YƵĞƐƚ
TRANSLATION ACCOUNTS AND REPRESENTATIONS
OF POPULAR BELIEF IN THE HAGIOGRAPHY OF THE COMMUNITY
OF ST FILIBERT
Christian Harding, University of St Andrews, Scotland
In late 830, Einhard, onetime courtier to the late emperor Charlemagne, wrote an
account of the transfer of the relics of saints Marcellinus and Peter that he had
recently acquired from Rome.1 When describing what happened when he united all of
the relics at their final location at Mulinheim, some having been appropriated by a
rival en route, the account took on an aspect that revealed a highly charged social
response to their arrival. What follows is a quotation from his account:
At this point the crowd that had left the palace (of Aachen) with us, after adoring and
kissing the sacred relics and after shedding many tears, which they could not restrain
because everyone was filled with so much joy, returned home. Then another crowd
met us and these people joined in singing the Kyrie eleison without stopping until we
reached another place where we were overtaken by others also hurrying to meet us.
Then, just as before, the [second] crowd said prayers and returned home. In this way,
we were joined every day from dawn to dusk by crowds of people praising the Lord
Christ, and, with the Lord watching (we continued on).2
According to one historian’s assessment, this account came from ‘one of the first
pens’ of the Carolingian empire.3 Its influence and its audience were correspondingly
widespread. We shall return to the importance of this text in the development of
1
G. Waitz (ed.), ‘Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo’ in
Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores, xv, 1 (Hanover, 1888), pp 239-264. English translations
used in this paper come from ‘The translation and miracles of the blessed martyrs Marcellinus and
Peter’ in P. E. Dutton, (ed. and trans.), Charlemagne’s Courtier: The complete Einhard (Peterborough,
Ontario, 2003), pp 69-130, unless otherwise stated. Round brackets are my own; square brackets are
Dutton’s. For the dating of this text to 830 see M. Heinzelmann, ‘Einhard’s Translatio Marcellini et
Petri: Eine hagiographische Reformschrift von 830’, in Einhard: Studien zu Leben und Werk, ed. H.
Schefers (Darmstadt, 1997), p. 278 and also, J. M. H. Smith, ‘ “Emending evil ways and praising God’s
omnipotence”: Einhard and the uses of Roman martyrs’, in K. Mills and A. Grafton (eds), Conversion
in late antiquity and the early middle ages: Seeing and believing (Woodbridge, 2003), p. 193.
2
‘Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo’, II, c. 9, p. 247. Translation
from: ‘The translation and miracles of the blessed martyrs Marcellinus and Peter’, II, c. 9, p. 90.
3
M. Heinzelmann, ‘Une source de base de la littérature hagiographique latine: Le recueil de miracles’
in Hagiographie, cultures et societes, IVe-XIIe siècles: Actes du colloque organisée à Nanterre et à
Paris (2-5 Mai 1979), Études Augustiniennes (1981), pp 244-5.
19
YƵĞƐƚ
translation accounts in due course. For now the text stands as an important example of
representations of popular belief in such texts.
Contemporary translation accounts from the early middle ages have often been seen
as evidence of popular belief. Indeed, as a record of the procurement of relics of saints
and their transfer from often remote locations, they are powerful representations of
belief themselves. Many medieval translation accounts focus on the reactions of the
populace to the arrival of relics, as Einhard’s does. We are frequently given an
impression of a notable outpouring of devotion, and miracles that accompany these
translations are displayed as testament to the power of the saint as well as to the faith
of the gathered crowds. Peter Brown observed that translations of relics came to ‘hold
the centre stage in late-antique and early medieval piety’ and that they allowed for
public displays of piety and belief.4 Thus relics of the saints, translations of those
relics, and the miracles are presented as inextricably linked with the experiences
associated with popular belief. In this paper, I would like to explore this phenomenon
through a twofold approach. In the first part of the paper I shall deal with
historiography concerning translation accounts in order to derive conclusions on what
we should expect from these accounts. Following this I shall move on to a more
detailed analysis of the hagiography of the community of St Filibert and their ninthcentury translations to establish how and why the authors of these texts incorporated
information about popular piety into their works. In all of this, Einhard’s account
provides a useful point of reference.
