Visio, quam habuit sponsa Christi de iudicio anime cuiusdam summi pontificis defuncti.

1 Videbat sponsa quasi unam personam pontificis vestitam scapulari, que stabat in domo luto platearum respersa, cuius domus tectum fere iacebat super cerebrum dicte persone compressum, 2 et Ethiopes nigri habentes uncos et alia instrumenta nocendi circumuallabant domum, sed non valebant tangere personam illam, licet terrebant eam terrore maximo. 3 Et tunc audiui vocem dicentem michi: "Hec est anima illius magni pontificis, quem tu nosti. Domus enim ista est retribucio eius spiritualis, nam aliqua mundana tractabat et ideo remuneracio eius nondum lucida est, donec in purgatorio mundetur et dealbetur spiri-tualibus oracionibus et caritate Dei. 4 Quod vero tectum quasi compri-mit cerebrum eius, signum misterii est, quia tectum significat carita-tem Dei, que quanto maior est, tanto lacior est et sublimior ad spiritua-lia et feruorem Dei, 5 sed quia caritas anime huius in aliquibus mun-dialibus operibus ardebat et magis sequebatur voluntatem propriam, ideo tectum, quod luminosum et altum est electis Dei, angustum est sibi, donec sanguine filii Dei et celestis curie interuentu dilatetur. 6 Quod vero anima induta est scapulari, signum est, quod studuit se con-formare religioni sue monastice et vocacioni sue, sed non tantum cona-tus est, quod esset exemplar proficiencium et forma perfectorum.

7 Nunc autem licitum est tibi scire tria de operibus, que fecit in vita sua, propter que nunc patitur penam. Primum est, quod fecit quandam inobedienciam contra Deum et conscienciam suam, de quo contricionem habuit et remorsum consciencie sue. 8 Secundum est,

quod dispensabat in aliquibus cum quibusdam propter carnalem amorem sequendo voluntatem suam. Tercium est, quod dissimulabat aliqua, ne offenderet quos diligebat, que corrigere potuisset.

9 Verumptamen scias, quod anima ista non est cum illis, qui descendunt in infernum nec cum illis, qui veniunt ad grauiora examina purgatorii sed cum illis qui cotidie festinanter appropinquant gracie et visioni maiestatis Dei omnipotentis."

4. Results and discussion

4.1. The title and the content of the Tractatus

In modern works of scholarship, the Tractatus has been referred to as either the Tractatus de summis pontificibus, as did Prior Peter once in his testimony to the canonization commission (p. 14), or as the Liber ad summos pontifices, which was the title originally used by the Con-fessor General of Vadstena Monastery, Magnus Petri, in a letter dated 1384-91. Neither of these titles has manuscript authority, however. As established above, the authentic title is much longer and indicates clearly the scope and aim of the collection:

In the Tractatus, there are thus revelations to popes Clement VI, Innocent VI, Urban V and Gregory XI concerning the return of the Papal See to Rome and a reform of the Church. Alfonso seems to have been most anxious to maintain the authority of the collection: St. Bridget speaks as directed by God the Almighty, ex precepto Dei omnipotentis; as Alfonso had proved in his previous work, the Epistola solitarii, she is a pious servant of Christ, deuota ancilla Christi, but also a princess from the Kingdom of Sweden, principissa de regno Suecie (cf. his In-formaciones § 3 and his Prologus Libri Celestis § 2), so that nobody would confuse humility with obscurity.

To be sure, it might have seemed natural to assume that when Prior Peter spoke about the "tractatus de summis pontificibus" in his testimony, it was the title of the collection he gave, but since we find another title in the manuscripts, we must conclude that this was not the case. Perhaps Peter felt that the original title was too long to be used, or it was not really a title, and just referred to the work as "the thematic collection concerning popes", which seems to be the most ad-equate translation of Peter's words.

In the printed editions, the Tractatus was integrated into the corpus reuelacionum, which meant that the duplicate revelations were not entered. Revelation II became IV: 136, etc., as showed in the table on p. 19. The title of the original Tractatus was enlarged by the addi-tion of the original chapter heading for rev. II and used as a rubric to IV: 136. Domina Brigida was changed into Sancta Birgitta.

