Inter Arma Caritas: The Early Trinitarian Story
Joseph J. Gross, OSST
Introduction
The crusades were an important fact of late medieval life in
Christendom. Their scale was vast in geography, in participants, and in
the thoughts and feelings of western European people for more than a dozen
generations. Even today it is difficult to be indifferent to their
history. Interestingly, "crusade" as a term was slow to come
into being. In fact, it appears that the term "crusade" actually
evolved from the late 12th century technical term used for those who
personally took part in this movement. They were called
"cross-signed" (crucesignati) In any case, thousands upon
thousands of people over the centuries were involved in these organized
armed expeditions authorized by the popes, beginning with Urban II at the
Council of Clermont in November of 1095. Thousands participated
personally in these expeditions. Thousands supported the crusade endeavor
financially with contributions and spiritually with prayers and devotional
practices. Crusading was pilgrimage (iter or peregrinatio).
Crusading was holy war (bellum sacrum). And crusading had its
radical consequences. Casualties were among these consequences as were
captives. It was for the specific charitable work of ransoming Christians
held captive by unbelievers that the Order of the Holy Trinity was founded
in Cerfroid, France, in the crusade context of the late 12th century. Inter
arma caritas. Innocent III granted his approval in 1198. The
Trinitarian Order is now celebrating its 800th anniversary of approbation
in this present year that also marks the 800th anniversary of Lotario dei
Segni's election and accession as Pope Innocent III.
Trinitarian
Beginnings
Timewise, the beginnings of the Trinitarian endeavor belong to
the last decade of the 12th century. More broadly considered, Trinitarian
beginnings span the human experience from inspiration in mind and heart to
implementation in time and place, from idea to action. The protagonist in
these beginnings is Brother John. In contemporary documents, including his
epitaph, he is simply called Frater Johannes. Tradition, traceable
to the late 15th century reference to him by Trinitarian Minister General
Robert Gaguin (Compendium
de Gestis Francorum, Lugduni 1497), calls him John de Matha. In
their narratives of mid-13th century, the Cisterican Alberic of Three
Fountains Abbey near Châlons-sur-Marne (Chronica
Albrici monachi Trium Fontium in MGH SS, vol. XXIII [Hannoverae: 1874]
p. 875) and the English Franciscan Thomas of Eccleston (Liber
de adventu fratrum minorum in Angliam in MGH SS, vol. XXVIII [Hannoverae:
1888] p. 568) title him magister and magister theologus,
respectively. Unfortunately, except for the Trinitarian Rule of Life
written in collaboration with others, there are no extant documents
authored by Brother John which tell us the early Trinitarian story. Who,
then, among his contemporaries, tells us this story? Quite happily, our
earliest storyteller is Innocent III, who himself was quite involved in
Trinitarian beginnings.
On 17 December 1198, Innocent III issued the letter Operante
divine dispositionis (Archivio
Segreto Vaticano: Reg. Vat., vol. 4, ff. 126v-128r),
addressed to John, Minister, and the Brothers of the Holy Trinity (...Johanni,
ministro, et fratribus Sancte Trinitatis...). In this letter, Innocent
III acknowledged John's idea and referred to it in terms of inspiration
(...propositum tuum quod ex inspiratione divina creditur processisse...).
In the narrative section of his letter, Innocent III set forth his account
of John's propositum and founding activity. John had had an earlier
encounter with him. In that encounter, John had presented his propositum
to the pope and had petitioned that his founding intention be confirmed by
papal authority. Innocent III, however, had wanted to know better that
John's desire was founded in Christ (...desiderium tuum fundatum in
Christo...). And so, with a papal letter that is now lost, Innocent
III had sent John to the Bishop (Eudes de Sully) and the Abbot of St.
Victor (Bernard died in late May of 1198 and Absolom succeeded him) in
Paris. These two churchmen were to be the papal advisers in this matter,
since they knew John's desire better (...desiderium tuum perfectius
noverant...). Through the testimonial letters of the Bishop and Abbot,
which are also now lost, the pope clearly learned (...cognovimus
evidenter...) that John sought the advantage of Christ (...Christi
lucrum...) rather than his own. Innocent III had put John's propositum
to the test. He had determined that it was upright and that it was rooted
in charity. Then, in fulfillment of his own responsibility, Innocent III
gave his support to John's founding intention. This is the record of
events which comes down to us in the papal letter Operante divine
dispositionis.
