In Sabina Flanagan's recent study on doubt in ‘the Long Twelfth Century’, she reflects on the paradoxical capacity of uncertainty to engender confidence.Footnote ¹ While medieval authors generally sought to eliminate doubt from their texts, Flanagan highlights the ‘Doubting Thomas’ episode in the Gospel of John (20: 24–31) as a rare example in which doubt is praised in medieval sources for its positive contribution to belief.Footnote ² Thomas's unbelief is interpreted as a providential opportunity to demonstrate certainty. In this case, potential doubts about the resurrection are pre-emptively answered for the gospel's audience. Doubt – albeit in a controlled environment – is employed for the sake of greater certitude. Here I shall discuss how Jordan of Saxony (d. 1237), master general of the Order of Preachers, uses uncertainty in a similar capacity in the concluding narrative of his Libellus. This otherwise peculiar account of Brother Bernard's demonic possession provides a setting in which doubt is employed pedagogically to engender confidence in the order's mission.

Jordan probably produced the first redaction of the Libellus in the spring of 1233.Footnote ³ In the prologue (§§1–3), he explains that it was written to satisfy the many brothers who desired an account of the origins of the order's institutions and its first friars. The Libellus appeared amid a surge of devotion to the cult of Dominic of Caleruega (d. 1221) that would lead to the translation of his bones within the church of St Nicholas of the Vineyards, Bologna, in May 1233 and his canonization in August 1234. Taking this context into account, scholars have been perplexed by the text's peculiar combination of early Dominican history, hagiographical tropes and biographical asides.Footnote ⁴ Most peculiar of all is Jordan's decision to conclude the Libellus, not with a laudatory passage on Dominic's great example for the brothers, but with an episode centred on Jordan's encounter with another brother, Bernard, and the demon that possessed him (§§110–20).

Simon Tugwell has suggested that the odd conclusion to the text is indicative of the rushed and unfinished nature of its composition.Footnote ⁵ With the important exception of Jordan's encomium to his deceased friend Henry of Cologne (d. c.1225–9?), the majority of the events mentioned in the Libellus occurred no later than 1221.Footnote ⁶ This gives the impression that the text was initially something akin to a journal, in which Jordan recorded some of the order's earliest memories.Footnote ⁷ He seems, however, to have been motivated as much by pedagogy as by posterity.Footnote ⁸ In the Vitas fratrum, a mid-thirteenth-century collection of Dominican stories, Gerald de Frachet (d. 1271) recalls that he had been present when Jordan read from his Libellus to Dominican novices in Paris.Footnote ⁹ As the overarching purpose of the Libellus was – at least in part – to benefit recent entrants into the order through a recollection of its past (§§2–3, 109), it is reasonable to conclude that Jordan was employing the story to teach the novices about what he thought it meant to be a member of the Order of Preachers.

Most helpfully for present purposes, what Jordan read on that occasion was none other than the culminating sequence of the Brother Bernard narrative (§§116–18), in which the demon's deceits are finally overthrown by means of divine intervention.

Gerald must have gone back to the official rendering of the Libellus to recollect the story, as much of his account follows the text verbatim. However, it is striking that all references in the original text to Jordan's self-doubt are conspicuously absent from Gerald's account. For instance, Gerald's recollection jumps from Jordan's description of a sweetness that seemed to permeate the latter's bones to a request that God would reveal its origins, entirely bypassing Jordan's original admission that he had been stupefied (stupefactus) and dismayed (perculsus) by the phenomenon (§118). By omitting Jordan's uncertainty in the face of demonic falsehood, Gerald's rendition becomes but one of many stories, repeated with verve by a number of mid-thirteenth-century Dominican authors, which display Jordan's confident engagement in spiritual warfare.Footnote ¹⁰ For our purposes, however, Gerald's narrative provides two important insights: Jordan had used the original story to instruct novices and Gerald appears to have omitted all reference to Jordan's doubt in his revision of the story.

