This is a beta version of the page that collects the information on the two types of memory texts about the Pope Eugene III: the epitaphs and the collection of miracles. The text will be updated and corrected in near future to better use the data gathered from the database made using Nodegoat. The research on the memorial text was funded as part of NCN project: Alberic of Trois-Fontaines and thirteenth century Cistercian vision of the historical-cultural community of Europe/Christianitas (2016/23/D/HS3/03197).

The information in database is based largely on the published catalogues and online resources. I believe that I listed all of them in the appropriate space in the database. The information acquired will be further „cleaned-up” (adding authorship of the works, people etc. There will be also many transcriptions added at a later stage. It will also be moved to more official institutional hosting. The text is now revision: 16 March 2023.

The page at this stage is more of a test than ready, so there are many mistakes etc. Nevertheless, it would never be online without Agata Zielinska and Tomasz Panecki.

Introduction

‘God have mercy on you; what have you done?’^[1] Bernard of Clairvaux asked the Roman Curia after the election of Eugene III in 1145. This happened in contentious times as Eugene’s predecessor, Lucius II, died wounded in a fight against Roman opponents. The new Pope, born Bernardo Pignatelli in Pisa around 1080, was a canon of the city’s cathedral chapter by 1106. Bernard of Clairvaux inspired him to become a Cistercian, and Bernardo moved to Clairvaux in 1138. He did not stay there for long, as after a year, he moved back to Italy and led a Cistercian cell in Scandriglia. The following year, he became an abbot of S. Anastasio alle Tre Fontane. After being elected Pope, he spent most of his pontificate between France and Italy, outside Rome, which he was unable to control. He died on 8 July 1153 and was buried in the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican.

This article’s subject is how Eugene was remembered by Cistercians soon after his death. Thus, I will discuss the epitaphs written about him and the collection of his miracles (BHL 2675-2676, entitled De miraculis ad sepulchrum Domini Eugenii tertii).^[2] The present discussion is not intended as a definitive account of this issue, but rather a starting point. Neither the epitaphs nor the miracle collections have received appropriate scholarly attention. Moreover, epitaphs need researching as literary texts in and of themselves. There is a distinct lack of catalogues and indices that include the manuscripts where epitaphs are located. The article is supplemented by the experimental database that presents the epitaphs and miracles, the manuscripts where they were recorded, and other relevant data.

In the text first I will discuss the reaction to the papal election of Eugene. Afterwards the discussion is divided into two parts. In the first I write about the epitaphs, first about the genre, then move to the presentation of the manuscripts containing the epitaphs of Eugene. Finally, I write about the construction of Eugene’s epitaphs. After summarising the subject, I move to the second topic of the article, which is the collection of miracles made at the grave of Eugene. Similarly, I begin with presentation of the manuscripts followed by the discussion of the text itself.

The database software is nodegoat installation. For each of the manuscripts the following data is included (if available): Shelfmark; Urlimages; Manuscript Databases links; Source – Publication; IIIF manifest; Date (numerical); Source of dating; Origin (place); Coordinates of Origin Place; Monastic Affiliation; Text of the Work according to the Manuscript; Content of the Manuscript. From those, Shelfmark refers to, if known, present location of the manuscript. Both Manuscript Databases and Source – Publication refer to the sources of information about the manuscript. The Origin is the probable location of composing the manuscript or the earliest known place where it was. To that also applies the Monastic Affiliation, as sometimes the exact monastery is unknown but there is a connection to the particular order. The Text of the Work includes not only readings of the manuscripts but also, as sometimes the manuscript is lost, the version in the published books. This part of the database will be at later stage available through the installation of TEI publisher. Finally, the Content of the Manuscript at this stage is not always fully present. This data will be successively added, although the intention is not to always include all information. In case of the manuscripts where the epitaphs discussed here were additions added on the covers and were not connected to the content of the manuscript, there will be no information. Moreover, if the modern codex contains parts of different manuscripts these other folia will not be included. In case of other epitaphs present in the manuscripts, the intent is to also give the text of them successively at a later stage.

The information present in the database is rarely the original research of the author, in most cases it is based on the catalogues and other manuscript databases linked in the database and/or discussed in this article. The intent is to gather the information that previously was spread around many different publications and was not structured around one subject.

***

To better see how Eugene was memorialised, it is helpful to remember the reaction among Cistercians to his election. The best sources to study this are the letters Bernard of Clairvaux sent out immediately following Eugene’s election. These reflect Bernard of Clairvaux’s views of Eugene and the election as well as what the abbot’s hopes for the Cistercian pope were.

Bernard of Clairvaux on Eugene III

The view that Bernard was not happy with Eugene becoming the Pope is often repeated in popular publications. The reality is that this idea is based on a misunderstanding of some selected quotes.^[3] Bernard was both joyous about the election and, at the same time, aware of the risks of being Pope. Therefore, the first letter sent to Eugene (dated to February-March 1145), sadly incomplete, begins with an invocation from Proverbs 25:25 ‘As cold water to a thirsty soul, so is good tidings from a far country.’^[4] Bernard was informed by two Cistercian of what happened and expressed great joy and happiness in this first communication. There is some indication that this was a reply to a letter that Eugene sent, as Bernard noted he was overjoyed when a letter bearing Eugene’s seal came. All Cistercians prostrated and prayed upon receiving the news of Eugene’s election.

The letter Bernard sent around the same time (possibly before?) to the Roman Curia begins with the famous ‘God have mercy on you; what have you done?’ Bernard accused the electors of snatching a man ready to spend his life in a monastery back into the secular world, full of problems. Their actions seem almost sacrilegious as they took the ‘crucified’ man back to live in the world. In a monastery, Eugene was able to ‘resolutely shake himself free of the powerful clutches of the devil, the snares of the flesh, the glory of the world’,^[5] but he could not escape the hands of the electors. Bernard asked, using Cistercian references, why they took Eugene’s axe, mattock, and hoe, and forced him onto the throne, dressed him in purple clothes and fine linen, and finally gave him a sword.^[6] Bernard asked whether there was no one more suited for becoming a Pope: wiser and more experienced?

In his view, either this was a laughable matter – a poor monk becoming ruler of princes, bishops, kingdoms, and empires – or a miracle. Bernard was more inclined to the miracle, as even Scripture had many instances of people raised from lowly ranks to rule, as happened with King David. Still, Bernard had doubts if Eugene was strong and strict enough to succeed in being Pope. Thus, he asked his electors to support their Pope faithfully. They elected Eugene and needed to be ready to pay for their actions’ consequences. They needed to help, console, and support him, as in Bernard’s opinion, Eugene was not ready for his new role.

Bernard’s letter therefore is based on the assumption that the Pope needs help to succeed. The doubts expressed in the letter are not about Eugene, but instead an element of Bernard’s argument. The Curia needs to support the Pope. Bernard referred to this notion again in a letter to Robert Pullen sent around that time that God sent Robert to Eugene, as he was ‘a faithful friend to be his helper and a great consolation to us.’^[7]

There is also a different letter from March 1145, which looks like Bernard’s first official communication to Eugene after he became Pope. This is the letter that had been misconstrued by some historians who took a few selected quotes from it and changed its overall meaning. Bernard explains in the letter that he did not write earlier as he waited for Eugene to message him first. Nevertheless, he could not leave the matter for too long as people needed his help. Bernard wished that the father’s sorrow he was feeling would be soothed, just like in the case of Joseph, where Jacob learned that ‘Thy son Jacob still lives, and it is he that rules the whole land of Egypt’ (Genesis 45:26).^[8] He noted that like Saul became Paul, Bernardo became Eugene. This was done through ‘the finger of God, who raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory’ (1 Samuel 2:8).^[9]

Bernard implored Eugene to serve and not exercise dominion, and noted, that someone who was his son now became his father. Later Bernard exclaimed that while he no longer was the father, he did not lose fear and anxiety, affection, nor heart that was becoming to a father. He was happy for Eugene, but at the same time he was trembling in fear. He saw Eugene’s great honour while being aware of the difficulties and dangers he now faced.

After a lengthy discussion, Bernard moved to the matter that compelled him to write first: the quarrel both the bishop of Winchester and the Archbishop of York had with the archbishop of Canterbury about the legatine office. Even though the archbishop of York was one of those who elected Eugene, he was in the wrong and should be repelled. The archbishop of Canterbury was ‘a devout man with a fair reputation’.^[10] Bernard’s invocation whether he will survive until a time when the church returns to its former religious glory of the Apostles’ times ends the letter. It is implied that many expected that Eugene’s election would bring this reform, and that he would cleanse the church from wrongdoing. Therefore, Bernard wished Eugene to be valiant, strong, and strong-willed, nevertheless remembering he was only a man. The end of the letter might seem a little sad, as Bernard reminds Eugene that the Popes do not reign for a long time, and as his pontificate would be short, he must remember the afterlife and not focus on temporal glory.

This description is highly positive toward Eugene. The first few letters were followed by a guide for Eugene entitled Five Books on Considerations, which highlight that Bernard tried to direct and help his pupil throughout his. Therefore Cistercians, or rather the most important of the Cistercians, supported and had high hopes for Eugene. Alas, Bernard was right that the papacy was not a long-term engagement and could end quickly, as Eugene died in 1153. That year the General Chapter of the Cistercians received a letter from Hugh Bishop of Ostia and fellow Cistercian (ex-Abbot of Trois-Fontaines), where he expressed his great sadness about the death of the Pope, calling him ‘the father of justice, the lover of religion’.^[11] He also asked for the Cistercians to pray for someone who once was one of them and for others. The letter ends with a plea to listen to the cases of some of the Cistercian houses.

Memoria

While prayers are not often recorded, some Cistercian commemoration of Eugene survives: the epitaphs of Eugene either composed or copied by the monks. Typically, the term epitaph is understood as inscription on a grave.^[12] The epitaphs of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries contained the name of the deceased, often the date of death, and prayers or other verses.^[13] Often, the epitaphs survive only in manuscripts, with no material object left. The epitaphs were often placed at the empty space in the manuscript, either at the beginning or at the end, was common. There are examples of such practice in manuscripts from Saint-Victor, where some epitaphs were even copied from local tombs.^[14] This makes them sort of afterthought texts, an addition to fill the blank space (textual horror vacui). As such they were mostly records of close and imminent, and not an effect of longer discussion.

powered by Advanced iFrame

Moreover, epitaphs inscribed on graves could be included in chronicles, as done by, for example, Orderic Vitalis.^[15] Still, in many instances, there is not enough evidence that a text called an epitaph was inscribed on a grave, and possibly, it existed only as a literary form.^[16] This problem is compounded if there is more than one epitaph for one person.