There had been an earlier letter of Innocent III, a result of the
earlier meeting with John referred to in the December letter. Cum a
nobis petitur (ASV:
Reg. Vat, vol. 4, f 62v) had been issued on 16 May 1198. It
was addressed to Brother John and the other Brothers of the House of the
Holy Trinity at Cerfroid (...fratri Johanni et aliis fratribus domus
Sancte Trinitatis Cervifrigidi...). This is a letter of confirmation
for property donations already made and of papal protection for the
persons and possessions, ecclesiastical as well as temporal (...personas
vestras cum omnibus bonis tam ecclesiasticis quam mundanis...) of the
emerging Trinitarian endeavor. In this letter, Innocent III provides
further details about Trinitarian beginnings. In doing so, the founding
intention of John is clearly stated and his founding activity
acknowledged. Innocent III briefly tells the donation story of the three
initial Trinitarian foundations, which is especially important since the
original donation documents are lost.
In this earlier papal letter of May 1198, the foundation in
Cerfroid (...domus Sancte Trinitatis Cervifrigidi...) appears as
the donation of the Countess of Burgundy (...karissima in Christo filia
M. comitissa Burgundie...). Cerfroid is a rural area some 80 km/50m to
the northeast of Paris. Even today it is somewhat remote. In the late
medieval period, Cerfroid was within the Diocese of Meaux. Today it is
within the Département
de l'Aisne and the Diocese of Soissons. At the time of the donation,
Margaret of Blois was a widow; her first husband had been Hugh III of Oisy,
who died in 1189. She married again in 1194; her husband was Otto II, son
of Frederick Barbarosa and Count of Burgundy. And so, she was Countess
Margaret of Burgundy when the Cum a nobis petitur letter was
issued, but she was Margaret of Blois when the property donation had been
made. This papal letter of May 1198 recorded that Margaret had made this
charitable donation to John and his companions (...vobis caritative
contulit...) for the ransom of those who were so often detained by the
enemies of the Cross of Christ and who were joyfully sustaining for Christ
the yoke of barbarous captivity (...ab inimicis crucis Christi sepius
detinentur et babarice captivitatis iugum...pro Christo sustinere letantur...).
Crusading imagery here is further enhanced by the description of these
Christian captives as being fortified by the armor of faith and gladly
placing themselves as a bulwark for the sake of God's law (...armatura
fidei communiti, pro lege Dei se murum hilariter opponentes...).
Innocent III's confirmation and protection letter of May 1198 also
recorded the other two initial property donations. The foundation in
Planels (...locum quoque de Planels cum ecclesia ibidem fundata...)
appears as the donation of a nobleman of Planels who is identified only by
the initial "R" in the text. At that time, Planels was also
within the Diocese of Meaux. It has been identified as the present-day
Planoy which is located near Voinsles between Rozay-en-Brie and Vaudoy-en-Brie,
some 64km/40m to the southeast of Paris. This donation had been made to
John and his companions for the same work (...ad idem opus...),
namely, the ransom of Christians held captive by the enemies of the Cross
of Christ. The foundation in Bourg-la-Reine (...domus...) appears
as the donation of the noblewoman Maria Panateria. It was within the
Diocese of Paris, located some 12km/8m directly south of the city. This
donation had been made as perpetual alms for the same ransoming purpose
(...ad hoc idem in perpetuam elemosinam...). In addition to the
papal confirmation and protection given in this earlier letter, Innocent
III stipulated that these three initial foundations and those established
in the future (...domus vestre presentes atque future...) were not
to be diverted from the reason for their establishment, namely, the ransom
of captives (...ad redemptionem captivorum...). Already in Cum a
nobis petitur of May 1198, the pope had also specified that these
houses were not to undergo any change from the observance of the order and
the institution (...ab observantia vestri ordinis et institutionis...)
of John and his companions. And so it was that, by the spring of 1198 in
Cerfiroid and Planels and Bourg-la-Reine, the propositum of Brother
John, his founding intention, had begun to be put into action in time and
place.