The story of Brother Bernard's possession is set shortly after Jordan's account of Dominic's death in early August 1221. We find Jordan on the road to Bologna in order to fulfil his newly appointed role as prior provincial of Lombardy. Upon arriving at the convent, Jordan discovers Brother Bernard. Possessed and tormented by the fiercest demon, the friar was being harassed by horrible frenzies and disturbing his brothers beyond all measure. Jordan explains that God, ‘in his divine mercy, had undoubtedly provided that trouble to produce endurance in his servants’.Footnote ¹¹

Jordan's explanation, with its allusion to Romans 5: 3 (‘but we also boast in our tribulations, knowing that trouble produces endurance’), informs his text's audience that no matter what takes place in the narrative, they may be certain not only of its divine sanction but also of its providential purpose. This explanation also makes clear that Jordan himself had no doubt about how to interpret the narrative. This helps to enforce an important distinction in the episode between Jordan-as-narrator, who in an assured manner interprets the events as they are happening, and Jordan-as-protagonist, who grows increasingly uncertain as the demon's machinations become more sophisticated. Doubt in this text is employed within a controlled environment.

Jordan continues the story with an explanation of how the possession came to be (§111). He relates that Bernard told him that he had been so tormented by the sorrow of his sins that it was suggested to his heart that, as a form of purgation, he should seek demonic possession. Although Bernard's mind was initially revolted by the proposition, he finally gave his assent, and with God's permission he was immediately assailed by a demonic spirit. The demon began a series of trials, but not initially by means of the frenzies Jordan first described. Instead, the narrative reveals a strategy in which the demon fabricates ideals central to the identity of the order – the theologian, the preacher and even the prospective saint – in order to lead the community into falsehood.

Jordan recounts that, through the brother's mouth, the demon ‘vomited out . . . many marvellous things, including such profound opinions concerning the Holy Scriptures that they might deservedly be considered utterances praiseworthy enough to rival those of Augustine’.Footnote ¹² Moreover, Bernard uttered these even though he was unskilled in theology and ignorant of the Bible. In effect, the possessed brother played the part of a magister theologiae.

The demon's eloquence was not exceptional. Barbara Newman has drawn attention to a variety of thirteenth-century exempla that record demoniacs expounding upon theological subjects despite their lack of learning.Footnote ¹³ For instance, in the Dialogus miraculorum of Caesarius of Heisterbach (d. c.1240), there is a story of a possessed woman who, despite being illiterate, pointed out the phrase in the missal that bound ‘her master’ in hell.Footnote ¹⁴ Caesarius reports that this miraculous event was a source of great edification to the woman's audience.Footnote ¹⁵ In Jordan's account, however, the demon plays a more devious role – one characteristic of an ancient Christian tradition, in which demons seek to undermine the devotion of the holy by means of pretended holiness.Footnote ¹⁶ In this case the demon's false ‘holiness’ has a distinctly Dominican resonance, playing upon theology's central role within the order.

By 1221, the order had already established a theological presence within the university milieu in Bologna.Footnote ¹⁷ By 1231, they would have two chairs of theology in Paris and one in Oxford. Jordan himself had been a bachelor of theology at Paris and had received many students into the order as a result of his recruiting efforts at the university.Footnote ¹⁸ In fact, we can claim with some confidence that the majority of the novices to whom Jordan read his story in Gerald's account were, or had been, arts students, probably still in their teens, who were now being directed toward theological studies.Footnote ¹⁹ Brother Bernard, however, was unskilled in such matters (§112), which is what made his behaviour so striking. The demon made it appear as if Bernard had fulfilled the highest calling a friar could accomplish through study: to become a master of theology. It would have been a master's prerogative, beyond even that of the convent's doctor of theology, to give an authoritative theological opinion (sententia) and to ascertain a truth not open to all, but hidden below the surface of a text (profunda).Footnote ²⁰ That the possessed did this in a manner consonant with Augustine is particularly worthy of note, for Augustine was not only the authority behind the Dominicans’ rule, but also the foremost patristic authority in Latin theology.

