Skip to the text
Ember
PT

Letter CCLIII. To the Abbot of P

(A.D. 1150.)

Bernard replies with gentleness to their bitter com plaints against hi m, and reminds them of the benefits they have received from him.

1. I have read vvlnt you have heard of me, and I fear. For you write against me bitter things, but I hope with more severity than truth. What wrong have I done? Is it that I have ever loved your person, been kindly disposed to your Order, and helped it whenever I could? If you believe not my words, let my deeds be my witness. Indeed, my conscience tells me that I ought to have been commended by you. But since you have seen fit to speak and write against me, I will lend power to my words from the testimony of my actions. It goes, indeed, against the grain. I may seem to be boasting of my good deeds, and this is not seemly. But you compel me to act as a fool. Whenever have you or yours wanted my help and failed to receive it? In the very lirst place, the land of Premontre, in which you are living, was formerly mine, and you had it as a gift from me.1 For our brother \Vido3 (so the first2 inhabitants of the place called him) had given it to me through the Bishop. Next, it was principally through my efforts that the monks of Beaulieu3 affiliated themselves to you. When King Baldwin was alive he gave me the place of the holy Samuel at Jerusalem/ and at the same time a4 thousand crowns with which to build; I gave you both the site and the money. Many know how hard I laboured that you might have the church of S. Paul at Verdun; and you enjoy the fruit of my labour. If you do not admit this fact against you, my letters to Pope Innocent of blessed memory are in existence, as true judges and living witnesses to the truth of what I say. Your brothers of Sept-Fontaines hold from me the place wh;ch they occupy,5 which the lirst inhabitants called Francs6 Yals.

2. For which of these acts do you wish to leave your friends? Are you not rewarding evil for good? For you threaten to break your compact,- to dismiss the peace that there is between us, to give up fellowship, to break our unity. But suppose that it is not for a good work that you stone me, but for injury done you, in that I received brother Robert, who was once of your Order, and gave him the monk's habit. 1 do not deny it; he is with us. But I thought that I sufficiently satisfied you about this when I truly told you by word of mouth, and not once only, the reason, method, and necessity of receiving him. But since you are not yet contented I shall not be displeased to repeat my former reply, as you do not hesitate to repeat the charge to which I had given my defence.

3. I never at any time urged brother Robert to leave you; nay, rather, for many years- — rot once, but often — I checked his desire to do so. Again, how can I be suspected of having enticed him from you when you have Magister Otho as the adviser and encourager of his withdrawal? If you do not know this, ask him. If I know the 73$ LF.TTKR CCLIII.

man well he will not deny it. I could also, perhaps, give you the names of others; many others, too, who had either turned to you or returned to you, whom you would not have now if I had not either persuaded or even compelled1 them to remain with you. But I spare you, not because I am short of matter, but because I am rich in modesty. I have known men within your walls who had been touched' and converted by my preaching and disposed to join us, but who afterwards, on the solicitations of your members, altered their minds, and were received and kept in your order and habit. Then, again, their consciences began to> prick them, and they wished to leave you, and would have done so, unless I make a mistake, if they had not been held back, not only by my refusal to receive them, but by my exhortations to remain where they were.

4. But since you wish it again, listen how it was that I received brother Robert. The Pope, on his own solici'ation and that of his friends, enjoined it. He said that his request had been granted by you and also by his Abbot, so-that no one might say that he extracted it from you by the Papal injunction. If you deny this, what is that to me? Let him see to it. If you think fit to charge the supreme and holy Pontiff with falsehood you must pardon me for thinking it impious not to believe so great holiness and not to obey so great majesty. Moreover, the venerable Abbot Gottschalk, who is one of your confraternity and had been specially named to you by the Pope to see to this matter, has clearly not denied that he had brought back from you both a free emancipation of the brother and your spontaneous avowal of it.

5. Again, in the matter of brother Fromund you have no-ground for attacking me, since I did not receive him with out the voluntary permission of his Abbot. And that you were not ignorant of this is shown by that bitter letter in which you bring a calumnious charge against me on the single point of the unexpected connivance of the Chapter, as if, indeed, that had been forbidden by our mutual agreemcnt, or as though the emancipation of a monk was the privilege of the Chapter and not of the Abbot alone.

