SOURCE: Leclercq, Jean. “St Bernard in Our Times.” In Saint Bernard of Clairvaux: Studies Commemorating the Eighth Centenary of His Canonization, edited by M. Basil Pennington, pp. 1-26. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1977.

[In the following essay, Leclercq surveys scholarship on Bernard's life and major writings in the 800 years after his death and reflects on the sociological, psychological, and linguistic possibilities for further research.]

In 1953 we celebrated the eight-hundredth centenary of the death of Bernard of Clairvaux. At the end of the last of the congresses held in Bernard's native Burgandy on this occasion, it occured to several of the scholars who had been brought together by the study of this singularly attractive personality that it would be a good idea to gather together again in his memory. Two more centenaries were then impending: first of all, in 1963, the introduction of Bernard's cult at Clairvaux—the equivalent of his beatification—and secondly his canonization, in 1974. At the first date the project remained but a dream, but in 1974 a volume of studies on Bernard is being published and the project will to a certain extent be realized. This time the initiative has come from the United States. Although interest in St Bernard is still very much alive in Europe, it has spread to Australia and above all to America, to such an extent that we shall soon perhaps be able to say: America docet.

If I have any right to confine myself to work which has been undertaken during the last ten years, it is because in 1963 an inventory was made of all that had been done between the centenary of Bernard's death and that of the introduction of his cult to Clairvaux.¹ Since then work has by no means come to a standstill; that much we can see from the Bibliographie bernardine which has just been brought out by Fr Eugene Manning. For the period in which we are interested it lists more than two hundred and twenty five publications, about one a month.² Even then the Bibliographie takes into account only books or articles which deal either principally or at least at some length with Bernard; those in which he is merely mentioned are omitted. A tenth of these works were written or published in the United States or Canada. Lectures about St Bernard are being given regularly at The Catholic University of America in Washington, while the activities of the Institute of Cistercian Studies at Western Michigan University (Kalamazoo) are bound to intensify interest.

I shall not here be able to do more than mention a few of the recent publications on St Bernard—their titles alone fill up many pages. It is enough to sketch in the main areas in which new discoveries either have been made or are likely to be forthcoming.

One could easily say that St Bernard is still living among us. He is not merely the object of learned borrowings, for general works appear almost every year—biographies, sketches and summaries of his teaching appear either for the first time, or in new editions or translations. This sort of book rarely adds to the knowledge we have already, but it does at least prove that for an enormous public quite outside monastic circles, Bernard's character, historical role and spiritual message continue to hold living interest. These same interests are shared by the specialists, whose works will help, we hope, to form a richer and subtler picture of Bernard, a picture which one day will be shared with the reading public. The result of all their different researches has been to demonstrate the complexity of Bernard's personality, of the times in which he lived, of the teaching which he formulated, and of the influence which he exercised. Occasionally we find people who give vent to their aggressiveness when writing about St Bernard, while others use him to promote their particular religious theory. Objectivity is commoner than it once was, however. No one will revise Bernard's process of canonization, but we are at least more prepared to see things in their true light and to abandon those legends which merely flatter his disciples. The truth, about which Bernard spoke so well, will only gain by this. What he said about “love of the truth,” the object of all his striving³ and the source of all his humility,⁴ must be applied to him just as much as to those who attempt to penetrate his mystery.

TEXTS

At the root of all work on St Bernard lies the study of his writings. Some surprises may still be in store for us if new manuscripts are discovered, but they will be the exception rather than the rule. The only real event in the recent history of Bernardine texts has been the discovery by John F. Benton of an important twelfth-century manuscript preserved in the United States. A manuscript is an experience. Like the human being who created it and whose works it transmits, a manuscript has a history and, as it were, a personality. This particular manuscript originated in England, where St Bernard was so much loved—though not by everyone, of course. It so happens that this new document's chief importance stems from what it tells us about the Letters which the abbot of Clairvaux launched, with an ardor that must be rare in the history of polemics, in opposition to the election of William Fitzherbert as Archbishop of York. Many of them have only survived from one solitary and late source, so the new manuscript has permitted a fresh edition of these letters which, if they do not add much to the posthumous glory of the man who dictated them, at least help us to know him and therefore to understand him better.⁵ The same volume contains, among other interesting pieces, a rare copy of a treatise by Isaac of Stella, and two delightful unknown works which have now been edited and which reveal the great psychological finesse which could exist in the medieval cloister.⁶

The problems of authenticity, then, have mostly been solved. It is now mainly the apocryphal writings which need to be catalogued and restored to their rightful authors whenever this is possible. They will then have to be re-edited, studied, and above all explained.⁷ One wonders why all these writings were attributed to St Bernard? To what literary genre did they belong? Did they owe much to Bernard's teaching? How were they disseminated? When were they most popular and who read them? The only one of them which has received much attention recently—and even here no definite conclusions have been reached—is the Salve Regina. Clearly there is still work for the rising generation to do. The late Fr Damien van den Eynde showed great tenacity in his patient research into the dating of St Bernard's Letters, and an equally tenacious effort will be required to continue his work; he dealt with about fifty Letters, but over four hundred remain. Only when this task has been completed will it be possible to undertake a critical biography of the abbot of Clairvaux. Meanwhile, the last two volumes of the critical edition of the Letters—now in the press—will at least show what is known and what can be conjectured concerning their date, as well as the persons and events mentioned. An essential bibliography relative to the known historical facts will also be presented. Another project (which will take some time to complete, although most of the necessary documentation has already been gathered together) will be the production of a general bibliography of all the Letters, treating them not just from the historical, but also from literary and doctrinal points of view. This will pave the way for a complete commentary on these important texts.

