Andrew the priestly pretender

The ninth-century theologian Hrabanus Maurus responded to a letter covering this exact subject (c. 6), since ersatz ecclesiastics such as Andrew raised a number of theological and pastoral issues. These included what should happen to those who had been baptised by charlatan churchmen (the answer: their baptism was still valid, if imperfect). Hrabanus’ letter (visible here in its earliest extant copy) was reproduced in a number of tenth- and eleventh-century manuscripts from Reims, Köln, Mainz, Liège, Cambrai and Trier, suggesting the topic was of relevance and interest in these centres of ecclesiastical thought and writing (my thanks to my colleague Bastiaan Waagmeester for pointing me to Hrabanus' letter and its later copies!)

How was the swindling sacerdos unmasked? Andrew’s penitence is said to have been the result of his own guilt rather than an external process. He ‘remembered the word of the prophet, who said: “You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man” [Psalm 5.6], and of the apostle: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” [1 Corinthians 11.27]’. This was not an uncommon way to frame such donations, since it looked better for the penitent donor if they could claim to be prompted by moral rectitude rather than external pressure. Yet there may be some truth to Andrew’s claim to remorse, or at least a question over where external pressure had come from. The bishop is notable for his absence in this and other charters of the time, which often describe donations made to God, and “to Saint Nazaire and the canons”, suggesting that there may have been a vacancy in the episcopal seat at the time (1066-1077). This doubtlessly contributed to the unorthodox state of affairs represented by the charter.

But in the decades before Andrew made his confession, the seat had been continuously occupied, and Bishop Berengar III is last attested in 1066, just three years earlier. If Andrew and his family were local it stands to reason that the incumbent bishop (whoever this was) would have known of Andrew and perhaps even ordained him, raising further questions about the lack of episcopal oversight in the diocese. Elsewhere on this blog Bastiaan Waagmeester has written about the examinations priests were expected to pass to demonstrate their knowledge to the local bishop, whose job it was to check regularly that shepherds of the flock came up to scratch. Clearly in Béziers this was not the case. While we cannot know what prompted the production of the charter, the text as it survives stands as an unusual and intriguing snapshot into the lives of local priests and their relationship with both their bishops and communities in the later eleventh century.