December
1076 A.D. Synod
of Poitiers, 1076, & Berengar of Poitiers
BERENGAR 0F POITIERS: A younger contemporary and zealous adherent of Abelard (q.v.). Practically nothing is known of his life except what may be learned from his few brief
writings. These, however, are not without interest, partly because (in spite of their being by no means completely trustworthy) they
are among the authorities for the history of the
Council of Sens in 1141, and partly for the light
which they throw on the mental attitude and literary tone which prevailed among
the disciples of Abelard and opponents of Bernard about the middle of the
twelfth century. There are three of them extant: an
Apologeh'cus against Bernard, an Epistola contra Carthusienses, and an Epistola
ad episcopum M imatensem, the bishop of Mende. The
first was written not long after the Council of Sens,
but not until the sentence of Innocent II against
Abelard was known. Toward the end of it Berengar points out that other
teachers, such as Jerome and Hilary of Poitiers, had made mistakes without
being deposed; but a large part of the tractate is a personal attack on
Bernard, accusing him of having made frivolous songs in his youth, taught the
preexistence of the soul, and made up his commentary on the Canticles of a lot
of heterogeneous material, partly borrowed from Ambrose. Especially bitter are
his accusations of duplicity and unfairness in connection with the Council of
Sens. The shorter but equally malicious letter against the Carthusians, who had
taken a stand against Abelard, accuses them of breaking their vow of silence to
speak calumny, and, while abstaining from the flesh of beasts, devouring their
fellow men. The third letter is written in a different tone. Berengar’s
boldness had apparently stirred up so much hostility that he feared for his
safety, left home, and sought an asylum in the Cévennes, whence he wrote to beg
the bishop 's protection, not exactly as a penitent, though he implies that he
has approached more nearly to Bernard's standpoint. Whether he succeeded in
setting himself right can not be told, as nothing is known of his later life.
(F. Ni'rzscn'f.) Bisuoolurar: Berengar's works are usually printed among
Abelard’s, e.g., in Cousin’s ed., ii, 771 sqq.. 2 vols., Paris, 1849—59; also
in MPL, clxxviii. Consult also Hialm're litlémire de la France, xii, 254 sqq.,
Paris, 1763; Hefele, Concilienpeschichte, v, 427—428; S. M. Deutseh, Die Synod:
Early Life (i 1).
Controversy over the Eucharist (§ 2).
Berengar Submits at Rome (§ 3).
Reasserts his Views in France (5 4).
Berengar’s Significance (§ 5).
Berengar of Tours was born perhaps at Tours, probably in the early years
of the eleventh century; d. in the neighboring island of St. Cosme Jan. 6,
1088. He laid the foundations of his education in the school of Bishop Fulbert
of Chartres, who represented the traditional theology of the early Middle Ages,
but did not succeed in imposing it upon his pupil. He was less attracted by
pure theology than by secular learning, and brought away a knowledge of the
Latin classics, dialectical cleverness, freedom of method, and a general
culture surprising for his age. Later he paid more attention to the Bible and
the Fathers, especially Gregory and Augustine; and it is significant that he
came to formal theology after such preparation. Returning to Tours, he became a
canon of the cathedral and about 1040 head of its school, which he soon raised
to a high point of efficiency, bringing students from far and near. The fame
which he acquired sprang as much from his blameless and ascetic life as from
the success of his teaching. So great was his reputation that a number of monks
requested him to write a book that should kindle their zeal; and his letter to
Joscelin, later archbishop of Bordeaux, who had asked him to decide a dispute
between Bishop Isembert of Poitiers and his chapter, is evidence of the
authority attributed to his judgment. He became archdeacon in the early part of 1050, Berengar addressed a
letter to Lanfranc, then prior of Bec, in which he
expressed his regret that Lanfranc adhered to the eucharistic teaching of Paschasius and considered the treatise of Ratramnus (q.v.) on the subject (which Berengar
supposed to have been written by Scotus Erigena) to be heretical. He declared
his own agreement with the supposed Scotus, and believed himself to be supported
by Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and other authorities. This letter found
Lanfranc in Rome, after it had been read by several other people; and as
Berengar was not well thought of there, Lanfranc
feared his association with him might be prejudicial to his own interests, and
laid the matter before the pope. The latter excommunicated Berengar at a synod after Easter, 1050, and summoned him to appear
personally at another to be held at Vercelli in September. Though disputing the
legality of his condemnation, he proposed to go,
first passing through Paris to obtain permission from King Henry I, as nominal
abbot of St. Martin at Tours. Instead of granting it, however, the king threw him into prison,
