Saint Faith’s Scandalous Miracles: A Quest for Novelty

33
Saint Faith’s Scandalous Miracles: A Quest for Novelty
Victoria Smirnova
The concept of a “new miracle” in medieval religious texts could be named
among the most elusive. Although the notion of “miracle” and that of “novelty”
seem to be merely synonymous (since the first implies something unusual,
extraordinary, or wonderful), miracle accounts of the time strike modern
scholars by their regular, predictable, repetitive, serial character1 and leave the
impression of a “rather dull enumeration of events.”2 These claims seem to be
valid since it is well known that in the Middle Ages (especially in the early
Middle Ages) “novelty” is usually perceived as something that could be
dangerous, scandalous, disagreeable, and annoying.3
1 Jacques Le Goff, The medieval imagination (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1988).
2 Caroline Walker Bynum, “The wonder,” The American Historical Review 102 (1997), p.17.
3 See, e. g., S. Coelestini Epist. XXI: Praeter beatissimae et apostolicae sedis inviolabiles
sanctiones, quibus nos piissimi patres, pestiferae novitatis elatione dejecta, et bonae
voluntatis exordia, et incrementa probabilium studiorum, et in eis usque in finem perseverantiam
ad Christi gratiam referre docuerunt, obsecrationum quoque sacerdotalium sacramenta
respiciamus, quae ab apostolis tradita, in toto mundo atque in omni catholica
Ecclesia uniformiter celebrantur, ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi. (PL 130, col.
753) [“However, beyond these inviolable decrees of the blessed and apostolic Chair, by
which our most pious Fathers, having staved off the conceit of baneful novelty both by
commencing with good will and fostering commendable zeals, taught us to persevere unto
the end in showing our gratitude to Christ, let us also look back upon the mystery of
priestly supplications which were bequeathed to the whole world by the Apostles, and are
celebrated in one manner by the whole Catholic Church, so that the law of prayer might
constitute a law of belief.” (my translation)]; Letaldus Miciacensis, Vita S. Juliani: Is ergo
vir Domini fide munitus, gadio Spiritus accinctus, ad destruendos errores, ad conculcandas
daemonum vanitates, ad urbem supradictam accessit intrepidus. Sed dum novitas sanctae
praedicationis quibusdam incredulis in scandalum, nonnullis verteretur in derisum,
miraculorum potentia reddebat attonitos, quos ad audiendam veritatis viam veternus et
innatus error effecerat fastidiosos (PL 137, col. 785) [“This man of God, armed with his
faith, girded with the sword of Spirit, went, intrepid, to this town in order to destroy
misbelief and to tread down the demons’ vainglory. But since the novelty of holy preaching
was turned by some unbelievers to scandal and by many others to ridicule, he astonished
with the power of miracles those whom the old and natural error had made repugnant to
hear of a right way” (my translation)]; Osbertus de Clara, Epistola ad Anselmum sancti
34
At the same time, the notion of a “new miracle” could be used in a
positive sense:4 Ultimately, wasn’t it Christ who renewed the world, who,
himself, was wonderful and unusual? In medieval hagiography, however, a new,
unheard-of miracle means rather “a contemporary, actual and noble miracle”, a
“miracle which was saved from oblivion”. In fact, announcement of novelty in
miracles does not imply extreme uncommonness. On the contrary, it could be
considered as a topos.5 Being under authority of the past, a medieval Saint does
not perform something really new, he or she rather reproduces or renews
glorious deeds of his or her authoritative predecessors, guided by the supreme
Eadmundi abbatem: Unde in ecclesia Dei cum a nobis celebris ageretur illius diei
festivitas, quidam post Sathan abeuntes dixerunt esse ridiculum quod usque ad hec
tempora omnibus fuisset seculis inauditum. Et in livore ac felle sue malicie perdurantes
duos episcopos qui tunc in vicinio forte aderant Rogerum videlicet et Bernardum adeuntes
convenerunt, ac de novitiate solennitatis exortae facta relatione animos eorum in
indignationem provocaverunt [Edmund Bishop, Liturgica Historia (Oxford: Clarendon,
1918, rpt. 1962), p.224}] [“… some followers of Satan, whilst we were keeping this feast,
decried its observance as hitherto unheard-of and absurd, and with malicious intent they
went to two bishops, Roger and Bernard, who happened then to be in the neighborhood,
and representing its novelty they excited them to displeasure” (ibid, p.243)]. – The bold
emphasis is mine.
