Boniface and the Irish Heresy of Clemens

SVEN MEEDER

One of the few Irishmen active on the Continent in the eighth century of whom we havesome information was a priest (or bishop) named Clemens. Together with the GaulAldebert, this peregrinus was the subject of an extensive correspondence betweenBoniface and the pope, which eventually led to the condemnation of both men at theRoman Council of 745. The accusations brought against Clemens by Bonifacedisplay parallels with known Irish teachings and practices, as well as otherallegations leveled against individual traveling Irishmen and the Irish in general.This article closely examines the context of Boniface’s charges and introduces anadditional source to the framing of his arguments. It argues that the allegations mustbe viewed in the context of both contemporary practices and debates in Irish churchand society, and the portrayal of these Irish peculiarities in texts written in andspread throughout the mid-eighth-century Continent and Anglo-Saxon England.

ALTHOUGH literary sources paint a picture of a Continent awash withwandering Irishmen in the eighth and ninth centuries, we know littleabout individual persons and their beliefs and activities. The letters

of Boniface, however, inform us generously of a certain Clemens active onthe Continent in the middle of the eighth century. Described as an Irishman(Scottus genere), this cleric was, together with the Gaul Aldebert, the topicof synodal discussion in the early 740s. A relatively large number of letters(five in total) from the extant collection of Boniface’s correspondencescompiled by his successor Lul refer to the problems with the two heretics.1

In addition, the men are also mentioned in two council reports (alsopreserved in Lul’s collection) and one other letter surviving independently ofLul’s collection (if we accept its genuineness). There are allusions to othercorrespondences, now lost, which also appear to have addressed the issue of

I am grateful to Prof. Mayke de Jong and Dr. Rob Meens for their very helpful suggestions andadvice on earlier versions of this essay. The greater part of the research for this essay wasundertaken at Trinity College, Cambridge, and I should like to thank the Master and Fellows ofTrinity College for making my studies possible, in more ways than just financial.

Sven Meeder is Post-Doctoral Researcher of Medieval History at Utrecht University.

1Boniface’s letters are edited by Michael Tangl, ed., Die Briefen des heiligen Bonifatius undLullus (MGH Epp. sel. i, 1916). Subsequent references to the letters (hereafter ep./epp.) will beto this edition. The letters were translated by Ephraim Emerton, trans., The letters of SaintBoniface, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000). The translations in this article,however, are my own. The qualification scottus genere is found in ep. 59, 108–20, at 110 =Concilium Romanum (a. 745), MGH Conc. ii.1. 37–44, at 39.

251

Church History 80:2 (June 2011), 251–280.© American Society of Church History, 2011doi:10.1017/S0009640711000035

Clemens and/or Aldebert. This relative richness of sources constitutes valuableand unique evidence on one protagonist in the wave of Irish peregrini in theeighth century. It offers a rare glimpse of the ways in which one Irishman’sorigin informed his teachings and the reception he received from the clericalelite on the Continent.

This article examines the sources to elucidate the context of Boniface’sallegations and the role Clemens’s Irish origin played. It begins with a freshlook at the evidence from the correspondence between Boniface and thepapacy. In order to reach an accurate picture of Boniface’s objections andthe buildup of his argument, it is worthwhile to review the phrasing of theaccusations individually and in chronological order. A list of rubrics from aWürzburg manuscript is then presented as new evidence for the eventsconcerning Clemens and Aldebert. Following a note on the relationshipbetween Clemens and Aldebert, this article then proceeds with a detailedexamination of the four main themes in Boniface’s accusations leveled at theIrishman Clemens in order to decide how these are related to our knowledgeof Irish customs at the time, Continental representations of these customs, aswell as attitudes toward wandering clerics originating from Ireland. Here theinformation gleaned from the Würzburg florilegium introduces newperspectives on the evidence from the letters and council acts.

At the outset, some words of caution are in order concerning the limitationsof the extant primary sources. Every investigation into historical accounts ofheresy is fraught with difficulties, since documents relating to deviant andnonconformist beliefs more often than not follow literary rules belonging totheir genre and are riddled with well-established commonplaces and topoiabout heretics. To be effective, the accusations to some degree had to reflecteighth-century Continental (and émigré Anglo-Saxon) expectations ofheretical behavior (in the case of Clemens, possibly coupled withconceptions of particularly Irish heresies). In this context, the mention and thepersecution of alleged heretics, moreover, may have served political, social,or literary purposes that transcended the simple rooting out of everyheterodox thought. These considerations are not less relevant for our subject;the only extant sources for the life and teachings of Clemens are documentsfrom Boniface himself or his sphere of influence. There is a distinct lack oftexts from Clemens himself, resulting in an image that is one-sided at best. Inaddition, the attention devoted to the two alleged heretics seems excessive. Itis not likely that the renegade clerics, Clemens and Aldebert, were the mostpressing of Boniface’s problems in the 740s. It appears that the persecution ofClemens and Aldebert was designed, not to remove the two heretics, but toillustrate to the ecclesiastical hierarchy (in particular the pope) the persistenceof opposition to Boniface’s important work. And despite Boniface’s rhetoricof heresy, the two men appear to have been representative of the kind of

252 CHURCH HISTORY

heterodox or unorthodox preacher one would expect to find working in recentlyChristianized lands, not the leaders of a disciplined movement of hereticaldoctrine. At the same time, the accusations may be the culmination of thecompetition between three charismatic “holy men” vying for the patronage ofprinces and noblemen.2 Such potential “hidden agendas” should warn usagainst taking the accounts at face value.Yet, within the precisely framed accusations lies a kernel of truth (another

requirement of a successful allegation). Therefore, we may still attempt toidentify Irish elements in Clemens’s alleged beliefs and teachings. We should,however, remain cautious; particularly when translating the accusations intoIrish customs, we run the risk of “explaining away” any idiosyncratic,individual beliefs Clemens might have held.3 Unless other evidence emerges,the extant primary sources will never be able to provide fully reliableinformation about Clemens’s actual views and doctrines. They are, however,well-suited to shed light on Boniface’s treatment of this particular Irishman.

I. THE LETTERS OF BONIFACE

In order to learn more about the context of Boniface’s objections and how thesewere communicated over time, it is necessary to look more closely at the extantsources and the accusations leveled at Clemens. The first secure source4 for the

2See Mayke de Jong, “Bonifatius: een Angelsaksische priester-monnik en het Frankische hof,”Millennium: tijdschrift voor middeleeuwse geschiedenis 19 (2005): 5–23, esp. 18–21.

3Compare John Carey’s approach to Boniface’s descriptions of Virgilius of Salzburg’s allegedbeliefs in the existence of another world and other people below this earth, and the supposedparallels with the Irish belief in an Otherworld in John Carey, “Ireland and the antipodes: theheterodoxy of Virgil of Salzburg,” Speculum 64 (1989): 1–10, repr. in Jonathan M. Wooding,ed., The Otherworld Voyage in Early Irish Literature: An Anthology of Criticism (Dublin: FourCourts, 2000), 133–42.

4Clemens is also mentioned in a letter from Gregory III (ob. 741) to Boniface, whose genuinenessis disputed. This letter is not taken up in the collection of Bonifatian letters assembled by Lul, but inthe twelfth- or thirteenth-century life of St. Waltger. In the letter the pope enjoins Boniface to cutdown the trees worshipped by the native population and to anathematise the followers of theheretics Aldebert and Clemens: Hortatur ut arbores ab incolis veneratas succidat atqueAldeberti et Clemensis haereticorum sequaces anathematizet: Vita sancti Waltgeri, ed.Carlies Maria Raddatz, Vita sancti Waltgeri, Leben des heiligen Waltger: DieKlostergründungsgeschichte der Reichsabtei Herford, Veröffentlichungen der HistorischenKommission für Westfalen xli, Fontes Minores 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1994), 64. KlemensHonselmann accepts the letter as genuine, see Klemens Honselmann, “Der Brief Gregors III. anBonifatius über die Sachsenmission,” Historisches Jahrbuch 76 (1957): 83–106, repr. in WalterLammers, ed., Die Eingliederung der Sachsen in das Frankenreich (Darmstadt: WissenchaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1970), 307–46. Franz Flaskamp, on the other hand, considers the letter aforgery, see Franz Flaskamp, “Der Bonifatiusbrief von Herford,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 44(1962): 315–34, repr. in Lammers, Die Eingliederung, 365–88. See also Raddatz, Vita sanctiWaltgeri, 42. As the letter contains no new information about the alleged heretics, I disregard itin this article.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 253

activities of Clemens is a letter from Pope Zacharias to Boniface, probablywritten in 743.5 It first deals with the pope’s conferral of the pallium uponthe bishops Grimo of Rouen, Abel of Rheims, and Hartbert of Sens, onBoniface’s recommendation. The pope then turns to the discovery byBoniface “in the same province of the Franks” (in eadem Francorumprovintia) of two “pseudo-prophets,” whom Zacharias prefers to call“pseudo-Christians.” The letter catalogues the sins of the two men, withoutnaming them, and the description mirrors the accounts in subsequent sourcesof the abuses of Aldebert and Clemens, respectively. The first of the pseudo-Christians, described as “a new Simon,” is probably Aldebert. He allegedlyclaimed to be a priest even though he did not refrain from carnal lust, ledpeople astray, and preached foolishness. Seducing the people withfalsehoods, he drew them away from the Church of God and set themagainst Christian law. He is said to have set up crosses and oratories in thefields, deceived the people with false miracles, claimed the title “YourHoliness,” and declared to know the names of the angels, which, the popeassures the reader, are the names of demons instead.6

The description of the second man seems to fit the later reports aboutClemens:

The other man [we discovered] was so truly given over to lust, that he kept aconcubine and had two children by her. And yet he claimed the priesthoodfor himself, declaring that is was right according to the tradition of theOld Testament, and [declaring] that the surviving brother should take thewife of the deceased brother; also that when Christ came up from hell, hehad left no one there, but carried all from there.7

5The letter is dated to 743 by Paul Speck, on the basis of the dating clause which mentionsEmperor Artabasdos (and his son and co-emperor Nicephorus), whose reign came to an end inNovember 743: Data X. Kalendas Iulias, imperante domno piissimo augusto Artavasdo a Deocoronato magno imperatore anno III, post consulatum eius anno III, sed et Niciphoro magnoimperatore anno III, indictione X: ep. 57, 102–5; see Paul Speck, “Artabasdos, Bonifatius unddie drei Pallia,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 76 (1985): 179–95.