where Berengar occupied himself with the study of the
Gospel of John, with a view to confirming his
views. The synod was held at Vercelli without him;
two of his friends, who attempted to defend him,
were shouted down and barely escaped personal violence; Ratramnus’s book was
destroyed; and Berengar was again condemned. He obtained his release from
prison, probably by the influence of Geoffrey of Anjou; but the king still pursued him, and called a synod to meet in Paris Oct., 1051. Berengar, fearing that
its purpose was his destruction, avoided appearing, and the king’s threats
after its session had no effect, since Berengar was sheltered by Geoffrey and
by Bishop Eusebius Bruno of Angers, and found
numerous partizans among less prominent people. In 1054 Hildebrand came to
France as papal legate. At first he showed himself friendly to Berengar, and
talked of taking him back to Rome to get Pope Leo’s
authority with which to' silence his foes. But when he found that the latter
could do more to disturb the peace of the
3. Berengar- Church
than Berengar’s friends drew back. Under these circumstances Berengar decided
to concede Rome. as much as he could, and the French bishops showed that they
wished a speedy settlement of the controversy, when the Synod of Tours declared itself satisfied. By the early part of 1050, Berengar addressed
a letter to Lanfranc, then prior of Bec, in which he expressed his regret that
Lanfranc adhered to the eucharistic teaching of Paschasius and considered the
treatise of Ratramnus (q.v.) on the subject (which Berengar supposed to have
been written by Scotus Erigena) to be heretical. He declared his own agreement
with the supposed Scotus, and believed himself to be supported by Ambrose,
Jerome, Augustine, and other authorities. This letter found Lanfranc in Rome,
after it had been read by several other people; and as Berengar was not well
thought of there, Lanfranc feared his association with him might be prejudicial
to his own interests, and laid the matter before the pope. The latter excommunicated
Berengar at a synod after Easter, 1050, and summoned him to appear personally
at another to be held at Vercelli in September. Though disputing the legality
of his condemnation, he proposed to go, first passing through Paris to obtain
permission from King Henry I, as nominal abbot of St. Martin at Tours. Instead
of granting it, however, the king threw him into prison, where Berengar
occupied himself with the study of the Gospel of John, with a view to
confirming his views. The synod was held at Vercelli without him; two of his
friends, who attempted to defend him, were shouted down and barely escaped
personal violence; Ratramnus’s book was destroyed; and Berengar was again
condemned. He obtained his release from prison, probably by the influence of
Geoffrey of Anjou; but the king still pursued him, and called a synod to meet
in Paris Oct., 1051. Berengar, fearing that its purpose was his destruction,
avoided appearing, and the king’s threats after its session had no effect,
since Berengar was sheltered by Geoffrey and by Bishop Eusebius Bruno of
Angers, and found numerous partizans among less prominent people. In 1054
Hildebrand came to France as papal legate. At first he showed himself friendly
to Berengar, and talked of taking him back to Rome to get Pope Leo’s authority
with which to' silence his foes. But when he found that the latter could do
more to disturb the peace of the
At issue, Benenrar’s written declaration that the bread and wine after
consecration were the Body and Blood of Christ. The same desire for peace and
the death of Pope Leo were reasons why Hildebrand did not press for Berengar’s
going to Rome at once; later he did so, confident of the power of his influence
there, and accordingly Berengar presented himself in Rome in 1059, fortified by
a letter of commendation from Count Geoffrey to Hildebrand. At a council held
in the Lateran, he could get no hearing, and a formula representing what seemed
to him the most carnal view of the sacrament was offered for his acceptance.
Overwhelmed by the forces against him, he took this document in his hand and
threw himself on the ground in the silence of apparent submission.
Berengar returned to France full of remorse for this desertion of his
faith and of bitterness against the pope and his opponents; his friends were
growing fewer—Geoffrey was dead and his successor hostile. Eusebius Bruno was
gradually
4. Others withdrawing from him.
Rome, however, was disposed to give him achance; Views in Alexander II wrote
him an encourFrance. aging letter, at the same time warning him to give no
further offense. He was still firm in his convictions, and about 1069 published
a treatise in which he gave vent to his resentment against Nicholas II and his
antagonists in the Roman council. Lanfranc answered it, and Berengar rejoined.
Bishop Raynard Hugo of Langrcs also wrote a treatise De corpore et sanguine
Christi against Berengar. But the feeling against him in France was growing so
hostile that it almost came to open violence at the Synod of Poitiers in 1076.
