For and Against Abelard - The invective of Bernard of Clairvaux and Berengar of Poitiers: 2 (Boydell Medieval Texts, 2) 1783275626, 9781783275625

Citation preview

About the pagination of this eBook Due to the unique page numbering scheme of this book, the electronic pagination of the eBook does not match the pagination of the printed version. To navigate the text, please use the electronic Table of Contents that appears alongside the eBook or the Search function. For citation purposes, use the page numbers that appear in the text.

FOR AND AGAINST ABELARD

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 1

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Boydell Medieval Texts

Boydell Medieval Texts is a series of parallel text volumes (Latin/English) presenting major medieval works, which aims to meet both the requirement of scholarly editions to the highest standard and the need for readily available translations at an affordable price for libraries and students who require access to the content of the works. The series volumes will be issued initially in hardback, followed by distribution in electronic form to a variety of platforms such as JSTOR. A year after publication, a paperback version of the translation only will be produced, with appropriately revised introduction and footnotes. The editors of the series are Rodney Thomson and Michael Bennett, both Emeritus Professors of Medieval History at the University of Tasmania.

Previously Published William of Malmesbury: Miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary edited and translated by R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 2

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

FOR AND AGAINST ABELARD THE INVECTIVE OF BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX AND BERENGAR OF POITIERS Edited and Translated by R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom

THE BOYDELL PRESS

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 3

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

© R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom 2020 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner The right of R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 First published 2020 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 978-1-78327-562-5 hardback ISBN 978-1-80010-071-8 ePDF The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620–2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate

Contents

vii

Preface and Acknowledgements

viii

Abbreviations

xi INTRODUCTION xii

Bernard’s Invective

xiv

Berengar ‘of Poitiers’

xv

Berengar’s Writings

xviii

Why did Berengar write?

xxii

Berengar as Satirist

xxvi

Influence

xxvii

Establishment of the Texts



TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS



1

Abelard to his comrades against Bernard



3

Bernard of Clairvaux, Letter 188



5

Letter 189

10

Letter 190

33

Letter 192

35

Letter 193

36

Letter 330

39

Letter 331

41

Berengar, Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

62

Against the Carthusians

66

To the Bishop of Mende

73

Index of Sources

80

General Index v

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 6

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Preface and Acknowledgements

In 1980 RMT, inspired by the presentation of Berengar’s Apologia in David Luscombe’s The School of Peter Abelard, edited his works with a substantial introduction attempting an explanation for their unusual features. After MW and RMT had edited and translated the last of William of Malmesbury’s original works in 2015, they sought a shorter but similar enterprise, and RMT proposed a new edition plus translation of Berengar’s satirical works. After discussion, it was decided to add to them the letters of Abelard and Bernard which revolved around the Council of Sens, and which to some extent explain Berengar’s vituperation. MW is responsible for the texts and translations; for Berengar’s works he has recollated the manuscripts. RMT is primarily responsible for the Introduction and notes to the translation. But each of us has visited the work of the other, and so the whole exercise is a joint one. The editors wish to thank Sigbjørn Sønnesyn for help with Bernard’s difficult Latin, and Constant Mews for patiently answering a barrage of technical queries about Bernard’s theology and logic. The whole text was read by Profs Julia Barrow, Danuta Shanzer and David Luscombe. Finally, we wish to thank Richard Barber for his interest in accepting and reshaping the text for Boydell Medieval Texts.

vii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 7

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Abbreviations

Apol.

Berengar, Apologia contra Sanctum Bernardum

BnF

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France

Cart.

Berengar, Epistola contra Cartusienses

CCCM

Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis

CCSL

Corpus Christianorum Series Latina

Clanchy, Abelard

M. Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life (Oxford, 1997)

CPL

Clavis Patrum Latinorum, ed. E. Dekkers (3rd edn, Steenbrugge, 1995)

CSEL

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

Luscombe, Letters

D. E. Luscombe, The Letter Collection of Peter Abelard and Heloise (Oxford, 2003)

Luscombe, School

D. E. Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard (Cambridge, 1969)

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

Mim.

Berengar, Epistola ad Episcopum Mimatensem

PL

Patrologia Latina

RB

Revue Bénédictine

SBO

Sancti Bernardi Opera Omnia, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot and H. Rochais (8 vols, Rome, 1957–77)

Scott James

The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. Bruno Scott James (London, 1953). Repr. with a new introduction by Beverly Maine Kienzle (Kalamazoo MI, 1998).

viii

Abbreviations

Stegmüller, Repertorium

F. Stegmüller, Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi (11 vols, Madrid, 1950–80)

Thomson, ‘Berengar’

R. M. Thomson, ‘The Satirical Works of Berengar of Poitiers: An Edition with Introduction’, Mediaeval Studies 42 (1980), 89–138; repr. in R. M. Thomson, England and the 12th-Century Renaissance (Aldershot, 1998), XIII, and additional notes, 4.

Walther, Proverbia

Proverbia Sententiaeque Latinitatis Medii Aevi, ed. H. Walther (6 vols, Göttingen, 1963–69)

ix

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 9

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 10

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

On 2 June 1140 or, more probably 25 May 1141, the Council of Sens was held.1 Originally called by Archbishop Henry in order to solemnly display the relics of Saint Stephen and to deal with a few other minor matters, no other event could more arrestingly show the importance of clerical intellectuals in the Western European culture of the time, or the power of their writing. The Council did not enact reforming legislation; in fact, it was as famous for what it did not do as for what it was expected to do. Around it swirled a flurry of mandatory and condemnatory rhetoric, mainly from the pen of the most persuasive and, in some ways the most conservative, churchman of the day: Bernard of Clairvaux.2 In 1140 William of Saint Thierry, abbot of Cistercian Signy, a close friend of Bernard, had begun to read some works of Peter Abelard, notably his Theologia ‘Scholarium’ and Sententiae; his reaction to these works was so negative that in Lent of that year he wrote both to Bernard and to the papal legate in France, Geoffrey, bishop of Chartres, warning them of the threat posed by Abelard’s doctrines. He sent them the text of the two works to which he objected, and his own Disputatio criticising them.3 Bernard was so perturbed by the content of these that he began, in effect, a pamphlet war against Abelard, addressed to the pope and sundry cardinals. In reaction, Abelard appealed to Henry Sanglier, archbishop of Sens, calling for a council at which he could clear his name in debate with Bernard. As mentioned, a council was already imminent, and the great and good of the French Church and realm, from the king down, were to be present. But at that place, when the charges were read out, Abelard refused to debate them, instead appealing to Rome. The proceedings of the Council were halted, and modern On the Council of Sens, see Luscombe, School, esp. ch. 4, and J. Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 26–32. Constant Mews argues for a revised date of 1141 in his ‘The Council of Sens (1141): Abelard, Bernard, and the Fear of Social Upheaval’, Speculum 77 (2002), 342–82. 2  On Bernard, see E. Vacandard, Vie de Saint Bernard, Abbé de Clairvaux (4th edn, Paris, 1927); Watkin Williams, Bernard of Clairvaux (Manchester, 1935); P. Dinzelbacher, Bernhard von Clairvaux: Leben und Werk des berühmten Zisterziensers (Darmstadt, 1998). On Abelard, see Clanchy, Abelard; C. Mews, Peter Abelard (London, 1995), and Abelard and Heloise (Oxford, 2005). 3  The letter is edited by P. Verdeyen in CCCM 89A, pp. 13–15, the Disputatio at pp. 17–59.

1 

xi

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 11

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

historians have wondered why the experienced and charismatic theologian, then in his early sixties, refused this chance to show his prowess. But Constant Mews has shown that Bernard had by this time so influenced the bishops present that Abelard must have known that he was very unlikely to get a fair hearing, let alone a favourable verdict.4 Bernard’s own reaction was to renew his literary warfare against Abelard with more letters to Rome, and it was in this context that an otherwise unknown former pupil of Abelard, one Berengar ‘of Poitiers’, wrote his Apology, a satire in defence of his teacher against the great Cistercian abbot. Nothing succeeds like mockery, and Berengar was later to claim that copies of his work were to be found all over France and Italy.5

Bernard’s Invective But Bernard’s letters were immensely popular and influential, not least because of their white-hot language. Bernard was not a literary satirist by vocation, but he was Europe’s best and best-known writer of satirical invective. His most famous productions in this vein were Letter 1, to his nephew Robert against the Cluniacs, his Apology to William, again against the Cluniacs, and Letter 190, against Abelard. We have chosen to edit and translate the last of these, together with Bernard’s other effusions relating to Abelard and Sens, as well as Berengar’s whole surviving satirical output: his Apology and his Letters to the Carthusians and to the bishop of Mende. It is in the light of Bernard’s literary invective that we have to understand Berengar’s Apology, the centrepiece of this volume. The late eleventh and twelfth centuries were Europe’s first age of pamphlet warfare, of invective and satire.6 The perceived failure, or at least hypocrisy, of its Mews, ‘The Council’; J. Leclercq, ‘Les formes successives de la lettre-traité de Saint Bernard contre Abélard’, RB 78 (1968), 87–105; repr. in his Recueil d’études sur Saint Bernard et ses écrits, 4 (Rome, 1987), pp. 265–83. 5  See below, Mim., 16. 6  On which see e.g. D. Wiesen, Jerome as a Satirist (Ithaca NY, 1964); P. Lehmann, Die Parodie im Mittelalter (2nd edn, Stuttgart, 1963); J. Yunck, The Lineage of Lady Meed: The Development of Mediaeval Venality Satire (Notre Dame IND, 1963), J. Yunck, ‘Economic Conservatism, Papal Finance, and the Medieval Satires on Rome’, Mediaeval Studies 23 (1961), 334–51, repr. in Change in Medieval Society, ed. S. Thrupp (New York, 1964), pp. 72–85; J. Benzinger, Invectiva in Romam: Romkritik im Mittelalter vom 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert (Lübeck, 1968); H. Schüppert, Kirchenkritik in der lateinischen Lyrik des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1972); U. Kindermann, Satyra. Die Theorie der Satire im Mittellateinischen. Vorstudie zu einer Gattungsgeschichte (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft 58: Nürnberg, 1978); R. M. Thomson, ‘The Origins of Latin Satire in Twelfth-Century Europe’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 13 (1978), 78–83, repr. in England and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (Aldershot, 1998), XI; A. Murray, Reason and Society in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1978), pp. 71–7 and following; V. I. J. Flint, ‘The Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth; Parody and its Purpose’, Speculum 54 (1979), 447–68; J. Mann, ‘Satiric Subject and Satiric Object in Goliardic literature’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 15 (1980), 63–86; I. M. Resnick, ‘“Risus Monasticus”: Laughter and Medieval Monastic Culture’, RB 97 (1987), 90–100; R. E. Pepin, Literature of Satire in the Twelfth Century: A Neglected Medieval Genre (Leiston NY, 1988); M. Bayliss, Parody in the Middle Ages: The Latin Tradition (Ann Arbor MI, 1996); 4 

xii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 12

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

new institutions – the new monastic Orders and the reformed papacy – gave rise to the phenomenon, and it was shaped by the study of grammar and rhetoric in the new Schools. Bernard may not have had an advanced, that is to say scholastic, education, but he was a master of biblically based Latin. When he chose to be satirical, it was not in the classical tradition of Juvenal or Persius, yet it was powerful and pervasive. Who can forget, in his Apologia of 1127, his satire on the Cluniacs, their church architecture adorned with unclean monkeys and misshapen beasts?7 Or his image, more than once employed, of Abelard as Goliath in full armour, supported by his page Arnold of Brescia?8 In the letters we have chosen for this volume,9 Bernard of Clairvaux inveighs against Abelard in ways that can be instructively compared to the invective directed by Berengar against Bernard. This may give us some idea of what Bernard might have said in answer to Berengar. Bernard lacks, or chooses not to employ, Berengar’s satirical colours. There is nothing in his letters comparable to the latter’s wickedly funny account of the Council of Sens (Apol. 9 and following), of which Bernard naturally gives a very different picture (Letter 189. 4). Equally, he does not try to emulate Berengar’s pungent characterisations, like that of the Roman cardinal, ‘a fat camel, given a hunched back by a Gallic argument’, who ‘leaps over the Alps to inquire what is to be loved, as if he had no one at hand to give him a clue on this point’ (Apol. 75). He does not make much display of his own learning, as Berengar does in several extended passages and in frequent quotations from or echoes of the classical poets. He does not spend time on literary criticism, unlike Berengar, for whom Bernard’s stylistic shortcomings seem almost as offensive as his other faults. For all these differences, though, Bernard builds up a formidably unfavourable portrait of Abelard. Like Berengar, but even more so, he is quick to draw parallels from the Bible, of which, says Watkin Williams, ‘we need say no more than that they are embedded in his writings like shells in Purbeck marble’.10 To give one example (already mentioned above) from among many, Abelard comes forth as Goliath, accompanied by his squire Arnold of Brescia (Letter 189. 3; compare 330) to challenge R. M. Thomson, ‘Satire, Irony, and Humour in William of Malmesbury’, in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Ward, ed. C. J. Mews, C. J. Nederman and R. M. Thomson (Turnhout, 2003), pp. 115–27; L. Kendrick, ‘Medieval Satire’, in A Companion to Satire: Ancient and Modern; ed. R. Quintero (Oxford, 2007), pp. 52–69. On Bernard of Clairvaux in satire, see J. Berlioz, ‘Saint Bernard dans la littérature satirique, de l’Ysengrimus aux Balivernes des Courtisans de Gautier Map (XIIe–XIIIe siècles)’, in Vies et Légendes de Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, ed. P. Arabeyre, J. Berlioz and P. Poirrier (Commentarii Cistercienses. Textes et Documents 5: Citeaux, 1993). 7  Apologia ad Guillelmum: SBO 3. 81–108; much translated and anthologised. 8  See below, Letter 189. 3. 9  Nos 188–90 were written before the Council, 192, 193, 330 and 331 afterwards. We might also have included 332–6 and 338, but they are largely repetition of those we did include. 10  Watkin Williams, p. 368.

xiii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 13

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

Bernard to single combat.11 Classical echoes are far less frequent; but Abelard is seen as hydra-like: when one heresy is cut off, seven and more replace it (Letter 331). Abelard is treated condescendingly (Letter 190. 2, 6; 331: ‘our theologian’), and his claims to philosophical subtlety are ironically dismissed (190. 5: ‘O second Aristotle’). He thinks that he knows everything (190. 1) and that he is capable of teaching the profoundest mysteries (190. 18), thinks that he is learned though he is not (190. 3), thinks that he knows more than others (190. 3–4). He is mad (190. 1, 4 [‘his ravings (I will not say his disputations)’], 24), laughs at wisdom as though it were folly (190. 21: ‘listen to his guffaws’), vomits up slander and invective (190. 23). But that does not mean he is not dangerous. His works are full of sacrilege and error (188. 2; 190. 2), ‘profane novelties of words and meaning’ (192): new doctrines (330), a new gospel (189. 2, 13), a new faith (189. 2; 330), a new heresy (190. 26). (Note that ‘new’ or ‘newness’ in the twelfth century could easily be negative (‘strange’), the very opposite of the word’s connotations in our own days.) Indeed, Abelard is a heretic to rival the famous heretics of yore, Arius (190. 2) and Pelagius (190. 23, 25); Nestorius is added in 192 (compare 330 and 331). All this horrifies Bernard (190. 8: ‘I shudder even to hear the words, and I think that very shudder is sufficient to refute them’). He may pretend to conduct a dialogue with Abelard (190. 11–12), arguing against him at closer quarters, more technically and at a higher level than Berengar’s defence (e.g. 190. 3–7, 19–20). He calls him a blasphemer (190. 8, 12, 18), one unredeemed (190. 13), a man of perdition (190. 17), one who ‘either does not know of the Gospel or thinks it a fable’ (190. 9). He may coin cutting epigrams (e.g. 190. 10 ‘Sweating away here at making Plato into a Christian, he proves himself a heathen’), or abuse his enemy in extended passages of invective (notably in 192 and 193). There is no doubt here, as there may be with Berengar, of the sincerity and seriousness of what is being said. Manner matches content, but does not overwhelm it. Whereas one may think that Berengar is sometimes merely expressing his indignation, Bernard is definitely trying to elicit a certain reaction from his addressees, as well as from the wider audience who were expected to read his letters.

Berengar ‘of Poitiers’ Nothing12 is known of Berengar ‘of Poitiers’ apart from what can be learned from his own writings and their manuscript tradition.13 He is called Pictavensis See the Notes to the Translations for the detailed biblical allusions. What follows is an updated but also drastically shortened version of RMT’s 1980 article. 13  E. Vacandard, ‘Bérenger de Poitiers’, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 2 (1905), cols 720–2; O. Lottin, ‘Pierre Bérenger’, Dictionnaire d’histoire de théologie et de géographie ecclésiastiques, 8 (1935),

11  12 

xiv

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 14

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

in two of the five manuscripts that contain collections of his works.14 Even so, Pictavensis is still vague enough to mean that Berengar was either born in or a temporary resident of Poitou. The meagre details of his career suggest the second alternative. These details consist of his contacts with people and places mentioned in his works. His earliest known writing, the Apology, names Abelard and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, and contains extracts from the writings of both. Not long after this he wrote an open letter to the Carthusians, with particular reference to the community of the Grande Chartreuse itself. At about the same time he wrote a tract, now lost, against the allegedly heretical doctrines of a certain Benedict, monk of Marseilles.15 Later he sent a letter to Bishop William and the canons of Mende, in which he mentioned the cathedral of Maguelone and the canons of the collegiate church of Saint-Ruf at Avignon.16 The canons of Mende had been attacking him for his criticisms of their way of life. Evidently, for some time prior to the writing of this letter, he had been living in southern France, but the names in it suggest the Rhone valley and the frontier between Languedoc and Provence, not Poitou. Nor does it seem that he was born in Poitou. Near the beginning of the Apology he accuses Bernard of having once composed worldly songs. Of this a witness is alumna tui, patria nostri sermonis (‘the foster mother of your speech, the homeland of ours’, Apol. 2). Now Bernard was born in Fontaines-lès-Dijon, on the edge of modern Dijon, but grew up and was educated well to the north, in Châtillon-sur-Seine, from c. 1098 until 1111. So Berengar was born in Champagne, though his later years were spent further to the south.

Berengar’s Writings The Apology was written following the Council of Sens of 1140 or 1141, the latest datable event mentioned in it being the papal condemnation of Abelard on 16 July 1141.17 The fiercely passionate tone of the tract, which aims to discredit Saint Bernard for his actions against Abelard at the Council, suggests that it was written soon after this date, and so does the fact that Berengar fails to mention Abelard’s death, which occurred on 21 April 1142. In the letter to the bishop of Mende Berengar refers to Abelard as praeceptor meus (‘my teacher’, Mim. 8), and he describes himself as having been adulescens (‘a young man’, Mim. 8), his beard not yet grown, at the time of the Council of Sens. Since he mentions this in cols 379–80; R. Klibansky, ‘L’épitre de Bérenger de Poitiers contre les Chartreux’, Revue du moyen âge latin 2 (1946), 314–16; Luscombe, School, pp. 29–49. 14  BnF lat. 2923 (=B), f. 43, and Bruges, Stadsbibl. 398 (= E), f. 17v. 15  Mim., 18. 16  Mim., 21. 17  Apol., 23.

xv

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 15

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

order to excuse his rash defence of Abelard, it should be received with caution, but allowing for exaggeration we might suppose him to have been in his late teens or early twenties in 1140 or 1141. In the same letter he describes the motives that led him to write the Apology: ‘I was minded, being a schoolboy, often to declaim on a made-up topic. But now that there opened the fair prospect of engagement in a real-life contest, I applied myself to getting Abelard acquitted and the abbot’s audacity refuted.’18 In other words, before and perhaps still in 1140–41, Berengar was a student of Abelard, presumably spending some time at Paris. His only other (approximately) datable work is the same letter to Bishop William of Mende, written after the Apology (which it mentions), and before c. 1150, the date of the bishop’s death.19 Since he implies in the letter that he is a good deal older and wiser than he was when he wrote the Apology, it is reasonable to presume that the letter was not written long before the middle of the century. Two other works are mentioned in it, neither of which can be precisely dated, but as he was so young when he wrote the Apology, they were perhaps written after it. One of these is the Letter against the Carthusians, the other the lost treatise De incarnatione Christi against the canon Benedict.20 In the letter to the bishop of Mende Berengar calls himself a saecularis (‘secular’, Mim. 9).21 Nothing further is known about what office he held or in what church. The Apology is the only one of Berengar’s writings that has attracted attention from modern scholars, and it was probably always Berengar’s bestknown piece.22 Fifty years ago D. E. Luscombe described and analysed it as a source for the proceedings at the Council of Sens, as a defence of Abelard’s teachings, and as an indicator of the kind of reaction displayed by Abelard’s fautores (‘partisans’) to his harassment by those whom he and they saw as envious and ignorant.23 Although its tone alternates between the satirical and serious, in toto it must be described as a satire, although it has usually been ignored by modern studies of medieval protest and parody. Berengar begins by damning Bernard with faint praise. He accuses him of having written licentious songs in the past, and of using his eloquence to distract attention from his false doctrine. Then comes the famous, ribald description of the proceedings at the Council, at which the prelates present are imagined drunk and Mim., 18. The precise date of Bishop William’s death is unknown, but his successor Adalbert was elected in 1151. 20  Mim., 18. 21  A. Boureau, ‘Hypothèses sur l’émergence lexicale et théorique de la catégorie de séculier au XIIe siècle’, in Le clerc séculier au Moyen Âge (Publications de la Sorbonne, Série histoire ancienne et médiévale, 27: Paris, 1993), pp. 35–43. 22  See below, p. xxvi, and E. Gilson, The Mystical Theology of Saint Bernard, trans. A. H. C. Downes (London, 1940), pp. 167–9. 23  Luscombe, School, pp. 31–47. 18  19 

xvi

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 16

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

therefore incapable of delivering a rational verdict. Bernard’s actions at and after the Council are seen as motivated by pure rancour. From this point on the rest of Abelard’s assailants are forgotten, and Berengar confronts Bernard alone. First, he attempts to demonstrate that Abelard is catholicus by quoting from a purported letter of Abelard to Heloise, containing an orthodox credal statement. Next he attacks the list of alleged Abelardian heresies drawn up at Bernard’s instance, the so-called Capitula (Chapters). Unfortunately he has to undercut this argument with the admission that while Abelard did not teach many of these heresies, he did teach some of them. From this point on Berengar adopts a less defensive posture, shifting away from Abelard’s person and teaching, and moving in on Saint Bernard. He proposes to show that Bernard himself is in some senses a heretic. First he attacks Bernard’s Homilies on the Song of Songs. He begins jestingly: Bernard ought not to have written them at all, for he adds nothing to what the Fathers have already written; he breaks the ancient canons of literary propriety by introducing into an account of the marriage of the bride and groom a lengthy lament upon his brother’s death (here Berengar indulges in a heavy and tasteless display of sarcasm, hinting that Bernard’s affection for his brother was unnatural, and quoting Horace to prove that Bernard is breaking time-honoured literary conventions). Now comes his most serious point: that Bernard, following Origen and Pythagoras, has taught the pre-existence of the human soul. He ends triumphantly: ‘If you had found madness of this kind among Peter’s works you would, without any doubt, have placed it among the monstrous Chapters which you spawned.’ Next, Berengar turns to another of Bernard’s works, the De diligendo Deo, and makes outrageous fun of it, accusing Bernard of now saying the screamingly obvious, then becoming needlessly obscure. Finally, Berengar berates Bernard for being unmerciful towards Abelard, reminding him that even the greatest of the Fathers had sometimes lapsed into heterodoxy: ‘Many Catholics have said things that deserved blame, but have not thereby been elected to the college of heretics.’ He ends on a note of high seriousness, giving scriptural examples of God’s forgiveness and mercy contrasted with man’s hardheartedness. In conclusion he promises a second book which will contain a detailed philosophical defence of Abelard; this he never in fact began.24 The letter to the Carthusians is short, pungent and without humour, a bitter and powerful piece of invective. Its message may be summed up in Berengar’s glowing, scriptural language: ‘What good does it do, brethren, to go into the desert, and in the desert to have an Egyptian heart? What good does it do to avoid the frogs of Egypt, yet yourselves croak with obscene slanders?’25 He points to the 24  25 

Mim., 15. Cart., 8.

xvii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 17

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

considerable hiatus that stands between their professed ideals and their actual lies, between the appearance and the reality of their behaviour. In particular he singles out as a target for criticism their passion for litigation. The letter to the bishop of Mende is a defence against criticism by the bishop and his canons of Berengar’s earlier writings. To these accusations Berengar makes a variety of replies, in some cases excusing himself on one ground or another, in others denying having made the statements attributed to him, in others claiming to have been misinterpreted, in others again defending his right to be a serious critic, even of one such as Saint Bernard. As with the Apology, the tone of the letter is ambivalent. Although Berengar is apparently anxious to clear himself of the charges levelled against him, and to remain on good terms with the bishop and his clergy, there is an underlying current of mockery running through the work that undercuts much of its apparent seriousness. These three works are edited below, but they are almost certainly not the only surviving works by Berengar.26

Why did Berengar write? One overriding question will serve to focus discussion: how are Berengar’s polemical writings to be characterised? Or, to put it differently, what were Berengar’s intentions in composing them? The answer is by no means simple. First of all, and perhaps most importantly, Berengar saw himself as writing in a prophetic tradition established by the pagan philosophers on the one hand and the Old Testament prophets on the other. For a Christian the tradition was best represented by the latter and by the early Latin Fathers. The tradition encompassed the ideas of warning, exhortation and criticism. In each of the three certainly attributed works of Berengar these ideas dominate and are usually expressed or accompanied by quotation from the ancient authorities. So, in the letter to the Carthusians, much is made of the pithy aphorism cultus iustitiae est silentium (‘the service of justice is silence’) from Isaiah.27 In the letter to the bishop of Mende Berengar cites the precedent of Colotes who criticised Plato, as Berengar had criticised Bernard, even though Colotes was mus ad elephantem (‘a mouse to an elephant’) in comparison with the great philosopher.28 Aristotle is supposed to have said amicus est Socrates, sed magis amica est veritas (‘Socrates is my friend, but Truth is more my friend’): thus Berengar feels justified in saying, amicus est For the detail, see Thomson, ‘Berengar’, 93–4; R. B. C. Huygens, ‘Textes latins du xie et xiie siècle’, Studi Medievali, 3rd ser. 8 (1967), 493–502; J. Leclercq, ‘Nouveaux témoins de la survie de saint Bernard’, in Homenaje a Fray Justo Pérez de Urbel (Silos, 1977) 2, pp. 97–102. 27  Cart., 5, 6, 8. 28  Mim., 11. 26 

xviii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 18

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

Bernardus, sed magis amica est veritas (‘Bernard is my friend, but Truth is more my friend’).29 In the Apology and the letter to the bishop of Mende examples are given of how the Fathers, such as Jerome and Augustine, kept each other up to the mark by mutual criticism.30 Berengar therefore wrote consciously in a venerable tradition that considered it appropriate and necessary to criticise others in the name of truth. This is an especially urgent task for the Christian writer, whose special target is heresy. Thus the title of Berengar’s Apology against Bernard was almost certainly meant to recall Jerome’s Apology against Rufinus, which is cited in it.31 Nonetheless, even when the strength of this influence upon Berengar is recognised, one may still ask what contemporary viewpoint he represented in its interpretation and application to the Church of his day. The most obvious suggestion is that he wrote as a ‘scholastic’ – one who had spent time in the Schools – against monks. The Apology is the work of his which best exemplifies this alignment. It was written, we recall, while he was young and a student or recently so: ‘I was minded, being a schoolboy, often to declaim on a made-up topic. But now that there opened the fair prospect of engagement in a real-life contest, I applied myself to getting Abelard acquitted and the abbot’s audacity refuted.’32 How thin was the line that divided declamatory exercise from serious polemic has been emphasised in an important article on the literature of the Investiture Contest.33 Certainly Berengar loses no opportunity to display his considerable learning and to deride Bernard for his alleged literary and doctrinal ineptitude. In the Apology an extensive list of auctores is conspicuously paraded: from the Fathers Augustine, Ambrose, Claudianus Mamertus and much Jerome; from the ‘gentiles’ Virgil, Ovid, Persius, Juvenal, Martial and, above all, Horace. He also did some versifying on his own account.34 Conversely, he criticises Bernard for his lack of formal education.35 The most characteristic of such passages occurs in the course of the argument that Berengar mounts to demonstrate the inappropriateness of Bernard’s inclusion of a lament for the recent death of his brother in the sermons on the Song of Songs: Some dimwits, however, seduced by his seductive mastery of language, people who love the body of words but think little of the soul of reason, say that in those laments he deploys such sublime eloquence that no modern could ever 29  30  31  32  33  34  35 

Mim., 14. Mim., 11. Apol., 6, 70. Mim., 8. I. S. Robinson, ‘The “Colores Rhetorici” in the Investiture Contest’, Traditio 32 (1976), 209–38. Apol., 56, 59, 65. Apol., 3.

xix

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 19

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

come up to him in this field. O false judges of eloquence, whom the wind of the voice driveth like dust from the face of the earth! What force of expression is there here? What draughts of reasoning? He’s no more than a torrent of words, and like a silly syllogism he goes round in circles.36 This is as close as Berengar comes to pitting dialectic against rhetoric. It is scarcely close enough to make him a true Abelardian, or to enable us to see him simply as a schoolman with a grudge against monks. The depth of his seriousness in making such charges against Bernard is questionable. In the letter to the bishop of Mende he says that his remarks about the abbot should be read ioco non serio (‘as a joke, not as meant seriously’);37 but of course this could represent a later and politic modification of his views, or a mere excuse. Berengar admits that after writing the Apology he became less keen to defend his old teacher’s controversial views and consequently less enthusiastic about vilifying Bernard. On the other hand, if one examines his criticism of Bernard as a whole, one cannot but notice the absence of care and judgement. He exaggerates, or at least maximises the gravity of some of Bernard’s faults, appearing to equate literary gaffes with doctrinal heresies. Hyperbole and lack of discrimination are characteristics of the satiric mode, which is supremely and necessarily injudicious. Most if not all of Berengar’s comments about Bernard’s lack of formal education are in fact satirical topoi. The other question with which we can probe Berengar’s status as a champion of scholasticism is whether he explicitly defends its particular intellectual tradition. In fact Berengar’s main line of defence is that Abelard was in all fundamentals orthodox, and if errant on some points, then no worse than some of the Fathers or than Bernard himself. Neither does Berengar in any of his known works make obvious use of dialectic. He expounds the Fathers and sacra pagina very much in the traditional, monastic manner. This is best seen in the letter to the Carthusians, most of it a (heated) commentary or meditation on the passage from Isaiah which he repeats as a kind of refrain. What is new and perhaps shows Abelardian influence is his comparison and criticism of various Latin Fathers, and his assertion of the importance of mutual criticism among Christian writers. One would like to see here the shadow of the Sic et non, but in fact Jerome, in letters quoted by Berengar, made similar points.38 Apol., 62–3. Mim., 16. 38  Jerome, Epist. 58. 10; 84. 126. Moreover, Abelard himself had a totally different attitude to the Aduersus Iouinianum: see P. Delhaye, ‘Le dossier anti-matrimonial de l’Adversus Jovinianum et son influence sur quelques écrits latins du xiie siècle’, Medieval Studies 13 (1951), 70–7.

36  37 

xx

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 20

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

Another contemporary viewpoint which Berengar might be expected to represent is that of secular clergy versus monastic. Certainly all three works edited here contain that kind of criticism. Berengar stands, along with the Chartrain canon Payen Bolotin,39 as an early representative of a tradition of satire against the new religious Orders of the twelfth century, the Cistercians and Carthusians, but also the regular canons (at Marseilles, Avignon, Maguelone and Mende). In the tone which he adopted against the Carthusians and in the specific charges which he levels at them, he is a forerunner of later and better-known critics of the new monasticism.40 One thinks of Walter Map, Gerald of Wales and Nigel Witeker.41 By their time vilification of the new Orders for greed, hypocrisy and pride had become part of the stock repertoire of satirists, on a par, for instance, with the common identification of Rome and nummus (‘coin’).42 It is worth documenting this close relationship between Berengar and the later anti-monastic satirists. They are united in singling out hypocrisy and a false sense of superiority as vices peculiar to the new Orders. The Carthusians, says Berengar, abstain from the flesh of animals, but feed instead on human carcasses.43 They pry into the intimate affairs of other people and spend time in condemning them by innuendo. As Walter Map said of the Cistercians, ‘I cannot forget that they are Hebrews, we Egyptians.’44 Secondly, both Berengar and the later writers mention the evils of legalism and litigiousness. Berengar accuses the Carthusians, despite their stringent vows of silence, of carping in their judgements of others, and of involvement in endless litigation. They ought to be cellicolas non causidicos (‘at home in their cells, not the courtroom’).45 In similar vein Gerald of Wales, his invective sharpened by personal grievance, blasts the Cistercians for their aggressively expansionist sheep farming, for using legal process to increase their property.46 But perhaps the criticism which most goes to the heart of the matter, and in which the others are subsumed, is the accusation that the stricter Orders have abandoned the world physically but not mentally. We have already mentioned the distinction between outward and inner change as an important element in Berengar’s thought.47 Thus he speaks of being J. Leclercq, ‘Le poème de Payen Bolotin contre les faux ermites’, RB 68 (1958), 52–86. An acount of their criticisms will be found in D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England (2nd edn, Cambridge, 1963), ch. 39. 41  Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, ed. and trans. M. R. James, C. N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1983); Gerald of Wales, Speculum Ecclesiae, in Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer et al. (Rolls Series: London, 1861–91), 4, pp. 3–354; Nigel Witeker, Speculum Stultorum, ed. J. H. Mozley and R. R. Raymo (Berkeley CAL, 1960), lines 2053–872. 42  Benzinger, Invectiva in Romam. 43  Cart., 7. 44  Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium I. xxv. 45  Cart., 14. 46  Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, pp. 665–8, 670–1; cf. what he has to say of Walter Map (pp. 675–6). 47  Above, pp. xvii–xviii. 39  40 

xxi

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 21

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

in the desert while one’s heart is still back in Pharaoh’s fleshpots.48 Nigel Witeker, in the Mirror for Fools, has his hero, the ass Dan Burnellus, seek wisdom from the new Orders, but in vain: they are inwardly no better than anyone else.49

Berengar as Satirist The satirical element, encompassing both protest and mockery, is present in the three works edited here and predominates in the Apology. It is therefore appropriate to analyse Berengar’s satirical technique. The first thing to realise is that here too Berengar was writing in a well-defined tradition, although its beginning can only be traced back to about 1100. It seems that most twelfth-century satire emerged from a scholastic milieu, and Berengar himself is a good example.50 This can be illustrated by the satirical topoi which he shares with other writers of the century. Thus Berengar portrays the Council of Sens as a bacchanalian revel, with the bishops so drunk and sleepy that when asked ‘Damnatis?’ (‘Do you condemn him?’) they can only reply ‘–namus’ (‘We swim’).51 The picture is embellished with quotations from Horace, Juvenal and Persius, and one immediately thinks of the earlier Tractatus Garsiae, a satire against Urban II, in which bibulousness is an important element, and the same antique authors are sources for elegant and relevant quotation.52 Looking at the period after Berengar one might single out the famous Drinkers’ Mass, perhaps composed before c. 1200.53 Again, in the description of the Council of Sens, there occurs a lengthy passage which is a cento of quotations from the Gospel of John: Let the Gospel be consulted as to what people like this did, what those learned in the law decreed. ‘The priests and the Pharisees’, it says, ‘gathered a council, and said: “What do we, for this man says many amazing things? If we let him alone so, all will believe in him.” But one of them, named Abbot Bernard, being president of the council, prophesied, saying: “It is expedient for us that one man be driven out from the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” From that day, therefore, they devised to condemn him.’54 The parodying of biblical passages is one of the most striking and original techniques of twelfth-century satire. Garcia had already employed it in his satire 48  49  50  51  52  53  54 

Cart., 8. The desert was a common metaphor for the convent. Speculum Stultorum, lines 827–1119. On the origins and character of twelfth-century satire, see above, n. 6. Apol., 15. Tractatus Garsiae, ed. and trans. R. M. Thomson (Leiden, 1975). Lehmann, Parodie, pp. 233–41; cf. Carmina Burana 1. 3, ed. B. Bischoff (Heidelberg, 1971), pp. 66–7. Apol., 17–18.

xxii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 22

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

against Urban II, but Berengar’s parody of John is highly reminiscent of the wellknown Gospel of Saint Mark-of-Silver, written about the middle of the century, possibly in the Paris Schools.55 Ribaldry and sarcasm are notable features of the satirical technique employed by Berengar. In one passage of the Apology he even goes so far as to imply, without directly stating it, that Bernard’s affection for his brother was unnatural. This is part of Berengar’s criticism of the abbot for lack of decorum in including the lament for his dead brother in his commentary on the Song of Songs, of which the predominant tone is, or ought to be, joyful. If the abbot really wished to record his feelings about this event, says Berengar, then he should have written a separate work, following ancient practice. He continues: Socrates marks the death of his dear Alcibiades with the richness of philosophical vigour. Plato splendidly escorts to the grave the boy Alexis, for whom he had composed amatory ditties.56 One is forcibly reminded of Walter Map’s bad joke about monks and little boys, involving Saint Bernard, told before King Henry II at a later date.57 The satirist has no interest in being fair, and this may be sufficient explanation for the gap between the triviality of most of Bernard’s faults as listed by Berengar and the vehemence of his attack upon them, for the complete lack of discrimination with which he lambasts venial and mortal sins alike, and for his hopeless inaccuracy. In supplying references to the sources of Berengar’s quotations and paraphrases it would have been desirable, though it has rarely been possible, to cite them in full, because he rarely reproduces them verbatim, even when claiming to do so. Even a random check of the cited sources identified in this edition will prove this to be true. One consequence of his cavalier attitude to his sources is that it involved him, consciously or not, in serious errors. Of course, in nine cases out of ten it does not matter whether Berengar reproduces the ipsissima verba of his sources or not. But it does matter when Berengar claims to quote a passage from Bernard’s Song of Songs commentary which is not found there at all, though about half of it is lifted from Saint Ambrose.58 Again it matters when he assigns a quotation to Bernard’s De diligendo Deo and heaps a good deal of derision upon it, although that quotation too is not found in Bernard.59 The quotation which he uses to accuse Bernard of teaching the pre-existence of the human soul is also 55  56  57  58  59 

Carmina Burana 1. 1, ed. A. Hilka and O. Schumann (Heidelberg, 1930), no. 44. Apol., 66. Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, I. xxiv. Apol., 69. Apol., 75.

xxiii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 23

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

a fabrication, although in this instance Bernard did make statements amounting to much the same thing.60 Two reasons can be advanced for this inaccuracy. In the first place there is a mechanical one: although Berengar plainly was widely read and had a well-stocked mind, he worked in haste, impelled by anger, and did not trouble to check the passages which he quoted from memory. But in the case of the quotations falsely attributed to Bernard we must suspect pure malice, or at least a lack of seriousness: that Berengar did not care whether he was quoting accurately or not. These proven inaccuracies and fabrications must give rise to discussion about the two references in his Apology to works which do not survive elsewhere. The first is his notice of, and quotation from, the commentary on the Song of Songs by Reticius of Autun. He could have known of this work, which is now lost and was always rare, from Jerome,61 and he was certainly capable of fabricating the alleged quotation from it. The other questionable document is his supposed verbatim transcription of an otherwise unknown letter, mentioned above, from Abelard to Heloise.62 Both items fit his purpose suspiciously well. Finally, even in the Apology, and in spite of the strong element of sheer ridicule in it, Berengar professes a serious and positive purpose and on occasion adopts a tone of seriousness and spiritual depth. In one passage, addressing Saint Bernard, he says: Allow, I ask, Peter to be a Christian as well as you. And if you wish, he will be a Catholic as well as you – and if you do not wish, he will be Catholic all the same. Communis enim Deus est, non privatus.63 In other words, God is bigger than Bernard’s idea of him. In the Letter to the Hermits (one of Berengar’s works not edited here) there occurs a magnificent passage on sin and grace. Part of it reads: Pride is a vice common to demons and to hermits. If the demons fell because of this vice, then it is obvious that hermits will not rise because of it. What therefore must a hermit do, lest by some chink this vice enter him? He must keep by his cell door a dog, constantly barking against sin, lest while he is asleep the thief is able to enter his house. Now the dog symbolises the invocation of grace; the dog’s barking stands for that intent supplication 60  61  62  63 

Apol., 69. Apol., 47. Apol., 30–6. Apol., 29.

xxiv

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 24

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

that keeps the pure heart from falling asleep; the dog is trust in grace alone. The Apostle had this dog by him when he wrote ‘By the grace of God I am what I am …’64 Both of these ideas, ‘God is bigger than any single individual’s conception of him’, and ‘Only reliance on grace will enable the conquest of the sin of pride’, raise Berengar above the level of the mere polemicist. Justifications of his invective are contained in the letter to the bishop of Mende. First of all, and most embracingly, he claims that his purpose is positive and creative, not to destroy but to correct, or as he puts it, to act as a watchdog over the Lord’s flock, not as a hostile wolf.65 In the Apology he attacked Bernard for the reverse, for claiming but not showing concern for the safety of Abelard’s soul, for seeking to silence Abelard rather than to persuade him to change his views. Secondly, for Berengar there is nothing upon the earth which is so perfect as to be above criticism: neither a person such as Bernard, be he ever so holy, nor an institution such as the Grande Chartreuse, be its life ever so ascetic.66 To the objection that Berengar is himself insignificant in comparison with the objects of his criticism and therefore has no right to attack them, he opposes the pagan and patristic tradition. People of no eminence themselves have felt justified in justly criticising the mighty; others even more eminent than Bernard (Plato and Augustine) have been so criticised.67 There is thus ample precedent; Berengar’s task has been sanctified, and all that matters is that the criticism be just. Finally, he points out that his criticism does not amount to wholesale condemnation; only some of Bernard’s actions have been called to account: Let no one imagine I am drawing my stylus through the wax to cause him injury; in my judgement he is the Martin of our times. I speak frankly to your candid heart, with no trace of the fox. My view of the abbot is that he is a burning and a shining light; yet that light is in a pot. What disgrace is inflicted on gold when it is praised, if its dross is found worthy of blame? You praise the abbot: I praise him more.68

64  65  66  67  68 

Huygens, ‘Textes latins’, 499. Mim., 2. Mim., 6; Cart., 7. Mim., 10–12. Mim., 6–7.

xxv

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 25

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

Influence Despite Berengar’s claim that copies of his Apology were to be found all over France and Italy,69 he cannot be called an influential writer in terms of what he hoped to achieve for Abelard. While the issues were ‘hot’, his influence seems to have been very localised. Guibert of Nogent strikes one as a twelfth-century writer of comparable contemporary renown.70 All of the five manuscripts containing more than a single work by Berengar derive from a single exemplar dating from before c. 1300 and perhaps from much earlier. This archetype was designed as a dossier of material on the Council of Sens, in support of Abelard’s case, as are other extant examples.71 Thus it seems that early interest in Berengar’s writings, and their very survival, was dependent upon their connection with the controversy between Abelard and Saint Bernard. Berengar did not become popular in his own right until after c. 1250, when he could be read for broad edification, or as literature, or when his criticisms were more generally approved of. Even so, late in the thirteenth century Jean de Meun apparently found him interesting only because of his rendering of Abelard’s Confession, which Jean translated into French.72 However, Petrarch, Jean de Hesdin and Jean Gerson read him as satirist and moralist.73 The contents of the surviving manuscripts containing his works suggest a strongly rhetorical interest in them. It is, for instance, significant that three manuscripts also contain the late-twelfth-century mock debate on marriage, the Dissuasio Valerii by Walter Map.74 Manuscript B has an extensive series of letter collections and two Artes dictandi. Most illustrative of all is E, with its clear Parisian and scholastic associations, in which Berengar’s works are reduced to a series of extracts selected as the best ‘purple passages’ directed against Saint Bernard. Petrarch’s own notes in B indicate that this was at least one of his interests in Berengar: ‘non magni quidem corporis, sed ingentis acrimoniae’ (‘not indeed of great length, but of enormous acerbity’), he said of the Apology.75

Mim., 16. J. F. Benton, Self and Society in Medieval France: The Memoirs of Abbot Guibert of Nogent (1064?–c. 1125) (New York, 1970), pp. 236–9, 242–3; R. B. C. Huygens, La tradition manuscrite de Guibert de Nogent (Steenbrugge/The Hague, 1991). 71  Luscombe, School, p. 115 and n. 2. 72  J. Monfrin, Abélard, Historia calamitatum (3rd edn, Paris, 1967), pp. 29–30. Jean’s translation survives in BnF, fr. 920 (s. xiv2). Jean seems to have used a manuscript containing a collection of Abaelardiana like BnF, lat. 2923 (our B), although the letter of Peter the Venerable to Heloise, which Jean translates, is not there. Cf. C. Bozzolo, ‘L’humaniste Gontier Col et la traduction française des Lettres d’Abélard et Héloise’, Romania 95 (1974), 199–215, esp. pp. 202 and 204, arguing that Jean did not himself translate the Confessio. 73  Luscombe, School, pp. 45 n. 3, 49 and n. 3. 74  See below, pp. xxvii–xxviii. 75  Luscombe, School, p. 45 n. 3. 69 

70 

xxvi

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 26

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

Establishment of the Texts For the Abelard–Bernard material we have used: Letter of Abelard to his Comrades. This letter, found in Heidelberg, Universitätsbibl. 71, ff. 14v–15v, is printed here (with one slight change) from the edition by R. Klibansky, ‘Peter Abailard and Bernard of Clairvaux. A Letter by Abailard’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 5 (1961), 1–27 (at pp. 6–7). Also pr. J. Leclercq, in Analecta S. Ordinis Cisterciensis 9 (1952), 104–5, without comment. The text of the letters by Bernard is taken from Sancti Bernardi Opera Omnia, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot and H. M. Rochais (8 vols, Rome, 1957–77), vols 7–8 (= L), with the changes noted below (some from their manuscript S = Charleville, Bibl. mun. 67). The text of the Capitula XIX (= Epist. 190 sect. 27) is from C. Mews, ‘The Lists of Heresies imputed to Peter Abelard’, RB 95 (1985), 73–110, at pp. 108–10, repr. in Abelard and his Legacy (Variorum Collected Studies Series 704: London, 2001), IV. The works of Berengar are freshly edited from the following witnesses: A = Paris, BnF lat. 1896. 14th cent., provenance unknown. 219 leaves. ff. 1–175v Jerome, Epistulae and extracts from his other works. ff. 175v–176v Rufinus, Apologia. ff. 176v–185v Jerome, Aduersus Rufinum. ff. 185v–191v Berengar, Apol., Mim., Cart., ending incompletely and running without a break into Abelard, Dialogus inter Philosophum, Iudaeum et Christianum, which ends on f. 192r; thereafter Abelard, Confessio ‘Vniuersis’; Dissuasio Valerii; Jerome, Epistulae and extracts from his other works. Bibliography: Bibliothèque nationale. Catalogue général des manuscrits latins 2 (Paris, 1940), pp. 228–9; Luscombe, School, p. 30 n. 4; B. Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana Manuscripta, 4 vols (Steenbrugge, 1969–72), 1A. 249–50, 2. 7, 68, 374, 400, 415, 3A. 26, 53, 85, 94, 161, 173. B = Paris, BnF lat. 2923. c. 1300, written in the French Midi, later owned by Petrarch. 180 leaves. ff. 1–42v Abelard, Historia calamitatum and the correspondence with Heloise. ff. 43r–47v Berengar, Apol. (with a lacuna due to the loss of several leaves after f. 44), Mim., Cart., ending incompletely and running without a break into Abelard, Dialogus, which ends on f. 48v; thereafter Abelard, Confessio ‘Vniuersis’, his letter 14 to the bishop of Paris, Cassiodorus, Variae, two Artes dictandi, Étienne de Tournai, Epistulae; formulary of letters; Petrarch’s memorial. Bibliography: Bibliothèque nationale. Catalogue général des manuscrits latins 3 (Paris, 1952), pp. 282–4; P. de Nolhac, Pétrarque et l’humanisme (2 vols, Paris, 1907), 2. 217–24; J. Leclercq, ‘L’amitié dans les lettres au moyen âge:

xxvii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 27

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

autour d’un manuscrit de la bibliothèque de Pétrarque’, Revue du moyen âge latin 1 (1945), 391–9; J. Monfrin (ed.), Abélard, Historia Calamitatum, 3rd edn (Paris, 1967), pp. 18–19; Luscombe, School, pp. 29–30 n. 4; Luscombe, Letters, pp. lvi–lix. C = Oxford, Bodleian Library Add. C. 271. 14th cent., second half. Perhaps written in Italy but by the 15th cent. at Cambrai. 109 leaves. ff. 2–75v patristic works, mostly by or concerning Jerome. ff. 76r–83v Berengar, Apol., Mim., Cart., ending incompletely and running without a break into Abelard, Dialogus, which ends on f. 84v; thereafter Abelard, Confessio ‘Vniuersis’, Hist. Calam., and the correspondence with Heloise. Bibliography: F. Madan et al., A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford 5 (Oxford, 1905), no. 29565; Klibansky, ‘L’épitre’, 314–16; Monfrin, Hist. Calam., pp. 23–5; Luscombe, School, p. 30 n. 4; Lambert, Bibliotheca 1A. 229, 1B. 409–20, 3B. 653; Luscombe, Letters, pp. xliv–xlvi. D = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Add. A. 44. Early 13th cent., written in England. Contains an extensive florilegium of prose and verse, much of it twelfthcentury. On ff. 53r–54r is Berengar, Cart., complete. Bibliography: Summary Catalogue, no. 30151; Klibansky, ‘L’épitre’, 314– 16; A. Wilmart, ‘Le florilège mixte de Thomas Bekynton’, Medieval and Renaissance Studies 1 (1941), 41–84 (at p. 54), and 4 (1958), 35–90 (at p. 44); Luscombe, School, p. 30 n. 4; P. Dronke, Medieval Latin and the Rise of European Love-Lyric, 2 vols, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1968), 2. 568. E = Bruges, Stadsbibliotheek 398, 14th cent., perhaps written at the University of Paris for the Cistercian abbey of Ter Doest. Three contemporary books bound together early: I (ff. 1–16) Peter of Blois, Compendium Vitae Beati Iob; II (ff. 17–94), extracts from Berengar, Apol. and Mim., headed ‘Inuectiones Berengarii’ (ending on f. 21v), followed by scholastic exercises, rules for the duty of an abbot, the refutation to two heretical propositions, sermons on the superiority of theology to the other sciences, and more scholastic exercises; III (ff. 95–105) more scholastic exercises. Bibliography: A. de Poorter, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de la Ville de Bruges (Gembloux, 1934), no. 398; Luscombe, School, p. 30 and n. 4; Luscombe, Letters, pp. xxxix–xli. F = Orléans, Bibl. de la ville 78 (75), 15th cent., from the abbey of Fleury. 51 leaves (numbered by pages). pp. 1–62 an anon. commentary on John. pp. 63–71 Berengar, Apol., Mim. and Cart., ending incompletely at the same point as in A, B and C. Thereafter the Dissuasio Valerii and sermon extracts. xxviii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 28

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

Bibliography: C. Cuissard, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Départements 12 (Orléans) (Paris, 1889), pp. 38–9; Luscombe, School, p. 30 n. 4; É. Pellegrin and J.-P. Bouhot, Catalogue des manuscrits médiévaux de la bibliothèque d’Orléans (Paris, 2010), pp. 86–92. In addition: Notre Dame, IN, Hesburgh Libr. Lat. d. 6 (formerly MS 30), an Abelard florilegium, German, 1463–84, contains short extracts from Apol. and Mim. on ff. 162v–163r, without significant variants. The florilegium is printed by David Luscombe, ‘Excerpts from the Letter Collection of Heloise and Abelard in Notre Dame (Indiana) ms 30’, in Pascua Mediaevalia: Studies voor Prof. Dr. J. M. De Smet (Mediaevalia Lovanensia, Series 1/Studia, x: Leuven, 1983), pp. 529–44 (at pp. 533–4); Luscombe, Letters, p. xliii. BnF lat. 2505, 12th cent., French. Main contents Bruno of Asti on the Pentateuch. Following the main text, on f. 146rv, is Cart., the incomplete version. Bibliothèque nationale. Catalogue général des manuscrits latins 2 (Paris, 1940), p. 494. BnF lat. 2816, soon after 1616, on p. 221 excerpts from all three works, almost certainly copied from the edition of Duchesne-d’Amboise. Luscombe, Letters, pp. lv–lvi. Previous printed editions are: All three of Berengar’s works in A. Duchesne and F. d’Amboise, Petri Abelardi … Opera (Paris, 1616), pp. 302–20, thence repr. in PL 178. 1854–70, and in V. Cousin, Petrus Abaelardus. Opera …, 2 vols (Paris, 1849, 1859, repr. Hildesheim, 1970), 2. 771–86. The first critical text was edited, with a long introductory essay, by R. M. Thomson in Mediaeval Studies 42 (1980), 89–138, repr. in his England and the 12th-Century Renaissance (Variorum Collected Studies 620: Aldershot, 1998). Berengar, Apol. 30–6 (Epist. ad Heloissam) by C. Burnett in Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 21 (1986), 147–55. Berengar, Cart. The value of D was pointed out by R. Klibansky, ‘L’épître de Bérenger de Poitiers contre les Chartreux’, Revue du moyen âge latin 2 (1946), 314–16, and the part found only in D printed by A. Wilmart in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4 (1958), 44–5. The Latin text of Berengar printed here is founded on the pioneering work of RMT (1980). Nearly thirty years later, when we were contemplating the present edition, MW published a paper reassessing the scanty manuscript tradition (‘The

xxix

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 29

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

manuscripts of Berengar of Poitiers’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 54 [2019], 157– 61). The stemma he proposed is printed below; it has been used as the basis for a revised text with a new and more selective apparatus criticus. For further details readers are referred to the article in question, though they should be warned that it contains errors of commission and omission in the reporting of manuscript readings. What follows states how the six crucial manuscripts have been deployed here.