As far as the question of the content of the Tractatus is con-cerned, it has been demonstated above that the Florence and London manuscripts, which have been supposed to show that Alfonso's origi-nal compilation contained twenty-one or fifty-seven revelations re-spectively, did not do so, but in actual fact can be used as evidence for the same thirteen-revelations-version that we find in the source man-uscripts of the corpus reuelacionum.

In this third collection, Alfonso resorted to re-editing four reve-lations from the Liber Celestis in addition to nine unpublished ones. Alfonso had proceeded in a similar way when editing the Liber Celes-tis Imperatoris ad Reges, which in his redaction consisted of twenty-four re-edited revelations and thirty-four thitherto un-edited ones.

The revelations of the Tractatus are in the main arranged chro-nologically: Alfonso begins with the revelation to Pope Clement VI that Bridget had received in 1348. This revelation had already been pub-lished in the Liber Celestis as VI: 63, but Alfonso now revises the heading, adding information about the dating and about who was en-trusted with the task of bringing the message to Pope Clement. In the end of the revelation, there is an allusion to the grandiose beginning of the prologue to Book I (stupor et mirabilia facta sunt in terra nostra) written by St. Bridget's earlier confessor, the learned theologian Mas-ter Mathias, who vouches there for her divine calling and the authen-ticity of the revelations.

Rev. II concerns Clement's successor, Innocent VI. We are not given any information in Alfonso's other works, the Informaciones and the Conscripcio, about contacts with this pope, and the entry here gives the impression of being a space-filler. However, judging from the last lines, Bridget seems to have sent books of revelations to him.

Revs. III-V concern Pope Urban V. Rev. III had already been published as IV: 49. This revelation, too, is now given a new heading with information about where ("in Sancta Maria Maiori in Roma") and when ("Una die antequam papa Urbanus intraret Romam", sc. 15 Octo-ber 1367) Bridget had it. In the Liber Celestis, the message itself was all-important; in the Tractatus it is felt to be important to give details about the historical context. Rev. V is the one St. Bridget in person handed over to the pope in Montefiascone, when he was on his way back to Avignon. The Virgin Mary is very displeased with the pope, and tells him that he will be punished if he fails her and returns to Avignon.

Revs. VI-XI are addressed to Pope Gregory XI or are about him. The message is the same as before: removal of the Papal See from Avignon back to Rome and reform of the Church. The pope was, how-ever, good at procrastination, as is witnessed by the revelations, and gradually, a tone of aggressive frustration becomes clearly noticeable. In the headings, we are given some information about the context in which the revelations were received and this is supplemented by Al-fonso's more detailed report in the Informaciones and the Conscripcio. We are, thus, in a good position to observe the developments all the way until St. Bridget's death. The last revelation to Gregory, rev. XI, is the one she received five days before her death and which had been published in the Liber celestis as VII: 31 (see above pp. 28-29). Christ appears and complains about the pope who does not listen to his words and leaves Rome in the lurch, but now he will get no more mes-sages.

Rev. XII-XIII do not fit in chronologically-they are about the judgement of Clement VI and Urban V-but have been placed in con-clusion as a warning to neglectful and disobedient popes, a message clearly brought out by the headings of these revelations.

4.2. The aim and the date of the Tractatus

It has been assumed that after the editing of the Liber celestis, which is a voluminous and heterogeneous collection, Alfonso began to make compilations in which the revelations were arranged according to sub-ject matter, in order to make St. Bridget's revelations well-known and appreciated in wider circles. The Liber celestis imperatoris ad reges may well have been compiled for this reason, but the editing of the Tractaus was certainly motivated by much more specific and urgent reasons, as is clearly indicated by the title: this collection was an ele-ment in Alfonso's efforts to gain support for Pope Urban VI in his con-flict with the anti-pope Clement VII, who had been elected after the cardinals had declared Urban's election null and void. The Tractatus is closely linked to the Informaciones, the memorandum Alfonso wrote (probably for an inquest in November 1379) to defend the validity of Urban VI's election as pope. In the Informaciones, Alfonso refers to eight of the thirteen Tractatus revelations in support of his argumen-tation. One line of argument in the Informaciones is that God had re-vealed in his revelations to St. Bridget that it is His will that the pope reside in Rome. Her insistence on Rome as home of the popes, the vili-fication of everything connected with Avignon, the call for reform, the violent protest against simony and a clear anti-cardinalism were mes-sages with renewed relevancy after the out-break of the great schism, and was particularly applicable after Clement's departure for Avignon in the summer of 1379, when the anti-Avignon revelations gained rel-evance in a new context.