6. You add as another complaint that I removed a house of your brethren at Basse-Font, although you omit to say that it was built outside the boundaries assigned you. I wish that before you condemned me you would ask the brothers themselves not only who removed it, but also the cause of its being removed. I do not think that they would have concealed the truth from you. But hear it now from me, and then, if you like, ask them. They had begun to build a place, where they placed some of their sisters, a long way from their Abbey, but close to two farmhouses of our house, and near the pastures where we feed our sheep. We asked them as friends, and as those who might be useful to them, not to sow the seeds of a scandal, and prepare a ground of quarrels to be left as a legacy both to their posterity and ours. But they, nevertheless, went on with the building. This was all the violence that I used, this was the way that I removed them. If to make a request is to use violence, then I am inexcusable.

7. As a matter of fact, which cannot be denied, the Bishop, who was indignant that they had ventured, without consulting him, to erect an oratory in his diocese, and a monastery on the land of the Church, and on the estate of his vassal, tried to put a stop, though in vain, to the work that they had begun. For they did not give it up even when forbidden to proceed. Afterwards, as I was passing through that district, I met the then Abbot of Basse-Font, who told me that they had stopped building. But I gathered from what he said that they had done this not so much on my account, but because of the Knight who seems to have given them the land, and who in many ways was harassing them so much that they complained bitterly of his treatment of them. But even if they had abandoned the work of their own accord, and from love of us, it would but have been becoming to their religion, and would have seemed perhaps a kindness to those who had some small claims on them. I can only wonder where this complaint originated, tor, if I mistake not, the Abbot ended this present life with devoted goodwill towards us, and his successor, who often consults me intimately about his needs, has never made any mention of this complaint, and, besides, I have since been very hospitably received in the same monastery, but I have never heard there from the Abbot or anyone else anything about it. Moreover, the Abbot was with us afterwards at Clairvaux, and also very recently when a chapter of your Order was held at Bar, whence came those letters of yours, which are rather calumnies than complaints; and yet I cannot recollect that either at the one place or the other, either by him or by you, was the slightest mention made of this matter.

8. You say, besides, that the monastery at Igny has burnt a little house of your brethren at Braine.7 Do you call it a house? It was nothing but a hut of boughs which gave shelter to the brother whose duty it was to keep watch over the standing corn. Nor was it burnt by malice, as I am told on good authority, but because it was placed in a field of the brethren of Igny, and occupied land which had to be cultivated. In short, the house, as you call it, was hardly worth a penny; and I believe that such satisfaction has already been given to the Abbot of Braine that he makes no complaint, and has no ground for it either. But if not, I am ready to give every satisfaction as soon as you let me know. And so with regard to the Abbot of Long8 Font;'- as soon as I heard of your complaint that he wished to build a cell within your lands I prohibited him, and, what is more, I believe that he desisted even from laying the foundations. But if not, it shall be done as soon as I know that it has not been done. You complain especially that our Abbot of Villars has been the means of an interdict being placed on the Church of S. Foillan,9 which belongs to your Order. But it would be more just if you were to complain of the incredible obstinacy of your brother and co- Abbot of the aforesaid house, rather than find fault with the punishment inflicted by the supreme Pontiff. I know for a certainty that the quarrelsomeness of the Abbot is strongly condemned by many of your brethren, so it is a great wonder that you do not also condemn it. And, therefore, I say to you that this is the cause of your indignation. Indeed, it is this man's covetousness or stubbornness which has brought the interdict on your brethren. It is a tedious business, and it would be difficult to set down all his subterfuges within the compass of a letter. Still, I will state in as few words as I can the cause of the interdict. After two or more agree ments of peace, after a definite sentence issued by your abbots and ours, according to the determination of your Chapter, the Bishop of Cambray, in whose diocese the house of S. Foillan is well-known to be, was at length called in, and when he saw that the Abbot was obstinately bent on breaking through all agreements, he meant, as he said, to proceed against him by an ecclesiastical sentence. Then the Abbot, to gain time, appealed to the supreme Pontiff. The case came before him. And when he knew for a certainty, on the testimony of your own abbots, as well as of other religious, that the Abbot of S. Foillan not only refused to stand by any engagements, but that he also was withstanding a judicial sentence, he ordered the Church to be laid under an interdict until he should give satisfaction. At length, in the presence of the Bishop, who had received an order to pronounce the interdict, the lord (Abbot) of Citeaux was asked by you, by the Abbot him self, and by us, to see that some form of peace was provided, and this was gained by the entreaties both of your members and of yourselves. In the absence of the Abbot of Villars an agreement was drawn up, and the Bishop said that if the Abbot of S. Foillan would keep it he would refrain from publishing the interdict. However, when he had left the meeting he did not keep it, and what is more, that house which a judicial sentence and all the agreements drawn up had commanded to be pulled down, so much so that once even it had been destroyed, was again in the meanwhile, contrary to his promise and the judicial sentence, rebuilt; and this, I say, he held and still holds, and he has besides built another. Why should not the Bishop execute the order to issue the sentence of interdict which he had received from the Apostolic See, especially when the Abbot has been guilty of double-dealing? .1, however, was still hoping to overcome evil with good, and I caused the sentence to be postponed till the Octave of Epiphany, in order to see in the meanwhile if the man would either determine to obey the sentence or observe some mode of compromise. And I hope that this may still happen; may the God of peace grant that our peace may rest upon him.