4 See, e.g., Fulbert of Chartres, Sermo IX de annuntiatione dominica: Causa igitur tanatae
invalescentis laetitiae erat miraculum novum. Novus Mariae partus partum Evae evicit, et
Evae planctum Mariae cantus exclusit (PL 141, col. 337) [“The reason for such great joy
was a new miracle. Mary’s new childbirth overcame the childbirth of Eve; Mary’s canticle
has put an end to the lamentations of Eve (my translation)]; Wolfhardus Hasenrietanus, De
vita S.Walpurgis: Volueram huius opusculi breviloquio metam imponere dissolutam: verum
concurrentium jugiter mirabilium rerum atque signorum desiderabilis novitas iterum
iterumque ad scribendum impellit atque provocat, et ut perfecto opere ad finem usque
perducam frequenter invitat. (PL 129, Col.887) [I had wanted to put a disjointed end to this
concise work: but the concourse of miraculous things and the desired novelty of signs
constantly and repeatedly compel me to write, and often invite me to accomplish my work
thoroughly (my translation)]; Letaldus Miciacensis, Liber de miraculis S.Maximini:
Cumque multi beneficia petituri convenirent, et pro voto res pluribus cederent, ut assolet,
novitas nimium grata benificiorum coepit vilescere negligentia posterorum. (PL 137. col.
801) [Because many people went here to ask for benefaction and, having made a vow,
received what they wanted, as often happens, the graceful novelty of those benefactions
was depreciated in a great measure by the neglect of posterity (my translation)]; Guitmundus
Aversanus, De corporis et sang. Domini veritate libri tres: Satis tamen mihi placeret,
ut quando aliqua negligentia vel certe miraculum novum de tantis mysteriis accidit, id
inde fieret, quod mihi magister meus; vir eximus sine dubitatione credendus, D. Lanfran.,
sepuero in Italia factum esse narravit. (PL 149. coll. 1449-1450) [Nevertheless, I like very
much that, in case of neglect of such grand mysteries, a new miracle occurs. For example,
like that which I was told by my master, dom. Lanfranc, an outstanding and trustworthy
man. It happened in Italy, when he was a child … (my translation)]. – The bold emphasis is
mine.
5 See Ernst Robert Curtius, Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (Bern: A.
Francke Verlag, 1948), pp. 87-113.
35
example of Christ. An authoritative miracle could be considered as new, but its
novelty must be interpreted in the sense of “freshness”. By the example of
medieval vernacular songs, Michel Zink argues that such texts could be
considered as new not because they differ radically from all existing songs.6
They are new since they are fresh like a flower and since they cause emotional
outburst at the moment of performance. In that very way an approved miracle is
new since it manifests anew God’s omnipotence. The question is, “could the
topos of a new miracle be created”? Could a medieval miracle be really new?
Being a priori an impossible transgression of Nature’s laws that exceeds
human understanding and imagination, miracles always balance at the edge of
present experiences and expectations. It is also important to add that medieval
hagiography was a highly polemic literature: miracles, especially those of new
saints, were not accepted automatically. They could be rejected as something
that had a natural cause, as a diabolic magic or as trickery. It is in this context of
approval or disapproval that authors become very sensitive to the notion of a
new miracle. From this standpoint two books of Liber miraculorum sancte
Fidis,7 written by the learned scholastic Bernard of Angers in the beginning of
the eleventh century, could be considered as an interesting case. Bernard uses
actively the notion of novelty, persistently describing miracles of Saint Faith of
Conques as completely new, unprecedented and incredible. The cases in point
include, firstly, miracles of replacing eradicated eyeballs (1.1, 1.2), secondly,
resurrecting donkeys (1.3, 1.4), and thirdly, practical jokes of a teenage martyr
(1.23, 1.26) (for example, the teasing of a sleeping monk).8 What binds them
together?
