The Letters of Heloise and Abelard: A Translation of Their Collected Correspondence and Related Writings (The New Middle Ages)

THE NEW MIDDLE AGES BONNIE WHEELER, Series Editor The New Middle Ages is a series dedicated to pluridisciplinary studies of medieval cultures, with particular emphasis on recuperating women’s history and on feminist and gender analyses. This peer-reviewed series includes both scholarly monographs and essay collections.

PUBLISHED BY PALGRAVE: Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage, and Piety edited by Gavin R. G. Hambly The Ethics of Nature in the Middle Ages: On Boccaccio’s Poetaphysics by Gregory B. Stone Presence and Presentation: Women in the Chinese Literati Tradition edited by Sherry J. Mou The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard: Perceptions of Dialogue in Twelfth-Century France by Constant J. Mews Understanding Scholastic Thought with Foucault by Philipp W. Rosemann For Her Good Estate: The Life of Elizabeth de Burgh by Frances A. Underhill Constructions of Widowhood and Virginity in the Middle Ages edited by Cindy L. Carlson and Angela Jane Weisl Motherhood and Mothering in Anglo-Saxon England by Mary Dockray-Miller Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a TwelfthCentury Woman edited by Bonnie Wheeler The Postcolonial Middle Ages edited by Jeff rey Jerome Cohen

Robes and Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture edited by Stewart Gordon Representing Rape in Medieval and Early Modern Literature edited by Elizabeth Robertson and Christine M. Rose Same Sex Love and Desire among Women in the Middle Ages edited by Francesca Canadé Sautman and Pamela Sheingorn Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages: Ocular Desires by Suzannah Biernoff Listen, Daughter: The Speculum Virginum and the Formation of Religious Women in the Middle Ages edited by Constant J. Mews Science, the Singular, and the Question of Theology by Richard A. Lee, Jr. Gender in Debate from the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance edited by Thelma S. Fenster and Clare A. Lees Malory’s Morte D’Arthur: Remaking Arthurian Tradition by Catherine Batt The Vernacular Spirit: Essays on Medieval Religious Literature edited by Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Duncan Robertson, and Nancy Warren

Chaucer’s Pardoner and Gender Theory: Bodies of Discourse by Robert S. Sturges

Popular Piety and Art in the Late Middle Ages: Image Worship and Idolatry in England 1350–1500 by Kathleen Kamerick

Crossing the Bridge: Comparative Essays on Medieval European and Heian Japanese Women Writers edited by Barbara Stevenson and Cynthia Ho

Absent Narratives, Manuscript Textuality, and Literary Structure in Late Medieval England by Elizabeth Scala

Engaging Words: The Culture of Reading in the Later Middle Ages by Laurel Amtower

Creating Community with Food and Drink in Merovingian Gaul by Bonnie Eff ros

Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses: Image and Empire by Anne McClanan Encountering Medieval Textiles and Dress: Objects, Texts, Images edited by Désirée G. Koslin and Janet Snyder Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady edited by Bonnie Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons Isabel La Católica, Queen of Castile: Critical Essays edited by David A. Boruchoff Homoeroticism and Chivalry: Discourses of Male Same-Sex Desire in the Fourteenth Century by Richard E. Zeikowitz Portraits of Medieval Women: Family, Marriage, and Politics in England 1225–1350 by Linda E. Mitchell Eloquent Virgins: From Thecla to Joan of Arc by Maud Burnett McInerney The Persistence of Medievalism: Narrative Adventures in Contemporary Culture by Angela Jane Weisl Capetian Women edited by Kathleen D. Nolan Joan of Arc and Spirituality edited by Ann W. Astell and Bonnie Wheeler The Texture of Society: Medieval Women in the Southern Low Countries edited by Ellen E. Kittell and Mary A. Suydam Charlemagne’s Mustache: And Other Cultural Clusters of a Dark Age by Paul Edward Dutton Troubled Vision: Gender, Sexuality, and Sight in Medieval Text and Image edited by Emma Campbell and Robert Mills Queering Medieval Genres by Tison Pugh

Chaucer’s Jobs by David R. Carlson Medievalism and Orientalism: Three Essays on Literature, Architecture and Cultural Identity by John M. Ganim Queer Love in the Middle Ages by Anna Klosowska Performing Women in the Middle Ages: Sex, Gender, and the Iberian Lyric by Denise K. Filios Necessary Conjunctions: The Social Self in Medieval England by David Gary Shaw Visual Culture and the German Middle Ages edited by Kathryn Starkey and Horst Wenzel Medieval Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Jeremy duQuesnay Adams, Volumes 1 and 2 edited by Stephanie Hayes-Healy False Fables and Exemplary Truth in Later Middle English Literature by Elizabeth Allen Ecstatic Transformation: On the Uses of Alterity in the Middle Ages by Michael Uebel Sacred and Secular in Medieval and Early Modern Cultures: New Essays edited by Lawrence Besserman Tolkien’s Modern Middle Ages edited by Jane Chance and Alfred K. Siewers Representing Righteous Heathens in Late Medieval England by Frank Grady Byzantine Dress: Representations of Secular Dress in Eighth-to-Twelfth Century Painting by Jennifer L. Ball The Laborer’s Two Bodies: Labor and the “Work” of the Text in Medieval Britain, 1350–1500 by Kellie Robertson

Sacred Place in Early Medieval Neoplatonism by L. Michael Harrington

The Dogaressa of Venice, 1250–1500: Wife and Icon by Holly S. Hurlburt

The Middle Ages at Work edited by Kellie Robertson and Michael Uebel

Logic, Theology, and Poetry in Boethius, Abelard, and Alan of Lille: Words in the Absence of Things by Eileen C. Sweeney

The Theology of Work: Peter Damian and the Medieval Religious Renewal Movement by Patricia Ranft

On Farting: Language and Laughter in the Middle Ages by Valerie Allen

On the Purifi cation of Women: Churching in Northern France, 1100–1500 by Paula M. Rieder

Women and Medieval Epic: Gender, Genre, and the Limits of Epic Masculinity edited by Sara S. Poor and Jana K. Schulman

Writers of the Reign of Henry II: Twelve Essays edited by Ruth Kennedy and Simon Meecham-Jones

Race, Class, and Gender in “Medieval” Cinema edited by Lynn T. Ramey and Tison Pugh

Lonesome Words: The Vocal Poetics of the Old English Lament and the African-American Blues Song by M.G. McGeachy Performing Piety: Musical Culture in Medieval English Nunneries by Anne Bagnell Yardley The Flight from Desire: Augustine and Ovid to Chaucer by Robert R. Edwards Mindful Spirit in Late Medieval Literature: Essays in Honor of Elizabeth D. Kirk edited by Bonnie Wheeler Medieval Fabrications: Dress, Textiles, Clothwork, and Other Cultural Imaginings edited by E. Jane Burns Was the Bayeux Tapestry Made in France?: The Case for St. Florent of Saumur by George Beech Women, Power, and Religious Patronage in the Middle Ages by Erin L. Jordan Hybridity, Identity, and Monstrosity in Medieval Britain: On Diffi cult Middles by Jeff rey Jerome Cohen Medieval Go-Betweens and Chaucer’s Pandarus by Gretchen Mieszkowski The Surgeon in Medieval English Literature by Jeremy J. Citrome Temporal Circumstances: Form and History in the Canterbury Tales by Lee Patterson

Allegory and Sexual Ethics in the High Middle Ages by Noah D. Guynn England and Iberia in the Middle Ages, 12th–15th Century: Cultural, Literary, and Political Exchanges edited by María Bullón-Fernández The Medieval Chastity Belt: A Myth-Making Process by Albrecht Classen Claustrophilia: The Erotics of Enclosure in Medieval Literature by Cary Howie Cannibalism in High Medieval English Literature by Heather Blurton The Drama of Masculinity and Medieval English Guild Culture by Christina M. Fitzgerald Chaucer’s Visions of Manhood by Holly A. Crocker The Literary Subversions of Medieval Women by Jane Chance Manmade Marvels in Medieval Culture and Literature by Scott Lightsey American Chaucers by Candace Barrington Representing Others in Medieval Iberian Literature by Michelle M. Hamilton Paradigms and Methods in Early Medieval Studies edited by Celia Chazelle and Felice Lifshitz The King and the Whore: King Roderick and La Cava by Elizabeth Drayson

Erotic Discourse and Early English Religious Writing by Lara Farina

Langland’s Early Modern Identities by Sarah A. Kelen

Odd Bodies and Visible Ends in Medieval Literature by Sachi Shimomura

Cultural Studies of the Modern Middle Ages edited by Eileen A. Joy, Myra J. Seaman, Kimberly K. Bell, and Mary K. Ramsey

Hildegard of Bingen’s Unknown Language: An Edition, Translation, and Discussion by Sarah L. Higley Medieval Romance and the Construction of Heterosexuality by Louise M. Sylvester Communal Discord, Child Abduction, and Rape in the Later Middle Ages by Jeremy Goldberg

Authority and Subjugation in Writing of Medieval Wales edited by Ruth Kennedy and Simon Meecham-Jones The Medieval Poetics of the Reliquary: Enshrinement, Inscription, Performance by Seeta Chaganti The Legend of Charlemagne in the Middle Ages: Power, Faith, and Crusade edited by Matthew Gabriele and Jace Stuckey

Lydgate Matters: Poetry and Material Culture in the Fifteenth Century edited by Lisa H. Cooper and Andrea Denny-Brown

The Poems of Oswald von Wolkenstein: An English Translation of the Complete Works (1376/77–1445) by Albrecht Classen

Sexuality and Its Queer Discontents in Middle English Literature by Tison Pugh

Women and Experience in Later Medieval Writing: Reading the Book of Life edited by Anneke B. Mulder-Bakker and Liz Herbert McAvoy

Sex, Scandal, and Sermon in Fourteenth-Century Spain: Juan Ruiz’s Libro de Buen Amor by Louise M. Haywood The Erotics of Consolation: Desire and Distance in the Late Middle Ages edited by Catherine E. Léglu and Stephen J. Milner Battlefronts Real and Imagined: War, Border, and Identity in the Chinese Middle Period edited by Don J. Wyatt Wisdom and Her Lovers in Medieval and Early Modern Hispanic Literature by Emily C. Francomano Power, Piety, and Patronage in Late Medieval Queenship: Maria de Luna by Nuria Silleras-Fernandez In the Light of Medieval Spain: Islam, the West, and the Relevance of the Past edited by Simon R. Doubleday and David Coleman, foreword by Giles Tremlett Chaucerian Aesthetics by Peggy A. Knapp Memory, Images, and the English Corpus Christi Drama by Theodore K. Lerud Cultural Diversity in the British Middle Ages: Archipelago, Island, England edited by Jeff rey Jerome Cohen Excrement in the Late Middle Ages: Sacred Filth and Chaucer’s Fecopoetics by Susan Signe Morrison

Ethics and Eventfulness in Middle English Literature: Singular Fortunes by J. Allan Mitchell Maintenance, Meed, and Marriage in Medieval English Literature by Kathleen E. Kennedy The Post-Historical Middle Ages edited by Elizabeth Scala and Sylvia Federico Constructing Chaucer: Author and Autofi ction in the Critical Tradition by Geoff rey W. Gust Queens in Stone and Silver: The Creation of a Visual Imagery of Queenship in Capetian France by Kathleen Nolan Finding Saint Francis in Literature and Art edited by Cynthia Ho, Beth A. Mulvaney, and John K. Downey Strange Beauty: Ecocritical Approaches to Early Medieval Landscape by Alfred K. Siewers Julian of Norwich’s Legacy: Medieval Mysticism and Post-Medieval Reception edited by Sarah Salih and Denise N. Baker The Letters of Heloise and Abelard: A Translation of Their Collected Correspondence and Related Writings Translated and edited by Mary Martin McLaughlin with Bonnie Wheeler Heloise and the Paraclete: A Twelfth-Century Quest (forthcoming) by Mary Martin McLaughlin with Bonnie Wheeler

THE LETTERS OF HELOISE AND ABELARD A TRANSLATION OF THEIR COLLECTED CORRESPONDENCE AND RELATED WRITINGS

Translated and edited by Mary Martin McLaughlin with Bonnie Wheeler

THE LETTERS OF HELOISE AND ABELARD

Copyright © Estate of Mary Martin McLaughlin and Bonnie Wheeler, 2009. All rights reserved. First published in 2009 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978–0–312–22935–1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Abelard, Peter, 1079–1142. [Letters. English] The letters of Heloise and Abelard : a translation of their collected correspondence and related writings / translated and edited by Mary Martin McLaughlin with Bonnie Wheeler. p. cm. — (The new Middle Ages) ISBN 978–0–312–22935–1 (alk. paper) 1. Abelard, Peter, 1079–1142—Correspondence. 2. Héloïse, 1101–1164—Correspondence. 3. Theologians—France— Correspondence. 4. Abbesses, Christian—France—Correspondence. I. McLaughlin, Mary Martin, 1919–2006. II. Wheeler, Bonnie, 1944– III. Héloïse, 1101–1164. Letters. English. IV. Title. PA8201.A4 2009 189⬘.4—dc22 [B]

2009006223

A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: December 2009 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.

CONTENTS

Preface

ix

Chronology

xi

Maps

xv

Abbreviations

xix

Introduction

1

I

The Correspondence of Heloise and Abelard

1 Abelard’s Letter of Consolation to a Friend: A Story of Calamities

17

2

Heloise to Abelard

51

3 Abelard to Heloise

57

4

Heloise to Abelard

63

5 Abelard to Heloise

71

6

85

Heloise to Abelard

7 Abelard to Heloise: The Origin of the Religious Life of Nuns (Concerning the Authority and Dignity of the Order of Nuns)

99

8 Abelard to Heloise: A Rule for Nuns

133

9 Peter Abelard: To the Nuns of the Paraclete On Studies

195

Abelard to Heloise: A Profession of Faith

209

II Heloise’s Questions (Problemata Heloissae): Forty-Two Questions Posed by Heloise and Answered by Abelard, with an Introductory Letter by Heloise Heloise to Abelard

III

213

Related Letters and Other Writings

10 Abelard to Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux

271

viii

11

CONTENTS

Abelard to His “Comrades”

279

12 Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux to Cardinal Ivo

281

13 Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux to Pope Innocent II

285

14

289

Peter the Venerable: Letter to Pope Innocent II

15 Peter the Venerable: A Letter to Heloise

293

16 Heloise to Peter the Venerable

299

17 Peter the Venerable to Heloise

301

18

303

Peter the Venerable: A Letter of Absolution for Abelard

19 Peter the Venerable: An Epitaph for Abelard

305

20 The Nuns of the Paraclete: An Epitaph for Heloise

307

21 A Last Epitaph at the Paraclete, 1780

309

Appendices 1 Institutiones Nostrae [Our Statutes] 2

MS T (Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 802): The Paraclete and the Early History of the Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise

313

317

Explanatory Notes

327

Bibliography

349

PREFACE

T

his work was begun by the eminent medieval historian and magnificent Latinist Mary Martin McLaughlin many years ago and remained unfinished when, having asked me on her deathbed to complete it, she died in June of 2006. She wished to express her long-standing debt to the late Paul Oskar Kristeller for his helpful suggestions regarding the manuscript problems posed by the correspondence. Over the many years in which she considered these translations, she found particular comfort in her rich conversations with Giles Constable, Chrysogonus Waddell, Caroline Walker Bynum, Penelope Johnson, and Peter von Moos. Her niece Kathleen Derringer and her husband Dick were special supports to Mary for the duration of this project. In her later years, I was privileged to collaborate with Mary on this volume, as did historian Jeremy duQuesnay Adams. I am also grateful for the determined assistance, while Mary was alive, of my student Kathryne Martin Morris, and of Katherine Allen Smith, and after Mary’s death, of the estimable Katie Keene. I know Mary would join me in thanking her friends Lester Little, Constance Bouchard, and Sharan Newman for their help with this work. Bonnie Wheeler Dallas 2009

This page intentionally left blank

CHRONOLOGY

Heloise and Peter Abelard 1079 1090? 1092 1094? 1100? 1101?

1102–1105?

1105–1108? 1107 1108

1113

1113–17 1115? 1115/17 1116–17

Birth of Abelard at Le Pallet in Brittany (Loire-Atlantique), son of Lucia and Berengar. Birth of Bernard of Clairvaux. Roscelin of Compiègne, head of nominalist school, condemned for tritheism at a council in Soissons. Abelard studies with Roscelin at Loches or perhaps Tours. Abelard a student of the “realist” master, William of Champeaux, then archdeacon and master of schools at Paris. Birth of Heloise, daughter of Hersende, niece of Canon Fulbert of Notre-Dame, Paris; perhaps related through both parents (though her father is unidentified) to a cadet branch of the Montmorency and other noble families of the Paris region. Abelard establishes schools first at Melun, then at Corbeil, fi nally at Paris, throughout this time meeting opposition from William of Champeaux. Illness forces Abelard to retire to Brittany where he remains for several years. Anselm of Laon teaches theology in the schools of that town. William of Champeaux retires to Saint-Victor where he founds an order of canons regular; shortly afterward Abelard begins teaching on Mont-Sainte-Geneviève in Paris. Abelard briefly attends the school of Anselm of Laon, and is attacked by Lotulf and Alberic, later archdeacon and master of schools of Reims. William of Champeaux is chosen bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne. Abelard becomes master of the schools at Notre-Dame, Paris. Abelard dominant in the world of the Paris schools. Bernard is consecrated abbot of Clairvaux; William of Champeaux confirms his appointment. Heloise brought from Argenteuil to the home of her uncle Fulbert in the clerical quarter of the Île-de-la-Cité, Paris. Secret love affair of Heloise and Abelard, followed by public scandal over this affair. The birth of Astralabe in Brittany; their

xii

[1117–21 1117/18 1120? 1120? 1121 1121 [1121–22 1122

1122–27 [1122–27 [1125–26 1127?–1132 1127? [1127–28 1129

1130

1130–34

1131

C H RON OL O G Y

clandestine marriage. Heloise is sent by Abelard to Argenteuil. Fulbert’s vengeance: Abelard’s castration. Abelard’s writings on logic, including ‘Dialectica,’ super Porphyrium, etc. (Logica ‘Ingredientibus’).] Heloise and Abelard take religious vows, she at Argenteuil, he at Saint-Denis. Abelard’s fi rst stay as teacher in the lands of Thibaut, Count of Blois (Champagne) at the priory of Saint-Ayoul near Provins. Abelard’s fi rst theological work, De Unitate et Trinitate divina (Theologia ‘summi boni’). [ January] William of Champeaux dies. [April] Council of Soissons condemns Abelard’s Theologia ‘summi boni’ for Sabellianism. Sic et Non, fi rst redaction; Soliloquium; Ep. 14; Exhortatio ad fratres et commonachos.] Abelard’s views on St. Dionysius (St. Denis) provoke a scandal at Saint-Denis; Abbot Adam dies, and is succeeded by Suger. Abelard, leaves Saint-Denis, then establishes near Quincey and Nogent-sur-Seine an oratory dedicated to the Holy Trinity. Abelard resumes teaching at his oratory in Champagne, now rededicated to the Paraclete. Tractatus de intellectibus; Glossule super Porphyrium; Theologia Christiana; Sic et Non, various redactions.] Dialogus inter philosophum, Judaeum et Christianum.] Stephen of Garlande, Abelard’s patron and protector, is deprived of royal chancellorship by King Louis VI. Abelard becomes abbot of the Breton monastery, St-Gildas-deRhuys. Sermon 33; Sermon ‘Adtendite a falsis prophetis,’?; Ep. 12.] Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis appropriates the abbey of Argenteuil where Heloise is prioress, and expels its nuns. Abelard invites Heloise and the nuns loyal to her to the Paraclete, where they establish a new community. After a schismatic papal election, Innocent II flees to France, gains the support of the French king and influential churchmen (especially Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter the Venerable of Cluny, and Suger of Saint-Denis) against his rival, Anacletus II. Heloise and Abelard enter into their collaboration at the Paraclete. Much of the Paraclete ‘corpus,’ largely completed by 1136/37, is composed. [Ep. 2–8 (9), 10; Hymnarius Paraclitensis; Sermons; Expositio in exaemeron; Problemata Heloissae.] [ January] Abelard, Bernard of Clairvaux and others present at abbey of Morigny for papal consecration of new altar by Innocent and eleven cardinals.

C H RON OL O G Y

[1131–32?

1132 1133–34? [1133–37 1136 1137

1137

[1138–39 [1140 1141

1142 1142? 1143/44?

1144? 1145? 1147 1147/51? 1148 1153

xiii

[28 November] Innocent II: Charter confi rms the rights of Heloise and her nuns at the Paraclete. This is the earliest dated reference to her. Abelard writes his Historia calamitatum, in part to prepare the way for his departure from St-Gildas-de-Rhuys, which is probably fi nal by 1133 at latest.] Stephen of Garlande fi nds himself once again in royal favor at Paris. Abelard returns as master to teaching at Paris, on Mont-SainteGeneviève of which Stephen of Garlande is dean. Theologia Schol., early drafts; Commentaria in Epistula ad Romanum; collections of sententiae.] John of Salisbury studies with Abelard (‘Peripateticus palatinus noster’) on Mont-Sainte-Geneviève in Paris. [1 August] King Louis VI dies; Stephen of Garlande out of favor yet again. Later in the year Abelard leaves Mont-Sainte-Geneviève, though he returns at a later date. William of St. Thierry denounces Abelard’s errors in a letter to Bernard of Clairvaux. Arnold of Brescia, Abelard’s former student and now a radical reformer, is teaching on Mont-Sainte-Geneviève. Ethica; Theologia Schol., complete text, various recensions.] Confessio dei ‘universis’; Confessio fidei ad Heloissam; Apologia contra Bernardum.] [2 June] The Council of Sens condemns Abelard to perpetual silence for heresy. He departs for Rome in order to appeal to Pope Innocent II. On the way he is welcomed at Cluny by Peter the Venerable who takes him under his protection. [21 April] Abelard dies at the Cluniac priory of Saint-Marcel-surSaône. Heloise founds Sainte-Madeleine-de-Traînel, the fi rst of the Paraclete’s dependencies. Peter the Venerable announces Abelard’s death in a letter of consolation to Heloise. (Peter the Venerable is in Spain from Pentecost [7 June] 1142 until November 1143.) [16 November?] Abbot Peter delivers Abelard’s body to Heloise for burial at the Paraclete. Heloise solicits Peter’s help in fi nding a prebend for her and Abelard’s son, Astralabe. Heloise receives a papal letter confi rming the possessions acquired by the Paraclete since its foundation. The Paraclete’s second dependency, the abbey of La Pommeraye, is founded. Trial of Gilbert of Poitiers takes place at the Council of Reims. Bernard of Clairvaux dies.

xiv

1153–63

1156 1163/4? 1285? 1817

C H RON OL O G Y

The fi nal four dependencies of the Paraclete: Laval (ca. 1153); Noëfort (before 1157); Saint-Flavit (before 1157); Boran or SaintMartin-aux-Nonnettes (by 1163) are founded. Peter the Venerable dies. [16 May] Heloise dies at the Paraclete, where she is buried in a crypt before the altar of the “Petit-Moustier.” Jean de Meun’s translation of the letters of Heloise and Abelard. Remains of Heloise and Abelard transferred to Père-Lachaise cemetery in Paris.

World of Heloise and Abelard

Soissons

Se

ine

Paris

Paraclete

St. Gildas

Tours Nantes Le Pallet

ire

Lo

N

Laon

Troyes

Paris of Heloise and Abelard N Argenteuil

St. Denis Right Bank

Seine 1 3 4

2 Pré aux Clercs

5

Left Bank

St. Germain des Prés

1. Kingʼs Palace 2. Synagogue 3. House of Stephen of Garlande 4. Bishopʼs Cloister (House of Heloiseʼs Uncle) 5. Saint-Etienne (later Notre-Dame)

Paraclete Daughter Houses To Soissons

Oise 6 Senlis

M

S

M

4

S

Paris

Meaux

M

S

Provins

Nogent-sur-Seine

Melun

S Paraclete

3

A 1

Orv

in

S Y

2

Troyes

Sens

Sites 1. Sainte-Madeleine-de-Traînel (bet. 1140–1145) 2. La Pommeraye (ca. 1147) 3. Laval [Seine-et-Marne] (ca. 1153) 4. Noëfort [Seine-et-Marne] (ca. 1157) 5. Saint-Flavit [Aube] (bef. 1157) 6. Saint-Martin-de-Boran [Saint-Martin-Aux-Nonnettes] [Oise] (by 1163)

5

Rivers R. Orvin A = R. Ardusson S = R. Seine M = R. Marne R. Oise Y = R. Yonne

This page intentionally left blank

ABBREVIATIONS

AASS CCCM CCSL CSEL

DHGE

MGH SS

PG PL PW

SBO

Acta Sanctorum, 3rd edn. Paris, Rome, and Brussels, 1863–70. Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Mediaevalis. Turnhout: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1966– . Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina. Turnhout: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1953– . Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna/Leipzig: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky for Academia Caesareae Vindobonensis [Vols. 1–70]; Academia Scientiarum Austriaca [Vols. 71– ], 1866–. Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques. Ed. Alfred Baudrillart, Roger Aubert, Albert de Meyer, Albert Vogt, Urbain Rouziès, Étienne van Cauwenbergh, et al. 30 vols. Encyclopédie des sciences ecclésiastiques 4. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1912– . Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptorum [Series]. Ed. [Vols. 1–12, 16–23] Georg Heinrich Pertz. Societas Aperiendis Fontibus Rerum Germanicarum Medii Aevi. 32 vols. (Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Aulici Hahniani, 1826–1934. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca. Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1857–1876). Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca. Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne. 212 vols. Paris: Garnier, 1844– . Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1894–1980. Fortgeführt von Wilhelm Kroll und Karl Mittelhaus, unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen, herausgegeben von Konrat Ziegler. Register der Nachträge und Supplemente von Hans Gärtner und Albert Wünsch [Mitarbeiter dieses Bandes, Wiltrud Mayer und Rainer Eichinger]. Munich: A. Druckenmüller, 1980. Sancti Bernardi opera ad fidem codicum recensuerunt. Ed. Jean Leclercq, C.H. Talbot, and H. Rochais. 8 vols. Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957–77.

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

I was so well aware of her knowledge and her love of literary studies. This would mean that, even when we were parted, the exchange of letters could bring us together, and since it is often possible to write more boldly than one can speak, we could always converse delightfully with one another. Abelard: Letter 1: A Story of Calamities You have written your friend a long letter of consolation, ostensibly about his misfortunes, but really about your own. Heloise to Abelard: Letter 2 I am living even now in this danger and every day I feel that a sword is hanging over my head, so that I can scarcely breathe easily from one meal to the next. Abelard: Letter 1: A Story of Calamities

“

T

he most intensely personal documents of the entire twelfth century.”1 This scholarly assessment of the letters of Heloise and Abelard is well supported by the cherished themes ref lected in the texts just quoted. Even after nearly a millennium it is this personal quality that explains the survival of their names and images in various popular reactions. To note only a few of these allusions in several places and genres, beginning with the most frivolous, a casual reference in The New Yorker magazine (16 December 2002), describing another couple’s close attachment, compares it to “gin and tonic or Heloise and Abelard.” Long before, in a 1988 movie Stealing Heaven, their story was retold in its most salacious form, and a later film, the 1999 Being John Malkovich, exploits the couple’s sexual passion in a hilarious puppet scene. Their tragic love affair has been the heart of an opera performed in New York’s Juilliard Theater on 21 April 2002 (the 960th anniversary of Abelard’s death) and reviewed in The New York Times the next day. We might already have met Heloise alone, less than three years earlier, as the “Ultimate Lover,” a unique figure, portrayed in an article presenting an “album of archetypal personalities” in The New York Times Magazine (17 October 1999). Truer to their later lives is the occasional appearance of both Heloise and Abelard, often at their monastery, the Paraclete, in the historical mysteries set in the twelfth century by Sharan Newman, herself

1

R.I. Moore, The First European Revolution, c. 970–1215, p. 112.

2

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

a medievalist. The couple’s son, Astralabe, is the hero of the most recent addition to this series, entitled simply Heresy.2 In no sense intended to trivialize the images or the story of this famous pair, these references are meant simply to introduce, and to emphasize, the extraordinary range and continued longevity of their afterlife. Recalling Heloise and Abelard as “inseparable companions,” their early tragedy, and the central role of Heloise in later retellings of their story, these impressions remind us, too, of the dual nature of this afterlife, divided as it is between the “legend” they represent in fiction and the “history” to which we shall soon return. It is to be hoped that this new translation of their complete correspondence, along with its companion biography, will restore Heloise to her place as a remarkable woman in her own right, not merely a creation of her tutor and lover.3 Her intelligence and common sense shine through in all her work, and a careful comparison of her part of the correspondence and Abelard’s will show that, however much she might have respected his, she acted according to her own judgment. The passionate and eloquent letters between Abelard and Heloise garner most attention inside and outside academe. However, the personal character of their correspondence is only one of the striking singularities that meet us in their lives and writings. Among such efforts of his own and earlier times, Abelard’s Historia calamitatum— “letter of consolation” and “story of calamities”—is commonly regarded as the first real autobiography from medieval Europe. It initiates, moreover, a full, surviving medieval correspondence, an exchange of letters between two persons, to be read from its beginning through to its end in Abelard’s “Rule” for the nuns of the Paraclete. Or, as Morgan Powell puts it in an essay in Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman, “the Heloise who emerges from the parchment of Troyes 802 [the only manuscript containing all eight letters of their correspondence] . . . takes her place along with Abelard in what might be called history’s first epistolary novel . . . For whether fact or fiction, the arrangement of these letters with each following that to which it responds in chronological order is something of a medieval unicum.”4 To read only the letters pertaining to their physical love affair is to know less than half the story of Heloise and Abelard. Their intellectual union continued until death as evidenced by their collaboration, equal in every sense, in the creation of the convent of the Paraclete. The authors of these letters themselves could hardly have emphasized more strongly the singularities of their experience and its records than they did in their own versions of a story that did not end in the shocking episode of Abelard’s castration that modern narrators have found most compelling and that propelled each of the lovers into religious life. Their story would continue, to culminate in another great crisis in their lives and relationship, the beginning of the second act 2 Sharan Newman, Heresy: A Catherine LeVendeur Mystery. For further examples, see Asni, “Abélard and Heloïse sur l’écran et la scène de 1900 et nos jours,” pp. 185–203. 3 Mary Martin McLaughlin, Heloise and the Paraclete: A Twelfth-Century Quest (forthcoming). 4 Powell, “Listening to Heloise at the Paraclete,” in Listening to Heloise, p. 257 joins us in considering the correspondence a deliberately unified set of documents.

I N T RO DU C T ION

3

in a drama eloquently and anxiously described by Abelard in the closing pages of his fi rst letter. These last pages offer our best guide not only to the immediate circumstances in which this letter was written, but also to those later catastrophes and opportunities that led to the renewal of his relationship with Heloise and the collaboration that followed. When he wrote his Historia calamitatum, Abelard was no longer the ambitious and successful teacher whom we meet in its early pages, the brilliant master whose renown had “fi lled Paris” with his students. Nor was Heloise still the youthful and learned niece of Fulbert, a canon in the cathedral of Notre-Dame, whose concern for her further education encouraged him to welcome Abelard’s presence in his house as her teacher. When he wrote his Historia calamitatum, at least a dozen years had passed since Abelard had fi rst embarked on the seduction of his brilliant pupil and then carried on an impassioned love aff air that led to the birth of their son, their secret marriage, and uncle Fulbert’s terrible revenge when he ordered Abelard’s castration. Separated, after this, for the most part, probably by 1118, both had entered the religious life in monasteries near Paris— Heloise in the female abbey of Argenteuil where she had spent her early years and Abelard in the royal abbey of Saint-Denis. Unable, it seems, to escape turbulence even in the cloister, Abelard had hardly become a monk when he embroiled himself in quarrels with his fellow monks at Saint-Denis. These were followed a few years later by charges of heresy and his condemnation, with no real hearing, at the Saint-Denis Council of Soissons in 1121. Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis, a great collector of highly wrought treasures, released Abelard—his complex living treasure—from that abbey, as long as Abelard agreed not to put himself under the rule of another abbot. Leaving Saint-Denis soon after the Council of Soissons, Abelard fled to the protection of friends in Champagne and later to the deserted countryside near Troyes, where he built the hermitage or oratory he dedicated to God in his role as Comforter, or Paraclete. Here he found some consolation for his misfortunes, fi rst in solitary study and fruitful writing, then in teaching the “crowds” of students who, he reported, joined him in the wilderness. After several years, he says, haunted by fears of further persecution, he rashly invited disaster once more by abandoning his refuge at the Paraclete for what seemed at a distance to be more promising security as the new abbot of Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuys on the desolate coast of his native Brittany. There, confronting an ancient semi-Celtic monastery inhabited by monks living with their families, “wives” and children, in a community still loyal to their Breton language and other Celtic customs inherited from earlier centuries, he soon found himself again at odds with a community. As a son of Brittany’s Frenchspeaking region, Abelard was unfamiliar with their Breton language, and he was defeated in his efforts at their spiritual and institutional reform. He was soon convinced by escalating confl icts with his monks that they were bent on his destruction. Disillusioned and fearful as he was, however, he had endured his miseries there for some years before chance—and the ambitions of Abbot Suger of the royal abbey of Saint-Denis—opened the way to his escape and his reunion with Heloise.

4

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

In 1129, the enterprising and powerful Abbot Suger, supported by what we now think were forged documents and questionable charges of misbehavior, laid successful claim to Heloise’s abbey on behalf of his own. Heloise, after more than a decade in this abbey of Argenteuil, where she was then prioress, was expelled with its other nuns. Seeing in Heloise’s plight an opportunity to provide for her as well as for his deserted Paraclete, Abelard invited her there with a group of her faithful companions from Argenteuil. As his own situation became more intolerable, he had returned more often to help her, by his advice and preaching, in the development of the still poor and struggling women’s community that was for him “a haven of peace in a raging tempest.” Responding to their double jeopardy in this second great crisis in their lives and relationship, Abelard began and Heloise completed the dual rescue operation that led to the founding of the Paraclete and their collaboration in the direction of this new community. So fruitful, in fact, were their joint efforts that within a short time they had won for the Paraclete the assistance of its neighbors and the approval of Pope Innocent II, who confi rmed Heloise’s possession of the Paraclete in an official letter of 28 November 1131. The collaboration thus begun continued, it seems, until malicious gossip and Abelard’s vicissitudes at Saint-Gildas interrupted his visits to the Paraclete, cutting him off, as he says, from “the only solace of a wretched existence” and depriving Heloise of his help through at least his occasional presence. Exactly when this second separation occurred is uncertain; nor is it clear precisely when he fi nally abandoned his long struggle and succeeded in extricating himself from Saint-Gildas. His troubles there are still evident in his fi rst two letters to Heloise, and in her replies, but they are no longer mentioned in her third letter. Apparently he never officially renounced his office as abbot; to have done so would have placed him once more under the authority of Saint-Denis. This is one reason why a role at the Paraclete, especially one like the office of provost proposed in his Rule, might have seemed appealing. It is quite probable that in this time of reunion and the formation of the Paraclete, Heloise and Abelard discussed the practical matters of founding and maintaining a convent for women. However, it is only after their second separation, perhaps while Abelard was again at Saint-Gildas, that their written record begins. It was during his unhappy tenure there that he wrote his Historia calamitatum, reviewing his troubled life in these apparently desperate circumstances and seeking some means of escape from them in a letter of consolation to a friend whom he did not name and whose troubles he barely mentioned. This letter circulated until it reached Heloise. Her response is full of passionate memories, so much so that modern readers have tended to ignore the fact that, even in what seems to be a personal letter, she reproaches him not only for his neglect of her but even more for his neglect of the convent he has helped to establish. The letters that follow, while ostensibly covering intensely personal subjects, are all directed to the question of interior conversion to the monastic life and the ways in which it should best be lived. These are subjects

I N T RO DU C T ION

5

that would have been pertinent not just to Heloise, but to the other nuns at the Paraclete.5 While unique in their subject and unity, these letters have aspects of other contemporary examples of a literary art that flourished in this period with vigor and versatility unequaled since late antiquity and unrivaled until the seventeenth century. Witnessing in different ways the compelling importance of this means of communication in twelfth-century society and culture are the surviving letter-collections, their contents numbering in the hundreds, of such distinguished abbots as Peter the Venerable of Cluny and Bernard of Clairvaux, who are briefly represented in this book—and, among others not represented here, Abbess Hildegard of Bingen, of whose prodigious correspondence nearly four hundred letters survive.6 But among the notable epistolary collections of this period there is none to compare with Abelard and Heloise’s exchange of letters, intended to be read and understood as a whole, from beginning to end; an exchange that begins with an autobiography and ends with a Rule for nuns. There is no other correspondence that portrays the development of a relationship of singular passion and self-conscious complexity, ending as a record of the equal collaboration in the creation and direction of a new monastery of women.7 The authors themselves could hardly have stressed more strongly the singularity of their experience than Abelard did in his account of the catastrophes that are the pervasive theme of his Historia calamitatum and than Heloise did in adding her own unique misfortunes to her assumption of responsibility for his. In their early letters they together played out with rare candor and originality the drama that culminated not in the tragic castration that has obsessed many later tellers of their tale, but in the second great crisis of their lives and their relationship. The role of Heloise in the collaboration has, until recently, been perceived as limited to that of petitioner and questioner. She has been portrayed, even in academic circles, as a reluctant entrant into monastic life, with no vocation or inclination for it. Furthermore, the implication has been that the rule and the voluminous amount of sermons, hymns, and versicles that Abelard produced for 5 The subject of medieval women religious has struck a rich chord in contemporary scholarship. One might begin with Johnson, Equal in Monastic Profession: Religious Women in Medieval France; another valuable and more comprehensive contribution is Bruce L. Venarde’s Women’s Monasticism and Medieval Society: Nunneries in France and England, 890–1215. See also Roberta Gilchrist, Gender and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Religious Women; Marilyn Oliva, The Convent and the Community in Late Medieval England: Female Monasteries in the Diocese of Norwich 1350–1450. Others soon forthcoming include June Mecham, Sacred Communities, Shared Devotions: Gender, Material Culture and Monasticism in Late Medieval Germany, and Constance Berman, The White Nuns; there is also a research strand about twelfth-century writing in support of men’s care for nuns, for instance Griffiths, “ ‘Men’s Duty to Provide for Women’s Needs’: Abelard, Heloise, and their Negotiation of the Cura monialium.” 6 See The Letters of Hildegard of Bingen, trans. Joseph L. Baird and Radd K. Ehrm. Some crucial resources can be found indexed or on-line through the Feminae Web project: http://www.haverford. edu/library/reference/mschaus/mfi/. Of special interest to our subject is Joan Ferrante’s Epistolae project and Lisa Bitel’s Matrix project, both of which are linked through the Feminae site. 7 For ref lections on the composition of the letters, and Heloise’s role in preserving and editing them, see Peter von Moos, Abaelard und Heloise.

6

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

the Paraclete at her request were used exclusively by these nuns and followed without question. As Chrysogonus Waddell noted in his editions of the liturgical books of the Paraclete, the evidence shows that, in actuality, though the nuns used much of Abelard’s work, they often adapted it to the needs of the convent.8 In some cases, material had even been borrowed from Cistercian liturgies (linked therefore to Abelard’s great opponent Bernard of Clairvaux). This could only have been done either by Heloise’s own hand or with her approval. Unlike Abelard, Heloise was an adroit administrator, so much so that the Paraclete thrived in her lifetime, even producing several daughter-houses. Her role as abbess was evidently a masterpiece of intelligence and administrative ability. This letter collection, here translated in full, cannot be understood in its context without the material (also translated) pertaining to the observances of the convent and to the education of the women there and, by extension, the education of women religious everywhere. Epistolary Tradition The spirited arts of friendship flourished in medieval monastic environments in which (as in the country houses of earlier and later ages), letter-writing sustained and celebrated their vigor. Although Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, may not have been the most gifted stylist of his time—this distinction is commonly reserved for Bernard of Clairvaux—few were so accomplished in these twin arts as this amiable abbot who could be both grave and amusing, to “have his fun without losing his dignity.” But even among the obscure there were many who pursued fame along with friendship by preserving and recopying written correspondence. Written in a hermeneutic style that was not the tongue of common speech, often liberally adorned with the flowers of rhetoric, pervaded by the words and cadences of scripture, the letters of this time bear all the marks of a self-conscious literary genre. Many authors promised brevity but clung to prolixity, and the length as well as the learning of their letters sometimes seems to overburden this fragile form. Even at their most artful, they rarely achieve the hidden art that makes the letters of a Keats or a Henry James as free and easy as good talk. Even at their most intimate, they were seldom casual or informal: they commonly display a combination of spontaneity and self-consciousness that rings strangely to modern ears. Valuing the pleasures of publicity perhaps as highly as the demands of privacy, writers of these letters would have rejected wholeheartedly Virginia Woolf ’s notion that “the letter written to be kept is hardly worth keeping.” On the contrary, having lavished on their epistolary gems all of the skills at their command, the more ardent devotees of this art often wanted their collected letters to circulate as widely as possible. Like all letters committed to valuable animal skin, letters that circulated unsealed were public documents as much as private communication. Affections were made 8 Waddell, the Paraclete Statutes. Throughout the notes to his edition, Waddell notes the variations made from Abelard’s Rule as well as Benedictine usages. On the basis of internal evidence, he concludes that Heloise was the author of these modifications.

I N T RO DU C T ION

7

public through letters; judgments were rendered; and ideas were circulated. Sealed letters had different and private purposes, but public letter-writing was a major medieval literary form.9 Cherished by their authors and their readers alike, the letters of the more prolific and more eminent writers were assembled, transcribed from wax tablet to parchment, revised from the drafts or duplicates they had preserved, then circulated by themselves or sometimes (like the correspondence of Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter the Venerable) by their faithful secretaries. It is to this love of letters and letter-writing that we owe the extraordinary wealth of personal documents that show us the landscape of their age through the prism of individual experience. It is to Heloise that we owe the preservation and fi nal revision of her correspondence with Abelard. That correspondence reflects the most learned and eloquent epistolary traditions of their time. At the same time that it commemorates their collective achievements, it reveals their profound singularity and independence of thought and expression. Twelfth-Century Contexts There has never been a more auspicious time than the present to encounter freshly or to explore more intensively the lives and works of this twelfth-century pair, especially against the background of their collaboration in the creation of the Paraclete. Modern scholarship makes particularly timely their study also in the more encompassing contexts of their larger world. In these past decades, several broadly based works have invited us to consider not only the now familiar “Twelfth-Century Renaissance,” or the “Twelfth-Century Crisis,” but also in its religious and spiritual aspects, the “Reformation of the Twelfth Century,” and most boldly, the “First European Revolution.” As we encounter them in these and other studies, Heloise and Abelard seem to be enjoying something of a “Renaissance” and, in significant ways, a “Reformation” of their own. In modern historical works, they have been perceived as representatives, even agents, of these larger movements. Presented as an introductory survey directed primarily toward college students, R.N. Swanson’s The Twelfth-Century Renaissance (1999) begins with a promising declaration: “the more work that is done on the twelfth century, the more critical the century appears in all spheres of human activity.”10 Readers who wish a sharply focused and penetrating study of this “long twelfth century” might best consult Giles Constable’s masterly The Reformation of the Twelfth 9 Much contemporary work has been done on the generation, transmission, and distribution of medieval letters and letter collections, but the most succinct introduction to the subject is found in Constable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, 2:1–44. 10 Swanson, The Twelfth-Century Renaissance, p. vii. Whether the term “Renaissance” should apply to all of its encompassing changes, or whether there were several “Renaissances,” are, however, questions that lead Swanson into a continuing argument, or dialogue, with himself, other scholars, and the sources on which these studies are based. Most successful, perhaps, is his treatment of Abelard’s contributions to the “discovery of the individual,” but unexamined doubts regarding the authenticity of their correspondence limit the success of other aspects of his discussion.

8

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Century (1996).11 Here individuals are presented and larger themes developed in a variety of settings and in relation to the broader “rhetoric and realities” of reform within communities and in secular societies. In the remarkable expansion of women’s religious life, male religious leaders of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were often responsive to their needs and, at least initially, welcomed their presence and influence in religious institutions and reform movements. Abelard himself was among the most notable of such leaders, and Constable stresses also the importance of Heloise’s ideas, her critical view of the needs of women’s religious life. In the perspectives of this study, both she and Abelard stand out as major representatives of the “interiorizing” of morality, and new meanings of consent, intention, and good faith in directing the selfexamination required by Abelard’s ethics. Among recent comprehensive studies of this kind, Constable’s does fullest justice to the religious experience and contributions of these two persons whose lives, despite their diversities, were largely spent in monastic settings. Although notably less attentive to the major themes of Constable’s Reformation, R.I. Moore offered in his boldly entitled The First European Revolution (2000) a “radical reassessment” of the profound changes in this period.12 Emphasizing, as my opening quotation suggests, “intensely personal” aspects of the letters of Heloise and Abelard, Moore portrayed them as “confronting new dilemmas and agonizing choices,” and with equal importance, acting out their individual responses to a singular combination of experiences. If they displayed a preoccupation with “role” and “identity” that Moore regards as typical of their time, with questions concerning fitting behavior and feeling for people in given circumstances, they also defied circumstances in pursuing their own goals and relationships. Raising such challenging questions, Moore approaches Abelard especially, and Heloise as well, as major figures in the emergence of a new class of intellectuals who confronted ecclesiastical authorities in their special positions in both worlds— Heloise as “learned abbess” and Abelard, especially, as both monk and teacher. Even here, however, as Moore focuses on the personal experience and responses of Abelard the “intellectual” facing his tribulations in this “revolutionary” perspective, Heloise’s contribution was still not fully appreciated. Aside from occasional articles, the most serious strides made in reassessing Heloise’s multifold life and complex writings are found in the fi fteen essays that compose Bonnie Wheeler’s edited collection, Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman (2000).13 In this volume, scholars from various disciplines and perspectives focus on Heloise as writer, collaborator, woman, mother, nun, and abbess, thus producing a richer sense of several strands of Heloise’s life. Wheeler’s deliberately fragmented book strands in ironic parallel to Michael Clanchy’s massive and schizoid 1997 biography, Abelard: A Medieval Life. Though Clanchy recognizes Heloise’s influence, his “popularizing” account, a fragmented biography, finds every aspect of Abelard’s character and career 11

Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century. Moore, The First European Revolution, c. 970–1215, pp. 112–14. 13 Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman, ed. Wheeler. 12

I N T RO DU C T ION

9

not only contradictory but also perplexing.14 In her far-reaching Every Valley Shall Be Exalted: The Discourse of Opposites in Twelfth-Century Thought, however, Constance Bouchard uses Abelard as the most coherent example of the use of discursive opposites in twelfth-century thought.15 In life as in thought, Abelard sought truth by beginning with two answers (sic et non), embracing rather than denying opposition. In the broader sense Bouchard’s book argues that, unlike modern thinkers, who often want to know which of two contradictory answers is right, or, especially, thirteenth-century thinkers—whose supreme example is the synthetic Thomas Aquinas—who wanted to resolve contradictions into a unitary solution, twelfth-century thinkers grounded in neoplatonic thought often found that the easiest way to explain something was by what it was not— without however labeling one position right and one wrong. Instead, opposition was retained. This tension, Bouchard argues, fi nds its apex in the understanding of gender.16 It is precisely this opposition, with all its gendered implications, that is played out in the correspondence of Abelard and Heloise. Rather than seeing his sic et non life as a contradiction, then, one might assess Abelard’s own life (and certainly his presentation of it) as a formidable balancing act. John Marenbon’s The Philosophy of Abelard (1997), a major reassessment of Abelard’s thought, presents him as not only a critical thinker, but also as a constructive philosopher, especially in his writings on ethics and theology.17 In his contribution to Listening to Heloise (2000), Marenbon also revisits a fading debate with a strong and persuasive defense of the authenticity of her correspondence with Abelard.18 Marenbon followed this with another important contribution to Abelardian thought, an edition of his Collationes or Dialogue with a Christian, a Jew, and a Philosopher (2001), with a translation of the Latin text and an extensive study of the text itself.19 Most recently, as part of his longtime study of this monastic pair, historian Constant J. Mews yokes the two as great medieval thinkers in his joint biography titled simply Abelard and Heloise (2005).20 Authorship and Authenticity The authorship of the letters, now generally accepted to be Heloise and Abelard together, was debated for many years. Bernhard Schmeidler, in 1913, initiated the argument that Abelard alone composed all the letters.21 One reason for this conclusion was that the passionate nature of the letters did not conform 14

Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life. Bouchard, Every Valley Shall be Exalted, pp. 3–43. 16 For another argument about this twelfth-century predilection for nonsynthetic dialectic and its implications for our understanding of gender, see Bonnie Wheeler, “The Sic et Non of Andreas Capellanus’s De Amore,” especially pp. 152–55. 17 Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard. 18 John Marenbon, “Authenticity Revisited,” in Listening to Heloise, pp. 19–33. 19 Abelard, Collationes, ed. Marenbon. 20 Mews, Abelard and Heloise. Editor’s note: Mews’s book was published after Mary Martin McLaughlin’s death, but she previously had several communications with him. 21 Bernhard Schmeidler, “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Abälard und Heloise eine Fälschung?” 15

10

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

to the modern concept of a twelfth-century abbess. Other scholars, including Ètienne Gilson and Sir Richard Southern, argued for dual authorship.22 The explicit nature of the physical aspect of the relationship in the letters led others to suggest that Jean de Meun—that poet of love and desire—invented them out of whole cloth rather than simply being their translator. This argument was soon discounted on technical grounds (mistakes made in the French did not occur in the Latin text, etc.). In addition, Jean apparently did not have access to the complete letters, only translating the fi rst ones, along with the letter to Heloise from Peter the Venerable.23 A scholarly crisis came in 1972 when, at a conference held at Peter the Venerable’s monastery of Cluny, an American medieval historian, John Benton, asserted that the letters were a fiction created in the thirteenth century, using genuine work of Abelard as a base.24 Benton later retracted his theory, but it generated much consternation that, happily, led to an increased critical analysis of the letters. This, in turn, gave more credence to the original conviction that Heloise wrote the material attributed to her. This is not the place to provide a full survey of the strange fortunes of the correspondence of Heloise and Abelard in modern scholarship, dominated by instances of fragmentation, fictionalization, and falsification, but after intermittent controversies of the past century the authenticity of the correspondence translated in this volume is now generally accepted, especially by those scholars who have studied these letters, their authors, and their historical contexts most closely. This is far from true, however, about a current debate regarding the attribution to Heloise and Abelard of a quite different collection of medieval love letters, now commonly designated as the Lost Love Letters.25 Though we know from their extant correspondence that the couple exchanged letters in Paris in the early days of their relationship, perhaps by means of wax tablets, we still await knowledge, should it ever come, of the contents of those epistles. Along with a cohort of other scholars, I reject the attribution of this diverse lost love letter collection to Abelard and Heloise.26 Thus I do not provide a fresh translation of them in 22

For details, see Marenbon, “Authenticity Revisited” in Listening to Heloise, p. 20. Charlotte Charrier, Heloise dans l’histoire et dans la légende, pp 383–85. 24 John F. Benton “Fraud, Fiction and Forgery in the Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise,” p. 472. 25 Mews with trans. Chiavaroli, The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard (1999). A German scholar, Ewald Könsgen, published these letters in 1974 with the title and its question-mark: Epistolae duorum amantium: Briefe Abaelards und Heloises? 26 For a more detailed argument, see chapter one of the forthcoming Heloise and the Paraclete: A Twelfth-Century Quest. The major arguments favoring Abelard and Heloise as authors of these letters are found in Mews, both in The Lost Love Letters and in “Philosophical Themes in the Epistolae duorum amatium, the First Letters of Heloise and Abelard,” in Listening to Heloise, pp. 35–52; Ward and Chiavaroli, “The Young Heloise and Latin Rhetoric,” in Listening to Heloise, pp. 53–119; Jaeger, “Epistolae duorum amantium and the Ascription to Heloise and Abelard,” in Voices in Dialogue, pp. 125–66. The major arguments opposing this attribution are presented by Peter Dronke and Giovanni Orlandi, “New Works by Abelard and Heloise?” Filologia mediolatina 12 (2005): 123–77; Constable, “The Authorship of the Epistolae duorum amantium: A Reconsideration,” in Voices in Dialogue, pp. 167–78l; and von Moos, “Die Epistolae duorum amantium und die säkulare Religion der Liebe.” 23

I N T RO DU C T ION

11

this volume. Even were we to accept wholesale the attribution of these letters, the collection does not add to or alter our store of knowledge about Abelard or Heloise. An especially revealing aspect of these attributions is their emotional subjectivity, with Heloise already advancing into her later role as a romantic heroine, the nineteenth century’s “great saint of love.” In these attributions of the “lost love letters” we meet, as we have seen, another expression of the central role of a perhaps fictional Heloise in the long afterlife of this twelfth-century couple. The Afterlife of Heloise and Abelard Whatever we may make of the “lost love letters,” the questions that they raise are hardly surprising to anyone familiar with the extraordinary afterlives of Heloise and Abelard from the history of the correspondence that is convincingly attributed to them. Here we must confront, fi rst of all, the posthumous destinies of this correspondence and its authors. While there is no testimony to its wider circulation before the later thirteenth century, there is, as I have proposed in Appendix 2, positive evidence of the presence of Letter 8 and, arguably, the rest of the correspondence at the Paraclete in the mid-twelfth century. Like most monastic statutes, the regulations of the Paraclete, along with related texts— including the letter-collection that is at once so “personalized” and so monastic in character and purpose—very probably remained there, without circulating beyond the mother and daughter-houses, until they drew the attention of readers with quite different and more secular interests in their authors and the contents of their letters. In the early seventeenth century the correspondence of Heloise and Abelard appeared in its fi rst printed edition. This was soon followed by a series of fictitious versions often attached to novels. Since then these letters and their story have never ceased to beguile and to baffle the modern imagination. It is hardly surprising that seventeenth-century readers and those who came after them should fi nd the later letters with their religious themes far less interesting than the tragic story told in those early letters. The fictional version of the story generally ends with Heloise’s entrance into the convent. This would be only the beginning of an afterlife that has been in its twofold character as singular as the correspondence itself. It has been an afterlife divided between the popular legend still lively, for example, in the current memories noted at the beginning of this essay and the ambivalent responses of modern scholars who have continued until recently to debate the authenticity of the correspondence. For however celebrated Heloise and Abelard may have been during their lifetimes, their learning and their other achievements, rather than their love, had inspired a renown among their contemporaries that did not, apparently, long survive them. After Heloise’s brief appearance in one or two late twelfth-century Latin poems, and the more doubtful support claimed for hitherto anonymous writings, as a couple she and Abelard seem to have slipped into an oblivion that, except for their remembrance and their works preserved at the Paraclete,

12

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

concealed the fortunes of their letters for more than a century after they were written. Without such evidence, we lack defi nitive answers to questions about the assembling, perhaps the editing, of the correspondence. However, the most likely conclusion is that all of the correspondence was arranged by Heloise, as its shaper and keeper, who initiated its preservation before the later thirteenth century when the earliest surviving manuscripts were copied, and the French poet, Jean de Meun, claimed as his own the letters’ fi rst French translation.27 Even as these manuscripts of the letters were beginning to circulate, the features of the “new” Heloise may be glimpsed in Jean’s Roman de la Rose, where she is portrayed as the advocate of freedom in love, making “the marvelous declaration which some called mad, that she would rather be Abelard’s mistress than Rome’s empress.” 28 The dramatic role of Heloise in this popular poem contributed more to her late medieval fame than the French translation of her correspondence with Abelard, which survives in only a single copy. Her primacy in fiction, already noted, was doubtless supported by Jean’s advocacy, and soon the similarly influential devotion of Petrarch, whose treasured manuscript of the correspondence, the oldest surviving copy, records his own imaginary dialogue with its authors, most especially with Heloise. In the margins of her letters he presented his own emotional responses, several of them confessional in character. Reflecting in other ways its closeness to the Paraclete and the mid-twelfth century, in Petrarch’s manuscript the correspondence of Heloise and Abelard is followed by much briefer works of Abelard, and a devastating attack on his enemies at the Council of Sens (1141), above all, Bernard of Clairvaux, in the Apologeticus of Berengar of Poitiers, Abelard’s former student and devoted secretary.29 Another mid-fourteenth century owner of a manuscript of the correspondence was Petrarch’s friend and compatriot, Roberto de’ Bardi, a canon of NotreDame and a member of the famous Florentine family, who was chancellor of the University of Paris in 1340. On September 1 of that year he invited Petrarch to receive the poet’s laurel crown in Paris, an invitation that he declined in favor of another, received the same day, to accept the more impressive golden crown offered by the Roman senate. Long after Robert’s death in 1349, his manuscript became Troyes 802. This contains the only surviving copy of Letter 8, Abelard’s Rule for the Paraclete. Some thirty years later, still another scholar, the Frenchman Jean de Montreuil, sent a copy of “Abelard’s Letters” to Coluccio Salutati in Florence, who promised, though apparently without success, to spread their fame in Italy, as it had been revived earlier in France. If we may judge by the character and ownership of most manuscripts, scholars and men and women of letters like these were the most devoted readers of a correspondence now cut off from its monastic origins and setting, often not copied in its complete 27 See La Vie et les epistres, Pierres Abaelard et Heloys sa fame. Traduction du XIII e siècle attribuée à Jean de Meun, ed. Hicks. For English translation, consult de Lorris and de Meun, The Romance of the Rose, trans. Dahlberg. 28 “S’ameroye je mieux fait elle / Et Dieu a tesmoing en appelle / Estre ta putain appellee / Que empereïs couronnee,” MSS Ludwig XV 7, p. 56v, in Romance of the Rose Digital Library. http:// romandelarose.org/#home. Accessed 12/15/2008. 29 Petrarch, Paris BnF lat. 2923.

I N T RO DU C T ION

13

form. From the late fourteenth century onward, it was admired for its personal revelations and its literary qualities, especially those of Heloise, rather than its religious content. Praised earlier by Jean de Meun as “clothed in beauty radiant as the moon,” it was the “tres saige Esloÿa” who won from the even more worldly poet, François Villon, in the late fi fteenth century, the fi nal accolade of her medieval fame.30 This romantic image created by late medieval poets led to the diminution of Heloise as an intelligent and competent abbess and largely ignored her role in designing the Rule for the Paraclete and, more importantly, implementing it. Heloise and Abelard instead entered the ranks of tragic lovers of history and their collective life’s work was forgotten. Ironically, these metamorphoses were actively fostered by the publication in 1616 of the earliest printed edition of the correspondence and other Abelardian works, in the “double” edition of André Duchesne and François d’Amboise.31 Soon followed by a series of fictitious versions, their letters and their story have never ceased to beguile and to baffle the modern imagination. This was the real beginning of a more dramatic stage in their afterlife, one that has been in some ways as singular as the correspondence itself. For if the censure of Abelard’s theological works in the century’s early years may well have diminished the image and appeal of the medieval thinker, the twelfth-century abbess would vanish altogether in the processes of myth-making that shaped the Heloise of legend, making her the captive of modern fantasies in a truly extraordinary fashion. Giving wider circulation to the Latin text of her correspondence with Abelard, this publication seems to have invited as well the translation and “fictionalizing” of their letters, fi xing attention on the story of the lovers that launched Heloise most particularly on the fantastic odyssey of her modern fame. During the eighteenth century’s middle and later years, when the fi rst of many novels celebrating her love for Abelard was preceded and followed by fictitious versions of her letters, the image of Heloise endured a series of transformations in which her historical identity was almost entirely erased. In these changes Heloise would become nothing less than an “eternal contemporary,” a magnet for the self-projection of her admirers from the seventeenth to the twenty-fi rst century. By rewriting their fi rst letters in a style reminiscent of the vastly popular Letters of a Portuguese Nun and endowing Heloise and Abelard with the graces and gallantry of the Sun-King’s Versailles, Count Roger Bussy-Rabutin, a disgraced general of Louis XIV, introduced their story, especially its heroine, in a guise irresistible to the courtly audience of his time.32 Dedicated to his cousin and correspondent, the famous Madame de Sévigné, his version of the letters 30

Francois Villon, “Le Testament,” l. 337 in Villon, Complete Poems, pp. 76–77. Petri Abaelardi filosofi et theologi, abbatis Ruyensis, et Heloisae coniugis eius primae Paracletesis abbatissae Opera. 32 Histoire amoureuse des Gaules: suivie de La France galante, romans satiriques du XVIIe siècle attribués au comte de Bussy. 31

14

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

gave the fi rst powerful impetus to a vogue that culminated in the sentimental apotheosis of Heloise. Appearing fi rst as Bussy’s witty coquette and soon, more entrancingly, as the English poet Alexander Pope’s languishing and tearful “Eloisa in her cell,” later inspiring Rousseau’s “new” and bourgeois Heloise, her “well-sung woes” captivated the sensitive hearts of an eighteenth-century social world. This was a public whose members reveled in the ruins of a more distant past, in macabre tales of seduction, betrayal, and revenge, and in those epistolary poems and novels that reflected, as did the metamorphoses of Heloise, its changing sentiments and erotic fancies. As the romantic spirit began its triumph in the late eighteenth century, a chorus of adulation extolled Heloise, la grande amoureuse, as “the glory of France and the enduring monument of the whole human race.” By the early nineteenth century she (with Abelard) had become the “great saints of love,” the patrons of a cult without parallel even in that exuberant age. Brought to Paris, in 1800, after the fi rst phases of the Revolution, their bones, by then so accepted after at least eight exhumations and reburials, somewhat later (1817) were transported through the streets of Paris to be enshrined in their tombs in the cemetery of Père-Lachaise. There they enjoyed for many years the renown whose reflection still survives in such popular images as those with which this introduction begins, and in the many spurious versions of their letters. Of the more than eighty “translations” of their “letters” published in the various European languages during the past four centuries, by far the greater number and the more widely circulated have been, in fact, as fanciful as the other works of fiction that have so persistently travestied the experience and the personalities of Heloise and Abelard.33 *

*

*

In this translation, the fullest yet available in English, the goal has been to clear away the fictions and read the actual (if tightly controlled) historical record and to render the complex Latin expressions of the correspondents accurately and fluently, so that readers might be reminded of the depth and pleasure of the original Latin in which they were produced.

33 For more details on the reception of Heloise’s life and history, see the new biography of Heloise by Mary Martin McLaughlin with Bonnie Wheeler, Heloise and the Paraclete: A Twelfth-Century Quest (forthcoming).

PART I THE CORRESPONDENCE OF HELOISE AND ABELARD

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 1 ABELARD’S LETTER OF CONSOLATION TO A FRIEND: A STORY OF CALAMITIES

I

n arousing or calming human emotions, I have found, the experiences of others are often more effective than mere words. So, after offering you some comfort when we talked together, I have decided, now that we are apart, to write you a letter of consolation about the calamities I have suffered. This should make you realize that your troubles amount to little or nothing compared with mine, and you may find them easier to bear. [His Birthplace] I was born on a manor called Le Pallet, which is near the border of Brittany and, I believe, about eight miles east of the city of Nantes. Quick-witted, which is natural in a child of my land and people, I was also outstanding in my talent and facility for learning. I had, besides, a father who had acquired some little education before he was given the sword-belt of a knight.1 He later became so intensely fond of learning that he was determined to have his sons instructed in letters before they were trained for the knightly life. And this he did. Because I was the fi rst-born son and, for that reason, dearer to him than the others, he provided more carefully for my education. As I made greater progress in my studies and they became easier for me, I embraced them more ardently. Indeed, I fell so completely in love with them that I gave up to my brothers the pomp of military glory, together with the inheritance and rights of the first-born, and I finally abandoned the court of Mars to be educated in the lap of Minerva. Preferring the armor of dialectical reasoning to all other branches of philosophy, I exchanged other weapons for this, and I valued the confl icts of disputation more highly than the trophies of war. As an imitator of the peripatetics, I wandered, debating as I went, through various provinces, wherever I had heard that the art of dialectic was actively cultivated.2 1

See: Explanatory Notes, “Abelard.” Peripatetics: Term generally used for the school of Aristotle, who founded a formal institution, the Lyceum, but liked to walk around (Greek, peripapeun) the Athenian countryside with his 2

18

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

[His Persecution by Master William] At last I arrived in Paris, where the study of logic was already most flourishing, and I sought out as a teacher William of Champeaux, who was at that time as distinguished in reality as in reputation for his mastery of this subject.3 I stayed with him for a while and at first he liked me. But he later became greatly annoyed with me because I tried to refute some of his opinions and often attempted to argue with him, and sometimes seemed to vanquish him in disputation. My behavior also aroused the hostility of those of my fellow-students who were considered more outstanding than the rest, the more so because they regarded me as younger and less advanced in my studies than they were. This was the beginning of my calamities, which have continued to this day, and as my fame spread more widely, the envy of others was aroused against me. Then, with greater confidence in my ability than my age warranted, as a mere youth I aspired to become the master of a school and I found a place where I could do this, at Melun, which was at that time a well-known town and a royal seat.4 My master suspected my plan and in his efforts to remove my school as far as possible from his own, he plotted secretly against me, using every means in his power to prevent the establishment of my school before I left his classes, and to deprive me of the place I had in mind. But certain influential men in this region were hostile to him and with their help I succeeded in doing as I wished. In fact, his display of jealousy won a great deal of support for me. From the time when I established my school, my fame as a dialectician began to increase so much that the reputation not only of my fellow-students, but of our teacher himself gradually diminished and was fi nally eclipsed. So I became more self-confident and moved my school as soon as possible to Corbeil,5 which is closer to Paris, in order to have an opportunity to engage more often in our battles of disputation.6 Not long afterward, I fell ill as a result of excessive study and was obliged to return home. Even though I was away from France for several years, students who were eager for instruction in logic kept trying as hard as they could to seek me out. A few years later, after I had recovered from my illness, that teacher of mine, William, then archdeacon of Paris, renounced his former status as a secular cleric to join the order of regular canons, hoping, it was said, to gain a higher reputation for piety so that he might be given a major church office. His hopes students teaching as they walked. In later, medieval, centuries, the term came to imply something like a quest: here Abelard is comparing himself to knights errant as well as to ancient Greek philosophers. Dialectics: The art of dialectic (or logic) is the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in an opponent’s argument, or overcoming them. 3 See: Explanatory Notes, “William of Champeaux.” 4 Melun: a royal residence up the Seine favored by Philip I, some 40 km./25 mi. southeast of Paris as the crow f lies—and not far (14 km./9 mi.) from the Champeaux which was William’s birthplace and probable family seat. 5 Corbeil: another royal residence on the Seine, downriver from Melun, some 14 km./9mi. closer to Paris. 6 Battles of disputation: increasingly important in teaching, these refer to debates involving two or more participants, students or their teachers.

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

19

were later realized when he was made bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne. But at this time his entrance into the religious life did not remove him either from Paris or from his accustomed study of philosophy, since he immediately began to teach publicly, as usual, in the very monastery [Saint-Victor] that he had entered for the sake of religion.7 Returning at that time to hear his lectures on rhetoric, I forced him, among other ventures in disputation, to change—or rather, to renounce—his former opinion concerning universals.8 Regarding the common existence of universals, he had maintained that the same thing exists wholly and essentially in all of the individuals of its class, that among these there is no difference in essence, but only diversity in the multitude of their accidents. Now, however, he so altered his opinion that he afterward stated that the same thing exists in its individuals not essentially, but indifferently.9 This question of universals has always been the greatest problem for dialecticians, so baffl ing, indeed, that Porphyry himself, in his Isagoge, does not presume to answer it defi nitively when he writes about universals, saying: “This is a most difficult problem.”10 So after William had changed his opinion, indeed was forced to abandon it, his lectures became so careless that they could hardly be considered lectures on logic at all, as if this whole subject consisted only of the problem of universals.11 From this time on, my teaching acquired so much force and authority that those who had earlier been most ardently devoted to that teacher of mine, and had attacked my teaching most violently, now flocked to my lectures.12 Indeed, the person who had succeeded to our master’s chair in the school of Paris offered me his own position, in order to become my pupil along with the rest, in the very place where his master and mine had formerly been so eminent. I can hardly describe how consumed with envy Master William was, how he seethed with rage when, after a few days, he saw me in full sway there as a teacher of dialectic. Nor did he endure for long the misery of the injury he had suffered, but stealthily tried once more to get rid of me. Because there was no charge he could make against me openly, he attempted, by accusing 7 St. Victor: the abbey just outside the walls of Paris where William of Champeaux founded a community of canons and a school (ca. 1105). 8 Universals: Abelard described a “universal” word (he accepted no universal “things”) as a “common or confused image of a large number of beings.” How are “universals” related to “particulars”? Are “universals” real or merely collective names for real particulars? Answers to these question have especially vexed theological implications in respect to any definition of the Trinity. For discussions of Abelard’s formulation of this issue in his Logica “Ingredientibus,” see: Luscombe, “Peter Abelard” in Twelfth Century Western Philosophy, pp. 279–327; Mews, Abelard and Heloise, ch. 3; and especially, Marenbon, The Philosophy of Abelard, ch. 8. 9 Individuals: For twelfth-century perspectives, consult John of Salisbury as well as Abelard’s Logica “Ingredientibus.” 10 Isagoge 4.1, p.1. 13, p. 25, 13; it is through Boethius’s Latin translation of the introduction of the third-century Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry’s Introduction to Categories that this text on dialectic was known; see In Porphyrium 11: PL 64, 826: CSEL 48, 159. 11 See: HC above, note 8, on “Universals.” 12 Lectures: the continuing survey of a subject or theme; see Marenbon, Philosophy, pp. 48–52, 63–68.

20

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

this man of the worst crimes, to get the school away from the person who had given up his mastership to me, and to substitute for him another man who was a rival of mine. Then I returned to Melun and established my school there, and the more openly his jealousy pursued me, the greater my prestige became. For, as the poet says: “Envy seeks out what is highest, the winds blow on the mountaintops.”13 Not long afterward, Master William discovered that nearly everyone who was at all discerning was dubious about his piety and, because he had obviously not withdrawn from the city, there was much noisy whispering about the sincerity of his conversion to the monastic life. For this reason he transferred himself and his group of monks to a certain village at a distance from the city. I returned immediately from Melun to Paris, hoping from now on to be at peace with him. But, as I have said, through his efforts my place there had been taken by my rival, so I set up the camp of my school outside the city on Mont-Sainte-Geneviève, as if to besiege the man who had taken my place.14 When my master heard this, he brazenly came back at once to the city, bringing with him whatever students he then had and re-establishing his community of monks in their former monastery, as if to deliver his deserted vassal from my siege. Although he intended to help this man he harmed him greatly. Until then, this substitute had a certain number of pupils, especially for his lectures on Priscian, about whom he was considered a great expert. But after our master came back, he lost them all and was forced to stop teaching. Not long afterward, as if he had given up hope of achieving further worldly fame, he, too, entered the monastic life. You have, I am sure, long known the facts about those confl icts of disputation which, after my master’s return to the city, my students carried on with him and with his pupils. You are aware, too, of the success that fortune granted to my students in these battles, indeed, to me myself through them. As I speak modestly, I may quote more boldly the saying of Ajax: “If you want to know the outcome of this battle, I was not vanquished by my enemy.”15 If I were silent about this, the facts themselves speak loudly and they proclaim the result of this aff air. But while all this was going on, my beloved mother, Lucia, urged me to return home, because my father, Berengar, had entered a monastery and she was planning to do the same. When she had done so, I returned to France chiefl y in order to take up the study of Scriptures, since my master, William, had now obtained the bishopric of Châlons. In this field, his own teacher, Anselm of Laon, then enjoyed very great and longestablished authority.16

13

Ovid, Remedia Amoris 1.369. Mont-Sainte-Geneviève: a school established at the church of St. Geneviève on the steep hill on the left bank of the Seine, near the site of the old Roman forum. That school, annoyingly independent of the cathedral’s school down on the riverbank at Notre-Dame, would contribute later to the evolution of the University of Paris. 15 Ovid, Metamorphoses 13.89–90. 16 See: Explanatory Notes, “Anselm of Laon.” 14

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

21

[When He Went to Master Anselm at Laon] So I became a student of this old man, who owed his reputation to long experience rather than to his intelligence or his memory. If anyone came knocking on his door in uncertainty about any question, he left more uncertain than ever. He seemed most admirable to those who listened to his lectures, but worthless to those who asked him questions. He had a marvelous mastery of words, but they were almost meaningless and devoid of reason. When he started a fi re, it fi lled his house with smoke, rather than making it glow with light. To those who saw it from a distance, his tree seemed remarkably leafy, but those who came closer and examined it more carefully found it barren. So after I had come to gather fruit from this tree, I realized it was the fig-tree that the Lord had cursed, or that old oak to which Lucan compares Pompey, saying: “There he stood, the mere shadow of a great man, like a lofty oak in a fruitful field.”17 When I had discovered this, I did not lie idle in his shade for very long. When I began to attend his lectures less and less often, however, some of his better students were offended, as if I were being scornful of such a distinguished master. They secretly turned him against me, too, and made him my enemy by their evil insinuations. Then one day, after some discussion of sententiae we students were joking among ourselves.18 One of them, challenging me, asked what I thought about the teaching of the sacred books, since until then I had studied only philosophy. I replied that I considered the study of this kind of exposition very beneficial, because it teaches the way to salvation. But, I said, I was greatly surprised that educated men should not be able to understand the commentaries of the Holy Fathers through their writings and glosses alone, without the need for any further instruction. Most of those who were present laughed at me, and asked whether I could and would presume to demonstrate this to them. I replied that I was ready to try it if they wished. Then, louder than ever in their scorn, they said: “Certainly, by all means, go ahead. Let someone bring us the commentary on some littleknown part of Scripture, so we can put your claim to the proof.” They all agreed on the exceedingly obscure prophecy of Ezekiel. Taking the commentary, I immediately invited them to attend my lecture the next day. Then they began to give me unwelcome advice, declaring that there was no need for haste in such an important matter; in view of my inexperience, I ought to spend more time in study and in developing my interpretation. But I replied indignantly that I was accustomed to relying on my intelligence rather than on practice, and I added that I would give up altogether unless they would come to my lecture without delay, as I wished. 17

Lucan, Pharsalia 1.135–36. Sententiae/Sentences: Robert of Melun, a distinguished student of Abelard’s, emphasized the importance of grasping the sententia, the thought or opinion behind a text, or raised by a text, e.g., the issues raised by Scripture, which he regarded as more valuable than simple glosses of scriptural texts. See: Explanatory Notes, “Anselm of Laon” for more on this subject. Also consult Mews, Abelard and Heloise, chs. 2 and 3. 18

22

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

To tell the truth, only a few of them attended my fi rst lecture, for everyone thought it ridiculous that I, who had until then been almost entirely unfamiliar with the teaching of Sacred Scripture, should take it up so hastily. Yet all those who did come liked what I said so much that they praised it enthusiastically, and urged me to continue my interpretation after the manner of this first lecture. When those who had not been there heard about it, they flocked to my second and third lectures, and everyone was very careful to copy the glosses I had begun on the fi rst day.19 [Anselm’s Persecution of Him] As a result, the old man was consumed with jealousy, and since he had already been turned against me by the influence of certain persons, as I have said before, he began to persecute me for my teaching of Holy Scripture with as much hostility as Master William had shown earlier toward my teaching in philosophy. At that time, there were in the old man’s school two men who seemed more outstanding than the rest, Alberic of Reims and Lotulf the Lombard, and as their opinion of themselves became more exalted, they grew angrier at me.20 Largely because he was disturbed by their sly hints, as I later found out, the old master arrogantly forbade me to carry on, in the place where he exercised magisterial control over teaching, the work of interpretation that I had begun there.21 He claimed that if I, a novice still untrained in this study, should happen to make some error in my work, he would be blamed for it. When the students heard about this, they were most indignant at such an open display of envy, the like of which no one had ever experienced before. The more evident his jealousy became, the more it redounded to my honor, and his persecution only made me more famous. [When He Finally Became Famous in Paris] So after a few days I returned to Paris, and for some years I peacefully conducted the school that had long before been intended for me and, indeed, was offered to me, but from which I had at fi rst been driven away. There, at the beginning of my course, I tried to fi nish the glosses on Ezekiel that I had begun at Laon. My lectures were, indeed, so popular with those who had heard them that they considered me no less gifted in the teaching of Holy Scripture than I was in philosophy. Because of the interest in both fields, my classes grew by leaps and bounds, and you cannot have failed to hear how much money and fame they brought me.

19 Glosses: a brief explanatory note or translation of a difficult or technical expression, usually inserted in the margin or between the lines of a text or manuscript. As in Abelard’s case, these often became more extended or developed explanations. He refers to his (now lost) gloss on Ezekiel. 20 See: Explanatory Notes, “Alberic of Reims.” 21 See: Explanatory Notes, “Anselm of Laon.” For an extensive, at times debatable, discussion of magisterial control of teaching, an important role, see Clanchy, Abelard, pp. 65–94.

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

23

But success always inflates the foolish, and worldly tranquility weakens the spirit’s vigor and easily destroys it through the lures of the flesh. By this time I regarded myself as the only philosopher who remained in all the world and I no longer feared any competition. The outcome was that, although I had been altogether continent until then, I began to give myself up to lust. Now the more successful I had become in philosophy and sacred learning, the more I cut myself off by the impurity of my life from the philosophers and divines. It is well known that philosophers, not to mention divines—I mean those who are dedicated to the teaching of Holy Scripture—have been adorned especially by the virtue of continence. When I had become an utter slave to pride and sensuality, the divine grace granted me the remedy for both diseases, though I was unwilling: first for lust and then for pride. For lust, by robbing me of those parts of my body by which I had served it, and for the pride that surged up in me chiefly because of my learning—since, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 8.1), “knowledge puffs a man up”—by humbling me through the burning of that book which was my greatest glory. Now I want you to know the story of both remedies, in the order in which they occurred, and more truly from the events themselves than from hearsay. I had always loathed the impurity of harlots, and I was prevented by my scholar’s zeal for study from meeting and coming to know ladies of noble birth. Nor did I have much contact with the ordinary sort of women. But evil fortune caressed me, as they say, and found an easier opportunity to cast me down from the heights, so that, in my excessive pride and my neglect of the grace I had received, the divine pity might restore me humbled to itself. [How He Fell in Love with Heloise, and Was Wounded in Mind and Body] There lived in the city of Paris a girl named Heloise, the niece of a canon called Fulbert, who loved her so much that he had made every effort to give her the best possible education. She was by no means the least handsome of women, but in the extent of her learning she surpassed them all.22 Since this gift is so rare in women, it won the highest praise for her, and made her the most famous woman in the whole kingdom. Seeing in her all of the qualities that commonly attract admirers, I decided that she was the right person to unite with myself in love, and I felt this would be easy to do. For I was then so renowned, and so outstanding in my youth and charm, that I was not afraid of being rejected by any woman whom I should deign to love. I was the more convinced that this girl would yield to me readily because I was so well aware of her knowledge and her love of literary studies. This would mean that, even when we were parted, the exchange of letters could bring us together, and since it is often possible to write more boldly than one can speak, we could always converse delightfully with one another. 22 See: Explanatory Notes, “Heloise” for her education in Argenteuil and Paris; see also “Argenteuil.”

24

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Utterly on fi re with love for her, I looked for an opportunity to bring her closer to me through intimate and daily association, and thus to win her more easily. To do this, I arranged with her uncle, through some friends of his, to take me into his house, which was near my school, at any price he might ask. As an excuse, I claimed that the care of my household was a great hindrance to my studies, and too heavy a burden for me. To tell the truth, he was extremely avaricious and also most eager that his niece should continue to advance in her studies. For both reasons, I easily obtained his consent and got what I wanted, since he was consumed with greed for the money and at the same time convinced that his niece would profit from my teaching. Pressing me eagerly about this, beyond what I had dared to hope, he fell in with my plan and helped our love along by giving me complete charge of her as her teacher. In this way, as soon as I returned from my classes, I might devote myself both day and night to teaching her, and if I thought her negligent, I might discipline her sternly. I marveled at his simple-mindedness in this affair; indeed, I could not have been more astounded if he had turned over a tender lamb to a ravenous wolf. By entrusting her to me not only to teach but to punish, what was he doing but giving almost complete license to my desire and providing me with an opportunity, even though I did not want it, to overcome her with threats and blows if I could not do so with caresses? But there were two things, above all, that kept him from base suspicions; these were his love for his niece and my past reputation for continence. What more shall I say? First we came together in the same house, and then in the same spirit. Under the pretext of study, we abandoned ourselves entirely to love, and our lessons gave us the privacy our love required. Although our books were open, we spoke more of love than of learning. There were more kisses than conferences. Our hands went more often to one another’s breasts than to our texts. If, to avoid suspicion, I sometimes struck her, my blows were the marks not of anger but of the tender affection that is sweeter than any perfume. Need I say more? In our passion we neglected no stage of love and if love could invent anything new, we added it. The less we had experienced these raptures, the more ardently we pursued them and the less our desire was quenched by them. As this delight captured me more completely, I gave less time to philosophy and less attention to my classes. I found it extremely tiresome to meet them and equally difficult to remain there, since I was keeping vigils of love by night and of study by day. I became so careless and lazy in my lectures that I offered my students nothing freshly thought out, but only what I knew from memory. I simply recited what I had learned earlier, and if I felt like composing songs, they dealt with love and not with the secrets of philosophy. As you yourself know, a great many of these songs are still popular, and they are sung in many places, especially by those who are attracted to the same way of life.23 You can hardly imagine how sad my students were, how loudly they groaned and complained when they learned of the obsession—or rather, the upheaval—of 23 Regarding Abelard’s “love songs” for Heloise, see esp. Constant Mews, Lost Love Letters and Abelard and Heloise.

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

25

my spirit. Few could be deceived about anything so obvious and, in truth, no one was, I believe, except the person who was most dishonored by it—I mean, the girl’s uncle. Indeed, when people sometimes hinted about this to him, he could not believe it, both because of his immoderate love for his niece, as I have said before, and because of the well-known continence of my former life. We do not readily suspect evil in those whom we love most, and the taint of shameful suspicion cannot infect a devoted love. As St. Jerome says in his letter to Sabinian, “We are always the last to know about the evils of our own house, and we are ignorant of the vices of our wives and children when the neighbors are gossiping about them.”24 But what one is the last to know does eventually become known; it is not easy to conceal from one person something of which everyone else is aware. This is what happened to us after some months had passed. You can imagine how great was her uncle’s sorrow when he found us out, how grievous was the pain of the lovers in their parting, how bitter was my shame and confusion, how deeply contrite I was to see the girl’s affl iction! What a storm of grief she suffered for my shame! Neither of us complained of his own fate, but only of the other’s. Each of us lamented not his own, but the other’s misfortunes. But this separation of our bodies meant the closest union of our spirits, and the denial of its fulfi llment made our love burn more brightly. The shame we had experienced made us more shameless, and as our feelings of shame diminished, our actions seemed to us more virtuous. We ourselves felt the emotions described by the poets in the tales of Mars and Venus when they were surprised in love.25 Not long afterward, the girl found that she was pregnant, and she wrote to me about this with the utmost joy, asking me what I wished to do. So one night when her uncle was not there, I secretly took her away from his house, as we had planned together, and sent her without delay to my own land. There she stayed with my sister until she had given birth to a son, whom she called Astralabe.26 But after her fl ight, her uncle almost went mad, and no one who had not seen it himself could imagine the torments of grief he suffered and the shame that overwhelmed him. He did not know what to do to me, or what traps to set for me. He was very much afraid that if he killed me or injured me in any way, his beloved niece might suffer for it in my country. To seize me and force me to go somewhere against my will would do no good, especially since I was always on my guard against this. I had no doubt that he would attack me at once, if he could or if he dared. At last, feeling some pity for his terrible anxiety and bitterly reproaching myself for the deceit that love had caused, as if it were the basest treason, I went to him as a supplicant and promised to make whatever amends he might ask. I protested that this affair should not seem astonishing to anyone who had ever experienced the power of love and who knew how much disaster, from the very 24

Jerome, actually to Castrician, Ep. 147.10: PL 22, 1203; CSEL 56, 327.25. Vulcan discovered his wife, Venus, in bed with Mars. Ovid, Ars Amatoria 2.561ff and Metamorphoses 4.169ff. 26 See: Explanatory Notes, “Astralabe.” 25

26

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

beginning of the human race, women had brought on even the greatest of men. Giving him more satisfaction than he could have hoped for, I offered to marry the girl whom I had seduced, if this could be done secretly so that my reputation would not be damaged in any way. He agreed and, in order to betray me more easily, he sealed the bargain I had made with him by his own word and kiss, and those of the members of his household. [Heloise’s Arguments against Marriage] I returned at once to my own land to bring back my mistress and make her my wife. But she did not approve of this plan at all. Indeed, she absolutely opposed this marriage for two reasons: because it was dangerous as well as disgraceful for me. She swore that no satisfaction could ever appease her uncle, and so we afterward found out. She wished to know how she could glory in me after she had made me inglorious, and had humiliated both herself and me. What penalties, she asked, would this world demand of her if she deprived it of so bright a light? What curses, what a loss to the Church, what tears from the philosophers, would be the consequences of such a marriage! How disgraceful, she cried, how deplorable it would be if I, whom nature had created for all mankind, should tie myself to one woman and lower myself in this fashion! Hardly able to bear the thought of a marriage that would be in every way shameful and burdensome to me, she insisted not only on the disgrace but also on the hardships of marriage, against which the apostle Paul warns us when he says (1 Cor. 7:27–28): “Are you free of wedlock? Then do not go about to find a wife. Not that you commit sin if you marry, nor if she marries, has the virgin committed sin. It is only that those who do so will meet with outward distress. But I leave you your freedom.” And he also says (1 Cor. 7:32): “I would have you free from concern.” But if I would accept neither the advice of the Apostle nor the teachings of the Fathers concerning the heavy yoke of matrimony, at least, she said, I should listen to the philosophers and consider what had been written on this question by them or about them. In the fi rst book of Against Jovinian, for example, St. Jerome recalls that Theophrastus, having carefully set forth in great detail the intolerable trials of marriage, demonstrated by the clearest reasoning that the wise man should never take a wife. Jerome himself summed up these philosophical arguments in these words: “When he argues thus, what Christian does Theophrastus not put to shame?” In the same book Jerome also says: “After Cicero had divorced Terentia and was asked by Hirtius to marry his sister, he absolutely refused to do so, saying that he could not give his attention at one and the same time to a wife and to philosophy. He does not say merely ‘give his attention,’ but adds that he ‘does not want to do anything that can be regarded as competing with the study of philosophy.’ ”27 But, Heloise continued, say no more for the moment about this obstacle to philosophical inquiry, simply look at the conditions that surround this honorable way of life. What harmony can there be between scholars and servants, between 27

Jerome, Contra Jovinianum 1.48: PL 23, 291ab.

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

27

desks and cradles, between books or tablets and distaffs, between pens or styluses and spindles? Who, if he is trying to meditate on sacred or philosophical questions, can stand the bawling of children, the lullabies of the nurses trying to sooth them, and the noisy crowd of a household, both men and women? Who is strong enough to endure the everlasting messiness of babies? The rich are, you may say, because they have ample room in their palaces or houses and, being wealthy, are not obliged to count the cost or bother with daily cares. But in reply, she insisted that the philosopher’s situation is not that of a rich man, nor do those who are involved in making money and in other worldly affairs have to trouble themselves with sacred or philosophical responsibilities. For these reasons, she said, the distinguished philosophers of earlier days scorned the world entirely, not so much rejecting their own time as fleeing from it, and they denied themselves every pleasure in order to rest only in the embrace of philosophy. One of these philosophers, and one of the greatest of them, Seneca, says in a letter to Lucilius: The time to study philosophy is not simply when you have a leisure moment; we must neglect everything else in order to devote ourselves assiduously to that study for which there is never time enough . . . . It makes no difference in the case of philosophy whether you drop it altogether, or study it only intermittently; for if it is interrupted, it does not remain with you. Distractions must be resisted, in fact, completely eliminated rather than extended.28

What those who, among us, are truly called “monks” now endure for the love of God, the noble philosophers who were so highly esteemed by the pagans likewise endured for love of philosophy. For among every people, pagan as well as Jewish and Christian, there have always been some men who were more eminent than the rest because of their faith and their integrity of character, and these men were distinguished from ordinary people by some exceptional virtue of abstinence or continence. Among the Jews, there were in ancient times the Nazirites who consecrated themselves to God according to the Law, or the Sons of the Prophets, the followers of Elias or Elisha, who, as St. Jerome says, were monks according to the Old Testament.29 More recently, there were those three sects of philosophy described by Josephus in his Book of Antiquities: some called Pharisees, others, Sadducees, and still others, Essenes.30 Among us Christians, there are the monks who imitate either the common life of the apostles or that earlier and solitary life of St. John; among the pagans there were, as I have said, the philosophers. For they gave the name of wisdom or philosophy not so much to the acquisition of knowledge as to holiness of life, as we deduce from the origin of this name itself, and also from the testimony of the Fathers.

28

Seneca, Ad Lucilium 72.3. Cf. Heloise, Letter 2. Jerome, Ep. 125, Ad Rusticum 7: PL 22, 1706; CSEL 56, 125 and Ep. 58, ad Paulinum 5: PL 22, 583; CSEL 54, 534. 30 Josephus, De libro antiquitatum, 18.1, 11; cf. Pauly–Wissowa, 19, 2, 1825 and 1A, 2, 1691. 29

28

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

There is, for example, the statement of St. Augustine in the eighth book of The City of God, describing the various kinds of philosophers: The Italian school of philosophy had as its founder Pythagoras of Samos, from whom the very name of philosophy is said to have come. For before him those men were called wise who seemed to excel others by some praiseworthy manner of life. But when Pythagoras himself was asked what his profession was, he replied that he was a philosopher, that is, a student and lover of wisdom, since it seemed to him the height of arrogance to call oneself ‘wise.’31

From the words, “who seemed to excel others in some praiseworthy manner of life,” it is evident that the wise men among the Gentiles, that is, the philosophers, were so called in praise of their lives rather than their learning. But, Heloise went on to say, I do not intend to give examples now of the sobriety and continence of their lives, for fear that I should seem to be teaching Minerva herself. Yet if lay people and Gentiles, who were not bound by any religious vows, lived in this way, how should you, a cleric and a canon, behave, in order to avoid putting base pleasures before your sacred duties, to prevent yourself from being quickly swallowed up by this Charybdis, and from being submerged in these impurities shamelessly and beyond recall?32 If you care nothing for the privilege of the cleric, you should at least defend the dignity of the philosopher. If you scorn the reverence due to God, at least you should temper your shamelessness with the love of honor. Remember that Socrates had a wife, and think of the sordid way in which he was forced to wipe out that blot on philosophy, so that his example might make those who came after him more cautious. Jerome himself does not fail to mention this when he writes about Socrates in the fi rst book of his Against Jovinian: “Once, when he had endured for a long time the storm of invective which Xanthippe poured upon him from an upper window, and after she had drenched him with dirty water, he simply said as he wiped his head, ‘I knew that there would be a shower after all that thunder.’ ”33 At last, Heloise pointed out how dangerous it would be for me to bring her back, and how much sweeter it would be to her, and more honorable for me, if she were called my mistress rather than my wife. In this way I might be held by love alone, not tied by the power of the marriage bond. If we were separated for a while, she said, the joys of meeting would be the more delightful, the rarer they were. When, after trying to persuade or dissuade me with these and similar arguments, she still could not overcome my obstinacy or bear to offend me, she sighed deeply and wept, concluding her appeal with these words: “In the end, one thing will happen. We shall both be ruined, and in our ruin, we shall experience suffering as great as the love we now know.” In saying this, as 31

Augustine, De civitate Dei 8.2: PL 41, 25; CSEL 40, 355. Heloise’s reference to Abelard as “cleric and canon,” indicates that as a teacher, he was then, like Fulbert, a secular canon of Notre-Dame. Charybdis: Charybdis is the sinister whirlpool that Odysseus famously eluded. 33 Jerome, Contra Jovinianum 1.48: PL 23, 291bc. 32

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

29

everyone knows, she was not untouched by the spirit of prophecy. Then we left our infant son with my sister, and returned secretly to Paris where, in a few days, after we had kept secret vigils of prayer by night in a certain church, we were joined together at dawn by the nuptial blessing, in the presence of her uncle and some of our own friends and his. We left there at once, secretly and separately, and saw each other only very rarely and in private, concealing as much as possible what we had done. But her uncle and members of his household, seeking some consolation for their disgrace, began to talk publicly about the marriage that had taken place, thus breaking the promise they had given me about this. Heloise then called down anathemas on them, swearing that what they said was utterly false. Her uncle was furious and often abused her unmercifully. When I found out about this, I moved her to an abbey of nuns near Paris, called Argenteuil, where she herself had been reared and educated.34 There I had the religious habit, proper to the monastic calling, made for her, all except the veil, and I put it on her. When her uncle and his kinsmen and friends heard this, they thought that I had now tricked them completely, and had made her a nun because I was looking for an easy way to be rid of her. Wild with rage, they plotted together against me and bribed my servant. One night when I was lying asleep in an inner room of my lodgings, they revenged themselves with a most cruel and shameful punishment, of which the world learned with utter consternation. They cut off those parts of my body with which I had committed the act they deplored. They fled at once, but two of them were caught and deprived of their eyes and genitals. One of these was that servant of mine who, while still in my service, had been led by greed to betray me. [Concerning the Wound to His Body] When morning came, the whole city thronged around me, and I can hardly tell you how stunned they were, how loudly they mourned, how they tormented me with their clamor, and upset me with their laments! It was chiefly the students, and particularly my own pupils, who tortured me with unbearable moaning and wailing, so that I suffered more from their pity than from the aching of my wound. I felt the embarrassment more than the injury, and my shame made me more wretched than my pain. I thought of the great fame in which I had once gloried, and how swiftly and sordidly my pride had been humbled, or rather, destroyed. How just, I reflected, was the judgment of God that had struck me in those parts of my body with which I had sinned, and how righteous was the betrayal by which that man had avenged my earlier betrayal of him. I knew very well how loudly my rivals would praise what was so clearly an act of justice. I knew also what a perpetual grief this wound would be to 34 See: Explanatory Notes, “Argenteuil.” In moving to Argenteuil, Heloise did not thereby become a nun: both male and female abbeys frequently housed long-term lay residents. It is true, however, that the departure to the cloister of one or both spouses often indicated a forthcoming dissolution of marriage, hence Fulbert’s reaction.

30

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

my parents and friends, and how widely this unparalleled disgrace would be broadcast for all the world to know. What course would be open to me in the future, how could I show my face in public, to be pointed at by everyone, to have my name on every tongue, to be a monstrous spectacle to every eye? I was no less confounded by the fact that, according to the letter of the Law, which kills, eunuchs are such an abomination before God that men who have been made eunuchs by the amputation or bruising of their testicles are forbidden, as stinking and unclean, to enter the church, and that for sacrifice even animals of this sort were utterly rejected. For so it is written in Leviticus (22:24): “No beast that has suffered crushing or bruising or gelding may be offered to the Lord,” and Deuteronomy (23:1): “The emasculated, the mutilated, are not to be admitted into the Lord’s assembly.” Sunk as I was in such wretched grief, it was, I admit, the confusion of shame, and not truly devout conversion to the religious life, that drove me to seek a hiding place in the privacy of the monastic cloisters. Moreover, Heloise had already willingly taken the veil at my command, and had entered the monastic life. So both of us put on the sacred habit at the same time, I in the abbey of Saint-Denis and she in the abbey of Argenteuil, which I mentioned before. I recall that a great many people, pitying her because she was still so young, tried to dissuade her from taking up the yoke of the monastic rule, as if it were an intolerable burden. But she burst out, as well as she could amid her sobs and tears, into the famous lament of Cornelia, crying: “O greatest husband, too worthy for my bed: What right had fortune to bow this noble head? Why, guilty woman, did I marry you, To make you wretched. Now accept the penalty that willingly I pay.”35 With these words she hurried to the altar, seized from it the veil blessed by the bishop, and in the presence of everyone bound herself to the monastic life. I had scarcely recovered from my wound when my students rushed to me and began to importune both my abbot and me incessantly, demanding that what I had done until this time from a desire for profit and praise, I should now try to do for the love of God.36 They declared that God would exact heavy interest from me on the talent he had entrusted to me and that, since I had previously exerted myself especially for the rich, I should now devote my efforts to teaching the poor. I should realize, they claimed, that the hand of the Lord had touched me chiefly in order to free me from the desires of the flesh and the tumultuous life of the world, so that I might dedicate myself to the life of learning and become a philosopher not of the world, but of God. Life in the abbey37 to which I had withdrawn was, however, altogether worldly and scandalous, and the abbot who surpassed the other monks in the dignity of his office, outdid them even more by the notorious wickedness of his conduct.38 Because, both in public and in private, I often criticized their intolerably fi lthy habits, I made myself offensive and odious to all of them. So they were delighted 35 36 37 38

Lucan, Pharsalia 8.94–98. See: Matt. 25:15–29. Abbey of Saint-Denis. See: Explanatory Notes, “Abbot Adam of Saint-Denis.”

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

31

by the insistent demands of my students because they saw in them an opportunity to get me out of the way. Finally, the constant and embarrassing pressure of my disciples, together with the intervention of my abbot and fellow-monks, made it possible for me to withdraw to a certain cell where I conducted classes, as I had done before. 39 But such a horde of students flocked to my lectures that there was not enough room to house them or enough land to provide food for them. While I was teaching there, I gave my attention chiefly to the sacred learning that was appropriate to my monastic calling, but I did not completely abandon teaching the liberal arts, in which I had more experience and in which my students particularly wanted my instruction. I used it as a kind of hook by which to draw those students who were enticed by the savor of philosophy to the study of the true philosophy; this, according to the Ecclesiastical History, is what Origen, who was the greatest of Christian philosophers, used to do.40 Since the Lord seemed to have endowed me with no less talent in sacred than in secular studies, my classes in both fields began to grow larger, while those of all the other masters became smaller. This made them envy and hate me and two of them, in particular, were always attacking me as hard as they could behind my back, objecting that it was clearly contrary to the vows of a monk to engage in the teaching of worldly texts. They asserted also that I had been so presumptuous as to assume the role of a master of sacred studies without having been instructed by a master myself. Therefore, they claimed that I should be forbidden to teach in a school. To accomplish this purpose, they were constantly hounding bishops, archbishops, abbots, and anyone else within reach who had any reputation for piety. [On His Book of Theology and His Persecution by His Fellow-Students] As it happened, I applied myself first to discussing the fundamentals of our faith by analogies drawn from reason, and I composed for my students a treatise on theology, Concerning the Divine Unity and Trinity.41 They had been asking for rational and philosophical arguments, and urgently seeking what could be understood rather than simply stated. The repetition of words is useless, they said, if the mind does not follow them and, since nothing can be believed unless it has fi rst been understood, it is ridiculous for anyone to preach to others what neither he nor his students can grasp intellectually. The Lord himself, they declared, had called such men “the blind leading the blind.” A great many people who saw and read this treatise liked it very much, because it seemed to offer satisfactory answers to all questions posed by the subject. Since these problems appeared more difficult than any others, my solution of them 39 Maisoncelle: Probably a cell of the Abbey of Saint-Denis near Nogent-sur-Seine, some 86 km./53 mi. to the southeast of Saint-Denis (and 66 km./39 mi. due east of Melun). It lay just beyond the royal domain, and within the county of Champagne. 40 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica: PG 29, 538. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origin”. 41 “Tractatus de unitate et Trinitate divina,” ed. R. Stölzle.

32

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

was considered the more subtle as their complexity became more apparent. As a result, my opponents became greatly incensed, especially those two old plotters, Alberic and Lotulf, who now that their masters and mine, William and Anselm, were dead, were trying to rule alone in their places, and, so to speak, to succeed them as their heirs.42 And they got together a council against me. Since both of them were conducting schools at Reims, they turned the archbishop, Ralph, against me with their repeated accusations, and persuaded him and Conon, bishop of Praeneste, who was then legate in France, to hold a sort of assembly which they called a council in the city of Soissons.43 They summoned me to come there and bring with me the little book I had written on the Trinity; and I agreed to do this. But before I came, my two enemies had so defamed my character among the clergy and people that, on the day of my arrival, the people almost stoned me and those few students of mine who were with me. People said, as they had been told, that I had taught and written that there were three Gods. As soon as I reached the city, I went to the legate and gave him my book to examine and judge, declaring that I was ready to receive correction or make amends if I had written or said anything that disagreed with the Catholic faith. But he immediately ordered me to take the book to the archbishop and those opponents of mine, so that those who had accused me in this affair might pass judgment on me and thus the saying might be fulfi lled in my case that (Deut. 32:31) “even our enemies are our judges.” After they had thumbed through the book repeatedly, however, and found nothing of which they dared to accuse me in an open hearing, they postponed until the end of the council the condemnation of the book, which they so eagerly desired. Every day before the council met, I publicly expounded the Catholic faith in accordance with what I had written, and all those who heard me commended both my exposition of the words and my interpretation of them. When the people and the clergy saw this, they began to say to one another: “See, he is now speaking publicly and no one says a word against him. The council which, we have heard, was called especially to deal with him will soon be over. Have his judges admitted that they are in error, not he?” For this reason my enemies became angrier every day. So one day, Alberic and some of his students came to me with malice in their hearts and, after a few flattering words, he said that he was very much surprised at one thing he had noticed in my book: this was that, whereas God had begotten God and there is only one God, I had still denied that God had begotten himself. I answered immediately: “If you like, I shall give you a reason for this.” But he said: “We do not care anything for reason or for your interpretation in such matters, but only for the words of your authority.” I replied: “Turn the page of the book and you will find my authority.” He had a copy of the book, which he had brought with him. So I turned to the place, which I knew and which he had failed to see, or where he had looked only for something that might be damaging to me. With God’s help I found at once what I wanted. It was a quotation from St. Augustine, 42 43

See: Explanatory Notes, “Alberic” and Abelard’s other foes. See: Explanatory Notes, “Conon, bishop of Praeneste.”

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

33

On the Trinity, Book I: “He who supposes that God is so powerful that he begot himself is the more in error because this is not true of God or of any spiritual or corporeal creature. For there is nothing whatsoever that may beget itself.”44 When the students whom Alberic had brought with him heard this, they were astounded and blushed for shame. In order to defend himself somehow, he said, “Yes, but this must be understood correctly.” So I went on to say that it was nothing new, but for the present it did not matter, since he had asked me only for words and not for their meaning. If, however, he was willing to listen to both sense and reason, I declared that I was ready to show that, in saying what he had said, he had fallen into the heresy which teaches that the Father is his own Son. When he heard this, he flew into a rage and began to threaten me, asserting that neither my arguments nor my authorities would do me any good in this case. Then he went off. On the last day of the council, before its members took their seats, the legate and the archbishop began to discuss with my adversaries and certain other men what they should do about me and my book, since this was the principal reason for which they had been called together. Having found nothing in my words or my writings, which they had before them, to charge against me, all of them were silent for a little while or less open in their accusations. Then Geoff rey [of Lèves], the bishop of Chartres,45 who was the most eminent of the bishops in his reputation for piety and in the dignity of his See, began to speak: My lords, all of you who are present know that whatever the doctrine of this man may be, his teaching and his talent in anything he has studied have had many supporters and followers. You know that he has greatly diminished the fame of both his own masters and ours and that his vine, so to speak, has extended its branches from sea to sea. If you condemn him out of prejudice, as I do not think you will do, you should know that, even though you act justly, you will give offense to many people who will want to defend him. This is especially true because we fi nd nothing deserving of public censure in the book we have here and because, as Jerome says, ‘Manifest courage always has rivals, and lightning always strikes the highest peaks.’46 Take care that you do not add to his fame by acting rashly, and cause us to be reproached more for the envy behind the charge than he is for its justice. For a false rumor, as Jerome also says, is quickly suppressed, and a man’s earlier life is judged by his later actions.47 However, you are disposed to proceed canonically against him, either his teaching or his writings should be brought before us and when he is questioned, let him answer freely. Then if he is convicted or if he confesses, he may be silenced altogether. This at least will be in accordance with the saying of St. Nicodemus who, when he wished to free the Lord himself, said ( John 7:51): ‘Is it the way of our law to judge a man without giving him a hearing and finding out what he is about?’ 44 45 46 47

Augustine, De Trinitate 1: PL 42, 82. See: Explanatory Notes, “Geoffrey of Lèves.” Liber quehebr. in Genesim, Praef.: PL 23, 983b; quoting Horace, Odes 2.10, 11–12. Jerome, Ep. 54, ad Furiam 13: PL 22, 556; CSEL 54, 480.

34

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

On hearing this, my opponents interrupted him at once, exclaiming: “Oh, this is really excellent advice! He wants us to try to challenge the verbosity of a man whose arguments and sophistical reasoning the whole world cannot resist.” But surely it was much more difficult to argue against Christ himself and yet Nicodemus demanded that he should be heard according to the prescription of the Law. When the bishop could not make them agree to his proposal, he tried to restrain their envy in another way, by saying that those who were present were too few to discuss such a serious matter and that this case required a more thorough examination. For this reason, he recommended further that my abbot, who was present, should recall me to my abbey, the monastery of Saint-Denis, and summon there a large number of more truly learned men who would decide, on the basis of a very careful investigation, what was to be done. The legate agreed to this last proposal and so did all the rest. Soon afterward, the legate rose to celebrate Mass before he entered the council and he sent through Bishop Geoffrey his permission for me to return to my monastery to wait for the decision. Then my enemies realized that they would have accomplished nothing if this case should be dealt with outside the diocese, where they could exercise very little influence. Since they did not, apparently, have much faith in the justice of their case, they persuaded the archbishop that it would be most disgraceful for him if the case were transferred elsewhere for a hearing, and that it would be dangerous if I were to be acquitted in this way. Rushing at once to the legate, they made him change his mind and compelled him against his will to condemn the book without any inquiry, to burn it immediately in the sight of all, and condemn me to perpetual imprisonment in a strange monastery. It should be enough to have the book condemned, they declared, that I had presumed to read it publicly, though it had not been approved by the authority of the Roman pontiff or the Church, and that I had given the book itself to several people to be copied. They also said that it would be of great benefit to the Christian faith if the example they made of me prevented similar presumption on the part of many others. Since the legate was not the scholar he should have been, he was used to taking the archbishop’s advice, just as the archbishop in turn relied on the advice of my enemies. As soon as the bishop of Chartres realized what was afoot, he reported their schemes to me, and strongly advised me not to be too greatly disturbed, since everyone could see how outrageous their actions were. I should have no doubt, he declared, that the open violence of their jealousy would be most discreditable to them and advantageous to me. He urged me not to be distressed by my imprisonment in a monastery, for he knew that the legate, who was doing this under pressure, would set me entirely free in a few days, after he had left this place. So, weeping himself, he comforted me in my tears as best he could. [The Burning of His Book] When I was called before the council, I went at once and without any further consideration or discussion, they forced me to throw my book into the fire with

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

35

my own hand, and it was burned. In order to have something to say, one of my adversaries muttered that he understood it was written in the book that only God the Father was Almighty. Catching this remark, the legate was astounded and told him that no one could believe that even a small child would make such an error when, he said, our common faith holds and professes that there are three Almighties. When he heard this, a certain Thierry, who was the master of a school, mockingly quoted the statement of Athanasius: “Yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.”48 His bishop began to reprove him as one guilty of speaking against the divine majesty, but Thierry boldly challenged him and, recalling the words of Daniel, said (Dan. 13:48–49): “Are you such fools, men of Israel, as to condemn an Israelite woman without trial, without investigation of the truth? Go back to the place of judgment, and judge the judge himself, you who have set up such a judge for the instruction of faith and the correction of error that he condemns himself out of his own mouth. Today, by the divine mercy, deliver from his false accusers this man who is as innocent as Susanna once was.” Then the archbishop arose and, changing the words as was necessary, confi rmed the statement of the legate, saying: “Truly, my Lord, the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Spirit is Almighty, and anyone who dissents from this is clearly in error and should not be listened to. Yet, if it is agreeable to you, it would be well for this brother of ours to expound his faith before all of us, so that it may be approved or, if necessary, censured and corrected.” But when I got up to profess and explain my faith, to say what I believed in my own words, my enemies said that all I needed to do was to recite the Athanasian Creed, which any schoolboy could have done as well. So that I should not claim the excuse of ignorance, as if I were not familiar with the words, they had the text brought for me to read. Amid sighs, sobs, and tears, I read it as well as I could. Then, like a criminal and a convict, I was turned over to the abbot of Saint-Médard to be taken off to the cloister, as if to prison, and the council was immediately dissolved. Thinking I was going to stay with them for a long time, the abbot and monks of that monastery welcomed me with the greatest joy and tried in vain to comfort me by showing me every consideration. O God, who judges equity, with what gall of soul, what bitterness of spirit did I in my madness challenge you, and furiously accuse you, repeating again and again the lament of St. Anthony: “Good Jesus, where were you?”49 Yet, although I felt then, I cannot now express the great sorrow that surged up in me, the bitter shame that confounded me, the deep despair that attacked me. I compared what I was now suffering with those bodily wounds I had endured earlier and I thought that I was the most wretched of men. I considered that earlier betrayal slight in comparison with this and I mourned far more over the damage to my reputation than over the injury to my body. I had come to receive that earlier wound through some fault of my 48 See: Explanatory Notes, “Thierry of Chartres” who is apparently intended. For the statement of Athanasius, Symbolum Quicunque, cf. Denziger, Enchir. Symb. 24, p. 17. 49 Athanasius, Vita s. Antonii interpr. Evagrio: PL 73, 132d.

