SOURCE: Renna, Thomas. “St. Bernard and the Pagan Classics: An Historical View.” In The Chimaera of His Age: Studies of Bernard of Clairvaux; Studies in Medieval Cistercian History V, edited by E. Rozanne Elder and John R. Sommerfeldt, pp. 122-39. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1980.

[In the following essay, Renna explores Bernard's attitude toward the Latin classics, explaining that while he himself was learned in classical works, Bernard opposed the study of pagan writings for monks.]

Was there a monastic attitude towards pagan literature during the early Middle Ages? While historians prior to the 1920s stressed the monks' hostility toward the latin classics, more recent scholarship refers to monastic humanism, that is, the monks' tendency to admire and even to assimilate the style and content of antique works. At the least, many monks read the classics as a preparation for divine studies. But what about the persistent minority of monks who condemned the study of the classics? Historians usually reply that the two traditions simply co-existed, with the hostile view assuming perhaps a quasi-official status—at least after the eighth century.

But rather than speak of two traditions toward the classics—as if one excluded the other—it would be more useful to adopt the categories absolute and relative. Just as Augustine contrasted the earthly and heavenly manifestations of the civitas Dei, so too the monks displayed a dual attitude towards non-christian literature. In the light of eternity letters are as nothing. But as an aid to salvation (e.g., as a linguistic tool for the study of Scripture) the trivium possesses relative value.

But which of these two attitudes towards the classics can properly be termed monastic? While the monastic outlook which opposed liberal study might be more consistent with ascetic renunciation, it probably never reflected the prevailing view in early medieval monasteries. Monks utilized the ancient writings in much the same way as did clerics. Certainly no literary argument either for or against classical study was a monopoly of the monks. It may be premature to speak of a bona fide monastic attitude towards pagan literature—at least before the eleventh century. The Cistercians of the early twelfth century best illustrate the character of this more formal attitude. While the various elements of this view had been present since the later Roman Empire, they were not crystallized into anything like a theory until the monastic revival of 1050-1150.

Insofar as western monks were concerned, the solutions of Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine had the greatest influence on the monastic literary posture towards learning. Medieval monks often echo the patristic suspicion of pagan doctrines, idolatries, and obscenities. But most influential was the association of pagan works with the world, an idea expanded by Pope Gregory the Great.¹ Ancient letters came to be seen more as secular than as pagan as germanic Europe moved away from its roman roots. Irish and anglo-saxon monks did not feel threatened by a remote roman past.

All this does not add up to a consistent monastic perception of the classics. Benedict² and Cassiodorus³ approved of the study of literature, while Cassian⁴ and Isidore⁵ did not. The tradition was established that since the pagan classics were dangerous, they had to be treated solely as a means to higher ends: their use had to be justified in terms of the goals of the ascetic life. Often in an accessus an author would mention one of the standard patristic images (Israelites stealing gold from Egypt, or taking Canaanite wives) without further comment. All of the clichés summoned by monks are repeated in clerical writings.⁶

The carolingian monastic reforms compelled monks to continue rationalizing their handling of classical texts. In the ninth and tenth centuries defenders of the classics professed to see in them much wisdom. Even the beauty of the literary images can inspire the christian reader to nobler thoughts. On the other side, the critics of classical study stress the risks secular study brings to the quest for God.⁷ Sensual delight in the use of language and literary images can ensnare the holy soul in base things. No doubt the further elaboration of monastic theology helped to clarify the monk's perspective of the auctores. For some monks it was becoming evident that extraneous learning made no contribution to the soul's ascent to union with God in the silence of the cloister. The majority of monks who read and utilized the classics felt no such qualms.⁸