Bernard’s of Angers miracles (1.1, 1.2) deal with conceptions of the
possible and impossible, which could help us to consider the limits of medieval
imagination. In fact, authors of early medieval miracle accounts do not use
“fantastic” elements. They seem to use “real facts,” which were interpreted as
miracles. According to Pierre-André Sigal,9 stories of regenerating destroyed
parts of the body are extremely rare. Miracles (1.3, 1.4) are concerned with the
rupture between learned and popular culture, or, more precisely, with the sense
of embarrassment caused by its vile, brute subject matter. Chapters (1.23, 1.26)
6 Michel Zink, Le Moyen Age et ses chansons ou un Passé en trompe-l’oeil (Paris: Fallois,
1996), pp. 161-75.
7 Liber miraculorum Sancte Fidis, ed. Luca Robertini (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull‘
alto medioevo, 1994) (henceforth: Liber miraculorum).
8 On these miracles see Amy G. Remensnyder, “Un problème de cultures ou de culture?: La
statue-reliquaire et les joca de sainte Foy de Conques dans le Liber miraculorum de Bernard
d’Angers,” Cahiers de la civilisation médiévale 33 (1990), pp. 352-79 (henceforth :
Remensnyder, “Un problème”).
9 Pierre-André Sigal, L’homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale (XIe-XIIe siècle)
(Paris: Cerf, 1985), p. 312 (henceforth : Sigal, L’homme).
36
are about performing divine powers on trifle occasions. Thus, Bernard’s of
Angers sense of novelty implies transgression, which is acknowledged as such.
The idea of transgression is well expressed in the prologue to the Liber
miraculorum Sancte Fidis representing a letter to Fulbert of Chartres, Bernard’s
teacher and one of the most educated people of his time. In it, Bernard confesses
that at the beginning of his campaign to write Saint Faith’s miracles, he was sure
to deal with vulgar fables. He underlines both their novelty and common origin:
Que, quia partim vulgarium fama celebrari videbantur partimque
inaudita habebantur, haut aliter quam inanis fabule commenta a fide
reiciebantur.10
[Partly because it seemed to be common people who promulgated these
miracles and partly because they were regarded as new and unusual, we
put no faith in them and rejected them as so much worthless fiction.11]
Even being approved by Bernard Saint Faith’s miracles could really disturb a
reader. In the Prologue he writes:
… si rei prodogiose inusitata novitas vos perturbat, id super omnia a
vestra fraternitate procumbens terratenus peto …12
[Better yet, if the unusual novelty of the miraculous content disturbs you,
I prostrate myself on the ground to beg this of your brotherhood.]
Some readers are indeed disturbed. In chapter 1.7 of the Liber Bernard describes
the reaction of one of his erudite opponents: an Angers scholar accuses Bernard
of writing implausible idle talk:
Est vobis notus quidam Barnardus – inquit – qui presenti anno, rediens
Conchis, quot mendacia ibi de sancta Fide scripta reliquit? Nam
quomodo de oculis eradicatis et postea restauratis animalibusque
resuscitatis ulla ratione poterit iam credi ? Cetera signa, ut alios sanctos,
et rara sanctam Fidem aliquando fecisse audivi. Iumenta vero qua
ratione, qua necessitate Deus resuscitarit ? Nemo potest vel debet
investigare, qui quidem mente consistat (1.7).13
[You must know that Bernard who came to Conques this year. Bah! How
many lies about Saint Faith he wrote down there! For how could any
reasonable person believe things about eyeballs torn out and afterwards
restored, and animals brought back to life? I have heard of others kinds of
miracles that other saints and – rarely – Saint Faith worked now and then.
