Jerome Jacobson
St. Bernard’s Apologia (1125) is a defense of the Cistercian monastic lifestyle that was founded in 1098 by Robert of Molesme. This half of the Apologia is better described as a counterattack rather than a defense as Bernard constantly criticizes and attacks the “certain monks of yours,” which is a particular reference to the Cluniac monks. The main argument is that the Cluniac monks have strayed from the Rule of St. Benedict by overindulging in the vices of various aspects of life. The main examples for his critiques that he focuses on include the overindulging dietary habits of the Cluniac monks, their superfluous definition of charity, and the excess amount of gold, silver, and other fineries in the monastery. The Miracles, written by the abbot of Cluny Peter the Venerable, refutes the attacks made by Bernard and gives praise the Cluniac monks.
Bernard frames his evaluation of the Cluniac order in an interesting manner. He begins by stating his critiques are not made against the Order that the “certain monks” belong to, but rather he attacks the vices within the men. He also concedes that the Cluniac-style of monastic life was founded by holy Fathers (Rosenwein 327). Speaking about these founders of Cluniac way of life, Bernard says it is difficult for him to “believe that they recommended or allowed such an array of vanities or superfluities as I see in many religious houses” (327). Thus, for Bernard, the cause of the corrupt state he found in the Cluniac monasteries was due to the vices indulged in by the monks of his time and not to the institutional foundations of the Order. Bernard sees these vices as a deviation from the Benedictine Rule because they all lead to an excess focus on worldly concerns. The Benedictine Rule states that “For nothing is so inconsistent with the life of any Christian as overindulgence” (33). This is precisely the ideal Bernard accuses the Cluniacs of straying from. For example, the vice of superfluity has led to an excess of charity geared towards the desires of the flesh rather than the needs of the soul (328). The clearest example is in his discourse on meals and wine. The Cluniac Monks prepare their food in extravagant manners and add flavor to their wine in order to please the palate. This vice leads monks to eat and drink more than is needed for their primary pursuit of worshipping God, and thus is a deviation from the Rule.
Carl Volz gives a succinct description of the medieval debate over monastic practices by observing that “some monasteries became very much involved in worldly affairs, which was often to the welfare of society but not to the primary goal of the worship of God through prayer and contemplation. For this reason one finds repeated attempts at reform in the history of monasticism” (Volz 19). This summary offers great insight into the background and mindset of Bernard while he is writing his Apologia. When speaking on overabundance of gold and decorations in the monastery, Bernard asks the question: “We who separated ourselves from the mass… we who, to win Christ, count as dung every delight of sight and sound, of smell and taste and touch, whose devotion do we seek to excite with this appeal to the senses?” (Rosenwein 330). He drives his message even deeper with the following question: “Have we perhaps, through mixing with the gentiles, learned their ways and taken to worshipping idols?” (330). The whole point of the monastic lifestyle was to escape from the masses, cut off all that is unnecessary, and grow closer to God. Bernard believed that the Cluniacs had lost this goal of isolation, and were instead wrapped up in values of the larger medieval society. This quote also demonstrates the role that scripture played in Bernard’s evaluation of the Cluniac monks. The phrase “count as dung” is a direct reference to Philippians 3:8. By showing that the Cluniac order has not only deviated from Benedict’s Rule but also from the teachings of scripture, Bernard makes his argument that much more difficult to argue against. To refute Bernard’s claim that the Cluniac Monks are in the wrong would then also be to refute the message of the Apostle Paul.
Peter the Venerable uses scripture to a similar effect in his defense of the Cluniac Order and its character. In Miracles, Peter likens Cluny and the Cluniac monks to the vineyard parable found in John 15:1-17. He goes on to suggest that the vineyard in John is the same vineyard referenced in Psalm 80:11. Peter then draws the conclusion that “Although this [Psalm 80] was said about the synagogue of Jews brought out of Egypt, and above all the present Church, nevertheless nothing prevents us from understanding it also about the Cluniac Church” (332). By tying his order directly into scripture, Peter the Venerable makes a persuasive argument that the current character Cluniac lifestyle is not only good, but that it is directly defended by the scriptures. This in turn would diminish the status of other monastic orders, such as the Cistercians, who are not considered to be a part of the vine whose branches tie directly to Christ.