In the eleventh century the rise of clerical schools and a monastic resurgence provided the conditions proper for the appearance of a more distinctly monastic notion of education. The monks needed a philosophy which would separate them from the cathedral schools and would suit their isolated life. Monks attacked classical learning as incompatible with their own unique objectives. These criticisms—formerly made almost casually in a variety of contexts⁹—appear within formal defenses of the monastic way. In his treatise on monks Peter Damian excluded the unnecessary parts of monastic training.¹⁰ Liberal studies are trivial because they did nothing to the holy soul's search for God in the fire of love. Whereas a tenth-century monastic critic of the classics might repeat one of the standard arguments against them, Damian incorporates his critique within a treatise on the perfection of monks. Instead of replying to the usual retort that liberal studies are necessary to train the monk for scriptural studies, Damian prefers to render the argument irrelevant. Liberal learning is unrelated to the monk's weeping, and is therefore superfluous. He does not see the classics as particularly dangerous or immoral. Since the focus of monastic life is interior peace, anything which disturbs this quiet is to be omitted. Even the reading of the Scripture is in this sense secondary to the monk's inner life. No doubt many reformers, like Damian, were repelled by the fame and influence of well-known monastic schools such as Bec. Extrabiblical studies reminded them of the noise and bustle of these not-so-cloistered monastic learning centers, as well as the dynamic cathedral schools.

Damian's emphasis on the need for a monk formerly trained in liberal studies to convert to the schola Christi was in fact a common motif in eleventh and twelfth-century writing. When a schoolmaster entered Cluny he converted to humility.¹¹ David of Himmerod abandoned his studies to be instructed in the Rule of Benedict.¹² Peter of Celle,¹³ Peter Comestor,¹⁴ and Rupert of Deutz¹⁵ voice similar sentiments.

This notion of conversion from liberal studies to monastic philosophia is linked to the tradition which associated classical with worldly values. In semi-autobiographical passages, monastic writers of the ninth and tenth centuries often express reservations about their pursuit of non-christian works.¹⁶ Some even abandoned such studies late in life, as in the archetypical instance of Alcuin. But these inner struggles should not be taken too literally, for they are often only rhetorical flourishes, well established by tradition, which added heroic stature to an author (did not Jerome and Augustine suffer the same anguish?). Such self-revelations signaled an acute moral sense, and could excuse continued study of the suspicious writings. Also, a monk-reader would be warned not to become inordinately attached to secular things. These literary expressions of spiritual turmoil show that monks had not yet discovered a convincing way to assimilate antique literature with their own work of copying, examining, and absorbing these texts.

But the conversions from liberal studies to the schola Christi between 1050-1150 have a note of personal commitment. The emphasis is now more on the change from one ordo in the church to another, and less on the change of the subjects being studied. As the contemplative life became more clearly defined, so too did the monastic attitude towards the classics. It is misleading to call the new monks anti-humanists¹⁷ as if they were simply resisting a pedagogical trend. It would be more accurate to think of the distrust of the traditional trivium as resulting from a reassessment of the direction of monastic life. Also, the closing of external schools was partially the outcome of the popularity of the cathedral centers. In their opposition to the classics the new monks were not so much against something, as for the purity of the cloister. They were concerned with that which a monk was converted to, not what he was converted from. This tendency to evaluate secular study in terms of a monk's spiritual needs can be seen most clearly in Bernard of Clairvaux.

As an abstract issue, the merits of the liberal arts held no interest for Bernard. His approach was practical: did the classics contribute to the monk's spiritual progress? His answer was a resounding no. The liberal disciplines failed Bernard's twofold test for the types of knowledge suitable for monks.

First, the artes liberales do not increase a monk's love, self-knowledge, or humility.¹⁸ The monk is concerned only with scientia which pertains directly to his salvation. Since secular letters do not make a monk weep, they are superfluous. It is impossible for a monk to make progress if he lacks humility. But humility derives from self-knowledge which comes from the personal experience of solitary prayer. Since secular knowledge detracts from such experience, it can only lead to pride—the major obstacle to self-knowledge. Indeed, liberal scientia can be dangerous for a monk since it cannot be put to practical use, that is, the service of others. The acquisition of secular learning can be justified only if it is utilized in the refutation of error and the instruction of Christians. But since the monk's task is to save himself, such knowledge would become a burden and, so to speak, a sin.¹⁹ It would be bottled up inside a monk's heart with no outlet, resulting in an arrogant attempt to abandon his proper duties.

