Gille of Limerick (C.1070-1145): Architect of a Medieval Church (English, Latin and Latin Edition) 1851824774, 9781851824779 [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 1

GILLE OF LIMERICK

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 2

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 3

Gille of Limerick (c.1070-1145) Architect of a Medieval Church

John Fleming

F O U R C O U RT S P R E S S

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 4

Set in 10.5 on 13 point Times for F O U R C O U RT S P R E S S LT D

Fumbally Lane, Dublin 8, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] http://www.four-courts-press.ie and in North America F O U R C O U RT S P R E S S

c/o ISBS, 5824 N.E. Hassalo Street, Portland, OR 97213.

© John Fleming 2001

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1-85182-477-4 (hbk) ISBN 978-1-84682-950-5 (ebook)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book.

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 5

Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

7

CHRONOLOGY

9

A B B R E V I AT I O N S

10

INTRODUCTION

11 PA RT O N E : G I L L E , I N H I S O W N T I M E

1 Origins and Organisation The early Irish Church Twelfth-century reform Gille’s origins

17 17 29 38

2 Pastors and Prayer Responsibility for pastoral care The place for contemplation The role of the laity

48 57 63 67

3 Hierarchs and Hierarchy The hierarchs The ecclesiastical grades

74 82 88

4 Enigma and Evaluation Bishop of Limerick Friend of Anselm Gille retrieved

92 92 96 98

PA RT T W O : G I L L E , I N H I S O W N W O R D S

5 Scribes and Manuscripts The writings and their origins The manuscript sources for the writings of Gille

115 115 119

MS B.II.35, folios 36v-38r, at Durham Cathedral Library 119 MS Ff.i.27, pages 237r-242r, at Cambridge University Library 125 MS 66, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 131

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 6

6

Contents The printed sources for the writings of Gille James Ussher’s editions Richard Elrington’s edition Migne’s edition in Patrologia Latina The date of writing

TEXT AND TRANSLATION : CRITICAL EDITION

De usu ecclesiastico The diagram De statu Ecclesiae Epistola XXXI to Anselm Epistola XXXII to Gille

140 140 141 142 142 143 144 146 146 164 166

BIBLIOGRAPHY

170

INDEX

175

I L L U S T R AT I O N S

Cambridge University Library Durham Cathedral Library MS B.II.35 fol. 36v.

frontispiece 120

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 7

Acknowledgements I wish to thank the faculty of canon law at the Pontifical Gregorian University for giving me the opportunity to research, write and defend a thesis for a doctorate in canon law on ‘The canonical writings of Gilbert, Bishop of Limerick, 1106-1138’. My research took me into the area of the history of the sources of medieval canon law. As a result, I am a canonist by training and a historian through interest. I thank Monsignor Brian Ferme for directing my thesis and encouraging me to complete the research that I began in 1985, under the direction of Monsignor Stankiewicz, professor of the history of the sources of canon law at the Gregorian University. With profound gratitude, I acknowledge the help I received from two Irish Augustinian priests, the late Fr F.X. Martin and Fr Michael Hackett. At the beginning of my research, Fr Martin guided me to some of my sources and provided me with access to the library at University College, Dublin. Fr Hackett, a renowned palaeographer, studied the manuscript sources for the writings of Gille and willingly offered me the benefit of his expertise and wisdom. Along the way I have received much help and advice; from Fr Stephen Pisano SJ, the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, who guided my work in preparing a critical edition of these writings, from Fr Vincent Tobin OSB, Pontifical Academy of San Anselmo, Rome, whose comments on my translation of the text were invaluable, from Colmán Etchingham, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, whose opinion on Gille’s name I greatly appreciate, from Alan Piper and Roger Norris, of Durham University and Durham Cathedral Library, whose help was readily available, and from Jayne Ringrose and Colin Barr, Cambridge University, whose expertise in the area of medieval manuscripts I deeply appreciate. I thank my colleagues, the students, the post-graduates and all the residents at the Irish College for their support over these years. I am grateful, in particular to His Grace, Archbishop Seán Brady, archbishop of Armagh and primate of all Ireland, for his support of this project while I was his vicerector at the Irish College, to Monsignor John Hanly, Fr Aidan Ryan, Fr Bryan McCanny and Monsignor Dermot Farrell, my colleagues when the work began and to Fr Liam Bergin, Fr Gerard Condon and Fr Paul Prior, my colleagues when it ended. 7

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

8

Page 8

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge, with deep gratitude, the encouragement I received from the late Most Reverend Jeremiah Newman, bishop of Limerick who, unfortunately, died without seeing this work on the writings of his predecessor completed. I thank Most Reverend Donal Murray, bishop of Limerick, for his help and support. Finally, I wish to thank my family for their interest in this project. I thank Michael Adams, Anthony Tierney and Martin Fanning of Four Courts Press for their patience and expertise. I thank Mary Wilsey, Rome, for her help and advice in reading the proofs of this book. The illustration from CUL MS Ff.i.27 is reproduced by permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library and that from DCL MS B.II.35 by permission of the dean and chapter of Durham Cathedral. I am deeply grateful to both for these permissions.

16 February 2001

John Fleming Pontifical Irish College Rome

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 9

Chronology 1101

The synod of Cashel. Papal legate. Maol Muire ua Dunain.

1105

Ceallach, abbot of Armagh, is ordained a priest.

1106

Ceallach, abbot of Armagh, is consecrated bishop of Armagh.

1106

Gille is consecrated the first bishop of Limerick.

1106

Gille writes as bishop of Limerick to Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury.

1106

Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, replies to Gille’s letter.

1109

Anselm of Canterbury dies.

1111

Synod of Rathbreasail is held. Gille presides as papal legate. He presents De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae to the synod.

1115

Gille attends the consecration of Bernard, bishop of St David’s, Wales, in London.

1132

Gille persuades Malachy to accept the archbishopric of Armagh.

1138

Gille resigns the bishopric of Limerick and retires to Bangor, Co. Down.

1139

Patrick is consecrated bishop of Limerick at Canterbury.

1145

Gille dies at Bangor, Co. Down, and is, presumably, buried there.

1152

The synod of Kells is held and the diocesan system finalised.

1181–8

De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae copied at Sawley Abbey, Yorkshire.

9

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 10

Abbreviations AFM

Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, from the Earliest Period to the Year 1616, ed. J. O’Donovan, London 1848-51, 7 vols

AI

Annals of Inisfallen, ed. S. Mac Airt, Dublin, 1951

Arch.Hib. Archivium Hibernicum AU

Annals of Ulster, eds. S. Mac Airt and G. Mac Niocaill, Dublin, 1983.

CCCC

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge

CS

Chronicon Scotorum, ed. W.M. Hennessy, London, 1866

CUL

Cambridge University Library

DCL

Durham Cathedral Library

DSE

De statu Ecclesiae

DUE

De usu ecclesiastico

ICQ

Irish Church Quarterly

IER

Irish Ecclesiastical Record

ITQ

Irish Theological Quarterly

LthK

Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae historica

NCE

National Catholic Encyclopedia

NHI

New History of Ireland

NMAJ

North Munster Antiquarian Journal

PG

Patrologia Greca, ed. P.J. Migne

PL

Patrologia Latina, ed. P.J. Migne

Rep. Nov. Reportorium Novum

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 11

Introduction Little is known about Gille of Limerick. Documentary evidence shows that in autumn 1106 he wrote as bishop of Limerick to his friend St Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury. History records that nine years later he went to London where he attended the consecration of Bernard, bishop of St David’s in Wales, at the royal palace at Westminster. In 1132 he urged St Malachy to accept the archbishopric of Armagh and Chronicon Scotorum notes that he died at Bangor, Co. Down, in the year 1145. St Bernard’s Life of St Malachy, written around the same year, says that Gille was papal legate in Ireland. The Acta of the synod of Rathbreasail, as contained in the Book of Clonenagh, note that he presided at the synod, probably held in the year 1111, in his capacity as papal legate. Apart from these scant details there is no definite information on his life. A great deal of mystery, therefore, surrounds the person of Gille. Nothing definite is known of his place and date of birth, his studies for the priesthood or his consecration as bishop. Even the form of his name itself has given rise to confusion. Since Bernard wrote the Life of Malachy, his friend and Gille’s successor as papal legate, the European form of Gille’s name, namely Gilbert, has gained prominence. There is, however, substantial historical evidence to suggest that this form of his name was not used by his contemporaries. Chronicon Scotorum, when recording his death, refers to him as ‘Gilli’. The manuscripts which copied his writings, De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae name him ‘Gille’ and ‘Gilebertus’. Since his family roots are almost certainly to be found in the Norse city of Limerick, it seems reasonable to look to this source for an indication of what his name might be. ‘Gilla’ crops up now and then in Scottish Norse names. Most importantly of all in ‘Brjans saga’, the Old Norse account of the battle of Clontarf, ‘Gilla’ is often mentioned with reference to Jarl Gilla of the Sudreyjar. Three forms of his name suggest themselves from the earliest sources, ‘Gilli’, ‘Gilla’ and ‘Gille’. Since the manuscript sources which were copied around 1186, within forty years of his death, use the form ‘Gille’ this form will be used throughout this work. Even less is known about his writings. Three manuscripts from the late twelfth century contain his literary works. These works come under the two headings known as De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae. He is also noted for his diagram and, in particular, for his representation of the 11

Limerick 00

11/4/01

12

1:54 pm

Page 12

Introduction

hierarchical structure of the Church in terms of a pyramid. Historians in general acknowledge in one way or another the existence of these writings but are often unclear as to their nature, origin or precise contents. Despite the uncertainty which surrounds Gille’s life and his writings, it is generally agreed that he made a major contribution to the reform of the Church in Ireland during the twelfth century and in particular that he was the person mainly responsible for the re-organisation of the Irish Church along the diocesan lines which prevail to this day. His writings, which outline the reasons for undertaking this and the method he proposed to use to affect this enormous task, give him the unique distinction of being the only medieval Irish canonist whose works are in existence to this day. This study proposes to examine the background, content and influence of these writings in an effort to shed light on Gille as a twelfth-century bishop and canonist in Ireland. This work is divided into two parts. The first part examines the historical background of the organisation of the Irish Church which provided the sitz im leben for his writings. It then outlines the twelfth-century reformation of the Church and looks into the question of Gille’s origins. In the subsequent chapters an attempt is made to situate his general concepts within the philosophical and canonical tradition which he inherited and thereby shows the particular influences which moulded his thought. The final chapter of this first part tries to draw a pen picture of Gille as a person, a canonist and a bishop. The second part of this work will study his writings themselves, their origins and the manner of their transmission. A critical edition of his text and a translation of these texts has also been prepared. The development of the organisation of the Irish Church is a vague and disputed question. The uncertainty which surrounds the intentions of St Patrick and the rise of monasticism in Ireland cloud the perspectives of this. The socalled ‘particularism’ of the monastic system, especially from the eighth to the twelfth centuries, obscures the issue also. Historians agree, however, that at the beginning of the twelfth century the organisation of the Church in Ireland stood in need of radical reform and thus the opportunity lay open for a canonist of the calibre of Gille to outline why this should take place and how it ought to be effected. To date a broad look at the foundations of Gille’s thought, and in particular the philosophical presuppositions which support his canonical stands, has not been undertaken. His diagram clearly outlines a view of world order which is rooted in Christ and which expresses itself in hierarchy. His cosmology is, therefore, Christocentric and his Christology reflects his philosophical outlook. All are summed up in his view of Christ as the One Bishop. His neoplatonism is

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 13

Introduction

13

evident in his ecclesiology and in particular in his concept of the hierarchical structure of the Church. In order to understand the formative influences of Gille’s canonical thought it is necessary to identify the roots of his philosophy and in particular to explore his mind as a neoplatonist. Like many of his early medieval contemporaries he was deeply influenced by this philosophical system. Many of the central tenets of his canon law flow from it. Two of the sources which influenced his thought were Irish, John Scotus Eriugena and a school of theology which was based in Salzburg where the cathedral was established by the Irishman, St Fergal. From this line of thought, therefore, it emerges that in the apparent introduction of the notion of Christ as Bishop to Ireland in the twelfth century Gille was in fact re-echoing a line of thought which seems to have prevailed in the theological tradition of Ireland in the era of the Celtic Church. At heart, Gille is a philosopher whose philosophical thinking forms the basis of his canon law. In him, therefore, is seen a canonist who has integrated philosophy and canon law and used both to reform a particular situation. He is also an Irish-European thinker who draws on his knowledge of mainline European thought and his awareness of an Irish tradition within that system to influence his work for the Irish Church. Spanning the centuries and the distances of Europe he draws on a rich intellectual tradition to compose his treatise for the introduction of the twelfth-century reform in Ireland. Above all, Gille was a truly Christian man, unassuming and spiritual. In the course of these pages I hope that this picture of him will emerge so that after almost nine hundred years since his consecration as bishop of Limerick his true worth and the value of the contribution which he made to the development of the Church in Ireland may be appreciated. To date no single volume dedicated solely to the person and the writings of Gille has been published. I offer this as a first step in the process of the rediscovery of a medieval canonist and bishop whose worth has lain hidden for almost a millennium. I appreciate all the limitations of mind, training and personal skill with which I have approached this work. I do not offer it as a definitive work on a great Irishman but rather the first attempt to prepare the way for such a volume. I welcome, therefore, the efforts and interest of future historians, canonists and liturgists in this unique man.

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 14

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 15

PA RT O N E

Gille, in his own time

Limerick 00

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 16

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 17

1

Origins and Organisation T H E E A R LY I R I S H C H U R C H

Ireland, during the fourth and fifth centuries, was the only large island in western Europe which had not been incorporated into the Roman Empire. Its religion, government and organisation were, therefore, native and particular to itself. It lacked a developed sense of regional or national identity. The basic unit of society was called the túath, which, as Kenney observed, resembled in several respects the Greek city-state.1 Each túath was autonomous and ‘the Irish mind, like the Greek, did not grasp, or at any rate, did not approve the idea of wide territorial sovereignty’.2 At that time, therefore, Irish society was tribal, rural, hierarchical and based on the family.3 Aspects of this tradition have surfaced and characterised the Irish experience ever since. Traditionally, the coming of St Patrick to Ireland in the year 431 marked the beginning of the process of conversion of the Irish to Christianity. Recent research has shown, however, that the introduction of Christianity to Ireland was effected in a more fragmented and less organised way than is generally recognised. Sailors and Roman soldiers, who made their way through modern day France, are likely to have reached the southern shores of Ireland before St Patrick. There they left a Christian legacy which eventually centred around the tradition of Declan of Ardmore and Ailbe of Emly. Patrick, on the other hand, coming from Wales, concentrated on the east coast of Ireland and his tradition gradually spread southwards to encounter these other early Christian churches. Eventually the traditions united, sometimes after conflict, and the island began its Christian era. 1 J.F. Kenney, The Sources for the Early History of Ireland: Ecclesiastical (New York, 1929; 2nd ed., Dublin, 1968, repr. Dublin, 1997), p. 5 (hereafter Kenney, Sources). 2 Ibid., p. 5. 3 G. Orlandi, ‘Dati e problemi sull’ organizzazione della Chiesa Irlandese tra V e IX secolo’ in Settimane di Studi (1982), pp 714-15 (hereafter Orlandi, ‘Dati e problemi’); K. Hughes, The Church in Early Irish Society (London, 1966), pp 4ff (hereafter Hughes, Church in Early Irish Society); L. Beiler, ‘St Patrick and the Coming of Christianity’ in P. Corish (ed.), A History of Irish Catholicism (Dublin, 1972), 6 vols, vol. 1, part 1, pp 72ff (hereafter Beiler, ‘St Patrick’ in HIC 1.1); P. Corish, ‘The Christian Mission’, idem, vol. 1, part 3, p. 3 (hereafter Corish, ‘The Christian Mission’ in HIC 1.3).

17

Limerick 01

11/4/01

18

1:54 pm

Page 18

Gille of Limerick

The manner in which the early Irish Church was established inevitably remains obscure.4 Despite this, certain elements of its early organisation can be deduced. During the fourth and fifth centuries the Christian Church in western Europe was still a missionary Church and therefore the primary purpose of the first missionaries in Ireland must have been the establishment of churches from which the work of conversion could take place.5 The Memoir of Tirechan is the earliest text available which may indicate how Patrick envisaged the development of the Church in Ireland.6 This text states that by the sixth century, some fifty years after his death, there were forty-two bishops in Ireland who were nominated by Patrick and it maintains that there could have been many more. It records that smaller churches were put in the hands of priests and that one was given to a deacon. The care of two churches was given to nuns and one was given to an abbot. In the opinion of many historians this shows that the Irish Church was established on a diocesan rather than a monastic basis. In short, they hold that Patrick entrusted the spiritual care of the section of the country which he evangelised to bishops and priests and not to monks as such. However, they also acknowledge that he had an experience of monasticism at Lerins in the south of France and that as a result of this he was deeply influenced by this form of religious life.7 They note that he approved the stricter mode of life which the monks professed and some hold that he encouraged his clergy to undertake it.8 During the fifth and early sixth centuries, therefore, the local churches which were established were in the hands of what is nowadays called the secular clergy, with a few exceptions. In this sense ‘the Church founded by St Patrick was primarily episcopal and clerical’.9 However, the notion held by some authors that each bishop had a diocese and that therefore the Irish Church was founded on a developed diocesan system is inaccurate. The structure of Irish 4 R. Sharpe, ‘Some problems concerning the organisation of the Church in Early Medieval Ireland’ in Peritia 3 (1984), pp 239ff. (hereafter Sharpe, ‘Some problems’); C. Etchingham, Church Organisation in Ireland A.D. 650 to 1000 (Maynooth, 1999), pp 12-46 (hereafter Etchingham, Church Organisation). This work is an indispensable guide to the question of the organisation of the Church in Ireland during the first millennium. In particular it presents a comprehensive analysis of the major theories in this area which have emerged during the past two centuries. 5 Sharpe, ‘Some problems’ pp 238-9. 6 J. Ryan, Irish Monasticism. Origins and Early Development (Dublin, 1931; 2nd ed., Dublin 1972, repr. Dublin, 1992), pp 74-80 (hereafter Ryan, Irish Monasticism); L. Beiler, The Patrician Texts in the Book of Armagh (Dublin, 1979), (hereafter Beiler, The Patrician Texts); Kenney, Sources, p. 329; J. Bury, The Life of St Patrick, pp 382-4; R. Sharpe ‘Armagh and Rome in the seventh century’ in P. Ni Cathain and M. Richter (eds.) Ireland and Europe. The Early Church (Stuttgart, 1984), pp 58-72 (hereafter Sharpe, ‘Armagh and Rome’); J. Ryan, ‘The Constitution of the Irish Church’ in P. Walsh (ed.), St Patrick. A Fifteenth Century Memorial Book (Dublin, 1932), pp 31ff (hereafter Ryan, ‘Constitution’). 7 Bury, St Patrick, pp 40-1; Orlandi, ‘Dati e problemi’, p. 718. 8 Ryan, Irish Monasticism, p. 92; idem, ‘The Constitution of the Irish Church’, p. 32. 9 Ryan, Irish Monasticism, p. 82.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 19

Origins and Organisation

19

society in the fifth century and the nature of an infant Church determined that the ministry exercised by these early missionaries was confined to local churches initially and lacked a territorial dimension. Their sole task was preaching the Gospel, administering the sacraments and consolidating the Church in Ireland. Establishing defined diocesan boundaries was not part of their ministry at that time. Bishops and priests were assigned to these churches but they were not given defined territories over which they exercised jurisdiction in the sense in which it is known nowadays. During the sixth century, some Irish bishops governed what the early Irish canonical texts—the Penitentials of Vivian and the canons attributed to Patrick, Auxillius and Iserninus—referred to as paruchia but these did not form a unit of territorial organisation formally designed and sanctioned by St Patrick as such.10 According to the Annals and the Lives of the saints, the growth of monasticism in Ireland was rapid. Adoman’s Life of St Columba shows, for example, the relative ease with which this took place. This text speaks of the saint as a young deacon living with an elderly bishop and quickly goes on to talk of him as a monk and an abbot. The reasons for this growth were probably two-fold. Firstly, the confined nature of early Irish society meant that people lived in close contact with each other, within the confines of a lios in a túath. In these circumstances the clergy also lived in close contact with each other and with their bishop and they became, almost by force of circumstance, a religious family.11 Secondly, something in the Celtic spirit was deeply moved by the ascetical nature of early monasticism and was naturally drawn to it. Within about seventy years of the death of St Patrick, that is by the year 530 AD, monasticism had made deep inroads into the fabric of the emerging Irish Church. The extent of this is not clear however. In the past, historians12 spoke in terms of the change-over reaching a revolutionary aspect at this time. Their evidence for this lay, mainly, in the various Vitae which were written in later centuries. These lives of the saints were, in all probability, somewhat coloured and they presented an idyllic picture of the Irish Church at the beginning of the sixth century. A document called the Catalogus is a clear example of this.13 These sources, the Annals and the Vitae, held that every important church was a monastic church. They noted that the church was the focus of a little walled village, whose dwellers were monks living under ecclesiastical discipline and ministering to the spiritual needs of the surrounding people. 10 L. Beiler (ed.), The Irish Penitentials (Dublin, 1963), (hereafter Beiler, Irish Penitentials). 11 Ryan, Irish Monasticism, p. 95. 12 Ibid., pp 77-96; 167-190; 294-305; Kenney, Sources, pp 291-3. 13 A.W. Hadden and W. Stubbs (eds.), Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Ireland and Great Britain (Oxford, 1869-72), 2 vols, vol. 2, p. 292 (hereafter Hadden and Stubbs, Catalogus).

Limerick 01

11/4/01

20

1:54 pm

Page 20

Gille of Limerick

In reality the period between 530 and the year 700 seems to have been an era of diversity and conflict in the Church in Ireland between those churches which adopted a monastic character and those which tried to preserve their secularity. Evidence of this comes in two particular ways, firstly from what became known as the Easter controversy and secondly from the formulation of the Collectio Hibernensis. These show that the change over to a mainly monastic Church in Ireland took longer and was less extensive than has been acknowledged. The Easter controversy, a debate about the date on which the death and resurrection of Christ should be celebrated, became a key issue between the ‘Roman’ and the ‘Hibernian’ forces within the Irish Church, between those who advocated acceptance of the method of computation sanctioned by the Councils of Arles (314) and Nicea (325) and those who retained the older, Jewish, method. It showed that there was a deep division within the Church. This was a conflict in fact between those who supported the secular priesthood established in the fifth century on the one hand and the advocates of the monastic system which had grown significantly in Ireland on the other.14 This controversy shows that the theory of the predominant control of the Irish Church by monasticism during the seventh century is not securely based. The Collectio Hibernensis,15 which is a collection of canonical material used in Ireland during the eighth century, also shows that both the secular and monastic clergy served the Church in Ireland at that time. Both undertook the pastoral care of the people and the legislation contained in the Collectio demonstrates that the ecclesiastical organisation included both. By the eighth century, however, it is clear that monasticism was the predominant but not exclusive influence in the Church. Orlandi noted that the Catalogus gives evidence in fact of a three-fold progression in the development of the organisation of the Irish Church.16 From 431 to 544, the predominance of bishops as church leaders is very obvious, with over three hundred and fifty mentioned; from 544 to 599 more monks, fewer bishops and many priests are the recorded leaders of the churches; from 599 to 666 the presence of hermits is noted and they appear to have been very numerous. Their presence is evidence of the continuation of a strong tradition of pastoral care in Ireland which was not centred on the monasteries. 14 Hughes, The Church, pp 34-50; K. Hughes, Early Christian Ireland (London, 1972), pp

68-9 (hereafter Hughes, Early Christian Ireland); A. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland (London, 1968), pp 17-18 (hereafter Otway-Ruthven, Medieval Ireland); Sharpe, ‘Some problems’, pp 234-18. 15 H. Wasserschleben, Die Irische Kanonensammlung (Leipzig, 1885), (hereafter Wasserschleben, Die Irische ); A. Stickler, Historia Iuris Canonici Latini, vol. 1, Historia Fontium (Turin, 1950), pp 93ff (hereafter Stickler, Historia); Kenney, Sources, pp 247ff; Bury, St Patrick, pp 235-9; Hughes, The Church, pp 50ff. 16 Orlandi, ‘Dati e problemi’, p. 727; Hadden and Stubbs, Catalogus, vol. 2, pp 292-3.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 21

Origins and Organisation

21

The period from the eighth to the twelfth centuries in the Irish Church has been described as the age of ‘particularism’. According to this theory, monastic control of the Church became supreme and, in the opinion of many, virtually exclusive.17 Its proponents held that ‘Every important Irish church was a monastic church. Monasticism was the basis of the Irish system’.18 They subscribed to the theory that the organisation of the Church in Ireland moved from a diocesan system to a monastic one and subsequently, from the eight century onwards, became progressively secularised. However, the particularism of the Irish situation does not lie solely in the predominence of the monastic system. The role of the abbot within the monastery, his relationship with the resident bishop, together with the question of his celibacy and the place on the nonmonastic clergy in the area of pastoral care constitute the kernel of this so-called particularism. In order to evaluate the task which faced the twelfth-century Irish reformers it is necessary, therefore, to examine the Irish experience during the first millennium and to contrast it with the European experience of monasticism. Fundamentally, monasticism as such began as a lay movement during the third century in Egypt and the greatest of the early monastic fathers, Anthony and Pachomius, never received sacred orders. In Europe, the movement which they began grew in three phases, from the early days until the eighth century, from the eighth to the eleventh centuries and from then until the emergence of the new monastic orders which survive to this day. During the first period, the age of the conversion of Europe, monasteries owned comparatively few churches and monks were not generally involved in the cura animarum, namely pastoral care. The second period, which coincided with the Carolingian reform, saw the steady growth in the number of ordained monks and, consequently, the number of churches cared for by monks. The third period, that of the twelfth-century reform, witnessed an attempt to introduce a degree of order into the organisation of the Church in which bishops tried to regain control of the pastoral care of souls and monks were urge to concentrate on a life of contemplation. In the first period, therefore, the ordination of a monk was the exception rather than the rule. It was ‘only accorded to the elderly brethren of tried virtue’.19 In these early days not even the abbot was expected to be ordained. However, by the ninth century the customaries show that this had changed and ordination to priesthood was expected of an abbot. While lay control of European monasteries was accepted until the eighth century, from then onwards, as the number 17 L. Gougaud, Christianity in the Celtic Lands, trans. M. Joynt, 2nd ed. (London, 1922: repr.

Dublin, 1992) (hereafter Gougaud, Christianity); Ryan, Irish Monasticism, pp 77-96; Hughes, The Church, p. 90; Corish ‘The Christian Mission’ p. 10. 18 Kenney, Sources, pp 291-2. 19 Ryan, Irish Monasticism, p. 275; Hughes, The Church, p. 211; G. Constable ‘Monasteries, Rural Churches and the Cura Animarum in the Early Middle Ages’ in Monks, Hermits and Crusaders in Medieval Europe (London, 1988), pp 349-89.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

22

1:54 pm

Page 22

Gille of Limerick

of ordained monks increased, control of monasteries by lay abbots ceased. This pattern continued and by the twelfth century the majority of monks in mainland Europe was ordained. The law which required the commitment to a celibate way of life for priests was formulated at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1129. This formulation took place against the background of a long development in the Churches of the east and west. The decisive steps in this journey were taken by the Council of Elvira, at the beginning of the fourth century, and at the Council of Trullo in the late seventh century.20 In the west, in the Latin Church, the ideal of a celibate clergy took root over many centuries and with varying degrees of success. The first attempt at introducing legislation to support the ideal came with the Council of Elvira when married priests were required to abstain from sexual relations with their wives. In the east, this requirement was also generally accepted. However during the seventh century, when the debate on celibacy reached a point of particular intensity, the Council of Trullo, with a marked degree of reluctance, accepted that mandatory celibacy should not be required of priests in the east. The Latin Church continued to advocate that priests should not marry and to promote the ideal of a celibate clergy. However, it did not introduce the ban on clergy marrying until the Fourth Council of the Lateran. As a result, while Churches all over Europe advocated, with varying degrees of commitment, a celibate clergy the reality was that many clerics were married or at least were involved in marital relationships during the first millennium. In general, Irish historians have put forward the theory that during the sixth and seventh centuries the emerging monastic churches in Ireland were in the care of abbots who were normally either bishops or priests. This belief, if well founded, conflicts with European practice at this time. However, the general pattern in Europe before the eight century, together with the Irish idea that bishops should be saints and not rulers, ensured that the transition to lay abbots of monasteries in Ireland became inevitable. In this way Ireland began to share the same experience as mainland Europe. Under the system of lay control the abbot, who was known as the coarb or comarba, was the ruler of the monastery while the bishop was, normally, a resident in the monastery. In this system the bishop, therefore, exercised a sacramental function in the community but not necessarily an administrative one.21 He ordained the community's priests, who seem generally to have been few in number,22 consecrated altars and churches, confirmed and absolved sins. On the other hand, around the abbot, supporting 20 A. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy (San Francisco, 1995); R. Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (London, 1985). 21 Hughes, The Church, pp 157ff, 212ff; Kenney, Sources, pp 291-2. 22 For example, St Bernard in his Vita Sancti Malachiae, in

Migne PL 182, 1084, says ‘ministri altaris pauci admodum erant’.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 23

Origins and Organisation

23

his rule and helping him in his administration, were seniores, from whom were chosen the principal officials of the monastic community. Large Irish monasteries, like their counterparts in Europe, resembled walled towns and their abbots were, in consequence, more like mayors who controlled them.23 The expansion of the monastic system was gradual and it reached its culmination about the year 830, on the eve of the Viking raids. The question therefore arises as to whether or not abbots in pre-Viking Ireland were generally in major orders. Historians hold that during the sixth century many were priests and bishops and they generally accept that the majority of the holders of ecclesiastical office as pastors or abbots were in major orders at this time. ‘These men were all bishops and abbots (principes) venerating Patrick and his successors.’24 Seventh-century ecclesiastical canons and secular laws also leave little doubt but that they were normally in sacred orders at this time.25 However, the Synodus Hibernensis, as recorded in the Collectio Hibernensis, legislated for the princeps who was a priest and by implication at least for one who was not.26 By the eighth century there is substantial evidence to show that not all abbots were either ordained or celibate, with abbatical succession sometimes passing from father to son.27 The annals of Ireland, together with the secular and ecclesiastical legislation from the era just before the Viking age, establish beyond reasonable doubt that at this time in Ireland, married clergy, lay abbots, sons succeeding their fathers as abbots of monasteries and offices held in plurality were part and parcel of the Irish Church. Lay control of many major Irish monasteries during the late eighth century helps towards an understanding of the strife which existed in some of these communities at this time. The Annals of Ulster, for example, give an account of an argument, which it refers to as a 'bellum', which broke out in the monastery at Ferns in 783 between the abbot and the oeconomus.28 It also recalls the disagreements between the muintir or households of Birr and Clonmacnois in 760 and the battle between Clonmacnois and Durrow in 764 in which two hundred people were killed. In fact, Irish monasteries were, by the beginning of the ninth century, wealthy, powerful centres of lay life as well as places of ecclesiastical learning and piety. 23 A. Gwynn, ‘The Irish Monastery of Bangor’, in IER (1950), pp 388-97; Sharpe, ‘Some problems’, p. 265; Orlandi, ‘Dati e Problemi’, p. 729; J. Healy, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1962), (hereafter Healy, Ancient Schools). 24 Otway-Ruthven, Medieval Ireland, p. 19; Kenney, Sources, pp 747-8; Ryan, Irish Monasticism, p. 92; Hughes, The Church, pp 158-72; Ryan, ‘The Constitution’, p. 36. 25 Wasserschleben (ed.), Die Irische, pp 12-13; 133, 140; Etchingham, Church Organisation, pp 52-62. 26 Ibid., pp 171-4; Hughes, The Church, p. 159. 27 N. Handcock and T. O’Mahony (eds.), Ancient Laws of Ireland. Seanchas Mor (London, 1865-1901), 6 vols, vol. 2, p. 34 (hereafter Handcock and O’Mahony, Ancient Irish Laws); Hughes, The Church, pp 164-6; Otway-Ruthven, Medieval Ireland, p. 19. 28 W. Hennessy and B. McCarthy (eds.), Annals of Ulster (Dublin, 1887-1901), 759 AD, 763 AD, 806 AD.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

24

1:54 pm

Page 24

Gille of Limerick

In this context, men in major orders were only one element, albeit a very important and honoured one, in a large unit which was known as an Irish monastery. As Corish has noted, ‘The successful monastery was now in fact an ecclesiastical territorial state, its centre the monastic city or ruam. Around this lay its wide possessions, held by lay tenants who made up the community of the monastery equally with its monks and ecclesiastics. Every citizen of the monastic jurisdiction was legally a monk. It had become a populous city whose familia or muintir included as well as monks, scholars, artisans and farmers, a whole host of dependants.’29 The issue which determined the nature of the organisation of the Church in Ireland is the question of the exercise of pastoral care. This issue, rather than the much debated question of the secularisation of the role of the abbot or the nature of the jurisdiction of the bishop and his relationship with the abbot, established the outline of the organisation of the Irish Church in the first millennium. The nature of the Irish temperament and experience, the fate of the system of organisation introduced by the first missionaries in Ireland and the development of the monastic system in Ireland are central issues in this debate. The Irish experience before the introduction of Christianity in the fifth century is fundamental to any appreciation of how the Church was organised. Tribal, rural, hierarchical, familiar and lacking an appreciation of national identity or a wide territorial sovereignity by nature, it seems reasonable to accept that the Church did not develop along predetermined and organised lines as a single entity under a national leader. Armagh and Kildare formed strong paruchia in the course of the centuries but neither of these assumed leadership of a united Church. Irish society was fragmented and the development of the Church reflected this. Indeed, traits of independence, fragmentation and diversity have recurred repeatedly in the Irish experience down to the present time. The fate of the system established by the early Irish missionaries has not received much attention from historians to date. Evidence for what happened is of its nature scarce. Those who undertook pastoral care in the early Church focused their attention on that mission and did not have people to record their activities. When the monasteries grew, on the other hand, they had scholars and scriptoria which created Vitae and left a record of their activities for future historians. Historians in general since Hughes agree that the clash between the Romani and the Hibernenses in the seventh and eight centuries reflected a clash between the monastic system and those who exercised pastoral care in a non29 Corish, ‘The Christian Mission’, p. 19, pp 36-8; Ryan, Irish Monasticism, p. 327; Kenney,

Sources, pp 292-3; T. O’Fiaich, ‘The Church of Armagh under lay control’ in Seanchas Ardmacha (1969), pp 75-127 (hereafter O’Fiaich, ‘The Church of Armagh’).

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 25

Origins and Organisation

25

monastic structure, as well as between those who advocated a connection with Rome and those who favoured diversity and wished to be independent of the Roman Church. Patrick Corish has identified some sources which point to the presence of the unrecorded non-monastic clergy in Ireland.30 The Irish penitentials of Columban and Vinnian and those ascribed to Finnian envisage the presence of a non-monastic clergy with the role of pastoral care in sixth-century Ireland. Canon law tracts, especially those of the Collectio Hibernensis, clearly show the presence of clergy who were not part of the monastic system.31 By the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the ninth the movement for reform known subsequently as the Culdees indicates the co-existence of both a monastic and a non-monastic clergy in Ireland. Their Rule has two distinct parts, one addressed to each group, and reflects much of the material originally produced in the Riagail Pátraic, where the presence of the non-monastic clergy in Ireland is clearly evident. Indeed some historians nowadays accept that the Stowe Missal is the prayer book of a non-monastic priest rather than a missal which served the needs of a great monastic church. The extensive nature of Celtic society is underlined when consideration is given to the late eighth century reform movement of the Culdees which was accommodated within these monasteries, without any apparent difficulty as well as outside the confines of the monasteries. Anchorites, hermits and men living in small groups within the boundaries of a monastery were given freedom to live for God as they saw fit.32 The greater part of the Irish Church from the eighth century onwards was to be found in these monasteries and the link between groups of them, known as the paruchia, was the only slight attempt that there was to create a sense of national unity in the Church. There was no universally recognised central authority in the country and this lead to great diversity and independence within these local monasteries and churches. Various families controlled individual monasteries and their lands became the preserve of these families.33 A great divide arose, therefore, between the ownership of Irish monasteries and the exercise of pastoral care within the Church. Bishops and priests had the freedom that they needed to carry out a pastoral ministry to those who lived within and around the particular monastery or in the area of a little church and there was no question of their ministry being restricted. The kernel of the particularism of the Irish Church in the first millennium does not lie as such in the fact that the abbot of the monastery was a layman nor in the fact that he was not necessarily a celibate. Neither does it lie in the reality that both bishops and priests had children. The Church in mainland Europe shared these experiences in varying degrees with the Irish Church. The dif30 Corish, ‘The Christian Mission’ in HIC 1.3, pp 7ff. 31 Ibid. p. 33. 32 Hughes, The Church, pp 173-93. 33 O’Fiaich, ‘The Church of Armagh’, pp 75ff.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

26

1:54 pm

Page 26

Gille of Limerick

ference between Ireland and Europe was that as the abbots of European monasteries tended more and more towards ordination to priesthood their Irish counterparts were slow to follow their example. While European abbots began to participate more and more in the pastoral ministry and in the cura animarum, Irish abbots continued to give this ministry of pastoral care to the bishops and priests who lived within and around the confines of their monasteries. Untouched by the Roman Empire and lacking a sense of national unity, the Irish ecclesiastical mind did not feel the need to follow either European trends or Roman dictates. Conscious of the importance of both, its particularism lay in its sense of independence and the value it placed on diversity. The Viking raids began in earnest in the year 832 and with them came a decisive moment in Irish history. Their effect on the monasteries was devastating, both physically and from the point of view of morale. By the mid-ninth century Irish abbots in general tended to be landowners. Their monasteries were defenceless and so they were easily raided and their treasures taken. In the wake of these raids many men of learning left the monasteries and sought peace for study in the Carolingian schools.34 The spirit of Irish monasticism to a large extent died with the coming of the Vikings. It is estimated that over one hundred monasteries closed in the succeeding decades and those that survived became more and more secularised.35 Ecclesiastical legislation reflects the change. Between 697 and 842 the Annals contain much legislation of a canonical nature. After 842 this legislation ends. The Irish Church was now without the protection of a strong monastic system and in many cases sought help from secular princes. As a consequence it became common on occasions for a local reigning prince to assume responsibility for a monastery or a church and even hold a monastic office.36 Within the monasteries that survived fathers and sons continued to hold abbatial office in certain well known places, such as Lusk, Ardpatrick, Emly,37 Monasterboice38 etc. Ecclesiastical office or administration, as it is commonly known in the broader sense, was by now firmly in lay hands while the pastoral ministry was carried on independently of this both within and outside the monasteries. During the ninth and tenth centuries, therefore, there were very many king-abbots but there was only one recorded king-bishop, that is, Cormac son of Cuillennan, king of Cashel or Coromac, bishop-abbot of Cellmo34 F. McGrath, Education in Ancient and Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1979), pp 105ff (hereafter McGrath, Education); R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians (London, 1983), pp 278ff (hereafter McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms). 35 M. McIrney ‘The Church in the Twelfth Century’ in P. Walsh (ed.), St Patrick, a Fifteenth-Century Memorial Book (Dublin, 1932). 36 J. O’Donovan (ed.), Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters (Dublin, 1848-51), 7 vols. (hereafter AFM); AFM 882. 37 AFM 848, AU 881, AI 872, AFM 817, AFM 886. 38 AFM 800, AFM 847.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 27

Origins and Organisation

27

Laise, king of Deisi.39 While the close relationship between the tenth-century Irish kings and the abbots underlined the essentially lay nature of Irish monasticism, the presence of a king-bishop created a new dimension to Irish ecclesiastical life. It must be remembered, however, that after the Viking raids, the Church sought the protection of kings in many cases and what seemed like secularisation may, in part, have been a question of protection. The eleventh century and the second millennium began with the secular world generally in control of what were still called Irish monasteries. The ascetical reform movement of the Culdees had died and positions of authority within the monasteries were not generally occupied by men in major orders. A vibrant Irish Church seems to have existed despite and independently of this. While the annals during the mid-ninth century do not mention the clerical state, this is not to be taken as an indication that it had ceased to exist. It is due more to an absence of scribes than to the demise of the clergy. Clerics in major orders were fewer in number but circumstantial evidence shows that they still exercised an important pastoral service. The period of the ninth and tenth centuries was one of intense devotion and popular piety. A study of Irish poetry from the ninth to the twelfth centuries underlines this.40 During the ninth century poets portrayed a society which was religious, scholarly, deeply conscious of nature and concerned with what would nowadays be called environmental issues. ‘The Scholar and his Cat’, ‘The Scribe in the Woods’ and ‘The Lord of Creation’ are poems from this era. The poems of the tenth and eleventh centuries, on the other hand, are all religious poems.41 They focus on and are addressed to God, Christ and Mary. Intensely personal and direct, they are the religious expression of a people who had a simple and an uninterrupted awareness of God’s presence. Individualism was a hallmark of Irish Church life during these centuries and individuals continued to dedicate themselves to God in a special way. More than ever, men of prayer now tended to live in solitude rather than in community. Anchorites in significant numbers lived near many very ancient and influential monastic settlements such as Armagh, Clonfert, Bangor and Glendalough. Some of these were in major orders and were either bishops or priests. One of them had been a king; ‘Finneachta, son of Loegaire, chief anchorite of Ireland, king of Kerry and chief counsellor of Munster,’ died, according to the Annals of Innisfallen, in 929. The Annals of the Four Masters, for the year 1070, talk of another, Conn, an anchorite of Clonmacnois whose sons and grandsons formed an ecclesiastical family. It is clear, therefore, that even princes who had once ruled the monasteries as their protectors now ended 39 AI 901 ‘the noble bishop and the celibate took the kingship of Cashel’. 40 G. Murphy, Early Irish Lyrics (Oxford, 1956; repr. Dublin, 1998), pp 22-9. 41 Ibid., pp 8-61.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

28

1:54 pm

Page 28

Gille of Limerick

their days in the clerical state.42 During this century also, while secular princes protected and in many cases dominated monasteries, many churches were also freed from paying tribute to the secular powers and were served by priests and bishops. Pastoral care of the people was now carried out by individual clergy, priests and bishops rather than communities based in monasteries. In the era after the Viking raids pastoral activity and the care of souls, to a greater extent, took place independently of the monastery. European monasteries, on the other hand, seem to have developed in the opposite direction from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. The growing number of ordained monks in each monastery was in marked contrast with the increasing secularisation of Irish monasteries. Recent research, based on a comparative study of the names of monks listed in the Liber vitae in various monasteries, shows that in the mid-eighth century the proportion of ordained to non-ordained was approximately 55 per cent to 45 per cent.43 By the eleventh century this ratio had risen to 70 per cent ordained and 30 per cent non-ordained. In Italy, for example, at Farfa, non-ordained fell as low as 10 per cent in 1097.44 This development was of great significance for European monasticism as it meant that pastoral care was exercised in the main by monks. In the twelfth century this inevitably lead to a tension between the supremacy of the secular priesthood over the monastic vocation. This trend also had a major influence on the development of the twelfth-century hierocratic theory which has dominated doctrinal thought during the second millennium in the Latin Church. The twelfth century, therefore, dawned on a European Church which was beginning to come to grips with the role of the priesthood and, in particular, with the relationship between the priest and the monk, between pastoral care and contemplation. In this regard, Ireland faced the same challenge as mainland Europe. The difference between them was that the initiative for pastoral care in Ireland lay with a clergy who were secular in fact, even if they lived within the confines of the monasteries, whereas in Europe it tended to lie with ordained monks. When the synod of Rathbreasail was held in the year 1111 therefore, over fifty bishops were present and some three hundred clergy.45 The annalists agree on this number and these figures indicate the strength of the Church on the ground and the effectiveness of its pastoral activity. This led Kenney to remark: ‘Fundamentally, the Church in Ireland was one with the Church in the remainder of western Europe. The mental process and Weltanschauung of the ecclesiastics 42 Hughes, The Church, p. 214; AI 900 ‘Repose of Tadg son of Connactha after he had renounced the world on the hide of Ciaran’s Dun Cow’. 43 G. Constable, ‘Monasteries, rural churches’, pp 360-5. 44 M. Stroll, The Medieval Abbey of Farfa. Target of Papal and Imperial Ambitions (New York, 1997), pp 17ff. 45 D. Comyn and P. Dineen (eds.), The History of Ireland by Geoffrey Keating (London, 1902-14). 4 vols, vol. 3, pp 299-307 (hereafter Comyn and Keating (eds.), Keating’s History of Ireland).

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 29

Origins and Organisation

29

who looked out from Armagh or Clonmacnois or Innisfallen was not essentially different from those whose centre of vision was Canterbury or Rheims or Cologne. But in many important aspects, and particularly those of organisation and relationship with the secular power, the Church in Ireland presented a marked variation from that on the Continent.’46 Lacking a clearly recognised central authority the Church in Ireland from the fifth to the twelfth centuries did not have a sense of national identity and it lacked a defined territorial dimension. While the monastery in Armagh claimed primacy in Ireland and though it exercised the role of leadership of the monasteries within the Paruchia Patricii, Armagh did not become the clear and universally recognised central authority in the Irish Church before the twelfth century. The Irish Church in the Celtic era was, therefore, fragmented and localised. For almost six hundred years it had served the needs of the faithful through the monastic system and through a vibrant, if at times small, group of secular clergy. Despite the decline of the monastic system, the fragmentation which had been a central part of the Irish experience and the inevitable reluctance of some elements of the old monastic system to accept change, the Church emerged on the threshold of the twelfth century zealous, anxious for change and open to reform. T W E L F T H - C E N T U RY R E F O R M

Rooted in the reform of the universal Church, commonly known as the Gregorian Reform, the reorganisation of the Church in Ireland was begun in the last quarter of the eleventh century when two Italian archbishops of Canterbury, Lanfranc (1070-89) and St Anselm (1093-1109), urged Irish kings and bishops to extend the great movement of Roman reform to Ireland.47 When the voice of St Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, was added to these the greatest change ever to take place in the Irish Church was effected. No simple origin or single path can be ascribed to the revolutionary change which took place but these interventions, together with the emergence of the Norse-Irish cities such as Dublin, Limerick and Waterford and the reforming spirit of the O'Briens, Kings of Munster and aspirants to the high kingship of Ireland,48 ushered in the greatest change the Irish Church had seen to date. 46 Kenney, Sources, pp 156-7, p. 747.

47 J. Watt, The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 1970), pp 1-34 (hereafter Watt, The Church); J. Watt, The Church in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1972), p. 225 (hereafter Watt, Medieval Ireland); Hughes, The Church, pp 253-74; H. Lawlor, ‘The Reformation of the Irish Church in the Twelfth Century, in ICH, 4 (1911) pp 216-18; M. McIrney ‘The Church in the XIIth Century’, pp 49-62; A. Gwynn, ‘ The Twelfth Century Reform’ in HIC 2.1, pp 1-68 (hereafter Gwynn, ‘Reform’). 48 D. Gleeson and A. Gwynn, A History of the Diocese of Killaloe (Dublin, 1962), pp 90-127 (hereafter Gleeson and Gwynn, Killaloe).