Hildebrand as pope tried yet to save him; be summoned him once more to Rome
(1078), and undertook to silence his enemies by getting him to assent to avague
formula, something like the one which he had signed at Tours. But his enemies
were not satisfied, and three months later at another synod they forced on him
a formula which could mean nothing but transubstantiation except by utterly
indefensible sophistry. He was indiscreet enough to claim the sympathy of
Gregory VII, who commanded him to acknowledge his errors and to pursue them no
further. Berengar’s courage failed him; be confessed that he had erred, and was
sent home with a protecting letter from the pope, but with rage in his heart.
Once back in France, he recovered his boldness and published his own account of
the proceedings in Rome, retracting his recantation. The consequence was
another trial before a synod at Bordeaux (1080), and another forced submission.
After this he kept silence, retiring to the island of Saint-Cosme near Tours to
live in ascetic solitude. Apparently his convictions were unchanged at his
death, and he trusted in the mercy of God under what he considered the unjust
persecutions to which he had been subjected.
Berengar’s real significance for the development of medieval theology
lies in the fact that he asserted the rights of dialectic in theology more
definitely than most of his contemporaries. There are propositions in his
writings which can be understood in a purely rationalistic sense. But it would
be going quite too far to see in rationalism Berengar’s main standpoint, to
attribute to 5. Beren- him the deliberate design of subvertgar’s Sig- ing all
religious authority—Scripture, nificmce. the Fathers, popes, and councils. This
would be to ascribe to a man of the eleventh century views of which his age
knew nothing, which it even had no terms to express. The contrast which he sets
forth is not between reason and revelation, but between rational and irrational
ways of understanding revelation. He did not recognize the right of the prevailing
theology to claim his assent, because it made irrational assertions; the
authorities to which he refused to submit were, in his judgment, only human
authorities. He spoke bitterly and unjustly of popes and councils, unable to
forgive them for making him untrue to himself; but this meant no rejection of
the Catholic conception of the Church. His opposition was limited to the
eucharistic doctrine of his time, and he controverted the theory of Paschasius
not least because he believed it was contrary to Scripture and the Fathers, and
destructive of the very nature of a sacrament. (A. HAUCK.) Brauocrurar: An
edition of Berengar's works was begun by A. F. and F. '1‘. Vischer, vol. i only
was published containing his De locra cmna, Berlin, 1834; cf. Mansi, Collectio,
xix, 701 sqq.; the works are also in Bouquet, Recun'l, xiv, 294—300. A
collection of letters relating to him (one of his own) was published by E.
Bishop in Histor-ischu Jahrbuch a" Gorru-Gesellschaft, i, 272—280.
Milnster, 1880. For his life consult H. E. Lehmann, Berengnn'i Turoncnaia vita
c: fontibu-s haustc, part i, Rostock, 1870 (no more published); J. Schmitzer,
Berenqar son Tours, lein Lebcn und seine Lehre, Munich. 1890. Consult the works
of Bemold of San Blas, in Labbe, Concilia. ix. 1050, in Bouquet, Remit, xiv,
34-37, and in M PL, cxlviii: B. Hauréau, Histoire de la philosophic
scolostique, i, 226 sqq., Paris, 1872; Hefele, Concilienaelchichte. vols. iv.
v: KL, ii, 391—404; Neander, Christian Church, iii, 502—521, iv, 84, S6. 92,
335, 337, 355. BERENGOZ: Abbot of St. Maximin’s at Treves in the twelfth
century; (1. about 1125. In the records of the abbey he is first mentioned as
abbot in 1107, and for the last time in 1125. The register of deaths contains
his name against the date of Sept. 24, without naming the year; but as his
successor, Gerhard, was installed in 1127, he must have died either in 1125 or
1126. He rendered considerable services to the monastery by procuring from
Henry V the restitution of a number of alienated fiefs, and, besides five
sermons for saints’ days, wrote two larger works: three books De laude ct
inventione sanctw crucis, and a series of discourses De mysterio ligni dominici
et de luce visibili et invisfln'li per quam antiqui patres olim meruerunt
illustrari. In the former he treats of the legend of the discovery of the cross
of Christ by Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, adducing a large
number of Old Testament types of the cross. The latter deals with Christ under
the aspect of the light of the world, shining from the beginning of its
history. Whether the commentary on the Apocalypse which the Benedictines of St.
Maur printed as an appendix to the second volume of their edition of St.
Ambrose, ascribing it to a certain Berengaudus, is his or not must remain
uncertain. (A. Haven.)
No comments:
Post a Comment