Second, the liberal arts are incompatible with the monk's peculiar ways of knowing God. The kinds of scientia proper for a monk are knowledge of self and of God.²⁰ All other types of scientia simply distract the monk from these primary goals; they may destroy the basis of monastic life. Bernard goes so far as to imply that monks lack the virtue necessary to undertake such a chance. Only the strong, the clerics, should dare to assume so perilous a venture.²¹ His subordination of monks to clerics (those who do study the classics) is partially ironic, for the monk is warned not to deem himself superior to others. Above all he must not rank himself above prelates, who are called to administer the church. While monks may be higher than clerics in the charismatic hierarchy they are lower than clerics in the normal operation of the institutional ecclesia—a recurring motif in Bernard's writings.²² This reproof of the monks' improper desire for what is forbidden is also a rhetorical device aimed at clarifying the characteristics—especially the humility—of the monastic way. Bernard never misses an opportunity to contrast the spiritualities of clerics and monks. Typical also is Bernard's castigation of monks who hanker to become prelates.

Throughout his discussion of monastic knowledge Bernard explains why the study of the auctores is permitted and even necessary for clerics.²³ Here Bernard repeats the usual arguments in favor of grammar and rhetoric as aids to the study of Scripture, the refutation of heretics and schismatics, and the instruction of the faithful. He also implies that liberal study increases a prelate's effectiveness as an administrator and defender of the church's customs and rights. Bernard is more original, however, when he stresses the contribution of letters to the cleric's peacemaking activities, and the connection between active charity and learning.²⁴ Bernard's distinction between clerical learning as service and monastic learning as personal/experiential is, in fact, an element of his ecclesiology. Whereas Peter Damian merely hinted at the ecclesiological dimensions of monastic knowledge, Bernard incorporated his critique of secular letters into a comprehensive ecclesiology and monastic theology.

Bernard's emphasis on the different modes of knowing makes it unnecessary for him to respond to the two conventional justifications for profane learning—usefulness as a preparation for divine studies, and as an inducement to the practice of ascetic virtue. By focusing on the essential principles of monastic spirituality, Bernard does not feel compelled to elaborate on the linguistic skills needed to handle biblical texts. Apparently he believed that only a minimum of facility in Latin—acquired without resort to classical aids—was sufficient for cloistered monks.²⁵

Bernard saw no merit in the view that the classics provided edifying models of ascetic behavior.²⁶ He clearly wanted to cut away the intellectual base of this argument, common at the time. Since the monastic revival of the eleventh century the appeal to pagan authors for support of monastic conduct was gaining acceptance among monks. The idea that the classics contain moral wisdom dates back to the Fathers, and was firmly established by the ninth century. It was very much alive in the twelfth century when many authors, such as John of Salisbury, exhorted readers to the natural virtue found in the classics.²⁷ Those monks who strove to retain classical study in the internal schools tried to justify its use in terms of monastic ends. Conrad of Hirsau²⁸ and William of Saint-Denis²⁹ would have the ancient poets and philosophers teach us contemplation, discipline of the flesh, and contempt of the world. But Bernard no doubt thought it ridiculous that Aeneas' wanderings could show a monk how to be detached. Why go to pagan sources to find quasi-models of ascetic virtue when more genuine ideals could be found in Scripture? At any rate, Bernard would have his monks learn about God in the silence of their cells; literary paradigms have little to do with the schola Christi.

Traditionally monastic writers stressed the need for a pure motive when approaching the classics, lest the unwary be seduced by the errors, sensual delight, and blasphemies contained in them. They imply that only monks possessed the virtue to enable them to ward off such temptations. Bernard, however, shifts the prerequisite for high motive to clerics, not monks. This surprise reversal of motives is an effective rhetorical technique, for it summons both clerics and monks to the elevated moral ideals proper to their own calling. The cleric must build and maintain a solid ascetic base before attempting to study the auctores and put them to practical use. The monk must rise to a level of humility which will allow him to rest in the Holy Spirit. Thus in his very denial of secular studies for contemplatives Bernard outlines a sublime doctrine of monastic scientia.

