘angeli eorumsempervidentfaciempatrismei’—sempervobispraesentesetactusetcogitatusvestrosconsiderantescogitate,etita,velutsieosvisibiliterinspiceretis,semperviverecurate” (22–8).Onthisletter,which suggeststhatthewomeninquestionmayhavehadneedofaregulatorytext(regulavestra),seealso Licence, HermitsandRecluses,83.
anchoritictexts,SaintJerome(d.420)hadinsimilartermsupheldasanascetic modelthecontinualwatchfulnessofangelsandtheirpreparednessto “obeyGod’ s commands.” Hewrites, “wemustimitatebyourfrequentvigilstheserviceofthe angels.”¹²Drawingonthescripturalwitnessthatangelsgazecontinuallyuponthe divinecountenance(Matt.18:10[cf.1Pet.1.12]),Anselmforhispartinstructs EdithandSeithatofollowsuitandeventoundertakeanypracticethataccorded withtheangeliclife(vitaeangelicae).Hisdiscussionofcontemplation(literally,a gazingupon)astheanchoresses’ teacher(magistra)lendsadoublemeaningtoa practicethatoccupiedacentralplacewithinanchoriticculture:thewomenwere togazeupontheirangelsbutalsoimitatethemincontemplatingtheCreator.Yet imitatioangeli embracedfarmorethanengaginginvigilsorcontemplatively beholdingGod,asweshallsee,evenastheangelicpresencewasfurtherassociated inmedievalreligiousculturewithanarrayofspiritualgiftsbeyondthelist providedinPaul’sepistle.Asthetwelfth-centuryCistercianabbotBernardof Clairvaux(d.1153)observed,thebestowalofdivinegiftswasoftendelegatedto angels,whosevisitationsbecameoccasionsforthispurpose.TheGermanmystic MechthildofMagdeburg(d. c.1282)agreed.Shewasshowntheangelswhowere chargedwithhercare,oneofwhomwas “akeeperofthegifts[who]orders wisdominthelovingsoul.”¹³Indeed,unlesstheyarethemselvesprophesyingor healing,angelsinbiblicaltexts(e.g.2Kings1:3–4;John5:4;Num.22:35)often turnanunsuspectinglistenerintoaprophetofGod;muchthesamewastruefor medievalvisionarieslikeMechthildand,ofcourse,anchorites.
Thesewereknownforpossessingvariouscharisms,whichweredescribedby theLatin donum oraconventionalsynonym(gratia, charisma, munus),and whichrangedfromprophecytomiracle-workingandspiritualdiscernment. WithintheLatinandvernacularreligiouswritingsbroughttogetherinthis book,includingtheologicaltexts,worksofspiritualguidance,mysticaltreatises, papaldecrees, vitae,andletters,severalofthePauline charismata areofmarginal importance,oratleast figurelessprominentlythandolateraccretionsthathave littleornoscripturalwitness.Thus, xenoglossia,theabilitytospeakanotherwise unfamiliartongueandarguablyoneofthegiftsidentifiedbyPaul,wasreportedof manyholymenandwomenbutdidnotenjoytheculturalprominenceattainedby whatwasreferredtoasthe “giftoftears” (gratialacrymarum).¹⁴ Likewise,the
¹²QuotedinLeclercq, “MonasticismandAngelism,” 129.
¹³MechthildofMagdeburg, TheFlowingLightoftheGodhead,trans.FrankTobin(NewYork: PaulistPress,1997),140.ForBernard’spointaboutangelicgifts,seeChapter1,n.53.
