Origen’s Story: Heresy, Book Production, and Monastic Reform at Saint-Laurent de Liège

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeOrigen’s Story: Heresy, Book Production, and Monastic Reform at Saint-Laurent de LiègeJay DiehlJay Diehl Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreIntroductionMonastic communities of the High Middle Ages that were in search of institutional renewal had a number of strategies available to them. One of the most common was to revive (or establish) a scriptorium, expand book production, and increase the community’s repertoire of texts so as to reinvigorate its cultural life. Scholars have often targeted such moments of textual production as a route to understanding the practice and ideology of reform.1 For the eleventh and twelfth centuries, scholarship has frequently focused on the texts copied during this period, in particular a renewed commitment to patristic texts, classics of monastic literature, and scriptural texts.2 In recent decades, however, scholars have also paid more attention to the material matrices of these texts, examining format, decoration, and layout as evidence for the roles played by manuscripts in the renewal of monastic culture.3 In material terms, some of the most distinctive artifacts of the monastic revivals between c. 1000 and 1150 were the large-format, lectern-sized pandects often called “giant Bibles.”4 Communities that produced these enormous manuscripts often did so as part of an increased commitment to communal reading, accomplished either liturgically as part of the night office or quasi-liturgically in the refectory. The Benedictine monasteries of the diocese of Liège were among the important sites for the production of such manuscripts. Between roughly 1050 and 1100, the communities of Lobbes, Stavelot, and Saint-Hubert all produced surviving examples of giant Bibles.5Situated in the midst of these communities, and very much embedded in the same networks of persons, ideas, and texts, was the abbey of Saint-Laurent.6 One of two major eleventh-century Benedictine foundations in the city of Liège itself, Saint-Laurent is probably best known as the first home of the monastic theologian Rupert of Deutz (1075–1129).7 It is also well known as the site of a charged, polemical conflict with the bishop of Liège that took place in the final decade of the eleventh century and that has on occasion been framed as an episode of the investiture conflict or, at least, an event best contextualized within the Gregorian reform.8 Saint-Laurent was also an important cultural center, site of an active scriptorium and a substantial library. Many of its eleventh- and twelfth-century manuscripts survive, but they have been the subject of very little scholarly scrutiny.9 Despite Saint-Laurent’s connections to communities that produced giant Bibles, and particularly close ties to Lobbes and Saint-Hubert between 1075 and 1110, there is no surviving giant Bible from Saint-Laurent. In fact, there are remarkably few surviving biblical manuscripts of any sort from the community. Such books, of course, may have been lost over the centuries, but evidence from booklists and other sources is, at best, mixed on the question as to whether Saint-Laurent ever produced a pandect.10There is, however, one giant book to be found among the surviving manuscripts of Saint-Laurent. It is a patristic text, a form of lectern manuscript that has received far less attention than giant Bibles.11 Brussels, KBR MS 9136 is a copy of Origen of Alexandria’s sermons on the Old Testament, produced as a large-format book comparable in size to lectern Bibles, a witness to growing interest in Origen at the turn of the twelfth century.12 As I hope to demonstrate, this manuscript was of considerable, perhaps even singular importance to the community of Saint-Laurent. The goal of this study is to unpack the significance of KBR 9136, much of which resides in the challenging circumstances Saint-Laurent faced at the time of its production. During the decade prior to the year 1100, the aforementioned dispute with the bishop of Liège fractured the community for a period of three years into two factions—one in exile in Reims and one remaining in Liège—before the entire community was reunited in 1095. KBR 9136 was designed, I argue, to deal with the fallout of this schism and the need for reconciliation, which it accomplished by placing Origen at the forefront of the community’s daily life. While much of the newfound enthusiasm for Origen in the twelfth century was connected to his imaginative biblical exegesis, evidence from Saint-Laurent suggests that this was not the only reason for his special significance. Equally important, and indeed inseparable from his reception as an exegetical thinker, was the controversy over his orthodoxy, which made Origen an ambiguous figure who could represent both the danger of heresy and schism, but also the possibility of redemption from heterdoxy.13 This evidence is