When Bernard's letters to schoolmasters and ecclesiastics concerning worldly learning³⁰ are considered in the context of this epistemology, it becomes clear that Bernard opposed the study of pagan writings not as such, but only for monks. Bernard took it for granted that clerics, especially bishops, pursue the liberal arts in their preparation for pastoral work. He employs rhetorical exaggeration in his blasts against the ancient authors—which he himself cites often³¹—in order to point to their function as a means to an end (the practice of active charity). What is important is that clerics possess sufficient virtue before they study, and they utilize their knowledge for the ends appropriate to their vocation. Malachy's teacher was light-headed³² not because the works he read were bad in themselves, but because he lacked the preparatory virtue and the knowledge of what to do with this learning once he had acquired it. The more clear-sighted Malachy, already converted to God, puts this knowledge to good use for the rest of his episcopal career.³³ In accordance with many monastic writers of the early twelfth century Bernard treats ancient letters not as pagan or evil, but as worldly—to be exploited as one would any other creature.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The tendency among twelfth-century monastic writers was to limit classical studies to clerics. In the patristic age there were numerous ecclesiastical prohibitions against both monks and clerics engaging in liberal pursuits. The uneasy compromise between the hostile and favorable view of the classics was resolved in terms of function. The emphasis in the twelfth century was less upon the dangers inherent in pagan writings, and more upon the state of life appropriate to specific types of learning. The purpose of the ordo and its respective epistemological methods determined its course of study. Liberal studies were placed firmly within a broader ecclesiological context.

2. Bernard's critique of the pagan classics illustrates the growing separation of the ascetic and liberal arts traditions. In a sense, the traditional monastic tirades against liberal learning demonstrate the close ties monastic spirituality had with Latin literature. But in the twelfth century the monks had less use for this relationship as they formulated an elaborate theology based on Scripture and personal ascetic experience. The decline of the classics in monastic education—and the diminishing influence of monastic education in general—is one part of a european-wide movement in education. But this development was not a case of sour grapes, that is, the monks rejecting what was forbidden. Rather, it reveals the maturation of monastic theology, now less dependent on non-monastic sources. No longer did monks need fear the reproach: Thou art not a monk. Thou art a Ciceronean.

Notes

1. PL 75:42, 516, 947, 972; PL 76:72-92; PL 79:355f. See C. Dagens, Saint Grégoire le Grand (Paris, 1977) 31-54.

2. See J. Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, translated C. Misrahi (New York, 1974) 13-24.

3. Variarum 9:21 (MGH, Auctores antiq. 12:286).

4. De coenobiorum instit. lib. 5; PL 49:250, 979.

5. Sententiarum Lib. 3; PL 83:685, 877.

6. Cf. Rhabanus Maurus, De clericorum institutione (PL 107:395-98, 404f.), Hildebert, Epistola 1 (PL 171:141f.), Honorius of Autun, Speculum ecclesiae (PL 172:1056). As do many authors between 800-1200, Honorius condemns the classics with equal vehemence (Spec. ecclesiae; PL 172:1085).

7. Arnold of St. Emmeram, Ad provisorem Sancti Emmerammi; MGH, Scriptores 4:546 and Hugh Metel in R. Ceillier, Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés 14 (1858) 367.

8. See J. Leclercq, ‘L'humanisme bénédictin du VIII^e au XII^e siècle,’ Analecta monastica (Rome, 1948) 1-20, and ‘L'humanisme des moines au moyen âge,’ A. Ermini (Spoleto, 1970) 69-113; A. Wilmart, ‘Une riposte de l'ancien monachisme au manifeste de Saint Bernard,’ Revue bénédictine 46 (1934) 296-344; J. P. Bonnes, ‘Une lettre du X^e siècle,’ Revue Mabillon 33 (1943) 23-47.

9. E.g., d'Achery, ed., Spicilegium (Paris, 1723) 2:77, 338, 392; Thietmari, MGH, Scriptores 3:748; Vita Popponis, MGH, SS 11:314.

10. De perfectione monachorum; PL 145:306f.; cf. 232, 560, 695, 699, 831. Cf. Gauthier, Liber contra 4 labyrinthos; PL 199:1145, Rupert, De omnipotentia Dei; PL 170:473.