Epitaphs of Pope Eugene III

powered by Advanced iFrame

This is the case with Eugene, who had more than one epitaph recorded. In the next few pages, I will discuss Eugene’s epitaphs and the context of their recording. The most important epitaph is obviously the one placed on the papal tomb. In the seventeenth century, Alphonsus Ciacconius noted that while in his days, the epitaph on the grave of Pope Eugene was no longer readable, the text of it was the following (I will call it Epitaph 1):

Hic habet EVGENIVS defunctus carne sepulchrum,

Cui pia cum Christo vincere vita fuit.

Pisa virum genuit, quem Clarevallis alumnum

Exhibuit sacra a Religionis opus.

Hic ad Anastasis translatus Martyris Aedem

Ex Abbate pater summus in Vrbe fuit.

Eripuit solemne iubar, mundique decorem

Iulius octavum sole premente diem.^[17]

Here dead Eugenius has grave to the flesh,

to whom life was excelling with faith and Christ.

Pisa gave birth to the man whom Clairvaux nourished

Furnishing work of holy worship.

He translated to the temple of martyr Anastasius

From abbot made the highest father in the city.

Snatched away sacred brightness and beauty of the world

(on the) Day of Octave of July under the sun.

As the inscription did not survive, it raises the obvious question of whether the Ciacconius statement was correct, or maybe taken from somewhere else. There is no clear-cut answer to this question apart from the poem’s first line, which marks it as something fitting to be placed on a grave. But we should not jump to a conclusion, as this was not the only place where Eugene’s epitaph is mentioned. There are two more epitaphs of Pope Eugene recorded in a manuscript originally from Clairvaux, which appear among other epitaphs in a relatively long collection.

The first is called Epitaphium Eugenii pape. (Epitaph 2):

Urbis et orbis honor, sed iam dolor urbis et orbis,

Rector in orbe potens, pulvis in urbe iacet.

Hoc in vase sacro, pia pleni gratia fontis,

Infudit gratis munera grata polo.

Magne Deus, dare magna potens, per te fuit illi

Lingua docere fidem, rem dare docta manus.

Angelici mores, devotio, finis honestus,

Hunc tibi dant famulum; da requiem famulo.^[18]

The honour of the city and world, but now sorrow of the city and world

A powerful leader in the world lies dust in the city.

This in saint vessel, [from] the spring full pious grace,

poured pious gifts welcome to the sky.

O great God, who gives great power, through you were those

who teach faith (by) language, the learned hand which gives thing.

Angelic customs, devotion, honesty limit,

They give to you the servant; give the servant a respite.

The second epitaph in the manuscript is introduced with the rubric Item de eodem

Gemma sacerdotum, caput Urbis et orbis honesti

Culmen, Apostolici gloria summa gradus,

Hic habet Eugenius defunctus carne sepulchrum,

Quem pia cum Xpto vivere vita facit.

Pisa virum genuit, quem Clarevallis alumpnum

Exibuit sacre religionis opus.

Hinc ad Anastasii translatus martyris edem,

Ex abbate Pater summus in orbe fuit,

Eripuit sollempne jubar mundique decorem

Julius octavam sole ferente diem,

Conceptum que sacre referebant virginis anni

Centum bis seni mille quaterque deni.^[19]

Jewel of the priest, head of the city and honest world

peak, Apostolic glory highest step,

(…)

Recalling the year of Conception of the sacred virgin

Hundred two six thousand and four times ten.

The text, apart from the two verses at the beginning and two at the end, is Epitaph 1. This would cast the first doubt about Ciacconius’ statement. It is possible that he took it from the manuscript and the claim that it was in Rome came from his educated guess. Moreover, Giuseppe Cascioli, following the remarks of fifteenth-century Maffeo Vegio, doubted that there was anything more on the tomb than the ‘semplice titolo,’ and the epitaph was either added later or could easily be covered or removed. Nevertheless, in the end, he saw the said epitaph as present on the grave, judging from the line ‘Hic habet Eugenius defunctus.’^[20]

If we entertain the idea that the poem was the epitaph in Rome, what about the four verses Ciacconius did not include? The answer is in Stephen of Tournai’s epitaph for Maurice de Sully’s tomb. Robert, the abbot of Saint-Victor, asked for an epitaph to be place on Maurice de Sully’s tomb, and Stephen sent a long poem noting that the abbot, if he wished to, could take two or four lines from it.^[21] This is what happened. The poem was shortened and used as an epitaph with added verses giving the date of the bishop’s death.^[22] Possibly the same could happen in Eugene’s case, whether or not it was ever put to stone.

Before we move on, it must be added that there is, in fact, a third epitaph of Eugene. It survives in only one manuscript from the Cistercian Altenberg Abbey, dated to the third quarter of the twelfth century. Eugene’s epitaph is placed there following an epitaph for Bernard of Clairvaux which is found only in this manuscript.^[23] Both these epitaphs were placed between Gottfried of Admont’s vita of Bernard and Bernard’s Commentarius in Sacram Scripturam. The text of this epitaph is as follows:

Incipit Epitafium Domni Eugenii Papae

Heredis Petri memoror modulamine metri

Pauperis ingenii nisibus Eugenii

Vrbis Romane presul reputauit inane

Quod suberat soli cardinibusque poli.

Ex monacho factus caput orbis in ardua raptus

Quod sit ab exili mente gerit uigili.

Votis sanctorum respondit numine morum.

Quos ut supposita membra regebat ita.

Non pro persona consensit et ob data dona

Consors pestiferi Simonis hic fieri.

Portus erat tutus, iudex maturus, acutus,

Sine dolo lesi alicuius diuitis aut frenesi.

Christo signatis tulit auxilium pietatis,

Stans pro pauperibus nunc prece nunc opibus.

Ipse Deo gratis migrauit uirginitatis

Alis ad requiem perpetuumque diem.

This poem, relatively long and full of literary flourishes, lacks substance. It could be easily summarised by saying that Eugene was a good Pope who cared for the poor and judged people righteously. Still, one point of the poem is of relevance here. That is the notion that Eugene was snatched from being a monk and made a ruler of the world. Because this epitaph was not further copied, I will concentrate on other memorial texts.

While the Altenberg epitaph was unique, the other two epitaphs were recorded in many manuscripts. It is worthwhile then to recount where it was copied. The places where the text of the epitaphs appear shows the extent toward which the memorial text travelled and character of this memory. Thus, in the following pages all the instances of the appearance of the epitaphs will be discussed.

Epitaph 1, in a shortened form, was included in Alberic of Trois-Fontaines’ chronicle (Alberic 1153). The text Alberic gave is the same as Ciacconius.^[24] There are other minor differences compared to Clairvaux’s manuscript, though scribal mistakes could easily explain them. Alberic had contacts with Clairvaux, as Trois-Fontaines was its daughter house. Moreover, Alberic was probably a monk in Clairvaux before moving to Trois-Fontaines.^[25]

powered by Advanced iFrame

Alberic’s inclusion of this epitaph is nothing extraordinary, as he included many others in his chronicle, and it seems that only a few of them were actually put in stone. Most were literary texts. Even if Alberic saw some epitaphs inscribed on graves, in most cases modern scholars cannot be sure whether they were indeed placed on graves, as only manuscript copies survive.

Nevertheless, Alberic was well informed about Eugene. He mentioned not only that Eugene was a monk in Clairvaux under Bernard but added that he was the first abbot of Tre Fontane. Alberic also – it seems as the only author – noted that some cardinals wanted to annul Eugene’s election, to which he said: ‘I excommunicate every one of those who will discuss the election of the Pope during my life.’^[26] Alberic also quoted extensively Bernard’s letter from March 1145.^[27] Eugene’s epitaph was introduced just with ‘Huius epitaphium tale reperitur.’ Alberic was also aware that through Eugene, some miracles were made (‘a quo quedam facta fuisse miracula certissimum est’).^[28] Thus, his note lacks details about the grave, unlike Orderic’s, who described the grave precisely, so it is hardly proof of the text referring to the inscription.^[29]

Leaving aside these doubts, let us return to Eugene. In the edition of Eugene’s miracle in Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, from a manuscript from the Cistercian Abbey La Merci-Dieu in Poitiers (the line of Pontigny),^[30] a text which will be discussed later, it is noted that in the manuscript from the Cistercian monastery Pontron in Anjou^[31] was Epitaph 1 (Hic habet Eugenius) which included last two verses.^[32]

Epitaph 1 in a longer version was recorded together with Epitaph 2 (albeit on different folios) in a manuscript written between the last quarter of the twelfth and first quarter of the thirteenth century in the Cistercian abbey of Rufford in Nottinghamshire.^[33]

Epitaph 2 (Urbis et orbis) is in more manuscripts. It is found in Milan, Ambrosiano C 67 inf., (fol. 87v), a manuscript composed between c. 1390 and 1443.^[34] The manuscript contains various texts on saints, beginning with Sulpicius Severus’ Vita of Saint Martin of Tours, followed by Severus’ other text and by Gregory of Tours Vita of Saint Bricius taken from his Historia followed by his De miraculis sancti Martini. The second part of the manuscript contains various texts by Bernard of Clairvaux about Saint Malachy. In this manuscript, Bernard of Clairvaux’s epitaph attributed to Adam of Saint-Victor follows Eugene’s.^[35]

powered by Advanced iFrame

Epitaph 2 is also found in Laon ms. 162, where according to the library catalogue, it is placed on the manuscript’s cover. However, the catalogue authors saw Gregory the Great as the epitaph’s hero, not Eugene.^[36] The manuscript probably came from Cuissy Abbey, a Premonstratensian foundation in Soissons and was written sometime in the twelfth century. The manuscript mainly consists of Gregory the Great’s Moralia.^[37] As the epitaph was written on the cover sheet, it is most probably a later addition,^[38] together with other writing on the cover, like a verse puzzle.^[39]

According to catalogues in Brussel, Bibliothèque royale 8646-52, Epitaph 2 was put at the beginning of the manuscript following the list of contents. The manuscript is from the twelfth century and was owned by the Bollandists. François Dolbeau argued that the manuscript was originally from the Benedictine Abbey of Marchiennes based on the thirteenth-century guide to reading composed there. Brussel manuscript for Dolbeau was to be one of the legendaries listed there.^[40] The manuscript contains various vitae and miracles of saints beginning with Vita sancti Adalardi and his Miracula and finishing with Vita sancti Silvestri and Vita sancti Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi.^[41]

We also find Epitaph 2 in Douai Bibliotheque Municipale 372 vol. 1, where Jean Leclercq found it to be written in the fourteenth century on the cover. It was the collection of Bernard of Clairvaux’s works from the Benedictine monastery of Anchin.^[42] The manuscript included Bernard’s De consideratione. Although a Benedictine foundation, Anchin had close contacts with the Cistercians. The epitaph is also probably in a fifteenth-century manuscript from the Benedictine Abbey Hasnon.^[43] All three Benedictine abbeys mentioned are in close proximity to each other.

