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 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 Salisbury'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 de salute sua praevidebat, etiam hunc codicem manibus suis offerri praecepit, eumque litteratis et religiosis viris tradidit, ut si quid pro sententia magistri Gileberti, ut patet in prioribus, dixisse visus esset quod quempiam posset offendere, ad ipsorum arbitrium corrigeretur, seque catholicae fidei assertorem iuxta sanctae Romanae imo et universalis, ecclesiae regulam professus est: De gest. Frid. iv. 11 p. 452. It does not however appear whether these corrections were actually carried out. Can our present text be that of a modified recension? The 'ut patet in prioribus' rather implies, not.
- ↑ The cardinal's name is given in the edition as Albinus, but it is shewn in the Histoire littéraire 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.
