{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_51862/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_51862","id":"gutenberg_51862","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51862","summary":null,"tags":["Abelard, Peter, 1079-1142","Category: Biographies","Category: History - European","Category: History - Medieval/Middle Ages","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Theologians -- France -- Biography","Theology -- History -- Middle Ages, 600-1500"],"text":"Note: Images of the original pages are available through\n      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See\n      https://archive.org/details/peterabelard00mccaiala\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s note:\n\n      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n      Small capitals are represented in upper case as in SMALL CAPS.\n\n      Footnotes have been numbered in a single series. Each footnote\n      is placed at the end of the paragraph which includes its\n      anchor.\n\n\n\n\n\nPETER AB\u00c9LARD\n\n\nAll rights reserved\nCopyrighted in America\n\n\nPETER AB\u00c9LARD\n\nby\n\nJOSEPH McCABE\n\nAuthor of\n\u2018Twelve Years in a Monastery,\u2019 etc.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\nLondon\nDuckworth and Co.\n3 Henrietta Street, W.C.\n1901\n\nEdinburgh: T. and A. Constable, (late) Printers to Her Majesty\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe author does not think it necessary to offer any apology for\nhaving written a life of Ab\u00e9lard. The intense dramatic interest of\nhis life is known from a number of brief notices and sketches, but\nEnglish readers have no complete presentation of the facts of that\nremarkable career in our own tongue. The _History of Abailard_ of Mr.\nBerington, dating from the eighteenth century, is no longer adequate\nor useful. Many French and German scholars have rewritten Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nlife in the light of recent knowledge and feeling, but, beyond the\nshort sketches to be found in Compayr\u00e9, Poole, Rashdall, Cotter\nMorison, and others, no English writer of the nineteenth century\nhas given us a complete study of this unique and much misunderstood\npersonality. Perhaps one who has also had a monastic, scholastic,\nand ecclesiastical experience may approach the task with a certain\nconfidence.\n\nIn the matter of positive information the last century has added\nlittle directly to the story of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s life. Indirectly, however,\nmodern research has necessarily helped to complete the picture; and\nmodern feeling, modern humanism, reinterprets much of the story.\n\nSince the work is intended for a circle of readers who cannot be\nassumed to have a previous acquaintance with the authorities who\nare cited here and there, it is necessary to indicate their several\npositions in advance. The chief sources of the story are the letters\nof Ab\u00e9lard and Heloise. The first letter of the series, entitled the\n\u2018Story of my Calamities,\u2019 is an autobiographical sketch, covering\nthe first fifty years of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s life. To these must be added the\nletters of St. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux: of Peter the Venerable,\nabbot of Cluny: of Jean Roscelin, canon of Compi\u00e8gne, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s early\nteacher: and of Fulques of Deuil, a contemporary monk. A number\nof Latin works written shortly after Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s death complete, or\ncomplicate, the narrative. The principal of these are: the _Vita\nBeati Bernardi_, written by his monk-secretary: the _Vita Beati\nGoswini_, by two monks of the period: the _De gestis Frederici I._\nof a Cistercian bishop, Otto of Freising: the _Metalogicus_ and the\n_Historia Pontificalis_ of John of Salisbury: and the _Vita Ludovici\nGrossi_ and _De rebus a se gestis_ of Suger, abbot of St. Denis, and\nfirst royal councillor. Many of the chronicles of the twelfth century\nalso contain brief references.