Limerick 01

11/4/01

30

1:54 pm

Page 30

Gille of Limerick

The observations of these three prelates, two archbishops and an abbot, all of whom lived outside Ireland, give an interesting outside view of the Irish Church in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Lanfranc, a monk at the monastery of Bec in Normandy and later archbishop of Canterbury, writing to the king of Ireland, Toirrdelbach O’Brien in 1074, listed some of the abuses. These centred on the ordination of bishops and priests.49 They included payments being made to bishops for ordination, too many priests in settled areas of population and the ordination of bishops by a single bishop, as opposed to the statutary three bishops. St Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, writing some twenty years later, also complained about the circumstances in which bishops were ordained.50 In a second letter to King Muirchertach he noted that some bishops had been consecrated without being assigned a people for whom they exercised pastoral care and a territory to govern. Finally, St Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, in his Life of St Malachy, his friend, complained about metropolitans who ordained bishops for every church as opposed to having one bishop for a diocesan territory. He also criticised the ambition of many who sought episcopal office and, in particular, those who confined the conferral of office on members of their own tribe or family. He took as an example St Celsus who broke with tradition after eight generations of his own family had preceded him as abbot of Armagh. St Bernard concluded by saying that ecclesiastical discipline had been abandoned in Ireland at that time, the law of censure had been weakened and religion itself was lacking.51 This view of the Irish Church came from men who were outside its ‘particularism’ and whose experience of the hierarchical Church based on the diocesan system was alien to what they saw in Ireland. Their analysis of the situation focused on three main issues, the role of bishops in the Irish Church, the fact that there were more bishops than pastoral care would warrant and the fact that bishops lacked a see in which to exercise their ministry and a defined territory which they could govern. A survey of the Irish annals, which recorded major events in Ireland during the eleventh century, gives an interesting picture of the Irish Church from the inside at this time. These Annals show that during the eleventh century the Church had bishops, coarbs, abbots, anchorites, venerable seniors, priests and lectors. An idea of the number of these and of the proportion of one group to the other can be seen in the estimated numbers of those attending the synod of Rathbreasail in 1111. The Annals of Inisfallen, for example, record that ‘three hundred priests and a fair fifty bishops’ attended the synod. The Annals of Ulster

49 Ep. CXLII, Migne, PL 159, 174. 50 Ep. CXLVII, Migne, PL 159, 179; Gwynn, ‘Twelfth Century Reform’, p. 8. 51 St Bernard, Vita Sancti Malachiae, Migne PL 182, 1086.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 31

Origins and Organisation

31

reported similar figures but added the number of others present ‘with fifty bishops, three hundred priests and three thousand churchmen.’ Chronicon Scotorum was even more precise when it noted that ‘fifty-eight bishops, three hundred and seventeen priests and eight scores of deacons and there was no counting the multitudes of clerics’ gathered at Rathbreasail. On the eve of the twelfth century, the Church was widespread, well represented and energetic. A new flowering had begun in the old monasteries. During the eleventh century Irish scholars went abroad again and founded the first Schottenkloster in Germany. Kings went on pilgrimage to Rome and the Irish founded the first recorded Irish settlement in that city. Three great manuscript compilations come from the twelfth century also, the Book of the Dun Cow, the Book of Leinster and the Táin. Craftsmen in monasteries were also at work on St Patrick’s Bell, the Crozier of Clonmacnois and the Cross of Cong. Hints of a strong religious practice on the part of the people are evident. The annals often record that men died ‘fortified by communion and the sacrifice of the Mass’. Popular piety expressed itself in writing and there is evidence which suggests that it was quite strong.52 The long term effect of the destruction of the Viking era had begun to wane and Irish kings were longing for a return to a Golden Age. Lay control of Irish monasteries and the ‘particularism’ of the Irish Church began to show the positive side of this criticised experience, namely the creation of an active pastoral mission on the part of the clergy which was independent of the monastic system. Historians in general have focused on the abuses but it is quiet clear that within the ambit of the lay control of the monasteries a strong pastoral practice on the part of priests and bishops developed. Indeed the abbots, while they pursued their own monastic interests, created an ambience within which a strong religious culture could develop. That this grew up independently of those who controlled the monastic property, whether king or abbot, is certain. All the annalists, writing from different perspectives and locations, agree and testify that over fifty bishops, three hundred priests and a large number of ecclesiastics attended the synod of Rathbreasail. By the twelfth century, therefore, this segment of ecclesiastical life was ready for reform and the spiritual mood of the country was also prepared for renewal. The synod of Cashel (1101) The last quarter of the eleventh century witnessed calls for reform at home and abroad. The southern part of Ireland was the first to heed these and at Cashel, Co. Tipperary, the seat of the O'Briens, the kings of Munster, the 52 Murphy, Early Irish Lyrics, p. 27.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

32

1:54 pm

Page 32

Gille of Limerick

reformation began. Three synods formed the nucleus of the reform: Cashel in 1101, Rathbreasail in 1111 and Kells in 1152. The synod of Cashel was not a synod of the whole country since its members came mainly from Munster and Leinster. ‘An assembly of the men of Ireland, both laity and clergy, around Muirchertach O Brien’ was how Chronicon Scotorum described it53, and the Annals of the Four Masters54 added that ‘Ua Dunain, noble bishop and chief senior of Eire’ was also there. Muirchertach O’Brien, who was at that time the undisputed king of Munster, presided at the synod and Maol Muire Ua Dunáin was there in his capacity as ‘as the chief bishop of Munster’ and legate of Pope Paschal II (1099-1118). Eight decrees were issued by the synod and they indicate a solid attempt to rectify some, but not all, of the abuses of the early medieval Church. These decrees are particularly significant in that they are the only pieces of legislation passed by the synods of the twelfth-century reform to survive in their original form. They read as follows:55 I. that for all time neither laicised clerk nor cleric should make traffic of God’s house.56 II. that neither to king nor to chieftain for ever should the Church in Ireland pay rent or tribute. III. that in Eire a layman shall not be an erenagh.57 IV. that two erenaghs should not be in the one church unless it were a church where two provinces march. V. that no erenagh of any Church in Ireland should have a wife.58 VI. that any having committed either murder or patricide shall no more find sanctuary.59 VII. that the misdemeanour of neither clerk or poet shall be brought before a layman. VIII. that in Eire none shall have to wife either his father's wife or his grandfather's wife, either his (her) sister or his (her) daughter or his brother's wife or any woman at all thus near akin.60 53 W.M. Hennessy (ed.), Chronicon Scotorum (London, 1866), (hereafter known as CS). CS 1111 AD. 54 AFM 1111 AD. 55 S. O’Grady, Caithreim Thoirdhealbhaigh (Dublin, 1902-14) p. 195. 56 In Irish the terms used are athlaoch, a layman who became a cleric and athcleireach, a cleric who returned to being a layman. AI 1064 AD used the term ex-layman. Hughes, The Church, p. 265 notes that the purpose of this canon was the exclusion of unsuitable appointments. 57 This was the term used in Ireland for a lay superior of a monastery. 58 Some twenty-eight years before the Fourth Council of the Lateran introduced obligatory celibacy, this synod introduced it for the heads of religious houses in Ireland. 59 Note that the right of sanctuary is affirmed by the exclusion of those who have no right to it. 60 Here there is important, direct evidence of a clash between Roman canon law and Brehon law.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 33

Origins and Organisation

33

In common with all the synods held during the twelfth century in other parts of Europe, the synod of Cashel began by legislating against the prevailing practice of simony. It then went on to deal with the prevailing problems of the day, the relationship between Church and State, clerical celibacy and issues concerning marriage. It is well to note, however, that the synod fought shy of the question of divorce, even though it is generally accepted as having been widely practised at the time.61 The main achievement of the synod was to limit the exercise of the power of lay lords in the Church, remove their right to impose levys on the Church (c. 2), to hold ecclesiastical office (c. 3), and to judge the misdemeanours of the clergy (c. 6). The metamorphosis of the Irish Church began at the synod of Cashel. Here the emphasis was on reform and on the elimination of as many of the blatant abuses as was possible. It was only a beginning, however. The failure of canon law to impinge on the Irish ecclesiastical mind of that time was not fully resolved. Having reached an advanced stage of development in the eighth century with the formulation of the Collectio Hibernensis, this canonical tradition declined with the coming of the Vikings and by the twelfth century it had become a customary rather than a written law. Practices peculiar to Ireland, particularly with regard to matrimonial legislation, existed in the country. At the synod of Cashel this very sensitive issue was touched on but the overall problem of the effective restoration of canonical order was not achieved. The object of the fathers at Cashel was to improve and correct the existing situation while trying not to alienate or destroy the goodwill which accompanied it. The synod was a gathering of the clergy and laity of the southern half of Ireland. The north followed their example and gave the movement for reform the cohesion and force that it needed. Ceallach, abbot of Armagh from 1105, immediately took sacred orders on his appointment as abbot and visited Munster to be consecrated bishop of Armagh in the following year. For the first time in over two hundred years, in the Church in Armagh, the offices of abbot and bishop were united in him. His consecration in Munster, while on a visit to the churches of the Paruchia Patricii, acknowledged the leading role played by the Church in Munster and prepared the way for a national movement of reform. Coinciding with this were the converging forces of the Gregorian Reform and the influence which the archbishops of Canterbury exerted on lay and clerical leaders in England and Ireland. In Scotland, the attempt by Queen Margaret and her son King David I to reform the Scottish Church, establish the rule of canon law and introduce the pattern of ecclesiastical organisation 61 R. Thurneysen, Studies in Early Irish Law (Dublin, 1936), pp 81-108, 235-68; Gwynn,

‘The Twelfth Century Reform’ p. 17; Hughes, The Church, pp 264-5.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

34

1:54 pm

Page 34

Gille of Limerick

which generally prevailed in the western Church was also very important. The appointment of papal legates to Ireland for the first time in the twelfth century ensured that the reform would be felt in this country also. The Synod of Cashel, therefore, began the reformation of the Church in Ireland and the first steps in the journey of reform were taken there. The synod of Rathbreasail (1111) The Acta and decrees of the synod of Rathbreasail are recorded in Geoffrey Keating's History of Ireland in a document which Geoffrey Keating, writing about 1635, copied into his Forus Feasa ar Eirinn from an old book of the Annals of Clonenagh which have since been lost.62 While historians accept that this synod was the most important of all the twelfth-century synods, a good deal of ambiguity and lack of precise historical detail surrounds it. The majority of the Irish annalists record that the synod took place, recommend it for its wisdom and name some of those who attended.63 However, with the exception of the Annals of Clonenagh, none of them gives details of its decrees or the list of its signatories. The sense of vagueness about the synod is deepened by the loss of the Annals of Clonenagh. While the authenticity of this source has never been questioned, the loss of such a valuable document is lamentable.64 The exact date on which the synod was held is a vexed question for historians, with dates varying from 1100 to 1118. The date commonly accepted nowadays by the majority of them is the year 1111. The location in which the synod was held has also given rise to much learned discussion. As yet no precise place has been agreed upon unanimously by the experts.65 Indeed, the question of its relationship with two other councils, of Uisneach and Fiadh mic Aengusa, if they were separate from it, also deserves attention.66 According to the Book of Clonenagh, among those present at the synod of Rathbreasail were Gille, to whom it referred as ‘Giolla Easpuig, bishop of Limerick and papal legate, Ceallach, archbishop of Armagh and Maoliosa O 62 Comyn and Dineen (eds), Keating’s History of Ireland, vol. 3, pp 306-7; J. Lanigan, An

Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829), 4 vols, vol. 4, pp 23-49; Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’ pp 29ff; J. McErlean, ‘Synod of Rath Breasail’ in Archivium Hibernicum 3 (1914), pp 1-33 (hereafter McErlean, ‘Synod of Rath Breasail’). 63 AU, AI, AFM, CS and the Annals of Tigernach. 64 McErlean, ‘Synod of Rath Breasail’ p. 1. 65 Comyn and Dineen (eds.), Keating’s History of Ireland, make no comment on the location in which it was held. Lanigan, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, says it was held in either Armagh or Offaly. McElrean, ‘Synod of Rath Breasail’, holds that Mountrath, Co. Laois was the venue, Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’ says it was held near Templemore, Co. Tipperary, and A. Condon, ‘Raith Breasail: a suggested identification’ in Peritia (1984), pp 326-9, places it near Duhallow, Co. Cork. 66 Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’ bases his questions about the relationship of these various synods on an interlinear note in the Annals of Inisfallen for the year 1111.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 35

Origins and Organisation

35

Ainmire, archbishop of Cashel. This source records that they signed the Acta as follows: ‘The blessing of the Lord and of Peter the Apostle and of St Patrick be on everyone of these twenty-five bishops who shall let no Easter pass without consecrating the oils. And there are many other good decrees of this holy synod which we have not set down here for brevity. The Cross of the comharba of Peter and of his legate, that is Giolla Easpuig, bishop of Luimneach, the Cross of Giolla Ceallaigh the comharba of Patrick and primate of Ireland, the Cross of Maoliosa O Ainmire, archbishop of Cashel. The Crosses of all the bishops and of all the laity and clergy who were at this holy synod of Raith Breasail against whomsoever shall transgress these decrees and the malediction of them all on whomsoever shall oppose them.’67 Since the seventeenth century, with the publication of Keating’s History, historians accept that Gille, bishop of Limerick, was president of the synod.68 The most important result of Rathbreasail was the blueprint which it prepared for the establishment of the diocesan system in Ireland. For this purpose the country was divided in two. Three reasons seem to have influenced this decision. This division corresponded to the political division of the country into Leath Cuinn (northern half) and Leath Mogha (southern half); it also coincided with the division of England, established half a century earlier, between York and Canterbury and it divided Ireland between the two most powerful centres of the twelfth-century reform, Armagh and Cashel. The exact number of dioceses established by the synod gives rise to some discrepancies. The Book of Clonenagh, apparently, gave the number as twenty-six while Keating only enumerates twenty-five. There were to be twelve in Leath Cuinn, twelve in Leath Mogha and two in Meath.69 Related to this issue is the debate concerning the mysterious omission of the diocese of Dublin from mention in the Acta.70 Some historians believe that, while it was not named, Dublin was linked into the diocesan system through the proposed diocese of Glendalough. This opinion gains a certain credence when consideration is given to the fact that Waterford was linked to the diocese of Lismore and Wexford to that of Ferns.71 The Acta allowed for a certain flexibility within its guidelines and the final shape of the Irish diocesan system was not reached until after the synod of Kells in 1152. The Acta named Armagh and Cashel the two ecclesiastical provinces and named each diocese within them. Each diocese was called after an ancient church within its territory or, in the ease of Limerick, Waterford, Cork and 67 Comyn and Dineen (eds.), Keating’s History of Ireland, pp 299ff.

68 Ibid: ‘and Giolla Easpuig, bishop of Luimneach, who was the Pope’s legate in Ireland at that time, was president of that Council’. 69 McErlean, ‘Synod of Rath Breasail’, p. 23. 70 J. Kelly and D. Keogh (eds.), History of the Catholic Diocese of Dublin (Dublin, 2000), p. 40, 52-4 (hereafter Kelly and Keogh (eds.), Diocese of Dublin). 71 Comyn and Dineen (eds.), Keating’s History of Ireland, p. 299.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

36

Page 36

Gille of Limerick

Wexford after the city which could be its chief see. While the Acta did not refer to the tribal areas from which these dioceses came, it accepted many of the tribal boundaries as the new boundaries of some diocese. In this regard it is clear that a good deal of political manouvering took place behind the scene in the creation of these boundaries. Normally it mentioned four locations at the perimeter of each new diocese to define its boundary. The Acta allowed Connaught to establish its own boundaries. The diocese of Connor was defined by seven reference points and the diocese of Limerick was outlined with fourteen points of reference. In the Acta the diocese of Limerick is set out as a model for the rest of the country. The boundaries are clearly established. They were to be coterminus with the tribal boundaries of the Ui Fidhgente72 to the east and the natural boundaries of mountains to the south and rivers to the west and north. Fourteen points of reference are mentioned in the Acta and these showed that the papal legate had a remarkable knowledge of the geography of the area. The text reads: ‘The see of Luimneach, the Maoilchearn eastwards, Ath ar Choinne, Lodan and Lough Gair, and the Laitheach Mhor from Aine westward, and Ard Padraig to the south and Bealach Feabhradh and Tulach Leis, the Feil westwards and Tairbeart and Cuinche in Thomond and Crossa in Sliabh Uidhe an Riogh and the Dubhabhann.’ The only other diocese to come close to the detail given for Limerick was the diocese of Connor, the diocese to which Gille would retire and in which he lies buried. Unlike all the other diocese, Armagh and Cashel included, the bishop of Limerick was given a principal church and that church was named, St Mary’s. Finally all the authority of the papal legate is put behind the binding force of this formal decree for the erection of the diocese of Limerick: ‘Whoever shall go against these boundaries goes against the Lord and Peter the Apostle and St Patrick and his comharba and the Christian Church, and the Church of Mary in Luimneach is its principal Church.’73 The detail which surrounds the erection of the diocese of Limerick suggests that Gille wrote or at least had a direct influence in the composition of the text which was ultimately copied in the Book of Clonenagh. While proof of this is not available, pointers emerge from a comparison of the Acta of the synod with the known works of Gille. The detailed structure of the diocese of Limerick was deliberately included in the Acta of the synod by someone who had an intimate knowledge of the area concerned and a particular interest in the way in which it was to be structured. A comparison between the structure of the legislation in Gille’s De statu Ecclesiae and the Acta of Rathbreasail shows a marked similar72 J. Begley, The Diocese of Limerick, Ancient and Medieval (Dublin, 1906), 3 vols. (hereafter, Begley, Limerick, vol. 1). 73 Comyn and Dineen (eds.), Keating’s History of

Ireland, p. 305.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 37

Origins and Organisation

37

ity in style. In general both are clear, simple and short declarations, beginning with a statement and followed by a brief elaboration on it. For example in the Acta: ‘The see of the Archbishop of Ard Macha, from Sliabh Breagh to Cuaille Ciannachta and from Bior to the Abhann Mhor.’74 This is followed by the see of Clochar and the same structure. In turn this is followed by the see of Ard Sratha and once again the same structure. In De statu Ecclesiae, when defining the offices of each order Gille follows a very similar pattern: ‘There are fourteen priestly offices, to preside, to serve, to pray, to offer, to preach, to teach, to baptise, to bless, to excommunicate, to reconcile, to anoint, to communicate, to commend souls to God, to inter bodies; each one has to be studied singularly.’75 Each statement is marked by clarity and practicality. Both these qualities are to be found in his canonical presentation in De statu Ecclesiae and in the mind which drafted the Acta of the synod of Rathbreasail. In both there is a clear statement of law which is placed beside a practicality and a deep awareness of the possibility of change due to circumstance. In the Acta of Rathbreasail, for example, when outlining the distribution of the dioceses of Connaught the author makes a clear statement of law but adds, ‘If the Connaught clergy agree to this division we desire it, and if they do not, let them divide it as they choose and we approve of the division that will please them, provided there be only five bishops in Connaught’.76 While the Acta of Rathbreasail in the Annals of Clonenagh cannot be directly included among the canonical writings of Gille, there is strong evidence to suggest that he played a significant part in their composition. Presiding over the synod of Rathbreasail as papal legate, Gille, or Giolla Easpuig as the Book of Clonenagh calls him, had the authority and the opportunity to effect the single greatest change the Irish Church has known since its foundation in the fifth century. His was the unique opportunity to gather a fragmented, dispirited Church together and create a new future for it on an organised diocesan basis, subject to a central primatial authority in Ireland and through this to the see of Peter. His role as papal legate gave him the authority to achieve this and his expertise as a canonist provided him with the means of doing it. The extent of his work and effectiveness of his authority can be seen when it is noted that by the time of his death some thirty years later, the deaths of the bishops of nineteen Irish dioceses established by the synod are recorded in the Annals. The depth and nature of this expertise revealed itself in part in the Acta of the synod of Rathbreasail but it was only in his canonical writings that it became fully apparent. 74 Ibid. p. 303.

Ireland, p. 305.

75 Lines 131-4, DSE.

76 Comyn and Dineen (eds.), Keating’s History of

Limerick 01

11/4/01

38

1:54 pm

Page 38

Gille of Limerick GILLE’S ORIGINS

Historians agree that nothing definite is known of Gille until the autumn of 1106 when he wrote to his friend, St Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, using the title of bishop of Limerick. The mystery which surrounds his life and origins begins with his name. At least nine versions of his name are given, Gilli and Gille, Gille-easpuig or Giolla-easpuig in Irish, Gillebert or Gilbert in English and Gilebertus, Gislebertus or Giselbertus in Latin. The manuscripts which contain his writings used the form Gille and Gilebertus. St Bernard, in his Life of St Malachy, writing soon after Gille’s death used the Latin and European form of his name, namely Gilbert and Gilebertus. Chronicon Scotorum, on the other hand, in recording his death used ‘Gilli’ in the Irish text and Gille in translation.77 Keating, in a possible attempt to give him an early modern Irish name used ‘Giolla’ as a prefix for both Gille and Ceallach, referring to Gille as GiollaEaspuig and Ceallach as Giolla-Ceallach. Ware referred to him as Gillebert or Gille with the comment ‘ whether he was an Irishman or an Ostman, I know not’.78 The Irish version of his name allows for two possibilities, either that he was born in Ireland or that he may have used his name as a title, that is, Giolla or Gilla, a servant. In the wake of the Viking raids and the establishment of the Norse cities in Ireland, the invaders began to adopt Gaelicised forms of their Norse names. Of particular significance is the fact that they used ‘Gilli’ or ‘Gilla’. In Scotland, for example, in the various versions of the old Norse saga of St Magnus, the jarl of Orkney, two of the characters bear this name. Gilli is also one of the principal characters in the Laxdaela Saga, where another character, Melkonka, could be easily mistaken for Muirchertach O’Brien, the king of Munster.79 In Ireland, in the old Norse saga of Brjáns, an account of the battle of Clontarf, there is frequent mention of Jarl Gilla of the Sudreyjar. Some scholars hold that this account was written in Dublin during the twelfth century and is, therefore, evidence of the use of ‘Gilla’ in a Norse-Irish city. Gille, the form of his name used in the manuscripts written some forty years after his death therefore gives a strong indication that Gille’s ethnic origins lay in a Norse city, presumably Limerick, and that he was known as Gille when he was growing up there.80 The second possibility that arises from the Irish form of his name is that it represents a title given to him in virtue of his episcopal office. This was common practice in Ireland during the first millennium. From the tenth century 77 CS 1145.

78 W. Harris (ed.), The Complete Works of Sir James Ware (Dublin, 1739-45), 3 vols., vol. 1, p. 504 (hereafter Harris, Sir James Ware) 79 M. Magnusson and H. Palsson, Laxdaela Saga (London, 1969). 80 I am most grateful to Professor Colmán Etchingham, NUI Maynooth, for his observations on this issue.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 39

Origins and Organisation

39

onwards, the title Giolla or Gilla in Irish was generally used to denote bishops and abbots of monasteries. There are many examples in the Annals of names such as Gilla-Pátraic, Gilla Brigte, Gilla Ciaráin etc. Gilbert, the Anglo-Norman form of his name, is the name by which he is most commonly known nowadays. This version came into vogue in the years after his death through the writings of St Bernard of Clairvaux, when he compiled the Life of St Malachy. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries a number of well known men bearing the name Gilbert appeared on the ecclesiastical scene. Gilbert Crispin (d. 1117), was a Benedictine monk, abbot of Westminster, friend of St Anselm and author of the well known Disputatio Christiani cum Gentili. Gilbert the Universal, was the bishop of Lincoln. Other men included Gilbert of Holland (d. 1172); Gilbert of Mons (1150-1229); Gilbert de la Porre (10751154); Gilbert (Gislebert) of St Armand (d. 1095); St Gilbert of Sempringham (1083-1189) and Gilbertus Anglicus (thirteenth century).81 Many of these were contemporaries of Gille of Limerick and, inevitably, with the passing of time this form of the name was used. The use of Gilbert was reinforced by the fact that Gille was educated abroad, in France, and his fellow students probably used the more commonly known version of Gilbert rather than the less known Norse-Irish version of Gille. In the course of time the use of the Anglo-Norman form of Gille’s name also gave rise to a certain confusion between the various Gilberts of the twelfth century. Where Gille or Gilbert of Limerick is concerned the confusion arose through a catalogue of manuscripts in Bennet College, Cambridge, compiled by Dr Thomas James and a book written by John Pitts82 in which Pitts confused Gille of Limerick with Gilbert of Lincoln and ascribed De usu ecclesiastico to the latter rather than to the former. The matter was further confused, according to Sir James Ware, when he identified Gilbert of Lincoln with Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster. According to Ware, Pitts held that Crispin (Lincoln) went to Ireland where he became bishop of Limerick and died in 1117. In reality, Gilbert Crispin was a Benedictine monk of the abbey of Bec, who became abbot of Westminster and wrote tracts of particular interest to a study of Judaism, was a friend of St Anselm and died in 1117. Gille of Limerick was also a friend of St Anselm and a writer. He was the author of the tracts De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae and was bishop of Limerick. He died at the monastery of Bangor (Northern Ireland) in 1145. The Latin form of his name, which, together with the Irish form of his name is used in the manuscripts which contain his writings, is Gilebertus, Gillebertus, Giselbertus or Gislebertus. European clerics used the latter forms from the ninth 81 Gilbert in Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1908), vol. 7, pp 1192ff.

Harris, Sir James Ware, p. 504; Migne, PL 159, 996.

82

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 40

40

Gille of Limerick

century onwards when referring to men such as Gislebertus, episcopus (ignotus): Gislebertus, Carnotens.83 According to Ussher, who printed the first version of his writings, Gille of Limerick referred to himself as Gillebertus in his letter to St Anselm, and Anselm, who knew him and met him at least once at Rouen, replied to him using the same form.84 Migne used ‘Gilberti’ when giving the headings to both De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae. The solution to the mystery of his name lies in the manuscripts which contain his writings, as well as in the exchange of letters with St Anselm. The hands which transcribed the text of De usu ecclesiastico in CUL MS Ff.i.27 and CCCC MS 66 both give Gille, the Norse-Irish version of his name. The hands which transcribed the text of De statu Ecclesiae in CUL MS Ff.i.27 and DCL MS B.II.35 both give Gilebertus as the form of his name. Gille, with a double ll in Irish and a single l in Latin, is, therefore, the most common form of his name in the manuscripts. Given that these manuscripts were copied some forty years after his death, it seems probable that Gille was the form of his name used during his lifetime. Gilebertus, as used in the manuscript containing De statu Ecclesiae, is the Latin form of the Anglo-Norman version of Gille. If there was any evidence that he was known as Gilbert during his lifetime, the English scribes would probably have used this form of his name, since it was in common usage in both England and in mainland Europe at that time. Keating’s Giolla-Easpuig is likely to have been a later version of his name, used by Keating to underline the office which he held. Gilebertus, in the same way, is probably of later vintage also, introduced because of the number of men called by that name in the centuries that followed. The evidence of the manuscripts suggests, therefore, that Gille is the form of his name used by his Irish contemporaries and by the generation that followed him. The mystery of his origins extends also to the place of his birth. The strongest argument to support the theory that Gille was born in Ireland comes from his writings themselves. In the opening of De usu ecclesiastico, he addresses himself to episcopis et presbyteris totius Hiberniae (to the bishops and priests of all Ireland) and he then goes on in De statu Ecclesiae, on two occasions, to refer in an aside to customs apud nos (among us). Gille clearly identifies with his audience and these accidental links or references must surely be taken as a strong indication of his birth in Ireland. Circumstantial evidence also in the text of the Acta of the synod of Rathbreasail, as has been seen earlier in this chapter, indicates that in all probability he was a native of Limerick, for only the knowledge of a native could pinpoint the minute detail of geography which is given for the boundaries of the newly-established diocese of Limerick. 83 M.G.H. Capitularia Regum Francorum, tom.11.840 AD and 876 AD.

pp 61-3 ; Migne, PL 159, 174, 244.

84 Ussher, Sylloge,

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 41

Origins and Organisation

41

King's Island, on the River Shannon, is the bedrock on which the medieval city of Limerick was founded towards the end of the tenth century.85 Together with Dublin, Wexford and Waterford it was one of the Norse-Irish towns which were established in the wake of the Viking invasion. Within a hundred years, by the end of the eleventh century, these four urban areas presented a new dimension in the political life of Ireland. They were new cities which were bases for ‘foreigners’ and which were independent of the Celtic tradition. As such they presented a new opportunity for the reformers in England and Rome to establish a reformed Church in Ireland and on this the link between Canterbury and the Irish Church began.86 Historians differ on the precise nature of this connection but its existence and its importance are undeniable. In Dublin, around the year 1038, King Sitric accepted the nomination of Donatus as first bishop. His reign lasted forty years, during which he arranged that a young monk named Patrick would be sent for training to Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester. Eventually, in 1074, this Patrick was chosen as bishop in Dublin and was sent to Canterbury for consecration.87 On his return he lived in Dublin as its bishop, enjoying the protection of its king.87 Ten years later, he was succeeded by Donngus (108595), who was a monk of Canterbury. In 1096 his successor was a monk of St Alban's, while in that same year a monk of Winchester, Malchus, became bishop of Waterford. Ten years later, in 1106, Gille wrote to St Anselm referring to himself as bishop in Limerick88 and in that way informed him that a third Irish city-bishopric had been established. The Norse-Irish cities of Dublin and Limerick sprang from the same source, namely the Viking raids, and presented a similar face to Celtic Ireland.89 Known to the Irish annalists as the ‘Foreigners in Ath Cliath’ (Dublin) and the ‘Foreigners of Limerick’, it is likely that their experiences of ecclesiastical development were similar. After the synod of Cashel in 1101, Limerick city became the residence of Murtagh O'Brien, king of Munster, and Dublin enjoyed his protection. Claimant to the high-kingship of Ireland, he was the great leader of the reform movement in Ireland. As such he wished to have a bishop who would promote that movement in his city. Like the ruler of the Norse-Irish city of Dublin in 1038, he too, in all probability, favoured the return of a son of the city to take up the office of bishop in Limerick. However, unlike Dublin in 1074, he 85 Begley, Limerick, vol. 1; M. Lenihan, Limerick, Its History and Antiquities (Dublin, 1866), (hereafter Lenihan, Limerick); J. Ferrar, The History of Limerick (Limerick, 1787), (hereafter Ferrar, Limerick); P. Fitzgerald and J.J. McGregor, The History, Topography and Antiquities of the City and County of Limerick (Dublin and Limerick, 1826), 2 vols. (hereafter Fitzgerald and McGregor, Limerick). 86 Kenney, Sources, p. 758; Hughes, The Church, pp 253ff; Gougaud, Christianity, p. 398; Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’ pp 1ff; Watt, The Church, pp 1ff. 87 A. Gwynn, ‘The writings of bishop Patrick (1074-1084)’ in Scriptores Latini Hiberniae (Dublin, 1955), pp 1ff. 88 Migne, PL 159, 244. 89 A. Gwynn, ‘The first bishops of Dublin’ in Rep. Nov., 1955 vol. 1, no. 1. pp 1-26; Gleeson and Gwynn, Killaloe, pp 99ff.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

42

1:54 pm

Page 42

Gille of Limerick

did not send Gille to Canterbury for consecration in 1106. The synod of Cashel, five years earlier, had revitalised the Irish Church and, in all probability, Gille was consecrated bishop either in Limerick or at the centre of the reform movement, Cashel, by its acknowledged leader, Maol Muire Ua Dunain, bishop of Munster, who had in all probability consecrated Ceallach, coarb of Armagh, bishop in that same year.90 In his letter to Anselm, Gille makes no direct mention of the date of his consecration, of the church in which this took place or of the bishops by whom he was consecrated. He refers only to three things, Anselm's subduing the Normans to the ecclesiastical discipline of the English Church, the gift of pearls which Gille enclosed with his letter and finally his petition for prayers. Gwynn interprets this letter to signify two things.91 It may have been ‘a courteous gesture which was designed to acquaint the new archbishop of Canterbury with the news that made it plain for the first time that Irish prelates were in a position to consecrate bishops.’ On the other hand it may have been that Gille was sending Anselm a friendly letter in view of their meeting at a council in Rouen in the previous year. Anselm's reply92 does not shed much more light on the question of Gille's election and consecration. He thanks Gille for his gift and his congratulations. He then acknowledges his consecration as bishop of Limerick and encourages him to be an inspiring leader. It is difficult to appreciate the significance of the gift of pearls. The question inevitably arises as to a possible connection between the independence of the Irish, which Gille displayed in not being consecrated bishop at Canterbury by his friend Anselm, and this gift, which may have been a placatory gesture. Why one bishop should send pearls, some of which he acknowledged were of poor quality and some of reasonable value, to another is difficult to fathom. From the point of view of life in medieval Limerick, interest arises around their provenance and their use in the life of the city at that time. The name of Gille’s city-bishopric has assumed many forms and added to the general uncertainty which surrounds his life and origins. Nowadays known as ‘Limerick’ in English and ‘Limericen’ in Latin, the twelfth-century scribes who copied his writings referred to Gille’s See as ‘Lunicensis’ and ‘Lumnicensis’.93 When the bishops in Ireland swore loyalty to Henry II in 1172 it was referred to as ‘Lumpniacensis’.94 After his consecration Gille lived in Limerick where, 90 Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’, p. 25; Gleeson and Gwynn, Killaloe, p. 100; Begley, Limerick, vol. 1, pp 72ff; Gwynn, ‘The first bishops of Dublin’, pp 17ff; A. Gwynn, ‘Papal legates in Ireland during the twelfth century’, in IER (1944), p. 369. 91 Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’, pp 25ff. 92 Migne, PL 159, 244. 93 The critical edition of his text in this volume gives these variations. 94 A. Gwynn and R. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses in Ireland (London, 1970), p. 90.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 43

Origins and Organisation

43

under the protection and encouragement of Muirchertagh O'Brien, he began the process of establishing the see of Limerick within the city. Evidence of Gille’s appointment as papal legate to Ireland also causes concern. However, coming from three historical sources, it is more certain than other aspects of his life. The first of these, St Bernard's Life of St Malachy, which was written around the time of Gille’s death, states that he was the first papal legate who was assigned to the Irish Church.95 The second reference comes from the Acta of the synod of Rathbreasail which ends as follows. ‘And there are many other good decrees of this holy synod which we have not set down here for brevity. The cross of the comharba of Peter and of his legate, that is Giolla Easpuig, bishop of Luimneach.’96 Ussher, writing in the early seventeenth century, also refers to his appointment, even if he is not certain of the historical basis on which it was said to rest. He wrote: ‘est enim hic Gillebertus ille quem aiunt prima functionem legatione Apostolicae sedis per universam Hiberniam.’97 The precise date of his appointment as legate is not known but from these entries it would seem to have been after he wrote to Anselm in 1106 and before the synod of Rathbreasail in 1111. Paschal II (1099-1118) was, therefore, the pope who sanctioned his appointment. Paschal II used the services of papal legates in his attempt to implement the Gregorian Reform.98 In particular he used Italian legates in France on a temporary basis to initiate and direct the reform and by about 1106 he established them on a more permanent legational basis. Thus in England, the archbishop of Canterbury and in France, the archbishop of Lyons, in virtue of their office, became, ipso facto, papal legates. Since Ireland was as yet isolated from mainland Europe, the Pope nominated a well known leader of the movement for reform, who lived in the country, that is, Maol Muire Ua Dunain, in 1101 as ‘chief legate, chief bishop and chief senior of the island of Ireland’.99 Later he nominated Gille, bishop of Limerick, as his successor in the position. In all probability, three reasons suggested his appointment as papal legate. As bishop of Limerick Gille was independent of the monastic system and independent of Canterbury. As protégé of Muirchertagh O'Brien, king of Munster, he was known as a committed reformer. Finally as a canonist, in all probability educated abroad, he qualified as the legal theorist needed to effect the reformation of the Church in Ireland. A problem with his appointment arises, however, at the level of historical evidence. There is a conspiracy of silence among the Irish annalists of the early 95 Bernard of Clairvaux, Vita Santi Malachiae, in Migne, PL 182, 1087.

96 Comyn and Dineen (eds.), Keating’s History of Ireland, p. 304; Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’, pp 29ff. 97 Ussher, Sylloge, p. 60. 98 A. Fliche, La Réforme Gregorienne (Louvain, 1925), vol. 2, pp 210-27. 99 Gwynn, ‘Papal legates in Ireland’, pp 304ff.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

44

1:54 pm

Page 44

Gille of Limerick

twelfth century on the life of Gille. None of them, with the exception of Chronicon Scotorum which records his death in 1145, makes mention of him. The Acta of the synod of Rathbreasail were signed by him as ‘comharba of Peter’ and ‘bishop of Luimneach,’ according to the Book of Clonenagh, yet none of the others annals mention him. The annalists, on the other hand, clearly accept that the synod of Rathbreasail took place in 1111 and that it was convened and presided over by the leaders of the reform movement, Muircheartach Ua Briain, Ceallach and Maol Muire Ua Dunain.100 They also accept that its decrees were worthy of their approval. The absence of any reference to Gille must come from one of two possibilities; either he was not there as papal legate or the annalists ignored him completely. Three strands of evidence may support the theory that he was not there as papal legate. Maol Muire Ua Dunain, who was the first papal legate to Ireland in the twelfth century, lived until 9 January 1117 and may have retained his legatine powers until his death.101 Gille’s preface to his works, De usu ecclesiastico, states that he was asked by many of the bishops and priests to write his treatise. However, he does not advert to any specific papal authority which authorised him to do so. As the bishop of Limerick he may have been a recognised canonical expert but that does not imply that he had any other authority to support his writings. Finally, the inclusion of his name in the Acta of Rathbreasail by Keating may have been a mistake. Perhaps he should have inserted Ua Dunain’s name as papal legate at the synod of Rathbreasail and simply numbered Gille, bishop of Limerick, as one of the bishops present. On the other hand, assuming that he was present as papal legate, the annalists may have ignored his presence for the simple reason that he was bishop of 100 AFM 1111. ‘A synod was convened at Fiadh-mic-Aenghusa, with Ceallach, successor of Patrick, Maelmuire ua Duanan, noble senior of Ireland, with fifty bishops, three hundred priests, three thousand students, together with Muirchertach Ua Brian and the chiefs of Leath Mhogha, to prescribe rules and good morals for all, both laity and clerics’; AU 1111. ‘ A senat in Land Mac Aeneas gathered by the nobility of Ireland about Cellach, Coarb of Patrick and about Maolmuire O Dunain, the Arch Elder of Ireland, with 50 bishops, 300 priests and 300 churchmen with the nobility of Mounster, to procure rule and good manners among the people, Church and laymen’; AI 1111. ‘ A great assembly of the men of Ireland, both clergy and laity, in Fiad Mac Aengusa, that is, Rath Breasail, including Muircheartach Ua Brian, high-king of Ireland, Ua Dunain, eminent bishop of Ireland, Ceallach, Coarb of Patrick and other Irish nobles and they enacted discipline and law better than any made in Ireland before their time.; CS Kal of January 1107 ‘A great synod at Fiadh-mic-Aenghusa, viz. a royal convention of the men of Erinn, both laics and clerics, that is, including Muirchertach Ua Briain, King of Mumhain, with the nobles of Mumhain and Mael Muire Ua Dunain, Chief bishop of Erinn and Ceallach, son of Aedh, Coarb of Patrick. This is the number indeed of the men in orders, who were in that convention, viz. fifty eight bishops, three hundred and seventeen priests, and eight scores of deacons and there is no counting of the multitude of clerics besides. Numerous regulations were determined truly in that synod.’ 101 AFM 1117; CS 1113.

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 45

Origins and Organisation

45

Limerick and representative of influences which were alien to the Irish ecclesiastical mind, namely Canterbury and perhaps Rome. Limerick city had a particularly bad name among the annalists. Their complaint very often was that ‘the foreigners of Limerick’ had attacked and destroyed various parts of the country.102 If he was the son of one of these ‘foreigners’ or bishop of their city he would not have endeared himself to many of these annalists whose monasteries had suffered greatly at the hands of his forefathers. As bishop of one of the ‘foreign bases’ in Ireland, he also represented a foreign ecclesiastical presence in the country. Despite the fact that he was not consecrated bishop in Canterbury or by the archbishop of Canterbury, Gille was clearly recognised as a friend of Anselm and the supporter of that tradition of reform in Ireland. Even if the annalists had a deep respect for Rome and recognised its primacy in the Church, the Irish mind saw Rome as a place to which people went on pilgrimage rather than a presence in Ireland. In the final analysis it is difficult to excuse the annalists on the grounds of their failure to recognise the significance of Gille at the synod. As president of the synod and as papal legate he was bound to exercise an obvious authority. The recognition given to him by his fellow bishops and by the priests of Ireland, to whom he addressed his treatise, alone should indicate to the annalists that his presence was at least as great as that of Ceallach or Maol Iosa. An element of prejudice against the proposals he made, the source from which they were seen to emerge, namely Rome, and, even if unconsciously, the city of Limerick, seem the reasons for the absence of any reference to Gille in the works of the annalists. The weight of the evidence, however, argues in support of his presence at the synod as papal legate. Historians in general accept the authenticity of the source of Keating’s evidence, that is, the now lost Book of Clonenagh which Gleeson described as ‘having all the authority of a contemporary official record’.103 Secondly, the detail of the boundaries of the diocese of Limerick, which was established by the synod, is such as to indicate that not only was Gille one of the fifty bishops present but that he also presided over the synod as papal legate and, with the voice of experience of the local area around Limerick, carefully mapped out his diocese as a model for the others to imitate. ‘Thus it (Limerick) became as extensive as the average Irish diocese, a not unfitting bishopric for the Apostolic Legate, Giolla Easpuig, its bishop, to rule over.’104 Finally, his writings themselves give the strongest proof of his appointment as papal legate. In addressing the bishops and clergy ‘totius Hiberniae’ he refers to them as ‘charissimi’. In medieval times this term was normally used by some one in 102 AFM 920, 927, 928, 929, etc.

103 Gleeson and Gwynn, Killaloe, p. 113.

McErlean, ‘Synod of Raith Breasail’, pp 1ff.

104

Limerick 01

11/4/01

46

1:54 pm

Page 46

Gille of Limerick

authority when addressing his people and was not used by an equal when referring to his colleagues. Gille’s usage of it suggests a strong indication that he was addressing the Irish Church as papal legate. His term of office as papal legate lasted almost thirty years, from 1111 until 1138, when St Malachy went to Rome to receive his commission as legate from Pope Innocent II. St Bernard, when commenting on Malachy’s appointment as papal legate, noted that old age alone prevented Gille from exercising his duties. The last element of mystery to surround Gille is the date of his death. Chronicon Scotorum is the only annal which records his demise. It notes that in 1145 Gille, bishop of Limerick, died.105 Hennessy, who edited this work in 1866, notes in his introduction106 that the chronology of the manuscript is quite confused. He notes that, in general, there is a three- to four-year difference between the dates given in this annal and those given in other annals. However, he is of the opinion that from 1141 onwards the dates given in Chronicon Scotorum are the same as those given in the other sources. Accepting this argument, it seems reasonable to accept that Gille died in 1145. Despite the silence of the annalists, the convergence of historical evidence points to the fact that Gille was, in all probability, a native of Limerick city and of Norse-Irish descent. In company with other Irish men he studied abroad and was ordained a priest. Having specialised in canon law he returned to Ireland in 1106 and was nominated bishop in Limerick. Unlike other priests or monks of Norse-Irish cities his consecration did not take place at Canterbury but at Cashel or in St Mary’s church, Limerick. The ordaining prelate is likely to have been Maol Muire Ua Dunain. As bishop of Limerick he attended the synod of Rathbreasail where his legal expertise was recognised and reflected in two tracts which he wrote for the synod De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae. Nominated papal legate before the close of the synod, he signed the Acta as ‘Legate of the coarb of Peter and bishop of Limerick.’ Back in his newly created diocese and surrounded by troubles of all kinds for a number of years he tried to establish his rule in the face of great opposition.107 In 1115 he visited the 105 CS 1145. Chronicon Scotorum alone records the date of his death, which it gives as 1145. The dating in this annal is four years behind what is now accepted as the Gregorian calendar until the year 1141. Since Gille’s death is recorded as 1145 this appears to have been the year in which he died. The date of his resignation can be defined as 1138, since his successor Patrick signed an oath, which is still to be seen in Canterbury Cathedral, in 1138. 106 CS, xlii-li. 107 AFM 1108: ‘ all Limerick was burned on the night of the festival of St Patrick’; AFM 1109. ‘Heavy rain and bad weather in the summer and the autumn’; AFM 1110: ‘A great disease seized Muirchertach Ua Briain so that the men of Erinn turned against him’; AFM 1111: ‘Very great sweeping snow and frost: Diarmuid Ua Briain was captured by Muirchertach Ua Briain (who recovered from his illness)’; AFM 1113 peace was established between Munster and Connaught; AFM 1114. Muirchertach is ill once more. AFM 1115 Diarmuid is once again a source of trouble for Muirchertach. AFM 1116 Muirchertach

Limerick 01

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 47

Origins and Organisation

47

royal palace at Westminster for the consecration of Bernard, bishop of St David’s in Wales, by Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury. On this occasion he was referred to as a suffragan of Canterbury.108 In 1132 he urged St Malachy to accept the archbishopric of Armagh and in 1138 he was replaced by Malachy as papal legate. Gille resigned as bishop of Limerick in favour of Patrick, who was consecrated in Canterbury in the following year. He retired to the monastery refounded by Malachy in Bangor where he died in 1145.

invades Leinster and in the following year he is in battle with Connaught. This pattern continued for the greater part of Gille’s episcopate. 108 D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. Brooke, Councils and Synods, with other documents relating to the English Church (Oxford, 1981), 2 vols., vol. 1, pp 709, 715.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 48

2

Pastors and Prayer The period of change in ecclesiastical life, which gave rise to what is nowadays known as the medieval Church began in the mid-tenth century and ended in the late twelfth century. This was an era of immense growth and intense creativity, which affected all aspects of the life of the Church. As a result the Church which re-emerged as medieval was transformed almost beyond recognition. It was now hierarchical in organisation, pastoral in orientation, enlivened by a host of diverse religious institutions and conscious of the universal call to holiness. These characteristics existed before the mid-tenth century but they were ideals and aspirations rather than institutional realities until that time.1 By the end of the twelfth century, therefore, the medieval Church was an ordered institution, established on the foundations of a defined local Church, with the clergy clearly separated into religious and diocesan and the laity in a category of their own. Each local church was governed by a diocesan bishop and these were then arranged in an order which culminated in the pope. Population growth and economic expansion were among the principle causes which prompted changes in the social environment and encouraged this reformation of the Church. In these circumstances, therefore, pastoral care became one of the chief issues of the day. Local bishops, especially in France and Italy, began to assume a new profile in centres of economic growth. The foundations of great cathedrals and important cathedral schools began to emerge, as the need to train priests to cope with the challenges of pastoral care grew. In France, Rouen, Rheims, Chartres, Laon and Paris became cities in which the enormous potential for growth in the life of the Church and in its standing in society became apparent. Anyone living in a place like these could not but be impressed by the developments taking place and the potential for the future. An Irishman, coming from a country which was conscious of the greatness of its Christian past, must have wondered how the European experience which he saw could be translated into reality in the country from which he came. As Gille lived and studied in France the concepts which are nowadays recorded in his writings took shape in his mind and formed him to play his part in the formation 1 W. Ullman, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London, 1962), pp 2-14

(hereafter Ullman, Papal Government).