Jordan-as-protagonist, however, is not fooled by this first trial. He sees through the falsehood by drawing attention to the brother's pride. Jordan-as-narrator explains that Bernard gloried greatly in himself whenever anyone lent an ear, which incidentally reveals that some did listen. Indeed, he records that on one occasion the possessed offered him a contract: if Jordan were to stop preaching, he would cease being a trial to the brothers (§113).Footnote ²¹ Jordan recounts his own self-assured response: ‘God forbid that I would enter into a pact with death or make a treaty with hell! Despite your intent, the brothers will benefit from your trials and will grow strong toward a life of grace, because trial is the life of men upon the earth.’Footnote ²² Jordan's retort appears to draw from Gregory the Great's tropological interpretation of Job 7: 1 (‘[Trial] is the life of man upon the earth’), where ‘trial' (tentatio) is understood to refer to spiritual warfare.Footnote ²³ But while the reply is ostensibly directed toward the demon, it is clearly intended for the benefit of the text's audience. It demonstrates the master's confidence in the face of demonic attack and his intent to reinforce the spiritual significance of the order's mission. The message appears to have been well received. We find it repeated in Étienne de Bourbon's Tractatus de diversis materiis predicabilibus (1250–61) and in the Vitas fratrum, albeit without any mention of the demon's mimesis or of Jordan's later doubts.Footnote ²⁴

Despite Jordan's confidence, the demon continued to spread his wickedness in the brothers’ hearts (in cordibus nostris, lit. ‘our hearts’) by means of his false words (§114). Here too the demon struck at something integral to the Dominican community: the rule's apostolic exhortation for the brothers ‘to live in perfect unity in one heart’.Footnote ²⁵ And so Jordan confronts the demon a second time, demanding to know why the demon had redoubled his efforts even though the brothers were aware of his intentions. The demon offers a spirited rejoinder: ‘It is I who am aware of your falsehood! For the moment you reject and condemn what I offer you, but after a while, my wicked devices will trip you up so easily that you will receive it with joy!’Footnote ²⁶ Jordan now breaks from the narrative to address his text's audience. With an allusion to Ephesians 6: 10–17, he instructs ‘soldiers in Christ’ to take heed, as they are not fighting against flesh and blood but against the spirits of wickedness. They should learn from the unflagging assiduity of their enemies to continue in their fervour and to avoid any inclination to laziness.Footnote ²⁷

The exhortation to learn and to persevere would have resonated powerfully with an audience of novices, seated before their master. They had just been told of the demon's strategy and its effects. They had observed Jordan's steadfast confidence in the face of demonic opposition and the demon's equally steadfast determination to continue until even the master was led into falsehood. The novices are challenged to learn from the master's story. Will they persevere on the path they have chosen, or will they grow lazy and prove vulnerable to the demon's deceits?

Thus far, Jordan-as-narrator has described a demon capable of imitating a master of theology. Next, we find the demon adding to his repertoire by playing the part of a gifted preacher (§115). It sometimes occurred, Jordan relates, that the possessed friar ‘used such effective language as if in the manner of preaching’.Footnote ²⁸ By means of his way of speaking and his piety, he ‘drew abundant tears from the hearts of those who heard him’.Footnote ²⁹ Moreover, and to add a further dimension to the deceit, Jordan says that sometimes the sweetest aromas, beyond all human invention, would imbue the possessed.

Once again, the demon's behaviour is not exceptional. Other thirteenth-century exempla also describe demoniacs preaching sermons of impeccable orthodoxy.Footnote ³⁰ Whatever the origins of these stories, Newman notes that they function primarily as a form of clerical self-criticism, which acts to reinforce the pastoral and homiletic expectations emerging in the wake of the Fourth Lateran Council.Footnote ³¹ A representative example is found in Jacques de Vitry's Historia occidentalis, where a German demoniac preaches the truth of the gospel in order to demonstrate the local clergy's incompetence.Footnote ³² The point of Jacques's story is clear: it is to chasten inept ecclesiastics so that they might better fulfil their pastoral role. Jordan's purpose, in contrast, is more to exhort than to criticize.