When Martin Heinzelmann addressed the issue of the translation account in 1979, he
shed light on an area that was enjoying a new level of academic interest.5 Not only
translation accounts, but hagiographical texts in general had been the subject of much
scepticism. They had been considered by many only as evidence of the superstitious
nature of medieval religious belief. 6 Patrick Geary has argued that the publication of
4
P. Brown, The cult of the saints: Its rise and function in Latin Christianity (Chicago, 1981), p. 88.
M. Heinzelmann, Translationsberichte und andere Quellen des Reliquienkultes, Typologie des
sources du Moyen Âge Occidental (Turnhout, 1979).
6
For example, as Stephen Wilson noted in his introduction to Saints and their cults: Studies in
religious sociology, folklore and history, ed. S. Wilson (Cambridge, 1983), p. 1, Ferdinand Lot stated
in 1907 that most Breton saints’ lives were ‘entirely devoid of historical value.’ F. Lot, Mélanges
d’Histoire Bretonne (VIe-XIe siècles) (Paris, 1907), p. 97. This sentiment, as Wilson showed, was
5
20
YƵĞƐƚ
Graus’ Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reich der Merowinger in 1965 marked the
point at which ‘scholars began to turn to the legends of the saints with high hopes and
enormous effort in an attempt to breathe new life into a long-ignored body of religious
texts.’7 Graus believed that hagiographical texts provided an opening into the
shadowy subject of medieval society. By considering the audiences of the texts, he
established that whilst we could glean some historical information from them, they
also enabled us to study social values. By reading what the authors believed that their
audience was receptive to, we could understand something of the impact that saints
and texts about the saints had on everyday life.8 As Geary realised, this did not mean
that we could treat hagiography as ‘a transparent window into the everyday life of
medieval people.’9 For one thing, these texts had their specific and personal agendas;
there was a ‘propagandistic nature’ in the literature that needed to be taken into
account.10 For another, the texts had foundations in textual tradition that could not be
ignored.11 Despite this, the cult of the saints and the texts that publicised, created and
explained that cult, occupied an important position in medieval society and played a
prominent rôle in public life particularly in the Carolingian period.12
Heinzelmann drew on a number of conclusions derived from Graus’ ‘optimistic
studies’, and offered his own insights. He showed that whilst complex, the evolution
of the translation account had a definable context. Deriving its origins from preChristian tradition, the cult of the saints that developed chiefly in association with
martyrs in the first millennium, bore witness to an extraordinarily popular
phenomenon.13 This popularity led in turn to a great outpouring of piety on the
occasion of the translation of relics. Just as the cult of the saints had its antecedents in
the pre-Christian imperial world, so too did the popular reception of relics on their
echoed by Robert Latouche, Mélanges d’histoire de Cornouaille Ve-XIe siècles (Paris, 1911). Each is
an individual example of a widespread contention. This despite the assertions of Hippolyte Delehaye
who set out the historical basis for the study of saints’ lives in 1905: H. Delehaye, The legends of the
saints, trans. D. Attwater (Dublin, 1998).
7
P. J. Geary, Living with the dead in the middle ages (Ithaca, New York, 1994), p. 9.
8
F. Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reich der Merowinger: Studien zur Hagiographie der
Merowingerzeit (Prague, 1965), especially his section on the legends of the saints and the people, pp
197-300. For a brief discussion of his principal arguments see Geary, Living with the dead, pp 9-13.
9
Geary, Living with the dead, p. 12.
10
Ibid., p. 13.
11
Ibid., pp 11-13.
12
Heinzelmann, ‘Une source de base’, p. 246.
13
For links to the classical cult of heroes see Brown, The cult of the saints, pp 3-22.
21
YƵĞƐƚ
arrival at a new site following translation.14 For Heinzelmann, as for Brown, when
people lined the streets or gathered in huge numbers to witness the arrival of a saint as
we have seen them do in Einhard’s Translatio, they did so in remembrance of the
Roman Adventus ceremony that welcomed the emperor into his cities.15
But what of the accounts themselves? Things began to change in regard to these
during the late eighth and the ninth centuries. In 787 at Nicaea,16 the Byzantine
Church declared that it required relics to be included in every church altar and
Charlemagne repeated this demand at Mainz in 813.17 These decrees roughly
coincided with a period of favourable contact between the papacy and the emerging
Carolingian dynasty in the Frankish kingdoms that was based on mutual support.18
Prior to this, the Roman Church had resisted the translation of corporeal relics to the
West, and the Frankish kingdoms and others had relied on secondary relics, such as
clothing or personal items.19 In the eighth and ninth centuries, bodies began to be
moved from Rome. When Einhard wrote his Translatio he was therefore responding
to an original set of circumstances. It is generally agreed that Einhard’s translation
account sparked the emergence of a new sub-genre that was dealing with the
movement of bodily relics.20 Partly because of his influence as ‘one of the first pens’
of the Carolingian empire, partly because the things about which he wrote required a
new form of literature in order to explain and justify them, it was from the moment of
the “publication” of his work that the genre blossomed.21
14
Heinzelmann, Translationsberichte, p. 122.