contained in another manuscript also produced at Saint-Laurent at the turn of the twelfth century, which represents the key to unlocking the significance of the giant homiliary. Brussels, KBR MS 10264–73 is a miscellany primarily containing texts by Jerome and Rufinus that relate to their conflict over Origen’s orthodoxy in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.14 Miscellanies of this sort could have many functions in monastic culture and there is no definitive evidence that links KBR 10264–73 to the communal conflict and its aftermath. But the combination of texts is suggestive. Cumulatively, they offer a story about the importance of ascetic ideals, the dangers of heresy and schism, and the need for reconciliation after such divisions. I will suggest that Origen’s ambiguous position as both patristic father and potential heretic allowed him to become a lens for interpreting ecclesiastical conflicts of the High Middle Ages and, of more significance for the community at Saint-Laurent, to represent the possibility of redemption after conflict. KBR 9136, I will argue, was the tool through which the community lived that possibility, using liturgical reading to transform a cluster of ideas about heresy, orthodoxy, and schism into mechanisms for communal reconciliation.I will first analyze KBR 9136 itself and place it in the context of manuscript production at Saint-Laurent and beyond. I will then turn to two broader contexts that help explain its function and unique status: the history of Saint-Laurent at the turn of the twelfth century, and the career of Origen and the Origenist controversy. In conclusion, I will offer some observations about the nature of monastic reform at Saint-Laurent. Scholars have generally agreed that Saint-Laurent was reformed between 1095 and 1110. This process has usually been depicted as following a very traditional path involving the adoption of Gregorian ideology and Cluniac customs, with evidence culled primarily from narrative sources (those composed at communities other than Saint-Laurent). Manuscript evidence from Saint-Laurent itself, however, suggests that the renewal of the community in the early twelfth century was not a generic process but one driven, at least in part, by the specific need for reconciliation after communal and ecclesiastical schism. When the reform of the community is approached from this perspective and through these sources, a very different picture emerges, one in which the active reception of patristic texts—and particularly texts about heresy and schism in the patristic age—operated as a living tradition for thinking about ecclesiastical conflict and Benedictine reform in the twelfth century.A Giant Homiliary in ContextThe period between c. 1095 and c. 1110 was one of the most active periods for the scriptorium at Saint-Laurent.15 As Snijders and Vanderputten have suggested, several of the manuscripts produced during this period offer important glimpses into the role of book production in communal restoration and renewal.16 While a copy of Origen’s homilies on the Old Testament might not seem to be particularly notable, the importance of KBR 9136 is apparent when viewed in the context of Saint-Laurent’s broader manuscript collection. The opening folios have suffered from some damage, but the overall quality of parchment and script marks KBR 9136 as a prestige product. Although the decorative initials in the book are limited to red ink, they are the work of a skilled artist and reflect careful execution (Fig. 1). It is in terms of size, however, that the Origen manuscript truly stands out from the rest of Saint-Laurent’s books. Measuring 415 by 310mm, it is an enormous manuscript, of a piece with contemporary lectern Bibles. Although it is important to take potential losses into account, the surviving evidence strongly suggests that it was unusual and perhaps unprecedented for the scriptorium at Saint-Laurent to produce a book of such scale. KBR 9136 is easily the largest surviving manuscript from Saint-Laurent from between c. 1020 and 1200 (Fig. 2). Most of the other prestigious and luxurious patristic books produced at the turn of the twelfth century—many of them commentaries on scripture or even collections of homilies—are considerably smaller, generally between 340–360mm tall and between 240–250mm wide. These smaller books basically mimic the size and format of similarly themed books produced between c. 1050–70 at Saint-Laurent, suggesting something of a “house style” for patristic manuscripts at the community, from which KBR 9136 clearly deviates. The only rival to KBR 9136 in terms of size is Brussels, KBR MS 9289–89, a two-volume passionale from the turn of the twelfth century whose larger volume measures 390 by 295mm, still visibly and notably smaller than KBR 9136.17 However, the comparable size of the Origen book and the passionale, along with the frequent tonal accents in KBR 9136, make it all but certain that the homiliary was used for liturgical or quasi-liturgical reading.Fig. 1. Brussels, KBR MS 9136, fol. 20v. Reproduced by kind permission of the KBR, Brussels. View Large ImageDownload PowerPointFig. 