\n\nChief amongst the later French historians is Du Boulai with his\n_Historia Universitatis Parisiensis_\u2014\u2018the most stupid man who ever\nwrote a valuable book,\u2019 says Mr. R. L. Poole. Amongst other French\nchroniclers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries we may\nmention: De Launoy (_De scholis celebrioribus_), Dubois (_Historia\nEcclesi\u00e6 Parisiensis_), Lobineau (_Histoire de Bretagne_), F\u00e9libien\n(_Histoire de l\u2019abbaye de Saint Denys_ and _Histoire de la ville\nde Paris_), Longueval (_Histoire de l\u2019\u00c9glise Gallicane_), Tarb\u00e9\n(_Recherches historiques sur la ville de Sens_), and, of course,\nthe _Histoire litt\u00e9raire de la France_, _Gallia Christiana_, and\necclesiastical historians generally.\n\nA large number of \u2018lives\u2019 of Ab\u00e9lard have been founded on these\ndocuments. In French we have _La vie de P. Ab\u00e9lard_ of Gervaise,\na monkish admirer of the eighteenth century, far from ascetic in\ntemper, but much addicted to imaginative description: the historical\nessay of Mme. and M. Guizot, prefixed to M. Oddoul\u2019s translation of\nthe letters of Ab\u00e9lard and Heloise: the _Ab\u00e9lard_ of M. R\u00e9musat,\npronounced by Ste. Beuve himself to be \u2018un chef d\u2019\u0153uvre\u2019: and the\n_Lettres Compl\u00e8tes_ of M. Gr\u00e9ard, with a helpful introduction.\nIn German Reuter chiefly discusses Ab\u00e9lard as a thinker in his\n_Geschichte der religi\u00f6sen Aufkl\u00e4rung_: Deutsch is mainly preoccupied\nwith his theology in his _Peter Ab\u00e4lard_, but gives an exhaustive\nstudy of the last years of his life in _Ab\u00e4lards Verurtheilung\nzu Sens_: Neander discusses him in his _Heilige Bernhard_: and\nHausrath offers the most complete and authoritative study of his\ncareer and character in his recent _Peter Ab\u00e4lard_. In English we\nhave, as I said, the eighteenth-century work of Berington, a small\nfantastic American version (quite valueless), and the more or less\nlengthy studies of Ab\u00e9lard found in Rashdall\u2019s fine _Universities of\nEurope_, Cotter Morison\u2019s _Life and Times of St. Bernard_ (scarcely\na judicious sketch), Compayr\u00e9\u2019s _Ab\u00e9lard and the Universities_ (in\nwhich the biography is rather condensed), Roger Vaughan\u2019s _Life of\nSt. Thomas of Aquin_, and Mr. R. L. Poole\u2019s _Illustrations of the\nHistory of Medi\u00e6val Thought_ (from whom we may regret we have not\nreceived a complete study of Ab\u00e9lard).\n\n\n_January_ 31, 1901.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAP.                                           PAGE\n\n     I. THE QUEST OF MINERVA                         1\n\n    II. A BRILLIANT VICTORY                         18\n\n   III. PROGRESS OF THE ACADEMIC WAR                41\n\n    IV. THE IDOL OF PARIS                           64\n\n     V. DEAD SEA FRUIT                              96\n\n    VI. THE MONK OF ST. DENIS                      124\n\n   VII. THE TRIAL OF A HERETIC                     146\n\n  VIII. CLOUD UPON CLOUD                           163\n\n    IX. BACK TO CHAMPAGNE                          181\n\n     X. THE TRIALS OF AN ABBOT                     202\n\n    XI. THE LETTERS OF AB\u00c9LARD AND HELOISE         224\n\n   XII. A RETURN TO THE ARENA                      253\n\n  XIII. THE FINAL BLOW                             281\n\n   XIV. CONSUMMATUM EST                            309\n\n    XV. THE INFLUENCE OF AB\u00c9LARD                   329\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE QUEST OF MINERVA\n\n\nPeter Ab\u00e9lard was born towards the close of the eleventh century. No\nother personality that we may choose to study leads to so clear and\ntrue an insight into those strange days as does that of the luckless\nBreton philosopher. It was the time of transition from the darkest\nhour of medi\u00e6val Europe to a period of both moral and intellectual\nbrilliance. The gloom of the \u2018century of iron\u2019 still lay on the\nland, but it was already touched with the faint, spreading dawn of\na new idealism. There is, amongst historians, a speculation to the\neffect that the year 1000 of the Christian era marked a real and very\ndefinite stage in the history of thought. Usually we do violence\nto events by our chronological demarcations; but it is said that\nChristendom confidently expected the threatened rolling-up of the\nheavens and the earth to take place in the year 1000. Slowly, very\nslowly, the sun crept over the dial of the heavens before the eyes\nof idle men. But no Christ rode on the clouds, and no Anti-Christ\ncame into the cities. And the heaviness was lifted from the breasts\nof men, and the blood danced merrily in their veins once more. They\nbegan again \u2018to feel the joy of existence,\u2019 as an old writer has it,\nand to build up their towers afresh in the sun-light.