Heinzelmann, Translationsberichte, pp 66-77. See also Brown, The cult of the saints, pp 98-101.
16
Act VII: ‘Quod templa noviter sine reconditis sanctorum reliquiis dedicata oprteat suppleri.’ in J. D.
Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 13 (Florence, 1767), pp 427-428.
17
On the decree at the synod of Mainz see P. J. Geary, Furta Sacra: Thefts of relics in the central
middle ages (2nd edition, Princeton, 1990), p. 37.
18
On initial contacts between the Carolingians and Rome see R. Schieffer, ‘Charlemagne and Rome’ in
Early medieval Rome and the Christian West: Essays in honour of Donald A. Bullough, ed. J. M. H.
Smith (Leiden, 2000), pp 279-297, J. L. Nelson, ‘The Lord’s anointed and the people’s choice:
Carolingian royal ritual’ in The Frankish world, 750-900, ed. J. L. Nelson (London, 1996), pp 99-131
especially pp 102-105 and pp 110-113, R. Balzaretti, ‘Charlemagne in Italy’ in History Today, 46 (2)
(1996), pp 28-34 and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983), pp 162-204.
19
Wilson (ed.), Saints and their cults, pp 1-8 offers a general discussion of this process. See also
Geary, Furta Sacra, pp 110-112.
20
Heinzelmann, Translationsberichte, p. 123. Heinzelmann, ‘Une source de base’, pp 244-5. Dutton
(ed. and trans.), Charlemagne’s courtier, p. xxiv.
21
Heinzelmann, ‘Une source de base’, p. 244.
15
22
YƵĞƐƚ
In the case of Einhard’s Translatio the agendas of the author are relatively clear. His
personal statement was that he wished to ‘arouse the minds of all through examples of
the lives and deeds of the just, to emending evil ways and praising God’s
omnipotence.’22 Julia Smith borrowed this statement as the title for her exploration of
Einhard’s text. She showed that there were numerous reasons that he penned his
account. For one, he was keenly interested in promoting the cult that he established at
Mulinheim as ‘a new centre of correct Christianity’ that could help to lead the people
of the empire on a royally sanctioned program of correctio.23 He also had some
personal agendas. As an influential member of the imperial court, but one that now
lived at a distance from the centres of power, Einhard needed to maintain his position.
The control of a prosperous relic cult could certainly help him to achieve that. There
was a definite element of advertisement in his text then, but there was also strong
critique of his rivals. His account relates that the archchaplain and abbot of St-Denis,
Hilduin, had taken some of the relics of Marcellinus while they were en route from
Rome.24 Through this story Einhard was able to attack Hilduin, who was a clear rival
at court and who had become a rival in the cultic sense in 825 when he had procured
Roman relics for himself. In describing the return of the stolen relics, he exposed
Hilduin as a thief and implied that his own possession of the relics was justified.
Einhard’s right to the relics was indicated by miracles that occurred once the relics
were brought back together.25 The miracles revealed that the relics were in their
rightful place and responded to the surge of popular devotion that their arrival at
Mulinheim caused. The first account that Einhard described illustrates both of these
things. One of emperor Louis the Pious’ chamberlains, named Drogo, was, we are
told, seized by a fever. Einhard wrote that, ‘after Abbot Hilduin returned the relics
of... Marcellinus..., [Drogo] was advised in his sleep to come to my chapel... He was
to pray to Saint Marcellinus... He believed the one urging him and did what had been
22
This translation is from Smith, ‘“Emending evil ways”’, p. 192.
Ibid., p. 192. On the Carolingian policy of correctio see P. Brown, The rise of Western Christendom:
Triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000 (2nd edition, Oxford, 2003), pp 437-452.
24
‘Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo’, II, cc 1-3, pp 245-6.
Translation from: ‘The translation and miracles of the blessed martyrs Marcellinus and Peter’, II, cc 13, pp 83-87.