2. Graphic by author illustrating the comparative size of Brussels, KBR MS 9136 alongside representative manuscripts produced at Saint-Laurent, c.1100-1120.Augustine’s Confessions. Brussels, KBR MS 9521–22.Doctrinal and antiheretical texts. Brussels, KBR MS 10264–73.Haymo’s commentary on Isaiah. Brussels, KBR MS 9325.Origen’s Homilies on the Old Testament. Brussels, KBR MS 9136.Ambrose’s commentary on the Psalms. Brussels, KBR MS 9371.Lives of Saints, Homilies. Brussels, KBR MS 18644–52.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointWhile KBR 9136 breaks the mold of Saint-Laurent manuscripts in terms of size, it fits into that mold in some other important respects. The text is laid out in two columns, each with forty-one lines of text, and substantial marginal space has been left below the text and in the outer margin, with about half as much marginal space above the text. The visual effect of the text in terms of layout and ratio between text space and marginal space is an amplified mimicry of the standard textual format for high-quality patristic books at Saint-Laurent and, for that matter, of that used for deluxe patristic commentaries generally in Liège and its surrounds.18 KBR 9136 also opens with a half-page frontispiece that uses large, Roman capitals and alternates ink color by line. A similar motif was often used to open patristic manuscripts at Saint-Laurent, as in the sister books Brussels, KBR MSS 9377 and 9379–80 from the opening decade of the twelfth century, and a series of eleventh-century books including Brussels, KBR MSS 9369–70, 9381–82, and 10779–80 (Fig. 3). Within the context of Saint-Laurent’s scriptorium, KBR 9136’s visual architecture possessed a dual character. On the one hand, it conformed to the communal conventions and expectations for a prestigious patristic manuscript. On the other hand, it defied those conventions by presenting them in a considerably enlarged scale.Fig. 3. Brussels, KBR MSS 9136, fol.1r and 9379–80, fol. iv. Reproduced by kind permission of the KBR, Brussels. View Large ImageDownload PowerPointIn and of itself, there would not necessarily be anything unusual about the production of a large-format manuscript containing patristic texts, particularly one containing homilies on scripture—standard fare for reading in the night office and the refectory. Other communities certainly owned or produced large-format copies of Origen’s homilies on the Old Testament in the twelfth century. Still, a close inspection of the evidence suggests that the production of KBR 9136 was by no means an obvious choice for the community at Saint-Laurent. For one thing, there was no sustained tradition of using Origen’s homilies on the Old Testament for liturgical reading at the turn of the twelfth century.19 Furthermore, extant copies of Origen’s homilies on the Old Testament that compare in size to KBR 9136 generally date from later in the twelfth century. A book close in size and appearance to the Saint-Laurent manuscript, although bound as two volumes, can be found among the manuscripts of the Cistercian abbey of La Ferté (Chalon-sur-Saône, Bibliothèque municipale, MSS 10–11), which was not established until 1113. Closer to Saint-Laurent’s own cultural orbit, the Flemish monastery of Saint-Bertin produced a deluxe copy of Origen’s homilies between 1125 and 1135 (Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque de l’agglomération, MS 34), while the abbey of Anchin produced an enormous copy near the end of the twelfth century, measuring a remarkable 510 by 330mm. All of these books suggest that presenting Origen’s homilies on the Old Testament in lectern-sized manuscripts became an accepted practice in the twelfth century, but KBR 9136 is the earliest example I have found, predating the next such by two decades.There is one earlier copy of Origen’s homilies on the Old Testament extant from the diocese of Liège, an eleventh-century copy from Gembloux measuring a modest 332 by 250mm, considerably smaller than the Saint-Laurent copy.20 The connection to Gembloux is also significant. Several decades ago, Marie-Rose Lapière suggested that certain artistic motifs in a number of Saint-Laurent initials echoed those of Gembloux manuscripts produced under the abbacy of Olbert (c. 1012–48), even suggesting that the Saint-Laurent copy of Augustine’s homilies on John (KBR 9381–82) was modeled on the Gembloux copy (Brussels, KBR MS 5565).21 In fact, further examination suggests that Gembloux was a major source from which the scribes at Saint-Laurent obtained exemplars. At least six manuscripts from Saint-Laurent can be shown to have been definitively or very likely copied from Gembloux exemplars. All of them are patristic commentaries on scripture or patristic histories. These books can help us better understand and