The terminus ante quem for the dating of the Tractatus is, of course, January 30th, 1380, the date of Prior Peter's deposition. In a previous work, I suggested that the fact that Alfonso in the Informa-ciones did not refer to the revelations in the Tractatus by title and number indicated that they had not been published yet. As the edi-tion above shows, that argument is totally irrelevant, since the revela-tions are not numbered in the Tractatus, and it is thus perfectly pos-sible that the Tractatus was compiled before the Informaciones was written, i. e., somewhat earlier in the autumn of 1379.

4.3. The codification of the revelations

As mentioned above, the Tractatus is not included in Alfonso's redac-tions of the St. Bridget's revelations, and the reason for this has been discussed, for instance, by Schück and Undhagen, who suggest that it was omitted "by way of ecclesiastical precaution" (above pp. 15-16). This is a suggestion that gives rise to questions rather than answers: why on earth did Alfonso compile a work he is supposed to have con-sidered suspicious? Why did he consider these revelations unobjec-tionable when he referred to them in his Informaciones, but inoppor-tune when he made the codification? Why did Prior Peter himself re-fer to this very collection in his statement to the canonization commis-sion, if there were the faintest risk that it could be considered suspi-cious? These are difficult questions to answer.

Before we try and find the motives for the exclusion, the ques-tion of the dating of the codification has to be scrutinized. To be sure, Undhagen dates Alfonso's second redaction to "about 1380". If we take this as meaning "1379 or later", it is reasonable to speculate about why the Tractatus is missing in the codified books of revelations. Und-hagen's point of departure for the dating is based on the assumption that it was the first Alfonso redaction that was submitted to the sec-ond papal commission in 1378/79. Undhagen's reason for assuming this is that since "the first examining commission does not seem to have had any objections to the revelations they had been given to ex-amine, it would seem unlikely that Alfonso would have found it neces-sary to revise the text of the 1377 redaction." Since, however, the second redaction can have been finished as early as 1377, we cannot exclude the possibility that it was this redaction that was presented to the papal authorities. Be that as it may. Even if it was the first redac-tion that was presented, it is quite clear that the second edition must have been finished not later than 16 September 1379, when Alfonso in his testimony for the canonization commission referred to the Epis-tola solitarii, in which there are references not only to the Liber ce-lestis but also to the Liber celestis imperatoris ad reges and the Sermo angelicus. Thus, it is perfectly possible that Alfonso's work of codifi-cation was finished before the Tractatus was compiled and this is why it was not included. Generally speaking, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the father confessors found parts of Bridget's revela-tions objectionable and thus had to be suppressed.

4.4. Alfonso's rôle as editor

Much has been written about how St. Bridget's message was transmitted-and perhaps transformed-by her father confessors when translating and editing her revelations. There has been a tendency in recent scholarship to attach great importance to Alfonso's rôle as edi-tor of the revelations. No wonder, since Christ-or Bridget- entrusted him with this task in terms that seemingly gave him quite extensive authority to make a revision (Rev. ex. 49):