But mules! For what reason, for what necessity, would God bring them to
life? No one who is mentally stable can or ought to expound such things.]
He also emphasizes the sense of embarrassment and shame that could be caused
by some miracles of Saint Faith:
10 Liber miraculorum, p. 73.
11 Hereafter Pamela Sheingorn’s translation: Pamela Sheingorn, tr., The Book of Sainte Foy
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996).
12 Liber miraculorum, p. 91.
13 Liber miraculorum, p. 99.
37
Est enim indecens, ut quod summum Creatorem non puduit facere, id
rationabilis creatura erubescat dicere. Nec lectori sive auditori fiat absurdum
de uno audire, cui ad subaudiendum etiam de alio necesse erit
aures arrigere neque videatur inauditum, si misericors rerum Conditor
sue multimode prospicit creature… (I.3).14
[It is unseemly that a rational creature should feel ashamed to tell about
something that did not disgust the High Creator to make. Hearing about
one miracle of this kind must not seem absurd to either reader or listener,
for whom hearing also about another one makes it necessary to prick up
the ears and [for whom] it should not seem unheard, if the merciful
Creator of the physical world watches His manifold creature …15]
I underline this realized transgression, since there are a lot of medieval miracle
narratives, which seem strange to a modern reader, while their authors present
them as something normal and by no means scandalous. I think, for example, of
the stories of pugnacious Saints from Caesarius’ of Heisterbach Dialogus miraculorum16
that do not stand out against a background of other narratives from
this account; or, which is more striking, some stories from the Liber of Bernard
himself. Thus, the Saint who extorts jewelry from her worshippers doesn’t
scandalize the author, in contrast to a modern reader. The miracles, enumerated
above, are quite another matter. Weird miracles of a weird saint (Saint Faith is
famous for her transgressions of hagiographical norms and is considered a
“trickster”17) are definitely described as such. I argue that it is the sense of
transgression (and that of rupture) that could help us to approach the medieval
sense of novelty, so often disguised by numerous rhetorical clichés.
Of course, the case of Saint Faith has already been examined by some
modern scholars,18 to whom I am heavily indebted for some of the ideas in this
paper. Now I propose to look at Saint Faith’s mischievous miracles not only
from the point of the view of transgression, but from that of pleasure. The
uncommonness of Saint Faith’s miracles is not only transgressive and
embarrassing but at the same time desired. Bernard repeatedly describes his
wish to investigate and accept famous miracles of Saint Faith, despite their
scandalous character. Transgressive novelty affects, fascinates, charms. Thus, it
seems to me, that it is notions of pleasure and bliss that could help us to examine
the case. Not to be mired in psychoanalysis I rest rather upon Roland Barthes’
distinctions between the text of pleasure and the text of bliss.19 Rather
14 Liber miraculorum, p. 91.
15 Here I made some minor alternations in Pamela Sheingorn’s translation.
16 Caesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum, ed. Josephus Strange (Cologne, Bonn:
J.M. Heberle, 1851). Look, for example, chapter 4.37.
17 Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn, Writing Faith: Text, Sign and History in the
Miracles of Saint Foy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999), pp. 32-6.
18 Ibidem; Sigal, L’homme; Remensnyder, “Un problème,” pp. 352-79.
19 Roland Barthes, Le plaisir du texte (Paris: Seuil, 1973).
38
simplifying Barthes’ theory, the matter concerns an opposition between the
comfort and discomfort of reading. The text of pleasure comforts the reader,
respects his expectations and makes him feel content, without suffering fear or
guilt that the censor may catch him unaware. It possesses authority that does not
admit any suspicion of transgression. The text of bliss (rupture, enjoyment)
extends and exceeds the pleasure to discomfort, embarrassment, loss,
particularly by its transgressive novelty. Pleasure is always on the side of
culture, bliss is rather non-cultural.