25
Einhard makes this point very clearly through the relation of a miraculous occurrence in the chapter
immediately following that in which he received the relics back from Hilduin. ‘Translatio et miracula
sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo’, II, c. 4, p. 247. Translation from: ‘The translation and
miracles of the blessed martyrs Marcellinus and Peter’, II, c. 4, p. 87.
23
23
YƵĞƐƚ
ordered as quickly as he could.’ He was afterwards cured immediately.26 Einhard’s
text was complex and multi-layered. Whilst he clearly viewed advertisement as
important (around a third of his book is devoted to the miracle accounts),27 he also
understood that the text could be used for his own particular ends, such as for an
attack on Hilduin and even incorporated reference to Hilduin’s theft of the relics of
Marcellinus into his miracle accounts.
Two principal conclusions can be made from our analysis so far. Firstly, there is a
clear argument that translation accounts indicate a high level of popular devotion to
the saint in its new locus and/or at the moment of its arrival at that new locus. This
popular devotion is the focus for miracles that witness the power of the saint and
justify the belief that has been shown through popular acclaim, whilst also solidifying
and creating further belief in the saint. Secondly, there is the argument that the same
translation accounts were written to provide answers to specific problems. The
authors of these accounts had their individual agendas in creating them that must be
considered. As one of those agendas was certainly to advertise the healing ability of
the saint and thereby to create interest in and devotion to the saint we are presented
with a contradiction. How can we reconcile the use of a translation account as an
example of popular belief whilst acknowledging the ‘propagandistic nature of this
literature’ that Geary pointed towards?
In the second part of this paper I would like to explore that question through analysis
of a famous example of a ninth-century Carolingian translation account, De
Translationibus et Miraculis Sancti Filiberti.28 Written shortly after Einhard’s
Translatio by a member of the community of St Filibert named Ermentarius, this text
describes a series of translations of St Filibert and his community that took place
between 836 and 865.29 As a successor to Einhard’s text (Ermentarius wrote book one
of his work in around 838), it might be expected that his account would follow many
26
‘Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo’, IV, c. 1, p. 256. Translation
from: ‘The translation and miracles of the blessed martyrs Marcellinus and Peter’, IV, c. 1, p. 111.
27
‘Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo’, IV, pp 256-264. Translation
from: ‘The translation and miracles of the blessed martyrs Marcellinus and Peter’, IV, pp 111-130.
28
Ermentarius, ‘De Translationibus et Miraculis Sancti Filiberti’ in R. Poupardin (ed.), Monuments de
l’histoire des abbayes de Saint-Philibert (Noirmoutier, Grandlieu, Tournus) (Paris, 1905).
29
For details on these dates and other discussion of the texts see the introduction in Poupardin (ed.),
Monuments, pp xxv-xxxvii.
24
YƵĞƐƚ
of the recently established conventions. But there were differences that can help us to
understand how popular belief was represented. For one thing the authors’ agendas
differed. Ermentarius was describing a number of translations that took place
throughout the ninth century. He described each as being forced on the community by
the activities of the Vikings in the Frankish kingdoms, but closer inspection reveals
that many of the translations helped to improve the standing of the community and to
draw them into high political circles. A definite aim of his texts was to gain patronage
from Hilduin of Saint-Denis and from Charles the Bald, king of the West Franks.
Ermentarius sent his first text to these two with a preface that requested their aid.30
During the course of the ninth-century, and as he wrote more, he began to answer the
needs of the community by providing them with an element of identity through the
topos of Viking attack that he used to characterise his work in response to their
numerous translations during which that identity had been lost.
Ermentarius’ texts describe the details of the translations of the relics and the
community of St Filibert from their home at Noirmoutier, to Déas in the Vendée in
836 and then from there to Cunault on the banks of the Loire in c. 845, and to Messais
in Poitou in 865. Ermentarius’ first book describes this first transfer, whilst the
second, completed shortly after the monks reached Messais in 865, describes the latter
two. I shall focus my discussion on the first book.
From the outset of the text the involvement of the public in the process and their
interest in the relics of Filibert is made clear. In chapter two, Ermentarius relates
details of the translation. Filibert’s remains were taken across to the mainland by boat
and were kept in the marble sarcophagus that had been brought from Noirmoutier. On
setting them down in the church at the coastal village of l’Ampan, the monks were
inundated with crowds of people who wished to venerate the saint; ‘the people
flocked together to that place in no small number,’ wrote Ermentarius, ‘they all
rejoiced and bore the saint up on a bier... These people hold amongst their beliefs that
whatever sickness has oppressed them they can be saved by the merits of the saint.’31
30
The text of the first book of miracles was sent along with a revised version of an earlier Vita Filiberti
to Hilduin and Charles in 840.