α

β δ

γ A

C

B E

F

D

Different combinations of witnesses are available for different stretches of the texts, and this entails differing principles for the construction of the apparatus. The various combinations are presented below. Readers of the text should have this to hand; no indication of the manuscripts available at any particular point is given in the apparatus itself. References are by the section numbers used for the first time in this edition.

Apologia and Epistula ad Mimatensem ABCEF

Apol. 1–5 [3–19], 93–8 [296–317]; Mim. 3–16 [5–42] Four manuscripts (ABCF) are fully available in these passages. E has a few minor omissions resulting from conscious abbreviation, but in both works it is always present where F is registered in Thomson’s apparatus. The transmitted reading is, stemmatically, given by the agreement of BEF; but it may be given by EF alone. Where B and EF differ, the transmitted reading can be determined by taking into account the evidence of AC. But readings agreed by AC against BEF are not transmitted. We record most disagreements between B and EF, but suppress one or two unique readings of B.76 76 

They lack support from AC and so are ‘eliminated’. An instance is Apol. 3 negandi.

xxx

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 30

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction ABCF

Apol. 1 (scriptorum – approbari), 5–29 (sed – horum etiam); Mim. 1–2 (patri – nauigabo), 17–26 (non refutamus – exhibebo). See also below, Cart. E being absent, the transmitted reading is, stemmatically, given by the agreement of BF; but it may be given by F alone. Where B and F differ, the transmitted reading can be determined by taking into account the evidence of AC. But readings agreed by AC against BF are not transmitted. As readings unique to F may in principle be right, we ought in theory to register all of them. But since there are so many, and since the scan of F available to us is not always easy to read, we have chosen to give only a very few: those that seem to us to be, or to have some chance of being, right against ABC. ACEF

Apol. 44–93 (quoniam – bonum nisi) There is here, in the absence of B, a straight choice between AC and EF. We register the instances of this choice, but do not give normally readings unique to any of these four manuscripts. ACF

Apol. 30–44 (uerborum – retexam) There is, in the absence of B and E, a straight choice between AC and F. We register some instances of this choice, but cite unique readings of F only sparingly (compare what is said of F above), selecting those that seem to us to be, or to have some chance of being, right against AC.

Epistula ad Cartusienses ABCDF

For 11–15, we print the text of D, the only manuscript available. All five manuscripts are available up to 11 apud uos. Here the transmitted text is assumed to be given by the agreement of D with BF. We register differences between D (much superior) and BF. AC are not cited: they will either agree with BF or can be ignored. In this simple situation we often present a negative apparatus: thus (e.g.) ‘claustris BF’, as opposed to ‘D; claustris BF’.

xxxi

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 31

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

Introduction

The orthography of the Latin text and apparatus criticus has largely been normalised to conform with classical usage. In the apparatus criticus, ‘om.’ means that the word signalled has been omitted from the relevant manuscript(s). ‘def.’ means that the whole context had been omitted in the relevant manuscript(s). Biblical references are to the Latin Vulgate; the English translation largely follows the Douai version.

xxxii

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 32

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 01 Front matter).indd 33

18/08/2020 7:18 pm

EPISTVLA PETRI ABAELARDI CONTRA BERNHARDVM ABBATEM1 Dilectissimis sociis suis dilectissimus eorum seruus salutem. 1. Probabile satis est ad gloriam Vincentii martyris quod descriptis eius gestis titulo inuidit inimicus. Tale aliquid et mihi nunc accidit, ut a maximis ad minima comparatio similitudinis perducatur. Ille quippe occultus iamdudum inimicus, qui se huc usque amicum, immo amicissimum simulauit, in tantam nunc exarsit inuidiam, ut [nunc] scriptorum meorum titulum ferre non posset, quibus gloriam suam tanto magis humiliari credidit, quanto magis me sublimari putauit. 2. Dudum autem grauiter ingemuisse audieram, quod illud2 opus nostrum de Sancta Trinitate, prout Dominus concessit a nobis compositum, Theologiae intitulaueram nomine. Quod ipse tandem minime perferens Stultilogiam magis quam Theologiam censuit appellandam. Deo gratias, quod huius operis nostri labor tantus3 existimari potuit, ut dignus fieret qui prius magistros Franciae, monachos et maioris religionis aestimatione praeditos in tam impudentem et tam manifestam inuidiam admoueret. 3. Prouidebit Dominus operi suo, ut quod ipso inspirante conscripsimus malitia prauorum deleri patiatur. Quo saepius in ipsum debacchabatur, non tam ad illius operis depressionem quam exaltationem proficere Domino confidimus annuente: Summa petit liuor, perflant altissima uenti Feriuntque summos fulmina montes. 4. Sciatis autem quod, antequam dilectionis uestrae uiderem nuntium, me iam audisse quorundam relatione, quanta ille Datianus meus in me ueneni sui probra uomuerit: primo quod Senonis in praesentia domini archiepiscopi et multorum amicorum meorum, quod deinde Parisius de profundo nequitiae suae coram uobis uel aliis eructuauerit.

This letter, found in Heidelberg, Universitätsbibl. 71, ff. 14v–15v, is printed here (with one slight change) from the edition by R. Klibansky, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 5 (1961), 1–27 (at 6–7). 2  illus Klibansky 3  Perhaps read tanti (Winterbottom) 1 

1

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 1

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

A LETTER OF PETER ABELARD TO HIS COMRADES AGAINST ABBOT BERNARD To his most beloved companions their most beloved servant, greetings. 1. It is sufficient proof of the glory of the martyr Vincent that when his deeds were written down the Enemy envied his claim to fame.1 Something of the kind has now happened to me as well, so that a comparison of things similar may be carried through from the greatest to the smallest. For that enemy, long since hidden, who has hitherto pretended to be a friend, in fact my dearest friend,2 has now burst out into such a blaze of envy that he could not bear the fame won by my writings, for he believed his own glory was diminished by them as much as he thought I was exalted. 2. I had some time ago heard that he had been seriously distressed that I had given the name of Theology to that work of mine on the Holy Trinity,3 which I composed as the Lord granted. In the end he could by no means tolerate this, and decreed that it should be called Stultilogy rather than Theology. Thanks be to God that the labour I put into this work of mine could have been so highly valued as to be worthy to move first the masters of France, then monks and those judged higher in religious worth, to feel such impudent and patent envy. 3. The Lord will provide for His own work, so as not to allow what I wrote with His inspiration to be destroyed by the malice of the wicked. The more often he raved against it, the more confident I became, with the Lord’s consent, that it brought about not the lowering of that work but its exaltation: Envy seeks out the peaks, the winds blow through the highest places;4 And lightning bolts strike the highest mountains.5 4. But you must know that, before I saw the message from your affectionate selves, I had already heard, because people told me of it, what poisonous insults that Datianus of mine6 vomited up at me: what he belched forth from the depths of his depravity, first at Sens, in the presence of the lord archbishop and many of my friends, and then at Paris, in your hearing and that of others.7 1  Referring to a version of the Acta S. Vincentii martyris, c. 1, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina 8618: ed. Acta Sanctorum, Jan. 2, p. 394, or else to the story as told in Prudentius, Peristephanon, 5. 2  Bernard of Clairvaux. 3  Theologia ‘scholarium’, ed. E. Buytaert and C. Mews, CCCM 13, pp. 203–549. 4  Ovid, Remedia amoris 369. 5  Horace, Carm. 2. 10. 11–12. Both lines were quoted, separately, by Abelard in Historia calamitatum 8 and 40. 6  Torturer of Vincent; Prudentius, Peristephanon 5. 130. 7  This is the only mention of such meetings, which must have occurred between Lent 1140, when William of Saint Thierry wrote to Bernard about Abelard’s ‘heresies’, and the Council of Sens itself.

1

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 1

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

PETRI ABAELARDI CONTRA BERNHARDVM

5. Dominus itaque archiepiscopus iuxta petitionem nostram litteras ad eum direxerat: si in accusatione mei perseuerare uellet, me paratum habere in octauis Pentecostes super his quae obiecit capitulis respondere. Nondum uero audiuimus, quale ipse responsum dederit litteris illis. Me autem ad praefatum diem Domino annuente uenire sciatis, et uos adesse cupimus et rogamus. Valete.

2

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 2

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

ABELARD TO HIS COMRADES AGAINST ABBOT BERNARD

5. The lord archbishop8 had therefore, at my request, directed a letter to him, saying that, if he wished to persevere in accusing me, I was ready to reply on the Octave of Pentecost concerning the Chapters he brought up against me.9 But I have not yet heard what sort of reply he gave to that letter. Still, you may be sure I shall appear on the aforesaid day, if the Lord wills; and we desire and ask you to be present. Farewell.

8  9 

Presumably the archbishop of Sens, Henry ‘Sanglier’ (1122–41). See below, Letter 190. 27.

2

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 2

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 1884 AD EPISCOPOS ET CARDINALES CVRIAE Dominis et patribus reuerendis episcopis et cardinalibus qui sunt de curia, puer sanctitatis eorum. 1. Nulli dubium quin ad uos specialiter spectet tollere scandala de regno Dei, surgentes succidere spinas, sedare querelas. Sic enim praecepit Moses cum montem subiit, ‘Habetis’ inquiens ‘Aaron et Hur uobiscum; si quid natum fuerit quaestionis, referetis ad ipsos.’ Illum loquor Mosen qui uenit per aquam, et non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine; et ideo plus quam Moyses, quia et in sanguine uenit. Et quoniam pro Hur et Aaron stat zelus et auctoritas Romanae Ecclesiae super populum Dei, ad ipsam merito referimus non quaestiones, sed laesiones fidei et iniurias Christi; Patrum probra atque contemptus; praesentium scandala, pericula posterorum. Irridetur simplicium fides, euiscerantur arcana Dei. Quaestiones de altissimis rebus temerarie uentilantur; insultatur Patribus quod eas magis sopiendas quam soluendas censuerint. Inde fit quod Agnus Paschalis contra Dei statutum aut aqua coquitur aut crudus discerpitur, more et ore bestiali. Quod residuum est, non igne comburitur, sed conculcatur. Ita omnia usurpat sibi humanum ingenium, fidei nil reseruans. Tentat altiora se, fortiora scrutatur; irruit in diuina, sancta temerat magis quam reserat;5 clausa et signata non aperit, sed diripit; et quidquid sibi non inuenit peruium id putat nihilum, credere dedignatur. 2. Legite, si placet, librum Petri Abaelardi, quem dicit Theologiae (ad manum est enim, cum, sicut gloriatur, a pluribus lectitetur in curia), et uidete qualia ibi de Sancta Trinitate dicantur, de genitura Filii, et de processione Spiritus Sancti,

The text of the letters by Bernard is taken from Leclercq-Rochais (= L), with the changes noted below (some from their manuscript S = Charleville, Bibliothèque municipale 67) 5  Winterbottom; referat L 4 

3

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 3

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 18810 TO THE BISHOPS AND CARDINALS OF THE CURIA To the reverend lords and fathers, the bishops and cardinals of the curia, from the child of their holiness. 1. No one doubts that it is your business in particular to remove scandals from the kingdom of God,11 to cut down thorns as they spring up, to settle disputes. For such was the command of Moses when he ascended the mountain: ‘You have Aaron and Hur with you: if any question shall arise, you shall refer it to them.’12 I mean the Moses who came by water,13 and not in water only, but in ‘water and blood’.14 Indeed He was more than Moses, for He came in blood also. And since instead of Hur and Aaron we have the zeal and authority of the Roman Church over the people of God, we are right to refer to it not questions, but hurts to the faith and injuries to Christ; insults and scornings to the Fathers; scandals to those living now, perils to those who will come after. The faith of the simple is being laughed at, the secrets of God are being ripped out; questions concerning the deepest matters are being heedlessly opened to discussion; the Fathers are being abused because they judged that such questions should be put to sleep rather than solved. Hence the Paschal Lamb, contrary to God’s commandment, is either boiled in water or torn up raw:15 beastly the practice and beastly the mouth. What is left is not ‘burned with fire’16 but trampled underfoot. In this manner human wit is laying claim to everything, keeping nothing back for faith. It is attempting things too high for it, searching into things above its ability;17 it is rushing into matters divine, defiling holy things rather than unlocking them; it is not opening things shut up and sealed, but tearing them apart; and whatever it finds inaccessible, it thinks of no account, and does not deign to believe it. 2. Read, if you please, Peter Abelard’s book, which he calls Theology (you have it available, to be sure, for, as he boasts, it is perused by many in the curia),18 and see the sorts of thing that are said there about the Holy Trinity, the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit, and innumerable topics that are 10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18 

= Scott James 238. Cf. Matt. 13: 41. Cf. Exod. 24: 13–44. Cf. Exod. 2: 3–6. 1 Ioh. 5: 6. Cf. Exod. 12: 9. Exod. 12: 10. Cf. Sap. 3: 22. See above, note to Abelard, Letter to his Comrades, 2.

3

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 3

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 188

et innumera alia Catholicis prorsus auribus et mentibus dissueta. Legite et alium, quem dicunt Sententiarum eius, necnon et illum qui inscribitur Scito te ipsum, et animaduertite quanta et ipsi siluescant segete sacrilegiorum atque errorum; quid sentiat de anima Christi, de persona Christi, de descensu Christi ad inferos; de sacramento altaris; de potestate ligandi atque soluendi; de originali peccato, de concupiscentia, de peccato delectationis, de peccato infirmitatis, de peccato ignorantiae, de opere peccati, de uoluntate peccandi. Et siquidem iudicatis me iuste moueri, mouemini et uos; ac ne frustra moueamini, agite pro loco quem tenetis, pro dignitate qua polletis, pro potestate quam accepistis, quomodo qui ascendit usque ad caelos, descendat usque ad inferos, et opera tenebrarum, ausa prodire in lucem, arguantur a luce in lucem, ut, dum qui publice peccat, publice arguetur, comprimant sese etiam alii, ponentes tenebras lucem, disputantes in triuiis de diuinis, qui loquuntur mala in cordibus suis, et in codicibus suis scribunt, et sic obstruatur os loquentium iniqua.

4

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 4

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 188

quite unfamiliar to Catholic ears and minds. Read another book too, which they call his Sentences,19 and also the one entitled Know Yourself;20 and notice how they too run wild with a whole crop of sacrilege and error: what he thinks about the soul of Christ, the person of Christ, the descent of Christ unto hell; about the sacrament of the altar; about the power of binding and loosing, about original sin, about concupiscence, about the sin of pleasure, about the sin of weakness, about the sin of ignorance, about the work of sin, about the will to sin. And if you judge that I am right to be moved, be moved yourselves also; and so that you are not moved in vain, bring it about, in accordance with the position you hold, with the dignity with which you hold sway, with the power which you have received, that he who ascends unto heaven may go down ‘unto hell’,21 and that ‘the works of darkness’22 that have dared to come forth into the light may be brought into the light and reproved by it;23 so that while the public sinner is publicly accused, others too may restrain themselves when they ‘put darkness for light’24 and dispute about divine matters in the streets: persons who speak evil in their hearts25 and write evil in their books; and that ‘the mouth of them that speak’ wicked things may so ‘be stopped’.26

Only fragments survive, ed. C. Mews in CCCM 14, pp. 155–71. ed. R. Ilgner, CCCM 190; Peter Abelard’s Ethics, ed. and trans. D. Luscombe (Oxford, 1970). However, Bernard could be referring to the Sic et non, often known by this name, ed. B. Boyer and R. McKeon (Chicago ILL, 1976–77). 21  Matt. 11: 23. 22  Rom. 13: 12. 23  Cf. Ioh. 3: 20. Compare Letter 189. 2. He means Abelard’s written works. 24  Is. 5: 20. 25  Cf. Ps. 27: 3. 26  Ps. 62: 12. 19 

20 

4

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 4

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 189 AD DOMINVM PAPAM INNOCENTIVM Amantissimo patri et domino Innocentio, Dei gratia summo pontifici, frater Bernardus Claraeuallis uocatus abbas, modicum id quod est. 1. Necesse est ut ueniant scandala: necesse, sed non suaue. Et ideo dicit propheta: ‘Quis dabit mihi pennas sicut columbae? Et uolabo, et requiescam.’ Et apostolus cupit dissolui et cum Christo quiescere; et alius quidam sanctorum ‘sufficit mihi, Domine’, ait, ‘tolle animam meam; neque enim melior sum quam patres mei.’ Est et mihi nunc aliquid commune cum sanctis, in uoluntate dumtaxat, non in merito. Nam uellem et ipse modo de medio fieri, uictus, fateor, a pusillanimitate spiritus et tempestate; uereor autem, ne non sicut pariter affectus, ita pariter et paratus inueniar. Taedet uiuere, et an mori expediat, nescio; et ideo forte etiam in uotis distem a sanctis, quod ipsi prouocentur desiderio meliorum, cum ego scandalis et aerumnis compellar exire. Denique ait, dissolui et cum Christo esse, multo melius. Ergo et in sancto appetitus, et in me praeualet sensus; sed in hac miserrima uita nec ille habere quod appetit bonum, nec ego quod molestum patior non habere ualemus. Et ob hoc exire quidem ambo pari cupimus uoluntate, sed non pari intentione. 2. Stulte mihi dudum requiem promittebam si quidem Leonina rabies quieuisset, et pax Ecclesiae redderetur. Nam ecce illa quieuit, sed non ego. Nesciebam me esse in ualle lacrimarum, aut oblitus fueram habitare me in terra obliuionis. Non attendebam terram, in qua habito, spinas et tribulos germinare mihi; succisis succedere nouas, et rursum illis alias sine fine sine intermissione succrescere. Audieram hoc: sed melius, ut nunc experior, ipsa uexatio dat intellectum auditui. Innouatus est dolor, non exterminatus; lacrimae inundauerunt,

5

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 5

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 18927 TO HIS LORD POPE INNOCENT To his most beloved father and lord Innocent, by the grace of God supreme pontiff, brother Bernard, styled abbot of Clairvaux, the little that he is. 1. ‘It is necessary that scandals come’:28 necessary, but not pleasant. That is why the prophet says: ‘Who will give me wings like a dove’s, and I will fly and be at rest?’29 And the apostle wishes to be dissolved and to rest with Christ;30 and another of the holy men says: ‘It is enough for me, Lord, take away my soul: for I am no better than my fathers.’31 I too now have something in common with holy men, in will, at any rate, not in merit. For I too should wish to be removed from the scene at this moment, overcome (I confess it) by ‘pusillanimity of spirit and a storm’;32 but I fear that, though equally afflicted, I may be found not equally prepared. I am tired of living, and I know not if it is profitable to die; and it may be that I differ from holy men in my wishes too: they are spurred on by desire for the better, while I am compelled to depart by scandals and woes. In fine, Paul says: ‘To be dissolved and to be with Christ, a thing by far better.’33 Therefore in the holy man longing prevails, and in me feeling; but in this most wretched life he cannot have the good he craves and I cannot but have the distress I suffer. And for this reason we both of us desire to depart: we have the same wish, but not the same motives. 2. I once used to promise myself rest if the madness of the Lion34 grew quiet and peace were restored to the Church. I was foolish: for look, that madness has grown quiet, but I have not. I did not know that I was ‘in the vale of tears’,35 or had forgotten that I dwelt ‘in the land of forgetfulness’.36 I did not notice that the earth in which I dwell was ‘bringing forth thorns and thistles to me’,37 that when they were cut back new ones were following on them, and that yet others were growing after them, with no intermission. I had heard this; but, as I now find, ‘vexation’ alone ‘makes one understand’ better ‘what one hears’.38 The pain has been renewed, 27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38 

= Scott James 239. This letter was written in the wake of the Council of Sens. Matt. 18: 7. Ps. 54: 7. Cf. Philipp. 1: 23. 3 Reg. 19: 4. Ps. 54: 9. Philipp. 1: 23. A reference to Peter Leonis, the former antipope. Ps. 83: 7. Ps. 87: 13. Gen. 3: 18. Is. 28: 19.

5

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 5

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 189

quia inualuerunt mala; et expertis pruinam, irruit super eos nix. Ante faciem frigoris huius quis sustinebit? Hoc frigore refrigescit caritas, ut abundet iniquitas. Leonem euasimus, sed incidimus in draconem, qui non minus forsan noceat sedens in insidiis quam ille rugiens de excelso. Quamquam non iam in insidiis: cuius uirulenta folia utinam adhuc laterent in scriniis, et non in triuiis legerentur! Volant libri, et qui oderant lucem, quoniam mali sunt, impegerunt in lucem, putantes lucem tenebras. Vrbibus et castellis ingeruntur pro luce tenebrae; pro melle, uel potius in melle uenenum passim omnibus propinatur. Transierunt de gente in gentem, et de regno ad populum alterum. Nouum cuditur populis et gentibus Euangelium, noua proponitur fides, fundamentum aliud ponitur praeter id quod positum est. De uirtutibus et uitiis non moraliter, de sacramentis Ecclesiae non fideliter, de arcano Sanctae Trinitatis non simpliciter nec sobrie disputatur: sed cuncta nobis in peruersum, cuncta praeter solitum et praeter quam accepimus ministrantur. 3. Procedit Golias procero corpore, nobili illo suo bellico apparatu circummunitus, antecedente quoque ipsum armigero eius Arnaldo de Brixia. Squama squamae coniungitur, et nec spiraculum incedit per eas. Siquidem sibilauit apis quae erat in Francia api de Italia, et conuenerunt in unum aduersus Dominum et aduersus Christum eius. Intenderunt arcum, parauerunt sagittas suas in pharetra, ut sagittent in obscuro rectos corde. In uictu autem et habitu habentes formam pietatis, sed uirtutem eius abnegantes, eo decipiunt plures quo

6

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 6

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 189

not banished; tears have flooded over, for evils have grown strong; and ‘snow has fallen upon those who had experienced frost’.39 Who shall stand ‘before the face of this cold’?40 In this cold, charity grows chill, so that ‘iniquity abounds’.41 We have escaped the lion, but have fallen into the clutches of the dragon, who, it may be, does no less harm when he lies in ambush than the lion who ‘roars from on high’.42 But he is not now in ambush:43 would that his poisonous pages still lay hidden in book boxes and were not being read on the streets! Books fly around; and those who ‘hated the light’,44 because they are bad, have thrust them into the light, thinking the light darkness. On to cities and towns darkness is being cast instead of light; instead of honey, or rather in honey, poison is being given to everyone everywhere to drink. ‘They have passed from nation to nation, and from one kingdom to another people.’45 A new gospel is being fashioned for peoples and nations, a new faith is being put forward, ‘another foundation is being laid besides that which is laid’.46 Of virtues and vices there is no moral discussion, of the sacraments of the Church no discussion according to the faith, of the mystery of the Holy Trinity no straightforward or sober discussion. Instead, everything is being ministered to us perversely, everything contrary to custom and besides that which we received.47 3. Goliath comes forth, tall of stature, fortified by that noble war gear48 of his, and ‘preceded by his squire’,49 Arnold of Brescia.50 Scale ‘is joined’ to scale, ‘and not so much as any air can come between them’.51 For the bee that was in France has buzzed to the bee from Italy;52 and they have met together ‘against the Lord and against His Christ’.53 They have bent their bow, ‘they have prepared their arrows in the quiver, to shoot in the dark the upright of heart’.54 In their way of life and dress ‘having’ an appearance indeed ‘of piety’, but ‘denying the power Iob 6: 16. Ps. 147: 17. 41  Matt. 24: 12. 42  Ierem. 25: 30, referring to the Lord. 43  See perhaps Ps. 9: 29. 44  Ioh. 3: 20. Cf. Letter 188. 2. 45  Ps. 104: 13 and 1 Chron. 16: 20. 46  That is, Jesus Christ. See 1 Cor. 3: 11. 47  Cf. Gal. 1: 9. 48  Cf. 1 Reg. 17: 5–7. 49  1 Reg. 17: 7, 41. 50  c. 1090–1155, energetic critic of the Church’s temporal power, pupil and defender of Abelard, leader of the commune of Rome. See G. W. Greenaway, Arnold of Brescia (Cambridge, 1931), especially pp. 34–42; Luscombe, School, pp. 26–9; R. Schmitz-Esser, Arnold von Brescia im Spiegel von acht Jahrhunderten Rezeption. Ein Beispiel für Europas Umgang mit der mittelalterlichen Geschichte vom Humanismus bis Heute (Vienna-Berlin-Münster, 2007). 51  Iob 41: 7. 52  Cf. Is. 7: 18. 53  Ps. 2: 2. 54  Ps. 10: 3. 39  40 

6

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 6

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 189

transfigurant se in angelos lucis, cum sint Satanae. Stans ergo Golias una cum armigero suo inter utrasque acies, clamat aduersus phalangas Israel, exprobratque agminibus sanctorum, eo nimirum audacius quo sentit Dauid non adesse. Denique in sugillationem doctorum Ecclesiae, magnis effert laudibus philosophos; adinuentiones illorum et suas nouitates Catholicorum Patrum doctrinae et fidei praefert: et cum omnes fugiant a facie eius, me omnium minimum expetit ad singulare certamen. 4. Denique scripsit mihi, sollicitante quidem ipso, archiepiscopus Senonensis, diem statuens congressionis, quo ille in praesentia eius et coepiscoporum suorum deberet, si posset, statuere praua dogmata sua, contra quae ego ausus mutire fuissem. Abnui, tum quia puer sum, et ille uir bellator ab adolescentia, tum quia iudicarem indignum rationem fidei humanis committi ratiunculis agitandam, quam tam certa ac stabili ueritate constet esse subnixam. Dicebam sufficere scripta eius ad accusandum eum, nec mea referre sed episcoporum, quorum esset ministerii de dogmatibus iudicare. Ille nihilominus, immo eo amplius leuauit uocem, uocauit multos, congregauit complices. Quae de me ad discipulos suos scripserit, dicere non curo. Disseminauit ubique se mihi die statuto apud Senonas responsurum. Exiit sermo ad omnes, et non potuit me latere. Dissimulaui primum: nec enim satis rumore populari mouebar. Cedens tamen (licet uix, ita ut flerem) consilio amicorum, qui uidentes quomodo se quasi ad spectaculum omnes pararent, timebant ne de nostra absentia et scandalum populo et cornua crescerent aduersario; et quia error magis confirmaretur, cum non esset qui responderet aut contradiceret, occurri ad locum et diem, imparatus quidem et immunitus, nisi quod mente illud uoluebam: Nolite praemeditari, qualiter respondeatis: dabitur enim uobis in illa hora quid loquamini, et illud, Dominus mihi adiutor, non timebo quid faciat mihi homo. Conuenerant autem praeter episcopos et abbates plurimi uiri religiosi, et de ciuitatibus magistri scholarum, et clerici litterati multi, et rex praesens erat. Itaque

7

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 7

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 189

thereof’,55 they deceive the more people because ‘they transform themselves into angels of light’,56 though they are angels of Satan. Goliath then, standing together with his squire between the opposed formations, ‘cries out to the bands of Israel’,57 and taunts the ranks of holy men the more boldly because he is aware that David is not there. For instance, to insult the doctors of the Church, he heaps praises on the philosophers. He prefers their inventions and his own innovations to the doctrine and the faith of the Catholic Fathers; and since ‘all fly from his face’,58 he challenges me, the least of all men,59 to ‘single combat’.60 4. Finally, at his urging, the archbishop of Sens61 wrote to me, fixing the day for a meeting, at which that man, in his presence and that of his fellow-bishops, should, if he could, establish his wicked doctrines, against which I had dared to raise a feeble voice. I refused, because I am a child, he a warrior since his youth, and because I judged it improper that the cause of the faith should be handed over for discussion to the opinions of mere men, when there is no doubt that it rests on such sure and unchangeable truth. I said that his writings were evidence enough against him, and that it was not my concern but that of the bishops, whose task it was to judge about doctrines. He nonetheless, or even more, raised his voice, summoned many to his aid, brought his accomplices together. I do not care to say what he wrote of me to his followers. He put it around everywhere that he would reply to me at Sens on the set day. The saying went abroad to everyone,62 and I could not avoid hearing it. At first I took no notice. I was not sufficiently moved by what people were saying. But I gave in (not easily, indeed I wept) to the advice of my friends, who, seeing how everybody was getting ready as for a show, were afraid that our absence would cause scandal among the people and make my adversary’s horns grow. And as error was growing stronger, there being no one to reply or contradict, I turned up at that place and day, unprepared and unprotected, save that in my mind I meditated on the texts: ‘Take no thought how to reply: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak,’63 and, ‘The Lord is my helper: I will not fear what man can do unto me.’64 Now besides the bishops and abbots there had assembled very many religious, and from the cities masters of schools, and many educated clerics; and the king was present. And so in the presence of all, my 55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64 

2 Tim. 3: 5. 2 Cor. 11: 14. 1 Reg. 17: 8. 1 Reg. 17: 24. Cf. 1 Reg. 17: 14; David was minimus. 1 Reg. 17: 10. Henry ‘Sanglier’ (1122–41). Cf. Ioh. 21: 23. Matt. 10: 19. Ps. 117: 6.

7

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 7

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 189

in praesentia omnium, aduersario stante ex aduerso, producta sunt quaedam capitula de libris eius excerpta. Quae cum coepissent legi, nolens audire exiuit, appellans ab electis iudicibus, quod non putamus licere. Porro capitula iudicio omnium examinata, inuenta sunt fidei aduersantia, contraria ueritati. Haec pro me, ne leuitate, aut certe temeritate, usus in tanto negotio putarer. 5. Verum tu, o successor Petri, iudicabis an debeat habere refugium sedem Petri, qui Petri fidem impugnat. Tu, inquam, amice Sponsi, prouidebis, quomodo liberes Sponsam a labiis iniquis et a lingua dolosa. Sed ut paulo audacius loquar cum domino meo, attende etiam tibi ipsi, amantissime Pater, et gratiae Dei quae in te est. Nonne cum esses paruulus in oculis tuis, ipse te constituit super gentes et regna? Ad quid, nisi ut euellas et destruas, et aedifices et plantes? Qui ergo tulit te de domo patris tui, et unxit te unctione misericordiae suae, attende, quaeso, ex tunc et deinceps, quanta fecit animae tuae, quanta per te Ecclesiae suae, quanta in agro dominico, caelo et terra testibus, tam potenter quam salubriter euulsa sunt et destructa; quanta rursum bene aedificata, plantata, propagata. Suscitauit Deus furorem schismaticorum in tuo tempore, ut tuo opere contererentur. Vidi stultum firma radice, et statim maledictum est pulchritudini eius. Vidi, inquam, uidi impium superexaltatum, et eleuatum sicut cedros Libani; et transiui, et ecce non erat. Oportet autem, ait, haereses et schismata esse, ut qui probati sunt, manifesti fiant. Et in schismate quidem iam, ut dictum est, Dominus probauit te et cognouit te. Sed ne quid desit coronae tuae, en haereses surrexerunt. Itaque ad consummationem uirtutum, et ne quid minus fecisse inueniamini a magnis episcopis antecessoribus uestris, capite nobis, Pater amantissime, uulpes quae demoliuntur uineam Domini,

8

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 8

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 189

adversary standing face to face with me, there were produced headings excerpted from his books. When they began to be read, he went out, not wanting to listen, appealing against the chosen judges, something we think is not allowed. Then the chapters were examined by the judgement of all, and things were discovered that were opposed to the faith and contrary to the truth. I say this in my own defence, so that I may not be thought to have acted lightly or at any rate with temerity in so important a matter. 5. But you, Peter’s successor, will judge whether one who assails Peter’s faith should find refuge at Peter’s seat. You, I say, the friend of the Bridegroom,65 will take care to deliver the Bride ‘from wicked lips and a deceitful tongue’.66 But, to speak a little more boldly with my lord, look to yourself too, most beloved father, and to the grace of God that is in thee.67 Did He not, ‘when thou wast a little one in thine own eyes’,68 ‘set you over the nations and over kingdoms’?69 To what end, unless ‘to root up and destroy, and build and plant’?70 He who took you from your father’s house71 and anointed you with the ointment of His mercy, note, I beg you, ‘what great things He has done for your soul’72 since then, what, through you, for His Church; what great things have been rooted up and destroyed in the field of the Lord (heaven and earth witness it!), both powerfully and salubriously; what great things, on the other hand, have been well built, planted and propagated. God has stirred up the madness of schismatics in your time, so that they might be shattered by your actions. ‘I have seen a fool with a strong root’,73 and his beauty was cursed immediately. I have seen, yes I have seen ‘the wicked highly exalted, and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon, and I passed by, and lo, he was not’.74 There must, it is said, ‘be heresies’ and schisms, that they ‘who are proved may be made manifest’.75 And it is in a schism that the Lord has now, as is said, proved you and known you.76 But, so that your crown should lack for nothing, behold, heresies have arisen. So to perfect your virtues,77 and so that you are not found to have done less than the great bishops your predecessors, ‘catch us’, beloved father, ‘the foxes that destroy’78 the Lord’s vineyard, while they are still little, for fear lest, 65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78 

Cf. Ioh. 3: 29. Ps. 119: 2. 1 Tim. 4: 14. 1 Reg. 15: 17. Ierem. 1: 10. Ierem. 1: 10. Cf. 2 Reg. 7: 8. Ps. 65: 16. Iob 5: 3. Ps. 36: 35–6. 1 Cor. 11: 19. Cf. Ps. 138: 1. Cf. Sap. 50: 11. Cant. 2: 15.

8

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 8

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 189

donec paruulae sunt: ne, si crescant et multiplicentur, quidquid talium per uos exterminatum non fuerit a posteris desperetur. Quamquam non iam paruulae nec pauculae, sed certe grandiusculae et multae sint, nec nisi in manu forti uel a uobis exterminabuntur. Hyacinthus multa mala ostendit nobis: nec enim quae uoluit, potuit. Sed uisus est mihi patienter ferendus de me, qui nec personae uestrae nec curiae in curia illa pepercit: quod melius Nicolaus iste meus, immo et uester, uiua referet uoce.

9

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 9

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 189

if they grow and multiply, all such evils as you do not get rid of may prove to be the despair of those that come after. Though in fact the foxes are not little or few any more, but beyond doubt pretty large and numerous; and they will not be got rid of even by you except ‘with a strong hand’.79 Hyacinth80 has ‘done’ me ‘much evil’;81 for he could not do what he wanted. But I thought that as regards myself I should bear with one who has not spared your person or the curia in the Curia. My Nicholas,82 or rather yours too, will relate this better by word of mouth.

See for example Exod. 13: 3 and Deut. 5: 15; this is a common phrase in Bernard. Giacinto Bobone, cardinal from 1144, later Pope Celestine III (1191–98); Luscombe, School, pp. 22–3. 81  2 Tim. 4: 14. 82  Probably Nicholas of Montiéramey, for a time St Bernard’s secretary: The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. G. Constable (2 vols, Harvard MASS, 1967), 2, pp. 316–30. 79 

80 

9

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 9

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190 S. BERNARDI ABBATIS CONTRA QVAEDAM CAPITVLA ERRORVM ABAELARDI EPISTVLA SEV TRACTATVS AD INNOCENTIVM II PONTIFICEM Amantissimo patri et domino Innocentio summo Pontifici, frater Bernardus Claraeuallis uocatus abbas, modicum id quod est. 1. Oportet ad uestrum referri apostolatum pericula quaeque et scandala emergentia in regno Dei, ea praesertim quae de fide contingunt. Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna fidei, ubi non possit fides sentire defectum. Haec quippe huius praerogatiua sedis. Cui enim alteri aliquando dictum est: Ego pro te rogaui, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua? Ergo quod sequitur, a Petri successore exigitur: Et tu aliquando, inquit, conuersus confirma fratres tuos. Id quidem modo necessarium. Tempus est ut uestrum agnoscatis, Pater amantissime, principatum, probetis zelum, ministerium honoretis. In eo plane Petri impletis uicem, cuius tenetis et sedem, si uestra admonitione corda in fide fluctuantia confirmatis, si uestra auctoritate conteritis fidei corruptores. Habemus in Francia nouum de ueteri magistro theologum, qui ab ineunte aetate sua in arte dialectica lusit, et nunc in Scripturis Sanctis insanit. Olim damnata et sopita dogmata, tam sua uidelicet, quam aliena, suscitare conatur, insuper et noua addit. Qui dum omnium quae sunt in caelo sursum et quae in terra deorsum nihil, praeter solum ‘Nescio’, nescire dignatur. Ponit in caelum os suum, et scrutatur alta Dei, rediensque ad nos refert uerba ineffabilia, quae non licet homini loqui; et dum paratus est de omnibus reddere rationem, etiam quae sunt supra rationem, et contra rationem praesumit et contra fidem. Quid enim magis contra rationem quam ratione rationem conari transcendere? Et quid magis

10

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 10

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 19083 A LETTER OF THE ABBOT SAINT BERNARD AGAINST CERTAIN HEADS OF ERRORS OF ABELARD OR A TRACTATE TO POPE INNOCENT II 1. To his most beloved father and lord Pope Innocent,84 brother Bernard, styled abbot of Clairvaux, the little that he is. To you as pope are necessarily referred all dangers and scandals that arise in the kingdom of God,85 and especially those affecting the faith. For I think it proper that any damage done to the faith should be patched up precisely where faith cannot feel a defect. This, in fact, is the privilege of the Holy See. Who else was once addressed in the words, ‘I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not’?86 So what follows is required of Peter’s successor: ‘And thou’, it says, ‘being once converted, confirm thy brethren.’87 That is what is needed now. It is time for you, most beloved Father, to recognise your position as prince, to prove your zeal, to honour your ministry.88 You are clearly playing the part of Peter, whose see too you hold, if by your admonition you confirm hearts that are wavering in the faith, if by your authority you destroy men who are corrupting the faith. We have in France an old Master become a new theologian. He has since he grew to manhood sported in the art of dialectic; now he is playing the madman in Holy Writ. He is trying to revive doctrines long condemned and put to sleep, his own as well as those of others, and adding new ones too. He claims to be ignorant of nothing of all that is ‘in heaven above and in the earth beneath’,89 except for the statement ‘I do not know’. He sets his mouth against heaven90 and searches the deep things of God,91 and then comes back to us with words ineffable ‘which it is not granted to a man to utter’;92 and while ready to give a reason concerning everything,93 even things that are above reason, he presumes both against reason and against faith. For what is more against reason that to try to go beyond reason by means of reason? And what is more against faith than to refuse to believe 83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93 

This letter was written shortly before the Council of Sens. Pope Innocent II (1130–43). Cf. Matt. 13: 41. Luc. 22: 32. Luc. 22: 32. Cf. Rom. 11: 13. Deut. 4: 39. Ps. 72: 9. Cf. 1 Cor. 2: 10. 2 Cor. 12: 4. Cf. 1 Pet. 3: 15.