48

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 49

Pastors and Prayer

49

of a medieval Church in Ireland. These writings comprise two tracts, a prologue known as De usu ecclesiastico and a libellus titled De statu Ecclesiae, together with a letter written by Gille to St Anselm. There is no record of any other writings and no reason to believe that such may have been lost or destroyed during the intervening time since his death. De usu ecclesiastico opens with Gille greeting his audience, the bishops and priests of Ireland. He presents his credentials to them, declaring himself to be the humblest of bishops. His usage of the word infimus is significant. While it translates in a number of ways, used in this context it underlines the humility with which Gille outlines his proposals and approaches the task given to him by those gathered in the formal setting of a synod. From the outset he makes it perfectly clear that he has been asked to compose his treatise by his audience, whom he describes as charissimi, his dearest friends. He is at pains to stress that he was reluctant to accede to their request and makes it clear that he has not presumed on any right to do so. He states that his sole purpose in writing his treatise was to comply with their wishes. His reference to the notion of presumption is significant in that it seems to indicate that he was conscious of having a particular personal authority. This would have arisen from the role of president of the synod and from an appointment as papal legate in Ireland, both of which have been attributed to him. Throughout his writings Gille continues to lay particular importance on the concept of humility. His deep awareness of his own humility manifests itself in an extraordinary sense of his own ministry of service to his audience. From this he stresses the notion of apostolic humility which his listeners, the bishops and priests of Ireland, should possess in their service of God’s people and then he goes on to underline the importance of episcopal and priestly humility in general. On this Christian virtue, in his opinion, rests the success of the movement for reform. In all of this his thinking is very much in line with the early medieval European mind and he reflects a concept which was stressed in the early twelfth century, especially by people such as Hugh of St Victor.2 Having presented his credentials, Gille defined the purpose of his writings. He proposed to demonstrate the theory on which the organisation of the Church is based and to explain in particular its hierarchical nature. In short he wishes to demonstrate to his listeners the theory which he had discovered in France and which he had seen create a medieval Church in Europe. He wished, in particular, to outline the canonical legislation which governed its liturgical life. His fundamental objective, therefore, was to provide pastoral care for an emerging Church in medieval Ireland by providing it with a blueprint on which a stable 2 Hugh of St Victor, De institutione novitorum, PL 176, 932.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

50

1:54 pm

Page 50

Gille of Limerick

and ordered existence could be established. His work is pivotal in the history of the development of the Church in Ireland as doctrine turns towards law and order in a reformed and reinvigorated Church. In the prologue to his work having greeted his audience and defined his purpose, he then addressed the four crucial issues facing the Church at that time. Fundamentally these were the question of schism, the issue of the cura animarum, the problem of the old monastic system in Ireland and the law of custom, on which much canonical legislation at that time was based. Gille’s thinking is founded on the medieval notion of ordo.3 Central to political and ecclesiastical thought in the west from the mid-eighth century onwards, this concept was to loom large in the medieval mind. The success of the Carolingian empire, which was attributed to the ordo which they established in the Frankish Church, became the model for which the rest of Europe strove to achieve in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It also became the objective which Gille wished to implement in Ireland. Fundamentally, for the people of the Middle Ages, an ordo was a social group which was defined by the specific function it served in society. In the Roman Republic, the ordo divided males into two groups, namely those who fought and those who administered public affairs so that the duties of the state could be carried on effectively. Ordination, therefore, was the act by which a person had his name inscribed on one or other of these lists. In this way the ordo became the means by which a man became a member of a group which separated him from the rest of society. Gradually, the notion of ordo developed and assumed a two-fold dimension. It referred to the division of responsibilities within a particular group and it also pointed to the overall order inherent in the group itself. In this way the ordo clericalis and the ordo laicalis emerged within the unity which was the ordo ecclesia. For the Carolingians the ordo ecclesia was the Church, a unified entity which contained within it distinct and different orders. For them the ordo clericalis was considered the most important, with the duty to teach and the right to be obeyed inherent in its definition. While the ordo clericalis was acknowledged as the 3 G. Duby, The Three Orders. Feudal Society Imagined (Chicago and London, 1982), (hereafter Duby, The Three Orders); O. Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle Ages, trans. F.W. Maitland (Cambridge, 1987), (hereafter Gierke, Political Theories); J.H. Burns (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350-c.1450 (Cambridge, 1988), (hereafter Burns (ed.), Medieval Political Thought); J. Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) (Chicago, 1978), (hereafter Pelikan, Medieval Theology); Ullman, Papal Government; P. Dronke (ed.), A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy (Cambridge, 1988), hereafter Dronke (ed.), Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy; R.W. Southern, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe, vol. 1, Foundations (Oxford, 1995), (hereafter Southern, Scholastic Humanism); R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751-987 (London, 1983), (hereafter McKitterick, Frankish Kingdoms).

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 51

Pastors and Prayer

51

primary order, the Carolingian writers broadened the original concept to include the place of the laity within a clerical vision of society. Formed in this tradition, Gille saw his task as that of presenting to the bishops and priests of Ireland an overall view of an inclusive, ordered Christian society in Ireland. In De usu ecclesiastico he touched on the central issues which undermined any attempt to make this vision a reality in the Irish Church. In the prologue he singled out the question of heresy and schism as one of the fundamental issues with which he had to contend. The eleventh and twelfth centuries saw the resurgence of schism, sect and heresy, as well as movements which qualified for one or more of these titles. By definition, schismatics do not accept the notion of the unity of the Church and heretics choose a dogma which is not accepted by the authority of the Church. In the early twelfth century, a contemporary of Gille’s, Hugh of Amiens, summed up the challenge of the age when he wrote that with the emergence of new heresies and the persistence of old ones, the Church was called on once more to defend the one true faith.4 Educated in the area of eastern France near Amiens, Gille was deeply conscious of this challenge. Apart from the Filioque controversy, which reared its head once more at this time, the most important issue to arise in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was the nature, status and legitimacy of Church structures. The rise of movements which attacked the corruption of the Church and its leaders, rejected its institutional structure, its liturgical order and questioned the foundations of its sacramental system became an issue of general concern in Europe at this time. At issue also was the crucial question of the notion of the apostolic life and, in particular, the role of monks and the secular clergy in the area of pastoral care in the Church.5 These issues, which occupied the minds of bishops in central Europe, were the same issues Gille addressed when he spoke to the bishops and priests of Ireland. It is difficult to estimate the extent of the challenge which Gille faced in this area in Ireland. In De usu ecclesiastico, he stated that the challenge was very great and declared that the entire country was affected by schism. On the surface, therefore, this would seem to indicate that a substantial portion of the Irish Church refused to accept the authority of Rome and owed its allegiance to the old, independent, unreformed monastic system. On the other hand, the presence of a significant number of bishops and priests at the synod of Rathbreasail must be seen as an indication of a strong, faithful remnant in the Church at that time that was open to reform and wished to be united with Rome. While the leading ecclesiastical centres such as Armagh and Cashel accepted the need for reform, 4 Hugh of Amiens, Haeretici, PL 192, 1255-6.

5 Pelikan, Medieval Theology, pp 229-42.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

52

1:54 pm

Page 52

Gille of Limerick

circumstantial evidence on the ground would seem to support Gille’s contention. One example of this took place within the confines of Gille’s diocese. It took one hundred and thirty five years for the monastery at Ardpatrick, Co. Limerick, which had been the chief church in Munster for the Paruchia Patricii based in Armagh, to accept the authority of the bishop of Limerick and become part of the diocesan system.6 The experience of St Malachy when he tried to introduce the Cistercians to Ireland confirms the extent of the opposition put forward by the old monastic system. Malachy, in keeping with the theory put forward by Gille, decided to invite St Bernard to send some monks from his new foundation at Clairvaux to Ireland. His purpose was to promote a new monastic spirit in Ireland which would replace the old, discredited system of the Celtic Church. To this end, Malachy went to Clairvaux taking four young men with him for monastic training.7 He left them there and returned to Ireland. In a series of three letters to Bernard, Malachy discussed the establishment of his new foundation at Mellifont, near Drogheda, and asked Bernard to send some monks from Clairvaux to Ireland.8 At first Bernard decided not to send young monks to Ireland on the grounds that his foundation was too new and that the monks had not received the proper formation.9 When Mellifont had been established he sent some monks and some time later wrote to Malachy, making an interesting comment on the difficulties which the new monasticism faced from the old native system. The opposition that some of the French Cistercians encountered was so strong that they could not cope with the antagonism of the Irish and returned to Clairvaux. Commenting on this Bernard wrote: ‘Concerning the brethern who have returned, I would have been well contented for them to have remained with you. But perhaps those natives of your country who are little disciplined and who found it hard to obey observances that were strange to them, may have been in some measure the occasion of their return.’10 Despite much resistance on the part of his monks, Bernard eventually persuaded men to come to Ireland and the foundation was established in 1142, over thirty years after Gille had drawn up his plan and three years before his death. It is clear, therefore, that Gille’s hopes for a new Church in Ireland met with strong opposition and that it took many years for this ultimately to give way to the new system of diocesan organisation. The primary purpose of his work was to create a sense of order and unity in the Irish Church and to lead it to a recog6 J. McCaffrey, The Black Book of Limerick (Dublin, 1907), p. 37 (hereafter McCaffrey, The Black Book); J. Fleming, Ardpatrick, Co. Limerick (Naas, 1979), (hereafter Fleming, Ardpatrick). 7 St Bernard, Life of St Malachy, PL 182, 1094. 8 The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (London, 1998). Letters 383-6, pp 452-7. 9 Ibid., p. 453. 10 Ibid., p. 454.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 53

Pastors and Prayer

53

nition of the central authority of the Church of Rome. His first step in attempting to achieve this was to point out those who did not accept this view of the Church, refer to them as schismatics and appeal to them to accept his proposal. While he does not name or identify them, it seems reasonable to assume that the monks who adhered to the old monastic system in Ireland were foremost among these. In Europe generally and in Ireland in particular, another crucial issue at this time was the question of what constituted pastoral care or the cura animarum and in consequence, what constituted what was called the vita apostolica. As the eleventh century progressed a radical change took place in the perception of the purpose of religious life. At that time the emphasis changed from the idea that perfection was to be found in community, as inspired by Acts 4:32, to the more personal perfection which was to be found in Matthew 19:21. This shift in emphasis meant that moniales and canonicales, namely monks and those governed by a rule of life in common, merged into one group. Contemplation was to be their primary concern in life. Men living together as monks were, therefore, to turn their attention to prayer and contemplation while the active apostolic ministry was to be carried out by what are now known as the secular clergy. Writers such as William of St Thierry and Peter the Venerable highlighted this.11 Gille accepted their theory, promoted this view and clearly outlined how it should be implemented. At the beginning of De statu Ecclesiae, Gille names the three groups who constitute the Church, monks, the secular clergy and the laity. In his diagram and his commentary he focused his attention on the pastoral care of the laity, or the cura animarum, which was entrusted solely to the secular clergy, clearly indicating that the task assigned to monks was that of contemplation, not pastoral care. Central to any attempt to develop a blueprint for a reformed Church in Ireland was the understanding of the role of law. The legal system which Gille proposed for the Irish Church was one based on custom. From the fifth century onwards, all the countries north of the Alps and the Pyrenees had, with a few exceptions, been an area of customary law. By the twelfth century this unwritten law had an inbuilt inherent stability which was based on a unity of origin, outlook and mentality rooted in the Carolingian empire. Those who obeyed it shared a common vision of life and of the society in which they wished to live out their lives. It carried with it, in particular, the notion of the rights and duties owed to a lord. Through councils and the law courts, this unwritten law was maintained and supported by the local potentates of Empire and Church, to whom fealty was pledged. In this context, while the papacy was recognised as 11 G. Constable (ed.), The Letters of Peter the Venerable (Boston, Mass., 1967).

Limerick 02

11/4/01

54

1:54 pm

Page 54

Gille of Limerick

the general source of ecclesiastical order, responsibility for law and order lay principally with the local ecclesiastical authority, the bishop.12 Historians in general agree, therefore, that in the period before the twelfth century the concept of law was dominated by the notion of custom. Even in the early twelfth century, when doctrine began to turn towards a written code of law, the medieval mind which prepared a new political and ecclesiastical world based this on the collections of existing customs.13 Writing at the beginning of the twelfth century Gille is a good example of one who finds himself between the worlds of custom and written law, between the era of the ‘ascending’ theory of law and the ‘descending’ theory of the later twelfth century. In De usu ecclesiastico he mentions the question of the law of custom which governs the organisation of the life and liturgy of the Church, while in De statu Ecclesiae he enunciates his directives for this in statements which are closer to the written codes of law which followed. In advocating that the rule of law be based on custom, Gille called the bishops and the clergy to a spiritual fealty, to a renewal of their spiritual bonds with God and a new awareness of their role as members of a hierarchy. He clearly put before them the challenge of creating a new order in the Irish Church and stated forcefully that the success of this depended on them, on their pastoral awareness and their personal enthusiasm. The vision which Gille proposed for the Irish Church in De usu ecclesiastico was that of a church united in prayer and living in order. His medieval mind, like that of his contemporaries, was focused on the notion of a Christocentric cosmology. This philosophy visualised an ordered society focused on Christ and aware of His presence. It was based on a view of a world order which originated in God and was orientated towards Him. In this ordered society everyone had a place and all knew where that place was. Gerard of Cambrai, writing a century before Gille, outlined this Christocentric cosmology in a manner which is similar to that envisaged by the bishop of Limerick.14 According to this thesis, through prayer and order, the Christian society functioned properly and lived in peace. The Christocentric cosmology of Gille is clearly to be seen in his diagram. This diagram is inseparable from his writings and is to be found in the manuscripts between De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae. Christ, the One Bishop, is the focal point of the diagram. He is placed at the apex of the arch which encompases the Church. Gille’s concept of the hierarchical nature 12 Southern, Scholastic Humanism, pp 243ff; McKitterick, Frankish Kingdoms, pp 13ff.

13

R.W. and A.J. Carlyle, A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West (London, 190316), 6 vols, vol. 3, p. 44 (hereafter Carlyle, Medieval Political Theory); J.M. Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Theory (Oxford, 1992) pp 100-2. 14 Gerard of Cambrai, Gesta episcoporum cameracensium, MGH, SS.7. 482; Duby, The Three Orders, p. 33.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 55

Pastors and Prayer

55

of the Church finds its origin in Christ, therefore. His ecclesiology is inseparably linked to his Christology and both of these are focused on Christ, the Bishop. Christ is therefore the centre point, the origin and the focus on which Gille built his vision of an ordered medieval Church. Deeply spiritual by nature and in sentiment, the vision which inspired the reformers was based on an awareness of the spiritual origin of the Church as the foundation for pastoral care. Church structures and organisation originated in Christ, were focused on Him and were directed solely by a concern for pastoral care, the cura animarum, the salvation of souls. The depth and extent of Gille’s spirituality in this regard is evident in his writings. The salvation of souls and, in particular, his own soul forms the substratum of all his thinking and writing. For example, in De usu ecclesiastico this expresses itself in his only request of a recompense for his work. The reward which he seeks for what he calls ‘this great work’ is that having praised God and having worked for Him on earth, he may, with the help of the prayers of his audience, be found worthy to praise Him in heaven.15 His primary concern, therefore, is that he should be prayed for rather than paid. Prayer for the living and especially for the dead was central to both his personal spirituality and to his notion of pastoral care. Membership of the Church obliges the individual to pray with the Christian community, ‘with the other members since he is joined in the one body by faith, hope and love’.16 This community, united in prayer and organised in an orderly fashion praises God in the manner in which God wishes to be worshipped. Gille is deeply conscious, however, of the fact that prayer unites not only the living with each other but also with the dead. Death for him is the sending of the baptised to their heavenly home. After they have gone it is the duty of each Christian to pray for them. ‘The purification of the dead should be done here in prayer and almsgiving. These advance them to purification, since the sweat of the living is the rest of the dead.’17 Pastoral care of the living and of the dead is the background against which Gille developes his blueprint for the Church and on which he bases his diagram. Infused with a deep personal spirituality, it is the foundation on which his representation of Church order as a pyramidic structure is based and against which it must always be viewed. As Gille stood before his audience and glanced from his notes towards his listeners, the ultimate question which must have arisen for him was the issue of converting the Irish ecclesiastical mind to his way of thinking. Deeply conscious of the contribution which Ireland made to the development of Europe in the first millennium, he must also have wondered how Europe and Rome in 15 Lines 28-32. De usu ecclesiastico (hereafter DUE). 16 Line 15, DUE. 17 Lines 201-4, De statu Ecclesiae (hereafter DSE).

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

56

Page 56

Gille of Limerick

particular could now make a contribution towards the renewal of the Church in Ireland. Some recent historians have begun to capture the uniqueness of the Irish Christian mind in the first millennium. David Dumville has highlighted the enthusiasm which gripped the Irish Church in the sixth and seventh centuries. He underlined the effect which this had on a Church which lacked a central authority and he concluded that Irish Christian thought developed in many directions and grew without a strong sense of the need for uniformity in the first millennium.18 Endowed with a spirit of what he described as cheerful selfconfidence,19 the Celtic Church of the first millennium was an independent entity which lacked an awareness of unity or uniformity, a free spirit on the edge of the western world. This experience inevitably gave rise to an Irish ecclesiastical mind which resisted in varying degrees any attempt to introduce a reformed Church based on a vision of a central authority which originated in Rome and which was also introduced by an outside source, Canterbury and the Norse-Irish presence, what the annalists called ‘the foreigners of Dublin and Limerick’. Gille was forced, therefore, to use strong sentiments in making his appeal. As he addressed the bishops and priests of Ireland he asked: ‘What, therefore, could be more unbecoming or schismatical than that the very learned of one order should become the idiotic and lay in another Church?’20 In his appeal he balanced the learned, who accepted his theory, with the uneducated, who refused to do so, the laicum with the clericalis, those who choose to belong to the old monastic system with those who supported the movement for reform. He then called on the free, independent spirit of the Celtic Christian mind to leave behind an insular tradition of almost seven centuries to become part of a united and uniform Catholic experience. In pleading with Irish Christians to form part of the Roman Church as opposed to what has been described as ‘a barely Christianised survival of Celtic mysticism’,21 he was doing in Ireland what bishops in other parts of Europe were also attempting. Herbert the Monk, for example, writing towards the end of the twelfth century, used the same language as Gille to condemn monks who did not wish to join the movement for reform: ‘No one is such a peasant that within a week of joining them he is not so learned in letters that he can no longer be subdued by either words or example.’22 Against this background, he is seen pleading with the clergy who are reluctant to leave the old ways of the so called Celtic, monastic Church to join his movement for reform. 18 D. Dumville, Three Men in a Boat, Scribe, Language and Culture in the Church of VikingAge Europe (Cambridge, 1997), (hereafter Dumville, Three Men in a Boat ). 19 Dumville, Three men in a Boat, p. 17. 20 Lines 10-12, DUE. 21 Z. Oldenbourg, Massacre at Montsegur (London, 1998), p. 28. 22 Herbert the Monk, Epistola de haereticis

Petragoricis, PL 181, 1722.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 57

Pastors and Prayer

57

He appeals to them to participate in a united, clerical order in a Church focused on Christ and governed by the authority of His vicar, the bishop of Rome.23

R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y F O R PA S T O R A L C A R E

When Gille responded to the request of the bishops and priests in Ireland and presented his plan for the structuring of the Irish Church on the diocesan model, he focused their attention on the diocese as the basic unit of ecclesiastical organisation. The diocesan pyramid, which has the bishop seated at the apex and the parish and the monastery as the two entities at its base, is the fundamental structure on which the remainder of the arch of pyramids rests. The parish and the monastery, each represented by pyramids, are contained within the diocesan pyramid and are the foundation of it. The bishop, therefore, is the focus of Gille’s attention and the emphasis which he places on the bishop’s authority and office is one of the chief distinguishing marks of his ecclesiology. While Gratian emphasises the importance of the priesthood at a sacramental level, Gille underlines the episcopate. For him the office of bishop is a grade of the universal Church and as such is in a different category to that of the priest, whose grade is to be found in the local Church. The local Church has the priest at the apex of the parochial pyramid and he has six clerical grades under him, together with the three grades of the laity.24 Having stated this, Gille explained to his audience that this theory was not universally accepted. He noted that Amalarius, who is normally taken to be Amalarius of Metz, for example, held that there were nine grades in the hierarchical structure.25 Amalarius (c.775-850) was one of the best known ninth-century liturgists of the Carolingian era.26 Considered as progressive in his thinking by his contemporaries,27 he lead the movement which added a particularly spiritual dimension to the liturgy through his knowledge of the rituals and the Scriptures. His hierarchical theory was conditioned by his liturgical thought and while Gille shared much of his spirituality, he disagreed with him on this point of his theory of hierarchy. According to Amalarius, there are nine grades of hierarchy, whereas Gille holds that there are seven. For Amalarius, the bishop and the psalmist form an essential part of the liturgy and, consequently, are part of the diocesan pyramid. For Gille, the bishop is to be found on a different level of 23 For a study of what is called the lay thesis cf. Ullman, Papal Government, pp 382ff. 24 Lines 11-42, DSE. 25 Lines 15-18, DSE. 26 The liturgical writings of Amalarius are to

be found in Hanssens (ed.), Amalarii episcopi opera liturgica omnia (Vatican City, 1948-50), 2 vols; for the life of Amalarius cf. A. Cabaniss, Amalar of Metz (Amsterdam, 1954). 27 C. Morris, The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989), p. 13. (hereafter Morris, Papal Monarchy).

Limerick 02

11/4/01

58

1:54 pm

Page 58

Gille of Limerick

hierarchy to the priest and cannot, therefore, be found among the priestly grades. Together with the archbishop, the patriarch and the prophet, he is a member of the universal rather than the particular Church, whereas the priest, the deacon and the other grades are members of the particular or local church. Gille also argues that since the psalmist sings at the command of the priest he too is subject to the priestly grades and, consequently, outside them. He concludes his argument by comparing the seven grades with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Amalarius, on the other hand would base his argument on the nine grades of the fallen angels, whose place Christians were to take in heaven. On this point Gille is particularly important since he takes up a theory, analyses and compares it with another one and gives his judgement on it. The bishop of the diocese is the constant focus and reference point of Gille’s ecclesiology and in particular his hierocratic theory. Each level of his pyramidic representation of the hierarchical structure of the Church is based on him and is placed on him. The entire structure itself is episcopal in orientation, culminating in Christ, the Bishop. His emphasis on the place of the bishop in the organisation of the Church is noteworthy. His reference to Christ as the supreme Bishop is unique. In the theology of the Latin rite Christ is not normally referred to in episcopal terms, whereas in the eastern rite he is.28 However, in the western rite, during the tenth century reference to Christ as Bishop is to be found in a school of theology in Salzburg founded by St Fergal.29 This school of thought is of particular importance since it would seem to suggest that there may have been a tradition of early Irish theology which saw Christ in these terms and which continued to influence Irish theologians in the tenth and eleventh centuries. It is also significant in that by using this notion Gille places himself in the line of this theological tradition. The vision of pastoral care in the medieval church which Gille envisages for Ireland is inclusive, containing the laity, secular clergy and monks. On this basis he developes a structure which would provide for this care and promote order. He takes the symbol of the pyramid and uses it to explain both his theory on the manner in which the structure of the Church is to be organised and the basic tenets of how the rule of law should function within it. The first level of the pyramidic structure of the Church to which Gille directs his attention, therefore, is the diocese. On this the entire structure rests and on this foundation he constructs his layers of pyramids, culminating in the person of Christ, who is the apex of the all embracing pyramid. The movement of Gille’s plan is upwards towards Christ and from Him power descends through the various levels down to the foundations on which it is set. 28 H. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy (New York, 1980) p. 113. 29 J. Kelly, Comm in Lucam 3, 22-3, ‘Scriptores Hibernia Minores’ (Turnhout, 1974).

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 59

Pastors and Prayer

59

Two pyramids are contained within the diocesan pyramid, the parochial and the monastic. The diocesan bishop, who sits at the apex of this pyramid, presides over both. In his analysis of the diagram, Gille draws attention to the chief distinguishing characteristics of the diocese. He notes that within the two sets of ecclesiastical entities contained by the diocese, the parish and the monastery, both the clergy and the laity are to be found. On this point he makes one of the most fundamental and important statements of his ecclesiastical theory. He states categorically that pastoral care of the laity is entrusted solely to the parish clergy. He makes the point that contemplation is the sole duty of monks and while those of them who are ordained priests have the capacity to undertake pastoral care, they may do so only in cases of necessity and with the approval of the diocesan bishop.30 The priest in the parish, therefore, sits at the apex of the parochial pyramid and to him is entrusted the cura animarum. Under the seven grades which lead to priesthood, he places the three grades of the laity, namely oratores, aratores and bellatores, those who pray, those who plough and those who fight.31 While these are separate and distinct from the clerical grades they too are located within the parochial pyramid. The second pyramid contained within the framework of the diocese, namely the monastery, has the seven ecclesiasical grades of the clergy but, unlike the parochial pyramid, the three orders of the laity are not included within it. Pastoral care of the laity is the sole responsibility of the priest in the parish and all pastoral activity is his prerogative. Only in the case of his absence, may a deacon either baptize or celebrate the hours and it is only in the case of necessity, at the direction of the bishop, that an abbot may have any involvement in the pastoral ministry. The parish, therefore, is an entity on its own, independent of and separate from the monastery. Under the jurisdiction of the bishop, it bears responsibility for the provision of the means necessary for the care of souls, for which it exists. During the first millennium, the diocesan structure was based on a system which did not necessarily have a territorial dimension attached to the parish in the way in which this became traditional during the second millennium. The question of the temporal jurisdiction of a bishop and the issues which surrounded the investiture controversy meant that pastoral care rather than government of a defined terrotory was at the heart of diocesan organisation. On the Continent baptismal churches were the centres from which this care was exercised. Indeed, during the first millennium the parish so called was simply a church with a cemetery or a church where mass and baptism were celebrated and confessions were heard by the delegate of the bishop. During the first millennium there were 30 Lines 45-9, DSE.

31 Lines 28-42, DSE.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

60

1:54 pm

Page 60

Gille of Limerick

many kinds of churches; chapels, oratories, oratories subject to the bishop and oratories which were independent, chapels in monasteries, in private houses and in castles etc. At the height of their power, the greater part of pastoral care in Ireland was exercised from monastic churches. As that system declined the cura animarum became more and more the concern of individual priests who served the monastic as well as the other churches. While Gille does not make any mention of the territorial aspect of diocesan organisation in his writings he was aware of it. The Acta of the synod of Rathbreasail, over which he presided, outlined territorial boundaries for the proposed new dioceses in Ireland. About seventy years after his writings were composed and within a generation of his death, parishes, which had a clear territorial dimension, began to emerge in Ireland.32 For Gille, however, the cura animarum, the care of souls, was the distinguishing characteristic of parish life. This is what separated the priest from the monk and the parish from the monastery. The location from which this care was exercised was of secondary importance. The pastoral care of souls within the context of the mission of the parish was the concern of many of the early medieval writers, such as Hincmar of Rheims, the Pseudo Isidore, Burchard, Ivo of Chartres and Gratian. A short survey of how it was seen by some of them wlll help an appreciation of what this meant for Gille. The Collectio Isidori Mercatoris, or the Pseudo-Isidore as it is more commonly known,33 dealt at great length with the hierarchical structure of the Church and in particular with the pastoral ministry. This work stresses the importance of the office of bishop and notes his responsibility for all pastoral care.34 Because of this it states that priests and deacons, whether monks or secular clergy, should not assume pastoral responsibility without the bishop’s mandate.35 Quoting the First Epistle of Clement, it compares the Church to a ship which has Christ as the helmsman, the bishop as the look-out man, priests as the sailors and deacons as holding the locum dispensatorum. In short, for the Pseudo-Isidore the bishop is the one who ultimately has the care of souls and he shares this with his priests. Rabanus Maurus, on the other hand, stresses the importance of the ministry of the priest, even if he does not have the authority of a bishop.36 He stresses the qualities which priests should have and defines their role in the pastoral minis32 S. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900-1300 (Oxford, 1987), pp 87ff (hereafter Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities); A.J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘Parochial Development in the Rural Deanery of Skreen’ in RSAI., 94, (1964) pp 111-22; K.W. Nichols, Rectory, Vicarage and Parish in the Western Irish Diocese’ in RSAI, 101, pp 53-84; P. Brand ‘The formation of a parish; the case of Beaulieu, County Louth’ in J. Bradley and F.X. Martin, Settlement and society in medieval Ireland: Studies presented to Francis Xavier Martin (Kilkenny, 1988), p. 261. 33 P. Hinschius (ed.), Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae (Leipzig, 1863), (hereafter Hinschius, Pseudo-Isidorianae). 34 Hinschius, Pseudo-Isidorianae, c. 39, p. 29. 35 Idem c. 40, p. 29. 36 Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione, PL 107, 302.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 61

Pastors and Prayer

61

try.37 For Rabanus Maurus, care of the flock commited to him is the essence of the duty of the one who is entrusted with the pastoral ministry. His task is to teach his people the knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures, the pure truth of history and tradition, the significance of mystical things, the importance of discipline, honesty and probity in their way of life. His is the task of defending in every way the people entrusted to his care. Rabanus Maurus was a monk with Irish roots and his theory must reflect and give an insight into the thinking of the native Church in Ireland during the ninth century. At a synod of Rheims, which was held in 874,38 Hincmar laid down norms which reveal the nature of the pastoral ministry he envisaged for his diocese. Fundamentally, for him, the care of a parish is entrusted by the bishop to a priest. As a result of this the parishioners become his people, plebem sibi commissam, whom he rules and governs according to rules which are sacred.39 The act of entrusting creates a bond between the parochus and his people which should not be broken. From this the principle of stability emerged whereby a priest may not go from one parish to another except in very particular circumstances.40 For Hincmar there are only three such reasons, infirmity, sinfulness and a feeling of unworthiness or inability to preside over plebi sibi commissae. For him, as for his contemporaries who experienced the reality of ordinatio relativa, a parish was entrusted to a priest when he was ordained and the people of that parish became his people. Hincmar’s concept of pastoral care was greatly influenced by the teaching of Pope Gregory the Great. For the pope, pastoral care was seen as the custody of souls and the feeding of the flock. The pastor, therefore, should embody godliness and since his people are the sancti Dei he is bound not to neglect them but to studiously care for them. Hincmar was deeply conscious of the fact that priests who are shepherds of souls are themselves under the surveillance and guidance of the eternal Shepherd. Hincmar’s writings show that he had a highly developed ecclesiology and a deep knowledge of the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius, as well as the works of the popes, Anacletus (79-91), Clement of Rome (91-101), Zephyrinus (198-217), Leo the Great (440-61), Pelagius (556-61) and Gregory the Great (590-604). For his ninth-century mind ecclesiastical organisation was based on provinces, dioceses and parishes, which, while it created division for pastoral effectiveness, was based on an essential unity of purpose. His ecclesiology, therefore, was based on a concept of order and division which enabled the responsibilities of the pastoral ministry to be discharged effectively.

37 Id., p. 377. 40 Id., p. 795.

38 Hincmar of Rheims, Capitula Sinodica, PL 125, 773ff.

39 Id., p. 796.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

62

Page 62

Gille of Limerick

Regius of Prum, writing some decades after Hincmar of Rheims,41 highlighted the pastoral role of the bishop in his diocese. He underlined the need for him to visit his diocese, to walk among his people and to teach the laity.42 In particular, he stressed the importance of the bishop visiting the monasteries under his jurisdiction, to discuss their lifestyle with them and, when necessary, to correct them.43 Having focused on the role of the bishop in his diocese and having emphasised the superiority of the spiritual dimension of the monastic way of life, he did not pay very much attention to the pastoral ministry of the parochus in the care of souls in his writings. Burchard of Worms, a century later, on the other hand, emphasised the primacy of the bishop in the pastoral field and, like Gille, compartmentalised ecclesiastical life into that of the parish and that of the monastery.44 He laid particular emphasis on the subjection of the monastery to the jurisdiction of the bishop45 and outlined its role in pastoral responsibility. While allowing it a certain ministry, he stressed the importance of obedience to the bishop.46 In particular, Burchard restated the age-old tradition whereby priests or deacons who were outside the communion of their own church carried letters of commendation from their bishops. In so doing he underlined the concept of stability, whereby he saw the priest as a vicar of Christ and as a person who was totally dedicated to him.47 It was against this background that he viewed the care of souls given by a dedicated priest to his people.48 Ivo of Chartres, in the Decretum and in Panormia49 also reflected on the role of the parish in the mission of the Church. He stressed the obedience of the priest or deacon to his bishop and noted that all power and authority resided in him. Like Burchard, and unlike Gille, he allowed that monks could have a pastoral role to play. However, for him, priests were superior to monks, on the grounds that they, together with the bishops, were the successors of the apostles, whereas monks were merely the successors of certain saints. Gratian was the leading canonist of the twelfth century and his most famous work, Concordia discordantium canonum or the Decrees of Gratian as it is more commonly known, was published at the end of Gille’s life. Gille and Gratian, who were contemporaries, therefore, fundamentally shared a common view on the role of pastoral care. They believed that the parochial pyramid and that of the monastery, both of which were contained within the diocesan pyramid, were separate and independent. In C.X, q.1, c. 3, Gratian envisaged the parish as under the sole care of the bishop and those appointed by him.50 In C. XVI, q.l, 41 Regius of Prum, De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis, PL 132, 187ff. 42 Ibid., 187, 193, 194. 43 Ibid., 315. 44 Burchard of Worms, Decretorum Liber, PL 140. 724-5; 805-6; 895. 45 Ibid., 809. 46 Ibid., 725; 806. 47 Ibid., 568. 48 Ibid., 680. 49 Ivo of Chartres, Opera, PL 161 1087. 50 A. Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonicii (rist. Graz. 1959), vol. 1,

p. 613 (hereafter CIC).

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 63

Pastors and Prayer

63

he outlined the traditional teaching on the responsibility of the monastery for pastoral care. He concluded that while monks did not normally have a role if one were given to them by the bishop then the abbot should institute a particular monk to undertake this.51 He noted that the roles of monks and seculars were different on the grounds that the clergy were the carers and monks those who are cared for.52 Priests in the parish, therefore, in Gratian’s view were separate from and independent of monks. They bore the burden of pastoral responsibility, while monks were called to prayer. If he had ascribed the image of the pyramid to his theory, like Gille, his parochial pyramid would have been placed beside the monastic pyramid and both would have been contained by and subjected to the diocesan pyramid. Across the continent of Europe, from Worms to Chartres and from Camaldoli to Rheims, the role of pastoral care in the Church was discussed and commented on in the centuries before Gille. Gille’s theory, therefore, on the role of pastoral care in a parish and the relationship between the parish and the monastery was formed by traditional thinking and was in line with the mentality of European bishops and canonists of his time. Against this background and with a deep awareness of its importance in the life of the Church, Gille sought to extend this theory to Ireland and to draw the Irish Church within this rich tradition of pastoral care.

T H E P L A C E F O R C O N T E M P L AT I O N

Historians generally accept that there were three main periods in the development of ecclesiastical organisation prior to the thirteenth century: the era of the conversion of Europe, when monks were normally lay men and pastoral work took place mainly within the confines of the monastery itself, the period from the eighth to the tenth centuries when the number of ordained monks grew steadily and became involved in pastoral work outside the confines of the monastery and finally the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when, in an age of reform, an attempt was made to order and define the role of the monks and the secular clergy.53 In the context of twelfth-century Ireland, the section of De statu Ecclesiae which dealt with the role of monks in the Church was particularly significant. Given the nature of the development of the monastic system in Ireland and its subsequent secularisation, in varying degrees and stages from the midninth century onwards, what Gille advocated was revolutionary and new. His 51 Ibid.

52 C.XV1, q.1, c.39, CIC, p. 771. 53 G. Constable, ‘Monasteries, Rural Churches and the Cura Animarum in the Early Middle Ages’ in G. Constable, (ed.), Monks, Hermits and Crusaders in Medieval Europe (London, 1988) pp 349-89.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

64

Page 64

Gille of Limerick

vision of a united Irish Church, under the leadership of two primates, organised on a provincial and diocesan basis, with clear lines of demarcation between those who lived in the monasteries and those who had pastoral responsibility in the parishes, was the antithesis of the Irish experience at the beginning of the twelfth century. His plan was awesome because it proposed to affect every level of ecclesiastical life and to incorporate it into a unified entity, a reality unknown in Ireland until that time. To the twelfth century successors of the old Hibernian and Roman traditions in the priesthood, it must have seemed all the more meritorious at the local level when it offered clear lines of demarcation between pastoral responsibility and the monastic way of life. It was this policy of compartmentalisation and organisation which gave it outstanding merit in the eyes of all who hoped for reform in the Church at that time. Circumstantial evidence would seem to suggest that the plan which he proposed met with much opposition from within the existing monastic system. As has been seen, not only did the old monasteries such as Ardpatrick refuse to swear alliegence to the new diocesan system for many years but within the monastic system in general there was opposition to his theory on monastic life. The manuscripts which contain the writings of Gille give evidence of this. The omission of the phrase soli Deo from DCL MS B.11.35, one of these manuscripts, and its inclusion by a later hand in CUL MS Ff.i.27, another one of them, demonstrates the depth of opposition to the theory Gille proposed at Rathbreasail. The problems which he faced were not confined to a clash between his plan and an ancient, independent and secular monastic system but it touched on a crisis of identity for those whose commitment to the monastic way of life was purely spiritual. Central to all of this was the role of the ordained monk in pastoral care. The question which these men presented was whether or not they could continue to exercise a pastoral role in the area around the monastery in which they lived. Gille’s answer was uniquivocal. The role of monks, ordained and lay, was soli Deo, only to God. Having made the decision to renounce lay life and live a monastic one, their only duty was to God in prayer and contemplation.54 Evidence from the early Celtic Church, from the sixth century in particular, shows that monks at that time did not have a pastoral ministry as such. In the Penitentials of Vinnian, it is stated that monks should not baptise or receive alms.55 On the other hand, according to this source, the secular clergy had a duty to baptise and must do a year’s penance if they refused to do so. It was only later therefore, when monasticism became the dominant form of religious life in Ireland, that the pastoral ministry became the lot of monks.56 By advocating a

54 Lines 45-9, DSE.

55 L. Beiler, The Irish Penitentials, pp 48-50. 56 For a general summary of this see Corish, ‘The Christian Mission’, pp 8-10.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 65

Pastors and Prayer

65

life of prayer for monks, Gille is, consciously or unconsciously, pleading for a return to the practice of the earliest days of the Irish Church. He stresses that the propositum of the monk is solely to God, to prayer and to a renunciation of the world.57 The concept of the propositum was one which was used on a regular basis by writers such as Rabanus Maurus, Smaragadus, Servatus Lupus, Ivo of Chartres and St Anselm.58 The constancy of its usage during the period from the ninth to the twelfth century indicates that it acquired the standing of the official way of referring to the commitment made by the monk in religious life. Thus, for example, St Anselm could extol the virtues of monasticism by saying that there was no better way to live than to desire the propositum of the monk.59 All these writers saw the dedication of a life to God and to prayer as a noble gesture and as the fundamental commitment of a monk. The theory of Gille, therefore, is rooted in a long and rich tradition of European thinking on this matter and must be seen as his attempt to draw the Irish ecclesiastical mind into the tradition of mainland Europe. The kind of the prayer Gille envisaged is not defined. The pattern of prayer varied greatly within the different spiritual and intellectual traditions of the first millennium. For some, and in particular for those who were influenced by neoplatonism such as the Pseudo-Dionysius, Eriugena and Hugh of St Victor, contemplation was stressed as the ideal to be achieved.60 The neoplatonists developed a deep mystical theology based on contemplation and eventually created a hierarchy of spiritual values within their thought based on the triad of contemplation, purification and illumination. Hugh of St Victor, for example, wrote concerning the perfect life of contemplation and the witness of those who lived it. Contemplation for Hugh of St Victor was basically a union with God in prayer which purifies, illumines and perfects the one who prays.61 Smaragdus on the other hand had a less mystical, more practical approach to the nature of prayer and to its place in the life of a monk. In the Diadema Monachorum he proposed a simpler form of monastic prayer which suited the monks dedicated to God.62 Reflecting on the propositum of the monk, St Anselm stated that the task of the monk was to lead a life directed towards heaven. For him this cloistered conversation is expressed in useful spiritual meditation and his concept of 57 Lines 48-9, DSE. 58 Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione, PL 107, 297; Smaragadus, Diadema Monachorum, PL 102, 594; Servatus Lupus, In Epistolam II ad Thessalonicenses, PL 119, 379; Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, PL 161, 523; St Anselm, Liber Secundus, Epistolae X11, PL 158, 1162; Regius of Prum, De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis, PL 132, 384; Burchard of Worms, Decretorum Liber, PL 140. 59 Anselm, Liber Secundus, Epistolae XII, PL 158, 1162. 60 Eriugena, Expositiones super Ierarchiam, PL 122, 176; Pseudo-Dionysius, Versio operum S. Dionysii Aeropagitae, PL 122, 104; Hugh of St Victor, Commentaria in Hierarachiam Coelestem, PL 175, 1018, 1065, 1074. 61 Hugh of St Victor, Opera, PL 175, 1028. 62 Smaragdus, Diadema Monachorum, PL 102, 594.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 66

66

Gille of Limerick

contemplation seems rooted in a more practical theology than that of Hugh of St Victor.63 From all these writers the picture which emerges is that of the monastic way of life as the best way in which a Christian can live, even if it is not the only way. St Anselm could say, therefore, that fidelity to the monastic way of life is a sure means of salvation. However, he would admit that it is not the only way.64 Regius of Prum, Burchard of Worms, Ivo of Chartres and Gratian all agreed with this. They also agreed that stability of life in the place of one’s first commitment, as a priest or as a monk, was of prime importance. In his writings, Gille concurs with this. For him the place of a monk is in his monastery, with contemplation of God the sole concern of his life. The abbot is the head of the monastic community and Gille places him at the apex of the monastic pyramid. The abbot is a priest and as such has received the seven ecclesiastical grades. In holding this position, Gille accepts the development of the practice that monks be ordained. He does not, however, make it mandatory for all monks to be priests. This proposal was in sharp contrast with the experience of the Celtic Church, and that of the Church in many European countries, where in some monasteries laymen continued to be abbots at the end of the first millennium. On the question of responsibility for pastoral care, Gille is quite clear and his theory is in sharp contrast with the practice in many monasteries in Ireland and elsewhere. Monks do not have any role in the care of souls. Their commitment, or what Gille calls their propositum, is only to God in prayer. In practice this meant that monks all over Ireland, who wished to continue to be called monks, were asked to return to their monasteries, leave aside their pastoral activities and become contemplatives. The monastic pyramid, of its nature, is an independent entity within the structure of the diocese. For Gille, the monastery is ruled by an abbot. It is a religious community and not just a village community which lives in a monastic town under the general title of a monastic community. He underlines the religious aspect of monastic life when he says that, having left secular concerns, the commitment of monks is only to God in prayer.65 In this context it is important to note that when he was listing the special functions of the bishop, Gille referred to the Abbatistam as one of those who is governed by the bishop.66 As such, Gille envisaged the abbess at the head of a monastic community of female religious but he fails to give either a parallel reference to this in the diagram or in De statu Ecclesiae nor does he give it a separate pyramid within the structure of the ecclesiastical organisation which he outlines. He simply mentions the abbess, without defining any prerogatives that she may have in her community.

63 Anselm, Epistolae, PL 159, 169.

64 Ibid., 1182.

65 Line 49, DSE.

66 Line 269, DSE.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 67

Pastors and Prayer

67

Gille’s treatment of the monastic pyramid is short and succinct. His theory is clear and his treatment of it is brief. In De statu Ecclesiae it occupies less space than does his treatment of any one of the ecclesiastical grades under that of the priest. He states the fundamental principles of monastic life and clearly places the monastery under the jurisdiction of the bishop. He does not refer to the place or possibility of exemption. Long-standing canonical tradition in the universal Church had sanctioned the right of the bishop over the monastery and had outlined his duties towards it.67 The reality of Irish life and the experience of the Celtic Church reinforced the conviction in Gille’s mind that in the reformed Irish Church monks should be seen as men of prayer who lived in the stability of a monastery, under the jurisdiction of the bishop, with no pastoral responsibility and no exemptions from or exceptions to this clearly defined situation.

THE ROLE OF THE LAITY

Gille places the laity within the parochial pyramid and puts them into three categories, oratores, aratores and bellatores, those who pray, those who plough and those who fight. He then introduces a strict hierarchy within their ranks: oratores are on a higher level to both aratores and bellatores, whom he places on an equal level at the base of this pyramid.68 In doing this he confirms the general principle that he enunciated at the outset of De statu Ecclesiae, when he outlined his theory of the pyramid. There he held that the spiritual were to be placed at the apex of the symbol while the carnal and the married were to form the base.69 The division of society into the moral categories of the spiritual and the carnal was a long standing and accepted part of medieval thinking. While the manner in which this principle was depicted varied in many ways, the theory remained constant. Those who are continent and dedicated to God in the priesthood or religious life are superior to those who live their lives in the lay state. It is important to note, however, that while the spiritual were regarded as superior to the married in medieval theory, marriage was recognised as a valued state of the Christian life. Anselm of Loan, for example, wrote: ‘Those who live legally in legal marriage serve God by that marriage and are His members.’70 From the fifth to the twelfth centuries, from Pope Gelasius to Pope Paschal II, the role of the laity in the Church developed along a particular line. For the Carolingians, the body of the Church was divided into two powers, the sacred and the secular, and was ruled by two persons, one sacerdotal and the other 67 Anselm, Epistolae C. PL 158, 1186; Regius of Prum, De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis, PL 132, 375; Burchard of Worms, Decretorum Liber, PL 140, 805-6. 68 Line 29, DSE. 69 Lines 5-8, DSE. 70 G. Constable, Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought (Cambridge, 1998), p. 305 (hereafter Constable, Three Studies).