Another major tool, as useful for the study of the development of Bernard's thought as for the analysis of his style, will be the word-concordance which has been undertaken by the Cistercian Abbey of Achel in the Netherlands and is now nearly complete.⁸ The countless index-cards which have been compiled will enable us to make an exhaustive study of Bernard's vocabulary and, what is more, of the symbols through which he projected his ideas. This in turn will throw light on the way his imagination worked and the way he thought. The patient toil which has been expended in compiling this card library will thus contribute to a deeper understanding of the man Bernard. The concordance has been based on the new critical edition, in the preparation of which it has been so useful, and it will enable us to use the edition more accurately and more profitably. The concordance should not be expected to solve all the problems posed by St Bernard's works, but it will have achieved its aim if it helps us to define them more exactly.

A critical apparatus is often useful if the editor simply selects the variants, retaining those which have some interest and eliminating the mistakes which would only distract and mislead the reader. The editor offers suggestions which the reader may indeed prefer to those adopted (Fr Denis Farkasfalvy's familiarity with Bernard's doctrine and style allowed him to make a judgement of this sort on an important point.⁹) In the case of the exceptionally rich Bernardine manuscript tradition, however, the critical apparatus serves another purpose: it helps us to see how the author worked on his texts and how he went about revision. We can observe the hesitations of the man of letters and the ways in which he attempted to improve the expression of his thought. The critical apparatus allows us to discover in St Bernard both the writer and the artist. His art of composing, the care he had for the use of the right literary genre, and the musicality of his sentences have already been the subject of one or two studies. But practically everything still remains to be done in this field. Any future studies will be based on the critical edition and carried out with the help of the word-concordance, and perhaps one day, who knows, by means of computors, and in the light of the growing contribution of structuralism to the study of stylistics.

We can already see that the theories about what we might call “the two faces of St Bernard,” formulated when the search for manuscripts first began, are now being confirmed. His first face is the one he himself turned both on his contemporaries and on posterity when, during his last years, he carefully revised and corrected his major works, selecting, rearranging and setting in order a large number of his Sermons as a sort of commentary on the liturgical year. He also arranged about half his Letters according to a strict plan which eventually made this official collection a program of reform for the whole Church.¹⁰ Then, in the Letters which did not go through this “personality control” we see another side of Bernard's character: more spontaneous and more attentive to the realities of everyday life; the atmosphere is one of joyfulness, gaiety, even fun.¹¹ Bernard was both these men. We may ask to what extent he managed to prevent his role from dominating his personality, to realize self-unity and be sincere in spite of his literary art? These are questions which textual criticism can only suggest. There comes a time when the paleographer must give place to the psychologist.

EVENTS

The part Bernard played in the history of his times has been thoroughly studied. The Cistercian Congresses held for some years past in the United States and Canada, besides producing several publications,¹² have helped define more exactly Bernard's position vis-à-vis the Cistercian Order, monasticism as a whole, the Church, society, and tradition. He was conservative, but his mind was too inventive, too accommodating, too filled with the spirit of God to remain attached to the past without trying to recreate it. He did not always succeed, nor did his efforts always have a lasting result. Like every other man he had his cultural limitations to the time and place in which he lived. We may ask to what extent he was aware of this and suffered from it? Did he have an intuition that sociological conditions and the weight of institutions would sooner or later dominate the powerful surge of renewal which he was trying to promote? That is his mystery and God's secret. But a European may legitimately think—and this without in any way wishing to flatter his friends—that in the United States today, since the death of Thomas Merton and perhaps on account of his invisible presense, Cistercian life is showing evidence of a lucid fervor and courageous liberty strangely akin to St Bernard's.

Bernard's interventions in the life of the Church are being carefully examined, especially in England,¹³ and still more in Italy, with a rigour which puts his character to a daunting test. The patient investigation and identification of persons, dates and localities as they are revealed by charters and other documents has allowed P. Zerbi to present the abbot of Clairvaux against the background of his human relationships, his friendships, and his animosities. Without these he stands out as a lone figure, like a portrait without a frame, or like a head without a body. If we really want to get to know him, we must study his contemporaries as much as himself. This is to be seen especially in connection with Abelard. Bernard and Abelard came into conflict not only over specific doctrines and theological methods but also over the correct way to reform the Church and to bring to an end the factions which were causing so much trouble at Rome. In the Roman Curia which had to confirm the sentence passed by the Council of Sens, Bernard was not without enemies, and we can only understand the campaign he waged there against the background of the religious and political upheavals then going on around the Pope. It is only in the light of the attitudes of the two opposing parties at Rome, and especially of their leaders, that we can understand the intense activity of Bernard's chancellery in this business. By taking these considerations into account we also learn something about the chronology of Bernard's Letters: their destination and the part played by secretaries—especially Nicholas of Clairvaux—in the drafting of them. During the colloquium on mediaeval humanism held at Cluny in July, 1972, and focused on Abelard and Peter the Venerable, many of these problems were touched upon. The proceedings of this Congress and the book being prepared by P. Zerbi are expected to be important and perhaps decisive publications.¹⁴

Several works in the last few years have advanced our knowledge considerably beyond where things stood in 1953.¹⁵ Twenty years ago we could do no more than sketch a sort of contrast-history, opposing Bernard and Abelard. Today however we have a better knowledge of these two men, their background and their influence, and are thus able to see more clearly all that they had in common and to judge the exact nature of their differences. We shall eventually be in a position to elaborate a history-synthesis on the basis of the models proposed in 1969 by D. E. Luscombe¹⁶ and in 1970 by R. E. Weingart.¹⁷ These two authors were able to deal impartially with two great conflicting minds. The first dealt with Abelard's influence and the second with his sources. Weingart pointed out that generally speaking the Master of Le Pallet was in agreement not only with the Augustinian doctrines which had hitherto held the field, but also with the teaching of contemporary monastic theologians, especially St Anselm, St Bernard, and the “school of the Cistercian mystics.”¹⁸ In both cases we notice a dependence on Platonic thought, a tendency towards interiorization, and an emphasis on love in God and for God. But as far as grace and free will and the soteriological value of Christ's death were concerned, it was sometimes Abelard who did not or would not grasp St Anselm's teaching, and at other times it was Bernard who did not correctly interpret Abelard's thought. The value of these carefully written books lies in the help they give us in understanding how very difficult it was in those times for even the keenest minds to assimilate the contradictory riches inherited from the Church Fathers and the divergent doctrines subsequently derived from them. The time had not yet come for religious thought to repose peacefully on classical scholasticism. Nowadays, when the cleverly structured doctrines which scholasticism elaborated no longer seem to satisfy us, now that men like Lonergan, Rahner, von Balthasar, Küng and others propose new methods and grapple courageously with new problems, sustaining a polemic which is unfortunately not entirely free from bitterness, it is easier to realize something of the keen, albeit slightly confused, battle of wits which went on in the twelfth century over the burning questions of the day. Bernard and Abelard, each in his own way, took part in this conflict, and in it each gave the measure of the keeness of his intellect and of his talent in polemic. Both men entered the fray with an extremely rich personality, but, in spite of the workings of grace, one still tainted with imperfections.