For a Dominican, preaching was not simply a function, but a gift of special grace that had to be identified by the superiors of any prospective preacher.Footnote ³³ The portrait of Henry of Cologne, found earlier in Jordan's Libellus, powerfully illustrates its significance: ‘This is brother Henry on whom the Lord lavished a great and wonderful grace in regard to his preaching to the clerics of Paris, whose living and effective speech most violently penetrated the hearts of those who heard it.’Footnote ³⁴ Henry's abilities as a preacher were consonant with his holy behaviour. Jordan recounts his manifold virtues: obedience, patience, meekness and charity, amongst others (§78). In fact, Jordan's laudatory exposition of Henry's word and example, and the substantial attention he devotes to him in the Libellus, suggests that Henry is being held up as an exemplar.Footnote ³⁵ It is all the more remarkable, then, that the example of this ‘angel' – as Jordan refers to Henry – is so successfully imitated by the demon that possesses Brother Bernard.Footnote ³⁶ Indeed, the false preacher appears to mislead at least a portion of his audience. Jordan recounts that those who heard him were brought to tears, an expression of devotion that the Libellus otherwise associates with Dominic (§§12, 105), Henry (§74) or the brothers’ response to the antiphon Salve Regina (§120). But it is not only profound theology and pious preaching – and the genuine devotion that they produce – that are within the demon's grasp; so too is the appearance of sanctity.

Up to this point, Jordan-as-protagonist has remained unconvinced. He has confronted the demon, even if he has not been able to repel him. Indeed, he does not seem formally to have tried, as there is no description of an exorcism in his account. However, in the second part of the episode (§116, which Gerald later revised for the Vitas fratrum) the demon's plan to undermine Jordan's confidence finally succeeds, and it is here that the full depth of the protagonist's uncertainty is revealed.

Jordan-as-narrator explains to his audience that the demon covered the possessed brother with a sweet fragrance so that it seemed as if an angel – and not a demon – was responsible. When the fragrance then surrounded Jordan, the demon intended him to mistake it as a sign of his own sanctity rather than a diabolical concoction. And so, just as planned, when the sweetness appeared, Jordan was at a loss: ‘Confused, and in great uncertainty, I was distrustful of its merits. Yet still I was hesitating, unsure of how I should proceed. Surrounded by the wonderful fragrance, I scarcely dared to extract my hands [from my sleeves], afraid to lose that sweetness, which I did not yet understand.’Footnote ³⁷ Jordan-as-narrator goes on to explain that one day, when he was carrying the chalice in preparation for the mass, this same sweetness so enveloped him that he felt overwhelmed by its power. But, he explains, the ‘spirit of truth’ soon put a stop to the ‘spirit of malice’ (§118).

Jordan recalls that he began reading Psalm 34, which, he notes instructively, is effective for repelling trials.Footnote ³⁸ He was ruminating on the line (v. 10), ‘All my bones will declare, Lord, who is like you?’, when suddenly such a sweetness enveloped him that it appeared to permeate through to the marrow of his bones. Jordan was initially uncertain (incertus), then stupefied (stupefactus) and dismayed (perculsus). He prayed that the Lord would come to his aid and show him whether this was the demon's work, for like the poor man (quoting Ps. 71: 12) he had no other helper.Footnote ³⁹ However, Jordan informs his audience, as soon as he finished praying, ‘[i]nwardly I received such a great enlightenment of spirit and, through an infusion of truth, such indisputable proof that I was completely secure, that I had no doubt (nihil ambigerem) whatsoever that all these things were the fabrications of the deceitful enemy.’Footnote ⁴⁰ Jordan then informed (certum fecissem, lit. ‘made him certain’) the possessed brother about this diabolical trial.Footnote ⁴¹ Immediately, the aromas ceased, and so too did the demon's mellifluous words. In their place, Brother Bernard began saying evil and shameful things and, when asked why, responded that there was no longer any point in pretending. Thus ends the peculiar account of the possession of Brother Bernard.

We have observed a demon capable of manifesting Dominican ideals by offering profound theological exposition and inspiring sermons. We have also seen how some of his audience – probably Bernard's brother friars – were unaware of the falsehood. What is the implication? Is Jordan suggesting that the fulfilment of these Dominican ideals does not necessarily provide a reliable indication of a good and faithful friar, let alone of God's inspiration and blessing? How would a novice be able to discern the falsehood of a theologian or preacher? What if even the manifestation of sanctity – otherwise held to be a sure indication of God's blessing on the order – was a diabolic ruse?