¹⁴ On xenoglossia,seeinparticularChristineF.Coopoer-Rompato, TheGiftofTongues:Women’ s XenoglossiaintheLaterMiddleAges (UniversityPark:PennStateUniversityPress,2010),6–10et passim.Ingeneral,the “giftoftears” wasfarmorestronglypromotedthanmanyothergifts,andwas assumedtobemorespirituallysalubrious,andhencemoredesirable.SeeKimberleyJoyKnight, “Sipuosecalcinea’ propiocchi:TheImportanceoftheGiftofTearsforThirteenth-Century ReligiousWomenandTheirHagiographers,” in CryingintheMiddleAges,ed.ElinaGertsman (NewYork:Routledge,2012),136–55.PeterDamian(d.1072)instructedhisowncongregationon “howthegiftoftearsmightbeacquired” [quomodolacrymarumgratiapossitacquiri]; Deinstitutis,
EnglishhermitChristinaofMarkyate(d. c.1160)andtheprioress-turnedanchoressJulianaofCornillon(d.1258)werecelebratedasmuchfortheir clairvoyanceorforeknowledgeasfortheirpropheciesordiscernment.¹⁵ Theseand similargraces,forexamplethestronglysomaticgiftofsweetnesspopularizedwithin Cistercianspirituality,infactoftenoutstrippedhealingandmiracle-workingintheir culturalsignificanceevenastheyimplicatedthebodytoanequalorgreaterextent.¹⁶
Thecharismaticspiritualitywitnessedamongmanylatemedievalanchorites andwhichrepresentedaformofdivinegracecommunicatedbytheSpirit,orby angels, figuresinthewritingsdiscussedthroughoutthisbookashighlydynamic andexperientialratherthan fixedandconceptual.Moreover,asthegiftsthat medievalChristiansclaimedtopossess,ortowhichtheyaspired,extendedwell beyondtheirscripturalrange,andwhiletheirlinkswithembodimentwasa mainstaythroughouttheMiddleAges,charismaticexperienceresistsassimilation toanysingleorganizingprincipleorsetoftexts.Here “charisma ” haslittletodo withtheaurathatsurroundedbishopsandkingsasaconsequenceoftheirstation, orwithwhatC.StephenJaegerhasreferredtoas “charismaticculture” (or “charismatictexts,” etc.).¹⁷ Ontheotherhand,wespeakeventodayofa “gifted speaker” withoutwishingtosuggesttheexerciseofapowerontheorderofa spiritual gratia.Thepublicmagnetismorparticularabilityofsome “toinspire devotionorenthusiasm” emergesthroughmanywritingsinclosecollaboration withotherspecificallyembodiedexperiences.¹⁸ Thatis,myuseofthetermretains amultitudeofresonances,andtheteaching,preaching,orprophesying figures Iexplorethroughoutwereaboveallgiftedinseveralways,whetherornotthey werepossessedofthemoreextraordinaryabilitiesofthespirit.
Astheywereexpressedwithinandbeyondanchoritictextualculture,those abilitiesformedpartofabroaderdiscourseaboutthesourcesofreligiousauthority.Decisiveintheformationofmedievalreligiouscommunities,thatdiscourse
26(PL 145:358B–359B).Onthisgift,seealsoAndréVauchez, SainthoodintheLaterMiddleAges, trans.JeanBirrell(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),438–9.
¹
⁵ TheLifeofChristinaofMarkyate:ATwelfth-CenturyRecluse,trans.C.H.Talbot,reprint (Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1998),140–4;and,forJuliana, LivingSaintsoftheThirteenth Century:TheLivesofYvette,AnchoressofHuy;JulianaofCornillon,AuthoroftheCorpusChristiFeast; andMargarettheLame,AnchoressofMagdeburg,ed.AnnekeB.Mulder-Bakker,trans.JoAnn McNamaraetal.(Turnhout:Brepols,2011),160;andVauchez, Sainthood,474.Foranexampleroughly contemporarywithJuliana,seeThomasofCantimpré, TheCollectedSaints’ Lives:AbbotJohnof Cantimpré,ChristinatheAstonishing,MargaretofYpres,andLutgardofAywières,ed.Barbara Newman(Turnhout:Brepols,2008),267–8;and VLA,40.192.
¹
⁶ FordiscussionoflatemedievalaccretionstothePauline charismata,aswellastheverymany figureswhopossessedsuchgraces,seePeterDinzelbacher, HeiligeoderHexen:Schicksaleauffälliger FraueninMittelalterundFrühneuzeit (Zürich:ArtemisundWinkler,1995),104etpassim;and Vauchez, Sainthood,499–526.
¹⁷ C.StephenJaeger, TheEnvyofAngels:CathedralSchoolsandSocialIdealsinMedievalEurope, 950–1200 (Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1994),4etpassim.Onthecharismaof bishopsandkings,seeVauchez, Sainthood,418and421.Nordoesmyreadingframespiritualgiftsasin anysensea “syndrome.” SeeDinzelbacher, HeiligeoderHexen,104.
