Abelard and Heloise

Constant J. Mews



great medieval thinkers

Series Editor
Brian Davies
Blackfriars, University of Oxford,
and Fordham University

duns scotus
Richard Cross

bernard of clairvaux
Gillian R. Evans

john scottus eriugena
Dierdre Carabine

robert grosseteste
James McEvoy

John Marenbon

peter lombard
Philipp W. Rosemann

abelard and heloise
Constant J. Mews


Constant J. Mews

1 2005

Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto

Copyright 䉷 2005 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Mews, C. J.
Abelard and Heloise / Constant J. Mews.
p. cm.—(Great medieval thinkers)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-19-515688-9; 0-19-515689-7 (pbk.)
1. Abelard, Peter, 1079–1142. 2. Heloise, d. 1164.
I. Title. II. Series.
B765.A24M49 2004
189'.4—dc22 2004001243

2 4 6 8 9 7 5 3 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper

Series Foreword

M any people would be surprised to be told that there were any great
medieval thinkers. If a great thinker is one from whom we can learn
today, and if “medieval” serves as an adjective for describing anything
which existed from (roughly) the years 600 to 1500 ad, then, so it is
often supposed, medieval thinkers cannot be called “great.”
Why not? One answer often given appeals to ways in which medieval
authors with a taste for argument and speculation tend to invoke “au-
thorities,” especially religious ones. Such invocation of authority is not
the stuff of which great thought is made—so it is commonly said today.
It is also sometimes said that greatness is not to be found in the thinking
of those who lived before the rise of modern science, not to mention that
of modern philosophy and theology. Students of science are nowadays
hardly ever referred to literature earlier than the seventeenth century.
Contemporary students of philosophy in the twentieth century are often
taught nothing about the history of ideas between Aristotle (384–322 bc)
and Descartes (1596–1650). Modern students of theology have been fre-
quently encouraged to believe that sound theological thinking is a product
of the nineteenth century.
Yet the origins of modern science lie in the conviction that the world
is open to rational investigation and is orderly rather than chaotic—a
conviction which came fully to birth, and was systematically explored and
developed, during the Middle Ages. And it is in medieval thinking that
we find some of the most sophisticated and rigorous philosophical and

No longer disposed to think of the Middle Ages as “dark” (meaning “lacking in intellectual richness”). the main difference between us and medieval thinkers lies in the fact that their reliance on authority was often more focused and explicitly acknowledged than is ours. perhaps. They were not (like many seventeenth. it aims to provide substantial introductions to a range of medieval authors. As for the question of appeal to authority: it is certainly true that many medieval thinkers believed in authority (especially religious authority) as a serious court of appeal. In recent years. the writings of Chau- cer) are currently well supplied (if not over-supplied) with secondary works to aid them when reading the objects of their concern.g. authority is as much an ingredient in our thinking as it was in that of medieval thinkers.. It does not lie in the fact that it was uncritical and naive in a way that our reliance on authority is not. Most of what we take ourselves to know derives from the trust we have reposed in our various teachers. And it does so on the assumption that they are as worth reading today as they were when they wrote. But as many contemporary philosophers are increasingly reminding us. and by offering solid overviews of their lives and thought coupled with contemporary . if we note that medieval philosophers and theologians. and friends. colleagues. When it comes to reliance on authority. But those with an interest in medieval philosophy and theology are by no means so fortunate when it comes to reliable and accessible volumes. Following a long period in which medieval thinking was thought to be of only anti- quarian interest. eighteenth. Students of medieval “literature” (e.vi series foreword theological discussions ever offered for human consumption—not surpris- ingly. like their contemporary counterparts. Written by a distinguished team of experts. many university departments (and many publishers of books and journals) now devote a lot of their energy to the study of medieval thinking. were mostly university teachers who par- ticipated in an ongoing world-wide debate. one from which we might learn. And they do so not simply on the assumption that it is historically important but also in the light of the increasingly developing insight that it is full of things with which to dialogue and from which to learn. The Great Medieval Thinkers series therefore aspires to remedy that deficiency by concentrating on medieval philosophers and theologians. The Great Medieval Thinkers series reflects and is part of this exciting revival. and even nineteenth-century philosophers and theologians) people working in relative isolation from a large community of teachers and students with whom they were regularly involved. such truths have come to be increasingly recognized at what we might call the “academic” level. we are now witnessing its revival as a contemporary voice—one to converse with.

and with an eye on the general reader. he enjoyed an international reputation even in his own lifetime. and (as abbot) even a potential murder victim (so he claimed). Two of the most controversial personalities of the twelfth century. Taken individually. and generally enter- tain even those with specialist knowledge in the area of medieval think- ing. though he was condemned as a heretic by the 1141 Synod of Sens. a parent. authors of volumes in the series strive to write in a clear and accessible manner so that each of the thinkers they write on can be learned about by those who have no previous knowledge about them. one of the few medieval women to come down to us as doing so. for much of her life. a logician. and personable. a metaphysician. As for Heloise: she was clearly one of the most literate women of her time. they were each fascinating in their own right. a moral philosopher. Abelard was handsome. have always been linked because of their famous romantic relationship (chronicled in Abelard’s Historia calamitatum and evident from a series of letters). While Abelard and Heloise are probably best known for their pro- tracted love affair. And he played many and various roles. a polemicist. eloquent. a writer. The most outstand- ing dialectician of his age. He was (not always simultaneously. Yet. Taken together. as well as surveying and introducing. she stands out as a formidable and unusual thinker and human being. an abbot. she does not seem to have been exactly what we would now describe as a feminist. Some- times hailed as an icon by contemporary feminist authors. a monk. The subjects of this volume. Bernard of Clairvaux and Pope Innocent II. who are appropriately buried together. an undoubted influence on Abelard at various levels. Chiefly via Peter Lombard (the subject of another Great Medieval Thinkers volume) his influence on thirteenth-century philosophers and theologians was con- siderable. of course) a teacher. this volume presents them not just as lovers but as great thinkers actively concerned with many of the key issues that pre- occupied their contemporaries. an able monastic administrator. a biblical commentator. a theologian. an iconoclast. a lover and hus- band. But each con- tributor to the series also intends to inform. and. volumes in the series seek to advance the state of medieval studies both at the historical and the speculative level. a serious intellectual. they will constitute a rich and distinguished history and discussion of medieval philosophy and theology considered as a whole. as well as by St. volumes in the series will provide valuable treatments of single thinkers many of whom are not currently covered by any comparable volumes. So it provides an accessible introduction . engage. So. With an eye on college and university students. series foreword vii reflection on what they had to say.

brian davies . Its author has been publishing specialist material on Abelard and Heloise for over twenty years.viii series foreword not just to their turbulent lives but also to their philosophical and the- ological ideas. ex- plores the evolution of Abelard’s intellectual interests in the context of his relationship with Heloise. In what follows he offers a very welcome and mature synthesis of his research on two of the most original medieval thinkers. A number of books have been published in recent years that deal only with Abelard’s life and thought. however. The book also situates both Abelard and Heloise firmly in the context of wider intellectual debates of the twelfth century. who so often forced Abelard to confront questions that he had not previously asked. This book.

not just of Abelard and Heloise but of their contemporaries. and then for his patience in waiting for the final product to appear. Acknowledgments T his book has been a long time in the making. There have been many detours on the journey. so as to invite further discussion and debate. and literary context of the letters and other writings associated both with Abelard and Heloise and with their contemporaries has demanded detailed research that can only be alluded to in this volume. In the final analysis. If this book helps to promote such enquiry and to en- . I must first of all thank Brian Davies. The complexity of the debates that surround the authenticity. dating. the judgments that are made in this book about what constitutes an “authentic” writing or about the exact date of a particular composition are based on what seems to me to be the most plausible interpretation of often enigmatic evidence. Sometimes I can only raise a possibility.. O. I am very aware that in this study I have concen- trated more on some writings than on others.P. My broader intention has been simply to provide a framework that can help readers explore for themselves the richness of the texts that have come down to us. The nature of the surviving evidence has meant that I have given more attention to Abelard than to Heloise. There is also a wealth of material provided to us by scholars over the centuries that still needs to be fully digested. for inviting me to contribute a volume on Abelard for this series. Much more is still waiting to be discovered in the many manuscripts that survive from the twelfth century or have been copied from documents that have since disappeared.

the one person who has patiently watched over its genesis and development. a commentary on Cicero by William of Champeaux. Werner Robl. Dominique Poirel. . C. Juanita Feros Ruys. I am grateful to Palgrave Macmillan for being able to reproduce extracts from the translation by Neville Chiavaroli and me of the Epistolae duorum amantium included within The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton provided a wonderful en- vironment to follow up literature impossible to find in Australia. David Luscombe. Ire`ne Rosier-Catach. John Marenbon. I have benefited from conversations with Michael Clanchy. It remains finally to acknowledge Maryna. Fiona Grif- fiths. among others. Yukio Iwakuma. I am indebted to Ruys and Ward for being privileged to use their draft edition (forthcoming in the Corpus Christianorum) of In primis. To her I owe a profound debt of gratitude. and John O. and students have helped me over the years. guided me in my early studies on Abelard. Richard Southern. and Jean Jolivet. Stephen Jaeger. Cary Nederman. as well as to explore further the writings of their remarkable generation. forthcoming in an important volume. it will have been worthwhile. colleagues. friends. Ralf Stammberger. Many institutions. My teachers. The Repentant Abelard: Abelard’s Thought as Revealed in His Carmen ad Astralabium and Planctus (Palgrave Macmillan).x acknowledgments courage readers to deepen their linguistic skills to get to know Abelard and Heloise more fully. and David Wulstan. and their translation of Abelard’s Planctus and Carmen ad Astralabium. Sabina Flanagan. Ward have been particularly helpful in commenting on a draft version of this manuscript. Peter von Moos. for which I am grateful. Monash University has generously supported this research.

Contents Abbreviations xiii Introduction 3 1. The Trinity 101 7. Ethics. and Redemption 174 10. Heloise and Discussion about Love 58 5. and Charity 204 11. Sacraments. A Christian Theologia 123 8. The Early Years: Roscelin of Compie`gne and William of Champeaux 21 3. Images of Abelard and Heloise 7 2. Challenging Tradition: The Dialectica 43 4. Sin. Returning to Logica 81 6. Accusations of Heresy 226 Notes 251 Bibliography 289 Index 299 . Heloise and the Paraclete 145 9. Faith.

This page intentionally left blank .

The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard: Perceptions of Dialogue xiii . Continuatio Me- diaeualis CCSL Corpus Christianorum. 1859) CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latino- rum LLL Constant J. Codex latinus monacensis Cousin Petri Abaelardi opera hactenus seorsim edita. Mews. Variorum Collected Studies Series 504 (London: Ashgate. ed. 1849. Abelard and His Legacy. 2 vols. 2001) AHDLMA Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litte´raire du moyen aˆge AL Aristoteles Latinus BGP[T]MA Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie [und Theologie] des Mittelalters BnF Bibliothe`que nationale de France CCCM Corpus Christianorum. Victor Cousin. Mews. Series Latina CIMAGL Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-A ˆ ge Grec et Latin [Universite´ de Copenhague] Clm Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. (Paris. Abbreviations Abelard and His Legacy Constant J.

Patrologia Latina Reason and Belief Constant J. fid. Hel. (Assen: Van Gorcum.: University of Notre Dame Press. 1970) EDA Epistolae duorum amantium: Briefe Abaelards und . “ ‘Confessio fidei ad Heloisam’—Abelard’s Last Letter to Heloise? A Discussion and Critical Edition of the Latin and Medieval French Versions. and trans. ed. 1994) Dial. Charles S. A. Martin’s Press. Burnett. ‘Universis’ “Peter Abelard. Rubingh- Bosscher (Groningen: [privately published]. Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Ind.” ed. Collationes Peter Abelard. 2001) Comm. 2nd ed. Rom. Mews. F. ed. Patrick Morin (Paris: Vrin. 2002) RTAM Recherches de the´ologie ancienne et me´die´vale Works of Abelard and Heloise. Charles S. 1987). 1969) Conf. Jose´ M. Commentarius Cantabrigiensis. fid. ed. Abe´lard: Des intellections.xiv abbreviations in Twelfth-Century France (New York: St. F. 1937–45) Comm. A. Eligius-Marie Buytaert. Variorum Col- lected Studies Series 730 (London: Ash- gate. ed. ed.” ed. and trans.-P. Landgraf (Notre Dame. Collationes. Petrus Abaelardus. Burnett. and Reports of Abelard’s Teaching Carmen Carmen ad Astralabium. Confessio fidei ‘Universis’: A Critical Edition of Abelard’s Reply to Accusa- tions of Heresy. Cantab. MS 48 (1986): 111–38 De int. John Marenbon and Giovanni Orlandi (Oxford: Clarendon Press. ed. CCCM 11 (Turnhout: Brepols. Dialectica. Migne. Mittella- teinisches Jahrbuch 21(1986): 147–55 Conf. Reason and Belief in the Age of Roscelin and Abelard. Lambert de Rijk. 1999) MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica MS Mediaeval Studies PL J.

/. ed. 1991) [HC. trans.” MS 17 (1955): 240–81 [Ep. Jacques Mon- frin (Paris: Vrin. 1974).” MS 15 (1953): 47–94 [Ep. Ap. Mews. II–VIII Ed. Edme´ Smits (Groningen: [privately published]. Peter Abelard’s Hymnarius Paraclitensis. ed. ed. Ep. ed. II–V]. Muckle. La vie et les epistres Pierres Abaelart et Heloys sa fame 1 (Paris: Honore´ Champion. 1975). Ath Revue be´ne´dictine 95 (1985): 60–72. legimus orationes. Fontes Ambrosiani 3 (Florence. “Abelard’s Rule for Religious Women. P. vocales Glossae secundum vocales. ed. abbreviations xv Heloises? ed. Cistercian .Y. 1933) HC Abe´lard: Historia calamitatum. ed. ed. Antonianum 43 (1968): 163– 94 Exp. J. Carmelo Ottavi- ano. II–VII] Ep.’ ed. Dom.: Classical Fo- lio Editions. 1– 203 Ep. Neville Chiavaroli and Constant J. Cat. Editio super Porphyrium. Eligius- Marie Buytaert. De interpretatione. PL 178: 617–32 Gl./ed. N. F. Eric Hicks. Pietro Abelardo: Scritti di Logica (Rome 1954. (Albany. Martin’s Press. Par. Joseph Szo¨ve´rffy. Burnett. sec. Symb. Por. 1999) Ed. Expositio Symboli Apostolorum and Expositio Symboli S. Muckle. Chrysogonus Waddell. 2nd ed. “Ab- elard’s Expositio in Hexameron. “The Personal Letters between Abelard and He´loı¨se. Hex. PL 178: 731–784.” MS 18 (1956): 241–92.” ed. 1959) Hymn. VI– VII]. Athanasii. Letters IX–XIV.” ed. J. Mario Dal Pra. “The Letter of He´loı¨se on the Religious Life and Abelard’s First Reply. McLaughlin. Glossae in Categorias. Expositio in Hexaemeron./ed. Charles S. Or. 1983) Epithalamica “Epithalamica: An Easter Sequence by Peter Abelard. 2 vols. Musical Quarterly 72 (1986): 239–71 Exp. de divisionibus.. T./ “The Expositio Orationis Dominicae ‘Multorum Symb. Editio super Aristotelem. T. ed. Per. T. Chrysogonus Waddell. Hymn Collections from the Paraclete. Div. IX–XIV Peter Abelard. ed. The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard (New York: St./ed. 1969). Ewald Ko¨nsgen (Leiden: Brill.

Cistercian Lit- urgy Series 20 (Gethsemani Abbey. 1958). nostrae The Paraclete Statutes. Rainer M. Commentary. 1973) Planctus Pietro Abelardo: Planctus. Geyer. Per./sup. Trappist. Lorenzo Minio- Paluello. Ky. 205–330. B. “Abelard on Rhet- oric. ed. Mews. A. ed. Top. and trans. and Rodney M. ed. Peter Abaelards Philosophische Schriften. Sandro Buzzetti (Florence: La Nuova Italia. 2001). Secundum magistrum Petrum sententie. L. BGPMA 21. 1969).4 (2nd ed. Constant J. LI super Periermeneias. (Gethsemani Ab- bey. Logica “Ingredientibus” [super Porphyrium. 2 vols. ed. and trans. Massimo Sannelli (Trento: La Finestra. Edition. 1983) . ed. Trappist. Ky.: Cistercian Publications. Mario Dal Pra.” ed. super Periermeneias].” in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100–1540. ed. Praedicamenta Aristotelis. Twelfth Century Logic: Texts and Studies II: Abaelardiana inedita (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Thomson (Brepols: Turnhout. Ilgner. Por. CCCM 190 (Turnhout: Brepols.: Cistercian Publications. Karin Margareta Fredborg. Twelfth Century Logic:Texts and Studies II: Abaelardiana inedita (Rome. Minio-Paluello. (Rome. 111–21 Sent. Logica “Ingredientibus” super Topica glossae. ed. Bernhard Geyer. super Praed. Pietro Abelardo: Scritti di Log- ica. 1989) Instit. Peter Abelard’s Ethics. 2nd ed.xvi abbreviations Liturgy Series 8–9. David Edward Luscombe (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peter Abaelards Philoso- phische Schriften./sup.1–3 (1919–27). 1958) LI sup.. Sententie magistri Petri Abelardi (Sententie Her- manni). LNp Logica “Nostrorum petitioni sociorum. Cary J. 2002) Problemata Problemata Heloissae. PL 178: 677–730 Scito teipsum Scito teipsum. 1987) LI sup. BGPMA 21. Institutiones Nostrae: Intro- duction. P. 1971) Sent. 2003). Nederman. 62–80. ed. ed. ed.

M. In Isagogen Porphyrii Commenta. Burnett. 1957–77) Boethius. 1987) Works of Other Writers Bernard. J. M. 1880) Bouquet. Brandt. 1969) tsch/TSch Theologia “Scholarium.” ed.” ed. 1912) . Buytaert and C. (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses. Mews. Schepss and S. TChr Theologia Christiana. F. ed.. 34] ed. CCCM 13 (Turnhout: Brepols. In Categorias Aristotelis libri quatuor. In Per. ed. (Leipzig. Landgraf. G. SBO Sancti Bernardi Opera. ed. (Paris. La Chronique de Morigny (1095–1152). Ecrits the´ologiques de l’e´cole d’Abe´lard (Louvain: Spi- cilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. In Cat. Buytaert. Le´on Mirot (Paris: Alphonse Picard. 1877. 2003) SN Peter Abailard. PL 64:159– 294 Boethius. M. Meiser. E. In Isagog. 25 (1984): 857–94. [Sermones 2. Blanche Boyer and Richard McKeon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 3rd ser. 2 vols. Paula di Santis. PL 178: 379–610. 1934) Sermo 1–33 Sermones. CSEL 48 (Vienna-Leipzig. Medieva- lia Lovaniensia I. Leclercq. “Peter Ab- elard. Mews. Sic et Non. 32. CCCM 13 (Turnhout: Brepols. ed. ed. I Sermoni di Abelardo per le monache del Paracleto. M. ed. ed. 14. 1738–1904) Chron. 26. J. Maur. TSch: re- censiones longiores] TSum Theologia “Summi boni. ‘Soliloquium’: A Critical Edition. Charles S. C. Buytaert and C. Recueil M.31 (Louvain: Peeters. Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France. 1987) [tsch: recensiones breuiores. abbreviations xvii Sent. E. 4. ed. A. J. 1976–77) Sol.” Studi Medievali. Bouquet. CCCM 12 (Turnhout: Brepols. 8 vols. Parisienses Sententie Parisienses. E. Commentarii in librum Aristotelis Periermeneias. Soliloquium. 24 vols. 1906) Boethius.

MGH Scripta rerum germanicarum in usu scho- larum. Dialectica Garlandus Compotista.xviii abbreviations Gerland. Dialectica. Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris. B. (Hannover: Hahnsche Buch- handlung. 1991) Otto. repr. Georg Waitz and Bernard von Simson. 1959) John. Metalogicon. ed. 1912. ed. 1978) . CCCM 98 (Turnhout: Brepols. Hall. 3rd ed. Lambert Marie de Rijk (Assen: Van Gorcum. Metalogicon John of Salisbury. Gesta Friderici Otto of Freising. J. ed.


This page intentionally left blank .

They may dislike the way he seems to abuse the trust of Heloise and then seems to neglect her after she enters the religious life. 3 . most influentially by Bernard of Clairvaux (1090/91–1153). Others admire the brilliance of his analytic capacity. although more for her declarations of selfless love than as a thinker about ethics. or History of My Calamities. She has long been admired as a woman of great learning. overconfident in his own skills. Their lives are well known through the Historia calamitatum. For over eight hundred years. Readers of the Historia calami- tatum sometimes find Abelard a difficult personality. wisdom and religion. at his behest. Introduction P eter Abelard (1079–1142) and Heloise (d. these two personalities have func- tioned as mythic figures onto whom a variety of images and ideals have been projected relating to reason and authority. generally attracts a more sympathetic response. by contrast. although opinions have varied greatly about her attitude toward the religious life. Yet the actual ideas that attracted their attention have tended to be little understood. love and renunciation. and the passion with which he declares his feelings. as well as through an exchange of letters between Heloise and Abelard that always follows the Historia calamitatum in the manuscript tradition. Heloise. as a clever dialectician who never acquired spiritual depth as a theologian. 1164) are two of the most celebrated and controversial personalities of twelfth-century Europe. Abelard has regularly been typecast by his critics. the brazen- ness with which he attacks authority. except through gross simplifications.

not as intel- lectuals but as lovers: one foolish enough to think that he could combine love and marriage. We also need to appreciate how a social structure that denied women the opportunity to teach within educational institutions or to rise to positions of influence . who endured adversity in life but were united in death. a role quite different from that played by more “canonical” figures associated with scholastic thought. such as St. we must distrust these stereotypes. 1094–1156). he ignored the monastic dimension of her role as abbess of the Paraclete and focused instead on one aspect of her letters. Even today.”3 These images have continued to exercise influence during the modern period.4 abelard and heloise Peter the Venerable. as ruler of the world.”2 Through his presentation within Le Roman de la rose. “such as has never existed since. her rhetorically powerful declaration to Abelard that love was far more important to her than the external trappings of marriage: “If Au- gustus. it would seem to me dearer and more worthy to be called your prostitute than his em- press. Abelard and Heloise were revered as tragic lovers. Thomas Aquinas. designed to show the eternal conflict of worldly and spiritual love. at odds with the ecclesiastical and monastic structures of their day. abbot of Cluny (ca.1 Yet when Jean de Meun (d. mythologized as forerunners of modernity. the other the embodiment of selfless love. Given the long history of projecting onto Ab- elard and Heloise often conflicting ideals and concerns. Anselm. They were effectively revered as romantic saints. In the eighteenth century. Some skeptics suggested that the letters of Heloise might have been a male invention. In 1817. 1302) came across her exchange with Abelard and summarized part of their contents in Le Roman de la rose. deigned to honor me with marriage and conferred the whole world on me to possess in perpetuity. speaks glowingly about her piety and religion. images evoked by the names of Abelard and Heloise are shaped by a complex fusion of rumors generated about both of them within their own lifetime and a selective reading of a few of their more famous letters. and St. they were the only individuals from the pre-Revolutionary period whose remains were given a place of honor at the newly founded cemetery of Pe`re Lachaise in Paris. namely. we must untangle the complex role that both Abelard and Heloise have played in European literary and in- tellectual imagination. Jean de Meun created an enduring image of Abelard and Heloise. They became celebrated more for rejecting the traditions of the past than for any particular intellectual achievement. Peter Lombard. Is it possible to interpret them not just as friends and lovers but as two great thinkers in the medieval period of European cul- ture? Before answering this question.

Heloise. New hy- potheses always need to be offered in order to challenge existing assump- tions and to force us to consider new ways of looking at the texts that have come down to us. it might seem that little can be said about her intellectual achievement. there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the Historia calamitatum or the subsequent exchange between Heloise and Abelard. Also worthy of at- tention is a remarkable collection of over one hundred anonymous love letters.4 What is offered here is simply my own interpretation of how a wide range of texts from the twelfth century—relating to dialectic. exchanged between a brilliant teacher and his female student. not the least of which is that the texts attributed to Heloise do not survive in manuscripts from the twelfth cen- tury and are not independently attested by contemporaries. Both of them were inextricably involved in and shaped by the established religious structures of their day. They also shared a fascination with the philosophical and literary culture of classical antiquity. My argument is that the evolution of Abelard’s thinking about language. Passionate attachment or aversion to the images we hold of individuals such as Abelard. One consequence of the relative paucity of texts firmly attributed to Heloise (at least when compared to those attributed to Peter Abelard) is that a few scholars have asked whether she could really have written those outspoken declarations of love for Abelard that Jean de Meun found so remarkable. Yet the debate that came to a head at Sens in 1141 should not blind us to perceiving the extent to . and Bernard of Clairvaux can cause us to read evidence in selective ways. The documentary record presents many questions of interpretation. theology. Because Heloise never became a public figure in the manner of Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179). theology. the Epistolae duorum amantium. and ethics is marked by continuity rather than by rupture and that it cannot be understood apart from the influence of Heloise. whose intellectual achievement is much more difficult to identify within the documentary record. We must also acknowledge the intellec- tual and literary debts of both Abelard and Heloise to their contempo- raries. The contrasting ideas about love in these letters. Yet even though these letters survive only within an edited compilation. whether in the lives of Abelard and He- loise or in the schools and monasteries in which they lived. introduction 5 within the Church shaped the documentary record that has survived. and ethics—relate to each other. wide- spread among many clerics of their day. discarding elements that we do not like. are very close indeed to those found in other writings of Abelard and Heloise. There are so many gaps in the surviving record that the temptation has always been strong for readers to speculate about those unknown elements. as also some of their images and technical terms.

The chapters that follow do not aim to present a definitive account of the thought of Abelard and Heloise and the circumstances in which they lived. they serve to promote discussion and further explo- ration of some fascinating texts that have come down to us from the twelfth century. The abbeys of the Paraclete and of Clairvaux shared more in common than is often realized. even if they differed in the ways these two communities sought to live out these ideals.6 abelard and heloise which Abelard. Rather. . and Bernard shared a common desire to go be- yond the outward slogans of religious life. Heloise.

At Abelard’s behest.1 He tells the story of his life as a moral lesson on how worldly success could lead to disaster while the most difficult situations could always be turned to the good. 1 Images of Abelard and Heloise T here is a mythic quality to the lives of Peter Abelard and Heloise that has never ceased to fascinate readers of their letters and to pro- voke controversy about the significance of their ideas. who outshone both William of Champeaux in dialectic and then Anselm of Laon in divinity. Fulbert. or History of My Calamities. he presents his behavior as simply the con- sequence of lust. after arriving in Paris from his native Brittany around 1100. she at the Abbey of Argenteuil and he at the royal Abbey of St. difficult as they were to accept. He devotes much attention to putting his side of the story about which rumor was rife. In a similar vein. Abelard explains these events. When Heloise became pregnant. they both entered the re- ligious life. He explains how. he es- tablished himself as a brilliant and controversial teacher. This failed to placate Fulbert. his love affair with Heloise. Abelard had her escape to Brit- tany. a cleric and Abelard’s host. as all serving a higher end. he argues that the machinations 7 . Explaining what hap- pened as if it were a fable. The love affair became the subject of wide gossip and was eventually discovered by her uncle.-Denis. who had him castrated. Abelard endeavored to make amends to her uncle by forcing her (against her will) into a secret marriage. The outer con- tours of their lives are well known through Abelard’s so-called Historia calamitatum.

by contrast. Heloise declares that she is not satisfied by his attempt to provide consolation.2 Abelard. in the expectation that this friend will find comfort from the message that all suffering ultimately serves a higher end. This at least is the story as Abelard tells it in his Historia calamitatum. or by his account of their relationship as driven by lust. however. dedicated initially to the Holy Trinity but then more specifically to the Paraclete. and ethics. the comforter or Paraclete. Ever since Jean de Meun summarized the story of their love affair within his continuation to Le Roman de la rose in the thirteenth century. just as the castration had cured him of lust. and that God never ceases to provide consolation through the Holy Spirit. whether true love could ever be compatible with marriage.8 abelard and heloise that led to his writing on theology being condemned as heretical at the Council of Soissons were corrupt but served to cure him of pride. a corrupt action—Suger’s expulsion of Heloise and her nuns from Argenteuil—had a positive outcome. He devotes the remainder of his narrative to explaining the background to his foundation of the oratory of the Paraclete. Abelard transferred to Heloise and her community control over the abandoned oratory. By 1131. and insists on the purity and selflessness of her love for him. preoccupied by issues of language. then experiencing great difficulty. theology. where he established a philosophical retreat. about whose early life we are largely dependent on the rather remote and enigmatic testimony of Abelard in his account of their early affair. prefers that she dwell on the religious ideals to which she is committed in the monastic life. She closes the letter by declaring that she should write to him in the religious life as much as he used to write to her in the past. forcing him to accept a position as abbot at a remote monastery in Brittany. It is addressed to an unidentified friend (per- haps indirectly Heloise herself). namely. there has been no shortage of attempts to imag- ine and admire her as a passionate heroine. By the working of providence. written around 1132. the Paraclete had been granted official recognition by the papacy. In her initial response. when they were lovers. After a few successful years the com- munity collapsed. and he . Much less is known about Heloise. The difficulty with this fascination in the story of their love affair is that it has tended to overshadow awareness of Abelard and Heloise as thinkers. Abelard’s narrative in the Historia calamitatum is itself shaped by pro- foundly theological concerns.-Denis had driven him to escape to the territory of Champagne. While Abelard’s life was still uncertain. devoted to Abelard. The narrow-mindedness of the monks of St. While Jean de Meun read the correspondence from the perspective of a very specific issue. he was sure that all difficulties could be overcome.

perhaps the most intellectually pro- ductive in his entire career. Abelard shapes his narrative to show how the working out of his own life itself followed an inner logic. He opens his account by reflecting that the story of one individual’s life can often be more powerful than general platitudes: “Often examples stir or soothe human emotions more than words. This phase of life. Reading the text literally. at her behest. as the unfolding of the divine will through the most unpalatable and unjust situations. In the Historia calamitatum. driven in his youth by debauchery and pride as well as by enduring suspicion that others are driven by jealousy of his genius. The Historia calamitatum gives no record of the way Abelard’s thinking deepened during the 1130s as a result of his becoming a spiritual adviser to the Abbey of the Paraclete and through starting to teach again in Paris at the schools of the Montagne Ste. Goaded . we can easily assume that this is the writing of an individual with an aggressive and difficult personality. His major ar- gument is theological: that God’s consoling goodness can turn the most difficult situation to a positive end. it needs to be read with caution.”3 While his narrative is a carefully crafted text that provides a particular perspec- tive on the story of the lives of its two central protagonists.-Genevie`ve. The rhetorical framework of the Historia calamitatum makes it danger- ous to rely only on this account as an objective summary of Abelard’s career. he claims that he has learned that all these difficulties serve a greater good. It is not particularly concerned with the evolution of Abelard’s ideas or his intellectual debts. He presents the story of his life and his relationship to Heloise in mythical terms. from which he claims to have been freed by castration. but also the injustice of the accusations made against his teaching of theology. Our understanding of Abelard as a thinker has also been much shaped by the powerful imagery invoked by Bernard of Clairvaux in a widely diffused letter that he addressed to Pope Innocent II in 1140/41. It is a polemical document in which he emphasizes not only his own past debauchery. images of abelard and heloise 9 composes. Like other writers of the period. While he gives much more detail about his life than most of his contemporaries. Inheriting a literary topos from Ovid and Jerome that he has been victimized by the jealousy (in- vidia) of rivals. extensive treatises and liturgical texts for Heloise and her community. Abelard plays up certain elements of his past to evoke a moral lesson. above all his debt to those who have helped him both politically and intellectually. has to be understood through the prolific writings that he produced both for Heloise and for his students in Paris during this decade. he glides over many issues.

Drawing on passages brought to his attention by William of St. God the Son is only “a kind of power” and the Holy Spirit “no power at all. With no awareness of the arguments that un- derpin Abelard’s dialectic. does that not render unnecessary the death of Christ on the cross? Bernard is out- raged by Abelard’s rhetorical question: “To whom does it not seem cruel and wicked that anyone should seek the blood of an innocent.10 abelard and heloise by William of St. While he is ready to supply a reason for everything.”5 This seems to contradict the claim of the Athanasian Creed that all three divine persons are equally omnipotent. 11:1).-Thierry. He who deems to know everything in heaven above and on earth below apart from “I do not know” lifts his face to heaven and gazes on the depths of God. which seems to contradict the Pauline definition of faith as “the substance of things hoped for. he presumes against reason and against faith. so that God has an acceptable death for his Son. a so-called book of the sentences of Master Peter. Both quote from a report of his teaching. and to add new ones besides. He tries to raise teachings once condemned and silenced. so that he could be reconciled . the ar- gument of things that do not appear” (Heb. or cannot it in any way please him for an innocent person to be killed.6 Abelard’s account of the redemption seems to William and Bernard to be even more alarming. Bernard’s writ- ing has been immensely influential over the centuries in creating the impression that Abelard always remained a dialectician at heart and never matured into a serious theologian: We have in France a former teacher turned new theologist. Bernard caricatures Abelard as a self-important thinker devoted to reason rather than to the love of God. Bernard presents his opponent as someone who. in which Abelard seems to assert that Christ did not come to free humanity from any legitimate yoke of the devil. In particular he abhors Abelard’s claim that while God the Father is full power.7 If he denies that humanity was not rightfully held in captivity by the devil. which are not lawful for a man to speak. Bernard dissects a range of opinions in Abelard’s Theologia “Scholarium” that seem to be manifestly contrary to orthodox Christian doctrine. who from his earliest youth has dabbled in the art of dialectic and now raves about the Holy Scriptures. argues against both reason and faith. under the guise of providing reasons to justify belief. Bernard is troubled not only by Abelard’s apparent claim that the Holy Spirit is not of the substance of the Father but also by his definition of faith as “estimation” or opinion (estimatio). even those things that are beyond reason.4 Bernard portrays Abelard as a stereotype of everything that the true in- tellectual should not be.-Thierry. bringing back to us words that cannot be spoken. both his own and others’.

Abelard did not have articulate apologists to put forth a reasoned explanation of his arguments.11 This public controversy made it difficult for contemporaries to gain an unbiased understanding of what Abelard actually thought about language. He cannot understand Abelard as a philosopher. in his assertion that “[O]ur redemption is that supreme love for us. or a well- resourced monastic community that could ensure the diffusion of his writ- ings. 1141. to be held at Sens on May 25.” pursuing novelty for its own sake. and William of Conches—who defended the value of the liberal arts: “He . Bernard has great difficulty in finding any common thread to all the various ideas in Abelard’s thought other than a perverse desire to chal- lenge accepted Christian doctrine. he has failed to grasp anything of Christian doctrine or the spiritual life. except as someone who has dabbled in the art of dialectic and now “raves” incoherently about the Scriptures. When he realizes that Bernard had already spoken to the bishops on the eve of the council. images of abelard and heloise 11 through this death to the whole world?”8 Abelard seems to imply that all Christ achieved through his suffering was to demonstrate an example of love rather than to free us from the yoke of sin. Ber- engar of Poitiers writes a heated attack on Bernard’s behavior at Sens. and ethics. coequal persons and abandoning any orthodox sense that Christ came to redeem mankind from sin. 6: 20). achieved through the pas- sion of Christ. theology. Unlike Bernard. Abelard seeks permission to present his case at a forthcoming council. but in it speaks little about Abelard’s theology. His most ardent defenders could also be the most intemperate. All that he knows about Abelard’s intellectual evolution is that having begun life as a dia- lectician. prompting Bernard to write a flood of letters to the pope and the cardinals. Bernard con- siders that Abelard is gutting the idea of God as a Trinity of three. condemning him to perpetual silence and excommunicating all his followers on July 16. and recalls that “the peripatetic of Le Pallet” was one of a small cluster of outstanding teachers—alongside Gilbert of Poitiers.12 Even John of Salisbury. who followed Abelard’s introductory lectures on dialectic in 1136/37. Pope Innocent II issues an official condemnation of Abelard as a heretic. John certainly admires the broad commitment of Abelard to philosophical learning. Abelard decides to transfer his case to Rome.10 Anxious to respond to these accusations. never shows any profound familiarity with Abelard’s theology. 1141. he describes Abelard as indulging in “profane novelties both of words and of meanings.”9 These are criticisms not of Abelard’s method but of his understanding of key doctrines of orthodox Christian belief. Thierry of Chartres. Drawing on Paul’s warning about false teachers (1 Tim.

and patience: “The more she hid herself away in her enclosed cell to give herself more fully to holy prayers and meditations. John gives a detailed and nuanced account of the accusations against Gilbert raised at Reims in 1148. John only alludes briefly. we encounter a similar problem. piety. In the Historia pontificalis. This tendency to disciplinary fragmentation is itself a legacy of the increasingly sophisticated intellec- tual culture of the twelfth century.”15 Heloise’s refusal to present a public image of herself to a wider world only encouraged her admirers to imagine the inner story of her life. As a thinker. wisdom. he tends to be identified as “a man of the schools” rather than as a monk. to Bernard’s behav- ior at the Council of Sens in 1141. Even twentieth- century historiography of Abelard has been subtly influenced by the rhe- torical arguments of previous centuries. 1150) speaks glowingly of her reputation as a writer: . Hugh Metel (ca. The superfluity of images. She became famous for qualities quite different from those associated with Abelard. With Heloise. The cleavage that has developed in the modern period be- tween philosophy and theological studies has had a serious effect in frag- menting understanding of Peter Abelard. 1080–ca. Scholars interested in Abelard’s ethical theory tend to consider such inquiry as separate from his activity as a logician or as a commentator on Scripture. rather than as one of their own. Philosophers have concentrated their attention on certain aspects of Abelard’s logic but have rarely paid attention to his commentaries on Scripture or his other writings for Heloise and the nuns of the Paraclete. she could not become a teacher in her own right except in the context of the Paraclete.”13 Yet for all his enthusiasm for Abelard’s capacity to produce easily accessible explanations of ancient texts. As a woman. It is thus more difficult to reconstruct the distinct features of her thought. She tends to be per- ceived and admired more in a secular than in a religious context. subtly criticizing Bernard of Clairvaux for not appreciating Gilbert’s learning and theological depth. the more ardently did outsiders seek out the advice of her spiritual conversation. In two letters to Heloise. and counterclaims generated by Ab- elard’s eagerness to engage in public debate makes it difficult to determine the underlying threads behind Abelard’s diverse output. concerned for the religious community dedicated to the Paraclete. namely. John does not hesitate to describe specific arguments offered by Abelard as either naı¨ve or simply wrong. he is more sympathetic to the arguments of Gilbert of Poitiers about language and theology.12 abelard and heloise was so eminent in logic that he alone was thought to converse with Aristotle. claims.14 While John shares Abelard’s admiration for classical ethics. Theologians tend to view Abelard as a philosopher. in particular as a logician. however.

While Heloise does seem to have been an imag- inative and innovative writer. Little is known of the books possessed at the Paraclete during the twelfth century. she steered away from the public stage. Hugh sent a second message. had the bodies of Abelard and Heloise solemnly transferred to places of honor in the newly constructed abbey church at the Paraclete. 802). by versifying. but bought by Robert de Bardi from the cathedral chapter of Notre-Dame in 1347.17 The Troyes manuscript may have been returned to the Paraclete by 1497. Only after Jean de Meun came across the exchange of letters between Heloise and Abelard does a shadowy story.18 This volume initially ap- peared with a preface by Duchesne. images of abelard and heloise 13 “By composing. Jean is interested in Heloise not as an abbess or as a thinker about ethics.and fourteenth-century manuscripts of the corre- spondence of Abelard and Heloise were copied in a humanist rather than a monastic milieu. mun. who provided a detailed historical commentary on the Historia calamitatum. In the late fourteenth century. and what is more excellent than everything. Rather. Abelard’s writings had been on the Index of Prohibited Books since 1563 and technically were for- bidden reading. the Avignon popes had granted indulgences for the restoration of the Paraclete after its near complete destruction through war. begin to come to life. they sought to show . you have overcome womanly weakness and have hardened in manly strength. as well as with a Censura from the doctors of the Sorbonne. subtly different from that given in Le Roman de la rose. largely passed over by twelfth- century monastic chroniclers. but was subsequently reprinted in that year with a more elaborate preface by d’Amboise. Neither Duchesne nor d’Amboise was particularly inter- ested in the content of Abelard’s theology. by renewing familiar words in new combi- nation. Catherine de Courcelles. “Our Institutions” that lays out monastic practice at the Paraclete.”16 When He- loise failed to respond to this flattery. Most thirteenth. including transcriptions of epitaphs recovered from their original tomb. but as a woman who proclaims the completeness of her love. pre- sumably also to no avail. This image of Abelard and Heloise as representing a spirit of monastic humanism was reinforced by the publication in 1616 of their writings by Andre´ Duchesne and Franc¸ois d’Amboise. Bibl. drafted in around 1141 quite possibly by Heloise—occurs in full only in a single manuscript (Troyes. perhaps made for the Paraclete. when a new abbess. and they did not include any of his writings on dialectic in the edition. The manuscripts prepared for the occasion. The fullest version of the exchange—including Abelard’s Rule for the Paraclete and a document. reflect an image of Abelard and Heloise as virtuous Chris- tians. but probably derive from an archetype originally preserved at the Paraclete.

In an atmosphere of increasingly rigid religious orthodoxy in seventeenth-century France. Paradoxically. both mythological and historical. In the second volume of his Histoire de France.19 Enthusiasm for these letters flowered in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries through a range of literary par- aphrases of the Historia calamitatum and the accompanying letters of He- loise to Abelard. widely circulated through the polemical letters of Bernard of Clairvaux. These attitudes changed significantly during the early nineteenth cen- tury. By contrast. they presented Abelard as an amorous philosopher at odds with the dogmatism of ecclesiastical authority. and Heloise as outspoken in her tragic love for Abelard. by emphasizing his fundamental orthodoxy. Needless to say. Jules Michelet presented Abelard as the hero of the urban communes. She eliminated all mention of the achievement of its founders in a commentary that she wrote on the Rule of Benedict.” In 1643. Marie IV de la Rochefoucauld (a relation of Franc¸ois d’Amboise).20 The key figure in promoting awareness . while Heloise was admired for her teaching about the purity of love rather than as the abbess of a religious community. the abbess quietly gave up all of the liturgical customs that had given the Paraclete its distinct identity since the twelfth century. was seeking to diminish the presence of Abelard and Heloise at her abbey by transferring their remains from the main church to the crypt. Abelard and He- loise came to be seen as individuals at odds with ecclesiastical authority. just as the physical remains of Abelard and Heloise were given new honor at Pe`re Lachaise.14 abelard and heloise that Abelard and Heloise were authentic historical figures who contrib- uted in a significant way to French culture in the twelfth century. the letters of Heloise fascinated a non-clerical audience for what they had to say about “affairs of the heart. although they did publish a few hitherto unknown texts such as his Theologia Christiana and Expositio in Hexaemeron. The renewal of scholarly interest in medieval culture provoked by the Maurists in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had little im- pact in improving awareness of Abelard as a thinker. this edition was published at precisely the moment that the abbess of the Paraclete. The 1616 edition challenged an image of Abelard as dialectician and heretic. and Heloise as a sign of a new dignity accorded to women in the twelfth century. the Breton logician whose proclamation of liberty threatened the Church. Having given many precious manuscripts relating to the early history of the community to Franc¸ois d’Amboise. Picking up on the literary genre of Ovid’s Heroides. Abelard attracted little interest as a thinker. to guide her nuns. Franc¸ois de Grenaille provided some rather free translations of letters of Heloise within a collection of writings by famous women. published in 1833.

and explained scholasticism as a philosophy defined above all by dialectic.24 Cousin established an interpretation of Abelard’s logic as pre- eminently concerned with universals that continued to be of great influ- ence throughout the twentieth century. spreading enlight- enment in a society otherwise under the control of religion. Cousin never commented on any of Abelard’s monastic writings. for so long monopolized by the doctors of the Sorbonne. images of abelard and heloise 15 of Abelard as a thinker was Victor Cousin. He presented Abelard as the creator of a system that would eventually be destroyed by Descartes. Cousin saw this scholastic philosophy as fertil- izing a Europe that was otherwise “one in religion. free from the constraints of religious dogma. Cousin interpreted Abelard’s account of how he forced William of Champeaux to modify his teaching of universals in the course of hearing him lecture on rhetoric as marking Abelard’s rupture with traditional ontology. published in 1849 and 1859.” It is impossible to disguise the latent nationalism behind claims such as “One can say that scholastic philosophy was born in Paris.22 Abelard was thus a precursor of the critical achievement of German philosophy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Cousin was not particularly interested in Abelard’s theology as such. predicated collectively of different individuals. mentioned in passing in Porphyry’s introduction to the Categories of Aristotle. The core issue of medieval philosophy he identified as the question. whether a uni- versal term such as animal or man. Cousin’s Ouvrages ine´dits. The title of his edition referred only to the .21 In a volume that opened up awareness of medieval phi- losophy.” but em- phasized his critical method. Cousin understood scholastic philosophy to be defined not by grammar or rhetoric but by dialectic. exists in reality (in re) or is simply a spoken utterance (in voce). neatly mirrored his image of the growth of the schools in twelfth-century Paris. Cousin provided editions of Abelard’s previously unknown Sic et non and Dialectica. rather than as a serious theologian. It involved the application of reason to the- ology. and that it died there. “the only thing one could study at that time. followed by the two volumes of Petri Abaelardi Opera. but was not identified with theology as such. who first published the fruits of his pioneering research into hitherto unread manuscripts of medieval logic in 1836. canonized this image of Abelard as a nominalist dialectician concerned with words and concepts. It sees Abelard’s discussion of one particular type of word as foreshadowing modern philosophical suspicion of references to essences beyond the realm of critical analysis. It was an image ultimately inspired by the powerful rhetoric of the abbot of Clairvaux. whom he con- sidered to be the founder of “modern” philosophy proprement dit.”23 Cousin’s commitment to the reform of university education in France.

Henry Adams took for granted that Heloise was a mythic figure.26 In 1885. Where Abelard had been a symbol of philosophical progress for Cousin and his admirers. Aquinas was presented as the archetypal scholastic.25 The myth of Heloise as a heroine of outspoken love had reached such extrav- agant heights by the early nineteenth century that a few scholars sug- gested that two “personal” letters to Abelard.27 Writing in 1904. . but he reinforced the practice of considering Abelard as the intellectual and Heloise simply as the idealized focus of his attention. not of Heloise.” while having no doubts about the intellectual achievements of Peter Abelard. a number of scholars raised questions about whether the historical Heloise could really have been the “heroine of love” that her admirers made her out to be. without the name of Heloise on the title page. could be a fiction composed to promote the story of their conversion. published in 1845. Following the encyclical Aeterni patris of 1879. The argument that Abelard was fundamentally an orthodox Christian was given its classic exposition by Etienne Gilson in He´loı¨se et Abe´lard. Doubts about whether Heloise actually wrote the letters attributed to her were first raised in 1806 by Ignaz Fessler and were renewed by J. Orelli in 1844 and Ludovic Lalanne in 1855. the teaching of Thomas Aquinas became defined as a definitive system of thought in which a fixed deposit of faith was analyzed through reason.28 With the growing influence in the nineteenth century of the Catholic intellectual revival. Admirers of Abelard often emphasized that his major contribution lay in his scholastic method. Abelard was judged by Catholic traditionalists to be less than fully orthodox. In the first major biography to be written about Abelard. In his place. rather than his specific theological teachings. always in obedience to the authority of the Church. evidently modeled on the Heroides of Ovid. against whom all other teachers had to be measured. a man of reason rather than a reliable exponent of religious faith. Charles de Re´musat presented a more rounded picture than Cousin of Abelard’s intellectual achievement. all of whom suggested that the surviving letters may be nothing more than a literary fiction. and argued that perhaps the entire correspondence was a monastic fiction. At the same time.16 abelard and heloise name of Abelard. C. on the grounds that the letters attributed to her might not be authentic. written either by a disciple or entirely by Abelard himself. he now came to symbolize the limitations of secular thought. a practice followed in 1855 when the abbe´ Migne printed an expanded version of the 1616 edition under the title Opera Petri Abaelardi. like Isolde “spanning the ages. Martin Deutsch published an important study of Abelard as “a critical theologian” but ignored the presence of Heloise. his use of reason.

29 Never particularly interested in those discussions about universals that fascinated Cousin. notably Heloise’s criticism of the Rule of Benedict and Abe- lard’s two lengthy treatises. Gilson focused on Abelard as a moralist who came to understand the true meaning of Christian conversion. Gilson’s analysis of the drama of their relationship as that between an orthodox theologian and a pagan heroine was itself shaped by a romantic image of Heloise as a woman who lived for her man.” Von Moos interprets the correspondence as a whole as a monastic document. He portrayed Heloise as a her- oine of pagan grandeur. who engaged in a protracted debate with Peter Dronke in the 1970s about reading her letters as “expressions of her heart. a highly crafted rhe- torical exemplum about conversion to the religious life. The long established tendency to focus on Abelard as a schoolman and Heloise as a tragic heroine effectively screened them off from their broader monastic context and identity. forced schol- ars to look afresh at the relationship between the famous letters of Abelard and Heloise and their other writings. hitherto much neglected. on the history of religious women and his Rule for the Paraclete. who never fully came to terms (at least in her letters) with her situation in the religious life. relating to the monastic life. Study of the correspondence of Heloise and Abelard experienced a new awakening with the growth of interest in categories of gender in the . Gilson refuted the hypothesis raised by Bernhard Schmeidler that Heloise’s letters may all have been written by Abelard by claiming that this failed to understand “the heart” of Heloise. or by Ab- elard himself (a position to which he had reverted by 1979). Readers silently assumed that for both Abelard and Heloise. as a few scholars looked more at the very significant monastic documents in the corre- spondence.30 The debate about the authenticity of the correspondence provoked by John Benton’s hypothesis that the entire letter collection might have been forged in the late thirteenth century (first presented in 1972). he has continued to emphasize the monastic function of the cor- respondence as a whole. images of abelard and heloise 17 first delivered as lectures to the Colle`ge de France in 1936–37. Gilson effectively used Abelard and Heloise as metaphors for the relationship between a Christian theologian and a pagan world that was still in need of conversion. In an appendix. The dualism implicit in this inter- pretation of the letters of Heloise was much criticized by Peter von Moos. Only during the 1980s and 1990s did these attitudes begin to change. In more recent writing. It became apparent that Bernard of Clairvaux did not have a monopoly on the definition of monastic culture in the twelfth century. monasticism was a prison that impeded their emergence as “protomodern” identities.

18 abelard and heloise late twentieth century and a renewed confidence that Heloise was indeed author of the letters attributed to her in the manuscript tradition. however. than a serious thinker about ethics or theology. whether by admirers or by critics. A number of scholars argued that Heloise’s writings not only expressed de- votion to Abelard but also criticized a number of his perspectives. without always recognizing that these letters present a set of attitudes quite distinct from those of Abelard. Some writers focus on the monastic dimension of the exchange. have been interested in Ab- elard’s reinterpretation of traditional Christian theology but have had lit- tle to say about how it connects to Abelard’s theory of language. A similar problem bedevils commentary on Abelard’s rich and mani- fold achievement as a philosopher and theologian. according to which words and phrases do not make state- ments about things (res) but rather signify aspects of their subject. Because he has for so long been interpreted as a forerunner of modernity.33 He argued that the issue of universals was only part of Abelard’s theory of language.34 . There are few studies. Barbara Newman has taken issue with the absurdity of assuming that Abelard could have written the letters of Heloise. Lief Grane. In 1969 Jean Jolivet attempted to break down this perspective by ex- ploring both Abelard’s theory of language and its application to theology. and Richard Weingart. from a historical perspective. such as Albert Murray. critical of the supposed ontological “realism” of thinkers such as St. scholars have tended to isolate one aspect or another of this achievement in the light of fixed assumptions about the meaning of logica or theologia. Other scholars. The year 1969 also witnessed the publication of David Luscombe’s detailed study of the influence of Abelard’s theology in the twelfth-century schools. Anselm and William of Champeaux. They have often assumed that Abelard is much more of a philosopher of language. Jolivet’s analysis focused on Abelard’s theory of language and its application to theology rather than on theology per se. whether that subject has a concrete existence or is purely hypothetical. particularly evident in Abelard’s two lengthy treatises on the religious life.31 Other studies on the letters of Heloise attend to the rhetorical strategies evident in her letters as she seeks to establish an identity distinct from that of Abelard. that give due weight to the originality of both Abelard and Heloise in the correspondence.32 Those who have questioned the authenticity of her letters have criticized a romantic idealization of her persona. while others focus on Heloise as a critic of the strategies that Abelard seeks to advance. suggesting that such interpre- tative strategies in fact extended a process of repression of her identity already evident within the texts written by Abelard.

The question remains of how we are to reconcile the multitude of apparently contradictory images that both Abelard and Heloise generated. which he sees as the foundation of his theology. epitomize quite different ap- proaches that can be taken toward Abelard. Marenbon interprets Abelard as initially preoccupied with problems in medieval logic. so as to trace the roots of so-called modernity. or should we read her letters as manifesting a religious intent? .36 He argues that scholars have considered Abelard merely a critical thinker and have not appreciated the originality of his ethics. Is Abelard’s the- ology simply a cover for his theory of language or his ethics. Even if one argues that Abelard changed from being a critic of conventional logic to being a theologian concerned to justify the beliefs of the establishment. driven by ethical concerns. images of abelard and heloise 19 Two books. Was her reputation for piety and religion simply a cover for purely worldly concerns. and with his ethics.35 By contrast. logician. John Marenbon has written an excellent study of Abelard as a philosopher both of logic and of ethics. Marenbon comments in passing on Heloise’s influence on Ab- elard’s thought on matters of ethics.37 His book is divided into three sections. theo- logian. both published in 1997. at odds with the dominant religious traditions of their day. The effect of this division is to suggest that there is a radical rupture in Abelard’s philosophical evolution from being a logician to being a theologian. or can he be considered as a serious theologian? What influence did Heloise have on his intellectual development? How is she different as a thinker? There is a long tradition of bracketing together both Abelard and Heloise as fundamentally secular figures. although not in any systematic fashion. Michael Clanchy has pro- duced a highly readable and historically well-informed biography that considers various aspects of Abelard’s life (master. as represented by Bernard of Clairvaux. Like Clanchy. dealing in turn with issues of chronology. but then as experiencing a radical shift away from logic to ethics. Abelard is often perceived as a quintessential rebel. with Abelard’s logic. in particular with ontology. whether in the sphere of language or of ethics. who challenged theological tradition through his philosophical acumen. Post- Enlightenment distinctions between “religious” and “secular” culture have frequently been imposed on the culture of twelfth-century Europe. This perspective tends to detach Abelard from the theological concerns of his contemporaries. heretic) but focuses above all on his personality as a rebel and critic of authority. both in their own day and down through the centuries. lover. A similar question arises in relation to Heloise. commentators have often assumed that his theology was simply a vehicle through which he could pursue non-theological interests.

. in particular under the influence of Heloise. Their interest in theology and religious commitment evolved out of their fascination with secular learning and wisdom. Abelard’s thought evolved from an early concern with logica.20 abelard and heloise The argument will be pursued in subsequent chapters that far from man- ifesting rupture and discontinuity. We need to avoid imposing a radical dichotomy between secular and religious cul- ture in studying Abelard and Heloise. or indeed any of their contempo- raries. as well as through the particular circumstances of their own lives. to growing awareness of both theology and ethics. the theory of language.

Berengar. near the Alps. While his mother. an important imperial city in Burgundy. Lucia.”3 Roscelin boasted that he held canonries not just at Tours and Loches. He even claimed the support of Rome. “from being a boy to being a young man. free to travel to wherever his educational services were in demand.1 Men- tioning nothing of his mother or sisters.” but also at Besanc¸on. so that I could be brought up in the bosom of Minerva. and that he then decided to renounce his rightful inheritance as eldest son and devote himself to study: “I aban- doned completely the court of Mars. his father. We gain a different picture from a vitriolic letter written by Roscelin of Compie`gne. “which willingly receives me and listens to me. Abelard recalls in the Historia calamitatum that he benefited from the encouragement to study given by his father. While 21 . accusing his former pupil of forgetting how much benefit Abelard had gained from his early studies.” Roscelin em- bodied a new type of teacher in the late eleventh century. 2 The Early Years Roscelin of Compie`gne and William of Champeaux A belard was born into a family of mixed ancestry living on the frontier of Brittany adjacent to the territory of the dukes of Anjou.”2 The impression that he gives in the Historia calam- itatum of being a wandering scholar who studied in a variety of places before he came to Paris is misleading. He provided the young Peter Abelard with a role model to emulate. “where you sat for so long as the least of my disciples. a secular cleric. who encouraged all his sons to pursue an education before learning how to wield arms. was a Poitevin who encouraged Abelard to look eastward to pursue his education. was Breton by birth.

Under Ros- celin’s tuition. where he was aligned with forces opposed to the family of Fulco of Bec. Although Roscelin was vilified by St. as well as a book of tropes. De incarnatione Verbi. covering both the liberal arts and divinity: Augustine’s Homilies on John and De doctrina Christiana. Anselm for his dialectic this was only one of the disciplines that he would have been expected to teach. in Soissons in 1121.4 In a strange way. Above all. After being told about Roscelin’s argument by John of Tusculum—then assisting Fulco. The Beauvais connections of Roscelin’s critics suggest that prior to moving to the territory of Anjou. Cicero’s De inventione. Juvenal. as God the Father did not himself become incar- nate in Christ. the vicissitudes of Roscelin’s career anticipate many of the difficulties faced by Abelard. as well as divinity. Macrobius’s Dream of Cicero. Roscelin had taught at Beauvais. Theological accusations reinforced an internal political dis- pute between clerics of Beauvais and monks from the Norman abbey of Bec. The copy of Augustine’s Homilies on John is a particularly ancient manuscript. Roscelin introduced Abelard to the study of what Aristotle had to say about dialectic as a discipline that dealt with the principles underpin- ning language and argument.5 While we cannot be certain that this Roscelin is to be identified with Roscelin of Compie`gne. Ovid. to refute what he considered to be Roscelin’s dangerous argument about the distinction between God the Father and God the Son. who would himself face accusations of heresy at another Church council. then trying to establish a foothold in the French kingdom. bishop of Beauvais—St. In 1090. and Statius. an unidentified Dialectica. there was much that he learned from his first teacher. Pris- cian’s Grammatical Institutes. It provides an excellent guide to the kind of texts that the young Abelard would have been expected to study in the late eleventh century.22 abelard and heloise Abelard would subsequently criticize many inadequacies in the teaching of Roscelin. and the poetry of Virgil. Boethius’s On Arithmetic and On the Consolation of Philosophy. According to an entry preserved within a manuscript of Beauvais ca- thedral in the early twelfth century. Abelard would also certainly have gained from Roscelin the elements of religious instruction and have absorbed something of his master’s at- titude toward Christian doctrine. Roscelin had been accused by Anselm of Bec (1033–1109) of holding that the three divine persons were separate entities (res). as well as core treatises of Priscian on grammar and of Cicero . copied at Luxueil in the seventh century. Horace. “Roscelin the grammarian” be- queathed a remarkably rich range of books. the bequest demonstrates the in- terest of a grammaticus in all the arts of language. Anselm com- posed a treatise. Abelard would have been expected to read the great Ro- man poets.

alongside some core texts of Augustine on divinity. and the Topics. it was dialectic. The books bequeathed to Beauvais include all the major poets popular in their generation. there was great interest in the poetry of Ovid. physica (the study of nature). In practice. Seneca. as expounded in Porphyry’s Isagoge or Introduction to the Categories. as in- terpreted by Roscelin. but without great success. While Abelard was aware of references of Boethius to these and other texts of Aristotle. Ethics was not a discipline in its own right. His expertise was in handling words. These texts. dialectic. with gram- mar as its necessary foundation). and ethica (the study of ethics). provided the standard introduction to the study of rational argument prior to the diffusion during the 1130s of other texts of Aristotle on the subject. notably the Prior Analytics. Shaped by the particular philosophical interests of Boethius.6 By 1120 Abelard had come across rare copies of the Prior Analytics and Sophistical Refutations. perhaps through his learned contemporary Thierry of Chartres. involving both rhetoric and dialectic. the early years 23 on rhetoric. and four treatises of Boethius: De differentiis topicis on different forms of argument. and De divi- sione on subdivision and definition. 1070–1120 Of these disciplines. De syl- logismo categorico and De syllogismo hypothetico on syllogisms. the study of philosophy was seen as encompassing three major areas: logica (the study of language.7 Abelard respected the study of natural science and once tried to study arithmetica under Thierry. that particularly attracted the attention of the young Abelard. the study of rational argument. he had to imagine what they might have contained. Abelard applied himself as a young student to di- alectic. but was largely studied by reading Latin authors as part of grammatica. but he never gained any detailed understanding of their con- tent. . The Emergence of “Vocalist” Dialectic. and rhetoric. Aristotle’s Categories (Praedicamenta) and Periermeneias. Traditionally. the fragments that survived of the clas- sical philosophical tradition in the Latin West were heavily oriented to- ward the arts of language and away from reflection on the natural world. imitated most brilliantly by Baudri of Bourgueil (1046– 1130) and Marbod of Rennes (1035–1123). a favorite author of Heloise. In many schools and abbeys of the Loire Valley during the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. as well as writings of the major theorists on grammar. the so-called logica vetus. is not mentioned in the library catalogue of Roscelinus gramma- ticus. the Sophistical Refutations.

in turn distinguished into first sub- stances (a particular man) and second substances (the species “man” pred- icated of several individuals). or terms able to be predicated of a subject. and possession as all fundamental categories of discourse. Gerbert had required that the study of dialectic be based not on Augustine’s writing on dialectic but on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categories and Periermeneias. and the different ways in which a proposition can be used to imply affirmation and nega- tion. as used by modern logicians. movement. verbs. Roscelin. such as a man being two footed. that of substance. or that which is proper to a single species. et de vocibus res significantibus).)9 In commenting on the Per- iermeneias. accidens. Aristotle explains the different ways in which names are used before listing ten basic categories (praedicamenta). a rational animal) and descends to what is most specific: differentia. beginning with the most general. as well as necessity and possibility. relatives. While Porphyry raised in passing the question whether these predicables are words or are based in reality. opposites. It is a philosophical framework that gives priority to universal categories over superficial external accidents. who had himself studied at Reims in the mid-eleventh century. priority. In the Categories. or that which is a mutable external feature of a subject. Boethius asserts that all discussion relates to three issues: “the things which we perceive through the reasoning of the mind and discern in understanding. Porphyry had introduced Aristotle’s Categories by discussing five classes of predica- ble. and the words by which we signify what we grasp in understand- . (“Proposition” is here used in the classical sense of a statement. rather than of that which is put forward by a statement. such as man. and about words signifying things” (de primis rerum nominibus. such as animal. Boethius explains that Aristotle deals with “the first names of things. passed on to Abelard this tradition of respect for peripatetic philosophical tradition. The basic elements of Aristotelian thought were transmitted to the Latin West through the translations and commentaries of Boethius in the sixth century. proprium. Boethius’s allusion to “universal things” as the goal of philosophical enquiry articulated an assumption that a uni- versal existed beyond the realm of language. and species. in the form a hierarchical “tree” that begins with the most general types of predicate (genus. phrases.24 abelard and heloise The curriculum Roscelin followed had been established by Gerbert of Aurillac at Reims in the late tenth century. simultaneity.8 Aristotle’s Periermeneias was always seen as the more difficult text be- cause it deals with the meaning of nouns. Aristotle then analyzes quantity. as trans- lated and explained by Boethius. the understandings through which we learn about things. quality. or differentiating characteristic (such as being rational or not).

” Words are a particular kind of sign.15 His major concern is to help students . Boethius bequeathed to Latin philosophical vocabulary an antithesis between vox (utterance) and res (thing). As Roscelin held one of his canonries at Besanc¸on. Roscelin of Compie`gne was one of a group of teachers known as vocales for their insistence that dialectic concerned words (voces) rather than things. 1150. but things are discussed through signs. that would be of great influence in shaping the terms of subsequent debate about whether categories. Anselm claims that Roscelin is only one of a breed: “one of those modern dialecticians who claim that universal substances are nothing but the puff of an utterance and who cannot understand color to be other than a physical body or the wisdom of man to be something different from the soul. they were simply wishing to read Porphyry’s Isagoge in the light of Aris- totle’s claim that genera and species were first of all signifying words (vo- ces) rather than things in themselves. Some insight into the kind of vocalist dialectic taught by Roscelin may be gained from the Dialectica of Gerland of Besanc¸on (ca. In the mid-twelfth century.12 In his De incarnatione Verbi. not to be confused with the eleventh-century Garland the Computist. Otto of Freising claimed that Roscelin was “the first in our time to institute the teaching of words [sententiam vocum] in logic.” While such polemical claims create the impression that these dialecticians had broken away from mainstream philosophical tradition. Boethius could not avoid drawing on vocabulary.11 The preference of Boethius and Augustine for using res to denote what was signified by language conveys the im- pression that real things exist beyond the realm of discourse. Gerland makes only occa- sional reference to the opinions of those with whom he disagrees.” and never overtly challenges his teachers. were primarily words or whether they signified real things.”13 He accuses such teachers of flouting the teaching of Boethius that true philosophical reason rises above both the senses and the imagination to grasp the true character of a universal idea. he could have taught Gerland. “which no-one would deny is a thing. that signify some res. such as that man is a two-footed rational animal. to whom the Dialectica was once attributed).”10 Following Porphyry. who wrote his Dialectica in the early twelfth century without knowledge of Abelard’s own treatise of the same name. Stoic in origin. about the meaning of words as things. St. This emphasis had many implications for the theory of language. such as those “who say that being is a single genus of all things. 1080–ca. and arguments. the early years 25 ing.” John of Salisbury similarly identified Roscelin with the view that a universal category was a word (vox).14 Unlike Abelard. propositions or statements. Augustine had taught that “all teaching is about things or about signs.

. also known to Thierry of Chartres. for example. no matter how absurd. finally. He sees the task of dialectic as to identify the maxim or general proposition on which any correct deduction must be based. subsequently picked up by Abelard. if “good” is also taken to refer to something other than being good at dialectic. according to our own views and those of our teachers. but not widely studied until the mid-twelfth century. and. For example. such as “every man is an animal” (true) or “every man is a stone” (false).18 Gerland’s major focus is on the topics. he is quite clear that individuals are more worthily called substances than species and genera.26 abelard and heloise understand basic precepts of dialectic. Gerland does not consider universals as such. “given the burdensome and thus less comprehensible sayings of Aristotle. is a tendency to use their own name or that of their contemporaries by way of example in their lectures. Gerland may have been directly familiar with the Topics of Aristotle. such as “man. functioning as a template for any argument. all about different parts of speech: simple words (de vocibus incomplexis). ). the single and the multiple senses of a proposition. . as well as the rather diffuse teach- ing. . defining it not in a categorical form (as in what is predicated of a genus is predicated of a species) but as a hypothetical statement (if X is predicated of a genus .19 The hypothetical statement describes a relationship between genus and species as words. rather than as things. he explains that what Aristotle calls first sub- stances are individual substances. the name “Arnulf” is used. . such as a particular man. while what he calls second substances are species.”17 Thus when he discusses substance. or different types of cate- gorical statement. which he interprets as the rules of inference underpinning different forms of argu- ment. or the basic categories of discourse as defined by Por- phyry.21 Gerland invokes the phrase “Gerland is a good dialectician” to explain that this could have several meanings.” Following Aristotle. In glosses from Erfurt. He is fond of examples that students will remember. but rather looks at words (voces) as the building blocks of all dialectic. he suggests. “Just as sweetness is inferred in the mouth of Avelina from honey. complex words (de vocibus complexis). categorical and hypothetical syllogisms. the purpose of which “is to distinguish truth from falsehood. so the sweet- ness of the mouth of Avelina brings sweetness in the mouth of Gerland .”16 Gerland organizes his Dialec- tica into six books. another dialectician accused by conservative contemporaries of subverting traditional dialectic. perhaps indicating that their author is Arnulf of Laon.20 A characteristic feature of these vocalist dialecticians in the late elev- enth and early twelfth centuries. to show how a word can denote a passive or experienced quality. of Boethius . different forms of argument (de topicis differentiis). and thus less comprehensible teaching.

but signifies a quality. Anselm. a celebrated grammaticus who left Reims in 1077 to became a monk at St. as in con- gress preceding love. namely. that of being a man.”22 To show how an argument can be based on two accidents or non-essential features that might occur together. Frequent internal references to Reims suggest that this commentary was initially produced in this city. he invokes the names Roscilinus and Trudbaldus. In part. Its author argues that one must always distinguish between homo as a word (vocalis) from homo as a real thing (realis). He responded specifically to an issue raised by this author: Did a word such as grammaticus signify a quality (being lit- erate). The Glosule survives in a number of recensions. he also loves the beautiful Avelina.” One possibility is that he is John of Reims. the early years 27 when she kisses him.”25 In other words.24 Applying dialectical categories to grammatica. Drawing on Aristotle’s teaching in the Categories. Gerland refers again to Avelina: “If Gerland fre- quently approaches the house of Warengold.23 Whether real or imagined. Anselm argues that we must consider whether the meaning of a noun derives through itself (per se) or through something else (per aliud). perhaps in the 1070s. A verb similarly does not signify a thing (res) in a subject. knowledge of which grows from generation to generation. perhaps the result of .-Evroul in Normandy. such examples show how vocalist dialecticians seek to present principles discussed by Aristotle with a greater sense of the specific individual than Boethius. The author of the Glosule is more consciously academic in his approach to language than St. this interest in voces was stimulated by the influence of an extended commentary or Glosule on Books I–XVI of the Grammatical Institutes of Priscian that started to circulate in both monastic and cathe- dral libraries in northern France by the late 1070s. homo does not signify a universal substance but rather the quality of a particular substance. It frequently distinguishes the etymology of a word from its philosophical root and emphasizes that language is an artifact of human imposition. or a substance (a literate person)?26 Without following the teaching of the Glosule that a noun names rather than signifies a specific subject. he refines Priscian’s definition of a noun as that which “signifies a substance with a quality” by arguing that “a noun names a substance. this commentary is particularly concerned to distinguish the causa behind each vox in Latin discourse. only that an action or passion inheres in a subject. Our only clue to the identity of the author of the Glosule on Priscian is a colophon identifying him as “John. who was sufficiently troubled by questions that some monks were raising about the meaning of words that he com- posed his De grammatico. by the grace of God.” In another illustration.

who was in contact with friends within the cathedral chapter of Notre-Dame.30 William has a clear sense of the distinct roles of each component discipline of logica: . whether labeled by their critics as “vocalist” or “realist.29 He defines the discipline in Boethian terms as the science of finding the principles on which arguments are based and of judging argument through the syllogism. prepositions. eager to see stricter standards placed on cathedral canons and strongly critical of sec- ular control of ecclesiastical positions. as well as with Bishop Galo of Paris (1104–1115). Nuancing the teaching of Priscian with greater awareness of Aristotle’s thoughts on categories. William of Champeaux (ca. William of Cham- peaux was much more competent in both dialectic and rhetoric and was also more prepared to discuss abstract theological questions. both in reputation and in fact. William was far more widely known as a teacher than Roscelin of Compie`gne. it emphasizes that all voces are utterances of human imposition. having studied at Laon prior to teaching in Paris. in the early years of the twelfth century. Its definitions came to be used to support a wide range of positions in the teaching of dialectic. William of Champeaux. and other types of verbs set the agenda for discussion of voces in the schools of northern France and Normandy for some fifty years. Introductiones dialecticae. that survives in two different versions.” would draw on ideas within this commentary on Priscian. The work focuses on analyzing the words or voces on which all discourse has to be based. 1060–1122) Abelard came to Paris around 1100 to study under the most eminent teacher of the day. He acknowledged that Wil- liam was an authority in dialectic. William was one of a small group of reform-minded clerics in Paris. the substantive verb. William seems to have known the writings of Anselm of Canterbury. Whereas Anselm of Laon had a great reputation in the study of Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. and that a noun is a word that refers to a specific substance but signifies something of its qual- ity. who in his early career produced a student manual.28 William’s reputation was first and foremost that of a teacher. Its discussions of nouns. teachers of many different intellectual backgrounds.27 In the early twelfth century. Unlike An- selm of Laon.28 abelard and heloise different masters developing its teachings in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. until surpassed by the commentaries of William of Conches in the 1120s and Peter Helias in the 1150s.

33 Both versions of William’s Introductiones are largely concerned with the particular topics or rules on which types of inference are based. William was reported to hold that a topic (locus) is a thing insofar as it describes a general relationship between genus and species that generates the senses of all the arguments to which it is applied and thus is a proposition with multiple meanings. very likely in response to the arguments of Abelard. William’s way of teaching rhetoric seems to have been more informed by dialectic than that of Master Manegold (of Lauten- bach?). so is a predicate predicated of it in particular.” through which any argument is mediated. who is loyal to Boethian vocabulary in explaining that Porphyry’s predicables refer to five different things. rhetoric with persuasion. He composed an influential series of glosses on Porphyry and Aristotle. largely depend- ent on Boethius. the po- sition that Abelard forced him to modify around 1109. the categorical and hypothetical proposition. John of Salisbury remembered William with esteem for defining the sci- ence of the topics “well.37 He follows Boethian vocabulary. such as “as often as anything is predicated universally of anything. William ac- knowledges that there are those who interpret them as words (voces) and refuse to admit that a thing (res) could ever be predicated of a subject. the phrase (oratio). William also com- posed commentaries on Cicero’s De inventione and the Rhetorica ad Herennium in which he frequently refers to the teaching of grammar and rhetoric in Laon. in referring to the meaning of a proposition as a thing (res).34 William was an authority on both dialectic and rhetoric. even if imperfectly” as the science of finding the middle term of an argument. in turn dependent on both Augustine and Cicero. dialectic with distinguishing truth from falsehood.31 These Introductiones consider the various issues dealt with in Aristotle’s Periermeneias: the word (vox). Dialectic formulates universal principles about realities that exist beyond .32 A distinctive feature of William’s teaching was his interest in what he calls the medium that connects the specific terms in any argument. William uses medium to refer to the universal rule. they never identify their author as William.36 Revising these glosses. Even forty years later. He recognizes vocalist thinking without engaging in heated polemic against their position. the early years 29 Grammar deals with correct speech.35 Unlike those of Abelard. and the rules of inference on which all argument is based. with whose commentary on Cicero William was familiar. expressed in the form of a maximal proposition or axiom. He does not present a particularly sophisticated definition of universals beyond suggesting that a species is the material essence shared by different individuals distinguished by accidents.

Stephen of Garlande and his brothers had already returned to influence at court. in Beauvais. leading to the temporary oust- ing from court of Stephen of Garlande and his brothers. tight-fitting shirts. was appointed bishop of Paris. the art of persuasive speaking. In this capacity. Shortly after Louis’s accession.” and then studied under those “who occupied themselves with di- alectic. where the assembled ecclesiastics promulgated strict reforming decrees. perhaps in 1102/3. Abelard established a school at the royal palace at Melun. Abelard returned to Paris soon after the death of Philip I and the accession of the young king. also a royal palace. introducing vocalist ideas that he had absorbed from Roscelin of Compie`gne. the study of language.38 In that same year. Within the space of a few years. as well as sexual malpractice.30 abelard and heloise the world of language and is separate from both grammar. Stephen’s brothers held powerful positions in the royal court. whom Bishop Galo refused to recognize as queen. concerned with the rules of correct speech. these years (1105–1108) provided a crucial time during which Abelard could develop his thinking independently of William of Champeaux. and with extensive connec- tions in the region of Orle´ans and the Loire Valley. At about this time. Philip I. William accompanied Bishop Galo to a council held at Troyes in 1107. an old. estab- lished community physically adjacent to the royal palace on the Ile-de- la-Cite´.-Eloi. and pointed shoes. and castigating clerics who followed such degenerate fashions as long hair. Through their help. The aging monarch. The cause of ec- clesiastical reform being pushed by Galo and William of Champeaux seemed to have temporarily stalled. Wil- liam resigned his post at Notre-Dame in order to follow a more austere . after which he moved for a short time to Corbeil. but closer to Paris. During these years of political distur- bance. Both dialectic and rhetoric are part of logica. Galo. the young Peter Abelard started to argue with William of Champeaux. Abelard also gained support from Stephen of Garlande. Louis VI. In 1104. was forced to renounce all carnal relations with Bertrada. William assisted his bishop in expelling nuns from the Abbey of St. Abelard decided to return to his home region “because of over- work. and rhetoric.-Quentin. and replacing them with monks. in 1108. formerly provost of the canons regular of St. condemning the practice of simony.”39 While we do not know whether he returned to study under Roscelin at Tours or perhaps listened to other teachers in towns of the Loire Valley. alongside Stephen of Garlande. William of Champeaux was appointed to the cathedral chapter and made an archdeacon of Paris. archdeacon of Paris and later royal chancellor for much of the reign of Louis VI (1108–1137).

” rather than of the same essence. the early years 31 way of life. for the sweetness of his words and the profundity of his thought seem to transcend human ability. . They were “not different. This was the situation in which he challenged William in the course of delivering lectures on rhetoric. and that some students who had followed William now transferred to his own school. while contin- uing to maintain his traditional view that a species was still a thing.-Victor. not far from the cathedral on the left bank of the Seine. Abelard recalls that from this moment on. The Glosule on Priscian had adopted a similar position in holding that different articu- lations of the word “man” were considered as one word only through similitude. William’s authority in dialectic started to decline.-Genevie`ve. not through identity of essence. who tells us that William of Champeaux was so angered by this that he had Abelard removed from the position and replaced by an unnamed rival. that of a canon regular following the Rule of St. Whether the decline in William’s influence was quite as great as Abelard claims in the Historia calamitatum is not certain. who had been made dean of its abbey (a community . Abelard later recalled the event as a decisive moment in the evolution of his career. and would accuse William of Champeaux of adopting a stricter way of life to help him gain ecclesiastical promotion. at the church of St. and Holy Spirit.”41 Abelard was much more cyn- ical. William’s unnamed successor at the cathedral school offered his position to Abelard. but soon moved his school to the Montagne Ste. William was obliged to acknowledge the con- tribution to logical argument made by vocalist discussion. presumably at the invitation of Stephen of Garlande. He forced William to modify his original opinion that a species was essentially the same thing in different individuals and to admit that a species was a thing that was shared indifferently (indiffer- enter) in different individuals. Abelard returned to teaching at Melun.42 William subsequently incor- porated this more sophisticated understanding of identity through non- difference into his discussion of identity and difference within the persons of the Trinity. renowned for his lectures on Priscian. Sometime after this disputation. Son. Roscelin himself had invoked a phrase of Boethius to de- fend the idea that the three persons of the Trinity were the same “through non-difference” (per indifferentiam) to protect the distinct identities of Fa- ther. Augustine.40 An admirer reports that in his view William “is the most accomplished instructor in every branch of learning of all the men of the present day . He was insisting that William concede the point emphasized by the Glosule on Priscian that there was no common essence shared between different individuals of the same species. . Abelard had not yet developed his own distinct position on universals.

Unlike William. in Soissons. and then abbot at Anchin. throw out old things for the sake of new things coming in. particularly because many people accept new things more. Stephen of Garlande did not resign his position within the cathedral chapter or give up the considerable property that he had acquired as a cleric. These glosses. writing in the third person) recalls that Goswin wearied of copying out this text and eventually lamented: What use is it to gain eternity to know the rules of speaking correctly and not to keep the rule of living correctly? Surely he who speaks skillfully and lives without direction. would continue to play themselves out through- out Abelard’s later career. are we not lost? It shall not be asked by the supreme judge whether we have read Priscian. explain that the core texts of dialectic deal with words (voces).32 abelard and heloise of secular canons) by Louis VI around 1108/9.45 .-Me´dard. ac- costed Abelard in debate at the school of Ste.44 Goswin. but if we have kept to Christian behavior. subsequently became a monk at St. should be considered not skilled. about the same time as William of Champeaux moved to St. the result of increasing spe- cialization in the schools. except for an occa- sional discussion that explains that there was no profound discrepancy between Boethius and Aristotle. This was the situation in which Abelard says that he “lay siege” to the teacher at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame.-Genevie`ve. if one appreciated the different way in which they understood certain words. Goswin. probably delivered some time before 1109. Abelard’s earliest glosses on dialectic make no allusion to debate about universals. who prided himself on having dared to resist Abelard in argu- ment. Goswin was urged to study a certain commentary (undoubtedly the Glosule) on Pris- cian’s Grammatical Institutes “seized on everywhere by everyone as much for the depth of meanings as for the elegance of its diction. a student of Joscelin of Vierzy. but lost? If Priscian holds the key to secular wisdom. Despite the support of William of Champeaux. this teacher subsequently left the cathedral to become a monk. one particular type of vox. soak themselves in new things and preach novelty. Enthusiasm in the schools for speculative grammar cre- ated a reaction among those who thought that too narrow a focus on the study of discourse could lead to a lack of attention to the ethical question of how one should live. These arguments. perhaps even when he was teaching at Melun or Corbeil.” His biographer (perhaps Goswin himself. but do not provide any extended digressions or any sustained criticism of ideas of Boethius. whose name is rarely mentioned.-Victor.43 During these years.

an idea mentioned in passing by William of Cham- peaux. the particular.” While there is no extended discussion of universals in this gloss. as his prime concern is to explain the different classes of predicable as different types of vox. the aim should be to promote ease of under- standing. is simply an ambiguous name. Genus and species cannot be reduced to one very general being. Abelard defines the meaning of words not as things but as significata. Abelard’s claim that Porphyry intended to deal with six but considered the individual within each of the five other categories marked a radical departure from tradition. Boethius had used the term himself to explain what Porphyry wanted to teach. In the case of Porphyry’s Isagoge.49 There is no hint of this idea in Gerland’s Dialectica. and the individual. the accident. the early years 33 While most glosses on Porphyry and Aristotle from the period are anonymous.50 He understands the category of “most special” as still a potentially infinite category. not to create difficulties.”48 To be concerned with Porphyry’s intention (intentio) was not in itself unusual. rational animal). not a fixed category. these categories are words considered together. but a word imposed to signify vary- ing degrees of difference.52 When dealing with some- thing that is whole (like a mortal. laying out four key ideas: the intention of the author being discussed. this meant interpreting predicables simply as classes of words. as being (ens).” John of Salisbury recalls that Abelard had always followed the principle that in expounding a text. he is clear that he considers both genus and species to be voces.47 The opening lines betray from the outset a distinc- tive emphasis in interpretation in their claim that his intention is to deal with six types of predicable: “genus. this Editio begins with a prologue. He briefly dismisses an opinion that a genus signifies a col- lection of individuals.” Abelard explains that this means “the six words. Abelard does not occupy himself with ontological questions in these literal glosses.51 A differentia is not a thing. and the part of dialectic to which it is directed. differentia. distinct from the individuals it might embrace. 13368: “The Presentation [Editio] on Porphyry of Peter Abelard. as in Paris. the substance (materia) under discussion. Whereas it was normal to explain that Porphyry considered five types of predicable in his introduction to Aristotle’s Categories. giving the reason why something is considered .46 As with all glosses of Abelard. those of Abelard are among the first to explicitly identify their author. When Por- phyry uses the phrase “consideration of these things. whether making a species different from a genus or one individual of one species from another. BnF lat. and what they signify. Abelard’s major theme is that all predicables are physical utterances of human imposition. species. the younger supreme peripatetic of Le Pallet. his purpose or final end.

58 Aristotle’s text enabled him to reflect that both a noun and a verb and thus a phrase (oratio) as a whole had no natural signifying capacity except “as it pleases” (secundum placitum) in relation to a specific subject.57 Abelard is particularly concerned with the ambiguity of any statement when it moves away from relating to an individual. They are not substances in themselves. we mean that he lives through his poetry. Similarly. that he is a poet.53 In his early gloss on the Categories. . “Just because we might say that ‘Soc- rates is a harp-player’ and ‘he is good in his behavior’ does not mean that we can conclude ‘he is a good harp-player’ . When we say ‘Homer is something. . A proprium is a word imposed to signify what is particular to one thing rather than another. but he never does so with any particular ontological concern. and survives in two recensions.55 His major concern is simply to identify as vocal utterances. perhaps resulting from separate sets of lectures. such as “A chimaera is thinkable.”61 Another version survives of these literal glosses on Porphyry. the young Abelard explains the reason why Aristotle identifies genus and species as secondary substances. in a bronze statue the bronze and the shape provide the reason for it being a whole. William of Cham- peaux himself had composed glosses on the Periermeneias. . He then elucidates the different types of modal proposition and what makes them true or false.54 Occasionally in these early glosses Abelard invokes traditional vocabulary when distinguishing between a word (vox) and the “thing signified” (res significata). the types of words we use. Aristotle. Man and animal determine the quality of a substance. an issue raised by Porphyry’s introduction to the Categories. able to be used in different ways. Abelard was fascinated by the way different utter- ances might serve to generate the same mental idea. which signify something individual. but signify aspects of a primary substance. Abelard explores the Periermeneias for what it has to say about the conceptions or understand- ings (intellectus) that words and propositions generate. not that we predicate ‘is’ of Homer in a sense of simply existing.”60 Predication according to accident can be made of a thing.59 He resists the idea that a proposition such as “Every man is an animal” has a single meaning. or it can refer to a thing that did not exist at all.’ namely. considering it to have one sense about Plato and another about Cicero or Socrates. Abelard’s early gloss on Aristotle’s Periermeneias is much fuller than that on the Categories. such as Homer. The task of the Periermeneias is to instruct students in how to establish categorical statements appropriate for a logical argument.34 abelard and heloise as a whole.56 Whereas early vocalist debate seems to have concentrated on interpreting genera and species as voces. but do not signify a substance in themselves.

There is one passage in the gloss on the Periermeneias in which Abelard comments of Aristotle: Here he agrees that such a division is made.66 Other Early Writings on Dialectic Besides these relatively brief glosses on the standard texts of the curric- ulum. Peter will not close the door”. as “Peter will fall in the latrine. For example. is a key feature of the Glosule on Priscian. falling. like “she will rub. every man is not white. not real” to clarify that this genus is a word rather than a thing. such as “she will have sex. perhaps recording a separate delivery of the same lectures. because he is small.” so as to avoid using “thing” (res): “that is. no longer . it can apply equally to both. because she is from Chartres. “The division of the whole is made into parts. this relates more to another.” [or some] that relate rather to another. she will not have sex.”64 When Boethius says. in which Abelard gives some very explicit examples to illustrate different types of contradiction that relate to sexual and scatological behavior. as “Peter will close the door. when it seeks to distinguish between “man” as a word and “man” as a specific thing. is distrib- uted to each item signified so that what are signified are not the things divided but the names of what is signified. the early years 35 and Boethius. Peter will not fall in the latrine” relates more to another. Abelard produced an introductory treatise on the subject. he rewrites a sentence of Boethius. but the division of an utterance is not made into parts but is made into those things which that utterance signifies. often in a revealing way.” Abelard livens up his lecture by giving the example of a loose woman from Chartres.62 Whereas Aristotle had confined himself to generalities with examples like “Every man is white. The distinction between realis and vocalis. that is to rubbing. whether some that are open equally to affirmation and negation. not found in Boethius or indeed in any patristic tradition.63 Abelard’s comments in these literal glosses explicate obscure phrases. she will not rub”. Similarly in chance expressions. He even turns Aristotle’s contrast between “small” and “large” into a humorous comment about his being slight in stature.65 Abelard does not make a major issue out of these comments but rather presents the words of Boethius in a way that is accessible to his students. that is. “So it happens that a genus is a kind of matter. or it relates more to another. even if great in forbearance.” Abelard adds “that is vocal.

contains a discussion. salvavit: “woman who has damned [us]. For example.67 One manuscript (Orle´ans. or faulty reasoning.-Denis. as he seems to have taught at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame during the period 1110–1112 and to have developed William’s “non- difference” theory of identity in relation to universals. “its” can refer either personally to the individ- uals or indifferently (indifferenter) and simply according to a common na- ture. such as “This man is this body.” “that” (id) is used both indifferenter according to both human nature and to the person. Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux A number of William of Champeaux’s students became in turn teachers of dialectic and divinity and then bishops. or collectively to men because of their similarity to each other. that he called Introductiones parvulorum. since many arguments deceive us according to words. but indifferently to the nature of the female sex. If we say that “Socrates is a man” means “Socrates is that which he is. committed to promoting ec- clesiastical reform. The word “man” is given to individual men. Abelard examines a traditional liturgical phrase contrasting Eve and Mary (mulier quae damnavit. has saved”) to make the point that in this case “woman” did not refer to the same person.”68 Abelard also resolves various sophisms by examining the vox involved in more detail. He tells us that it dealt with propositions that are opposite to each other. which may have been modeled on the Introductiones of William of Champeaux. and the same rules seem to be applied to false as to true arguments.70 He wishes to distinguish the individual identity of Socrates or Eve or Mary from his or her identity as a man or a woman. of paralogism. therefore this man is prior to this man. In time he became bishop of Soissons (1126–1152). as well as with various forms of categorical and hypothetical syllogism. entitled Secundum magistrum Petrum sententie. Bm 266) that reports many opinions of Joscelin of Vierzy and William of Champeaux. a friend of Suger of St. given because of some similarity between identical individuals. when a group of four (senarius) is said to be made out of a group of four and its half. Joscelin was a particularly significant successor to Wil- liam.36 abelard and heloise extant.69 This is a theme that Abelard would develop further in his later glosses on the Periermeneias. through similarity with other words. but this body is prior to this man as the matter of this man. as well as those of Abelard from the period 1109– 1113.” His point is that the way in which the terms are used in the assumption and in the conclusion are different: “In everything we should consider the sense more than words. and senior .