9. And since this is the true state of things you have no cause to complain of me; it rather seems that I might more justly complain of you. It only remains that you love those who love you, and especially endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. That is the bond between us and you, which has strengthened the cause of peace and charity, and no less beneficially for you, perhaps, than for us. You must decide if it is to be broken, it is certainly not expedient for you that it should be. And I do not think that it is in any way right for you to break it. For since the cause is common to us both it ought not to be prejudiced by the fault of an individual, even if those things were true which you say against me. But whatever you may do, brethren, I have made up my mind to love you always, even though my love is not returned. Let him who wishes to abandon Jiis friend seek occasion for it; my desire is, and always will be, not to give any of my friends a just cause to leave me, nor to look for it in another; for the one is the mark of a feigned, the other of an injured friendship. And since the prophet says that // is a good thing to be joined together (Is. xli. 7) you will be able to loosen, or even to cut off, yourselves, but not me. I will cling to you, even if you wish it not; 1 will cling to you, even if I do not wish it myself. Formerly I bound myself bv the strong bond of •charity unfeigned, which never faileth. When you quarrel I will be peaceful; and lest I give place to the devil, I will give place to the wrath of those who quarrel with me. I •will be overcome by revilings, I will be overcome by kind nesses; I will help those who wish not for it, I will heap benefits on the ungrateful, and I will honour those who despise me. And now is my sotii sorrowful because in some way I have offended you, and it will be sorrowful until your kindness relieve it. If you delay I will go and make excuses, I will keep knocking at your doors, I will be urgent opportunely, importunately, until I either merit or extort a blessing. The winter is more than half over, and I am still, to no purpose, it seems, waiting for my tunic.1

Footnotes

  1. Authorities differ as to the origin of Premontre. What Francis Alut, in his history of the family of Coucy (lib. ii. c. 19), says appears fabulous. Gordon, of the Society of Jesus, in his Chronology, A.D. 1 1 16, says that this Order received its name from the site having been pointed out beforehand from heaven. But that the place was so called before S.Norbert's time is evident from Jiis life (c. 17), where he is said to have chosen " a place utterly desert and removed from men, which used to be called Premontre" (see also Hermann below). What S. Bernard says here about the ground being given by him seems at variance with the letters of foundation of Premontre given in the name of Bartholomew, Bibhop of Laon, in which the place in question is said to have belonged to the monks of S. Vincent, and to have been given by Bartholomew to S. Norbert. Bartholomew had received it first from Adelbero, Abbot of S. Vincent, whose grant was confirmed by his successor Seifred. Hermann, the monk (Mime. S. Mary of Law, lib. iii. c. 4), says the same. "When they came," he says, "to the above-named place, called Pre'montre', they entered a church built there in honour of S. John Baptist, for the purpose of prayer. This was by per mission of the monastery of S. Vincent of Laon." A late writer in his notes to the life of S. Norbert (c. 19), in commenting- on this grant of S. Bernard's, says that he adheres to the statement that the site was given by the monks of S. Vincent at the hand of the Bishop Bartholomew. But though there were six hundred arguments against it, yet the word of S. Bernard himself ought to stand against them all; but if the matter be considered a little more carefully, these opposite statements are easily reconciled. For it is well-known that the monastery of Pre'montre' in its early days did not stand on the same spot on which S. Norbert had first placed it, but on another side of the mountain, to which his successor Hugh, to whom this Letter is addressed, had transferred it. Hermann himself, in the place quoted above, says the same thing, where he describes the foresight of S. Norbert in providing for the translation of the monastery, an i again in c. 10, when he gives an account of the change. He says: " Hugh, seeing that the church (viz., S. John Baptist, which had been given by the monks of S. Vincent) was too small, and not able to hold the large numbers which now were filling the monastery, and which were daily increasing by the grace of God, knowing also that Norbert had provided by the Spirit that a larger church should be built on another part of the mountain, took counsel with his 1 rethren, and when all the offices had been mapped out he asked the Bishop, Bartholomew, to come and lay the foundation-stone." The first site may have been given by the monks of S. Vincent, but what is there against the second having been given by S. Bernard, who had it from the hermit Wido? Two letters of Philip, Abbot of Bonne-Esperance, should also be read; this seems to be a reply to them. ↩