10

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 10

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

contra fidem quam credere nolle quidquid non possit ratione attingere? Denique exponere uolens illud Salomonis, qui credit cito, leuis est corde, ‘Cito credere est’ inquit ‘adhibere fidem ante rationem’: cum hoc Salomon non de fide in Deum, sed de mutua inter nos credulitate loquatur. Nam illam quae in Deum est fidem beatus papa Gregorius negat plane habere meritum, si ei humana ratio praebeat experimentum; laudat autem Apostolos, quod ad unius iussionis uocem secuti sunt Redemptorem. Scit nimirum pro laude dictum, in auditu auris oboediuit mihi; increpatos e regione discipulos, quod tardius credidissent. Denique laudatur Maria, quod rationem praeuenit fide, et punitur Zacharias, quod fidem ratione tentauit; et rursum Abraham commendatur qui contra spem in spem credidit. 2. At contra theologus noster ‘Quid’ inquit ‘ad doctrinam loqui proficit, si quod docere uolumus, exponi non potest, ut intelligatur?’ Et sic promittens intellectum auditoribus suis, in his etiam quae sublimiora et sacratiora profundo illo sinu sacrae fidei continentur, ponit in Trinitate gradus, in maiestate modos, numeros in aeternitate. Denique constituit Deum Patrem plenam esse potentiam, Filium quamdam potentiam, Spiritum Sanctum nullam potentiam, atque hoc esse Filium ad Patrem quod quandam potentiam ad potentiam, quod speciem ad genus, quod materiatum ad materiam, quod hominem ad animal, quod aereum sigillum ad aes. Nonne plus quam Arius hic? Quis haec ferat? Quis non claudat aures ad uoces sacrilegas? Quis non horreat profanas nouitates et uocum et sensuum? Dicit etiam Spiritum Sanctum procedere quidem ex Patre et Filio, sed minime de Patris esse Filiiue substantia. Vnde ergo? An forte ex nihilo, sicut et uniuersa quae facta sunt? Nam et ipsa ex Deo esse non diffitetur Apostolus, nec ueretur dicere:

11

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 11

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

anything that one cannot touch by reason? For instance, wishing to explain the saying of Solomon, ‘He that is hasty to believe, is light of heart’,94 he says: ‘To believe hastily is to bring belief to bear before reason’,95 though Solomon means this not of belief in God, but of our mutual readiness to believe each other. For belief in God, according to Pope Gregory,96 has no merit at all if it has to pass the test of human reason;97 but he praises the apostles for following the Redeemer when they heard a single command.98 Of course, he knows that ‘at the hearing of the ear they have obeyed me’99 was meant as praise, but that on the other hand the disciples were rebuked for believing too slowly.100 Finally, Mary is praised because her faith went before her reason,101 while Zachary is punished because he tested faith by reason;102 and again, Abraham is commended ‘because against hope he believed in hope’.103 2. Yet our theologian objects: ‘What is the point of speaking with a view to teaching, if what we want to teach cannot be explained in such a way as to be understood?’104 And thus promising understanding to his hearers, even in things that, being too sublime and sacred, are held deep within that bosom of the holy faith, he lays down degrees in the Trinity, modes in majesty, numbers in eternity. For example, he decrees that God the Father is full power, the Son a sort of power, the Holy Spirit no power; and that Son is to Father as a sort of power is to power, as species to genus, as something formed from a material to that material, as man to an animate being, as bronze seal-matrix to bronze. Does he not go well beyond Arius?105 Who could tolerate this? Who would not shut his ears to these sacrilegious words? Who would not shudder at such profane novelties of words106 and meanings alike? He also says that the Holy Spirit does indeed proceed from Father and Son, but is not from the substance of Father or Son.107 From where, then, does it proceed? From nothing, maybe, like everything else that has been made? For the apostle does not deny that everything too is from God, and is not afraid to say Sap. 19: 4. Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 2. 47 (CCCM 13, p. 431). 96  Gregory the Great, pope 590–604, author of influential theological and devotional works. 97  Cf. Gregory, Hom. in evang. 26. 1. 98  Cf. Gregory, Hom. in evang. 5. 1. 99  Ps. 17: 45. 100  See Luc. 24: 25 and Marc. 16: 14. 101  Presumably this refers to Luc. 1: 38. 102  See Luc. 1: 18–20. 103  Rom. 4: 18. 104  Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 2. 35, 2. 54 (CCCM 13, pp. 424, 435), drawing on Augustine, De doctr. Christ. 4. 66. 105  An Alexandrian priest (c. 256–336), who taught that Jesus was begotten by God the Father at a point in time, is distinct from the Father, and is therefore subordinate to Him. 106  Cf. 1 Tim. 6: 20. 107  See Theologia ‘scholarium’ 2. 126 (CCCM 13, p. 471, in the apparatus criticus). 94  95 

11

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 11

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

Ex quo omnia. Quid igitur? Dicemus ex Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum non alio prorsus procedere modo quam omnia, id est non essentialiter, sed creabiliter, ac perinde creatum sicut et omnia? Aut numquid tertium inueniet sibi modum, quo eum ex Patre Filioque producat, homo qui noua semper inquirit, et quae non inuenit fingit, affirmans ea quae non sunt tamquam ea quae sunt? ‘At si esset’ inquit ‘de substantia Patris, profecto genitus esset, et duos Pater haberet filios.’ Quasi uero omne quod de substantia aliqua est, continuo ipsum a quo est habeat genitorem. Num uero pediculi aut lendes aut phlegmata uel filii carnis sunt, uel non sunt de substantia carnis? Aut uermes de ligno putrido prodeuntes aliunde quam de ligni substantia sunt, qui tamen filii ligni non sunt? Sed et tineae de substantia pannorum substantiam habent, generationem non habent. Et multa in hunc modum. 3. Miror autem hominem acutum et sciolum, ut quidem sibi ipse uidetur, quomodo cum Spiritum Sanctum fateatur Patri et Filio consubstantialem, neget tamen ex Patris Filiique prodire substantia. Nisi forte illos ex ipsius procedere uelit: quod quidem inauditum est et nefandum. Si autem nec is de illorum nec illi de huius substantia sunt, ubi, quaeso, consubstantialitas? Aut ergo fateatur cum Ecclesia, Spiritum Sanctum de substantia illorum esse, a quibus non negat procedere, aut certe cum Ario consubstantialitatem deneget, et praedicet aperte creationem. Deinde si Filius de substantia Patris est, Spiritus Sanctus non est. Differant necesse est a se inuicem, non solum quia Spiritus Sanctus genitus non est, quod Filius est, sed etiam quod Filius de substantia Patris est, quod Spiritus Sanctus non est. Quam quidem posteriorem differentiam Catholica huc usque nesciuit. Si eam admittimus, ubi Trinitas, ubi Vnitas? Siquidem Spiritu Sancto Filioque noua a se differentiarum numerositate distantibus, Vnitas dissipatur: praesertim cum substantialem esse pateat differentiam, quam iste conatur inducere. Porro autem Spiritu Sancto a Patris Filiique substantia recedente, non Trinitas remanet, sed Dualitas: neque enim dignum est admitti in Trinitate personam, quae nil habeat in substantia commune cum reliquis. Desinat ergo Spiritus Sancti processionem a Patris Filiique substantia separare, ne duplici impietate numerum et Trinitati minuat et tribuat Vnitati: quod utrumque fides abnuit Christiana. Et ne de re tanta solis uidear humanis inniti rationibus, legat epistulam Hieronymi ad Auitum, et

12

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 12

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

‘from Him are all things’.108 Well, then? Shall we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son in exactly the same way as everything does, that is, not in essence but by direct creation, and that it is created just like everything? Or will he find a third way to bring it forth from Father and Son, this man who is always in search of new things, and makes up what he does not find, asserting things that are not just like things that are? ‘But if’, he says, ‘it were from the substance of the Father, it would surely have been begotten, and the Father would have two sons.’109 As if everything that is from some substance inevitably is begotten by what it is from. Surely lice and nits and bits of phlegm are not sons of the flesh, though they are from the substance of the flesh? Do worms that emerge from rotting wood derive from anything other than the substance of wood? Yet they are not sons of the wood. Moths, too, have their substance from the substance of cloths; but they are not generated by them. And so on and so on. 3. But I am surprised that a man of acumen and some learning, as he at least thinks himself to be, should agree that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with Father and Son while denying that it proceeds from the substance of Father and Son. Perhaps, though, he wants them to proceed from its substance: something unheard of and wicked. But if it is not from their substance and they are not from its, where, I ask, lies their consubstantiality? He must then either confess, with the Church, that the Holy Spirit is from the substance of those from whom he does not deny that it proceeds, or, with Arius, deny consubstantiality altogether and openly preach creation. Again, if the Son is from the substance of the Father, the Holy Spirit is not. They must be different from each other, not only because the Holy Spirit was not begotten, as the Son was, but also because the Son is from the substance of the Father, as the Holy Spirit is not. This latter difference has hitherto been unknown to the Catholic Church. If we admit it, where is the Trinity, where unity? If Holy Spirit and Son are set apart from each other by a new array of differences, unity is scattered to the winds, especially as it is clear that it is a difference of substance that this man is trying to introduce. Further, if the Holy Spirit departs from the substance of Father and Son, what remains is not Trinity but Duality: for it is improper for a person to be admitted to the Trinity who has nothing in common with the rest in substance. Let him therefore cease to separate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the substance of Father and Son, lest by a double impiety he takes one away from the Trinity and adds one to unity: both of which are rejected by Christian belief. And if anyone thinks that, in so important a matter, I am relying solely on human reasoning, let him read Jerome’s letter to

108  109 

1 Cor. 8: 6; cf. Rom. 11: 36. Theologia ‘scholarium’ 2. 129 (CCCM 13, p. 472).

12

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 12

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

certe uidebit inter ceteras quas redarguit Origenis6 blasphemias etiam hoc eum detestantem quod dixerit, Spiritum Sanctum de substantia Patris non esse. Beatus Athanasius in libro de unita Trinitate ita loquitur: ‘Solum Deum ubi memoratus sum, non solam personam Patris indicaui, quia Filium et Spiritum Sanctum de hac ipsa sola substantia Patris esse non abnegaui.’ Hoc Athanasius. 4. Videt Sanctitas Vestra quomodo, isto non disputante sed dementante, et Trinitas non cohaeret et unitas pendet: nec istud sane absque iniuria maiestatis. Quidquid namque illud est quod Deus sit, id sine dubio est, quo non possit maius aliquid cogitari. Si ergo in hac unica et summa maiestate iuxta considerationem personarum uel paruum7 aliquid claudicare recipimus, dum quod uni plus datur, alteri minuitur, minus profecto est totum ab eo quo nihil maius ualeat cogitari. Maius enim sine dubio est quod totum maximum est quam quod ex parte. Ille uero digne pro sua possibilitate diuinam aestimat magnificentiam, qui nil in ea cogitat dispar ubi totum est8 summum, nil distans ubi totum est unum, nil hians ubi totum est integrum, nil denique imperfectum uel egens, ubi totum est totum. Totum nempe est Pater, quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus; totum Filius, quod ipse et9 Pater et Spiritus Sanctus; totum Spiritus Sanctus, quod ipse et Pater et Filius. Et totum unum est totum, nec superabundans in tribus nec imminutum in singulis. Nec enim uerum summumque bonum, quod sunt, inter se particulariter diuiduntur,10 quoniam nec participialiter id possident, sed hoc ipsum essentialiter sunt. Nam quod alter ex altero, uel alter ad alterum ueracissime dicitur, personarum sane designatio est, non unitatis diuisio. Licet namque, in hac ineffabili et incomprehensibili Deitatis essentia, alter et alter (id quidem requirentibus proprietatibus personarum) sobrie Catholiceque dicatur, non tamen ibi est alterum et alterum, sed simplex unum: ut nec praeiudicium faciat unitati Trinitatis confessio, nec proprietatum sit exclusio uera assertio unitatis. Tam longe proinde fiat a sensibus nostris quam est et a regula ueritatis exsecranda illa de genere et specie non similitudo, sed dissimilitudo, et nihilominus illa de aere aereoque sigillo: quoniam cum genus quidem et species, quod ad se inuicem sunt, alterum superius, altera inferior sit, Deus autem unus sit. Numquam bene profecto conueniet tantae aequalitati et tantae disparitati. Et rursum de aere, et

Originis L Winterbottom; parum L 8  totum est S; est totum L 9  et Winterbottom: om. L 10  Winterbottom; diuidunt L 6  7 

13

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 13

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

Avitus,110 and he will be sure to see that amid all the other blasphemies that he reproves in Origen, he also expresses his loathing of his saying that the Holy Spirit is not from the substance of the Father. The blessed Athanasius in his book on the unity of the Trinity says: ‘When I spoke of God and no more, I did not allude only to the person of the Father; for I did not deny that Son and Holy Spirit are of/from this very substance of the Father alone.’111 Thus Athanasius. 4. Your Holiness sees that according to his ravings (I will not say his disputations) the Trinity does not hang together and unity is in doubt – and that not without injury to its majesty. Whatever God is, He is without any doubt that than which nothing greater can be thought.112 If then in this undivided and supreme majesty we admit even the least grounds of error in terms of the consideration of persons, in that what is added to one is subtracted from the other, then the whole surely is less than that than which nothing greater can be thought. For what is greatest as a whole is doubtless greater than what is greatest by virtue of some part. But the man who worthily judges the magnificence of God, to the extent that this is possible for him, is he who reflects that nothing in it is unequal, where the whole is the highest; nothing is apart where the whole is one; nothing gaping where the whole is entire; and finally nothing imperfect or lacking where the whole is all. For the Father is all that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are; the Son is all that He himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit are; the Holy Spirit is all that it and the Father and the Son are. And the whole is one whole, not excessive in three nor diminished in each one. For the true and highest good (which they are) does not divide into parts, because they do not possess that in participation, but they are essentially this very thing. For that one is truly said to be from another or one to another, is a designation of persons, not a dividing of unity. For though in this ineffable and incomprehensible essence of Godhead we may soberly and Catholically speak of one and another person (as is required by the properties of the persons), there is not in this case one and another thing, but a simple one thing, so that confessing the Trinity does no injury to the unity, and true assertion of unity does not exclude individual properties. Let that wicked – not simile but dissimile – drawn from genus and species be as far from our thoughts as it is from the rule of truth, and so too with the likening to bronze and a bronze seal-matrix. For – while in genus and species, when they are in a relation to each other, one is superior to the other, one inferior – God, on the other hand, is one, and there will never surely be any real agreement between such great equality and such great disparity. And Jerome, Epist. 124. 14. 4 (CSEL 56, p. 117). Notice that Jerome’s writings are apparently not considered ‘human’ by Bernard. 111  De trin. 1. 17 (CCSL 9, p. 7). CPL 105, perhaps by Eusebius of Vercelli, which circulated under various authors’ names until modern times. 112  This is the basis of the famous ontological argument; see Anselm, Proslog. 2–4.

110 

13

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 13

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

quodam aere, quod est aereum sigillum, quoniam quod inde in eandem usurpatur similitudinis rationem, simile est huic, idem iudicium. Cum enim species, ut dixi, minor sit et inferior genere, absit ut hanc in Patre et Filio diuersitatem cogitemus, absit ut huic acquiescamus dicenti hoc esse Filium ad Patrem quod speciem ad genus, quod hominem ad animal, quod aereum sigillum ad aes, quod aliquam potentiam ad potentiam. Sunt quippe cuncta haec, mutua suae connexione naturae, ad se inuicem superiora et inferiora, et ob hoc nulla prorsus admittenda similitudo ex his ad illud, ubi nihil est inaequale, nihil dissimile. Videtis de quanta uel imperitia uel impietate descendat harum adinuentio similitudinum. 5. Adhuc aduertite clarius quid sentiat, doceat, scribat. Dicit proprie et specialiter ad Patrem potentiam, ad Filium sapientiam pertinere: quod quidem falsum. Nam et Pater Sapientia et Filius Potentia uerissime sunt sanissimeque dicuntur, et quod est commune amborum non erit proprium singulorum. Alia illa sunt profecto uocabula, quae non ad se ipsos dicuntur, sed ad alterutrum, et ideo est cuique suum, et non commune cum altero. Nam qui Pater est, Filius non est, et qui Filius est, Pater non est, quoniam non quod ad se, sed quod ad Filium Pater est, Patris nomine designatur, et item nomine Filii, non quod ad se Filius, sed quod est ad Patrem, exprimitur. Non sic potentia, non sic sapientia, neque alia multa quae ad se dicuntur; et Pater et Filius non singulariter, alter respectu alterius. ‘Non’, inquit, ‘sed ad proprietatem personae Patris proprie uel specialiter inuenimus omnipotentiam attinere, quod non solum cum ceteris duabus personis aeque omnia efficere potest, uerum etiam ipse solus a se, non ab alio existere habet, et sicut habet ex se existere, ita etiam ex se habet posse.’ O alterum Aristotelem! An non eadem ratione, si hoc ratio esset, et sapientia et benignitas proprie pertinerent11 ad Patrem, cum et sapere et benignum esse aeque a se Pater et non ab alio habeat, quemadmodum et esse et posse? Quod si non abnuit (nec enim de ratione potest), quid, quaeso, facturus est de nobili illa sua partitione, in qua ut Patri potentiam, sic Filio sapientiam, sic Spiritui sancto benignitatem proprie ac specialiter assignauit? Non enim una et eadem res proprie poterit conuenire duobus, hoc est, ut cuique

11 

S; pertineret L

14

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 14

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

again as to the bronze and a piece of bronze, the bronze seal-matrix. For what is taken from there for the same purpose as a simile is like this, and the judgement on it the same. For since a species is, as I said, less than and inferior to the genus, far be it from us to think of difference like this in Father and Son; far from us to agree with this man when he says that Son to Father is as species to genus, man to animate being, bronze seal-matrix to bronze, some potency to potency. All of these things are by the mutual connection of their natures greater and lesser than each other, and for this reason absolutely no likeness is to be admitted from these compared with our case, where nothing is unequal, nothing unlike. So you can see what great naïveté – or impiety – gives rise to the contrivance of these similes. 5. Now listen to a clearer statement of what he thinks, teaches and writes. He says that properly and specially power belongs to the Father, wisdom to the Son.113 This is false. For it is absolutely true that the Father is Wisdom and that the Son is Power, and it is absolutely sound to call them that; and what is common to both of them will not be particular to either of them. There are, to be sure, other words that are not said of them in reference to themselves, but in reference to the other one of the two, and so each has His own name, not in common with the other. I mean: He who is the Father is not the Son, and He who is the Son is not the Father: for because He is Father not in reference to Himself but in reference to the Son, He is given the name of Father; and again the Son is given the name Son not because He is Son in relation to Himself, but because He is Son in relation to the Father. That is not the case with power, or wisdom, or many other things that are said in relation to themselves alone; but we speak of both Father and Son not individually, but in respect of the other. ‘No’, he says, ‘but we find omnipotence to pertain properly and in a special way to the characteristics of the person of the Father, because not only is He able to bring about all things together and on equal terms with the other two persons, but He himself has his own being only from Himself and not from another, and in the way that He has his being from Himself alone, so also He has his power from Himself alone.’114 O second Aristotle! On the same reasoning, if it were reasoning, both wisdom and kindness would properly belong to the Father, since the Father has, equally from Himself and not from another, His being wise and kind, just as He has both His being and His power. If this man does not reject this (and he cannot logically do so), what, I ask, is he going to do with that noble partition of his, in which, just as he assigned power to the Father, so he assigned wisdom to the Son, and equally kindness to the Holy Spirit, properly and specially? For no one and the same thing can fittingly be a proper attribute to two entities, in such a way, that is, that it is proper to each. Let 113  114 

See Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 1. 31 (CCCM 13, p. 331). Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 1. 51–2 (CCCM 13, pp. 338–9).

14

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 14

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

propria sit. Eligat quod uult: aut det sapientiam Filio, et tollat eam Patri; aut Patri tribuat, et auferat Filio; et rursum benignitatem aut Spiritui Sancto sine Patre, aut Patri sine Spiritu sancto assignet: aut certe desinat nomina communia propria facere, et Patri, quoniam a se ipso habet potentiam, non ideo tamen audeat concedere propriam, ne et benignitatem simul et sapientiam, quas a se nihilo minus habet, identidem proprias ipsi sua ratione assignare cogatur. 6. Sed expectemus adhuc, et uideamus, quam theorice noster theologus inuisibilia Dei contempletur. Dicit, ut dixi, proprie omnipotentiam pertinere ad Patrem; atque hanc, ut sit integra et perfecta, in gerendo et discernendo constituit. Porro Filio, ut iam dictum est, assignat sapientiam, ipsamque non simpliciter quidem potentiam, sed quamdam in Deo potentiam esse definit, id est potentiam tantum discernendi. Forte timet iniuriam facere Patri, si tantum tribuat Filio, quantum et ipsi: et cui non audet potentiam dare integram, concedit dimidiam. Et quod dicit, manifestis declarat exemplis, asserens potentiam discernendi, quae est Filius, ita quamdam esse potentiam, quemadmodum homo quoddam est animal, et sigillum aereum quoddam est aes: atque hoc esse potentiam discernendi, ad gerendi discernendique potentiam, id est Filium ad Patrem, quod homo ad animal est, quod aereum sigillum ad aes. ‘Sicut enim’ inquit ‘ex eo quod est aereum sigillum, exigit necessario ut aes sit; et ex eo quod est homo, ut animal sit, sed non e conuerso: ita diuina sapientia, quae est potentia discernendi, exigit quod sit diuina potentia, sed non e conuerso.’ Quid igitur? Vis ut iuxta tuam similitudinem, ad instar praecedentium, etiam ex hoc quod Filius est, exigat ut Pater sit; hoc est, ut qui Filius est, Pater sit, quamquam non e conuerso? Si hoc dicis, haereticus es: si non dicis, uacat similitudo. 7. Ad quid enim tibi ipsam tanto circuitu de longe positis rebus et minus conuenientibus emendicas, tanto labore colligis, tanta inculcas inani multiplicitate uerborum, tantis effers laudibus, si non facit ad quod adducitur, ut uidelicet membra ad membra congruis proportionibus reducantur! Nonne hoc opus, hic labor est, ut per ipsam nos doceas eam quae est inter Patrem et Filium habitudinem? Tenemus autem te docente ad hominis positionem poni animal, sed non e conuerso secundum regulam dialecticae tuae: qua non quidem posito genere ponitur species, sed posita specie ponitur genus. Cum ergo Patrem ad

15

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 15

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

him choose as he will: let him either give wisdom to the Son and get rid of it for the Father; or attribute it to the Father and take it away from the Son; and again assign kindness either to the Holy Spirit but not the Father, or to the Father but not the Holy Spirit; or at least stop making common words proper, and not presume to concede power as proper to the Father because He has it from Himself, so that he is not forced by his own reasoning to assign kindness and wisdom, which God no less has from Himself, to Him as proper to Him. 6. But let us now pause to see how abstractly our theologian contemplates the invisible things of God.115 As I said, he says that omnipotence belongs properly to the Father; and this, so that it may be whole and perfect, he establishes as taking place in doing and discerning. To the Son, as has already been said, he assigns wisdom, and this he defines not as simply power but as a certain power in God, that is the power only of discerning. Perhaps he fears to do injury to the Father if he gives as much to the Son as to the Father, and since he dares not grant Him fullness of power, he concedes Him one half. And what he says he declares by clear examples, asserting that the power of discerning (which is the Son) is a sort of power in the same way that a man is a sort of animate being, and a bronze seal-matrix is a sort of bronze; and that as the power of discerning is to the power of acting and discerning, so is the Son to the Father, a man to an animate being, a bronze seal-matrix to bronze. ‘For as’, he says, ‘being a bronze seal-matrix necessitates being bronze, and being a man necessitates being animate, but not vice versa, so divine wisdom, which is the power of discerning, is necessarily a divine power, but not vice versa.’116 What then? Do you wish, according to your simile, as in the preceding cases, that His being the Son necessitates Him also being the Father: that is, that He who is the Son is the Father, although not vice versa? If you say this, you are a heretic. If you do not, the simile is otiose. 7. For I ask: why do you go a-begging for your simile from remote and unsuitable things, compile it with such pains, press it home with such an empty multitude of words, praise it so highly, if it does not do the job it is brought in to do, that is, so that members are restored to one another117 according to appropriate proportions?118 Is not ‘this the work, this the task’,119 to teach us through it the relationship between Father and Son? By your teaching we take it that when you posit man, you posit an animate being, but not vice versa: that is the rule of your dialectic, by which when the genus is posited the species is not also posited, though when the species is posited the genus is posited. Since then 115  116  117  118  119 

Cf. Rom. 1: 20. Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 2. 116 (CCCM 13, p. 465). i.e. in an appropriate relationship. Cf. Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘Christiana’ 4. 85 (CCCM 12, pp. 305–6). Virgil, Aen. 6. 129.

15

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 15

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

genus, Filium ad speciem referas, nonne id ratio similitudinis postulat, ut similiter posito Filio Patrem poni ostendas, et non conuerti? Vt quomodo qui homo est, necessario animal est, sed non conuertitur, ita quoque qui Filius est necessario Pater sit, et aeque non conuertatur. Sed contradicit tibi in hoc Catholica fides, quae profecto utrumque recusat, tam Patrem uidelicet esse qui Filius est, quam esse Filium qui Pater est. Nam alius procul dubio Pater atque alius Filius: quamuis non aliud Pater quam Filius. Nam per ‘alius’ et ‘aliud’ nouit pietas fidei caute inter personarum proprietates et indiuiduam essentiae unitatem discernere, et medium iter tenens regia incedere uia, ut nec declinet ad dexteram, confundendo personas, nec respiciat ad sinistram, substantiam diuidendo. Quod si per simplex esse dicas uere consequi ut si Filius est, necessario Pater sit, nil te iuuat, cum ratio relationis necessario exigat ut conuertatur, et eadem ueritas comitetur conuersam; quod non congruit adductae de genere et specie uel de aere aereoque sigillo similitudini. Neque enim, sicut per simplex esse dumtaxat uerissime dicitur, ‘si Pater est, Filius est, et si Filius est, Pater est,’ ita etiam possumus inter hominem et animal, siue inter aereum sigillum et aes, in ueritate conuertibilem texere consequentiam. Nam etsi uerum sit dicere, ‘si homo est, animal est,’ non tamen uera est conuersa, qua dicitur, ‘si animal est, homo est.’ Et item si sigillum aereum est, necessario sequitur ut aes sit; non tamen si aes sit, necessario sequitur ut aereum sigillum sit. Sed iam pergamus ad reliqua. 8. En iuxta istum habemus omnipotentiam in Patre, quandam potentiam in Filio: dicat nobis etiam de Spiritu Sancto quid sentiat. ‘Benignitas ipsa’, inquit, ‘quae hoc nomine quod est Spiritus Sanctus demonstratur, non est in Deo potentia siue sapientia.’ Videbam Satanam tamquam fulgur cadentem de caelo. Sic debet cadere, qui ambulat in magnis et in mirabilibus super se. Vides, Pater sancte, quas scalas, immo quae praecipitia iste sibi parauerit ad ruinam: omnipotentiam, semipotentiam, nullam potentiam. Ipso auditu horreo, et ipsum horrorem puto sufficere ad refellendum. Verumtamen testimonium pono, quod turbato interim occurrit ad remouendam Spiritus Sancti iniuriam. In Isaia legitur spiritus

16

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 16

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

you refer the Father to the genus and the Son to the species, does not the logic of the simile demand that when the Son is posited you show similarly that the Father is posited, and not the other way round? Just as he who is a man is necessarily animate, but not the other way round, so also He who is the Son is necessarily the Father, and equally not the other way round. But you are contradicted in this by the Catholic faith, which surely rejects both conclusions, both that the Father is who the Son is and equally He is the Son who is the Father. For beyond doubt the Father is one person and the Son another: though the Father is not something other than the Son. For by ‘someone other’ and ‘something other’ pious faith is able to distinguish between the properties of the persons and the indivisible unity of essence, and holding a middle path to advance on the king’s highway,120 so as not to turn aside to the right hand, by confounding the persons, nor to look to the left,121 by dividing the substance. But if per simplex it is right to say that if He is the Son He must necessarily be the Father, that is no help to you, since the logic of relation necessarily demands that it works the other way around, and the same truth accompanies the converted proposition: which does not fit the simile drawn from genus and species and bronze and bronze seal-matrix. For, though per simplex it is very true to say ‘if He is Father He is Son, and if He is Son He is Father’, we cannot also in truth construct a convertible consequence between man and an animate being, or bronze seal-matrix and bronze. For though it is true to say ‘if he is man, he is animate’, the converse is not true: ‘if he is animate, he is a man’. And also if a seal-matrix is made of bronze, it necessarily follows that it is bronze; but if it is bronze, it does not necessarily follow that it is a bronze sealmatrix. But now let us proceed to the rest. 8. Lo and behold! according to him we have omnipotence in the Father, but a sort of power in the Son. Let him tell us his views on the Holy Spirit too. ‘Benignity itself’, he says, ‘which by this name is shown to be the Holy Spirit, is not power or wisdom in God.’122 ‘I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.’123 That is how a man should fall who walks above himself in great and wonderful things.124 You see, holy Father, what stages, or rather what precipices, he has made ready for his own ruin: omnipotence, semipotence, no potence. I shudder even to hear the words, and I think that very shudder is sufficient to refute them. But I put forward a piece of evidence that sometimes occurs to me in my disturbed state to remove the injury to the Holy Spirit. In Isaiah is written ‘the spirit of wisdom, the spirit

120  121  122  123  124 

Num. 21: 22 (see also 20: 17, via publica, ‘the common highway’). A common Old Testament expression, e.g. Gen. 24: 49, Deut. 2: 27. See Theologia ‘scholarium’ 2. 123 (CCCM 13, p. 469 with the note). Luc. 10: 18. Cf. Ps. 130: 1.

16

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 16

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

sapientiae, spiritus fortitudinis; per quod utique aperte satis istius audacia, etsi non comprimitur, conuincitur tamen. O lingua magniloqua! Esto ut iniuria Filii uel Patris remittatur tibi, numquid blasphemia Spiritus? Manet angelus Domini qui secet te medium: dixisti enim ‘non est Spiritus Sanctus in Deo potentia siue sapientia.’ Ita pes superbiae ruit cum irruit. 9. Nec mirum si homo, qui non curat quae dicat, irruens in arcana fidei, thesauros absconditos pietatis tam irreuerenter inuadit atque discerpit, cum de ipsa pietate fidei nec pie nec fideliter sentiat. Denique in primo limine Theologiae, uel potius Stultilogiae suae, fidem diffinit aestimationem. Quasi cuique in ea sentire et loqui quae libeat liceat, aut pendeant sub incerto in uagis ac uariis opinionibus nostrae fidei sacramenta, et non magis certa ueritate subsistant. Nonne si fluctuat fides, inanis est et spes nostra? Stulti ergo martyres nostri, sustinentes tam acerba propter incerta, nec dubitantes sub dubio remunerationis praemio durum per exitum diuturnum inire exsilium. Sed absit ut putemus in fide uel spe nostra aliquid, ut is putat, dubia aestimatione pendulum, et non magis totum quod in ea est, certa ac solida ueritate subnixum, oraculis et miraculis diuinitus persuasum, stabilitum et consecratum partu Virginis, sanguine Redemptoris, gloria resurgentis. Testimonia ista credibilia facta sunt nimis. Si minus,12 ipse postremo Spiritus reddit testimonium spiritui nostro, quod filii Dei sumus. Quomodo ergo fidem quis audet dicere aestimationem, nisi qui Spiritum istum nondum accepit, quiue Euangelium aut ignoret aut fabulam putet? Scio cui credidi, et certus sum, clamat Apostolus: et tu mihi subsibilas, ‘Fides est aestimatio,’ tu mihi ambiguum garris, quo nihil est certius. Sed Augustinus aliter: ‘Fides’ ait, ‘non coniectando uel opinando habetur in corde in quo est, ab eo cuius est, sed certa scientia, acclamante

12 

Winterbottom; quominus L

17

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 17

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

of fortitude’.125 That is enough quite clearly to refute, though not to suppress, this man’s audacity. O tongue that speaketh proud things!126 Injury to the Son and the Father may be forgiven you, but surely not blasphemy of the Spirit?127 ‘The angel of the Lord waiteth to cut thee in two.’128 For you have said: ‘The Holy Spirit is not power or wisdom in God.’129 This is how ‘the foot of pride’130 is ruined when it rushes in. 9. No wonder a man who does not care what he says when he bursts into the arcane depths of the faith, invades and lays waste ‘the hidden treasures’131 of piety so irreverently; for his views on the piety of the faith itself are neither pious nor in accordance with the faith. For example, at the very threshold of his Theology (or rather Stultilogy) he defines faith as opinion:132 as if everyone is allowed to think and say what he likes on the subject, or as though the sacraments of our faith hang in uncertainty, at the mercy of wavering and changeable opinions, and do not rather rest on sure truth. If faith wavers, is not our hope also vain?133 Foolish then are our martyrs, when they undergo such bitter fates for uncertainties, yet do not hesitate to go by means of a harsh death into a long-lasting exile with a doubtful prize to reward them. But far be it from us to suppose that anything in our faith or hope, as this man thinks, depends on uncertain opinion. Rather, everything in it rests on sure and solid truth, and we have been persuaded of it through oracles and miracles from God; it is established and consecrated by the Virgin’s giving birth, by the blood of the Redeemer, by the glory of His resurrection. ‘These testimonies are become exceedingly credible.’134 And if they were not, ‘the Spirit himself at the last giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God’.135 How then can anyone dare to call faith opinion, save one who has not yet received this Spirit, or who either does not know of the Gospel or thinks it a fable? ‘I know whom I have believed, and I am certain’,136 cries the apostle – and do you whisper under your breath to me ‘faith is opinion’? You prate of the doubtfulness of something which is more sure than anything. But Augustine has a different view: ‘Faith’, he says, ‘is held in the heart in which it is, deriving from Him to whom it belongs, not by Is. 11: 2. Cf. Ps. 11: 4. 127  See Matt. 12: 31. 128  Dan. 13: 59. 129  Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 2. 123 (CCCM 13, p. 469). 130  Ps. 35: 12. 131  Deut. 33: 19. 132  See William of Saint Thierry, Disputatio aduersus Petrum Abelardum 1 (CCCM 89A, p. 17); Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 1. 1 (CCCM 13, p. 318), ‘Est quippe fides existimatio rerum non apparentium’; its source is Hebr. 11: 1, ‘est autem fides sperandorum substantia’. 133  Cf. 1 Cor. 15: 14, ‘inanis est et fides vestra’. 134  Ps. 92: 5. 135  Rom. 8: 16. 136  2 Tim. 1: 12. 125  126 

17

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 17

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

conscientia.’Absit ergo, absit ut hos fines fides habeat Christiana. Academicorum sint istae aestimationes, quorum est dubitare de omnibus, scire nihil. Ego uero securus in Magistri Gentium sententiam pergo, et scio quoniam non confundar. Placet mihi, fateor, illius de fide diffinitio, etsi iste etiam ipsam latenter insimulet. Fides est, ait, substantia rerum sperandarum, argumentum non apparentium. Substantia, inquit, rerum sperandarum, non inanium phantasia coniecturarum. Audis substantiam. Non licet tibi in fide putare uel disputare pro libitu, non hac illacque uagari per inania opinionum, per deuia errorum. Substantiae nomine aliquid tibi certum fixumque praefigitur. Certis clauderis finibus, certis limitibus coarctaris. Non est enim fides aestimatio, sed certitudo. 10. Sed aduertite cetera. Omitto quod dicit spiritum timoris Domini non fuisse in Domino; timorem Domini castum in futuro saeculo non futurum; post consecrationem panis et calicis, priora accidentia, quae remanent, pendere in aere; daemonum in nobis suggestiones contactu fieri lapidum et herbarum, prout illorum sagax malitia nouit harum rerum uires diuersas diuersis incitandis et incendendis uitiis conuenire; Spiritum Sanctum esse animam mundi; mundum, iuxta Platonem, tanto excellentius animal esse quanto meliorem animam habet Spiritum Sanctum. Vbi dum multum sudat quomodo Platonem faciat Christianum, se probat ethnicum. Haec, inquam, omnia, aliasque istiusmodi naenias eius non paucas praetereo: uenio ad grauiora. Non quod uel ad ipsa cuncta respondeam; magnis enim opus uoluminibus esset. Illa loquor quae tacere non possum.

18

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 18

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

conjecture or opining, but by sure know­ledge, with the acclaim of conscience.’137 Heaven forbid, yes, forbid that the Christian faith should have these limits. Let us leave these ‘opinions’ to the Academics,138 whose role it is to have doubts about everything, to know nothing. As for me, I am happy to side with ‘the Teacher of the Gentiles’,139 and I know ‘I shall not be confounded’.140 I confess I like his definition of faith, though even it he brings in covertly: ‘Faith’, he says, ‘is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not’:141 the substance, he means, of things to be hoped for, not the fancy of empty conjectures. You hear the word ‘substance’. You cannot, in the matter of faith, think or dispute just as you wish; you cannot wander hither and thither through the empty spaces of opinion, the byways of error. By the word ‘substance’ something sure and immovable is fixed to guide you; you are enclosed by fixed limits, constrained by fixed boundaries. Faith is not opinion, but certainty. 10. But observe the rest. I pass over his saying that ‘the spirit of the fear of the Lord’142 was not in the Lord; that the chaste fear of the Lord would not endure in the future life;143 that after the consecration of bread and chalice, the previous accidents144 remain, hanging in the air; that hints from demons take place in us by contact with rocks and herbs, according as their cunning malice knows that different powers in these things suit the inciting and inflaming of vices;145 that the Holy Spirit is the soul of the world;146 that the world, according to Plato, is so much the more excellent an animate being as it has in the Holy Spirit a better soul.147 Sweating away here at making Plato into a Christian, he proves himself a heathen. All these things, I say, and other nonsense of the kind, not a few of them, I pass by, and come to more important matters. Not that I am replying to all of it: that would need great tomes; I say only what I cannot keep quiet about.

Paraphrasing Augustine, De trin. 13. 3 (PL 42. 1014). The ancient philosophical school that denied that true know­ledge can be attained by the use of our senses; the wise man will maintain an attitude of scepticism. 139  2 Tim. 1: 11. 140  Ps. 30: 2. 141  Cf. Hebr. 11: 1. 142  Is. 11: 3. 143  Cf. Ps. 18: 10. 144  ‘accidents’ in the Aristotelian sense, meaning the visible attributes of an object, as distinct from ‘substance’, which gives it its being. 145  the spirit … inflaming of vices: Peter Abelard, Liber sentent., frag. 12–13, 20 (CCCM 14, pp. 166–7, 170). 146  A central doctrine of Plato’s Timaeus, commented on in the twelfth century by scholars such as Thierry of Chartres and William of Conches. 147  Abelard never maintained this doctrine, which was held by Thierry of Chartres and, at least for a time, by William of Conches: W. Wetherbee, Platonism and Poetry in the Twelfth Century; The Literary Influence of the School of Chartres (Princeton NJ, 1972), pp. 30–1. 137  138 

18

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 18

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

11. Mysterium nostrae redemptionis, sicut in libro quodam Sententiarum ipsius, et item in quadam eius expositione Epistulae ad Romanos legi, temerarius scrutator maiestatis aggrediens, in ipso statim suae disputationis exordio, ecclesiasticorum doctorum unam omnium de hac re dicit esse sententiam, et ipsam ponit ac spernit, et gloriatur se habere meliorem: non ueritus contra praeceptum Sapientis transgredi terminos antiquos, quos posuerunt patres nostri. ‘Sciendum est’ ait ‘quod omnes doctores nostri post Apostolos in hoc conueniunt, quod diabolus dominium et potestatem habebat super hominem, et iure eum possidebat: ideo scilicet quod homo, ex libertate arbitrii quam habebat, sponte diabolo consensit. Aiunt namque, quod si quis aliquem uicerit, uictus iure uictoris seruus constituitur. Ideo’, inquit, ‘sicut dicunt doctores, hac necessitate incarnatus est Filius Dei, ut homo, qui aliter liberari non poterat, per mortem innocentis iure liberaretur a iugo diaboli. Sed, ut nobis uidetur’, ait, ‘nec diabolus umquam ius aliquod in homine13 habuit, nisi forte, Deo permittente, ut carcerarius, nec Filius Dei ut hominem liberaret carnem assumpsit.’ Quid in his uerbis intolerabilius iudicem, blasphemiam an arrogantiam? Quid damnabilius, temeritatem an impietatem? An non iustius os loquens talia fustibus tunderetur quam rationibus refelleretur? Nonne omnium merito in se prouocat manus, cuius manus contra omnes? Omnes, inquit, sic: sed non ego sic. Quid ergo tu? Quid melius affers? Quid subtilius inuenis? Quid secretius tibi reuelatum iactas, quod14 praeterierit sanctos, effugerit sapientes? Aquas furtiuas et panes absconditos, puto, apponet nobis iste. 12. Dic tamen, dic quidquid illud est quod tibi uidetur, et nulli alteri. An quod Filius Dei non, ut hominem liberaret, hominem induit? Hoc plane nemini, te excepto, uidetur: tu uideris ubi uideris. Non enim hoc a sapiente, non a propheta, non ab apostolo, non denique ab ipso Domino accepisti. Magister Gentium accepit a Domino, quod et tradidit nobis. Magister omnium suam doctrinam fatetur non

13  14 

homine L; hominem S, perhaps rightly S before correction; quod tot L. Perhaps read quod tot … effugerit (Winterbottom).

19

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 19

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

11. Our searcher of majesty,148 who recklessly approaches the mystery of our redemption, as I have read in a book of his Sentences and also in a commentary of his on the Epistle to the Romans,149 says right at the start of his discussion that all the Church’s teachers are of one mind on this topic; he reproduces their view and spurns it, boasting that he has a better. He shows no shame in passing beyond the ancient bounds ‘which’ our ‘fathers have set’,150 in contravention of the precept of the Wise Man: ‘It is to be known’, he says, ‘that all our teachers since the apostles agree on this, that the Devil used to have dominion and power over man, and to possess him by right, because man, exercising the freedom of will he had, spontaneously consented to obey the Devil. They say, in fact, that if anyone conquers someone, the conquered is rightly made slave of the victor. So, the doctors say, the Son of God was made flesh under this necessity, that man, who could be freed in no other way, might by the death of an innocent be rightly freed from the Devil’s yoke. But, as we think’, he says, ‘the Devil never had any right over man, save perhaps, with God’s permission, as a jailer, nor did the Son of God take on flesh in order to make man free.’151 What in these words am I to judge more intolerable, their blasphemy or their arrogance? What more damnable, their recklessness or their impiety? Would it not be more proper for a mouth uttering such things to be battered with clubs rather than refuted by reason? Does not one whose hand is against all men deserve to set all men’s hands against him?152 ‘All men think like this’, he says: ‘But I do not think like this.’ What of you? What better can you offer? What more subtle invention can you come up with? What secret more privy do you boast to have been revealed to you that has passed by holy men, escaped the wise? He will set before us, I imagine, ‘stolen waters and hidden bread’.153 12. Tell us, though, tell us whatever it is that you think, but no one else thinks. That the Son of God did not put on man in order to free man? This truly is no one’s notion except yours: it is up to you to tell us where you saw it. You did not, assuredly, get this from a wise man or a prophet or an apostle or God Himself. ‘The Teacher of the Gentiles’154 received of the Lord that which also he delivered unto us.155 The teacher of all men confesses his doctrine not to be his:156 ‘I speak’, Cf. Prov. 25: 27. See Peter Abelard, Liber sentent., frag. 3 (CCCM 14, pp. 162–3) and Commentaria in epistulam Pauli ad Romanos III. 26 (CCCM 11, pp. 114–15). 150  Prov. 22: 28. This is the precept of the Wise Man, that is, Solomon, reputed author of Proverbs. 151  See William of Saint Thierry, Disputatio aduersus Petrum Abaelardum 7 (CCCM 89A, p. 42). 152  Cf. Gen. 16: 12. 153  Prov. 9: 17. 154  2 Tim. 1: 11. 155  Cf. 1 Cor. 11: 23. 156  Cf. Ioh. 7: 16. 148 

149 

19

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 19

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

esse suam: ‘Non enim’ ait ‘a meipso loquor.’ Tu uero de tuo nobis tradis, et quod a nemine accepisti. Qui loquitur mendacium, de suo loquitur. Tibi proinde sint quae tua sunt. Ego prophetas et apostolos audio, oboedio Euangelio, sed non Euangelio secundum Petrum. Tu nouum nobis condis Euangelium? Quintum Ecclesia euangelistam non recipit. Quid lex, quid prophetae, quid apostoli, quid apostolici uiri nobis aliud euangelizant quam quod solus tu negas, Deum uidelicet factum hominem ut hominem liberaret? Et si angelus de caelo aliud nobis euangelizauerit, anathema sit. 13. Sed qui uenerunt post apostolos doctores non recipis, homo qui super omnes docentes te intellexisti. Denique non erubescis dicere, quod aduersum te omnes sentiant, cum ab inuicem non dissentiant. Frustra proinde illorum tibi fidem doctrinamque proponerem, quos iam proscripsisti: ad Prophetas te ducam. Loquitur sub typo Ierusalem ad populum acquisitionis, non propheta, sed in propheta, Dominus, dicens: ‘Saluabo te, et liberabo te, noli timere.’ Quaeris a qua potestate? Non enim uis ut diabolus in hominem habeat, uel habuerit potestatem: fateor, nec ego. Non tamen idcirco non habet, quia ego et tu hoc nolumus. Hoc si non confiteris tu, nec cognoscis: cognoscunt et dicunt qui redempti sunt a Domino, quos redemit de manu inimici. Quod minime negares et tu, si non esses sub manu inimici. Non potes gratias agere cum redemptis, qui redemptus non es. Nam si redemptus esses, Redemptorem agnosceres, et non negares redemptionem. Nec quaerit redimi qui se nescit captiuum. Qui autem scierunt, clamauerunt ad Dominum, et Dominus exaudiuit eos, et redemit eos de manu inimici. Et ut intelligas hunc inimicum qui sit: Quos redemit, ait, de manu inimici, de regionibus congregauit eos. Sed primum quidem agnosce hunc congregatorem, de quo Caiphas prophetat in Euangelio, quia Iesus moreretur pro gente. Et qui narrat, sequitur dicens: Non tantum pro gente, sed ut filios Dei, qui erant dispersi, congregaret in

20

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 20

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

he says, ‘not of myself.’157 But you hand on to us from what is your own and what you have received from no one else. He who speaketh a lie, speaketh of his own.158 So you are welcome to what belongs to you. I hear the prophets and apostles; I obey the gospel, but not the gospel according to Peter. Are you founding us a new gospel? The Church does not have room for a fifth evangelist. What else do the law, the prophets, the apostles, the popes preach than what you alone deny, namely that God was made man in order to free man? And if ‘an angel from heaven preaches’ to us a different gospel, ‘let him be anathema’.159 13. But the teachers who came after the apostles you do not receive, you who ‘have understood more than all your teachers’.160 For example, you do not blush to say that everyone thinks contrary to you, though they do not disagree with each other. So it would be a waste of my time to confront you with the faith and doctrine of those whom you have already outlawed: I will lead you to the prophets. Here are the words of one addressing ‘a purchased people’,161 under the figure of Jerusalem, not a prophet, but the Lord speaking through a prophet: ‘I will save thee, and deliver thee, do not fear.’162 Deliver from what power, you ask? For you don’t want the Devil to have or to have had power over man; I agree, I don’t either. But he does not lack this power just because you and I wish him not to have it. If you do not confess this, you do not know it either; they know it and say it who have been redeemed by the Lord, whom ‘he redeemed from the hand of the enemy’.163 You would not deny it yourself, if you were not under the hand of the enemy. You cannot give thanks with the redeemed, you who are not redeemed. For if you were redeemed, you would recognise the Redeemer, and not deny the redemption. He does not look to be redeemed who does not know himself to be a captive. But those who have known have cried out to the Lord, and the Lord has heard them, and ‘redeemed them from the hand of the enemy’. And so that you may understand who this enemy is: ‘Whom He hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy, them he gathered out of the countries.’164 Now you must first recognise this gatherer, concerning whom Caiphas prophesies in the Gospel that Jesus would die for the nation.165 And the narrator goes on to say: ‘Not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God, that were dispersed.’166 Where 157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166 

Cf. Ioh. 14: 10. Cf. Ioh. 8: 44. Gal. 1: 8. Ps. 118: 99. 1 Pet. 2: 9. Soph. 3: 16–17. Ps. 105: 10. Ps. 106: 2. See Ioh. 11: 51. Ioh. 11: 52.

20

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 20

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

unum. Quo erant dispersi? In omnes regiones. Ergo quos redemit, de regionibus congregauit eos. Non congregaret nisi redimeret. Erant enim non solum dispersi sed et captiui. Redemit, et congregauit: redemit autem de manu inimici. Non dicit ‘inimicorum’ sed ‘inimici.’ Inimicus unus, regiones multae. Siquidem non de regione sed de regionibus congregauit eos, a solis ortu et occasu, ab aquilone et mari. Quis iste unus tam potens dominus, qui non uni praefuit regioni, sed omnibus? Non alius, ut arbitror, quam ille qui ab alio propheta dicitur absorbere fluuium, id est genus humanum, et non mirari: habere autem fiduciam, quod et Iordanis, hoc est electio ipsa, influat in os eius. Beati qui sic influunt ut effluant, qui sic intrant ut exeant. 14. Sed quid? Nondum forte credis Prophetis, sic sibi concinentibus de diaboli potestate in hominem. Veni mecum et ad Apostolos. Dixisti nempe te non sentire cum illis qui post Apostolos uenerunt. Assentias uel Apostolis, si forte et tibi contingat quod unus eorum loquitur de quibusdam, nequando, inquiens, det illis Deus paenitentiam ad cognoscendam ueritatem, ut15 resipiscant a diaboli laqueis, a quo captiui tenentur ad ipsius uoluntatem. Paulus est iste, qui homines a diabolo captiuos teneri asserit ad eius uoluntatem. Audis ‘ad eius uoluntatem’, et negas potestatem? Si et Paulo non credis, ueni iam ad ipsum Dominum, si forte audias, et quiescas. Nempe ab ipso appellatur princeps huius mundi et fortis armatus,16 possessorque uasorum: et dicis eum non habere potestatem in homines! Nisi tu aliud putas hoc loco intelligi ‘atrium’ quam mundum, ‘uasa’ quam homines. Quod si atrium diaboli mundus erat, et homines uasa eius, quomodo non dominabatur hominibus? Ait item Dominus capientibus se: Haec est hora uestra, et potestas tenebrarum. Potestas ista non latuit illum qui dicebat: Qui eruit nos de potestate tenebrarum, et transtulit in regnum Filii claritatis17 suae. Hanc ergo Dominus ne in se quidem negauit diaboli potestatem, sicut nec Pilati, qui membrum erat diaboli. Ait siquidem: Non haberes potestatem in me ullam,

L; et Vulgate We add qui custodit atrium suum (compare Luke 11:21), and translate it. What follows makes no sense if this addition is not made. 17  dilectionis Vulgate 15  16 

21

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 21

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

were they dispersed to? Into all countries. Therefore whom He redeemed, them He gathered from the countries. He could not have gathered them if He had not redeemed them. For they were not just dispersed but captive. He redeemed, and gathered; but He redeemed them from the hand of the enemy. He does not say, ‘enemies’ but ‘enemy’. One enemy, many countries. For He gathered them not from a country ‘but from countries, from the rising and from the setting of the sun, from the north and from the sea’.167 Who is this one lord, so powerful, who ruled not one country but all? None other, I think, than He who is said by another prophet to drink up a river, that is the human race, and not wonder, but trusteth that even Jordan, that is choice itself,168 may run into His mouth.169 Blessed are they who run in in such a way as to run out, who enter in such a way as to come out. 14. But: perhaps you do not yet believe in the prophets, who are in such close agreement on the power of the Devil over man. Come with me to the apostles too – after all, you said you do not agree with those who came after the apostles. You would assent even to the apostles if you too came across what one of them says of certain people: ‘If peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, that they may recover themselves from the snares of the Devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.’170 Here is Paul claiming that men are held captive by the Devil at his will. Do you hear ‘at his will’, and yet deny his power? If you don’t believe Paul either, come now to the Lord Himself, to see if you hear and fall quiet. The Lord calls the Devil ‘the prince of this world’,171 and ‘a strong man armed’172 who keepeth his court, and one who has possession of goods:173 and yet you say he does not have power over man! Unless you think that in this place ‘court’ means something other than the world, and ‘goods’ something other than men. But if the court of the Devil was the world, and men were his goods, how did he not hold sway over men? Also, the Lord says to those who took Him: ‘This is your hour, and the power of darkness.’174 This power did not escape the notice of Him who said: ‘Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His brightness.’175 So the Lord did not deny the power of the Devil even over Himself, nor yet of Pilate, who was a limb of the Devil. For He says: ‘Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless

167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175 

Ps. 106: 2–3. A commentary seems to lie behind this interpretation. Cf. Iob 40: 18. 2 Tim. 2: 25–6. Ioh. 12: 31, 14: 30. Luc. 11: 21. Cf. Matt. 12: 29. Luc. 22: 53. Col. 1: 13.