That is not all, as Epitaph 2 was also included in a manuscript from the library of the Cistercian Abbey La Merci-Dieu in Poitiers, attested in a letter to Le Journal des Sçavans in 1693 by the Augustinian P. Hommey. He wrote that there were in that library three small texts of interest. The first text began with ‘Incipit de miraculis ad sepulchrum Domini Eugenii tertii, Papae Romani praefatio’, which is the aforementioned book of Eugene’s miracles. Moreover, Hommey wrote that the library (in the same manuscript?) also contained the epitaph of Eugene written according to him by ‘Gerard de Liege,’ a fourteenth-century Dominican.^[44] The third text was a dedicatory epistle to the life and miracles of Gregory the Great.^[45]

There is also a manuscript of unknown origin from the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century (Bibliothèque nationale de France Latin 1977). The manuscript consists of two parts joined at an unknown time. André Wilmart posits it is a manuscript from one of the monasteries of the Savigny Order (after joining the Cistercians).^[46] There, on fol. 84v, we find four successive texts, first is the poem on the Passion,^[47] followed immediately with untitled Epitaph 2 (Urbis et orbis).^[48] Next, there is the epitaph of Vitalis of Savigny^[49] and the practically illegible epitaph of Bernard of Clairvaux, supposedly by Adam of Saint-Victor, that was also in Ambrosiano C 67 inf.. These epitaphs were later additions to the text made in the early thirteenth century.^[50]

Cornelius Hazart also noted that there was a manuscript upon which he only noted that it contained Eugene’s miracles, in which there was Epitaph 2 described as placed on the grave of the Pope.^[51] Hazart did not give any other information that would help identify the manuscript.^[52]

Finally, there is a manuscript mentioned by Daniel Van Papenbroeck, which he found to be from Ourscamp and called it ancient yet small (‘parvo sed antiquo’). It included Epitaph 2, according to Van Papenbroeck, authored by ‘Gerard de Lege’ (Liege), although it is unclear whether it is something written in the manuscript.^[53]

Authorship of the Epitaphs

It is clear the epitaphs were widely copied, but who composed them? Hommey, as noted, attributed Epitaph 2 to ‘Gerard de Liege’ a fourteenth-century Dominican. The attribution is obviously wrong, although, in later scholarship, it was changed to Gerard of Liège, a thirteenth-century Cistercian. It seems improbable that he would be the author of the epitaph. Sadly, we do not know on what Hommey and also Van Papenbroeck based their views that Gerard was the author.

Pierre François Chiflet edited epitaphs contained in a manuscript from Abbaye Notre-Dame-de-la-Charité de Neuvelle-lès-la-Charité of the Morimond line (Roma Casanatense cod. 463, most likely written in France).^[54] It is prefaced with a note that the epitaphs were by ‘magistri Symonis, cognomento Capra aurea’ (Simon Chevre d’Or), a canon in Saint-Victor in Paris. He was the ‘best and fastest’ (‘summi et celerrimi’) poet who wrote these epitaphs upon request from Comes Henry (Henry the Liberal) of Champagne.

There are five epitaphs: the first is for Bernard of Clairvaux, the second for Hugh de Macon, bishop of Auxerre (former abbot of Pointigny), the third for Abbot Suger of Saint-Deny, the fourth for comes Theobald (count Thibaut of Blois); the fifth and final is Eugene’s Epitaph 2. These epitaphs are hardly similar, and the main connection is that they are concerned with those who had died around the same time (from 1151 to 1153). It is sometimes seen that the epitaphs were written for people connected to the family of Henry the Liberal (1127-1181).^[55] Possibly there was one more twelfth-century manuscript of Simon’s works, which was described in the eighteenth century by Jean Lebeuf. Sadly, this is all he had to say about it. He noted Simon wrote the epitaphs of Bernard of Clairvaux, followed by Hugh, Suger and Theobald.^[56] The lack of Eugene’s epitaph points that Simon was not its author. Similarly, Anne-Marie Turcan-Verkerk expressed some doubts about the authorship of Eugene’s epitaph, adding a question mark next to it in her notice on the content of the manuscript Roma Casanatense cod. 463.^[57]

Epitaphs – Text

After looking at the manuscripts, it is the time to discuss the texts of the epitaphs. Epitaph 2 begins with two lines that contrast past glories with modern sadness. Eugene was the glory of Rome, and sorrow followed his death. He was a ruler but was now turned to dust. A similar motif, although applied in a completely different setting, is in Bernard of Clairvaux’s letter to the Romans when they rebelled against Eugenius. Bernard stated that Romans’ ‘fathers subjugated the whole world to the City’, but they were ‘coming near to making it ridiculous’.^[58]

Both the comparison of good and evil and the repetition of the words or phrases in the epitaphs were something widespread. It is then not strange that ‘urbis et orbis’ was repeated in the first line and then was adapted in the second line.^[59] Robert Favreau pointed out that the contrasting honour with sadness comes from Ovid’s line ‘non honor est sed onus’ referring to the situation of the wife of Hercules, for whom it was not ‘honour’ to be his wife but a burden.^[60] It, later on, became a commonly used phrase.^[61] The line ‘urbis et orbis honor sed nunc dolor urbis et orbis’ was also included in the epitaph of William Jordan, bishop of Elne.^[62] The short-expression ‘urbis et orbis honor’ (lacking the sadness element) is even more popular. It is present in the epitaph for Pope Adrian I, among many others.^[63]

What we gather from the rest of the epitaph is that God chose the Pope. Eugene taught faith and expressed angelic morals and devotion. The text ends with an invocation to God to ‘give the servant a respite’. The ‘da requiem famulo’ was a popular form in poetry.^[64] Overall, the epitaph is quite general.

Bernard of Clairvaux, in his Five Books on Considerations, made a substantial distinction between ministerium and dominium. The former referred to the activities of prophets, shepherds etc., and that is the way a bishop should act.^[65] The other sphere was dominium, which referred to the actions of secular rulers. Bernard’s idea was not a flat-out condemnation of papal secular rule. Instead, Bernard wanted to highlight to the Pope and bishops that their most important duty was to act as spiritual figures, and that temporal matters had to be treated carefully, not overshadowing spiritual things.^[66] Even then, as the Pope had secular power, it was rather his ‘office’ (‘officium’) than dominium. It was more in terms of work than ‘glory (gloriam) or riches (divitias)’.^[67] That aim could be summarised using the words of Alice Chapman, that Eugenius should, according to Bernard, ‘focus on his role as the leader of the church; to reserve and conserve his power and use it carefully and wisely’.^[68]

Thus, the strong pronouncements of Eugene’s rule over the world in Epitaph 2 stand in stark contrast to Bernard’s imploration. Eugene, in the epitaph, is a much more conventional ruler who dominates both world and the city. The expression also stands in contrast to the reality of Eugene’s pontificate, which mainly was executed outside Rome.

Epitaph 1, on the other hand, is quite different. In full form, it starts by stating that Eugene was a jewel of priests and ruler of the city and the world, using the ‘urbis et orbis’ construction. It continues by explaining that here was the grave where the body of Eugene lay, and that he led a devout life, aiming ‘to live with Christ’.

Next are biographical lines. We learn Eugene was born in Pisa, but he was nourished (taught) in Clairvaux to furnish the ‘deed of worship.’ He was then translated to the church of Anastasius martyr (that is, Cistercian abbey Tre Fontane). Following that, he was chosen a Pope and thus, from the abbot, became the Pope. He was called the ‘beacon of light and beauty of the world’ and died on 8^th July in the 1152 year from the Conception.

Overall, the text of this epitaph not only provides much more information. It does seem – especially in the long-form – a proper epitaph put on the grave because it includes the date of death. After all, it filled up what Isidore of Seville saw as the main points of the epitaph as placed over the grave: a description of life, conduct, and age (a lifespan).^[69] There are two notes of interest. First, Eugene is called a beacon of light, which has obvious connotations with Jesus being called lux.^[70]

The second is the open question of the date 1152, even though Eugene died in 1153. Ciacconius’ versions lacked the two lines at the end, but if the epitaph was furnished in the Basilica, then implicitly, it should have the information about the correct date. Either it would have been made immediately after death, or there would be a correct date on the tomb. Still, why was it never corrected? These questions are sadly unanswerable.

Epitaphs – Preliminary Remarks

In conclusion, the epitaph’s text was popular among the Cistercians or those connected with them (mainly, the Savigniac Order).^[71] The text was not confined to lines or a group of monasteries. It was relatively widespread. Still, as the epitaphs are often overlooked in catalogues or are misattributed, there is a need for further research into the subject. Moreover, the obvious question is: what does having fourteenth or fifteenth-century manuscripts tell us about the epitaphs’ history? Were they present in monasteries long before? It seems rather probable as in most cases, as noted in the beginning, they were “fillers”, things to fill in the empty page, a form of afterthought.

We know that Cistercians had a wax tablet in monasteries where among other information, they listed important deaths.^[72] We also know about mortuary rolls (rotulus mortuorum) or necrologies that contained information on the deaths of clergy and otherwise important people. In some cases, the entries were similar to the discussed epitaphs of Eugene. The original roll was in subsequent monasteries expanded with verses or other texts memorialising the dead.^[73] There is also a view that these rolls were closely connected to the epitaphs as inscriptions over a grave. Certain idiomatic expressions (like requiescat in pace and even the dates of death) were found on both the rolls and inscriptions.^[74] Maybe these epitaphs originated in this form or at least were thus copied? Some were then recorded on parchment in the monasteries where the roll was transferred. After some time, they would be copied to other manuscripts as some sort of memory, a recollection, or a scribble. This raises a need for a much broader study of epitaphs (as a form of news or communal memory?).

Soon after Eugene’s death, three epitaphs were composed and were treated as poetic memoirs of the great Cistercian. As typical epitaphs, they lacked details. The authorship of these epitaphs is unknown. While Epitaph 2 is general and could easily apply to every Pope and all Churchmen as the exalted qualities were universal and common, Epitaph 1 summarises all that was needed to know about Eugene. A short historical memory that could be spread around so the readers would remember the great Cistercian. This reminds us what Laura Velte noted about the early medieval epitaphs of martyrs. There was a need for short yet elevating biographies of those to be venerated. As such, the epitaphs were ideal for spreading knowledge about martyrs.^[75] The same was with Eugene’s epitaphs. What is important to note, as it will be discussed below, the epitaphs were not the only memory or rather commemorative texts about the Pope.