We sometimes read rather summary judgments, not worth quoting, on Bernard's interventions on behalf of the Second Crusade. He is tagged with rather futile names inspired by present-day propaganda: he is reproached for not having been “anti-war,” “pacifist,” and “non-violent” like certain groups today. We have to see Bernard's activities on behalf of the Crusade in the context of a society whose values were very different from our own. The manuscript tradition, which must always be our starting-point, proves that the Encyclical which Bernard sent out all over Europe was far from the result of an uncontrolled impulse. In fact it was a very carefully drafted text, adapted according to its intended destination by Bernard's well-organized chancellery. It was the fruit not only of a great deal of thought, but also of profound contemplation of the mysteries of salvation. The fact that throughout the centuries it has been read by spiritual men and women quite uninvolved in military or political activities indicates the true character of the Encyclical. It was regarded as a call to conversion rather than a call to arms.¹⁹

It was also a call to peace among all peoples. That it went unheard and that the Crusade ended in failure says much about the internal divisions of Christendom and the universal acceptance of the law of violence. The Crusade was not the only war on which Bernard had to take a stand; there were others both before and after. Armed combat was the normal way of resolving disputes in medieval society. The Abbot of Clairvaux was aware of this and he realized that it did not lie within his power to change the situation, for this would have presupposed a radical transformation of the structure both of the family and of the economy. Bernard was a man of the spirit, but he had his feet firmly on the ground and so, taking his inspiration from a doctrine elaborated two generations before him by the eminent canonist Anselm of Lucca, he did his utmost to restrain men's combative instincts and to persuade them to be ruled by their consciences rather than by their baser motives. Since this tendency to violence could not entirely be done away with, Bernard tried to make it an occasion for doing penance and returning to God. He could not abolish war just like that. It existed, and the most he could do was to attempt to make it, if not holy, at least sanctifying, which according to him, it certainly could be, whatever the outcome. Success might well prove to be an “unhappy victory” if the war had been motivated by pride, love of power or the abuse of military strength.²⁰

Moreover, it had not been Bernard's idea to take part in the campaign for the Crusade. The invitation had come from Pope Eugenius III. But the Pope was only the Sovereign Pontiff. He could do nothing without the Prophet whose voice was sure to gain a hearing. So the Pope called the Prophet to his aid and Bernard, invested with a power he had not wanted, used it according to his personal convictions. He broadened the scope of the campaign, originally intended to be confined to France, and extended it to the whole of Christendom. This idea proved to be the illusions of a monk who thought of the whole church as one religious community. Bernard attempted to direct to the Holy Places idle young men whose martial amusements were the plague of the lowly and poor.

He opposed the massacre of the Jews. Through his spiritual and doctrinal influence he brought about a permanent transformation in the character of the Encyclicals which since the time of Gregory VII had been issued concerning the Crusade. Bernard transformed the promise of pardon, indulgences, and privileges into a declaration of love.²¹ There is a story told about Cardinal Suhard, archbishop of Paris, who after World War II had written long pastoral letters which were translated into many languages. The papal nuncio, Angelo Roncalli—the future John XXIII—was instructed to tell him, with a kind of gentle reproof: “Formerly encyclicals went out only from Rome. …” But once upon a time one came from Clairvaux. And while many of the encyclicals issued from the papal chancellery have been forgotten and some have not even survived, Bernard's has never even to our own day ceased to be published, translated and meditated upon. Eugenius III did not err when he charged an abbot with reminding the Church what the Spirit had to say.

DOCTRINES

We may now ask whether this Prophet, whose eloquence was matched by his elegant style, was also a thinker and teacher. Whatever else may be said, it is an undeniable fact that in comparison with the Schoolmen, who were the professionals of religious teaching, Bernard's part in the evolution of theology has never ceased to capture the attention of medievalists. About ten recent works have tried to define his method and his contribution to medieval thought about matters of faith. He is acknowledged to hold a place in the history of both theology and philosophy, but to which discipline does his contribution really belong? Are we dealing merely with piety or with a true dialectic? How does he define the relationship between authority and reason? Is it possible to analyse his personal experience? What was his intellectual and cultural milieu? There is still a great deal to be said on all these points, for Bernard's genius defies categorization. The most original contribution to work in this field has been made by John Sommerfeldt, Executive Director of the Institute of Cistercian Studies at Western Michigan University. He is concentrating his research on Bernard's epistemology, for he thinks that Bernard's concept of knowledge should give us the key to his apparent inconsistencies. According to his theory, Bernard has a specific and unique logic arising from his personal spiritual inspiration, difficult to define and impossible to classify in the categories with which we are familiar.