  2. This was Hugh, first disciplw of Norbert, and his successor in the government of Premontre'. He had been Chaplain to the Bishop of Cambray. He is highly praised, not only in the lite of S. Norbert, but also by his namesake, Hugh of S. Marianus, Chronicler of Auxerre, and by Hermann, a monk of Laon (/> Mirac. S. Maria*, B. iii. c. vi., viii., x.). Norbert also in many places is greatly extolled by the same author, ami is even put before Bernard, both as the first founder of his Order, and also of the nuns of the same Order, who at that time were more than 10,000 in number. ↩

  3. Beaulieu was a house of regular canons in the Diocese of Troves, and was ceded to the Praemonstratensians A.D. 1140. Ep. 407 was written toOdo, Abbot of Beaulieu. a Geoffrey, in Book iii., n. 22, of the Life ofS. Bernard, says on this passage: " In short, like a fruitful vine he sent out his branches on every side, except that he refused to send his brethren to Jerusalem, although a place had been offered him there, because of the dangers from the Saracens, and the unfavourable climate.'' Of. ep. 175 to the Pattiarch of Jerusalem, who offered him a site, and ep 355, in which he com men is the Praetnonstratensians to the Queen of Jerusalem. For the monastery of S. Paul, see notes to ep. 178. ↩

  4. We read of Wido in the history of the monastery of Vicoigne, near Valenciennes (Spied., Vol. >ii. p. 534), where Wido, or Guy, "a Breton by birth, a priest by office." is said to have lived at Premontre at the time that Norbert went there, and to have given place to a greater than he, by retiring to Vicoigne, vshere he laid the foundations of a monastery which he put under the care of Walter of S. Martin at Laon, as Abbot. ↩

  5. Sept-Fontaines was in the Diocese of Langres close to Mont-Clair. ↩

  6. Manrique describes this agreement, which was entered into A.D. ii4Z between the Cistercians and Prsemcnstratensians for the sake of peace, as fixing •two leagues between their monasteries and one between their granges or farms. Hence Bernard says that the house of Basse-Font was outside the limits .agreed on. It was situated in the Diocese of Troyes, and was founded A.D. ↩

  7. Brena, or Braine, is a town on the Aisne, four leagues above Soissons; it had a famous Praemonstratensian Abbey, dedicated to S. Euodius. Igny, belonging to the Cistercians, in the Diocese of Rheims, was not far away. The Abbot of Igny was Humbert, to whom ep. 141 was written. ↩

  8. The Abbey of Long- Pont, two leagues from Soissons, was Cistercian, as was Viilars in Brabant, in the Diocese of Namur, where Fastred was then Abbot. ↩

  9. The Abbey of the Irish S. Foillan (S. Foy), near Koeux, a town of Hainault, the place of his martyrdom, belonged to the Praemonstratensians. In addition to the other gifts of S. Bernard to this Order, add that of a site in the woodland of Ourthe, by Louis the Younger, " at the request of Bernard of happy memory, Abbot of Clairvaux." The Abbot of S. Marianus, of Auxerre, acknowledges this (in cp. 282, Duchesne). ↩

Chapter 253 of 491