6Retulisti etiam nobis, karissimae frater, quod duos pseudoprophetas in eadem Francorumprovintia repperisses, quos non pseudoprophetas, sed magis pseudochristianos appellaredebemus. Ex quibus unum quidem et novum Simonem iuxta tenorem tuarum syllabarumrepperimus. Qui etiam sibi et sacerdotium vindicabat et a luxoria se minime continebat seducenspopulum et inania predicans non solum suam animam iuri diabolico tradens, sed et populorumcorda in interitum demergens et seducens populum per falsitates, ita ut eum ab aecclesia Deisubtraheret et a christiana lege discordaret. Et cruces statuens in campis et oratoriola illicpopulum seducebat relinquens aecclesias publicas, concurrens ad illa signa, quae ab eo falsefiebant. Et sanctitatis nomine se vocari censuit et in suo nomine aecclesias consecraretadfirmans se etiam angelorum nomina scire, quorum in tuis sillabis nobis conscripta direxisti;quae nomina nos non angelorum, sed magis demoniorum adfirmamus: ep. 57, 104–5.

7Alium vero ita luxoriae deditum, ut concubinam habere et duo ex ea filios procrearet. Et tamensacerdotium sibimet vindicabat adfirmans hoc iustum esse iuxta traditionem veteris testamenti, et

254 CHURCH HISTORY

The brevity of this account is probably due to the letter’s intended reader;because Boniface discovered the “pseudo-Christians,” the exposition is nodoubt a recapitulation of a report sent to the pope by Boniface himself. Thepope here probably summarizes the narrative for a clearly well-informedaudience, omitting certain details, subtleties, and even the names and originsof the two men concerned. Zacharias concludes his letter by condemning theabuses of the two men and supporting Boniface’s conviction of them and thefact that he put them in custody (in custodiam), agreeing that they can becalled servants and forerunners of the Antichrist.8 The pope enjoins Bonifaceto carry on his good work in order to increase the flock of Christ.The next extant primary source relating to either of the two priests dates from

the following year. The Neustrian Council of Soissons in 744, the third synodunder Boniface’s direction, discussed the heresy of Aldebert. The assembledbishops, priests, nobility, and populace unanimously condemned the heretic,lest “heresy rises any greater in the people” and “more people be destroyed,deceived by false priests.”9 The acts of the council do not disclose concreteinformation about the teachings or beliefs of Aldebert, and Clemens is notmentioned at all.Not much later, Boniface appears to have written to the pontiff again,

detailing the acts and errors of both Aldebert and Clemens.10 His letter,which has not survived independently, was brought before the RomanCouncil of 745 by the priest Denehard and is included in the council acts. Itis the only piece of evidence on Clemens that is from the hand of Bonifacehimself, and the only one in which he is explicitly labeled an Irishman. Infront of the assembled clergy, Denehard related how a synod held in theprovince of the Franks (of which we have no evidence otherwise) haddecided to strip two heretical and schismatic priests named Aldebert andClemens of their dignity and take them into custody. However, because themen were not doing penance according to their sentence and continued tolead people astray, Boniface turned to the Holy See. Boniface writes thatsince he had presided over a conference of priests and a synod in theprovince of the Franks, he had suffered many insults and persecutions from

defuncti fratris superstes frater ducat uxorem; et quia Christus resurgens ab inferis nullum ibireliquisset, sed omnes inde abstraxisset: ep. 57, 105.

8Bene enim tua sancta fraternitas iuxta aecclesiasticam regulam eos dampnavit et in custodiammisit et optime vocavit antichristi ministros et precursores: ep. 57, 105.

9et ut heresis amplius in populo non resurgat, sicut invenimus in Adlaberto heresim, quempubliciter una voce condempnaverunt XXIII episcopi et alii multi sacerdotes cum consensuprincipis et populi; ita condempnaverunt ipsum Adlabertum, ut amplius populus per falsossacerdotes deceptus no pereat: Concilium Suessionense (a. 744) c. 2, MGH Conc. ii.1. 33–36, at 34.

10Zacharias seems to refer to this letter in his communication of October 31, 745 (ep. 60, 123–24).

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 255

false priests, adulterous presbyters or deacons, and lustful clerics. His chieftrouble was the two well-known heretics Aldebert, a Gaul, and Clemens, anIrishman, whose errors were different, though of equal sinfulness (specieerroris diversi, sed pondere peccatorum conpares).11 Boniface requests helpfrom the pope to lead the Franks and the Gauls back toward the right path sothat they may no longer follow the fables and false miracles and propheciesof the precursor of the Antichrist. He encourages the pope to consign thetwo heretics to prison (in carcerem). It seems that, despite the decision of theFrankish synod to take them into custody, the two men were still roamingfree. This may be the result of some degree of support for the two men, theexistence of which Boniface acknowledges by stating that he is sufferingpersecution, enmity, and cursing from many people because of them.Aldebert, in particular, is said to be regarded by the people as a most holyapostle, a patron, an intercessor, a doer of righteousness, and a miracleworker.12

Boniface goes on to describe in detail the respective heretical beliefs andabuses of the two clerics, which indeed differ greatly. Aldebert is describedas a swindler, seducing people with false miracles. He was allegedlyordained after bribing unlearned bishops and declared himself equal to theapostles, later dedicating oratories to himself. He set up crosses and oratoriesin the fields and at springs and ordered public prayers invoking the merits ofSt. Aldebert. He, moreover, distributed his own fingernails and hair as sacredobjects and declared, when people came to him to confess, to know all theirhidden sins, maintaining that confession was not needed.13

11Notum enim sit paternitati vestrae, quia, postquam indigno mihi mandastis in provinciaFrancorum, sicut et ipsi rogaverunt, sacerdotali concilio et sinodali conventui praeesse, multasiniurias et persecutiones passus sum, maxime semper a falsis sacerdotibus, ab adulteratispresbiteris seu diaconibus et fornicariis clericis. Maximus tamen mihi labor fuit contra duoshereticos pessimos et publicos et blasphemos contra Deum et contra catholicam fidem. Unus,qui dicitur Eldebert, natione generis Gallus est, alter, qui dicitur Clemens, genere Scottus est;specie erroris diversi, sed pondere peccatorum conpares: ep. 59, 108–20, at 110 = ConciliumRomanum (a. 745), MGH Conc. ii.1. 37–44, at 39.

12Propter istos enim persecutiones et inimicitias et maledictiones multorum populorum patior etaecclesia Christi impedimentum fidei et doctrinae recte sustinet. Dicunt enim de Aldebercto, quodeis sanctissimum apostolum abstulissem, patronum et oratorem et virtutum factorem et signorumostensorem abstraxissem: ep. 59, at 111 = Concilium Romanum, at 39.

13Et tunc demum per illam simulationem, sicut apostolus Paulus praedixit, penetravit multorumdomos et captivas duxit post se mulierculas oneratas peccatis, quae ducebantur variis desideriis, etmultitudinem rusticorum dicentium, quod ipse esset vir apostolicae sanctitatis et signa et prodigiamulta fecisset. Deinde conduxit episcopos indoctos, qui se contra praecepta canonum absoluteordinarunt. Tum demum in tantam superbiam elatus est, ut se aequiperaret apostolis Christi. Etdedignabatur in alicuius honore apostolorum vel martyrum aecclesiam consecrare. Etinterrogavit, quid voluissent homines visitando limina sanctorum apostolorum. Postea inproprio honore suo dedicavit oratoria vel, ut verius dicam, sordidavit. Fecit cruciculas etoratoriola in campis et ad fontes vel ubicumque sibi visum fuit et iussit ibi publicas orationescelebrare, donec multitudines populorum, spretis ceteris episcopis et dimissis antiquis aecclesiis,

256 CHURCH HISTORY

Clemens, like Aldebert, is here labeled not a priest but a bishop:

The other heretic, who is called Clemens, argues against the CatholicChurch, denies and contradicts the canons of the churches of Christ, andrejects the writings and teachings of the holy Fathers Jerome, Augustine,and Gregory. Spurning synodal law, he declares that, according to his owninterpretation, he can be bishop under Christian law even though he hastwo children born in adultery while [he was] under the name of bishop.Introducing Judaism, he declares that it is right for a Christian, if he sopleases, to accept the widow of his dead brother as wife. He contendscontrary to the belief of the holy Fathers, saying that Christ Son of God,descending to the lower world, set free all whom the prison of hell held,believers and unbelievers, those who praised God as well as theworshippers of idols. And he declares many other horrible thingsconcerning God’s predestination contrary to the Catholic faith.14

Boniface asked the pope to order (mandare) dux Carloman to take the hereticClemens into custody lest he spread the seed of Satan and contaminate thewhole flock.15 The assembled clerics at the council declared themselves tobe convinced that these men were servants of Satan and forerunners of theAntichrist, mentioning especially the distribution of Aldebert’s hair andfingernails as relics, and Clemens’s rejection of the sacred canons and theteachings of the Church Fathers (here, “Ambrose, Augustine, and others”),after which the council was adjourned.16

in talibus locis conventus celebrabant dicentes: “Merita sancti Aldeberti adiuvabunt nos.”Ungulas suas et capillos dedit ad honorificandum et portandum cum reliquiis sancti Petriprincipis apostolorum. Tum demum, quod maximum scelus et blasphemia contra Deum essevidebatur, fecit: venienti enim populo et prostrato ante pedes eius et cupienti confiteri peccatasua dixit: “Scio omnia peccata vestra, quia mihi cognita sunt occulta vestra. Non est opusconfiteri; sed dimissa sunt vobis peccata vestra praeterita. Securi et absoluti revertimini addomos vestras cum pace”: ep. 59, at 111–12 = Concilium Romanum, at 39–40.

14Alter autem hereticus, qui dicitur Clemens, contra catholicam contendit aecclesiam, canonesecclesiarum Christi abnegat et refutat, tractatus et intellectus sanctorum patrum Hieronimi,Augustini, Gregorii recussat. Synodalia iura spernens proprio sensu adfirmat se post duos filiossibi in adulterio natos sub nomine episcopi esse posse legis christianae episcopum. Iudaismuminducens iustum esse iudicat christiano, ut, si voluerit, viduam fratris defuncti accipiat uxorem.Qui contra fidem sanctorum patrum contendit dicens, quod Christus filius Dei descendens adinferos omnes, quos inferni carcer etinuit, inde liberasset, credulos et incredulos, laudatores Deisimul et cultores idulorum. Et multa alia horribilia de predistinatione Dei contraria fideicatholicae adfirmat: ep. 59, at 112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.