Jordan-as-narrator had explained to his audience that the demon had intended Jordan-as-protagonist to presume his own sanctity. A friar familiar with Cassian's Conferences would know that a monk could often be tempted to cultivate a misguided belief in his own holiness.Footnote ⁴² Presumption, then, is certainly a concern. But, as with the demon's other strategies, it appears that something more directly relevant to the order is also intended. Within the opening paragraphs of the Libellus, Jordan describes Dominic as having been pervaded since his childhood by an odour of sanctity (§5). Indeed, amongst Dominic's fellow canons in Osma, his manner of life was held to be like ‘sweet-smelling frankincense in the days of summer’ (§12).Footnote ⁴³ As it stands in the text, the parallel between Dominic's odour and the demon's fragrance is strongly suggestive, but this power of association could veer toward provocation when we consider that the Libellus was probably issued during the General Chapter in 1233, when Dominic's tomb was opened and the witnesses described their wonder – and their relief – when Dominic's corpse was found to emit a marvellous fragrance.Footnote ⁴⁴

Luigi Canetti has suggested that the episode of Brother Bernard's possession was told with Dominic's cult in mind.Footnote ⁴⁵ But if Jordan were attempting to vouch for the authenticity of Dominic's sanctity on the basis of the sweet fragrance at his tomb, demonstrating that a demon was capable of fabricating such aromas would seem a strange way to do it. Rather than being directed toward the cult of Dominic, then, we might better understand the quandary if we continue to follow the logic of Jordan's narrative. To the false theologian and false preacher, we may add, finally, the false saint.

In Jordan's account it is his own sanctity, not Dominic's, which is being doubted. Indeed, it is Jordan who is doing the doubting. The candid evocation of his own uncertainty is remarkable. One wonders how his audience of novices might have responded. The Vitas fratrum includes a variety of stories, many of which involve Jordan, in which novices experience significant opposition, both spiritual and temporal, upon entering the Order of Preachers.Footnote ⁴⁶ The Libellus, too, describes the initial consternation of the devout man and his two friends who had trained Henry of Cologne when they learned he had entered an order about which they knew nothing (§76). Had it not been for a divine word, spoken to them while they prayed, one of them would have gone to Paris in order to bring Henry back and divert him from his indiscretion.Footnote ⁴⁷ Many Dominican novices, especially those drawn from the universities, would have found themselves in a similar position: their parents or benefactors would have had higher hopes for them than their entry into a recently founded religious order devoted to poverty and preaching.Footnote ⁴⁸ It was in this uncertain environment that questions of doubt and certainty would have been felt most acutely.

In the concluding narrative of the Libellus, doubt is diabolical in origin. This is made emphatic by way of contrast. In the culminating sequence, God is the source for Jordan's indisputable proof, while the demon's aromas are the cause of Jordan's uncertainty. Throughout the narrative, what ought to be certain is made uncertain through demonic deceit. The demon systematically fabricates the ideals in which a Dominican might find his identity: the theologian, the preacher, and even the prospective saint, all for the sake of leading the brothers into falsehood. Even Jordan-as-protagonist, after an assured beginning, is at a loss. And yet, this all takes place within a controlled environment. The master, vindicated, is telling the story and a broader pedagogical strategy is at work. From the beginning, Jordan explains that the demonic possession was granted by divine mercy to prove the brothers’ endurance. It is a point he reiterates, both in his rejoinder to the demon and in his exhortation that the brothers not slacken in their fervour against the attacks of the enemy. Indeed, Jordan tells them that they must learn from these attacks. But what are they to learn?

The short answer is that they must endure, even in the midst of uncertainty. If they fail to do so their demonic opponents will take advantage of their spiritual torpor and lead them into falsehood. If they continue faithfully and pray for assistance, as Jordan does in the narrative, even the most convincing deceit will be overcome by divine intervention. But beyond this lesson there is yet a further point being made, and here it is worth returning once more to those novices in Paris. Perhaps they were unsure of their choice; perhaps they were facing opposition from their parents and benefactors. In this uncertain setting, the master suffuses their decision to enter the order with profound spiritual significance. Demons are determined to undermine it. God is determined to uphold it. If they fail to continue with total commitment, they will prove susceptible to diabolic machinations. If they endure, God will be their security. It is no wonder then that the account of Brother Bernard concludes with the chant, at compline, of the Salve Regina, an antiphon designed to stir up fervour among the brethren and to ensure divine favour (§120).