31
Ermentarius, ‘De Translationibus et Miraculis Sancti Filiberti’, I, c. ii, p. 26.
25
YƵĞƐƚ
In this short passage, Ermentarius sets out the two main elements that exist in his and
other accounts in relation to popular belief. Relics caused a great deal of public
interest and the populace expected miracles to be channelled through them.
The act of moving the relics aroused much interest. This may be due in part to the fact
that the Filibertine monks had brought their relics onto the mainland for the first time
and so had made them more accessible than before. Although the island of
Noirmoutier is attached to the mainland at low tide, the existence of local shrines may
have led many who were not especially devoted to Filibert in particular to seek a more
convenient shrine until 836. However, we have seen from Einhard’s account that the
movement of the relics of Marcellinus and Peter caused considerable interest too. By
the time that the events described in that extract were underway, those relics had been
at Mulinheim for some months.32 The first swell of interest occasioned by their arrival
from Rome was over and yet Einhard’s journey to Mulinheim with the retrieved
portion of the relics became what Smith described as a ‘triumphal six-day procession
through the countryside.’33 When Einhard took the relics from their first destination at
Michelstadt to Mulinheim, he rode ahead of the party that was carrying them to make
preparations for their arrival at Mulinheim but also, Smith argued, spread the word
amongst the local populace.34 Because people were ready for the arrival of the relics,
the procession was greeted by large numbers. Einhard had gone to a great deal of
trouble to make sure that the interest of the pious was aroused. It is not unlikely that
he did the same when he returned to Aachen to make sure that he had the complete set
of relics, retrieving the portion that Hilduin had taken. Nor is it unlikely that the
Filibertine community had prepared the way for the reception of their relics on the
Frankish mainland in 836.
To read on in Ermentarius’ account is to discover that a similar procession occurred in
that instance too. On 7 June 836, the community left Noirmoutier.35 They landed at a
port near Fromentine on 8 June and then moved to l’Ampan where they stayed for
32
The prolonged process of regaining the relics from Hilduin is described in, ‘Translatio et miracula
sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo’, II, pp 245-8 and ‘The translation and miracles of the
blessed martyrs Marcellinus and Peter’, II, pp 83-91.
33
Smith, ‘“Emending evil ways”’, p. 203.
34
Ibid., p. 201.
35
Ermentarius, ‘De Translationibus et Miraculis Sancti Filiberti’, I, c. ii, p. 26.
26
YƵĞƐƚ
two days. From l’Ampan the Filibertine procession made its way to Bois-de-Céné,
where the saint was settled in a camp for the night. On the morning of the 11th they
moved to Paulx where they rested again and then finally went on to Déas where the
relics stayed.36 All of the villages lie on the route to Déas, but the texts reveal a level
of preparedness on the part of the monks that suggests that this was a highly stagemanaged event and not simply a result of word of mouth information in these
localities. It seems that from the moment that the relics arrived at l’Ampan there was
an element of organisation. The monks had carried the sarcophagus themselves until
this point but now a part of the crowd that had gathered lifted it onto a bier and carried
it off.37 They were prepared to become a part of the procession. By the time that the
procession had reached Paulx, tents had been erected for the use of the monks in
which they stayed for the night,38 before going to Déas where Ermentarius tells us that
‘crowds came together from every direction to be involved in the arrival that they
were all eager for.’39
Although these events took place in 836, the monks had been preparing the site at
Déas for their translation there since at least 819.40 By 836, they were well-organised
and had taken the opportunities available to them to publicise their impending
activities. Providing information to the populace had a result that was of advantage to
the community and to those to whom the arrival had been advertised. For the
Filibertines the involvement of the locals allowed for the cult to have an immediate
impact and helped to establish the monastic community in the cultic landscape. By
advertising their relics in an efficient manner, both Einhard and the Filibertines gave
themselves the greatest possible chance of success.
36
These events are related throughout Ermentarius, ‘De Translationibus et Miraculis Sancti Filiberti’, I,
cc i-lxxx, pp 23-58. Discussion of the dates is provided in Poupardin, Monuments, p. xxix.
37
Ermentarius, ‘De Translationibus et Miraculis Sancti Filiberti’, I, c. ii, p. 26.