Limerick 02

11/4/01

68

1:54 pm

Page 68

Gille of Limerick

royal, the pope and the emperor. Each had a specific role to play and they were seen as two distinct orders within the same entity. Each was separate but both were interdependent; the pope and the bishops needed the temporal rulers to ensure that peace prevailed, the secular rulers needed the spiritual ones to ensure their everlasting salvation.71 With the passing of time this bipartisan view of the world permeated all levels of Christian society to the extent that all male adults fell into one of two groups, those who fought to preserve the peace and those who, unarmed, participated in other ways in the maintenance of the divine order. As the Carolingian empire developed its ideas, the parellel between auctoritas and potestas, between clerus and populus, gave way to the notion of oratores and bellatores, those who pray and those who fight. By the year 747, when Pope Zachary addressed Pepin the Short, he used terminology that bears particular significance for an understanding of Gille’s view of the role of the laity in the Church. To the princes, to the men of the world and to the warriors (bellatores) falls the task of guarding against the enemy’s cunning and of defending the country; to bishops, priests and the servants of God it is given to act by offering salutary counsel and prayer, so that thanks to God, with our praying (orantibus) and their fighting (bellantibus), the country may remain safe.72 Prior to the eleventh century the terminology used to refer to the portion of society which did not fit the description of oratores or bellatores varied greatly. In early Carolingian thought the negative terms of imbellus or inerme vulgus were sometimes used. However, by the end of the tenth century the more respectful terms of laboratores, agricoltores and aratores had begun to be used. The system of values which prevailed during the second half of the first millennium in Merovingian and Carolingian Europe placed so much value on the spiritual, the pure, the noble and the valiant that those who were not classified among these groups were almost ignored. In this way of thinking, the value of the ordinary people lay in the fact that through their sweat and hard work they provided food for the pure and the valiant and kept poverty at bay. They, therefore, offered their toil and their sweat in exchange for the salvation of their souls and the security of their bodies.73 The medieval mind accepted that inequality governed the universe. Some were in command, some were obliged to obey. By birth, some were born free and some were not. Some were nobles and others were serfs. Only by leaving the world behind and by living a life of continence, could a man change his status, enter the spiritual realm and be numbered among those whose duty it was to preach, teach and command. 71 Duby, The Three Orders, p. 77. 72 Codex Carolinus, MGH, Ep. Karolini aevi 1: 480; Duby, The Three Orders, p. 78. 73 Duby, The Three Orders, pp 158-9.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 69

Pastors and Prayer

69

At the beginning of the eleventh century, two bishops, Gerald of Cambrai and Adelbaro of Laon, recognised that there were those who by birth were neither oratores nor bellatores. They were this group of ordinary people who were called to serve and on whom medieval society placed a large dependence. Like Adam after the Fall, they were condemned to the servile condition and forced to work in a menial way. Living in sweat, affliction and poverty, they were given the evocative category of aratores, those who plough.74 A third order was created for them, therefore. Gerald and Adelbaro were the first to develop the notion of this tripartite division on the Continent. In doing this they used a model which had been conceived a century earlier in the work of Alfred in England.75 Much has been written on this tripartite division of the laity and many theories have been proposed concerning it. It is particularly significant for a study of Gille’s thought in that not only does it outline his pastoral theory but it also points to the sources which formed his thinking and pinpoints the area of north eastern France, around Laon and Cambrai, where in all probability he was educated. The division of the laity into three groups has a long tradition. Its roots may lie in the works of Plato. In The Republic, where he attempts to outline the constitutive elements of the ideal state, Plato mentioned three classes on which his state was organised, namely artisans, the military and the class of administering guardians.76 He then went on to note that each group was separate and that interference with each others jobs and interchange of jobs between them, did great harm to the state. Ireland was also conscious of the three-fold division of society. Ancient Irish laws, for example, record that there are three kinds of lay recluses in the Church.77 A traditional Carolingian model of society envisaged three groups of people who served the king, the military, the people who prayed and the labourers in the field.78 In the Carolingian tradition the tripartite division has its origin in the letter from Pope Zacharias in 747 when he made the distinction between those who fought and the clergy who prayed for them.79 Some fifty years later this distinction had become official Carolingian policy. Thus Alcuin, writing on behalf of Charlemagne, could remind Pope Leo III that the role of the papacy was to pray for the emperor and the duty of the emperor that of defending the Church.80 Abbo of Fleury also wrote ‘Of the first order of men, that is of laymen, it must be said that some are farmers (agricolae), others are fighters (agonistae)’.81 74 Ibid. p. 59. 75 Constable, Three Studies, p. 285. 76 D. Lee, Plato, the Republic (London, 1985), p. 206. 77 Hancock and O’Mahony, Seanchus Moir, vol. 4, p. 367. 78 Duby, The Three Orders, pp 76ff. 79 D.E. Luscombe and G.R. Evans, ‘The twelfth-century renaissance’ in Burns (ed.), Medieval Political Thought, pp 306-7. 80 Ullman, Papal Government, pp 119-41. 81 Abbo of Fleury, PL 1039, 464-72.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

70

1:54 pm

Page 70

Gille of Limerick

Adalbero of Laon and Gerard of Cambrai were the two commentators who focused particular attention on these three categories.82 Adalbero of Laon, in his poem Carmen ad Rotbertum Regem Francorum, saw God’s house as three storied, containing those who pray, fight and labour. Gerald of Cambrai, in his Gesta episcoporum cameracensium, also divided society into the same categories. He held that the human race was divided into these groups from the beginning, that those who pray, having left secular affairs, are concerned only with God, those who fight protect freedom and farmers, through corporal work, provide food. The Codex Carolinus confirmed this three-fold division of society.83 By the eleventh century, therefore, especially in the Carolingian empire, society had become divided for political and sociological reasons into the three groups of oratores, aratores and bellatores.84 There was an essential unity and harmony between these three groups. The oratores prayed for the bellatores who defended them and the aratores provided food for both while they benefited from peaceful social conditions created by both of them and enjoyed the blessings of God. This model of rural life continued to be proposed as the ideal pattern of life until well into late medieval times.85 Gerald and Adalbero secured a place for this new category in the medieval notion of order. For them oratores, aratores and bellatores were now three groups in the Christian world classified by order and not solely by function. They left behind the old notion of the three-fold division of society based on function and enlarged this to include a vision of the Christian world in terms of the noble, the spiritual and the ordinary laity. No longer neatly placed in one or other of these orders, the laity could now be classified among those who pray as well as those who plough and fight. Gerald, writing his Gesta episcoporum cameracensium around the year 1025 and Adalbero writing his Carmen, about two years later,86 therefore made a most important contribution to the development of the twofold view of the world as noble and ecclesiastical, kings and bishops, into a threefold vision of the Christian order which included the laity and which also could be divided into the categories of monks, canons who performed pastoral care and the laity. The ordo of oratores, those who pray, therefore, had assumed a new, enlarged and important aspect within the Christian vision of the world by the eleventh century. It was the duty of the oratores to intercede for the people and to foster the Christian spirit in society. Prayer was the specific task of this group and its duty 82 Adalbero of Laon, Carmen ad Rotbertum Regem Francorum, PL 141. 782ff.; lines 28-42, DSE. 83 Codex Carolinus, MGH, Ep.Karolini, 480. 84 J. Nelson, ‘Kingship and Empire’ in Burns (ed.), Medieval Political Thought, pp 239-40. 85 Duby, The Three Orders, pp 81109; I. Robinson, ‘Church and Papacy’ in Burns (ed.), Medieval Political Thought, pp 2634. 86 Duby, The Three Orders, pp 18-19.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 71

Pastors and Prayer

71

was to mediate between God and mankind. Since the oratores were essentially spiritual people their task was not only to rule society but also to create a spiritual ambience in the world. Bishops were the original oratores. Their first duty was to pray. Associated with them in their spiritual ministry were the priests, whose principle duty it was to pray. With the passing of the first millennium and the emergence of a strong spiritual power in western Christendom, the clerical oratores were divided into two groups. The canons, namely the secular clergy, were given the duty to teach and to care for souls, while the monks were entrusted with the sole duty of praying. Both groups, however, were, according to Adalbero of Laon, to refrain from all kinds of servile work and were, therefore, a group apart whose life was centred on God. By the beginning of the twelfth century the laity were included in this threefold division of society. At the level of function, the Christian world was now divided into the spiritual, as represented by the clergy, the temporal, as represented by the nobility and the laity, represented by those who served in society. At the level of order, it was compartmentalised into monks, clerics and laity. A fundamental change had been effected therefore at the functional level. Oratores were now no longer those who ruled, kings and bishops, but they were drawn from three groups which included ordinary people. Among these were the canons, the secular clergy, whose primary duty it was to cater for pastoral care but whose duty to pray had been recognised by the Church from the beginning. Secondly, strictly within the confines of the monastery, there were monks whose only function was to pray. Thirdly, lay people, both men and women, could also give themselves over to prayer as part of their vocation. The ordo of bellatores was traditionally assigned to those born of noble birth who remained laymen. Their primary duty was to defend the Church so that it could minister to a Christian society in peace. After that they were given the task of protecting the poor. The elitism of this group was marked in the first millennium, where their noble blood, which was the source of their beauty, impetuosity and their martial qualities, was seen as qualifying them for their honoured task.87 Necessity and war, however, diluted this noble theory and by the end of the ninth century a bipartisan approach was seen with regard to the bellatores. In the Miracles of St Bertin, when a description is given of the division of the spoils of war, the question is raised as to whether the victory was won by the bellatores or the oratores, by those who fought or by those who prayed and groaned for God’s mercy.88 In a spirit of compromise the decision was made that the hand of the fighters was strengthened by the prayers of the oratores. Thus, in the subsequent division of the spoils, the bellatores were divided into the nobles and the inferiors, the ordinary fighters. 87 Duby, The Three Orders, p. 51.

88 Constable, Three Studies, pp 281ff.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

72

1:54 pm

Page 72

Gille of Limerick

By the beginning of the twelfth century, therefore, the noble order of bellatores had assumed a more ordinary aspect. In the century after Gerald and Adalbero, the century of Gille, these same categories were used by Eadmer of Canterbury, around the year 1115, when he said that God had created three orders of men, to carry out three functions in society, prayer, agriculture, and defense.89 Hugh of St Victor also noted that there were three orders of the faithful.90 Later in that century Benedict of Saint-Maure placed these three groups at the very centre of the perfect society. Three orders exist, each one for itself, knights, and clerks and peasants. One of the orders prays night and day. In the other are labourers. The other does justice and keeps it.91 The theology of Adalbero of Laon and Gerard of Cambrai on the mutual support given by the members of the three orders, one to the other, is very similar therefore to the position outlined by Gille a century later. Each holds the view that the oratores enjoy their freedom to pray because the bellatores provide the security they need and the aratores provide their food. In the same way the bellatores can engage in war because the oratores pray for them and plead for the forgiveness of their sins, while the aratores supply their food. Likewise the aratores enjoy the protection of the other two orders, as they fulfil their role in the Christian society.92 The role of women in the Church caused Gille some problems. Having stated that both men and women can be numbered among those who pray, those who plough the land and those who fight, he acknowledges that there is a tension in this classification with regard to the place of women. Having outlined his theory, he immediately apologises for including women among those who plough and who engage in warfare. ‘Not that I say that it is the duty of women to pray and plough and certainly not to fight. However, they are married and subject to those who pray and plough and fight.’93 In their role as married women they share in the tasks alotted to their husbands and as such can be placed in the three categories. While his line of argument is not well thought out, it is important to note his sensitivity to the place of women in the Church. Having walked the streets of cities in eastern France and seen the emergence of a new and invigorated Christian culture, Gille must have wondered to himself what he could do to introduce to Ireland something of the spirit and the order that allowed that culture to grow. Having listened to and spoken with the leading thinkers of the reform initiated in that area some decades previously, he must have been stimulated to work out a plan for the Church in his native land. The long tradition of pastoral care in the Frankish kingdom and the heated debates 89 Eadmer of Canterbury, Liber de sancti Anselni similitudinibus, PL 159, 679; Duby, The Three Orders, p. 286. 90 Hugh of St Victor, De Arca Ecclesiae, PL 176, 630. 91 C. Fahlin

(ed.), Chronique des ducs de Normandie par Benoìt, ed. C. Fahlin ( Uppsala, 1951-67) 3 vols, vol. 1, pp 242-3. 92 Lines 37-42, DSE. 93 Lines 33-5, DSE.

Limerick 02

11/4/01

1:54 pm

Page 73

Pastors and Prayer

73

about the role of monks in the Church, together with the emergence of a new consciousness of the place of the laity in the Christian order, coming together must have caused Gille the priest to wonder what kind of ministry he would exercise in Limerick, the city from which he came. As he departed from the school of thought centred on Cambrai and Laon, in north-eastern France, and journeyed towards Rouen and Ireland his mind was formed and enriched by a theology and a pastoral concern which prepared him for an important future ministry. Gille’s vision of the local church is, therefore, a diocese which is ordered and structured. With the bishop as head, each group knows its place and the interests of all are catered for. Pastoral care is the sole concern of the parish clergy. Monks are committed to God in prayer and the laity are aware of their role in this Christian society. However, while Gille can be placed within this tradition, the contribution which he made is unique in some aspects. The division of Frankish society, based as it was on a political and sociological rather than spiritual premise, was not favoured by the papal reform movement of the twelfth century as such.The thrust of the movement undertaken by Pope Gregory VII was to show forth a united Church in which the two orders, clerical and lay, were contained in harmony and peace. Within this framework the supremacy of the clerical order over the lay was stressed at every possible level. This supremacy was based on the primacy of the spiritual over the temporal, of the religious over the married or the carnal, the Church over the state. Gille, in fact, unites both perspectives and presents a view of the Church which holds them in balance. As papal legate and as a reforming bishop in Ireland, Gille was keen to import the tenets of the Gregorian reform movement to Ireland. He clearly and faithfully maintained the supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power in his writings. However he also used the tripartite model proposed by Adalbero and Gerald in a new way and as such made an important contribution to the development of the hierocratic theory of the twelfth century. Oratores and bellatores, orders initially and traditionally associated with the spiritual and temporal powers of the papacy and the empire are now used by Gille, together with the ordinary people represented by the aratores, as orders in which the laity can carry out their mission in the Church. Outside the categories of the clergy and the nobility, ordinary Christians, therefore, share in the duties of praying, of defending the Church and the people, and of working for the good of others. In this doctrine, he makes an important contribution to the development of medieval thought.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 74

3

Hierarchs and Hierarchy Responsibility for leadership is the age-old, perennial, issue that has occupied minds since time immemorial. In the early Church, leadership was to be found in a communion, brought about by a consensus, under the presidency of a bishop, who was himself usually elected. As civil authority became more focused in the person of the Roman emperor, a greater appreciation of the central role of the bishop in the Church developed. Benedictine monasticism took up this practice in the first millennium and placed power in the hands of one man, the abbot. This too helped to sharpen the focus of authority and leadership in a single person rather than in the communion created by a group. With the advent and eventual prevalence of neoplatonist thought came the decline of the vision of leadership as the service of a consensus in the context of a communion. Gradually, therefore, the early view of leadership gave way to the idea of the plenitude of power being placed in the leader and the participatory model of leadership was replaced by the investment of power in a single person. Power and authority now rested on one person. That person was seen as the person at the top and power descended in various ways to those who were subject to him at the bottom. In this way the idea of authority exercised in a circular context gave way to a hierarchical model.1 The movement of power, therefore, changed from upward in what is normally called the ascending model to downward in a descending one. In this changed vision, the origins of power were no longer seen to lie in the broad base of the people but in the otherworldly being, in the divinity, and ultimately in God himself. The images used to represent this move from a broad base to a point also changed. The image of the pyramid, which is broad at the base and pointed at the apex, now came to mind and assumed a particular importance as the second millennium dawned.2 By the twelfth century the notion of hierarchy in the Church was greatly influenced by the idea that men were created by God so that they might eventually fill the places in heaven vacated by the fallen angels. Since heaven was 1 T.L. Nichols, That all may be one. Hierarchy and Participation in the Church (Minneapolis, 1997), (hereafter Nichols, Hierarchy). 2 W. Ullman, Law and Politics in the Middle

Ages (London, 1975), p. 31 (hereafter Ullman, Law and Politics).

74

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 75

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

75

the ultimate destination of the Christian, then heaven should also be the model for the institutions of the Christian society. An Irishman, John Scotus Eriugena, writing in the ninth century, developed this notion in his work on the PseudoDionysius and greatly influenced subsequent western thought.3 His writings, in particular, formed the thinking of men, who like Gille, were educated in the Frankish kingdom, in the area of what is nowadays eastern France. For the Pseudo-Dionysius, the One is placed at the top of the hierarchy of being and the One communicates with all lesser beings through an elaborate hierarchy of angels and men, which are the celestial and terrestial hierarchies. For him, hierarchy is a sacred order, a state of understanding and an activity approximating as closely as possible to the divine.4 In the hierarchy higher beings are more like God and those furthest from God are mortal, carnal and inferior. The spiritual order is primary and should be all pervasive. Perfection is the goal to be reached and it is achieved through understanding. Understanding, in turn, is attained through purification. God, the One, is the source of all purification, illumination and contemplation. He is the goal of all human and divine activity. Since the gulf between God and man is so great, He can only be approached by going through the process of purification and is reached through the various steps of hierarchy which climb through this process. Higher beings have all the power of those below them and more besides. In the Pseudo-Dionysius, therefore, is to be found a unified structure which incorporates heaven and earth, is focused on God and within which is a complex structure of hierarchy, through which power radiates downward from God and in which men may rise upwards towards Him through this complex construction of terrestial and celestial hierarchies. The Pseudo-Dionysius held that the ecclesiastical hierarchy should reflect the celestial. Since liturgy was the entire focus of heaven then the celebration of the liturgy on earth should be a priority. It should be unified and should be performed on earth by a priesthood which participated in the priesthood of Christ and was rooted in Him. This priesthood, which celebrated the liturgy on earth participated in the heavenly liturgy and therefore took precedence over all else in a Christian society. Through the mediation of the sacraments purification, illumination and perfection is achieved and within this process deacons, priests and bishops have their specified roles in which deacons purify, priests illumine and bishops perfect. 3 J. Pelikan, Pseudo-Dionysius: the Complete Works (New York, 1987), (hereafter

Pelikan, Pseudo-Dionysius); A. Louth, Denys the Areopagite (London, 1989), (hereafter Louth, Denys); J.J. O’Meara, Eriugena (Cork, 1989), (hereafter O’Meara, Eriugena); P. Chevalliers, Dionysiaca. Recueil donnant l’Ensemble des Traductions attribues au Denys de l’Aropage (Paris, 1937). 4 Pelikan, Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 153.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

76

Page 76

Gille of Limerick

The theology of the Pseudo-Dionysius is a strong statement of neoplatonism and Gille’s ecclesiology fits firmly within its confines. At the beginning of De statu Ecclesiae, having outlined the pyramidic nature of the Church’s organisation, he enunciates the principle of perfection, one of the fundamental neoplatonist principles. Perfection is to be found in Christ, the One Bishop, and it descends in degrees through the various grades of the hierarchy. Reflecting on the relationship between the levels of hierarchy Gille states that: ‘one by one each person is made perfect by his superiors. In bestowing an abundance of pardon in baptism and through the Eucharist, each person sends his faithful sons to his heavenly home’5 Having begun his description of the Church at the level of pastoral care of the local Church, Gille then moves his way through the various levels of hierarchy to focus on Christ, who sits at the apex of the pyramid. ‘Christ is pre-eminent over both since He is the legislator of both the Testaments and “He made both one”: the supreme head of the household who crowns with honour in His kingdom those who are faithfully watching in this tabernacle.’6 Gille’s concept of order in the Church then compels him to outline the duties of each grade within the hierarchy. ‘Therefore, having highlighted in a general overview the structure of the Church, both the head and the members, let us now outline what each group must do.’7 Neoplatonism, which greatly influenced Gille, was monarchical by nature and focused on the One who presides over the entire universe. Its origins appear to have been inspired by monasticism, where the abbot represented Christ to the monks and was the supreme spiritual power. Eriugena, coming from an Irish monastic background in the early ninth century, found a soul mate or anamchara in the writings of Dionysius, the Areopagite. The monastic experience of the sixth-century Syrian monk spoke volumes to the ninth-century Irish monk who, having left the Irish monastic experience was finding his feet in eastern France, in the area around Laon. Through the ninth and tenth centuries the area around Laon became a centre for neoplatonist thought and a meeting place for Irish theologians in particular. Eriugena was to have a lasting influence on this area and was the catalyst for many future Irish scholars. The meeting of minds which took place there was to prove crucial in the development of western thought on the hierarchical nature of the Church. Aquinas and Bonaventure, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Innocent III, were influenced by the ideas of the Pseudo-Dionysius and its propagandist, Eriugena. It is almost certain that it was to this area of Irish learning that Gille came to receive his education in the late eleventh century. The symbol of hierarchy most closely associated with Gille and for which he is best known is the pyramid.8 The use of the pyramid as an image for the 5 Lines 19-27, DSE.

6 Lines 80-3, DSE. 7 Lines 88-90, DSE. 8 A. Schmitt, ‘Gilbert von Limerick’ in LthK, vol. 4, p. 890; G. Albergo, ‘The People of God in the Experience

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 77

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

77

presentation of the hierocratic theory can be seen as early as the works of Isidore of Seville. In Etymologarium, he presents his diagrams of the arbor juris and De gradibus generis humani in the form of a pyramid, without referring to them as such. By Gille’s time, his contemporary, Hugh of St Victor, specifically used the pyramid as a model for his explanation of how the ecclesiastical hierarchy should be organised.9 In the twelfth century this three-sided figure was chosen by Gille to construct his vision of order and unity in the Church. The pyramid, as a symbol, incorporates a number of ideas and political theories. The principal of these is that all power resides in the one who is placed at the apex of the pyramid and power flows downward from him to those below him. Placed at the top of the pyramid, the leader is a spiritual person and represents the superiority of the spiritual over the physical or carnal. In the neoplatonist tradition the leader is the supervisor, the speculator, whose task it is to contemplate the Divine and then illuminate and purify those below him. Wide at the base and narrow at the top, the medieval mind found in the image of the pyramid a powerful symbol for the difficulty with which God is approached. It was also an ideal model for the construction of the various levels of a hierarchical Church. On a broad base is laid the lowest layer of pyramids, the points of which form the base for the next level of the structure. In this way a clear model of a hierarchical Church can be presented in graphic terms. Gille captured this image when he wrote ‘the whole image shows forth the form of a pyramid, since it is wide at the base, where it receives the carnal and the married. At the top, however, it is pointed, where it proposes the narrow way of the religious and the ordained.’10 He then makes the point that this principle is to be applied at all levels of the Church and cannot be confined to the universal Church. ‘However, not only is the overall form of the Universal Church arched but each entity which it contains within it is also enclosed.’11 The image of the pyramid shows three distinct aspects to the mind of Gille. It expresses a theory of authority in the Church, it presents a vision of an ordered ecclesiastical organisation and it demonstrates the neoplatonist philosophical background in which he was educated. He focused on the top of the pyramid to distinguish between those who have authority in the Church and those who are subject to it. In so doing he used a long standing line of thought which was summed up in the notion of Apex and Apicem.12 A decree of the Emperor Constantine referred to the office of bishop as the Apicem and he used the same word with regard to the power of binding. In fact Du Cange notes that both of Faith’ in Concilium, 176 (6/1984) pp 24-34. 9 Hugh of St Victor, De Arca Noe Morali, PL 176, 629ff. 10 Lines 5-8, DSE. 11 Lines 9-10, DSE. 12 C. Du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infinae latinitas conditum a Carlo du Fresne du Cange (Paris, 1937-8), 10 vols, vol. 1, p. 310.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

78

1:55 pm

Page 78

Gille of Limerick

bishops and abbots were referred to as Apices in the post-Constantinian period. Following this period, men such as Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Ivo of Chartres and Gratian used this term to refer to primates, patriarchs, bishops and priests.13 The Pseudo-Isidore also used this word with reference to the Holy See, noting that supreme power resides in Sancte Sedis Apicem eas quasi ad caput. These writings show, therefore, that this term was used to express the notion of authority which lay in the office of the pontifex, whether Roman, primatial, episcopal or sacerdotal. In this image power is concentrated in the narrow point at the top, the Apex, and descends from this focal point downwards to the broad base of all ecclesiastical life. The second function of the pyramid is to express, visually and graphically, the notion of the compartmentalised nature of ecclesiastical organisation. In the centuries prior to the Middle Ages an important tenet of canonical legislation with regard to the organisation of the Church was that each unit within the Church was distinct and self-contained. Thus, for example, each parish was a distinct and separate unit. It had a parish priest who was proper to it and parishioners who were resident in it and identified through it. These parishioners were committed to the parish priest, they were his people and he was obliged to remain committed to them. Canonists agreed, therefore, that only in the case of necessity could a parish priest be taken away from the people to whom he had been committed.14 The same was true of a bishop and his diocese and of an abbot and his monastery. During the first millennium, therefore, clear lines of demarcation existed between parishes and between parishes and monasteries in the local Church. The same principle applied at diocesan level. Diocese were separate and independent of each other. They were grouped under the authority of a metropolitan, who in turn was placed with other metropolitans under the care of a primate. Primates, in their turn, were then placed under the authority of the Roman pontiff, who sitting in the place of St Peter was the vicar of Christ on earth. In the context of the organised and compartmentalised order of the Church, the image of the pyramid expressed this theory graphically. The three-sided aspect of the pyramid was particularly attractive for the neoplatonist mind. In the philosophical tradition the number three was deeply significant. For neoplatonists, for example, there were three levels in the hierarchy of angels in Heaven and the task given to the angels was three-fold, to illumine, purify and perfect.15 Indeed, Hugh of St Victor held that everything 13 Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione, PL 107, 302; Walafrid Strabo, De

Ecclesiasticorum Rerum, PL 114, 963-4; Ivo of Chartres, Decreti Pars VI – De Clericis. PL 161, 461; Gratian, D.XXI 14 Hincmar of Rheims, Capitula Sinodica, PL 125, 793ff; Anselm, Epistolae, PL 159, 56; Burchard of Worms, Decretorum Liber, PL 40, 568; Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, PL 161, 379, 494; Pseudo-Isidorianae, CCXXVI; Gratian, D. XCV.s. 15 Eriugena, Expositiones Joannis Scoti, PL 122, 178.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 79

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

79

should be divided into three16 and some eleventh and twelfth-century writers, such as Honorius Augustodunensis, went as far as making nine grades in the earthly hierarchy in order to make that hierarchy divisible in three.17 For neoplatonists, therefore, the three-sided, symmetrically-shaped pyramid, which was broad at the base and narrow at the top was particularly significant. Gille found in the pyramid an image which summed up much of his canonical and philosophical thought. Rich in symbolism and attractive in design, he used this as a vehicle for putting his ecclesiology at the service of the Irish Church. As the bishops and priests who attended the synod of Rathbreasail sat in front of the picture which he had drawn for that occasion they could not but easily understand the full impact of what he proposed to them. His vision of a united, ordered Church in Ireland, based on pastoral care and structured on long established canonical and philosophical principles, was clear and commanding. The pyramid as a model and image was at the heart of this entire structure. The second symbol which Gille used was that of Noah’s Ark. Referring to the pope he wrote, ‘Noah sits with him on the top of the arch. For just as Noah was in charge of the Ark in the midst of the waves of the Flood, so also the Roman Pontiff rules the Church in the waves of the ages.’18 For the early medieval mind this was a significant image. For men such as Bede,19 Agobord of Lyons, Hincmar of Rheims,20 Honorius Augustodunensis and Hugh of St Victor, it had two distinct uses. It was a powerful symbol for demonstrating the essentially hierarchical nature of the Church and it was also used to underline the tempestuous nature of its existence in the world. In making reference to both the pyramid and to Noah, Gille is citing two images which were much used to propose and explain the hierocratic theme in the early Middle Ages.21 Christ, the One Bishop,22 is the focal point of Gille’s Christology and his ecclesiology. He is the Apex of the pyramidic structure, the cornerstone of Gille’s diagram and the One at the head of the hierarchy. The concept of Christ as the One Bishop is central to an understanding of medieval political theory and it was the controlling idea behind the notion of papal monarchy. The idea of unity, especially the unity of the Church, was fundamental for the medieval 16 Hugh of St Victor, Commentaria in Hierarchiam Coelestem, PL 175, 1106. 17 Honorius Augustodunensis, Liber duodecim quaestionum, PL 172, 1182. 18 Lines 7780, DSE. 19 Bede the Venerable, Similitudo Arcae Noe, PL 90, 1179-80. 20 Hincmar of Rheims, Coronatio Caroli Calvi, PL 125, 806. 21 J. McNally, Scriptores Hiberniae

Minores, vol.1, p. 136; Alcuin, Albini Confessio fidei, PL 101, 1072ff; Bede, Elementorum Philosophiae Libri Quatuor, PL 90, 1179-80; Bede, Quaestiones in Genesim, PL 93, 294; Agobord of Lyons, De Comparatione Regiminis Ecclesiastici et Politici, PL 104, 298ff; Hincmar of Rheims, Capitula Sinodica, PL 125, 623; Walafrid Strabo, Glossa Ordinaria, PL 113. 105ff; Hugh of St Victor, De Arca Noe Morali, PL 176, 618-704; Rabanus Maurus, Commentarium in Genesim Libri Quatuor, PL 107, 515ff; Ado Viennensis, Chronicon, PL 123, 29-34. 22 Line 26, DUE.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

80

1:55 pm

Page 80

Gille of Limerick

mind. God is one, the Church is one and just as there is one ruler in Heaven there must be only one ruler on earth, Christ’s vicar. Otto Gierke in his study of the political theories of the Middle Ages underlines this.23 For him the constitutive principle of the universe is unity. God, the absolutely One, is above and before the plurality of the world.24 The One, therefore, comes before the many. Plurality, diversity and division all come together in the context of the overall unity of the One, who is God and His Christ. Order, so central to the medieval way of thinking, ensures that the many are subordinated to the One and incorporated into His goals. The philosophy of the One began with Plato and on his way of thinking the neoplatonists and the medievalists based their theology. For Plato the origin of the principle of ultimate cohesion is described as the Good, Absolute Beauty, Being or the One. The universe, therefore, is an ordered unity based on the One and not a basic disorder. All order, according to Plato, results from the interaction between two ultimate terms, the One, which is the principle of order and its source, and the Dyad, which multiplies and fragments. There is an intrinsic connection between these two points and therefore even in diversity there is an essential unity which is rooted in the One. After his death Plato’s thought continued in his Academy, which survived in Athens down to the Christian era. However, through the influence of Stoicism and Epicureanism, it eventually only retained a nominal link with its founder. In the third century AD, Plotinus developed a system of philosophy which eventually assumed the name of neoplatonism and it was this that had such an influence on the medievalists. The early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St Basil of Caesarea, St Gregory Nazianzen, St Gregory of Nyssa and St Augustine, were influenced by neoplatonism. In particular, from Augustine onwards, God is the Good, Being, Eternal and Immutable. For them God is the One but he is One in a different sense to Plotinus, God, the One, is Being.25 From now onwards the One takes on an Augustinian significance. The One is the Trinity, in which there is equality of the Three Persons and unity of being. Through the influence of Augustine the tradition of Plato and neoplatonism became part of the mainstream of early medieval Christian thought. From his time onwards, God, the One, becomes the centre of the Christian world and this lead, eventually, to the Christocentric cosmology of the twelfth century. In this regard it is important to note that eastern theology, especially in the seventh and eight centuries, adopted this idea also and specifically referred to God as the One. In the Byzantine, tradition, for example, an inscription around the halo of Christ reads ‘The One who is’.26 23 Gierke, Political Theories, pp 1-37. 24 Ibid., p 9. 25 Cf., for example, E. Gilson, Christian Philosophy, p. 70. 26 J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York, 1983), p. 158.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 81

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

81

The notion of Christ as Bishop is also of particular significance. The origins of the word episcopos or bishop lie in Greek philosophy, where for example the Cynic-Stoic preacher in the Temple of Apollo at Rhodes was called episcopos. 27 Used both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, the word normally means overseer, guardian or observer. In the Book of Job (20:29) and in the Book of Wisdom (1:6), God is referred to as episcopos. In 1 Peter 2:25 Christ is called ‘the shepherd and guardian of your souls’ and in this context the word used is episcopos. Among the early Christian writers, Ignatius of Antioch used this term over fifty times in his letters, stressing in particular the hierarchical nature of the Church and underlining the monarchical aspect of the episcopate. The bishop is the one who presides over the people and the one who represents God among them. For Ignatius of Antioch, the representative aspect was so central that he used the term bishop to refer to Christ: ‘Pray for the Church of Syria whose only pastor now is God. Jesus Christ will be its bishop – He and your love.’28 Clement of Rome, the author of the Didache and others all used this concept. St Augustine played with the words in Latin, mingling scopos with episcopos and intentio with superintendere. In later centuries the tradition of the west placed its emphasis on Christ as Priest, Prophet and King, while eastern theology preserved a greater awareness of the original idea of episcopos and continued to link it with Christ. In the tradition of the east, the emphasis placed on the aspect of Christ as Bishop is essentially linked with the celebration of the liturgy. The presence of the bishop at the liturgy is the presence of Christ, the Bishop. St John Chrysostom, for example could write, therefore, ‘We are God’s ambassadors to men; but if this offends you, not we but the Episcopate itself, not this man or that but the Bishop.’29 In the iconography of the east Christ is depicted as a bishop, wearing episcopal vestments in a liturgical context.30 While Gille is best known for his usage of the symbol of the pyramid to describe his concept of the hierarchical nature and structure of the Church, he devotes most of the text of his writings to his description of the liturgy and in particular to the manner in which it should be celebrated. Worthy celebration of the liturgy rather than a doctrinaire presentation of a theory of the exercise of power and authority in the Church in fact is his principal concern. In this context he shows to a certain extent the presence of an eastern influence in his theology and spirituality. His specific usage of the notion of Christ as Bishop would seem 27 W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian

Literature (Chicago, 1958), 2nd edition, revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrick and Frederick W. Danker, p. 299. 28 J. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1885), 3 vols, vol. 2, p. 229. 29 St John Chrysostom, Hom 3, Letter to Colossians, n. 5, PG, 62, 324. 30 H. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy (New York, 1980), p. 113.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

82

1:55 pm

Page 82

Gille of Limerick

to underline this further. Another Irish theologian, working in the monastery founded by St Ferghal at Salzburg, also used the description of Christ as Bishop. He wrote: ‘Christus autem episcopos apostolorum fuit, De quo dicitur: elevans manus benedixit eos.’31 The use of the idea of Christ the Bishop by two Irish men, both of whom studied in the same general area of eastern France and western Austria, an area greatly influenced by Irish scholars, would seem to reinforce the belief that Charlemagne and his court were deeply influenced by eastern theology as they began the task of solidifying the Church in Europe in the early ninth century. This may also show that the theological tradition of the early Irish Church was also influenced by eastern theology and preserved that influence. Gille’s usage of the notion of Christ, the One Bishop, is highly significant and represents a convergence of important philosophical and theological traditions in his thought.

THE HIERARCHS

The arch of the Church, as seen in Gille’s diagram, has three levels of hierarchy contained within it. The pope as head of the Church, and the first among equals with the patriarchs of the apostolic sees, has a level of hierarchy to himself. Below him come those in episcopal orders, the other patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops and they constitute the level which he describes as the universal Church.32 Gille describes the level below this as the pontifical Church33 and is what is known nowadays as the particular or local Church, the diocese. The local Church is pontifical in the true sense of the word in that it acts as a bridge which spans the parishes and monasteries, priests, monks and the laity and subjects all of these to the diocesan bishop. Gille places the bishop above the local Church and in so doing takes a clear stance in the debate which centred on the role of priests and bishops in the early Middle Ages. For him the bishop is head of the local Church but in the order of hierarchy he is a member of the universal Church, not the local Church. The debate as to the nature of the office of priest and bishop has a long tradition, going back to post-apostolic times. It has centred on two approaches, that which holds that the fullness of orders rests only in the bishop and that which believes that the fullness of priesthood is given to priests. This approach has been termed bipatrisan since Pope Anacletus wrote: ‘Sacerdotum, fratres, ordo bipartitus est et sicut Dominus illum constituit, a nullo debet perturbari.’34 The 31 J. Kelly, Comm. In Lucam 111. 22-23, Scriptores Hibernia Minores (Turnhout, 1974). 32 Lines 16-17, DSE. 33 Lines 50-60, DSE. 34 P. Hinschius (ed.), Pseudo-Isidorianae,

p. 82.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 83

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

83

Pseudo-Isidore together with Hincmar of Rheims, Burchard of Worms and Ivo of Chartres all advert to this bipartisan approach to the nature of priesthood.35 These authors based the distinction between bishops and priests on the scriptures. In the Old Testament they found it in the relationship between Aaron and his sons and in the New Testament between the twelve apostles and the seventy two disciples.36 Authors then argued from this basis as to the stress which should be laid on the office of the bishop and that of the priest. It is important to note in this regard that while Gille stressed the superiority of the episcopate his near contemporary and the father of the canonical tradition of the Latin Church, Gratian, stressed the importance of priesthood.37 This stance of Gratian was in keeping with the tradition of the Latin Church since the seventh century where the priesthood of Christ is stressed rather than his role as bishop. Gille’s insistence on the importance of the episcopate is significant in two ways. It may help to pinpoint the area in which he was educated and secondly it underlines an eastern aspect to the Irish tradition which he inherited. Amalarius of Metz, to whom Gille refers in his writings, when discussing this issue also held that the episcopate was superior to the priesthood. Metz is in that general area of eastern France in which Laon and Cambrai are situated, an area which was greatly influenced by the Irish from the ninth century onwards. Gille discusses the three aspects of the office of the bishop in his writings under headings which are modern to us in the light of the Second Vatican Council. He focuses on his role in the government of his diocese, what is called his munus regendi, as well as his pastoral care of that portion of the People of God committed to him, his munus sanctificandi, and his role as a teacher, his munus docendi. He sees the bishop as placed in the highest position in the diocesan organisation, with the ecclesiastical orders, monks and the laity subject to his authority.38 Like the pope, in this aspect of his ministry, the bishop sits on a level of hierarchy which is above those whom he governs and, according to the neoplatonist principles on which Gille bases his theory, from this position he rules and perfects those who are under him. His authority is supreme and he is the one who determines how those subject to him function. In this sense, it is only with his permission that a monk, although ordained a priest, may engage in pastoral ministry. With five years of pastoral experience as bishop of Limerick behind him, he outlines in De statu Ecclesiae the duties of every one under his care. 35 Hincmar of Rheims, Opuscula et epistolae, PL 126, 331; Burchard of Worms,

Decretorum Liber, PL 140, 550; Ivo of Chartres, Decreti Pars V, De Primatu, PL 161. 345. 36 Examples of this, inter alia, are to be found in Amalarius of Metz, Regula Canonicorum, PL 105, 826-7; Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione, PL107, 299; Alcuin, De Diviniis Officiis Liber, PL 101, 1231; Hincmar of Rheims, Opuscula et epistolae, PL 126, 330; Ivo of Chartres, Opera, PL 162, 345, etc. 37 Gratian, Concordantia discordantium canonum, D. LXX. 38 Lines 52-61, DSE.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

84

Page 84

Gille of Limerick

While the bishop sits at the apex of the diocesan pyramid and has been traditionally seen in this position as a ruler, Gille’s theory is in fact primarily pastoral. The principle function of the bishop is to ensure the salvation of those committed to his care. As pastor, he perfects those under him in the hierarchy and through his ministry he ‘sends his faithful sons to their heavenly home.’39 He is conscious too of the personal commitment which a bishop is called to make in his pastoral ministry, together with the other members of the Church. In a moving sentence, where he shows that his pastoral care extends to the dead, he states ‘This purification of the dead should be done here in prayer and almsgiving. These advance them to purification, since the sweat of the living is the rest of the dead.’40 The greatest portion of the text of his writings is given over to the bishop’s role in the liturgy and in his ministry of sanctification. Outlining the bishop’s duties to confirm, bless, absolve from fasting and from penalties, to dedicate, to consecrate and to ordain, he places all of these within a pastoral context which would challenge the best of modern pastoral praxis. Gille also devotes some time to the teaching ministry of the bishop. He says that the bishop should carry around with him the Sacred Scriptures and the Tradition, namely what is now known as the teachings of the Magisterium. ‘He ought to have with him the sacred scriptures and the traditions of the fathers so that he may be able to settle individual cases justly and respond reasonably to those who question him on any subject.’41 Finally he devotes some time to his duty with regard to the priests of his diocese. As bishop of Limerick, Gille had a particular awareness of the responsibility for pastoral care which a bishop has towards his clergy. He outlined this in great detail when he dealt with the question of diocesan synods.42 The tone of his writings points to the importance of a fraternal spirit among the clergy and a paternal attitude on the part of the bishop. Coming together for three days, twice a year, the priests of the diocese were to meet each other, settle their differences, have issues of pastoral concern examined by the bishop and then return to their assignments in peace. As the person entrusted with the responsibility for governing the diocese and creating conditions of peace and goodwill in his area, Gille was at pains to establish the lines of demarcation between the role of the secular clergy and that of the monks. He clearly established that the cura animarum, the pastoral care of souls, was the responsibility of the secular clergy alone, unless, in cases of necessity the bishop decided that pastoral care should be given to monks. The task of monks was that of contemplation and that of the secular clergy pastoral activity. Conflict between the two groups was, therefore, unnecessary since both knew the task assigned to them in their particular order in the Church. 39 Line 20, DSE.

40 Lines 203-4, DSE.

41 Lines 271-4, DSE.

42 Lines 252-8, DSE.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 85

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

85

At the level of liturgy, Gille clearly outlined to his priests the expectations placed upon them by the Church. Their ministry is outlined, their duties clearly defined and the tasks given to them listed. The vestments they were expected to wear were described, the utensils which would serve them in their ministry were depicted and the manner in which they were to carry out their liturgical duties was illustrated. His care for his priests extended to the means of support which they might expect. Eight means are listed by Gille, the majority of which are still to be found in parish life today; the dues from the parish, offerings in the Church, stipends for funerals, for Mass and for the administration of the sacraments. Each priest was to have a house and some land around it, together with a church. The figure of the bishop is the central focus of Gille’s thought. Having seen at first hand the role which the bishop played in the development of many great churches in Europe, such as Chartres, Rouen, Rheims etc., he returned to Ireland and gathered the bishops, together with the priests and the other clergy, to present them with the fundamental responsibility for the creation of a new and vigorous Church in Ireland. He lays his foundations for this on what his listeners know, namely the role of the bishop, and he then went on to introduce them to a new structure which introduced the hierarchical structure of archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs and primates to Ireland for the first time. With consumate skill, Gille introduced the bishops and priests of Ireland to a new reality, where the bishops form part of the universal Church and priests are seen as members of the local Church. This distinction, and the consequent division which it introduced, was a radical change for the Irish ecclesiastical experience and brought the Church in Ireland in line with that of mainland Europe. Having given a great deal of attention to the role of the bishop Gille then presents the other members of the new hierarchy to his audience. The terminology which he uses to describe the link between bishops, archbishops and the other members of their level of hierarchy on the one hand and that of the bishop to his priests and people on the other outlines the nature of their relationships. When he deals with the connection of the parish and the monastery to the bishop he uses the word subicio. This verb indicates submission and stresses the authority and jurisdiction which a bishop holds over both. When he talks of the relationship between bishop, archbishop and the other members of their hierarchy he uses the verbs subiungo and subnecto, both of which refer to the link between those concerned rather than the subjection of one to the other. For Gille, all are bishops, apices of their various pyramids, each having care of his own diocese, with its parishes, monasteries, priests and people. The distinction between bishop and archbishop, metropolitan, patriarch and primate, is therefore, only secondary to the fundamental unity which

Limerick 03

11/4/01

86

1:55 pm

Page 86

Gille of Limerick

exists between them, a unity which is based on their ordination as bishops and expresses what is nowadays known as their collegiality. During the centuries prior to his time, a variety of approaches emerged in the classification of these hierarchs. While a bipartisan approach was accepted in the division between priests and bishops, no such uniform approach was accepted within the levels of the hierarchy of bishops themselves. For some, such as Rabanus Maurus, Eriugena, Anselm and Burchard of Worms the division was tripartite, bishops, archbishops and primates.43 For others, such as Walafrid Strabo, Ivo of Chartres and Gratian, the division was fourfold.44 The element of contention between the two views of these grades was whether or not archbishops and metropolitans were the same or separate entities in the hierarchy. Historically, according to Gaudemet,45 metropolitans are an older category than archbishops, a concept which was not used before the sixth century. However the real distinction between the two only became apparent in the ninth century and by the twelfth century archbishops, according to Gratian, were seen as more important.46 It is interesting to note that the two Irishmen, Eriugena and Gille, agree on the tripartite division of the hierarchy and both opt for the notion of archbishop. An analysis of the historical context in which the views of these writers were formed would suggest that those who wrote either at an earlier date or from a rural context saw the division as tripartite. Those who wrote at a later date or in a more complex sociological situation tended to opt for a four-fold division, which included the metropolitan. Focusing his attention on the archbishop Gille stresses that, in accordance with his fundamental principle that a superior perfects those below him in the hierarchy, archbishops fulfill the office of bishop in their own diocese. In addition to this the archbishop consecrates the bishops of his province and he is the link between the see of Peter and the various dioceses of his province. The symbol of his authority as archbishop is the pallium which he receives, together with his consecration as bishop, from the pope.47 Having been ordained by the pope he in turn ordains the bishops of his province and should he be prevented from doing so he is the one who confirms the nomination of the bishop-elect and appoints a legate to perform the consecration of the new bishop. Gille stresses the importance of the archbishop going to Rome for his consecration and to receive the pallium and notes that only war or infirmity excuse him from doing 43 Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione, PL 107, 300; Eriugena, Expositiones

super Ierarchiam Caelestem S. Dionysii, PL 122, 189-94; Anselm, Epistolae, PL 159, 163; Burchard of Worms, Decretorum Liber, PL 140, 554. 44 Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma animae, PL 172. 601; Walafrid Strabo, De rebus ecclesiasticiis, PL 144, 221; Gratian, D.X1, 45 J. Gaudemet, Le Gouvernement de l’Eglise et le poque classique (Sirey, 1979), pp 23-4. 46 D.XX1, 3-4. 47 Lines 275-85, DSE.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 87

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

87

so.48 Having outlined the role of the archbishop in the consecration of bishops for his province, he omits, however, reference to the contentious canonical issues which surrounded the relationship between bishops and archbishops at this time.49 Primates, according to Gille, are en par with bishops and archbishops. While they are to be found at a higher level within the hierarchical structure, fundamentally they are bishops. Their primatial function is solely in the area of ecclesiastical organisation. In this they preside over a number of archbishops in the same way as archbishops oversee bishops. He introduces a number of differences in his comparison, however. Primates do not ordain archbishops in the way that archbishops ordain bishops. This right is reserved to the pope. Primates have responsibility for the secular powers. They consecrate the secular ruler and place the crown on his head. The primate also verifies conciliar acts, as opposed to the bishop or archbishop who hold diocesan synods but have no role to play in sanctioning conciliar acts. On a point of clarification Gille also notes that in the Latin Church primates hold the same place and fulfil the same function as patriarchs do ‘among the Orientals’.50 The primacy of the see of Rome, an issue which has been contentious in both the first and the second millennia among the Churches, is also treated by Gille and put before the bishops and priests of Ireland. In accordance with the strict tradition of Catholic theology, he states the position that the Roman pontiff is primus inter pares, the first among equals, where the traditional sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria are concerned. He bases this stance on the Gospels, where Christ entrusted care of his Church to Peter alone and not to Peter and the other Apostles. Placed beside Noah and under Christ in the arch of the pyramid, ‘The Pope alone, therefore, is supreme over the Universal Church. He himself orders and judges all and is obeyed by all since by the consent of the whole Church, the Romans raised him.’51 As Gille penned the final words in his text he must have been deeply conscious that the theory which he proposed was far from accepted in practice.52 In 1111, as the synod of Rathbreasail gathered in Ireland, the German emperor, Henry V and the Roman pontiff, Paschal II, were far from equal or at peace. There was little security for the pope in the city of Rome and even the consent of the Romans, by which he was elected, was less than firm. The debate over lay investiture raged in those months, as the emperor sought coronation from the pope and as the pope tried to ensure the freedom of the Church. Gille’s last 48 Line 285, DSE.

49 This issue occupied the minds of many canonists over many centuries. Inter alia, Burchard of Worms, Ivo of Chartres and Gratian. 50 Lines 289-90, DSE. 51 Lines 296-300, DSE. 52 For a general overview of this situation cf. Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp 158ff.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

88

1:55 pm

Page 88

Gille of Limerick

line, therefore, in which he commented on the fact that each day the pope wears the purple chlamys as an outward sign of his readiness for martyrdom, was appropriate.53 It was also a stark reminder that while hierarchs governed the Church from a position of honour in the eyes of the theorist their personal security or the stability of their position in fact was not assured. The Apicem, sitting at the top of the pyramid, was not removed either from those for whom he had a pastoral care or from those who wished to undermine his position.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL GRADES

The notion of hierarchy inevitably introduces the issue of grades in society, both civil and ecclesiastical. Gille, therefore, envisaged three levels of gradation in the Church. The first of these is generalis Ecclesiae gradus,54 the grade of the universal Church. Bishops, archbishops, patriarchs and prophets form this category and are set apart as a group within the ecclesiastical structure. The second category or grade includes the seven grades of clerics in the local Church or diocese. He places these intra sinum parochialis ecclesiae55 and notes that the priest is at the apex of the pyramid which encases them. The laity form the third grade and he categorises them into three groups, those who pray, plough and fight. Within their ranks those who pray are placed on a higher level than those who plough and fight, showing a hierarchy within the laity as well as within the clergy.56 The pope, with Noah at his side, is placed over and above these three levels of ecclesiastical hierarchy. In putting forward this outline of the organisation of the Church, Gille places clear lines of demarcation between the clergy and the laity, bishops and priests and introduces the notion of a hierarchy to all. The early medieval European mind was convinced of the importance of the notion of a graded society. Examples of this are to be found among Gille’s contemporaries, especially Hugh of St Victor,57 who stated that the world per partes et divisiones et gradus et ordines distributum est. In the medieval mind everyone had his or her allotted place in the social order and had a duty or function associated with this. Order in society was for them an essential anchor in a world that was experiencing rapid change. Order also had a long and hallowed tradition within Irish society, even if this had waned at various times and particularly during the second half of the eleventh century in the aftermath of the battle of Clontarf. There was, therefore, a direct parallelism between grades in the Church and in secular society in 53 Lines 299-300, DSE. 54 Lines 12-14, DSE. 55 Line 11, DSE. 56 Lines 28-30, DSE. 57 Hugh of St Victor, Commentarium in Hierarchiam Coelestem S. Dionysii, PL

175, 928.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 89

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

89

Ireland all through the second half of the first millennium. This was widespread both in secular law and in canon law. It can be seen in particular in a comparison between the legislation in the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis58 and the Seanchus Mór,59 the Crúth Gablach,60 etc. During the eight century, for example, the Seanchus Mór records that ‘the kings and the bishops ... had stewards of their own tribe, the king had a “dear-stock” tenant or the bishop had a “dear-stock” tenant of ecclesiastical lands and all the septenary grades and all the ecclesiastical grades were similarly provided for.’61 In another section of these secular laws reference is made to the degrees of the ecclesiastical order, while other laws cover the grades of chieftans, grades of the laity and the various grades within religious life.62 Of particular importance were the septenary grades which came under the general title of Aire.63 The Crúth-Gablach ordered that ‘seven cumhals are payable for every degree of the seven grades (or orders) that are upon him,’ namely a bishop, if he is injured.64 During the first millennium, therefore, in Ireland the notion of the seven grades had a long established place in Irish society, both secular and ecclesiastical. Given the early origins of this in the tradition of the Church, it seems likely that Irish secular law borrowed this from canon law rather than vice-versa. In placing the seven grades of hierarchy within the local Church before those who attended the synod of Rathbreasail, Gille was uniting a hallowed tradition in both the universal Church and the Irish secular experience. In this context he introduces Amalarius and takes issue with him. In his critique of the theory of Amalarius, Gille shows the extent of his learning and gives the modern reader an interesting insight into the twelfth-century mind. Beginning with the principles enunciated by Plotinus and by subsequent neoplatonists, Gille translates doctrine into law and stands at a crucial point in the history of the development of both canon law and theology. Based on his neoplatonist view of order in society, he used the principle enunciated by Poltinus,65 which stated that superiors of whatever grade perfect those lower than them and therefore that they can administer the offices of lower ones.66 By appealing to this principle he shows that the nine grades proposed by Amalarius as a model for the local Church could not be accepted. He then explained the reason for this. He held that since bishops were part of the hierarchy of the universal 58 Wasserschleben, Die Irische, Liber I-IX for grades of clerics, Liber XXV and XXXVII

for rulers and Liber XXXIX for monks; Etchingham, Church Organisation, pp. 47-63. 60 Críth Gablach, (ed.) D.A. Binchy (Dublin 1941), (hereafter Binchy, Críth Gablach). 61 Handcock and O’Mahony, Ancient Laws of Ireland, vol. 2, p. 95. 62 Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 15, 43 and 107. 63 Under the heading Aire in the Index of volume 4 are to be found ard-aire, airecoisring, aire-desa, aire-echta, aire-fine, aire-forgall and aire-tuise. 64 Binchy, Críth Gablach, pp. 187-8. 65 Plotinus, Enneads, Book V. 66 Line 238, DSE. 59 Handcock and O’Mahony, Ancient Laws of Ireland, vol. 2.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

90

1:55 pm

Page 90

Gille of Limerick

Church, they were not on the same level of hierarchy as the others. He then went on to say that since psalmists took their orders from the priest they were an order outside the seven grades of the local Church. In this he shows himself a man of his age, the era before Gratian in which doctrine turned towards law, in that he proposed the law on a particular issue and explained the doctrine that supported this. The question of the number of grades had occupied the minds of canonists for a long time and their debate centred on whether there were nine, eight or seven grades in the hierarchy of the local Church. Amalarius, whom Gille refered to by name, stated that there were nine, the traditional seven grades of priest, deacon, sub-deacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector and porter, together with the bishop and the psalmist. Rabanus Maurus, whose intellectual roots lay in Ireland, stated that there were eight grades.67 Having equated the psalmist with the lector, he placed the bishop within the hierarchy of the local Church as the eighth grade. In another tract he opted for nine grades and his consistency is, therefore, questioned.68 Amalarius of Metz, who is sometimes equated with Gille’s Amalarius, stated categorically in two separate tracts that there are seven grades.69 Honorius Augustodunensis gave the number as seven in one portion of his tract Liturgia and increased this number to nine in another part of the same tract.70 In short the philosophical outlook of the author normally determined the issue of the number of grades. Neoplatonists who viewed the world in triads usually favoured nine and those who favoured the principle of perfection proposed by Plotinus often equated the seven grades with the seven-fold gifts of the Holy Spirit. Gille was among the latter. Gille’s doctrine on the place of the deacon in the Church is also clear and unequivocal. Placed firmly under the priest and within the pyramid of the parochial Church, the deacon is one of the ecclesiastical grades. The distinction between the priest and the deacon was a much debated issue in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Amalarius of Metz, for example, held that the distinction between priest and deacon was based on the fact that deacons shared the order of Levi while priests were participators in the order of the sons of Aaron.71 Rabanus Maurus, while accepting the distinction between priests and deacons, does not underline it. He held that deacons were ordained to the sacred ministry and the office of the altar and, consequently, have many of the duties of the priest.72 Honorius Augustodunensis also followed this line of thought and 67 Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione, PL 107, 299.