15Quapropter de hoc quoque heretico precor, ut per litteras vestras mandare curetis duciCarlomanno, ut mittatur in custodiam, ut semina satanae latius non seminet, ne forsitan unaovis morbida totum gregem polluat: ep. 59, at 112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.

16Sanctissimi episcopi et venerabiles presbiteri responderunt: “Audivimus certe per omnia nonapostolos, sed ministros satanae et precursores antikristi. Quis enim aliquando apostolorum autquilibet sanctorum ex capillis suis aut ungulis pro sanctualia populis tribuerunt, ut istesacrilegus et perniciosus agere conatus est Aldebertus? Sed hoc scelus a vestro sancto

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 257

During the second session, the council concerned itself with the supposedautobiography of Aldebert, also supplied by Denehard, in which heportrayed himself in true messianic style. A letter from heaven allegedlyused by Aldebert was also read aloud, and the third session discussed aprayer put together by Aldebert, which included the purported names of theangels. There was no more discussion of the case of Clemens in thesesessions before the sentencing, and there is no account of a similarautobiographical document from the Irishman or even an attempt to defendhimself. At the end of the third session, the assembly condemned bothAldebert and Clemens. The first was to be deprived of all priestly functionsand required to do penance for his sins lest he be anathematised, butClemens was stripped of his priestly functions and punished by anathemaimmediately, without recourse to penance. He, the final paragraph states,

in his stupidity rejects the statutes of the holy Fathers and all synodal acts,imposing Judaism upon Christians, while preaching to take the wife of adead brother, and also proclaiming that the Lord Jesus Christ, after he haddescended into the lower world, brought everyone thence, righteous andunrighteous.17

Those who had assented to his sacrilegious teachings were to undergo the samepunishment.18

The acts of the Roman Council were sent to Boniface by the RomanCardinal-Deacon Gemmulus, who in an accompanying letter describes thesentencing of the heretics, or the convocation of the Roman Council—thetext is inconclusive—as something Boniface “had not dared to hope for.”19

Such a description suggests that Boniface’s letter may not have beenspecifically written as a document to be read before the assembly, butrather as a general communication to the pope. Gemmulus succinctlysummarizes the Irishman’s abuses as the “insanity of Clemens” (Clementisdementia).20 A letter from the pope also accompanied the account of the

apostolatu est resecandum, tam de illo quamque etiam de transgressore Clemente, qui sacroscanones spernit atque expositionem sanctorum patrum Ambrosii, Augustini et ceterorum respuitdicta sanctorum”: ep. 59, 113 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.

17per suam stultitiam sanctorum patrum statuta respuit vel omnia sinodalia acta, inferens etiamchristianis iudaismum, dum praedicet fratris defuncti accipere uxorem, insuper et dominum IesumChristum descendentem ad inferos omnes pios et inpios exinde praedicat abstraxisse: ep. 59, 118.

18[Clemens] . . . ab omni sit sacerdotali officio nudatus et anathematis vinculo obligatuspariterque Dei iudicio condempnatus vel omnis, qui eius sacrilegis consenserit predicationibus:ep. 59, 118.

19Sed et, quod vos non sperabatis, fieri suggessimus: ep. 62, 127–28, at 127.20epistola sanctissimae paternitatis vestrae, ubi de illo et de Clementis dementia suggessistis: ep.

62, 127.

258 CHURCH HISTORY

council. In that letter, he stated that the judgment should be read aloud in thewhole “provincia Francorum” so that every schismatic who heard thejudgment of the council might be converted from his evil ways. Bonifacewas enjoined to hold a council in the province of the Franks to spread theunity of the Church of God and ensure that the people were no longerinvolved in the errors of false priests.21

The matter of Aldebert and Clemens recurs one final time in thecorrespondence between the pope and Boniface. In 747 Zacharias followedup on the earlier sentence and asked for a future synod to read the works ofcanon law sent by the pope to Pippin and also to sift out the cases of the“blasphemous and obstinate ex-bishops Aldebert, Godalsacius, andClemens” in a final careful investigation.22 If they were inclined to turn backtoward the path of rectitude, Boniface, in conjunction with the prince of thatprovince, was to dispose of the case according to his will. Otherwise, theywere to be sent to the Apostolic See to receive their final sentence.23 It isunclear if a subsequent synod discussed the matter of the three ex-bishopsand what the outcome of the final careful investigation of their casesrevealed. There is no further mention of Clemens in other narrative sources,and it is unknown what became of the Irishman.

II. THE WURZBURG FLORILEGIUM

In addition to the correspondence of Boniface with the pope and the acts of therespective councils, there is another peculiar source for this episode: a list ofrubrics in a late eighth- or early ninth-century manuscript at Würzburg’sUniversity Library.24 This codex is a composite manuscript of threecontemporary elements. The first element (fos. 1–41) contains an importantflorilegium of patristic excerpts from the great Irish canon law collectionknown as the Collectio canonum Hibernensis.25 A contemporary element

21Ep. 60, 120–25, at 124.22Et dum pro hac re fuerit aggregatum concilium, ad medium deducantur sacrilegi illi et

contumaces Aldebertus et Godalsacius et Clemens exepiscopi, ut eorum denuo subtiliindagatione cribretur causa: ep. 77, 159–61, at 160.

23Quos si deviantes a rectitudinis tramite usquequaque reppereritis et convicti fuerint inclinati,ad viam converti rectitudinis, ut bonum atque placitum in oculis vestris paruerit, cum principeprovinciae disponite secundum sacrorum canonum sancita. Sin autem in superbia perstiterintcontumaciter proclamantes reos se non esse, tunc cum probatissimis atque prudentissimissacerdotibus duobus vel tribus predictos ad nos dirigitis viros, ut profunda inquisitione coramsede apostolica eorum inquiratur causa et iuxta quod meruerint finem suscipiant: ep. 77, 160–61.

24Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, MS Mp.th.q. 31.25The Collectio canonum Hibernensis is edited by Hermann Wasserschleben, ed., Die irische

Kanonensammlung (Giessen, 1874; 2nd rev. ed. Leipzig 1885; repr. Aalen: Scientia, 1966). Thisoutdated edition does not include evidence from the passages in the Würzburg manuscript. Forthe importance of this manuscript for the history of the Hibernensis, see Roy Flechner, “A Study

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 259

(fos. 42–51), which may only have been bound with the other elementssometime after the eleventh century, contains a fragment of another canonlaw collection, the Collectio Vetus Gallica.26 The third element (fos. 52–59)is a compendium of sententiae of various patristic authors, papal decretals,and some excerpts which also appear to draw from the Hibernensis. Judgingfrom the similar size and quality of the parchment and the correspondence ofthe handwriting, the first and the third elements must have belongedtogether. Together they comprise 49 folios, the greater part of which iswritten in a beautiful pointed Anglo-Saxon minuscule, but parts of folio 17rand 17v are written in a more cursive grade of Anglo-Saxon minuscule, andcertain short passages are written in handwriting described by E. A. Lowe ascrude Continental minuscule influenced by insular script or insularminuscule showing Continental influence (see fig. 1).27 The manuscript isthought to originate from an Anglo-Saxon centre on the continent, probablyWürzburg or the surrounding area.28 The script can be dated to the lateeighth or early ninth century.29

August Nürnberger studied the manuscript in detail and counted fifty-fourcapitula and chapter headings in the third element of the manuscript. Heidentified clear indications of influence from the circle of Boniface in thisseemingly haphazard collection of synodal decrees, papal texts and patristicexcerpts.30 More recently, Michael Glatthaar further substantiated theconnection with Boniface and proposed the title Sententiae Bonifatianae

and Edition of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,” (D.Phil. diss., University of Oxford, 2006),esp. 120–27.

26On the date of the combination of the first and third elements with the second, see Nürnberger,“Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 24; and Josef Hofmann in Bernhard Bischoff and JosefHofmann, Libri Sancti Kyliani: Die Würzburger Schreibschule und die Dombibliothek im VIII.und IX. Jahrhundert, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Bistums und HochstiftsWürzburg 6 (Würzburg: F. Schöningh, 1952), 108n178.

27Lowe remarked that the irregularity of the handwriting may have been the result of attempts toimitate the exemplar, see CLA IX.1439; see also August J. Nürnberger, “Über die WürzburgerHandschrift der irischen Canonensammlung,” Archiv für Katholisches Kirchenrecht 60 (1888):1–84, at 3.

28See Bischoff in Bischoff and Hofmann, Libri Sancti Kyliani, 9.29Nürnberger, “Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 3; CLA IX.1439; see also Hubert Mordek,

Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die älteste systematischeKanonessammlung des Fränkischen Gallien, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde desMittelalters 1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975), 258; and Roger E. Reynolds, “Unity and Diversity inCarolingian Canon Law Collections: The Case of the Collectio Hibernensis and ItsDerivatives,” in Carolingian Essays: Andrew W. Mellon Lectures in Early Christian Studies,ed. U.-R. Blumenthal (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1983), 99–135, at 105.

30See the table in Nürnberger, “Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 78–84.

260 CHURCH HISTORY

Wirceburgenses for the text.31 Most importantly, the first capitulum (repeatedas capitulum 46), concerning seven rules on laity or adulterous clergypresiding over a church, is also present in a manuscript at the Vatican underthe heading “ex dictis s. Bonifacii.”32 A passage at the end of this chapter,

Fig. 1. Würzburg Universitätsbibliothek, MS Mp. th. q. 31, fo. 54v. For transcription, seeappendix.

31Michael Glatthaar, Bonifatius und das Sakrileg: Zur politischen Dimension einesRechtsbegriffs, Freiburger Beiträge zur Mittelalterlichen Geschichte 17 (Frankfurt am Main: P.Lang, 2004), 84–85.

32Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Vat. lat. 4160, fos. 55r–56r; see Hubert Mordek,Bibliotheca capitularium regum Francorum manuscripta: Überlieferung undTraditionszusammenhang der fränkischen Herrschererlasse, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,Hilfsmittel 15 (München: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 1995), 775. The text (Capitula deinvasioribus ecclesiae) is edited by Glatthaar, Bonifatius, 105–10.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 261

moreover, occurs almost verbatim in Boniface’s letter to King Æthelbald ofMercia.33 Furthermore, Nürnberger and Glatthaar found that many of thepassages in this collection reflect the concerns and writings of Boniface andthat excerpts from the Sententiae echo phrases in Boniface’s letters, whilecertain themes under discussion were topics of particular interest toBoniface, such as (doubts about) correct baptism, exorcism, and insufflatio.34

In addition, Nürnberger identified a citation of Iulianus Pomerus’s De VitaContemplativa, a text known to be used by Boniface.35

Most crucial for our purpose, however, is the reference to Aldebert andClemens in a short list of headings within the Sententiae that lack therelevant text. This set of capitula are numbered 16 to 27 in Nürnberger’s list:

16. On different times of Easter and arguments against17. On confused doctrine and on the similar interpretation of the bishop

[and] priest18. On the dissolved axunge of pigs19. Concerning that they think/he thinks to be able to understand sacred

scripture without teachers [and] without tracts20. Concerning that the holy authors Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory are

called by allegory21. On the heretics Clemens or Aldebert, on schismatics, and on the unity

of the Church22. On the simoniac heresy which they perform through ordinations23. Concerning that they say that the whole written work must be

understood historically24. Concerning that they say that adulterous bishops or priests are

restored to their grades25. Concerning that bishops ordain an adulterous priest26. On a pagan rite of peasants which they perform next to graves or at

churches27. Concerning that no laity preaches36

Item 21 can hardly refer to any other heretics than the Clemens and Aldebertof whom Boniface speaks in his letters to the pope. The topics of the capitulasurrounding heading 21 (that is, nos. 16–20 and 22–27) suggest that they

33Ep. 73; see Nürnberger, “Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 29–30; Glatthaar, Bonifatius,113–17.

34Cf. ep. 26, 28, 45; see Nürnberger, “Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 25; and, even moreexhaustive, Glatthaar, Bonifatius, 97–113.

35Nürnberger subscribes to the then current thought that the author of this text was Prosperhimself: Nürnberger, “Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 27; almost all observations wererepeated by Hermann Schüling, “Die Handbibliothek des Bonifatius,” Archiv für Geschichte desBuchwesens 4 (1963): 285–348, at 325–27

36Würzburg Mp.th.q.31, fo. 54v (see fig. 1); see Nürnberger, “Über die WürzburgerHandschrift,” 80. Nürnberger’s transcriptions are often inaccurate. My transcription is includedin the appendix. There is another block of rubrics without relevant text (cap. 48–54) on fo. 59r.

262 CHURCH HISTORY

should also be read in the context of Boniface’s problems with troublesomeclergy: the capitula deal with abuses most likely to be perpetrated byunqualified clerics and false priests. It commences with an old-time favorite,namely the incorrect reckoning of the Easter date (no. 16), which may be a(belated) allusion to the controversy within the seventh-century Irish Church.Other items concern confused doctrine in priests and bishops (no. 17),reading the Bible without the aid of theological authorities (no. 19), incorrectreading or understanding (?) of patristic writings (no. 20), and interpretingwritten work only historically (no. 23). Other capitula cover matters such assimony (no. 22), adulterous priests and bishops (nos. 24–25), pagan rites(no. 26), and laymen preaching (no. 27). The remark about axunge (animalfat or grease, no. 18) is somewhat puzzling, but it is possible that it shouldbe read in a medical or ritual context.In fact, in addition to heading 21, a large number of these capitula can be

directly associated with the abuses that Aldebert and Clemens were accusedof in Boniface’s letters.37 Heading 22, alluding to an ordained simoniacheretic, reflects both the description of Aldebert as a “new Simon”38 and hisalleged bribing of uneducated bishops to ordain him.39 The reference to“pagan rites” of simple folk (rusticorum) performed at graves and churches(no. 26) may be linked with the setting up of crosses and oratories byAldebert,40 as well as his preaching to a multitude of rustici.41 Furthermore,the reference to “confused doctrine” of bishops and priests in capitulum 17reflects Boniface’s reference to the two men’s “doctrine” in the letter readaloud before the Roman Council.42 The headings concerned withadulterating bishops and priests (nos. 24–25) reflect on Clemens, who wasaccused of having two children out of adultery.43 Of particular interest isalso heading 19: De eo quod sine magistris sine tractatu sanctam scripturamintellegere se posse putare, “Concerning that they think/he thinks to be ableto understand sacred Scripture without teachers [and] without tracts.” The

37See also Nürnberger, “Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 25–26; and, with respect toClemens, Glatthaar, Bonifatius, 149–50.

38Ep. 57, 104.39Deinde conduxit episcopos indoctos, qui se contra precepta canonum absolute ordinarunt: Ep.

59, 111 = Concilium Romanum, at 39.40Ep. 57, 104; and Ep. 59, 111 = Concilium Romanum, at 39.41et multitudinem rusticorum dicentium, quod ipse esset vir apostolicae sanctitatis et signa et

prodigia multa fecisset: Ep. 59, 111 = Concilium Romanum, at 39.42Contra istos obsecro apostolicam auctoritatem vestram, quod meam mediocritatem defendere

et adiuvare et per scripta vestra populum Francorum et Gallorum corrigere studeatis, uthereticorum fabulas et vana prodigia et signa precursoris antikristi non sectantur, sed adcanonica iura et ad viam verae doctrinae convertantur et ut per verbum vestrum isti hereticiduo mittantur in carcerem, si vobis iustum esse videatur, cum vitam et doctrinam illorum vobisintimavero: Ep. 59, 110 = Concilium Romanum, at 39.

43Ep. 59, 112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 263

grammar of this rubric (and other rubrics in this list, that is, nos. 22–24 and 26)is significant; rather than describing a general abuse, it accuses people in thethird person plural (in this particular case maybe even a person in thirdperson singular) of these offenses. The grammar suggests that the author hadparticular persons in mind, and since there is no other possible referents inthe vicinity, it appears that these men were Aldebert and Clemens.Capitulum 19, in fact, accurately describes one of the principal accusationsleveled at Clemens: arguing against the Catholic Church (contra catholicamcontendit aecclesiam) and explaining Christian law according to his owninterpretation (proprio sensu).44 The latter phrase, from the Roman Council,is paralleled by the clause simili (that is, confusa) sensu in heading 17 in theSententiae Bonifatianae.

The text of heading 20 is also striking: De eo quod sanctos tractatoresHieronimum, Augustinum, Gregorium parabula nominam [nominari?],“Concerning that the holy authors Jerome, Augustine, and Gregorius arenamed by allegory.” In this somewhat unclear sentence, the three ChurchFathers appear in exactly the same combination and order as in Boniface’sallegation against Clemens, who is said to refute the texts and wisdom of theFathers: tractatus et intellectus sanctorum patrum Hieronimi, Augustini,Gregorii recussat.45 The incorrect summary of this list by the clergyattending the Roman Council (patrum Ambrosii, Augustini et ceterorum)46

demonstrates that the combination and sequence of Holy Fathers used byBoniface were not standard. They are, in fact, not found in any othercontemporary text in this format. Although the exact meaning of the headingis not entirely clear, the use of the word parabula suggests that the purportintended in this remark is the loose interpretation of the Fathers’ writings,where more strict adherence is prescribed. This, again, closely parallels theallegation at the Roman Council.

The extensive familiarity with Boniface’s writings displayed by the text, aswell as the fact that the manuscript witness survives in Würzburg, suggests verystrongly that the collection of folios 52–59 originated from the Boniface’s circleand were copied somewhere around the area of Boniface’s influence nearMainz, Würzburg, or Fulda. It appears to depend (to a large extent) on acollection composed in Boniface’s lifetime, possibly written by Bonifacehimself.47 The collection in the Würzburg manuscript should probably beregarded in the light of Boniface’s proactive manner of gathering

44Ep. 59, at 112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.45Ep. 59, at 112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.46Ep. 59, at 113 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.47Cf. Nürnberger, “Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 33; Schüling, “Die Handbibliothek des

Bonifatius,” 325–27; see Roy Flechner, “A Study and Edition,” 160*–61*.

264 CHURCH HISTORY

information about issues and problems vexing him. The letters in Lul’scollection show the Anglo-Saxon requesting very specific texts fromcorrespondents, including books from the Lateran archives through Cardinal-Deacon Gemmulus,48 the Libellus responsionum from Archbishop Nothelmof Canterbury (for sentences on marriage),49 and works of Bede from AbbotHuetbert of Wearmouth and Archbishop Egbert of York.50 The Sententiaemay represent a selection of authoritative passages relevant to Boniface’sactivities on the Continent, constituting a manual to facilitate his work.Capitula 16–27 (and similarly 48–54), lacking accompanying canons, appearto have served another purpose. As proposed by Schüling and Glatthaar, theheadings seem to represent the outline or sketch of lost or extant letters,51 or(Boniface’s contributions to) the agenda of a synod or council.52 Bonifaceused elements from nearly all of headings 16–27 (with the exception of nos.16, 18, and 27) in his writings on the matter of Clemens and Aldebert. Thisblock of text therefore seems to constitute preparatory notes for his pieces onthe two men. It constitutes a valuable addition to our information ofBoniface’s case against Clemens, and, considering the difference in contextand intended audience, it offers new perspective on the allegations.

III. CLEMENS’S INDEPENDENCE FROM ALDEBERT

The primary sources compel us, firstly, to re-evaluate the relationship betweenClemens and Aldebert. Clemens is often associated with Aldebert, suggestingthat both were adherents to a similar heretical belief, perpetrators of the sameabuses, or possibly working together.53 The sources, however, offer evidencethat the two clerics have nothing more in common than being accused by thesame man, and having their cases discussed at the same time. At the Councilof Soissons in 744—the first instance in which either of the men ismentioned by name—only Aldebert is discussed. In Boniface’s letter readaloud to the Roman Council of 745 (the first time the two accused are

48Epp. 54 and 62.49Ep. 33.50Epp. 76 and 91; see also Boniface’s requests sent to Bishop Pechthelm of Whithorn (ep. 32),

and his former pupil Duddus (ep. 34). On the giving of books in Boniface’s letters, see John-HenryClay, “Gift-Giving and Books in the Letters of St. Boniface and Lul,” Journal of Medieval History35 (2009), 313–25.

51Schüling, “Die Handbibliothek des Bonifatius,” 325–26.52Glatthaar proposes the Council of Estinnes (743): Glatthaar, Bonifatius, 117–63, esp. 134–63.53An example of this association is the shared entry in the Lexikon des Mittelalters, E. Pasztor,

“Clemens und Adalbertus (Aldebertus),” in Lexikon des Mittelalters (Munich: DeutscherTaschenbuch, 1983), 2:2149–50; see also James F. Kenney, The Sources for the Early History ofIreland: Ecclesiastical. An Introduction and Guide (New York: Columbia University Press,1929; 2nd ed. by Ludwig Bieler, Dublin: Four Courts, 1966), 522 (no. 328).