With all the precautions of applying modern theory to medieval texts, I
argue that the perception of miracle accounts in that time was in general
agreement with the aforementioned distinction. Some miracles please the reader
by their authority and conformity, by their repetitive freshness. Others seduce by
their scandalous, transgressive, inconvenient and non-cultural character. They
make their readers cross the threshold between astonishment and incredulity.
Let us concentrate on the author’s narrative strategies of writing the
novelty and transgression. The questions are: How may a miracle narrative
exceed the pleasure of renovation and arrive at the enjoyment of novelty? How
does it reveal and conceal the new and transgressive?
I. Writing transgression
Transgression in the Liber miraculorum does not only take the form of an act
committed in a story. It is also something to be performed in writing. But how
may one apply a topos of novelty in a very traditionalist epoch and within the
limits of one of the most conservative genres?
Writing doubt, writing desire
Above all, Bernard performs more than the usual perfunctory investigation of
Saint Faith’s miracles. Bernard continuously emphasizes both his skepticism
toward rumors and his desire to learn more about Faith’s miracles. He describes
all circumstances of his journeys to Conques (Prologue, 2,1) and his method of
work (1.7); he expresses his opinion (usually unfavorable) about native customs
(1,13) etc. This way, he continuously creates a background on which novelty
always seems to be open to questioning. Of course, Bernard denounces all
doubts as insulting the Saint. But by repeatedly addressing the scandalous
elements of Saint Faith’s miracles – to clear them from such accusations – it is
as though Bernard compulsively returns to his own embarrassments and fears
with regard to transgressive novelty. So the reader always keeps in mind the
tenuous status of Saint Faith’s deeds and remains sensitive to the fact that these
are unusual miracles. It is very interesting that Bernard does not use the topos of
obedience, as other hagiographers, who claim to have started their investigations
39
at the instruction of their abbots, brothers or disciples. Bernard seems to be
moved by his own affection and curiosity to Saint Faith (even if in his letter to
the abbot and to the monks at Conques he reveals that they commissioned him):
… paulatim subiit mihi in corde tacita et oblivionis impatiens cogitatio, uti
ipsum sancte martyris habitaculum eadem studio discendi adirem20).
[Little by little a plan took root in my heart, and although I kept it secret I
couldn’t forget it; it was a plan to go to the holy martyr’s dwelling-place
to fulfill my desire to learn about her.]
His quest was, as he insists, very difficult: his personal circumstances were
really unfavorable. Bernard remarks later, in the letter to the Abbot and monks
at Conques:
Facta est sicut petistis sancta Fidis miraculorum novella editio, atque
inter tot adverse fortune turbines, que iam diu fractum merore animum
vix aliqando postea respirare permisit, divina, ut confido, pusillanimitati
mee gratia succedente, ad finem usque deducta. (Epistola ad
Adalgerium21)
[A new edition of the miracles of Saint Faith has been made, just as you
asked. In the midst of so many gyrations of adverse fortune that scarcely
allowed my grief-stricken mind to breathe again for quite some time, it
was due to the way that divine grace relieved my discouragement.]
Thus, the skepticism that Bernard repeatedly confronts becomes a discourse that
melts with the discourse of desire, which then overcomes internal and external
obstacles.
And more than that: Bernard’s book itself is perceived as an object of
desire. In the cited letter to the monks at Conques, he describes his own parental
affection for the book, as well as the very positive reaction of his readers. Their
approbation was so strong that two of Bernard’s friends nearly took away the
manuscript by force!