contextualize the production of KBR 9136, which almost certainly represents a seventh Saint-Laurent book copied from a Gembloux exemplar. The opening title pages of each are strikingly similar (Fig. 4) and there are numerous paratextual features and marginal marks in the Gembloux book that have parallels in the Saint-Laurent copy. The initials of the Saint-Laurent book tend to mimic the shape and style of those in the Gembloux book, but also to enlarge them and make them more decorative (Fig. 5). The striking similarities in text and annotation between the two manuscripts, combined with the apparent links between Gembloux and Saint-Laurent, make it very likely that KBR 9136 was copied from Brussels, KBR MS 5499. There is, of course, the obvious difference between them (in addition to the more elaborate decorative program of KBR 9136): the Saint-Laurent book is substantially larger than its Gembloux exemplar, an indication that the size of KBR 9136 was the product of an active intervention in the textual tradition inherited by scribes at Saint-Laurent.22Fig. 4. Brussels, KBR MSS 5499, fol. 1v and 9136, fol. 1r. Reproduced by kind permission of the KBR, Brussels. View Large ImageDownload PowerPointFig. 5. Opening initials to Origen’s second homily on Exodus in Brussels, KBR MSS 9136, fol. 31v and 5499, fol. 38v. Reproduced by kind permission of the KBR, Brussels. View Large ImageDownload PowerPointA comparison between all seven Saint-Laurent books and their exemplars from Gembloux (Fig. 6) is even more revealing. Four of the seven Saint-Laurent books copied from Gembloux exemplars increase in size by a small amount (on average, 25mm in height and 5mm in width) and one shrinks by a very small amount (15mm in height and 3mm in width). Overall, these five books suggest that the Saint-Laurent scriptorium generally produced slightly larger books than the Gembloux scriptorium but only by the most modest of margins, and that Saint-Laurent might well have produced slightly smaller books. The other two books are clear outliers. The Saint-Laurent copy of Pseudo-Hegesippus’s Historia (Brussels, KBR MS 10855) is dramatically smaller than its exemplar, shrinking from 302 by 228mm to 247 by 170mm.23 And, of course, the Saint-Laurent copy of Origen’s homilies is remarkably larger than its exemplar. Furthermore, all seven Gembloux books are uniform in size, varying only about 10mm in height and about 15mm in width. The five core Saint-Laurent books diverge a little bit more, but still tend toward conformity in their scale. The comparison suggests that generally scribes at Saint-Laurent received Gembloux books of a standard size and almost always produced from them average-sized Saint-Laurent books. There are two major exceptions to this otherwise stable pattern. For the copy of Pseudo-Hegesippus, they received an average-size Gembloux manuscript and produced a much smaller book; for the copy of Origen’s homilies, they received an average-size Gembloux manuscript and instead produced an enormous book that defied the conventions of the scriptorium. Origen’s work—and particularly his homilies on scripture—was singled out by the community as a text appropriate for monumental presentation. The manuscript thus begs the question: Why did a copy of Origen’s homilies warrant such special treatment? To answer it, the production of KBR 9136 can be placed in two broader contexts. The first is the state of the community of Saint-Laurent itself at the turn of the twelfth century. The second is the career of Origen, the Origenist controversy, and—more important—their reception in twelfth-century ecclesiastical culture.Fig. 6. Graphic by author illustrating the comparative size of the Saint-Laurent manuscripts alongside their probable exemplars from Gembloux.GemblouxSaint-LaurentPseudo-Hegisippus. Brussels, KBR MSS 5540 and 10855.Jerome’s commentary on Jeremiah. Brussels, KBR MSS 5474–77 and 9512–14.Orosius: Freculph of Lisieux. Brussels, KBR MSS 5424–25 and 9170–73.Pseudo-Ambrose (Ambrosiaster) on the Pauline Epistles. Brussels, KBR MSS 5468 and 9372.Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah. Brussels, KBR MSS 5500–03 and 9379–80Augustine, Sermons on John. Brussels, KBR MSS 5565 and 9381–82.Origen, Homilies on the Old Testament. Brussels, KBR MSS 5499 and 9136.