In the last analysis, the episode is perhaps not quite so peculiar after all. Jordan told the story to novices in Paris, and so it is clear that he intended it to contribute to their vocational formation. In this respect it is consistent with the intent of the Libellus to benefit recent entrants into the order through a recollection of its past. Jordan assured the brothers that God intended the episode to produce endurance, but what proves remarkably germane to his pedagogical purposes is the role of doubt. The demon's partially effective fabrication of Dominican ideals and Jordan's candid admission of uncertainty are employed, however paradoxically, to engender confidence in the Dominican vocation. Indeed, Jordan's divine deliverance at the narrative's height provides the surety. In this respect then, the master's account of the demoniac, like others found in contemporary exempla, has essentially ‘dramatized the eternal warfare between God and Satan . . . and provided reassuring proof that God was winning’.Footnote ⁴⁹ Newman has interpreted many of these demoniac accounts, especially those dealing with preaching, confession and the eucharist, as serving ultimately to confirm the pastoral agenda of the Fourth Lateran Council.Footnote ⁵⁰ Jordan, it would seem, is more interested in securing the brothers’ total commitment to the Dominican order. The episode illustrates that they can be certain that the order is doing God's work, that it is a ‘secure path of salvation’ (§69). Doubt may ultimately be the work of the devil, but it has its uses.

Gerald de Frachet, in contrast, seems to have had little use for doubt in his rendition of Jordan's narrative in the Vitas fratrum.Footnote ⁵¹ As noted above, he removes from the Libellus all traces of Jordan's uncertainty, and also passes over the demon's initial success. Perhaps Gerald, or Master General Humbert of Romans (d. 1277), who oversaw the creation of the Vitas fratrum, was embarrassed by Jordan's admission of doubt.Footnote ⁵² It is more probable, however, that Gerald omitted uncertainty from the narrative because his version of the story was intended to contribute to a portrait of Jordan's sanctity and thus served a rather different purpose.

On the whole, the Vitas fratrum was designed to function in a similar manner to the Libellus. Humbert explains in his prologue that the stories of past friars compiled and edited therein were offered for the consolation and spiritual progress of present and future brethren.Footnote ⁵³ That having been said, however, the portrait of Jordan that emerges in the Vitas fratrum is tantamount to that of a prospective saint. Jordan receives substantially more attention than either Dominic or Peter of Verona (d. 1252), who at the time of the text's composition and and its subsequent revisions (1255–60) were the order's only saints.Footnote ⁵⁴ In the third part of the Vitas fratrum, which is devoted entirely to Jordan, he is introduced as a ‘holy and remarkable father’, a ‘mirror of all religious observances and an example of every virtue’.Footnote ⁵⁵ Various and lively accounts of Jordan's virtues, visions and miracles populate the work as a whole.Footnote ⁵⁶ Gerald's portrait of Jordan's sanctity is consistent with the notion that the order had once considered initiating a canonization process for the late master.Footnote ⁵⁷ Jordan could well have been the order's second saint, had Peter of Verona not been martyred in 1252 and swiftly canonized by Pope Innocent IV the following year.Footnote ⁵⁸ Perhaps the stories Gerald originally collected were intended to contribute to the late master's canonization process. In any case, Gerald's revision of Jordan's narrative must be interpreted within this hagiographical setting, in which the protagonist's doubt was probably inadmissible.

Jordan's engagement with the false aromas is but one of six stories in the Vitas fratrum in which the late master overcomes demonic opposition,Footnote ⁵⁹ proving himself to be a worthy successor to Dominic. In the second book of the Vitas fratrum, the order's saintly founder assuredly dismantles diabolical falsehoods and sends his demonic opponents into confusion.Footnote ⁶⁰ Jordan's uncertainties would have proved anomalous in comparison, for following Dominic's example, it was the demons who should have suffered confusion. Gerald's revision of Jordan's story is in keeping with the hagiographical norms of the Vitas fratrum. In conclusion, then, we may make a final observation about the nature of doubt in the two narratives. In the Libellus, the demon's deception and Jordan's self-doubt both hinge on Jordan's presumption of sanctity. In Gerald's rendering, however, it is the absence of doubt that proves the saint.