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 265

named together), the Anglo-Saxon admits that their respective errors aredifferent, though similar in sinful weight (specie erroris diversi, sed ponderepeccatorum conpares).54 To be sure, the detailed description of therespective heretical beliefs and abuses of the two clerics demonstrates theirsignificant differences. There is, therefore, nothing in the evidence to suggestthat Clemens and Aldebert were cooperating, or even that they shared thesame doctrines. In fact, we have no reason to believe that they were in eachother’s vicinity or that the two knew each other. Aldebert is condemned as aheretic for the first time at a Neustrian council, where there is no mention ofClemens. At the Roman Council, Boniface asks the pope to order duxCarloman, who governed Austrasia, to take the heretic Clemens intocustody.55 This suggests that Aldebert was active in Neustria, whereasClemens was located somewhere in Austrasia. When Pope Zacharias in his743 letter refers to the two pseudo-prophets in eadem Francorum provintia,he therefore appears to use the word provintia for the whole of the Frankishrealm, and not to distinguish between Neustria and Austrasia. The word“eadem” here refers to the previous topic in the letter, the confirmation ofthe pallium upon the bishop of Rouen (which, according to the divisionof the Frankish kingdom of 742, lay in Carloman’s territory), and those ofRheims and Sens (Pippin’s).56

Clemens’s independence from Aldebert, and vice versa, is also evident in thecompletely different characters of the two men. The latter is described as amessianic holy man who deems himself chosen and semi-sacred, whereasClemens is the propagator of strange, erratic teachings who refuses to yieldto ecclesiastical authority. The difference between the two is reflected in thedissimilar approach of the ecclesiastical authorities to Clemens and Aldebertrespectively, resulting in two different sentences. The harsh penalty of

54Ep. 59, 110 = Concilium Romanum, 39.55Quapropter de hoc quoque heretico precor, ut per litteras vestras mandare curetis duci

Carlomanno, ut mittatur in custodiam, ut semina satanae latius non seminet, ne forsitan unaovis morbida totum gregem polluat: ep. 59, 112 = Concilium Romanum, 40. For the division ofthe Frankish realms between Karloman and Pippin, which does not completely correspond withAustrasia and Neustria, see Heinz Joachim Schüssler, “Die fränkische Reichsteilung von Vieux-Poitiers (742) und die Reform der Kirche in den Teilreichen Karlmanns und Pippins. Zu denGrenzen der Wirksamkeit des Bonifatius,” Francia 13 (1985): 47–112.

56Ep. 37, 104; see also Zacharias’s letter of 745 (ep. 60), in which the term provincia Francorumoccurs in the context of a synod held with the cooperation of both Pippin and Carloman (De synodoautem congregato apud Francorum provinciam mediantibus Pippino et Carlomanno); seeSchüssler, “Die fränkische Reichsteilung,” 109–10; compare Nicole Zeddies, “Bonifatius undzwei nützliche Rebellen: die Häretiker Aldebert und Clemens,” in Ordnung und Aufruhr imMittelalter: Historische und juristische Studien zur Rebellion, Ius Commune, Sonderhefte lxx,ed. Marie Theres Fögen (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1995), 217–63, at 234, who placesboth heretics in Neustria, apparently on the basis of the phrase in eadem Francorum provintia.

266 CHURCH HISTORY

anathema without the possibility of penance for Clemens may be due to the factthat Clemens’s followers were made up almost exclusively of clerics, and ofalmost no lay people.57 This may be significant, for it suggests that Clemenswas not simply a charismatic vagrant preacher who deceived ignorant peopleinto believing his heretical message (a description that seems to fit Aldebertmuch better), but rather that his appeal lay in a considered interpretation ofecclesiastical law, dogma, and authority.Although Clemens and Aldebert seem to have been separated

geographically, with different beliefs and activities, it is significant that inthe documents they are almost always discussed conjointly. The combinedaccounts of the two men, covering a variety of respective abuses, give theimpression that one of the aims was to present an all-inclusive narrative ofthe heretical opposition encountered by Boniface. The two men play theroles of the most important possible forms false priests might take, namelythe messianic swindler, and the obstinate priest fiddling with dogma. Assuch, Clemens and Aldebert were “useful heretics,” incarnations of theabuses which Boniface, according to his accounts, was fighting in theFrankish lands. That both heretics were the most troublesome men known toBoniface is not very likely. It seems more probable that they were substitutesfor clerics within Boniface’s province whom he was unable to touch.58 Thisis interesting because it indicates that Clemens was not patronized bynobility or local rulers who were powerful enough to protect him fromBoniface’s accusations (although it should be noted that Boniface’s attemptsto have the two men captured appear to have failed repeatedly).In her excellent article on Boniface and the two heretics, Nicole Zeddies

demonstrates how the accusations follow certain topoi about heresy and,especially, the signs of the antichrist. In Clemens’s case the signs include hisalleged lustfulness, as indicated by his concubine and two children, and hisstultitia, which, as the personification of “false views,” was a sign of theantichrist.59 Moreover, the dealing with heretics at synods and councils wasdistinctly modeled on the late antique councils, and helped to secureZacharias’s attention on the western part of the former Roman Empire, andFrancia in particular.60 It appears that Clemens and Aldebert were alsoemployed as representatives, providing concrete examples for Boniface’smore general critique, and it is important to keep this possible secondarymotive in mind when reading the sources.61

57See ibid., 241.58See ibid., 250–51.59Ibid., 246–51, esp. 248.60Ibid., 251–63.61Ibid., 245.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 267

IV. THE HERESY OF CLEMENS

Notwithstanding possible stereotyping (possibly even owing to this), theaccounts of Clemens reveal parallels with our knowledge of certain Irishidiosyncrasies. Interesting in this respect is the reference to the reckoning ofthe Easter date in the florilegium in the Würzburg manuscript (De diuersispasce temporibus et contrariis—no. 16). While in the end this particularoffense did not feature in the accusations leveled against Clemens (orAldebert) in the extant sources, its inclusion in the list of abuses associatedwith the two heretics suggests a connection between the allegations and thetypically Irish nonconformity regarding the date of Easter, at least in theformative stage of Boniface’s indictment. The almost contemporary writingsof Bede, expressly sought after and eventually received by Boniface,reinvigorated the interest in this particular historical peculiarity of the Irish.62

Perhaps it had been considered as an additional charge against one of thetwo men (presumably Clemens) and featured in now lost correspondence onthe subject or was rejected at a later stage. Its inclusion in this list mayconstitute a hint that Boniface’s accusations were initially designed toinclude framing Clemens as an archetypical Irishman.

The remaining objections in the extant sources can be divided into fourimportant elements of the Irishman’s alleged beliefs and behaviors, namelyClemens’s negation of the authority of councils and the Fathers, his ownmarital arrangements, his teachings regarding marrying the widow of one’sdeceased brother, and his thoughts about Christ’s actions in hell andpredestination. The remainder of this article is devoted to a detaileddiscussion of these four themes, their possible basis in Clemens’s Irishheritage, and their representation in contemporary texts and recent history.

Clemens’s alleged spurning of the ecclesiastical authorities was a graveconcern for the attendants of the Roman Council. Boniface’s letter describeshim as “arguing against the Catholic Church,” “negating and refuting theChurch’s canons,” “rejecting the tracts and wisdom of the Church Fathers,”and, in relation to his marital behavior, “spurning synodal law,” whileasserting that he “according to his own interpretation” lives in accordancewith Christian law.63 In their condemnation of the, offenses of Clemens theassembled bishops expressly repeat his faults regarding the Church’s canonsand the Fathers. Aside from Clemens’s inappropriate use of religiousauthorities in the defense of his connubial choices, the objections appear to

62For a recent article on the disproportionate interest of Bede in the Paschal controversy, seeCarolyn Hartz, “Bede and the Grammar of Time,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy15 (2007): 625–40. On the receipt of works of Bede by Boniface, see ep. 91, 206–8, at 207; andSchüling, “Die Handbibliothek des Bonifatius,” 318.

63Ep. 59, 112–13 = Concilium Romanum, at 39–40.

268 CHURCH HISTORY

reflect a dispute about authority: Clemens is portrayed as the obstinate priest“arguing” with the Church. Rather than a sinner unconsciously going againstthe Church’s canons, he is described as someone disputing them (abnegat etrefutat).64 Clemens’s alleged arrogant independent interpretation of Christianlaw is evident from the phrase proprio sensu in the acts of the RomanCouncil,65 and the clause simili (that is, confusa) sensu in heading 17 in theSententiae Bonifatianae. It is also reflected by the fault described in heading19 of the same text: thinking oneself capable of interpreting the scripturewithout teachers or authoritative tracts. These allegations in reality couldhave been based on anything from an outright dismissal by Clemens of theauthority of canon law, patristics, and conciliar decrees to a dispute aboutthe correct interpretation of the status of these texts. The latter seems to bethe case here because it is noted that the Bible is not an authority Clemens isaccused of rejecting, suggesting that this was the text which the Irishmanpreferred over the above-mentioned authorities.The accounts of Clemens’s alleged dismissal of ecclesiastical authorities

shows some resemblance to an episode in the life of his compatriotColumbanus a century and a half earlier. The latter’s trouble with the Gallicbishops initially centered on the bishops’ concern about Columbanus’sadherence to the Irish rules governing the timing of Easter. Rather than theanxiety over the correct Easter date, the bishops’ unease appears to focus onthe risk of “Judaizing.”66 Such concerns were foreign to Columbanus, whowonders what relevance this has to reality (Quid ad rem pertinet?).67 As faras he is concerned, the Passover rules were laid down in the Old Testament,which was the common property of Jews and Christians. Columbanus wasfrustrated that his opponents could not cite a single verse from scripture intheir defense. As Clare Stancliffe recently demonstrated, the ensuing debatethus quickly brought to light the protagonists’ differing views as to whereauthority lay.68 While for the bishops the legislative framework of theChurch was foremost provided by canon law constituted by the rulings ofearlier ecclesiastical synods together with papal decretals, for Columbanusthe Bible (including the Old Testament) was primary, and alongside this laythe authority of earlier, widely revered Fathers, whose works often consistedof exegetical explications of the Bible. In his letter to the synod at

64Ep. 59, at 112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.65Ep. 59, at 112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.66Columbanus, ep. 1, 3–4, ed. G. S. M. Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, Scriptores Latini