¹⁸ See OxfordEnglishDictionary (www.oed.com),s.v. “charisma” (sense2).
owesmuchtothefactthatthecapacitytoinspiredevotionandembodyspiritual powerwascontested,attimes fiercely,duringthe firstcenturiesofChristianityin theWest,andlaterduringtheeleventh-andtwelfth-centurywavesofreligious reform.Insuchcontexts,thenotionofaccessingdivinetruththroughindividual experienceworkedatcrosscurrentswithanemergentandultimatelydominant viewofthatauthorityastransmittedthroughhierarchyandapostolicsuccession. InKatherineLudwigJansen’ssuccinctformulation, “thedilemmawaswhether leadershipintheChurch,followingtheGnostics,wouldbecharismatic,personal, visionary,andprophetic,or ...operatethroughtraditionandapostolicauthority handeddownfromgenerationtogeneration,frombishoptobishop.”¹⁹ This tensionbetweencharismaticandpersonalchannelsofdivineinspirationand whatwouldeventuallyformtheinstitutionalchurchanditsleadershipdidnot vanishwiththelatter’smarginalizationofGnosticChristianity.²⁰ Inakindof returnoftheGnosticrepressed,aneleventh-centurycultureintheprocessof reformingmonasticandecclesiasticalinstitutionscametoareckoningwiththe spiritasahostof figures,includinganchorites,gainedpopularadmirationand supportinwaysthatchallengedthediscourseofspirituallegitimacythatwas promulgatedbyspiritualelites.Further,emergentformsofspiritualpoweramong thelaityduringandpriortothisperiodoftenworkedatcrosscurrentswithan ecclesiasticalpoliticsthatemphasizedorthodoxdevotionandclericalpurity.
Itwasalsoatthishistoricaljuncturethatseveraloftheimagesattheheartof thisbookwereappropriatedbymainstreamreformersandpressedintotheservice ofaspecificarticulationofchurchunity.Ofcentralimportanceherewereonce againthewritingsofPaul,whichmentionprophecyalongsideboththe charismata andtheworkof “doctors” and “apostles” (Ep.4:11),whoseofficialpowerwould eventuallybeauthorizedbythechurch.Thisassociationofcharismawithecclesiasticalauthorityextendedrecurrenteffortswithinorthodoxreligiouscultureto marginalizeparticularspiritualformationsinfavoroftheirinstitutionallylegitimizedalternatives.Onetextthatvividlycapturesthiscontestisthe Elucidarium byHonoriusAugustodunensis.Anotherwiseelusive figure(thoughlikelya monk),Honorius flourishedduringthe firsthalfofthetwelfthcentury.Like manycontemporaries,hewrotewithintheorbitofwide-rangingreforms,which beganatthemidpointoftheeleventhcenturyasreligiousandculturalboundaries
¹⁹ KatherineLudwigJansen, TheMakingoftheMagdalen:PreachingandPopularDevotioninthe LaterMiddleAges (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2000),27;forageneraltreatmentofthis tension,seeHansvonCampenhausen, EcclesiasticalAuthorityandSpiritualPowerintheChurchofthe FirstThreeCenturies (Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1969).OnGnosticism,itselfatroubled category,seeesp.KarenL.King, WhatIsGnosticism? (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 2003),5–19etpassim.
²
⁰ Forbriefdiscussionofthistension,seeforexample,MaryHarveyDoyno, TheLaySaint:Charity andCharismaticAuthorityinMedievalItaly,1150–1350 (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2019);see alsoJohnW.Coakley, Women,Men,andSpiritualPower:FemaleSaintsandTheirMaleCollaborators (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2006),22–4andn.16.
werereorderedand,asthroughoutthelaterMiddleAges,thecollective “bodyof Christ ” wasbrokenandreconstituted.²¹Honorius’simageofthebodyofChrist vividlyrecallsitsPaulinesourcebutdiffersincriticalways.