Bernard applies this system to the principal problems of dogmatics and ethics: in Book Five of his treatise, On Consideration, he treats of the unity and trinity of God and of the two natures of the Word Incarnate. Elsewhere he mixes elements of speculative Christology with a meditative contemplation of the mysteries celebrated in the liturgical year. More than once his references to the interior experience of Jesus have something about them which we would be tempted to call modern did we not know it to be Biblical. This is true, for example, of the forceful pages where he comments on those passages in the Letter to the Hebrews and in Deutero-Isaiah which describe the misery which the Word Incarnate suffered in order to learn mercy through obedience. “In order to be numbered with his brothers,” he was willing “to share all our afflictions, save sin itself.”²²

To Mariology Bernard made no new contribution, nor did he set out to do so. He thought it more important to stress Mary's faith, which made the Incarnation possible. Arguing in his usual incomparable style, he encouraged the development of what we might call the “feudalization” of the Mother of God. Like all his contemporaries he gave the “handmaid of the Lord” titles which in politics and law invested her with the power and prerogatives of an empress, a queen, an advocate, the head of an army, and many other persons of rank. In no way, however, did he reduce our relations with Mary to the juridical level, because he constantly reminded us that her power springs from her humility.²³ Bernard is even recognized as having made some contribution to “Josephology.” As to the notion of “Sacrament,” he gave it a wider meaning than that suggested by the list of the seven sacraments, which was first drawn up in his times. On this point, as also on the the subject of confession, which he saw as the praise of God by the confession of sins, Bernard was nearer to the Fathers than to the Schoolmen—which explains once more why he is so close to modern thought. Bernard's anthropology was certainly based on a particular conception of man's nature and faculties, but it also took into account the workings of grace and the other means of salvation which God offers to a Christian. The presence and activity of God in the world leads man to discover the significance of the concupiscence he feels within him; it means that he is sinful. Man's spiritual growth starts with this self-knowledge, the recognition of his wretchedness. The result of this humiliating discovery should not be to make man hate or feel sorry for himself, but rather to humble him, to fill him with joy and a desire for God, and compel him to develop his capacities to the full. Christian humanism consists in setting free the image of God which is in each one of us. Although this image is found in all men, the full and perfect image of the Father was manifested only in the Incarnate Word. It is the mystery which we celebrate in our liturgy, and it is this holiness of which we must partake when we receive the sacraments, especially the eucharist and penance—symbolized by the washing of the feet—once we have been initiated into Christ's risen life by baptism.²⁴

The ascetic strives to make good use of the opportunities for salvation, which are indeed open to every Christian but will not bear fruit without his free collaboration. Chiefly they are mortification, obedience, submission to a spiritual father and willing acceptance in the case of monks of the demands of monastic observance. Just as Bernard elaborated a theology of the Crusades which had existed in practice long beforehand, he also proposed a new doctrinal interpretation of the Cistercian Order. He perceived clearly the intentions of the Founders of the Order, defined the role of contemplative community within the Church, and recognized those elements of the Rule which provide real means of union with God and imitation of Jesus Christ, as distinct from other secondary elements which he never mentioned.²⁵ This broad yet concise vision, this sure intuition of the spirit of the Gospel helped Bernard to determine the limits of obedience, or more exactly—because the horizon of virtue stretches into infinity and leads to God—the limits of the right to command and the duty to obey: everything is subject to charity, which Bernard calls his lady: Domina caritas.²⁶

Bernard used this formula when he talked about the Church, and it is probably his ecclesiology which arouses most interest among historians. Bernard's attitude to the mystery of the Church has been much studied, especially the marriage symbolism which he applied to it in commenting on the Song of Songs, and the lofty ideal he had of the papacy, of the duties incumbent on bishops, of the virtue of clergy, and of the discipline of the Christian layman. Here as elsewhere, St Bernard did not simply propound a theory based on strict speculative logic. His theology is “committed,” and strengthened by a reforming impulse. Doctrine is not lacking, but it can only be understood in the light of particular situations, where any one of several aspects may be stressed at different times. Thus Bernard could talk about the pope's temporal power on one occasion, about the use he may make of the “two swords” on another, or else about the independence from the Roman Curia which the bishops so rightly claimed. We must therefore be careful not to project into his writings such modern concepts and terms as “collegiality” and “subsidiarity”. Neither Bernard, the popes, nor the circles in which they moved had any precise idea of the implications of papal and episcopal authority. Feeling their way, so to speak, in the darkness of history, they fulfilled their pastoral role. Bernard hoped that in the absence of clear ideas they would at least have a pure heart.

The most recent work to shed light on Bernard's concept of the Church has come from Msgr. B. Jacqueline.²⁷ During the nineteenth century and the first third of the twentieth, Bernard was considered no more than a pious writer who, though he was certainly gifted and able to stir one's innermost feelings, had no doctrinal depth. In 1934, however, Étienne Gilson published an extremely influential book which made people begin to realize that Bernard was indeed a theologian. But no one ever asked very seriously whether he was also a canonist—and probably if the question is put as badly as that, the answer is, “No.” Bernard was far too great to let himself get tangled up in categories, especially a category he was known to treat with gentle irony.²⁸ However, his writings and methodology show that he had firsthand knowledge of Ivo of Chartres, a good legal education, an astounding facility for wielding the technical terms of canon law, and a real ability to interpret laws and apply them to monastic problems as well as to relations between the Pope, the secular authority, and bishops.

As in other areas of his activity, the best way of understanding St Bernard's legal theories is by identifying his sources. These are gradually being tracked down and Bernard's use of them given careful attention. First among his sources was the Bible, and here Fr Denis Farkasfalvy has done some very important work, particularly on the subject of inspiration. The results of his researches appeared at the very moment when the Second Vatican Council was preparing a statement on inspiration and attempting to disentangle this mystery from the clear but over-rigid categories imposed on it by apologetics which have tended to leave no room for the delicate shades of meaning required when we talk about this subject. This first general view of St Bernard's ideas on inspiration was therefore all the more appreciated. In the words of one scholar well- qualified to judge: “How much richer is this way of seeing things than that of the theories in force up to now. We have much to learn from it. Even if in our modern studies on inspiration we are obliged to diversify our terms and our concepts, we would do well to set out from these rich organic views rather than from over rational pedagogical theories.²⁹ Other works have dealt with particular Biblical themes which Bernard interpreted in the light of the patristic tradition, but he never simply borrowed from the past; he opened up new vistas and made unexpected poetic variations: the return to paradise, sober inebriation, fertile overshadowing, the evangelical beatitudes. His exegetical methods and the strongly Biblical character of his thought reveal a psychology, an interior language and a type of imagination modeled almost exclusively on Holy Scripture. There are, of course, other sources: historians have more than once pointed out the influence of Origen and the Platonic school as well as that of St Anselm.