While they refer to an opinion that an act. Gilbert appreciated the value of respecting his teachers. the angels. William of Champeaux was appointed bishop of Chaˆlons-sur-Marne. about a range of questions about Christian doctrine. marriage. Gilbert of Poitiers. original sin. He drew heavily on the teaching of Augustine. Ivo’s Decretum was a source for the widely circulated Sententie Magistri A. made up almost entirely of patristic texts about the Trinity. and virtue than with more abstract theoretical questions. whose arguments about form and substance recall the strict grammatical assumptions of William of Champeaux. sacra- ments.. the creation of man. 1117). such as sexual intercourse.72 Unlike Abelard.71 Ulger. is in itself morally neutral and that only in- tention determines whether it is right or wrong. for example. widely respected as a great authority on Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. or teachings. and the virtues. but it contains little analysis of God as a trinity of persons. as noted earlier. Abelard went to Laon to listen to Master Anselm (d. Anselm of Laon was one of the first influential non-monastic teachers of divinity to emerge in France in the early twelfth century. These sentences are more concerned with original sin. in the same way as secular authors were studied.73 Many of these texts are commented upon in a widely diffused sentence collection. such ideas were already circulating in Anselm’s lifetime. Many distinguished teachers passed through Anselm’s school. the early years 37 adviser to the king of France.75 These sentences report Anselm as vig- orously affirming the doctrine that original sin is inherited from Adam by every generation and is manifest in the phenomenon of sexual desire. redemption.74 It begins by announcing that God is the principle and cause of everything made through divine wisdom. Abelard ran the risk of being excluded from a significant and powerful network in the Church. At . was another such teacher-bishop. each of which were revered as revealing some aspect of the divine message. the sacraments. Anselm of Laon and his disciples attached great importance to explicating all the voces of Scripture. and ethics. all of great relevance to the reform of Christian society. bishop of Angers (1125–1148). By criticizing William and his admirers. In June/July 1113. in the archdiocese of Reims. sometimes identified as Sententie Anselmi. delivered his glosses on the Psalms in Anselm’s presence before applying speculative grammar to theological questions. in particular as summarized by canonists like Ivo of Chartres. Instead of studying di- vinity with William as he had intended. penance. but applied to theology. sin. Anselm was also famous for delivering sententie. Anselm had ini- tiated a project to provide accessible glosses on the text of all the most important books of the Bible that would be continued by many of his loyal disciples.

there seems no reason to doubt that they transmit Anselm’s teaching. which is more theoretically informed than the Sen- tentie Anselmi but without its extensive discussion about practical pastoral matters. because this is eternal life.38 abelard and heloise the same time.76 While we cannot be sure how much these sentences have been shaped or com- posed by one of Anselm’s disciples. William inherits from Anselm of Laon an Augustinian awareness of the limitations of reason. it is also clear that he is convinced that Adam’s sin effectively subjected hu- manity to the legitimate power of the devil until the coming of Christ. the Sententie divine pagine betray a distinct philosophical concern with how words are assigned improprie about God. Ivo of Chartres. a compilation of texts by both the Fathers and “the modern masters. providence. he then falls back on the traditional Augustinian claim that there is a gulf between things in this world and divinity: “What we call these three persons or how they differ among themselves is not yet clear to us. . William draws on the defi- nition offered by the Glosule on Priscian that a noun names a specific substance but signifies quality. who are the same “non- differently” rather than through shared essence (the position that Abelard forced him to concede).83 While it has been described as a product of the school of An- selm of Laon. The influence of William of Champeaux may also be evident in the Sententie divine pagine. . Anselm of Laon and his brother. the supreme good. and that only through the sacraments of the Church could humanity escape this yoke.80 In his discussion. Ralph.”77 While Anselm emerges in these sentences as a teacher with much to say about ethical behavior in society at large. It acknowledges that the Divine Trinity can be known through the . When it pleases God. they speak lyrically of caritas as the true foundation of any good action and develop at great length the Augustinian idea that mar- riage is not sinful if it is pursued for the sake of having children.82 Having started a process of theological reflection that recog- nizes how names are applied by human imposition. William of Champeaux. conceived without the stain of sin.”81 While interested in philosophical theology.79 William imitates Boethius in explaining that the difference between the persons of the Trinity is not the same as that between two individuals.78 Sentences attributed to William of Champeaux present him as more interested than Anselm of Laon in theoretical questions about the way words are used about God. and predestination. he will reveal it to his faithful. Yet after attempting to employ dialectic in this way. . he steers away from talking about creation and concludes by insisting that discussion on mat- ters of faith cannot be taken further. free will. Very similar arguments are also attributed to Anselm of Laon in the Liber pancrisis.

even after the grace of baptism. according to what is a universal man or a universal substance. William’s un- derstanding of ethics is heavily theological in character.92 In Christ. free of the stain of lust. he was disappointed in what Anselm had to offer.87 He refers to the institutions of the Old Testament. and it is through loving God that humanity is restored to its true identity. and is the reason why Christ. the Sententie divine pagine tentatively opens up theological enquiry to rea- son but then warns of the necessary limits to any such endeavor: “[S]ince we cannot supply reasoning.”85 Underpinning William’s theology is an assumption that any noun refers to every objective reality that it names. In an unstable political environment. There is a sensual as well as a rational side to human nature. as enabling humanity to come to faith. let us not go into disputation. Abelard does not reveal in the Historia calamitatum that only the previous year the bishop of Laon had been murdered in a civic disturbance that followed the suppression of the commune by Louis VI. is both the stimulus and the consequence of sin.86 While William does acknowledge the role of reason in understanding divine nature. by which we still struggle to reach our heavenly reward.90 The corruption of reason through sin means that our knowledge of universal truths is dam- aged and that only through the grace of a sinless Christ. the early years 39 authority of Scripture as well as through reason in that the Father is him from whom all things come. which names every incorporeal substance. and the Holy Spirit is the goodness of God the Father. there is perfect charity. or lust. whether a human soul or any of the divine persons. manifest in the illicit movement of a sexual organ no longer subordinate to reason.84 Like the sentences attributed to William of Champeaux in the Liber pancrisis.89 Concupiscence. born of a virgin. the soul perceives specific things through the senses. the Son is the wisdom through which they were made. came to redeem mankind.88 William is even more rigorous than Anselm in his assessment of original sin as sexual in character. but reason considers individual things universally. are we able to be redeemed from the devil’s hold over humanity. however. he holds that this knowledge has been seriously deformed through original sin and that only through grace can we rise to higher knowledge. only belief. Abelard’s public criticism of Anselm of Laon was perceived as undermining ecclesiastical authority.91 The benignity of God is his promise to free us from the chain of lust. but not the teaching of the philosophers. Abelard was scathing about the general reverence accorded someone whose words he judged to be devoid of depth and reasoning: “I was surprised that for those who are . When Abelard was forced to turn to Anselm of Laon to pursue his studies in divinity. as in the case of spiritus.

Meaux. William of Champeaux formed a close relationship with Conon. were important not just for witnessing the rise to fame of Peter Abelard in Paris and his spectacular fall from grace following his affair with Heloise. made possible by this royal recognition. While never a canon of Notre-Dame. Chartres. He returned to Paris. Reims.-Victor. the Dialectica. During this period he was also able to work on his first major literary composition. Abelard was now at the height of his career. The years of William’s episcopate. who was cardinal bishop of Palestrina and who had been the papal legate of Paschal II in both Gaul and Germany since 1111. encompassing Paris. was to secure royal confirmation for the newly established Abbey of St. oversaw the construction of new buildings. of- fering good clerical connections.40 abelard and heloise educated. Troyes. This treatise would establish Abelard as a thinker who went much further than either Roscelin of Compie`gne or William of Cham- peaux by presenting a synthesis of teaching on dialectic such as had not been seen since the time of Boethius. and Soissons between 1115 and 1121. the writings and glosses of the Fathers were not sufficient for understanding their commentaries without further guidance. the center of a vast archdiocese.94 This was a prestigious position. he had acquired by this time a non-residential canonry at the Cathedral of Sens. Chaˆlons-sur-Marne. where individual canons lived in a degree of comfort and prosperity very different from the way of life pursued by the regular canons of St. until he was forbidden from teaching by Anselm of Laon at the instigation of two other disciples. perhaps late in 1113. from 1113 to his death in January 1122. and a regeneration of a strict religious life not possible within the cathedral cloister of Notre- Dame. They witnessed other developments of great significance. Gilduin. Abelard reports that he did not stay long at Laon. One of William’s first actions in 1113.- Victor. Alberic of Reims and Lotulf of Lombardy. and Nevers. At the cathedral school of Notre-Dame. . even before being consecrated bishop. His friend Stephen of Garlande was not only royal chancellor and dean of Ste. Auxerre. Abelard was able to complete the commentary on Ezekiel that he had begun at Laon and thus to acquire a reputation in lecturing on Scripture as much as on philosophical texts.95 Conon convened a series of councils at Beauvais. Its first abbot.-Genevie`ve but also provost of the Cathedral of Sens. asserting a policy of ecclesiastical independence from the secular arm. Orle´ans. when he was offered the position he had long coveted of teacher at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame.”93 Abelard then started work on a commentary on Ezekiel. at the age of only thirty-four.

the other a more self-effacing Augus- tinian canon. two other individuals.-Victor.- Victor was being established. The other prote´ge´ of William of Champeaux who began to emerge at this time was Bernard. In their different ways. Cıˆteaux had established a pattern of monastic observance based on strict adherence to the Rule of Benedict.-Victor. just as the new Abbey of St. both would eventually eclipse Ab- elard in terms of prominence and respectability within the Latin Church. Whereas William of Champeaux had been interested in the theory of argument.-Thierry tells us) because the bishopric of Langres was vacant at the time. Hugh was preoccupied with developing his ideas about how the created world could itself lead the soul to God. writ- ten in the mid-1120s. In his Didascalicon. Just as Abelard and his students wanted to go back to the spirit of Aristotle. it seems likely that he had already received a good education in Germany prior to his coming to Paris. one a highly articulate Cistercian monk. ostensibly (as William of St. William of Champeaux supported Bernard in his project and encouraged him to establish a daughter foundation within the diocese of Chaˆlons-sur-Marne at Trois-Fontaines in 1118. (In fact. Benefiting from the stability provided by the foundation of St. that set out the ideals . but was less familiar with Aristotelian ways of thinking about the nature of language—such as those that interested and influ- enced both William of Champeaux and Abelard.)96 Under Stephen Harding. started to develop their careers under the shadow of William of Champeaux. The following year. Bernard approached William for ordination. without any of the additional observances and liturgical prac- tices that had grown up over the intervening centuries. we know that Bishop Joceran of Langres had already been appointed in 1115. Breaking conven- tion. the Carta caritatis. a cleric from Hammersleben in Saxony. Cal- lixtus II approved a document. who came to Paris with his uncle around 1115. so monks following the ordo. One was Hugh of St. just as Abelard was reaching the pinnacle of his reputation at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame. Hugh encouraged his students to acquire a general knowledge of the liberal arts but warned against getting excessively in- volved in speculative discussions if they created a distraction from study- ing Scripture and pursuing a contemplative life. the early years 41 In 1115. after having joined the Abbey of Cıˆteaux with a group of thirty friends only three years earlier. of Cıˆteaux wanted to return to the spirit of Benedict. While we do not know the year of his birth. elected abbot of a new monastery at Clairvaux in 1115 at the age of twenty-five. Hugh was steeped in the writings of the Church Fathers. Hugh would emerge as a leading voice in defin- ing Christian orthodoxy during the 1120s and 1130s. or way of life.

42 abelard and heloise

of love by which these monks were bound. William and Conon of Pale-
strina played a major role in thrusting the Cistercian movement onto the
public stage. As a young abbot, Bernard was so committed to personal
austerity that William of Champeaux became very concerned for his
health and persuaded the Cistercian general chapter to allow Bernard to
live apart from the community at Clairvaux. Although William had fa-
cilitated the founding of an abbey of canons regular at St.-Victor, he died
and was buried at Clairvaux on January 18, 1122, after taking a Cistercian
habit only eight days prior to his death.97
During the last years of his life, William of Champeaux became in-
creasingly sympathetic to the ethical and religious ideals being pursued
by Bernard of Clairvaux. William was an influential figure, eager to sup-
port the efforts of Bernard to diffuse ideals of caritas into religious life and
to reform political structures within the Church. Abelard was disap-
pointed by William’s hostility. He accused William, as he would later
accuse Bernard, of paying lip service to religious ideals while pursuing a
prominent position in public life. Abelard’s rhetoric should not conceal
the fact that Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux were significant
figures who educated and influenced a remarkable generation of educated
clerics, many of whom went on to become influential bishops and abbots.
Abelard owed more to his teachers than he cared to admit. He was not
wrong, however, in observing that his early conflicts with disciples of
Anselm of Laon and of William of Champeaux lay at the source of many
of his subsequent difficulties.


Challenging Tradition
The Dialectica

T he Dialectica, dedicated to the education of the sons of his brother
Dagobert, was Peter Abelard’s first large-scale composition. Its five
constituent treatises, each dealing with one aspect or another of language
and argument, must have taken many years to write.1 We cannot be sure
whether certain passages—such as his response to accusations that a
Christian should not deal with matters pertaining to faith, which appears
within a prologue to the fourth treatise—were added at a later date, after
he became a monk at St.-Denis in 1117/18. The frequent criticisms that
he makes of William of Champeaux in the first two treatises, coupled
with examples such as Petrum diligit sua puella (“His girl loves Peter”) as
the converse of Petrus diligit suam puellam (“Peter loves his girl”) offered
in the third treatise, suggest that a date between 1112 and 1117/18 is
more likely for a composition that established Abelard as the most im-
portant dialectician of his day.2
In structure, Abelard’s Dialectica is closer to the Dialectica of Gerland
of Besanc¸on than to the Introductiones dialecticae of William of Cham-
peaux, and may have been modeled on the lost Dialectica of Roscelin.
The first treatise, “The Book of Parts” (unfortunately missing its opening
in the single surviving manuscript), deals with antepraedicamenta, or the
predicables discussed by Porphyry; the categories of Aristotle; and post-
predicamenta, or other signifying words. The second treatise deals with
categorical statements and syllogisms; the third with the topics, or the
different types of argument; the fourth with hypothetical statements and


44 abelard and heloise

syllogisms, and the fifth with division and definition. Abelard applies the
titles “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics” to the second and fourth
treatises, conveying the impression that this is a synthesis of Aristotelian
dialectic, even though Abelard knows only a few phrases of Aristotle’s
Prior Analytics and nothing at all of the Posterior Analytics. Abelard’s em-
phasis throughout is that individual words have to be studied not for their
literal meaning but for the intention behind their use. Unlike Gerland,
Abelard frequently contrasts his argument with views with which he dis-
agrees, in particular those of William of Champeaux. After the first and
second treatises, Abelard tends to refer more to the opinions of “certain
people,” but he targets the same set of opinions. Only once in the fifth
treatise does he refer to “an insane teaching of master Ros.”3
Frequently Abelard criticizes those who adopt a strictly grammatical
view that words possess an inherent capacity to signify. This comes up,
for example, when talking about the capacity of a unit of air (namely, a
word) to be heard and to signify. Familiar with the argument of the Glosule
on Priscian that a vox such as “man” is not a single substance everywhere
but is similar to another utterance of the same word, he holds that it is
properly the sound that is heard and signifies; the air has to be struck in
a certain way to carry meaning, in the same way as it is the form of
substances rather than the substances themselves that we perceive.4 While
Abelard distances himself from the more strictly grammatical aspect of its
teaching, he is indebted to the Glosule for its reflection on the physical
process of signification. He is interested in logic as a discipline about
words rather than things: “Those who seek to serve logic should deal more
with things for the sake of names than with names for the sake of things.”5
Whereas Gerland of Besanc¸on simply presents dialectic from a vocalist
perspective, Abelard introduces a more adversarial perspective into his
analysis. Thus in discussing the term “yesterday” under the category of
“when,” he emphasizes that there is no real thing that corresponds to
yesterday, as it is a relative term whose meaning depends on when it is
used. He argues this against those “who consider more the nature of things
in species than the imposition of words.”6 Sometimes this means engaging
in criticism of Boethius for referring to the nature of genera and species.
Abelard politely suggests that in such places he may have followed “the
opinion of others rather than his own view” for the sake of providing
basic instruction.7
Abelard uses his discussion of the category of relatives (that by which
something exists) to support the view of Aristotle that all forms are rel-
atives in this sense and not necessarily actual things, against the inter-

challenging tradition 45

pretation he attributes to Plato that a relative exists as something. With-
out any detailed knowledge of Plato’s teaching, other than what he had
learned from Boethius and the Timaeus, he argues that Aristotle rightly
criticized Plato for an excessively broad notion of a relative. In the Cat-
egories, Aristotle had discussed the case of what was knowable by knowl-
edge (scientia scibile) to show that something knowable could exist before
that knowledge.8 Abelard goes further than Aristotle in observing that a
category such as knowable can also be related to another concept, know-
ability or the power to know: “Just as something knowable is said to be
‘knowable by knowledge,’ one can just as well say ‘knowable by know-
ability’ (scibile scibilitate) and indeed more correctly since this is the proper
form of ‘knowable,’ so that for Plato the same thing can have two relatives
and perhaps more. For just as knowledge can refer to something knowable
or able to be known, why can it not also refer to being able to know?”9
While Boethius had frequently used the term scibilis in his translation of
Aristotle’s Categories, he never used the abstraction scibilitas. He had,
however, invented the term Platonitas to evoke the quality of being
Plato.10 Abelard invents scibilitas in the Dialectica (repeating the concept
in his Logica “Ingredientibus”) to show how Aristotle’s criticism of Platonic
forms could be taken one step further.11
Abelard is fascinated by Aristotle’s critique of Plato because he sees it
as mirroring his own situation in relation to William of Champeaux:
“When Aristotle saw that so many difficulties followed from the definition
of relatives that Plato had given too loosely, he dared to correct the
teaching of his master, and knew he had become the teacher of the one
of whom he had been a disciple.”12 Abelard acknowledges that if he ac-
tually knew the writings of Plato, he might not necessarily accept these
arguments of Aristotle, “who could have been driven through envy or
greed for reputation, or from a display of learning,” but argues that he
cannot really defend Plato without access to his writings.13 When Abelard
describes his confrontation with William in the Historia calamitatum, he
presents himself as like Aristotle correcting the opinions of Plato. In the
Dialectica, Abelard transforms a comment of Boethius, that Aristotle was
here correcting the teaching of Plato, into the story of an epic confron-
tation between teacher and disciple: “When Aristotle saw that so many
difficulties followed from the definition of relatives that Plato had given
too loosely, he dared to correct the teaching of his master, and knew he
had become the teacher of the one of whom he had been a disciple.”14
While acknowledging that for Plato there might be a multiplicity of forms
by which something exists, he argues that an abstraction such as scibilitas

46 abelard and heloise

has no existence beyond that of which it is the form. One must always
consider sense rather than words themselves.15 Abstract forms do not exist
independently from a world of individual things.
Much of his argument is a critique of William of Champeaux’s view
that an individual word signifies in its own right. Abelard presents the
argument as between those who consider that a vox signifies everything
on which it is imposed, and those who hold that it signifies “only those
things which are denoted and preserved in its message [in sententia ipsius].”
While Abelard attributes to his teacher an opinion, based on Priscian’s
definition of a noun as that which signifies substance with quality, he
considers the alternative view, which he attributes to Garmundus (a little-
known teacher active in Tournai at the turn of the twelfth century), as
distinctly more rational.16 Abelard’s failure to mention Roscelin here is
revealing. He questions William’s interpretation of the definition in the
Glosule on Priscian, that a noun names a substance but signifies a quality.
Even if he is inaccurate in presenting the views of William of Champeaux,
who himself may have drawn on the Glosule in his teaching, Abelard is
saying that William does not properly understand its message. Scrutinizing
passages in Aristotle and Boethius that could be construed as saying a
noun signifies a substance, Abelard argues that the proper meaning of any
utterance is that held “in the message of an utterance [in sententia vocis]),”
a notion that goes beyond anything in the Glosule on Priscian. Abelard
criticizes authority for too often applying the word “signification” too
broadly to every kind of imposition.17 He gives the example of his own
cognomen, Abaelardus, as a noun used to specify a particular thing,
namely, his own substance.18 He rejects the argument of William of
Champeaux that “a white man walking” does not have a single meaning,
as in reality this is a single phrase, just as Aristotle had observed that “a
good harp player” is a single noun.
The Glosule had tried to clarify Priscian’s definition that a noun (no-
men) signifies substance with quality by distinguishing between its naming
of a specific substance and its signifying a specific quality. Yet Aristotle’s
distinction in the Categories between first and second substances did not
resolve a broader question, namely, whether substantia means a specific
substance, or substance in general. Abelard’s discourse is shaped by his
desire to read these Aristotelian categories as the product of human im-
position, endeavoring to make sense of a world of individual things. The
ideas that Abelard puts forward in the Dialectica were not totally new. He
agrees with those grammarians “who serve logic,” namely, those who fol-
lowed the teaching of the Glosule on Priscian about the distinction be-
tween nomination and signification. Abelard would subsequently find

challenging tradition 47

other ways of defining the meaning of words in his later writings on logic,
but he here formulates a basic idea that would have wide implications for
interpreting the meaning of propositions and arguments, as well as the
language of religious tradition.
This understanding of the sententia vocis, the teaching or message of a
word, had important implications for understanding the verb. Following
Priscian’s definition that every verb signifies an action or a passion, Ab-
elard notes that some grammarians taught that a verb such as “I love”
(amo) signifies an action, while love (amor) is a passion that inheres in
the subject—as if love and the subject are two separate things.19 He rejects
the traditional definition on the grounds that it does not distinguish suf-
ficiently between the character of a verb and a noun. In particular, he
argues that the role of the substantive verb within “Peter is white” or
“Homer is a poet” does not signify any essence independent of the subject;
it simply links two terms. He judges such a phrase by its sense rather than
by the literal meaning of each word.20 The idea that the substantive verb
is part of the predicate and that “is” can function simply as a copula is
one that had been raised by Gerland and may go back to the teaching of
Roscelin, if not to the Glosule on Priscian.21 Abelard is much more out-
spoken in making this an area of disagreement with his teacher, whom
he reports claimed that the statement “Homer is a poet” (an example
brought up by Aristotle in the Periermeneias) is an improper or figurative
expression because Homer does not exist in the present.22 Abelard also
goes further than Gerland in discussing statements such as “A chimaera
is thinkable,” which he considers a perfectly legitimate statement, even
though the verb does not imply that a chimaera actually exists.23 He is
familiar with William’s glosses on the Periermeneias, but rejects what his
teacher had to say as a calumny about the joining of words.24 Abelard
wants to formulate a theory of language that respects conventions of lin-
guistic usage, more in tune with what he thinks Aristotle wanted to say.
Abelard begins the second treatise of the Dialectica, which deals with
categorical statements and arguments, with a prologue in which he refuses
to give in to “the detraction of rivals and the oblique criticisms of the
jealous.” Although “jealousy puts obstacles to our writings, and does not
allow the exercise of study” he will not allow this to stand in his way.
Imitating Gerland in his Dialectica, Abelard explains that both Aristotle
and Boethius exceeded the bounds of moderation, the former in being
too brief and obscure, the latter in being too prolix. His intention is to
create a synthesis of the subject that encompasses the teaching of Aris-
totle, Porphyry, and Boethius: “Let the text of our Dialectica contain the
synthesis of them all and expose it to the awareness and familiarity of

28 Abelard uses the word “things” (res) in this part of the Dialectica in a way that he would later disavow. The statement “Every man .” as in the Logica “Ingredientibus”—only the idea that a universal as a predicate cannot be a thing. “man runs”) as distinct from the incom- pleteness of sense in phrases such as “man running. or message.29 Elsewhere in the Dialectica. because they describe Homer rather than speak about any existing thing. such as “Accept the man- uscript” and “May God be present. if the Creator gives us some time for our life and jealousy loosens the restrictions on our writing. Following Aristotle in the Periermeneias.48 abelard and heloise readers. Abelard echoes a phrase of William of Champeaux when he comments that “the quantity of a universal thing consists in its diffusion through lower things. even if all things ceased to exist (a theme he takes up in relation to hypothetical consequences later in the treatise). Abelard develops the idea that propositions both deal with things and generate understandings (intellectus) about those things. that words signify both things (res) and understandings.” the truth of the consequence has to be nec- essary from the beginning of time. All depends on the sententia.. of the proposition.26 He echoes examples that William had given of the difference between imperative and beseeching commands. such as about the perfection of sense in complete phrases (i.”27 This prefaces his main discussion about dialectical argument as reasoning through which truth is distinguished from falsehood.34 In formulating such ideas he is going signifi- cantly beyond classical Boethian theory of language.e.”33 Abelard’s concern is not so much to do away with language about things as to explain how categorical statements and ar- guments function. “Let the lady friend kiss me” or “Let the lady friend hurry. Abelard insists they are legitimate. there is an animal.” follow standard clas- sifications espoused by William of Champeaux that Abelard would later abandon. At the time of his writing the Dialectica.” but then adds the example of a de- siderative statement. Propositions express “the way in which things exist rather than things themselves.”30 He had not yet rejected all reference to “universal things.32 In “If there is a man. namely. He examines phrases such as “Homer is a poet” that William used to think were improper and figurative expressions. Abelard had not completely thrown off some of the basic ter- minology that he inherited from Boethius.31 Abelard is insistent in the Dialectica that what are spoken of by prop- ositions are not things in themselves but are rather about things. Abelard follows the basic structure of teaching provided by the Perier- meneias to summarize for his reader different types of proposition as well as each type of negation of that proposition.”25 Some of the distinctions he makes.

” but this is different from “Not every man is white.36 In dealing with modal propositions (“It is possible for Socrates to run”). He sees possibility as a mode that relates to an utterance rather than to sense.43 Abelard analyzes modal statements to examine the meaning of state- ments about the future that may be true. but from the specific thing about which a modal statement is made (de re). God can be deceived” does not hold because what is expressed by the antecedent (for something to .” Possibility.”38 When Abelard says that it is possible for Socrates to be a bishop. one has always to consider precisely what aspect of a prop- osition is being negated.42 This suggests that Ab- elard may have been influenced by Roscelin in suggesting that William of Champeaux had not fully grasped the teaching of the Periermeneias.” To claim that possibility relates to what is said by the proposition as a whole.44 This analysis leads him to reject the argument that just because God can foresee all things.39 This contrasts with the view he attributes to Wil- liam of Champeaux that modal propositions descend from the sense of a simple proposition.” He insists that modal propositions derive not from sense (de sensu).40 He sets rules for establishing equipollent assertions. challenging tradition 49 is white” could be negated as “Every man is not white.41 There are connections here to the teaching of Gerland of Besanc¸on. he is making the point that the possibility relates to Socrates insofar as he is a human being. would. even though they do not exist in present reality. that “It is possible for Socrates to run” de- scends from “Socrates runs. things that are possible happen by necessity.” While he is aware that opposites cannot both be true. is that which is not repugnant to someone’s nature. as his teacher claimed.45 The argument that “if it is possible for something to happen other than God foresees. who sim- ilarly questioned a simplistic analysis of a modal proposition without ac- tually formulating the de sensu/de re distinction. as in the statement “It is possible for Gerland to become a bishop. even if it will never take place. he argues.” and claims that Ar- istotle had considered negation more subtly than Boethius.35 He criticizes Boethius for thinking that “No man is just” and “Not every man is just” are the same in that they both negate the universal statement “Every man is just. not as a property of Socrates in particular. un- derstood as potency. as in “It is possible for Socrates to be a bishop. namely. A statement such as “There will be a war” is about a thing. but the proposition is not itself a thing. but he still employs a terminology of res that he later abandons. result in such ab- surdities as “It is possible for every man not to be a man. Abelard explains that possibility does not necessarily relate to the mode of being of Socrates but to the utterance itself.”37 Gerland of Besanc¸on had raised a similar point in his Dialectica when speaking about the meaning of “possible.

. Abelard’s concern is always with the par- ticular sententia. is similarly predicated by a genus. He sees this as con- tradicting the distinction between truth.” there is a single sententia. ex- cept perhaps to refer to it as “the common mode of proof. yet I easily suspect and concede that there is love through this conversation. He rejects the argument of those who hold that such an inference is in itself true. in the consequence “If X is a man.49 Arguments from analogy are always based on prob- ability and are thus often used by orators but cannot be classed as true in a strict dialectical sense. even though one could argue that canis also refers to a marine creature or to a star and thus signifies separate things.e. In a universal proposition such as “Every dog is an animal. which is based on what has an analogy to the truth—in other words.” the inference that there is an animal (i.48 Abelard rejects the opinion of those (like William) who hold that probable consequences are as true as necessary ones. on opinion. on which any valid inference is based. Rather.50 To illustrate an argument that is probably but not necessarily true. a valid inference is that in which the truth of the consequence follows entirely from the antecedent. he suggests. in avoiding all reference to an argument’s medium. “containing the senses of all the conse- quences that flow from a common mode of proof. There is no comparable dis- cussion in Gerland’s Dialectica. and probability. Abelard understands the maximal proposition to be the axiom guaranteeing the truth of any specific argument. which relates to the existence of a thing.”47 He differs from his teacher. For example. since we never see such conversations taking place except among lovers. Gerland of Besan- c¸on had used a similar example about love and congress in his Dialectica .50 abelard and heloise happen other than as God foresees) is false. The long third section of the Dialectica deals with the topics or uni- versal principles underpinning different types of argument. X is an animal. the genus of “man”) reflects the maximal prop- osition that “whatever is predicated by a species. or sense. The only true consequence is that based on necessity.” Following Boethius and William of Champeaux. however. “Although I may know that it is not necessary for there to be love for a girl who is often caught at night talking in secret with a young man. of a universal proposition rather than with the meaning of specific words.”51 The true dialectician will never con- fuse what seems to be truth with truth itself.” Whereas William had sought to identify this medium as about the relationship be- tween genus and species. Abelard insists that the perfect inference is not dependent on the reality of any genus or species.46 His analysis of different types of categorical syllogism or logical argument continues this emphasis through his analysis of how con- clusions are established in an argument.

” he continues to take issue with “certain people” who say that errors in faulty consequences arise not from the enunciation of terms but from the im- propriety of the middle term in an argument. He expresses surprise that some people do not consider a mother to be an efficient cause as much as a father.58 Relative pronouns have their force in relation to sense. such as “Whatever is predicated by a species is also predicated by its genus. but the truth of a necessary consequence that flows from that statement does not depend on the particular existence of things. for example. draw- ing in part on Boethius’s De differentiis topicis. Abelard then describes various forms of necessary consequence. formal. final. He points out that a Latin sentence need not begin with a nominative. A categorical statement may deal with things. its truth must be based on an axiom.” This leads Abelard to argue that in a necessary consequence. even if God is the efficient cause in relation to creation. as in Petrum diligit sua puella (“His girl loves Peter”).”53 Abelard is not denying that things exist.52 “It is to be particularly noted that in the declaration of con- sequences the property of utterances and right imposition are to be more attended to and more considered than the essence of things. there is no middle. one has to say Petrus diligit suam puellam (“Peter loves his girl”). and efficient) or different types of movement (through substance. Rather. When two terms of an argument are different (such as “man” and “not-man”). The logical necessity of an argument as a whole was more important than word order. and place). explaining that humanity (homo) is an efficient cause in relation to composition. as. In Abelard’s strict theory of consequences (which John of Salisbury found difficult to accept). the different types of cause (material.59 His emphasis . about divisions or distinc- tions. quan- tity. not to word order.55 This was a direct allusion to the teaching of William of Champeaux. the antecedent cannot exist without its con- sequence. remembered by John of Sal- isbury for expounding the science of finding the middle term on which any specific argument was based. challenging tradition 51 but did not develop the contrast between truth and probable inference or challenge the opinion of his teacher. to swap the terms in this state- ment.56 Much of his treatise is taken up with the topic or universal proposition on which specific arguments are based. quality.57 This understanding of the syllogism fol- lows from rejecting William’s idea that the truth of a consequence was preserved by the truth of the mediating topic. but he argues that attention must be given to the meaning of words and phrases if things are to be adequately described. only those consequences are acceptable that are enclosed in the antecedent.54 While Abelard only refers once in this section to “our teacher. and thus one cannot say that man is not-man.

52 abelard and heloise is always on correct appreciation of the meaning of words used to denote cause. “sticking too much to the words of authority consider every necessary argument to be nec- essary in itself. that divine grace has deemed to reveal only to a few”: But because the daily effort of this teaching tires readers by regularity of reading and too much subtlety pointlessly occupies many people’s studies and time.63 Whether he is referring to criticisms made after he became a monk at St. this skill alone holds the place of conferring not difficulty but rather ability. movement. Abelard defends him- self against an accusation “that it is not licit for a Christian to deal with those things that do not attain to faith” by arguing that all knowledge must be good in itself. For whatever time you labor in its study.62 In an introductory preface to the fourth treatise.” In the statement “Socrates is a man.61 Always to be considered is the intention behind words. 1117/18) or was referring to earlier difficulties is not certain. but the enthymeme (incomplete ar- gument) is not necessary in itself. with- draw from its entrance and spew it out like the taste of an unfamiliar fragrance. or the words by which it is expressed. In any case. while regret enflames them to jealousy. and do not dare to approach its narrow gates. they are not ashamed to attack those whom they see as following the skill of this art. as it is possible that Socrates does not exist.” which he interprets as being about an understanding generated by the words. In its excellence. confused by its subtlety. An argument is not the same as its argumentation. while they are unable to discern the quality of the fragrance through their taste. many people not unreasonably distrust it. a number in fact.64 Abelard’s comment that the young Augustine would not have experienced difficulty in believing Ambrose’s preaching about how one God could be three persons if the bishop of Milan had been skilled in dialectic shows that he had at least started to think about defending dialectic in relation to theological study. this is not strictly the addition of one thing to something else but rather change in relation to what was before. and fend off the true weakness of their ability with false slander about knowledge. When something is increased. they turn praise for its subtlety into slander. It is not a part that is increased but the whole composite in relation to its parts. therefore he is an animal” the argument is necessary. He rejects the opinion of those who. he men- tions these accusations against his teaching in order to compose an elo- quent eulogy of dialectic as “a treasury of wisdom. or decrease.-Denis (ca.60 This third section concludes with a discussion of Cicero’s definition of argument as “reasoning that makes faith in an uncertain thing. you waste effort pointlessly if the gift of heavenly grace does not create the capacity for such a great secret in . as when one grows in size. increase.

this is not always so. as it has to relate to the sentence as a whole. he rejects the argument that the differentia signifies not just a distinct form but even matter. he observes that following the argument that one should not go beyond authority. and can refer to the sense of a proposition as a whole. namely. When a differentia is applied to a genus (as in “rational animal”).65 This panegyric highlights a distinctive feature of Abelard’s approach. it was taken as the . one who teaches pounds the air to no purpose. and does not hesitate to point out that Boethius is either incomplete “or follows the opinion of other people. as he had already established many of his basic principles about hypothetical arguments. there is a animal. that valid arguments are those in which the consequent is contained in the antecedent.66 He rejects Boethius’s identification of hypothetical state- ments that establish a consequence as to do with time.69 In the fifth treatise.” abused language to such an extent that when the name of a differentia was used to identify a species. The more brilliant the servant of this art. on division or definition. Rejecting their criti- cism. unless it instructs the mind within. This fourth treatise. if there is not an animal. Abelard is particularly interested in the negation of a hypo- thetical argument (“If there is a man. is to be attributed to divine grace.68 In discussing the conversion of hypothetical propositions (“If there is a man. There is some redundancy in organization. challenging tradition 53 your mind. He claims that “our teacher W. is also much shorter than the long previous section on topics. this [dialectic]. however. on the attributes of hypothetical argument and syllogisms. there is not a man”). Di- alectic is not a ponderous exercise in verbal skill but a divine gift that enables its student to see beyond the meaning of individual words to the sense that lies behind them. he comments that some people are astonished that he presumes to comment on a subject not covered by Boethius. He refuses to accept that negation could ever relate only to its constituent parts (“If there is not a man. there is not an animal”). Daily practice can serve other disciplines with whatever abilities are required. and he criticizes those who are too grammatical in their approach.”70 He begins by considering various kinds of subdivision dealt with by Boethius. such as the division of genus into species. no progress could ever have been made in the past.”67 While in the strictest sense an adverb modifies a verb. Abelard again questions what Boethius has to say on the subject: “There was not such perfection among the ancient writers that teaching is not in need for our research and that learning cannot grow among us mortals or receive any in- crease. there is an animal”) because it raises the question of the underlying sense that is being negated. the more what is served is precious.

Yet these different powers are not part of a single generic substance. He criticizes those. The fiction should not be read literally. Soul or anima is a quality of all living things.72 This was the opinion that identified genus and species as things rather than as voces. a word that can refer to understanding of quantity or to the diffusion of a common essence. an attitude that he subsequently nuances in the Theologia “Summi boni. like a heap of stones. He identifies the problem as caused by William clinging too closely to the words of authority. Abelard invokes the authority of Aristotle to recall that sense is always a quality in a body. traditionally classified into three powers: growth (as in plants). just as the power of growth exists in plants. These criticisms are directed against Platonists who naı¨vely identify the world soul with the Holy Spirit. a fiction. feeling (as in animals). This teaching of Plato has to be interpreted as a figmentum. A related problem occurs in analysis of a whole.” who un- derstand the mind that proceeds from the Supreme Good to be the Son and the world soul to be the Holy Spirit. Does a human being remain a human being when a part is re- moved? Does a house remain a house when a stone is removed? The existence of parts. not a general substance. “which since it contains all things.”75 Abelard criticizes this Platonic faith as erroneous in that it holds that the world soul has a worldly origin rather than being coeternal with God.71 Although Porphyry iden- tified animate and inanimate as dividing differentiae of substance. “adhering too closely to allegory. Abelard refuses to understand these categories as substantive in their own right. and discerning (as in man).54 abelard and heloise substantive of the species. which Plato had said in the Timaeus was fixed in those bodies.”76 In the Dialectica he is more resolutely Aristotelian in maintaining that various forms of anima only have a reality insofar as they . this process of subdivision would extend to infinity. When dealing with a people. that claims that human souls were established from the beginning of time and fixed in the stars as well as sent into human form so that individual men could be created. Socrates would still remain. which is said to give life by generating virtues in them.73 A question also arises when a part is removed from the whole. does not in itself require the existence of a whole. He then observes that there are some who interpret the division of anima as a particular rather than a general soul. If a nail or even a hand or foot were removed from Socrates. bestows its gifts on the hearts of certain faithful through indwelling grace. identified by Plato as a general soul or soul of the world (anima mundi). but a multiplicity of individuals. there is no real unity. apt for life. or soul.74 Another example of division that he takes up is that of anima. If we had sufficient names.

78 He ex- plains that a res universalis is not a specific thing in itself. challenging tradition 55 exist within specific individuals. He could be referring to Platonists such as the young William of Conches. The statue is not in itself an essence.”81 Abelard is effectively extending the Glosule’s definition of a noun when he explains that a definition reveals a quality of a subject but does not signify a substance in itself. such as “The day is sun shining on the earth.” Abelard continues to question those who adopt an excessively literal interpretation of words and to confuse etymology with actual meaning.82 He sees figurative expressions as legitimate ways of describing the world. . it is not being predicated by any substance other than the matter that has been shaped by a form. as in: “In the distribution of a universal thing. who once identified the world soul with the Holy Spirit although subsequently refused to commit himself to this claim (perhaps under Abelard’s influence). In this case. Abelard effectively rewrites the De divisione of Boethius by going back to his understanding of the teaching of Aristotle in both the Categories and Periermeneias. “insofar as they seem to be brutish and irrational through foolishness. Abelard emphasizes that words do not have multiple meanings in their own right. Poetic imagery has its own logic.”80 While there are no further specific allusions in this final treatise to the opinions of “our teacher. comprising both matter and form. but only in relation to that about which they create an understanding.77 His criticism of Plato is based on philosophical grounds rather than on general suspicion of pagan authority. He returns to his earlier argument about the legitimacy of figurative statements. it is not comprehension of its quantity or of its wholeness that is shown. but properly reserved the nature of things to arrange for himself. but only its diffusion through inferior things of what they participate in [sola participationis diffusio].”79 Even when questioning individual ideas of William. to explain that when we say that it is bronze. as when Britones are said to be quasi-brutes. He takes the example of the bronze statue. Abelard still uses tradi- tional vocabulary about “universal things” to promulgate his theme that words are of human imposition: “For the Creator entrusted us with the imposition of words. but rather applies to anything that is the image of something. the sun is the cause of the day rather than the day itself.” to criticize those who argue that this is an improper expression because a day cannot be strictly identified with the sun.

After Abelard’s ar- gument with William around 1109. Inevitably a challenge was presented to traditional dialectic. but he was prepared to become aware of the new vocalist emphasis on the meaning of words in dialectic. verbs. the meager record of his teaching suggests that he never attained wide recognition in his own day. When he encountered the application of vocalist principles to the definition of the Trinity. propositions. for example. Roscelin was not the only teacher of his generation to be fascinated by the project of paying atten- tion to the meaning of words. Anselm of Bec gave some attention to these questions in his De grammatico but never sought to create any syn- thesis of dialectic as a whole. While the Glosule on Priscian had become recognized as an au- . In the late eleventh century. Whereas William always treats the explanations offered by Boethius with respect. is a vocalist treatise that focused much more on identifying the rules underpinning argument than with the way in which words. whose school at Loches could not compare to the more sophisticated establishments in and around Paris. The Dialectica of Gerland of Besanc¸on. texts such as the Glosule on Priscian’s Grammatical Institutes had opened up new possibilities with their more speculative reflection on the meaning of nouns. as mediated by the translations and commentaries of Boethius. probably completed by 1117/18. outclassed anything produced by his contem- poraries. through the arguments of Roscelin of Compie`gne. which was con- cerned with much more than the issue of universals. and arguments convey meaning. William transferred his attention away from dialectic and rhetoric to theological. Abelard is impatient with what he considers to be his teacher’s excessive respect for the correct meaning of individual words. William of Champeaux forced the young Peter Abelard to develop ideas about dialectic that went far beyond those of Roscelin. Abelard’s Dialectica. His synthesis of vo- calist teaching. and pastoral concerns. however. determined to outshine William of Champeaux. William was more loyal than Roscelin to the traditions of Boethius in teaching dialectic. by this new attention to words. While we do not know for certain how extensive was Roscelin’s achieve- ment in dialectic.56 abelard and heloise Conclusion Abelard was certainly not the first teacher in the schools of northern France to focus attention on the meaning of words. ethical. Simply to label him a “realist” does an injustice to his teaching. and other parts of speech. Anselm roundly condemned these “dialecti- cians of the modern time” for being so absorbed by the notion that a universal was “a puff of air” that they lacked all spiritual understanding. is the composi- tion of a young but ambitious teacher.

The Dialectica may not represent Abelard’s final thinking about any sub- ject. Abelard wishes to go much further in ap- plying some of its insights about the causes behind words to rational discourse as whole. challenging tradition 57 thoritative source of teaching about the meaning of words by William of Champeaux and his disciples. . but it effectively announces him as the most brilliant theorist in the discipline to have emerged since the time of Boethius. which is based on a close reading of a relatively restricted range of texts and is shaped by sustained debate with the arguments of William of Champeaux. There are clearly limitations to the Dialectica.

At her instigation. You. In the process. a noble and a cleric. were not so much unmindful as contemptuous of that man. Abelard presents the story of his early relationship with Heloise and its dramatic conclusion as one of the catastrophes that changed the direction of his life but ultimately served a greater good. The story of their early liaison generated rumors that Abelard was still trying to quell in the early 1130s. he became obsessed with Heloise. and also entrusted to you his niece. however. Having established himself as an authority on dialect- ical argument. you taught her not to argue but to fornicate. for tuition. a canon even of the church of Paris. a major upheaval was beginning to shake Abelard’s ac- ademic career. 4 Heloise and Discussion about Love B y late 1115. a very prudent young woman of outstanding disposition. In one 58 . fed you as a close friend and member of the household. your host and lord. who looked after you freely and honorably. We get some idea of the hostility Abelard’s behavior generated from comments made by Roscelin of Compie`gne in a letter written only a few years after the events it describes: I have seen indeed in Paris that a certain cleric called Fulbert welcomed you as a guest into his house. Not sparing the virgin entrusted to you whom you should have taught as a student and whipped up by a spirit of unre- strained debauchery. In the Historia calamitatum. he found himself abandoning traditional ideals of sexual purity to gratify his desire. whom he saw as living out philosophical principles in a way that he could only admire. they started to talk about the ethics of true friendship.

Fulbert was committed to furthering her studies. when she heard that Abelard was now teaching in Paris. although passing over the circumstances behind her entry into monastic life. heloise and discussion about love 59 deed you are guilty of many crimes.1 Roscelin’s account well illustrates the sense of outrage felt by those who considered that Abelard had taken advantage of a student under his care. without any firm foundation. the God of vengeance. In the Historia calamitatum. Heloise. In 1115. of betrayal and fornication. Perhaps in 1113. while Abelard was then thirty-six. and that Ros- celin says her uncle was of noble birth. is a pious fabrication from the seventeenth century. as well as to a more exciting intellectual environment. a canon of the cathedral of Notre-Dame. left no record of her father’s name in the necrology of the Paraclete. Heloise was the brilliant niece of Fulbert. and thus was only a teenager when she met Abelard. has acted freely” [Ps. and a most foul destroyer of virginal modesty. “making her very famous throughout the kingdom. she is more likely to have been around twenty-one years old. quite possibly with the expectation that she would subse- quently rise to a high position within monastic life. Argenteuil. Staying within the cathedral cloister provided her easy access to a wider range of books than would have been available to her at Argenteuil. But “God. 93:1]. only that of her mother.-Marie. he has deprived you of that part by which you had sinned. 1094–1156) confirms what Abelard has to say about the extent of her reputation in a letter that he wrote to her sometime after Abelard’s death in 1142. She may also have heard about the presence there of Peter Abelard. she decided to move from Argenteuil so as to board with her uncle within the cathedral cloister of Notre-Dame.4 The dowry required to maintain girls at old established abbeys such as Argenteuil was generally so large that it excluded those of more modest means from being educated there. Abelard gives the impression that their liaison was entirely the result of considered calculation on his part: . Little is known for certain about her background other than that she was educated at the royal Abbey of Ste. the Lord of ven- geance. Abelard does not deny that his behavior was wrong or that his subsequent punishment was unjustified.”2 Peter the Venerable (ca. She enjoyed a great reputation for her knowledge of letters. In the Historia calamitatum. The tradition that she was born in 1100. quite possibly of illegitimate birth. namely. He emphasizes that the entire episode was one of uncontrolled passion and a distraction from his philosophical career.3 Peter implies that she must have been at least the same age as himself. if not slightly older.

From a later letter. emphasizing only that his be- havior was one of foolish passion. What had happened was not surprising “for anyone who had experienced the power of love and . however. and thus our conversations could always be delightful. of how debauched behavior will ultimately always be exposed.60 abelard and heloise Considering everything which customarily binds lovers. where she remained until she gave birth to a child. and believed that I could do this very easily. but rather dwells on their physical debauchery. and that while we were separated. After he had sent Heloise to Brittany. Heloise wrote Abelard “in the greatest exaltation” to report that she had become pregnant. or of the length of time taken up by this exchange of messages before he obtained lodgings within the house of Canon Fulbert in return for being her tutor. we could be present to each other through mediating writings. Instead. Abelard’s account creates the impression that this was one long period of sexual indulgence. and then in spirit. like that of Mars and Venus. I was then of such a name and so distinguished in youth and ap- pearance that I did not fear being rejected by any woman whom I might deem to love. Soon after. and to ask what should be done. which started to become tedious to him. when Fulbert was away. “We were joined as one. in which love (amor) caused all study to be forgotten.6 He recalls his passion for Heloise as a distraction from philosophy. and could write many things more boldly than speak them. first in the house. “that are still. we learn that she made this escape disguised as a nun. All he says is that one night.”7 The entire account is presented as a moral example. Abelard’s narrative steers away from his own reaction to these developments. known and sung in many regions. I thought that this girl would all the more willingly consent to me as I knew that she possessed and loved such knowledge of letters. I thought I could more easily link her to me in love. We gain no sense of Heloise’s initiative in developing the relationship.” His account constructs a sexual fantasy. especially by those who enjoy a similar form of life. as you yourself know. he dwells on what he presents as a selfish desire for sexual grat- ification that drove him to engage with her in conversation and corre- spondence. He gives little attention to what they talked about in their discussions and literary exchanges. Abelard was obliged to leave his lodgings and find alternative accom- modation. He gives no indication of any twists and turns in their rela- tionship. he confessed to her uncle that he had been betrayed by love (amor) and that he would make whatever amends he could. and that creativity turned instead to songs about love.5 There is much that Abelard glides over in this short paragraph. he spirited her out of the house and sent her to Brittany to stay with his sister. whom she called Astralabe.

so that you do not plunge headlong into this Charybidis.’ so that grace alone would keep me for her. namely. Of particular significance for the subsequent evolution of his thought is her argument that for those who were truly monks. not any tie of the bond of marriage. not bound by any religious profession. a cleric and canon. based on two main reasons: the danger and the disgrace it would cause for himself. without fully articulating its ethical foundation. “If laypeople and pagans. so that you do not drown disgracefully without hope of return in such debauchery. as reported by Jerome. it has often been thought that her warnings about the incompatibility of marriage with philosophy must have been invented by Abelard long after the event.” Because Abelard cites many (although not all) of the quotations he attributes to Heloise in his Theologia Christiana. Yet there is much in his report that seems unnatural or incom- plete and that suggests he was simply being selective in his recollection of what she had to say. he reports her claim that if he would not heed the advice of Paul about avoiding the yoke of marriage. heloise and discussion about love 61 who called to mind into what ruin women had pulled down the greatest men from the beginning of humankind. Without making clear if he is quoting from a letter that she sent. He attributes to her the argument that among all peoples. how much the more should you. Xanthippe. that it would be dangerous for her to marry him and that “it would be dearer for her and more honorable for me to be called ‘friend’ rather than ‘wife. just as the ancient philosophers were inspired by love of wisdom. or reconstructing from memory arguments that she had made. after receiving a round of invective from his wife. I knew rain would follow. so that you do not prefer sordid pleasures to the divine office.”9 She reminded him also that Socrates had been married. The account of their physical debauchery is then matched by an equally lengthy presentation of her arguments against marriage. do the same. could live in this way. He does mention one argument.”8 He then offered to marry He- loise and thus legitimize their relationship. written in the early 1120s. that is certainly from Heloise. this commitment was motivated by love of God. According to a story told by Jerome. whether they were called Nazarenes or philosophers. Abelard presents Heloise as totally committed to a classical ethical ideal of phi- losophy as a way of life to which everything else should be sacrificed. Socrates acknowledged. there were always some who outshone others either by their faith or by their way of life. who poured water over his head. pagan as much as Jewish or Christian. “After this thunderstorm.”10 The word amica that she uses here (sometimes translated . she should heed the teaching of the pagan philosophers about the burdens of the marital state.

ruler of the whole world. the best of husbands.”11 She rejects his implication that their early affair had been motivated solely by physical desire. at least as he presents it in the Historia cal- amitatum.62 abelard and heloise “mistress”) evokes an ideal of friendship very different from the image of irrational passion evoked by Abelard in his account of their early rela- tionship. which are recalled on the lips of everyone because of the great . Unlike most philosophers. if Augustus. he was endowed with gifts for com- position and for singing: “As if for a kind of game. the philosopher. every marketplace. as then you aroused me in lust. in which she tells Xenophon that he will always be looking for the best of wives. She insists that her love was not motivated by any external reward or selfish lust. In her initial response to this account. Whereas Abelard dismisses his love songs as a distraction from philosophy. every house echoed my name. She insists that she had always been selfless in her devotion to him. but you kept quiet over much of what I said about preferring love to marriage. you placed ‘Heloise’ through frequent song on the lips of everyone. and his wife. to possess forever. freedom to chains. The Epistolae duorum amantium The love letters to which Heloise refers at the end of her first response to the Historia calamitatum are documents to which she attaches great importance for their declarations of love. How much more rightly you should now arouse me to God. Heloise is aware that many had been uncertain about whether she had been driven by love or lust. deigned to honor me with marriage and conferred on me the whole world. she is more positive in her attitude to the way she thought he could combine philosophical and lit- erary gifts.”12 Heloise’s ideal of amor as demanding true friendship. resting from philo- sophical exercise. you composed many verses in the meter and rhythm of love. “When you sought me out for foul pleasures. Heloise observes that he has not fully understood the ethical principles based on love underpinning her argument: “You did not disdain to expound several reasons by which I tried to persuade you away from marriage and an ill-starred union. without concern for self-interest. She feels that he has betrayed the ethical ideals that she thought they had shared in the messages of love that they once ex- changed. and quotes an argument attributed by Cicero in the De inventione to Aspasia. As God is my witness. is very different from Abelard’s understanding of amor as irrational passion. you showered me with frequent letters. it would seem worthier to me to be called your prostitute than his empress.

that anyone who considers himself even slightly learned would be rendered completely speechless and mute by his own judgment). who hardly seems adept at trifles “which neither taste of nibbled nails nor bang the desk” [Persius. would not be capable of painting a portrait of eloquence florid enough to justly deserve being seen by so great a teacher (a teacher so great. Her allusion to francigena cervicositas and tocius mundi superciliositas yield- ing to recognize his greatness suggests that this teacher is both an outsider to France (in other words. Fascinating insight into the way in which love letters can be shaped by literary and philosophical themes. the only one on whom fortune . who has transformed every artistic arrangement into habit through long-established practice. one of a famous teacher and the other of a remarkably literate young woman. in a particularly extravagant and crafted sentence. however. This is evident in letter 49 when she professes. a student of philosophy. her incapacity to respond adequately to someone for whom she has enormous respect: It is very rash of me to send studied phrases to you. advised against by theorists of the ars dictaminis in the second half of the twelfth century but once very popular in the eleventh century and still practiced within the twelfth century in monastic circles. 106]. Ewald Ko¨nsgen convincingly argued that the contrasting vocabulary and prose styles of the two voices in the exchange. Satires 1. the young woman employs a monastic style of rhyming prose. In his edition of these letters.”13 There has been much debate about the letters and poems referred to both by Abelard and by Heloise. This young woman makes a conscious effort. because even someone learned right down to his fingertips. is provided by a collection of over one hundred anonymous love letters and poems that were copied out by a monk of Clairvaux in the late fifteenth century and known as the Epistolae duorum amantium.14 Unlike her teacher. heloise and discussion about love 63 sweetness of composition and melody. he so admires her discussion of love that he describes her as “the only disciple of philosophy among all the young women of our age. to whom French pigheadedness rightly yields and for whom at the same time the haughtiness of the whole world rises in respect. In the letter that follows (50). a teacher of character. much less myself. however. A common tendency has been to assume that they were about worldly love and thus had little to do with broader philosophical concerns. the royal domain) and someone who has now attained great fame. are so distinct that it seems highly unlikely that the collection could have been composed by a single author. a teacher of virtue. to lace this older prose style with elaborate allusion to phrases from classical authors. I declare. so that the sweetness of the melody does not allow even the uneducated to forget you.

1123) and con- cluded simply that they were written in the first half of the twelfth century by a couple “like Abelard and Heloise. which he uses to modify Cicero’s definition of friendship (letter 24). in which she reserves rhyming prose for moments of high intensity.64 abelard and heloise has completely bestowed all the gifts of the manifold virtues.” The absence of any allusion to Aristotle’s Ethics. The ex- tensive literary allusions within this exchange are fully consistent with these letters being written in the early twelfth century. Analyzing them in terms of whether they are “genuine” or “artificial literary exercises” (Stil- u¨bungen) presents a false dichotomy. As is standard in the genre. While those of the young woman do not have the maturity of Heloise’s famous letters. first widely influential in France after the mid-twelfth century. . it is impossible to know for certain how much letters may have been edited by the person who trans- ferred them from wax tablet to parchment.16 There are many features in the vocabulary and ideas raised within these love letters that are fully consistent with their being a record of the early exchange of messages between Abelard and Heloise. . As with all medieval letter collections. . you who discuss the rules of friendship so subtly that you seem not to have read Tully but to have given those precepts to Tully himself!” Although the teacher is expert in the terminology of dialectic. argues strongly against the exchange having been composed after the twelfth century.15 While individual love letters. compared to the strong presence of Ciceronian ethics. What matters is that these Epistolae duorum amantium enable us to hear the voice of an educated young woman without the distortion presented by the Historia calamita- tum. Ko¨nsgen found no literary allusions to any poet after Marbod of Rennes (d. The two parties compete with each other to demonstrate their mastery of prose composition as much as to voice their thoughts. so influential in all ethical discussion in the thirteenth century and later. the Epistolae duorum aman- tium testify to the practice of the art of composition (ars dictaminis). I admire your talent. they provide a fascinating insight into the literary ca- pacity of an intelligent young woman who is still experimenting with her craft. her expertise lies more in rhetorical eloquence and ethical theory. al- ready richly developed in the eleventh century before theorists of the art sought to impose precise Ciceronian rules in epistolary manuals. were sometimes included as models of style by theorists of prose composition in the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries. There is an internal evolution of style within these letters. The traces preserved in a fifteenth-century notebook provide an insight into a relationship between two literate individuals with greater depth than Abelard’s more famous narrative. these love letters do not identify the sender . written in Latin.

Ciceronian. the two parties each reveal distinct intellectual and literary identities. She combines classical and religious imagery with rhyming prose to create her distinct prose style. A striking feature of this exchange is the contrast between the teacher’s largely Ovidian understanding of amor as a passion that he subjectively experiences and her attempt to fuse Ovidian. Thus she em- ploys more religious imagery to express her feelings. insofar as he is able in body and soul. After she asks “the Giver of all art to endow her bosom with philosophical art . She sees her love not just as passionate amor but as dilectio. while he then describes her as “his only one to be loved above all things” (4). he develops a favorite theme that she is his star. she who is his in heart and body: the freshness of eternal happiness as the flowers fade of your youth. (letter 2) This interplay between religious imagery in the woman’s letters and the man’s emphasis on her uniqueness continues in the brief extracts pre- served from the first part of the exchange. more sweetly scented than any spice. and religious imagery. understood in a physical way as the viriditas of eternal happiness: To her heart’s love. Her letters are often more carefully wrought in that they seek to knit together imagery and ideas that one might think were very difficult to combine. . There is a religious idealism to her writing about love not present in the same way in his messages. combing eros and agape. to em- phasize her uniqueness and stresses his desire for physical union with his beloved: To the singular joy and only solace of a weary mind. heloise and discussion about love 65 or recipient by name. (letter 1) By contrast. She combines allusion to passionate love with reference to an eternal reward. according the consent of my will” (5). but none in his. the light by which he lives. The teacher is clearly very skillful in composing metrical verse along classical patterns. . singularis and unicus. No fewer than eight separate allusions to letters of Jerome have been detected in her corre- spondence.17 She is much more fond than her lover of appealing to God as her witness to the sincerity of her love. and adapts phrases from the liturgy and the Song of Songs to express her feelings. Nonetheless. The woman only picks up this craft in the second part of the exchange. love that actively cares for another. he employs philosophical terms. “May the ruler of heaven mediate between us” (3). and that he is compelled to . She quotes from a hymn or prayer. that person whose life without you is death: what more than himself.

special from experience of the thing itself: the being which she is” (Dilecto suo speciali. as we see in her unusual turn of phrase. equipolenter te diligo (“in either case. praising her as “the only female disciple of philosophy among all the girls of our age.” This linguistic contrast is repeated in the greeting with which Heloise introduces her third letter to Abelard: “To him who is hers spe- cially. I love you”).” The phrase Suo specialiter. his only one in Christ. “An equal to an equal . husband or rather brother.” and proclaims that “my breast burns with love” (amoris fervore). The man uses dilectio to describe his love for the first time only in letter 50. for whom specialis has a specific meaning—namely. she reverses the order of a standard greeting. or rather her father. The contrast suggests that he is a dialectician. Whereas Cicero had only spoken of love be- tween men. In letter 18. that which is distinct to a species rather than to an individual—while she uses specialis in the less technical sense of “special. She repeats the epithet “special beloved above everyone” (pre cunctis specialis dilectus) in letter 76. his wife or rather sister.66 abelard and heloise write “by the burning flame of love” (6). In this particular letter (21) she attempts a philosophical greeting whose meaning is far from clear: “To her beloved. . sua singulariter). his maidservant or rather daughter. in the process heightening its erotic power. he does not employ the scriptural term dilectio (love that operates through an act of choice) at all in the first half of the exchange.” In her second letter. . Heloise prepares a salutation in which she moves from greeting Abelard in the most general terms possible to the most specific: “To her master. Her use of specialis contrasts with his preference for singulus to describe her unique- ness. Throughout the dialogue. “my heart and body and all my love” (Vale. to Abelard. sua singulariter suc- cinctly recalls the contrast in the way that they address each other in the . Heloise. et ex ipsius experimento rei: esse quod est). she relates ideals of friendship to the true amor and dilectio that should prevail between a man and a woman.18 In her initial response to the Historia calamitatum. In his reply. her love (dilectio) is not based on any pursuit of pleasure or wealth but only on true friendship. Although they both call each other “beloved” (dilecte). she attempts to be more specific in identifying him as an individual: “To her only one after Christ. cor et corpus meum et omnis dilectio mea). she who is his singularly” (Suo specialiter.” he rightly observes that she has gone beyond Cicero. he pushes his passion at the same time as she seeks to preserve a spiritual dimension to her own love. She occasionally tries to relate philosophical vocabulary to love. in response to a particularly elaborate letter (49) in which the woman protests that while people love others for various reasons. but then bids him farewell as omnis dilectio mea.

as distinct from being identical. a concept that Ambrose and Augustine had tended to use to mean any kind of longing.22 In letter 24. in which he responds to her frequent question: “What is love?” (Quid amor sit). namely. that each of them was special or unique to the other. This notion of amor as a force of the soul that longs for its natural end modifies an idea that Augustine had used in the De trinitate to explain that caritas.21 Cicero had spoken more of amicitia than amor. Boethius employed the term more often in his commentary on the Periermeneias to explain complete similarity. dilectio.19 The male lover. considers uniqueness to be a positive rather than a negative attribute.23 In the Historia calamitatum. like Abelard.20 Cicero repeats this idea that friendship “makes one soul from many” in his De amicitia. implying dis- tance from an ideal of noble universality. In the Logica “Ingredientibus. For Bernard of Clairvaux. is embodied in the Holy Spirit. The same phrase is used in letter 16: “as the well-being of each of us is made a shared concern without difference” (quo in unius nostrum salute res communis in- differenter agitur). so that from two diverse wills one is produced without difference.” Abelard goes further in rejecting William’s position that a universal is a thing. wanting to become one with the other. Abelard tells us that he had forced William of Champeaux to accept that two identical indi- viduals are the same indifferenter rather than essentialiter. in which he comments that in friend- ship each person delights in equal measure in the other and that wills are so much the same that it makes one will out of many. however. heloise and discussion about love 67 love letters. with- out assuming identity. singularitas (uniqueness) is a pejorative term. Letter 24 links this Augustinian idea of love as a force of the soul to Cicero’s understanding of friendship as a longing for union in harmony of will. as distinct from the purer kind of love. His solution is to connect a few phrases of Cicero about friendship with only very small modification to make it relate to amor rather than to amicitia: Love is therefore a particular force of the soul. While Augustine had once used the word indifferenter to explain that the three persons of the Trinity were “not different. We get a clearer sense of the male lover’s identity as someone attempt- ing to combine dialectic with ethical concerns in letter 24. existing not for itself nor content by itself.24 . the highest form of love. the Ciceronian definition is modified to emphasize that love creates a single will indifferenter. enjoined by Scripture. a movement of the spirit. Cicero had raised the theme of harmony of the will both in his De inventione and in his De officiis. predicated “not differently” of different individuals. but always pouring itself into another with a certain hun- ger and desire. their two different ways of making the same basic point.

in which the teacher uses a passage of the De amicitia to argue that while love may be a universal thing. and. He adapts the one passage of Cicero’s De amicitia that Abelard includes alongside a host of patristic quotations in the Sic et non (SN 138. The Ciceronian defi- nition of love as goodwill to another is one that Abelard himself draws upon within his Collationes and expands on within the Theologia “Scho- larium” to distinguish true love (amor honestus) from false love or lust (cupiditas). For the two of us have a love that is pure. can ever be lost. We say yes equally. nurtured. she distinguishes between true love that is lasting and false love . we feel the same about everything. He implies that in a world of distinct individuals. once acquired. In his early writing.”27 In letter 24. and sincere. Rather than saying that love exists between them. in a distinct way. al- though he would subsequently eliminate this terminology from the Logica “Ingredientibus. Here Abelard quotes the passage alongside Cicero’s definition of friendship in the De inventione about friendship as a harmony of wills. a will toward another. again alluded to in letter 24. Abelard was not averse to using the phrase “universal thing” (res universalis). although she does pick up on the Ciceronian argument that true friendship is not con- cerned with personal gain. it has made its very home in me and you.25 Effectively. we say no equally. since nothing is sweet or carefree for the other unless it has mutual benefit.21) to discuss whether caritas. if I remember well. the lover implies that the only true universal thing shared between two identical individuals is their love for each other. it exists in reality only between himself and his beloved: Know that although love may be a universal thing.68 abelard and heloise This modification of Cicero with the vocabulary of dialectic is further evident in letter 24. notably in the Dialectica.28 The woman’s response to her question in letter 25 is much less de- pendent than that of her teacher on the words of Cicero. you have said the same thing about yourself. which is shameful. desiring someone else’s good. the lover focuses not on Cicero’s argument about the obligations of friendship but on the metaphysical character of a love already perceived to exist as a harmony of the minds of the two lovers. it has nevertheless been condensed into so confined a place that I would boldly assert that it reigns in us alone—that is. only between himself and his beloved is there a true universal. and reciprocated with an equal will.26 The inclusion of the phrase “universal thing” shows that this lover transforms a definition of Cicero with terminology of dialectic. This can be easily shown by the way that you often anticipate my thoughts: what I think about writing you write first.

which neither of them has as yet fully implemented: “You know. she shares an attitude in a number of poets in the early twelfth century. and pre- ferred the term caritas.” She is also more aware than he is of the range of possible vocabulary about love: “And even if we show perfect kindness [integram caritatem] to everyone. that the services of true love are properly fulfilled only when they are continually owed. She does not concern herself with the love of God. she sees love not as something they possess but as a debt perpetually owed. rather than condemns sensual love. It is one thing to sit at the table of a prince. or “an affect of the spirit to enjoy God for his own sake.29 We see in this poem a simpler version of the consistent theme of Heloise that true love does not seek material reward. Au- gustine had often viewed amor as potentially base or depraved. rather than just being invited to a gathering. abbot of Bourgueil. She is more aware than Abelard of this teaching about the selflessness of true love. in such a way that we act for a friend according to our strength and not stop wishing to go beyond our strength.” In giving a more positive evaluation to amor. In a poem (82). is not unlike that of Baudri. my heart’s love.” The notion of true love rejecting the wealth of Caesar occurs in a poem attributed to a young woman that circulated in the early twelfth century alongside love poetry by Marbod of Rennes. she invokes the idea: “If I could have all that Caesar ever owned / Such wealth would be of no use to me. and a greater thing to be drawn out of love [ad amorem trahi]. The response of the articulate young woman to her own question about the nature of amor deserves to be compared to other debates about the nature of love that were taking place in the early twelfth century. another to be there in order to advise him.30 There is a similar fascination with Ovidian ideas of amor in the verse of Baudri’s friend and fellow poet Godfrey of Reims (active ca. Her theme that God attests and supports her love.” This rejection of wealth is a running ethical theme throughout her letters. For I do not consider the friendship of those who seem to love each other for riches and pleasures to be durable at all. greatest part of my soul. 1070– 1095). heloise and discussion about love 69 that is fickle and does not endure. we still do not love everyone equally. and what is general for everyone is made particular for certain people. a Loire Valley poet who had argued that the love spoken about by Ovid in his Heroides was divine in origin.” She develops this theme that true love is based not on riches or pleasure at length in letter 49: “You know. that many people love each other for many reasons. celebrated by his contemporaries as the greatest poet of his gen- . but no friendship of theirs will be as constant as that which stems from integrity and virtue and from deep love. derived from ideals of both Scripture and Cicero.

Bernard develops the idea that amor is a natural affection and that there are four grades of love: loving oneself for one’s own sake.32 William is critical not just of Ovid but of those who abuse the tools of reason without appreciating the divine origin of amor. which strives for God. she fuses an unusual philosophical concept.70 abelard and heloise eration. Whereas in his early writing William of St.-Thierry in the De natura et dignitate amoris. He argues that the goal of the spiritual life is to grow from amor to the fullness of caritas. ex- cept that you love each other. Unlike her lover. William of St. written in response to a question of Cardinal Haimeric about the nature of loving God. based on Romans 13:8: “Do not owe anything to anyone. To describe how she would like only a small portion of his intellectual brilliance. but it is present in the writing of Bernard of Clairvaux in his letter to the Carthusians. I would try with every effort of my mind to portray in the jottings of my letter various things with a fragrant nectar for your nourishing love. And so there is not nor ever will be . and thus transforms into true dilectio. the debitum dilectionis.36 Like Bernard. for God is my witness that I love you with a sublime and exceptional love. relates these themes of longing not to the love of God but to the man she loves. an image adapted from the Song of Songs: If a droplet of knowability trickled down to me from the honeycomb of wisdom.35 Bernard thus develops his very original idea that love for God grows out of love of self and of one’s neighbor. Bernard connects amor to dilectio through his reading of the Song of Songs (a text that he expounded to William only in the mid- 1120s). however.33 Wil- liam makes no attempt. loving God for one’s own sake.” This is not a theme used by William of St.31 Writing probably around 1121–1124. knowability (scibilitas). and thus into wisdom. in which he distin- guishes carnal love from spiritual love. she. the project attempted later in the twelfth century by Aelred of Rievaulx and Peter of Blois. no phrase has yet been found that speaks clearly about how intent on you is my spirit. written around 1124–1125.34 In his De diligendo Deo. loving God for his sake. But throughout all Latinity. with the image of a droplet from a honeycomb. De natura et dignitate amoris. the young woman in these love letters is interested in adapting the religious image of the obligation of love. and loving oneself because of God.-Thierry (who came to study in Reims in 1091 and would have known Godfrey’s interest in Ovid) was moved to correct the teaching of the Ars amatoria by writing a treatise.-Thierry contrasts spiritual and worldly love. which is of divine origin although corrupted in humanity through Adam’s fall. however. the young woman is fascinated by reflecting on the ex- perience of love. to relate Cicero’s ideas of friendship to a Christian ideal.

that. devised by Abelard in his Dialectica to signify knowability or the power to know (a concept he invented to explain how something may be knowable by knowability). Her lover.38 As he puts it in letter 22: What then shall I offer in return to equal your innumerable benefits? Noth- ing. that will separate me from your love. Among other things that you possess in infinite number compared with other peo- ple. as for St. At the end of letter 22. otherwise rarely attested in the twelfth century. This is no banal cliche´ of love literature. is a dialectician. Just as in the Dialectica Abelard had taught that one had to attend to the intention behind words. you do more for a friend than you say. the teacher becomes fascinated not just by her capacity to talk about ethical questions but by the way she seems to live out the principles to which she is committed. It seems far-fetched to imagine that some lover other than Heloise could have independently coined this distinctive ne- ologism. fascinated by individuality. that of a droplet falling from the hon- eycomb of the teacher’s wisdom. The phrase guttula scibilitatis transforms a distinctive philosophical neologism. it is to say that even with a droplet of this insight she cannot find words (sermo) to describe her dilectio for her teacher. but on the experience of love. poor in words. but less comfortable at fusing secular and religious notions of true love. heloise and discussion about love 71 any event or circumstance. expert in crafting original images.37 In this case. but rich in actions. This is the kind of fascination with amor that prompted both William of St. Letter 53 pro- vides a particularly brilliant example of a philosophical concept being fused with imagery drawn from the Song of Songs to express the notion that true love is beyond definition in Latin. Although the young woman initially is troubled that she does not have the teacher’s technical brilliance. so he finds that his own intention is now directed totally to Heloise. Anselm. actually. except only death. The young woman emerges from these letters as fascinated above all by the experience and the ethics of true love. this is all the more to your glory since it is more difficult to act than to speak. because you transcend your sweetest words with the number of your actions and you have so surpassed them by the demonstration of your love that you seem to me poorer in words than in actions. by contrast. to a more sensual and poetic image.-Thierry and Bernard of Clairvaux to develop a theological system based not so much on ratio. the lover makes a remark that parallels Abelard’s comment in the Historia calamitatum that his lectures became uninspired while his mind was thinking about love: . you have this distinction too.

The lover’s impulsiveness. hope. but the difficulty of expected failure has so far defied the intention of my feeling.” Only someone with good scriptural knowledge would understand that she is urging him to control his sexual passion by absorbing the skill of a great craftsman of Israel. the beauty of the father of peace. . Who then will be able to deny that you are truly buried in me? . the strength of the three locks of hair. he greets her as “a body full of moisture” and urges. tam interne diligo]. the strength of Samson. I have considered how I should address you.” She employs the term twice in letter 79: “If through reflection a person’s inner intention con- ceives anything great. the beauty of Absalom. . as in letters 102. “I am guilty. I who . and desire.” The lover is not insincere in his protestations of passionate love. . because my thought is far from them.72 abelard and heloise To others I address my words. “reveal what you have hidden. She is frequently unsure of her own capacity to respond to a lover with whom there seem to have been many disagreements (letter 76): “My intention has decided this: that further conflict between us should cease. “Rightly I grieve for him whom I love so tenderly and so deeply [quem tam tenere.” and 104. the depth of Ididia. but he is more openly erotic. .” She expands upon his notion that love is through intention (letter 88): “And even if you are not seen by me with corporeal eyes as often as I wish. nevertheless you do not slip from the intention of my mind. and yet you delay as if we were at leisure.” She replies in letter 27 with a brief but carefully crafted series of scriptural allusions to convey the moral values that she wants him to emulate: “the spirit of Bezalel. For a long time. my graceful jewel. In letter 26. Her teacher never engages in this kind of internal debate but rather is impatient for sexual fulfillment. she uses intention as a rhetorical device to reinforce her identity. He repeats this phrase in letter 72: “I will tenaciously persist with the same intention toward you. and the wisdom of Solomon. . and with a blazing struggle of heart and body. “I hope with the greatest intention of my heart that you may always fare well.” Unlike her lover. leads him to proclaim in letter 59. In letter 23. she expands on the Augustinian phrase “intention of the mind” to reflect on her internal conflict between an uncontrolled desire to write and fear that she does not have the technical capacity to do so appropriately. the young woman explores the idea of intention behind behavior. Envious time looms over our love. who never slips from the intention of the mind. I often stumble over words. to you my intention. it is often not brought to fruition without a certain external force. presumably in forcing her into a sexual relationship.” While the male lover is familiar with the notion of the intention behind words. in turn provoking her to counsel caution.

His talk of sin makes her very angry in letter 60. he has not shaken off a traditional Augustinian perception of sexual desire as the fruit of an uncontrolled will. While he is fascinated by her ethical seriousness. Baudri of Bourgueil. Early in the correspondence. and to draw together Ciceronian. in which she tries to match his five-line stanza.39 Letter 69. The art of composing letters. which asks whether the man was really sincere in his tears. and scriptural imagery about love and friendship with all the bril- liance of the ars dictaminis before theoretical treatises began to circulate. is more personal in expression. specifying rhetorical guidelines about how letters ought to be written. in which she is appalled that the sincerity of her love should be abused in this way. she starts to write metrical poetry in a serious way only after the crisis marked by letters 59 and 60. a style of verse dismissed as juvenile by Marbod of Rennes in the early twelfth century but much used by Godfrey of Reims and his imitators in the late eleventh century. This does not stop him from continuing to protest his love for her. as in letter 38. she makes only occasional attempts to match the man’s skill in metrical verse. perhaps modeled on Serlo of Bayeux. I ask: I do not want hearts full of guile to know them. she offers a verse composition (82) that begins with a declaration that Heloise would develop much further in her response to the Historia calamitatum: . or Godfrey of Reims. The woman attaches great importance to these verses because they express her inner feelings of sorrow and love: Why does he come so rarely? Why does he break my heart? Ah! I did not deserve to be so deceived. After a more optimistic poem (73). Ovi- dian. Let not jealous eyes read these verses. Letter 66 is her first major poem. each with a distinctive rhyme. these letters provided her with an unparalleled opportunity to develop as a writer. heloise and discussion about love 73 have forced you to sin. with particular attention to developing elaborate greetings. Whatever the lover’s motivation in cultivating this correspondence with the young woman. This effort is written in leonine distichs (two rhyming parts to each line). about God loving sinners “above paternal love” (supra paternum amorem). She invokes the liturgy of Good Friday. an appeal to the Muses that draws on Fulgentius. had begun to develop in the eleventh century both inside and outside a monastic context. The woman’s letters show how a traditional style of rhyming prose could be harnessed to original effect. While he shows technical versatility as a poet from early in the exchange. and then urges that they should stop writing to each other.” The comment reveals the same ambiguity in attitude toward a sexual relationship as characterizes Abelard in the His- toria calamitatum.

. which you composed for me. And grief and sorrow follow us through every season. you have manfully fought the good fight with me...74 abelard and heloise I send you the salutation that I would like sent to me. . Let your heart be glad. nothing will be salutary to me. the significant feature of her writing is precisely the fusion of sexual and religious imagery.. I love you with a steadfast and whole mind. You will in the end be my only glory forever.. desiring you. ... searching for you.. Whether or not the prize to which she alludes in this letter is sexual intercourse or a heavenly reward. Thus far you have remained with me.. I placed you before everyone else in my heart. Through loving you. He is tech- nically versatile in his prose and verse but tends to draw more on strictly Ovidian models to express his feelings rather than to fuse secular and sacred imagery in the way that she does. .. in order to make a pledge with you.. fish hide in streams of water. I shall repay you for your Prologue.. If I could have all that Caesar ever owned. choosing you. As stones placed on the ground dissolve in fire. with an act of thanks and the obe- dience of love... . she draws on the Song of Songs and Paul to express her sense of longing for a goal that has not yet been reached. She also makes an intriguing reference to a literary composition that he has prepared in her honor: Farewell and remember our love hour after hour. Such wealth would be of no use to me. In letter 84... I know of nothing more salutary than this.. Birds love the shady parts of the woods.. be gone whatever may be called sad. Of all things which the entire world contains. Unless you give it. but you have not yet received the prize.. although it builds on the verse from the Song of Songs (8:6) about love as strong as death. as well as of a connection to nature: Ever since we first met and spoke to each other. When the pyre set over them dissolves in fire too.. . I will never have joys except those given by you. So our body completely vanishes in love. Her allusion to their bodies as bound in love and burning on a funeral pyre hints at a sense of impending disaster. I chose you.... finding you. and picked you alone out of thousands.. I found you.. only you have pleased me above all God’s creatures and only you have I loved... stags climb mountains. I searched for you. I desired you.

. Her name brightly reflects the light of Phoebus.. I confess. I worship her.. if something I wrote Ever made you justly angry with me: I did not do deliberately or with reason. Early in the exchange he composes a technically accomplished poem (20). 82) does he attempt a reflective poem. in which each line employs a distinct internal rhyme with its own vowel: The star turns around the pole.. . and of her eyes as his stars. When I bring back to mind your tears. long for her. Receive him. in letter 87.. Is this an allusion to the prologue of Abelard’s commentary on Ezekiel.40 The allusion to her name may be a pun on Heloise as based on helios. 69. If one could recall an uttered remark.” The poem has a more complex rhyme scheme than present in letter 20.. and seems more likely to have been set to music. heloise and discussion about love 75 This enigmatic reference suggests that at the time. her lover did see his relationship as having an intellectual dimension. I would wish to recall. Acknowledging her alone in this world. and remember his guilt no more. fair lady. But that star is fading that should be my guide.. Again it picks up his preferred image of her as his sun. Beloved... Only after her four poems (66. celebrating her as his star. Such words. It was Impulse itself that counseled badly.. 73. So receive one who confesses his own faults.. And she serves the earth as mirror... the word for “sun... this time in elegiac distichs (without internal rhyme)... This second line echoes a poem in the Carmina burana that has often been attributed to Abelard: The bright star of my joyful countenance Is dulled by my heart’s cloud. In Cupid’s dance she excels all others. the first chapters of Genesis? Not as many poems from the teacher are preserved among these letters as from his student. It suggests that a whole year has gone by since the relationship first began. dedicated to Heloise just like the prologue to Abelard’s later commentary on the Hexaemeron.. . He picks up the theme of his own impulsiveness and again begs forgiveness: Forgive me... I cannot hold back tears of my own. and the moon colors the night.

76 abelard and heloise

This theme of guilt and remorse is quite absent from her writings. She
replies with a letter (88) protesting the constancy of her devotion. Aware
of the great hurt that he has inflicted, she is prepared to forget this, as
her dilectio is a selfless love:
There does not exist nor will there ever be a firm love that is turned away
by deceit so quickly. Whatever injuries you inflicted on me have not yet
gone from the memory of my heart, but I shall now genuinely and sincerely
and fully forgive you for everything connected with them, so that I shall
not be upset by such injuries from you again. I shall remain faithful to you,
stable, unchangeable and unwavering, and, even if I knew all men as in-
dividuals, I would never leave you unless compelled to by force and com-
pletely expelled. I am not a reed shaken by the wind, nor shall any severity
or weakness of any kind take me from you.

She becomes more critical of his lack of constancy by letter 95: “You are
not being fair to me but have changed your ways; and so trust is not
secure anywhere.” This does not stop him from professing his devotion
to her, or from reflecting on the obligations of love, as in letter 103:
Love cannot remain idle. It always rises for a friend, always strives for new
ways to be of service, never sleeps, never falls into laziness. These maxims
are clearly confirmed in you, my spirit; firmly persisting in the course of the
love that has begun, you always indicate to your friend with new signs how
you feel about him.

He implies that he is devoted to her because she embodies moral standards
that he does not live up to himself.
By letter 106, the relationship is being shaken by severe difficulties.
He expresses regret for behavior that is not specified in these letters:
Now for the first time I realize the good fortune I previously enjoyed, now
I have the opportunity to look back on happy times, because hope is fading,
I do not know whether ever to be recovered. I am paying the price for
stupidity, because I am losing that good thing of which I have been com-
pletely unworthy, that good thing which I have not known how to keep
as I ought.

This provokes a crisis, as the young woman in letter 107 (unfortunately
copied only in fragments) is riddled by self-doubt. She reports a vision of
an elderly woman advising her that wealth and wisdom and knowledge
are as nothing without the grace of the Holy Spirit. After a calmer letter
(109), she sends the first letter (112) in which she greets her lover in
very formal fashion as her teacher: “To her most noble and most learned
teacher: well-being in Him who is both salvation and blessing.” She re-

heloise and discussion about love 77

views their relationship and acknowledges that she has been taken into
“the third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2) by his letters. He is someone who is
both nourished by philosophy and by poetic inspiration, and before whom
in God’s providence “the mountaintops will bow down.” “But no manner
of speech nor way with words can sufficiently express how happy I am,
that, secure yet not ungrateful, I am reaching the haven of your love.”
She now just wishes to devote herself tirelessly to him.
The reader is left unsure what this great joy refers to. Is it her way of
saying that she has become pregnant and that she now wants to put the
relationship onto a new footing? Unfortunately the scribe copied only a
few fragments from this important letter, which is followed by a note,
with just an enigmatic fragment (112a), which parodies the Maundy
Thursday hymn Ubi caritas et amor, deus ibi est (“Where charity and love
are, God abides”).

Where there is passion and love, there always rages effort. Now I am tired,
I cannot reply to you, because you are taking sweet things as burdensome,
and in doing so you sadden my spirit. Farewell.

The note implies that he is receiving her cause for rejoicing as trouble-
some in the extreme. The task to which she has devoted so much of her
writing, a synthesis of ideals of amor and dilectio, is difficult.
The final piece in the exchange is an elegy (113) in which the lover
effectively distances himself from amor, by which he thinks he has been
seduced. Paraphrasing Ovid, he begs forgiveness: “Forgive me, for I admit
that I do not love patiently.” He still admires her greatly:

You alone make me eloquent; such glory has happened to
No one, that she be worthy of my song.
You are like no one else, you in whom nature has placed
Whatever excellence the world can have:
Beauty, noble birth, character—through which honor is begotten—
All make you outstanding in our city.
So is it then surprising if I am lured by their brilliance,
If I succumb to you, conquered by your love?

This attitude to amor as a passion by which an individual is conquered,
and which makes a thoughtful person fall from reason, is precisely the
same as the reasoning that Abelard reports he gave to Fulbert to explain
his behavior. The closeness of the parallel confirms our sense that these
letters record the voices of Abelard and Heloise. For all his fascination
with Heloise’s capacity to reflect on love as the highest form of friendship,
Abelard ultimately reverts to a very traditional view of love as an ailment

78 abelard and heloise

from which a man suffers. Abelard’s presentation of their relationship in
the Historia calamitatum as one of misguided erotic passion disguises its
true complexity.
Heloise’s frustration in her initial response to his attempt in the Historia
calamitatum to provide a spiritual justification of their past relationship
continues a pattern of response that is evident even within the early love
letters. She is forever frustrated by his lack of consistency within their
relationship. He continuously vacillates between passionate enthusiasm
and regret that he has been too impulsive. They are both gifted writers
who feed off each other in their messages and poems. Poetry enables them
to structure their emotions through crafted metrical verse. The exchange
is much more, however, than an opportunity to display skill in the art of
composition. It records a debate about love that is subtly different from
the classical models available to the two lovers. She is more consciously
spiritual in her ideal of love in seeking to combine religious imagery with
the values of Cicero and the poetic eloquence of Ovid. The final lament
(113) fits into the tradition of the Remedium amoris, in which love is
presented as passionate emotion by which the individual is afflicted. It
provides an elegiac coda to an exchange that has effectively been pre-
served and remembered as a literary artifact.
The Epistolae duorum amantium present a relationship very differently
from the Historia calamitatum. Rather than simply recounting carnal pas-
sion, they transmit a complex literary debate about love between two very
different people. Copied incompletely in the late fifteenth century, these
letters will always provoke debate about whether they are authentic cop-
ies, or whether they have been edited, rearranged, or even totally in-
vented by an imaginative individual. Yet they betray so many ideas and
images about love parallel to those employed by Abelard and Heloise in
their other writings that they deepen our understanding of one of the
most well-known friendships of the twelfth century. The final lament on
amor also throws light on Abelard’s attitude to sexual love in the Historia
calamitatum as a folly by which he was snared.
When he wrote that narrative, Abelard was wanting to distance him-
self from the memory of love songs that he composed, which were still
in general circulation. A number of them (and perhaps also those of
Heloise) are likely to be preserved within the Carmina burana.41 There
can be little doubt, however, that their early relationship was as much
literary and intellectual as physical. Heloise sets a high store on their
discussions about the nature of love, and would later accuse Abelard of
not being true to those ideals of hers that he had once claimed to share.
Her interest in amor was shared by many of her contemporaries, whether

heloise and discussion about love 79

poets who wrote about love, such as Baudri of Bourgueil, or monks and
scholars, such as William of St.-Thierry, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Walter
of Mortagne, who theorized about the nature of ideal love. Abelard’s prot-
estations of love, innovative in their own way, are technically accom-
plished, but they do not try (after an early attempt in letter 24) to place
love within a philosophical or theological framework. He admires her not
just for going beyond Cicero in her thinking about love but for living out
the ethical values in which she believes. For all the originality of his
thinking about dialectic, he had not yet developed in those early years
his own response to those profound questions that the young Heloise was
putting to him, questions that he could not easily answer.

The Ending of the Affair

In the Historia calamitatum, Abelard glides swiftly over the emotional
twists and turns of his relationship with Heloise. His concern is to show
how he gradually learned that disasters can ultimately serve a higher end,
not to present his inner life in the fashion of a modern autobiography. It
is apparent, however, that even before the rupture of their physical rela-
tionship, Abelard was distancing himself from Heloise. When she wrote
to him of her great happiness about becoming pregnant, he sent her to
Brittany so that she could give birth in the care of his sister Denise. His
language implies that he did not accompany her on a journey that he
later recalls was a travesty of religion, as she was simply disguised in a
habit.42 She names the child Astralabe, for reasons that are unclear. One
ingenious suggestion has been that she devised the name Astralabius puer
dei (Astralabe, child of God) as an anagram of Petrus Abaelardus II.43 Did
she see the child not just as re-embodying Abelard but as an instrument
through which they could acquire knowledge of the heavens—a symbol
of scientific curiosity? In their love letters, they frequently identified each
other as the sun, moon, and stars. Her initial idea seems to have been
that they simply live apart but continue to enjoy each other’s company
whenever possible. Whatever the case, her hopes were disrupted by Ab-
elard’s insistence that they marry in secret for the sake of satisfying her
uncle, Fulbert, and then live apart, as if reverting to their normal way of
life. She had to leave the child to the care of her sister-in-law and return
with Abelard to Paris for a secret ceremony. Even after the marriage,
Fulbert continued to abuse his niece, prompting Abelard to send her to
the Abbey of Argenteuil, where she had been raised, to take a religious
habit, although without the veil. For all the sophistication of her literary

80 abelard and heloise

gift, she was effectively powerless to resist the efforts of both Fulbert and
Abelard to control where she would live. As Abelard later recalls, he
continued to enjoy sexual relations with her, even once in the refectory
of Argenteuil during Holy Week.44 This in turn prompted Fulbert and
certain of his relatives to take justice into their own hands and have
Abelard castrated. His relationship to Heloise would never be the same.