68 Idem, PL 111, 91. 69 Amalarius of Metz, De Institutione Canonicorum, PL 105, 822-7. 70 Honorius Augustodunensis, Liturgia, PL 172, 600 and 1182. 71 Amalarius of Metz, De Institutione Canonicorum, PL 105, 826-7. 72 Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione, PL 107, 302.

Limerick 03

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 91

Hierarchs and Hierarchy

91

Alcuin went a step further when he spoke of the three superior grades of Levite, priest and bishop.73 Varying degrees of importance are attached to the diaconate and this much debated question links the age of Gille with the present time. The position taken up by Gille in his writings confirms the extent of his education and points to the European context in which he received this. The portion of Gille’s writings dedicated to the parallel between the secular and the ecclesiastical hierarchy gives the strongest evidence of the European dimension of his education and the division that existed between his thought and experience and that of his audience, the bishops and priests of Ireland. This parallel shows clearly that Gille’s mind is focused on the experience of the western Church at large rather than the Irish Church to which his remarks are addressed. The structure which he proposed is in line with the experience of many countries in mainland Europe but alien to the Irish context of túath and chief. The gradual emergence of the notion of kingship in Ireland during the tenth and eleventh centuries, however, shows that Gille’s vision for a new Ireland in the twelfth century was inclusive, placing both the secular and the sacred within the context of a Christocentric cosmology and underlining the equality of both within this world. For him the emperor is allied with the pope, the king with the primate, the duke with the archbishop, the count with the bishop and the soldier with the priest.74 As his audience listened to this list many of them must have interrupted the proceedings of the synod as they questioned the nature and status of the secular personage just mentioned. Despite this, in placing this comparison in his text and including it in his diagram, Gille is explaining to his listeners how the western Church was structured in Europe and how the Irish Church should be organised.

73 Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma animae, PL 172, 545 and Alcuin, De Diviniis Officiis Liber, PL 101, 1232. 74 Lines 84-7, DSE.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 92

4

Enigma and Evaluation A great deal of mystery surrounds the person of Gille. His place and date of birth, the schools he attended, his career before becoming bishop of Limerick and the places in which he was ordained priest and bishop are all unknown. He died at Bangor, Co. Down, but there is no record of where he was buried. The annalists, almost to a man, ignored him and history has not been kind to him either. He left an important legacy in his writings. They have been referred to by historians but their richness has never been fully explored. Yet despite this, historians, especially modern ones, recognise that Gille played a significant role in Irish history during the twelfth century and left a lasting mark on the history of the Irish Church since that time. The key to rediscovering Gille lies in his writings. His importance as a medieval scholar is to be found there. Revisiting them also sheds a good deal of new light on the person of Gille, on his origins, his education and the immense contribution he made to Irish life in the early Middle Ages. BISHOP OF LIMERICK

Gille’s consecration as bishop of Limerick has puzzled historians. They agree that, unlike the then recently appointed bishops of Dublin and Waterford, he was not consecrated at Canterbury. They also accept that in his letter to Anselm of Canterbury, written after his consecration, he simply introduces himself as bishop of Limerick and does not indicate who consecrated him, when this took place or where it happened. Despite this historians have never suggested that there was a bishop of Limerick before him who could have ordained him. While the date and place of his ordination, therefore, together with the names of those who ordained him, seem likely to remain a secret of history it is possible to reconstruct a likely scenario which could suggest answers to these questions. The year of Gille’s consecration, 1106, was a seminal one in the development of Ireland. The country was then divided between two distinct political presences, the old Irish, who lived in the country, and the Norse-Irish who were resident in the five cities of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Wexford and Limerick.1 1 H. Clarke, M. Ní Mhaonaigh and R. O’Floinn (eds.), Ireland and Scandinavia in the

Early Viking Age (Dublin, 1998), pp 161-2, 334, 339. 336-7.

92

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 93

Enigma and Evaluation

93

Dublin, the long-established Viking city, had a city-bishop, Samuel, who like Malchus of Waterford had been consecrated in Canterbury, the English centre for the emerging reform of the Church in these islands during the twelfth century. Limerick was the next most important Viking city in Ireland. As such it was an obvious choice for the establishment of a city-bishopric along the lines of the ones already founded in Dublin and Waterford. Some five years earlier, Cashel, Co. Tipperary, the political seat of the O’Briens, kings of Munster, had by then been handed over to the Church. As a result, the centre of political life in the south of Ireland had moved with the O’Briens from Cashel to Limerick where Muirchertach O’Brien, nowadays known as one of the six ‘High-Kings of Ireland with Opposition’,2 lived. This move gave a new status to Limerick and confirmed its position as a new, emerging city in the early twelfth century. As a result of this move too, Cashel now became the centre of Church reform in Ireland. The former bishop of Waterford, Maol Iosa Ua h-Ainmire, or Malchus as he is more commonly known, who had been consecrated in Canterbury, had transferred from Waterford to Cashel and was installed there as bishop. The bishop of Meath, Maol Muire Ua Dunain, having been appointed the first papal legate in Ireland, for the synod of Cashel in 1101, was by now recognised as the leader of the movement for reform in Ireland. Styled ‘árdepscop Muman’ by contemporary annalists, in all probability he had moved from Meath to the south and became bishop of the territory of the Dal Cais in the years before the diocese of Killaloe was established. By 1106, therefore, a number of converging forces ensured that the province of Munster was at the centre of both civil and ecclesiastical life in Ireland. Within the province, under the leadership of Ua Dunain and Ua h-Ainmire, Cashel had been accepted as the new centre of the reformed Irish Church, and Limerick, under the O’Briens, was the seat of political life. At the same time Armagh, the centre of Paruchia Patricii in Ireland, entered a new phase in its long and distinguished history when Ceallach was appointed abbot of Armagh. While he was on a visit of the churches of the Paruchia in Munster in 1105, the bishopric of Armagh became vacant. Without returning to his monastery, Ceallach was consecrated bishop of Armagh in Munster and united in his person the office of abbot and bishop for the first time in many centuries. Like Gille, the date and place of his consecration are not recorded by the annalists and they are also unknown. However, given the circumstances at the time, it seems reasonable to suggest that he was consecrated at Cashel, the newly-established focus of the Irish Church in Munster. The ordaining prelates are most likely to have been Maol Iosa Ua h-Ainmire, bishop of Cashel, Maol Muire Ua Dunain, chief bishop of Ireland, and another. 2 Moody, Martin and Byrne, NHI, vol. 4, p. 192.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

94

Page 94

Gille of Limerick

Muirchertach O’Brien, king of Munster, and to a great extent high-king of Ireland, played a leading role, not only in Irish politics but also in the movement of reform in the Irish Church. Having established Cashel as the centre for the Church in Munster, he chose the Viking city of Limerick to be his seat of power. By doing this he set the course of Irish history in a new direction and he began the process of integrating the old Irish and the Hiberno-Norse. Conscious of the standing of Dublin and Waterford and dedicated to the reform of the Irish Church, he was likely to have sought a bishopric for Limerick, the seat of his power. A young, educated cleric, who was at least an associate if not a personal friend of Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, returning to the city of Limerick, was an obvious choice to fill the position vacant in the city which would place Limerick en par with Dublin and Waterford. In all probability, therefore, Gille was nominated by Muirchertach O’Brien as his candidate for the new bishopric of Limerick. A letter written in the year 1096 on behalf of the clergy and people of Waterford and signed by the leading civil and ecclesiastical authorities of the day sheds some light on the appointment of Gille as bishop of Limerick. This letter, which was printed by Ussher in Sylloge, gives an insight into the relationship between Ireland and Canterbury in the appointment of Irish bishops in the early years of the twelfth century. The letter was signed by ‘Muirchertachus, Rex Hiberniae, Dermeth, Dux, Frater Regis, Domnaldus, Episcopus, Idunan, Episcopus Midie, Samuel, Dublinensis Episcopus, Ferdomachus, Laginiensium Episcopus’.3 The signatories were Muirchertach O’Brien, in his role as king of Ireland, his brother Dermot, Domnall Ua h-Énna, former bishop of the area ruled by the Dal Cais, who by that time had become bishop of Cashel, Maol Muire Ua Dunain, who at that time was bishop of Meath, Samuel who was bishop of Dublin and Ferdomachus, who styled himself bishop of Killaloe. This letter gathered together three of the most important groups of people in Ireland, the king of Ireland, three bishops from Irish sees which could be termed traditional sees and the bishop of a Norse-Irish city. The purpose of the letter was to get the approval of Canterbury for the nomination of a monk, Malchus, who had studied in England, as bishop of another Norse-Irish city, namely Waterford. In seeking the approval of an ecclesiastical authority resident outside Ireland this group of leading men in Ireland was making a strong statement to their fellowcountrymen. They acknowledged that an ecclesiastical source outside Ireland had the authority to nominate a bishop for a city-bishopric in Ireland. They also implied that this source had the authority of Rome behind the sanctioning of this appointment. Furthermore, they showed that the members of this group had the 3 Ussher, Sylloge, p. 54.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 95

Enigma and Evaluation

95

authority in Ireland to support the desire of the clergy and people of Waterford to have a bishop for their city and thereby influence his appointment. The wording of the letter is important. ‘Eligimur hunc presbyterum Malchum.’ This group chose this man to be bishop. They were not sanctioning an appointment made by Canterbury and approved by them. King, duke and bishops, therefore, whom Gille placed en par with each other in De statu Ecclesiae,4 united to support the clergy and people of Waterford in the appointment of a bishop to a new bishopric in a Norse-Irish city in twelfth-century Ireland and they sought the approval of the primate of England for this. Ten years later Gille was consecrated bishop of Limerick. Muirchertach O’Brien had by then moved into Limerick from Cashel and taken up residence there as high-king of Ireland. Cashel had become the centre of ecclesiastical power in Munster. It seems almost certain, therefore, that the same procedure was followed in the selection of a candidate for the bishopric of a third NorseIrish city, one which at that time probably had an aspiration to rival Dublin as the most important Norse-Irish city in Ireland. The priests and people of Limerick, therefore, with the approval and support of Muirchertach O’Brien probably nominated Gille as bishop of Limerick. In so doing they almost certainly enlisted the approval of the bishop of Cashel, the bishops of the two other Norse-Irish cities, Dublin and Waterford, and the bishop of the neighbouring area of the Dal Cais, Maol Muire Ua Dunain. The absence of a letter to Canterbury lies at the centre of the enigma which surrounds the appointment of Gille. Perhaps this letter was sent, the approval gained and the letter lost. If this were the case, it is certain that, unlike Malchus, the consecration did not take place in England but rather in Ireland and probably in either Limerick or Cashel. Malchus was a monk at Winchester and because of that was consecrated there by Anselm. Perhaps, since Gille had returned to Limerick from his years in France, it was decided that he should be consecrated at home rather than travel to England. In the absence of a letter nominating Gille as bishop of Limerick it is impossible to ascertain either the motivation behind his consecration in Ireland or the significance which this had in terms of the relationship between the Church in Ireland and England. Historians have tended to see Gille’s consecration in Ireland as a gesture of independence on the part of the Irish Church. However, one pointer in the direction of a less confrontational approach on the part of this Church in the twelfth century is the fact that Gille’s successor, Patrick, was consecrated in Canterbury, some thirty-six years later, in 1139. A second factor is the seemingly cordial tone of Anselm’s letter to Gille, which was written some time after his consecration. 4 Lines 84-7, DSE.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

96

1:55 pm

Page 96

Gille of Limerick

Like Ceallach, the date and place of his consecration are unknown. However, it is very probable that he was ordained bishop in either Cashel or in the Church of St Mary, Limerick, which was near the residence of the O’Briens on what is now known as King’s Island. This church was the only one mentioned in the Acta of Rathbreasail and it was designated as the cathedral of the new bishopric of Limerick some six years after Gille’s consecration. Two of the three ordaining bishops were, in all probability, Maol Iosa Ua h-Ainmire, bishop of Cashel and Maol Muire Ua Dunain, chief bishop of Ireland.

FRIEND OF ANSELM

The correspondence between Gille and Anselm has tended to puzzle historians. According to Anselm’s letter, these men had met in Normandy, in France, in the early months of 1106. While Anselm does not specifically mention the city of Rouen as their meeting place, historians have tended to say that the meeting took place there while Anselm was attending a synod held there in the spring of 1106. However, given that Anselm stayed at a monastery in Bec, with visits to Rouen and Jumiges, from August 1105 until August 1106, it is probable that their meeting took place in fact at Bec, since Anselm gives the impression in his letter that they had spent some time together and developed a friendship.5 Some months after this meeting Gille wrote to Anselm as bishop of Limerick. Given the history of the consecration of bishops in Dublin and Waterford, the other Norse-Irish towns, and the friendship that existed between them, Anselm might have reasonably expected Gille to be consecrated by him in England. No mention is made of his consecration but it is clear from Anselm’s reply that they have not met or discussed this since Gille was made bishop. In order to understand Gille’s position in writing his letter, a letter from Anselm addressed to the Irish bishops needs to be kept in mind. The history of the relationship between Canterbury and Ireland is a long standing issue of debate. Many historians nowadays believe that there was a definite attempt to establish the primacy of Canterbury over England along lines which, while respectful of Roman authority, were somewhat independent of Rome.6 They also believe that Canterbury may have wanted to extend this primacy to Ireland. Anselm, possibly in pursuit of this aim, wrote to the bishops in Ireland on a number of occasions and urged them to establish the much needed reform of the Irish Church. With many friends in Ireland, Anselm exercised considerable authority over both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. In a 5 R.W. Southern, St Anselm. A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge, 1995), pp 3389. 6 Southern, St Anselm, pp 338-9.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 97

Enigma and Evaluation

97

letter written in 1096, for example, he urged the bishops to establish canonical discipline in terms which were to find many echoes in the writings of Gille, some fifteen years later. He urged them to bring disputed issues before him and he reminded them of the many problems which faced them. He singled out the need for pastoral care, the duty to recall those who were presumptuous and inordinate to due order and he reminded them to pray constantly so that God’s peace may reign, the enemies of the Church may be converted and everyone may have the freedom needed to live in peace.7 Many of the issues which he covered in this letter are recalled both in Gille’s letter to him and in De usu ecclesiastico. In his letter Anselm focused on the problems which he was having with the Normans at that time and in reply to this Gille, at the beginning of his letter, congratulates Anselm on ‘subduing the indominatible minds of the Normans to the rules and decrees of the Fathers, so that the election and consecration of abbots and bishops should be done legally’.8 Anselm in his turn began his letter to Gille by acknowledging these congratulations. Having done this Anselm then raises the issue of Gille’s consecration. There is no apparent trace of anger or disapproval in the tone of Anselm’s reply to Gille. He simply states, ‘I hear that through the grace of God you have been promoted to the dignity of a bishop.’9 He does not indicate the source of his information and he does not reprimand Gille for not making specific mention of his consecration in Gille’s letter to him. This must raise the possibility that a correspondence, which has since been lost, took place between these men before Gille’s consecration. In the light of that correspondence, Anselm then acknowledged that the consecration, which he knew was about to take place, had in fact taken place. In keeping with Anselm’s care for the Irish Church and his well known desire to exercise authority over it, he then went on to outline for Gille how a good bishop should exercise his ministry. Anselm’s letter underlines the friendship which existed between them. He noted that: ‘we have known each other and delighted in friendship since our time in Normandy’.10 It is evident from these letters that this friendship was not put in jeopardy by the fact that Gille was not consecrated by Anselm. On the evidence of their letters, there is no indication of Gille resisting or usurping the authority and care which Anselm extended to the Irish Church as archbishop of Canterbury. Allowance must be made, therefore, for the possibility that Gille knew that he was to become bishop of Limerick when he met Anselm in France, that they discussed his consecration and agreed that it should take place in Ireland.

7 Ussher, Sylloge, pp 62-3. 10 Anselm to Gille, p. 167.

8 Gille to Anselm, p. 165.

9 Anselm to Gille, p. 167.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 98

98

Gille of Limerick GILLE RETRIEVED

Two words, inserted casually within the text of De statu Ecclesiae, emerge from Gille’s writings to give strong evidence with regard to his origins. Apud nos (among us) is a phrase used by Gille on two occasions in the text of De statu Ecclesiae when speaking to his fellow bishops and describing the vestments they should wear in church and the place of patriarchs in the hierarchy.11 This phrase suggests that Gille was born in Ireland. Addressing his fellow bishops and the priests of Ireland, he identifies with them and clearly states in a casual, off the cuff remark, that he too is an Irishman. If these words are taken and placed beside the form of his name used in the manuscript text of De usu ecclesiastico, the likelihood emerges that Gille was born in one of the principle Norse-Irish cities, in either Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Wexford or Limerick. Internal evidence from his writings falls short when an attempt is made to pin point the place of his birth. However, circumstantial evidence would seem to suggest that Gille was returning to his home when he was consecrated bishop in Limerick. This evidence arises from the definition given to the proposed diocese of Limerick by the synod of Rathbreasail when it outlined the perimetres of the various Irish diocese in 1111. Four points of reference were given to the majority of the diocese. In Connaught, due to the lack of knowledge of this area, definite points of reference were not given and the new bishops were given freedom to define the limits of the diocese themselves. In stark contrast with this, fourteen points of reference were given to the boundaries of the diocese of Limerick at the synod. This suggests that the president of the synod, Gille, had a very detailed knowledge of the area which surrounded the city of Limerick, a knowledge which in days of limited travel and less scientific geographic methods was more likely to have been that of a native of the area than that of a man who five years previously had taken up residence in the city. From internal evidence in the manuscripts and from circumstantial evidence in the Book of Clonenagh, it can be argued, therefore, that Gille was in all probability a native of Limerick city. Gille’s name presents another aspect to the mystery. Gille, is the form of his name used by the scribe in De usu ecclesiastico and Gillebert, his name in the original texts of De statu Ecclesiae. Gilbert is that by which he has been known by historians. The strongest evidence for an answer to this question lies in the manuscripts of his writings and in the only annal that records his death, Chronicon Scotorum. De usu ecclesiastico, which was copied within forty years of his death, refers to him as Gille, indicating his Hiberno-Viking background. The 11 Lines 221 and 290, DSE.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 99

Enigma and Evaluation

99

men who copied De statu Ecclesiae were conscious that he was also a European by education and that this form of his name had also been used. They, therefore, used the Viking root of Gille and added bert or in Latin bertus to it, making Gillebert the form which they adopted. Chronicon Scotorum uses two forms of his name, Gilli in Irish and Gille in translation. The sources which were written nearest to his own time all agree, therefore, and use Gille as the form of his name. Subsequently, with the prevalence of the name Gilbert in twelfth and thirteenth-century European writers, historians adopted this form of his name rather than the form by which he was, in all probability, known in Limerick during his lifetime. The original text of his writings, therefore, gives the strongest evidence possible that Gille was the form of his name used by his contemporaries in Ireland and the name by which he was known as bishop of Limerick. His curriculum vitae does not give any details of the schools which he attended. History recalls only one fact, that he met Anselm in 1106, some weeks or months before he became bishop of Limerick. This meeting, however, holds the key to discovering the area in which he studied. Gillebert, the form of his name by which he became known to men like Anselm, is also a clear indication that he studied outside Ireland. His meeting with Anselm in Normandy would seem to suggest that these studies were undertaken in the north-eastern area of France and that these men met as Gille journeyed from his place of study back to Ireland. A close reading of his writings allows for confirmation of this and pinpoints the cities in which he trained as a priest and a canonist. Central to this discovery is the tripartite division of the role of the laity which Gille proposed. The notion that the laity could be categorised as those who pray, plough and fight was put forward by Adelbero of Laon and Gerald of Cambrai in the eleventh century. Born of noble families, these two men were related to each other by blood. Their families controlled the greater portion of Lotharingia, the area of north-eastern France which stretches nowadays from Metz to Lille and from Brussels to Rheims. The cathedral towns of Laon and Cambrai were situated in the western side of this territory. Both men were Carolingian bishops by birth and in virtue of the fact that their bishoprics were part of the ecclesiastical province of Rheims, which lay at the heart of Francia, the country of the Franks. By the eleventh century their cathedrals and the schools attached to them were looked upon as the repositories of Frankish political forms and the inheritors of an ancient culture. This culture had been greatly influenced by the Irish monks who left Ireland in the ninth century, in the wake of the Viking invasions. Laon in particular had an important cathedral school. In the armarium or library of that school were to be found the works of Irishmen like Eriugena, Rabanus Maurus and many others. Indeed some original manuscripts of Eriugena are to be found there to this day. Irish scholars had, for centuries

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

100

Page 100

Gille of Limerick

during the first millennium, journeyed from Ireland to this repository of culture and learning. There they received their education and for many of them a home for a lifetime. Clear echoes of the influence of the school of Laon come through the writings of Gille. The earthly and heavenly hierarchies of Eriugena, the tripartite division of Gerald and Adelbero and the fear of heresy, which disrupted the schools of this area right through the eleventh century, are issues which find a home in his writings and in his thought. An in-depth study of the Irish influence on the cathedral school of Laon would yield an interesting account of the cyclic influence of the Irish on this area and, in turn, of this area on the reform of the Irish Church in the early Middle Ages. The clouds of the mystery that surround him clear when his writings are studied in depth and a line drawing of the human qualities of Gille emerges. Humble is the word he uses on a number of occasions to describe himself and to indicate the approach that he took in the work assigned to him. It is the ‘humblest of the bishops’12 who begins the prologue with a greeting to his fellow bishops and priests. In this same spirit of humility, he declares to his audience that he has undertaken this task out of a spirit of wanting to do what they asked him to do rather than doing so out of the presumption which could come from the office he holds, presumably that of papal legate rather than bishop of Limerick. He highlights the contrast between haughtiness and humility and uses this to pinpoint the root of the decline of the Irish Church at the end of the first millennium. The ‘haughtiness’13 of the people of the Old Testament is linked with the presumption and negligence of the Irish in the centuries immediately prior to his own time and is placed in marked contrast with the attitude which his listeners should have in their ministry. His personal humility, therefore, is a quality which he wishes his audience also to have so that through this they in their turn may carry out their work of restoring the entire island of Ireland to unity and communion with Rome.14 The picture of Gille which emerges from his writings, therefore, is that of a gentle man who has a deep respect for and fellow feeling with his audience, a man who wishes to lead by example and with consensus. Gille also emerges from the pages of his writings as a deeply spiritual man. In the last line of the prologue he outlines the reward which he wishes to have for the work which he has undertaken for the Irish Church. His only request is that the bishops and priests would pray for him so that at the end of their lives they, together with him, may praise God in Heaven.15 His deeply spiritual nature emerges throughout his writings. Christ is the centre of his life and the focus of all his thinking. His theology, cosmology and personal spirituality are totally Christocentric. His diagram, which portrays his thought, shows Christ at the 12 Line 2, DUE.

13 Line 18, DUE.

14 Lines 18-21, DUE.

15 Lines 28-32, DUE.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 101

Enigma and Evaluation

101

centre of the entire structure of the Church and its life. Christ, in his thinking, is the summit and source of the Christian view of life. All creation is focused on Him, issues from Him and is orientated towards Him. He, Christ, is the One Bishop, who, in the fullest neoplatonist sense, supervises the whole of creation. Something of the narrow view of the medieval world comes through in Gille’s spirituality, however. The apex of the pyramid, his symbol for the ecclesiastical structure, is narrow because it portrays the restricted, exceptional and difficult way of life lived by priests and religious. In this Gille makes the clear statement that this way of life is not one that can be lived by all God’s people. It is the arduous task of a chosen few. Having stated this general principle, Gille is clear in his belief that the vision of God is the ultimate goal of all the baptised and a life lived in service of the Almighty is the task of everyone.16 Baptism and the Eucharist are the foundations on which the life of every Christian is based and it is through the grace received in these sacraments that the Christian way of life is lived. Through order, hierarchy and participation in the sacraments of initiation in particular, Christians, lay and cleric, are brought within the structure of a life which offers them the opportunity to reach salvation. The principle of perfection is the key concept in Gille’s thought. Christ is at the centre of the Christian world and everything in that world focuses on Him and radiates outward from Him. Since Christ is placed at the apex of the universal pyramid perfection flows downward from Him to those placed on levels of hierarchy under Him. In this way Gille holds that superiors in the hierarchy perfect those who are under them. His view is founded on the sacramental system, especially on the sacraments of initiation, whereby through participation in the sacramental life of the Church, Christians are made perfect and save their souls, the purpose for which they were created. While Christ is the source of perfection, He mediates this through those below Him in the various levels of the hierarchical structure. Gille’s presentation of this principle is a classical expression of neoplatonism. Through it those placed on the various levels of hierarchy purify, illumine and perfect those on the levels below them. As doctrine turned towards law in the early twelfth century, Gille made an important contribution in this area. Using the principle of perfection he made a firm distinction between the universal Church and the local Church and he underlined the canonical principle that those on a higher level of hierarchy could fulfil the offices and duties of those placed below them. In this Gille unites the neoplatonism of ninth-century men like his fellow Irishman, Eriugena, with the thinkers of the twelfth century.

16 Lines 13-15, DUE; lines 96-9, DSE.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

102

1:55 pm

Page 102

Gille of Limerick

Gille’s spirituality, theology and philosophy coalesce in an integrated whole and permeate each other within the folds of the arch that encases his hierarchical structure. Rigid in appearance, the boundaries between these three areas of his Christian life fade into insignificance as they merge in his personal spirituality. In the age when doctrine turned into law in many areas of Church life and became more institutionalised, Gille preserved the deeply spiritual basis on which this medieval development was based. In an age when hierarchs were given a greater prominence and hierarchy assumed a new and more prominent role, his vision of the spirituality of the laity is noteworthy and significant.17 Gille’s Church is not only a hierarchical structure and an organised reality, it is the place where men and women, all God’s people, have a place and reach the salvation of their souls. Worship of God in a spirit of humility, obedience to their pastors and leading a moral life are the chief characteristics of the spiritual life of the laity. They are ‘bound to visit the house of God and there to humbly pray and adore the Lord. They are to offer the first fruits, gifts and pay their tithes. They must be careful to avoid evil, search for good and obey their pastors in everything.’18 This spirituality is not however divorced from the reality of their daily lives. Rather it is in praying, ploughing and in fighting in the defence of their fellowmen and the creation of a space for worship, that they exercise their Christian vocation and reach salvation. A strong, hard, earthy quality runs through Gille’s spirituality of the laity. It is summed up and verbalised in his reflection on the concern which they should have for their dead. ‘The sweat of the living is the rest of the dead.’19 Through the pages of his writings, the clearest glimpse of his personal spirituality comes in his reflection on and concern for the dead. Eternal life with God is the unchanging goal of the Christian life. It is the only reward Gille asks of God and his listeners for the work which he put into the treatise that he prepared for the Irish Church in the twelfth century. It is also the ultimate destiny of all the baptised. Deeply etched at the back of Gille’s mind is the neoplatonist principle that purification, contemplation and illumination are the means by which salvation is achieved. The principle of perfection, whereby ‘one by one each person is made perfect by their superiors’,20 is, therefore, the backdrop against which Gille invokes the principle of purification. Having stated that ‘in the bestowing of an abundance of pardon in baptism and through the Eucharist, each person sends their faithful sons to their heavenly home’,21 he then notes that this is not achieved without personal effort. His statement that ‘the sweat of the living is the repose of the dead’ is his clear and graphic way of expressing his 17 Lines 13-15, DUE; Lines 28-42; 96-9 DSE. 18 Lines 96-9; 161-71, DSE. 19 Lines 203-4, DSE. 20 Lines 18-19, DSE. 21 Line 19-20, DSE.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 103

Enigma and Evaluation

103

personal spirituality and underlining the fundamental unity of all creation under God, heaven and earth, the living and the dead. It is also the way in which he enunciates in a dramatic manner the concern which the living should have for the dead as they go through the process of purification which ultimately leads them to the vision of God. Pastoral care of his medieval church was the priority of Gille’s life as a bishop. His writings clearly demonstrate this and his presence in his diocese over a period of thirty two years confirms it. His visit to London in 1115, for the consecration of the bishop of St David’s in Wales, is his only recorded absence from Limerick during his episcopate. However, the quality of his pastoral concern has been clouded by a number of issues. The diagram which he drew to illustrate his theory placed each group within a compartmentalised structure. This has led historians to focus on the symbol of the pyramid as an expression of his narrow, confined approach to the Church’s teaching on the hierarchical nature of the Church and has allowed them to give the impression of Gille as rigid and inflexible. The downward movement of the principle of perfection has lead to the belief that Gille viewed the laity as inferior to the clergy in the Church. His pastoral concern, expressed in his writings, shows that he placed the laity within Church structures in the same way as he placed bishops, priests and monks in their particular place. In keeping with the teaching of his time, he emphasised the importance of the spiritual in the life of the Church. However, in contrast with some of his contemporaries, Gille attempted to deal with a number of issues that others either ignored or to which they were not sensitive. He wrestled with the question of the role of women in the Church, aware of some of the incongruities of the philosophy of his age in this area. While he may not have resolved the issue, at least he was aware of it and attempted to do so. His emphasis on order within the hierarchy also reinforced the belief that his outlook was rigid and conservative. When his writings are studied closely it becomes quite clear that these impressions are superficial, that the primary purpose of his work and the underlying tone of his ministry is the pastoral care of both clergy and laity and ultimately the good of the Church. Gille’s theory of the suitability of the apex of the pyramid as a model for the position of the clergy is not based on a concept that religious are superior to the laity as such. Given the nature of man and his vocation to life with God, Gille views the spiritual as more important than the earthly and he sees the way of life proposed to those who are spiritual as so difficult that a smaller number is in a position to assume this way of life. For him the majority lives in the world, is married and lives out the Christian calling in this context. For this reason he sees the broad base of the pyramid as representative of the laity’s place in the Church. Because they form the majority in the Church, Gille treats the role of

Limerick 04

11/4/01

104

1:55 pm

Page 104

Gille of Limerick

the laity before he concentrates on the life of the clergy and the hierarchical structure of the Church. He also proposes what would nowadays be known as a spirituality for the laity. The laity, falling into three separate groups, fulfil their Christian calling by worshipping God and giving mutual support to each other. Those who pray protect farmers and fighters from harm through their prayers, farmers provide food for the clergy as well as for the army, and men of arms offer protection to farmers and the religious. Through this system of mutual help a harmony is established in the countryside in which all may live in peace, perform their allotted duties and achieve the salvation of their souls. Gille is careful not to compartmentalise the religious, those who pray, into the category of the clergy only. He clearly states that some of them are married and it is for this reason that he makes a special note of this in his diagram. However, he places them above farmers and the army on the grounds that the call to the spiritual is ultimately the most important role in his view of the medieval world. The role of women in the Church and in society is an important pastoral concern for him. Little has been written on the role of women at the beginning of the twelfth century. They also received scant attention in the literature of their time from a world that was male dominated. Sometime after Gille’s treatise was composed women such as Heloise (d.1164), Hildegard of Bingen (d.1179) and Marie de France (d.1216?) attracted particular notice but, in general, women received little attention from those who have left contemporary records of the twelfth century. Gille, on the other hand, devotes a section of his writings to their role in the Church and in society. His fundamental tenet is that women have a special place in the order of things, both ecclesiastical and civil. He places them in the company of Mary, the mother of Christ, and as such underlines their dignity and situates them apart from what is common and profane. In doing this he enshrines the respect that is due to them. Mary, the mother of Christ, is the role model for women in the Church. Gille views them as in close relationship with her in Heaven, while they live out their earthly lives. He is quite at ease, therefore, with the place of women in the Church and in society in terms of their spiritual role. Within the category of those who pray, both men and women, Gille sees concern for the Christian way of life, the cultivation of a climate of prayer and the promotion of the spiritual in the world, as the fundamental duty. In this context women fit easily into the category of those who pray. However, having divided the Christian world into three categories, he is forced to confront the issue of reconciling this division with the placing of women in the category of those who fight. He can accept with ease the role of women in the context of the spiritual and in the world of agriculture. Clearly,

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 105

Enigma and Evaluation

105

the rural tradition of women working on the land with their husbands was an accepted aspect of medieval life. However, he sees an incongruity in placing them in the army. Bearing arms and engaging in combat was not in keeping with the female image in an age of chivalry. He eventually justifies placing them in this category by stating that they are married to those who fight and as such are entitled to be placed in this context. This argument may appear false to some in the context of the modern mind but it still prevails in legislation when a citizen of one country can become a resident of another through marriage today. The question arises, inevitably, as to whether or not Gille made a distinctive contribution to an understanding of the place of women in the Church and in society in the medieval world. The answer must be in the affirmative. He paid attention to ordinary women in the ordinary circumstances of life and as such made an important contribution to the understanding of the role of women in early twelfth-century society. He reinforced the importance of and appreciation of the ordinary and as such he helped to develop an understanding of the Christian vocation in the medieval world. He also showed a particular sensibility in his appreciation of the feminine. While the mind of the twenty-first century may not see an incongruity in the role of women as defenders of the peace in the context of arms, the twelfth-century mind did not envisage women in this role. On the contrary, the mentality of that time saw men as primary in society and viewed women within this context. For this mental outlook women were married to men and as such they were subservient to them. They received their status in society in relation to their husbands and those who were not married tended to be ignored. Gille, on the other hand, appears to have been genuinely uneasy with this categorisation. He paid particular attention to their situation, acknowledged women in their own right, clearly saw that they had a role of their own in society which was independent of their marital status. He placed them in the various categories in their own right and he reverted to the accepted wisdom of the time only when faced with the difficulty of understanding their role in the context of those who fight. In the end he explained this in the same way as governments nowadays still argue with regard to a change in citizenship. In putting forward his plan for the Church in a new Ireland he focused his attention on the pastoral care which a bishop should give to his clergy. His thinking on this subject is centuries ahead of his time and one that is only now coming into perspective, in the twenty-first century. He proposed that all the priests of a diocese should get together with their bishop for three days on two occasions each year. To avoid the inclemency of Irish weather, he suggested that these meetings should take place during the summer and in the autumn. Gathered together for a synod, they were to assemble from what he refers to as

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

106

Page 106

Gille of Limerick

the episcopate and spend time with each other. He envisaged that the bishop would play a central, two-fold role in this gathering, that of reconciler as well as that of examiner. His duty was to see that peaceful relationships existed among the clergy and that none of them injured another. Gille was conscious of underlining the enduring fraternal nature of priesthood. He held that the bishop was to assume the role of facilitator of good relations among the clergy, to the extent that at the end of the three days together, with all their differences reconciled, they were then free to return to their positions in the diocese and live in peace. As examiner, the bishop was given the task of ensuring that the diocese was well organised and that everything needed for pastoral effectiveness was available to the clergy. A rare glimpse of pastoral concern for the clergy in a medieval Church emerges from his writings. His concerns are as lasting and as relevant in the Church of the twenty-first century as they were in that of the twelfth century. His concern for the reform of the canonical standing of marriage in Irish society was evident. His approach was, however, tentative and is a forceful reminder of the difficulties faced by the reformers in this area of Irish life. The first attempt to regularise Irish marriage law was made at the synod of Cashel in 1101, a decade before the synod of Rathbreasail was held. Having raised this issue and highlighted it as an area of immediate and major concern, this synod prepared the ground for the work of Gille. In De statu Ecclesiae,22 Gille brought the process a step forward and touched on two areas of concern when he outlined the law which was to govern Irish marriages in the future. Degree of kinship was defined in such a way that near cousins could not marry, neither could godparents marry their godchildren. Others areas of known concern at that time were not raised by him. Given the sensitive question of the role of the law on marriage in society and the relationship between canon law and civil law in Ireland, he clearly decided to leave the most contentious issues for a later date and a more opportune time. Having dealt with these two important canonical issues, he then went on to outline a spirituality for the married. Prayer was at the heart of their spirituality. They were to visit ‘the house of God and there to humbly pray and adore the Lord’. They were encouraged to lead a moral life and to accept the authority of the magisterium, ‘obeying their pastors in everything’. They were also to support their clergy with voluntary offerings, first fruits, gifts and tithes. These were defined and specified in great detail. While the line space given to aspects of the ministry of the bishop is not as great as the amount given to a description of the role of the clergy and the outline of the structure of the Church, the importance attached to the care of 22 Lines 91-9, DSE.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 107

Enigma and Evaluation

107

those who are placed on the broad base of the pyramid of the Church is patently evident. Gille’s concept of the pastoral care to be given to the people and priests of a diocese is the greatest indicator for an understanding of his character and an evaluation of the contribution he made to the reform of the Church in Ireland in the twelfth century. History should recall this rather than focus on what it sometimes refers to as a rigid plan for the hierarchical structure of the Church, which many historians do not fully understand and for which they have little or no sympathy. As a canonist Gille acted as a bridge which carried doctrine into law. He composed his tracts, De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae, over thirty years before Gratian published his definitive work Concordia discordantium canonum or as it is more commonly called the Decretum of Gratian. This work of Gratian was a watershed in the development of the study of canon law and it has become the yardstick by which all previous and subsequent works are measured. With its publication canon law as it is known today was established as a academic discipline. Clear, precise and ordered, the Decretum was the first codification of canon law along the lines laid out by Roman law and by the format of subsequent civil legislation. Gille’s work, while it establishes norms and outlines regulations, is not structured in the same way as the work of Gratian. It also contains within it a good deal of doctrine and clearly shows how that doctrine is to be translated into norms which are binding. In this sense it is a document that is rich in philosophy, theology and spirituality and one that then provides a practical context for the application of medieval thought. In the history of the sources of canon law his work fits into the genre known as libelli de lite.23 This form of writing was favoured in the Merovingian and Carolingian world and was used between the mid-eighth century and the age of Gratian as a forum for debate on the nature of government, church and society in particular. Through this medium ecclesiology and political philosophy developed in a practical way which ultimately lead to the formulation of the great canonical collections of the twelfth century. Behind each norm which Gille proposed as a mode for action is a rich history and a deep spirituality. The collected wisdom of generations and the accumulation of a variety of intellectual traditions can be discovered when any one of these norms is examined in detail. Gille presents them to his audience by placing them against this background, touching this long tradition to indicate the richness that lies behind what he proposed. Ireland’s awareness of the authority of Rome in the centuries before Gille is beyond doubt. The conflict between the Roman and Celtic method of 23 Luscombe, ‘The Formation of Political Thought in the West,’ in Burns (ed.),

Medieval Political Thought, pp 170-1.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

108

1:55 pm

Page 108

Gille of Limerick

calculating the date for the celebration of Easter is evidence of this in itself. The first recorded visit to Rome for the purpose of settling a dispute took place as early as 634.24 There is evidence of synodal activity in the Irish Church in the era prior to the seventh century and the collection of the corpus known as Hibernensis25 also points to the presence of canonical legislation in Ireland during the first millennium. Indeed in the era prior to the eighth century there is much evidence of a mutual interaction and dependency between canon law and secular law in Ireland.26 As a canonist, Gille laid the foundations for a revival an ancient canonical tradition in Ireland and introduced the Irish Church to a concept of order which was in line with the other Churches in Europe. As a canonist trained in a European tradition and in particular as papal legate in Ireland, he was keen to ensure that the rule of canon law was firmly established in Ireland. The question arises, inevitably, as to the extent to which Gille was influenced by an awareness of texts from this ancient canonical tradition. A random selection of some texts would suggest that he was quite aware of the contents of this tradition and used it in the text of his writings. The model of Church proposed by the Collectio Hibernensis is the model suggested by Gille, a diocesan church-organisation of which the bishop is head. Twenty-one canons of Book I of Hibernensis are given over to this subject, while the monastic institution is treated in one main section. Seven grades of clergy occupy the mind of Gille in his analysis of the structure of the diocese. The tasks assigned to each in Hibernensis and De statu Ecclesiae are similar, both in function and in the manner in which they are described. Civil jurists in the era of Hibernensis were also concerned with a sevenfold classification of lay society. Hibernensis also confirms the sevenfold structure of the ecclesiastical grades in the Church.27 The question also arises as to whether the role of the manach in the area of warfare may not have attracted Gille to the threefold division of the laity into those who pray, plough and fight.28 As a practical man Gille focused in particular on the area of liturgical law and left aside the more contentious area of the laws governing marriage. He devoted the greatest number of lines to his treatment of the laws which should govern the celebration of the liturgy. In an ordered fashion he explained to his listeners the offices which should be established and outlined the duties that pertained to 24 Sharpe, ‘Armagh and Rome’, in Ni Cathain and Richter (eds.), Ireland and Europe, p. 66. 25 Stickler, Historia Iuris Canonici, pp 93ff; P. Fournier, ‘L’influence

de la collection canonique irlandaise sur la formation des collectiones canoniques,’ in Nouvelle revue historique de droit français et etranger, 23 (1899), p. 28; Gougaud, Christianity, pp 278-87. 26 D. O’Corráin, ‘Irish law and canon law’ in Ni Cathain and Richter, Ireland and Europe, pp 157-67. 27 Wasserschleben, Die Irische, pp 127, 81, 147-52; Corish, ‘The Christian Mission’, pp 32ff. 28 Corish, ‘The Christian Mission’, p. 45. Etchingham, Church Organisation, pp 363ff.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 109

Enigma and Evaluation

109

each of them. In a clear canonical statement he distilled the accumulated wisdom of a long tradition of thought and encapsulated in a precise formula the accepted theory of his day. He proposed a defined structure to a Church which lacked definition and to a clergy who, in all probability, did not have a uniform code of practice in liturgical matters. His contribution to the development of liturgical law in the early Middle Ages is significant and warrants a study on its own merits. In his treatment of this area a rare glimpse emerges of what the early medieval Church in Ireland looked like. In all probability the priest lived alone rather than in a presbytery with other priests. Gille notes that he has a house with some land surrounding it but does not imply that he shares this with others. He does not specify how much land the priest should have but he makes it quite clear that the land which surrounds the priest’s house is one of his sources of income. Known as a mansus or plough land, it provides him with the means for growing his own food. In addition to this the priest is to receive the first fruits, offerings and tithes as a source of support from the people he serves. While Gille refers to the parish this did not bear the same significance then as it does nowadays. The parish structure as such had not been introduced widely in western Europe at that time and given the unstructured nature of the Irish Church it would not have had a particular relevance. The church was the focus of the priest’s ministry and he lived in a house which in all probability was situated nearby. The people went to worship in church and formed an ecclesial community rather than a parochial unit. Gille pays a good deal of attention to the income of the priest, specifying that there are eight sources for this. These are divided into a number of categories. The first of these is what he refers to as the parish and he defines this as the offerings of the people, the first fruits of the land, gifts and the tithes. He does not specify as to whether this is a system of voluntary offerings as pertains in practice in Ireland nowadays or whether they are specified like a tax, as pertains in many European countries at present. While the offerings and the first fruits may indicate the voluntary nature of this system, the mention of tithes brings with it an association with taxation. The second source of income comes from the land which surrounds his house and the third source comes from the administration of the sacraments, what are known nowadays as funerals, the offertory collection and mass stipends. He also describes the vestments the priest is to use while celebrating Mass. On weekdays the priest is to wear his own clothes with a linen gown or alb over them. On more solemn occasions he is to wear an amice, alb, cincture, maniple, stole and chasuble, the vestments that the priest wears today, nine hundred years later. Inevitably, there were disputed liturgical issues, even in the twelfth

Limerick 04

11/4/01

110

1:55 pm

Page 110

Gille of Limerick

century. These seem to have focused on whether the priest wore shoes, boots or sandals. Gille noted that in Ireland the bishops were in line with requirements in that they wore sandals and a dalmatic. Churches also were furnished in a manner which is instantly recognisable nowadays. The liturgical list included the missal, the lectionary and the candelabra. Gille mentions the chalice, the paten, the flask for wine and the one for water, the basin for the washing of the hands, the sacrarium, which was an essential feature of churches in pre-Vatican II days, and the lectern. He also refers to the presence of the book of the synod in the church, which is the only item not found nowadays in the average parish church. Gille seems to have been a born teacher and his educational methods are modern by present day standards. When he wanted to outline his plan for the Church to his audience he drew it out and placed it before them. He then pointed to each item within his plan and explained it in great detail. He states what is obvious, namely that there is not enough room to write out each word or category on the schema which he has drawn and so he uses initial letters or dots. Starting at the bottom line of his diagram, he works his way upwards and explains each section in the overall plan to his audience. As he explains the outline of the structure he also points out the theory which lies behind much of what he is explaining. In this way he develops the theory of the principle of perfection and demonstrates its source, Christ. Gille enunciates the hierarchical structure of the universal Church and the local Church. As he does this he explains why he holds the theory that there are seven grades in the local church, as opposed to Amalarius, who holds that there are nine. In all of this a rare glimpse of medieval catechetical methods is seen. From Gille’s text, it can be argued that he used three separate methods in his style of lecturing. The first part of his work is a straightforward address to his audience in which he justifies his position as a lecturer on the subject in question and establishes his authority. This is contained in the text of De usu ecclesiastico. He then places the diagram before them and points out the various aspects of it in an oral commentary. The written text of this comes in the first part of De statu Ecclesiae. It would appear that this text was transcribed by a scribe as Gille outlined it to his listeners. When he comes to explain the duties of each group and outlines their obligations it appears that he then takes up a written text which he uses as lecture notes. The style of his presentation changes at this point and this change seems to be based on a movement from explaining a diagram to depending on a text to make his presentation. The picture of a clear thinker, an ordered mind and a well prepared lecture by a good communicator emerges from the pages of the manuscripts when they are read closely and carefully.