POSTHUMOUS REPUTATION

The history of St Bernard and the impact of his thought does not come to an end with his death. His influence has continued down the centuries and scholars are continuously finding traces of it. One of the first writers to be influenced by him was Geoffrey of Auxerre, one of Abelard's students “converted” by Bernard. He became the Abbot of Clairvaux's disciple, secretary, biographer, and ultimately his successor. But he was never simply an imitator of Bernard, as was Nicolas of Montieramey. He did better than that: he retained and handed on in living form the message of the man who had moulded him to the Cistercian spirit. He did this through his activity within the Order (he was abbot of several Cistercian houses) and also through his writings. Some of these are Sermons he either delivered or wrote in monasteries, while others are commentaries on the Song of Songs and the Book of Revelation. Fr F. Gastaldelli is editing the corpus of Geoffrey's works, and intends also to study his teaching and in particular his ecclesiology,³⁰ comparing it with Bernard's own ideas on the Church. Another way in which Bernard continued to influence his Order after his death was through the foundations which he made in Spain and elsewhere. Not all of these were successful, of course; the direct action of a powerful personality often meets with resistance from others not so great.

No one, however, could prevent Bernard's ideas and his reputation for holiness from being spread abroad; he soon became the patron of monasteries and parishes in Bavaria and many other countries. In architecture his buildings at Fontenay and elsewhere were taken as models for other foundations, and in course of time a real “Bernardine plan” was created, different from the “Benedictine plan.” He played a crucial role in the formation of that Roman Christendom whose imagery and works of art form one of the peaks in human creativity. The anonymous authors of long invocations to St Bernard praise the “true science” in which he excelled and which “merits being called real wisdom.” These and many other devotional formulas show that Bernard's spiritual influence did not die.

Bernard's writings were soon translated into French and German, and these texts are now being edited and studied. Those Letters which he did not include in the official register were brought together in many minor collections which are going to be analyzed in order to find out where, when and why they were written, and whether they were collected for purposes of reform, propaganda or edification. Through paleography, geography and chronology we shall eventually be able to trace the main channels of Bernard's widespread influence and to draw maps to show where it was most intense. Bernardine themes have already been detected in Latin texts such as the Meditations on Self-Knowledge or the Jesu dulcis memoria, echoed in Jean de Beaugenais in the second-half of the twelfth century. In vernacular literature, Bernard's influence is more or less explicit in one of the manuscripts of Chastel perilleux, in the Legende du Graal, in the Somme e Roy, and then in Dante, Heinrich Suso and Hus' disciple Nicholas of Dresden,³¹ who, according to a Czechoslovak medievalist, gave the reforming ideas of the abbot of Clairvaux “an entirely new revolutionary accent.”³² Bernard never lacked opponents either. A. H. Bredero has devoted to his posthumous reputation a provocative book in which he shows him in the midst of the conflicting and contradictory interpretations which history has put on his career.³³ The influence of St Bernard is to be seen in scholasticism, in the political and religious struggles which masked the end of the middle ages, in the works of Luther, Calvin, and Pascal, and even in the statements of John XXIII and Paul VI. His message was so rich and varied, so incisively formulated in such a variety of different causes, that the supporters of opposing theories rivaled each other in invoking his support, never fearing to drag his words out of their context. He had uttered so many wonderful words that people were tempted to attribute to him still more. Paul Valéry, for example, ascribes to Bernard words which he never wrote (but which are not unworthy of him).³⁴ Blondel, too, was well-acquainted with Bernard's authentic works: it is now known that when he was preparing Action he copied more than thirty passages and retained about ten of them for his final draft.³⁵

So we see that Bernard left to posterity several differing portraits of himself. In the generation which followed his own, the character trait most often stressed, especially in monastic circles, was his charm, his gaiety, and the joy which mingled both with his gentleness and with his fervor. (After all, he was celebrated as a zitherist, and even described himself as a “juggler.”³⁶) Later, when the memory of Bernard as a person had faded, he stood out in men's minds more as a master than anything else, and his ideas were made to serve various causes. In the Baroque period and in the nineteenth-century Catholic restoration he served as a model of affective piety (although largely on account of legends and apocryphal texts). Vacandard's scientific biography, published in 1895 and not yet superseded, drew the attention of medievalists to the part played by Bernard. Today people are more interested in his doctrine; in the recent Bibliographie Bernardine, the largest section is devoted to his theology.

PERSPECTIVES

Is it possible to predict, on the basis of existing research, what aspects of Bernard will interest future generations? Certainly three. They are connected with the three disciplines in favor today: sociology, psychology, and linguistics. First sociology. This not only analyzes recent or contemporary situations which can be studied statistically, but also the history of societies. John Sommerfeldt in the United States began by trying to locate Bernard precisely in the context of the social, economic, and political structures of his day. In France, G. Duby has begun to study the mass movements which threw up, but also set bounds on, strong personalities like the Abbot of Clairvaux and others. Even while these pages are being written, there are monks in Latin America who are wondering what contribution Bernard can make to the “theology of liberation.”