36

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

own, but I had been brought to suffer this most flagrant violence by the sincere purpose and the love of our faith that had impelled me to write. When everyone who heard the story protested strongly that this was a cruel and ill-considered act, the men who had taken part in it disclaimed their responsibility and put the blame on others. My opponents themselves even denied that this had been done on their advice, and the legate publicly denounced the jealousy of the French in this affair. He was at once moved to repentance and after some days—for he had been forced to appease their envy for a time—he sent me back from that alien monastery to my own. But almost all of the monks who had been there were now my enemies because the evil of their lives and their shameless ways made them consider utterly suspect a man whose criticism they could hardly endure. After a few months fortune gave them an opportunity to try to ruin me. One day, as I was reading, I came across a certain statement of Bede’s in which, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles, he claimed that Dionysius the Areopagite was bishop of Corinth rather than bishop of Athens.50 This seemed quite contrary to the view of those who boasted that their St. Denis was the same Areopagite who, according to the account of his life, was bishop of Athens. After discovering this evidence of Bede’s that contradicted our tradition, I jokingly showed it to some of the brothers who were standing about. They became most indignant, protesting that Bede was a liar and that their own Abbot Hilduin was a more trustworthy authority. He had traveled extensively in Greece investigating this matter, they said, and having found out the truth, he had removed every doubt in his writings about the saint’s deeds.51 But when one of the monks challenged me by asking what I thought about the contradiction between Bede’s statement and that of Hilduin, I replied that the authority of Bede, whose writings are consulted by the whole Latin Church, seemed to me more weighty.52 [His Persecution by His Abbot and Fellow-Monks] Greatly incensed by this, they began to shout that now I had shown openly that I had always been an enemy of our monastery! By denying that their patron was the Areopagite, I had boldly insulted the whole kingdom and deprived it of the honor that was its chief glory. I answered that I had not denied this, nor was it of any importance whether he had been the Areopagite or someone else, since he had won so bright a crown with God. But they ran at once to the abbot and made this accusation against me. He was delighted to hear it and rejoiced to fi nd an opportunity to suppress me, for living as he did a more evil life than the others, he feared me more than they did. He called his chapter and the monks together and threatened me severely, saying that he would immediately inform the king of my attacks on the abbey that is the glory and crown of his kingdom. Meanwhile, 50

Bede, Expositio super Acta Apostolorum 17: PL 92, 981b. Hilduin, Vita S. Dionysii: PL 106, 14–15; cf. MGH, Ep. Carol. aevi III, 327–35. 52 I follow here the reading graviorem (for graviorum), as suggested by E.A. Synan and E. Jeanneau, “Some Remarks on the Muckle Translation of Abelard’s Adversities.” 51

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

37

the abbot ordered me to be well guarded until he handed me over to the king. I offered to submit to discipline according to the Rule, if I had offended in any way, but in vain. Then I became horrified at their wickedness and having suffered ill-fortune for so long, I was in utter despair, feeling that the whole world was conspiring against me. So with the approval of a group of my fellow-monks who felt sorry for me and aided by some of my students, I fled secretly at night to the neighboring territory of Count Thibaut, where I had earlier stayed for a while in a priory.53 The count, in fact, knew me slightly, and was full of sympathy for my troubles, which had been reported to him. There I began to live in the town of Provins, in a priory of monks from Troyes, whose prior had earlier been a dear friend of mine, and was very fond of me.54 He was overjoyed at my arrival and took the best care of me. Then one day, my abbot happened to come to that town on some business with the count. When I heard this, the prior and I went to the count and asked him to persuade the abbot to absolve me and give me permission to live the monastic life wherever I might fi nd a suitable place. The abbot and his companions agreed to consider the matter, saying that they would give the count an answer that same day, before they left. But after they had talked it over, they decided that I wanted to transfer myself to another abbey, which they thought would be a tremendous disgrace to them. They took great pride in the fact that I had come to them when I became a monk, as if scorning all other monasteries, and now they said they were threatened by the worst dishonor if I rejected them and went to another monastery. So they would not listen to anything the count or I said. They threatened me with immediate excommunication if I did not return at once and even forbade the prior with whom I had taken refuge to keep me any longer, on pain of being forced to share my excommunication. When we heard this, the prior and I were greatly distressed. But the abbot, having left in this obstinate mood, died a few days later. After a new abbot had been named, I went with the bishop of Meaux to ask him to grant me the permission I had sought from his predecessor.55 At fi rst he did not consent to my request, but with the help of my friends I appealed to the king and his council and obtained what I wanted.56 In fact, Stephen, who was then the king’s seneschal, summoned the abbot and his friends and demanded to know why they wished to hold me against my will.57 He declared that this might easily become a scandal to them and was useless in any case, since there could be no harmony between my way of life and theirs. I knew the king’s council was of the opinion that the more disorderly an abbey was, the more dependent it was on the king and the more profitable to him because of its temporal wealth. I believed, therefore, that it would be easy 53

Thibaut II, 1102–1152, Count of Blois and Chartres, after 1125 Count of Champagne as well. Saint-Ayoul, whose prior was Radulf. 55 See: Explanatory Notes, “Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis.” Burchard was bishop of Meaux (1128–34). 56 King Louis VI (1108–1137)—who was, however, much inf luenced by Suger. 57 See: Explanatory Notes, “Stephen of Garlande,” who was head of the court faction to which Abelard was clearly attached, often to Abelard’s advantage. 54

38

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

to obtain the consent of the king and his council, and I did get it. But in order that my monastery should not be deprived of the fame it had enjoyed because of me, the monks agreed that I might withdraw to any place of retirement I desired, on condition that I did not become subject to any other abbey. This was agreed and confi rmed on both sides, in the presence of the king and his council. I then retired to a solitary place that I had known before, in the country near Troyes. There, on land given to me by friends, and with the permission of the bishop of the region,58 I built, at fi rst of reeds and thatch, an oratory dedicated to the Holy Trinity.59 Hidden away there with one of my students, I could truly sing to the Lord (Ps. 54:8): “Far would I flee; the wilderness should be my shelter.” When my former pupils learned where I was, they began to flock together here from every direction, leaving the cities and towns to live in this desert place. Instead of large houses, they built themselves little huts; they ate wild herbs and coarse bread in place of dainty foods; they laid down thatch and straw for themselves instead of soft beds, and piled up heaps of turf for tables. You really would have thought that they were imitating the early philosophers of whom Jerome writes in his second book Against Jovinian: Through the five senses, as if through open windows, vices enter the soul. The metropolis and citadel of the mind cannot be taken unless the enemy breaks through the gates—If one takes delight in circuses, in the contests of athletes, in the agility of jugglers, in the beauty of women, in the splendor of jewels and clothing, and other things of this kind, the soul is taken captive through the windows of the eyes and the prophecy is fulfi lled that ‘Death has entered in through our windows.’ When the thin edge of disturbance, as it were, has entered through these gates into the citadel of our mind, what becomes of its liberty, its fortitude, its meditation on God? What happens, above all, when the sense of touch recalls its past pleasures and forces the soul to endure the memory of its vices and, in a way, to experience what it does not do? Prompted by these considerations, many philosophers have left the crowded cities and suburban gardens, where the watered fields, the shady trees, the twittering of birds, the crystal fountain, the murmuring streams, are so many pleasures for eyes and ears, lest their fortitude of spirit should be softened and their modesty corrupted, by the luxury and abundance of their possessions. Indeed, it is not good to look often upon these things by which you may one day be ensnared and to give yourself up to the experience of pleasures which you will find it hard to forego. Even the Pythagoreans shunned experience of this kind and used to live in solitude and deserted places. Although Plato was a rich man— Diogenes used to trample on his bed with muddy feet—yet to free himself for the study of philosophy, he chose for his Academy a villa far from the city, in a place which was not only deserted, but also pestilential. Here the assaults of lust might be defeated by frequent illness and its anxieties, and his disciples might enjoy no other pleasures than the discussion of studies.60 58 59 60

See: Explanatory Notes, “Hato, bishop of Troyes.” See: Explanatory Notes, “Paraclete.” Jerome, Contra Jovinianum 2.8: PL 23, 310–312.

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

39

The Sons of the Prophets, the followers of Elisha, are also said to have led this kind of life. Jerome himself spoke of them as the monks of that time, when he wrote to the monk Rusticus about them: “The Sons of the Prophets, who are described as monks in the Old Testament, built small huts for themselves near the River Jordan, and leaving crowds and cities, lived on meal and wild herbs.”61 My students built such huts for themselves near the River Arduzon and they seemed more like hermits than scholars. But the larger the crowd of students who thronged there and the harder the life they endured under my teaching, the more glorious my enemies thought this was for me and the more humiliating for themselves. When they had done all they could to injure me, they were sorry to see everything working together for my good and so, in Jerome’s words: “Jealousy sought me out, as Quintilian says, even in my hidden retreat, far from cities and markets, courts and crowds.”62 They complained and lamented secretly among themselves, saying: “ ‘Look, the whole world has turned aside to follow him ( John 12:19).’ We have accomplished nothing by persecuting him but to make him more famous. We have tried to extinguish his renown, but instead we have made it more brilliant. It is obvious that in the cities students have everything they need at hand and yet they reject all civilized pleasures to rush to the wilderness with all its deprivations and willingly make themselves miserable.” At that time it was chiefly intolerable poverty that drove me to conduct a school, for “I had no strength to dig, and I was ashamed to beg for alms” (Luke 16:3). So, returning to the art that I knew, I was compelled to labor with my tongue rather than my hands. For their part, my students provided whatever I needed in the way of food and clothing. They also tilled the fields and paid the cost of building, so that no domestic cares should distract me from study. Since my oratory could hold only a small number of them, they were obliged to enlarge it and in doing so they improved it by building with stone and wood. This oratory was founded and afterward dedicated in the name of the Holy Trinity. But because I had sought refuge there and when I was in despair, I had, by the grace of divine consolation, found a little peace again, I later called it the Paraclete in memory of this benefit.63 Many people who heard this were very much surprised and some of them were extremely critical, saying that it was not permissible for any church to be dedicated especially to the Holy Spirit rather than to God the Father. They claimed that it should be dedicated either to the Son alone or to the whole Trinity, according to ancient custom. They were, no doubt, led to make this false accusation by their erroneous belief that there is no distinction between the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit Paraclete. But the Trinity itself, and each Person of the Trinity, as he is called God or Helper, may also be called Paraclete, that is, the Comforter, as the Apostle rightly says (2 Cor. 1:3–4): “Blessed be the God 61

Jerome, Lib. Heb. Quest., in Genesim: PL 23, 984a. Quintilian, Declamationes 13.2. 63 See: Explanatory Notes, “Paraclete.” 62

40

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merciful Father and the God who gives all encouragement. He it is who comforts us in all our trials;” and as Truth says ( John 14:16), “He shall give you another Comforter.” What is there to prevent dedicating the house of the Lord to the Father or the Holy Spirit just as to the Son, since every church is consecrated in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit alike, nor does any of them possess anything separately? Who would be so bold as to erase from above the door the title of him to whom the house belongs? Since the Son has offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father and accordingly, in the celebration of the Mass prayers are addressed especially to the Father and the Host is offered as a sacrifice, why does not the altar belong especially to him to whom the sacrifice is made? Is it any more correct to say that the altar belongs to him who is sacrificed than to him who receives the sacrifice? Or will anyone assert that the altar is rather that of the Lord’s cross or his sepulcher, or of St. Michael or St. John or St. Peter or any other saint who is not sacrificed there, and to whom sacrifice or prayers are not offered? Surely even among the idolaters, altars and temples were not said to belong to any but those to whom they intended to offer sacrifice and obeisance. Perhaps, however, someone will say that neither churches nor altars should be thus dedicated to the Father, because there is no external action of his that entitles him to a special solemnity. Yet this argument plainly detracts from the Trinity itself and does not detract from the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit himself, because of his coming, has the feast of Pentecost, just as because of his Advent, the Son has the festival of the Nativity. As the Son was sent into the world, so also the Holy Spirit, by coming to the disciples, deserves his own solemnity. Does it not, indeed, seem more reasonable that a temple should be dedicated to him than to either of the other Persons, if we carefully consider apostolic authority and the operation of the Spirit himself? To none of the three Persons except the Holy Spirit does the Apostle specially ascribe a spiritual temple. He does not speak of the temple of the Father or the temple of the Son, but the temple of the Holy Spirit, writing thus in the first epistle to the Corinthians (6:17, 19): “The man who unites himself to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.” And also: “Surely you know that your bodies are the shrines of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in you. He is God’s gift to you, so that you are no longer your own master.” Everyone knows that the sacraments conferring divine benefits, which are performed in the Church, are ascribed especially to the operation of divine grace, which means the Holy Spirit. In baptism we are born again of water and the Holy Spirit and then, for the fi rst time, we become the special temple of God. In confi rmation also, the sevenfold grace of the Spirit is conferred, by which the temple of God is adorned and dedicated. No wonder, then, that we dedicate a material temple to that Person to whom the Apostle specially ascribes the spiritual temple! To which Person can a church be said more properly to belong than to him to whose operation are attributed all the benefits which are administered in the church? I do not claim, however, that when I fi rst called my oratory the Paraclete, I meant to dedicate it to only one Person, but I named it thus for the reason that I have given before, in memory of

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

41

the comfort I received. Yet if I had done it on the grounds that many believe, it would not be unreasonable, although it is not customary. [His Persecution by Certain “New Apostles”] If, while I was living here, my body was hidden, my fame now spread mightily throughout the whole world and, like the poetic image called “Echo” because it has sound but no substance, it resounded far and wide.64 Since my former adversaries could now do nothing themselves to hurt me, they incited against me certain new “apostles,” in whom everyone believed most devoutly.65 One of them prided himself on having reformed the life of the canons regular, the other, that of the monks. As these men went about the countryside preaching and brazenly slandering me in every possible way, they made me for a time an object of scorn to certain ecclesiastical and secular authorities. They spread such sinister tales about my faith as well as my life that they turned even my best friends against me. If any of them still kept some of their old love for me, they concealed it altogether for fear of these men. God himself is my witness that I never heard of any meeting of churchmen without thinking that they intended to condemn me. Stunned by fear, like a man who expects at any moment to be struck by lightning, I was always waiting to be dragged before a council or an assembly as a heretic or an irreligious person. If I may compare the flea with the lion, the ant with the elephant, my rivals persecuted me no less bitterly than the heretics once persecuted St. Athanasius.66 Often, God knows, I fell into such despair that I was ready to leave Christendom and go over to the Saracens and there, by paying whatever tribute they demanded, to live a Christian life in peace among the enemies of Christ.67 It seemed to me that they would be even better disposed toward me because, from the charge made against me, they would suspect that I was not a good Christian and so they would think that I could be more easily converted to their own religion. [His Election as Abbot and His Reason for Accepting the Office] While I was constantly assailed by this great anxiety and, as a last resort, was planning to flee to Christ among the enemies of Christ, I had an opportunity that gave me some hope of escaping from these conspiracies. Instead, I fell into the hands of Christians and monks who were far more savage and wicked than the Saracens. There was in Brittany, in the diocese of Vannes, an abbey called 64

Ovid, Metamorphoses 3.359. Abelard may have been referring to Bernard of Clairvaux and Norbert of Xanten, contemporary prime spokesmen of the Cistercian and Premonstratensian reform movements. 66 Athanasius (295–373): The patriarch of Alexandria known among other things for his vigorous, contentious defense of the orthodox view of the Trinity against Arian heretical teachings. 67 See Jeremy duQuesnay Adams, “Les horizons sociopolitiques du monde de Pierre Abelard,” pp. 32, 37–38. 65

42

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuys,68 which had been left desolate by the death of its abbot, and the monks unanimously elected me as his successor, with the consent of the lord of the land.69 It was easy for them to obtain the permission of my own abbot and fellow-monks. So the enmity of the French drove me to the west, just as that of the Romans drove St. Jerome to the east. God knows, I would never have agreed to this except that I hoped to escape from the persecution which, as I have said, I never ceased to endure. This is certainly a barbarous country, and I was not familiar with its language.70 The evil and incorrigible life of these monks is notorious almost everywhere, and the people of the region are uncivilized and lawless. So, as a man who is terrified by a sword hanging over his head dashes toward a precipice and at the last minute escapes one death only to meet another, I deliberately fled from one danger to pursue another. Here, where I could hear the ocean’s frightful roar, where the land’s end did not permit me to flee any farther, I often repeated in my prayers the words (Ps. 60:3): “From the end of the earth have I cried unto thee while my heart is overwhelmed.” Everyone, I think, now realizes how that undisciplined community of monks I had undertaken to rule tormented my heart with anxiety day and night, as I worried constantly about the dangers to both my soul and my body. I felt very sure that if I should try to force them to live according to the Rule they had professed, it would cost me my life, and that if I should not do so to the best of my ability, I would lose my soul. Besides, a certain tyrant of a lord, the most powerful in that region, had seized the opportunity offered by the disorder of the monastery and had long since brought it completely under his control. He had, in fact, appropriated to his own uses all the land adjacent to it and harassed the monks themselves with heavier exactions than he would have imposed on Jews subject to tribute. The monks kept hounding me for their daily needs, though the community had nothing for me to give them. All of them had been supporting themselves and their concubines, and their sons and daughters, from their own purses. They delighted in harassing me in this way, and they also stole and carried off whatever they could, to make me fail in my administration of the abbey and thus force me to relax my discipline or get out altogether. The people of the whole region are savage and lawless, and there was not a single soul to whom I could turn for help, since I was opposed to the conduct of all alike. Outside the abbey that tyrant and his henchmen were constantly oppressing me; inside the abbey the monks were incessantly plotting against me, so it seemed that the words of the Apostle were written especially for me (2 Cor. 7:6): “All was conflict without, all was anxiety within.”

68 The Abbey of Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuys: the abbey, whose monks and neighbors spoke Breton instead of French, was located relatively inaccessibly on the Atlantic coast some 125 km./ 80 mi. west of Abelard’s birthplace in the French-speaking part of Brittany; it was dedicated to the Romano-British saint, Gildas of Strathclyde, who came from Britain in the sixth century. 69 Conon III, Duke of Brittany, 1112–1148, a ruler concerned to sponsor monastic reform. 70 See Adams, “Les horizons sociopolitiques du monde de Pierre Abelard,” pp. 30–32.

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

43

I wept when I considered what a useless and miserable life I was living and how fruitless it was both to myself and to others. Before I had left them for these monks, I had been of great service to my students, but now I could do nothing either for them or for my monks. I realized how impotent I had proved to be in everything I had undertaken and attempted, so that everyone might very well say of me (Luke 14:30): “Here is a man who began to build, and could not fi nish his building!” I was in utter despair when I compared the evils from which I had escaped with the plight into which I had now fallen. Now regarding my earlier troubles as nothing, I often said to myself with heavy sighs: “I deserve to suffer these things, because I deserted the Paraclete, the Comforter, and thrust myself into true desolation. In my efforts to escape what were only threats, I have rushed into actual dangers.” What tormented me most was the fact that after I had left my oratory, I could not provide suitably for the celebration of the divine office there. The place was so poor that there was hardly enough for the needs of one man. But the true Paraclete himself offered me real comfort in my desolation and supplied what was necessary for his own oratory. It happened that the abbot of SaintDenis71 somehow acquired, on the pretext that it belonged by ancient right to his monastery, the abbey of Argenteuil, where Heloise, now my sister in Christ rather than my wife, had entered the religious life.72 He then forcibly expelled from it the community of nuns of which my friend was prioress. After these nuns had been scattered as exiles in various places, I realized that the Lord had given me an opportunity to provide for my oratory. I returned, therefore, to the Paraclete and invited Heloise there with those nuns from her former convent who had remained faithful to her. On their arrival, I granted and gave to them the oratory itself and everything belonging to it, and Pope Innocent,73 with the assent and indeed, at the request of the bishop of the diocese,74 has since confi rmed this grant of mine to them and their successors by a privilege in perpetuity.75 At fi rst, these nuns lived in poverty there and endured the most extreme deprivation, but soon they were comforted by the protection of the divine mercy they devoutly served. He showed himself a true Paraclete to them and made their neighbors merciful and kind to them. God knows, I think they have enjoyed greater increase in worldly goods in one year than I would have achieved in a hundred, if I had stayed there. As the female sex is certainly weaker, their wretched poverty is the more appealing to men’s hearts, and their virtue is more pleasing to both God and man. God has granted such grace in the eyes of everyone to that sister of mine who rules over the others, that the bishops loved her as a daughter, the abbots as a sister, the laity as a mother, and all alike marveled at 71 See: Explanatory Notes, “Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis.” He acquired the abbey of Argenteuil in 1129 on the authority of presumably forged letters. 72 See: Explanatory Notes, “Argenteuil.” 73 See: Explanatory Notes, “Pope Innocent II.” 74 See: Explanatory Notes, “Hato, Bishop of Troyes.” 75 See: Explanatory Notes, “Paraclete.” On 28 November 1131, Innocent II confirmed Abelard’s gift of the Paraclete to Heloise.

44

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

her piety, her prudence, and the incomparable sweetness of her patience in all things. Withdrawing to her cell, she sought to devote herself without distraction to sacred meditations and prayers, and as she rarely let herself be seen, the world outside became more insistent in its demands for her presence and her spiritual instruction.

[The Accusation of Lewdness against Him] Before long all of their neighbors began to reproach me bitterly because I paid less attention to these poverty-stricken nuns than I could or should have done. They said that I could easily obtain help for them, at least by my preaching. So I began to visit them more often, in order to help them in any way that I could. But the outcome of these visits was malicious gossip about me, and what I did from sincere charity was denounced most shamelessly by my detractors, with their usual wickedness. They claimed that I was drawn there by carnal desire and that I could never really bear to be separated from the woman whom I had once loved. I often thought of the complaint of St. Jerome, who said when he wrote to Asella about false friends: “No fault is found with me but my sex, and that only happens when Paula comes to Jerusalem.” 76 He also says, “Before I became acquainted with the family of the holy Paula, my praises were sung throughout the city and almost everyone judged me worthy of the supreme pontificate . . . But I know that through good and evil report we attain to the Kingdom of Heaven.” 77 When, I say, I recalled this insulting charge against so great a man, I took no little comfort in it. If my rivals had found in me as much cause for suspicion, what slanders, I asked myself, would they not heap upon me! But now that the divine mercy has freed me from any reason for this suspicion, what basis remains for it when the power to commit these acts has been taken from me? What is the meaning of this latest shameless accusation? For such a condition so completely banishes any suspicion of lust from men’s minds that those who wanted to have their wives more carefully watched had eunuchs to protect them, as sacred history reports of Esther and the other maidens of King Ahasuerus.78 We read also that the powerful eunuch of Queen Candace guarded all her riches and that, in order to convert and baptize him, Philip the apostle was directed to him by an angel.79 Surely, the freer such men have been from any suspicion of this kind, the greater the dignity and familiarity they have achieved among modest and honorable women. Indeed, as we are told in the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical History, when Origen, the greatest of Christian philosophers, undertook to instruct women in sacred learning, he laid violent hands on himself, in order to remove altogether this

76 77 78 79

Jerome, Ep. 45, ad Asellam 2: PL 22, 481: CSEL 54, 324. Jerome, Ep. 45, ad Asellam 3–6: PL 22, 481–83; CSEL 54, 325, 328. Esther 2:3. Acts 8:26ff.

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

45

ground for suspicion.80 Nevertheless, I thought that in this the divine mercy had been kinder to me than to him, because what Origen did through imprudence and thereby incurred great blame was done to me by another’s crime, so that I might be set free for a similar task. Because this happened to me so quickly and so unexpectedly, it hurt me much less, for I was sleeping heavily and felt scarcely any pain when they laid hands on me. But the less I suffered then from my wound, the more prolonged is my present suffering through slander and I am more cruelly tormented by the damage to my reputation than by the mutilation of my body. For, as it is written (Prov. 22:1): “Precious beyond all treasure is good repute.” As St. Augustine reminds us in his sermon On the Life and Morals of the Clergy: “The man who, trusting in his conscience, neglects his reputation is cruel to himself.” Before that, he says, “We take forethought for what is honorable, as the Apostle says, not only before God, but also in the sight of all men. For ourselves the testimony of our conscience is enough; for your sake, it is important that our reputation should not be tarnished and that it should shine among you. Conscience and reputation are two things: conscience for yourself and reputation for your neighbor.” 81 Imagine the charges that my malicious enemies, if they had lived in those times, would have brought against Christ himself for his members, that is, his prophets and his apostles, or the other Holy Fathers, when they saw them, though whole in body, joined in such familiar association with women! St. Augustine also points out in his book Concerning the Works of Monks that women were associated with the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles as such inseparable companions that they accompanied them even in their preaching. For this reason faithful women who possessed earthly goods went with them and ministered to them from their means, so that they might not lack any of the necessaries of life. If anyone doubts that the apostles permitted women of holy life to travel about with them wherever they preached the Gospel, let them hear the Gospel and learn that they did this, following the example of the Lord himself. For as the Gospel says: Then followed a time in which he went on journeying from one city to another, preaching and spreading the good news of God’s kingdom. With him were the twelve apostles and certain women whom he had freed from evil spirits and from sicknesses, Mary who is called Magdalen, who had seven devils cast out of her, and Joanna, the wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who ministered to him with the means they had.82

Pope Leo IX, replying to the letter of Parmenianus, On Monastic Zeal, says: We declare that it is absolutely unlawful for a bishop, priest, or deacon to give up the care of his wife for the sake of the religious life and not to supply her with food and clothing, but he should not live with her carnally. This, we read, was the case 80 81 82

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 6.8: PG 20, 538. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origen”. Augustine, Sermo. 355.1: PL 39, 1569a; referring to 2 Cor. 8:21. Augustine, De opere monachorum 4–5: PL 40, 552–53: CSEL 41, 538–39; referring to Luke 8:1ff.

46

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

with the holy apostles, as St. Paul says: ‘Have we not the right to travel about with a woman who is a sister as the Lord’s brethren do and Cephas?’ See, you fool, he did not say: ‘Have we not a right to embrace’ but ‘to travel about with a woman,’ meaning that their wives might be supported by them from the rewards of their preaching, not that there might be carnal intercourse between them.83

Surely, from a purely human point of view the Pharisee who said to himself concerning the Lord (Luke 7:39): “If this man were a prophet, he would know who this woman is that is touching him and what kind of woman, a sinner,” could have suspected evil on the part of the Lord far more reasonably than my enemies have done in my case. Those who saw his mother entrusted to the care of a young man, or the prophets living and associating with widows, could derive from these things a much more likely suspicion. What would my slanderers have said if they had seen Malchus, the captive monk of whom St. Jerome writes, living in the same room with his wife? How they would have condemned as a crime what that distinguished doctor commended highly when he saw it saying: “There was a certain old man named Malchus, a native of that place and an old woman also in his hut, both full of such zeal for religion, and they so wore down the threshold of the church that you would have believed them Zachary and Elizabeth in the Gospel, except that there was no John with them!”84 Why, finally, do my enemies refrain from slandering the Holy Fathers? They founded monasteries of women, as we have often read—indeed, we have even observed this—and they also provided for them, following the example of the seven deacons whom the apostles appointed to serve the tables and care for their wives in their place. The weaker sex needs the help of the stronger so much that the Apostle decrees that the man is always over the woman, as her head. As a symbol of this, he also commands that she should always have her head covered. I am very much surprised, therefore, to see that the custom of setting abbesses over women, as abbots are placed over men, has long since crept into the monasteries and that men as well as women bind themselves by professing the same Rule, although that Rule contains many things that can by no means be performed by women, whether they are superiors or subordinates. In many places, too, against the natural order of things, we see abbesses and nuns even ruling over the clergy themselves, who in turn rule over the people, and the more power these women wield over the men, and the heavier the yoke to which they subject them, the more easily the men may be led to evil desires. This is what the satirist [ Juvenal] has in mind when he says: “Nothing is more insufferable than a rich woman.”85 Reflecting often on these things, I made up my mind to provide for these sisters as well as I could. I felt that if I could manage to watch over their affairs in person, they would have greater respect for me and also that I would be better able to supply them with all they needed. As I was being persecuted by the monks who should have been my sons more cruelly and more actively now than by my 83 Cf. Card. Humbert, Contra Nicetam monachum monasterii Studii 27: PL 143, 997d–998a; referring to 1 Cor. 9:5. 84 Jerome, Vita Malchi: PL 23, 56a. 85 Juvenal, Satires 6.460.

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

47

fellow-monks earlier, I continued to turn to the nuns as to a haven of peace in that raging tempest, and I found some rest there for a little while. Although I had no success with my monks, I felt that I might at least do something for those nuns and that this would be as beneficial to me as it was to them in their weakness. But now Satan has so frustrated me that I cannot fi nd a place where I can rest or even exist. A wanderer and a fugitive, like the accursed Cain, I am carried hither and thither. “Confl icts without, and anxieties within,” as I said earlier, torment me constantly, or rather, anxieties both without and within, and confl icts as well as anxieties.86 Far more dangerous to me and more constant than persecution by my adversaries are the attacks of my monks. I have them always with me and I must perpetually endure their plotting. If I leave the cloister, the violence of my enemies looms as a threat to my body, but within the cloister, I must always suffer the savage and deceitful schemes of my sons, I mean the monks entrusted to me as their abbot, or father. How often have they tried to poison me, as his monks tried to kill St. Benedict!87 If for this reason that great father deserted his perverse sons, I should be encouraged to follow his example openly, in order not to be considered, in facing certain danger, a bold tempter rather than a lover of God, indeed, my own murderer. While I was protecting myself from these daily plots of theirs as best I could, by watching what was given me to eat and drink, they tried to kill me in the very sacrifice of the altar, by putting poison in the chalice. On another occasion, when I had gone to Nantes to visit the count who was ill and I was staying at my brothers’ house, my monks attempted to have a servant in my retinue poison me, thinking that there I would not be on my guard against such a plot. But by divine providence it turned out that, while I did not touch the food prepared for me, one of the monks I had brought with me ate it unwittingly and dropped dead. Then the servant who had prepared it was terrified both by his own conscience and by the evidence of the deed, and he fled. After these attempts had made their wickedness clear to everyone, I became more open in my efforts to evade their plots as well as I could and I withdrew from the congregation of the abbey to live in cells with a few of my monks. Then, if the others suspected that I intended to go anywhere, they bribed robbers to waylay me on the highways or byways and try to kill me. While I was struggling to live amidst these dangers, one day the hand of the Lord chanced to strike me a mighty blow, making me fall from my horse and break a vertebra in my neck. This fracture has hurt and weakened me much more than my earlier injury. By excommunicating them, I managed to curb for a time the unbridled rebelliousness of my monks and to force those whom I feared more than the others to promise me on their own word and by oaths publicly sworn that they would leave the abbey altogether and would not harass me any more. But they 86

2 Cor. 8:5; Gen. 4:14. Benedict reluctantly left his hermitage at Subiaco to become abbot of a monastery at Vicovaro where the rigor of his rule caused the resentful monks to attempt to poison him. He eventually returned to his hermitage. 87

48

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

later publicly and shamelessly broke the word they had given and the oaths they had sworn. Even though they were fi nally compelled by the authority of the Roman pontiff, Innocent,88 through his own legate sent for this purpose, to make this and many other promises in the presence of the count and the bishop, they have still not been tamed. Recently when I returned to the abbey, after those I have mentioned had been expelled, and entrusted myself to the remaining monks of whom I was less suspicious, I found them worse than the others. With the help of a lord of the region, I have just barely escaped from these monks who threaten me not now with poison, but with a sword at my throat. I am living even now in this danger, and every day I feel that a sword is hanging over my head, so that I can scarcely breathe easily from one meal to the next. I am like the man who, when he imagined that the greatest happiness consisted in the power and wealth acquired by the tyrant Dionysius, noticed the sword secretly hanging over him by a thread and so he came to know the nature of the happiness that human power brings.89 This is the kind of treatment that I, a poor monk elevated into an abbot, experience constantly: the wealthier I have become, the more miserable I am. I only hope that my example may restrain the ambition of those who seek the same goal. This, my beloved brother in Christ and my old and most devoted companion in the monastic life, is the story of my calamities against which I have struggled constantly almost from the cradle, and which I have written down at the thought of your sorrow and the injustice you have suffered. It should suffice, as I said at the beginning of my letter, to make you consider your trouble little or nothing compared with mine, and help you to endure it the more patiently, the less important you consider it to be. Take comfort always in what the Lord foretold to his followers concerning the followers of the devil ( John 15:18, 20): “They will persecute you just as they have persecuted me. If the world hates you, be sure that it hated me before it learned to hate you. If you belonged to the world, the world would know you for its own and love you.” According to the Apostle (2 Tim. 3:12): “All those who are resolved to live a holy life in Christ will meet with persecution.” In another place, he says (Gal. 1:10): “Do you think it is man’s favor, or God’s, that I am trying to win now? If, after all these years, I were still courting the favor of men, I should not be what I am, the slave of Christ.” As the Psalmist says (Ps. 52:6): “Those who please men are put to shame, because God despises them.” Reflecting on this, St. Jerome, whose heir in the abuses of slander I consider myself to be, says in a letter to Nepotian: “If, as the Apostle says, I still pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”90 When he wrote to Asella about false friends, Jerome also said: “I thank my God that I am worthy of the world’s hatred.”91 To Heliodorus the monk, he wrote: “You are gravely mistaken, my brother, if you think that there is ever a time when the Christian does not suffer 88

Pope Innocent II. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5.20–21. 90 Jerome, Ep. 52, ad Nepotianum PL 13, 537; CSEL 54, 436. 91 Jerome, Ep. 45, ad Asellam 6: PL 22, 482; CSEL 54, 327. 89

A BELA R D TO A FRIEND

49

persecution . . . ‘For our adversary, like a roaring lion, goes about, seeking someone to devour, and do you think of peace? He sits in ambush with the rich.’ ”92 Encouraged, then, by these lessons and examples, let us bear our troubles with less concern, the more unjustly we have suffered them. If they do not add to our merit, at least let us not doubt that they are useful for our purification. Since everything is ruled by divine providence, it should at least comfort each faithful soul, in every affl iction, to know that the sublime goodness of God never permits anything to happen that he has not ordained and that he himself brings to its best conclusion whatever has been done perversely. So we are right in saying to him in every situation (Matt. 6:10), “Thy will be done.” Finally, consider how comforting for those who love God are the words of the Apostle (Rom. 8:28): “We are well assured that everything helps to secure the good of those who love God.” This is what the wisest of wise men had in mind when he said in the Proverbs (Prov. 12:21): “Nothing can befall the just man to do him hurt.” In saying this, he shows that those clearly depart from righteousness who grow angry at any trouble of theirs, when they know very well that this happens to them by divine decree. They are ruled by their own wills rather than by the divine will, and preferring their own will to the will of God, rebel in their heart of hearts against that which is signified by the words “Thy will be done.” Farewell.

92

Jerome, Ep. 14, ad Heliodorum 4: PL 22, 349; CSEL 54, 349; referring to 1 Pet. 5:8 and Ps. 10:8.

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 2 HELOISE TO ABELARD

To her lord or rather, her father, to her husband or rather, her brother, from his servant or rather, his daughter, from his wife or rather, his sister: to Abelard from Heloise.

T

he letter you wrote to comfort a friend, my beloved, has recently chanced to come into my hands. Recognizing at once from the heading that it was yours, I began to read it with eagerness as great as my love for its writer. For I hoped that I might be refreshed by the words, as if by a picture, of one whom in reality I have lost. Instead, I found almost every part of this letter filled with the bitterness of gall and wormwood, as you told the pitiable story of our conversion to the religious life and the endless torments you have suffered, my only love. You have truly accomplished in this letter what you promised your friend when you began, that he should consider his own troubles as little or nothing compared with yours. After you describe your earlier persecutions by your teachers and that most treacherous outrage upon your body, you turn to the detestable jealousy and the ruthless attacks of those fellow-students of yours, Alberic of Reims and Lotulf the Lombard.1 You do not fail to mention what was done at their instigation to your famous work of theology and what happened to you yourself, when you were, so to speak, condemned to prison. Then you go on to the plotting of your abbot and false brother-monks, the slanderous attacks on you by those so-called apostles whom your enemies aroused against you, and the scandal caused by the many charges concerning the name of the Paraclete which, contrary to custom, you gave to your oratory. At last, after describing your intolerable persecutions at the hands of that cruel tyrant and those wicked monks whom you call sons, you bring your melancholy story to an end. No one could, I believe, read or hear this tale without being moved to tears. The more fully you have set down every detail, the more sharply you have renewed my own sorrows. They have, indeed, become greater. Since you say your dangers are still increasing, all of us here are driven to despair of your life and every day we wait with trembling hearts and throbbing breasts for the latest rumors of your death. In the name of Christ who still somehow protects you for 1

For these rivals of Abelard, see: Explanatory Notes, “Alberic of Reims.”

52

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

himself, as his servants and yours, we beg you to give us frequent news of you, and the storms that still buffet you. In this way, at least, you will still have us, who are your only friends, to share your grief or joy. Those who grieve with one in sorrow usually give him some comfort and any burden shared by several persons becomes lighter and may even be cast off. If this tempest should subside a little, you should write all the sooner because your letters will be so welcome. Whatever you write will comfort us, for by writing, at least you will prove that you are thinking of us. Showing us by his own example how delightful are the letters of friends from whom we are separated, Seneca writes to his friend Lucilius: Thank you for writing to me so often, because this is the only way in which you can give me back your presence. I never receive a letter from you without instantly feeling that we are together. If the pictures of our absent friends give us pleasure, refreshing our memory and relieving our longing for them by an unreal and lifeless solace, how much more satisfying are the letters bearing the true marks of the friend who is far away! I thank God that no malice prevents you from restoring your presence to us in this way at least, and that no obstacle stands in your path. Do not, I beg you, let your own negligence delay you.2

You have written your friend a long letter of consolation, ostensibly concerning his misfortunes, it is true, but really about your own. Although you evidently meant to comfort him by your detailed account of your troubles, you have infl icted fresh wounds of sorrow on us, and increased the pain of those we suffered earlier. Heal, I implore you, those wounds that you yourself have made, you who are so busy curing those caused by others. You have really done well by your friend and comrade; you have discharged the debt of friendship and comradeship. But you are bound by a larger debt to us, whom you may rightly call not merely your friends, but your dearest friends, not simply comrades but daughters, or whatever sweeter and holier name, if any, can be imagined. There is no lack of evidence to show how great is the debt that binds you to us. To remove any doubt, and if all else were silent, the facts themselves speak loudly. After God, you are the sole founder of this place, the only architect of this oratory, the sole builder of this congregation. You have built nothing on foundations laid by another. Everything here is your creation. This wilderness, occupied only by wild beasts and robbers, had known no human dwellings; there were no houses here. In the very lairs of the animals, in the hiding places of thieves, where the name of God was not spoken, you built a divine tabernacle and dedicated a temple to the Holy Spirit himself. In building this temple you accepted nothing from the treasuries of kings and princes, though you could have obtained assistance from the greatest and most powerful men, so that whatever was accomplished might be attributed to you alone. The clerics and students who flocked here to be taught by you supplied all the essentials of life. Those who were living on ecclesiastical benefices and did not know how to make 2

Seneca, Ad Lucilium 40 (initio).

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

53

offerings, but only how to receive them—who had their hands outstretched to take, not to give—became lavish and even prodigal in their offerings here. This new plantation in the Lord’s field is truly yours and yours alone, and it needs frequent watering to make its tender plants grow. Even if it were not new, it would be frail enough, simply because of the weakness of the female sex. So it needs more careful and more constant tending, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 3:6): “It was for me to plant the seed, for Apollo to water it, but it was God who gave the increase.” By his preaching the Apostle planted and established in the faith the Corinthians to whom he wrote. Afterward his disciple, Apollo, watered them with holy preaching and so their virtues were increased by divine grace bestowed on them. But you, with those wasted admonitions of yours and those holy sermons preached in vain, are now tending a vineyard not of your planting, and one that has turned bitter against you. While you are lavishing your care on what belongs to another, think of your debt to what is yours. You teach and admonish the rebellious, and accomplish nothing by it. You fruitlessly cast the pearls of divine eloquence before swine. While you are wasting so much on those who resist you, think of your debt to those who obey you. As you are lavishing so much on your enemies, consider what you owe to your daughters. Putting all else aside, think of the great debt that binds you to me, so that what you owe in general to these devout women, you may pay with deeper devotion to her who is yours alone. You in your excellent learning know better than my poor self how many important treatises were written by the Holy Fathers for the instruction, encouragement, and consolation of holy women, and how carefully these works were composed. For this reason your forgetfulness of me in the frail beginnings of our religious life troubled and amazed me. For when I was wavering and crushed by lasting grief, you were not moved by reverence for God, or love of me, or by the examples of the Holy Fathers, to try to comfort me either by words when I was with you or by a letter when we were apart. Yet you know how you are bound to me by a debt that is the greater because you are tied to me so closely by the sacramental bonds of marriage, and how you are joined to me still more closely because, as everyone knows, I have always loved you with a boundless love. You know, my dearest, as everyone knows, what I have lost in you, and how calamitous for me was that supreme and notorious betrayal which robbed me of myself as well as you, so that my sorrow is immeasurably deeper for the way in which I lost you than for the loss itself. Truly the greater the cause of sorrow, the greater must be the remedies of consolation applied to it, not by someone else, however, but by you yourself. For you were the sole cause of my grief and you alone can bring me the balm of comfort. You alone can make me sad, and only you can make me happy and console me. You alone owe me this great debt, now above all, when I have done all that you demanded, even to the point where, unable to refuse you anything, I found the strength to give up my own life at your command. What is more, and stranger still, my love reached such a pitch of madness that it sacrificed without hope of recovery the sole object of its desires,

54

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

when, at your command and without hesitating, I changed my habit and my mind, to show that you alone possessed my body and my soul. God knows, I have never asked anything of you but only you yourself. I wanted you alone, not what was yours. You know that I did not hope for marriage or for any dowry. I did not seek to gratify my own pleasures or desires, but only yours. If the name of wife seems holier and more impressive, to my ears the name of mistress always sounded sweeter or, if you are not ashamed of it, the name of concubine or whore. For I thought that the more I humbled myself for you, the more completely I might win your love, and that in this way I might do less damage to your great fame. You had not completely forgotten this love in the letter you wrote to console your friend, since you did not consider it beneath you to report the various arguments by which I tried to dissuade you from our marriage, to keep you from an ill-starred bed. But you neglected to mention the many reasons that made me prefer love to marriage, liberty to bondage. As God is my witness, if Augustus, who ruled over the whole earth, should have thought me worthy of the honor of marriage and made me ruler of all the world forever, it would have seemed sweeter and more honorable to me to be called your mistress than his empress. The fact that a man is rich and powerful does not make him therefore better; the one depends on fortune, the other on character. The woman who marries a rich man rather than a poor one, and desires her husband’s possessions more than the man himself, should realize that she is only putting herself up for sale. Surely anyone who is led to marry by this kind of greed deserves to be paid rather than loved by her husband. It is obvious that what she is seeking is not a man but what he owns, and that if she could, she would prostitute herself to a richer man. This point is made in the argument by which, as Aeschines Socraticus tells us, the wise Aspasia tried to convince Xenophon and his wife. After she had explained the reasons why this pair should become reconciled with one another, she concluded her argument with these words: “It is only when both of you have come to realize that there is not a better man or a more desirable woman in the world that you will always seek above all what seems best to each of you: one to be the husband of the best of women, and the other to be the wife of the best of men.”3 This is surely a holy saying, and more than philosophic; it may, indeed, be said to spring from wisdom rather than philosophy. For it is a pious error and a blessed fallacy in those who are married to think that a perfect love can keep the bonds of matrimony unbroken, not so much by the continence of their bodies as by the purity of their hearts. But what other women have deceived themselves into thinking was in my case nothing less than the truth. What they believed to be true of their husbands, I, and everyone else as well, not merely believed, but knew to be true of you, since the more truly I loved you, the less I could be in error about you. What kings or philosophers could rival you in fame? What kingdom or city or village did not yearn with eagerness to see you? Who did not rush to look at you when you appeared in public, and crane his neck and strain his eyes after you as you 3

Cf. Cicero, De inventione rhetorica I.31, 52 in De inventione, ed. Hubbell.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

55

departed? What girl or woman did not long for you when you were gone and burn with desire in your presence? What queen or great lady did not envy me my joys and my bed? You had, I admit, two special gifts by which you could instantly captivate the heart of every woman: the gifts of composing and singing songs, gifts that other philosophers, as we know, have rarely possessed. In these arts, as in a kind of play, you found recreation from the labor of your philosophical studies, and the many love songs you composed have been sung repeatedly because of the great sweetness of their words and melodies, and they have kept your name constantly on everyone’s lips. For the charm of your tunes would not let even the unlettered forget you. It was for this reason, above all, that women sighed for love of you. Since most of these songs told the story of our love, they quickly spread my fame in many lands and made other women envious of me. What grace of mind or body did not adorn your youth? What woman who envied me then is not now compelled by my disaster to pity one who has been robbed of such delights? What man or woman, even though at fi rst unfriendly to me, is not now softened by the compassion I deserve? Although I am exceedingly guilty, you know that I am also most innocent. For it is not the deed itself but the intention of the doer that makes the sin. Equity weighs not what is done, but the spirit in which it is done.4 Only you, who have known them, can judge my intentions toward you. I submit everything to your scrutiny. I yield to your decision. Tell me just one thing, if you can: why it is that ever since we entered the religious life, which you alone decided we should do, you have so neglected and forgotten me that I am not refreshed in spirit by words when I am with you, or comforted by a letter when we are apart? Tell me if you can, I beg you, or let me say what I feel or, rather, what everyone suspects. Lust, not love, inspired the ardor of your desire for me. Then after what you desired came to an end, whatever feelings you had shown for this reason vanished at the same time. This, my dearest love, is not simply my conjecture, but everyone’s suspicion. It is not peculiar to me, but common to all. It is not a personal, but a public opinion. I wish that this seemed true only to me and that your love might fi nd someone to make excuses for it, which might comfort me a little in my sorrow. If only I could invent excuses by which to acquit you and so, to some extent, conceal my own baseness! Please pay attention, I beg you, to what I am asking of you and you will see what a small thing it is, and how very easy it would be for you, when I am cheated of your presence, at least to make your sweet image 4 The basic doctrine of intentionality is that one is ethically responsible only for what one intends to do. Hence, in Abelard’s view, for example, Jews were not guilty of causing God-murder since they presumed Jesus to be an imposter, a lawless provocateur. Abelard and Heloise maintain distinctions between exterior and interior acts, so that “we are to consider not so much what is done as the intention with which it is done.” This is one of Abelard’s most striking and durably inf luential ethical doctrines, developed, we think, in tandem with Heloise and reinforced by her adherence to its substance. See Luscombe’s edition and translation of Peter Abelard’s Ethics (1971), esp. p. 48, and particularly, Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, on Abelard’s primary significance not as logician but as expositor of ethical thought. Here Heloise turns this doctrine against him.

56

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

present to me in words, of which you have plenty at your command. I must hope in vain for you to be generous in deeds if I am forced to endure your miserliness in words. Until now, I really believed that I deserved better from you, since I have done everything for you and am still persevering in obedience to you. It was not religious devotion but your command alone that drove me in my youth to the harshness of the monastic life. But if I am to have no reward from you, you may judge that my efforts have been futile. I can expect no reward from God, since it is evident that I have not yet done anything for love of him. I followed you when you hastened to God, or rather, I preceded you in taking the monastic habit. Before you gave yourself to God, you delivered me over to the sacred habit and the monastic calling, as if you were thinking of Lot’s wife, who looked back. I confess that I was greatly saddened and ashamed that in this one thing you showed so little faith in me. God knows, I would not have hesitated for a moment to precede or follow you into the fi res of hell, if you had given the word. For my heart is not mine but yours. Now, more than ever, if it is not with you, it belongs nowhere. Without you, it can fi nd no place. But I beg you to behave in such a way that my heart may be happy with you, and it will be happy with you if it fi nds you kind, if you return love for love, little for much, words for deeds. I wish, my love, that your love were less sure of me, so that you would be more anxious. But the more reason I have given you for confidence in the past, the more you neglect me now. Remember, I entreat you, what I have done and consider what you owe me. While I was enjoying the delights of the flesh with you, many people were not certain whether I was moved by love or by lust. But now the outcome shows clearly the spirit in which I began. In obedience to your will, I have forbidden myself every pleasure. I have kept nothing for myself but only this, to become more than ever yours alone. Think how unjust you would be if you gave back less—indeed, nothing at all—to one who deserves so much more, especially when what I ask of you is such a small thing and so very easy for you to do. So in the name of God to whom you have offered yourself, I beg you to restore your presence in the way that lies open to you, I mean, by giving me the consolation of writing to me. Then at least I may be renewed in spirit and may take part more gladly in the divine service. When long ago you wanted me for shameful pleasures, you used to besiege me with letters and with your songs you put your Heloise’s name on every lip. Every street rang with it; it echoed in every house. Should you not excite me toward God now, as you excited me then to desire for you? Think, I implore you, what you owe me! Listen to what I ask you, and I shall end this long letter with a brief word, Farewell, my only love.

LETTER 3 ABELARD TO HELOISE

To Heloise, his dearly beloved sister in Christ, from Abelard, her brother in the same.

I

f, since our conversion from the world to God, I have never written you a letter to comfort or encourage you, this should not be attributed to my negligence but to your prudence. I did not consider my help necessary for one upon whom the divine grace has so lavishly bestowed all that she needs. By your words and your example you are able to teach those who are in error, to strengthen the fainthearted, to exhort the lukewarm, as you have long been accustomed to do since you became prioress under the abbess.1 If you watch over your daughters as carefully now as you watched over your sisters then, I consider it sufficient and I regard any teaching or encouragement on my part as superf luous. But if to you in your humility it seems otherwise, and you need me to instruct you and write to you concerning matters that pertain to God, tell me what you want, so that I may write to you again, according as the Lord may grant me. I give thanks to God, who has inspired your hearts with anxiety for me in my most grave and constant dangers and thus made you partners in my affl ictions, so that with the help of your prayers the divine mercy may protect me and swiftly crush Satan under my feet. For this reason, above all, I have hastened to send you the Psalter that you have earnestly requested, my sister once dear in the world, now most dear in Christ.2 With it, I hope that you may offer a perpetual sacrifice of prayers to the Lord for our many and great transgressions and for the perils that daily threaten me. There are many proofs and examples showing the great influence the prayers of the faithful may have with God and his saints, especially the prayers of women for their dear ones and of wives of their husbands. With this particularly in mind, the Apostle admonishes us to pray without ceasing. We read that the Lord said to Moses (Exod. 32:10): “Spare me your importunacy, let me vent my anger and destroy them.” And he said to Jeremiah (7:16): “Nor do you . . . think to plead for this people of mine, or . . . thwart my will.” By these words the Lord makes it 1 2

That is, at Argenteuil. Probably not a Psalter in the usual sense, but the versicles, responses, and prayer ending.

58

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

clear that the prayers of the faithful place a bridle, so to speak, on his wrath and curb it. Thus his anger may not exact from sinners the penalties they deserve, and the supplication of his friends may turn aside one whom justice moves almost spontaneously to vengeance, and as if by force restrain him against his will. So he says to one who is praying or about to pray ( Jer. 7:16): “Thwart my will, you shall have no hearing.” The Lord commands that prayers shall not be offered for the wicked. But the just man prays, notwithstanding the Lord’s injunction, and obtains from him what he asks, altering the judgment of the angry Judge. It is said of Moses (Exod. 32:14): “The Lord relented, and spared his people the punishment he had threatened.” Elsewhere it is written of all the works of God (Ps. 32:9): “He spoke and they were made.” But in this passage it is recorded also that he said the people deserved punishment but, restrained by the virtue of prayer, he did not do what he had promised. Consider, then, how great is the virtue of prayer, if we pray as we are commanded, since by praying the prophet obtained that for which God had forbidden him to pray and turned him away from what he had ordained. Another prophet says to him (Hab. 3:2): “Though we have earned your anger, bethink you of mercy still.” Let earthly princes hear this and take heed, those who in carrying out the justice they have ordained and decreed are found to be obstinate rather than just. They are afraid of appearing remiss if they should be merciful and false if they should change their decree, or should not carry out what they have decreed with little forethought, even if they rectify their words by their deeds. These, I may say, should be compared to Jephthah who, more foolishly performing what he had foolishly vowed, killed his only daughter. But the man who desires to be a member of God says with the Psalmist (Ps. 100:1): “Of mercy and of justice my song shall be; a psalm in your honor, Lord.” Mercy, it is written, exalts justice; referring to this the Scripture elsewhere warns us ( James 2:13): “The merciless will be judged mercilessly.” The Psalmist himself had this well in mind, when at the prayer of the wife of Nabal the Carmelite, he mercifully broke the oath he had justly sworn concerning her husband and the destruction of his house.3 So he put prayer before justice and the supplication of the wife wiped out the offense of her husband. In this instance, my sister, an example is set for you and a pledge is given, to teach you how much your prayer may win for me from God if this woman’s prayer obtained so much from a man. For God who is our Father loves his children more than David loved the woman who begged a favor of him. He was rightly considered good and merciful, but God is kindness and mercy itself. And the woman who was a supplicant was a lay woman, who belonged to the world; she was not united to God by the vows of holiness. But if you alone should prove unable to obtain what you desire, that holy community of virgins and widows who are with you will obtain what you cannot achieve by yourself. For when Truth says to his disciples (Matt. 18:20): “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst 3 1 Kings 25:32–34. At the pleading of Nabal’s wife, Abigail, David mercifully did not exact the vengeance he had sworn.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE

59

of them,” and again, “If two of you agree over any request that you make on earth, it will be granted them by my Father who is in heaven,” who can fail to see how influential with God is the frequent prayer of a holy congregation? If, as the Apostle asserts ( James 5:16): “When a just man prays fervently, there is great virtue in his prayer,” what can one hope for from the multitude of a holy community? You know, dearest sister, from the thirty-eighth homily of St. Gregory, how much help the prayer of his brothers quickly brought to the unwilling or resistant monk.4 The story of how he was led to an extremity, of the grave anxiety and danger in which his wretched spirit labored, and the great despair and weariness of life in which he called his brothers from their prayers, is carefully set down there and cannot have escaped your prudent reading. May this example summon you and your community of holy nuns more confidently to prayer, so that he from whom, as St. Paul says, women have received their dead restored to life again, may keep me alive for you (Heb. 11:35). If you consult the pages of the Old and New Testaments, you will find that the greatest miracles of resurrection have been displayed only, or chiefly, to women and were performed for them or with respect to them. The Old Testament tells of two dead men who were restored to life in answer to the prayer of their mothers, that is, by Elias and his disciple Elisha (3 Kings 17:17–24; 4 Kings 4:20–37). The Gospel contains the accounts of only three men being restored to life by the Lord and these miracles, which were performed especially for women, confirmed by deeds the apostolic saying quoted above (Heb. 11:35): “There were women, too, who recovered their dead . . . brought back to life.” Moved by compassion, he restored her son whom he had raised to life to his mother, a widow, at the gate of the city of Naim (Luke 7:12–16). The Lord also raised his own friend, Lazarus, from the dead, at the prayer of his sisters, Mary and Martha (John 11:1–44). And when he granted this same favor to the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue at the petition of her father, “women obtained the resurrection of their dead,” for when she was restored to life, she received her own body again from the dead, as the others had obtained the bodies of their dead (Luke 8:40–56; Mark 5:21–43; Matt. 9:18–26). These resurrections were performed at the intercession of only a few; the many prayers of your devoted community, then, will easily obtain the preservation of my life. The self-denial and chastity these women have consecrated to God are so pleasing to him that they will fi nd him the more merciful. Most of those who were raised from the dead were probably not numbered among the faithful; for example, it is not said that the widow to whom the Lord restored her son, though she had not asked it, was a believer. In our case, however, we are united not only by the integrity of our faith, but also by our profession of the same monastic vows. I shall say no more now about your holy community of nuns, in which the devotion of so many virgins and widows serves the Lord perpetually, and I shall address you alone, whose holiness I am sure has such power with God. I have no doubt that you should do all you can for me, especially and above all when 4

Cf. Gregory, Homiliae in Evangelia 2.38, 16: PL 76, 1292b.

60

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

I am struggling in such great adversity. Remember always in your prayers, then, him who is especially yours and watch in prayer with more confidence, as you recognize that it is right for you to do so and for this reason more acceptable to him to whom you pray. Listen, I beg you, with the heart’s ear to what you have heard so often with your bodily ears. It is written in Proverbs (12:4): “Crowned is his brow who wins a vigorous wife,” and again (18:22): “A good wife found is a treasure found; the Lord is fi lling thy cup with happiness.” And further on (19:14): “House and hoard a man may inherit; it is the Lord’s gift only, if he have a wife that minds her ways.” In Ecclesiasticus it is said (26:1): “Happy is the man that has a faithful wife,” and a little further on (26:3): “He best thrives that best wives.” According to the teaching of the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:14): “The unbelieving husband has shared in his wife’s consecration.” The divine grace gave a special proof of all this in our own kingdom of France, when King Clovis was converted to the faith of Christ by the prayers of his wife rather than by the preaching of the saints, and submitted his entire kingdom to the divine laws, so that by the example of the great, the lesser people might be aroused to constancy in prayer.5 The parable of the Lord strongly urges us to this constancy, where it said (Luke 11:8): “I tell you, even if he will not bestir himself to grant it out of friendship, shameless asking will make him rise and give his friend all he needs.” If I may say so, it was by this kind of importunity, as I remarked before, that Moses softened the severity of divine justice and changed its judgment. You know, my beloved, how much loving charity your community used to show in prayer when I was with you there. Every day at the conclusion of each of the Hours, the sisters used to offer this special prayer to the Lord for me and, after a suitable response with its versicle had been said and chanted, they added to them prayers and a collect as follows: Response: Forsake me not, O Lord, do not depart from me. Versicle: O Lord, be always at hand to help me (Ps. 69:2). Prayer: Save your servant, O my God, whose help is in you. O Lord, hear my prayer and let my cry come unto you (Ps. 101:2). Let us Pray: God, who through your poor servant has deigned to gather your handmaids together in your name, we beseech you to grant that both he and we ourselves may persevere in your will. Through our Lord, etc. But now that I am away from you, I need the help of your prayers even more, since I am fettered by the fear of a greater danger. So I beg and beseech you to let me find that, especially in my absence, you will be so generous and so truly charitable as to add this suitable form of prayer at the end of each of the Hours. Response: O Lord, Father and Ruler of my life, do not forsake me, that I may not fall down in the sight of my adversaries; let not my enemy rejoice over me. (Ecclus. 23:3) 5 Clovis (ca. 466–511): In 496 (or perhaps 506) Clovis, King of the Franks, was persuaded to convert to the Catholic faith (as opposed to the Arian faith adopted by most of the other barbarian kingdoms) by his wife, the Catholic Burgundian princess Clothilde, who was later revered as a saint for her efforts. Heloise is here cast as a “conjugal evangelizer.”

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE

61

Versicle: Take up arms and shield and rise up to help me, lest my enemy rejoice over me. (Ps. 34:2) Invocation: Save your servant, O my God, who hopes in you. Send him aid, O Lord, from your holy place, and watch over him from Sion. Be unto him, O Lord, a tower of strength in the face of his enemy. Lord, hear my prayer and let my cry come unto you. Prayer: God, who through your servant was pleased to gather together your handmaids in your name, we implore you to protect him from all adversity, and restore him unharmed to your handmaids. Through our Lord, etc.

But if the Lord should deliver me into the hands of my enemies, so that they prevail over me and kill me, or if by any chance I go the way of all flesh while I am away from you, wherever my body may lie, whether exposed or buried, I beseech you to have it brought to your cemetery. There your daughters, or, rather, your sisters will often see my tomb and may be the more moved to send up prayers to God for me. I consider no place safer and more salutary for a soul grieving over its sins and desolate in its wandering than that place which is rightly consecrated to the Paraclete, the Comforter, and is distinguished by his name. I do not think there is a more fitting place for Christian burial among any of the faithful than among women devoted to Christ. It was women who were solicitous about the tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ and came to it both before and afterward with precious ointments, who preceded him and followed him, watching anxiously over his tomb and weeping over the death of the Bridegroom, as it is written: “The women sitting over against the tomb, and weeping, lamented the Lord.” There, just before his Resurrection, they were comforted by the apparition and the words of an angel and at once they were found worthy to taste the joy of his Resurrection, when he appeared to them twice, and to touch him with their hands. But, fi nally and above all, I ask this of you, that you, who are now troubled with too much anxiety about the dangers to my body, will then be especially anxious for the welfare of my soul and will show the dead man how you loved the living by giving me the special and proper help of your prayers. Live, prosper, and your sisters with you, Live, but in Christ, and I pray you, remember me.

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 4 HELOISE TO ABELARD

To her only love after Christ from his own in Christ.

I

am very much surprised, my love, that contrary to the custom in writing letters, indeed, contrary to the natural order of things, you have been so bold as to put my name before your own in the salutation of your letter. You have thus put the woman before the man, the wife before the husband, the maidservant before the master, the nun before the monk, the deaconess before the priest, and the abbess before the abbot. According to the rules, it is proper for those who write to their superiors to place before their own names the names of those to whom they are writing. But in writing to inferiors, those who take precedence in rank should take precedence in the order of writing. We have also been not a little amazed that you have added to the desolation of those whom you should have consoled and moved us to the tears you should have dried. Which of us could read or hear without weeping what you wrote at the end of your letter: “If the Lord should deliver me into the hands of my enemies, so that they prevail over me and slay me,” and the rest? Oh, my dearest, what was your state of mind when you thought this? How could you bear to say it? May God never so forget us, his servants, as to let us survive you! May he never grant that life to us which would be harder to bear than any kind of death! It is for you to perform the last rites for us, to commend our souls to God, and to send ahead to him those whom you have gathered together for him, so that you may no longer be anxious about them and may follow us the more gladly as you have greater assurance of our salvation. Spare us, I beg you, my lord, spare us words like these, which make the wretched even more wretched. Do not take away from us before our death the very reason for our existence. “For today, today’s troubles are enough,” (Matt. 6:34) and that day, shrouded in every kind of bitterness, will bring with it enough sorrow to all those whom it may find here. Why is it necessary, as Seneca says, to anticipate evil and to lose one’s life before death?1 1

Seneca, Ad Lucilium 24.1.

64

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

You ask me, my own, to have your body brought to our cemetery if by any chance you should end your life away from here, so that you may reap a richer fruit from our prayers in their constant remembrance of you. But how can you suspect that your memory could ever slip away from us? Will that be a time for prayer when our utter distress will give us no peace, when the mind will not retain its reason or the tongue its use of speech, when the demented spirit, enraged against God himself rather than at peace, will not so much appease him with prayers as besiege him with complaints? Then, in our misery, we shall have time only for weeping, we shall not be able to pray and we must hasten to follow you rather than to bury you. When, in losing you, we shall have lost our life, we shall not be able to live at all after you have left us, and I hope that we may not live until then. The mere thought of your death is as death to us. What would the reality be, if it should fi nd us living? May God grant that we never pay this debt to you as your survivors; that we never give to you at life’s end the help for we hope from you! May we precede, not follow, you in death! Spare us, I implore you, at least spare her who is yours alone, by refraining from these words which pierce our souls as if they were swords of death, so that what precedes death is harder to bear than death itself. The heart crushed by sorrow knows no peace, and the mind enslaved by disturbing emotions cannot devote itself sincerely to God. Do not, I beg you, hinder the divine service to which you have especially dedicated us. When something is inevitable and will, when it comes, bring with it the most profound grief, we must hope that it will come suddenly and not torture us for a long time beforehand with useless fears that no foresight can remedy. The poet is well aware of this when he prays to God: May what you have in store Be swift and sudden Let the minds of men To future fate be blind. Allow our fears to hope.2

But what hope is left for me if I lose you? What reason have I for continuing in this pilgrimage, in which I have no solace but you, and the only comfort I have in you is that you are still alive? I am forbidden all other pleasure in you, and I am not allowed to enjoy your presence, which might at times restore me to myself again. If only it were not wicked to say that God has been cruel to me in every way! O cruel kindness: O luckless Fortune, who has used against me every weapon at her disposal, so that she now has none left with which to vent her anger on others. Her quiver was full and she has emptied it against me, so that others need not fear her attacks. If she had another weapon left, it could not fi nd another place to wound me. Her only fear is that, with so many wounds, death may end my torments. Although she does not cease destroying me, she is still reluctant to hasten my death. 2

Lucan, Pharsalia 2.14, 15.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

65

Of all those who are wretched, I am the most wretched, of all the unhappy, the most unhappy, since the eminence I attained by your choice of me among all women is matched by the fall, so grievous for both of us, that has laid me low! The greater the height a person reaches, the heavier the fall in its crashing! What woman even among the noble and powerful has Fortune ever ventured to place before me or to make my equal? What woman has she then so cast down and overwhelmed with grief? What glory did she give me in you, and what disaster did she bring on you through me! And in both respects, to what extremes did she not go, observing no measure either in good or in evil? To make me the most miserable of women, she fi rst made me the happiest, so that when I should think of what I had lost, the consuming bitterness of my sorrow should equal my overwhelming loss. The more I loved what I had possessed, the more I must grieve for what I have lost, and the most exquisite joy and pleasure must end in the extreme of sorrow. To make this outrage arouse still greater indignation, all the laws of equity have been utterly perverted in our case. While we were eagerly enjoying the delights of love, and to use a stronger, if an uglier, expression, we were abandoning ourselves to fornication, the divine judgment spared us. But once we had made the unlawful lawful, and had covered the shame of fornication with the honor of marriage, the Lord in his wrath laid his heavy hand upon us, and he who had tolerated our unchaste bed would no longer tolerate it after it had become chaste. The suffering that you endured should have been punishment enough for any man caught in adultery. But what others deserve for adultery, you incurred as the result of a marriage by which you hoped to make amends for all your offense. The punishment that adulteresses bring on their lovers, I, your own wife, brought on you and not while we were giving ourselves up to those early pleasures, but when we were already separated and living chastely, when you were presiding over your school in Paris and, at your command, I was living with the nuns at Argenteuil. We had parted from one another so that you might give more attention to your classes and I might devote myself more freely to prayer and meditation on the Holy Scripture. It was while we were living more chaste and holy lives that you alone atoned in your body for the sins we had both committed. Although both of us were guilty, you alone were punished, and you who deserved less paid the whole penalty. Since you had made amends by humiliating yourself for me and by elevating me and all my family, you had rendered yourself less deserving of punishment, both before God and in the eyes of those betrayers. How unhappy I am, to have been born to be the cause of so great a crime! If only the ancient, baneful influence of women did not afflict most severely the greatest of men!3 So we have the warning against women in Proverbs (7:24–27): Heed well, my son, let not this warning be given in vain; do not let her steal your heart away, do not be enticed with her beckoning. Many the wounds such a 3 Heloise here invokes the old misogynistic thesis of man’s destruction by women, but she later undermines this prejudice when she stresses their idea of ethical intentionality: She cannot be held responsible for Abelard’s downfall since she did not intend it.

66

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

woman has dealt; a brave retinue she has of men murdered; truly her house is the grave’s antechamber, opens the door into the secret closet of death.

In Ecclesiastes (7:26–28), it is said: Here is a mind that has passed the whole world of things in review. And this I have ascertained, death itself is not so cruel as woman’s heart that wheedles and beguiles, as woman’s clutches that release their captive never. God’s friends escape her; of sinners she makes an easy prey.

The fi rst woman at once snatched away her husband captive from Paradise, and she who had been created by the Lord as his helpmate turned out to be his downfall. Unaided, Delilah overcame that strong Nazirite of the Lord whose conception had been announced by an angel. Blinded and betrayed to his enemies, his misery fi nally drove Samson to destroy himself in the destruction of his enemies ( Judg. 13:3; 16:4–31). Even Solomon, the wisest of all men, was so infatuated with a woman whom he had joined to himself, and she drove him to such a pitch of folly that he whom the Lord had chosen to build his temple—after he had rejected his father David, a just man—was plunged into idolatry to the end of his life. So he abandoned the worship of God that he had earlier devoted himself to preaching and teaching (3 Kings 11). It was from his wife, who nagged him into cursing God, that the holy Job sustained the last and most severe of his assaults ( Job 2:9). For the most cunning tempter knew very well, as he had discovered time after time, that men’s downfall is most easily brought about through their wives. He fi nally directed his accustomed malice against us and attacked you through marriage, when he could not overcome you through fornication. Not being permitted to make evil use of an evil thing, he made evil use of a good thing. Thank God that the evil one did not involve me in guilt through my own consent, as he did the women whom I have mentioned, though he did, as it turned out, make me the cause of the crime that was committed. But even if I am innocent at heart, and did not, by my own consent, incur guilt in the commission of that crime,4 yet many sins had preceded it that do not leave me entirely free of guilt. For a long time beforehand I had been enslaved to the delights of carnal pleasure, and I earned then what I am suffering now. The consequences of my earlier sins have justly become a punishment for me. This tragic outcome must be attributed to our sinful beginnings. If only I could do sufficient penance for this crime, to compensate in some measure, by a long and sorrowful repentance, for the pain you suffered from the infl iction of that wound! If only I might suffer throughout my life in sorrow of mind, as I deserve, what you endured for one hour and thus make amends to you at least, if not to God! If I honestly reveal the weakness of my miserable soul, I cannot think of any penance by which I could appease God, whom I am constantly accusing of extreme cruelty in that outrage. In my rebellion against 4

Here Heloise again invokes the doctrine of intentionality.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

67

his dispensation, I offend him by my indignation rather than appease him by the atonement of penance. However severely one may mortify the body, how can it be called penance for sins if the mind still retains the will to sin and seethes with its old desires? It is easy for anyone, by confessing, to accuse himself of his sins and even to mortify his body in external atonement. But it is most difficult to uproot from the heart the desire for the most intense pleasures. So when the holy Job says (10:1): “I will speak out, come what may,” that is, I will unloose my tongue and open my mouth in confession to accuse myself of my sins, he immediately adds: “My soul is too embittered for silence.” Explaining this text, St. Gregory says: There are some who confess their faults aloud, yet do not know how to lament what they confess and they tell with joy what should be deplored. For this reason, the man who detests his faults in words must needs do this in bitterness of soul, so that this bitterness may punish him for that which his conscience makes him accuse himself in words.5

Observing how rare this bitterness of true penance is, St. Ambrose says: “It is easier to fi nd men who have kept their innocence than those who have done penance for their sins.”6 Those delights of lovers that we enjoyed together were so sweet to me that I cannot condemn them; nor can I really banish them from my mind. Wherever I turn, they appear before my eyes to arouse my desires. Even when I am asleep, their illusions plague me. In the most solemn moments of the Mass itself, when prayer should be especially pure, the impure fantasies of those pleasures so obsess my wretched soul that I am more concerned with these base acts than with my prayers. When I should be lamenting what I have done, I long instead for what I have lost. Not only what we did together, but the various times and places of our love-making are so entwined with you and so vividly impressed with your image in my mind, that in my thoughts I do everything again with you, and even sleep brings no release from these illusions. Sometimes my thoughts are betrayed by the movements of my body, and they inspire words that slip out unawares. Truly I am wretched, and I may well utter the cry of a soul in pain (Rom. 7:24): “Pitiable creature that I am, who is to set me free from a nature thus doomed to death?” If only I could truthfully add what follows: “The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” This grace has come to you unsought, my dearest, and with one wound of your body has cured you of these stings of the flesh and healed many wounds in your soul. In that act in which God seemed most hostile to you, he proved most merciful, like the truest of physicians, who spares us no pain in his efforts to cure us. But my youthful ardor and my experience of the most intense pleasures inflame the longings of my body and the urgings of desire, and since I am so vulnerable, their assaults are the more severe. I am called chaste by those who do 5 6

Gregory, Moralia in Job 9.1, 43, 44: PL 75, 896c. Ambrose, De Poenitentia 2.10: PL 16, 542a.

68

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

not see the hypocrite in me. They make a virtue of purity of the flesh, though virtue pertains to the soul rather than the body. If I have won some worldly praise, I deserve none from God, who examines our thoughts and desires and sees into the hidden places. I am considered religious in these times when there is little religious life that is not hypocrisy, when he is praised most who does not offend the opinions of men. Perhaps it seems to some degree praiseworthy and in a way acceptable to God, if a person, regardless of his intention, does not give scandal to the Church by his outward actions, and if the unbelievers do not, because of him, blaspheme the name of God, and if the order to which he belongs is not defamed among the worldly. This is also a kind of gift of God’s grace, whose bounty makes it possible for us not only to do good, but also to refrain from evil. But refraining from evil is fruitless if it is not followed by doing good, as it is written (Ps. 36:27): “Offend no more, rather do good.” Neither is of any avail if it is not done for the love of God. At every moment of my life, God knows, I have always feared offending you, not God. I have tried to please you, rather than him. It was your command and not the love of God that led me to the religious life. See how unhappy, how unspeakably wretched, is the life that I am living, if I endure all this for nothing here, and can look forward to no future reward. For a long time my pretense has deceived you, as it has deceived many others, into mistaking hypocrisy for piety. So you ardently commend yourself to my prayers, demanding of me what I expect of you. Do not, I beg you, have such confidence in me that you cease helping me by your prayers. Do not, I beg you, think that I am healthy and so withdraw the grace of healing from me. Do not believe that I am not in need and put off aiding me in my necessity. Do not consider me strong, or I may collapse and fall before you can sustain me. False praise of themselves has injured many and withdrawn the protection they needed. Through Isaiah, the Lord exclaims (3:12): “Those who call you happy, my people, are deceiving you, luring you into false paths.” And he says through Ezekiel (13:18): “Out upon them . . . the women who stitch an elbowcushion for every comer, make a soft pillow for the heads of young and old. Men’s souls are their prey.” On the contrary, Solomon says (Eccles. 12:11): “Sharp goads they are to sting us, sharp nails driven deep home, these wise words left to us by many masters”—that is to say, they do not know how to soothe wounds, but only how to make them. I beg you to stop praising me, for fear that you will deserve the base name of fl atterer and be accused of lying, or that the wind of vanity may blow away whatever good you think there is in me if you praise it. No one skilled in medicine diagnoses an internal disease by examining merely the external appearance. No one earns any merit with God for what is common to the bad and good alike, such as external actions, which hypocrites perform with greater care than saints.7 “There is no riddle like the twists of the heart; who shall master them?” 7 Both Abelard and Heloise predicate their lives and work on their strict theory of intentionalist ethics.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

69

( Jer. 17:9). There are paths of men that seem right and in the end they lead to death. It is rash for men to judge concerning that which is reserved for the divine judgment alone (Prov. 16:25; 14:12). So it is written (Ecclus. 11:30): “Never call a man happy until he is dead,” which means, do not praise a man while your praise can make him unpraiseworthy. Your praise is also more dangerous to me because it is so welcome, and the more completely it captivates and delights me, the more eager I am to please you in every way. Be fearful about me always, I implore you, rather than confident, so that I may always have the help of your anxious care. You should be especially fearful now, when there no longer remains in you a remedy for my incontinence. I do not want you to say, by way of exhorting me to virtue and urging me to struggle, that “strength is perfected in infi rmity” (cf. 2 Cor. 12:9), and that “the athlete will win no crown, if he does not observe the rules of the contest” (2 Tim. 2:5). I am not seeking any crown of victory. To keep out of danger is enough for me. It is safer to avoid danger than to engage in battle. No matter what corner of heaven God places me in, I shall be satisfied. No one there will envy anyone else, since everyone will be content with what he has. To add the weight of authority to my opinion, let us listen to St. Jerome: “I acknowledge my weakness; I do not wish to fight in the hope of victory, for fear that I may fi nally lose it. Why should one give up what is certain and pursue the uncertain?”8

8

Jerome, Ep. adversus Vigiliantium 16: PL 23, 367b.

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 5 ABELARD TO HELOISE

To the bride of Christ from his servant.

F

our topics, I recall, make up the whole of your last letter, in which you have made very clear the distress you have suffered. First of all, you complain that my putting your name before my own in the salutation of the letter I sent you is contrary to the custom in letter-writing and even against the natural order of things. Second, you say that when I should have comforted you, I have instead added to your desolation and provoked the tears I should have dried. And you quote my request “that if the Lord deliver me into their hands, so that prevailing against me they kill me,” etc. Third, you bring up your old and unceasing complaint against God, I mean, about the circumstances of our conversion to him and the cruelty of that treacherous outrage to my body. Finally, you counter my praise of you with accusations against yourself and an urgent request that I should no longer be so presumptuous. I have decided to reply to each of these points in turn, not so much to justify myself as to instruct you and urge you to agree more willingly to what I ask, as you come to realize that it is reasonable. I hope that you will be more willing to listen to me in those matters that concern you, as you find me less to blame in my own affairs, and that you will be more hesitant to criticize me when you see that I am less deserving of reproach. Now about the inverted order, as you call it, of my salutation, you will fi nd, if you consider it closely, that it accords with your own view. It is clear to everyone, as you yourself pointed out, that when one writes to his superiors, he puts their names fi rst. But you should realize that you became superior to me when you became my lady and were made the bride of my Lord, in accordance with what St. Jerome writes to Eustochium, “my lady Eustochium . . . for I should address the bride of my Lord as ‘lady.’ ”1 What a blessed exchange of nuptials that was when, after fi rst being the wife of a wretched man, you were raised up and placed on the nuptial couch of the sovereign King. This honor carries with it the privilege of being placed not only before your husband, but also before all the other servants of that King. So you should not be surprised that I commend myself, whether 1

Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 2: PL 22, 395; CSEL 54, I, 1, 145.

72

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

living or dead, to your prayers especially, since it is a well-established privilege of wives to have greater power of intercession with their lords than other members of their households, being consorts rather than servants. As a figure of such women, the queen and bride of the great king is described in the words of the Psalm (44:10): “At my right hand stands the queen,” as if to say plainly that, standing at her husband’s side, she is intimately joined to him, and walks abreast with him, while everyone else stands aside or follows after. Rejoicing over the excellence of this prerogative the bride of the Song of Songs exclaims (1:4), as also, I may say, did the Ethiopian woman whom Moses married (Num. 12:1); “Dark of skin, and yet I have beauty, daughters of Jerusalem. So the king has loved me and brought me into his bedchamber.” She also says (1:5): “Take no note of this Ethiop color: it was the sun that tanned me.” Although these sayings apply in general to the contemplative soul, which is called particularly the bride of Christ, yet even the habit you wear proclaims that they apply more expressly to you. The outward garb of black and coarse clothing, like the weeds of faithful widows in mourning for the husbands whom they have loved, shows that in this world, as the Apostle says, you are widows indeed and made desolate, to be supported by offerings from the Church.2 It is also the sorrow of such widows over their Bridegroom who has been put to death, that the Scripture commemorates in the words (cf. Matt. 27:61): “Women sat by the tomb weeping and lamenting the Lord.” The body of the Ethiopian woman is black outside and, from this point of view, she appears less beautiful than other women; yet within she is not unlike them, but is in many ways whiter and more beautiful, as in her bones and teeth. It was this whiteness of the teeth that was praised in the spouse in the words (Gen. 49:12): “His teeth are whiter than milk.” She is black, then, externally, though beautiful within, because in this life she is afflicted physically with frequent adversities and tribulations; and, so to speak, she becomes dark in her external appearance, as the Apostle says (2 Tim. 3:12): “All those who are resolved to live a holy life in Christ Jesus will meet with persecution.” Just as white is the symbol of good fortune, adversity is quite properly symbolized by black. She is white within, in her bones, as it were, because her soul is endowed with virtues, as it is written (Ps. 44:14): “She comes, the princess, all fair to see.” The bones that are within and surrounded by external tissue give strength and firmness to the flesh they support and sustain. Thus they signify the soul that gives life to the body in which it dwells, sustaining, moving, and ruling it, and imparting well-being to it. The soul’s whiteness or beauty consists in the virtues that adorn it. Again, the bride is black outside because, being still an exile in her pilgrimage here, she keeps herself lowly and humble in this life so that when she has reached her true home, she may be raised up in the life to come, that life which is hidden with Christ in God.3 The true Sun has changed her color in this way, since the love of her celestial Bridegroom so humbles her and affl icts her with tribulations that good fortune may not puff her up. He changes her color in this way—that is, 2 3

See 1 Tim. 5:3, 16. Cf. Col. 3:4.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE

73

he makes her different from those to whom earthly things are the breath of life and who seek the glory of this world. This is so that she may become through humiliation a lily of the valley,4 not a lily of the mountain like those foolish virgins who, puffed up with pride in their bodily purity and external austerity, withered in the heat of temptation. Quite rightly did the bride tell the daughters of Jerusalem, that is, the imperfect members of the faithful, who deserve the name of daughters rather than sons, not to be surprised. This is as if she were to say plainly: “That I so humble myself and endure adversities so manfully is not a result of my own virtue, but the grace of him whom I serve.” It is quite otherwise with the heretics and hypocrites who, as long as others are looking at them, are in the habit of humbling themselves strenuously in the hope of earthly glory and so enduring much to no avail. We are forced to marvel exceedingly at those who suffer humiliation or tribulation in this way, since they are the unhappiest of men, who will enjoy neither the goods of this life nor those of the life to come. With this clearly in mind, the bride says: “Do not be surprised that I do this.” But we should be surprised by those who, burning with a desire for earthly praise, fruitlessly deprive themselves of worldly advantages and are wretched both here and hereafter. Such was the chastity of those foolish virgins against whom the door was shut.5 She is right in saying, as we noted, that it is because she is black but beautiful that she was loved and brought into the king’s bedchamber, that is, into the secrecy and peace of contemplation, and to the couch of which she says elsewhere (Cant. 3:1): “In the night watches, as I lay abed, I searched for my heart’s love.” In the very ugliness of her blackness, she loves the hidden rather than the open and the private rather than the public. The wife who is of such a color desires the intimate rather than the public enjoyment of her husband, and wishes to be caressed in bed rather than seen at table. It often happens that the bodies of black women are as sweet to touch as they are unpleasing to see, and the pleasure derived from intimate joys is more satisfying and agreeable than that enjoyed in public. So, to cherish them, their husbands take them into their chambers rather than displaying them to the world. To apply this metaphor, the spiritual bride fi rst says: “Dark of skin, and yet I have beauty,” and then properly adds, “and so the king has saved me, and brought me into his bedchamber.” Each term thus corresponds to another: that is, “beauty” to “he loved me,” and “dark of skin” to “he brought me into”; beautiful inwardly, as I have said, because of the virtues the spouse loves and dark outside because of bodily tribulations and adversities. This darkness—of bodily tribulations, I mean—easily uproots the love of earthly things from the hearts of the faithful, raises them to desires for eternal life, and often elevates them from the tumultuous life of this world to the solitude of contemplation. This is what happened to Paul, as St. Jerome says, in the beginnings of our monastic way of life.6 This lowly state, with its coarse garments, seeks a hidden rather than a public existence, and the most extreme humility and privacy 4 5 6

Cf. Cant. 2:1. See Matt. 25:1–13. Jerome, Vita Pauli primi eremitae 5.6: PL 23, 21–22.

74

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

that are especially in harmony with our calling should be preserved. For costly apparel encourages one to go out in public and no one seeks it except for the empty glory and pomp of the world, as St. Gregory shows when he says: “No one decks himself out in these fi neries in private, but where he can be seen.”7 This chamber of the bride I mentioned before is that to which the Bridegroom himself invites us when he says in the Gospel (Matt. 6:6): “But when you are praying, go into your inner room and shut the door upon yourself, and so pray to your Father,” as if to say, “not in the streets and public places, like the hypocrites.” He calls an inner room a place apart from the crowds and the gaze of the world, where one can pray quietly and purely. Such places are the retreats of monastic solitude, where we are bidden to close the door, that is, to block all approaches, so that the purity of our prayers may not be tarnished by any chance and our unhappy souls ravished by what we see. We still fi nd it hard to bear with many of our calling who scorn this counsel, or rather this divine precept, and who open the doors of the cloister and choir and shamelessly celebrate the divine services in full view of both men and women; especially when, on solemn feasts, they deck themselves out in the most costly garments, just as if they were worldlings like those before whom they parade themselves. In their judgment, the more splendid the outward adornment and the more sumptuous the banquet, the more solemn the feast. It is better to be silent than to speak harshly of their miserable blindness, which is so completely contrary to the piety of Christ’s poor. These men, becoming completely Jewish, follow custom rather than rule and abrogate the commandment of God. Because of their traditions they are concerned, not with what should be done, but with what is customary, in spite of the fact that, as St. Augustine reminds us, the Lord said, “I am Truth,” and not “I am custom.”8 Let him who wishes commend himself to the prayers of such men, which are said with the doors open. But you, whom the heavenly King has brought into his chamber and who repose in his embrace, with the doors closed you give yourselves completely to him. The more closely you cling to him—for, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 6:17): “The man who unites himself to the Lord is one spirit with him”—the purer and more efficacious your prayer will be, I trust, and for this reason I seek your help more urgently. I believe also that you will pray for me more devoutly because we are bound to one another more closely by the greater bond of charity. If I have distressed you by mentioning the danger in which I am immersed and the death I fear, I have done this only at your request or rather, your urging.9 You say in the fi rst letter you wrote to me: For the sake of Christ who still in some measure protects you, we beg you to keep his servants and yours informed by frequent letters about the tempests in which you are tossed, so that we, at least, who are all that is left to you, may share your 7

Gregory, Homiliae in Evangelia 2, 40.3: PL 76, 1305b. Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas 3.6 (9): PL 43, 143. 9 Here we see evidence that Heloise maintained a copy of Abelard’s letters. Therefore, it is not surprising that their community of the Paraclete would retain full copies of their founders’ correspondence. 8

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE

75

sorrow and your joy. Those who sympathize with a person in sorrow usually bring him some consolation, and the burden borne by many is easier to carry and endure.

Why did you charge me to share my anxiety with you, as you forced me to do by your urging? Is it right for you to rejoice when I am tormented by such despair of my life? Do you wish to share only in joy but not in sorrow, and to rejoice with those who are joyful, but not to weep with those who mourn?10 There is no more certain distinction between true and false friends than that the former are with us in adversity and the latter only in prosperity. Do not say these things, I beg you, and stop complaining in this way, which is so far distant from the heart of charity. Even if you still feel injured by this, I am nonetheless obliged, placed as I am in the most extreme danger and in daily despair of my life, to look to the salvation of my soul and to make provision for it while I can. If you truly love me, you will not regard this foresight as hateful. On the contrary, if you have any hope of divine mercy for me, you will be the more eager to see me freed from the troubles of this life, as you see more clearly how intolerable they are. You may be sure that anyone who would free me from this life would rescue me from the most intense suffering. The penalties that await me hereafter are uncertain, but there is no doubt about those from which I would be delivered here. The end of every unhappy life is welcome and anyone who is really sympathetic and compassionate with the anxieties of others wants to see these ended, even when it means a loss to themselves, if they truly love those whom they see in trouble and consider not their own advantage, but the benefit of those who are in distress. So a mother, because she cannot bear to see her child’s suffering, desires that the illness in which he has been wasting away for a long time should be brought to an end, even by death. She would rather lose her child than keep a companion in misery. No matter how much one delights in the presence of a friend, he is still willing to have him happy though absent, rather than present but wretched. For no one can endure the sufferings he cannot relieve. But you are not allowed to enjoy my presence, even in my misery. Unless you are looking to your own advantage, I do not see why you would prefer that I should live on miserably rather than die happily. If you want my miseries to be protracted for your own advantage, you prove yourself an enemy, not a friend. If you recoil from seeming an enemy, I beg you once again, stop complaining. I approve of your refusing praise for yourself, since in this you show yourself more praiseworthy. We are told (Prov. 18:17): “An innocent man is the fi rst to lay bare the truth,” and (Luke 18:14): “The man who humbles himself shall be exalted.” I trust that your heart may be in harmony with the words of Scripture. If it is, your humility rings true and it will not evaporate before my words of praise. But be careful, I beg you, not to seek praise by seeming to flee from it and not to reject in words what you seek in your heart. Among other things, 10

See Rom. 12:15.

76

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

St. Jerome writes about this to the virgin Eustochium: “We are influenced by a natural evil tendency. We gladly lend an ear to flatterers and, though we may say that we are unworthy of it and a warm blush colors our face, our heart within is gladdened by this praise.”11 This was the kind of cunning displayed by the wanton Galatea, as Virgil describes her. By fleeing she sought what she desired and, by pretending to reject her lover, she aroused him all the more. As Virgil says: “She fl ies to the willows, but wishes fi rst to be seen.”12 Before she hides, she wants to be seen in fl ight, so that she may be more successful in obtaining the youth’s company, which she would appear to disdain. So, too, when we appear to recoil from the praises of men, we call forth more praise and when we pretend to want to hide ourselves, so that no one may see in us anything praiseworthy, we encourage the unwary to further praise, because we seem more worthy of it. I mention these things because they often happen, not because I have any doubt of your own humility. But I want you to refrain from even making such statements, in order not to appear to those who do not know you so well, to seek glory, as Jerome says, by fleeing from it.13 My praise will never puff you up, but will encourage you instead to better efforts and the more anxious you are to please me, the more eagerly you will embrace what I praise. My praise is no proof of your piety, to let you take any pride in it. We should not take it seriously when a man is praised by his friends, any more than we should believe his enemies when they slander him. At last I come to that old and everlasting complaint of yours, by which you rashly seek to blame God for the circumstances of our conversion rather than glorifying him as you should. I had thought your bitterness of soul had vanished long ago, as you saw the working out of what is so clearly a plan of God’s mercy. Because this bitterness is so damaging to you, consuming body and soul alike, it is the more distressing and troubling to me. If, as you claim, you are eager to please me in every way, give this up, so that in this one thing, at least, you will not torment me, but will give me instead the greatest cause for rejoicing. By complaining in this way, you can neither please me nor reach eternal blessedness with me. Can you bear to let me go without you, after saying that you would follow me even into the fi res of hell? For this reason, if for no other, try to be religious, so that you may not cut yourself off from me, whom you believe to be hastening to God.14 You should be the more willing to do this since the destiny that awaits us is so blessed, and our companionship will be more delightful because it will be happier. Remember what you have said. Recall how you wrote that, though in the manner of our conversion, God seemed to turn against me, he was, it is now clear, most merciful to me. In this respect, at least, you should be pleased with his plan, which has been so salutary for me, or rather, for both 11

Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 24: PL 22, 410; CSEL 54, I, 1, 176. Virgil, Eclogues 3.65. 13 Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 27: PL 22, 410; CSEL 54, I, 1, 176. 14 Cf. Letter 2. 12

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE

77

of us alike, if the intensity of your grief would let you listen to reason. Do not regret that you were the cause of so great a benef it, for you should have no doubt that you were especially created by God to bring it about. Do not mourn because I have endured this, unless at the same time you will let yourself be saddened by the benef its that are your reward from the sufferings of the martyrs, and even from the death of the Lord. If this had happened to me justly, would you f ind it easier to bear and be less wounded by it? Certainly, if it had happened thus, it would have been more disgraceful for me, and more praiseworthy for my enemies, since the justice of the deed would have earned praise for them, and by my guilt, I would have merited contempt. There would then be no one to reproach for what was done and no one to feel compassion for me. Yet in an effort to lessen the bitterness of your grief, I shall show that it was both just and profitable for this to happen to us, and that God avenged himself on us more justly when we were married than when we were engaged in fornication. You know that after we were married, when you were living with the nuns in the abbey at Argenteuil, I came to visit you secretly one day, and you remember what, in my unbridled lust, I did with you even in a place in the refectory, since we had nowhere else to go where we might be alone. You know, I say, that this shameless act was committed in that holy place, dedicated to the most exalted Virgin. Quite apart from my other sins, this deed deserved a far greater punishment. What shall I say about the earlier sins of fornication and the shameful impurities that preceded our marriage? What about my most heinous act of treachery, by which I so basely turned your own uncle against you, while I was living all the time in his house? Who would not consider him justified in betraying me when I had earlier shamelessly betrayed him? Do you think the momentary pain of that wound was sufficient punishment for such wicked crimes? Is even this heavy penalty enough to pay for such evil deeds? What wound, do you think, would satisfy the justice of God for so scandalous a desecration of a sacred place dedicated to his own mother? Surely, unless I am very much mistaken, it was not that most salutary wound which was to avenge these crimes, but the sufferings I endure daily and unceasingly. You know, too, that when I sent you pregnant to my own country, you were disguised in the sacred habit of a nun and by this pretense you irreverently mocked the religious state to which you now belong. So you may well consider how fitting it was for God’s justice, or rather, his grace, to draw you against your will into the religious life that you had not hesitated to profane, and to ordain that you should make atonement in the very habit against which you had offended. The truth of reality thus provides a remedy for the lying pretense and makes amends for your deception. If you wish to add what we have gained from the divine justice shown to us, you could call what happened to us not so much an act of God’s justice as a gift of his grace. So, my beloved, see and understand how the Lord has fi shed us up from the depths of this most perilous sea by the dragnets of his mercy and how against our will he has rescued us, shipwrecked as we were, from this great whirlpool

78

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

of Charybdis,15 so that each of us can seem justified in exclaiming: “The Lord is concerned for me.”16 Think again and again of the grave dangers into which we had plunged ourselves and how the Lord has saved us from them, and tell always with the most heartfelt thanksgiving what great things he has done for our souls. By the example of what happened to us, you should console all sinful souls who despair of God’s mercy, so that all may come to realize what is in store for those who fall on their knees and pray, seeing what great benefits he has bestowed upon sinners, even against their will. Consider, then, the most sublime plan of the divine clemency in our behalf and how the Lord mercifully turned his judgment into correction, and how wisely he makes use even of evil and in his kindness removes wickedness by administering a remedy to both of our souls by the just wound of one part of my body. Compare the disease with the remedy. Think what we deserve and marvel at his compassionate love. You know how shameful were the acts to which my unbridled lust enslaved our bodies, so that no reverence for goodness or for God, even in Passiontide or on any other solemn feasts, kept me out of the quagmire of this fi lth.17 Even when you were unwilling and struggled and remonstrated against it, very often I used threats and blows to force you, who were naturally weaker, to consent. The flames of desire had so welded me to you that I preferred those wretched and obscene pleasures, which I blush even to name, to God as well as to my own true self. In no other way did God in his mercy seem able to execute his plan than by forbidding those pleasures to me beyond all hope. So most justly and mercifully, although by your uncle’s terrible act of treachery, I was enabled to grow better in many ways by being deprived of that part of my body which was ruled by lust, which was the seat and source of my concupiscence. Thus that member which had brought about all my misdeeds was justly punished, and by suffering expiated its sins of delight and removed me from the mire into which I had, so to speak, plunged myself, both body and soul. So I was made more fit for the holy altar, in the sense that no carnal defi lement could keep me from it any longer. How mercifully did God will me to suffer in that member the privation of which was salutary for my soul and yet he did not disfigure my body or hinder me in the performance of my priestly duties! On the contrary, this privation prepared me the more fully for all good deeds, the more completely it freed me from the heavy yoke of lust. When the divine grace deprived, or rather, cleansed me of those vile members which from their performance of actions of extreme baseness are called “shameful,” and do not have a name of their own, what else did it do but preserve the clean and pure by removing the fi lthy and vile? Some philosophers who sought this purity most zealously, as we have read, laid violent hands on themselves in order to rid themselves entirely of this curse of concupiscence. 15 Charybdis: In Book 12 of the Odyssey, Charybdis is the sinister whirlpool that Odysseus famously eluded. 16 Ps. 39:18. 17 The Church forbade intercourse during certain feast days and days of the week, even for married couples.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE

79

Even the Apostle begged the Lord to take away this sting of the flesh, but he was not heard.18 That great Christian philosopher, Origen, is an example of one who, wishing to extinguish this fi re altogether, did not hesitate to lay hands on himself.19 This was as though he took literally the words that those are truly blessed who have made eunuchs of themselves for the kingdom of heaven, and believed that they truly fulfi lled the precept of the Lord regarding members that are a scandal to us, that we should cut them off and cast them away from us. He would have considered the prophecy of Isaiah as historically true rather than a mystery, in which the Lord prefers eunuchs to others of the faithful, saying (Isaiah 56:4, 5): “Who keeps my Sabbath? Who makes my will his choice? A place he shall have in this house, within these walls of mine, a memorial; son nor daughter his name could so perpetuate; such a memorial I will grant him as time shall never efface.” But Origen was very guilty when he sought a cure for sin by a crime against his body and, with zeal for God, it is true, but not according to knowledge, he made himself liable to the charge of homicide by laying hands on himself. It is evident that at the suggestion of the devil or through the greatest self-deception, he did to himself what through God’s mercy another did to me. I escape guilt, I do not incur it. I deserve death and I obtain life. I am called and I resist the call. I am plunged in sin, and I am drawn unwillingly to pardon. The Apostle prayed but was not heard. He persisted in prayer but did not obtain his request.20 Truly “the Lord is concerned for me.” I will go and tell what great things the Lord has done for my soul. And you, my inseparable companion, who have shared both in guilt and in grace, join with me in an act of thanksgiving. The Lord is not unmindful of your salvation, indeed, he has you well in mind, for by the holy portent of your name, he signified from the beginning that you would be especially his, when he named you “Heloise,” that is, “divine,” from his own name, “Heloim.”21 In his mercy, I repeat, he has ordained to make provision through the one for the two whom the devil tried to destroy through one of them. Shortly before this happened, he united us by the indissoluble bond of the nuptial sacrament, since I wanted to keep you forever whom I loved beyond measure; yes, even by this means he managed to convert both of us to himself. If you had not been bound to me in marriage already, at the urging of your kinsmen or through delight in the pleasures of the flesh, you could easily have clung to the world after I had left it.22 See, then, how concerned the Lord has been for us, as if he were preserving us for some noble purposes and as if he were offended and grieved that these talents 18

2 Cor. 12:8. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 6, 7. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origin.” 20 Ps. 39:18. 21 Abelard’s desire for Heloise’s (and all) names to have significance is perhaps of more importance than the fact that this connection with the Hebrew (which he did not know) is unwarranted. 22 Did Abelard’s reasons for inducing Heloise to take the veil include some fear that she might marry another? 19

80

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

of learning that he had entrusted to both of us were not to be used for the honor of his name; as though he feared that his most unchaste and lowly servant would prove the truth of the saying that (Ecclus. 19:2): “women are a trap for the loyalty of the wise.” We know that this certainly happened to the very wise Solomon. But think how much interest on the talent of your wisdom you return to the Lord every day, since you have borne many spiritual daughters to him, while I am utterly sterile and labor to no avail among the sons of perdition. What a detestable loss it would have been, how lamentable a misfortune, if you had given yourself up to gross carnal pleasures and borne in pain a few children for the world, whereas you have now become the joyful mother of a numerous progeny for heaven! Then you would have been no more than a woman, whereas now you transcend humanity and turn the curse on Eve into the blessing on Mary. How unbecoming it would be if those holy hands which now hold the sacred books were to be performing the lowly duties of a woman’s care! The Lord himself has stooped to lift us up from the corruption of this fi lth, from the pleasures of this mire, and to draw us to him by the same kind of violence with which he struck down Paul and converted him,23 and perhaps, by our experience to keep other learned persons from like presumption. In order that such presumption may not affl ict you, I beg you not to be vexed by his paternal correction, but to listen to what is written (Heb. 12:6): “It is where he loves that he bestows correction; there is no recognition for any child of his without chastisement,” and elsewhere (Prov. 13:24): “Spare the rod and you are no friend to your son.” This punishment is passing, not eternal; it is purgation, not damnation. Listen to the prophecy and be comforted (Nahum 1:9): “There shall be no second visitation,” and “there shall not rise a double affl iction.” Consider that sublime and excellent teaching of Truth (Luke 21:19): “It is by endurance that you will secure possession of your souls.” “Patience is worth more than valor; better a disciplined heart than a stormed city” (Prov. 16:32). Does not the innocent, only-begotten Son of God move you to tears of compunction, he who for you and for all sinners was seized, dragged off, beaten, and with a veil over his face, was mocked and struck, spat upon, crowned with thorns, and then raised up between thieves on that most infamous gibbet of the cross, to die at last such a horrible and execrable death? Keep always before your eyes, my sister, your true Bridegroom and that of the whole Church, bear him always in mind. Look upon him as he goes forth to be crucified, carrying his cross for you. Be one of the crowd, one of the women who mourned and lamented over him, as Luke tells us (23:27): “Jesus was followed by a great multitude of the people, and also of women who beat their breasts and mourned over him.” To them he turned kindly and as an act of mercy foretold that ruin would come upon them to avenge his death, for they could have avoided it if they had been wise. It is not for me that you should weep, daughters of Jerusalem; you should weep for yourselves and your children. Behold a time is coming when men will say, ‘It 23

Acts 26:14.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE

81

is well for the barren, for the wombs that never bore children, and the breasts that never suckled them.’ It is then that they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ If it goes so hard with the tree that is still green, what will become of the tree that is already dried up?24

Suffer with him who willingly suffered for your salvation and grieve for him who was crucified for you. In your thoughts stand always beside his tomb, and mourn and weep with his faithful women of whom it is written, as I have said before: “The women sitting by his tomb in tears lamented the Lord.” Prepare along with them the ointments for his burial, but the better ones—I mean the spiritual ointments, not the material. It is the spiritual perfumes he asks for; the material ones he will not accept. In doing these things, be fi lled with all love and devotion. He himself exhorted the faithful to sorrow and compassion when he said through Jeremiah (Lament. 1:12): “Look well, you that pass by, and say if there was ever grief like this grief of mine.” This means, how are you to grieve in compassion for anyone who is suffering, when I alone, though innocent, am atoning for what others have done. This is the way by which the faithful pass from exile to their own true country and in the cross from which he cries out, he has raised up a ladder for us. The only-begotten Son of God was slain for you (Isaiah 53:7): “He himself bows to the stroke.” For him alone you are to grieve in compassion and in your sorrow to pity him. So you may fulfi ll what the prophet Zachariah foretold of devoted souls (12:10): “Never was such a lament for an only son, grief so bitter over fi rst-born dead.” Think, my sister, how sorrowful is the lamentation of those who love the king over the death of his first-born. Consider the mourning of the household, the sorrow of the entire court, and when you come to the bride of the onlybegotten son who is dead, you will not be able to bear her wailing. This should be your lamentation, my sister, this should be your cry of sorrow. You have joined yourself to this Bridegroom by a happy marriage. He bought you and redeemed you with his own blood. Think how great is his right to you and how precious you are. The Apostle, considering the price paid for him and weighing his worth by the price paid and wondering what return he should make for so great a grace, says (Gal. 6:14): “God forbid that I should make a display of anything, except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world stands crucified to me, and I to the world.” You are greater than the heavens, you are greater than the world; the Creator of the world became the price paid for you. What, I ask you, did he see in you, he who needs nothing, that he should strive to win you, even to the agony of so horrible and ignominious a death? What did he seek in you but yourself? He is the true Lover, who desires you yourself, not what is yours. He is the true friend, who said when he was about to die for you ( John 15:13): “This is the greatest love a man can show, that he should lay down his life for his friends.” It was he who truly loved you, not I. My love, which involved us both in sin, should be 24

Luke 23:27–31.