38
Ibid., I, c. xvi, p. 31.
39
Ibid., I, c. xxiv, p. 33.
40
A charter from Louis the Pious that allowed abbot Arnold to divert a small river at the site for the use
of the monks dates from 819. It is likely that the monks had been active at the site for a few years prior
to this as the charter states that the grant was being made in favour of Arnold ‘who had improved the
new monastery’ because of the dangers caused by the Northmen on Noirmoutier. See Poupardin,
Monuments, p. 107 and Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne, vol. 104, cols 1089-90.
27
YƵĞƐƚ
It could be argued that this type of stage-management on the part of the communities
or individuals involved in relic transfers diminishes the impact of local involvement;
that if coerced the arrival of the population could not be considered a reflection of
genuine piety and belief. However, none of the efforts involved in the organisation of
these types of project would be worth anything without the possibility of positive
results. In building a new monastery and in arranging for a steady procession of relics
from old location to new in the presence of a knowledgeable crowd, the Filibertines
had gone to a great deal of effort. The huge numbers of interested observers are
testament to the success that the community had. The mutual nature of the benefits of
this process is important. The narratives offered by the authors were a method of
further advertising their cult. We should, in other words take account of Geary’s
contention that this literature contained propagandistic elements, even that it was
heavily imbued with propaganda. Although we must expect some exaggeration, this
need not trouble us in our search for believable representations of popular piety
because the propagandistic elements would be inconceivable unless they might be
effective.
In Einhard’s and in Ermentarius’ texts, these details should be considered strong
evidence for the involvement of the populace in their movements. That so many of the
accounts of this type are full of incidents that prove to be a draw to the populace
should not be seen as problematic. Rather we should consider them a reflection of a
significant undercurrent of interest in the activities of the saints. The whole industry
surrounding saints and their relics revolved around the interested parties that people
like Ermentarius described. It is important to remember that writers like this were
working in a world and from a position in which belief in the power of saints and their
relics was very real. The level of popular interest was so high that wide travel to
shrines was commonplace.41
Ermentarius’ first book alone describes over seventy-five miracles, the great majority
of which occurred to people who actively sought help from St Filibert and who
travelled to gain that help.42 Some travelled great distances such as a man named
41
42
Smith, ‘“Emending evil ways’”, p. 203.
Ermentarius, ‘De Translationibus et Miraculis Sancti Filiberti’, I, cc i-lxxx, pp 23-58.
28
YƵĞƐƚ
Baldradus. His example extends the impression that the translation was well planned
and highly publicised and informs us once more of the involvement of belief in this
narrative. A blind man of twenty years, Baldradus is said to have travelled around one
hundred miles to appeal to St Filibert.43 He arrived to meet the procession whilst it
was at l’Ampan. The precision in the timing of his arrival and the distance that he had
travelled both indicate that this event had been widely publicised. Ermentarius states
that Baldradus came in full faith and prostrated himself before the relics. On
acknowledging his sinfulness and on declaring his belief in the power of God and that
of St Filibert, he was rewarded with the restoration of his sight. In travelling so far,
Baldradus had made a physical demonstration of his faith in the healing power of St
Filibert which he had then backed up with a spoken declaration of the same faith. His
belief was immediately rewarded and the story provided a clear message that
incorporated these factors.44 The fact that Baldradus had travelled so far also indicated
that he had eschewed other choices in favour of visiting the relics of St Filibert, and
the success of his endeavour after twenty years of blindness emphasised the results of
belief in Filibert.
This is just one example of the way in which Ermentarius’ narrative works. Other
miracles are described that also emphasise the requirement of belief prior to the
granting of a cure. He does not restrict himself to descriptions of favourable action on
the part of Filibert though. We also have examples of bad things that could happen to
those who did not show that they believed in St Filibert’s abilities. In an account of a
miracle that occurred at Déas, Ermentarius refers to a blind woman who attempted to
gain a miraculous cure from another saint from the region. She is described as being
‘a certain woman of St Martin.’45 Rather than being a reference to the famous cult of
St Martin at Tours, this is probably a reference to the community of St Martin de
Vertou who were already established only a few miles from Déas. The description of
her as ‘of St Martin’ may suggest that she was somehow associated with that
community but certainly represents that she had at least appealed to Martin for aid.
However, when she arrived at Déas, she was still afflicted. Appeal to Martin had not
43
He came from the district of Gorron in Mayenne.