Trinitarian
Rule of Life
In Operante
divine dispositionis of 17 December 1198, Innocent III narrates for us
the process through which John had moved in requesting papal approbation
for the Trinitarian endeavor. This appears to be the first recorded
instance of such a petitioning process for a religious network of people
and houses. Procedure and precedent were thus established. In this same
letter, Innocent III granted to John and his companions and their
successors the Trinitarian Rule of Life (...regulam iuxta quam vivere
debeatis...). The regula was considered the detailed expression
of the propositum. Innocent III makes a brief reference to the tenorem
(= contents) of the Rule which had been sent to him by the Parisian Bishop
and Abbot. This text has been lost as has any text which John himself may
have presented to the pope. Unfortunately, the diploma of approbation
given by Innocent III to John and the Brothers of the Holy Trinity is not
extant either. As previously noted, this papal letter was entered into and
has been preserved for us in the Vatican Registers of Innocent III. Had
the Trinitarian Rule not been incorporated in full into the papal
approbation letter, it would have been lost to us, too.
The text of the Trinitarian Rule is a collection of practical
prescriptions for the Brothers in their daily common life and work. For
convenience, in the modern published version, the Rule has been
editorially divided into 40 chapters according to subject matter. These
chapters are quite uneven in length. The longest is chapter 2 (200 Latin
words) which deals with income and its division into three equal parts,
with the third part set aside for the ransom of captives (...Tercia
vero pars reservetur ad redemptionem captivorum...). Interestingly,
the next longest is chapter 23 (176 Latin words) which deals with public
accusation against a Brother by another Brother and with any rupture in
the relationship between Brothers and with anyone who causes scandal (...Nullus
frater fratrem suum in publico accuset...Siquis frater in fratrem
peccaverit...Qui vero scandalum movit...) along with the process for
resolving such situations. The shortest is chapter 8 (5 Latin words) that
deals with the distinctive and identifying emblem worn by the Brothers (In
capis fratrum imponantur signa), namely, the cloth cross of red and
blue.
The papal
approbation letter of 17 December 1198 tells some of the story of how the
text of the Rule was redacted. After making mention of the tenorem
of the Rule which the Bishop of Paris and the Abbot of St. Victor had sent
to him, Innocent III specifically refers to those points of the Rule which
he himself had ordered to be added from his own judgment and from John's
petition (...regulam iuxta quam vivere debeatis...cum hiis, que de
dispositione nostra et petitione tua, fili, minister, duximus adiungenda...).
John was, of course, the principal author of the Rule. Naturally, the
Brothers contributed to its formulation. Others then collaborated in its
refinement and completion. As seems indicated by this reference of
Innocent III, John had some say in what was suggested for or introduced
into the text of the Rule by others. The statement of Innocent III that he
himself had added to the text is an invitation and a challenge to discover
what it was that he had added. The testimonial letters of the Bishop and
Abbot along with the contents of the Rule which they sent to Innocent III
could have contained recommendations for and/or additions to the text.
More details of how the text of the Rule was redacted do come from further
research and careful study.
Chapter 27 followed by chapter 28 of the Rule is an interesting
example of the redaction process. Chapter 27 deals with the election of
the Minister and the qualifications for election:
The election of the Minister is to be done through the common
determination of the Brothers; he is not to be elected according to the
dignity of birth but according to the merit of his life and his wisdom and
learning. In fact, he who is to be elected is to be a priest or a cleric
suitable for orders. The Minister, in fact, whether major or minor, is to
be a priest.
Electio
ministri per commune fratrum consilium fiat, nec eligatur secundum
dignitatem generis sed secundum vite meritum et sapientie doctrinam. Ille
vero qui eligitur sacerdos sit vel clericus ordinibus aptus. Minister vero,
sive maior sive minor, sacerdos sit.
Here different levels of redaction may be identified. There are
three independent statements which follow one after the other. Noticeably,
the expression "in fact" (...vero...) is used in the
second statement and then used again in the third, each of which
successively narrows down the qualification of the one to be elected
Minister in terms of the clerical or priestly state. Remarkably, the first
statement does not enter into any qualification distinction between cleric
and lay Brother for the one to be elected. Here it is well to note that,
when chapter 4 of the Rule speaks of the Minister of the House (...et
preterea unus qui procurator sit, qui non procurator sed minister...nominetur,...cui
fratres repromittere ac impendere obedientiam teneantur...), it does
not indicate whether he is to be a cleric or lay Brother. The second
statement of chapter 27, in fact, introduces the "priest or cleric
suitable for orders" restriction to be eligible for election. The
third statement then limits eligibility to one who, indeed, is a priest.
Thus, the three statements in the text of chapter 27 move in progressive
stages from broader to narrower qualification requirements for election as
Minister. The use of the adverb vero in the second and third
statements signals that progression of restriction.
