Saint Joseph's University
Scholarship@SJU
History
College of Arts & Sciences
12-1971
Review of "The Great Schism, 1378"
Raymond H. Schmandt
Saint Joseph's University
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.sju.edu/hist_fac
Part of the History Commons
Citation
Schmandt, Raymond H. Rev. of The Great Schism, 1378, by John Holland Smith. Church History 40.4 (1971): 480-81. Print.
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Scholarship@SJU. It has been accepted for inclusion
in History by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@SJU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
480
CHURCH HISTORY
viously been thought. One of the more provocative ways to approach the study
of this development has been through an attempt to specify the similarities and
differences between the two "generations" of Cistercians in the period 1090 to
1153.
This approach is evident in The Cistercian Spirit. Like most symposium
products, the volume contains some weak and derivative papers, but essays
such as those of Basil Pennington, Louis Lekai, Augustine Roberts, and Jean
Leclercq are significant contributions to the present state of the question. Though
there is considerable variation in the weight that these authors give to the different elements in the intentions of the founders, there is also general agreement on a number of important points, such as the rejection of the claim that
the original Cistercians were slaves to a literal interpretation of the Rule of St.
Benedict (pp. 59, 104-106, 110), and the recognition that the differences between the original founders of the "first generation" and the dominating figure
of Bernard of Clairvaux in the "second generation," while real, must not be
overstressed (pp. 16, 73-85, 114-116). These essays on Cistercian origins are
only the beginning of what should prove to be one of the most challenging areas
in the history of monasticism in the decades ahead. The sociological analysis for
which Jean Leclercq calls in another essay (whatever one might think of the
particular model he suggests) is the next stage to pursue in fleshing out the
story of twelfth-century Cistercianism. To this must be added an honest and
critical attempt to determine the factors involved in the rapid collapse of Cistercian
ideals in the later twelfth century. Here some of the remarks of Leclercq and
Armand Veilleux indicate that monastic scholars themselves have begun to confront this delicate and important task.
Another aspect of Cistercianism of great interest at present is its intellectual achievement. Roman Catholic recognition of theological pluralism since
Vatican II has made it increasingly possible to look at past theological systems
without evaluating them according to the Scholastic model. That this was possible even in a pre-Conciliar context is demonstrated by Hallier's book on Aelred
of Rievaulx, one of the best descriptive studies of a Cistercian theologian and a
welcome addition to the literature available in English on what is frequently
called "monastic theology." One of the few major defects of the book is its
ambiguous insistence on the eschatological orientation in Aelred's thought (pp.
149-155). A number of the authors in The Cistercian Spirit also make much of
this; but to call the emphasis of the early Cistercians on the life of the monk
as being a foretaste of heaven "eschatological", wtihout making any distinction
between what might be called horizontal or historical eschatology on the one
hand, and vertical or a-historical eschatology on the other, is quite misleading.
What Hallier's book does indicate is that the time has come to pass beyond
largely descriptive studies of individual thinkers to attempt critical surveys which
will aim at a broader and deeper analysis of the place of Cistercian thought in
the history of western theology. It is to be hoped that this important new
series will contribute to the task.
University of Chicago
BERNARDMCGINN
The Great Schism, 1378. By JOHN HOLLAND SMITH. New York: Weybright
and Talley, 1970. 280 pp. Illustrated. $7.50.
This book's misleading title engenders an initial unfavorable reaction. The
dust jacket, but not the title page bears a sub-title: The Disintegration of the
Papacy, which is somewhat more accurate. Actually, the book surveys both the
formation and decline of medieval papal authority, approximately one half of
the text dealing with the Schism and Conciliarism. There is nothing new here.
Popularization, however, is a tricky business, demanding expert knowledge as
well as literary skill. Smith has more of the latter than the former.
To begin with, Smith should have defined his terms to distinguish between
BOOKREVIEWS
481
temporal and spiritual authority. Then, having decided to treat at length the
rise of the papacy, he should not have omitted the first four centuries of the
Christian era when the theory of papal jurisdiction took shape. He handles
the Schism and Conciliarismbetter than prior events. The broad strokes demanded by his huge canvas trap him into false generalizations. For example,
even with a mild qualification,the statement about the Concordatof Worms:
"Under its operation,the power of the emperordeclined rapidly" (p. 58), implies a totally erroneous relationship. "If Jerusalemhas not fallen in 1187 to
the forces of Saladin, Barbarossamight have conqueredall Italy" (p. 65) is a
judgmentthat springsfrom a fertile imaginationunimpededby facts. Some small
errors: Alexander III was not pope in 1215 (p. 16); read 1402 for 1420 (p.
176) and 1407 for 1307 (p. 166); Slovaks for Slovenes (p. 184); Vienne
was not the eighth generalcouncil (p. 215). In sum, this is a book we could do
without.
H. SCHMANDT
St. Joseph's College,
RAYMOND
Philadelphia,Pennsylvania
Studies in Medieval Culture, III.
The
Edited by JOHN R. SOMMERFELDT.
Medieval Institute. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 1970. 195
pp. $3.00 for individuals;$5.00 for institutions.
Book editors are increasinglyarbitraryabout reviews of "Studies". This one
merits more than the space allotted. The volume reflects good planningand execution by the sustaining university and its editorial board. The contributors
are a preponderantlyyouthfulgroup of well groundedscholarswith a sprinkling
of older researchers. Sixteen papers span a variety of disciplines focused on
such areas as papal initiative (Carolingianera), theological politics (Agobard
and the Jews of Lyons), hereticalprocess (Albigensiancrusade), canonicaltheology (Walter of Chatillonand Gratian), iconographicmotifs (a Pseudo-Joachim
MS), and a wide spectrumof scholasticdoctrine (Thomistic Beatitude,and Maimonides) and literary vitality (Troilus and Criseide,The Pearl, etc.). The authors differ, naturally,in pith and expertise. A few combineserious scholarship
and "the light touch." There is a commendablyhigh level of soundly documented
source and secondaryliterature. Aside from usually forthrightreportingof useful researchprojects, there is the additionaldividend of a truly catholic range
of interests and methods equally valuable for graduate directors and candidates
in formation. There is a laudable interplay of literary criticism and historiographicalnorms as they affect comparativestudies of Jews, Muslims and Christians; poets, hierarchsand rhetoricians;confraternities,crusades and social customs. No index. Well edited.
RAYC. PETRY
Duke UniversityDivinity School,
Durham, North Carolina
CarolingianChronicles:Royal FrankishAnnals and Nithard's Histories. TransROGERS.Ann Arbor:
lated by BERNHARD
WALTERSCHOLZwith BARBARA
The University of Michigan Press, 1970. 235 pp. $8.50.
The annal is the foundationstone for early medieval history. Originally
simply notations on the Easter tables marking significantevents of each year,
the annals grew into full-scale histories. Most often the annals reflect a very
narrow perspectiveon events. Their political and religious bias causes us to
classify them as "officialhistory." Nonetheless,they containa wealth of information abouttheirtimes and often serve as our sole literarysources.
The Royal FrankishAnnals, a compositework coveringthe reigns of Pepin
III and Charlemagneand the early years of Louis the Pious, stands as a classic
among the annals. The narrative,to be sure, contains the official royal interpretation of contemporary events. This in no way detracts from their usefulness.
From this official history we gain insight into the understanding which these