Returning to Logica

A belard recalls that he became a monk at St.-Denis “more out of
shame than out of devotion to a religious way of life,” and that
Heloise took the veil at Argenteuil amid many tears.1 According to gossip
reported by Roscelin, Abelard was still visiting her and bringing her
money during those early years at Argenteuil. He makes no reference to
her, however, in any of his writings from this period. He reports that when
he first suffered castration, he felt like those eunuchs and other animals
whose testicles had been crushed, who were therefore forbidden in the
Old Testament from entering the temple of the Lord. Returning to teach-
ing logica and divinity provided a way in which he could distance himself
from the past as well as from the scandal surrounding his affair with

The Logica “Ingredientibus”

The large number of non-monastic students who attended Abelard’s clas-
ses at St.-Denis created a problem at the abbey. Criticism of the distur-
bance they created prompted Abelard to move to an unnamed depen-
dency of the abbey, where he could teach without interference. In the
Historia calamitatum, Abelard looks back on these years (1117–1121) as
a time when he, like Origen, was able to encourage his students to move
from tasting philosophy to the study of “true philosophy.”2 Probably during


he now explains that logic is not to be identified with philosophy but is the ve- hicle through which all reasoning about ethics and physics has to be conducted. Whereas he had previously spoken of dialectic as “holding the direction of all philosophy.” Abelard simply says.82 abelard and heloise these years. He criticizes Boethius for speaking of syllogisms when he should have used the more general term “argument. Aristotle’s Categories and Periermeneias. 1122–1124).6 Whereas in the Dialectica he had used the oc- casional phrase.” is about both the finding and the analysis of arguments rather than about discerning truth from falsehood. There is a distinct difference in tone between the Logica “Ingredienti- bus” and the Dialectica. we cannot be certain about when he started this vast project. 1120) and a second time as the Logica “Nostrorum petitioni” (ca.”9 Rather .7 After the rupture of his relationship with Heloise. he now distances himself from the idea that a universal is a thing shared non- differently by individuals of the same species. . and logica.” without referring to ethics or physics. At the outset of the Ingredientibus gloss. “Certain people say . which he sees simply as a name. . the traditional figure used to illustrate an in- dividual man. In these texts. his concern is not with expe- rience of the real world but with the language that underpins all argument about the world and the images that we invent to express our ideas. Abelard explains that logica. and Boethius’s De differentiis topicis.4 Abelard revised his Ingredientibus lectures on Porphyry at least twice. a love that he had once called a “universal thing. known collectively as the Logica “Ingredientibus. It in- volved in-depth commentary on at least four different texts and perhaps also on the De syllogismo hypothetico of Boethius. Allusions in the Logica “Ingredientibus” suggest that he is thinking about theological issues at the same time as he is lecturing on Porphyry and Aristotle. once as the Glossae se- cundum vocales (ca.” Only once does he identify a contrary opinion as held “by our teacher William and his followers.8 Drawing on Boethius’s commentary on the Topica of Cicero (a text barely mentioned at all in the Dialectica).” at odds with his position that genera and species are voces rather than things. Abelard situates dialectic within the broader study of the three branches of learning: physica. which he uses virtually as a synonym for “dialectic. Instead of critical references to the opinions of “our teacher. ethica. he embarked on a series of extended commentaries on Por- phyry’s Isagoge.”3 As so often with Abelard’s output.”5 Risque´ examples such as “Peter loves his girl” are replaced by phrases about Socrates.” he is no longer prepared to concede any form of real existence to a universal. which must have taken many years to complete. such as “the quantity of a universal thing.

He acknowl- edges that some people hold that different things do not share a common essence but are the same “non-differently” (indifferenter). Abelard’s critique of Boethian terminology in relation to language as about “things” becomes very clear in his opening discussion of whether universals are voces or res. indi- viduality simply being a product of lesser forms or accidents.10 In this new commentary on Porphyry.” leading one to conclude that as many species are predicated as are individuals. He is frustrated with Stoic terminology about res for not recognizing the uniqueness of things in the world or the role of lan- guage in creating our awareness of these things. both of whom emerged in the early 1120s as important masters in their own right. of which the universal is one element. signifying something about them that they hold in common. Abelard resists a compromise solution that a universal is a thing insofar as it is a collection of things. he argues that intrinsic forms not . While he had himself pushed the line that individuals were not different.11 Drawing on insights gained from his reading of Aristotle’s Periermeneias. Abelard is here alluding to the argument that he had forced William of Champeaux to accept in 1109 but that he now criticizes with renewed vigor. Abelard seems to be alluding here to variants of William’s later thinking developed by Joscelin of Vierzy and Walter of Mortagne. Abelard rejects all solutions that imply that one can predicate a res of a subject. he distances himself with renewed vigor from any notion that a universal has a real existence. a name given to fol- lowers of Roscelin. He first mentions those who understand the universal thing to be present in individuals as a material essence. rather than as elements of an ontological theory. His target is not Platonist ontology per se but misinterpretation of the meaning of forms and qual- ities. or that individuals of the same species are the same “in that they are men. he deepens his reading of Porphyry’s analysis of predicables by introducing the notion that a universal predicable is not just a vocal utterance (vox) but a name (nomen) that generates a common understanding about in- dividuals. returning to logica 83 than answering William of Champeaux. He develops the argument that a general noun signifies a quality of what it names by introducing Aristotle’s reflection on how words generate understandings (intellectus). Abelard interprets the predicables as parts of discourse. he sees himself as supplanting Boethius in providing new commentaries on Porphyry and Aristotle. Disagreeing with Boethius’s claim that every understanding has to be about a thing.12 This is the distinctive theoretical position that will cause his disciples to be called nominales rather than vocales. A universal is simply a word predicated equally of different individuals.

Rather than attacking his teacher. etc. that genera and species only exist in “sensible things. indeed. Abelard now emphasizes that in reality there is no controversy between the two thinkers. He rebukes Boethius for contradicting Porphyry in this respect and for “fol- lowing the opinion of other people more than his own judgment. formulated in words rather than as statements about things that might or might not exist. not everything else that he might possess. following Aris- totle. This idea of translatio (embracing both metaphor and metonymy).16 The digression illustrates the close interaction between his teaching about language and his think- ing about God. Yet he insists. Abelard is aware of the long tradition of speaking of genera and species as “existing in the divine mind” (a phrase of Priscian) or “beyond all sensuality” (Plato. an issue Abelard promises to discuss at more length in relation to the Periermeneias. he comments.” we consider only that he is a man. according to Boethius). as transferred from what exists in actuality within a specific individual. In glossing Porphyry. such as a statue that might have different components. had excluded singularia from his intention.) are known through opinion rather than fact. Abelard had waxed eloquent about her uniqueness. is not present in the Dialectica. developed further in his glosses on the Categories and the Periermeneias. although he did deal with them incidentally because of other things.13 Whereas he had previously criticized Plato for holding erroneous ideas about universal forms or. those of Boethius in particular. he transfers these concerns to the realm of analysis without giving anything away from the realm of personal experience. and constitutes a significant intellectual breakthrough.14 Abelard teaches that when we evoke a concept such as “man.” Porphyry. All knowledge is about the present and is a concep- tion of the mind. he blames treatises of both logic and grammar. he argues.84 abelard and heloise perceived by the senses (such as rationality.”18 He criticizes Boethius for speaking too loosely about “things”. and speaks about forms metaphorically.17 Abelard’s fascination with individuality is evident in his discussion of a species such as “phoenix. Plato. we cannot say that this knowledge is empty. paternity. he could be .15 The senses generally consider what is composite. for careless use of the word res when talking about the meaning of words. is concerned not with logica but with physica. going far beyond the more narrow focus on categories present in the thought of Roscelin of Compie`gne and Gerland of Besanc¸on. the world soul. This also has theological implications for the question of divine providence. mortality. If we speak about God foreseeing things that have not yet happened.” of which only a single individual exists. When he wrote to Heloise.

We may say that a differentia such as being rational is a thing insofar as something is informed by rationality. animated by a soul. If he was not murdered in the process. A skill such as counting or learning geometry is a property that tells us about our capacity to discern. as if these were both real things. After Abelard had been castrated. If this were a sep- arate form. or a nail from Socrates. When we say that man is distinguished by rationality. in his comments about whether a subject remained when a part was removed from a whole. the subject is still considered to be a man. for example. Roscelin had taunted his former student that he was not fully a man since he had lost his capacity to procreate. we do not see this as a form separate from substance. returning to logica 85 absolved if such terminology were taken as referring to the imposition of words rather than to the nature of things. a body. and what about words. we say only that “man” subsists through rationality cohering to what is animal or living. such as a wall or roof from a house.25 There is a personal dimension to this reflection on individuality that is concealed behind this more abstract discussion.24 Some of these themes had already sur- faced in the Dialectica. he observes that a word such as “horse” (equus) may name that which is both male and female. There he had considered standard examples. The Gloss on the Categories Abelard continues his theme that logica is concerned with words rather than things in his gloss on the Categories.19 He also rejects those who argue that an individual is made up of accidental features such as Socra- titas. as Boethius called the quality of being Socrates. which he describes as dealing with “the names of all things and subjects.22 When dealing with “that which is proper” (proprium). his preferred example is that of removing a leg or an arm from a man.20 A similar theme surfaces in his discussion of differentia. Abelard reasserts his conviction that an individual is much more than the sum of his particular parts. not something separate from the person with that skill. “Great care must be taken by a reader to distinguish what is to be accepted as about things properly.”26 He con- siders the distinction between categories “more according to the meaning . but it is first of all a name telling us about the state of things. that which separates species within a genus. In commenting on Porphyry.”21 He resists those who say that man as a thing is both animal and its differentiae. In the gloss on Porphyry. in whatever ways.23 Abelard is having to struggle with the limitations of the Latin vocabulary of sub- stance and accident. such forms could be extended into infinity.

possibly by Abelard. unless it named distinct subject things (subiectae res).31 The image occurs in a poem of the Carmina burana. that metaphor (translatio) is not improper usage but operates by a word changing its meaning through association with another word. is transferred to another thing. and denominative (as in grammaticus. the poet celebrates his beloved as “a shining moon” whom he longs to embrace. univocal or common. While Aristotle had observed that a denominative is taken from the same word in a different case.29 Abelard’s discussion of the meaning of “the fields laugh” found an immediate resonance among his contemporaries. he had criticized William of Champeaux for holding that “Homer is a poet” is an improper expression.28 A rhetorical and poetic device is thus brought within the purview of logica. Boethius had observed rather briefly that ambiguity had to be distinguished from meta- phor (translatio). used to mean “the fields flower. As part of his comment on ambiguity. To Boethius’s example of “charioteer” to mean a ship’s captain. as when a word such as “charioteer” (auriga). as do Clarembald of Arras. as grammaticus (“literate man”) comes from .” A similar image occurs in earlier poetry. although not precisely in the combination prata rident. In the final stanzas. In glossing the Categories. which normally refers to one thing.” He analyzes this image more fully in relation to the Periermeneias and in his Theologia “Summi boni” (in which he refers his reader back to these earlier discussions). Thierry of Chartres uses it in his commentaries on the Rhetorica ad Herennium and the De trinitate of Boethius (perhaps from around 1130). that cele- brates that the fields are green and that they laugh “with the welcome bloom of flowers bestowed on the world.32 Abelard’s discussion of the image in the Logica “In- gredientibus” stimulated an important debate in the twelfth century about the relationship between poetry and semantics. such as the captain of a ship.86 abelard and heloise of words than according to the natures of things. and many other theologians subsequently. so named from grammatica). Abelard seizes on Boethius’s comment that “metaphor is not a property” to emphasize that metaphor is a type of linguistic usage. without evoking the idea of translatio as a tool to explain language. Abelard develops this comment to explain that words have a distinct meaning through meta- phor (per translationem).”27 Aristotle had opened the Categories by discussing three types of name: equivocal or ambiguous. he adds a poetic example: “the fields laugh” (prata rident). Alan of Lille. Boethius had argued that some metaphorical usages are ambiguous. Abelard hints at an idea that will become very important in his later writing.30 William of Conches observes that the phrase is “a figurative and proper expression” in the first recension of his glosses on Priscian (from around 1125). In the Dialectica.

a position that he rejects. he comments that it refers not to a thing but to an action in the future. only a vox. as when we say. but unum when used as a predicate is some- thing different.42 Opinions that he attributes in the Dialectica to “our teacher” he now says are held by “some people . or “having loved” refers to a passion experienced in the past. Abelard constructs his argument as a debate with those who call genera and species “things. that we are making is about singularia.35 When we speak of “this animal” or “this body. Universals or second sub- stances do not refer to a different kind of thing.33 Another revealing example that he gives is of amaturus (“about to love”).”43 Discussion of quantity leads Abelard to reflect on time.” the sententia.34 A single person (una from unitas) is someone who is quite separate from someone else. not some universal thing. the number of certain accidental features. “I have a moment. . In these glosses. Against the “common opinion” that individual substances may have times within themselves.”37 Much more than in his Dialectica.” Words (voces) do not have any natural meaning except through being used in speech. Abelard observes that the two words can be the same.”40 He observes that statements of quan- tity can have various meanings. or whether an action was large or small.” he argues that time is not a thing that one possesses. . returning to logica 87 grammatica. When we say that a statement means some- thing. who rely more on authority than reason. such as that a quantitative proposition is either true or false. we do not mean that it possesses a meaning but rather that through a statement a soul develops an understanding of something that may not exist.36 Abelard’s favorite refrain is that Boethius is following “opinion more than truth” or “opinion more than his own judgment. Abelard emphasizes that what matters with lan- guage is the sense or force of a proposition rather than individual words. Abelard speaks of “certain people” who interpret the Aristotelian distinction between first and second substances as about things. Time flows “like running . as when Macrobius considers lines and numbers. just as amatus. where he seems to follow “opinion rather than truth.39 While the vocabulary of Aristotle about two kinds of substance is in itself problematic. depending on what was being estimated. that which is unique. Only occasionally does he question Aristotle’s statements. as when grammatica (“literate woman”) is so called from grammatica (“ “lit- eracy”). Abelard blames Boethius for “following his own opinion” and thus causing con- fusion. to insist on his theme that no thing can ever be predicated of a subject.41 A philosopher who speaks about numbers may speak about things differently from the truth of things.38 He devotes all his attention to what Aristotle calls first substances. or judgment. or a month. such as of size. a day.

”53 Even though Boethius had used “species” in his translation of Aristotle. or sitting.48 A detail that he had not observed before is that Porphyry (as reported by Boethius) has a different understanding of knowledge from Aristotle. he is also more conciliatory in what he has to say about the difference between Plato and Aristotle: “Heaven forbid that we leave such great philosophers opposing each other and that we claim that such a great master should be corrected by his disciple as if he were mistaken.”52 Abelard’s discussion of quality is similarly shaped by his rejection of those who “adhere to Boethius” in subdividing quality into species.45 Abelard’s discussion of relatives takes up the theme he had raised more briefly in the Dialectica. used to refer to part of a day. but different acceptance of what is a relation.49 While he is more openly critical of Boethius than he had been in the Dialectica. as some inferred from Aristotle’s words.46 Aristotle had observed that words could be invented to describe something that had not been said before.44 When we say. “It is day. one could derive from “wing” (ala) “winged- thing” (alatum). just as (according to the translation of Boethius). When we speak of something in the past or in the future.” the image is a figure of speech. in thinking of it as “knowability”—that by which something is known. Abelard considers this quite mis- . as this would create an infinity of qualities. that Aristotle sought to correct Plato’s rather broad understanding of a relative as that which exists in relation to some- thing else. When we say that substances are lying. but these are not qualities. If anything could be known. with the meaning of “being winged” (alatio). The comment helps clarify the way Heloise uses scibilitas as a synonym of scientia in her Letter 53 to Abelard. standing. some- thing “in every way contrary to reason.”50 His criticism is not of Plato but of those who think that Plato had given a better definition of relations.88 abelard and heloise water” (an image from Ovid’s Ars amatoria).47 Abelard develops further what he had suggested in the Dialectica about these verbal inventions by commenting on “knowable” as “knowable by knowability. in assuming that they refer to things. these terms are taken from certain positions. There is no disagreement in teaching between Aristotle and Plato his teacher.51 Abelard even adds a comment that Augustine in his Categories did not disagree with Plato and Aristotle when he observed that relation was expressed through the genitive case. we are referring to what is perceived in the mind. without appreciating Plato’s broader usage of the notion of relation.” He criticizes Boethius for claiming that something could be knowable without knowledge being present. “considering the force of sense more than the property of construction. then there was a capacity for it to be known through knowledge.

not things in themselves. steadfastly avoiding all use of genus and species. they are words that gen- erate an understanding in the mind about comparing one thing to an- other. John of Salisbury recalls that Abelard once observed that whereas the Categories is for beginners. place and posi- tion. “For when Aristotle names species or genus in this place he does not mean anything other than kind [maneria]. He insists that when we speak of something “having whiteness” we do not understand it to have particular forms other than the quality of being white.59 His broader theme is that Aristotle always intends to show that these categories are all names or are derived from names signifying something about a subject. when something may be the case). “according to the property and cause of the name. opposites. as these different types of quality are not necessarily opposites. but now he explains his discomfort with this ter- minology: “Boethius was perhaps following the opinion of others. as well as the character of modal statements (that is. possession. simultaneity. such as that Aristotle deals with these categories more fully in the Physics and the Metaphysics.56 He flatly disagrees with Boethius’s claim that “thinness” is not a quality but rather a position. at least to satisfy an opponent. subtlety.57 All these types of quality he sees as words signifying the qualities of things.”58 The remaining categories covered by Aristotle (doing and experiencing. with similar observations as in the Dialectica. Occasionally Abelard quotes general information verbatim from Boethius.”55 Abelard runs through the varieties of quality (habit and disposition. but they were not in fundamental disagreement. natural capacity and incapacity. returning to logica 89 leading. the Periermeneias is of great depth. Porphyry sometimes differs from Aristotle in using certain words more loosely than his master. the Periermeneias deals with the meaning of words and prop- ositions. forms and shapes). types of movement) are covered more briefly. when. negation and con- tradiction.” Whereas it might be possible for a modern author to write a treatise about dialectic . even though they had been employed in the translation of Aristotle’s text. even though in other places he is critical of Boethius for speaking too loosely when he implies that they refer to external forms or things. “and not a little difficulty of words. how they are determined to be true or false. part of the category of relation. When used comparatively. priority.”54 Abelard had raised this ques- tion in the Dialectica. where.60 The Gloss on the Periermeneias Whereas the Categories is concerned with different types of words applied to a subject. transient qualities.

” which have no real existence in them- selves but through which understandings about things could be estab- lished.66 He quotes at some length from Boethius’s summary of Aristotle’s teaching on the imagination in order to emphasize that no understanding could be gained without the imagination. John observes that while many of his contemporaries attempt to write something of their own on the art. what matters is correct application to other things of what Aristotle had to say here about the meaning of words and propo- sitions. A word or phrase generates an imag- ination of something. Abelard modifies this in .63 The principal reason for the invention of a word is to establish an un- derstanding.65 Boethius consid- ered that while sense and imagination were both natural qualities of the soul. understanding was ultimately far superior because it lacked the con- fusion of the imagination. He also considers much more than in the Dialectica the role of the imagination in generating understanding. He is less overtly critical of Boethius than in the previous gloss.. whether in the mind of the speaker or of the hearer.”64 In his own commentary on the Periermeneias. Boethius had briefly discussed a passage from Aristotle’s De anima about “fantasies” within his commentary on the Periermeneias.61 The ideas in this treatise inform all of Abelard’s other writings about language. Abelard seeks to avoid this implication that under- standings are somehow based on things. through which an understanding is gained. it could never acquire the authority of the Periermeneias.62 While Abelard follows Boethius in arguing that nouns and verbs have a twofold meaning. and shares Boethius’s respect for un- derstanding as beyond imagination. Boethius had interpreted these understandings or “passions of the soul” as “certain analogies of things.90 abelard and heloise comparable to that of the ancients in content and style. as they may not necessarily refer to an existing thing. Different parts of speech relate to diversity of understandings rather than to diversity of things. and understanding in the fifth book of the Consolation of Philosophy as culminating in perception of “universal things” or reality itself. his major interest is in the intellectus generated by language. imagination. Abelard’s denial that fantasies or understandings are ever real things in themselves leads him to adopt a more nuanced attitude to the character of imaginary forms as “figments. both about things and about understandings (intellec- tus). and had concluded that fantasies (imaginationes) were quite different from understandings (intellectus). Boethius had presented a similar hierarchy of sense.67 Al- though Aristotle had opened the Periermeneias by declaring that while spoken and written words might be different even though their under- standings (“passions of the mind”) are the same.

but as a single word in itself.74 In formu- lating the notion of a dictum propositionis to distinguish between a prop- osition and what it formulates (expressed by modern logicians as the dis- tinction between a sentence and a proposition). as in the gloss on the Categories.72 Whereas he had previously observed that the substantive verb links “the essences of things. Abelard develops a theme unexplored by Boethius. Conjunctions and prepositions he now declares to have no meaning in themselves. taking the example of the metaphorical phrase “the fields laugh. real or imagined. In the Dialectica. The mean- ing of a conjunction or preposition only makes sense in relation to the understanding of what it applies to.” he now interprets “is white” in the sentence “The man is white” as having the force of one word. Rather than analyzing just the verb. he had taught that what a proposition said was not a thing.” Rather than being an exception to normal language. such a phrase shows how language can operate beyond a literal sense. except in a passing remark that Aristotle had not used the phrase. he no longer frames his analysis in terms of a debate with his teacher. but he had not formulated the notion of a dictum. Abelard uses translatio to explain how a word can have different meanings de- pending how it is used.” Although Abelard had started to develop such arguments in the Dialectica. he is inter- ested in the force of predication that a verb has within a proposition. The distinguishing feature of humans is that we can ex- ercise reason over these images thrown up in the mind.71 Abelard’s thinking about the verb “to be” undergoes a similar evolution in the gloss on the Periermeneias. He now sees it as having no significance in itself but rather affecting the force of an affirmation or negation as a whole.68 Aristotle’s remark that an understanding is not in itself true or false relates to whether it is true or false in the mind’s consideration. returning to logica 91 accord with his critique of identity of essence in explaining that these understandings are not essentially the same but rather reflect a similar form of understanding. .69 Related to this deepened interest in the relationship between imagi- nation and understanding is a discussion about metaphor (translatio) that is more developed than in his earlier discussion of the Categories. In discussing the verb. The meaning of “is walking” in a sentence is not to be analyzed in terms of its individual parts. understood as a statement. Abelard points out that it can never be iden- tified with what was said (the dictum) by a proposition. rejecting the argument that he had es- poused in the Dialectica that they had an uncertain meaning.73 Such an analysis makes it quite legitimate to construct statements like “The corpse is a man.70 Words only have meaning through their being applied to generate a par- ticular understanding. or even with Boethius.

if the consequent is contained within the antecedent.81 With the delicate question of whether the sense of a proposition is single or multiple. a view that Abelard considers “is that of other people rather than his own. namely.78 The doctrine of a dictum enables Abelard to correct a number of details in the Dialectica.80 Some types of statement are used by poets and orators.” there is a single hypothetical statement. After discussing the noun. not a multiplicity of senses. is not a thing in itself. the verb. he now says that the com- pleteness of a phrase lies in the force of the proposition and its cause or reason. He does not employ the verb “is” in any substantive sense. A proposition signifies both an understanding about something and its dictum or content (not to be iden- tified with a thing). but only what is intended to be joined. regardless of whether a rose exists. he insists that it be assessed “according to the intention and acceptance of the one who makes the proposition. or what is said by a proposition. the phrase.79 Whereas he had previously been very schematic in describing different types of complete phrase. Abelard considers what Aristotle has to say about different types of affir- mation and negation. “Socrates is white.84 In a hypothetical phrase such as “Socrates is healthy or sick. as Aristotle insisted. Attention must be given to distinguishing the terms of a proposition from “the force . Instead of saying that the contrast between complete and incomplete phrases (e. others by dialecticians. but is rather the result of deliberate application.”75 Thus someone who says.”82 Boethius tended to opt for the idea that a multiple prop- osition could have several meanings at the same time.”83 While there are certainly ambiguous propositions..77 The meaning of a word or a phrase is not a natural capacity of language.76 When Aristotle says that a phrase is a vox signi- ficativa. “Socrates read” against “Socrates reading”) is one of complete versus incomplete meaning. there is a flower. concerned with issues of truth and falsehood.g. he relates their meaning to their par- ticular dictum in a specific situation. he now comments that these differ- ences sometimes come down to different states of mind. When we say “The lion roars” to mean “A powerful man threatens. His analysis follows from his understanding that the dictum. through deliberate application.” says that whiteness is in Socrates.” this is not an abuse of metaphor but a standard extension of the way all words have meaning. or according to what pleases. In a consequence such as “If there is a rose.92 abelard and heloise “What is predicated in a proposition is not what is joined. Abelard emphasizes that one has to understand that it signifies “at will” (ad placitum).” the truth of the dictum remains. and the statement. as Plato taught (according to Boethius). He distances himself from grammar- ians who interpret every noun as a fixed substantive with a separate mean- ing.

. I found nothing written about it.87 Instead of repeating this. Boethius had assumed that a universal statement such as “Every man is just” signified a universal thing. “Since indeed these are universals of things . used indifferenter for the names of things or words. and when I looked for univocity [having a single sense] among other types of sophism. as in purely casual usage. He introduces new terminology to distinguish the two different types of negation that he had observed. sometimes more strictly as only extinctive. Aristotle had observed that negations can be made of both universal (“every man is .”85 He also raises the possibility that Boethius had misreported Aristotle’s teaching: “I remember that I saw and carefully reread a book that carried the title of Aristotle on Sophistical Refutations. Abelard suggests that when “man” is used of a species it is through translatio or metaphor. returning to logica 93 of a name” or “the force of a phrase. involving both senses. So I have often wondered why Boethius says that this kind of sophism was dealt with there by Aristotle.”) statements in a sentence translated by Boethius as. as separative (as in a negative placed between two terms) and extinctive (negating the entire proposition). .89 Thus “It is not the case that all men are white” is different from “Not all men are white. This helps him refine his criticism of those who say that . as when “charioteer” (auriga) is used to mean “captain of a ship. he is actually referring to the names of things. By the 1130s.”86 The comment highlights both Abelard’s suspicion of Boethius and his limited access to a text that was still very rare in the early twelfth century. he is anxious to explain that the only things of which they speak are specific subjects.”) and particular (“a certain man is . .” Sometimes a nega- tion is used broadly.88 Abelard takes more effort to distance himself from the assumption that the laws enunciated by Aristotle about universal propositions refer to any universal thing. when the Sophistical Refutations had become more widely known. Abelard explains that when Aristotle speaks of things in relation to universal statements. . While he retains the structure of Aristotle’s discussion. Abelard was criticized for not reading this text of Aristotle with sufficient care.” Abelard repeats his earlier claim that Boethius had reported that Aristotle taught in the Sophistical Refu- tations that there are six types of fallacious reasoning. “man” can refer both to a species or to an individual. but then criticizes Boethius for claiming that in sophisms based on a univocal statement such as “Man walks” (homo ambulat). . in which particular statements are presented as a subdivision of universal statements. . Abelard’s discussion of negation in the gloss on the Periermeneias de- velops criticisms that he had made in the Dialectica about the way Boe- thius had oversimplified the subject.” In his commentary on the passage.

Aware that some people confuse providence with predestination. which applies to knowledge of both good and evil. “White” and “not white” are not necessarily opposites like “white” and “black. that events in the future are indeterminate and therefore quite different from the determinate knowledge we have of things past and present. he declares that Aristotle has the better discussion of negation.” Abelard insists that there is an important distinction to be made for those concerned with the force of words. While Abelard had attempted to resolve the issue in the Dialectica.91 The distinction enables him to reject the idea that there is only a single negation to a universal statement.94 abelard and heloise any negation simply affects the sense of a universal proposition. Abelard holds that when we speak of God’s omniscience or prov- idence we are speaking in a human way about a knowledge that is beyond definition.93 The distinction enables Abelard to consider afresh an issue that had troubled Boethius in relation to the Periermeneias. For God. In particular he considers the question whether God’s foreknowledge of an event means that things must happen the way they do. there is no distinction of time.90 He rejects the argument of those who always take an indefinite negative as extinctive. different according to whether it will happen or has happened. which is not found in the Dialectica or in the treatises of either Gerland or William of Champeaux. as well as in his theological teaching.95 Against those who argue that providence implies that all things happen by ne- cessity. Abelard uses this Augustinian distinction to observe that Boethius is misleading when he identifies fate and prov- idence in the Consolation of Philosophy.94 What seems to happen by chance may relate more to our lack of knowledge than to the chance character of the event itself.97 In a discussion more theologically . and predestination. Aware that they are relying on Boethian assumptions. Abelard draws on two texts of Augustine (one of which also occurs in the Sic et non) to argue that there is a difference between providence. but this simply refers to our lack of knowledge. The dictum of a proposition about an event is not a “thing” that happened once. statements about possibility in the future. he now develops a distinction raised by William of Cham- peaux in his glosses on the Periermeneias.92 The tables of contradiction that Abelard introduces in the glosses incor- porate the distinction between separative and extinctive.” as the negation can work in different ways. “Things” in the future are always indeterminate. namely.96 We may say that something happened by chance (rather than by necessity). Against those who claim that “A certain man is not white” has the same force as “Not every man is white. which relates to divine benefits.

he now formulates his broader theory . Abelard argued that the fact something was or was not the case in the past did not refer to the being or nonbeing of a thing.101 When Abelard analyzes terms such as “all” in a universal proposition. Thus one can legitimately say “An animal is man” if the word order is inverted for the sake of elegant expression. and wisdom. without mentioning William of Cham- peaux by name. The word is invented only to apply to other words. not that there is any variation in God.” he refers only briefly to the opinion of those who say that figurative predication is improper.107 While he had challenged William’s argument that modality affects the sense of a proposition as a whole (e. providence. because it fails to recognize the provisional character of language about God. “Socrates is sitting”) rather than the specific subject of that phrase. but rather as a general statement about individual men indifferenter or indiscriminately. This theological reflection flows out of Abelard’s analysis of a universal proposition and of Aristotle’s argument that something cannot be both true and false. formulated in the Dialectica in terms of a debate with William. referring to many individual men. He sees a sentence such as “Every man runs” not as a proposition with multiple senses. Through the word “dead..103 He is concerned to formulate laws about how language works in practice rather than simply in grammatical theory.102 Abelard insists that it is not a signifying name in itself.100 This contingency relates to a possibility for a specific subject. not to the pos- sibility of what is said by the proposition as a whole.98 Just as the fact that we see someone walking does not mean that that person is walking by necessity. think that “all” signifies everything to which it applies. he repeats a criticism he had made in the Dialectica of those who.g.99 To argue that just because things are possible rather than necessary God can be deceived is fallacious. follow- ing Priscian. so just because God foresees a possibility of walking that person has to act in that way.106 There is a similar maturity in Abelard’s discussion of modal proposi- tions.”105 When expounding Aristotle’s example of “Ho- mer is a poet. returning to logica 95 sophisticated than anything in the Dialectica.” “man” is now trans- ferred to mean “corpse” in the same way that metaphor operates in the phrase “the fields laugh. He recognizes that his analysis is quite different from that of Boethius.104 He integrates the notion of translatio into his theory to reconsider examples such as “dead man” pre- sented in the Periermeneias. we indicate different ways in which we think about God. he observes that when we speak of divine attributes such as predestination. who uses the term “definite” not for something known but for something necessary or in- evitable.

In refusing to engage in arguments with Boethius. In his lengthy discussion of the different forms of possibility in “It is possible for a standing person to sit.. it is possible at some time for one who is standing to sit). the technique he believes was followed by Aristotle (according . When possibility is applied to a proposition. He draws on definitions of Aristotle in both the Prior Analytics and the Sophistical Refutations to support his argument. His concern is to elucidate principles of correct reasoning.108 This analysis is related to his insistence that the dictum of a proposition is not itself a thing. Abelard is one of the first logicians to distinguish between a false de sensu interpretation of a statement such as “It is possible for a standing person to sit” (i..109 Words such as “possible” and “necessary” do not refer to things or forms. introduced simply as “On the topics.” is an integral part of the Logica “Ingredientibus.111 The remainder of the gloss on the Periermeneias is taken up with a detailed exposition of Aristotle’s rules of equipollence and conversion. he refers not to any form but to the sense of a modal statement. The Gloss on the Topics Abelard’s commentary on the De differentiis topicis of Boethius.e. Abelard concentrates on elucidating topics not as differentiae.e.” Eschewing all reference to media.110 The only “thing” at stake was the subject of a modal statement. he distances himself from the more pugnacious style evident in his earlier glosses on the Isagoge and the Categories. which goes beyond anything put forward by Boe- thius.112 In a commentary that goes far beyond the reflection of William of Champeaux on the same text. As scholars have often noted. in the fashion of Boethius. there is little polemic here with the opinions with which he disagrees. but rather co-signify. it changes how we understand the res that is the subject of a proposition rather than its content as a whole. it is possible for a standing man to sit while he remains standing) and a true interpretation de re (i. and the limits of when statements about necessity and possibility mutually contradict each other. These are the principles that establish statements of affirmation and ne- gation.96 abelard and heloise of modality in less polemical fashion with what is effectively a small trea- tise on modal propositions. he emphasizes that when Aristotle speaks of power or necessity to do something. As in the previous discussion. but as maximal prop- ositions.” he draws a dis- tinction between possibility in time and the impossibility of two things being true at the same time.

Abelard had still taken for granted the notion.116 His key theme is that knowledge of how to argue is not the same as being truly versed in the rules of logica. returning to logica 97 to Boethius’s commentary on the Topics of Cicero). Abelard distances himself from the notion that grammar and rhetoric are philosophical disciplines. Abelard develops his own ideas about the principles un- derpinning rhetorical argument and refers to a forthcoming discussion. relevant to all its implicit consequences. but simply formulate a general rule. a pronoun in a universal statement does not have a multiplicity of meanings but makes a general assertion about a general subject. the science of composing arguments and of analyzing them: “No one can be a logicus who is not discerning in finding and judging arguments unless he knows why arguments are found and once found can be proven. Abelard con- centrates on the larger issue of the character of the maximal proposition that underpins argument in both dialectic and rhetoric. he wishes to provide the dialectical principles that underpin rhetoric (an issue he had not broached in the Dialectica). Thierry of Char- tres agreed with this position. that a maximal proposition contains within it a multiplicity of senses. perhaps his planned Rhetorica. Aware that Bo- ethius deals with both dialectical and rhetorical topics in the De differentiis topicis.115 Drawing on Cicero’s De inventione. These maximal propositions are not established for the sake of signifying hy- pothetical consequences.113 Cicero is at least as important as Boethius as an authority on the principles of argument. He acknowledges this view but then rejects it on the grounds that a universal proposition does not in itself signify a mul- tiplicity of consequences. Rather than listing the various kinds of hypothetical axioms that underpin different forms of dialectical argument. another text never mentioned in the Dialectica.120 As he had explained in relation to the Peri- ermeneias.114 Like Boethius.”117 Abelard’s definition of a proposition as “a phrase signifying something true or false” and of a question as “a proposition about an uncertain thing” is shaped by the terminology of Cicero and Boethius. Abelard explains that they are using it indifferently either as a name or as both words and things. espoused both by Boethius and William of Champeaux.118 Yet wherever they define a proposition or an argument as a thing (res). in his own commentary on the De inventione. he emphasizes that the topics provide the foundations of probable argument both in dialectic and in rhetoric.119 In his Dialectica. as in the Dialectica. should anyone doubt about whether they are strong or weak. here siding against the view espoused by William of Cham- peaux. that rhetoric is civil science and not to be identified with logic or any part of logic. He considers .

following Cicero. They employ pronouns whose meaning depends on the specific application of the pronoun. that what is said by a proposition is not a thing or essence. Abelard is also more explicit in his disagreement with William of Champeaux about the nature of argument. self-evident truth. as Boethius had done. drawn from his reading of Cicero’s De inventione and the fourth book of the treatise of Boethius.” This is particularly the case in the topics.125 Instead of interpreting maxims as self-evident truths. Abelard has moved away from any notion that a maximal proposition contains a meaning in itself. in another they can be uncertain. He explains that its potential meanings are dependent entirely on the terms of the arguments to which it is applied.123 By the time of Super Topica. He recognizes that while some propositions can be certain in one context. intended to make a dubious proposition certain. Abelard emphasizes that they are themselves the product of human imposition. presumably a reference to his forthcoming Rhetorica. Abelard now holds that argumentation exists only for the sake of the argument. he explains that both dialectical and rhe- torical argument deal with what is uncertain but differ only in that rhet- . had always referred to an argument as that which makes faith in a thing (res) that is uncertain.”127 He explains that Boethius sometimes identifies as maxims propositions that are clearly not maximal “for the sake of stretching the reader. developing his understanding of a maximal proposition. so a general statement such as “Every man loves” or “Every man loves himself” does not generate a multiplicity of meanings about different individuals.121 In this gloss. issues that he promises to discuss further in a treatise on argument.129 Following Boethius. applied variously in different situations.” Abelard questions whether any statement can ever signify a thing as a clear.124 The truth of a maxim can only be preserved in relation to specific consequences.122 He expands on the theme he had developed in his gloss on the Periermeneias. and which consist in opinion rather than in truth. An argument leads to faith and belief in a conclu- sion. Just as a predicate is always an utterance (vox) rather than a thing (res).98 abelard and heloise that the position he had once held does not sufficiently respect the purely vocal character of a topic.126 While Abelard never explicitly accuses older authors of being wrong in their discussion of topics. Whereas Boethius. he claims that they sometimes spoke “more according to opinion than according to truth. “which deal only with probability.128 He interrupts his commentary on the second book of De differentiis topicis with a long discussion about rhetorical argument. the underlying basis of an argument. his theory of entailment has become more clearly distinct from that of his teacher.

130 He analyzes different types of statements that might be made about a person and that are ef- fective in formulating a rhetorical argument.137 Abelard also refines Boethius’s definition (drawn from Cicero) that an argument is “reasoning making for faith in a thing that is uncertain.”136 He resists William’s teaching that a pred- icate signifies some res. “arguments more based on opinion than on the truth of the matter. he supports the view that an argument is not a proposition but the intellectus or understanding of a proposition that has no meaning unless through a mental conception. he does not accept that they deal with the same issues. when. While he knows that some people subordinate both grammar and rhetoric to logica (an allusion to the teaching of William of Champeaux). or strictly literal. how.139 The contrary view is that the argument is not the proposition or its conception but those things or terms of the proposition. not ac- . Persuading is moving and drawing the dispositions of men so that they desire or reject the same thing with us. Abelard criticizes “our teacher William and his followers” for claiming that the grammatical.”132 This view differs from the more moralistic perspective of Augustine.135 After this extended excursus on rhetoric. without ever defining these topics as “things.” The fact that his argument here runs close to part of the commentary of William of Champeaux on the De inventione suggests that Abelard was deliberately wanting to com- pete with his teacher in the field of rhetoric.140 He is openly critical of many arguments that Boethius puts forward. sense of a proposition is different from its dialectical sense: “We do not ever want dialecticians to consider one sense in any construc- tion. who speaks of rhetoric as persuading people “of true and false things.134 He concludes his discus- sion of specific types of rhetorical topics by referring to a forthcoming Rhetorica that he would write. based on a literal application of Boethius’s definition.”133 Abelard runs through specific topics or commonplaces—such as where. and with what help—that help make a persuasive argument.131 His definition of rhetoric emphasizes instrumentality rather than issues of truth or falsehood: “Rhet- oric consists particularly in persuasion.”141 “We call reasoning a type of argument. grammarians another. In this view. Abelard’s point is that the specific words constructed in an ar- gument do not relate to logic or to the science of discourse (ratio disser- endi) but to other.”138 What is meant by res in this definition? Juxtaposing two views about the nature of an argument. returning to logica 99 oric is based around a specific person or activity. more practical disciplines. the argument is the topic or locus behind the prop- osition. that is something rationally induced to create faith. distinct from the subject that it predicates.

”142 Abelard explains that “uncertain thing” in fact means “uncertain proposition. There were other disciplines in the curriculum on which he wished to comment. a standard topic of discussion within commentary on the Periermeneias.”144 The allusion in Super Topica to William’s teaching sug- gests that it is unlikely to have been written much after William died in January 1122. .100 abelard and heloise cording to the truth of the matter but according to the quality of mind and estimation of the person to whom it occurs.”143 Exactly when Abelard completed these extended commentaries on the Periermeneias and De differentiis topicis is not known. his thinking was moving beyond a narrow concentration on dialectic. Allusions he makes in the Theologia “Summi boni” to discussion to be engaged elsewhere on free- dom of the will. He may well have worked on more than one text at the same time. Abelard often promised more than he could deliver. Whether or not he ever completed his Rhetorica. suggests that he had not yet composed this part of the Logica “Ingredientibus.

how one can say that God. Not only did he return to teaching dialectic. and Holy Spirit. Abelard felt that he could provide a more elegant explanation. Abelard claims that he wrote the treatise principally to refute Roscelin’s argument that the three persons of the 101 . rather than simply on the au- thority of Scripture or of the Fathers of the Church.1 Abelard’s explanation glides over the com- plex web of rivalries and debates with his teachers that prompted its original composition over a decade earlier. who were demanding “human and philosophical reasons” for Christian belief. Son. namely. 6 The Trinity T he years following Abelard’s entry into St. In a letter to the bishop of Paris. without implying that each divine person can be identified with the other two.-Denis were enormously productive. the supreme good. Roscelin of Compie`gne had concluded that even though God was one. Roscelin had fallen into the heresy of tritheism. written around 1120. Thirty years earlier. Abelard insists that he was driven to find analogies acceptable to human reason to elucidate the divine unity and trinity by his students. based on rational argument. “Father” and “Son” had to be described as words signifying separate things (res). but he started to examine one of the most difficult questions presented by Chris- tian doctrine. In the Historia calamitatum. The specific doctrinal issue raised by Roscelin created a possibility for him to develop a broader argument about the relationship between classical philosophy and Judaeo- Christian teaching about God. is simultaneously Father. In the eyes of St. Anselm and his admirers.

observing that they are “two men of good life and repute. Roscelin’s major complaint.2 He situates himself in this letter as a worthy successor to Anselm of Canterbury. where he holds canonries.3 Abelard hopes to provide a more convincing response to Roscelin than St. Anselm had departed radically from his teacher. is that Abelard has not understood his argument that the three persons of the Trinity have to be defined as separate things if one is not to argue that God the Father became incarnate with God the Son. In his Monologion. far from being a problem.102 abelard and heloise Trinity are separate entities. St. He also rejects Abelard’s claim that he had slandered Anselm of Canterbury and Robert of Arbrissel. where he had been born and educated. Lanfranc. he felt that Anselm had never grasped the philosophical seriousness of the theological question that Roscelin had raised. could become incarnate in Jesus without implying division within God. While this letter is lost. that it was necessary to respect the singularity of the Father and the Son. Anselm’s Monologion attempted to show how one can reflect through rational argument on a single divine essence. Even before he had completed his treatise. he is not known to have written a specific treatise on the subject. St. defaming his former teacher and claiming that Roscelin had been convicted of heresy at the Council of Soissons thirty years earlier. in arguing from reasoning alone (sola ratione) that it was possible to believe that a single.-Martin in Tours. undivided supreme being might take the form of three distinct persons.”4 Roscelin questions An- selm’s teaching that God was able to save humanity only in the way God did as unnecessarily restricting divine omnipotence. who had himself attempted to explain how the eternal Son of God. we know about its contents from Roscelin’s reply. can help explain how a name used of God does not signify a thing but rather is predicated of God to signify some aspect of God’s nature. and Besan- c¸on. Loches. however. The argument imputed to Roscelin provides a fulcrum for attempting a theological synthesis more wide ranging than St. but not the Father. While Abelard admired the intellectual revolution Anselm had promoted. He also claims that Robert of Arbrissel breaks up marriages by encouraging women to leave their husbands so as to pursue a religious life. Abelard wrote to the canons of St. While William of Champeaux had developed philosophical arguments on the doctrine of the Trinity. although some of their sayings and actions seem to be questionable. Abelard believes that contemporary dialectic. written between 1076 and 1078. but . and that he enjoys respect in the churches of Tours. in which he insists that he is well received in the churches of Soissons and Reims. Anselm by combining arguments from reason with those based on philosophical as well as scriptural authority. Anselm’s De incarnatione Verbi.

and by be- nignity to love. is Hugh of St. as Holy Spirit because of his benignity or goodness by which he redeems humanity through his mercy. including Bernard of Clairvaux.-Victor (d. namely. Through Hugh’s De tribus diebus. who had accused him of not recognizing sufficiently that there has to be something specific to the three persons of the Trinity if one is to avoid conflating their identity.8 Hugh also may have gained from Ambrose his image that the whole created world is like a book. this image of a triad of divine attributes influenced a number of other twelfth-century writers. 28:19) for three reasons: as Father because of the power or potency by which God can carry out everything he wishes. wisdom. Abelard opens his treatise with a declaration that the perfection of the supreme good is described by Christ as Father. as Son because of his wisdom. The only other teacher in early twelfth-century Paris who developed precisely the same idea that God can be described by the divine attributes. intelligence. power. Hugh’s De tribus diebus goes much further than any of the sententie attributed to Anselm of Laon or William of Champeaux in emphasizing that creation provides a medium through which we can learn about the nature of God.5 While the De tribus diebus has often been dated to the mid-1120s on the grounds that Hugh must be drawing on Abelard. Son. Dominique Poirel has argued that it is Ab- elard who draws on Hugh. and benignity. . Abelard’s answer was to a compose a treatise that he seems originally to have called his De trinitate but that has been edited under the title Theo- logia “Summi boni” (not an authentic title. it is a day of the Holy Spirit. in particular from a statement of Ambrose of Milan in his commentary on the six days of creation—that God was good.7 Poirel argues that Hugh derives his triad from patristic tradition. written by God. the trinity 103 his reasoning had been challenged by Roscelin. and Holy Spirit (ac- cording to Matt. without any sense that it departed from orthodoxy.6 Given that Hugh does not argue in the De tribus diebus against any misinterpretation of the triad (whereas he does allude critically to ideas of Abelard in later writings). 1141). by wisdom to knowledge. This threefold dis- tinction serves not only to describe the perfection of the supreme good but to draw humanity to reverence divinity. as the terms theologia or theologi are only introduced into the Theologia Christiana to replace the more tra- ditional divinitas and divini). This is quite a different per- spective from Augustine’s psychological analogy of the three divine per- sons as like memory. Only in his conclusion does Hugh raise the idea that when our hearts are excited to wonder by divine omnipotence. it is a day of the Father. and will in the human soul. this is quite possible. wise. it is a day of the Son. and omnipotent in his action—itself inspired by a remark of Basil of Caesarea.

he draws on passages in the Wisdom of Solomon. Whereas Hugh talks about humanity’s capacity to know God through nature. and Holy Spirit. Whether or not he had read the De tribus diebus. as when we sigh in love or groan in the difficulty of effort or sorrow. Abelard draws on the writings of the philosophers. Perhaps aware of philosophical interest in Plato’s Timaeus. he devotes most of his attention to arguing that “Holy Spirit” refers to the disposition of divine goodness or love: “By the name of Holy Spirit. namely. the supreme good. panting. Abelard is sympathetic to this theme.10 Hugh and Abelard may both have been inspired in their image of a triad of divine attributes by passing comments attributed to William of Champeaux and developed further in the Sententie divine pagine. but responds in a very different way. The first authority he cites is Cicero. spe et caritate. Proverbs (attributed to Solomon). Isaiah. To substantiate this argument. correcting an overly literalist view of Plato. hinted at by William and developed by Hugh. This is a prelude to his analysis of philosophical testimony about the threefold nature of God. Ab- elard situates the Holy Spirit within the realm of personal experience.”12 While he justifies the uncontrov- ersial claim that divine wisdom should be called the Word of God. the Psalms. Hugh develops neglected themes from Ambrose and Paschasius Radbertus to expound God’s wisdom and goodness in creating the world. De fide. Abelard argues that through understanding words. in that by the breath [spiritu] of our mouth.104 abelard and heloise through which we come to know the invisible things of God. Abelard goes further than Hugh in arguing that pagan phi- losophy has much to contribute to our understanding of God.9 Another influence on Hugh’s theme that through the visible things of the world we come to know the invisible things of God may be a relatively little- known treatise of Paschasius Radbertus. we can understand the divine attributes that these nouns signify. Abelard gives only the briefest of explanations for why “Father” names divine potency. berating the Jews for misunderstanding this scriptural testimony. He observes simply that “lord” refers to the power to govern and that theos means “fear. even though this attribute may also be common to all three. which quite possibly transmits the teaching of William. in this case the names of Father. the disposition of the spirit is particularly evident. Son.”13 By drawing attention to the meaning of spiritus as breath. to make the same point.11 Hugh dwells much more than William on humanity’s capacity to learn about God through the created world. the disposition of benignity or love is expressed. whose De inventione he quotes to show that those who devoted themselves to phi- . and the prophet Micah. “Holy Spirit” can refer to what is particular to one divine person.

Abelard argues that this great Father of the Church was more indebted to pagan philosophical insight than is often realized. the trinity 105 losophy did not think there were many gods. In the late eleventh century. which he had not mentioned at all in the Dialectica but which is clearly in the background in the love letters. The importance he attaches to the De inventione. Inspired by this literary movement. that deal with the divine good- ness sustaining creation. in which Mercury or Hermes Trismegistus is reported as writing about the generation of “the perfect Word” and maintaining that the name of the Son of God cannot be described in human terms. without accepting everything that Platonists were saying about the world soul. signals a new breadth in the range of his interest since the time of his literary exchanges with Heloise. Cicero is shown to support Paul’s testimony about the in- visible things of God being revealed to the philosophers.16 Rather than emphasizing texts about human sinfulness. or discourse about the gods. namely. Augustine considered theologia. the young Heloise frequently combined pagan and Christian images in her early exchanges. Going a step further than Hugh in his comments about cosmic order in the De tribus diebus. as unable to confer eternal life.17 In France. God’s goodness toward the world. he concentrates on pas- sages. Abelard attaches much value to this insight into the impossibility of defining God’s nature. 1091). Wolfelm of Brauweiler (d. he holds that Plato’s teaching about the world soul is a metaphor or “cov- ering” (involucrum) that describes one aspect of the Holy Spirit. both scriptural and philosophical. which is an authoritative record of the word of God. unlike Scrip- ture. Abelard was not the first teacher to attempt to draw parallels between pagan and Christian insight.14 Drawing on Cicero’s discussion of arguments from analogy. He draws on a sermon attributed to Augustine (actually by Quod- vultdeus).15 Through careful selection of texts. Abelard argues that the divine nature can be known not through the human soul but through the order and goodness that underpins creation. the enthusiasm of a Benedictine abbot. enthusiasm for pagan authors provoked Baudri of Bourgueil and Godfrey of Reims to adapt their interests to Christian ends within poetic writing. which he links to a quotation attributed to Denis the Areopagite about the pure in heart realizing that God cannot be known. for Christian- izing Macrobius had provoked Manegold of Lautenbach to warn his friend against the dangers implicit in any such attempt. Abelard wanted to provide a theological synthesis that would satisfy students who pursued such inter- . Abelard’s explicit acknowledgment of pagan testimony about the Trin- ity departs not only from the perspective of Augustine but also from that of William of Champeaux in his Sententie.

ca. quoting briefly from Augustine and Jerome.19 He quotes examples from Augustine’s City of God about the close- ness of Plato to divine insight in order to justify his argument that Plato and other pagans. Bringing together such testimony creates a very different effect from the conventional theological miscellanies col- lected by disciples of Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux. whom he considers to be excessively caught up in their own arguments. and above all benignity or goodness to the world.” Abelard briefly commends the philosophers. His em- phasis is more on pagan knowledge. but “a beautiful covering or envelope” (involu- crum. Whereas many of the Church Fathers had emphasized that the prophets came before the philosophers in time. such as the Sybils. and other writers. Abelard makes no case for the priority of revelation to the Jews but rather holds that Jews and gentiles . even if he had not understood the full coexistence of the three divine persons. Abelard never doubts the Pla- tonist teaching.106 abelard and heloise ests but was still distinct from the Platonizing efforts of Bernard of Char- tres (d. He uses ratio rather than amor as the basis for understand- ing supreme goodness. While hostile to the idea that Plato’s forms should be interpreted lit- erally. Abelard now nuances his earlier criticism by explaining that the world soul is not a fiction (figmentum) removed from all truth. but he revises his earlier condemnation of those who make too speedy an identification between Platonic doctrine and Christian teaching. than on pagan ethics. Near the end of the first book of the Theologia “Summi boni. Abelard is not particularly interested in exploring the body and soul as metaphors of the spiritual life other than to ridicule those philosophers. transmitted through Macrobius. had grasped certain elements of the doctrine of the Trinity. 1125) and his students. wisdom. in particular Socrates. a term taken from Chalcidius) that describes divine goodness to the world. examining proportion within the uni- verse. He sees it as an image of divine grace offered to all people. such as Roscelin. for their diligence in distinguishing between the virtues and vices and for the example they set through their renunciation of worldly pleasures. like a vine spreading across the whole world. not as a specific living entity but as the force that animates and sustains creation. however.18 Abelard’s allusion in the Dialectica to those Platonists who mistakenly identify Plato’s world soul with the Holy Spirit shows that even before composing the Theologia “Summi boni” he was aware that efforts were underway to find common ground between pagan wisdom and Christian doctrine. understood as divine potency. Chalcidius. that creation is held together by a divine harmony and that ar- ithmetica is the mother of the arts. he now appreciates the beauty of the image of the world soul. Abelard thus explains that he still admires Plato.

as well as in the version of this passage included in the Sic et Non and in the Collationes.” Clearly aware of St.)21 Whereas Anselm of Canterbury had lamented the influence of “dialecticians of the modern time . By quoting familiar passages from Gregory about faith not having merit in anything tested by human reasoning and from Ambrose about not being able to know or discuss the generation of the Son from the Father. he hopes to dispel accusations commonly made about teachers like himself. so in theology he maintains that a proposition can only be an approximation of truth rather than strictly true in itself. serving to assert his own commitment to orthodoxy. Anselm’s arguments against Roscelin. “Whatever we say. is beyond human reasoning. not the thing itself. presumably because Abelard subsequently dis- covered that he had initially misread Augustine’s text. These pseudodialecticians in his discourse are myth- ical figures. . Ab- elard implies that he is not guilty of such boldness. Abelard is anxious to distinguish between the ne- cessity of dialectical argument in all discussion of divinity and its abuse by sophistically minded practitioners. Abelard cannot avoid reflecting that ethical integrity is essential to true philosophical understanding. The divine nature itself. formulated thirty years earlier in the Epistola de incarnatione Verbi. who consider universals to be nothing but a puff of air. .” While Augustine had invoked this image in relation to two groups who came together in Christ.20 The second book of Abelard’s treatise is devoted to philosophical ob- jections that can be put to the Christian doctrine of God. preceded by an invective against “false dialecticians.” (In the Theologia Christiana. the trinity 107 constitute “two walls in the one body of the Church. It is a great tool for vanquishing the false arguments of the Stoics and the Epicureans. He silently transforms a sentence of the De doctrina Christiana about argument being very able “to penetrate and dissolve every kind of question” into “penetrate and discuss every kind of question. as both Plato and Augustine explain. therefore.” Abelard is more nuanced in the way he presents the discipline. as singing the praises of dialectic. Spouting words has no point unless one is instructed from within. not always with complete accuracy. Abelard uses it to explain that both prophets and philosophers had provided instruction to their respective peoples. about this deepest philosophy we assert is a shadow. no discipline can ever be wrong in itself. As he argues in the Dialectica.”22 Just as in his teaching of dialectic he emphasizes that what is signified by a proposition is never a thing in itself. Again the key author to whom he appeals is Augustine. not truth itself. While he is not talking about ethics. By targeting those teachers of dialectic filled with blind confidence in their intellectual powers. and like a kind of analogy. the phrase “and discuss” is quietly omitted. . whom he quotes.

108 abelard and heloise

Abelard structures the second book of his treatise on a pattern set by
the De trinitate of Boethius, even though he never specifically acknowl-
edges its influence in his initial version. While it is very likely that he
was familiar with contemporary interest in the theological writings of
Boethius, such as shown by Thierry of Chartres (whose commentary on
the De trinitate is found in the same manuscripts as Abelard’s Theologia
“Summi boni”), he is just as suspicious toward Boethius on matters of
theology as on dialectic. Abelard begins his examination by formulating
a definition of the divine nature very similar to that articulated by Wil-
liam of Champeaux.23 While he takes for granted William’s definition that
God is a single substance, without form or accident, Abelard supplies a
far wider range of possible objections to both plurality and unity in God.
William’s technique had simply been to argue that “sameness” in the
world effectively means that identical things are not different from each
other (rather than essentially the same). By contrast, Abelard raises fifteen
possible objections put by dialecticians against the idea of plurality within
God, and another five against unity within God, if the Father is different
from the Son. How can we speak of a plurality of persons in God, as a
single substance, when it seems that no philosophical mode of difference
can be applied to the diversity of persons? His argument is as much with
William as with Roscelin.
The remainder of the second book is devoted to expounding the prin-
ciples that elucidate the solution, provided in the third book. Going far
beyond William’s brief comment that there is simply no connection be-
tween difference in this world and identity in God, Abelard formulates
principles that can apply both to ordinary and to divine language, which
he sees as simply the extension of ordinary language to awareness of the
supreme good. The undivided nature of God, he explains, is not a thing
that can be counted alongside other “things.” He then goes a step further
to say that God is not really any substance, if we follow any conventional
philosophical definition of substance. This effectively destabilizes the con-
ventional definition of God as three persons in one substance by raising
a question about the artificial nature of the words that we use.
As evident from his heated response to Abelard, Roscelin takes for
granted the Augustinian assumption that a word is the sign of a thing,
while stressing that a word is an utterance of human origin. He concludes
that the three divine names have to be imposed on distinct things: “I do
not see how else I can put this.” Many people were uncomfortable with
this terminology, which seemed to suggest that there was division in God.
The standard response, formulated by St. Anselm, was to emphasize the
fundamental unity of God the Father and God the Son. Christ was the

the trinity 109

embodiment of perfection, free from the stain of sin, and thus closer to
God than to sinful humanity. Abelard’s initial solution to this theological
dilemma does not dwell particularly on the person of Christ (although he
might already have had some ideas on the subject) but rather on the
different ways in which words such as “same” and “different” are used. By
developing a richer understanding of ordinary language, he argues that we
can come to terms with the seeming contradictions of theological lan-
guage. Far from being an exception to ordinary speech, the metaphorical
character of theological language reflects deeper principles about all dis-
course. In the Ingredientibus gloss on Porphyry, Abelard had largely fol-
lowed Boethius’s own analysis of three basic types of differentiating char-
acteristics, namely, genus, species, and number, interpreting them as words
rather than as specific things in themselves.24 Following his reading of
Aristotle, he had insisted that specific forms that create a differentia are
not separate entities but rather cannot subsist outside of what they inform.
In the corresponding part of his treatise on the Trinity, he introduces a
quite different set of ways that differentia and identity can be defined: by
essence, by number, by definition, by similarity, by permutation, and by
effect. He introduces almost exactly the same list into a subsequent com-
mentary on Porphyry, the Glossae secundum vocales, delivered at about the
same time he wrote about the Trinity. Abelard had already established
the principle that modes of difference were more to do with words than
particular things. In the context of the Trinity, he is able to show more
fully how two things can be different in definition, for example, while
being connected through predication, as in man and animal: An animal
can be what is not a man, but a man has to be an animal.25 As Aristotle
teaches in the Periermeneias, words (voces) and letters are not the same
for everyone but are different in the way the same words are understood
by different people.26 Once we realize the different ways in which the
same words can be understood, we can grasp how it may be possible to
speak of three “persons” in God. To explain persona, Abelard takes up a
grammatical explanation, that the first person is “who speaks,” the second
is “who is spoken,” the third “who is spoken about,” and then he provides
a rhetorical account of who the persons are in order to make the point
that in divinity the meaning of persona is different again.
These are the basic principles on which Abelard develops his argument
in the final book of his treatise. To the key question of whether the trinity
of persons is about words or things, he explains that while the single,
undivided substance of God is a thing, the differences between the three
persons are to do with different definitions of the supreme good. They are
three in definition or property but not in number.27 A nominalist under-

110 abelard and heloise

standing of language helps one to understand the character of theological
discourse as about different ways of naming God rather than as about a
specific thing. Abelard structures the third book as a direct answer to the
specific objections to divine trinity and unity outlined in the preceding
section. In many ways, the technical discussion that he introduces here
is simply an extension of debates he had already been raising within the
study of dialectic. Some of the issues, however, are very basic. To the
argument that Roscelin had raised, that the three persons had to be three
things, he points out that a combined term such as “Twenty-one” or “a
great thief” does not mean two separate things (i.e., “twenty” and “one,”
or both “great” and “a thief”) but a single concept defined by the com-
bination of words.28 Logical classifications cannot be employed in a rigid
way to the divine nature because these classifications are always subject
to particular definitions in relation to what they analyze. Abelard is keen
to show how statements about distinct identity do not necessarily con-
tradict statements about underlying unity. Whereas William of Cham-
peaux argued that definitions simply operate differently in relation to God
from how they operate in relation to the natural world, Abelard holds
that fundamentally similar principles apply in both domains.
Many of the particular solutions that Abelard opts for in this treatise
are not ones that he keeps in subsequent versions of the work. This ap-
plies, for example, to analogies that he makes between a multitude of
persons and a multitude of fingers, which he maintains are distinct by
essence. Even here, however, Abelard has not fully distanced himself from
assuming that a noun refers to its own “thing” or “essence.”29 Other ar-
guments he does preserve, such as about the definition in the Athanasian
Creed “as the Father, so the Son and the Holy Spirit,” a statement that
he reads as implying that what is appropriate for one person is also ap-
propriate for another. The same might be said about proposition and con-
clusion within an argument, distinct in property rather than essence, like
divine persons.30 Although his topic is ostensibly theological, Abelard
takes the opportunity to make a serious philosophical point about identity
and difference. Just as in a human person there are many parts that are
not identical but cannot exist without each other, so there can be plurality
in the Divine Trinity.31 He also raises in passing an idea that he will
subsequently develop, that what the Greeks call substances may be no
different from what the Latins call persons. Abelard quotes here the fa-
miliar passage from Augustine’s De trinitate about the possible equivalence
of Latin and Greek understandings that Roscelin of Compie`gne had used
in his own writing on the Trinity and that St. Anselm had employed to
defend himself from the criticism of Lanfranc that his method of reasoning

the trinity 111

was dangerously novel. In this part of his treatise, he is relatively re-
strained in his appeal to patristic authority, preferring to focus on familiar
passages from Augustine’s De trinitate.
Abelard’s major effort is to identify convincing reasoning to defend his
thesis. He turns to Cicero’s De inventione to support his case about identity
and difference: When Tully had identified deliberation and demonstration
as quite distinct from each other, he was speaking about different prop-
erties of two kinds of argument, not about any fundamental difference in
essence.32 He also reminds his reader of what Priscian, the grammarian,
had advised, namely, that in speech one has always to follow custom:
“Well, indeed, since speech conveys meaning not from nature but from
the will of men.”33 “It is not legitimate to extend figurative and improper
speech beyond the reach of authority of custom if we want to speak for
the sake of instruction and ease of understanding.”34 No longer simply an
authority on Aristotle, he is concerned with the character of language as
a whole, through grammar and rhetoric, while explaining the logic of
language about the Divine Trinity. The rules of discourse as a whole are
illustrated by the way we should talk about God, avoiding confusing as-
sertion and illogicality. False arguments arise when one does not respect
“the force of the words of an argument” by misapplying a logical principle,
such as “Whatever is predicated of something is predicated of that pred-
icate and the subject,” to a divine person.35 One cannot use his rule to
say that the Father is the Son. This is not because logic does not apply
to the Trinity but because one has not understood the rules of logic in
the first place. Abelard refers back to his Dialectica for further discussion
of the same point, although he is now showing how these principles can
also elucidate grammar and rhetoric as well as theology.
The first objections that Abelard deals with in his third book are fun-
damentally logical in character. He then moves to the more properly
theological question that Roscelin had raised in the argument reported
to St. Anselm: How is it that only the Son becomes incarnate in the
person of Christ and not the Father or the Holy Spirit?36 Although the
treatise is about the Trinity, Abelard cannot avoid the Christological ques-
tion of what is distinct about the person of Christ. In some ways, his
solution—that Christ is the incarnation of divine wisdom—is fully in
accord with the teaching of both Anselm of Laon and William of Cham-
peaux, who are simply restating traditional Pauline doctrine. He departs
from them in the way that he addresses a familiar concept. He insists on
looking at the force of the statement (vim enuntiationis) “The Son has
become incarnate” in order to appreciate what the authority of the saints
has always understood it to mean: that only the Son became incarnate,

112 abelard and heloise

not the Father or Holy Spirit, so that he could enlighten those predestined
to be saved through the light of his wisdom.37 Although not a particularly
sophisticated formulation of Christology, the formula hints at the way
Abelard prefers to describe the process of redemption in terms of the
gaining of wisdom rather than as a process of being freed from the yoke
of the devil and human sinfulness. He points to the words addressed to
the Father by Christ in agony on the cross to show how common it is to
refer to God the Father rather than to the Son or the Holy Spirit. All
things are done rationally, whether in creating the world or in redeeming
humanity after the fall. The Father endows us with wisdom through the
Son, while the Holy Spirit relates to the working of grace through the
sacraments and the forgiveness of sins.38 These themes are implicit in
the teaching of William of Champeaux, but here they are presented sim-
ply in terms of illuminating the doctrine of the Trinity.
The most controversial section of Abelard’s discussion is the second
chapter on the generation of the Word. His key theme is that the rela-
tionship between the Father and Son is like that between potency or
power (potentia) and wisdom, understood as the power of discernment. In
the Athanasian creed, the attribute that is predicated of each of the three
persons of the Trinity is omnipotence. By potentia Abelard means not
omnipotence in the sense of being all-powerful, but potency as a capacity
to act. The analogy of comparing the relationship between the Father and
the Son to that between genus and species had no precedent in patristic
tradition and might seem to imply that God the Son is less than fully
divine. The analogy makes sense for Abelard in light of the particular
way that he interprets the categories of genus and species, that is, not as
specific things but as names that signify specific attributes of that which
they predicate. He is not saying that wisdom is a part of omnipotence, a
position that would clearly be erroneous, as it implies that wisdom is a
lesser “thing” than omnipotence. He prefers the notion of potentia as
a potency to act, because he sees it as the genus of wisdom, the power of
discernment. Another comparison he draws is between wax and a wax
image, one of which comes from the other, while insisting that this does
not mean one comes before the other in time.
Central to his argument is the theme that these categories of genus
and species do not signify specific things but rather are linguistic devices
that serve to illustrate a relationship whereby one subject “proceeds” from
another but not the other way around. Just as a wax image is wax, yet
one cannot identify the image with the wax, so the Son relates to the
Father. Many phrases in the Nicene Creed might seem to contradict this
image, such as “God from God, light from light.” These statements, for-

the trinity 113

mulated to resist ideas that Christ was less than fully divine, Abelard reads
as metaphors that should not be misinterpreted as implying that the Son
and the Father can be identified with each other.39 The meaning of “God”
as the Son is not the same as “God” when used of the Father. “Often
words are called from their proper signification by adjoining words to
mean something else, as we have shown elsewhere in dealing with meta-
phors.”40 Abelard had started to discuss translatio in his Ingredientibus gloss
on the Categories. In the Dialectica, he had already criticized William for
teaching that figurative expressions were strictly speaking “improper,” but
he had not yet developed his theme that metaphor (translatio) was a
perfectly legitimate form of signification. As in his gloss on the Categories,
Abelard raises the example of the phrase “the fields laugh” (prata rident)
to argue that it is quite natural for words to change their meaning by
association with other words.41 He gives the example of this and many
other phrases to argue that when words are applied to the divine nature,
they need to be interpreted in this context.
Some of the claims Abelard makes in this part of his treatise are un-
usually bold and would never be repeated, such as that when philosophers
said “born of God” or “Son of God,” they explained the generation of the
Son from the Father more clearly than the prophets, who simply spoke
of “the word of the Lord.”42 Plato spoke more appropriately than the
prophets, Abelard suggests, when he called the reasoning or wisdom of
God “mind.” Christ agreed in particular with the words of the philoso-
phers when he spoke the words, “Father, enlighten your Son” (John 17:
1). Abelard favors gentile over Jewish tradition in a way that contradicts
assumptions taken for granted by Anselm of Laon and William of Cham-
Abelard acknowledges that his explanation of the relationship of the
Father to the Son still generates many more problems than he can answer.
Some of his discussion may have been added to an original presentation
in awareness of these difficulties, perhaps raised in response to his original
presentation. If by “Father” he understands not just potency but omnip-
otence, then it might seem that wisdom or the power of discernment is
a part of omnipotence and that omnipotence is prior in time to wisdom.
As if responding to an intelligent critic who reminds him that he cannot
simply dispense with the category of omnipotence, he replies that these
are all analogies that must not be taken literally, as the divine nature is
quite different from that of creation.43 With relative lack of caution, he
even claims that the Son, sometimes called the right hand of the Father,
is indeed a part of the Father. He suggests that it is quite legitimate for
images from the natural world to be applied through analogy to quite a

he empha- sizes that there may be different reasons behind the imposition of a noun and that he is concerned with the causa behind a word rather than its literal meaning.44 This is the same kind of scatological humor. interpreted as a veiled image of God’s goodness to creation. His more serious point is that divine potency is not prior to divine wisdom in time because “prior” is a verbal rather than a real dis- tinction. then they cannot be misconstrued as implying a theological impossibility. Abelard does not repeat these remarks in later versions of the Theologia. which comes through both divine potency and the divine wisdom and by which all things are ordered for the good. Abelard emphasizes that the Holy Spirit is not simply the love of the Father and the Son but rather the love of God for creation. In the first version of his treatise.” He explains similarly that exire or “to go out” is used to mean to force out (digerere) or purge the stomach. perhaps dictated rather than written. understood as the power of discernment.”45 Abelard’s response is to remind his critics that this claim is itself erroneous. As if familiar with the arguments his ideas have provoked. a theme to which he had given much atten- tion in the first book of the treatise. . was not itself fundamentally original. Abelard brings in Platonic teaching. namely. To illustrate how a word might change its meaning within a different context. just as the Word is from the Father. he repeats a complaint that he must have often heard: “But you say to me: I am not concerned with names. None of the Aristotelian categories about “the prior” could ever legitimately apply to God the Father. Rather than assuming that each noun signifies a single thing. Abelard’s discussion of the procession of the Holy Spirit is much briefer than that about the generation of the Son from the Father. that surfaces in some of the early glosses on di- alectic. Once all our attempts at theological definition are appreciated as linguistic inventions. as the Father was not begotten from God. pro- ceeding through the Father and the Son. based on a desire to shock and entertain. such as that one divine person comes before another. There is much in this discussion that suggests quite hasty composition. but I insist on the truth of the sentence. while insisting that Platonic forms are not to be interpreted literally.114 abelard and heloise different world. While the central insight. This particular attribute of loving-kindness is the specific attribute of the Holy Spirit. that the Holy Spirit is the benignity or loving-kindness of God. The key influence here on his thinking is Plato’s teaching about the world soul. he reminds his readers (or perhaps more accurately his listeners) that Scripture has “Adam knew his wife” to mean “Adam had sex with his wife. holding that God the Father is begotten from God.

he lays the groundwork for his distinctive emphasis on the Holy Spirit as the loving-kindness that underpins creation as a whole. the trinity 115 Rather. When he first writes about the Trinity. and quotes sentences such as “The Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit” but argues that Augustine is speaking here about the effect of the Holy Spirit rather than the nature of the disposition of divine benignity. than as the love emanating from the Father to creation. the Father and the Son.” His major interest is to apply principles about predication that he had developed within his di- alectic to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Abelard is still preoccupied by the relationship between the Father and the Son. this divine benignity gives life to us through gifts of divine grace. Whereas he had previously been obsessed by Heloise as the embodiment of perfec- tion. so answering Roscelin’s claim that they had to be distinguished as separate things if we were to avoid asserting that God the Father joined the Son in becoming incarnate in Christ. thus becoming a major source of grievance between Greek and Latin theologians. As he had hinted in a digression within the last part of the Dialectica. rather than as the perfect love of the Father and God the Son. Nonetheless. The additional Latin phrase en- capsulates a theological rift that had evolved between a Greek view of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Breath) as God’s gift to creation as a whole. the form that is the world soul signifies an important attribute of the supreme good. In developing a theology that emphasized the gulf between Christ and fallen humanity. and he discusses the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son only briefly. Abelard’s major attention in the second and third books of the Theologia “Summi boni” is on linguistic issues with which he is familiar. given by both the Father and the Son. The influence of Augustine was so great in the Latin West that by the late sixth century the controversial filioque clause had been added to the Latin versions of the Nicene- Constantinopolitan Creed. Abelard is fully aware of Augustine’s teaching about the Holy Spirit as the gift of God. as traditional in orthodox theology. Augustine had moved away from the more optimistic teaching of some of the early Church Fathers about the universe as the vehicle of God’s glory.46 This dis- . Abelard’s thinking about the Holy Spirit is still relatively little developed in the Theologia “Summi boni. and Augustine’s perception of the Holy Spirit as the love exchanged most fully between the Father and the Son. he now directs his attention to the Holy Spirit as the source of this goodness and love. Augustine gave such emphasis to the person of Christ as the point of perfect junction between God and fallen humanity that he considered the Holy Spirit more as the love between two coeternal persons.

Roscelin’s own thinking about the trinity of divine persons is in many ways indebted to St. Abelard’s claim that all humanity naturally has faith in God as a trinity of attributes was a bold move as traditionally the Trinity had been presented in terms of the revelation of Scripture to the Jewish people. There was a long patristic tradition of explaining the Holy Spirit as the love and goodness of God.- Victor. and Holy Spirit signify about the subject they predicate—in this case God. picks up the Pauline theme that Augustine had employed in his De trinitate and that is also so important for Hugh of St. This certainly was the position familiar to Anselm of Laon. In a closing sentence. distancing himself from the semantic theory that every noun is imposed on a specific thing (res). but generally in the context of the mutual love of the Father and the Son. Abelard’s idea was to consider what the divine names Father. if not his conclusions. and will within the human soul. Abelard employs a different set of attributes. but he refused—at least in the records of his teaching—to acknowledge the tes- timony of authors outside Scripture and the Church in speaking about the Trinity. without which all else is believed in vain. namely. Son. William of Champeaux had started to consider how one could through reason come to an understanding of God as Trinity. in which Abelard avers that all men naturally have faith in the Trinity. He is saying that the human spirit can grasp the po- tency. the wisdom. Abelard does not think that just because faith in the trinitarian nature of the supreme good is accessible through reason that all men are naturally saved. in part suggested to him by the traditional Pauline identification of Christ with the wisdom of God. The closing chapter. Anselm’s theological method. that the invisibilia Dei had always been apparent through the created world. and the benignity of God. Abelard justifies his work as an attempt to counter the . understanding. He concerns himself with faith—understood as acceptance of something not immediately apparent to the senses—in what Christians call a triune God. he acknowledges that it is in the mystery of the incarnation that the complete sum of human salvation is to be found. Augustine had argued that all men could naturally come to an understanding of God as a trinity of persons through reflecting on the relationship between memory.47 The treatise does not claim to be a complete syn- thesis of theology. the supreme good—not that all men have been saved through this faith.116 abelard and heloise tinction between effects of the Holy Spirit and the affect or attribute of divine benignity enables him to read beyond simple claims about the working of the Holy Spirit in Christ or in the Church to reflect on what the Holy Spirit reveals about the divine nature itself. Abelard takes Roscelin’s argument a stage further. the supreme good.

did God assume manhood and thus give a way for humanity to be redeemed. he questions the traditional assertion of the Athanasian Creed that each of the three di- vine persons is equally omnipotent. and prefers to go back to what he considers a more truly Aristotelian perspective on categories as voces or verbal ut- terances. Victor—that the Son is wisdom and the Holy Spirit divine love or goodness—by arguing that they proceed from the potentia. Like Anselm of Laon. above all by concupiscence. such as the word res for what is signified by a word. Abelard’s treatise presents itself as an alternative to the De trinitate of Boethius. William was convinced that the devil had a legitimate right (ius) over humanity as a result of Adam’s sexual transgression. Abelard is not satisfied with St. he had already distanced himself pro- foundly from the assumptions of both Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux about the fallen status of humankind. to grasp this insight. This initial exposition by Abelard on how God can be both a single. that emphasizes the compatibility of pagan philo- sophical tradition with Christian insight. can one counter arguments that are clearly wrong: “Out of your own mouth I judge you. when analyzing the doctrine of the Trinity. wicked servant” (Luke 19:22). In doing so. and in particular to pagan phil- osophical authority. While Abelard had not begun to write about the redemption. in particular through dialectic. Abelard is not fully comfortable with some of the specific terms used by Boethius. By emphasizing divine goodness to the world and the capacity of all humanity. Only through philosophical reasoning. Abelard’s way of resolving the issue is to expand upon a relatively familiar idea certainly mentioned by William of Champeaux and developed by Hugh of St. manifest in Boethius. Only through Christ. Anselm’s arguments against contemporary dialecticians in the De incarnatione Verbi because he does not address the key question that Roscelin had raised about the impor- tance of recognizing the necessary difference between God the Father and God the Son. for whom all human understanding had been distorted by original sin. in attempting to formulate orthodox doctrine against the errors of a more recent heretic. the trinity 117 arguments of those who attack rational belief. or potency. of the Father. Roscelin of Compie`gne. than any of the recorded teachings of William of Champeaux or Anselm of Laon. Abelard distances himself from the teaching of William of Champeaux. both male and female. undivided nature and yet also be described as a trinity of persons gives far more emphasis to the role of reason. He sympathizes with the desire of teachers such as Bernard and Thierry of Chartres to see the . born of a virgin without the pollution of sex. Abelard stands closer to an equally venerable theological tradition.

The noticeable growth in his familiarity with the writ- ings of Cicero may also have been facilitated by his discussions with He- loise. She continuously in- vokes God as the witness to the purity and sincerity of her love. that after the collapse of his physical relationship with . There can be no doubt. While the young Abelard vacillates in those early letters between professions of great passion and an occasional sense of guilt—as in letter 59. While Abelard never refers to the De inventione in his Dialectica. and thus should not be taken literally.118 abelard and heloise connections between Platonist and Christian teaching. “I am guilty who have forced you to sin”—she refuses to ac- knowledge that she has sinned. uses a very worldly experience to explain a key affect or dispo- sition of God. Abelard’s emphasis on the Holy Spirit as the benignity of God trans- mits an image of God not as a judge who punishes sin but as supreme goodness working through love. One student in particular was very interested in the wider range of classical authors that Abelard began to discuss in his writing on the Trin- ity. The letters of the young Heloise differ from those of her lover in the way that they continually fuse scriptural imagery with those of pagan writers about love and friendship. it is evident that Heloise frequently draws on the ethical wisdom of au- thors such as Macrobius. and invokes God as a fount of forgiveness. His comment about spiritus. He claims that in speaking of the Holy Spirit as the gift of the Father and the Son. Both from her later letters and from the Epistolae duorum amantium. namely. but emphasizes that Platonic forms are themselves utterances. and the Roman poets as fully consistent with Christian wisdom. Cicero’s authority is much more invoked in the Logica “Ingredientibus. his loving-kindness.” Cicero is the first philosophical authority to be invoked as proof of pagan witness to understanding God’s nature. as when we sigh out of love. Given that Abelard writes so much about the loving-kindness of God so soon after the collapse of his early relationship to Heloise. He composes a treatise that responds to her fascination with combining pagan and Christian wisdom in a way that he had not attempted before.” In the Theologia “Summi boni.48 It is impossible to be certain exactly how many of these insights he evolved during his shared reading of classical texts with Heloise. because her motives are pure. Augustine had described more an effect of the Holy Spirit than an affect or attribute of God. or breath. however. Cicero. without a real existence outside that which they inform. Abelard is unusual in stating so forcefully within a treatise of theology the case that these authors glimpsed some aspect of the supreme good. expressing “disposition of the spirit” (affectus animi). when he protests. he may be projecting his idealization of Heloise as ultimate goodness onto his image of God. without any sense that she is guilty of any sin.

Whether or not this meeting in Paris eventuated. which he mentions only at the con- clusion of the work. papal legate of both France and Germany. predestination. While not technically obliged to attend. He sought to continue a project to which she was always attached. to secure his con- demnation for heresy at Soissons is itself such a masterpiece of dramatic . such as about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son. the treatise concentrates only on the Trinity and leaves untouched many broader topics normally discussed in classes on theology. Some discussions seem to be written more for spe- cialists in dialectic familiar with Abelard’s reading of Porphyry and Ar- istotle than for students of theology. while other sec- tions. patristic tradition as studied by Anselm of Laon and his disciples.49 Abelard’s account of the machinations of two leading disciples of An- selm of Laon. and the incarnation—the central doctrine of Christian faith. Abelard made a major step forward in his thinking with the Theologia “Summi boni” and in the process developed some very original ideas. The discussion contains a number of in- dividual ideas that seem more like chance thoughts than clearly developed themes. such as providence. Alberic of Reims and Lotulf of Novara. as he belonged to the archdiocese of Sens rather than of Reims. Abelard’s treatise provoked a negative reaction from Roscelin of Com- pie`gne. were written very hastily. asking for an opportunity to demonstrate the heresies that he thought it con- tained. perhaps around 1120.” Certain passages. he was invited to attend a council being convened at Soissons under the aegis of Cardinal Conon of Palestrina. the trinity 119 her. notably the account of the generation of the Word from the Father in the third book. In March or April 1121. Abelard was guilty of the Sabellian heresy of conflating the identity of the three persons and not sufficiently respecting that these were three distinct things or subjects. the treatise generated more serious criticism from a different quarter. he became familiar with a far wider range of authors than studied within his own specialist discipline of dialectic. and commentary on the Platonist authors studied at Chartres—Abelard was endeavoring to create a new synthesis that would go much further than anything attempted by William of Champeaux. In Roscelin’s eyes. By attempting to connect three traditions of intellectual discourse—philosophical theology as de- bated by Anselm of Canterbury and Roscelin. Abelard asked the bishop to convene a public meeting at which he could defend himself against such outrageous claims. There are structural weaknesses within the Theologia “Summi boni. Nonetheless. who wrote to the bishop of Paris. are underdeveloped. he may have seen the assembly as an opportunity to refute his critics in public. Above all.

William develops a theology based not on reason but on the principle of amor. and as connected by friendship to the most powerful of these worldly clerics. Also present was William of St. even though they were very broad.51 Papal approval of the Carta caritatis helped transform a fledgling circle of re- formed abbeys into a powerful new movement within the Church. Conon had turned down an invitation to be pope. newly appointed to the Abbey of St. In the process such persons also fail in their understanding of things in this world (physica) and of ethical behavior (ethica). above all. can ever attain to true theologia. archbishop of Vienne. and teachers were present at the Council of Soissons. William of Champeaux. 1075–1145). . Henry V. composed perhaps between 1121 and 1124. Many senior ecclesiastics. who signed a charter with Conon at Chaˆlons-sur-Marne in 1121. Per- haps alluding directly to Abelard in this treatise.53 In On the Nature and Dignity of Love. in excommunicating all those perceived to be enemies of the Church.-Thierry (ca. but promoted the election of Guido. Stephen of Garlande. which he understands to be of divine origin. who in 1120 succeeded his brother Anselm as sen- eschal of France. giving support to Alberic and Lotulf. the German emperor. as Pope Calixtus II (1119–1124) after the short-lived and turbulent papacy of Gelasius II (1118–1119).- Thierry in Reims and a friend of Bernard of Clairvaux. presided over in October 1119 by Pope Calixtus II.54 William sees no need to identify by name his pagan or Christian sources of inspiration. abbots. It was one of a series of ecclesiastical assemblies convened by Conon and presided over by the archbishop of Reims to assert the independence of ecclesiastical authority from the secular arm and to reform the clergy.52 His critics perceived Abelard as embodying the values of corrupt clergy. bishop of Chartres. The accusations against Abelard mounted at Soissons constituted only a minor issue at the council and were deferred to its final day.50 Conon and William of Champeaux played a key role at the Council of Reims.120 abelard and heloise narrative that the broader context of what was happening at that council can easily be overlooked. he questions whether those who simply rely on their own reason to understand “the invisible things of God. including Geoffrey. and in giving official support to the newly established orders of Cıˆteaux and Pre´montre´. is very likely to have been present at the assembly. or contemplation of God. and Thierry of Chartres.” without an understanding of love. whose monks William later describes as like the sons of the prophets. Its major role was to implement the reforming agenda of the Church: that no ecclesiastical office should be dependent on lay authority and that no cleric of the rank of subdeacon or above should be allowed to keep a wife or mistress. the followers of Elisha.

the trinity 121 His core inspiration is Paul’s text about the invisible things of God being revealed in creation. whose definition of . William alludes to the phrase of the Roman play- wright Terence about not considering anything human to be foreign to the enlightened soul to explain that this is the product of amor naturalis. Otto’s account. both as it should be in Christ and as it is in fallen humanity. the more they misunderstand the true greatness of God. They saw themselves as the true successors to Anselm of Laon but were disturbed that students were now beginning to be attracted by the schools of Paris. Abelard recalls in the Historia calamitatum how he pointed to a passage in Augus- tine’s De trinitate that supported his position entirely. of confusing the three divine persons with each other). Abelard singled out two disciples of Anselm of Laon. Otto of Freising claims that the charge against Abelard was the quite different Sabellian heresy of equating the person of the Father with the Son. Geoffrey. provoking further hostility from Alberic. In the one other extant report of the Council of Soissons. Worried that they would lose their influence if the case went out of their diocese. that the first accusation that William made against Abelard in 1140—that he attributed omnipotence to the Father alone and not to the Son or the Holy Spirit—echoes very closely the accusation that Ab- elard reports was made at Soissons by “a certain person. Alberic of Reims and Lotulf of Novara. however. Alberic and Lotulf urged the papal legate to have Abelard condemned and imprisoned in a monastery. who accused Abelard of denying God could beget God. the very same charge that had been made thirty years earlier against Roscelin of Compie`gne (who accused Abelard of the opposite heresy. how- ever.” Questioning the omnipotence of all three persons of the Trinity was tantamount to chal- lenging the authority of the Church as a whole to define orthodox doc- trine.-Denis. bishop of Chartres. There is a con- sistent polemical strain in William’s writing that emphasizes that the more philosophers aim at the goal of wisdom.56 They apparently spread rumors that Abelard was preaching that there were three gods. may have been influenced by his sympathy for the theological perspective of Roscelin of Compie`gne. natural love for someone without expectation of any reward. as particularly responsible for the campaign against him.-Thierry spoke up against Abelard at the Council of Soissons is not known. It is noteworthy.55 He is fas- cinated by the interaction of body and soul in the human person. Once he arrived in the city. Abelard started to lecture in public to both a lay and clerical audience. Whether William of St. spoke on Abelard’s behalf and suggested that the case be ex- amined in more detail after Abelard had returned to his own abbey at St.

urge.-Me´dard did not last more than a few days. Goswin’s preaching apparently provoked Abelard to complain. The result was that Abelard was forced to burn his own treatise. he would need stronger arguments than he had raised in that initial version of his treatise on the Trinity. Abelard claims that hostility toward Conon was so great that the papal legate subsequently repented of his action and agreed to allow Abelard to return to St. and praise honesty so much? There are many who argue so much about the types of honesty but who do not know what honesty is.- Genevie`ve. it seems likely that Abelard’s report is the more accurate. . he applied himself to working in the rich library.” Goswin recalled how he forced Abelard into submission with a telling line: “You have not experienced what being aware of honesty really is. They needed to be based not just on reason but also on authority.-Me´dard in Soissons. and to be held in confinement at the Ab- bey of St. Goswin subsequently recalled a conversation at St.-Denis. This confinement at St. In this situation. but does take care to justify why he attributes potency to the Father alone.122 abelard and heloise the three divine persons as three distinct things is claimed by Otto to be the orthodox teaching of the Church. to recite the Athanasian Creed with its familiar lines of all three persons of the Trinity being omnipotent. as well as Goswin’s pleasure in refuting someone always committed to argument.”58 The exchange neatly encapsulates Abelard’s frustration at the time with monastic theorizing about ethics. Abelard was aware that if he was going to answer the criticisms raised at Soissons. who had challenged Abelard a decade earlier at the school of Mont Ste.-Me´dard that highlights Abelard’s criticism of contemporary discussion of ethics.57 Because Abelard never responds to this particular accusation when revising the Theologia Christiana. collecting texts that would make up the Sic et non. “Why do you preach. presumably still under restriction not to teach. The prior of that abbey was Goswin.