82

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

called lust, not love. I took my fi ll of wretched pleasures in you, and this was all I loved. You say I suffered for you, and perhaps this is true, but rather through you, and that against my will; not for love of you, but because I was driven to it; not for your benefit, but to your sorrow. But he suffered for you, and brought you salvation. Willingly he suffered for you, who by his Passion cures every ill and takes away all suffering. I implore you, let all your devotion, all your compassion, all your grief be for him, not for me. Mourn over the great and iniquitous cruelty done to the Innocent One, not over that just and fair punishment infl icted on me, or rather, as I have said, that supreme act of grace for both of us. You are not righteous if you do not love justice, and you are most wicked if you knowingly resist the will of God, or rather, his generous grace. Weep for him who restored you, not for him who violated you. Mourn for your Redeemer, not your defi ler. Lament over the Lord who died for you, not your servant who still lives, or rather, is now for the fi rst time freed from death. Take care that the reproach which Pompey hurled at the grieving Cornelia may not, in all its venom, be applied to you: “Pompey survives the battle, but his greatness is gone. What you weep for is what you loved.”25 Pay attention to this, I beg you, and blush to show approval of the shameful acts that we committed. Accept patiently then, my sister, what has happened to me mercifully. This was the father’s rod, not the pursuer’s sword.26 It was a father who struck to correct, not an enemy who struck to kill. He prevented death by this wound; he did not cause it. He pierced with steel in order to cut out the infection. He wounds the body in order to heal the soul. He should have slain me and instead he gives me life. He cuts out uncleanness in order to leave what is clean. He punishes once so as not to punish eternally. One suffers a wound to spare two from death. Two shared the guilt, but one was punished. In this also God showed mercy for the weakness of your nature, and in a way justly. As a woman you were naturally weaker, yet you were stronger in self-control and so you were less deserving of punishment. I thank the Lord for this also, that he spared you from punishment then and kept you for your crown. On the one hand, to save me from utter ruin, by one wound of my body he quenched for all time that burning passion by which, through unrestrained desire, I was wholly consumed. On the other hand, so that you might win a martyr’s crown by enduring the constant urgings of the flesh, he left in your heart the much more intense passions of youth. You may be weary of hearing this and forbid me to say it, yet evident truth must be spoken. For him who must continue the fight, there is also a crown in store, since (2 Tim. 2:5): “the athlete will win no crown, if he does not observe the rules of the contest.” But there is no crown waiting for me because I have no reason left for struggling. For one from whom the sting of concupiscence has been removed there is nothing left to fight. 25

Lucan, Pharsalia 8.84–85. See: Wheeler, “Origenary Fantasies,” for an argument that Abelard treats his castration as appropriate paternal punishment. 26

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE

83

Yet I think it worth something that, though I shall win no crown, I may nonetheless escape the penalty, and by the pain of a brief punishment, I may perhaps be spared many eternal pains. It is written of this wretched life of man, or rather of beasts ( Joel 1:17): “Beast on dung-heap rots.” I do not complain because my merit decreases, since I am confident that yours is increasing. We are one in Christ, one flesh by the bond of marriage. I do not feel myself cut off from anything that is yours. Christ is yours, for you have become his bride. Now, as I said before, you have me as your servant whom you once acknowledged as your master. But now I am bound to you by spiritual love, rather than subject to you through fear. So I trust the more in your power to intercede for us with him, hoping to obtain through your prayers what I cannot achieve by my own, now especially when dangers and torments press upon me every day, and leave me no life of my own or time to pray, or to imitate that blessed eunuch who enjoyed authority in the palace of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, having charge of all her treasures, and who came from afar to worship in Jerusalem. When he was returning, the apostle Philip was sent by an angel to convert him to the faith, a grace he had already merited by prayer and constant reading of the Scriptures. When he did not cease to perform these exercises, even during his travels—though he was a man of great wealth and a Gentile—by the divine favor he happened to come upon a passage of Scripture that offered to the apostle a most fitting occasion for his conversion.27 In order that nothing may hinder this request of mine or put off its fulfi llment, I hasten also to compose a special prayer with which you may implore God on our behalf. God, who from the beginning of man’s creation did sanction the great sacrament of nuptial union by forming woman from a rib of man, and who has elevated marriage to the highest honor by being born of a woman and by the fi rst of your miracles, and who has granted me as it pleased you this remedy for the intemperance of my weakness, despise not the prayers of your handmaid, which I pour forth in the sight of your majesty for my own excesses and those of my beloved. Pardon, O kindest one, yes, kindness itself, pardon our many and most grievous crimes, and may the multitude of our offenses experience the plenteousness of your ineff able mercy. Punish the guilty now, I beseech you, that you may spare them in the life to come. Punish us now, so that you may not punish me eternally. Take up the rod of correction against your servants, not the sword of anger. Be to us a purifier, not an avenger, merciful rather than just, a kind father, not a harsh master. Test us, O Lord, and put us to the proof, as the prophet asked for himself, as if to say, “First examine my strength, and according to it moderate the burden of temptations.” This also the blessed Paul promised your faithful, saying (1 Cor. 10:13): “Not that God will play you false; he will not allow you to be tempted beyond your powers. With the temptation itself, he will ordain the issue of it, and enable you to hold your own.” You have joined us together, O Lord, and you have separated us when it pleased you and as it pleased you. Now, O Lord, what you have begun in mercy, finish most 27

Acts 8:27ff.

84

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

mercifully. And those whom you have separated from one another in the world, unite to you forever in heaven, O you our hope, our portion, our expectation, our consolation, Lord who is blessed world without end. Amen.

Farewell in Christ, bride of Christ, in Christ fare well, and in Christ dwell. Amen.

LETTER 6 HELOISE TO ABELARD

To him who is hers in species, from her who is singularly his.

I

do not wish to give you the slightest reason to accuse me of disobedience in anything. So following your command, I have put a rein on the outpouring of my boundless grief, in this way restraining myself, at least in my letters, from writing words against which it is not merely difficult but impossible to guard oneself in speech. For nothing is less in our power than the heart, and we must obey it since we cannot rule it. When its urgings goad us, we are unable to repress it. Nor can we prevent the heart’s sudden impulses from breaking out into action, and expressing themselves still more readily in words, which are, it is said, the most spontaneous “signs of the passions.”1 As Matthew writes (12:34): “It is from the heart’s overf low that the mouth speaks.” I shall, therefore, keep my hand from writing what I cannot keep my tongue from saying. If only the suffering heart were as ready to obey as the writer’s hand! Yet you can give me some consolation in my sorrow, though you cannot altogether banish it. As one nail drives out another,2 so a new idea displaces an earlier one; when the mind is concentrating on a single theme, it is forced to turn away from past thoughts, or at least to interrupt them.3 And the more honorable and important the thought to which we turn, the more intensively it occupies the mind and detaches it from other concerns. All of us who are servants of Christ and your daughters in Christ now make, as supplicants, two requests of your paternal kindness, and we consider the answers to them most essential to us. One of these is that you will please instruct us concerning the origins of women’s religious life and the authority for our calling. The other is that you draw up in writing and send us a rule that is 1

Cf. Aristotle, De interpretatione 1. Cf. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 4.35.75; Jerome, Ep. 124, ad Avitum 14. 3 Heloise here and often works in a different modality than Abelard—for her the base texts are often “classical”: rhetorical [Cicero]; poetic [Ovid]; patristic [ Jerome]. See Katharina Wilson and Glenda McLeod, “Textual Strategies in the Abelard/Heloise Correspondence,” Listening to Heloise, pp. 121–42. 2

86

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

suitable for women, setting forth in its entirety the condition and character of our monastic life. This is something, as we know, that none of the fathers has done. Through the lack and the need of such a rule, at present both men and women in monasteries are admitted to the profession of the same rule, and the same yoke of monastic life is imposed on the strong and the weak sex alike. For among the Latins [Western Christians], women as well as men now follow the single rule of St. Benedict. But since it is clear that this rule was composed for men alone, it can be kept only by ordinary monks and their superiors. Not to mention other chapters of the Rule, how does what is prescribed (c. 55) regarding cowls, underwear, and scapulars apply to women? Or regarding tunics or woolen garments worn next to the skin, since these are made altogether impractical by the monthly flow of superfluous humors? How does the prescription (c. 11) that the abbot should give the Gospel reading, and after that intone a hymn, apply to women? And how can we apply to them the decree (c. 56) about a separate table for the abbots and the guests and pilgrims? Is it proper for us as nuns never to extend hospitality to men? Or, if the abbess takes them in, should she dine with them? Consider how easily the familiar association of men and women leads to the ruin of souls! And this is especially true of their dining together, when gluttony and drunkenness may prevail and wine, in which there is wantonness, is drunk with pleasure. With this in mind, Jerome writes to a mother and daughter, cautioning them that “it is hard to keep chaste at a banquet.”4 In his book called The Art of Love, Ovid, the very poet of wantonness and teacher of lewdness himself, tells us what tempting opportunities for fornication lie, above all, in these convivial occasions: When wine has sprinkled Cupid’s thirsty wings, He stands stupefied in his chosen place. Then laughter comes, then the poor man feels exalted. Then sorrow and care that wrinkle the brow depart. There girls have snared the hearts of youth, And Venus in their veins is fi re in fi re.5

Even if we take in women only, and admit them to our table, do you think there is no danger? Surely in the seduction of a woman there is nothing so successful as another woman’s pandering. And a woman will not reveal the baseness of her evil mind to anyone so readily as she will to one of her own sex. For this reason, Jerome, whom I mentioned earlier, exhorts women of holy life to be especially careful to avoid the company of ordinary women.6 Finally, if we refuse hospitality to men and take in women only, who does not realize how much we shall offend and annoy the men whose assistance is necessary to monasteries of women, especially if we appear to give little or nothing to those from whom we receive most. 4 5 6

Jerome, Ep. 117, ad matrem et filiam in Gallia conmorentes 6: PL 22, 957; CSEL 55, I, 2. Ovid, Ars Amatoria 1.233–34; 239–40; 243–44. Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 16: PL 22, 403; CSEL 55, I, 1, 163.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

87

If we cannot fulfi ll the intention of the Rule, then I fear that the censure of the Apostle James stands to condemn us (2:10): “The man who has failed in one point, though he has kept the rest of the law, is liable to all its penalties.” This means that he who achieves many things is judged guilty because he does not fulfi ll all; he becomes a transgressor of the law, which he does not obey unless he keeps all of its precepts. The Apostle carefully explains this when he adds immediately (2:11): “He who forbids adultery has forbidden murder as well. The murderer, though he is no adulterer, has yet transgressed the law.” This is as if he were to say expressly that a man becomes guilty if he violates any single precept, because the Lord himself who commands the one, commands the other as well. No matter which precept of the law is violated, he is despised who established the law, not in one commandment but in all alike. To pass over those points of the Rule which we are completely unable to observe, or cannot observe without danger, where has it ever been customary for the nuns of a monastery to go out and gather the harvest, or to be obliged to work in the fields?7 Should a community test the constancy of the postulants in one year or train them by three readings of the Rule, as it enjoins?8 What greater folly is there than to embark on an unknown and uncharted path? What could be more presumptuous than to choose and profess a life of which you know nothing, or to make a vow that you cannot keep? But since “discretion is the mother of all virtues”9 and reason the moderator of all good, who could regard that as virtuous or good which he sees at variance with discretion and reason? As Jerome declares, virtue itself, when it exceeds its mean and measure, may be regarded as vice.10 Who does not see that there is no reason or discretion in imposing duties on persons without fi rst considering their strength, so that their work may be adapted to their natural constitution? Who would regard a load fit for an ass that is more suited for an elephant? Who would demand of boys and old men as much as he would exact from men in their prime? Or who would ask as much of the sick as of the healthy, of women as of men, of the weak sex as of the strong? When St. Gregory gives careful consideration to this in the twentyfourth chapter of his Pastoral Rule, where he discusses admonitions and precepts, he makes this distinction: “The same admonitions are not to be given to women as to men, because lighter burdens are to be imposed on women and heavier on men. Let men be disciplined by the hard tasks while women are gently converted by the easier ones.”11 It is a fact that those who drew up the rules for monks said nothing about nuns and even ordained duties they knew were utterly unsuitable for them. By so doing, they plainly implied that “the necks of the bullock and the heifer were not to be weighed by the same yoke” of a rule. It is not fitting that those whom nature made unequal in strength should be made equal in work. St. Benedict was 7

Cf. Rule of St. Benedict, chap. 48. Cf. Rule of St. Benedict, chap. 58. 9 Cf. Cassian, Collationes 2.4: PL 49, 528; CSEL 13, II, 44. 10 Cf. Jerome, Ep. 130, ad Demetriam 11: PL 22, 1116; CSEL 56, I, 3, 191. 11 Gregory, Regulae Pastoralis Liber 3.1: PL 77, 51c. 8

88

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

not unmindful of this distinction, for as one fi lled with the spirit of all justice, he so regulated everything in the Rule according to the character of persons and of seasons that, as he sums it up in one passage (c. 48), everything should be done according to measure. First of all, beginning with the abbot, he is enjoined to rule over those who are subject to him in such a way that (c. 2, c. 64) he may conform and adapt his rule to the character and intelligence of each, so that he will not only permit no harm to the f lock committed to him, but he will also be able to rejoice in the increase of a good f lock. He will always be suspicious of his own frailty and bear in mind that (Isaiah 42:3): “the bruised reed is not to be broken.” Let him use discretion and moderation, keeping in mind the prudence of the holy Jacob when he says (Gen. 33:13): “If I cause my f locks to be overdriven, they will all die in one day.” Let him then accept these and other testimonies to discretion, the mother of virtues, and observe such moderation in everything that the strong may be eager and the weak will not hang back.

This moderating of discipline includes consideration for boys, the aged, and the infi rm in general, the provision of meals to the reader and the weekly shifts of servers in the kitchen ahead of the others, and the supervision of the quality and quantity of food and drink for the community, with provision for the differences in men. There are special directions in the Rule for each of these classes (chs. 35–41). St. Benedict also modifies the stated times for fasting, according to the season and the amount of work to be done, as natural weakness demands (c. 36). Now when he adapts all of his regulations to the character of the seasons and of human nature so that they can be accepted by all without complaint, what provisions, I ask, would he have made for women, if he had been drawing up a rule for them as well as for men? If on some points he felt obliged to mitigate the full rigor of the Rule for boys, the aged, and the sick, in accordance with the weakness or infi rmity of their nature, what provision would he have made for the weaker sex, of whose tender and delicate nature he was well aware? So you should consider carefully how much at variance with all reason and discretion it is that women should be bound by obedience to the same Rule as men, and that the weak should bear the same burden as the strong. In my judgment, it would be enough for our frail nature if in the virtues of continence and abstinence we matched the rulers of the Church and other clerics in holy orders, especially when Truth says (Luke 6:40): “He will be fully perfect if he is as his master is.” It should also be considered a great achievement on our part, if we were able to equal in piety the most religious members of the laity. What we consider a small achievement in the strong arouses our admiration in the weak, and according to the Apostle’s saying (2 Cor. 12:9): “Strength is made perfect in infirmity.” To prevent our regarding the piety of laymen as insignificant, such as the piety of Abraham, David, and Job, although they were married, Chrysostom in his seventh sermon on the Hebrews confronts us with this statement: There are numerous things one can do to cast a spell over that beast. What are they? Work, reading, vigils. But what has that to do with us who are not monks,

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

89

you ask? You ask me this? Ask Paul, when he says (Ephes. 6:18): “Pray at all times in the spirit; keep awake to that end with all perseverance,” and when he says (Rom. 13:14): “Make not provision for the f lesh in its concupiscences.” He did not write this only to monks, but to all who were living in those cities. For a man in the world should enjoy no other privileges than a monk excepting only to live with a wife. On this point he has indulgence, nothing more, and in everything else he should act just as monks do. For the Beatitudes which were proclaimed by Christ are not addressed simply to monks . . . . Otherwise the whole world will perish . . . and he has brought what is virtuous into a narrow compass. And how is marriage honorable which is so great a hindrance to us?12

In these words it is clearly implied that anyone who adds the virtue of continence to the precepts of the Gospel will achieve monastic perfection. If only our piety could attain the fulfi llment of the Gospel, not seek to rise above it, and we did not strive to be more than Christians! If I am not mistaken, the holy fathers did not intend to impose a general rule, like a new law, upon us women as well as upon men, and to burden our frailty with the heavy weight of vows. They kept in mind the statement of the Apostle (Rom. 4:15): “The effect of the law is only to bring God’s displeasure on us; it is only where there is a law that transgression becomes possible,” and (Rom. 5:20): “The law intervened, only to amplify our fault.” The same great preacher of continence, well aware of our weakness and apparently urging young widows to marry again says (1 Tim. 5:14): “So I would have the younger women marry and bear children, and have households to manage; then they will give enmity no handle for speaking ill of us.” With this very salutary counsel in mind, St. Jerome advised Eustochium against the rash taking of vows by women, saying: If those who keep themselves virgins should lose their souls for some other sins, what will become of them if they have prostituted the members of Christ and turned the temple of the Holy Spirit into a brothel. It would be better for them to have entered marriage, to have walked the level path, than to press on by a steeper road and fall into the depths of hell.13

St. Augustine also advises against such profession of vows in his book On the Continence of Widows, writing to Juliana in these words: “Let her persevere who has not yet begun to take thought, and let her who has entered upon it, also persevere. Let no occasion be given to the adversary, let no offering be withdrawn from Christ.”14 So it is that the canons, in consideration of our frailty, have decreed that women should not be ordained deaconesses before forty and then only after careful probation, while men may be ordained deacons from twenty on. There are also members of communities of men called canons regular of St. Augustine, who follow a rule, as they say, and they claim that they are in 12 13 14

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Epiad Hebraeos 7.4: PG 63, 289–90 (Mutianus’s translation). Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 6: PL 22, 397: CSEL 54, I, 1, 150ff. Augustine, De bono viduitatis 9.12: PL 40, 437; CSEL 41, 5, 3, 317.

90

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

no way inferior to monks, although, as everyone knows, they eat meat and wear linen. Should it be regarded as nothing if we in our weakness succeed in matching their virtue? Nature herself has provided that indulgence in all kinds of food should be granted us more readily and with a greater sense of security, since she has made our sex stronger in the virtue of sobriety. It is clear that women can live less expensively and with less nourishment than men, and natural science maintains that they are not so easily intoxicated. Macrobius Theodosius recalls this in the seventh book of his Saturnalia in these words: Aristotle says that women seldom get drunk, but that old men often do. Woman has a more humid body. The smoothness and gloss of her skin show this, as do also, especially, the repeated f lows which rid her body of excessive humours. When wine, therefore, comes in contact with such an amount of moisture, it loses its strength . . . and thus weakened, does not so readily reach the seat of the brain. He also says: A women’s body is so constituted for frequent purgations, being equipped with several openings, that it opens in channels and provides ways for the humor to f low out. Through these outlets, the vapor of wine is soon released. The bodies of old men, on the contrary, are dry, as their roughness and scaly skin show.15

Consider then, in the light of this statement, how much more safely and justifiably indulgence in any kind of food or drink can be permitted to our frail nature, since our systems cannot be so easily overcome by gluttony or drunkenness. The sparing use of food protects us from the one and the constitution of the female body, as I have said, from the other. It should be considered sufficient for our weakness and the most that should be expected of us if, by living chastely and without possessions and by devoting ourselves to the divine offices, we match the lives of the princes of the Church or pious lay folk, or those who are called canons regular and who claim that they are in a special way followers of the apostolic life. Finally, it is a mark of great prudence in those who bind themselves to God by vow that they promise to do less, but in fact do more, so that they may always add some free gifts to what they owe. For Truth himself has said in his own person (Luke 17:10): “You, in the same way, when you have done all that was commanded you, are to say, ‘We are servants and worthless; it was our duty to do what we have done.’ ” This is as if he were to tell us explicitly that we are to be considered useless and, so to speak, worthless and devoid of merit, because being satisfied with simply fulfi lling our obligations, we have added no free gift of love. With regard to works of supererogation, the Lord spoke elsewhere in a parable, when he said (Luke 10:35): “On my way home I will give you whatever else is owing to you for your pains.” If today many of those who rashly enter the monastic life would consider this very carefully and investigate beforehand the state to which they vow themselves: by earnestly studying the tenor of the Rule, they would offend less through ignorance and sin less through negligence. But nowadays, when so many are 15

Macrobius Theodosius, Saturnalia 7.6, 16–17.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

91

rushing indiscriminately into the monastic life, they are irregularly received and live still more irregularly. Despising the Rule they have not studied as readily as they accepted it, they put customs that please them in the place of law. So we should take care that we women do not presume to take on a burden under which we see almost all men staggering, if they do not fall. We perceive that the world has grown old, and the human race along with everything else in the world has lost the pristine vigor of its nature and, according to the statement of Truth, charity itself has grown cold, not only in most persons but in almost everyone. For these reasons, it is now necessary to change or mitigate according to human character the very rules that were written for it. St. Benedict himself, bearing in mind the necessity for such discretion, admits that he has so far tempered the rigor of monastic severity as to consider the Rule that he composed, if it is compared with those of former orders, only a foundation of virtue and a beginning, as it were, of monastic life. He says (c. 73): We have composed this Rule in order that, by observing it, we may show that to some extent we have made a beginning of an upright life. But he who strives for perfection of life has the teachings of the holy fathers, which, if he observes them, will lead him to the pinnacle of perfection. Whoever you may be, if you are hastening to your heavenly country with Christ’s help, keep this little Rule which is a beginning, and then afterwards, under God’s protection, you will reach the greater heights of doctrine and virtue.

Although we sometimes read, as St. Benedict himself says (c. 18), that formerly the holy fathers used to complete the Psalter in one day, nevertheless he so modified its recitation for the lukewarm that, by spreading the psalms throughout the week, monks may be satisfied with a smaller number of them than the secular clergy. What is so opposed to monastic piety and peace as that which most fosters wantonness, creates disorder and destroys the very image of God in us—I mean reason, by which we are superior to other creatures? It is wine, which Scripture calls pernicious and admonishes us to avoid above everything else that comes under the heading of victuals. Of wine the greatest of wise men says in Proverbs (23:29–35): Unhappy son of an unhappy father, who is this, ever brawling, ever falling, scarred but not from battle, bloodshot of eye? Who but the tosspot that sits long over his wine? Look not on the wine’s tawny glow, sparkling there in the glass beside you; how insinuating its address! Yet at last adder bites not so fatally, poison it distills like the basilisk’s own. Eyes that stray to forbidden charms, a mind uttering thoughts that are none of yours, shall make you helpless as the mariner asleep in mid-ocean, when the tiller drops from the helmsman’s drowsy grasp. What! You will say, blows all unfelt, wounds that left no sting! Could I but come to myself, and be back, even now, at my wine!

And also (Prov. 31:4–5): “Wine was never made for kings, Lamuel, never for kings; carouse benefits ill your council-chamber. Not for them to drink deep, and forget the claims of right and misjudge the plea of the friendless.” And it is

92

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

written in Ecclesiasticus (19:12): “Wine and women, what a trap for the loyalty of the wise.” When he writes to Nepotian on the life of clerics, Jerome becomes almost indignant because the priests of the Law, in refraining from all intoxicating drink, surpass the Christian priesthood in this respect. He says: Do not smell of wine lest you hear the reproach of the philosopher, ‘That is not to give me a kiss, but to give me a drink.’ The Apostle condemns priests who are drinkers (1 Tim. 3:3), and the Old Law issues an injunction against them (Lev. 10:9): ‘Whoever serves at the altar . . . drink neither wine nor strong drink.’ In Hebrew every strong drink is called ‘sicera,’ which means ‘intoxicating,’ whether it is made by fermentation, or distilled from apple juice or honey into a sweet and barbarous beverage, or made by pressing dates into a mash and when it has been boiled, drawing off the thick liquid. Whatever intoxicates and overthrows mental balance, avoid as you would wine.16

It is certain that what is forbidden kings to enjoy and altogether denied to priests is considered more dangerous than any other kind of food. Yet so spiritual a man as St. Benedict feels compelled to grant indulgence by a kind of dispensation to the monks of his time. “Though we read,” he says (c. 40): “that wine is not for monks, yet in these times you cannot convince monks of that.” Unless I am mistaken, he had read what we find written in the Lives of the Fathers: “Some told the father abbot of a certain monk who did not drink wine, and he replied that wine was not at all for monks.”17 Further on we read: Mass was celebrated one day on the mountain of Abbot Anthony and a jar of wine was found there. And one of the elders, taking a small vessel, brought a cup to Abbot Sisoi and gave it to him. He drank once and a second time also he took it and drank. He was offered it a third time, but he did not take it, and he said: ‘Be quiet, brother, do you not know that it is Satan?’18

We fi nd there another story of Abbot Sisoi: “His disciple Abraham said to him, ‘If one meets a person on Saturday and Sunday at the church, and drinks three cups, is that much?’ And the old man replied, ‘If it were not Satan, it would not be much.’ ”19 Now when, I ask, has f lesh meat ever been condemned by God or forbidden to monks? Consider this, I ask you, and pay attention to the necessity that compelled Benedict to temper the Rule in that which is even more dangerous for monks and which he knew they should not have, because the monks of his day could not be persuaded to abstain from it. If only the same policy were followed today, and such moderation prevailed in those things which are a mean between good and evil and 16 Jerome, Ep. 52, ad Nepotianum 11: PL 22, 536; CSEL 54, I, 1, 434. The source of the philosopher’s words is unidentified. 17 Vitae patrum (verba seniorum) 5.4, 31: PL 73, 868d. 18 Vitae patrum (verba seniorum) 5.4, 36: PL 73, 869d. 19 Vitae patrum (verba seniorum) 5.4, 37: PL 73, 869d.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

93

which are called indifferent, that obedience to the Rule did not require what we cannot be persuaded to do, and that all things which in themselves belong to the mean may be allowed without scandal, and prohibition limited to what is sinful. In this way, the question of food as well as clothing could be dealt with so as to procure what is not too expensive; and in everything necessity, and not excess, would be the guide. We should not pay too much attention to that which does not prepare us for the kingdom of God, and which does not win favor with him.

Such are external acts performed by the wicked and the elect alike, by hypocrites as well as those who are sincerely religious. Nothing so divides Jews and Christians as the distinction between exterior and interior acts, especially since charity alone, which the Apostle calls the fulfi llment of the Law, separates the sons of God from the sons of the devil. The same Apostle, therefore, emphatically disparaged this glory in works and placed first the righteousness that springs from faith. He says, addressing the Jew (Rom. 3:27–28): “What has become, then, of your pride? No room has been left for it. On what principle? The principle which depends on observances? No, the principle which depends on faith; our contention is that a man is justified by faith apart from the observances of the law.” He also says (4:2, 3): “If it was by observances that Abraham attained his justification, he, to be sure, has something to be proud of. But it was not so in God’s sight; what does the Scripture tell us? Abraham put his faith in God, and it was reckoned virtue in him.” And again he says (4:5): “When a man’s faith is reckoned virtue in him, according to God’s gracious plan, it is not because of anything he does; it is because he has faith, faith in the God who makes a just man of the sinner.” In allowing Christians to eat every kind of food and distinguishing this from that which justifies, the same Apostle says (Rom. 14:17, 20, 21): The Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating or drinking this or that; it means rightness of heart, finding our peace and our joy in the Holy Spirit . . . Nothing is unclean; yet it goes ill with the man who eats to the hurt of his own conscience. You do well if you refuse to eat meat, or to drink wine, or to do anything in which your brother can find an occasion of sin, a cause for scandal or scruple.

In this passage, the eating of no kind of food is forbidden, but rather the offense resulting from eating, by which any of the Jewish converts might be scandalized to see that eaten which was forbidden by the law. When Peter, also an apostle, sought to avoid this scandal, Paul upbraided him severely and gave him a salutary admonition, as Paul himself recalls when writing to the Galatians (2:11), and again to the Corinthians (1, 8:8): “And it is not what we eat that gives us our standing in God’s sight,” and again (10:25, 26): “When things are sold in the open market, then you may eat them . . . this world, as we know, and all that is in it belongs to the Lord.” And he writes to the Colossians (2:16): “So no one must be allowed to take you to task over what you eat or drink.” And a little further on he says (2:20–22): If, by dying with Christ, you have parted company with worldly principles, why do you live by these prescriptions, as if the world were still your element?

94

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Prescriptions against touching or tasting, or handling those creatures which vanish altogether as we enjoy them, are all based on the will and the word of men.

What he calls the elements of this world are the first rudiments of the law consisting in carnal observances, in the learning of which, as in learning A B Cs, the world—that is, a people still carnal—was engaged. To these elements, these carnal observances, both Christ and his own have died, since they owe no allegiance to them, living as they do no longer in this world, that is, among carnal men, who have regard to forms, and distinguish or discriminate one kind of food or anything else from another, saying do not touch this or that. The things we touch or taste or handle, the Apostle says, make for the ruin of the soul by their very use; when, I mean, we use them for our advantage according to human precepts and doctrines, that is, of those who are worldly and take the Law in a carnal sense, rather than in that of Christ and his own. For when Christ sent his apostles to preach where he wanted to provide especially against their giving any scandal, he allowed them to eat the food of those who gave them hospitality, eating and drinking what was placed before them. 20 Enlightened by the Spirit, Paul foresaw long ago that men would depart from the Lord’s teaching and his own. What he wrote to Timothy applies to them (1, 4:1–6): We are expressly told by inspiration that, in later days, there will be some who abandon the faith, listening to false inspirations and doctrines taught by the devils. They will be deceived by the pretensions of impostors . . . . Such teachers bid them abstain from marriage and from certain kinds of foods, although God has made these for the grateful enjoyment of those whom faith has enabled to recognize the truth. All is good that God has made, nothing is to be rejected; only we must be thankful to him when we partake of it, then it is hallowed for our use by God’s blessing and the prayer which brings it. Lay down these rules for the brethren, and you will show yourself a true servant of Jesus Christ, thriving on the principles of that faith whose wholesome doctrine you have followed.

Who, I ask, would not put John and his disciples, who tortured themselves with extreme fasting, ahead of Christ and his disciples in piety, if he looked with his bodily eyes on the manifestation of their external work of abstinence? The disciples of John, still acting like the Jews in external matters, murmured against Christ and his followers, and asked the Lord himself (Matt. 9:14; Mark 2:18): “How is it that your disciples do not fast, when we and the Pharisees fast so often?” Augustine noted this carefully and, distinguishing between virtue and the external appearance of virtue, considered the question that works add nothing further to our merit. This is how he puts it in his book On the Good of Marriage: Continence is a virtue not of the body, but of the soul. Virtues of the soul, however, sometimes manifest themselves in acts and sometimes as a habit. They escape notice; as the virtue of the martyrs was manifested in the enduring of their sufferings . . . Job 20

Luke 10:7.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

95

already possessed patience, as the Lord knew and gave testimony, but it became known to men when it was tested by his trials . . . in order that it may be seen more clearly how such virtue can exist as a habit even when it does not issue in action, I give an example that no Catholic may doubt. No one who believes in the Gospel has any doubt that the Lord Jesus was hungry and thirsted and that he also ate and drank. Now, is it true that he did not possess the virtue of self-control in regard to food and drink just as much as John the Baptist? When John came, he would neither eat nor drink, and they say of him that he is possessed. When the Son of Man came, he ate and drank with them, and of him they said, ‘Here is a glutton; he loves wine; he is a friend of publicans and sinners’ (Matt. 11:18–19).

Augustine then goes on: Christ added, after speaking of John, ‘It is by her own children that wisdom is vindicated,’ for they see that self-control as a virtue must always be a habit of the soul, and manifest itself in works according to the circumstances of the time, like the patience of the holy martyrs. Therefore, just as the patience of Peter, who suffered martyrdom, merited no more than that of John, who did not, so the continence of John, who never lived in marriage, was no greater than that of Abraham, who begot children. And the celibacy of the former and the married state of the latter, both according to the circumstances of their times, served in the ranks of Christ. But John’s continence manifested itself in deeds, whereas in Abraham it was a habit only. So in the period when the Law, which followed the age of the Patriarchs, pronounced him cursed who would not raise up seed in Israel, 21 he also who was able to, but did not show it, nevertheless also possessed continence. But after the ‘fullness of time’ came, 22 when it could be said (Matt. 19:12): ‘Let him accept it who can . . .’ he who possesses this virtue, shows it in action, and he who is unwilling to do so, should not lie and say that he has it. 23

Clearly, from these passages it may be concluded that virtue alone gains merit with God, and that those who are equal in virtue, no matter how much they differ in works, gain equal merit with him. Anyone who is a true Christian is entirely concerned with the inner self, to adorn it with virtues and cleanse it from vices, paying little or no attention to the external. So we read that the Apostles, even when they were in the company of the Lord, behaved in a boorish, and, so to speak, disgraceful fashion, as if forgetful of all reverence and propriety. As they passed through fields of grain, they were not ashamed to pluck off the heads, and, rubbing out the kernels, ate them just as boys would. Nor were they worried about washing their hands before they ate. When some accused them of uncleanness, the Lord excused them, saying (Matt. 15:20): “No one is made unclean by eating without washing his hands.” At once he went on to say that the soul is not defi led by external things in general, but only by what comes from the heart, which, he says, are “evil thoughts, 21 22 23

Cf. Deut. 25:5–10. Cf. Gal. 4:4. Augustine, De bono conjugali 21.25–26: PL 40, 390–91; CSEL 41, 5, 3, 218–22.

96

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

adulteries, murders, and so forth.” Unless the soul is first corrupted by an evil will, there can be no sin, no matter what takes place in the body. Quite rightly, then, does he say that adulteries and murders proceed from the heart, for they can be committed without bodily contact, according to the Gospel sayings: “He who casts his eyes on a woman so as to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28), and “A man cannot hate his brother without being a murderer” (1 John 3:15). These sins are not necessarily committed, even though the body is touched or injured, as when a woman is violated by force, or when a judge is compelled in justice to put a criminal to death. “No murderer,” it is written, “has part in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”24 So we are to consider not so much what is done as the intention with which it is done, if we wish to please him who examines our thoughts and desires, and sees in hidden places,25 who will judge the secrets of men, as Paul says (Rom 2:16): “according to my Gospel,” that is, according to the doctrine he preaches. The widow’s small offering of two mites, which is a farthing, was placed before the generous offerings of all rich men 26 by him to whom it is said (Ps. 15:2): “You have no need of my goods.” He is pleased by the character of the giver rather than by the amount of the gift, as it is written (Gen. 4:4): “On Abel, and on his offering, the Lord looked with favor,” fi rst considering the holiness of the giver, and regarding the gift as pleasing accordingly. The less the soul is occupied with external matters, the more its devotion is fi xed on God; the less we put our trust in external actions, the more humbly we serve him and the more we think of what we owe him. So the Apostle in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim., 4:7–8), after giving the general permission regarding foods, mentioned above, goes on to speak of the exercise of physical labor. He says: “Train yourself . . . to grow up in holiness. Training of the body avails but little; holiness is all availing, since it promises well both for this life and for the next,” since the mind’s fervent devotion to God merits from him what is necessary here, and what is lasting in the life to come. What else do these testimonies teach than that we should pursue Christian wisdom and, like Jacob, prepare a repast for our Father from domestic animals, and not, with Esau, provide wild game, and in externals play the Jew (See Gen. 27:6ff )? The Psalmist puts it this way (Ps. 55:12): “The vows which you claim from me, O God, my sacrifice of praise shall fulfi ll.” You may add to this the words of the poet: “Do not look for yourself outside yourself.”27 There are many, almost countless, statements of both secular and ecclesiastical teachers, showing that we should not be much concerned with external works, which are called indifferent. Otherwise the works of the Law, and the insupportable yoke of its servitude, as Peter says,28 are to be preferred to the liberty

24 Cf. 1 John 3:15. In the preceding statements, Heloise clearly identifies a sinful state as a corruption of the will, no matter what takes place in he body. 25 Cf. Prov. 24:12; Ps. 7:10; Jer. 11:20, 17:10, 20:12, etc. 26 Cf. Mark 12:42–44. 27 Persius, Satires 1.17. 28 Cf. Acts 15:10.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

97

of the Gospel, and to Christ’s sweet yoke and light burden.29 To this sweet yoke and light burden Christ himself invites us when he says (Matt. 11:28): “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened.” This explains why the apostle Peter vigorously reproves some who had been converted to Christ, but thought that the works of the Law should still be kept, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (15:7, 10–11): “Brethren . . . how is it, then, that you would now call God in question, by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples, such as we and our fathers have been too weak to bear? It is by the grace of the Lord that we hope to be saved, and they no less.” Be an imitator not only of Christ, but also of his apostle, in discretion as well as in name, and moderate the rules governing work in accordance with our frail nature, so that we may have as much time as possible for the offices of divine worship. This is the offering that the Lord commands, when he rejects all external sacrifices, saying (Ps. 49:12–15): If I am hungry, I will not complain of it to you, I who am master of earth, and all that earth contains. Would you have me eat bull’s f lesh, and drink the blood of goats? The sacrifice you must offer to God is a sacrifice of praise, so will you perform your vows to the Most High. So, when you cry to me in time of trouble, I will deliver you; then you shall honor me as you will.

I do not say this to scorn the works of manual labor when necessity demands them. But we should not overvalue what ministers to the body, and hinders the celebration of the divine office, particularly since a special privilege was granted to holy women by apostolic authority. This made it the duty of others to provide their support, rather than to expect it from their own labors. Thus Paul writes to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:16): “If a believer has any widows depending on him, he should undertake their support, leaving the Church free to support the widows who are truly destitute.” He calls those true widows who are consecrated to Christ, not only those who have lost their husbands, but those for whom the world stands crucified, and they to the world.30 It is quite fitting that they should be supported at the expense of the Church, as from funds belonging to their own spouse. So the Lord himself appointed an apostle to look after his own mother, in place of her husband,31 and the apostles ordained seven deacons, that is, ministers of the Church, to look after the holy women. 32 Certainly, we know that the Apostle, writing to the Thessalonians (2, 3:10), imposed such restraints on those who were living a life of idleness and curiosity that he commanded: “The man who refuses to work must be left to starve.” It was especially to prevent idleness that St. Benedict also prescribed manual labor.33 But did not Mary sit down to listen to the words of Christ, while Martha worked away both for her and for the Lord, and as though out of envy, 29 30 31 32 33

Cf. Matt. 11:30. Cf. Gal. 6:14. Cf. John 19:26. Cf. Acts 6:5. Cf. Rule of St. Benedict, c. 40.

98

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

complained of her sister’s idleness on the ground that she alone “bore the day’s burden and the heat?”34 So today we often hear complaints from those who work outside the monastery because they are supplying the necessities of life to those who are engaged in the divine service. They frequently begrudge less what tyrants seize than what they themselves are compelled to hand out, as they say, to these “lazy and idle people,” even though they see these same people constantly occupied not only in listening to Christ’s words, but also in reading and chanting them. Such critics do not reflect that, as the Apostle says, it is no great matter if they provide for the bodily needs of those to whom they look for spiritual assistance,35 and that it is not at all improper that those concerned with worldly affairs should serve those who are occupied with matters of the spirit. It was ordained by the Law that this salutary freedom from work should be granted to the ministers of the Church, when it prescribed that the tribe of Levi should receive no earthly inheritance in order to be freer to serve God and that it should receive tithes and offerings from the labor of the rest.36 If you should decide that anything is to be added to the general law of the Church regarding abstinence during the seasons of fasting—and Christians strive to abstain from vice rather than from food—you should weigh the matter well and ordain what is appropriate for us. Please provide especially for the services of the church and the arrangement of the Psalms, so that in this, at least, you may lighten the burden on our frailty and it may not be necessary to repeat the same Psalms to finish the Psalter in a week. When St. Benedict arranged the recitation of the Psalter, he did so according to his own view, but he recommended that others make their own choice if it should seem advisable to make a different arrangement (cf. c. 18). He foresaw that, as time went on, the splendor of church services would increase and a magnificent edifice would arise upon the early, crude foundations. Most particularly, we should like you to decide what should be done about the reading of the Gospel at night vigils (cf. c. 11). It seems to me risky to bring priests or deacons into our midst at that time of night to read it. This is the case especially since it is proper for us to be cut off then from all access to men and from the sight of them, in order to devote our attention more whole-heartedly to God, and also to safeguard ourselves more completely against temptation. While you are still alive, my lord, it is incumbent upon you to provide rules for us to follow for all time. You are, after God, the founder of this place; through God you established our community; together with God you should be the director of our religious life. Perhaps we shall have another guide after you, who will build upon the foundation that you have laid.37 We are very much afraid that he may be less concerned about us or less willing to listen to us. Even if he should be as well disposed as you are, he may not be as capable. Speak to us and we shall listen to you. Farewell. 34 35 36 37

Matt. 20:12; Luke 10:38ff. for the story of Mary and Martha. Cf. 1 Cor. 9:11. Cf. Num. 18:21. Cf. Rom. 15:20.

LETTER 7 ABELARD TO HELOISE: THE ORIGIN OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF NUNS (CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY AND DIGNITY OF THE ORDER OF NUNS)

T

o instruct you and your spiritual daughters, I shall reply succinctly and in a few words, if I can, to your charity, which has raised the question of the profession to which you are vowed: that is, concerning the origin of the religious life of nuns. The order of both monks and nuns was given the form of its religious life by our Lord Jesus Christ, although even before the Incarnation some early form of this life had existed among men as well as women. Thus when Jerome writes to Eustochium, he refers to the “Sons of the Prophets, of whom we read in the Old Testament as living like monks,” and so on.1 The Evangelist (Luke 2:25) describes Anna as a widow who devoted herself assiduously to the service of the Temple and to divine worship, and who, with Simeon, was worthy of receiving the Lord in the Temple and being filled with the spirit of prophecy. Christ, the consummation of justice and the end of all good, came in the fullness of time to perfect the good already begun and to reveal what was hidden. As he had come to call both sexes and to redeem them, so he deigned to unite them in the true monkhood of his congregation. In this way, both men and women might be given authority for this calling and all might be shown the perfect way of life that they should imitate. With his apostles and the other disciples, there was a group of holy women, including his mother, who had renounced the world and given up all possessions in order to possess Christ alone, as it is written (Ps. 15:5): “It is the Lord I claim for my prize.” They did devoutly what is required of all who have been converted from the world and they were initiated into the common life, according to the rule given by the Lord (Luke 14:13): “None of you can be my disciple if he does not take leave of all that he possesses.” The sacred Scriptures carefully record how devoutly these holy women and true nuns followed Christ and how gratefully both Christ himself and later the 1

Jerome, Ep. 125, ad Rusticum 7: PL 22, 107b; CSEL 56, 1, 3.

100

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

apostles honored their devotion. We read in the Gospel (Luke 7:36–39) that a Pharisee who had taken the Lord into his house complained and was rebuked by him, and that the service of the woman who was a sinner was set far above the hospitality of this man. We read also ( John 12:1–3) that when Lazarus, after being restored to life, sat down with the others, his sister Martha alone served the tables, and Mary poured a pound of precious ointment over the Lord’s feet and wiped them with her hair, and the house was fi lled with the fragrance of this precious ointment. Its costliness led Judas into greed, because it seemed so foolishly used, and the other disciples also became indignant about it. While Martha was busy with the food, Mary dispensed the ointment, and the one refreshed the weary Christ outwardly while the other restored him inwardly. Nor does the text of the Gospel record that any but women administered to the Lord. These women had dedicated their own possessions to his daily sustenance; and so it was they, above all, who provided the essentials of life for him. He showed himself a most humble servant to the disciples at table and in the washing of feet.2 But we do not hear that he accepted this service from any of the disciples or, indeed, from any man. Women alone, as I have said, performed these and other services of humanity. Just as Martha rendered service in one way, so Mary did in another, and in so doing she was as devoted as she had been sinful earlier. The Lord performed the service of washing feet with water poured in a basin. But she rendered it to him with tears of compunction drawn from within, not with water obtained outside. The Lord dried the feet of the disciples with a towel after they had been washed. But she used her hair instead of a towel and, over and above, she added the anointing with ointments, which the Lord is nowhere said to have used. Who is not aware, moreover, that a woman so far presumed on his favor that she anointed his head with ointments as well? This ointment was not, in fact, poured out of the alabaster box, but it is said to have been spilled when the alabaster was broken, in order to express the ardent desire of an extreme devotion, which felt that this box, having served for so great a purpose, should not be kept for any further use.3 In this also, she demonstrated by her actions what Daniel had prophesied earlier would happen when the Most Holy was anointed (Dan. 9:24). For behold, a woman anoints the Most Holy, and thus at once she proclaims him to be the one in whom she believes, and the one whom the prophet foretold. What, I ask, is this kindness of the Lord, or what is the dignity of women, that he should allow both his head and his feet to be anointed by no one but a woman? What is this privilege of the weaker sex that Christ the most high, anointed from his very conception with all the ointments of the Holy Spirit, should also be anointed by a woman and that, as though consecrating him king and priest with bodily sacraments, she should make him in body the Christ, that is to say, the Anointed? 2

See John 13:5. Here Abelard is conf lating the story of Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus, with the anonymous woman who anointed the feet of Jesus with oil from an alabaster box (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). This confusion ref lects the general view of the Western Church since the sixth century. 3

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

101

We know that a stone was first anointed by the patriarch Jacob (Gen. 28:18), as a symbol of the Lord, and that afterward only men were permitted to perform the anointing of priests or kings, or any sacraments of unction, although sometimes women may presume to baptize. The patriarch sanctified a stone for the Temple, and now the priest sanctifies the altar with oil. So men imprint the sacraments by signs. But the woman worked in truth itself, as the Word himself bore witness when he said (Mark 14:6): “She did well to treat me so.” Christ himself was anointed by a woman; Christians are anointed by men: that is, the Head by a woman, and the members by men. It is recorded also that the woman poured out the ointment well; she did not drop it on his head, following what the bride sings of him in the Canticles (1:2): “Thy very name spoken soothes the heart like flow of oil.” The abundance of that ointment, as it ran down from the head to the hem of the garment, is also mystically prefigured by the Psalmist, who says (132:2): “Gracious as balm poured on the head till it flows down onto the beard; balm that flowed down Aaron’s beard, and reached the very skirts of his robe.” We read, as Jerome also remarks in commenting on the twenty-sixth Psalm, that David received a threefold anointment and so did Christ and the Christians.4 For the feet of the Lord and his head received the unction from a woman. But after he was dead, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, as John relates (19:38), buried him with spices. Christians, too, are sanctified by a threefold unction, once in baptism, a second time in confi rmation, and a third time in the anointing of the sick. Consider, then, the dignity of women, by whom Christ, when he was living, was twice anointed, on the head and on the feet, and from whom he thus received the sacraments of kingship and priesthood. The ointment of myrrh and aloes, which is used to preserve the bodies of the dead, prefi gured the future incorruptibility of the Lord’s body, the incorruptibility the elect also shall enjoy in the Resurrection. But the earlier anointing by the woman displays his special dignity both as King and as Priest: the anointing of the head, the higher dignity, and that of the feet, the lower dignity. He receives the sacrament of kingship from a woman, he who refused to accept the kingdom offered to him by men and fled from those who would have taken him by force to make him king. The woman performs the sacrament of the heavenly, not the earthly King, of him, I say, who said of himself afterward ( John 18:36): “My kingdom does not belong to this world.” Bishops are full of pride when, with the acclaim of the people, they anoint earthly kings, and when they consecrate mortal priests adorned with splendid golden vestments. Often they bless those whom the Lord curses. The humble woman, with no change of garment, with no prepared ritual, even in the face of the apostles’ anger, performed these sacraments for Christ, not by the office of prelacy, but in the zeal of devotion. O great constancy of faith, O inestimable ardor of charity, which believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things! The Pharisee murmurs when the feet of the Lord are anointed by the woman who was a sinner. The apostles are openly indignant because she 4

Jerome, Commentariolus in Psalmos 26, ed. Dom Morin (Maredsous, 1895).

102

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

has also presumed to touch his head. Each time the woman’s faith perseveres unmoved, confident in the kindness of the Lord, and on neither occasion does the support of the Lord’s praise fail her. How acceptable, indeed, and how pleasing the Lord found her ointment, he himself makes clear when, asking that it be kept for him, he says to the indignant Judas ( John 12:7): “Let her alone; enough that she should keep it for the day when my body is prepared for burial.” This is as if to say: Do not reject this service to the living, lest you deprive the dead of the service of her devotion. It is certainly true that holy women also prepared spices for the Lord’s burial, which this woman would then have been less concerned to do on that earlier occasion, if she had been humiliated by being rejected. For the disciples were indignant at this presumption on the woman’s part and, as Mark says, complained against her. But the Lord himself, after turning away their wrath with soft answers, praised this offering so highly that he wanted it to be recorded in the Gospel, to be preached with the Gospel wherever it was preached, in memory and in praise of the woman who had performed this act, for which she was accused of great presumption.5 It is nowhere related that the services of any other persons were so highly praised and so fully sanctioned by the authority of the Lord. In preferring the poor widow’s charity to all the offerings of the Temple, he also clearly shows how pleasing the devotion of women is to him.6 Peter, indeed, dared to boast that he and his fellow-apostles had given up everything for Christ,7 and on welcoming the Lord at his longed-for coming, Zacchaeus gave away half his goods to the poor and, if he had taken anything fraudulently, he restored it fourfold.8 Many others incurred greater expenses in and for Christ, and made far more precious offerings in the divine service, or gave them up for Christ’s sake. Yet they did not win so much praise and commendation from the Lord as the women did. The end of the Lord’s life shows plainly how great their devotion to him had always been. For when the prince of the apostles himself denied the Lord, and the apostle beloved by him fled, and the other apostles were scattered, the women remained intrepid.9 No fear or despair could separate them from Christ, either in his Passion or his death. Thus the saying of the Apostle may seem to apply especially to them (Rom. 8:35): “What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will affl iction, or distress?” When Matthew had said of himself and the others (26:56): “Now all his disciples abandoned him, and fled,” he also mentioned the perseverance of the women, who remained with the Crucified as long as it was permitted. “Many women,” he says (27:55), “stood watching from far off; they had followed Jesus from Galilee, to minister to him.” The same Evangelist describes them as 5 6 7 8 9

See Mark 14:9. See Mark 12:41–44. See Matt. 19:27. See Luke 19:1–10. See: Matt. 26:69ff.; Matt. 26:56 and Mark 14:50.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

103

remaining motionless by his sepulchre, saying (27:61): “But there were two who remained sitting there opposite the tomb, Mary Magdalen and the other Mary with her.” Thinking of them also, Mark says (15:40–41): “There were women there, who stood watching from afar off; among them were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome.” These women used to follow him and minister to him when he was in Galilee, and there were many others who had come up with him to Jerusalem. John also tells us (19:25–26) that he himself, who had fled earlier, stood by the Cross and stayed with the Crucified, but he mentions the perseverance of the women fi rst, as if he had been inspired and called back by their example. “Meanwhile,” he says, “his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen, had taken their stand beside the cross of Jesus. And Jesus, seeing his mother there, and the disciple too, whom he loved, standing by . . .” But long before this, inspired by the Lord, Job had prophesied this constancy of the holy women and the defection of the disciples, when he said (19:20): “Skin clinging to bone, save where the lips cover my teeth, is all that is left of me.” The strength of the body is in the bone, which sustains and nourishes the flesh and skin. In the body of Christ, which is the Church, his bone is called the stable foundation of the Christian faith, or that fervor of charity of which it is sung (Cant. 8:7): “Love is a fi re no waters avail to quench, no floods to drown.” Of this charity the Apostle also says (1 Cor. 13:7): “It sustains, believes, hopes, endures, to the last.” In the body, the flesh is the inner part, and the skin the outer. The apostles, then, who were intent on preaching the inner food of the soul, and the women who served the needs of the body, are compared to the flesh and the skin. When the flesh was consumed, the bones of Christ adhered to the skin, since when the apostles were scandalized by the Lord’s Passion and in despair at his death, the devotion of the holy women remained unshaken and in no way withdrew from the bone of Christ. In faith, hope, and charity, their devotion remained so constant that they would not be separated in mind or even in body from the dead. Men are naturally stronger than women, in both mind and body; the virile nature, therefore, is signified by the flesh, which is nearer the bone, and female infi rmity is indicated by the skin. The apostles themselves, whose function it is to bite, rebuking the failings of others, are called the teeth of the Lord. For them, only the lips remained when, already in despair, they merely spoke of Christ rather than of what they might do for Christ. Among these, certainly, were the disciples to whom Christ appeared and whom he chided for their despair, as they were traveling to the town of Emmaus, and discussing with one another all that had happened. What, fi nally, did Peter and the other disciples offer but words alone, when the Passion of the Lord had come and the Lord himself had foretold that they would be scandalized because of his Passion? And Peter said (Matt. 26:33–35): “Though all else should lose courage over you, I will never lose mine . . . I will never disown you, though I must lay down my life with you.” And all the rest of

104

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

his disciples said the like.” They said this, I say, but they did not do it. The fi rst and greatest of the apostles had such constancy in words that he could say to the Lord (Luke 22:33): “I am ready to bear you company, though it were to prison or to death,” and in committing his Church specifically to Peter, the Lord had then said: “When, after a while, you have come back to me, it is for you to be the support of your brethren.” But at the words of a single maidservant, Peter was not ashamed to deny him. He did this not once only, but denied him a third time while he was still living. Similarly, while he was still alive, the apostles ran away from him, in a single moment, but after his death, the women were not separated from him in either mind or body. Among these, that blessed sinner, seeking him after his death and testifying to her Lord, says ( John 20:2): “They have carried the Lord away from the tomb,” and she also says (20:15): “If it is you, Sir, that have carried him off, tell me where you have put him, and I will take him away.” Indeed, the rams flee and the shepherds of the Lord’s flock, but the ewes remain unafraid. The Lord rebuked the fi rst of these (the rams) as weak flesh, because in the very moment of his Passion they could not watch one hour with him.10 It was the women, spending a sleepless night weeping by his tomb, who deserved to be the fi rst to see the risen Lord. In their fidelity after his death they showed him, not so much by words as by deeds, how much they had loved him in life. By the same solicitude they had shown over his Passion and death, they were the fi rst to be made joyful by his Resurrection to life. When, according to John, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus wound the Lord’s body in linen cloths with spices and buried him, Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joseph, as Mark says concerning the zeal of these women, saw where he was laid.11 Luke also mentions them, saying (23:55–56): “And the women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how his body was buried; so they went back, and prepared spices and ointment, evidently regarding the spices of Nicodemus as not sufficient unless they added their own. On the Sabbath they rested, according to the commandment.” But, as Mark says (15:1), when the Sabbath was over, very early in the morning, on the day of the Resurrection itself, Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, came to the tomb. Now that I have demonstrated the devotion of these women, let me proceed to show the honor they merited. First of all, they were comforted by the angelic vision concerning the Lord’s Resurrection, now accomplished, and then they were the fi rst to see and touch the Lord himself. Mary Magdalen, who was more faithful than the others, was the very fi rst. After the angelic vision she and the others with her, as is written (Matt. 28:8–10): left the tomb, in fear and great rejoicing, and ran to tell the news to his disciples. And while they were on their way, all at once Jesus met them and said, ‘All hail.’ With that they came near to him, and clung to his feet, and worshipped him. Then 10 11

Matt. 26:41. See: John 19:38–40 and Mark 15:47.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

105

Jesus said to them . . . ‘go and give word to my brethren to remove into Galilee; they shall see me there.’

Luke also says (24:l0): “It was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, who told the apostles this.” Nor does Mark conceal the fact that it was these women who were fi rst sent by the angel to tell his disciples, for he writes that the angel said to the women (16:6–7): “He has risen again, he is not here . . . Go and tell Peter and the rest of his disciples that he is going before you into Galilee.” When the Lord himself appeared to Mary Magdalen, he said ( John 20:17): “Return to my brethren, and tell them this, I am going up to him who is my Father.” From these statements, we gather that these holy women were constituted, so to speak, apostles over the apostles, since they were sent to the apostles either by the Lord or by angels to announce the supreme joy of the Resurrection for which all were waiting, so that from them the apostles might fi rst learn what they were later to preach to the whole world. After the Resurrection, when the Lord met these women, the Evangelist relates that they were greeted by him, so that by meeting and greeting them, he might show how concerned he was for them and how grateful to them. For it is not said that he greeted others with that special form of words, “All hail”; indeed, he had already forbidden his disciples to use that salutation when he said to them (Luke 10:4): “Salute no man by the way.” This is as though he wished from that time onward to reserve for devout women this privilege, which in his own person he had displayed to them after he had assumed the glory of immortality. When the Acts of the Apostles relate that, immediately after the Lord’s Ascension, the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, and carefully describe the piety of that holy community, they do not fail to mention the perseverance in devotion of the holy women, where it is said (1:14): “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus.” But I shall now say no more about the Jewish women who were fi rst converted to the faith while the Lord was still living and preaching in the flesh, and who initiated the form of this religious life. Now let us consider the widows of the Greeks,12 who were later received by the apostles, and the care and concern with which these widows were treated by the apostles, who appointed that most glorious standard-bearer of the Christian army, Stephen the fi rst martyr, to serve them. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles (6:1–6): At that time, as the number of the disciples increased, complaints were brought against those who spoke Hebrew by those who spoke Greek; their widows, they said, were neglected in the daily administration of relief. So the twelve called together the general body of the disciples, and said, ‘It is too much that we should have to forgo preaching God’s word, and bestow our care upon tables. Come then, brethren, you must find among you seven men who are well spoken of, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom, for us to put in charge of this business, while we

12

Greek-speaking Christians in the early, apostolic Church.

106

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of preaching.’ This advice found favor with all the assembly and they chose Stephen, a man who was full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, who was a proselyte from Antioch. These were presented to the apostles, who laid their hands on them with prayer.

So the continence of Stephen was highly commended because he was appointed to the ministry and service of holy women. How excellent his service was and how acceptable to both the Lord and the apostles, they themselves testified by their prayers and by the laying on of hands, as if charging those whom they appointed for this service to act faithfully. By their blessing and their prayer, the women helped them as much as they could. Paul also claims this kind of service for himself, for the carrying out of his apostolate, when he says (1 Cor. 9:5): “Have we not the right to travel about with a woman who is a sister, as the other apostles do?” This is as if he were to say plainly: “Are we not permitted to have groups of holy women, and to take them about with us in our preaching, as the other apostles have been allowed to do, so that from their own substance, these women might provide them with things necessary for their preaching?” On this subject Augustine says in his book, On the Work of Monks: “For this reason, faithful women who possessed earthly substance went with them and ministered to them from their substance, so that they might not lack any of those things that pertain to the needs of this life.”13 He also says: If anyone doubts that the apostles permitted women of holy life to travel about with them wherever they preached the Gospel . . . let them hear the Gospel and know that they did this, following the example of the Lord himself . . . For it is written in the Gospel (Luke 8:1–4): ‘Then followed a time in which he went on journeying from one city or village to another, preaching and spreading the good news of God’s kingdom. With him were the twelve apostles, and certain women, whom he had freed from evil spirits and from sicknesses, Mary who is called Magdalen . . . and Joanna the wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to him with the means they had . . .’14

From this it is evident that, when the Lord went out preaching, his bodily needs were supplied by the women’s services and that they, like the apostles, were joined to him as inseparable companions. But in time, when the piety of this way of life had increased in women as well as in men, in the very beginning of the infant Church, women, like men, had monasteries as dwelling-places. Among other subjects, the Ecclesiastical History records how magnificently Philo, a most learned Jew, praised the church of Alexandria under Mark, not only in speech but in writing.15 For he said: “In many parts of the world there are men of this kind.” And he added: “In various places there are houses dedicated to prayer; such a house is called semaion or 13 14 15

Augustine, De opere monachorum 4.5, 5.6: PL 40, 552–53; CSEL 41, 538–39. Augustine, De opere monachorum 5.6: PL 40, 553; CSEL 41, 540. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.16: PG 20, 174.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

107

monastery.” He further reported: “They not only know the hymns of the learned ancients but also compose new hymns to God, chanting them in every tone and meter with a very good and sweet harmony.” To omit much else concerning abstinence and the offices of divine worship, the History adds: But with the men we have mentioned, there were also women, among whom are many virgins who are already very old and who have preserved the integrity and chastity of the body not from any necessity, but from devotion. They strive to consecrate themselves to the study of wisdom in both soul and body, thinking it unworthy to yield up to lust the vessel prepared for the reception of wisdom, and to bring to bed of a mortal birth those bodies of which a sacrosanct and immortal cohabitation with the Divine Word is required, and which may leave a posterity in no way subject to mortal corruption.16

In the same passage it is said of Philo: “He writes also concerning their communities that men and women are assembled separately in the same places and they keep vigils as is the custom among us.”17 There is also the statement in praise of Christian philosophy, that is, the monastic privilege, which, according to the Tripartite History, was assumed by women no less than men. For it is written in the eleventh chapter of the fi rst book: The founder of this most elegant philosophy was, some say, Elias the prophet or John the Baptist. Philo the Pythagorean relates that in his time the best of the Hebrews, coming from all parts, used to philosophize in a field on a hill by the Lake Maria. He mentions their dwelling-place and their food and their way of life, such as we now see existing among the Egyptian monks. He writes that . . . until sunset, they did not taste food . . . that they always abstained from wine and from things containing blood, that their food was bread and salt and hyssop, and their drink was water. Women lived among them, virgins of more mature years who abstained from marriage of their own free will for love of philosophy.18

On this subject, too, is that passage of Jerome in his book, On Illustrious Men, praising Mark and his church: The first to announce Christ in Alexandria, he founded a church of such great learning and continence of life as to compel all followers of Christ to his example. Then Philo, the most learned of the Jews, seeing that the first church of Alexandria was still Judaizing, wrote in praise of his own people a book on their conversion and, just as Luke tells us that in Jerusalem the faithful had everything in common, Philo commemorates what he saw done at Alexandria under the teaching of Mark.19 16 17 18 19

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.17: PG 20, 182. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.17: PG 20, 184. Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita: PL 69, 897cd; CSEL 71, 35–36. Jerome, Liber de illustribus viris 7: PL 23, 654.

108

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Jerome also writes in his eleventh chapter: Philo the Jew, an Alexandrian by birth, who belonged to a family of priests, is included by us among ecclesiastical writers because in writing a book concerning the first church of Mark the Evangelist in Alexandria, he praises our people, recording their life not only there but in many provinces, and calling their dwelling-places monasteries.20

From this it appears that in the beginning the Church of the believers in Christ followed the way of life that monks now imitate, and they held that nothing belonged to anyone as his property, that none among them was rich and none poor, that their inheritances were divided among the needy, and that they devoted themselves to prayer and psalms, to learning and continence, as Luke also reports of the fi rst Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 4:37). If we turn to the old histories, we shall fi nd there that women were not separated from men in those things which pertain to God, or to any excellence in religion. Women as well as men, according to the sacred histories, not only sang divine hymns, but composed them. Indeed, both men and women sang the fi rst hymn, celebrating the liberation of the children of Israel; from this, they at once acquired authority for celebrating the divine offices in the Church. For it is written (Exod. 15:20): “Hereupon Mary [Miriam] the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, went out with a tambour in her hand, and all the womenfolk followed her with tambour and with dances, and took up from her the refrain, ‘A psalm for the Lord, so great is he and so glorious.’ ” The prophet Moses is not mentioned there, and it is not said that he sang as Mary did, nor are the men reported to have had tambours or dances like the women. So when Mary, answering them, is called a prophet, it seems that it was not so much in chanting or reciting as in prophesy that she uttered that song. Moreover, when she is described as answering the others, this shows how orderly and harmonious their chant was. But the fact that they sang not with the voice alone, but with tambours and dance, suggests their very great devotion and also expresses mystically the special form of song in monastic communities. The Psalmist also urges us to this form of song when he says (Ps. 150:4): “Praise him with the tambour and the dance,” that is, in mortification of the flesh and in that concord of charity of which it is written (Acts 4:32): “There was one heart and soul in all the company of believers.” There is no lack of mystery in what they are reported to have done in their singing, in which are symbolized the joys of the contemplative soul, which in attaching itself to heavenly things deserts, as it were, the cities of its earthly life, and out of the secret delights of its contemplation, composes a spiritual hymn to the Lord with the greatest exultation. There are also the hymns of Deborah and Anna and the widow Judith, as in the Gospel there is the hymn of Mary, the mother of the Lord. When Anna, for example, offered her infant son Samuel in the tabernacle of the Lord, she 20

Jerome, Liber de illustribus viris 7: PL 23, 658.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

109

provided authority for the taking of children into monasteries. So Isidore [of Seville] says to the monks assembled in the Honorian community: Whoever has been placed by his own parents in a monastery, let him know that he is to remain there forever. For Anna offered to God her son Samuel, who remained also in the service of the Temple to which he had been dedicated by his mother, and he served there where he had been placed.21

It is evident also that the daughters of Aaron as well as their brothers belonged to the sanctuary and the hereditary office of Levi. For this reason the Lord made provision for their support, as it is written in the Book of Numbers (18:19), where he said to Aaron: “All the sanctuary dues which the sons of Israel offer I give to you and to your sons and daughters by a perpetual deed of gift.” So it appears that the religious life of women was not separated from the life of clerics and it is clear that these women were joined with the men in name, since we speak of deaconesses as well as deacons, as if in each of them we recognize the tribe of Levi and female Levites. We have in the same book that solemn vow and consecration of the Nazirites of the Lord, we established for men and women alike when the Lord himself said to Moses (Numbers 6:2–4): This message, too, the Lord gave to Moses for the sons of Israel. Man or woman that would be set apart for the Lord by taking the Nazirite vow must abstain from wine, and from all strong drink. They must not drink vinegar made from wine or from any such liquor, nor any draught that is strained from the grape; they must not eat grapes, whether fresh or dried. No fruit of the vine, grape or raisin, must pass their lips while the days of their consecration last.

Indeed, I believe that those women who gathered at the door of the tabernacle were of this religious way of life. From their mirrors, Moses made the washingbasin in which Aaron and his sons were to wash themselves, as it is written (Exod. 38:8): “Then he made a washing-basin and a stand for it, out of bronze from the mirrors of the women who used to keep watch at the door of the tabernacle.” The fervor of their devotion is carefully described, for when the tabernacle was closed, they stayed by its door and kept the holy vigils, passing the night in prayer and not interrupting the divine worship even while the men slept. But the fact that the tabernacle was closed to them fittingly indicates the life of penitents, who are separated from others in order to submit themselves to the more severe mortifications of penance. This is the special image of the monastic calling, whose discipline is said to be nothing but a milder form of penance. The tabernacle, at whose door they gathered, is to be understood mystically as the tabernacle of which the Apostle writes to the Hebrews (13:10): “We have an altar of our own, and it is not those who carry out the worship of the tabernacle that are qualified to eat its sacrifices.” This is to say that those are not worthy 21 Not Isidore of Seville, but quoted by Smaragdus and Gratian as having been written by Isidore: PL 102, 905ab; see Corpus Iuris Canonici 2a pars., causa 20, q.2, 1, C.4.

110

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

to share in this worship who devote themselves to the pleasures of the body, in which they serve here below as in a camp. But the door of the tabernacle is the end of this present life, when the soul departs from the body and enters into the life to come. At this door, those who assemble are anxious about leaving this life and entering upon the future life. By doing penance they so order their departure from this life that they may be worthy of entering the next. The Psalmist’s prayer touches on this daily entering and leaving of the holy Church (Ps. 120:8): “The Lord will protect your coming in and your going out.” For at one and the same time he protects our coming in and our going out, when on our departure from here, already purified by penance, he immediately takes us in there. The Psalmist rightly mentioned the entering there before the departure from mortal life, paying attention not to the order but to the dignity, since this departure from mortal life is in pain, but the entrance to eternal life is the supreme joy. The mirrors of the women are the external works by which the beauty or ugliness of the soul is judged, as the condition of the human face is discerned in a material looking-glass. From these mirrors is made the washing-basin in which Aaron and his sons may wash themselves, when the works of holy women and the very great devotion to God of the frail sex vigorously rebuke the negligence of bishops and priests, and move them especially to tears of compunction. If they care for these women as they should, the good works of the women will prepare for the sins of bishops and priests a pardon by which they may be absolved. Indeed, St. Gregory made himself a washing-basin of compunction from these mirrors when he marveled at the virtue of holy women and at the victory of the weak sex in martyrdom, asking with regret: What will bearded men say, when delicate girls bear such things for Christ, and the weak sex triumphs in so great a struggle that frequently we know they have won the twofold crown of virginity and martyrdom?22 I have no doubt that the blessed Anna truly belonged among these women of whom it has been said, gathered at the door of the tabernacle and, as Nazirites of the Lord, had already consecrated their widowhood to him. Together with Simeon, she was found worthy of receiving the special Nazirite of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in the Temple and, being seized more completely by the prophetic spirit, she recognized him by the Holy Spirit at the same instant as Simeon did, and she revealed his presence and announced it publicly. Speaking in praise of her, the Evangelist says (Luke 2:36): There was besides a prophetess named Anna, daughter to one Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser (a woman greatly advanced in age, since she had lived with a husband for seven years after her maidenhood, and had now been eighty-four years a widow) who abode continually in the Temple night and day, serving God with fasting and prayer. She too, at that very hour, came near to give God thanks, and spoke of the child to all that patiently waited for the deliverance of Israel.

Note each detail of what is said here and consider how zealously the Evangelist praised this woman and how highly he extolled her excellence. He carefully 22

Paraphrased from Gregory, Homiliae in Evangelia 2.11, 3: PL 76, 1116a.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

111

described the grace she enjoyed for so long a time, and her father, and her tribe, and the seven years during which she lived with her husband. He also described the long period of holy widowhood she spent in devotion to the Lord, and her assiduous service in the Temple. He mentioned as well her constancy in fasting and prayers, her confession of praise, the thanks she gave to the Lord, and her public preaching of the promise and birth of the Saviour. The Evangelist had previously praised Simeon, it is true, but for his righteousness, not for his prophecy, and he does not record that Simeon possessed so great a virtue of continence or abstinence, or such solicitude for divine worship. Nor did he add anything about his preaching to others. Sharing also in this life of religious devotion are those true widows of whom the Apostle says when he writes to Timothy (1, 5:3, 5): “Give widows their due, if that name really belongs to them. The woman who is indeed a widow, bereft of all help, will put her trust in God, and spend her time, night and day, upon prayers and petitions . . . Warn them of this, too, or they will bring themselves into disrepute.” He adds (1, 5:16): “If a believer has any widows dependent on him, he should undertake their support, leaving the church free to support the widows who are really destitute.” He calls those true widows who have not dishonored their widowhood by a second marriage, or who, persevering from devotion rather than necessity, have dedicated themselves to the Lord. He calls those desolate who renounce all things in such a way as not to keep any earthly solace for themselves, or who have no one to take care of them. He commands, indeed, that these women should be honored, and considers that they should be supported at the expense of the Church, as if from the property of Christ, their spouse. He expressly indicates those among them who are to be elected to the ministry of the diaconate, saying (1 Tim. 5:9–11): If a woman is to be put on the list of widows, she must have reached at least the age of sixty, and have been faithful to one husband. She must have a name for acts of charity; has she brought up children? Has she been hospitable? Has she washed the feet of the saints? Has she helped those who were in aff liction? Has she attached herself to every charitable cause? Have nothing to do with younger widows.

In developing this last point, St. Jerome says: With respect to the office of the diaconate, avoid giving a bad example rather than a good one. If, that is, the younger widows are chosen for this office, who are more subject to temptation and more frivolous by nature, and not being made wise by the experience of a long life, they may offer a bad example to the very persons to whom they should set a good one.23

The Apostle also speaks out plainly against this bad example in younger widows, of which he had already learned from experience, and he prescribes a 23

Pelagius, rather: PL 30, 926c. Cf. Pelagius, intro. Souter, 495.

112

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

remedy for it. After fi rst saying, “Have nothing to do with younger widows,” he immediately adds the reason for this warning (1 Tim. 5:11–16): They will live at their ease at Christ’s expense, and then be in favor of marrying again, thus becoming guilty of breaking the promise they have made. Meanwhile they learn habits of idleness as they go from house to house; nor are they merely idle, they gossip and interfere, and say what they have no right to say. So I would have the younger women marry and bear children and have households to manage; then they will give enmity no handle for speaking ill of us. Already there are some who have turned aside, to follow Satan.

Inspired by the Apostle’s wise precaution regarding the election of deaconesses, St. Gregory writes to Maximus, bishop of Syracuse: “We most vehemently forbid the selection of youthful abbesses. Therefore, my brother, you should allow no bishop to give the veil to anyone but a virgin of sixty years, whose life and morals have been tested.”24 Those whom we now call “abbesses” were called “deaconesses” in ancient times, that is, “ministers” rather than “mothers.” For “deacon” means “minister,” and it was thought that “deaconesses” should receive their name from their ministry rather than their rank, according to what the Lord established by his examples and also by his words, when he said (Matt. 23:11): “Among you the greatest of all is to be the servant of all.” Also (Luke 22:27): “Tell me, which is the greater, the man who sits at table, or the man who serves him? Surely the man who sits at table; yet I am here among you as your servant.” He says elsewhere (Matt. 20:28): “So it is that the Son of Man did not come to have service done him; he came to serve others.” On the Lord’s authority, Jerome even dared to attack the very name of ‘abbot,’ on which he knew that many now prided themselves. Explaining that passage in the epistle to the Galatians in which it is written: Crying out in us, Abba, Father, ‘he says, “Abba” is a Hebrew word meaning the same as “Father.” And since “Abba” means “Father” in the Hebrew and Syriac languages and the Lord says in the Gospel that no man is to be called “Father” except God, I do not know by what license we in the monasteries either call others by this name or allow ourselves to be called. Certainly, he who commanded this had said that we must not swear; if we do not swear, let us not call any man “Father.” If we interpret the word “Father” in a different fashion, we shall be forced also to think differently about swearing.25

It is certain that one of these deaconesses was that Phoebe of whom the Apostle said, when he commended her highly to the Romans and petitioned them in her behalf (Rom. l6:2): I commend our sister Phoebe to you; she has devoted her services to the church at Cenchrae. Make her welcome in the Lord as saints should, and help her in any 24 25

Gregory, Ep. 4.11: PL 77, 681b; MGH, Epp. 1, 245. Jerome, Comm. in Epistolam ad Galatas 4.6: PL 26, 400ab.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

113

business where she needs your help; she had been a good friend to many, myself among them. Explaining this passage, both Cassiodorus and Claudius declare that she was a deaconess of that church. Cassiodorus says:26 It means that she was a deaconess of the Mother Church, following a practice of apprenticeship or, so to speak, training in arms, which is still followed in the Greek regions to this day; and the Church does not deny these deaconesses the power of baptizing.

Claudius says that “this passage teaches on apostolic authority that women also may be ordained in the service of the Church. Phoebe, who was entrusted with this office in the church at Cenchrae, is highly praised and commended by the Apostle.”27 In his letter to Timothy, St. Paul includes these women among the deacons themselves and gives them the same rule of life. When he is describing the order and ranks of ecclesiastical offices and has descended from bishop to deacon, he says (1 Tim. 3:8–13): Deacons, in the same way, must be men of decent behavior, not given to deep drinking or to money-getting, keeping true, in all sincerity of conscience, to the faith that has been revealed. These, in their turn, must first undergo probation, and only be allowed to serve as deacons if no charge is brought against them. The womenfolk, too, should be modest, not fond of slanderous talk; they must be sober, and in every way worthy of trust. The deacon must be faithful to one wife, good at looking after his own family and household. Those who have served well in the diaconate will secure for themselves a sure footing, and great boldness in proclaiming that faith which is founded on Christ Jesus.

As he says fi rst regarding deacons, they are “men of their word”; he says of deaconesses, they are “not fond of slanderous talk.” As he says of deacons, “they are not given to deep drinking,” he says that deaconesses should be “sober.” But all the rest that follows regarding deacons, he sums up with respect to deaconesses in these words, “they are in every way worthy of trust.” As he forbids bishops and deacons to marry twice, he has also established, as I have said before, that deaconesses shall not marry more than once (1 Tim. 5:9–11): If a woman is to be put on the list of widows, she must have reached, at least, the age of sixty, and have been faithful to one husband. She must have a name for acts of charity; has she brought up children? Has she been hospitable? Has she washed the feet of the saints? Has she helped those who were in aff liction? Has she attached herself to every charitable cause? Have nothing to do with younger widows.

It is easy to see how much more careful the Apostle was in this description or instruction of deaconesses than in the regulations for both bishops and deacons. Nowhere does he say of deacons what he says of deaconesses: “She must have 26

Probably from his commentary on Romans, now lost. Probably from the lost commentary on Romans, now lost? This is probably Claudius, bishop of Turin, who taught in the palace school at Aachen under Louis the Pious. 27

114

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

a name for acts of charity,” or “has she been hospitable?” Nor does he say concerning bishops and deacons what he adds regarding the deaconess, “Has she washed the feet of the saints?” He says of bishops and deacons, “if no charge is brought against them.” But he not only commands that the women shall be blameless, but says that they shall have attached themselves to every good cause. When he says they must have reached, at least, the age of sixty, he also provides carefully for their maturity of age. Thus they may have authority in all things and reverence may be paid not only to their lives but also to their great age. On this account, although the Lord loved John most dearly, he nevertheless set Peter, who was the elder, over him as well as the others. All men are less displeased when an older, rather than a younger, man is set over them and we more willingly obey an older person, to whom not only life but also nature and the order of time have given priority. For this reason, Jerome says in the fi rst book of his Against Jovinian, when he is discussing the prelacy of Peter: One is chosen, so that with an established head all occasion for schism may be removed. But why was John not chosen? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder, in order that one who was still a youth and almost a boy, should not be preferred to men of more advanced age. And thus the Good Master, who was obliged to remove all occasion for quarreling among the disciples, might not seem to supply a reason for jealousy of the young man whom he loved.28

This matter was given careful consideration by that abbot who, it is written in the Lives of the Fathers, took away the office of prior from a younger monk who had come earlier to the monastic life and gave it to an older one, who was his brother, for the sole reason that he was the elder in years.29 He was afraid that this blood brother might resent the placing of a younger man over him. He recalled that the apostles themselves had become angry at two of their number when their mother interceded with Christ and seemed to obtain some privilege, especially since one of these two was younger than the other apostles—namely, John himself, whom I have just mentioned. It was not only in regulating the life of deaconesses that the Apostle exercised such watchful care; it is clear in general how zealous he was concerning widows of holy life, in order to remove all occasion for temptation. After he had said (1 Tim. 5:3–4): “Give widows their due, if that name really belongs to them” he immediately added: “If a widowed woman is left with children or grandchildren, she must be warned that her own flesh and blood has the fi rst claim on her piety.” Somewhat further on he says (5:8): “The man who makes no provision for those nearest him, above all his own family, has contradicted the teaching of the faith, and indeed does worse than the unbelievers do.” In these words he provides at one and the same time for the needs of humanity and those of the religious life. Thus poor orphans may not be abandoned on the 28 29

Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.26: PL 23, 258cd. Vitae Patrum 5.113: PL 73, 932d.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

115

pretext of religion, and earthly compassion for the needy may not disturb the widow’s holy way of life and force her to look backward, and sometimes even lead her to sacrilege and to defrauding the community by providing something for her own family. The need for this advice is clear, in order that, before they pass over to true widowhood and devote themselves entirely to the divine service, those who are involved in the care of households may provide for their children and in this way recompense their own parents, with whose care they themselves were reared. To encourage still further the religious life of widows, the Apostle also commands that they continue night and day in supplications and prayers. Very much concerned for their needs, he says (1 Tim. 5:16): “If a believer has any widows depending on him, he should undertake their support, leaving the church free to support the widows who are really destitute.” This is as though he were to say that if there is any widow with relatives who are able to provide for her needs from their own resources, they should provide for her in this way, so that the public funds of the Church may suffice to support the rest. This statement shows clearly that those who refuse to support the widows belonging to them are to be compelled by apostolic authority to discharge the debt. The Apostle is providing not only for the needs of widows but also for their honor when he says (1 Tim. 5:16): “Give widows their due if that name really belongs to them.” Among these widows, in my opinion, were both the woman whom Paul himself calls mother and the other whom John the Evangelist calls his lady, out of reverence for their holy life. Writing to the Romans (16:13), St. Paul says: “My greetings to Rufus, a chosen servant of the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me.” And in his second epistle, John says (2 John 1:1): “I, the presbyter, send greeting to that sovereign lady whom God has chosen, and to those children of hers.” Asking also that he may be loved by her, he adds later (2 John 1:5): “And now, sovereign lady, I have a request to make of you . . . let us all love one another.” Relying on his authority, when Jerome writes to Eustochium, the virgin who followed your way of life, he is not ashamed to call her “lady.” Indeed, he immediately explains why he should do so, when he says: “For this reason, I write ‘my lady Eustochium.’ I must call her ‘my lady’ who is the bride of my Lord.”30 Later in the same letter, placing the prerogative of this holy calling above every glory of earthly happiness, he says: I do not wish you to consort with matrons, I do not wish you to enter the houses of noblemen, and see frequently what you rejected when you wished to be a virgin . . . If the ambitious ladies of the court gather around the emperor’s wife, why should you do your husband an injury? Why should you, the bride of God, hasten to the wife of a man? Learn holy pride in this matter; know that you are better than they.31

30 31

Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 2: PL 22, 395; CSEL 54, 145. Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 16: PL 22, 395; CSEL 54, 145.

116

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Writing to a virgin dedicated to God concerning virgins thus consecrated to him, Jerome also begins by describing the blessedness they enjoy in heaven, and the dignity on earth: The great blessedness that holy virginity shall enjoy in heaven we are taught by the testimony of the Scriptures as well as by the custom of the Church. From these we learn that there is a special merit in those who are consecrated physically. Each member of the multitude of the faithful receives equal gifts of grace and all rejoice in the same benefits of the sacraments. But virgins have a special privilege, greater than the others, because through the merits of their intention they are chosen by the Holy Spirit from the holy and spotless f lock of the Church as holier and pure victims, and offered by the high priest on the altar of God . . . . Virginity, therefore, possesses something that the others do not have, since it obtains a special grace and rejoices, if I may say so, in its own privilege of consecration. 32

For the consecration of virgins, except in imminent danger of death, may not be celebrated at any other times than Epiphany, the White Sunday of Easter, and the Nativities of the apostles. Nor are virgins or the veils that are to be laid on their precious heads to be blessed by anyone but the high priest, that is, the bishop. On the other hand, although monks are bound by the same vows and belong to the same order and to a worthier sex, they are permitted, even if they are also virgins, to receive the blessing on any day whatsoever and from the abbot, both for themselves and for their garments, that is, their cowls. Priests and other clerics of the lower ranks can always be consecrated on any Sunday. But since the consecration of virgins is more precious, it is also rarer and it is reserved for the joyfulness of the principal feasts. In their marvelous virtue the whole Church rejoices, as the Psalmist foretold when he said (Ps. 44:15–16): “The maidens of her court follow her into your presence, all rejoicing, all triumphant, as they enter the king’s palace!.” Matthew, who was at once an apostle and an evangelist, is said to have composed or dictated the ritual of this consecration, as we read in his Acts, where it is recorded with reference to his passion that he fell as a martyr for their consecration, or in defense of the virginal calling. But the apostles have not left us in writing any blessing for the consecration of clerics or monks. Only the calling of nuns receives its name from the word “sanctity,” since they have been called “sanctimoniales,” from the word “sanctimony,” that is, “sanctity.” Just as women are the weaker sex, so their virtue is more pleasing to God and more perfect, according to the Lord himself when, encouraging the apostles in their weakness to strive for the crown, he says (2 Cor. 12:9): “My grace is enough for you; my strength fi nds its full scope in your weakness.” Similarly, when he spoke through the Apostle of the members of his body, which is the Church, as though he would especially praise the honor of such weak members, he added in the first epistle to the Corinthians (12:22–25): 32

This description is from Virginum Laus: PL 30, 168, not by Jerome.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

117

On the contrary, it is those parts of our body which seem most ignoble that are necessary to it; what seems base in our bodies, we surround with a special honor, treating with special seemliness that which is unseemly in us, whereas that which is seemly in us has no need of it. Thus God has established a harmony in the body, giving special honor to that which needed it most. There was to be no want of unity in the body; all the different parts of it were to make each other’s welfare their common care.

But who would say that the dispensation of the divine grace was ever so completely fulfi lled as in the very weakness of the female sex, which both sin and nature had made contemptible? If you consider the various states of life among women, not only virgins and widows or wives but also the harlots and their abominations, you will see that the grace of Christ has been more abundant in women, so that, according to the words of the Lord and the apostle (Matt. 20:16): “They shall be fi rst who were last, and they shall be last who were fi rst,” and (Rom. 5:20): “As our fault was amplified, grace has been more amply bestowed than ever.” If we look for the benefits of this divine grace and the honors shown to women from the beginning of the world, we shall fi nd at once that the creation of woman was of greater dignity, since she was created in Paradise and man was created outside. So women are urged to pay special attention to the fact that Paradise is their native land. It is, therefore, so much more fitting for them to follow the celibate life of Paradise. For this reason, Ambrose says in his book On Paradise: And God took the man whom he had already made and placed him in Paradise . . . You see how he who already existed was taken . . . and God placed him in Paradise . . . Note that the man was made outside Paradise, and the woman inside. Man, who was created in the inferior place, is considered better and she who was made in the better place is regarded as inferior. 33

Moreover, in Mary, the Lord also fi rst restored Eve, the root of all evil, before he restored Adam in Christ. As sin began with women, so does grace, and the holy privilege of virginity has flowered again. Anna and Mary offered to widows and virgins a model of their holy calling before examples of the monastic way of life were set before men by John and the apostles. But if after Eve, we consider the virtue of Deborah, Judith, and Esther, we shall surely be not a little ashamed of the virile sex. For Deborah, a judge of the Lord’s people, went into battle after the men failed; when their enemies had been overthrown and the Lord’s people set free, she celebrated the greatest of victories ( Judg. 4:4ff.). Unarmed, and accompanied only by her maidservant, Judith approached a terrible army and cutting off the head of Holofernes with his own sword, by herself she destroyed all her enemies and set free a people in despair ( Judith 8ff.). At the secret suggestion of the Spirit, Esther joined herself 33

Ambrose, De paradiso 4.24: PL 14, 300b.

118

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

in marriage with the Gentile king, against the decree of the Law, and forestalling the plot of the most wicked Haman and the cruel edict of the king, in less than a moment she reversed the decree already established by the royal will (Esther 2:5ff.). It is considered a miracle of courage that David attacked Goliath with a sling and a stone, and vanquished him. But the widow Judith advanced into battle against the hostile army without sling or stone, with no arms whatsoever ( Judith 10). By her word alone, Esther set her people free and when the decree was turned against her enemies, they rushed into the trap that they had set. Among the Jews the memory of this famous deed has won the tribute of a solemn festival every year, which has never been achieved by any deeds of men, however splendid. Who does not marvel at the incomparable constancy of the mother of seven sons? When they were captured, together with their mother, as the history of the Maccabees tells us, the wicked King Antiochus tried in vain to force them to eat the flesh of swine contrary to the Law. This mother, forgetting her own nature and disregarding human affection, with no one but the Lord before her eyes, triumphed in as many martyrdoms as the number of sons she sent before her to the crown by her holy exhortations, and she consummated her sacrifice with her own martyrdom (2 Mach. 7). If we search through the whole of the Old Testament, what can we fi nd to compare with the constancy of this woman? Satan, after exhausting his forceful temptations against the holy Job, and knowing the weakness of human nature in the face of death, said ( Job 2:4): “Skin must suffer before skin grieves. Nothing a man owns, but he will part with it to keep his skin whole.” By nature we are all so fearful of the straits of death that we often sacrifice one member in defense of another and will undergo any evil in order to preserve our lives. But this woman suffered the loss not only of everything she possessed, but of her own life and her sons’ lives, rather than commit a single offense against the Law. And what, I ask you, was this transgression to which she was being forced? Was she being compelled to renounce God or to offer incense to idols? No, all that was demanded of them was that they eat meat forbidden them by the Law. Oh, brothers and fellow-monks who, contrary to the prescription of the Rule, and the vows you have sworn, yearn so shamelessly every day for meat, what do you have to say to the constancy of this woman?34 Are you so shameless that you do not blush to hear these things, that you are not confounded by them? You know, my brothers, what the Lord said, reproaching the unbelievers, concerning the queen of the south (Matt. 12:42): “The queen of the south will rise up with this generation of the day of judgment, and will leave it without excuse.” But the constancy of this woman is a much greater accusation against you, because she did far more than you have done, though by your vows you are bound more strictly to the religious life. Indeed, her virtue, which was proved in so great a contest, has deserved to obtain in the Church the privilege of having her martyrdom celebrated by solemn lessons and a Mass. This is a privilege that has not been granted to any other saints of the Old Testament, that is, those whose 34 Is Abelard addressing here the monks and lay brothers of an ideal Paraclete envisaged in his Rule? Or is this an aside, addressed to these men in general?

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

119

death preceded the coming of the Lord, although in the same history of the Machabees, the venerable old man, Eleazar, one of the chiefs of the Scribes, is said to have been crowned with martyrdom earlier and for the same reason. But since, as I have said, the female sex is naturally weaker, its virtue is more pleasing to God and worthier of honor. So that martyrdom of Eleazar, in which no woman shared, has not merited any remembrances in our feasts, as if it were considered no great matter that the stronger sex should endure more manfully. For this reason the Scripture burst out more eloquently in praise of this woman, saying (2 Mach. 7:20–21): “And here was the greatest marvel of all, by honest folk ever to be kept in mind, that the mother of seven children should be content to lose them all in one day, for the hope she had in God’s mercy. What generosity of mind was this, that could temper her womanly feelings with a man’s thoughts!” Who would not consider the daughter of Jephthah uniquely deserving of praise among virgins (see Judg. 11:30–40)? In order that her father should not be held to account for his rash vow and the promised victim cheated of the benefits of divine grace, she herself urged him, after his victory, to cut her throat. What, I ask you, would she have done in the struggle of the martyrs, if by chance she had been forced by unbelievers to become an apostate by denying Christ? If she had been questioned concerning Christ, would she have said with Peter, who was already prince of the apostles (Luke 22:57): “I do not know him?” After her father had sent her away in freedom for two months, she returned at the end of that time to be killed. Willingly she offers herself to death, provoking it rather than fearing it. Her father’s foolish vow is punished and in great love for the truth, she redeems her father’s life. Would she not have abhorred in herself the perjury that in her father she could not endure? How great was the devotion of this virgin to her earthly, as well as to her heavenly father! She was determined, by her death, to free the one from perjury and at the same time to preserve for the other what had been promised to him. So the courageous spirit of this girl deservedly obtained the special privilege that every year the daughters of Israel gather together to celebrate the obsequies of this virgin with solemn hymns and commemorate her suffering with pious laments. Not to mention other examples, what has been so necessary to our redemption and to the salvation of the whole world as the female sex, which gave birth for us to the Savior himself? This unique honor was used as an argument to counter the amazement of St. Hilarion by the woman who fi rst dared to intrude on his privacy. For she said: “Why do you avert your eyes? Why do you turn away from my appeal? Do not look upon me as a woman, but as one who is wretched. This sex gave birth to the Savior!”35 What glory can be compared to that which this sex won in the mother of the Lord? If he had wished to do so, our Redeemer could have assumed his body from a man, as he willed to form the first woman from the body of a man. 36 But 35

Jerome, Vita S. Hilarionis 13: PL 23, 34c. Cf. Augustine, Sermo. 51.2: PL 38, 334, and for the other possibilities: Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram 19.16, 30: PL 34, 405. 36

120

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

he turned this singular favor of his humility to the honor of the weaker sex. He could also have been born of another and worthier part of the woman’s body than are other men, who are born of that same most lowly part in which they are conceived. But to the incomparable honor of the weaker body, he consecrated its genitals far more by his birth than he had dignified those of men by his circumcision. Saying nothing further at the moment about the singular honor of virgins, I must turn my attention, as I planned, to other women. Consider, then, how much grace the coming of Christ bestowed on Elizabeth the wife and Anna the widow.37 Zachary, the husband of Elizabeth and a great priest of the Lord, was still silent in the diffidence of unbelief, while Elizabeth herself, when Mary came and greeted her, was fi lled at once with the Holy Spirit. She felt the child leap in her own womb and, showing herself to be more than a prophet, she was the fi rst to foretell that Mary had also conceived. For she immediately announced to the virgin that she had conceived, and urged the Lord’s mother herself to magnify (glory in) him for this (as in “my soul doth magnify the Lord”) (Luke 1:46–55). The gift of prophecy is thus, evidently, more excellently fulfi lled in Elizabeth, who at once recognized the Son of God at his conception, than in John, who only proclaimed him a long time after his birth. So as I have called Mary Magdalen the apostle over the apostles, I do not hesitate to call Elizabeth the prophet over the prophets, and also that holy widow Anna, of whom I have written more fully above. But if we allow the gift of prophecy to the Gentiles also, let the Sibyl appear in our midst and testify to those things that were revealed to her concerning Christ. 38 If we compare all the prophets with her, even Isaiah himself—who, as Jerome says, is to be called not so much a prophet as an evangelist 39—we shall see that in this gift, too, women are far superior to men. Invoking her testimony against five heresies, Augustine says of the Sibyl: Let us hear what the Sibyl, their prophetess, has to say about this. ‘The Lord,’ she says, ‘has given another to be worshipped by men of faith.’ She also says, ‘Know that he is thy Lord, the Son of God.’ In another place, she calls the Son of God Symbolum, that is, ‘Counselor,’ or ‘Counsel.’ And the prophetess says, ‘They shall call him the “Admirable One,” the “Counselor.” ’40

In the eighteenth book of The City of God, Augustine also says of the Sybil: Some maintain that at that time the Erythrean Sibyl made this prophecy . . . while others say it was the Sibyl of Cumae . . . . And there are twenty-seven books of her 37

For Elizabeth, see: Luke 1:5ff; for Anna, see: Luke 2:25ff. Sibyl: One of a number of women located at oracles who were regarded as authoritative prophetesses in the pagan world of antiquity. Early Christians, such as Augustine, gave some weight to these sibylline prophecies, interpreting them as early prophecies regarding Christ. 39 See Jerome’s Prologue to his Commentarii in Isaiam Prophetam. 40 PL 42, 1103: a spurious work, not known to Abelard as spurious. 38

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

121

prophecy, which . . . as some have interpreted them in Latin verses . . . contain the following: In token of judgment, the earth shall sweat. From heaven a king shall come, and he shall be Throughout the ages present in the f lesh, And he will judge the world . . . And he will judge the world . . .

When the fi rst letters of these verses are joined together in Greek, they form the following: “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour . . .” Lactantius also quotes certain prophecies of the Sibyl concerning Christ: Afterwards (she says) he will fall into the hands of unbelievers. They will strike God with their unclean hands and they will spit forth envenomed spittle from their impure mouths; but he will offer his holy back meekly to their blows and he will receive them silently, so that none may find out the words, or whence it comes, that he will speak in hell. And he shall be crowned with thorns. For food they will give him gall and vinegar to quench his thirst; this is the table which, in their hospitality, they will set for him. For, foolish people, you have not recognized your God, playing in the minds of mortals, but you have crowned him with thorns, you have mixed gall for him. The veil of the Temple shall be rent and at mid-day there shall be night for three hours; and he shall die and for three days he shall be fallen asleep, and then, returning from hell, he shall come to the light . . . to make manifest the beginning of the Resurrection.41

Surely, if I am not mistaken, this Sibylline prophecy had been heard and well noted by the greatest of our poets, Virgil. In his fourth Eclogue he foretold the miraculous birth that was shortly to occur under Augustus Caesar in the consulate of Pollio. A child was to be born, sent from heaven to earth, who should also take away the sins of the world and miraculously establish, as it were, a new age in the world. As Virgil himself says, he had been instructed by the prophecy of the Cumaean song, that is, of the Sibyl who is called Cumaean. So he says, as though urging all men to rejoice among themselves and to sing or write about this great child who is to be born, in comparison with whom he considers all other topics lowly and base: Sicilian Muse, take up a loftier theme! Hedgerow and humble tamarisk are not pleasing to all . . . Now comes the last great age, foretold in Sibyl’s song, Time, born again, begins its sequence new, Justice the maid returns; the rule of Saturn is restored, From heaven descends the new time’s fi rst-born son.42

If you examine everything the Sibyl said, you will see how completely and openly she embraced the sum of Christian belief concerning Christ. In 41 Augustine, De civitate Dei 18.23: PL 41, 580; CSEL 40.1, 299–300; internal quote of Lactantius is from Divina Institutio 4.18: PL 6, 505; CSEL 19, 11, 352ff. 42 Virgil, Eclogues 1–2, 4–7.

122

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

prophesying or writing, she did not fail to mention both his divinity and his humanity, both his fi rst and his second coming, or both of his judgments; I mean, the fi rst judgment in which, in his Passion, he was unjustly judged and the second, in which, in his majesty, he is so justly to judge the world. Since she forgets neither his descent into hell nor the glory of his Resurrection, she evidently surpasses not only the prophets but even the evangelists themselves, who wrote very little concerning that descent. Who does not marvel at the long and familiar conversation in which the Lord himself, alone with the Samaritan woman, condescended to give such careful instruction to this Gentile, to the great amazement of the apostles ( John 4:7ff )? He who, as we know, asked no one else for any kind of nourishment, chose to ask this woman for a drink, after he had reproached her for her unbelief and her numerous lovers. The apostles came to him and offered him the meat they had bought, saying ( John 4:31): “Master, take some food.” Yet we fi nd that their offerings were not accepted, but that he said, as if to excuse himself (4:32): “I have food to eat of which you know nothing.” He asked the woman for a drink, and she said, to excuse herself from this favor ( John 4:9): “How is it that you, who are a Jew, asks me, a Samaritan, to give you a drink”; (the Jews, you must know, have no dealings with the Samaritans). She also said ( John 4:11): “You have no bucket, and the well is deep.” So he who did not accept the food offered by the apostles sought a drink from an unbelieving woman, and one who refused him. What, I ask you, is this favor he shows to the weak sex, that he who gives life to all humanity should ask a woman for water? What is it but that he may openly suggest that the virtue of women is so much the more pleasing to him as their nature is known to be weaker, and that he thirsts more keenly for their salvation, the more admirable their virtue is known to be? So by asking this woman for a drink of water, he suggests that he wants chiefly to quench his thirst for the salvation of women. This drink he also calls food when he says: “I have food to eat of which you know nothing.” Explaining this food later, he says ( John 4:34): “My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me.” So he implies that this is, as it were, the special will of his Father where the salvation of women is concerned. We read also that the Lord had an intimate conversation with Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews, and when Nicodemus had come to him secretly, he instructed him concerning his salvation (see John 3:1–21). Yet this instruction did not bear fruit immediately. But we know that the Samaritan woman was fi lled at once with the spirit of prophecy and she testified that Christ had already come to the Jews and would also come to the Gentiles, when she said ( John 4:25): “I know that Messiah (that is, the Christ) is to come, and when he comes he will tell us everything.” Because of this woman’s words, many from that city came running to Christ and believed in him, and made him stay with them for two days, although on another occasion he had said to his disciples (Matt. 10:5): “Do not go . . . into the walks of the Gentiles, or enter any city of Samaria.” John writes elsewhere that certain of the Gentiles, who had come up to Jerusalem to worship on the feast day, sent word to Christ by Philip and Andrew that they wished to see him (see John 12:20ff.). But he does not say that they were admitted or that Christ gave of himself so abundantly at their request as he did

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

123

to that Samaritan woman who did not in any way ask it of him. It is evident that his preaching to the Gentiles began with her and not only did he convert her immediately, but through her, as has been said, he won over many to himself (see John 4:41). The wise men, who were suddenly delighted by the star and converted to Christ, are not said to have brought anyone to him by their exhortation or teaching, but to have come to him alone (see Matt. 2:12). From this, too, it is clear how much grace among the Gentiles Christ gave to the Samaritan woman who ran ahead of him into her city and announced his coming, preaching what she had heard and thus so quickly won over many of her people. If we examine both the Old Testament and the Gospel, we shall see that the supreme favors of resurrecting the dead were conferred by the divine grace chiefly on women and that such miracles were performed only for women or with respect to them. At the prayer of their mothers, we read, sons were restored to life by Elias and Elisha. When the Lord himself raised to life the son of a certain widow, and the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, and Lazarus, whose sisters prayed for this, he conferred the benefit of this exceedingly great miracle especially on women. So we have the statement of the Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews (11:35): “There were women, too, who recovered their dead . . . brought back to life.” The girl who was restored to life recovered her own body, and to console them, the other women had those whom they were mourning restored to them. From this it is clear how much grace the Lord has always bestowed on women, whom he fi rst made joyful by restoring both themselves and their men to life and later greatly exalted by fi rst appearing to women after his Resurrection. The female sex seems to have acquired merit because, among a people who persecuted him, it was moved by a certain natural compassion for the Lord. As Luke says (23:27), when the men were taking him out to be crucified, their women followed, mourning and lamenting him. It was to them that the Lord turned and, as though mercifully regarding their devotion in the very moment of his Passion, foretold the coming destruction to them, so that they might be able to escape it (Luke 23:28–29): “It is not for me that you should weep, daughters of Jerusalem; you should weep for yourselves and for your children. Behold, a time is coming when men will say, ‘It is well for the barren, for the wombs that never bore children . . . .’ ” Matthew also relates that the wife of the Lord’s most unjust judge strove for his release (27:19): “Even as he sat on the judgment-seat, his wife had sent him a message, ‘Do not meddle with this innocent man; I dreamed today that I suffered much on his account . . . .’ ” When he was preaching, only a woman, out of the whole crowd, raised up her voice in such praise of him that she called blessed the womb that bore him and the breasts that suckled him (Luke 11:27). She was at once privileged to hear the pious correction of her confession, though it was very true, when he himself hastened to answer her (Luke 11:28): “Shall we not say, ‘Blessed are those who hear the word of God, and keep it?’ ” Of all the apostles, John alone obtained the privilege of being called the Lord’s beloved. But John himself writes of Martha and Mary (11:5): “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” This same apostle who, as I have said, records that he

124

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

alone enjoyed the privilege of being called the Lord’s beloved, has attributed to these women the same privilege, which he ascribed to none of the other apostles. Moreover, if he associated their brother with them in this honor, he placed them before him because he believed that they came first in the Lord’s affection. Returning to Christian women, I must proclaim with wonder, and marvel to proclaim, the respect paid by the divine mercy to common harlots in their lowliness. Who could be more abject than Mary Magdalen or Mary the Egyptian, as far as their former life was concerned?43 Yet either by honor or by merit, the divine grace later raised them to the heights. The fi rst of these remained permanently in the apostolic community, as I have said before, and the other, it is written, strove with superhuman strength in the contests of the hermit’s life, so that the virtue of holy women might be preeminent among monks of both kinds. Thus what the Lord says to the unbelievers (Matt. 21:31): “The harlots are farther along the road to God’s kingdom than you,” could be applied to the faithful as well and those who were last, according to the difference of sex and of life, should become fi rst and the fi rst last. Who, fi nally, does not know that women took to heart the teaching of Christ and the advice of the Apostle with such zeal for chastity that to preserve the integrity of body and mind alike, they sacrificed themselves in martyrdom as a burnt offering? Triumphant in the twofold crown, they strove to follow the Lamb, the Bridegroom of virgins, wherever he might go [cf. Apoc. 14:4]. This perfection of virtue is rare indeed in men, but common in women. Some of them, we read, carried this zeal for purity of the flesh so far that they did not hesitate to lay hands on themselves, rather than forfeit the purity they had vowed to God and not come as virgins to their virginal Bridegroom. He has shown also that the devotion of holy virgins was so pleasing to him that he saved from the losses of both body and soul the multitude of a Gentile people who rushed to seek the protection of St. Agatha, when she spread out her veil against the terrible fi re of seething Etna.44 We have no evidence that any monk’s cowl ever obtained so great a favor. We do read that when the mantle of Elias touched it, the river Jordan was divided, so that he and Elisha passed over it on dry ground. But by the veil of a virgin a great multitude of people, who were unbelievers until then, were saved in both soul and body and when they were converted, the way to heaven lay open to them. This, too, is no small commendation of holy women, that they consecrated themselves by their own words, saying: “With his ring he has espoused me; I am betrothed to him.” These are the words of St. Agnes, by which the virgins who make the same vows as she did are betrothed to Christ.45 Anyone who wishes to know the form and dignity of your way of life among the Gentiles, and to draw from it examples for your instruction, will readily fi nd that among them, saving what pertains to the faith, a certain form of this calling 43 Mary of Egypt: a prostitute of Alexandria in the fifth century, who converted to Christianity and lived an eremitic life of severe asceticism in the Egyptian desert. 44 Acta S. Agathae 15: Acta SS. Feb. IV, p. 624. 45 Vita S. Agnetis 15: Acta SS. Jan. II, p. 715.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

125

existed. He will also discover that many practices existed among the Gentiles, as well as among the Jews, which the Church has taken over from both sources and retained, but has changed for the better. Who does not know that all the orders of the clergy, from doorkeeper to bishop, and the very use of the ecclesiastical tonsure, the mark of clerics, and the feasts of the four seasons and the offering of unleavened bread—not to mention the priestly adornments and vestments and certain ceremonies of dedication and other sacraments—were taken over by the Church from the Synagogue? Moreover, who is not aware that by a most profitable dispensation the Church has not only retained the ranks of secular dignities in kings and other princes, and certain decrees of the laws and philosophical works belonging to the converted peoples, but has also taken from them some ecclesiastical dignities and likewise the practice of continence and the life of bodily purity? It is clear that bishops and archbishops now preside where formerly there were flamens and archiflamens, and that the temples once dedicated to spirits were afterward consecrated to the Lord and dedicated to the memory of the saints. We know, too, that among the Gentiles the privilege of virginity was held in special honor, while the curse of the Law compelled the Jews to marry, and that this virtue or purity of the flesh was so highly esteemed by the Gentiles that in their temples large communities of women dedicated themselves to the celibate life. For this reason, Jerome says in the third book of his commentary on the epistle to the Galatians: “What ought we to do when, to our shame, Juno has her ‘one-man women’ and Vesta her virgins, and other idols their women vowed to continence?”46 He distinguished between “one-man women,” that is, nuns who have had husbands, and nuns who are virgins. For “monos,” from which we have “monk,” meaning “solitary,” signifies “one.” After citing many examples of chastity or continence in Gentile women, Jerome also says in the fi rst book of his Against Jovinian: “I know that I have multiplied examples of pagan women, but this is so that those who despise the faith of Christian modesty may at least learn chastity from the pagans.”47 In the same book he had already praised the virtue of chastity so highly that it would seem that the Lord has especially approved this purity of the flesh in every people and even exalted several unbelievers either by the conferring of merits or by the performance of miracles. “What shall I say,” he asks, “of the Erythrean Sibyl and the Cumaean Sibyl, and the other eight? For Varro says that there were ten who were distinguished by their virginity, and rewarded by the gift of divination.” And he said: “When Claudia, a Vestal virgin, was suspected of fornication, she is said to have drawn by her girdle a vessel which thousands of men could not move.”48 In the preface to his book, Sydonius, bishop of Clermont, says: Such as was neither Tanaquil nor she To whom thou, Trecipitinus, gave birth 46 47 48

Jerome, Comm. in Ep. ad Galatas 6: PL 26, 462b. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.47: PL 23, 288–89; Ovid, Fasti 4.305ff. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.41: PL 23, 283.