21

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 21

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

nisi data tibi fuisset desuper. Quod si in uiride lignum in tantum grassata est ista desuper data potestas, aridum quomodo non fuit ausa contingere? Nec iniustam, puto, iste causabitur potestatem datam desuper. Discat ergo diabolum non solum potestatem, sed et iustam habuisse in homines, ut consequenter et hoc uideat, uenisse utique in carne Dei Filium propter liberandos homines. Ceterum etsi iustam dicimus diaboli potestatem, non tamen et uoluntatem. Vnde non diabolus qui inuasit, non homo qui meruit, sed iustus Dominus qui exposuit. Non enim a potestate sed a uoluntate iustus iniustusue quis dicitur. Hoc ergo quoddam diaboli in hominem ius, etsi non iure acquisitum, sed nequiter usurpatum, iuste tamen permissum. Sic itaque homo iuste captiuus tenebatur, ut tamen nec in homine nec in diabolo illa esset iustitia, sed in Deo. 15. Iuste igitur homo addictus, sed misericorditer liberatus; sic tamen misericorditer, ut non defuerit iustitia quaedam et in ipsa liberatione, quoniam hoc quoque fuit de misericordia liberantis, ut (quod congruebat remediis liberandi) iustitia magis contra inuasorem quam potentia uteretur. Quid namque ex se agere poterat, ut semel amissam iustitiam recuperaret homo seruus peccati, uinctus diaboli? Assignata est ei proinde aliena, qui caruit sua; et ipsa sic est. Venit princeps huius mundi, et in Saluatore non inuenit quidquam; et cum nihilominus innocenti manus iniecit, iustissime quos tenebat amisit, quando is qui morti nihil debebat, accepta mortis iniuria, iure illum qui obnoxius erat et mortis debito et diaboli soluit dominio. Qua enim iustitia id secundo homo exigeretur? Homo siquidem qui debuit, homo qui soluit. Nam si unus, inquit, pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt, ut uidelicet satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus ille portauit, nec alter iam inueniatur qui forisfecit,18 alter qui satisfecit, quia caput et corpus unus est Christus. Satisfecit ergo caput pro membris, Christus pro uisceribus suis, quando iuxta Euangelium Pauli, quo conuincitur mendacium Petri, mortuus pro nobis conuiuificauit nos sibi, donans nobis omnia delicta, delens quod aduersum nos erat chirographum decreti, quod

18 

S; forefecit L

22

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 22

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

it were given thee from above.’176 But if that power given from above had such a malign effect on the green wood, how come it did not dare to touch the dry?177 I don’t think he will use the excuse that the power given from above was unjust. Let him therefore learn that the Devil not only had power over men, but just power too, so that consequently he may see this also, that the Son of God did ‘come in the flesh’178 to deliver men. But though we call the power of the Devil just, not so his will too. So it is not the Devil who invaded, not the man who deserved, but the just Lord who laid [him] open [to it]. For man is not called just or unjust for his power but for his will. This power of the Devil over man, such as it is, may not have been rightly acquired (usurped wickedly, rather); but it was justly allowed. So therefore man was held captive justly, but so that that justice would not be in man or in the Devil, but in God. 15. Man, then, was justly enslaved but mercifully freed: yet mercifully in such a way that there was no lack of a certain justice even in that very freeing. For this too was part of the mercy of the freer, that – as was appropriate to the means of freeing – He should use justice rather than power against the invader. What, after all, could he do on his own, that man, ‘the slave of sin’179 and the bound prisoner of the Devil, should recover justice once he had lost it? He was accordingly assigned another’s justice, for he did not have his own; and that justice is like this. ‘The prince of this world cometh’,180 and did not find anything in the Saviour; and when nevertheless he had laid hands on an innocent, he most justly lost those he was holding prisoner, when He who owed nothing to death received the injury of death and rightly freed both from the debt of death and the dominion of the Devil the one who was indebted. For by what justice could that be demanded of a man a second time? Man was in debt, a man redeemed him. For ‘if’, to quote, ‘one died for all, then all have died’,181 that is, so that the satisfaction given by one should be reckoned to cover all, just as He alone carried the sins of all, nor is one person now found who offended, another who paid the penalty, because head and body182 is one Christ. The head therefore paid the penalty for the limbs, Christ for the innermost parts of His body, when, according to the gospel of Paul by which Peter’s lie is refuted, having died for all ‘He hath quickened’ us together with Him, ‘forgiving us all offences, blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was

176  177  178  179  180  181  182 

Ioh. 19: 11. Cf. Luc. 23: 31. 1 Ioh. 4: 2. Rom. 6: 17. Ioh. 14: 30. 2 Cor. 5: 14. Cf. Col. 1: 18.

22

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 22

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

erat contrarium nobis; et ipsum tulit de medio, affigens illud cruci, exspolians principatus et potestates. 16. Vtinam ego inueniar in his spoliis, quibus spoliatae sunt contrariae potestates, traductus et ipse in possessionem Domini! Si me insecutus Laban arguerit quod recesserim clam ab eo, audiet clam me accessisse ad eum, et ob hoc clam recessisse. Subiecit me illi causa secretioris19 peccati, subduxit me illi ratio occultioris iustitiae. Aut si gratis uenumdatus sum, gratis non redimar? Si Assur sine causa calumniatus est mihi, sine causa causam exigit euasionis. Quod si dixerit, ‘Pater tuus addixit te’, respondebo, ‘Sed frater meus redemit me.’ Cur non aliunde iustitia, cum aliunde reatus? Alius qui peccatorem constituit, alius qui iustificat a peccato; alter in semine, alter in sanguine. An peccatum in semine peccatoris, et non iustitia in Christi sanguine? ‘Sed iustitia’ inquiet ‘sit cuius est: quid ad te?’ Esto. Sed sit etiam culpa cuius est: quid ad me? An iustitia iusti super eum erit, et impietas impii non erit super eum? Non conuenit filium portare iniquitatem patris, et fraternae fieri exsortem iustitiae. Nunc ergo per hominem mors, et per hominem uita. Sicut enim omnes in Adam moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur, quoniam non sic illi attineo ut non et isti: si illi per carnem, et per fidem huic, et si infectus ex illo originali concupiscentia, etiam20 Christi gratia spirituali perfusus sum. Quid plus mihi imputatur de praeuaricatore? Si generatio, regenerationem oppono: nisi quod spiritualis est ista, illa carnalis, nec patitur ratio aequitatis ut ex aequo contendant: sed uincat necesse est spiritus carnem, et sit efficacior causa cuius est potior et natura; quo plus uidelicet prosit generatio secunda quam prima nocuerit. Sane peruenit delictum ad me, sed peruenit et gratia. Et non sicut delictum, ita et donum. Nam iudicium ex uno in condemnationem; gratia autem

19  20 

Sønnesyn; secretior L S; etiam et L

23

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 23

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

against us, which was contrary to us; and He hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross, despoiling the principalities and powers.’183 16. Would that I might be found among these spoils, of which the contrary powers were despoiled, having been handed over myself also into the possession184 of the Lord! If Laban pursues me and accuses me of leaving him privately, he will be told that I came privately to him, and for that reason left him privately.185 The cause of a more secret sin subjected me to him, and the rationale of a more hidden justice extricated me from him. Or if I was sold gratis, shall I not be redeemed gratis?186 If the Assyrian has slandered me without cause,187 it is without cause that he demands the cause of my leaving. But if he says, ‘Your father enslaved you’, I shall reply, ‘But my brother has redeemed me.’ Why is justice not from another when guilt is from another?: there was one188 who established the sinner, another who justifies from sin;189 one by seed, the other by blood. Or can it be that sin is in the seed of the sinner, while justice is not in the blood of Christ? ‘But’, he will say, ‘let justice belong to the one who owns it: “what does that have to do with you?”’190 So be it. But let blame too be attributed to the one who owns it: what is that to me? Or ‘will the justice of the just man be upon himself, and the unrighteousness of the unrighteous man’ not ‘be upon himself?’ It is not fitting for ‘the son to bear the iniquity of his father’,191 yet to have no share in justice from his brother. Now therefore ‘by a man came death, and by a man’ life. For as ‘in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive’:192 for I do not belong to the one without belonging to the other. If to the one by the flesh, to the other too by faith; and if I am polluted by that original lustfulness, I am also bathed in the spiritual grace of Christ. What more is laid to my blame from the false accuser? If generation, I counter that with regeneration: but the latter is spiritual, while the former is carnal, and the essence of equity does not let them compete on equal terms. No, the spirit must necessarily conquer the flesh, and what has the more powerful nature is also a more efficient cause, so that the second generation evidently brings more good than the first brought harm. Certainly transgression was passed down to me, but grace was passed down too. And ‘not as the offence, so also the gift. For judgement Col. 2: 13–15. Cf. Ps. 134: 4. 185  See Gen. 31: 26–7. After serving his father-in-law Laban for twenty years, Jacob left for the land of his forefathers. Laban pursued him and in catching up abused him for the secrecy of his departure. 186  Cf. Is. 52: 3. 187  Cf. Is. 52: 4. 188  That is, Adam. 189  Cf. Rom. 6: 7. 190  Ioh. 21: 22. 191  Ezek. 18: 20. 192  1 Cor. 15: 21–2. 183  184 

23

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 23

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

ex multis delictis in iustificationem. A primo homine manauit delictum, a summo caelo egressio gratiae, utrumque a parente, illud a primo, ista a summo. Terrena natiuitas perdit21 me: et non multo magis generatio caelestis conseruat me? Nec uereor sic erutus de potestate tenebrarum repelli a Patre luminum, iustificatus gratis in sanguine Filii eius. Nempe ipse qui iustificat: quis est qui condemnet? Non condemnabit iustum, qui misertus est peccatori. Iustum me dixerim, sed illius iustitia. Quaenam ipsa? Finis legis Christus, ad iustitiam omni credenti, denique qui factus est nobis, inquit, iustitia a Deo Patre. Quae ergo mihi iustitia facta est, mea non est? Si mea traducta culpa, cur non et mea indulta iustitia? Et sane mihi tutior donata quam innata. Nam ista quidem gloriam habet, sed non apud Deum: illa autem, cum salutis sit efficax, materiam non habet gloriandi nisi in Domino. Nam et si iustus fuero, inquit, non leuabo caput, ne uidelicet responsum accipiat: Quid habes quod non accepisti? Si autem accepisti, quid gloriaris, quasi non acceperis? 17. Haec est iustitia hominis in sanguine Redemptoris: quam homo perditionis exsufflans et subsannans in tantum euacuare conatur ut totum quod Dominus gloriae semetipsum exinaniuit, quod minoratus est ab angelis, quod natus de femina, quod conuersatus in mundo, quod expertus infima,22 quod passus indigna, quod demum per mortem crucis in sua reuersus, ad id solum putet et disputet redigendum, ut traderet hominibus formam uitae uiuendo et docendo, patiendo autem et moriendo caritatis metam praefigeret. Ergo docuit iustitiam et non dedit, ostendit caritatem sed non infudit – et sic rediit in sua?

21  22 

Perhaps read perdidit (Winterbottom) Winterbottom; infirma L

24

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 24

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offences unto justification.’193 From the first man flowed offence, ‘from the highest heaven the going forth’194 of grace; both from a parent, one from the first, the other from the highest. Being born on earth destroys me – yet does not generation from heaven much more preserve me?195 After being snatched thus ‘from the power of darkness’,196 I have no fear of being rejected by ‘the Father of lights’,197 for I have been justified freely198 by the blood of His Son.199 For it is He ‘who justifieth; who is he that shall condemn?’200 He will not condemn the just who pitied the sinner. I may call myself just, but to Him belongs justice. What is justice then? ‘The end of the law is Christ, unto justice to everyone that believeth’:201 Christ, in fact, ‘who of God the Father is made unto us justice’.202 Does then the justice made for me not belong to me? If my guilt has been handed on, why not also the justice I have been given? And in truth it is safer for me when given than if it had been born in me. For ‘this hath glory, but not before God’;203 the other, since it can bring salvation, does not have material for boasting except in the Lord.204 For (it is written) ‘if I be just, I shall not lift up my head’,205 that is, so as not to be given the reply: ‘What hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?’206 17. This is the justice of man in the blood of the redeemer: which the man of perdition rejects and derides, trying to make it void to such an extent that the Lord of Glory ‘emptying Himself’,207 being made lower than the angels,208 being born of woman, having lived in the world, having experienced the lower regions, having borne indignities, and (finally) His returning to his own through death on the cross – all this he thinks and argues should be reduced to the simple proposition, that by living and teaching He gave men a model for their lives, while by suffering and dying He fixed a limit for charity. Did He then teach justice without giving it, show charity without infusing it – and so returned to his own? Is this the whole of that 193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208 

Rom. 5: 15–16. Ps. 18: 7. Cf. 1 Ioh. 5: 18. Col. 1: 13. Iac. 1: 17. Cf. Rom. 3: 24. Cf. Rom. 5: 9. Rom. 8: 33–4. Rom. 10: 4. 1 Cor. 1: 30. Rom. 4: 2. Cf. 2 Cor. 10: 17. Iob 10: 15. 1 Cor. 4: 7. Philipp. 2: 7. Hebr. 2: 7, 9.

24

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 24

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

Itane hoc totum est magnum illud pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne, iustificatum est in spiritu, apparuit angelis, praedicatum est gentibus, creditum est in mundo, assumptum est in gloria? Incomparabilis doctor, qui etiam profunda Dei sibi aperiens, et ea quibus uult lucida et peruia faciens, altissimum sacramentum et mysterium absconditum a saeculis sic nobis suo mendacio planum et apertum reddit, ut transire leuiter per illud possit quiuis, etiam incircumcisus et immundus: quasi Dei sapientia cauere nescierit aut neglexerit quod ipsa prohibuit, sed dederit et ipsa sanctum canibus et margaritas porcis. Sed non est ita. Nam etsi manifestatum est in carne, sed tamen iustificatum est in spiritu, ut et spiritualibus spiritualia conferantur, et animalis homo non percipiat quae sunt spiritus Dei, nec fides nostra sit in sapientia uerbi sed in uirtute Dei. Vnde Saluator ait, confiteor tibi, Pater, Domine caeli et terrae, quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et reuelasti ea paruulis; et Apostolus etsi, inquit, opertum est Euangelium meum, in his est opertum qui pereunt. 18. Denique aduertite hominem irridentem quae sunt spiritus Dei, quoniam stultitia illi uidentur, et insultantem apostolo loquenti Dei sapientiam in mysterio absconditam, inuehentem in Euangelium, Dominum blasphemantem. Quam prudentius quod non ualet comprehendere credere dignaretur, nec auderet contemnere aut conculcare sacrum reuerendumque mysterium. Longum est ad omnes eius ineptias et calumnias, quas diuino struit consilio, respondere. Pauca tamen infero, e quibus cetera aestimentur. ‘Cum solos’ inquit ‘electos liberauerit Christus, quomodo eos diabolus possidebat, siue in hoc saeculo siue in futuro, magis quam modo?’ Respondemus: Immo quia diabolus electos Dei possidebat (a quo, sicut dicit apostolus, captiui tenebantur ad ipsius uoluntatem), ut Dei propositum de ipsis impleretur opus fuit liberatore. Oportuit autem liberari in hoc saeculo,

25

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 25

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

‘great mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory?’209 Incomparable teacher, who opens up for himself ‘even the deep things of God’,210 and makes them clear and accessible to those he wishes! By his lying he makes the highest sacrament and ‘the mystery hidden from ages’211 so plain and obvious to us that anyone at all can pass lightly through it, even a man ‘uncircumcised and unclean’:212 as if God’s wisdom did not know how to beware (or neglected to beware) of what it itself banned, but itself too gave that which is holy to dogs and pearls to swine.213 But it is not so. For though ‘it was manifested in the flesh’, yet ‘it was justified in the spirit’,214 so that spiritual things are compared with spiritual, and ‘the sensual man perceiveth not the things that are of the spirit of God’,215 and our faith is not in the wisdom of speech but in the power of God.216 Hence the Saviour says: ‘I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones’;217 and the apostle: ‘And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost.’218 18. Finally, take note of a man laughing at the things ‘that are of the spirit of God’,219 because they seem folly to him, and insulting the apostle who speaks of ‘the wisdom of God which is hidden in a mystery’,220 inveighing against the gospel, blaspheming the Lord. How much more wise he would be to see fit to believe what he cannot understand, and not presume to scorn or trample upon the sacred and revered mystery. It would take too long to reply to all his follies and calumnies, which he founds on counsel from God. But I do bring forward a few things from which the rest may be judged. ‘Since’, he says, ‘Christ has freed the elect only, how did the Devil possess them either in this world or the next, rather than now?’221 We reply: No, because the elect of God were possessed by the Devil, ‘by whom’, as the apostle says, ‘they were held captive at his will’,222 there was need of a deliverer, that God’s plan for them might be fulfilled. But they had to be delivered in this 1 Tim. 3: 16. 1 Cor. 2: 10. 211  Col. 1: 26. 212  Is. 52: 1. 213  Cf. Matt. 7: 6. 214  1 Tim. 3: 16. 215  1 Cor. 2: 13–14. 216  Cf. 1 Cor. 1: 17, 2: 5. 217  Matt. 11: 25. 218  2 Cor. 4: 3. 219  1 Cor. 2: 14. 220  1 Cor. 2: 7. 221  See Peter Abelard, Comm. in … Romanos III. 26 (CCCM 11, p. 114, lines 139–40) and Liber sentent., frag. 2 (CCCM 14, p. 162). 222  2 Tim. 2: 26. 209  210 

25

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 25

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

ut liberos haberet in futuro. Deinde infert: ‘Numquid etiam pauperem illum, qui in sinu Abrahae requiescebat, sicut et diuitem damnatum, diabolus cruciabat, aut etiam in ipsum Abraham dominium habebat ceterosque electos?’ Non: sed habuisset, si non liberati fuissent fide uenturi, sicut de ipso Abraham scriptum est: Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam; item: Abraham exsultauit ut uideret diem meum; et uidit, et gauisus est. Propterea iam tunc sanguis Christi rorabat etiam Lazaro ne flammas sentiret, quod et ipse credidisset in eum qui erat passurus. Sic de omnibus electis illius temporis sentiendum, natos quidem et ipsos, aeque ut nos, sub potestate tenebrarum, propter originale peccatum, sed erutos antequam morerentur, et non nisi in sanguine Christi. Scriptum est enim: Turbae autem quae praecedebant, et quae sequebantur, clamabant dicentes: Hosanna filio Dauid, benedictus qui uenit in nomine Domini. Ergo Christo in carne uenienti, et antequam ueniret, et post, benedictum est a turbis benedictorum: quamuis praeeuntes plenam minime tunc consecuti sint benedictionem, seruata nimirum hac praerogatiua tempori gratiae. 19. Deinde laborans docere et persuadere, diabolum nullum sibi ius in hominem uindicare potuisse aut debuisse, nisi permissu Dei, et quod sine iniuria diaboli iure Deus profugam suum, si uellet misereri, repetere et solo uerbo eripere posset, quasi hoc quis diffiteatur, post multa aliquando infert: ‘Quae itaque necessitas aut quae ratio aut quod opus fuit, cum sola iussione sua diuina miseratio liberare hominem a peccato posset, propter redemptionem nostram Filium Dei carne suscepta tot et tantas inedias, opprobria, flagella, sputa, denique ipsam crucis ignominiosam et asperrimam mortem sustinere, ut cum iniquis patibulum sustineret?’ Respondemus: Necessitas nostra fuit, et necessitas dura sedentium in tenebris et umbra mortis. Opus, aeque nostrum et Dei ipsius et sanctorum angelorum. Nostrum, ut auferret iugum captiuitatis nostrae; suum, ut impleretur propositum uoluntatis eius; angelorum, ut numerus impleretur eorum. Porro ratio

26

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 26

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

world, so that He might have them free in the future. Then he continues: ‘Did the Devil torture also the poor man who was resting in Abraham’s bosom,223 just as he did the rich man who was damned, or did he have dominion over Abraham too and the rest of the elect?’ No. But he would have if they had not been delivered by their faith in Him who was to come, as is written of Abraham himself: ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.’224 Also: ‘Abraham rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.’225 It was then that Christ’s blood bedewed Lazarus too, so that he might not feel the flames, just because he too would have believed in Him who was to suffer in the future. We should take this view of all the elect of that time: they too were born, just like us, under ‘the power of darkness’,226 because of original sin, but were rescued before they died, and only in the blood of Christ. For it is written: ‘And the multitudes that went before and that followed cried, saying: Hosanna to the son of David: blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.’227 So when Christ came in the flesh, and even before and after He came, He was blessed by multitudes of blessers, though those who came before by no means attained full blessing at that time: that privilege, of course, was reserved for the time of grace. 19. Next, in his endeavour to teach and persuade us that the Devil could not and should not have had any jurisdiction over man except by God’s permission, and that without injury to the Devil God could rightly, had He wished, have pitied, rescued and with a single word snatched away His fugitive (as if anyone denies this), after much else he says: ‘So what necessity or what reason or what need was there, when merely by His command God in His mercy could have delivered man from sin, that for our redemption the Son of God took on flesh, underwent so may terrible hungers, insults, stripes, spittings, and finally actual death on the cross, ignominious and bitter in the extreme, to undergo the gibbet with wicked men?’228 We reply: Ours was the necessity, the harsh necessity of them that ‘sit in darkness and in the shadow of death’.229 The need was equally ours, and that of God Himself and the holy angels. Ours, to take off the yoke of our captivity;230 His, that the purpose of His will231 should be fulfilled; the angels’, that their number should be filled up.232 Further, the reason why this was done was that He who did it See Luc. 16: 23. Gen. 15: 6. 225  Ioh. 8: 56. 226  Luc. 22: 53. 227  Matt. 21: 9. 228  See Peter Abelard, Liber sentent., frag. 4 (CCCM 14, p. 163). 229  Luc. 1: 79. 230  Cf. Is. 10: 27. 231  Cf. Eph. 1: 5. 232  According to some, the fallen angels were replaced by elect humans: see J. B. Russell, Lucifer (Ithaca NY, 1984), p. 94 n. 6, referring e.g. to Peter Abelard, Sic et non, 49. 223  224 

26

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 26

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

huius facti fuit dignatio facientis. Quis negat Omnipotenti ad manum fuisse alios et alios modos nostrae redemptionis, iustificationis, liberationis? Verum hoc non praeiudicat huius, quem e multis elegit, efficaciae. Et fortasse is praestat, per quem, in terra obliuionis, grauedinis lapsus nostri tot et tantis grauaminibus Reparatoris fortius et uiuacius admoneremur. Alias autem nemo hominum nouit, nec noscere ad plenum potest, quid boni ad gratiam, quid congruentiae ad sapientiam, quid decori ad gloriam, quid commodi ad salutem, penes se ipsam contineat huius uenerandi mysterii inscrutabilis altitudo: quam propheta considerans expauit, non penetrauit, et praecursor Domini indignum se iudicauit qui penetraret. 20. Ceterum si non licet perscrutari diuinae sacramentum uoluntatis, licet tamen sentire effectum operis, fructum utilitatis percipere. Et quod licet scire, non licet tacere: quia gloria regum celare uerbum, et gloria Dei inuestigare sermonem. Fidelis sermo, et omni acceptione dignus! Quoniam cum adhuc peccatores essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Filii eius. Vbi reconciliatio, et remissio peccatorum. Nam si, dicente scriptura, peccata nostra separant inter nos et Deum, manente peccato, non est reconciliatio. In quo ergo remissio peccatorum? Hic calix, inquit, noui testamenti in meo sanguine, qui pro uobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Itaque ubi reconciliatio, ibi remissio peccatorum. Et quid ipsa, nisi iustificatio? Siue igitur reconciliatio siue remissio peccatorum siue iustificatio sit, siue etiam redemptio uel liberatio de uinculis diaboli a quo captiui tenebamur ad ipsius uoluntatem, intercedente morte Vnigeniti obtinemus, iustificati gratis in sanguine ipsius, in quo, sicut item dicit, habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius et remissionem peccatorum, secundum diuitias gratiae eius. Cur, inquis, per sanguinem, quod potuit facere per sermonem? Ipsum interroga. Mihi scire licet

27

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 27

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

saw fit to do so. Who denies that the Omnipotent had at His disposal many other ways of redeeming, justifying and delivering us? But that does not prejudice the efficacy of this way, that He chose out of many others. And perhaps this way is superior, the way by which we should, ‘in the land of forgetfulness’,233 be reminded, forcibly and vividly, by such terrible sufferings undergone by our Repairer, of the heaviness of our lapse. Otherwise no man knows, or can fully know, what good for grace, what fittingness for wisdom, what seemliness for glory, what advantage for salvation, the inscrutable depth of this revered mystery holds within itself: a depth which the prophet feared when he considered it, and could not penetrate,234 and the precursor of the Lord judged himself unworthy to penetrate.235 20. Yet if it is not possible to plumb the mystery of God’s will,236 it is possible to feel the effect of His work, to perceive the fruit of its utility. And what it is possible to know it is not possible to keep silent, for ‘it is the glory of kings to conceal the word, and the glory of God to search out the speech’.237 ‘A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation!’238 For ‘when as yet we were sinners’,239 ‘we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son’.240 Where there is reconciliation, there is also remission of sins. For if, as scripture says, our sins divide between us and God,241 there is no reconciliation while sin persists. In what then lies the remission of sins? ‘This is the chalice’, he says, ‘of the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you unto remission of sins.’242 And so where there is reconciliation, there is remission of sins. And what is that except justification? Whether then it is reconciliation or remission of sins or justification, or even redemption or delivery from the chains of the Devil by whom we were being held captive at his will, we obtain it through the intercession of the death of the Only Begotten, ‘justified freely’243 ‘in His blood’,244 ‘in whom’, as He also says, ‘we have redemption through His blood’, and ‘the remission of sins, according to the riches of His grace’.245 Why, you say, did He do by His blood what He could have done by

Ps. 87: 13. Cf. Hab. 3: 2. 235  Cf. Ioh. 1: 27. 236  Cf. Eph. 1: 9. 237  Inverting Prov. 25: 2, ‘Gloria Dei celare verbum et gloria regum investigare sermonem’. 238  1 Tim. 1: 15. 239  Rom. 5: 8. 240  Rom. 5: 10. 241  Cf. Is. 59: 2. 242  Mixing Matt. 26: 28 and Luc. 22: 20, ‘This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’, and ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.’ 243  Rom. 3: 24. 244  Rom. 5: 9. 245  Eph. 1: 7. 233  234 

27

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 27

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

quod ita: cur ita, non licet. Numquid dicit figmentum ei qui se finxit: Quid me finxisti sic? 21. Sed haec stultitia ei uidentur: non potest tenere risum. Audite cachinnos! ‘Quomodo’ ait ‘iustificari nos uel reconciliari Deo per mortem Filii sui dicit Apostolus, qui tanto amplius aduersus hominem irasci debuit, quanto amplius homines in crucifigendo Filium suum deliquerunt, quam in transgrediendo primum eius praeceptum unius pomi gustu?’ Quasi non potuerit Deo in uno eodemque facto et displicere iniquitas malignantium et placere pietas patientis. Et ait: ‘Quod si tantum fuerat illud Adae peccatum, ut expiari non posset nisi morte Christi, quam expiationem habebit ipsum homicidium, quod in Christo commissum est?’ Breuiter respondemus: ipsum sanguinem quem fuderunt et interpellationem ipsius quem occiderunt. Addit etiam: ‘Numquid mors innocentis Filii in tantum Deo Patri placuit, ut per ipsam reconciliaretur nobis, qui hoc peccando commisimus propter quod innocens Dominus est occisus, nec nisi hoc maximum fieret peccatum, illud multo leuius potuit ignoscere?’ Non mors, sed uoluntas placuit sponte morientis, et illa morte expungentis mortem, operantis salutem, restituentis innocentiam, triumphantis principatus et potestates, spoliantis inferos, ditantis superos, pacificantis quae in caelo sunt et quae in terra, omnia instaurantis. Et quoniam haec tam pretiosa mors, uoluntarie suscipienda aduersus peccatum, non tamen poterat fieri nisi per peccatum, non delectatus quidem, sed tamen, bene usus malitia sceleratorum, et mortem de morte et de peccato damnauit peccatum. Et quanto illorum maior iniquitas, tanto huius uoluntas sanctior, et eo potentior ad saluandum, quatenus, tanta mediante potentia, antiquum illud, quamuis grande peccatum, necessario tamen huic quod in Christo commissum est cederet, tamquam minus maiori. Nec peccato siue peccantibus ascribitur haec

28

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 28

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

His word? Ask him! I may know that He acted thus, but not why He did so. ‘Does the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou formed me thus?’246 21. But he thinks all this folly: he can’t help laughing – listen to his guffaws! ‘Just as’, he says, ‘the apostle says that “by the death of His Son we are” justified or “reconciled to God”,247 who had so much more reason to be angry with man, how much more did men do wrong in crucifying His Son than in transgressing His first precept by tasting a single apple?’ As if in one and the same act the iniquity of the malignant could not displease Him and the piety of the sufferer please Him! And he says: ‘But if so great was the sin of Adam that it could not be expiated except by the death of Christ, what expiation will the murder have that was committed upon Christ?’ We reply in a few words: the very blood they shed and the intercession248 of the man they killed. He adds: ‘Did the death of His innocent Son so please God the Father that by it He was reconciled to us who committed that for which the innocent Lord was killed? Nor if this very great sin [of Adam] had not happened, could He have pardoned it so much the more lightly?’249 What pleased Him was not the death of His Son, but His Son’s spontaneous wish to die, and the manner in which by that death He wiped out death and worked salvation, restored innocence, triumphed over principalities and powers,250 despoiled hell, enriched heaven, made peace as to things that are in heaven and on earth,251 and ‘re-established all things’.252 And since this so precious death,253 that had to be undertaken voluntarily to counter sin, could all the same not take place except by means of sin, He of course took no pleasure in it; yet He made good use of the malice of wicked men, and ‘condemned’ death from death and ‘sin from sin’.254 And the greater their iniquity, so much the more holy was His wish and the more powerful to save, in that by the mediation of such power that ancient sin, great as it was, had necessarily to give way before this that was committed against Christ, as lesser before greater. And this victory is not put down to sin or sinners, but to Rom. 9: 20. Rom. 5: 10. 248  Cf. Hebr. 7: 25. 249  Just as … apple. But if so … Christ. Did the death … more lightly: Peter Abelard, Comm. in … Romanos III. 26 (CCCM 11, p. 116 line 210 – p. 117 line 224), Liber sentent., frag. 5 (CCCM 14, pp. 163–4). Did the death … more lightly?: According to Constant Mews, the answer is obviously negative, because this view of original sin leads to absurd propositions about the redemption as requiring sin to have happened. Abelard goes on to argue that the redemption was achieved not through humanity being freed from bondage to the Devil, the slavery of sin, but through the Son demonstrating such great love for humanity that man is stirred to the supreme love of God, and man acquiring the true freedom of the sons of God. 250  Cf. Col. 2: 10. 251  Cf. Col. 1: 20. 252  Eph. 1: 10. 253  Cf. Ps. 115: 15. 254  Rom. 8: 3. 246  247 

28

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 28

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

uictoria, sed bene utenti peccato, et peccantes fortiter perferenti, et conuertenti in usum pietatis quidquid in ipsum ausa est crudelitas impiorum. 22. Fuit uero sanguis qui effusus est tam multus ad ignoscendum ut ipsum quoque peccatum maximum, quo factum est ut effunderetur, deleret, ac per hoc de antiqui illius, utpote leuioris, deletione nullam omnino dubietatem relinqueret. Deinde iste ‘Cui uero’ inquit ‘non crudele et iniquum uidetur, ut sanguinem innocentis in pretium aliquod quis requisierit, aut ullo modo ei placuerit innocentem interfici, nedum Deus tam acceptam Filii mortem habuerit ut per ipsam uniuerso reconciliatus sit mundo?’ Non requisiuit Deus Pater sanguinem Filii, sed tamen acceptauit oblatum, non sanguinem sitiens, sed salutem, quia salus erat in sanguine: salus plane, et non, sicut iste sapit et scribit, sola caritatis ostensio. Sic enim concludit tot calumnias et inuectiones suas, quas in Deum tam impie quam imperite euomuit, ut dicat totum esse quod Deus in carne apparuit, nostram de uerbo et exemplo ipsius institutionem, siue, ut postmodum dicit, instructionem; totum quod passus et mortuus est, suae erga nos caritatis ostensionem uel commendationem. 23. Ceterum quid prodest quod nos instituit si non restituit? Aut numquid frustra instruimur si non prius destruatur in nobis corpus peccati, ut ultra non seruiamus peccato? Si omne quod profuit Christus in sola fuit ostensione uirtutum, restat ut dicatur quod Adam quoque ex sola peccati ostensione nocuerit, siquidem pro qualitate uulneris allata est medicina. Sicut enim in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur. Ergo sicut hoc, ita illud. Si uita, quam dat Christus, non alia est quam institutio eius, nec mors utique, quam dedit Adam, alia erit similiter quam institutio eius: ut ille quidem ad peccatum exemplo suo, hic uero exemplo et uerbo ad bene uiuendum et se diligendum homines informarent. Aut si Christianae fidei et non haeresi Pelagianae acquiescentes, generatione, non institutione traductum in nos confitemur Adae peccatum, et per peccatum mortem, fateamur necesse est et a Christo nobis non institutione sed regeneratione restitutam iustitiam, et per iustitiam uitam: ut sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem uitae. Et si ita est, quomodo is dicit, consilium et causam incarnationis fuisse ut mundum luce suae sapientiae illuminaret, et ad amorem suum accenderet. Vbi

29

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 29

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

His making good use of the sin, and bravely bearing with sinners, and converting to the service of piety whatever the cruelty of the impious dared do to Him. 22. But the blood that was shed was ‘so bountiful to forgive’255 that it destroyed even the great sin that caused it to be shed, and that by these means it left absolutely no doubt behind about the destruction of that ancient sin, as being slighter. Next he says: ‘But who does not think it cruel and wicked that someone required the blood of an innocent to pay for something, or that it in any way pleased Him for an innocent to be killed: let alone that God so welcomed the death of His Son that by it He became reconciled to the whole world?’256 God the Father did not require the blood of His Son, yet He took it when it was offered to Him; He was not thirsting for blood, but for salvation, for in the blood lay salvation: salvation absolutely, and not, as he thinks and writes, merely the showing of charity. For he finishes all the slanders and invectives that he vomited up so impiously and so ignorantly at God by saying that God’s appearing in the flesh amounted to our being taught (or, as he puts it later, instructed) by His word and example, and that His suffering and dying amounted to the showing and commending of His charity towards us.257 23. But what good does it do that He teaches us if He does not restore us? Surely we are instructed in vain if ‘the body of sin’ in us ‘is not destroyed first, to the end that we may serve sin no longer?’258 If all the good Christ did lay in the showing of virtues, we can retort that Adam too did harm by a mere showing of sin, if the medicine applied corresponded to the type of wound. For ‘just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive’.259 Therefore as this, so also that. If the life that Christ gives is only His teaching, equally the death that Adam gave will be only his teaching, so that Adam shaped men to sin by his example, while Christ by His example and word shaped them to living well and loving Him. Or if we, acquiescing in the Christian faith and not in the Pelagian heresy, confess that the sin of Adam, and through sin death, was passed to us by birth, not teaching, we must accept equally that justice was restored to us by Christ, and through justice life, not by teaching but by rebirth: so that ‘as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life’.260 And if it is as he says, that the plan and cause of the incarnation was that He should illuminate the world by the light of His wisdom and fire them to love

Is. 55: 7. See Peter Abelard, Comm. in … Romanos III. 26 (CCCM 11, p. 117, lines 234–8) and Liber sentent., frag. 6 (CCCM 14, p. 164). 257  See Liber sentent., frag. 7 (CCCM 14, p. 165). 258  Rom. 6: 6. 259  1 Cor. 15: 22. 260  Rom. 5: 18. 255  256 

29

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 29

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

ergo redemptio? A Christo nempe, ut fateri dignatur, illuminatio et prouocatio ad amorem: redemptio et liberatio a quo? 24. Esto quod illis Christi aduentus prosit qui se illi possunt conformare per uitam, et uicem ei dilectionis rependere, quid de paruulis? Quam dabit lucem sapientiae uix adhuc captantibus lucem uitae? Vnde accendet ad Dei amorem qui necdum matres suas amare nouerunt? Nihilne proderit eis aduentus Christi, nihil quod complantati sunt similitudini mortis eius per baptismum, quoniam nondum possunt, prohibente aetate, Christum sapere aut amare? ‘Redemptio itaque’ ait ‘nostra est illa summa in nobis per Christi passionem dilectio.’ Ergo paruuli non habent redemptionem, quia non habent summam illam dilectionem? An sicut non habent unde diligant, ita nec unde pereant, ut non sit eis in Christo necessaria regeneratio, utpote quibus generatio ex Adam nihil nocuerit? Si hoc sapit, cum Pelagio desipit. Quidquid horum sentiat, patet quantum humanae sacramento salutis inuideat, quantum, quod in ipso est, euacuet alti dispensationem mysterii, qui totum de salute tribuit deuotioni, regenerationi nihil, qui nostrae gloriam redemptionis et summam salutis non in uirtute crucis, non in pretio sanguinis, sed in nostrae constituit conuersationis profectibus. Mihi autem absit gloriari, nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesu Christi, in qua est salus, uita et resurrectio. 25. Et quidem tria quaedam praecipua in hoc opere nostrae salutis intueor: formam humilitatis, in qua semetipsum Deus exinaniuit; caritatis mensuram, quam usque ad mortem, et mortem crucis, extendit; redemptionis sacramentum, quo ipsam mortem quam pertulit sustulit. Horum duo priora sine ultimo sic sunt ac si super inane pingas. Magnum profecto et ualde necessarium humilitatis, magnum et omni acceptione dignum caritatis exemplum. Sed non habent fundamentum,

30

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 30

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

Him,261 where then is redemption? From Christ, as he deigns to admit, illumination and summoning to love. But redemption and liberation – from whom? 24. Granted that Christ’s advent may be of benefit to those who can make themselves like Him by their life, and repay Him the love He gives them, what of the little ones? What light of wisdom will He give to those who are scarcely yet taking in the light of life? How will He fire to love of God those who do not yet know how to love their own mothers? Will Christ’s advent profit them nothing, or the fact that by baptism ‘they have been planted together in the likeness of His death’,262 when thanks to their age they cannot yet know or love Christ? ‘So our redemption’, he says, ‘is that highest love in us through the passion of Christ.’263 Do then little ones not have redemption because they do not have that highest love? Or, as they do not have wherewith to love, so do they not have wherewith to perish, so that redemption in Christ is unnecessary for them, considering that generation from Adam did them no harm? If this is his idea, he is mad, like Pelagius.264 Whatever of these things he thinks, it is obvious how hostile he is to the sacrament of human salvation; how much, so far as in him lies, he is getting rid of the dispensation of the high mystery, when so far as salvation is concerned he attributes all to devotion and nothing to rebirth; who places the glory of our redemption and the sum of our salvation not in the virtue of the cross, not in the price of blood, but in the achievements of our own way of life. ‘But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’,265 ‘in which is our salvation, life and resurrection.’266 25. And in fact in this work of our salvation I see three particular things: the form of humility in which God ‘emptied himself’;267 the measure of charity, which He extended ‘unto death’, even ‘to the death of the cross’;268 the sacrament of redemption, by which He endured the death that He underwent. The first two of these without the third are as if you were to paint on empty space. Great indeed and very necessary is the example of humility, great and ‘worthy of all acceptation’269 the example of charity. But they have no foundation, and so no means of standing See Liber sentent., frag. 8 (CCCM 14, p. 165). Rom. 6: 5. 263  Comm. in … Romanos III. 26 (CCCM 11, p. 118, lines 256–7) and Liber sentent., frag. 9 (CCCM 14, p. 165). 264  Pelagianism was a fifth-century Christian heresy taught by Pelagius and his followers that stressed the essential goodness of human nature and the freedom of the human will. It was written against by Augustine. 265  Gal. 6: 14. 266  But God forbid … resurrection: See the Introit to the Mass for Maundy Thursday in the Roman Missal. 267  Philipp. 2: 7. 268  Philipp. 2: 8. 269  1 Tim. 1: 15. 261  262 

30

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 30

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

ac proinde nec statum, si desit redemptio. Volo totis nisibus humilem sequi Iesum; cupio eum qui dilexit me, et tradidit semetipsum pro me, quibusdam brachiis uicariae dilectionis amplecti. Sed oportet me et Agnum manducare Paschalem. Nisi enim manducauero carnem eius, et bibero eius sanguinem, non habebo uitam in memetipso. Aliud sequi Iesum, aliud et tenere, aliud manducare. Sequi, salubre consilium; tenere et amplecti, solemne gaudium; manducare, uita beata. Caro enim eius uere est cibus, et sanguis eius uere est potus. Panis est Dei qui de caelo descendit, et dat uitam mundo. Quis status gaudio siue consilio absque uita? Nempe haud alius quam picturae absque solido. Ergo nec humilitatis exempla nec caritatis insignia praeter redemptionis sacramentum sunt aliquid. 26. Haec, Domine Pater, de labore manuum pueri uestri qualiacumque tenetis, aduersus pauca quidem nouae haereseos capitula: ubi etsi non aliud quam zelum agnoscitis meum, tamen propriae interim conscientiae satisfeci. Nam cum non esset quod agerem pro iniuria fidei quam dolebam, operae mihi pretium arbitror si illum monui, cuius arma potentia a Deo ad destructionem contrariarum assertionum, ad destruendam omnem altitudinem extollentem se aduersus scientiam Dei, et in captiuitatem redigendum omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. Sunt et alia in aliis eius scriptis non pauca nec minus mala capitula, ad quae nec temporis nec epistulae angustia respondere permittit. Quamquam nec necessarium putem, cum sint adeo manifesta ut ipsa etiam uulgata fide facile refellantur. Collegi tamen aliqua, et transmisi. 27.23 1. Quod Pater sit plena potentia, Filius quaedam potentia, Spiritus Sanctus nulla potentia. 2. Quod Spiritus Sanctus non sit de substantia Patris aut Filii. 3. Quod Spiritus Sanctus sit anima mundi.

23  The Capitula are ed. C. Mews, ‘The list of heresies imputed to Peter Abelard’, RB 95 (1985), 108–10; see also Luscombe, The School, p. 115 seq.

31

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 31

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

either, if redemption is lacking. I wish to follow the humble Christ with all my efforts; I desire to embrace as with the arms of mutual love Him ‘who loved me and delivered himself for me’.270 But I must also eat the Paschal Lamb. For if I do not eat His flesh and drink His blood, I shall not have life in myself.271 It is one thing to follow Jesus, another to hold Him, another to eat Him. To follow is sound policy; to hold and embrace Him is a solemn joy; to eat Him is the life of bliss. ‘For’ His ‘flesh is meat indeed’, and His ‘blood is drink indeed’.272 ‘This is the bread of God that came down from heaven, and gives life to the world.’273 How can joy or policy stand without life? Surely no more than a picture can stand without solidity. Therefore neither the examples of humility nor the insignia of charity are anything without the sacrament of redemption. 26. Lord Father, here you have the work of your child’s hands, such as it is, to set against those chapters, few as they are, of the new heresy. You will recognise here only my zeal, yet I have in doing this satisfied my own conscience. For though there was nothing I could do about the injury to the faith which I deplored, I think it worth while if I have warned him. My weapons are mighty from God unto the pulling down of contrary assertions, unto destroying ‘every height that exalteth itself against the know­ledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ’.274 There are other chapters too in others of his writings, not a few and just as bad. But to these neither time nor the scope of this letter permits me to reply. In fact I think any reply unnecessary, for they are so blatant that they are easily refuted by faith the moment they are spread abroad. All the same, I have put some things together, and sent them on.275 27.276 1. That the Father is full power, the Son a sort of power, the Holy Spirit no power. 2. That the Holy Spirit is not of the substance of the Father or the Son. 3. That the Holy Spirit is the soul of the world.

Gal. 2: 20. Cf. Ioh. 6: 54. 272  Ioh. 6: 56. 273  Ioh. 6: 33. 274  2 Cor. 10: 5. 275  The final list of 19 capitula was a result of combining the list of 14 (Capitula haeresum XIV) and the list of 13 drawn up by William of St Thierry. Constant Mews argues that the Cap. haer. XIV is very likely to be the work of Thomas of Morigny, who subsequently responded to Abelard’s Apologia against Bernard: C. Mews, ‘The lists of heresies imputed to Peter Abelard’, RB 95 (1985), 77–108, at pp. 80–103. Chapters 1–5 and 14 were replied to (as he says above in c. 26). 276  The fairness of each of the following charges, in relation to Abelard’s writings, is assessed by Luscombe, School, pp. 115–41. They are, as Berengar himself admitted (Apol. 41, Mim., 15), a mixed bag. 270  271 

31

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 31

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 190

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Quod Christus non assumpsit carnem ut nos a iugo diaboli liberaret. Quid neque Deus et homo, neque haec persona quae Christus est, sit tertia persona in Trinitate. Quod liberum arbitrium per se sufficiat ad aliquod bonum. Quod ea solummodo possit Deus facere uel dimittere uel eo modo tantum uel eo tempore quo facit, non alio. Quod Deus nec debeat nec possit mala impedire. Quod non contraximus culpam ex Adam, sed poenam tantum. Quod non peccauerunt qui Christum ignorantes crucifixerunt, et quod non sit culpae ascribendum quicquid fit per ignorantiam. Quod in Christo non fuerit spiritus timoris Domini. Quod potestas ligandi atque soluendi apostolis tantum data sit, non etiam successoribus eorum. Quod propter opera nec melior nec peior efficiatur homo. Quod ad Patrem, quia ab alio non est, proprie uel specialiter attineat omnipotentia, non etiam sapientia et benignitas. Quod etiam castus timor excludatur a futura uita. Quod diabolus immittat suggestiones per appositionem lapidum siue herbarum. Quod aduentus in fine saeculi possit attribui Patri. Quod anima Christi per se non descendit ad inferos, sed per potentiam tantum. Quod neque opus neque uoluntas neque concupiscentia neque delectatio quae mouet eam peccatum sit, nec debemus eam uelle exstingui.

32

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 32

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 190

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

That Christ did not take on flesh in order to free us from the yoke of the Devil. That neither God and man, nor this person which is Christ, is the third person in the Trinity. That free will by itself suffices to produce any good. That God can only do or undo those things in that way or at the time he does, not otherwise. That God neither should nor can prevent evil. That we did not contract guilt from Adam, but punishment only. That those who crucified Christ without know­ledge of Him did not sin, and that whatever is done in ignorance is not to be ascribed to guilt. That the spirit of the fear of the Lord was not in Christ. That the power of binding and loosing was given to the apostles only, not to their successors also. That man is not made better or worse because of his works. That omnipotence belongs to the Father properly and specially, for it does not come from another, but not wisdom and benignity too. That even chaste fear is barred from the future life. That the Devil introduces ‘suggestions’ by the laying on of stones or herbs. That the coming at the end of time can be attributed to the Father. That the soul of Christ did not descend to hell in itself, but through its power. That neither action nor will nor concupiscence nor the delight which moves it [concupiscence] is a sin, nor should we desire to extinguish it [concupiscence].277

In each instance it means ‘concupiscence’. This Chapter seems to be inspired by a passage of Abelard’s Liber sententiarum summarised by William of Saint Thierry, Disputatio aduersus Petrum Abaelardum, 13 (CCCM 14, p. 171; 89A, pp. 58–9), which says that neither concupiscence nor delight should be killed, but rather hated so that we can always have something to struggle against. In a passage quoted in Capitula haeresum XIV, no. 13 (CCCM 12, p. 480), Abelard explains that delight comes from weakness and memory of pleasure; sin consists only in consent, called contempt of God.