Limerick 04

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 111

Enigma and Evaluation

111

Silence surrounded this communicator during his lifetime, the silence of the annalists. This silence has ensured that the greatness of Gille and the importance of the contribution which he made to Irish life in the twelfth century has not been recognised properly. The question arises as to why a man who changed the face of the Church in Ireland should have been ignored to this extent by those who recorded the great events of Irish history. The answer lies in the nature of the contribution which he made during his lifetime. The nature of monastic life has always allowed monasteries to record the great events in the life of their communities and to present their view of events which affected life outside the monastery. Men engaged in the pastoral ministry rarely, if ever, record events in their diocese in the same way. In this way, the records of Irish history from the first millennium which have been handed down present the modern reader with an account of monastic life in Celtic Ireland rather than a picture of other aspects of ecclesiastical life, especially in the area of the pastoral care given by the secular clergy. In the same way, during the twelfth century, the bishops and priests who undertook the ministry of pastoral care in the new medieval Irish Church left few records of their work or the great achievements of their day. The documentary records of the work done by the bishops who established the individual dioceses which are known to this day simply do not exist. Furthermore, it is certain that the proposals which Gille made met with considerable resistance as well as with substantial support. His plan to reduce radically the number of bishops in Ireland must have been particularly unwelcome. The synod of Rathbreasail, in the main, gathered clerics from the southern part of the country and given the number which gathered there it is not unreasonable to suppose that perhaps there were approximately one hundred bishops in the entire country at that time. The synod of Cashel, while not giving a number, clearly indicated that there were far too many. A plan to reduce that number to approximately twenty five would have been very unwelcome and could have ensured that the architect of the plan would be ignored by the annalists. Monks in monasteries marked for a reduction in prestige by the proposed new system of organisation could not have been happy with Gille’s plan. Bishops of churches which were not part and parcel of that new structure could not have been pleased either. Redundancy, even at an ecclesiastical level and in the interests of reform and growth, can never be welcomed with universal approval. It seems clear that once the synod of Rathbreasail ended in 1111, Gille returned to his diocese in Limerick where he concentrated on establishing the diocese and consolidating his position as bishop in the new dispensation. It seems clear that he did not participate further in the affairs of the nascent medieval Church at a national level. Content to work among the portion of God’s people entrusted to his care he did not participate in events which would

Limerick 04

11/4/01

112

1:55 pm

Page 112

Gille of Limerick

have brought him further attention. Humble in his approach to the presentation of his plan at the synod held at Rathbreasail, Gille presumably continued to live in this manner and therefore drew little attention to himself. Historians record his contribution to the reformation of the Irish Church in the twelfth century. Gille’s writings, however, show that he was the man who above all others formed the medieval Church in Ireland rather than reformed the Church which existed in the first millennium. In this sense, therefore, his work was more that of formation than reformation. The Irish Church of today owes its existence to him. He was the one who outlined the structure which has endured for almost nine hundred years and which is in place today much as he envisaged it all those centuries ago. The diocesan boundaries are more or less the same as he outlined and the monastic institution which he envisaged came to Ireland within his lifetime and began the tradition which continues to this day in places such as new Mellifont etc. In this sense he was the architect of a medieval Church. In all probability, Gille lies in an unmarked grave in the cemetery of what was the once famous monastery of Bangor. Unknown not only to the inhabitants of that town but also to the majority of people today he is a mystery to many. However, for over eight hundred years three manuscripts have lain in the archives of Durham Cathedral and at Cambridge, silent testaments of a unique man and the recognised architect of the Church in today’s Ireland. Reading between the lines and through the abbreviations of these medieval Latin texts the picture of a truly remarkable man emerges. Born almost a thousand years ago he speaks to the experience of today, ancient in time and modern in thought. Points of reference still link him with our world. The waters of the river Shannon still flow by the place of his birth, beneath the old church of St Mary, in which he may have been consecrated bishop and which he personally chose as his cathedral. Laon, Bec, Rouen and Cambrai still have the foundations of those early medieval cathedral churches which Gille saw while he lived abroad. These buildings impressed him and inspired him to think of a system of episcopal organisation which would not only revive and reform the Church in Ireland but form it anew for a new era of growth. Educated in Europe, he travelled through and lived in north-eastern France, the inheritor of a long established tradition of learning and the bearer of that learning back to the land of his origins. A friend of St Anselm of Canterbury, he was, in all probability, the protégé of Muirchertagh O’Brien, the king of Munster and the ruler of King’s Island in Limerick. From the synod of Rathbreasail in 1111 until his death in 1145, Gille was almost unheard of. A bishop in his own diocese, he devoted himself solely to the pastoral care of his people. A giant at the shoulder of the Irish Church in the twelfth century, he has been content to sleep in obscurity ever since.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 113

PA RT T W O

Gille, in his own words

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 114

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 115

5

Scribes and Manuscripts THE WRITINGS AND THEIR ORIGINS

The writings of Gille of Limerick comprise two tracts, De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae, together with a letter written by Gille to St Anselm. There is no record of any other writings and no reason to believe that such may have been lost or destroyed during the intervening time since his death. Considerable confusion has arisen over the centuries concerning these writings. Some, such as Gwynn and Kenney, have seen them as two separate documents which are somehow linked, while others, such as Begley and Hughes, have seen them as a single document written under a single title.1 MacCaffrey, however, saw the truth of the matter in that these two titles, together with the diagram, form one single unit as prologue, diagram and libellus. Evidence of this lies within the texts themselves. In the prologue, De usu ecclesiastico, mention is made of the diagram being before the eyes of those to whom the prologue is addressed ‘praesens tamen Ecclesiae depicta imago oculis subjecta patenter ostendit’. The libellus, De statu Ecclesiae, begins with a phrase which refers directly to the diagram also ‘imago generalis Ecclesiae supra notata’. The diagram or ‘image’, therefore, is the link between these two titles and unites them as one single work. 1 MacCaffrey, The Black Book, p. xlixx: ‘Gilbert wrote two tracts, one entitled “De Usu Ecclesiastico” and the other “De Statu Ecclesiae”’; Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’ p. 36: ‘bishop Gilbert has left us a short treatise to which he himself has given the double title De usu Ecclesiastico or De Statu Ecclesiae’. Gwynn, therefore, sees it as a double title in an either/or situation. He thus sees a link between both texts but seems to miss the essential unity between them; Begley, Limerick , vol. 1, p. 74, refers only to one title and makes no mention of De statu Ecclesiae: ‘To effect this change he wrote a tract called De usu Ecclesiastico’; Hughes, The Church, p. 267, on the other hand refers also to one title but calls it De statu Ecclesiae: ‘A treatise De Statu Ecclesiae written by Gilbert of Limerick outlines for the bishops and priests of the whole of Ireland what ought to be the hierarchical structure of the church’; Kenney, Sources, p. 764, also refers only to De statu Ecclesiae. He mentions ‘the epistle addressed to the bishops and priests of Ireland’ but does not entitle it ‘De usu ecclesiastico’. Migne, in PL 159, 997, notes: ‘Gilbertus, episcopus in Hibernia Lunicensis (al. Lumnicensis) hodie Limericensis circa annum 1110, superstes adhuc anno 1139, scripsit libellum De Statu Ecclesiae, editum ab Usserio in epistolis Hibernicis p. 78 et Gilberto Crispino perperam tributum a Pitseo, p. 196. Praemisit Usserius eiusdem Gilberti epistolam ad episcopos et presbyteros Hiberniae p. 77, subjuncta 88 aetera brevi ad Anselmum Cantuariensem’.

115

Limerick 05

11/4/01

116

1:55 pm

Page 116

Gille of Limerick

The problem of their separation rose initially in the twelfth century when DCL MS B.II.35 was compiled without the prologue, De usu ecclesiastico, and this was complicated further in the seventeenth century when both were printed in Ussher’s Sylloge. There, the absence of a means of reproducing the diagram lead, inevitably, to their separation. Ussher, however, had noted in his text: ‘Subjiciebatur in MSS quibus hic usi sumus exemplaribus, Ecclesiae depicta imago (cuius in superiori prologo facta est mentio, et in proximo libello sequitur explicatio) hac circumdata Arca figuram mundi habuit; fuit enim tricamerata. In superiori parte erant aves, tamquam angeli in coelo. In medio erant homines (scilicet Noe et familia ejus) tamquam in hoc mundo. In imo animalia et reptilia, tamquam animae in ferno. Verum ob chalcographicorum typorum defectum, schema illud coacti sumus hic omittere.’2 In this text Ussher makes it perfectly clear that the texts form a single unit, linked together by the diagram. He also explains the reason for their separation in his publication, namely the absence of a means of reproducing the diagram. Gille’s writings, therefore, consist of one single work with a preface, diagram and commentary on the diagram. The preface he entitled De usu ecclesiastico and the commentary he entitled De statu Ecclesiae.3 For purposes of this work the prologue will be referred to as, De usu ecclesiastico, the diagram will be known as the diagram and the commentary, De statu Ecclesiae, as the libellus. Gille’s letter to St Anselm and Anselm’s reply are important for many reasons. This text, which was preserved in the archive at Canterbury, was probably written by Gille himself and is, therefore, a direct link with him. From a historical point of view, it gives an indication of the approximate date on which Gille began his ministry as bishop of Limerick. The letters are also an important statement in the history of the relationship between the English and the Irish Churches in the early twelfth century. As the Gregorian reform spread from Rome throughout Europe, Canterbury, in the south-eastern corner of England, became pivotal in its implementation in the islands of Britain and Ireland. In an effort to introduce this movement for reform to Ireland, the see of Canterbury, under the guidance of two successive Italian-born bishops, Lanfranc and Anselm, focused its attention on the newly founded towns of Dublin, Waterford, Wexford, Cork and Limerick. Greeted with hostility when they were being established, with the passing of time the tension between these cities and the native Irish who surrounded them decreased and eventually the eleventh-century reformers of the Church saw in them a possible source for the renewal of the Irish Church. Lanfranc of Canterbury and his 2 The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, ed. C.E. Elrington (Dublin, 1864), 17 vols, vol. 4, pp 500-11, hereafter Elrington (ed.), The whole works.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 117

Scribes and Manuscripts

117

successor, Anselm, seizing this opportunity, encouraged the movement of reform in Ireland by consecrating five bishops over a period of half a century for one or other of the sees centred on these cities. Four successive bishops of Dublin were consecrated in Canterbury, from Patrick in 1074 to Gregory in 1121, as well as Malchus of Waterford in 1096. When the question of his consecration as bishop of Limerick arose, Gille must have been deeply conscious of the tradition which the Roman reformers had established in these cities. His memory of meeting Anselm at Rouen only some months before his consecration was also imbedded in his mind. On the other hand he was aware that Munster, the province in which his new diocese was situated, was at the centre of the Irish attempt to reform the Church. The question of where his consecration would take place must, therefore, have loomed large in his mind. Eventually, while there is no record of the place of his consecration, it is clear that he decided not to be consecrated in Canterbury. Shortly after he became bishop of Limerick he wrote to Anselm in an obvious attempt to restore the bonds of friendship between them.4 His letter is an example of the enormous political ability which he possessed. Addressing Anselm as archbishop of the English, he signed his letter as bishop of Limerick. Without reference to his episcopal ordination, he began his letter by congratulating Anselm on the victory which he had achieved in the reformation of the system of electing and consecrating abbots and bishops in England. Walking a diplomatic tightrope between the expectation which Anselm probably had, as archbishop of Canterbury, of consecrating the bishop of Limerick, who was also his friend, on the one hand, and congratulating Anselm on his success in regularising the consecration of bishops in England, on the other, Gille showed that he possessed considerable skills of diplomacy. Without giving any reason for doing so, he then offered a gift of twenty-five pearls to Anselm, inter optimas et viliores, as a sign of his devotion and asked Anselm to remember him constantly in his prayers. Anselm’s reply acknowledged the congratulations of Gille on his work and immediately went on to recall their meeting at Rouen.5 The tone of his letter is particularly cordial and does not indicate any annoyance or tension with Gille because of his ordination by someone other than himself. In this letter he recalled the delightful company they enjoyed and praised Gille for his prudence. Anselm then went on to say that he believed that God had chosen Gille for the work of reforming the Irish Church. He advised him how 3 The Cambridge Ms. illustrates this very clearly. For the purpose of this study I visited

both University Library Cambridge and The Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, together with the Cathedral Library at Durham, where the manuscripts are now housed, on a number of occasions. 4 PL 159, 996-1004. 5 PL 159, 174.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

118

1:55 pm

Page 118

Gille of Limerick

to conduct his ministry as bishop. He reminded him of his duty to correct and encourage as well as to plant the seeds of good conduct among his people and, finally, he thanked him for his gift. These two letters, therefore, give an insight into the relationship between Canterbury and the Irish Church, an issue which has often puzzled historians.6 Gille’s letter, in particular, shows a man with in independent spirit and a politically able mind. Anselm’s reply portrays a picture of a good leader whose concern is for reform of the Church rather than for personal prestige. Together, they show the genuineness of the reformers whose real objective was to effect a renewal of the Church rather than establish the dominance of Canterbury over Ireland. The main corpus of Gille’s writings consists of the two texts and the diagram. In the prologue De usu ecclesiastico, he addresses the bishops and priests of Ireland and states that he is writing his text in response to their request. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that the original text was written by Gille himself. A close reading of the manuscript sources of his writings would seem to suggest, however, that Gille may not have written the complete text in his own hand. While he used the word ‘writing’ to introduce himself in the prologue, the tone of the prologue suggests that his audience was directly present to him and his text has the turn of phrase of the spoken rather than the written word. He is logical in his line of argument, brief and to the point at issue. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that his address to his fellow bishops and priests was delivered verbally by Gille and written down by a scribe. The libellus is longer than the prologue and appears better prepared. The first section is an explanation of the diagram, which, clearly, was before him and his audience as he explained its detail. Reading between the lines of the text, it seems that the first part of the libellus was delivered verbally by Gille and transcribed by a scribe, while the later section of the document was prepared beforehand and, presumably, read to his audience. Within the first section of De statu Ecclesiae at least one line of Gille’s argument seems to be missing. In discussing the role of women in the Church he reflects on their Christian duty within the context of the duty of the laity to pray, to plough and to fight. Having outlined this argument he seems to jump to a short reflection on the place of the dead who are in Heaven. The lack of coherence in the line of argument suggests that this section of the libellus was trans6 A. Gwynn, The Irish Church in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, ed. G. O’Brien

(Dublin, 1992), (hereafter A. Gwynn, The Irish Church); M. Richter, Medieval Ireland, the Enduring Tradition (Dublin, 1988), (hereafter Richter, Medieval Ireland); J. Watt, The Church in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1998) (hereafter J. Watt, The Church); D. O’Croinin, Early Medieval Ireland (London, 1995), (hereafter O’Croinin, Early Medieval Ireland).

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 119

Scribes and Manuscripts

119

cribed by a scribe as Gille spoke the explanation to his audience. The scribe may then have ‘nodded off’ for a moment, lost the train of thought and missed the full impact of what Gille said. Once Gille had no further need to point to the diagram then his explanation is clear and consistent, which suggests that he himself may have written the remainder of De statu Ecclesiae beforehand and then read it to his audience.

THE MANUSCRIPT SOURCES FOR THE WRITINGS OF GILLE

Three manuscript contain the writings of Gille. They are MS B.II.35 which forms part of the Manuscript Collection of the Library of Durham Cathedral, England; MS Ff.i.27 which is part of the collection at University Library, Cambridge, England; and MS 66 at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, England.7 MS B.II.35 fols. 36v-38r.8 Durham Cathedral Library The nucleus of the collection of manuscripts known as MS B.II.35, Durham Cathedral Library, originated in Durham during the episcopate of Bishop William of St Calais (1081-1096).9 The material contained in the original collection was mainly historical and began with Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica. A number of additions were later made to this nucleus and in 1166 the manuscript was corrected and dated. Shortly afterwards the ‘Genealogies of the AngloSaxon Heptarchy’ and a list of the bishops of Durham was added. They now form folios. 38-150 of the manuscript. Later still, two folios, used to copy the work of Gille, were inserted at the beginning of the collection. Finally, folios. 1-35, containing a Brute or Chronicle of England, which ends in 1347, was added to the beginning of the corpus of texts which exist today. MS B.II.35 now begins, therefore, with the latest addition and has as a second item De statu Ecclesiae of Gille on folios. 36v-38r. Despite its position in the collection as it 7 These manuscripts will be referred to as DCL MS B.II.35, CUL MS Ff.i.27 and CCCC MS 66 from now onwards. 8 This manuscript collection was catalogued in 1825 by Rud

and published as T. Rud, Catalogus Classicus Mss.Ecclesiae Cathedralis Dunelmensis (Durham, 1825), (hereafter T. Rud, Catalogus Dunelmensis). In 1939 Mynors published his work on the Durham manuscripts: R.A.B. Mynors, Durham Cathedral Manuscripts to the end of the twelfth century (Oxford, 1939), (hereafter Mynors, Durham Cathedral). 9 The life of bishop William of St Calais is outlined by W. M. Aird in D. Rollason, M. Harvey and M. Prestwich, Anglo-Norman Durham 1093-1193 (Woodbridge, 1994). He is sometimes referred to as William of St Calief: e.g. N. Ker, English Manuscripts of the century after the Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1960), p. 38 (hereafter Ker, English Manuscripts).

11/4/01

120

1:55 pm

Page 120

Gille of Limerick

Durham Cathedral Library MS B.II.35 fol. 36v.

Limerick 05

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 121

Scribes and Manuscripts

121

stands at present, historians agree that De statu Ecclesiae did not form part of the collection when it was corrected in 1166 but was copied after this date and added towards the end of the twelfth century.10 DCL MS.B.II.35 contains two of the three parts of the work of Gille. It has a simple drawing of the diagram on folio 36v. and it contains the full text of De statu Ecclesiae on fols. 37r-38r. It does not have a text of the prologue to Gille’s work, De usu ecclesiastico. Description of the diagram and the text11 The diagram, which outlines the hierarchical structure on which the Church is organised, is drawn on a single folio 36v. with red and black lines. There is no text or diagram on folio 36r. The diagram is drawn in a plain and simple style. The overall structure is based on the notion of a pyramid, which is pointed at the top and broad at the base. Two forms of the pyramid are used. The straight, sharp and pointed model is used to represent the diocese ruled by archbishops, primates and the Roman pontiff. A softer, somewhat curved model is used to show the structure of the parish, monastery and the diocese governed by the local bishop. All the pyramids are traced in red ink, while the arch which contains the entire structure is drawn with black. In accordance with the texts of Gille, dots are used instead of letters or words and these are put in with red ink. All the letters used to denote the individual clerical office holders and the offices held are written alternatively in red and black ink. Red ink is used to allocate places to the laity and black ink is used to distinguish whether they are men or women. There is no apparent significance in the particular use of colours. Single letters, representing the parish, monastery and diocese, are written at the base of the overall structure, together with the words canonicales and universales. Within the text are abbreviations which illustrate the theory proposed in the text. Thus, for example, c. appears which indicates comes. The abbreviation .1.p.x is used to illustrate the point that a diocesan bishop should have not less than ten churches under his care and not more than a thousand. When a comparison is made between the diagram of Durham and that of Cambridge, it is easy to see how Mynors was convinced that Durham was the source for the Cambridge manuscript. While he described the latter ‘a splendid late 12th-century copy’ he seems to have been of the opinion that the simpler, more primitive style of the Durham diagram proved that the text was also earlier than that of Cambridge. The text of De statu Ecclesiae is written in black ink, with the capital letters drawn in red. The title of the libellus is copied with red ink and reads Gilebertus Lumnicensis epis de statu ecclesiae. Three hands copied the original text and a separate hand added the rubrics at a later date. Hand A 10 Mynors, Durham Cathedral, p. 41; Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’, p. 68; Hughes, The Church, pp 266-7; Kenney, Sources, p. 764. 11 Mynors, Durham Cathedral, p. 42.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

122

1:55 pm

Page 122

Gille of Limerick

began the text and copied it from line 1 to line 11. Hand B continued the work for the remainder of folio 37r and folio 37v. Hand C copied the text on folio 38r. Hand B copied the greater part of the work. On a close analysis of the diagram it looks as if this hand also drew the diagram or, at least, placed the letters in the diagram. While the m in the text has no tail and that of the diagram has, many of the other letters look similar in both the diagram and in the libellus. While Hand B copied the greater part of the work of Gille, this hand does not appear in any other part of the manuscript collection DCL MS B.II.35. The parchment on which Hand A and Hand B worked is very similar, while that on which Hand C copied the end of the text is quite different and probably older. The lines on which the first two hands worked are made in graphite and are different to the last section of the text. Hand C copied the last section of De statu Ecclesiae onto the blank folio of an existing manuscript. This manuscript contains the writings of the Venerable Bede and originated in the late eleventh century. The matrix of scored lines on which the eleventh-century scribe worked on folio 38v was prepared by him on folio 38r and used a century later by Hand C to complete the text of Gille, which was placed before this text in the collection, although it was copied a century later. The line spacing is wider and more generous than that designed by Hands A and B and is quite different in appearance. From paleographical evidence it is possible to date this manuscript as having been written towards the end of the twelfth century. For example, the abbreviation strokes are both horizontal and wavy or cup-shaped. According to Ker, this means that it was written around the year 1186, before which horizontal strokes on abbreviations were unknown in English manuscripts and after which wavy or cup-shaped abbreviation marks do not appear.12 This manuscript also exhibits a downward tick after the final t, which Ker holds as a sign of late twelfth-century scribal practice. Scholars in general accept that DCL MS B.II.35 was copied at Durham and that it has had Durham Cathedral Library as its home for over eight hundred years.13 The first part of the collection of Bishop William of St Calais began there at the end of the eleventh century and the manuscript was completed there by the middle of the fourteenth century.14 The various texts which make up this manuscript have, for the greater part, been dated with reasonable accuracy. Traditionally, the text of Gille of Limerick in this collection has been thought of

12 Ker, English Manuscripts, p. 38. 13 B. Meehan, ‘Durham Twelfth Century Manuscripts in Cistercian Houses’ in Rollason, Harvey and Prestwich, Anglo-Norman Durham, pp 440-4 (hereafter Meehan, ‘Durham Manuscripts’). 14 Mynors, Durham Cathedral, pp 41-2.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 123

Scribes and Manuscripts

123

as a late twelfth century document, while the manuscripts at Cambridge have been seen as originating in the thirteenth century.15 Consequently, by implication at least, a number of medieval scholars hold that DCL MS B.II.35 was the source for the copyist of CUL MS Ff.i.27 and for CCCC MS 66 which will be described later. Gwynn, for example, states that: ‘Bishop Gilbert’s treatise De statu Ecclesiae has not survived in any text written in Ireland but a contemporary copy of the text (with its diagram), written by a monk of Durham, who may have made his copy in Limerick or from a copy taken from Limerick to Durham, is now in the Chapter Library of Durham as MS B.II.35’.16 Meehan concurs with this opinion that ‘CUL MS Ff.i.27 and DCL MS B.II.35 can be attributed to Durham with a reasonable degree of conviction’.17 Mynors, having noted that DCL MS B.II.35 is a twelfth-century manuscript, stated that ‘in all probability’ CUL MS Ff.i.27 was copied from it.18 His reason for holding this position rests, it would appear, on the fact that the diagram which accompanies DCL MS B.II.35 is more primitive looking than that which is attached to CUL MS Ff.i.27. Meehan agrees with him and proposes that given the ancient tradition of Durham Cathedral Priory and the strong links between the Priory and its Cistercian neighbours it can be cogently argued that the neighbours, in all probability, borrowed and then copied manuscripts from the cathedral.19 He confidently asserts, for example, that folios 38-150 of DCL MS B.II.35 were copied by three surrounding monasteries, Newminster, Worksop and Tynemouth.20 Indeed, the general view that he proposes in his authoritative study of the Durham manuscripts in Cistercian houses is that Durham was the centre of much medieval manuscript activity and its scriptoria were the source of a good deal of surviving manuscripts. From this he concludes that CUL MS Ff.i.27 can be attributed to Durham with a reasonable degree of certainty.21 Meehan accepts, however, that many difficulties surround the manuscripts which contain the writings of Gille.22 The extent of these problems gives reason, it would seem, to question the attribution of Durham Cathedral as the scriptorium in which they find their origins. DCL MS B.II.35 does not contain the prologue De usu ecclesiastico and CCCC MS 66 does not contain the libellus, De statu Ecclesiae. On the other hand, CUL MS Ff.i.27 has both the prologue and the libellus, as well as the diagram. Strictly speaking, therefore, Mynors thesis that CUL MS Ff.i.27 was copied from DCL MS B.II.35 cannot be sustained, since the latter lacks 15 Idem; Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’, pp 36-8; Constable, Three Studies, p. 261; Meehan, ‘Durham Manuscripts’, pp 440ff. 16 Gwynn, The Twelfth Century Reform, p. 68. 17 Meehan, Durham Manuscripts, p. 441. 18 Mynors, Durham Cathedral, p. 42. 19 Meehan, ‘Durham Manuscripts’, p. 439. 20 Ibid., p. 440. 21 Ibid., p. 441. 22 Ibid., p. 444.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

124

1:55 pm

Page 124

Gille of Limerick

the prologue. At best it can be claimed, as Dumville did, that both were copied in Durham from a common original.23 The fact that the style of CCCC MS 66 is much more ornate than DCL MS B.II.35 means that the thesis that it is the missing part of DCL MS B.II.35 cannot be sustained either. The issue of the relationship between the manuscripts of Durham and Cambridge is further complicated by an ex libris stamp from Sawley Abbey marked on the second page of the twelfth-century section of CCCC MS 66. Given that this section of the manuscript was originally united with portions of CUL MS Ff.i.27 many scholars have concluded that both manuscripts were copied in the scriptorium at Sawley Abbey. A close examination of the manuscripts themselves seems warranted in an attempt to sketch guidelines which may lead to some conclusions concerning the history and origins of these writings. Paleographical evidence must be considered, therefore, in an attempt to unravel the question of the dependence of these documents. Some experts hold that manuscripts with horizontal strokes as well as cup-shaped or wavy ones are later than manuscripts which have only wavy or cup-shaped strokes.24 Gille’s text in CUL MS Ff.i.27 has only cupshaped and wavy strokes and no horizontal abbreviation marks.24 If Ker’s theory is accepted, it is possible, to hold that it may have been copied at an earlier date than DCL MS B.II.35. Ker also held that these cup-shaped strokes disappeared from English manuscripts before the year 1186. This suggests that both manuscripts were copied either around this date or shortly before it. As well as this, he held that where the final t has a downward tick at the end of the head-stroke, the conclusion can be drawn that the manuscript is late twelfthcentury.25 Internal paleographical evidence would suggest that contrary to the beliefs of Mynors and Meehan DCL MS B.II.35 may be a somewhat later copy of Gille’s text than CUL MS Ff.i.27. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that CUL MS Ff.i.27 was not copied from DCL MS B.II.35. Within both texts there are grammatical variations which reinforce the argument that Cambridge was not copied from Durham. In DCL MS B.II.35 De statu Ecclesiae folio 37r. col.1 lines 8-9 has Prima ergo piramide whereas CUL MS Ff.i.27 in page 239 col. l, line 12 has primam ergo piramidem. Since this is a new sentence, the copyist is unlikely to have made this mistake if Cambridge depended on Durham. If Durham depended on Cambridge, in all probability the correction which has been made would have been made. Other examples of this kind are to be found in the text. For example, in general, a copyist is more likely to overlook or omit a word than to introduce one. CUL MS Ff.i.27, in page 239 23 D.N. Dumville, ‘Celtic-Latin Texts in Northern England c.1150-1250’, Celtica 12 (1977), pp 19-49 (hereafter Dumville, ‘Celtic-Latin Texts’) 24 Ker, English manuscripts, p. 36. 25 Idem.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 125

Scribes and Manuscripts

125

line 34 has sancti euangelii, whereas DCL MS B.II.35 in folio 37r line 21 has euangelii. CUL MS Ff.i.27 has the word paratus inserted in the text of the last words of De statu Ecclesiae whereas in DCL MS B.II.35 this is omitted. As opposed to this in DCL MS B.II.35 the letters are inserted over viri and femine, whereas they are omitted from CUL MS Ff.i.27. This would seem to argue against this thesis. However, on a close examination of the text, it looks as if these letters may have been added later by another hand, which would further the argument that CUL MS Ff.i.27 is not dependent on DCL MS B.II.35. Finally, a general comparison between the manuscripts from Sawley, Bury St Edmund and Durham, CUL MS Ff.i.27, CCCC MS 66 and DCL MS B.II.35, shows that Durham has only four of the manuscripts which are to be found within the collections of Sawley and Bury St Edmund. This surely indicates that the material in the collection from Sawley was not soley dependent on Durham. In conclusion, therefore, while there is a solid body of scholarly opinion which holds that the manuscripts at Cambridge owe their origins to Durham, there are definite indications which question this assumption and leave this issue open to further debate. As Dumville noted, the complicated relationship between Durham and Cambridge in the transmission of the writings of Gille of Limerick counsels caution in drawing conclusions.26 MS Ff.i.27 page 237r–page 242v. Cambridge University Library MS Ff.i.27 forms part of the manuscript collection of Cambridge University Library. Historically, this manuscript has been closely linked with CCCC MS 66. Scholars in general, and M.R. James in particular, have tended to believe that originally both of these manuscripts formed a single unit in the late twelfth century. According to James, they were acquired by Archbishop Parker of Canterbury after the suppression of the monasteries in England and formed part of his manuscript collection.27 He held that Parker then separated the various texts which formed the twelfth-century manuscript collection at Sawley Abbey and dismembered a fourteenth-century manuscript from the monastery at Bury St Edmund, putting the material from both into two new separate collections. In 1574, the year before he died, he gave the material which today forms CUL MS Ff.i.27 to University Library, Cambridge. On his death in 1575 the remainder of the manuscripts went to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and now forms CCCC MS 66.

26 Dumville, ‘Celtic-Latin texts’, p. 44.

27 M.R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College Cambridge (Cambridge, 1909), 2 vols., vol. 1, Intro., p. xxiv; pp 137ff. (hereafter James, A Descriptive Catalogue).

Limerick 05

11/4/01

126

1:55 pm

Page 126

Gille of Limerick

The scriptorium at Sawley Abbey, a Cistercian monastery which was founded in 1148, is normally cited as the place in which this manuscript was copied. Formerly located in west Yorkshire, it is now in Lancashire, following the changes in the county boundaries. The first Cistercian house in England was founded in the south of England. However, it was among the Yorkshire hills and dales and in the remote valleys of Wales that the Order made its most significant settlements. Within twelve years some twenty monasteries had grown up in Yorkshire and about forty throughout England and Wales. The abbey at Sawley was founded by William De Pery.28 Together with Pipwell and Rothe, it claimed Newminster as its mother house. Newminster in its turn was founded from one of the most famous of all Cistercian houses in England, Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire.29 Sawley Abbey was never large. At the time of its foundation it had a community which consisted of an abbot, twelve monks and ten lay brothers. Two and a half centuries later there were fifteen monks and two lay brothers. It closed in 1536, during the suppression of the monasteries. Description of the text and the diagram. Hardwick, in his catalogue of the manuscripts in University Library, Cambridge, describes CUL MS Ff.i.27 as follows ‘A parchment book, in folios of 642 pages, whereon are treatises written at various periods, the particulars of which are noted below. The volume may be divided into two parts; the former comprising the first 18 articles on 252 pages (with the exception of 3 on pp 41-72) in various handwritings, not later perhaps than the xiiith-century, and in some instances of a prior date; the latter part being in no case earlier than the xivth-century’.30 In this description of the manuscript the cataloguers clearly indicate the composition of the present volume and the structure of the original manuscripts of Sawley and Bury St Edmund. The first 252 pages, with the exception of folios 41-72, comprise the original late twelfth-century manuscript from Sawley and the remainder makes up the fourteenth-century manuscript from Bury St Edmund.31 James, describes CUL MS Ff.i.27 as follows: ‘J.247. Ff.i.27. Gildas, Simeon of Durham, Giraldus Cambrensis etc. Two portions of cent. xii and cent. xiv respectively. The former is from Sawley or Salley Abbey, the latter is from Bury St Edmund’s and the remainder of it is in MS CCC 66.’32 Later on in his work,33 he shows that, while these two abbeys were the sources for the Parker Collection, the writings of Gille of Limerick were copied at Sawley Abbey.34 28 D. Knowles and R.N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses in England and Wales (London, 1987). 29 H. Whone, Fountains Abbey (Otley, 1987). 30 C. Hardwick and H.R. Luard, A catalogue of the manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1857) , 4 vols (hereafter Hardwick and Luard, A catalogue). 31 Hardwick and Luard, A catalogue, vol. 2, pp 318-30. 32 James, A Descriptive Catalogue, vol. 1, Intro, p. xxiv; pp 137ff. 33 Ibid., p. 145. 34 King Henry VIII suppressed the Abbey of Sawley in

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 127

Scribes and Manuscripts

127

CUL MS Ff.i.27 contains the complete writings of Gille. The prologue, De usu ecclesiastico, is written on folio 237. The diagram is drawn on folio 238 and the libellus, De statu Ecclesiae, is copied on folios 239-242. Two hands worked on this manuscript. Hand A copied De usu ecclesiastico in its entirety and hand B transcribed the complete text of De statu Ecclesiae, with the possible exception of a small section of the text35 where what looks like a different hand appears. The diagram is drawn in an ornate style and, according to James, gives ‘the general appearance of a huge window’.36 Hardwick refers to it as ‘an architectural device on p. 238 surrounded by a legend’.37 In his introduction to the text, Hardwick notes that there are some erasures and corrections on the manuscript and that pencil marks may indicate that the text was collated. He observes that the ‘pagination of the volume is now in the red chalk generally observed in Abp. Parker’s books’.38 He also noted the presence of an older enumeration in green ink of the portion of the manuscript copied at Bury St Edmund.39 CUL MS Ff.i.27 is a complicated manuscript, which has been through many vicissitudes. It has been resown and rebound on a number of occasions. The leaves of the manuscript were originally much larger and they have been trimmed by the binders, possibly on more than one occasion. In order to preserve the diagram in its entirety, the outer edge of p. 238 has not been trimmed to the extent of the others. Instead, the outer edge of approximately 2cms has been folded, in order to fit in with the remainder of the manuscript. Initially, this gives the impression that pp 237-38 is a separate page but this is not the case. Pp 237-52 form a single choir of eight leaves in which the writings of Gille are transcribed on pp 237-42 and an account of various kings forms the theme of the remainder of the choir. A number of hands, all similar and contemporary, worked on this choir of eight leaves.40 Folio 237. Hand A begins his transcription with Incipit prologus Gille epi lunicensis de usu ecclesiastico. On the top of the page is written Gille eps Lumnicensis de usu ecclesiastico. Hardwick holds that while Hand A, which transcribed De usu ecclesiastico, and Hand B, which copied De statu Ecclesiae, are different the entire treatise was copied at the same period.41 It is important to note the use of Gille as the name of the author of this text, both within the text itself and in the dedication. 1536. Soon afterwards the manuscripts of the abbey had made their way to the library of the future Archbishop Parker: cf. Knowles and Handcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 125. 35 Lines 99-115, DSE. 36 This quotation comes from hand written notes made by James, which are preserved in the archives of University College Library, Cambridge. 37 Hardwick and Luard, A catalogue, vol. 2, p. 320. 38 Ibid., p. 321. 39 Ibid, p. 319. 40 I am very grateful to Ms Jayne Ringrose, Cambridge University, England, for her kind and expert opinion on these leaves in CUL MS Ff.i.27. 41 Hardwick and Luard, A catalogue, p. 325.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

128

1:55 pm

Page 128

Gille of Limerick

Folio 238. This folio contains the diagram, or imago, which is referred to both in the prologue and the libellus. It is drawn on the reverse of folio 237. It is early medieval in appearance, with the colours red and blue used as the chief colours and with some gold leaf inlaid in the lines of demarcation within it. A rubric, written during the sixteenth-century around the sides of the diagram, notes as follows: ‘Arca figuram mundi habuit. Fuit enim triam arcata. In superiori erant aves tanquam in caelo. In medio erant homines scilicet Noe et familia eius tamquam in hoc mundo. Animalia et reptila tanquam animae in inferno.’42 This rubric was added in black ink. It appears that the rubric was originally in red ink inserted by the hand which drew the diagram and that the rubric in black ink was inserted later, possibly in the sixteenth-century. The diagram is ornate and well designed, bearing a strong resemblance to the pattern found in the windows of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century churches. It is rich in symbolism. The three categories described in the rubric are represented in the diagram itself. The birds are on the upper level and the animals are on the lower level. In the middle, at the centre of the diagram, is a design which represents Noah and his family, those who live in the created world. The presence of birds in the diagram of CUL Ff.i.27 raises two question; that of the possible influence of a native Irish cosmology on Gille and the priority of this diagram over that of Durham. The issue of a long tradition of a native Irish cosmology has emerged in some studies in recent years.43 A number of Hiberno-Latin texts from the seventh-century onwards show the interest which Irish monks had in understanding the cosmos and the world of nature around them. Liber De ordine creaturarum,44 De mirabilis sacrae scripturae and other works point to a particular Irish tradition which, in all probability, influenced the scholars who worked in the cathedral schools of places like Laon and may have laid part of the foundation for the medieval Christocentric cosmology which influenced men like Gille. In this regard also it is important to note the interest which the Irish had in birds and in their representation. No other animal is given the same attention in the earliest Irish texts. In Liber De ordine creaturarum a rich variety of birds are mentioned, sea birds, swamp birds etc.45 From the point of view of the Cambridge diagram this may be of particular significance. The representation of birds in this edition of the diagram may help to prove that it is the earliest known version of the diagram, influenced by the Irish presence in Northumbria and copied at Sawley, west Yorkshire. The Durham diagram, 42 James, from his hand-written notes, which are held in the Archive of University Library, Cambridge. 43 M. Smyth, ‘ The earliest written evidence for an Irish view of

the World’ in D. Edel (ed.), Cultural Identity and Cultural Integration (Dublin, 1995), pp 23-45. 44 Isidore of Seville, Liber De ordine creaturarum, PL 86, 913-54. 45 Smyth, ‘The earliest written evidence for an Irish view of the world’, pp 36-7.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 129

Scribes and Manuscripts

129

coming after that of Cambridge and seeing its beauty, may have contented itself with a simplified version of the diagram. At the top of the diagram, encasing the arch of the universal pyramid and the buildings, is a design which resembles the town wall in two illustrations to Psalm 43 of the Eadwine Psalter and the Canterbury Psalter46 from the mid to late twelfth-century. The birds depicted in the diagram bear a strong resemblance to those in an illustration in the Bible of Bury St Edmunds which also comes from the mid twelfth-century.47 While the diagram appears to be of a much later date than that of DCL MS B.II.35 it may not necessarily be so since traces of the design are to be found in illustrations from the second half of the twelfth-century. While more letters are used to describe the various offices and office holders than in DCL MS B.II.35, dots are also used as space fillers.48 Folios 239-42. These folios contain De statu Ecclesiae. The text begins with Gilebertus Lunicensis episcopus de statu ecclesiae. The hand of folio 237 has also noted Gilebertus Epus Lumnicensis de statu Ecclesiae on the top of the folio. The libellus is written by a different hand to the hand that copied the prologue and annotated folio 237. The original text of Gille in this manuscript has been added to throughout the centuries which have followed its transcription. In the original text ‘soli Deo’ was omitted from the definition of the role of monks in the Church and added later in the margins by a different hand. In the section of the text which deals with sub-deacons a cartoon is added and the words ‘strictis manicis’ are underlined. At the end of the text the word ‘paratus’ has been inserted. While the same hand copied the entire text, there are differences in style within it. The office holders for the six grades of clerical life which lead to priestly ordination are all given bold capitals in the description of their duties. The capital for the priest is not as bold as the others but his duties are all outlined in capitals which are bold. The capital used for the primate is the largest of all, even larger than that used for the pope. However, there is a uniformity in style in CUL MS Ff.i.27 folios 239-242 which is lacking in the corresponding text in DCL MS B.II.35. Paleographers and historians in general suggest that these manuscripts, CUL MS Ff.i.27 and CCCC MS 66, date from the early thirteenth-century.49 However, from a close analysis of the manuscript collection, it can be argued that they originated in the late twelfth-century, probably from some date 46 J. Snyder, Medieval Art, Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, 4th-14th Century (New York, 1989) p. 231. 47 Ibid., p. 296. 48 Meehan, ‘Durham Manuscripts’, p. 444. 49

Gwynn, The Twelfth Century Reform, p. 68; James, A Descriptive Catalogue, p. 137; Luard, A catalogue, vol. 2, pp 325-6.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

130

Page 130

Gille of Limerick

between 1181 and 1188. Using the criterion already applied to DCL MS B.II.35, the text shows that the abbreviation strokes are consistently wavy or cup-shaped, that there are no horizontal strokes in them and that there are no downward ticks on the letter t when used’. Using the criteria proposed by Ker, a leading authority in this area, it is possible to argue that CUL MS Ff.i.27 and CCCC MS 66 are late twelfth-century manuscripts.50 It should be noted that this stands true for both the prologue and the libellus in CUL MS Ff.i.27. Paleographical evidence, therefore, suggests that CUL MS Ff.i.27 was copied at some date between 1181 and 1186. Historical evidence from CCCC MS 66, which is closely linked to CUL MS Ff.i.27, concurs precisely with these dates as will be seen in the following section. The tracts collected in CUL MS Ff.i.27 like the material contained in CCCC MS 66, form a thematic unity. Two sets of themes in particular are significant with regard to this study of the writings of Gille. The first of these centres around the theme of the organisation of the Church. Folio 221-223 has the subject De tempore regnum Brittannicorum aliquot Anglo-Saxonum sive Praefatio Rici de statu Hag. Eccl. Folio 223-37 has a tract entitled Richius De statu et Epis Hagustolden Ecclesiae. This is followed, in folios 237-42, by the tract known as Gilbertus De statu Ecclesiae. The second theme focuses on Ireland. This begins with the writings of Gille and continues in the folios that follow. Folio 253-290 contains a document entitled Giraldus Cambrensis de Tipographia Hiberniae; folios 290-322 has De mirabilibus Hiberniae (sive Distinctio 2 de topographia Hiberniae); folios 322-55 has De habitatoribus eiusdem terrae (sive Distinctio de Topographia Hiberniae); folios 453-73 has Vita S. Patricii, and, finally, folio 568-600 has a treatise entitled De Purgatorio Patricii. The writings of Gille, therefore, are central to these themes and connect both of them. All of them come from the manuscript copied at Sawley Abbey, rather than the one transcribed at Bury St Edmund. Other important themes are to be found in CUL MS Ff.i.27. These include material on the church at Durham, the abbots of Lindisfarne, Bede and Gildas. They are of importance in themselves and of significance with regard to the claims of the various scriptoria to be the source of various manuscript collections.

50 N. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (Oxford, 1961), p. 177 (hereafter Ker,

Medieval Libraries).

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 131

Scribes and Manuscripts

131

MS 66. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge This manuscript, which was originally united with CUL MS Ff.i.27, only contains a copy of the prologue, De usu ecclesiastico. It is document number 4 in a set of documents which James describes as follows: ‘diversis manibus et diversis saeculis exaratus: in prima cujus parte saeculo XIII scripta continentur’.51 Description of the text. This text was copied by a hand that is different to either of the hands that copied the prologue and the libellus in CUL MS Ff.i.27, even though all the scribes are generally thought to have worked at Sawley Abbey. The script in this case resembles what paleographers term ‘prickly’. The parchment was also lined differently to that of CUL MS Ff.i.27. Experts differ when commenting on the work of this scribe. Meehan thought it was neater than that of CUL MS Ff.i.27.52 Dumville, on the other hand, described it as coming from an ‘ugly, untidy hand’.53 Differences and similarities abound between the version of De usu ecclesiastico in both manuscripts. The prologue ends differently in both. In CUL MS Ff.i.27 it simply ends with Explicit prologus, whereas CCCC MS 66 ends with Explicit prologus libelli Gille lumnicensis episcopi de usu ecclesiastico. Other minor textual differences, which are recorded in the critical edition of the text found in the following chapter, also appear. Despite these difference, De usu ecclesiastico as it appears in CUL MS Ff.i.27 and CCCC MS 66 has much in common in both manuscripts. The hands which copied it, the style of the rubrication, the preparation of the parchment used and the general artistic style all indicate that these two manuscripts come from the same general school of writing. Meehan makes a highly significant observation when he links the similarities in design between the rota fortuna in CCCC MS 66 and the diagram of CUL MS Ff.i.27.54 This similarity, more than anything else, points to the common origin of both these manuscripts. James, in his catalogue, described the measurements and characteristics of this manuscript. He noted that it was copied on a single vellum sheet which was 117/10 x 81/5. He added that the page has two columns and is copied on 33 lines. The writing is small and would fill 43 lines if the page were filled. James also transcribed the ex libris, ‘Liber Sancte Marie De Salleia.,’55 which is to be found on page 2 of the collection and noted it in his catalogue. James clearly states that this manuscript was copied at Sawley Abbey.56 He shows that the portion of the Sawley collection of folios found in CCCC MS 66 51 James, A Descriptive Catalogue, vol. 1, pp 137ff. 52 Meehan, ‘Durham manuscripts’, p. 444. 53 Dumville, ‘Celtic-Latin texts’, n.110, p. 44. 54 Meehan, ‘Durham Manuscripts’, p. 444. 55 James, A Descriptive Catalogue, p. 137: ‘Vellum, 117/10 x 81/5, ff.