Asthebodyisattachedtotheheadandgovernedbyit,soistheChurchjoined togethertoitthroughthesacramentofthebodyofChrist;indeed,itismadeone withit,bywhichalloftherighteousinitsorderaregovernedasmembersbythe head.Theeyesofthisheadareprophets(prophetae),whoforeseethefuture;as aretheapostles,whoguideothersbackfromthepathoferrortothelightof righteousness.Theearsaretheobedient,thenostrilsthediscerning(discreti). Thesnotthatisexpelledfromthenostrilsareheretics,whoarewipedfrom Christ’sheadbythejudgmentofthosewithdiscernment.Themoutharedoctors; theteeth,expositorsofsacredscripture;thehandsdefendersoftheChurch.²²
Similarimageswouldfollowoverthecomingdecadesandcenturies;forexample, the ExpositioinCanticaCanticorum bytheCistercianGeoffreyofAuxerre (d.1194)comparedthemonastery “tothebodyofthebride[intheSongof Songs]” andmadeanalogiesbetweenthatbodyandofficesinthechurch.²³While, Honoriusunderscoresunityandorder,healsore-formsthePaulinecharisms(e.g. discernment)bymatchingthemwithdifferentpartsofthechurch.Themoveisin factconsistentwithalargescalereworkingofspiritualidealsinaccordancewith theprioritiesformulatedbyareformingchurchthatemphasizedunityand subordinationtoclericalauthority.ThoughPaulunderscoredthemultiplicity anddiversityofgifts,whichwerenotrestrictedto particular Christiansorsetin anideologicalframeofsubordination,thegiftofwisdomorknowledgewas presupposedinteaching,judging,orcorrectingothers tasksthatarethefocal
²¹SeeCharlesF.Briggs, TheBodyBroken:MedievalEurope,1300–1520 (London:Routledge,2011). ²²HonoriusAugustodunensis, L’Elucidariumetleslucidaires:contribution,parl’histoired’untexte, àl’histoiredescroyancesreligieusesenFranceaumoyenâge,ed.YvesLefevre(Paris:E.deBoccard, 1954),Book1.179,394: “Utcorpuscapitiinhaeretetabeoregitur,itaEcclesiapersacramentumcorporis Christieiconiungitur;immounumcumeoefficitur,aquoomnesiustiinsuoordine,utmembraacapite, gubernantur.Cujuscapitisoculisuntprophetae,quifuturampraeviderunt;suntetapostoli,quialiosde viaerrorisadlumeniustitiaededuxerunt.Auressuntobedientes.Nares,discreti.Phlegma,quodper naresejicitur,haeretici,quiiudiciodiscretorumdecapiteChristoemunguntur.Ossuntdoctores.Dentes, sacraescripturaeexpositores.Manus,Ecclesiaedefensores.” Onthispassage,seeCarolineWalker Bynum, TheResurrectionoftheBodyinWesternChristianity,200–1336 (NewYork:Columbia UniversityPress,1995),148.ThehierarchyimpliedbyHonoriusandothersmarkedlycontrastswith thePaulinetext,whichtakespreciselytheoppositeview;seeLee, Paul,theStoics,16.Forthenow standardstudiesofHonorius’sworksandhistieswithreformculture,seeValerieFlint, Ideasinthe MedievalWest:TextsandTheirContexts (London:Variorum,1988),63–238,esp.178–98.
²³GeoffreyofAuxerre, ExpositioinCanticaCanticorum,ed.FerruccioGastaldelli(Rome,Temie testi,1974),2.449–55;seealsoMarthaG.Newman, TheBoundariesofCharity:CistercianCultureand EcclesiasticalReform1098–1180 (Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1996),103and107.Theimageof Christ’sbodyintheologicalwritingsandbiblicalexegesislongantedatesthetwelfthcentury.Onthe subject,seetheseriesofarticlesonSaintAugustine’sworksbyStanislausJ.Grabowski, “TheMystical BodyofChristAccordingtoSaintAugustine,” TheologicalStudies 5–9(1944–8):453–83,62–84, 72–125,614–67,and48–84(withslightlyvaryingtitles).
pointofthispassage,andthatwereperformedbyreligiouselites,whowerelittle inclinedtoextendtheirinstitutionalprivilegestothoseoutsideoftheirranks.²⁴ YetnotallmedievalChristianswerebyanymeansinagreementaboutwhat Christ ’sbody was afactthatrenderstherathernarrowandconfiningboundaries establishedbythisimagestillmorestriking.Wasthatbodyastrictlyordered hierarchygovernedbyprelatesandtheimperativesofobedience,oracollective shapedbytheinscrutablestirringsofthespiritandthecharismaticpowerto whichthatspiritgaverise?