277 

32

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 32

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 192 S. BERNARDI ABBATIS CONTRA QVAEDAM CAPITVLA ERRORVM EPISTVLA AD MAGISTRVM GVIDONEM DE CASTELLO Venerabili domino et carissimo Patri, magistro Guidoni, sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Dei gratia presbytero cardinali, Bernardus Claraeuallis uocatus abbas, non declinare ad dexteram nec ad sinistram. Iniuriam facio uobis, si aliquem a uobis ita diligi credam ut cum eo pariter eius errores diligatis. Quisquis enim sic aliquem diligit, nondum nouit quemadmodum oporteat eum diligere. Talis namque dilectio terrena est, animalis, diabolica, nocens aeque diligenti atque dilecto. Existiment alii de aliis prout uolunt: ego adhuc de uobis aestimare non possum, nisi quod uicinum est rationi, quod ad lineam pertinet aequitatis. Quidam prius iudicant, et postea probant: ego de potione, utrum dulcis sit an amara, ante gustum non iudicabo. Magister Petrus in libris suis profanas uocum nouitates inducit et sensuum: disputans de fide contra fidem, uerbis legis legem impugnat. Nihil uidet per speculum et in aenigmate, sed facie ad faciem omnia intuetur, ambulans in magnis et in mirabilibus super se. Melius illi erat, si iuxta titulum libri sui se ipsum cognosceret, nec egrederetur mensuram suam, sed saperet ad sobrietatem. Ego non eum accuso apud Patrem: est qui eum accuset liber suus, in quo sibi male complacuit. Cum de Trinitate loquitur, sapit Arium; cum de gratia, sapit Pelagium; cum de persona Christi, sapit Nestorium. Minus de uestra aequitate praesumo, si diu uos rogauero ut in causa

33

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 33

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 192278 A LETTER OF THE ABBOT SAINT BERNARD TO MASTER GUIDO OF CASTELLO AGAINST CERTAIN HEADS OF ERRORS To the revered lord and dearest father, Master Guido,279 by grace of God cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church, Bernard, styled abbot of Clairvaux, not to turn aside to the right hand nor to the left.280 I do you wrong if I were to suppose that you love someone in such a way that you love his errors equally with him. For anyone who loves someone like that does not yet know how one should love him.281 Affection like that is ‘earthly, sensual, devilish’,282 harmful to lover and loved alike. Others may make judgements about others as they will: I can still not make a judgement about you that is not close neighbour to reason, that does not toe the line of equity. Some judge first and look for proof later: I shall not judge if a drink is sweet or bitter before I taste it. Master Peter introduces ‘profane novelties of words’283 and meaning in his books; he disputes about the faith against the faith, he assails the law with the words of the law. He sees nothing through a glass or in a dark manner, but gazes on everything face to face,284 ‘walking in great’ and ‘wonderful matters above him’.285 It would be better for him if, in accordance with the title of his own book, he got to know himself, and did not go beyond his measure ‘but was wise unto sobriety’.286 I do not accuse him to the Father:287 he has his own book to accuse him, in which he was ill pleased.288 When he speaks of the Trinity, he savours of Arius; when of grace, he savours of Pelagius; when of the person of Christ, he savours of Nestorius.289 I do not presume on your fair-mindedness if I have asked you for a long time not to = Scott James 240. Guido de Castello, cardinal from 1127, Pope Celestine II 1143–44. See Luscombe, School, pp. 20–1; Clanchy, Abelard, pp. 313, 340. 280  See the note to Letter 190. 7. 281  Cf. 1 Cor. 8: 2. 282  Iac. 3: 15. 283  1 Tim. 6: 20. 284  Cf. 1 Cor. 13: 12. 285  Ps. 130: 1. Bernard uses the same verse and imagery at Letter 190. 8. 286  Rom. 12: 3. 287  Cf. Ioh. 5: 45. 288  Contrast Matt. 3: 17, 17: 5. 289  A trio of ancient heresiarchs. For Arius, see note to Letter 190. 2. Pelagius, Augustine’s antagonist, was a priest of British or Irish origin, who emphasised human free will and opposed the doctrine of original sin. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople 428–31, denied Mary the title ‘Mother of God’ and was accused of thus denying Christ’s divinity. Attacked by Cyril of Alexandria, he was condemned and deposed at the first Council of Ephesus. An identical list is in Letter 331. 278  279 

33

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 33

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 192

Christi nullum Christo praeponatis. Illud autem scitote, quia expedit uobis, quibus potestas data est a Domino, expedit Ecclesiae Christi, expedit etiam homini illi, ut ei silentium imponatur cuius maledictione os plenum est et amaritudine et dolo.

34

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 34

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 192

prefer anyone to Christ in the cause of Christ. But know this, that it is expedient for you, to whom ‘power is given by the Lord’,290 it is expedient to the Church of Christ, it is expedient to that man himself, that silence be imposed on him ‘whose mouth is full of cursing and of bitterness and of deceit’.291

290  291 

Sap. 6: 4. Ps. 9: 7.

34

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 34

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 193 AD MAGISTRVM IVONEM CARDINALEM Dilectissimo suo Iuoni, sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Dei gratia presbytero cardinali, Bernardus Claraeuallis uocatus abbas, diligere iustitiam et odire iniquitatem. Magister Petrus Abaelardus, sine regula monachus, sine sollicitudine praelatus, nec ordinem tenet nec tenetur ab ordine. Homo sibi dissimilis est, intus Herodes, foris Ioannes, totus ambiguus, nihil habens de monacho praeter nomen et habitum. Sed quid ad me? Vnusquisque onus suum portabit. Aliud est quod dissimulare non possum, quod pertinet ad omnes qui diligunt nomen Christi. Iniquitatem in excelso loquitur; integritatem fidei, castitatem Ecclesiae corrumpit. Transgreditur terminos quos posuerunt patres nostri. De fide, de sacramentis, de sancta Trinitate disputans et scribens, singula pro sua uoluntate mutat, auget, et minuit. In libris et in operibus suis ostendit se fabricatorem mendacii et cultorem peruersorum dogmatum, haereticum se probans non tam in errore quam in pertinacia et defensione erroris. Homo est egrediens mensuram suam, in sapientia uerbi euacuans uirtutem crucis Christi. Nihil nescit omnium quae in caelo et quae in terra sunt, praeter se ipsum. Damnatus est Suessione cum opere suo coram legato Romanae Ecclesiae. Sed quasi non sufficeret ei illa damnatio, iterum facit unde iterum damnetur; et iam nouissimus error est peior priore. Securus est tamen, quoniam cardinales et clericos curiae se discipulos habuisse gloriatur, et eos in defensione praeteriti et praesentis erroris assumit, a quibus iudicari timere debuit et damnari. Si quis spiritum Dei habet, illius uersiculi recordetur: Nonne qui oderunt te, Domine, oderam, et super inimicos tuos tabescebam? Liberet Deus per uos, et per ceteros filios suos, ecclesiam suam a labiis iniquis et a lingua dolosa.

35

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 35

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 193292 TO HIS MASTER CARDINAL IVO To his most beloved Ivo,293 by the grace of God cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church, Bernard, styled abbot of Clairvaux, ‘to love justice and hate iniquity’.294 Master Peter Abelard, monk without a rule, prelate without responsibility, neither holds an order nor is held by an order. He is a man unlike himself: a Herod within, a John without; double through and through, having nothing of a monk about him except the name and the habit. But what is that to me? ‘Everyone shall bear his own burden.’295 It is something else that I cannot hide, something that concerns all who love the name of Christ. ‘He speaks iniquity on high’,296 he corrupts the purity of the faith and the chastity of the Church. ‘He is passing beyond the bounds which our fathers have set.’297 Disputing and writing of the faith, of the sacraments, of the holy Trinity, he changes, increases and diminishes individual details to suit his own pleasure. In his books and works he shows himself to be a fabricator of falsehood and a cultivator of perverse doctrines, proving himself a heretic not so much in error as in obstinate defence of error. He is a man going beyond his own measure,298 in wisdom of speech making void the virtue of the cross of Christ.299 He knows everything that is in heaven and earth, except himself. He was condemned at Soissons,300 together with his work, in the presence of a legate of the Church of Rome. But as if that condemnation was not enough for him, he is doing for a second time something to merit a second condemnation; and now ‘the last error is worse than the first’.301 He has no worries, all the same, for he boasts of having cardinals and clerks of the curia as his old pupils, and he takes on to defend his past and present error those at whose hands he ought to fear judgement and condemnation. If anyone has the spirit of God,302 let him remember the verse: ‘Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee: and pined away because of thy enemies?’303 May God through you and the rest of his sons deliver His Church ‘from wicked lips and a deceitful tongue’.304 292  293  294  295  296  297  298  299  300  301  302  303  304 

= Scott James 241. Ivo of Abach, formerly canon of Saint-Victor. Ps. 44: 8. Gal. 6: 5. Ps. 72: 8. Prov. 22: 28. See Letter 192. Cf. 1 Cor. 1: 17. In the year 1121. See Hist. Calam., 36–44 and Clanchy, Abelard, pp. 295–305. Matt. 27: 64. Cf. Rom. 8: 9. Ps. 138: 21. Ps. 119: 2. See also Letter 189. 5.

35

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 35

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 330 AD INNOCENTIVM PAPAM Amantissimo patri et domino Innocentio Bernardus Claraeuallis uocatus abbas, modicum id quod est. Plorans plorauit in nocte Sponsa Christi, et lacrimae eius in maxillis eius: non est qui consoletur eam ex omnibus caris eius. Moram faciente Sponso, tibi, domine, commissa est Sunamitis in loco peregrinationis suae. Nulli familiarius confitetur iniurias, nulli secretius exponit aestus et gemitus suos, quam amico Sponsi. Nam quia Sponsum diligis, Sponsam ad te clamantem non despicis in opportunitatibus, in tribulatione. Inter haec omnia genera hostium quibus circumuallatur Ecclesia Dei, sicut lilium inter spinas, nihil periculosius, nihil molestius est quam cum ab eis quos continet in gremio suo, et quos suis fouet uberibus, laceratur interius. Pro talibus et de talibus est illa uox dolentis et gementis: Amici mei et proximi mei aduersum me appropinquauerunt et steterunt. Nulla quidem pestis efficacior ad nocendum quam familiaris inimicus. Argumento nobis sunt et Absalon familiaritas et osculum Iudae. Fundamentum aliud ponitur nobis, praeter id quod positum est. Noua fides in Francia cuditur, de uirtutibus et uitiis non moraliter, de sacramentis non fideliter, de mysterio Sanctae Trinitatis non simpliciter ac sobrie, sed praeterquam accepimus, disputatur. Magister Petrus et Ernaldus, a cuius peste Italiam purgastis,

36

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 36

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 330305 TO POPE INNOCENT To the most beloved father and lord Innocent, Bernard, styled abbot of Clairvaux, the little that he is. ‘Weeping’ the Bride of Christ ‘hath wept in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks; there is none to comfort her among all them that are dear to her’.306 ‘While the Bridegroom tarries’,307 a Sunamite woman308 has been entrusted to you, lord, in the place of her pilgrimage.309 To no one does she more familiarly avow the wrongs done her, to no one does she more intimately relate her anxieties and her groans, than to a friend of the Bridegroom.310 For since you love the Bridegroom, ‘you do not slight’ the Bride when she cries out to you ‘in her wants, in the time of trouble’.311 Amid all these varieties of enemy by whom the Church of God is besieged, ‘as the lily among thorns’,312 nothing is more dangerous, nothing more vexing than when she is torn inwardly by those she holds to her bosom, and whom she succours with her breasts. On behalf of such men and concerning such men are spoken the words of one groaning in pain: ‘My friends and my neighbours have drawn near, and stood against me.’313 No plague is more effective in harming than an intimate enemy. This is proved by the friendship of Absalom314 and by the kiss of Judas.315 ‘Another foundation is being laid for us, but that which is laid.’316 A new faith is being forged in France: Of virtues and vices there is no moral discussion, of the sacraments of the Church no discussion according to the faith, of the mystery of the Holy Trinity no straightforward or sober discussion.317 No, the discussion is beyond what we have been taught.318 Master Peter, and Arnold = Scott James 242. Lam. 1: 2. 307  Matt. 25: 5. 308  An obscure reference to the prophet Elisha and the woman of Shunem; he prophesies that she shall bear a son; when he dies soon after, Elisha brings him back to life: 3 Reg. 4: 8–37. Or else to the returning of her possessions to her by the king of Israel, after her absence with the Philistines for seven years: 4 Reg. 8: 1–6. 309  Cf. Ps. 118: 54. 310  Cf. Ioh. 3: 29. 311  Ps. 9: 10. 312  Cant. 2: 2. 313  Ps. 37: 12. 314  See 2 Reg. 15: 5. Absalom, son of King David and in rebellion against him, kissed any man who came to him and made submission. 315  See Matt. 26: 49, Marc. 14: 45, and Luc. 22: 47. 316  1 Cor. 3: 11, and also Letter 189. 2. 317  See Letter 189. 2. 318  Cf. Gal. 1: 9 and also Letter 189. 2. 305  306 

36

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 36

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 330

astiterunt et conuenerunt in unum aduersus Dominum, et aduersus Christum eius. Squama squamae coniungitur, et ne spiraculum quidem incedit per eas. Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in studiis suis, et de fermento suae corruptionis corrumpunt fidem simplicium, morum ordinem conturbant, ecclesiae maculant castitatem: ad imaginem et similitudinem illius qui transfigurat se in angelum lucis habentes formam pietatis, sed uirtutem eius abnegantes, circumornati sunt ut similitudo templi, ut sagittent in obscuro rectos corde. Euasimus rugitum Petri Leonis, sedem Simonis Petri occupantem, sed Petrum Draconis incurrimus, fidem Simonis Petri impugnantem. Ille persecutus est ecclesiam Dei manifeste, sicut leo rapiens et rugiens; iste uero, tamquam draco, sedet in insidiis in occultis, ut interficiat innocentem. Sed tu, Domine Deus, oculos superborum humiliabis, tu conculcabis leonem et draconem. Nocuit ille, quoad uixit, et idem fuit ei uitae terminus atque malitiae: iste uero, noua dogmata scribens, iam prouidit quomodo uirus suum transfundat in posteros, quomodo noceat generationi omni quae uentura est. Denique, ut pauca de multis dicam, theologus noster cum Ario gradus et scalas in Trinitate disponit, cum Pelagio liberum arbitrium gratiae praeponit, cum Nestorio Christum diuidens hominem assumptum a consortio Trinitatis excludit. Sed in his omnibus gloriatur, quod cardinalibus et clericis curiae scientiae fontes aperuerit, quod manibus et sinibus Romanorum libros et sententias incluserit, et in tutelam erroris sui assumit eos a quibus iudicari debet et damnari. Qua mente, qua conscientia recurris ad fidei defensorem,24 fidei persecutor? Quibus oculis, qua fronte intueberis amicum Sponsi, inimice Sponsi, Sponsae uiolator? O nisi

24 

Perhaps read defensionem (so one MS)

37

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 37

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 330

from whose plague you cleansed Italy, ‘have stood and met together against the Lord and against His Christ’.319 Scale ‘is joined’ to scale, ‘and not so much as any air can come between them’.320 ‘They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways’,321 and from the ferment of their corruption they corrupt the faith of the simple, disturb the order of morality, defile the chastity of the Church. ‘In the image and likeness’322 of him who ‘transforms himself into an angel of light’,323 ‘having an appearance indeed of piety, but denying the power thereof’,324 they are adorned round about ‘after the similitude of a temple’,325 ‘so as to shoot in the dark the upright of heart’.326 We have escaped the roaring of Peter the Lion, when he occupied the seat of Simon Peter, only to encounter Peter the dragon,327 as he assails the faith of Simon Peter. He persecuted God’s Church openly, ‘as a lion ravening and roaring’,328 but this man, like a dragon, ‘sitteth in ambush, in private places, that he may kill the innocent’.329 But you, Lord God, ‘will bring down the eyes of the proud’,330 ‘you will trample under foot the lion and the dragon’.331 He did harm so long as he lived; his life and his ill-doing had the same ending. But this man, by writing new doctrines, has already made sure of passing on his poison to posterity, so as to harm ‘all the generation that is to come’.332 Finally, to cut a long story short, our theologian joins Arius in subjecting the Trinity to degrees and balances, Pelagius in putting free will before grace, Nestorius in dividing Christ333 and excluding the man He took on from the fellowship of the Trinity. But he glories in all this, as having opened to cardinals and clerks of the court the fountains of know­ledge, as having brought books and sentences into the hands and bosoms of the Romans; and he takes on to support his error those by whom he ought to be judged and condemned. With what intent, with what conscience, do you have recourse to the defender of the faith, you who persecute the faith? With what eyes, with what effrontery, will you look upon the friend of the Bridegroom,334 you enemy of the Bridegroom, you violator of the Bride? O, if only the care of my 319  320  321  322  323  324  325  326  327  328  329  330  331  332  333  334 

Ps. 2: 2 and also Letter 189. 3. Job 41: 7. See also Letter 189. 3. Psalms 13: 1. Gen. 1: 26. 2 Cor. 11: 14. 2 Tim. 3: 5. See also Letter 189. 3. Ps. 143: 12. Ps. 10: 3. See also Letter 189. 3. See Letter 189. 2. Ps. 21: 14. Ps. 9: 29. See also Letter 189. 2. Ps. 17: 28. Ps. 90: 13. Ps. 70: 18. See note to Letter 192. Cf. Ioh. 3: 29.

37

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 37

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 330

detineret me cura fratrum! O nisi me corporalis infirmitas impediret! Quantum desiderarem uidere amicum Sponsi pro Sponsa zelantem in absentia Sponsi! Ego quidem silere non potui iniurias Domini mei, laesiones ecclesiae patientis. Tu autem, dilectissime Pater, ne elongaueris auxilium tuum ab ea; ad defensionem eius conspice, accingere gladio tuo. Iam enim ex abundantia iniquitatis refrigescit caritas multorum; iamiam sponsa Christi, nisi manum adhibeas, egreditur et abit post uestigia gregum, et pascit greges iuxta tabernacula pastorum.

38

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 38

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 330

brethren did not hold me back! O, if only the weakness of my body did not hamper me! How I should long to see the friend of the Bridegroom showing his zeal for the Bride in the Bridegroom’s absence! For my part, I could not keep silent about the injuries done to my Lord, about the wrongs done to the suffering Church. But you, most beloved father, remove not thy help to a distance from her;335 look to her defence, ‘gird thy sword’.336 For now, because iniquity abounds, ‘the charity of many is growing cold’;337 now, even now, unless you bring your hand to bear, the Bride of Christ ‘goes forth and follows after the steps of the flocks, and feeds flocks beside the tents of the shepherds’.338

335  336  337  338 

Ps. 21: 20. Ps. 44: 4. Matt. 24: 12. Cant. 1: 7.

38

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 38

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 331 AD STEPHANVM CARDINALEM ET EPISCOPVM PRAENESTINVM Venerabili domino et carissimo patri Stephano Dei gratia Praenestino episcopo, frater Bernardus Claraeuallis abbas, uiriliter agere et confortari in Domino. Angustias et gemitus Sponsae Christi eo uobis familiarius enuntio, quo amicum Sponsi uos esse cognoui, et gaudio gaudere propter uocem Sponsi. Confido enim de uobis in Domino, si bene noui interiorem hominem uestrum, quia non quaeritis quae uestra sunt, sed quae Iesu Christi. Petrum Abaelardum, Catholicae fidei persecutorem, inimicum crucis Christi, uita probat et conuersatio, et libri iam de tenebris in lucem procedentes. Monachum se exterius, haereticum interius ostendit, nihil habens de monacho praeter nomen et habitum. Aperit cisternas ueteres et lacus contritos haereticorum, ut bos et asinus cadat. Siluerat iam per multos dies; sed quando siluit in Britannia, concepit dolorem, et nunc in Francia peperit iniquitatem. Egressus est de cauerna sua coluber tortuosus, et in similitudinem hydrae, uno prius capite succiso, septem pro uno capita produxit. Succisa25 fuit una illius haeresis Suessione: sed iam loco illius septem et eo amplius haereses emerserunt, quarum exemplar habuimus, et misimus uobis. Rudes et nouellos auditores ab uberibus dialecticae separatos, et eos qui, ut ita dicam, prima fidei elementa uix sustinere possunt, ad mysterium Sanctae Trinitatis, ad sancta sanctorum, ad cubiculum regis introducit, et ad eum qui posuit tenebras latibulum suum. Denique theologus noster cum Ario gradus et scalas in Trinitate

25 

So two MSS; succensa the rest; we omit preceding succiso uno

39

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 39

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 331339 TO STEPHEN, CARDINAL AND BISHOP OF PRAENESTE To the revered lord and dearest father Stephen by the grace of God bishop of Praeneste,340 brother Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, ‘to do manfully and be of good heart’341 in the Lord. I announce to you the straits and groans of the Bride of Christ the more confidingly because I know you to be the friend of the Bridegroom and ‘to rejoice with joy because of the Bridegroom’s voice’.342 For ‘I have confidence in you in the Lord’,343 if I know well your ‘inward man’,344 that you seek not the things that are yours but those that are Christ Jesus’s.345 Peter Abelard is proved a persecutor of the Catholic faith and an enemy of the cross of Christ346 by his life and behaviour and by the books that are now coming forth from darkness into light.347 He shows himself a monk without, a heretic within, having nothing of a monk except the name and habit.348 He opens old pits349 and broken cisterns350 of heretics so that an ox and an ass may fall in.351 He had lately been silent for many days; but when he was silent in Brittany ‘he conceived sorrow, and’ now in France ‘he has brought forth iniquity’.352 There has issued from its cavern ‘a winding serpent’,353 and like a hydra, when one head was cut off, it produced seven heads instead of the one. One heresy of his was cut off at Soissons; but now in its place seven and more heresies have emerged, of which we took a copy and sent it to you. Raw and naive hearers, far removed from the milk of dialectic, and those who (so to speak) can scarce bear the first elements of the faith, he introduces to the mystery of the Holy Trinity, to the holy of holies, ‘to the king’s chamber’,354 and to him who ‘made darkness his covert’.355 For example, our theologue joins Arius in subjecting the Trinity to 339  340  341  342  343  344  345  346  347  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355 

= Scott James 243. Stephen of Châlons, a former monk of Clairvaux and cardinal bishop of Praeneste 1139–44. Deut. 31: 6. Ioh. 3: 29. Gal. 5: 10. Rom. 7: 22. Cf. Philipp. 2: 21. Cf. Philipp. 3: 18. Cf. Iob 15: 22. See Letter 193. Cf. Ierem. 2: 13. Cf. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 38. 12 (PL 36. 424). Cf. Exod. 21: 33, and also Luc. 14: 5. Ps. 7: 15. Iob 26: 13. Esth. 2: 16. Ps. 17: 12.

39

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 39

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA 331

disponit, cum Pelagio liberum arbitrium gratiae praeponit, cum Nestorio Christum diuidens, hominem assumptum a consortio Trinitatis excludit. Sic, sic per omnia fere sacramenta discurrens, attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponit omnia damnabiliter. Ad haec gloriatur se infecisse curiam Romanam nouitatis suae ueneno, manibus et sinibus Romanorum libros et sententias suas inclusisse, et in tutelam sui erroris assumit eos a quibus iudicari debet et damnari. Prouideat Deus ecclesiae suae, pro qua mortuus est, ut eam exhiberet sibi non habentem maculam aut rugam, quatenus perpetuum silentium imponatur homini cuius maledictione os plenum est et amaritudine et dolo.

40

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 40

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER 331

degrees and balances, Pelagius in putting free will before grace, Nestorius356 in dividing Christ and excluding the man He took on from the fellowship of the Trinity. It is like this, like this, that he races through almost all the sacraments, ‘reaching from end and to end mightily’,357 and disposing of everything damnably. In addition, he boasts that he has infected the Roman curia with the poison of his novel idea, has brought books and sentences into the hands and bosoms of the Romans, and takes on to support his error those by whom he ought to be judged and condemned.358 May God provide for His Church, on behalf of which He died, ‘to display’ it ‘to Him having no spot or wrinkle’,359 so that perpetual silence may be imposed on him ‘whose mouth is full of cursing and of bitterness and of deceit’.360

356  357  358  359  360 

Arius … Pelagius … Nestorius: See note to Letter 192. Sap. 8: 1. See Letter 330. Eph. 5: 27. Ps. 9: 28. See also Letter 192.

40

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 40

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM CLARAEVALLENSEM ABBATEM ET ALIOS QVI CONDEMNAVERVNT PETRVM ABAELARDVM 1. Scriptorum tuorum exemplaria, Bernarde, celebris circumquaque fama diuulgat. Nec mirum scripta tua in famae pulpito collocari, cum constet ea, qualiacumque sint, a maioribus huius temporis approbari. Mirantur homines in te, liberalium disciplinarum ignaro, tantam ubertatem facundiae, quia emissiones tuae iam cooperuerunt uniuersam superficiem terrae. Quibus est diuinitus respondendum quia magna opera Domini, et haec est mutatio dexterae Excelsi. 2. Sed nihil est cur admiratione percelli debeant. Immo magis mirandum esset eloquii te urgeri siccitate, quem audiuimus a primis fere adulescentiae rudimentis cantiunculas mimicas et urbanos modulos fictitasse. Neque certe in incerto loquimur opinionis, sed testis est alumna tui, patria nostri sermonis. Nonne id etiam tuae memoriae altius est insignitum, quod fratres tuos rhythmico certamine acutaeque inuentionis uersutia semper exsuperare contendebas? Cui grauis et peracerba uidebatur iniuria reperire aliquem qui pari responderet proteruia. 3. Possem aliqua de nugis tuis huic opusculo cum testium probabilium astipulatione inserere, sed uereor paginam foedi commenti interpositione interpolare.26 Ceterum cunctis nota teste non indigent. Illum itaque commentandi et nugandi usum ad diuinum saepe instrumentum accersis; et astruunt imperiti grauiter et granditer dictum, quod ubertim et eloquenter effutis. 4. Sed non sic esse ratio necessaria conuincit. Frequenter enim ueritas absolute et illepide profertur, et falsitas plausibilis eloquii comitate commendatur. Similesque sunt, ut ait Augustinus, simplicitas dicendi et eloquentia uasis rusticanis et urbanis, falsitas uero et ueritas ferculis uilibus et pretiosis. Vtraque autem fercula utrisque27 possunt uasis ministrari. Neque hoc ideo dixerim, ut te notabilem et suspectum reddam, sed ut ueritatem non in omni facundia esse simpliciter astruam.

26  27 

Winterbottom; interpolari BF CE(?)F(?); utriusque AB

41

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 41

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

BERENGAR OF POITIERS’ DEFENCE AGAINST SAINT BERNARD ABBOT OF CLAIRVAUX AND OTHERS WHO CONDEMNED PETER ABELARD 1. Bernard, copies of your writings are noised abroad everywhere. And it is no surprise that they are placed so high on the pulpit of fame, for it is agreed that, whatever their quality, they meet the approval of the great ones of our time. People are surprised that despite being ignorant of the liberal arts you display such an abundance of eloquence, for ‘thy plants’361 have now covered all the surface of the earth.362 But in reply to them it must be said (in God’s words) that ‘great are the works of the Lord’,363 and that ‘this is the change of the right hand of the Most High’.364 2. There is in fact no reason why they should be so amazed. The real surprise would be for you to be afflicted by the drying up of your eloquence: we have heard of you continually making up farcical ditties and witty measures almost from your earliest youth. This is not just guesswork on my part: witness to what I say is the foster mother of your speech, the homeland of ours.365 Is it not inscribed deep in your memory too that you always strove to surpass your brethren in verse competition and skill in acute invention? And when you found someone to come back at you with equal pertness you thought it a serious and highly distressing injury. 3. I could insert in this short work some details of your triflings, and with the support of trustworthy witnesses. But I am reluctant to mar my pages by inserting foul fictions. Still, what is known to everybody needs no witness. Anyway, that is why you often attribute that same practice of lying and trifling to the testament of God; and the ignorant affirm that what you spout so freely and eloquently is gravely and grandly spoken. 4. But necessary reason proves this not to be so. Frequently the truth is put over in plain terms and without charm, while falsehood is commended by agreeable and popular expression. As Augustine says, ‘simplicity of speech and eloquence are like rustic and sophisticated dishes, falsehood and truth like cheap and costly food. Both kinds of food can be served up in both kinds of dish.’366 I am not to be taken as saying this in order to show you up and make you suspect, but simply to prove that truth is not present in all fine language. Cant. 4: 13. Cf. Gen. 2: 6. 363  Ps. 110: 2. 364  Ps. 76: 11. 365  This seems to mean that Berengar claims to have originated from and been educated in, a part of France where Bernard was only a newcomer, perhaps Châtillon-sur-Seine. 366  Augustine, Confess. 5. 6. 10. 361  362 

41

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 41

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

5. Sed super hoc hactenus; ad reliqua potius transeamus. Iamdudum sanctitudinis tuae odorem ales per orbem fama dispersit, praeconizauit merita, miracula declamauit. 6. Felicia iactabamus moderna saecula tam corusci sideris uenustata nitore, mundumque iam debitum perditioni tuis meritis subsistere putabamus. Sperabamus in linguae tuae arbitrio caeli sitam clementiam, aeris temperiem, ubertatem terrae, fructuum benedictionem. Caput tuum nubes tangebat, et iuxta uulgare prouerbium ‘rami tui umbras montium transcendebant.’ Sic diu uixisti, sic Ecclesiam castis institutionibus informasti ut ad semicinctia tua rugire daemones autumaremus et beatulos nos tanto gloriaremur patrono. 7. Nunc, pro dolor, patuit quod latebat, et colubri soporati tandem aculeos suscitasti. Omissis omnibus, Petrum Abaelardum quasi signum ad sagittam posuisti, in quem acerbitatis tuae uirus euomeres, quem de terra uiuentium tolleres, quem inter mortuos collocares. Corrogatis undecumque episcopis eum in Senonensi Concilio haereticum pronuntiasti, ab utero matris Ecclesiae uelut aborsum praecidisti. In uia Christi ambulantem tamquam sicarius de occulto prodiens tunica inconsutili spoliasti. 8. Contionabaris ad populum ut orationem funderet ad Deum pro eo; interius autem disponebas eum proscribendum ab orbe Christiano. Quid uulgus faceret? Quid uulgus oraret, cum pro quo esset orandum nesciret? Tu uir Dei, qui miracula feceras, qui ad pedes Iesu cum Maria sederas,28 qui conseruabas omnia uerba haec in corde tuo, purissimum sacrae orationis thus coram supernis obtutibus adolere deberes, ut reus tuus Petrus resipisceret et talis efficeretur quem nulla suspicio inquinaret. Sed forsitan malebas talem, in quo reprehensionis idoneam nanciscereris occasionem? 9. Denique post prandium allatus est liber Petri, et cuidam praeceptum est ut uoce clamosa Petri opuscula personaret. At ille et Petri odio animatus et uitis

28 

Perhaps read sedebas (Duchesne)

42

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 42

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

5. But so much for that; let us rather proceed to what remains to be said. Winged fame has by now spread the odour of your sanctity throughout the world, announced your high qualities, enlarged on your miracles. 6. We used to boast that modern times are happily adorned by the gleam of so bright a star; and we used to think that the world, now doomed to perdition, remains in place by virtue of your merits. We used to hope that the clemency of heaven, the mild weather, the land’s fruitfulness, the blessing of the crops, were decided by your tongue. Your ‘head used to touch the clouds’,367 and, as the common saying goes, ‘your branches passed beyond the shadows of the mountains’.368 For a long time you lived, and shaped the Church with pure ordinances, in such a way that we thought that ‘demons roared at your aprons’,369 and boasted of our ‘luck’ in having so potent a patron. 7. But now, alas, what was lying hid has shown itself, and you have at last roused the stings of the snake that had been put to sleep. Dropping everything else, ‘you set’ Peter Abelard ‘as a mark for your arrow’,370 to vomit up the poison of your bitterness on him, to ‘remove him from the land of the living’371 and place him among the dead. Summoning bishops from all sides, you pronounced him a heretic at the Council of Sens372 and cut him out like an abortion from the womb of mother Church. Though he ‘walked in the way of Christ’,373 you emerged from hiding like a footpad and robbed him of his ‘coat without seam’.374 8. You told the people in a public address that they should pour out prayer to God on his behalf, but your inner purpose was for him to be banished from the Christian world. What was the common man to do, what was he to pray, when he did not know for whom prayer was to be offered? You, the man of God, who had done miracles, who ‘had sat’ with Mary ‘at Jesus’s feet’,375 who were keeping ‘all these words in your heart’,376 you should have burned the purest incense of holy prayer before the eyes of God, asking that the man you were accusing, Peter, come to his senses and become the sort of man no suspicion could defile. But perhaps you preferred him in a state in which you could find a suitable occasion for reproach? 9. Finally, after the meal, Peter’s book was produced and someone was told to declaim Peter’s minor works at the top of his voice. But, inspired by hatred for Iob 20: 6. Unidentified. 369  Act. 19: 12. These items of Paul’s clothing were brought to the sick, and the evil spirits left them. Cf. Jerome, Adv. Rufinum 3. 42 (CSEL 79, p. 112) ‘cuius tanta est puritas ut ad sudaria et semicinctia tua daemones rugiant’ (‘Whose purity is so great that the demons roar at your handkerchiefs and loin-cloths’). 370  Lam. 3: 12. 371  E.g. Ierem. 11: 19. 372  1140 or 1141; see above, p. xi n. 1. 373  See especially Augustine, De baptismo 4. 2. 3 (CSEL 51, p. 224); Jerome, In Amos 1. 3 (CCSL 76, p. 224). 374  Ioh. 19: 23. 375  Luc. 10: 39. 376  Luc. 2: 19. 367  368 

42

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 42

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

germine irrigatus (non illius qui dixit ‘ego sum uitis uera’ sed illius qui patriarcham nudum strauit in area), sonorius quam postulatum fuerat exclamauit. Post aliqua pontifices insultare, pedem pedi applaudere, ridere, nugari conspiceres, ut facile quilibet iudicaret illos non Christo uota persoluere sed Baccho. 10. Inter haec salutantur ciphi, pocula celebrantur, laudantur uina, pontificum guttura irrigantur. Tunc aliquis Horatiano sale ludere posset: nullam, Vare, sacra uite prius seueris arborem. Nam illud quod idem poeta in alio carmine promit: nunc est bibendum, nunc pede 29 pulsanda tellus; ibi memoriter gerebatur. 11. Quanto salubrius audiretur suauis poetae Galli sententia luculentis admodum uersibus uigilata. Ait enim: uina probo si pota modo, debentque probari: si non pota modo, uina uenena puto. Sed Lethaei potio suci pontificum corda iam sepelierat. Ecce, inquit satiricus, inter pocula quaerunt pontifices saturi, quid dia poemata narrent. 12. Denique cum aliquid subtile diuinumque sonabat, quod auribus pontificalibus erat insolitum, audientes omnes dissecabantur cordibus suis et stridebant dentibus in Petrum. Et oculos talpae habentes in philosophum ‘hoc’ inquiunt ‘sineremus30 uiuere monstrum?’ Mouentesque caput quasi Iudaei ‘Vah’, inquiunt, ‘ecce qui destruit templum Dei.’ Sic iudicant uerba luminis caeci, sic uirum sobrium damnant ebrii, sic contra organum Trinitatis disserunt calices facundi. Sic contra simplicem disputant cornuti. Sic sanctum canes, sic margaritas

29  30 

libero Horace, Duchesne; om. BF Perhaps read sinemus (Winterbottom)

43

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 43

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

Peter and irrigated by the shoot of the vine (not His who said, ‘I am the true vine’,377 but His who stretched the patriarch out naked in the yard),378 he shouted louder than had been asked of him. After a while, you could see the bishops scoffing, stamping their feet, laughing, jesting. Anyone could easily tell they were paying vows to Bacchus, not to Christ. 10. Amid all this, the cups were saluted, the glasses went round, the wines were praised, the bishops’ throats were kept drenched. Then one might have quipped with Horatian wit: ‘Varus, sow no tree before the holy vine.’379 For as to what the same poet comes out with in another poem: ‘Now is the time to drink, now with free foot Is the earth to be beaten’;380 that was observed to the letter on this occasion. 11. How much better they would have done to listen to the beautifully phrased words of that attractive poet Gallus: ‘I approve wines if drunk with measure, and they should be approved. If not drunk with measure, I think wines poison.’381 But the draught of Lethean juice had already buried the hearts of the bishops. ‘Look’, says the satirist, ‘amid their cups the sated pontiffs inquire what the divine poems have to say.’382 12. In sum, when he gave utterance to some subtle and inspired point that was unfamiliar to the bishops’ ears, the whole audience was cut to the heart and ‘gnashed with their teeth’ at Peter.383 And as they had a ‘mole’s eyes’384 for the philosopher, they said: ‘Shall we let this monster live?’ And wagging their heads like the Jews they said: ‘“Vah, look, he that destroyeth the temple of God.”’385 That is how the blind pass judgement on the words of light, how the drunken condemn a sober man, how ‘eloquent cups’386 discourse against the organ of the Trinity, ‘how the horned dispute against the simple man’,387 ‘how dogs gnaw that which is holy, Ioh. 15: 1. See Gen. 9: 21. Noah is the patriarch the worse for wine. The Bible sets the scene not in a yard but in Noah’s tent (‘tabernaculum’). 379  Horace, Carm. 1. 18. 1. 380  Horace, Carm. 1. 37. 1–2. 381  Also attributed to ‘Gallus’ by Conradus de Mure, Fabularius (CCCM 210), Lexicon I: 330 (sumpta for pota). The couplet is also in Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica, II. 262, and A. La Penna, Scholia in P. Ovidi Nasonis Ibin (Florence, 1959), p. 39. 382  Persius 1. 30–1, referring to Romulidae, sons of Romulus. 383  Act. 7: 54. 384  Jerome, Epist. 84. 7. 7 (CSEL 55, p. 130). 385  Matt. 27: 40. 386  Horace, Epist. 1. 5. 19 (where facundi, eloquent, and fecundi, fruitful, are variants). 387  Cf. Jerome, In Hierem. 6. 17. 6 (CCSL 74, p. 305) ‘fetu pecorum, qui in ecclesia simplices sunt, et armentorum, quae cornuta sunt et adversarios uentilant’. ‘The offspring of the sheep, who are the simple element in the church, and the cattle, who are horned and toss their adversaries.’ 377  378 

43

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 43

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

porci corrodunt. Sic sal terrae infatuatur. Sic legis fistula obturatur. 13. Contionatur uir sapiens: ‘qui tangit picem, inquinabitur ab ea’, quod nos alio possumus reddere uersu: ‘qui tangit uinum, inclinabitur ab eo.’ Biberat episcoporum sobrietas sanguinem uuae meracissimum, cuius integritatem aqua non deuirginauerat; quia secundum Martialis gulam: grande nimis scelus est sacrum iugulare Falernum, nec Bacchus lymphae coniugium patitur. 14. Impleuerant primates orbis, philosophi gutturis, dolia sua uiuido uino, cuius calor ita insederat cerebris ut in somni lethargiam oculi omnium soluerentur. Inter haec sonat lector, stertit auditor. Alius cubito innititur ut det oculis suis somnum; alius super molle ceruical dormitionem palpebris suis molitur; alius super genua sua caput reclinans dormitat. 15. Cum itaque lector in Petri satis aliquod reperiret spinetum, surdis exclamabat auribus pontificum: ‘damnatis?’ Tunc quidam uix ad extremam syllabam expergefacti, somnolenta uoce, capite pendulo ‘damnamus’ aiebant. Alii uero damnantium tumultu excitati, decapitata prima syllaba, ‘namus’ inquiunt. Vere natis, sed natatio uestra procella, natatio uestra mersio est! Sic milites dormientes testimonium perhibent quia ‘nobis dormientibus uenerunt apostoli et tulerunt corpus Iesu.’ Qui uigilauerat in lege Domini die ac nocte nunc damnatur a sacerdotibus Bacchi. 16. Sic morbidus medicum curat. Sic damnat naufragus in litore constitutum. Sic arguit innocentiam qui ad furcas ducitur suspendendus. Quid agimus, anima? Quo nos uertimus? Excideruntne tibi praecepta rhetorum, et occupata luctu, praepedita singultibus, dicendi ordinem non tenes? Putasne ueniens Filius hominis inueniet fidem super terram? Vulpes foueas habent et uolucres caeli nidos; Petrus autem non habet ubi caput suum reclinet. Sic iudicant in loco iudicis

44

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 44

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

how swine gnaw pearls’,388 ‘how the salt of the earth loses its savour’,389 how the channel of the law is stopped up. 13. The wise man pronounces: ‘He who touches pitch, shall be defiled by it’;390 which we can make into another verse:391 ‘He who touches wine, shall be brought low by it.’ The bishops’ sobriety ‘had drunk the purest blood of the grape’,392 whose wholeness had not been deflowered by water; for, to quote the gourmand Martial: ‘It is all too grave a crime to murder holy Falernian’,393 And Bacchus does not tolerate marriage with water.394 14. The primates of the globe, the philosophers of the gullet, had filled their jars with spirited wine, and its heat had so settled on their brains that all their eyes relaxed into unconsciousness. Meanwhile the reader sounds off, the listener snores. One leans on his elbow to allow his eyes to sleep; another works at slumber for his eyelids on a soft cushion; another nods off with his head on his knees. 15. So when the reader found some thorn in Peter’s crops, he cried out to the bishops’ deaf ears: ‘Do you condemn (damnatis)?’ Then some of them, just managing to wake up for the final syllable, said, in sleepy tones and with lolling head: ‘We condemn (damnamus).’ But others, woken up by the noise made by those pronouncing for condemnation, cut off the first syllable, and said ‘We swim (namus).’ Indeed you do swim, but your swimming is a gale, your swimming is drowning! That is how the sleeping soldiers gave their evidence that ‘while we were asleep, the apostles came and took away Jesus’s body’.395 ‘One who had watched day and night over the law of the Lord’396 is now condemned by the priests of Bacchus. 16. This is how a sick man cures a doctor, how a shipwrecked sailor condemns someone safe on shore, how someone being led to be hung on a gibbet censures innocence. ‘What are we about, my soul? Where do we turn? Have you forgotten the precepts of the teachers of rhetoric, and do you not cut short the progress of your speech, taken over by grief, stopped in your tracks by sobs?’397 ‘The Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?’398 ‘The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests; but’ Peter ‘hath not where to lay his head.’399 That is the sort of judgment given by guilty men sitting in a judge’s 388  389  390  391  392  393  394  395  396  397  398  399 

Cf. Matt. 7: 6; Jerome, Epist. 84. 3. 6. Matt. 5: 13; infatuatur reflects a Vetus Latina reading. Sap. 13: 1. Not a verse from a poem, but a verse of the bible. Deut. 32: 14. Martial 1. 18. 5. The line is apparently Berengar’s own composition. Matt. 28: 12–13. Cf. Ps. 1: 2 (‘in lege eius meditabitur’). Jerome, Epist. 60. 5. 1. Cf. Luc. 18: 8. Matt. 8: 20.

44

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 44

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

sedentes rei, in loco uindicis innocentiae uexatores. 17. Similiter sunt omnia talibus iudicibus, talibus actoribus deprauata: Hic satur exiguo mauult turgescere somno, hic ex porrectis ampullat uerba labellis. Hic loquitur nimis, ille tacet; hic ambulat, hic stat; alter amat fletus, alter crispare cachinnum: diuersisque modis par est uesania cunctis. Quid hi tales egerint, quidue31 decreuerint iurisperiti, euangelica lectio consulatur. ‘Collegerunt’ inquit ‘pontifices et Pharisaei concilium, et dixerunt: “Quid facimus, quia hic homo multa mira dicit? Si dimittimus eum sic, omnes credent in eum.”’ 18. Vnus autem ex ipsis, nomine Bernardus Abbas, cum esset pontifex concilii illius, prophetauit dicens: ‘Expedit nobis ut unus exterminetur homo a populo, et non tota gens pereat.’ Ab illo ergo die cogitauerunt condemnare eum, dicentes illud Salomonis: ‘Tendamus insidias iusto. Supplantemus ei gratiam labiorum. Inueniamus radicem uerbi contra iustum.’ Facientes fecistis, et linguas uipereas in Abaelardum euaginastis. Subuersi subuertistis, et uinum absorbuistis sicut qui deuorat pauperem in abscondito. 19. Inter haec Petrus orabat, dicens:32 ‘Domine, libera animam meam a labiis iniquis et a lingua dolosa.’ Interdum illud Psalmistae sedulo ruminabat: ‘Circumdederunt me uituli multi: tauri pingues obsederunt me, aperuerunt super me os suum.’ Vere pingues, quorum colla toris adipeis incrassata liquidam sudabant aruinam. Nec mirum. Visitauerant enim domestici fidei uentrium lacinias in misericordia et caritate. Sedit autem in concilio uanitatis contra psalmi decretum quidam memoriae celebris episcopus, in cuius auctoritatem plurimorum se reclamabat assensus. 20. Hic, hesternam crapulam ructuans, huiusmodi in

31  32 

F; quid ABC F; om. ABC

45

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 45

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

place, by men harrying innocence who sit in the seat of an avenger. 17. Everything has been depraved in the same way by such judges, by such accusers: ‘This one prefers to bloat himself with a little sleep after a good meal’,400 this one makes words bubble from his distended lips.401 ‘This one talks too much, that one is silent; this one walks, that one stands still; another loves laments, another loves raising laughs: and in different ways equal madness afflicts them all.’402 Let the Gospel be consulted as to what people like this did, what those learned in the law decreed. ‘The priests and the Pharisees’, it says, ‘gathered a council, and said: “What do we, for this man says many amazing things? If we let him alone so, all will believe in him.”’ 18. But one of them, named Abbot Bernard, being president of the council, prophesied, saying: “It is expedient for us that one man be driven out from the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” From that day therefore they devised to condemn him,403 saying in the words of Solomon: “Let us plot against the just man.”404 Let us trip up “the grace of his lips”.405 “Let us find occasion of word against”406 the just man.’ ‘Doing you did’,407 and unsheathed viperous tongues against Abelard. ‘Subverted you subverted’,408 and swilled down wine like ‘him’ who ‘devoureth the poor man in secret’.409 19. Amidst all this Peter was praying: ‘O Lord, deliver my soul from wicked lips, and a deceitful tongue.’410 Meanwhile, he was constantly going over the words of the psalmist: ‘Many calves have surrounded me: fat bulls have besieged me; they have opened their mouths against me.’411 Fat indeed! Their necks, thickened ‘with adipose muscles’,412 were sweating lard in rivers. And no wonder. ‘Domestics of the faith’413 had visited the flaps of their bellies in pity and charity. Now there sat in ‘the council of vanity’,414 against the decree of the psalmist, a well-known bishop,415 whose authority was widely acclaimed. 20. ‘Belching up the hangover Persius 5. 56 (irriguo). The line is apparently Berengar’s own composition. 402  Sedulius, Carm. pasch. 1. 331–3 (CSEL 10, p. 40). 403  A parody of Ioh. 11: 47–53. 404  See Bede, In Parabolas, 2 (CCSL 119B, p. 122 on Prov. 24: 17–18) ‘supra iusto insidias tendere uetuit’. 405  Prov. 22: 11. 406  Iob 19: 28. 407  A biblicism: see e.g. Ierem. 22: 4, 44: 17. Berengar varies this construction below in ‘subuersi (by drink, folly?) subuertistis’. 408  Cf. Bernard, Epist. 242. 1 ‘subuersi sunt et parati ad subuertendum’. 409  Hab. 3: 14 (of joyfulness). 410  Ps. 119: 2. 411  Ps. 21: 13–14. 412  Jerome, Epist. 147. 8. 2. 413  The expression is also found in Gal. 6: 10. The meaning of the sentence is obscure. 414  Ps. 25: 4 (‘I have not sat’). 415  On his identity, not now easily established, see Luscombe, School, p. 33 n. 1. 400  401 

45

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 45

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

contione sermonem euomuit: ‘Fratres, Christianae religionis participes, omni periculo prouidete ne fides in uobis turbetur, ne sincerus columbae oculus turgente macula obducatur. Nihil enim prodest aliarum uirtutum possessio ubi fuerit fidei defectio, iuxta illud apostoli: “Si linguis hominum loquar et angelorum, caritatem autem non habeam, nihil mihi prodest.”’ O Mineruae lepos! O sales Attici! O eloquentia Tulliana! Hanc certe caudam non uult hic asinus. Talis finis tali capiti non respondet. Vnde etiam qui fauerunt, pressa fronte ruborem confessi sunt. 21. Placet (et non immerito) hanc magni nominis umbram gregi illorum connumerare, de quibus dictum est: ‘Conceperunt uentum et telas araneae texuerunt.’ Praefatus uero episcopus, etiam praemissis adiungens, ‘Petrus’ inquit ‘semper turbat ecclesiam, semper excogitat nouitatem.’ O tempora! O mores! Sic iudicat de sole caecus. Sic pingit in ebore mancus. Sic urbem appretiatur asinus. Sic animales episcopi iudicant, sic causas uentilant, sic discutiunt rationes. Sic pugnant contra eum filii matris suae. Sic sues crassae aduersus silentem grunniunt. 22. Inter tot itaque et tantas angustias deprehensus, Abaelardus ad Romani examinis confugit asylum. ‘Filius sum’ inquit ‘Romanae Ecclesiae. Nolo causa mea quasi impii iudicetur: Caesarem appello.’ At Bernardus abbas, in cuius bracchio fidebat praesulum multitudo, non dixit, ut praeses qui tenebat Paulum in uinculis, ‘Caesarem appellasti, ad Caesarem ibis’, sed ‘Caesarem appellasti, ad Caesarem non ibis.’ 23. Renuntiauit enim quae gesta fuerant apostolico, et statim a Romana sede litterae damnationis in Petrum per Gallicanam Ecclesiam uolauerunt. Damnatur taliter os illud, promptuarium rationis, tuba fidei, hospitium Trinitatis.