Hiberniae 2 (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1957), 1–12.67Columbanus, ep. 1, 4.68Clare Stancliffe, “Columbanus and the Gallic bishops,” in Auctoritas: Mélanges offerts au

professeur Olivier Guillot, Cultures et Civilisations Médiévales 33, ed. Giles Constable andMichel Rouche (Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2006), 205–15.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 269

Chalon-sur-Saône (603), Columbanus responded to the bishops’ accusationthat he went against canon law by pointing out that the books of the NewTestament are “our canons, the commands of the Lord and the apostles, inthese our confidence is placed.”69

The primacy of the Bible and biblical law has a strong Irish tradition. Mostlysubject to a literal and normative interpretation, the Bible was seen as a sourcefor not only theological and spiritual guidance but also practical issues of dailylife. Especially the historical ordinances of the Old Testament seemed suitable,as is evinced by the large number of Old Testament quotations in non-biblicalworks, and in such texts as the Liber ex lege Moysi.70 The early eighth-centuryCollectio canonum Hibernensis contains several hundreds of biblicalcitations.71 Book 19 of this collection concerns the hierarchical order ofcanonical authorities and is used in some derivative texts as a preface.72 Itcites Pope Innocent and states that, when in need of authoritative writings,one should look first to the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, the fourgospel books of the New Testament, and all works written by the apostlesbefore turning to other authorities.73 The citation makes it clear that only ifone cannot find the answer in scripture (si non appareat) should one consultother texts. As a last resort clerics with a pressing question could organize acongregation of the province’s seniors, effectively the provincial synodswhich the Gallic bishops regarded of prime importance.74

The tendency of Irish churchmen to revert to the authority of the Bible, ratherthan those of conciliar and synodal jurisdiction, may have colored a number of

69Hi sunt enim nostri canones, dominica et apostolica mandata, in his fides nostra est:Columbanus, ep. 2.6.

70See Liam Breatnach, Donnchadh Ó Corráin, and Aidan Breen, “The Laws of the Irish,” Peritia3 (1984): 382–438; Donnchadh Ó Corráin, “Irish Vernacular Law and the Old Testament,” in Irlandund die Christenheit / Ireland and Christendom. Bibelstudien und Mission / The Bible and theMissions, ed. Próinseas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1987), 284–307; Rob Meens, “The Uses of the Old Testament in Early Medieval Canon Law: The CollectioVetus Gallica and the Collectio Hibernensis,” in The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages,ed. Yitzhak Hen and Matthew Innes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 67–77; theLiber ex lege Moysi is edited in Sven Meeder, ed., “The Liber ex lege Moysi: Notes and Text,”Journal of Medieval Latin 19 (2009): 173–218.

71Maurice Sheehy counted about thousand citations Maurice Sheehy, “The Bible and theCollectio canonum Hibernensis,” in Irland und die Christenheit, ed. Ní Chatháin and Richter,277–83, at 281.

72This is the case in the so-called Collectio 250 Capitulorum, and the so-called “Sangermanensisabridgement” in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS lat. 12444, and possibly the exemplar of theflorilegium in Würzburg, MS Mp.th.q. 31, fos. 1–41, see Reynolds, “Unity and diversity.”

73Innocentius dicit de causis in quibus soluendi ligandique auctoritas est, XXII librorum ueteristestamenti, IIII quoque euangeliorum cum totis apostolorum scriptis, si non appareat: Collectiocanonum Hibernensis, xix, ed. Wasserschleben, Die irische Kanonensammlung, 59–60. Thesource of this canon is unknown, despite its attribution to Pope Innocent.

74Quod si his omnibus inspectis hujus questionis qualitas non lucide investigatur, senioresprovincia congrega et eos interroga: ibid.

270 CHURCH HISTORY

disputes between Irishmen and Continental clergy. It may even have becomepart of the reputation the Irish had in other parts of Europe. The letter fromArchbishop Lawrence of Canterbury (ob. 619) and his deputy bishops,Mellitus and Iustus, to the clergy of Ireland, partly cited by Bede in hiseighth-century Historia ecclesiastica, demonstrates that the Continentalexperience with Columbanus certainly reflected back on the views of theIrish in general, both in Ireland and abroad:

we have learned from bishop Dagán who came to the above-mentionedisland [Britannia] and from abbot Columbanus in Gaul, that the Irish donot differ from the Britons in their [wrong] way of life.75

Boniface himself would have been familiar with the Irish views on the authorialstatus of canonical texts from his early years in Anglo-Saxon England, and theevidence from the Würzburg manuscript suggests that he had knowledge of aversion of the Hibernensis.76 The wording of Boniface’s objections suggeststhat the conflict between Clemens and the Continental clergy may have hadits roots in a difference of opinion about when decrees and synods supersedethe authority of the Bible.That a literal observance of biblical rules, evident in a number of Hiberno-

Latin texts, played a role in the allegations against Clemens is suggested byallusions to this issue in the list of headings in the Würzburg manuscript.Capitulum 19 chides those who think they can understand the Bible withoutthe aid of teachers or theological writings. Capitulum 23 addresses the literalunderstanding of the Bible in particular: De eo quod dicunt omnem scriptumhistorialiter debere intellegi, “Concerning that they say that the wholewritten work [perhaps the Bible] must be understood historically.” We find areflection of the Irish custom of primacy of the Bible in Clemens’s supposedrejection of “the statutes of the Holy Fathers and all decrees of councils,”

75Scottos vero per Daganum episcopum in hanc, quam superius memoravimus, insulam, etColumbanum abbatem in Gallis venientem, nihil discrepare a Brittonibus in eorumconversatione didicimus: HE ii.4; on the context of this citation within the HE, see RoyFlechner, “Dagán, Columbanus, and the Gregorian Mission,” Peritia 19 (2005): 65–90, at 68–71.

76On the Hibernensis version in the Würzburg manuscript, see Flechner, “Study and Edition,”119*–27*. Interestingly, this version only includes the citations attributed to “canonical”authorities, namely Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Jerome,leaving out the more unfamiliar and obscure authorities, including texts that are not usually usedin canon law collections (such as the Bible). This demonstrates that the compiler of theWürzburg version was not a great fan of the more inclusive view of canonicity employed by theIrish Hibernensis. On Boniface’s familiarity with the Hibernensis, see also Rob Meens’s“tantalising hypothesis” that Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, MS Kgl. S. 58 8◦, containingtwo small collections of canonistical material with parallels with the Hibernensis, was copied atBoniface’s request: Rob Meens, “The Oldest Manuscript Witness of the Collectio CanonumHibernensis,” Peritia 14 (2000): 1–19, at 13–14.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 271

notwithstanding the fact that the authority of the patristics and councils werehighly regarded in Ireland, though in second place to the Bible. The contextof this allegation suggests that it arose out of an argument. Could it be thatClemens did not so much deny these authoritative texts, but that he held thatin a specific case the biblical precepts had a higher authority?

It is the literal observation of the Old Testament regulations that appears tohave formed the basis for Clemens’s abuses regarding marriage, and it may bethat the dispute about authority ultimately centered on this issue. Boniface’saccusation of Clemens’s alleged belief that the Jewish law is suitable forChristians echoes the accusation leveled at Columbanus and the Irish highregard for the Old Testament, which falls within the tradition of the pre-eminence of the Bible. Clemens’s errors concerning marriage were twofold:firstly, he had a concubine, according to Boniface, with whom he had twochildren, yet he maintained that it was still right for him to be a priest; andsecondly, he held that it was permissible to marry the widow of his deceasedbrother, again referring to the Old Testament in support for this practice. Theevidence suggests that Clemens put his thoughts on the matter into practice,his brother’s widow probably being the concubine in question, but this is notentirely clear. It is perhaps unsurprising that this element caught Boniface’sattention, who complained repeatedly about the sexual activities among theclergy and composed a new rule, which extended the forbidden degrees ofconsanguinity from four to seven, and also included in-laws and spiritual kin(godparents and godchildren).77 The issue is also referred to in the list ofheadings in the Würzburg manuscripts, where cap. 24 and 25 concernadulterous clergy, or rather adulterers permitted to be clerics: similarly,Zacharias seems to be particularly exasperated by the fact that Clemens hada concubine and still remained a priest.78

In most western European societies, a concubine was usually of a sociallyinferior status than her spouse, and their relationship was less formal than aproper marriage. Despite the writings of Augustine, Jerome, and others whocondemned the Roman institution of concubinage, the first Council ofToledo (ca. 397–400) decided that men who kept only one concubine hadthe right to receive communion. Scholars such as Caesarius of Arles andPope Leo the Great (who is cited at length in the Hibernensis) also concededthat it would be impractical to ban concubinage altogether.79 In Irish society

77See James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1987), 140–41, 150–51.

78De eo quod dicunt adulteros episcopos uel presbyteros in gradum reuersos, “Concerning thatthey say that adulterous bishops or priests are restored to their grades” (cap. 24); De eo quodadulterum presbyterum ordinant episcopi, “Concerning that bishops ordain an adulterous priest”(cap. 25): Würzburg, Mp. th. q. 31, fo. 54v.

79See Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society, 79–80, 98–103.

272 CHURCH HISTORY

it appears that in the light of property rights and inheritance the practice ofconcubinage could not easily be eliminated. Instead, formal betrothal ofconcubines was introduced, probably propagated by the Church. As the termadaltrach for concubine (“adulteress,” from Latin adultera) implies, theChurch disapproved of concubinage, but as a compromise they may havepromoted the proper betrothal of the concubine to avoid illegitimateoffspring, to favor proper marriages, and to force men to take theresponsibility for the financial burden of a (secondary) wife. Although thuslegally acceptable, the question of concubinage was the focus of discussionamong Irish lawyers, and Christian virtues rejecting concubinage werepromoted among the clergy and the poets. The Hibernensis, in fact, forbidsthe Irish to take concubines before or during marriage.80 Here Clemens’salleged marital practices appear to be close to the limits of the legallypermissible and the morally objectionable.It is unlikely that Clemens’s actions were typically Irish and wholly foreign

to the Franks or even the Frankish lower clergy, but there may have been ageneral suspicion of Irish marital customs, in particular concerningpolygamy. Famous are the eleventh-century complaints to Irish kings aboutthe loose marriage customs in Ireland from Archbishop Lanfranc ofCanterbury, as well as his successor Anselm.81 These (not whollyunjustified) objections stood in a longer tradition. Jerome also reproved Irishmarriage in his letter to Oceanus, in which he contrasts it with Christianmarriage and notes with heavy irony that one should not enter uponhonorable wedlock, but act like the Scots, the “Atacotti,” and the people ofPlato’s republic and have promiscuous wives and joint children.82 The factthat this letter is cited in eighth-century canonical texts indicates that thistopic, and this letter, was felt to be relevant in the eighth century.83

The question whether or not a man should marry his brother’s widow stemsfrom a strict reading of the Bible. Deuteronomy 25:5–10 describes the practiceof “levirate marriage,” known in Jewish law as yibbum, in which the brother ofa man who died without children had an obligation to marry the latter’s widow.