Creating discomfort
After being strengthened by both scandal and desire, novelty is further
reinvigorated since it was not only Saint Faith who transgressed hagiographical
norms. Bernard himself explores new, unusual modes of writing, testing the
scopes of the hagiographical genre:
Bernard does more than just appropriate hagiographical traditions; he
deliberately expands the boundaries of the genre manipulating
conventions for a variety of unexpected effects.22
20 Liber miraculorum, pp. 73-4.
21 Liber miraculorum, p. 144.
22 Ashley and Sheingorn, Writing Faith, p. 27.
40
I propose to examine, first of all, the composition of the Liber miraculorum,
since it is marked as scandalous by the author himself:
De cetero qui hoc lecturi estis, moneo ne in huius scripture concordia
scandalizemini, consequentiam temporum querentes […]. Unde non hic,
in hac scriptura libri, quem de virtutibus sancte Fidis Deo cooperante
exordior componere, annorum ordo, sed miraculorum concordabit
similitudo23…
[And future readers, I warn you not to be thrown into confusion by the
way this work is organized and not to look for a chronological sequence
of events […]. Therefore here in the writing of this book about Saint
Faith’s miracles, which I begin to put together with God as my fellowworker,
the miracles will be grouped not in chronological sequence but by
the similarity of their subject matter.]
The composition of Bernard’s Liber is presented as explicitly unusual, so it
could be perceived as difficult to follow. I argue that Bernard tends to highlight
the novelty, by enabling special textual mechanisms. Breaking the scheme of
annorum ordo he places an emphasis on the miracles themselves and underlines
their unusual character.
In addition, Bernard tries to resist the temptation of enumerating similar
miracles (a common way of composing a miracle account), insisting on his
decision to write only a small number of miracles: for different reasons. It could
be lack of time, the abundance of miracles, but also a desire to write something
special or rare:
Iam vero quanta per sanctam Fidem huiusmodi miracula Dominus
operari dignatus est, nemo potuit omnia retinere neque ea que retenta
sunt, ulli vacat scribere. Pauca tamen de his que audivi prefatis volo
subnectere, ita quidem ut nec nimio silentio tacturnus, nec nimia
verbositate odiosus videar. Scio ante nos dictum: “ Omne rarum
pretiosum. Et ideo ad comprobationem relique universitatis scribo rara,
ut sint pretiosa (I.19).24
[The Lord has already deigned to work so many miracles of this kind
through Saint Faith that no one could have preserved all of them, and
there isn’t enough time for anyone to write out those that have been
preserved. Nonetheless, I want to add a few miracles from those that I
noted down as they were told to me, because I don’t want to appear too
taciturn by remaining silent, or too annoying by being wordy. I know the
proverb before our time that says everything uncommon is precious. And
this is why, in comparison to all the remaining miracles, I write the
uncommon miracles, because they are precious. Therefore Christ will
pardon me for knowingly omitting a great many miracles.]
23 Liber miraculorum, p. 75.
24 Liber miraculorum, pp. 119-120.
41
This repetitive non-disclosure that breaks the reader’s expectations also puts into
place a mechanism for novelty. But could it be considered as Barthesian tmesis:
a quality of text that makes the reader skip certain passages when he reads? It is
impossible to say if tmesis is appropriate to medieval reading. But it may be
appropriate for the medieval perception of miracle series and, thus, to something
which produces pleasure or enjoyment.
II. Writing authority
Nevertheless, Bernard accepts Saint Faith’s miracles as true and authentic.
Hence, each explicit doubt is accompanied by detailed justification. In that way
Bernard tries to tame novelty and to alter the possible rupture into the pleasure
of comfort reading.
Finding precedent
Bernard masterfully uses the discourse of authority, finding famous precedents
to scandalous miracles of Saint Faith and in that way imparting to them
authority and authenticity. It is striking that unprecedented miracles of Saint
Faith have a lot of glorious prototypes. For example the miracle of the
resurrection of a donkey is compared to miracles of Saint Sylvester and Saint
Martin of Tours. The Miracle of the restoration of the eyeballs is similar to the
miracle of Christ, who cured a blind man. And even the unprecedented character
of saint Faith’s miracles is not really something new:
Neque Moyseus mare dividendum Domino predicente credidisset, si ex
collatione paris signi fidem adhibuisset. Non enim Deus eatenus ita mare
diviserat. Tamen credidit Moyses, priusquam factum esset mare Rubrum
dividendum. Et nos nunc credumus divisum quamvis nullis antiquioribus
seculis simile quid fuerit actum. Quid igitur calumniam patiatur, si usus
iure voluntatis sue Deus per merita sanctorim suorum quiddam facit
inusitatum… (I.7).25
[Moses wouldn’t have believed that the sea was going to be divided, as
God foretold, if he had been looking to compare it to a similar miracle, for
God hadn’t parted the sea that way before. Nevertheless Moses believed
that the Red Sea was going to be divided, although nothing similar had
been done at any earlier time. Therefore, why should a false accusation be
tolerated when God brings about something so unfamiliar in accordance
with His rightful use of his own will through the goodness of His own
saints?]