Miracles – Making a Saint

That there was a rather immediate reverence toward Eugene is attested by the aforementioned collection of miracles. P. Hommey asserted that the text in the library of the Abbey La Merci-Dieu began with ‘Incipit de miraculis ad sepulchrum Domini Eugenii tertii, Papae Romani praefatio’. There were supposedly six or seven miracles described there with the names and other details of the people who were healed there.^[76] Hommey saw as the author either a canon of Saint Peter, or at least ‘Officier’ there. Hommey did not give much information apart from remarking that the author was connected to the Church of Saint Peter by the statement in one of the miracles ‘Cum jaceret in Choro nostro, apparuit ei Dominus Eugenius dicens, etc.’ It seems probable, from the context, that he referred then to the Roman Basilica of Saint Peter, although often, in nineteenth-century scholarship, the church’s location was moved. Thus, Jean-François Dreux du Radier wrote that it was ‘l’église de Saint-Pierre de Poitiers’.^[77]

powered by Advanced iFrame

The de miraculis ad sepulchrum is the Libellus de miraculis.^[78] It was later reprinted from Veterum scriptorum in Patrologia Latina.^[79] However, the editors of Veterum scriptorum who used the manuscript from Merci-Dieu either did not have the complete text, or there were different versions present in other monasteries. Chrysostomus Henriquez did include in his Fasciculus a version of the De miraculis, which had one more miracle that he found in the monastery Dunis (Ten Duinen Abbey or the Abbey of the Dunes) containing Bernard’s Five Books on Considerations.^[80] The manuscript he referred to is Brugge, Ms. 130, written in the third quarter of the twelfth century, or one of its two later copies (Ms. 130 bis from the beginning of the thirteenth century and Ms. 126 from the early fourteenth century).^[81]

There is also a manuscript of unknown origin written in the middle of the thirteenth century, now in Keizersberg Abbey. There, among texts about or connected with Bernard of Clairvaux, are the abovementioned miracles, located between De praecepto et dispensatione and Epistola S. Bernardi ad Widonem abbatem Arremanensem. Anastasius Van den Wijngaert mistakenly noted that the text was edited in Patrologia Latina, but according to his notes, it includes the last miracle absent from that edition.^[82]

Moreover, there was the manuscript ‘Regina 1644’ and the manuscript from Ourscamp. Both had Bernard of Clairvaux’s Five Books on Considerations, while Ourscamp also had Epitaph 2. Van Papenbroeck made an edition of the text implicitly from the Ourscamp manuscript, which he compared with Henriquez’s text. In Van Papenbroeck’s manuscripts, there is no last miracle, although as the fate of the manuscripts is unknown, it is difficult to say anything more about it.^[83] Moreover, it is unclear if he just took the text from the Ourscamp manuscript or did he compare it with ‘Regina 1644’. This is important as the manuscript was not included in Bernard de Montfaucon’s catalogue of the manuscripts owned by Queen Christina.^[84] There is in the Vatican a manuscript containing both De Consideratione and the Miracles, which is of unknown provenance (Reg.lat.669). The text there differs significantly from the one in all three published editions. Eugene there is called a saint, for example. Interestingly, it also lacks the last miracle that Henriquez included.^[85] Thus, while tempting, it is impossible to identify it with ‘Regina 1644.’

There is though yet another manuscript that has miracles in the Vatican library: Reg.lat.285. The manuscript seems to be a composite, where the first part, written in the twelfth century, contained letters of Lanfranc of Bec and was in the Bec Abbey’s library. Three further sections were attached to this manuscript in the sixteenth century. From these, the third part (Sermons of pseudo-Anselm of Canterbury) was from Cistercian-Savigny Breuil-Benoît Abbey and it is possible that similarly the second part was also from the same Abbey.^[86] This second part is of interest here as it is from a thirteenth-century manuscript containing the end of Bernard’s De consideratione (fol. 19r-v), the miracles (fol. 19v-20v), and finishing with anonymous Pulchre locutionis reciprocatio inter deum et animam (fol. 20v).^[87] This text is of interest also, as it was present in the Ten Duinen manuscript (MS 130 and its copies). However, it is placed between De consideratione and the miracles there, not after the latter.^[88] Moreover, according to Margaret Gibson, this manuscript was in the seventeenth century in possession of Queen Christina, from which it came to the Vatican.^[89] There it originally had a signature ‘Regina 1548’.^[90]

The last manuscript, unseen by me, is the thirteenth century Bibliothèque nationale de France Latin 2498, of unknown provenance. This manuscript shares with Roma Casanatense cod. 463 the longer redaction of Translatio S. Stephani Romam attributed to Bruno of Segni.^[91]

We also need to note that the text of the miracles was given by Angel Manrique, which he took from Henriquez’s edition. He changed the order of miracles, as his text opens with a story about Stabilis, and there is no miracle of Todinus. This is because the Stabilis miracle has information identifying the author as being from Saint Peter’s Basilica.^[92] Giovanni Palazzi noted that ‘Chron. Antisiodorense’ included the miracles, although there are some problems with this account. First, it is unclear what this work was, as there is no mention of the miracles in Robert of Auxerre’s chronicle. Moreover, the order of the miracles is that of Manrique, making it more probable that he took the text from his publication and was unaware that Manrique did not give it faithfully. This is further supported by the fact that ‘Chron. Antisiodorense’ was mentioned by Manrique in the context of the miracles. Thus, Palazzi might have made a mistake.^[93]

This means that there were maybe as many as nine or ten manuscripts of the text, of which five came from modern-day Northern France and the Netherlands, one in Western France, and the rest is of unknown provenance.

All the miracles are directly connected to Eugene’s grave, and thus the inclusion of the epitaph is quite fitting to it. However, it is unclear if any of the manuscripts containing the miracles also included any of the epitaphs. While Cornelius Hazart implies that he used the manuscript of the complete collection of miracles which had attached Epitaph 2 (Urbis et orbis), as already mentioned here, it is unclear what manuscript it was.^[94] Moreover, it was not the same manuscript as Van Papenbroeck’s, as Hazart’s included the last miracle. Whatever the situation was, it is clear that just like the epitaphs that were copied soon after the death of the Pope and spread around, the miracles coming from the Pope’s grave were composed shortly after his death, although it seems they were never as popular.

Saintly Deeds

Eugene died on 8^th July, and the miracles occurred relatively soon afterwards. The first miracle about John, called Ritius, from Castellano, has no date. John, for three years, had contracted limbs, and he was healed when he prayed at Eugene’s grave during evening prayers. The second miracle about Peter ‘de Castello Formello’ took place on the same day and same hour, but now it is marked as the eve of Saint Apollinaris, which would place the miracle on 22^nd July. Peter, for five months, had a weak left hand, which he could not bend, and his right arm could not move at all.

The next miracle, about a certain girl named Romana from a place called Renanus, took place ‘in secunda die post hoc’, and she was healed on the day of the feast of Saint Apollinaris. Romana was twelve years old. Her parents are named: Peter and Clara. She similarly had contracted limbs, especially her right hand and completely useless legs.

The fourth miracle where a boy called Romanus was healed also occurred on the same day. Romanus’ parents were Saxon and Gaite, and he came from a place known as Pons (or Possessio) Sancti Petri – modern-day Ponte S. Angelo. He regained power over the left side of his body.

Finally, Stabilis from Rome, who was ‘iaceret in choro nostro,’ in a dream saw Eugene, who asked him why he had not visited Pope. He went upon awakening to the grave, and he was healed from a sickness that made his left arm and had unmovable.

The following miracles are of different nature as none refers to being crippled or paralysed, and additionally, they are without dates. The first of that group was about a Roman named Todinus who had a tertian fever and was healed when he came to the Pope’s grave. The second was about a certain man from ‘Castro Cassamarin’, whom the demon made impossible to enter a church without pain. Upon being by force brought to Eugene’s grave, he was released from the demon. It feels that these miracles were part of a second stage of recording them. After the miracle-giving was established, the acts were extended to include not only the more varied nature but also, as in the case of the demon, more spectacular.

The last miracle also has no date. It seems to be a way of confirming Eugene’s sainthood through narrative. It is about a certain sinful Roman priest who was reprimanded for his ill behaviour by Eugene during his life. That priest came to the Pope’s grave with many people who were moved by Eugene’s miracles. It was then that the priest loudly said that it was not Eugene who made the miracles, but certain ‘Petrus Diaconus’ who was a deacon of Pope Saint Gregory (Gregory I). This happened as, according to the priest, Eugene was buried together with Petrus in this sarcophagus. The ‘divine vengeance’ (‘ultio divina’) upon these words threw the lamp that was above the priest, pouring the oil on his new clothes. The priest then quickly fled from the church.

This last miracle is not present in the edition of Veterum scriptorum, but it is a fitting and appropriate end to the collection. Notably, most miracles are connected to the day of the Pope’s death and give the impression of being conceived immediately afterwards.^[95] The note about the burial from the last miracle resonates with Petrus Mallius’ account. In his late twelfth-century description of the Basilica, he noted that Eugene was buried in the same sarcophagus as Gregory III (!) and (as he also heard) deacon Peter to whom Gregory I dedicated Dialogues.^[96]

Moreover, it is clear from Robert of Torigny’s chronicle that there was an opinion that some miracles were taking place near Eugene’s grave. Robert’s statement is much more concrete than Alberic’s vague sentence. We read there that ‘near his grave, which was venerable made in the church of Saint Peter, miracles immediately occurred after his death.’^[97] Robert began the chronicle between 1147 and 1150, and while it is unknown when exactly he recorded the information on miracles, it seems it remains something of recent memory.

Conclusion

Overall, it is clear that soon after Eugene’s death, there was great interest in his person and elevating him and even making him a saint. This happened only in 1872. During the canonisation proceedings, it was raised that it was very little documentary evidence for his cult in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It was postulated that there were proofs of the cult, but they did not survive until the nineteenth century.^[98] It begs the question of why Eugene was canonised so late? The epitaphs and miracles show that, regardless of how historians remember Eugene’s pontificate, Cistercians perceived it as a success. Obviously, their opinion was coloured by the fact Eugene was a Cistercian. He was, after all, one of the boys, but it was enough to make him into someone to be proud of and remember.