46

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 46

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

of the day before, he vomited forth’416 before them all a sermon on these lines: ‘Brethren, sharers in the Christian religion, take care for every danger, lest faith may be disturbed in you, lest the uncorrupted “eye of the dove”417 be hidden under a swollen blemish. The possession of the other virtues is of no use when there is a lack of faith, as the apostle said: “If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”’418 O wit of Minerva! O Attic salt!419 O Ciceronian eloquence! This ass truly does not want this tail. Such an end does not suit such a head. Even those who favoured him clutched their brows and acknowledged their embarrassment. 21. I choose (quite properly) to number this ‘shadow of a great name’420 with the flock of those of whom it was said: ‘They have conceived the wind and woven spiders’ webs.’421 But the aforesaid bishop, even adding to what went before, said: ‘Peter always harasses the Church, and always plans a novelty’. ‘O times, O morals!’422 This is how a blind man makes a judgement about the sun, how a cripple paints on ivory, how a donkey evaluates a city. This is how animal-like bishops pass judgement, how they debate cases, how they discuss reasons, how ‘the sons of his mother fight against him’.423 This is how ‘fat swine grunt’424 against one who keeps silent. 22. Caught in such dire straits, Abelard took refuge with the asylum of judgement at Rome. ‘I am’, he said, ‘a son of the Roman Church. I have no wish for my case to be judged like that of an impious man: “I appeal to Caesar.”’425 But Abbot Bernard, in whose arm the great body of bishops put their trust, did not, like the governor who held Paul prisoner, say: ‘Thou hast appealed to Caesar, to Caesar shalt thou go’,426 but ‘Thou hast appealed to Caesar, to Caesar shalt thou not go.’ 23. He reported to the pope what had transpired, and a letter condemning Peter winged its way from the see of Rome by way of the Gallic Church.427 That is how that mouth, ‘repository of reason’,428 trumpet of the faith, ‘home of the Trinity’,429

Jerome, Adv. Iouin. 1. 1 (PL 23. 212). Cf. Cant. 1: 14, 4: 1, 5: 12 (eyes of doves). 418  Cf. 1 Cor. 13: 1 and 13: 3. 419  Cf. Martial 4. 23. 7. 420  Lucan 1. 135. 421  Cf. Jerome, In Is. 59. 4–5 and Rigord of Saint-Denis, Gesta Philippi II, MGH SS 25, p. 290: ‘ut dici solet in prouerbio: uentum conceperunt et telas areneae texuerunt’. 422  Cicero, In Catilinam 1. 2. 423  Sap. 1: 5. 424  Jerome, Epist. 119. 11. 5. 425  Act. 25: 11. 426  Act. 25: 12. 427  Bernard’s appeal to the pope is his Letter 189 (above); Innocent’s reply is his Epist. 447 (PL 179. 515), July 1140 or 1141. 428  Apuleius, De dogm. Platonis 1. 14. 429  Cf. for example Jerome, Epist. 22. 6. 4. 416  417 

46

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 46

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

Damnatur, pro dolor, absens, inauditus et inconuictus! Quid dicam, quidue non dicam, Bernarde? 24. Nil opus est bello, ueniam pacemque rogamus. Porrigimus uictas33 ad tua lora manus. Iura cadent rerum, uertetur sanctio legum, si uis, si mandas, si sic decernis agendum, quem penes arbitrium est et ius et norma loquendi. 25. Cuius unquam, Iesu bone, culpa tam caecos habuit iudices ut non utraque34 causae latera uentilarent, ut non in quam potissimum partem ius uergeret elimarent? Isti, clausis oculis, palpant negotium et, quasi oculati rerum cognitores, arcu iniquitatis intenso toxicum subito iaculantur edictum, quidquid intestinus odiorum furor, quidquid implacabilis amentiae turbo rotaret in Petrum, quidquid iniqua conflaret aemulatio. 26. Censurae apostolicae sobrium nunquam dormitare deberet acumen. Sed facile deuiat a iustitia qui plus hominem quam Deum timet in causa. Verumque illud est quod per propheticum organum sonat: ‘omne caput languidum; a planta pedis usque ad uerticem35 non est in eo sanitas.’ 27. Sed corrigere, inquiunt fautores abbatis, Petrum uolebat. Si Petrum, bone uir, ad integrum fidei statum reuocare disponebas, cur ei coram populo aeternae blasphemiae characterem impingebas? Rursusque, si Petro amorem populi tollebas, quomodo corrigere disponebas? Ex qua complexione in summam redigitur te in Petrum exarsisse non amore correctionis sed desiderio propriae ultionis. Praeclare dictum est a propheta: Corripiet me iustus in misericordia. Vbi enim deest misericordia, non est correctio iusti sed barbaries incondita tyranni. 28. Testatur etiam rancorem animi eius epistula ad Innocentiam Papam directa, in qua sic stomachatur: ‘Non debet’ inquit ‘refugium inuenire apud sedem Petri, qui fidem impugnat Petri.’ Parce, parce, bellator inclute! Non decet monachum sic pugnare. Crede Salomoni: ‘Noli’ inquit ‘nimium esse36 iustus, ne forte obstupescas.’ Non impugnat fidem Petri, qui fidem affirmat Petri. Debet

33  34  35  36 

uictas Ovid: uinctas AF; iunctas B(?)C Winterbottom: utrumque BF: utrimque B2, Duchesne uerticem Vulgate: uertiem B: ceruicem AC; def. F ABC; esse nimium F

47

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 47

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

is condemned. Condemned, I protest, in his absence, unheard, unconvicted! What shall I say? What shall I not say, Bernard? 24. ‘There is no call for war, we ask pardon and peace. We stretch out defeated hands for you to bind.’430 The rights of things will fall, ‘the sanction of the laws’431 will be overturned, if you wish, if you order, if you decree this course of action, you ‘in whom is the decision and law and norm of speech’.432 25. What guilty man, good Jesus, ever had judges so blind that they did not discuss both sides of the case and did not precisely determine to which side justice most tilted? These men, eyes shut, groped at the business in the dark, and, as though they were sighted judges of affairs, they stretched ‘the bow of iniquity’433 and straightway fired off a poisonous edict, containing whatever the madness of intestine hatreds, whatever the implacable whirlwind of insanity whirled against Peter, whatever unjust emulation could muster. 26. The sober penetration of the pope’s censure should never slumber. But he easily deviates from the way of justice who ‘fears man rather than God’434 in a case. And true is that which the voice of the prophet loudly proclaims: ‘the whole head is sick; from the sole of the foot unto the head, there is no soundness in him’.435 27. ‘But’, say the abbot’s supporters, ‘he wanted to correct Peter.’ If, good sir, you intended to recall Peter to a sound state of faith, why did you, before the people, brand him eternally as a blasphemer? Then again, if you were depriving Peter of the people’s love, how did you propose to correct him? From this dilemma, the conclusion is that you blazed away against Peter not out of concern for his correction but from a desire for personal revenge. It was well said by the prophet: ‘The just man shall correct me in mercy.’436 For when mercy is lacking, there is no correction by the just man, but the crude barbarity of a tyrant. 28. His bitter feelings are also proved by the letter he wrote to Pope Innocent, in which he says angrily: ‘Anyone who impugns Peter’s faith ought not find refuge with Peter’s see.’437 Hold hard, hold hard, ‘famous warrior’!438 It does not befit a monk to fight like that. Believe Solomon: ‘Be not over just, lest by chance thou become stupid.’439 A man who affirms Peter’s faith is not impugning Peter’s faith, Ovid, Am. 1. 2. 21 and 1. 2. 20. For the phrase, see Hildebert, Vita beatae Mariae Aegyptiacae 248 (CCCM 209, p. 247). 432  Horace, Ars poet. 72. 433  Ambrose, Explanatio super Psalmos XII 36. 24. 3. 434  Cf. Fortunatus, Vita Radegundis 1. 12 (MGH Scr. Mer. 2, p. 368). 435  Is. 1: 5–6. 436  Ps. 140: 5. 437  Bernard, Letter 189. 5 (above). 438  Apostrophised in The Primitive Cistercian Breviary, ed. C. Waddell (Spicilegium Friburgense 44: Freiburg im Breisgau, 2007), p. 517: ‘Christi bellator inclite’ (‘renowned warrior of Christ’). 439  Eccles. 7: 17. Bernard cites the first four words in this form four times; forte is added for example in Jerome, Dial. contra Pelagianos 1. 39 (PL 23. 534). 430  431 

47

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 47

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

ergo inuenire refugium apud sedem Petri. 29. Patere, quaeso, Petrum tecum esse Christianum. Et si uis, tecum erit Catholicus. Et si non uis, tamen erit Catholicus. Communis enim Deus est, non priuatus. Sed si sedet sententia cordi, pergamus pariter contemplari quomodo Petrus fidem infestat37 Petri. Scribit enim Petrus ad ancillam Dei Heloissam, sacris litteris apprime institutam, familiarem satis epistulam, quae inter reliqua horum etiam uerborum redolet continentiam: 30. ‘Soror mea Heloissa, quondam mihi in saeculo cara, nunc in Christo carissima, odiosum me mundo reddidit logica. Aiunt enim peruersi peruertentes, quorum sapientia est in perditione, me in logica praestantissimum esse sed in Paulo non mediocriter claudicare, cumque ingenii praedicent aciem, Christianae fidei subtrahunt puritatem, quia, ut mihi uidetur, opinione potius traducuntur ad iudicium quam experientiae magistratu. 31. Nolo, nolo sic esse philosophus ut recalcitrem Paulo. Nolo sic esse Aristoteles ut secludar a Christo. Non enim aliud nomen est sub caelo in quo oporteat me saluum fieri. Adoro Christum in dextera Patris regnantem. Amplector eum ulnis fidei in carne uirginali de Paracleto38 sumpta gloriosa diuinitus operantem. Et ut trepida sollicitudo cunctaeque ambages a candore tui pectoris explodantur, hoc de me teneto, quod super illam petram fundaui conscientiam meam super quam Christus aedificauit Ecclesiam suam. 32. Cuius petrae titulum tibi breuiter assignabo: credo in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, unum naturaliter et uerum Deum; qui sic in personis approbat Trinitatem ut semper in substantia custodiat unitatem. Credo Filium per omnia Patri esse coaequalem, scilicet aeternitate, potestate, uoluntate et opere. 33. Nec audio Arium, qui peruerso ingenio actus, immo daemonico seductus spiritu, gradus facit in Trinitate, Patrem maiorem,

37  38 

ABC; infestat fidem F Duchesne; palacio ACF

48

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 48

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

and he ought therefore to find refuge with Peter’s see. 29. Allow, I ask, Peter to be a Christian as well as you. And if you wish, he will be a Catholic as well as you – and if you do not wish, he will be Catholic all the same. For God is in common, not private. But if ‘you are so minded’,440 let us take a look together to see in what manner Peter is attacking Peter’s faith. For he writes to Heloise, maidservant of God, who is extremely well versed in holy writ, a pretty intimate letter that, among other things, contains the following:441 30.442 ‘My sister Heloise, once dear to me in this world, now dearest in Christ,443 logic has rendered me hateful to the universe. For the perverse, perverting, whose wisdom lies in perdition, assert that I am outstanding in logic but not a little deficient in Paul. They praise my acuteness of intellect, but deny me purity of Christian faith, because, as I think, they arrive at their judgements guided by opinion rather than ruled by experience. 31. I do not, I do not want to be a philosopher in such a way as to kick against Paul. I do not want to be Aristotle in such a way as to be cut off from Christ. “For there is no other name under heaven whereby I must be saved.”444 I worship Christ, who rules on the right hand of the Father. I embrace Him with the arms of faith as He works glorious things according to the will of God in the virginal flesh He derived from the Holy Ghost. And so that anxious solicitude and all doubts may be driven out from the candour of your heart, hold fast to this concerning me, that I have founded my conscience “on the rock on which Christ built His Church”.445 32. The title on that rock I will in brief mark out for you: I believe in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, by nature the one and true God; who comprises the Trinity in persons in such a way that it always keeps its unity in substance. I believe that the Son is in all things co-equal with the Father, namely in eternity, power, will and work.446 33. And I pay no heed to Arius, who out of perversity of mind, or rather seduced by a devilish spirit, makes steps in the Trinity, laying down as a dogma that the Father is Virgil, Aen. 7. 611, Statius, Theb. 3. 491. ‘redolet continentiam’ is hardly translatable literally. 442  30–6 ed. and trans. by C. Burnett, ‘“Confessio fidei ad Heloisam” – Abelard’s last letter to Heloise?’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 21 (1986), 147–55, trans. in The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, ed. B. Radice and M. Clanchy (London &c., 2003), pp. 211–12. 443  The greeting is authentically Abelardian. See C. Waddell, Hymn Collections from the Paraclete (Gethsemane, KY, 1987–89), 2. praef. 5: ‘soror mihi Heloisa in saeculo quondam cara, nunc in Christo carissima’, and Peter Abelard, Epist. 3. 2, in Luscombe, Letters, 142: ‘soror in seculo quondam chara, nunc in Christo charissima’. 444  Act. 4: 12. 445  Cf. Matt. 16: 18. 446  Cf. Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 1. 26 (CCCM 14, p. 329): ‘Quarum quidem trium personarum sicut eadem prorsus est substantia, ita indifferens est gloria indiuisa operatio ac uoluntas.’ 440  441 

48

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 48

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

Filium dogmatizans minorem, oblitus legalis praecepti: ‘Non ascendes’ inquit lex ‘per gradus ad altare meum.’ Ad altare quippe Dei39 per gradus ascendit, qui prius et posterius in Trinitate ponit. Spiritum etiam Sanctum Patri et Filio consubstantialem et coaequalem per omnia testor, utpote quem40 Bonitatis nomine41 designari uolumina mea saepe declarant. 34. Damno Sabellium, qui eandem personam asserens Patris et Filii, Patrem passum autumauit; unde et Patripassiani dicti sunt. Credo etiam Filium Dei factum esse Filium hominis, unamque personam ex duabus et in duabus naturis42 consistere. Qui post completam susceptae humanitatis dispensationem passus est et mortuus et resurrexit et ascendit in caelum uenturusque est43 iudicare uiuos et mortuos. 35. Assero etiam in baptismo uniuersa remitti delicta, gratiaque nos egere qua et incipiamus bonum et perficiamus, lapsosque per poenitentiam reformari. De carnis autem resurrectione quid opus est dicere, cum frustra glorier me Christianum si non credidero resurrecturum? 36. Haec itaque est fides in qua sedeo, ex qua spei contraho firmitatem. In hac locatus salubriter latratus Scyllae non timeo, uertiginem Charybdis rideo, mortiferos Sirenarum modulos non horresco. Si irruat turbo, non quatior; si uenti perflent, non moueor. Fundatus enim sum supra firmam petram.’ 37. Haec de epistula Petri ad uerbum excerpenda putaui, ut liquidum fieret quomodo Petrus impugnaret fidem Petri. Nunc, rigide censor, adesto et fidem Petri sincero perpende iudicio. Dixisti: ‘Non debet refugium inuenire apud sedem Petri, qui fidem impugnat Petri.’ Hoc per se dictum quoddam esset eminens et generale uerum. Sed quia personaliter dixisti de Petro, conuinco te sentire contraria uero. 38. Non enim Petrus arguit fidem, ad cuius lineam uitam suam disponit; nec alienus est a Christi portione cuius se tam humiliter insigniuit nomine. Deberet ergo refugium apud sedem Petri inuenire, si

39  40  41  42  43 

AC; om. F Duchesne; quoniam ACF C2F; nomen A duabus naturis F: naturis duabus AC uenturusque est AC; uenturus F

49

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 49

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

greater, the Son lesser, forgetting the precept of the law, which says: “Thou shalt not go up by steps to my altar”.447 For he goes up by steps to the altar of God who lays down former and latter in the Trinity. I also bear witness that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial and co-equal with Father and Son in all respects,448 for my writings often declare that He goes under the name of Goodness.449 34. I condemn Sabellius,450 who, asserting that Father and Son are the same person, thought that the Father suffered (that is why they were called Patripassians).451 I also believe that the Son of God became the Son of man, and that one person is made up of two and in two natures.452 After completing the allotment of humanity that He had taken on He suffered and died and rose again and ascended to heaven, and will return to judge the living and the dead. 35. I also affirm that in baptism all sins are remitted, and that we require grace to begin and complete good action, and that, when we have slipped, we are reformed by means of penitence. What need to speak of the resurrection of the flesh, for I boast of being a Christian in vain if I do not believe I will rise again? 36. This is the faith in which I sit, from which I draw my firmness of hope. Placed in it safely I do not fear the barking of Scylla, I laugh at the whirlpool of Charybdis, I do not shudder at the death-dealing songs of the Sirens.453 If a whirlwind rushes upon me, I am not shaken; if the winds blow, I am not moved. For I am founded upon a firm rock.’ 37. These words I have thought fit to excerpt verbatim from Peter’s letter, to make it quite clear in what way Peter impugned the faith of Peter. Now present yourself, austere censor, and subject Peter’s faith to a frank scrutiny. You said: ‘Anyone who impugns Peter’s faith ought not find refuge with Peter’s see.’454 This would, in itself, be a fine and true generality. But as you said it specifically about Peter, I convict you of a false belief. 38. Peter does not controvert the faith: he makes his whole life conform to its rule; nor is he separate from the portion of Christ, with whose name he so humbly marked himself. He ought therefore to have found refuge with Peter’s see, if the allurements of your eloquence Exod. 20: 26. Cf. Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 1. 19 (CCCM 14, p. 326: ‘Huic itaque tam simplici seu indiuiduae ac merae substantiae, tres inesse personas, sibi per omnia coaequales ac coaeternas … ueraciter confitetur.’ 449  E.g. Theologia ‘Christiana’ 1. 7, Theologia ‘scholarium’ 1. 32 (CCCM 12, p. 74; 14, p. 331). 450  Third-century priest and theologian who probably lived in Rome. Sabellianism held that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead. 451  The followers of Sabellius, who believed that God the Father suffered on the cross. 452  Peter Abelard, Expositio symboli apostolorum (PL 178. 625D): ‘Ita et unum eundemque Christum et Deum dicimus et hominem, hoc est unam ex istis uel in istis naturis consistere personam.’ 453  Scylla … Charybdis … Sirens: Obstacles met on Ulysses’s voyage home. 454  See Letter 189. 5. 447  448 

49

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 49

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

non illecebrae tui eloquii clausissent uiscera misericordiae Romanae Ecclesiae. Sed, dum tu Petro clementiae ostium obstruis, conceptae uesaniae signanter impetum prodis. 39. Hic fortasse inquies: ‘Nimia †super†44 me lacessis iniuria. Zelus domus Dei comedit me, eo quod lepra insanae doctrinae macularet corpus Ecclesiae. Cui obuiandum in ipso statim nequitiae semine putaui, ne late serperet uis ueneni. Nonne caute consulteque egi, quod foedum illud sacrilegumque dogma manuali quodam indiculo complosi, ne scilicet breuiter uolentibus attingere summam rei onerosum esset ire per spatiosos saltus uoluminum Abaelardi?’ 40. Ad haec ego: ‘Laudo te, pater, sed in hoc non laudo. Indiculum uidimus in quo non Petri dogmata sed nefandi commenti capitula legimus: quod scilicet Pater 45 omnipotentia, Filius quaedam potentia, Spiritus Sanctus nulla potentia; quod Spiritus Sanctus, licet sit eiusdem substantiae cum Filio, non tamen est de eadem substantia; quod homo sine noua gratia possit operari; quod Deus non possit plus facere quam facit, nec melius facere quam facit, nec aliter facere quam facit; quod anima Christi non descendit ad inferos. 41. Haec et alia indiculus tuus continet, quorum quaedam, fateor, Petrus et dixit et scripsit,46 quaedam uero neque protulit neque scripsit. Quae autem dixerit et quae non dixerit et quam catholica mente ea quae dixerit senserit, secundus arrepti operis tractatus Christiana disputatione ardenter et impigre declarabit. Nam talia sunt quae dilui debent atque refelli ut non immerito proprio reseruentur uolumini.’ 42. Nunc illud est acriter persequendum, cur uir sanctus et in ore famae nominatissimus, qui quaedam perenni sepelienda silentio scriptis propriis tradidit, Petro Abaelardo haereseos crimen impegerit. Rata namque est fama et ab antiquo quasi naturae legibus prouulgata47 neminem de simili crimine quempiam posse conuincere. Quod dum fecisti, et imprudenter et impudenter egisti. 43. Petrus errauerat: esto. Tu quare errasti? Aut sciens aut nesciens errasti. Si sciens errasti, hostis Ecclesiae comprobaris; si nesciens errasti, quomodo es defensor Ecclesiae, qui errorem nescis discernere? Errasti uere, dum originem

44  45  46  47 

super seems to make no sense Duchesne; om. ACF AC; scripsit et dixit F(?) AC; promulgata F

50

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 50

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

had not closed ‘the bowels of mercy’455 in the Roman Church. But in barring the door of clemency to Peter, you make absolutely clear the onrush of the madness you have conceived. 39. Here you will perhaps say: ‘You are doing me too great an injury. “The zeal of the house of God has eaten me up”,456 because a leper promoting a crazy doctrine was staining the body of the Church. I thought that it should be met, right from the seed of wickedness, to make sure the poison did not spread further. Did I not act with precaution and due consideration in exploding that foul and sacrilegious dogma with a kind of handbook, to spare those who wanted to get a short summary of the case the burden of traversing the wide fields of Abelard’s volumes?’ 40. I reply to that: ‘I praise you, father, but not for this. What we saw was a little index in which we read not Peter’s doctrines but the headings of a wicked invention: namely, that the Father is omnipotence, the Son some power, the Holy Spirit no power at all; that the Holy Spirit, though of the same substance as the Son, is not from the same substance; that a man can act without new grace; that God cannot do more than He does, or do better than He does, or otherwise than He does; that the soul of Christ did not descend into hell.457 41. These and other things are contained in your little index, and some of them, I admit, Peter both said and wrote; but others he neither uttered nor wrote. What he did say and what he did not say, and with how catholic a mind he meant what he said, the second part of the work I have undertaken will declare ardently and energetically, with truly Christian argumentation. For the things that need to be disproved and refuted are such that they are properly to be reserved for a volume of their own.’ 42. Now the question must be actively pursued, why a holy man, very well known to fame, who has himself published things that deserve burial in perpetual silence, should have brought a charge of heresy against Peter Abelard. It is well established and laid down from of old as though by the laws of nature, that ‘no one can convict someone of a crime similar to one he has himself committed’.458 You have done that, and in so doing have acted both unwisely and shamelessly. 43. Peter had erred: be it so. Why did you err? You erred either knowingly or unknowingly. If you erred knowingly, you are proved to be an enemy of the Church; if you erred unknowingly, how come you are a defender of the Church when you cannot identify error? You erred, truly, when you claimed459 that souls have their Biblical, for example Col. 3: 12. Cf. Ps. 68: 10 and Ioh. 2: 17 (‘domus tuae’). 457  For this indiculus (or capitula) or index see above, Letter 190. 27; and Luscombe, School, pp. 107–42; on Berengar’s quotations from it, see Luscombe, School, pp. 37–8 and nn. 4–5, and Mews, ‘The Lists’, 77–108. 458  See Boethius, Phil. consol. 1 prose 4. 36 (CCSL 94, p. 10 line 114) ‘o meritos de simili crimine neminem posse convinci!’ 459  See cc. 69–74 below. 455  456 

50

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 50

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

animarum de caelo asseruisti esse. 44. Quod qualiter et in quo libro astruas, quoniam utile et facile est cognitu, sagaci lectori ab altiori cardine retexam. Est liber, quem Hebraeus Sirasirim, Latinus nominat Canticum Canticorum, cuius littera uigilantibus animis diuinae cuiusdam intelligentiae sudat arcanum. Ad hunc librum Bernardus manum expositionis applicat, ut ab hirsutis litterae operculis egregii sensus frugem eliciat. 45. Vtitur sane mediocri et temperato genere dicendi. Sed libet paululum percunctari cur Bernardus post tot illustrium uirorum sudores, qui in praefato opere sua ingenia contriuerunt, tam immensae maiestatis uolumen tentauit in lucem proferre. Nam si maiores nostri plenarie sufficienterque libri huius latebras produxerunt in solem, miror qua fronte ausus tuos extenderis in opus elimatum ad unguem. 46. Quod si aliqua sunt tibi reuelata sacramenta, quae eorum notitiam fugerint, non inuideo; immo labori uehementer applaudo. Sed cum eorum expositiones commentumque tuum studiosis reuoluo manibus, nihil te noui dixisse comperio; immo sensum alienum uerbis tuis uestitum deprehendo. Superuacua igitur explanatio tua esse uidetur. 47. Ac ne quis me putet improbabilia prolocutum, proferam super hunc librum quadrigam expositorum, Origenem scilicet Graecum, Ambrosium Mediolanensem, Reticium48 Augustudunensem, Baedam Angligenam. Quorum primus cum in ceteris libris ,49 ut ait Hieronymus, uicerit, in Canticis Canticorum se ipsum uicit. Secundus uero probabili et erudito sermone Sponsi sponsaeque firmauit amores. Tertius perplexitatem uoluminis sublimi ore disseruit. Quartus autem eiusdem libri opaca septem libris absoluit. 48. Post tales itaque et tam industrios uiros Bernardus arat, quasi aliquid intentatum nostri maiores reliquerint.50 Possemus sane lucubrationibus diserti hominis acquiescere, nisi potius tragoediam uideretur quam commentarios texere. Patefacta namque quadam parte operis, repente mortem sui fratris inducit, in cuius funeris

Both here and at 51 the manuscripts (and even Duchesne) make the name Retius, which is perhaps what Berengar thought it was 49  C2; om. ACEF 50  EF; relinquerunt AC 48 

51

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 51

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

origin in heaven. 44. How and in what book you make that out, I will reveal to the sagacious reader (for it is a useful and accessible piece of information) in detail. There is a book called in Hebrew Sirasirim, in Latin Canticum Canticorum, whose literal sense exudes to wakeful eyes the secret of a divine meaning. To this book Bernard applies his explanatory hand, in order to elicit the fruit of excellent sense ‘from the hairy coverings’460 of the literal meaning. 45. True, his style is middling and moderate. But I’d like, for a short while, to raise the question why Bernard, after the labours of so many famous men who have worn out their talents on this work, tried to bring to birth so portentous a volume. If our forbears fully and sufficiently illuminated the dark corners of this book, I am surprised you had the face to extend your own audacious efforts to a work that has been brought to complete perfection. 46. If you have revealed secrets that escaped their know­ledge, I feel no jealousy; indeed, I warmly applaud your hard work. But when I studiously turn over their explanations and your commentary, I find that you have said nothing new; indeed, I catch out others’ ideas dressed up in your words. Your exposition, therefore, seems superfluous. 47. And, in order that I am not thought to have uttered implausibilities, I shall produce a quartet of expositors of this book: the Greek Origen,461 Ambrose of Milan,462 Reticius of Autun,463 Bede the Englishman.464 The first on this list, as Jerome puts it, ‘having surpassed other writers in commenting on other books, here surpassed even himself’.465 The second, in a praiseworthy and learned sermon, established the love between Bridegroom and Bride.466 The third ‘brought high style’467 to the difficulties of the volume. The fourth dealt with the dark places of the same work in seven books. 48. It is after such men, and men of such industry, that Bernard goes a-ploughing, as though our ancestors had left some point untouched. We could, all the same, be happy with the lucubrations of an eloquent man if he didn’t seem to be composing a tragedy rather than a commentary. For after laying bare some portion of the book, he suddenly introduces the death of his own brother,

460  Cf. Jerome, In Ecclesiasten 12. 9–10 (CCSL 72, p. 298) ‘in hirsutis castanearum operculis absconditus fructus inquiritur’ (‘In the hairy coverings of chestnuts the hidden fruit is looked for’). 461  Jerome, Translatio homiliarum Origenis in Cant. Cant., ed. W. A. Baehrens (Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 33: Berlin-Leipzig, 1925), pp. 26–60. 462  Ambrose wrote no such work that survives. The reference is perhaps to one of his treatises on virginity. 463  CPL 78; Stegmüller, Repertorium 7255. The commentary, which no longer survives, was known to Jerome; this, if genuine, is the only known extract from it. It is striking that Berengar calls him Retius twice. 464  Bede, In Cant. Cant. allegorica expositio, CPL 1353; ed. CCSL 119B; Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1610. 465  Jerome, Translatio homiliarum Origenis in Cant. Cant., prol. (PL 23. 1117), and Epist. 84. 7. 4. 466  Meaning that he showed that this is the correct way to interpret the Song of Songs. 467  Jerome, Epist. 5. 2.

51

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 51

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

prosecutione duos paene quaternos consumit. Quod quam ibi discrepans et inconcinnum fuerit, paucis expediam. 49. Liber ille Salomonis in Sancti Spiritus officina conflatus Christi et Ecclesiae sub Sponsi sponsaeque typo maritat amplexus. Porro nuptiis gaudia consonant. At Bernardus, aut rerum obscurarum taedio uictus aut neglegens Apostoli dictum suadentis gaudere cum gaudentibus, mortuum suum ducit ad nuptias, cum scriptum sit: Non est Deus mortuorum sed uiuentium. 50. Discumbente itaque Sponso in sponsae gremio et iuuenculis Sponsi sponsaeque iuuenculabus alterna iucunditate plaudentibus, tuba funebris subito clangit, epulae in luctum eunt, organa uertuntur in funus, tragoedia risum proterit nuptiarum. Non discretus, non elegans citharista fuisti, qui funebres modulos regio conuiuio praesentasti. Quis umquam somniauit tale portentum? Solemus ridere picturas incipientes ab homine et in asinum desinentes. 51. Reuolue, quaeso, prisci super hunc librum monumenta ingenii, et nullum reperies qui in huiusmodi materia tristia laetis confoederet. Vnde Reticii Augustudunensis aurea sic depromit camena: ‘Mos est’ inquit ‘generosae materiae obseruandus ut Sponsi sponsaeque tripudia festiua tuba persultet.51 Neque enim in funera fas distrahi animum quem52 ad exponendum Cantica nuptiarum inuitat alacritas conuiuarum. 52. Sed quoniam tantae facultatis ratio in nobis uel nulla est uel admodum orba, eius innitar gratiae qui per Euangelium suum sonat: “Sine me nihil potestis facere.” Neque certe mihi deficiet transitorium uerbum, cum credam in Verbum quod est in principio apud Deum.’ O uox Catholico digna doctore! O fidelis confessor gratiae! Recte perpendiculum sui iudicii uir sapiens lineauit, qui maerorem a gaudio53 tanto interstitio sequestrauit. 53. Tu uero, terminos transgrediens quos posuerunt patres tui, cantica in elegos, carmina in threnos sorte miserabili conuertisti. Quod si tibi deessent ecclesiasticae scita censurae, recolere poteras etiam gentilis instituta prudentiae. Nam, cum Zeuxis pictor eximius simulacrum Helenae pinxit, non ei bracchia simiae nec chimaerae uentrem nec caudam piscis aptauit, sed humanorum

51  52  53 

C(or C2); persultent AE; F is illegible Winterbottom: quoniam ACE (and F as it seems) AC; gaudio tam EF

52

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 52

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

and takes up almost two quires in treating his funeral.468 I shall explain briefly how obtrusive and unfitting this passage is at that point. 49. That book of Solomon,469 fired in the workshop of the Holy Spirit, weds the embraces of Christ and the Church under the figure of Bridegroom and bride. Now it is joy that chimes in with marriages. Yet Bernard, either tired out by the obscurity of the matter, or disregarding the advice of the Apostle to ‘rejoice with them that rejoice’,470 brings his own dead body along to the wedding, though it is written: ‘He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.’471 50. And so, while the Bridegroom lies in the lap of the bride, and the happy young men and women supporting the Groom and bride applaud alternately, the funeral trumpet suddenly blares out, the feast moves over to grief, the organ music turns into the passing-bell, tragedy drives away the marriage laughter. You were no tactful or discriminating lyre-player, who introduced funeral tunes at a king’s party. Who ever dreamed of such a monstrosity? We’re used to deriding pictures that start off with a man and end in an ass. 51. Pray turn the pages of the volumes produced by the geniuses of the past on this book: you will find none that unites sad and joyful on this kind of topic. Hence the utterance of Reticius of Autun’s golden muse: ‘One should pay attention to the demands of the noble subject matter by “making the festive trumpet sound”472 for the solemn dances of Bridegroom and bride. The mind is not to be distracted into thought of funerals, the mind which the happiness of partygoers invites to expounding the Songs of marriage. 52. But as I lack that degree of ability, or am very short of it, I shall place my reliance on the grace of Him who says in His own gospel: “Without me you can do nothing.”473 But I shall certainly “not lack a transitory word”,474 for I believe in “the Word that is in the beginning with God”.’475 O words worthy of a catholic teacher! O trustworthy confessor of grace! Rightly did the wise man apply the plumb line of his judgement, when he set such a wide gap between grief and joy. 53. But ‘you passed the bounds which your fathers have set’476 when you so unhappily converted songs to elegies and poems to laments. If you failed to recall the decrees of ecclesiastical censure, you could have at least recalled the teachings of gentile wisdom as well. When the distinguished artist Zeuxis painted a picture of Helen, he did not fit her up with the arms of an ape or the belly of a chimera or the tail of a fish, but made her 468  469  470  471  472  473  474  475  476 

Bernard, Sermones in Cant. Cant. 26. 2–13. Namely, the Song of Songs. Rom. 12: 15. Marc. 12: 27. Cf. Gildas, De excid. Britanniae 50. 2. Ioh. 15: 5. Cf. Augustine, Serm. ad pop. 120 (PL 38. 677). Ioh. 1: 1. Prov. 22: 28.

52

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 52

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

membrorum expolitione perfectum publicis uisibus54 propalauit; alioquin indecens et ridiculosa esset pictura. 54. Vnde Horatius in Arte poetica sic effert: Humano capiti ceruicem pictor equinam iungere si uelit, et uarias inducere plumas undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne, spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici? 55. Concedit Ars ut quoduis55 incipias, sed non ut quemlibet finem inceptis tuis supponas. Vnde idem poeta paulo post scribit:56 Pictoribus atque poetis quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas: sed non ut placidis coeant immitia, non ut serpentes auibus geminentur,57 tigribus agni. 56. ‘Velut aegri somnia’ operis tui, uanae species finguntur ut nec pes nec caput uni reddatur formae … Purpureus, late qui splendeat, unus et alter adsuitur pannus … 57. At ne quis fautorum tuorum obloquatur, scimus inurbanum lepido seponere dicto legitimumque sonum digitis callemus et aure. Quid plura? Tota Ars Poetica iurata contra te bella suscepit. 58. Deberes reuera ingenii tui puerperium, iuxta eiusdem poetae institutionem, nonum premere in annum, ut male tornatum opus rursus liceret incudi reddere, et curare ne te lunae labor offenderet. Deberes utique festinantiam emissionis differre, cum scriptum sit: nescit uox missa reuerti. 59. Laudamus in te, pater, uenam ingenii, sed artis culpamus inscitiam. Inde est quod ueteres definierunt ingenium esse mutilum nisi opem artis sibi asciscat. Laudantur sales Lucilii, et tamen mordetur quod incomposito currat pede.

54  55  56  57 

C; usibus AEF C2; quod uel ACF; quod uelis E CE; scripsit A; def. F E, Horace; the reading of the other MSS is uncertain

53

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 53

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

human limbs as beautiful as possible before he exposed the complete picture to the public gaze; otherwise it would have been shameful and laughable.477 54. Hence Horace in the Ars Poetica: If a painter chose to join a horse’s neck to a human head, and cover with assorted feathers limbs collected from all directions, so that a pretty woman higher up ends in an ugly fish, would the friends asked to the private view restrain their laughter?478 55. The Ars allows you to make any beginning you like, but not to attach any ending you like to what you have begun. So just afterwards the same poet writes: Painters and poets have always had equal rights to venture on anything they wish. Yes, but not so that fierce and gentle can be wedded, nor so that snakes can be paired with birds, lambs with tigers.479 56. In your work, like the dreams of a sick man meaningless shapes are imagined, so that neither foot nor head can be given their due place in one figure. A purple patch or two is sewn on, to look impressive from a distance.480 57. Still, to avoid criticism from your fans, we know how to distinguish a rustic expression from a witty one, and we can keep time skilfully with fingers and ear.481 What more can I say? The whole Ars Poetica has taken on sworn war against you. 58. By rights ‘you should’, as the same poet lays down, ‘have suppressed’482 what your genius had spawned ‘until the ninth year’, so that ‘a badly turned work could be sent back to the anvil’,483 and should have made sure the eclipse of the moon484 did not obstruct you. You should at least have delayed your hurried publication, for, as it is written: A word once sent cannot return.485 59. We laud in you, father, your abundant natural talent, but we find your lack of artistic skill blameworthy. That is why the ancients laid down that natural talent is incomplete unless it summons art to its aid. The wit of Lucilius is praised, yet he is carped at because his verse runs harshly.486

477  478  479  480  481  482  483  484  485  486 

See Valerius Maximus 9. 3. 7 ext. 3. Horace, Ars poet. 1–5. Horace, Ars poet. 9–10 and 12–13. A miscellany drawing on Horace, Ars poet. 7–9 and 15–16. Horace, Ars poet. 273–4. Horace, Ars poet. 388. Horace, Ars poet. 441. Meaning obscure. There is nothing like this in the Ars poetica. Horace, Ars poet. 390. See Horace, Serm. 1. 10. 1–4; see Jerome, Epist. 84. 2. 3.

53

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 53

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

Incomptos58 uersus componit et arte carentes Ennius ingenio diues et arte rudis. Ex quibus est ille: Omnes mortales sese laudari exoptant. 60. Sed quoniam lippis et59 tonsoribus claret quod non recte lamenta epithalamio coniugasti, libet aliqua de ipso boatu tragico speculari. Inter cetera, ni fallor, oratoris nostri lugubris musa sic calculat: ‘Decessit frater a uita, immo ut rectius fatear, mortem reliquit pro uita. Frater, inquam, decessit, tenor continentiae, morum speculum, uinculum religionis. Quis ulterius uegetabit me ad laborem? Quis amplius leniet maerentem?’ 61. Et post aliqua: ‘Bos bouem requirit, seque solum putat; frequenti mugitu pium testatur affectum. Bos, inquam, bouem requirit, cum quo ducere collo aratra consueuit.’ Pulchrum quidem est et tinnulum quod Bernardus loquitur, sed de alieno60 sudore pretium nomenque uenatur. Ambrosius enim haec uerba syllabatim in querimonia illa posuit, quam de excessu Satyri amici sui mulcebri dealbatoque stilo procudit. 62. Itaque Bernardus in hoc planctu adeo est uehemens, adeo pertinax, adeo nimius ut legenti cuilibet constans sit eum non ueros fletus edere sed uerba quibus ueri questus exprimantur effundere. Aiunt tamen quidam insulsi, seductorio eius linguae moderamine seducti, qui corpus uerborum diligunt, animam autem rationis spernunt, eum tam sublimi facundia61 in lamentis illis uti ut nulla modernae eloquentiae facultas ei ualeat exaequari. 63. O falsi iudices eloquentiae, quos proiicit uocis uentus ut puluerem a facie62 terrae! Quaenam ibi sententiarum uis? Quae pocula rationum? Totus in uerbis fluctuat, et more ridiculi syllogismi rotatur in circulo. Vnde poeta Citharoedus, inquit, ridetur, chorda qui semper oberrat eadem.

58  59  60  61  62 

Winterbottom; impostos ACEF F, Horace; etiam et CE; etiam A Winterbottom; alio ACEF sublimi facundia EF; facundia sublimi AC a facie AC; ante fa(ciem) EF

54

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 54

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

Verses uncouth and lacking art are composed ‘by Ennius, rich in talent but unformed in art’.487 Among them: All mortals wish to be praised.488 60. But since it is perfectly clear ‘to the purblind and the barbers’489 that you were wrong to wed lament to epithalamium, it is my pleasure to speculate about your high ‘tragic language’490 itself. Among other things, if I am not mistaken, the muse of our long-faced orator reckons as follows: ‘My brother has passed away from life, or rather, to phrase it better, he has left death for life. My brother has, I say, passed away, the model of continence, the mirror of behaviour, the bond of religion. Who now will give me strength to work? Who any longer will soothe me when I am grieving?’ 61. And after a while: ‘An ox looks round for an ox, and feels himself to be alone; with constant lowing he attests to his affectionate feelings. The ox, I say, looks round for the ox with whom he was used to haul the plough with his neck.’491 Pretty and jingling is what Bernard says, but he tries to win prize and fame from another’s sweat. For Ambrose put these words, the same to the last syllable, in the complaint he hammered out on the departure of his friend492 Satyrus, using a soothing and whited style. 62. Accordingly, Bernard in this lament is so forceful, so persevering, so exaggerated that every reader can see that he is not uttering real wails but just pouring out words to give the impression of real lamentation. Some dimwits, however, seduced by his seductive mastery of language, people who love the body of words but think little of the soul of reason, say that in those laments he deploys such sublime eloquence that no modern could ever come up to him in this field. 63. O false judges of eloquence, whom the ‘wind’ of the voice ‘driveth like dust from the face of the earth’!493 What force of expression is there here? What draughts of reasoning? He’s no more than a torrent of words, and like ‘a silly syllogism’494 he goes round in circles. Hence the poet says: A lyre-player is laughed at when he keeps going wrong on the same note.495

Ovid, Trist. 2. 424; what precedes seems to be Berengar’s own work (this line only). Walther, Proverbia, 19908. Cited by Augustine, Epist. 231. 3 from Ennius, Annales, frag. 574, ed. O. Skutsch (Oxford, 1985). 489  Horace, Serm. 1. 7. 3. 490  Sedulius, Carm. pasch. 1. 18 (CSEL 10, pp. 60–1). 491  None of this is found in the text of Bernard as we have it. Only the last two sentences have any parallel in Ambrose, De excessu fratris 1. 8 (CSEL 73, p. 213). 492  Actually, his brother. 493  Ps. 1: 4. 494  See Peter Abelard, Glossae super Peri Hermeneias 14. 26 (CCCM 206, p. 484). 495  Horace, Ars poet. 355–6; Walther, Proverbia, 26879a. 487 

488 

54

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 54

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

64. Canoras tamen nugas legionemque sermonum, rerum parcus, uerborum fecundus, eructat. Laeta uerborum gramina sata ibi strangulant63 sententiarum. Aut fortasse idem dicendo multipliciter Vlixem simulare uolebat. De quo scriptum est: Ille referre aliter saepe solebat idem. 65. Sed non talibus instrumentis mortuus suscitatur, nec eloquentiae praestigiis uita mortuo comparatur. Vnde cuiusdam distichum egregie sonat: Cur dantur frustra pro psalmis carmina pulchra? Plus prodesset ei ter ‘miserere mei’. Quod si dolorem suum delenimentis facundiae remedioque carminis euaporare uolebat, cur non saltem super hoc proprium separatim opusculum condebat? 66. Nec deerant a quibus talis materiae mutuari posset exemplar. Socrates mortem sui Alcibiadis philosophici uigoris ubertate testatur. Plato Alexim puerum, cui amatorias cantiunculas composuerat, insigni titulo ducit ad tumulum. Taceo Pythagoram, Democritum, Carneadem, Posidonium reliquosque, quorum excellentia Graecia superbit, qui teste Hieronymo diuersis saeculis, diuersis libris diuersorum lamenta minuere sunt conati. 67. Praetereo64 Anaxagorae laudatam semper sententiam, qui, cum ei nuntiaretur filium obisse, fletu represso ‘Sciebam’ inquit ‘me genuisse mortalem.’ Et, ut peregrina omittens ad nostra ueniam, Tullius eloquii Romani maximus auctor consolatorium de morte filii sui librum edidit, cui praeclara magnorum uirorum monumenta quasi stellas micantes impressit. Hieronymus dolori,65 quem de morte Nepotiani conceperat, plausibili medetur eloquio. 68. Ambrosius, de quo praefatus sum, duos libros de excessu dilecti sui Satyri suaui stilo edisserit. Ad horum normam planctum tuum texere debebas, non immemor illius uulgaris prouerbii:

63  64  65 

ibi strangulant EF; instrangulant AC Thomson; praeterea ACEF EF; dolore A; dolorem C

55

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 55

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

64. ‘Yet sparing of content, fecund in words’,496 he belches out ‘tuneful trifles’497 and a legion of sermons. ‘The luxuriant growth’ of words ‘smothers the crops’498 of meaning there. Or maybe by saying the same thing over and over again he wanted to imitate Ulysses, of whom it is written: He was accustomed to say often the same thing in different ways.499 65. But those are not the means to raise the dead, and life is not given to a dead man by tricks of eloquence. Hence an excellent couplet by someone: Why are pretty songs vainly substituted for psalms? More useful for him would be: ‘Pity me’, three times over.500 But if he wanted to assuage his grief by cajoling it with high prose and healing it with poetry, why did he not at least write a separate essay on this subject? 66. There was no lack of works to provide him with a model. Socrates marks the death of his dear Alcibiades with the richness of philosophical vigour.501 ‘Plato’ splendidly escorts to the grave ‘the boy Alexis, for whom he had composed amatory ditties’.502 I say nothing of Pythagoras, Democritus, Carneades, Posidonius503 and the rest, whose distinction makes Greece proud: Jerome is witness that ‘in various centuries they tried to diminish the sorrows of various people by writing various books’.504 67. I pass over the ever-lauded remark of Anaxagoras, who, when told his son had died, stifled his tears and said: ‘I knew I had begotten a mortal.’505 And, to leave out foreign instances and come to our own, ‘Tully, greatest exponent of Roman eloquence’,506 published a book of consolation on the occasion of his own son’s death,507 inserting brilliant memorials of great men like shining stars. Jerome ministers to the grief he felt at the passing of Nepotianus by a praiseworthy piece of fine writing.508 68. Ambrose, whom I mentioned earlier,509 wrote two books on the death of his beloved Satyrus, employing an attractive style. You should have woven your own lament on these models, mindful of the common saying: Reversing a phrase in Macrobius, In somn. Scipionis, 2. 5. 4. Horace, Ars poet. 322. 498  Jerome, Epist. 57. 6. 1 (originally from Quintilian, Inst. 8 proem. 23, via Evagrius of Antioch, Vita sancti Antonii, prol.). 499  Ovid, Ars am. 2. 128. 500  Berengar’s own work? 501  We do not know the source for this. 502  Augustine, De utilitate credendi 7. 17. 503  Carneades and Posidonius are mentioned in Jerome, Epist. 60. 5. 2. This letter is addressed to Heliodorus on the occasion of the death of his nephew, Nepotianus; see below, c. 67. Pythagoras and Democritus had been mentioned (in another context) in the same letter (Jerome, Epist. 60. 4. 2). 504  See Jerome, Epist. 60. 5. 2. 505  Jerome, Epist. 60. 5. 1. 506  Lucan 7. 62–3. 507  Jerome, Epist. 60. 5. 2; but it was Cicero’s daughter, Tullia, who had died. 508  Jerome, Epist. 60. 509  See c. 61. 496  497 

55

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 55

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

Vicini barbae propriam debes simulare. 69. Sed quoniam super hoc satis abundeque digessimus, tempestiuum est illud capitulum in eodem libro uisitare, in quo animarum originem de caelis fabularis esse. Vbi sic recolo te locutum: ‘merito dixit Apostolus: “Nostra conuersatio est in caelis”, unde patenter ostenditur quod origo animae est de caelis.’ Haec uerba tua subtiliter explorata Christianae mentis palato haeresim sapiunt. 70. Si enim idcirco animae originem de caelis astruis, quia quandoque beata futura est in caelis, eadem ratione corporis origo erit de66 caelis, quia quandoque beatum futurum est in caelis. Sed ad hoc intimandum talia uerba se non accommodant. Aut si ideo animae originem caelestem ascribis, quia olim orta (id est facta) sit in caelis, quod quidem uerborum talium resultat intentio, prauitatem Origenis incurris, qui in libris Periarchon, Pythagoreum Platonicumque dogma secutus, originariam in caelo sedem animabus disponit. 71. At quoniam de anima mentio se ingessit, non absurdum est commemorare quae altercationis uarietas occupauerit de animarum origine. Aiunt philosophi, quorum duces sunt Plato et Pythagoras, quibus et tu ex parte maxima acquiescis, animas similiter olim ab initio factas conditasque in thesauris Dei, indeque ob antiquae uitae contagium in corporum ergastula lapsas, rursusque, si corpus iuste gubernauerint, ad antiquae honestatis uultum meritorum uehiculo redituras. 72. Fuerunt et haeretici qui animam partem esse diuinae substantiae contenderunt, occasionem huius fabulae inde rapientes quod scriptum est in Genesi: ‘Et sufflauit Deus in faciem eius’, scilicet Adae, ‘spiraculum uitae.’ Contra quos breuiter intonat67 Augustinus: ‘Flatus’ inquit ‘ille Dei, qui hominem animauit, factus est ab ipso, non de ipso, quia nec hominis flatus hominis pars est, nec homo eum facit de se ipso, sed ex aerio halitu sumpto et effuso.’ 73. Item fuerunt quidam crassis ignorantiae tenebris obuoluti, qui uenire animas ex traduce delirabant; quos confutare quodammodo est eorum ineptias roborare. His tribus sententiis quasi rationi aduersis orthodoxae ueritatis gladio amputatis, asserunt sancti

66  67 

EF; in AC breuiter intonat EF; intonat breuiter AC

56

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 56

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

You should make your beard match your neighbour’s.510 69. But, since I have said quite enough about this, it is high time to pay a call on the chapter in the same book where you propagate the myth that souls originate from heaven. There, I recall, you said: ‘The apostle was right to say “Our conversation is in heaven”,511 which shows quite clearly that the origin of the soul lies in heaven.’512 To the palate of a Christian mind, these words of yours, closely examined, savour of heresy. 70. For if you argue that the soul originates from heaven because it will one day be blessed in heaven, by the same token the body will originate from heaven because one day it will be blessed in heaven. But such words do not lend themselves to this meaning. Or if you ascribe a heavenly origin to the soul because it once arose, that is, was made, in heaven, which is the purport of such words, you run into the wickedness of Origen, who in his Peri archon, following the teaching of Pythagoras and Plato, makes ‘heaven the original home of souls’.513 71. But since mention of the soul has come up, it is not foolish to record what a variety of disputed opinions has been held about514 the origin of souls. The ‘philosophers’ led by ‘Plato and Pythagoras’,515 with whom you also largely agree, say that souls were originally made in the same way long ago, and were then ‘stored in God’s treasure-houses’.516 Then, because of the infection caused by their life of old, they lapsed into the prison cells of bodies, and in turn, if they steer the body aright, will return, thanks to their good behaviour, to their old honest appearance. 72. There have also been heretics who have contended that the soul is part of the divine substance; they take their cue for this myth from the words in Genesis, ‘And God breathed into his face’ (that is Adam’s) ‘the breath of life.’517 Augustine thunders against their view in a brief passage: ‘The breath of God that animated man was made by Him, not from Him, for a man’s breath is not part of a man, and a man does not make it from himself, but from air breathed in and poured out.’518 73. Again, there have been those, wrapped in pitch-dark ignorance, whose drivelling view was that souls come into existence ‘by heredity’.519 To confute them is in a way only to give strength to their nonsense. These three views have been cut away by the sword of orthodox truth as being contrary to reason: the holy 510  511  512  513  514  515  516  517  518  519 

A common saying perhaps, but untraced by us. Philipp. 3: 20. See Bernard, Sermones in Cant. Cant. 27. 8, although these exact words are not found there. Jerome, Adv. Rufinum 3. 40 (CCSL 79, p. 110). The verb occupauerit seems to be used intransitively here. Jerome, Epist. 126. 1. 2 (CSEL 56, p. 143). Jerome, Epist. 126. 1. 2 (CSEL 56, p. 143). Gen. 2: 7. Augustine, Contra aduersarium legis 1. 14. 22 (CCSL 49, p. 51). Jerome, Epist. 126. 1. 2 (CSEL 56, p. 143).