He also laid the scholarly foun- dation for a synthesis of theological ideas that he would develop more fully in the 1130s. the Paraclete. he shifted from Latin to Greek terminology. from divinitas to theologia. 123 . he formulated more clearly his own attitude toward a wide range of questions that demanded his atten- tion. he was anxious to improve what he had to say about the nature and attributes of God. In the process of distancing himself from the authority of Latin patristic tradition. In familiarizing himself with their writings. 7 A Christian Theologia T he years following Abelard’s condemnation at Soissons in 1121 wit- nessed a new phase in the evolution of his career and thought marked by a deepening critique of ecclesiastical authority coupled with an inten- sified devotion to the Holy Spirit. and focused more intensely on the consoling power of the Holy Spirit. While his major commitment during these years was still to completing a body of philosophical writing about lan- guage and understanding. Abelard’s failure to per- suade the assembled ecclesiastics of his arguments drove him to defend his arguments with a much deeper knowledge of the Church Fathers. not just about God and redemption but about the Church and the foundations of the ethical life.

he explains that Denis told Paul about the unknown god at Athens. had taught Paul about the unknown God than in the writings (in fact from the sixth century) attributed to him.”3 Abelard never quotes directly from the writings attributed to Denis the Areopagite. Certain monks took ex- ception to his discovering that a statement by Bede. whom he describes as “the greatest of the philosophers. Abelard provides more detail about this debate in a learned letter to Abbot Adam.124 abelard and heloise The Debate about the Identity of Denis the Areopagite Not long after Abelard was sent back to St. unless there were two different bishops of Corinth. not on imaginative reconstructions. according to the Acts of the Apostles (17:34). a city famous for its intellectual life. Bede must have been mistaken.” and a martyr for his faith. They apparently reported to the abbot that Abelard was claiming that Bede’s authority was greater than that of Hilduin.2 In the Theologia Christiana. which gives patristic authority for the claims made by Hil- duin. The argument was not about the authorship of the writings attributed to Denis the Areopagite but about the authority of their own traditions. Abelard turns instead to Eusebius of Caesarea and to Jerome. per- haps in the 1130s. apostle of Gaul. reporting that there were no physical sacrifices at this altar apart from tears and prayers.1 Avoiding all reference to Hilduin’s highly imaginative biography of Denis. an argument with other monks developed over suspicions that he was questioning the iden- tity of their patron saint. a pagan philosopher. What mat- ters is that arguments have to be based on authoritative testimony.4 Abelard was more interested in the idea that Denis. They were also quoted by Thierry of Chartres (who also drew on texts attributed to Hermes Trismegistus).-Denis. whom they claimed was Denis the Areopagite. translated and commented upon by Scotus Eriugena in the ninth century but not widely known until Hugh of St. “the sac- rifice of the Brahmins. that Denis had been bishop of Corinth. two authorities whom he believed had greater authority than Bede and who both asserted that Denis was bishop of Athens. contradicted the claim of Hilduin that their patron saint had been bishop of Athens before becoming bishop of Paris. the pagan philosopher at Athens converted by the preaching of Paul. thereby impugning not only the identity of their patron saint but the very dignity of the kingdom.-Victor wrote his own commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy. Abelard subsequently composed two hymns in honor of Denis. .

-Ayoul helped Abelard obtain a sympathetic hearing from Count Theobald. Anselm of Laon was aware that contradictory texts could be used to promote argument. and even more in his Ingredientibus commentaries on Por- phyry and Aristotle. but had insisted that the true scholar should penetrate beyond verbal quibbling: “Discussing correct meanings belongs to men. . . in Provins. Abelard was disturbed not just by the personal animosity of other monks at St. the nimble are stretched. In the eleventh century. The prior of St. Within his Dialectica. In the late eleventh century. that he started to compile probably while at St. but they are not contradictory. In 1098. broke away from his abbey to establish an even stricter monastic community at Cıˆteaux. the arrogant argue. a dependency of Montier-la-Celle in Troyes. Ivo of Chartres had created anthologies of sometimes discordant patristic texts to help clerics and lawyers formulate decisions that were in accord with the oldest and most authoritative traditions of the Church. mostly from Scripture and the Fathers. had accepted the same rela- tively austere monastic reforms as Molesme. . he decided to escape from the abbey and take refuge with friends at St. himself a supporter of the cause of monastic reform .-Denis but by the worldliness of their way of life. he considered them to be hypocrites in their interpretation of the Rule of Benedict. Having been so impressed by the ethical sincerity of Heloise.”5 While Abelard agrees with these principles. he goes further in arguing that ancient authorities not only differed among themselves but sometimes were mistaken in their judg- ments. Anselm of Laon is never as explicitly critical of tradition.-Denis. the experi- enced—who quickly show to the weak that things which seem to disagree actually harmonize—are excluded.-Ayoul.-Ayoul.-Ayoul. The sen- tences of all catholics may be different. home of Count Theobald of Champagne. after the burning of his treatise at Soissons. With the help of certain brothers and various students. however. a collection of texts. while arguing about words is an affair of boys. who only understand a fraction of what they say or hear. some things may sound like opposites and conflicts through which the weak may be scandalized. in words. a former prior of St. Robert of Molesme. St. a christian theologia 125 The Sic et non Abelard’s letter to Abbot Adam neatly illustrates the principles that he formulates in his prologue to the Sic et non. Abelard had argued that Boethius had often followed “the opinion of others” and that therefore his interpretations should not be followed blindly. as they come together into one harmony. The principle of finding harmony behind conflicting testimony was not in itself original.

He recalls that he was soon joined by a number of students. founded only in 1115. The community that gathered around Abelard on the banks of the Ardusson. By devoting his oratory to the Paraclete in particular. Abelard broadened his reading to a far wider range of patristic authors. While Abelard originally dedicated the chapel that he and his disciples constructed to the Holy Trinity. In the early twelfth century. helped negotiate this arrangement. 1122) of Suger as the new abbot of St. 1122) and the accession (March 12. acknowledged differences of interpretation in . the most popular dedication of newly built churches was to the Virgin Mary. Instead of thinking about God simply as a Trinity of persons. he now devoted to the Holy Spirit. dean of Ste. the Comforter or Holy Spirit. It lasted some five years. Abelard was al- lowed to construct a small chapel or oratory on land that he had been given by unnamed benefactors. With the support of Hato. was much less successful. until internal problems and external political pressure forced him to abandon the experiment in 1127. While anthologies such as Ivo’s Decretum and the Sententie Magistri A.126 abelard and heloise within the territory in his control. William of St. The energy he once invested on Heloise. Abelard was officially released from obedience to the new abbot on the proviso that he not attach himself to any other abbey.-Genevie`ve and principal counselor to the king. the newly appointed bishop of Troyes (and former dean of the cathedral of Sens. Abelard empha- sizes that aspect of divinity which had inspired and sustained not just the Virgin but creation itself. No longer content with quoting Augustine. he subsequently rededicated it specifically to the Paraclete. Stephen of Garlande. not far from Provins. After the death of Adam (January 19. Rededicating the oratory to the Paraclete sig- naled a distinct deepening in his theological perspective during the years immediately after the Council of Soissons.-Denis that would never be resolved.-Denis.-Thierry used this image to describe the primitive idealism of the early years of Clairvaux. Abelard was articulating his own intensely personal devotion to God as the supreme goodness that gives consolation to all humanity. This was a controversial move. who left “towns and castles” to devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom on the model of “the sons of the prophets” (2 Kings 2:1–7). to whom all monasteries following the Cistercian ordo were automatically consecrated. where Abelard had held a canonry). provoking an estrangement with the abbot of St. which he defends at some length in the Historia calamitatum. whom Jerome had described as the original monks. the divine goodness that had settled on the Virgin and thus had generated Jesus as the Son of God. The controversy that Abelard encountered at Soissons forced him to argue much more from the authority of written texts.

or ancestry” (Heb. The practice of examining and comparing apparently contradictory texts had already been practiced in the school of Anselm of Laon. He recalls that Gregory the Great had recognized that prophets and saints were not always infallible. he argues that one must never assume that a single definition of truth has final authority. to argue that caritas is ultimately more important than any single version of the truth that anyone might put forward.” as cited by Ivo of Chartres.76). “Have charity. the true concern of all the Scriptures relates to the love of God and the love of neighbor. It was not mendacity. he applies this principle to Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers. Abelard transfers traditional advice. “In everything. or were said “more according to the opinion of men than according to the truth of things.7 Acutely aware that theological disagreement frequently provokes bitterness and hatred. Whereas he had previously focused on dialectical argument.6 Abelard quotes the phrase of Augustine.” helps explain how variety often makes discourse more attractive. who had argued in a riposte to Abelard written around 1120 that the saints and Fathers of the Church had themselves sometimes been . such as Jerome’s warning about unreliable apocryphal texts. he now appreciates the rhetorical foundation of theological testimony. Abelard argued that all their writing needed to be scrutinized in the light of reason. Abelard provides a theoretical basis for this process. sameness is the mother of excess. 7:3). As an example of phrases in Scripture that cannot be literally true. “Your father and I have been worried looking for you” (Luke 2:48) and “Melchizedek had no father or mother. if saints made claims at variance with truth. He may be drawing here on Ros- celin. As Au- gustine had argued. Augustine’s acknowledgment in his Retracta- tiones that he had said a number of things in error shows how a recognized authority might admit that he could be wrong. Cicero. they never claimed that a Church Father or scrip- tural writer might be mistaken on any point. to scriptural passages that might be erroneous if taken literally.41. A favorite quotation from Cicero’s De inventione (1. a christian theologia 127 ecclesiastical tradition. as when Peter was refuted by Paul. and Augustine to explain how writers often vary their discourse for the sake of engaging a wide audience.” Abelard quotes Mary’s comment to the young Jesus. He draws on the combined authority of Priscian. All else is superfluous. and do whatever you wish. however. In the Sic et non. so he claims that statements made by Scripture or the Fathers do not signify objective realities. Having already argued that words and statements do not au- tomatically signify some objective reality or “thing” out there in the world. Just as Abelard had theorized within his dialectic that what was pro- claimed by a statement was not a thing.

Doubting about individual things is not useless.” Reading makes one a judge rather than a disciple. a position that causes . expresses his own doubt.8 While Augustine had spoken about questioning as part of the process of understanding.” To buttress this claim. mostly about faith in God. Christ.” In his Dialectica. “Test everything.”9 Within the prologue to the Sic et non.128 abelard and heloise mistaken. “that philosopher. so that the certitude that he does not yet have may follow.. Abelard had presented questioning as es- sential to dialectical inquiry in distinguishing truth from falsehood. he is more aware that truth is beyond easy definition and that all statements should be scrutinized and questioned rather than simply accepted without think- ing. 5:21). At the very end of this prologue. “Seek and you shall find.” from his Categories: “Perhaps it is difficult to assert confidently about these things. although they never set out to deceive. in particular relating to the divine nature. 7:7). Abelard suggests that the Fathers of Church or the authors of Scripture might be wrong. In the Sic et non. The earliest version contains eighteen ques- tions. about whether God and man are parts in Christ. and the structure of the Church that may have been used by Anselm of Laon. the sacraments. he quotes not Augustine but Aristotle. keep what is good” (1 Thess. By dubitare Abelard means doubting in the sense of being uncertain rather than skeptical about truth. and provides further support for argu- ments raised in the Theologia “Summi boni.” Only its last question. but often justify why he departs from a traditional argument. Abelard’s anthology is notable from the outset for pointing out the di- versity of patristic opinion about a broader scope of issues. an anthology of patristic texts re- lating to more basic questions about God. that she take care with what she reads. Abelard raises a far wider range of questions than presented in the Sententie Magistri A. all the texts quoted under question 9 about whether or not God is a substance affirm that God is beyond substance. knock and it will be opened to you” (Matt. Abelard draws on another scriptural passage. he invariably associ- ates the confidence of belief with the absence of doubt or uncertainty. to formulate his own principle: “It is by doubting that we come to inquiry.10 The texts that he chooses are not necessarily contra- dictory. He gives philosophical depth to Ivo’s injunctions about caritas as the basis of critical enquiry. For example. “One who asks. most perspicacious of all people. by inquiry we per- ceive truth. He advises his reader to follow Jerome’s counsel to Laeta about educating her daughter. Abelard comes up with a pithy definition that subtly articulates his sense of the importance of dialectic: “[T]he first key of wisdom is defined as regular and frequent questioning. unless they have often been considered. relates to material not covered in that treatise.

preserved in two manuscripts alongside the Theologia Christiana. such as a passage from Boethius’s De differentiis topicis. By the late 1120s. After many questions relating to the nature and attributes of God.12 While he may have been thinking about all these questions during his time at the Paraclete. Very occasionally. he probably worked on both compositions at about the same time. in the same way as recorded within his sententie. The privileged position he accords to caritas in the third part of the Sic et non is signif- icant. beginning with God and the creation of both angels and humanity. The Sic et non effectively signals the theological direction that Abelard wants his students to consider. organized very broadly into three main sections: faith in God and in Christ. quite possibly over a number of years. a christian theologia 129 a reader to reassess the traditional definition. to explain what he means by substance. as it may suggest that he was already using the concept to provide a basis for his ethical teaching. and dealing in turn with original sin and the Old Testament. gives . Abelard had almost certainly already expanded the initial recension of the Sic et non into a much larger anthology. His selection of specific texts. Abelard organizes quotations from the Fathers and from Scripture (with a very small handful of treasured pagan texts) into about ninety questions.11 Exactly when Abelard started to enlarge the Sic et non is not certain. the sacraments of the Church. in particular about whether one can be saved without the water of baptism (SN 106) and whether the Eucharist is essentially the true flesh and blood of Christ (SN 117). taken down by students in the 1130s. there are questions about the status of Christ. This follows the internal organization of the Nicene Creed. we have no firm record of his resolution of these issues prior to students recording his sententie in the 1130s. Because many of the same series of quotations also occur within the Theo- logia Christiana. culminating with the last judgment and life to come. the most widely known summary of Christian belief. and pastoral issues of right and wrong behavior. Simply raising a question such as whether the humanity of Christ grew in wisdom or not emphasizes the humanity of Jesus (as in Luke 2:52) against traditional theological claims about the fullness of Christ’s wisdom. In the initial expanded version of the Sic et non. such as about baptism (SN 106). that God is one substance but multiple in persons. are culled directly from the Decretum of Ivo of Char- tres. in particular whether he is created or coeternal with God. Abelard includes a favorite philosophical text. Most patristic anthol- ogies from the period tend to be organized according to a standard frame- work. with which he concludes. the coming of Christ to free humanity from sin. and charity as the foundation of ethical behavior. the sacra- ments. Many of the opinions that he supplies about baptism and Eucharist.

picks up precisely the observation raised by Heloise in her early discussion of love with Abelard. Passages of Au- gustine about the primacy of love provide a key source of inspiration. Many of the quo- tations about baptism emphasize that water is not in itself necessary for salvation. Very often Abelard challenges fa- miliar patristic texts quoted by Ivo by raising others that present an al- ternative perspective. Abelard effectively points out that the standard judgments on many issues need to be subject to reasoned questioning. and whether charity once acquired is ever lost. he adds many passages from Augustine’s De bono coniugali which imply that intercourse is not sinful in itself. about whether love (dilectio) of neighbor embraces all people. not found at all in Ivo of Char- tres. as well as in evaluating the implication that of Paul’s statement that of the three virtues—faith.” “That human intercourse can be without sin or not. To a single text provided by Ivo about whether sexual intercourse can ever be without sin (SN 130). about whether or not marriage is good. based on the ideals of dilectio and caritas. Abelard quotes from the De doctrina Christiana to urge that we should do so not for any personal gain but for an eternal reward. anticipating Abelard’s response to the last of Heloise’s Problemata.” he implicitly raises issues on which Ivo of Chartres and Anselm of Laon had delivered answers that they had thought defin- itive.130 abelard and heloise some clue as to the opinions he is inclined to favor. Many of the opinions that he quotes in this part of the Sic et non he discusses more fully in the Collationes.14 SN 136. and charity—only charity will endure. hope. none of which had been raised by Ivo.” “That it is legitimate to have a concubine or not. evident in the case of the good thief. in particular Augustine’s critique of the Stoic doctrine that all virtues and vices are effectively equal. These passages effectively announce a central thread of his eth- ical teaching. Abelard introduces three questions (SN 136–38). In a departure from his normal practice. whether charity alone is said to be a virtue. contrasts Jerome’s negative view with the more positive emphasis of Augustine. One (SN 135).13 The third section of the Sic et non begins with a quite original series of questions about caritas. After the texts relating to the sacraments and sexual morality. namely. in practice we love with special concern those who are particularly tied to us. Abelard draws extensively on Ivo for many passages about virginity and marriage. whom Christ acknowl- edged would be with him in paradise. that although we are enjoined to love everyone. about whether the love of neighbor is enjoined on all men. Abelard is particularly interested in Augustine’s comments about different types of love. Abelard quotes a passage from . By applying titles to individual sections such as “That the sins of the Fathers are passed onto their sons or not.

questions first put to him by Heloise. also repeated in the Collationes. He still thinks. imitating Augustine and Boethius. In doing so. followed by two passages from Cicero about friendship. In his early response to Heloise. he now situates this love more within the context of Christian caritas. One is from the De inventione. is precisely the same passage that the young Abelard employed in the Epistolae duorum amantium to answer Heloise’s question about the nature of love. he introduces a series of texts in which Augustine defines the relationship of amor. Quoting Cicero more accurately in the Sic et non. perhaps from the late 1120s or early 1130s. The Theologia Christiana Preparing the Sic et non helped Abelard give new depth to his treatise about the nature of God as a Trinity of persons. Abelard named it his Theologia . An anthology that might seem to be simply a summary of quotations from Scripture and the Fathers in fact provides valuable insight into the gestation of his thinking about true ethics. to define amor. that this perfect love can be experienced in this world and is not just an otherworldly ideal. This is clearly a passage of great importance to Abelard. a christian theologia 131 Cicero’s De officiis about prudence as useless without justice alongside an even longer passage from Augustine challenging the Stoic view that all vices and all virtues are of equal merit. recip- rocated in equal measure. although here quoted more accurately. he did not begin to raise his own ideas on the topic until the Collationes.15 The other. In SN 138. from the De amicitia. Cicero uses caritas in a more intimate sense than in Christian usage. Abelard had drawn on Cicero’s defi- nition. that true love was based on a union of wills. Cicero declares that close friendship is of such power that it is something compressed into such a restricted space that true caritas is to be found in either two people alone or among just a very few people. While he had been thinking about caritas as the foun- dation of all ethics in the Sic et non. Many of the patristic texts about love that follow this passage all reinforce the theme that charity is the foundation of virtue and once acquired can never be lost. dilectio. he had slightly modified Cicero’s language in order to explain that two identical wills were the same through being “not different” rather than of the same essence. Exactly when Abelard in- cluded these passages about love within his longer version of the Sic et non is unknown. however. and caritas. defining friendship as positive will toward another for the sake of that person’s good. Instead of calling it a De trinitate.

The passage attributed to Maximus seems to support the claim that the Father is powerful in the sense that he does not depend on the Son or Holy Spirit to exist. representing both love of God and love of neighbor. namely.17 Abelard is particularly interested in Maximus’s statement that God the Father is omnipotent. Abelard understands the term theologia in the Boethian sense. One of these less well-known authors who comes to occupy a crucial role for Abelard is Maximus of Turin. He also comments in great detail on those passages of Plato’s Timaeus that describe the world soul as giving life to the world. to supporting his claim that “Holy Spirit” names divine goodness or benignity.20 In seeking out philosophical as well as scriptural and patristic texts that support his argument. In an unusual reading of the phrase “I came to bring fire on earth” (Luke 12:49). He sees the key divine attribute not as power but as benevolent love. and good. he suggests.19 He is aware that Augustine in his De trinitate had understood the Holy Spirit as the perfect love of the Father and Son. he corrects an earlier misattribution of a passage to Augustine. as distinct from teaching about Christ or sacraments. By specifying that he is expounding a Christian theologia.16 In the Theologia Christiana. whether described as amor. or benignity. theologia. To deflect potential criticism of his method. but he interprets this love more as God’s goodness to the world. caritas. he finds passages of Augustine that demonstrate his interest in secular philosophy. reassigning it to Gennadius of Marseille. more rhetorical style employed by Hugh of St.132 abelard and heloise Christiana. Abelard’s attribution of power to the Father alone was more controversial. to Christian ends. initiating a style of quotation of patristic texts very different from the unencumbered. as discourse about the divine nature. In the previous version of his . Abelard departs significantly from Augustine.-Victor.-Victor had not caused a ripple by claiming that God is powerful. Abelard clarifies that he is appropriating a pagan discipline. wise. Abelard counters accusations of unorthodoxy by finding patristic texts that fit his argument. Abelard interprets this fire as caritas. Whereas Hugh of St. however. are particularly appropriate as an image of divine love because they are of a warmer nature and are often found as couples. He also replaces the word divini with theologi in order to fit in with his sense that Greek traditions of thought were ultimately more authentic than those of the Latins. who confines himself rigorously to scriptural and occasional patristic au- thority. Doves. because it counters the claim in the Athanasian Creed that all three persons are omnipotent. Abelard gives attention to a wide range of authors. In a subsequent revision of the Theologia Christiana.18 Abelard gives most attention.

constitute with David and Solomon “four wheels of the chariot of the great king.24 In a new second book of the Theologia Christiana. 16:23) and to compose psalms and gather together musical instruments in order to bind the com- munity together (1 Chron. and how music can calm troubled and inebriated young men. mythical king of the Brahmins (the Indians). working through creation. shaped by number. Abelard emphasizes much more than before that not only did the ancient philosophers of every culture grasp aspects of the divine nature through their reflection on the harmony of the created universe but they provide a better example . Abelard emphasizes its capacity to remind people of the fundamental goodness of the divine nature and the cosmic order. The image of the world soul shows “how all things live in the goodness of God” and that there is nothing evil or corrupt. Abelard’s summary is one of the earliest known efforts within theological literature to place wisdom from India on an equal footing with that from Jewish tradition. He now explains more carefully that Plato’s image of the world soul refers to the effect of the Holy Spirit. that King Nebuchadnezzar had glimpsed a figure like the Son of God in a dream. which itself is the affect or attribute of divine goodness. even in the 1120s. of how music can articulate the healing power of the Holy Spirit. Whereas Augustine had feared the potentially seductive effect of music.21 Plato’s phrases about the world soul being made out of what is both undivided and di- vided illuminate the way that the Spirit is both single and multiform. he had explained why the world soul could not be identified literally with the Holy Spirit but was rather an image or “covering” (involucrum) through which an aspect of the divine nature was revealed. 15:16).23 While stories about Brahmin piety would become popular within vernacular literature in subsequent centuries. namely. as everything is ordered through divine goodness. a christian theologia 133 treatise on the Trinity.22 Another illustration of the Holy Spirit as manifest in music are the cases of David using music to make an evil spirit depart from Saul (1 Sam. he was already keenly aware. This becomes a grander notion that Nebuchadnezzar and Dindi- mus. quoted in such a way as to pass over Jerome’s other remarks about their remoteness from Christ. Whether or not he had already composed his biblical la- ments.” Abelard’s information about the piety and asceticism of Dindimus and the Brahmins comes from an apocryphal letter to Alexander the Great as well as from certain comments made by Jerome. Abelard also quotes from the De musica of Boethius to show how the universe is permeated by a sublime order. The first book of the Theologia Christiana concludes with Abelard ex- panding on an idea he had mentioned in the earlier treatise.

than urge a reform of natural law. as well as from reports by Augustine and Jerome. This leads him to expand on the ethical aspect of pagan teaching.-Thierry at about the same time. To those who might claim that they were driven more by the love of virtue (amore virtutis) than by the love of God (amore Dei). but urges strict fidelity to the Rule of Benedict rather than imi- tation of the ancient philosophers as the best way to renew the monastic life. gleaning in- formation from Macrobius’s Dream of Scipio and Plato’s Timaeus. He documents examples of what he considers to be three great themes expounded by the ancient philos- ophers: renunciation. the embodiment of righteous- ness. whose teaching he summarizes in the Theologia Christiana. In his Apologia. not in any written law. and always desire what is denied. whether married or ascetic. is used as evidence that the ancient philosophers were distinguished in both their lives and their teaching. “We strive for what is forbidden. magnanimity. and urges communities to be bound together by fraternal charity according to the rule of equity: “Love your neighbor as yourself. concentrating instead on how carefully the philosophers discuss virtue and vice in their writings.26 Abelard deliberately avoids any reference to original sin. they devour food from exquisite vessels. eating simple fare. Bernard of Clairvaux is even more eloquent in his mockery of monastic luxury.31 Abelard’s preferred authorities on ethics were the ancient philosophers. implicitly taken for granted by Heloise in her early love letters.29 Abelard imag- ines the ancient philosophers as exhorting citizens to various ways of life. an issue barely touched on in the Theologia “Summi boni.25 This differs greatly from the emphasis of sentences attributed to William of Champeaux about the reality of original sin and humanity’s need for the redeeming grace of Christ.” The allusion to Suger’s love of opulence is hard to miss.” Abelard argues that Paul’s comment about the Invisibilia Dei being revealed to the pagans supports the notion that righteousness (justitia) has its origin in natural law. he retorts that both are driven by love of the supreme good. and continence. . He recalls that Ovid had just as acute a sense of the weakness of human nature as Augustine.28 The moral precepts of the gospel do nothing more. Many of his argu- ments about continence and the dangers of marriage are quite traditional. when he quipped in the Amores. and quotes extensively from Augustine to prove his point. he argues.”30 Examples of ancient virtue should make abbots responsible for guiding monastic life “blush and come to their senses when in the sight of their brethren. itself followed by the philosophers. addressed to William of St.”27 This kind of insight.134 abelard and heloise of ascetic virtue than many monks of his own day.

His account of how Solomon took seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3) is particularly vivid: “Solomon. Like Bernard of Clairvaux. Perhaps inspired by admiration for Heloise’s learning. although it is not uncommon in Horace and Martial.”32 The word cunnum is unknown in patristic theological litera- ture. She subsequently criticized Abelard not for attributing these arguments to her but for passing over her other arguments about love being more important than marriage. While Abelard certainly used this passage of the Theologia Christiana to find arguments justifying the ascetic state. as it was inexcusable in his own con- science. whom lust brought low to such idolatry that it was as if in that idol—and what is most foul. David. as quoted in Jerome’s Contra Iovi- nianum. He concludes his polemic against worldliness with a polemical rebuke against corruption in the Church. in her speech warning against mar- riage. I shall report foully—the cunt of a gentile woman was more revered through lust than the idol through ignorance. where under the cover of religion and prayer. The passages in the Theologia Christiana about the distractions of sex and marriage represent Abelard’s own desire to shake off the reputation of his sexual misbehavior. Abelard also draws extensively from Theophrastus. a christian theologia 135 even if expressed with unusual vigor. Countering . he presents the example of learned and philosophical women such as the Sybils. the daughters of Diodorus So- craticus. to prove that the ancient philosophers saw marriage as beset by dangers and inconveniences.) The third and fourth books of the Theologia Christiana enlarge the rhetorical and technical aspects of the second and third books of the Theologia “Summi boni” with further detail. the effect being all the worse. and Solomon had all been brought low by women. the greatest of the wise. we cannot be certain whether Heloise actually used this text when arguing against marriage. His polemic against unnamed dialecticians who abuse dialectic through their garrulity and obstinacy— certainly an allusion to Roscelin—is even more extreme. and other learned women mentioned by Jerome. one wonders if he is not alluding to his own past when he suggests that Samson. the Milesian virgins.33 The vigor with which Abelard quotes philosophical testimony about the dangers of incontinence and the threat of worldliness creeping into sacred places testifies to his strong desire in the 1120s to distance himself from his earlier reputation as a womanizer.34 (Whether this refers to sexual abandon or simply to liturgical extravagance is not clear. Abelard excoriates such extravagance and profanation of the Church of God. in a number of passages that he attributes to Heloise in the Historia calamitatum. Given Abelard’s past experience. “the rites of Venus” are performed.

Abelard also reinforces his earlier discussion of possible modes of identity and difference.36 The modifications and additions that Abelard makes to this part of his treatise show that he is still interested in analyzing statements about God.38 His underlying message is the same: that signification is not a product of any physical sound but is a consequence of putting together these physical sounds in the mind of the person who is speaking. in which he defines a universal not as a vox but as a sermo. He also makes some additional comments. who had argued this point at Soissons in 1121. or talk signifying some understanding of a subject.” he holds that these pseudo- intellectuals are too full of their own learning to understand that God’s nature is beyond definition. is effectively “God from God” (as implied by the Nicene Creed). Ab- elard also counters the arguments of those who claim that faith cannot be based on any reasoning. “counted in our times as true catholics for their thoroughness in the teaching of the Scriptures. he needs to present arguments of his own. in order to strengthen his argument that con- ventional modes of difference do not apply to the divine nature. whom he accuses of simply being concerned with twisting words. For example. The new terminology defines the contrast between his own understanding of language as having to do with whole phrases. Abelard also distances himself from any attempt to consider divine attributes as entities separate from God. bishop of Angers. even while also beginning to develop his thinking about ethical issues. Some technical modifications that Abelard makes show that he is transferring subtle improvements in his presentation of dialectic to the- ology. At the same time. in a passage in which he quotes from Aristotle’s Per- iermeneias.” clearly directed against Alberic of Reims.37 Abelard resists Alberic’s arguments that Christ. a theme already hinted at in the Sic et non. He rebukes several teachers. Abelard replaces voces with sermones when explaining that words do not have the same meaning everywhere for everybody. who apparently argued this on the basis of Priscian’s definition that a .35 Genuine inquiry leads to awareness that the divine mystery cannot be defined with reasoning. The same shift in terminology occurs in his revision of his gloss on Porphyry’s Isa- goge. To counter their false reasoning. such as about the impossibility of say- ing that “God could beget God. he claims that this is the view held by Ulger.” for holding such a position.39 Later in the treatise. He now draws on the De trinitate of Boethius to argue that God is beyond substance.136 abelard and heloise “their puerile opinions with sound reasoning. as the Son of God. Against Roscelin he argues that God is single in his nature (not that Roscelin rejected this point). and that of Roscelin.

41 In using such emotive language. who unsuccessfully sought help from Bernard of Clairvaux in 1126 in trying to obtain the bishopric of Chaˆlons-sur-Marne. He analyzes patristic texts to demonstrate that statements about the identity or difference between one divine person and another should never be construed as assertions about distinct things. bishop of Angers (1126–1148). holding it to be against the spirit of Aristotle. He may also be distancing himself from the attempt of Gilbert of Poitiers (ca. 1075–1154). Anselm when arguing against Roscelin) and the need to answer their threat. to explain more clearly the reasoning and lim- itations behind what he insists is no more than an analogy about an ultimately indefinable divine nature. many of whom had been influenced by William of Champeaux. One was Ulger.”40 Abelard objects to what he con- siders an inappropriate attempt to apply a grammatical distinction to lan- guage about God. Abelard’s caricatures of contemporary “heretics” reveal that by the mid- 1120s the discipline of theology was becoming an increasingly crowded field with a multiplicity of distinguished voices. To philosophically minded critics. Abelard wrote for a small group of disciples who agreed with his criticisms. Abelard is uncomfortable with the assump- tion that an abstract form has an existence separate from that which it predicates. From another point of view.-Victor. The additional arguments that Abelard includes in the fourth book confirm his continuing interest in questions of discourse during these years. not found at all in the writing of Hugh of St. since a thing could turn out differently from how God planned it (a criticism of the . who did not accept his rejection of the assumption that a word signifies its res. He completely rewrites the most controversial section of the Theologia “Summi boni. Abelard’s comparison of the relationship between Father and Son as like that be- tween genus and species might imply that Christ is less than fully divine. rather than for the wider cler- ical community. Another was Alberic of Reims. however. Abelard ignored the risk that he was provoking his critics to turn such rhetoric against himself. to distinguish between “that which is” (id quod) and “that by which something is” (id quo). He introduces this section with apocalyptic warnings about the imminent danger presented by contem- porary heresies (more alarmist than that of St.42 Abelard also reports that he knows someone “of no small reputation” who holds that God could be deceived.” the discussion of the relationship between the Word of God and God the Father. a christian theologia 137 noun signifies “substance and quality. who taught in Chartres throughout the 1120s. this seemed to imply the heresy of Sabellius (as it did to Otto of Freising and Gilbert of Poitiers) that the divine persons were effectively identical. Unlike Hugh.

Neither of these elements in a relationship can exist without the other. as it could be seen as implying that the divine persons all share a single substance. Anselm for using an Augustinian analogy of the Trinity as like a spring. His theological argument draws heavily on his philosophy of language. who once taught in Paris but then moved to Soissons.45 Abelard expects his readers to understand his teaching as being about language as much as about theology. or a particular wax image relates to wax itself. Inevitably. such as a “reconsid- eration of the Book of Parts. He explains that the under- standings generated by words are not real understandings but “estima- tions” of what someone might consider to be the case.138 abelard and heloise notion that a modal statement refers to a thing).44 He also refers to philosophical discussion on matter and form. He even criticizes St.47 All the grand words and phrases used of the divine nature might equally generate un- derstandings that are ambiguous or misleading if taken out of the context in which they were made. and a pond to point out its limitations. namely. Joscelin of Vierzy. Abelard’s comparison can be con- strued as emphasizing that Christ is less than fully divine. These are perhaps references to Bernard and Thierry of Char- tres.46 This elaboration of ideas raised by Aristotle’s Periermeneias is related to Abelard’s deepening awareness of the lack of objectivity in all linguistic assertion.” quite possibly a rewriting of the lost first section of the Dialectica about the various parts of speech. Our only insight into his thinking about language at the time of the Theologia Christiana is the Tractatus de intellectibus. where he became its bishop in 1126 and rose to become an influential adviser to the king. “even a woman”. The most delicate issue that Abelard has to consider is exactly how the eternal Son of God relates to God the Father without being accused of diminishing his divine status. water. a river. The same applies to the particular analogies of .43 Abelard’s invective reveals how much of an outsider he felt to the intellectual establishment within France. which is about the understandings generated by words. held such views. He rephrases his controversial analogy that the Son is related to the Father in the same way that divine wisdom (the power of discernment) relates to divine potency. He alludes to various treatises. alluding either to his commentary on Porphyry or on the topics.” one of whom supposedly attributes such weight to the efficacy of the words of consecration that they could be recited by anyone. Abelard also refers to two brothers “who count them- selves among the greatest teachers. the other apparently so immersed in philosophical teachings that he believes that God cannot exist prior to creation. not all of which can be identified.

There is a close relationship between his understanding of the provisional character of all language and his demonstration that patristic discussions about the Trinity are necessarily not the final word on the subject. then it is im- possible for him to act differently from or better than the way he did. linking up with his earlier discussion of the world soul as a veiled image of what Christians call the Holy Spirit. not a definitive statement of belief. Although aware of the conventional Augustinian understanding of the Holy Spirit as the love exchanged by the Father and the Son. While Abelard might respect the sense of what Augustine had to say about the Father as “cause” or “principle” of the Son. Abelard develops much further this part of his ar- gument. proceeds from (de) both divine potency and divine wisdom in a way that is distinct from the generation of the Son “out of” (ex) the Father. a technique that leaves little room for any au- thoritative pronouncement. Whereas the language of so much Christian belief emphasizes divine omnipotence. an issue he had barely touched in the Theologia “Summi boni. a paradox if we assume that God’s loving nature always goes out of itself. he does not always approve of his terminology. a christian theologia 139 species and genus that he offers in relation to the Trinity.48 Abelard’s technical discussions in this part of the Theologia Christiana illustrate the kind of analysis he wanted his students to adopt when assessing the opinions put forward by the Fathers of the Church. Abelard’s discussion about the relationship between the Father and Son does not just illustrate his teaching about language. no one challenged so explicitly the conventional image of God as fully . His argument is that divine power should never be understood as a thing but as a potentiality for an action that is fully in accord with God’s wisdom and goodness.” He begins by emphasizing the underlying unity of God’s nature but then ex- amines the question of what it means to say that God is omnipotent. he observes that this presumes that the Holy Spirit can exist even without creation. They provide a way of understanding theological language. largely devoted to reflecting on what it means to speak of divine unity and divine potency.49 In a short and unfinished fifth book. This is the logical extension of Abelard’s argument that words about God are always only partial attempts to describe the divine nature. If God’s actions are always wise and good. It develops into analysis of how the Holy Spirit. the goodness or loving-kindness of God. Abelard imagines God as always fundamentally rational in his action. While few of Abelard’s contemporaries would contest this logic of arguing. Abelard broaches the larger question of what three attributes imply about God’s nature. In the Theologia Christiana.

that love is a movement of the spirit to enjoy (ad fruendum) God and one’s neighbor. William is reported as rejecting the opinion of “some people” who argue that if God foresees everything. namely. frequently discussed in questions attributed to William of Champeaux. Abelard does not draw any conclusions about love or the divine nature but concentrates on a linguistic point: that we must always attend to the true meaning of modal statements used about God. In the final section of the Theologia Christiana. In the fifth book. The insight that God. as motivated by love. When he quotes Augustine as saying that caritas is a movement of the spirit to love (ad diligendum) God and one’s neighbor for the sake of God. Abelard’s vision of God’s behavior. The treatise. A Teacher at the Margin The style of theological reflection articulated in the Sic et non and the Theologia Christiana differs sharply from that of Hugh of St. it is impossible for something to turn out differently. presents an optimistic vision of God’s behavior. he leaves out one aspect of Augustine’s definition. is first of all identified by his goodness rather than by his power is not new.52 Far more important than any outward works is the inner intention that makes all else good. unaffected by sin or any claims of the devil to act over humanity.50 Underpinning Abelard’s analysis of the rationality of divine omnipo- tence is a sense that God’s behavior is defined by a love (caritas) that exists not for itself but for others. He theorizes that God is not an arbitrary ruler but always acts in accord with divine reason and goodness. William of Champeaux himself drew this insight from Augustine but assumed that statements about God. he adopts a Ciceronian theme. if they were true.51 Instead of raising the problem of how God could be powerful in a world seemingly ruled by sin. the supreme good. rather sketchily presented in the fifth book of the Theologia Christiana. did refer to some reality beyond language. namely. that true love does not seek any reward. he begins to explore what divine wisdom means for understanding statements about God’s power or potential to act.-Victor. remains unfinished. at least in its five-book form. Abelard argues that God can only act in the way that he does. as God would then be deceived. Abelard’s comments about love parallel some of the ideals that dominate Heloise’s perception of love. who . Instead. In theological sentences taken down before Abelard composed the fifth book of the Theologia Christiana.140 abelard and heloise omnipotent in all three persons.

the third was that the passage in John’s Gospel about needing to be baptized by water and the spirit implies that ignorance is sinful. Sometime around 1127. very likely Abelard. were lacking in the completeness of their knowledge. Hugh shares Abelard’s interest in understanding God as powerful. Abelard’s reserve toward traditional claims about the importance of phys- ical reception of the sacraments. His gift lay in the rhetorical brilliance with which he satirized the vices of traditional monasticism and used Scripture. and good. Hugh was sufficiently troubled by reports of opinions attributed to an unnamed teacher. taking ideas of William of Champeaux into a new direction. he argues that Socrates was the founder of ethics and reportedly wrote twenty-four books about positive justice. and he looks at the created world and at sacraments in particular as the medium through which humanity can return to God. While Ber- nard insists that he does not know the identity of the “inventor of new hypotheses” about whom Hugh is speaking. Hugh of St. disconcerted those who believed that traditional teaching about the sacraments and thus the authority of the Church was under threat. One was a claim that the scriptural verse about needing to be reborn “through water and the Holy Spirit” implied that no one could be saved without receiving the sacrament. he affirms that the incarnation and the sacraments did initiate a new phase in the process of redemption. that he asked Bernard of Clairvaux for his judgment.54 Bernard of Clairvaux was not interested in invoking the authority of ancient pagan philosophers. however faithful they may have been. Abelard may well have con- strued Bernard’s letter to Hugh as evidence that the abbot was provoking public opinion against him. although he does not follow up what Socrates and his disciples actually taught about the subject. but he insists that the scriptural injunction is not wrong and that ignorance can indeed be sinful. Those who came before Christ. In his Didascalicon (perhaps written in the mid-1120s). above all the Song of Songs.53 In response to these reports. to present an image of speaking from per- sonal experience. coupled with his emphasis that the un- baptized might be privy to the same insights as Christians. wise.-Victor was not opposed to the idea that the pagans had authority in ethical matters. a christian theologia 141 was already emerging in the 1120s as a significant teacher. another was that all those who came before Christ had as much knowledge of the future as we have of the past. Bernard acknowledges that some had been redeemed before baptism had been instituted as a sacrament and that God would surely be merciful to children who died without baptism. Even though Bernard insists that he does not know the identity of the teacher being spoken about. Abelard refers in the Historia calamitatum to . evidently based on hearsay and par- tial understanding.

-Denis. He reports that the archbishop had recently “submitted” to Geoffrey of Le`ves. founder of Pre´montre´ in the diocese of Laon but pro- moted in spectacular fashion in 1126 to become archbishop of Magdeburg. Bernard was presenting himself as a moral guide for the most senior levels of the clergy in France. Bernard had become a major voice at the Council of Troyes. a teacher of logic who may have taken over Abelard’s position in 1117. Abelard does not shy away in his sermons from mocking the populism of Norbert of Xanten (ca. appealed to Stephen of Garlande and archbishop Henry of Sens. In 1127. While there is no evidence that Bernard and Norbert were themselves responsible for the collapse of the Paraclete. By January 1128.”55 He concludes the letter by urging Suger to have nothing to do with Stephen of Garlande.57 While we know little about Gualo as a teacher. where he initially thought he had found favor. was endeavoring to assert his authority over a cathedral chapter in which Stephen of Garlande was still a powerful figure. called gualdicae.142 abelard and heloise two new “apostles” stirring up trouble against him.56 In dedicating the work to Henry. In that same year. Abelard blamed them for its demise. In 1125 Bernard encouraged Count Hugh of Champagne to resign his po- sition to join the order of the Templars. in protest against the efforts of Bishop Stephen of Senlis to stop him from teaching. Similar power struggles were taking place in Paris within the cathedral school of Notre-Dame. to whom he addressed a treatise on the duties of bishops. drawn from the logic of Seneca. He perceived these two figures as betraying their religious vocation by becoming excessively involved in matters of public life. Also around this time.- Genevie`ve and the Cathedral of Sens) as well as chancellor of the king- dom from 1120 until 1127. Bernard supported an unsuccessful attempt by Alberic of Reims to become bishop of Chaˆlons-sur-Marne. Bernard was seeking to win the favor of Archbishop Henry of Sens (1122–1142). Ultrasensitive to criticism. dean and provost of many churches (including Ste. Bernard wrote to Suger. congratulating him on reforms that he had instituted and for changing “the insolence of your former way of life. where the Templar Rule was approved. when he was ousted from court. even to Rome itself. abbot of St. Abelard may well have assumed that Bernard was behind a campaign to oust him from positions of power. Abelard resented the growing influence of Bernard in the court of the counts of Champagne. A new bishop of Paris. Gualo. It has been suggested that this Gualo provided . Stephen of Senlis (1123– 1141). 1080–1134). he did acquire a reputation for inventing sophisms. bishop of Chartres (1116– 1149) and successor to Conon of Palestrina as papal legate in France. a kinsman of Stephen of Garlande.

and those loyal to the dean of Ste. Alberic of Reims. Ralph was closely involved in a brutal but ultimately unsuccessful campaign to extend French influence in Flanders during 1126. where it was under the supervision of the chapter. Bernard was more faithful to Augustinian tradition in developing the theme in his preaching that the Word of God. op- posed by Ralph of Vermandois.-Denis.59 These measures only encouraged greater polarization. Stephen was also viewed with great suspicion by Bernard of Clair- vaux and others connected to the reform movement. while his students may have migrated to the schools of Ste. even phys- ical violence.-Genevie`ve. between forces loyal to the bishop of Paris and the abbot of St. Abelard’s situation in Champagne was becom- ing untenable. coupled with the attempts to oust both Gualo and Abelard from their teaching. in which Bishop Geoffrey of Chartres was becoming an increasingly prominent figure. In doing so. They may be connected to Stephen’s desire to forge ties with the Duke of Anjou. a hypercritical logician. William of Champeaux.-Genevie`ve. a christian theologia 143 the inspiration for John of Salisbury’s mythical Cornificius.58 Gualo was excom- municated by the bishop of Paris in 1126/27.-Victor. They also differed in their theological perspective. while Abelard sought to recreate the life of a school at the oratory of the Paraclete. is able to enter the human soul.-Victor—and that he promoted a self-serving attitude to education. Even more importantly. hostile to all the great teachers of the past—Anselm of Laon. . he introduced an experiential and poetic way of presenting the theological teaching transmitted by Wil- liam of Champeaux that had not been seen before. Gualo seems to have left Paris. Bishop Stephen also attempted (not wholly success- fully) to introduce canons of St. cousin of King Louis VI and an ally of Suger of St. The full circumstances behind the fall from grace of Stephen of Gar- lande in 1127. Bernard was a preacher who distanced himself from the life of the schools.-Victor into the Cathedral of Notre- Dame. whom he accused of being “false prophets” and of hypocrisy in the way that they attached themselves to the rich and powerful. when he and his disciples were living out ascetic ideals in a way that was more sincere than the early Cistercians. This was the tense situation during which Abelard composed the Historia calamitatum. He subsequently looked back to the years immediately after 1122 as a halcyon period. by contrast. the second person of the Trinity. Abelard. are impossible to establish completely. to outside the bishop’s palace on the south side of Notre-Dame. the bishop ordered that the cathedral school should withdraw from the ca- thedral cloister. In a volatile political context. Abelard was critical of Bernard’s increasingly high profile in public life. and Hugh of St.60 While Bernard and Ab- elard were both educated innovators seeking to live out ascetic ideals.

the Grammatica. . but also composed related trea- tises. He revised his commentaries on Porphyry and Aristotle. He transformed his earlier De trinitate into a much larger work.144 abelard and heloise was developing a theology based much more around the Holy Spirit. this conse- cration to the Paraclete alone could seem suspiciously radical. The long justification that he gives in the Historia calamitatum to his decision to rededicate his oratory spe- cifically to the Paraclete itself indicates the controversial character of the theological direction that he wished to take. Jews. and Chris- tians—to love the pursuit of wisdom. Abelard did not complete any major synthesis of his teaching during these years. and perhaps the prom- ised Rhetorica. which he believed had inspired all peoples—pagan. At a time when all new Cistercian houses were being dedicated to the Virgin Mary. and radically enlarged the scope of the Sic et non. The oratory and associated school provided a framework in which Abelard was able to teach the various arts of logica as much as develop his ideas about a discipline that he now called theologia rather than divinitas. notably the De intellectibus. but he had laid the foundations for an ambitious sys- tematic overview of both the liberal arts and theology. the Theologia Christiana.

Abelard does not reveal whether he continued to write during these early years at St. in Brittany.-Gildas. 8 Heloise and the Paraclete I n 1127.-Denis from the abbey at Argenteuil on 145 . Peter Abelard gave up the school that he had established around the oratory of the Paraclete in order to take a position as abbot of St. Appar- ently many of them kept mistresses and had fathered children. The Refoundation of the Paraclete The turning point came in April 1129 when Heloise and her fellow nuns were expelled by Suger of St. written about 1132. Abelard’s life was also complicated by the demands placed on the abbey by a local mag- nate. He complains that he did not understand the lan- guage (or perhaps the dialect) of the region. and that the monks of St. Abelard presents himself as having being driven to take refuge in the West by the jealousy of the French. seemed dangerously apposite. when he was no longer able to function as a teacher supported by his students. not long after he had physically escaped from the region. just as Jerome had been driven to the East by the jealousy of the Romans. He recalls that this was a moment of severe crisis.- Gildas refused to accept the reforms that he wished to implement. and he could not finish” (Luke 14:30). This was a time of radical crisis. The saying of Jesus. as he reflected that nothing he had started seemed to bear fruit. In the Historia calamitatum. “This man started to build.- Gildas-de-Ruys.

Suger claimed that the abbey belonged by ancient right to the Abbey of St. was a major political victory for Suger. / But although nothing useful follows from mourning. a cele- brated preacher and religious reformer with a reputation for spurning wealth and attracting “fallen women” to the communities he founded. to mourn the death of a father.-Jean in Laon. the woman who seeks out Jesus after his death. The fall from grace of Stephen of Garlande. was certainly preserved within the Paraclete liturgy. The cen- tral figure in these plays is Mary Magdalene. known as Epi- thalamica. Bernard of Clairvaux rejoiced over a similar eviction of nuns from the Abbey of St.5 A section of one of their dialogues. who had previously acted on behalf of Argenteuil.”4 This reflection on sorrow (dolor) and awareness of death recalls the introspective tone of some of the woman’s later poems in the Epistolae duorum amantium. attached by a nun of Argenteuil to the mortuary roll for Vital of Savigny (d. The ancient charter that he claimed to have found supporting this claim appears to be a forgery cre- ated by Suger himself on the basis of older documents in the archive of St. she seems to have applied herself with renewed vigor to the study of literature after she became a nun around 1117/18.-Denis. Suger may also have been troubled by the reputation of Heloise. if the force of reason / is able to annihilate the powers of sadness.146 abelard and heloise grounds of immoral behavior. supported by Ralph of Vermandois and subse- quently ratified by papal legate Matthew of Albano and other leading churchmen as well as by Pope Honorius II (1124–1129). It also reflects on the reason behind suffering: “What use is so much and so widespread sorrow? / Sor- row here is good for nothing. The plays. Heloise found consolation in literature. while at Argenteuil. modeled on the so-called Sponsus drama from Limoges. rather it harms.-Denis.-Denis. whose income and location greatly helped Suger’s larger project of re- building his own abbey.”2 Suger reports that nuns at Argenteuil led “a wretched way of life” and speaks elsewhere of their “extraordinary levity. Whereas Abelard detached himself from personal crisis by devoting himself to the theory of language. 1122). . however. made it easier to assert what he considered to be the ancient rights of St. / it is also pious to rejoice.”3 The ideal of moral reform helped justify taking over a property. which was “restored from being a brothel of Venus to a sanctuary of God. Heloise may also have composed two short Easter plays. strategically situated on the Seine. While no corpus of writing survives bearing clear confirmation of her authorship. In 1130. September 16.1 The decision. The poem is an eloquent lament for a community that has lost its shep- herd and has left only sorrow in its wake. One clue to her cre- ative activity is provided by a poem. / it is human.

a holy withdrawal from life. introduce a strongly human element into their presentation of Mary Magdalene as a woman seeking her be- loved. heloise and the paraclete 147 written with a love for rhyming prose similar to that in the woman’s letters in the Epistolae duorum amantium. Like Abelard.” that “we have been driven from the new world because our concern is with let- ters. The poem complains of a decline of interest in classical culture at the expense of religious ideals that distrust secular . written in the voice of an unusually learned woman who is interested in both philosophy and poetry but forced by changed political circumstances to flee where she is living. nor for us to ask who Aristotle might be. These short dramas provide a rhe- torical medium for reflecting on the character of true love and devotion and are fully resonant with the concerns of Heloise. Its style is not unlike that of the poems exchanged at Angers between Baudri of Bourgueil and nuns of Le Ronceray (for whom Abelard signed a charter on March 15. This little phrase suggests that this learned woman is equally interested in both dialectic and rhetoric. Her mistake has been to celebrate “the good and bad deeds of princes” in verse.” and complains to Clio.-Denis. to care for his body.”6 There has been a change of leaders. where once her writing used to please. her poems now cause their hearts to rage. is effectively the reverse of Heloise’s poetic ap- peal to the Muses in the Epistolae duorum amantium (Letter 66). This learned woman explicitly associates this change of leadership with “a new religion. Her argument about the importance of knowing these skills echoes Abelard’s defense of the liberal arts in the Theologia Christiana and Theologia “Scholarium.” in which holiness is deemed not to be about know- ing anything. bringing ointment. She insists that God does not forbid what she is doing. addressed to Clio. provoking the hostility of some unidentified but influential critic. she argues that God will be better understood by someone in whom reasoning is already present. species. and pagan virtue” have perished and have given way to “gnawing envy. Its lament about a change of rulers fits in well with the political crisis of the late 1120s. Extending the familiar Quem quaeritis? liturgical drama about seek- ing out the risen Lord (practiced in many monastic houses). “faithful companion. A poetic lament (Laudis honor). The poet regrets that “the honor of praise.” The poem. She mockingly repeats the accusations made against her: “It is not for holy women to compose verses.” Her accuser disparages “genus. 1128). but about simply being good. love of probity. when a pro-Angevin Stephen of Garlande was ousted by the combined influence of Ralf of Vermandois and Suger of St.” or the necessity of recording arguments. could also be a composition of Heloise. or rhetorical color. they explore how Mary seeks out Jesus. initially obtained for her own adornment.

such as Jully and Tart. through the intervention of Bishop Hato of Troyes (1122–1146). The way of life followed at the Par- aclete during these early years was not radically different from that of other women’s communities. Presumably in answer to her request (the Historia calamitatum is silent on the question of her initiative). she gained papal protection for her community from Pope Innocent II. had become particularly influential as a model for reformed communities through the energetic preaching of Bernard of Clairvaux.-Marie de Footel. near Champigny-sous-Varennes. which had to work out their own observances and liturgical identity without the firmer institutional struc- . including its abbess. Initially. abbots.7 There was no single identity to these new communities. Abelard kept his distance from the fledgling community. then in exile in France and closely associated with Bernard of Clairvaux. founded in 1098 by monks dissatisfied with reforms implemented at Molesme. in Mal- noue¨. The way of life. Heloise. chose to retire to the distant Benedictine community of Ste. a friend of both Peter the Venerable and Bernard.-Denis later in the century). This de- manded a much more austere way of life than practiced at Argenteuil or available at Malnoue¨. Abelard expresses his admiration for the way in which Heloise was able to make much more of a success of the Paraclete in its early years than he ever could. that were based on ideals of authenticity and simplicity similar to those of Cistercian monks without formally being subject to the same ordo. Some of the nuns of Argenteuil. one of many new communities founded in the years as part of a wider move- ment to recover the values of early Christians.148 abelard and heloise learning. elected as prioress during the previous decade. The early charters of the Paraclete reveal that Heloise obtained significant support from the Count and Countess of Blois and Champagne. and laypeople alike. On No- vember 30. played a key role during these years in improving relationships between Cluny and the Cistercians after Bernard’s polemical assault on traditional monasticism in his Apologia. This is precisely the cultural shift deplored by Abelard in his theological writings from the early 1130s. or ordo. Abelard invited Heloise and those sisters who wished to follow her to take over the prop- erty he had been given around the oratory of the Paraclete. The Augustinian canons whom Norbert of Xanten established at Pre´montre´ in the diocese of Laon based many of their observances on the pattern established by Cıˆteaux. Hato. 1131. in the upper reaches of the Marne (from where they were still demanding compensation from St. chose a different path. followed at Cıˆteaux. and idealizes her as someone who was much more successful than he had ever been in becoming a figure much admired and respected by bishops.

Abelard may have already taken refuge with Stephen of Garlande. with appropriate antiphons) suggests that even before the Historia calamitatum. A brief comment by Abelard in his first reply to Heloise that he is sending at her request a Psalter (probably a book of psalms. she seemed to her ecclesiastical admirers to be fully committed to ideals of reform promoted by Bernard of Clairvaux and the papal court. a most distinguished religious man and teacher of the schools. According to the chronicle of Morigny. Whereas the monks of St. The official document refers to her community as an oratory dedicated to the Holy Trinity. During the course of 1132/33. Reestablishing the Paraclete. including Bernard of Clairvaux. offering guidance even just in matters of liturgical practice. Abelard attended the solemn dedication of a new altar at the abbey by Pope Innocent II in January 1131 amid a distinguished assembly of cardinals and ecclesiastics. Abelard is described in glowing terms by a monk of Morigny as “a monk and abbot. These charges played a major role in prompting him to use the example of his own life as a guide to how God’s love and goodness will always turn the most difficult situation to a positive end.”9 One of the cardinals present was Guy of Castello. .8 When her community obtained papal approval in 1131. Complaints from people in the neighborhood that he was not doing enough for the nuns apparently prompted Abelard to visit them more often. under the inspiration of Heloise. Abelard was helping shape the Paraclete liturgy.-Gildas were unresponsive and even openly hostile to his efforts. but this in turn provoked suspicions about his motives. she was keen to have Abelard contribute to the life of the community. heloise and the paraclete 149 tures that developed in the second half of the century. who owned a copy of Ab- elard’s working draft of the Theologia Christiana and Sic et non. Abelard does not reveal where he was living when he wrote the His- toria calamitatum. Even though she would have been under pressure to follow observances similar to other reformed communities being established in those years. the nuns provided an example of godly openness to the working of the Paraclete. to whom educated men from almost the whole Latin world used to come. There is a possibility that he had already reestablished himself in Paris. saying only that he had recently escaped from the abbey through the assistance of a certain nobleman and that now he was effec- tively a fugitive with no fixed abode.-Genevie`ve. provided him with a new lease on life and an opportunity to develop new talents. dean of the Abbey of Ste. He may well be exaggerating the difficulty of his situation for rhetorical effect. Stephen had returned to royal favor by late 1131 and resumed his position as royal chancellor (although not that of seneschal) by 1132. as it stood in the early 1130s.

and the ideal of life in Christ. Perhaps closer to Abelard’s account is a letter by a canon of Chartres. He wants to persuade his reader. In August 1133.10 Abelard’s account is itself a masterpiece of narrative art in which specific experiences. an ally of Stephen of Garlande. he urges his readers . His past misdeeds were the fruit not of original sin but of falling victim to the vices of debauchery and pride. whom he knows is going through difficult times. While he implicitly describes his sufferings as like those of Jesus. who writes about his life in the early 1130s as illustrating the working out of providence. manifest through the Holy Spirit. prey to sin. was murdered by nephews of Archdeacon Theobald. and the temptations of the flesh. he never consciously appeals to the transcendent Son or Word of God. The Historia calamitatum and the Response of Heloise The Historia calamitatum seeks not just to dispel the rumors surrounding Abelard’s past but to present a theological message from the authority of his own experience. will always prevail. that God’s goodness. attained only through divine grace. Abelard’s polemical allusions to hypocritical re- ligious reformers excessively involved in public life reflect the polarized rhetoric between rival communities during these years. Thomas. on the other. but generally in order to communicate a strongly Augustinian contrast between fallen human nature. Abelard uses his own life story to argue that God’s goodness is always working out to a positive end in this world.- Genevie`ve was placed under an interdict by the bishop of Paris and its vineyards uprooted by soldiers of Louis VI. While there was a long literary tradition of using the sufferings of Christ. Job. Emmeram and Guibert of Nogent. pre- sented with great detail. on the one hand.150 abelard and heloise Stephen’s position came under renewed assault when the Abbey of Ste. are used to illuminate an original theological argument intended to be universal in application. identified so intimately by Bernard of Clairvaux as the eternal Bridegroom coming to visit the soul. Rather than imitate Augustine in speaking about divine grace cleansing him from original sin. or the saints as a way of coping with distress and looking forward to a better world. he prefers to offer the letters of Jerome as showing how difficulty can be overcome by trusting in the goodness of the Holy Spirit.-Victor. Instead. prior of St. This tendency to use one’s own life as an exemplum had started to gain ground in monastic authors of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries such as Otloh of St.

He ef- fectively provides a record of the circumstances that led up to the re- foundation of her community. he is presenting himself as like Ovid and Jerome. quite simply. Heloise is the only known reader of the Historia calamitatum in the twelfth century. manifested in the Holy Spirit. Writing this narrative enabled Abelard to identify meaning behind the disasters that had afflicted him in the past while moving beyond the level of personal reminiscence.” Abelard hopes that his writing will comfort this friend “for the des- olation and injury” that he has suffered. We never learn the precise identity of the friend. created by someone who had once exchanged many letters with Abelard in the past but had stopped communicating in this way. as well as a way for her to understand her own past. Reading his narrative in purely psychological terms as the work of a par- anoid personality ignores the literary and theological rhetoric that shapes his narrative. Writing about his past enabled him to offer a degree of pastoral support while maintaining what he considered to be an appropriate level of distance. By her greeting she declares her desire to communicate with Abelard not with polite formality but as one indi- vidual to another. addressed as “beloved brother in Christ and most familiar companion in the religious way of life. Inevitably he simplifies the complexities of his past be- havior to communicate his theme. He urges his friend to reflect on the capacity of the Holy Spirit to provide consolation in the most difficult of situations. Abelard’s detailed account of the inspirational example of Jerome in his concern for Paula and Asella had particular relevance for the nuns of the Paraclete. “To Abelard. who never abandons those who love God. Yet the narrative did not satisfy Heloise. Heloise. as they had once done in the past. He presents the calamities by which he was afflicted not as punishments but as providential opportunities that enabled him to curb those vices of pride and lust into which he had fallen and to acknowledge divine goodness. This friend may be no more than a fictional literary device by which he imagines Heloise and seeks to communicate with her. She articulates a tendency evident in many letter writers in the late eleventh and early . while also seeking to reach a wider audience. unjustly persecuted by their contemporaries. She opens her initial response to his account with a carefully crafted greeting that begins in conventional form by addressing him as her master and herself as his handmaiden but concludes. as did so much of his account of its early history. He expects his readers to recognize that in blaming the jealousy (invidia) of his rivals. heloise and the paraclete 151 to recall God’s continuing goodness and love for creation.” The sal- utation is a masterpiece of concise expression.

As with Abelard’s account. is offered through writing.)12 In crafted rhyming prose. his portrayal of their early relationship as one of fornication rather than of selfless love. The young Heloise had even made a very similar point (although not specifically in relation to marriage) in letter 82. “I call God as my witness that if Augustus. she reminds Abelard that the Paraclete is solely his creation and that he owes great responsi- bility to the women he has gathered there. ruling over the whole world.”13 This recalls a frequent theme in her early love letters: that true love does not seek any external gain. As in her early letters to Abelard. True consolation. such riches would be of no use to her. She acknowledges that he had presented some of her arguments against marriage. about letters making present an absent friend. both inside and outside a monastic milieu. she declares that far from being comforted by reading his account. Rather than turning to Jerome. reading her letter simply as an outpouring of “the heart” ignores the rhetorical skill with which she formulates her ethical argument. to replace a standard public greeting with a more nuanced expression of personal af- fection. why has he given comfort to a male friend but not to her. and in the Historia calamitatum he only does so when reporting her speech against marriage.11 Subtly responding to Abelard’s account in the persona of both a female disciple of Jerome and an Ovidian heroine. she ar- gues. namely. that in speaking so much about reason he ignores the complexity of human nature. It gives a classical turn . but chides him for passing over those she had made about preferring love to marriage. she is distressed by learning of the difficulties that Abelard still encounters. tackling Abelard on the weakest point in his narrative. it would seem dearer and more worthy to me to be called your prostitute than his empress. It also highlights the weakest point in his theology.152 abelard and heloise twelfth centuries. Seneca writing to Lucilius. that even if she could enjoy all the wealth of Caesar. Above all. freedom to chains. had thought fit to honor me with marriage. she turns to a comment made by a favorite author. she asks. those drawn from Jerome and the ancient philosophers. (Abelard never quoted from Seneca’s letters in his Theo- logia. Her letter moves from sympathy to serious accusation. she is applying classical ideals about true friendship as not seeking external reward to her ideal of amor. as Abelard had recommended in his narrative. ever since their difficult early beginnings in the religious life? Her letter is a knife pricking Abelard for ignoring the reality of her situation. Her comment about preferring to be called a meretrix rather than an imperatrix uses rhyming prose to dramatize her argument that true love is unconcerned with wealth or outward reputation. Her claim that he alone can provide her with consolation rebukes his claim that comfort only comes from the consoling goodness of the Holy Spirit.

He quotes extensively from Scrip- ture to support his claim. and dilectio are aspects of the same ideal. Abelard’s first reply. she sees amor as an ideal of true friendship. her concern is not with a heav- enly reward but with what constitutes truly moral behavior. the special role played by women in the history of salvation. She rejects Abelard’s implicit assumption in the Historia calamitatum that true friendship is be- tween men and is quite unlike love between a man and a woman. but provides no testimony from the Fathers to support his case. She is trou- bled by the thought that perhaps Abelard was only bound by lust rather than amor. While at first sight his response may seem traditional. amicitia. Cicero. heloise and the paraclete 153 to the saying of Jesus that prostitutes enter the kingdom of heaven before the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. one is always going to be frustrated in one’s quest. satirized to such effect by Ovid in his Ars amatoria. addressed to Heloise as his “dearly beloved sister in Christ.” seeks to preserve their relationship as one of spiritual dilectio. when he showered her “with frequent letters” and made her name famous. As in the early love letters. As in her earlier letters. She is accusing him of not recalling their earlier attempt to fuse the ideals of love and friendship articulated by Ovid. but defines his relationship to her in universal rather than individual terms. 21:31). she says. he is in fact ten- tatively sketching out what will become an important theme in his ser- mons and other writing for the Paraclete. His message is that she should devote herself to prayer on the model of so many women in both the Old and New Testaments.14 This. who addressed pious women without developing a theory of their place in the story of redemption. namely. is wisdom rather than philosophy. Abelard offers an original reading of Scripture not di- rectly paralleled in the writings of Jerome. he picks up the literary game that she initiates. and Scripture within their love letters. As if reminding Abelard of discussions in which they had once en- gaged. Whereas Abelard wants to show that God’s love is far larger than frail human desire. quite different from sexual passion. to which he does not refer at all in this letter. He suggests a special prayer that the nuns can use to pray for him at a time . and evokes the example of Mary Magdalene as the one truly devoted to Jesus. Whereas Abelard was attempting to distance himself from the still lingering image that he was a jongleur of love. reported by Cicero in his De inventione as an example of induc- tive argument based on analogy: Unless one believes that one’s husband or wife is perfect. Her closing message is that he should write to her as often as in the past. she reminds him of the advice given by Aspasia to Xenophon and his wife. Heloise argues that amor. He should not neglect that it is his duty to provide true consolation.

Her second letter com- municates passionate intensity with great literary skill. or was her uncle’s response itself against the will of God? She insists that she never consented to this crime. a favored term that he had used of her in his early love letters. Could she have been the cause of this evil.” picks up a familiar play on the words “farewell” and “fare you well” in the love letters. Her complaint is with all those in religious life who consider her chaste but “do not realize what a hypocrite I am. If he is simply giving spiritual instruction. “Live. but now sharply distinguishes them from any erotic relationship. this is how he ought to address his spiritual daughters. like so many women recorded in Scripture as bringing about the downfall of men? There is a profound ethical issue involved. As if to highlight the contradiction between these two modes of writing. fare you well. yourself and your sisters with you. she accuses God of cruelty rather than of being the source of goodness. Her difficulty is that even if she is guilty in some measure. while acknowledging that she is not without guilt.” This is a personal admission far deeper than anything Abelard has to say in the Historia calamitatum. she cannot feel true repentance for her behavior. she chides him for not reversing the order of his greeting and saying “Abelard to Heloise” as if from a superior to an inferior. in Christ be mindful of me. urging that they model themselves on the women waiting at the tomb of Jesus. as her intentions are pure. If he is addressing her as a friend. Above all. she challenges the entire theological edifice to which Abelard has committed himself. urging Abelard to stop idealizing her for purely theological ends. The final farewell. he needs to be more personal.15 Heloise’s second reply begins by neatly transforming Abelard’s previous greeting into a more personal form: “To her only one after Christ. she who is his alone in Christ. Her letter builds to a crescendo. Even during the solemn moments of the mass. whom she has always followed before all else.” Unicus. and then pro- claims even more explicitly than before the depth of her commitment to Abelard. Whereas he had proclaimed that castration had . She quotes from another letter of Seneca to Lucilius: “Why is it necessary to summon evil?”16 Rather than trusting in the consoling power of the Holy Spirit. In language that strikes at the heart of Abelard’s theological project. Drawing on Stoic wisdom. drives home her desire that he speak not as an abbot to a disciple but as Abelard to Heloise. She accuses him of causing her distress by talking about his possible death. Was their sexual liaison a sin meriting divine punishment. she can only think of the pleasures they once enjoyed. she cannot accept that the castration he suffered could have been approved by God.154 abelard and heloise of difficulty. but I pray. / Live. she expresses anger against God for what he has allowed to happen and sees herself as the victim of cruel fortune.

a veiled way of complimenting Heloise on her humility and critique of extravagance. he does allude to it twice in his Collationes. To her complaint that he has distressed her by talking of his imminent death. heloise and the paraclete 155 helped him recover from debauchery. is a theme of which he approves.17 Cleverly transforming Abelard’s injunction to read Jerome for spiritual consolation.19 Abelard’s second reply is couched in more personal terms than his initial response. Each of her complaints receives an answer. 2:5) She seeks no crown of victory. Her third complaint.”20 He justifies putting her name before his by quoting Jerome’s rhetorical elevation of Eustochium as the bride of Christ. so as to find justification in the punishment that was meted out to him. but then develops a new interpretation of the phrase “I am black but beautiful” (Song of Songs 1:4). he argues that his castration was in- deed providential. He avoids her ethical question about her failure to feel true re- pentance by focusing uniquely on his own situation. she protests that she has not changed in her inner disposition after all these years. of lust finding phys- ical punishment. To her final point. he can only urge that she accept God’s will. criticism of extravagant praise. but is beautiful within. he responds by urging that true friends are found in shared adversity. By dwelling on the fornication of their past rela- tionship (recalling an episode in the refectory of Argenteuil not men- tioned in the Historia calamitatum).” about their mode of entry into religious life. 12:9) and “He cannot win a crown unless he has kept the rules” (2 Tim. Heloise’s second letter is rich in allusion to Scripture. but he reaffirms that Heloise is the bride of Christ rather than his own beloved. He suggests that a woman may be black on the outside. What need is there to forsake what is certain and pursue uncertainty?”18 While this is not a passage from Jerome that Abelard had ever quoted in his Theologia or Sic et non. Rather than addressing Heloise’s claim that her love was pure. he was indi- rectly responding to this letter of Heloise. she also quotes a passage from his Adversus Vigilantium in which Jerome speaks with unusual humility: “I confess my weakness. raising the possibility that when he penned the arguments that the Christian puts to the philosopher. but he warns that forbidding praise can lead to false humility. “not so much in self-justification as for your own enlightenment. which she uses to reinforce her argument about avoiding extravagant praise and respecting the frailty of the human condition. lest the day comes when I lose the battle. I do not wish to fight in hope of victory. he urges her to focus her love on the figure of . Instead. “that old and frequent complaint of yours. She does not want him to quote scriptural phrases such as “Power comes to its full strength in weakness” (2 Cor. he dwells on what he sees as the lust that bound him to her in the past.

22 In the Col- lationes. as the source of lust has been removed. more intimate exchanges. The greeting plays on the profound equiva- lence of the way they used describe each other in their earlier. not so much as the eternal Son of God but as the figure who suffered and died on the cross. al- though there may still be worldly punishment.156 abelard and heloise Christ. both in relation to Christ’s redemption through the example of his love and the nature of true repentance for sin. urging punishment in this world. and is not willing to confront the issue of why Heloise should not feel true repen- tance for sin. he thinks punish- ment in this world extinguishes punishment in the future. or indeed anywhere else. Building Up the Paraclete In her third letter. Heloise reinforces her desire that they should com- municate as they used to in the past by reworking her greeting with great conciseness: “To him who is hers specially. If there was a weakness in his early theological writing. rather than on the eternal Son of God. By contrast. even in his ignominious death. at least during the 1120s. enmeshed in sin. about whom he had written so much in relation to the Trinity. Abelard does not raise these broader theological questions. Responding to Heloise enabled him to develop the argument that true love and friendship was manifest in Jesus as a historical person. she who is his singularly” (Suo specialiter. According to a subsequent remark on Romans 4:7 (about the forgiveness of sin). By comparison with the love of Jesus. as a dialec- . sua singulariter). he claims that he is the one who is deprived of a crown of victory. write at any length about devotion to Jesus or about human nature. a position which the Christian implicitly ac- cepts when arguing that the suffering of the soul in death is so great that it is sufficient to purge any person of suffering in the future. while he. through a life lived for others. Abelard does not speak in these letters. These pages provide valuable insight into his early reflection on Jesus. about purgatory as a place for the purgation of sins.23 In his letter to Heloise.21 He compares the emotional suffering of Heloise to the suffering of a martyr. Abelard sees his own past love for Heloise as lust. everlasting punishment is remitted. She used to call him specialis. the philosopher argues that through the act of contrition and the compunction of true penitence. so that there would be no punishment in the future. it was that he concentrated so much on language about God and an abstract notion of the Holy Spirit that he did not. He concludes by offering her a prayer of contrition. but he lays the foundation for what will develop into a significant body of doctrine.

As if in a subtle critique of those Cistercian reformers who considered that failing to observe the Benedictine Rule to the letter was to permit corruption of monastic ideals. her letter is in reality a profound reflection on the ethical demands of true religious life. “the poetic doctor of debauchery and shame. Aware. about a new thought expelling an old. surely any rule had to recognize the particular situation of women as distinct from men. she quotes a vivid image from Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations.24 Heloise’s greeting neatly crystallizes her argument that whichever words they use. she quotes a scriptural phrase. she is fascinated by the power of the spirit (animus) that drives speech. As in her early letters. just as one nail drives out another hammered in. she argues that Benedict. “girls might bewitch young men. not allowed for by the Rule of Benedict. If women were the weaker sex.25 To describe her zeal in writing. “From the abundance of the heart. heloise and the paraclete 157 tician (for whom specialis has a technical meaning.” for a vivid comment about how at banquets. she points to the ex- amples of Abraham. she turns instead toward the question of ethics in religious life. prefers the epithet singularis. which the young Abelard had used to de- scribe “the copious and yet insufficient richness of your letters” and later in the Theologia Christiana to describe the wisdom of the Word of God speaking through the form of words. a champion of moderation. of being of a species). so she observes the difficulty experienced by women who seek to observe faithfully the Rule of Benedict. about restricting women from visiting religious women. another text never quoted by Abelard. however. and Venus in wine is fire in fire. David. To justify switching her subject.” and Jerome. She begins with relatively minor issues confronting women in religious life. such as the difficulty women experience in im- plementing to the letter what the Rule of Benedict has to say about undergarments or welcoming male guests to a table. the mouth speaks” (Matt. never intended these to be observed rigidly. she wishes to speak to Abelard as an individual. and quotes a passage of Chrysostom on Hebrews affirming that Paul was not just speak- . She cleverly quotes both Ovid. 12:34). and all married people. Just as she articulates frustration with judging good and bad behavior from appearances alone. Job. She is troubled by the thought that not observing any single precept of the Rule might imply failure to respect its spirit. that Abelard is uncomfortable in dis- cussing personal ethics. to highlight the daily dilemmas that confront any female community.26 Although the specific request she puts to him is that he write both an account of the historical authority for the way of life of religious women and a rule for the women of the Paraclete that takes into account the particularity of their situation. To defend the notion of a religio laicorum.

and not understanding what she had said about true love as identical to true friendship. In those texts. While Abelard had often spoken about the importance of understanding the correct intention behind ordinary language and religious discourse. She sees Paul more as the critic of external religion and advocate of the su- premacy of love rather than as the critic of those who do not have faith in Christ. like Augustine’s De bono conjugali. With her third letter. but without Paul’s emphasis (at least as understood by Augustine) that human nature is fallen and needs the grace of Christ in order to lead an ethical life. which she quotes for Aristotle’s teaching that women are less likely to become drunk because they expel fluids on a monthly basis. she finds a better way of engaging with Abelard in exploring ethical behavior: by focusing more tightly on issues of religious observance. Heloise had rebuked Abelard for reproducing only traditional philosophical ar- guments against marriage. In her first letter. outlines her understanding of regulations in religious life.27 Heloise sees the passage as a reminder that we are asked to carry out the gospel. about having a priest or deacon read the Gospel during the night office. he had repeated Jerome’s teaching about sexual purity to prove that pagans had the same insights as Christians. but believes that one has to go beyond the Rule . Outward rules have no purpose if they do not relate to the inner life. he had not applied the notion at any length to behavior in the Theologia Christiana or in the Historia calami- tatum. She closes her third letter by asking for Abelard’s assistance in more specific matters. Heloise shares the zeal of the early Cistercians for authenticity in the practice of religious life.28 Some of the texts to which she has access. There is also a practical issue to resolve. asking whether her nuns need to repeat certain psalms when reciting the whole Psalter over any given week. are not ones that Abelard ever refers to. such as the Saturnalia of Macrobius. a passage cited more briefly by Abelard in the Sic et non to argue that marriage is enjoined by God. Her argument applies Paul’s contrast between outward religious observance and living by faith to a rejection of artificial ethical rules. without questioning that sexual promiscuity was wrong. a potential source of sexual distraction for the nuns. were used by Abelard in the Sic et non to discuss whether intercourse could ever be without sin. not to go beyond it.158 abelard and heloise ing to monks.29 Others. and effectively to argue that continence is a virtue not of the body but of the soul. She picks up other passages of Jerome and Augustine (also present in the Sic et non) that argue that one should not impose excessive demands on anyone. couched as a request for spir- itual assistance. namely.30 The richly textured analysis of Heloise. Her central argument is that intention has to be the guiding criterion for all human action.

Too many people are rushing into the religious life without understanding its demands. He had also written much more about the Holy Spirit than the injunc- tions given by Jesus about how to live. Her criticism is not directed against Benedict but against the imposition of unnecessary burdens that distract from the true goal of the religious life. parallels not just what Abelard has to say in his sermons to the Paraclete but also the Easter plays that Wulstan has attributed to Heloise. but he took for granted that enquiry into the supreme good was a fundamen- tally male pursuit. the reform of the inner person. which is structured more around praise for the capacity of women to lead a virtuous life than analysis of what this demands. The two treatises that Heloise requested. forced Abelard to extend his interest to topics to which he had not previously given much attention. and Esther show that women shine with as much strength as any great male leader. on the history of women in religion and a rule for the Paraclete. She aligns herself with Paul in teaching that the true fulfillment and goal of the law is love. In the first of his two treatises. Whereas Bernard of Clairvaux presents the Virgin as embodying the soul attentive to the Word of God. he develops the idea that the way of life of religious women. heloise and the paraclete 159 of Benedict to Scripture itself to find authority for the religious life. Abelard had argued that there was a fundamental identity between pagan philosophical wisdom and Christian theology. Judith. When writing for his students. Abelard could simply be formulating back to Heloise ideas that she had already developed at Argenteuil. She does not think that monks have necessarily greater virtue than lay people or canons regular. takes its form from the teaching of Jesus. The nuns should imitate the women who were devoted to Jesus. who eat meat and use linen. He even uses their example to urge “brothers and fellow monks” (perhaps an allusion copied from some earlier treatise) to see how they are put to . There is little specific discussion of ethical questions in his narrative. even when it was questioned by other disciples. his theology had been focused more on theoretical than practical issues. as indeed of monks. above all Mary Magdalene.32 In presenting her with the example of Mary Magdalene’s love for Jesus. who called both women and men to follow him. The examples of Deborah. who poured ointment on his head and wiped his feet with her hair and who was assumed to be the same Mary as came first to the tomb. While Abelard had remarked that the prophetic tes- timony of the Sybils showed God had not restricted his revelation to men. Abelard prefers the image of Mary Magdalene as the one who loves Christ above all others.31 The attention that he gives to the devotion of Mary Magdalene to Jesus. She provides the basis for his subsequent account of the role of women in the story of redemption.

signal an unease with Heloise’s capacity to speak her mind. the more mobile and given to words it is. and can be seen to be the seedbed of all evil. and understands silence as a necessary instrument for re- pressing what he sees as a distinctly feminine quality: “The more sensitive it is in you. Abelard’s exhortation is more traditional than Heloise’s critique of false virtue and exterior appearance. and Jerome’s exhortations to these women that they commit themselves to the ideal of virginity.”36 .34 Having established the rhetorical base for his argument. just like those disciples of Jerome and like Eustochium. and Asella. Abelard imagines the ideal female community as ordered like a small army under the authority of a diaconissa. renunciation. In formulating these principles. and the more flexible from your softness of body.33 There have also been many pagan women who have laid a foundation for the religious life by their commitment to virtue. as pursued at the original school he con- ducted at the Paraclete. His technique is more to juxtapose a range of different examples for the edification of Heloise and her com- munity. Just as Heloise had opened her letter by drawing on Cicero’s image of one nail driving out another. he an- nounces that the three key principles of religious life for women are con- tinence. “who is now called the abbess. he modifies the list he had given in the second book of the Theologia Chris- tiana of the key virtues taught by pagan philosophers. continence. He does not disguise his fear of unrestrained sexuality and loose talk. or teach or dominate a man. namely. and silence. like the comments he makes in the Historia calamitatum about religious houses where men were sub- ordinate to women. The ideals that he wishes Heloise and her nuns to cultivate are not those of philosophical debate. These criticisms. he invokes the example of the painter Zeuxis— who used five girls made beautiful by nature as models for his art (an example reported by Cicero in his De inventione)—as a precedent for his own treatise. Continence he defines not by reference to Augustine’s definition that it has to do with the soul rather than the body.”35 This leads him to commend favorably the Pauline injunctions (1 Tim 2:11–12 and 4:13) that a woman should not speak in church. but silent study and devotion. renunciation. paradoxically at odds with his past fascination with her conversa- tion. traditionally believed to be non-virginal. Abelard does not explore in this treatise an implicit tension between Mary Magdalene. in which he wishes to portray the spiritual beauty of He- loise. and magnanimity. Ignoring Heloise’s urging that he desist from eulogy. so Abelard introduces his Rule for the nuns of the Paraclete by another image from Cicero. but to the practice of chastity as idealized by Jerome. Paula.160 abelard and heloise shame by the constancy of women’s devotion.

Only well into his discussion does Abelard introduce the themes raised by Heloise: that only when we act against our conscience do we sin (1 John 3:21–23) and that nothing is unclean in the eyes of Christ (1 Cor. He uses the quotation she discovered in Macrobius about women not being as likely as men to get as drunk to support his instruction that they should either abstain from or dilute wine. and presumes an unusual level of prosperity. The traditional quality of his ethical values comes out in his identifying external temptation as a more serious threat than false or external and insincere actions. and Christmas). so that he obeys her at once in necessary matters but pays no heed to what might be harmful. 8:13). The deaconess should devote herself to philosophical study and disputation if she has the education for it. The argument is less developed than in Heloise’s letter. and then from an older priest.”38 The provost’s duty is to ensure that these women keep themselves free from carnal pollution. thus reinforcing a traditional gender hierarchy within any religious community. heloise and the paraclete 161 He disliked the term “abbess.” on the grounds that etymologically abba means “father. served by monks who celebrate the Eu- charist. otherwise.”40 Ever so subtly.39 He cites a passage of Ambrose that Heloise had used to great effect in her second letter—“I have more easily found those who have kept their innocence than who have done true penance” (a favorite saying of Bernard of Clairvaux)—but quotes it more fully to explain that Ambrose was saying he could not repent amid “pouring out of wine and conjugal enjoyment of intercourse. she should devote herself to good deeds. whose duty was to minister to the nuns “like a steward in a king’s palace who does not oppress the queen by his powers but treats her wisely. Abelard’s account of the different duties within the abbey is detailed in the extreme. after mass was finished. and avoid all risk of sexual temp- tation.” while diaconissa has scriptural sanction. The brothers in the com- munity should not lord over the women and should not do anything against the will of the deaconess. The nuns should devote themselves above all to study. They should receive the Eucharist only three times a year (Easter. . even the mother superior. who needed priests and deacons to perform sacra- mental duties. from which Abelard copies a significant section about the dangers of wine. All the nuns.37 This was not an unusual situation for female communities. Pentecost. should stay enclosed within the community. Abelard imagined a provost. Above the deaconess. he turns passages that Heloise had discovered to a slightly different end from the one she had conceived. External duties should be negotiated by monks or lay brothers rather than by religious women. even though he insists that in all things sobriety must be observed.

43 In urging them to use study to repress sexual temptation. cannot be wholly free from sin. and Hebrew—like Jerome. he was struggling to quell his own desires. He- loise.” as in Luke 11:3) by panem supersubstantialem. Greek. he sees their role as living quietly and virtuously. he still feels that wine. was older and more authentic than that of Luke. 6:11 (epiousios) that also means “daily.”44 Abelard writes about this in a letter reporting that Bernard had been surprised about the community’s having changed the wording of the Lord’s Prayer by replacing the normal phrase panem quotidianum (“daily bread.41 The virtue of religious women. Quoting Jerome. Bernard was less sympathetic to tampering with tradition on the .” Abelard and Heloise were imi- tating the practice of Stephen Harding. like marriage. While he picks up her terminology. Bernard of Clairvaux visited the community “for a long-awaited holy visitation” and was apparently welcomed by Heloise and her sisters “as if he were an angel. lies in their being detached from worldly ambition. he urges these women to apply themselves to quell sexual desire: “Love knowledge of letters [Jerome had said ‘of Scripture’] and you will not love the vices of the flesh. Jerome’s mistranslation of a rare Greek word in Matt. The Institutiones and Liturgy of the Paraclete Sometime in the early years of its existence. whom he eulogizes as skilled in three languages—Latin.”42 This is the same antithesis as Abelard evokes in the Historia calamitatum. Abelard continues this theme in letter 9. that some things are indifferent rather than good or bad. as he sees it. Although he had promoted the key role played by women in the history of salvation.162 abelard and heloise Only when dealing with whether meat and wine are forbidden in themselves does he begin to develop an ethical theory comparable to the principles formulated by Heloise.45 In following “Hebrew truth. drawn from Seneca.” Abelard justifies his revision on the grounds that Matthew’s text. in which he sees study as a way of repressing sexual longing and the urging of the body. which he thought was originally written in Hebrew. He is harshly critical of monks who attach themselves to secular authorities in the hope of gaining influence. He draws extensively from the letters of Jerome to en- courage the nuns of the Paraclete to imitate their spiritual mother. transmitted separately from his Rule for the Paraclete but quite possibly its continuation. He has difficulty in integrating reflections about ethics in general with specific instructions about what nuns should or should not do. an early abbot of Cıˆteaux who consulted Jewish rabbis when supervising a corrected copy of the Latin Bible.

the Apostles’ Creed. with some significant changes. Abelard and Heloise were simply taking further the zeal of the early Cistercians for liturgical authenticity. The earliest record of the actual observances that she established is a short text (the Institutiones nostrae) appended to Abelard’s idealized and prolix Rule. dedicated to Mary Magdalene around 1140. not on the Rule of Benedict.46 Heloise did not actually implement all the detailed prescriptions that Abelard laid down in his Rule for the Paraclete.47 While most of the rules are short and concise. Women of proven age (although not the veiled nuns) were able to leave the community to conduct necessary business. in proportion to his gift to us. such as specifying that they take their way of life from the teaching of Christ and the apostles and do not mention the Rule of Benedict. have elements of Abelard’s Rule been employed. There is also no mention of an external abbot or a community of monks. and silence. such as mention of mattresses and pillows. renunciation. Only for a few details. a subtle revision of Abelard’s triad of continence. we persist in the commitment to chastity. the comment succinctly crys- tallizes her theme that one should always respect the limitations of human nature. only of certain lay brothers who could be sum- moned for correction by the abbess. creates a document . diaconissa. Chastity is mentioned simply as a consequence of renuncia- tion: “Since we renounce the world and make effort for God. and obe- dience. heloise and the paraclete 163 basis of scholarly knowledge. which he knew in such detail that he could have learned about them while staying at the Paraclete. the title used in place of Abelard’s preferred term. probably that of Trainel. without being constrained by their commitment to observe the letter of the Rule of Benedict. they open with a succinctly worded statement that the religious life of the community is based on three key principles: poverty. and the Athanasian Creed dem- onstrate his desire to prove his fidelity to core texts of the Christian tradition by interpreting them in the light of reason and the Holy Spirit. and strive to please him according to our own strength. here pruned back even further.”48 Written in the same style of rhyming prose as Heloise’s early letters. drafted in order to establish uniformity of observance between the Paraclete and a daugh- ter house. but directly on the example of the early followers of Christ. Abelard responded to Bernard’s criticism by reminding him of other liturgical changes that had been made by the Cistercians. They emphasize that the nuns of the community based their life. Abelard’s commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer. where Heloise was having to consider how much to use of the Cistercian liturgy. The relative simplicity of the early Cistercian rules. humility. It has been discovered that these observances themselves are based on a simplification of early Cistercian statutes as they stood in the 1130s. In many ways.