StillmoreisatworkinHonorius’stroubledimage.Aseventhemost fleeting reflectiononhumanexperiencedemonstrates,bodiesareanythingbutstable; whetherindividualorcommunal,theyconformtothetransfiguringpowersof timeandcircumstance.Medievalreligiouswritingsrepeatedlyacknowledgedthat thehealing,wounded,aging,andgrowingbodywasnothingifnotunstable, despitethetendencytopresentthebodiesofsaintsasincorruptibleandunchanging.²⁵ Bycontrast,Honorius’simageremains firmlyinvestedincorporealstability.Admittedly,noeyeshouldorcanperformthefunctionofamouth.Yetthatis nothispoint:Honorius’salignmentofparticularspiritualactivitiesandfunctions withcertainmembersofChrist’sbodyisunsettledbyanysuggestionthatcorporatecollectivitiesmight change.Inshort,Honorius’sthoughtandthatofmanyof hisorthodoxcounterpartsregistersastrongambivalencetowardthebody,one thathaddirectimplicationsforlatemedievalreligiousdiscoursesofspiritual authority.Thisambivalencewasalsoexpressedthroughthelanguageofspiritual charisms,andrelatedly,indefendingthechurch ’smonopolyonthemediationof divinegrace.
Guidedinpartbyasuspicionofspiritualcharismaandthosewhodemonstratedit,earlyreformersembracedfewmetaphorsasdeeplyandreadilyas “unity” (almostalwaysashorthandforaffirminghierarchicalauthority),which oftenworkedatcrosscurrentswithlocal,charismaticspiritualitiesandthereby restatedthechallengeinherentintheapostolicimageofChrist’sbody.Unity represented interalia aresponsetoperceptionsthatspiritualpowermightbe arrogatedbythosewhoseaspirationsinthisrespectdidnotalwaysaccordwith mainstreamideals.Whileanchoriteswereoftencharismaticinpreciselythissense andelicitedsuchperceptions,theirlocalsupportersandtheauthorsofthevarious textscomposedfororaboutthemwereoftenstronglyguidedbyreformistideals. Thatis,thisbookexaminesreformisteffortstoelaborateanotionofreligious authoritybymarginalizingtheformsofcharismaticpowerthatemergedfrom withinthatsamespirituallandscapeandthatcamefundamentallytoshapelate
²⁴ OnthebalanceofunitywithdiversitywithinPaul’simageofChrist’sbody,seeLee, Paul,125–50. ²⁵ Forageneralstudyofsaints’ cultsintheChristianwest,seeRobertBartlett, WhyCantheDeadDo SuchGreatThings?:SaintsandWorshipersfromtheMartyrstotheReformation (Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,2013).
medievalwritingsforthemanypublicvisionaries,includinganchorites,who flourishedwithinandbeyondEnglandandwhosedemonstrationofextraordinary personalqualitiescouldprofoundlymisalignthemwithorthodoxpriorities.
Belongingtoacomplexsocial,textual,andculturalmatrix,anchoritesalso representedapointofintersectionbetweenacollectivespiritualbody,asconceptualizedwithinorthodoxculture,andalaysocietythatreformersperceivedtobe corrupt.Aswewillsee,thefrequentuseoftheangelicimagetodescribepriests andmonksassistedinreconfiguringtheassociationofanchoriteswithangels, oftentoweakenanchorites’ otherwisecloseaffiliationswithlaycommunities.In arguingforaninextricableconnectionbetweenlaycultureandlatemedieval charismaticspiritualities,thisbookassumesfurtherthatallformsofcharisma were “public” inthesensethattheyalwayshadthepotentialtoinspiredevotion amongthelaityandtoexertpressureuponlong-establishedreligiousandcultural boundaries.² ⁶ Spiritualcharismaoperatedasapowerthatinvitedthelaityintothe religiousarenaand,farfromsimplyconformingtodominantandtraditional formsofspirituallife,oftenexceededandemergedbeyondthem.Fosteredfarless byanchoritesthanbyreligiouselitesthemselves,thistensionwasaninextricable partofwidespreadassumptionthatlatemedievalspiritualitiesstoodinurgent needofreform.Theresultwasoftensuspicionanddistrust,nottosayjealousy,on thepartofthosewhodefendedtheunityofreligiousinstitutionsandtheideologicalstructuresbywhichtheywereunderwritten.