56

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 56

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

patres nouiter creatis corporibus creatas nouiter animas quotidie infundi, iuxta illud Euangelii ‘Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor.’ 74. Tu itaque a doctrinae salutaris tramite deuius in philosophorum scopulos ruis, et dum dignitatem animae iactitas, originem ei sideream flore ieiuni68 eloquii nundinaris. Quod si in Petri opusculis huiusmodi69 uecordiam reperisses, non est dubium quin eam inter illa quae peperisti capitulorum monstra locasses. 75. Hinc ad alios tui ingenii fructus articulus est uertendus. Quaerit a te uir collo inflatus Romano quid sit diligendum et quo modo. Cui sic rescribis: ‘Orationes a me, Aimerice,70 et non quaestiones flagitare solebas’; et post aliqua: ‘Quaeris quid sit diligendum. Cui breuiter respondeo: “Deus”’. Homo Romanus, grossus camelus, Gallicano argumento gibbosus, trans Alpes saltat ut quid sit diligendum inquirat, quasi iuxta se non habeat qui rei huius sibi notionem infundat. 76. Cui noster philosophus mandat non uirtutem esse diligendam, ut Chrysippus, nec uoluptatem, ut Aristippus, sed Deum, ut Christianus. Acutulum sane responsum, et docto homine dignum. Sed quaenam abiecta muliercula, quisnam hoc ignoret extremus idiota? Sic philosophantur in textrinis aniculae. Sic propositiones Dagani cum ioco mirari solemus. De cuius propositionibus aliquas exempli gratia interseram: ‘Filius’ inquit ‘sum matris meae. Placenta est panis. Caput meum grossius est71 pugno meo. Cum meridies est, dies est.’ Quis est cui audita tam ridicula ueritate labia risu non quatiantur? 77. Similiter et cum Bernardus dixit Deum esse diligendum, uerissimum quidem dixit et uenerabile uerum; sed ad hoc dicendum pro nihilo aperuit os suum. Nemo enim de hoc dubitat. Sperabat enim Romanus aliquid secreti audire, et archimandrita noster tale quid intonat quod quilibet rusticus ualeret respondere. Et tamen, dum Deum diligendum pronuntiat, latenter ferit Romanum, qui in curia papae non Deum didicerat amare sed aurum.

68  69  70  71 

EF(?); ieunii AC Winterbottom; huius ACEF EF; mea metrice A; mea meretrice C grossius est EF; est grossius AC

57

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 57

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

fathers assert that, when bodies are newly created, newly created souls are every day poured into them,520 according to the Gospel text: ‘My Father worketh until now; and I work.’521 74. And so you stray from the path of salutary doctrine and rush on to the rocks of the philosophers, and while you make boast of the dignity of the soul, you buy it an origin in the stars with the flower of a meagre style. If you had found madness of this kind among Peter’s works you would, without any doubt, have placed it among the monstrous Chapters which you spawned. 75. Next, my fingers must be turned to other fruits of your genius. A man with the swollen neck of the Romans asks you what is to be loved, and in what manner. You reply thus: ‘You were used, Aimericus, to ask prayers of me, not questions.’522 And further on: ‘You ask what is to be loved. I reply in a word: “God”.’523 The Roman, a fat camel, given a hunched back by a Gallic argument,524 leaps over the Alps to inquire what is to be loved, as if he had no one at hand to give him a clue on this point. 76. Our philosopher instructs him not (like Chrysippus) that virtue is to be loved, nor (like Aristippus) pleasure, but, like a Christian, God. An acute enough answer, and worthy of a great scholar. But ‘what humble chit, what hopeless idiot’,525 would not know this? This is the sort of philosophising practised ‘by old hags at their looms’.526 These are the propositions of Dagan527 we are used to greeting with amazement and derision. I will cite as an example some of his propositions: ‘I am son of my mother. A cake is bread. My head is thicker than my fist. When it is midday, it is daytime.’ Who is there whose lips don’t shake with laughter when he listens to truths so absurd? 77. In the same vein, when Bernard too said that God is to be loved, he spoke the very truth, and a truth to be respected; but it was not worth his while to open his mouth to utter it. For no one has any doubt on the point. The Roman of course hoped to be vouchsafed some secret – and our archimandrite thunders out an answer any yokel could have given. Yet, in pronouncing that God is to be loved, he does strike a covert blow at the Roman, who had learned in the papal curia to love gold, not God.528 That is, every time there is a birth. See Jerome, Epist. 126. 1. 2 (CSEL 56, p. 143). Ioh. 5: 17, cited by Jerome. 522  Bernard, De dilig. Deo, prol. (SBO 3, p. 119). 523  Not in Bernard. 524  French scholastic debate had a reputation elsewhere in Europe, even before the schools of Paris became magnets; see the scholars from elsewhere who flocked to hear Lanfranc at Bec: Gilbert Crispin, Vita Herluini, in Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster, ed. J. A. Robinson (Cambridge, 1911), p. 97; Eadmer, Vita sancti Anselmi, ed. and trans. R. W. Southern (London &c., 1962), p. 8. 525  Augustine, Epist. 137. 3. 526  See Hincmar, De diuortio Lothari (MGH Conc. 4, Suppl. 1, p. 130). 527  A series of instantiae, used in the elementary teaching of logic. Dagan is otherwise unknown. Yukio Iwakuma, ‘Instantiae: an introduction to a twelfth-century technique of argumentation’, Argumentation 1 (1987), 437–53. 528  The identification of Rome with greed was a common satirical topos of the time: see Benzinger, Invectiva in Romam, especially chapter VI. 520  521 

57

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 57

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

78. Sequitur postea de modo diligendi: ‘Modus’ inquit ‘est sine modo diligere.’ Aimericum (sic enim dictus est ad quem scribis) quasi lacteo suco pauisti, dum Deum diligendum aperte pronuntiasti. Nunc eum subito ad altiora subrigens, dicis quod modus diligendi Deum sit sine modo diligere. Qui quaesiuerat quid esset diligendum, de quo nec pauperculus Christianus quidem haesitaret, quomodo poterit hanc subtilitatem intelligere, quod modus diligendi Deum sit sine modo diligere? 79. In quo impossibile quiddam spondere uideris. Cum enim stabile fixumque sit Deum ea magnificentia esse praeditum ut nequaquam nostra in illum dilectio eius dignitati aequipollenter respondere sufficiat, quomodo sine modo diligemus quem cum modo diligere non ualemus? Quomodo, inquam, porrigetur dilectio ultra modum, cum semper remaneat citra modum? Aut si sic intellexisti ‘sine modo diligere’ id esse ita72 diligere quod non perueniatur ad congruum diligendi modum, ridiculam intelligentiam portendit somnium tuum. 80. Dum itaque rhetoricari uoluisti et obscuritatem dedisti et quiddam inopinum73 atque impossibile confecisti, dum Deum sine modo diligendum docuisti, Quanto rectius hic, qui nil molitur inepte – Iesus Christus scilicet, qui per Euangelium suum diligendi modum exprimens ‘Diliges’ inquit ‘Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota mente tua et ex omnibus uiribus tuis.’ 81. Hic nullus eloquentiae fucus, sed mera tantum ueritas simplici et absoluto est expressa eloquio. Hic Romanus aurem accommodet, hic superbiae strumam deponat camelus, quia Iesus hic nil impossibile pronuntiat. Iesus, inquam, sententiae lucem tenebris eloquii non inuoluit, ut Bernardus, qui rei uenerabilis maiestatem exquisito quodam obnubit uerborum adulterio. 82. Vir sapiens, inquit Horatius, non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem cogitat. Quod Bernardus male attendit, qui quod Iesus nudo patuloque dixerat ore, nube sermonis ab intelligentiae uia secludit. 83. Horum et his similium ludicrorum mensuram confertam et coagitatam in libellorum74 tuorum, Bernarde, sinum dedisti, quod deprehendere75 facile poterit quem oculatum eruditio reddidit. Quae si unguetenus persequi uellem, longitudo certe dictaminis lectorem etiam repelleret diligentem.

72  73  74  75 

id esse ita Winterbottom; id est ita EF; id est AC Thomson; inopium ACE; inopinatum F EF; bellorum AC EF; reprehendere AC

58

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 58

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

78. There then follows, on the manner of loving: ‘The manner (modus) is to love without measure (sine modo).’529 Aimeric (that’s the name of your correspondent) you fed, so to speak, with milky juice,530 in openly proclaiming that God is to be loved. Now, taking him up to a higher plane, you tell him that the manner of loving God is to love without measure. A man who had asked what was to be loved, a matter over which not even a poor Christian soul would hesitate – what will such a man make of this subtlety, that the manner of loving God is loving without measure? 79. You seem here to be pledging something impossible. Since it is a fixed point that God has such magnificence that our love for Him could nowise avail to match His dignity, how shall we love without measure Him whom we cannot love with measure? How, I ask, will our love be extended beyond measure when it always stands this side of measure? Or if you have taken ‘love without measure’ to mean to love what does not come within the purview of normal loving, your dreaming suggests an intelligence that is laughable. 80. So, in wishing to show off your rhetoric you spread obscurity, and at the same time contrived something unexpected and impossible, in teaching that God must be loved without measure. How much better he who does nothing foolishly –531 Jesus Christ in fact, who through His gospel expresses the manner of loving when He says: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength.’532 81. Here there is no oratorical gloss, but merely the plain truth expressed in simple and definite terms. Here let the Roman apply his ears, here let the camel lay down its hump of pride, for Jesus is not prescribing here anything impossible. Jesus, I say, is not shrouding the light of His meaning with any darkness of style, as Bernard does when he clouds over the majesty of something to be revered with a choice sort of verbal adulteration. 82. The wise man, says Horace, plans not to turn fire to smoke, but smoke to light.533 This is lost on Bernard, who uses a cloud of speech to bar from the way of intelligence what Jesus had said openly in plain terms. 83. It is a measure of these and like ‘absurdities, pressed down and shaken together’,534 that you, Bernard, gave into the bosom of your books: something that anyone whom education has given eyes to see will easily be able to catch out. If I wanted to follow all this up in every detail, the length of my composition would repel even a persevering reader. Bernard, De dilig. Deo 1. 1 (SBO 3, p. 119). Before going on to solid food (see Hebr. 5: 12). Reminiscent of Quintilian, Inst. 2. 4. 5; T. Reinhardt and M. Winterbottom, Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria Book 2 (Oxford, 2006), p. 84. 531  Horace, Ars poet. 140; in this passage, Horace refers to Homer. 532  Marc. 12: 30. 533  Horace, Ars poet. 143–4; Walther, Proverbia 17815. 534  Cf. Luc. 6: 38 (often in Bernard). 529  530 

58

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 58

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

84. Cum itaque tantas trabes loquaris, cur Abaelardi festucas in trabes commutare moliris? Non est negotium misericordis culpam augere, sed minuere. Vnde psalmista cum dicturus esset: ‘Misericordiam et iudicium cantabo tibi, Domine’, commode misericordiam praeposuit iudicio, quasi diceret: immense Deus, scio quia misericors es et iustus; sed in altero mea saluatio, in altero mea damnatio, ideoque misericordiae canticum libentius uolo. 85. Scriptum est in Isaia: ‘Et conuertent gladios suos in uomeres.’ Gladii enim in uomeres conuertendi sunt, non uomeres in gladios, quia et mali ad tranquillitatis bonum trahendi sunt lenitate correctionis et boni ad discordiam commouendi non sunt asperitate inuectionis. 86. His et aliis delinitus exemplis, Petrum, si errore sauciatus esset, iumento tuo deberes imponere et sic ad stabulum uniuersalis fidei reuocare. Plures Catholici quaedam culpanda dixerunt, nec tamen ob id haereticorum collegio sunt ascripti. Duo dixit Hilarius erroris expugnator, propugnator Ecclesiae, in quibus eum non audit sobrietas Ecclesiae. 87. Primum, quod Christum nihil in Passione doloris sensisse asseruit. Contra quam sententiam Claudianus presbyter Lugdunensis, uir Christianissimus et tam subtilis ad disputandum quam artifex ad loquendum, sic personat: ‘Si Christus in Passione nihil76 sensit doloris, non uere passus est; et si uere non passus est, nos non uere redempti sumus.’ 88. Alterum est quod nullum incorporeum dixit esse creatum. ‘Nec igitur’ inquit Claudianus ‘anima, cum sit incorporea, est creata. Quod si creata non est, nec creatura Dei est.’ Sed non ob hoc, ut ait idem Claudianus, scientia doctoris perdit meritum confessoris, quia Ecclesia bono filio indulsit quod humana opinio minus caute disputauit. Procul dubio si haec Petrus dixisset, eum esse lapidandum rigoris tui seueritas sanxisset. 89. Beatus etiam Hieronymus in libro contra Iouinianum De nuptiis quaedam dura disserit, et praecipue illo loco ubi sententiam Apostoli inducit, quae in hunc modum se habet: ‘Bonum est mulierem non tangere.’ Cui Hieronymus subiungit: ‘Si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum est ergo tangere. Nihil enim bono

76 

in passione nihil EF; nihil in passione AC

59

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 59

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

84. Since your own talk contains such beams, why do you try so hard to change Abelard’s motes into beams?535 The role of the merciful is not to increase guilt but to diminish it. Hence the psalmist, when he proposed to say: ‘Mercy and judgment I will sing to Thee, O Lord’,536 quite properly put mercy before judgment, as if to say: ‘God without measure’, I know that ‘you are merciful and just’;537 but in the one lies my salvation, in the other my condemnation. And so I wish to sing the song of mercy for preference. 85. In Isaiah it is written: ‘And they shall turn their swords into ploughshares.’538 Swords are to be turned into ploughshares, not ploughshares into swords, because the evil are to be brought to the blessings of tranquillity by lenient correction, while the good are not to be moved to discord by harsh invective. 86. Cajoled by these and other instances, you ought ‘to have set Peter on your own beast’, if he had been wounded by error, and so called him back ‘to the inn’539 of the universal faith. Many Catholics have said things that deserved blame, but have not thereby been elected to the college of heretics. Hilary,540 a warrior who fought against error and for the Church, said two things in which the sober judgement of the Church does not listen to him. 87. First, he claimed that Christ felt no pain at the Passion. Against this view, Claudianus, priest of Lyon, a supremely Christian man as subtle in dispute as he is skilled in speech, cries aloud: ‘If Christ felt no pain at the Passion, He did not truly suffer; and if He did not truly suffer, we are not truly redeemed.’541 88. Secondly, Hilary said that no one is created incorporeal. ‘Then’, says Claudianus, ‘the soul is not created either, for it is incorporeal. But if it is not created, it is not a creation of God.’ But, as Claudianus also says, the learned teacher does not on this account lose the reward of being called confessor, because the Church was indulgent to her good son: being only human he had been less than cautious in disputation.542 There is no doubt that if Peter had said these things your rigorous harshness would have decreed his stoning. 89. Saint Jerome, too, in his On marriage, against Jovinian, has some unpalatable things to say, and not least where he introduces the Apostle’s judgement, which goes like this: ‘It is good not to touch a woman.’543 Jerome glosses this: ‘If it is good not to touch a woman, it is therefore bad to touch her. For Cf. for example Matt. 7: 3–5. Ps. 100: 1. 537  Ps. 111: 4. 538  Is. 2: 4. 539  Luc. 10: 34; the Samaritan. Bede, In Lucae evang. expositio (CCSL 120, p. 224) makes the stabulum ‘the church of today’ (ecclesia praesens). 540  Bishop of Poitiers (d. 368), who fought against the Arian heresy and wrote biblical commentaries and dogmatic works. 541  Claudianus Mamertus, De statu animae 2. 9 (CSEL 11, p. 135). 542  Claudianus Mamertus, De statu animae, as above. 543  1 Cor. 7: 1: ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman.’ 535  536 

59

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 59

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

contrarium est praeter malum.’ 90. Argumentum hoc scit esse falsum quisquis disputandi disciplina se profitetur imbutum. Nam similiter bonum est carnem non comedere et uinum non bibere; nec ideo sequitur quod sit malum carnem comedere et uinum bibere. Quod quidam asserentes inter haereticos sunt recepti.77 Sed tamen paulisper concedatur ut malum sit, iuxta Hieronymum, mulierem tangere. Ex quo quanta sequatur absurditas, nexus ipse rationis ostendit. Nam si malum est mulierem tangere, malum est cum muliere coire. 91. Neque enim fieri potest78 ut bonus sit coitus si malus est tactus, et si malum est cum muliere coire, male79 agit quisquis cum muliere coit. Peccant ergo coniugati legitime utendo coitu coniugali. Nam etiam80 coeundo mulierem tangunt. Aut igitur, ut male non agant mariti, feriabuntur ab uxoribus, aut, si necesse erit coire, ita coeant81 ut mulierem non tangant. Sed hoc impossibile est fieri. Sequitur ergo coniugalis boni naufragium, quod ad remedium mortalis luxuriae superna industria praeparauit. Nam si coniugium coitum non excusat, eant mariti, certatim agant paenitentiam eo quod cum uxoribus suis aliquando coierunt. 92. Alias in eodem libro Hieronymus inhumanius de nuptiis disputat super illum82 Apostoli locum ‘melius est nubere quam uri’. ‘Tolle’ inquit Hieronymus ‘“uri” et non dicet “melius est nubere.” Ideo melius est nubere quoniam peius est uri.’ Sed si bonum est83 nubere, quare malo comparatur? Nemo enim ratione malum bono comparat. Vri certe malum est, et nubere huius mali respectu bonum est. Quod autem respectu mali bonum est, simpliciter bonum non est. 93. Ex his Hieronymi uerbis distincte colligimus nuptias non esse absolute bonas. Perit igitur nuptiale bonum. Nam nuptiale bonum secundum Hieronymum non est bonum, nisi quia uri est maius malum quam ipsum. Multos fideles uiros, inter quos et Pammachium senatorem, scandalizauit haec effera austeraque disputatio, doloremque suum scriptis super hoc epistulis eidem Hieronymo sunt testati. Quod si Petrus tam crudeliter contra nuptias declamasset, profecto Bernardus in eius exitium coniugatorum cohortes armasset. 94. Augustinus erroribus suis inimicus eos libris84 Retractationum purgandos committit. Lactantius, de quo ipse Augustinus asseuerat quod multo auro

77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84 

sunt recepti EF; recepti sunt AC fieri potest EF; potest fieri AC E; malum AC; malo F One expects something like certe (Winterbottom) One expects coibunt (Winterbottom) ACE; ill F EF; sit AC B2C2; libros ABCF

60

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 60

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

nothing is contrary to good except bad.’544 90. The worthlessness of this argument is apparent to everyone who claims to have learned the art of disputation. For it is, equally, good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine. But it does not follow that it is bad to eat flesh and to drink wine: some people who assert this are received among the heretics.545 But let us for a short while concede that it is, as Jerome says, bad to touch a woman. What an absurdity this leads to is shown by the steps of the deduction. If it is bad to touch a woman, it is bad to have sex with a woman. 91. For it could not be that sex is good if touching is bad. And if it is bad to have sex with a woman, that makes a wrongdoer of anyone who does have sex with a woman. That means that married men who lawfully exercise their conjugal rights are sinners. For in having sex they also touch the woman. Either, then, if husbands are not to act wrongly, they will need to take a holiday from their wives, or, if they must have sex, they will have to do so in such a way as not to touch the woman. But that is an impossibility. Thus, there follows shipwreck of the good institution of marriage, which God’s purpose established as a remedy for mortal lust. For if marriage does not excuse sex, husbands had better go off and compete to do penance for ever having had sex with their wives. 92. Elsewhere in the same book, Jerome argues about marriage rather brutally when he discusses the passage where the apostle says: ‘It is better to marry than to be burned.’546 Jerome says: ‘Get rid of “to be burned”, and he will not say “it is better to marry”. It is better to marry because it is worse to be burned.’547 But if it is good to marry, why is it compared to an evil? No one logically compares evil to good. To be burned is indeed an evil, and to marry is a good in comparison with this evil. But what is good in comparison to something bad is not in the full sense good. 93. From these words of Jerome we deduce, step by step, that marriage is not an absolute good. So much for the idea of marriage being a good thing. For, according to Jerome, marriage is only good because to be burned is a worse evil than marriage is. Many men of the faith, including the senator Pammachius, were scandalised by this fierce and puritanical argument, and expressed their pain to Jerome in letters on the topic.548 But if Peter had declaimed so cruelly against marriage, Bernard would certainly have called the wedded to arms to bring about his downfall. 94. Augustine, an enemy of his own errors, committed them for purging to his books of Retractations. Lactantius, of whom Augustine himself affirms that

544  545  546  547  548 

Jerome, Adv. Iouin. 1. 7 (PL 23. 218B and following). Perhaps a reference to the Cathars. 1 Cor. 7: 9. Jerome, Adv. Iouin. 1. 9. Jerome, Epist. 48 and 49, both to Pammachius; but it was not he who argued with Jerome about this.

60

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 60

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

APOLOGIA BERENGARII PICTAVENSIS CONTRA SANCTVM BERNARDVM

suffarcinatus exierit de Aegypto, cum ore fulmineo contra gentes Christum defendat, quaedam absona de dogmatibus ecclesiae postea somniat. Longum est recensere ueterum syngrapha tractatorum, quae non sunt sic ad purum excocta ut non inueniantur in eis multa quae uirga correctionis essent dignissima. 95. Verax namque est Iacobi apostoli sententia: ‘In multis’ inquit ‘offendimus omnes. Si quis autem in uerbo non offenderit, hic perfectus est uir.’ Itaque si Petrus in uerbo offenderat, iudicandus a te misericordiae potius blandum deberet sentire tactum quam iracundiae incentiuum. Aequum erat te reminisci quod Habacuc propheta Deo decantat, dicens: ‘Cum iratus fueris, misericordiae recordaberis.’ 96. Vide quid distet inter iram Dei et iram hominis. Cum homo irascitur, clementiae ab eius pectore mentio exulat. Cum autem Deus irascitur, per ingenitae bonitatis affluentiam misericordiae recordatur: recordatur uero sine obliuione, qui irascitur sine commotione, magnus Dominus noster, qui sic summa temperat ut curam inferiorum non negligat. 97. Huius imaginem aemulari, huius te oportebat uestigia totis conatibus amplexari, ut calculo, quem forcipe tulerat angelus de altari, purgares uitium labiorum Petri. Nec ignorare ius erat te hominem esse, quem et culpae lubricum trahere ad poenam et medicans gratia reparare posset ad ueniam. 98. His itaque85 decursis, silentium imperat prolixitas orationis. Et quoniam uox lassata refrigerii portum iam expetit, ob recreandum lectoris fastidium debitus primo uolumini terminus affigetur, ut ad ea quae promisimus enodanda secundi luctamen laboris officiosius accingatur.

85 

CEF; ita AB

61

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 61

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

Apology in defence of Peter Abelard

‘he left Egypt stuffed with much gold’549 (for he defends Christ with a thunderous voice against the heathen), later dreamed up some discordant views concerning the Church’s teachings.550 It would take too long to pass in review the effusions of ancient writers,551 which ‘did not have their dross so clean purged away’552 that much is not to be found in them very worthy of correction’s rod. 95. True indeed is the saying of the apostle James: ‘In many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man.’553 And so if Peter had offended in word and was to have been judged by you, he should have felt the kind touch of mercy rather than an incentive to anger. You should have remembered what the prophet Habakkuk says to God: ‘When Thou art angry, Thou wilt remember mercy.’554 96. See what a gulf there is between God’s anger and the anger of a man. When a man is angry, the thought of clemency departs from his breast. But when God is angry, He remembers mercy, thanks to the overflowing goodness that is part of His nature; He remembers it without forgetting it, for He is angry without being moved: ‘great is our Lord’,555 who governs the highest things in such a way as not to neglect things lower down. 97. You should have shaped yourself in His image, embraced His footsteps with all your efforts, so that with the coal which the angel had taken with the tongs off the altar, you might purge the vice of Peter’s lips.556 You ought to have known that you are a man, whom the slipperiness of guilt could haul away for punishment and healing grace ‘retrieve for pardon’.557 98. After this account, the prolixity of my utterance demands silence. And since the tired voice now seeks the harbour of cooling consolation, its due end will be affixed to the first volume, to refresh the bored reader, in order that the struggle to write a second volume may gird itself more dutifully to unfold what we promised.

549  550  551  552  553  554  555  556  557 

Augustine, De doctr. christ. 2. 146. See Jerome, Epist. 58. 10. 2. Cf. Jerome, In Ecclesiasten 12: 1. Is. 1: 25. Iac. 3: 2. Hab. 3: 2. Ps. 146: 5. Cf. Is. 6: 6–7. Cf. Is. 6: 7.

61

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 61

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA BERENGARII CONTRA CARTVSIENSES Fratribus in Cartusiae professione86 iuratis, Berengarius87 cum Lazaro, quondam paupere, aeternam habere requiem. 1. Loquar ad dominos meos, cum sim puluis et cinis. Sed ut iumentum factus sum apud uos, et tamen homines et iumenta saluabis, Domine. Multiplicauit Deus misericordiam suam, qui congregauit uos a quattuor uentis caeli ut recumbatis cum Abraham in regno Patris sui. Fidelis ille in tota domo Aegypti88 de uestra uos extraxit Aegypto in manu potenti et brachio excelso, ut euomentes ollas carnium clamare possetis89 in deserto: Manhu? Quid est hoc? 2. Vox haec uox deserti.90 Vox haec91 pluuiam admiratur caelestis edulii, quam proferre non sustinet guttur Aegypti.92 Igitur ne redoleretis allia Pharaonis, accessistis ad hysopum crucis, et pro Aegyptio gemitu caelesti aliti93 desiderio clamatis: ‘Quid est hoc?’ A regione deserti uenit manna ad uiatores deserti, et iure dicitis: ‘Quid est hoc?’ Quid, inquam, est hoc94 quod famem repellit,95 quod desiderium satiat et satiando accendit? 3. Rapuit manus illa inexhaustae clementiae lutum de luto, et in diademate Salomonis, quo coronauit eum mater sua,96 fecit uos aurum de luto. Sed nescio quo pacto nunc aurum rediit in lutum, et in ferri uilitatem aurei saeculi moneta degenerat. Leuastis enim97 corpora uestra in montes, sed mentes in uallibus remanserunt. 4. Vnde ergo ueniet auxilium nobis?98 Sperabamus quod in cacuminibus montium

in Cartusiae professione D; Cartusiae professionem BF B. BF(?) 88  D adds Moysen dico, a non-authorial gloss 89  D; positis B; possitis F 90  D adds est, perhaps rightly 91  uox haec D; haec uox BF 92  D adds the gloss Quaestio haec in scola heremi mari transmenso reperta est quam nesciebat populus dum disciplina luti et lateris teneretur 93  alti D, perhaps rightly 94  om. BF 95  expellit D, perhaps rightly 96  D, Vulgate; om. BF 97  om. BF 98  uobis BF 86 

87 

62

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 62

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER OF BERENGAR AGAINST THE CARTHUSIANS To the brethren who have made profession at the Grande Chartreuse, Berengar [wishes them] to have eternal rest with Lazarus,558 who was formerly poor. 1. I will speak to my lords, ‘though I am but dust and ashes’.559 But ‘I am become as a beast’560 before you, and yet ‘both men and beasts thou wilt preserve, O Lord’.561 God has multiplied His mercy,562 for He gathered you together ‘from the four winds’563 of heaven, that you might lie down with Abraham564 in the kingdom of his Father. He who was faithful in all the house of Egypt565 brought you out of your Egypt with a powerful hand and a mighty arm,566 so that, vomiting up ‘the flesh pots’,567 you could cry in the desert: ‘Manhu? What is this?’568 2. This word is the word of the desert.569 This word, which the throat of Egypt cannot bear to bring forth, expresses amazement at the rain of heavenly food. Therefore, so as not to reek of Pharaoh’s garlic, you have come over to the hyssop570 of the Cross, and, instead of the groans you uttered in Egypt, you cry, now that you are fed by desire for heaven, ‘What is this?’ From the region of the desert571 comes manna for travellers in the desert, and you justly say ‘What is this?’ What, I say, is this that wards off hunger, that satisfies desire, and while satisfying makes it blaze up? 3. The hand of unexhausted mercy snatched mud out of mud, and in Solomon’s diadem,572 wherewith his mother crowned him, He made you gold instead of mud. But, who knows how, the gold has now turned back into mud, and the currency of the golden age is degenerating into cheap iron. For you brought your bodies up into the mountains, but your minds stayed behind in the valleys. 4. From whence then shall help come to us?573 We hoped that on the mountain tops you would fashion 558  Ultimately reflecting Luc. 16: 20–4, but Berengar’s wording is nearer to that of the In paradisum of the Requiem Mass: ‘et cum Lazaro quondam pauper aeternam habeas requiem’. 559  Gen. 18: 27. 560  Ps. 72: 23. 561  Ps. 35: 7. 562  Cf. Ps. 35: 8. 563  Marc. 13: 27. 564  See Luc. 16: 22, i.e. in heaven like Lazarus, the beggar. 565  Cf. Num. 12: 7. Berengar refers this not to Moses, as in the Bible (so the gloss in MS D), but to God. 566  E.g. Deut. 7: 19. 567  Exod. 16: 3. 568  Exod. 16: 15. 569  The word is spoken by the Israelites in the desert, i.e. it is a word appropriate to the desert (that is, the monastery), not to Egypt (that is, the secular world). 570  Cf. Ps. 50: 9. 571  Iob 1: 19. 572  Cf. Cant. 3: 11. 573  Cf. Ps. 120: 1.

62

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 62

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

CONTRA CARTVSIENSES

pennas cuderetis, quae nos99 ueherent ad dexteram Patris.100 Seduxit nos101 opinio lubrica, et (quod ualde gemimus) alarum nudatos102 remigio implumis corporis grauitas nos103 pessumdat. Putabatis104 quod Deus montium esset tantum105 Deus; sed et ualles abundabunt frumento. Suscipere debuistis montes pacem populo,106 et linguae spicula uibratis107 non solum in populum sed et108 in clerum. 5. Cultus iustitiae, teste propheta,109 silentium. Quam graue trutinata in statera Sancti Spiritus110 sententia! Lasciuit enim iustitia et luxuriat,111 excedit112 aut deficit, ultra prosilit aut citra iacet, nisi freno silentii gubernetur. Huius freni rupistis iuncturas, clauos fregistis, et languente auriga uelut infrenes113 equi ante sentitis praecipitium114 quam brauium acquiratis. 6. Ille quidem dixit: Cultus iustitiae silentium. Vos autem aliter interpretantes dicitis: ‘Cultus iustitiae multiloquium.’ Quae enim fora, quae praetoria tanto ardent litigio causarum ut montanae Cartusiae claustrum? Ibi non accusator obicit, non aduocatus obiecta detergit,115 et tamen116 uestra sententia fasque nefasque uniformiter damnat nec absoluit. 7. Super nubes uolatis aquilae, et penna tandem remissiore ad uestrum cadauer carpendum rostra deponitis.117 Abstinetis a carnibus pecudum, et sine sale carnes hominum deuoratis. Aitis enim: ‘Haec mulier praegnans est, non a118 semine sui mariti, illa colit multos amasios; canonici illi ter in die carnibus uentres119 confundunt; ille ructu pigmenti aera foedat, ille scutellam exhaurit120 usque ad uomitum.’ Vacatis otio, et idcirco talia ructatis. 8. Vere cultus iustitiae silentium. Quod nondum mens finxit,121 quod nondum uenit in linguam, apud uos iam constat esse patratum. Dubietas nostra penes uos est iurata ueritas. Cultus iustitiae uos BF dei Patris D, perhaps rightly 101  uos BF 102  nudato BF 103  D; non B; uos F 104  putabamus BF 105  montium esset tantum D; montium tantum esset F; esset montium tantum B 106  montes pacem populo D, Vulgate; pacem populo montes BF 107  uibrastis BF 108  solum in populum sed et D; in populum sed BF 109  D, Vulgate; propheta est BF 110  Sancti Spiritus BF; Spiritus Sancti D, perhaps rightly 111  sententia. lasciuit enim iustitia et luxuriat D; sententia. litium enim stultitia et luxuria BF 112  excidit BF 113  effrenes D, perhaps rightly 114  D; precipia F; praecipitia B 115  Properly deterget 116  non de BF 117  D adds uere cultus iustitiae silentium, perhaps rightly 118  om. D, perhaps rightly 119  uentrem D 120  haurit BF 121  sensit BF 99 

100 

63

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 63

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

AGAINST THE CARTHUSIANS

wings to carry us to the right hand of the Father. But we were led astray by the lure of slippery reputation, and (to our great grief) the weight of our unfeathered body is bringing us to ruin,574 stripped as we are of the oarage of wings.575 You imagined that God was God of the mountains only;576 but ‘the vales too shall abound with corn’.577 You should have been ‘mountains receiving peace for the people’,578 yet you launch the darts of your tongue579 not only at the people but at the clergy too. 5. The prophet bears witness that ‘the service of justice is silence’.580 How heavy in the balance of the Holy Spirit weighs this sentence! For justice wantons licentiously, is in excess or is deficient, darts forward too far or lies too far behind, unless it is guided by the bridle of silence. You have sundered the joints of this bridle, broken its nails, and, as the charioteer grows feeble, you, like unbridled horses, sense the precipice before you and win the prize. 6. He said, ‘the service of justice is silence’; but you take it another way, and say, ‘the service of justice is excessive talk’. What courts, I ask, what tribunals are so ablaze with the cases of litigants as the cloister of Chartreuse in the mountains? There, the prosecutor doesn’t put forward charges, defence counsel doesn’t clear charges away; yet your judgement, however good or bad the case may be, always condemns and never absolves. 7. You are eagles flying above the clouds, and, slackening your wing at last, you bring your beaks down to tear at your own corpse. You abstain from animal flesh, yet devour the flesh of men, adding no salt.581 For you say: ‘This woman is pregnant, but not by her husband’s seed, that one pays court to many lovers. Those canons confound their bellies with meat three times a day; this one fouls the air with the belch of spiced wine; that one drains the flagon till he throws up.’ You have time to be idle: that is why you utter such words. 8. Truly ‘the service of justice is silence’. What has never yet been thought up, never yet put into words, has now (as is well known) been put into action in your house. What we call doubt is with you sworn truth. ‘The service of justice is silence.’ Merciful doctors indeed,

574  575  576  577  578  579  580  581 

He has in mind the story of Daedalus and Icarus. Cf. Virgil, Aen. 1. 301 and 6. 19. Cf. 3 Reg. 20: 28: ‘The Lord is God of the hills, but He is not God of the valleys.’ Ps. 64: 14. Ps. 71: 3. See Heiric of Auxerre, Vita Germani 3. 478 (MGH Poetae 3), ‘uibrantes spicula linguae’. Is. 32: 17. Ironic, inasmuch as the Carthusians maintained a strict rule of absolute silence on weekdays. Cf. Levit. 2: 13.

63

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 63

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

CONTRA CARTVSIENSES

silentium. O clementes medicos, qui non aegros orationibus122 curare sed eorum uulnera suscipere student, ut cum eis pariter aegrotent! Quid prodest, fratres, exire in eremum, et in eremo habere cor Aegyptium? Quid prodest Aegypti ranas uitare, et obscenis detractionibus concrepare?123 9. En qui sub Pharaone languistis, sub manu Moysi expiratis.124 Argumento nobis est fluuius linguae uestrae quem125 fontem bibatis in secretario cellae uestrae. Nam126 detractio in cellis concipitur, in claustro127 uomitur. 10. Non est Cartusia caelum, non est Cartusia paradisus. Adhuc est Cartusia inter flumina Babylonis. In caelo fuit apostata, in paradiso praeuaricator. Quid facit in Cartusia detractor? Post scoriae128 puritatem, post compunctionis lacrimas itur in forum claustri, et linguae ostium iam129 non reseratur sed frangitur. 11. Quisquis uero per illud ostium introierit, non palpatur sed caeditur, non curatur sed iudicatur, non reficitur sed mactatur: et,130 ut breuiter dicam, sine crimine nullus apud uos. Cum sederit Filius Hominis in sede maiestatis suae ut iudicet mundum, ubi, quaeso, tunc sedebitis? Nam diem iudicii cotidianis iudiciis praeuenistis. Posuistis uobis tribunal in specula montis ut subiecta quaeque tanto inde liberius iudicetis quanto remotius. 12. Redite, praeuaricatores, ad cor, loquimini ad cor uestrum et aduocate illud ne saltem compleatur malitia eius. Proposuistis omnia uestra dare ut margaritam euangelicam compararetis. Ecce dedistis aures, oculos, manus atque pedes. His enim ad salutis fructum utimini, necdum tamen digni estis margarita beatitudinis. Emptores uitae nolite uenditorem decipere margaritae. 13. Retinuistis uobis linguam. Reddite Deo linguam et accipite margaritam. Ne sitis exploratores terrae quorum debet deuotio caelum implorare. Non enim magis conuenit uobis omnes diiudicare quam feminis arma gestare. Vnde poeta:

122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130 

curationibus BF(?) obscenis detractionibus concrepare BF; in deserto murmuratione perire D expirastis BF qui cum BF om. BF claustris BF theoriae D om. BF om. D

64

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 64

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

AGAINST THE CARTHUSIANS

whose concern is not to cure the sick by your prayers, but to take on their wounds, so as to be sick alongside them! What good does it do, brethren, to go into the desert, and in the desert to have an Egyptian heart? What good does it do to avoid the frogs of Egypt,582 yet yourselves croak with obscene slanders? 9. Look at you! You were sick under Pharaoh, and now you expire under Moses’ hand! The river of your tongue proves to us what fountain you drink from in the privacy of your cell. For fault-finding is conceived in the cells, and vomited up in the cloister. 10. Chartreuse is not heaven, Chartreuse is not paradise: Chartreuse is still between the rivers of Babylon.583 In heaven it was an apostate, in paradise a transgressor.584 What is a detractor doing in Chartreuse? After the purifying of the dross,585 after the tears of compunction, off they go into the law court of the cloister, and the door of the tongue586 is now not so much unlocked as broken down. 11. But anyone who goes in through that door is not stroked but beaten, not cured but judged, not refreshed but slaughtered, and, to be brief, no one among you is without guilt.587 ‘When the Son of Man shall sit on the seat of his majesty’588 to judge the world, where, I ask, will you sit then? The fact is that, every day, by your judgements, you have anticipated the day of judgement. You have placed yourselves to be a tribunal on the peak of a mountain, to judge everything beneath you the more freely the further it is away from you. 12. ‘Return, ye transgressors, to the heart’,589 speak to your heart and counsel it, so that at least its malice may not be completed. You set yourself to give all you have to buy the pearl of the Gospel.590 Look: you have given your ears, eyes, hands and feet; for you use these to obtain ‘the fruit of salvation’.591 But you are still not worthy of the pearl of blessedness. You who are buying life, do not try to deceive the seller of the pearl. 13. For you have kept back your tongue for yourselves. Give your tongue to God, and then receive the pearl. Do not be spies on the land592 when your devotion ought to be imploring heaven. It is no more proper for you to judge between everyone than for women to carry arms. Hence the poet’s words:

Exod. 8: 2–15 (the Second Plague). Cf. Ps. 136: 1. The reference is to the Jewish exile. 584  Cf. Chromatius, Serm. 31. 2 (CCSL 9A, p. 140). 585  Cf. Is. 1: 25. 586  See for example Cassiodorus, Expos. psalmorum 38 (CCSL 97, p. 354 line 53), ‘linguae … ostium os habetur’ (‘The door of the tongue is the mouth’). 587  See Sedulius, Carm. pasch. 4. 240–1 (CSEL 10, p. 107), ‘sine crimine nullus / accusator erit’ (‘No accuser will be without a charge against him’). 588  Matt. 19: 28. 589  Is. 46: 8. 590  Cf. Matt. 13: 45–6. 591  Sap. 1: 22. 592  Cf. Gen. 42: 9. 582  583 

64

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 64

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

CONTRA CARTVSIENSES

bella uiri pacemque gerant quibus arma gerenda: femina sed fusum pollice docta rotet. 14. Quis ferat aut satiricos anachoritas aut praelatos silentes? Officium uestrum est flere pro populo, non populum mordere: praestolari in silentio salutare Domini, non lingua per orbem uagari; cellicolas esse, non causidicos. Satiricus, ingemens pro uobis qui aliorum uulnera non uestra spectatis, ‘Nemo’ inquit ‘in se temptat descendere,131 sed praecedentis spectatur mantica tergo.’ 15. Haec considerantes, carissimi, linguae uestrae fluxum siccate, quia (lege discernente) uir qui patitur fluxum seminis non est tangendus. Coegit lingua uestra linguam meam ut retunderet linguam uestram. Quod si uobis haec epistula placuerit, uera erit illa sapientis sententia: ‘Argue iustum, et amabit te.’ Si uero mihi succensueritis, e regione audiam: ‘Ne arguas derisorem, ne forte oderit te.’ Valete et, si Deum diligitis, linguam Dei gladio amputate.

131 

descendere, Persius

65

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 65

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

AGAINST THE CARTHUSIANS

Let war and peace be the business of men, whose duty it is to bear arms;593 But let a skilled woman make the spindle go round with her thumb.594 14. Who would tolerate either satirical anchorites or silent prelates?595 Your job is to weep on behalf of the people, not to bite them: ‘to wait in silence for the Lord’s salvation’,596 not to roam the world with your tongue; to be dwellers in your cells, not attorneys. The satirist, bewailing you who have regard to others’ wounds, not your own, says: ‘No one tries to descend within himself: what they all look at is the wallet on the back of the man in front.’597 15. Take note of these things, dearest, and dry the issue of your tongue,598 for, as the law determines, the man ‘who hath an issue of seed’599 is not to be touched. Your tongue has forced my tongue to blunt your tongue. But if this letter pleases you, the maxim of the wise man will prove true: ‘Rebuke a just man, and he will love thee.’600 But if you grow angry with me, I shall on the contrary be told: ‘Rebuke not a scorner, lest by chance he hate thee.’601 Farewell, and if you love God cut off your tongue with God’s sword.

Virgil, Aen. 7. 444 (‘quis bella gerenda’). Apparently concocted by Berengar himself (but see Ovid, Met. 6. 22, ‘uersabat pollice fusum’, and Jerome, Epist. 107. 10. 1, ‘rotare fusum’). 595  That is, hermits should be meditating in silence, not satirising; prelates should be preaching against sin, not tolerating it in silence. 596  Lam. 3: 26 (‘cum silentio’). 597  Persius 4. 23–4. 598  Cf. Gregory, Moralia in Iob 5. 30 (CCSL 143, p. 238). 599  Levit. 15: 32. 600  Cf. Prov. 9: 8 (‘sapientem … diliget’). 601  Cf. Prov. 9: 8. 593  594 

65

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 65

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

EPISTVLA BERENGARII AD EPISCOPVM MIMATENSEM Patri et domino suo G(uillelmo) Mimatensi episcopo, pleno dierum, Berengarius renouari ut aquilae iuuentutem suam. 1. In loco barbaro corpus meum a latronibus est liberrimum, sed spiritus meus apud uos in loco sancto periclitatur. Quapropter in totius orbis conspectu uobis baculum meae porrigo defensionis, ut sanctorum dentes mordere non audeant quem uesci spiraculo uitae permittit truculentia gladiorum. Sis igitur Vlixes meae causae, ut Circe, quamuis filia solis, corpus132 meum magico murmure non audeat immutare, ut sidus meae conscientiae non possit inuidia denigrare. 2. Minus certe dolerem si fauces lupi biberent meum sanguinem quam si ouium dentibus in frusta133 minuerer. Corrige igitur, pastor bone, tuas oues ne contra me balent, quia non sum lupus insidians sed canis protegens oues.134 Fretus tandem135 uestro fauore sermonis uela leuabo, et inter oblatrantium linguarum Scyllas firmae rationis remigio nauigabo. 3. Imponit plurima dira meae personae religiosa manus, et sacro criminum diademate caput innocentis honorat. Aiunt quod lingua mea inquietum malum est et nimis in udo, quae aduersus abbatem Claraeuallis librum euomuit. Quippe tantae sanctitatis uirum esse confirmant ut iam caelo propinquus hominum euaserit opiniones. Qui hoc dicunt, etsi religioso uellere albescant, tamen dum sine serpente cupiunt esse columbae, fatuitate linguam inficiunt. 4. Nonne abbas homo est? Nonne nobiscum nauigat per hoc mare magnum et spatiosum manibus inter reptilia quorum non est numerus? Cuius nauis etsi prosperiori feratur nauigio, tamen serenitas maris in dubio est. Nam nec auster adhuc ei fidem dedit, ne ratem eius concutiat, nec boream calcauit ipse sub pedibus, nec euri notique minas euasit,

132  133  134  135 

Thomson; ius ABCF (def. E) Duchesne; frustra ABCF (def. E) Winterbottom; ouem ABCF (def. E) Perhaps read tamen (Winterbottom)

66

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 66

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

LETTER OF BERENGAR TO THE BISHOP OF MENDE To his father and lord William bishop of Mende,602 full of days,603 Berengar, [wishing that] ‘his youth be renewed like the eagle’s’.604 1. In a foreign place my body is absolutely safe from robbers, but my spirit is in danger here with you in a holy place. Wherefore in the sight of the whole world I proffer you the staff of my defence, so that the teeth of the holy may not venture to bite one whom the ferocity of swords allows to enjoy the breath of life. Be then the Ulysses of my cause, so that Circe, though daughter of the sun, may not dare to change my body605 with muttered magic,606 so that envy may not be able to blacken the star of my conscience. 2. I should truly be less aggrieved if the jaws of a wolf were drinking my blood than if I were being chopped up in pieces by the teeth of sheep.607 Correct then your sheep, good shepherd, and stop them bleating at me, for I am not a wolf lying in wait but a dog protecting sheep. Finally, relying on your favour, I shall hoist the sails of my utterance, and amid the Scyllas of barking tongues voyage forth, with unshaken reason at the tiller. 3. This band of religious places many dire charges on my person, and honours the head of an innocent man with a holy diadem of crimes. They say that my tongue is ‘an unquiet evil’608 and is too much in the damp,609 the tongue that vomited up a book against the abbot of Clairvaux. In fact they assert that this abbot is so holy that he has already come near to heaven and gone beyond what men may think of him. Those who say this, though their religious habit be white,610 stain their tongue with folly, even though they desire to be doves with no element of serpent.611 4. Is not the abbot a man? Does not he, like us, ‘sail over this great sea, which stretcheth wide its arms’, amid ‘creeping things without number?’612 His ship may be having a pretty fair voyage, but the calmness of the sea is in doubt. The south wind has not yet assured him that it will not shake his craft. He has not himself trampled the north wind under foot. He has not escaped the menaces of the south-easter and the southerly wind. He has extracted no truce from Aeolus, 602  603  604  605  606  607  608  609  610  611  612 

William was bishop of Mende until a date prior to 1151. This is a common Old Testament expression. Ps. 102: 5. But could ius (so the MSS) be ‘soup’, what Circe gave Ulysses’s men to turn them into pigs? Cf. Prudentius, Contra Symmachum 1. 96. That is, ‘As I am right now.’ Iac. 3: 8. Meaning ‘too talkative’. See Persius 1. 105. Meaning the Cistercians. cf. Matt. 10: 16. Ps. 103: 25.