126

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Nor was she, to Phrygian Vesta vowed, Who against the Tiber’s foaming tide Drew a vessel by her virgin’s hair.49

In the twenty-second book of The City of God, Augustine says: If we come now to their miracles, which they claim were worked by their gods and which they oppose to our martyrs, do we not find that they serve our purpose and are most useful to our argument? For among the great miracles of their gods, the greatest surely was the one of which Varro tells, when a Vestal virgin, in danger because of a false suspicion of fornication, filled a sieve with water from the Tiber and carried it to her judges without spilling a drop from any part of it. Who bore the weight of the water when there were so many holes? Cannot Almighty God remove the weight of a terrestrial body in such a way that this body may exist vivified in any element the vivifying Spirit has willed it to?50

It is no wonder that in these and other miracles God has exalted the chastity of unbelievers or has allowed it to be exalted through the agency of spirits, so that believers may be the more stimulated to this virtue, the more they know of the honor in which it was held by unbelievers. We know, too, that grace was conferred on the office of the priesthood, not on the person of Caiaphas (see John 11:49–52), and that if false apostles sometimes seem brilliant in their performance of miracles (cf. Matt. 24:24), these were granted not to their persons but to their office. Is it surprising, then, if the Lord has made this concession not to the persons of unbelieving women, but to their virtue of continence, so that the innocent virgin might at least be set free and the false accusation of wickedness against her confounded? It is evident that the love of continence is a good thing even among unbelievers, as the observance of the marriage bond is a gift of God among all people. So it should not seem amazing that God should honor his gifts by signs shown to the unbelieving and not to those who believe. This is especially so when, as I have said, innocence is liberated by these signs and the wickedness of perverse men checked, and men are more powerfully incited to pursue a good that is so highly exalted, and causes unbelievers also to sin less, the more they abstain from pleasures of the flesh. Not unfairly, Jerome had already come to this conclusion, along with many others, when he wrote against the incontinent heretic Jovinian, that he should blush to fi nd in pagans a virtue not to be marveled at in Christians. Who, moreover, would deny that even the power of unbelieving princes, though they may use it perversely, is a gift of God, as also are the love of justice or the clemency they show when they are guided by the natural law, or the other virtues becoming to princes? Who would say that because these qualities are mixed with evil, they are not good, especially when, according to St. Augustine and the manifest evidence of reason, things cannot be evil except in a good 49 50

Sidonius of Clermont, Carmina 24: MGH, Auct. Antiq. 8, 262–63. Augustine, De civitate Dei 22.11: PL 41, 773; CSEL 40.2, 616–17.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

127

nature?51 Who does not approve the thought embodied in the poet’s maxim: “It is for love of virtue that good men shrink from sinning”?52 Who, in order to encourage princes to imitate this example, would not approve rather than reject the miracle attributed to Vespasian by Suetonius—I mean, his healing of the blind man and the lame man or what St. Gregory is reported to have done for the soul of Trajan?53 Men know how to fi nd a pearl in the mire and how to separate the grain from the chaff. God cannot fail to acknowledge his gifts, even when they have been bestowed on unbelievers, nor can he hate any of the gifts that he has given. The more brilliant the signs of these benefits, the more clearly does God show that they are his; nor can his gifts be corrupted by human wickedness who, by revealing himself in this way to unbelievers, shows what those who believe may hope from him. The great dignity achieved among the unbelievers by the chastity of virgins dedicated to the service of the temples is demonstrated by the punishment meted out to those who violated this virtue. In his fourth satire, Against Crispinus, Juvenal says of this punishment: With him the Vestal crowned with fillets lately lay, Who now with blood still warm must lie beneath the earth.54

On this subject Augustine also says, in the third book of The City of God: The ancient Romans themselves used to bury alive the priestesses of Vesta who were taken in fornication . . . But adulteresses, though subject to some punishment, were never condemned to death; so much more harshly did they avenge what they considered a divine sanctuary than they did the human marriage-bed.55

As for ourselves, Christian princes make more careful provisions for your chastity, since they have no doubt that it is still more sacred. So the Emperor Justinian says: “If anyone shall dare, I do not say to ravish, but merely to approach the holy virgins with a view of matrimony, he shall be punished with death.”56 There is no doubt also concerning the severe sanctions by which ecclesiastical discipline, which seeks the remedy of penitence rather than punishment by death, prevents your lapses. To confi rm this, we have the word of Pope Innocent to Bishop Victricius: “Those who are spiritually wedded to Christ and are veiled by the priest, if afterwards they either marry publicly or are secretly corrupted, are not to be admitted to the performance of penance, unless he to whom they have joined themselves should have departed this life.”57 51

Augustine, De civitate Dei 12.6: PL 41, 353ff.; CSEL 40.1, 574. Horace, Letters 1.16.52. 53 Suetonius, Vita Caesarum, Vespasian 7. 54 Juvenal, “Contra Crispinum,” Satirae 4.8–9. 55 Augustine, De civitate Dei 3.5: PL 41, 82; CSEL 40.1, 114. 56 Codex Justinianus 1, 3, 5, in Corpus juris civilis. ed. P. Krueger (1877), 19. 57 Pope Innocent I, Ep. 2 to Victricius, 13: PL 20, 478–79. 52

128

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

But those who have not taken the veil, yet who nonetheless have always pretended to remain in the virginal state, are to do penance for a certain time, even though they have not been veiled, because their bridal vow is held by the Lord. If, among men, it is commonly accepted that contracts made in good faith may not be broken for any reason, how much less can the pact these women have made with God be broken without punishment? If the Apostle Paul said that those who have abandoned the state of widowhood stand condemned because they have broken their fi rst promise, how much more so are virgins who have not kept at all the vows of their former state? It was this thought that inspired the famous Pelagius when he wrote to the daughter of Mauritius: She who is an adulteress against Christ is guiltier than one who is an adulteress against her husband. For this reason the Roman Church rightly decreed, not long ago, such a severe sentence for an offense of this kind, that it hardly considers those fit to receive penance who have polluted with lust the body consecrated to God.58

If we wish to examine the care, solicitude, and charity that the holy doctors, inspired by the examples of the Lord himself and of the apostles, have always shown to devout women, we shall fi nd that they sustained and encouraged the devotion of these women with the greatest affection, and steadfastly directed and increased their piety with numerous instructions and exhortations. Without mentioning others, I may cite the principal doctors of the Church, namely, Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome. The fi rst of these, the greatest Christian philosopher, devoted himself so zealously to the religious life of women that, according to the Ecclesiastical History, he laid hands on himself, so that no suspicion might prevent him from teaching and guiding women.59 Who does not know, moreover, how great a harvest of books St. Jerome left to the Church, at the request of Paula and Eustochium? Among other things, he told them when he was writing a sermon at their request on the Assumption of the Lord’s mother: “But since I cannot refuse anything you ask, bound as I am by my great love of you, I shall attempt what you urge me to do.”60 We know, on the other hand, that several of the greatest doctors, men of the very highest dignity in the order to which they belonged, as well as in their lives, wrote to Jerome when they were far away, begging for a few lines from him, and they did not receive them. As Augustine says in the second book of the Retractions: I wrote two books also for the priest Jerome, when he was living in Bethlehem, one on the origin of the soul and the other concerning the opinion of the apostle James when he says (2:10): “The man who has failed in one point, though he has kept the rest of the law, is liable to all its penalties, and I consulted him about each of these. In the first, I myself did not resolve the question I proposed; in the 58 In a work then known as Virginitatis Laus, attributed to Jerome (PL 30, 181a), among several others. (How did Abelard discover its true attribution?). 59 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 6.8, 1–2: PG 20, 538. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origin.” 60 PL 30, 126: now attributed to Paschasius Ratbertus.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

129

second, I did not conceal what seemed to me to be its solution. But I wanted to know whether he approved of it, so I asked him about it. He answered, praising me for consulting him, but saying that he did not have time to reply. As long as he was alive, I was unwilling to publish these books, hoping that he might reply sometime and thinking it would be better if the books were published with his answer. But now that he is dead, I have published them.”61

Think how this great man waited so long for a very brief reply from Jerome and did not receive it. Yet we know that, at the urging of the women I have mentioned, he labored over the copying and the dictation of many great volumes, showing in this far more reverence for them than for a bishop. Perhaps he was more zealously concerned for their virtue and could not bear to cause them sorrow because he considered their nature weaker. For this reason, too, the strength of his love for women of this kind is sometimes so great that in his praise of them he seems to exceed somewhat the bounds of truth, as if he had experienced himself what he says elsewhere, that “charity has no limits.”62 At the very beginning of his Life of St. Paula, as though wishing to call the reader’s attention to himself, he says: “If all the parts of my body were turned into tongues and if every joint spoke with the human voice, I could say nothing worthy of the virtues of the holy Paula.”63 Yet he wrote several lives of the venerable and holy fathers, lives resplendent with miracles, in which the facts related are far more marvelous. But he does not seem to have praised any of these fathers so eloquently as he extolled this widow. When he wrote to the virgin Demetrias, he also adorned the salutation of his letter with such great praise of her that he seems to fall into excessive fl attery. He says: Of all the subjects on which I have written from my childhood to my present age, either by my own hand or through scribes, none has been more difficult than the present work. If I were to write to Demetrias, the virgin of Christ, who is also first in nobility and riches in the city of Rome, all the praises which her virtues deserve, I should be considered a f latterer.64

This holy man found it very sweet to use all the arts of words to inspire a frail nature to the arduous pursuit of virtue. But in this matter his actions provide us with better examples than his words, for he showed such loving charity for pious women that his immense sanctity itself caused a blot on his reputation. He said that himself when, among other things, he was writing to Asella about false friends and those who slandered him: Although some think I am a reprobate and sunk in every vice, you do well to follow your conscience and think that even evil men are good. It is dangerous for 61

Augustine, Retractationes 2.71: PL 32, 649; CSEL 36, 184. Jerome, Ep. 46, Paulae et Eustochiae ad Marcellam 1: PL 22, 483; CSEL 54, 329. This is actually a letter from Paula and her daughter Eustochium to Marcella: This maxim is its opening four words. 63 Jerome, Ep. 108, ad Eustocium 1: PL 22, 878; CSEL 55.2, 306. 64 Jerome, Ep. 130, ad Demetriam 1: PL 22, 1107; CSEL 56, 175–76. 62

130

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

a man to judge his neighbor’s servant and it is not a venial fault to speak evil of the good . . . Certain men have kissed my hands and then have slandered me with the tongues of vipers. Sorrow was on their lips, but they rejoiced in their hearts. Let them say what they have ever detected in me that is not becoming to a Christian. No fault is found in me except my sex, nor would that fault be found if Paula did not come to Jerusalem.65

He also says: Before I became acquainted with the household of the holy Paula, my praises were sung throughout the city. In the judgment of everyone I was considered worthy of the supreme pontificate. But after I began to admire her because her sanctity deserved it, and to visit her and take care of her, all my virtues immediately departed from me.66

Later on he declared: “Salute Paula and Eustochium, whether they wish it or not, they are mine in Christ.” The Lord himself, we read, showed such familiarity to the blessed harlot that the Pharisee who had invited him began to have doubts about him, saying to himself (Luke 7:39): “If this man were a prophet, he would know what this women is who is touching him.” Is it any wonder, then, that the members of Christ, inspired by his example, do not fear any damage to their reputations, in their efforts to win these souls? When he tried to avoid this damage, Origen, as I have said, endured a more grievous injury to his body.67 Not only in the teaching and exhortation of holy women have the fathers displayed their marvelous charity, but in comforting these women, their charity has at times shone so brightly that in their compassion and their efforts to soothe the women’s grief, they seem to promise certain things contrary to the faith. An example of this is the consolation offered by St. Ambrose when, on the death of the Emperor Valentinian, he was so bold as to write to the emperor’s sisters and promise them the salvation of a man who was a catechumen when he died, and this promise seems greatly at variance with the Catholic faith and the truth of the Gospel.68 But these holy fathers well knew how pleasing to God the virtue of the weaker sex has always been. Although we see countless virgins who follow the Lord’s mother as a model of chastity, we know of few men who have achieved the grace of this virtue by which they might be able to follow the Lamb himself wherever he may go. In their devotion to this virtue, some women even laid hands on themselves, in order to preserve the integrity of the flesh they had consecrated to God. Not only are they not condemned for this, but because of their martyrdoms many churches have rightly been dedicated to them.

65 66 67 68

Jerome, Ep. 45, ad Asellam 2: PL 22, 480–81; CSEL 54, 324. Jerome, Ep. 45, ad Asellam 3: PL 22, 481; CSEL 54, 325. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origin.” Ambrose, De obitu Valentiniani consolatio 5.1: PL 16, 1435.

A BELA R D TO H ELOISE: OR IGIN OF N U NS

131

If betrothed virgins should decide, before they have carnal union with their husbands, to choose the monastic life, and to reject man and make God their bridegroom, they have freedom to do so. As far as we know, this has never been granted to men. Many holy women were also fi red with such zeal for chastity that, in order to maintain their purity, they put on male attire, and even living among monks, they so excelled in virtue that they were considered worthy of being made abbots. Such was the case with St. Eugenia, who with the knowledge, or rather at the command of her bishop, St. Helenus, assumed the dress of a man, and after being baptized by him, was admitted to a community of monks.69 I think, dearest sister in Christ, that I have replied sufficiently to the fi rst of your most recent requests, concerning the authority for your order and also in praise of its dignity. I trust that as you grow more fully aware of its excellence, you may embrace more zealously the way of life to which you are vowed. Now, God willing, I hope to fulfi ll your second request, aided by your merits and your prayers. Farewell.

69

Cf. Vitae Patrum 1: PL 73, 610ff. St. Eugenia also enjoyed something of a cult at the Paraclete.

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 8 ABELARD TO HELOISE: A RULE FOR NUNS

N

ow that I have completed, as best I could, the first work you requested, it remains for me, God willing, to devote myself to fulfilling your wishes and those of your spiritual sisters regarding the other part of your request. Following its order, I must still write for you an institute or rule of your calling and send it to you, so that you may know more certainly from the written word than from custom the rule that you should follow. Relying partly on good customs and partly on the evidence of Scriptures and the support of reason, I have decided to gather all of these together, in order to decorate the spiritual temple that you are, by adorning it, so to speak, with beautiful pictures, and from many imperfect parts to complete, if I can, one small work. In this task, I intend to imitate the painter Zeuxis and to work on the spiritual temple as he planned his work, on a material temple. For, as Cicero says in the Rhetoric, the people of Crotona engaged Zeuxis to paint the very fi nest pictures for a much venerated temple of theirs.1 To do this more skilfully, he selected from among that people five lovely girls as models, so that he might look at them as they sat near him while he was painting, and imitate their beauty in his work. We may well believe that he did this for two reasons: both because, as Cicero remarks, he had achieved the highest skill in portraying women and because girlish beauty is considered naturally more elegant and more delicate than the male figure. The philosopher also says that Zeuxis chose several maidens because he did not believe that he could fi nd a single girl whose body was equally beautiful in all its parts, since nature has never favored any girl with such beauty that she possesses equal perfection in every part. In the structure of bodies nature produces nothing that is perfect in every way, as though, if she were to grant all her favors to one body, she would have none left to bestow on the rest. To portray the beauty of the soul, and to present an image of the perfection of the bride of Christ—in which you may discern, as in the mirror of a single spiritual virgin held always before your eyes, your own beauty or flaws—I propose to draw rules for your instruction from the many writings of the Fathers and from 1

Cicero, De inventione rhetorica 2.1 in De inventione, ed. Hubbell.

134

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

the best customs of monasteries. From these customs, not only those established for nuns but also those pertaining to monks, I shall pluck each blossom as it comes to mind; I shall then gather them all together in one garland that seems to me in harmony with the sanctity of your calling. Since you are joined to us in name and in your vows of continence, almost all of our institutions are suitable for you. Gathering from these, as I have said, many blossoms with which to adorn, so to speak, the lilies of your chastity, I should portray the virgin of Christ with greater care than Zeuxis used when he painted the likeness of an idol. He thought that five maidens were enough to serve as models of beauty. But with the riches of the Fathers’ many works at my disposal and with the divine assistance, I do not despair of leaving you a more perfect work, through which you may be able to attain the lot or likeness of those five wise virgins whom the Lord, in depicting the virgin of Christ, sets before us in the Gospel.2 To enable me to accomplish this task as I wish, I ask you for your prayers. Greetings in Christ, brides of Christ. The Monastic Virtues I have decided that my treatise for your instruction shall be divided into three parts, describing your religious life, fortifying it, and arranging for the celebration of the divine service. I consider the sum of monastic religion to consist of this: that one may live continently, and without possessions, and may cultivate silence especially. This is truly, according to the Lord’s teaching of the evangelical rule, to gird the loins, to forsake all we have, and to avoid idle words.3 Continence is that use of chastity which the Apostle urges when he says (1 Cor. 7:34): “So a woman who is free of wedlock, or a virgin, is concerned with the Lord’s claim, intent on holiness, bodily and spiritual.” He says in the body as a whole, not in just one member, in order that no part of her body may fall into any wantonness in deeds or words. She is holy in spirit when her mind is neither corrupted by consent nor puffed up with pride, like the minds of those five foolish virgins who, while they ran to the sellers of oil, were left outside the door. When they beat on the door that was already shut, and cried out (Matt. 25:11): “Lord, Lord, open to us,” the Bridegroom himself made a terrible answer: “Believe me, I do not recognize you.” Forsaking all things, then, naked we follow a naked Christ, as the holy apostles did. We do this when, for his sake, we put behind us not only earthly possessions and the affections inspired by worldly ties, but also our own desires. So we may not live according to our own choice, but may be ruled by the command of our superior, wholly subjecting ourselves for Christ’s sake to one who presides over us in the place of Christ, as though to Christ himself. To such superiors as these, he said (Luke 10:16): “He who listens to you, listens to me; he who despises you, despises me.” If it should happen, which God forbid, that a person lives 2 3

See Matt. 25:1–13. Cf. Luke 12:35; Luke 14:44; Matt. 12:36.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

135

an evil life even while ruling well, nevertheless, the judgment of God is not to be despised because of one person’s vice. For the Lord himself commands us (Matt. 23:3): “Do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions.” Christ well describes this spiritual conversion from the world to God when he says (Luke 14:33): “None of you can be my disciple if he does not take leave of all that he possesses.” He also says (14:26): “If any man comes to me, without hating his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life too, he can be no disciple of mine.” Hating father and mother means that a man must refuse to follow the affections of fleshly kinship, as hating his own life means refusing to follow his own will. This he commands elsewhere, when he says (Luke 9:23): “If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” It is in this way that we draw near and come to him, I mean, by closely imitating him, we follow him who said ( John 6:38): “It is the will of him who sent me, not my own will, that I have come down from heaven to do.” This is as if he were to say, do all things by obedience. What does it mean to deny ourselves except that we should put carnal affections and our own will behind us and commit ourselves to be ruled by another’s will, not by our own? We do not, in this way, receive our own cross from another. But we ourselves take up the cross by which we may be crucified to the world and the world to us, when by the free offering of our own vows, we forbid ourselves worldly and earthly desires, which means not following our own will. What else do the carnal seek but to do what they desire? What is earthly happiness but the achievement of our own will, even when we achieve what we desire with the greatest effort or danger? What else does it mean to bear our cross, that is, to endure some affl iction, but to do something contrary to our own will, however easy or profitable it may seem to us. Of this, the other Jesus, far inferior, warns us in Ecclesiasticus, when he says (18:30–31): “Do not follow the counsel of appetite; turn your back on your own liking. Pamper those passions of yours, and joy it will bring, but to your enemies.” But when we utterly forsake both ourselves and what is ours, then all possessions are truly cast aside, and we embark on that apostolic life which places all things in a common store, as it is written (Acts 4:32–35): “There was one heart and soul in all the company of believers; none of them called any of his possessions his own, everything was shared in common . . . . Each could have what share of it he needed.” For their needs were not equal, and so the common store was not distributed among them equally, but to each according to his need. There was one heart in faith, because it is with the heart that we believe. There was one soul because, out of charity, there was the same will in everyone, since each one desired the same things for his neighbor as for himself; nor did he seek his own advantage rather than that of others. Since they brought all things together for the common good, no one sought or pursued what was his own, but rather what belonged to Jesus Christ. Otherwise they could by no means have lived without property, which consists rather in seeking than in possessions.

136

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

An idle or unnecessary word is the same as a multitude of words. For this reason Augustine says in the fi rst book of the Retractions: “Far be it from me to consider it a multitude of words when necessary things are said, no matter how many and prolix the words with which they are said.”4 On this subject it is said through Solomon (Prov. 10:19): “Where least is said, most prudence is. Silver refi ned is the just man’s every word, and trash the sinner’s every thought.” We must, therefore, greatly beware of all that is not without sin and be more careful to prevent this disease, the more dangerous it is and difficult to avoid. Making provision for this, St. Benedict says (c. 42): “At all times monks ought to study silence.” It is clear that studying silence is more than keeping silence. For study is the vigorous application of the mind to the doing of something. We do many things negligently or unwillingly, but none studiously, unless we are willing and intent. How difficult it is to hold the tongue and how profitable, the apostle James well observes when he says (3:2): “We are betrayed, all of us, into many faults, and a man who is not betrayed into faults of the tongue must be a man perfect at every point.” He continues (3:7): “Mankind can tame, and has long since learned to tame, every kind of beast and bird, of creeping things and all else; but no human being has ever found out how to tame the tongue.” At the same time, reflecting on how much matter for evil there is in the tongue and how much devouring of all good things, he says, both before and after the preceding (3:5–8): “Just so, the tongue is a tiny part of our body, and yet what power it can boast! How small a spark it takes to set fi re to a vast forest! And that is what the tongue is, a fi re . . . a pest that is never allayed, all deadly poison.” What is more dangerous than poison, or more to be avoided? For as poison extinguishes life, a chattering tongue completely overthrows piety. For this reason, the same apostle says in an earlier passage ( James 1:26): “If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.” On this theme, it is also written in Proverbs (25:28): “Like a city unwalled he lies defenseless, that cannot master himself, but ever speaks his mind.” This was very clear to that old man to whom St. Anthony remarked of the chattering monks who accompanied him on his way: “You have found good monks to go with you, father.”5 The old man replied: “They are good, indeed, but their dwelling-place has no door. Anyone who wants to, enters the stable and unties the ass.” This is as if to say that our soul is tethered to the Lord’s manger, refreshing itself there by a kind of holy rumination or meditation. If the bar of silence does not keep it in, it is untied from this manger and runs here and there over the whole world in its thoughts. For words impart understanding to the soul, so that it may move toward what it understands and, by thinking, adhere to it. In thinking we speak to God, as we speak to men in words. While in this world we are attracted to the words of men, it is necessary for us to be led away from them, since we cannot move at the same time toward God and toward men. It is not only idle words that are to 4 5

Augustine, Retractationes 1, preface: PL 32, 583; CSEL 36, 8. Vitae patrum 5.4, 1: PL 73, 864.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

137

be avoided, but also those that seem to be useful, because it is easy to pass from the necessary to the idle, and from the idle to the harmful. For the tongue is, as James says (3:8), “a pest that is never allayed,” and since it is smaller and more subtle than other parts of the body, it is much more mobile, and while motion makes the other parts weary, the tongue grows tired when it is not moving, and rest becomes a burden to it. The more subtle our tongue is, and the more flexible because of the softness of our body, the more mobile it is and inclined to words; it is clearly the seed-bed of all malice. Taking special note of this vice of ours, the Apostle absolutely forbids women to speak in church, even about those things that pertain to God, although he permits them to question their husbands at home. While they are learning these things, or doing anything whatsoever, he subjects them especially to silence, as he writes to Timothy in this (1, 2:11–12): “Women are to keep silence, and take their place, with all submissiveness, as learners; a woman shall have no leave from me to teach, and issue commands to her husband; her part is to be silent.” If he makes provision in this way for silence in lay and married women, what should be done in your case? Again, writing to Timothy and explaining why he has given this command, Paul argues that women are gossips and say things they should not say. So, to provide a sure remedy of this great plague, we should at least subdue the tongue to constant silence in these places and times: in prayer in the cloister, the dormitory, the refectory, and in all eating and drinking, and from Compline on this should be especially observed by everyone. In these times and places, if necessary, let us use signs instead of words. Great care should also be taken in teaching or learning these signs; in doing this, if there is any need of words, too, the teacher should be asked to speak in a suitable place and one set apart for this purpose. After those necessary words have been spoken, she should return to her former duties or to whatever is to be done. We should not be lenient in correcting an excess of words or signs, especially an excess of words, which is more dangerous. In his strong desire to prevent this great and common danger, St. Gregory instructs us in the seventh book of the Moralia: When we neglect to beware of idle words, we come to harmful ones, by which incitements are sown, quarrels are inspired, the torches of hatred lighted and the whole peace of the heart extinguished. Solomon well says (Prov. 17:14): ‘Who began the quarrel? He who let loose the f loodgates of it.’ To let loose the f loodgates means letting the tongue loosen a f lood of eloquence. On the other hand, and in good part, Solomon declares (18:4): ‘Man’s utterance has currents like the waters that run deep.’ Thus he who lets loose the f loodgates is the beginner of the quarrel, for the man who does not hold his tongue sows discord. So it is written (Prov. 26:10): ‘Silence the fool, and feud there shall be none.’6

In this passage Gregory clearly warns us to use the strictest censure in correcting this vice particularly, so that its punishment will not at any time be 6

Gregory, Moralia in Job 7.37: PL 75, 800ab.

138

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

deferred, and religion thus greatly endangered. From this vice spring slanders, quarrels, evilspeaking and often conspiracies and plots, which do not so much undermine as overthrow the whole structure of religion. When this vice has been excised, wicked thoughts are perhaps not completely rooted out, but they will cease to corrupt others. Abbot Macharius urged us to flee from this one vice, as if that were sufficient for religion, as it is written: The Abbot Macharius in Scythia said to his monks: ‘After the Mass has been said, brothers, f lee from the churches.’ And one of them said to him: ‘Father, where do we have a greater solitude than this to f lee to?’ And the abbot put his finger to his lips and said: ‘That is what I say you are to f lee.’ And saying this, he entered his cell and, shutting the door, sat down alone.7

This virtue of silence which, as James says, makes a man perfect and of which Isaiah foretold (32:17): “Loyalty that has peace for its crown, tranquility for its harvest,” was taken up so fervently by the Holy Fathers that, it is written, Abbot Agatho held a stone in his mouth for three years, until he had learned to be silent. The Location of the Monastery Although the place does not bring salvation, it does furnish many opportunities for the easier observance of the religious life and for guarding it more securely, and many aids or impediments to religion arise from it. So the Sons of the Prophets, of whom, as St. Jerome says, we read as of monks in the Old Testament, withdrew to the secret places of the wilderness, building huts for themselves beside the River Jordan.8 John and his disciples also, whom we regard as the fi rst to follow our way of life, and later Paul, Anthony, Macharius, and all those who have been especially distinguished in our calling, fled from the tumult of the age and from a world full of temptations, and they carried the bed of their contemplation to the quiet of solitude, so that they might devote themselves to God more sincerely. The Lord himself, to whom no promptings of temptation had access, taught us by his own example, and when he wished to do something, he chose the hidden places above all, and avoided the noisy crowds. So the Lord consecrated the wilderness for us by the forty days of his fasting and fed the multitudes in the wilderness and, in order to pray more purely, he withdrew not only from the crowds, but also from the apostles.9 On a mountain apart, he instructed and consecrated the apostles themselves and made the wilderness resplendent with the glory of his Transfiguration and by manifesting himself in his Resurrection, he made joyful the apostles who had gathered together on a mountain. From a 7 8 9

Vitae patrum 5.4, 27: PL 73, 868. Jerome, Ep. 58, ad Paulinum 5: PL 22, 583; CSEL 54, 533. See Matt. 4:2; Mark 8:1

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

139

mountain, too, he ascended into heaven, and all other great things that he did, he accomplished in the wilderness or in a solitary place.10 The Lord also appeared to Moses and to the patriarchs of old in a wilderness and led the people through the wilderness to the promised land. To the people who were so long delayed in the wilderness, he delivered the Law, rained down manna for them, drew water from a rock, comforting them by appearing to them frequently and working miracles for them. In this way he plainly taught them how much his uniqueness desires for us a solitary place, where we can devote ourselves to him more purely. Describing in mystical terms the freedom of the wild ass, which loves the wilderness, he says to the holy Job (39:5–8): “Who gives the wild ass untrammeled liberty to roam the wilderness, and make the salt plains his dwelling place; to spurn the din of cities, no driver crying after him, and look about him at the slopes where he feeds, all that green world his pasturage?” As if to say: Who has done this, if not I? The wild ass, which we call the forest ass, is the monk who is set free from the chains of worldly things and has withdrawn to the quiet freedom of the solitary life. Fleeing the world, he has not remained in it. So he lives in a barren land, when the parts of his body are parched and dry through abstinence. He does not heed the cry of the driver but hears his voice, because he provides for his belly not what is superfluous but what is necessary. Who is so clamorous a driver and so constant a driver as the belly? Its cry, I mean its immoderate demand, is for superfluous and delicate foods and in this it must not be listened to. For this monk, the slopes of pasturage are the lives and teaching of the eminent Fathers, because we are refreshed by reading and meditating on them. By “all that green world,” he means all the writings of heavenly and unfading life. Urging us especially to solitude, St. Jerome writes to the monk, Heliodorus: “Analyze the word ‘monk,’ which you are called. What are you, who are alone, doing in a crowd?”11 Distinguishing our life from that of clerics, Jerome also writes to Paul the priest in these words: If you wish to exercise the office of a priest, if the labor, or perhaps the burden, of the episcopate attracts you, live in cities and towns and make the salvation of others a profit to your soul. If you want to be what you have said, a monk, that is, a solitary, what are you doing in the cities, which are the dwelling-places not of the lonely but of the crowds? Every calling has its leaders. To come to our own life, let bishops and priests have as their examples the apostles and apostolic men and, possessing their honor, let them strive also to acquire their merit. But we should have as the leaders of our calling the Pauls, the Anthonies, the Hilarions, Macharius and, returning to the subject of the Scripture, let our princes be Elias and Elisha; our leaders also the Sons of the Prophets, who lived in the fields and the wilderness and make tabernacles for themselves by the River Jordan. Of their number also are those sons of Rechab who drank neither wine nor strong drink, who lived in tents and are praised by the voice of God speaking 10 11

See: Luke 6:12; Matt. 17:1; Matt. 28:16; Acts 1:9. Jerome, Ep. 14, ad Heliodorum 5: PL 22, 350; CSEL 54, 52.

140

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

through Jeremias, who says that they shall never be without a man to stand before the Lord.12

In order to stand before the Lord and be better prepared to take part in his service, we should build ourselves tabernacles in the wilderness, so that the society of men will not shake the bed of our repose, disturb our rest, breed temptations and distract our minds from our holy calling. To one man, St. Arsenius, at the inspiration of the Lord, an example was given for us all of this free tranquility of life. It is written of him: While he was still in the palace, Abbot Arsenius prayed to the Lord, saying: ‘Lord, guide me to salvation.’ And there came a voice to him saying: ‘Arsenius, flee from men and you will be saved.’ It is also told of him that going back to the monastic life, he prayed the same prayer: ‘Lord, guide me to salvation.’ And he heard a voice saying to him: ‘Arsenius, flee, be silent, be at peace. For these are the roots of not sinning.’13

Instructed by this one rule of the divine command, Arsenius not only fled from men but drove them away from him. One day the archbishop came to him with a certain judge and when they asked him for an edifying word, Arsenius said: ‘If I should say it to you, would you keep it?’ And they promised that they would keep it. He said to them: ‘Wherever you shall hear of Arsenius, do not come near him.’ Another time the archbishop visited him again and sent first to see if he would receive him. He sent word to him, saying: ‘If you come, I will open to you, but if I open to you, I open to all and then I can no longer stay here.’ When he heard this, the archbishop said: ‘If by going, I would persecute him, I shall never go to the holy man.’14

Arsenius also said to a Roman matron, who came to visit his holiness: Why have you dared to make such a long voyage? Do you not know that you are a woman and should not travel at all? Or is it that you want to return to Rome and say to other women, ‘I have seen Arsenius,’ and they will make the sea a highway for women coming to me. But she said: ‘If the Lord wills that I return to Rome, I will not allow anyone to come here. But pray for me and be mindful of me always.’ And he answered her: ‘I pray God that He may wipe the memory of you from my heart.’ When she heard this, she went away in dismay.15

When he was asked by the Abbot Mark why he fled from men, it is written that Arsenius replied: “God knows that I love men, but I cannot be at one and the same time with God and with men.”16 The Holy Fathers avoided the society and the notice of men to such an extent that many of them, to drive men away from them altogether, pretended 12 13 14 15 16

Jerome, Ep. 58, ad Paulinus 5: PL 22, 582; CSEL 54, 533. Vitae patrum 5.2, 3: PL 73, 858. Vitae patrum 5.2, 4: PL 73, 858. Vitae patrum 5.2, 7: PL 73, 859. Vitae patrum 5.17, 5: PL 73, 973.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

141

that they were mad and, marvelous to relate, even claimed that they were heretics. Anyone who wishes may read in the Lives of the Fathers how the Abbot Simon prepared to receive the judge of a province who was coming to him. He covered himself with a sack and holding bread and cheese in his hand, sat in the door of his cell and began to eat.17 One may read also about the hermit who, when he saw some men coming his way with lanterns, took off his garments and threw them in the river. When his servant saw this, he was ashamed and said to the men: “Turn back, for our old man has lost his senses.” And coming to him, he said to him: “Why have you done this, father? For all who saw you said that the old man has a devil.” But he answered: “That is what I wanted to hear.”18 One may read, too, of Abbot Moses, who, in order to drive the judge of the province away from him altogether, got up to flee into a marsh. The judge and his companions came to him there and questioned him, saying: “Tell us, old man, where is the cell of Abbot Moses?” And he said to them: “Why do you want to look for him? The man is mad and a heretic.”19 And what about Abbot Pastor, who also would not let himself be seen by the judge of the province, even though he would have freed from prison the son of his own sister who begged him for this?20 Consider how the great persons of this world seek the presence of the saints with deep reverence and devotion, and how the saints strive, even with the utmost disrespect for these men, to drive them away entirely! But to acknowledge also the virtue of your sex in this respect, who could be found worthy of telling about that virgin who scorned even the visit of the most holy St. Martin, in order to have time for contemplation? Writing of this to the monk Oceanus, Jerome says:21 In the life of St. Martin we read that, according to Sulpicius, when St. Martin went to greet a certain virgin who was distinguished for her character and chastity, she refused but sent him a veil and, looking out of the window, said to the holy man, ‘Where you are, father, pray, for I have never been visited by a man.’ When he heard this, St. Martin gave thanks to God that a woman of such virtue should have kept her desire chaste. He blessed her and went his way joyfully.22

This woman, who was reluctant or afraid to rise from the bed of her contemplation, was prepared to say to a friend who knocked at her door (Cant. 5:3): “My feet I washed, but now shall I soil them in the dust?” What an insult the bishops or prelates of our age would consider it, if they had endured such a rejection from Arsenius or from this virgin! If any monks still remain in the wilderness, let them blush for these things, when they rejoice in the society of bishops, when they build special houses where they may be entertained, when they 17

Vitae patrum 5.8, 18: PL 73, 908. Vitae patrum 7.12, 7: PL 73, 1035. 19 Vitae patrum 5.8, 10: PL 73, 907. 20 Vitae patrum 5.8, 13: PL 73,907. 21 Not to be found in his letters to Oceanus. 22 This story does not appear in Martin’s life by Sulpicius Severus and has not been identified. 18

142

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

invite, rather than avoid, the powerful men of this world, who are accompanied or followed by a crowd, and when, multiplying their dwellings under the pretext of hospitality, they transform the solitude they sought into a city. Truly, by this trick of the old and cunning tempter, almost all monasteries of the present time, having fi rst been established in the wilderness to avoid men, have called them in and gathered together servants, both men and women, and have thus returned to the world or rather, have drawn the world after them. Involving themselves in the greatest miseries and binding themselves in the worst kind of servitude to both ecclesiastical and earthly powers, seeking to live at ease and to enjoy the fruits of others’ labor, they have lost the very name, as well as the life of the monk or solitary. They are often oppressed by such troubles that, while they struggle to protect the persons and possessions of their followers, they lose their own and in the fi res that frequently ravage nearby dwellings, the monasteries, too, are burned. Yet even so, their ambition is not restrained. They do not tolerate any monastic confi nement whatever and, dispersing themselves through villages, towns and cities, or even living alone without observing any rule, they are much worse than worldly men, since they have lapsed further from their calling. They abuse the houses of their kinsmen as well as their own dwellings, and call their places “obediences,” although no rule is kept there and nothing is obeyed but the belly and the flesh. Living there with their kinsmen or friends, they are all the freer to do what they wish, and the less they fear their own conscience. Surely there can be no doubt that in these most shameless apostates those excesses are criminal which in other men are venial. You should not even tolerate hearing of the lives of such men, to say nothing of following their example. But solitude is more necessary to your weakness, since when we are alone, we are less frequently assaulted by the warfare of fleshly temptations and we stray less often in bodily things through the senses. For this reason St. Anthony says: “He who lives in solitude, and is at peace, is saved from three wars, I mean, the wars of hearing, of speech, and of sight, and he will have to fi ght only one war, the war of the heart.” 23 When that famous doctor of the Church, St. Jerome, was earnestly considering these and other advantages of the desert and fervently urging the monk Heliodorus to embrace them, he exclaimed: “O, desert, rejoicing in the presence of God! What are you, brother, who are greater than the world, doing in the world?” 24 Now that I have discussed where monasteries may suitably be built, I should describe what the setting of the place itself should be. In establishing the location of the monastery, as St. Benedict also advised (c. 66), it is, if possible, to be so situated that within its precincts those things may be included that are necessary to it: that is, a garden, water, a mill, a bakehouse with an oven, and places where the sisters may perform their daily tasks, in order that there may be no occasion for wandering outside. 23 24

Vitae patrum 5.2, 3: PL 73, 858. Jerome, Ep. 14, ad Heliodorum 10: PL 22, 354; CSEL 54, 59.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

143

Monastic Superiors As in the armies of the world, so in the armies of the Lord, that is, monastic communities, certain persons should be appointed to preside over the others. In an army a single commander, at whose nod everything is done, rules over all. Because of the size of his army and the diversity of duties, he distributes the tasks and appoints certain officers under him to take care of the various troops of men or the different offices. It must be like this in the monastery, too, and there one woman should preside over everything, according to whose deliberation and judgment all the rest shall do all their work. None of them shall presume to oppose her in any way or even to complain about any of her commands. For no human community or any household, however small, can remain together in one house, unless unity is preserved there by entrusting its entire government to the rule of one person. So, while the Ark, as a symbol of the Church, was many cubits in length as well as breadth, it was fi nished in one cubit. And it is written in Proverbs (28:2): “Short reigns, and many, where a land is plagued for its guilt.” So, too, when Alexander died and there were many kings, there were likewise many evils. When the government of Rome was entrusted to many rulers, it could not keep the peace. In his first book, Lucan reminds us of this: “By consenting to be governed by three masters, you Romans have been the cause of your own evils, for the alliances of a kingdom entrusted to the crowd have always proved fatal.”25 A little further on he says: “As long as the earth supports the sea, and the air supports the earth, and the sun makes his long journey through every house of heaven, and night follows day, there will never be loyalty among fellow tyrants and every ruler will resent having a partner.” 26 Surely those seventy disciples of St. Frontonius the abbot, whom he had assembled in the city where he was born, were men of this kind. After the abbot had won great favor there both before God and among men, he left the monastery in the city, and took the monks with him, and their movable goods, into the desert. Later, like the people of Israel who complained against Moses because he likewise had led them out of Egypt into the wilderness, leaving the fleshpots and the abundance of the land, they murmured vainly, saying: Is chastity to be found only in the desert and not in cities? Why do we not return now to the city, which we left for a time? Or is it only in the desert that God will listen to prayers? Who can live by the bread of angels? Who enjoys becoming the companion of cattle and wild beasts? What need do we have for remaining here? Why then do we not turn back to bless the Lord in the place where we were born?27

So the apostle James warns (3:1): “Do not be too eager, brethren, to impart instruction to others; be sure that, if we do, we shall be called to account all the 25 26 27

Lucan, Pharsalia 1.84. Lucan, Pharsalia 1.89–93. Vita Frontonii 2,3; Vitae patrum 1: PL 73, 439.

144

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

more strictly.” And Jerome says when he writes to the monk Rusticus regarding the conduct of life: No art is learned without a master. Even the many animals and herds of wild beasts follow their leaders. Among the bees, one goes before and the rest follow. Cranes follow one of their number in good order. There is one emperor, one judge of a province. When Rome was founded, it could not have two brothers as kings at the same time and was decided to fratricide. Esau and Jacob waged war in Rebecca’s womb. All bishops of churches, all archpriests, all archdeacons, and every order in the church, depend on their rulers. In a ship there is one pilot. In a house there is one master. In an army, however large it may be, the men look to the orders of one man. Through all these examples, my oration moves to a single end: or perhaps just, that I may teach you that you should not be ruled by your own will, but should live in a monastery under the discipline of one father and in the company of many.28

In order to preserve concord in all things, it is proper that one woman should be placed over all, and that everyone should obey her in all things. Under her, certain other persons should be appointed as officials, so to speak, according to her own decision. They should have charge of such duties as she may order, and should do as much as she wishes, so that they may be, as it were, captains or consuls in the Lord’s army. And, under the care of these officers, all the rest may fight freely as knights or foot-soldiers against the enemy and his satellites. I consider seven of your number necessary and sufficient for the entire administration of the monastery: the portress, the cellaress, the wardrober, the infi rmarian, the chantress, the sacristan, and finally the deaconess, whom they now call the abbess. In this camp and this divine army, of which it may be said ( Job 7:1): “What is man’s life but a campaigning?” and also (Cant. 6:9): “No embattled array so awes men’s hearts,” the deaconess takes the place of a commander who is obeyed in everything by everyone. Under her the other six, whom we call officers, take the places of captains or consuls. All the other nuns, whom we call cloistral, expeditiously perform the divine service as knights. The lay sisters, who have also renounced the world and dedicated themselves to the service of the nuns, in a kind of religious, yet not monastic, habit, take the lower rank as footsoldiers. The Deaconess It now remains, with the Lord’s inspiration, to arrange the ranks of this army, so that it may truly stand against the assaults of the devil in what is called “an embattled array.” Taking the head herself, whom I call the deaconess, as the starting-point of this institution, I must first deal with the person who is to deal with everything. As I said in the preceding letter, St. Paul the apostle, writing to Timothy, carefully describes how eminent and well-proved her chastity should be (1, 5:9–11): If a woman is to be put on the list of widows, she must have reached, at least, the age of sixty, and have been faithful to one husband. She must have a name for acts 28

Jerome, Ep. 125, ad Rusticum 15: PL 22, 1080; CSEL 54, 133.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

145

of charity; has she brought up children? Has she been hospitable? Has she washed the feet of the saints? Has she helped those who were in aff liction? Has she attached herself to every charitable cause? Have nothing to do with younger widows.

Previously St. Paul has said of deaconesses, when he was regulating the life of deacons (1 Tim. 3:11): “The womenfolk, too, should be modest, not fond of slanderous talk; they must be sober, and in every way worthy of trust.” How highly I esteem the intelligence and reason in everything he said— especially the reasons why the Apostle wishes the deaconess to have been the wife of only one husband and to be of advanced years—I have made sufficiently clear in my last letter. I am not a little amazed, therefore, that the pernicious custom has begun to grow up in the Church of electing virgins to this office rather than those who have known men, and often of placing the younger women over the elder. This is done in spite of the fact that Ecclesiastes says (10:16): “Woe to the land that has young blood on the throne.” All of us alike approve the words of the holy Job (12:12): “Surely is there truth in ancient sayings; it is time brings experience.” So too it is written in Proverbs (16:31): “No prize is so honorable as old age, and it is won by innocence of life.” In Ecclesiasticus it is said (25:6–8): “Good judgment matches grey hairs, for still the elders must be men of prudence; wisdom for the old, discernment for senators, and the gift of counsel! No crown have old men like their long experience, no ornament like the fear of God.” Also (32:4, 10–13): “Speak fi rst, as becomes your seniority . . . . If you are but a young man, be loath to speak even of what concerns you, and if you are pressed for an answer, give it in brief. For the most part keep your knowledge concealed under a mask of silence and enquiry; nor ever be familiar among great men, nor garrulous among the wise.” On this account, all priests who are placed over the people in the Church are called elders, to show by the name itself what they should be. The writers of the lives of the saints called those men ‘elders’ whom we now call ‘abbots.’ So, in every way, care is to be taken that, in the election and consecration of the deaconess, the advice of the Apostle is kept in mind and that the person elected is one who should be placed over the rest because of her life and teaching, and one whose age promises maturity of character. She should be a person who through obedience has deserved to govern, and she should have learned the Rule in practice rather than from hearsay and should know it very thoroughly. If she is not learned, she should know that she is to accustom herself not to philosophical studies or dialectical disputations, but to the doctrine of life and the display of works, as it is written of the Lord (Acts 1:1): “All that Jesus set out to do and teach,” which means fi rst doing and afterward teaching. For teaching by means of actions is better and more perfect than teaching by speech, by deed rather than by word. Let us pay careful attention to what Abbot Ipitius said: “He is truly wise who teaches others by his deeds, not by his words.”29 In this he offers us no small comfort and confidence. We should note also the argument by which St. Anthony confounded the verbose philosophers, I mean those who 29

Vitae patrum 5.10, 75: PL 73, 925.

146

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

laughed at his rule as that of a foolish and illiterate man: “Tell me which comes fi rst,” he said, “the sense or the letters, and which is the beginning of either, does the sense spring from the letters, or do the letters come from the sense?” And when they declared that sense was the author and inventor of letters, he said: “Then he who is whole in sense does not need letters.”30 Let us listen also to the words of the Apostle, and be strengthened in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:20, 27–29): Must we not say that God has turned our worldly wisdom to folly? . . . . God has chosen what the world holds foolish, so as to abash the wise, God has chosen what the world holds weak, so as to abash the strong. God has chosen what the world holds base and contemptible, nay he has chosen what is nothing, so as to bring to nothing what is now in being; no human creature was to have any ground for boasting in the presence of God.

The Kingdom of God, as Paul himself says later, is not in word but in power. If, in order to gain a better knowledge of any subject, the deaconess thinks she should have recourse to the Scripture, she should not be ashamed to ask and learn from those who are educated. She should not despise the teaching of scholarly works in these matters but receive it zealously, as the prince of the apostles accepted public correction from his fellow-apostle, Paul. As St. Benedict remarks (c. 3), the Lord often reveals what is better to the lesser man. The Election of the Deaconess To follow more closely the Lord’s ordinance which the Apostle has also recorded, the deaconess should never be elected from among the noble or powerful of the world, except under pressure of the greatest necessity and for the most defi nite reason. Such people, with their easy confidence in their birth, readily become boastful or arrogant or proud; and especially when they are natives of the place, their rule becomes harmful to the monastery. Care must be taken, therefore, that the proximity of her family does not make her more presumptuous; and that their visits do not burden or disturb the monastery; and that she herself, through her kinsfolk, does not harm the religious life or inspire the contempt of others, according to the words of Truth (Matt. 13:57): “It is only in his own country, in his own home, that a prophet goes unhonored.” St. Jerome also foresaw this, when he was writing to Heliodorus, and enumerating various obstacles in the paths of monks who live in their own country: “The sum of these considerations is this: a monk cannot be perfect in his own country. And not to wish to be perfect is sinful.”31 But how ruinous it is to souls if she who presides in the governing of the religious life should be inferior in religion! It is sufficient if each of her subordinates sees in her a single virtue. But as a model of all the virtues, she 30 31

Athanasius, Vita Antonii in Vitae patrum 1.45: PL 73, 158. Jerome, Ep. 14, ad Heliodorum 7: PL 22, 362; CSEL 54, 54.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

147

should be so resplendent that she may fi rst demonstrate by her own example all that she commands the others, and may not contradict in her own behavior what she demands of others and destroy by her deeds what she builds by her words. Thus the word of correction may not be taken out of her mouth, if she is ashamed to correct in others the faults that she herself is known to commit. For fear that this may happen to him, the Psalmist prays to the Lord, saying (Ps. 118:43): “Let not the word of Truth be taken out of my mouth.” He had in mind that most severe castigation of the Lord, of which he reminds us elsewhere (Ps. 49:16–17): “But thus, to the sinner, God speaks: How is it that you can repeat my commandments by rote, and boast of my covenant with you, and you, all the while, have no love for the amendment of your ways, casting every warning of mine to the winds?” Zealously guarding against this, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:27): “I buffet my own body, and make it my slave; or I, who have preached to others, may myself be rejected or worthless.” He whose life is despised must also endure the rejection of his preaching and teaching. If one suffers himself from the malady he ought to cure in another, the sick person may well reproach him with the words (Luke 4:23): “Physician, heal yourself.” Anyone who seems to occupy a position of authority in the Church should be deeply aware of the destruction his own fall may cause, if he drags his subordinates along with him to the precipice. “Whoever, then,” says Truth (Matt. 5:19): “sets aside one of these commandments, though it were the least, and teaches men to do the like, will be of least account in the kingdom of heaven.” For he who infringes a commandment by acting contrary to it, breaks it, and he who corrupts others by his example sits in his chair as a teacher of pestilence. If anyone who acts in this way is called the least in the kingdom of heaven, that is, in the visible Church, how much worse are we to consider that most wicked superior for whose negligence the Lord demands not only the life of his own soul, but that of all the souls subject to him? The Book of Wisdom rightly threatens such men (6:4–7): Power is none but comes to you from the Lord, nor any royalty but from One who is above all. He it is who will call you to account for your doings, with a scrutiny that reads your inmost thoughts; you that held his commission and were false to it, justice neglected, the law set aside, his divine will transgressed. Swift and terrible shall be his coming; strictly his doom falls where heads rise high. For the meanest there may be pardon . . . For greatness, greater torment is reserved.

It is enough for each of those souls who are subject to others to safeguard itself against its own sin. But death also threatens those in authority for the sins of others. When gifts are increased, the reckoning for the gifts also grows larger, and more is demanded from one to whom more is entrusted. We are warned in Proverbs to protect ourselves against so great a danger in such a person, where it is said (6:1–4): My son, has some friend persuaded you to be his surety? Have you pledged yourself for a bond which is none of yours? Believe me, that word of assent has caught you

148

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

in a snare. You art the prisoner of your own promise made. Do then, my son, as I bid you; obtain your freedom; it is ill-done to fall into another man’s power. Quick, no time to lose; wake up this neighbor of yours from his bed ere you yourself close an eyelid in sleep.

We become surety for a friend when our charity receives anyone into the society of our congregation, when we promise to care for him, as he also promises obedience to us. So we clasp hands with him, when, becoming surety for him, we pledge our care and our service in his behalf. Then we fall into his hands because, unless we safeguard ourselves against him, we shall fi nd that he is the slayer of our soul. It is against this danger that we are warned in the words, “Quick, wake up this neighbor,” and so on. The deaconess should, therefore, walk carefully around her camp, fi rst here and then there, like a farsighted and watchful leader, and take care that, through some negligence, a path may not be opened to him who “goes about roaring like a lion to fi nd his prey” (1 Pet. 5:8). She should be the fi rst to know all the evils of her house, so that she can correct them before they become known to the others and are taken as an example. Let her beware of that accusation which St. Jerome makes against the foolish and negligent: “We are always the last to know about the evils of our own house and we are ignorant of the vices of our wives and children when the neighbors are gossiping about them.”32 She who rules as deaconess should pay careful attention to the fact that she has taken charge of souls as well as bodies. Regarding the care of bodies, she is advised in the words of Ecclesiasticus (7:26): “You have daughters: keep them chaste, and do not spoil them with your smile.” It is also said there (42:9–10): “Daughter to her father is ever hidden anxiety, a care that banished sleep . . . lest she is disgraced.” We defi le our bodies not only by fornication, but by doing anything indecent with them, with the tongue as well as with any other member, or by abusing any of the bodily senses to satisfy any vanity. It is written ( Jer. 9:21): “Here is death looking in at our windows,” which means sin entering the soul by means of the five senses. What death is more fearful, or what guardianship more fraught with danger, than that of souls? “There is no need,” says Truth (Matt. 10:28): “to fear those who kill the body, but have no means of killing the soul.” If anyone hears this counsel, does he fear the death of the soul more than the death of the body? Does he guard against a lie more than a sword? Yet it is written (Wis. 1:11): “Lying lips were ever the soul’s destroying.” What can be so easily slain as the soul? What arrow can be made more quickly than a sin? Who is able to safeguard himself against thought? Who can protect himself against his own sins, let alone those of others? What fleshly shepherd is strong enough to defend spiritual sheep against spiritual wolves, the invisible against the invisible? Who would not fear the robber who never stops attacking, whom no wall can shut out, no sword can kill or wound? Of this enemy, who is incessantly laying snares and pursuing the religious especially, Habacuc says (1:16): “The rich fare on his plate, viands most 32

Jerome, Ep. 147, ad Sabinianum 10: PL 22, 203; CSEL 56, 327.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

149

dainty,” and the apostle Peter urges us to beware of him, when he says (1, 5:8): “The devil, who is your enemy, goes about roaring like a lion, to fi nd his prey.” How great is his boldness in devouring us, the Lord himself tells the holy Job (40:18): “The flooded river he drinks unconcerned; Jordan itself would have no terrors for that gaping mouth.” What would he not dare to attack who assailed the Lord himself and tempted him, who took our first parents captive straight from Paradise, and from the company of the apostles snatched away even an apostle whom the Lord had chosen? What place is safe from him; what gates do not lie open to him? Who can protect himself against his snares? Who can resist his strength? He it is who struck with one blow the four corners of the house of Job, the holy man, cursing his innocent sons and daughters and killing them? What can the weaker sex do against him? Who more than a woman should fear being seduced? For he seduced her fi rst of all, and through her, her husband too, and took all their descendents captive. Greed for a greater good then deprived woman of a lesser good. By this same art, he will now seduce a woman again if, driven by ambition for wealth or honor, she wishes to rule rather than to serve. Which of these has been her motive will be shown by what comes after. If she has lived more delicately as a superior than as a subordinate, if she has claimed any special privilege for herself beyond her needs, there can be no doubt that she was greedy for this. If she has sought more costly ornaments afterward than before, she is certainly swollen with pride. What was hidden at fi rst will appear later. Her rule will show whether what she displayed earlier was a virtue or a pretense. She should be dragged to her superior office rather than come to it, for as the Lord says ( John 10:8): “Those others who have found their way in are all thieves and robbers.” “Those come,” says Jerome, “who were not sent.”33 The deaconess should be assumed to the honor, rather than assume the honor to herself. For the Apostle says (Heb. 5:4): “His vocation comes from God as Aaron’s did; nobody can take on himself such a privilege as this.” If she is called, she should mourn as though she were being led forth to death; if she is rejected, she should rejoice as though she were being delivered from death. We blush when we are called better than the rest. But when this is shown in action by our election, we are brazenly devoid of shame. For who does not know that those who are better should be preferred to the others. So it is said in the twenty-fourth book of the Moralia: “He who does not know how to rebuke men by clearly admonishing them should not undertake the leadership of men. Nor should he who is elected to this office in order to correct the faults of others, commit himself what is to be rooted out.”34 Yet if, perhaps avoiding this shamelessness, we pretend to reject the dignity offered to us by some light refusal in words, we can be accused of trying in this way to appear more virtuous and more worthy. How many have we seen weeping with their eyes when they were elected and rejoicing in their hearts! They accuse themselves of being unworthy and thus are more eager for approval and human 33 34

Jerome, Dialogus contra Pelagianos 2.17: PL 23, 580; CCSL 80, 77. Gregory, Moralia in Job 24.25: PL 76, 318.

150

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

favor for themselves, being aware of the saying (Prov. 18:17) “An innocent man is the fi rst to lay bare the truth!” Afterward, if they should happen to be accused and are offered an opportunity to withdraw, they strive most urgently and shamelessly to defend the office which, with feigned tears and truthful accusations against themselves, they had shown that they were unwilling to accept. How many canons have we seen in the churches resisting their bishops when they urged them to take holy orders, claiming that they are unworthy of so great a ministry and are most unwilling to comply? If the clergy should afterward elect these canons to the episcopate, they meet with but a trivial refusal or none at all. Those who yesterday were avoiding a danger to their souls by refusing the diaconate, now almost overnight become worthy of the higher rank and do not fear the precipice. Of such men, truly, it is written in the Book of Proverbs (17:18): “He is a fool, that lightly goes bail for his friend.” Then the wretch rejoices over what he should lament instead, when, advancing to the governance of others, he is bound by his own vow to care for his subordinates, by whom he ought to be loved rather than feared. To guard against this plague as much as possible, I absolutely forbid the superior to live more luxuriously or more softly than the subordinate. She should not have private chambers for eating or sleeping, but should do everything with the flock committed to her. Thus, being constantly present among them, she will make better provision for them. We know, of course, that St. Benedict, being greatly concerned for pilgrims and strangers, arranged for a separate table with the abbot for them (chaps. 53, 56). Although this was at that time a pious institution, a most profitable dispensation in monasteries has amended it to provide that the abbot may not retire from the community, but may appoint a faithful steward for the pilgrims. For it is easy to fall into sin at meals and discipline should be kept more strictly at that time. When strangers arrive, many superiors become more generous to themselves than to the strangers, and so those who are not present are troubled by the gravest suspicion and begin to complain. The authority of the superior grows much less if her life is concealed from her subordinates. Then, too, whatever poverty there may be is more bearable when it is shared by all alike and especially by the superiors. We know this also from the case of Cato. When the people with him were thirsty, as Lucan says, he rejected and threw away a little water that was offered to him, and everyone was satisfied.35 Since sobriety is most essential for superiors, they should live the more austerely because they must make provision for the others. So that they may not turn into pride the gift of God—I mean, the high office conferred upon them—let them hear what is written (Ecclus. 4:35; 10:7; 32:1): Lion if you must be, let not your own house feel the brunt of it, your own servants harried, your own slaves beaten to the earth-Before God and man alike pride is hateful . . . . Pride’s beginning is man’s revolt from God, when the heart forgets its Maker, and of all sin pride is the root . . . . Proud thrones cast down to make room 35

Lucan, Pharsalia 9.498ff.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

151

for the oppressed. If they will make you master of the feast, do not give yourself airs; bear yourself as an equal.

When the Apostle instructs Timothy regarding subordinates, he says (1, 5:1): “Instead of fi nding fault, appeal to an older man as if he were your father, to younger men as your brothers, to the older women as mothers, to the younger . . . as sisters.” ( John 15:16): “It was not you who chose me,” says the Lord, “it was I that chose you.” All other superiors are chosen by their subjects and are created and set up by them, because they are chosen not for lordship but for service. For Christ alone is truly Lord and it is for him to choose his servants for his service. Yet he did not show himself as Lord but as a servant, and he reproached his disciples by his own example when they were already aspiring to the summits of dignity, saying (Luke 22:25): “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who bear rule over them won the name of benefactors. With you it is not to be so.” He who seeks to lord it over his subordinates rather than to serve them imitates the kings of the Gentiles and strives to be feared rather than loved. Puffed up with the authority of his superior office, he loves “taking the chief places at table and the fi rst seats in the synagogue, and having his hands kissed in the marketplace, and being called Rabbi among their fellow men (Matt. 23:6–7). Regarding the honor of this title, the Lord says (Matt. 23:8–9): “You are not to claim the title of Rabbi . . . nor are you to call any man on earth your father.” Later, forbidding all prideful boasting, he says (23:12): “The man who exalts himself will be humbled.” Care should be taken also that the flock is not endangered by the absence of its shepherds, and that the discipline within does not grow slack while the superiors roam about outside. So I command that the deaconess, being more concerned over spiritual than bodily matters, should not leave the monastery because of any care for things outside. But as she is more unremitting in her devotion, she should be the more concerned for her subordinates, and so the more rarely she appears among men, the more honored her appearance will be, as it is written (Ecclus. 13:12): “If a great man bids you come close, keep your distance; he will but bid you the more.” If the monastery should require the sending of any mission, the monks or their lay brothers should perform it. The Double Monastery For it is always incumbent on men to provide for the needs of women. The greater their piety is, the greater their devotion to God and their need for the assistance of men. For this reason, Joseph was admonished by the angel to take care of the Lord’s mother, whom nevertheless he was not allowed to know carnally. When the Lord himself was about to die, he provided a second son, as it were, for his mother, to take care of her in temporal matters. 36 There is no question about the great attention the apostles paid to devout women, as I have 36

See: Matt. 1:20; John 19:26.

152

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

already remarked sufficiently elsewhere. To serve them, the apostles appointed seven deacons.37 Following this authority and also the requirements of necessity, I have decided that monks and their lay brothers, after the manner of apostles and deacons, should provide for monasteries of women in what pertains to the care of external affairs. In these matters, monks are necessary chiefly for the Masses, but lay brothers are needed also for manual labor. So it is fitting, as is reported to have been the case at Alexandria under Mark the Evangelist, in the very beginning of the early Church, that monasteries of women should not be without monasteries of men, and that men of similar religious life should administer all external affairs for the women. Certainly, in my judgment, monasteries of women observe the religious life to which they are called more diligently when they are governed by the supervision of spiritual men, and when the same shepherd is placed over both the ewes and the rams— that is, when he who rules the men, presides also over the women and always according to the apostolic ordinance (1 Cor. 11:13): “The head to which a wife is united is her husband, just as the head to which every man is united is Christ.” For this reason the monastery of St. Scholastica, which was situated on the lands of a monastery of monks, was also governed by the supervision of a monk, and instructed and comforted by his frequent visits or those of his fellow-monks.38 Concerning the providing of this supervision, the Rule of St. Basil contains a passage for our instruction:39 Question: Is it suitable for him who rules, apart from her who presides over the sisters, to say anything to the virgins for their edification? Answer: And how else shall that precept of the Apostle be observed which says (1 Cor. 14:40): ‘Only let us have everything done suitably and with right order’?

And in the following chapter, it is asked: Question: Is it seemly for him who rules to converse frequently with her who presides over the sisters, and especially if some of the monks are offended by this? Answer: Although the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:29): ‘There is no reason why I should let my freedom be called in question by another man’s conscience,’ it is good to follow him when he says (9:12): ‘Yet we have never availed ourselves of these rights; we bear every hardship, sooner than hinder the preaching of Christ’s gospel.’ As far as possible, the sisters are to be seen seldom and conversation is to be very brief. 37

See Acts 6:5. Scholastica: Patroness of Benedictine nunneries, sister of Benedict. Her monastery was at Plombariola, five miles or so from his final monastery at Monte Casino. She died a few years before him (ca. 543); Her feast day, 10 February, was observed with especial attention in Benedictine nunneries. According to a strong medieval tradition, her relics were moved to northern France, to Le Mans, when Benedict’s were transferred from Monte Cassino to Fleury-sur-Loire. Le Mans was a likely stop for Abelard (or others of his acquaintance) on the way from Abelard’s home in Brittany (the district of Nantes) to his various residences in the Paris basin. 39 Regula fusius Tractata 197, 199: PG 103, 551. 38

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

153

The decree of the Council of Seville is pertinent here: By common consent we have decreed that the monasteries of virgins in the Baetic province shall be ruled by the ministration and supervision of monks. For we provide things spiritual for the virgins when we choose spiritual fathers for them, by whose direction they may be protected and by whose teaching they may be edified. Yet these precautions are to be observed with respect to the monks: they are to be kept apart from the privacy of the sisters, they are not to have the liberty of approaching even as far as the vestibule. Neither the abbot nor he who is placed over them shall be allowed, in the absence of her who presides over the sisters, to say anything to the virgins of Christ pertaining to instruction in morals. Nor should he converse frequently alone with her who presides, but rather in the presence of two or three sisters. Just as the access is infrequent, the speech should be brief. God forbid that we should wish the monks—even to say it is wicked—to be familiar with the virgins of Christ. But, according to what is laid down in the ordinance of the Rule and the canons, the men should be kept separate and far apart from the women, and we commit the sisters to their guidance only, ordaining that one man, the most trustworthy of the monks, should be chosen. In his charge should be placed the management of their lands, in the country or in town, the erection of buildings and the provision of whatever else may be necessary for the monastery; thus the handmaids of Christ, solicitous only for the welfare of their souls, may live in divine worship and perform their own duties. Clearly, he who is placed over them by his abbot should be approved by the judgment of his bishop. The sisters should make the clothing for those communities to which they look for guidance. From these in turn, as has been said, they will receive the fruits of their labor and the help of their protection.40

Following this decree, I wish monasteries of women always to be subject to monasteries of men in such a way that the monks may take care of the sisters and one man may preside as a father over both. Both monasteries shall look to his supervision and thus, as there is one fold in the Lord, there shall be one shepherd over both.41 This association of spiritual brotherhood has been the more pleasing both to God and man, the more perfectly it can suffice for both sexes coming to the religious life—that is, when the monks receive the men and the nuns the women, and the society itself can provide for every soul that is thinking of its own salvation. Anyone who shall seek to be converted to the religious life, with a mother or a sister or a daughter or any other woman of whom he has charge, may fi nd complete solace there. The more closely the persons in the two monasteries are united by some tie of kinship, the greater the mutual affection joining together both communities, and the greater their solicitude for one another. The Provost I wish the provost of the monks, whom they call abbot, to preside over the nuns in such a way that he may look upon those who are the brides of the Lord, 40 41

Second Council of Seville [A.D. 619], canon 11: Mansi, Concilia 10.560. See John 10:16.

154

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

whose servant he is, as his own ladies, and rejoice not in being placed over them but in being of service to them. He should be like the steward in a king’s palace, who does not oppress the mistress with his power but acts providently toward her, in order to obey her at once in necessary matters and pay no heed to her in harmful ones. He should administer all external affairs in such a way that he will never, unless commanded to do so, enter into the privacy of the bridal chamber. In this way, then, I wish the servant of Christ to provide for the brides of Christ, and to care for them faithfully on Christ’s behalf and to discuss with the deaconess everything that is necessary. He should not, without consulting her, decide anything regarding the handmaids of Christ or those things pertaining to them, nor should he give them any orders or presume to speak to them except through her. But whenever the deaconess summons him, he should not delay in coming and in carrying out whatever she shall tell him regarding anything she or her subordinates need. When he is summoned by the deaconess, he should not speak with her except openly and in the presence of approved persons. He should not come close to her or keep her in long conversations. But everything pertaining to food or clothing—or money too, if there is any—should be collected or set aside by the handmaids of Christ and, from anything that the sisters may have in excess, whatever the monks need should be turned over to them. So the monks will take charge of all external affairs, and the sisters will attend only to the tasks that are properly performed inside by women. They shall make the garments, including those of the monks, and wash them; they shall also make the bread and take it to be baked and bring it back again after it is baked. They shall also take charge of the milk and all that is made from it, and the feeding of hens and geese, and whatever women can do more suitably than men. When the provost has been appointed, he shall swear in the presence of the bishop and the sisters that he will be a faithful steward to them in the Lord and will carefully safeguard their bodies against contamination of the flesh. If by any chance, which God forbid, the bishop should fi nd him negligent, he should depose him at once as guilty of perjury. In professing their vows, all the monks should bind themselves by oath to the sisters not to consent in any way to their oppression and to protect their bodily purity as much as possible. None of the men, therefore, shall have access to the sisters except with the permission of the provost, nor shall anything be sent to them, unless it is transmitted by the provost. None of the sisters shall ever leave the precincts of the monastery, but the monks, as has been said, will take charge of all external affairs and the strong will sweat in heavy labor. None of the monks shall ever enter these precincts without obtaining the permission of the provost and the deaconess, when some necessary or honest reason requires it. If any monk shall presume to do otherwise, he shall be expelled from the monastery without delay. In order that the men, being stronger than the women, may not dare to impose on them in any way, I command also that they shall not presume to do anything contrary to the will of the deaconess; but they

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

155

shall do everything according to her wishes, and all alike, men as well as women, shall profess their vows to her and promise obedience. Thus peace may be more lasting and harmony better preserved, if less license is permitted to the stronger. Moreover, the strong may be the less burdened by obedience to the weak, the less the women have to fear violence from them. It is certain that the more a man shall have humbled himself here before God, the more highly he will be exalted. What has been said concerning the deaconess should be sufficient, and now let us turn our attention to the officials. The Sacristan The sacristan, who is also the treasurer, shall be in charge of the entire oratory, and shall keep all the keys belonging to it and those things necessary to it. If there are any offerings, she should receive them; she should also have charge of making or repairing whatever is needed in the oratory, and all its decoration. It is her duty also to see to the hosts, the vessels and books of the altar and its whole adornment, as well as the relics, the lights, the clock, and the striking of the bells. If possible, those who are virgins should prepare the hosts, and purify the flour of which they are made and wash the altar cloths. But neither the sacristan nor any of the sisters shall be permitted to touch the relics and the altar vessels or even the altar cloths, unless these have been given to them to be washed. The monks or their lay brothers should be summoned to do this, and the nuns should wait for their arrival. If necessary, some of them should be assigned to this task under the sacristan, that is, men who may be worthy, if the need arises, of touching these objects. The men should take them out of the chests unlocked by her and replace them there. Certainly, she who presides over the sanctuary should be distinguished for the purity of her life. If possible, she should be whole in both mind and body, and her abstinence and continence should be well tested. She should be trained especially in lunar computation, so that she may provide for the oratory according to the order of the seasons. The Chantress The chantress shall have charge of the entire choir and the arrangement of the Divine Offices and shall be mistress of instruction in singing and reading, and of everything pertaining to writing or dictation. She shall have charge of the bookcupboard and shall remove the books from it and receive them back again. She shall also undertake the work of writing and decorating them, or supervise this task. She is to decide how the nuns are to sit in choir and assign their seats, and decide who are to read or sing. She shall make the list to be read out on Saturdays in Chapter, in which all the weekly duties are described. For this reason it is most fitting that she should be educated and especially that she should not be ignorant of music. After the deaconess, she shall have charge of all discipline. If by any chance the deaconess should be occupied with other matters, the chantress shall take her place in this.

156

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

The Infirmarian The infi rmarian shall take care of the sick, and preserve them from sin as well as from need. They are to be allowed whatever their sickness demands, with respect to food and baths and anything else. There is a well-known proverb for such cases: “The law was not made for the sick.” Flesh meat should by no means be denied them, except on the sixth day of the week or on the chief Vigils or the fasts of the four seasons or of Lent. But they should be the more strongly persuaded from sin, as it is the more urgent for them to give thought to their departure. At this time especially, when it is most often transgressed, silence should prevail, and the sick should pray constantly, as it is written (Ecclus. 38:9–10): “Son, when you fall sick, do not neglect your own needs; pray to the Lord, and you shall win recovery. Leave off your singing, your life amend, purge yourself of all your guilt.” There must always be a watchful guardian present with the sick, who, if the need should arise, may come to them at once, and the house must be supplied with everything necessary for the care of sickness. Provision should be made, if need be, for medicines, according to the resources of the place. This can be done more easily if the sister who has charge of the sick does not lack knowledge of medicine. She shall also care for those who have an issue of blood. There should also be someone skilled in bleeding, so that it will not be necessary for a man to come among women for this purpose. Provision should be made as well for the offices of the Hours and for communion, preceded always by confession, and by satisfaction, as far as this is possible. Regarding the anointing of the sick, the precept of St. James the Apostle should be carefully obeyed and, to carry it out, two of the older priests, with a deacon, should be brought in from the monks. They will bring the consecrated oil with them and, with a screen placed between them and the community of sisters, perform the sacrament in their presence. It is necessary, therefore, that the infi rmary should be arranged so that the monks may easily come in to perform these services and go out, neither seeing the community of sisters nor being seen by them. Once each day, at least, the deaconess, with the cellaress, should visit the sick person as if she were Christ, to provide carefully for her needs, both bodily and spiritual, so that they may deserve to hear it said by the Lord (Matt. 25:36): “I was sick, and you cared for me.” If the sick person shall draw near her end, and come to the agony of death, someone who is with her should run at once to the convent with a board and, beating on it, announce the sister’s departure. Whatever the hour of day or night, the whole community should hasten to the dying one, unless they are prevented by the offices of the Church. If this should be the case, since nothing is to be put before the work of God, it will suffice if the deaconess goes in haste, with some others whom she chooses, and the community shall follow. But whoever shall go running when the board is beaten, should begin the litany at once, until the invocation of the saints has been completed, and then the psalms and other prayers for the dying should follow. How salutary it is to visit the sick or the dead is carefully noted by Ecclesiastes when he says (7:3): “Better a visit

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

157

paid where men mourn than where they feast; it will put you in mind of the end that awaits us all, admonish the living with the foreknowledge of death.” And he also says (7:5): “Sadness, a home for the wise man’s thoughts, mirth for the fool’s.” The body of the dead should be washed at once by the sisters and, after it has been dressed by them in some poor but clean garment, it should be laid on a bier, with the head wrapped in the veil. These garments should be strongly stitched or tied to the body, and they should not be removed afterward. After the body has been carried by the sisters to the church, the monks should take it to be buried when the time has come, and meanwhile the sisters should devote themselves earnestly to reciting psalms and prayers in the oratory. The burial of the deaconess, however, should have only this additional honor: her body is to be wrapped in a shroud alone, and completely sewn up in it, as in a sack. The Wardrober The wardrober shall provide for all that concerns the care of clothing, for shoes as well as everything else. She shall have the sheep shorn, and shall take the hides for sandals. She is to spin and store the flax or wool, and take care of all the woven materials. She shall supply thread, needle, and scissors to everyone. She is to have complete charge of the dormitory and provide cots for all. She shall take care of the tables also and the towels and all cloths, and see to the cutting, sewing, and washing of them. To her especially these words (Prov. 31:13, 19ff.): Does she not busy herself with wool and thread, plying her hands with ready skill? . . . . Jealously she sets her hands to work, her fingers clutch the spindle . . . . Let the snow lie cold if it will, she has no fears for her household; no servant of hers but is warmly clad . . . . She keeps watch over all that goes on in her house, not content to go through life eating and sleeping. That is why her children are the first to call her blessed.

She shall have the tools for her work, and shall decide what portion of it she should assign to each of the other sisters. She is also to have charge of the novices until they are received into the congregation. The Cellaress The cellaress shall be in charge of everything pertaining to food: the cellar, the refectory, the kitchen, the mill, the bakehouse with its oven, the gardens, the orchards, and the entire cultivation of the fields. She shall also take care of all the bees and the herds, flocks and birds that are needed. All that is necessary in the way of food will be required of her. It is especially fitting that she should not be miserly but ready and willing to supply everything necessary. “It is the cheerful giver God loves” (2 Cor. 9:7). I absolutely forbid her, in her management of her affairs, to be more generous to herself than to others, or to prepare special dishes for herself, or to defraud others by keeping anything for herself. “The

158

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

best steward,” Jerome says, “is he who keeps nothing for himself.”42 When Judas kept the common purse and abused the duties of his stewardship, he lost his place in the company of the apostles. By keeping back their share, Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, received the sentence of death.43 The Portress To the portress, or door-keeper, which is the same thing, pertains the reception of guests or of any who come; she is to announce them, conduct them to the proper place, and be responsible for hospitality. It is proper for her to be discreet in both age and mind, and to know how to give and receive answers, and to decide who are to be taken in and who are not, and how this is to be done. By her especially, as by the vestibule of the Lord, the religious life of the monastery should be adorned, since knowledge of it begins with her. She should, therefore, be gentle in words and quiet in speech, so that she may try to strengthen the charity even of those she excludes by giving a proper reason for their exclusion. For it is written (Prov. 15:1): “A gentle answer is a quarrel averted; a word that gives pain does but fan the fl ame of resentment.” It is said elsewhere (Ecclus. 6:5): “Gentleness of speech, how it wins friends everywhere, how it disarms its enemies.” Since she sees the poor more often and knows them better, she should be in charge of any food or clothing intended for them, and attend to its distribution. If she and the other officials need the support or comfort of others, assistants should be given to them by the deaconess. These should generally be chosen from the lay sisters, so that none of the nuns shall ever be absent from the Divine Offices or from the chapel and refectory. The portress should have a little house by the gate, where she or her assistant may always be ready for those who come. They should not sit idly there, but should study silence all the more because their talk may more easily reach the ears of those who are outside. Certainly the portress’s duty is not only to keep out the men who must be excluded, but also to shut out rumors completely, so that they will not be brought wantonly into the monastery. She is to be held responsible for all abuses of this sort. But if she should hear anything that should be known, she should report it secretly to the deaconess, who will take whatever measures may please her. As soon as there shall be a knocking or a noise at the door, its guardian should ask those who have come who they are and what they want; if necessary, she should open the door at once and receive them. Only women are to be given hospitality within; men should be directed to the monks. No man is to be admitted inside, unless the deaconess has fi rst been consulted, and commands it. But the gate shall be opened at once to women. The portress should, however, have the women who are received, or the men who enter for any reason, wait in her little cell until the deaconess or the sisters may come to them, if it is necessary or opportune. 42 43

Jerome, Ep. 52, ad Nepotianum 16: PL 22, 539; CSEL 54, 440. See: John 13:29; Acts 5:1–10.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

159

But for the poor women who need to have their feet washed, the deaconess herself, or the sisters, should carefully perform this act of hospitality. For the Lord was called ‘deacon’ by the apostles especially because of this service of humanity, as one of them says in the Lives of the Fathers: “For you, O man, the Savior became a deacon and girding himself with a towel, washed the feet of the disciples, and commanded them also to wash one another’s feet.”44 For this reason, the Apostle says of the deaconess (1 Tim. 5:10): “Has she been hospitable? Has she washed the feet of the saints?” The Lord himself says (Matt. 25:35): “I was a stranger, and you brought me home.” All the officials who are not engaged in studies should be appointed to these duties. Not to be chosen are the chantress and those, if they can be found, who are suited for study, in order that they may be freer to devote themselves to it. The Oratory The ornaments of the oratory should be those that are necessary and not superfluous. There is to be nothing in it, therefore, made of gold or silver, except one silver chalice, or more if necessary. There should be no decorations of silk, except the stoles or maniples, and no carved images in it. Let only a wooden cross be set over the altar there and if the nuns wish to paint the image of the Savior on it, this is not forbidden. But the altars should not have any other images. The monastery should be content with a pair of bells. A vessel fi lled with holy water should be set outside, at the entrance to the oratory, so that they may bless themselves with it as they enter in the morning and come out after Compline. The Divine Offices None of the sisters should be absent from the canonical hours, but as soon as the bell has rung, each should put everything else aside and hasten to the Divine Office, yet with modest steps. Let those who can, enter the oratory secretly and say (Ps. 5:8): “I, then, encompassed by your mercy, will betake myself to your house, and in reverence of you bow down before your sanctuary.” No book is to be kept in the choir unless it is necessary to the present office. The Psalms should be said clearly and distinctly so as to be understood, and the psalmody or singing should be so modulated that those who have a weak voice will be able to sustain it. Nothing is to be read or sung in the church unless it is taken from the authentic Scripture, but principally from the New or Old Testament. Each of these should be distributed over the lessons so that they may be read in their entirety in church during the year. But explanations of the Scriptures or sermons of the Doctors or any writings containing something edifying should be read out at meals or in chapter and, wherever it may be necessary, any kind of reading should be allowed. No one should presume to read or sing anything without preparing it beforehand. If by chance anyone has made mistakes in pronunciation in the 44

Vitae patrum 7.4, 8: PL 73, 1016.

160

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

oratory, she is to make amends secretly, by supplication in the presence of all, saying: “Pardon my carelessness, Lord, this time also.” At midnight, according to the prophetic instruction, the nuns must rise for the nocturnal Vigils; for this reason they should go to bed early enough to enable weak nature to endure these Vigils. Everything that pertains to the day should be done in the daylight, as St. Benedict also instructed us. After the Vigils, they should return to the dormitory until the hour of morning Lauds. If any of the night still remains, sleep should not be denied to the weakness of nature, since it greatly refreshes weary nature and makes it patient in work and keeps it sober and alert. But if any require meditation on the Psalter or on any readings, they should study, as St. Benedict also reminds (chaps. 8–11), in such a way as not to disturb those who are sleeping. He said ‘meditation’ in this passage, rather than ‘reading,’ so that the reading [aloud] of some will not prevent the sleeping of others. When he said also “by the brethren who are in need,” he surely was not compelling anyone to this meditation.45 If at times instruction in singing is necessary, provision for this is likewise to be made for those who require it. The morning Hour should be celebrated as soon as it is daylight and when the sun rises, the bell should be rung, if possible. When this Hour is over, the sisters should return to the dormitory. If it is summer, when the night is short and the morning long, we do not forbid them to sleep for a little while before Prime, until they are roused by the ringing of the bell. St. Gregory also mentions this sleep after the morning Lauds, where he speaks of the venerable man, Libertinus: “But on the following day there was a case to be heard for the benefit of the monastery. When the morning hymns had been sung, therefore, Libertinus came to the abbot’s bedside and humbly asked a blessing for himself.”46 This morning sleep, then, should not be denied from Easter until the autumnal equinox when the night begins to be longer than the day. When the nuns come out of the dormitory, they should wash themselves and, taking books, sit reading or singing in the cloister until Prime is rung. After Prime, they should go to chapter and, when they have all seated themselves there, a lesson from the Martyrology should be read, after the state of the moon has been announced. There should be some edifying discussion afterward, or some parts of the Rule should be read and expounded. Then if there are corrections to be made or matters to be set in order, they should receive attention. Monastic Discipline It must be known that a monastery or any house should be called badly ordered not if something is done there in a disorderly way, but only if, when it is done in this way, it is not corrected. What place is completely free from sin? St. Augustine 45 Rule of St Benedict, chaps. 8–11. The Offices of the day included Matin, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. 46 Gregory, Dialogi 1.2: PL 77, 161.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

161

carefully notes this when he is instructing his clergy, and he remarks in a certain passage: However vigilant the discipline of my house may be, I am a man and I live among men. I do not dare to claim for myself that my house is better than Noah’s Ark where among eight persons one was found to be reproved, or better than Abraham’s house where it was said (Gen. 21:10): ‘Rid yourself of this slave-woman and her son,’ or better than the house of Isaac where it was said (Malachi 1:2): ‘To Jacob I proved myself a friend . . . no friend to Esau,’ or Jacob’s house where a son defiled his father’s bed; or better than the house of David, one of whose sons lay with his sister, and another rebelled against the holy meekness of his father; or better than the company of the Apostle Paul who, if he had lived among good men, would not have said (2 Cor. 7:5): ‘All was conf lict without, all was anxiety within.’ Nor would he have said (Philip. 2:20): ‘I have no one else here who spares my thoughts as he does, no one who will concern himself so unaffectedly with your affairs.’ For everyone seeks his own and my house is not better than the company of Christ himself where eleven good men tolerated Judas, the traitor and thief, or, finally, better than heaven, from which angels fell.47

Strongly urging us to the discipline of the monastery, Augustine also added this: I confess before God how difficult it has been for me, from the day on which I began to serve God, to find better men than those who live in monasteries in accordance with their vows. Similarly, I have not found men worse than monks who have lapsed. So I think what is written in the Apocalypse refers to this (22:11): ‘Meanwhile the wrongdoer must persist in his deeds of wrong, the corrupt in his corruption, the just man is winning his justification.’48

The Correction of Faults The strictness of correction should, therefore, be such that if anyone has seen in another a fault to be corrected and concealed this, she should be subjected to a more severe discipline than the person who committed the fault. No one, then, should hesitate to accuse either her own or another’s fault. But anyone who accuses herself and comes before the others, as it is written (Prov. 18:17), “An innocent man is the fi rst to lay bare the truth,” deserves a lighter punishment if her negligence has ceased. No one should, however, presume to accuse another unless the deaconess should chance to question her regarding the truth of a matter unknown to the rest. No one should ever dare to strike another for any fault whatsoever unless she has been ordered by the deaconess to do so. Concerning the discipline of correction, it is written (Prov. 3:11–12): ‘My son, do not undervalue the correction the Lord sends you, do not be unmanned when he reproves your faults. It is where he loves that he bestows correction, like a 47 48

Augustine, Ep. 78.8: PL 33, 272; CSEL 34, 343. Augustine, Ep. 78.9: PL 33, 272; CSEL 34, 343.

162

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

father whose son is dear to him.’ Also (13:24): ‘Spare the rod and you are no friend to your son; ever a kind father is quick to punish . . . . The lash for the reckless, if you would turn a fool into a wise man (19:25) . . . . A wise master, and he shall learn yet (21:11) . . . . Whip for horse, bridle for ass, and never a rod for the fool’s back? (26:3) . . . . More thanks you will have, in the end, for honest reproof than for designing f lattery (28:23) . . . . For the time being, all correction is painful rather than pleasant, but afterwards, when it has done its work of discipline, it yields a harvest of good dispositions, to our great peace (Heb. 12:11) . . . . Spoilt son you shall beget to your shame, spoilt daughter to your great loss; bring she to her husband no dower of modesty, her shame shall cost you dear (Ecclus. 22:3) . . . . Inure your son to the rod, as you love him; so shall you have comfort of him in your later years (30:1) . . . . Discipline your son, and you shall take pride in him; he shall be your boast among your familiars . . . . Cosset your son and make a darling of him, it shall be to your own anxiety, your own remorse . . . . Let a man pamper his children . . . and he shall find the spoilt son headstrong and stubborn as a horse unbroken (30.2, 8, 9).’

Obedience to Superiors In the deliberations of counsel, each nun will be permitted to offer her opinion. No matter what everyone may think about it, however, the decision of the deaconess should be held as immutable, and all things are to depend on her judgment, even if she is wrong, which God forbid, and her decision is for the worse. So we have that saying of St. Augustine in the book of Confessions:49 “He who disobeys his superiors in anything sins greatly, even if he makes better choices than those demanded of him.” For it is far better for us to act well than to do good. We should consider not so much what is done as the manner and spirit in which it is done. Whatever is done in obedience is well done, even if what is done may seem by no means good. Superiors are to be obeyed in all things, therefore, however great the material damage, if there is no apparent danger to the soul. The superior should see that she governs well, since it is enough for the subordinates to obey well and in conformity with their vows, not to follow their own will but the will of their superiors. I absolutely forbid that custom should ever be preferred to reason, or that anything is ever to be defended because it is the custom and not because it is reasonable; nor because it is usual, rather than because it is good. The better it appears to be, the more willingly it should be accepted. Otherwise, we should, like the Jews, prefer the antiquity of the Law to the Gospel. On this point St. Augustine, adding much evidence from the counsel of Cyprian, says in a certain passage: ‘Whoever despises truth and presumes to follow custom is either jealous and malicious toward his brothers, to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by whose inspiration his Church is instructed.’ He says also ( John 14:6): ‘In the Gospel the Lord says, ‘I am the Truth.’ He does not say, ‘I am the custom.’ So when the truth has been made manifest, custom should give way to truth.

49

Not to be found in this work.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

163

Likewise, when the truth has been made clear, error should yield to truth, as Peter who at first circumcised, yielded to Paul when he preached the truth.’50

And he says further: “It is useless for those who are defeated by reason to oppose us with custom, as if custom were greater than truth, or as if what the Holy Spirit has revealed as better should not be followed in spiritual matters. It is clearly true that reason and truth are to be set before custom.”51 Pope Gregory VII writes to Bishop Wimund: “Certainly, if we may use the words of St. Cyprian, any custom, however ancient and however widespread, is to be placed after the truth and the practice that is contrary to the truth should be abolished.” With how much love Truth, even in words, is to be embraced, Ecclesiasticus tells us (4:24): “Though life itself were in peril, never be ashamed to speak the truth.” Also (4.30): “Speak you never against the known truth.” And again (37:20): “For every undertaking, every act of yours, let just consideration prepare you, and trustworthy counsel.” To be accepted as authority is not what is done by the many but what is approved by the wise and good. As Solomon says, (Eccles. 1:15): “There is no reckoning up men’s follies.” According to the words of Truth (Matt. 22:14): “Many are called, but few are chosen.” Rare things are costly and those that are plentiful are lower in price. In deliberations, no one should follow the larger group of men but the better. It is not a man’s age but his wishes that should be considered; truth, rather than friendship, is to be respected. So we have that saying of the poet: “It is right to learn even from our enemy.”52 Whenever deliberation is needed, it should not be delayed, and if important matters are to be discussed, the community should be assembled. But to discuss minor matters, the deaconess, together with a few of the more important persons, should be enough. It is also written concerning counsel (Prov. 11:14–15): “Ill fares the people, that guidance has none; safety reigns where counsel abounds . . . . A fool is ever right to his own thinking; the wise listen to advice (Prov. 12:15) . . . . Do nothing, my son, save with consideration, and your deeds shall not bring you repentance” (Ecclus. 32:24). If by chance something done without deliberation has a fortunate outcome, the favor of fortune does not excuse the presumption of the man. But if, after taking counsel, men sometimes make mistakes, the authority that sought counsel is not to be held guilty of presumption. Nor is the person who trusted others be blamed so much as those with whom he agreed in their error. Monastic Duties When the nuns come out of chapter, they should attend to those tasks that are suitable, that is, reading or singing or manual work, until Terce. After Terce, Mass should be said and to celebrate it, one of the monks should be appointed 50

Augustine, De baptismo 3.5: PL 43, 143; CSEL 51, 203. Augustine, De baptismo 4.5: PL 43, 157; CSEL 53, 228. 52 Ovid, Metamorphoses 4.428. 51

164

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

weekly as priest. If the number of monks is large enough, the priest should come with a deacon and subdeacon who may serve him or perform their own offices. Their coming in and going out should be arranged in such a way that they may not be visible at all to the community of sisters. But if a larger number of monks should be necessary, provision shall be made for them and, if possible, always in such a way that the monks’ own convent will not be deprived of those who are needed to perform the Divine Offices because of the need for someone to say Masses for the nuns. If the sisters are to make their communion, an older priest should be chosen, who may give them communion after Mass, the deacon and subdeacon having previously withdrawn to remove any occasion of temptation. The whole community should receive communion at least three times a year, at Easter, Pentecost and the Lord’s Nativity, as the Fathers have established also for the laity. They should so prepare themselves for these communions that on the third day before, they may all make their confession and proper atonement, and by three days of fasting on bread and water and by frequent prayer, may purify themselves with all humility and trembling, applying to themselves the terrible saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:27–31): And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood. A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup; he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and drinks unworthily, not recognizing the Lord’s body for what it is. That is why many of your number want strength and health, and not a few have died. If we recognized our own faults, we should not incur these judgments.

After Mass, the nuns should return to their work until Sext and they should at no time live idly, but each and every one is to do what she can and what is fitting. After Sext, they are to have their meal unless it is a time of fasting. For then they must wait until None and in Lent even until Vespers. At no time should the convent be without reading in the refectory and when the deaconess wishes to end this, let her say enough, and immediately all are to rise and give thanks to God. In summer, they are to rest in the dormitory after dinner until None and after None, to return to their work until Vespers. After Vespers, they should at once eat or drink and then, according to the season, they are to go to collation. On Saturday, before collation53 they should purify themselves by the washing of the feet and hands. In this office the deaconess should serve with the sisters of the week, who have served in the kitchen. After collation, they are to go at once to Compline and afterward to sleep. Food and Clothing Regarding food and clothing, the Apostolic injunction should be observed (1 Tim. 6:8): “If we have food and clothing to last us out, let us be content with 53

Collation: in monastic usage, a period of spiritual reading or discussion.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

165

that.” That is to say, necessary things should be enough and we should not seek what is superfluous. What can be bought more cheaply, or obtained more easily and without giving offense, should be allowed. In the matter of food, the Apostle avoids only giving offense to his own or his neighbor’s conscience, knowing that it is not the food that is at fault but the appetite. He says (Rom. 14:3–22, passim): Let not the first, over his meat, mock at him who does not eat it, or the second, while he abstains, pass judgment on him who eats it . . . . Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? . . . . He who eats does so in the Lord’s honor; he gives thanks to God for it and he who abstains from eating abstains in the Lord’s honor, and he too thanks God . . . . Let us cease, then, to lay down rules for one another, and make this rule for ourselves instead, not to trip up or entangle a brother’s conscience. This is my assurance, this is what my conscience tells me in the name of our lord Jesus, that there is nothing which is unclean in itself; it is only when a man believes a thing to be unclean that it becomes unclean for him . . . . The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating or drinking this or that, it means rightness of heart, finding our peace and our joy in the Holy Spirit . . . . Nothing is unclean; yet it goes ill with the man who eats to the hurt of his own conscience. You do well if you refuse to eat meat or to drink wine, or do anything in which your brother can find an occasion of sin, a cause for scandal or scruple.

After the offense to his brother, he also adds the offense to himself of the man who eats in opposition to his own conscience (Rom. 14:22–23): “He is fortunate, who can make his own choice without self-questioning. He who hesitates, and eats nonetheless, is self-condemned; he acts in bad conscience, and wherever there is bad conscience, there is sin.” In everything we do against our conscience and against what we believe, we sin. We judge and condemn ourselves, by approving and accepting the law, if we eat those foods we distinguish, that is, exclude according to the law and set apart as unclean. Such is the testimony of our conscience that it greatly accuses or excuses us before God. For this reason John writes in his first epistle (3:21): “Beloved, if conscience does not condemn us, we can appear boldly before God, and he will grant all our requests, since we are keeping his commandments, and living as he would see us live.” So it is well said above by Paul (Rom. 14:14): “There is nothing which is unclean in itself; it is only when a man believes a thing to be unclean,” that is, believes it to be unclean and forbidden to himself. For we call foods common which according to the law are called clean, because the law, forbidding them to the faithful, may, as it were, offer and make them public to those who are outside the law. Therefore, common women are unclean, and things that are common and made public are cheap or less costly. So he asserts through Christ that no food is common, that is, unclean, because the law of Christ forbids nothing except, as has been said, in order to prevent giving offense either to one’s own conscience or to another’s. On this matter, he says elsewhere (1 Cor. 8:13, 9:1): “Why then, if a mouthful of food is an occasion of sin to my brother, I will abstain from flesh meat perpetually, rather than be the occasion of my brother’s sin. Am I not free to do as I will? Am I not an apostle?”

166

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

As if to say, do I not have that liberty which the Lord gave to the apostles to eat whatever I will and to receive any kind of help? When he sent the apostles out to preach, he says in one passage (Luke 10:7): “Eating and drinking what they have to give you,” that is, not distinguishing any kind of food from the others. Well aware of this, the Apostle carefully proceeds to say that all kinds of food, even the food of unbelievers and idolaters, are lawful for Christians, if only, as we have said, they avoid giving offense in food. He says (1 Cor. 10:22–29, 32): I am free to do what I will; yes, but not everything can be done without harm. I am free to do what I will, but some things do not edify. Each of you ought to study the well-being of others, not his own. When things are sold in the open market, then you may eat them, without making any inquiries to satisfy your consciences; this world, as we know, and all that is in it belongs to the Lord. If some unbeliever invites you to his table, and you consent to go, then you need not ask questions to satisfy your consciences, you may eat whatever is put before you. But if someone says to you, this has been used in idolatrous worship, then for the sake of your informant, you must refuse to eat; it is a matter of conscience; his conscience, I mean, not yours . . . . Give no offense to Jew, or to Greek, or to God’s church.

From these words of the Apostle, it is clear that nothing is forbidden us which we may eat without offense to our own conscience or to another’s. We act without offense to our own conscience if we believe that we are following the way of life by which we may be saved, and without offense to another’s conscience if we are believed to be living in that manner by which we may be saved. We shall indeed live in this way if, satisfying the necessities of nature, we avoid sin and do not presume to bind ourselves by vows to that yoke of life by which we may be overburdened and fall. And the higher was the degree of the vows we made, the more serious will be our fall. Foreseeing this fall and the foolish making of vows, Ecclesiastes says (5:3–4): “Vow to God if you utter, without delay perform it, he will have no light and rash promises; vow made must be vow paid. Far better undertake nothing than undertake what you do not fulfi ll.” Confronting this danger, the apostolic counsel says (1 Tim. 5:14–15): “So I would have the younger women marry and bear children and have households to manage; then they will give enmity no handle for speaking ill of us. Already there are some who have turned aside to follow Satan.” Considering the weakness of less mature years, he opposes the remedy of a laxer life to the danger of a better one. He advises us to live in the plains, for fear that we may be made to fall from the heights. Following this advice, St. Jerome says in his instruction to the virgin Eustochium: “But if those who are virgins should still not be saved on account of other faults, what will become of those who have prostituted the members of Christ and turned the temple of the Holy Spirit into a brothel? It would be better for a woman to have submitted to marriage, to have followed the level road, than to have strained to reach the heights and fallen into the depths of hell.”54 54

Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 6: PL 22, 397; CSEL 54, 150.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

167

If we search through all the precepts of the Apostle, we shall never fi nd that he permitted a second marriage except to women. But urging men especially to continence, he says (1 Cor. 7:18): “If a man is already circumcised when he is called, he is not to disguise it.” He also says (7:27): “Are you free of wedlock? Then do not go about to fi nd a wife.” Moses, on the contrary, being more indulgent to men than to women, permitted a man to have many wives at the same time, and punished the adulteries of women more severely than those of men. Of a woman, the Apostle says (Rom. 7:3): “if she is widowed, she is quit of her husband’s claim on her . . . and can give herself to another man without adultery.” Elsewhere he says (1 Cor. 7:8–9): “To the unmarried, and to the widows, I would say that they will do well to remain in the same state as myself, but if they have not the gift of continence, let them marry; better to marry than to feel the heat of passion.” He also says (7:39–40): “If a woman’s husband is dead, she is free to marry anyone she will, so long as she marries in the Lord. But more blessed is she, in my judgment, if she remains as she is.” Not only does he allow a second marriage to the weaker sex, but he is so bold as to set no limit on the number; when their husbands are dead, he permits women to marry others. He places no limit on their marriages so long as they avoid the sin of fornication. They should marry often rather than fornicate once, for fear that, after prostituting themselves to one man, they may also pay the debt of carnal commerce to many. Although the payment of this debt is not entirely free from sin, lesser sins are permitted in order that greater ones may be avoided. Is it any wonder, then, if, in order not to incur sin, they are allowed that in which there is no sin, I mean, whatever foods are necessary and not superfluous. As I have said, it is not the food that is at fault but the appetite, when we are attracted by what is not lawful and desire what is forbidden, and at times shamelessly seize it, which is the greatest source of scandal. But among all the foods of man, what is so dangerous or so destructive and contrary to our religious life and to holy peace as wine? Well aware of this, the wisest of men warns us strongly against it when he says (Prov. 20:1; 23:29–35): A reckless counselor is wine, strong drink a riotous friend; the man who is swayed by these, call not wise . . . . Unhappy son of an unhappy father, who is this, ever brawling, ever falling, scarred but not from battle, blood-shot of eye? Who but the tosspot that sits long over his wine? Look not at the wine’s tawny glow, sparkling there in the glass beside you; how insinuating its address! Yet at last adder bites not so fatally, poison it distills like the basilisk’s own. Eyes that stray to forbidden charms, a mind uttering thoughts that are none of thine, shall make thee helpless as mariner asleep in mid-ocean, when the tiller drops from the helmsman’s drowsy grasp. What, you will say, blows all unfelt, wounds that left no sting! Could I but come to myself, and be back, even now, at my wine! . . . . Wine was never made for kings, Lamuel, never for kings; carouse benefits ill your council chamber. Not for them to drink deep, and forget the claims of right, and misjudge the plea of the friendless. (Prov. 31:4)

168

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

And it is written in Ecclesiasticus (19:1): “Let him toil as he will, the sot’s purse is empty; little things despise, and little by little you shall come to ruin. Wine and women, what a trap for the loyalty of the wise, how hard a test of good sense!” Passing over all other foods, Isaiah mentions wine only as a cause of the captivity of his people (8:11–13, 22): “Woe upon you, the men who must be up betimes to go drinking, and sit late into the evening, till you are heated with wine. Still you must have zither and harp, tambour and flute and wine for your entertainment; you give no thought to God’s dealings, to the world his hands have made. It is this inconsiderateness that has made my people exiles . . . . Woe upon you, heroes of the tankard, brave hearts around the mixing-bowl.” Extending his complaint from the people to the priests and prophets, he says (28:7–9): “What, these too? These too fuddled with wine, bemused with their reveling? High revel they hold, priest and prophet together, till all are fuddled and sodden with wine, their wits bemused; what wonder if the true seer goes unrecognized, if justice is forgotten? No room is left at their tables for aught but fi lth and vomit. Here is one (they say) has knowledge, has a message to make known, to whom?” The Lord says through Joel (1:5): “Weep they and wail, the tipplers that must be ever at their cups, for the sweet wine they drank, and shall drink no more!” But the Lord does not forbid the use of wine in necessity, as the Apostle advises Timothy (1, 5:23): “Take a little wine to relieve your stomach, and your frequent attacks of illness,” and he says not only “illness” but “frequent.” Noah, who was the fi rst to plant the vine, was still perhaps ignorant of the evil of drunkenness; when he was drunk, he uncovered his nakedness. For the shame of lust is joined with wine. When he was ridiculed by his son, he put a curse on him and reduced him to servitude, which, so far as we know, had never been done before that time.55 His daughters well knew that since Lot was a holy man, he could never be led to incest except by drunkenness.56 The blessed widow, Judith, believed that only by this artifice could the proud Holofernes be tricked and brought low.57 The angels who appeared to the ancient patriarchs, as we read, and were hospitably welcomed by them, took meat but never wine.58 That fi rst and greatest of our leaders, Elias, when he hid himself in the wilderness, was fed by the ravens on bread and meat in the morning and the evening, but not on wine.59 We read also that the children of Israel were fed in the wilderness chiefly on the most delicate meat of quails, but they did not use wine, nor did they ever wish for it.60 It was with bread and fish that the people were fed in the wilderness, and nowhere is it written that they had wine.61 Only marriage, which is not bound by 55

See Gen. 9:20ff. See Gen. 19:31ff. 57 See Jth. 13. 58 See Gen. 18:7–8. 59 See 3 Kings 17:6. 60 See Exod. 16:13. 61 See: Matt. 14:13ff.; Mark 6:31ff.; Luke 9:10ff.; John 6:5ff. 56

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

169

the rule of continence, had the miracle of wine, the source of wantonness.62 But the wilderness, which is the proper dwelling-place of monks, has experienced the gift of meat rather than that of wine. The most essential rule in the law of the Nazirites, by which they consecrated themselves to God, forbade only wine and strong drink. What virtue, what good, can remain in those who are drunk? For this reason, we read that not only wine but everything that can intoxicate was forbidden to the priests of ancient times. So when Jerome writes to Nepotian concerning the life of the clergy and is very indignant that the priests of the law, who abstain from all that might make them drunk, surpass our priests in this abstinence, he says: Never smell of wine, for fear that you will hear those words of the philosopher said of you, ‘This is not to offer a kiss, but a cup.’ The Apostle also condemns priests who are given to wine and the Old Law prohibits those who serve the altar from drinking wine and strong drink. By strong drink [sicera] in the Hebrew language is meant every drink that can intoxicate, whether it is produced by fermentation, or distilled from apple juice or honey, into a sweet and barbarous beverage, or made by pressing grapes into liquor, or water enriched with boiled grain. Whatever inebriates and upsets the balance of the mind, avoid as if it were wine.63

According to the Rule of St. Pachomius no one shall have access to wine and liquor except those who are sick.64 Which of you has not heard that wine is altogether unsuitable for monks and was so greatly detested by the monks of earlier times that when they warn us against it, they call it Satan. So we read in the Lives of the Fathers: When some persons told the Abbot Pastor that a certain monk did not drink wine, he said to them that wine is not at all for monks . . . . One time Masses were celebrated on the mountain of Abbot Anthony, and a jar of wine was found there. One of the elders, taking a small vessel, carried the cup to Abbot Sisoi and gave it to him. He drank once and a second time he took it and drank. When it was brought to him a third time, he did not take it, saying, ‘Peace, brother, do you not know that it is Satan?’ And it is reported also of Abbot Sisoi that his disciple, Abraham, said, ‘If it happens on the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day at church, and he drinks three cupfuls, is it too much?’ And the old man replied: ‘If it were not Satan, it would not be much.’65

St. Benedict was not unmindful of this when, by a certain dispensation, he allowed wine to monks, saying (c. 40): “Although we read that wine is not at all suitable for monks, yet in our times it is impossible to persuade monks of this.” Is it any wonder, then, that if wine is not allowed to monks, St. Jerome completely forbids it to women, whose nature in itself is weaker, though stronger against 62

John 2:1–10. Jerome, Ep. 52, ad Nepotianum 11: PL 22, 536; CSEL 54, 434. 64 Chap. 45: PL 23, 72. St. Pachomius: A fourth-century Egyptian monk who was the first to provide a written rule to govern the communal life of monastics. 65 Vitae Patrum 5.4, 31: PL 73, 868. 63

170

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

wine? In the rules he gave Eustochium, the virgin of Christ, for the preservation of her virginity, he urges her most strongly: If I am capable of giving any counsel, if my experience is to be trusted, this is my first warning, my first plea: that the bride of Christ f lee wine as if it were poison. These are the first weapons of the demons against youth. Avarice does not shake one so much, nor does pride puff one up so much, or ambition f latter. We easily forego other vices. This enemy is shut up within us. Wherever we may go, we carry the enemy with us. Wine and youth are a twofold fire of pleasure. Why do we throw oil on the f lames? Why do we feed the fires of the ardent body?66

Yet it is clear from the teaching of those who have written on natural science that wine has much less power over women than over men. Giving the reason for this, Macrobius Theodosius says, in the seventh book of the Saturnalia: Aristotle says that women seldom get drunk, but that old men often do. The woman has a very humid body. The smoothness and gloss of her skin show this, as do also, especially, the repeated f lows which rid her body of excessive humors. When wine, therefore, comes in contact with such an amount of moisture, it loses its strength and thus weakened, does not so readily reach the seat of the brain . . . . A woman’s body is so constituted for frequent purgations, being equipped with several openings, that it opens in channels and provides ways for the humor to f low out. Through these outlets, the vapor of wine is soon released.67

On what grounds, then, is that which is denied to the weaker sex allowed to monks? What folly it is to permit it to those whom it may harm more gravely and refuse it to others! What is more foolish than that religion should not abhor wine, which is so contrary to the religious spirit and, above all, makes us fall away from God? What is more shameless than that something which is forbidden to kings and to the priests of the Law, should not be renounced by the abstinence of Christian perfection? Indeed, what is more shameless than the fact that Christians take the greatest delight in this? Who is not aware how eagerly the interest of clerics and especially of monks turns in these days to their cellars, to fi ll them with various kinds of wine? Who does not know that they brew it with herbs, with honey, and with other spices, in order to make themselves drunk the more easily as they drink with greater pleasure? The more they are inflamed with wine, the more they are incited to lust! What error, or rather, what madness is this, that those who are most strictly bound by the vows of continence, should least prepare themselves to observe their vows, indeed, should do everything to prevent observing them? If their bodies are confi ned to the cloister, their hearts are fi lled with lust and their minds are infl amed to fornication. The Apostle says, writing to Timothy (1, 5:23): “Do not confi ne yourself to water any longer; take a little wine to relieve your stomach, and your frequent attacks of illness.” A little wine is allowed him because of his illness, since clearly 66 67

Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium 8: PL 22, 399; CSEL 54, 154. Macrobius, Saturnalia 7.6, 16–17.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

171

if he were well, he would take none. If we profess the apostolic life and especially if we vow ourselves to penitence and propose to flee the world, why do we take most delight in what we see to be most contrary to our calling, and more delectable than any other foods? St. Ambrose, who describes penitence so carefully, condemns nothing in the diet of penitents except wine, when he says: Who regards that as penitence where there is ambitious seeking for dignity, where there is pouring out of wine, where there is use of the conjugal bond? We must forsake the world; it is easier to find those who have kept their innocence than those who have done proper penance.68

He also says in his book On Fleeing the World: “You flee well, if your eyes flee cups and fl agons and do not become lustful while they linger over wine.”69 In fleeing the world, he mentions wine among all foods and if we renounce wine, he declares that we renounce the world well, as though all the pleasures of the world depend on this one, and he does not say merely that the palate should renounce the taste of it, but that the eye should refuse the sight of it, for fear that it may be captured by the desire and delight of what it often looks upon. Here may be applied also the words of Solomon which I quoted above (Prov. 23:31): “Look not on the wine’s tawny glow, sparkling there in the glass beside you.” What are we to say here, I ask you, we who have prepared wine with honey and herbs and various spices, so that we may be delighted by the taste as well as the sight of it and may wish to drink it in flagons? When St. Benedict, under pressure, gave an indulgence with respect to wine, he said (c. 40): “Let us at least consent to this, that we do not drink to satiety but sparingly, for ‘wine is a trap for the loyalty of the wise’ ” (Eccli. 19.22). If only we were willing to drink only to sufficiency so that we should not be guilty of a greater transgression by being carried to excess! Setting the monasteries of clerics in order and writing a rule for them, St. Augustine allows them wine only on Saturday and Sunday, saying: “On the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, as the custom is, those who wish may take wine.” 70 This was out of reverence for the Lord’s Day and its vigil, which is the Sabbath, and also because then the monks who had been dispersed in their cells were assembled together. St. Jerome records this in the Lives of the Fathers, writing of the place which he calls Cellis in these words: “They remain separately in their cells, but on the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day they come together in the church and there see themselves restored to one another as in heaven.”71 For this reason, surely, this indulgence was fitting, so that they might come together and rejoice

68

Ambrose, De poenitentia 2.10: PL 16, 542. Ambrose, De fuga saeculi 9: PL 14, 624; CSEL 32, pars 2, 206. 70 Not from Augustine, but from the so-called Ordo Monasterii: often attached to the Regula tertia (PL 32, 1459) called Regla incerti auctoris, in PL 66, 995. See D.D. de Bruyne, “La Premiére Régle de Saint Benoit,” 319. 71 From Historia monachorum of Rufinus: PL 21, 444. 69

172

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

in some recreation, not so much saying as feeling (Ps. 132:1): “Gracious the sight, and full of comfort, when brethren dwell united.” Abstinence Why, then, should abstinence from flesh meat be regarded as a wonderful thing if we eat other things to any excess, if at great expense we buy large trays of various fi shes, if we mix with them seasonings of peppers and spices, if when we are drunk on strong wine, we add cups of herbs and fl agons of juices? All this is excused by abstinence from common meat, so long as we do not eat it publicly. This is as if the kind of food, rather than the excess of what we eat were at fault, when the Lord forbids us only gluttony and drunkenness, which refers to excess in food as well as wine, rather than to its kind. Giving careful attention to this, St. Augustine, who feared no kind of food except wine and did not make distinctions regarding quality of food, believed this to be sufficient, as he briefly put it: “Subdue your flesh by fasting and by abstinence from meat and drink, as much as your health permits.” 72 If I am not mistaken, he had read the statement of St. Athanasius in his Exhortation to Monks: “For those who are willing, there should be no fi xed measure of fasts, but they should be extended as long as possible by effort, and except on the Lord’s Day, they should always be solemn, if they have been promised by a vow.” 73 This is as if he were to say that if they are undertaken because of a vow, they should be devoutly performed at all times, except on the Lord’s Day. Here no fasts are fi xed, but they are to be as much as health permits. For it is said: “He considers solely the capacity of nature and lets it set its own limits, knowing there is no failure in anything if moderation is preserved in all things.” 74 This means that we should not become more relaxed and slack in our pleasures than is fitting, as it is written of the people who were fed on the kernel of wheat and the purest (Deut. 32:15): “Pampered, full-fed, swollen with pride, they forsook that divine creator.” Nor should we become emaciated by excessive abstinence and succumb, wholly defeated, or by complaining throw away what we have gained or boast of our singularity. Foreseeing this, Ecclesiastes says (7:16–17): “I have seen pious men ruined for all their piety . . . do not set too much store by piety, nor play the wise man to excess, if you would not be bewildered by your lot.” But let discretion, the mother of virtues, so govern this diligence that she may look carefully to see what burdens she may impose on each, that is, to each according to his strength. Following nature rather than driving it, she should by no means take away the use of sufficiency but, rather, the abuse of excess, and vices should be so rooted out that nature is not injured. It is enough for the weak if they avoid sin, although they do not rise to the height of perfection. It is enough also to dwell in a corner of Paradise, if you cannot take your place 72 73 74

Augustine, Ep. 211.8: PL 33, 960; CSEL 57, 361. PL 103, 667; a spurious work. Source unknown to editors.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

173

with the martyrs. It is safe to be moderate in making vows, so that grace may add more, over and above what we owe. It is written (Luke 17:10): “When you have done all that was commanded you, you are to say, ‘We are servants, and worthless; it was our duty to do what we have done.’ ” “The effect of the law,” says the Apostle (Rom. 4:15), “is only to bring God’s displeasure upon us; it is only where there is a law that transgression becomes possible.” He also says (7:8–13): Without the law, the sense of sin is a dead thing. At first, without the law, I was alive; then, when the law came with its ban, the sense of sin found new life, and with that, I died . . . . The sense of sin, with the law’s ban for its foothold, caught me unawares, and by that means killed me . . . sin made more sinful than ever by the ban imposed on it.