\n\nIt was a strangely chequered period, this that changed the darkness\nof the tenth into the comparative radiance of the thirteenth century.\nAll life was overcast by densest ignorance and grossest lust and\nfiercest violence, the scarcely altered features of the \u2018converted\u2019\nnorthern barbarians; yet the light of an ideal was breaking through,\nin the pure atmosphere of reformed monasteries, in the lives of\nsaintly prelates and women refined beyond their age, and in the\nintellectual gospel of a small band of thinkers and teachers. Amid\nthe general degradation of the Church and the cloister strong souls\nhad arisen, ardent with a contagious fire of purity. High-minded\nprelates had somehow attained power, in spite of the net of simony\nand corruption. The sons of St. Benedict, rising and falling too\noften with the common tide, had, nevertheless, guarded some\ntreasures of the earlier wisdom, and shared them lovingly at their\ngates with the wandering scholar. Thousands there were who could\nclose heart and home at the fiery word of a preacher, and go to\nstarve their souls in the living tomb of a monastery. Thousands could\ncast down their spades and their wine-cups, and rush to meet death in\nthe trail of a frenzied hermit.[1] They were the days of the travail\nof the spirit; and they rise before us in arresting vision when we\nlook into the life of Peter Ab\u00e9lard.\n\n  [1] I am thinking, of course, of the thousands of simple folk who\n  rushed blindfold into the fatal procession towards Jerusalem,\n  setting their children on their rude carts, and asking na\u00efvely,\n  at each tower that came in sight in their own France, if that was\n  the Holy City: those whose bones marked the path to Palestine for\n  later Crusaders. As to the professional warriors, there is surely\n  more humour than aught else in the picture of the King of France\n  and his like setting forth to \u2018do penance\u2019 for their vice and\n  violence by a few months of adventure, carnage, and pillage.\n\nThat life begins some day in the last decade of the eleventh century,\nwhen the young Breton, then in his fifteenth or sixteenth year, went\nout from his father\u2019s castle into the bright world on the quest\nof Minerva. Of his earlier years we know nothing. Later fancy has\nbrooded over them to some purpose, it is true, if there are any whom\nsuch things interest. The usual unusual events were observed before\nand after his birth, and the immortal swarm of bees that has come\ndown the ages, kissing the infant lips of poets and philosophers, did\nnot fail to appear at Pallet. In point of sober fact, we rely almost\nexclusively on Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s autobiography for the details of his earlier\ncareer, and he tells us nothing of his childhood, and not much of his\nyouth. It matters little. The life of a soul begins when it looks\nbeyond the thoughts of parents and teachers\u2014if it ever do\u2014out into\nthe defiant world, and frames a view and a purpose.\n\nThe home from which Ab\u00e9lard issued, somewhere about the year 1095,\nwas an ancient castle at Pallet, in Brittany, about eleven miles\nto the south-east of Nantes. At the end of the village, which was\nthreaded on the high road from Nantes to Poitiers, a steep eminence\ndominated the narrow flood of the Sangu\u00e8ze. The castle was built on\nthis: overlooking the village more, as it chanced, in a spirit of\nfriendly care than of haughty menace. The spot is still visited by\nmany a pilgrim\u2014not with a priestly benediction; but the castle is now\nthe mere relic of a ruin. In the most penetrating movements of his\nprophetic genius, Ab\u00e9lard never foresaw the revolt of the serfs,\nor indeed any economic development. In this one respect he failed\nto detect and outstrip what little advance was made in his day. His\nfather\u2019s castle has disappeared with the age it belonged to, and the\nsons of his vassals now lay the bones of their dead to rest on his\ndesolated hearth.