164 abelard and heloise that is much easier to follow than Abelard’s Rule.” even though they are sung at the wrong time. The Hymnal of the Paraclete The comments of Abelard about sending a Psalter in his first response to Heloise suggests that she was wanting him to contribute to the Paraclete liturgy even during the earliest years of the community.49 Her biggest complaint is that there are many hymns that speak of “rising at night” or “the dawn rises. Abelard quotes at length from a letter of Heloise in which she says she is troubled by the lack of clear authority for so many of the hymns sung in the Gallican Church and the difficulty of fitting their syllables to a melody. In the prologue to its first book. effectively forcing the singer to engage in a lie. and may even have helped promote devotion to Mary Magdalene . the evangelists. By the mid-1130s. where he once stayed. given that there were no special Cistercian hymns to Mary Mag- dalene until the mid-twelfth century. The liturgy specified in these observances basically echoes that prescribed by Abelard. or women who are neither virgins nor martyrs—a valuable clue to her own interest in Mary Magdalene. so she observes that many people sing hymns expressing re- pentance who do not genuinely feel these sentiments. Heloise went even further. Ben- edict. her so- lution of asking Abelard to compose a new set of hymns was contrary to Cistercian practice. She is surprised that there are no hymns celebrating the holy innocents. Her comments about the absence of any hymns in honor of women who were neither virgins nor martyrs is of particular interest. but then struck out those they believed were not composed by St. having taken it from Molesmes. with a good deal of time allowed for nuns to devote themselves to study between times spent in chapel. Just as she complained in her second letter to Abelard that there were many Christians who did not express true repentance. Heloise shared in a popular move- ment to broaden the image of a female saint away from the monopoly of virgin. Liturgy was clearly an important part of the life of the community.-Ayoul. Ambrose or actually used by St.50 The early Cistercians had themselves initially used this hymnal. it is possible that Abelard had brought to the Paraclete a copy of this hymnal from St. in urging Abelard to compose an entire hym- nal for the Paraclete.51 Yet while Heloise sympathized with Cistercian anxiety that too many hymns of uncertain authorship had become widely known. As all of the hymns that she criticizes as absurd happen to be included within the relatively restricted hymnal of Montier-la-Celle in Troyes.

there are suggestions in the surviving manuscripts that its nuns were familiar with some of the newer melodies that were allowed into the Cistercian liturgy after the reforms of 1147. The Para- clete liturgy was not only interesting for the range of influences it absorbed but also for its articulation of a distinct theological identity. Instead of focusing on the broad theory of Chris- tian theology. The surviving liturgical manuscripts of the com- munity. The early Cistercian hymnal was also extremely limited in its range of tunes. the six days of creation. Another major source was the hymnal composed by Abelard. although from the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. alongside the special prayers and hymns that he devised. Heloise’s decision to invite Abelard to contribute to the liturgy of the Paraclete forced him to explore a new type of writing and to harness his poetic gifts to new ends. testify that the nuns drew from an early date on a combination of influences. as Stephen Harding had insisted that they use only tunes they presumed were known to Benedict. While not in themselves major theological treatises. Mixing together such hymns cre- ated a range of melodies far larger than the two basic melodies that Ab- elard stipulates are to be used for his hymns. the nuns of the Paraclete placed themselves under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. perceived as the perfect human soul in her relationship to the Word of God. Abelard’s hymnal was never fully im- plemented by Heloise. Also at the request of Heloise. This culminated in festivities during the Octave of Pentecost. He thus provides a poetic and musical accompaniment to another treatise that Heloise requested him to write. Without having to argue against . they still show how Abelard developed the skill of formulating a theological argument on the basis of Scripture alone. The overarching theme that Abelard developed in his hymnal for the Paraclete is that the night hymns celebrate the work of creation. Like his Rule for the Paraclete. heloise and the paraclete 165 within a monastic order that originally had not preserved any special hymn in her honor. he had to explain how these principles could work out in practice to an audience not familiar with the core texts of a school cur- riculum. Whereas Cistercian monks placed themselves each day under the protection of the Virgin Mary. Although the Paraclete integrated all the supposedly “Ambrosian” hymns into their repertory. perhaps in the mid-1130s— an Expositio on the Hexaemeron. Exactly how long it took for Abelard and Heloise to consolidate a distinctive liturgical identity is impossible to determine with certainty. One was an early version of the Cistercian hymnal as it stood prior to reforms introduced by Bernard of Clairvaux around 1147. Abelard prepared a book of ser- mons to be used at the Paraclete. the day hymns the moral and allegorical significance of cre- ation.

One of his fa- vorite themes is the privileged role played by women in the history of salvation. he claims. He emphasizes a direct reading of the “literal” or his- torical meaning of Scripture much more than the allegorical and mystical interpretation favored by Bernard of Clairvaux. His own view is that it is “more probable and rational” that the reason baptism replaces circumcision is that baptism applies to both men and women. but now he has to communicate what is dis- tinctive about the Son’s incarnation as Jesus without drawing on academic authorities. The gospel itself put an end to the notion that anything was clean or unclean. Unlike Bernard of Clairvaux. so their virtue is more pleasing. such as homilies on Matthew attributed to Chrysos- . he was free to engage with the text of Scripture. Occasionally he discusses a rare patristic text. above all with the Gospels. “as their sex is weaker. His argument is that among the Jews there were both cir- cumcised and uncircumcised and that they were justified by faith.-Victor.53 The feast of the circumcision of the Lord provokes in Abelard a ques- tion about why it preceded baptism and what is different in the new dispensation. He emphasizes the theme that Christ draws humanity away from sin to the love of God. Unlike Hugh of St. in a fresh and direct way. Creating a collection of sermons to cover the major feasts of the liturgical year obliged him to formulate his ideas about a variety of topics. Abelard is not a great orator in his handling of Scripture.- Gildas and only subsequently preserved at the Paraclete. His approach is more to analyze the theological issues presented by a Gospel text than to play with the language of Scripture. He sees the incarnation as a stained glass window through which the divine brightness shines. may have been originally addressed to monks of St.55 Whereas Abelard’s earlier writing had assumed familiarity with his reading of Aristotle and Porphyry. Not all the surviving sermons of Abelard would have been composed at the same time.”52 Abelard had written a good deal in his Theologia about the eternal aspect of the Son of God. and argues that it is our blindness that prevents us from perceiving true wisdom. Abelard does not consider circumcision to be a sacrament of mystical significance so much as a way of restraining Jewish men from infidelity. while cir- cumcision.166 abelard and heloise potential critics demanding authority for each point. urging only that we flee sin. like his lengthy sermon for the feast of John the Baptist. or rather “by faith through love. was intended to stop men from having sex with non-Jewish women.”54 He recognizes that there is an opinion that circumcision was instituted to forgive original sin. his sermons presume no knowledge of philosophical texts beyond that of Scripture and the occasional passage from the Fathers. Some.

Abelard had emphasized trust in the consoling goodness of God. he notes that “Hosanna” is a Hebrew word. His point is not that marriage is a sacrament.57 In the sermons that he sends to Heloise.60 Without explicitly raising the theme of the purity of intention. to grant true salvation (healing) in heaven. it pleases us to call to mind those things which the Lord did on those days. in relation to Palm Sunday.” though it actually means. his emphasis always being on the inspi- ration of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless. Rather than emphasizing that baptism has washed away our sins. he recognizes that sin is much more than simply wrong behavior. The Easter season provides him with a particularly rich opportunity to reflect on Christ’s passion and how he has redeemed us from sin. “We beseech you. but that it is a comfort “for the weakness of married people” sanctified by the presence of the Lord. according to the letter.-Victor. In that narrative. without which no sacrament has meaning.”58 Christ comes to heal us by inviting the sinner. to true repentance. leading up to his death. but he now has to reflect on the complex character of sin as existing in thought. rich in full devotion.59 By their nature. Lord. emphasized by Heloise.”61 Having theorized about the good- . custom. He criticizes those clerics who do not fully appreciate the significance of Jesus having been present at the wedding feast at Cana. according to Je- rome. His technique is to reflect first on the specific context of the Gospel reading of the day. misinterpreted by many as “save me. Some of Abelard’s most evocative writing in the sermons develops the theme of grief over the suffering of Jesus in the days of his passion. he argues that Christ continually calls us to repentance of the heart. This theme still underpins the sermons. the Holy Spirit came down on Jesus alone. conveyed in all sweetness. they demonstrate a profound evo- lution from the moralistic attitude to sin and conversion presented in the Historia calamitatum to more of an interior emphasis on inner repentance. “And since the historical level arouses the devotion of the simple more than the mystical. these sermons are public documents that do not address Heloise directly. Abelard lays the foundation for the theological arguments that he will develop more systematically in his commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and in his lectures to students in Paris during the 1130s. While many were baptized with Jesus. Thus. Abelard gives less attention to the outward form of a sacra- ment than Hugh of St.56 He assumes that his reader is capable of following a sophisticated argument about the wise men that expands into reflection on baptism. and corruption. action. like Lazarus. heloise and the paraclete 167 tom but actually written by an Arian author of the fourth or fifth cen- tury. O Lord. often commenting on the dif- ferent ways in which a word might be used.

sufferings just as great as the disasters he had pre- sented as his own in the Historia calamitatum. Abelard dwells on the agony of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane.62 This homiletic writing exerts its own power by concentrating more on the historical level of what Jesus experienced as a human being than on the mystical significance of the Word of God entering the soul. although here presented for the benefit of a wider audience exhorted to listen to the words of Scripture with understanding of what they mean for each individual. above all to Mary Magdalene. and is rewarded by being physically as- sumed into heaven. This is one of a series of sequences (along with Virgines castae and De profundis) with a strong claim to have originated at the Paraclete as a composition of either Ab- .- Victor more in his understanding of the meaning of the punishment (poena) inherited from Adam and removed by the punishment experi- enced by Christ. In the Paraclete liturgy. a sequence was sung (Epithalamica) that vividly evokes the intense love that binds Mary Magdalene to the risen Lord as she seeks him. witnesses the suffering of Christ. Every stage of the passion narrative provokes reflection urging devotion to Jesus. Ab- elard’s approach is to evoke sympathy for the historical Jesus by appealing to the commitment of the holy women who served Christ. were present at his death. Easter also enables him to reflect on how the Lord first revealed himself to the women who came to the tomb. who receives the Word of God at the annunciation. the female figure who experiences divine revelation most fully is the Virgin Mary. but he speaks more about the way the Holy Spirit has reached out to the other women celebrated in Scripture. or that we are regenerated through Christ. in the fashion of Bernard of Clairvaux. but he provides rich description of the sufferings experienced by Jesus. and witnessed the resurrection. While preachers frequently dwelt on the suffering of Christ.63 He differs from Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugh of St. These are the same themes Abelard had developed in his replies to Heloise. Abelard does not deny the reality of Adam’s sin. it was often to contrast Christ’s innocence with the sinfulness of humanity. Within the allegorical tra- dition. more committed to an active life in the world.168 abelard and heloise ness of God manifest in the Paraclete. imagined to be the sister of Martha. the apostle of the apostles. Abelard steers away from explicit dis- cussion of controversial issues such as whether the devil has a legitimate right over humanity. Abelard does not deny that Mary is privileged to receive the Holy Spirit. reminding his audience that St. In these sermons. Abelard dwells on the tragedy of what happened when this divine goodness was manifest in the person of Jesus. Ambrose spoke of Christ’s fear of dying even though he was the Son of God. inherited from our first parents.

heloise and the paraclete 169

elard or Heloise.64 It develops the erotic imagery of the Song of Songs
with unusual intensity:
Per noctem igitur hunc quaerens exeo;
Huc, illuc, anxia quaerendo cursito;
Occurrunt vigiles; ardenti studio,
Quos cum transierim, Sponsum invenio.
Iam video quod optaveram,
Iam teneo quod amaveram;
Iam rideo quae sic fleveram,
Plus gaudeo quam dolueram:
Risi mane, flevi nocte;
Mane risi, nocte flevi.
[By night therefore I go out seeking him;
Anxiously, I run here, there, seeking him;
The watchmen are coming; with burning zeal,
When I pass them, I find the bridegroom.
Now I see what I had hoped for,
Now I clasp what I had loved;
Now I laugh at what I had so wept for,
I rejoice more than I had grieved:
At morn, I laughed, I wept by night;
I laughed at morn, by night I wept.]65

The song of Mary Magdalene recalls similar imagery in one of Heloise’s
early letters of the Epistolae duorum amantium (84), in which she also
adapts the Song of Songs to evoke her love:
Post mutuam nostre visionis allocucionisque noticiam, tu solus michi pla-
cebas supra omnem dei creaturam, teque solum dilexi, diligendo quesivi,
querendo inveni, inveniendo amavi, amando optavi, optando omnibus in
corde meo preposuit, teque solum elegi ex milibus, ut facerem tecum pignus.
[Ever since we first met and spoke to each other, only you have pleased me
above all God’s creatures and only you have I loved. Through loving you,
I searched for you; searching for you, I found you; finding you, I desired
you; desiring you, I chose you; choosing you, I placed you before everyone
else in my heart.]66

Is this sequence, sung at the Paraclete, a composition of Heloise rather
than of Abelard? Whatever the case, it is clear that the liturgy, like the
letters they exchanged, constituted a collaborative effort. The devotional
intensity encouraged by Abelard at the Paraclete provides a fitting re-
sponse to the ethical questions Heloise wants him to address. Prayers to

170 abelard and heloise

the Holy Spirit and sequences about Mary Magdalene seeking her beloved
enable him to deflect and transform the emotional intensity that Heloise
brought to recollection of their relationship.

The Planctus

Perhaps the richest poetic achievement resulting from Abelard’s renewed
contact with Heloise and the Paraclete during the 1130s is the series of
six planctus, or laments, on biblical themes that Abelard wrote for the
community and for Heloise in particular.67 Her fondness for the lament
as a genre is evident even in some of those later poems (69, 82) that she
included in the Epistolae duorum amantium as well as in the short poem
in honor of Vital of Savigny. In her response to the Historia calamitatum,
she persistently reminded Abelard of his skill in verse and melodic com-
position, alongside his talent for philosophy. Even in her earlier letters
(21, 112), she had marvelled at this particular combination of gifts. Con-
fronted by her demand that he renew their literary exchanges to a level
comparable to the intensity of their early relationship, Abelard embarked
on a project of offering her figures in Scripture as models of heroic suf-
fering. The first of these is Dinah, daughter of Jacob, who had been raped
by Shechem, son of a gentile ruler.68 According to Genesis 34, Jacob’s
sons are outraged by the crime and want revenge but come to accept the
union, as Shechem did love her, on the proviso that he and all the men
of his region be circumcised. Dinah’s brothers Simeon and Levi nonethe-
less kill Shechem and all the men in revenge for having abused Dinah.
The story provides an eloquent exemplum of a tragic crime, tellingly close
to the experience of Abelard and Heloise. Whereas in the Historia cal-
amitatum Abelard offered his own story as a model of overcoming tragedy,
he now has a biblical model to offer.
The choice of victims in these laments seems to be deliberately struc-
tured to cover a range of tragic situations described in the Bible. The
second planctus transforms the deathbed speech of Jacob (Genesis 49) into
a lament over the crimes of his sons Simeon and Levi and the grief that
will plague Benjamin, his youngest son. Just as the first lament is about
Dinah losing the man who loved her, so the second is about Jacob grieving
over his sons. In both situations, Heloise could find much to identify
with.69 The third lament, of the virgins of Israel over the daughter of
Jephthah, is even more pertinent to Heloise. It examines the tragedy of
an only daughter sacrificed by her father through a vow to God that he
would sacrifice the first person to come through the door of his house

heloise and the paraclete 171

(Judg. 11:29–40). The composition, an imaginative tour de force, reflects
on the apparent pointlessness of the sacrifice of an innocent for the sake
of a religious vow, more extreme than that of Isaac by Abraham. Rather
than coax a moral meaning out of the tragedy, Abelard turns it into a
tragic lament over the madness of the father and the abuse of a religious
vow. The fourth lament, of Israel over Samson, takes the opposing situ-
ation of a great man brought down through the wiles of a woman (Judges
16). Again, there is great personal relevance to the image, since Heloise
had herself used the episode to talk about their situation.70 Inherent in
the story is a misogynist theme of a great man brought low by a woman.
The driving message is that the judgments of God are deep and to be
feared, whether it is an innocent woman like Jephthah’s daughter or a
heroic man like Samson who is struck down.
The fifth lament expresses the grief of David for Abner, the bold and
virtuous general, once David’s friend, but (according to 2 Samuel 3) trag-
ically murdered by Joab (tellingly, attacked in the groin).71 While we can
certainly read the lament as an extended reflection on his own experience,
Abelard’s broader message is that this murder is not God’s will but is a
great crime that calls out for justice. In his letters to Heloise, he had
asked that she consider not his own suffering but that of Jesus. Here he
offers her from the treasury of Scripture other examples of people who
have suffered. The final lament, of David over Jonathan, son of Saul,
completes this cycle of poetic reflection on the suffering of a noble victim.
In 2 Samuel 1, the Bible presents the lament of David over both Saul
and Saul’s son, Jonathan, whom he loved “like his own soul” (1 Sam. 18:
1). The lament allows Abelard an opportunity, not present in the story
of Abner, to reflect on the paradox that such great love could turn to
tragedy and on the feelings of guilt that this could provoke. The music
for this lament, the only one that survives in pitched notation, gives us
some clue to Abelard’s great melodic genius, coupled with an ability to
make tightly controlled poetic verse come alive in its presentation. While
Abelard never wrote a commentary on books of the Old Testament, these
laments constitute an astonishingly personal response to some of the great
stories that they tell about the human situation.
Whether it was Heloise herself who first suggested these biblical epi-
sodes is not known. It is noteworthy, however, that apart from the early
foray into commentary on Ezekiel, Abelard steered away from biblical
exegesis, at least during the 1120s. He preferred to deal with examples
from the philosophers. By contrast, Heloise, whom he celebrates for her
knowledge of Hebrew, seems always to have had a close interest in the
Bible. In the Epistolae duorum amantium, she betrays great familiarity with

172 abelard and heloise

Scripture when, in letter 27, she counters a particularly erotic message
with a cryptic note, sending her lover “the spirit of Bezalel, the strength
of the three locks of hair, the beauty of the father of peace, the depth of
Ididia.”72 In those love letters, he was not very interested in picking up
images from Scripture, and preferred to compose songs and melodies that
celebrated love rather than wisdom and courage. As Ruys argues, these
laments open up a new way of communication with Heloise, who was
always concerned with issues of human experience. Her Problemata, writ-
ten perhaps in the later 1130s (although before the Scito teipsum) show
that she is fascinated by issues of sin, guilt, and suffering in often quite
obscure biblical passages. Abelard singles out her knowledge of Hebrew
as much as of Latin and Greek, effectively attributing to her the same
linguistic competency as traditionally assigned to Jerome.73 As so often
with Heloise, her contribution to these poetic laments is concealed. They
may best be seen as collaborative productions rather than as the work of
one or other individual. There may also be other poems that Abelard
composed, such as one in the shape of a wheel, attributed to him in a
manuscript. In all such cases, questions of authenticity abound.74
We have no record of the homilies that Heloise delivered in the chap-
ter house to the nuns and brothers living at her community. Because so
much of the written record is identified as Abelard’s, her own literary
output, celebrated by Hugh Metel and Peter the Venerable, has fallen
into a dark shadow. Just as we can never fully know the exact contribution
of Heloise to the vast body of anonymous secular Latin lyrics, such as
preserved in the Carmina burana, so we will never be sure how much she
contributed to the even larger body of anonymous religious verse and
drama from the period. Heloise did not present herself to her contem-
poraries as an author in the manner of Marie de France or Hildegard of
Bingen. We have the comment of Hugh Metel that she did win renown
as a writer: “Your reputation, flying through the void, has resounded to
us; what is worthy of resounding from you, has made an impression on
us. It has informed us that you have surpassed the female sex. How? By
composing, by versifying, by renewing familiar words in a new combina-
tion, and what is more excellent than everything, you have overcome
womanly weakness and have hardened in manly strength.”75 Much more
research is needed into the large corpus of anonymous Latin literature
from the period. It is clear, however, that Heloise was revered by contem-
poraries for her wisdom and learning. Romantic images of Heloise as nar-
rowly fixated on her love for Abelard and out of sorts with the religious
structures in which she spent most of her life misunderstand the breadth
and character of her intellectual curiosity and literary genius. Her abiding

heloise and the paraclete 173

intellectual interest was with the question of what constituted truly eth-
ical behavior. Abelard was always a great master of language, whether
philosophical, poetic, or theological, but he always considered Heloise to
be much more the person who lived out her ethical ideals. Her dilemma
was that she became the prisoner of his zeal. When Abelard composed
his Historia calamitatum in 1132/33, he wanted his readers, perhaps above
all Heloise, to think of the consoling goodness of the Holy Spirit as
superior to any worldly love. Heloise was not satisfied that such a theology
in itself could offer her true consolation. In writing for the Paraclete,
Abelard started to develop new ideas and interests, prompted by the in-
sistent questioning of Heloise.


Ethics, Sin, and Redemption

L ike many of their contemporaries, Abelard and Heloise both lamented
the hypocrisy of prominent figures who in public preached ideals of
love for God and neighbor, while being more concerned in practice to
obtain the support of the powerful than to help those in genuine distress.
Heloise was more diplomatic than Abelard in the way she articulated
these concerns and negotiated her relationships. She was not as prone to
make broad assertions about specific individuals whom he accused of using
religious ideals to promote their careers. One such target of Abelard’s
satire was William of Champeaux, even though he learned a great deal
from William about the principles of argument. By extension, Abelard
charged many of William’s admirers with intellectual blindness and failure
to live out the ethical principles of love and compassion that they
preached. His critique was certainly colored by the way he felt he had
been mistreated by the ecclesiastical establishment. When he first met
Heloise, Abelard was overwhelmed by a sense that she lived out her ideals
of a truly ethical life, which she saw as the true teaching not just of
Scripture but of both Cicero in his writing on friendship and Ovid in his
poetry about love. Abelard, brilliant in analyzing words, was fascinated
by her concern with ethical principles and attempted to respond to her
early questions about love, but he still remained then a specialist in di-
alectic. Even from relatively early in their exchange, Heloise is stronger
in her sense of the demands of love as an ideal to be pursued for its own
sake and not for any external gain. Whereas he sees love as something


in the Col- lationes he provides only occasional allusion to the Fathers of the Church or the fourfold classification of the virtues of Plotinus as reported by Ma- . and Macrobius rather than developing a coherent ethical system. an ideal difficult to manifest in practice. prefers to emphasize the natural capacity of the educated person to understand the nature of love. that ethics is the highest grade of philosophy. much emphasized by his teachers. he was summarizing what he understood to be the essential features of Socratic ethics from comments made by Augustine.-Thierry and Bernard of Clairvaux. can we be reformed in the image of God. In a brief dialogue called Soliloquium. sin. Plato. and redemption 175 that they share. and concluded that philosophers often surpass Christians in the quality of their lives. as formulated in the second book of the Theologia Christiana. but his concerns were still more theoretical than ethical. he had “Petrus” and “Abaelardus” debate the common ground between philosophical and religious paths to truth. His early ideas about ethics. ethics. the emphasis here tended to be on divine love and the divine grace that made it possible for fallen humanity to perceive this transcendent love. but prefers to argue that we should be motivated by love of virtue rather than by desire to escape the bonds of sin. according to the scribe of one manuscript) is significantly more developed than the Theologia Christiana in its comparison of philosophical and Chris- tian understandings of the ethical life. The Collationes (or Dialogus. were rela- tively sketchy and not as fully worked out as his ideas about theology. by contrast. that lust is a consequence of original sin and that only through the grace of Christ. While there was much discussion at the time in monastic circles about the nature of love. Jerome. He is not comfortable with Augustine’s explanation. mediated through the sacraments. He did recognize. Whereas in the Theologia Christiana Abelard placed great attention on authoritative testimonies. He takes for granted that lust is wrong. she holds to an ideal of pure love that combines passion- ate longing (amor) with selfless love (dilectio) and friendship (amicitia). Abelard. however.1 While he outlined in that work some key ideas about natural law as the foundation of all morality and assumed that all philosophers accept the immortality of the soul and its reward or punishment according to human merit.2 The Collationes Not the least of the many enigmas that surround the Collationes is great uncertainty about its date of composition. as evident from the writings of William of St.

the supreme good for humanity. a Christian.”6 This open-ended conclusion does not mean that Abelard ever intended to take it further. The second of the two dialogues closes with the Christian’s reflection on the meaning of “good. if there is anything more which you think is to be asked about it. and ethics.8 While he does not model the philosopher on any specific Muslim. from a philosophical perspective. The philosopher was content with natural law and the study of moral philosophy. what I have said just now is enough to show how ‘good’ should be understood when it is taken without qualification to mean a good thing and also when it is applied to the happening of things or what are said by statements.5 Abelard’s emphasis is not on confronting his monastic and academic crit- ics but on inviting a sympathetic reader to consider rationally the com- mon ground of ethics and theology.3 He quotes only a single passage from Plato’s Timaeus.” in other words. please add it. Since this derived from our investigation in the highest good. “Unless I am mis- taken.176 abelard and heloise crobius. and a philosopher. between 1127 and about 1132. it lays the foundations for ethical concerns examined in more detail in the Scito teipsum. he nurtured the idealized image of there being greater intellectual tolerance in a Muslim culture than in Christendom.-Gildas. itself lifted from the Theologia Christiana. or hurry on to what remains. The two dialogues that constitute the Collationes make more sense as occupying a key moment in the evolution of Abelard’s thought. under Muslim rule in Spain.” The Christian concludes.” Abelard is now also more familiar with the writing of Seneca. whose De inventione he once described as a “treatise of ethics. that is. since he has demonstrated capacity in both phi- losophy and sacred doctrine in the Theologia: “Envy could not put up with . theology. While informed by Abelard’s interest in the meaning of words and propositions.7 Certainly this fits in with a comment Abelard makes in the Historia calamitatum that toward the end of his early years at the Paraclete he was plunged into such despair by criticism from other Christians that he thought he could live more happily among “the enemies of Christ. bringing together his interest in dialectic. It begins with a preface in which he describes how in a vision he came across a Jew. The confident tone of the Collationes suggests that a date in the early 1130s may be more likely than those difficult early years at St. The philosopher calls on Abelard to adjudicate their debate.-Gildas. all of whom were engaged in discussion about the different ways they claimed to worship the one God.4 The figure whom he reveres as a teacher of ethics is Cicero. Mar- enbon suggests that the most likely time for its composition is the period at St. while the Jew and the Christian both relied on Scrip- ture for their knowledge of God.

it was much less common to privilege the role of a philosopher in such debates. the relationship between outer duty and inner intention. The phi- losopher’s argument is also very similar to that which Abelard puts forward in his sermon on circumcision about there having been virtuous figures in the Old Testament who did not themselves carry out all the obser- vances of the law. Although the argument is couched in terms of observance of the law. addressed to Heloise sometime in the 1130s.10 Because Abelard refers back to the Collationes in his commentary on the Hexaemeron.12 The philosopher. there is a wider issue under debate. but. rather. makes the case that the works of faith do not matter as much as the intention behind them. natural law can suffice for salvation. The fact that it is preserved in one man- uscript alongside the Sic et non (in its penultimate recension) suggests that he intended it to function as a basis for serious discussion. he refers elsewhere to the second book of his Theologia Chris- tiana as providing both reasoning and authority against those who deny that faith should be investigated by reasoning. rather like the Sic et non.” suggesting that he had not yet prepared the latter revision. namely. which is the same position Heloise argues so strongly for in her third letter to Abelard about the relationship between outward observance and inner disposition. but it has not managed to dispose of it. sin.9 A series of passages from Augustine about the goodness of the world seems to have been lifted from Theologia Christiana rather than the Theologia “Scholarium. he may have expected her to be familiar with its discussions of good and evil. Abelard is also unusually sympathetic in reporting the burdens under which the Jew labors in a hostile society and in arguing that Jewish respect for the law is based on fearing God rather than on excessive legalism. The first of its two dialogues. the more he has covered it with glory” (an allusion to Exod. While there was an established genre of inventing dialogues between a Jew and a Christian. and redemption 177 such a book. the more it has persecuted it. explores in greater depth questions about Jewish law that Abelard touches on in a less academic fashion in some of his sermons. Abelard replies by saying that he would rather listen to their arguments. between a philosopher and a Jew. While he is not specific about which version of the Theologia is being referred to. 14:4.-Gildas. by contrast. about the Israelites being persecuted by the Egyptians but provoking the Lord to reveal his glory).11 Abelard certainly wrote the Collationes for a more educated audience than the monks of St. There may be an evolution here from his earlier atti- tude of hostility to Jewish narrowness in the Theologia Christiana. as this is the path of true wisdom. Written law may have its place. ethics.13 The philosopher . as the philosopher argues.

which might often (as in the case of circumcision) have a practical func- tion. Here the strands of argument are separated out. offered through the insights of both the Jew and the philosopher. The woman was punished by the labor of childbirth “for the pleasure taken in the evil desire she had when the child was con- ceived. Abelard had al- ready anticipated these themes in the Theologia Christiana. In some ways. In neither work does he question whether sexual intercourse is sinful. and he reminds the Jew of the example of both Abraham and Job.”16 Abelard’s argument in the Collationes that suffering is a pun- ishment for wrongdoing is fully of a piece with what he maintains in the Historia calamitatum. with some elements developed by the Jew and others by the philosopher. his concern is with the character of religious observance. as expounded by the Jew.15 Again. The dialogue provides a way of finding a deeper reason behind the precepts found in Scripture. Rather than engage in a com- mentary on the books of the Old Testament. anticipated in the Old Testament as the medium through which sanctification can begin.”14 Ovid understood as much as Paul that creating a legal prohibition could easily encourage occasion for sin.178 abelard and heloise emerges as an interpreter of Jewish law. the virtuous pagan. . namely. that “we always desire what is forbidden and wish for what we are denied. to encourage friendship and fellowship among the Jews. namely. is the perfect love of God and neighbor—the same goal.-Victor offered on the sacra- ments. that man is punished in his genitals (by circumcision) for the sin of intercourse. an issue of great concern to Heloise and which he discussed in much more detail in the Scito teipsum. as that of the natural philosopher. He distances himself from the reflection that Hugh of St. but one that is compatible with philosophical enquiry. Abelard does not dissect the character of sin in any depth here. a sin for which he was thrown out of paradise. of how Jews and non-Jews can respect the Word of God. The philosopher repeats a comment of Ovid that Abelard had reported in the Theologia Christiana. the exposition attrib- uted to the Jew is in continuity with the teaching of Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux. The Jew enables Abelard to expound what he understands by the pun- ishment inflicted on Adam and Eve. Its implications are as much theological as ethical. we are told. these are thoughts developed more concisely in his sermons. and she also pays the penalty that was due to her because of her sinning. Abelard uses this dialogue as a way of singling out the key issues involved in any debate on Jewish tradition. Abelard’s dialogue is not so much a comparison of two re- ligious traditions as an interpretation of the true meaning of Jewish Scrip- ture. but without the detailed discussion of how the Jews live out their faith in practice. The goal of the law. Rather.

”18 While Augustine had contrasted the philosopher’s knowledge of ethics with the Christian’s reverence for God himself. good behavior. The philosopher’s argument. that is. has nothing to do with impurities of the soul. ethics. Whether this is presented as a legiti- mate Christian position is left for the reader to consider.” is remitted. through which someone sins. The second dialogue. “[W]e are ad- vancing to the end and completion of all disciplines. The decisive argument in this first di- alogue is given to the philosopher. and redemption 179 Religious observance was enjoined on the Jews to help them not be cor- rupted by unbelievers. Abelard uses the philosopher to develop the argument that guilt is brought about by true contrition of heart. between a philosopher and a Christian. He did so in a way that went further than anything he had said in the Theologia Christiana. that true penitence will remove the risk of future punishment (and thus the risk of purgatory) is one that the Christian takes further in the second dialogue and that Abelard himself alludes to in his commentary on Romans. Abelard discusses issues about sin and virtue that are of concern to Heloise but without engaging in her situation at a personal level. which you custom- arily call ethics. “which we properly call sins. while you call it from that through which it is reached. who was both interested in Jewish tradition but critical of narrow legalism. which you call virtues. we call it that from that which is held to be understood. Abelard was arguing that there was a profound connection be- tween ethics and divinity.” This recalls Heloise’s own critique of the relationship between religious observance and the ethics of the inner person. in which true virtue consists. who argues (by quoting Scripture) that God longs more for the sacrifice of a contrite heart than for external religious observance.’ but which we commonly call divinity. namely. What Abelard has to say through the voice of both the Jew and the philosopher is very close to what he has to say in his sermons to the nuns of the Paraclete. In the Collationes. ‘morals. whether it be the nocturnal emission of semen by a man or a woman’s menstrual flow. in which he suggested only that some pagans were more profound in their lives and ethical teaching than some Christians. but its true goal is simply the development of the love of God and of one’s neighbor. sin. similarly provides an opportunity for Abelard to identify the most significant in- sights offered by each tradition.17 The philosopher’s criticism of the Jewish claim that circumcision is enjoined on those excluded from the law highlights Abelard’s sense of the limita- tions of any religious observance. Abelard uses the figure of the philosopher . His argument that what the law calls unclean. however. As the Christian puts it. Many of the philos- opher’s arguments parallel those of Heloise. God. so that “the guilt of a perverse will. that is.

of most continent life. dialectic. he needs to adopt a different technique from when debating with other Christians. The philosopher draws from a few passages of Augustine about dialectic as he quotes them in the Theo- logia Christiana to explain how understanding is always deepened by dis- cussing arguments that had been put forward. In this.”24 The arguments of the philos- . as I explained. The Christian ac- knowledges that if he is to discuss faith with a philosopher. although he would single Seneca out for praise as a teacher of ethics in both his Rule for the Paraclete and the Theologia “Scholarium.” give such weight to his teaching?23 Abelard had never quoted Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius in the Theologia Christiana. because they do not understand what it is.180 abelard and heloise to suggest that ethics is the highest part of philosophy.” Abelard amplifies his citation of the same passage of Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana that he had misquoted in the Theologia “Summi boni” (where he erroneously reported Augustine as saying that dialectic was good “for discussing” rather than “for dissolving”). In the Theologia Christiana. Formulating the arguments of a philosopher and a Christian helped him reach this goal. or other disciplines. “that Epi- curean heretic. far beyond gram- mar.”22 In the Collationes. by asserting the superiority of arguments based on reason. while also indirectly responding to Heloise. “that greatest teacher of morals. the philosopher rejects the popular image of Epicurus as elevating pleasure for its own sake and criticizes those “who ignorantly attribute [this argument] to Epicurus and his followers. he relied largely on the neg- ative judgments of Jerome. as you yourself acknowledge. Even at the time of writing the Collationes he may have been thinking about an Ethica that would be comparable to the Theologia as a treatise. his main technique was to use his skill in logica to examine the character of supreme good as understood by Christians. Now he feels that ethica must command the attention of his stu- dents if they are to understand its relationship to theologia.” Why else would Seneca. Abelard had given little attention to phi- losophers’ internal differences apart from a few brief comments that the Peripatetics had dissolved heretical opinions of both Stoics and Epicure- ans about providence and free will. who had written against Jovinian.19 When he wrote the Dialectica. In the Theologia Christiana. the Epicureans.21 By using philosophical perspectives. Abelard explains why he wishes to move beyond his technique in the Theologia Christiana of relying as much on authority as on reason. The second section of the Collationes also helps him to refine his dis- cussion of the relationship between reasoning and faith. he had suggested that dialectic was the ruler of other philosophical disci- plines.20 In the Theologia “Schola- rium. which they call pleasure [voluptas].

and indifferent.” and that philosophers all value the life to come. the relationship between pagan ideals of virtue and Christian teaching about the ideal of love. by modern standards. which the philosopher. or a state in which . failure to distinguish the general category of “a good man” from a specific good man.27 Inevitably individuals differ greatly in the extent to which they are shaped by charity. and the good are therefore equal in virtue. is not so much to study in- dividual philosophers as to convey the idea that what Epicureans see as a life detached from suffering is a life lived in accord with virtue. and redemption 181 opher echo those of Heloise. namely. who was particularly fond of Seneca. who may not be as good as someone else. Abelard teases out a central theme of his thinking about what constitutes a truly ethical life. Through the discussion that follows. that Epicurean understanding of pleasure is fundamentally the same as Stoic notions of virtue. The fact that charity is the foundation of the virtues does not mean it is equal in everyone. corresponding to three final conditions of humanity: good. ethics. This is the position of Cicero in his De inventione and is also the same principle that Heloise insists is the basis of her love for Abelard.25 Ab- elard’s understanding of Epicurus is still. Abelard’s broader intention. The Christian chides the philosopher for remaining too committed to assuming that virtue is either present or not present in an individual. bad. however. rudimen- tary. drawing on a familiar distinction of Seneca. sin. here conflated with that of Epicurus. The conversation then tends to the supreme good for humanity and the next life. Abelard has the Christian use dialectic to identify a weak- ness in the Stoic argument. on the au- thority of both Augustine and Paul. Abelard then uses the Christian to identify a weakness in the Stoic argument. suggests has a threefold character. defined as “good will.26 The key insight Abelard has the Christian put forward. namely. namely. is that caritas embraces all the vir- tues. that it does not allow for any grades of happiness. made firm by a settled state. He thinks. Some- one is either virtuous or not. This rehabilitation of a philosophical position traditionally scorned by the Fathers of the Church leads the Christian to claim that what Epicurus calls pleasure is the same thing as what Christians call the kingdom of heaven. for example. Commenting on the same passages from Cicero’s De officiis and Augustine’s discussion of the Stoics in one of his letters as he had used to introduce debate about love in the Sic et non. Abelard dissects the relationship between pagan virtue on one hand and Christian teach- ing about love on the other by having his two protagonists debate the issue. The philosophical ideal is of something that is worthy to be desired for itself and not because of anything else.

The reader is invited to see these positions not so much opposed as mutually com- plementary. The philosopher speaks of vice both abstractly as the opposite of a virtue (injustice. while the Christian considers the definition of what constitutes supreme good and supreme evil for humanity. the philosopher emphasizes that it has to be pursued as an end in itself.29 Natural chastity. as he had been made forcibly chaste.” A similar issue surfaces when Heloise insists at the end of her second letter that Abelard should not exhort her to virtue and aim for a victor’s crown: “I do not seek a crown of victory.”32 There is the same tendency to identify vice with sin. effectively very close to the position of Heloise. and insists that her struggle will lead to an eternal reward. Virtue lies in constancy of the . and temperance or self-restraint. is thus not a virtue.33 For those who have a right will. sometimes translated as “righteousness”). the latter concept is examined more fully in the Scito teipsum. the philosopher presents his un- derstanding of the virtues.”30 Abelard does not accept this. as in Abelard’s response to the protestation of Heloise that even during mass she cannot resist carnal thoughts.31 The discussion is much more focused around virtue than vice. which “loosens us to give way to dis- gusting pleasures and shameful desires. in exactly the same way as the Sic et non presents contrasting perspectives on many other issues. that sin is a perverse or wrong will that needs to be replaced by a good or right will (bona voluntas). weakness. “Where there is no conflict against something to be fought. In the last section of the Collationes. he no longer has to struggle to achieve virtue in this respect. While the philosopher and the Christian in the Collationes agree that virtue has to be a disposition based on effort. notably justice (justitia. Abelard knew from Boethius that Aristotle differed in this from the definition of Socrates that virtue was a kind of knowledge.) and as weak- ness of the mind to resist those vices. the philosopher considers prudence not so much as a virtue in itself as the capacity to distinguish between good and evil. courage. there is no victor’s crown of virtue. based on frigidity or coldness of the body. and thus the source or mother of the virtues.28 Abelard then has the philosopher draw on Aristotle’s definition of virtue as “the best settled state of the mind [habitus animi]” to explain that it is not a natural state but something acquired. it is sufficient for me to avoid danger. He singles out as a virtue intem- perance or lack of self-restraint. Extending and slightly modifying clas- sifications of the virtues attributed to Socrates and Cicero. God offers the assistance of his grace. because it does not win triumph over desire. etc.182 abelard and heloise no virtues or merits have developed. While the philosopher is not particularly concerned here with the definition of sin. he assumes (as in the previous dialogue with the Jew). leading to right action. intemperance.

Both the philosopher and the Christian accept that the soul is immortal and that there are eternal consequences for both virtue and fault (culpa) for which there has been no true repentance. has a human rather than a natural origin. identified. in how they look at suffering in this world. both in this world and in the life to come. hinges around discussion of the different ways in which the words “good” and “bad” are used. even though it may be good or just for a person to be afflicted in some way. he concludes that a torment or punishment may be a bad thing in itself. submitting to sorrow is more a weak- ness than a virtue. and redemption 183 will. however. what Christians call heaven and hell. The philosopher considers that suffering is the greatest evil for humanity. This moralism leads Abelard to have the philosopher say that since God arranges all things to the good. His analysis of the question. in- cluding precepts such as circumcision and baptism. Abelard raises the issue that all law that derives from positive justice. Abelard has the philosopher argue that all human laws. as opposed to that supreme tranquility. are better or worse than a system of relying on oath and discussion by witnesses to settle a dispute. If the Collationes is read simply for its analysis of ethical questions. This enables him to connect to his argument in the dialogue with the Jew that laws have a social function rather than an immutable char- acter of divine origin. How can it be right to mourn something ordained by God?34 This is the same message that Abelard develops in response to He- loise’s claim that she cannot forgive God for what happened to them both. ethics. Developing a distinction made by Chalcidius between natural and pos- itive justice as that between universal justice and that found in human community. belong to positive justice. He comments in passing that we have to submit to whatever system of justice prevails in our region. This is a philosophical way of explain- ing what Abelard argues in more specific terms in the Historia calamitatum and the subsequent letters to Heloise: that the difficulties we experience in this life may be bad and unjust in themselves. They differ. as true pleasure (volup- . but he does not explore in depth whether specific procedures belonging to positive justice. sin. so he claims. but they still have a place in the working out of providence. whether ecclesiastical or civil. Abelard’s concern is as much about theodicy as ethics. driven more by Christian concerns about the afterlife than by strictly ethical questions. Applying a familiar theme in his logic to both ethics and theology. presented through arguments put by both protagonists.35 The second half of the dialogue between the philosopher and the Christian is a long comparison of their views on the highest good and the greatest evil for humanity. its long discussion about eternal punishment might seem to be a distraction. such as trial by combat or ordeal.

While the idea that prayers for the dead could be efficacious in freeing otherwise unwor- thy souls from torment became a common theme of Christian preachers. The Christian does not hold that the soul experiences further purga- tion after death. but cannot accept that suffering. is in itself unjust. These passages from Origen. just as its opposite is complete hate for God.-Victor contents himself with quoting Augustine’s influential discussion of the subject within the De civitate Dei. to argue that purgation occurs not in the life to come. but rather thinks that suffering in this world. whether here or in the next world. not quoted at all in this part of the Sic et non.40 Abelard’s posi- tion emphasizes that any eternal reward or punishment is only a conse- quence of how one lives in this world and is thus not dependent on someone else’s prayers. none of which had been culled from Ivo’s Decre- tum. is sufficient to prepare someone for an eternal reward. most ex- treme at the moment of death. Hell.184 abelard and heloise tas) by Epicurus and as the kingdom of heaven by Christians. so in the life to come. than that others will experience purgation prior to sharing in the vision of God. cannot be described by using a . unless it con- sciously rejects God. true happiness comes with true love for God. Just as the Christian had ques- tioned Stoic teaching about virtues and vices being equal in themselves by maintaining that the only true virtue is love. and Gregory the Great. Augustine. the notion that purgatory was a place rather than a state of the soul only became clearly articulated in the second half of the twelfth century. but supreme love (summa dilectio) for God. give the impression of supporting the idea that God does not punish the same sin twice. but in this life.38 Abelard anticipates this position in the Sic et non by quoting patristic texts that consider whether God punishes the same sin both in this world and in the next. He prefers to say that some people will have a greater reward in heaven. as their love is more pure. Hugh of St. as it may still be just for someone to be punished.39 Bernard of Clairvaux drew on this line of Christian thought to attack as heretical Christians who rejected the no- tion of purgatorial fire and the idea that praying for the dead (a major role of monastic communities) had a particular efficacy. In his De sacramentis (written in the 1130s). Jerome.37 This leads Abelard. He maintains that the greatest good is not simply tranquility or freedom from torment. like heaven. but that death itself is the supreme purgation for sin. did hold that souls could experience purgatorial fire as an extension of arguing that God’s mercy extended to sinners even beyond the grave.41 The love (dilectio) that Abelard insists lies at the heart of the vision of God is beyond any category but rather transforms the human soul. using the voice of the Christian.36 The Chris- tian has no difficulty with this argument.

” drawn from Seneca. the Christian develops a more intelligent theological discourse which considers that God is present everywhere through his potency rather than through his substance. docu- mented in the Sic et non). ethics. Nothing happens that God does not allow to happen. and that it is so great that all fault is remitted (the position of Jerome and Gregory the Great. Abelard’s theoretical dis- cussion provides the underpinning for the theological tension that runs through the Historia calamitatum. namely. that Abelard also develops in his preaching and in his correspondence to Heloise: “Who cannot see that often people recover from the great damage brought about by sinning stronger and better than before. While the philosopher is puzzled by Christian claims about heaven as a place. put into the mouth of the Christian.43 This leads him to conclude that the most extreme suffering of the soul is in death. present every- where through his potency. All analysis of these questions must respect the way the words “good” and “bad” or “indifferent” are used. is a profound meditation on the goal of human longing that is intended to complement what the philosopher has to say about the virtues. . Just as in the first dialogue the philosopher contextualizes the precepts of the law. Abelard has the Christian and the philosopher agree that actions are deemed good or bad not in them- selves but according to the root of intention. and not a physical substance.42 The discussion of the supreme good in this final part of the Collationes. the path that any rational soul has to take toward the supreme good. and should not be interpreted literally. Even the devil himself might be said to cooperate with God. so in this second dialogue the Christian interprets his tradition in a way that takes into account the questions of the philosopher. Extending the same principle as Heloise and Abelard had raised in connection to the use of food and drink in religious life. The Chris- tian acknowledges that there are many popular descriptions of hell as a place of fire and worms. He cannot accept the common view that in the same fire some people are tortured more than others. and redemption 185 temporal category of place. as God is a spiritual presence. pleasure in the Epicurean sense. as a result of their humility and peni- tence?”45 Abelard develops the theme that something that might in one context be called bad could in another context be good. This principle then leads the Christian to make a larger point. or the kingdom of heaven. Is this Abelard speaking to Heloise? The Christian Scriptures use metaphor to talk of God. is not the same as the Boethian sense of two individuals not being different.44 This meaning of indifferens as “ethically neutral. sin. but he insists that these cannot be taken literally. that somebody who is driven by envy or greed can be an instrument of divine providence. whether it is described as tranquility.

that we need to understand the message of the Lord’s prayer. It seems probable that he composed the Collationes in the early 1130s. and the philosopher. or Scito teipsum.” and then later in his Ethica. Abelard attempts to address the deepest problem of any theodicy. thus freeing us from the chain of sin and bondage to a written law and . the virtuous life is a matter of the will. either about the same time as or only a little after these writings for the Paraclete. “Thy will be done.” Abelard uses the work to articulate the theological principles that un- derpin both the Historia calamitatum and his various homiletic writings for Heloise and the Paraclete. accepted by the Jew. is based on idealistic assumptions about a supremely rational divine order that penetrates existence.” His exposition. in the Theologia “Scholarium. how evil and suffering can coexist with a good God who foresees all things. Ab- elard has the Christian conclude. please add it. The Collationes concludes with the same reflection as the Historia calamitatum. Rather. although philosophically argued. At one level the Collationes is unfinished. The Commentaria on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans In Christian tradition. the Christian. Abelard argues against the view that human suffering is pointless. The Christian has presented his understanding of the supreme good in answer to the philosopher.”46 This ending is designed to encourage his reader to reflect on questions rather than to impose a fixed resolution to the debate. namely. “if there is anything more which you think is to be asked about it [the highest good]. To take up the issue of how the Christian arrives at the supreme good would demand examining the question of Christ’s incarnation and re- demption of humanity. or hurry on to what remains. the Epistle to the Romans has always occupied a privileged place as a classic exposition of how God’s saving power has been revealed to both Jews and Gentiles alike in the person of Christ. but God’s will. His solution is to argue that we must be aware of the different ways in which we use the words “good” and “bad. but has not really discussed how we are to arrive at that supreme good.186 abelard and heloise In this long discussion on the nature of the supreme good and the supreme evil that concludes the Collationes. As if aware that there is much more to discuss. Addressing these questions would demand a major new treatise. What matters is that we pursue not our own selfish wills. Its two dialogues provide a springboard for Abelard to raise ideas that he develops further in his commentary on Romans.

Even though Augustine never wrote a commentary on Romans. one concerned with redemption. Abelard uses the commentary not just to explicate the Epistle to the Romans but to deal with the issue left in abeyance in the Collationes. Abelard takes care to buttress his argument by citing the major authorities who had commented on Paul in the past. While Abelard had already drawn on the au- thority of Paul in the Theologia Christiana (far more so than in his original treatise on the Trinity). Scripture is written in a rhetorical mode so as to both teach and encourage us to do good. ethics. Abelard implements the exegetical principles that he had already formulated in the Sic et non. namely. It was essential for any the- ologian in the twelfth century to prove his competence by commenting on the Pauline Epistles. In his opening prologue. he seems to have waited until the early 1130s before producing a commentary on Romans that is much wider in scope than the glosses attributed to Anselm of Laon. Throughout the commentary. and to warn us against evil.47 While the gospel is in itself complete. Abelard had previously concentrated on only one aspect of Pauline teaching in Romans: that the invisible nature of God had been revealed to all humanity through his creation. Abelard saw the Commentaria and the Theologia as parallel trea- tises. sin. as indeed behind the Gospels as a whole. Embarking on a full-scale commentary enables Abelard to uncover what he considers to be the true teaching of Paul without necessarily accepting the views of Augustine. above all Origen (as translated by Rufinus) and Jerome. Abelard emphasizes the natural capacity of men of reason to grasp God’s self-revelation. he now turns his attention to Paul. how humanity can reach the supreme good through the incar- nation of the Son of God in Christ. whereas others are helpful for its im- provement. Latin Christian thought had been dominated by his interpretation of Paul’s . Where he once sought to uncover the teaching of Aristotle by distancing himself from specific interpretations of Boethius. the other with the supreme good. the Epistle helps build up the community of Roman Christians in the same way Cicero had taught in the De inventione that certain things are essential for a city’s well-being. He also draws on a refer- ence of Jerome to a purported exchange between Paul and Seneca to support the theme that not all the philosophers whom Paul confronted were mired in vice.” although he may not have done more than simply plan its structure. and redemption 187 calling us instead to the obedience of faith. References in the com- mentary to his Theologia show that he had already begun to transform the sprawling Theologia Christiana into the more tightly argued Theologia “Scholarium. He is concerned with the intention behind the Epistle.48 The intention of this particular Epistle is to repress the pride of the Romans.

he explains that although Paul was referring to those who had abandoned themselves to unnatural practices. including those who were purged before the day of judgment. open to Jews and Gentiles alike. was free to sin. or whether they came “from a good or a bad will.51 He also raises the question of whether Christ himself. all accord- ing to the intention behind their actions. or whether God can be described as the cause of sin. and others to punishment.188 abelard and heloise teaching that all men had sinned in Adam and that only through grace could they be redeemed. Abelard introduces into his discussion a number of questions that occur to him. this was not true of all philosophers or all those. Some. that God is more interested in inner in- tention than outward works. Employing Stoic terminology that he had used in discussion with Heloise. Above all. already anticipated in the Collationes. we shall see that some have been predestined to eternal life. already raised in some sermons and in the Collationes. or whether God can be said to act justly in allowing someone to fall into sin.”49 In the final day of judgment. Abelard . but emphasizes that the true justice or righteousness of God is concerned more with intention than with outward duties. 1:20) as attributes of the divine nature revealed to the pagans. if Christ was endowed with free will. His resolution of the issue is very similar to his argument about free will and providence in the third book of the Theologia: that. such as those about idolatry as distinct from reverence for icons. The Pauline contrast between being justified by faith rather than by works provides Abelard with an opportunity to extend his theme. he paraphrases at length Origen’s discussion of the topic.”50 Abelard uses Paul’s contrast between Jewish obedience to the law and faith in God. The most important such digression occurs in the second book of the Commentaria. to explore the interior aspect of the ethical commitment demanded by faith in God. as well as passages from Haimo of Auxerre and Augustine. he promises to deal with in his Theologia (although in fact he does not always do so). he describes works as in themselves in- different. In particular. who followed natural law. in order to develop the argument that true circumcision is of the heart rather than of the flesh. like Job. it was impossible for him to sin. if he was fully human as well as fully divine. provides a fulcrum for examining the relationship between outward reli- gious observance and interior commitment. and able to be judged only by “the root of their intention. Abelard does not deny the reality of sin. Repeating his argument in the Theologia about the Invisibilia Dei (Rom. which deals with Romans 3:19–6:18. when all will be revealed. statements about “possibility” must apply to Christ as a man even though as both God and man. The issue of circumcision.

that human nature had been corrupted through a sin that had its roots in sexual transgression. by what necessity God assumed human form. ethics. Anselm in rejecting the image of the devil as enjoying some legitimate power over humanity. Ab- elard raises here the common interpretation of Christ’s redemption in Latin tradition as about liberating humanity from subjection to some le- gitimate control of the devil. as we know. paid this ransom through his blood.54 He does not doubt that through their faith many of those who came before Christ rose to the supreme love of God as much as those who came after Christ. through the fault of the first man freely submit- ting to him. but still emphasized the gulf between a corrupt humanity and the sinless God-man. Some forty years before Abelard composed this commentary. sin. If a servant escaped from a lord and was seduced to follow another master. “It is said that he has redeemed us from the power of the devil. St. do all things through love rather than fear. Abelard goes much further than the argument of St. In the teaching of both Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux. Anselm had challenged the no- tion that Christ had somehow tricked the devil into forfeiting a legitimate “right” over sinful humanity through formulating a dialogue between him- self and Boso. The only power that the devil enjoyed was like that of a prison guard who wickedly tor- tures humanity.”53 Augustine had never explicitly theorized redemption in this way. and would always possess this power until a liberator would come.52 Although Paul does not deal with Christ’s redemption at this point in the Epistle. begotten of the Virgin. and from what we have been redeemed. Redemption is thus completed by the love (caritas) . and never speaks about humanity as being under the power of the devil. bound up with the teaching. and thus binding us to himself through longing (amor) so that true love (caritas) would fear noth- ing for his sake. until Christ. possessed power over him by a kind of right. who. but he had often made comments about the devil having some legitimate right over man. who. born without any bondage to the chain of lust. so much influenced by Augustine. and redemption 189 confronts the questions of what exactly is the redemption of humanity achieved through the death of Christ. he was not bound by some legitimate right to this new master. this image of “the right of the devil” was seen as an integral part of Christian doctrine. his disciple. Abelard interprets the redemption and reconciliation to God achieved through the blood of Christ in terms not of expiation but of his teaching us through word and example even to death. Our redemption is the supreme love (dilectio) that not only frees us from the slavery of sin but brings us the true freedom of the sons of God. It was only divine mercy that was able to free humanity from such bondage.

also mentioned in a later section of the commentary. for inter- preting this second precept in a purely figurative rather than a historical way). like baptism. if he had charity in his heart.60 The classic proof text for the traditional doctrine of original sin was .56 These passages of the Commentaria. whom he quotes at length. Anselm in considering that children who have been baptized but die before reaching an age to make decisions for themselves do not suffer the pains of hell.57 Another consequence of this is that he follows St. Even in the Theologia Christiana. like Job. Abelard transfers Paul’s questioning of whether circumcision is essential to salva- tion to a larger issue of whether baptism itself is necessary for salvation. crystallize an understanding of redemption much more consistent with a more positive view of human potential than that pre- sented by Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux. so he interprets redemption as the revelation of divine love to humanity through the life and death of Christ rather than through any notion that the devil had been cheated by a perfect God-man offering himself in place of humanity. Just as Abelard makes caritas the core of his ethical teaching. whether action increases the merit of a good will. a title pre- sumably devised by analogy with his Theologia.58 Abelard sees baptism as like circumcision in the past—a religious observance with a spiritual signifi- cance but not necessarily the decisive event that distinguishes the damned from the saved.59 Abelard reserves certain questions—such as whether inner virtue is sufficient for an eternal reward even if it is not implemented in action. rewarded for their faith. This goes against the view of Augustine that all the unbap- tized must suffer some form of punishment. He argues that someone like David. but rather a specific precept enjoined on the Jews once by Abraham and a second time by Joshua.- Thierry and Bernard of Clairvaux as evidence of Abelard’s betrayal of Christian doctrine. Anyone who loves God sincerely and purely is predestined to life if he lives before learning through preaching or the Holy Spirit whatever of the sacraments is necessary for salvation. and what the distinction is between vice of the mind and sin—to his Ethica. There were many uncircumcised righteous people.190 abelard and heloise of God being brought to completion through the Holy Spirit. was not damned because he died before he could be baptized. He argues that circumcision was not a gen- eral precept enjoined on all people.55 In the commentary he promises to cover these themes more fully in a forthcoming Anthropologia. much quoted by William of St. there seems little doubt that Abelard intended Anthropologia. Although scribes initially copied this word (never otherwise attested in medieval Latin) as either Tropologia or Theologia. (Here he criticizes Origen. Abelard had promised to discuss the incarnation of the Word rather than its divinity.

sin. that unbaptized children do suffer torment.61 The “old and interminable question of the human race” is that of original sin. and Christ.62 Would it not be wicked to consign an innocent son to flames for the sins of his father? Abelard refuses to con- sider that God could ever be responsible for causing injury to anyone. To Abelard it seems contrary to God’s goodness that divinity could be so cruel as to entrust humanity to dam- nation. through whom many (but not all) sinned. Abelard does not deny the presence of sin inherited from Adam. that are now outmoded? While Augustine had argued that unbaptized children suffered the gen- tlest of punishments. in order to counter the view. He also finds passages from both Augustine and Je- rome that support the notion that a child is not in himself or herself guilty of sin. His offspring are not condemned for any crime other than inheriting the sin of Adam. that of Christ. In the sentences of both Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux. perhaps suitable at the time. also attributed to Augustine. and thus death. He considers that Augus- tine’s assertion in his Enchiridion that without divine grace Adam’s off- spring were more increasingly bound in sin as time went on. except perhaps to spare some from harsher tor- ments in the future.”63 Ab- elard reiterates the teaching of both Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux that sin is transmitted to humanity through the carnal lust . he shares the traditional opinion that original sin is transmitted through carnal lust. Fault can only lie with those who have mis- used their free will. modeled on Adam. or that sin existed prior to the written law. Those things that seem very bad all have a deeper meaning to those who understand “Thy will be done. and that through one man’s obedience. so here he at- tempts to absolve God from responsibility for consigning much of hu- manity to damnation. Augus- tine’s teaching about the corruption of human nature through the sin of Adam was an article of faith. Just as Abelard seeks in his correspondence with Heloise to lift God from the accusation of cruelty in his allowing them both to suffer. The sufferings that God might seem to inflict on Job or the martyrs might seem harsh. ethics. His solution is to argue that what Paul says about inheriting sin from Adam is in fact about inheritance of the punishment of sin rather than sin itself. but they all served a greater end. and redemption 191 Romans 5:12–19: that sin entered the world through one man.” Were there not many practices in the Old Testament. Abelard did not think that there was any child who received such a reward. but he observes that Paul is here setting up a comparison between Adam. rather than his own belief. This would be to attribute to God an act of appalling cruelty. we have been made righteous. Although he does not see the inheritance of lust as grounds in itself for damnation. “followed more the probable opinion of others.

about whose redeeming death Paul had written so richly.66 The third book of the commentary (on Rom. preparing for a fight. “The soul of that man [Christ] longed for our salvation. but that when we sin. but not the offense or the guilt of adultery. which are much less developed than in the Scito teipsum. exemplified most fully by Christ in both his teaching and his life and death. we run the risk of turning wrongful desire into action. The core of the Christian message. We must avoid the chains of harmful lust in order to live according to the will of God. He expands upon Paul’s phrase “I do not what I want. is also the essence of the teaching of Augustine. Abelard reiterates the Pauline contrast between a life of slavery to carnal passion and a life of the Spirit. simply serves to make us ready for an eternal reward. but he differs from them in not seeing this as grounds for damnation. we do both what we want and what we do not want. he emphasizes that true and sincere love (dilectio) exists only for the sake of the other and not for any material benefit. When adorning ourselves to please women. however. With Christ. What Paul describes as the chain of sin. Abelard presents the sufferings of Jesus in much the same way he portrays them in his biblical laments. The suffering we may endure in this world. or rather all sinful action. This. When it comes to Paul’s exhortation to personal holiness.67 Paul’s reflections on the contrast between his desire to do good and his also being a slave to sin (Rom. 7:14–25) provoke Abelard to his own thoughts on the subject. Adapting Heloise’s argument about the pu- rity of true love. or using our tongue to make money.68 Abelard does not challenge the idea that through lust we are under the slavery of sin. which he knew how to agree to through his death. but what I do not want” (7:15) to explain that all sin. he argues. When one sleeps with someone else’s wife. Rather than dwell on the transcendent Word present in Christ.”65 Abelard presents the suffering of Christ in a way that ac- centuates his frailty and love for humanity. the bondage of death is broken. 6:19–9:5) deals with the Christian life.192 abelard and heloise of sexual intercourse. as we always . and punishment in the life to come is lifted. like Bernard of Clairvaux. Through God’s mercy our sins are forgiven. Abelard understands as the effect of sin. and tolerate that for which he longed. can our will be turned to the good. but emphasizes that sin is an act of the will and that only through the grace of divine love. springs from the will. manifest in Christ and mediated through the Holy Spirit. intercourse may be pleasing. Lust is the consequence of original sin rather than sin itself.64 Abelard then applies this preoccupation with the meaning of suffering to the passion of Christ. Abelard is more traditional. is the call to love God and one’s neighbor. most acute in death.

bless them” (Rom. When we say “Holy Peter. They seek sacraments more out of self-interest than for the sake of eternity. which became fully incarnate in Christ. a theme that he reserves to the Theologia. ethics. Jews and Gentiles alike. In baptism our sins are forgiven. Abelard takes up Paul’s theme that while God had not abandoned his promise to the seed of Abraham.” Abelard reiterates the great theme of Paul that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. while someone else. and redemption 193 retain the freedom not to follow a bad will.” we are really saying “Have mercy on us. sin.69 The fourth and final book of the commentary (on Rom. pray for us. perhaps physically more capable. Abelard’s emphasis on the role of the will contrasts with Augustine’s argument in his writing against the Pelagians that our redemption is entirely dependent on the gift of grace. 1:2–3) seems to imply that God is cruel toward Esau. What matters is always their inner intention. he is concerned with inner disposition rather than with the external performance of religious duties. One person. he argues that the will must always choose to respond to divine grace. While the phrase “Jacob I have loved. because of the merits of blessed Peter. but that we differ in how we respond to that grace. this may be necessary in God’s providence. Without arguing against Augustine. but many people still live for temporal rather than eternal re- ward. even that which seems to go against the will of God: “And certainly more use came from the wickedness of Judas than from the righteousness of Peter. he picks up the theme of true brotherly love that ought to bind all children of God. .”71 Continuing his theme that God cannot be blamed for being unjust in the way he gives or takes away divine grace. one’s inner will. Abelard argues that God offers his grace to all. Lord. The spirit of God is that of love. and calls all people to himself. but it does not mean that our own behavior is conditioned by necessity. Paul’s theme that God has not abandoned the Jews but offers his grace to all people. never curse them. Abelard emphasizes that when Paul speaks of the elect being predestined to eternal life. When Paul gives advice such as “Bless those who persecute you. is driven by laziness. but I have hate for Esau” (Mal. God does not have any particular favorites.70 Everything in creation has a purpose. 9:6–16:27) deals with God’s promise to Israel and the way God wishes us to live. perhaps meager in resources. Abelard’s emphasis on interiority leads him to conclude that when we ask the saints to intercede for us we are really asking them to help us by their love and merits rather than by speaking any words. provides Abelard with an oppor- tunity to reflect on the divine goodness that he sees as sustaining creation and visible in creation. Above all. may be kindled by desire for the kingdom of heaven.

This leads to Abelard expanding on what he sees as the core theme of Paul: that the fullness of the law lies in love of God. even though their will might be bad.73 Paul’s advice about whether or not Christians should follow traditional Jewish observances provokes Abelard to reflect that whether we eat or fast. Specific observances are not as important as the intention in which they are done. they may curse someone. Abelard comments that when we excommunicate someone. At the same time.72 Similarly.194 abelard and heloise 12:14). The Commentarius Cantibri- giensis seems to have been compiled by a student of Abelard who had heard his teacher lecture on the entire Pauline corpus and even included a story about Heloise.”75 The problem that confronted Paul about whether or not Christians should follow the precepts of the Jewish law provides Abelard with an opportunity to reflect on the authority of Christian precepts in general. whereby we have a good will for another. The commentary on Romans is different in character from the Colla- tiones in following the constraints of having to explicate the entire Pauline text rather than simply developing certain favored arguments. no matter how terrible. why pray to God with words? His answer is that we do so for our own benefit. all things.74 Abelard closes the commentary on Romans by quoting a number of patristic and ecclesiastical prohibitions about food and drink. “if we discuss them carefully in their fundamental intention. Even the power of the devil or of some wicked person could be good. a valuable sign that his com- mentary on Romans may only have been part of a much longer series of commentaries on the other Pauline Epistles. Yet charity often forces us to go beyond measure and to wish for all people to be saved. In all things we should follow our conscience. He even asks whether we should love those in hell or those not predestined for eternal life. we find that these and other things were sometimes prohibited and sometimes allowed because of the season or the time. a judge forced by law to kill someone is not guilty of murder because he does not act by his will. as it is the law rather than a person who commits the murder. While Rachel may weep for her children. as these words lift our understanding to God. we do curse them. One question about forbidden food he reserves to discussion on the Epistle to the Galatians. He leaves these questions to his Ethica. It is a more consciously scholastic work in introducing students to a range of patristic authorities who had written about the Epistle. But when the saints act by love of justice. but observes. and in love of neighbor. a love directed with the best will and intention toward him. the commentary tackles questions that Abelard had never raised in his Theo- . are ultimately ordained for the good. but without a will to do so. we do so for the honor of the Lord. Since God considers the heart rather than words.

even without access to the observances of the law. that is. and he had long been suspicious of interpreting Platonic writings that dealt with creation. While he was an authority on both logica and ethica. Abelard raised questions about the relationship between Jew- ish. In an . Commenting on the writing of Paul provided Abelard with a way of answering this question. the six days of creation. sin. both in his life and his death. and redemption 195 logia and that were raised only in passing in the Collationes. In the Collationes. Prior to the incarnation humanity was not held prisoner by the devil through any legitimate right. whether Jew or Gentile. All people. we can be led to the true love of God. His reading of one of the foundation texts of Christian theology emphasizes that external religious observance is never as important as inner intention in the eyes of God. Through the teaching and example of Christ. probably after the commentary on Romans. He- loise asked him to reflect on the nature of the created world in the form of a commentary on the Hexaemeron. Abelard had no works of Aristotle on natural science available to him. such as the Ti- maeus. ethics. The Expositio in Hexaemeron In the Collationes. Abelard had explored the relationship between exter- nal religious observances and the ethical demands of philosophy. There were many virtuous and upright people who lived before Christ. he did not have expertise in physica in the manner of Thierry of Chartres or William of Conches. have the capacity to accept divine grace and turn away from a will that is bad or corrupt. but he never touched on the relationship between natural science and the Bible. In the Collationes. to warn us against doing wrong and to encourage us to do good. Paul’s rhetoric about our being under the rule of sin needs to be understood for its true intention. This makes it all the more intriguing that sometime in the 1130s. as well as the relationship between ethics and Christian teaching about the su- preme good. and Christian approaches to ethics and redemption that he tackles in more detail within his commentary on Paul. in any literal sense. he explains that what Paul has to say about the rule of sin is in fact about the consequences of sin. Gentile. By distancing himself from any assumption that human nature is naturally corrupt. above all to open ourselves to the true love of God manifest in Christ. Paul’s Epistle demanded that he concentrate not on philosophical questions about vir- tue or the supreme good but on how Christ redeemed humanity. the Christian talks to the philosopher about the supreme good without explaining how we may reach it.

means breath. only Augustine had endeavored to explore what it had to say at a literal or historical level. Whereas Augustine had always been concerned—even when interpreting Genesis ad litteram— with a higher. or the com- mentary on Romans. but he had not been concerned to de- scribe the nature of creation. shifting his vocabulary slightly in identifying the Holy Spirit quite simply as the goodness (bon- itas) by which the world has been made and is sustained. Abelard now expands on the consequence of this theme. Abelard was familiar with the ancient scientific theory. with earth and water being heavier than air and fire. he was now going to offer his own interpretation. Abelard had observed that while there had been many authorities who had attempted to unravel the mystical sense of the book of Genesis. with its bold ethical arguments. in which are contained the four ele- ments. transmitted by Augustine. The spirit of the Lord brooding over the waters is like a mother hen nurturing an egg. The discussion of Thierry of Chartres on the same topic. Abelard offered his teaching about God through the teaching of pagan philosophers as much as of Scripture. with its outspoken declaration of a new theology of redemption. is much more a reflection on the nature of the elements from which creation is constructed.196 abelard and heloise introductory preface. he reminds his readers. It was thus a legitimate request from Heloise that he go into much more detail than he had before about the meaning of the first chapters of Gen- esis. he still relates philosophical and scriptural understanding of the created world. also produced in the 1130s.77 Abelard’s presentation is sustained by a more distinctly theological vision. As Heloise had reportedly found much that was obscure in Augustine. but divine benignitas toward creation. Abelard had to work out new ground in this treatise. inspired by the same key text as inspired his other theological writings—that the invisible things of God are revealed through the creation of the world. Abelard had emphasized that the Holy Spirit was not just the divine caritas by which the Father and Son loved each other with a perfect love.76 Abelard’s Expositio on the six days of creation has never attracted at- tention like the Collationes. Abelard emphasizes (like Hugh of St. he had commented on a few phrases from the book of Genesis that relate to the divine nature. In his Theologia.79 Even though Abelard does not have the same mastery of scientific texts as Thierry of Chartres. The term spiritus.78 In his Theologia. that the universe was constituted out of four elements. Thus when Platonic phi- .- Victor) that the rationality of creation itself demonstrates the wisdom and goodness of God. Unlike Hugh of St. spiritual meaning. and thus is like the wind blowing across the waters.-Victor.

80 The underlying message of his commentary on the days of creation is quite simply that the works of creation are fundamentally good and ra- tional and undisturbed by sin. Abelard’s tendency to be suspicious of the reality of Platonic forms leads him to emphasize the physical uniqueness of the created world. and in being wiser was un- able to be seduced by the devil. he explains that man is more worthy than woman in being made in the image of God because he is particularly like the Son. ethics. he is sympathetic to the broader project of finding harmony between physica and Scripture. even if he lacks the scientific tools with which to describe its composition. is fully compatible with the scriptural record. Had the waters above the heavens crystallized into ice? He prefers to side with Augustine in refusing to come to a certain decision on the topic. Abelard is particularly critical of those who invoke astronomia so as to justify the claim that the stars exercise influence over humanity. His analysis takes on a personal and not wholly comfortable note when he comments on the creation of man and woman. Natural processes have their foundation in natural forces implanted by God in creation. as in some aspects of Platonic tradition. when . Interestingly. whether they can be identified as living beings or even as gods. for example. One contested issue is about the stars and the planets. while woman is made in the divine likeness: “Man shines over woman through wisdom and reasoning. We are unable to predict the future. Such claims he sees as implying an absurd denial of free will and the possibility of things in the future occurring either in one way or another. Whether they met with Heloise’s approval is another matter.”82 The story of Eve being created from Adam’s rib gave powerful justification to an assumption that Adam was closer to God through the gift of reason. as they are referring to the divine providence by which the world is ordered. He similarly doubts that the days of creation are comparable in length of time to normal days. but cannot reflect on this in too much detail. Abelard is convinced that natural science. of debate about the meaning of the phrase “waters above the heavens. sin.” given that water was heavier than air. and redemption 197 losophers speak of both an intelligible and a sensible world. this is not contrary to Scripture. as far as he understands it. These attitudes are consistent with Abelard’s criticism in the Historia calamitatum of those religious com- munities (such as Fontevrault) in which women rule over men. Developing a line of thought offered him by Augustine. who were interested in defining the rational principles behind the universe. His inclination is to doubt such claims and to maintain that all creation is dependent on divine goodness.81 Although not informed by the specialist knowledge of scholars such as Adelard of Bath. He is aware.

the more we desire what is completely free from all difficulty. he nuances his opinion in arguing that woman’s coming from Adam’s rib meant that she was intended to be a companion and collateral. indirectly suggesting that Heloise was familiar with this work. He argues that none of the works of God can ever be said to be bad. The more life is difficult. For further discussion of what is good. Under the label of moralitas. he reinforces his great theme about the goodness of the Holy Spirit within creation. with that of the goodness of all creation—than with questions of anthropology and the social order.85 This reflection on language enables him to connect up with a theme that he had started to consider three decades earlier with the help of Aristotle: that human language had been acquired by Adam rather than simply implanted in Adam by God. as they had to acquire the skills of speech. established before the making of heaven and earth. or indifferent. from which hu- manity is now distant. Abelard is subse- quently even more explicit in rejecting the notion that Adam could have acquired all his linguistic skills between morning and noon of a single day. and allegorical senses is rooted in the exegetical technique of Gregory the Great. There is little that is strictly allegorical about his interpretation. bad. At the beginning of . as they had not yet learned the words necessary to understand a divine command. which he understands as an actual place. One would have to argue that God employed signs. even though they may often be difficult for us.84 Abelard’s organization of his commentary into the historical. Abelard refers to his treatment of these matters in the Collationes. There were those who thought Adam and Eve were not in paradise even for a day before they were expelled.86 There is relatively little in the Expositio on the nature of sin. not someone over or below man (as would be the case if she came from the upper or lower part of man). Abelard concentrates on its historical sense. moral. in order to show the parallel between the work of creation and the operation of caritas within our own hearts when we engage in good works.198 abelard and heloise he comes back to this theme later in the Expositio. in which he is sometimes quite traditional in his attitudes. Abelard deepens his commentary on the passage of Genesis about paradise. the topic he explores so much more fully in his Scito teipsum. untouched by the flood. Yet where Gregory gives so much attention to the moral and al- legorical meanings of Scripture.83 Abelard is more at ease with broader philosophical and theological themes that he had already covered in earlier writing—above all. Under the label of alle- goria. He suggests that Adam and Eve must have lived there without sin for some years.

drawing his argument not from a theological principle but from the ex- perience of parenthood: “For who does not know that bad children can be born from upright parents.”90 The text of the Expositio breaks off at this point. sin. and in which there would be no sin. “You say that it was such a minor sin. by animal desire. Strictly speaking. which ought never to have received such a great punishment on all their offspring. but is driven. That this experience of shame happens after sin is clear from the fact that no one is moved to intercourse except in the manner of a beast [beluino more]. he goes directly into the second person: “But perhaps you ask why he forbade that in which he knew they would sin. greatly confused—although we may have very great pleasure in the use of such limbs. intercourse is not a sin in itself. easily fixed. to taste that apple. he is reporting a criticism that she had made: “But if you object that no human being would sin if those first men had not sinned. and that accordingly we could love God all the more. Man needed to learn from the punishment given to that small sin about the grave consequences that would follow any move to displease God.”87 To this very profound question of why God should prohibit anything from being eaten in par- adise if it was good. Abelard seems to be engaging in discussion directly with He- loise when he reports. ethics.” The next generations were stronger in resisting sin than those to whom God had given a specific command. after sin [i. so that the greater the experience of shame. he still insists that we should learn from adversity to listen to the will of God. We can only presume that in a treatise addressed to Heloise.”88 He insists that this is contrary to reason and authority. Abelard sides with God. The line of thought is fully consistent with what Abelard was saying in the Historia calamitatum and the subsequent letters to Heloise. the more delightful the physical pleasure.e. the fall]. by carnal pleasure alone. he responds that this was a way through which his great love (caritas) for humanity could be demonstrated more fully. he reminds Heloise of its reality: “That the state of man before sin was more worthy and better is clearly shown by the fact that he could then incur no experience of shame about his nudity or in the inspection of his genitals. that is. and redemption 199 a section not included in the standard printed edition of the Expositio. Although he does not dwell on sin. if he had not given the command. and that in consequence we are now. or if they had not accepted the first command to obedience . and yet deserved minor satisfaction in punishment.”89 In this argument between God and Eve. . . not by any acquired intention toward God. Although he shares with Heloise an inability to accept the full weight of Augustine’s teaching about the burden of original sin and the corruption of the human will. For all his difficulty with the teaching of . and vice versa. in his view..

fully capable of answering these questions herself. In many cases. the Problemata supply no clear indication of when they were written. In his Rule and subsequent Ep. “He will show the world wrong about sin. or “Whoever keeps the entire law but offends in one matter is guilty of all” (James 2:10–11)?91 Some- times the questions reveal acute awareness of the implications of a scrip- tural passage that Heloise observes is ambiguous. . a letter from Heloise that includes some forty- two questions about difficult passages in Scripture. as none of us is without sin?93 These are questions that provoke Abelard to extended re- flection. to which Abelard sup- plies sometimes very extended answers. The Problemata Heloissae That Heloise continued to challenge Abelard about the meaning of sin. What does it mean to say. Thus when Christ re- sponds to the question about his identity with the answer “You yourself have said it. exactly as in the case with her letter requesting a monastic rule from Abelard. about justice. that systems of ecclesiastical justice contravene the teaching of Jesus.” what exactly was he saying?92 When Christ said of the woman taken in adultery. Whether she sent them before or after requesting the commentary on Genesis is not clear. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” does he not forbid anyone from imposing judgment. is evident from the Problemata Heloissae. Many of them focus in one way or another on questions of sin and ethical behavior. the questions are put at such length that it is clear Heloise already has her own opinions on the matter. IX “on the study of letters. for which they wanted explanations.200 abelard and heloise Augustine. The fact that Abelard is obliged by her to consider the nature of sin suggests that these are questions to which he had not given adequate answer in the Expositio. although he would address them much more fully in his Scito teipsum. an issue on which he touched so little in the Collationes. these are issues on which he feels a profound affinity with this Father of the Church. These Problemata are a rich source of insight into an extraordinarily intelligent woman. As with so many of these texts. and about judgment: about sin because they did not believe in me” (John 16:8–11). effectively acknowledging the point that she implicitly makes.” Abelard had urged Heloise and her nuns to apply themselves to the study of Scripture. The groundwork is already being laid for themes that he will develop more fully in the Scito teipsum. The questions raised by Heloise are not about minor details in Scrip- ture. She reports that they were troubled by many passages. who also knew about the chains of lust.

and redemption 201 The final question that she puts to him. had to say about the importance of virginity and the need to overcome the fires of lust. however. his erstwhile hero in the ascetic life. Abelard’s solution to her specific question is to recognize that she does have a very good point and that there are many examples in Scripture which show that the command to procreate could never be sinful in itself. He is fully aware of what Jerome. Only in the Scito teipsum does he consider that Augustine’s definition of sin as mala voluntas may be inadequate to ac- count for those inner desires and sexual fantasies that cross the mind. “Grow and multiply and fill the earth. Cor- ruption occurs in the will. when directed to procreation. Abelard had emphasized the interior nature of true religion in a way that was largely in sympathy with the kind of questions that Heloise was raising.94 Heloise reminds him that intercourse was originally ordained by God and thus could not be sinful in itself. but he finds in Augustine’s De bono coniugali valuable insight into marriage. he had received an extraordinary punishment for sexual misbehavior in the past—castration. that she was here touching on one of the most sensitive aspects of his thinking. shaped in a very profound way by the demands of ascetic tradition. In the Collationes and the commentary on Romans.” Abelard had commented briefly on this verse in his Expositio. is not inherently wrong. however. for whom the metaphor of corrup- tion was that of sexual intercourse. Heloise found this difficult to accept. that man could now only engage in sexual intercourse in the manner of a beast. Unlike Jerome. sin. but without aware- ness of the ethical challenge it presents to centuries of ascetic tradition. Whether he included this question in the Sic et non as a result of his discussions with Heloise we cannot tell. touches on profound issues that Abelard had skated over in his grandly optimistic . ethics. Abelard prefers to quote Augustine at length in his answer to Heloise’s final question rather than to theorize more fully about what actually constitutes sin. relates very specifically to the com- mand in Genesis 1:28. Part of the logic of his argument in the Historia calamitatum is that even the most appalling dis- asters can be turned to the good by those who turn from their will to do God’s will. The question put by Heloise. It is evident. She may deliberately be questioning Abelard’s concluding remarks in the Expositio. At the same time. superficially so simple. that are wrong only when one consents to them in deliberate contempt for God. as Abelard had emphasized in his commentary on Romans. Above all. Abelard was a monk. Augustine has a clear awareness that intercourse. which had interpreted the sexual act as sinful in itself and sometimes as the original sin for which Adam and Eve had been banished from para- dise. whether anyone can sin in doing something ordained by God.

Abelard speaks of reason as the necessary guide to life in a world of confusion. like the Collationes or Scito teipsum. the poem does not seek to impress with crafted images. Unlike the Planctus or the hymns.95 There is a practical wisdom in this poem which suggests that it was writ- ten relatively late in the 1130s (although this is certainly open to debate). What matters most is that we speak the truth. Persuasion may seize minds with ornate words. Sin. it communicates urgent wisdom: By the fruit of apples. As in the Collationes. is each man fed And meaning must be preferred to words. we find peace. This is not a theoretical discussion. Rather.202 abelard and heloise and rational vision of theology. he does not shy away from talking about the complaint of Heloise that she cannot feel true repentance for the sins she had committed. not by the leaves. however. Rather. Abelard seeks to distill what he sees as his central message—that in the final analysis actions count larger than words—within vivid poetic examples. however. multiplies the ways. and philosophical ethics. The Carmen ad Astralabium These questions of Heloise about what constitutes vice and virtue were formulated by Abelard in an unusually vivid way within a didactic poem that he composed for his son. he has not yet fully examined his own human nature. unless I repent of what I earlier committed. And let it be agreed that one who wanders about. Her accusation is that in his reflections on language. The Carmen is a rich and still largely untapped source of insight into the ethical and practical wisdom that Abelard wished to share with his . the Carmen ad Astralabium. the supreme good.”96 Abelard’s point is that these pleasures were not themselves sinful if they did not involve contempt for God. when remembered give relief. I cannot be saved. An abundance of words exists where there is not an abundance of meaning. By sound knowledge of who we are. he defines not as breaking some social code but as having contempt for God: There is the frequent complaint of our Heloise on this matter Which she is often wont to say to me and to herself: “If. no hope remains for me: So sweet are the joys of what we did That those things which pleased too much. To teaching plainness is rather owed. In the Carmen.

ethics. the passage about “the frequent complaint of Heloise” suggests that even here she was still forcing him to think about the definition of sin. that sin lies not in any action. Near the end of the Carmen he reverts to a view that he had already articulated in his com- mentary on Romans. While we cannot be sure exactly when it was composed. Rather than fall back on the teachings of the ancient philoso- phers. as also between vice and sin. sin. it was necessary for any ethical system to be based on knowing oneself. .97 Writing the Carmen helped Abelard think through in more depth what constituted the difference between vice and virtue. and redemption 203 son. but in the will: Nothing of sin remains when the evil will subsides: For it is this alone which makes one a sinner.

10 Faith. A number of collections survive of his sententie about faith. He preferred the freedom of maneuver offered by the individual monograph. who had recovered his po- sition as royal chancellor in 1131. perhaps by the mid-1130s. After completing the com- mentary on Romans (and probably lecturing on the entire corpus of Pau- line epistles). The exact sequence of his writings during this decade is not certain. his major creative energies were focused on theology and ethics. 204 . on vice and sin. Sacraments. probably at different moments during the 1130s. he spent much of his time during the 1130s teaching in Paris on the Montagne Ste. or “Know Yourself. we do not know whether he ever lived to write any more than the first pages that survive of the promised second book. on the nature of virtue.” While he certainly completed its first book. he finished the third book of the Theologia “Scholarium. which would be called his Ethica but which actually circulated under the title Scito teipsum.1 This was presumably at the invitation of its dean. and Charity A lthough in theory Abelard remained abbot of St. Abelard never produced a definitive synthesis of teaching responding to all the questions that he raised in the Sic et non. which were taken down by disciples from his oral teaching.-Gildas until his death in 1142.-Genevie`ve. while others he left relatively unchanged. sacraments. and charity.2 Internal differences within these sentence collections suggest that he continued to refine some lectures as his ideas developed. Stephen of Garlande.” He then embarked on the treatise he had promised readers of his commentary. While Abelard continued to teach dialectic.

the De sacramentis Christianae fidei. defined as “a sign of a sacred thing. faith. As Hugh responded to many opinions raised by Abelard in the Theologia “Scholarium” and sentence collections. perhaps by 1131. he had doubled the size of his original treatise by incorporating many digressions and patristic au- thorities. During the 1120s while Abelard was con- centrating on philosophical theology. and the second with restoration. Hugh composed a few treatises on secular disciplines. sacraments. In its prologue. and good works. all of which are simply means toward the fulfillment of divine law. Hugh started work on an ency- clopedic synthesis of theology.3 Some time after this.-Victor with- out interruption since 1115. Abelard had focused on the doc- trine of the Trinity. While he acknowledges that the work of creation is described by secular authors. but he applied more of his attention to showing how Scripture could lead the mind to God. Whereas Hugh used rhyming prose. the more noble task is that of man’s restoration. but he had still not completed the discussion in its final book . the incarnation and the sacraments of the Church. By the late 1120s. and preserved as Sententie de divinitate. he still needed to show that he could resolve the many questions that he had sketched out in the Sic et non.” Abelard pre- ferred a more analytic prose style. and charity 205 The most significant teacher of divinity against whom Abelard had to compete was Hugh. Abelard and Hugh differed significantly from each other in the way that they approached the writing of theology. The fact that the De sacramentis quickly became rec- ognized as an authoritative synthesis of Christian doctrine had major im- plications for the way in which Abelard’s theological arguments would be perceived.4 It is divided into two books. expounded in Scripture for the sake of man’s salvation. Hugh debates many of the theological and ethical positions that Abelard advanced in his own teaching. the law of love (caritas). sacraments. Hugh’s lectures had been taken down by a specially appointed student. laced with precise quotation from pa- tristic and philosophical authorities. and organized his teaching around the notion of sacrament. Hugh is reported as defining three essentials for salvation: faith. his De sacramentis provides a valu- able lens through which to view Abelard’s teaching during the 1130s. In the Theologia Christiana. the first concerned with creation and the “sac- raments” of the natural and written law. Laurence. namely.5 Throughout his treatise. who had studied and then taught at St. He emphasized the inner intention behind outward statements and observances. without exces- sive quotation from the Fathers. In his early reflections on theology. While he had started to develop ideas about both philosophical theology and ethics in the Collationes. as well as in their resolution of specific questions.

an attempt to use Cicero to explain a central theological virtue. in which he refers to some issues as still to be dealt with in his forthcoming Theo- logia. In his Sententie de divinitate. but for God’s sake alone. He insists that he does not wish to fall into heresy but that—like Augustine—he is always ready to correct himself. not for any reward. he em- barked on an even larger project. and one’s neighbor because of God. he holds that caritas is a movement of the spirit to love God. Abelard signals a major shift in emphasis from Hugh’s teaching. he needed to turn his attention to the foundations of faith and so refute the false reasoning of those who call themselves philosophers.8 By replacing opera with caritas. and sacraments. Abelard draws on Cicero to define amor as a good will toward another that wishes that person’s good. 1100–1174). as it were. wisdom. Abelard’s definition of caritas as amor honestus.9 In his discussion. works. . as far as we are able.206 abelard and heloise about God’s power (potency).”7 He explains that his students considered that if he were to complete his philosophical investigations. although it would be silently adopted without acknowledgment by the author of the Summa sententiarum in the late 1130s. In the new preface Abelard drafted for the revised Theologia. Abelard may have drawn on a small treatise De car- itate.6 At some point during this work of revision. he defines caritas as “honest love [amor honestus]. Perhaps in prepa- ration for returning to teaching. Echoing a theme that Heloise had argued with great con- viction. Abelard started to annotate the Theologia Christiana in order to identify which passages he would retain and which he would eliminate. an introduction to divine Scripture. and goodness.10 Walter. directed to its ultimate end” and “a good will to another for the sake of the other. who started to teach at Laon in 1120 after falling out with Alberic. As in his early attempt to define love in response to the question of the young Heloise.-Victor adopts a similar phrase about providing an introduction to Scripture in his own preface to the De sac- ramentis. develops Anselm’s emphasis that caritas is the foundation of all ethics. written to satisfy the demands of our students. Hugh had taught that the three essentials of salvation were faith. has no precedent in classical or patristic literature. Perhaps influenced by a sympathy for Ciceronian ideals. the Commentaria on Romans. Hugh of St. a former pupil of Alberic at Reims.” rather than a love that simply seeks personal reward and advantage. often transmitted alongside sentences attributed to Anselm of Laon or William of Champeaux but in fact more likely to have been written by Walter of Mortagne (ca. already evident in the way that he had organized his ideas in the Sic et non. he ex- plains that he is offering “a kind of synthesis of sacred learning.

that God is to be pursued for his sake alone and not for any reward. although the foundation of what is hoped for. This presupposes a positive view of caritas as present in an individual. Hugh of St. provides only ap- proximate knowledge of what will be fully revealed in the future. even though it may be imperfect and exist outside the Church in a virtuous pagan. friends. In the De sacramentis. the argument of what is not (physically) apparent. While Walter is speaking about caritas rather than amor and betrays no familiarity with the thinking of William of St. not pursued for the sake of any reward. there can be no faith. Ab- elard is more consciously linguistic in analyzing the significance of Father. by contrast. takes his starting point in the character of language itself. and neighbors must itself be based on love of God. faith. modifying its traditional definition (Heb. invented to signify and communicate .” Abelard teaches that faith. Also new to the Theologia is Abelard’s definition of faith as the esti- mation (existimatio) of what is not evident to the senses. such as David.” This idealism. 11:1) as “the substance of things hoped for. Abelard. and charity 207 He considers that the initial grade of caritas as that which binds family. not all of which are necessary for salvation. He sees faith not as a theological virtue but as the means through which we grasp partially what is not apparent to the senses. sacraments. he recognizes that there are many types of faith. but goes further in explaining that caritas is amor honestus or “pure love” in the sense of “pure longing. Hugh takes for granted the sacred character of Scripture and builds his entire thought on that edifice. Whereas Hugh begins his De sacramentis by reflecting on the first chapters of Genesis and then considers how God reveals his triune nature through his power (or potency).-Thierry or Bernard. Abelard picks up on Walter’s theme. and goodness or benignity. he sees true faith as a necessary precondition of the more perfect state of full knowledge. and Holy Spirit as names signifying these three properties. The contrast between Hugh and Abelard in the way they define faith is symptomatic of a broader difference between their approaches to the- ology. While he recognizes that some people reject or question everything they hear. and in its truest form. Drawing on the Boethian definition of argument as reasoning that creates faith or trust in something uncertain.11 He sees reason as limited in its capacity to grasp divine truths by faith. he has a fundamentally positive understanding of love as present in all people of goodwill. recalls the protestations of the young Heloise that true love does not pursue any personal advan- tage. wisdom. as where there is still doubt. even when he falls into sin.-Victor responds to Abelard’s definition of faith as existimatio by insisting that faith is certainty. Son. or refuse to commit themselves to what is true.