Augustine writes to Simplician: “By prohibition my desire has been increased and made sweeter, and so has deceived me.” 75 He also says in the book of Questions, the eighty-third question: “Pleasure’s urging to sin is more vigorous when prohibition is added.” 76 There is also the poet’s saying: “We strive always after the forbidden and desire what is denied to us.” 77 Anyone who seeks to bind himself to the yoke of any rule, as to the profession of a new law, should pay attention to this and tremble. Let him choose what he can do, and fear what he cannot do. No one is made guilty by the law unless he has first pledged himself to it. Before you make your vows, consider them well. When you have made them, keep them. What is voluntary before, afterward becomes obligatory. “There are many dwelling-places,” says Truth ( John 14:2), “in my father’s house.” So also there are very many ways of approaching it. Those who are married are not condemned, but those who are continent are more easily saved. The rules of the Holy Fathers were not given to us so that we may be saved, but so that we may be saved more easily and may be able to devote ourselves more purely to God. “Nor, if she marries,” says the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:28), “has the virgin committed sin. It is only that those who do so will meet with outward distress. But I leave you your freedom.” He also says (7:34–35): So a woman who is free of wedlock, or a virgin, is concerned with the Lord’s claim, intent on holiness, bodily and spiritual; whereas the married woman is concerned with the world’s claim, asking how she is to please her husband. I am thinking of your own interest when I say this. It is not that I would hold you on a leash; I am thinking of what is suitable for you, and how you may best attend on the Lord without distraction.

This is most easily accomplished when we withdraw, even in body, from the world and shut ourselves up in the cloisters of monasteries, so that the tumults of the world will not disturb us. 75 76 77

Augustine, De quaestionibus ad Simplicianum 1.1, 5: PL 40, 104. Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus 83.66, 5: PL 40, 63. Ovid, Amores 3.4, 17.

174

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Not only the person who accepts the law but the one who imposes it should take care that multiplying precepts does not multiply transgressions. The coming of the Word of God has abridged the law on earth. Moses said many things and yet, as the Apostle says (Heb. 7:19): “The law had nothing in it of fi nal achievement.” There were many commandments and such severe ones that the apostle Peter declared that no one could endure its precepts, saying (Acts 15:10–11): “How is it, then, that you would now call God in question, by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples, such as we and our fathers have been too weak to bear? It is by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we hope to be saved, and they no less.” In a few words Christ instructed the apostles regarding training in conduct and holiness of life, and taught the way to perfection. Taking away the harsh and heavy, he gave the easy and light precepts, in which he summed up the whole of religion. “Come to me,” he said (Matt. 11:28–29), “all you that labor and are burdened; I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon yourselves, and learn from me; I am gentle and humble of heart; and you shall fi nd rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” This is the way it often happens in good works, as it does in worldly affairs. Many work harder in their business and make less profit. Many mortify themselves more severely in outward matters, and inwardly make less progress with God, who examines the heart rather than works. The more occupied they are with external works, the less able they are to devote themselves to inner ones. The more they shine among men, who judge by outward things, the greater is the glory that they seek among them, and the more easily they are carried away by pride. Opposing this error, the Apostle greatly minimizes the works and emphasizes justification by faith (Rom. 4:2–3): “If it was by observances that Abraham attained his justification, he, to be sure, has something to be proud of. But it was not so in God’s sight. What does the scripture tell us? ‘Abraham put his faith in God, and it was reckoned virtue in him . . .’ ” He also says (9:30–32): “What do we conclude, then? Why, that the Gentiles, who never aimed at justifying themselves, attained justification, the justification that comes of faith; whereas the Israelites aimed at a disposition which should justify them, and never reached it. Why was this? Because they hoped to derive their justification from observance, not from faith.” Like those who clean the outside of a cup or a plate, paying less attention to its inner cleanness, those who are more vigilant over the flesh than the spirit are carnal rather than spiritual. But we, who wish Christ to dwell in the inner man by faith, are little concerned with outward things, which are common to the condemned and the elect alike. We consider what is written (Ps. 55:12): “The vows which you claim from me, O God, my sacrifice of praise shall fulfi ll.” So we do not follow that outward abstinence of the law which surely confers no righteousness. Nor does the Lord forbid us anything in the way of food, except gluttony and drunkenness, that is, excess. What he allowed us, he was not ashamed to show by his own example, although many were scandalized by this and reproached him not a little.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

175

Speaking in his own person, he said (Matt. 11:18–19): “When John came, he would neither eat nor drink, and they say of him that he is possessed. When the Son of Man came, he ate and drank with them, and of him, they said, ‘Here is a glutton; he loves wine.’ ” He also excused his own disciples because they did not fast like the disciples of John, and even when they sat down to eat, did not show much concern for the bodily cleanliness of washing their hands. He said (Matt. 9:15): “Can you expect the men of the bridegroom’s company to go mourning, while the bridegroom is still with them?” He said elsewhere (15:11, 18, 20): “It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that makes him unclean; what makes a man unclean is what comes out of his mouth . . . . All that comes out of his mouth comes from the heart, and it is that which makes a man unclean . . . . He is not make unclean by eating without washing his hands.” It is not any food, then, that makes the soul unclean, but the appetite for forbidden food. As the body is soiled only by material fi lth, the soul is defi led only by spiritual corruption. We need not fear what is done by the body, if the soul is not betrayed into consenting. Nor should we put our trust in cleanness of the flesh, if the mind is corrupted by the will. In the heart, then, dwells the whole death of the soul and its life. So Solomon says in the Proverbs (4:23): “Use all your watchfulness to keep your heart true; that is the fountain whence life springs.” According to the saying of Truth just quoted, it is from the heart that those things come which make a man unclean, because the soul is damned or saved by good or evil desires. But since the union of soul and body joined together in one person is extremely close, we must take the utmost care that the pleasure of the flesh does not lead the soul to consent, and that if the flesh is too much indulged, it does not grow lustful and work against the spirit, and begin to rule where it should be ruled. We should be able to avoid this if we allow all that is necessary, and cut off all excess, as has often been said, and do not deny to the frail sex the use of any food, but deny the abuse of all foods. The use of all things should be allowed, but none should be immoderately consumed. As the Apostle says (1 Tim. 4:4–6): “All is good that God has made, nothing is to be rejected; only we must be thankful to him when we partake of it, then it is hallowed for our use by God’s blessing, and the prayer which brings it. Lay down these rules for the brethren, you will show yourself a true servant of Jesus Christ, thriving on the principles of that faith whose wholesome doctrine you have followed.” With Timothy, we should, therefore, follow this teaching of the Apostle and, according to the words of the Lord, avoid nothing in food except gluttony and drunkenness. In all things we should observe such moderation that with everything we may fortify weak nature, and not nourish vices. We should be more restrained in respect to those things that can harm us more if we take too much of them. It is better and more praiseworthy to eat with moderation than to abstain altogether. So St. Augustine in his book On the Good of Marriage says when he deals with bodily sustenance: “A man by no means uses things well unless he can refrain from using them. Indeed, many abstain by not using them at all more easily than they observe moderation by using them well. Yet

176

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

no one can use these things wisely unless he can also refrain continently from using them.” 78 Of this quality, Paul also said (Philip. 4:12): “I know what it is to be brought low, and what it is to have abundant means.” To suffer need is the experience of all men, but to know how to suffer need is the virtue of great men. So also any man can begin to enjoy abundance, but to know how to enjoy it is given only to those who are not corrupted by it. Since, as I have said, wine is a wanton and tumultuous thing, and thus very much opposed both to continence and to silence, women should either abstain from it altogether for the Lord’s sake, as the wives of the Gentiles were forbidden it for fear of adultery. Or they should dilute it with water so that it may satisfy their thirst and their health, and at the same time not have strength enough to harm them. This, I believe, can be done if at least a fourth part of the mixture is water. But when drink is set before us, it is most difficult for us to be so restrained that we do not drink of it to sufficiency, as St. Benedict commanded regarding wine (c. 40). So I think it is safer not to forbid drinking to sufficiency, and thus not to incur danger. As I have often said, the crime lies not in sufficiency but in excess. The preparation of wine with herbs as a medicine, or even the taking of pure wine, should not be forbidden. Yet the community as a whole should never use these; they should be drunk separately by the sick. I absolutely forbid the use of pure wheat flour; at least a third part of coarser grain should always be mixed with the wheat flour when they have it. The sisters should never enjoy the pleasure of hot loaves fresh from the oven, but should have those that have been baked at least the day before. The deaconess should make such provision for other foods that, as I have said, what can be bought more cheaply, or obtained more easily, may meet the needs of the weaker sex. What is more foolish than to buy other things when our own are enough? When we have what we need at home, why should we seek outside what we do not need? When what we have at hand is sufficient, why should we strive for the superfluous? Following not so much human as angelic or even divine teaching concerning this necessary and discreet moderation, we should not seek out certain kinds of food, but should be content instead with what is at hand. The angels were fed on the meat that Abraham prepared for them, and the Lord Jesus refreshed a hungry multitude with fi shes found in the wilderness.79 These examples clearly teach us that we should not hesitate to eat meat or fish without discrimination and that we ought to eat any kind of food that is not sinful and is easily obtainable, and therefore less expensive and less difficult to prepare. This is why Seneca, who was the greatest proponent of poverty and continence and the chief teacher of ethics among all philosophers, says: Our aim is to live in accord with nature. It is against nature to torment the body, to detest the easy forms of cleanliness, to cultivate squalor and live on food that is not only cheap but revoltingly unappetizing. If it is extravagant to yearn for luxuries, it is folly to reject ordinary food that is easily obtained. Philosophy demands 78 79

Augustine, De bono conjugali 21: PL 40, 390. See: Gen. 18:1–8; Mark 8:1–8; John 6:1–9.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

177

simplicity, not penance, and this simplicity need not be excessive; the golden mean is what I like.80

In the thirtieth book of the Moralia, where Gregory teaches us that in human conduct we must pay attention to the quality of our souls rather than the quality of our food, and distinguishes among the various temptations of the palate, he says: “Sometimes it seeks more delicate meats; at other times it wants what is to be eaten to be more carefully prepared.”81 But often, too, what the palate longs for is very humble food and yet it sins by the very heat of its immense desire. When the people had been led out of Egypt, they fell into sin in the wilderness, because they despised manna and sought flesh meat that they considered more delicate. And Esau lost the pride of the fi rstborn son because he longed with a burning desire for a cheap food, that is, lentils, and by preferring it even to the birthright which he sold, he showed with what an appetite he panted for it.82 It is not the food but the appetite that is at fault. For this reason, we often eat more delicate foods without blame and do not consume baser ones without guilt of conscience. This Esau of whom I have spoken lost his primacy for the sake of lentils, and in the wilderness Elias preserved the strength of his body by eating meat.83 Because the ancient enemy knows that it is not food, but the desire for food, that is the cause of damnation, he made the first man subject to him not with meat but with an apple, and he tempted the second not with meat but with bread. It is for this reason that the sin of Adam is often committed even when base and cheap foods are consumed. So those foods are to be taken that nature seeks to satisfy her needs, and not those suggested by the lust for eating. But we long with less desire for what seems less valuable and more abundant and more cheaply bought, such as common meat, which strengthens the weakness of nature more than fish does, is less expensive and more easily prepared. The use of meat and wine, like that of marriage, is regarded as intermediate between good and evil, that is, indifferent, although the use of the marriage tie is not wholly free from sin, and wine is more dangerous than other foods. Surely, if the moderate use of wine is not forbidden in the religious life, why do we fear the use of other foods, so long as in using them the mean is not exceeded? If St. Benedict declared that wine is not for monks and yet was forced to allow it, by a kind of dispensation, to the monks of his time, when the primitive fervor of charity was already growing cold, why should we not allow to women these other foods which at present they are not forbidden by any vow?84 If the bishops themselves and the rulers of Holy Church and also monasteries of clerics are permitted to eat meat without offense, because they are not kept from these things by any vow, who can condemn permitting them to women, especially if

80 81 82 83 84

Seneca, Ad Lucilium 1.5, 4. Gregory, Moralia in Job 30.18: PL 76, 556. See Gen. 25:29. See 3 Kings 17:2–6. See Rule of St. Benedict, c. 40.

178

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

in other things they submit to a greater strictness? It is enough for the disciple if he is like his master. It seems cruelly harsh if what is allowed to monasteries of clerics is forbidden to monasteries of women. It is not to be considered a small thing if, taking into account the other restrictions of the monastery, women should not be, in this one indulgence regarding meat, inferior in piety to the faithful laity, especially since, as Chrysostom bears witness: “Nothing is lawful for men in the world which is not lawful for monks, except only to live with a wife.”85 Judging the piety of clerics as not inferior to that of monks, St. Jerome says: “As though anything that is said against monks does not redound upon clerics, who are the fathers of monks.”86 Who is not aware also that it is contrary to all discretion if the burdens imposed on the weak are as heavy as those imposed on the strong, if as much abstinence is enjoined for women as for men? If anyone should seek an authority for this, besides the evidence of nature, let him consult St. Gregory on this point. For this great ruler, more than doctor, of the Church, carefully instructing the other doctors of the Church in this matter, says in the twenty-fourth chapter of his Pastoral Rule: “The same admonitions are not to be given to women as to men, because lighter burdens are to be imposed on women, and heavier on men. Let men be disciplined by the hard tasks while women are gently converted by the easier ones.”87 Those things that are of little account in the strong are a great achievement in the weak. Although this permission to eat common meat affords less pleasure than the flesh of fishes or birds, even these are nowhere forbidden us by St. Benedict.88 When he was discussing the various kinds of flesh, the Apostle also says of them (1 Cor. 15:39): “Nature is not all one; men have one nature, the beasts another, the birds another, the fi shes another.” The Law includes the flesh of cattle and birds among the Lord’s sacrificial offerings, but never fish, so that no one may think that the eating of fish is cleaner before God than the eating of meat. The eating of fish is also more burdensome to the poor and more expensive, because fish are less abundant than meat, and less strengthening to weak nature. So in one way it is a greater burden to us, and in the other it helps us less. Considering the circumstances as well as the nature of men, therefore, I forbid nothing in the way of food, as I have said, but excess. I also regulate the eating of meat and other foods in such a way that, with all foods allowed them, the abstinence of nuns will be greater than that of monks, to whom certain things are forbidden. I wish the eating of meat to be so restricted, therefore, that it may not be eaten more than once a day, nor may several dishes of it be prepared for the same person, and no sauces should be added to it separately. The nuns are never to be allowed to eat meat more than three times a week, that is, on the first, third, and fifth days, no matter what feast days may intervene. The greater the solemnity, the more devout is the abstinence with which it should be celebrated. Strongly urging us to this, the distinguished doctor, 85 86 87 88

John Chrysostom, Homilia in Epistulam ad Hebraeos 7.4; PG 63, 67. Jerome, Ep. 54 ad Furiam 5: PL 22, 552; CSEL 54, 471. Gregory, Liber pastoralis 24.3, 1: PL 77, 51. Rule of St. Benedict, c. 39, in which only the f lesh of four-footed animals is prohibited.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

179

Gregory Nazianzen, says in the third book of his On Lights or The Second Epiphany: “Let us celebrate the festal day not by indulging the belly, but by exulting in spirit.”89 In the fourth book of his On Pentecost and the Holy Spirit, the same doctor says: “And this is our festal day; let us put away in the treasury of the soul something perennial and perpetual, not what perishes and is dissolved. Its own evil is sufficient for the body; it does not need more copious material and the insolent beast does not need more plentiful food, so that he may become more insolent, and more violent in his urgency.”90 The feast day is, therefore, to be kept more spiritually, as St. Jerome, Gregory’s disciple, following him in his own letter on the acceptance of gifts, says in a certain passage: “We ought to be more anxiously concerned, therefore, to celebrate the solemn day not so much by doing so with an abundance of food as with rejoicing of spirit, since it is clearly absurd to honor by overindulgence a martyr whom we know to have found favor with God by his fasting.” 91 In his work On the Medicine of Penitence Augustine says: “Consider all the thousands of martyrs. Why, then, does it please us to celebrate their nativities with unseemly banquets, and why does it not please us to follow their example in good morals?”92 Whenever they shall be without meat, I allow the sisters two dishes of vegetables and I do not forbid fi sh in addition. But no costly spices should be added to the food in the monastery; they should be content instead with what grows in the country where they live. They should not eat fruit except at supper. But I by no means forbid that herbs or roots or any fruits or other food of this kind be brought to the table as medicine for those who need them. If perhaps a strange nun who has been received as a guest is present at table, she may taste human charity by being given some special dish in addition to the others. If this nun wishes to share any of it, she may do so. She and any others who may be there shall sit at the high table, and the deaconess shall serve them, and afterward eat with those other nuns who serve the tables. If any of the sisters should wish to subdue the flesh by a more austere diet, she should on no account presume to do this except by obedience. This diet should by no means be denied her, if her desire springs from virtue rather than caprice, and if she is strong enough to endure it. But no one should ever be permitted to leave the convent for this reason or to pass any day without food. On the sixth day, the sisters should never use a seasoning of fat, but should content themselves with Lenten food, thus by a kind of abstinence showing compassion for their Bridegroom who suffered death on this day. A practice which is the custom in many monasteries should not only be forbidden but greatly abhorred: I mean, the habit of cleaning and wiping the hands and knives on the pieces of bread left over and kept for the poor. So to spare the table linen, the bread of the poor is polluted, or rather, the bread of him who, identifying himself with the poor, says 89 90 91 92

Gregory Nazianzen, In sancta lumina 3.20: PG 36, 358. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 4, In pentecosten 1: PG 36, 430. Jerome, Ep. 31, ad Eustochium 3: PL 22, 446; CSEL 54, 251. Augustine, Sermo. 351.4: PL 39, 1548.

180

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

(Matt. 25:40): “Believe me, when you did it to one of the least of my brethren here, you did it to me.” As to fasting, the general rule of the Church should be enough for the sisters. In this respect, I do not presume to impose on them heavier burdens than those borne by the pious and faithful laity, nor do I dare in this to put their weakness above the strength of men. But from the autumnal equinox until Easter, because of the shortness of the days, I regard one meal a day as sufficient. Since I say this not for reasons of religious abstinence but because of the shortness of the season, I am not making any distinctions here regarding kinds of food. Clothing Expensive garments, which the Scripture utterly condemns, should be carefully avoided. The Lord warned us especially against them when he denounced the pride in them of the rich man who was damned and, on the other hand, praised the humility of John. Taking careful note of this, St. Gregory says in his sixth homily on the Gospels: “What does it mean to say (Matt. 11:8): ‘You must look in kings’ palaces for men that go clad in silk’? It simply shows by a plain statement that those men do not strive in the heavenly but in the earthly kingdom, who refuse to suffer hardships for God, but give themselves up only to outward things and seek softness and delicacy in this life.”93 He also says in the fortieth homily: There are some who think that the love of fine and costly garments is not a sin. But if this were not blameworthy, the Word of God would never have pointed out so carefully that the rich man who was tormented in hell had been clothed in purple and fine linen. For no one seeks fine clothing except through vainglory, so that he may appear more honorable than others. A costly garment is sought only out of foolish pride. This is proved by the fact that no one wishes to be clad in expensive clothing where he cannot be seen by others.94

The fi rst epistle of Peter also warns lay and married women against this fault, saying (3:1–5): You, too, who are wives must be submissive to your husbands. Some of these still refuse credence to the word; it is for their wives to win them over, not by word but by example; by the modesty and reverence they observe in your demeanor. Your beauty must lie, not in braided hair, not in gold trinkets, not in the dress you wear, but in the hidden features of your hearts, in a possession you can never lose, that of a calm and tranquil spirit; to God’s eyes, beyond price.

He rightly considered that women rather than men should be warned against this vanity, because their more frivolous minds desire more eagerly the vanity by which, through them and in them, wantonness can be more strongly aroused.

93 94

Gregory, Homiliae in Evangelia 6: PL 76, 1097. Gregory, Homilia in Lucam 40.16: PL 76, 1305.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

181

If lay women are to be forbidden these things, how careful must those women be who are vowed to Christ, whose fashion in dress is that they have no fashion! If one of them seeks this luxury, or does not refuse it when it is offered, she loses her reputation for chastity. Such a person should be regarded as preparing herself, not for the religious life, but for fornication, and she should be considered less a nun than a harlot. For her, fashionable dress is like a badge of harlotry, which proclaims an unchaste soul, as it is written (Ecclus. 19:27): “The clothes he wears, the smile on his lips, his gait, will all make you acquainted with a man’s character.” We read that the Lord, as I said before, commended and praised in John the cheapness or roughness of his clothing rather than his food. “What was it,” he asked (Matt. 11:8): “you went out to see? Was it a man clad in silk?” At times the use of costly food serves some useful purpose, but that of clothing never does. The more costly such clothing is, the more jealously it is guarded and the less useful it is and a greater burden to the purchaser, and because of its fi neness it can be more easily spoiled and it supplies less warmth to the body. No garments but black ones are suitable for the mournful garb of penitence and no wool is so becoming to the brides of Christ as lamb’s wool, so that even in their habit they may be seen to have put on, or be warned to put on, the Lamb, the Bridegroom of virgins. Their veils should be made not of silk but of some linen cloth dyed. It is my wish that there should be two kinds of veil, one for virgins who have already been consecrated “by the bishop, the other for those who have not.” The veils of the virgins I have mentioned should have the sign of the cross imprinted on them, to show that these virgins belong especially to Christ by the integrity of their bodies. As they are set apart from other women by their consecration, they should be distinguished by this sign on their habit, and it should strike fear into the hearts of any of the faithful and make it more abhorrent to them to burn with desire for these women. The virgin shall wear this sign of virginal purity on the top of her head, marked in white, and she should on no account presume to wear it before she has been consecrated by the bishop. No other veils should be marked with this sign. The nuns are to wear clean undergarments next to their skin and they are always to sleep in these. I do not deny to their weak nature also the softness of mattresses and sheets. But each one is to eat and sleep by herself. No one should presume to be indignant if the garments or anything else that someone has given her should be turned over to another sister who needs them more. Instead, she should rejoice greatly when, through the need of her sister, she may enjoy the fruit of charity, and see that she is not living for herself alone but for others. Otherwise she does not belong to the sisterhood of the holy community and she is not guiltless of the sacrilege of owning possessions. To cover the body, I consider an undergarment, a pelisse95 and a gown enough, and when it is very cold, a mantle over these. The sisters may also use this mantle as a covering when they lie down. Because of the attacks of vermin and the dirt that must be washed out, all of these garments should be in pairs, according to 95

Pelisse: either a woolen gown or a lambskin.

182

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

what Solomon says in praise of the strong and provident woman (Prov. 31:21): “Let the snow lie cold if it will, she has no fears for her household; no servant of hers but is doubly clad.” The length of these garments should be so regulated that they do not extend farther than the heels, in order not to stir up dust, and the sleeves should not be longer than the arms and hands. The sisters should be provided with stockings and shoes for their legs and feet. They should never, on any pretext of religion, go barefoot. For the beds, one mattress, a blanket, a pillow, a coverlet and a sheet are sufficient. On their heads they should wear a white band and over it a black veil and, if necessary, they may cover the tonsure of their hair with a bonnet of lamb’s wool. Buildings and Possessions It is not only in diet or in clothing that excess should be avoided, but also in buildings and all kinds of possessions. In building, this excess may be clearly discerned if these are larger or more beautiful than is necessary, or if, by adorning them with sculptures and paintings, we build not dwelling-places of the poor but palaces for kings. “ ‘The Son of Man,’ ” says Jerome, “ ‘has nowhere to lay his head’ and you have wide porches and spacious roofs.”96 When we delight in costly and handsome furnishings, not only excess but the vanity of pride is displayed. When we multiply herds of animals and earthly possessions, our ambition spreads to outward things, and the larger such possessions are, the more thought we are forced to give them and the more we are called away from the contemplation of heavenly things. Although in body we are shut up in the cloisters, the mind loves those things that are outside, and is compelled to pursue them and diff use itself here and there among them. The greater the possessions are that we can lose, the more they torment us; and the more costly they are, the more we love them and in pursuing them, the wretched soul is more ensnared. For this reason we should by all means take care to put a certain limit on our household and our expenses, and we should not seek anything beyond what is necessary or receive offerings or keep what we have received. Whatever remains over and above our needs we possess as plunder and we are guilty of the deaths of as many of the poor as we might have supported with this. Every year, therefore, when the foodstuffs have been gathered in, provision should be made for enough to suffice for the year and if there is any left over, it is to be not so much given as restored to the poor. The Size of the Monastery There are some who are ignorant of wise management and when they have a small income, they rejoice because they have a large household. When it becomes burdensome to provide for it, they go out begging shamelessly or extort from others by violence what they do not have themselves. Even now we see some fathers of monasteries who boast about the great numbers in their communities. 96

Jerome, Ep. 14, ad Heliodorum 6: PL 22, 350; CSEL 54, 52. The internal quotation is Matt. 8:20.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

183

They strive not so much to have good sons as to have many sons, and they seem important in their own eyes if they are regarded as the greater among many. In order to draw men to their rule, they promise them an easy one when they ought to preach a harsh one. Since they do not fi rst test by any examination those whom they indiscriminately take in, they easily lose the backsliders. It is such men, as I see it, whom the Truth rebuked, saying (Matt. 23:15): “Woe upon you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites that encompass sea and land to gain a single proselyte, and then make the proselyte twice as worthy of damnation as yourself.” If they were seeking the salvation of souls rather than a quantity of them, and if they presumed less on their power in giving an account of their rule, they would surely boast less about their great crowd of monks. The Lord chose few apostles and of those he had chosen, one was such an apostate that the Lord said of him ( John 6:71): “Have I not chosen all twelve of you? And one of you is a devil.” As Judas fell away from the apostles, Nicolas was lost from the seven deacons.97 When the apostles had as yet gathered together only a very few, Ananias and his wife Sapphira deserved to be condemned to death.98 So also earlier when many of the disciples had fled from the Lord, a few remained with him. For the way that leads to eternal life is narrow and there are few who enter by it. On the other hand, broad and spacious is the way that leads to death, and many indeed are those who go that way. As the Lord declares elsewhere (Matt. 20:16): “Many are called, but few are chosen,” and according to Solomon (Eccles. 1:15): “The number of fools is infi nite.” He who rejoices in the number of those who are subject to him should be fearful, therefore, that, according to the Lord’s saying, few of them may be chosen, and that if he himself increases his flock immoderately, he may be less able to guard it. So the prophetic saying may well be applied to him by spiritual men (Isaiah 9:3): “Their number you did increase, but gave them no joy of it.” Those who take pride in numbers and, to satisfy both their own needs and those of their subordinates, are forced to go out often and return to the world and run about begging, involve themselves in bodily rather than spiritual cares and win for themselves infamy rather than fame. For women, this is certainly much more shameful, since it is clearly less safe for them to wander about the world. Anyone, therefore, who seeks to live quietly and honestly, to devote himself to the Divine Offices, and to be held dear by God as well as the world, should be afraid to gather together those for whom he cannot provide. For his expenses he should not rely on the purses of others, nor should he be vigilant in seeking alms, but rather in giving them. The Apostle, that great preacher of the Gospel, who also had authority from the Gospel to receive gifts, worked with his hands because he did not wish to be a burden to anyone and make his glory void.99 Since our business is not to preach but to lament our sins, is it not bold and shameless for us to go around begging so that we may be able to support those whom we rashly gather together? We often burst out into such madness that, when we do 97 98 99

See Acts 6:5. See Acts 5:1–10. 1 Thess. 2:9; 1 Cor. 9:12.

184

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

not know how to preach, we take preachers and false apostles around with us, we carry crosses and phylacteries of relics, in order to sell both these and the word of God, or rather the lies of the devil, to simple and ignorant Christians. We promise them whatever we believe may be profitable in exhorting money from them. No one, I think, is not now aware how greatly our order, and the very preaching of the divine word, have been debased by this shameless cupidity, seeking its own and not what belongs to Jesus Christ. So abbots themselves and those who seem to be in authority in monasteries, who rush recklessly to the great ones of the world and to the courts of princes, have already learned to be carnal rather than monastic. Using every art to pursue the favor of men, they are more in the habit of gossiping with them than of speaking with God. They read often but vainly and negligently, or they hear but do not heed the warning of St. Anthony: “As fi shes die, if they remain on dry ground, so monks also, if they remain outside their cell or live among worldly men, are detached from their vow of quiet. It is necessary, then, for us to hasten back to our cell, as fish to the sea, for fear that, if perchance we linger outside, we may forget to guard things within.”100 Well aware of this, the author of the monastic Rule, St. Benedict, plainly taught both by his example and in his writings that he wished abbots to be devoted to their monasteries and to watch over their flocks with great care (c. 56). When he had left his monks to visit his most holy sister, and when she wished to keep him for at least one night for her edification, he declared that he could not for any reason remain outside his cell.101 He does not say, “We cannot,” but “I cannot,” because, with his permission, the monks might do so, but he himself might not, except by a revelation from the Lord, as afterward happened. For this reason, when he was writing the Rule, he did not mention the abbot’s leaving the monastery, but only the monks. He provided so carefully for the abbot’s constant presence that on the vigils of Sunday and feast days, he commanded that the reading of the Gospel and those things connected with it are to be done only by the abbot.102 When he decrees that the abbot’s table shall always be with the pilgrims and guests and that, when there are fewer guests, he may invite some of the monks to it, he clearly suggests that the abbot ought never to be absent from the monastery at mealtimes.103 He should not, as one who is now used to the delicate dishes of princes, leave the daily bread of the monastery to his subordinates, like those of whom Truth says (Matt. 23:4): “They fatten up packs too heavy to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; they themselves will not stir a fi nger to lift them.” Of false preachers he says elsewhere (Matt. 7:15): “Be on your guard against false prophets, men who come to you in sheep’s clothing.” They come by themselves, he says, not sent from God, or entrusted with any mission. John 100 101 102 103

Vitae patrum 5.2, 1: PL 73, 858. See Gregory, Dialogi 2.33: PL 66, 194, 196. See Rule of St Benedict, c. 11. See Rule of St Benedict, c. 56.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

185

the Baptist, our leader, to whom the priesthood has passed by inheritance, went out from the city to the wilderness only once, leaving the priesthood for the monastic life, the cities for the desert places. The people went out to him; he did not come in to them. When he was so great that he was believed to be the Christ, and was able to correct many things in the cities, he was already on that bed from which he was ready to answer the knocking of the Beloved (Cant. 5:3): “Ah, but my shift, I have laid it by: how can I put it on again? My feet I washed but now; shall I soil them with the dust?” So he who longs for the hidden peace of monastic life should rejoice in having a narrow bed rather than a wide one. From the wide bed, as Truth says (Luke 17:34): “One will be taken, and the other left.” But we understand that the narrow bed is that of the bride, that is, the contemplative soul which is more closely joined to Christ and clings to him with the most powerful desire. If anyone has entered this bed, as far as we know, he has not left it. Of this the bride herself speaks (Cant. 3:1): “In the night watches, as I lay abed, I searched for my heart’s love.” Refusing or fearing to rise from this bed, she answers the knocking of the Beloved, as I have said above. She believes that there is dirt only outside her bed and she is afraid of soiling her feet in it. Dinah went out to visit strange women and she was defi led.104 As his abbot foretold to Malchus, the monk who was taken captive, and as he himself afterward found out, the sheep that leaves the fold is swiftly exposed to the wolf ’s teeth.105 We should not, therefore, gather together a great crowd, on whose behalf we may fi nd an opportunity to go out, or rather be forced to go out, and acquire wealth for others to our own loss, like the lead that is consumed in the furnace so that the silver may be saved. We should, instead, be afraid that the raging furnace of temptations may consume the lead and silver alike. Some will argue that Truth says ( John 6:37): “Him who comes to me I will never cast out.” I do not wish those who have been taken in to be cast out, but we must be careful in receiving them, for fear that after we have taken them in, we ourselves may be driven out for their sake. We read that the Lord did not cast out a man who had been taken in, but rejected one who offered himself. When he said to him (Matt, 8:19): “Master, I will follow you wherever you are going,” He answered, refusing him: “Foxes have their holes,” and so forth. The Lord also carefully warns us to look into the cost when we consider buying anything for which an outlay is necessary (Luke 14:28–30): “Consider, if one of you has a mind to build a tower, does he not fi rst sit down and count the cost that must be paid, if he is to have enough to fi nish it? Is he to lay the foundation and then fi nd himself unable to complete the work, so that all who see it will fall to mocking him and saying, Here is a man who began to build, and could not fi nish his building.” It is a great thing if any one is equal to saving himself alone, and it is perilous for one who is barely able to watch over himself to undertake the care of many. No one, certainly, is zealous in guarding others unless he has been fearful in receiving them. No one shows such perseverance in what he has begun as the 104 105

See Gen. 34.1ff. See Jerome, Vita Malchi 3: PL 23, 57c.

186

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

person who was slow and careful in undertaking it. In this, the forethought of women should be so much greater, since their weakness is less able to endure heavy burdens and should above all be cherished in quiet. The Reading of Scripture The Holy Scripture is truly a mirror of the soul, and he who lives by reading it and advances by understanding it, perceives the beauty of his own character or detects its ugliness, so that he may strive to enhance the one or to remove the other. Reminding us of this mirror, St. Gregory says in the second book of the Moralia: “The Holy Scripture is set before the mind’s eye as a kind of mirror, so that our inward appearance may be seen in it. For there we recognize our flaws and our beauty. There we see how much progress we have made, and how much we have fallen short.”106 But he who looks at the Scripture and does not understand it is like a blind man holding before his eyes a mirror in which he is not able to see what kind of man he is; nor does he seek in Scripture that teaching for which alone it was written. Like an ass placed before a lyre, he sits idly before the Scripture and has it set in front of him like bread by which he is not refreshed, even though he is hungry, since he neither penetrates the Word of God by understanding it himself, nor breaks into it by means of another’s teaching. So he has food that is useless and without profit to him. Urging us in general to the study of Scriptures, the Apostle says (Rom. 15:4): “See how all the words written long ago were written for our instruction; we were to derive hope from that message of endurance and courage which the Scriptures bring us.” He says in another place (Ephes. 5:18–19): “Let your contentment be in the Holy Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual music.” A man speaks to himself or with himself when he understands what is said to him, and by understanding reaps the fruit of his own words. The Apostle writes to Timothy (1, 4:13): “Reading, preaching, instruction, let these be your constant care while I am absent.” He also says (2 Tim. 3:14–17): “It is for you to hold fast by the doctrine handed on to you, the charge committed to you; you know well from whom that tradition came; you can remember the holy learning you have been taught from childhood upward. This will train you up for salvation, through the faith that rests in Christ Jesus. Everything in the scripture has been divinely inspired, and has its uses; to instruct us, to expose our errors, to correct our faults, to educate us in holy living; so God’s servant will become a master of his craft, and each noble task that comes will fi nd him ready for it.” Encouraging the Corinthians to an understanding of Scripture so that they might be able to explain what others have said concerning the Scripture, he says (1 Cor. 14:1–5; 13:20): Make charity your aim, the spiritual gifts your aspiration; and, by preference, the gift of prophecy. The man who talks in a strange tongue is talking to God, not to 106

Gregory, Moralia in Job 2.1: PL 75, 553.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

187

men . . . . By prophesying he can strengthen the faith of the church . . . . The man who can speak in a strange tongue should pray for the power to interpret it . . . . I mean to use mind as well as spirit when I offer prayer, use mind as well as spirit when I sing psalms. If you pronounce a blessing in this spiritual fashion, how can one who takes his place among the uninstructed say Amen to your thanksgiving. He cannot tell what you are saying. You, true enough, are duly giving thanks, but the other’s faith is not strengthened . . . . Thank God, I can speak any of the tongues you use; but in the church, I would rather speak five words which my mind utters, for your instruction, than ten thousand in a strange tongue. Brethren, do not be content to think childish thoughts; keep the innocence of children, with the thoughts of grown men.

By speaking with tongues is meant the man who forms words only with his lips, and does not provide understanding by explaining them. But a man prophesies or interprets when, like the prophets, who are called seers, meaning those who ‘understand,’ he comprehends what he says so that he can explain it. One prays or sings with the spirit if he only forms his words with the breath of speech, and does not apply to them the understanding of his mind. When our spirit prays, I mean when our breath of speech alone forms words and what the mouth utters is not conceived in the heart, our mind lacks the profit it ought to have in prayer, that is, being goaded and infl amed toward God by its understanding of the words. For this reason the Apostle counsels us to have this perfection in words so that we may not, like children, know only how to say words, but may also understand their meaning. Otherwise, he protests, we pray or sing without profit. Mindful of this, St. Benedict says (c. 19): “Let us apply ourselves to singing in such a way that our mind may be in harmony with our voice.” The Psalmist also teaches this when he says (Ps. 46:8): “Sing praises with understanding,” meaning that the utterance of words should not lack the savor and seasoning of comprehension and that with him we may be able to say truly to the Lord (Ps. 118:103): “How sweet are your words to my taste.” He says elsewhere (Ps. 146:10): “He does not take pleasure in the legs of a man.” For the tibia, or legbone, that is, the flute, makes a sound for the delight of the senses, not for the mind’s understanding. So they are said to sing well to the flutes and not to please God in doing this, when they take such pleasure in the melody of their song that they are not edified by any understanding of it. Why, as the Apostle says, should a man answer ‘Amen’ when blessings are given in church, if he does not understand what is prayed for in the blessing, whether it is a good thing or not?107 We often see in church many simple people who do not know the meaning of letters, praying by mistake for things which are harmful rather than useful to them; for example, when it is said: “May we so pass through temporal blessings that we do not lose those that are eternal.” The close similarity of the words may deceive them so that they say either “that we lose those that are eternal” or “that we may not be allowed those that are eternal.” Concerned to avoid this danger, the Apostle says, “If you pronounce a blessing 107

See 1 Cor. 14:16.

188

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

in this spiritual fashion,” that is, if you only form the words of blessing with the breath of speech, and do not instruct the mind of your hearer in the sense, “how can one who takes his place among the uninstructed,” that is, how can one of the congregation whose part is to respond, respond in a way that is not possible, indeed, not suitable for a simple person? How can he say Amen, when he does not know whether you are leading him to curse rather than to bless? Then, too, how can those who do not understand Scripture provide themselves with edifying discussion or explain and understand the Rule, or correct mistakes in what is said? For this reason I marvel that, through some suggestion of the devil, there is in monasteries no study leading to the understanding of Scriptures, but training is given only in singing or in the forming rather then the understanding of words, as if the bleating of sheep were more useful than their feeding. For the food of the soul and its spiritual refreshment are the divine knowledge of Scripture. So the Lord when he made the prophet Ezekiel a preacher, fed him fi rst on a book which was sweet as honey in his mouth.108 Of this food, Jeremiah also said (Lament. 4:4): “Children asking for bread, and never a crust to share to with them!” One shares a crust with children when he explains to more simple people the meaning of what is written. These children ask for bread when they long to feed their souls with an understanding of the Scriptures, as the Lord declares elsewhere (Amos 8:11): “A time is coming . . . when there shall be great lack in the land, yet neither dearth nor drought.” Hunger? Aye, they shall hunger for some message from the Lord. On the other hand, the old enemy has introduced into monasteries a hunger and thirst for hearing men’s words and news of the world. As we abandon ourselves more completely to idle talk, we grow more scornful of the word of God, because without the sweetness and seasoning of understanding, it has less taste for us. The Psalmist sings, as I noted before (118:103): “How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey in my mouth!” What this sweetness was, he immediately explained: “I am made wise by your law,” meaning that through the precepts of God rather than man, he has received understanding, being given wisdom and instruction by them. He did not fail to say what he had gained from this understanding, adding: “I shun every path of evildoing.” Many paths of evildoing are so evident in themselves that everyone easily comes to hate and scorn them, but only by the word of God may we recognize every evil path so that we may be able to avoid them all. So it is written (Ps. 118:11): “Buried deep in my heart, your warnings shall keep me clear of sin.” The word of God is buried in the heart rather than spoken with the lips when we keep an understanding of it through meditation. The less we strive for this understanding, the less we perceive and avoid the paths of evildoing, and the less we are able to safeguard ourselves against sin. Monks, who aspire to perfection, are much more to be reproached for such negligence, since this learning is easier for those who have an abundance of sacred books and enjoy leisure and quiet. Vigorously rebuking those who boast of their large collections of books but fail to read them, that old man in the Lives of the Fathers declared: “The prophets 108

Ezekiel 3:3.

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

189

wrote books; your fathers who came after them have labored much over these books. Their successors committed them to memory. But then the present generation came and copied them on paper and parchment and put them back unused on the shelves.”109 So, too, the Abbot Pastor, urging us to learning and teaching alike, says: “It is fitting for the soul that would be converted to the will of Christ either to learn faithfully what it does not know, or to teach plainly what it does know.”110 But if when it is able, it will do neither, it suffers from the disease of madness. For the beginning of withdrawal from God is an aversion from learning and when one is not eager for that which the soul always hungers after, how will he love God? In his Exhortation of Monks, St. Athanasius commends the concern for teaching and reading so strongly that he even advises interrupting the prayers for this: “Let me trace the course of our life: fi rst, concern for abstinence, the endurance of fasting, constancy in prayer and reading, and if anyone is still uninstructed in letters, the desire to learn should make him eager to hear. Like rattles for children in the cradle, these are the first stages in the knowledge of God.”111 After he had fi rst said: “We should be so constant in our prayers that there should be hardly any intervals between them,” he added: “If possible, they should be interrupted only by periods of reading.”112 The Apostle Peter does not advise anything contrary to this (1 Peter 3:15): “If anyone asks you to give an account of the hope you cherish, be ready at all times to answer for it.” The Apostle Paul says (Coloss. 1:9): “Our prayer is, that you may be fi lled with that closer knowledge of God’s will which brings all wisdom and all spiritual insight with it.” He also says (3:16): “May all the wealth of Christ’s inspiration have its shrine among you.” In the Old Testament, the Word impressed on men a similar concern for holy precepts. David says (Ps. 1:1–2): “Blessed is the man who does not guide his steps by ill counsel . . . whose heart is set on the law of the Lord.” God says to Joshua (1:8): “The law you have in writing must govern every utterance of yours; night and day you must ponder over it.” But evil thoughts easily slip in among these occupations and, although our application may prove that the mind is intent on God, the gnawing concerns of the world still make it anxious within itself. If one who is dedicated to religious efforts must often endure this importunity, surely the idle man will never be free from it. St. Gregory, the pope, says in the nineteenth book of the Moralia:113 We lament because those times have already begun when we see many established within the church who will not put into action what they understand, or who even scorn to understand and to know the word of God. Turning their ears away from the Truth, they listen to fables, while “one and all have their own interest at heart, not Christ’s” (Philip. 2:21). The Scriptures of God are found everywhere and are 109

Vitae Patrum 5.10, 114: PL 73, 933. Abbot Palladius see: Vitae patrum 5.10, 67: PL 73, 924. 111 Athanasius, De observationibus monachorum: PL 103, 665–66. 112 Athanasius De observationibus monachorum: PL 103, 667. 113 Gregory, Moralia in Job 19.30: PL 76, 556. 110

190

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

placed before their eyes, but men refuse to read them and almost no one seeks to understand what he has believed.

Study and Teaching Yet both the Rule they have professed and the examples of the Holy Fathers strongly urge them to do this. Benedict prescribes nothing with respect to the teaching and study of singing, while he gives many instructions concerning reading, carefully fi xing the times for reading as well as working. He provides for the teaching of dictation or writing with such care that he does not fail to mention tablets and pens among the necessities which the monks are to expect the abbot to provide.114 Among others, he gives this command (c. 48): “At the beginning of Lent, each and every monk shall receive a manuscript from the library, which he should read through from beginning to end.” What could be more absurd than to give time to reading and not to make an effort to understand? The saying of the wise Cato is well known: “To read without understanding is a complete waste of time.”115 Such a reader may well be described, in the words of the philosophers, as “an ass before a lyre.” For a reader who holds a book in his hands and is unable to do that for which the book was written is like an ass in front of a lyre. It would be far more profitable for such readers to attend to other things, in which there might be some utility, than to look idly at the letters of Scripture or merely turn over its pages. In these readers, surely, we see the prophecy of Isaiah clearly fulfi lled (29:11–14): What is revelation to you, but a sealed book, offered as vainly to the scholar who finds it sealed, as to yonder simpleton who vows he never learned his letters? This people, the Lord says, makes profession of worshiping me, but does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. If they fear me, it is a lesson they learned from human precepts. What remains but some great, some resounding miracle, to strike me into such hearts as these? Bereft of wisdom their wise men shall be, cunning of their counselors vanished.

In monasteries, those who have learned to pronounce letters are said to know them. Since, as far as understanding is concerned, they freely own that they do not know how to read, the book given to them is as much a sealed book as for those whom they call illiterate. The Lord rebukes them, saying that they approach him with their mouth and lips rather than their heart, because they have no understanding of the words which, after a fashion, they are able to pronounce. Lacking the knowledge of the Divine Word, they follow and obey the customs of men rather than the benefit of the Scripture. For this reason, the Lord also threatens that those who, among these men, are regarded as wise and preside as teachers, shall be blinded. 114

Rule of St. Benedict, c. 48 and c. 55. Distichs of Cato, prologue (Chase 1922, p. 12); cf. Jerome, Ep. 61, ad Vigilantium 4: PL 22, 605–606. 115

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

191

Jerome, the greatest doctor of the Church and the glory of the monastic calling, incites us to a love of learning in these words: “Love the knowledge of letters and you will not love the vices of the flesh.”116 From his own testimony, we know what great labor and expense he devoted to learning. Among the themes he touched on in writing about his own studies to instruct us by his example, he said to Pammachius and Oceanus: When I was young, I burned with a marvelous love of learning, and I did not imitate the presumption of some men by teaching myself. I heard Apollinaris often in Antioch, and revered him, while he was instructing me in the Holy Scriptures. My hair was already gray and I should have been a teacher rather than a student. Yet I went to Alexandria and listened to Didymus, and I am grateful to him for learning many things I did not know. People thought I had come to the end of learning. But I returned to Jerusalem and Bethlehem and at great labor and expense, I had Barannias, a Hebrew, teach me at night. For he was afraid of the Jews, and he showed himself another Nicodemus to me.117

He surely remembered what he had read in Ecclesiasticus (6:18): “My son, learn the lessons of youth, and garner wisdom against your gray hairs.” Instructed not only by the words of Scripture but also by the examples of the Holy Fathers, he has added, among other most devout118 praises of that excellent monastery [of Nitria], this statement concerning its extraordinary concentration on the Holy Scriptures: “But never have I seen such exercises in meditating on and understanding the Holy Scriptures and divine learning, so that you might believe almost all of them to be orators in sacred wisdom.”119 As the Venerable Bede says in his History of the English, he was received into the monastery as a boy: “I have spent all the rest of my life in this same monastery and devoted myself entirely to the study of the Scriptures. While I have observed the discipline of the Rule and sung the offices daily in church, I have always delighted chiefly in teaching and writing.”120 But now those who are educated in monasteries persist in such folly that, content with the sound of letters, they are not concerned to understand them, and they seek to teach not the heart but the tongue. Such men are clearly rebuked by the proverb of Solomon (Prov. 15:14): “Truth is the quest of discerning minds, trifl ing the pasture-ground of the foolish,” that is, when they delight in words they do not understand. They are surely the less able to love God and to be kindled toward him, the farther removed they are from an understanding of him and from the meaning of Scripture that teaches us about him. There are, I believe, two principal reasons why this has happened in monasteries: either the envy of the lay brothers or of the superiors themselves or the foolish and idle gossip to which at present we see monastic cloisters greatly 116

Jerome, Ep. 125, ad Rusticum 11: PL 22, 1078. Jerome, Ep. 84, ad Pammachium et Oceanum 3: PL 22, 745. 118 [devotissimas? The manuscript reading of this word is uncertain]. 119 Rufinus, Historia monachorum 21: PL 21, 444, formerly attributed to Jerome. 120 Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.24: PL 95, 288. 117

192

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

devoted. Certainly, those who wish to turn us along with themselves to earthly rather than spiritual matters are like the Philistines who persecuted Isaac when he was digging wells, and tried to stop them up by fi lling them with earth.121 Explaining this in the sixteenth book of the Moralia, St. Gregory says: Often when we are intent on the word of God, we are more sorely tried by the wiles of evil spirits, because they scatter the dust of earthly thoughts on our minds in order to obscure the light of inward vision from the eyes of our devotion.122

The Psalmist had endured too much of this when he said (Ps. 118:115): “Out of my path, lovers of wrong; I will keep my God’s commandments.” He clearly suggests that he could not keep the commandments of God when he was suffering in his mind from the wiles of evil spirits. This is also what we understand as the meaning of the statement regarding Isaac’s work, by the reference to the wickedness of the Philistines who fi lled with earth the wells he had dug. Surely we dig wells when we penetrate deeply into the hidden meaning of the Holy Scripture. The Philistines secretly fi ll up these wells when, while we are intent on higher things, they throw in the earthly thoughts of an impure spirit and, so to speak, stop up the water of divine knowledge that we have found. But no one vanquishes these enemies by his own strength, as Eliphaz says ( Job 22:25): “The Almighty himself will be your shield, and silver you shall never lack.” This is as if he were to say: “When the Lord shall have driven the evil spirits away from you by his own strength, the talent of the divine word will shine more brightly in you.” If I am not mistaken, Gregory had read the homilies on Genesis of Origen, that great philosopher of the Christians,123 and had drawn from his wells what he now says of those other ones. That ardent digger of spiritual wells, urging us not to drink only from these, but to dig others for ourselves, says in the twelfth homily of the exposition I have mentioned: We should try also to do that which Wisdom advises us (Prov. 5:15): ‘Drink, and drink deep, at your own well, your own cistern.’ Try, then, my hearer, to have your own well and your own cistern so that when you take up a book of the Scriptures, you may begin to produce some understanding of it from your own perception and according to what you have learned in the Church. Try also to drink from the well of your own spirit. There is within you a spring of living water, there are perennial water-courses and f lowing channels of rational understanding, if only they are not filled up with earth and stones. But strive to dig your earth, that is, your spirit, and to cleanse it of filth, to remove idleness and drive out torpor of heart. Listen to what Scripture (Ecclus. 22:24): ‘Chafed eye will weep, chafed heart will show resentment.’ Purge your spirit, then, so that in time you may drink of your cisterns and draw living water from your wells. For if you have taken the word of God within yourselves, if you have received living 121 122 123

See Gen. 26:14ff. Gregory, Moralia in Job 16.18: PL 76, 556. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origen.”

A B E L A R D T O H E L OI S E : A RU L E F O R N U N S

193

water from Jesus and faithfully accepted it, it will be in you a fountain of f lowing water to life everlasting.124

In the following homily, Origen says of the wells of Isaac that I mentioned before: Those wells that the Philistines fi lled with earth are without doubt those who close up their spiritual understanding so that they neither drink themselves nor permit others to drink. Listen to the word of the Lord which says (Luke 11:52): ‘Woe upon you, you lawyers, for taking away with you the key of knowledge; you have neither entered yourselves nor let others enter when they would! But let us never stop digging wells of living water; and by discussing old and new things, let us make ourselves like the scribe in the Gospel, of whom the Lord said (Matt. 15:52): ‘he knows how to bring new and old things out of his treasure-house.’ Let us return again to Isaac and dig wells of living water with him; even if the Philistines oppose us, even if they fight against us, let us, nevertheless, persevere in digging our wells so that it may be said to us also (Prov. 5:15): ‘Drink, and drink deep, at your own well, your own cistern.’ Let us dig to make the water from our well f low over into our public squares so that our knowledge of Scriptures may not be confined only to ourselves, but may instruct others, too, and teach them how to drink. Let men drink, and beasts, as the prophet says (Ps. 35:7): “Lord, you give protection to man and beast.” ’

He says later: “The man who is a Philistine and knows earthly things does not know where in the world to fi nd water, where to fi nd rational understanding. What good is it to you to have learning and not know how to use it, to have the gift of speech and not know how to speak? This is to be like the sons of Isaac who dig wells of living water all over the earth.”125 But you are not to be like this. Those who have achieved the gift of learning should give up all idle gossip and strive to be instructed in the things that pertain to God, as it is written of the man who is blessed (Ps. 1:2, 3): “The man whose heart is set on the law of the Lord, on that law, day and night, his thoughts still dwell.” Immediately this is added concerning the profit gained from the assiduous study of the law of the Lord: “He stands firm as a tree planted by running water, ready to yield its fruit when the season comes,” for a dry tree is not fruitful, because it is not watered by the streams of the Word of God. Of this word it is written ( John 7:38): “Fountains of living water shall flow from his bosom.” These are the streams of which the bride sings in the Canticles, praising the Bridegroom and describing (5:12): “His eyes are as gentle as doves by the brook-side, only these are bathed in milk, eyes full of repose.” Being washed with milk, that is, shining with the whiteness of chastity, you shall dwell by those streams like doves. Drinking wisdom from them, you may be able not only to speak, but to teach and to show others where to turn their eyes, and not merely to look upon the Bridegroom but describe him to others. 124 125

Origen, Homiliae in Genesim 12.5: PG 12, 229c. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origen.” Origen, Homiliae in Genesim 13.2–4: PG 12, 230–36.

194

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

It is written, as we know, of his unique bride, whose honor it was to conceive him through the ear of the heart (Luke 2:19): “But Mary treasured up all these sayings, and reflected on them in her heart.” So the mother of the Supreme Word, who had his words in her heart rather than on her lips, meditated earnestly on them. She carefully considered each one and compared them with one another, noting how harmoniously they all agreed. She knew that, according to the mystery of the law, all animals are called unclean except those that chew the cud and have the hoof divided. So no soul is pure unless, as much as possible, it chews the cud of divine precepts by meditation and has discretion in following them, so that it may not only do good deeds but do them well, I mean, with the right intention. For the division of the hoof is the discretion of the mind, of which it is written (Gen. 4:7) [Septuagint]: “If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, you have sinned.” If a man has any love for me, says Truth ( John 14:23): “he will be true to my word.” But how can he be true to the words or precepts of his Lord unless he has fi rst understood them? No one will be zealous in following unless he has been attentive in hearing. This we read also of that holy woman who, putting everything else aside, sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his words with the ears of understanding that he himself demanded when he said (Matt. 11:15): “Listen, you that have ears to hear with.” But if you cannot be fi red to such fervor of devotion, at least imitate in both the love and the study of Holy Scriptures those holy disciples of Jerome, Paula and Eustochium, at whose special request this doctor enriched the Church with so many volumes.

LETTER 9 PETER ABELARD: TO THE NUNS OF THE PARACLETE ON STUDIES

Background: Often misunderstood and neglected, here in its fi rst English translation, this significant work survives, with the Problemata, in a single manuscript, Paris BnF 14511, dating from the very late fourteenth or early fi fteenth century. Formerly Saint-Victor MS 297, the manuscript had come to the abbey as a bequest from its late medieval owner, the scholar and early humanist, Simon de Plumetot, a notable collector of Abelardian works. The second part of the manuscript, containing these two texts, was copied for him; the fi rst part of the manuscript includes several briefer writings by Abelard. Without an epistolary salutation and sometimes designated as a ‘sermon,’ this work, in its relation to the correspondence, as well as to the Problemata, has raised questions chiefly concerning the sequence and dating of these texts in the corpus of Abelard’s works for the Paraclete. Largely because of the absence of explicit reference in the Problemata to Letter 9, its editor, Edmé Smits, agreed with Damien van den Eynde in concluding that they should follow Letter 8 directly, with Letter 9 given the last place in this order. A considerably stronger argument can be made, however, for a reversal of these positions and the placement of Letter 9 in a sequence that follows textually, and virtually without interruption, from the last pages of Letter 8. This sequence thus demonstrates the continuing development of major themes in the content and intention of these works for the Paraclete. Unquestionably the most striking feature of Letter 9 is Abelard’s double dialogue, on the one hand with St. Jerome and, on the other, with the nuns of the Paraclete, to whom he addressed the letter as a whole. Taking up at once the theme with which Letter 8 somewhat abruptly ends, the example of Paula and Eustochium in the study and teaching of nuns, Abelard began with Jerome’s instructions regarding the education of young girls intended for the religious life. Their studies should, he declared, begin at an early age, in childhood and in a surprisingly ‘modern’ learning environment inspired by Quintilian in its emphasis on “play as a path to learning.” Song helps in memorizing the alphabet and prizes reward success in spelling, “little gifts young children love.” With

196

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

encouraging praise, “the mind’s best sharpener,” Jerome’s students advanced to the study of Scriptures in both Greek and Latin. From the Psalter, these young students should progress to the Gospels, which should “always be in the hands of nuns,” and fi nally to the Song of Songs, in whose “carnal language,” the song of a “spiritual bridal union” could now be heard. Turning directly then to his “sisters in Christ,” Abelard moved from younger students to his immediate audience of nuns under the leadership of Heloise. Her own self-chosen model was Marcella, the aristocratic Roman widow of the late fourth and early fi fth century, whose virtues and learning Heloise herself set before her sisters in the introductory letter to her Problemata. Again in Letter 9, Abelard returned to the examples with which Letter 8 ended, stressing the importance of Paula and her younger daughter, Eustochium, as Jerome’s equals in the study of literature and languages. But he had referred fi rst to Paula’s older daughter, Blesilla, then dead, and her constancy in prayer, her sharpness of mind, and her mastery of Greek as well as Latin. From these early Christian models, Abelard returned to the present and the great opportunity now open to the nuns of the Paraclete. He urged, even implored them to take advantage of Heloise’s singular learning in the three scriptural languages, Hebrew and Greek as well as Latin. This extravagant praise led Abelard to his major theme, men’s abandonment of the study of the scriptures and their languages in his time. It also advanced his own goal, the recovery of this study by The Problemata presents the results of this active study of Scriptures by Heloise and her nuns. Although the dating of these works, together with others in the Paraclete corpus, remains uncertain, the years between 1133/34 and 1136/37 seem a likely temporal setting for this body of writings, with those on study and teaching in its varied contexts probably written in the later years. Abelard

I

n his great concern for the virgins of Christ and their instruction, and in his writings for their edification, the blessed Jerome strongly recommended the study of sacred literature, encouraging them in this study by both word and example. I have in mind what he said by way of advising the monk Rusticus: “Love the knowledge of Scripture and you will not love the vices of the f lesh.”1 Indeed, he regarded the love of study as especially appropriate to women, since they are naturally weaker and physically more susceptible than men. Nor was this advice meant only for virgins, as he noted in comparing their studies with the no less important examples offered by widows and married women. As an inspiration to the brides of Christ in this study of Scripture, the example of laywomen’s virtue should banish the nuns’ lethargy or arouse them from it. Since, as St. Gregory says, “we begin with the lesser in order to reach the greater,”2 Jerome was pleased to begin by noting how diligently little girls 1 2

Jerome, Ep. 125, ad Rusticum 11: PL 22, 1078; CSEL 56, 130. Gregory [the Great], Homiliae in Hiezechihelem prophetam 2.3; PL 25, 480; CCSL 142, 238.54–55.

A B E L A R D T O T H E N U N S O F T H E PA R AC L E T E

197

undertook the study of sacred literature. If I may pass over other remarks of his, he conveyed their essence in his advice to Laeta regarding the instruction of her daughter, Paula, and the molding of her character. Jerome This is how a soul must be trained that is to become a temple of God. Have a set of letters made for her of boxwood or ivory, and tell her their names. Let her play with them, making play a path to learning, and let her not only grasp the correct order of the letters and remember their names in a simple song, but also upset their order and mix the last letters with the middle ones, the middle with the fi rst. When she begins to press the stylus in the wax with a shaky hand, either have someone’s hand placed over hers to guide it or else have the letters marked out on the tablet so that her writing may follow their outlines and keep to their limits without wandering away. Reward her with prizes for spelling, tempting her with the little gifts young children love. She should have companions in her lessons as well, so that she may try to rival them and be stimulated by any praise they win. Do not scold her if she is a little slow; praise is the mind’s best sharpener. Let her be happy when she is fi rst, and sad when she falls behind. Above all, be careful not to make her lessons unattractive; a childish dislike often lasts beyond childhood. The words she will use to practice making sentences should not be picked at random but carefully chosen and purposefully arranged. For example, let her take the names of the prophets and the apostles along with the entire list of the patriarchs from Adam forward, as recorded by Matthew and Luke; making two lists at the same time will help her to remember them afterward. You should choose as her teacher a man of suitable age, life, and learning. Even a wise person is not ashamed, I think, to do for a relative or for a noble virgin what Aristotle did for Philip’s son when, like a humble clerk, he taught Alexander his fi rst letters. Nothing should be despised as trifl ing, if without it great results are impossible. The very letters themselves, and so the fi rst lesson about them, sound differently when they are spoken by a learned man rather than by a peasant. Children should never learn what they will later have to unlearn. The fi rst impression made on a young mind is hard to eradicate. Greek history tells us that the mighty King Alexander, who subdued the whole world, could not rid himself of the tricks of manner and movement that in his childhood he had picked up from his tutor.3 Abelard Paraphrases Jerome’s Text To help the child commit to memory the pronunciation of Scripture, a certain amount of reading should be assigned for memorizing every day. Attention should be given to the study not only of Latin, but also of Greek, because both are commonly spoken in Rome, and especially because the Scriptures had been 3

Jerome, Ep. 107, ad Laetam 4: PL 22. 872; CSEL 55, 293. Alexander’s tutor was Aristotle.

198

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

translated from Greek into Latin, so that the pupil can know them better from their origins and can understand them more truly. (For the Latin world had not yet begun the translation of Hebrew Truth.)4 Then Jerome Said Let her repeat to you every day a passage in Scriptures as her assigned task. A good many of these lines she should learn by heart in Greek, but knowledge of the Latin should follow closely after it. If the young child’s lips are not trained from the beginning, the language is spoiled by a foreign accent, and our native tongue debased by alien mistakes. . . . Rather than trusting in jewels or silk let her love the Holy Scriptures, preferring their learned style to gilding and Babylonian parchment with elaborate decorations. Let her learn the Psalter fi rst; let her divert herself with these songs, and then she should learn lessons for living from the Proverbs of Solomon. In reading Ecclesiastes, she should become accustomed to trampling underfoot the things of this world; let her follow the examples of virtue and patience she will fi nd in Job. Once she has moved to the Gospels, she should never again let them out of her hands. Let her embrace the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles with all her heart. As soon as she has enriched her mind’s storehouse with these treasures, she should commit to memory the Prophets, the Heptateuch, the Books of Kings and the Chronicles, and the scrolls of Ezra and Esther. Then at last she may safely read the Song of Songs; if she were to read it fi rst, she might be harmed by not perceiving in its carnal language the song of a spiritual bridal union. She should avoid all of the apocryphal books and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their teaching but out of respect for their remarkable stories, she should realize that they were not actually written by those to whom they are attributed. They are full of mistakes and great perception is needed in looking for gold in the mud. Let her always keep Cyprian’s works at hand, and explore the letters of Athanasius and the writings of Hilary with assurance. She may take pleasure in the learned commentaries of all those writers who sustain in their books a steady love of the faith. If she reads others, it should be as a critic rather than a follower. You [Laeta] will answer: “How shall I, a woman of the world living among the crowds of men in Rome, be able to watch over her in keeping with all of these injunctions?” But I reply, then do not take up a burden that you cannot carry. After you have weaned Paula, send her to her grandmother and aunt [Paula and Eustochium]. Set this most precious jewel in Mary’s resting place, and put her in the cradle where Jesus cried. Let her be reared in the company of virgins, in a monastery where she will learn never to take an oath and to regard a lie as sacrilege. Let her reject the world, and live like the angels; let her be in the flesh, without yielding to the fleshly, but thinking everyone else is like herself. In this way she will free you from the difficult task of watching over her, and from all the perils of guardianship. 4

Jerome, Ep. 107, ad Laetam 9: PL 22, 875; CSEL 55, 300.

A B E L A R D T O T H E N U N S O F T H E PA R AC L E T E

199

It is better for you to miss her in her absence than to worry every minute about what she is saying, to whom she is speaking, whom she greets, and whom she likes to see. Give Eustochium this little child, whose crying is now a prayer in your behalf, to be her companion today, and to inherit her sanctity in the years to come. Let her look upon and love, “let her from her fi rst years admire,” one whose words and movement and dress are an education in virtue.5 Let her sit on the lap of her grandmother [Paula], whom long experience has taught how to rear, instruct, and watch over virgins. After Anna brought to the tabernacle the son whom she had promised to God, she never took him back again. . . . If you will send us Paula, I undertake to be both her tutor and her foster-father. I shall carry her on my shoulders and my old tongue shall train her stammering lips. I shall take more pride in my task than did the worldly philosopher [Aristotle]. For I shall not be teaching a Macedonian king, fated to die by poison in Babylon, but a handmaid and bride of Christ, destined to be offered the celestial throne.6 Abelard to the Nuns of the Paraclete Consider, dearest sisters in Christ, and likewise you lay sisters, how much care this great doctor of the Church gave to the education of one little girl, diligently planning the whole so as to answer in detail the needs of teaching, beginning with the alphabet itself. Not only did he go on to the pronunciation of syllables and the joining together of letters as well as the writing of texts. He also provided for young companions whose envy and praise he emphasized very strongly. To encourage the child to respond to her studies spontaneously rather than under compulsion, thus moving her to embrace them with greater love, he advised compliments and praise as well as the reward of little presents. He also organized words assembled from Scripture, putting those fi rst that he recommended as the best exercise for her memory, in keeping with Horace’s words: “The fi rst impression made on young minds is hard to erase.” 7 Jerome carefully described the kind of teacher who should be chosen for this purpose and he did not neglect the fi xed amount of reading that, as he explained, should be memorized daily. Although at that time Greek literature was very actively taught in Rome, he did not require his pupil to be expert in it. This was especially, I believe, because translation of the sacred books had passed from the Greeks to us, which made it possible to discern what was missing or different in our translations, and perhaps also because the discipline of the liberal arts made no small contribution to encouraging the quest for perfection in learning. Jerome stressed learning of Latin as the beginning of our mastery. When, however, he progressed from the sound of words to their meaning, and then to the 5

Virgil, Aeneid 7.517. Jerome, Ep. 107, ad Laetam 9, 12–13: PL 22, 875–78; CSEL 55, 302–305. 7 Horace, Ep. 1.2, 69–70, in Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica with an English Translation, ed. Fairclough. 6

200

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

understanding of Scriptures, he distinguished between two kind of books, one containing the Old and New Testaments and the other the lesser commentaries of teachers whose learning aided their study’s progress toward completion. Among the canonical Scriptures he so strongly recommended the Gospels that, he declared, they should never leave the hands of virgins, as if he imposed the reading of the Gospels more strongly on deaconesses than on deacons, since these were obliged only to recite them in church while the women were enjoined never to give up reading them. Then, in case this mother [Laeta] should offer the excuse that no lay woman could carry out a program involving such frequent association with men, he advised her to free herself from this burden, and send her daughter to a community of virgins where she could be educated without danger and instructed in those subjects of which he had spoken. Finally, so as not to lose an opportunity for the kind of teacher he had described, he persuaded Laeta to send the girl from Rome to Jerusalem, to her grandmother, Paula, and her aunt, Eustochium, offering himself at one and the same time as teacher and guide. Wonderful to say, in fulfi lling such a promise, this great doctor of the Church, weakened though he was by age, said that he did not disdain carrying the young girl as a burden on his shoulders. This could hardly happen, however, without arousing suspicion among those who were already suspicious, and giving scandal to the religious. But, strengthened by God and by an integrity of life long well known to everyone, Jerome responded confidently that he could teach this one virgin in such a way that in her, he would leave to others a teacher through whom Jerome might teach without being seen as Jerome.8 But now let us proceed from the younger to the older virgins, whom he always encouraged in literary studies by writing to advise them about what they should read, and by praising them for their constancy in study and learning. We see this in what he wrote to Principia regarding the forty-fourth psalm: I know that I am often much criticized because I sometimes write to women and seem to prefer the more fragile sex to the stronger. So I owe it to my detractors to reply to this charge first and thus I come to the brief discussion that you have requested. If men would seek out the Scriptures, I would not be addressing women. If Barach had wished to go into battle, Deborah would not have triumphed over the defeated enemy.9

Somewhat later he says: Aquila and Priscilla taught Apollo, an apostolic man and very learned in the Law, and instructed him in the way of the Lord. If it was not shameful for an apostle to be taught by a woman, why is it shameful for me to teach women, too, after men? This and its like I have touched on brief ly, to ensure that you should not

8 Jerome, Ep. 65, ad Principiam 1: PL 22, 623–24; CSEL 54, 616. Abelard here echoes in Jerome’s story the insinuations made against him for teaching women. 9 Jerome, Ep. 65, ad Principiam 1: PL 22, 623; CSEL 54, 616.

A B E L A R D T O T H E N U N S O F T H E PA R AC L E T E

201

be penalized because of your sex, or those men encouraged who are condemned when the life of women is praised in Holy Scriptures.10

After virgins, Jerome was pleased to speak admiringly, offering examples and praise, about the abundant progress of widows in the study of sacred literature. Thus, writing to the same virgin, Principia, as she had requested, about the life of the saintly Marcella, Jerome stressed among her distinguished virtues: “Her ardent love for God’s Scriptures surpasses all belief. She was forever singing: ‘Your words have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against you’ (Ps. 118:11), and also the passage about the perfect man: ‘His delight is in the law of the Lord; and on his law he meditates day and night’ (Ps. 1:2), and ‘Through your precepts I have got understanding’ (Ps. 118:104).”11 Lastly Jerome Wrote When the needs of the church also brought me to Rome in company with the Holy Pontiff s,12 in my modesty I was inclined to avoid the company of aristocratic ladies. But Marcella was so urgent “both in season and out of season,” as the Apostle says (2 Tim. 4:2), that her persistence overcame my timidity. At that time I had some reputation as a student of Scriptures, and so she never met me without asking me questions about them. Nor would she ever rest content at once, but would bring forward points on the other side. This was not for the sake of argument, however, but rather so that by questioning she might learn an answer to any objection that, in her view, might be raised. What virtue and intellect, what holiness and purity, I found in her I hesitate to say, both because I would exceed the limits of human belief, and also because I might increase the pain of your grief by reminding you of the blessings you have lost. This alone I shall say: all that I had gathered together by long study and made part of my nature by constant meditation, she fi rst sipped, then learned, and fi nally took for her own. Consequently, after my departure from Rome, if any argument arose, it was to her verdict that people appealed regarding the testimony of Scriptures.13 Because Marcella was very prudent, when she was questioned in this way, even if her answers were her own, she said that they came not from her but from me or someone else, claiming that she was a pupil even when she was teaching. Well aware that the Apostle [Paul] said: “I do not allow a woman to teach” [1 Tim. 2:12], she did not wish to embarrass the male sex and sometimes even the priests who asked her questions about obscure and doubtful matters. Meanwhile she and I consoled ourselves for our separation by conversing in letters, discharging in the spirit the debt that we could not pay in the flesh. Our letters always crossed,

10

Jerome, Ep. 65, ad Principiam 1–2: PL 22, 624; CSEL 54, 618. Jerome, Ep. 127, ad Principiam 4: PL 22, 1089; CSEL 56, 148. 12 Paulinus and Epiphanius, respectively of the churches of Syrian Antioch and of Salamis in Cyprus 13 Jerome, Ep. 127, ad Principiam 8–9: PL 22, 1092–93; CSEL 56, 152. 11

202

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

outdone in courtesies, anticipated in greetings. Separation brought no great loss since it was bridged by our continuing correspondence. In the midst of this tranquility and service to God, there arose in these provinces a tempest that threw everything into confusion, and fi nally swelled to such heights of madness that it spared neither itself nor anything that was good.14 As if it were not enough to have disturbed all of our community here, it dispatched a ship laden with blasphemers to the port of Rome. Their muddy feet befouled the clear doctrine of the Roman faith. Finally, our saintly Marcella, who had closed her eyes to all this for a long time, not wishing to assert herself in the confl ict, found that the faith once praised by the Apostle was now being endangered in many people, and she came forward openly on my side. Since the heretic was not only drawing to his cause priests, monks, and, above all, lay people, but was even imposing on the simplicity of the bishop, who judged other men by himself, Marcella publicly withstood him, choosing to please God rather than men. It was she who took the fi rst steps in getting the heretics condemned, bringing forward as witnesses those who had fi rst been instructed by them and afterward had seen the error of their heresy. It was she who revealed the numbers of those they had deceived, while she brandished in their faces the impious book, On First Principles, which, as amended by that scorpion (Rufi nus), was then openly on view. It was she, fi nally, who in a succession of letters challenged the heretics to defend themselves. But they did not dare. So strong was their awareness of sin that they preferred to be condemned in their absence rather than to appear and be proved guilty. For this great victory Marcella was responsible.15 Abelard to the Nuns of the Paraclete You have seen, dearly beloved sisters, how beneficial it was for the city of Rome that heresies were suppressed by the leadership of this woman and her praiseworthy zeal for learning. Concerning the proficiency in sacred studies by which she merited this victory, Jerome recalls this for your encouragement in Book I of his commentary on Paul’s epistle to the Galatians: Indeed, I know how her ardor, her faith, the f lame that burns in her breast have moved her to transcend her sex, to forget about men, to make the tympanum of the holy books resound, to pass over the Red Sea of this world. Certainly, when I am in Rome, she never sees me without hastening to ask me something concerning the Scriptures. Yet she follows the Pythagorean custom and does not accept whatever I may answer as correct; authority unsupported by reason does not convince her. But she investigates everything, and weighs it all in her sagacious mind, and thus she makes me feel that I have not so much a pupil as a judge.16 14

Jerome, Ep. 127, ad Principiam 10: PL 22, 1093; CSEL 56, 153. Jerome, Ep. 127, ad Principiam 10: PL 22, 1091–92; CSEL 56, 153. Here Jerome asserts Marcela’s orthodoxy over that of Origen. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origen.” 16 Jerome, Commentari in iv epistulas Paulinas, Prologue: PL 26, 331b–32b. This powerful passage about student and teacher is often invoked by Abelard (Sic et Non, Theologia “Scholarium”); cf. 15

A B E L A R D T O T H E N U N S O F T H E PA R AC L E T E

203

Abelard Continues Scriptural studies flourished so actively among holy women at that time, just as among men, that they never drew merely upon the rivulets of Scripture. Instead, they sought the sources, believing that a single language was not enough for them. So we have what Jerome said concerning the death of Paula’s daughter Blesilla, writing among other words in her praise: Who could contemplate without weeping the constancy of her prayers, the power of her tongue, the tenacity of her memory, the sharpness of her mind? If you heard her speaking Greek, you would have thought that she did not know Latin. If she turned her tongue to Roman speech, no strange sound would come from her mouth. Now, indeed, with the swiftness marveled at in the case of Origen’s Greek, she had—in a few, I do not say months, but days—so mastered the difficulties of Hebrew that she rivaled her mother in learning Psalms by heart and chanting them.17

Abelard continues: Indeed, their teacher, Jerome himself, did not surpass Paula and that other daughter of hers, the virgin Eustochium, who was dedicated to God, in the same study of literature and languages. Writing about these in commemorating the life of Paula, he said: No talents were better adapted to study and learning than hers. Slow to speak, swift to learn, she was mindful of the precept: “Listen, Israel, and be silent” (Deut. 27:9). She cherished the Scriptures in her memory, and finally persuaded me to discuss them with her as she read through both Old and New Testaments with her daughter. At first refusing this out of modesty, I was persuaded by her constant insistence and frequent demands that I should teach what I had learned. If I ever hesitated and frankly confessed my ignorance, she would never agree with me, but compelled me to join in questioning, and declaring which among many and diverse opinions seemed to me more probable. I speak about something that may seem unbelievable: the Hebrew language that I have studied from my youth with much labor, sweat, and untiring meditation, I never neglect now, for fear that she may neglect me. She has wished to continue learning this language so that she can sing the Psalms in Hebrew, as well as to learn to speak the Greek language without any echo of Latin. This desire we find also today in her holy daughter, Eustochium.18

These women knew that the teaching of the Latin text of Scriptures had proceeded from Hebrew and Greek texts, and that the idiom could not be preserved to the fullest in translation. Priding themselves on the perfection of their Hebrew and Greek, they were sometimes accustomed to deriding our translations as imperfect, asserting by way of argument that when any liquid was poured into many vessels in turn, these were necessarily reduced in fullness and their amount in other vessels would not be equal to the first. Thus it often happened that we tried to oppose the Jews with certain arguments which they were accustomed to Heloise, Problemata, preface. 17 Jerome, Ep. 39, ad Paulam 1: PL 22, 463; CSEL 54, 294. See: Explanatory Notes, “Origin.”. 18 Jerome, Ep. 108, ad Eustochium 26: PL 22, 902–903; CSEL 55, 344–45.

204

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

refute easily against us in our ignorance of Hebrew, because of the falsity, as they say, of our translations.19 So these wisest of women, described earlier as diligently attentive, were by no means content with their own language. They wished not only to teach their own pupils, but also to refute others, and strengthen their own position with the most limpid waters from the fount.20 To this end, especially, if I am not mistaken, Jerome fostered their mastery of languages by his own example. Regarding the extensive labor and expense with which he sought this perfection, he wrote to Pammachius and Oceanus in these words: When I was young, I burned with a marvelous love of learning and I did not imitate the presumption of some others by teaching myself. I often listened to the teaching of Apollinaris the Laodicean at Antioch. When I studied with him and he instructed me in the holy Scriptures, I never accepted his contentious doctrine regarding the senses. My hair was already gray and I should have been a teacher rather than a student. Yet, passing on to Alexandria, I listened to the teaching of Didymus; I am grateful to him for learning many things I did not know, and I have not wasted diverse aspects of his teaching. People thought that I had come to an end of my studies. But I returned to Jerusalem and at great labor and expense I had Baranninah, a Hebrew, as a teacher at night. For he was afraid of the Jews and he showed himself to me as another Nicodemus. I have mentioned all of these men often in my briefer writings.21

Abelard to the Nuns of the Paraclete By stressing the zeal of such a great teacher and of holy women in the study of divine Scriptures, I wish to urge and implore you, while you can and while you have a mother [Heloise] skilled in these three languages, to try to perfect their study, so that whenever doubts have arisen about different translations, your examination can resolve them. This study seems appropriately foreshadowed by the very title of the Lord himself on the Cross, written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin so that in his Church everywhere in the tripartite world teaching should abound in these languages in which the Scripture in both testaments is written. But you will not need long journeys and vast expenses to learn these languages, as the blessed Jerome did, since, as I have said, you have a mother well-trained in their study. Besides virgins and widows, faithful married women offer you incitement to learning, and either counter your negligence or increase your ardor. A distinguished example for you is the venerable Celancia who, wishing to live in marriage according to a rule, anxiously besought Jerome to prescribe such a rule for her. Writing to her later about this, Jerome recalled: When your letters have urged me to write, I have been embarrassed to hesitate so long over my answer . . . . For you ask, indeed, anxiously and urgently seek, that 19 20 21

Controversies about Abelard’s own knowledge of Hebrew and Judaism continue today. Jerome, Ep. 108, ad Eustochium 26: PL 22, 902–903; CSEL 55, 344–45. Jerome, Ep. 84, ad Pammachium et Oceanum 3: PL 22, 745; CSEL 55, 123.

A B E L A R D T O T H E N U N S O F T H E PA R AC L E T E

205

I prescribe for you from the Holy Scriptures a definite rule by which you may plan the course of your life. In doing this, knowing the will of God, you will prize the supernatural path more than the honors of the world and the appeal of its beauties, and thus you can remain in marriage not only to please your husband but also the Lord, who permits your marriage. He who is not satisfied either by holy petitions or by pious desires, what does he love more than another’s progress? I shall yield to your prayers and when you are ready to fulfill the will of God, I shall strive to hasten his decision.22

Abelard to the Nuns of the Paraclete Perhaps this matron [Celancia] had heard what the Scripture tells us in praise of saintly Susanna. After first describing her as very beautiful and God-fearing (Daniel 13:2), it goes on at once to point to the source of this fear and true decorum of spirit, saying: “For her parents were upright; they brought up their daughter according to the law of Moses” (Daniel 13:3). After the trials of marriage and the confusions of worldly life, Susanna was not unmindful of this training, and when she was condemned to death, she did well to condemn her own judges and priests. Indeed, expounding the passage of Daniel that speaks of her parents being just, etc., Jerome himself took occasion to exhort his readers, saying, “This testimony should be used to urge parents to teach the divine word according to the law of God not only to their sons, but also to their daughters.”23 Because riches are often most likely to impede the pursuit of both learning and virtue, the example of that exceedingly rich Queen Sheba should drive from you all lethargy and negligence. A member of the weaker sex, enduring the vast effort and fatigue of a long journey, with its dangers and very great expenses, she came to the ends of the earth to experience the wisdom of Solomon, and to discuss with him those matters of which she was ignorant (3 Kings 10.1–13, 2 Chron. 9.1–12). Solomon approved of her effort and study so much that he gave her by way of reward all that she asked, excepting what remained by custom in the possession of the king himself. Many powerful men flocked to listen to his wisdom, and many kings and leaders in the land honored his teaching with great munificence, and not one of them was rewarded as was the woman just mentioned. In this way he showed clearly how much he approved of this woman’s holy zeal and ardent studies, and how he judged them pleasing to the Lord himself. The Lord and true Solomon, indeed, more than Solomon, did not fail to emphasize her learning as a condemnation of men, saying (3 Kings, 10.1): “The Queen of the South will rise in judgment and condemn this generation” (Matt. 12:42), etc. Take care, my dearest sisters, that your own negligence does not condemn you in this generation, since you need not endure the fatigue of a long journey or provide for vast expenses. You have a leader and teacher in your mother 22 Pelagius, Ep. ad Celantium (in fact = Pseudo-Jerome, Ep. 148.1–2: PL 22, 1204–5; CSEL 56, 329–30). In the Historia calamitatum, Thierry is cited by Abelard as implying a parallel between Abelard (falsely accused by the Council of Soissons) and Susanna (falsely accused by the Elders). 23 Jerome, Commentarii in Danielem 4.13, 3: PL 25, 580b; CCSL 75A, 945.

206

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

[Heloise], who can answer any need, both as an example of virtue and as a teacher of letters. For she is not only learned in Latin literature as well as Hebrew and Greek, but, apparently alone in this age, she enjoys a command of all three languages. This was foretold by the blessed Jerome as a singular grace, most especially praised in the venerable women mentioned earlier. For our instruction these three languages are encompassed by the entire two testaments as a whole. The titles of the Lord are displayed on the Cross in these three languages, that is, inscribed in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This clearly demonstrates the Lord’s teaching and the praises of Christ and the very mystery of the Trinity, especially in these three languages, in the tripartite breadth of the world, just as it was proclaimed and supported by the wood of the Cross itself on which this title was displayed. It is written (Deut. 17.6, Matt. 18:16): “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.” In order that the Holy Scripture should be confi rmed by the authority of the three languages, and the teaching of each language should be strengthened by the other two, divine providence decreed that both the Old and the New Testament should be encompassed in the three languages. Clearly, since the New Testament surpassed the Old in both dignity and utility, it was the fi rst to be written in the three languages, as if the inscription on the Cross predicted the future. For example, the earliest gospel, according to Matthew, was first written in Hebrew. Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews and that of James to the then dispersed twelve tribes ( James 1:1), and likewise the epistle of Peter (1 Peter 1:1) and, perhaps for the same reason, some others were also written in Hebrew.24 Who doubts that the three gospels addressed to the Greeks were written in Greek and also certain epistles of Paul and others destined for them, as well as the Apocalypse sent by him to the seven churches (Apoc. 1:11)? We know that one epistle was written by Paul to the Romans so that we might glory in the little we have in Latin and reflect on how very necessary to us are the teachings of the others [in Hebrew and Greek]. If we strive to know these fully, they must be sought out at the source rather than in the rivulets of translations, especially if these translations produce doubt rather than certainty in the reader. For it is not easy, as we noted, to preserve in translation the idiom proper to each language and to achieve in each a faithful interpretation, so that all is said in every way as fully in a foreign language as it is in our own. When we wish to express in one language something in another, we often fail because we do not have the correct word to express our thought most precisely. We know that the blessed Jerome, who was among us [Latin Christians] particularly expert in these three languages, sometimes disagreed with much in his own translations and with himself in his commentaries on them. He often made the statement in these commentaries: “this is how it is in Hebrew,” regarding a text that, nevertheless, is not in fact found in his translations from Hebrew, as he himself asserts. When different interpreters disagree among 24 Abelard here follows the erroneous tradition that these Greek epistles were composed in Hebrew.

A B E L A R D T O T H E N U N S O F T H E PA R AC L E T E

207

themselves, what wonder, then, if we fi nd one who even disagrees with himself! Anyone, therefore, who wishes to be certain about these matters should not be content with the water from a stream, but should seek and draw out its purity at the source. For this reason the blessed Jerome’s latest translation made from Hebrew and Greek directly, according as he himself had drunk from the sources at their fount, surpasses among us the old translations. “The newest arrivals,” as it is written in the Law (Lev. 26:10), “cast away the old.” For this reason Daniel says (Daniel 12:4): “Many shall be passed over; knowledge shall be manifold.” Jerome did what he could in his time and was almost alone in his knowledge of foreign languages, but he had a Jewish interpreter on whose assistance he greatly depended, as he himself testified, since he was displeased with many translations. He did not believe that the translations already available were sufficient, and he persevered in his intention, in which, with God’s help, he succeeded, attending to and completing the saying of Ecclesiasticus [actually, Eccl. 1:7]: “The streams returned to the fount from which they came and flowed out again.” The fount and origin, as it were, of scriptural translations is that from which they flow, and translations quickly become false and untrue if they deviate from their origin and are not shown to return in agreement with it. We should not believe that a single interpretation can suffice for all, as if the perfection of knowledge is contained in each, especially in Hebrew, which we regard as superior. We should listen to its testimony, and not presume to impute to it more than it possesses. Jerome wrote about this to Pammachius and Marcella and against his accuser in these words: “We who have at least a little knowledge of Hebrew and are not deficient in Latin speech are better able to judge the other language and to explain what we understand in our own language.”25 Happy is that soul which, meditating on the law of God night and day, strives to draw on each Scripture at the very source of its fount, like the very purest water, in order that he should not, through ignorance or incapacity, mistake as clear the turbulent waters running through diverse streams, and be forced to vomit what he drinks. For a long time the study of foreign languages [Greek and Hebrew] has been abandoned by men and, through their neglect, knowledge of letters and literature has perished. What we have lost in men let us recover in women, and to the condemnation of men and the judgment of the stronger sex, let the Queen of the South seek out in you the wisdom of Solomon. To this purpose you can devote greater effort than men since nuns are less burdened by manual labor than men and because of their greater leisure and natural weakness, they yield more easily to dishonorable temptation. This is why, in directing and exhorting women by both words and examples, the teacher Jerome, mentioned earlier, urged you to devote yourselves to the study of letters, especially so that there should never be an occasion to introduce men into the community or with the soul’s intention defeated by the body, for her to wander outside and, leaving her spouse behind, fornicate with the world.

25

Jerome, Contra Rufinum 2.28: PL 73, 473; CCSL 79, 66.

This page intentionally left blank

ABELARD TO HELOISE: A PROFESSION OF FAITH

Background: No longer commonly regarded as a work written after Abelard’s condemnation at the council of Sens, now dated 25–26 May 1141, this letter, like Abelard’s Apologia, has been more securely assigned by Charles S.F. Burnett to the period immediately preceding the council. Preserved only by its citation in the work of Abelard’s follower, Berengar of Poitiers, this is a fi rmly orthodox profession of faith. Without refuting specifically the charges against him, Abelard maintains that any accusations are based on distortions of his teaching.1 Abelard dealt more specifically with the charges against him in a longer profession of faith.2 Abelard defended himself and his teachings much more fully in still another ‘apology,’ also probably written before the council of Sens, of which only a fragment concerning his Trinitarian doctrine survives.3 Abelard’s vigorous and specific rejection of the heresies of Arius and Sabellius suggests that he had in mind the accusations of William of Saint-Thierry and Bernard of Clairvaux in their intensive campaign against him during 1140 and early 1141. This letter would thus seem intended to reassure Heloise of his orthodoxy at a time of accelerated opposition to his teaching.4

H

eloise, my sister, once dear to me in the world, now most dear in Christ, logic has made the world hate me. Those perverse perverters, for whom wisdom is the way to perdition, say that as a logician I excel all others, but that as a follower of Paul, I have erred greatly. Proclaiming the brilliance of my intellect, they attack the purity of my Christian faith. It seems to me that they have been led to this judgment by opinion and not by the weight of evidence. I would not be a philosopher if I must disagree with Paul. I would not be an Aristotle if that meant separation from Christ. “For there is no other name under 1 This translation and these remarks are based on “Abelard to Heloise: A Profession of Faith,” in Burnett, “Confessio fidei ad Heloissam—Abelard’s Last Letter to Heloise? A Discussion and Critical Edition of the Latin and Medieval French Version,” 147–55, at 152–55. 2 “Confessio fidei ‘Universis’: A Critical Edition of Abelard’s Reply to Accusations of Heresy,” ed. Burnett. See also an edition of the surviving fragments of Abelard’s Liber Sententiarum by Mews, “The Sententie of Peter Abelard.” 3 Petri Abelardi Opera Theologica, ed. Buytaert, CCCM 11. 4 See: William’s Disputatio adversus Petrum Abelardum, PL180, 257ab and Bernard’s Tractatus PL 182, 1056ab. On this growing opposition and its larger implications, political and social as well as religious, see also Mews, “The Council of Sens (1141).”

210

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

heaven by which I may be saved” (Acts 9:12). I adore Christ reigning at the right hand of the Father. With the arms of faith I embrace him, divinely manifest in the glorious virginal f lesh he assumed through the Paraclete. To banish anxious care and every enigma from your heart, believe that I have founded my conscience on the rock upon which Christ built his Church. What is written on that rock I shall briefly describe to you. I believe in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, one by nature and true God, who demonstrates a trinity in persons in order to safeguard unity in substance. I believe that the Son is in every way co-equal with the Father, that is, in eternity, power, will, and work. I do not listen to Arius,5 who was impelled by a perverse mind, or rather, seduced by a devilish spirit, to distinguish degrees in the Trinity, teaching that the Father is greater and the Son less, forgetful of the precept of the Law that says (Exod. 20:26): “You shall not ascend by degrees to my altar.” He truly ascends to the altar of God by degrees who posits a fi rst and a last in the Trinity. I declare also that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial and co-equal in every way with the Father and the Son, as my writings often proclaim that the Holy Spirit may be designated by the name of Goodness. I condemn Sabellius6 who asserted that the Father and the Son are one and the same Person, thus affi rming the suffering of the Father, for which reason his followers are called “patri-passionists.” I believe also that the Son of God became the Son of Man, one Person consisting of and in two natures. After the purpose for which he had assumed human nature had been fulfi lled, he suffered and died, rose again and ascended into heaven, whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. I declare also that all sins are remitted in baptism, that we are led by grace both to undertake the good and to become perfect in it, and that those who fall into sin are restored by penitence. What need I say concerning the resurrection of the body, if I did not believe in its resurrection? This, then, is the faith in which I abide and from which I draw the firmness of my hope. Strongly anchored in it, I do not fear the barking of Scylla; I laugh at the whirlpool of Charybdis;7 I do not tremble at the death-bringing harmonies of the Sirens. If the tempest breaks, I am not shaken. If the winds rage, I am not moved. For I am founded upon an immovable rock.

5

See: Explanatory Notes, “Arius.’ Sabellius: An obscure third-century thinker, active at Rome but perhaps from Libya or elsewhere, who contended that in the Trinity, the Son was not a separate person but a different mode of the Father. This doctrine is usually called Modalist Monarchianism. In the medieval West it was most widely known as Patripassianism (i.e., the Father also suffered on the Cross). 7 Scylla, Charybdis, and the Sirens: Three lethal challenges to Odysseus reported by him in Book 12 of the Odyssey. The Sirens were beautiful female creatures whose seductive songs told male human ears what they most wished to hear, which led to many shipwrecks off their rocky stretch of shore. Nearby was the whirlpool Charybdis that sucked ships and their sailors down to oblivion. Charybdis is the sinister whirlpool that Odysseus famously eluded. Opposite Charybdis was Scylla, a horrific six-headed female monster, eager to consume any sailor left adrift from Charybdis. Odysseus’s ingenuity and self-control allowed him to escape all three. 6

PART II HELOISE’S QUESTIONS [PROBLEMATA HELOISSAE]: FORTY-TWO QUESTIONS POSED BY HELOISE AND ANSWERED BY ABELARD, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY LETTER BY HELOISE

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTORY LETTER HELOISE TO ABELARD

H

ow lavishly the Blessed Jerome praised St. Marcella, enthusiastically approving and especially commending her zeal for study, which was entirely devoted to questions of sacred literature, your wisdom knows better than my simplicity. Demonstrating this approval in his commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, he recalled in the first book: Indeed, I know how her ardor, her faith, the f lame that burns in her breast, have moved her to transcend her sex, to forget about men, to sound the tympanum of the holy books, to pass over the Red Sea of this world. Certainly, when I am in Rome, she never sees me without hastening to ask me a question concerning the Scriptures. Yet she follows the Pythagorean custom and does not accept whatever I may answer as correct; authority unsupported by reason does not convince her. Instead, she investigates everything, and weighs it all in her sagacious mind, and so she makes me feel that I have not so much a pupil as a judge.1

Because Jerome knew so well Marcella’s great proficiency in her studies, he appointed her as a teacher to instruct other eager students in this subject. Writing to the virgin, Principia, he mentions this among other testimonies: You have there [in Rome], as mentors in the study of Scripture and in holiness of mind, Marcella and Asella; the first guides you through the verdant meadows and diverse f lowers of Holy Scripture to him who says in the Canticles ‘I am the f lower of the field and the lily of the valley. The other deserves to bear the f lower of the Lord with you: “Like a lily in the midst of thorns is my dear one in the middle of the maidens.” ’2

What do these statements mean, I ask you, who are dear to many, but dearest of all to me? They are not mere testimonies; they are admonitions, reminding you of your debt to us, which you should not delay in paying. You brought us together in your own oratory as servants of Christ and spiritual daughters and 1 2

Jerome, Comm. in Ep. ad Galatas prologue: PL 26, 331b–332b. Jerome, Ep. 65, ad Principiam 2: PL 22, 624; CSEL 54, 619.

214

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

dedicated us to the divine service. You have always exhorted us to listen to the word of God and devote ourselves to sacred studies. In urging us so often to these studies, you have declared that the Bible is a mirror of the soul in which we can discern its beauty or deformity. You would not allow any bride of Christ to be without this mirror, if she would strive to please him to whom she is vowed. You added above, by way of exhorting us, that reading the Scripture without understanding is like holding a mirror before our eyes without seeing. 3 Our sisters and I have taken these admonitions very much to heart, obeying you in this as much as possible, by devoting ourselves to the love of learning, of which Jerome himself remarked, “Love the knowledge of Scriptures and you will not love the vices of the flesh.”4 But we fi nd ourselves greatly hampered in our studies by many perplexing questions, and our ignorance of sacred learning makes us love it less, the more unfruitful the task we have undertaken seems to us. So, as pupils to their teacher, daughters to their father, we are sending you some small questions, asking you as supplicants, supplicating as petitioners, that you will not disdain the task of answering them, you above all at whose urging or, rather, at whose command we have embarked on this study. In presenting these questions for you to answer, we are in no sense following the order of Scripture, but, rather, posing them as they came up in the course of our daily studies. Heloise: Problem 1 What is the meaning of the Lord’s promise in John’s gospel regarding the Spirit whom he would send, where he said (16:8–11): And when he (the Spirit) comes, he will convict the world of sin and righteousness and condemnation: sin, because those who hear me do not believe in me; righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.

Abelard’s Solution Through the apostles whom he shall fi ll with the Spirit, he will convict, as he declared, not merely one part of the world, but all of it, of the sin persisting or retained in human beings because they have not believed in me. The Spirit will convict the world regarding the righteousness that I have offered by my presence but that men have not accepted; for that reason, after I have been here, they will not be able to bring me back when I have gone to the Father and am no longer visible here. The Spirit will convict the world regarding condemnation, meaning condemnation of the sin of righteousness when that which makes people wicked 3 In super, that is, ‘above,’ in Letter 8: this term supports the hypothesis regarding the continuity of the Problemata with the correspondence. 4 Jerome, Ep. 125 ad Rusticum 11: PL 22, 107–108; CSEL 56, 130.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

215

or just may consist in actions more than intentions, and they discern merit not so much in relation to the soul as according to actions. This the Jews were very much inclined to do, regarding no one as damned, whatever he willed, provided that he did not complete it with an act. On this account the Apostle Paul writes to the Romans (9:31): “Israel, which followed the Law of righteousness, did not attain to that Law.” Why? Because it was pursued not by faith but by works. For example, although the Law also forbids concupiscence, the Jews did not consider this sin sufficient for damnation. The Lord now says that this error is to be condemned by which the prince of this world is judged. He is the true Satan who rules over the carnal life and those who love this world, and he is the author and origin of all sin, not by what he did but by what he willed presumptuously, and he was condemned in an instant and fell most gravely. Heloise: Problem 2 What is the meaning of this statement in the epistle of James (2:10–11): “Whoever keeps the Law as a whole, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty with respect to all of it. He who said ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘You shall not kill. Even if you do not commit adultery, but if you do kill, you have become a transgressor of the Law’ ”? Abelard’s Solution All precepts of the Law as a whole, not separately, are the Law itself. Therefore, whoever shall keep all of the Law, except for a single commandment, becomes guilty of transgressing the entire Law. This means that he did not keep all of the precepts which, taken together (as we have said), are the Law itself. It is as if he were to say openly: “Although no one can fulfi ll the Law by observing one commandment of it, he can nonetheless become a transgressor of the Law by violating a single one of its precepts.” For this reason, the Apostle, explaining his statement “guilty in respect to all of it,” added “you have become a transgressor of the Law,” from which it can be seen that a precept had been neglected although it was commanded equally with the rest. From the other statement added by the Apostle, “For he who said ‘you shall not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘you shall not kill,’ we conclude that God would by no means have established that one of these is to be neglected, and so the transgressor has become guilty with respect to all of it. When, then, the Apostle declares, “For he who said ‘you shall not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘you shall not kill,’ ” it is as if he were saying, “So I rightly said that whoever transgresses one commandment is guilty of them all.” This means that the transgressor is condemned because, in not keeping all of the Law, he showed contempt for God. For God himself, who gave the Law, ordered this commandment to be followed equally with the others, and this means all of them, not merely one of the whole. As a person becomes a transgressor of the Law by transgressing one of its commandments, he not only becomes guilty of all, but is also condemned because he has not fulfi lled all of them.