St. Bernard’s Apologia (1125) is a defense of the Cistercian monastic lifestyle that was founded in 1098 by Robert of Molesme. This half of the Apologia is better described as a counterattack rather than a defense as Bernard constantly criticizes and attacks the “certain monks of yours,” which is a particular reference to the Cluniac monks. The main argument is that the Cluniac monks have strayed from the Rule of St. Benedict by overindulging in the vices of various aspects of life. The main examples for his critiques that he focuses on include the overindulging dietary habits of the Cluniac monks, their superfluous definition of charity, and the excess amount of gold, silver, and other fineries in the monastery. The Miracles, written by the abbot of Cluny Peter the Venerable, refutes the attacks made by Bernard and gives praise the Cluniac monks.
Bernard frames his evaluation of the Cluniac order in an interesting manner. He begins by stating his critiques are not made against the Order that the “certain monks” belong to, but rather he attacks the vices within the men. He also concedes that the Cluniac-style of monastic life was founded by holy Fathers (Rosenwein 327). Speaking about these founders of Cluniac way of life, Bernard says it is difficult for him to “believe that they recommended or allowed such an array of vanities or superfluities as I see in many religious houses” (327). Thus, for Bernard, the cause of the corrupt state he found in the Cluniac monasteries was due to the vices indulged in by the monks of his time and not to the institutional foundations of the Order. Bernard sees these vices as a deviation from the Benedictine Rule because they all lead to an excess focus on worldly concerns. The Benedictine Rule states that “For nothing is so inconsistent with the life of any Christian as overindulgence” (33). This is precisely the ideal Bernard accuses the Cluniacs of straying from. For example, the vice of superfluity has led to an excess of charity geared towards the desires of the flesh rather than the needs of the soul (328). The clearest example is in his discourse on meals and wine. The Cluniac Monks prepare their food in extravagant manners and add flavor to their wine in order to please the palate. This vice leads monks to eat and drink more than is needed for their primary pursuit of worshipping God, and thus is a deviation from the Rule.
Carl Volz gives a succinct description of the medieval debate over monastic practices by observing that “some monasteries became very much involved in worldly affairs, which was often to the welfare of society but not to the primary goal of the worship of God through prayer and contemplation. For this reason one finds repeated attempts at reform in the history of monasticism” (Volz 19). This summary offers great insight into the background and mindset of Bernard while he is writing his Apologia. When speaking on overabundance of gold and decorations in the monastery, Bernard asks the question: “We who separated ourselves from the mass… we who, to win Christ, count as dung every delight of sight and sound, of smell and taste and touch, whose devotion do we seek to excite with this appeal to the senses?” (Rosenwein 330). He drives his message even deeper with the following question: “Have we perhaps, through mixing with the gentiles, learned their ways and taken to worshipping idols?” (330). The whole point of the monastic lifestyle was to escape from the masses, cut off all that is unnecessary, and grow closer to God. Bernard believed that the Cluniacs had lost this goal of isolation, and were instead wrapped up in values of the larger medieval society. This quote also demonstrates the role that scripture played in Bernard’s evaluation of the Cluniac monks. The phrase “count as dung” is a direct reference to Philippians 3:8. By showing that the Cluniac order has not only deviated from Benedict’s Rule but also from the teachings of scripture, Bernard makes his argument that much more difficult to argue against. To refute Bernard’s claim that the Cluniac Monks are in the wrong would then also be to refute the message of the Apostle Paul.
Peter the Venerable uses scripture to a similar effect in his defense of the Cluniac Order and its character. In Miracles, Peter likens Cluny and the Cluniac monks to the vineyard parable found in John 15:1-17. He goes on to suggest that the vineyard in John is the same vineyard referenced in Psalm 80:11. Peter then draws the conclusion that “Although this [Psalm 80] was said about the synagogue of Jews brought out of Egypt, and above all the present Church, nevertheless nothing prevents us from understanding it also about the Cluniac Church” (332). By tying his order directly into scripture, Peter the Venerable makes a persuasive argument that the current character Cluniac lifestyle is not only good, but that it is directly defended by the scriptures. This in turn would diminish the status of other monastic orders, such as the Cistercians, who are not considered to be a part of the vine whose branches tie directly to Christ.