It seems that the answer to that question is happening on 20^th August 1153, mere weeks after Eugene’s death. On that day, Bernard of Clairvaux passed away. Very telling is that many of the epitaphs and miracles were in some way attached to the materials on Bernard of Clairvaux and often his De consideratione addressed to Eugene. The great abbot and the Pope were connected. The view that they were to be treated as almost one (even seeing Eugene as a tool in Bernard’s hands) is seen in Gervase of Canterbury’s chronicle. He denoted the abbot as being seen as ‘lord and master’ (‘dominus et magister’) of Eugene. It was during his pontificate that the Cistercian order was ‘in greatness elevated’ (‘in immensum exaltatus est’).^[99] Gervase’s impression was far from the truth, as often Pope did not follow Bernard’s ideas.^[100] Nevertheless, while Bernard possibly did not overshadow Eugene’s pontificate, he did overshadow his veneration.^[101] The cult of Eugene, a great Cistercian Pope, was not as powerful as the cult of the greatest Cistercian ever. It seems that before a widespread cult of Eugene could pick up, Bernard’s death made it lose the momentum needed to find the sainthood to be recognised.

What comes, moreover, from our survey is that there is a need for further inquiry into the epitaphs. It is without a doubt that the discussed here cases are not all occurrences of the epitaphs in manuscripts. Only when there is a further study of the subject will it be possible to answer the question of whether the epitaphs and the miracles, even though Rome was strongly present in them, were created in France or originated in Italy. At this stage, we can say that the at least the epitaphs were all possibly composed north of Alpes. The miracles, on the other hand, express a knowledge about local geography and have a sense of locality. So, it seems that while most probably the text(s) of the miracles was composed in or around Rome, the text acquired its popularity outside Italy. A better understanding of where these texts were copied might be useful when discussing the spread of news and information and the methods of commemorating people among the Cistercians.