Who authored what in chapter 27? The broadest eligibility
requirement is found in the chapter's first statement, the narrowest in
the third. The second statement evidences a middle-ground, so to speak. It
is probable that John authored the first statement, which has no
eligibility limitations in terms of the clerical or priestly state. In
fact, the only time "priest" (...sacerdos...) is used in
the text of the Rule is here in chapter 27 where it is used twice; namely,
in the second and third statements. If the text of the Rule is read
omitting the second and third statements from chapter 27 and omitting all
of chapter 28 and then picking up the text again with chapters 29 and 30,
it not only makes perfect sense but it also flows more smoothly and
coherently. The narrowest eligibility requirement is found in the third
statement. It is probable that Innocent III authored it, especially since
that statement is followed by chapter 28 which speaks of the jurisdiction
of Major and Minor Ministers to hear the confessions of the Brothers. It
is well to note that the Major Minister (...Minister...maior...)
appears here for the first time in the text of the Rule. The middle-ground
eligibility requirement is in the second statement. It appears to be a
sort of compromise. Perhaps it is one of the results of the mandated
meeting between John and the Parisian Bishop and Abbot and therein finds
it authors. In any case, from the day of papal approbation until today,
the Minister in the Trinitarian Order must be a priest.
Another example of the redaction process can be identified in
chapters 32 through 40 of the Rule, its last chapters. They come across as
an appendix to the main text, in a sense, to cover significant matters
that have not yet been mentioned in the Rule. In chapters 32 and 33, there
is the curious and awkward introduction of the bishop (...sui episcopi...ab
episcopo suo...) as an authority figure for the Brothers. The bishop
appears nowhere else in the text of the Rule. It would seem more than
reasonable to assume that these chapters, which deal with money-deposits
and oath-taking and which are found in the diocesan Synodal Constitutions,
were contributions of the Bishop of Paris to the text of the Rule. In
chapter 39 which deals with the usage of the Abbey of St. Victor for the
Liturgy of the Hours, there is the interjection, not once but twice,
referring to the work and the small number (...occasione laboris et
paucitatis servientium...Propter paucitatem...) of Brothers in
the Trinitarian House, so that pauses or other prolongations and vigils
(...pausationes vel alie prolixitates et vigilie...) in celebrating
should be omitted. Obviously, the Abbot of St. Victor could be credited
with recommending the Victorine usage for the Trinitarians. This would
insure a certain uniformity of worship in Trinitarian Houses. For his
part, John would have his say. While agreeing to it, he would interject
the realism of the Trinitarian situation in terms of the personnel of the
House and the work of the Brothers, as set forth in chapters 4 (...tres
clerici et tres laici et preterea unus...) and 18 (...Nullus frater,
clericus vel laicus, sit, si fieri potest, sine proprio, officio...)
of the Rule. Further research and careful study of the text of the Rule
does reveal more details of the redaction process.
Woven into the wording and redaction of the text, of course, are
the religious vision and commitment of John and the Brothers. For them,
the work of ransoming was not a secular business venture. It was a work of
charity, a very specific and organized work of mercy, to which they gave
themselves and their resources. The Rule details the founding intention
which was clearly stated in the Cum a nobis petitur letter of 16
May. In full crusade context, the ransom of Christians held captive by
unbelievers was the global work of the Trinitarian Order. Ideally, each
House and its Brothers would participate in it, particularly on the
financial plane. The Rule could not be more serious about this, especially
when it comes to the matter of receiving donations. Chapter 2 of the Rule
mandates that one-third is to be set aside for Trinitarian ransom work
always with the consent of him who gave it, otherwise the donation is not
to be received (...semper de consensu illius qui dederit, tercia pars
separetur et aliter non recipiatur...). Chapter 13 directs that, if
something is given to the Brothers while they are traveling (...in
itinere sive peregrinatione...), they should live on that and divide
the remainder into three parts (...residuum in tres partes dividant...).
Chapter 13 further directs that, if they have set out to ransom captives,
whatever is given to them they must set aside totally for the ransom of
captives, except expenses (...totum debent ponere in redemptionem
captivorum preter expensas...).
While the Trinitarian orderwide work was the ransom of Christian
captives, each House and its Brothers were also committed to and involved
in works of mercy on the local level. Not becoming too determinant but
rather remaining open-ended in this regard, the Rule refers to and
highlights some local mercy work possibilities. Chapter 17 speaks about
the care of guests and of the poor and of travelers (...Cura hospitum
et pauperum et omnium euntium et redeuntium...). Their care is to be
entrusted to one of the more discrete and kinder Brothers (...uni de
discretioribus et benignoribus fratribus...), who is to administer to
them the the comfort of charity (...caritatis solatium amministret...).