All books of revelation were thus to be handed over to Alfonso, who would elucidate them and guard the Catholic sense of Christ's spirit. How did Alfonso fulfil that task? Diverse answers have been advanced. In his edition of book V, which, to be sure, was revealed to Bridget many years earlier when she was still in Sweden, Bergh concluded that Alfonso may not even have read much of that book. On the other hand, Gilkær in his study of St. Bridget's and Alfonso's political ideas and attitudes used Alfonso's compilation, the Liber celestis imperatoris ad reges, as a source to Alfonso's, not Bridget's, ideas. In so doing, he was inspired inter alia by Aili's research. By comparing some revelations that are available in two different editions, viz. in the Li-ber celestis and in the Liber celestis imperatoris ad reges, Aili claims to have pin-pointed some examples of Alfonsine manipulation with the Bridgettine message, for instance the following: when Alfonso re-publishes Rev. IV: 4 in the Liber celestis imperatoris ad reges (ch. 13), he adds in the rubric and in the revelation itself the information that the person in question was "a queen", whereas, writes Aili, "the older version of the Revelations text offers no such information at all". Here Aili seems, however, to have jumped to conclusions. To be sure, it is true that it is not explicitly stated in the original version that the lady mentioned is a queen, but other details given clearly indicate that that was the case: for instance in § 29, we learn that the lady wears a crown and is dressed in purple. Another fact pointing in the same direction is that a princess, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, is mentioned as model for the lady, since that saint got greater consolation and a more sublime crown, when living in poverty than if she had remained in worldly honour and consolation.

In this context it is interesting to see what liberties-if any- Alfonso took when quoting from St. Bridget. In the Conscripcio there is a long quotation from the Tractatus:

Tractatus, rev. 7:

Quoted in Conscripcio, p. 87:

A few remarks can be made: in the quotation, the name of the bishop and hermit is given, just as in the example above from the Liber celes-tis imperatoris ad reges, the identity of the lady was clarified by the information that she was a queen. § 17 is shortened, the instructions about sending the letter to the pope are omitted in the quotation, but Alfonso tells us a little later in the text that the Count of Nola brought the letter to the pope, so that information is not really missing. There are also signs of slight stylistic revision, as in the quod-sentence in § 16, which in Alfonso's Conscripcio version is much more elegant than in the original version. What we can learn from this comparison is that to be sure Alfonso did not quote word for word, but that he never-theless was quite close to the actual wording and did not change the message itself.

Generally speaking, I am very sceptical about attempts to make Alfonso a moulder, not only a transmitter, of Bridget's message. How-ever, in the absence of an edition of the Liber celestis imperatoris ad reges, it would be premature to try and make a general assessment of Alfonso's rôle as editor, so I feel justified in confining myself to re-peting some remarks I have made earlier on the basis of an examina-tion of the Tractatus.

In the Tractatus, Alfonso's influence can be recognized primarily in the selection and presentation of the texts. Alfonso wrote new chap-ter headings for revelations I and XI that changed the emphasis con-siderably, above pp. 22 and 28-29, and omitted two passages in ch. 11 that were irrelevant in the new context. Obviously, he felt he had the freedom, or possibly the duty-in the above-mentioned rev. ex. 49, he had been given the office of an evangelist-to apply St. Bridget's principles in the way he felt most suitable and adapt them to new con-texts. As regards the great schism, there could not be any doubt about what position Bridget would have taken, had she lived. The return of the popes from Avignon to Rome and a reform of the Church were causes that had motivated her all her life. *

STUDIA GRAECA ET LATINA LUNDENSIA

Ediderunt Birger Bergh et Jerker Blomqvist

1. Arne Jönsson, Alfonso of Jaén. His Life and Works with Critical Editions of the Epistola Solitarii, the Informaciones and the Epistola Serui Christi. 1989. 207 pp.

3. Brita Larsson, Johannes Magnus' Latin Letters. A Critical Edition with Intro-duction and Commentary. 1992. v + 193 pp.

4. Lars Nyberg, Unity and Coherence. Studies in Apollonius Rhodius' Argonau-tica and the Alexandrian Epic Tradition. 1992. xviii + 182 pp.

5. Dimitrios Karadimas, Sextus Empiricus against Aelius Aristides. The Conflict between Philsophy and Rhetoric in the Second Century A. D. 1996. xx + 270 pp.

6. Arne Jönsson, St. Bridget's Revelations to the Popes. An edition of the so-called Tractatus de summis pontificibus. 1996. 69 pp.

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.

Paul Halsall, November 1997
halsall@murray.fordham.edu

The Internet Medieval Sourcebook is part of the Internet History Sourcebooks Project. The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of  Fordham University, New York. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at the Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University.   Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.

© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 15 November 2024 [CV]