80Breatnach and others, “Laws of the Irish,” 400–405.81Lanfranc of Canterbury, Ep. 10, ed. and trans. Helen Clover and Margaret Gibson, The Letters

of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 70–73; and alsoep. 9, ibid., 66–69; see also Bart Jaski, “Marriage Laws in Ireland and on the Continent in the EarlyMiddle Ages,” in ‘The Fragility of Her Sex’?: Medieval Irishwomen in Their European Context, ed.Christine E. Meek and M. Katharine Simms (Dublin: Four Courts, 1996), 16–42.

82ne honesta iungant matrimonia, sed scottorum et aticottorum ritu ac de republica platonispromiscuas uxores, communes liberos habeant: Jerome, Epistulae, 69, ed. J. Divjak, CSEL 88(Turnhout: Brepols, 1981), 684. See also Jerome’s remarks in his letter against Jovinian, PL 23,cols. 221–352, at 308D–309A.

83See for instance the Collectio Herovalliana, of the third quarter of the eighth century, printed inPL 99, 989–1086, at 1082A.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 273

These biblical precepts would have caused some discussion within the IrishChurch as the inheritance of property and the consolidation of a family’sland (the social motive behind levirate marriage) was as important in Irishkinship as in the tribal Hebrew society. The manner of approach of Irishlawyers to Old Testament rules that were at odds with the common doctrineof Western Christianity can be gleaned from their analysis of the topic ofpolygamy. In about the eighth century, polygamy was a matter ofcontroversy in Ireland, as a well-known passage in the legal tract BrethaCrólige demonstrates:

Everyone is paid honorprice for his union according to the custom of theisland of Ireland, whether it be manifold or single. For there is a disputein Irish law as which is more proper, whether to have many sexual unionsor a single one: for the chosen [people] of God lived in plurality ofunions, so that it is not easier to condemn it than to praise it.84

In the case of polygamy, the Irish lawyers appear to prefer a compromise overone particular ruling and to acknowledge the differences in opinion.

The extant Irish canonical material, however, explicitly forbids a man tomarry his brother’s widow. A canon in the so-called “Synodus II S. Patricii,”a seventh-century Irish collection of canons on several subjects, deals withthis subject, under the heading, De thoro fratris defuncti, “On the marriagebed of a deceased brother,” in which the main sentence reads, Superstesfrater thorum defuncti fratris non ascendat, “the surviving brother shall notenter the marriage bed of the deceased brother.”85 The same canon,attributed to the Romani (that is, the party in the Irish Church advocatingmore conformity with Roman practices, in opposition to the Hibernenses), isrepeated in book 46.35 of the Hibernensis, “De fratre non ascendente torumdefuncti fratris.”86 This canon is preceded by a decree of the Synod ofArles87 and followed by canons on the prohibition of a woman to marry two

84Direnar do cach a lanamnus a bescnu inse erenn: Ciapa lin ciapa nuaite. Ar ata forcosnam lacia de as techta in nilar comperta fa huathad ar robattar tuiccsi De in nilar lanamnusa conachairissa a caithiugud oldas a molad: Bretha Crólige, par. 57, ed. D. A. Binchy, “Bretha Crólige:Sick Maintenance in Irish Law,” Ériu 12 (1934): 1–77, at 45–46; and D. A. Binchy, CorpusIuris Hibernici (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1978), 2301.35–8 (hereaftercited as CIH).

85‘Synodus II S. Patricii’, c. 25, ed. and trans. Ludwig Bieler, The Irish Penitentials (Dublin:Dublin Institute for Advances Studies, 1963), 184–97; and (based on other manuscripts) AidanBreen, “The Date, Provenance, and Authorship of the Pseudo-Patrician Canonical Materials,”Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 112:125 (1995):83–129, at 112–21.

86Collectio canonum Hibernensis, 46.35b.87Ne superstes frater torum defuncti fratris ascendat neue se quisque amise uxoris sorori audeat

sociare, quid si enim hoc fecerit, ab aeclesiastica distinctione feriantur uel excommonicetur:Collectio canonum Hibernensis, 46:35a (B-recension reading in roman).

274 CHURCH HISTORY

brothers, one from the Council of Neocaesarea and one attributed to Jerome.These synodal and patristic sources constitute exactly the authoritiesClemens is alleged to have rejected. According to Zacharias’s descriptions,Clemens used the Old Testament rulings on the marrying of a brother’swidow to defend the fact that he had a concubine and remained a priest.Although the Irish Church had already voiced its disapproval of suchcustoms, Clemens’s defense appears to follow the Irish jurists’ approach of,and dialogue with, the legal material in the Old Testament, which we havealso seen in Columbanus’s explanation of Irish Easter customs.It is important to note, though, that there is also mention of the custom of

levirate marriage in eastern Francia. The passion of the seventh-century Irishmissionary Kilian describes how the saint baptized the pagan dux Gozbert inWürzburg sometime after 686 or 687. Gozbert had married his brother’swidow, Geila, which is described as an old custom (sicut antiquitus fuitconsuetudinis). Kilian persuaded the dux to set aside his wife, only to incurthe wrath of Geila and to meet his martyrdom on her instruction.88 LikeKilian, Clemens was active in Austrasia (and possibly in the area ofWürzburg) and it is possible that his thoughts on this matter struck a cordwith the native population, who may have welcomed his defense of an oldcustom with scriptural authority.89 It is equally possible that this “ancientcustom” in his own province provided an important motive for Boniface toreport about a heretic perpetrating this specific abuse.The fourth element of the charges against Clemens concerns his supposed

teaching that when Christ re-emerged from hell he left no one there, but tookall with him.90 In later correspondence, it is emphasized that the rescuedsouls included those of believers and unbelievers, those worshipping Godand those worshipping idols (credulos et incredulos, laudatores Dei simul etcultores idulorum).91 The theological tradition, instead, states that Christreleased only the righteous men and women of Old Testament times, such asthe prophets from the Old Testament and Adam and Eve. The heterodoxbelief of the entire emptying of hell, however, was not new: Philastrius ofBrescia (ob. before 397) wrote about such heresy in his catalogue ofheresies,92 and Arnobius the Younger (fl. ca. 460) described it as his

88Passio Kiliani, c. 6–10, MGH SS rer. Merov. v: 711–28, at 724–26.89The local dimensions of Clemens’s teachings on marriage are also noted by Matthew Innes,

“‘Immune from Heresy’: Defining the Boundaries of Carolingian Christianity,” in Frankland:The Franks and the World of Early Medieval Europe, ed. D. Ganz and P. Fouracre (Manchester:Manchester University Press, 2008), 101–25, at 110.

90Ep. 57, at 105.91Ep. 59, at 112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.92Alii sunt haeretici, qui dicunt Dominum in infernum descendisse, et omnibus post mortem etiam

ibidem renuntiasse, ut confitentes ibidem salvarentur: Philastrius of Brescia, Liber de haeresibus,PL 12, cols 1111–1302A, at 1250–51.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 275

seventy-ninth heresy in his first book of the Praedestinatus.93 Augustinehimself also remarks on this heresy: alia, descendente ad inferos christo,credidisse incredulos et omnes inde existimat liberatos.94 One can imaginehow this teaching addressed a specific problem missionaries encountered intheir attempts to convert pagans: how to preserve the people’s ties with theirpagan history as soon as they are converted to the new faith? This problemcame to the fore in the well-known story of the Frisian king Radbod who, atthe baptismal font, chose to remain pagan if Christianity meant that hewould not be united with his ancestors in the afterlife.95 Like many oldcultures welcoming the new faith, the Irish made an effort to maintain theirties with the past and in particular with past (pagan) generations. We witnessthis sentiment in the Irish attempts to accord Christian law with the oldvernacular legal tradition and the notion of ancestors who were “good”before the arrival of Christianity, such as the initially pagan “chief poet ofthe island of Ireland,” Dubthach maccu Lugair, who is described as “a vesselfull of the Holy Spirit.”96 An Old Irish gloss on the vernacular law tractCáin Fuithirbe seems to refer to this particular notion, reading:

Let the judges bear in mind, since they are not pagans, that they did nottransgress as long as they were in periods of unbelief [that is, beforePatrick brought the faith] until ignorance of the baptism of salvationsdestroyed them if they deviated from the law of nature that God had giventhem.97

This complicated passage demonstrates that it was God who granted thetraditional Irish “law of nature” (recht aicnid) to Ireland’s pre-Patrician

93Septuagesimam et nonam haeresim Adecerditae tenent, dicentes: Christo descendenti adinferos omnis animarum multitudo occurrit, et credidit ei, et liberata est: Arnobius Iunior,Praedestinatus, i.79, ed. F. Gori, CCSL 25B (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 8–56, at 46.

94Augustine of Hippo, De haeresibus, c. 79, ed. R. Vander Plaetse and C. Beukers, CCSL 46(Turnhout: Brepols, 1969), 286–345, at 336.

95Vita Vulframni, x, MGH SS rer. Merov. v: 657–73, at 669; on the eighth-century Life ofWulfram of Sens, see Stéphane Lebecq, “Vulfran, Willibrord et la mission de Frise: pour unerelecture de la Vita Vulframni,” in L’évangélisation des régions entre Meuse et Moselle et lafondation de l’abbaye d’Echternach (Ve–IXe siècle), ed. Michel Polfer (Luxemburg: Linden,2000), 429–51; and Ian N. Wood, “Saint-Wandrille and Its Hagiography,” in Church andChronicle in the Middle Ages, ed. Ian N. Wood and G. A. Loud (London: Hambledon, 1991),1–14, at 3, 13–14.

96See Kim McCone, Pagan Past and Christian Present in Early Irish Literature, MaynoothMonographs 3 (Maynooth: An Sagart, 1990), 96.