Several times, the Rule makes mention of the sick. Then, in chapter 38,
reference is made to the hospitale (= hospice/hospital) which would
form part of Trinitarian foundations. In the same chapter 2 which details
at some length the setting aside of one-third of all the income of the
House for the ransom of captives, the Rule mandates that works of mercy
(...opera misericordie...), left undetermined, are to be done from
the other two-thirds of the income, a moderate sustenance for the Brothers
and their household members also being provided from this two-thirds. Both
chapter 3 and chapter 9 mention the ecclesia (= church), where
pastoral work could be carried out. As can be seen in the Rule, a fully
developed and complete Trinitarian foundation would consist of the domus
(= residence for the Brothers) and the hospitale (= place for the
ministry of hospitality) and the ecclesia (= church for the
Brothers and for others). The nature of a property donation and the needs
of the people of the area and the discernment of the Brothers each played
its part in determining the commitment and involvement of a particular
Trinitarian foundation in specific local works of mercy. Thus, in its own
concrete way, each Trinitarian House and its Brothers complemented the
global Trinitarian work of ransoming Christian captives.
The underpinning for all of this is to be found in the spirituality
centered in the Holy Trinity. Careful reading and analysis of the
Trinitarian Rule of Life bring to light symbols and reflections and echoes
of life lived in the Holy Trinity which might otherwise go unnoticed and
hidden in the text. The Holy Trinity in the text of the Rule appears to
manifest itself in three ways. The first is the actual naming of the Holy
Trinity. This occurs exactly three times, namely, in chapters 1 and 3 and
4. The second way is actions prescribed by the Rule which involve the
number 3. An example of this is found in chapter 2 which prescribes that
the Brothers are to divide all their income into 3 equal parts (...Omnes
res...in tres partes dividant equales...). There are a half dozen of
these instances in the Rule. The third way is expressions in the text of
the Rule which contain a triptych, a grouping of three. The first words of
the Rule are an example of this: Brothers - House - Holy Trinity (fratres
- domus - Sancte Trinitatis). Chapter 1 contains a further
fine example: in obedience - in chastity - without personal possessions (sub
obedientia in castitate - sine proprio). Almost two dozen examples of
this way can be counted. In the second half of the 13th century, the
Dominican Master General Humbert of Romans was among the first writers to
recognize and call attention to this presence of the Holy Trinity in the
life of the Brothers and in the text of their Rule (De
eruditione predicatorum, lib. II. cap. 27). The Holy Trinity
was the proverbial warp and woof, the fabric, of the life of the Brothers.
They lived the Holy Trinity. Though Humbert of Romans gives only a small
sampling of examples, his evaluation is clearly justifiable: on account of
this, they are not undeservedly called the Brothers of the Holy Trinity
(...et propter hoc non immerito vocantur Fratres de Trinitate...).
Conclusion
Not far from the Colosseum in Rome, there is a powerful
graphic portrayal of the Trinitarian endeavor, its inspiration and
its implementation. It is a large circular mosaic (176cm/5.77ft in
diameter) which probably dates from the first decade of the 13th
century. It is the artistic work of Jacopo and Cosma (father and
son) of the Cosmati family. This mosaic was certainly commissioned
by Brother John and the first Trinitarians. It is located on the
facade and over the main entrance to the former Trinitarian
foundation of St. Thomas- in-Formis. Innocent III had given this
foundation on the Celian Hill along with all of its widespread
possessions to the Trinitarians in the summer of 1209. In an
Eastern style, the mosaic pictures Christ in majesty, who is
seated and who holds by each hand a man wearing leg irons. The one
standing to Christ's right is light-skinned; at ease, he holds a
staff surmounted by the distinctive cross of red and blue. He
represents the Christian. The one standing to Christ's left is
dark-skinned; he appears rigid and armed with a bow. He represents
the unbeliever, the enemy of the Cross of Christ. Inscribed around
this image are the words Signum Ordinis Sanctae Trinitatis et
Captivorum. Indeed, this is the portrait of the Order of the
Holy Trinity and of Captives. Through Trinitarian commitment to and
involvement in the ransom of Christian captives, the Christian returns to
Christendom. Christ reclaims his own. In a striking way, this mosaic seals
the early Trinitarian story of charity amidst arms.
International
Medieval Studies Congress
Western
Michigan University
7-10 May 1998