1:26).12 At stake is not God’s nature. a claim that would contradict the Athanasian Creed. Abelard prepared the new introduction through a series of drafts.” There are a few new elements. as like a portion of divine potentiality. and Holy Spirit signify different attributes of God. Abelard’s improved wording did not stop William of St. influenced by Augustine and Paul (1 Cor.-Thierry or Bernard of Clair- vaux from critiquing the Theologia.”14 He reflects that it was the woman rather than the man who was seduced by the serpent and that Adam accepted the apple out of love. and so is closer to the perfection of the supreme good. each linked with his marked-up version of the Theologia Christiana. Walter’s criticism touches on the most sensitive part of Abelard’s theology. and without believing that she was acting maliciously. namely. 11:7). to a particularly controversial aspect of his definition. in direct response to the friendly criticisms of Walter of Mortagne. or the power of discretion. He does pay new attention. Abelard leaves fundamentally unchanged his basic thesis that the names of Father. such as his bringing up the idea. however. He is not saying that either the Son or the Holy Spirit is less than omnipotent. As in the Historia calamitatum. even though the three persons share a common divine nature. his tendency to steer away from emphasizing the om- nipotence of the three divine persons and draw attention to what was distinctive about the divine wisdom manifest in Christ and the divine goodness manifest in the Holy Spirit. that is. that in the phrase in Genesis “Let us make man [hominem] in our image and likeness” (Gen. presuming too much in the mercy of God. In one passage.208 abelard and heloise understanding.13 It is a measure of his respect for Walter that he drops this potentially controversial ter- minology in a revision of this passage. his attribution of power especially to the Father. but what we can legitimately say about the Father or the Son. Scripture and pagan philosophical discourse thus both spring out of an attempt to understand the divine. As it turned out. Abelard revises the wording of an earlier draft of this part of the Theologia “Scholarium” in which he had described divine wisdom. Son. not wanting to disappoint her. Who does not agree that God is loved more by a woman than a man? Did she not think that God was speaking to her when the serpent deceived her? Abelard’s re- . he emphasizes that there are many precedents for speaking about particular attributes of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. in this case of the attributes of God. preferring to say simply that wisdom is “a kind of power” through which God discerns and knows all things perfectly. man (vir) is made in the image of God “because he is founded more perfectly than woman. in which he had selected the central elements to be retained in the Theologia “Scho- larium.

Whereas Hugh of St. he does not change benignitas. many times drawing on his Sic et non. not the majority.- Victor was closer to William of Champeaux in arguing that Eve. but expands further how divine good- ness is manifest through creation by adding further patristic authorities to support his argument that Christians have always recognized the inspired quality of the ancient philosophers. faith. It would thus be wrong to assume that they were all damned for eternity. Aware that many of these ideas . Hugh of St. sacraments. and fourth books of the Theologia Christiana. without any knowledge of the ways of God. he was only speaking about a small group. third. Abelard develops his argument about man being superior to the woman in wisdom and reason.17 Given that his arguments are generating criticism. particularly in re- lation to pagan testimony about ethics.” had raised herself against the Creator with greater guilt than Adam. with some significant new improvements. perhaps written after this passage in the Theologia “Scholarium. reveals both the tradi- tional nature of his assumptions about the hierarchy of man over woman and his desire not to magnify original sin out of proportion. he now has to direct his argument against those who question drawing on pagan testimony at all in talking about religious faith.”15 As in the Expositio. Whereas Abelard had originally justified his argument on the Trinity as an attack on “false dialecticians” such as Roscelin of Compie`gne. He had devoted the whole of the second book of the Theologia Christiana to making this point. Abelard prefers to define the Holy Spirit as divine goodness rather than just divine benignity. Abelard takes more care to draw on the Fathers to justify his argument that when Paul spoke about the blindness of the philosophers. He takes pains to explain that the Father or divine power is no more than the divine po- tency on which all things depend. “puffed up by pride. without raising the issue of who had the greater guilt. and charity 209 flection on sin. preferring to focus on Scripture as his authority. The second book of the new Theologia contains a careful summary of the core elements of the second.16 When copying out sections from the earlier Theologia Christiana. in his Expositio in Hexaemeron. Some authorities are relatively little known. Abelard reinforces his tendency to quote verbatim from the Fathers to support the arguments he puts forward. but is more flexible in how he describes divine goodness. not part of his central argument.18 Philosophers have always shunned popular superstition. such as Claudian’s De statu animae or a sermon (wrongly identified as the De spiritu et littera) in which Augustine is recorded as celebrating the beauty of the natural world and the capacity of “noble philosophers” to know their creator.-Victor does not devote any attention at all to the insights of pagan philosophy in the De sacramentis.

It is quite erroneous. another in Burgundy (possibly Gilbert the Universal. Abelard’s discussion resolves the initial question presented in the Sic et non about whether the workings of God can ever be grasped through reason. Their attempts to find suitable analogies to promote belief provide a precedent for his own effort. bishop . he mentions Tanchelin of Utrecht and Peter of Bruys as dangerous radicals whose ideas need to be opposed. so as to create an alarmist mood for his account of other supposedly heretical teachers “who hold the seat of pestilence against us. Abelard summarizes the key aspects of his earlier argument. not to define what truth might be but to resist the false reasoning of those who are unspiritual.19 Abelard uses his vast knowledge of patristic literature to observe that the desire to refute error has always been the motivation behind writing about Christian faith. bishop of London [1128–1134]). bishop of An- gers [1125–1148]). Above all. when faith is in fact an estimation of what is unseen. Paul himself was always urging greater understanding and building up of the community.20 There is a polemical quality to Abelard’s argument that is quite dif- ferent from the contemplative character of De sacramentis. Before includ- ing his summary of some contemporary theological errors. a fourth in Bourges (possibly Joscelin of Vierzy. This reflec- tion on faith. far deeper than anything he had provided in the Theologia Christiana. he reasons.” The opinions that he assigns to these teachers. had never condemned the study of the liberal arts. for which rational argument was es- sential. Too often. he argues. Augustine in particular. a third in Angers (Ulger. ties in to his opening remarks about the faith as the basis of any effort to understand what is not evident to the senses. but then expands on the theme that reasoning is essential. he maintains. and therefore must find anal- ogies to glimpse what is ultimately beyond human definition. using arguments that he finds more rational and convincing. 8:1) was frequently invoked by monastic writers against those who taught in the schools. only “poetic fictions” that cause the mind to wander. to say that nothing can be understood about the Trinity in this life. passages from Gregory the Great are mis- quoted by those who wish to find comfort in their ignorance. Abelard in turns warns against those “seeking solace for their ignorance” (a favorite phrase) who argue that it is wrong to draw on secular philos- ophy to discuss matters of faith. The warning of Paul that “knowledge puffs up” (1 Cor. As in a letter against those ignorant of dialectic. one in France (Alberic of Reims).210 abelard and heloise have been covered in his Collationes and are to be developed in his Ethica. reasoning is needed to overcome the heresies and disputes that trouble the Christian com- munity. he argues that the Fathers of the Church.

” Abelard now asks “brothers and wordy friends” to consider the way words change their meaning when applied to God through using metaphor and analogy. The divine nature is beyond any division or part. making it able to seal. He attributes to them a range of opinions to make them look absurd. Abelard always emphasizes that this is only an analogy to help understand the meaning of the words “Father” and “Son. when applied to wax. and charity 211 of Soissons [1126–1152]).21 This attempt to ridicule potential critics invited a hostile response from those not per- suaded by his claims. yet multiple in attribute. it has a form into which it is shaped. Abelard is particularly opposed to thinkers who de- scribe divine attributes as having a separate existence from the divine persons (presumably relying on a strictly literal application of Priscian’s definition that a name signifies a substance with a quality). In grammar. second. This introduction to the diversity of contemporary opinions about Christian doctrine leads to an important theological argument. and attribute or definition. The term persona itself has many meanings. Instead of addressing Roscelin as “a wormlike dialectician. now stripped down to a few key essentials. sacraments. number. The central analogy formulated in the Theologia “Scholarium” is that the Trinity is like a bronze seal with three attributes: it is made of bronze. or is spoken about. Something can be single in essence. as well as of claiming (as Abelard also reports in the Historia calamitatum) that God could beget himself. and third person is one of attribute—whether someone speaks. it has the property of sealing. are far from accurate summaries of their teach- ing. The image is much tighter than anything he had suggested in previous versions of the Theologia. There is thus nothing unusual about speaking of multiple personae in relation to God if God is understood to have multiple attributes. is spoken to. considering just three modes of identity: essence.” While his critics might argue that a species is inferior to its genus and therefore implies a dimin- ished status to God the Son. the difference between a first. It provides a way of visualizing his familiar theme that the relationship between divine power and wisdom (or the power of discernment) is like that between genus and species. he now simplifies his discussion. his point is that a species is not a thing in .22 Human categories invariably change their normal meaning when applied to God. faith. and exists outside of any of the standard categories of substance and accident as defined by Aristotle and Porphyry. He accuses Alberic of Reims of holding that those who lived before the incarnation were saved without knowledge of the Savior. although the basic analogical principle is the same.23 Whereas in previous versions of the Theologia he had devoted much at- tention to some half dozen modes of identity and difference.

was inadequate for similar reasons. Anselm in argument against Roscelin. of- fered by Augustine and put forward by St. but rather depends on genus as one concept depends on another. This criticism of existing analogies leads into one of the most contro- versial claims in the Theologia “Scholarium”: that the goodness of the Holy Spirit is not any power or wisdom but rather is the love (caritas) that emanates from both Father and Son and therefore has nothing to do with the attribute of power. The Latin form of the Nicene Creed included the controversial filioque clause in the late sixth century to incorporate the Augustinian perspective. as in the traditional orthodox version of the Nicene Creed. is both God’s affect or disposition and his effect or consequence on creation. as the Son is generated from the Father.25 To an unsympathetic critic. the Holy Spirit. relating God to creation. God’s action is never arbitrary.24 He sees the traditional image of the Trinity as like the sun emitting heat and light (conventionally attrib- uted to Augustine. but from both the Father and the Son. existing independently from a genus. The analogy provides more than a clever way of explaining how three persons coexist in a single substance.212 abelard and heloise itself. Augustine had placed prime focus on the Son as the means through which human salvation is effected. It emphasizes the Holy Spirit as the medium through which humanity is shaped and healed by divine goodness. but is ethical in its very foundation. His love. the Holy Spirit. but he argues that it is an integral part of the divine nature. Abelard considers the analogy of the bronze seal to be particularly appropriate because the seal imprints its image on wax. in the same way as the Holy Spirit imprints the divine image on creation. river. the sigillabile) is cast out of bronze into a particular shape. While the seal (strictly what is able to seal. His argument is that omnipotence should not be seen as the overriding characteristic of God’s nature. does not deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. but which he suggests was Platonic in inspiration) as inadequate because the three elements do not share a common substance. and pool. Abelard might seem to undermine the full divinity of all three persons of the Trinity. God’s power is the potentiality on which everything depends. Abelard. rather than simply the third person of the Trinity. Another traditional image of the Trinity as a spring. as a Latin Christian. it has the prop- erty of sealing. He draws on his un- derstanding that words do not signify specific entities or things. but rather . Ever attentive to the correctness of definitions. Abelard argues that the Holy Spirit does not proceed “out of” (ex) the substance of the Father or the Son but rather “from” (de) the Father and the Son. He saw the Holy Spirit as proceeding not from the Father alone.

who think that they can discuss divine works by reason. Just because one creed differs from another. he retains from the Theologia Christiana his explanation of how the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son. was an enthusiastic admirer of diversity in the Church. In the last book of the Theologia Christiana. In the De sacramentis. Abelard is con- sciously irenic in arguing that the traditional prohibition against changing the definition of belief applies to faith itself. Abelard had started to write about the underlying unity of God and his argument that God could not act differently from the way he did.26 Anselm of Havelberg. His praise for Bernard of Clairvaux did not stop him from using Abelard’s Theologia to explore common ground between Latin and Greek traditions. While Abelard simplifies his potentially controversial argument about the relationship between Father and Son. and confine God’s power within mea- sure.” which were inspired by discussions he had had with a prominent Byzantine ecclesiastic. the Latin understanding of the Trin- ity may be worded differently from the Greek definition. He is particularly careful to examine the wording of the major definitions of belief issued by the ecumenical councils.”27 Hugh is aware of the view that the world could not be made better. Whereas St. Arch- bishop Nichetes of Nicomedia. he has the power to make the world better than he has made it. The most significant new development in the Theologia “Scholarium” occurs in its third book. Son. but had never been able to complete his discussion. Abelard had acknowledged passages such as Matthew 26:53 (“Do you not think that I could ask my Father and he would provide me with more than a dozen legions of angels?”) presents serious difficulties. it does not nec- essarily contradict another. Abelard’s expla- nation and analysis of the wording of the ecumenical councils would be particularly helpful to Anselm of Havelberg. Hugh explicitly rejects the opinion of those who “glory in their opinion. In the Theologia Christiana. which explores the character of God’s nature and attributes beyond the more specific question of the definition of the Trin- ity.28 By the time that he had . but this does not mean that there is any fundamental difference in sense. to make sense of teaching about the specifically Christian terms of Father. Abelard counters the conventional image of God as a supremely omnipotent ruler by ref- erence to a range of proof texts. but holds that while God cannot be better than he is. not to the particular words being used. sacraments. Anselm had adopted a more critical attitude toward the Greek insistence that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. who suc- ceeded Norbert as archbishop of Magdeburg in 1134. and Holy Spirit. Similarly. faith. and charity 213 convey distinct attributes. who drew on Abelard’s Theo- logia to construct his Antikeimenon or “Dialogues. in 1136.

Abelard’s discussion of divine wisdom in the third book picks up on a question that he had already touched on. a tone of impatience that does not disappear in the Theologia “Scholarium. in which suffering and misfortune are explained as part of divine providence. His theme. may still operate for reasons that we do not un- derstand. anticipated in the Collationes and the commentary on Romans. such as eclipses of the sun and the moon. namely. how God’s providence can be reconciled with free will. When Abelard wrote the Theologia Christiana in the 1120s.29 Abelard resolves the familiar problem of whether divine providence implies that all things happen by necessity by pointing out that “someone capable of being saved by God” is not the same as “God is able to save someone who is not to be saved at all.-Victor. as the divine nature and human nature are quite different in character.32 When God is said to become man in Christ.31 He refers back to his Gram- matica (unfortunately lost) for further discussion of how the category of “spirit” is never subject to the category of place. although they become one person. Unlike Hugh. made in both the Sententie and the De sacramentis. he effectively counters the claims of Hugh of St. Abelard draws on a long tradition of reflecting on modal operators such as “it is possible that” to point out that many theological paradoxes can be resolved by consid- ering their correct usage. that he is undercutting divine power by arguing that we pay attention to the way words are used. The same principle operates in his dis- cussion of divine power: that what may come about through free will from a human perspective is known to God but does not thereby come about through necessity. Events that we cannot anticipate.” this really means that he humbles himself to take human nature. This theological acceptance of wrongdoing is also implicit in the Historia calamitatum. can have a place in the divine plan.” Yet the implication of the argu- ment in its final book is that God cannot do other than he does. He has to conclude that there must indeed be a reason for God giving to humanity the capacity to sin.214 abelard and heloise completed the Theologia “Scholarium. is that evil.” since the former statement refers to a human possibility while the latter makes a statement about possibility in God.” he was much more confident of his argument. When God is said “to come into the Virgin. he frequently expressed anger with the way other Christians behaved in the name of their religion. and that the world cannot be made differently from the way it is.30 Without identifying his critic by name. Statements about God “ceasing from work” on the Sabbath or “descending into the Virgin” are figures of speech that do not imply any change to the divine nature. To investigate the reasons behind natural phenomena does not . there is no change in his nature. although wrong in itself.

His answer is fundamentally the same as that which he articulates in a more personalized context in the Historia calamitatum. that the most difficult experiences can have a role to play within God’s providence. presents his own resolution of the issue by going back to what he thinks Aristotle is saying in his discussion in the Perier- meneias about the meaning of words and phrases. He argues further that Aristotelian logic helps us to clarify the false claim that if God foresees all things. as what is being examined relates to creation. Whereas Boethius seeks to free himself from the chain of worldly existence by contemplating philosophy as a transcendent ideal. Abelard. how it is that we can reconcile suffering and evil with the goodness of God.33 Abelard effectively argues that claims made about both human freedom and the underlying rules that govern our behavior do not dimin- ish divine authority and wisdom. He returns to the perennial question of all theodicy. His message is not so much about God himself as about our need to pay attention to the words. he argues that Aristotle can teach us not to confuse logical arguments with theological truths that are beyond def- inition. In the third book of the Theologia “Scholarium. we can gain deeper understanding of both freedom and necessity. he had emphasized reason and rationality but had steered away from reflect- ing on suffering in the world. Its internal organization is not as careful as the second book (subject to so much redrafting). Heloise had accused God of cruelty for allowing events to have taken the turn they did. Rather than reducing theology to logic. which remain at an utterly different level. Abelard re- sponds by arguing that his punishment was part of God’s redemptive strat- egy. and charity 215 limit God’s power. namely. not to God.” he is still concerned with the same fundamental paradox: How can we reconcile evil and suf- fering with the goodness of God? In earlier versions of the Theologia. The third book’s final section about divine goodness is much briefer than the sections on power and wisdom. and does not have the flow of ideas provided by the dialogues in the Collationes. even very small conjunctions. The capacity to exercise free will is a precious feature of human nature that is not at odds with providence. In her response to that account. These were issues Boethius had attempted to resolve in the final book of his Consolation of Philosophy. all things must operate by necessity. Now he reflects on the paradox that out of . Abelard emphasizes that in the final analysis God could not have made creation any differently from what it is. although it contains some of the most moving reflec- tions in the entire Theologia. who had criticized Boethius so often in the past for being mis- guided in his opinions. The third book of the Theologia “Scholarium” is not the most clearly organized of his writings. By becoming aware of the limitations of all talk about God. sacraments. that we use. faith.

the sacraments. the strict subject matter of theologia. In his oral teaching. he refers not only to the Theologia but to two other treatises that he intended to write: an Anthropologia.”34 The Theologia “Scholarium” and the Sentence Collections There are no firm grounds for thinking that Abelard intended to take the Theologia “Scholarium” further than discussion about the divine nature. the sacraments. even though causing suffering for its own sake is always wrong. to have been killed by wicked men. Abelard had formulated responses to all the major questions about faith. a treatise that has survived under the title Scito teipsum (“Know yourself”) and deals with caritas as the foundation of all morality. an innocent. He concludes by reflecting on the biggest paradox of all: It was ultimately a good thing for Christ. even though this might seem to run counter to reason. Abelard’s response is not to deny that we should grieve or mourn. but is ultimately without reason. and charity—he gives no indi- cation that he was going to cover these topics in the Theologia. and his Ethica. We are instructed to pray for the dead and for the salvation of those that will not be saved. Why does Rachel weep over her children or a son grieve the death of his father when death is inevitable? The motive behind such grief is born out of the best of emotions. In the commentary on Romans. but woe to him through whom obstacle comes”) crystallizes his sense that suffering may have a place. and whatever happens. as distinct from benefits that flow from God. He resolves the dilemma by reflecting that ultimately God orders for the good those things that are bad and contrary to reason “so that it is even a good thing for evil to exist. it is good to happen. even though the sin itself cannot be good at all.35 Although he included definitions of charity and sacraments at the outset of his new introduction—lifting them from the beginning of his sententie on faith. so that sinning against him was a good thing.” Even more of a paradox is what this means for sin. taken down by students probably in the same way as Laurence of Durham took . They are recorded in collections of his sententie. and charity that he had outlined in the Sic et non. The text of Matthew 18:7 (“It is necessary that there should come obstacles.216 abelard and heloise human feeling we often act in ways that run counter to reason. “This certainly could not have happened without sin. It may even be good for sin to exist. even though sin is never good in itself. dealing with the incarnation of God in human form (perhaps never written).

in which some points are expanded upon.” These ideas about Christology. but argues that the divine nature is of quite a different order from human nature. In a phrase that some subsequent critics would consider blasphemous. so he presents love as the foundation of God’s taking human form in Christ to free us from the yoke of sin (not from any legitimate power of the devil). manifest in the Holy Spirit. or improper. they provide a concise summary of his teach- ing on a wide range of questions. This shift in thinking parallels a move in contemporary art to dwell on the suffering of Jesus rather than on his transcendent wisdom.” Abelard reads the passion narrative as an account not of a God-man above suffering but of a fully human person who is clearly separate from God the Father. faith. it is redemptive. if it is possible.38 Christ was no different from the martyrs or saints in the way he felt suffering. and that Christ is a single person. An improper expression is one in which a part is taken for the whole. The Sententie Petri Abaelardi survive in three different recensions. When this suffering is endured for the sake of the love of God.36 While these sentence collections are not as carefully written as Abelard’s treatises. both human and divine.37 He accuses Augustine of effectively denying Christ his full humanity by interpreting the prayer “Father. provoked enormous discussion in the schools over sub- sequent decades. he considers that Christ “assumed true humanity. In particular they bring together the key arguments about redemption introduced within the commentary on Romans.” He is particularly critical of Hilary of Poitiers for denying that Christ felt real pain when his hands and feet were nailed to the cross. while other sections (such as on the sacraments) follow the Sententie Petri Abae- lardi more closely. He also argues that most statements about the incarnation.” The Sententie Parisienses are more likely to represent an actual report of Abelard’s lectures. such as that God is man and that Christ is the son of God. Going much further than St. are impropria. In one manuscript of the Sen- . To say that Christ is “God and man” means that the Word of God “has humanity. let this cup pass from me” as a state- ment made not by Christ himself but by “his weaker limbs. he argues that God took human form not to be the perfect God-man dying in place of sinful humanity.-Victor. and charity 217 down the Sententie de divinitate from the teaching of Hugh of St. Just as Abelard empha- sizes the goodness and love of God’s nature. sacraments. but so as to redeem humanity by the example of his love. manifest in Christ’s life and preaching. preserved only as sententie. and not literally accurate. God has allowed humans to sin. without ever consigning hu- manity to the devil. perhaps expanded by a disciple with quotations from Abelard’s Theologia “Scholar- ium. Anselm in the Cur Deus homo. Abelard does not deny the divinity of Christ.

it was to emphasize the goodness and rationality of God without dwelling sufficiently on the human condition. God is everywhere through his power or potency. they did provoke controversy. Abelard presents the sacraments in his Sententie as belonging to the benefits flowing from God after the supreme “benefit. but rather Christ’s passion associated with baptism.”39 There was a rational reason for both Peter obeying and Judas dis- obeying. giving it movement. body and soul came together. These were ideas he first developed in those letters and sermons addressed to Heloise and the nuns of the Paraclete.218 abelard and heloise tentie. Abelard emphasized that Christ was sepa- rate from his Father. In death. it is fascinating to see Ab- elard’s resolution of the subject.” that is. but he allows it to exist as part of the gift of free will given to humanity. In res- urrection. that his knowledge as a man was different from that of the Word of God.40 Abelard sees the Eucharist as embodying the love that Christ . By developing his thinking about the true humanity of the incarnate Christ. His discussion synthesizes themes that he had already developed in his sermons and in the Collationes.-Victor accords the sacraments such an important place in the economy of salvation. that the soul does not experience physical movement like the body but rather is itself the life of the body. In death. Given that Hugh of St. Yet even if these ideas were only raised in public teaching and not in any definitive treatise. Bernard did not understand the broader context of this remark. Christ’s soul. God does not arrange evil. If he had ever completed the Anthropologia that he promised in the commentary on Romans. Hugh prefers to speak of the Word of God rather than of Christ’s passion as what gives efficacy to the sacrament. Christ’s soul was separated from his body. According to a remark in another sentence collection. potentially. it would have been a work of great bold- ness. because he can be everywhere. picked up by Ber- nard of Clairvaux. if the ideas hinted at in the Sententie are any guide. He an- nounces one point of view—namely. was separated from his body but existed everywhere. the incar- nation. that some say that circumcision and baptism differ in that the latter opens the way to heaven. If there had been a weakness in his early theology. unlike the former—but then argues that baptism itself does not do this. the Word of God. Abelard is reported as making a remark that is very similar to a line in the commentary on Romans: “and I may say that more usefulness followed from the disobedience of Judas than from the obedience of Pe- ter. Abelard seemed to say that Christ descended into hell only through his power (per potentiam tantum). Abelard hoped to address the question of how suf- fering in this life could find a purpose.

-Victor clearly alludes to these arguments of Abelard in his De sacramentis: “Certain men wish to say so much about charity that they begin to praise charity contrary to truth. Hugh’s lengthy and impassioned discussion. they lose what charity may have been in their hearts. Abelard deals with love. and comments on issues that he had already identified in the last part of the Sic et non. since he had love for his neighbor.”43 While Hugh acknowledges that these ar- guments about charity form a good beginning. What matters is not any act of charity. and charity 219 showed to us and that draws us to him. or some other sin. such as Hugh himself. the foun- dation of all ethical behavior. even if his sexual intercourse with Bathsheba was wrong. in which he attempts to demonstrate to his unidentified critic that it is naı¨ve to assume that love is present in the hearts of those who sin. have the merit of eternal recompense. and yet there is no praise of charity where there is injury of the truth. and insists that there is a sharp division between evil and good people. Hugh of St. . Again he emphasizes that its efficacy lies in its inner purpose rather than its external form. but the purpose behind all charity. as in the case of David.44 Hugh’s arguments allow us to perceive exactly how important was Ab- elard’s interest in restoring caritas to a central position as a basis for both theology and ethics. Love will certainly last forever. but when people start to act wrongly toward one another. although in some way they can exist inclined toward good according to the affection of nature. . were troubled that such a theology had the potential to legitimize behavior that trans- . Hugh fears that this argument could excuse a multitude of sins. it can excuse even the gravest weaknesses. it is not consequently true that I do not love God. They say that charity is such and has such great virtue that without it all the other virtues. . murder. however. If charity is present in the human heart. he had charity because he had Christ as a foundation. David’s social transgression in having Uriah killed so that he could seduce Bathsheba does not mean that he did not love God. is a moving attempt to identify the limitations of Abelard’s analysis of love. notorious for his human frailty: “If. cannot. not least concupiscence. faith. I should fall into fornication. while I have Christ as a foundation.41 In the third part of the Sententie. sacraments. he worries that such bold claims are undercut by the reality that often there is no real charity from the outset.”42 Abelard identifies with the figure of David in his pro- pensity for illicit love. vanquished by some weak- ness. Cautious critics. For when David sinned. He knows the argument that “the spirit of the Lord did not recede from David” (1 Kings 16:13) but does not consider that this was a license for David to act in any way he wished.

Only when Abelard applies himself to the distinction between vice and sin does he refine his thinking about what actually constitutes sin.220 abelard and heloise gressed the conventional rules of society. as he had assumed in his earlier writing. Abelard refines his argument by explaining that sin is not in itself a wrong will.48 Abelard’s originality in the Scito teipsum lay rather in reflecting that a wrong will was not necessarily wrong in itself. why then does he do the work? I have the will and that suffices for me.-Victor is familiar with the arguments. but he does sin insofar as he has con- sented to a killing.” that there were many religious who sinned “in their will” rather than in their action. Abelard now deepens the psychological aspect of “wrong will. Hugh presents his argument in the form of discussion with a person who holds opinions very close to those of Abelard: “But you say: If to wish alone is merit and if the merit of man consists of will alone. Whereas in the Historia . and its foundation in caritas.” Even in his Sententie. and that we are rewarded for having a good will. implicit in the Sententie of Abelard. Hugh had commented in passing that “an act of sin is performed with consent alone. Whereas previously he had imitated Augustine in drawing a sharply defined boundary between mala voluntas and bona voluntas that conformed to the divine voluntas. Abelard refines the position that he had maintained in his Sententie.45 Hugh of St. but then he suggests examples in which the distinction between a good and a bad will is blurred: An innocent man persecuted by his master who eventually kills his master out of a desire to escape death may not have been motivated by a wrong will. His discussion in the Collationes had fo- cused around the question of what constituted virtue. the will to debauchery. Abelard had taught that sin was de- fined by “the will to anger. In the Scito teipsum. but is rather consent to that wrong will in deliberate contempt of God. that good will alone is sufficient to earn merit. Very telling is the example he gives of seeing a woman and having the mind affected by carnal thoughts that incite him to intercourse. one cannot sin. It does not seem enough to say that because one has love in one’s heart. Abelard acknowledges that some might argue that the will to do a bad deed is a sin that makes us guilty before God.” and had attached great importance to the consent of both parties in creating a legitimate marriage. Hugh insists that to claim that love is present in someone’s heart cannot excuse other faults.47 By distinguishing between a wrong will and consent to that wrong will in deliberate contempt of God. Abelard’s contrast between being motivated by either a wrong will or by caritas strikes Hugh as simplistic. He was not the first thinker to identify consent to sin as a necessary element in doing wrong.”46 In the Scito teipsum.

sacraments. made necessary by nature. Abelard extends his discussion in the commentary of Romans about the priority of faith over works. Many of his examples in the Scito teipsum are explicitly sexual: “It is not a sin to lust after another’s wife or to lie with her. Here he extends this principle to the experience of temptation. is a sin in itself. Divine punishment is not necessarily the same as that meted out by human justice. such as intercourse. “For example. who may presume to call this pleasure. This psychological angle is not present in the Collationes. he is here more aware of the discrep- ancy between external judgments made by ecclesiastical authority and justice in the eye of God.49 Abelard is aware that his argument that the actual doing of a sin adds nothing to guilt will be controversial. he now clarifies the point that he had made to Heloise when she complained that she was still troubled by carnal thoughts after all these years: Having a wrong will is not necessarily wrong in itself. and charity 221 calamitatum Abelard had been quite clear that he had fallen into sin and that castration mercifully healed him of this temptation. but rather to consent to this lust or action. what matters is that we do not consent to that wrong will.” he had concentrated on the ultimate goodness of all that God permitted to happen. While he had taken this theme fur- . faith. as also in the third book of the Theologia “Scholarium. however. such as desire for good food. in contempt of God.51 Abelard takes much further the emphasis of Heloise that external works are not good or bad in themselves. in which the discussion is so much more about virtue than about the distinction between vice and sin. he had already laid out the principle that the performance of external action (most specifically circumcision. for whom the sexual act is without sin only if it takes place within marriage and does not involve lust. The issues of transgression that he raises are not simply sexual.-Victor. Why should a woman who acciden- tally smothers her child be guilty of murder and required to do penance?52 Whereas in the Historia calamitatum.53 In his critique of the notion of good works. a fault?”50 Abelard here internalizes the boundary between love and transgression much more than he had done in the Historia calamita- tum. What matters is the intention behind those actions. if someone compels a religious who is bound in chains to lie between women. a sinful longing only if consented to. the action discussed by Paul) was not as important as the ideal of love out of which that observance must spring. and if he is brought to pleasure.” This is a position very different from that of Hugh of St. It is unreasonable. not by his consent but by the softness of the bed and through the contact of the women beside him. In the debate of the philosopher with the Jew in the Collationes. to assume that any natural pleasure.

he is now more explicit in claiming that non-Christians are not guilty by virtue of their lack of belief. concerned with language rather than ethics. in the Scito teipsum he relates these principles to the words of Christ himself. Whereas in the Collationes Abelard speaks about virtue as a philosophical principle. what contempt of God have they in what they do for God’s sake and therefore think they do well?”54 While Abelard had argued in the Theologia that pagan philosophers had had insight into di- vine truth. significantly modifies traditional pen- itential theory.55 While there are passages in Scripture that speak of sins in terms of specific actions. did Abelard transfer this in- sight to behavior. Only in the 1130s. Abelard argues in the Scito teipsum that it must grow out of the love of God rather than out of fear of the possibility of damnation. a passage he had already raised in passing in his com- mentary on Romans. Sympathetic to the idea that penitentia should not be external penance but an interior disposition. Such an analysis of sin. “For those who do not know Christ. the essence and fulfillment of the law. after he had renewed contact with Heloise. is the archetypal upright pagan. as the essence of any sin lies in transgressing the commandment to love. Augustine had formulated an influential distinction between “venial” and “mortal” sins as a way of recognizing that some sinful actions are not going to stand in the way of salvation. “Forgive them. he now extends this to a general principle that it is inner intention that deserves reward. Abelard is impatient with those who build ex- cessively on this distinction. His authority is none other than the prayer of Christ. and therefore reject the Christian faith because they believe it to be contrary to God. Abelard had laid the foundations for arguing that the meaning of a sentence could not be defined as an objective thing but rather had to be understood in terms of the intention of the speaker.222 abelard and heloise ther in discussing the Epistle to the Romans. largely absent from Hugh of St.56 The situation of these upright pagans is like that of unbaptized children who have done no wrong. In the Dialectica. not ex- ternal action. who did not learn about Christ until Peter spoke to him. for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34). He is more critical than in . His argument that as sin has to involve contempt of God no one can sin simply through ignorance does not just mean that those who crucified Christ were not automatically guilty of sin.-Victor’s De sacramentis. Abelard holds that what is sinful is their consent to those actions. Heloise’s response to the Historia calamitatum had been to argue that she could not feel true repentance (penitentia) for their past relationship. Cornelius. drawn by natural law to the love of God but who could not be counted among the faithful until he had learned about Christ. as if it were something sinful.

his response had initially been to reflect on the foundations of true morality rather than on questioning the necessity for physical penance. an issue on which he had laid out opposing arguments in question 151 of the Sic et non. His own attitude is in keeping with his broader attitude to sacraments in general. in order to complain that many of his contem- poraries were far worse sinners than Adam. While these are themes that Heloise complained a great deal about in her third letter to Abelard. in that individuals can be helped by the process. faith. Abelard seems to nuance his position. He ob- serves that there is a practical advantage to confessing one’s sins. attributed to Cathar heretics in the Rhineland. Priests have a positive role in hearing confession and in helping the faith- ful turn to true repentance. Their attitudes may have reflected wider distrust of official penitential systems as well as of the usefulness of praying for the dead to be freed from purgatory. by contrast. Now he turns his attention to the limitations of thinking that alms giving can make amends for selfish and violent behavior.60 This contrasts with passing comments in the Collationes and the commentary on Romans that the greatest purgation any soul could experience was death. or what we call repentance. In the Scito teip- sum. sacraments. Bernard of Clairvaux found particularly objectionable the denial of purgatorial fire. as he argues that true peni- tentia consists in a conscious contrition of the heart that reconciles us fully to God. but he acknowledges that there are those who must still endure purgatorial punishment after death.61 This was increasingly a contested issue by the mid- twelfth century.-Victor.59 True repen- tance comes from the love of God rather than from fear of damnation.58 The moral transgressions identified by Abelard as worthy of eternal punishment are not sexual but relate to exploitation of others: seizure of property by the rich.57 He recalls a quotation attributed to Jerome (in fact by Pelagius). emphasizing that Adam was not such a great sinner because he had not sinned before. and charity 223 any of his earlier writings of the potential hypocrisy of many contemporary acts of penance. but holds that anyone who has not completed sufficient bodily penance still needs to be purified through purgatorial fire. The problem lies not with the mandate given . even though the act of speaking words does not in itself establish that true repentance is taking place. Abelard seems to be aware of the radical position of those who reject any external structure of confessing sins. Hugh of St. He is just as insistent as Abelard on the importance of inner contrition. has a more traditional sense of peni- tentia as actual practice or penance. and the greed of clergy who demand money for celebrating masses. even though they will be rec- onciled to God. arguing that exterior penance is nec- essary for interior contrition of the heart.

and Gregory the Great on the key text of Matthew about the power of binding and loosing.66 These ideas can have a dangerously anticlerical ring to them if they are employed in a public context outside the careful confines of academic debate. They are.” Abelard closes this discussion to the first book of the Scito teipsum by insisting that he does not wish to be contentious in these matters. he concludes that Christ gave this power to the apostles personally and not to all bishops in general. He is outspoken in criticizing not just priests but bishops “who shamelessly relax penances” on solemn occasions like the dedication of a Church or an altar in return for financial contri- butions.224 abelard and heloise to priests to forgive sins but with their failure to appreciate their mandate and to live up to the standards expected of them. and . in other words. While Abelard does not voice them for political ends. still have been entrusted with the power to bind and loose. Given the weakness of the young Church. Abelard’s philosophical rejection of the idea that individuals might participate in a common uni- versal thing is here transferred to the community of bishops. Public confession was not always necessary. Abelard could easily be seen as promoting distrust of ecclesiastical authority. he laments the extent to which those prom- inent in the name of religion have been driven to envy and hatred.65 In a very vivid way. who have to be judged as no more than individuals. “as this might incur a fault that had not existed earlier. as shown by the example of Peter weeping when he realized that he had denied Christ. of the work of redemption. From his reading of comments of Jerome. His ideas about goodness and love as the foundation of all true ethics. Origen. however. as heirs to the apostles.64 The theoretical question he has to face is whether bishops. to issue a sentence of excommunication on those they deem to be outside the community of the faithful.62 His objections are to those many prelates “who are neither religious nor discreet and are liable to disclose the sins of those who confess. so that to confess to them seems not only useless but also ruinous. he cannot avoid articulating his frustration with the way the institutional Church can distort a simple religious message by being more concerned with power and authority than ideals of service. in that he does not wish to criticize the teaching of those who live badly. This does not mean that anyone who has been excommunicated should stubbornly resist the will of a bishop. only to offer his own opinion. In crit- icizing the clergy in general. it was prudent for him not to make a public confession of his sin until his virtue had been proven. Augustine. At the same time.”63 Abelard is aware that he is walking a fine line. “blind leading the blind.” and as dangerous as those who teach Christian theology without understanding their subject.

sacraments. may have interested Heloise and the nuns of the Paraclete. . faith. and charity 225 indeed of the Holy Spirit itself. as they did many of his admirers. they could also be construed as potentially subversive by those who felt that he was undermining the structure of orthodox Christian faith and the authority of the Church. Nonetheless.

Abelard’s position became more vulnerable.-Thierry and Bernard of Clairvaux that the values of reformed monasticism would be given new authority and influence within the Church. With the accession to the throne of Louis VII. Having acquired the Abbey of Argenteuil 226 . Abelard’s rise to prominence as a teacher had coincided with the reign of a monarch who had acceded to the throne in 1108. Philip. after decades of schism and internal conflict. The young Louis had been anointed as heir apparent at Reims by none other than Pope Innocent II after the accidental death of the original heir apparent. 1137. and the retirement from court of Stephen of Garlande. Above all. royal chancellor. and dean of the Abbey of Ste. then just seventeen years old and a prote´ge´ of Suger of St. thus bringing into the French kingdom a vast region with its own language and distinct cultural identity. Abelard had then benefited from the support of Stephen of Garlande.-Genevie`ve. archdeacon of Paris. They hoped that order would be imposed both on the Church and on educa- tional institutions within the kingdom. He started writing an account of the life of Louis VI for the benefit of the young king in which he marginalized the contribution of Stephen of Garlande toward shaping the Capetian kingdom. daughter of the Duke of Aquitaine. 11 Accusations of Heresy T he death of Louis VI on August 1. Suger worked hard to promote St. Suger himself had supervised the negotiations that led to the marriage of the young Louis with Eleanor.1 There was an expectation among abbots such as William of St.-Denis as the leading abbey of the realm.-Denis. marked the end of an era.

a former prote´ge´ of William of Champeaux. was one of those regions that had preferred to recognize Anacletus. Less diplomatic than Heloise in his relationships with senior churchmen. but did not understand his vision of dialectic as only part of a broader synthesis of secular and sacred wisdom. such as simony and clerical concubinage. con- demned as abuses a range of ecclesiastical practices. While Anacletus II had been elected on February 14. was a prominent figure).-Denis so as to reinforce his vision of the abbey as the true guardian of the sacred traditions of France. Innocent and his followers were forced into exile in France. The vast duchy of Aquitaine. more at home at the schools of Ste. above all Suger of St. Innocent excommunicated all those clerics who had been ordained by Anacletus and other “schismatics and heretics” with a severity that even surprised Bernard. such as condemnation of monks and nuns singing in the same choir. At the Second Lateran Council. Peter Abelard was ill at ease within the hothouse of ecclesiastical politics. by a majority of the Roman cardinals. 1130.2 Unable to win the support of the city of Rome. Unlike Bernard of Clairvaux. had now become a major figure in ecclesiastical politics. This broad-brush manner aggra- vated his critics. and with significant support from the city of Rome (where his brother. had proclaimed Innocent II as pope. Another significant turning point was provided by the death of Ana- cletus II on January 25. to which representatives from all over Christendom were summoned. Suger now intensified his effort to rebuild the abbey church of St. held in April 1139. headed by Bernard’s friend and fellow Cistercian. and of women calling themselves nuns without following the established rules of either Augustine.3 These prohibitions signal increasing official alarm at new developments in the interpretation of the religious life. It also introduced certain other measures that had not been mentioned in earlier legislation.-Genevie`ve than in a monastery. putting an end to an eight-year schism within the Church. a rival faction. where they found strong support from Bernard of Clairvaux. The council. or Benedict. embracing cities as far apart as Poitiers and Bordeaux.-Denis and Bernard of Clairvaux. Abelard tended to complain about their worldliness without appreciating the full complexity of the political issues with which they were concerned. Basil. the criticisms . underpinned by devotion to the Holy Spirit. Bernard. who in turn played a key role in getting Innocent’s claim to the papacy rec- ognized by Louis VI of France and Lothar III of Germany. They perceived Abelard as a renegade monk. In the intensely polarized years of 1140–1141. accusations of heresy 227 in 1129. Cardinal Haimeric. who traveled to Italy in 1138 to assist Innocent II assert his authority. 1138. Jordan. They remembered him as a dialectician and a secular cleric.

just as Hugh of St. By 1137. making Paris surpass Reims and Laon as an educational center. John followed Abelard’s lectures on dialectic for as long as he could. In particular. but developing a . developed almost twenty years earlier. Younger teachers such as Adam of Balsham (nicknamed Parvipontanus because he taught on the little bridge between the Ile-de-la-Cite´ and the Left Bank) were becoming specialists in dialectic. and Robert of Melun. translations of which were beginning to circulate in the schools. composing commentaries on the Psalter and the Pauline Epistles in the tradition of Anselm of Laon. perhaps late in 1137 (for how long is not certain).-Genevie`ve. who had studied under both Bernard of Chartres and Anselm of Laon sometime before 1117 but then taught at Chartres until around 1137.- Genevie`ve. who was more sympathetic to the ideas of Abelard about language and theology. Arguments between Alberic of Paris and Abelard on dialectic are frequently mentioned in student notes from the late 1130s. Writing in the late 1150s. until Abelard left the city. Alberic of Paris (not to be confused with Alberic of Reims).” to use the words of Richard of Poitiers. as it did not make extensive use of Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations and Prior An- alytics. Certainly. and would later look back on his studies between 1136 and 1148 as a remarkable period. and the doctrine that God became man to free humanity from the yoke of the devil. a strident critic of “the nominalist sect” and gifted in posing difficult questions.4 Yet many more masters were beginning to find employment at the schools of the Montagne Ste. Abelard and Hugh were revered as “the two great luminaries of the Latin world.228 abelard and heloise of his theological arguments made by teachers such as Hugh of St. that Abelard seemed to question the full omnipotence of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. There were fewer mas- ters who taught both the liberal arts and theology.6 By this time. and who John thought was brilliant at finding concise solutions.5 John then studied dialectic under two very different teachers. The figure who perhaps impressed him the most was Gilbert of Poitiers. Bernard of Clairvaux picked up and publicized accusations initially made by William of St. John of Salisbury lamented the contempo- rary tendency toward ever greater specialization in teaching. Gilbert skillfully drew on both traditions of learning. held on May 25. which he was privileged to live through. These accusations would come to a head at the Council of Sens.-Victor was no longer the only represen- tative of orthodox clerical tradition.- Thierry.-Victor turned into accusations of heresy. The dynamism of its intellectual life is well attested by John of Salisbury. Abelard’s teaching on logic. who arrived there as a young student in 1136. 1141. Abelard was no longer the sole star of the Montagne Ste. was beginning to seem rather dated.

as if they were quite separate from each other. accusations of heresy 229 theological system based around commentary on the Opuscula sacra of Boethius. Thierry. Working from the key insight that all wisdom. may also have moved from Chartres to Paris during the 1130s. at- tributed to Denis the Areopagite). but never drew on the writings attributed to the Areopagite. and goodness to the three per- sons. between a subject (id quod est) and the form by which it exists (id quo est). As Otto of Freising ob- served. Gilbert taught both logic and theology as a uni- fied vision of learning. Gil- bert anchored his teaching on respect for his elders. extending this to the argument that divinitas was distinct from deus. until Gilbert himself was appointed bishop of Poitiers in 1142. Hugh turned to the authority of The Celestial Hierarchy. learned in many Platonic and scientific texts (including the Celestial Hierarchy. Gilbert’s theological system was a brilliant but dense synthesis of Aristotelian and Platonic traditions. he attached himself to Gilbert. is inspired by the Holy Spirit.9 Gilbert of Poitiers based his theology around a key meta- physical distinction.7 Like Abelard. He preferred to draw . Many of his ideas about redemption. arguing that through the sacraments of the Church. He rested his ar- guments not on Boethius but on the ancient philosophers. and virtue had been provoked by discussion with Heloise. Both Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert preferred to base their philo- sophical theology on the pithy tracts of Boethius. Above all. a system of sacred signs.-Victor based his arguments not on Aristotle or Boethius but primarily on Scripture. sin. (Thierry of Chartres. humanity can come to know God. Hugh of St. but in a way that emphasized continuity rather than rupture with the achievement of past thinkers. Not open to easy popularization by those unfamiliar with his arguments. Like William of Conches. perhaps at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame. used Boethius’s tracts on the Trinity as a basis for a vision of God and the universe as a series of Platonic forms emanating from a sublime unity.10 Gilbert disapproved of Abelard’s attribution of power. who taught both logic and theology. in particular on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.8) When John came back to Paris after three years of studying under William of Conches. he created a synthesis accessible in its broad outlines not just to his male students in Paris but to Heloise and her community at the abbey dedicated to the Paraclete. above all on Aristotle and on Scripture. whereas Abelard was headstrong in criticism of his teachers. he wished to bring together a theory of the natural world (physica) with that of theology. secular and sacred. wisdom.11 Abelard differed from Gilbert in attempting to provide a theological synthesis that embraced not just logic but also ethics. Ab- elard was sympathetic to Denis’s theme that God was unknown. Bernard’s brother.

dedicated to the Paraclete. and the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity. if only to offer an alternative interpretation.-Victor.” by Master Otto.) Abelard had expressed his dis- satisfaction with the practice of traditional monasticism in a more radical way.-Denis completely. by escaping from St. Bernard was watching over the construc- tion and expansion of monastic buildings not just at Clairvaux but throughout Latin Europe. and developed the notion that Scripture. about the person of Christ.13 Otto of Lucca was heavily influenced by Hugh of St. he hoped to recreate a more authentic expression of the ideals of the gospel.-Denis. Even those who were wary of individual opinions of Abelard on matters of faith. were aware that theological argument needed to be jus- tified by explicit identification from patristic authority. sacraments. Hugh of St. By building with his own hands an oratory. During the 1130s. rightly understood. By experimenting with larger windows and smaller pillars. and then transferring it to Heloise in 1129. but preferred to imitate Abelard in acknowledging more directly some of the same texts as Abelard quoted. a friend of Bernard of Clairvaux and bishop of Lucca from 1138 until his death in 1145/46.12 (Whether he approved of Suger’s taste in the internal decoration of the abbey church is another matter. can provide the means through which the mind can contem- plate God. Hugh of St. and morality had to take into account his bringing to public attention hitherto unnoticed patristic authorities.-Victor preferred not to identify explicitly the specific passages from the Fathers that shaped his thinking. “the synthesis of sentences.-Victor. One of the most influential of the theological syntheses that started to circulate in the late 1130s was the Summa sententiarum. appreciated the hierarchical structure of the Areop- agite’s thought.-Denis. Hugh rested his synthesis on the pillars of Scripture rather than of pagan testimony. the law of love as the foundation of all Christian ethics. by contrast. While some of Otto’s ideas are drawn from . For all his familiarity with pa- tristic tradition.-Victor in his own reflections on the rebuilding of the Abbey of St. at the same time Suger was re- building the Abbey of St. however. Bernard of Clairvaux praised Suger’s plans to reform his monastic community on the basis of the Rule of Ben- edict. Suger drew on these great themes of Hugh of St. he hoped that the faithful could be led in a similar way through reflecting on physical beauty to raise their minds to God.230 abelard and heloise on Aristotle’s teaching about language to justify the claim that all state- ments made about God can never define ultimate reality. In 1127.- Victor. Even his dis- ciples. There were many clerics who wished to combine the best of the traditions of both Abelard and Hugh of St.

who taught at Laon during the 1120s but certainly engaged in debate with Abelard during the 1130s. On the argument that God cannot act otherwise than in the way he does. who shared a common faith with Christians. Otto alludes to the argument raised by Abelard that pagan philosophers had a veiled faith in Christ. “in whom all have sinned. Much admired by Bernard of Clairvaux. but arrives at very different conclusions. he taught John of Salisbury for a short while before being called to Rome in 1144 as a cardinal. the virtuous gentile. One was Robert Pullen (d. Otto quotes and debates many of the same patristic texts included in the Sic et non and the Theologia Scholarium. but it is equally firm in demolishing Abelard’s arguments about omnipotence. Otto is even more explicit in his hostility: “But.19 Another significant figure in Paris was Peter Lombard. was not sufficient for salvation. and about the nature of the divine will. Otto argues firmly that original sin.”15 While conceding that there were pious gentiles.14 The theological issues in his Summa that become standard in so much subsequent theological writing in the twelfth century are those Abelard had been the first to raise: about the nature of faith in God.-Victor. armed with a letter of recommendation to the abbot from Bernard of Clairvaux. his thinking about the Trinity is closer to that of Walter of Mortagne. Above all. and then Oxford) before teaching in Paris during the years 1138–1144. Otto of Lucca’s resolution of all of these issues almost always stands in opposition to the views of Abelard. wisdom. about the distinction between the three divine persons. such as the widow Sareptena and Job. 1146). but he knows from authority that “by reason they could not have faith in the incarnation.18 His vast Sententiarum libri octo is more speculative in character than the Summa sententiarum and demon- strates a greater familiarity with Aristotelian categories.”17 Abelard’s arguments were also opposed by two other theologians who started to gain prominence in the late 1130s. who had studied in Reims until around 1136 before coming to study at the Abbey of St. Peter Lombard was already positioning himself as a . Otto follows the tradition established by Anselm of Laon of not recognizing insights gained by sec- ular philosophy in shaping the way in which we can speak about God.20 By 1141. is transmitted to all descendants of Adam.”16 Like Anselm of Laon. about predicating power. accusations of heresy 231 the collection that circulated as the Sententie Anselmi. as it seems to me. he insists that their simple faith no longer suffices “in the time of grace” and emphasizes that the faith of Cornelius. not just its consequence. who probably studied under Anselm of Laon around 1113 and then taught in England (perhaps in Exeter. under these words there hides poison. and goodness of God.

21 Lombard’s own Four Books of Sentences. A teacher more sympathetic to the spirit. he claims the inspiration of two great teachers. In his own major synthesis of theology. and completed by 1157. “one of whom wrote about the sacraments of faith. He developed the idea that through growing from amor to caritas we come to true wisdom and un- . a man “assumed by” divinity.26 Wal- ter of Mortagne was himself accused of teaching that Christ was assumptus homo. William of St. and its abbot to 1135. Walter engaged in friendly disagreements with a number of his contemporaries. of Ab- elard’s teaching was Robert of Melun. acquiring a limited reputation for his resolution of the issue of universals. including Alberic of Reims and Hugh of St. the other about faith and love. Walter lectured on dialectic as well as theology.-Thierry. was interested in exploring how amor was a force of divine origin that was present in humanity through the work of grace.25 Unlike Hugh and Alberic. Local rivalries between cities and their educational institutions were often as important as theological disagreements in provoking accusations of heresy.27 These suspicions of heresy did not pre- vent Walter from becoming bishop of Laon from 1149 until his death in 1170.23 Walter of Mortagne also shared ideas with Abelard. if not to the letter. he was indebted to Abelard’s patristic learning to such an extent that John of Cornwall would later accuse Lombard of always having a copy of the Theologia in his hand. even if he did not agree with everything he said. and he never demonized Abelard. Not all teachers of theology were actively involved in public schools. Nicasius in Reims from around 1095. Unlike Peter Lombard. over their tendency to see Christ as not fearing death or not growing in wisdom as a man. Robert argues that it is more important to have heard these teachers deliver their judgments (sententie) in their own words than to rely on the authority of the written word.-Victor.-Victor but with a much firmer grasp than Hugh of the arguments of both Abelard and Gil- bert of Poitiers.” in exactly the same way Abelard would do in 1140. also written in the 1150s.24 He also questioned Alberic’s argument that a promise to marry someone at a future date was as binding as a marriage vow. provides a more synthetic response to the ques- tions raised but never fully answered by Abelard in his teaching. Robert taught dialectic as well as theology. loyal to the key insights of Hugh of St. addressed “to all the faithful. even when voicing criticism of his ideas. albeit obscured by the weight of sin. This forced him to compose a public profession of his belief. While Lombard rarely agreed with Abelard’s more con- troversial claims.232 abelard and heloise theologian.”22 This comment neatly summarizes the contrasting emphases of Hugh and Abelard. a monk at St. much more tightly structured than those of Robert Pullen.

even from within his own abbey. While William was a strong analytic thinker. Soissons. on the model of Cistercian practice. pointing out theological error when ideas of the Fathers had been misunderstood.-Thierry. there was hostility to the move from within individual Benedictine houses. when William of Champeaux first came into contact with the young abbot of Clairvaux. accusations of heresy 233 derstanding of the nature of God. As a native of Lie`ge. which he identified with understanding itself. and spiritual love. William of St. whom he had first befriended between 1115 and 1121. as abbot of Cluny. Here he composed a lengthy commentary on the Epistle to the Romans in 1137. he lacked the literary sparkle of Bernard of Clairvaux. some fifty kilometers north of the city. and a new com- mentary on the Song of Songs. Whereas William con- trasted worldly love. Wil- liam. to become the Cistercian abbot of Signy. former prior of Cluny.-Me´dard.-Thierry may also have known Conon of Palestrina. had a divine origin and led to truly spiritual amor.29 While twenty-one abbots attended a meeting at St. was inspired by his friendship with Bernard of Clairvaux to compose a series of commentaries on the Song of Songs. such as about the Eucharist. as expounded in the Ars amatoria. In his treatise De natura et dignitate amoris. According to a letter of Walter of Mortagne.28 By “heretic” William could here be referring to the ruling of the Second Lateran Council that declared null and void the ordination of any schismatic or heretic. and Bernard of Clairvaux. of friends. Reims. William had expressed distaste for what he perceived to be the intellectual arrogance of those who dared to arrive at an understanding of God through divine reason alone. and strained relations between Peter the Venerable. a series of meditative prayers. William had reportedly claimed that children baptized by a heretic did not gain forgive- ness of sins if they died before reaching maturity. Amor. an opinion that Walter condemned. whether of family. William had been present at Soissons in 1121 when Abelard attempted to defend his theology. interested in dogmatic questions. These reforms provoked considerable antag- onism from Cardinal Matthew of Albano. founder of Arrouaise and the papal legate who presided over the burning of Abelard’s treatise at Sois- sons. In 1135. the fol- lowing year and agreed on many reforms of monastic observance. He saw himself as a controver- sialist. that is. The two friends also differed in the extent to which they privileged personal experience. of clergy loyal to Anacletus. William had been very involved at the Council of Reims in October 1131 in trying to get all the abbots in the archdiocese of Reims to agree to an annual general chapter. William left the Abbey of St. much influenced by his contact with Bernard of Clairvaux. . or of one’s neighbor.

whose major concern was with God’s nature and how we know God through the work of grace. and ultimately God himself for no other reward than God himself. At the Second Lateran Council. that Abelard attributed omnipotence to the Father alone (not to the Son and Holy Spirit). the sacraments. held in April 1139. even beyond the Alps. to the papal court itself. to be concerned with God alone. Bernard emphasized the continuity of stages in the path of love.30 These polemically driven accusations capture contemporary awareness that Bernard was a genius like no other. as if needing to defend Bernard from such accusations. ever attentive to the great themes of Trinitarian theology. Bernard em- phasized how we love our neighbor. beginning with carnal love but evolving to a spiritual love that gradually frees itself from concern with self. Sometime in Lent 1140. William had been present at the Council of Soissons in 1121. Berengar of Poi- tiers. none other than the Word of God. which purported to give Abelard’s teaching not just on the divine nature but on the incar- nation. In his Life of Bernard (the so-called Vita prima). our close friend. the papal legate. William tells stories about Bernard rejecting the flame of carnal desire. claimed in his Apologia that Bernard once composed love songs in his youth and that some of Bernard’s homilies on the Song of Songs (such as a lament for his brother Godfrey. Bernard’s harshest critic. The great majority of scholastic manuscripts from the period survive in copies contributed to monastic libraries in this way. William. who died at Clairvaux in 1138) broke with standard literary convention. William sent Bernard of Clairvaux and Geof- frey of Chartres. warning of thirteen dangerous heresies contained in two texts that he had come across in Abelard’s Theologia “Scholarium” and a book of his sententie. and charity. Bernard argued that it is only through desire that we come to seek the beloved. . William was troubled by the continued influence that Abe- lard’s writing was having.31 We can only presume that a monk had come to Signy bringing these texts with him. commonly known as the Liber sententiarum. where a very similar charge.234 abelard and heloise as discussed by Augustine. a letter with an accompanying Dispu- tatio. Pope Innocent II had expelled from Italy Arnold of Brescia. was particularly alarmed at statements that im- plied Abelard defined God the Son only as “a certain power” and the Holy Spirit as “no power at all” and at Abelard’s apparent rejection of the argument that the Son of God became man to free humanity from the devil’s yoke. By developing the richly erotic imagery of the Song of Songs. William’s fears were exacerbated by an increasingly polarized political situation in the years 1139–1140. who had made the art of celebrating love peculiarly his own. Unlike William. had been invoked to justify an accusation of heresy and the burning of his first treatise on the Trinity.

with a new charter carefully designed to regulate situations . where. Earlier in the twelfth century. who was fatally wounded leading an attack on the Capitol. the commune was reestablished. and learning. who was per- ceived by his critics as giving support to a dangerous firebrand. 1143–March 8. but even within a number of cities within France there was much tension between municipal and ecclesiastical au- thorities. 1139. sometime in 1139. On Innocent II’s death on Septem- ber 24. This policy was not continued by his successor. as supporters of Jordan. 1144). accusations of heresy 235 an Augustinian canon and celebrated preacher who had achieved noto- riety in his native Brescia for resisting the claims to temporal authority by the Church. with the cooper- ation of a bishop. resisted the claims to papal authority being mounted by Innocent II. 1143. cut short by his being poi- soned—Arnold of Brescia returned to Italy suggests that Celestine was willing to negotiate with the city of Rome. who agreed that a municipality could look after its own affairs in return for a financial arrangement with the episcopal authorities. brother of Anacletus II.32 Arnold’s presence in Paris created a dangerous situation for Abelard. One cardinal who certainly owned copies of Abelard’s Theologia Christiana and Sic et non (in the version as it stood in the early 1130s.34 A commune had been established that challenged traditional privileges of the cathedral chapter. Guy was elected by the cardinals as pope and took the name Celestine II (September 26.-Genevie`ve. Not only was civil war about to break out within Rome.33 William was disturbed by the thought that theological doctrines which seemed to chal- lenge divine omnipotence and the power of Christ to free humanity from the yoke of the devil could provoke schism in the Church if they were allowed to develop unchecked. Sixteen years after the catastrophic events of 1112. William was partic- ularly worried by the support that Abelard enjoyed among certain ele- ments of the papal court. when the bishop of Laon had been murdered and the commune crushed. communes had been established at a number of cities in France. Abelard became a symbol of danger. as at Laon. a magister who had himself amassed a sig- nificant library of scholastic writings. capacity for hard work. he attached himself to Abelard on the Montagne Ste. Lucius II. when Abelard was drafting the Theologia “Scholarium”) was Cardinal Guy di Castello. Arnold traveled to Paris. Nowhere was this more acute than within the city of Reims following the death of Archbishop Rainald on January 13/14. The fact that during his short papacy—according to one rumor. a Roman cleric who had supported Anacletus II but who came to France at this time and allegedly campaigned against Bernard of Clairvaux. Arnold was also reportedly in contact with Cardinal Hyacinth. The chronicle of Morigny reports that Cardinal Guy stood out for his nobility.

-Thierry and Bernard of Clairvaux were troubled by any challenge to religious authority. Pope Innocent II issued directives excommunicating all those attempting to restore the commune in Reims. Abelard was prepared to modify his wording. Anselm had addressed to Pope Urban II on the errors of Roscelin.” and Abelard’s apparent assertion that although all the Fa- thers of the Church had declared that the devil enjoyed a legitimate right and power over fallen humanity. not comfortable with the technique of the Disputatio. 1140. After Bernard received William’s letter and Disputatio on the errors of Abelard. the commune established at Reims during the years 1139–1140. but without ever assaulting Abelard as a person. drastically simplified the academic tone of William’s treatise to create a more vigorously argued public letter (Letter 190). along with copies of the controversial Theologia “Scholarium” and book of sentences. Samson.236 abelard and heloise of internal conflict. Many abbots and churchmen were troubled by the very serious threats being presented to ecclesiastical authority by those who claimed that the Church was too involved in protecting its temporal authority. The week after Easter (more likely 1140 than 1141). Bernard of Clairvaux was likewise troubled during the years 1139/ 40 by the failure of the church of Reims to appoint a new archbishop.35 It echoes the letter De incarnatione Verbi that St. although he refused an invitation to take the position himself. Bernard concentrates on only two main issues from the thirteen presented to him by William: the state- ments about the Son being “a certain power” and the Holy Spirit “no power at all. William’s treatise provided a sophisticated and lengthy anal- ysis of passages of Abelard’s writing. abbots such as William of St.-Victor had questioned individual propositions put forward by Abelard. Teachers such as Walter of Mortagne and Hugh of St. Bishop Milo of The´rouanne had to “purify” a church in Reims where a priest supported by the commune had celebrated the Eucharist. he considered that this supposed “devil’s . addressed to Pope Innocent II. in which he presents Abelard’s ideas as a dangerous threat to the unity of the Church. Bernard. who supported the crushing of the Laon commune in 1112. in Soissons. The Theologia was not an easy text to read. In a tense situation. he suggested that they meet after Easter of that year to plan their moves. was consecrated archbishop of Reims by Suger’s close friend Joscelin of Soissons.-Denis. On November 1.-Denis. a cleric from Char- tres. as a dangerous threat. was perceived by Suger of St. It seems that Samson was not able to take possession of Reims until much later that year. unusually. a period when there was no archbishop (two years according to one chronicler). When criticisms were raised within rational discussion. By contrast. The com- mune was crushed in 1140 through the efforts of Ralph of Vermandois and the support of Suger of St.

The list of nineteen capitula or headings appended to Bernard’s Letter 190 were com- piled from conflating William’s list of thirteen heresies with another list of fourteen heresies.37 The list concludes with the claim that all the propositions mentioned had . Bernard was not interested in engaging in a scholastic disputa- tion. and to teaching that the accidents of bread and wine remained in the Eucharist. Certain of the headings and quotations in this list of fourteen are so similar to ac- cusations included in a Disputatio written by Thomas of Morigny that it seems very likely that Thomas was the assistant to whom Bernard gave the offending treatises. These claims distort Abelard’s teaching so much that they are not easy to understand. so as to verify the claims of William of St. Perhaps following the meeting between Bernard and William. Unlike William. that contact with herbs and stones could provoke demonic incitements to vice. There is little evidence that Bernard engaged in any detailed reading of Abelard’s Theologia or the book of sentences. Most of his quotations from these texts come from his reading of William’s treatise. In general. Bernard indicated with a cross the four heretical propositions he thought he had covered in his letter 190 to Pope Innocent: about the Son and Holy Spirit as “a certain power” and “no power at all. the final list appended to letter 190 follows the list of fourteen with one exception: William’s opening claim that Abelard asserts that the Son is “a certain power” and the Holy Spirit “no power at all” has replaced the opening heresy identified in the list of fourteen.” about the Holy Spirit as not from the substance of the Father and the Son. Thomas of Morigny agreed to a fourteenth heading.” which did enter the final list of nineteen. His intent was to create a persuasive document that would force the pope to act against the heresies of Abelard.36 It seems that Bernard gave the controversial texts in question to an assistant who could engage in the more technical work of defining the particular heresies present in Abelard’s writing. Bernard also makes passing allusion to Abelard’s apparent denial that there was a spirit of fear of the Lord in Christ or that there was a chaste fear of the Lord in the world to come. accusations of heresy 237 right” never existed at all.-Thierry. that Abelard had made exactly the same claim in his commentary on Romans. which is simply an assertion of hostility to Abelard’s comparison of the Trinity to a bronze seal and to species and genus. and that Abelard tries to make Plato into a Christian. that the Holy Spirit is the soul of the world. quite correctly. about Christ not assuming flesh to free us from the yoke of the devil. and about omnipotence. each supported by quotations from the Theologia or book of sentences. not wisdom or benignity. In an expanded version of this letter. Bernard adds the detail. “that omnipotence belongs properly or specially to the Father.

he did not explain sufficiently how Christ had come to free humanity from the chains of sin. he did warn his students against the dangers of becoming enmeshed in academic study for its own sake. started to circulate very quickly in monastic libraries.38 While Bernard did not refer to Abelard by name in the finished form of his De conversione. but even among the uneducated. Bernard used the figure of Abelard to symbolize the vice of intellectual arrogance. partly in the book of sentences of Master Peter. By compiling a register of Bernard’s let- ters. but decided that while Abelard spoke so richly about the divine love manifested by Christ’s example. According to a letter written by the archbishop of Sens. with- out appreciation of the true end of the religious life. Anselm had done with Roscelin. was purifying an abbey in Reims that had been “polluted” by the presence of a priest supported by the commune of the city. presenting Abelard as an arrogant intellectual who had never grown past his early obsession with dialectic but who foolishly questions the omnipotence of all three persons of the Trinity. and was closely involved in producing copies of Bernard’s corre- spondence for wider circulation. to ask that he revise the offending passages “in a friendly and familiar way. Geoffrey of Auxerre was one of those students who re- sponded to Bernard’s preaching. 1140) that Milo. becoming in time his sec- retary. Bernard met with Abelard. He explains that he once listened to Abelard lecture on redemption. the argument between Abelard and Bernard then became a cause ce´le`bre.” Bernard’s letter 190. partly in the book entitled Scito teipsum.238 abelard and heloise been found “partly in the Theologia. bishop of The´r- ouanne. including those that concerned his writing against Abelard. initially in private and then in the presence of witnesses. The very same day (November 1. The public letter is a masterpiece of rhetorical writing. with its appended list.” Abelard’s anger was provoked when Bernard urged the Parisian stu- dents “to repudiate and reject books full of poison” and to beware of any teaching that might be harmful to catholic faith. Geoffrey would be immensely influential in shaping the way Bernard was perceived by subsequent generations. the enclave of the monastic life. in the same way St. . so many of which were being established across Europe either in new Cistercian foundations or in reformed Benedictine communities. creating discussion about the most serious matters of faith throughout the towns of France not only among students.39 Geoffrey joined Bernard at Clairvaux. Within a complex educational environment. in which Abelard was only one of a range of teachers active in Paris. According to the arch- bishop. Bernard of Clairvaux was preaching to the students of Paris that they should flee “Babylon” and turn to the new Jerusalem.

in which he explains in much more detail the great inaccuracy of Ber- nard’s claims in letter 190. Bernard had completely misunderstood what he was saying. Seizing on Bernard’s reference to “the book of sentences of Master Peter. not unlike a manifesto addressed to the Church by Walter of Mortagne. to demand that he be able to defend himself against Bernard’s accusations at a forthcoming council that the archbishop in- tended to hold at Sens on the Octave of Pentecost (May 25. Unfortunately.” Bernard did not understand how words could change their . (Whether Walter’s confession of faith was written before or after 1140 is not cer- tain. confident that he would win the argument. He had been quoted out of context.40 Once he had agreed to attend. who wrote a learned Disputation of the Catholic Fathers to defend Bernard of Clairvaux from the accusations that Abelard was mak- ing. In fact. 1141).43 Abelard also composed an Apologia. accusations of heresy 239 Abelard then contacted Henry. and a kinsman of Stephen of Garlande (provost of the Cathedral of Sens. In each case. but he was eventually persuaded to do so by certain friends. Although Otto of Freising claimed that Abelard wrote the Apologia after the Council of Sens.)42 Here Abelard challenges the accuracy of the statements in the list of nineteen headings appended to Bernard’s letter 190.41 Abelard similarly asked his supporters to attend the disputation. archbishop of Sens.44 Exactly when Abelard wrote this Apologia or Thomas his response to it is uncertain. Abelard re- sponded with a Confessio fidei addressed to the whole Church. he claims.” he denies that this was ever one of his writings. with no awareness of the larger argument that he was putting forward. this seems unlikely given that neither he nor Thomas of Morigny mention the council. explaining that he had been provoked into this confrontation and that it was now up to them to choose to defend the Christian faith. His recurring theme is that one must always respect “the force of words. and that Abelard and Bernard did come to a settlement of sorts by August/September of 1141. like the Theologia or Scito teipsum. Some time after Bernard’s letter 190 entered circulation. the Liber sententiarum was probably compiled from Abelard’s teaching by a disciple. as well as certain extracts quoted by Thomas of Morigny. among many other positions). Bernard wrote to the bishops of France.45 Thomas of Morigny makes no allusion at all to the events of the council. who used some passages about the incarnation identical to what Abelard had writ- ten in his commentary on Romans. Bernard was initially unwilling to respond to the archbishop’s invitation. In the Apologia. Abelard accuses the abbot of Clairvaux of ma- licious intent in twisting the words of the Theologia far beyond their actual meaning. only the opening section of this Apologia has survived.

Abelard hoped he would gain a sympathetic hearing. drunken assembly. just as they opposed his at- tempting the same tactic against Gilbert of Poitiers at the Council of Reims in 1148. He had invited Samson. however. Abelard’s . flattering him for his loyalty to the reform move- ment.46 As it happened. Abelard never obtained the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations being put against him. While the new cathedral was probably far from complete. together with King Louis VII and other powerful figures of the realm. unusual for its great width—making it ideal for such a large assembly. newly installed as arch- bishop of Reims. but still insists that Abelard is opposing the teaching of the Fathers of the Church. who had been consecrated archbishop of Sens in 1124. the public exposition of its relics provided an occasion to assert the authority of Sens over Reims and to present his cathedral as a symbol of the unity of the Church and the nation. In 1127/28. Henry. had engaged in a major rebuilding of the Cathedral of Sens. While the account of Berengar of Poitiers is harshly satirical of what he claims was a travesty of justice conducted in an unofficial. Thomas of Morigny takes account of Abelard’s insistence that he should only be judged by his authentic writings. The archbishop was presenting a solemn exposition of the relics of Stephen. Bernard had had some serious dis- agreements with the archbishop of Sens over unspecified issues. Bernard of Clairvaux had addressed a lengthy treatise to Henry on the duties of bishops.-Denis. Henry’s purpose in calling a Council of Sens originally had nothing to do with the argument between Abelard and Bernard. According to a number of witnesses.48 On the latter occasion Bernard was unable to persuade the majority of cardinals of his case against Gilbert. the patron saint of the Church of Sens. By the late 1130s. three years before Suger completed the rebuilding of St. Bernard of Clairvaux addressed the assembled bish- ops on the eve of the council and persuaded them to condemn the con- troversial propositions before Abelard had put his case.240 abelard and heloise meaning from one context to the next. Abelard is emphatic that he is questioning limi- tations in the way the Fathers of the Church had attempted to define Christian doctrine. not the wisdom of Christ himself. When the contro- versial capitula were read out the following day at the council.47 John of Salisbury recalls that the car- dinals of the curia (none of whom were present at Sens) were particularly angry with Bernard for employing this tactic of securing an episcopal decision before Abelard had put his case. as well as other bishops of the archdioceses of Reims and Sens. the archbishop of Sens also confirms that Bernard did indeed preach to the bishops before the council had officially opened.

given his seniority within the papal curia. and his fellow bishops is written in a style so similar to that of Bernard’s other letters that it seems to have been written by the abbot of Clairvaux him- self. Bernard and his secretary set about writing letters both to Pope Innocent II and to various cardinals in Rome. described with dramatic detail by Geoffrey of Auxerre. while within he is a dangerous heretic and is proclaiming that he has influence in the papal court. Above all. who was closely supported by Bernard. was to refrain from making any response. Some of the most significant debates that went on at the council are hidden from the public record. He took the step. cardinal bishop of Palestrina. When Ab- elard announced that he would appeal to Rome. subsequently elected pope as Eugenius III in 1145) to strengthen a new Cistercian abbey not far from Rome. accusations of heresy 241 response.50 The letter addressed to Master Guy of Castello is particularly signifi- cant in this respect. an enemy of Christ. Stephen had been consecrated cardinal bishop by Pope In- nocent II on April 8. such as Stephen. The letter sent to the pope in the name of Samson. namely. archbishop of Reims. in partic- ular those between the aged archbishop of Sens and the newly appointed archbishop of Reims. but none of these attracted the public attention of the confrontation between Bernard and Abelard. that of Rome. the theology of Abelard could give moral justification for political revolt and schism within the Church. entirely within his right. is a monk only in outward appearance. dedicated to Saints Vincent and Anastasius.49 The con- troversy polarized opinion. including a demand from the canons of Tournai that their diocese be recognized as independent from the diocese of Noyon. of appealing to a higher court. 1141. tending to force many clerics and ecclesiastics to identify with one side or another.51 Other cardinals to whom Ber- nard wrote were more openly sympathetic to the abbot of Clairvaux. Bernard evoked the fear of schism returning to the Church if Abe- lard’s ideas were allowed to gain influence.52 With such friends recently installed in po- . he warned about the danger presented by Arnold of Brescia as Abelard’s “shield-bearer. two of the most charismatic and controversial figures of the age. This meant that the assembled bishops were unable to deliver the official condem- nation to which they had been urged by Bernard. one of the monks of Clairvaux whom Bernard had sent to Italy in 1140 (along with Bernardo Pignatelli. given popular support for Arnold as a known critic of Pope Innocent II. Bernard laments that Abelard.” Bernard was seriously worried that. explaining what had happened at the council and urging them to condemn Abelard before he had a chance to put his case. Various other issues were discussed at the Council of Sens.

widely circulated as part of the register of letters of Bernard of Clairvaux. The story of how Abelard was visiting Cluny. only that Abelard had decided—for no apparent reason—to suspend his demand that he defend himself at Sens. It also quotes from a letter at- tributed to the Emperor Martianus. The letter sent to Innocent II by the archbishop and bishops of Sens. and how he only reluctantly attended the council after Abelard had claimed that he would respond there to the charges being made against him. ordering that Abelard and Arnold be held in captivity and their books burned. Bernard hoped that he could counter the influence of cardinals such as Guy of Castello. This rec- . Innocent II then declares that he has consulted with his bishops and cardinals and has decided to condemn Abelard and his “per- nicious” teachings. not transmitted alongside the letters of Bernard of Clairvaux. because Abelard was urged to desist from his endeavor to appeal to Rome by the abbot of Cluny. and instead to transfer his appeal to Rome. not as widely circulated as the letter from the archbishop of Reims. He makes no reference. claimed justification for such an action in precedents set by the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus. known to be sympathetic toward Abelard. in particular the meeting of Bernard of Clairvaux with the bishops on the eve of the council. in which he describes the threat to Christendom pre- sented by Abelard and Arnold of Brescia. This letter. written to “Pope John” (in fact sent in 452 to the citizens of Constantinople) forbidding anyone from speaking against the decisions of a council. gives a much more nuanced account. explaining the maneuvering of the two parties. Even the cases of Berengar of Tours and of Roscelin of Compie`gne in the eleventh century had provided no precedent for such a papal condemnation.242 abelard and heloise sitions of influence. written either by Innocent or a papal secretary. and was then persuaded to come to an agreement with Bernard.54 This particular edict was never implemented. This letter may have prompted Bernard to provide Innocent II with a longer account of the proceedings of the coun- cil in letter 189.53 Disregarding the fact that none of the three precedents quoted here actually referred to the papal condemnation of a heretic. however. The pope also composed a separate note. Innocent II issued a letter. Peter the Venerable. is told by Peter in a letter to Pope Innocent II. that is of great importance in providing the first clear justification of papal authority to condemn heresy. On July 16. en route for Rome. less than two months after Abelard had announced that he would appeal to Rome. imposing on their author a sentence of perpetual si- lence. and excommunicating all those who follow him. to the meeting prior to the council.

55 Abelard. In a letter that Abelard wrote at this time to Heloise. The papal edict revoking the sentence has not survived. As a result. so giving the impression that Bernard had effectively ob- tained the definitive condemnation of a dangerous heretic. and thus was in no condition to carry out his plan. that God became man in Christ to redeem humanity from the yoke of the devil. Peter sub- sequently obtained the lifting of the sentence of excommunication that had been imposed on Abelard in response to the letters of Bernard and the archbishops of Reims and Sens. and then by the pope.” He seizes on Bernard’s attribution to him of the Liber sententiarum to deny that the work was his—even though many of its teachings were based directly on his writings. who agreed to re- main as a monk at Cluny and thus not to take his appeal to Rome. Geoffrey of Auxerre provided a sim- ilar impression of Bernard as a man of God who acted decisively against Abelard and obtained official condemnation of his teaching by the assem- bled bishops at the Council of Sens. According to Peter. In the Confessio fidei “Universis.” while in return Bernard agreed to refrain from any further preaching against Abelard. Peter the Venerable conveys the impression that his prote´ge´ had repented of his sins and was now committed to ecclesiastical orthodoxy. Even before the letters pertaining to Abelard were assembled in the most complete registers of Bernard’s correspondence. The edict that Abelard and Arnold should be held in confinement was thus never put into effect. put together by Geoffrey of Auxerre. now over sixty years old. Neither perspective offers a particularly nuanced reading of Abelard’s intellectual development. the letter of Pope Innocent II was given wide prominence. namely. was not in good health. the most widely known image of Abelard in the twelfth century was that provided by the collection of letters of Bernard of Clairvaux. his critics had created a very distorted summary of his teaching that sin- gled out passages in which Abelard seems to question the full identity of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit with God the Father. and to deny what they considered a core Christian doctrine. and the letter in which Peter the Venerable supplies this information was never widely diffused. While Bernard presents Abelard as intellectually proud and unrepen- tant in his error.” Ab- elard insists that many of the claims being made about his teaching were either untrue or based on a distortion of what he had written in the Theologia “Scholarium. Bernard persuaded Abelard to modify offend- ing passages in the Theologia “Scholarium. By selective quotation. he insists even more clearly on his Christian orthodoxy: that he considered the Son and Holy Spirit . In his contri- bution to the Vita prima of Bernard. accusations of heresy 243 onciliation was apparently organized jointly by the abbots of Cıˆteaux and Cluny.

Abelard has either modified or extended all those passages that alarmed William of St. Ab- elard does not soften the bitterness of his complaint that some people “not understanding the force of words” do not understand his distinction that divine benignity is not the same as wisdom or potency. namely.”56 Those who argue that he has misunderstood Paul fail to under- stand the central direction of his Christian commitment. Even . or Scito teipsum). It is thus legitimate to find different ways of expressing the same underlying truth.57 Abelard’s apparent claim that the Holy Spirit. Rather. Abelard takes pains to reinforce his point that he is not saying that God the Son is less omnipotent than God the Father. or that the Son is a species or specific form of the Father. in order to clarify his argument.244 abelard and heloise to be equal to God the Father and that he rejected the claims of both Arius and Sabellius. the power of discernment. we have to speak meta- phorically. and goodness. is “no power at all” provokes him to rewrite a particularly controversial passage to explain that benignity is not potency or a form of wisdom but rather is an aspect of caritas. the commentary on Romans.58 No term or expression signifies a specific res. this does not mean that the Holy Spirit is somehow less important than the Father or the Son. and his Ethica. complaining that “logica has made me hateful to the world. Abelard provides much more detail about his theological position in changes and additions that he made to his Theologia “Scholarium” that were incorporated by a fourteenth-century scribe into one particularly important manuscript of this work (which also contains his Collationes. While it is linguistically necessary to preserve the distinction between ex and de. in this case God. His argument hinges on what might seem a fine point: that the Son is begotten of the Father (ex patre) while the Holy Spirit proceeds from (de) the Father and the Son. but rather sig- nifies some attribute of what is being predicated. he is saying that the Son.-Thierry and Ber- nard of Clairvaux. This was perhaps the most wounding accusation of all because it failed to understand the central thrust of his theology: that the Holy Spirit was not simply the mutual love of the Father and the Son. but the divine goodness extending from God that embraced not just Christ but all of creation. They do not appreciate that when we say that God is power. It is sig- nificant that in this copy of the Theologia. divine wisdom. divine benignity. he understands the teaching that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” as describing a relationship not of power but of love. wisdom. and conclude that he is committing some blasphemy. There are many expressions advancing the same fundamental meaning that are dif- ferent in their construction. is a specific kind of power. Far from minimizing the power of the Holy Spirit.

Another admirer penned a lament . There were some clerics. who spoke up vociferously in defense of Abelard and expressed out- right hostility to Bernard of Clairvaux. Exactly when Abelard reworded these controversial passages in his treatise is not certain. Most monastic chroniclers. Right to the end of his life. By replacing benignitas with amor in his discussion of the third person of the Trinity.” which he had originally invoked in the Theologia “Summi boni. the love of God. dependent on the information supplied by Geoffrey of Auxerre and the collection of Ber- nard’s letters. He now refers to the Holy Spirit not just as benignity or goodness but as the amor Dei. In the last surviving revision of his Theologia. While he had related this to caritas. The bishops assembled at the Council of Sens had agreed with Bernard that they should condemn Abelard and his teachings. optimistically thinking that there he could find an audience that would appreciate what he had to say. such as Berengar of Poi- tiers. While the agreement obtained by the abbots of Cıˆteaux and Cluny got Bernard to agree that he would not to attack Abelard any further. accusations of heresy 245 Augustine’s definition of caritas as “a movement of the soul to enjoy God for his own sake” cannot be strictly invoked when we describe God as caritas. Loving is clearly different from being wise or being powerful. but never to withdraw the fundamental issues about language and God’s divine nature that he was putting forward. Geof- frey of Auxerre had no hesitation in prolonging the debate. controversy forced Abelard to refine what he had to say and perhaps to modify images that he employed. as the Augustinian definition only refers to human love. Abelard creates a new in- tensity to his discussion. were unaware that the papal condemnation of July 16 was subsequently lifted through the intervention of Peter the Venerable. he made them immediately following the reconciliation reached with Ber- nard after July 1141. One possibility is that he made these changes after his meeting with Bernard of Clairvaux in November 1140.59 The term “benignity. he now relates this to amor to communicate his understanding of the Holy Spirit as perfect love. Abelard complained that he had been seriously misunder- stood. To the end.” conveys tender concern. but they were thwarted in delivering an official verdict by his declaration that he would appeal to Rome. even though it does not necessarily signify a separate entity from that which is wise or powerful. not least because the dossier of letters helped promote Bernard’s reputation as a defender of orthodoxy. Alternatively. Abelard gives us no reason to think that the campaign conducted against him forced him in any way to with- draw any of his major arguments. This was why he wanted to appeal to Rome. They betray little softening of Abelard’s attitude toward his critics. or even directly after the Council of Sens.

a noun names a substance but signifies a quality. written by the archbishop of Sens. Abelard was also critical of those teachers (perhaps including Gilbert of Poitiers) who insisted on . but cannot be iden- tified with its quality. grieving that he had been unjustly condemned by “a pseudo- monastic crowd. In presenting the argument of Gilbert of Poitiers. he explains that Gilbert held the teaching in logic that when someone says that “Socrates is. Trans- ferring this to theology. Gilbert argued that each of the divine persons is “a thing one in itself” (omnis persona res est per se una). an anonymous Latin poet lamented that cowled monks were threatening the independence not just of Abelard but of a whole host of distinguished masters teaching in Paris.246 abelard and heloise for Abelard. does not assume that Socratem esse refers to any particular thing. In his com- mentaries on Boethius. without implying that these are separate entities.” Gilbert’s thought developed a notion implicit in the refinement of Priscian’s defi- nition of a noun offered by the Glosule on the Grammatical Institutes: that rather than signifying a substance with quality.”60 In the Metamorphosis Goliae. Otto’s own definition of the three divine persons as separate things coincides with that of Roscelin. A divine person. something that is per se una. Otto’s claim that Abelard was condemned at Soissons for minimizing the difference be- tween the three persons of the Trinity. which he claimed are distinct things with discrete properties. reproduced the argument that Roscelin made against Abelard.61 Otto’s broader in- tention was to emphasize the great difference between what he considered to be Bernard’s justified intervention against Abelard and his misguided attempt to condemn Gilbert of Poitiers at the Council of Reims in 1148. Gilbert avoided using the term res to qualify per- sona. modeled on the text and melody of one of Abelard’s own laments. The confrontation between Bernard and Abelard at Sens made a great impact on their contemporaries. is informed by a quality such as fatherhood (paternitas). unlike Gilbert of Poitiers. but repeats the notion that a person is “one in itself. but more through hearsay and reliance on a limited range of documents.62 Gilbert did not doubt the common di- vinity by which each of the three persons exists.” he does not say anything. Even such a well-informed observer as Otto of Freising had no access to the most detailed account of the council. in other words. Bernard did not understand the linguistic reason for distinguishing between deus and deitas. and knew only that the pope had imposed a sentence of perpetual silence on Abelard. but rather was applying to theology the linguistic principle that what a substance is (id quod est) is different from the quality by which (id quo) it is informed. Abelard’s error was not that he used arguments from logic in theology but that he did so incautiously.

While Abelard adhered closely to Aristotle in criticizing any at- tempt to identify forms as separate from that which they inform. The genius of Gilbert’s philosophical system was to combine respect for the identity of individuals with reverence for their common identity as based on abstract form. after he had resumed contact with Heloise and had invited her to take over the oratory he had built with his own hands and had dedicated to the Paraclete. Abelard distanced himself from a widespread assumption that humanity had been corrupted by original sin and that only by grace. In his mind. could it find salvation.-Denis. namely. Inspired by a contem- porary revival of interest in classical authors. . Abelard emphasized that God is first of all the supreme good. the criticisms that he made of opinions delivered by Boethius. but for very different rea- sons from Bernard. Augustine. Otto of Freising admired Gilbert’s metaphysical system. he sought to develop a the- ology that was centered on respect for the Holy Spirit as the divine good- ness. pater. through which all things exist. integrating both Aris- totle and Plato into his philosophical synthesis. Gilbert rested his argument on the authority of Boethius. he steered away from the ethical ques- tions that had always preoccupied Heloise. and other more recent teachers originated not out of a desire to present himself as their rival. but out of a conviction that they did not understand fully the way in which language is a product of human invention. Whether Abelard really was as subversive a thinker as his critics made him out to be is another matter. Rejecting the image of omnipotence as the defining character of God. The full contours of Abelard’s theology only emerged in the 1130s. perceived by philosophers and prophets alike. Not understanding the cen- tral thread that drives Abelard’s analysis of language as the product of human invention. In his own mind. with its respect for both individuality and universality. as mediated through the Church and its sacraments. Otto of Freising effectively accused Abelard of disre- specting the authority of Boethius. His argument was that a divine attribute like paternitas could never be a separate thing (res) from that which it qualified. Abelard’s theology threat- ened to subvert the natural order of Christian belief. In his early writing on the- ology. but could not understand Abelard’s argu- ment that all the divine attributes predicated of God identify some aspect of his nature. As a monk at St. accusations of heresy 247 distinguishing a noun from an abstract quality. In particular. Gilbert of Poitiers had himself been critical of the arguments about the Trinity raised by Abelard because they did not sufficiently dis- tinguish between a substance and its quality. he was concerned much more to apply the insights from his study of language to the issue of how we talk about God than to the question of what constitutes right and wrong behavior.