1. ‘Parcat vobis Deus: quid fecistis?’, Bernard of Clairvaux, The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1998), letter 315, p. 385; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae extra corpus 311-547, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, Bernardi opera 8 (1977), epistula 237 c. 1, p. 113. ↑
2. The subject was rarely discussed in scholarship. In the only biography of Eugene in English, the unpublished PhD thesis by Charles D.G. Spornick, the epitaphs are mentioned only once and with multiple mistakes in the one sentence, where Alberic of Trois-Fontaines is made into an abbot of the ‘abbey of Trois-Fontaine (Paris)’. The same goes with miracles which are noted without any inquiry into their text and nature, ‘The life and reign of Pope Eugene III (1145-1153)’, University of Notre Dame (1988), p. 496, note 3. Similarly, there is no discussion of epitaphs in the most modern published biography of Eugene, where it is only noted that there was an epitaph, but there is a doubt if it ever was on his tomb, M. Horn, Studien zur Geschichte Papst Eugens III. (1145-1153), Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe III, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 508 (Frankfurt am Main ; New York, 1992), p. 231; in the older book on Eugene, there is brief mention of one epitaph (Epitaph 1) but with many mistakes and overall unusable, as Gleber was unaware that it was recorded prior to fifteenth century, even as he used source mentioning it from thirteenth century elsewhere in his book. There is also a mention that there was talk of miracles near his grave which later lead to his beatification, H. Gleber, Papst Eugen III . ( 1145-1153 ) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner politischen Tätigkeit, Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen und neueren Geschichte 6 (Jena, 1936), p. 170, 184. ↑
3. J.J. Norwich, The Popes: A History (London, 2011), p. 132-33. ↑
4. ‘Sicut aqua frigida animae sitienti, ita nuntius bonus de terra longinqua’, Bernard of Clairvaux, The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1998), letter 314, p. 384; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae extra corpus 311-547, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, Bernardi opera 8 (1977), epistula 508, p. 466. ↑
5. ‘Crucifixus (…) qui se tamquam violentis quibusdam diaboli manibus, carnis illecebris et gloriae saeculi potenter excusserat’, Bernard of Clairvaux, The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1998), letter 315, p. 385; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae extra corpus 311-547, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, Bernardi opera 8 (1977), epistula 237 c. 1, p. 113. ↑
6. Cf C. Egger, ‘Curial Politics and Papal Power : Eugenius III, the Curia, and contemporary theological controversy’, in I. Fonnesberg-Schmidt and A. Jotischky (eds.), Pope Eugenius III (1145-1153) (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 69–100, p. 70. An example of misunderstanding of the letter is in W. Fałkowski, ‘Gra w rytuały. Działania papieża Eugeniusza III’, Kwartalnik Historyczny 120.2 (2013), pp. 275–301, at p. 277. ↑
7. ‘praemittere virum fidelem ad adiutorium eius, et nostram quoque plurimam consolationem’, Bernard of Clairvaux, The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1998), letter 316, p. 387; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae extra corpus 311-547, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, Bernardi opera 8 (1977), epistula 362 c. 1, p. 309; see also C. Egger, ‘Curial Politics and Papal Power : Eugenius III, the Curia, and contemporary theological controversy’, in I. Fonnesberg-Schmidt and A. Jotischky (eds.), Pope Eugenius III (1145-1153) (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 69–100, p. 73-74. ↑
8. ‘IOSEPH FILIUS TUUS VIVIT, ET IPSE DOMINATUR IN TOTA TERRA AEGYPTI’, Bernard of Clairvaux, The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1998), letter 205, p. 277; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae extra corpus 311-547, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, Bernardi opera 8 (1977), epistula 238 c. 1, p. 115. ↑
9. ‘Digitus Dei est iste, suscitans DE PULVERE EGENUM ET DE STERCORE erigens PAUPEREM, UT SEDEAT CUM PRINCIPIBUS ET SOLIUM GLORIAE TENEAT’, Bernard of Clairvaux, The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1998), letter 205, p. 277; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae extra corpus 311-547, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, Bernardi opera 8 (1977), epistula 238 c. 1, p. 116. ↑
10. Bernard of Clairvaux, The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1998), letter 205, p. 279; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae extra corpus 311-547, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, Bernardi opera 8 (1977), epistula 238 c. 5, p. 118; on the affair see recent E. Jamroziak, ‘The Cistercians, Eugenius III, and the Disputed York Election’, in I. Fonnesberg-Schmidt and A. Jotischky (eds.), Pope Eugenius III (1145-1153) (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 101–24. ↑
11. ‘pater iustitiae, amator religionis’, J.-M. Canivez (ed.), Statuta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Cisterciensis ab anno 1116 ad annum 1786, Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 9, 1 ( Ab anno 1116 ad annum 1220) (Louvain, 1933), p. 50 (more broadly available in Patrologia Latina edition of Bernard of Clarevaux letters, PL 182, Epistola 488, at col. 695). ↑
12. On epitaphs, see among many more, M. Braekman, ‘La contribution de l’épigraphie médiévale à l’histoire ecclésiastique’, in W. Koch (ed.), Epigraphik 1988: Fachtagung für Mittelalterliche und Neuzeitliche Epigraphik, Graz, 10.-14. Mai 1988: Referate und Round-Table-Gespräche, Denkschriften / Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Herausgabe der Inschriften des Deutschen Mittelalters 213 (Wien, 1990), pp. 91–103, at pp. 98–102; F. Rädle, ‘Epitaphium – zur Geschichte des Begriffs’, in W. Koch (ed.), Epigraphik 1988: Fachtagung für Mittelalterliche und Neuzeitliche Epigraphik, Graz, 10.-14. Mai 1988: Referate und Round-Table-Gespräche, Denkschriften / Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Herausgabe der Inschriften des Deutschen Mittelalters 213 (Wien, 1990), pp. 305–310. ↑
13. Cf. L. Velte, ‘Sepulchral Representation: Inscribed Tombs and Narrated Epitaphs in the High Middle Ages’, in R. Wagner, C. Neufeld, and L. Lieb (eds.), Writing Beyond Pen and Parchment Inscribed Objects in Medieval European Literature (2019), pp. 255–74, p.255. ↑
14. See Bibliothèque nationale de France. Latin 14236, fol. 1v. ↑
15. L. Velte, ‘Sepulchral Representation: Inscribed Tombs and Narrated Epitaphs in the High Middle Ages’, in R. Wagner, C. Neufeld, and L. Lieb (eds.), Writing Beyond Pen and Parchment Inscribed Objects in Medieval European Literature (2019), pp. 255–74, p. 257, 258. ↑
16. Sometimes epitaphs that exist only in manuscripts could be treated without a doubt as being inscribed on the grave, even if there is no strong evidence, like in the case of the epitaph of Stephen of Senlis, see W. Koch (ed.), Epigraphik 1988: Fachtagung für Mittelalterliche und Neuzeitliche Epigraphik, Graz, 10.-14. Mai 1988: Referate und Round-Table-Gespräche, Denkschriften / Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Herausgabe der Inschriften des Deutschen Mittelalters 213 (Wien, 1990), pp. 91–103, at p. 99. ↑
17. Alphonsus Ciacconius, Vitae et Res Gesta Pontificum Romanorum et S.R.E. Cardinalium. Ab Initio Nascentis Ecclesiae Vsque Ad Clementem IX P.O.M., vol. 1 (Roma: Philippi et Ant. de Rubeis, 1677), col. 1039; he later was supported by Giovanni Mercati, see Giovanni Mercati, ‘Un Epitafio Metrico Di Papa Eugenio III’, Studi e Documenti Di Storia e Diritto 20 (1898): 113–16, p. 116. ↑
18. TROYES, Bibliothèque municipale, 1183, f. 135v; edited in: Charles Lalore, Le Trésor de Clairvaux Du XIIe Au XVIIIe Siécle (Troyes: J. Brunard, 1875), p. 215-16. ↑
19. TROYES, Bibliothèque municipale, 1183, f. 135v – 136r; edited in: Charles Lalore, Le Trésor de Clairvaux Du XIIe Au XVIIIe Siécle (Troyes: J. Brunard, 1875), p. 216. ↑
20. Giuseppe Cascioli, Epigrafi cristiane nell’area vaticana X-XV secolo, éd. par Fabio Paolucci, Quaderno d’archivio 12 (Città del Vaticano: Capitolo Vaticano, 2015), p. 75-76 ; cf. H. Beyer, ‘Tituli — Versus — Epitaphs: The Form and Topology of Mortuary Roll Poems’, in H. Beyer, G. Signori, and S. Steckel (eds.), Bruno the Carthusian and his Mortuary Roll: Studies, Text, and Translations, Europa Sacra 16 (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 25–45 p. 32, 41. ↑
21. Stephen of Tournai, Lettres d’Etienne de Tournai, Nouvelle Édition, ed. Jules Desilve (Valenciennes | Paris: Lemaître | A. Picard, 1893), CCLXXIII, p. 342-43. It is worth mentioning that Stephen of Tournai and Maurice de Sully were part of the same letter circle. Both Stephen and Maurice were consulted by Ponce bishop of Clarmont and the letters in question were published as part of Stephen letters. Ponce request (III, p. 20), Maruice’s response (IV, p. 21), and Stephen’s reply (V, p. 21-25), cf. Victor Mortet, Maurice de Sully, Évêque de Paris (1160-1196), Étude Sur l’administration Épiscopale Pendant La Seconde Moitié Du XIIe Siècle, Extrait Des Mémoires de La Société de l’histoire de Paris et de V Ile-de-France, XVI (Paris: 1890, n.d.), p. 163 note 1.
    The epitaph was not the only example of Stephen’s poetry and it seems he was a highly skilled poet, cf. Kenneth Pennington, ‘Stephen of Tournai (Étienne de Tournai): (1128–1203)’, in Great Christian Jurists in French History, ed. Olivier Descamps and Rafael Domingo, 1st ed., Cambridge Studies in Law and Christianity (Cambridge University Press, 2019), 35–51, p. 35-36. ↑
22. Doctor et antistes, catedra condignus utraque, | A prima meruit continuare duas. | Sana fides doctrina frequens elemosina iugis: | Clamat Parisius non habuisse parem. | Virginei mensis quae tertia praevenit idus, | Splendorem sepelit nube sepulta dies. Victor Mortet, Maurice de Sully, Évêque de Paris (1160-1196), Étude Sur l’administration Épiscopale Pendant La Seconde Moitié Du XIIe Siècle, Extrait Des Mémoires de La Société de l’histoire de Paris et de V Ile-de-France, XVI (Paris: 1890, n.d.), p. 162. ↑
23. Edited by Leclerq in: J. Leclercq, ‘Etudes sur saint Bernard et le texte de ses écrits’, Analecta Cisterciensia 9 (1953), pp. 11–225, at p. 177-8 (Benard) and p. 191 (Eugene); Düsseldorf : Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek MS-B-26, fol. 82r (text here corrected in comparison to Leclerq’s edition). The text was wrongly attributed in Kataloge der Handschriftenabteilung to Eugene IV, see E. Overgaauw, J. Ott, and G. Karpp (eds.), Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Signaturengruppe B in der Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf. Kataloge der Handschriftenabteilung 1, 1: Ms. B 1 bis B 100 (Wiesbaden, 2005), p. 122. ↑
24. Alberic’s text is as follows:
    Hic habet Eugenius defunctus carne sepulchrum | Cui pia cum Christo vivere vita fuit. | Pisa virum genuit, quem Clarevallis alumpnum | Exhibuit sacre religionis opus; | Hinc ad Anastasii translatus martyris edem | Ex abbate pater summus in orbe fuit. | Eripuit solempne iubar mundique decorem | Iulius octavam sole ferente diem. (Alberic 1153).
    While it is possible that at some stage of copying Alberic’s chronicle the lines at beginning and at the end were lost, it seems doubtful, as seen through later reception of Alberic’s chronicle. Fifteenth century Nicolaas Clopper jr. had a better version of Alberic’s text than the one that survives and in his Florarium Temporum is the same text as in Alberic’s chronicle. This means that most probably the missing lines were never present there, as Clopper goes:
    Hic habet Eugenius defunctus carne sepulchrum | Cui pia cum Christo vivere vita fuit. | Pysa virum genuit, quem Clarevallis alumpnum | Exhibuit sacre religionis opus. | Hic ad Anastasii translatus martiris edem, | Ex abbate pater summus in orbe fuit. | Eripuit sollempne iubar mundique decorem | Iulius octavam sole ferente diem.; BSB Clm 10436, fol. 211r.
    Cf.:
    Hic habet Eugenius defunctus carne sepulchrum | Cui pia cum Christo vivere vita fuit. | Pisa virum genuit, quem Clarevallis alumnum | Exhibuit sacre religionis opus. | Hinc ad Anastasii translatus martyris aedem, | Ex abbate pater summus in orbe fuit. | Eripuit sollemne iubar mundique decorem | Iulius octavam sole ferente diem. Magnum Chronicon Belgicum: Johanne Pistorio, éd., Chronicon Magnum, Rerum familiarumque Belgicarum (Francofurti ad Moenum: Casparis Waechtleri Bibliopolae, 1654), (excerpt from Nicolaas Clopper), p. 170. ↑