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointExile, Schism, and the Problem of Communal ReconciliationThe years between c. 1070 and c. 1100 were unsettled ones for Benedictine abbeys in the diocese of Liège. The decade leading up to 1100 was particularly difficult for the community of Saint-Laurent. Much of the trouble stemmed from monastic-episcopal relations in an age of ecclesiastical change. Saint-Laurent, like many Benedictine communities in the region, was closely linked to the bishop of Liège, who had been instrumental to the founding of Saint-Laurent in the early eleventh century.24 With no tradition of episcopal exemption for monastic communities in Liège, and given that the bishop was also the feudal lord of the region (as the count of Huy), the bishop of Liège was the effective overseer of Saint-Laurent and other communities in the diocese. As a result, the relationship between bishop and abbot was fundamental to the community’s fortunes. For much of the eleventh century, this relationship was good. But because abbot and bishop relied upon each other’s support, problems might appear whenever either side of the equation changed. A new bishop might desire to have a close ally as abbot so as to curb monastic independence; a new abbot might resist episcopal oversight as a means of establishing his own authority.Saint-Laurent’s history between 1070 and 1100 was shaped by these dynamics. The community’s third abbot, Wolbodo, was elected in 1071. But in 1075, Bishop Theodwin of Liège died and was replaced by Henry of Verdun. Two years later, Wolbodo was deposed as abbot of Saint-Laurent by Bishop Henry and went into exile.25 Later sources accuse Wolbodo of pride and profligacy, but such ex post facto accusations must be treated with caution.26 Saint-Laurent’s vacant abbacy was filled by Berengar, the prior of the abbey of Saint-Hubert in the Ardennes.27 Bishop Henry, meanwhile, continued to clean house and also expelled a certain Otbert, provost of the church of Liège, who sought refuge at the imperial court.28 In 1091, Bishop Henry died and Emperor Henry IV took steps to tie the diocese more closely to him by appointing Otbert, the previously deposed provost, as the next bishop of Liège. Otbert, following the pattern of his predecessor (although ultimately remembered less favorably for it), deposed Berengar as abbot of Saint-Laurent in 1092 and reinstated the previous abbot, Wolbodo, as well as other “pseudo-abbots” at Saint-Trond and eventually Saint-Hubert.29Berengar was sheltered by his former community at Saint-Hubert, whose abbot offered him refuge at the priory of Evergnicourt in Reims. Berengar and at least some portion of the monastic community of Saint-Laurent remained in exile there for three years, eventually joined by the deposed abbot of Saint-Hubert and a portion of that community as well.30 For the next three years, Berengar and the community of exiles worked against Bishop Otbert and Abbot Wolbodo, rallying the support of both ecclesiastical and secular leaders.31 Meanwhile, support for Wolbodo among the remaining monks of Saint-Laurent began to fade, and some, perhaps all, joined Berengar at Evergnicourt, albeit not until the spring of 1095.32 Otbert, finding himself in an increasingly tight corner and watching support for Wolbodo decline, finally relented and sent a letter to Berengar in 1095, entreating him to return.33 To the potential shock of some in his community, who considered interacting with Otbert a betrayal of their ideals, Berengar reconciled with the bishop and was reinstated as abbot, whereupon the community in exile returned to the abbey in Liège.34Conflicts between abbots and bishops, struggles between factions of a monastery, and exiles of a portion of the community were all endemic features of Benedictine monasticism between the tenth and twelfth centuries. Alison Beach has noted, for instance, that at Petershausen in 1084, more than half the community departed in advance of the arrival of a delegation of reformers from Hirsau. Similarly, there were either voluntary or forced exiles of groups of monks at Reichenau in 1006, Fulda in 1013, and Corvey in 1015, when Henry II “reformed” communities by appointing new abbots.35 The factionalization of a single community also took place in the famous abbatial schism at Cluny in 1125, in which the former abbot Pons of Melgueil sought to seize his position back from Peter the Venerable, supported by at least some of the community.36 Scholarly treatments of events like these tend to have two things in common. First, they generally use narrative sources to analyze the events. Second, they focus on the sociopolitical events that prompted the conflict, often emphasizing monastic-episcopal relations, and tend to treat the formal resolution of the conflict as the end of the dispute, with little attention to the lingering effects of such conflicts within the community itself.37 These two scholarly tendencies are not unrelated, given that monastic chroniclers were reluctant to commit the details of their intercommunal disputes to writing.38 The circumstances leading to a conflict might be textualized, but the aftermath was very rarely given the same treatment.But an aftermath there must have been. Recalling for a moment the schism at Cluny, although Pons had resigned his abbacy in 1122, he still had enough support in 1125 (after three years of absence) at Cluny to seize the position back temporarily from Peter the Venerable. At Saint-Laurent, it is likely that Wolbodo, who had the backing of the bishop and arguably the weight of tradition on his side, had some support within the community. Similarly, it