Ermentarius, ‘De Translationibus et Miraculis Sancti Filiberti’, I, c. vi, p. 27.
45
Ibid., I, c. xl, pp 38-39.
44
29
YƵĞƐƚ
worked. She was persuaded to approach the shrine but could not be persuaded to
believe in the healing powers of a piece of the bier that had transported the saint and
that had recently been used to cure another. Taking a piece of the bier she threw it into
a fire upon which action the flames flared up and burned away her right eye.46 Filibert
had punished her for her lack of belief. Clearly there is a message to the audience
here. Not only is Filibert being advertised as a capable healer whose efficacy can be
trusted over those of neighbouring cults, but a warning is being given to those who do
not show proper respect to the saint. We are shown that whilst there is a need to
interest the local population, there are rules that must be obeyed by those that take up
the offer of saintly assistance. There is no guarantee of a cure and if the pilgrim seeks
a cure without believing sufficiently in the saint, then a punitive response can be
expected. It is also clear that appeal to the other saints of the region is presented as
ineffectual as it is throughout the text. This again represents the two-sided nature of
the relationship between cult and population, but it also shows us that belief is not to
be taken for granted. This negative representation of the relationships created through
belief offers an element of realism to our investigation, albeit one that does so through
an example that we may not necessarily give credence to. But when a community that
was actively seeking interest through their actions and their texts saw fit to warn their
audience of this potentiality they showed that they had a real concern for the depth of
belief of their audience as well as the number of people that they could attract.
Whether there really were those who sought to take advantage of a cult like that of St
Filibert in a cynical manner as in the previous example, we cannot say. We can,
however, draw useful conclusions from this type of account. With this account we see
that belief is something that the monks in question can use to their advantage, and
something that has a specific rôle within the reciprocal interaction that they sought.
They needed belief to achieve success and to survive, but they could also teach
lessons about the dangers of a lack of belief and thereby admonish those who did not
believe through their texts. In other words they could assume a pastoral rôle within
the local populace that was at the same time their audience and their client base.
46
Ibid., I, c. xl, pp 38-39.
30
YƵĞƐƚ
The complexity of the genre is revealed through the diversity of representations of
belief. It may be that certain isolated elements of the texts, such as the Adventus-like
ceremonial, or the punitive actions of the saints, are exaggerated or even invented to
create maximum effect. We should be wary of discounting these elements on the basis
of our modern mentalities, but it may be that we should see Adventus descriptions as
more crucial to the emerging literary style than factual. What we see more
prominently, however, is a range of methods used by our authors to represent what
was certainly a real public interest in their saints and in the communities that
controlled them. This interest was so important to the community in question that it
was worth going to great lengths to elicit a response when transporting relics into a
new setting. Effective management of these situations brought great reward; it
enabled the community and the relic to fully establish itself in this new cultural and
cultic landscape. Julia Smith pointed out that when the community moved,
communities needed their audience, their miracles and the witnesses to them, and they
needed people to discuss the happenings. In all of this they made assumptions
concerning the receptiveness of their audience to the saints, and the translation
initiated that receptiveness and those responses.47 In return for their involvement and
crucially in return for their belief, the devotees might receive miraculous assistance
and cures. Another factor, as we have just seen, was the way in which a lack of belief
could be punished by the saint. The community had no wish to procure interest from
the wrong type of person and when they did the results could be harsh. The resolution
to this type of problem might be wholly punitive, but at times it also taught a valuable
spiritual lesson and initiated yet more belief.
All of these things and more are apparent in translation narratives. They do, as Graus
suggested, provide us with a rare glimpse of the social history of the normal
inhabitant of the medieval West,48 but they give an equally important glimpse into the
mentalities of those men who wrote these texts. For them the text was many things. It
could be used to advertise and improve the standing of a cult; it could also be used to
teach the audience, to remind people of the need to believe in the power of the saints
47
48
Smith, ‘“Emending evil ways”’, p. 201.
Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger, pp 197-300.
31
YƵĞƐƚ
and to show the potential rewards of belief and the potential response to unbelief. It
could remind the monastic audience of the pastoral rôle that they had too.
Whilst we have been interested in these elements of the texts we have only briefly
considered other motives that the authors had. That we can discuss the representations
of popular belief with only a minimal reference to important literary elements reemphasises the richness of these accounts. Brown said that translations of relics came
to ‘hold the centre stage in late-antique and early medieval piety.’49 We have seen
some of the ways that they did that but the texts that dealt with the translations of
relics did not place medieval piety on their own centre stage. That they are
nevertheless replete with references to piety speaks volumes of the importance of it
both textually and actually.