216

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Heloise: Problem 3 What is the meaning of the Lord’s answer, given often when he was being questioned by others, “you have said it,” or even his responding to many questioners with “you say,” as if he were declaring that they had asserted something they had merely asked about in expressing their doubt. So when Judas asked (Matt. 26:25): “Surely it is not I, Rabbi, who is to betray you?” the Lord answered, “You have said so.” Moreover, when Pilate asked him whether he was the son of God, he answered in the same way. Even when the people asked ( John 10:24): “If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly,” or “then you are the son of God?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am” ( John 18:37). Finally, when asked by the governor, that is, Pilate, whether he was king of the Jews, Jesus replied, “You say so” (Matt. 27:11). These answers seem, indeed, to raise a not undeserved doubt. For a person who asks whether this or that is true, in so speaking is not actually saying that this or that is so, but is led by doubt to ask whether either is true. Abelard’s Solution In this genuine problem, the Lord’s answers pose the difficult or even insoluble question whether the Lord’s replies (“you have said” or “you all say” or “you say”) should refer to the words of the preceding questions, so as to assert that these words had been part of them, which is hardly appropriate. Hence in replying to the question of Judas when he asked whether he is the one who would betray him, Jesus answered, “You have said it,” rather than “you are saying it.” In this statement, he has taken notice of the agreement Judas had already made with the Judaeans, promising to betray Jesus to them out of avarice for the money promised. To the high priest who asked whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus answered, “you have said it,” which is to be understood in this way: that the high priest who at that time denied that Christ, at whom he was looking, was the Son of God, had earlier often confessed, in reading the Law and the Prophets, that he was. To the Jews who asked him whether he was the Messiah, or the Son of God, he replied, “you all say it,” using a verb in the present tense in their case just as in Pilate’s, signifying that the day was already at hand when they would say it. For when they mocked him, saying (Luke 22:64): “Prophesy, O Christ, who is it that struck you?” or (Matt. 27:29): “Hail, King of the Jews!” for whatever reason they detested him for being the Christ, that is, the anointed. Perhaps in this they were imitating the prophecy of Caiaphas, who said ( John 18:14): “It is better for you that one man should die than that a whole people should perish.” But in the testimony of the crowd that received him with palm branches, he is also the “son of David,” according to Matthew (21:9), and in him the kingdom of David has come, according to Mark (11:10), and blessed is the king who comes, according to Luke (19:38), and finally according to John (12:13): “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel.” They were by no means

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

217

deluded in expressing this delusion, as noted above, but are speaking through faith. This is similar to what he says to the Jews, “You say it,” as if to say “There are many among you who not only say this with your lips, but also hold it in your hearts.” Even if those who were asking this may not have said it or believed it, nonetheless when he said, “You say it,” he was referring not to those persons who were present but to the whole Jewish people. It was the same when he spoke to the Jews about Zachariah (Matt. 23:25): “whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” When Joshua speaks of Israelites come to spy ( Josh. 2:1ff ): this must be understood to refer not to those who were then people of Judaea, but to the people from whom the spies came. So when Joshua speaks of the sons of Israel as those who were circumcised, it is understood that this is meant to refer not to the same individuals, but to the same people as a whole. We read also (Matt. 27:54) that on the day of the Passion, the centurion and those who were with him were guarding the crucified Lord when he expired, and they saw the veil of the Temple rent, and the earth moving, and the tombs opened, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God.” “When all of the people who had gathered for this spectacle saw what had happened, they returned home beating their breasts” (Luke 23:48). This, as we said, is similar to his answer to the Jews who asked if he was the Son of God. He replied, “You are saying it,” which means “the day is already here, or the time at hand, when you should confess this of me.” He replied in the same way to Pilate’s question, whether he was the King of the Jews, with the statement, “you are saying it,” rather than “you have said it.” The Gentile [Pilate] was ignorant of the prophesies and had not read those words in which Christ had been promised, and his kingdom prophesied, in the words (Luke 1:33): “His kingdom shall have no end,” or (Matt. 21:5): “Say to daughter Sion: behold your King has come.” Yet on that day Pilate frequently declared in words and, in the very title written on the Cross, recalled what he said to the Jews ( John 18:39): “Do you wish me to release to you the King of the Jews?” and again (19:15): “Shall I crucify your king?” Even when he asked the Lord (18:33–35): “Are you the king of the Jews?” and Christ answered with the question, “Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?” Pilate declared, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priest handed you over to me.” See how often and how openly Pilate declares him King of the Jews, and calls the Jewish people his nation! When the Lord says, “Do you say this on your own, or have others told you about me?” it is as if he had said: “Do you seek this for yourself, so that you may know the Truth, or through the deceit of the Jews, as if you were one of them, that you might take this opportunity to kill me?” Finally, what Pilate had said in words, he confi rmed by writing in three languages, so that it could be read by all who came to Jerusalem and Christ might be understood to be the true King of the Jews. For it read ( John 19:19): “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews.” By adding “the Nazarene,” he carefully distinguished this Jesus from others who, among the ancient people, had been designated with this name, not properly but by reference to some quality, such as

218

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Joshua, Jesus the priest, or Jesus ben Sirach. The high priests of the Jews, however, were highly indignant at the honor of this inscription, which suggested that they had crucified their own king, to their condemnation, and they said to Pilate ( John l9:21): “Do not write ‘the King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’ ” But as though Pilate understood what had been prophesied (Ps. 56:1; 58:1; 75:1): “Do not destroy, David, in the heading of the inscription,” as addressed to himself, he answered ( John 19:22): “What I have written, I have written.” It was as if he had said: “I foresaw what was to be written, I signed without any retraction or correction,” as if this had been written fi rst in his mind and only afterward displayed in letters. This repetition of words, “What I have written, I have written,” signifies the insistence or immutability of the fact, as in the saying (Ps. 126:6): “They went forth, they went forth.” Heloise: Problem 4 How are we to understand what the Lord replied to the Jews who were seeking signs concerning the time of his burial (Matt. 12:40): “Just as Jonah was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights, so will the son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”? It is agreed that the Lord was taken down from the Cross and buried on Friday, and lay in the tomb on Saturday, and on Saturday night, in the last darkness of Sunday morning, rose again. Therefore it is certain that for one whole night preceding the Saturday, and for one whole day of Saturday itself he was in the tomb, and in commenting on the Epistle to the Galatians, Jerome asserted that he rose again in the last hour of the night.5 Abelard’s Solution When the Lord says “three days and three nights,” this is not to be understood as meaning that he would be there through three whole days and nights, but that he would lie buried for a period of time bounded by three days along with their nights. So it is right when he says “three days and three nights” to add “just like Jonah,” whom the fish vomited up onto dry land on the third day, and so was in the belly of the whale for only one whole night and one whole day. If you take the time encompassing three days with their nights, from the beginning of the night of the Preparation day [Good Friday] until the end of Sunday, you will fi nd that the Lord lay in his tomb during that space of time, though not through that whole time, three days and three nights. It is not necessary for something happening within a certain time to take place through all of that time. Perhaps also when the text says “the heart of the earth,” it speaks not so much about the burial (on the very inscription on the Cross, it seems that he was accepted as Lord, as Matthew recalls he told the Jews) but rather about the hearts of human beings, during at least that time of desperation about Christ when the disciples and even his own mother were deeply shaken in their faith. 5

Jerome, Comm. in Ep. ad Galatas, PL 26: 331–468.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

219

For this reason Augustine remarks in a chapter of his Questions on the Old and New Law: “Even Mary, through whom the mystery of our Savior’s incarnation was accomplished, had her doubts at the Lord’s death, and they came to be resolved at the Lord’s Resurrection.”6 For all were doubtful about the death, and because all ambiguity was cut away at the Lord’s Resurrection, she was said to be pierced as by a sword. “The heart of the earth” was still like an earthly and fleshly heart, not yet made spiritual by the fi rmness of faith or the ardor of charity, which is to say, a “human heart,” as long as human beings in that time considered Christ more flesh or man than God and more earthly than heavenly. So to the Jews, who were seeking a sign of power by which they could recognize him as God, he replied that, instead, he would give them the sign of Jonah, which means that they should be able to recognize the weakness in him, just as Jonah was thought to have been cast into the sea rather by injustice rather than because of religion, and this was attributed to him as his own fault, so that he was even thought deserving of condemnation. Heloise: Problem 5 Concerning the appearances of the risen Lord to his women followers, the evangelists have left us in the greatest doubt. For Mark and John report (Mark 16:lff.; John 20:lff.) that he appeared fi rst to Mary Magdalen, who came in the early morning, when it was still dark, and found the stone rolled away. Later, as Mark says, after she had reported this to Peter and John, and they had run to the tomb and then gone away, she saw two angels and then Jesus, who she thought was a gardener. This fi rst appearance is said to have been made to her alone. But Matthew reports (28:1ff.) that she came to the tomb with another Mary and then, after the earth was shaken, the angel descended and rolled back the stone, and announced that the Lord had risen, and Jesus appeared to these two women, who clung to his feet. Mark, however, tells us (l6:1ff.) that Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Salome came very early in the morning when the sun was just rising, asking one another which of them would roll back the stone from the entrance to the tomb. When they looked and saw that it had been rolled away, they realized from the angel’s words to them and the empty sepulchre that the Lord had risen. Coming out of the tomb, they fled trembling, and out of fear told no one at all about what had happened. To this is at once added (9:11): “When he had risen on the fi rst day of the week, he appeared fi rst to Mary Magdalen; she went and told his companions and they did not believe her.” But Luke reports (24:1ff.) that when Mary Magdalen and Johanna and Mary the mother of James, and those who were with them, came to the tomb very early in the morning and found the stone rolled away, they went in and did not fi nd the body of Jesus. They announced this to the disciples, who did not believe them. 6 Augustine, Quaestiones veteris et novae legis. Chapter 10 of this work (PL 35, 2401) discusses John the Baptist’s apparent doubts about Jesus’s mission, but Augustine does not refer to doubts on the part of Mary, the mother of Jesus: is this perhaps a slight lapsus memoriae on Abelard’s part?

220

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Comparing the statements of the evangelists, therefore, we ask fi rst, how, according to John, Mary Magdalen came to the tomb early in the morning while it was still dark, and saw the stone rolled away, and afterward, as Mark says (16:3), Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Salome came to the tomb when the sun had just risen, saying to one another: “Who has moved the stone for us?” If Mary Magdalen had already seen the stone moved when it was still dark, how now, when the sun had risen, could she ask with the others about the moving of the stone, which she had earlier seen moved away? Secondly, it seems that we must ask how, according to Mark, the women are said to have told no one about the resurrection because they were afraid, while the other evangelists assert the contrary? Finally, John says that Mary Magdalen, unaccompanied by anyone, before she had seen Jesus, announced to Peter and John that he had been removed from the tomb, and they had run there at once. Luke, however, reports that the same Mary Magdalen, and many other women with her, after learning that the Lord had risen, announced this to the disciples, and then Peter had run to the tomb. Abelard’s Solution Only John recalls Mary Magdalen and no other women at the Resurrection of the Lord, not because she alone was present at the events that took place, but because he commends her devotion as much greater than that of the others and because her exhortation and example greatly encouraged the other women. For just as she had been more fervent in love than the others and more deeply moved by the joy of the Resurrection, she came to the tomb fi rst and fearlessly while it was still night, and then returned for them, inquiring intently whether anyone was by now convinced of the Lord’s Resurrection. When she had found no one, she returned with others to the tomb, when the sun had already risen, and then the rolling away of the stone took place, although John had seemed to indicate that the rolling away had already taken place and was seen by Mary earlier, before the other women, because she was more concerned than they. Mary Magdalen found the stone rolled away, and believing that the Lord had been taken away, returned quickly and reported this to Peter and John. Then, returning with them to the tomb, after their departure from it, she stood outside the tomb weeping, while the others who were present did not dare to approach it, and she was the one worthy to see fi rst the angels and then the Lord, and after that, the other Mary who, according to Matthew, had accompanied her earlier, came near. Fearful by now of the guards who were present, they were both consoled, while the guards were terrified, and struck as if dead by the earthquake and the appearance of the angel seated upon the stone that had been rolled away. When these two went forth to tell the disciples what the angel had decreed, Jesus appeared to them together, appearing for the second time. Other women, however, who had been more timid and weak in faith were not worthy to see the Lord at that time, but when the angels were speaking, had heard that he had risen again. So while not all of them were informed of this in the same way, they were all silent at fi rst and delayed announcing this to the disciples. Still

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

221

frightened and overwhelmed by the angelic vision, they feared that they would not be believed, until with many of them gathered together, they would be able to speak more confidently. Then afterward, as Luke recalls, the Magdalen herself, and Johanna and Mary the mother of James and the remaining women who were with them, told these things to the disciples. Firmer in faith than those who did not believe them, Peter ran again to the tomb and when he saw neither the angels nor the Lord, returned greatly puzzled. Peter was stunned because the angels and the Lord appeared to the women rather than to him or to the disciples. We believe that the Lord then appeared to him, so that he would not persist in doubt and despair, as Luke reports (24:34) the apostles having said that “the Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon.” When Matthew and Luke say (Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1): “on the evening of the Sabbath” they understand this to be the end of the following night even until the fi rst light of Sunday. This evening star shines on the fi rst day of the week when it appears in the light of the following day. It says “as the fi rst day of the week was dawning,” using the female gender, signifying that, as we said, one perceives night as such in the evening, but which “was dawning,” as if to say that the night was then touching the light. Whether it was the evening of the night or the evening of day, it may be called the last hour of either; evening really encompasses the whole time of the succeeding night. Heloise: Problem 6 Why is it that when the Lord was offering and commending the sacrament of his Body and Blood to the disciples, he did not say of the Body, “This is my Body of the New Covenant” (Matt. 26:26–28), when he would say of the Blood, “This is my Blood of the New Covenant,” as if he were recommending the Blood more than the Body? Also, what is the meaning of these words (26:29): “From now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you newly in my Father’s Kingdom?” Abelard’s Solution The Body of Christ received in the sacrament is the humanity that he received when he was born of the Virgin, as it is written ( John 1:24): “The Word became flesh.” His Blood, given in the cup, is his Passion, in which all of us who are his members ought to share. So it is written (1 Pet. 2:21): “Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps.” Gregory [the Great] declared that “it was useless for anyone to be born unless to be redeemed, and our redemption was to be consummated in his Passion.”7 The Lord himself proclaimed this as he was dying, saying ( John 19:30): “It is fi nished.” It is fitting that the Blood shed should be preferred, that is, his Passion preferred to his birth. The Blood was also more fittingly described as the “New Covenant” than 7

This felix cupla topos is Gregory’s echo of Ambrose’s Exultet hymn for the Easter Vigil.

222

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

the Body, thus confi rming the preaching of the Gospel, for as the Apostle says (Heb. 9:17): “A will takes effect only at death.” What is the Gospel but a covenant of love, as the Law was a covenant of fear? So the Apostle said to converted Jews (Rom. 8:15): “Do not fall back into fear.” Again he said (1 Tim. 1:5): “The aim of this teaching is love from a pure heart.” And the Truth said of himself (Luke 12:49): “I have come to set the earth on fi re and how I wish it were already blazing.” So the Lord’s Passion confi rmed supremely this covenant of love when, as he was dying for us, he demonstrated to us that love whose greatness nothing could exceed. For this reason, he himself said ( John 15:13): “No one has greater love than this, to lay down his life for his friends.” So saying, he confi rmed this covenant that he persisted in teaching, as he preached his Gospel even unto death, and showed us by dying what he could not show in being born, just as one who composes a will of any kind for his heirs, when he is dying, when he has persevered in his fi rst intentions, as he is dying, he confi rms them in his will, barely deleting, correcting little, he then upholds it in every way. For this reason, as I have said, the Blood of the Lord was to be called “of the New Covenant” rather than his Body. As for his saying (Matt. 26:29): “From now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in my Father’s kingdom,” I understand it in this way. It is as if he had said that the Sacrament of Christ is then received as something new, since it renews those coming forward and receiving it full of faith, and it changes the “old man” whom they had imitated through sin into a “new man” whom they are prepared to follow in obedience even unto death. The disciples of those times were hardly persons of the deepest faith; they were, in the main, weak in faith at this time, and not yet moved into the kingdom in such a way that God might rule through them. They adhered to God with a faith still incomplete and were barely subject to his dominion. Therefore they received the sacrament itself as something old rather than as something new, and as still remaining outside the Kingdom of God, because constancy of faith had not yet so confi rmed them in God that by then being made new in their perception of it, they would deserve being confi rmed in its newness after the Resurrection. Then Christ would drink of this fruit of the vine with them, that is, of his Blood, which is “their vine like a palm grove.” When they share worthily in the sacrament of his Passion, he shall slake there the thirst they have within them. For whoever hungers and thirsts for the salvation of mankind is then refreshed by it while rejoicing in its fulfi llment. Perhaps for this reason the sacrament of the Lord’s Passion appeared as “something old” before the Resurrection, and afterward as “something new,” because while he still bore a body capable of suffering and corruption and mortality, in this being like the “old” man, before he would rise from this penal existence and arrive at the newness of the future. So while he was mortal, and gave himself in the sacrament as he then was, in a certain way the sacrifice was ‘old’ and not ‘new’ in comparison with what we receive in a humanity already immortal and incorruptible. Luke rightly says (22:20): “This cup is the New Covenant of my Blood,” that is, the pact or the promise God made to you of your

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

223

redemption in his Passion. Where we have the word “covenant” in Hebrew, it is considered a pact. For whoever accepts the Law of the Lord enters into a certain pact with him, or rather he with them, since they promise obedience in the Law, while he promises its reward. Heloise: Problem 7 What is the meaning of Luke’s saying that the Lord gave two cups to his disciples, or the same one twice? For this seems to be written with that meaning (22:14–20): When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles; he said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover (meal) with you before I suffer, for I tell you, I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves, for I tell you that from this time on I shall not drink the fruit of the vine until the coming of God’s Kingdom.’ Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which will be given for you: do this in memory of me.’ And likewise he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This is the new covenant in my Blood, which will be shed for you.’

Abelard’s Solution The Passover that he had sent his disciples to prepare according to the Law was the old Passover, the eating a lamb or a goat’s kid along with bitter herbs. This is the Passover that he said he desired to eat with his disciples before he suffered because it was before the Passion and not afterward that he wished to celebrate with symbols the old Passover that must give way to the new. The Lord himself said this directly when he said of the new sacrament as such, “Do this in memory of me,” as if already ending the old and beginning the new from then on. When he said: “This is my Body, which will be given for you,” he added immediately, “Do this in memory of me,” as if already ending the old and beginning the new from then on. This is why the Apostle adds (1 Cor. 11:24): “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” Therefore, the celebration of the Mass is the commemoration of the Lord’s Passion, which each of the faithful should approach with as much compassionate devotion as if he were looking upon the one crucified for him. In order, then, that this memorial of the Lord’s Passion might cling to our minds and always set our love of him on fi re, this sacrifice of his should be offered daily on his altar. “Do this,” he said, “this is truly my body, not yet given for you but being given in memory of my great love, so that you might be able to share in my Passion.” He wished to give the same cup twice, so that in this way he might show that we take his cup not only in receiving the sacrament, but also in imitation of the Passion. So the Psalmist says (Ps. 115:13): “I will take the cup of salvation,” that is, of Jesus, imitating him also by virtue of his Passion. The power to withstand death belongs not to our human weakness, but rather to the

224

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

strength that God has lent us. Therefore he himself must be invoked from whom we hope for this great strength in which we should seek not so much our good as his glory, which is signified by his name. Just as whatever does not seem worthy by name is called ignominious, on the other hand, whatever is of glorious name is worthy and famous. Therefore we invoke the name of God when we dedicate to his glory what we do, so that he might be more glorified in us, rather than we in him, since we receive strength from him in these matters, when we are weak in ourselves concerning them. This is why the Apostle also says (1 Cor. 1:31): “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord,” which means that anyone who recognizes in himself any virtue or achievement should seek to honor God within and not himself. He should ascribe it not to his own virtue but to divine grace, recognizing it as coming not from himself, but from God. What he said to the sons of Zebedee concerns this chalice that we receive in imitation of Christ’s Passion (Matt. 20–22): “Can you drink the cup that I shall drink?” meaning “Are you sure that you can follow me in imitating the Passion?” Of this fi rst chalice, then, and not of the second, he rightly said to his disciples: “Take this and share it among yourselves.” For we share among ourselves, receiving Christ’s chalice from him, when we imitate him in many kinds of suffering. There is no division in truly receiving the sacrament, because there is one offering by the head himself, and not by the members, an offering put together equally by good and bad priests by virtue of the divine words. “Take,” he says, “this chalice from me to share later among yourselves, for from this time onward, I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine,” that is, “I shall not celebrate this offering of my Passion, until the Kingdom of God comes.” This means the kingdom of heavenly life, in which the Lord alone reigns, and not sin, “until it is made manifest to the faithful through my Passion.” It was right that he set out the chalice of imitation before the chalice of the Sacrament because only those who are prepared to imitate his Passion and take up his Cross are worthy of a place at the Lord’s table. For it is written (Ecclus. 31:12): “You have been seated at a great table; know that it is because you should prepare such things yourself.” Because the Lord is passing on the New Covenant, not the Old, he takes bread as well as the chalice and gives thanks to show that what had been prefigured in the Old Testament was now fulfi lled, and that God must be glorified in Truth rather than its shadows. But, more than that, he said that he wished to celebrate the old Passover as well with his disciples, so that they would not receive the new sacraments from the old Passover and esteem the old rites as those that God had given them. For even the old rites formerly pleased greatly those who themselves belonged to the old order, so that the Lord should greatly desire to celebrate rites that he saw were greatly pleasing to them, just as in that desire of his he would have intended what he saw greatly suited their blameworthy antiquity. Regarding this, in order to inform or warn them of change to what was new, he at once added the New Covenant to the Old, so that in a certain way the Old would cross over into the New. As they were putting aside the Old, they would cross over from the kingdom of sin to the Kingdom of God, and they would no longer follow the letter, but the spiritual meaning of the old Passover. Thus they

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

225

would be brought from the ‘oldness’ of the letter to the ‘newness’ of the Spirit. This is the meaning of Christ’s consuming the old Passover with them even now and changing it into the new. Meanwhile, we perceive in the old what is symbolized, and what we believe is fulfi lled in the new. For this reason, immediately after the Resurrection, he himself began with Moses, and interpreting all of the Scriptures, converted the old rite into the new, while, through this understanding, he applied the old to the new, and rounding it off like a meter in verse, changed the water of the Law into the Wine of the Gospel. He even consumes the old Passover with us as if it were already changed into the new, because in the new we receive and enjoy him as we receive it, just as in the old, we were instructed how to receive it mystically in the eating of the lamb and the young goat and in other things established for it. Christ consumed the old Passover, not the new, with the disciples, while he is the New Passover himself, as the Apostle Paul declares (1 Cor. 5:7): “Our paschal Lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.” He himself became our sacrificial offering, and he it is whom we receive daily in the Sacrament. In this way, then, he rightly celebrated the old Passover with the disciples, while he himself was still in the “old” humanity along with the disciples because of the body’s mortality and because he shared the same customs with them. On the other hand, like a new person together with new persons, he now receives the new fruit of the vine, while he himself through immortality, and they by putting aside the old humanity in various ways, enjoy the newness of the true Sacrifice, and he drinks with them, as a head does with its members. The old Passover had no chalice, “for the Law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb. 7:19) and so in its sacrifice there should not be perfect refreshment. Heloise: Problem 8 There is no doubt that the Lord, on behalf of the adulteress who was to be set free, replied to the Jews ( John 8:7): “Let him among you who is without sin be the fi rst to throw a stone at her,” and so rescued her. Now since he did not permit her to be stoned except by someone without sin, he would seem to forbid anyone from using the rod of punishment, since no one is without sin, not even an infant having a single day of life upon the earth (Cf. Job 14:1; Septuagint). Abelard’s Solution The Lord Jesus, who alone among the Jews was without sin, here stones the adulteress, yet saves the woman since he mercifully spares the penitent the pain of punishment. When he said, “Let the one who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her,” it is as if he said, “Leave the sinful one to the only One among you who is without sin.” He himself fi rst aims a stone at the sinful woman when he inspires her penitence, and by way of satisfaction, she soon suffers remorse and tames the flesh so it may battle no more against the spirit. And thus made dead to the world, she might from that time onward live for God and sin might be rooted out while nature is preserved.

226

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

The Lord also went on to say (Rom. 12:19): “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” Therefore we save the sinner for God, when he operates more in us than we in him. So it is said to mankind, not to God (Exod. 20:13): “Thou shall not kill. Thus God, who is bound by no commandment, forbids us to do what he must evidently do. “It is I,” he says (Deut. 32:39), “who kills and I who give life.” He slays through us and spares through us, when he uses us as agents, letting us by virtue of his commandments kill the wicked or spare the innocent, so that these acts are to be imputed to him rather than to us. For when any powerful person accomplishes something by means of a hired agent, it is said to be not so much the servant’s work as that of his employer, that is, such deeds belong not to those who performed these actions, but rather to the person who acted through them. So human beings are forbidden to kill, but God acting through them is not. Thus human beings kill, and not God through them, when the killing is the work of human evil, not performed by divine command. When the killing is done for its own sake rather than the Law’s, when the killing results from our own malice rather than divine justice, the sword is taken not to establish justice, or to avenge iniquity, but to express the swordsman’s iniquity. Those who take the sword for their own purposes rather than receiving it from those in authority, those who presume to use the sword unjustly, shall justly “perish by the sword.” But when a soldier uses against a criminal the sword entrusted to him by the king, it is the king who acts through his agent, his hired servant, in this case. So Augustine says in the fi rst book of the City of God: You shall not kill, except for those whom God orders to be killed, either by established law or by an order given to someone at a particular moment. For the person who serves a commander is not responsible for the killing any more than the sword is not simply an aid to the killer.8

Similarly, Augustine says in his Questions on Exodus: “The Israelites did not commit robbery in despoiling the Egyptians, but rather acted on God’s command, just as a minister of justice kills a person whom the law orders to be killed.” 9 So it is homicide when done willfully, even if the one killed knows that he should be executed by a magistrate. Again in Questions on Leviticus, Augustine says: “When this man is killed, the law kills him, not you.”10 His statements teach us that we do not rightly call homicide or theft what we commit through obedience, when what we do rightly fulfi lls God’s command. Whatever seems to belong to the Lord’s dominion shall be said to be God’s rather than man’s. Everyone possesses things not as their owner but as their administrator, for as long as the Lord allows, and no one who removes them at the Lord’s command is an unjust thief. Possessions belong to the person who entrusts them to us, for as long as he wishes and, should he wish, they are given to others to administer, who are the less worthy to administer them, the more 8

Augustine, De civitate Dei 1: PL 41, 35d. Augustine, De quaestiones in Hetptateuchum 2: In Exodum 39: PL 34, 607–608. 10 Augustine, De quaestiones in Hetptateuchum 3: In Leviticum: PL 34, 707. 9

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

227

they fail to acknowledge the one by whom they were entrusted with this task. Insofar as the Egyptians were infidels, they deserved to lose rather than to keep these possessions. Heloise: Problem 9 As Matthew tells us (8:2), the Lord healed a leper by his touch, and sent him for priestly examination, and ordered him to make the offering the Lord demanded in such cases. This statement poses the question of the logic by which in this case the Lord seems to contradict the Law, and at the same time to comply with it. For he touches the leper, which the Law forbids, and sends him to the priest to be cleansed and offer sacrifice, as the Law commands. Abelard’s Solution As the Lord himself said (Luke 16:16): “The Law and the Prophets lasted until John,” that is, until the time of grace the precepts of both Law and Prophets had to be obeyed to the letter. So in no way did the Lord contradict the Law that he was not now bound to obey by God’s command, especially since the Law itself “was promulgated,” as the Apostle says (Gal. 3:l9), “by the direction of a mediator, and established by his power.” Thus he who had instituted it at a certain time could make it void by his own will when it was fitting that perfect charity should show mercy to everyone in the time of grace, and should invite by example those of us who are suited to a life of piety. Nor does the Lord abhor anything about mankind except for sin. Therefore he acted in every way mercifully toward the leper both when he did not disdain touching him, despite the affl iction of his body, and when he ordered the leper to perform that act without which he could not be received once more into human society. For this reason, the leper examined by the priest is commended by his judgment and by sacrifice according to the Law. Heloise: Problem 10 What is the meaning of that saying in Luke’s Gospel in which Abraham declares to the rich man who was damned (16:26): “Moreover, in every way there is fi xed between us and you a great chaos to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours?” How could anyone be so blind as to wish to leave such refreshing tranquility, and how could anyone foolishly attempt to offer some help to those whom they see utterly excluded from God’s mercy? Abelard’s Solution Abraham, in whose bosom Lazarus lay, represents God, who receives his faithful from the miseries of this life into the refreshment of a future life that is still hidden from us. In this case, the damned soul speaks as a supplicant when he asks

228

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

the Lord to show him mercy. Abraham answers him in keeping with the form of his request, and tries to make him understand how foolishly he had wished for what could never happen. He makes him understand by this addition to his answer: “Moreover, in all respects, between us and you a great chaos is fi xed, etc.” “In all respects,” that is, in both these statements, he is saying that a great chaos is fi xed between the consolation of the just and the punishment of the wicked, and the divine justice has established this obstacle to prevent anyone from crossing from our side to yours. To cross here from the refreshment of the just to the sufferings of the wicked, we understand as meaning also to intervene on behalf of the damned, and to bring them some of the well-being of the just, or to bring them from there to here. This is what the faithful do every day in this life when by their prayers and works of mercy they seek to intervene on behalf of those they believe are suffering the pains of purgatory, when in fact they are damned. So we understand that those who would show such compassion for the damned are not already enjoying heavenly bliss, but still living, who are called the faithful. Abraham did not say that some of those here wish to cross over to you; he simply said, “Those who wished,” whether they are still alive or now dead. We take this statement as referring to the living who are said to have crossed symbolically from the bliss of the just to the place where the damned are punished, or from there to here. Coming from here to there is like having compassion for those who are damned, so as to share this blessedness with them by means of our own good works, or to lead them from there to here, so this would seem to be the same sentence in different words. Heloise: Problem 11 What is the meaning of the Lord’s saying, according to the same Evangelist (Luke 15:7): “I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent?” For it is much better and more perfect to avoid sin than to make amends for the one sin committed and doing many things well pleases God more than doing only one. What does it mean, then, if God approves the penitence of a single sinner more than the perseverance of many righteous people? Abelard’s Solution The more one suffers for a sin, the greater is the rejoicing over its forgiveness, and the sinner’s grief has seemed more overwhelming when fitting reparation is less to be hoped for. We are made happier by what is more serious in its result, and the greater our solicitude for the sinner, the greater is our joy in its outcome. We are given less joy by the just, whom we trust to persevere in the good, and about whom we are less concerned because we are more certain, than by the conversion of the sinner because it seemed more difficult. In truth, his conversion is not worth more than their perseverance, but we rejoice more in an event that was the source of greater concern on our part. So we understand that there will

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

229

be joy in heaven to mean that there will be greater rejoicing in the present church of the faithful which our Lord frequently calls the kingdom of God. Heloise: Problem 12 A question that is by no means unimportant is posed by what we read in Matthew about the laborers sent into the vineyard, the fi rst among them seeming to envy the last, and to complain to the vineyard-master in such a way as to deserve the following reply (Matt. 20:15): “Are you envious because I am generous?” In the future life what each of the blessed receives will be sufficient, and no one will seek to have more than he is given. So great will be the love [charity] of everyone there that each will desire the good of another as his own. Nor can anyone oppose the Lord’s will, to look upon another with malicious envy, since envy greatly affl icts and torments those whom it possesses. So the poet [Horace] has said: “The Sicilian’s envy is no greater than the tyrant’s.”11 And he also says: “He who envies another diminishes his own wealth.”12 Abelard’s Solution We know that in parables it is not so much the truth of something that is expressed, as it is a kind of likeness to something else, and that parables often treat the likeness of an historical truth as an actual fact. The parable of Dives and Lazarus is thought to refer to the actions of two persons or, more often, of many persons, because the soul of one is saved, while that of another is damned. Yet it can hardly be taken literally when Dives says to Abraham (Luke 16:24): “Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his fi nger in water and cool my tongue.” For souls do not have fi ngers or tongues of their own, but bodies do. Thus what is said of Dives and Lazarus does not represent historical truth literally, but pertains to a likeness drawn from some part of the truth. So in this place (the vineyard), where certain people are said to have complained and murmured, comparing themselves to others, this protest is to be interpreted not as expressing indignation, but rather amazement. For those who murmur are amazed by the occurrence of something they had not expected. This means that ‘murmuring’ now stands for the admiration of the multitude of the faithful who will see themselves comparing their rewards. Their attitude hardly represents that of the envious, who for that reason become aroused against others, because the fi rst workers in the vineyard simply admire a fact more or less illogical, which they had not expected. That is why, as if in saying, “Are you envious because I am generous?” he meant, “when you see the good I do, should you be moved by iniquity to indignation, in worldly fashion?” He says, “that would hardly be appropriate.” But the Lord says this to everyone, to insist that what he does should not make them indignant, but rather make them praise God. 11 12

Horace, Ep. 1.5: 58, 59. Horace, Ep. 1.5: 57.

230

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Heloise: Problem 13 This question about the unforgivable sin troubles us as it does many others. How can someone sin against the Son of God and not against the Holy Spirit, since the one can hardly be offended without the other? An offense against one necessarily affects both. Against whom has an offense been committed that can hardly be forgiven the offender? Abelard’s Solution Before we propose a solution, as far as this is possible, we must proceed to assemble from the several evangelists their statements on this subject, and then base our premises on their words, in order to reach a solution more easily. So, as Matthew says (12:27): When the Lord had cured someone of demons and the envious Pharisees were saying that this was done by an unclean spirit and not by the Holy Spirit, the Lord said, “If I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Further on he says (12:31): Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven mankind, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

On the other hand, Matthew tells us (3:28–29): Amen, I say to you all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin. For they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’

But Luke writes (12:8–10) that, according to the Lord, Everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God. Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

With these matters set before us, first we must distinguish what may be the sin of blasphemy against the Son of Man, and what is that against the Holy Spirit. I consider that a person commits the sin of blasphemy against the Son of Man when he diminishes Christ, denying that he is God, not so much through malice as through an error caused by seeing in him the nature that he took on because of our infirmity. He indicates this when he says ‘Son of Man’ rather than ‘Son of God,’ to emphasize that because of the human infirmity he assumed in being born of his mother, it is not believed that God’s power is in him. This sin, because it results from invincible ignorance, seems very much to be excused, since no

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

231

human reason can perceive, except by the inspiration of God, how God could become man. So Christ himself also prophesies ( John 6:44): “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me brings him,” because it does not belong to human reason to perceive in Christ what can happen only by divine inspiration. But to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit means knowingly, through envy, to deny the goodness of God, who is to be understood as the Holy Spirit, that the benefits undoubtedly coming from the Holy Spirit, that is, through the grace of divine goodness, are attributed through envy to an evil spirit, as the Pharisees did when they tried to draw away from Christ the crowd who believed in the miracles they had seen. If we really consider their sin, it will seem worse than that by which Satan fell. For even if the Pharisees did not believe that Christ was God, they could not have failed to acknowledge how righteous a man he was in his life and works, or that the works he performed had been done through the Holy Spirit. When, then, contrary to their own conscience, in a malign spirit, they spoke against what they did not doubt had taken place through the Holy Spirit, they knowingly lied in asserting that the Holy Spirit was an evil spirit. So much the more do they seem to have presumed in their lie than Satan did in his pride. Although Satan desired to be like God and obtain his power for himself, at least he is not to be regarded as going so far as this, that he dared to commit such blasphemy, or to uphold the lie that God is evil. For this reason their blasphemy is not less than their pride, but seems even more despicable, and so to deserve being denied all forgiveness. We hardly mean to say that no penance of theirs, should they perform it, would not obtain forgiveness. From the Lord’s own words, however, we believe that such people as these so offend the spirit of God that in their obstinate malice they are inwardly excluded from grace. Luke, as we have seen, designates by the fi nger of God his manifest grace that reveals itself in Christ, when the Lord himself says (11:20): “But if it is by the fi nger of God that I drive out demons.” The right hand or arm of the Son of God may be said to be his; on this hand the finger manifests some operation of the Holy Spirit. We use the fi nger often in pointing to material things, and the spirit of God is called his fi nger when it clearly exhibits his grace through some benefit accomplished. So this is not to be regarded as anything but the work of God, even though some should slander it as the Pharisees did. This is the sin that remains unforgiven, the sin against the Holy Spirit through whom comes the remission of sins. But consider this saying (Matt. 12:31): “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven” as meaning that, as has been said, nothing is to be damned that diminished the honor of Christ only out of error and not out of malice. This is true because this invincible ignorance is like that which was shown by those for whom the Lord and Stephen prayed during their suffering. It is fitting according to both faith and reason that we should consider those not to be damned who recognize God as creator and rewarder of all by the natural law and who cling to him with such zeal that they strive never to offend him by that consent which is properly called sin. They strive also to be shown by God what it is necessary to learn for salvation, either through inspiration or through some direction by which God may give

232

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

instruction concerning these matters. We read (Acts 2) that this happened to Cornelius concerning faith in Christ and the reception of baptism. He seems to suggest this directly when he said (1 John 3:21): “If our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence in God.” When the Lord says ( John 15:13): “No one has greater love than this, to lay down his life for his friends, he seems hardly to despair of those who, although they did not know Christ, endured death for God out of zeal for the Law. It would be easy for God to inspire such as these with what should be believed about Christ before the soul should leave the body, lest it should pass unbelieving from this life.” Heloise: Problem 14 What does it mean when the Lord, in describing the minds of the faithful, and noting the goodness [virtues] by which they may deserve blessedness, calls them “blessed” in a number of the ways in which they are blessed? This is as though each one of these would suffice to make a person blessed, as is declared to be the case in the rewards they merit. For it is said (Matt. 5:3): “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Likewise for each of the other beatitudes a reward is indicated, from which it would seem that each grace itself would suffice for salvation. We diligently request that these be distinguished from one another, so that it may become more clearly apparent whether each will be sufficient in itself, if they do not all occur together in the same person. Abelard’s Solution There are seven goods distinguishable in the seven beatitudes by which we may deserve to attain the joys of eternal life. The one that is regarded as the eighth is more like a testing of the preceding beatitudes than still another of them. For it says (Matt. 5:10): “Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Because persecutions are an imminent threat to the blessed faithful, they are not on this account to be considered less blessed. This is implied in the preceding beatitudes, as if to say “these are not less blessed when they suffer persecutions, but they are for this reason more proven when they do not fail this test.” There are three orders of the faithful: those who are enclosed, those who govern, and those who are married. In the fi rst three beatitudes, I believe, the cloistered are carefully described; after these three, the next two must refer especially to those who govern. Since the last two refer to those who are married, this order is an aid to memory. The order of the cloistered surpasses the others in perfection of life. The second order belongs to those who govern, although they may seem more dignified in power than those who are continent. For the beautiful yet barren Rachel stood out as more pleasing to the patriarch than the homely yet fertile Leah (Gen. 29), and the better part belonged to Mary in her enjoyment of leisure than to Martha in household activity (Luke 10:39). The last order belongs to those who are married, and who are far removed from the cloistered and do not deserve to be compared with those who govern,

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

233

even though both belong to the active life. For as Truth says a little further on (Matt. 5:19): “Whoever teaches and obeys the Law (referring to the teachers and prelates of the Church) will be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” just as the cloistered will be called the greatest and the married less great. Beginning then with those who are greatest in virtue and priority before God in religious dignity, their sanctity is regarded as threefold, since he describes them as the poor in spirit, the meek and those who mourn. One is called blessed by virtue of having done well, that is, of having formed good habits. They are called the poor in spirit who do not bear poverty from necessity, which means that they desire poverty through a logic taught by God, whom they love, despising riches and fleeing them as injurious. They have heard what the Lord says (Matt. 19:24): “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God.” Therefore, here he calls this logic “Spirit,” just as the Apostle, who follows it, also says (Gal. 5:17): “For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” Who does not know that concupiscence belongs more to the soul than the body? But the flesh has desires against the spirit, when in that soul sensuality, which means pleasure coming from the weakness of the flesh, repels reason. Thus, according to the Apostle, often being overcome, we act as we do not wish to act, that is, perform actions that we do not think should be performed. So while the Spirit, that is, reason, suggests that we do what we should, carnality pulls us back. As a result, many difficulties occur; the Spirit is overcome by the dominance of the flesh, and subjected to it, so that a person must be described as carnal or animal-like, given up to the desires of the flesh like a beast. “Because theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” In this way he judges the poor in spirit as blessed, because those who rationally despise earthly things merit heavenly ones. So the poor in spirit are those who prefer God to possessions or the pursuit of honor, and desire nothing for pleasure. Content with what is necessary, they abstain even from what is permitted, lest they should be seized by earthly pleasures, and they perform their work for God rather than the world. Such are those who leave the tumult of worldly life for monastic quietude, so that the purer the space they create for God and the self, the remoter will be the cares of the world, and the less burdened with worldly baggage they are, the more easily they will fly to heaven. So, too, Jerome, concentrating on what is prefigured in that prince of monks, says in a certain place: “Elijah, hastening to the kingdom of heaven, left his cloak on the ground.”13 When such as these have become the poor in spirit, it is necessary for them to become meek and humble. For those who claim no earthly goods can hardly be moved to anger at losing possessions or bearing injuries. To those in good possession of themselves and cut off from the power of fleshly impulses is granted as a reward the land of the living, that is, the stability of the blessed, as he says (Matt. 5:5): “For they will inherit the land.” Describing this virtue of patience and humility, Jeremiah says (Lament. 3:22ff.): “It is good for a man to bear a yoke from his youth. Let him 13

Jerome, Ep. 118, ad Julianum: PL 22, 963.

234

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

sit alone and in silence, when it is laid upon him. Let him put his mouth to the dust; there may yet be hope. Let him offer his cheek to be struck; let him be fi lled with disgrace.” A person bears the monastic yoke from his youth if he does not defer receiving it, so that, exhausted in elderly weakness, he will presume to carry what he cannot bear and, seeking bodily rest more than peace of soul, would look to the monastery for pleasures of the world that he had promised himself to flee. Incapable of achieving anything new, he has become like a drone among the bees, which they gather around and impudently devour. With bodily strength now consumed that, as far as he could, he had spent in the service of the devil, with the onset of bodily infirmity, he enjoys a luxurious rest. When it suits him to live a more ascetic life and to struggle against vices, as much as to know that he is less defeated, he may arrive sooner at the reception of the crown for his deeds, if he should have merited it. Such a miserable person, not accustomed from his youth to carry the yoke, is thought to have fallen under the weight that he could not bear. He who observes monastic discipline sits alone in silence, laying claim to both the name of monk and perfection of life. For the term ‘monk’ means one who is solitary, as Blessed Jerome says when he cries out: “What are you doing in the crowd, you who are solitary?”14 St. Benedict declares that the monk should strive in silence at all times, quoting from Isaiah (32:17) that “silence is the cultivation of justice.” The Apostle James, too, recommends this outstanding virtue, saying (3:2): “If someone does not offend in speech, he is a perfect man. He lifts himself above himself, when he controls and restrains himself, subordinating the flesh to the spirit. Subjecting his own will to the will of God, he triumphs gloriously over himself, in conformity with what is written (Prov. 16:32): “A patient man is better than a warrior, and he who rules his temper is better than he who takes a city.” So, then, a person should remain silent, when others reveal his virtue, for fear that, becoming his own messenger, he should vanish into thin air, and though he might seem greater in virtue, he should produce grave evidence of pride. He should remain silent, because he has lifted himself above himself, lest he might acknowledge what he has done and he should pray in fear of falling, because in this life victory is in no way assured. If he should presume to speak about himself, he would announce not his virtue, but his weakness. Thus it is added (Lament. 3:29): “Let him put his mouth to the dust; there may yet be hope.” This is to say: If, like dust agitated by the temptations of the Devil, and inconstant and dissolute in works, he should confess himself, and if along the way praise should be titillating, he should reprove himself at once, saying (Ecclus. 10:9): “Why are dust and ashes proud?” “Why are you proud, light dust that the wind blows from the face of the earth?” Saying these words and fearing for himself, let him consider with terror whether perchance there is any hope for him, lest he should be newly vanquished by pride, which he will conquer only by virtue. Lest he should be lifted up by his virtues, he is humiliated by persecutions, so that, through patience, his proven 14

Jerome, Ep. 14, ad Heliodorum monachum: PL 22, 963.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

235

virtue may be the crown that makes the poor in spirit truly meek. So he will turn his cheek to those who strike him and accept all kinds of insults because, whether he is injured by actions or by words, he will be refreshed by them as by the certain sweetness of a delightful flavor. A person turns his cheek to those who strike him when he rejoices in being injured for God’s sake. On the other hand, a person withdraws his cheek when he flees injuries or suffers unwillingly. But why should the just endure these things freely, and rejoice in sufferings? Why is it written of the apostles (Acts 5:41): “So they left the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name?” It is also added, and the Prophet says (Lament. 3:31): “The Lord’s rejection does not last forever.” The just man seems cast away from the grace of the Lord and exposed to miseries in this life; whence even of the chief representative, the head of the just himself, it was written (Isaiah 53:3): “He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infi rmity.” Concerning this rejection or casting off from God, who protects us in adversities, it is written (Ps. 50:3): “O God, you have rejected us.” But, as has been said, he rejects us in order to test us, whom he will raise up after the victory so that we may be crowned, the hope of the affl icted, through whom they triumph. He himself explained this when he said (Lament. 3:31): “For the Lord’s rejection does not last forever.” This means that he will bring to an end the pains of the affl icted, but not of those who caused this suffering. It should be noted that in handing over the New Testament to his apostles, while at the very beginning advising poverty, so that we might transform the fecundity of earthly things into heavenly happiness, he clearly distinguishes the reward of the Gospel from the reward of the Law, when he establishes as the reward for obedience the promise of so many heavenly things for the Gospel, but so many earthly things for the Law. For the people of Israel according to the flesh, desiring earthly more than heavenly goods, received as their reward what they more actively coveted, so that at least by this promise they might be drawn back from perverse deeds, if their spirit could not yet be washed clean of iniquity. For this reason the Apostle can say (Heb. 7:19): “The Law brought nothing to perfection.” There was perfection neither in its promises nor in its precepts. “Blessed are they that mourn” (Matt. 5:4). A certain healthy mourning is especially appropriate for monks, whether it be the mourning of penitence for sin, or that of separation from the Kingdom. These two kinds of tears are prefigured in Achsah, the daughter of Caleb ( Jos. 15:19). She approached her father, who had endowed her with arid land and asked for irrigated land, and her father “gave her the upper and the lower pools.” Since it is fitting for the monk to mourn for the sins of others as well as his own, the great Jerome declares: “The monk has the office, not of teacher but of weeper who mourns for himself and for the world, and fearfully awaits the coming of the Lord.”15 For what is the monastic life but a certain kind of more extensive penitence? 15

Jerome, Contra Vigilantium: PL 23, 351b.

236

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

So let monks mourn either in this way, as was said, or in the way that will result in their winning the laughter of consolation, about which it was truly said (Matt. 5:5): “they shall be consoled” awaiting that which the Lord promised to the apostles ( John 16:20): “Amen, amen I say to you, you will weep and mourn, while the world rejoices; you will grieve, but your grief will become joy.” On the other hand, he says to the reprobate (Luke 6:25): “Woe to you who rejoice now, for you will grieve and weep.” For different lives have different circumstances and outcomes; the just weep now, and laugh later, while on the other hand the wicked who laugh shall weep. The just will receive consolation by being liberated, whether from the commission of sin or from being separated from the Kingdom, when they arrive at that life which is entirely immune from suffering. “Blessed are they that hunger” (Matt. 5:6). After the life of the cloistered, which he considered in three beatitudes, the Lord proceeds to the order of those who govern, which he considers in two beatitudes. Those who govern within the people of God are not only those among the priests exercising ecclesiastical power, but also lay persons among the ruling class. It is to be noted that the binary number, which is appropriate for those who are married, is unclean, according to Jerome.16 On this account, the works of the second day of creation did not merit praise, and the unclean animals were ordered sent into the ark two-bytwo, while the continent seem to be described more appropriately by the trinary, which is an uneven number, rather than by the binary. For the others, however, in whom the virtue of continence is not preeminent, the binary number seems more fitting. To hunger and thirst for due, appropriate justice is a great desire in those who govern, so that they would wish to punish wrongs committed, in conformity with their obligation to do so, and yet not to the extent that the delinquent merit punishment. Otherwise, there would be no place in them for mercy, if they did not relieve anyone of the punishment due for crimes. Even the heavenly judge, whom earthly judges should imitate, so tempers justice with mercy that he does not punish misdeeds as much as they deserve, but rather as much as is fitting for him whose mercies are upon all his works. For this reason, it is written of him (Ps. 77:10): “Has God forgotten pity? Does he in anger withhold his compassion?” Again (Hab. 3:2): “When you are angry, you will remember pity.” So he exalts justice with mercy, and commends the judge rather than the punishment. These two qualities should always be combined in a judge so that he punishes the crime with justice, yet less than it deserves, through that clemency which here he calls ‘mercy.’ The word ‘mercy’ comes from the word ‘miseries’; the miseries of others evoke that human compassion by which, more from the soul’s weakness than from virtue, we abhor the pains, both just and unjust, that afflict the sufferer. Such is the natural compassion of soul that, whether it is rational or not, is properly called ‘mercy,’ according to the text of Seneca.17 Clemency, however, which here has been called ‘mercy’ is reasonable 16 17

Jerome, Ep. 22, ad Eustochium: PL 23, 406. Seneca, De clementia.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

237

compassion as such, through which we wish to help those whom we should help. Whoever possesses justice without mercy, so that he wishes to avenge and not to relax the punishment, is cruel. Unless he changes, he is remiss. When the Lord, instructing us well in this context regarding the habits of those who govern, advocates that no justice be exercised without mercy, he draws them to himself as inseparable companions. There can even be various kinds of remission of punishment for those who are to be executed, if we try to shorten their sufferings, and choose an easier kind of death penalty. Otherwise, we incur this sentence ( James 2:13): “There will be a merciless judgment for one who does not act mercifully.” If the merciful deserve mercy, the unmerciful deserve to be deprived of it. Then, after the continent and those who govern, he comes to those who are married, saying (Matt. 5:8): “Blessed are the clean of heart.” Since he says “clean of heart” and not “of body,” he implies the life of married couples indulging in the desire of the flesh and conceded the concupiscence of desire. Although the union of spouses has indulgence, since in this way they seek to remedy their incontinence and do not seek this for the sake of pleasure and enjoyment of the flesh after the manner of beasts. Nonetheless, the flesh carries with it not a little contagion from the stain of lust, as well as the uncleanness and stench of contamination. The clean of heart but not of body, however, are those who seek this not for the sake of pleasure, as we have said, but from necessity, in order not to offend God by fornication. These are also to be saved and not deprived of the vision of God, in which the height of true blessedness consists. Those persons are also called “peacemakers,” who avoid the great struggle of the flesh by the indulgence of matrimony, rationally and moderately using it in such a way as to make peace also with God and not offend him through intemperance. So they are to be embraced among the children of God, who are now compelled to serve one another in the flesh by the bond of matrimony. Jerome understands the Apostle to refer to this service when he asked (1 Cor. 7:21): “Were you a slave when you were called? Do not be concerned, even if you can obtain your freedom. For the slave called by the Lord is a freed person in the Lord.”18 What greater servitude could there be than that of a man or woman having no power over his or her body, not being able to have relief from the use of the flesh except by giving in to it, so that they neglect prayer? Nonetheless, these will be called children of God, since they shall pass from this servitude to the freedom of eternal life, where (Matt. 22:30): “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.” Let this brief discussion suffice to explain the distinctions among the beatitudes we have been considering, that is, virtues or gifts of divine grace by which we become blessed. But remaining to be discussed here is how individuals who may have only one of the designated gifts can be said to be blessed, since observing only a single commandment of God is hardly enough, especially because anyone fulfi lling all of them except one incurs damnation by breaking 18

Jerome, Ep. 46, ad Pammachium: PL 22, 508–509.

238

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

just a single commandment. As far as I can see, however, the one who fi rst said: “Blessed are the poor” and then added “in spirit” implies the same adjective in all the rest, as if “the meek in spirit” or “the mournful in spirit” were spoken. Thus through the Spirit of God, which should be understood in these matters as his charity, this beatitude, too, and any others that follow will make not only the faithful but also others outstanding and abundant in good works. Just as it is certain that there are four elements, and that words are selected for their uses, which means that whatever element is most abundant in them, they may be most properly designated by it. Here, too, the graces of the faithful may be distinguished by what proves to abound in them. For the love of God may be said to encourage the poor in spirit, whom he makes more fervent and more perfect in the contempt of riches. Similarly, the love of God leads the meek to prefer the virtue of patience to others and concerning other beatitudes we seem to fi nd similar meanings. The love of God is the maker of all those who are blessed or who are worthy of beatitude, and with the love of God no one can perish, even if they may still need greater perfection through the gifts of God. There are different words to express the reward, when it is said (Matt. 5:3): “For theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” or (Matt. 5:4): “For they will inherit the land.” These expressions hardly seem different in signifying the reward to be received, but avoiding fastidious similarity, the Lord varied the words according to a certain agreement that they possess with the things promised, according to propriety of speech and similarity of subject matter. This is easy to understand in the individual beatitudes. For it is fitting that the kingdom of heaven is promised to the poor, so that those who despise earthly riches for the sake of God, may merit heavenly ones. To the meek, who take possession of themselves in doing good, is promised the possession of the land of the living. For those who mourn, consolation is fitting. To those who hunger and thirst for justice is promised fulfi llment, that is, realization of what they desire to receive before God, in whose love they have the highest expectations for the punishment of the wicked by the exercise of justice. So also in the remaining expressions of reward, there a certain appropriateness to the beatitude promised can be attributed. Therefore the Lord did not so much prescribe that the beatitudes should be treated in themselves as admonish by means of them those who wish to become more perfect in the various states of life. For he himself prophesies that he will give us a New Testament to foster an abundance of perfection, saying (Matt. 5:20): “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Heloise: Problem 15 What does it mean that even after the Lord said (Matt. 5:17): “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets,” nonetheless John can write (5:18): “For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own father, making himself equal to God?”

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

239

Abelard’s Solution When he said “I have not come to abolish” and afterward added “but to fulfi ll,” he was concerned with the moral precepts rather than the legislative ones. Just as the latter hold together by virtue of the fulfi llment that he presumed, he indicated what he meant by the abolition of the commandments of the Law, that is, with respect to moral precepts. These precepts belong to the purposes of life itself, just as the legislative ones need to be promulgated. The moral commandments are those that are to be fulfi lled naturally by every one at all times, and even before the written Law was given, they were necessarily an essential aspect of human behavior. Unless these prescribed commandments are fulfi lled, no one could ever merit salvation. These are the precepts that command us to love God and neighbor, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to lie, and the like. Without fulfi lling these, no one can ever be justified. The legislative, however, are precepts of the Law considered according to the letter, and they confer no justice by their operation. They were instituted at a particular time to legislate some kind of justice, such as the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision, abstinence from certain kinds of food and the like. Therefore it must have been in referring to the moral precepts of the Law that the Lord said that he had come not to abolish the Law, but to fulfi ll it, that is, he had hardly come to abolish what the Law contained with regard to its moral precepts, but to supply through the Gospel what was lacking in the Law concerning these precepts. The Law of Moses never prescribed love of one’s enemy, but only of one’s friend; nor did it teach that the consummation of sin is in the mind, but forbade actions rather than their intention. Even though the Law also prohibited concupiscence, nevertheless we should not think that by virtue of the Law concupiscence was constituted as a crime or prohibited, unless according to the letter, it affected a neighbor, that is, someone who was not a stranger to his own people. For the Law did not call everyone a person’s neighbor according to the letter, but clearly distinguished the stranger from the neighbor, when it said that the Jew should not lend money at interest to a neighbor, but could do so to a stranger. Heloise: Problem 16 How, too, does the Lord place the abundance of the Gospel ahead of the imperfection of the Law, when he says (Matt. 5:20): “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven? Or how is it that, as the Apostle says (Heb. 7:18–19): “An earlier commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness; for the Law brought nothing to perfection?” When the rich man asked how he would possess eternal life, the Lord responded with the two commandments of love that are in the Law (Luke 10:18): “Do this and you will live” and the Apostle can say (Rom. 13:8): “The one who loves another has fulfi lled the Law,” for (Rom. 13:9): “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill.” And again (13:10): “Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence love is the fulfi llment of the Law.”

240

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Abelard’s Solution When the Lord says, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and the Pharisees,” you notice that he says “righteousness” and not “righteousness according to the Law.” Likewise in what follows he declared, “You have heard that it was said (Matt. 5:43): ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ” This was hardly to be found in the Law itself, but rather in the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees attached to the Law, concerning which the Lord said (15:6): “You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” Above all, the Law itself prescribes, concerning the love of one’s enemy, or even regarding the benefits due him, as follows (Exod. 23:4): “When you come upon your enemy’s ox or ass going astray, see to it that it is returned to him. When you notice the ass of someone who hates you lying prostrate under his burden, by no means desert him; help him, rather, to raise it up.” Also in the Psalmist (7:5): “If I have repaid my friend with evil, I who spared those who without cause were my foes.” Then there is Solomon in the Book of Proverbs (20:22): “Say not, I will repay evil! Trust in the Lord and he will help you.” “Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and when he stumbles, let not your heart exult, lest the Lord see it, be displeased with you, and withdraw his wrath from your enemy” (Prov. 24:17). “Do not say: ‘As he has done unto me, so will I do to him; I shall return unto each one according to his works’ ” (Cf. Prov. 24:12). Again, “If your enemy be hungry, give him food to eat, if he be thirsty, give him to drink, for live coals you will heap upon his head, and the Lord will reward you” (Prov. 25:21–22). Also, the blessed Job (31:29–30): “Had I rejoiced at the destruction of my enemy or exulted when evil fell upon him, even though I had not suffered my mouth to sin by uttering a curse against his life?” Therefore in former times it was neither ordered nor permitted in the Law that its adherents should hold their enemy in contempt but, as has been said, this was contained in their human traditions rather than in their divine precepts. So when the Lord says (Matt. 5:20): “surpassing that of the scribes and Pharisees,” he does not say, “surpassing that of the Law,” and we should not conclude from this that the Lord set the abundance of the Gospel ahead of the imperfection of the Law. Therefore we do not concede that the Law in its precepts was so imperfect that it was necessary for the Gospel to replace it, just as the Apostle whom we cited above, openly professed. But neither could the commandment regarding the love of neighbor have been perfect before the coming of Christ, for he himself came and became our neighbor and made that precept perfect, as much by his assuming of flesh as by his demonstration of love, so that now whoever loves him as his neighbor may be made perfect by this love. So also, answering the same rich man who asked who was his neighbor, the Lord responded through the parable, signifying that he is that neighbor represented by the Samaritan who had mercy on the injured man and professed by his display of compassion that the rich man, too, could truly have been the neighbor. Or if, then, as it is contained in the Law (Matt. 5:43): “You shall love your friend, that is, your neighbor,” we may understand that if there he is the neighbor who is joined to us by acquaintance or by love, no one is more rightly

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

241

to be called our neighbor than Christ. In him the love of neighbor may now be made perfect, which earlier had been imperfect, as long as the Law had its status, which enforced it until the time of John [the Baptist]. Thus it was imperfect earlier, as long as it was properly called the Law, and one was obliged to obey it in all things; for this reason, its very imperfection, it was condemned when the perfection of Gospel teaching arrived, in which whatever is necessary is expressed directly rather than in parables. Even though we should diligently insist on the letter of the Law, which was given only to the Jewish people, the term “neighbor” should hardly be understood to refer only to one of them. Through Christ, this commandment of love of neighbor would seem to pertain not just to those included under the Law. For this reason, the Law had necessarily to yield to the Gospel enjoined upon all in general, so that through it all should be saved. Therefore, to the neighbor mentioned earlier, that is, Christ, the Apostle refers (Rom. 13:8): “He who loves another has fulfi lled the Law.” But as proof he added immediately (Rom. 13:9): “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill, etc.” For if the Jew loves Christ as encompassed among his neighbors, as the Lord himself said ( John 14:23): “Whoever loves me will keep my word,” then he shall not sin in adultery or in homicide, and he shall avoid all similar sins that are in the Law, and he shall fulfi ll its righteousness. Heloise: Problem 17 What does it mean when our Lord says (Matt. 5:36): “Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black?” Does it mean that if one could do this, then it would be licit to swear by one’s head? Abelard’s Solution Those matters pertaining to this commandment must be reviewed so that by considering these issues and this review we may make a judgment more easily. The Lord says (Matt. 5:34–35): “I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King; do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.” So there are these four: heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and our own head, by which we are forbidden to swear, because these things that we value as the most venerable commit us to the highest kind of oath, so that by virtue of them, someone might more readily believe in us. Those seem worthy of greater veneration that pertain above all to God and heaven, which is called God’s throne, that is, the soul of Christ, upon which Divinity has its special seat, which it inhabits most fully through grace. The earth, which is called God’s footstool, is the humanity of Christ, as the earthly and inferior creature in Christ; Jerusalem, the city of God, is the Holy Church, whose head is Christ himself. Hairs adhering to the head, adorning and protecting it, are the divine things by which Christ is commended and conserved in us through faith. Some of them are called ‘long,’ some ‘black’; while the understanding of others is clear and manifest, the understanding of

242

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

still others is obscure, just like those treated allegorically. Whether any of them are to be white, as was said, or black, is not within our control, for the eloquence of God does not pertain to human invention; these are not our own documents, but God’s. So when he says: “Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black,” it is as if he says: “You should not invoke Christ in an oath, because this should belong to his divine wisdom alone, and so do those things, of which, as we said, some are white, and others black.” Likewise when he commands that we should not swear by heaven, which is God’s throne, it should be taken to mean that we should not choose to swear by him who has such dignity that he is superior to all creatures. In these phrases the negative word placed before the sentence excludes the cause itself, and is not interposed to permit and establish the cause. The negative particle placed before the entire sentence has one kind of force, to negate the entire sentence all at once, while the particle attached to a single part of the sentence is interposed as such and has another kind of force. It is one thing to say, “It is not because you have done this that you have sinned,” and quite another thing to say, “You have sinned because you did not do this.” For in the fi rst sentence, “It is not because of this that he sinned,” the cause of sin is removed, so it may be certain that one has not sinned, where the cause might be interpreted to that effect. In fact, it does not demonstrate that he had not sinned, but only that “it was not because of this that he sinned,” so that the cause of sin is removed rather than the sin itself. That is why the Lord prescribes or exhorts concerning oath-taking, because it is dangerous to swear. In order not to perjure ourselves entirely, we should beware of oath-taking as much as possible, lest we should desire to swear upon the dignity that something may have in itself, whether it be God, or Christ, or any creature of God who has attained some dignity before others. To swear upon anything at all is for us to concede to the one before whom we swear that there is nothing useful in the thing by which we have sworn, unless the matter that we are affi rming by the oath is true. While in ecclesiastical cases all of this is controversial, so that the Apostle says (Heb. 6:16): “Let the oath be the end,” in this case the Lord does not prescribe that we should not take an oath but, rather, exhorts us not to. For some things are prescribed, some are prohibited, some encouraged and some permitted. Things are prescribed or prohibited by which or because of which we might despair of our salvation. Therefore, all evils are prohibited, and all goods are prescribed, most of all those that seem necessary to salvation, such as belief in God and loving not only oneself but also one’s neighbor, not committing adultery and the like. But those goods that are not so necessary, whether because they concern a stricter or laxer life or are too exalted or too lowly to be covered by the precept, possess either the persuasion of good counsel, such as virginity, or the permission of indulgence, such as matrimony. If there were a precept requiring virginity, matrimony would be condemned, and if there were a precept requiring matrimony, virginity would be condemned. Therefore, good counsel consists in either persuasion to greater goods or permission for lesser ones, that is, those of lesser merit, when counsel of the better good is met with diffidence or lack of disposition. So those things that may happen or be permitted have no

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

243

commandment, but only admonition, such as never to take an oath, but do have permission, regarding when this may take place from necessity, as, for example, when during an inquisition into the truth, taking an oath is part of the witness’s duty. It is permission, however, when it is said (1 Cor. 7:2): “Because of cases of immorality, every man should have his own wife.” It is a precept, however, when it is said (1 Cor. 7:27): “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation.” It is advice and persuasion when this is immediately added: “Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.” Heloise: Problem 18 What is the meaning of the statements in Matthew’s Gospel (6:31): “Do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ ” And again (6:34): “Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for the day is its own evil?” Could it be that he forbids provision for the future? Could this be the same Lord who uses as an example the man who wanted to build a tower and worried about how much it would cost? The Apostle also says (2 Cor. 11:28): “If one has the care of others, it should be exercised diligently,” just as he says of himself, “There is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.” Abelard’s Solution The Lord is really referring to exaggerated solicitude about the future, as, for example, when in preparing some things, we neglect others that are more necessary, and for the sake of preparing tomorrow’s food, we neglect to seek God’s kingdom from him in prayer, asking that he should make us such that in us he himself would reign, and not sin. It is as if he said, “Do not burden yourselves with unnecessary concerns about the future before it arrives, because when it does arrive, it will bring with it enough solicitude for those who confide less in the Lord concerning necessary things, not having listened to the saying of the Prophet (Ps. 55:23): “Cast your care upon the Lord, and he will support you.” “Sufficient for the day is its own evil” (Matt. 6:34). This means that, in each particular time of life, the endurance of its own hardship and care should be enough. This would seem to relieve us of superfluous temporal cares that make us forget the things of eternity. The Apostle was saying that solicitude for the good, or for those things that pertain to eternal life, is foresight, that is, reasonable care for things in the future or near future. This means that we should be making temporal provision for eternal ones, so that those who are hastening toward eternity may be sustained with some necessary food for the journey. Heloise: Problem 19 What does this mean (Matt. 7:1–2): “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged”? Does it mean that if we make an unjust judgment, we will be judged unjustly in return?

244

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Abelard’s Solution Not judging means not presuming to burden anyone with a certain judgment when matters themselves are uncertain. For when a man is obviously angry, that event makes a judgment in itself, and yours is not needed. So the Apostle also says (1 Cor. 4:5): “Do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring out what is hidden in our hearts.” The Lord comes to reveal what is hidden when by his disposition things that were hidden become apparent or when, according to his Law, we investigate any debatable matter, or when we legislate a penalty in cases that require judgment. Then it is the Lord himself who judges and punishes, and not ourselves. “For as you judge, so will you be judged.” This is as if he had said, “Therefore in judging, you should not presume to burden others, because you will receive a like judgment before God.” In the end, he did not say, “You shall not judge,” but rather, “Do not wish to judge,” so that we should not desire to do of our own volition what we are nonetheless compelled to do in exercising the office of judge when it is entrusted to us. Heloise: Problem 20 We have a question also about his meaning in adding what follows (Matt. 7:12): “Do unto others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the Law and the Prophets.” For if anyone should wish another person to consent with him in wrongdoing, would he be obliged to give his consent to the other in a similar matter? Abelard’s Solution There are two precepts of the natural law concerning the love of one’s neighbor: the one referred to in this place and the other we read in Tobias (4:15). Here he says to his son, “Do to no one what you yourself dislike.” What is true of the bad is true also of the good. Just as we do not want bad things to happen to us and so do not infl ict them on others, the contrary is also true that, just as we would like others to give us good things, we should be ready to give them in return. So when it is said, “What you would have others do to you,” it means, what you know in your conscience that others should do to you. For nothing in our conscience approves of our consenting to wrongdoing, but only doing those things it considers good and worthy of being done. So, too, the Apostle, in saying (Rom. 7:15): “I do not act as I intend to” understands by the words “I intend to” that which I approve of being done. But what is meant by saying “whatever you would have them do to you”? For many people, on account of the dignity or diversity of persons, believe that many things should be done for them that they hardly recognized as their own obligation to do for others. We can see this with respect to prelates and those subject to them, when they require others to do many things for them that they would never feel obliged do for others. But, in fact, we should understand the

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

245

matter in this way, that whatever we believe should be done for us by others, we should be prepared to do for them, too, not necessarily each and everyone, but those who are like ourselves, that is, who are worthy to receive these things from us that we are worthy to receive from them. In the case of Tobias (4:15): “Do to no one what you yourself dislike,” there is posed something of a question, when a person who executes another in the service of justice does not wish to undergo the same experience as that other person. When someone exercises justice on behalf of God, it is God who does the action rather than that person, as we said some time ago. Therefore it can be prescribed that one should not do to another what he would hate to have done to himself, for when someone punishes another justly, it is God or the Law rather than the human agent who performs the act. Heloise: Problem 21 What does it mean when the Apostle says (1 Thess. 5:17): “Pray unceasingly”? Abelard’s Solution Never neglect a moment when we should be praying. Heloise: Problem 22 What is it that Matthew means to say about the faith of the centurion who had asked a favor on behalf of his servant (8:10): “When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to his followers: ‘Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I seen such faith.’ ” Is it not the case that people do not call something amazing unless they see something unexpected happening that they had never known or believed to have happened before? Abelard’s Solution: Jesus is said to have been amazed, because in acting as if he were amazed, he made others amazed at the faith of the centurion, whom he praised so highly. Heloise: Problem 23 What did Luke mean when he said (6:30): “Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours, do not demand its return”? Abelard’s Solution When he said “give,” he did not add “the thing he asks for,” but indicated in this that we do not send away empty, without giving, anyone who begs from us. At least excusing ourselves conveniently in our response, we should strive not to displease him, but to build up charity in him, so that whether the reply

246

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

is flattering or convenient, it should consist in some free gift of favor. “Do not demand back what is yours,” that is, “because it is yours,” lest you should assume for yourself rather than for God the act of restoration. The religious person does not refuse, if they should be offered to him, those things that he had possessed on God’s account and had requested back on his own account, and he spends them to good purposes, freeing them from the theft of the violent. For the Lord also says, according to Luke’s next words (6:32–33): “If you love those who love you or if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?” When he says, “those who love you,” it is like his saying “do not demand back what is yours,” that is, what pleases you because it is yours. It would be wicked for us not to love those by whom we are loved, since we are commanded to love everyone, and that includes God, who loves us, just as he himself said (Prov. 8:17): “Those who love me, I also love.” Rather than loving God because he is useful to us, we should love him with the most supreme love just for himself, because he is the highest good. This is the ordained love, that we should love more, for this reason, whoever is better and more worthy; this means that we should desire him to be better, as is just. Heloise: Problem 24 Why is it that the Lord says (Matt. 15:11): “It is not what enters the mouth that defi les a person, but what comes out of it?” Can it be, then, that one incurs no stain of sin by consuming stolen goods or from what he believes to be illicit, even though it may be licit, or from receiving communion unworthily? The Apostle speaks about certain Jews who were converted to the faith and yet, on account of the Law, still distinguished certain foods from others as unclean. He says (Rom.14:23): “But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because this is not from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.” He also says about those who were eating with idolators, out of reverence for idols (1 Cor. 8:7): “There are some who have been so used to idolatry until now, that when they eat meat sacrificed to idols, their conscience, which is weak, is defi led.” How, then, can the Lord now say that what enters through the mouth does not defi le a man, but rather that which comes out of the mouth? Abelard’s Solution In this place, above all, the Lord carefully points out how sin is to be understood, and in disputing with the Jews about this, he teaches us as well. For they were looking more toward the deeds than toward the soul, and judged good as well as bad things from externals rather than from what was contained within the mind. The Lord truly reduces all things to the intention, and in his estimation a person is condemned by what is in the heart, rather than by the appearance of his actions. Nor does he judge a soul to be polluted except by those things that are within it and touch it closely, because souls can have spiritual stains just as bodies have bodily stains. This is how he explains what he had said (Matt. 15:11): “But what comes out of the mouth is what defi les a person.” For

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

247

he goes on to say: “But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart and they defi le.” From the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. It is these that defi le a person; but “to eat with unwashed hands does not defi le” (Matt. 15:18–20). This is as if he had said clearly, “The bodily stains on hands do not touch the soul, so they cannot pollute the soul with sin. Polluting thoughts come from the heart when we consent to the continuation of the thoughts that we are thinking.” Where there is no understanding, however, there can be no consent, such as in very young children or in the mindless. For when they do what they should not do, no sin is imputed to them. Neither homicide, nor adultery, nor any other sin can exist, the Lord says, except that proceeding from the heart, that is, when we recognize as forbidden the sins to which we are inclined to consent. So just as thoughts come from the heart, when they tend to consent to deeds, so the Lord teaches that homicide, adultery, and other sins proceed from the heart. They are not sins unless there was fi rst consent in the heart that was manifested in deeds. After someone consents to doing what he knows is not permitted, the consent itself is properly called sin; even homicide or lust exist before God in this way. Therefore as Truth itself says (Matt. 5:28): “Everyone who looks on a woman with lust” (that is, who in looking at her has come to consent to concupiscence) “has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (that is, has completed the sin in his soul even if he has not yet consummated it in action). When we receive any food wrongly, knowing that it is forbidden to us, it is hardly the food itself entering our mouths that pollutes the soul, but our conscience has already done this before the fact. Sin consists not in our consuming something by mouth now, but in our having already consented to consume it. Heloise: Problem 25 What is the meaning of Matthew’s [sic: Luke’s] declaration, in which the Lord reproaches certain cities, saying (Luke 10:13): “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deed done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” Now the Lord had come to save people, and so he is called by the name, Jesus, which means ‘Savior.’ Why, then, does he withhold from the Gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon the miracles of his good deeds through which they would have been saved, and bestow them on others for whom he knew that they would mean harm and not profit? But see how he himself proclaims (Matt. 15:24): “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But I say, why would he be sent to them, unless it were so that they would be saved? But if it were so that they should be saved, what did it profit them that those miracles were performed for them by which they would be more gravely condemned, not being converted to repentance but persisting in their obstinance. So even the Lord himself declares (Luke 10:14): “But it will be more tolerable at the Judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.” John tells us (4:36) how a multitude of the Samaritans did believe on hearing about Christ, and that he did perform not a few beneficent miracles for the Gentiles, both men and

248

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

women, by which they came to believe, and were confi rmed in faith, just as in the case of the centurion’s son (Matt. 3:5; Luke 7:2), and the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman, who happened to come from the region of Tyre itself (Mark 7:26). Abelard’s Solution The Lord Jesus was sent in his own person to the Jews alone. Therefore what mercy he bestowed upon the Gentiles was not done in the fulfi llment of this mission. It was, rather, as an act of grace added to what was due, seeing that, as he himself said (Luke 17:10): “When you have done all that you have been commanded to do, say ‘We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.’ ” It is as though he were saying: “Do not consider it a great thing if you fulfi ll what is owed by obedience unless you add to this debt something of grace, as those do who strive for virginity or continence, virtues that do not fall under a precept.” Finally, he came not so much as one sent to offer prescribed benefits to the Gentiles, but only when invited and urged by prayers to do these things. That is why he withheld his preaching from those who, as he testifies, would have been in this way converted to repentance. We are not compelled by this to maintain that they would have persevered in this penitence, so that they would have been saved. For there are many superficial, light-minded people who are easily moved by the compunction of penitence, and by that same facility they slip back into the evil deeds for which they had wept, like dogs returning to their vomit. While they eagerly receive the words of preaching which they have heard, they do not put down fi rm roots so that they might persevere in what they have begun. Although we would offer preaching to those from whom he himself withheld the grace of preaching, it belongs to him who does nothing without reason to know why he did not decree that this should be done. The Apostle raises the question of Esau from whom grace was withheld, but leaves the question undiscussed. Heloise: Problem 26 It seems to me that we ought to ask by what mystery or for what reason the Lord looked for fruit on the fig-tree when, as Mark says (11:13): “It was not the season for figs.” Then, striking the tree with his curse, he made it dry, so from that time it remained withered, as if by this blow he had imposed his curse upon it. Abelard’s Solution The tree that was found without fruit is Judaea, reproved by the Lord for its wickedness, so that it deserved to be deprived of the fruit of good works, for not having recognized the time of its visitation. But their fault occurred because it was not the time for their fruit, after they had refused the grace offered them by the Lord’s preaching.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

249

Heloise: Problem 27 What is the meaning of this saying: “May his plea be in vain”? (Ps. 109:7). Abelard’s Solution It should be interpreted in this way, in a negative sense, as when a person might choose to pray more for harmful things than for beneficial ones and seek to obtain by prayer those things that lead to sin rather than to salvation. Heloise: Problem 28 Concerning the Apostle Paul’s “First Epistle” to the Thessalonians (5:23): “May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy and may you be entirely— spirit, soul and body—preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” What does he mean by saying both spirit and soul, as if the soul were not spirit, or as if there were two spirits in a single person? Abelard’s Solution Here the Apostle uses ‘spirit’ to signify ‘reason,’ that is, ‘discretion of soul,’ as in the place where he says (Gal. 5:17): “the spirit against the flesh,” So it is as if he had said “Let your spirit be integral, that is, let your reason be so perfect and incorruptible that error may not in any way cause it to be driven from the truth.” As for the word ‘soul,’ this refers to the ‘will,’ as in the saying (Matt. 10:39): “whoever loves his own soul will lose it.” This means that whoever follows his own will shall be deprived of that will later, so that whoever fulfi lls his own will here will not have what he wills in the future. Therefore our soul, that is, our will, is whole, meaning ‘integral,’ when it does not depart from the Divine Will. The body, too, is kept integral, or whole, when the functioning of our bodily senses is not corrupted by unlawful acts of the flesh and our eye has not despoiled our soul, nor has ( Jer. 9:20): “death come up through our windows.” In these three ways we are sanctified in all things, when we are in no way excessive in the discretion of reason or in dependence on our own will, or in the pleasures of the senses, so that the body dominates the spirit. Then let us preserve ourselves without complaint, that is, without protesting, until the coming of the Lord, persisting in this state until the Last Judgment, or at least deserving to be found in such a state. Heloise: Problem 29 What is the meaning of this saying in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephes. 3:18–19): “That you may have strength to comprehend with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be fi lled with all the fullness of God.”

250

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Abelard’s Solution “That you may have strength to comprehend” means to experience in yourselves the breadth of the saints in charity through which they extend themselves even to their enemies. The ‘length’ means the long-continuing perseverance in charity, or of patience in adversity, through that very charity which ‘suffers all things, bears all things.’ Their ‘height and depth’ mean how great they are before God in these two dimensions through the fullness of their merits, and how small and infi rm they are to themselves through humility. The ‘depth,’ after all, refers to what is low or humble. How great and sublime before God are those who experience their own reward. To the extent that they are distinguished for their humility here on earth, so much the more do they deserve to be exalted, and the less they regard themselves here, so much more do they deserve to receive from God. The ‘breadth’ of the saints, or the Church, which is the body of Christ, they understand as having been prefigured in his Cross itself, to which his body was nailed. For in the breadth of the Cross, on which Christ was spread out with his hands attached to the right and to the left, the breadth of charity is depicted, embracing even enemies, who are, as it were, on the left, that is, in adversity, just as friends are on the right. The hands attached to the right and left parts of the Cross are the works of charity, extended equally in benefits to enemies and friends. The Lord exhibited from the Cross itself this ‘breadth’ of charity, as he demonstrated care for his mother, commending her to the disciple, and prayed for those being crucified. But just as “breadth” extends to the right and the left, so length extends upward and downward, as the Lord himself stood erect from head to foot upon the Cross. This ‘length’ prefigures his perseverance in patience unto the consummation of his life, which means unto the consummation of our redemption. About this he himself said ( John 19:30): “It is fi nished.” The Apostle Paul says too (Phil. 2:18): “He became obedient even unto death.” The ‘height’ of the Cross is that extension on which the title was written above the Lord’s head. In this title was certainly written his name, that is, “Jesus,” which means “most excellent,” concerning which the same Apostle exclaimed (Phil. 2:9): “Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him ‘the name that is above every other name.” In the elect also that higher part added to the Cross signifies something of the reward of the saints, which is apportioned to them beyond their merits out of grace, as the Apostle says (Rom. 8:18): “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed to us.” The ‘depth’ is the lower part of the Cross, by which it is attached to the earth. The ‘depth’ is humble, and the punishment of the Cross is a lowly one, for this kind of death is ignominious, and so the very great humility of Christ is praised. And he himself deserves to be even more exalted, just as we recalled above, in the words (Phil. 2:9): “because of this, God greatly exalted him.” This kind of death had been predicted regarding the impious (Wis. 2:20): “Let us condemn him to a shameful death.” In the elect as well, that lower part of the Cross, by

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

251

which it is fi rmly fi xed in the earth, stands for the virtue of humility by which, comparing themselves to dust and earth, they deserve to be exalted elsewhere to the degree that they humble and belittle themselves here. And their humility holds them fi rm and upright in the summit of virtues, just as that part of the Cross affi xed to the earth holds it fi rm and upright. After the charity of the saints, we rise to the height of Christ’s charity, which he exhibits to us and admonishes us to know it and always attend to it, so that we may be held ever more humble in comparison with it, and ever more fervent in our love of it. He presents this supereminent charity of Christ to our knowledge, because it is far greater than we can comprehend by our own intelligence or experience. But, concerning this charity of Christ, when we set our own side by side with his incomparably superior charity then, as has been said, we shall be made ever more humble and more fervent, and we shall be fi lled with all the perfection of the virtues God has conferred upon us. Heloise: Problem 30 What is the meaning of the saying about Elkanah in the First Book of Kings (1 Kings 1:3): “This man used to go up on the appointed days to worship?” By whom or by what were these days appointed? Abelard’s Solution Commenting on the Books of Kings, Rabanus Maurus follows almost to the letter a certain Hebrew meaning: “But when it says ‘on the appointed days,’ ” this means on the three festivals, Passover, Pentecost, and the solemnity of Tabernacles.19 Thus the Lord prescribes in Exodus (23:14): “Three times a year you shall celebrate a pilgrim feast to me.” And again he says (Deut. 16:16): “Three times a year every male among you shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which he chooses.” So during that time when the Ark of the Lord was at Shiloh, there Elkanah, who was himself a Levite, after offering sacrifices feasted all together with his wives and sons and daughters. Heloise: Problem 31 What is the meaning of Anna’s reply to the priest when she said (1 Kings 1:15–16): “It isn’t that, my lord; I am an unhappy woman. I have neither wine nor liquor; I was only pouring out my troubles to the Lord. Do not think your handmaid a daughter of Belial.” Abelard’s Solution She says that she is unhappy, as if she were rebuked, because she is cursed with barrenness, and has left no seed in Israel. For the same reason Elizabeth also says 19

Rabanus Maurus (ca. 750–856), In libros Regum: PL 109, 12.

252

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

(Luke 1:25): “So has the Lord done for me at a time when he has seen fit to take away my disgrace before others.” For the same reason, Deuteronomy says among other things that the Lord promises the people as a reward for their observance of the commandments (Deut. 7:14): “No man or woman among you shall be childless nor shall your livestock be barren.” When Anna says “I have neither wine nor liquor,” she points to the great perfection of such a lay woman or wife. If she had clearly achieved this abstinence then, so that the Lord might more easily hear her prayer about the birth she was requesting, how much more is this abstinence fitting for the virgins of Christ, who strive for a spiritual and far better fruit. She specifically calls “daughters of Belial” those whom the Devil begets for himself as his own proper offspring. For drunkenness affects our state of mind, and extinguishes whatever we may have of the image of God through rationality, so that we become comparable to such beasts as the horse or the mule, which have no intellect. The ancient enemy is called the Devil, which means ‘flowing downward,’ as well as ‘Zabulus’ or ‘Satan,’ which in Latin means ‘adversary’ or ‘transgressor,’ and ‘Belial,’ which means ‘without yoke.’ The latter name is rightly placed where it is, pertaining to the inebriated, because they, like insane persons, submit to no yoke of discipline or of God. So the daughters of Belial remind us of descriptions of the hysterical priestesses of Dionysius. Heloise: Problem 32 Also, what is the meaning of this saying about Anna: “And she no longer appeared downcast” (1 Sam. 1:18)? Abelard’s Solution She showed from then on a happy face and not a sad or tearful one. Heloise: Problem 33 And what does this mean (1 Kings 2:1): “Anna prayed and said, ‘My heart exults in the Lord’, etc.”? For this canticle speaks the words of thanksgiving or prophecy more than those of prayer. Abelard’s Solution As far as I can tell, she had prefaced a canticle to the prayer, by which it, or the act of thanksgiving, might become more acceptable to God. First, about the prayer, it says, “she prayed,” then regarding the canticle, it is added, “and she said, ‘My heart rejoices, etc.’ ” For it is a custom of the church to place a prayer before each of the individual Hours that are to be sung to the praises of God. We read of many canticles belonging to holy women, both to barren women who are to become mothers of prophets, such as Deborah ( Judges 5:1ff.), Judith

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

253

( Judith l6:1ff.), and Anna, the mother of Samuel, as likewise to the virgin who would become the mother of the Savior, Mary, the mother of the Lord, singing about the birth assigned to her by the Lord (Luke 1:46ff.). The Church is accustomed to having frequent recourse to the Canticle of Anna, just as to that of the great Virgin, not only because of the mother’s sanctity, or the divinity of the birth given to her in Samuel. In him, especially, the prophets are said to have had their beginnings and he was fi rst offered by his mother to the Lord. But this canticle was even more important because nothing else in the women’s canticles sung before the time of the prophets seems to have foretold Christ and his kingdom so clearly as Anna does here. She speaks in this way of the Father of Christ, and of Christ himself (1 Kings 2:10): “The Lord judges the ends of the earth. Now may he give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.” For there was not yet a king established in Israel, to whom this celebration of the prophetess would pertain. She deserved to speak openly of the true Christ, that is, the Messiah. She manifestly predicted the future that Mary sings as fulfi lled, as if the prophetic words together with the birth-giving act of the barren woman had given support to the virgin’s faith. Heloise: Problem 34 This saying also raises a question (1 Kings 2:5): “The barren wife bears many sons.” For even though Scripture afterward refers to the fact that, after Samuel, Anna had gone on to give birth to three sons and two daughters, nevertheless, while she was singing this canticle, she cannot be said to have had Samuel yet. Also, how can it be said about her children that they were “very many,” and about the children of her friend, Phenenna, that they were only “many,” as if Anna had more children than Phenenna? Though Scripture does not say how many children Phenenna had, many commentators suggest that she had more than Anna, which would mean at least seven. Abelard’s Solution We do not need to take the words “very many” here as a comparative adjective, in relation to ‘fewer,’ but rather in the absolute sense, as simply ‘many,’ since various words can be taken in the same sense. It is not impossible that Anna could have had many children when this canticle was sung, even though Scripture had not yet referred to her as having any but Samuel. The sequence of Scripture often does not keep to the chronological order, but rather narrates quite a number of items out of temporal sequence. Anna could also have said this in the spirit of prophecy, while she still had only Samuel. Finally, it would not have been inappropriate to say this about Samuel alone, since even as a single person he would have been more valuable than the sons of Phenenna, though he was only one in number. In this way it may often be that we could say one thing was ‘more’ than another, which, though fewer in number, nonetheless had a higher value.

254

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Heloise: Problem 35 We also ask about the meaning of this passage (1 Kings 18f.): “Meanwhile the boy Samuel ministered before the face of the Lord, as a child girded with a linen ephod. And his mother made him a little coat, which she brought to him on the appointed days, when she went up with her husband to offer the solemn sacrifice.” If Samuel was a Levite, which is very likely, or a priest, being only a boy he would hardly be able to comply with the Law in his ministry, so that at his tender age he could minister girt with the ephod as a Levite or a priest. We wonder also what garment the mother brought to the boy and on what appointed days. Abelard’s Solution A boy could minister in certain lesser offices, even girt with the linen ephod. That is why Rabanus could make this remark, citing Augustine: Samuel was girt with the ephod bad.20 This means with linen upon the shoulders, which differed from the ephod that the high priest wore, because the former was only of linen and was allowed to the lesser orders for their use. That which clothed the high priest was of four colors—hyacinth, gray, scarlet, and purple—with a braid of gold. The appointed days were clearly those three festivals mentioned above, according to the Law, so that in each of these high solemnities of the year, the mother devotedly brought her son a new tunic, in which he could minister to the Lord more purely and sincerely. Having the humeral linen above it, by which he was girded, and thus unburdened, he could perform his ministry more expeditiously. If I am not mistaken, we monks now imitate that habit, since our manual labors are usually done in a tunic, with a scapular wrapped about the shoulders. For what is the scapular but a humeral veil? Finally, who would disapprove of Samuel, although he was a boy, ministering in the office of Levite out of necessity? This means also with the help of Eli, since no one else then in the house of Eli would have been found worthy of that office. For there is a well-known saying: “Necessity knows no law.” Heloise: Problem 36 We ask and pose the question who could have been that man of God sent by the Lord to Eli, to correct him and to predict the evils that would befall his house? Also, what is the meaning of, among others, the statement concerning the better priest who would succeed Eli (1 Kings 2:35–36): I will raise me up a faithful priest who shall act according to my heart, and my soul, and I will build him a lasting house, and he shall walk all the days before my anointed. Then whoever is left of your family will come to grovel before him for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread and will say: “Appoint me, I beg you, to priestly function, that I may have a morsel of bread to eat.” 20

Rabanus Maurus, In libros Regum: PL 109, 20.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

255

We know that Samuel, who outlived Eli, was outstanding in his faithfulness to the Lord. But it is the common opinion that he was distinguished more as a Levite than as a priest, and that his house did not stand out as faithful, since his sons were reprobates. It is also said: “He shall walk in the company of my anointed.” We ask whether this is to be understood as referring to the priest himself, or to his house, and who this anointed one might be. Finally, we beg you to explain what is to be understood about the offerings of silver coin and piece of bread, as if they refer to a new offering, which is not contained in the Law, and the other things that are added. Abelard’s Solution That “man of God” is thought to be an angel appearing in human form. The priest who would succeed Eli was not Samuel, who was a Levite, nor would he have a faithful or a reprobate house; nor does he seem to be understood as some other holy man who would succeed Eli in the priestly order, as Abinadab was, into whose house at Kiriath-jearim the Ark of the Lord was brought back from the Philistines (1 Kings 7:1). Nor was he Eleazar, his son, sanctified then for taking care of the Ark, or fi nally, Ahimelech, whom Saul slew with the rest of the priests in Nob, the city of the priests (1 Kings 22:9ff.). So when it is said: “He shall walk in the company of my anointed,” it should be understood as referring not to a priest but to his house, which is subject to his ministry. Finally, regarding what is added about the future and so forth, I have heard a certain Jew explain that the silver coin is a silver shekel, by which anyone might have had himself redeemed by a priest. The piece of bread, quicar, means the quarter of a loaf, which was the offering of the poor. The part of the priest’s breastbone, that is, the upper part of the breast, the jawbone, the belly, and the tail (which was, however, not always the same), because, according to the varying rites of sacrifice, as we read in Leviticus, a portion used to be given to the priesthood. Thus it was announced to Eli that his house would become so impoverished that those who were in any way the recipients of offerings, to whom also because of Eli himself the portion of the priesthood used to be given, would themselves be redeemed by other priests, begging food and imploring that some small particle of the priestly portion be given to them, along with a small mouthful of bread, which, above, was called a loaf. Heloise: Problem 37 What is the meaning of this statement at the beginning of Mark the Evangelist (1:2): “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold I am sending my messenger ahead of you. A voice of one crying out in the desert, etc.?’ ” Why does he cite Isaiah when the fi rst quotation that follows immediately is from Malachi, and the second from Isaiah? If, however, he had done the contrary, the truth still stands, that is, what he wrote as a preface attributing the text to Isaiah, would encompass the fi rst quotation.

256

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Abelard’s Solution Because the same sentence is contained in the words of both prophets, the Evangelist, expressing himself briefly, ascribed what Malachi said to Isaiah, who is the greater authority, and from whom, perhaps, he had learned this. The voice crying out in the desert—all this is the preaching of John. Isaiah describes John more carefully since he does not call him an angel, but foretells him as one crying out in the desert. So the Evangelist always does well, after the quotation from Isaiah, which he put fi rst, immediately adding (Mark 1:4): “John appeared in the desert, baptizing and proclaiming.” Indeed, the reason he says “in the desert” and “proclaiming” is the more openly to agree with the words spoken by Isaiah, that is, “a voice crying in the desert.” Mark also adds with foresight; after beginning, “It was written in Isaiah,” he adds “the prophet,” as if in the quotation from Isaiah as in that of Malachi (3:1), he could be a better prophet than the one who, as I suggest, had taken this quotation from the prophecy of Isaiah, which he had read, not solely through the inspiration of the Spirit. I think that in this way, too, we can understand the testimony taken from two prophets, Zachariah and Jeremiah, which Matthew introduces, attributing all of it to Jeremiah, saying (Matt. 27:9; Zach. 11:12–13): “Then was fulfi lled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of a man with a price on his head, a price set by some of the Israelites, and they paid it out for the potter’s field just as the Lord had commanded me’ ” (Matt.27.9; Zach. 11:12–13). So while both the fi rst testimony of Zachariah and the second of Jeremiah may be conjoined in the same saying of the Lord, Matthew nonetheless attributes the whole to Jeremiah, whose authority was greater, and from whom Zachariah could have taken what he said. Heloise: Problem 38 Also raising more than a few questions is the testimony of the prophet Zachariah, which the Lord brings forth from within himself in Matthew’s Gospel (26:31): “For it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherds and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed.’ ” Zachariah seems to say this about a false prophet rather than about the Lord. So it is written in the Book of Zachariah (13:3–7): “If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, ‘You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.’ When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, will pierce him through. On that day every prophet will be ashamed to prophesy his vision; nor shall he assume garments of sackcloth to deceive, but he shall say: ‘I am no prophet; I am a tiller of the soil like Adam, whose example I have followed from my youth.’ And if any one asks him, ‘What are those wounds on your chest?’ he shall answer, ‘With this I was wounded in the house of my dear ones.’ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is my associate, says the Lord of Hosts. Strike the shepherd that the sheep may be dispersed and I will turn my hands against the little ones.”

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

257

Abelard’s solution Even though Zachariah may have said this about a false prophet, the Lord truly proposed it regarding himself. Although the Lord’s quotation was taken from Zachariah, it is such that it would apply to a good shepherd as much as to a bad one. For when he is struck by some adversity, a shepherd, whether good or bad, may be prevented from the pastoral care he has accepted. Then the flock he has kept together is scattered from his control, and wanders around in different groups without a shepherd or leader. Thus, because persecution by adversaries causes the dispersion of a good shepherd’s flock as much as a bad one’s, it is not improper for the Lord to apply to his own Passion what has been said in general about shepherds. This is as if he were to have said that what is generally true of shepherds has been fulfi lled also in himself. And thus also in him what was predicted of the false shepherd shall come about, so that even in this way he could be reputed among the wicked because he has been likened to them also in this. Heloise: Problem 39 We ask also how the evangelists wrote such different accounts of the Lord’s prediction to Peter regarding the cock’s crowing. For Matthew writes as follows (26:34): “Jesus said to him: ‘Amen, I say to you, this very night before the cock crows you will deny me three times.’ ” But Mark, whose gospel is said to have been written at the dictation of Peter himself, says (14:30): “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Amen, I say to you, today in this very night before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ ” Luke, however, writes as follows (22:34): “I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today before you deny three times that you know me.” But John says (13:38): “Amen, amen, I say to you, ‘The cock will not crow before you have denied me three times.’ ” What did the Lord intend by such diversity of wording if he wished to say one thing to Peter in these words. Also, what is the meaning of Mark’s reference to “today in this night” since the night could hardly be in the day, and to the crowing of the cock he adds “twice,” while the others are silent about this? Abelard’s Solution It is customary in Scripture to encompass day and night equally in the noun “day,” as, for example, when we say that someone has lived or ruled so many years and so many days, or that he was there for so many days. So when Mark said “today,” he meant the night with its own day. When he added, “this night,” he was speaking not of night as a unit of time but of the contentiousness of the coming night. To resolve the question posed by the statements regarding the crowing of the cock, let us posit the Lord’s fi rst saying calmly to Peter, as Mark reports, that “before the cock crowed twice,” and then adding, “after Peter’s promise of his constancy” that he would do so even before the cock would crow. Matthew also very often emphasizes that Peter was overconfident and presumptuously

258

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

contradicted the Lord’s words. As Matthew reports (26:33): “Peter said to him, ‘Even though all should have their faith shaken, I shall not be.’ ” Then Jesus said to him: “Amen, I say to you, this very night before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” But Peter vehemently replied (26:35): “Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you.” Peter, who had earlier said he would not be scandalized, now adds something more, saying that he was also prepared to die with him rather than deny him. As for Peter’s greater presumption of his own constancy, the Lord himself is thought to have added, not incongruously, something more, that is, in saying that even before the cock would crow, Peter would deny him three times, as we have said. But this raises a larger question: why Mark so arranges the denials of Peter and the crowing of the cock that after the fi rst denial the cock crows for the fi rst time, and after the two others, for the second time. This makes it hardly possible that, according to what the other evangelists say, Peter would deny him three times before the cock would crow, unless perhaps in their words twice should be understood, as Mark indicates by placing it there, as what the Lord would have said in this way. For when something is spoken of more specifically in one place than in another, it is very often necessary to assume the same emphasis also in the place from which it is absent. It should, however, be carefully noted that it is left out elsewhere, lest falsity should confuse meaning. This is not unknown even among the unbelievers. Thus we not infrequently oppose the Jews regarding the verse (Ezek. 18:8): “Thou shalt not lend at interest,” saying that they should not lend even to us. But they say it means “lend to your neighbor,” which is specified elsewhere. Also, however, when the truth of the Gospel has it ( John 3:3) that “no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit” it is to be understood “or sanctified by one’s suffering for the faith.” For elsewhere we have the general statement regarding martyrs, the Lord saying (Matt. 10:39): “Whoever loses his life for my sake will fi nd it.” In the third book of his On the Harmony of the Gospels, Augustine resolves the diversity concerning the denial of Peter in this way. 21 He explains that Mark’s statement refers to the utterance of the denial, while what the others say refers to the disposition of a soul already so beset by such great fear that it would be ready to deny a third time before the cock had fi nished crowing. Should anyone ask why the Lord said ‘three times’ and not ‘four times’ or more, as Peter would likewise have been ready to do, because of his excessive fear, it seems to me that there is no small reason for having a threefold denial from whose comprehensiveness one may infer a complete denial. For everyone who denies Christ does so out of error or some kind of fear or is compelled by cupidity to presume this denial. Therefore it is insinuated that Peter, who would betray him three times as the Lord predicted, is capable of complete denial. It is not to be doubted from this that he had observed his actions toward the Lord, before he denied the fi rst time, and how he would be driven with the rest into the scandal of desperation. Later, 21

Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum 3: PL 34, 1172.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

259

when he was liberated from this and the Lord looked upon him, he wept with bitter tears of repentance for what he had done. Perhaps it would not be absurd to say that the cock’s fi rst crowing, after Peter’s fi rst denial, was not natural, but rather the result of some disturbance, whether Peter’s going out in the courtyard or someone else walking around, and some cock listening and excited before the proper hour was the first to crow. Thus the fi rst crowing may not have been normal, but brought about by some compulsion. It was not, however, unreasonable that the Lord ordained the cock’s crowing at Peter’s fi rst denial, as if disputing with him. Nor in this way did Peter desist from his denial, so that the truth itself would become apparent. So when the Lord predicted that Peter would deny him three times, before the cock crowed, it seems that the hour of the normal cock’s crowing should be assumed. Mark, who alone inserts twice, takes as indifferent whether the cock’s crowing was natural or accidental. Heloise: Problem 40 Why is it that only the beasts and the birds were described (cf. Gen. 2:20) as being led to Adam in Paradise to see how he would name them, and not also the reptiles of the land, such as serpents, or the reptiles of water, such as fish? Abelard’s Solution We think that this was well done, as far as the mystery of doctrine is concerned. Indeed, in the present Church the continent, who lift themselves powerfully by desire upward toward heavenly things, and fly on high like winged creatures, are compared to the birds. Good spouses are compared to the beasts, which touch the earth with one part of themselves, their feet, and are separated from it by another part, since they do not wallow in it with their bodies. One who is joined in matrimony is divided, in part serving God, in part intent on the world, because of the pressing needs of the married state. So it is as though they touch the earth with their feet, that is, the lower part of themselves, because they abandon themselves to earthly concerns arising from the business of matrimony, which belongs to the fallen life. Reptiles, however, which lie in the deep with their entire bodies, and are not at all able to raise themselves up. are the reprobates inwardly occupied with earthly desires, and dwelling in the depths of vice. Concerning this it is written (Prov. 18:3): “The wicked, come into the depths of sin, has contempt.” For this reason it is not permitted to offer fish as sacrifice to God. Rightly, therefore, it is said that Adam gave names only to the flying creatures and the walking animals brought to him in Paradise, and not to the reptiles, because of all the present population of the Church, in which the wheat is still mixed with the chaff, only those who are continent and the good spouses shall arrive at the true Paradise of the heavenly Fatherland, and are worthy of God’s call. Their names are already written in the Book of Life. Indeed, concerning God’s call, the Apostle says this (Rom. 8:30): “And those he predestined, he

260

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.” Heloise: Problem 41 We ask who added at the end of the book of Deuteronomy (33:34), which is the last of the five books of Moses, that part speaking of the death of Moses and what followed. We wonder, that is, whether Moses himself also announced this in a prophetic spirit, so that this, too, could be added to his books, or whether this was added later by someone else. Abelard’s Solution As Bede recalls in his commentary on Esdras,22 Esdras himself re-copied not only the Law but, according to the majority opinion, the whole canon of Sacred Scripture, which was consumed by fi re, just as it seemed to him was enough for the readers, so he added this, along with many other things, to the writings of the Old Testament. In this way we also see no small number of additions even to the evangelical [Gospel] writings, made by the translators, like this one in Matthew (27:46): “Eli, Eli, lem sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Similarly regarding what was written not in Hebrew but in Greek in the other evangelists, we fi nd the explanation of the Hebrew words added at once. Even in Jerome’s book On Illustrious Lives, where he places himself at the end of the work, an account of his life and its ending has been added by someone else.23 Heloise: Problem 42 We ask whether anyone can sin in doing what the Lord has permitted or even commanded. Abelard’s Solution Let us agree, as is fitting, that we are confronting a most grave question, how married couples either among the people of the Old Testament or among those of the New, when they were actively moved by carnal desire, may be said to sin in this respect and thus transmit original sin to their posterity. For the Lord bound the earlier people to procreation by his command and by imposing the curse of the Law upon those who left no seed in Israel. Therefore not only did he say to our fi rst parents before their sin (Gen. 1:28): “Be fertile and multiply and fi ll the earth.” He also, similarly enjoined this very same command on Noah and his sons after the flood (19:1). Concerning the curse of the Law just mentioned, by which the people were forced to beget children, there is what Jerome said against 22 23

Bede, In Esdram et Nehemiam allegorica expositio 2.9: PL 91, 859. Jerome, De viris illustribus: PL 23, 716–20.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

261

Elvidius in his work On the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary: “As long as that Law remained (Exod. 23:26): ‘Increase and multiply and fi ll the earth,’ and ‘Cursed is the barren woman who does not bear seed in Israel,’ everyone married and became married.”24 This, too, was what the Blessed Augustine had to say in his book On the Good of Marriage: John’s continence was displayed in practice, but Abraham possessed it only in habit. Thus at that time when even after the days of the patriarchs the Law continued to say all those were accursed who did not produce children in Israel, even some who could have been continent, but did not demonstrate this, possessed continence none the less.25

Similarly Augustine wrote to Julian On Preserving Widowhood: Because I said that Ruth was blessed, but Anna more blessed, since the first married twice, while the other, soon widowed by the death of one husband lived a long time [as a widow?], you should not necessarily think that you yourself are also better than Ruth. This is because there was in the days of the prophets another kind of disposition for holy women whom obedience and sexual desire compelled to marry in order that the people of God might be propagated, from whom Christ also would be born in the f lesh. Since people were obliged to propagate, the person was considered cursed by the Law who did not raise up seed in Israel. 26

For this reason even holy women were on fi re, not with desire for concubinage, but with zeal for bearing children, so that they might be thought most rightly not to have sought intercourse if children could be produced in another way. Men were also permitted to have more than one living wife. Because the saintly Ruth could not have the seed then necessary in Israel, from a dead husband she sought another man from whom she could have it. As Augustine, the teacher just mentioned, recalls [On Preserving Widowhood]27 and to the great shame of the faithful: the Law itself provided for this people that younger brothers, even if they had children by their own wives, must contribute seed also in behalf of their older brothers. The Law compelled them to lie with their brothers’ wives and to beget sons for those who were now dead, rather than for themselves, so that the brothers who were not deprived of offspring might thus absolve their brothers from the curse of the Law. Even the Lord himself established this also as a reward for those who observed the Law so that no barren people would remain among them, either among humans or among animals. Thus it was written in Deuteronomy (7:13): “As your reward for attending to these decrees and their careful observance, the Lord will watch over you; he will 24 25 26 27

Jerome, Contra Elvidium de perpetua virginitate sanctae Mariae: PL 23, 33. Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 392. Augustine, De viduitate servanda: PL 40, 436. Augustine, De viduitate servanda: PL 40, 436.

262

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

love and multiply you and bless the fruit of your wombs and the produce of your soil. You will be blessed among all peoples. No one of either sex among you will be sterile, neither humans nor animals.” We read also that none of the holy patriarchs were deprived of seed, even though they might have had barren wives, whom they married not for the pleasure of carnal desire, but to increase the people, in order to beget children not so much for themselves as for God. This is the meaning of Tobias’ prayer (8:9): “Now, Lord, you know that I take this sister of mine not out of lust but only for the sake of posterity” in which “praised be your name forever and ever.” This was Abraham’s intention when, being joined in marriage, he deserved to beget progeny from a sterile wife (Gen. 16:1ff ). Likewise Isaac (25), Manoah, Samson’s father ( Judges 13), Elkanah, the husband of Anna (1 Kings 1:19), Zachary, the husband of Elizabeth (Luke 1:5ff.). All of them gained the desired progeny, and thus did not incur the curse of the Law and the disgrace of a sterile marriage. This is why it is called ‘matrimony,’ because it has its beginning in the mother of the family. Mindful of the malediction of the Law, Jephtha’s daughter mourned her virginity, because by dying a virgin, she left no seed in Israel ( Judges 11:38). Elizabeth rejoiced in being freed of this opprobrium, declaring (Luke 1:25): “So has the Lord done for me in this time when he has deigned to prevent my disgrace among men.” Mindful of all these examples, the abovementioned doctor [Augustine] praised the intercourse of married couples that was intended to produce children, not so much simply to be begotten as to be regenerated in Christ, calling such intercourse more immune from sin than that intended to prevent fornication. This, on the other hand, the Apostle established as the sole purpose (1 Cor. 7:2): “Now regarding the matters about which you wrote, ‘It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman, but to avoid immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.’ ” Thus it seems as though conjugal intercourse should take place for God rather than for ourselves, so that our intention should be to beget children for God rather than to fulfi ll our own purposes. For this reason the aforementioned doctor [Augustine] ranks one intention above the other and thus does not describe as an indulgence the intercourse he separates from sin, in order not only that it should not be avoided as blameworthy, but that it should be sought out as praiseworthy. He also commends the good of marriage, so that if couples follow an appropriate intention, namely, the procreation of children, they may excuse those sexual acts that do not occur with this intention. He shows that these spouses are good in themselves rather than in the act of avoiding fornication. Therefore he says in the book cited earlier, On the Good of Marriage,28 that “there is a good reason to consider worthy of discussion this good, which the Lord confi rmed in the Gospel (cf. John 2), not only because he forbids the dismissal of a wife, except for fornication, but because when he was invited, he came to a wedding.” Augustine goes on to say:29 “Marriage seems to me a good 28 29

Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 375. Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 378.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

263

not only because of the procreation of children, but because of the natural bond between the two sexes.” Again he says:30 “The social bond of the married couple is so strong that, although it is tied for the purpose of procreation, it may not be broken for that reason. Thus a man would be able to cast off a sterile wife and marry another by whom he might have children, and yet he is not permitted to have them.” And similarly Augustine says: It is plain to see that God has given us some good things that should be sought for themselves, such as wisdom, health, friendship. Others he gives us because they are necessary for another reason, such as teaching, food and drink, sleep, marriage, intercourse. Of these some are necessary for the sake of wisdom, such as teaching; others for health, such as food and drink, and sleep; others for companionship, such as marriage or intercourse. From this comes the propagation of the human race, of which amicable society is the great good. Therefore anyone sins who does not use these goods that are necessary for something else not for the purpose for which they were intended. In this, some sin venially, others mortally. But whoever uses them for their intended purpose acts virtuously. 31

Likewise he says: It seems to me that only those who cannot remain continent should marry, according to the saying of the same Apostle (1 Cor. 7:9): ‘If they cannot be continent, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn.’ Nevertheless, this does not mean that there is no sin involved in marriages intended to prevent fornication. There may be lesser sin than fornication, yet some sin nonetheless. But now, how shall we respond to the very forceful voice of the Apostle, when he says (1 Cor. 7:36): ‘Let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married’; and (7:28): ‘If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries.’ Here, certainly, it is no longer right to doubt that marriage is not a sin.32

Nor, therefore, does the Apostle allow marriage as an indulgence. For who would equivocate so absurdly as to say that those have not sinned to whom indulgence is granted. But what the Apostle concedes as an indulgence is the intercourse that happens through incontinence, not solely for the sake of procreation, and to some extent with no intention of procreation. The marital state does not require this act to take place, but it does ask that it be overlooked, if the acts are not so frequent that they intrude on the times that should be set apart for prayer. Nor should married couples debase themselves by that practice which is against nature. The Apostle could not be silent about this since he was discussing the extremely corrupt practices of impure and impious persons. Intercourse that necessarily leads to procreation is not blameworthy, and that alone is marital. What exceeds that which is necessary is no longer reasonable but libidinal. Yet not to demand this act, but to allow it to a spouse to avoid his 30 31 32

Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 380. Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 378. Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 380.