FromTransformationtoTrans
figuration: ReformandtheAngelicImage
Thisbook’sforemostthematicconcern,theplaceofcharismaticanchoriteswithin culturesofreform,constellatesaroundthequestionofembodimentandthe relatedambivalencewithinorthodoxculturetowardthosetransformationsin spirituallifethatoperateasbothcauseandconsequenceofreligiousreforms. Amongthatculture’scentralimageswasthestatusandfunctionofreligiouselites asangelicmediatorstothelaypublicaswellastoenclosedholymenandwomen. Itwasonthestageofangelicidentitythatspiritualrivalriesconverged.Inoneway, thereformistidealsthataggrandizedclericalandmonasticauthoritiesas “angels” alsosentthemtothecellsofanchoritestoprovidespiritualsupportandsupervision,oftenasacomplementtothewrittenguidanceofanadmonitoryor regulatorytext.Asthethirteenth-centuryDominicantheologianThomas Aquinas(d.1274)noted, “Thepurposeoftheangelicofficesistoleadmento salvation, ” apurposesharedbyreligiouselites,whowerespeciallychargedwith
²⁶ Forrelatedarguments,seealsoDoyno, TheLaySaint,1–19.
thatverytask.²⁷ Foranchorites,angelicvisitationcameinbothforms,celestialand human.Thus,whenRolle,inhis FormofLiving,observedthathisanchoritic readershoulddwell “amongangelsandholymen,” hishopewasboththoroughly conventionalandnearlyredundant:holymen were angelic,evenasangelsvisited humanstoprovidespiritualguidanceandthusto “leadmentosalvation.”²⁸ Atthe sametime,andwiththesupportoftheirlayclients,enclosedmenandwomen routinelyoccupiedthisspaceasintermediaries,notonlyadoptingtheangelic functionofassistinginthesalvationofothersbutdisplayingthroughtheirvarious charismsaformofspiritualpowerthatattimesobviatedanddisplacedclerical authority.
Whatmightbecalledan “angelic” imaginaryencodedahostofidealsand anxietiesthatextendedfrommainstreamelaborationsofaunifiedmodelof spiritualauthority.Thesetensionscenteredontheidealsofreform,orre-form, andtransformation,itsinescapabletwin.Latemedievalreligiouscultureoffered severalmodelsforrepresentingtheformingandre-formingofstructuresand matter,including,asSaraRitcheyhasshown, “remaking” orre-creation.Like recreatio,orelsewhere transformatio,theterms reformatio and reformare wereat homewithinthecultureofthehighandlaterMiddleAges,wheretheyservedasa shorthandfortherealityofindividual,institutional,andculturalchange.²⁹ For orthodoxelites,however,theworldwas “remadeintoholymatter” onlyoncethat worldmetparticularideologicaldemands,includingthealignmentofcharismaticswithclericalandmonastichopesforcorporateunity,whichwereinextricably boundwiththeirclaimstospiritualpower.³⁰
Butacrossreligiousculturetherewasconsiderableuncertaintyaboutthestatus ofreformandholymatter andbodies intheirrelationtotheangelicimage. Theelusivenatureofangels,abiblicalreluctancetoconsistentlydistinguishthem fromhumans,andtheirtendencytotakeonhumanappearancemadeita challengetoarticulateanddelimittheangelicnatureinstricttheologicalterms. ForearlyChristiantheologians,whileangelicbodiesweredistinctfromthebodies ofhumans,theconditionofdemonsandhumansasinsomesense “fallen” further underscoredtheresemblancesbetweenthem.³¹Humanswerelikeangels,as
²⁷ ThomasAquinas, ST,I.Q.108,art.7.3: “patetquodofficiaangelorumordinanturadhoc,quod hominesadsalutemadducantur. ”
²⁸ Rolle, ProseandVerse,I.12.
²⁹ SaraRitchey, HolyMatter:ChangingPerceptionsoftheMaterialWorldinLateMedieval Christianity (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2014),24–90.Ontheculturesofreligiousreformduring thetwelfthcentury,seeGilesConstable, TheReformationoftheTwelfthCentury (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1996);ontheterm “reform,” seeibid.,3ff.
³⁰ Ritchey, HolyMatter,3.SeealsoDyanElliott, FallenBodies:Pollution,Sexuality,andDemonology intheMiddleAges (Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1999),14–34.
³¹See,forexample, AureliiAugustiniOpera,Part14, Decivitatedei,ed.B.DombartandA.Kalb, CCSL 47(Turnhout:Brepols,1955),8.16and9.9;seealsoElliott, FallenBodies,128–35.