Already in his recent Vie et Mort des Instituts Religieux: Approches Psychosociologiques, Fr Hostie has dealt with St Bernard. Attempting to fathom the significance of religious groups, he observes that St Bernard and the band of companions who entered the Order of Cîteaux found there a goal to whose attainment they could dedicate themselves.³⁷ In every age it is not so much a glorious past that counts as an aim for the future. The sons of St Bernard are compelled to ask themselves whether they still have one today. Doubtless this sort of standard is to some extent irrelevant to the monastic life. Unlike the adherents of ideologies, monks give themselves to God simply for the sake of him and his kingdom, while ordinary concepts related to the future—progress, evolution, revolution, planning and so forth—need to be complemented by some sort of hope, whether it be based on renewal, re-creation, resurrection, or eschatology. But the greatness of St Bernard lay precisely in the fact that he united so harmoniously desire for God and attention to actuality, or as he himself said, the need of the moment, quod tempus requirit.³⁸

In sociology, much use is being made of the concept “utopia,” which “attempts to change the existing order by inspiring a collectivity, or an important part of a collectivity, with the desire to transcend its situation,”³⁹ and in this research hypothesis is being applied to monasticism. Between the economic plan of the first Cistercians and the reality which they created,⁴⁰ between Bernard's ideal life and the existence which he led, there are contradictions which some people find irritating: how often the Abbot of Clairvaux has been accused of not living up to what he preached! Perhaps it is not sufficiently clear that there is nearly always a gap between the value-system adopted by a group and the behavior of individual members,⁴¹ between the “ideology proclaimed” and the “life lived”⁴² between “charisma” and “social grace,”⁴³ between the “writer's utopia” and the “practitioner's utopia”⁴⁴ between the “monastic project” and the “real world.”⁴⁵ An appreciation of these distinctions would allow a coherent reading of historical events which are at first sight contradictory.⁴⁶ By applying this method to a consideration of the relationship between town and country,⁴⁷ a sociologist inevitably comes to the same conclusions as a specialist in the philosophy of medieval language: Abelard was a professor living in town whereas Bernard belonged by his convictions to the desert of the rural world.⁴⁸ This did not prevent the Abbot of Clairvaux from intervening in many towns in France, Italy, Lotharingia, the Rhineland and Bavaria. He was free with his own mission just as he was with juridical structures when they were obstacles to his spiritual intuitions. Maybe J. Séguy is correct when he writes that: “St Bernard upholds the tendency to give primacy to the individual conscience over obedience to superiors, in keeping with Romans 14:3. He repeats the Apostle's words, Omnino non expedit spiritum velle extinguere. And again, perfecta obedientia legem nescit.”⁴⁹

This leads to the frontiers of another science which will one day have to be applied to St Bernard: psychology. This will have to be done respectfully, of course, because grace modifies our spontaneous urges and makes each man not a problem to be solved, but a mystery which only God can understand. The literature which is interposed between the reader and the writer, especially if he is talented, also has to be treated with care. Style is both a medium and a defence mechanism. Any psychological examination must be done with sincerity and objectivity. St Peter Damian lost nothing when, on the occasion of the ninth centenary of his death in 1972, his writings and those of his biographer were examined with a view to discovering the stages of his affective development. It is too late to submit men of the Middle Ages to therapy: some managed to be saints without it. But we must not be afraid of the truth which an enquiry, so far as it is possible to make one, might uncover about the development of these men's minds. Such an examination must be more than a simple study of mentality or the projection of the problems of ideals of the writer, be he medievalist, spiritual author, or novelist, on to a person of the past. A clinical judgment scientifically made is something very difficult to arrive at, but we cannot say that it is impossible until we have tried. Psychological work is already being done on Bernard's writings. It is planned to hold a congress on “Bernard and Aggressiveness,” which promises to be a long job, for it will have to examine his behavior in all the different conflict situations in which he found himself. Perhaps in the long run, realizing more clearly the limitations of the man Bernard—and man he never ceased to be—we shall admire all the more the victories of grace within him.

Finally a third discipline which must be applied to Bernard's writings is linguistics, understood as a study of language in its broadest sense. The inquiry will have to cover Bernard's imagination, his use of symbols and the way in which they were expressed, the way in which he arranged words and phrases, and the sonority which they achieved. Every aspect of aesthetics, literary creation, and the mysterious genesis of a poetical work will have to be examined.

More and more, Bernardine studies, like so many others, will become interdisciplinary: we shall be on the frontiers of spirituality, theology, psychology, sociology and linguistics. Whatever cannot be done by a single specialist will be carried out by groups of research workers. The perspectives are unlimited.

Notes

1. “Les études bernardines en 1963,” Bulletin de la Société internationale pour l'étude de la philosophie médiévale 5 (1963) 121-128. In the following pages, any titles which are not preceded by the name of an author indicate publications where I have dealt at greater length with subjects which can only be touched upon here.

2. Eugene Manning, Bibliographie bernardine (1957-1970), Documentation cistercienne 6 (1970) IV+81 pp. In the present notes I shall only mention works not included in this publication, or those which have come out since 1970.

3. St Bernard, SC 77:5; OB 2:264: “Veritas est quam quaerit et quam vere diligit anima eius. Et revera quis fidus verusque animae amor, nisi utique in quo veritas adamatur. Rationis sum compos, veritatis sum capax; sed utinam non forem, si amor veri defuerit!”

4. Hum 2-3; OB 3:17-8. There are many other texts on truth.

5. Lettres de S. Bernard trouvées depuis les Mauristes, II. Les lettres du manuscrit de Claremont, forthcoming in the Mélanges offered to Marcel Richard (Berlin, 1974). Quite recently, fragments of Sermons and Sentences have been found in Norway in a twelfth-century manuscript which has been analysed by L. Gjerlow, “A Twelfth-Century Victorine or Bernardine Manuscript in the Library of Elverum,” R Ben [Revue Benedictine] 82 (1972) 313-38. And the librarian of Keble College, Oxford, Mr M. B. Parkes, kindly allowed me to examine ms. 37 in his library, the analysis of which he is going to publish. This manuscript may contain new sentences of Bernard. In order to verify the authenticity of such texts, H. Rochais has drawn up a method which he has used in his different publications on the Sententiae. In particular he has collected a series of reference cards of various “themes” and “expressions” which allow for a comparative study of each sentence and Bernard's works as a whole. Dr R. W. Hunt, keeper of the manuscripts of the Bodleian Library also showed me a manuscript from the Lyell fund similar to that of Elverum.

6. These texts are edited in “Deux témoins de la vie des cloîtres au moyen âge.” Studi medievali 13 (1972) 1-9; analysis in “Modern Psychology and Interpretation of Mediaeval Texts,” Speculum 48 (1973) 476-490.