Rather than simply condemning his past. Abelard was anxious to demonstrate that he was no longer the headstrong youth of the past. but as deliberate consent to a wrong will. and was excessively confident that he could explain his arguments to his audience. in which emphasis was placed on correct observance of the sacraments and of religious duties rather than on the ethical demands of the Christian message. he argued that no theology true to its name can rely simply on blind acceptance of authority. . After Arnold of Brescia went to Paris during the years 1139/40. it is impossible to assess whether this Italian preacher really was as dangerous or as subversive a figure as Bernard of Clairvaux made him out to be. Without any surviving writings from Arnold. Abelard was not skilled in handling political debate. During the 1130s. He became increasingly aware of the hypocrisy involved in so much Christian teaching.63 Not long after Abelard died. where he had been moved for the sake of his health. He also developed his thinking about love as the basis of all true morality. he never succeeded in communicating to a wide audience the full vision of his ideas. he was convinced that they had to be answered by reason rather than by force. however. It has to take into account the questions that people ask about the meaning of Christian doctrine. Abelard died on April 21. celebrated more for his love songs about Heloise than for his insight into theology.248 abelard and heloise When he wrote the Historia calamitatum around 1132. There is no doubt. While in his theological writing Ab- elard was perturbed by the extent to which some contemporary preachers seemed to challenge the legitimacy of the sacraments and of the Church. that the political situation in Europe had become so polarized that it was increas- ingly difficult for anyone to criticize papal authority without being accused of being a heretic. The epitaph placed on his tomb neatly encapsulates the breadth of philosophical vision for which he was so admired by Heloise:64 Est satis in titulo: Petrus hic iacet Abaelardus Cui soli patuit scibile quicquid erat. as he assumed previously. it was perhaps inevitable that Abelard should be seen by his critics as lending support to forces subversive of the social order. he developed the idea that God took human form in Jesus not to free humanity from any yoke to the devil but to invite humanity to the love of God through the sublime example offered by Jesus in his selfless living and dying for others. He defined sin not as wrong will. in contempt of God. at the priory of Chaˆlon-sur-Saoˆne. Peter the Venerable gave permission for his body to be buried at the Abbey of the Paraclete. Even though the sentence of excommunication imposed on him by Innocent II was finally lifted. 1142.

65 Although she did not have the resources of the Cathedral of Sens or the Abbey of St. Paraclitum statuit. Gaudia sanctorum sua sunt super alta polorum.- Denis. and other writings of Abelard. She even benefited from the support of Bernard of Clairvaux when asking for a favor from the papal court. establishing a number of daughter houses in the region. over two decades later. She established the Paraclete. cum Paraclito requiescit. she never had it circulate under her own name. If she continued to write innovative poetry. Under her stewardship the community prospered. less concise and more conventional in wording than that which rested on the tomb of Abelard. The joys of the saints are hers. What she herself added to this fusion is shrouded by her personal modesty. She was to live on for another twenty-two years. beyond the height of the pole star. prayers.] Her epitaph. May she raise us from the depths by her merits and prayers. she rests with the Paraclete. Nos meritis precibusque suis exaltet ab imis.] Little is known for certain about Heloise’s personal evolution over the next two decades.66 Not the least of her achievements was to bring together in an original and creative synthesis the best elements of Cistercian tradition with hymns. she strove to make her community live out its commitment to the Paraclete. as abbess of the Paraclete. both ecclesiastical and civil. Unlike Abelard. another epitaph was added to the tomb: Hoc tumulo abbatissa iacet prudens Heloysa. is a modest witness to the esteem and devotion she generated among those who knew her. accusations of heresy 249 [It is sufficient as an epitaph: Here lies Peter Abelard. . in order to de- velop her community. The significance of her achievement as both an administrator and a writer in these years after Abelard’s death is only now beginning to emerge. To whom alone was evident whatever was knowable. [In this tomb lies the prudent abbess Heloise. When Heloise was buried alongside Abelard at the Paraclete. as Hugh Metel mentions in his two letters to her. Heloise knew how to negotiate with a range of authorities in the region.

This page intentionally left blank .

Martin’s Press. Le Roman dela Rose. Eric Hicks (Paris: Honore´ Champion. Heloise. Bernard added a reference to this doctrine also expounded in Abelard’s commen- tary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 3. letter 190. 4. Ep. lines 8802–32. 7.3. II (Hicks. 1959). Bernard. Peter the Venerable. 2. The Latin text of HC and Ep. 3–44. ed. Bernard. 49). 24). 5.11 (SBO 8:26). 1967). 3. ed. Jean de Meun. Historia calamitatum (Paris: Vrin. ed. II–VII is presented alongside the translation of these letters made by Jean de Meun in the thirteenth century. 4. 1991). 251 . Bernard.1 (SBO 8:17–18). La vie et les epistres Pierres Abaelart et Heloys sa fame 1. in The Letters of Peter the Venerable. 253–54. Constant J. Daniel Poirion (Paris: Garnier- Flammarion. 1. In the revised version of the treatise. 2. Mews. letter 190. 1999). letter 115. letter 190. 1:303–8. 6. II (Hicks. Notes Introduction 1.2 (SBO 8:18). HC (Monfrin. The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard: Perceptions of Dialogue in Twelfth-Century France (New York: St. letter 190. Giles Constable (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 9 (SBO 8:19. 1974). 63). Images of Abelard and Heloise 1. References to HC are to the page of the edition by Jacques Monfrin. Ep. 53). Bernard.

101). 1–217. letter 190. ed. 1396]. Berengar of Poitiers. Cousin. The Duchesne version was titled Petri Abaelardi sancti Gildasii in Britannia abbatis et Heloisae conjugis ejus . 21. ed. 688). certainly by 1855 (4:54–57). 1836). John. Printed as letter 194 among the letters of Bernard (SBO 8:46–48).” in Abe´lard en son temps. 1852). and Haure´au (1850). 42–44 [1372. 16. Mews. see Constant J. based on that of 1861 (4:640–41. 15. Paul Viallaneix (Paris: Flammarion. letter 190. Victor Cousin. Metalogicon 2. Nouveau recueil de lettres des dames tant anciennes que modernes (Paris: Toussainct Quinet. Ouvrages ine´dits d’Abe´lard pour servir a` l’histoire de la philo- sophie scolastique en France (Paris: Imprimerie royale. letter 190. 18. 19. O. 2 (CCCM 11: 117–18). 1:273–381. . nos. . Bernard.10. 648–51. Ouvrages ine´dits. Apologia. Re´musat (1845). 1878). “The Satirical Works of Berengar of Poitiers. . Metalogicon 1. 1981). Opera. lx.” Studia Monastica 27 (1985):31–67 (reprinted in Reason and Belief ). “La bibliothe`que du Paraclet du XIIIe sie`cle a` la Re´volution. Franc¸ois de Grenaille.” Viator 32 (2001): 89–90. 1832). iv. Abelard.” MS 42 (1980): 89–138. 10. See Maurice de Gandillac. Linberg (Boston. (Paris: Durand-Didier. 1642). 20. 4:452–59. The long and impor- tant introduction to this study was reprinted within Fragments philosophiques pour servir a` l’histoire de la philosophie. Hugh Metel. esp. Bernard. Translations of Cousin’s lectures were published in the United States from as early as 1832: Introduction to the History of Philosophy. Rom.2 (SBO 8:18). In an appendix to this edition.252 notes to pages 11–15 8. 111–30. Collection des principaux cartulaires du dioce`se de Troyes 2 (Paris: Thorin. Cartulaire de l’abbaye du Paraclet. 1865). G.22 (SBO 8:36). Wright (New York: Appleton. W. pp. ed. however. 3. Thomson. trans. see chap.1. 1974).6 (CCCM 98:70. and a review of changing attitudes to Abelard and Heloise in later centuries. reprinted in Oeuvres comple`tes. Histoire de France. Monfrin discusses the two different forms of the title page in his intro- duction to the Historia calamitatum.24 (SBO 8:37). In an introduction. Jean Jolivet (Paris: Belles Lettres. 3. 17. and Course of the History of Modern Philosophy. letter 16. 32. Robert Casanova documents these passages as they stood in the first edition of 1833. 102. 12. 13. Bernard. HC (Monfrin. Heloise and Peter Abelard: The Letters of an Augustinian Canon and the Challenge of Innovation in Twelfth-Century Lorraine. “Sur quelques images d’Abe´lard au temps du roi Louis- Philippe. 57–62. in which Michelet sub- sequently modified certain passages more critical of Abelard and his logic after reading the work of Cousin (1836). 22. quoted in Constant J. C. Comm. Rodney M. 23. Mews. “Hugh Metel. 11. 197–209. 11.. John. trans. For the argument that the Troyes manuscript was subsequently returned to the Paraclete. 14. Jacques Le Goff notes that Michelet became generally more hostile to the Middle Ages. 122). 9. For further details on the Council of Sens. Ibid. H. Jules Michelet. 1381. Lalore. 5th ed.5 (CCCM 98:20). ed.

Clanchy. 3. The Philosophy of Peter Abelard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 28. 43–53. He- loise. 26. 4. Michael T. (Paris: Vrin. Literatur. Ibid. Martin Deutsch. 33. 1999). 35. 29. “Abaelard. Barbara Newman. 2002). 65. 2. trans. are presented in Bonnie Wheeler. 1975). Arts du langage et the´ologie chez Abe´lard (Paris: Vrin. Peter Aba¨lard: Ein kritischer Theologe des zwo¨lften Jahr- hunderts (Leipzig: S. 46–75). reflecting many different strands of feminist thought. ed. Martin’s Press. 360C). Zugleich eine Streitschrift gegen die ewige Wiederkehr hermeneutische Naivita¨t. Schu¨rer. see LLL. Abelard: A Medieval Life (Oxford: Blackwell. Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman (New York: St. 25. notes to pages 15–22 253 24. 31. and the Repression of Helo- ise. S. 1953). 3rd rev. 36. 63. but nuanced his position in an important study. 1969). John Marenbon. A range of perspectives. ed. Mittelalterforschung und Ideologiekritik: Der Gelehrtenstreit um He´loı¨se (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. 1845). 2. K. Heloise and Abelard. Richard of Poitiers. Jean Jolivet. L. From Mont St Michel to Chartres (1904. Wissenschaftliche Kunst und Musik. Epistola ad Abaelardum (Reiners. 32.” in Gefa¨lscht: Betrug in Politik. 2000). Von Moos argued that the letters were by a single author in “Heloise und Abaelard. 270–71. 1969). 1986). see Constant . “Le silence d’He´loı¨se et les ide´ologies modernes.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 22 (1992): 121–57 (reprinted in From Virile Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in Medieval Religion and Literature [Phil- adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 150–61. und ihr Paraklet: ein Kloster nach Mass. Etienne Gilson. litte´raires et artistiques en occident au milieu du XIIe sie`cle. Authenticity. ed. Shook (London: Hollis & Carter. 1988).. 1995]. Charles de Re´musat. Peter von Moos. 563–620. ed. 63). 1883). Karl Corino (No¨rdlingen: Greno. Hirzel. HC (Monfrin. 30. Roscelin of Compie`gne. 1984). 37. Henry Adams. On the politics surrounding the accusations against Roscelin.. 1974). 1997).” in Pierre Abe´lard—Pierre le Ve´ne´rable: les courants philosophiques. ed. See also the English version of this work. 208–9. Ibid. PL 178: 357C. For further bibliographical details and discussion of the history of the “au- thenticity” question. Luscombe. 34. 27. The Early Years 1. The School of Peter Abelard: The Influence of Abelard’s Thought in the Early Scholastic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.” in Das Eigene und das Ganze: Zum Individuellen im mittelalterlichen Religiosentum. lx. Cronicon (MGH Scriptores 26:81). He´loı¨se et Abe´lard. Abe´lard (Paris: Ladrange. “Authority. Vita regularis 16 (Mu¨nster: LIT Verlag.. Gert Melville and Th. Harmondsworth: Penguin. David E. and von Moos. Jean Jolivet and Rene´ Louis (Paris: CNRS.

17. Iwakuma. In Cat. Mews. ed.35–234. I follow the usage here of William T. 14. Garlandus Compotista. Dialectica (de Rijk. ed. 1946–1961). “Note sur une surprenante citation des Topiques d’Aristote au XIe sie`cle.18]). Ibid. 6. Anselm. 1959). 15. 232:4–5. 96. 1991). 125–46. Iwakuma edits excerpts from the glosses in “Vocales. 135–38.” Bulletin de philosophie me´die´vale 28 (1986): 178–84. 37). [Geyer. Bec and Canterbury: Proceedings in Commemoration of the Nine-Hundredth Anniversary of Anselm’s Enthronement as Archbishop.” in Anselm: Aosta. De Rijk attributed the text to an earlier figure. S. 21. 18. sciences.254 notes to pages 22–26 J. F. (p. Ibid. 2). Boethius. 1999). 103–11. “St Anselm. 233. and I. Evans (Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press. 400. 11. Abelard says that he had once seen a copy of the Sophistical Refutations but was not sure of its authenticity (LI sup. 3 (PL 64:252C). Gesta Friderici 1. Nelson. or Early Nominalists. Schmitt (Edinburgh: T. 20. Roscelin. a spelling that will be preserved. Metalogicon 2. “Vocales. Hacker. Rosier. Augustine. 10. 14. S. In Cat. 19. or Early Nominalists. in his edition of the Dialectica (Assen: Van Gorcum. 7. David E. De incarnatione Verbi.” Traditio 47 (1992): 37–111. Iwakuma convincingly argued that it was written by a younger Gerlandus from the same city (“Vocales. While its author refers to himself as Jarlandus. Otto. esp.” in The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages. 5. 1986).17 (CCCM 98:81.1. Joel Biard (Paris: Vrin. . in Anselmi Opera Omnia. see also Iwakuma. 13. 69). ed. Aris- totelian Logic (Albany. prima editio I. 8. which he refers to only briefly for its definition of a syllogism in the Dialectica (de Rijk.14–15). David L. Per. 2:9–10. (Geyer. 9. Ibid. the work is attributed in manuscript to Gerlandus.” History and Philosophy of Logic 1 (1980): 1–18.49 (Waitz and von Simson. (p. ed. Wagner (Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1996). Boethius. “Pierre Abe´lard et Guillaume de Champeaux dans les premie`res anne´es du XIIe sie`cle: Une e´tude pre´liminaire. 1). “Garlandus Compotista and Dialectic in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. 12. He also refers to both Prior and Posterior Analytics in LI sup. philosophie au XIIe sie`cle.10–26) but mistakenly attributes to Posterior Analytics what is in the Prior Analytics. Gerland. De doctrina Christiana 1. (p. 4–5. Boethius. 18). esp.19). 1 (PL 64:159C).” in Langage. 16. In Per.. or Early Nominalists. Per. Luscombe and Gillian R. 106–19 (re- printed in Reason and Belief).” 62–65. N. 117–18.” 49. 47–54.4 (CSEL 80:9). and the See of Beauvais. John.Y.: State University of New York Press. 25 September 1093.3). Ibid. Parry and Edward A. 394. Eleanor Stump places his teaching within a broader context (following de Rijk’s identification of the author) in her chapter “Dialectic. and in Stump.1 (Meiser.

1:166). “The Early Scholastic Glosule to Priscian. 165–67. 24. and Rosier. Introductiones sec. 107). Metalogicon 3. 28. found in a Vienna man- uscript (“William of Champeaux and the Introductiones. The glosses of William of Conches survive in two recensions. 30. 31. Iwakuma argues in a 1992 essay that both texts are to be attributed to William. Institutiones Grammaticae: The Text and Its Influences. 1984). LLL.” CIMAGL 63 (1993): 115–44. Introductiones sec. On these reports of William’s understanding of the topics.5 (Iwakuma.1. and that the Introductiones sec. notes to pages 26–29 255 22. 25.6 (Iwakuma. “Deux re´dac- tions des gloses de Guillaume de Conches sur Priscien. Dialectica 1 (de Rijk. is earlier than the version secundum Wilgelmum. G. Paganellum I. Introductiones Porphyrii II. and the Context of Early Medieval Philosophy in the West (London: Variorum. 76.1. “William of Champeaux on Boethius’ Topics according to Or- le´ans Bibl. G. “The Introductiones dialecticae. see Niels J. 112–14).” in Aristotle’s Periherme- neias in the Latin Middle Ages: Essays in the Commentary Tradition (Groningen/ Haren: Ingenium. “Les commentaires des Glosulae et des Glosae. “Nominalism and Theology before Abaelard: New Light on Roscelin of Compie`gne. 4 (pp. 33. [Edinburgh: Nelson. this is part of a larger discussion of media in IV (Iwakuma. one from the 1120s and the other from around 1140. 1150 AD. 21). William’s notes on this sub- ject follow the Introductiones dialecticae 3 (Iwakuma. “The Introductiones dialecticae secundum Wilgelmum and secundum magistrum G. 29.” CIMAGL 63 (1993): 45–114. Mun. 1938–1970]. See Edouard Jeauneau. 3.” 110). See Constant J.” CIMAGL 13 (1974): 13–30. Wilgelmum IV. 75–80).” 131–44. ed. 2003). Introductiones sec. De grammatico 21 (Anselmi Opera Omnia.43–46). 26. 35. and Green-Pedersen. The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages (Munich: Philosophia. 2000). Paganellum. Anselm of Canterbury.9 (CCCM 98:129.” (see n. Paganellum III include a comparable discussion of media (Iwakuma. before c. Gerland. 20 (1979): 35–54.1 (Iwakuma. 32.” Vivarium 30 (1992): 4–33 (reprinted in Reason and Belief ). found in an Escorial manu- script.” published with “Supplement to the Working Catalogue” in Aristotelian Logic. 7 vols. Ibid. 73). Mag. 23. Ire`ne Rosier edits the section of the vox in “Le commentaire des Glosulae et des Glosae de Guillaume de Conches sur le chapitre De Voce des Institutiones Grammaticae de Priscien. 266. III. Wilgelmum I. John. 1–30.5. John Marenbon summarizes this research of Iwakuma into these glosses in “Medieval Latin Commentaries and Glosses on Aristotelian Logical Texts. First identified by Yukio Iwakuma. 27.. Mag. Green-Pedersen.1 (Iwakuma.” Studi Medi- evali. 78). 88). On these Glosule.” RTAM 27 (1960): 212— 47. see Margaret T. Mag.22–24). Platonism. 34.. 57. 70. G. 77–127 and 128–40. 112–14). Mews. Fran- ciscus Salesius Schmitt. 61–62. Paganellum. He comments on this material in “Glosses and Commentaries on the Categories . 3rd ser. 34. Iwakuma summarizes his research into these glosses in “Pierre Abe´lard et Guillaume de Champeaux. In the Escorial version the Introd- uctiones sec. Gibson.

1869). William of Champeaux.” CIMAGL 17 (1976): 1–39. 1978)..2 (Iwakuma. Ed.. Iwakuma has subsequently reassigned the text to Ab- elard (see n. M. 285–87. “Les commentaires des Glosulae et des Glosae.7–24.256 notes to pages 29–33 and De interpretatione before Abelard. The Early Councils of Pope Paschal II 1100– 1108 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 38. Final judgment on authorship must await a critical edition of In primis being prepared by John O. cf. edited by Iwakuma Y. 48. (Dal Pra. The letter is translated in an appendix to Manegold of Lautenbach. 52. in Monumenta Bambergensia. 67. Vita Goswini.1 (CCCM 98:103. 47. Mary Dickey raised the possibility that In primis was a work of William of Champeaux. Blumen- thal notes the presence of William of Champeaux as archdeacon on pp. 44. 43.11–12). 74–102. Codex Udalrici 160. Fredborg. While attributed here to Roscelin. “The Commentaries on Cicero’s De inventione and Rhetorica ad Herennium by William of Champeaux. Robert Ziomkowski. cited in Rosier. 92–97. (Dal Pra. Ed. Metalogicon 3. 45. 37. This letter re- ports that William retreated to “an impoverished little church. Ch. These glosses survive in more than one recension: on Porphyry (P3). Marenbon discusses C8. 46. Uta-Renata Blumenthal. Iwakuma. A very similar version of the same gloss of Abelard. Ed. and observed its relationship to a commentary of Manegold. 65. 36. “Some Commentaries on the De inventione and Ad Herennium of the Elev- enth and Early Twelfth Centuries. 51. Liber contra Wolfelmum. 23. 21–49. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 14779. 41. without certain extra details. esp. is found in Munich. Introductiones Porphyrii 8. 49. ed.17–22).1–13). attributed by Iwakuma to William. quoted in Bouquet. 121–22.139–40). Kneepkens.” 36–39. (Dal Pra. “Pierre Abe´lard et Guillaume de Champeaux. 3. 13. HC (Monfrin. ff. trans. 1 16a18. De Interpretatione. Dallas Medieval Texts and Translations 1 (Louvain: Peeters. Ed.” in Aristotelian Logic. 69–71. on the Categories (C8). in “Glosses and Commentaries. “Vocales.. (Dal Pra. 80–81. 8. 2002). 50. 21). Per. H. 85. on the Periermeneias (H11). LLL. 39. Ward and Juanita Ruys.” 111). Ed. ed. HC (Monfrin. ed. . See her essay. Por. (Dal Pra. See further K.40).66–69).” 122–23. Recueil 14:444. 18. and the De differentiis topicis (B8).” 94. or Early Nominalists.” 57–62. Por. Philipp Jaffe´. Por.1–3). which quotes examples about canons having to provide lodgings for stu- dents.13–28). John. 30v–36v.” where he offered teaching “in divine and human sciences” free of charge. 40. Por. Glosule in Priscianum. See also C. Biblio- theca rerum germanicarum 5 (Berlin: Weidmann.” Vivarium 22 (1994): 161–85.” Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1968): 1– 41. “The Introductiones dialecticae. 42. “From Eternal to Perpetual Truths: A Note on the Medieval History of Aristotle.

(Dal Pra.” Aristotelian Logic 118 and 137.4. 397). Salvavit’: A Note of the Early Development of the Relatio Simplex. 62. . BnF 7094A. when his student Goswin challenged Abelard in disputation (Vita Goswini. “Glosses and Commentaries on the Categories and De interpretatione. 268.1. 74. 1964). (de Rijk.” 40–41. 225 n. 4. H.30–32). 57. Bou- quet. Marenbon argues that the gloss on the Periermeneias in Munich. Joscelin may have held this position ca. (Dal Pra. (Geyer. See Iwakuma.3. See Categories 6a10. Ed. 32. 58. 171. 62. 71. Cat. Ed. 1969). 55.40).32). in Bouquet.36–269. 3.” 94. 232. 58. Henri Waquet (Paris: Belles Lettres. on the De syllogismo categorico on ff. Per. Suger dedicated his history of Louis VI to Joscelin of Vierzy. Luscombe.3. and on the De syllogismo hypothetico on ff. ed.” 15–16. (Minio-Paluello. Clm 14479. 70. The School of Peter Abelard: The Influence of Abelard’s Thought in the Early Scholastic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Dal Pra. 1998). Per. 170. but thinks it could refer to Goswin. Div.4). 329. Recueil 14:443: “exilis corpulentiae et staturae non sublimis.14–16.3. Clm 14779 (known as H5) is a fuller record of Abelard’s early glosses than that in the Paris manuscript.16). 1110–1112. 131.18–20). 60. 92ra–83rb of the latter manuscript. Ed. Cat. 66. 92rb–95va. 69.39. 64. Per. 3. Ed. f.” 44–49. Por. See Clanchy. 59. 61. They are perhaps to be identified with the glosses referred to as H9 within Mar- enbon. 114). Ed. 77. (Dal Pra.32–174. 352.4–7.31–35. 63. Recueil 14: 444). Per. Ed. ed. and is cited in Iwakuma. 87r–105v and Paris.13–17). On Abelard’s stature.” 95. (Dal Pra. 176. edited by Dal Pra. 2. Kneepkens. see Vita Goswini 1. ff. Per. 67.22–55. 53v. Abelard refers to these glosses of William in Dial.35–42). 65.8–12. (Dal Pra. “Pierre Abe´lard et Guillaume de Champeaux. “Nominalism and Theology. Sent. Yet Abelard was referred to elsewhere as magistrellus or parvus magister. see David E. Marenbon comments on these in “Glosses and Commentaries on the Categories and De interpretatione. 63. ff. on this distinction in the Glosule on Priscian. 482. Ed.24–30). 173. Vie de Louis VI le Gros. 133. 67v–86v of the Munich manuscript. 68. Abelard: A Medieval Life (Oxford: Blackwell. 54.15–34. 127.22). (Dal Pra. Dial. 141. Iwakuma also identifies as the work of Abelard as yet unedited glosses on the De differentiis topicis in Munich.20). see Mews. LI sup. 115–19).2. 54.” Michael T. Clm 14479. This text is from Munich. (Dal Pra.22–84. “Pierre Abe´lard et Guillaume de Champeaux.34. Ed. 2. Ed. notes to pages 33–37 257 53.” Vivarium 14 (1976):1–25. with the correction of his early attribution of these glosses to Roscelin. Sent.1(de Rijk. “ ‘Mulier Quae Damnavit. “Supplement to the Working Catalogue. (Minio-Paluello. see also C. See Marenbon. Clanchy discusses this reference to Abelard’s size. 56. (Dal Pra. Per.

201. p. 3–46). 53–58). 193. 85. 236. Sententie divine pagine (Bliemetzrieder. See Theresa Gross-Diaz. Abelard has Heloise refer to him as clericum atque canonicum in HC (Monfrin. 1974). no. vol. BGPMA 18. 75.258 notes to pages 37–40 72. Sententie Anselmi. and Pauline Hen- rie¨tte Joanna Theresia Maas. 84. On marriage theory in the school of Anselm. p. Geoffrey of Courlon. it is called Sententie a magistro Wutolfo collecte.. ed. Blomme. 206. see also the broader discussion in nos. 236. no. 472. no. see also R. Middeleeuwse studies 11 (Nijmegen: Centrum voor Middeleeuwse studies. 194. no. 129–51). Ibid.39–41. 77. 83. Clm 14730. Sententie. HC (Monfrin. William. Sententie no. 253. 78. Ibid. ff. Ibid. no.205–210). Ibid. 1996). p. William. Ibid. William. 93. 87. 203–10. 259. 246–60.s. On the sacraments. p. Gustave Julliot (Sens. Franz Bliemetzrieder. 9). 88. Chronique de l’abbaye de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens re´dige´e vers la fin du XIIIe sie`cle par Geoffrey de Courlon. 210. Sententie Anselmi (Bliemetzrieder. School of Peter Abelard. 1958). 65). 191. 1.” Mediaeval Studies 17 (1955): 1–45. Bliemetzrieder edited the Sententie divine pagine as another product of the school of Anselm of Laon (Anselms von Laon systematische Sentenzen. 82. 1959). Ibid. 211. HC (Monfrin. In Mu- nich. 14 (Mu¨nster: Aschendorff. 80. Ibid.2–3 (Mu¨nster: Aschendorff. p. ed. 1876). 71). Sententie Anselmi (Bliemetzrieder. nos. 81. BGPTMA n. 92. 76. Sententie no. p. 86. 73–82. see William. 243. 191. 74. 73. See Nikolaus Ha¨ring. The Liber Sententiarum Magistri A: Its Place Amidst the Sentences Collections of the First Half of the 12th Century. 90. 47–106. Chronicon Senonense. Sententie no. Psychologie et Morale au XIIe et XIIIe sie`cles (Gembloux: Duculot.. (p. 79. Many individual sentences attributed to both Anselm and William of Champeaux are edited from the Liber pancrisis by Odon Lottin. Reinhardt.61–62. 205). 91. 6. 1996). in Anselms von Laon systematische Sentenzen. 212. see Heinrich J. 94. La doctrine du pe´che´ dans les e´coles the´ologiques de la premie`re moitie´ du XIIe sie`cle (Louvain: Uni- versite´ catholique. and Luscombe. Die Ehelehre der Schule des Anselm von Laon. Ibid. 89. pp. 176. 68). Ms. 81–84. sig- nificant contrasts between this work and Principium et causa omnium (Sententie Anselmi) must put a question mark by this claim. 78). “The Sententiae Magistri A. The Psalms Commentary of Gilbert of Poitiers: From Lectio divina to the Lecture Room (Leiden: Brill. 1919). and on marriage. 7–8). 261. 57–67 (Lottin. p. 236. p. (Vat. p. 52–53 n. 251. 4361) and the School of Laon. perhaps a reference to these sentences having been recorded by Lotulf of Novara. F. p. On the link of Stephen of Garlande . lat. 5.

9–12).3 (de Rijk. Joel Biard (Paris: Vrin. 95. II 2. esp. 2.1–6). and the Fear of Social Upheaval. On its date. 96. Dial.3 (de Rijk. J. 85.15. 2. Dial. without mentioning Clairvaux. 13. 1. 211. Willis [Leipzig: Teubner.1 and 5. Dial. 214). 11. Dial. 73. 14. 8. In Cat.5–15). 146.3 (de Rijk.2.” AHDLMA 52 (1985): 74–89 (reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy). in the diocese of Lie`ge. ed.2. see also LI (Geyer.2 (de Rijk. 4. 39. 1.16 [PL 163: 659C–660C]).11). 1. 354 n. Rolls Series 51 (London. Bernard. 629). 1963]. 5.. cf. Historia post Bedam. Dial. “Pierre Abe´lard et Guillaume de Champeaux dans les premie`res anne´es du XIIe sie`cle: Une e´tude pre´liminaire. Michael Casey observes this inconsistency in the account of William of St. (Mirot.2. 67.2. Boethius. Boethius. In Somnium Scipionis 2. 2 (PL 64:218A).7). Conon. philosophie au XIIe sie`cle. Dial. 1. Mews. notes to pages 40–45 259 with Sens. 3. William is not reported as having taken a habit in the ne- crologies of Chaˆlons-sur-Marne and of Molesme.3 (de Rijk. Categories 7b24. On the references to magister noster (V. in a treatise written only a few years after William’s death (De vita apostolica 5.” in Langage. 86. . 1868–1871). 65–67).9). 1997). 1129). 1.9–12).3–5). 10. 1. 2 vols. esp. W. 40–45.1 (de Rijk.2 (de Rijk. In Cat.” Speculum 77 (2002): 342–82. “On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard. 103. Boethius. 5. and John Marenbon.7 (Meiser.) as to William of Champeaux rather than to Ulger of Angers. Boethius. Macrobius. 1:178. which gives it as Jan. 7.2. Chron. 319. 1. Dial. in turn repeated by Roger of Hoveden.-Victor. 3. 33. Rolls Series 75 (London. Challenging Tradition 1.21–29.-Thierry in “Bernard and the Crisis at Morimond: Did the Order Exist in 1124?” Cistercian Studies Quarterly 38 (2003): 119–75. The detail that he took the habit at Clairvaux eight days before his death is mentioned by Symeon of Durham (d. or of St. 97. 2. In Cat. Mews. 2 (PL 64:217C). cf.30).23–26). 25. 1.3 (de Rijk. ed.2. 1122. see Yukio Iwakuma. Dial. Maur. 42. 9.3 (de Rijk. T.2. in Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene.3 (de Rijk. 2:137. Rupert of Deutz reports this. 3. 122 n. see Constant J. In Per. see Constant J. whose arguments for a pre-1117 date for most of the work I am inclined to accept.1 (de Rijk. was an Augustinian canon who had established a new order of Arrouaise. 4 vols. Dial. 86.1 (de Rijk. 85. 1. 554. 6. which mention his death on January 18. Dial. Arnold. 2 (PL 64:217C). “The Council of Sens (1141): Abelard..10–15). 77. 102 n. cf. ed. 142. in 1107.14 (ed. The Philosophy of Peter Abelard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999).2.7–26). 1882– 1885). 12. also known as Cuno. Historia regum.2. 2:259–60. 91. Dial.37). in Sy- meonis monachi opera omnia. sciences. Stubbs. 8. and 535. Dial.

183. 148. Dial. Dial. 2. Dial.24–28). Dial.23). Dial. “Trois variations me´die´vales sur l’universel et l’individu: Roscelin.28). 213. 79.7–20. 20. Dial. Dial.1 (de Rijk. 25. 83. 30. Gerland. Dial. Dialectica 3 (de Rijk. 114. 135. 199. 34.3 (de Rijk.3. 29.14–36).2 (de Rijk. 151. cf.2 (de Rijk. 1. 19. 141. 32. 40. 217.2 (de Rijk. 48. 16. 191. Given that the same hand develops ideas in the Dialectica in a number of such marginal glosses. Dial.21–28).2.1 (de Rijk. 152. 2. Gilbert de la Porre´e.3. 2.” Revue de Metaphysique et Morale 97 (1992): 128 n.5–11.3. 18. 253. it is quite possible they have been added by Abelard himself. 36.3. 2.8). 2. 1. “The Introductiones dialecticae.3 (de Rijk. 2. Dialectica 3 (de Rijk.3. 26. and thus remains the same when the terms are converted. . 2. Dial. 1. William. 50.28).3 (de Rijk. for example.1 (de Rijk.9 and 574. 112.2 (de Rijk.1).27–30. 2. 131.17–20).29–30). 38. 160. 175.2 (de Rijk.20–23).4).1 (de Rijk. 35.1 (de Rijk. 27. 46.1 (Meiser. 177.2 and 5.7 (Iwak- uma. Dial. 130. as well as corrects the entire text in minute detail. Dial. 45. 135.3.6–7).1.3). Introductiones 1. 2. 41. 3. 1. 2.” 57–58).260 notes to pages 46–50 15. Dial.23). 155. Dial. Dial. A small indication of the originality of Roscelin’s analysis of a proposition may be preserved in a report within the Introductiones Montanae majores in which Roscelin argues that a proposition consists only of its terms. Abe´lard. 2. 44. p. cf. 2.”57–58). 201. Dial.1 (de Rijk. quoted by Jean Jolivet.2–80.15). 1. 146.” 57). “The Introductiones dialecticae.12–14). 1. 17. Introductiones 1. 3. Dial.2 (de Rijk.15.19). Dial.1 (de Rijk.25–157.37). 113. Dial. cf.2 (de Rijk.18–19).16–17. 2. 2. 43. Introductiones 1. 1. 168. 194.10–85.27). Dial.17–222. William.9–30). Dial.1 (de Rijk.11–170.1–2). II.1 (de Rijk.3 (de Rijk. Dial.1.25–26). 195.24–26). 1.2 (de Rijk. 187. 186. 2.25–203.1 (de Rijk.25). 39. 37. 42. 154. 23. Dial. Dial.3 (de Rijk. A marginal note in the manuscript explains the distinction between Priscian and Donatus on this point in more detail. Gerland. 263. 1.1. Dial.26–36). Dial. “The Introductiones dialecticae. 31. William.28–254. 21.7–179.2 (Iwakuma. Gerland.1 (de Rijk. 2. Dial.10–13). 92.30).2 (de Rijk.3.15–114. 24. 200.3 (de Rijk.1 (de Rijk.19–151.2 (de Rijk. Boethius.2.6–8 (Iwakuma.1). 33.18). 2. 80. Dial. 194.32–138. 28. See. 202.6). 22. 2:33.3.1 (de Rijk. 47. Dial. 2.29–36. 228. Dialectica 3 (de Rijk.30).35–84. In Per.

1 (de Rijk. 548. John. Dial. 60.10).1 (de Rijk.16–19). Dial. 462. 78.24–552.1 (de Rijk.1–6). Dial. 484. 4.1 (de Rijk. 3.35–273.2 (de Rijk. 496. Dial. Dial. 271. 4.1 (de Rijk. Dial. Dial. 82). 583.18–35). 145.11). 5. 68. Dial.1 (de Rijk. 319. 4. 79. Glosae super Platonem. 5. 3. 41–42). 3. 3. 50. 469.36–39. Sansoni. Edouard Jeauneau (Paris: Vrin.31–471.1 (de Rijk. 478. 5. 3. 574.2 (de Rijk. 64. 572. Dial. Dial. Dial.8–11). 52. 585. Gerland. Dialectica 4 (de Rijk. Dial. Dial. 3. .1 (de Rijk. 80.27– 32). Introductiones 7 (Iwakuma.37). Dial. Dial.24).1 (de Rijk. Dial.2 (de Rijk. 71. 4. 285.21–29).31–287. William. 77.24–29). 51. 3. C.26–33). Dial. 285. 18.1 (de Rijk. Metalogicon 3. Joseph Reiners (Mu¨nster: Aschendorff. Marenbon argues that Abelard should have specified his status as a monk if he was writing this prologue after becoming a monk at St.1 (de Rijk.1 (de Rijk. 75. Dial. Anima mundi: La filosofia di Guglielmo di Conches e la scuola di Chartres (Florence: G. 5. William of Conches. Dial.1 (de Rijk. 56.32). 4. 3. Heloise and Discussion about Love 1. Roscelin of Compie`gne. in Der Nominalismus in der Fru¨hscholastik: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Universalienfrage im Mittelalter. 558. 73. 3. 95–96). 285.- Denis (The Philosophy of Peter Abelard.1 (de Rijk. Dial. Dial. 106. 460.1 (de Rijk.1 (de Rijk. 54. and PL 178:369BC. cf. 487. Dial. 5. Dial. 74. 544. 274. 535. with valuable further material in notes to these pas- sages.1 (de Rijk.3–4). 55.5).1 (de Rijk. 5.2 (de Rijk. 576. 4. 5. Dial.35–37). 277. 3. 82. 5.1 (de Rijk. 4. 76. 65. Dial. 61. 488.28–586. 62.5–9). 1955).33–461.18–20).17). Epistola ad Abaelardum.2 (de Rijk. 1965).3–5).4). 5. 3. 66. Chapter 6. 1910). 59. 5.6–13).31–417. 421. 470.1 (de Rijk. n. 53.6 (CCCM 98:122. 63. See also Tullio Gregory. 67.11–15). 5. 78.18–26). 57.1 (de Rijk. Dial.1 (de Rijk.1 (de Rijk. 15–16.7–21).11–20).33).7–10). ed. notes to pages 50–59 261 49. 72. Dial. 3.11). 70.2 (de Rijk.33–37). 69. ed.35–38).11). 541. 416.1 (de Rijk. 295.32–422. Dial. 286. 148–49.37–550. 3. 81. 549. 58. HC (Monfrin. Dial. Dial.

“Die Epistolae duorum amantium und die sa¨kulare Religion der Liebe: Methodenkritische Voru¨berlegungen zu einem einmaligen Werk mittellateinischer Briefliteratur. Heloise. 3. herself a daughter of Hubert III of Champagne. In Heloisas Herkunft: Hersindis mater (Munich: Olzog. Ep. Ep. In a detailed study. 78. 51). 15. 9. 2001). 75. II (Hicks. 14. Bonnie Wheeler (New York: St Martin’s Press. Ward and Neville Chiavaroli. 1975). ed. ed. according to the Fontevrault necrology). II (Hicks. Epistolae duorum amantium.: Notre Dame University Press).. see C. 103. Ewald Ko¨nsgen. 73. 4. 17. Epistolae duorum amantium: Briefe Abaelards und Heloises? (Leiden: Brill. 15. ed. 71.” with a further exchange between Jaeger and Giles Constable. Peter von Moos argues that these letters were composed by a single author from the later medieval period.262 notes to pages 59–65 2. 16. 11. claiming (rather improbably) that they demonstrate the influence of the theory of Aelred of Rievaulx on spiritual friendship and of Augustinian theories of love. 53–119. I am indebted to Sylvain Piron for observing the absence of any allusion to Ar- istotle’s Ethics. HC (Monfrin.” in Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman.527–33). according to the obituary of the Paraclete).” Studi Medievali. HC (Monfrin. “The Young Heloise and Latin Rhetoric: Some Preliminary Comments on the ‘Lost’ Love Letters and Their Significance. without clearly identifying the contrast between the two voices in the exchange. Hersindis (recorded as having died on December 1. HC (Monfrin. Ko¨nsgen. 44 (2003): 1–115. 39. The Latin text. See von Moos. 5. Beitra¨ge zur romanischen Philologie des Mittelalters 10 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. 10. 1967). Giles Constable (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. “The ‘Epistolae duorum amantium’ and the Ascription to Heloise and Abelard. see Ernstpeter Ruhe. Stephen Jaeger. 49). 1:303–4). HC (Monfrin. forthcoming in Voices in Dialogue: Reading Women in the Middle Ages. Heloise. 26. 190–289.545–49). in The Letters of Peter the Venerable. 3rd ser. 78. identifies allusions . Epistolae duorum amantium. 7. Ko¨nsgen. letter 115.356–69). II (Hicks. 53). HC (Monfrin. Heloise. Kathryn Kerby-Fulton and Linda Olson (Notre Dame. Ind. with a translation by Chiavaroli and Mews. Peter the Venerable. 1974).286–88). The Epistolae duorum amantium are examined in light of evolving practices of the ars dictaminis by John O. HC (Monfrin. HC (Monfrin. 12. 73. Ep.335–39). is presented in LLL.415–18). 23.288–99). 13. 44. Werner Robl argues that Heloise’s mother. 8. 71. 6. For further discussion. 2000). De amasio ad amasiam: Zur Gattungsgeschichte des mittelalterlichen Liebesbriefes. For a full survey of the literary genre of love letters included within epis- tolary treatises. although unfortunately not of the Epistolae duorum amantium. was the same Hersindis who was prioress of Fontevrault (recorded as having died on November 30.

1. The Loving Subject: Desire.19 (CSEL 41:20). Boutemy. 20. Ambrose. LI sup. De natura et dignitate amoris. 25. Cicero. 2:19. 68. 32. Boethius. 2. Augustine. Por. when he quotes the phrase fortis ut mors dilectio (Cant. 48 (Davy. 24. 28. 102). 56–62. William. ed. 33. Williams.53. 128). 186.34.1. 31.” Ambrose repeated this formula in his own De officiis 1.2.3. Eloquence and Power in Romanesque France (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl- vania Press. M. “Godfrey of Reims. William of St. Jean-Yves Tilliette analyzes the importance of Godfrey as a poet in “Troiae ab oris: Aspects de la re´volution poe´tique de la seconde moitie´ du XIe sie`cle. “Autour de Godefroid de Reims. see chap. see LLL. 1995). 107–8). cf. 18. 144). II. ex quo amicitia nominata est. Cf. 30. In Per. II. For further detail on Baudri.132 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 45. Expositio in Evangelium secundum. 49. Collationes 2.” Speculum 22 (1947): 29–45. LLL. De natura et dignitate amoris 3. 88). De inventione 2. and again in TSch 1. Ep. R. For further detail. On Godfrey of Reims and the Ovidian revival. 950–1200 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 29. Testard (Paris: Bude´. Cicero.17: “ut unus fiat e pluribus. In Iohannis Epist. (Geyer. princeps est ad benivolentiam con- iungendam”. 94. 19. The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe. ex hoc intellegi maxime potest quod ex infinita societate generis humani quam conciliavit ipsa natura.176 (CCSL 14:397). Bernard. 58: “paribus officiis et voluntatibus”.16). 8:6). “The Cathedral School of Reims in the Eleventh Century. 72. 8. 23.5 (Meiser.1. C.” Latomus 58 (1999): 405–31. ut efficiat paene unum ex duobus”. 26: “amor enim. II. 61: “voluntatum sine ulla ex- ceptione communitas”.-M. Wil- liams. Davy (Paris: Vrin. see Gerald Bond. 27.” Latomus 6 (1947): 231–55.” Speculum 29 (1954): 661–77. De amicitia 15: “voluntatum studiorum summa consensio”. ita contracta res est et adducta in angustum.” 26. 70–137. 95–96.2 (de Rijk. Dial. SN 138.20–22. 92: “ut unus quasi animus fiat ex pluribus. ut omnis caritas aut inter duos aut inter paucos iungeretur. J.-Thierry. 69. 81: “cuius animum ita cum suo misceat. Jaeger. 1994). ed. notes to pages 66–70 263 to phrases in Jerome’s letters in letters 25. 1992). and 76. 518). in Deux traite´s de l’amour de Dieu. De inventione 2. and LLL. Augus- tine. Cicero. 24. 22. William relates dilectio only once to amor in De natura et dignitate amoris 26 (Davy.” 21. n. 34. a Humanist of the Eleventh Century.55: “cum eius pari voluntate” De officiis 1. LNp (Geyer. See. 180. for example.3–4 (13:319). VI (Hicks. In . Cicero. and De diligendo Deo 34 (SBO 3:149). 1984. M. is also quoted by Abelard. 14). Lucam 10. De amicitia 20: “quanta autem vis amicitiae sit. 1953). 98–101. S. ad Parthos 8 (PL 35:2058). letter 11 (SBO 7:55). 138–39 and 353 n. De fide et symbolo 9. see A.

” in Hommages a` Joseph Bidez et a` Franz Cumont. illam colo. 3. 79). 44. no. see Juanita Feros Ruys. 37.” Notes and Queries 240 (1995): 269. 36. / eam volo nutu solo / in hoc seculo. or that of an imitator. and Rodney M. Love Lyrics from the Carmina Burana. Origen. “The ‘Epistolae duorum amantium’ ” (see n. “Secular Lyrics from Paris”.4.” in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. / cuius nomen a Phebea / luce renitet / et pro speculo / servit solo. P. 31). Ep. See Jaeger. Collection Latomus 3 (Brussels: Latomus. “Eloquencie vultum depingere: Eloquence and Dictamen in the Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard. “Une version me´die´vale inconnue de la le´gende d’Orphe´e. Sermones in Cantica 20. 40.. p. . 41.1 (SBO 1:116. Ward. “Secular Lyrics from Paris and the Paraclete. 1993). 24. Cary J. 43.” See David Wulstan. 152–55. 42. 33. Nederman. 192: “Hebet sidus leti visus / cordis nubilo. . “The Shadow on the Sun: The Name of Abelard’s Son. see also the poems of Godfrey of Reims. 74. ed. 121). 13). 1949). 46. eds. 44–47. 43–70. 78). V (Hicks. See Wulstan. however. East. 10. see. 126 in the Carmina burana. Juanita Feros Ruys suggests that Heloise may be the author of no. Thom- son (Turnhout: Brepols. William G.4. ed.” in Stewart and Wulstan.” see chap. “Hearing Mediaeval Voices: Heloise and Carmina Burana 126. For an insightful study of this dilemma. 11.. . 91–99. De diligendo Deo 16 (SBO 3:132). Bernard cites the phrase debitum dilectionis in Liber de diligendo Deo 15 (SBO 3:131) and in Letters 35 and 399 (SBO 7:92 and 8: 379). n.2. 57 (169). 39. V (Hicks. Verdeyen (CCCM 87:22. ed. Ep. edited by Boutemy (see n. recapitulated in Liber de diligendo Deo 34–36 (SBO 3:148–54). 2003). 61. 39. 99–112. William makes the association more frequently.” in The Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard: An Anthology of Essays by Various Authors. which is written in the voice of a woman who has given birth to a child but is now chastised and abandoned by her family and lover. Mews. as in his Expositio super Cantica 2. On scibilitas. ed. 234. see Bernard. 148). 41–42. see also Brenda Cook. In amoris chorea / cunctis prenitet. Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard. Liber de diligendo deo 16 (SBO 3:132). eds. 38. which suggests that Hebet sidus may come from later in the relationship. 2:57. P. Marc Stewart and David Wulstan (Ottawa: Institute of Me- diaeval Music. 2003). not found before Abelard’s Dialectica and Logica “Ingredienti- bus. 37–38. “Abelard’s Anagram. Hicks. itself based on a deeper reading of Augustine. letter 11 (SBO 3:52–60). 85. 35. Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard.264 notes to pages 70–80 his later writing. HC (Monfrin. . Constant J. 16). Walsh (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. for example.” in Stewart and Wulstan. On Bernard’s linking of amor and dilectio. See Ruys. and Gregory the Great.

Top. 9. 1. 116. edited by Dal Pra. Por. ed. (Geyer. 271. Por. see also LI sup. Por. 80–81). 17. 1988).” in Langages et philosophie: Hommage a` Jean Jolivet. (Geyer. LI sup. 26. 389. LI sup. Por. (Geyer. 291. Por. LI sup. Por. (Geyer.14– 27. 333. Dial. (Geyer. LI sup. 84. Fredborg (To- ronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.31–64. LI sup.23–25). (Geyer. 11. 26. 191 and Tractatus super librum Boetii De Trinitate 7.11. 16. Por. 111. Metalogicon 2. LI sup. (Geyer. and as LI sup. 54. Praed. John. Per. and TSum 3. 125–64. HC (Monfrin. Returning to Logica 1. super Rhetoricam ad Herennium 4. 155–76.5–22).663–79). in The Latin Rhetorical Commentaries by Thierry of Chartres.43–44 and 83. LI sup.19–24). (Geyer. Praed. (Geyer.15.39). 426. (Geyer. Por.12).35–38. 105. 7. (Geyer. 14.26). and referred to in LI sup. Ire`ne Rosier-Catach. 25.16. (Geyer. (Geyer. sciences. 68.17.21–28. (Geyer. LI sup. N. LI sup.20). LI sup. LI sup. Per. Por. Praed.4–7. Boethius. edited by Geyer. and A. 18. Per. Thierry. LI sup. 89. Por.37–479. (PL 64:166D–167A).41). 7. in Commentaries by Boethius on Thierry of Chartres and His School. LI sup. (Geyer. (Geyer. 70. 19. 327. (Geyer. 298. LI sup. 369. 364. LI sup. (Geyer. (Geyer. philosophie au XIIe sie`cle. 6.” in Langage.62–64 (CCCM 13:184).103–7).16–27. Comm. LI sup. LI sup. LI sup. (Geyer. These will be referred to as LI sup. Joel Biard (Paris: Vrin. 23. LI sup. Por. 46. LI sup. 21.12–23. (Geyer.16–27. LI sup. Praed.6–11. 1999).8). Praed. Por. 336. Lectiones in Boethii librum De Trinitate 4. 27. 23. 17.9–38). 186.18). Galonnier (Paris: Vrin. (Geyer. 13. LI sup. Thierry of Chartres. Life and .. Por. 325. 30.32). (Geyer. 63. Por.35). 1971). 2. LI sup. N. 4. 2.35–38). 82. 3.35–36).28–299. “La notion de translatio. 478. (Geyer. ed. 48. Por. 22. Elamrani-Jamal. Ha¨ring (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 24. Praed. (Geyer.26–29).17 (CCCM 98:81.1. 2. 1997). 5. LI sup.8.25). 20. 28. 90.12). le principe de composition- alite´ et l’analyse de la pre´dication accidentelle chez Abe´lard. “Prata ri- dent.27–34. A. LI sup. ed. Per. notes to pages 81–86 265 5.. (Geyer.14–31). ed. Karin M.2 (de Rijk. 29.27–30). 10. 26. In Cat.22–431. Ha¨ring. 15. 121. 19. LI sup. Top (Geyer. de Libera. 30. Per. Por. LI sup.21–25).2). 45.40–49. ed.6–9). 8..9).7). A. 574.18–20). HC (Monfrin. Por. 25. 12. Por. Ire`ne Rosier-Catach.11–15).

(Geyer. 1998). 57. the man calls her his moon in letter 91. 1993). LI sup.22–23. 52.29–30). n. LI sup. see chap. (Geyer. 226. LI sup. as Sabina Flan- agan has pointed out to me. LI sup. LI sup. Carmina III. chap. Praed. 251. 1. Praed.4 (CCCM 98:115.35–59. (Geyer. tectus viridantibus herbis”). Boethius. 1. 77. 37. 39. 203.15–17). LI sup.31–37). ridet tellus. 53. Praed. 217.6–8). 130. (Geyer. 93.32–301.1–116. 238.17–204. 175.12 (“ridet amoenus ager. Praed. Dial.266 notes to pages 86–90 Works of Clarembald of Arras: A Twelfth-Century Master of the School of Chartres (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 124. . (Geyer. 56.26–33). 126. 11. (Geyer. 3. 174. (Geyer.28). (Geyer. LI sup. (Geyer.10–12) about possession.” 162. Praed. (Geyer. LI sup. (Geyer. LI sup. LI sup. 161. (Geyer. (Geyer. (Geyer. LI sup. Praed. P.10–14).25–40). 35.3). LI sup. (Geyer. Praed.21–22. Praed. 1965). LI sup. Praed.1–9.5–9) about place. Praed. 206. (259. (Geyer. 158. 132. LI sup. ed. 59. (262. 58. Similar metaphors occur in Venantius Fortunatus. John.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies. 217. (Geyer. (Geyer.4–12). p. 50.32–34).1). LI sup.13). 43.39–141.32.10–263. Praed. Aristotle.7–10). 60.31–40).2. LI sup.20). 214. (Geyer. Rosier-Catach. 57. 211. Praed.5–212. Praed.28–163. Praed.26). 46.2. 37. Praed. Praed. (Geyer. 119. (Geyer. Praed. LI sup. LI sup. While the love letters often compare the woman to the sun. 54. Praed. Jan M. 42.25–28). n. 218.34–35. 300. 273.28–32). 176. LI sup. 140. Love Lyrics from the Carmina Burana. 34. LI sup.30–248.3–4). (Geyer. LI sup. 32. 187. Praed. no. 180. Walsh (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Dial. 153. 61. as in letter 22.2 (de Rijk. 38. Praed.14–20). with notes about the possible attribution to Abelard on p. Categories 7a6. 258. Ars amatoria 3.62). Praed. 186. Praed.26–34). 123. (Geyer. 40. 49. LI sup. 44. and trans.38). 31. 172–73. 33. She speaks of winter snows melting and reviving everything in letter 32. 3 (PL 64:261D– 262A). Praed. Ariz. (Geyer. 226. (Geyer. iocundantur omnia”).7. LI sup.3 (de Rijk. 47. “Prata rident. LI sup. LI sup. Criticisms of Boethius are voiced in LI sup. 41. Ziolkowski (Tempe. Praed. LI sup. 226. 51. 55.35–38). and The Cambridge Songs (Carmina Cantabrigiensia). 45. 235.26–188. 8–26). Metalogicon 3.28).21. (Geyer. cf. 131. ed. 247. Praed. (Geyer. cf.4–21). In Cat.5–6) about opposites. Praed. (Geyer. 41. 118 (“Gaudet polus. cf. 48. 4.39–42). Praed. LI sup.26). 36. Praed. quoting Ovid. LI sup. 147. (Geyer. Praed.

XIV [Smits. 379. 372.16). Abelard quoted the example of Aristotle composing the Sophistical Refutations to counter false reasoning (Ep.1. LI sup.19). 65. 69. 2. In Per. Per.6–19). LI sup. (Geyer. 186. 406. Per. Dial. otherwise largely dependent on Boethius. notes to pages 90–94 267 62. 337. 406. Per.33). Dialectica 2 (de Rijk. 348. (Geyer. (Geyer. LI sup. 399.7 (Meiser.6–168. LI sup.1 (Meiser. 365. and Aristotle. II. cf.22–165. 13. (Geyer.4–400. (Geyer.1–27). 336. Dial. 411. 339.2–29. “The Introductiones dialecticae. Per. 66. 2:16). Per. (Geyer. Per.8–29).16). Per. Boethius. LI sup. Boethius. LI sup.14–34). 376. 400. (Geyer.8–12). (Geyer.26–308. LI sup.19–22). LI sup.2. LI sup.29). LI sup. (Geyer. Per. 79. 186.2 (de Rijk. LI sup. 71. LI sup.35). 94.1–5). 401. (Geyer.19–150.2 (de Rijk. 2. 329. (Geyer.4 (Meiser.37–373. (Geyer. Marenbon discusses this distinction within the glosses H9 and H5. Per.22– 94. In Per.26–36. 86. Per. LI sup. 78. Per. Cf. Per. 74. Abelard refers to the Sophistical Refutations more confidently in LI sup. 92.34). 88. 408.12). 3. (Geyer. LI sup. LI sup. 76. LI sup. 315. (Geyer.31).25). LI sup. 2.20–340. (Geyer.7–380. Per. cf.17–29). 360. 328. cf. (Geyer. Per. Per. Per. 2:28. (Geyer. 83. 80. 64. Per.1 (de Rijk. Dial. (Geyer. (Geyer. 70. 84. secunda editio 1.26–27). 374. Per. (Geyer.1–3). (Geyer. (Geyer. LI sup. 315. (Geyer. (Geyer. Boethius. secunda editio 1. see also Ger- land. 91. LI sup. LI sup. Introductiones 5. 2. (Geyer.31–38).5).30). 180.30–431.11).10). Per.15–25) as part of a separate discussion of modal propositions. 2.26). In Per. LI sup. Dial. (Geyer. Metalogicon 3. 360.6). cf. In the early 1130s.18). 411. (Geyer.17–18).1 (Meiser. In Per. 85.” 91).6). 309. 160.20–22). 77. Per.4). 2:164. Per. Geyer’s text here may be corrupt.3–361. (Geyer. LI sup. II. 68.7 (Meiser. 372.2 (de Rijk. 82.58–61). II. Per. 90. In Per. II.6–17.14–25). Boethius.2. and Boethius.15–349. LI sup.31–37). Per. Per. 73. Dial.8–30). 420. 2:92. LI sup.29). Per.2. 148. 63. Per. and William of Champeaux. See John .12). Per. 378. (Geyer. 89. Periermeneias 17b1. 372. 396. 81.1 (de Rijk. 384.25–34). 72.31–367.35).18–318. LI sup. 75. 87. In Per. 307. 273]). LI sup. Boethius.11–339. Per. 2:165.5–8). 67. John. LI sup.3 (Iwakuma. 93. LI sup.4 (CCCM 98:117. Per. 18 (Minio- Paluello. Per. LI sup. 2:135.7 (Meiser. 52.

Platonism. Per. Abelard refers to a forthcoming treatise on argument in LI sup.21–464. 3–84). 112. 114.3 (de Rijk. 108. Per. (Geyer.” Vivar- ium 21 (1983):85–107. Per. Per. (Geyer. 113. 96. 111. LI sup.11). (equivalent . 20. Fredborg comments briefly on Thierry’s debt to William on p. Per. De bono perseverantiae.29).16–26). Per. 469. LI sup. 109. 421. Per.45– 49. in which he reviews earlier treatments of this theme by H.27). (Geyer. 427. (Geyer. (Geyer. 446. 61–72 (Minio-Paluello. Dial. 51. 427.13). Top.39–428. 6. 135.36–39). Latin Rhetorical Commentaries by Thierry of Chartres. and the Context of Early Medieval Philosophy in the West (London: Variorum. LI sup. 105.13–19). 483. Per. 287. LI sup. (Geyer. 40–42. discussing Augustine. 460. I am indebted to Mar- enbon’s observation that for Abelard modal statements are always about “possi- bility for” rather than “possiblity that. LI sup. 82. 479. 115. The Philosophy of Peter Abelard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Geyer.” Medioevo 7 (1981):1–40.12–14. 208. Per. (Geyer. LI sup. n. Per. 189 (Minio-Paluello. Per. 107. “Glosses and Commentaries on the Categories and De interpretatione before Abelard. 116.40).1–6).21–40). 463. LI sup. LI sup. Per. LI sup. (Geyer. Top.20–503. Minio-Paluello (Twelfth-Century Logic [Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.3–497. Consolatio philosophiae 4. see chap. 102. LI sup. (Minio-Paluello. LI sup. Topica (Dal Pra. Weidemann. Topica (Dal Pra. (Dal Pra. and to a Rhetorica (Dal Pra. 31 (Minio-Paluello. De praedestinatio sanctorum (also quoted in SN 29. 2000). 439.24) is not by Abelard.20). Per. LI sup. 106. 15 and 18 (Minio-Paluello. Per. (Geyer. cf. LI sup.. (Geyer. 1958). 222.33. ed. and Klaus Jacobi. extending Geyer’s version of this passage in LI sup.4). 1.1).18– 139. 36. 429. 103. 110.268 notes to pages 94–97 Marenbon. (Geyer.15–16).7–25). LI sup. “Statements about Events: Modal and Tense Analysis in Medieval Logic. Abelard had seemed rather doubtful about a text he had seen that claimed to be the Sophistical Refutations. LI sup. 101. 1997). and Bo- ethius.3. 480. 497. LI sup.18–25). 9.25 and 267. 98. 263. LI sup. xx) argues that the final part of this discussion from the Milan manuscript (Geyer.25–39).6. 97. LI sup.” See John Marenbon.32–41). LI sup. 99.20–480. Earlier. Per.1–39 and 428. For discussion and a new edition of this section of Abelard’s gloss sup. Per.30–34). 104.17).3). 12–19 (Minio-Paluello. Per. “Zur Semantik der Modalbegriffe bei Peter Abelard. 10–11 and 13).38–481.” in Aristotelian Logic. 423.1–206. Per. LI sup. Fredborg. 221–22.2–10). 100.31–34).28. 2. 12 of her in- troduction. Per. (Geyer. 95.22–40. 242. 205.

118. Top. 121. 299.14). “Abelard on Rhetoric. (Dal Pra. Top. Top. 117. Nederman. Peter King. esp. and Rodney M.12–258. LI sup. 116 above. 116 above.37–39).5. 256.38–41).2). 1. Top. .4 (CSEL 80:118).20–22). (Dal Pra. LI sup. Top. (Dal Pra. 257.1–35). LI sup. 133. Fredborg. (Dal Pra. Top. and my essay in that volume.14–16. 74. Ward. for example. See D’Anna.12).27). Top. esp.10. 2. (Dal Pra. 242. 142. Fredborg.1. 66).25–28). LI sup. 219.21–31. Niels J. Karin Mar- gareta Fredborg. (Dal Pra. 234. “From intellectus verus/falsus to the dictum propositionis: The Semantics of Peter Abelard and His Circle.6 (CCCM 13:116). LI sup. 296.3.3. Top. Rhetoric. 131. notes to pages 97–100 269 to Dal Pra. 1984).24–25). 260.26–232. (Dal Pra. (Dal Pra. Cary J. Top.7–236.39. Top. LI sup.2 (de Rijk. LI sup.3. (Dal Pra. There is a large literature on Abelard’s understanding of the dictum propositionis. (Dal Pra. 120. cf. Gabriella D’Anna observed many more passages drawn from the De inventione in this passage than noted by Dal Pra.” 37–53.17–31. (Dal Pra. 141. LI sup. 257.” Studi Medievali. Top. 267. Top.” Vivarium 34 (1996): 15–40.1.2–7). (Dal Pra. 134. 301. (Dal Pra. LI sup.. (Dal Pra. 68). 222.38–223. LI sup. Mews. LI sup. LI sup. TSum 2. 290. Thomson (Turn- hout: Brepols.26– 463. cf. 122. 273. 235. 78). Top.29). Top. 1. 55–80. (Dal Pra.34).4–21). Top. Top.1. Fredborg. 140. p. De doctrina Christiana 4. (Dal Pra. (Dal Pra. 3.3). 231.” in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. (Dal Pra. pp. LI sup.21–23). LI sup.24–27. Constant J. see the new edition and com- mentary on this passage provided by Fredborg. 256. 3rd. 459. 340–52. Top. 239.40). 294. 124. 129. LI sup. 296. Top. LI sup. 135.24–27). (Dal Pra. 242. LI sup. and the Principles of Argument. Top. 209. 136. n. see also n. 130. 300. Top. “The Commentaries on Cicero’s De inventione and Rhetorica ad Herennium by William of Champeaux.34–268. 126. 3. pp. 263.6).13–17.34–268. 137. LI sup.11–221. 125. Top. (Dal Pra. 62). 127. ser. Top. Fredborg.” CIMAGL 17 (1976): 1–39. (Dal Pra. (Dal Pra. (Dal Pra.27). LI sup. 226. p. 1. see Karin Margareta Fredborg. 170. 62–63). (Dal Pra. Dial.26–235. LI sup. 2003). 221. 10 (1969): 333–419. (Dal Pra.29). 1. LI sup. “Abelardo e Cicerone. LI sup. LI sup. 144. 139. Top. “Peter Abelard on Dialectic. Christian Strub. Top. ed. p. Top. 132. Top. 138. See. 119. Fredborg. 123. 294. (Dal Pra. 17–19. Green-Pedersen. The Tra- dition of the Topics in the Middle Ages (Munich: Philosophia. 259.40–42). 128. LI sup. and Klaus Jacobi.3). 143. LI sup. LI sup. 231.

De fide. see also TSum 2. Ep. cf.1:15). Anselm. Hexameron 1. see my paper. Exp.6 (CCSL 50:114. 5. De tribus diebus (CCCM 177:9).32 (CCCM 13:97). Livre de la nature. Anselm and Roscelin of Compie`gne: Some New Texts and Their Implications II: A Vocalist Essay on the Trinity and Intellectual Debate c. Dominique Poirel (CCCM 177:3– 4).270 notes to pages 101–6 6. Livre de la nature et de´bat trinitaire au XIIe sie´cle: le “De Tribus Diebus” de Hugues de Saint-Victor.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 58 (2002):65–92. In Hexaemeron 1. Poirel. and PL 178:360CD. spe et caritate 1 (CCCM 97:61). Sententia 62 (SBO 6. Sermo 45 (SBO 6. n. Hugh may also have known the potentia/sapientia/voluntas triad in a relatively rare text of Paschasius Radbertus. 14. TSum 1.5 (CCCM 1: 272). ed. De tribus diebus.6.13 (CCCM 13:91). XIV (Smits. 10.22 (CCCM 13:121). 8.5–6 (CCSL 47:170–74). Ralf Stammberger argues that Hugh draws on Abelard or common discussion of these ideas. Bibliotheca Victorina 14 (Turnhout: Bre- pols. 38–39. ed. for example. Roscelin of Compie`gne.5. Hugh. HC (Monfrin. Sermo 3. 83). He observes that while Eustathius’s translation into Latin of Basil’s commentary on the Hexaemeron was not known before the mid-twelfth century. 2002). 15. On Roscelin’s theology and arguments with St. 83. De Iesu puero duodenni 3. 16. Dominique Poirel. Ambrose. 65.21 (CSEL 32. Robert Zi- omkowksi. 61–85.18 (CSEL 32. Hugh of St. 9. 2. 50A:416.-Victor. Joseph Reiners (Mu¨nster: Aschendorff. TSum 1.” in Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford: Blackwell. 1080–1120. 1970). 2.1: 15). Manegold of Lautenbach.7 (SBO 4:217). The Trinity 1. TSum 1. “St. Epistola ad Abaelardum. 279). See. 351– 52.5 (CSEL 32. Hugh. 6. 345–60. 15. “The School of Chartres. Richard W. 13.” AHDLMA 65 (1998): 39–90 (reprinted in Reason and Belief).35 (CCCM 13:98). 12. 18. 13.2 (SBO 4:245). 1910).1:212). 3. See chap. Dominique Poirel traces this strand of patristic tradition in Livre de la nature. De trinitate 2. Aelred of Rievaulx. De tribus diebus (CCCM 177:69). much more widely known was Ambrose. Southern. De civitate Dei 6. Augustine. 2002).1:17). TSum 1. See Stammberger. 131–54 and 368–79. “ ‘De longe uer- itas uidetur diuersa iudicia parit’: Hugh of Saint Victor and Peter Abelard. Bernard of Clairvaux. Liber contra Wolfelmum. trans. in Der Nominalismus in der Fru¨hscholastik: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Universalienfrage im Mittelalter. 473–74).15. 17.19. 11. suggested that a myth had developed about a “school of Chartres” and doubted whether most of the teachers .2:101). Ambrose compares the heavens to a book in Hexameron 1. 7.17 (CCCM 13:92). 4. Sermo 1. Dallas Medieval Texts and Translations 1 (Louvain: Peeters.

102 (CCCM 13:150). SN 1. 28. 39. 29. TSum 3.15 (CCSL 50:223).63 (CCCM 13:110). LI (Geyer.76 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 268–329 See also Peter Dronke. TSum 3. and Collationes 2. In Psalmos. “Paris and Chartres Revisited. TSum 3.35 (CCCM 13:172). 47.63–64 (CCCM 13:184). 46. TSum 3.5 (CCCM 13:159).62–63 (CCCM 13:183–84). 34. TSum 1. cf.21 (CCCM 13:166–67). 96). cf. 41.1 (CCCM 13:157). in Psy- chologie et Morale au XIIe et XIIIe sie`cles. J.3. 47.5 (CCCM 13:115–16).97 (CCCM 13:148). Aristotle.27 (CCCM 13:123). TChr 2. notes to pages 106–16 271 associated with Chartres. O’Donnell (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.44 (CCCM 13:176). p. 22. 1974). 191.43 (CCCM 13:175–76). TSum 3. Augustine. 21. 42. 1199). 32. TSum 3. 44.3. TSum 3.53–54 (CCCM 13:105). 35. 37.3 (CCSL 38:541. ed. TSum 3. TSum 2. TSum 3. 39: 1063. Ps.37 (CCCM 13:173). discussing Augustine. 36. 1959).100 (CCCM 13:201): “Ex ore tuo te iudico. TSum 2. 1100. notably Gilbert of Poitiers and Thierry of Chartres. William of Champeaux. R. cf. TSum 2. Sententie. TSum 2. really taught there.15–17 (CCCM 13:164–65). 24. serve nequam” (the Vulgate form of Luke 19:22 reads “De ore”. 40. TSum 3. En. TSum 3. 65–87). 236. 45.29. Odon Lottin (Gembloux: Duculot.69 (CCCM 13:186–87). TSum 1. TSum 3.31 (CCCM 13:170–71).84 (CCCM 13:194). ed. TSum 3.29 (CCCM 13:124).48–50 (CCCM 13:178–79). TSum 3. .48 (CCCM 13:177). 20. Periermeneias 16a5. 27. See Ha¨ring.97–98 (CCCM 13:199). 1992). TSum 3.78 (CCCM 13:191). Nikolaus Ha¨ring has provided a detailed refutation of Southern’s argument. TSum 3. TSum 2. 31. iudico is misprinted as iudicio in the CCCM edition). 38. 30. 19. TSum 3. documenting that Bernard was indeed a significant teacher and that both Thierry and Gilbert may have moved to Paris only by the late 1130s. TSum 3. De trinitate 5. TSum 3. 25. TSum 3.66 (CCCM 13:185).62 (CCCM 13:183). TSum 3. 78. 76.” in Essays in Honour of Anton Charles Pegis.17. no. 15–40. 86. 26. 23. “New Approaches to the School of Chartres” (originally published 1971).117 (CCCM 13:185). 43. 33. reprinted in Intellectuals and Poets in Medieval Europe (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.10 (CCCM 13:163).

nos. (Waddell. HC (Monfrin. Abelard: A Medieval Life (Oxford: Blackwell. 501–3). 56. 53. 2:218– 20).” AHDLMA 65 (1998): 39–90 (reprinted in Reason and Belief). 7. William of St. 52. Ep.-Laurent. Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and His School (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 73–82 as Sententie a magistro Wutolfo collecte. De natura et dignitate amoris 21 (Davy. within the archdiocese of Sens.” Abelard’s version “Habe caritatem. V. see William of Thierry’s ac- count. See Nikolaus M.7 (PL 185:245C–249B).49 (Waitz-von Simson. near the future site of the Paraclete. The Papacy 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. “St Anselm and Roscelin: Some New Texts and Their Implications II: A Vocalist Essay on the Trinity and Intellectual Debate 1080–1120. A small chapel at the Paraclete is recorded in later documents as having been dedicated to St.. Thierry combines texts attributed to Hermes and Dionysius in his Lectiones and his Glosa on Boethius’s De trinitate. (PL . 195–96 and 286–87.8 (PL 35:2033): “Dilige et quod uis fac. Gesta Friderici 1. 50. I. tract.-Thierry. ff. II (Hicks. 566) and Dionysius (246.40 (CCSL 32:29. 54. 176). Relatio de concilio Remensi (MGH Libelli de Lite 3:28–29). 127–28. 4. Vita Goswini. Decretum. 1998). Denis. 275. ad Parthos. De natura et dignitate amoris 49. Mews.-Denis was Nogent-sur-Seine. 249–55. Recueil 14:445. it is in the diocese of Troyes. See Clanchy.30 (CCCM 13:97). Abe- lard’s letter occurs in a manuscript of Bendiktbeuren (dioc. Ha¨ring. 434–36. Davy (Paris: Vrin. S. 243. 69. 309. See Constant J. Ioann. 3. TSum 1. The latter is identified as Lotulf the Lombard by Heloise in Ep. Par.-Thierry. 189–90. 2. Augustine. ed. 58. On the friendship of William and Bernard. TChr 3:45 (CCCM 12:213). Prol. Lie`ge (Odon Lottin. 25–27. In Epist. 105–6. 89–90). 1959]. 98). Bernardi Vita Prima 1. see also other references to Mer- curius (97. Augustine. et fac quicquid uis. in Bouquet. Chron.272 notes to pages 117–27 48. 5. CSEL 80:30). 128–30). according to a rubric in Munich. In fact. M. 296. 57. 1953). Szo¨ve´rffy. abbot of St. 445.-M. TSum 2:22 (CCCM 13:121). 6. Freising) among texts all likely to have been known to Otto. 55. in Deux traite´s de l’amour de Dieu. nos. He may have been responsible for collecting the sentences of Anselm of Laon. 7. 49. Hymn. Letter to H. a dedication that may go back to the time of Abelard. Clm 14730. Robinson. 270. William of St. Michael T. he was under the jurisidiction of Reims. 2:170–71. Clanchy suggests that if the dependency to which Abelard had moved from St. 1971). XI (Smits.” quoted by Ivo of Chartres as from Augustine’s De disciplina ecclesiastica. Maur. Hesso. A Christian Theologia 1. Anselm of Laon. Psychologie et Morale au XIIe et XIIIe sie`cles [Gembloux: Duculot. 44) and as Leutold of Novara by Otto of Freising. 1990). 51. De doctrina Christiana 1. (Mirot. PL 178:341A–44D).

67. 145–47.. 11620). 139. 63.25–26 (CCCM 12:81–82). 36]. 70. see Sabina Flanagan. CCCM 190:25). 107.53. 14.75. 85 and Monte Cassino. Boyer and McKeon list the contents of the recension in SN Z (Zurich. TSch 1. 262–63.60–66. 181. and by Abelard both in the Prologue to SN (Boyer and McKeon. 141–44. 136–37. TChr 3. 23–24. [48].0). SN 138. Much of the material under question 66 (about Christ) was subsequently distributed under other headings. 9. See. discussed in Collationes 2:132 (Mar- enbon and Orlandi.99100 (Marenbon and Orlandi. TSum 2.20. pp. C 162). 10. 153. 145. 69. “Lexicographic and Syntactic Explorations of Doubt in Twelfth-Century Latin Texts.1 (de Rijk. . 157 (charity and sin). 19. 155.130–33 (CCCM 12:128–29). 21. letter 70. 106. also tsch 48 (CCCM 12:419). 66. 108.11–12). See Giles Constable. 138.4 (CSEL 54:705).34 (CCCM 12:86). 1: 684–85). Giles Constable (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. are listed by Boyer and McKeon.6.4 (PL 39:1958).41 (CCCM 13:334). Bloomfield Lectures 4 (Kalamazoo. TChr 1. 1999).8. On the Sententie Magistri A. Zentralbibl.66 (CCCM 13:344). 331). Ivo’s version of the text is also quoted by Peter the Venerable. 84 (Christ).131 (CCCM 12:225.1–7. cf. as well as in Comm. Dial. 72. referring to the pseudo-Augustinian ser- mon 107. cf. TChr 1. 116) and SN 137. TChr 1. 7.80–82 (CCCM 12:105–6). TChr 1.4 from the De divisione. Bibl. SN 137.72 (CCCM 12:101). 16.16. Mich. 4. cf. 109–13. see chap.: Medieval Institute. 11–19. 5–6.3. De inventione 2. 116–35 (sacraments).14 is taken from Decretum 17. Rom.161. 22. quoting from SN 24. [56]. 79. 153. 144). 75. 1:98 and 281.1119.36 (CCCM 12:87). 20. 12. drawn from Decretum 8. the authorship of which is debated. 98) and SN 138. known as CT after the two manuscripts in which it is contained (Tours. 1 (CCCM 12:69). TChr 1. 579–612: SN 1–24 (God). Ilgner. 154. 43. 140. 71. TChr 1. in The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Morton W. [158].1. 17.3a–b.110. 11. [35. 138. n.9. TChr 1. SN 9. The contents of this recension. 73. 1967). MS 174. 2. repeated in tsch 73 (CCCM 12:430–31) and TSch 1. Letters 20 and 111.” Journal of Me- dieval History 27 (2001): 219–40. Only SN 130. 13. 4 (CCCM 12:293) and Scito teipsum (Luscombe.98 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 18. Contra Iovinianum 14 (PL 23: 304A). 78. notes to pages 127–33 273 162:48B). 7: SN 1. ed. “Love and Do What You Will”: The Medieval History of an Augustinian Precept.5 from the De differentiis topicis. [31]. discussed in Collationes 2. 23. Comm. 8. 68. Mun. 149. 112 (CCCM 13:153–54). 148. for example. On the meaning of the term. and Jerome. 8–9.27–28 (CCCM 12:82–84). 15.21a– b from the In Categorias Aristotelis and 144. SN 124. 66. Collationes 2. 64. 38. 151. Rom. Car. 178. See SN 9. Liber ad Alexandrum (PL Supp. 2. 42. 153–55.

10. TChr 2. 1959). 5.13–21 (CCCM 12:138–41).155. 45. LLL.52 (CCCM 12:216). 57. 35. 47. Isidore. 42. 31.152 (CCCM 12:341).110–11 (CCCM 12:235). Didascalicon 3. TChr 2. letter 77 (SBO 7:184–200). 4.72–76 (CCCM 12:297–300). 1994). TChr 4. De civitate Dei 8. 54.96–97 (CCCM 12:312–13). TChr 3. 25. Buttimer. Bernard. 48. TChr 2.167 (CCCM 12:257). TChr 2. vol. (Morin).129 (CCCM 12:192–93).24. 51. Hugh of St. 24–26 (Morin.2 (ed.5. Amores 3. TChr 3. ed. Sententie. TChr 2. TChr 3. 38. H. 27. Bernard. 208– 12. TChr 3. TChr 2. Ovid. 4:46. 32. 28.28 (CCCM 12:143–44). Etymologiae 2.17. De int. 53. Didascalicon de studio legendi. 30.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 58 (1982): 50–86.77 (CCCM 12:301).162 (CCCM 12:255). 153–54. a treatise he attributes to Walter of Mortagne. pp.274 notes to pages 133–43 24. cf. in Psychologie et Morale au XIIe et XIIIe sie`cles. 34. TChr 4. TChr 5. John of Salisbury describes the hostility of Cornificius to these famous . 56.44 (CCCM 12:149–50). Odon Lottin (Gembloux: Duculot. TChr 4. TChr 3. nos. TChr 4. Bernard. Legends of Alexander the Great (London: Dent. nos. “La sentence De caritate et la discussion scolastique sur l’amour. 33 and 34.92 (CCCM 12:228.51 (CCCM 12:369). TChr 3. 43. William. 258–61. letter 13 (SBO 7:62). 37. 42). 49.10 (CCCM 12:199) 36. 50.77–80 (CCCM 12:301–2). 105. 1977].57 (CCCM 12:155). Sententie. 46. 48 (CCCM 12:252. below). R. pp. C. TChr 4. 195–98.82.3. see also TChr 3:153. 334–56. 29. 220). See Wielockx.21 (CCCM 12:141). 39. letter 78 (SBO 7:207). 58.51 (CCCM 12:369). 44. 286). Bernard. William of Champeaux. 33. 309). 40. cf.-Victor. 41. with further notes on 355 nn. 52.4.10. 26. TChr 5. TChr 4. 335 (see chap. Fontes Christiani 27 [Freiburg: Herder.89 (CCCM 12:171). TChr 2.104–8 (CCCM 12:178–80). TChr 2. Wielockx points out a similar shift away from Augustinian theory in the De caritate. letter 42 (SBO 7:100–131). See Richard Stoneman. and Augustine. esp.45 (CCCM 12:150). TChr 2. TSum 2:102 (CCCM 13:150). n. De int. 59 (1983):26–45. 158 (CCCM 12:343–44). 55. 237–40.

359 n. “ ‘Adtendite a falsis prophetis’ (ms. 1975). Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard. See L. 8. 60. 1994). Ep. Le´on Mirot (Paris: Alphonse Picard.22. Bond.” Traditio 41 (1985): 239–72. H. 216. Nine Medieval Latin Plays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edmund Marte`ne and Ursin Durand. David Wulstan presents his arguments for Heloise’s authorship of these plays and analyzes their relationship to the Limoges sponsus drama in his essay. Epistola cujusdam doctoris ad amicum suum. “Heloise at Argenteuil and the Paraclete. “Liturgy and Identity at the Par- aclete: Heloise. La Chronique de Morigny (1095–1152). 45).” in Corona gratiarum: Miscellanea patristica. 164–66. 76. 10. 1 of Veterum Scriptorum et Monumentorum . Amplissima collectio (1724. Abelard. These plays were edited and translated by Peter Dronke. Style. Testamentum. Vie de Louis VI le Gros (Paris: Belles Lettres. New York: B. 4–8. Suger. trans. 22–24. Colmar. 100–112. Franklin. 1968). 3. Mews. Marc Stewart and David Wulstan (Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music. 166–69. “Abbot Suger and the Nuns of Argenteuil. esp. 8. 152v– 153v): Un texte de Pierre Abe´lard contre les Cisterciens retrouve´? (no. Suger. ed. Rouleaux des morts du IXe au XVe sie`cle (Paris: Impri- merie nationale. ed. Lambert Marie de Rijk relates John’s comment that Cornificius claimed the authority of Seneca for his logic (1. eds. ed. 5. 787–93. For further details. and again in Rouleau mortuaire du B. 19–33. 4. 59. This is examined by Carol Dana Lanham. 205. The Loving Subject. 1909). abbe´ de Savigny (Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 1912). Henri Waquet. Bernard. ed. Vital. 299. 67–90. 87– 100.” Vi- varium 4 (1966): 1–57. 7. reprint. Salutatio Formulas in Latin Letters to 1200: Syntax. . Le´opold Delisle. Engels. warned against by Wibald of Stavelot in 1149 (PL 189:1255B). in Oeuvres. 35). the Paraclete Liturgy and Mary Magdalen. 9. Abelard.S. See Thomas G. see Constant J. Heloise and the Paraclete 1. 162–63. historica et liturgica. 2 (Paris: Belles Lettres. 6. See the letters of Stephen of Senlis and the archbishop of Sens (PL 173: 1263B–1264C). See de Rijk. J.B. 1975). 2:195–228.5 (CCCM 98:21). 2001]. ed. Waldman. vol. Vita Ludovici 27. letter 48 (SBO 7:138). 1964). 2003). . III (Hicks. notes to pages 143–52 275 teachers in Metalogicon 1. vol. 11. CCCM 98:49) to the inspiration of these gualdicae. 2. Eligio Dekkers O.” in Stewart and Wulstan.. Mu¨nchener Beitra¨ge zur Media¨vistik und Renaissance-Forschung 22 (Munich: Arbeo-Gesellschaft. Ed. 1866). Franc¸oise Gasparri. Instrumenta Patristica 11 (Bruges: Sint-Pietersabdij. LLL. LLL. and Theory.. 54. “Some New Evidence on Twelfth- Century Logic: Alberic and the School of Mont Ste Genevie`ve (Montani). and the Evolution of Cistercian Reform” and “Heloise.” in The Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard. .

34. 19. 35. 20. Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Notre Dame. Ep. quoting Cicero. IV (Hicks. Ep. 69). “Heloise. IV (Hicks. 30. 54. quoted by Abelard in SN 134. quoting De inventione II. Heloise. also in SN 130. Abelard describes Heloise as singularis in Letters 2.3: “Non cum vaccaveris philosophandum est. VII (Hicks. also in SN 122.” Journal of Medieval History 30 (2004): 1–24.276 notes to pages 152–61 12. repeated briefly in SN 143. 25. while she uses specialis about him or her love in Letters 21. Ep. Ep. Betty Radice supplies a nonsensical translation of the phrase. De bono conjugali. IV (Hicks. See n. VIII (McLaughlin. 31. Ep. 28. 38. Ep. IV. Ep. 88). Ep. quoting Augustine.” 13. 94). 101–2). 33. Abelard’s report of her speech. 21. Chrysostom. Ep. quoting from Augustine. Rouse and Richard H. VI (Hicks. 22. De inventione 1.1. 252). VIII (McLaughlin. 1974). Ep. 134. Ep. 18. Letter 24 (LLL. 70). sermon 7. letter 77.16. 17. 72. it is quoted within the Flori- legium anglicanum. Ep. 84). 77). Ep. IV (Hicks. 69). Adversus Vigilantium 16 (PL 23:367). quoting Jerome. 159. and Mews. Abelard.: University of Notre Dame Press. Rom. VI (Hicks. quoting Tusculanae disputationes. quoting Seneca. 258). 29. 15. VI (Hicks.31. II (Hicks. Ep. 4. 76. Heloise. II (Hicks. VIII (McLaughlin. Comm. letter 24.52. 194–95 (Marenbon and Orlandi. Heloise. and Their Negotiation of the cura monialium.8 and 13 (Marenbon and Orlandi.6–9. III (Hicks.16 (CCCM 12:78). see Fiona J. Abelard. 37. Griffiths. “ ‘Men’s Duty to Provide for Women’s Needs’: Abelard. cf.” 100–12. 62). 77. Heloise. IV (Hicks. VIII (McLaughlin. Heloise. 4. 5 above. TChr 1.75. 32.2. Rouse. Heloise. Ep. Ep. 209). HC (Mon- frin. De continentia viduali. Because Suo in this greeting was misprinted in the 1616 edition as Domino.16. 10 and 16). VI (Hicks. 2 (CCCM 11:124) 23. II (Hicks. a rich anthology of rare classical texts probably compiled in Orle´ans by the mid-twelfth century. Ep. see chap. Heloise. 27. In Hebraeos.1. Ep. VIII (McLaughlin. 198–200). 60). 101–52. Collationes 59. Although a relatively uncommon text in the twelfth century. 93). 26. 24. Ep. VI (Hicks. VII (Hicks. quoting Seneca. 1991). 50). 108–11). Abelard. esp. 245). 49). Ind. 25. and Mary Mag- dalen. The Letters of Abelard and Heloise. 259). Ep. Ep. 36. 79. (Harmondsworth: Penguin. on the complexity of this relationshiop.35. See Mary A. 16. 14. 74. 130–31). . Collationes 1. the Paraclete Liturgy. n. 46). 242–43). 95). 18. 56.

Burnett. F. Sermo 1 (PL 178:383D). X (Smits. Commentary. 45. Cistercian Studies Series 63 (Kalamazoo. and “Saint Bernard and the Cistercian Office at the Abbey of the Paraclete. VIII (McLaughlin. 41. VIII (McLaughlin. 249. 235). VIII (McLaughlin. The commentary on the Lord’s Prayer printed as the work of Abelard in PL 178 is not authentic. Szo¨ve´rffy. 207–18). Ep. 1987). and my own study. VIII (McLaughlin. see too Sermo 14 (di Santis. 239). I have translated the prologues in an appendix to “Liturgy and Identity at the Paraclete. Ep. See the critical edition and de- tailed commentary of this text by Chrysogonus Waddell.: Classical Folia Edi- tions. di Santis. On the identity of all the hymns cited by Heloise with hymns sung at Montier-la-Celle.’ ” ed. Mich. 46. Ep. Edition. Ky.: Cister- cian Publications. 97–98 and 95). the Expositio Symboli Apostolorum and Expositio Symboli S. By contrast. Hymn Collections from the Paraclete. PL 178:313C. 289). 2 vols. Institutiones nostre. Abelard’s hymnal and prefatory prologues have been edited by J. 47. Athanasii (PL 178:617–32) are authentic.” 30–33. Sermo 3 (PL 178:404D. 52.: Cistercian Publications. 44. Institutiones nostre (PL 178:313C–317B). Revue be´ne´dictine 95 (1985): 60–72. 219).” 26 n.: Cistercian Publications. 51. . 53.” in The Chimaera of His Age: Studies on Bernard of Clair- vaux.Y. Ep. 54. See David Wulstan’s note added to my essay “Liturgy and Identity at the Paraclete. 406A). 270–73). quoting with small changes from Heloise’s Ep. IV (Hicks. Trappist. ed. 43. 66). 273). Ep. with translation. Ky. (Albany.: Cistercian Publications. Ky. E. Trappist. see the fun- damental studies of Chrysogonus Waddell. Sermo 3 (PL 178:399D). 50. VI (Hicks. see “The Expositio Orationis Dominicae ‘Multorum le- gimus orationes. The Paraclete Statutes: Institutiones Nostrae: Introduction. Trappist.” 29 and 31 n. Ep. Cistercian Liturgy Series 20 (Gethsemani Abbey. and then subsequent moves to broaden Cistercian musical repertoire. 182). 48. and with much more awareness of their debt to Cistercian liturgical traditions by Chrysogonus Waddell. 46. see Mews. Charles S. 231. and Mary Magdalen. IX (Smits. Abelard quotes Jerome’s Ep.” 100– 112. Sermo 2 (PL 178:393D. The Twelfth-Century Cistercian Hymnal I and II. Cistercian Liturgy Series 8–9 (Gethsemani Abbey. IX (Smits. 55. 1980).11 (CCSL 56:130) more accurately in Ep. 1975). On the Cistercian reform of the Molesme liturgy under Stephen Harding. 282–83). notes to pages 161–66 277 39. 125. 76–121. N. Peter Abelard’s Hymnarius Paraclitensis. 40. 42. 73. 1989). as does Heloise in her Problemata (PL 178:678C). “Heloise. Ep. “Liturgy and Identity at the Paraclete. 1984). the Paraclete Liturgy. 49. Rozanne Elder and John R Sommerfeldt. alluding back to Heloise. Cistercian Liturgy Series 1–2 (Gethsemani Abbey.

