Lindsay Rudge PhD Thesis - University of St Andrews

206 dates from the twelfth century; Douai, Bibl. Munic., ms. 217, Luxemburg,
Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. 46, Paris, BN ms. Lat. 2153 and Paris, BN ms. Lat. 2182
date from the thirteenth century. 144 The first four of these manuscripts came from the
monasteries of Anchin (Benedictine, diocese of Arras), Marchiennes (Benedictine,
diocese of Cambrai), Orval (Cistercian, diocese of Trier), and Foucarmont (Cistercian,
diocese of Rouen) respectively; the provenance of the fifth, Paris BN Lat. 2182, is
unknown. Although the number of manuscripts is insufficient to draw any firm
conclusions, and their date is somewhat beyond the scope of the present study, the
location of these houses in northern France suggests that Caesarius’ writing continued to
be strongly valued as a work of guidance for male religious. Indeed, the close proximity
of Anchin and Marchiennes (both in the valley of the river Scarpe, approximately five
miles apart) suggests a cross-fertilization of ideas. It may also be relevant that until 1028,
Marchiennes had been a community for nuns; 145 knowledge of Caesarius’ writing for
women may have remained in this community’s library and thus made the nascent male
community eager to obtain his writings for men.
The writings of the Caesarii
Running parallel to the circulation of Caesarius’ own writings on dedicated
women were those of his family, in the shape of Caesaria II’s letter to Radegund, already
considered in detail above, in Chapter Two, and her Dicta and Constitutum. Teridius’
letter to Caesaria herself, O Profundum, as we have seen, forms part of the Caesarian
‘booklet’ in Vatican Reg. Lat. ms. 140, ff. 129v-132, and in Toulouse Bibl. Munic. ms.
162, ff. 59v-60v. While it may be an obvious methodological step to compare the
transmission of Caesarius’ writings to dedicated women and the letter to Radegund of
Caesaria II along gendered lines, in order to arrive at the equally obvious conclusion that
male-authored works of guidance received a vastly wider circulation than that of a
woman, this oversimplifies the processes of textual circulation. Even as Caesarius wrote
144 Morin erroneously lists the latter Paris manuscript as Paris Mazarineus ms. 2182.
145 DHGE XXIII 199-200.
167