264

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

sinning mortally through fornication is a marital obligation. If, however, both are subject to such concupiscence, they are engaged in an act that is plainly not marital. But if in their marriage they prefer more that is honorable than dishonorable, meaning what belongs rather than does not belong to marriage, the Apostle concedes this to them as an indulgence. Again, Augustine writes: That natural act, when it falls outside the purpose of marriage, that is, beyond the needs of procreation, is venial in a wife, but to be condemned in a prostitute. What is contrary to nature is execrable in a prostitute, but more execrable in a wife. For what the Creator ordains and the order to which the creature belongs have such great worth that in matters pertaining to concessions in use, even when the manner is exceeded, it is more tolerable than in those matters which have not been permitted, whether the excess is singular or seldom. Thus in a matter where there is a concession, immoderation is tolerable in a spouse in order to prevent libidinous acts of an unlawful kind. For this reason a husband sins far less, no matter how demanding of his wife he is, than one who is very seldom a fornicator. When a man wishes to use a woman’s member in a forbidden manner, the wife is more sinful if she permits this act in relation to herself than to another woman.33

Therefore, the conjugal right is chastity in procreation and fidelity in paying the conjugal debt, that is, the work of marriage, which the Apostle defends against all incrimination, saying (1 Cor. 7:28): “If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman if she marries” and (7:36): “Let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.” However, for the reasons we mentioned above, the more immoderate exacting of marital debts by members of either sex is conceded to spouses as a venial indulgence. Therefore the Apostle’s statement (7:34): “An unmarried woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit,” must not be interpreted in such a way that we should regard a chaste Christian woman as not holy in body. Indeed, it was said to all the faithful (6:19): “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” Holy as well are the bodies of spouses who keep faith with one another and the Lord. The same Apostle testifies that an unbelieving spouse is no obstacle to either partner, but rather that the wife’s holiness benefits the unbelieving husband, as the husband’s holiness benefits the unbelieving wife. As the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:14): “For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the believing husband.” This was followed by the statement regarding the greater sanctity of unmarried than of married women. Augustine writes further: The bond of marriage remains, even if, because of manifest sterility, there are no children for whom the marriage was undertaken. Thus it is not permitted for 33

Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 380–82.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

265

married couples who already know that they will have no children to separate from each other to have intercourse with others for the sake of having children. If they do so, they commit adultery with those with whom they have intercourse, but they themselves remain married. Clearly, it was permitted in law and practice among our ancient forefathers to take another woman with the wife’s permission, so that common children should be born of the intercourse of the one and the seed of the other. Whether this is now permitted I hesitate to say. For there is no longer the need for propagation that prevailed then, when it was permitted to spouses who could have children to take another wife in addition, to gain a more abundant progeny, which is certainly not permitted now.34

Again Augustine writes: What food is to the health of human kind, intercourse is to the health of the race, and neither lacks carnal pleasure. This cannot be mere desire when it is limited and controlled by a moderating temperance in its natural use. But what forbidden food is in the sustaining of life, fornication or adulterous intercourse is in seeking offspring, and what forbidden food is in the pampering of stomach and throat, illicit intercourse is in the luxuriating of sexual desire that seeks no offspring. And what a not uncommon, immoderate appetite is regarding permitted food, the venial intercourse is between a married couple. So just as it is better to die of hunger that to eat food consecrated to idols, it is better to die without children than to seek them by means of illicit intercourse. By whatever means they are produced, however, individuals should be born, and if they do not follow the vices of their parents, and worship God properly, they are honest and will be saved. The seed of manhood coming from whatever kind of man is God’s creature, and it will fare badly at the hands of those who treat it badly, although the seed itself will not be at all evil. But just as the good children of adulterers do not justify adultery, so the bad children of a married couple do not incriminate marriage.

Again, Augustine says above: There are men who are so incontinent that they do not spare their pregnant wives. So whatever married couples do between themselves, shameful or sordid, is the vice of the couple and not to be blamed on marriage. Now also that more immoderate exaction of the marital debt is not commanded but conceded by the Apostle as an indulgence, so that the couple might join together, even if depraved habits impel them to such intercourse. Nevertheless, the fact of their marriage is their defense against adultery or fornication. For it is not that this is actively allowed because of marriage, but it is because of marriage that this is overlooked. 35

So married couples owe each other not only fidelity in the sharing of their sexuality in order to beget children, which is the primary relationship of humanity in this mortal life. They also owe one another in a certain measure the mutual service of supporting each other against the weakness that leads to illicit intercourse, so that even if one of the partners should be drawn to perpetual 34 35

Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 382. Augustine, De bono conjugali: PL 40, 385.

266

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

continence, this is not possible without the consent of the other. For this reason, then, the wife does not have power over her own body, but the man does; likewise the man does not have power over his body, but his wife does. Therefore they should not deny to one another what the man seeks from marriage, nor what the wife seeks from the husband, not in order to have children, but because of weakness and incontinence. In this way they should not succumb to damnable corruptions, with Satan tempting either or both of them to incontinence. For marital intercourse for the purpose of procreation is blameless. As Augustine says: “Fulfi lling the marital debt incurs no blame, but to exact it beyond the necessity of procreation is a venial sin.” Augustine says the same to his friend, Valerian, in the fi rst book of On Marriage and Concupiscence: But who would dare to say that the gift of God is a sin? The soul and the body and all the goods of soul and body, even when given naturally to sinners, are gifts of God, because God, not they themselves, made these gifts. Concerning their actions it is said (Rom. 14:23): ‘Whatever is not from faith is sinful.’ So no one could be called truly modest who should not for the sake of the true God preserve marital fidelity to his wife. Therefore the intercourse of husband and wife with the intention of procreation is a natural good of marriage. But anyone uses this good wrongly if he is disposed to passionate pleasure rather than toward the will to procreation. In this intention of the heart, he who possesses his vessel, that is, his wife, beyond doubt does not possess her in the disease of desire, like those who are ignorant of God, but in sanctification and honor, like the faithful who hope in God. Indeed, a man who makes use of this evil of concupiscence is not vanquished whenever he confounds it or restrains and limits its agitation of indecorous movements. Nor, unless he is thinking about progeny, does he relax and summon it so that he might beget in the f lesh those who are to be reborn in the spirit, not so that he might enslave the spirit in the sordid servitude of the f lesh.36

Similarly Augustine writes about the marriage of Joseph and Mary: Every marital good is realized in these parents of Christ: progeny, fidelity, and sacrament. We recognize the progeny in the Lord Jesus himself; the fidelity because there was no adultery; the sacrament, because there was no divorce. Only the nuptial intercourse was lacking, because in sinful f lesh it could not have occurred without that concupiscence of the f lesh that was the result of sin. He who would be without sin wished to be conceived without sin, not in sinful f lesh, so that even in this he might teach everyone that what is born of copulation is sinful f lesh, since only that f lesh which was not born of it was not sinful.37

Nevertheless, marital intercourse that happens with the intention of procreation is not itself a sin, since the good intention of the soul produces the consequences. Nor does the body submit to the attraction of pleasure; nor is the human will subjected to the dominance of sin, since the wound of sin is justly diminished by the intention of procreation. Likewise, concerning what 36 37

Augustine, Ad Valerianum comitem de nuptiis et concupiscentia: PL 44, 415. Augustine, Ad Valerianum comitem de nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.8(9): PL 44, 419.

H ELOISE TO A BELA R D

267

the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:6): “I say this by way of concession, however, not as a command.” Augustine continues in the same book on the marriage of Joseph and Mary: Wherever an indulgence is given, it is undeniable that there is some sinfulness. So since the intercourse properly permitted to marriage is not culpable when its purpose is procreation, what does the Apostle concede as an indulgence, but that the marriage partners, when they are not continent, seek the debt of the f lesh not with the purpose of procreation, but with the desire for pleasure? Enjoyed within marriage, however, this pleasure does not fall into sin, but for the sake of marriage it enjoys an indulgence. For this reason, even here marriage is praiseworthy, because even what does not belong to it is caused to be overlooked for the sake of marriage. Therefore, this intercourse by which one is enslaved to concupiscence should not be performed so as to impede the fetus that is the purpose of marriage. Nonetheless, it is not blameless to copulate except with the intention of procreation; it is, however, a venial sin that feeds the desire of the f lesh, but not at the wish of one’s spouse.38

Again, in the second book, Augustine writes: We do not condemn bread and wine on account of gluttons or drunkards, or gold because of the greedy and avaricious. Similarly, we also do not condemn the union of honest spouses because of the shameful passion of their bodies. For when there was no preceding commission of sin, the first couple might possibly not have been embarrassed. But when the passion was aroused after the original sin, then they were confounded by shame and forced to hide it. Thus it remained for the couples who came after them, even if they were performing this bad act well and lawfully, to avoid human sight and so to confess that it was shameful, since no one should cast shame on what is good.39

Thus two things are indicated: both the good of laudable unions by which children are begotten and the evil of shameful passion from which those begotten need to be reborn so that they should not be damned. So those who lie together lawfully use a shameful act well, while those who have illicit intercourse use a bad act badly. More properly then, does it receive the name of a bad thing than a good one, because it makes those blush who are good as well as bad. We put more faith in the person who says (Rom. 7:18): ‘I know that no good lies in me, that is, in my flesh.’ The person who calls the flesh good confesses that it is bad when he is shamed by it; if he is not embarrassed, however, he adds immodesty, which is worse. We say rightly, therefore, that the good of marriage cannot be charged with the original evil that is carried with it, just as the evil of adultery cannot be excused by the natural good that is born of it. For human nature that is born of either marriage or adultery is the work of God. If it were evil in itself, it would not be begotten; if it did not possess evil, regeneration would not be necessary. 38 39

Augustine, Ad Valerianum comitem de nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.11–12(13): PL 44, 421. Augustine, Ad Valerianum comitem de nuptiis et concupiscentia 2.21(36): PL 44, 457.

This page intentionally left blank

PART III RELATED LETTERS AND OTHER WRITINGS

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 10 ABELARD TO ABBOT BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX*

Background: Like Letter 9, this letter survives in a single manuscript (BnF lat. 13057). Although not precisely dated, it was very probably written not long before or, more likely, not long after 28 November 1131, a critical date in the lives of both Heloise and Abelard. This is the date of Pope Innocent II’s letter, our earliest surviving written testimony to the existence of Heloise herself and her new community, established on the site of Abelard’s oratory, and called the Paraclete. He reported in his Story of Calamities that he had granted this place to these women who had been expelled from Argenteuil two years earlier in its successful, though doubtfully valid, takeover by Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis. (For the pope’s letter, see Cartulaire de l’Abbaye du Paraclet, no. 1.1–3: the original of this charter is in the Bibliothèque municipale de Troyes, piéce 31; there is a copy in the Archives de l’Aube, 24 H 1.) Innocent’s claim to the papacy was also still questionable when he sent his letter not from distant Rome, but from Auxerre, some fi fty miles from the Paraclete. There he was ending a year-long campaign in France against his rival, Anacletus II, in the schismatic papal election of early 1130. Following his fl ight from Rome late in that year, powerfully supported by Bernard of Clairvaux and other French churchmen, Innocent was crowned as pope in Autun at Christmas. But his opponent remained entrenched in Rome and elsewhere, and the schism in the Church ended only with the death of Anacletus in 1138.1 Abelard would have met Innocent some years earlier, in late January, 1131, when he fi rst exercised papal authority in France, presiding over a meeting in the monastery of Mortigny that included eleven cardinals, numerous French bishops and other churchmen, notable among them Bernard of Clairvaux. Abelard himself, still abbot of Saint-Gildas, was warmly welcomed by the abbot of Morigny, who praised this “monk and abbot” as a “most religious man, and a most excellent director of schools, to which learned men have flocked from almost the whole Latin world.” Abelard apparently took advantage of this occasion to seek support in his continuing struggles with his recalcitrant and * 1

Translated from Peter Abelard, Letters IX–XIV, ed. and intro. Smits, pp. 239–47. See: Explanatory Notes, “Innocent II.”

272

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

menacing monks. Here, too, he could more readily pursue papal recognition for the Paraclete, evidently sought also by Heloise and supported by Bishop Hato of Troyes. In both cases, help was forthcoming. To arbitrate the matter of Saint-Gildas, Geoff rey, bishop of Chartres, was appointed papal legate, though his efforts ended in failure. More successfully, the papal letter of 28 November 1131 answered the “ just requests of his beloved daughter, Heloise, the prioress, and other sisters in the oratory of the Holy Trinity” and took her and her community with all that it possessed “under the protection of the Holy See.” Around this time Bernard visited the Paraclete, engaged in what may well have been a formal visitation, an “inspection,” either preceding or, more likely, following papal recognition of this community. Clearly, Bernard’s approval, and his criticism, seemed to Abelard important enough to evoke the detailed explanation found in Letter 10, which was evidently written before he had arrived at any open breach with Bernard. If the dating of this letter to 1131/32 is valid, Abelard’s reference to Heloise as “abbess” may seem puzzling, since she was not so addressed officially until 1135, in another letter of Innocent II. But it seems likely that she was given this title less formally in earlier years at the Paraclete. As Abelard declared, Bernard and his preaching were enthusiastically welcomed by Heloise and her nuns, and his own response was mostly positive. But the abbot of Clairvaux was “somewhat dismayed” to fi nd that in saying the Lord’s prayer, Heloise and her nuns had departed from the form commonly used in the Church. Following the Vulgate text of Matthew’s gospel, they were in the habit of using the words ‘supersubstantial bread,’ rather than ‘daily bread.’ In answer to Bernard’s criticism, reported privately by Heloise, Abelard drew on the evidence of Scripture, ecclesiastical tradition, and reason to support his contention that this version of the prayer, which he had introduced at the Paraclete, represented its earliest and most perfect form, and by no means an alarming liturgical innovation.2 But, unable to resist this opportunity, he went on to remind the abbot of Clairvaux of those Cistercian “novelties”—among them, the drastic curtailing of the monastic offices and the introduction of new hymns—which had aroused the wonder and antagonism of their rivals. His letter thus becomes a more general and enlightening, although controversial, discussion of the problems of diversity and innovation in monastic practice. Pervasively ironic in its stress on “novelties,” at times somewhat provocative in tone, yet speaking throughout in the voice of “sweet reason,” with overtones of a sardonic playfulness, this letter has been much debated in recent scholarship. To some scholars, for whose work consult the bibliography, notably Arno Borst, Joseph T. Muckle, and Chrysogonus Waddell, the display of Abelard’s gifts as an “ironist,” though significant, shows no real animosity toward its recipient. Other scholars, especially Jürgen Miethke, Lodewijk Engels, and David Luscombe, fi nd 2 Abelard, here exposed as a true child of the Vulgate, was mistaken in attributing the use of two different Greek words to the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The word “supersubstantialem” first appears in the Vulgate text of Jerome (Matt. 6.10). Jerome renders the same Greek word—“epiousion”—as “cotidianum” in Luke 11.3.

A B E L A R D T O A B B O T B E R N A R D O F C L A I RVA U X

273

in the letter clear signs of the hostility that is more evident in Abelard’s Sermon 14, and still more striking in the forceful attack on the Cistercians in another text attributed to Abelard by Engels in 1975 (“Adtendite a falsis prophetis”). Reflected also in its editor’s introduction, this markedly critical view of the letter, pointing again to the ironies and ambiguities that have inspired such confl icting judgments, weigh perhaps too heavily the later hostilities between Abelard and Bernard in their interpretation of a letter probably written a decade earlier. To his venerable and well-loved brother in Christ, Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, from Peter, his fellow priest.

W

hen I visited the Paraclete not long ago, being obliged to transact some business there, your daughter in Christ and my sister, who is called abbess of that place, told me with the greatest joy that you had made the pious visitation she had long desired and that, like an angel rather than a man, you had edified her and her sisters with your holy preaching. But she also informed me privately that, in the charity with which you have so particularly cherished me, you were somewhat disturbed because, in the daily offices, the Lord’s prayer is not said in the same fashion as it is recited elsewhere. Since you consider me responsible, it seems that I am to be reproached for an apparent innovation in this matter. On hearing this, I decided to write to you by way of explanation, especially because, quite properly, I find your criticism easier to bear than that of others. As you are well aware, the Lord’s prayer has come down to us only in the versions of Matthew and Luke, of whom the former, an apostle as well as an evangelist, was present when this prayer was fi rst said. There is no doubt, therefore, that he wrote it down more fully and more perfectly, together with the entire Sermon on the Mount of which it is a part. On the other hand, Luke, the disciple of Paul, who was not present at this sermon, did not write what he had heard from the Lord’s own lips, but what he had learned from Paul, who was clearly not present at the sermon. So Luke set down not the more perfect sermon that the Lord delivered on the Mount to his disciples, but what he told the multitude when he had come down from the mountain. Having gathered his apostles around him, the Lord, as it is written, “went up on the mountainside,” but when he was about to teach the multitudes, he returned below. In the one case, he went up and in the other, he came down, thus showing plainly how much more elevated was the doctrine in which he instructed those who were to be teachers themselves. Then we know from the testimony of St. Jerome, and it is manifestly true, that what has been heard is related in one way and what has been seen in another, and we report that best which we have most completely understood.3 Matthew drank from the fount itself, Luke from the stream that flowed from it. I am not accusing Luke of falsehood, nor will he be angry with us if we prefer Matthew to him and if we prefer the Lord’s prayer that was given to all of the apostles as a group and written down by an apostle, to the version reported by a disciple,

3

Jerome, Contra Rufinum 2.25: CCSL 79, 63.

274

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

especially since it is evident that Matthew’s version is superior in both authority and completeness. In order that we may judge more easily between the two if they are set before our eyes, it will be helpful to introduce them here. According to Matthew, when the Lord gave this prayer to his apostles, he said (6:9–13): This then is to be your prayer: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day our supersubstantial [the word used in the Vulgate] bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

But this is what Luke says (11:1–4): Once when he had found a place to pray in, one of his disciples said to him, after his prayer was over, ‘Lord, teach us how to pray, as John did for his disciples.’ He told them, when you pray, you are to say, ‘Father, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our sins; we too forgive all those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation.’

Thus it is obvious, as I have said, that Matthew reported this prayer more perfectly than Luke, since he set down its seven petitions, while Luke wrote only five. As was fitting, the version given to the apostles was more complete, consisting of that sevenfold number of petitions, which symbolizes the fullness of grace. Of this, Paul testifies that the apostles themselves had received the fi rst and most potent gifts, when he says (Rom. 8:23): “We have already begun to reap our spiritual harvest.” But the version Luke reports was given at the request of one of the disciples long after the Sermon on the Mount was delivered and, with its five petitions, is not improperly a symbol of its own imperfection. For the bodily senses are five in number and the gifts of the Spirit seven. So the number five appropriately stands for those things which, being still carnal, are inferior to those which are spiritual. There can be no doubt, I think, that since this disciple was certainly not among the apostles on the Mount when the Lord gave them the New Testament in which, as I have said, he introduced this prayer, Luke did not hear it directly. When he said: “Lord, teach us how to pray as John taught his disciples,” in mentioning John, who was in every way inferior to, and less perfect than Christ, he indicates also the very imperfection of his own statement. For it is very often asserted that John is a symbol of the Old Law, which consists of five books and was given to a carnal people guided by their senses rather than by reason, and greedy for material rather than spiritual goods. So it is not unreasonable to regard as inferior to an apostle the disciple who asked Christ for a lesson in prayer such as John had given. Because of this imperfection of his, the holy fathers were quite right in ordaining that Matthew’s more complete version should come into use and be recited in church services. Let the person who can do so give whatever reason, if any, there is for changing only one of Matthew’s words and saying ‘daily’ for ‘supersubstantial,’

A B E L A R D T O A B B O T B E R N A R D O F C L A I RVA U X

275

when we retain his other words. For the word ‘daily’ does not seem to express the excellence of this bread as well as ‘supersubstantial,’ and there is no little presumption in correcting the apostle’s words and thus composing a single prayer from the versions of two evangelists, as if neither were sufficient in itself. In this way, we seem to prefer what was not said by the Lord or reported in any evangelical writing, especially considering the fact that in all other passages from these writings that are recited in the Church, the words of each are kept distinct, however greatly they may vary in completeness. If, then, any one accuses me of innovation in this matter, let him consider whether that person should not be more criticized who presumes to compose from two prayers set down in ancient times a single new one, which might better be called “personal” than “evangelical.” For the reasons that I have given, I believe, the Greeks, whose authority is greater, as St. Ambrose says, have wisely embodied in their services only the version of Matthew, saying Tòv
ϱτоv mv τòv πιоv´ σιоv, which may be translated, “our supersubstantial bread.”4 Although Luke wrote in Greek and Matthew in Hebrew, the Greeks nonetheless decided to use a more ancient and more perfect prayer translated from a language that was strange to them, rather than to follow the Scripture in their own language. Judged by these arguments and precedents, if I am not mistaken, I should be accused of restoration rather than innovation, and should not be censured for presumption, since in this matter I am following both the Lord and the apostles as well as the manifest wisdom of the Greeks. It is beyond question that the apostles said this prayer as it was given to them by the Lord and was fi rst written down by the apostles in the very words in which they had received it from the Lord. Who, indeed, would not think that those who are living the common life, and thus imitating the life of the apostles, should also follow their teaching most faithfully? Since the Lord gave us this prayer, both in the words set down by Matthew and those written by Luke, and since he commanded that it should be said as he had given it, who would not regard as more than a little presumptuous those who do not say it as he did and as it was committed to writing? How bold it is, in saying this prayer, neither to follow what is written nor to observe the Lord’s precept, indeed, by re-writing it, to dare to correct the Lord himself, if such presumption can be called correction! But I am not ordering, or urging, anyone to follow me in this and depart from the common practice. Let everyone trust in his own understanding, yet let him remember, whomever he is, that common practice is not to be set before reason and custom is not to be preferred to truth. Both the secular law and the teaching of the holy fathers agree in strongly recommending this. According to the Code [of Justinian], book eight, chapter four: “The authority of custom and long use is not to be scorned, but it is not to be so highly valued has to outweigh reason and law.”5 And Augustine says in his On Baptism, book four: 4 5

Ambrose, De incarnationis Domini sacramento 8.82: CSEL 79, 265. Codex Justinianus 8.52/53, ed. P. Krueger (1877), p. 792.

276

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

In vain do those who are vanquished by reason use custom as an argument against us, as if custom were greater than truth or as if what has been more fully revealed by the Holy Spirit were not to be followed in matters of the spirit. For it is evident that reason and truth are to be preferred to custom.6

Writing to Bishop Wimund of Averso, Pope Gregory VII says: “If perchance you should cite custom against us, remember that the Lord said: ‘I am Truth.’ He did not say ‘I am Custom.’ ” 7 When St. Gregory [the Great] wrote to Augustine, bishop of the Angles, about the diverse customs of the Church, he left it to the bishop’s discretion, regarding the divine services and the celebration of the Mass, to choose whatever he wished from various other rites, and not to follow even the mother-church of Rome except in those things that he thought should be kept. He said: Your fraternity knows the custom of the Roman church, in which you were reared, but it is agreeable to me, if, having found in the Roman or Gallican or any other church something more pleasing to Almighty God, you select it carefully and by specific ordinance establish in the English church, which is still new to the faith, whatever you have been able to draw from many churches. For you should not adapt the practice to the place, but bring the place into conformity with good practices. Take from any of these churches whatever is pious, religious, and good and instill it all as custom in the minds of the Angles.8

Now if in such matters we are permitted to choose among the customs of different churches, it seems that, with respect to this prayer, our power of selection should permit us to follow the wisdom of the Greeks, from whom we have received a great deal of doctrine, so that we lack neither the authority of custom nor manifest reason. As far as reason is concerned, indeed, you [Cistercians] seem to follow it with such zeal in the divine services that you are so bold as to defend it against the custom of all the churches. For you, who are, so to speak, newly arisen and take great delight in novelty, have ordained by certain new decrees that you will perform the divine offices in a different fashion, contrary to every custom long established and now permanent among both clerics and monks. Yet you do not think you should be censured for this. If this innovation or singularity of yours departs from the ancient customs followed by others, then you believe that it is much more in harmony with reason and the meaning of the Rule. You do not care how much others may marvel at this and complain against it, so long as you act in conformity with your own reason, as you see it. To mention a few of these innovations (saving your grace!), you have rejected the customary hymns and have introduced others, less numerous, and unheard-of among us and unknown to almost all churches. Thus throughout the whole year on the vigils of both ordinary days and feast days, you are content with one and the same hymn, although, as manifest reason demands, the Church uses different 6 7 8

Augustine, De baptismo 4.5 (7): PL 43, 157; CSEL 51, 228. Gregory VII: Carnot, Decret. 4, 213: PL 161, 311bc. Gregory, Ep. 11.56: MGH, Epp. II, 334.

A B E L A R D T O A B B O T B E R N A R D O F C L A I RVA U X

277

hymns for the diverse feasts and festivals, such as psalms and other hymns known to belong to them. For this reason, those who hear you chant the same hymn—I mean the Aeterne rerum conditor—on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and other solemn feasts are struck dumb with amazement, and they are moved not so much to admiration as to derision.9 You have altogether abolished the prayers said everywhere after the Lord’s prayer and supplication, and those calling on the help of the saints as if the world did not need your prayers and you did not need those of the saints! And strange to say, although you dedicate all of your abbeys to the memory of the Lord’s mother, you do not keep any of her feasts or those of the other saints. You have also forbidden almost all veneration by means of procession. You do not stop saying “Alleluia” on Septuagesima Sunday, according to the common custom of the Church, but retain it even in Lent. You have banished from your offices the creed known as the Apostle’s creed, which from ancient times has been recited at prime and compline by clerics as well as monks. Yet you have decreed that the Athanasian creed is to be said only on Sundays. You chant the Gloria with the responses of the vigils only on the days of the Lord’s burial. You have altogether rejected ancient custom and in its place you have introduced the practice of saying the invitatory and hymn with only three readings and responses with the Gloria, contrary to the custom of the Church and reason, too, it is said. Since these three days of the Lord’s exequies, as we may describe them, are full of sorrow, and for this reason the vigils of these days are commonly called tenebrae because then our grief is expressed by the extinguishing of the lights. So it seems not a little surprising that an invitatory or a hymn or the Gloria, which are songs of rejoicing, rather than lamentation, should be sung at that time. All of these changes move everyone to wonder why you should prefer these innovations of yours to the practice of the entire Church. Yet you do not abandon your practices or care what others whisper about them, because you are confident that you are acting rationally and that, as Jerome said of himself, the purpose of the Rule has compelled you to undertake a new work.10 The Apostle does not forbid innovations in words, except for those that are profane and contrary to faith. Otherwise we should not prefer the New Law to the Old and, like the heretics, we should reject the many new words that have been found necessary to the faith since the canonical Scriptures were written. For example, in order to refute a new heresy, a new word, homoousion, was invented, and the words ‘Trinity’ and ‘Person’ are not to be found in the canonical Scriptures. With regard to the divine services, who is not aware of the many and diverse customs that exist among the clergy of the Church? Certainly, the ancient rite of the Roman See is not observed by that city itself, but the Lateran church alone, which is the mother of all, holds to the ancient offices and none of her daughters have followed her in this. In the metropolitan see of Milan, the very basilica of the Roman palace so differs from every other church in this respect that none of 9 Ambrose, Hymni, ed. Bulst, 39–162. This Ambrosian hymn was admired by Augustine in his Retractions and by Caesarius of Arles in his Rule. 10 Cf. Praefatio in Evangelium: Weber, 1969, 15.15.

278

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

her suff ragans follows the practice of the mother-church. So, too, the church of Lyons, the primatial see of Gaul, alone persists in following her own rite. Since there is such great variety in these matters, the practices introduced by one church after another have not been censured for novelty, because they have not been contrary to faith. This diversity in divine worship is in some ways delightful, since, as Cicero says, “uniformity in everything is the mother of satiety.”11 So he who wished his Gospel to be preached to peoples of every tongue, ordained that he is to be worshipped in different ways. Since he also composed in different fashions the prayer we have been discussing and commanded that it should be said in both ways, how are we to fulfill his precept if we presume to subtract a word and if we never say it in the same way as he did? To satisfy everyone, I now repeat what I said before, let each act according to his own understanding. Let us all say this prayer however we wish. I am not urging anyone to follow me in this respect, let us change the words of Christ as we please. But I shall keep these words and their meaning unchanged, in so far as I can.

11

Cicero, De inventione 1.41, 76.

LETTER 11 ABELARD TO HIS “COMRADES”

Background: The text of this letter, together with a study, was published in 1961 by Raymond Klibansky, who discovered it in MS Heidelberg 359, fol. 14v–15v; the text had been published still earlier by Jean Leclercq (“Études sur Bernard et le texte de ses écrits,” 1953). More recently, in 2002, Constant Mews studied in detail the meeting anticipated by Abelard’s letter (“The Council of Sens [1141]: Abelard, Bernard, and the Fear of Social Upheaval”). Examining its social and political as well as its religious contexts, Mews’s study convincingly establishes the council’s date as 25 and 26 May 1141. According to Mews, in a few weeks or less before the date set, even before he had received confi rmation that Bernard would respond to the summons of Archbishop Henry of Sens, Abelard had invited his students and friends to stand by him at the prospective meeting with Bernard at Sens. The abbot’s campaign against Abelard’s work had been gaining strength since his meeting in Paris with Abelard along with his friends and students perhaps a year earlier, but certainly more recently. Abelard’s letter, as Klibansky says, “confi rms some of the facts previously accepted, adds further detail to the general picture, and presents the whole in a very different light” (Klibansky, 8). After hearing from his friends that he and his opinions were being misrepresented in high ecclesiastical circles by Bernard, who was also trying to separate his students from him, Abelard had evidently decided to force their confl ict into the open. His letter proves that he conceived the plan of challenging Bernard, whose preaching in Paris included extravagant attacks on Abelard’s teaching as a threat to peace that could “re-ignite the schism and foment discord throughout Christendom.” To identify the particular recipients of this letter among Abelard’s many friends and sympathizers is impossible; Klibansky suggests that it may have been addressed in the fi rst place to his numerous adherents in Paris, but it must also have circulated more widely (Klibansky, 16). There can be little doubt that by broadcasting their confl icts, Abelard was forcing Bernard’s hand and leaving him no choice but to accept this challenge. This letter and the anticipated meeting seem also to have accelerated Bernard’s efforts to bring about Abelard’s condemnation, which are evident in the letters he wrote before, as well as after, the proposed

280

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

meeting at Sens. In his references to St. Vincent, martyred at Valencia in the late third century, Abelard apparently had in mind the analogy between Bernard’s attacks on him and the attempt of Vincent’s persecutor, the Roman governor Dacian, to destroy the martyr’s body after his death under torture. To his cherished comrades from their beloved servant, greetings. It is probably sufficient for the glory of the martyr Vincent that his enemy envied him the honor of the deeds ascribed to him.1 Something like this has now happened to me, if the greatest may be compared with the least. For that hidden enemy of mine, who until now has pretended to be my friend—indeed, my dearest friend—has now become so inflamed by envy that he can no longer tolerate the title of my writings, by which he believes that his own prestige is lowered as much as mine is elevated. Not long ago I heard that he was objecting strenuously because I had given that work of mine on the Holy Trinity, since the Lord granted me the ability to compose it, the title of “Theology.” He takes it so ill, in fact, that in his opinion it should be called “Stultology” [“Fools-Study”] rather than “Theology.” Thanks be to God that this work of mine, which once [at the council of Soissons in 1121] moved the masters and monks of France and those who were highly placed in the ranks of religion to such shameless and manifest envy, could be judged worthy of this honor! But the Lord will look after his own work, since I have written it with his inspiration; he will not permit it to be destroyed by the malice of the wicked. For this reason I hope, with the Lord’s help, to bring it about that the malice which has so often raged against my work will exalt it rather than suppress it. “Envy seeks out what is highest; the winds blow on the mountaintops and lightning seeks the tallest peaks.”2 You should know, however, that before I saw your affectionate messenger, I had heard from others how much poisonous abuse that Dacian of mine had poured out against me: what he had said in the presence of the lord archbishop of Sens and many of my friends, not to mention what he vomited up from the depths of his wickedness at Paris when I and others were present. At your request, therefore, the lord archbishop wrote to him, saying that if he wished to persist in this accusation against me, the archbishop would have me ready, in the octave of Pentecost, to answer the charges he had brought. I have not yet heard how he has answered that letter. But you may be sure that, the Lord willing, I shall come on the day set, and I wish to request you to be present. Farewell.

1 Vincent (†304): Cf. Augustine, Sermo., “Sermo in Natali Sancti Vincentii Martyris”: PL 54, 501–506. 2 Ovid, Remedia Amoris 1.369.

LETTER 12 ABBOT BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX TO CARDINAL IVO

Background: Bernard, the immensely influential abbot of Clairvaux and the formidable adversary of Abelard’s last years, was born at Fontaine-les-Dijon in 1090 and died at Clairvaux in 1153.1 The son of a noble Burgundian family, at twenty-one he became a monk of Citeaux, then in the early stages of its expansion as a center of reform in Benedictine monastic life. A few years later, Bernard was sent by the abbot, Stephen Harding, to found the new daughter-house at Clairvaux that was to play so important a role in the expansion of the Cistercian movement. During the schism in the Church caused by the long struggle for the papal office between Innocent II (Gregory Papareschi) and Anacletus II (Peter Pierleoni), Bernard was a most powerful supporter of Innocent’s claim. This was ultimately successful when the schism, beginning in 1130, ended with the death of Anacletus in 1138. It was during this period that the abbot of Clairvaux achieved the eminence, and the power, not only in France, but in Christendom as a whole, that he was to enjoy for the rest of his life. The following letters (here Letter 12 and Letter 13) are two of more than a dozen that Bernard took care to write to the pope and cardinals both before and after the Council of Sens, to ensure Abelard’s condemnation at Rome. Written shortly before the Council met on 25 and 26 May 1141, the first of these letters is addressed to Cardinal Ivo of Chartres, who as “Master Ivo” had been a regular canon and a canon lawyer before he was appointed to the college of cardinals by Innocent himself. Among the earliest masters to attain this position, he was fi rst cardinal deacon of Sta. Maria in Aquiro and later cardinal priest of S. Lorenzo in Damaso. To Cardinal Ivo, who was distinguished for his knowledge of law, Bernard emphasized Abelard’s apparently confl icted character as “a man at variance with himself, changing everything as he likes.” Countering Abelard’s claims to friends among the cardinals in curia, that Bernard both expressed confidence they would free the church of Abelard’s influence and also urged Ivo to support the prospective condemnation at Sens. Addressing Pope Innocent, evidently just after the Council, Bernard’s letter displays not only the “sublime eloquence” admired by his contemporaries, but 1

See: Explanatory Notes, “Bernard of Clairvaux.”

282

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

his consummate mastery of manipulative powers. Here, both were dedicated to securing Innocent’s support for Abelard’s condemnation and, more specifically, to warning the pope of the influence of Abelard’s friends among the cardinals and other members of the papal curia. Identified as especially threatening was Hyacinth (“Jacinctus”) Boboni, a member of the powerful Orsini family, a former student of Abelard’s in Paris, and a supporter of Anacletus II. Hyacinth became a cardinal in 1144 and very much later Pope Celestine III (1190–98). Bernard apparently also had in mind Cardinal Guy of Castello, likewise a former student of Abelard’s and regarded as friendly toward him. An exceptionally gifted scholar and teacher, the fi rst master (‘magister’) to be appointed to the college of cardinals, he was elected pope (Celestine II), as Innocent’s successor, in February 1143 and died in March 1144. Abelard’s enemies associated both Guy and Hyacinth with Arnold of Brescia, who was probably a former student of Abelard’s, and was regarded as socially and politically dangerous. An abbot of reformed canons and a supporter of his native city’s commune in its rebellion against the bishop, he had been expelled from Italy in 1139 and joined Abelard as a teacher on Mont Ste. Geneviève in Paris. Some years after his return to Italy, he led a “republican” movement in Rome against the pope and emperor (ca. 1154–55), by whose orders he was burned at the stake in 1155. Letter 12: To his dearest Ivo, by the grace of God cardinal priest of the Holy Roman Church, that he may love justice and hate iniquity, from Bernard, called abbot of Clairvaux.

M

aster Peter Abelard, a monk without a rule, a superior without responsibility, neither keeps order nor remains in an order. He is a man at variance with himself, a Herod inside, a John outside, an utterly unreliable person, having nothing of the monk about him but the name and the habit. But what is that to me? Everyone must bear his own burdens (Gal. 6:5). There is another thing I cannot overlook, something that concerns everyone who loves the name of Christ. He gives voice to iniquity in high places (Ps. 72:8). He corrupts the integrity of the faith and the chastity of the Church. He transgresses the landmarks (1 Cor. 117) that the fathers have set. In discussing and writing about the faith, the sacraments, and the Holy Trinity, he changes everything as he likes, adding to it or taking from it. In his books and his actions, he shows himself a fabricator of falsehoods, a planter of perverse teachings, proving himself a heretic not so much by his error as by his stubborn defense of error. He is a man who exceeds his own limitations, making void the virtue of the Cross by the cleverness of his words. There is nothing in heaven or on earth that he does not know, except himself. With his book, he was condemned at Soissons [in 1121] in the presence of the legate of the Roman church. But as if that condemnation were not enough, he is once more acting in such a way as to get himself condemned again. Now his most recent error is worse than his first (Matt. 27:64). Yet he considers himself safe, for he boasts that he has disciples among the cardinals and clerics of the

B E R N A R D O F C L A I RVA U X T O C A R D I N A L I V O

283

curia and when he ought to be afraid that they will judge and condemn him, he assumes instead that they will defend his past and present error. If anyone has the spirit of God (Rom. 8:9), let him remember that verse “Lord, do I not hate the men who hate thee, am I not sick at heart over their rebellion?” (Ps. 138:21). May God free his Church, through you and his other sons, from the treacherous lips and deceitful tongue (Ps. 119:2)!

Translated from Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. Jean Leclercq, et al., 8 vols. (Rome, 1956–77):8.44–48 (Ep. 193).

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 13 ABBOT BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX TO POPE INNOCENT II*

To his most loving father and lord, Innocent, by the grace of God supreme pontiff, the devotion, for what it is worth, of brother Bernard, called abbot of Clairvaux.

S

candals are necessary, necessary (Matt. 18:7) but unpleasant! So the prophet says: “Had I but wings, I cry, as a dove has wings, to f ly away and find rest (Ps. 54:7).” And the Apostle wants to have done with it all and be with Christ, and another of the saints [Elias] cries: “I can bear no more; Lord, put an end to my life; I have no better right to live than my fathers” (3 Kings 19:4). This is something I now have in common with the saints, although only in what I desire and not in what I deserve. For I, too, long to be taken out of all this, overcome, I confess, by cowardice of spirit and the storm raging around me (Ps. 54:9). But I am afraid that I should not be found as well prepared to depart as I am ready. I am weary of life and I do not know whether it would be well for me to die. So perhaps even in my desire I am cut off from the saints, who were urged on by their longing for better things, while I am impelled to go only to escape scandals and calamities. The Apostle says (Philip. 1:23): “I long to have done with it, and be with Christ.” Thus in the saint the desire was stronger, whereas, in my case, emotion prevails. But in this most wretched life he could not have the good that he desired, nor can I be free of the anxiety I suffer. Although we are alike in our wish to depart, we differ in our motives for wishing this. Fool that I am, I was just promising myself some peace, since the raging of the lion [Peter Pierleoni, Pope Anacletus II] has been crushed and peace restored to the Church. Now the Church is peaceful, but I am not. I was not remembering that I am in the vale of tears (Ps. 83:7); I was forgetting that I am still in the land of forgetfulness (Ps. 87:13). I failed to consider that the earth on which I live brings forth thorns and trials for me (Gen. 3:18) and that when these have been * Translated from Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. Jean Leclercq, et al., 8 vols. (Rome, 1956–77): 8.12–16 (Ep. 189).

286

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

cut back, new ones grow in their place, and more new ones will replace them, and so on endlessly. I had heard this, but now, as I have found, the experience of trouble makes one understand better what one has heard (Isaiah 28:19). Sorrow is always renewed and never ends for me; my tears pour forth because evil has grown stronger. First the frost came, and now the snow ( Job 6:16). Who can endure in the face of this cold (Ps. 147:17)? In its iciness charity itself grows cold, so that iniquity abounds (Matt. 24:12). We have escaped the lion [Peter Pierleoni] only to fall before the dragon [Peter Abelard] (Ps. 9:29) who is, perhaps, no less dangerous hiding in his lair than the lion raging in the open. But the dragon is no longer in hiding; if only his poisonous writings were still hidden on their shelves and not being discussed at the crossroads! His books have wings and those who hate the light ( John 3:20) because they are evil, have rushed into the light, thinking that it is darkness. Darkness rather than light is being brought into cities and castles, poison instead of honey, or rather poison mixed with honey, is being offered to everyone everywhere. His writings have passed from country to country and from one kingdom to another (Ps. 104:3). A new gospel is being made up for peoples and societies, a new faith is being proposed and another foundation is being laid beside that already established (1 Cor. 3:11). Virtues and vices are being discussed immorally, the sacraments of the Church are being examined in a way that is contrary to faith, the mystery of the Holy Trinity is debated neither simply nor soberly. Everything is being presented to us perversely; everything is being said differently, in a fashion unlike anything we are used to hearing (Gal. 1:9). Goliath the giant advances (1 Kings 17:41), arrayed in noble and warlike splendor, preceded by his armor-bearer, Arnold of Brescia.1 Scale overlaps scale and there is no breathing-space left between them ( Job 41:7). The French bee [Abelard] has buzzed to the bee in Italy [Arnold] (Isaiah 7:18) and they have joined together against the Lord and against his anointed (Ps. 2:2). They have stretched their bows; they have arrows ready in the quiver, to shoot from hiding at the just in heart (Ps. 10:3). In food and clothing they have the appearance of piety, but they reject its virtue and deceive many (2 Tim. 3:5) by making themselves seem like angels of light when they are Satans (2 Cor. 11:14). Goliath, standing between the two lines of battle with his armor-bearer, cries out against the ranks of Israel and mocks the forces of the saints all the more boldly because there is no David to oppose him. He insults the doctors of the Church by his exaggerated praise of the philosophers. He prefers their ideas and his own novelties to the doctrine and faith of the Catholic fathers. When all the rest have fled before him, he invites me, the least of all, to single combat. At his request, the archbishop of Sens wrote to me to set the day of the meeting, at which Abelard, in the presence of the archbishop and his fellowbishops, should establish, if he could, those evil doctrines of his against which I have dared to murmur. I refused, because I am a mere child in the kind of warfare to which he has been accustomed since his youth (1 Kings 17:33), and 1

See: Explanatory Notes, “Arnold of Brescia.”

B E R N A R D O F C L A I RVA U X T O P O P E I N N O C E N T I I

287

also because I judged it unworthy to entrust the faith, which clearly rests on sure and unchanging truth, to be debated in the petty syllogisms of men. I said that his writings provide sufficient evidence against him and it was not my business but the work of the bishops to make judgments concerning the doctrines of which they are ministers. However, he was undaunted and raised his voice all the louder, calling on many and assembling his supporters. I do not care to tell you what he wrote about me to his disciples. He spread the word everywhere that he was going to answer me at Sens on the day that he had set.2 The news went out to everyone ( John 21:23) and I could not hide myself. At fi rst, I pretended not to notice, for I was not very much troubled by what people were saying. But at last I gave in, though unwillingly and sorrowfully, to the advice of my friends, who saw how everyone was preparing as if for a show. They were afraid that my absence would only increase the man’s influence and cause greater scandal to the people. They thought, too, that his error might seem to be confi rmed if no one were there to answer and refute it. So I appeared at Sens on the appointed day, unprepared, certainly, and unarmed, except with those words I kept turning over in my mind: “Do not consider anxiously what you are to say or how you are to say it; words will be given when the time comes (Matt. 10–19)” and also: “With the Lord at my side, I have no fear of the worst man can do (Ps. 117:6).” Besides the bishops and abbots, a great many religious men had assembled there, and masters of the schools from various cities, and many learned clerics, and the king [Louis VII] was also there. As I was standing face to face with the adversary in the presence of everyone, certain headings taken from his books were produced. When I began to read them, he refused to listen and walked out, appealing from the judges he had chosen, which I do not think was permissible. Afterwards, when these headings had been examined, they were found in the judgment of all to be opposed to the faith and contrary to the truth. 3 I have written all this in my own defense, for fear that I may be accused of levity or at least of rashness in so important a matter. But you, the successor of St. Peter, will judge whether one who has attacked the faith of Peter ought to fi nd a refuge in the See of Peter. You, I say, the friend of the Bridegroom ( John 3:29), will fi nd a way to free the bride “from the treacherous lips and deceitful tongue” (Ps. 119:2). But, if I may speak a little more boldly to my lord, look also to yourself and to the grace of God that is in you. When you were still small in your own eyes, did not God place you over peoples and kingdoms (1 Kings 15:17)? And for what other purpose than that you should root out and destroy, build and plant ( Jer. 1:10)? He took you from your father’s house and anointed you with the unction of his mercy (2 Kings 7:8). Consider, I beg you, what great things he has done for your soul, both then and afterwards; how much he has done (Ps. 65:16) for his Church through you; how many weeds in the Lord’s field, as heaven and earth bear witness, have been powerfully and 2

Cf. Letter 11. These “headings” had been presented to the bishops the night before the council met and at that time were condemned by them. 3

288

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

wholesomely uprooted and destroyed; how many things have been well built, planted, and propagated. God has raised up the madness of schismatics in your time so that they might be crushed by your hand. I have seen a fool well rooted and at once his beauty was cursed ( Job 5:3). I have seen, I say, an impious man exalted and raised up like the cedars of Lebanon, and I passed by, and behold, he was no longer (Ps. 36:35–36). As the Apostle says, there must be heresies and schisms so that those who are faithful may be distinguished from the rest (1 Cor. 11:19). God has tested you and found you faithful (Ps. 138:1). But in order that your crown should not lack anything, heresies have now sprung up. For the perfection of your power (Ecclus. 50:11), you should not be found to have done less than the great bishops who were your predecessors. Catch for us, most loving father, while they are still small, the foxes destroying the Lord’s vine (Cant. 2:15), for fear that if they grow and multiply, any that you do not exterminate may be the despair of those who come after you. As a matter of fact, they are now neither small nor few, but certainly quite large and numerous, and they are not to be exterminated except by a strong hand (Exod. 13:3) or by you yourself. Hyacinth has shown us much ill (2 Tim. 4:14) will, but he has not done what he wished, because he could not. It seemed to me that I should bear patiently what he has not spared either you or the curia. But my Nicholas, who is yours, too, can tell you all this better by word of mouth.

LETTER 14 PETER THE VENERABLE: LETTER TO POPE INNOCENT II*

Background: The fi rst of these letters from Peter the Venerable, the letter to Pope Innocent II announcing Abelard’s reconciliation with Bernard of Clairvaux, and asking permission for him to spend the rest of his life at Cluny, was very probably written in the summer of 1141, when Abelard had stopped at Cluny on his way to Rome after the council of Sens.1 The personal qualities that distinguished him among the most prominent churchmen of this time and the affectionate friendship he showed to both Abelard and Heloise in their later life are displayed in the following letters. Reflecting what Gillian Knight well describes as “studied vagueness” and the “selective narration of events,”2 not uncommon characteristics of Peter’s correspondence, his letter is a masterpiece of minimization, aimed at the rescue of Abelard from this latest, and last, of his “calamities.” Without mentioning the council of Sens and Abelard’s condemnation there, or naming the “certain men” involved in it, Peter let its victim speak for himself as one “gravely troubled” by the attacks of these men, “who called him a heretic, a name he abhorred,” and as one seeking to “appeal to apostolic justice and take refuge in its protection.” After reporting to the pope that he had approved of Abelard’s plan and assured him that justice would not be denied him, Peter moved at once to the fi rst stage of his rescue. This was the meeting to be arranged between Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux, whom Peter explicitly identifies as the “cause” of Abelard’s appeal. Its papal recipient would also have read, among a plethora of such messages, the preceding letter (here Letter 13) of Bernard with its alarming images of Abelard as “dragon” and “Goliath,” and its warnings of social and political as well as spiritual disaster. Peter chose much milder words, reducing Bernard’s ominous threat by portraying the frail and ageing Abelard as a victim of persecution rather than a warrior prepared for battle. * 1 2

Translated from The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. Constable, 1.98, 258–59. See: Explanatory Notes, “Peter the Venerable.” Knight, The Correspondence between Peter the Venerable and Bernard of Clairvaux, p. 479.

290

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

Apparently bypassing the processes of condemnation and appeal, assuming the permanence of Abelard’s stay in Cluny, Peter at once joined in the peacemaking efforts of Abbot Raynard of Citeaux, to whom he assigned the major role, summing up his success in spare detail. Michael Clanchy has pointed out that there is no Cistercian record of any agreement between Abelard and Bernard (Abelard, p. 321). But Peter the Venerable himself later assured Heloise that Abelard had been “restored to apostolic favor by letters and my efforts” (see below, Letter 15). He also referred in this letter to Abelard’s frequent reception of the sacraments, which could hardly have been possible if he had remained excommunicated. In any case, for Peter the Venerable, in this earlier letter, the rescue of Peter Abelard appeared complete. His “permanent home” in Cluny needed only the papal acceptance of a solution eloquently sought and evidently won by its abbot, his appeal supported by shrewd references to “our special father” and “your” Cluny as the pope’s own monastery, the property of St. Peter. To the supreme pontiff and our special father, the lord pope Innocent, brother Peter, the humble abbot of Cluny, sends his obedience and love.

W

hen Master Peter, who is, I think, very well known to your wisdom, passed by Cluny recently on his way from France, we asked him where he was going. He replied that he was gravely troubled by the attacks of certain men who had called him a heretic, a name he abhorred, and that he had appealed to the apostolic majesty and wished to take refuge in its protection. We praised his plan and encouraged him to f lee to this recognized and common refuge. We assured him that the apostolic justice, which has never failed anyone, even the stranger and pilgrim, would not be refused him. We promised him that he would find mercy as well, if it should be needed. Meanwhile, the abbot of Citeaux [Raynard] arrived and discussed both with him and with me the restoration of peace between Master Peter and the lord of Clairvaux, who was the cause of his appeal to you. We did our best to make peace between them, and urged Master Peter to go with the abbot of Citeaux to visit the abbot of Clairvaux. We also advised him that if he had written or said anything offensive to Catholic ears, he should follow the abbot’s urging and that of other good and wise men to retract it verbally and erase it from his books. And so he did. He went and he returned, and on his return he reported that, through the mediation of the abbot of Citeaux, his quarrel with the lord of Clairvaux had been settled and they had met together peaceably. Meanwhile, on our advice, or rather by divine inspiration, I believe, Master Peter has decided to abandon the commotion of the schools and study and make his permanent home in your Cluny. Regarding this as suitable for one of his advanced years, his infi rmity, and his monastic calling, and believing that his learning, which is well known to you, could benefit a multitude of our brothers, we assented to his wishes. If it should please your grace, we have courteously and joyfully agreed that he should remain with us, who are, as you know, yours in every way. Therefore I, who am yours whatever else I may be, beg you, the most devout congregation of Cluny begs you on its own behalf, through me and

PETER TH E VENER A BLE TO POPE INNOCENT II

291

through your sons, the bearers of this letter, and by this letter that it has requested me to write, to permit Master Peter to spend in your Cluny the remaining days of his life and old age, which perhaps will not be many. We beg you, who cherish all good men, to protect with the apostolic shield this man also whom you have loved, so that no one’s pressure can drive him out or dislodge him from the home that, like the sparrow, from the nest that, like the turtle-dove, he is happy to have found (Ps. 83:4).

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 15 PETER THE VENERABLE: A LETTER TO HELOISE*

Background: Since the date commonly assigned to Abelard’s death is 21 April 1142, Peter the Venerable’s fi rst letter to Heloise was, as his apologetic words suggest, considerably belated. Besides the ever pressing and diverse duties of which he complained, his sojourn in Spain lasted from March to October 1142. His absence may well have extended into 1143, which would have delayed his learning of Abelard’s death and his response to Heloise’s own previous letter. In any case his moving, and famous, letter responding to hers was perhaps not quickly composed. Sadly, Heloise’s “kind letter” also later became a “lost letter” and with it more specific expression of the affection she had shown him both in the letter and the gifts she had sent earlier. This loss is especially unfortunate since, beyond the themes that Peter’s reply suggests—Heloise’s concern about the circumstances of Abelard’s death and her request for his body—we can only speculate about other possibilities of her letter. It might, for example, have referred to her correspondence with Abelard with a precision that could contribute significantly to a fi nal closure of the world of wishful thinking that has intermittently dominated the long ‘afterlives’ of Heloise and Abelard and their personal records. Among these records their correspondence is centrally important. For though its authenticity is now, after much debate, largely accepted by its closest students, for others the door of doubt remains ajar. This gap is largely supported by another, the gap of a century or more between the presumed dating of the correspondence and its earliest surviving manuscripts. It may be further closed by other evidence of at least part of the correspondence (Letter 8) at the Paraclete in the mid-twelfth century. In any case, what we do know is that Heloise’s petitions regarding Abelard’s death and burial are evident in Peter’s subsequent action in having Abelard’s body removed from its original tomb in the infi rmary chapel of SaintMarcel-les-Chalôn—secretly, in order to conceal from the monks their loss of this distinction—and conveyed it to Heloise for burial at the Paraclete. In her letter to Peter after this visit (Letter 16), she referred to its date as 16 November (16 kal. Decembris), without giving the year, which may have been 1143 or, *

Translated from The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. Constable, 1.115, 303–308.

294

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

though less likely, even as late as 1146. Nor does Peter’s reply, so eloquent in praise of his reception by Heloise and her nuns, offer any specific clue to its date. Although it seems highly probable that their friendship continued after this visit, no further correspondence between them has survived. Peter the Venerable died in 1156, but the date of Heloise’s death is less defi nitely established. According to the necrology of the Paraclete she died on 16 May in either 1163 or 1164, then probably in her middle or later sixties. She was buried, as Abelard had been earlier, before the high altar in the oratory that he and his students had built. Their bodies remained in this place until their removal and re-interment in the monastery’s new church in 1497, the fi rst in the remarkable series of exhumations and reburials that would bring their remains in the early nineteenth century to the cemetery of Père-Lachaise in Paris. To his venerable and best beloved sister in Christ, the abbess Heloise, brother Peter, the humble abbot of Cluny, wishes the salvation that God promises to those who love him.

I

was delighted to receive the kind letter you sent to me some time ago by my son Thibaut, and I embraced it as a friend for the sake of its sender. I wanted to write immediately what was in my heart, but I could not do so, prevented as I was by the troublesome demands of my duties, to which I am very often— indeed, almost always—compelled to yield. I have only just snatched what time I could in a day of confusing interruptions. I really should have hastened to make at least the recompense of words for your affection for me, of which both your letter and the gifts you sent me earlier made me aware.1 I should have shown you how large a place of love for you in the Lord I keep in my heart. Certainly, I have not just begun to love someone whom I remember having loved for a long time. I had not altogether left my fi rst youth, I had not quite reached young manhood, when the fame, not yet of your piety, but of your distinguished and praiseworthy studies became known to me. I heard then that a woman, though still not freed from worldly ties, was deeply devoted to literary studies, which is most unusual, and to the pursuit of wisdom, albeit wisdom of the world. I heard that she could not be prevented by worldly pleasures, frivolities, and delights from the useful purpose of learning the arts. In a time when a detestable laziness keeps almost everyone from these studies, and when the progress of wisdom can come to a standstill—I do not say among women, by whom it is entirely rejected, but when it can hardly fi nd virile minds among men—you, through your praiseworthy zeal, have completely excelled all women, and surpassed almost all men. In the words of the Apostle (Gal. 1:15), as it pleased him who brought you forth from your mother’s womb to call you by his grace, it was not long before you exchanged this devotion to learning for a far better one. Now fully and truly a woman of wisdom, you have chosen the Gospel instead of logic, the Apostle in place of philosophy, Christ rather than Plato, the cloister 1

This constitutes Proof of Heloise’s prior letter.

PETER TH E V EN ER A BLE: A LETTER TO H ELOISE

295

instead of the Academy. You have snatched the spoils from the defeated enemy and, passing through the desert of this pilgrimage with the treasures of the Egyptians, you have built in your heart a precious tabernacle for God. You have sung a song of praise as Miriam did when Pharaoh was drowned (Exod. 15:20), and carrying in your hands the tambour of holy mortification as she once did, you have sent forth with skilled musicianship a new melody to the very ears of God. In assuming the struggle that, with God’s grace, you will continue successfully, you have now trampled underfoot the ancient serpent who is always lying in wait for women, and you have so driven him out that he will never dare to tempt you further. “He has not his like among the strong things of earth, that fearless nature, that heaven-confronting eye. Over all the pride of earth he reigns supreme,” according to the words of God himself to the holy Job (41:24–25), and you have chained him up to lament for you and the handmaids of God who dwell with you. Truly this is a singular miracle, to be praised above all wondrous works, that he whom the prophet Ezekiel (31:8) called a tree so tall that “in God’s own garden cedar could not overtop it, fi r-tree match it for height,” was brought low by the frail sex, and the strongest of archangels overcome by the weakest of women. In such a duel, the Creator gains the very greatest glory and, on the other hand, the utmost humiliation is heaped upon the deceiver. In this struggle, he earns the reproach of having been not only foolish but, above all, ridiculous, because he aspired to equal the divine majesty when he could not even win a brief battle with woman’s weakness. The woman who is victorious in such a contest deserves to wear on her head a jeweled crown from the King of Heaven, so that, as she was the weaker physically in the battle just ended, she might seem the more glorious in her eternal reward. I offer these words, dearest sister in the Lord, not to flatter you, but to encourage your devotion to that great good in which you have persevered for some time. In this way you may be more eager to continue preserving it carefully and by your words and your example, according to the grace God gives you, you may inspire those holy women who serve the Lord with you to strive anxiously in the same contest. Although you are a woman, you are one of those creatures whom the prophet Ezekiel saw, who should not only burn like flaming coals but should glow and shine like torches (1:14). You are truly a disciple of truth, but you are also by that very obligation, in so far as it concerns those committed to your care, a mistress of humility. Plainly, God has imposed on you the complete mastery of humility and of all celestial discipline. You should, therefore, be concerned not only for yourself, but also for the flock committed to your care and on behalf of everyone, you should in every way receive a greater reward. Surely the palm of victory awaits you as the leader of your flock since, as you know best, as many times as this world and the prince of this world have been overcome through your leadership, so many triumphs, so many glorious trophies, will await you with the eternal King and Judge. It is not altogether unusual among mortals for women to be ruled by women and not entirely strange also for them to fight in battle, and even accompany men themselves to battle. If the saying is true that it is “not unlawful to learn

296

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

from the enemy,” it is written that among the pagans, Penthesilea, the queen of the Amazons, with her followers, who were not men but women, often fought in battle at the time of the Trojan War, and that among the people of God, too, the prophetess Deborah inspired Barach, the judge of Israel, against the heathen ( Judges 4:9). Why, then, should it not be permitted for women of courage, going forth to battle against a strong army, to be made leaders of the Lord’s army, since that Deborah fought against the enemy with her own hand, which seemed most unbecoming? Why should not this Deborah of ours lead, arm, and inspire men themselves in the divine warfare? After King Jabin had been defeated, and the leader, Sisera, slain, and the godless army destroyed, that other Deborah at once sang a song, and she sang it devoutly in praise of God. With God’s grace, you shall be doing this, too, after the victory over enemies stronger by far has been given to you and your companions, and you shall never cease to sing, far more gloriously, that song of yours which, thus rejoicing, you shall sing, just as you shall never cease rejoicing. Meanwhile you shall be with the handmaidens of God—that is, with the celestial army—as that other Deborah was with her own Jewish people. Hence you shall never rest from so gainful a contest at any time or in any case, except in victory. Since the name, Deborah, as your learning knows, means ‘bee’ in Hebrew, you shall also be in this way another Deborah, that is, a bee. You shall make honey, but not for yourself alone, since whatever good you have gathered in different ways and from different sources you shall pour forth, by example, by words, and in every possible way, upon the sisters of your house and upon all others. In this short span of mortal life, you shall satisfy yourself with the secret sweetness of sacred learning and the holy sisters with public preaching, so that, according to the words of the prophet ( Joel 3:18): “The mountain slopes will drip with new wine and the hills will flow with milk and honey.” Although these words may be said concerning this present time of grace, nothing prevents their being understood concerning the time of glory—indeed, it is even sweeter. It would be a pleasure for me to continue discussing this further with you, because I am not only delighted by your celebrated learning, but far more attracted by your piety, which is praised by many. If only our order of Cluny had you! If only the pleasant prison of Marcigny held you, along with the other handmaids of Christ awaiting celestial freedom there! I should prefer to have the riches of piety and learning rather than the treasures of any king, and I should rejoice to see that illustrious body of sisters shine more brilliantly with you dwelling there. You yourself would gain no little benefit from them, and you would marvel to behold the highest worldly nobility and pride trampled underfoot. You would see all kinds of magnificence transformed into a wonderful austerity and what were once impure vessels of the devil turned into the purest temples of the Holy Spirit. You would see the daughters of God, snatched as if by theft from Satan and the world, building high walls of virtues on the foundation of innocence and extending the roof of this happy edifice even to the heights of heaven. You would rejoice to see those distinguished by angelic virginity, together with the most chaste widows, all

PETER TH E V EN ER A BLE: A LETTER TO H ELOISE

297

now buried bodily in the tomb of blessed hope, and all alike awaiting the glory of that great and blessed resurrection beneath the narrow walls of this house. Since you may have all these blessings and perhaps greater ones in the companions whom God has given you, it may be that nothing can be added to your zeal for holiness. Yet our community would, I feel, be greatly enriched if your gifts were added to it. Although this may have been denied us in your case, by the providence of God that disposes all things, it was granted in the case of your own Master Peter, who is often and always to be named with honor, the servant and truly the philosopher of Christ, whom in the last years of his life the same divine providence brought to Cluny. And he enriched her in and by that gift which is more precious than gold and topazes (Ps. 118:127). A brief word cannot describe his holy, humble, and devout life among us, as Cluny bears strong witness. Unless I am mistaken, I do not remember ever having seen his like in the appearance and actions of humility, so that even to the very discerning, St. Germain would not have appeared more humble, or St. Martin poorer. When, at my command, he took a superior rank in the great assembly of our monks, he seemed the least in the plainness of his clothing. I often marvelled as he walked before me, according to custom, in processions with the others. Indeed, I was almost astounded that so famous a man could belittle and humble himself in this way. While some of those vowed to the religious life wish the habits they wear to be exceedingly expensive, he was most austere in this and, content with a simple garment of any kind, he asked for nothing more. He observed this same austerity also in food and drink and in all that concerned his body, and by his words and his life he condemned, I do not say excess alone, but everything except what was really necessary, both for himself and for everyone. He read constantly, he prayed often, and his silence was perpetual, except in familiar conversation with the brothers or in public discussion when they were assembled together and he was pressed to speak to them on sacred subjects. He frequented the sacraments as often as he could, offering the sacrifice of the immortal Lamb of God. Indeed, after the apostolic favor had been granted, by letters and through my efforts, his attendance at the sacraments was almost continual. What more can I say? With his mind, his tongue, and his work, always serving God, always philosophical, ever more learned, he meditated, taught, and spoke. Living in this way with us for some time, this simple and upright man, fearing God and withdrawing from evil, consecrated to the Lord the last days of his life. To end these days, since he was troubled more than ever by an eruption of the skin and other bodily affl ictions, I sent him to Saint-Marcel-lès-Châlon. In that pleasant setting, which surpasses almost all regions of our Burgundy, I hoped to provide a proper place for him, near the city, to be sure, yet close by the River Saone. There, as much as his illness permitted, he renewed his former studies and was always bending over his books. He did not, in the words of Gregory the Great, allow a single moment to be wasted but was always praying or reading or writing or dictating. In these holy activities, the coming of the angelic visitor found him, not sleeping, as many are, but vigilant. It found him truly watchful, and summoned

298

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

him, not as the foolish, but as the wise virgin to the marriage-feast of eternity. He brought with him a lamp full of oil, I mean a conscience fi lled with the testimony of a holy life. To pay the common debt of mortality, he was seized by illness and, as it worsened, he was in a short time brought to his end. Then, truly, how holy, how devout, how catholic was the confession he made, first of his faith and then of his sins! With what longing of his loving heart he received the last repast of the journey and the pledge of eternal life, the body of the Lord our Redeemer! How faithfully he commended to him his body and soul here and forever; his brothers in religion are witnesses along with all those who dwell in that monastery where the body of the holy martyr, Marcellus, lies. So Master Peter brought his days to a close, and he who was known throughout almost the whole world for his unique mastery of knowledge and was everywhere famous, persevered, meek and humble, in the discipleship of him who said (Matt. 11:29): “Learn from me; I am gentle and humble of heart,” and thus passed over to him, as we rightly believe. Now, venerable and dearest sister in the Lord, this man to whom you were bound fi rst by the ties of the flesh and later by the much stronger and better bond of divine love, with whom and under whom you have long served the Lord—this man, I say, in your place and as another you, Christ cherishes in his own embrace. He holds him to be restored to you by his grace at the coming of the Lord, when he descends from heaven with the singing of archangels and the sound of the trumpet. Remember him in the Lord. Remember me also, if it pleases you. And solicitously commend to those holy sisters who serve the Lord with you, the brothers of our congregation and the sisters who everywhere in the world are serving, as well as they can, the same Lord as you do.

LETTER 16 HELOISE TO PETER THE VENERABLE*

To the most reverent lord and father Peter, the venerable abbot of Cluny, from Heloise, God’s humble servant and also his, the spirit of saving grace.

W

ith a visitation of God’s mercy, we have received the favor of a visit from your excellency. We rejoice, most gracious father, and we glory in the fact that your greatness should have descended to our smallness. For a visit from you is a great glory even for the greatest. Others may know what a blessing your sublime presence has conferred upon them. As for myself, I cannot put into words, or even comprehend in thought, how beneficial and delightful your coming was to me. Our abbot and our lord, on November 16 (16 kal. Decembris) last year, you celebrated here a mass in which you commended us to the Holy Spirit. You nourished our spirits in chapter with a funeral oration of divine eloquence. You gave us the body of our master and so yielded to us the distinction belonging to Cluny. To me also, whom, unworthy though I am of the name of servant, you in your sublime humility have not disdained to call sister in both writing and speech, you gave as a token of love and sincerity a certain rare privilege, that is, a tricennarium [thirty masses offered on as many days in behalf of the dead] which the congregation of Cluny will offer for me when I am dead. You promised to confi rm this gift with the supreme honor of your seal. Do this, then, brother or rather master, as you promised your sister or rather your servant. Please send me the other seal containing in plain words the absolution of our master, so that it may be hung above his tomb. And remember, for the love of God, our Astralabe and yours, and try to procure a prebend for him either from the bishop of Paris or from some other bishop. Farewell. May the Lord keep you and sometimes grant us your presence.

*

Translated from The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. Constable, 1.167, 400–402.

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 17 PETER THE VENERABLE TO HELOISE*

To our venerable and dearest sister and God’s servant, to the leader and teacher of God’s handmaidens, from brother Peter, the humble abbot of Cluny, greetings in God and the fullness of love from us in Christ.

I

have been greatly pleased to read your letter, from which I have learned that my visit to you was not merely a transitory one, in which I am assured not only that I was with you, but that I have never left you. That visit of mine was not, I realize, like the memory of a passing guest for the night and I have not become for you “a stranger and a pilgrim” (Gen. 23:4), but, please God, “a citizen of the holy places and a member of the household” (Ephes. 2:19). All that I said and did in that swift and f leeting visit of mine has been embraced so firmly in your pious memory, so deeply impressed on your gracious spirit, that not only what I said very carefully, but even words perhaps carelessly spoken, have not fallen to the ground. You have paid such careful attention to everything; you have entrusted all I said and did to that tenacious memory which springs from love of truth, as if mine were great, celestial and sacrosanct utterances, as if they were the very words and works of Jesus Christ! Perhaps you have been moved to preserve them in this way by the words of our common Rule, I mean both ours and yours, which says of guests that “Christ is received and adored in them” (c. 53:7). Perhaps you have also been inspired by what is said regarding superiors, though I am not your superior (Luke 10:16): “He who listens to you, listens to me.” Would that I might always win this favor with you, that you would be kind enough to remember me and, together with the holy community committed to your care, implore the divine mercy for me! I shall repay this in your behalf as well as I can, since long before I saw you and more than ever now that I have come to know you, I have kept a unique place of real and true affection for you in the deepest recesses of my heart. In my absence I send you the gift of a tricennarium that I gave you when I was there, written and sealed, as you wished. I send also, as you requested, the absolution of Master Peter, *

Translated from The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. Constable, 1.168, 401–2.

302

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

in a charter similarly written out and sealed. As soon as an opportunity offers itself, I shall gladly try to obtain for your Astralabe, who is mine for your sake, a prebend in one of the greatest churches. This will be far from easy, however, for as I have often found, bishops are likely to be very difficult about giving prebends in their churches and put various obstacles in the way. But for your sake I shall do as much as I can, as soon as I can.

LETTER 18 PETER THE VENERABLE: A LETTER OF ABSOLUTION FOR ABELARD

Background: The letter of absolution, together with the epitaphs for Abelard and Heloise were added in the late-fi fteenth or early-sixteenth century to the last page of MS T, fol. 102v, and also to Chaumont, Bibliothèque municipal, 31, fol. 245v, at the end of the fi fteenth century, 2 May 1497, on the occasion of their removal from their original graves and their burial in the new church of abbess Catherine II de Courcelle. My translations of these texts are based on the editions of Charles S.F. Burnett and of Constant Mews in the appendix to “La bibliothèque du Paraclet du XIIIe siècle à la Révolution.” As Giles Constable notes in the exchange of letters between Peter the Venerable and Heloise, the distinction between letters patent and closed is stressed (Letters 2, p. 23). Peter has apparently sent the original absolution in a closed or sealed letter of which the seal was broken when it was opened. In Letter 167 [Letter 16 in this volume], Heloise asked for another sealed document containing the absolution of master Peter within an open letter to be placed in his tomb. In reply, Peter sent “written and sealed” the absolution of Peter Abelard together with a similarly “closed” grant of a trental or thirty days of prayer after her death for Heloise herself.

I

, Peter, abbot of Cluny, who received Peter Abelard as a monk of Cluny, and secretly delivered his body to abbess Heloise and the nuns of the Paraclete, absolve him of all his sins by the authority of almighty God and the support of all the saints. Amen.

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 19 PETER THE VENERABLE: AN EPITAPH FOR ABELARD

The Socrates of the Gauls, the greatest Plato of the West, our Aristotle, Peer or superior to all other logicians, whoever they may be, Acknowledged prince of worldly studies, subtle, sharp, and diverse in the range of his talents, Best of all in the force of reason and the art of speaking was Abelard. But with far greater distinction as a professed monk of Cluny, He passed over to the philosophy of Christ. Through his long striving, At the end of his life, he won hope of a place with God’s philosophers.

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 20 THE NUNS OF THE PARACLETE: AN EPITAPH FOR HELOISE

The prudent Heloise, our abbess, lies in this tomb. Founder of the Paraclete, she rests with the Paraclete. High above the poles, she shares the joys of the saints, And lifts us from the depths by her merits and prayers.

This page intentionally left blank

LETTER 21 A LAST EPITAPH AT THE PARACLETE, 1780

Background: A last remembrance of the founders at the Paraclete was the epitaph attributed to the last abbess, at their fi nal reburial there, before the dissolution of the abbey during the upheavals of the Revolution. Here, under the same tombstone lies the founder of this monastery, Peter Abelard with Heloise, its first abbess, once joined together in learning, genius, and love, ill-fated marriage and penitence. Now, we hope, united in everlasting joy. Peter died the twenty-fi rst of April, 1142, and Heloise on the seventeenth of May, 1163. By the hand of Charlotte de Roucy, abbess of the Paraclete, 1780.

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDICES

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX 1 INSTITUTIONES NOSTRAE [OUR STATUTES]

1 Our statutes have their origins in the teaching of Christ, preaching and observing poverty, humility, and obedience. We also follow in the footsteps of the apostles, who lived a common life. In our manner of life we observe poverty and humility; in our submissiveness, obedience; in our monastic life, by living in common we follow the apostles. Since material benefactions come to us from all kinds of sources, they are distributed to each person as far as possible. If there is not enough for everyone, preference is given to those in greatest need. And because we have renounced the world and fight for God, we persevere in a state of chastity, and with all our strength, according to the measure of his gifts, we strive to please him. 2 On Agreement in Customs Since the Lord has looked with favor upon us and given us other places, we have sent out some from among us in a number sufficient to maintain the monastic life. We are, however, writing down the customs of our good way of life, so that what the mother holds unchangingly, the daughters may hold uniformly. 3 On the Habit The items of clothing that should suffice for each person ought to be specified, but we are very far from sufficiency. 4 On Beds On our beds we have mattresses and pillows and linen sheets, in so far as these may be available for each person. If there is not enough for everyone, this should be ascribed to poverty.

314

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

5 On Food We eat every kind of bread: made of wheat flour if this can be had; if not, made of whatever grain is available. In our refectory our meals without meat are vegetables and whatever the garden produces. Milk, eggs, and cheese are served more rarely, and fish if it has been donated; our wine is mixed with water. Two dishes are served at the fi rst meal; at supper we have herbs or fruit or something of the sort if it can be obtained. But if these should be lacking, we accept this without complaining. 6 On Obedience Only to the abbess and the prioress is the debt of obedience to be rendered. Without their permission no one presumes to leave the monastic cloisters; no one presumes to speak, to give, or to receive anything, or to keep anything, except what has been permitted. For the rest, we obey one another in the bond of charity. 7 Where Necessary Provisions Come From To fulfi l the demands of our monastic life, we ought to sustain ourselves by working the land and by our own labor, if only we could. But since our weakness prevents this, we admit lay brothers and lay sisters, so that they may carry out what the rigors of our monastic observance do not permit us to do. We also accept offerings of every kind from the faithful, in accordance with the custom of other churches. 8 On Not Going Outside We observe the statute that no one who has received the veil should, for any reason of necessity, go outside on business matters or enter the house of any secular person. To attend to community business, however, and to watch over our own affairs, we send to our houses our own nuns and lay sisters who are well qualified by age and experience. 9 On Those Who Come from a Distance We do not allow visiting nuns to remain among us for long. But if one wishes to remain and there is reason to receive her, she should make her profession within the fi rst seven days or else depart.

APPEN DIX 1

315

10 On Lay Sisters Not Becoming Nuns If any lay sister comes to us in that state of life, she should on no account be received as a nun, but, rather, remain in the vocation to which she has been called.

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX 2 MS T (TROYES, BIBLIOTHÈQUE MUNICIPALE, MS 802): THE PARACLETE AND THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE OF ABELARD AND HELOISE

Background: In all discussions of the transmission and authenticity of this correspondence, the key manuscript has long been MS T, the “most accurate and most complete text” of the letters, as John Benton noted in his “The Paraclete and the Council of Rouen in 1231.” Like the other two earliest extant manuscripts, MS T is commonly dated to the late-thirteenth or early-fourteenth century. All of these early manuscripts, moreover, are “composite,” containing other texts besides the letters, texts that differ from manuscript to manuscript. All of them derive, according to Jacques Monfrin’s schema, in the introduction of his edition of the Historia calamitatum (p. 58), directly or indirectly from a single original or archetype, which may be dated, according to a commonly accepted codicological rule of thumb, some fifty years earlier than its appearance in these composite manuscripts. Alone among existing manuscripts, however, MS T contains all of the eight letters [fols. 1–88d]. These are followed by a miscellaneous ensemble of monastic customs and legislation, all pertaining to the religious life of women, especially to issues raised by changes of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. These materials begin with Institutiones nostrae, embodying the customs of a female abbey and its daughter-houses. They are commonly accepted as those of the Paraclete, and were edited by Chrysogonus Waddell in The Paraclete Statutes. Other items include a section of early regulations drawn from the Panormia of Ivo of Chartres, a number of canons from the Regula sanctimonialium of the diet of Aix, 816 [fols. 94v–102v; not in Migne], eleven statutes for Premonstratensian communities of women, issued between 1174 and 1238 and two canons identified by John Benton, in the article cited above, as closely similar to two canons promulgated by the Council of Rouen in 1231. Looking at this collection for clues to its origins and purpose, we note, fi rst of all, that it could not have been assembled before the late 1230s. This fact was emphasized by Benton and also demonstrated earlier by Damien Van den Eynde,

318

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

in “En marge des écrits d’Abélard,” who observed that the presence of materials dating from the second quarter of the thirteenth century indicates that the collection in its entirety could not have been made before that time; the latest of these materials appears to date from 1238. It is clear, however, that the Paraclete statutes or customs (Institutiones nostrae) and other parts of the collection date from a considerably earlier time. These include additions made at the end of the fi fteenth or beginning of the sixteenth century, at fol. 102b, epitaphs of Abelard and Heloise that have been dated to the twelfth century and, belonging to the same period, the epitaph and the formula of absolution for Abelard, composed by Peter the Venerable. While it is true that MS T offers no explicit evidence of its origins or of any direct and datable association with the Paraclete, the character and content of the texts it contains strongly suggest both that this collection of texts was prepared for a community of women, and that the community was the Paraclete. To the Paraclete, MS T is linked most closely by its rarest texts, which offer, codicologically speaking, the most useful clues to its origins. The rarest texts of all, Institutiones nostrae and Letter 8, of which these are the only surviving copies, are here joined to the correspondence, encompassing the documents most closely identified with the founders of this community. These texts, taken together, may represent the earliest and most distinctive traditions and regulations of the Paraclete, reflecting its independence and other characteristic features discussed more fully in my biography of Heloise. The juxtaposition of Institutiones nostrae and Letter 8 in this manuscript has a further significance, bearing particularly on problems relating to the “authenticity” of the correspondence. The Paraclete Statutes, translated above, and now regarded by their closest students as dating to the mid-twelfth century and attributable to Heloise, not only accompany Letter 8 but also draw upon it. Although proximity is not necessarily proof of relationship, the association of one twelfth-century text with another on which it draws would seem to testify to the presence of both texts at the Paraclete in the middle years of the twelfth century. If Letter 8 is as integrally bound to the other parts of the correspondence (as I argue), the proximity and the relationship of this letter with the Paraclete Statutes offer our best testimony to the presence in that community of the entire correspondence a century or so before the collection of materials in MS T was made. Further evidence concerning the early history of the Paraclete is offered by the remarks of the English monk, William Godel, who was living in the diocese of Sens and writing less than a decade after Heloise’s death, probably in the 1170s. In his Chronicon, Recueil 13: 675, Godel refers to Abelard’s founding of the Paraclete and his assembling of a group of nuns, according to Mews’ translation by “epistolary authority” (CCCM 13 [1987], 291). Unless “epistolary” is understood as referring to the letters of ecclesiastical authorities, papal or episcopal, it seems to us that Robert of Auxerre was very likely right in changing this text’s “epistolary” to “episcopal” authority, since the official recognition of the Paraclete in 1131 involved both papal (Innocent II) and episcopal (Bishop Hato of Troyes) authority, authority that was supported by “epistolary

APPEN DIX 2

319

documents.” In any case, these cartulary documents of confirmation are our earliest written evidence of the existence of the abbey dedicated to the Paraclete. We may reasonably assume, I propose, that the twelfth-century correspondence of Abelard and Heloise, along with other documents pertaining to the Paraclete’s origins and early history, remained there for more than a century before they drew the attention of those who felt a particular need, or use, for them. Challenging these “Paraclete” texts, or at least in important respects differing from them, are the other texts assembled in MS T. These are also concerned with issues relating to women’s religious life. They range in time from late ancient and early medieval legislation regarding the veiling of virgins and widows, along with strict enclosure and other limitations on the life of nuns, to more recent regulations stressing, in the case of the Premonstratensian statutes, the subordination of women to men within that order and, in the case of the Rouen canons, the submission of nuns to episcopal jurisdiction. In their essential divergence from the Paraclete materials, these texts in no way support Luscombe’s hypothesis, in “The Letters of Heloise and Abelard since ‘Cluny’ 1972” (p. 29), that the collection in MS T was “arranged and presented to show the legislative history of the order of the Paraclete.” It was in the disparate contents of MS T that John Benton, in “Fraud, Fiction and Borrowing” (479–80), sought support for his argument that it might have been prepared by a forger or forgers at the end of the thirteenth century to provide documentation in a controversy over the rule to be followed at the Paraclete, possibly in relation to a disputed abbatial election of 1289. Although the time and occasion Benton proposed appear too late and for other reasons in confl ict with the view of MS T presented here, the character of this collection does support the hypothesis that it may well have been a canon lawyer’s dossier, put together to serve the needs of an ecclesiastical inquiry of some kind. This possibility encourages us to look for another occasion for the creation of such a collection from the genuine letters kept at the Paraclete, one occurring before the letters began to circulate in the later thirteenth century. A likelier candidate than a very late-thirteenth-century election is presented by the mid-thirteenth century confl ict between the Paraclete and its daughterhouses over the election of the abbess of the mother-house, in which the dependencies claimed the ‘ancient right’ of participation. The outcome of this confl ict, perhaps involving other issues, was a protracted ecclesiastical inquiry that lasted some eight years, beginning in May 1247. In a letter of that date, Pope Innocent IV appointed the cardinal-bishop of Albano to investigate the claims of certain nuns belonging to the dependencies of the Paraclete that they possessed the same right to participate in the election of the abbess as did the nuns of the Paraclete itself (Cartulaire, no. 26, pp. 42–43). The official inquiry, which was conducted by a commission whose members were three officials of the province of Sens, dragged on until late December, 1255, when the commission reported a decision in favor of the dependencies (Cartulaire, no. 238, pp. 233–34). Representing papal delegation of authority over an exempt abbey to a commission of inquiry in the province of Sens, this decision provided that whenever there should be a vacancy in the abbatial office at the Paraclete,

320

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

through death or for any other reason, each of the priories and the abbey of La Pommeraye should send seven nuns of their community, together with the prioress or abbess, to take part in the election at the Paraclete. These nuns should be admitted without opposition to participate in the election along with the nuns of the Paraclete and they should be received in the dormitory, refectory, chapel, and choir of this abbey as if they were its own nuns. For as long as they should remain there, they should be treated with “fraternal charity” in the Lord. Although cartulary records contain no further reference to this decision or the issue resolved by it, several apparently relevant points of interest are raised by other circumstances at the Paraclete during these years. Continuing differences between this abbey and its dependencies are reflected in a letter of Abbess Marie de Rigaud, who was elected in 1249, writing for her community as a whole to the prioress of La Pommeraye. In this letter dated 1251, Marie announced that she was sending a delegation of nuns from the Paraclete to demand that the nuns of La Pommeraye accept as their abbess Agnes de Pré, who had been canonically elected at the Paraclete, and admit her to the governance of La Pommeraye (Cartulaire, no. 257, p. 228). This demand was in keeping with the original agreement between the two abbeys, dating from the time of Heloise, with respect to the subordination of La Pommeraye to the Paraclete in general, and specifically in cases of disputed elections at the daughter abbey, which suggests Marie’s familiarity with charters of a century earlier (no. 55, pp. 72–73). Although we hear no more of this particular situation, it suggests continuing problems regarding the authority of the Paraclete and its abbess over the daughter-houses that might have called for a new copy of the founding documents. This may also have been prompted by the visit to the Paraclete two years earlier, on the occasion of her election in 1249, of Abbess Marie’s distinguished brother, Eudes de Rigaud, who had become archbishop of Rouen in the preceding year. Demonstrating the archbishop’s assiduous interest in sound monastic management and his belief in the absolute necessity of episcopal oversight, the record of this visit, on 13–14 June, is a computation of the annual accounts of the Paraclete in which Eudes apparently supervised the work of his sister and her bailiff in making a proper accounting. Witnesses to this document, along with Eudes himself, were two clerics of the province of Sens, who were in his company; one of them, William, archdeacon of Provins, is almost certainly to be identified with G[uillermus], archdeacon of Provins ‘in ecclesia Senonensis’ (Cartulaire, no. 258, p. 237). William was also one of the three members of the commission of inquiry concerning the issue of the abbatial election at the Paraclete (p. 233). The close association of these two men, Archbishop Eudes and Archdeacon William, on this important occasion at the Paraclete, and their common participation in its current affairs, suggest a further possibility. Given the archbishop’s commitment to close episcopal supervision of monastic communities, and his special interest in the problems of his sister’s community, it does not seem too farfetched to suggest that the coincidence of his concerns with those of Archdeacon William in the ecclesiastical inquiry then under way might have led to the production, perhaps under the archbishop’s supervision or at his direction, of just such a collection of texts as we have in MS T.

APPEN DIX 2

321

Certain texts in the manuscript, most specifically the canons of a fairly recent council held in his own city of Rouen, emphasize themes cherished by Rigaud such as the careful keeping of monastic accounts and, above all, the importance of episcopal supervision of monastic communities. Along with charters pertaining to the relations of the Paraclete and its dependencies, of which they may have had copies, the commission of inquiry would surely have welcomed a collection in which other important materials pertaining to the governance and customs of this abbey were accompanied by texts representing diverse and in some cases competing views of authority and jurisdiction over communities of women. Admittedly far from conclusive, the evidence presented here seems at least sufficient to support the working hypothesis that the collection of texts contained in the manuscript was put together at the Paraclete, around the middle of the thirteenth century. Of these texts, according to Monfrin (Abélard, intro., 19) and with which I agree, MS T is a copy made in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century and carefully corrected by a reviser working from yet another manuscript of the correspondence close to MS A. Although MS T thus represents a stage in the diff usion of the correspondence at a time when other copies were circulating, they all, if we may judge from surviving manuscripts, incorporate a selection of the letters that omit all or most of Letter 8, thus reflecting literary rather than monastic interests. Similar interests are apparently reflected in the tenth known manuscript of the correspondence, identified and described by Colette Jeudy in “Un nouveau manuscript” as dating from the mid-fourteenth century (ca. 1340–60). Lacking the early pages of Letter 1, almost all of Letter 7 and all of Letter 8, it offers no evidence of its provenance, though it seems close in some respects to MS T. Since it contains a large part of Letter 1, complete versions of Letters 2 to 6 and the beginning of Letter 7, it appears to confi rm Monfrin’s thesis regarding the independent creation of manuscripts from an original or an archetype close to the original. Regarding the usual absence in late medieval manuscripts of most or all of Letter 8, it is worth noting that an unbound copy of this work was included in the unusually large collection of Abelard’s works owned by the royal counsellor, Nicolas de Baye (ca. 1364–1419), for which see Checklist: Appendix, no. 212. Returning to the significance of the collection in MS T, I further suggest that the text of the Abelard–Heloise correspondence it contains, though itself in all likelihood a copy of an earlier text preserved at the Paraclete, was the form in which the correspondence left the Paraclete and entered into the wider circulation that began in the later decades of the thirteenth century. The acceptance of these hypotheses also leads to another: that if, according to Monfrin’s schema, all of the extant manuscripts derive, directly or indirectly, from a single original, the text in MS T best represents that original. Supporting Monfrin’s conclusion (Abélard, p. 60) that the text of the corpus of eight letters was already established ne varietur around the middle of the thirteenth century, this hypothesis helps to explain as well the extraordinary textual homogeneity and the unity of the manuscript tradition, the very slight differences among the copies and the fact that none of the parts circulated separately. Finally, dating the formation of this collection to

322

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

the mid-thirteenth century would add another formidable obstacle to the “major philological difficulties” (for which see La vie et les epistres, ed. Hicks, 1.xxiii– xxvi) opposing acceptance of Hubert Silvestre’s argument for Jean de Meun’s authorship of the Latin text of the fi rst five letters of Heloise and Abelard. The hypothesis I propose is pertinent also to another question relating to the Paraclete “corpus,” that raised by the separate transmission of Letter 9 and the Problemata Heloissae, whose very close ties with the correspondence I emphasize in the Introduction and elsewhere in this book. If, as I argue, there is reason to believe that these texts may earlier have been closely linked, if not continuous, with the correspondence, it is possible that, being less pertinent to the specifically institutional features of Letter 8 or to the purposes of such a dossier as MS T appears to be, they may have been separated from the letter-collection at this time. This would help to explain their separate and exceedingly fragile transmission, in a single early fi fteenth-century copy, Paris, BnF lat. 15411. Although we may assume that MS T is as close as we are now likely to come to the original text of the correspondence and the form in which it may have left the Paraclete, in fact we know nothing of the provenance or ownership of this manuscript before the mid-fourteenth century. It was then owned by the chapter of Notre Dame in Paris, at that time a major center for the collecting of Abelardian works, among them those pertaining to the Paraclete. Significantly, Petrarch had acquired his copy of the correspondence, mentioned above, sometime between 1337 and 1340, perhaps from his friend, Roberto de’Bardi, a canon of Notre Dame and chancellor of the university, who invited him to Paris in 1340. Another manuscript, our MS T, was sold in 1346 to Roberto, a member of the famous Florentine family. After his death in 1349, all trace of this manuscript disappears until the early seventeenth century, when it was known to be in the possession of the antiquarian, François Pithou, a citizen of Troyes. Left in his will, dated 1617, with the rest of his book collection to the Oratorian fathers in Troyes, it came to them in 1630 and at the Revolution passed with their library to the municipal library of that city. About this manuscript there is another important point to note. MS T appears to be identical with a manuscript, T2 or “Paraclitense,” used at the Paraclete after 1593 by François d’Amboise in preparing the fi rst printed edition of the correspondence (1616). Of the copies he used, this was the only one containing Institutiones nostrae and other monastic materials, and its text is in other ways virtually identical with that of MS T. We do not know whether this manuscript was T itself, in which case we should need to explain how it returned from Paris or elsewhere to the Paraclete before 1593 and then came into Pithou’s hands after 1593 and by 1617, or whether it was a copy closely similar to T in composition and text. This question cannot be answered defi nitively because we do not know when Pithou acquired his manuscript. In the assumption that T was not the manuscript seen by d’Amboise at the Paraclete, Jacques Monfrin found support for his hypotheses that these were two different manuscripts, two in a putative series of identical copies prepared for the Paraclete and its daughter-houses and that MS T, therefore, gives us the text of the correspondence according to the tradition of the Paraclete. Although my

APPEN DIX 2

323

hypothesis regarding the origins of MS T agrees fully with the latter judgment, evidence to sustain the fi rst is still lacking. Moreover, Constant J. Mews argues in “La bibliothèque du Paraclet du XIIIe siècle à la revolution” (58) persuasively in my opinion, for the conclusion that the “Paraclitense,” or MS T2, used by d’Amboise and perhaps taken away by him, and MS T, which turned up twenty years later in the library of the Oratorians, were one and the same manuscript. Mews suggests that the abbess of the Paraclete at that time, Marie III de la Rochefoucauld (1593–1639), who provided the manuscript containing Institutiones nostrae to d’Amboise for his use, might have given it to him or permitted him to remove it from the Paraclete after his work was done. Abbess Marie, Mews points out, was well known for her strenuous efforts to reform the Paraclete after the troubled times of her predecessor, Jeanne III de Chabot, who became a Protestant and left the abbey in a parlous condition. Not only did Abbess Marie display her zeal for orthodoxy by imposing the reformed Tridentine liturgy at the Paraclete and proceeding at once to dispose of its ancient liturgical manuscripts, which contained important works of Abelard. She also showed her desire to suppress the memory of Heloise and Abelard in the abbey they had founded by removing their bodies from well-placed tombs in the abbey church to a more obscure crypt under the main altar. This attitude towards the ancient traditions of her abbey, which is reflected also in the absence of references to the founders in the Paraclete Constitutions of 1632, suggests that she might have been willing to dispose as well of its manuscript containing the founders’ correspondence and other works. Indeed, she may have felt obliged to do so, since the Paris faculty of theology had censured Abelard’s theological writings in 1616. From her time onward, no such manuscript was known to have existed at the Paraclete, and this lack supports Mews’s suggestion that Abbess Marie may have given d’Amboise the manuscript. He may afterwards have given or sold to Pithou, who then left it to the Oratorians with whom it remained until the Revolution. Assuming that MS T and MS T2 are one and the same, we can only guess at how this manuscript, which had no proven direct connection earlier with the Paraclete, might have arrived there sometime after 1349, when all trace of it is lost, and before 1593, when it came to the attention of François d’Amboise at the Paraclete. Given the disasters that befell this abbey during the Hundred Years’ War—it was burned to the ground in 1357 and not rebuilt for nearly a decade afterward—and the likely losses of charters and manuscripts, we may speculate that the acquisition of this manuscript containing the most precious founding documents of the Paraclete might have been part of the abbey’s effort to repair these losses. Attempts to revive and strengthen memories of the founders seem to have been an important feature of the reform program instituted in the late fifteenth century by the activist Abbess Catherine II de Courcelles (1482–1513). Among other changes, she was responsible for transferring, on 2 May 1497, the remains of Heloise and Abelard to the choir of the new abbey church from the “chapel of Saint-Denis,” the former oratory of the Paraclete, where they had rested since the twelfth century. To Abbess Catherine we evidently also owe the preparation

324

TH E LETTERS OF H ELOISE A N D A BELA R D

of the Paraclete Breviary, now MS Chaumont, Bibliothèque municipale, 31, in The Old French Paraclete Ordinary, edited by Chrysogonus Waddell. This manuscript and MS T are the only manuscripts, as Mews notes (“La bibliothèque,” 42–43), on whose last pages the series of epitaphs of the founders was copied in the late fi fteenth century. This fact invites a further speculation. If the problems of Catherine’s thirteenth-century predecessor, Marie de Rigaud, may have led to the creation and circulation of the collection of documents that survives in MS T, and if her early seventeenth-century successor, Marie III de la Rochefoucauld, had been responsible for the disappearance of such a collection from the Paraclete, we may owe Abbess Catherine herself still another debt. This is the presence in her abbey of the manuscript on which the printed edition of the correspondence was based. Whether or not the “Paraclitense” used in this edition was MS T or its twin, and whether it was acquired by Abbess Catherine or another, without it we would lack two texts crucial to our understanding of the correspondence and its authenticity, and to our knowledge of the Paraclete itself: Letter 8 and the Paraclete statutes, Institutiones nostrae. Although MS T may, as I propose, offer our best clues to the possible fortunes of the correspondence, especially to its presence at the Paraclete, during the century following the death of Heloise, the fact remains that we have no certain knowledge of its history before the later thirteenth century. Only then were the earliest surviving manuscripts copied and not until then did the earliest reference to Heloise’s fi rst letter appear in Jean de Meun’s continuation of the Roman de la Rose. If the earliest redaction of Jean’s work may be dated to the late 1260s or early 1270s, his knowledge of the letters of Heloise and Abelard may have preceded by perhaps two decades the translation commonly attributed to him. In the introduction to his edition, La Vie et les epistres, Hicks (p. xiv) dates this translation to 1290 or thereabouts. Emphasizing Jean de Meun’s major role in the wider reception and early circulation of the correspondence, these considerations also strongly suggest that a manuscript of the letters was available in Paris by ca. 1270. How and, more precisely, when such a manuscript might have left the Paraclete and travelled to Paris are questions that lure us even farther into realms of sheer speculation, led on by a few shreds of evidence. One possibility is that the collection of texts represented in MS T may have left the Paraclete and made its way at least as far as Sens in the possession of William, archdeacon of Provins, one of the three members of the commission of inquiry at least intermittently meeting there between 1247 and 1255. If Sens were a point of diffusion for a manuscript or manuscripts containing texts of the correspondence, it may not be altogether coincidental that from ca. 1270 to ca. 1342 there was in Paris a family of stationers, scribes, and booksellers, whose founder was a William of Sens. The history of the “Sens” family over several generations has been most ingeniously reconstructed by Mary A. and Richard H. Rouse in two extensive studies (Mary A. and Richard H. Rouse, “The Book Trade at the University of Paris, ca. 1250–ca. 1350,” in Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts, esp. pp. 282–93, and in their Manuscripts and Their Makers, 1.73–98).

APPEN DIX 2

325

Emerging from their research are at least two bits of evidence that might ultimately contribute to a solution to the mysterious journey of the correspondence from the Paraclete to Paris. The first is that by 1292, the widow of William of Sens, “Dame Marguerite de Sans, marcheande de livres,” is reported in the Paris tax-rolls as occupying a house on the Rue Saint-Jacques, near the “maison mestre Jehan de Meun,” whom we have already identified as a key figure in the Paris circulation of the correspondence (Rouses, “The Book Trade,” pp. 282–83; Manuscripts and Their Makers, 1.89–91). The second possibly relevant piece of evidence is that some years earlier William of Sens may have acquired a manuscript from the Cistercian abbey of Vauluisant, a near neighbor of the Paraclete in the countryside east of Sens and west of Troyes (Rouses, Authentic Witnesses, p. 306). If this prominent late-thirteenth-century Paris bookseller had access to manuscripts from an abbey only a few miles from the Paraclete, it is conceivable that he might have enjoyed similar opportunities at the Paraclete or in Sens itself, of which he was apparently a native. Assuming that such an opportunity may have led to the discovery of a manuscript of the correspondence and its journey to Paris, it is not difficult to imagine how it may have come to the attention of that close neighbor of the “Sens” family, Jean de Meun, whose crucial role in the wider reception of the correspondence has already been noted. With these speculations we must leave to further investigation the complex, in some ways mysterious, medieval fortunes of the correspondence of Abelard and Heloise.

This page intentionally left blank

EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR PERSONS AND PLACES

Persons 1. Abelard, Heloise, and Their Families Peter Abelard’s Family: His father, Berengar, belonged to a knightly family of Le Pallet, close to the south-eastern border of Brittany, not far from Anjou. Berengar had gained some education himself and encouraged the intellectual ambitions of his eldest son, Peter. Late in life, ca. 1113, Berengar entered a monastery. His wife, Abelard’s mother, Lucia, of whose family we know nothing, also entered the monastic life around this time. A few years later, ca. 1117/18, Abelard’s sister, Denise, offered a refuge to the pregnant Heloise and assumed the care of their son, Astralabe, in his early years. Besides Peter and his brother, Dagobert, there were apparently two more sons in the family of Berengar and Lucia. For details, see Cook, “Abelard and Heloise.” Heloise’s Family: About her family and social status we have no explicit evidence beyond her own allusions and the reference of Roscelin (see below) to her maternal uncle, Fulbert, as a “nobleman and a cleric” [nobilis et clericus]. Her mother, Hersent (or Hersendis) and even her vengeful uncle are mentioned in the Paraclete obituaries, with no explicit reference to her father. It should be noted, however, that the name of Abelard’s father, Berengar, is like wise absent from such obituaries, in which his mother is mentioned. Also mentioned in these obituaries without further identification is Count Matthew Beaumont who, Robert Bautier suggests, may be a paternal possibility. He also notes that the names of Hersent, Fulbert, and Heloise appear to have been strictly limited to the “great family” of the Montmorency, vidames of Chartres and their allies; these included the Garlande family that also used the name Heloise [see “Abélard en son temps,” pp. 76–77n7]. The connection of the Montmorency family to the convent of Argenteuil has also led to speculations of a blood relation. In Heloise: L’amour et le savoir, Guy Lobrichon has posited that Heloise was an illegitimate daughter of Gilbert Garlande, butler to King Louis VI. However, he admits that this also has no supporting evidence. We may conclude that Heloise very likely came from an aristocratic family to have been so well educated but that there is no defi nite proof as to which one it was. Fulbert. Probably related to one of these great families (such as the Montmorency), Heloise’s maternal uncle and guardian, Fulbert, was a canon of Notre-Dame

328

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

cathedral in Paris from 1102 to 1126 (the first and last references). Responsible for ordering the castration of Abelard, he was punished by temporary expulsion from the office of canon and confiscation of his property. He was restored to the office of canon in April 1119—much too soon, according to Abelard’s complaint— and was last mentioned in church records of 1126. He has a place also, though without dating, in the obituaries of the Paraclete. Peter Astralabe: The son of Heloise and Peter Abelard, Petrus Astralabius, was born ca. 1117, near Le Pallet in Brittany and spent his early life in the care of Abelard’s sister, Denise. The name Astralabe (perhaps an anagram) itself is hardly common: it is an interesting oddity, representing in one sense an historical scientific instrument developed in classical times and used in astronomy to measure the height of celestial bodies and in other instances to measure time. In his own later years Abelard wrote his Carmen ad Astralabium, a Latin poem of advice for his son that also mentions his mother, Heloise, and her self-criticism. After Abelard’s death, Heloise herself appealed to their friend, Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, to fi nd a prebend or other church office for their son, Astralabe, of whose later life nothing definite is known. Perhaps he was the canon of Nantes cathedral in 1150 whose name was Astralabe, but there was also an abbot of Hauterive in Fribourg from 1162 to 1165. The last reference, undated, to the Astralabe who was the son of Heloise and Abelard occurs in the obituaries of the Paraclete where he appears as the “son of our Master Peter.” 2. Other Persons Especially Relevant to the Corrrespondence Adam, abbot of Saint-Denis (as abbot 1099–1122): We lack evidence about the background and early history of this abbot who received Abelard as a monk of Saint-Denis after his castration and later permitted him to withdraw to a certain cell (“Maisoncelle”) where he could teach and write. Although Suger, Adam’s successor, seemed close to him, referring to him as “father,” Suger also emphasized his own importance at Adam’s expense. Far more hostile was Abelard’s opinion after he was forced to flee from Saint-Denis when he questioned the identity of the abbey’s saintly patron; and further described Adam as “evil-living and notoriously depraved.” After threatening Abelard with prosecution, Adam died in February 1122, before he could undertake this action. Alberic of Reims, ca. 1085–1141: Among former students of Master Anselm of Laon, Alberic was the most prominent of Abelard’s rivals as a teacher and his most vigorous and successful prosecutor at the council of Soissons in 1121. Already a master at Reims (1118–36), in his later career Alberic became an archdeacon there (1131–36), accompanied by Lotulf, and fi nally archbishop of Bourges from 1136 to his death in 1141. Anselm of Canterbury, 1033–1109: Although Abelard would later successfully challenge some aspects of Anselm’s teaching on the humanity of Christ and disagreed with certain other views, he had also expressed his admiration for this “magnificent doctor of the church.” Anselm, who was born in Aosta on the

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

329

northern border of Lombardy, after youthful crises, found his way to Normandy where in 1059 he became a monk at Bec. There he had access both to a library, which was at this time perhaps the best in Europe and, more importantly, to the teaching of Bec’s famous prior, Lanfranc, who was then regarded as the leading scholar and philosopher of his time and place. Anselm later embraced with emotional intensity, the new “romantic” ideal of friendship in his letters, which might encompass persons he did not know well, indeed some of whom he had never met. Among the most dedicated of his modern students, Sir Richard Southern, in his St. Anselm and His Biographer, found him one of “the most complex and fascinating characters in Christian history . . . one who touched the thought, the piety, and the politics of his time, and whatever he touched looked different afterward.” These are qualities dominating his most important philosophical and theological works, notably the Monologion, the Proslogion, and Cur Deus Homo. [For these and other primary sources, note the Biobibliographies in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Dronke.] Anselm of Laon, ca. 1055–1117: Although his criticism of this master’s limitations, among other issues, led to Abelard’s expulsion from the school of Laon in 1113, Anselm himself (not to be confused with Anselm of Canterbury) was, it seems, commonly regarded as the most influential contemporary teacher of “divinity” or biblical exegesis and one of the three “modern masters” in the early years of the twelfth century. Especially striking was his opposition to St. Augustine and others, including Abelard, who held that the Jews who crucified Christ did not perceive him as the son of God and instead Anselm’s argument for their knowledge and thus responsibility for the crucifi xion. More constructively, he and his followers contributed significantly to the development of the questio, the question or problem, as a unit of scholarly exposition, later and more significantly exploited by Abelard in his Sic et Non and other works. Abelard clearly learned more from Anselm than he acknowledged, particularly perhaps the importance of Anselm’s “stages” theory of sin and intention. Responsible also for collections of sententiae, or “sentences,” which led to later summae, Anselm and his school were particularly important in the development of the glossa ordinaria, a brief explanation or commentary that was the “working tool” of the scholar’s reflection on the biblical text. Anselm himself left glosses on the Psalms and the Pauline epistles. With his brother, Ralph, he had become a master at Laon, ca. 1109, and was later an archdeacon there until his death in 1117. Arius: A priest of Alexandria (ca. 260–336), a speculative theologian and quite popular preacher, who objected to his bishop’s affi rmation of the traditional Christian belief that God the Father and God the Son were coequally eternal. Supported by several Eastern bishops, Arius’s doctrines were condemned as heretical by the First Ecumenical Council, which met at Nicea under the patronage of the Emperor Constantine in 325. Arius himself was condemned, abandoned by his supporters, then partly rehabilitated, then condemned once more. His memory and doctrines remained powerful in Eastern Christianity for several generations, and then became the officially approved belief of several Germanic kingdoms in the West. The tradition of the French Church was fiercely

330

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

anti-Arian, from Gallic Fathers such as Hilary of Poitiers and Gregory of Tours onward. Little of anything written by Arius survives. Arnold of Brescia (ca. 1090–1155?): Born and educated basically in Brescia, Arnold was perhaps in Paris ca. 1115 and maybe a student of Abelard there. Arnold was a personally charismatic spokesman for radical ideas about the proper structure of the Church, the role of the clergy, and the function of civil authority in ecclesiastical matters. Back home in politically turbulent and reform-fascinated Lombardy, Arnold became provost of his native city, from which he tried in 1138 to exclude its bishop. Arnold and his innovations were condemned at the Second Lateran Council in 1139. Pope Innocent II sentenced him to silence and exile from Brescia. Arnold made his way to Sens in time for the council that condemned Abelard; Bernard said that he served Abelard there as a squire does a knight. While Abelard was being protected by Peter the Venerable, Arnold was in Paris at the MontSainte-Geneviève, stirring up the student population with radical opinions and denunciations of Bernard. Expelled from France by Louis VII, Arnold fled to Zurich and then (in 1143) Bohemia, fi nding sympathetic support in both places. Formally abjuring his former errors, he was reconciled to the Church in 1145 by Pope Eugenius III, a former monk of Bernard’s at Clairvaux. Arnold’s penance required him to make a pilgrimage to Rome, at that time agitated by political reformers who wanted to revive the Senate and either expel or subordinate the pope. Arnold was active in the revolutionary republican government, the commune, that controlled the City for several years after 1146. Eugenius III, strenuously urged on by Bernard of Clairvaux, joined with King Conrad III against the commune. Arnold was arrested and returned to papal supervision; under Hadrian IV (1154–59), a severe reformer committed to clerical rights, Arnold was hanged in Rome, perhaps in 1155, and then his body was burnt and his ashes thrown in the Tiber. Whether his radicalism was essentially political or also involved sacramental and other doctrinal theology is unclear. Berengar of Poitiers, born ca. 1120: Abelard’s former student, Berengar was later his secretary and staunch defender after the council of Sens. The author of a bitter attack on the role of Bernard of Clairvaux in Abelard’s condemnation, Berengar continued his defense of Abelard in his Apologia, ed. Robert M. Thomson, Mediaeval Studies 42 (1980), 111–33. He also preserved Abelard’s “Confession of Faith,” translated above. Bernard of Clairvaux (ca. 1090–20 August 1153): Abelard’s greatest intellectual and ecclesiastical rival was born at the castle of Fontaines in Burgundy to a noble family not unlike Abelard’s Breton family. Bernard’s father, Tescelin, was a knight appointed by the duke of Burgundy as castellan (commander) of Fontaines-lès-Dijon, which defended the northeastern approaches to the ducal capital. Tescelin and his nobler wife Aleth of Montbard had seven children, all of whom eventually entered the monastic life. Educated at Châtillon-sur-Seine, his paternal family’s seat, in the school of the collegiate church of St. Vorles run

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

331

by Tescelin’s cousin, Bernard acquired a deep classical and biblical education and remarkable mastery of Latin prose style. Ordained a priest in his early twenties by William of Champeaux, Abelard’s former teacher at Paris and by then bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, Bernard became at twenty-five the fi rst abbot of Clairvaux, one of the four daughter-houses of the new Cistercian mother-house at Cîteaux. Interested in the constitution and the political life as well as the distinctive spirituality of the Cistercian Order, which was strongly committed to a severe interpretation of the Benedictine Rule, Bernard became embroiled in many confl icts affecting the Latin Church at large. To defend the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem against the resurgent Islamic jihad, Bernard was one of the planners and the prime preacher of the Second Crusade (1147–51). Peter Abelard was just one of the “radical” figures from whom Bernard sought to defend the Church in Europe. In a case similar to that of Abelard, occurring a few years after Bernard’s 1141 silencing of him, was that of Gilbert de la Porrée, fi rst a teacher at the cathedral school of Chartres and then bishop of Poitiers, who made use of Aristotelian logic in elucidating Christian theology. Bernard’s effort to silence Gilbert in 1148 failed, perhaps because the members of the ecclesiastical court hearing the case did not wish to repeat Bernard’s triumph over Abelard. Bernard believed that the only orthodox way to teach Christian doctrine was to follow the methods elaborated by the Fathers of the Church, which were not unlike rabbinic argument or traditional Roman speculative rhetoric—in fact derived from both of those traditions. Therefore Bernard is sometimes called “the last of the Fathers,” and Peter Abelard “the father of scholasticism.” Temperamentally not unlike one another in their combative reflexes and love of confrontation, Bernard and Abelard clashed most severely at the Council of Sens in 1141. Bernard dominated the planning for and conduct of that meeting. Despite his own rhetorical talent, Bernard so respected Abelard’s verbal effectiveness that he refused to debate with him. Abelard’s teaching on the Trinity was condemned as heretical, after which Pope Innocent II (whom Bernard had supported vigorously in the disputed papal election of 1130) excommunicated Abelard, condemning him to perpetual silence, and ordered his seclusion in a monastery. Abelard was spared the full rigor of that sentence by the intervention of a former student, Abbot Peter the Venerable of Cluny, with whom Bernard had engaged in a sharp and famous controversy some two decades previously. It is now difficult to discern what seemed so heretical in Abelard’s Trinitarian teaching. For Bernard, Abelard’s radically innovative analytical methods and general attitude toward the sacred were heresy enough. Perhaps surprisingly, Bernard was sympathetic to Heloise, and supported her efforts at monastic reform and general organization. She reciprocated, so much so that in time, well after Abelard’s death, she replaced some of the liturgy Abelard had composed for the Paraclete with some of the liturgy of Clairvaux. See Related Letters 12 and 13. Pope Celestine II: See Guido (Guy) of Castello. Conon of Praeneste, d. 1122: The papal legate who presided over Abelard’s trial for heresy at the council of Soissons in 1121, Conon of Praeneste had been cardinal

332

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

bishop of Palestrina since 1109 and in 1119 a candidate for the papacy, which he refused. Although Abelard described him as “less learned than he should have been,” he was commonly regarded as the most experienced and distinguished of contemporary papal legates, active in missions to important rulers of the early twelfth century. Fulk of Deuil, late eleventh to early twelfth century: Professing a friendship with Abelard significantly ambiguous in its expression, Fulk was prior of Deuil, a monastery in the neighborhood of Saint-Denis and Argenteuil. He wrote Abelard a letter of “consolation” or “congratulation” after his castration so malicious in tone and theme as to suggest that what has been described as Fulk’s “unique information” may be in important respects unreliable. See Migne, PL 178, 371b– 76b; Wheeler, “Origenary Fantasies.” Geoffrey of Auxerre, 1120–88: A student of Abelard’s in Paris in earlier years, Geoff rey became a Cistercian monk, ca. 1140, and so devoted a follower of Bernard of Clairvaux that he served as his “biographer” or hagiographer, including a somewhat unreliable account of the council of Sens. Geoff rey also acted as Bernard’s secretary from 1145 until Bernard’s death in 1153. Geoff rey’s denial that Abelard was ever reconciled with Rome is contradicted by Peter the Venerable’s letter to Heloise regarding Abelard’s last days and death. Geoffrey of Lèves, bishop of Chartres, 1116–49: Abelard’s most active defender at the council of Soissons in 1121, Geoff rey was an adviser also of Abelard’s friend and patron, Count Thibaut of Chartres, later of Champagne as well. Although both are commonly regarded as friendly toward Abelard, Geoff rey is said, however, to have approved of Suger of Saint-Denis’s expulsion of Heloise and her nuns from Argenteuil in 1129. As a papal legate appointed by Innocent II, Geoff rey also attempted, though without success, to make peace between Abelard and his recalcitrant monks at Saint-Gildas in the late 1120s. Present at the council of Morigny in 1131, he supported the papal claim of Innocent II at the council of Pisa in 1135. Together with Bernard of Clairvaux, he received the letter of William of Saint-Thierry (see below) concerning the threat that he perceived in Abelard’s teaching. With other highly placed churchmen present at the council of Sens, Geoff rey signed the letter of Archbishop Henry of Sens to Pope Innocent II regarding Abelard’s condemnation for heresy in late May of 1141. St. Goswin, ca. 1086–1165: As prior of Saint-Médard in Soissons, he welcomed (or, more accurately, accepted) Abelard for a brief compulsory stay after the council there in 1121. According to his hagiographer, he described his “guest” as an “untamed unicorn” or a “rhinoceros.” At his own school on Mont-SainteGeneviève, Goswin had earlier, ca. 1112, challenged Abelard to debate. Turning later to the monastic life, Goswin became abbot of Anchin in 1130, and sometime after his death in 1165, he was recognized as a saint. Guido (Guy) of Castello, Pope Celestine II, pope from 14 February 1143–8 March 1144: A former student and later supporter of Abelard’s, who owned copies of his

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

333

Theologia and his Sic et Non, this Italian scholar was among the most learned men of his time. He was the first master to be appointed to the college of cardinals, as cardinal deacon of Sta. Maria in Via Lata, 1128, and later cardinal priest of San Marco, before his election as pope in 1143. [See David Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, pp. 20–22.] Hato (Hatto), bishop of Troyes, ca. 1075–ca. 1145/46: Officially acknowledging in 1131 the foundation of the Paraclete (1129), Bishop Hato (Hatto) was a friend and supporter of Heloise, Abelard, and their new community. His letters are models of an early twelfth-century “friendship” style, especially those to Peter the Venerable, who appears to have been a particularly close friend and frequent correspondent. Hato also corresponded, though less often, with Bernard of Clairvaux. Although apparently without playing an active role in Abelard’s condemnation at the council of Sens, he was among the many bishops present there. Hato was ordained at Sens in 1095/96 and was successively deacon and archdeacon of Sens before he became bishop of Troyes ca. 1122. Like Abelard, he retired to Cluny late in life, in 1145 or early 1146, and died there soon afterward. Henry Sanglier, archbishop of Sens 1122–42: A cousin of Stephen of Garlande, Abelard’s politically influential patron and protector, Archbishop Henry had apparently been friendly with Abelard in earlier years. At least he had shown no signs of hostility until very late in their lives; both died in 1142. This change was evident when in early 1141, Abelard kept harassing him, he said, until he gave in and made a place for Abelard’s case at the council of Sens, which met on 25 and 26 May, at which time Abelard hoped to defend himself against the charges of Bernard of Clairvaux. Far from meeting these expectations, however, Archbishop Henry succumbed to the demands of a group of powerful churchmen led by Bernard in a private meeting the night before the council began. There they condemned those teachings of Abelard that Bernard presented in a list of nineteen articles. Confronted the next day by his condemned teachings rather than the expected opportunity for defense, Abelard answered by refusing this judgment. He departed instead on a journey that ended not in Rome engaging in his self-defense, but in the refuge of Cluny where he spent his last year. Abelard died there, very probably on 21 April 1142. As for the archbishop of Sens, his actions in this case strikingly exemplify a career most clearly revealing the issues, confl icts, and divisions dominating the French church in the early twelfth century. Like his cousin Stephen of Garlande, Abelard’s supporter and patron who was powerful in his exercise of high offices, both royal and ecclesiastical, Henry Sanglier was also for many years an important member of the royal party. But by 1129, seeking to restrain the king’s hostility to church reform, Archbishop Henry seems to have moved gradually toward the moderate reform party represented by such churchmen as Geoff rey of Lèves, bishop of Chartres and Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny. In 1131, Archbishop Henry was present, along with Abelard and many others, at the meeting assembled in the abbey of Morigny to recognize Pope Innocent II. But by 1140, having fallen out with King Louis, the archbishop had reached the last stage of his mobile career in his relationship with the “extreme reformers” who

334

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

were victorious with Bernard of Clairvaux at the council of Sens. As archbishop, Henry of Sens is remembered also for his patronage in the earlier stages of the building of the cathedral of Sens. Not fi nished during his lifetime, it was later celebrated as among the fi rst real Gothic cathedrals. Hugh of Saint-Victor, ca. 1095–1141: Joined together at times as the “two lights of the Latins in France,” both Abelard and Hugh of Saint-Victor were famous as teachers and scholars, extraordinarily versatile in their interests. Though often critical of Abelard’s opinions, Hugh was, with him, one of the most influential theologians of the early twelfth century. Born in Saxony, the youthful Hugh became, as Abelard had done earlier, a student of William of Champeaux, then teaching the canons regular of Saint-Victor in Paris. Later William’s successor and fi nally the prior of Saint-Victor until his death in 1141, Hugh was a skillful teacher and prolific writer not only on theology, especially with emphasis on the scriptures and their contemplation, but on the liberal arts and philosophy. With this attachment, Hugh was persuaded that all natural knowledge contributed to the understanding of Scriptures. Besides his influential Didascalicon, an introduction to learning, Hugh’s important works include his Opera propaedutica, on Christian sacraments and contemplation, the fullest contemporary exposition of sacramental theology. Like Abelard, though more actively, Hugh and his pupil, Andrew, were in touch with Jewish scholars and made extensive use of the writings of the famous late eleventh-century rabbi, Rashi, whom Abelard also mentions. The influence of these Victorines in their biblical commentaries was later widely disseminated in the works of the scholastic, Peter Comestor. Hyacinth (Giacinto) Boboni, ca. 1105–98, later Pope Celestine III, 1190–98: A member of one of the powerful “new” aristocratic families in early twelfth-century Rome, and apparently during his youth a student of Abelard’s in Paris, Hyacinth was there again, it seems, with Abelard and Arnold of Brescia during the late 1130s, just before the council of Sens. In the intervening years, during the papal schism of 1130–38, he had been a supporter of Innocent II’s rival, Anacletus II, who died in 1138. In Rome, Hyacinth had witnessed papal documents beginning in 1121. For some years he was prior of subdeacons at St. John Lateran, and he was later made cardinal deacon of Sta. Maria in Cosmedin, probably by Pope Celestine II, in 1144. In still later years of his very long career, he headed numerous legations, especially to France, where he was regarded as a close friend of King Louis VII. Elected to the papacy in 1190, then in his middle eighties, he died in 1198, apparently the oldest pope in the history of the church to that point. Pope Innocent II (pope 1130/38–September 1143): Without waiting for Abelard’s intended arrival in Rome to present his own case after his condemnation at the council of Sens, in mid-July 1141, Innocent confi rmed the council’s judgment, extending it to all of Abelard’s theological works and imposing permanent silence on Abelard himself. Innocent later agreed to Peter the Venerable’s request for permission to keep Abelard, who had meanwhile taken refuge at Cluny, there for the rest of his life.