In this passage Bernard seems to question the very concept of the miracle, to
reveal its impossible, transgressive character: miracle by default is performed by
25 Liber miraculorum, p. 102.
42
God contra solitus cursum naturae. But this exposure, curiously enough, leads
to the disappearance of novelty. A new, unprecedented miracle comes from the
will of God and is by no means new and scandalous.
Establishing a series
Despite his temptation to write something rare and precious, Bernard simply
composes a series of miracles. The Miracle of Guilbert is doubled, as is the one
of the donkey’s resurrection, and many other miracles. For example, having
claimed Omne rarum pretiosum, Bernard narrates six similar miracles of Saint
Faith who extorts jewelry. These mini-series (or clusters) reduce the displeasure
of irregularity and help the reader not to be lost in enjoyment. The mechanism
of pleasure is turned on: each consequent miracle confirms the preceding one
and receives itself a kind of authority of the past. At the same time this repetition
makes each subsequent miracle ‘fresh’ and new in a positive sense. Thus, being
announced, the scandalous novelty escapes again, turning into a topos, into a
comfort of proved sanctity, into well-grounded authority. Bernard’s text moves
between pleasure and bliss (enjoyment), as, I think, the very idea of novelty
does.
To complete my analysis I would like to compare Bernard’s work, firstly,
to the third and forth books of the same Liber miraculorum, written some years
later by an anonymous monk (or some monks) of Conques and, secondly, to
Odo’s of Cluny life of Gerald of Aurillac,26 written in the tenth century.
In the continuation of the Liber miraculorum the miracles of Saint Faith
are depicted as by no means scandalous and their novelty once again turns into
the mere topos that could not disturb anyone:
De oculo equi, per virtutem sancte Fidis restitutato. Inter has virtutum
copias, res mira contigit, quam ne indoctorum obtrectationibus
aliquatenus improbari liceat, sanctorum patrum irrefragabilibus exemplis
rite ducimus approbandum. Sanctissimi Gregorii tam fallere quam falli
nescii relatione didicimus, quod Tudertine ecclesie quidam extitit
episcopus, Fortunatus nomine… (III, 11).27
[Among the plenitude of all these miracles, one is especially marvelous. I
think it should not be viewed as suspect because ignorant people
disparage it. Indeed, rather than being condemned this miracle should be
commended, as indisputable examples from the holy fathers show. We
have learned from Saint Gregory – a man as reluctant to deceive as to be
deceived – about Fortunatus, bishop of the church at Todi.]
Once again, the miracle involving an animal could be considered as something
transgressive, but this possibility is eliminated right away, before, and not after
26 PL 133, cols. 639-710.
27 Liber miraculorum, p. 199.
43
the narrative. That way, it seems to me, the pleasure of reading does not turn to
bliss.
In the Life of Gerald, on the contrary, the miracles, described as new and
incredible, were written down by a rich count and were promulgated by vulgar
fame. Of course, Gerald’s miracles were approved by the virtue of his truly
religious way of life. But the liminal, if not transgressive character of Gerald’s
sanctity always seems to have been in the author’s mind. This, I argue,
actualizes the topos of the saint’s modesty. Gerald himself was embarrassed by
the novelty of his miracles, though very traditional in their essence, and tried to
conceal them. This desire (of both the hero and the author) to conceal and to
reveal problematic miracles could indicate a possible rupture that turns a
pleasure to bliss.