66

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 66

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

AD EPISCOPVM MIMATENSEM

nec ab Aeolo rege uentorum extorsit indutias. 5. Quod uinum potest habitare in pice et saporem eius non mutare?136 Vnde et Apostolus Paulus uinum suum a consortio picis remoueri optabat et in uas gloriae transuersari, cum diceret: ‘Infelix ego homo! Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius?’ Ac si apertius loqueretur: ‘uinum Dei sum, et in pice sum; sed nisi picis sodalicium derelinquam, timeo ne picem sapiam Conditori.’ 6. Potest igitur abbas et ut ignis ad alta subuehi et ut terra deorsum cadere. Nondum sol est, nondum fixus est in firmamento; satis est si luna est. Neque aestimet me quisquam ad iniuriam eius stilum per ceram trahere, qui meo iudicio nostrorum temporum est Martinus. Simpliciter et sine uulpe candido pectori uestro loquor. 7. Ego ita sentio de abbate quod sit lucerna ardens et lucens; sed tamen in testa est. Quod dedecus infligitur auro cum laudatur, si eius scoria improbetur? Laudatis abbatem, magis ego laudo. ‘Cur igitur inquietius contra eum scribis, de quo tam bene sentis?’ Porrigite patulas aures ut ebibant rationem. 8. Damnauerat Abaelardum praeceptorem meum, uirum fidei bucinam, legis armarium, in uia morum pede regio gradientem. Damnauerat, inquam, Abaelardum, et uocem eius sine audientia strangulauerat. Eram ea tempestate adulescens, nondumque impuberes malas nubes lanuginis adumbrabat, eratque mihi uelut scholastico animus in ficta crebro materia declamare. Porro ueri certaminis arridente uena, pectus appuli ut purgarem Abaelardum abbatisque confutarem audaciam. 9. ‘Sed non’ inquiunt ‘a te tali talem argui oportebat. Tu enim bestia es, et montem tangere non debes.’ Parcius ista, fratres. Mementote

136 

F; mutuare ABCE

67

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 67

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

TO THE BISHOP OF MENDE

king of the winds. 5. What wine can dwell in pitch613 without changing its flavour? Hence the apostle Paul too wished his wine to be removed from fellowship with pitch and brought over into the vessel of glory, when he said: ‘Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?’614 As if to say, more plainly, ‘I am God’s wine, and I am in pitch; but unless I leave the company of pitch, I am afraid that to the Maker I may taste of pitch.’ 6. The abbot, then, can both be carried on high like fire and fall downwards like earth. He is not yet the sun, he is not yet fixed in the firmament; it is enough if he is the moon. Let no one imagine I am drawing my stylus through the wax to cause him injury; in my judgement he is the Martin of our times.615 I speak frankly to your candid heart,616 with no trace of the fox. 7. My view of the abbot is that he is ‘a burning and a shining light’;617 yet that light is in a pot.618 What disgrace is inflicted on gold when it is praised, if its dross is found worthy of blame? You praise the abbot: I praise him more. ‘Why then do you write so disturbingly against one whom you hold in such high regard?’ Lend me your ears, opened wide619 to drink in the reason. 8. He had condemned my teacher Abelard, a man who is the trumpet of the faith, the repository of the law, who goes with royal step620 down the way of morals.621 He had, I repeat, condemned Abelard, and throttled his voice without giving him a hearing. At the time I was a young man, and the cloud of down had not yet begun to shadow my immature cheeks; I was minded, being a schoolboy, often to declaim on a made-up topic.622 But now that there opened the fair prospect of engagement in a real-life contest,623 I applied myself to getting Abelard acquitted and the abbot’s audacity refuted. 9. ‘But’, they say, ‘it was not for such as him to be accused by such as you. You are a beast, and ought not touch the mountain.’624

Cf. Sap. 13: 1. Rom. 7: 24. 615  Berengar refers to Martin’s huge influence as bishop of Tours (371–97), especially in the destruction of paganism and suppression of heresy. 616  Cf. Jerome, Epist. 62. 1 (CSEL 54, p. 583), ‘uere enim et simpliciter candidissimo pectori tuo loquor’ (‘I speak truthfully and frankly to your [singular] most candid heart’). 617  Ioh. 5: 35. 618  Cf. Matt. 5: 15, Marc. 4: 21, Luc. 11: 33, which all use ‘sub modio’. 619  Cf. Horace, Epist. 1. 18. 70. 620  Cf. Num. 21: 22. 621  Cf. Augustine, Enchirid. 5. 17, ‘nonnullis errare profuit aliquando, sed in uia pedum, non in uia morum’, and John of Salisbury, Policrat. 8. 13, ed. C. C. J. Webb (2 vols, Oxford, 1909, II, p. 323), ‘qui in uia morum, lege scilicet Domini, gradiuntur’. 622  Berengar seems aware of Quintilian, Inst. 1. 10. 33, 2. 4. 36. This passage should be added to the scanty and problematic evidence for declamation of the ancient kind being practised in the Middle Ages. Note also a letter of Wibald of Corvey discussed by J. O. Ward, Classical Rhetoric in the Middle Ages (Leiden, 2018), pp. 184–5. 623  As opposed to the fictum certamen in Quintilian, Inst. 2. 4. 36. 624  Cf. Hebr. 12: 20. 613  614 

67

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 67

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

AD EPISCOPVM MIMATENSEM

uos hoc obiicere uiro. In quo audet abbas? Audet in litteris; audeo et ego. Audet in theologicis; audeo et ego. Audet in fide; audeo et ego. Audet in sanctitate; hic non audeo ego. Quid ergo peccaui, si fidelis fidelem, minor maiorem, saecularis religiosum redargui? 10. Momordi, fateor, non contemplatiuum, sed philosophum; non confessorem, sed scriptorem; non mentem, sed linguam; non praecordia, sed stilum; non meditationes uiri, sed sonum. Legant eruditi uiri Apologeticum quem edidi, et si dominum abbatem iuste non argui, licenter me redarguant. Quaerite per totam seriem scripturarum ab ortu solis usque ad occasum, et uidebitis in campo philosophiae semper licuisse ut alter alterum iustis occasionibus reprehendat. 11. Colotes loquacitate notabilis rodit Platonem principem philosophiae cum diuina uersans fabellas immiscuerit. Et certe Colotes ad Platonem mus est ad elephantem. Lucilius Ennium, Horatius Lucilium lacerat. Omittam fumos gentilium et membranulam hanc luminibus Ecclesiae uenustabo. Augustinus et Hieronymus, presbyter et episcopus, alterno rostro se carpunt. 12. Fulgentius regem quendam Africae notat haereticum, non ueritus regiam potestatem dum diligit ueritatem. Iulianus Augustinum laedit audaciter. ‘Ab infectione’, inquit ‘haeresis nulla te purgabit herba fullonis.’ Solus Ambrosius ab omni suspicionis infamia integer est, quem egregio praeconio coronauit Pelagius, quamuis haereticus, ita dicens: ‘Ambrosius Latinorum scriptorum uelut quidam flos enituit, cuius purissimum in scripturis sensum nec etiam inimicus audet reprehendere.’ 13. Si igitur abbas aliqua silenda descripsit, quid peccauit in ore meo ueritas, si exstirpanda notauit? Nec enim ante faciem gladii debet tremere iustitia, nec ante potentem ueritas adulationis chlamide se induere. Vnde Seneca Caesarem alloquens: ‘Caesar’, inquit, ‘qui contra te loqui audent magnitudinem tuam ignorant; qui uero non

68

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 68

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

TO THE BISHOP OF MENDE

Calm down, brethren. Remember you are making this charge against a man.625 Wherein does the abbot dare? He dares in writing; ‘I dare also.’626 He dares in the realm of theology; ‘I dare also.’ He dares in faith; ‘I dare also.’ He dares in holiness. Here I do not myself dare. Where have I sinned, then, if a man of faith, an inferior, a secular,627 I accused a man of faith, a superior, a religious? 10. I bit (I declare) not a contemplative but a philosopher, not a confessor but a writer, not an intellect but a tongue, not a heart but a stylus, not the inmost thoughts of a man but the sound of his voice. Let learned men read the Apologia I published, and if I was not justified in the charges I laid against the lord abbot, they are welcome to charge me back. Look through the whole range of writings, ‘from the rising to the setting of the sun’,628 and you will see that it has always been allowable, in the field of philosophy, for one person to criticise another, if there is good reason. 11. Colotes,629 a man noteworthy for his garrulity, finds fault with Plato, prince of philosophy, for including myths while treating of divine matters. And certainly, compared to Plato Colotes is as a mouse to an elephant. Lucilius tears Ennius apart, Horace Lucilius.630 Passing over the vapourings of the gentiles, I shall proceed to adorn this scrap of parchment with the luminaries of the Church. Augustine and Jerome, priest and bishop, use their beaks to criticise each other. 12. Fulgentius, not fearing royal power in his love for the truth, brands a king of Africa as a heretic.631 Julian audaciously wounds Augustine: ‘No fuller’s herb will clear you from the infection of heresy.’632 Ambrose alone is quite free from any taint of suspicion; Pelagius, though a heretic, gave him the crown of an excellent testimonial: ‘Ambrose shone out like a flower among Latin writers; not even an enemy ventures to quarrel with his impeccable interpretation of the scriptures.’633 13. If then the abbot wrote some words that deserve suppression, what was the sin of truth in my mouth if it stigmatised things that should be rooted out? In the face of the sword justice should not tremble, and confronted by the powerful truth should not clothe itself in the cloak of flattery. Hence Seneca, addressing Caesar, says: ‘Caesar, those who dare to speak against you are unaware of the extent of Cf. Virgil, Ecl. 3. 7 ‘parcius ista uiris tamen obicienda memento’ (‘all the same such accusations as yours should be made less wildly when you’re talking to men; remember that’; trans. R. Coleman). Damoetas follows up with a gibe at Menalcas’s homosexual behaviour. This clinches the sexual charge against Bernard (see above, Apol. 51–68, and Introduction, p. xxiii). 626  2 Cor. 11: 21–2. 627  That is, a cleric who was not a monk (a ‘regular’ or ‘religious’). See A. Boureau, ‘Hypothèses sur l’émergence lexicale et théorique de la catégorie de séculier au XIIe siècle’, in Le clerc séculier au Moyen Âge, ed. F. Rapp (Paris, 1993), pp. 35–43. 628  Cf. Ps. 49: 1 and 112: 3 (though odd in this context). 629  See Macrobius, In somn. Scipionis 1. 2. 3–4. 630  See Horace, Serm. 1. 10. 631  Fulgentius, Ad Trasimundum (PL 65. 223–304). 632  Augustine, Contra Iulianum 6. 21. 633  See e.g. Augustine, De gratia Christi 1. 43. 47. 625 

68

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 68

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

AD EPISCOPVM MIMATENSEM

audent, nesciunt te hominem esse.’ 14. Socrates quoque, quem Apollinis oraculum sapientissimum esse cecinit, capitalis erat auctoritatis, et tamen Aristoteles egregie ausus est dicere: ‘Amicus est Socrates, sed magis amica est ueritas. Cum Socrate oportet sollicitum esse, sed magis cum ueritate.’ Possum et simili uoce uti: ‘amicus est Bernardus, sed magis amica est ueritas.’ 15. ‘Sed cur’, inquiunt, ‘expleto primo uolumine secundum, ut spoponderas, non texis?’ Quia processu temporis meum sapere creuit, et in sententiam abbatis pedibus, ut dicitur, iui. Nolui esse patronus capitulorum obiectorum Abaelardo, quia, etsi sanum saperent, non sane sonabant. ‘Postquam igitur’, inquiunt, ‘a secundo libro manus torpuit, quare primum non rasisti?’ 16. Fecissem hoc, inquam, nisi cassa esset industria. Remanerent enim uiua exemplaria, quae iam per totam Franciam et Italiam cucurrerunt. ‘Si igitur’, inquiunt, ‘Apologiam illam iugulare non potes, damna uel uiuam. Characterem rei fronti eius infige, ut omnis qui legerit sciat te aetate, non malitia, peccasse.’ Damnabo, inquam, tali condicione ut, si quid in personam hominis Dei dixi, ioco legatur, non serio. 17. ‘Non refutamus’, inquiunt, ‘ratiocinia tua; satis caute asellum exoneras. Sed Cartusianos eremitas, genus electum, populum acquisitionis quare inquietasti? Quare inuectione punxisti? Cur a cellulis suis abstraxisti?’ Hic placide purgationem meam audite. Improperat propheta eis qui congregant merces, et commendant eas sacculo pertuso. Congregabant sancti anachoritae Cartusiani merces iustitiae, sed sacculum pertusum habebant. 18. Curaui obstruere foramen sacculi, ne farina religionis patentibus rimis exiret. Volui resecare in eis immoderatam licentiam linguae, qua uelut quidam geometrae totum orbem mensurabant. Cur hic137 mea pietas crudelitatis arguitur? Cur sedulus sartor dissipator appellatur? ‘Hic’,

137 

Perhaps read haec (Winterbottom)

69

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 69

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

TO THE BISHOP OF MENDE

your greatness; but those who do not dare, are unaware that you are a man.’634 14. Socrates too, the wisest of men according to the oracle of Apollo,635 was of the highest possible authority; yet Aristotle splendidly ventured to say: ‘Socrates is my friend, but Truth is more my friend. One has to be careful concerning Socrates, but more concerning truth.’636 I can say something like that, too: ‘Bernard is my friend, but Truth is more my friend.’ 15. ‘Well’, they say, ‘having completed a first volume, why do you not compose a second, as you had promised?’ Because with the passage of time I grew in good sense, and I went over (as they say) to the abbot’s side. I did not want to be advocate for the chapters alleged against Abelard, because, though they made sound sense, they did not sound well to the ear. ‘So’, they say, ‘after your hand was too feeble to go on to a second book, why did you not suppress the first?’ 16. I would have done that, I reply, but it would have been a waste of effort. Copies would still survive, live and well; they have already run all round France and Italy. ‘If then’, they say, ‘you cannot cut the throat of that Apologia, condemn it even though it still lives. Put the mark of the guilty one on its front,637 so every reader can know you sinned not out of malice but because of your age.’ I will condemn it, I say, on this condition: if I said anything against the person of the man of God, let it be taken as a joke, not as meant seriously. 17. ‘We do not’, they say, ‘refute your reasonings: you show sufficient caution in unloading the ass.638 But why did you choose to upset the Carthusians, hermits,639 “a chosen generation, a purchased people”?640 Why did you prick them by your invective? Why did you drag them out of their little cells?’ Here and now listen calmly to my defence. The prophet reproaches those who earn wages and entrust them to ‘a bag with holes’.641 The holy Carthusian anchorites were earning the wages of justice, but they had a holed bag. 18. I was concerned to close the opening in the bag, for fear the flour of religion came out through the gaping rents. I wanted to cut back in them the immoderate licence of their tongues, with which like some geometers they measured the whole earth. Why is my dutifulness in this matter accused of cruelty? Why is the careful patcher called a destroyer? ‘Here’, they say, ‘you rest on a column of unshaken reason.642 But why did you wound 634  Seneca the Elder, Controvers. 6. 8, ‘qui non audent, humanitatem’ (quoting a declamation of Varius Geminus). 635  See Valerius Maximus 3. 4 ext. 1. 636  Source unknown. 637  See Apoc. 14: 9, which mentions the ‘Mark of the Beast’, here presumably to be put on the front of the book. See also character + genitive used in Apol. 27. 638  As we might say, ‘unpacking the argument’. 639  Or ‘Carthusian hermits’, i.e. this could be two nouns or an adjective + a noun. 640  1 Pet. 2: 9. 641  Agg. 1: 6. 642  See section 2 of this letter.

69

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 69

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

AD EPISCOPVM MIMATENSEM

inquiunt, ‘firmae rationis columnae inniteris. Sed Massiliensem illum monachum cur uulnerasti usque ad animam?’ Quia uulnerabat anulum sponsae Christi, et puritati antiquae fidei naufragium minabatur. 19. Introducebat enim praeter Deum alium creatorem, sicut epistula eius ad me scripta declarat. ‘Sed quocumque’ inquiunt ‘te persequimur, arma defensionis opponis. Responde per membra uestra quare linguae tuae toxicum effudisti?’ Quomodo, inquam, factum est uerbum istud? Miseremini mei, miseremini mei, saltem uos, amici mei, quia humilitas tetigit me. Vbi laesi uos? Vbi maiestatem uestram sauciaui? 20. ‘Tunc’ inquiunt ‘nos percussisti quando dixisti: “apud religiosos patella psalmus est, et pinguis refectio alleluia.”’ Fratres, indulgete; nihil laesi uos. In incerto locutus sum; indeterminate garriui, nullum specialiter flagellaui. Vt Apollo cassum oraculum emisi, quasi aerem uerberans. Sed, ut uideo, quidquid dicam aut erit aut non. Cur alienam uobis sarcinam imposuistis? Cur iaculo non ad uos destinato munditiam uestram exulcerastis? 21. Dixi: ‘Apud religiosos patella psalmus est, et pinguis refectio alleluia.’ Quid ad uos? Et Magalonenses religiosi sunt, et canonici beati Rufi religiosi. Apollo telum138 contorsit in aera, et uos ne cadat incassum spontaneos uulneri uos offertis. Quis unquam uidit os aperiri139 ut sagittam reciperet? Ego quidem, fratres, alias arcum intenderam sed uos ferrum uolatile retinuistis. Renuo,140 ferire nolebam; sed uos caritate commoti uulnera eius in uestram trahitis sanitatem. 22. Credite mihi, non adeo fui plenus agaue141 ut in uos emitterem filiam pharetrae meae. Ergo ignoscite innocenti. ‘Est aliud’ inquiunt ‘cur Cyclopas conduximus ut fulmina fabricent in caput tuum.’ Quid, quaeso? ‘Tunc’ inquiunt ‘dixisti: “Episcopus uester non Mimatensium sed mimorum est episcopus.”’ Libet exclamare cum Ieremia propheta: ‘uae tibi, mater mea, quare genuisti me uirum rixae et doloris in uniuersa terra?” 23. Vbi et quando, quaeso, talia eructaui? Tunc forsitan quando extra142 mundum nundinas celebraui tales blasphemias uestro

B; celum ACF (def. E) Winterbottom; aperire ABCF (def. E) 140  Winterbottom; renui A; the readings of BCF (def. E) are uncertain 141  Apparently intended as an ablative (B has the gloss id est furore); but one might interpret as agauae (genitive) 142  Perhaps read intra (Winterbottom) 138  139 

70

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 70

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

TO THE BISHOP OF MENDE

that monk of Marseille, even unto death?’643 Because he wounded the ring of the bride of Christ, and threatened shipwreck to the purity of the ancient faith. 19. For he brought in, besides God, a second creator, as the letter he wrote to me makes clear. ‘But wherever’, they say, ‘we pursue you, you face us with weapons to defend yourself. Answer, by your very limbs, why you poured out the poison of your tongue.’ How, I say, did that word come about? “Have pity on me, have pity on me, at least you my friends, because” humility “hath touched me.”644 In what respect did I harm you? In what respect did I wound your majesty?’ 20. ‘You struck us’, they say, ‘when you said “For the religious a dish is a psalm, and a rich repast an alleluia.”’ Forgive me, brethren: I did you no harm. I spoke at random: I gabbled with no special application, I lashed no one in particular.645 Like Apollo, I uttered an empty oracle, as though beating the air. But, as I see it, whatever I say either will be or will not be.646 Why did you take on yourselves the burden meant for another? Why did you make your cleanliness sore with a javelin not intended for you? 21. I said: ‘For the religious a dish is a psalm, and a rich repast an alleluia.’ What has that to do with you? The Maguelonians are religious, too, and so are the canons of Saint-Ruf.647 Apollo sent a weapon whirring into the air,648 and you offer yourselves as voluntary victims, to make sure its fall is not wasted. Who ever saw a man open his mouth to receive an arrow? Brethren, I had stretched my bow at a different target, but you held on to the flying iron.649 I deny it, I did not wish to strike; but you, moved by charity, divert its wounds to cure yourselves. 22. Believe me, I was not so full of Agave650 as to shoot forth against you the daughter of my quiver.651 So pardon an innocent! ‘There is’, they say, ‘another reason why we hired Cyclopes to make thunderbolts to be used against your head.’ What, I ask? ‘You’, they say, ‘said then: “Your bishop is bishop not of Mende but of mimes.”’ I’m inclined to cry with the prophet Jeremiah: ‘Woe is me, my mother, why hast thou borne me a man of strife and pain in all the earth?’652 23. Where and when, I ask you, did I give vent to such things? Perhaps I branded your bishop with such

Referring to a work of Berengar’s that does not survive. He evidently accused the monk of the Cathar heresy. 644  Iob 19: 21. 645  Cf. Jerome, Epist. 52. 17. 2. 646  Horace, Serm. 2. 5. 59. 647  Referring to the cathedral at Maguelone, which had been staffed by Augustinian canons since the eleventh century, and the canons of Saint-Ruf at Avignon. 648  E.g. Virgil, Aen. 5. 520, ‘aerias telum contendit in auras’. 649  Cf. Virgil, Aen. 4. 71–2, ‘liquitque uolatile ferrum / nescius’. 650  A gloss in two manuscripts explains ‘id est furore’ (‘that is, rage’). Agave killed her son Pentheus in a fit of madness. 651  Cf. Lam. 3: 13. 652  Ierem. 15: 10 (‘uirum rixae, uirum discordiae’). 643 

70

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 70

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

AD EPISCOPVM MIMATENSEM

episcopo imprimebam. Nam uere fateor, in nullo clero talia delatraui. ‘Aliud est’ inquiunt ‘cur te nostro inebriemus aceto.’ Quid illud? ‘De nobis’ inquiunt ‘dixisti: “senatus uester uulgus est.”’ 24. Terretis me, fratres, nouitatibus uestris, et contra portenta quae fingitis frontem cruce signabo: in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Quid est quod dicitis? Vltra Sauromatas fugere hinc libet et glacialem Oceanum. 25. Vera est utique prophetia illa: ‘fictio ueritatem in exilium mittet.’ Hoc, fratres, fingere potuistis? Sed ut maiori auctoritate in aures publicas prodeant, me talium facitis inuentorem. Iurem me non dixisse? Sed quasi mons pariat murem, ridebitis. Recognoscam? Sed uirtutem crucis statim sentiam experimento. Quid igitur faciam? Veniam rogo innocens, et, si magis placet, ueniam postulo reus. 26. Ad cumulum autem satisfactionis sextarium mei sanguinis offero uobis. Parcite igitur, fratres, parcite, et criminatione nostrae personulae ora uestra nolite foedare. Lingua enim mea uestris laudibus militat, et ecclesiae uestrae pius sum praedicator ubique. Hanc humilitatem absens uobis praesenti pagina mitto, quam praesens uiua uoce, si uita comes fuerit, exhibebo.

71

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02a Latin).indd 71

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

TO THE BISHOP OF MENDE

blasphemies when I took part in fairs outside the world:653 for I can truly assert that I made no such wild pronouncement about any member of the clergy. ‘There is’, they say, ‘another reason why we make you drunk with our vinegar.’ What is that? ‘You’, they say, ‘said of us: “Your senate is the vulgar.”’654 24. You frighten me, brethren, with your novel ideas, and I will sign my forehead against the monstrous things you make up: In the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What is it you say? I want to flee from here, beyond the Sarmatians And the frozen Ocean.655 25. True indeed is the prophecy: ‘An invention shall send truth into exile.’656 Were you capable of inventing this, brethren? But that they may enter the public ear with more authority, you make me the source of such lies. Am I to swear I did not say that? But you will laugh, as if a mountain were bringing forth a mouse.657 Am I to acknowledge my guilt? But I will immediately experience the power of the cross.658 What then am I to do?659 I beg pardon as being innocent, or, if that is more to your liking, ask pardon for my guilt. 26. To complete my atonement, I offer you a pint of my blood. Spare me then, brethren, spare me, and don’t foul your lips by bringing charges against my worthless person. My tongue, after all, is at the service of your praises, and I am everywhere the dutiful encomiast of your church. In my absence I send you by the present page this act of humility; and, if life is still my companion, I shall display this act in person, with my living voice.

653  This looks like a quotation, but we have not identified it. The meaning is clear enough: that Berengar did not criticise the bishop of Mende. 654  Apparently from a lost work by Berengar, and without its context unintelligible. 655  Juvenal 2. 1–2. 656  Unidentified. 657  Cf. Horace, Ars poet. 139. 658  The meaning is obscure. 659  For this and what precedes, see Jerome, Epist. 84. 4. 1.

71

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 02b English).indd 71

18/08/2020 7:19 pm

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 72

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

Index of Sources

This index includes virtually all the Latin passages mentioned in the footnotes, with the exception of cross-references to the works of Bernard and Berengar themselves. Acta S. Vincentii martyris, c. 1 ​1 AMBROSE De excessu fratris 1. 8 ​54 Explanatio psalmorum 36. 24. 3 ​47 An unidentified work ​51 ANSELM, Proslog. 2–4 ​13 APULEIUS, De dogm. Platonis 1. 14 ​46 ‘ATHANASIUS’, De trin. 1. 17 ​13 AUGUSTINE Confess. 5. 6. 10 ​41 Contra aduersarium legis 1. 14. 22 ​56 Contra Iulianum 6. 21 ​68 De baptismo 4. 2. 3 ​42 De doctr. Christ. 2. 146 ​61 4. 66 ​11 De gratia Christi 1. 43. 47 ​68 De trin. 13. 3 ​18 De utilitate credendi 7. 17 ​55 Enarr. in Ps. 38. 12 ​39 Enchirid. 5. 17 ​67 Epist. 137. 3 ​57 231. 3 ​54 Serm. ad pop. 120 ​52

Epist. 242. 1 ​45 447 ​46 Sermones in Cant. Cant. 26. 2–13 ​52 27. 8 ​56 BIBLE Gen. 1: 26 ​37 2: 6 ​41 2: 7 ​56 3: 18 ​5 9: 21 ​43 15: 6 ​26 16: 12 ​19 18: 27 ​62 24: 49 ​16 31: 26–7 ​23 42: 9 ​64 Exod. 2: 3–6 ​3 8: 2–15 ​64 12: 9 ​3 12: 10 ​3 13: 3 ​9 16: 3 ​62 16: 15 ​62 20: 26 ​49 21: 33 ​39 24: 13–44 ​2 Levit. 2: 13 ​63 15: 32 ​65 Num. 12: 7 ​62

BEDE In Cant. Cant. allegorica expositio ​51 In Lucae evang. expositio ​59 In parabolas Salomonis 2 ​45 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX De dilig. Deo prol. ​57 1. 1 ​58

73

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 73

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

Index of Sources 20: 17 ​16 21: 22 ​16, 67 Deut. 2: 27 ​16 4: 39 ​10 5: 15 ​9 7: 19 ​62 31: 6 ​39 32: 14 ​44 33: 19 ​17 1 Reg. 15: 17 ​8 17: 5–7 ​6 17: 7 ​6 17: 8 ​7 17: 10 ​7 17: 14 ​7 17: 24 ​7 17: 41 ​6 2 Reg. 7: 8 ​8 15: 5 ​36 3 Reg. 4: 8–37 ​36 19: 4 ​5 20: 28 ​63 4 Reg. 8: 1–6 ​36 1 Chron. 16: 20 ​6 Esth. 2: 16 ​39 Iob 1: 19 ​62 5: 3 ​8 6: 16 ​6 10: 15 ​24 15: 22 ​39 19: 21 ​70 19: 28 ​45 20: 6 ​42 26: 13 ​39 40: 18 ​21 41: 7 ​6, 37 Ps. 1: 2 ​44 1: 4 ​54 2: 2 ​6, 37 7: 15 ​39 9: 7 ​34 9: 10 ​36 9: 28 ​40 9: 29 ​6, 37

10: 3 ​6, 37 11: 4 ​17 13: 1 ​37 17: 12 ​39 17: 28 ​37 17: 45 ​11 18: 7 ​24 18: 10 ​18 21: 13–14 ​45 21: 14 ​37 21: 20 ​38 25: 4 ​45 27: 3 ​4 30: 2 ​18 35: 7 ​62 35: 8 ​62 35: 12 ​17 36: 35–6 ​8 37: 12 ​36 44: 4 ​38 44: 8 ​35 49: 1 ​68 50: 9 ​62 54: 7 ​5 54: 9 ​5 62: 12 ​4 64: 14 ​63 65: 16 ​8 68: 10 ​50 70: 18 ​37 71: 3 ​63 72: 8 ​35 72: 9 ​10 72: 23 ​62 76: 11 ​41 83: 7 ​5 87: 13 ​5, 27 90: 13 ​37 92: 5 ​17 100: 1 ​59 102: 5 ​66 103: 25 ​66 104: 13 ​6 105: 10 ​20 106: 2 ​20 106: 2–3 ​21 110: 2 ​41 111: 4 ​59 112: 3 ​68 115: 15 ​28

74

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 74

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

Index of Sources 117: 6 ​7 118: 54 ​36 118: 99 ​20 119: 2 ​8, 35, 45 120: 1 ​62 130: 1 ​16, 33 134: 4 ​23 136: 1 ​64 138: 1 ​8 138: 21 ​35 140: 5 ​37, 47 143: 12 ​37 146: 5 ​61 147: 17 ​6 Prov. 9: 8 ​65 9: 17 ​19 22: 11 ​45 22: 28 ​19, 35, 52 25: 2 ​27 25: 27 ​19 Eccles. 7: 17 ​47 Cant. 1: 7 ​38 1: 14 ​46 2: 2 ​36 2: 15 ​8 3: 11 ​62 4: 1 ​46 4: 13 ​41 5: 12 ​46 Sap. 1: 5 ​46 1: 22 ​64 3: 22 ​3 6: 4 ​34 8: 1 ​40 13: 1 ​44, 67 19: 4 ​11 50: 11 ​8 Is. 1: 5–6 ​47 1: 25 ​61, 64 2: 4 ​59 5: 20 ​4 6: 6–7 ​61 6: 7 ​61 7: 18 ​6 10: 27 ​26 11: 2 ​17

11: 3 ​18 28: 19 ​5 32: 17 ​63 46: 8 ​64 52: 1 ​25 52: 3 ​23 52: 4 ​23 55: 7 ​29 59: 2 ​27 Ierem. 1: 10 ​8 2: 13 ​39 11: 19 ​42 15: 10 ​70 22: 4 ​45 25: 30 ​6 44: 17 ​45 Lam. 1: 2 ​36 3: 12 ​42 3: 13 ​70 3: 26 ​65 Ezek. 18: 20 ​23 Dan. 13: 59 ​17 Hab. 3: 2 ​27, 61 3: 14 ​45 Agg. 1: 6 ​69 Soph. 3: 16–17 ​20 Matt. 3: 17 ​33 5: 13 ​44 5: 15 ​67 7: 3–5 ​59 7: 6 ​25, 44 8: 20 ​44 10: 16 ​66 10: 19 ​7 11: 23 ​4 11: 25 ​25 12: 29 ​21 12: 31 ​17 13: 41 ​3, 10 13: 45–6 ​64 16: 18 ​48 17: 5 ​33 18: 7 ​5 19: 28 ​64 21: 9 ​26 24: 12 ​6, 38

75

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 75

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

Index of Sources 25: 5 ​36 26: 28 ​27 26: 49 ​36 27: 40 ​43 27: 64 ​35 28: 12–13 ​44 Marc. 4: 21 ​67 12: 27 ​52 12: 30 ​58 13: 27 ​62 14: 45 ​36 16: 14 ​11 Luc. 1: 18–20 ​11 1: 38 ​11 1: 79 ​26 2: 19 ​42 6: 38 ​58 10: 18 ​16 10: 34 ​59 10: 39 ​42 11: 21 ​21 11: 33 ​67 14: 5 ​39 16: 20–4 ​62 16: 22 ​62 16: 23 ​26 18: 8 ​44 22: 20 ​27 22: 32 ​10 22: 47 ​36 22: 53 ​21, 26 23: 31 ​22 24: 25 ​11 Ioh. 1: 1 ​52 1: 27 ​27 2: 17 ​50 3: 20 ​4, 6 3: 29 ​8, 36–7, 39 5: 17 ​57 5: 35 ​67 5: 45 ​33 6: 33 ​31 6: 54 ​31 6: 56 ​31 7: 16 ​19 8: 44 ​20 8: 56 ​26

11. 47–53 ​45 11: 51 ​20 11: 52 ​20 12: 31 ​21 14: 10 ​20 14: 30 ​21–2 15: 1 ​43 15: 5 ​52 19: 11 ​22 19: 23 ​42 21: 22 ​23 21: 23 ​7 Act. 4: 12 ​48 7: 54 ​43 19: 12 ​42 25: 11, 12 ​46 Rom. 1: 20 ​15 3: 24 ​24, 27 4: 2 ​24 4: 18 ​11 5: 8 ​27 5: 9 ​24, 27 5: 10 ​27–9 5: 15–16 ​24 5: 18 ​29 6: 5 ​30 6: 6 ​29 6: 7 ​23 6: 17 ​22 7: 22 ​39 7: 24 ​67 8: 3 ​28 8: 9 ​35 8: 16 ​17 8: 33–4 ​24 9: 20 ​28 10: 4 ​24 11: 13 ​10 11: 36 ​12 12: 3 ​33 12: 15 ​52 13: 12 ​4 1 Cor. 1: 17 ​25, 35 1: 30 ​24 2: 5 ​25 2: 7 ​25 2: 10 ​10, 35

76

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 76

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

Index of Sources 2: 13–14 ​25 2: 14 ​25 3: 11 ​6, 36 4: 7 ​24 7: 1 ​59 7: 9 ​60 8: 2 ​33 8: 6 ​12 11: 19 ​8 11: 23 ​19 13: 1, 3 ​46 13: 12 ​33 15: 14 ​17 15: 21–2 ​23 15: 22 ​29 2 Cor. 4: 3 ​25 5: 14 ​22 10: 5 ​31 10: 17 ​24 11: 14 ​7, 37 11: 21–2 ​68 12: 4 ​10 Gal. 1: 8 ​20 1: 9 ​6, 36 2: 20 ​31 5: 10 ​39 6: 5 ​35 6: 10 ​45 6: 14 ​30 Eph. 1: 5 ​26 1: 7 ​27 1: 9 ​27 1: 10 ​28 5: 27 ​40 Philipp. 1: 23 ​5 2: 7 ​24, 30 2: 8 ​30 2: 21 ​39 3: 18 ​39 3: 20 ​56 Col. 1: 13 ​21, 24 1: 18 ​22 1: 20 ​28 1: 26 ​25 2: 10 ​28

2: 13–15 ​23 3: 12 ​50 1 Tim. 1: 15 ​27, 30 3: 16 ​25 4: 14 ​8 6: 20 ​11, 33 2 Tim. 1: 11 ​18–19 1: 12 ​17 2: 25–6 ​21 2: 26 ​25 3: 5 ​7, 37 4: 14 ​9 Hebr. 2: 7, 9 ​24 5: 12 ​58 7: 25 ​28 11: 1 ​17–18 12: 20 ​67 Iac. 1: 17 ​24 3: 2 ​61 3: 8 ​66 3: 15 ​33 1 Pet. 2: 9 ​20, 69 3: 15 ​10 1 Ioh. 4: 2 ​22 5: 6 ​3 5: 18 ​24 Apoc. 14: 9 ​69 BOETHIUS, Phil. cons. 1 prose 4. 36 ​50 CASSIODORUS, Expos. psalmorum 38 ​ 64 CHROMATIUS, Serm. 31. 2 ​64 CICERO, In Catilinam 1. 2 ​46 CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS, De statu animae 2. 9 ​59 CONRADUS DE MURE, Fabularius, Lexicon I: 330 ​43 FORTUNATUS, Vita Radegundis 1. 12 ​47 FULGENTIUS, Ad Trasimundum ​68 ‘GALLUS’ (ignotus) ​43 GILDAS, De excid. Britanniae 50. 2 ​52

77

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 77

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

Index of Sources GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS, Gemma ecclesiastica II. 262 ​43 GREGORY THE GREAT Hom. in evang. 5. 1 ​11 26. 1 ​11 Moralia in Iob 5. 30 ​65

3. 42 ​42 Dial. contra Pelagianos 1. 39 ​47 Epist. 5. 2 ​51 22. 6. 4 ​46 48–9 ​60 52. 17. 2 ​70 57. 6. 1 ​55 58. 10. 2 ​61 60 ​55 60. 4. 2 ​55 60. 5. 1 ​44, 55 60. 5. 2 ​55 62. 1 ​67 84. 2. 3 ​53 84. 3. 6 ​44 84. 4. 1 ​71 84. 7. 4 ​51 84. 7. 7 ​43 107. 10. 1 ​65 119. 11. 5 ​46 124. 14. 4 ​13 126. 1. 2 ​56–7 147. 8. 2 ​45 In Amos 1. 3 ​42 In Ecclesiasten 12. 1 ​61 12. 9–10 ​51 In Hierem. 6. 17. 6 ​43 In Is. 59. 4–5 ​46 Translatio homiliarum Origenis in Cant. Cant. ​51 prol. ​51 JOHN OF SALISBURY, Policrat. 8. 13 ​67 JUVENAL 2. 1–2 ​71

HEIRIC OF AUXERRE, Vita Germani 3. 478 ​63 HILDEBERT, Vita B. Mariae Aegyptiacae 248 ​47 HINCMAR, De diuortio Lothari ​57 HORACE Ars poet. 1–5 ​53 7–9, 15–16 ​53 9–10, 12–13 ​53 72 ​47 139 ​71 140 ​58 143–4 ​58 273–4 ​53 322 ​55 355–6 ​54 388 ​53 390 ​53 441 ​53 Carm. 1. 18. 1 ​43 1. 37. 1–2 ​43 2. 10. 11–12 ​1 Epist. 1. 5. 19 ​43 1. 18. 70 ​67 Serm. 1. 7. 3 ​54 1. 10 ​68 1. 10. 1–4 ​53 2. 5. 59 ​70

LITURGICAL Maundy Thurs. Mass, Introit ​30 Requiem Mass, In paradisum ​62 LUCAN 1. 135 ​46 7. 62–3 ​55

INNOCENT II, Epist. 447 ​46 JEROME Adv. Iouin. 1. 1 ​46 1. 7 ​60 1. 9 ​60 Adv. Rufinum 3. 40 ​56

MACROBIUS, In somn. Scipionis 1. 2. 3–4 ​68 2. 5. 4 ​55 MARTIAL 1. 18. 5 ​44 4. 23. 7 ​46

78

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 78

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

Index of Sources OVID Am. 1. 2. 20, 21 ​47 Ars amat. 2. 128 ​55 Met. 6. 22 ​65 Remedia amoris 369 ​1 Trist. 2. 424 ​54

2. 123 ​16–17 2. 126 ​11 2. 129 ​12 PRUDENTIUS Contra Symmachum 1. 96 ​66 Peristephanon 5 ​1 5. 130 ​1

PERSIUS 1. 30–1 ​43 1. 105 ​66 4. 23–4 ​65 5. 56 ​45 PETER ABELARD Capitula haeresum XIV, no. 13 ​32 Commentaria in epistulam Pauli ad Romanos III. 26 ​19, 25, 28–30 Epist. 3. 2 ​48 Expositio symboli apostolorum ​49 Glossae super Peri Hermeneias 14. 26 ​ 54 Historia calamitatum 8, 40 ​1 Hymnarius Paraclitensis, praef. 2. 9 ​48 Liber sentent. frag. 2 ​25 frag. 3 ​19 frag. 4 ​26 frag. 5 ​28 frag. 6 ​29 frag. 7 ​29 frag. 8 ​30 frag. 9 ​30 frag. 12–13, 20 ​18 Scito teipsum ​4 Sic et non 49 ​26 Theologia ‘Christiana’ 1. 7 ​49 4. 85 ​15 Theologia ‘scholarium’ 1. 1 ​17 1. 19 ​49 1. 31 ​14 1. 32 ​49 1. 51–2 ​14 2. 35 ​11 2. 47 ​11 2. 54 ​11 2. 116 ​15

QUINTILIAN, Institutio oratoria 1. 10. 33 ​67 2. 4. 5 ​58 2. 4. 36 ​67 RETICIUS on Cantica Canticorum (lost) ​ 51 RIGORD OF SAINT-DENIS, Gesta Philippi II ​46 SCHOLIA IN OVIDI IBIN ​43 SEDULIUS, Carm. pasch. 1. 18 ​54 1. 331–3 ​45 4. 240 ​64 SENECA THE ELDER, Controvers. 6. 8 ​ 69 STATIUS, Theb. 3. 491 ​48 VALERIUS MAXIMUS 3. 4 ext. 1 ​69 9. 3. 7 ext. 3 ​53 VIRGIL Aen. 1. 301 ​63 4. 71–2 ​70 5. 520 ​70 6. 19 ​63 6. 129 ​15 7. 444 ​65 7. 611 ​48 Ecl. 3. 7 ​68 WILLIAM OF ST THIERRY, Disputatio aduersus Petrum Abaelardum 1 ​17 7 ​19 13 ​32

79

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 79

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

General Index

Aaron ​3 Abraham ​11, 26, 62 Absalom ​37 Academics ​18 Adalbert, bp. of Mende ​xvi Adam ​23, 28–30, 56 Aeolus ​66 Africa ​68 Agave ​70 Alcibiades ​xxiii, 55 Alexis ​xxiii, 55 Alps ​57 Ambrose, St ​xix, xxiii, 51, 54–5, 68 Anaxagoras ​55 Apollo ​69–70 Aristippus ​57 Aristotle ​xiv, xviii, 14, 48, 69 Arius, Arian ​xiv, 11–12, 33, 37, 39, 48, 59 Arnold of Brescia ​xiii, 6, 37–8 Assyrian ​23 Athanasius ​13 Attic ​46 Augustine, St ​xix, xxv, 17, 30, 33, 41, 56, 60, 68 Augustinians ​70 Avignon, church of Saint-Ruf ​xv, 70 Avitus ​13

Brittany ​39 Bruno of Asti ​xxix

Babylon ​64 Bacchus ​43–4 Bec ​57 Bede ​51 Benedict, monk of Marseilles ​xv–xvi, 70 Berengar of Poitiers ​xii–xxviii, 31, 41, 44–5, 50, 54, 62, 65–6, 71 Bernard of Clairvaux ​xi–xx, xxii–xxvii, 1, 3–5, 9–10, 13, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45–7, 51–2, 54, 57–8, 66–7, 69

Daedalus ​63 Dagan ​57 Damoetas ​68 Dan Burnellus ​xxii Datianus ​1 David ​7, 26, 37 Democritus ​55 Dijon ​xv Dissuasio Valerii ​xxvi, xxviii Drinkers’ Mass ​xxii

Caesar ​46, 68 Caiphas ​20 Cambrai ​xxviii Carneades ​55 Carthusians ​xv–xviii, xx–xxi, 62–3, 69 Cassiodorus ​xxvii Cathars ​60, 70 Celestine II, Pope ​33 Celestine III, Pope ​9 Champagne ​xv Chartres ​xxi Charybdis ​49 Châtillon-sur-Seine ​xv, 41 Chrysippus ​57 Cicero ​46, 55 Circe ​66 Cistercians ​xxi, xxviii, 66 Clairvaux ​39, 66 Claudianus Mamertus ​xix, 59 Cluniacs ​xii–xiii Colotes ​xviii, 68 Constantinople ​33 Cyclopes ​70 Cyril of Alexandria ​33

80

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 80

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

General Index Italy ​xii, xxvi, 6, 69 Ivo of Abach ​35

Egypt, Egyptians ​xvii, xxi, 61–2, 64 Elisha ​37 England ​xxviii Ennius ​54, 68 Ephesus, Council of ​33 Étienne de Tournai ​xxvii Eusebius of Vercelli ​13

Jacob ​23 James, St ​61 Jean Gerson ​xxvi Jean de Hesdin ​xxvi Jean de Meung ​xxvi Jeremiah ​70 Jerome, St ​xix–xx, xxiv, xxvii–xxviii, 12, 51, 55, 59–60, 68 Jerusalem ​20 Jews ​64 John, St ​35 Jordan, River ​21 Judas ​37 Julian ​68 Juvenal ​xiii, xix, xxii

Falernian ​44 Fleury ​xxviii Fontaines-lès-Dijon ​xv France ​xii, xxvi, 1, 6, 10, 37, 39, 41, 69 Fulgentius ​68 Gallus ​43 Garcia ​xxii Genesis ​56 Geoffrey, bp. of Chartres ​xi Gerald of Wales ​xxi Goliath ​xiii, 6–7 Gospel of Saint Mark-of-Silver ​xxiii Grande Chartreuse ​xv, xxv, 63–4 Greece ​55 Gregory, Pope ​11 Guibert of Nogent ​xxvi Guido of Castello ​33. See also Celestine II

Laban ​23 Lactantius ​60 Lanfranc ​57 Languedoc ​xv Lazarus ​26, 62 Lebanon ​8 Lethe ​43 Lucilius ​53, 68 Lyon ​59

Habakkuk ​61 Haimeric, Cardinal ​xiii, 57–8 Hebrews ​xxi Helen ​52 Heliodorus ​55 Heloise ​xvii, xxiv, xxvi–xxviii, 48 Henry, archbp. of Sens ​xi, 2, 7 Henry II, King ​xxiii Herod ​35 Hilary ​59 Homer ​58 Horace ​xvii, xix, xxii, 43, 53, 58, 68 Hur ​3 Hyacinth, Cardinal ​9. See also Celestine III

Maguelone ​xv, xxi, 70 Marseilles ​xxi, 70 Martial ​xix, 44 Martin, St ​xxv, 67 Mary, Virgin ​11, 33, 42 Menalcas ​68 Mende ​xv, xxi Minerva ​46 Moses ​3, 62, 64 Nepotianus ​55 Nestorius ​xiv, 33, 37, 40 Nicholas of Montiéramey ​9 Nigel Witeker ​xxi Noah ​43

Icarus ​63 Innocent II, Pope ​5, 10, 37, 46 instantiae ​57 Investiture Contest ​xix Isaiah ​xviii, 16 Israel, Israelites ​37, 62

Ocean ​71 Origen ​xvii, 13, 51, 56 Ovid ​xix

81

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 81

18/08/2020 7:20 pm

General Index Satyrus ​54–5 Scylla ​49, 66 Seneca ​68 Sens, Council of ​xi–xiii, xv–xvii, xxii, xxvi, 1, 5, 7, 10, 42 Shunem ​37 Signy ​xi Sirens ​49 Socrates ​xviii, 55, 69 Soissons, Council of ​35, 39 Solomon ​11, 19, 45, 47, 52 Stephen, St ​xi Stephen of Châlons, cardinal bp. of Praeneste ​39 Sunamite ​37

Pammachius ​60 Paris ​xxiii, xxvii–xxviii, 1, 57 Patripassians ​49 Paul, St ​21–2, 42, 46, 48, 67 Payen Bolotin ​xxi Pelagius, Pelagian ​xiv, 29–30, 33, 37, 40, 68 Pentheus ​70 Persius ​xiii, xix, xxii Peter, St ​8, 10, 39, 47–9 Peter Abelard ​xi–xvii, xix–xx, xxiv–xxix, 1, 3–4, 6, 20, 22, 31–3, 35–7, 39, 41–50, 57, 59–61, 67, 69 Peter of Blois ​xxviii Peter Leonis ​5, 39 Peter the Venerable ​xxvi Petrarch ​xxvi–xxvii Pharaoh ​62, 64 Pharisees ​xxii, 45 Philistines ​37 Pilate ​21 Plato ​xiv, xviii, xxiii, xxv, 18, 55–6, 68 Poitiers ​59 Poitou ​xv Posidonius ​55 Provence ​xv Pythagoras ​xvii, 55–6

Ter Doest ​xxviii Thierry of Chartres ​18 Thomas of Morigny ​31 Tours ​67 Tractatus Garsiae ​xxii Tullia ​55 Ulysses ​49, 55, 66 Urban II, Pope ​xxii–xxiii Varius Geminus ​69 Varus ​43 Vincent, St ​1 Virgil ​xix

Reticius of Autun ​xxiv, 51–2 Rhone valley ​xv Robert, nephew of St Bernard ​xii Rome, Roman ​xi–xii, xxi, 6, 35, 37, 40, 46, 49, 50, 57–8 Romulus ​43 Rufinus ​xxvii

Walter Map ​xxi, xxiii, xxvi Wibald of Corvey ​67 William, bp. of Mende ​xv–xvi, xviii–xx, xxv, 66, 71 William of Conches ​18 William of Saint Thierry ​xi, 1

Sabellius ​49 Saint-Victor ​35 Samaritan ​59 Sarmatians ​71 Satan ​7, 16

Zachary ​11 Zeuxis ​52

82

2419 (Boydell - Abelard - 03 Back matter).indd 82

18/08/2020 7:20 pm