We began this investigation with a difficult contradiction – that these texts had
established agendas and were beginning to become a part of a literary genre that had
its own rules and methods but that they were also mines of information on the very
real ways in which belief affected society. Through discussion of the way in which
these texts evolved and through the way in which they have been seen we have been
able to get to grips with the messages that they present. In light of all of this, I would
argue that there is not really a contradiction at all, but rather that the texts use
representations of belief and of piety in a way that aids their literary intentions and in
so doing, also reveal a great deal about belief itself.
Bibliography:
BALZARETTI, R., ‘Charlemagne in Italy’ in History Today, 46 (2) (1996), pp 28-34.
BROWN, P., The cult of the saints: Its rise and function in Latin Christianity (Chicago, 1981).
BROWN, P., The rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000 (2nd edition,
Oxford, 2003).
DELEHAYE, H., The legends of the saints, trans. D. Attwater (Dublin, 1998).
DUTTON, P. E. (ed. and trans.), Charlemagne’s Courtier: The complete Einhard (Peterborough,
Ontario, 2003).
GEARY, P. J., Furta Sacra: Thefts of relics in the central middle ages (2nd edition, Princeton, 1990).
49
Brown, The cult of the saints, p. 88.
32
YƵĞƐƚ
GEARY, P. J., Living with the dead in the middle ages (Ithaca, New York, 1994).
GRAUS, F., Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reich der Merowinger: Studien zur Hagiographie der
Merowingerzeit (Prague, 1965).
HEINZELMANN, M., ‘Einhard’s Translatio Marcellini et Petri: Eine hagiographische Reformschrift
von 830’, in Einhard: Studien zu Leben und Werk, ed. H. Schefers (Darmstadt, 1997), pp 269-98.
HEINZELMANN, M., ‘Une source de base de la littérature hagiographique latine: Le recueil de
miracles’ in Hagiographie, cultures et societes, IVe-XIIe siècles: Actes du colloque organisée à
Nanterre et à Paris (2-5 Mai 1979), Études Augustiniennes (1981), pp 244-5.
HEINZELMANN, M., Translationsberichte und andere Quellen des Reliquienkultes, Typologie des
sources du Moyen Âge Occidental (Turnhout, 1979).
LATOUCHE, R., Mélanges d’histoire de Cornouaille Ve-XIe siècles (Paris, 1911).
LOT, F., Mélanges d’Histoire Bretonne (VIe-XIe siècles) (Paris, 1907).
MANSI, J. D. (ed.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 13 (Florence, 1767).
MILLS, K., GRAFTON, A. (eds), Conversion in late antiquity and the early middle ages: Seeing and
believing (Woodbridge, 2003).
NELSON, J. L., The Frankish world, 750-900 (London, 1996).
NELSON, J. L., ‘The Lord’s anointed and the people’s choice: Carolingian royal ritual’ in The
Frankish world, 750-900, ed. J. L. Nelson (London, 1996), pp 99-131.
POUPARDIN, R. (ed.), Monuments de l’histoire des abbayes de Saint-Philibert (Noirmoutier,
Grandlieu, Tournus) (Paris, 1905).
SCHEFERS, H. (ed.), Einhard: Studien zu Leben und Werk (Darmstadt, 1997).
SCHIEFFER, R., ‘Charlemagne and Rome’ in Early medieval Rome and the Christian West: Essays in
honour of Donald A. Bullough, ed. J. M. H. Smith (Leiden, 2000), pp 279-297.
SMITH, J. M. H. (ed.), Early medieval Rome and the Christian West: Essays in honour of Donald A.
Bullough (Leiden, 2000).
SMITH, J. M. H., ‘ “Emending evil ways and praising God’s omnipotence”: Einhard and the uses of
Roman martyrs’, in K. Mills and A. Grafton (eds), Conversion in late antiquity and the early middle
ages: Seeing and believing (Woodbridge, 2003), pp 189-223.
WAITZ, G. (ed.), ‘Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo’ in
Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores, xv, 1 (Hanover, 1888), pp 239-264.
WALLACE-HADRILL, J. M., The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983).
WILSON, S. (ed.), Saints and their cults: Studies in religious sociology, folklore and history
(Cambridge, 1983).
33