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

335

Gregorio Papareschi was born to a powerful Roman family as was his future opponent in the schismatic papal election of 1130, Anacletus II (of the rival Pierleoni family), Innocent had become cardinal deacon of S. Angelo in Pescheria in 1116 and with Abelard’s former master and rival, William of Champeaux, negotiated the Concordat of Worms in 1122. After his election as pope in opposition to Anacletus, Innocent fled to France where he won the active support of Bernard of Clairvaux, Geoff rey of Chartres, and King Louis VI, as well as other French bishops and abbots. As abbot of Saint-Gildas, Abelard was, in fact, a respected member of the numerous company of French churchmen who met at Morigny on the occasion of Innocent’s dedication of the abbey church. Innocent returned to Italy in 1132 and secured his position in the north at the council of Pisa in 1135. It was during these years that he confi rmed Suger of Saint-Denis in his possession of the abbey of Argenteuil from which Heloise and her nuns were then expelled. After the death of Anacletus in 1138, Innocent reasserted papal authority over the entire Roman Church in the Second Lateran Council of 1139. Although he owed Bernard of Clairvaux a very large debt for his office and often seemed subservient to Bernard’s influence, he later occasionally asserted his independence by declaring that Bernard meddled too much in politics, a statement with which their contemporaries might have heartily agreed. John of Salisbury, ca. 1115–80: As a young English scholar, he became one of Abelard’s students of logic during his teaching on Mont-Sainte-Geneviève in 1136. John of Salisbury later recalled him as “a lucid teacher, admired by everyone,” and praised other qualities with equal warmth. Present some years later, in 1148, at the council of Reims, John reported, describing the occasion, how the attempt of Bernard of Clairvaux to achieve the condemnation of another distinguished theologian, Bishop Gilbert of Poitiers, was thwarted by a group of cardinals angry, they said, at Bernard’s effort to repeat in this case the prejudgment of Abelard that had been successful in Sens some years earlier. After years of study, John served as a papal official, and later in a similar office with his countrymen, the English archbishops Theobald, and later, Thomas Becket, at whose murder in 1170 he was present and which he later described in detail. He became bishop of Chartres in 1176, and died in 1180. Displaying the versatility of twelfth-century men of learning at its best, and demonstrating his prowess as the “most brilliant Latinist of his time,” are his numerous works, notably, along with his letters, the Historia pontifi calis, the Metalogicon and Policraticus (1159), and a verse Entheticus de dogmate philosophorum. Norbert of Xanten, ca. 1082–1134: Described by Abelard as “bloated with the false name of religion,” Norbert is commonly identified as one of the “two new apostles”—the other was Bernard of Clairvaux—whose threatening “slanders” of him Abelard also stressed in his fi rst letter. To his many admirers, however, Norbert appeared as a distinguished “follower of Christ,” fi rst as a preacher and reformer, then in 1121, as founder of a community of regular canons at Prémontré near Laon. Living under the monastic discipline of the Augustinian rule, its members also functioning as priests, this community marked the

336

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

beginning of the Praemonstratensian order, with papal confi rmation in 1126. In that year Norbert himself became the archbishop of Magdeburg, and in 1132 he accompanied Emperor Lothar II to Italy, where he served as imperial chancellor until his death two years later. Origen: Origen (185?–251?) was a prodigious early Christian thinker born and trained in Alexandria. Often considered the premier Christian theologian in both time and importance after St. Paul, Origen is said to have composed about 2,000 works. His teaching was based on the exploration of Scripture, the text(s) of which he studied with great sophistication. Origen favored the allegorical interpretation of Scripture rather than the literal or moral interpretations— although Eusebius reported in his Ecclesiastical History that Origen had himself castrated in literal compliance with Matt. 19:12 (a tradition now considered less than certain, but fi rmly credited in the twelfth century). Doctrinally, Origen was strongly Trinitarian, although he seems to have seen the Son as not quite equal to the Father, and was unclear about the Spirit. He believed in the eventual reconciliation (Apocatastasis) of all Creation to the Creator, including even the Devil; he had unusual ideas about the resurrected body and the long duration of time, etc. The presentation of Origen’s doctrines by Evagrius of Pontus and other ‘Origenists’ found little general favor, and fi fteen of the teachings attributed to him (all of them ‘Origenist’) were condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 553. Because of that rejection, the lengthy complexity of his writings, and misfortune, few of his works survive. Latin translations by Rufi nus and Jerome preserve much of his work still known. An anthology entitled Philocalia is due to the high esteem for Origen of two of the fourth-century Cappadocian Doctors of the Church, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen (both former students at the Platonic Academy in Athens). Origen’s personal life was more than exemplarily Christian, although most bishops disapproved of his reported self-castration. He practiced serious asceticism, and died as a consequence of torture during the persecution unleashed by the emperor Decius. This intensely intellectual, erudite, dubiously condemned ‘heretic’-eunuch-‘martyr’ loomed large in Abelard’s consciousness. In Letter 5, Abelard vehemently disapproved of Origen's self-castration. See Bonnie Wheeler, “Origenary Fantasies.” Otto of Freising, ca. 1110–58: Evidently a student of Abelard’s in Paris, ca. 1133, later a Cistercian monk and bishop of Freising from 1137 to his death in 1158, Otto also belonged to the German imperial family as an uncle of Emperor Frederick I. With a unique perspective on his own larger world, Otto became one of the greatest of medieval historians, achieving in The Two Cities a development of the Augustinian scheme that approached a philosophy of history. Writing in the troubled years before his nephew’s election as emperor, Otto tended toward a dark view of the lessons of philosophy and human history. Yet though he believed that when humanity reached a zenith, it was bound to decline, he also noted the achievements of his own as well as earlier times. He praised especially the transformation of intellectual life that began with such illustrious masters of the late eleventh century as Berengar, Anselm of Laon and Anselm of Canterbury. In

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

337

keeping with these advances, Otto reflected on a conception of human progress made possible through individual reason and self-understanding. Significant in this larger context is his treatment, in his history of the reign and achievements of his nephew, Emperor Frederick, of the two cases that, along with some others, in the view of recent scholars, marked the appearance of a “persecuting” society in Western history. Reversing the order of these two episodes, Otto dealt fi rst with the later attack on the teaching of the distinguished theologian, Bishop Gilbert of Poitiers, led by Bernard of Clairvaux in the council of Reims in 1148. This attack essentially failed through the opposition of several cardinals who recalled with anger the similar and successful pre-emption of the case against Abelard at the council of Sens several years earlier. Turning to this episode, Otto dwelt in some detail on the significant development of Abelard as a teacher and thinker, beginning with the sometimes playful, but often incautious and self-assertive master, “so arrogant that he would hardly trouble himself to depart from the heights of his own mind to consider the thoughts of others.” But then, passing over the misfortunes that preceded them, Otto went on to describe how Abelard changed when, as a monk, he was able to devote himself night and day to study and thought, to the achievements of his religious as well as his intellectual life. A detailed account of the council of Sens and its outcome ends with Otto’s subtle explanation of the hostility of Bernard of Clairvaux toward “intellectuals” like Gilbert of Poitiers and Abelard. Otto remarked that Bernard was impelled by his fear: unable to understand their ideas and ways of thinking, he therefore wished to suppress them. Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny. Peter the Venerable, the welcoming friend of Abelard’s last days, was born Pierre Maurice de Montboissier in Auvergne, in 1092/94, the son of a Burgundian noble family of some distinction, with its members especially prominent in the monastic life during this period. Among Peter’s seven brothers, four others were also dedicated to this life, and so was their mother, Raingard, who in her later years, as a widow, became a nun of Marcigny, the famous Cluniac monastery of women. A Cluniac monk since 1109, in 1122 Peter was elected abbot of that great monastery and head of its extensive congregation of daughter-houses. His personal qualities distinguished him among the most prominent churchmen of this time, and he showed affectionate friendship to both Heloise and Abelard in their later lives. For the richest sense of Peter the Venerable’s importance to his age, see his voluminous correspondence in Giles Constable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Petronilla of Chemillé, Abbess of Fontevraud, 1116–49: Although we have no certain evidence of their meeting, her reputation as an abbess may have made this older contemporary a model of extraordinary success in their office for Heloise and other abbesses. Chosen by Robert of Arbrissel, its founder, as the fi rst abbess of Fontevraud after the death of Hersende, his earliest collaborator, Petronilla was a conversa laica, a lay convert of noble birth and a “skilled manager of property.” Her rule confi rmed Robert’s well-founded belief that she would govern in “manly fashion.” More than anyone else, Petronilla shaped the order,

338

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

and the future, of Fontevraud, which would encompass some fi fty priories at her death in 1149, and seventy by the century’s end. This remarkable abbey and its daughter-houses included members of both sexes, but from the outset were dominated in numbers and authority by their female members, who were served by “brothers” bound by a promise of obedience to the nuns. Ruled by an abbess mourned when she died as a mother “incomparable” and “irreplaceable,” Fontevraud offered a model of female dominance followed by other communities, notably those associated with SaintSulpice-la-Forêt in Britanny. Robert of Arbrissel, ca. 1045–1116: Hailing Robert as this “distinguished messenger of Christ,” Abelard might well have seen in him and his career some reflections of himself and the complexities of his life. At first a parish priest, like his father, Robert soon found himself embarking on several different careers, as a hermit, preacher, and reformer, again like Abelard, a “proto-feminist” and “borderline heretic,” a founder of monasteries where men and women joined in lives of prayer and contemplation. (Abelard’s ideal Paraclete might have been something like Robert’s early Fontevraud.) His friendship with Countess Ermengarde of Brittany led to Robert’s only letter of advice to a woman (1109). The ironies of Robert’s concern for women and its outcome are evident in the future Fontevraud of Abbess Petronilla, which would lead to the largest and richest medieval monastic order of women (see Fontevraud). Four members of the English royal family became nuns of Fontevraud; an aunt of theirs was its second abbess. On Robert of Arbrissel, an accessible and helpful guide is Bruce L. Venarde, Robert of Arbrissel: A Medieval Religious Life. Roscelin, ca. 1060–ca. 1120/25: Although he was a youthful student of Roscelin’s after 1093, and perhaps later in that decade, in his brief references to his early education Abelard failed to mention these years of study with one of the most famous, and controversial, teachers of logic in this period. By the time Abelard was writing, twenty years later, he and Roscelin had become bitter enemies, attacking each other with escalating hostility. Apparently, when Roscelin heard of Abelard’s oral teaching as critical of his, he replied by attacking some aspect of Abelard’s theory of the Trinity. To this Abelard responded with a harsh letter addressed to the canons of Tours, to which Roscelin belonged. Roscelin’s answer was a vicious attack not only on the “unheard-of novelty” of Abelard’s teaching, but on his life, emphasizing his relationship with Heloise, whom Roscelin described as Abelard’s “whore,” though by this time they were married. With equal hostility Abelard answered this latest assault in his Theologia Summi Boni, to which further responses, if any, have not been identified. On this subject, see Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, pp. 57–58; for Roscelin’s letter, see Roscelin, Epistola ad Abelardum. Stephen of Garlande, ca. 1070–1148: In his Historia calamitatum, referring only once (though gratefully) to Stephen’s help in his escape from Saint-Denis, Abelard hardly did justice to his extraordinary friendship with this prominent and apparently worldly churchman. The head and leader of an important family,

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

339

for many years a personal favorite and adviser of King Louis VI, Stephen of Garlande exercised his own dual power, secular and religious, not only as a royal chamberlain and seneschal but also as an archdeacon of Notre-Dame and dean of Mont-Sainte-Geneviève for many years. Older than Abelard by a decade or more, Stephen of Garlande appears as his friend and patron in a relationship whose fidelity, closeness, and character are suggested by the coincidence of their fortunes for many years, beginning with Abelard’s very fi rst appearance as a master. Supported by Stephen’s patronage, the establishment of Abelard’s fi rst schools at Melun in 1102 and then in Corbie until 1105 was followed by his still mysterious withdrawal to Le Pallet with an illness that apparently lasted for several years. Coinciding with Stephen of Garlande’s fi rst fall from royal favor, this withdrawal ended with Abelard’s return to Paris, as well as with the rehabilitation of the Garlande family and the beginning in 1113 of Abelard’s few but brilliant years of success as a master in Paris and their unhappy outcome. This was soon followed by the separation of Heloise and Abelard, with their entry into the monastic life and the episode with which this note begins. After Abelard’s vicissitudes at Saint-Gildas, which coincided with another fall from royal grace (1127/28–32) of Stephen of Garlande, both were rehabilitated in ca. 1133 when Abelard’s return to teaching in Paris was very likely fostered by his enduring supporter’s return to power as chancellor. Becoming also dean of the abbey of Sainte-Geneviève, Stephen of Garlande evidently favored Abelard’s establishment of his new school there. According to John of Salisbury (Historia Pontifi calis, p.63), Abelard was living nearby at Saint-Hilaire. Although Stephen’s prominence may have declined during this later period, he remained dean of secular canons at Sainte-Geneviève until his death in 1148, leaving substantial property to Saint-Victor and Notre-Dame. Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis, ca. 1081–1151: Suger, who was raised at Saint-Denis, was elected its abbot in 1122 while he was in Rome, and he was ordained to the priesthood on his return. Perhaps enjoying exaggerated fame for his diverse roles as a “pivotal figure” in the making of the French state, not only as adviser to kings Louis VI and VII, but in his contribution to a “Twelfth-Century Renaissance,” and in the creation of a Gothic style in the rebuilding of Saint-Denis (for which see Radding and Clark, Medieval Architecture, Medieval Learning, pp. 57–76), Suger is less known for his critical role in the lives of Heloise and Abelard. Indeed, though quite unintentionally, his actions were largely responsible both for their reunion following their entrance into the monastic life and for the founding of the Paraclete. But first, and much earlier, after Abelard’s condemnation at the council of Soissons in 1121 and his return to enter new confl icts of Saint-Denis (see Explanatory Notes, “Saint-Denis”), Suger as abbot had permitted him to leave Saint-Denis, on the condition that he was not to join another abbey. Thus liberated, Abelard embarked on his fruitful years of teaching and writing at the Paraclete. Similarly fruitful in its outcome for both Abelard and Heloise, though painful for her in its occurrence, was Suger’s takeover of Argenteuil and his forcible expulsion of its nuns. Although

340

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

his action was based on forged documents and probably dishonest claims, it would lead to Abelard’s rescue of Heloise and her nuns and their establishment of a new community at the Paraclete. Always devoted above all to the interests of SaintDenis, Suger’s role as a “pivotal figure” is somewhat modified in Lindy Grant’s revisionary study, Abbot Suger of St-Denis: Church and State in Early Twelfth-Century France, from which he emerges as “an extremely important, but in most respects unoriginal figure.” See also Sarah Spence, “What’s Love Got to do With It? Abbot Suger and the Renovation of St.-Denis.” Thierry of Chartres, d. after 1156: Like Abelard a Breton by birth and among the most influential teachers of their generation, Thierry was, according to Abelard, his ironic defender at the council of Soissons in 1121. Thierry was later, after 1130, probably a master in Paris, during the years of Abelard’s intermittent teaching there. In the 1140s Thierry was a chancellor in Chartres and a master of its cathedral school, with which his chief surviving works are linked. These are a series of commentaries on the works of Boethius, and various texts in the liberal arts, the Heptateuchon. In the 1150s he left Chartres to spend his last days in an unidentified monastery. Especially valuable for our understanding of Thierry as an innovator in medieval philosophy is Peter Dronke’s essay in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, pp. 358–85, which notes that Thierry’s originality lay in combining a far-reaching naturalism with an extreme Platonism, in which forms and names exist indissolubly in the mind of God, and in which names give essence to things. William of Champeaux, ca. 1070–1122: Born in Champeaux near Melun, William studied with Anselm of Laon and later taught at the cathedral school of NotreDame; in William’s early years, Abelard was his pupil and soon his critic and opponent. From ca. 1110, William taught at Saint-Victor, the abbey-school of regular canons that he helped to found. In 1113 he was elected bishop of Châlonssur-Marne. Together with his teacher, Anselm of Laon, William is regarded as one of the founders of early scholasticism, which involved the teaching of rhetoric, logic, and theology. His theological works remain unpublished; extracts are edited by Peter Dronke in Fabula, pp. 68–78. Emphasizing as strongly as he did William’s qualities as a teacher (whether favorable or unfavorable), Abelard had relatively little to say about his teacher’s other important roles in the political and religious life of the early twelfth century, especially his struggles for influence on royal authority. After William became bishop of Châlons in 1113, he was particularly active in the rivalry between his party and that of the Garlandes, who were dominant for some years after 1113. This meant that William’s chief rival, Stephen of Garlande, was Abelard’s strongest supporter. Regarding Abelard’s place in their confl icts, it is worth noting that Abelard’s return to Paris in 1113 coincided with the Garlandes’ return to power, and especially with Stephen’s appointment as dean of Notre-Dame, ca. 1113. William of Saint-Thierry, ca. 1085–ca. 1148: Although he could say of Abelard “once I loved him,” William, as he was well aware, was later essentially responsible for

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

341

the condemnation of his erstwhile friend at the council of Sens in 1141. Convinced that Abelard’s theological works had made their friendship no longer possible, William sent Bernard of Clairvaux and Geoff rey of Chartres a list of statements drawn from Abelard’s Theologia scholarium and his “book of sentences.” These statements supported the charges condemned the night before the official meeting of the council by a majority of the churchmen assembled for that purpose. Before this meeting William had also produced a “disputation” against Abelard as well as an accusatory letter to Bernard of Clairvaux in 1139. Born in Liège, ca. 1085, William had become a monk at Reims, ca. 1095, and some years later (1121–35) abbot of Saint-Thierry near there. Perhaps present at Abelard’s trial in Soissons in 1121, he witnessed documents there in this year, along with Conon of Praeneste (see above). Greatly influenced by Bernard of Clairvaux during the 1130s, William gave up his abbacy to become a Cistercian monk at Signy in 1135. A mystical inclination and an opposition to the rationalism that he condemned in Abelard had led him to the psychology of the affections —the study of the soul’s movement toward God—explored in his The Nature and Dignity of Love (ca. 1120). William’s examination of the five different kinds of love was followed somewhat later by Aelred of Rievaulx in his Mirror of Charity and The Soul. With their leader, Bernard of Clairvaux, they became what has been described as for that time the most important “school of spirituality since the patristic period” (Colin Morris, The Discovery of the Individual, 1050–1200, p. 259). 3. Places and Institutions Especially Relevant to the Correspondence Argenteuil, female abbey: To our evidence of Heloise’s earlier life in this ancient abbey (as both she and Abelard describe this monastery), her return there after the disastrous outcome of their marriage, and her years as nun and prioress, must be added the dramatic episode of her expulsion from Argenteuil along with other nuns in 1129. Regarding the takeover of this well-endowed community by Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis, and the falsified documents on which his claim was based, see Thomas Waldman, “Abbot Suger and the Nuns of Argenteuil,” 239–73. Shortly after this action, when he went to Cluny in late 1130 to deliver the news to Innocent II (then in residence at Cluny) that the French church had accepted him as pope, Suger obtained from Innocent an official confi rmation of Saint-Denis’ possession of Argenteuil (see Lindy Grant, Abbot Suger of SaintDenis, p. 135). Founded in the seventh century and virtually destroyed in the Viking invasions, the community was re-founded and generously endowed by Queen Adelaide in the early eleventh century. [On the early history of the abbey, see André Lesort, “Argenteuil,” DHGE 4 (1930), pp. 22–26.] The fact that no reference to Argenteuil survives in any extant record between this time and 1113 has suggested the possible relationship between this absence of evidence and the likely destruction of such records by Suger or his agents. In the seventh century, Argenteuil was a village on the Seine 20 km./13 mi. northwest of Paris, some 45 km./27 mi. downstream if one follows the curving

342

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

river, then by far the easiest mode of transportation. Argenteuil is about 10 km./ 7 mi. due west of Saint-Denis (about half the overland distance to the center of Paris). A monastic community for women was founded there by Ermenric, a vir inluster in contemporary documentation, and his wife Mumana, likely in the third quarter of the 7th century. The abbey’s earliest surviving document (3 April 697) attests a gift by King Childebert III of woodland north of the village. In the early ninth century, the abbess of Argenteuil was Charlemagne’s daughter Theoderada. It was later claimed that he gave her a precious relic, the Tunic of the Lord, woven by his Mother, for which the executioners of Jesus cast lots at the crucifi xion. One tradition asserted that Charlemagne had received the Tunic from the Byzantine Empress Irene. A century later, the abbess was another Carolingian lady of very high standing: Rotisdis, daughter of KingEmperor Charles the Bald (840–77) and mother-in-law of Hugh the Great, Duke of Francia (d. 956) ancestor of the Capetian kings. Rotisdis was also abbess of Chelles, another important monastery of Merovingian foundation. Then came the Vikings, and Argenteuil was left in ruins. Adelaide of Auvergne, queen of Hugh Capet (987–96) rebuilt the abbey with the gift of all her husband owned in the vicinity of Argenteuil: a royal gift indeed, confi rmed in 1003 by Hugh and Adelaide’s son Robert the Pious once he became King of the Franks (996–1031). The abbey flourished anew under such patronage: in the reign of Louis VI (1108–37) the abbey’s advocate was Banthelu, of the ancient and powerful Montmorency clan— and so perhaps a close relative of Heloise. Heloise’s mother Hersinde must have found refuge at Argenteuil in the years before 1000; Heloise was raised and splendidly educated there (if only we knew by whom!). The Montmorency and former royal connections were not, however, enough to protect the abbey from the acquisitive determination of Abbot Suger to bring it under the domination of Saint-Denis. Suger got Honorius III (pope, 1124–30) to support his suit. At a long “reform” synod held at the abbey of Saint-Germainde-Près ( just southwest of Paris) from early February to mid-April of 1129, the papal legate Matthew, cardinal of Albano (formerly prior of the Cluniac house of Saint-Martin des Champs in Paris’ northern suburbs), won approval for the expulsion of all nuns from Argenteuil and their replacement by monks from Saint-Denis in what would now be simply a priory of that great neighboring abbey. On 14 April, Louis VI (who had relied on Suger’s advice as his chief minister for some seven years), confi rmed that decision: Louis was at Reims for the coronation of his son and intended heir Philip, who predeceased his father, and was swiftly replaced by Louis’ second living son, the future Louis VII (1137–80), who was then living at Saint-Denis, presumably intended by his father to be Suger’s successor. Thus the abbot of Saint-Denis tended to get what he wanted from both of these kings. On 2 November 1130, the next pope, Innocent II (1130–43), confi rmed this change once more. By the end of that month (28 November), he would confi rm the establishment of a new monastic house for Heloise and her nuns at the Paraclete. Maurice de Sully, bishop of Paris and a close adviser of Louis

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

343

VII, later (1165–68) tried unsuccessfully to get Pope Alexander III (1159–81), a former student of Abelard, to reinstate nuns at Argenteuil. By 1385 there were only 9 monks at Argenteuil. In 1410 and 1587, the English and then the Huguenots (under Condé) so thoroughly destroyed the standing buildings that the only part of Heloise’s abbey we can see today is a Romanesque doorway in the Cluny Museum in Paris. In the later 16th century the priory counted only two monks; nonetheless, it gained a few more members and lasted until suppressed by the French Revolution. Argenteuil’s prime relic, the Tunic of the Lord, was known to exist in France in the sixth century, but was not cited as being at Argenteuil until 1156—while Heloise was alive but far away at the Paraclete. The Tunic has been verified as comparable to Coptic textiles of the second and third centuries, and shows traces of human blood. Its cult reached its peak of popularity in the seventeenth century and, according to the DHGE, is last mentioned as being in Argenteuil in 1894. Heloise’s failure to mention it may be taken either as further proof that it was not at Argenteuil in her day, or as an indication of her disinterest in such devotions. Cîteaux and the Cistercian Order: Despite Abelard’s ironic remarks in his letter to Bernard of Clairvaux (Letter 10), among the new orders of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries the Cistercians can be described as the most successful. Swiftly expanding, affecting other new orders, the Cistercians exercised a major influence on the spirituality of the twelfth century. The Abbey of Cîteaux was an outcome of a secession from the abbey of Molesme, which was founded ca. 1075; this new monastery was established by Robert of Molesme at Cîteaux in the hills of Burgundy in 1098. An expansion begun a decade earlier under the leadership of Abbot Stephen was soon enormously fostered under the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux. Clairvaux: Founded in 1115, Bernard’s monastery would have sixty-five daughter-houses (half of the Cistercian abbeys then existing) at his death in 1153; the number of Cistercian monks was estimated then at ten or eleven thousand. Fundamentally committed to the literal observance of the Benedictine rule, refusing the acceptance of child-oblates, the Cistercians with their emphasis on the ideal of work supported its existence with a “second order” of conversi or lay workers. Another significant development was their gradual acquisition of privileges, among them exemption from tithes, which virtually freed their monasteries from episcopal authority and made them directly responsible to papal authority in Rome. Cluny: Considering Abelard’s critical view of the Cistercians, and most particularly the role Bernard of Clairvaux had just played in his condemnation at Sens, it is not surprising that Abelard turned to Cluny and its abbot, his friend, Peter the Venerable, for a refuge, especially welcome to an aging and increasingly ailing man. Cluny was, after all, especially important as a haven for the penitent, lay or religious. The largest monastic order (some prefer the term “proto-order” for its quasi-familial network) of medieval European Christendom, Cluny itself was a village in central French Burgundy, given in 909 or 910 by its rich secular

344

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

lord, Duke William I of Aquitaine, to a community of reform-minded monks who wanted to live free of secular control, under the ultimate authority not of the king of France but of the distant pope. A local abbot committed to a Carolingian tradition of monastic reform, Berno, accepted the post of abbot at Cluny in 910. Berno was succeeded by Odo in 926, and Odo by Aymard in 944. Under these two abbots Cluny began to spread its mode of monastic life, which in that anarchic time attracted lay associates as well as monastic communities which could continue their corporate existence once they accepted a Cluniac prior. Odo, a man of ideas, appreciated learning; his widely-read Life of Gerald (of Aurillac) presented an ideal of the heroic Christian knight. Aymard was succeeded by Maiolus in 954; he was to preside as abbot for forty years (until 994). Maiolus’ successor was Odilo, who would be abbot for fi fty-five years (994–1049). In the near-century of those two abbacies, the autonomous Cluniac family got its temporal immunity solidly established; inaugurated the feast of All Souls (2 Nov) as the imaginative culmination of its elaborate liturgy especially dedicated to the network of saints’ cults spread through its prayerconfraternities; and began to support the expansion of Christendom in Spain. The sixty-year abbacy of Hugh (1049–1109) was the apogee of Cluniac influence. Its monastic family came to include between 500 and 2000 houses (estimates vary widely, depending on definition) throughout Christendom. Expansion in Spain and England in collaboration with reorganizing royal power was especially noteworthy. Although Hugh refused to take sides in the Investiture Controversy between popes and Holy Roman emperors, one of his spiritual sons, Pope Urban II (1088–99), launched the papacy-enhancing First Crusade, in many ways a logical consequence of Cluny’s tradition of spiritual militancy. In the period of rapid change following the First Crusade (1095–99) and the fi rst phase of the papal-imperial struggle (1075–1122), Cluny began to seem out of date, overextended, even incoherently fragile. Abbot Pons resigned after a dozen disappointing years (1109–22). Peter the Venerable (1122–57) was the last great abbot of that monastic empire. Abelard’s former student and fi nal savior, Heloise’s steady support as she established the Paraclete, Peter undertook major programs of simplification and rationalization, internal and external. The main pressure with which he had to contend was the new wave of intense monastic reform exemplified by Bernard’s Cistercians. His rescue of the courageous but defenseless Abelard in 1141 after the condemnation of Sens can be seen either as a coherent part of his resistance to Cistercian competition or as a daringly principled risk. Abbot Peter was not normally sympathetic to religious deviancy: he was fierce in his written and diplomatic confrontation with heresy, Islam, and “judaizing,” so his rescue of Abelard is prima facie somewhat surprising. His sympathy for Heloise is less so: Bernard admired her, too. For Abelard and Heloise, Cluny may have represented several sympathetic traditions: reform in several stages over the centuries, though not the most ruthless variety; an elaborate liturgy susceptible to adjustment and expressive of ideology; and an attempt to realize on earth a functioning, territorial model of libertas ecclesiae, that old, compelling, elusive ideal.

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

345

Fontevraud: A great monastic community of men and women, run by abbesses, in the Loire valley, set at the confi nes of three major feudal territories—Anjou, Poitou, and Touraine. Founded by the visionary preacher Robert of Arbrissel about 1100, this dual (male and female) community also embraced lay men and women, some of then married. Presided over by a series of powerful abbesses beginning with Petronilla of Chemillé, it was generously supported by the counts of Poitou and dukes of Aquitaine. Its most famous resident (off and on between 1174 and her death in 1204) would be Eleanor of Aquitaine, who is buried there along with her second husband Henry II and her royal sons Richard Lionheart and John Lackland. By 1299, Fontevraud’s powerful abbess ruled over some fi fty daughter-houses. The original plan of Robert and Petronilla may resemble Abelard’s dream of a dual monastery, run by women, dedicated to an unusual and lofty commitment—in the case of the Paraclete, theological learning. Marcigny: The Burgundian Cluniac nunnery of which Peter the Venerable wished that Heloise were a member, Marcigny was founded in 1056, with a sister of Abbot Hugh of Cluny as prioress. It was planned for ninety-nine members, with the virgin Mary as the hundredth and titular abbess. Life at Marcigny expressed late eleventh-century spirituality. Peter the Venerable referred to it as a “powerhouse of prayer [with] magnificent and lengthy [liturgical] services,” in which his mother, by then a nun, participated. Mont-Sainte-Geneviève: The hill dominating the Left Bank of the Seine at Paris. The church of Sainte-Geneviève was an ancient foundation: King Clovis established its college of clerics, later called canons regular. It was named for one of the city’s patron saints (420?–500?) who had helped found the abbey of Saint-Denis downriver. The church named for Geneviève became in time a well-endowed community of secular canons. In the early 1130s, Stephen of Garlande returned to power as a counselor of King Louis VI, and became dean of Sainte-Geneviève. Abelard then returned there, probably thanks to Stephen’s reinstatement, and established a school in which he was to teach his most famous students ( John of Salisbury, popes Celestine II and III, perhaps Alexander II, Arnold of Brescia, etc.) John Marenbon thinks that Abelard lodged at the monastery of Saint-Hilaire during that roughly five-year stay. Along with the schools of Saint-Victor and Notre-Dame, the abbey school of Sainte-Geneviève became the cradle of the University of Paris. Morigny: A traditional independent Benedictine house, the Abbey of Morigny, south of Paris near Etampes, was founded about 1102 by a nobleman named Anseau. Philip I endowed the monks of Morigny with the abbey and revenues of St-Martin d’Etampes, said to have been founded by Clovis. Pope Calixtus II himself consecrated the church of Morigny in 1120. Its widely circulated Chronicle has been described as the principal purveyor of Capetian court gossip (see Richard Cusimano’s translation of Mirot’s edition of The Chronicle of Morigny). Morigny hosted an important council in 1131 at which Innocent II (who consecrated Morigny’s altar to St. Lawrence) received the decisive support of the French church as pope. The Morigny Chronicle respectfully records the active presence

346

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

there of Abelard (as abbot of Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuys) and Bernard of Clairvaux. One consequence of this encounter may have been Innocent’s confi rmation of Heloise as head of the Paraclete on 28 November of that year. Morigny’s abbot, Thomas, solidified the monastery’s power during his thirty-year rule, and he figured prominently in the condemnations of Abelard’s writings. Joined in 1629 to the Congregation of Saint-Maur, the Abbey of Morigny ceased to exist after the French Revolution. Paraclete: The story of this foundation is told throughout this collection. On 28 November 1131 Innocent II confi rmed Abelard’s gift of the Paraclete to Heloise. For the most complete explanation of its formation as a refuge for Abelard, who was soon joined by his students, and later as a refuge and abbey for Heloise, see McLaughlin, “Heloise the Abbess: The Expansion of the Paraclete,” in Listening to Heloise and the forthcoming biography of Heloise, Heloise and the Paraclete: A Twelfth-Century Quest. Saint-Denis. The preeminent royal abbey of France from the seventh to the end of the eighteenth century when it was dissolved and ravaged by the Revolution (and restored, briefly, to its royal role by Louis XVIII). Its central and fi rst burial was that of Dionysius, the fi rst bishop of Paris, martyred under the Emperor Decius ca. 250 CE. According to a fi rmly established ancient local legend, Dionysius was beheaded (his right as a Roman citizen) up on the butte of Montmartre, and then carried his head with him down to the Seine, down which his corpse floated until washed ashore a little to the west of the present abbey church. In time his legend came to include comparable fates for his two deacons, Rusticus and Eleutherius. In the early ninth century, under the abbacy of the enterprising Hilduin, Dionysius of Paris was identified with Dionysus of Athens, whose meeting with Paul on the Areopagus hill in that city is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Both were further identified with a sixthcentury Syrian Neoplatonic author of mystical treatises who signed himself as “Dionysius the Areopagite.” This triple patron was celebrated by Carolingian supporters of the abbey; he was, after all, at least as authoritative a “founder” as the barely intellectual Galilean fi sherman Simon Peter, from whom the Roman Pope derived his authority. Abelard, protected by Saint-Denis after his condemnation at Soissons, debunked and effectively discredited this triple identity—a typically piercing stance for him, even though newly humiliated by castration and condemnation. It is generally thought now that the abbey’s origins derive from the burial of Bishop Dionysius in a third-century cemetery alongside a Roman road connecting that immediate district with Beauvais. Around 475 the devout Gallo-Roman lady Saint-Geneviève established there an endowment to support a community tending the tomb and maintaining its cultus. At some point a monastic community gathered there. In the mid-sixth century a narthex was added to the primitive church, in which it became a habit to bury members of the royal Merovingian family. In 639 King Dagobert (629–39), a major patron of the abbey later claimed as its founder, was buried there. His throne was also reverently preserved there, and was often sat in by Frankish (and French)

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

347

kings visiting the abbey. [Later in the seventh century the female monastery of Argenteuil was founded, some 10 miles to the west, further down the Seine.] In the mid-eighth century Abbot Fulrad combined the offices of abbot and royal chaplain, a pairing maintained (or at least claimed) by many of his successors. In 775 he inaugurated a much larger abbey church, incorporating all of its distinguished burials (when Abelard became a monk there in the 1120s, thirteen kings and queens of the three royal dynasties—Merovingian, Carolingian, and Capetian—were entombed there; King Louis VI would join them in 1137). Actually, Fulrad claimed that he was not the actual consecrator of the abbey church: Christ Himself was, as Fulrad had discovered the night before that event, when awakened by sacred sounds. It was thus considered an extraordinarily sacred space. Abbot Hilduin strove to enhance the abbey’s spiritual standing by bringing it under the Rule of St. Benedict as well as by claiming the triple Dionysian identity. King Hugh Capet (r. 987–96) strove to reinforce the former tendency towards spiritual reform by inviting Abbot Maiolus of Cluny to bring Saint-Denis into full conformity with the Benedictine Rule although it did not adopt the full Cluniac discipline or its liturgical traditions. [Hugh’s Queen, Adelaide, and their son Robert I (996–1031) rebuilt and restored the fiscal viability of Argenteuil.] The abbey was also the peacetime repository of the “oriflamme,” the redand-gold banner commemorating the martyrdom of the founder. The king of France, who declared himself a vassal of Saint Denis (the saint, not the abbey), traditionally went to take the oriflamme from the high altar to carry it with him on campaign. King Louis VI did so in the campaign of 1124 against the German King-Emperor Henry V, a campaign that Suger hailed as doubly glorious for being bloodless as well as victorious (Henry, learning that Louis was marching to meet him near Rheims with an unexpectedly large army of surprisingly obedient feudal vassals, prudently retreated). Thus Saint-Denis embodied highly mythic political/religious sacrality, not exactly Abelard’s view of sacred reality—and perhaps not Heloise’s either. Three outstanding abbots presided over Saint-Denis in the lifetime of Heloise. Abbot Adam (1094 or 1099 to 1121) expanded (somewhat carelessly) its extensive properties and enhanced its library and its collection of precious relics. Abbot Suger (1122–51), who represents the apogee of Saint-Denis’ prestige, reformed both its spiritual life and the management of its properties, and added to the west and east ends of Fulrad’s Church: those extensions, designed by two or perhaps three anonymous architects, constitute the fi rst full-scale use of the new architecture we now call Gothic—a misnomer; in its own time it was called either “modern” or “the French style.” The new narthex was inaugurated on 9 June 1140, and the new choir on 11 June 1144. In 1127, Suger—a serious Gregorian reformer despite his role as the king’s ranking minister—imposed a discipline more strictly adhering to the Benedictine Rule and reformed many of the abbey’s priories, and he also won papal approval for his effort to annex Argenteuil—which he claimed, on the basis of some highly creative documents, had always been subject to Saint-Denis. He then expelled all the nuns, not only those loyal to prioress Heloise, and installed monks whose

348

E X P L A N AT O RY N O T E S F O R P E R S O N S A N D P L AC E S

rigorously ascetic diet we know: eggs a few times a week, only apples and nuts in Lent (and Advent?), otherwise a few vegetables. Argenteuil did not thrive under this male regime, despite the priory’s effort from the mid-twelfth century to exploit a cult of the Tunic of the Lord. The monastic membership of Saint-Denis itself had long been capped at 150; at the end of Suger’s thirty-year abbacy some 50 or 60 monks may have been in residence. Suger was succeeded by an abbot of his choosing, Odo of Deuil (1151–62). Odo went on the Second Crusade as the personal chaplain to King Louis VII (1137–80) and Queen Eleanor (of Aquitaine); this was evidently a less than successful ministry. Odo maintained Suger’s passion for history, both its collection in an ever-growing library and in new works; in fact, from the time of Suger and Odo the abbey became the headquarters of what may be considered a national history-writing project which lasted until the 1790s. Odo successfully resisted the suits of several of the former nuns of Argenteuil (not including those at the Paraclete) assisted by the diocese of Paris, to reclaim their rights. This suit became even more insistent after Odo’s death. Heloise seems to have had nothing to do with that effort. Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuys: An old monastery on the south coast of Brittany claiming foundation by the sixth-century British monk Gildas. The monastery may have been established on an island and moved to the mainland for some relief from Viking threat. It has been characterized as a “particularly corrupt” monastery of semi-Celtic customs largely because of Abelard’s devastating description of his reform-resisting, Breton-speaking monks during the fi rst five to seven years (1125 or 1127–32) he served as abbot, feeling more that he was their prisoner than their leader. Spending time at the Paraclete, his foundation now run by Heloise, was an attractive alternative, but Abelard, fearing scandal, withdrew instead to an unidentified location, perhaps close to his family’s lands near Nantes. (Then, about 1135, he returned to Paris, teaching at Mont-Sainte-Geneviève).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources 1. Citations for Editions of Works by Heloise and/or Abelard translated in the order presented in this book. Primary source listed first; other editions listed in alphabetical order. Letter 1: Historia calamitatum. Historia calamitatum, texte critique avec une introduction. Ed. Jacques Monfrin. Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques: Textes et Commentaires. Paris: J. Vrin, 1959, 1962 [2nd], 1967 [3rd], 1978. ———. “Abelard’s Letter of Consolation to a Friend (Historia calamitatum).” Ed. Joseph T. Muckle. Mediaeval Studies 12 (1950): 163–213. Historia calamitatum, texte critique avec une introduction. Ed. Jacques Monfrin, Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques: Textes et Commentaires. Paris: J. Vrin, 1959, 1962 [2nd], 1967 [3rd], 1978. Letters 2–5: “The Personal Letters between Abelard and Heloise, Introduction, Authenticity and Text.” Ed. Joseph T. Muckle. Mediaeval Studies 15 (1953): 47–94. ———. Edition of Old French translation. La Vie et les epistres, Pierres Abaelard et Heloys sa fame. Traduction du XIIIe siècle attribuée à Jean de Meun, Avec une nouvelle édition des textes latins d’aprés le ms. Troyes Bibl. Mun. 802. I. Introduction, Textes. [Only one vol. published]. Ed. Eric Hicks. Nouvelle Bibliothèque du Moyen Âge 16. Paris: Champion, 1991, Paris and Geneva: Champion-Slatkine, 1991. [Letters 1–7]. Old French text from MS BN fr. 920]. Letters 6 & 7: “The Letter of Heloise on the Religious Life and Abelard’s Reply.” Ed. Joseph T. Muckle. Mediaeval Studies 17 (1955): 240–81. Letter 6 at 240–52. Letter 7: “The Origin of the Religious Life of Nuns: Concerning the Authority and Dignity of the Life of Nuns,” at 253–81. Letter 8: “Abelard’s Rule for Religious Women.” Ed. Terence P. McLaughlin. Mediaeval Studies 18 (1956): 241–92. Letter 9. Abelard to the Nuns of the Paraclete: “On Studies.” In Peter Abelard. Letters IX–XIV. Edition with an Introduction. Ed. Edmé Renno Smits. Groningen: Sneldruk Boulevard Enschede, 1983. Pp. 219–37. “Abelard to Heloise: A Profession of Faith.” In “Confessio fidei ad Heloissam—Abelard’s Last Letter to Heloise? A Discussion and Critical Edition of the Latin and Medieval French Version.” Ed. Charles S.F. Burnett. Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 21 (1986): 147–55, at 152–55. “Heloise’s Questions (Problemata Heloissae).” PL 178, 677–730. ———. Problemata Heloissae cum Petri Abelardi solutionibus. In Petri Abelardi opera. Ed. Victor Cousins, with Charles Jourdain and Eugène Despois. 2 vols. Paris: A. Durand, 1849. Vol. 1. Pp. 237–94.

350

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

Letter 10. “Abelard to Bernard of Clairvaux.” Paris BnF lat. 13957. ———. In Peter Abelard. Letters IX–XIV. Ed. Smits. Pp. 239–47. ———. In “Dacci oggi il nostro pane.” Sermo 14 e Lettera 10.Trans. [Italian] Edouardo Arborio Mella. Testi dei patri della chiesa 49. Magnano: Edizioni Qiqajon, Monastero di Bose, 2001. Pp. 25–35. Letter 11. “Abelard to his Comrades.” MS Heidelberg 359, fols. 14v–15v. ———. “Peter Abailard and Bernard of Clairvaux: A Letter by Abailard.” Ed. Raymond Klibansky. Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 5 (1961): l–27. ———. “Études sur s. Bernard et le texte de ses écrits.” Ed. Jean Leclercq. Analecta sacri ordinis Cisterciensis 9.1–2 (1953):1–247, at 104–5. Letter 12. Bernard of Clairvaux to Cardinal Ivo. In Sancti Bernardi opera. Ed. Jean Leclercq, C.H. Talbot, and H. Rochais. 8 vols. Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957–77. Vol. 8. Ep. 193. Pp. 44–48. Letter 13. Bernard of Clairvaux to Pope Innocent II. In Sancti Bernardi opera. Ed. Jean Leclercq, C.H. Talbot, and H. Rochais. 8 vols. Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957–77. Vol. 8. Ep. 189. Pp. 12–16. Letter 14. Peter the Venerable to Pope Innocent II. In The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Ed. Giles Constable. Harvard Historical Studies, 78. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Vol. 1. Ep. 98. Pp. 258–59. Letter 15. Peter the Venerable to Abbess Heloise. The Letters of Peter the Venerable. In The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Ed. Giles Constable. Harvard Historical Studies, 78. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Vol. 1. Ep. 115. Pp. 303–8. Letter 16. Abbess Heloise to Peter the Venerable. The Letters of Peter the Venerable. In The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Ed. Giles Constable. Harvard Historical Studies, 78. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Vol. 1. Ep. 167. Pp. 400–401. Letter 17. Peter the Venerable to Abbess Heloise. The Letters of Peter the Venerable. In The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Ed. Giles Constable. Harvard Historical Studies, 78. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Vol. 1. Ep. 168. Pp. 401–2. Letter 18. Peter the Venerable: Letter of Absolution for Abelard. In Petri Abelardi opera. Ed. Victor Cousins with Charles Jourdain and Eugène Despois. 2 vols. Paris: A. Durand, 1849. Vol. 1. P. 717. ———. Bibliotheca Cluniacensis. Ed. Martin Marrier and André Duchesne. Paris: 1614. Notae, col. 155. ———. In Constant Mews. “La bibliothèque du Paraclet du XIIIe siècle à la Révolution.” Constant Mews; Appendix ed. Mews and C.S.F. Burnett. Studia Monastica 27 (1985): 31–67, at 62. ———. Recueil des historiens de la France: Obituaires I–IV (Sens, I–IV) and V (Lyons, I). Paris, 1902–33. 4 vols. In Vol. 4, p. 429. 19. Peter the Venerable: Verse Epitaph for Abelard. In Constant Mews. “La bibliothèque du Paraclet du XIIIe siècle à la Révolution.” Appendix, ed. Constant Mews and C.S.F. Burnett. Studia Monastica 27 (1985): 31–67, at 65. 20. Nuns of the Paraclete: Epitaph for Heloise. In Constant Mews. “La bibliothèque du Paraclet du XIIIe siècle à la Révolution.” Appendix, ed. Constant Mews and C.S.F. Burnett. Studia Monastica 27 (1985): 31–67, at 63. 21. A Last Epitaph at the Paraclete, 1780. Handwritten Addition to Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 802 [Often referred to as MS T]. Appendix 1. The Paraclete Statutes (Heloise). Institutiones Nostrae: Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS. 802, ff. 89r–90v. Introduction, Edition, Commentary. Ed. Chrysogonus Waddell. Cistercian Liturgy Series 20. Trappist, KY: Gethsemani Abbey, 1987.

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

351

Appendix 2. Cartulaire de l’abbaye du Paraclet. Vol. 2 of: Collections de principaux cartulaires du diocese de Troyes. 7 vols. 1: Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Loup de Troyes (1875). 2: Cartulaire de l’abbaye du Paraclet (1878). 3: Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Basse-Fontaine (1878). 4: Cartulaire de l’abbayed de la Chapelle-aux-Planches. 5: Cartulaire de SaintPierre de Troyes (1880). 6: Cartulaire de Montier-la-Celle (1882). 7: Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Montiéramey (1890). Ed. Charles Lalore. Paris: E. Thorin: 1875–90.

Works Attributed to Heloise and/or Abelard: Manuscripts Jean de Meun. Roman de la Rose. Paris BnF lat. 2923, MS owned and annotated by Petrarch. Hymn Collections from the Paraclete. 1: Introduction and Commentary. 2: Edition of Texts. Ed. Chrysogonus Waddell. Cistercian Liturgy Series 8–9. 2 vols. Trappist, KY: Gethsemani Abbey, 1987, 1989. Problemata Heloissae cum Petri Abelardi solutionibus. In Petri Abelardi opera. Ed. Victor Cousins, with Charles Jourdain and Eugène Despois. 2 vols. Paris: A. Durand, 1849. Vol. 1. Pp. 237–94. La Vie et les epistres, Pierres Abaelard et Heloys sa fame. Traduction du XIIIe siècle attribuée à Jean de Meun, Avec une nouvelle édition des textes latins d’aprés le ms. Troyes Bibl. Mun. 802. 1. Introduction, Textes. [Only one vol. published]. Ed. Eric Hicks, Nouvelle Bibliothèque du Moyen Âge 16. Paris: Champion, 1991, Paris and Geneva: Champion-Slatkine, 1991. [Letters 1–7]. Old French text from Paris Ms BN fr. 920.

Translations and Other Editions Relevant to This Translation Abélard et Héloïse: Correspondance. Ed. and trans. Paul Zumthor. Collection 10/18: Série Bibliothèque du Moyen Âge, 1309. Paris: Union Générale d’Éditions, 1979. Originally: Lettres de Héloise et Abélard. Paris: Mermod, 1950. Abelard and Heloise: The Letters and Other Writings. Trans. William Levitan. Selected Songs and Poems. Trans. Stanley Lombardo and Barbara Thorburn. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett, 2007. The Education of Heloise: Methods, Content, and Purpose of Learning in the Twelfth-Century [sic]. Trans. [English] Elizabeth Mary McNamer. Mediaeval Studies 8. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991. [s.l.]: Edwin Mellen Press, Canada, 1992. Pp. 111–83. Epistolario di Abelardo ed Eloisa. [Italian and Latin]. Ed. and Trans. Ileana Pagani. Turin: Unione Tipografico—Editrice Torinese, 2004. [Letters 1–9, etc.] The Letters of Abelard and Heloise. Trans. Betty Radice. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin, 1974. Rev. M.T. Clanchy, 2003. The Letters of Abelard and Heloise. Trans. C.K. Scott-Moncrieff. London, 1925 (ltd. ed.). In Blue Jade Library, New York: A.A. Knopf, 1926, 1929, 1933. Repr. Albabook edn. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1942 Repr. A Marandell Book. New York: Cooper Square, 1974.

Works Sometimes Attributed to Heloise and Abelard [Anonymous]. Epistolae duorum amantium: Briefe Abaelards und Heloises? Ed. Ewald Könsgen. Mittellateinische Studien und Texte 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974. Un epistolario d’amore del XII secolo: (Abelardo e Eloisa?). Ed. and trans. Graziella Ballanti. Saggi/Edizioni Anicia 1. Rome: Edizioni Anicia, 1988.

352

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard: Perceptions of Dialogue in Twelfth-Century France. Ed. and trans. Constant J. Mews and Neville Chiavaroli. The New Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999. “Manuscrit de Troyes, Lettres de deux amants (Héloïse et Abélard?).” In La Lettre d’amour au Moyen Âge. Trans. Étienne Wolff and Marie-Claude Char. Le Cabinet de curiosités ISSN 1257–9440. Paris: NiL Editions, 1996. pp. 117–51.

Other Texts and Documents Pertaining to the Paraclete Cited in This Volume. Diocèses de Meaux et de Troyes. In vol. 4 of Obituaires de la province de Sens. Ed. A. Boutillier du Retail and P. Piétresson de Saint-Aubin, Obituaires de la province de Sens. 4 vols. Dir. Auguste Longnon. 1: Diocèses de Sens et de Paris (1902). 2: Diocèses de Chartres (1906). Ed. A. Molinier [vols. 1 and 2]. 3: Diocèses d’Orléans, d’Auxerre et de Nevers (1909). Ed. A. Vidier and L. Mirot. 4: Diocèses de Meaux et de Troyes (1923). Ed. A. Boutillier du Retail and P. Piétresson de Saint-Aubin. Recueil des historiens de la France, Obituaires 1–4. Paris: Imprimerie nationale: Librairie C. Klincksieck [“Publié par l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres”], 1902–23. Microfilm: Notre Dame: University Libraries, University of Notre Dame, Jan. 1993—3 reels: 35mm. The Old French Paraclete Ordinary: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS français 14410 and the Paraclete Breviary: Chaumont, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 31. 5 parts. 1: Introduction and Commentary. 2: The Old French Paraclete Ordinary: Edition. 3A: The Paraclete Breviary: Edition (Kalendar and Temporal Cycle). 3B: The Paraclete Breviary: Edition (Sanctoral Cycle). 3C: The Paraclete Breviary: Edition (Common of Saints, Varia, Indices). Ed. Chrysogonus Waddell. Cistercian Liturgy Series nos 3–7. Trappist, KY: Gethsemani Abbey, 1983–85. La Pommeraye Foundation Charter. In Cartulaire générale de l’Yonne recueil de documents authentiques pour servir à l’histoire des pays qui forment ce départment. 2 vols. Ed. Maximilien Quantin. Société des sciences historiques et naturelles de l’Yonne, Auxerre. Auxerre: Perriquet, 1854–60. Microfilm: New Haven, CT: Yale University Library, 1992—1 reel: 35mm. [The imprint of Vol. 2 reads: “Perriquet et Rouillé”]. Vol. 1, 493–99. Rouleaux des morts du IXe au XVe siècle. Delisle, Ed. Léopold Delisle. Société de l’histoire de France 135. Paris: Mme. J. Renouard, 1866; New York: Johnson Reprint, 1968. Microfilm: New York: Columbia University Libraries, 1992—1 reel: 35mm. [A suppl. to this work: “Supplément à la liste des rouleaux mortuaires puliés ou cités dans le recueil imprimé en 1866 pour la Société de l’histoire de France” is contained in Delisle’s Rouleau mortuaire du b. Vital, abbé de Savigni contenant 207 titres écrits en 1122– 1123 dans différentes églises de France et d’Angleterre; édition phototypique. Paris: Phototypie Berthaud frères; Philippe Renouard [et] Librairie Honoré Champion, 1909. Microfilm: Notre Dame: University Libraries, University of Notre Dame, March 1993—1 reel: 35mm. pp. [25]–37. Also in the same vol.: “Résponses d’un grand nombre d’abbayes à la notification qui leur avait été faite de la mort du bienheureux Vital,” No. 41 of which, the response of the abbey of Argenteuil, is attributed by the editor to Heloise.]

Other Works of Abelard’s Cited in This Volume Collationes (Dialogus inter Philosophum, Iudaeum, et Christianum) [Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian]. Ed. and trans. John Marenbon and Giovanni Orlandi. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

353

“ ‘Confessio fidei ad Heloissam: Abelard’s Last Letter to Heloise?’ ” A Discussion and Critical Edition of the Latin and Medieval French Versions.” Ed. Charles Burnett. Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 21 (1986): 147–55. Confessio Fidei Universis: “Peter Abelard, Confessio Fidei ‘Universis’: A Critical Edition of Abelard’s Reply to Accusations of Heresy.” Ed. Charles S.F. Burnett. Mediaeval Studies 48 (1986): 111–38. Liber Sententiarum: “The Sententie of Peter Abelard.” Ed. Constant Mews. Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 63 (1986): 159–84. Petri Abaelardi Opera theologica. 3 vols. 1: Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Apologia contra Bernardum. 2: Theologia Christiana. Theologia scholarium accedunt capitula haeresum Petri Abaelardi. Ed. Eligius M. Buytaert. CCCM 11–12. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969. 3: Theologia “summi boni.” Theologia “scholarium” Ed. Eligius M. Buytaert and Constant J. Mews. CCCM 13. Turnhout: Brepols, 1987. Petri Abaelardi filosofi et theologi, abbatis Ruyensis, et Heloisae coniugis eius primae Paracletesis abbatissae Opera. Ed. André Duchesne and François d’Amboise. Paris: Niclas Buon, 1616. Sermo 33 [Adtendite a falsis prophetis]: “Adtendite a falsis prophetis, CMS Colmar 128, fols. 152v/3v. Un texte de Pierre Abelard contre les Cisterciens retrouvé.” Corona Gratiarum (Festschrift Eligius Dekkers). Bruges and The Hague. 1975, II, 195–228. Scito te ipsum: Peter Abelard’s Ethics, An Edition with Introduction, English Translation and Notes. Ed. David Luscombe. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Sic et Non: Peter Abelard: Sic et Non. Ed. Blanche B. Boyer and Richard McKeon. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Other Primary Sources Ambrose. Hymni: In Hymni latini antiquissimi LXXV, Psalmi iii. Ed. Walther Bulst. Heidelberg: F.H. Kerle: Heidelberg, 1956, at 39–162. Aristotle. De interpretatione. Introduzione, testo greco, traduzione, commento a cura di Attilio Zadro. Filosofi antichi n.s. 3. Naples: Loffredo, 1999. ———. Categoriae vel praedicamenta. Trans. Boethius. Ed. Laurentius Minio-Paluello, Corpus philosophorum Medii Aevi: Aristoteles Latinus I/1–5. Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1961. Athanasius. Life of Antony by Athanasius of Alexandria. Trans. Tim Vivian and Apostolos N. Athanassakis with Rowan A. Greer. Cistercian Studies Series 202. Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 2003. Augustine of Hippo [Aurelius Augustinus]. De baptismo contra Donatistas [Latin and French]. Traités anti-Donatistes. Ed. and trans. G. Finaert. Bibliothèque augustinienne. Oeuvres de Saint Augustin 4. Série, 28–32. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963–68. ———. De baptismo contra Donatistaslibro vii. Ed. Michael Petshenig. CSEL 51 (1908): 43–375. ———. De bono conjugali and De sancta virginitate. Ed. and trans. P.G. Walsh. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ———. De civitate Dei. Ed. E. Hoffmann. CSEL 40 (1899/1900). Ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb. CCSL 47 (1955). ———. [English translation]. Concerning the City of God against the Pagans. Trans. Henry Bettenson. London, UK and New York: Penguin Books, 2003. ———. Confessions. Ed. James J. O’Donnell. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

354

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

———. The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin [sic]: With a Sketch of His Life and Work. Ed. Philip Schaff [“Prolegomena: St. Augustin’s (sic) Life and Work”]. Trans. J.G. Pilkington [“The Confessions of St. Augustin (sic)”]. Trans. J.G. Cunningham [“The Letters of St. Augustin (sic)”]. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 1 [1st Series]. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886, 1892 [New York]. Repr.: Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1954, 1974, 1988. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988. ———. De doctrina Christiana. Ed. W.M. Green. CSEL 80 (1963). Ed. J. Martin. CCSL 32 (1975): 1–167. Ed. R.P.H. Green (Oxford Early Christian Texts). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. ———. Enarrationes in Psalmos. Ed. E. Dekkers and J. Fraipont. CCSL 39, 40 (1956). ———. Epistolae 124–184A. Ed. A. Goldbacher, CSEL 44 (1904). ———. De libero arbitrio. Ed. William Green. CCSL 29 (1970): 211–321. ———. The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Trans. John Hammond Taylor, S.J. 2 vols. Ancient Christian Writers 41 and 42. Ramsey, NJ: Paulist Press, 1982. ———. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. Trans. John J. Jepson, S.S., Ph.D. Ancient Christian Writers 5. Ed. Johannes Quasten, S.T.D. and Joseph C. Plumpe, Ph.D., New York and Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1948. ———. De nuptiis et concupiscentia. Ed. C. Urba and J. Zycha. CSEL 42 (1902): 209–319. ———. De sancta virginitate. Ed. J. Zycha. CSEL 41 (1900): 235–302. ———. De sermone domini in Monte. Ed. A. Mutzenbecher. CCSL 35 (1967). ———. De Trinitate. PL 42 Ed. W.J. Mountain and F. Glorie. CCSL 50 (1968). Bede. [English trans.] Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Trans. Lawrence T. Martin. Cistercian Studies 117. Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1989. ———. Ecclesiatical History of the English People. Ed. and trans. Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Benedict [of Nursia]. The Rule of St. Benedict: In Latin and English with Notes [and Thematic Index]. Ed. Timothy Fry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1981 [full edn.]; 1981 [abr. edn.—no “Thematic Index,” etc.]. Now: The Rule of St. Benedict in English. 1st Vintage Spiritual Classics. New York: Vintage Books, 1998. ———. St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries. [Or: Rule for Monasteries]. Trans. Leonard J. Doyle. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1948. Collegeville, MN: St. John’s Abbey Press, 1948, 1949. ———. “La Premiére Régle de Saint Benoit.” Ed. D. Donatien de Bruyne. Revue Bénédictine 42 (1930): 316–42. ———. The Rule of Saint Benedict in Latin and English. Ed. and trans. Abbot Justin McCann, London: Burns, Oates, 1952. Berengar of Poitiers. “The Satirical Works of Berengar of Poitiers: An Edition with Introduction.” R.M. Thomson. Mediaeval Studies 42 (1980): 89–138, at 111–30. Bernard of Clairvaux. The Letters of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. Trans. Bruno Scott James. London: Burns, Oates, 1953. Repr. New York: AMS Press, 1980. ———. Opera Omnia in 4 vols. PL. Vols. 182–85. ———. [SBO] Sancti Bernardi opera ad fidem codicum recensuerunt. Ed. Jean Leclercq, C.H. Talbot, and H. Rochais. 8 vols. Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957–77. ———. Treatises I. Vol. 1 of The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux. Ed. M. Basil Pennington. Trans. Michael Casey. Cistercian Fathers Series 1. Spencer, MA: Cistercian, 1970. Boethius [Anicius Manlius Severinus]. De consolatione Philosophiae. In The Theological Tractates [of ] Boethius, with an English Translation by H. F. Stewart and E.K. Rand; [and] The Consolation of Philosophy [by] Boethius, with an English Translation by S.J. Tester. Ed.

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

355

and trans. H.F. Stewart, E.K. Rand, and S.J. Tester. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918, 1926, 1936, 1946, 1953, 1962, 1973 [new rev.], 1978, 1990. ———. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. with introduction and notes by Patrick G. Walsh. Oxford World Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 2000. Pseudo-Boèce [Pseudo-Boethius]. De disciplina scolarium. Ed. Olga Weijers. Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 12. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976. Cato. The distichs of Cato: a famous medieval textbook. [Latin and English]. Ed. and trans. Wayland J. Chase. University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History 7. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1922. Catullus, C[aius/Gaius] Valerius. Carmina. [Or: C. Valerii Catulli carmina]. Ed. Sir R.A.B. Mynors. Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis [Script. lat.]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958; [Repr. from corr. sheets of 1st]: 1960, 1972. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De inventione; De optimo genere oratorum; Topica. Ed. and trans. H.M. Hubbell. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949, 1960, 1976, 1993. ———. On the Good Life, [selected writings of] Cicero. [Or On the Good Life]. Trans. with intro. Michael Grant. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1971, 1982. ———. Laelius [De amicitia]. Pub. as L’amitié. Ed. and trans. L. Laurand. Collection des universités de France. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1928, 1942 [2nd], 1952 [3rd], 1957 [3rd rev. and corr.], 1961 [4th], 1965, 1968. ———. Tusculanae disputations. Tusculan disputations. [English and Latin]. Ed. A.E. Douglas. Chicago, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1985. Warminster, Wiltshire, UK: Aris & Phillips, 1990. Cicero [Pseudo-Cicero]. Ad C. Herennium, De ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium) with an English Translation by Harry Caplan. Ed. and trans. Harry Caplan. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953, 1954, 1964, 1968, 1977, 1981, 1989. Corpus iuris canonici. Ed. E. Ludwig Richter and Emil Friedberg. Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlagsanstalt, 1959. Corpus juris civilis. Ed. Paul Krueger. Berlin: Weidmann, 1877. Damian, Peter. The Letters of Peter Damian. 4 vols. 1: Letters 1–30. 2: Letters 31–60. 3: Letters 61–90. 4: Letters 91–120. Trans. Owen J. Blum. The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation 1–3, 5. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989–92. Denzinger, Heinrich. Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Edn. 24. Barcelona: Herder, 1946. Eusebius of Cesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, PG 20. ———. [English trans.] The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine. Trans. C.F. Cruse. Philadelphia: R. Davis, 1833. Godel, William. Chronicon, Recueil. Ed. Constant Mews. In Petri Abaelardi. Opera theologica. Vol. 3: Theologia Scholarium, CCCM 13 (1987). Gregory I [the Great]. PL vols. 75–79. ———. Forty gospel homilies. [English trans.] Trans. David Hurst. Cistercian Studies Series 123. Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1990. ———. Morals on the Book of Job. [English trans. of Magna Moralia]. 3 vols. in 4. Library of the Fathers. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1844–50. ———. Registrum epistolarum. Ed. Paul Ewald and Ludwig Hartmann. MGH. Epistolae 1–2. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1887–99.

356

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

———. S. Gregory on the pastoral charge: the Benedictine text with an English translation. Ed. and trans. H.R. Bramley. Oxford: J. Parker, 1874. Guillaume de Lorris, and Jean de Meun. The Romance of the Rose. Trans. Charles Dahlberg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971, 1995 [3rd]; Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1983. ———. The Romance of the Rose. Trans. Frances Horgan. The World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. ———. Romance of the Rose Digital Library. Project of Sheridan Libraries at The Johns Hopkins University and the BnF. http://romandelarose.org/#home. Horace [Quintus Horatius Flaccus]. The Odes and Epodes with an English Translation. Trans. Charles E. Bennett. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914, 1918, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1925; [rev.]: 1927, 1929, 1930, 1934, 1939, 1946, 1947, 1952, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1978, 1988. [Translation has appeared in numerous other contexts]. ———. Satires [Satirae]. In Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica with an English Translation. Ed. and trans. H. Rushton Fairclough. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920, 1926; [rev.]: 1926, 1929, 1932, 1936, 1939, 1942, 1947, 1955, 1961, 1966, 1970, 1978, 1991. [Imp. varies somewhat]. Jerome. The Homilies of Saint Jerome. [English]. Trans. Marie Ligouri Ewald. 2 vols. Fathers of the Church 48, 57. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1964, 1966. ———. On Illustrious Men. [English]. Trans. Thomas P. Halton. Fathers of the Church 100. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999. ———. The Principal Works of St. Jerome. Trans. W.H. Fremantle. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 6 [2nd series]. Oxford: James Parker and New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1954, 1983. ———. Sancti Hieronymi presbyteri qui deperditi hactenus putabantur Commentarioli in Psalmos, Ed. Dom Germanus Morin. Belgium: Maredsous and Oxford: J. Parker. Bibliopolas, 1895–1903. ———. Select Letters of St. Jerome. Trans. F.A. Wright. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933, 1954, 1963, 1975, 1980, 1991. Repr. [not in Loeb]: Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1983. John Chrysostom. Herme-neia eis te-n pros Hebraious Epistole-n. Incipit Comme[n]tariu[s] Sancti Iohannis episcopi Consta[n]tinopolita[n]i cognome[n]to Crisostomi in Epistolam Sancti Paul Apostoli ad Hebreos. [Latin and Greek]. Trans. Mutianus Scholasticus. Urach: Conrad Fyner, not after July 1485. John of Salisbury. Entheticus de dogmate philosophorum. Ed. K.E. Pepin. Traditio (1975): 127–93]. ———. Ioannis Saresberiensis episcopi carnotensis, Metalogicon libri IIII; recognovit et prolegomenis apparatu critico. Ed. Clement Charles Julian Webb. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909, 1929. Microfiche: Maastricht, Holland: Micro Library Canisianum [1909 printing]. Microfilm: Notre Dame: University Libraries, University of Notre Dame, April 1992—1 reel: 35mm [1929 printing]. [Often catalogued without subtitle]. ———. Metalogicon. Ed. J.B. Hall. In Ioannis Saresberiensis Metalogicon. Ed. Daniel D. McGarry, J.B. Hall, and K.S.B. Keats-Rohan. CCCM 98. Turnhout: Brepols, 1991. ———. The Metalogicon of John of Salisbury: A Twelfth-Century Defense of the Verbal and Logical Arts of the Trivium. Trans. Daniel D. McGarry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955, 1962. [s.l.]: Cambridge University Press, 1962; Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1971. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982. Josephus [Titus] Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. Jewish Antiquities. Ed. H. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, and Allen Paul Wikgren. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998–.

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

357

Justinian [Flavius Petrus Sabbatins Justinianus]. Codex Justinianus. In Corpus juris civilis. Ed. Paul Krueger, Theodor Mommsen, Rudolf Schöll, and Wilhelm Kroll. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1963–65. Juvenal [Decimus Junius Iuvenalis]. Satirae/ The satires. Ed. John Ferguson. London: Bristol Classical Press, 1999. Lucan [Marcus Annaeus Lucanns], Pharsalia. Trans. Jane Wilson Joyce. Masters of Latin Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Macrobius [Ambrosius Aurelius Theodosius]. Commentary on the Dream of Scipio. Trans. With intro. and notes by William Harrison Stahl. Records of Western Civilization, New York: Columbia University Press, 1952, 1990. ———. The Saturnalia. Trans. Percival Vaughan Davies. Record of Civilization, Sources and Studies 79. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Microfilm: Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, University Library, Preservation Office Microfilming Unit, 1997—1 reel: 35mm. Mansi. Sacrorum conciliorum, nova et amplissima collectio. Ed. Giovanni Domenico Mansi. 54 vols. in 59. Florence and Venice, 1750–90. Repr. with material of Labbe’s Sacrosancta concilia. Paris: H. Welter, 1901–27. Repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- und VerlagsAnstalt, 1960–62. Metellus, Hugo. Epistulae. In Sacrae Antiquitatis Monumenta. 2 vols. Ed. Charles-Louis Hugo. Saint-Die: Joseph Charlot, 1731. Ovid [Publins Ovidius Naso]. Amores, Medicamina faciei femineae, Ars Amatoria, Remedia Amoris. Ed. E.Q. Kenny. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. ———. Ars amatoria, Book I. Ed. A.S. Hollis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977, 1989. ———. The Art of Love. In The Erotic Poems. Ed. Peter Green. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin Books, 1982, 1988. Pp. 166–238. ———. Fasti. Trans. J.G. Frazer. Rev. G.P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. ———. Heroides. Trans. Harold Isbell. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin Books, 1990. ———. Metamorphoses. 2 vols. Trans. Frank Justus Miller, Rev. G.P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916, 1921, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1929, 1933, 1936, 1944, 1946, 1951, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1971, 1976, 1977, 1984, 1986. [Multiple rev. edn.; translation has appeared in other contexts]. [Morigny, Abbey of ]. A Translation of the Chronicle of the Abbey of Morigny, France, C. 1100–1150. Medieval Studies 22. Trans. Richard Cusimano. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003. ———. Ovid: Heroides and Amores with an English Translation by Grant Showerman. Ed. and trans. Grant Showerman. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914, 1921, 1925, 1930, 1931, 1947, 1955, 1958, 1963, 1971; [2nd]: 1977, 1978, 1986, 1996. [2nd rev. edn. G.P. Goold]. Pelagius. Pelagius’s Expositions of the Thirteen Epistles of Paul. Intro. Alexander Souter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926. Persius [Aulus Persius Flaccus]. The satires of Persius: the Latin text with a verse translation by Guy Lee. Intro. and commentary by William Barr.Wolfeboro, NH and Liverpool, UK: F. Cairns, 1987. Peter the Venerable. The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Ed. Giles Constable. Harvard Historical Studies 78. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Porphyry. Isagoge. Vol. 4. in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Ed. Adolphus Busse. Edita consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae. 23 vols. Berlin: G. Reimeri, 1891, 1883–1909.

358

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

Prudentius [Aurelius Prudentius Clemens]. Apotheosis [On the Divinity of Christ]. In Vol. 1 of Prudentius. 2 vols. Ed. and trans. H.J. Thomson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949, 1961, 1969. ———. “The Battle for the Soul of Man. Hymns for the Various Hours and Days. Epilogue.” In The Last Poets of Imperial Rome. Comp. and trans. Harold Isbell. Penguin Classics. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Quintilian [Marcus Fabius Quintilianus], Institutiones oratoriae. 4 vols. Scriptorum Romanorum quae extant omnia 525–555. 1. Institutionis oratoriae libri I–VI. 2. Institutionis oratoriae libri VII–XII. 3. Institutionis oratoriae textus, index nominum. 4. Declamationes. Pisa: Giardini, 1987–88. Roscelin of Compiègne. De trinitate 1. Epistola ad Abaelardum. Ed. Josef Reiners. In Der Nominalismus in der Frühscholastik. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Universalienfrage im Mittelalter. Nebst einer neuen Textausgabe des Briefes Roscelins an Abälard. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 8.5. Munster: Aschendorff Buchhandlung, 1910. Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Ad Lucilium epistulae morales with an English Translation by Richard M. Gummere. 3 vols. Ed. and trans. Richard M. Gummere. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1943, 1953, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1970, 1989, 1991. Statius, P[ublius] Papinius. Statius with an English Translation. [Or: Statius]. 2 vols. Ed. and trans. J.H. Mozley. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928, 1938; [rev.]: 1955, 1957, 1961, 1967, 1982, 1989. Suetonius. [Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus]. The Twelve Caesars. Trans. Robert Graves. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1957. ———. De vita Caesarum libri VIII. Ed. Maximilianus Ihm. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: Teubner, 1908. Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis. The Deeds of Louis the Fat. Trans. Richard Cusimano and John Moorehead. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992. ———. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its art treasures. Ed., trans., and anno. Erwin Panofsky. 2nd edn. Gerda Panofsky-Soergel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979. Terence [P. Terentius Afer]. Hauton Timorumenos. In P. Terenti Afri Comoediae. [Or: Comoediae]. Ed. Alfred Fleckeisen. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1856, 1857, 1861, 1862, 1868, 1871, 1874, 1881, 1884, 1894, 1895, 1898, 1901, 1905, 1910, 1916. ———. The Comedies. 2 vols. 1: The Brothers and Other plays (1965). 2: Phormio and Other Plays (1967). Trans. Betty Radice. Penguin Classics. New York: Penguin, 1965, 1967; 1976 [rev. and comb. edn. in 1 vol.]. Thierry of Chartres. The Latin Rhetorical Commentaries by Thierry of Chartres. Ed. Karin Margareta Fredborg. Studies and Texts 84. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988. A Translation of the Chronicle of the Abbey of Morigny, France, C. 1100–1150. Medieval Studies 22. Trans. Richard Cusimano. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003). Vergil [Publins Vergilius Maro]. Aeneidos liber quartus. Ed. R.G. Austin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955, 1963 [corr.], 1966, 1973, 1982. ———. Eclogues. Ed. Robert Coleman. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. William of Champeaux. Sententiae. In Vol. 5 of Problèmes d’histoire littéraire of: Psychologie et Morale aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles. 6 vols. Ed. Odon Lottin 1: Problèmes de psychologie.

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

359

2–4: Problèmes de morale. 5–6: Problèmes d’histoire littéraire. Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1942 (I-IV), 1948 (II-VI). Gembloux: Duculot, 1942 (V-VI), 1948 and 1960 (I-VI), 1957 (2nd edn. of I only). Women and Monasticism in Medieval Europe: Sisters and Patrons of the Cistercian Reform. Trans with intro. Constance H. Berman. Documents of Practice Series. Kalamazoo: Published for TEAMS (The Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages) by Medieval Institute, 2002. Yves de Chartres. Correspondance. Ed. and trans. Jean Leclercq. Les classiques de l’histoire de France du Moyen Âge 22. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1949.

Secondary Works Abélard en son temps. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’occasion du 9e centenaire de la naissance de Pierre Abélard, 14–19 mai 1979. Ed. Jean Jolivet. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1981. [Often abbreviated as Colloque]. Adams, Jeremy duQuesnay. “Les horizons sociopolitiques du monde de Pierre Abelard.” In Pierre Abelard, Colloque international de Nantes. Pp. 29–40. Ambiguous Realities: Women in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Ed. Carole Levin and Jeanie Watson. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Aristocratic Women in Medieval France. Ed. Theodore Evergates. The Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1999. Asni, Raffaella. “Abélard and Heloïse sur l’écran et la scène de 1900 et nos jours.” In Pierre Abélard, Colloque international de Nantes. Pp.185–203. Barrow, Julia, Charles S.F. Burnett, and David [E] Luscombe. “A Checklist of the Manuscripts Containing the Writings of Peter Abelard and Heloise and Other Works Closely Associated with Abelard and His School.” Revue d’Histoire des Textes 14–15 (1984–85): 183–301. Bartlett, Robert. The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950– 1350. London: Allen Lane, 1993. London: Penguin, 1994. Baswell, Christopher. “Heloise.” In Cambridge Companion to Medieval Women’s Writing. Pp. 161–71. Becoming Male in the Middle Ages. Ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler. The New Middle Ages 4. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 2066. New York: Garland, 1997, 1999 [pbk.]. Benton, John F. “Fraud, Fiction, and Borrowing in the Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise.” In Pierre Abélard—Pierre le Vénérable. Ed. Louis, Jolivet, and Châtillon. Pp. 469–512. ———. “The Paraclete and the Council of Rouen in 1231.” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, n.s., 4 (1974): 33–38. ———. “A Reconsideration of the Authenticity of the Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise.” In Petrus Abaelardus (1079–1142): Person, Werk und Wirkung. Pp. 41–52. Borst, Arno. “Abälard und Bernhard.” Historische Zeitschrift 186 (1958): 497–526. Bos, Egbert. “Patterns of Male-Female Religious Friendships and Their Inf luence on the Construction of the Literary Identities of Medieval Women.” In Worshipping Women. Pp. 326–36. Cambridge Companion to Medieval Women’s Writing. Ed. Carolyn Dinshaw and David Wallace. Cambridge Companions to Literature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Bouchard, Constance B[rittain]. “Cistercian Ideals Versus Reality: 1134 Reconsidered.” Cîteaux 39 (1988): 217–31.

360

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

———. “Every valley shall be exalted”: The Discourse of Opposites in Twelfth-Century Thought. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003. ———. Holy Entrepreneurs: Cistercians, Knights, and Economic Exchange in Twelfth-Century Burgundy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1991. ———. “Strong of body, brave and noble”: Chivalry and Society in Medieval France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998. ———. Sword, Miter, and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980–1198. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987. ———. “Those of my blood”: Constructing Noble Families in Medieval Francia. The Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. The Changing Tradition: Women in the History of Rhetoric. Ed. Christine Mason Sutherland and Rebecca Sutcliffe. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1999. Clanchy, Michael T. Abelard: A Medieval Life. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997, 1999. Classical Rhetoric and Medieval Historiography. Ed. Ernst Breisach. Studies in Medieval Culture 19. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University Press, 1985. Constable, Giles. “The Authorship of the Epistolae duorum amantium: A Reconsideration.” In Voices in Dialogue: New Problems in Reading Women’s Cultural History. Pp. 165–78. ———. Letters and Letter-Collections. Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental 17. Turnhout: Brepols, 1976. ———. Monastic Tithes: From Their Origins to the Twelfth Century. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 10 [New Series]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964. ———. The Reformation of the Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 1998 [pbk.]. ———. “Renewal and Reform in Religious Life: Concepts and Realities.” In Renaissance and Renewal. Ed. Benson and Constable. Pp. 37–67. ———. Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought: The Interpretation of Mary and Martha, the Ideal of the Imitation of Christ, and the Orders of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998 [pbk.]. [Usually catalogued without subtitle]. ———. Culture and Spirituality in Medieval Europe. Aldershot and Brookfield, VI: Variorum, 1996. ———. Love and Do What You Will. The Medieval History of an Augustinian Precept. Morton W. Bloomfield Lectures IV. Medieval Institute: Kalamazoo, 1999. ———. “On the Attribution of the Epistolae Duorum Amantium.” In Voices in Dialogue: New Problems in Reading Women’s Cultural History. Pp. 167–78. Cook, Brenda M. “Abelard and Heloise.” Genealogists’ Magazine 26 (1999): 205–11. Criticism and Dissent in the Middle Ages. Ed. Rita Copeland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Das Eigene und das Ganze: Zum Individuellen im mittelalterliche Religiösentum. Ed. Gerd Melville and Thomas Schürer. Vita regularis 16. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002. Dronke, Peter. Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Testimonies. W.P. Ker Memorial Lecture 26. [Glasgow]: University of Glasgow Press, 1976; Repr. in his Intellectuals and Poets in Medieval Europe. Storia e letteratura 183. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1992. Pp. 247–94. ———. Fabula: Explorations into the uses of myth in medieval Platonism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974. ———. Women Writers of the Middle Ages. A Critical Study of Texts from Perpetua (†203) to Marguerite Porete (†1310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 1985.

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

361

Dronke, Peter and Giovani Orlandi. “New Works by Abelard and Heloise?” Filologia mediolatina 12 (2005): 123–77. van den Eynde, Damien. “Chronologie des écrits d’Abélard a Héloïse.” Antonianum 37 (1962): 337–49. ———. “Détails biographiques sur Pierre Abélard.” Antonianum 38 (1963): 217–23, at 219. ———. “En marge des écrits d’Abélard: Les Excerpta ex regulis Paraclitensis monasterii.” Analecta Premonstratensiana 38 (1962): 70–84. Fälschungen im Mittelalter. Ed. Horst Fuhrmann. 5 Text Bande und 1 Register band. Schriften der MGH. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1988. Gilson, Étienne. Héloïse and Abélard. Trans. L.K. Shook. Chicago: H. Regnery, 1951 [2nd French]. London: Hollis & Carter, 1953. In Ann Arbor Paperbacks 38. [Ann Arbor]: University of Michigan Press [pbk.]: 1960, 1963, 1968, 1972. [Originally in French]: Héloïse et Abélard. Essais d’art et de philosophie. Paris: J. Vrin, 1938; 1948 [2nd]; 1964 [3rd rev.], 1978 [s.l.; 3rd rev., 2nd print.], 1984 [3rd rev., 3rd print.]. In Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques. Paris: J. Vrin, 1997 [3rd rev., 4th print.]. ———. The Mystical Theology of Saint Bernard. Trans. Alfred Howard Campbell Downes. London: Sheed & Ward, 1940, 1955, 1982. Now in: Cistercian Studies Series 120. Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1990. [Originally in French]: La théologie mystique de Saint Bernard. Études de philosophie médiévale 20. Paris: J. Vrin, 1934, 1947 [2nd], 1969 [3rd], 1980 [4th], 1986 [5th]. Grant, Lindy. Abbot Suger of St. Denis: Church and State in Early Twelfth-Century France. The Medieval World. London: Longman, 1998. Griffiths, Fiona J. “ ‘Men’s Duty to Provide for Women’s Needs’: Abelard, Heloise, and Their Negotiation of the Cura monialium.” Journal of Medieval History 30 (2004): 1–24. The History of Childhood. Ed. Lloyd DeMause. New York: Psychohistory Press, 1974. London: Souvenir Press, 1976. New York: P. Bedrick Books, 1988. London: Bellew, 1991. In the Master Work Series. Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson, 1995 [pbk.]. And in Harper Torchbooks. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy. Ed. Peter Dronke. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Huchet, Jean-Charles. “La voix d’Héloïse.” Romance Notes 25 (1984–85): 271–87. Individuum und Individualität im Mittelalter. Ed. Jan A. Aertsen and Andreas Speer. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. Jaeger, C. Stephen. Ennobling Love: In Search of a Lost Sensibility. The Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. ———. The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950– 1200. The Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. ———. “The Epistolae duorum amantium and the Ascription to Heloise and Abelard.” In Voices in Dialogue: New Problems in Reading Women’s Cultural History. Pp. 125–66. ———.”Humanism and Ethics in the School of Saint-Victor in the Early Twelfth Century.” Mediaeval Studies 55 (1993): 51–79. ———. The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals, 939– 1210. The Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985, 1989. ———. “The Prologue to the Historia calamitatum and the ‘Authenticity Question.’ ” Euphorion: Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 74 (1980): 1–15. ———. “A Reply to Giles Constable.” In Voices in Dialogue: New Problems in Reading Women’s Cultural History. Pp. 79–86. Jeudy, Colette. “Un nouveau manuscrit de la correspondance d’Abélard et Héloïse.” Latomus 50.4 (October–December 1991): 872–81.

362

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

Johnson, Penelope D. Equal in Monastic Profession: Religious Women in Medieval France. Women in Culture and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, 1993 [pbk.]. Kearney, Eileen. “Heloise: Inquiry and the Sacra Pagina.” In Ambiguous Realities. Pp. 66–81. Klibansky, Raymond. “Peter Abailard and Bernard of Clairvaux: A Letter by Abailard.” Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5 (1961): l–27. Knight, Gillian. The Correspondence between Peter The Venerable and Bernard of Clairvaux. Church, Faith, and Culture in the Medieval West Series. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002. Lalanne, Ludovic. “Quelques doutes sur l’authenticité de la correspondance amoureuse d’Héloïse et Abélard.” La correspondance littéraire 1 (1856): 27–33. Lesort, André. “Argenteuil.” DHGE 4 (1930): 22–26. Listening to Heloise: The voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman. Ed. Bonnie Wheeler. The New Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Luscombe, David E. “From Paris to the Paraclete: The Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise.” Proceedings of the British Academy 74 (1988): 247–83. ———. “The Letters of Heloise and Abelard Since ‘Cluny 1972.’ ” In Petrus Abaelardus (1079–1142): Person, Werk und Wirkung. Pp. 23–31. ———. “Monasticism in the Lives and Writings of Heloise and Abelard.” In Monastic Studies: The Continuity of Tradition. Pp. 1–11. ———. “Peter Abelard.” In A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy. Ed. Peter Dronke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Pp. 279–307. ———. “Peter Abelard’s Carnal Thoughts.” In Medieval Theology and the Natural Body. Pp. 31–41. ———. The School of Peter Abelard: The Influence of Abelard’s Thought in the Early Scholastic Period. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 2nd ser. 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. McLaughlin, Mary Martin. “Abelard as Autobiographer: The Motives and Meaning of His ‘Story of Calamities’.” Speculum 42 (1967): 463–88. ———. “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women: Twelfth-Century ‘Feminism’ in Theory and Practice.” In Pierre Abélard—Pierre le Vénérable. Pp. 287–334. ———. “Survivors and Surrogates: Children and Parents from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Centuries.” In The History of Childhood. Pp. 101–81. ———. “Heloise the Abbess: The Expansion of the Paraclete.” In Listening to Heloise: The voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman. Pp. 1–17. ———. Heloise and the Paraclete: A Twelfth-Century Quest. Ed. Bonnie Wheeler. The New Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming. The Making of Christian Communities in Late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages. Ed. Mark Wiliams. London: Anthem Press, 2005. Marenbon, John. “Authenticity Revisited.” In Listening to Heloise: The voice of a TwelfthCentury Woman. Pp. 19–33. ———. The Philosophy of Peter Abelard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 1999. Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus. A Medieval Latin-French/English Dictionary. Ed. J.F. Niermeyer. 2 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1967, 1976, 1984, 1993, 1997. Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Ed. F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996.

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

363

Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. Ed. Clare A. Lees with Thelma Fenster and JoAnn McNamara. Medieval Cultures 7. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press 1994. Medieval Mothering. Ed. John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler. The New Middle Ages 3. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1979. New York: Garland, 1996, 1999 [pbk.]. Medieval Religious Women. Ed. John A. Nichols and Lillian Thomas Shank. 4 parts. 1: Distant Echoes. 2: Peaceweavers. 3A and 3B: Hidden Springs: Cistercian Monastic Women.. Cistercian Studies Series 71–72, 113. The third part is also in Medieval Religious Women 3. Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1984, 1995. Medieval Theology and the Natural Body. Ed. Peter Biller and A.J. Minnis. York Studies in Medieval Theology 1. Rochester, NY: York Medieval Press, 1997. Medieval Women. Dedicated and Presented to Professor Rosalind M.T. Hill on the Occasion of Her Seventieth Birthday. Ed. Derek Baker. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 1. Oxford: Blackwell [for The Ecclesiastical History Society], 1978, 1985, 1989. Medieval Women Writers. Ed. Katharina M. Wilson. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1984. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1984. Mews, Constant J. Abelard and Heloise. Great Medieval Thinkers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ———. Abelard and His Legacy. Variorum Collected Studies Series 704. Aldershot, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2001. ———. “La bibliothèque du Paraclet du XIIIe siècle à la revolution.” Studia Monastica 27 (1985): 31–67. ———. “The Council of Sens (1141): Abelard, Bernard, and the Fear of Social Upheaval.” Speculum 77.2 (2002): 342–82. ———. With trans. Neville Chiavaroli. The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard: Perceptions of Dialogue in Twelfth-Century France. The New Middle Ages Series. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. ———. “On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard.” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 52 (1985): 73–134. ———. “Orality, Literacy, and Authority in the Twelfth-Century Schools.” Exemplaria 2.2 (Fall 1990): 475–500. ———. Peter Abelard. Authors of the Middle Ages 2.5: Historical and Religious Writers of the Latin West. [Printed together with 2.6]. Aldershot, UK: Variorum [Ashgate], 1995. Monastic Studies: The Continuity of Tradition. Ed. Judith Loades. 2 vols. Bangor, Gwynedd: Headstart History, 1990, 1991. Monfrin, Jacques. “Le problème de l’authenticité de la correspondance d’Abélard et d’Héloïse.” In Pierre Abélard—Pierre le Vénérable. Ed. Louis, Jolivet, and Châtillon. Pp. 419–21. Monks and Nuns, Saints and Outcasts: Essays in Honor of Lester Little. Ed. Sharon Farmer and Barbara H. Rosenwein. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000. Moore, R[obert] I. The First European Revolution, c. 990–1215. The Making of Europe. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000. Moos, Peter von. “Abaelard, Héloise und ihr Paraklet; ein Kloster nach Mass: Zugleich eine Streitschrift gegen die ewige Wiederkehr hermeneutischer Naivität.” In Das Eigene und das Ganze: Zum Individuellen im mittelalterliche Religiösentum. Pp. 563–619.

364

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

———. “Die Epistolae duorum amantium und die säkulare Religion der Liebe: Methodenkritische Vorüberlegungen zu einem einmaligen Werk mittellateinischen Brief literatur” Studi Medievali 44 (2003): 1–115. ———. Mittelalterforschung und Ideologiekritik: Der Gelehrtenstreit um Héloise. Kritische Information 15. Munich: W. Fink, 1974. ———. “Palatini quaestio quasi peregrini: Ein gestiger Streitpunkt aus der AbelardHeloise-Kontroverse nochmals überprüft.” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 9 (1973): 124–58. ———. “Le silence d’Héloïse et les idéologies modernes.” In Pierre Abélard—Pierre le Vénérable. Pp 425–68. In rev. form: “Die Bekehrung Heloises.” Mitteleateinisches Jahrbuch 11 (1976): 95–125. Morris, Colin. The Discovery of the Individual, 1050–1200. Church History Outlines 5. London: S.P.C.K. for the Church Historical Society, 1972. Newman, Sharan. Cursed in the Blood. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: Forge Books, 1998. ———. Death comes as epiphany. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: TOR, 1993. ———. The Devil’s Door. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: Forge Books, 2004. ———. The Difficult Saint. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: Forge Books,1999. ———. Heresy. A Catherine LeVendeur Mystery. New York: Tom Doherty Associates Book, 2002. ———. The Outcast Dove. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: Forge Books, 2003. ———. Strong As Death. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: Forge Books,1996. ———. The Wandering Arm. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: Forge Books, 1995. ———. To wear the white cloak. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: Forge Books, 2000. ———. The Witch in the Well. A Catherine LeVendeur mystery. A Tom Doherty Associates book. New York: Forge, 2004. Pierre Abelard, Colloque international de Nantes. Ed. Jean Jolivet and Henri Habrias. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2003. Pierre Abélard—Pierre le Vénérable: les courants philosophiques, littéraires et artistiques en occident au milieu du XIIe siècle. Abbaye de Cluny, 2 au 9 juillet 1972. Proceedings of the International Colloquium held at Cluny, 2–9 July 1972. Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 546. Ed. Louis, René, Jean Jolivet, and Jean Châtillon. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975. Perspectives for an Achitecture of Solitude: Essays on Cistercians, Art and Architecture in Honor of Peter Fergusson. Ed. Terry N. Kinder. Medieval Church Studies 11. Studia et Documenta 13. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Petrus Abaelardus (1079–1142): Person, Werk und Wirkung. Ed. Rudolf Thomas, Jean Jolivet, David E. Luscombe, and Lambertus M. de Rijk. Proceedings of the International Colloquium held at Trier, 17–19 April 1979. Trierer Theologische Studien 38. Trier: Paulines-Verlag, 1980. Pierre Abelard, Colloque international de Nantes. Ed. Jean Jolivet and Henri Habrias. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2003.

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

365

Pierre Abélard–Pierre le Vénérable: les courants philosophiques, littéraires et artistiques en occident au milieu du XIIe siècle. Abbaye de Cluny, 2 au 9 juillet 1972. Proceedings of the International Colloquium held at Cluny, 2–9 July 1972. Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 546. Ed. Louis, René, Jean Jolivet, and Jean Châtillon. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975. Portraits of Medieval and Renaissance Living: Essays in Memory of David Herlihy. Ed. Samuel K. Cohn, and Steven A. Epstein. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Powell, Morgan. The Mirror and the Woman: Instruction for Religious Women and the Emergence of Vernacular Poetics 1120–1250. 2 vols. Diss.: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1997. ———. “Listening to Heloise at the Paraclete: Of Scholarly Diversion and a Woman’s Conversion.” In Listening to Heloise: The voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman. Pp. 255–86. Radding, Charles M. and William W. Clark, Jr. Medieval Architecture, Medieval Learning: Builders and Masters in the Age of Romanesque and Gothic. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992. Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century. Ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982, 1985; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. In Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching 26. Toronto: University of Toronto Press [for Medieval Academy of America], 1991. Rouse, Mary A. and Richard H. Rouse. Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts. Medieval Studies 17. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991. Rouse, Richard H. and Mary A. Rouse. Manuscripts and Their Makers: Commercial Book Producers in Medieval Paris, 1200–1500. 2 vols. Turnhout: Harvey Miller, an Imprint of Brepols, 2000; also London: West Park Press, 2000. Rule and Life: An Interdisciplinary Symposium. Ed. M. Basil Pennington.Cistercian Studies Series 12. Spencer, MA: Cistercian, 1971; Shannon, IR: Irish University Press, 1971. Southern, Richard W. “Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours.” In Studies in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke.” Pp. 27–48. ———. Medieval Humanism and Other Studies. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970; 1984 [pbk.]. As a Torchbook Library Edition. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Spence, Sarah. “What’s Love Got to do With It? Abbot Suger and the Renovation of St Denis.” In Reading Medieval Culture: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Hanning. Ed. Robert M. Stein and Sandra Pierson Prior. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. Pp. 68–88. Studies in Medieval Cisctercian History II. Ed. John Sommerfeldt. Cistercian Studies Series 24. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1976. Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke. Ed. Richard William Hunt, W.A. Pantin, and R.W. Southern. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948; Repr.: Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979. Swanson, R[obert] N. The Twelfth-Century Renaissance. Manchester, UK, and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999. Synan, E.A. and E. Jeanneau, “Some Remarks on the Muckle Translation of Abelard’s Adversities.” Mediaeval Studies 57 (1995): 337–43. Venarde, Bruce L. “Praesidentes Negotiis: Abbesses as Managers in Twelfth-Century France.” In Portraits of Medieval and Renaissance Living. Pp. 189–205. ———. Robert of Arbrissel: A Medieval Religious Life. Documents Trans. and Anno. Bruce L. Venarde. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

366

BI BLIOGR A PH Y

Verger, Jacques. “Abélard et les milieux sociaux de son temps.” In Abélard en son temps. Abélard en son temps. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’occasion du 9e centenaire de la naissance de Pierre Abélard, 14–19 mai 1979. Pp. 125–28. ———. “Saint Bernard vu par Abélard et quelques autres maîtres desecoles urbaines.” In Histoire de Clairvaux. Actes du colloque de Bar-sur-Aube / Clairvaux 22 et 23 juin 1990. Bar-sur-Aube: Némont SA, 1991. Pp. 161–75. Voices in Dialogue: New Problems in Reading Women’s Cultural History. Ed. Linda Olson and Kathryn Kerby-Fulton. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. Waddell, Chrysogonus. “Adtendite a falsis prophetis: Abaelard’s Earliest Known AntiCistercian Diatribe.” Cistercian Studies Quarterly: An International Review of the Monastic and Contemplative Spiritual Tradition 39 (2004): 371–98. ———. “Cistercian Inf luences on the Abbey of the Paraclete? Plotting Data from the Paraclete Book of Burials, Customary, and Necrology.” In Perspectives for an Achitecture of Solitude. Pp. 329–40. ———. “Heloise and the Abbey of the Paraclete.” In The Making of Christian Communities in Late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages. Pp. 103–16. ———. “Peter Abelard as Creator of Liturgical Texts.” In Petrus Abaelardus (1079–1142): Person, Werk und Wirkung. Pp. 267–86. ———. “Peter Abelard’s Letter 10 and Cistercian Liturgical Reform.” In Studies in Medieval Cisctercian History II. Pp. 79–86. Waldman, Thomas. “Abbot Suger and the Nuns of Argenteuil.” Traditio 41 (1985): 239–72. Ward, John O. “Rhetoric, Truth, and Literacy in the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century.” In Oral and Written Communication. Pp. 126–57. ———. “Women and Latin Rhetoric from Hrotsvit to Hildegard.” In The Changing Tradition: Women in the History of the Rhetoric. Pp. 121–32. Ward, John O. and Neville Chiavaroli. “The Young Heloise and Latin Rhetoric.” In Listening to Heloise: The voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman. Pp. 53–119. Worshipping Women: Misogyny and Mysticism in the Middle Ages: Six Essays with an Introduction and a Note on the Ruthwell Cross. Ed. J[ohn] O. Ward and Francesca C. Bussey. Sydney Studies in History 7. Sydney: Department of History, Sydney University [University Printing Services], 1997. Wheeler, Bonnie. “Origenary Fantasies: Abelard’s Castration and Confession.” In Becoming Male in the Middle Ages. Pp. 107–28. William, Abbot of Saint-Thierry: A Colloquium at the Abbey of Saint-Thierry. Colloque international d’histoire monastique (1976: Reims, France, and Saint-Thierry, France). Trans. Jerry Carfantian. Cistercian Studies Series 94, Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications 1988. Wilson, Katharina and Glenda McLeod. “Textual Strategies in the Abelard/Heloise Correspondence.” In Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman. Pp. 121–42. Zumthor, Paul. “Héloïse et Abélard.” Revue des sciences humaines 91 (1958): 313–32.