97[i.] bith menma na mbretheman omad(?) atginnti nad imraomathar fot rombatar hi reibhecreitmhe condo urrort anfis bait slain ma derellsat asind recht aicnid dorat dia doibh: CáinFuithirbe, CIH 756.21–764.40, 766.36–777.5, 1553.26–1555.40, 1580.1–1581.5, at 773.5–8.Parts of the text are edited and translated by Liam Breatnach, “The ecclesiastical element inCáin Fuithirbe,” Peritia 5 (1986), 36–52, for this passage see page 52; see also McCone, PaganPast, 100; and Ó Corráin, “Irish Vernacular Law,” 291.

276 CHURCH HISTORY

inhabitants through their righteous judges.98 More importantly, for our purpose,it states that ignorance of the baptism of salvation only destroyed man if theydeviated from this pre-Patrician God-given law of nature. The pagan ancestorsof the Irish Christians who adhered to the traditional law of the judges were byinference not destroyed for their blameless ignorance. This may have been thebackground of Clemens’s purported belief that Christ set free from hell all whowere imprisoned there, believers and unbelievers, “those who praised God andthe worshippers of idols.”The error of Clemens’s teaching is put in a wider context by the added

comment in the Roman Council of 745. Here, attached to the precedingaccusation, we find the charge that Clemens holds many other “horrible”thoughts on pre-destination.99 This seems a somewhat throwaway remark,coming at the end of a list of his sins and lacking details. It should probablybe read in relation to his alleged teaching of Christ releasing all of hell’sprisoners. Could it be that the combination of predestination and saved (andrighteous) pagans is designed to allude to a specific heresy, which wasgenerally believed to be widespread in Ireland, namely Pelagianism?Pelagius was best known for his views on predestination and original sin. He

asserted that children are born innocent, without the stain of original sin; thatbaptism is consequently not necessary for salvation, but that man’s righteousacts and reason could lead him to God. This should be read as an oppositionagainst the strict predestinarian thoughts in the later works of Augustine.Pelagians wanted to preserve a place for free will in the promise of grace;man’s sinfulness was not the burden of original sin, so that Christ’s Passionand the Resurrection were not the sole means of his redemption.100 Thismeant there is the possibility of sinlessness, which is in fact ascribed toseveral Old Testament patriarchs and prophets. Following from the samethought, it is possible that even righteous pagans might be saved.101

98This is reiterated by the glossing of iar fenechus, ‘according to traditional law’, later in the textas .i. iarsin aicned dorat dia duin, “i.e., according to the (law of) nature that God had given to us”:CIH 773.21.

99Et multa alia horribilia de predistinatione Dei contraria fidei catholicae adfirmat: ep. 59, at112 = Concilium Romanum, at 40.

100On Pelagius in general, see B. R. Rees, Pelagius, a Reluctant Heretic (Woodbridge: Boydell,1988); and Rees, The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1991); on theSemi-Pelagian controversy of the centuries after his death, see Rebecca Harden Weaver, DivineGrace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy (Macon, Ga.: MercerUniversity Press, 1996).

101On good pagans, see also Thomas Charles-Edwards, “Palladius, Prosper, and Leo the Great:Mission and Primatial Authority,” in Saint Patrick, A.D. 493–1993, ed. David Dumville et al.(Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993), 1–12. On men who never sinned, see also Michael Herren andShirley Ann Brown, Christ in Celtic Christianity: Britain and Ireland from the Fifth to the TenthCentury (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2002), 94–97.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 277

Pelagius’s writings were condemned in 418, but his commentary on theletters of St. Paul was still widely read and highly regarded by Irish scholars.Pelagianism is often imagined—by medieval authors as well as modernhistorians—to have been widespread in the British Isles.102 The first mentionof the heresy in relation to the isles is the late fifth-century Life ofSt. Germanus, written by Constantius of Lyon, who writes that hisprotagonist successfully demolished the Pelagian party during his visit toBritain in 429 together with Lupus of Troyes.103 In the same year, accordingto the Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine (an admirer of Augustine), a certainPelagian named Agricola corrupted the churches of Britain by theproclamation of the Pelagian doctrine. He, however, was quickly dealt withby the deacon Palladius, sent by Pope Celestine, probably the same personwho was later sent to “the Irish believing in Christ.”104 According toConstantius of Lyon, there was a revival of British Pelagianism in 444–445.105 Pelagius’s possible British origin is often used to explain the supportfor his ideas in Britain and Ireland. Jerome explicitly provides a link withIreland in the slightly obscure sentence habet progeniem Scoticae gentis, deBritannorum vicinia, “he has family from the Irish people, near the Britons,”and his more famous, and more colorful description of Pelagius as scottispultibus praegravatus, “stuffed with Irish porridge.”106 Closer to(Boniface’s) home is the letter from Pope-elect John IV and the Roman curiaof 640 addressed to the northern Irish churches, preserved by Bede, whichaccuses the Irish of espousing Pelagianism.107 Bede, in fact, only reproducedpart of John’s letter, namely the part containing his accusation of IrishPelagianism, apparently with the express aim of associating the Irish withthis particular heresy.

102See in particular Herren and Brown, Christ in Celtic Christianity; and the review of this bookby Gilbert Márkus, “Pelagianism and the ‘Common Celtic Church,’” review of Christ in CelticChristianity, by Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown, The Innes Review 56 (2005), 165–213,esp. 165–66 and the literature there cited.

103See E. A. Thompson, Saint Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain (Woodbridge:Boydell, 1984).

104Prosper, Contra Collatorem xxi.2, PL li. 271B; and Prosper, Cronicum, s.a. 431; on Palladius,see Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “Who was Palladius, “First bishop of the Irish”?,” Peritia 15 (2001): 205–37.

105Constantius of Lyon, Vita Germani ep. Autissiodorensis, c. 25, MGH SS rer. Merov. vii. 269;see also E. A. Thompson, “Zosimus and the End of Roman Britain,” Antiquity 30 (1956): 163–67,at 166.

106Jerome, In Hieremiam prophetam libri ui, prolog.4, iii.1, ed. S. Reiter, CCSL 74 (Turnhout:Brepols, 1960), 2, 120.

107HE ii.19. According to Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, the Irish practice which prompted the letter in facthad nothing to do with Pelagius’s ideas but arose out of a misunderstanding in Rome about thepractice in the matter of Easter observance, see Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “‘New Heresy for Old’:Pelagianism in Ireland and the Papal Letter of 640,” Speculum 60 (1985): 505–16; see alsoJoseph F. Kelly, “Pelagius, Pelagianism and the Early Irish,” Medievalia 4 (1978): 99–124; andGerald Bonner, “The Pelagian Controversy in Britain and Ireland,” Peritia 16 (2002): 144–55.

278 CHURCH HISTORY

It is impossible to determine if Clemens was indeed espousing Pelagianteachings. His alleged beliefs on the emptying of hell accord well withcertain Pelagian tenets, in particular the claim that it is possible to live aperfect life without baptism, and similar themes were discussed withincontemporary Irish society. Bede’s citation of John’s letter reflects andreinforced the association of Pelagianism and the Irish in the eighth century.It is possible that Boniface aimed to evoke the specter of a truly doctrinalheresy in his writings on Clemens’s alleged teachings about saved pagansand his dubious thoughts on predestination. The allusion to Pelagianismwould have added credibility and urgency to the accusations from Boniface,and to a Continental audience this heresy would probably fit well with theIrish origin of Clemens.

V. CONCLUSION

This closer examination of the description of Clemens and his alleged hereticalbeliefs has led to a number of observations. Firstly, it is crucial to divorce thepurported actions and beliefs of the Irish Clemens from those of the GaulAldebert. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that they knew each otheror worked together. Yet, the fact that Boniface chose to accuse both men atthe same time appears to have served a particular purpose, namely to presentthe pope with an all-inclusive image of the abuses that the Anglo-Saxonreformer was combating. Secondly, Boniface’s description of Clemens’sbeliefs reveals a possible Irish background to them. They either reflectnotions of the authorial status of canonical texts evident in Irish legal works,or themes under discussion within contemporary Irish society and church. Atthe same time, there is ample evidence that these topics were debated on theContinent and in Anglo-Saxon England, not seldom with an express mentionof the Irish in this respect. The writings of Bede would have reinvigoratedthe interest in Irish peculiarities, historical or not, and at the same time wefind comments by Jerome about the Irish reproduced in Continental texts. Itis impossible to determine the extent to which Boniface’s accusations wereinformed by his knowledge of Clemens’s actions or by the contemporaryinterest in Irish peculiarities, but it is not unlikely that the allegations reflecta mix of these. This would have contributed to the portrayal of Clemens asthe Irish sinner expected by a Continental audience, which had been fed anumber of commonplaces about the Irish in the above-mentioned works.How well the undeniably one-sided sources describe Clemens’s beliefs andteachings must always remain unknown, but Boniface’s rendition of thisaffair does constitute a valuable witness to the Continental (and Anglo-Saxon) representation of Irish wandering preachers.

BONIFACE AND THE IRISH HERESY OF CLEMENS 279

VI. APPENDIX:TRANSCRIPTION OF THE HEADINGS ON WÜRZBURG

UNIVERSITÄTSBIBLIOTHEK MS Mp.th.q.31, fo. 54v

(The twelve headings are numbered in accordance with Nürnberger’s list in“Über die Würzburger Handschrift,” 80)

16. De diuersis pasce temporibus et contrariis17. De confusa doctrina et de simili sensu episcopi presbyteri18. De auxungiis108 porcorum liquefactis19. De eo quod sine magistris sine tractatu sanctam scripturam intellegere

se posse putare20. De eo quod sanctos tractatores Hieronimum, Augustinum, Gregorium

parabula nominam109

21. De hereticis clemente uel heldeberthto, de scismaticis et de unitateaeclesiae

22. De simoniaca heresi quam faciunt per ordinationes23. De eo quod dicunt omnem scriptum historialiter debere intellegi24. De eo quod dicunt adulteros episcopos uel presbyteros in gradum

reuersos25. De eo quod adulterum presbyterum ordinant episcopi26. De pagano110 ritu rusticorum quos faciunt iuxta sepulcra uel ad111

ecclesias27. De eo quod nullus predicat populus

108Axunge is the rich internal fat of the kidneys, used as axle grease, but also as a medicament,which may be the context of its reference here.

109For nominari? Nürnberger emends the reading to nominant, see Nürnberger, “Über dieWürzburger Handschrift,” 80.

110pagato corr. pagano.111Overhead.

280 CHURCH HISTORY

Copyright of Church History is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.