is unlikely that Berengar’s formal reinstatement as abbot led to sudden consensus within the community, immediately erasing all the problems of the previous three years. Although the community was formally reconciled with the bishop and apparently able to work successfully with him in the opening decades of the twelfth century, not all the monks of the community could have been pleased with the situation, particularly the younger ones, who knew Otbert only as an invasive bishop.39 Even if all the monks did eventually join Berengar in exile—and it is far from certain that they did—some would not have arrived until 1095, spending only a few months in exile, compared to the three-year exile of the “hardline” group that followed Berengar from the start. There is also evidence that Berengar’s reconciliation with Otbert was viewed by some as a betrayal of the ideals that had led to the exile in the first place, tantamount to scandal and the cause of considerable anger.40 Such were the conditions for factionalization, not harmony and consensus. Rupert of Deutz himself wrote that peace was slow to return to the church of Liège, and he was referencing events after 1106, when the bishop of Liège was finally reconciled to the papacy, suggesting that peace must have been in short supply between 1095 and 1106.41 If the end of the exile in 1095 represented the resolution of a certain set of problems, it nonetheless created a set of messy new ones.Previous analysis of the conflict at Saint-Laurent has generally followed larger scholarly trends, focusing on its ecclesiastical and political causes and its moment of resolution, while relying on narrative sources.42 Such analyses have generally taken one of two approaches. First, they have invoked the Gregorian movement and positioned the community of Saint-Laurent as reform-minded advocates who opposed the work of an imperialist bishop.43 Second, and often in conjunction with the first point, they have pointed to the apparent adoption of Cluniac customs at Saint-Laurent in the early twelfth century, viewed as a move to reform the community in the wake of trauma and perhaps join a network of reformist communities.44 Both of these approaches have some merit but suffer from a key limitation: the evidence for them comes mostly from communities other than Saint-Laurent. The “Gregorian” framework is derived from the chief narrative source for these events, a chronicle composed by a monk of Saint-Hubert named Lambert the Younger in the opening years of the twelfth century, perhaps between 1103 and 1106.45 His narrative, which is designed to present the community and its abbots as persecuted adherents to monastic and Catholic virtue, often mobilizes the rhetoric and ideology of the Gregorian papacy by accusing Otbert of simony and invoking the pope as a figure of authority.46 Similarly, the only source that attests to the adoption of Cluniac customs at Saint-Laurent also comes from the chronicle of another community, the Gesta abbatum Trudonensium of Rudolf of Saint-Trond, probably composed around 1114–15.47 At one time, these evidentiary transfers would not have been all that problematic, as Gregorian ideology was considered to be more or less uniform and the spread of Cluniac customs was treated as a homogenizing force, so their role at one community could be used to understand their application elsewhere. More recently, scholarship has demonstrated that the ideology of church reform was characterized more by diversity than unity.48 Indeed, the evidence presented above, linking Saint-Laurent to Gembloux, suggests that this approach is too stark, given that Gembloux and its most famous scholar, Sigebert, were supporters of the emperor and critics of the papacy.49 Similarly, the spread of customs is increasingly seen as an uneven and variegated process, in which the function of customs and customaries cannot be assumed to be normative.50 In such a situation, understanding the case of Saint-Laurent calls for sources from Saint-Laurent.Difficulties arise here. Unlike most other Liégeois monasteries, there are no surviving narrative sources from early-twelfth-century Saint-Laurent. What do survive are manuscripts, an untapped source for understanding the conflict and reform of Saint-Laurent. But manuscripts do more than just provide evidence for events for which narrative sources are lacking. They also provide a different type of evidence that, in this case, reveals something of the processes by which a community dealt with the fallout of an internal conflict and attempted to restore consensus and stability. This body of evidence suggests that, however influential Gregorian ideology and Cluniac customs may have been, they were only two of a number of different discourses that emerged at Saint-Laurent. Heresy, particularly patristic-era heresy, and the history of the church schisms it provoked were among the other key discursive strands that shaped the community of Saint-Laurent in the post-exi