11. Cf. Peter the Venerable, Epistola 3; PL 189:279, and Roscelin to Abelard, Epistola 15; PL 178:370D.

12. Vita B. Davidis, ed. A. Schneider; Analecta S. Ord. Cist. (1955) 33.

13. Epistola 73; PL 202:519.

14. Sermo 9; PL 198:1747, 1822. Cf. Bernard, SC 30.10; SBOp 1:219; CF 7:121.

15. In Regula S. Ben. 1; PL 170:480.

16. Cf. Othlo of St Emmeram, De tentationibus suis; PL 146:29-58, Liber visionum, 353-57.

17. G. Paré, A. Brunet, P. Tremblay, La Renaissance du XII^e siècle: Les écoles et l'enseignement (Ottawa, 1933) 180-90. Cf. P. Delhaye, ‘L'Organisation scolaire au XII^e siècle,’ Traditio 5 (1947) 211-68 at 225-34.

18. Bernard, SC 36:2-7, 37:5-7; SBOp 2:4-8, 11-14; CF 7:174-86.

19. SC 36:4; SBOp 2:6; CF 7:176-77. The monk's knowledge of himself and God is scientia, here synonymous with cognitio and notitia.

20. SC 37:2-7, 38:2-5; SBOp 2:9-14; CF 7:182-91. In another sense, knowledge is only the preparation for the possession or experience of God (SC 23:14; SBOp 1:147; CF 7:37f.).

21. SC 23:6-7, 14; SBOp 1:141-43, 147-48; CF 7:30-31, 37-38; SC 36:2-3, 37:2; SBOp 2:4-6, 9-10; CF 7:174-76, 182.

22. Cf. SC 46; SBOp 2:56-61; CF 7:241-47.

23. SC 36:1-3, 37:2; SBOp 2:4-5, 9; CF 7:173-76, 182. See J. Sommerfeldt, ‘Epistemology, Education and Social Theory in the Thought of Bernard of Clairvaux,’ Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, CS 28 (Kalamazoo, 1977) 169-79.

24. Cf. SC 12:1, 3, 5, 9-11; SBOp 1:60-67; CF 4:76-82, 84-86; Ad clericos de conversione; SBOp 4:106-16.

25. See notes 18-20 above.

26. I draw this conclusion from Bernard's neglect of classical learning in his treatments of proper monastic endeavors (e.g., SC 36-37 on knowledge). Even when he lists reasons why prelates should pursue letters (above, notes 23, 24) he never mentions possible benefits for ascetic practice. Cf. Epistola 42; SBOp 7:100-31.

27. Metalogicus; PL 199:853-56, passim.

28. R. Huygens, ed., Conrad de Hirsau: Dialogues super auctores (Brussels, 1955) 47-60, passim. Cf. Anselm, Epistola 55; PL 158:1124f.

29. A. Wilmart, ed., ‘Une dialogue apologétique du moine Guillaume, biographe de Suger,’ Revue Mabillon 32 (1942) 82-118. Cf. Peter of Blois, Epistola 101; PL 207:311f.

30. See Epistolae 104, 108 (SBOp 7:261-63, 277-79); 250, 523 (SBOp 8:145-47, 486-89). Cf. In soll Petri et Pauli 1:3 (SBOp 5:189f.); In die Pentec. 3:5 (SBOp 5:173f.).

31. See B. Jacqueline, ‘Répertoire des citations d'auteurs profanes,’ Bernard de Clairvaux (Paris, 1953) 549-54, and E. Franceschini's review in Aevum 28 (1954) 571-73. Bernard employs rhetorical techniques with ease. See E. Kennan, ‘Rhetoric and Style in the De consideratione,’ Studies in Medieval Cistercian History, II, CS 24 (Kalamazoo, 1976) 40-48. Clearly Bernard did not consider himself always bound by the rules he proposed for his monks. He saw himself as a reformer of monastic and clerical discipline, with the prerogative to intervene in emergencies. For Bernard as outsider and prophet, see T. Renna, ‘Abelard versus Bernard: An Event in Monastic History,’ Cîteaux 27 (1976) 189-202.

32. Malachy observed his teacher tearing up his walls: Et solo visu offensus puer serius, quod levitatem redoleret, resilivit ab eo, ac deinceps illum nec videre curavit. Ita cum esset studiosissimus litterarum prae honesto tamen sprevit eas virtutis amator (Vita Malachiae 2; SBOp 3:311; CF 10:17). Cf. Bernard's rhetorical use of no knowledge of letters (SC 26:7).