\n\nB\u00e9renger, the father, was a noble of a rare type. He had fortunately\nreceived a little culture before setting out in the service of\nHoel IV., Duke of Brittany and Count of Nantes, and he in turn\ncommunicated his taste and his knowledge to his children. From the\nfact, too, that he and his wife Lucia adopted the monastic life a few\nyears after Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s departure, we may gather that they were also\nabove the moral level of their class. It is not idle to note that\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s mind encountered no evil or irreligious influences when it\nfirst opened. All the circumstances that are known to us suggest a\ngentle, uplifting, and reverential education. He was the eldest of\nthe sons of B\u00e9renger; and, partly, no doubt, because greater care had\nbeen taken with his education, partly in the necessary consciousness\nof mental power, he early determined to leave home, and wander over\nthe land in search of learning. His words give one the impression\nthat he shouldered a wallet, and sallied forth alone, after the\nadventurous fashion of the day. However that may be, he says that he\nresolved to leave the chances of the favour of Mars to his brothers,\nand set out to woo the gentler Minerva. Abandoning the rights of\nprimogeniture and the possible grace of kings, he passed away from\nthe great castle, and turned eagerly in the direction of the nearest\nschool.\n\nIt was not uncommon in those \u2018Dark Ages\u2019 for a young noble to resign\nthe comfort of the ch\u00e2teau and the glamour of a courtly life in this\nway. The scholastic fever, which was soon to inflame the youth of the\nwhole of Europe, had already set in. You could not travel far over\nthe rough roads of France without meeting some foot-sore scholar,\nmaking for the nearest large monastery or episcopal town. Before\nmany years, it is true, there was a change, as the keen-eyed Jew\nwatched the progress of the fever. There arose an elaborate system\nof conveyance from town to town, an organisation of messengers to\nrun between the ch\u00e2teau and the school, a smiling group of banks and\nbankers. But in the earlier days, and, to some extent, even later,\nthe scholar wandered afoot through the long provinces of France.\nHere and there a noble or a wealthy merchant would fly past in his\nsilks and furs, with a body-guard of a dozen stout fellows; or a\npoor clerk would jog along on his ass, looking anxiously towards\neach wood or rock that bordered the road ahead. Robbers, frequently\nin the service of the lord of the land, infested every province. It\nwas safest to don the coarse frieze tunic of the pilgrim, without\npockets, sling your little wax tablets and style at your girdle,\nstrap a wallet of bread and herbs and salt on your back, and laugh\nat the nervous folk who peeped out from their coaches over a hedge\nof pikes and daggers. Few monasteries refused a meal or a rough bed\nto the wandering scholar. Rarely was any fee exacted for the lesson\ngiven. For the rest, none were too proud to earn a few sous by\nsweeping, or drawing water, or amusing with a tune on the reed-flute:\nor to wear the cast-off tunics of their masters.\n\nIt is fitting that we should first find little Pierre\u2014Master Roscelin\nrecalls him in later years as \u2018the smallest of my pupils\u2019\u2014under the\ncare of a rationalist scholar. Love was the first rock on which the\nfair promise of his early manhood was shattered, but throughout the\nlong, sternly religious years that followed, it was his restless\napplication of reason to the veiled dogmas of faith that brought\nendless cruelty and humiliation upon him. Now, Jean Roscelin, canon\nof Compi\u00e8gne, was the rationalist of his day. As Ab\u00e9lard was fated\nto do, he had attempted to unveil the super-sacred doctrine of the\nTrinity; not in the spirit of irreverent conceit, with which people\ncredited both him and Ab\u00e9lard, but for the help of those who were\nafflicted with a keen intellect and an honest heart. For this he had\nbeen banished from England in 1093, and from the kingdom of France,\nand had settled in one or other of the Gaulish provinces.