7. For a new series of Corpus christianorum devoted to the opera spuria, an inventory and an edition of these texts is projected. A letter of a Pseudo-Bernard is published under the title “Un témoin de l'antiféminisme au moyen âge,” R Ben 80 (1970) 304-9.

8. Kartoteek Bernard Konkordans, St Benedictus-Abdij, Borkel en Schaft (N.B.), The Netherlands. This concordance contains the matter for the volume of indexes which will finish the critical edition of the S. Bernardi opera. The way in which this material is to be used, the selection and ordering necessary, raises more than one problem. These are being examined and a decision is impending.

9. Denis Farkasfalvi, O CIST L'inspiration de l'Ecriture Sainte dans la théologie de S. Bernard, Studia Anselmiana 53 (1964) p. 44.

10. “Lettres de S. Bernard: histoire ou littérature?” Studi medievali 12 (1971) 1-74; “Recherches sur la collection des épîtres de S. Bernard,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 1 (1971) 205-19.

11. The sermons of the first genre are in OB 5; those of the second are in OB 6-1 and especially OB 6-2.

12. M. Basil Pennington, OCSO (ed.), The Cistercian Spirit (Spencer, 1970); Rule and Life (Spencer, 1971); and Contemplative Community (Washington, 1972).

13. Albert Stacpoole, “The Monastic and Religious Orders in York, 650-1540,” The Noble City of York (York, 1971) 620-7. L. G. D. Baker, “The Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles in England, The Foundation History of Fountains Abbey,” ASOC 25 (1969) 14-41; “The Foundation of Fountains Abbey,” Northern History 4 (1969) 29-43; other works are forthcoming.

14. P. Zerbi has already published “Panem nostrum supersubstantialem. Abelardo polemista ed esegeta nell'Ep. X,” Contributi dell' Instituto di storia mediaevale. II. Raccolta di studi in onore Sergi Mochi Onor (Milan, 1972) 624-638.

15. “Notes abélardiennes,” Bulletin de Philosophie médiévale 13 (1971) 68-71.

16. D. E. Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard. The Influence of Abelard's Thought in the Early Scholastic Period, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Second Series, Vol. 14 (Cambridge, 1969). Reviewed in The Ampleforth Journal 74 (1969) 411-2.

17. R. E. Weingart, The Logic of Divine Love, A Critical Analysis of the Soteriology of Peter Abelard (Oxford, 1970).

18. Ibid., p. 122, n. 6. In a review in Medium Aevum 41 (1972) 59-61, I indicated similar references. Colin Morris, The Discovery of the Individual, 1050-1200 (London, 1972) p. 73, writes in connexion with Abelard's teaching on penance that he “was expressing, in his usual incisive way, the convictions of most of his contemporaries.” Here are other indications of the superficial and overfacile character of contrast-history. First, there was a tendency to oppose Abelard and the liturgy he introduced at the Paraclete to St Bernard and Cistercian liturgy. Today we are discovering in the Ordinarium of the Paraclete many specifically Cistercian elements. For example, the hymns were borrowed directly from the Cistercian hymnal. (I am indebted for this information to Fr Chrysogonus Waddell OCSO). Second, the sort of architecture Bernard liked was said to be opposed to that of Cluny. But a recent careful study has pointed out that the church at Fontenay—the monastery which Bernard liked best and which served as a model for several of his foundations—was, in its conception and construction, influenced by several factors, the most important being Cluny itself. It has, in particular, certain columns and colonnettes which are only there for the sake of art. These observations bring up the problem of the evolution Bernard went through in his relations with Cluny, and that of the apparent or real inconsistencies which might exist between his passionate declaration and his acts. It is easier to hold that he avoided having any clear cut ideas about architecture. He did not want to elaborate a Bernardine esthetic. He thought it more important to promote spiritual attitudes compatible with different esthetic conceptions and realizations. Such is the conclusion arrived at by P. Gilbert, “Un chef d'oeuvre d'art cistercien peut-être influencé par Cluny, l'abbatiale de Fontenay,” Académie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des Beaux-Arts, 3 (1970) 20-45, with illustrations. Concerning the “Bernardine” or “Claravallian” plan, fresh precisions have recently been given by R. Courtois, “La première église cistercienne (XII^e siècle) de l'abbaye de Vauclair (Aisne),” Archéologie médiévale 2 (1972) 112-3. The author notes (p. 114) the similarity between the plan of Vauclair and that of Fountains in Great Britain: “the first abbot of Vauclair, the englishman Henry Murdac, who from 1134 onwards presided over the destiny of Vauclair,” was to become abbot of Fountains some years later. Cf ibid., pp. 104-5.

19. “L'encyclique de S. Bernard en faveur de la croisade,” R Ben 81 (1971) 282-308; “A propos de l'encyclique de S. Bernard sur la croisade,” R Ben 82 (1972) 312.

20. “St Bernard's Attitude to War,” Studies in Medieval Cistercian History II, CS 24 (Washington: Cistercian Publications, forthcoming).

21. “Pour l'histoire de l'encyclique de S. Bernard sur la croisade,” forthcoming in the Mélanges offered to E. R. Labande (Poitiers, 1974).

22. Hum 6-12; OB 3:21-25. The terms which speak of learning something (didicere) and of experiencing it (experimentum, experiri, experientia), occur some ten times.

23. “Faith and Culture in the Devotion to Mary,” forthcoming.

24. “Imitation of Christ and Sacrament in the Theology of St Bernard,” forthcoming in Cistercian Studies 9 (1974) 36-54 (German version, 1963). On the image of God according to St Bernard—a subject often dealt with—we may expect further light from the thesis nearing completion of B. Piault. The anthropology of St Bernard is also being studied by Hisao Yamasaki who is preparing a doctoral thesis at the University of Tokyo.

25. “S. Bernard de Clairvaux et la communauté contemplative,” Collectanea OCR 34 (1972) 36-84. In English in Cistercian Studies 7 (1971) 97-142. “St Bernard and the Rule of St Benedict, Rule and Life, CS 12, pp. 151-67. Forthcoming in French in Collectanea OCR 35 (1973).