58+4+238, two main volumes. Vol. 1 in double columns of 33, 43, 37 lines. Vol. 2. in double columns of 39 lines. Cent xii (xiii) and xiv’. 56 Idem.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

132

1:55 pm

Page 132

Gille of Limerick

originally formed a thematic unity, namely a description of the organisation and order of the world and of the Church. This part of the collection is entitled Imago mundi and contains a series of manuscripts all of which form part of this thematic unity. The portion of the manuscript copied at Sawley Abbey is contained in folios 1-114. The theme of images or diagrams of the world is contained between folios 1-99. The first title Imago mundi, contains a diagram of the world and a description of same; ‘Imago mundi contexta per Henricum canonicum ecclesiae S. Marie civitatis Moguntiae De rerum naturis, imperatoribus, regnis et pontificibus usque ad Henricum imperatorem filium Henrici, lib. ii’.57 The second text is entitled Quaedam ex Plinio Aliisque De geographia. The third deals with the origin of the British people and is named Historia De origine Anglorum and notes ‘ex adverso primae paginae est delineatio rotae fortunae coloribus illuminata. Gille’s text De usu ecclesiastico ends this particular section. With the exception of Gille, the other three texts are accompanied by diagrams. It is clear, therefore, that the scriptorium of Sawley Abbey took the theme of images as the inspiration for this collection. Around it the scribes gathered the three diagrams, imago mundi, geographiae and rotae fortunae, adding texts to explain these illustrations. Gille’s text follows them but lacks the diagram which clearly should have accompanied his text, since it is referred to within the text. The absence of this illustration raises particular questions about the original composition of the manuscripts. Since Gille’s text is the fourth part of the theme it seems reasonable to assume that these documents were copied about the same time by a number of scribes in Sawley Abbey. James confirmed this theory and noted in his catalogue that they were written at the abbey by different hands.58 However, when he claimed that the texts were copied at different times he was referring to the entire collection of documents. The specific theme within the collection would seem to suggest that the four documents at the beginning of the manuscript were copied at the same time. Confirmation of this comes from the third document, Historia De origine Anglorum, which contains a date within it. It records ‘successionem episcoporum ... desinit utraque historia in anno 1181’. While this text deals with the episcopal succession until 1181 it is clear that the scribe worked on this text until a later date. He ends his manuscript with Usque a hodiernum diem id est ad annum post incarnationem Christi. M.C. octogesimum VIII regnante glorioso rege henrico secundo.58 While there is no evidence of dating on Gille’s pro57 This work is known as the ‘Imago Mundi of Honorius Augustodunensis’ and this diagram has traditionally been linked with the more famous Hereford Map, to which it bears a strong resemblance. cf. W.L. Bevan and H.W. Phillott, Medieval Geography. An Essay in the Illustration of the Hereford Mappa Mundi. (London, 1874), pp xxxvi-xxxix; V. Flint, ‘The Liber Hermetis Mercurii Triplicis De VI rerum principiis and the ‘Imago Mundi’ of Honorius Augustodunensis.’ Scriptorium 35 (1981), pp 179-98. 58 James, A Descriptive Catalogue, pp 137ff.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 133

Scribes and Manuscripts

133

logue, given that it is placed after a document which ends in 1181 and on which the scribe continued to work until the year 1188, which he described as ‘up to this date’, it seems reasonable to suggest that it was copied around these dates. At this point evidence from paleography, which has been discussed in relation to all three manuscripts, converges with that of internal historical evidence and concurs with amazing precision as to the date when CUL MS Ff.i.27 and CCCC MS 66 were copied, namely between 1181 and 1188. It seems reasonable to suggest, therefore, that CUL MS Ff.i.27 and CCCC MS 66 originated in the twelfth-century and not in the thirteenth-century, as many experts have believed. By way of conclusion, therefore, it is now possible to be more precise in their dating than heretofore. Given that the original Sawley manuscript dates from the twelfth-century and that of Bury St Edmund from the fourteenth-century, theorectically it should be possible to dismember the two manuscript collections made by Archbishop Parker and reconstruct the original collections.The folios which are now lodged in Corpus Christi College and in University Library, Cambridge, are clearly identifiable and experts agree on which can be extracted from each present-day collection to form the original manuscript collection. However, they continue to debate and argue the precise details of the original collections. While they disagree on many aspects of both collections, they tend to agree on one point in particular, namely that the writings of Gille of Limerick add considerable uncertainty to any conclusions that may be drawn. Since the writings of Gille are to be found only in the Sawley manuscript and not in the fourteenth-century manuscript copied at Bury St Edmund, the following attempt at reconstructing the original manuscripts will be confined to the twelfth-century manuscript copied at Sawley Abbey. By clearly indicating the manuscript collections in which they are found at present, the themes of the original collection will also be clearly seen. CCCC MS 66. folio 1

Frontispiece. Mappa mundi.

folio 2-58

Imago mundi contexta per Henricum canonicum ecclesiae S. Marie civitatis Moguntiae de rerum naturis, imperatoribus, regnis et pontificibus usque ad Henricum imperatorem filium Henrici, lib. ii.

folio 58-64

Quaedam ex Plinio Aliisque de geographia.

folio 66-98

Historia de origine Anglorum ... (ex adverso primae paginae est delineatio rotae fortunae coloribus illuminata)

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 134

134

Gille of Limerick

CUL MS Ff.i.27. pp 237-42

Gille of Limerick, De usu ecclesiastico; De statu Ecclesiae.

pp 243-5

British kings (Eneas to Cadwaldar)

pp 246-8

Kings and prophets of Israel.

pp 249-52

Kings of France.

CCCC MS 66. folios 99-101 Teobaldus Stampensis, Epistola de Confessione in Ultimo ad Robertum Lincolniensem Episcopum. folios 101-8

De Sex Alis et Triginta Pennis Cherubim (Alanus de Insulis).

folios 108-12 De Tribus in Penitentia Considerandis (unattributed). folios 112-14 Sermo de Quattor Generibus Confessionis. CUL MS Ff.i.27. pp 1-14

Gildas, De Excidio Brittannie. Book I.

pp 14-40

Historia Brittonum (attributed to Nennius.)

pp 73-116

Bede, De Temporum Ratione.

p. 116

Bede, De Natura Rerum.

pp 116-19

Bede, De magno anno ex concurrentibus composito a Beda.

pp 203-15

De Abbatibus. Aethilwulf.

pp 215-16

De regibus et regnis et episcopatibus tocius Anglie.

p. 216

Quomodo uel quo ordine episcopi Anglie debent sedere in concilio.

p. 120

Hec duo miracula sunt sumpta de Historia Willemi Malmesberiensis monachi.

pp 217-20

Visiones.

pp 122-86

Symeon of Durham, Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae.

p. 186

Properties given by King Ecgfrith to St Cuthbert.

pp 187-90

Symeon of Durham, First Continuation.

pp 191-4

Symeon of Durham, Second Continuation.

p. 194

De Electione et Ordinatione Hugonis Episcopi.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 135

Scribes and Manuscripts

135

pp 195-202

Historia De Sancto Cuthberto.

p. 202

De situ Dunelmi et de sanctorum religuiis que ibidem continentur.

pp 221-36

Richard of Hexham, De moderno et antiquo statu Hagustaldensis Ecclesiae.

CCCC MS 66. folio 98

Gille of Limerick, De usu ecclesiastico.

Grouped in this way the collection falls into a series of themes. These begin with the texts centred on the notion of an image and form the first portion of CCCC MS 66 as it stands at present. A collection of documents which dealt with the sacrament of penance follows this. Two historical sections then follow, both of which end with a document on the supernatural, miracles and visions. A collection of documents centred on Durham follows this. The next theme focuses on De statu Ecclesiae, with a treatise by Richard of Hexham and one by Gille of Limerick. This ordering of the original manuscript has two differences from the model proposed by Dumville.59 The first is a minor one. It takes the tract on the two miracles of William of Malmesbury of CUL MS Ff.i.27 p.120 from the end of the section on Bede and places it in the section which treats of miracles and visions. The second deals with the writings of Gille and would involve a major reordering of both manuscript collections. Within the sequence of themes in the original manuscript from Sawley Abbey as they are normally seen, the writings of Gille present a problem. Dealing with the proposed structure for the Irish Church and focused on a diagramatic representation of what this should look like, Gille’s treatise could fit with two of these themes, namely, that of the images or that which dealt with the state of the Church at Hexham. All scholars agree that a copy of the prologue, De usu ecclesiastico is to be found in the theme of images. However, as it stands at present, this text lacks an image or diagram to accompany it. Dumville argues that the full text as it is found in CUL MS Ff.i.27 belongs to this section and that the single page of De usu ecclesiastico was inserted there by a scribal mistake.60 This hypothesis is supported by the argument from the style of the images to be found in CCC MS 66. James described the rota fortuna in CCCC MS 66 as follows; ‘On MS 66 a fine full page picture framed, medallions at 59 D.M. Dumville, ‘The Sixteenth-Century History of two Cambridge books from Sawley’, in Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 7 (1980), pp 430-40 (hereafter Dumville, ‘Two Cambridge books’). 60 Idem, pp 435-6.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

136

1:55 pm

Page 136

Gille of Limerick

corners of two birds and two beasts. Ground red at the sides, dark blue in the middle. Above in c. is the wheel of fortune mainly in gold with the usual four figures’.61 This description has a significant amount of detail in common with the diagram of Gille in CUL MS Ff.i.27. The principal colours of red, blue and gold leaf are common to both. Present also in this diagram are the birds and the beasts. If the text and the diagram of CUL MS Ff.i.27 were taken from their present position and inserted into the place of folio 98 of the CCCC MS 66 collection, they would fit in perfectly, from the point of view of design and theme, with the first portion of that collection. If folio 98 of CCCC MS 66 were then inserted in the place of pp 236-237 of CUL MS Ff.i.27, it would fit in without disturbing the order or theme of the subject of that portion of the manuscript collection, since De usu ecclesiastico, like the tract of Richard of Hexham, both concern the organisation of the local Church. The problem that faced the creators of the collections was that this section is then incomplete, since it lacks the text of De statu Ecclesiae. Dumville, rightly, places the tract of Richard of Hexham De statu Hagustaldensis Ecclesiae at the end of his proposed manuscript. Placing Gille’s text after this would resolve two issues. It would eliminate the question of duplication within the collection on the grounds that the diagram and text of CUL MS Ff.i.27 would have been put in place with the diagrams and De usu ecclesiastico of CCCC MS 66 would have joined De statu Ecclesiae of Richard of Hexham. Manuscripts survive in three collections which claim Sawley Abbey as their scriptorium of origin. They are CCCC MS 139, CCCC MS 66 and CUL MS Ff.i.27. Two of these contain the writings of Gille of Limerick. The question inevitably arises, therefore, as to why and how a text written by Gille of Limerick at the beginning of the twelfth-century, addressed to the bishops and priests of Ireland, should end up as a medieval text in scriptoria in Northumbria. The Irish Church, from the sixth to the eight-century, played a significant role in the life of the Church in Northumbria. Manuscripts written in what is called the Insular style still exist from this period and point to the presence of the Irish in this area. In particular, manuscripts which are now housed at Durham Cathedral Library, such as DCL MS A.11.10, underline the long and strong tradition which existed between Ireland and Northumbria.62 The presence of the manuscripts which contain the writings of Gille in a Cistercian abbey is particularly significant. Gille was succeeded as papal legate by St Malachy of Armagh, who in his later years became the close friend of the Cistercian monk, St Bernard of Clairvaux. Malachy died in 61 James, A Descriptive Catalogue, p. 140. 62 J. Browne, ‘The oldest Irish manuscripts and their late antique background’, in P. Ní Cathain and M. Richter (eds), Ireland and Europe (Stuttgart, 1984) pp 311-27.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 137

Scribes and Manuscripts

137

Clairvaux on a return journey from Rome to Ireland and was buried in the tomb in which St Bernard was subsequently buried. Since Malachy assumed the leadership of the Irish Church after Gille, he may well have brought a copy of Gille’s text, which was written as a blueprint for the reform of the Irish Church, with him on his visit to Rome. On his death this may have been left in Clairvaux. Almost half a-century later this text may then have been taken to Northumbria to be copied in the Cistercian house at Sawley. Another possibility is that Gille may have had the text with him when he retired as bishop of Limerick and went to live at Bangor Abbey in Co. Down. This abbey had strong links with the Cistercian abbeys of north Wales and west Yorkshire and, therefore, his text could have made its way from Bangor to Yorkshire in the years after his death. Central to any discussion of the writings of Gille is the relationship between the abbey at Sawley and the cathedral at Durham. Durham is without doubt the oldest and most prestigious of these two scriptoria, having been founded in the tenth-century, as opposed to Sawley which was founded in the middle of the twelfth-century. Meehan argues that this indicates that Durham was the source for much of the Sawley manuscripts. Sawley, on the other hand, was a Cistercian foundation and its genealogy can be traced through Newminster back to Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire. While scholars acknowledge that there was a good deal of interaction and copying between the various scriptoria in this part of Northumbria during the twelfth-century, given that Sawley was a latecomer to scribal activity in this area, it seems probable that it would have turned to the monastery from which it was founded for material before approaching an ancient scriptorium such as Durham. The relationship, therefore, between Durham and Sawley may not have been as direct as some have believed. The element of mystery is deeply embedded in the writings of Gille. In particular, it is to be seen in the present arrangement of the manuscript material. As has been noted, DCL MS B.II.35 lacks the prologue, De usu ecclesiastico. On the other hand, CCCC MS 66 lacks the diagram and the libellus, De statu Ecclesiae, while CUL MS Ff.i.27 contains all three. The key to solving the mystery of how they were originally designed must lie in the fact that, in so far as can be seen by the naked eye, CUL MS Ff.i.27 forms a single choir of eight leaves and, therefore, contains the complete works of Gille in a single unit. On the other hand, the present locations of the material from the Sawley manuscript collection do not appear to be the places for which they were originally copied. To hold that Sawley Abbey would set out to create a duplicate copy of one of the writings of Gille does not agree with the general practice of not having multiple copies of the same text in monastic or cathedral collections. Duplication would have been avoided and thematic unity preserved if the text and the

Limerick 05

11/4/01

138

1:55 pm

Page 138

Gille of Limerick

diagram which form part of CUL MS Ff.i.27 were copied to form part of the thematic unity of CCCC MS 66. Placed in that manuscript collection, this text and diagram would fit in with the other material both from a thematic as well as an artistic point of view. The twelfth-century scribes who worked in the scriptorium of Sawley Abbey were, in all probability, faced with a dilemma with regards to Gille’s material. Having copied the text of both De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae, together with the diagram, they then found that having placed all this material, which is a natural unit, in the part of the collection dedicated to the theme of diagrams they also had a portion of the collection dedicated to the theme De statu Ecclesiae which also claimed the text of his writings. If De usu ecclesiastico from CCCC MS 66 as it stands today were to join the remaining portion of CUL MS Ff.i.27, it could fit the thematic unity of CUL MS Ff.i.27 alongside the De statu section of the Church at Hexham, albeit lacking the text of De statu Ecclesiae. In all probability, the original scribes only copied the prologue and decided to leave the last section of the collection incomplete. Eventually, when the collection of manuscripts was bound, the dilemma was faced once more and the material re-arranged. The other possibility is that this copy of De usu ecclesiastico could have been prepared for the completion of DCL MS B.II.35. Some scholars hold that the absence De usu ecclesiastico from DCL MS B.II.35 means that the text copied in CCCC MS 66 was originally destined to join the manuscript collection now housed at Durham Cathedral Library. They choose CCCC MS 66 for this purpose because it lacks the diagram and DCL MS B.II.35 contains one. From the point of view of text and theme, De usu ecclesiastico and the diagram of CUL MS Ff.i.27 fit more perfectly into CCCC MS 66 than anywhere else. Adding force to this rearrangement of the text is the fact that De statu Ecclesiae theme of the last section of CUL MS Ff.i.27 does not require a diagram. The mystery which surrounds the creation of the collection continued in the transmission of the manuscripts to the present day. Presumably, after they were copied they were lodged in the archive of Sawley Abbey and while it is obvious from the manuscripts that they were read and annotated on occasions, there is no evidence that other copies of them were made or that they had a long lasting influence on the authors of the high Middle Ages. During the middle of the sixteenth-century CCCC MS 139 had a chequered history but almost nothing is known of CUL MS Ff.i.27 and CCCC MS 66 until they formed part of the collection of Archbishop Parker of Canterbury.63

63 Dumville, ‘Two Cambridge books’, pp 427-8.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 139

Scribes and Manuscripts

139

Modern scholarship has reached a point in the discussion of all this material that prevents a definite answer being given to the mystery surrounding the collection of manuscripts from Sawley Abbey. In the course of time hands have tampered with the texts. Erasures and corrections have been made, small strips of parchment have been used to conceal the original and, posssibly, the political purposes of a later generation have served to obscure the work of the original copyists.64 However, educated guesses can be made and positions taken which may move the process forward in slow and measured steps. One of these is the suggestion that CUL MS Ff.i.27 is at least likely to be older if not the source used for DCL MS B.II.35. Five indicators support this suggestion. DCL MS B.II.35 does not have the prologue, De usu ecclesiastico. CUL MS Ff.i.27, as it is structured nowadays, cannot have been copied from this source, therefore. It could, however, have been the source from which DCL MS B.II.35 was prepared. Some argue that the simplicity of the design of the diagram in DCL MS B.II.35 argues in favour of the Durham manuscript being the source for CUL MS Ff.i.27, which is more ornate. The opposite could also be argued, that the detail of CUL MS Ff.i.27 was such than an attempt to copy this ornate style was abandoned in favour of a basic simplicity. There are a number of examples where grammatical mistakes made in CUL MS Ff.i.27 have been corrected in DCL MS B.II.35. These include primam ergo piramidem,65 confirmare euis est,66 and the insertion of paratis in the last line of the text.67 The corrected text, namely DCL MS B.II.35 would, therefore seem dependent on CUL MS Ff.i.27. A further source which supports this line of argument is the soli Deo insertion.68 This phrase was omitted in the original text of CUL MS Ff.i.27 and in DCL MS B.II.35. It was added by a later hand in CUL MS Ff.i.27 because it fitted into the margin without upsetting the text. DCL MS B.II.35 was unable to accommodate the phrase after it was copied. The later insertion may be an attempt to place this important phrase in the text which at the time of writing may have been considered the older of the two. Finally, the use of praesul in CUL MS Ff.i.27 as opposed to episcopus in DCL MS B.II.35.69 may indicate further that CUL MS Ff.i.27 is the older of the two manuscripts and may in fact have been the source from which DCL MS B.II.35 was copied. Hopefully, as scholarship progresses and as scholars take time to tease out all the details of the material which is available, the cloud of unknowing and uncertainty will lift from the material copied over eight centuries ago.

64 Hardwick and Luard, A descriptive catalogue, pp 325-6. 65 Line 11, DSE. 66 Line 245, DSE. 67 Line 299, DSE. 68 Line 49, DSE. 69 Lines 70, 137, DSE.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

140

1:55 pm

Page 140

Gille of Limerick THE PRINTED SOURCES FOR THE WRITINGS OF GILLE

The writings of Gille of Limerick have been printed in three separate works. Using some of the manuscript sources, Archbishop Ussher published Gille’s texts in Veterum Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge, printed in Dublin in 1632 and in a later Paris edition in 1665. Charles Elrington published his edition of Ussher’s work in 1864 and P.J. Migne printed the writings in his well known series, Patrologia Latina, CLIX, Col. 995-1004. To date no critical edition of the texts has been prepared. Veterum Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge, Jacobus Usserius Armachanus Archiepiscopus collegit et recensuit, Parisiis, ex officina Lud. Billaine in Palatio Regio. M. DC. LXV. Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656),70 the seventeenth-century Protestant archbishop of Armagh, was one of the first students to enter Trinity College, Dublin after it was opened in 1594 and he remained its lifelong friend. A dedicated academic and scholar, he has been described as ‘a polymath of European fame, with a prodigious mastery of biblical and patristic learning’.71 His interest in Irish Church history led him to publish a number of treatises of historical interest and in particular his Veterum Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge. Together with Sir James Ware, Ussher laid the foundations for the Anglican view of Irish history. It is important to note, however, that they did not begin this tradition from a purely sectarian point of view. Ussher had friendly relations with leading Catholics in Ireland and abroad. Roderick O’Flaherty, whose family lands had been confiscated, was to describe Ussher as ‘one of us’.72 Ware, in his works on the bishops and the writers of Ireland, was also ‘remarkably free of sectarian animus’.73 Known, generally, nowadays as Sylloge, Ussher’s work contains the writings of Gille on pages 77ff. of the Dublin edition and on pages 54-62 in the Paris edition.74 The recensio of the Paris edition clearly shows that Ussher’s text was based on CUL MS Ff.i.27, CCCC MS 66 and DCL MS B.II.35. In his introduction, Ussher noted: ‘Ex Ms. codice bibliothecae publica Cantabrigiensis academiae descripsi: collato prologo De usu ecclesiastico cum alio Benedictini Collegii in eadem academia, et libello De statu Ecclesiae cum altero monacharum Dunelmensium exemplari, a D. Augustino Linsello 70 T.W. Moody, New History of Ireland, vol. 3, p. lvi. 71 R. Buick Knox, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (Cardiff, 1967). 72 Moody, NHI, p. 574. 73 Idem., p. lvii. 74 For

purposes of this work, I have used the Paris edition. J. Ussher, Veterum Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge (Paris, MDCLXV) pp 54-62 (hereafter Ussher, Sylloge).

Limerick 05

11/4/01

1:55 pm

Page 141

Scribes and Manuscripts

141

Decano Lichfeldiensi accepto’. He, therefore, used the two copies of De usu ecclesiastico that are at Cambridge, the one at Corpus Christi College and the other at the University Library Cambridge. He also viewed the copy of De statu Ecclesiae held at Durham and the manuscript at University Library Cambridge. Ussher was very careful to point out that because of the absence of the means of printing a drawing, he was forced to omit a copy of the diagram, which linked De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae. He continued: ‘Subjiciebatur in Mss quibus hic usi sumus exemplaribus, ecclesia depicta imago. (cujus in superiori prologo facta est mentio et in proximo libello sequitur explicatio) ... Verum de chalcographicorum typorum defectum, schema illud coacti sumus hic omittere’.75 During the seventeenth-century scholars were confused as to the identity of Gille of Limerick. John Pitts, a Catholic priest and biographer,76 using the name Gilbert instead of Gille, had, for example, confused Gille of Limerick with Gilbert of Lincoln. The Paris edition of Ussher is very careful to stress that this was a mistake and clearly attributes the writings to Gille (Gilbert) of Limerick.77 Ware, who was a collaborator and contemporary of Ussher, agrees with him and reprimands Pitts in his work De Scriptoribus Hiberniae (1639). Ware holds that Pitts took his information from the catalogue of manuscripts in Bennet College, Cambridge, edited by Thomas James and he noted that in other works, Pitts continued to confuse the issue by linking Gille (Gilbert) of Limerick with a Bededictine monk of Westminster who had the same name.78 The Paris edition of Ussher’s work contains all the writings of Gille, including his letter to St Anselm. It contains amendations to the text which are noted in the critical edition of the writings. The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., edited by Charles Richard Elrington, D.D. In 1864 Charles Elrington, Rector of Armagh and formerly Regius Professor of Divinity at Trinity College, Dublin edited in seventeen volumes the entire writings of archbishop Ussher. His edition of the writings of Gille (Gilbert) of Limerick were published in volume 4. They included the letter to St Anselm as well as De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae. The publication was entitled The Whole Works of the Most. Rev. James Ussher, D.D., Dublin, 1864, 17 volumes.79

75 Ussher, Sylloge, p. 60.

76 Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 15, pp 1225. 77 Ussher, Sylloge, p. 60. 78 J.Ware, De Episcopis Hiberniae, p. 504; De Scriptoribus Hiberniae, pp 68-9. 79 Elrington (ed.), The Whole Works, vol. 4, pp 509-10.

Limerick 05

11/4/01

142

1:55 pm

Page 142

Gille of Limerick

Patrologia Latina, ed. Migne De usu ecclesiastico is printed in Migne, Patrologia Latina in volume 159 on p 997. De statu Ecclesiae is printed in the same volume at pp 998-1003. Migne copied his text directly and accurately from Ussher.80 He included Ussher’s footnotes and in his notitia historica clarified the problem of the mistaken identity of Gilbertus Lunicensis and the absence of the diagram which provides the key to the link between the prologue and the libellus.81

T H E D AT E O F W R I T I N G

Both the Prologue and the Libellus are undated. Through the centuries, a number of dates have been given for their composition. Ussher has given the year 1090 as the date of De usu ecclesiastico.82 He dated De statu Ecclesiae as about 1130 and based his theory on the fact that Gille became papal legate two years after the death of Ceallach and eighteen years before the death of St Malachy. He is incorrect on a number of issues, since Ceallach died in April 1129 and not 1128 and secondly there is no known historical connection between the death of Ceallach and the appointment of Gille as legate. Modern historians tend to date the writings to the year 1111.83 Gwynn writes ‘It was written after he had received his commission as papal legate and almost certainly was designed as a programme of reconstruction for the prelates who met at Rathbreasail’.84 Kenny notes: ‘The date is uncertain, but it was probably before the Synod of Rathbreasail, held in 1110 or 1111’.85 Others accept this line of thought.86 In summary, therefore, Gille’s writings are seen by most historians as a document composed to explain to the bishops and priests assembled at Rathbreasail the theory proposed for the restructuring of the Irish Church. No evidence to question this assumption seriously has been found. Indeed the opening of the prologue would seem to confirm it: ‘Rogatu necnon praecepto multorum ex vobis’, Gille was presenting it to ‘Episcopis et presbyteris totius Hiberniae’ assembled in 1111 at the synod of Rathbreasail. . 80 Usserius, Epist. Hibern. p. 77. Usserius, ibid., p. 89. ‘Fabric. Bibliotheca mediae et infimae Latinit., 111, 57; Migne, PL 159, 997-8. 81 Gilbertus, episcopus in Hibernia

Lunicensis (al. Lumnicensis) hodie Limericensis circa annum 1110, superstes adhuc anno 1139, scripsit libellum De statu Ecclesiae, editum ob Usserio in Epistolis Hibernicis p. 78 et Gilberto Crispino perperam tributum a Pitseo., p. 196. Praemisit Usserius eiusdem Gilberti epistolam ad episcopos et presbyteros Hiberniae, p. 77 subjeunta 88 aetera brevi ad Anselmum Cantuariensem, Migne, PL 159, 997. 82 Ussher, Sylloge, p. 54. 83 Migne, PL 159, 996-7. 84 Gwynn, ‘The Twelfth Century Reform’, p. 36. 85 Kenney, Sources, p. 764. 86 Hughes, The Church, p. 267

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 143

Text and Translation

1

A C R I T I C A L E D I T I O N 2-4

1

This critical edition of the texts is based on CUL MS Ff.i.27 since that manuscript contains De usu ecclesiastico, diagram and De statu Ecclesiae. B DCL MS B.II.35 F CUL MS Ff.i.27 C CCCC MS 66

U Ussher’s edition M Migne’s edition E Elrington edition

* a later hand = insertion in a printed edition

< + ~

omitted added variation in abbreviation

Ussher begins his printed edition of the text with the following introduction: ‘Gilleberti Lunicensis Episcopi ad Episcopos Hiberniae de usu ecclesiastico. Circa Annum 1090’. 3 Migne begins his printed edition of the text as follows:‘Circa annum Domini MCX./ Gilbertus Episcopus in Hibernia Lunicensis/Notitia Historica/(Fabric. Bibliotheca mediae et infimae Latinit., 111,57)/Gilbertus, episcopus in Hibernia Lunicensis [al.Lumnicensis] hodie Limericensis circa annum 1110, superstes adhuc anno 1139, scripsit libellum De statu Ecclesiae, editum ab Usserio in Epistolis Hibernicis p. 78 et Gilberto Crispino perperam tributum a Pitseo p. 196. Praemisit Usserius ejusdem Gilberti epistolam ad episcopos et presbyteros Hiberniae p. 77, subjuncta 88 altera brevi ad Anselmum Cantuariensem. The prologue De usu ecclesiastico then begins: Gilberti Lunicensis ad Episcopos Hiberniae De Usu Ecclesiastico.’ 4 Elrington in his edition places the following title: ‘Gilleberti Lumnicensis episcopi, et Romani Pontificis apud Hibernos Legati, ad Episcopos Hiberniae. De usu Ecclesiastico. He adds: ‘Qua legatione obiisse liquet ex Bernardo in vita Malachiae (vid. Messingham, pag. 359) biennio post mortem Celsi, h.e. anno Dom. 1130 et nono anno ante mortem Malachiae, h.e. anno Dom. 1140. vide Messingham, Pag.363, 364. Referenda igitur haec epistola ad annum 1130. 2

143

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 144

144

Text [DE

USU ECCLESIASTICO]

Incipit prologus Gille episcopi lunicensis de usu ecclesiastico.5 Episcopis6 presbyteris totius Hiberniae infimus praesulum Gille,7 Lumnicensis8 in Christo9 salutem. Rogatu necnon et praecepto multorum ex vobis charissimi canonicalem consuetudinem in dicendis horis et peragendo totius ecclesiastici ordinis officio scribere conatus sum non praesumptivo secundum10 vestrae cupiens parere piissimae jussioni ut diversi et schismatici illi ordines quibus hibernia11 pene tota delusa est uni catholico et romano cedant officio.12 Quid enim magis indecens aut schismaticum13 dici poterit14 quam doctissimum unius ordinis in alterius ecclesia idiotam et laicum fieri. Quicumque ergo catholicae membrum se profitetur ecclesiae sicut una fide spe charitate in corpore jungitur ita Deum ore et ordine cum caeteris membris laudare iubetur. Unde apostolus Ut unanimes uno ore honorificetis Deum15 Sicut igitur linguarum per superbiam facta dispersio ad unitatem in apostolica humilitate ducta est; sic ordinum per negligentiam et praesumptionem exorta confusio, ad consecratam romanae ecclesiae regulam per vestrum studium et humilitatem ducenda est. Quantum ergo debeat morum unitas servari a fidelibus quamvis ex multis locis sacrae Scripturae manifestum sit praesens tamen ecclesiae depicta imago oculis subjecta patenter ostendit. Namque omnia ecclesiae membra uni episcopo videlicet Christo ejusque vicario beato petro apostolo atque in ejus sede praesidenti apostolico subjici et ab eis manifestat gubernari. Haec tandem praemia pro tantulo opere a vobis omnibus expostulo ut sicut hic Deum uno corde et ore laudare debemus sic ei vestris precibus adjutus una vobiscum psallere in coelestibus valere merear. Amen. Explicit prologus.16 Amen.17 This introductory line is to be found only in F. Episcopis ] + et U M E. Gille ] Gillebertus U. Lumnicensis ] Lunicensis ] C U M. F uses Xpo, with its 8th-century Merovingian connotation; C uses ro, with its 12th century overtone of the Resurrection. 10 secundum ] sed ] F U M E. 11 Hibernia ] Hybernia ] C. 12 U, M and E use capital letters for R, C and O. 13 schismaticum ] schismaticii ] C. 14 poterit ] poteri ] M. 15 Deum ] Rom. 15.6. ] =U M E. 16 Explicit prologus ] < C U M E. 17 Amen } < F. 5 6 7 8 9

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 145

Translation [DE

145

USU ECCLESIASTICO]

The prologue, De usu ecclesiastico, of Gille, bishop of Limerick begins. The humblest of bishops, Gille of Limerick. Greetings in Christ to the bishops and priests of All Ireland. Dear friends, having been asked or rather encouraged by many of you, I have tried to outline the theory which upholds the whole ecclesiastical order and the canonical custom of reciting the hours. I have done this not out of presumption but in accordance with your most earnest request so that those separated and schismatical orders, by which almost the whole of Ireland is deceived, may yield to the one, catholic, Roman office. For what can be said to be more improper or schismatical than that the most learned of one order would become the insignificant and ordinary of another church? Whoever, therefore, professes to be a member of the catholic Church is commanded to praise God in prayer and orderliness with the other members since he is joined with them in the one body by faith, hope and love. The Apostle said: ‘So that you may praise God unanimously with one voice.’ Therefore, just as the dispersion of languages, which was caused by haughtiness, has been lead to unity by apostolic humility, so the confusion of the orders, which arose through negligence and presumption, must be lead to the consecrated rule of the Roman Church through your study and humility. The diagram of the Church here present before your eyes clearly shows the extent to which the unity of practice must be observed even though this is already manifest in many places in Sacred Scripture. For it shows that all the members of the Church are placed under and are governed by the one bishop, namely Christ, and by his vicar, the blessed apostle Peter, the one who presides in the Apostolic See. The only reward I ask from all of you for this small work is that, as we ought to praise God with one heart and one voice on earth, I, with the help of your prayers, may deserve to praise Him together with you in heaven. Amen.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 146

146

Text THE DIAGRAM

DCL MS B.II.35 has a copy of the diagram placed before the text of De statu Ecclesiae. MS Ff.i.27, as it appears nowadays, displays the diagram between the text of De usu ecclesiastico and De statu Ecclesiae. Ussher, Migne and Elrington do not print the diagram in their works but they insert the following texts. Ussher was the first to use it and it was copied by the others. Recensio18 Subjiciebatur in Manuscriptis, quibus hii usi sumus exemplaribus, Ecclesia depicta imago, (cuius in superiori prologo facta est mentio et in proximo libello sequitur explicatio) hac circumdata pyramidis ARCA figura mundi habuit; fuit enim tricamerata. In superiori partes erant aves, tanquam angeli in coelo. In medio erant homines (scilicet Noe et familia eius) tanquam in hoc mundo. In imo animalia et reptilia, tanquam anima in inferno. Verum ob chalcographicorum typorum defectum, schema illud coacti sumus hic omittere. [DE

S TAT U E C C L E S I A E ]

Gillebertus19 Lumnicensis20 Episcopus de statu Ecclesiae. Imago21 generalis ecclesiae supra notata primas nominum litteras pro ipsis nominibus idcirco continet quia spatium scribendi ipsa nomina tota non habet. Infima tamen linea tria haec tota vocabula describit, moniales, canonicales, vel universales. Et tota quidem imago22 piramidis formam praetendit quia inferius ampla est,23 ubi carnales et conjugatos recipit superius autem acuta, ubi arctam viam religiosis et ordinatis proponit. Nec sola generalis forma superius arctatur sed et singulares formulae quas ipsa continet in supremo24 acuuntur.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Ussher, Sylloge, p. 54. Gillebertus ] Gilebertus] B F; Gileberti] M. Lumnicensis ] Lunnicensis ] B; Lunicensis ] F U M. Noteworthy similarity in the design of the I in B and F. imago ] ymago ] B. est ] B and F. supremo ] suppremo] F.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 147

Translation

147

THE DIAGRAM

[See illustration on p. 120 above.]

Recension The diagram showing the Church, which we have used as an example is included with the manuscripts. Mention of this has been made in the Prologue, above, and an explanation of it is given in the Libellus which follows. There, surrounded by the arch of the pyramid, an outline of the world was shown. It was structured on three levels. On the upper level are birds, representing the angels in heaven. In the middle are men, namely Noah and his family, that is those in this world and on the lower line the animals and reptiles, representing the souls in hell. However, because of technical difficulties, we are forced to omit the diagram from this edition. [DE

S TAT U E C C L E S I A E ]

Gillebertus, Bishop of Limerick, De statu Ecclesiae The diagram of the universal Church given above contains the first letters of the names for the names themselves because it does not have the space for writing the names in full. The lowest line, therefore, describes in full these three words, seculars, regulars and the laity.* The whole diagram presents the outline of a pyramid since it is wide at the base, where it places the worldly and the married, and it is pointed at the top, where it shows the narrow way of the religious and the ordained. However, not only is the overall outline of the universal Church arched but each entity which it contains within it is also enclosed.

*

These three categories literally mean those who live alone, those who live under a rule and the ordinary people. Since the first two categories include what are now known as the secular clergy it seems appropriate to refer to them as the secular clergy, the regulars and the laity.

5

10

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 148

148

Text

Prima ergo piramide25 quam in sinistra parte respicis, P. subscriptum parochiam26 nominant27 quae in summo sacerdotem habet, et sub ipso diaconum, tertium subdiaconum, quartum acolithum, quintum exorcistam, sextum lectorem, septimum ostiarium.28 Amalarius tamen novem dicit gradus Ecclesiae addens psalmistam et episcopum. Sed tamen episcopus, archiepiscopus, patriarcha et prophetae, generalis ecclesiae gradus sunt. Singularis vero ideo illis tantum superioribus perfecta est quia in baptismate et corpore Domini veniam largiendo, filios suos fideles ad coelestem patriam transmittit.29 Quia vero quilibet de choro sola jussione presbyteri potest officio psalmistae fungi psallere scilicet sive cantare in numero graduum ecclesiae psalmistas non ponimus. Septem ergo gradus a septiformi spiritu singulis collati sunt Ecclesiis quia quamvis singulae in eis personae non serviant; omnes tamen septem gradus sustinens solus sacerdos, Omnipotenti gratanter ministrat. Qui autem sub his gradibus, intra sinum parochialis ecclesiae continentur, trifarie dividuntur. Ex quibus superiores in piramide oratores intellige: et quia quidam ex eis conjugati sunt, ideo viros et feminas nominavimus. Sinistrales vero in piramide aratores sunt, tam viri quam feminae. Dextrales quoque bellatores sunt, viri atque feminae. Nec dico feminarum esse officium orare, arare, aut certe bellare sed tamen his conjugatae sunt atque subserviunt qui orant, et arant, et pugnant. Nec sejunctas ab ecclesia putamus praesenti30 quas Christus cum matre sua collocat in coelesti. Et hos tres legitimos fidelium ordines ab initio admittit Ecclesia ut pars in ea clerus videlicet orationi vacans, alios ab impetu fallacis inimici defendat; alia labore31 desudans, ab aliis victus penuriam repellat; tertia militiae studio dedita, caeteros a corporis hostibus securos reddat. Secunda vero piramis subscribitur monasterium et habet in acumine abbatem et sub ipso sex gradus qui ipse sacerdos est atque sub his32 oratores tantum quoniam non est monachorum baptizare, communicare, aut aliquod ecclesiasticum laicis ministrare nisi forte cogente necessitate imperanti episcopo obediant. Quorum propositum est soli Deo33 relictis saecularibus in oratione vacare.

25 Prima ergo pyramide ] primam ergo 26 27 28 29

piramidem] F. parochiam ] parrochiam] B F. nominant ] notant ] B. ostiarium ] hostiarium] F. transmittit ] ~ B.

30 31 32 33

praesenti ] praesento ] B. labore ] laborare ] F. his ] hiis ] F. soli Deo ] < B; < F* in the margin, probably by a later hand. U M E.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 149

Translation

149

The first pyramid, therefore, which you can see on the left side, under which P. is written, names the parish which has the priest at the top and under him the deacon, thirdly the subdeacon, fourthly the acolyte, fifthly the exorcist, sixth the lector, seventh the porter. Amalarius says there are nine grades in the Church, adding the psalmist and the bishop. However, the bishop, the archbishop, the patriarch and the prophets are grades of the Universal Church. In truth, the reason for this is that one by one each person is made perfect by their superiors. In bestowing an abundance of pardon in baptism and through the Eucharist, each person sends their faithful sons to their heavenly home. Therefore, since it is only by the command of the priest that anyone from the choir can perform the task of the psalmist, namely to psalm or to sing, we do not place the psalmists among the number of the grades of the Church. Seven grades, therefore, are given to individual Churches by a sevenfold spirit, although each individual may not possess all of them. The priest alone, holding all seven grades, ministers fully to the Almighty. Under these grades, within the fold of the parochial church, are three groups. Notice among these that those who pray are situated higher in the pyramid and since some of them are married we refer to them as men and women. Those on the left in the pyramid are those who plough, both men or women. On the right are those who fight, men and women. Not that I say that it is the duty of women to pray, to plough or certainly to fight. However they are married and subject to those who pray and plough and fight. Nor do we think of women as separated from the Church here below because Christ places them with his mother in heaven. The Church has recognised these three legitimate orders of the faithful from the beginning so that a portion of it (the clerics of course) being free to pray can defend the remainder from the attack of the treacherous enemy; others, through their hard work, repel from the rest the lack of food and the third group, given to the study of war, deliver all safely from the enemies of the body. The monastery is placed under the second pyramid and it has the abbot, who is himself a priest, at its apex and under him the six grades. Under his care are those who only pray because it is not the task of monks to baptise, to give communion or to minister anything ecclesiastical to the laity unless, in case of necessity, they obey the command of the bishop. Having left the secular world to be free for prayer, their sole duty is to God.

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Limerick 06

11/4/01

150

1:56 pm

Page 150

Text

Has itaque duas piramides parochiam scilicet et coenobium subjectas possidet pontificalis ecclesia: quae et ipsa in modum34 piramidis ad basim duabus minoribus ampla, in supremo acuitur et subscribitur episcopatus35 pro eo quod episcopo in summa sede derigitur.36 Cui pro parvitate spatii, parvula punctis notata subponitur37 piramis ut declaret episcopum in ecclesia propriae sedis habere sacerdotes et caeteros sex gradus, et tres supradictos fidelium ordines: quod ex numero punctorum patet. Nec idcirco duae tantum ecclesiae pontifici subjiciuntur, quod duabus possit esse contentus sed per unam omnes parochias et per alteram omnes abbatias quas regit obtinere figuratur. Obtinet enim ut minimum decem ecclesias ut plurimum vero mille. Hoc eodem ordine duas sequentes piramides parochiam videlicet et monasterium secundo suppositas episcopo constat. Qui rursum duo episcopi, cum suis ecclesiis uni archiepiscopo subjunguntur. Cujus ecclesia subscribitur dioecesis et habet in propria sede septem gradus et tres ordines fidelium. Habet ergo extra parochias et monasterium et ut plurimum viginti episcopos regit ut minimum vero tres. Ad eundem modum alii duo episcopi subnectuntur alteri archiepiscopo. Sed et duo archiepiscopi cum suis ecclesiis et episcopis obediunt uni primati. Cujus ecclesia subscribitur primatus et habet in propria sede septem gradus et tres ordines fidelium extra vero parochiam et monasterium et ut plurimum obediunt ei sex archiepiscopi ut minimum unus. Eodem quoque modo alteri primati in secunda pagina38 obediunt duo archiepiscopi cum suis episcopis quatuor. Qui postremum duo primates serviunt uni et summo romano pontifici papae cujus ecclesia subscribitur generalis et habet parrochiam, monasterium, episcopos et dioceses. Noe etiam secum in summum archae residet quia sicut Noe archae praeerat inter undas diluvii ita Romanus Pontifex regit Ecclesiam in fluctibus saeculi. Quibus utrisque praeeminet Christus quibus39 utriusque testamenti legislator est et utraque fecit unum40 summus paterfamilias41 qui excubantes fideliter in hoc tabernaculo honorifice coronat in regno. Conjungitur autem imperator papae, rex in modum ] immodum ] B. episcopatus ] episcopatui ] B F. dirigitur ] U M E; deregitur ] B; derigitur ] F. supponitur ] B U M E. subponitur ] F. in secunda pagina ] < The diagram in B and F is drawn on a single page. The text, therefore, is faithful to the original while the diagram is compressed to a single page. 39 quibus ] qui ] U M E. 40 unum ] = Eph. 2. 14 ] U M E. 41 paterfamilias ] pater familias ] B. 34 35 36 37 38

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 151

Translation

151

The Church which belongs to the pontiff, which itself on the model of a pyramid is wide at the base and is pointed at the top, holds these two pyramids as subjects, namely the parish and the monastery. It is designated episcopal, since it is directed from the top by the bishop. For scarcity of space, a small pyramid is placed on the top with points to demonstrate that the bishop in his proper see in the Church has priests and six other grades together with the three orders of the faithful as shown above under his care, which is evident from the number of points. And not only for that reason are the two churches as such subjected to the bishop but he can contain the two because he is shown to hold all the parishes through one and all the abbeys which he rules through the other. He protects, therefore, at a minimum ten churches and at a maximum a thousand. In the same way the following two pyramids, that is the parish and the monastery, are subject to a second bishop. Then these two bishops, together with their churches, are subject to one archbishop. His church is described as a diocese and he has in his see his seven grades and the three orders of the faithful. Together with these he has parishes and monasteries. He rules at a maximum as many as twenty bishops and at a mimimum three. In the same way every two bishops are placed beneath another archbishop. Finally, every two archbishops with their churches and bishops are obedient to a primate. His church is described as primatial and he has in his own see seven grades and three orders of the faithful together with parishes and monasteries. At most six archbishops are obedient to him and at least one. In the same way, on the second page, two archbishops with their four bishops obey other primates. Finally, these two primates serve the one and supreme Roman Pontiff, the pope, whose Church is described as universal and he governs the parish, the monastery, the bishops and the dioceses. Noah sits with him at the top of the arch. For just as Noah was in charge of the Ark in the midst of the waves of the flood, so also the Roman Pontiff rules the Church in the waves of the ages. Christ goes before both of these since He is the legislator of both the Testaments and “He made both one”: the supreme head of the household who crowns with honour in His kingdom those who are faithfully watching in this tabernacle. Finally, the emperor is placed beside the pope, the king with the primate, the duke with the archbishop, the count with the bishop, the soldier with the priest, since these persons are seen in law as equals with these seculars.

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Limerick 06

11/4/01

152

1:56 pm

Page 152

Text

primati, dux archipontifici, comes episcopo, miles sacerdoti: quia istae personae pares illis saecularibus jure decernuntur. Expeditis ergo in communi speculatione figuris et membris et capite ecclesiae nunc qui42 singulis ordinibus conveniat explicemus. Conjugatorum est nullam usque in sextam vel etiam43 septimam progeniem sanguine sibi conjunctam, aut illi quem habuerit aut quam habuit sibi proximus ut44 commatrem ducere uxorem: cum quibus enim semel iunta est ecclesia, cum eisdem iterum replicare illicitum dicit45 ecclesia. Conjugatis etiam praeceptum est ut et ipsi domum Domini frequentent ibique Deum suppliciter adorent et praecentur. Primitias, oblationes, et decimas suas fideliter persolvant; mala sollerter devitent, bona desideranter inquirant et omnino pastoribus suis obediant. Hostiariorum vero est certas horas observando designare46 et ecclesiam, cum his quae47 in ea recluduntur servare ut nullus Judaeus vel48 Gentilis sive catechumenus hora sacrificii intersit nec omnino canis aut aliquis immundus49 sive sanguinolentus in eam intret, cavere; excommunicatos eliminare. Lectorum autem est aperte et distincte in ecclesia omnia, praeter epistolam et evangelium,50 legere. Exorcistarum est etiam51 fiducialiter adjurando et imperando in nomine Domini, de obsessis corporibus daemones effugare52 sive catechumeni53 sint sive baptizati. Acolithorum est luminaria certis horis accendere et extinguere; altaris et sacrificii necessaria ad manum subdiaconi praeparata habere. Atque hi quatuor ordines in officiis suis solent indui superhumerali, alba et cingulo et tamen possunt perfrui conjugio. Subdiaconorum est epistolam legere, aquam et vinum calici infundere, oblatam patenae imponere et sic ad altare Diacono deferre. Et idcirco castos esse. Cum supradictis autem vestibus, in sinistra54 manu fannonem et quasi scopam tergendi altare55 et quoddam onus Domini leve portant. Et tunicam strictis manicis in sollemniis56 induunt.

quid ] qui ] M E. vel ] ut ] F. ut ] vel ] U M E. dicit ] B F. ducit ] U. dicit [ducit] M E. 46 designare ] signare ] B. 47 quae ] qui ] B. 48 vel ] ut ] B F. 42 43 44 45

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

immumdus ] inmundus ] B F. Evangelium ] euuangelium ] F. est etiam ] etiam est ] B. effugere ] effugare ] B; fugare ] F. cathecumeni ] caticuminis ] B. sinistra ] autem ] + B. altere ] altari } B. sollemnis ] solennis } B.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 153

Translation

153

Therefore, having highlighted in a general overview the structure of the Church, both the head and the members, let us now outline what each group must do. It is the duty of those who marry not to marry someone who is related to them by blood up to the sixth or seventh degree; either those who have or those who will have* those who are that close to them. No one may marry his godmother since he has been joined to her once by the Church and the Church forbids anyone to repeat a bond with the same person. The married are bound to visit the house of God and there, humbly, to pray and adore the Lord. They are to offer the first fruits, gifts and pay their tithes. They must carefully avoid evil, earnestly search for good and obey their pastors in everything. It is the duty of porters to designate certain hours for the watch and to care for the Church, together with what is on display in it: to ensure that no Jew, pagan or catechumen may be in the Church during the hour of sacrifice, that a dog or anyone unclean or stained with blood may not enter and to exclude the excommunicated. It is the duty of lectors to read clearly and intelligently in Church everything except the epistle and the gospel. It is the duty of exorcists to cast out demons from people who are possessed, whether they are catechumens or baptised, by faithfully swearing and commanding in the name of the Lord. It is the duty of acolytes to light and extinguish the candles at certain hours and to have the necessities for the altar and the sacrifice prepared for the subdeacon. These four orders in the exercise of their office are accustomed to wearing a vestment over their shoulders, an alb and cincture. They can marry. It is the duty of subdeacons to read the epistle, to pour water and wine into the chalice, to place the host on the paten and then to take it to the deacon‡ at the altar. For this they must be chaste. They must wear the above mentioned vestments, together with the maniple on the left hand which touches the altar like a broom to show that they carry the burden of the Lord lightly. On solemnities they should wear a tunic with narrow long sleeves. The word ‘married’ is implied here and is of particular significance from the canonical point of view. ‡ Capital D used in the text. *

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Limerick 06

11/4/01

154

1:56 pm

Page 154

Text

Diaconorum est dicere Exeant qui non communicant et Humiliate vos ad benedictionem et Humiliate capita vestra Deo et Ite missa est et Benedicamus Domino et evangelium legere et pronuntiare, sacrificia super corporalia statuere, sacerdoti ministrare, paschalem57 cereum benedicere et in absentia presbyteri baptizare et horas celebrare. Stolam etiam super sinistrum humerum ferre et indui dalmatica in sollemnibus,58 id est, tunica amplis manicis. In festivis autem Quadragesimae59 induuntur60 diaconus et subdiaconus casulis in tota Missa, nisi cum legunt. Sacerdotum autem sunt quatuordecim officia, praeesse, subesse, orare, offerre, praedicare, docere, baptizare, benedicere, excommunicare, reconciliare, ungere, communicare, animas Deo commendare, corpora sepelire: de quibus singulis pertractandum est. Praeesse ergo sacerdotis est juste de singulis subjectis discernere,61 poenitentiam recte et misericorditer injungere et praecipere mansuete. Subesse vero est, Episcopo ex animo humiliari et servire. Offerre autem ejus est; panem et vinum cum aqua singulis diebus immolare, et in solemniis Te Deum, et Benedictus, et Magnificat et ante sacrificium thus super et circa altare et sacrificium incendere. Diaconus enim ante evangelium62 incensat altare. Orare quoque ipsius est suppliciter Deum adorare ut factura sua et pro admirandis operibus laudare et benedicere pro perceptis beneficiis gratias agere, et pro percipiendis deprecari. Quod totum maxime in celebrandis Horis et Missa peragitur de quibus, quia breviter non potest, in sequentibus tractabitur. Praedicare etiam ejus est Gentiles, Judaeos, infideles vel catechumenos63 ad gratiam baptismi vocare et haereticos ad Catholicam fidem revocare. Baptizare ejus est, exorcizatos credentes et sanctam Trinitatem confitentes, sub trina mersione sacro fonti intinguere.64 Quod65 sicut et Missa in Ecclesia debet fieri; nisi prohibeat necessitas. Et sacrificium quidem corporis et sanguinis Domini saepe fit ob recordationem passionis ejus, sicut ipse praecepit dicens:66 Hoc est corpus meum et sanguis meus; haec facite, quotiescumque sumitis,67 in meam commemorationem.68 Baptisma vero non iteratur, ne invocatio sanctae Trinitatis exinanita putetur: quia Christus pro peccatis nostris semel mortuus est.69 57 paschalem ] paschale ] B. 58 sollemnibus ] sollempnibus ] F; solen-

nibus ] B. 59 Quadragesimae ] Quadragesime ] B F. 60 induuntur ] non induuntur ] U. Elrington

notes ‘Deest verbum non ut vult doctiss. Episc. Kilmor.’ p. 505. 61 discernere ] dicernere ] M. 62 Evangelium ] euvangelium ] F.