33. Vita Malachiae; SBOp 3:314-17, 325f., 339f., etc.; CF 10:21-25, 33, 48.

General Abbreviations

CF: Cistercian Fathers Series. Cistercian Publications: Spencer, MA-Kalamazoo, MI. 1969-.

CS: Cistercian Studies Series. Cistercian Publications. 1969-.

MS(S): Manuscript(s)

PG J.-P.: Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca, 162 volumes. Paris, 1957-66.

PL J.-P.: Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina, 221 volumes. Paris, 1844-64.

RB: The Rule of St Benedict for Monasteries

SBOp: Sancti Bernardi Opera, edd. J. Leclercq, H. M. Rochais and C. H. Talbot. Rome, 1957-79.

Abbreviations

The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux

The works of Saint Bernard are abbreviated according to the sigla adopted by Jean Leclercq and H. M. Rochais in Sancti Bernardi Opera (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957-1979).

Abb: Sermo ad abbates

Abael: Epistola in erroribus Abaelardi

Adv: Sermo in adventu domini

And: Sermo in natali sancti Andreae

Ann: Sermo in annuntiatione dominica

Apo: Apologia ad Guillelmum abbatem

Asc: Sermo in ascensione Domini

Asspt: Sermo in assumptione B.V.M.

Bapt: Epistola de baptismo

Ben: Sermo in natali sancti Benedicti

Circ: Sermo in circumcisione domini

Clem: Sermo in natali sancti Clementis

Conv: Sermo de conversione ad clericos

Csi: De consideratione libri v

Ded: Sermo in dedicatione ecclesiae

Dil: Liber de diligendo deo

Div: Sermones de diversis

Epi: Sermo in epiphania domini

Ept Ma: Epitaphium sancti Malachiae

Gra: Liber de gratia et libero arbitrio

IV HM: Sermo in feria iv hebdomadae sanctae

V HM: Sermo in cena domini

Hmn Mal: Hymnus de sancto Malachiae

Hum: Liber de gradibus humilitatis et superbiae

Humb: Sermo in obitu Domni Humberti

Innoc: Sermo in festivitatibus sancti, Stephani, sancti Ioannis et sanctorum Innocentium

JB: Sermo in nativitate sancti Ioannis Baptistae

Mal: Sermo in transitu sancti Malachiae episcopi

Mart: Sermo in festivitate sancti Martini episcopi

Mich: Sermo in festo sancti Michaëlis

Miss: Hom. super missus est in laudibus Virginis Matris

Mor: Ep. de moribus et officiis episcoporum

Nat: Sermo in nativitate domini

Nat BVM: Sermo in nativitate B.V.M.

I Nov: Sermo in dominica I novembris

O Epi: Sermo in octava epiphania domini

O Asspt: Sermo dominica infra octavam assumptionis

O Pasc: Sermo in octava paschae

OS: Sermo in festivitate Omnium Sanctorum

Of Vict: Officium de sancto Victore

Palm: Sermo in ramis palmarum

Par: Parabolae

Pasc: Sermo in die Paschae

Pr Ant: Prologus in Antiphonarium

p Epi: Sermo in dominica I post octavam Epiphaniae

Pent: Sermo in die sancto pentecostes

Pl: Sermo in conversione sancti Pauli

Pre: Liber de pracepto et dispensatione

IV p P: Sermo in dominica quarta post Pentecosten

VI p P: Sermo in dominica sexta post Pentecosten

PP: Sermo in festo SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli

Pur: Sermo in purificatione B.V.M.

QH: Sermo super psalmum Qui habitat

Quad: Sermo in Quadragesima

Rog: Sermo in rogationibus

SC: Sermo super Cantica canticorum

I Sent: Sententiae (PL 183, 747-58)

II Sent: Sententiae (PL 184, 1135-56)

Sept: Sermo in Septuagesima

Tpl: Liber ad milites templi (De laude novae militiae)

V And: Sermo in vigilia sancti Andreae

Vict: Sermo in natali sancti Victoris

V Mal: Vita sancti Malachiae

V Nat: Sermo in vigilia nativitatis domini

V PP: Sermo in vigilia apostolorum Petri et Pauli