2000). This volume includes both a new edition and translation.3. See Waddell.. 15. see also n. 31. 57.” in Listening to Heloise. 60–67. Sermo 4 (PL 178:413B–414D. On these allusions. 68. . eds. 2002). “ ‘Abner fidelissime’: Abelard’s Version of a Biblical Lament. see the important chapter in Peter Dronke. 67. 59. II (Hicks. Pietro Abelardo: Planctus (Trento: La Finestra. van Banning. with discussion on 171–72). 64. 1970). The Repentant Abelard: Abelard’s Thought as Revealed in His Carmen ad Astralabium and Planctus. “Quae maternae immemor naturae: The Rhe- torical Struggle over the Meaning of Motherhood in the Writings of Heloise and Abelard. see LLL. Waddell. An edition and Italian translation of the Planctus has also been brought out by Massimo Sannelli. “Epithalamica: An Easter Sequence by Peter Abelard. Sermo 7 (PL 178:433CD). Letter 84 (LLL.” Musical Quarterly 72 (1986): 239–71. 66.11. 78. Sermo 8 (PL 178:439D). Chrysogonus Waddell attributed this sequence to Abelard. 5. IX (Smits. Sermo 5 (PL 178:417D–418B).29.7. ed. 83. Sermo 11 (PL 178:453C). 345–489. 70. di Santis.” Plainsong and Medieval Music 11 (2002):37– 44. as in SN 15. with extended commentary. Poetic In- dividuality in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 65). 262. 69.30ab. I am indebted to the reflections of Ruys on the Planctus. Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard. 128. 231. “Epithalamica. She raises fascinating issues of gender reversal in “Questions of Gender in the Late Poetic Works of Abelard (Carmen ad Astralabium and Planctus). 114–49.7. The point is made by Annelies Wouters. Sermo 16 (PL 178:499B). 138. Ward. Both are being reworked for an important publication authored by Ruys and John O. 323–39. Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (CCSL 87B:clxxxiv–clxxxviii). of these two poetic works of Abelard. 141. 1992).1. On these Planctus. Ep. Bonnie Wheeler (New York: St.” delivered at the ANZAMEMS conference in Melbourne (February 2003).” in Stewart and Wulstan.” 250–51. Abelard frequently quotes from this work. 62. 58.27. 61. 65. see also Dronke’s essays on the theme of lament in medieval literature in Intellectuals and Poets in Medieval Europe (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. 73. forthcoming from Palgrave Macmillan. I am indebted to Juanita Feros Ruys for allowing me to draw on a series of her studies on the Planctus. Sermo 8 (PL 178:441A–442D). As elsewhere. On the significance of this planctus in relation to Heloise’s loss of contact with her son. 71.278 notes to pages 166–72 56. Martin’s Press. see Juanita Feros Ruys. 143. notably “Planctus magis quam cantici: The Generic Significance of Abelard’s planctus. 77. 60.28. 142. Ep. Sermo 12 (PL 178:479D). 235). 198–99). 63. See J.10. 72.

4. 2.21 (CCCM 12:141). 44). 3. quoting TChr 2. Collationes 81 (Marenbon and Orlandi. “Peter Abelard. in the version CT (CCCM 12:129). Collationes 78 (Marenbon and Orlandi. Collationes 76 (Marenbon and Orlandi.125–46. cf. Abelard adds a quotation from a fictional exchange between Paul and Seneca in TChr 1.198 (CCCM 12: . I have moved away from the mid-1120s date that I suggested in “On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard. Sin. Allen. 40). 2.” Vivarium 36 (1998): 135–51. See chap. Collationes 29 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 20). 98). 17. 130).2 (CCCM 12:73). 123). 13. 20. 18. Collationes 222 (Marenbon and Orlandi. TSum 1. Collationes 103 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 23. 5. 98).F. 82). Collationes 45 (Marenbon and Orlandi. notes to pages 172–80 279 74. “On the Dating of Abelard’s Dialogus: A Reply to Mews. TChr 2.46–53 (CCCM 12:90–93).26. Hex. 21.. 216). 15. 54–56).117 (CCCM 12:184–85). 1. Burnett. quoting TChr 2. supplying additional praise of Seneca as an authority in moral teaching in TSch 1.117 (CCCM 12:184–85) ⫽ TSch 2. 3rd ser. TChr 1. Exp. Collationes 76 (Marenbon and Orlandi.101 (CCCM 12:196. 97–98). 134). 272). 100–102). 6.S. 32). suggested by Julie A.60. Collationes 36 (Marenbon and Orlandi. xxxii. TChr 2. although I would not follow the much later date. 25 (1984): 857–94.48 (CCCM 12:151). Collationes 68 (Marenbon and Orlandi.133a. 4. TChr 3. but its source is not identified in Collationes 119 (p. Soliloquium: A Critical Edition. C. 11. 96). Edited by E.” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 21 (1986). 22. 16. TChr 2. 84). 9.5. 218) reproduces the same series of quotations as in TChr 1. 31 (CCCM 12:143. Collationes 67 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 14. 8. Ethics. 222).19 (CCCM 13:414) and letter 13 (Smits.” Studi Me- dievali. 12. 10. Plato’s account of Socrates teaching that all things should be held in common is reported. 7. (PL 178:768B).24–29 (CCCM 13:95–96). 96). n. Collationes 115 (Marenbon and Orlandi.” 126. Collationes 25 (Marenbon and Orlandi. Ernst. 19. Marenbon. Collationes (Marenbon and Orlandi. 156. Collationes 219 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 75. cf. 9. 177). quoting Amores 3. introduction to Collationes. 24.7. “Ein unbeachtes ‘Carmen figuratum’ des Petrus Abae- lardus. and Redemption 1. Collationes 78 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 16. 2. Collationes 16 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 145). HC (Monfrin.

Ep. Collationes 195 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 172). 47. 244. Collationes 107 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 2:5. cf. “Na- ture. 37.5 (PL 176:590C–593C). 150). alluding to 2 Tim. 98). Collationes 203–4 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 162). 208–9). 222). 277–78). Heloise. Collationes 227 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 24. 44. 144–46). 142. Collationes 149 (Marenbon and Orlandi. Collationes 111 (Marenbon and Orlandi. cf. 28. Abelard quotes from Seneca to Lucilius. 92 (p. 218). 40. “Literary Aesthetics in the Latin Middle Ages: The Rhetorical Theology of Peter Abelard. in his Rule. VIII (McLaughlin.7a. letter 5. 112). 39. CCCM 11:124). Ep. Collationes 115–17 (Marenbon and Orlandi.16. with Marenbon’s comment on p. De sacramentis 2. 196).280 notes to pages 181–87 403–41). as transmitted by Boethius. see Peter von Moos. VI (Hicks. and Comm. V (Hicks.1–2. 141. 41. 42. [PL 64:241A–242D]).13 and 117.” Traditio 45 (1989–1990):87–110. see also Collationes 102. with identification of sources at n. Collationes 184. 7–8. Letters to Lucilius 40. Ethics. with valuable com- ment by Marenbon.10 (SBO 1:185). De civitate Dei 21. Letters 82. 11–19. 204–6). 138. 46. 31. 27. 192. 30. See the fundamental study of Cary J. see good comments by Marenbon. see also Collationes 59 (p.1. Augustine. 32. cf. Collationes 98–104 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 26. 148.1. with a response from Abelard. 126). 43. 158). Bernard. 136) 33. 3.9. 130–32). On the rhetorical basis of Abelard’s theology. lxxvi–lxxix. 38. 74). Hugh of St. 35. 86). Abelard reports (in SN 144. 188 (Marenbon and Orlandi.4. 140.5. 69). 74): “culpam peruerse uoluntatis”.4. IV (Hicks. Collationes 141 (Marenbon and Orlandi. Collationes 128 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 5. 98. Collationes 122 (Marenbon and Orlandi.13–14. Sermones in Cantica 66. 118). Heloise. Seneca. 116–24) discuss texts of Cic- ero. Collationes 209 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 2 (Rom. As Marenbon observes. lxix–lxx. Ep. Collationes 99 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 16 (CCSL 48:778–82). 34. 29. Rom. 128). Collationes 59 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 46. Nederman.” . quoted in SN 140. 4:7. 36. Collationes 163 (Marenbon and Orlandi. and Paul quoted in SN 137. 222 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 140–42). Ep. Collationes 134 (Marenbon and Orlandi. 5.-Victor. 122.3) Boethius saying that Aristotle differed from Socrates (Boethius. habitus is a more enduring condition than dispositio in Aristotelian vocabulary. 200 n. 45. 201). 62). 25. Buytaert’s text wrongly supplies mouere (to move) rather than monere (to warn). 128–30). quoting and paraphrasing Augustine. IV (Hicks. Collationes 152 (Marenbon and Orlandi. and the Doctrine of ‘Habitus’: Aristotelian Moral Psychology in the Twelfth Century. II.3. quoting from Seneca.1. Collationes 112 (Marenbon and Orlandi. She alludes to Seneca’s understanding of indifferentia in Ep. In Cat.

Rom. Rom. Rom. Comm. Constant J. Comm. Rom. 48. and on Heloise. Rom. 83. 56. Comm. 3 (CCCM 11:118. Hex. 66. Comm. 4 (CCCM 11:290–93). 79. 129–32. 1 (CCCM 11:78). Comm. 2 (CCCM 11:114). 71. Comm. Comm. Hex. 68. Mews. 4 (CCCM 11:239). Comm. 2 (CCCM 11:119). Nikolaus M. 166–67). Rom.13 (CCSL 50:183–84). Comm. De Trinitate 4. Rom. Rom. 2 (CCCM 11:161–63). Rom. in Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres. 75. Rom. Rom. Rom. Hex. Rom. 80. 2 (CCCM 11:126). Exp. (PL 178:735D–736A).129 (CCCM 12:128). Rom. 746C). ed. 81–98. Exp.: University of Notre Dame Press. De sex dierum operibus. Landgraf (Notre Dame. Comm. Cary J. (PL 178:742D. Comm. Comm. Ind. (PL 178:734BC). 2 (CCCM 11:117). Exp. Rom. Hex. 62. 64. (PL 178:731A–732C). Rom. Rom. 51. 2:351. 1971). 49. 2. Buytaert prints a long final section missing from the printed text in PL 178. Rom. 77. Comm. 1937). 72. Compare Commentarius Cantabrigiensis. Exp. 57. Comm. Rom. Comm. Comm. 73. 2:454. 179). A. TChr 1. Comm. Rom. 61. Ward. 58. 555–75. 82. 50. ed. Rom. Hex. cf. Exp. Comm. Rom. 4 (CCCM 11:310). (Buytaert. and Rodney M. 78. 52. 2 (CCCM 11:122. repeated in TSch 1. 4 (CCCM 11:239). Ha¨ring (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Thomson (Turn- hout: Brepols. 81. Comm. 167–75). 54. notes to pages 187–98 281 in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Comm. 2 (CCCM 11:113–18). Comm. 2 (CCCM 11:171–73). Nederman. 55. 60. 1 (CCCM 11:42). 63. Hex. Comm. Thierry of Chartres. 2 (CCCM 11:179). 763D). . 159. 3 (CCCM 11:202–3). 59. Rom. Rom.192 (CCCM 13:401). 1 (CCCM 11:75–76). 53. (PL 178:761C. 1 (CCCM 11:81). Augustine. 2003). 2 (CCCM 11:174). Comm. 2 (CCCM 11:163–64. Exp. 3 (CCCM 11:206–7). 2 (CCCM 11:173). 215). Comm. M. 3 (CCCM 11:227). 76. 2 (CCCM 11:136–43). 69. 74. Comm. 67. Hex. Rom. Rom. 70. (PL 178:754AB). ed. 4 (CCCM 11:235). Comm. 4 (CCCM 11:307). Exp. Comm. 65. Rom.

Piazzoni. Hex. Hugh. Hex. (PL 178:782B–783A). reprinted in Dronke. 3rd ser. tsch 1 (CCCM 12:401). 88. Prol. . forthcoming in The Repen- tant Abelard (Palgrave Macmillan). 1951). ll. 3. Mews. Abelard’s successor at St. Problemata 8 (PL 178:689D). Abelard’s heavily annotated copy of the Theologia Christiana is preserved through two independent copies (Monte Cassino. 107). 176). Insegnamenti al Figlio (Rome: Armando Armando. in Bouquet. Hex. 97. Hex. 379–84 (Rubingh-Bosscher.” RTAM 63 (1986): 130–84. Literacy. Intellectuals and Poets in Medieval Europe (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Exp. Sententie de divinitate. The most widely diffused are the Sententiae Petri Abaelardi (in Sent. Carmen. based on a revised edition of the text. 147). trans. “The Sententie of Peter Abelard. 4. cf. Problemata 3 (PL 178:679B). P. 23 (1982): 912–55: “quia tria necessaria sunt ad salutem.” 4. “Orality. Abelardo. Exp. SN 53: “that the sin of Adam is great. 89. Exp. Exp.A. The Carmen has been trans- lated into Italian and given full commentary by Graziella Ballanti as P. De sacramentis.. Carmen. Bibl.-Victor. 94. I am indebted to John O. 175). TSch 1. Faith. 10. and Tours.” Exemplaria 2 (1990): 475–500 (both reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy). Hex.: Me- dieval Academy of America. Exp. 1984). Recueil 12:564A). 127). Exp. Roy Deferrari (Cambridge. Exp. 741–42 (Rubingh-Bosscher. “Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Testimonies” (originally published in 1976). 91. 85). 93.-Victor. in Hex. see Constant J.282 notes to pages 198–206 84. (Buytaert. (Buytaert. and the contrary. p. 7. Problemata 42 (PL 178:723A). 2. 1992). 11–16 (Rubingh-Bosscher. Hugh of St. Carmen. A. 2 (PL 178:679A. Studi Medievali. 85. and Charity 1. and Mews. 87. ll. opera. 177–78). trans. Hugh of St. Deferrari. 96. Hex. scil- icet fides. ed. Bibl. (Buytaert. 257–58. and Authority in the Twelfth-Century Schools. (PL 178:764BC) and SN 130. (Buytaert. Sacraments. (PL 176:173–618) On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith (De sacramentis). 679C). Della Badia 174. (Buytaert. Exp. 173).-Gildas was appointed in 1142 (Chronicon Ruyensis Coenobii. Mass. This passage is also trans- lated and commented on by Peter Dronke. cf. ll.” 90. Ward and Juanita Feros Ruys for permission to quote here from their translation of the Carmen.1 (CCCM 13:312). 92. 5. (PL 178:768B). De sacramentis. 6. M. 86.. 181). 2 (PL 176:183C). 95. sacramenta. Problemata 1. For discussion of these and other sentences collections. pref. On the Sacraments. Hex.). Mun. see my comments in CCCM 13:210–21.

TSch 2. P. H. (PL 178:761AB).50 (CCCM 13:433). 13.157–65 (CCCM 13:367. 24. Sent.68–80 (CCCM 13:441–47). TSch 3.35a–35f (CCCM 12: 362–63.7. Hugh. TChr 5.32–37 (CCCM 13:423–25). 31.22 (PL 176:214A–216D). . Antikeimenon 2 (PL 188:1174BD. Ostlender. 25. n. TSch 3.89–91 (CCCM 13:451–52).64–67 (CCCM 13:343–45).2 (PL 176:330D). 16. 539). see my comments in CCCM 13:267–68. 71–75. TSch 3. 26. 366). vol. 28. “La sen- tence De caritate et la discussion scolastique sur l’amour.110 (CCCM 13:361). see Walter of Mortagne.70–71 (CCCM 13:529–30). Anselm of Havelberg. tsch 51 (CCCM 12:420–21). 15. De sacramentis 1. 21. 23.112–16 (CCCM 13:463–64). Hugh. 27.63–67 (CCCM 13:439–41). De sacramentis 1. 14. 11. TSch 2. “Sententie of Peter Abelard. expanded in the version CT of TChr 5.2. It had previously been edited as sententie attributed to Anselm of Laon by Odon Lottin.65–67 (CCCM 13:528).8 (PL 176:125AB). transferred into TSch 3:30–36 (CCCM 13:512–15). Sententie de divinitate (Piazzoni. on marriage. 1202D–1207D). Hex. 20.10. TSch 2. TSch 2. Summa sententiarum 4.9 (CCCM 13:333–34). 17. 13.20 (CCCM 13:549). 61–66. Hugh. TSch 3. TSch 1. Exp.44 (CCCM 13:335–36). ed.47 (CCCM 13:520). 95 (CCCM 13:535–36.A.123a–127a (CCCM 13:469–71). 35. 29. 34–40. Psychologie et morale aux XIIe et XIII sie`cles. 334–56. notes to pages 206–17 283 8. TSch 1. A fifteenth-century copy of TSch from Magdeburg may derive from a manuscript used by Anselm of Havelberg. 9. 33. See Mews. Sent.8) could have been added to the original treatise by Walter of Mortagne. TSch 3. nos.” 130–84 (reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy).85. 29).49–53 (CCCM 13:520–23). Florilegium Patristicum 19 (Bonn. 927). 36. 22. 30. 24 (Buzzetti. see chap. This final chapter (4. De sacramentis 1. TSch 1. TSch 1. 1927). TSch 1. 102 (CCCM 13:357. On Otto of Lucca as author of the Summa sententiarum. 34. 18. pp. tsch 57–58 (CCCM 12:422–44). Parisienses (Landgraf. 59 (1983):26–45. 10. 19. 5 (Gembloux: Duculot. See Wielockx. Robert Wielockx argues that this De caritate is by Walter of Mortagne because he employs very similar discussions in his letters and that they are closely linked to ideas espoused by Peter Abelard in the 1130s. 12. Epistola ad Abae- lardum. 11. 109). TSch 3. 483–88). 358). who also composed the final section of the treatise. 37.122 and excerpts from 2. TSch 2. TSch 2. TSch 2. 1959).41. quoting TSch 1.99. 32.10 (PL 176:290D).” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 58 (1982): 50–86. Hugh.

1987). CCCM 190:67). Rom. Hugh. Scito teipsum (Luscombe.13. SN 53. 84. Scito teipsum (Luscombe. 111). cf. Hugh. Rom. CCCM 190:59). Sermones in Cantica 65. Mary Stroll. Scito teipsum (Luscombe. CCCM 190:42–43). See p. Accusations of Heresy 1. Chronica 7. 56. Scito teipsum (Luscombe.A.A. 32 (Buzzetti. Scito teipsum (Luscombe. 41. 26 (Buzzetti. 80. Comm.5. 80.12 (PL 176:546BC).9 (PL 176:405CD). De sacramentis 2.5 (590C–593C). CCCM 190:13). CCCM 190:74–78). 57. see Otto of Freising. 54. Bernard. 11. Sent. Sent.6. P. Scito teipsum (Luscombe. 4 (CCCM 11:239). as corrected in the manuscript followed by Luscombe. 63. CCCM 190:5). Rom. 60. see also long excerpts from Augustine in 2. CCCM 190:55). 115). P. Ibid. 1907). ed. Scito teipsum (Luscombe. Scito teipsum (Luscombe.2 (PL 176: 425AB). 52. 38. Suger writes of his involvement in these events in his Life of Louis VI. 112–16.1 (PL 176:525B). 124–26. 4 (CCCM 11:307) as in the original text of Scito teipsum (CCCM 190:37). P. 121). Abelard cites Luke 23:24 in a pre-Vulgate form (ignosce his) rather than the Vulgate dimitte illis. 56. 150–53). Hugh. De sacramentis 2. 2. Scito teipsum (Luscombe. CCCM 190:8). Vita Ludovici 32–34. 88. Scito teipsum (Luscombe. 170). 59. P. 50. Sent. CCCM 190:29). 6–8.284 notes to pages 217–26 38. Sent. Scito teipsum (Luscombe. 20. written around 1143–1144. 44. Comm. Sent. CCCM 190:83–84). 358–60. 56. 1984). 2 (CCCM 11:160. CCCM 190:53). MGH Scripta rerum germanicarum in usu scho- larum (Hannover: Hahnische Buchhandlung. 55. 61. 110. 179 for earlier comments by Abelard. In Comm.A. 40. cf. The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130 (Leiden: Brill. CCCM 190:53). P. Hugh. 62. Scito teipsum (Luscombe.11. De sacramentis 2.14. brother of Anacletus II.16. 53. 25 (Buzzetti.31. Sicto teipsum (Luscombe. 48. 58. CCCM 190:69). De sacramentis 2. 29 (Buzzetti.6 (PL 176:561B).3 (PL 176:555C–556C). 2. 49. De sacramentis 2. 143). CCCM 190:36–37). On Jordan. 51.10 (SBO 1:185). A. 64. 45. 65.13. 66. ed. 28 (Buzzetti. 100–102. CCCM 190:73).11 (PL 176:539B). CCCM 190:25). P. 43. 104. 33–34 (Buzzetti. Henri Waquet (Paris: Belles Lettres. Sent.14. 46. 64. Scito teipsum (Luscombe.A. Hofmeister. Hugh. 47.A. . Scito teipsum (Luscombe. Hugh. 42. 125). cf. 39. De sacramentis 2. Scito teipsum (Luscombe.13. 44.A. 12–14.

14. Clar- embald of Arras reports that he studied under both Thierry and Hugh of St.” Studi Medievali. 15. Otto. see K. The debate over the authorship of the Summa sententiarum. “Some New Evidence on Twelfth-Century Logic: Alberic and the School of Mont Ste Genevie`ve (Montani). R. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta. 8.” Vivarium 4 (1966): 1–57. he lectured to hundreds in Paris. The Commentaries on Boethius by Gilbert of Poitiers. “The Cistercian Everard of Ypres and His Appraisal of the Conflict between St. M. Victor (d. See Ha¨ring. 1966). 203.77 (CCCM 12:256–58. Summa sententiarum 1. J. George and John R. See Ha¨ring. and ed. a position he had resigned by 1137. xi–xiv). N. John. Fortin [Notre Dame. Ind. “The Chronology of John of Salisbury’s Studies in France: A Reading of Metalogicon 2. where he was a canon. 5. . 61. See Thierry of Chartres. Luscombe rightly points out that some scholars in the past have exaggerated the debt of the Summa sententiarum to Abelard. The standard assumption is that John is referring to a temporary departure of Abelard from Paris in 1137–1139 (perhaps to spend time at the Paraclete). ed. (Bologna: Istituto per le scienze religiose. 13. 1971).166–69 and 4. 9. 6. Gilbert of Poitiers. Keats-Rohan. letter 78 (SBO 7:201–10). 1996). S. N. Gilbert. Lambert Marie de Rijk. 7. long contested. 273–74. Ha¨ring (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Richard of Poitiers. 10. ed. 11. ed. trans. 28 (1987): 193–203. Nikolaus Ha¨ring cites evidence that Gilbert studied at Chartres and Laon before 1117 but then came back to Chartres. rather than his permanent departure in 1141. On Gil- bert’s commentary on the Psalms. Bernard.: University of Notre Dame Press. ed. The School of Peter Abelard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. David E. Metalogicon 2.10. 198–213. 1974). David B. See Luscombe. The Psalms Commentary of Gilbert of Poitiers: From Lectio Divina to the Lecture Room (Leiden: Brill. 1969).” in Essays in Honour of Anton Charles Pegis. “Paris and Chartres Revisited. Gesta Friderici 1. see Theresa Gross-Diaz.. There has been much debate about where Thierry and Gilbert taught. 4. Conclusione di un dibattito scolare. succeeding Bernard of Chartres as its chancellor in 1126. 1141).” Salesianum 42 (1980): 537–46. Ha¨ring (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 1973). 69 and 74). 3rd ser. B. notes to pages 226–31 285 3. Bernard and Gilbert of Poitiers. M. Chronicon (MGH Scriptores 26:81). Everard of Ypres recalls that whereas Gilbert of Poitiers had only a handful of students in Chartres. 2002]. implying that they were both active in Paris (The Boethian Commentaries of Clarembald of Arras. passages directed against Ulger of Angers. 301) and TSch 2. It is not certain whether Abelard included Gilbert in the criticisms he makes of teaching that properties are things separate from God in TChr 3.66 (CCCM 13:440).10 (CCCM 93:70–71). Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and His School.” MS 17 (1955): 143–72.3 (PL 176:47A). Commentaries on Boethius. is settled by Ferruccio Gastaldelli. 12. O’Donnell (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. “La ‘Summa sententiarum’ di Ottone di Lucca.49 and 52 (Waitz and von Simson. Alberigo et al. J.

printed as no. ed. and his discussion of letter 551. John of Salisbury. in “The Satirical Works of Berengar of Poi- tiers. “The Council of . Literacy. Apologia. 2nd ed. 3:523–24).1 (Louvain: Spici- legium sacrum lovaniense. 25. 262–79.”MS 13 (1965): 265. see Hugh’s treatise De sapientia animae Christi. Opere di San Bernardo 6.9–16 (PL 186:709A–718B). Walter. Martin. in “Le tre ultime lettere dell’epistolario di San Bernardo. “Les lettres de Guillaume de Saint- Thierry a` Saint Bernard. Robert of Melun. 27. vol.286 notes to pages 231–35 16. 1986). M. see E.14 (PL 176:69C). Thomson. 1948). letters 205 and 362 (SBO 8:64. 24. Luscombe. Recueil d’e´tudes sur Saint Bernard et ses e´crits. Pullen’s Sententia- rum libri octo (PL 186:639–1010) are studied by F. 3. letter 410 (SBO 8:391). Ha¨ring.-Thierry. 3:522. 133). On Robert’s prologue and the contrast with Lombard. 33. 1724). (Oxford: Clarendon Press. letter 1 (d’Achery. 29. Chron. School of Peter Abelard. 28.. letter 2 ad universos fideles (d’Achery. N. Lettere. 34. Mews. 19. Walter. See my comments in CCCM 13:264–67. 31. 63). 77–78). Ibid. 111. 120–25. addressed to Walter (PL 176:845D–856D). and Authority in the Twelfth-Century Schools. 32. see the notes of Ferruccio Gastaldelli to his translation of Bernard’s letters. 30. 4 [Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Letters 2 and 5 (d’Achery. Pullen.” in Studi su San Bernardo e Goffredi di Auxerre (Florence: Galluzzo. 21. An Edition with an Introduction. 349—70). 1989). MS 42 (1980): 89–138. R. His Disputatio is found in PL 180:249–82. “The Eulogium ad Alexandrum Papam Tertiam of John of Cornwall. (Milan: Scriptorium Claravallense. Mews. 20. 45. 23. Durand. CCCM 86 (Turnhout: Brepols.28 (Waitz and von Simson. esp. 326 among the letters of Bernard (PL 182:531B). 309–10). Walter challenges Alberic on Christ’s fear of death in letter 4 (d’Achery. 1722]. ed.2. 283. Ve- terum Scriptorum et Monumentorum (Paris. Walter. On this letter and Bernard’s esteem for Otto of Lucca. 1954). Gesta Friderici 1. 1987]. and trans. Ibid. Berengar of Poitiers. 3:520–22). see Constant J. See William of St. On Walter’s debate with Hugh about the wisdom of Christ. 1. Cardinal Robert Pullen: An English Theologian of the Twelfth Century (Rome: Gregorian University. Sententie. 18. Rodney M. 17. Otto. 1984).10–16 (PL 176:105A–114C). 26. ed. For a summary of William’s involvement in the reform movement. Historia pontificalis 31. 524–26). Courtenay. Maur. 1:834–39. Marte`ne and U. Sententiarum libri octo 1.” Revue be´ne´dictine 79 (1969): 375–91 (reprinted in Le- clercq. For Walter’s exchange with Alberic. Spici- legium [Paris. Bernard. For further detail on these events. see Paul Verdeyen’s introduction to his edition of the works of William of St. 22. 554–57.” ed. See Bernard. see Constant J.-Thierry’s letter. Marjorie Chibnall.” Exem- plaria 2 (1990): 475–500 (reprinted in Reason and Belief). 3:520). Oeuvres III.4 (Mirot. “Orality. in Jean Leclercq. 3. 2001). xvi–xxi.

74). 37. E.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et the´ologiques 47 (1963): 205–20. 94–102 (reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy). 45. Siquidem pretium redemp- tionis evacuans. reports this sermon of Geoffrey at length in his Chronicon (PL 212:1035A–C). Confessio fidei ‘Universis’: A Critical Edition of Abelard’s Reply to Accusations of Heresy. “Die vierzehn Capitula Heresum Petri Abaelardi.. 35. Gesta Friderici 1. Bernard’s dependence on William of St.-B. Ralph the Grammarian. 186–90. ed. Ha¨ring. letter 188 (SBO 8:14–15). who recalls that he was taught by a student of Abelard. ed. see Mews. MS 503. 46. and the Fear of Social Upheaval. Studi su San Bernardo e Goffredo di Auxerre. letters 42 and 182 (SBO 7:100–31. The Capitula Haeresum XIV was edited in 1969 by Buytaert (CCCM 12: 473–80) and again by Nikolaus Ha¨ring. .S. L. Roland Hissette (Louvain: Mont-Ce´sar. notes to pages 235–40 287 Sens (1141): Abelard. esp.B. 42. 40. Bernard. . 2nd ed.-Thierry in writing the treatise is shown by Jean Leclercq.” Revue be´ne´dictine 95 (1985): 77–108.” RTAM 53 (1986): 159–84. Carra de Vaux Saint-Cyr.” 190). 44. 21 (reprinted in Gastaldelli. 36. “Peter Abelard. ed. Jean Leclercq. Otto. 3rd ser. 39. 4:265–83.’ ” Analecta Cisterciensia 45 (1989): 3–80. . Bernard. “Autour de la correspondance de S. The Disputatio (PL 180:283–328) was convincingly attributed to Thomas by M. . 62). Burnett. Ferruccio Gastaldelli. letter 188 (SBO 8:9–10). nisi virtutis exemplum et incentivum amoris. “Disputatio catholicorum patrum adversus dog- mata Petri Abaelardi. esp. nil aliud nobis in sacrificio dominice passionis commendabat.-M. 13v: “Cet- erum mihi aliquando magistrum fuisse recordor. “The Sententie of Peter Abelard. 188–89). Berengar.4 (Leclercq. 41. Studio storico-critico sui ‘Fragmentum Gaufridi.” MS 48 (1986): 111–38. For an edition of the surviving fragments of the Liber sententiarum. “Thomas von Morigny: Disputatio catholi- corum patrum adversus dogmata Petri Abaelardi. fol. Sententie de divinitate (Piazzoni. Bernard. in Spicilegium. 1723). 112–13.51 (Waitz and von Simson.. “Lists of Heresies. F. Bernard. Letter 326.” Speculum 77 (2002): 342–82. esp. I argue that its author is Thomas of Mo- rigny in “The Lists of Heresies Imputed to Peter Abelard. Buytaert (CCCM 11:359–68). Re- cueil d’e´tudes sur Saint Bernard. letter 190 (SBO 8:39–40). 185–98. see Constant J. D’Achery (Paris. Charles S.” in Sapientiae Doctrina: Me´langes de the´ologie et de litte´rature me´die´vales offerts a` Dom Hildebrand Bascour O. “Autour de la correspondance de S.” Cıˆteaux 31 (1980): 36–52. ad universos fideles. See the similar Confessio fidei by Walter of Mortagne. “Les formes successives de la lettre-traite´ de Saint Bernard contre Abe´lard. 22 (1981): 299–376. Hugh. 3:520–22. 47. Apologia. Apologia adversus Abaelardum. esp. Bernard. quoting from Troyes. 8:2). Bm. and by Nikolaus M.” Helinand of Froidmont. and Bernard. 1980).” Studi Medievali. 43–127.. Bernard. Mews. 43.” Revue be´ne´dictine 78 (1968): 87–105 (reprinted in Leclercq.” 38. letter 2. “Le piu` antiche testimonianze biografiche su San Bernardo.

Peter the Venerable. letter 194. 65. letter 192 (SBO 8:43–44). see Mews. Peter the Venerable. 50.54 (76). Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Tes- timonies. Eduard Schwartz.” 378–79. in The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Historia pontificalis 9.F. “La bibliothe`que du Paraclet du XIIIe sie`cle a` la Re´volution. . Bernard. See Leclercq. Letters of Peter the Ven- erable. For further discussion of the Tournai affair.3 (SBO 8:48). “Les lettres de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry. 49. along with letter 448 (517BC). 61–63 (reprinted in Reason and Belief). Gesta Friderici 1. 55. 61. p. W. letter 115.” in Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman. 56. letter 194 (SBO 8:46–48). John of Salisbury. in Concilium Universale Chalcedonense. see Peter Dronke. 60. 50. in Constable. Bernard. 52. and her forth- coming biography of Heloise. Innocent’s edict is published as letter 447 (PL 179:515C–517A). 1. 1:259). Bernard. 53. 63. Franz J. 19. 20. and the appendix to Mews. P.” Studia Monastica 27 (1985): 31–67. 66. Ker Memorial Lecture 26 (Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press. 1967).” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 16 (1981): 166–73. esp. Worstbrock. Bonnie Wheeler (New York: St. letter 331 (SBO 8:269–70). 2000). 64. Burnett. “ ‘Confessio fidei ad Heloisam’—Abelard’s Last Letter to Heloise? A Discussion and Critical Edition of the Latin and Medieval French Versions. ed. 1–17.” 379..137–40 (CCCM 13:476–77).3 (SBO 8:14).115 (CCCM 13:464–65). letter 278 (SBO 8:190). Giles Constable (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1976). Bernard. 68–74). TSch 2. as ad- dressed to “Pope John. Ibid. Bernard. C. 1936).” See Edictum Marciani ad Synodum Chalcedonensem.135–36 (CCCM 13:475) 59. Otto. 54. “Ein Planctus auf Petrus Abaelard. See the study of Mary McLaughlin. On these epitaphs. “Heloise the Abbess: The Expansion of the Paraclete. No variant copy survives of the Edict of the Emperors Valentinus and Marcianus to the Synod of Chalcedon. letter 98. not included in Bernard’s cor- respondence and printed from an unknown Vatican manuscript by Mabillon in his 1687 edition of Bernard’s letters.48–51 (Waitz and von Simson. 57. 58. TSch 2.” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 21 (1986): 147–55. 1:306–7). 51. TSch 2. “Council of Sens (1141).288 notes to pages 240–49 48. Acta conciliorum oecou- menicorum 2/2 (Berlin. but not reproduced by Migne in PL 182 or by Leclercq in SBO. letter 189. 62. Bernard. Martin’s Press. ed. ed.S. ed.

1966. Franklin. Pages 787–93 in Veterum Scriptorum et Monumentorum .’ ” edited by A. Anselmi Opera Omnia. 1724. 1938–1970. 1. Berengar of Poitiers. Amplissima collectio. ———. 1968. De Sacramentis. M. Paris: Alphonse Picard.: Medieval Academy of America. Piazzoni Studi Medievali. Edited by Edmund Marte`ne and Ursin Durand. 7 vols. Translated by Roy Deferrari. 8 vols. MS 42 (1980): 89–138. Bibliography Primary Sources (see also Abbreviations) Anselm of Canterbury.” Edited by Rodney M. Epistola cujusdam doctoris ad amicum suum. 1951. In “Ugo di San Vittore ‘auctor’ delle ‘Sententiae de divinitate. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Edited by Le´on Mirot. 1959. 3rd ser. Reprint. Bernard of Clairvaux. Edited by Lambert Marie de Rijk. Cambridge. Edited by Jean Leclercq.-Victor. “The Satirical Works of Berengar of Poitiers. Garlandus Compotista [Gerland of Besanc¸on]. On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith (De sacramentis). Sancti Bernardi Opera. M. . Edited by N. New York: B. La Chronique de Morigny (1095–1152). Rome: Editiones Cistercienses. . Dialectica. 1957–1977. Hugh of St. Gilbert of Poitiers. Ha¨ring. (Edinburgh: Nelson. 23 (1982): 861–955. PL 176 (1854): 173–618. 1912. Mass. Sententie de divinitate. vol. The Commentaries on Boethius by Gilbert of Poitiers. 289 . Assen: Van Gorcum.. ———. Edited by Franciscus Salesius Schmitt. Thomson.

Mu¨nster: Aschendorff. 1910. Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and His School. Edited by M. Love Lyrics from the Carmina Burana. 1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 3rd ed. . Turnhout: Brepols. Freiburg: Herder. Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris. 1959. Florilegium Patristicum 19. “Thomas von Morigny: Disputatio catholicorum patrum ad- versus dogmata Petri Abaelardi. ———. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.. Peter the Venerable. Buttimer. Liber contra Wolfelmum. translated by Thilo Offergeld. The Letters of Peter the Venerable. 1993. 2nd ed. Fontes Christiani 27. 1998. CCCM 98. 2002. 1988. Ha¨ring. Edited by Giles Constable. Translated by Robert Ziom- kowski. Paris: Vrin.” Edited by Yukio Iwakuma. Sententie. Walsh. Historia pontificalis. Edited by Nikolaus M. The Latin Rhetorical Commentaries by Thierry of Chartres. 1953. Louvain: Peeters. 1994. Disputatio catholicorum patrum adversus dogmata Petri Abae- lardi. Suger. 22 (1981): 299– 376. Mass. CIMAGL 63 (1993): 45– 114. 2001. Turnhout: Brepols. Hannover: Hahn- sche Buchhandlung. Oxford: Clarendon Press. B. Edited and translated by P. Bonn. Cambridge. Hall. H. William of Champeaux. William of St. Paris: Belles Lettres. Epistola ad Abaelardum. Otto of Freising. Edited by Edouard Jeauneau. The Didascalicon of Hugh of St Victor. ———. Epistola ad Abaelardum. Edited and translated by Marjorie Chibnall. Roscelin of Compie`gne. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Translated by Jerome Taylor. 1971. Metalogicon.: Harvard University Press. Edited by Dominique Poirel. Davy. CCCM 177. ed. 1997. Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 8. 2002. John of Salisbury. “The Introductiones dialecticae secundum Wilgelmum and secundum magis- trum G. PL 180 (1854): 249–82.” Studi Medievali. ———. Oeuvres.-M. 1927. Glossae super Platonem.290 bibliography ———. Pages 63–80 in Der Nominalismus in der Fru¨hscholastik: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Universalienfrage im Mitte- lalter. Dallas Medieval Texts and Translations 1.5. Edited by Georg Waitz and Bernhard von Simson. Fredborg. Reprint. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Ostlender. Paris: Vrin. Edited and translated by Franc¸oise Gasparri. ———. 1996. Edited by Karin M. 1965. Edited by H. New York: Columbia University Press.-Thierry. Gembloux: Duculot. 1978. 1912. Manegold of Lautenbach. Odon Lottin. Nine Medieval Latin Plays. Walter of Mortagne. Thomas of Morigny. 1967. William of Conches. In Psychologie et Morale au XIIe et XIIIe sie`cles. 1986. edited by Joseph Reiners. 3rd ser. Didascalicon de studio legendi. ———. Paganellum. Thierry of Chartres. Edited by J. De tribus diebus. Edited and translated by Peter Dronke. Edited by C. Deux traite´s de l’amour de Dieu.

” Assays: Crit- ical Approaches to Medieval and Renaissance Texts 1 (1981): 35–50.. “Love and Do What You Will”: The Medieval History of an Augustinian Precept. Burnett. Letters and Letter-Collections. and Kevin Guilfoy. “Abelardo e Cicerone. 1999. “New Approaches to the School of Chartres. eds. Paris: Belles Lettres. . 1958. Cardinal Robert Pullen: An English Theologian of the Twelfth Century. Reprinted as pages 15–40 in Dronke. Robert-Henri. Charlotte. Robert L. 2003. E. 1993. Mich.: Medieval In- stitute. D’Anna. Clanchy. Biard. Courtenay. Intellectuals and Poets in Medieval Europe. philosophie au XIIe sie`cle. and David Edward Luscombe. Poetic Individuality in the Middle Ages. F. Oxford: Clarendon Press.” Vivarium 36 (1998): 135–51.” Revue d’histoire des textes 14–15 (1984–1985): 183–302. ———. Oxford: Blackwell. The Cambridge Companion to Abelard. Bautier. Eloquence. 1970. ed.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et the´ologiques 47 (1963): 205–20. and Power in Romanesque France. 1976. Morton W.. 1977. edited by Marc Stewart and David Wulstan. edited by Jean Jolivet. Cherewatuk. 1981. 1995. Bond. “On the Dating of Abelard’s Dialogus: A Reply to Mews. Louvain: Universite´ catholique de Louvain. Jeffrey E. G. Amsler. Rome: Gregorian University. Constable.” Studi Medievali. Blomme. Karen. “Genre and Code in Abelard’s Historia Calamitatum. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. “Disputatio catholicorum patrum adversus dog- mata Petri Abaelardi. F. Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music. Cook.” Pages in 21–77 in Abe´lard en son temps. M.-M. Barrow. Benson. Dear Sister: Medieval Women and the Epistolary Genre. La doctrine du pe´che´ dans les e´coles the´ologiques de la premie`re moitie´ du XIIe sie`cle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brower. 1982.” 1971. Gerald.” Pages 152– 55 in The Poetic and Musical Legacy of Abelard and Heloise. Abelard: A Medieval Life. Michael T. 2004. Giles. The Loving Subject: Desire. 3rd ser. Peter. Charles S. Buytaert. Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century. Joel. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. bibliography 291 Secondary Sources Allen. “Abelard’s Expositio in Hexaemeron. Typologie des sources du moyen aˆge occidental 17. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Reprint.. 1954. and Giles Constable. Julia. Charrier. Langage. Mark. Brenda. “A Checklist of the Manuscripts Containing the Writings of Peter Abelard and Heloise and Other Works Closely Associated with Abelard and His School.-B. eds. sciences. 1998. 10 (1969): 333–419. Julie A. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bloomfield Lectures 4. Carra de Vaux Saint-Cyr. Kalamazoo. He´loı¨se dans l’histoire et dans la le´gende. and Ulrike Wiethaus.” Antonianum 43 (1968): 163– 84. R. Paris: Vrin. eds. 1933. 1999. Dronke. “Paris aux temps d’Abe´lard. Brepols: Turnhout. “The Shadow on the Sun: The Name of Abelard’s Son.

Tullio. “Abelard on Rhetoric. Eligio Dekkers O. ———. 3rd ser. Ferruccio. 2003. He´loı¨se et Abe´lard. Fumagalli Beonio Brocchieri. Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Testimonies. E´tienne. Bruges. Colmar. Paris: Vrin. Cary J. Shook. 1976.292 bibliography ———. Gibson. 152v–153v): Un texte de Pierre Abe´lard contre les Cisterciens retrouve´? (no. Sabina.” Notes and Queries 240 (1995): 269. 20 (1979): 35–54. “Abelard’s Anagram. Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press. Leiden: Brill. East.” Pages 195–228 in Corona gratiarum: Miscellanea patristica.: University of Michigan Press. . Vol. and Rodney M. 1955. C. 2. Eloisa e Abelardo. Florence: G. Thomson. The Psalms Commentary of Gilbert of Poitiers: From Lectio Divina to the Lecture Room. William G. Margaret T. Griffiths. 1984. 2001. Flanagan. ———. “Lexicographic and Syntactic Explorations of Doubt in Twelfth- Century Latin Texts.” Salesianum 42 (1980): 537–46. Reprinted as pages 247–94 in Dronke. Heloise and Abelard. edited by Constant J. Florence: Galluzzo. Gross-Diaz. Translated by L. 1960. 3rd rev. 1984. “The Early Scholastic Glosule to Priscian. Ker Memorial Lecture 26. Intellectuals and Poets in Medieval Europe. K. Niels J. Women Writers of the Middle Ages: A Critical Study of Texts from Perpetua (†203) to Marguerite Porete (†1310). 1992. L. Studi su San Bernardo e Goffredi di Auxerre.” CIMAGL 17 (1976): 1– 39. Intellectuals and Poets in Medieval Europe. Engels. “Le piu` antiche testimonianze biografiche su San Bernardo: Studio storico-critico sui ‘Fragmentum Gaufridi. Gastaldelli. Ann Arbor. H. Anima mundi: La filosofia di Guglielmo di Conches e la scuola di Chartres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1984. Nederman. “ ‘Men’s Duty to Provide for Women’s Needs’: Abelard.S.. Munich: Philosophia. Theresa. Fredborg. Turnhout: Brepols. ———.’ ” Analecta Cisterciensia 45 (1989): 3–80. and Their Negotiation of the Cura Monialium. ed. Reprinted as pages 43–127 in Gastaldelli. 1984. Mariateresa. 1996.” Journal of Medieval History 30 (2004): 1–24. “ ‘Adtendite a falsis prophetis’ (ms. J. P. Milan: Arnoldo Mon- dadori. Fiona. “The Commentaries on Cicero’s De inventione and Rhetorica ad Herennium by William of Champeaux. 1975. Studi su San Bernardo e Gof- fredo di Auxerre. ———. Sansoni. The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages. Gilson. Mews. W. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Let- teratura. ———.” Pages 55–80 in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Instrumenta Patristica 11. Gregory. Heloise. Green-Pedersen. Institutiones Gram- maticae: The Text and Its Influences.B. Ward. Mich. historica et liturgica.” Studi Medievali. “La ‘Summa sententiarum’ di Ottone di Lucca: Conclusione di un dibattito scolare. 35). ———. Karin Margareta.” Journal of Medieval History 27 (2001): 219–40.

Paris: Vrin. Johnson. Stephen. Paris: Vrin. ———. Jean.” Vivarium 21 (1983): 85–107. 28 (1987): 193– 203. ed. Abe´lard en son temps. and Theory. Recueil d’e´tudes sur Saint Bernard et ses e´crits. Jolivet. ———. “Paris and Chartres Revisited. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. 3rd ser. litte´raires et artistiques en occident au milieu du XIIe sie`cle. Penelope D. Arts du langage et the´ologie chez Abe´lard. Jaeger. 1975. Paganellum. Carol Dana.” Pages 268–329 in Essays in Honour of Anton Charles Pegis. Yukio. Jean.” CIMAGL 63 (1993): 45–114. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.” Revue de Metaphysique et Morale 97 (1992): 111– 55. ———. Jolivet. Iwakuma. The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Me- dieval Europe. Paris: Belles Lettres. Klaus. 4:349–70. Keats-Rohan. Jean.” Traditio 47 (1992): 37–111.” Studi Medievali.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. “Pierre Abe´lard et Guillaume de Champeaux dans les premie`res anne´es du XIIe sie`cle: Une e´tude pre´liminaire. bibliography 293 Ha¨ring. eds. Naples: Bibliopolis. Style.” MS 17 (1955): 143– 72. ———. “The Chronology of John of Salisbury’s Studies in France: A Reading of Metalogicon 2. Abe´- lard. ———. Equal in Monastic Profession: Religious Women in Medieval France.. Recueil d’e´tudes sur Saint Bernard et ses e´crits.” Cıˆteaux 31 (1980): 36– 52. eds. R. and Alain de Libera.10. O’Donnell.” Pages 93–123 in Langage. 1974. ———. Jolivet. philosophie au XIIe sie`cle. and Rene´ Louis. or Early Nominalists. ———. “Les formes successives de la lettre-traite´ de Saint Bernard contre Abe´lard. Paris: Vrin. Salutatio Formulas in Latin Letters to 1200: Syntax. Gilbert de la Porre´e. edited by Joel Biard. Paris: CNRS. K. “Vocales. 1994. 2nd ed. Pierre Abe´lard—Pierre le Ve´ne´rable: les courants philosophiques. 4:265–83. ———. Bernard and Gilbert of Poitiers. “Trois variations me´die´vales sur l’universel et l’individu: Roscelin. “Statements about Events: Modal and Tense Analysis in Medieval Logic. Jacobi. 1981. 1999. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Reprinted in Leclercq. B. Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains. sciences. and Henri Habrias. Jean. 1987. Jean. Munich: Arbeo-Gesellschaft. 1969. eds. ed. Lanham. Arts du langage et the´ologie chez Abe´lard. edited by J.” Revue be´- ne´dictine 79 (1969): 375–91. 2003. “The Cistercian Everard of Ypres and His Appraisal of the Conflict between St. 950–1200. “Die vierzehn Capitula Heresum Petri Abaelardi. Leclercq. Nikolaus M. Mu¨nchener Beitra¨ge zur Media¨vistik und Renaissance-Forschung 22. C. “The Introductiones dialecticae secundum Wilgelmum and secundum mag- istrum G. Jolivet. 1975. 1991. Reprinted in Leclercq. Pierre Abe´lard: Colloque international de Nantes. “Les lettres de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry a` Saint Bernard. S. .” Revue be´ne´dictine 78 (1968): 87–105. 1982.

“Un lecteur de Je´roˆme au douzie`me sie`cle. ———.B. 2000. Reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy. Naples: Bibliopolis. 1987. 1997.” AHDLMA 58 (1991): 55–97. “Heloise the Abbess: The Expansion of the Paraclete. He´loı¨se: A Biography. 2nd ed. New York: St. London: Chatto & Windus. Constant J. “Supplement to the Working Catalogue. 2000. McLeod. edited by Bonnie Wheeler. edited by Roland Hissette.. 1969. Enid. Mews. Martin’s Press. Reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy. edited by Yves-Marie Duval.” Studia Monastica 27 (1985): 31–67. “St Anselm and Roscelin: Some New Texts and Their Implications I: The De Incarnatione Verbi and the Disputatio inter Christianum et Genti- lem.” Proceedings of the British Academy 74 (1988): 247–83. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. The Philosophy of Peter Abelard. ———. “La bibliothe`que du Paraclet du XIIIe sie`cle a` la Re´volution. 1971. ———. Platonism. Reprinted in Reason and Belief. “From Paris to the Paraclete: The Correspondence of Abelard and He- loise. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.” Pages 1–17 in Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman. ———. 1988. John. . 4. Reprinted in Reason and Belief. “Autour de la correspondance de S. and the Context of Early Medieval Philosophy in the West.” Ex- emplaria 2 (1990): 475–500. Literacy.” Pages 185–98 in Sapientiae Doctrina: Me´langes de the´ologie et de litte´rature me´die´vales offerts a` Dom Hilde- brand Bascour O. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. David Edward.” RTAM 63 (1986): 130–84. Platonism. Paris: E´tudes Augustinien- nes. Reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy. Vol.294 bibliography ———.” Pages 31–44 in Je´roˆme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy. and Authority in the Twelfth-Century Schools. Reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy. and the Context of Early Medieval Philosophy in the West. before c. Marenbon. “Aspects of the Evolution of Peter Abaelard’s Thought on Signification and Predication. “The Lists of Heresies Imputed to Peter Abelard. ———. The School of Peter Abelard: The Influence of Abelard’s Thought in the Early Scholastic Period.” Pages 15–41 in Gilbert De Poitiers et ses contemporains.” Pages 77–127 in Aristotelian Logic. ———. 1987. ———. London: Variorum.” AHDLMA 52 (1985): 73–134. (2000) “Medieval Latin Comentaries and Glosses on Aristotelian Logical Texts. ———. 1150 ad.” Pages 128–40 in Aristotelian Logic. “On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard. Reprinted in Abelard and His Legacy. “In Search of a Name and Its Significance: A Twelfth-Century Anecdote about Thierry and Peter Abaelard. “The Sententie of Peter Abelard. ———. Recueil d’e´tudes sur Saint Bernard et ses e´crits.” Traditio 44 (1988): 175–200. London: Variorum. 2000.” Revue be´ne´dictine 95 (1985: 77–108. McLaughlin. “Orality.S. Mary. ———. Luscombe. ———. ———. Bernard. Louvain: Mont-Ce´sar 1980. ed- ited by Jean Jolivet and Alain de Libera.

Reprinted in Reason and Belief. New York: St. Nederman. ———.” Pages 100–112 in Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard. 1994. Thomson. bibliography 295 ———.” Pages 25–52 in Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration before the Enlightenment. Ward. and the Evo- lution of Cistercian Reform. eds. Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music.” Viator 32 (2001): 59–91. ———. ———.” Pages 19–33 in The Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard: An Anthology of Essays by Various Authors. Martin’s Press. Nederman. Turnhout: Brepols. 1998.” Pages 37–53 in Mews. and Peter Abelard: The Letters of an Augustinian Canon and the Challenge of Innovation in Twelfth-Century Lorraine. London: Variorum. “Hugh Metel.” Vivarium 30 (1992): 4–33. and Canterbury: Proceedings in Commemoration of the Nine- Hundredth Anniversary of Anselm’s Enthronement as Archbishop. “Peter Abelard on Dialectic. “Liturgy and Identity at the Paraclete: Heloise. edited by John Christian Laursen and Cary J. Reprinted in Reason and Belief. Peter Abelard. 1996. edited by David E. . 1080–1120. ———. “St Anselm. ———. 1995. Bec. edited by Marc Stewart and David Wulstan. Evans. ———. “St Anselm and Roscelin of Compie`gne: Some New Texts and Their Implications II: A Vocalist Essay on the Trinity and Intellectual Debate c. ———. and the Principles of Argument. Luscombe and Gillian R. and Rodney M. Abelard. Constant J. Mittelalterforschung und Ideologiekritik: Der Gelehrtenstreit um He´- loı¨se. “Nominalism and Theology before Abaelard: New Light on Roscelin of Compie`gne. 2003. Mews. Reprinted in Reason and Belief. the Paraclete Liturgy. Rhetoric. ed. “Heloise and Liturgical Experience at the Paraclete. 1974.5.” Pages 159–203 in Le XIIe sie`cle: Mutations et renouveau en France dans la premie`re moitie´ du XIIe sie`cle.” Pages 106–19 in Anselm: Aosta. eds. Peter von. ———. edited by Franc¸oise Gasparri (Paris: Le Le´opard d’Or. ———. Reprinted in Reason and Belief. Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West. Heloise. ———. “Philosophy and Theology 1100–1150: The Search for Harmony. Philadelphia: University of Penn- sylvania Press. and Mary Magdalen. Moos. 1999.. Cary J. Stewart and Wulstan. “The Council of Sens (1141): Abelard.” AHDLMA 65 (1998): 39–90. Nederman. ———. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.” Plainsong and Me- dieval Music 11 (2002): 25–35.” Speculum 77 (2002): 342–82. Thomson. Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Bernard. Authors of the Middle Ages 2. and the See of Beauvais. and the Fear of Social Upheaval. ———. 25 September 1093. “Heloise. “Peter Abelard and the Enigma of Dialogue. Sheffield: Uni- versity of Sheffield Press.” Pages 150–61 in Gefa¨lscht: Betrug in Politik. 2003. “Heloise und Abaelard. Roscelin.. The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard: Perceptions of Dialogue in Twelfth-Century France. ———.

Phil- adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Wissenschaftliche Kunst und Musik. Heloisas Herkunft: Hersindis mater. Mu¨nster: LIT Verlag. edited by Constant J. philosophie au XIIe sie`cle. Reprinted in From Virile Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in Medieval Religion and Literature. Cary J. le principe de compositionalite´ et l’analyse de la pre´dication accidentelle chez Abe´lard. ———. No¨rdlin- gen: Greno. “Abaelard. edited by Gert Melville and Th. Mews. Nederman. edited by Bonnie Wheeler New York: St. and Rodney M. “La notion de translatio. Ruhe. Ire`ne. “Prata rident. Turnhout: Brepols. Gal- onnier. “Some New Evidence on Twelfth-Century Logic: Alberic and the School of Mont Ste Genevie`ve (Montani). Ernstpeter. 2001. “Les commentaires des Glosulae et des Glosae de Guillaume de Conches sur le chapitre De Voce des Institutiones Grammaticae de Priscien. Juanita Feros. 44 (2003): 1–115. Rijk. Authenticity. 2003. “Die Epistolae duorum amantium und die sa¨kulare Religion der Liebe: Methodenkritische Voru¨berlegungen zu einem einmaligen Werk mittellatein- ischer Briefliteratur. de Libera. Rosier-Catach. “Literary Aesthetics in the Latin Middle Ages: The Rhetorical Theology of Peter Abelard.” Traditio 45 (1989–1990): 87–110. Poirel.296 bibliography Literatur. Heloise.” Vivarium 4 (1966): 1– 57.” Parergon n.” Pages 125–64 in Langage. ———. Turnhout: Brepols. Werner. 2002. Rosier. Barbara. 2001. Schu¨rer. A. BGPTMA Neue Folge 28. “Nature. 11 (1993): 53–78. Mu¨nster: Aschendorff. Mu- nich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. 2001. 2002. Ire`ne. Nederman. 3rd ser. edited by Karl Corino. and the Doctrine of ‘Habitus’: Aristotelian Moral Psychology in the Twelfth Century. Beitra¨ge zur romanischen Philologie des Mittelalters 10. Ward. Livre de la nature et de´bat trinitaire au XIIe siecle.” Pages 81–98 in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Martin’s Press. Lambert Marie de. “Role-playing in the Letters of Heloise and Abelard.” Pages 155–76 in Langages et philosophie: Hom- mage a` Jean Jolivet. “Authority.” Studi Medievali. Ruys. 1988. Robl. edited by Joel Biard. De amasio ad amasiam: Zur Gattungsgeschichte des mittelalterlichen Liebesbriefes. Cary J. and the Repression of Heloise. sciences.. and A. . ———. und ihr Paraklet: ein Kloster nach Mass. Perkams. Elamrani-Jamal. “Quae maternae immemor naturae: The Rhetorical Struggle over the Meaning of Motherhood in the Writings of Heloise and Abelard. Munich: Olzog. Dominique. Ethics. Newman. Zugleich eine Streitschrift gegen die ewige Wiederkehr hermeneutische Naivita¨t.” Pages 323– 39 in Listening to Heloise. ———.” Jour- nal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 22 (1992): 121–57. Matthias. 1997. ———. 1995. 1975. edited by A.” CIMAGL 63 (1993): 115–44. Liebe als Zentralbegriff der Ethik nach Peter Abaelard.s. Vita regularis 16.” Pages 563–619 in Das Eigene und das Ganze: Zum Individuellen im mittelalter- lichen Religiosentum. Paris: Vrin. Paris: Vrin. 1999. Thomson.

Martin’s Press. edited by Constant J. Ralf.” Pages 61–85 in Medieval Humanism and Other Essays. “The Letters of Abelard and Heloise. Ward. “Zur Semantik der Modalbegriffe bei Peter Abelard. L’amour castre´: L’histoire d’He´loı¨se et Abe´lard. und Wirkung. edited by E. edited by Marc Stewart and David Wulstan. Ward.” In Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100– 1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Cary J.” Medioevo 7 (1981): 1–40. “From intellectus verus/falsus to the dictum propositionis: The Semantics of Peter Abelard and His Circle. ———. ———. 2003. Chrysogonus. Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman. Waddell. Kalamazoo. Oxford: Blackwell. “The School of Chartres.” Traditio 41 (1985): 239–72. The Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard: An Anthology of Essays by Various Authors. Verger. ed. Annelies. Weidemann. Peter King. bibliography 297 ———. New York: St. Turnhout: Brepols.” Pages 95–104 in Medieval Humanism and Other Studies.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 58 (1982): 50–86. 59 (1983): 26–45. Paris: Hermann. Southern. and David Wulstan. Marc. Jacques.: Cistercian Publications. Wouters. “Hearing Mediaeval Voices: Heloise and Carmina Burana 126.. ed. “Saint Bernard and the Cistercian Office at the Abbey of the Paraclete.” Pages 53–119 in Listening to Heloise. Bonnie. “Eloquencie vultum depingere: Eloquence and Dictamen in the Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard. “Ein Planctus auf Petrus Abaelard. Thomas G. Rozanne Elder and John R Sommerfeldt. “Planctus magis quam cantici: The Generic Significance of Abelard’s planc- tus. “ ‘Abner fidelissime’: Abelard’s Version of a Biblical Lament. New York: St. John O. Mews. Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music. 2003. Rudolf. Strub. 1980. Franz J. Martin’s Press. 1970. eds. Christian.” Vivarium 34 (1996): 15–40. 2000. Stewart. Stammberger. Oxford: Blackwell. “La sentence De caritate et la discussion scolastique sur l’amour. and Rodney M. 1980. ———. Bonnie Wheeler. Trier: Paulinus Verlag.” Pages 76–121 in The Chimaera of His Age: Studies on Bernard of Clairvaux.” Pages 91– 99 in The Poetic and Musical Legacy of Abelard and Heloise: An Anthology of Essays by Various Authors. 1996. “The Young Heloise and Latin Rhetoric: Some Preliminary Comments on the ‘Lost’ Love Letters and Their Signifi- cance. H. Mich. “ ‘De longe ueritas uidetur diuersa iudicia parit’: Hugh of Saint Victor and Peter Abelard. Werk. Thomas.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 58 (2002): 65–92.” Plainsong and Medieval Music 11 (2002): 37–44. Wheeler. Wielockx. ed. 2001. Thomson. and Neville Chiavaroli. “Abbot Suger and the Nuns of Argenteuil. Nederman. Petrus Abaelardus (1079–1142): Person. Worstbrock. Richard William. Ot- tawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music. 334–56. Cistercian Studies Series 63. Waldman. R. 2003.” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 16 (1981): 166–73.” . and Klaus Jacobi. 1970.

“Secular Lyrics from Paris and the Paraclete.’ ” Pages 113–39 in Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard. ———..” Pages 1–18 in The Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard: An Anthology of Essays by Various Authors. Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard. edited by Marc Stewart and David Wulstan. “Philosophi” e “Logici”: Un ventennio di incontri e scontri: Soissons.” Pages 34–48 in Stewart and Wulstan. ———.” Pages 67–90 in Stewart and Wulstan. Zerbi. . 2003. Poetic and Musical Legacy of Heloise and Abelard. 2003. edited by Marc Stewart and David Wulstan. Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music. eds. Rome: Vita e Pensiero. David. Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music. Wulstan.. “Abelard’s Paraclete Hymnal and Its Rhythms. ———. “Heloise at Argenteuil and the Paraclete. 2002. “Sources and Influences: Lyric and Drama in the ‘School of Abelard.298 bibliography Pages 60–67 in The Poetic and Musical Legacy of Abelard and Heloise. Pietro. eds. Cluny (1121–1141). Sens.

St. 211 Anjou. 131. 201. 89. 152– 24. St. See Peter Abelard Anacletus II. 227. Abbot. 11. 229. 18. adultery. 217. 103. 55. 245. 124–26 13. 28. 182. 85. 129. ambiguity. 208–9 Anselm of Laon. 23–24. 228. 253n Anselm. 254n. 89. 114. 70 Aquinas. 111. 109. 192. 89–96. 164. 24. 161. 37–40. 143 Adam (Genesis). Alberic of Paris. 12. 15. 213. 23. criticizes 143. Categories. works of: Analytica priora. 147 accidents. 236. 26 299 . 86 23. 13–14 44. 64. 232–33. Index Abelard. 34–35. 283n 197–98. Franc¸ois d’. See Thomas Aquinas Alan of Lille. 125. 116. 61–62 228. 96. 27. 231 Adams. 189.. Henry. 33–35. 119–21. 55. 228. 127. 116–17. 82. 136–37. 189–91. 264n Topica. 79. Physica. 65. 229 Plato. 68–71. Ethica. 52. Aristotle. 25. 21–22. 189. De sophisticis elenchis. 108–9. Adelard of Bath. 33. 58. 88. 77–79. 143. 86 Argenteuil. Abbey of. Antipope. Analytica Posteriora. 153 Metaphysica. 60. 93. 238 Aelred of Rievaulx. 118–19. 118. 72 Angers. 45 Alexander the Great. 228 187. 267n. 210–11. 206–7. 87. 228 155 Alberic of Rheims. 228. amica. 56. 136. Ambrose. 23. 128. 96. amicitia. 112– Adam. 22. 82–83. 43. 168 90. 7. 53. 103. De anima. 16. 191–92.. 7. 145–48. 174–75. 62. 133 Aristotle. 200 213. 107. 228. Periermeneias. 178. 138. Adam of Balsham (Parvipontanus). 4. 197 101–102. 29. 23– amor. 44. 206. Amboise. Anselm of Havelberg. 235 Absolom. 174. 47–49.

82. 153 23. 131. 31. Brahmins. See Berengar of Poitiers. 67–69. 235. 78. 72. 3. Besanc¸on. Brittany. 160 divisione.. See Scripture Arnold of Brescia. 138. 266n baptism. 79. See dictamen philosophiae. 158. De doctrina Christiana. 79. 69. 102 104–5. In Topica Ciceronis. 180–81. 160 Bernard of Chartres. 115. De amicitia. 22–23. 38–39. Count of Blois and 157–59. 168. 137. 22. De civitate Dei. Augustus (Caesar). 153. 155–56. 62.. See Augustus De trinitate. 127. 19. 224. 183 Bede. 24– Augustine. 35. 188. 193. 122. 141–43. 106. 118. St. 22. 134–35. 152 219–20. 22. De Bertrada of Montfort. 32. 37. 134. Arnulf of Laon. St. 105–7. 22. John. 111–13. 202–3 108. 128–29. 40. De bono coniugali. 161–63. 157. 264n. 110–11. 8. 41–42. See Anselm. Calixtus II. 124 Champagne. 90. See Peter Abelard Basil. 82–83 16. 172 arithmetic. Aspasia. In 132. 117. 116. 111. 222. 106. 103. 217–19. 29. 175. 109. 232. 60 130. 29. 245 authenticity debates. Cicero. 270n. 67. 106. 5. 62. 120 122. Chrysostom. 133 196–97. 213.. Chalcidius. 206–7. 242–43. 206. Homiliae caritas. 174. 4. De Asella. 245 also Geoffrey of Chartres Berengar of Tours. 223. Pope. 142 Bec. 127. 240. 17. 96–100. 136. 218 castration. 124. 69. bishops. 39. 137. syllogismo hypothetico. 115– 25. St. 21. 70. 23. 22. 183.-). 4. 25. 120. 190. 189. 227 Catherine II de Courcelles. 67. 119. 9– 17. 10–11. 232. 21. 242 chastity. 215. 201. 97–99. (Ps. De astronomy. 149. 130. 117. 181. 226–28. 14. 163. 200. 37. 137. 16–17 Carmina burana. 23. 208 categorias. De musica. 23 Bible. 24. 249 65. 41–42. 17. 175. See Baudri of Bourgueil. 150. In Periermeneias. 103. 110. 52 Bezalel. . Astralabe. 12. 15. 134. Caesar. 133. 131. Pope. 130– super Iohannem. 132. De Athanasian Creed. 103. Enchiridion. 180. 69. 22. 79. 6. 160. 246. 40 Chaˆlons-sur-Marne. 17 Chartres. 94. 49. 78–79. 159. 186–95.300 index argument. 166–68. 26 De arithmetica. 190. 224 248 Boethius. St. 143. 227 Champagne Benton. 25. 238 146. 75. 199. 158. Rule of. 86. 127. 218. 37 32. 30 inventione. 86. De differentiis topicis. 62. 125. 150. 172. 197 syllogismo categorico. De trinitate. 137. 78–100. 7. Rule. 133. Theobald. 67. 55. 47 228 Christ. 241 Beauvais. De consolatione ars dictaminis. 79. 166–67 184. 234–35. 51. 73. 191. 147 Celestine II. chimaera. 23. 52. 115– Bernard of Clairvaux. 140. See also Benedict. 150. 230–47. Courcelles 105.

41–42. 65–66. 117. 15 Eve. 52. 158. Super dilectio. 113: 78 Cousin. 23. 5. Victor. 163–65 doubt. 120. greatest. 62–78. 170 circumcision. 143 106: 76. 234. confession. 69: 73. 224 66. 209 184–85 Clio. 133 218 Diodorus Sacraticus. Epicureans. 107: 76. 185. 73. 170. 13–14 also Bernard of Clairvaux. 66. 195–97 249 cunnum. 201. 215 236 excommunication. 97–99. 124 30 Eustochium. 180–81. De officiis. 133. 169. 120. 53–54. 219 also Peter Abelard. Michael T. 82. Andre´. 243 118. 36. 180. 26: 72. Peter. 13. 54–55. 43 Ethica. 170. 135 Cistercian Order. 130–31. Catherine II de. 163 Eucharist. 235–36 72. 152. 22–57. index 301 181. Cornificius. 136. 135. 38. 253n 9 devil. 170. 170. 232 dictamen. 15–16. 109: 76. 91–92. 217. 76: 40. 207 dictum. 252n epitaphs (of Abelard and Heloise). See Muses Epistolae duorum amantium. 86 Epicurus. 197. 67. 50: 63–64. 177–79. 233 Deborah. 175. 23: 72. 160 Descartes. 88: 72. Pope. 117. 33. 160. 102. 66: 147. 12. 187.. cardinal bishop of Palestrina. 27: 172. 184. letters 1–6: Commentarius Cantabrigiensis. 146. 253n eclipses. 94 fashion. 70. 22: 71– communes. 59: 72. topica. 103: 76. 107. 131. 159 Eugenius III. 114. 10. 11. St. 162 Dronke. 189. 157. 276n Dinah. 102: 72. 53 143–44. Clanchy. 21: 66. 124 Esther. 126. 76–77. 73–74. See David. 210. Tusculanae 153. 68. 148. 163 95: 76. 183–86. 109 Fessler. 122 72. 135 equipollence. 104: 72. 16 . 25: 68– composition. 159 Dagobert. 241 Denis the Areopagite. 190. 24: 64. continence. 39. 160–61. 63. 124. 85. 131. See dictamen 69. 183. 178. 171–72. 79: 72. 72: 72. 82: 69. 19. 166. 189. 105. 208– Deutsch. Claudian. 224 dialectic. 112: 76– Courcelles. Cluny. 229– Eusebius of Caesarea. 179–86. Martin. 192. 51 84: 74. definition of. 128 Cıˆteaux. creation. 264n Disputationes. Dindimus. 161. 73. 6. 214 Clarembald of Arras. 67–68. Scito teipsum deaconess. 16. Rene´. 69. 262n faith. Ignaz. consequences. 81–96. 41. evil. See Duchesne. 13 77. 112a: 77. 194 65–66. 38: 73. 60: Conon. 119–20. 96 Eriugena. 37. 76. 125. 148. 18: 65. 17 Clairvaux. 134. 87: 75–76. 63–64. 228. 14. 197–99. 30 differentia. 8–11. division. 49: 63.

archbishop of Sens. 13. Gilbert of Poitiers. 228– pregnancy. 285n epitaphs. 172. 8. 234 Hermes Trismegistus. 238. 87. 14 forms. 56. 197. 16–17. 227 Galo. Grammatical Institutes filioque clause. 146–48. 162. 13–14. 183–86 herbs. See amicitia Guy of Castello. bishop of Troyes. 148–59. 24–25. 137. 49–51. 240. 47–48. See providence Grenaille. 148 of Besanc¸on hell. 112. 58–80. 17. 246–47. Franc¸ois de. Gerland of Besanc¸on. See also Robert of Gregory the Great. love letters (see Gerbert of Aurillac. 211–12. 59. 79–80 Pope Fulco of Beauvais. 142–43. 208–9 birth and early education. letters (monastic) to 245 Abelard. Lief. See also Problemata. 4. 73. See Celestine II. 30 Haimo of Auxerre. 147. Glosule in Priscianum. 111. 223 grace. 142. marriage. E´tienne. Arbrissel 210. 146–47. See also universals 159. 115. 156–73. at Gelasius II. 58–80. 18 Fontevrault. 46. 27–28. 42 263n Henry V. 40 Heloise. 168–69. 267n 12–13. 59. 138 grief. 188 Garland the Computist. 218 Garlande. 73–75. 11–12. 61–62. supreme. 7. 171–72. 84. 254n. 124 grammarians. 25–27. 54–55. Gennadius of Marseille. 237 Goswin. Laudis honor. grammatica. 195–201. 152. 23. 70. 167–68 France (royal domain). 63. 243. 275n. 99 Hilary of Poitiers. 7. 150 friendship. 79. 262n. 46–47. 241. 193–95. 132 burial. Easter plays. 253n 47. 105. 184. 105. See also 29. 7–20. See also 91. 33. Grammatical Institutes Henry. Pope. 56–57. 22 Haimeric. 150–62. Geoffrey of Auxerre. 38. 122 heretics. 224 foreknowledge. 24 Epistolae duorum amantium). See Gerland Hato. 32. 246. 127. Peter Abelard. Fulbert. 44. 58–59. 163–64. religious life. 210.302 index figurative speech. 212–13 Grane. 31. 7. 118. 77. Genesis. poems. 194. 84. 175. 238– Godfrey of Reims. 137. 142–43 Free will. 44. 249. 184–85. 210 Paraclete Gilduin. 146– Gilson. 211. abbess of Garmundus. 258n Abelard. Geoffrey of Chartres. 88. 107. 113 Priscian. 35. 46 Paraclete. 83–85. 234 158. 172. works of: Epithalamica. 184–85. 200–202 Priscian. 47. liturgical ideas. 28. 138 Gualo. love affair with Geoffrey of Courlon. 120 good. See Stephen of Garlande Heloise. 217 . Rule for Gilbert the Universal. knowledge of languages. 120 Argenteuil (1117–29). 155. 79. 79. 33–34. critique of genus. Institutiones nostrae. 163–67. 188–93 Guibert of Nogent. 69–70. 44. 126.

13 indifference (morally neutral). 63. 104. 167–68. 29. 83. 218–19. 248 La Rochefoucauld. Vigilantium. 117. John the Baptist. 227. 67. 9. 172 Job. Loches. 232 143. 51. 83. 182–83. 135 196. 102 . 130. 36. 172 133–34. 232. 13 Lie`ge. 159 Iˆle-de-la-Cite´. 132. 123. 150. 146 Jerome. 83. 231. 38. See singularitas Lalanne. 41. 11. Cardinal. 184–85. 136. 166 207. 90–91 Juvenal. 227. 218 ignorance. Marie III de intellectus. 199. 216–20. 224. 103–104. 106. 235 Jolivet. 184. 150. La Ronceray. 235 234–36. 36–37. 18. 228–29. 113. Hilduin. 12–13. Ididia. 255n Lazarus. Pope. 126–27. Johannes de Vepria. 230–32. 162. 253n hypotheticals. 99 (abbess of Paraclete 1599–1639). 177–180. 167 law. 205–6. 9. 114–16. knowability. Yukio. 147 188. 90–91. 171 Jordan. 8. Ewald. 140. 25. 116. 254n. 22 Index of Prohibited Books. 214. 234–35 Ivo of Chartres. 22. 200 imagination. John of Reims. 135 183 Hugh Metel. 63 209. Pope. 118. 93. 176–79. 31. 144. 244–45 Jesus. 232. 257n idolatry. 154. 5. 116. 145. 53. 188. 54–55. 4–5. John of Cornwall. 148. 72. 155. 166. 97 individuality. 232 De tribus diebus. 32. 27 Didascalicon. 106.. 162. 188. 140–41. 211 Joscelin of Vierzy. 157–58. Joceran of Langres. Contra Jovinianum. 41. 65. 26 Lanfranc. 162.-Victor. 61. Ludovic. 138. 141 Judith. Adversus Holy Spirit. 182–83. Horace. See Christ Honorius II. 48. 194. 41 132. 33. 195. 72. 11–12. index 303 Hildegard of Bingen. 193. 38 Jean de Meun. 77. 184 Sententie de divinitate Iwakuma. 124 175. 21. 92. 129– Laurence. intention. 150–53. 178.-Victor. 146 Jews. 185. Jean. 233 Jephthah. 108–11. 8–9. 127. Angers. 172 210–11. 191 Jacob. 89. 178. De sacramentis. 262n indifferentia/indifferenter. See Hugh of St. 196. 205. 124. 240 Hyacinth. 97 Jonathan. Laon. 214. See scibilitas 180–81. 110 Innocent II. 37–38. 210. Sententie de John of Salisbury. 188 Judas. St. 102. 95. 236. See Paris justitia. 125. 230. 48. 170 Liber pancrisis. 235 identity. divinitate. 170 Limoges. 76. 221 Lateran Council II. 185 Ko¨nsgen. 16 inference. 222. 231 Hugh of St.

233. 61. 132 153. Martial. 229. 112. 165. dilectio Moos. 82. 266. 39. 280n Orelli. 105 Nicene Creed. John. 18. 190–92. Mun. 208. 226–27 214 Louis VII (1137–80). Bibl. 73 omnipotence. 272n modal statements. 95–96. Dream of Scipio. J. 44. 262n love songs. 146. 256n. 235 Muses. amor. 244 Michelet. 81. Virgin. 176. 199. 23. 148. 115. 161 Nebuchadnezzar. 138. 503. 18. Munich. Ars amatoria. 126. Barbara. 238 Lotulf of Novara. 184. 122. 133 Magdeburg. 247 255n. 257n. 253n. 252n Lord’s Prayer. 213 272n. 226–27 Montier-la-Celle. . 96–99 Remedium amoris. 253n music. 158. 134. See Peter Abelard. 73. Bibl. 23. 30. 222. Maximus of Turin. 159. Nazarenes. 150 163–64. 230–31 matter. nominales. 178. Louis VI. 6. 121. 253n. Matthew of Albano.. 33. Matilda. 283n. 171 Macrobius. Mun. caritas. 36. See Hugh Metel 180. 157. 29. 176. 257n. 93–94 magnanimity. 36. 142. 83 256n. 162–63 Milesian virgins. Paris. Marenbon. 147 Luscombe. 69. 134. oratio. 89. 187–88. Albert. See Augustus (Caesar) Marbod of Rennes. Troyes Bibl. Mary. Troyes. Metel. 152 pagan philosophers. 157. 246 133–35. nudity. 25. 135 Lothar III. 18. abbey). maxims. 125. Pope. 14. 164 love. 224 marriage. 159–60. 175. 149 songs Murray. 231 translatio Paraclete (oratory. 49. Orle´ans. 158–60. 48. BnF 7094A. 14. 13 Octavian. 267n. 174. Clm 14730. See amicitia. David. 18 Lucius II. 22. 199 Paris. Amores. 22–23. 261n. metaphor. 105–6. BnF numbers. 253n Manegold of Lautenbach. See Hermes Trismegistus meretrix. 50. 69–70. 148 Otto of Lucca. Norbert of Xanten. Metamorphosis Goliae. 286n Champagne. 137. countess of Blois and 246. 9. 152 original sin. 139–40. 190. 135 166. 287n. 247. Peter von. 32. 134. Emmeram. 233 263. 28. 119–21. 16 Marie de France. 117. 97. 168 247 Mary Magdalene. 87 13368. 88. 146–47. 212–14. C. 78 Mercury. 135. 144. 802. See figurative speech. 172 Origen. 61 118. 142 negation. 8. 134. Saturnalia. 168–69 Otto of Freising. 160 Newman. 64. 168. Clm 14479. 150. Jules. 196. 151–52. 77. 141. 138 Ovid. 132. 133. 105–7. 179. 136 manuscripts: Munich. 257n. Otloh of St. love Morigny. 17. Mun. Heroides. 29 268n. 37–39. 129. 227 Milo of The´rouanne. 39.304 index logica.

120. love letters (see Heloissae. 204. 244. 128–29. 87–88. family origins. 222. Por.. 208. 175. 107. Soliloquium. 190. 100. Carmen ad 213–14. at St. Comm. 239. 81.. 218. 194–95. Paula. Bernardum. 61. 150–56. Epistolae duorum amantium). 128. index 305 liturgy. 92. LI sup. 138. 215. sermons. 187. IX. 109. Petrum. super Porphyrium. 68. 150. 31–33. 78 marriage. 7. debate with William of Champeaux. 204. Pred. 203– 100. Historia Paschasius Radbertus. 121. 139. Rule. 43–57. 101. 243. 96–100. 205. 165–68. 242–43. 231. 68. 187. 195. 171. Ethica (see Scito teipsum). 14. 81. Glossae super Porphyrium paralogisms. 131. 158. 125. 119–22. 3.-Denis. 243–44. 147. intellectibus. Sententie 126–43. 231.. Heloise 195–200. Theologia “Summi boni. 138. Peter of Blois. Per. 173. 61. 106. 172. Sententie [secundum magistrum Dame. 82. 157–58. 205. 15. LI sup. observances. 234–35. 113. 197. 144.. 204 Christiana. love 269n. Philip I. See also Peter Expositio in Hexaemeron. 204. 73. 176. Aristotelem. 115. 28 111. 180. Problemata 18. at non.” Astralabium. 144 Confessio fidei Universis. 101. 217–19. 140.. Theologia “Scholarium. 13–14. 4. 36. 104 calamitatum. [of theology]. Pierre Col. Persius. 42 . 179. 84. 193.-Genevie`ve.” in Epist. 220–24. 248. 170–72. 142–43. 30 Ep. 210 82. Rethorica. 163–65. Scito teipsum. 61. 209. 205. at Cluny. 81. 40. 82. 218. 85–89. Peter Lombard. 40. 138. 248. 13. 214. works of: Anthropologia. 89–96. at Notre. 70 Dialectica. 4. Logica 114. 107. 234–39. 17– Planctus. 62–63. 40–42. 11. 151. 245 Boethium [litteral glosses]. at St. Introductiones parvulorum. Pelagius. 85. Paul. 147. 145. 223. 239. 21. 175–86. 75. 37–40. 175. 210. 156. 10. 23. 160 221. 229 Heloise). 71. 200. 79. 213. 79. 231–32 Dialogus (see Collationes). 177. 30–31. 59–62. 21. 186–95. Heloise and nuns of Paraclete. 220. early studies. 244. Paris. 68. at Paraclete. 187–88. of dialectic]. Epithalamica (see physica. at Paris (Ste-Genevie`ve). 190. Editio Peter the Venerable. St. 134. 216. Peter of Bruys. 131–40. 125–31. 8–9. ad Romanos. 214. 59. 35. 36. 251n. 122. 163–64. at Laon. LI sup. 130. 109. monastic Expositio in Ezechielem. 125. humor. 198. Top. 186. 144. 82–85. 60. LI sup. 68. 45–46. Apologia contra 157. Peter Helias. at Ste. 165. liber sententiarum magistri Peter Abelard: burial 4. 126. Hymnarius Paraclitensis. 235–38 Grammatica. 103. 63 35–36. 135. Rule.. Sic et 9. “Ingredientibus. at Melun. 118. 103–22. 248. 67. Petri. Abelard. 190. 15. Peter Abelard. 202–3. 7. 75. Collationes. 31. 7. 71–72. 153–64. Tractatus de 5. 204–16. 160–62. 180. 233. 235. 148. 177. 107. 145. 214–15. 200–202. 186–95 149. Logica castration. 103. Soissons. 204–5.” 81–100. 223 164–65. 216. 7. 7–9. 36 secundum vocales. 223. 237. 195. 243. 149. 201. 124. Theologia Gildas.” 136. 244. 235. letters to “Nostrorum petitioni sociorum. 122. songs. 210. 32–35. 124. 231. 200. 167.

153. 232 Signy. 137–38. 104. 70. 86 Sententie magistri A. 220–21 Robert of Melun. 258n 280n Sententie divine pagine. 211. Robert of Molesme. 171 Schmeidler. 88–89. 132–33. 57. 56. 110. 37. 154 Samson. 161. cathedral. 158. 56. 127 Rule. 34. predestination. 81. 152. 27. 145. 248 purgatory. 258n 29. 10–12.306 index Plato. 121. 26. 110–11. 238 seal. 5. 117. 240 repentance. 33–35. 188. 137 Provins. 219. Pre´montre´. 141. 216. 188–92. 228. 180. 21–25. funerary. See Augustine. 135. 127. Werner. 134. 155– redemption. 264n. 236. 158. 199. 178. 162. 270n Rochefoucauld. 233 . 37. 161–63 43 Romance of the Rose. rhetorical exercises. 167. Council of (1141). 253n. 88 Ralph of Vermandois. 135–36. 45. 130. 163 Sens. 135. 34. 171 qualities. Juanita Feros. 94–95. 117. Grammatical Institutes. Rhetorica ad Herennium (ps. 232. 128. 135. 103–4. Timaeus. 179. 201. 137 Samson of Reims. Sententie Anselmi. 236 127–29. 185. 103. 47–49 282n prostitute. Rule of 269n Ruys. 13 sexual desire. St. 46. 126. 183–84. 26–27. 84. 191–201. 44. 54. Re´musat. 237 relation. 210. 73 Richard of Poitiers. 56. 88–89 Seneca. 72. 126. 179. 231–32 Plotinus. 126. 11. 194 Roscelin of Compie`gne. 108.. vii. 91–94. Marie IV de la. Dominique. See also Norbert 106. Benedict. 22. 28. Sens. 175. 151–52. 167. 172. 121. 143. 209. 212–13. 240–46 rhetoric. 24. 228 205. 111. 253n 187 renunciation. 85. Priscian. Bernhard. 70–71. 110. 84. 160.. 37–38. 104–7. 133. 33–38. 206–8. 125 197. See also St. 87–88 Saul. 193. 174. 165–167. 45. 102. 40. 96. 40. 23. 11– 202. 119. 175. 118. 222–24 12. Psalter. 16. 228. 262n Poirel. 17 Ralph of Laon. 146–47. 223 Salutations. 88. Scripture.-Ayoul sacraments. 235– 213. 175 Robl. 1117). 137. 84. 37. 24. 58–59. 101–103. 97–99. 87. 218. 136 Robert de Bardi.-Cicero). 132–34 Robert Pullen. 44–45. C. 152–54. 113–14. 183–84. 240–43 quantity. 142. 151 Sabellianism. Reims. 238. 177– 238. proposition. proprium. 39. See meretrix providence. 236. 135. 184. 38 scibilitas (knowability). Robert of Arbrissel (d. see Jean de Meun Prayer. 120. 37. of Xanten 127. 192. 156. 119. 14 Porphyry. 142. 41. de. 253n sermo. 242. 222 36. rolls. bronze. 23–25. 205 Serlo of Bayeux. 278n. 156. See dictamen 258n rhyming prose. See providence 30. 38–39. 170–71. 27. 153. Isagoge. 231. 248 78. 260n 46. 15. 28. 102 162.

227. 9. 235 Topics. 33–34. 165 Troyes.-Denis. 146. 141. 258n Trois-Fontaines. 65. 142.-Gildas. 122. 31. 8. 120. 233 universals. 120. 96–100 Ste. 166. 15. 32. 28.-Me´dard (Soissons). 210 Song of Songs. 149–50. 142. 190. 112. 135 Stars. 216–17 23 Suger. 28. 135. 105. 4. species.-E´loi (Paris). 8. 81. 67–68. 119–122. 213. See Intellectus St. 29. 150 specialis. Statius. 180–81. 136. 135. 188 68. 30–32. Virgil. 31. 70–71. 216 Sponsus (drama). bishop of Angers. 226–27. 24. 101. See also Tours. 226–27. archdeacon. 226. 22 108. 11. 143 genus substance. 234 tablets. 149. Trinity. cardinal bishop of Palestrina.-Denis. 197 Thierry of Chartres. 124. 67 Sybils.-Jean (Laon). 163 St.-Genevie`ve (abbey). 134. Councils of: (year) 1107. 44. 136–37. 25–26. 145–46. 36. 52. 122. 182 syllogisms. 243–45 239. 195–96. 146 substantive verb. 142 241 Stephen of Senlis. 86. 132–40. 135 Tanchelin of Utrecht. 136 Venus. 107. 180. 126. 118. 132. 182–84. 210 155. Montagne. 23. 82–83. 142–43 Ulger. 41. 128–29. 149–50. 230. 125–26. viriditas (freshness. 15 Champagne. 90. 230. 24. 87–88 228. 162. Thomas of St. 40. 143. 66. 47. wax. 87. 175. St.-Genevie`ve. 41 Stephen Harding. 241 126.-Victor. 95. 31–32. 191. 43. 206. 126. 91–92 vice. 285n. 55–56. Terence.-Evroul (Normandy). 176 unbaptized infants. 163 Summa sententiarum. 125 Thomas of Morigny. 33. 204. Count of Blois and Sorbonne. greenness). See wax tablets Solomon. 42. 46. 30. 9. 36. sin. 48. 30 translatio. 211–13. 16 Ste. 26. 123. 138. 125. 93. abbot of St. 91. 74. 148 also figurative speech Stephen of Garlande. 22 134. 39. 143. Time. 13. See also St. 84. Stoics. 237. 86. 185–86.-Victor. 148 soul. 25. 27 210 St. 38–39. 221– suffering. 187. 239–40 St. 204. 50–51. 150 145–46. 8. 200–3 See also Otto of Lucca singularitas (individuality). Tournai. 240 virtue. 131. 102. 54 Theobald. 65 236. Stephen. 37. 179–84.-Marie de Footel (Malnoue¨). 103. 125. 22. 192–93. Council of (1121). 21. (year) 1128. 30. 26. 203 .-Ayoul. 146 understandings. 50. 159 Socrates. 156–57 Theologia. 61. 53 Soissons. Stephen of Garlande Trainel. 106. 230 Thomas Aquinas. 72. 146 Theophrastus. 233 Theobald. See Ste. 40. 7. index 307 silence. 113. 211–12 144. 117. 101–21. 285n St. 190–91 St.

23–27. 112. William of Conches. Waddell. 114– Will. 206–8. 259n 231–32.-Thierry. 236. Chrysogonus. 237 William of Champeaux. 170 195. 7. 146. 226–28. 79. 233. 56–57. 18 world soul. 64 women. 133. 220–21 15. Walter of Mortagne. 120–21. 244. 70. 283n. 97–100. 275n. 286n Wolfelm of Brauweiler. 103–4. 159. 159–60. 201. 83. 11. 267n Zeuxis. 83. 15. 55. 137. 7. Xenophon. 18. 62 134. role of. 112– Xanthippe. Richard. 102. 86. 259n. 277n. 239. 95. David. 10. 232–34. 61 13. 143. 255n. 67. 120. 28. 229. 116–17. 83 William of St. 194–95. 135. 278n 190. 203. 108. 237. 189–91. 164–66 Weingart. 174. 277n 42. 18. 110. 79. 175. 34–35. 43–51. 140–41. 134. 261n vocalists. 28– Wulstan. 126.308 index Vital of Mortain (of Savigny). 160 . 255n. 105 wax tablets. 102–4. 41–42. 15. 31. 256n.