63 catechumenos ] caticuminos ] B F. 64 intinguere ] intingere ] U M E. 65 Quod sicut et missa ] quo– and an era-

sure– missa ] F. 66 Hoc ] 1 Cor. cap. II. ver. 24, 25] + E. 67 in ] 1 Pet. cap. 3. Ver. 18. ] + E. 68 commemorationem ] 1 Cor. xi, 24, 25

]+ M. 69 est ] 1 Petr. III, 18 ] +M.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 155

Translation

155

It is the duty of deacons to say: “Let those who are not in communion leave,” “Bow down for the blessing,” “Bow your heads to God,” “Go, it is ended,” “Let us bless the Lord,”: to read and proclaim the Gospel, to place the sacrifice on the corporal, to minister to the priest, to bless the paschal candle and in the absence of the priest to baptise and to celebrate the Hours: to wear a stole over the left shoulder and to wear a dalmatic, that is a tunic with wide long sleeves on solemnities. Deacons and subdeacons wear chasubles at Mass during Lent, except when they read. There are fourteen priestly duties: to preside, to serve, to pray, to offer, to preach, to teach, to baptise, to bless, to excommunicate, to reconcile, to anoint, to communicate, to commend souls to God, to inter bodies; each one has to be studied singularly. It is the duty of the priest to preside; to settle each issue justly, uprightly and with mercy to impose penance and to admonish gently. It is his duty to serve, to be humble before the bishop and to serve wholeheartedly. It is his duty to offer; to sacrifice bread and wine with water each day and on solemnities to recite the Te Deum, the Benedictus and the Magnificat. Before the Sacrifice he is to incense above and around the altar and sacrifice. However, before the gospel the deacon should incense the altar. It is his duty to pray; as a supplicant to adore God as his maker and to praise him for his wonderful works, to bless and to give thanks for benefits received and to pray for blessings. All this he does principally at Mass and in the celebration of the Hours which, since it cannot be done briefly, will be treated later. It is his duty to preach; to call pagans, Jews, unbelievers and catechumens to the grace of baptism and to recall heretics to the Catholic faith. It is his duty to baptise; to immerse three times in the sacred font believers who are exorcised and who profess their faith in the Holy Trinity. This, together with Mass, ought to take place in the church, unless necessity prevents it. The sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord is to be celebrated often, in remembrance of His Passion, just as He himself prescribed saying, “This is my body and my blood: do this in my memory as often as you take it.” Baptism is not to be repeated, lest the invocation of the Holy Trinity may be thought of as having become inane; since “Christ died once for our sins.”

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

Limerick 06

11/4/01

156

1:56 pm

Page 156

Text

Docere ejus est; baptizatos qualiter contra superbiam humilitate, contra inanem gloriam dejectione, contra invidiam benevolentia, contra iram modestia, contra tristitiam hilaritate, contra avaritiam largitate, contra gulam abstinentia, contra luxuriam castitate muniantur instruere. Haec enim octo vitia et omnia quae ex eis70 nascuntur quamvis peccata non sint; tamen semper peccare suggerunt ipsis videlicet consentire: quamdiu namque non consentit eis animus, nequaquam transgreditur, sed potius coronatur. Docere etiam est71 ejus singulis Dominicis, quibus in hebdomada72 diebus abstinere et feriare fideles debeant praedicare. Benedicere potest praesente episcopo73 aquam et sal in dominicis sacerdos et prandium et sponsum et sponsam et lecturos lectiones praeter Evangelium et74 aquam judicii vel panem et caetera. In absentia vero episcopi potest benedicere coronam clerici et velum viduae, novos fructus, candelas in purificatione Sanctae Mariae,75 cineres in capite iejunii, ramos in Dominica Palmarum et peregrinaturos et lecturum Evangelium et populum cum dimittitur: aquam benedictam aspergit ad benedicendas novas domos et caetera nova. Excommunicare ejus est criminibus lapsos, semel, bis et tertio revocatos et non poenitentes a communione fidelium eliminare ut nec in victu nec in loquela quisquam eis communicet. Reconciliare ejus est poenitentes prope mortem de76 criminalibus, ex consensu tamen episcopi, ad unitatem fidelium recipere. Ungere potest quemlibet fidelem semel in quolibet gravi dolore quia unctio sancta non solum animae sed et corporis saepe medelam tribuit. Communicare statim debet baptizatos et fideles omnes ter in anno in Pascha, in Pentecoste et Natali Domini et prope mortem positos si quaesierint verbo vel signo vel teste fideli quod prius quaesissent.77 Commendare debet orando animas fideles de corporibus egredientes et earum memoriam in Missa et orationibus frequentare. Quamvis enim promissa sit indulgentia peccatori quacumque hora poeniteret tamen pena

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

eis ] his ] B. est ] + U ( in the margin). Hebdomada ] ebdomada ] F B. episcopo ] praesule ] F. et ] vide Judeti. Observat. Ad. Epist. 74 Ivonis ] U M E. Sanctae Mariae ] s.m. ] F. poenitentes prope mortem de ] prope mortem penitentes de ] B. quaesissent ] quesierit ] B.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 157

Translation

157

It is his duty to teach; to instruct the baptised on how they may be armed with humility instead of haughtiness, with lowliness as opposed to vain glory, with kindness rather than envy, with gentleness instead of anger, with cheerfulness rather than sorrow, with generosity as opposed to covetousness, with abstinence rather than gluttony, with chastity instead of excess. For to consent to these eight vices and everything which is born of them, although it may not be sinful, always gives rise to sin. However as long as the soul does not consent to them not only does it not sin but rather is it rewarded. It is his duty to preach every Sunday and to teach the faithful the days in the week when they are to abstain and when they are to celebrate feasts. It is his duty to bless; in the presence of the bishop, the priest can bless water and salt on Sundays, food, the bridegroom, the bride, the readers of the readings except for the Gospel, the water of a trial, the bread et cetera. In the absence of the bishop he is able to bless the garland of a cleric and the veil of a widow, first fruits, the candles on the day of the Purification of Our Lady, the ashes at the beginning of the Lent, the branches of palms on Palm Sunday, those about to make a pilgrimage, the one who reads the Gospel and the people when they are dismissed. He sprinkles holy water for the blessing of new houses and other new things. It is his duty to excommunicate; those who have lapsed into crime, once, twice and three times recalled and to exclude from the communion of the faithful those who do not repent, so that neither by their manner of life or of speech should anyone communicate with them. It is his duty to reconcile; with the permission of the bishop, to receive back to the unity of the faith repentant sinners who are near death. He can anoint any member of the faithful once in any grave danger, since the holy anointing gives healing not only to the soul but also often to the body. He ought to give communion to the baptised immediately and to all the faithful three times a year, at Easter, at Pentecost and at Christmas and to those near death if they should seek it by word or by sign or if in the evidence of a faithful witness they have already sought it. Praying, he ought to commend the souls of the faithful as they leave their bodies and celebrate their memory at Mass and in prayer. For even if the remission of sin should have been promised to the sinner when he

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

Limerick 06

11/4/01

158

1:56 pm

Page 158

Text

peccantem78 quaelibet79 exspectat purgatorius videlicet ignis, qui corpore statim egressos et minus per lamenta poenitentiae purgatos ad plenitudinem recipit purgandos. Quod ergo pro eis hic fit in orationibus et eleemosynis proficit eis ad purgationem, quia sudor vivorum requies est mortuorum. Sepelire corpora fidelium ultimum est sacerdotis officium; ipse enim tertio terram super corpus cum fossore infundit, dicendo: De terra plasmasti me. Adjacent etiam cemiteriis sanctorum alia loca, in quibus submersorum et occisorum fidelium corpora conduntur quia ipsorum animae Deo commendari non prohibentur. Nam infidelium et sceleratorum corpora longe sunt a fidelium projicienda quibus enim vivis non communicamus nec mortuis. Enumeratis autem atque descriptis sacerdotis officiis quibus in his uti debeat vestibus perspiciamus.80 Sicut ergo septem81 gradus sunt quibus sacerdos elevatur ita septem sunt vestes quibus ordinatur: indumentum quotidianum, amicta, alba, cingulum, fannon, stola et casula. Et caetera quidem omnia officia sine casula, et cum stola sola aliquando potest. Quotidiana ad Missam ut paucissima sunt quatuor: camisia, tunica, femoralia, calceamenta, addunt tamen Romani caligas. Dicit quoque Amelarius sacerdotem debere indui sandaliis et dalmatica: sed pontifices apud nos his utuntur. Octo sunt ergo quibus sustentatur sacerdos; parochia, mansus, atrium, coemiterium, templum, altare, calix cum patena, corpus cum sanguine: quia82 singulae sibi subjectis quasi quibusdam gradibus, honore et dignitate praeferuntur. Parochiam appello populum, primitias, oblationes et decimas persolventem. Mansum dico terram aratri, quam ad minus debet habere sacerdos, atrium cum domibus suis clausuram. Haec autem sunt utensilia sacerdoti oportuna quae sine benedictione episcopi sufficiunt: aqua benedicta aspergit’83 textus sancti Evangelii,84 psalterium, missale, horarius, manuale et synodalis liber, vela, candelabra cum candelis, arca vestimentorum, pixis cum oblatis et ferrum eorum, ampulla cum vino et altera85 cum aqua, pelvis ad manus lavandas cum manutergio, 78 79 80 81

82 83 84 85

peccantem ] peccanti ] B F. quaelibet ] quelibet ] B F; Forsan quemlibet ] M. perspiciamus ] perspicamus ] B F. septem ] sex ] B; vi ] F. Note: the tick above the i in F may indicate a second i. and, possibly a scribal correction of the B text. This may be highly significant in the debate concerning the question of the dependency of F on B or vica versa. F uses vii to denote the seven grades at the beginning of his text. quia ] que ] B F. aspergit ] aspersiorum ]+ U M E. textus sancti evangelii ] textum euuangelii ] B. altera ] alteram ] B F.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 159

Translation

159

repented nevertheless he must expect some penalty for sinning, namely the fire of purgatory by which the purified on leaving the body without the lamentation of penance receive the fullness of purification. This purification for the dead should be done here in prayers and in almsgiving. These advance them to purificaton: since the sweat of the living is the rest of the dead. The last office of the priest is to bury the bodies of the faithful. He himself pours a third of the earth on the body together with the gravedigger saying “From the earth you have made me.” Other places also adjoin the cemeteries of the saints, where the bodies of the faithful who were drowned or killed (are laid) since their souls are not prohibited from being commended to God. However the bodies of the unfaithful and of the vicious are to be far removed from the faithful; for we do not communicate with these when they are alive or dead. Having listed and described the priestly duties let us now see how they ought to be dressed for these offices. Just as there are seven steps by which a priest is elevated so also there are seven vestments in which he is ordained; his everyday clothes, an amice, alb, cincture, maniple, stole and chasuble. Otherwise, the offices can be performed without a chasuble and sometimes with only a stole. Each day at Mass he wears at least the following four vestments: a linen gown, a tunic, breeches and shoes. The Romans wear boots. Amalarius says that the priest should wear sandals and a dalmatic but among us only pontiffs use these. A priest is supported by eight means; the parish, land,* the porch, the cemetery, the church, the altar, the chalice and paten, the Body and Blood. Each one is brought to him with honour and dignity by almost all the grades subject to him. I call the parish the people who pay the first fruits, the offerings and the tithe. I call the mansus the ploughland, which at least every priest ought to have, and the porch his house together with the enclosure surrounding it. A priest should use the sprinkler for holy water, the book of the Holy Gospels, the Psalter, the missal, the book of the hours, the manual and the book of the synod. He should have the veil, the candelabra and candels, a wardrobe of vestments, a pyx with the offering and their irons, a flask for wine and a bottle for water, a basin and towel for washing hands, a tree trunk or a carved stone into which the water used *

Gille explains on line 501 what he means by ‘mansus’. I have, therefore, used ‘land’ to translate this line.

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

Limerick 06

11/4/01

160

1:56 pm

Page 160

Text

truncus aut lapis cavus ubi aqua unde sacra lavantur effunditur, absconsa etiam sub candela et lecturiale sub libro. Et superiores quique gradus possunt inferiorum officia ministrare. Episcopus86 ergo sacerdotis singula ministrat; licet etiam ipso praesente, quasi quoddam sit proprium sacerdotis offerre, baptizare, horas celebrare, ungere, communicare, commendare, sepelire. Sunt praeterea septem praesulis officia: confirmare, benedicere, absolvere, synodum tenere, dedicare, consecrare, ordinare. Confirmare ejus est87 frontes fidelium baptizatorum chrismate ungere. Benedicere autem dico praesulem ea quae non sunt utensilia Ecclesiae consecrare vero ipsa utensilia. Benedicit ergo pontifex reginam et virginem cum velatur et quemlibet fidelem benedici postulantem et totum populum ante pacem. Benedicit etiam supra memorata quae non licet sacerdoti in ejus praesentia. Absolvit praesul populum de venialibus in capite jejunii, de criminalibus in Coena Domini. Tenet quoque synodum bis in anno in aestate et in autumno. Hoc modo congregatis omnibus presbyteris totius episcopatus perscrutatur episcopus ne quid alicui eorum desit in omni ordine vel utensilibus Ecclesiae neve quisquam eorum alteri quicquam fecerit injuriae quod tribus diebus sit. Pacatis itaque omnibus absoluti permittuntur abire in pace. Dedicat etiam pontifex atrium, templum, altare, tabulam altaris. Dedicare enim est locum Deo offerre, benedicere, et sanctificare. Consecrat autem episcopus utensilia ecclesiae quae fere omnia sacerdotibus sunt communia: vestimenta videlicet sacerdotalia et pontificalia, altaris velamina, calicem, patenam et corporalia, vasculum Eucharistiae, chrisma, oleum et vas chrismale, thus et turribulum,88 baptisterium, arcam vel scrinium reliquiarum, cimbarium id est, altaris umbraculum, crucem, tintinnabulum et ferrum89 iudiciale.90 Ea enim tantum consecrat quae a communi usu in cultum divinum separantur. Ordinat episcopus abbatem, abbatistam, sacerdotem et caeteros septem91 gradus. Utitur etiam episcopus pro dignitatis honore baculo et annulo, chirothecis et mitra, baltheo, dalmatica et sandalis. Oportet autem eum sacram scripturam et traditiones patrum habere ut possit de singulis juste discernere et quaelibet quaerentibus rationabiliter respondere. Episcopus ] Episcopo ] F. Confirmare eius est ] confirmare est ] F. turribulum ] thuribulum ] U M E. ferrum ] ‘Vide Glossarium Guil. Lambardi (praefixum A) in Ordalic. D.Henr. Spelmanni, in Judicio Dei. Fr. Pithaei, in capitular., etc] E. 90 judiciale ] ‘Vide Glossarium Guill. Lambardi (praefixum + A) in Ordalic. D.Henr. Spelmanni, in Judicio Dei. Fr. Pithaei, in Capitular., etc ] U M. 91 septem ] sex ] F U M E. 86 87 88 89

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 161

Translation

161

for washing sacred things may be poured away, the concealed base for a candle and a lectern for the lectionary. All these are used without the blessing of a bishop. Superiors of whatever grade can administer the offices of lower ones. A bishop, therefore, can administer the particular offices of a priest. He can perform, even in the presence of a priest almost all his duties, that is to offer, to baptise, to celebrate the hours, to anoint, to communicate, to commend and bury. Besides there are seven offices which pertain to the bishop; to confirm, to bless, to absolve, to hold a synod, to dedicate, to consecrate and to ordain. It is his duty to confirm: to anoint the foreheads of the baptised faithful with chrism. I also hold that the bishop is to bless things which are not for church use and consecrate those things which are. The bishop blesses the queen and the virgin when she is veiled, any member of the faithful who ask for a blessing and all the people before the Peace. Beside the above mentioned, he blesses things which the priests cannot bless in his presence. The bishop absolves the people from venial sins at the beginning of Lent and from crimes on Holy Thursday. He holds a synod twice a year, in summer and in autumn. In this way all the priests come together from the whole diocesis and the bishop examines them lest any should be lacking in their priestly lives or in their pastoral ministry or that any of them may have injured another. They meet over a period of three days. Then, having settled everything peacefully, they are free to go in peace. The bishop also dedicates the porch, the sanctuary, the altar and the table of the altar. For to dedicate means to offer the place to God, to bless and to sanctify it. The bishop consecrates things used in the church, almost all of which are commonly used by the priest; that is pontifical and priestly vestments, altar cloths, the chalice, the paten and corporal, the communion vessel, the chrism, the oil and the vessel for chrism, the incense and thurible, the baptistry, the shrine for the relics, the ciborium, that is the canopy over the altar, the cross, the bell and the rod for judging. He only consecrates, therefore, those things which are separated from common use for divine worship. The bishop governs the abbot, the abbess, the priest and the other six grades. The bishop uses, for purposes of dignity, a staff and a ring, gloves and a mitre, a belt, a dalmatic and sandals. He ought to have with him the Sacred Scripture and the Traditions of the Fathers so that

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

Limerick 06

11/4/01

162

1:56 pm

Page 162

Text

Archiepiscopo omnia supradicta conveniunt. Insuper pallio honoris induitur quia ipse adjutus tamen ab omnibus dioecesis suae episcopis ordinat episcopum. Si quis enim ipsorum ordinationi adesse non possit litteris suis se excusans atque legatis assensum suum in ordinandis facere confirmat. Primas92 quoque et ipse archiepiscopus est nec ipse archiepiscopum ordinat. Utrumque enim archiepiscopum et primatem oportet Romae ab Apostolico ordinari aut a Roma eis a Papa pallium afferri qua93 coepiscopis sublimari quae tunc tantum datur licentia si forte infirmitatis vel94 belli aut aliqua alia causa necessaria intercesserit. Eo tantum ergo praeest primas archiepiscopo quod cum multi sint in eadem regione archiepiscopi95 solus ex eis qui regem ordinat et in tribus sollemnitatibus coronat et apud quem concilia96 pro veritate peraguntur ipse eorum primatum tenet. Locum itaque quem apud Orientales patriarchae possident hunc apud nos Primates quodammodo obtinere videntur utrique Romano Pontifici primo gradu supponuntur. Sed quia patriarchae sedibus president apostolicis ut Ierosolymitanus, Antiochenus, Alexandrinus idcirco archiepiscopos ordinant et pares quodammodo Romano ascribuntur. Soli tamen Petro dictum est Tu97 es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.98 Papa ergo solus universali praeeminet Ecclesiae et ipse omnes ordinat et judicat et ab omnibus ordinatur quia ex consensu totius ecclesiae Romani eum sublimant qui quotidie chlamyde coccinea induitur ut semper martyrio paratus probetur.99

92 Primas ] Primas ] F. Note that here there is a change in scribal practice when he writes 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

the P in a bold letter. qua ] qua atque a ] M E. vel ] ut ] F. archiepiscopi, solus ] archiepiscopi episcopi solus ] B F. concilia ] concilio ] M. Tu ] Matth. cap. 16. ver. 18. ] = E. meam ] Matth. x, 13 ] = M. paratus probetur ] probatis paratis probetyr ] F; probatis probetur ] B.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 163

Translation

163

he may be able to settle individual cases justly and respond reasonably to those who question him on any subject. All the above mentioned pertain to an archbishop. In addition, he wears the pallium of honour since, assisted by all the bishops of his province, he himself ordains a bishop. If, however, an archbishop cannot be present at their ordination, in his letter excusing himself he confirms his assent to those who are to be ordained through his legate. The primate is himself an archbishop. However, he does not ordain an archbishop by himself; for both the primate and the archbishop ought to be ordained by the Apostlic See in Rome or the pallium ought to be brought to them from the pope in Rome and he ought to be elevated by his co-bishops. This permission is given only if reasons of infirmity or war or any other necessity should intervene. The primate alone, therefore, is superior to an archbishop because when there are many archbishops in the same region only one of them consecrates the ruler and crowns him with a three-fold solemnity. He holds the primacy over them himself and he approves the acta of councils. Thus primates hold the place among us which the patriarchs hold among the Orientals. Both are placed under the Roman Pontiff who holds the first place. Because patriarchs preside in Apostolic Sees (Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria) they therefore ordain archbishops and in a certain sense they are described as equal to Rome. However, it was only to Peter that it was said “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The Pope alone, therefore, is supreme over the Universal Church and he himself orders and judges all and is obeyed by all, since by the consent of the whole Church the Romans raised him. He wears each day the purple chlamys so that he is always seen as ready for martyrdom.

275

280

285

290

295

300

Limerick 06

11/4/01

164

1:56 pm

Page 164

Text Recensio.100

Ex Ms. codice bibliothecae publicae Cantabrigiensis academiae descripsi; collato prologo De usu ecclesiastico cum alio Benedictini collegii in eadem academia, et libello De statu Ecclesiae cum altero monachorum Dunelmensium exemplari, a D. Augustino Linsello Decano Lichfeldiensi accepto. Est autem hic Gillebertus ille, ‘quem aiunt prima functum legatione apostolicae sedis per universam Hiberniam,’ ut in vita Malachiae retulit Bernardus: et Gillebertus Lumnicensis de Hibernia episcopus, quem Bernardi Menevensis episcopi consecrationi, anno 1115. Westmonasterii a Radulpho Cantuariensi archiepiscopo peractae, interfuise Aedamerus101 indicat, non autem Gilla Lincolniensis episcopus (cujusmodi nunquam in rerum natura quis extitit) quemadmodum in appendicis illustrium Anglicae scriptorum centur. 1. cap. 93 somniavit Johannes Pitseus. The letter from Gille to Anselm.102 Epistola XXXI. Eiusdem Gilleberti103 ad Anselmum Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum. Circa Annum 1094. Anselmo Dei gratia Anglorum archipraesuli, Gillebertus104 Dei quoque misericordia Lumnicensis105 episcopus, fidele servitium et orationes. Audiens, Pater, certaminis vestri laborem et laboris victoriam, subditas esse videlicet indomitas Normannorum106 mentes regularibus sanctorum patrum decretis, ut legaliter107 fiat abbatum et praesulum electio et consecratio, immensas divinae clementiae refero gratias et quas possum Deo preces effundo, ut perseverantiam vobis et tanti laboris praemium largiatur. Munusculum paupertatis meae et devotionis transmitto XXV margaritulas108 inter optimas et viliores et rogo ne sitis immemor mei in orationibus vestris in quibus post divinam largitatem confido.109 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

Ussher, Sylloge, p. 54. This recensio is also printed in Elrington. Aedamerus ] = Aedamer. histor. lib. 5. pag.117 ] U E. Ussher, Sylloge, p. 61. Gilleberti ] Gisleberti / Gilberti ] M. Note. Migne uses both forms. PL. 159. 244 (Gisleberti) 1004 (Gilberti) Gillebertus ] Gislebertus] M. Note. Elrington uses Gillebertus. Lumnicensis ] Lunicensis ] M. Normannorum ] Northmannorum ] M. legaliter ] regularitur ] M. margaritulas ] margaretulas ] M. confido ] confido. Amen. ] M.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 165

Translation

165

Recension I have copied this from the manuscript ledger of the public library of the Cambridge Academy, having seen the prologue, De usu ecclesiastico, in another Benedictine College of the same Academy and the libellus, De statu Ecclesiae, with the approval of D. Augustine Linsell, dean of Lichfield, in another examples (manuscript) belonging to the monks of Durham. This Gillebert is the one ‘whom they say had the first appointment as legate of the Apostolic See for the whole of Ireland’, as Bernard stated in the Life of Malachy. He is Gillebert of Limerick, an Irish bishop, who (attended) the consecration of Bernard of Wales by Ralph of Canterbury in Westminster in the year 1115, as Aedamer has recorded. He is not, however, Gilla, bishop of Lincoln (who was never interested in matters of this nature) as surmised by John Pitts, in the appendix of his illustrious book on the English, in chapter 1 line 93. The letter from Gille to Anselm A letter from the said Gillebert to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. Written about the year 1094. To Anselm, by the grace of God archbishop of the English, Gillebert, bishop of Limerick by the same grace, prayers and faithful service. Father, having heard of the difficulties of your work and the victory of your labours in subduing the indominatable minds of the Normans to the rules and decrees of the Fathers, so that the election and consecration of abbots and bishops should be done legally, I give thanks to God for the grace of his immense divine mercy. I pray to God that your perseverance and the benefit of your labours may be increased. I send you twenty-five pearls, some excellent and some mediocre, as a small token of my poverty and devotion, and I ask you to remember me in your prayers, in which, through divine mercy, I have the greatest confidence.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

166

1:56 pm

Page 166

Text Recensio110

In manuscripto Epistolarum Anselmi volumine, quod mihi impartivit D.Robertus Cottonus, hoc habetur epistolium. Ex eo integrum librum Epistolarum Gilberti Westmonasteriensis ad Anselmum effinxit Io. Balaeus, in Scriptorum Brittaniae centur, 2. cap. 64 addens, ‘esse qui istum, episcopum Lunicensem in Hibernia; olim fuisse contendant’. Sed falluntur illi, errore manifesto. Gillebertus enim sive Gislebertus cognomento Crispinus, in Beccensi coenobio una cum Anselmo monachus fuerat (non ut Lunicensis noster, Rothomagi obiter illi cognitus) et a Westmonasteriensi post modum abbatia ad episcopatum nunquam fuit provectus, sed abbas Westmonasterii obit; ibidemque sepulus est, hoc laudatus Epitaphio Hic pater insignis, gens altrum, virgo senexque, Gisleberti jaces, lux, via duxque tuis, Mitis eras, iustus, prudens, fortis, moderatus, Doctus quadrivio, nec minus in trivio Sic tamen ornatus nece sexta luce Decembris, Spiramen coelo reddis et ossa solo.

The letter from Anselm to Gille.111 Epistola XXXII. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi ad eundem Gillebertum. Anselmus servus Ecclesiae Cantuariensis Gilleberto Lunicensi Episcopo salutem. Gratias ago Reverentiae vestrae, quia laetari se significat in letteris suis, quod Deus in Ecclesia sua ad profectum religionis per me dignatur aliquid operari. Quoniam autem olim nos apud Rothomagum invicem cognovimus, dilectione sociati sumus et nunc cognosco vos ad episcopatus dignitatem gratia Dei profecisse: confidenter audeo vos obsecrare et secundum quod intelligo opus esse, vobis consulere. Sublimavit Deus in Hibernia vestram prudentiam ad tantam dignitatem et posuit vos, ut studeretis ad religionis vigorem et animarum utilitam. Satagite ergo sollicite sicut scriptum est Qui praeest in sollicitudine112 110 Ussher, Sylloge, pp 62-3. Elrington prints this recensio while Migne omits it. 111 Ussher, Sylloge, pp 62-3. 112 Sollicitudine ] Rom. 12.8.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 167

Translation

167

Recension This letter is to be found in a manuscript volume of the letters of Anselm which D. Robert Cotton brought to my attention. From this entire volume of the letters of Gilbert of Westminster to Anselm, which John Ball published in The Writers of Britain, chapter 2, paragraph 64, he added ‘they assert that he was at one time the bishop of Limerick in Ireland’. But he is mistaken and in obvious error. For this Gillebertus, otherwise Gislebertus, known as Crispin, was, at one time, a monk with Anselm in the monastery of Bec (unlike our Limerick, who was known to him on his way to Rouen) and later he was called to be abbot of Westminster but was never nominated a bishop. He died as abbot of Westminster, where he is buried and has this laudatory epitaph: Here you lie, Gislebert, a distinguished father, A man of another race and an elderly celibate. A light and a leader of your way. He was gentle, just, prudent, strong and moderate, Educated in the Quadrivium, no less than in the Trivium, Nevertheless, this distinguished man returned his breath to Heaven in the twilight of the sixth of December and here are only his bones. The letter from Anselm to Gille. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, to the said Gillebert. Anselm, servant of the Church of Canterbury to Gillebert, bishop of Limerick, greetings. I thank your Reverence for the joy expressed in your letter, acknowledging what God has done through me for the promotion of religion in his Church. We have know each other and delighted in friendship since our time in Normandy. Now I hear that through the grace of God you have been promoted to the dignity of bishop. With confidence I venture to ask you to consider carefully what I understand to be your work. God has raised your giftedness to this honour in Ireland and appointed you so that you would be zealous for the vitality of religion and the good of souls. Be worthy, therefore, and sollicitous

Limerick 06

11/4/01

168

1:56 pm

Page 168

Text

in alla gente, quantum in vobis est, corrigere et extirpare et bonos mores plantare et seminare. Ad hoc etiam quantum in vobis est Regem vestrum et alios episcopos et quosecunque potestis suadendo et gaudia quae expectant malos ostendendo attrahite. Et de vestris et de aliorum bonis operibus praemium mereamini a Deo accipere. Grates refero pro munere vestro quod mihi benigne misitis. Orate pro meo. Recensio.113 Habetur inter exonsas Anselmi, lib. 3. epist. 143 ubi editor Joannes Picardus Lunicensem hunc episcopum in suo apographo Lunidensem dictum innuit, eumque episcopatum in Hibernia authoritatem Armachani Metropolita spectare, ex manuscriptis et impressis Codicibus annotat. Lunidensis enim vel Luuidensis potius, id est, Louthianus Episcopatus is olim fuit, qui Clochorensis hodie appellatur. In exemplaribus ex quibus 30 descripta est Epistola, Gillebertum Lunicensem, Lunnicensem et Lumnicenses Episcopatum nominatum deprehendimus, qua postrema nomenclatio ad Limiricensem Episcopatum, qui Cassiliensis Archiepiscopi ditioni subest, nos ducit Urbs enim qua Angles Limrick, Hiberni Lumneach nuncupatur.

113 Ussher is the author of this Recensio.

Limerick 06

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 169

Translation

169

since it is written Let the officials be diligent. Do your best to correct and root out evil, to sow and plant good conduct in your people. To this end, in so far as you can, with joy influence your King, the other bishops and whoever you can persuade, showing the evil what to expect. The reward for your good work and the work of others is to accept what we deserve from God. I thank you for your gift which you kindly sent me. Pray for me. Recension In Book 3, letter 143 of the letters of Anselm, edited by John Picc, there is a letter from the Bishop of Limerick which his volume, based on the manuscripts and the previous editions, shows to be Linidensem and to belong to the metropolitan of Armagh in Ireland. Lunidensis or Luuidensis was in fact the bishopric of Louth, which is nowadays called Clogher. In the edition in which Letter 30 is described, Gillebert Lunicensem, or Lunnicensem or Lumnicenses, is in fact the name for the bishopric of Limerick, which is dependent on the Archbishop of Cashel and was the city which is now called Lumnach in Irish, Limrick in English.

Limerick 08biblio

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 170

Bibliography Battelli, G. Lezioni di Paleografia. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice, 1997. Begley, J. The Diocese of Limerick. Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 3 vols. 1906-38. Bihlmeyer, K. and Tuchle, H. The Middle Ages. Westminster, MA: The Newman Press, 1963. Binchy, D.A. Studies in Early Irish Law. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1936. —Corpus Iuris Hibernici. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1978. Bradley, J. (ed.). Settlement and Society in Medieval Ireland. Studies presented to F.X. Martin o.s.a. Kilkenny: Boethius Press, 1988. Brundage, J.A. Medieval Canon Law. London and New York: Longman, 1995. Burns, J.H. (ed.). The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350–c.1450. Cambridge: University Press, 1988. Bury, J. The Life of St Patrick. London: Macmillan, 1905. Cahill, T. How the Irish Saved Civilization. New York: Anchor Books, 1995. Cantor, N. F. The Civilization of the Middle Ages. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. Carlyle, R. and A. A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West. 6 vols. London: Blackwood and Sons, 1903-36 (reprinted 1970). Clarke, H., Ní Mhaonaigh, M. and O’Floinn, R. (eds). Ireland and Scandanavia in the Early Viking Age. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998. Comyn, D. and Dineen, P. G. Keating’s History of Ireland. London: Irish Texts Society, 1908. Constable, G. Monks, Hermits and Crusaders in Medieval Europe. London: Variorum Reprints, 1988. ——Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought. Cambridge: University Press, 1995. Corish, P. The Irish Catholic Experience. A Historical Survey. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1985. ——A History of Irish Catholicism. 6 vols, vols 1 and 2. Dublin: M.H. Gill and Son, 1967. de Paor, L. Ireland and Early Europe. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1997. Doris, E. Cultural Identity and Cultural Integration. Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1995. Dronke, P. (ed.). A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press, 1992. Du Cange, G. Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis conditum a Carlo Du Fresne Du Cange. Editio Nova Aucta Pluribus Verbis Aliorum Scriptorum a Leopold Favre. 10 vols. Paris, 1937-8.

170

Limerick 08biblio

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 171

Bibliography

171

Duby, G. The Three Orders. Feudal Society Imagined. Phoenix edition. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Dumville, D.M. ‘Celtic-Latin Texts in Northern England c. 1150-1250.’ Celtica 12 (1977), pp 19-49. ——Three Men in a Boat. Scribe, Language and Culture in the Church of Viking-Age Europe. Cambridge: University Press, 1997. —— ‘The Sixteenth-Century History of Two Cambridge Books from Sawley.’ Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 7 (1980), pp 430-40. Etchingham, C. Church Organisation in Ireland A.D.650 to 1000. Maynooth: Laigin Publications, 1999. Farr, C. The Book of Kells, Its Function and Audience. London: British Library, 1997. Fleming, J. Reflections Historical and Topographical on Ardpatrick, Co. Limerick. Naas: Leinster Leader, 1979. Flint, V.I.J. Ideas in the Medieval West: Texts and Their Contexts. London: Variorum Reprints, 1988. Flower, R. The Irish Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970 (reprint). Gierke, O. Political Theories of the Middle Ages. First paperback edition. Translated by F.W. Maitland. Cambridge: University Press, 1987. Gleeson, D. and Gwynn, A. History of the Diocese of Killaloe. Dublin: M.H. Gill and Son, 1962. Gosden, D. Starting to Read Medieval Latin Manuscript. Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers, 1993. Gosling, J. Plato. London: Routledge and Kegan, 1973. Gougaud, L. Christianity in the Celtic Lands. Translated by M. Joynt; repr. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1992. Gwynn, A. and Hadcock, D. Medieval Religious Houses in Ireland. London: Longman, 1970. Gwynn, A. The Irish Church in the 11th and 12th Centuries. Edited by Gerard O’Brien. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1992. Hadden, A. and Stubbs, G. Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Ireland and Great Britain. 2 vols. London, 1869-78. Handcock, N. and O’Mahony, T. Ancient Laws of Ireland. 6 vols. London: Longman, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1865-1901. Hardwick, C. and Luard, H. A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857. Haren, M. Medieval Thought. The Western Intellectual Tradition from Antiquity to the 13th Century. London: Macmillan, 1985. Harris, W. (ed.). The Complete Works of Sir James Ware concerning Ireland. 3 vols. Dublin, 1739-45. Healy, J. Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars. Dublin: Sealy, Bryers and Walker, 1902. Henry, F. Irish Art in the Romanesque Period (1020-1170 A.D.). London: Methuen, 1970.

Limerick 08biblio

172

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 172

Bibliography

Hughes, K. The Church in Early Irish Society. London: Metheun, 1966. ——Early Christian Ireland. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1972. Hughes, K. and Hamlin, A. The Modern Traveller to the Early Irish Church. London: SPCK, 1977; Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1997. James, M.R. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Cambridge: University Press, 1909. Kelly, F. A Guide to Early Irish Law. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1988. Kelly, J.M. A Short History of Western Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Kenney, J. The Sources for the Early History of Ireland. New York: Columbia University Press, 1929; repr. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1993. Ker, N.R. English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Conquest. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. ——Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. A List of Surviving Books. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1964. ——Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. A List of Surviving Books. Supplement to the Second Edition. Translated by Andrew G. Watson, (ed.). London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1987. Knowles, D. and Handcock, R. Medieval Religious Houses, England and Wales. London. Longman, 1971. Lawrence, C.H. Medieval Monasticism. London and New York: Longman, 1984. Leclercq, J. San Bernardo. Milan: Jaca Book, 1978. ——Umanesimo e Cultura Monastica. Milan: Jaca Book, 1989. Mac Shamhrain, A. Church and Polity in Pre-Norman Ireland: The Case of Glendalough. Maynooth: An Sagart, 1996. Mackey, J.P. An Introduction to Celtic Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1995. Magnusson, M. and Palsson, H. Laxdaela Saga. London: Penguin Classics, 1969. Magnusson, M. Vikings. London: The Bodley Head, 1980. Mayali, L. and Tibbetts, S. The Two Laws. Studies in Medieval Legal History dedicated to Stephen Kuttner. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990. McCaffrey, J. (ed.). The Black Book of Limerick. Dublin: Gill and Son, 1907. McKitterick, R. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians 751-987. London and New York: Longman, 1983. McNally, R. Scriptores Hiberniae Minores. Turnhout, 1974. Meyendorff, J. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987 (2nd reprint). Miller, M. C. The Formation of a Medieval Church. Ecclesiastical Change in Verona, 950-1150. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Millet, B. ‘Les Dioceses d’Irlande jusqu’au XVe Siecle.’ Revue D'Histoire Ecclesiastique 80. (1985). Moody, T.W., Martin, F.X. and Byrne, F.J. Maps, Genealogies, Lists. A New History of Ireland., vol. 9. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Morris, C. The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Limerick 08biblio

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 173

Bibliography

173

Morrison, K.F. Holiness and Politics in Early Medieval Thought. London: Variorum Reprints, 1985. Murphy, G. Early Irish Lyrics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, repr. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Mynors, R. Durham Cathedral Manuscripts to the End of the Twelfth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939. Ní Cathain, P. and Richter, M. Ireland and Europe. The Early Church. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984. Nichols, T.L. That All May Be One. Hierarchy and Participation in the Church. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1997. Otway-Ruthven, A. History of Medieval Ireland. London: Ernest Benn, 1968. O’Brien, J. and Harbison, P. Ancient Ireland from Prehistory to the Middle Ages. London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1996. O’Croinin, D. Early Medieval Ireland. London: Longman, 1995. O’Meara, J. Eriugena. Cork: Mercier Press, 1969. O’Riordan, J. J. Irish Catholics, Tradition and Transition. Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1980. Parkes, M.B. Scribes, Scripts and Readers. London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1991. Pelikan, J. The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Puglisi, J. F. The Process of Admission to Ordained Ministry. A Comparative Study. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1996. Reynolds, S. Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe 900-1300. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997 (2nd edition). Richter, M. The Formation of the Medieval West. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1994. ——Ireland and Her Neighbours in the Seventh Century. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999. ——Medieval Ireland. The Enduring Tradition. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1988. Rollason, D., Harvey, M. and Prestwich, M. Anglo-Norman Durham. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1994. Ryan, J. Irish Monasticism. Origins and Early Development. Dublin and Cork: Talbot Press, 1931, repr. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1995. Sidwell, K. Reading Medieval Latin. Cambridge: University Press, 1995. Southern, R.W. Saint Anselm. A Portrait in a Landscape. Cambridge: University Press, 1990. ——Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1995. ——Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. London: Penguin, 1985. St Bernard of Clairvaux. The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux. Cistercian edition. Translated by Bruno Scott James. London: Burns and Oates, 1998. Stephens, L. and Lee, S. Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elders, 1908. Stickler, A. Historia Iuris Canonici Latini, Historia Fontium. Rome: Pas-Verlag, 1984.

Limerick 08biblio

174

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 174

Bibliography

Swanson, R.N. The Twelfth-Century Renaissance. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999. Tellenbach, G. The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Tierney, B. Church Law and Constitutional Thought in the Middle Ages. London, 1979. Ullmann, W. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages. London: Metheun, 1955. ——Law and Politics in the Middle Ages. London, 1975. ——Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages. London: Metheun, 1961. Vogel, C. Medieval Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources. Washington: Pastoral Press, 1981. Waddell, H. The Wandering Scholars. London: Constable, 1938 (Seventh edition). Walsh, P. (ed.). St Patrick. A Fifteenth Century Memorial Book. Dublin: Catholic Truth Society, 1932. Wasserschleben, H. (ed.). Die Irische Kanonensammlung. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1885. Watt, J.A. The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. —— The Church in Medieval Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1998. Whitelock, D., Brett, M. and Brooke, C.N.L., Councils and Synods, with Other Documents relating to the English Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Limerick 09index

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 175

Index Clonenagh, Book of, 11, 34-7, 44, 45, 98 Clonmacnois, 23, 27, 29, 31 Coarb, 22, 23 Collectio Hibernensis, 20, 23, 25, 33, 89, 108 Collectio Isidoro, 60 Connaught, 37 Connor, diocese of, 36 Contemplation, 63 Culdees, 25, 27 Cura animarum: see Pastoral care Custom, law of, 53, 54

Adelbaro of Laon, 69, 70, 73, 99 Adomnan’s Life of Columba, 19 Agobard of Lyon, 69 Amalarius of Metz, 57, 58, 83 , 89, 90 Annalists, 30, 37, 46, 56, 111 Annals of Four Masters, 27, 32, 44, 45, 46 Annals of Inisfallen, 27, 30, 44 Annals of Ulster, 23, 30, 44 Anselm of Canterbury, 9, 11, 29-38, 41, 42, 65, 86, 94, 95ff, 116ff Aratores, 59, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73 Ardpatrick, Co. Limerick, 26, 52, 64 Armagh, 9, 11, 24, 27, 29, 33, 35, 37, 42, 47, 52, 136

Dionysius the Areopagite, 61, 75 Donngus, bishop of Dublin, 41 Dublin, 29, 35, 41, 92-6, 117 Durham, 112, 119ff, 130, 136-7, 139 Durrow, 23

Bangor, Co. Down, 9, 27, 47, 92, 112, 137 Bede the Venerable, 79, 119, 130, 134 Bernard of Clairvaux, 11, 29-38, 39, 43, 52, 137 Bernard of St David’s, Wales, 9, 11, 47 Bellatores, 59, 67-73 Birr, Co. Offaly, 23 Brjans saga, 11, 38 Burchard of Worms, 60, 62, 66, 83, 86, 87 Bury St Edmunds, 115, 126, 127, 129

Easter controversy, 20 Elrington, Charles, 141, 143 n.4 Emly, Co. Tipperary, 17, 26 Eriugena, 13, 65, 75-6, 86, 99, 100, 101 Fleury, Abbot of, 69 Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire, 126, 137

Cambridge Ms, 112, 124, 125, 126ff Canterbury, 9, 35, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 92-4, 96, 142 Carolingian schools, 26, 53, 67, 68 Cashel, Co. Tipperary, 35, 52, 93, 94, 95 Cashel, synod of, 9, 31-34, 41, 42, 46 King of, 26 Catalogus, 19, 20 Ceallach of Armagh, 9, 33, 34, 35, 42, 45, 93, 96, 142 Celibacy, 21, 22 Christ, the One Bishop, 12, 54, 58 Chronicon Scotorum, 11, 31, 32, 44, 46, 99 Clement of Rome, 81 Clerical income, 109

Geraldus Cambrensis, 126, 130 Gerard of Cambrai, 54, 69, 70, 73, 99 Gilbert (other churchmen with the name at the time): Crispin, G. the Universal, of Lincoln, de la Porre, of Holland, of Sempringham, 39 Gratian, 60, 62-3, 66, 78, 83, 86, 87, 107-8 Hackett, Michael, 7 Herbert, the monk, 56 Heresy, 51 Hexham, Richard of, 135-6, 138 Hincmar of Rheims, 60, 61, 79, 83 Honorius Augustodunensis, 79, 90

175

Limerick 09index

11/4/01

1:56 pm

Page 176

176 Hugh of Amiens, 51 Hugh of St Victor, 49, 65-6, 77, 79, 88 Humility, 50, 100 Ignatius of Antioch, 81 Isidore of Seville, 77, 83 Ivo of Chartres, 60, 62, 65, 66, 78, 83, 86, 87

Index Patrick, St, 12, 17, 18, 19 Penitentials, Irish, 19, 64 Peter the Venerable, 53 Pitts, John, 39, 141, 143 n3 Plato, 80 Plotinus, 80, 89 Propositum, 65 Pyramid, 57, 58, 59, 66, 75-79, 101, 103

James, Thomas, 39, 141 Keating, Geoffrey, 34, 35, 38, 40, 44, 45 Kells, synod of, 9, 35 Kildare, 24 Lanfranc of Canterbury, 29, 30, 116 Laity, 59, 67-73, 101-3 Laon, 48, 69, 73, 76, 83, 99-100, 112, 128 Libelli di lite, 107 Limerick, city, 41, 42, 46, 95 diocese, 36, 40, 98, 111 Liturgy, 108, 109 Malachy of Armagh, 9, 11, 43, 46, 47, 52, 136-7, 142 Malchus of Waterford, 41, 93-5, 117 Marriage laws, 31-34, 106 Monasterboice, 26 Monasticism, 19, 20, 21 -4, 28 Neoplatonism, 12, 80- 1 Noah’s Ark, 79, 87, 88 O’Briens, Kings, 29, 31, 93 Muircertagh, 32, 41, 43, 93, 94, 95 Toirrdelbach, 30 Oratores, 59, 67-73 Ordo, 50, 52, 53, 88

Rabanus Maurus, 60-1, 65, 78, 90 Rathbreasail, synod of, 9, 11, 28, 30, 32, 437, 44, 60, 64, 79, 87, 89, 96, 98, 111, 142 Regius of Prum, 62 Rheims, synod of, 61 Rome, 45, 46, 51, 55, 57, 86, 87, 108, 138 Rouen, 73, 85, 96, 112 St Patrick’s Purgatory, 130 Salzburg, 13, 58, 82 Sawley Abbey, 9, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139 Schismatics, 51, 53, 56 Scotland, 33 Simeon of Durham, 126, 134 Strabo, Walafrid, 78, 86 Synods, 105-6 Tirechan, Memoirs of, 18 Tuath, 17, 19 Ua Dunain, Maol Muire, 9, 32, 43, 44, 45, 93, 94, 95-6 Ua h-Ainmire, Maol Iosa, 93, 94, 95, 96 Ussher, Archbishop James, 40, 43, 94, 116ff, 140-2, 143n.3 Vikings, 31, 38, 41

Pallium, 86 Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, 125, 126, 127, 138 Particularism, 12, 21, 25-6 Parruchia, 19, 24-5, 33, 52, 93 Paschal II, pope, 32, 43, 67, 87 Patrick, bishop of Limerick, 9

Ware, Sir James, 38, 140 Waterford, 29, 35, 36, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 117 Wexford, 35, 36, 92 William of St Calais, 119, 122 William of St Thierry, 53 Women, role, 104-5