26. The expression is to be found in Ep 14, PL 182:117; commentary in “St Bernard and the Church,” The Downside Review 85 (1967) p. 293.

27. The title of his thesis is Episcopat et Papauté chez Bernard de Clairvaux, (Paris: J. Vrin, 1973). I thank Msgr B. Jacqueline for having shown me the manuscript. A summary has already appeared under the same title in Collectanea OCR 34 (1972) 218-229.

28. Pre 57; OB 3:29: “Praetermitto et aliqua de canonibus quae vos requiritis, tum quoniam nostra non refert qui monachi sumus, tum quia in libris eadem ipsi facile reperire potestis, si quaerere non gravemini.”

29. L. A. Schokel, review (in Spanish) of L'inspiration de l'Ecriture (cited above, note 9), in Biblica 46 (1965) 476-7. The reviewer gives a very solid summary of the principal ideas of the book. We may add the judgment of Jacques de Vitry who said in his Historia occidentalis that, like St John, Bernard drew his interpretation of the Scriptures from the breast of our Lord. The source of his doctrine is his personal experience: The Historia Occidentalis of Jacques de Vitry: A Critical Edition, ed. J. F. Hinnebusch, (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1972), p. 114. Concerning the Scriptural sources of St Bernard, E. Gilson pointed out the importance of a “johannine group”: Fr Bernard Oliver, a Cistercian of Azul in Argentina, has set out to verify this hypothesis, comparing at the same time St Bernard and St Anselm. G. P. Violi, in a study entitled La Bibbia nei Sermones super Psalmum “Qui habitat” di S. Bernardo, which, it is to be hoped, will be published, has discovered in the group of Sermons which he has examined a “mathean group”: out of approximately 1400 citations or reminiscences, almost 150 come from St Matthew. The use of the Letter to the Romans in the De gratia et libero arbitrio would also be worth going into. The liturgical background of the citations should be studied. The approaching edition of the most ancient Cistercian breviary, formerly attributed to Steven Harding, in The Bibliotheca Cisterciensis, will provide elements for such enquiry. A card index of all the quotations of the Bible which are not those of the Vulgate, with identification of their sources in the liturgy and the Fathers, is under way. It will have to be completed and then put to use.

30. Already Fr F. Gastaldelli has published Ricerche su Goffredo di Auxerre. Il compendio anonimo del Super Apocalypsim. Introduzione ed editione critica, Bibliotheca Veterum Sapientia 12 (1970); Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, edizione critica a cura di Ferruccio Gastaldelli (Rome, 1970). In preparation are Goffedo di Auxerre, Expositio in Cantica Canticorum, edizione critica (Rome, 1973) Edizione critica dei Sermones di Goffredo di Auxerre and research on the sources which should enlighten us on the works of both Geoffrey and St Bernard: I padri greci nella biblioteca di Clairvaux nel secolo XII; L'ecclesiologia nei commenti biblici di Goffredo di Auxerre.

31. For the Middle Ages, to the witnesses of the influence of St Bernard mentioned in the Bibliographie, may be added the text edited by L. Reypens, Meester Wilhem Jordaens, De Oris Osculo of de Mystieke Mondkus (Antwerp, 1967).

32. J. Nechutova, “Husovo Kázáni Dixit Martha a Mikuláśez Drázdan traktat De purgatorio—Kotázce Husovy literárni pirvodnosti,” Listy filologické 88 (1965) 147-57, according to the review given in German by P. Spunar, Scriptorium 22 (1968) p. 359, n. 860.

33. See also chapter entitled “La survie,” pp. 109-45 of S. Bernard et l'esprit cistercien (Paris, 1966). English and Italian translations are in preparation: CS 16 (1975). For the sixteenth century, to the witnesses of influence we mentioned in the Bibliographie, add Chlichtove, according to J. P. Massaut, Josse Chlichtove: L'humanisme et la réforme du clergé (Paris, 1968), 2 vols; see the Index, at the name of S. Bernard, 2:419.

34. Mrs. Judith MacManus, School of French, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia, has been kind enough to draw my attention to these citations, for which I thank her.

35. C. Mahamé “Les auteurs spirituels dans l'élaboration de la philosophie blondélienne, 1883-1893,” Recherches de science religieuse 56 (1968) 232-7: “Saint Bernard.”

36. “Le thème de la jonglerie chez S. Bernard et ses contemporains, Revue d'histoire de la spiritualité 48 (1972) 385-400; “Ioculator et saltator. S. Bernard et l'image du jongleur dans les manuscrits,” Translatio studii; manuscript and library studies honoring Oliver L. Kapsner, ed. Julian G. Plante (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1973). To the texts already mentioned concerning Bernard's gentleness, in the Bibliographie (especially “Temoins de la devotion a S. Bernard,” reprinted in Recueil d'études sur S. Bernard III, (Rome, 1969) pp. 336-42 may be added the witness of Geoffrey of Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, ed. F. Gastaldelli, p. 116: “Quam dulcissime nobis pater noster sanctus Bernardus dum adviveret. …” (See above note 30) The whole context speaks of iocunditas.

37. R. Hostie, SJ Vie et mort des ordres religieux. Approches psychosociologiques (Paris, 1972) p. 88.

38. Csi 2:9; OB 3:417, 2-3.

39. J. Séguy, “Une sociologie des sociétés imaginées: monachisme et utopie,” Annales. E.S.C. 26 (1971) p. 328.

40. R. Roelb, “Plan and Reality in Medieval Monastic Economy: The Cistercians” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 49 (1972) 83-114.

41. G. Duby, “L'histoire des systèmes de valeurs,” History and Theory 11 (1972) 15-25.

42. J. Séguy, p. 345.

43. Ibid., p. 352.

44. Ibid., p. 354.

45. Ibid., p. 338.

46. Ibid., p. 353.

47. Ibid., pp. 342-344.

48. J. Jolivet, Arts du langage et théologie chez Abélard (Paris, 1969) 361-362.

49. J. Séguy, pp. 351-352.