opinion of master Gilbert that might offend any one; [1] and
Otto s story certainly gives a very different presentment
of the facts from that which we owe to the loyal industry
of Bernard s secretary, Geoffrey of Auxerre, in after years
himself abbat of Clairvaux. Geoffrey s account is contained in a set polemic against what he considered Gilbert’s errors, and also in a letter which he addressed u more than
thirty years later to Henry,[2] cardinal bishop of Albano.
and the date of which by itself deprives it of a good deal
of its value. The writer in both documents may be said to
hold the brief for the prosecution : he does himself harm
by the heat and passion of his language ; and his candour
has been a frequent subject of controversy in modern times
as much among the allies of saint Bernard as among his
detractors. At length the publication of John of Salis
bury s narrative in his Historia Pontificalis, -the work,
be it remembered, of a man of indisputable orthodoxy,
a friend of both parties in the suit, and an eyewitness of
its final stage, -has conclusively established the general
correctness of Otto s report and goes far to justify the
criticism, made by an older scholar long before this
confirmation could be appealed to, that Geoffrey tells so
many falsehoods in so short a compass, that he must be
judged entirely undeserving of credence.
A council was summoned to examine Gilbert s heresy at Auxerre; it met at Paris in 1147. In his previous audience with the pope, the accused prelate had confidently denied the charges laid against him, and contradicted, or
- ↑ Inter caetera quae sollicitus do salute sua praevidebat, etiam hunc codicem manibus suis offerri praecepit, eumque litteratis et re- ligiosis viris tradidit, ut si quid pro sententia magistri Gileberti, ut patet in prioribus, dixisse visus esset quod quempiam posset offen- dere, ad ipsorum arbitrium corri- geretur, seque catholicae fidei assertorem iuxta sanctae Romanae imo et universalis, ecclesiae regu- lam professus est : De gest. Frid. iv. 11 p. 452. It does not how ever appear whether these correc tions were actually carried out. Can our present text be that of a modified recension ? The ut pa tet in prioribus rather implies, not.
- ↑ The cardinal s name is given in the edition as Albinus, but it is shewn in the Histoirc litteraire de la France 14. 339 n., that A is a mistake for H, and that the letter was written to Albinus s predecessor, Henry, who died in 1188.