25. S. Mula, ‘Looking for an author: Alberic of Trois Fontaines and the “Chronicon Clarevallense”’, Citeaux 60 (2009), pp. 5–23. ↑
26. ‘Ego excommunico omnes illos qui tractaturi sunt de electione pape me vivente,’ Alberic 1145. ↑
27. Alberic 1146. ↑
28. Alberic 1153. ↑
29. L. Velte, ‘Sepulchral Representation: Inscribed Tombs and Narrated Epitaphs in the High Middle Ages’, in R. Wagner, C. Neufeld, and L. Lieb (eds.), Writing Beyond Pen and Parchment Inscribed Objects in Medieval European Literature (2019), pp. 255–74, p. 259. ↑
30. The text in the edition was given the title: Libellus de miraculis Eugenii Papae III, Edmundus Martene et Ursinus Durand, éd., Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium, amplissima collectio, vol. 6 (Parisiis: Montalant, 1729), col. 1139-42. ↑
31. ‘Pontis-Otrandi dioecesis Andegavensis’. ↑
32. Hic habet Eugenius defunctus carne sepulcrum, | Quem pia cum Christo vivere vita fuit. | Pisa virum genuit, quem Clarevallis alumnum | Exibuit, sacrae relligionis opus. | Hinc ad Anastasii translatus martyris aedem, | Ex abbate pater summus in orbe fuit. | Eripuit sollemne jubar mundique decorem | Julius octavam sole ferente diem. | Conceptum sacrae referebant Virginis anni | Centum bis seni mille quaterque decem, Edmundus Martene et Ursinus Durand, éd., Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium, amplissima collectio, vol. 6 (Parisiis: Montalant, 1729), col. 1139. ↑
33. It was the daughter house of Rievaulx Abbey (a daughter house of Clairvaux). London, British Library, Cotton MS Titus D XXIV, Epitaph 1 on fol 81v; Epitaph 2 on fol. 124v (fourteenth century hand added six more lines to this epitaph); description of the manuscript on: ‘Cotton MS Titus D XXIV’, http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Titus_D_XXIV; on manuscript see also J.H. Mozley, ‘THE COLLECTION OF MEDIÆVAL LATIN VERSE IN MS. COTTON TITUS D. XXIV’, Medium Ævum 11 (1942): 1–45; Richard William Hunt, ‘THE COLLECTION OF MEDIÆVAL LATIN VERSE IN MS. COTTON TITUS D. XXIV: SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES’, Medium Ævum 16 (1947): 6–8. Neither author discusses the epitaphs of Eugenius. ↑
34. Text present according to Giovanni Mercati – the manuscript was in possession of Cardinal Franceso Pizolpasso, G. Mercati, ‘Un Epitafio Metrico Di Papa Eugenio III’, Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto 20 (1898): 113–16. ↑
35. Edited in PL 185, col. 567. The rest of the manuscript seems to be a collection of variae that do not have any overreaching theme https://manus.iccu.sbn.it//opac_SchedaScheda.php?ID=31190&lang=en. ↑
36. Catalogue Général Des Manuscrits Des Bibliothèques Publiques Des Départements., vol. 1 (Paris: Imprenta Nationale, 1849), p. 121. ↑
37. Édouard Fleury, Les manuscrits à miniatures de la bibliothèque de Laon étudiés au point de vue de leur illustration, vol. 1 (Laon: Édouard Fleury, 1863), p. 73. ↑
38. The catalogue authors noted that the rest of the folios are covered in sections taken from various sermons. The epitaph in this version goes like this:
    Urbis et orbis honor, sed iam dolor urbis et orbis, | Rector in orbe potens, pulvis in urbe iacet. | Hoc in fonte sacro, pia pleni gratia fontis, | Gratis infudit munera grata poli. | Magne Deus, dare magna potens, per te fuit illi | Lingua docere fidem, rem dare dextra manus. | Angelici mores, devotio, finis honestus, | Hunc tibi dant famulum; da requiem famulo. ↑
39. ‘O. sine p. timet i. nisi c. proecesserit aut r.
    Si numeres recte, duo sunt très in die (?) quinque.
    Una semel versus transivit et altera tersus’, Catalogue Général Des Manuscrits Des Bibliothèques Publiques Des Départements., vol. 1 (Paris: Imprenta Nationale, 1849), p. 121.
    The text was rendered somewhat differently in the discussion of the Latin puzzles, although there the manuscript was noted as Laon Ms 182:
    ‘O. sine P timet L nisi C praevenerit aut R.
    Si numeres recte, duo sunt tria India quinque.
    Una semel versus transivit et altera tersus’, F.J. Mone, Anzeiger für Kunde der teutschen Vorzeit, 7 (Karlsruhe, 1838), col. 41.
    Although it seems both propositions are wrong, and instead of ‘in die’ or ‘India’ it is ‘milia’, see G. Dinkova-Bruun, ‘Notes on Poetic Composition in the Theological Schools ca. 1200 and the Latin Poetic Anthology from Ms. Harley 956: A Critical Edition’, Sacris Erudiri 43 (2004), pp. 299–391, at p. 354.
    The Laon manuscript was not the only one that used (part) of the verse as a filling up the empty space on the cover page, see for example Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque municipale, Ms 161, fol. 1r. ↑
40. Douai, Bibliothèque municipale, 540, fol. 96r; François Dolbeau, « Les légendiers de Marchiennes », Analecta Bollandiana 108, n^o 3‑4 (1990): 336‑336, p. 336. Dolbeau includes the whole text of the entry in question. ↑
41. Urbis et orbis honor, sed jam dolor urbis et orbis, | Rector in orbe potens, pulvis in urbe iacet. | Hoc in vase sacro, pia pleni gratia fontis, | Gratis infudit munera grata polo. | Magne Deus, dare magna potens, per te fuit illi | Lingua docere fidem, rem dare docta manus. | Angelici mores, devotio, finis honestus, | Hunc tibi dant famulum; da requiem famulo. Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Bibliothecae Regiae Bruxellensis. Pars I. 1 Codices Latini Membranei, vol. 2 (Hagiographi Bollandiani) (Bruxelles: Polleunis, Ceuterick ed de Smet, 1889), p. 232. ↑
42. J. Leclercq, ‘Documents sur la mort des moines’, Revue Mabillon 46 (1956), pp. 65–81, at p. 81 note 18. ↑
43. ‘Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecae publicae Duacensis’, Analecta Bollandiana 20 (1901), pp. 361–423, p. 413. The manuscript there is identified as Douai Bibliotheque Municipale 858, and the epitaph supposedly is on fol 145v. ↑
44. The text he copied was as follows:
    Urbis et orbis honos, sed jam dolor urbis et orbis, | Rector in orbe potens, pulvis in urbe jacet | Hoc in vase sacro pia pleni gratia fontis, | Infudit gratis munera grata tibi. | Magna Deus dare magna potens, per te fuit illi | Lingua docere fidem, rem dare docta manus. | Mores angelici, devotio finis honestus, | Hunc tibi dant famulum; da requiem tumulo. ↑
45. ‘Extrait d’une Letter du P. Hommey, Religieux de l’ordre de saint Augustin de la reforme de Bourges’, in Le Journal des Sçavans de l’an 1693, 21 (Amsterdam, 1693), pp. 643–8, p. 643-645. ↑
46. M.-T. Vernet, ‘Notes de Dom André Wilmart† sur quelques manuscrits latins anciens de la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris’, Bulletin d’information de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 6.1957 (1958), pp. 7–40, 13-14. ↑
47. ‘Hic Leo dormiuit, qui peruigil omnia cernit | Et Vehemot dirum contruit sub pede plexum | Vectibus et tetri confractis prosus auerni | Secum devexit propia quos morte redemit | Aspice plasma meum, qui transis ante sepulchrum | Quo triduo iacui est pro te passus obiui | Quid pro me pateris, aut que mihi digna rependis.’ ↑
48. ‘Urbis et orbis honor, sed iam dolor orbis et urbis, | Rector in orbe potens, puluis in urbe iacet | Hoc in uase sacro pia pleni gratia fontis, | Gratis infudit munera grata polo. | Magne Deus dare magna potens, per te fuit illi | Lingua docere fidem, rem dare docta manus. | Mores angelici, devotio finis honestus, | Hunc tibi dant famulum; da requiem famulo.’ ↑
49. ‘Vitalis vita puer et vir vixit honesta | Canonicus primo post heremita bonus | Cenobium Savigneii construxit et abbas | Primus in hoc sancte vixit et utiliter | Jejunans vigilans orans sic membra subegit. | Quod caro spiritui subdita fuit iure | Vox clamantis erat spargendo semina uerbi | Uerus preco Dei sedulus atque libens | Ipse die postquam decessit nocte secunda | Optulerat Domino sacra sacer sacrisex | Psallebant Domino fratres psallebat et ipse | Psallens ascendit psallere dulce Deo | Hospitium carnis celi novus incola liquit | Cum sol egreditur uirginis hospitium.’ ↑
50. M.-T. Vernet, ‘Notes de Dom André Wilmart† sur quelques manuscrits latins anciens de la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris’, Bulletin d’information de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 6.1957 (1958), pp. 7–40, p. 13-14. ↑
51. His text is ‘Urbis et Orbis honor, sed jam dolor Orbis et Urbis | Rector in Orbe potens, pulvis in urbe jacet, | Hoc in vase sacro pia pleni gratia fontis | Gratis infudit munera grata polo. | Magne Deus, dare magna potens, per te fuit illi | Lingua docere fidem, rem dare docta manus. | Angelici mores, devotio, finis honestus. | Hunc tibi dant famulam, da requiem famulo’, C. Hazart, Triomph der pausen van Roomen over alle hare benyders ende bestryders (Antwerpen, 1679), p. 309. ↑
52. There are other problems with Hazart’s opinions. He claimed that ‘Angelus Mauricius’ in his ‘Chronycken van Cisteaux’ recorded Epitaph 1 and provided its text. In reality Angel Manrique took the text of the epitaph from ‘Collector Chronici Belgici,’ which possibly refers to Magnum Chronicon Belgicum, which itself was (indirectly) based on Alberic of Trois-Fontaines.
    Hic jacet Eugenius defunctus: cerne sepulchrum; | Cui pia cum Christo vivere vita fuit | Pisa virum genuit, quem Clarevallis alumnum | Exhibuit, sacra Relligionis opus: | Hinc ad Anastasi translatus Martyris adem | Ex Abbate, Pater summus in Orbe fuit; | Eripuit solemne jubar, mundique decorem | Iulius, Octavum sole ferente diem’, C. Hazart, Triomph der pausen van Roomen over alle hare benyders ende bestryders (Antwerpen, 1679), p. 309; Angelo Manrique, Cisterciensium: seu, Verius ecclesiasticorum annalium a condito Cistercio, 2 (Lugduni, 1613), p. 224. ↑
53. D. Van Papenbroeck, Conatus chronico-historicus ad catalogum Romanorum Pontificum cum praevio ad eumdem apparatu, 2 (Antverpia, 1685), p. 22. ↑
54. Pierre-François Chifflet, éd., S. Bernardi Clarevallensis abbatis genus illustre assertum: accedunt Odonis de Diogilo, Johannis Eremitae, Herberti Turrium Sardiniae archiepiscopi, aliorumque aliquot scriptorum opuscula, duodecimi post Christum saeculi historiam spectantia (Divione: Philiberti Chavance, 1660), p. 91-93; on manuscript see A.-M. Turcan-Verkerk, Les manuscrits de La Charité, Cheminon et Montier-en-Argonne: collections cisterciennes et voies de transmission des textes, IXe-XIXe siècles, Documents, études et répertoires, Histoire des bibliothèques médiévales 59 (Paris, 2000), p. 51 (passim). ↑
55. J.F. Benton, ‘The Court of Champagne as a Literary Center’, Speculum 36.4 (1961), pp. 551–91, at p. 570 ↑
56. Jean Lebeuf, Dissertation sur l’histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Paris: suivie de plusieurs éclaircissemens sur l’histoire de France, vol. 2 (Paris: Lambert & Durand, 1741), p. 262-64. ↑
57. A.-M. Turcan-Verkerk, Les manuscrits de La Charité, Cheminon et Montier-en-Argonne: collections cisterciennes et voies de transmission des textes, IXe-XIXe siècles, Documents, études et répertoires, Histoire des bibliothèques médiévales 59 (Paris, 2000), p. 266. ↑
58. ‘Patres vestri Urbi orbem subiugaverunt; vos Urbem properatis orbi facere fabulam,’ Bernard of Clairvaux, The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B.S. James (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1998), letter 319, p. 392; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae extra corpus 311-547, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, Bernardi opera 8 (1977), epistula 243 c. 3, p. 132; D. Zupka, ‘Aiunt non vos esse Papam, sed me. Svätý Bernard, rímski biskupi a pápežstvo v zrkadle korešpondencie’, Konštantínove listy/Constantine’s Letters 13.2 (2020), pp. 76–88, p. 82. ↑
59. Robert Favreau, « « Rex, lex, lux, pax » : jeux de mots et jeux de lettres dans les inscriptions médiévales », Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 161, n^o 2 (2003): 625‑35, p. 634, Cf. Robert Favreau, « « Rex, lex, lux, pax » : jeux de mots et jeux de lettres dans les inscriptions médiévales », Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 161, n^o 2 (2003): 625‑35, p. 628 ; cf. epitaph of Stephen of Bourges : Claude Malingre, Les Antiquitez de La Ville de Paris. Contenans La Recherche Nouuelle Des Fondations & Etablissemens Des Eglises, Chapelles, Monasteres, Hospitaux, Hostels, Maissons Remarquables, Fontaines, Regards, Quais, Ponts & Autres Ouurages Curieux… (Paris: Pierre Rocolet; Cardin Besongne; Henry Le Gras; La Vefve Nicolas Trabovilliet, 1640), p. 445. ↑