III. Writing authority in transgression and transgression in authority
Writing on novelty and transgression in Bernard’s accounts paradoxically means
writing authority and tradition. Bernard incorporates transgression into his
narrative by continually and explicitly normalizing it. If the sanctity of the
teenage martyr were denied, it would be easy to simply condemn novelty and
reinforce an anti-innovatory mindset. But at the same time, Bernard actualizes
the norm by showing the possibility of its transgression. Thus, I think that
Bernard not only uses the outrageousness of Faith’s characteristic miracles as an
“opportunity to logically demonstrate the saint’s powers”.28 He also utilizes the
saint’s powers to write down and question the outrageousness of miracles. In
some sense, the Liber miraculorum could be considered as a tool that helps a
curious cleric to master novelty-seeking behavior.
Let me return to the quest for novelty. What are the sources of novelty for
a learned cleric in the beginning of the eleventh century? Perhaps it is the
popular culture with its ambiguous mythism and strange saints. A learned author
transgresses the frontier of another culture (non-culture) anytime he could be
caught by a censor, so he tries to remain on the territory of approved sanctity
that implies an authority and tradition. Thus, the figure of a popular Saint
becomes a kind of toggle that permits to switch learned hagiographical discourse
between the safe tradition and the scandalous and desired novelty, between
pleasure and enjoyment.
28 Ashley and Sheingorn. Writing Faith, p. 26.
SCANDALA
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XXII
SCANDALA
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz
Krems 2008
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG
DER ABTEILUNG KULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DES AMTES DER
NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Copy editors: Judith Rasson und Parker Snyder
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 978-3-901094-25-5
ISSN 1029-0737
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A–3500 Krems, Österreich. Für den Inhalt verantwortlich
zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren ausdrückliche Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck,
auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist.
Druck: KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, A–1050 Wien.
5
Table of Contents
Preface …….……..…………………………………….…………………….… 6
Lindsay Bryan, From Stumbling Block to Deadly Sin:
The Theology of Scandal …………..…………………..…………….… 7
Elena M. Lemeneva, “Do Not Scandalize Thy Brother:”
Scandal as Preached on by Jacobus de Voragine
and Other Thirteenth-Century Sermon-Writers …..……………………. 18
Victoria Smirnova, Saint Faith’s Scandalous Miracles:
A Quest for Novelty ………………………………………..…….…… 33
Gerhard Jaritz, Varieties of Scandalum ………………….……..…….……….. 44
List of Contributors ……………………………………………………………55
6
Preface
At the 43rd International Congress of Medieval Studies which met in May 2008
at Western Michigan University I organized a session on “The Meaning, Role
and Construction of Scandalum.” This volume contains the revised papers from
among those that were read there, those of Lindsay Bryan, Elena Lemeneva, and
myself. We also convinced Victoria Smirnova to contribute to this ‘Sonderband’
of Medium Aevum Quotidianum.
The use of the term scandalum in medieval written evidence can be
found regularly in different contexts following various patterns and representing
differing meanings: as capital sin, incitement to sin, slander and defamation,
public offence, and so on. Recent studies have not paid much attention to this
phenomenon. Only a comprehensive analysis by Lindsay Bryan has contributed
to this exciting field of research.1 For this reason we were particularly happy that
Lindsay was also willing to contribute to the session at Kalamazoo and to the
present volume.
The four papers here will not provide substantial new findings concerning
the occurrence, application and function of scandala in medieval society. What
they are intended for, however, is to animate scholars to devote themselves more
to researching phenomena which, as individual cases, represented exceptional
circumstances of life in the Middle Ages; taken as a group, though, they can be
seen as having been part of medieval quotidianity.
Gerhard Jaritz
1 “‘Vae Mundo a Scandalis’: The Sin of Scandal in Medieval England” (unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Toronto, 1998).