60. Ovid, ‘Heroides’, in G. Showerman and G.P. Goold (eds.), Heroides. Amores, Loeb Classical Library 41 (Cambridge, MA, 1986), pp. 1–311, IX.31, p. 110; Robert Favreau, « « Rex, lex, lux, pax » : jeux de mots et jeux de lettres dans les inscriptions médiévales », Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 161, n^o 2 (2003): 625‑35, p. 634. ↑
61. A. Otto, Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig, 1890), p. 167; N. Wireker and J.M. Ziolkowski, The passion of St. Lawrence: Epigrams and marginal poems, Mittellateinische Studien und Texte 14 (Leiden ; New York, 1994), p. 270. ↑
62. R. Favreau et al. (eds.), Corpus des inscriptions de la France médiévale. 11: Pyrénées-Orientales (Paris, 1986), no. 49, p. 60-61. See there for other examples. ↑
63. R. Favreau et al. (eds.), Corpus des inscriptions de la France médiévale. 11: Pyrénées-Orientales (Paris, 1986), p. 61. ↑
64. L.V. Delisle, Rouleaux des morts du IXe au XVe siècle, (Paris, 1866), XIX.125, p. 116. ↑
65. Alice Chapman, « Ideal and Reality: Images of a Bishop in Bernard of Clairvaux’s Advice to Eugenius III (1145–53) », in Envisioning the Bishop, éd. par Sigrid Danielson et Evan A. Gatti, Medieval Church Studies 29 (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2014), 331‑46, p. 333-34. ↑
66. Alice Chapman, « Ideal and Reality: Images of a Bishop in Bernard of Clairvaux’s Advice to Eugenius III (1145–53) », in Envisioning the Bishop, éd. par Sigrid Danielson et Evan A. Gatti, Medieval Church Studies 29 (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2014), 331‑46, p. 334; D. Zupka, ‘Aiunt non vos esse Papam, sed me. Svätý Bernard, rímski biskupi a pápežstvo v zrkadle korešpondencie’, Konštantínove listy/Constantine’s Letters 13.2 (2020), pp. 76–88, p. 79. ↑
67. Alice Chapman, « Ideal and Reality: Images of a Bishop in Bernard of Clairvaux’s Advice to Eugenius III (1145–53) », in Envisioning the Bishop, éd. par Sigrid Danielson et Evan A. Gatti, Medieval Church Studies 29 (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2014), 331‑46, p. 335. ↑
68. Alice Chapman, « Ideal and Reality: Images of a Bishop in Bernard of Clairvaux’s Advice to Eugenius III (1145–53) », in Envisioning the Bishop, éd. par Sigrid Danielson et Evan A. Gatti, Medieval Church Studies 29 (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2014), 331‑46, p. 344; cf. C. Egger, ‘Curial Politics and Papal Power : Eugenius III, the Curia, and contemporary theological controversy’, in I. Fonnesberg-Schmidt and A. Jotischky (eds.), Pope Eugenius III (1145-1153) (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 69–100, p. 98-99. ↑
69. ‘Scribitur enim ibi vita, mores et aetas eorum’, Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarvm sive Originvm libri XX, ed. W.M. Lindsay, 1 (Oxford, 1911), I.39.20; H. Beyer, ‘Tituli — Versus — Epitaphs: The Form and Topology of Mortuary Roll Poems’, in H. Beyer, G. Signori, and S. Steckel (eds.), Bruno the Carthusian and his Mortuary Roll: Studies, Text, and Translations, Europa Sacra 16 (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 25–45, p. 35-36. ↑
70. Robert Favreau, « « Rex, lex, lux, pax » : jeux de mots et jeux de lettres dans les inscriptions médiévales », Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 161, n^o 2 (2003): 625‑35, p. 625-26. ↑
71. Apart from the three Benedictine manuscripts, the only other identified non-Cistercian manuscripts then would be Laon, that was to be from Cuissy Abbey, a Premonstratensian foundation. However, it was less than ten kilometres away from Cistercian Vauclair Abbey. It could be transferred between the two foundations, Giovanni Mercati, « Un epitafio metrico di papa Eugenio III », Studi e documenti di storia e diritto 20 (1898): 113‑16, p. 115. (or even Cistercian wrote it when/if the book was borrowed). ↑
72. T.N. Kinder, Cistercian Europe: architecture of contemplation (Grand Rapids, Mich, 2002), p. 133. ↑
73. L. Velte, ‘Sepulchral Representation: Inscribed Tombs and Narrated Epitaphs in the High Middle Ages’, in R. Wagner, C. Neufeld, and L. Lieb (eds.), Writing Beyond Pen and Parchment Inscribed Objects in Medieval European Literature (2019), pp. 255–74, p. 258; M.B. Bruun and E. Jamroziak, ‘Introduction: withdrawal and engagement’, in M.B. Bruun (ed.), The Cambridge companion to the Cistercian order, Cambridge companions to religion (Cambridge, 2013), pp. 1–24, p. 12-14; T. Leslie, ‘Mortuary rolls as a source for medieval women’s history’, Journal of the Georgia Association of Historians 14 (1993), pp. 116–24, p. 116-17; G. Signori, ‘Introduction: The Rotulus’, in H. Beyer, G. Signori, and S. Steckel (eds.), Bruno the Carthusian and his Mortuary Roll, Europa Sacra 16 (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 3–10, p. 4-7, H. Beyer, ‘Tituli — Versus — Epitaphs: The Form and Topology of Mortuary Roll Poems’, in H. Beyer, G. Signori, and S. Steckel (eds.), Bruno the Carthusian and his Mortuary Roll: Studies, Text, and Translations, Europa Sacra 16 (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 25–45, p. 31. ↑
74. H. Beyer, ‘Tituli — Versus — Epitaphs: The Form and Topology of Mortuary Roll Poems’, in H. Beyer, G. Signori, and S. Steckel (eds.), Bruno the Carthusian and his Mortuary Roll: Studies, Text, and Translations, Europa Sacra 16 (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 25–45, p. 30-31, 39. ↑
75. L. Velte, Sepulkralsemiotik: Grabmal und Grabinschrift in der europäischen Literatur des Mittelalters, Bibliotheca Germanica 76 (Tübingen, 2021), p. 56-57. ↑
76. Hommey connected these miracles to the ones mentioned by ‘Geofroi’ in the vita of saint Bernard (v.2). ↑
77. Jean-François Dreux du Radier, Histoire littéraire du Poitou, vol. 1, Bibliothèque historique et critique du Poitou (Niort: Robin et Cie, 1842), p. 57 ; Charles Auguste Auber, Étude sur les historiens du Poitou: depuis ses origines connues jusqu’au milieu du XIXe siècle (Niort: L. Clouzot, 1870), p. 72. ↑
78. Edmundus Martene et Ursinus Durand, éd., Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium, amplissima collectio, vol. 6 (Parisiis: Montalant, 1729), col. 1139-42. ↑
79. Patrologia latina 180, col. 1009-12. ↑
80. Chrysostomo Henriquez, « Vita Beati Eugenij hujus nominis tertij Pontificis Maximi », in Fasciculus sanctorum Ordinis Cisterciensis, complectens Cisterciensium ascetarum praeclarissima gesta, huius Ordinis exordium, incrementum, progressum, praecipuarum abbatiarum per universum orbem fundationes, ordinum militarum origines (Bruxella: Ioannem Pepermanum, 1624), 166‑84, c. 11, p. 183-84. ↑
81. « Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum bibliothecae civitatis Brugensis », Analecta Bollandiana 10 (1891): 453‑66, p. 455-56 (the author of the catalogue was unaware of Henriquez edition); J. Laude, Catalogue méthodique, descriptif et analytique des manuscrits de la bibliotheque publique de Bruges (Bruges, 1859), p. 116-17. See modern: J.P.C. Janzen, ‘Written Culture at Ten Duinen. Cistercian Monks and Their Books, c. 1125–c. 1250’, Leiden University (2019), p. 84. ↑
82. A. Van den Wijngaert, O.F.M, ‘De novo codice Vitae I S . Francisci auctore Fr . Thoma Celanensi , LovanIl in abbatia Montis Caesaris , O . S . B . , servato’, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 23 (1930), pp. 183–6. ↑
83. D. Van Papenbroeck, Conatus chronico-historicus ad catalogum Romanorum Pontificum cum praevio ad eumdem apparatu (Antverpia, 1685), p. 22. ↑
84. The ‘1644’ is marked as ‘Virgilii Bucolica & Georgica’, Bernard de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum nova, 1 (Paris, 1739), p. 52. Bernard de Montfaucon also notes that miracles should be listed on p. 72d, although there is nothing there as such, see p. XCVIII. ↑
85. Vatican, Reg.lat.669, fol. 53r-54r. The miracles are followed there with incomplete De conflictu Babilonie et Iherusalem attributed in, for example, Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliothek, MS 73 G 8 to Bernard of Clairvaux, according to: M. Campopiano, Writing the Holy Land: the Franciscans of Mount Zion and the Construction of a Cultural Memory, 1300-1550, The New Middle Ages (York York, 2020), p. 362-4. De conflictu appears together with De consideratione, again attributed to Bernard, in Bibliothèque nationale de France. Latin 10628, fol. 65r-72v. ↑
86. Bondéelle-Souchier, Anne. Bibliothèques cisterciennes dans la France médiévale. Répertoire des Abbayes d’hommes. Documents, études et répertoires de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 47. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1991, p. 52 ↑
87. M.T. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978), Appendix A5c, p. 202 note 4; see also Appendix A9a, p. 205. ↑
88. J.P.C. Janzen, ‘Written Culture at Ten Duinen. Cistercian Monks and Their Books, c. 1125–c. 1250’, Leiden University (2019), p. 188. ↑
89. Lanfranc of Bec, The letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, eds. V.H. Clover and M.T. Gibson, Oxford medieval texts (Oxford : New York, 1979), p. 20-1. ↑
90. Bernard de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum nova, 1 (Paris, 1739), p. 49. ↑
91. BnF Archives et manuscrits, https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc60315p; A.-M. Turcan-Verkerk, Les manuscrits de La Charité, Cheminon et Montier-en-Argonne: collections cisterciennes et voies de transmission des textes, IXe-XIXe siècles, Documents, études et répertoires, Histoire des bibliothèques médiévales 59 (Paris, 2000), p. 143 ; C. Lanéry, ‘Nouvelles recherches sur le légendier de Clairvaux’, Analecta Bollandiana 131.1 (2013), pp. 60–133, p. 124 note 201. ↑
92. Angelo Manrique, Cisterciensium: seu, Verius ecclesiasticorum annalium a condito Cistercio, 2 (Lugduni, 1613), p. 224-5. ↑
93. G. Palazzi, Gesta Pontificvm Romanorvm, 2 (Venetiis, 1688), col. 562; Angelo Manrique, Cisterciensium: seu, Verius ecclesiasticorum annalium a condito Cistercio, 2 (Lugduni, 1613), p. 223. ↑
94. C. Hazart, Triomph der pausen van Roomen over alle hare benyders ende bestryders (Antwerpen, 1679), p. 309. ↑
95. D. Bartolini, ‘Confirmationis cultus ab immemorabili tempore praestiti servo Dei Eugenio Papae III’, Acta Sanctae Sedis in Compendium Opportune Redacta Et Illustrata 7 (Anno 1892-93) (1915), pp. 107–26, p. 103 ; Eugene was probably taken up to beatification as his pontificate could be seen as parallel to Pious IX, see R. Rusconi, ‘Devozione per il pontefice e culto per il papato al tempo di Pio IX e di Leone XIII nelle pagine di “La civiltà cattolica”’, Rivista di storia del cristianesimo 2.1 (2005), pp. 9–37, p. 20-21. ↑
96. Peter Mallius, ‘Descriptio basilicae Vaticanae aucta atque emendata a Romano presbitero’, in G. Zucchetti and R. Valentini (eds.), Codice topografico della città di Roma, Fonti per la Storia d’Italia 90, 3, 4 vols (Roma, 1946), pp. 375–442, c.8, p. 388-89. ↑
97. ‘ad cujus tumulum, qui ei in ecclesia Beati Petri venerabiliter factus est, miracula post transitum ejus statim apparuerunt’, Robert of Torigni, The Chronicle of Robert of Torigni, ed. R. Howlett, Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores (London, 1889), ad. 1153, p. 173; Robert of Torigny, ‘Chronique’, in L. Delisle (ed.), Chronique de Robert de Torigni, abbé du Mont-Saint-Michel ; suivie de divers opuscules historiques de cet auteur et de plusieurs religieux de la même abbaye, 1 (Rouen, 1872), pp. 1–369, 1153, p. 274-75; M. Horn, Studien zur Geschichte Papst Eugens III. (1145-1153), Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe III, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 508 (Frankfurt am Main ; New York, 1992), p. 231. ↑
98. D. Bartolini, ‘Confirmationis cultus ab immemorabili tempore praestiti servo Dei Eugenio Papae III’, Acta Sanctae Sedis in Compendium Opportune Redacta Et Illustrata 7 (Anno 1892-93) (1915), pp. 97–114, p. 104-05, 108-09. ↑
99. Gervase of Canterbury, ‘Chronicle’, in W. Stubbs (ed.), The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, 1 (London, 1879), anno 1145, p. 129. ↑
100. C. Egger, ‘Curial Politics and Papal Power : Eugenius III, the Curia, and contemporary theological controversy’, in I. Fonnesberg-Schmidt and A. Jotischky (eds.), Pope Eugenius III (1145-1153) (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 69–100, p. 97-98. ↑
101. Tellingly Annals of Margam abbey mentioned Bernard’s death but not Eugene’s, even though some other deaths of the Popes were mentioned in it, H.R. Luard (ed.), ‘Annales de Margan’, in Annales Monastici, Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, 1 (London, 1864), pp. 1–40, 1153, p. 14. ↑