\n\nMme. Guizot, in her very careful study of Ab\u00e9lard, sees no evidence\nfor the statement that he studied under Roscelin, but the fact is now\nbeyond dispute. Otto von Freising, a contemporary historian, says\nthat he \u2018had Roscelin for his first master\u2019; Aventinus and others\nalso speak of Roscelin as an early teacher of his. Roscelin himself,\nin a letter which it seems \u2018frivolous,\u2019 as Deutsch says, to hesitate\nto accept, claims that Ab\u00e9lard sat at his feet\u2014it was the literal\npractice in those days\u2014\u2018from boyhood to youth.\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard, on the other\nhand, writes that he attended Roscelin\u2019s lectures \u2018for a short time\u2019;\nbut this correspondence took place at a moment when the one would\nbe greatly disposed to exaggerate and the other to attenuate. An\nanonymous anecdote, which we shall examine presently, pretends that\nhe found Roscelin unsatisfactory, but \u2018controlled his feeling so far\nas to remain under Roscelin for a year.\u2019 It is clear enough that he\nspent a few of his earlier years on the hay-strewn floor of Master\nRoscelin\u2019s lecture-hall.\n\nThere is some uncertainty as to the locality, but a sufficient\nindication to impart an interest to the question. Roscelin says it\nwas at the \u2018Locensis ecclesia.\u2019 This is easily understood if we\ninterpret it to mean the monastery of Locmenach[2] in Brittany. The\nmonks of St. Gildas, on the coast of Brittany, a wild band whose\ncloser acquaintance we shall make later on, had established a branch\nmonastery at Locmenach. As will appear in due time, they would be\nlikely to have small scruple about increasing its revenue by erecting\na chair for one of the most famous dialecticians in Christendom,\nin spite of his condemnation for heresy at London and Soissons.\nWe have no special information about the manner of school-life at\nLocmenach, save that we know the monks of St. Gildas to have been the\nliving antithesis to the good monks of Bec; but it is interesting to\nfind Ab\u00e9lard studying dialectics under a famous rationalist, and in\na monastery that was subject to the Abbey of St. Gildas of Rhuys.\nThe dark pages of his later history will give point to the dual\ncircumstance.\n\n  [2] Locmenach = _locus monachorum_, \u2018the place of the monks.\u2019 The\n  older name was Moriacum. It is now called Locmin\u00e9, and lies a few\n  miles to the east of Vannes.\n\nThere is one other, and less reliable, account of Ab\u00e9lard in his\nschool-days. In an anecdote which is found in one or two older\nwriters, and on the margin of an old Ab\u00e9lard manuscript, it is stated\nthat he studied mathematics under a certain Master Tirricus. The\nanecdote is generally rejected as valueless, on the ground that it\ncontains clear trace of the work of a \u2018constructive imagination\u2019;\nbut Mr. Poole points out that \u2018there is no reason to doubt\u2019 the\nauthenticity of the substance of the narrative, and it seems to\nme that the fictional element may be reduced to a very slender\nquantity. The story runs that Tirric, or Theodoric, one day found\nAb\u00e9lard shedding tears of fruitless perspiration over mathematical\nproblems. He had already, it is said, mastered the higher branches\nof knowledge, and was even teaching, but had omitted mathematics, and\nwas endeavouring to remedy the omission by taking private lessons\nfrom Tirric. Noting his effort, the master is represented to say:\n\u2018What more can the sated dog do than lick the bacon?\u2019 \u2018To lick the\nbacon\u2019 is, in the crude Latinity of the age, _bajare lardum_, and the\nstory pretends the phrase afforded a nickname for Pierre (Bajolard\nor Baiolard), and was eventually rounded into Ab\u00e9lard or Abailard.\nThe construction is so crude, and the probability that Ab\u00e9lard is\na surname needing no legendary interpretation is so high, that the\nwhole anecdote is often contemptuously rejected. It is surely much\nmore reasonable to read the phrase as a pun on Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s name, which\nsome later writer, to whom the name was unfamiliar, has taken in a\nconstructive sense.[3]\n\n  [3] The name occurs in a dozen different forms in the ancient\n  records. I adopt the form which is generally used by modern\n  French writers. D\u2019Argentr\u00e9 and other historians of Brittany say\n  that it was not unknown about Nantes in those days. We must\n  remember that it was the period when nicknames, trade-names,\n  etc., were passing into surnames. Another pun on the name, which\n  greatly tickled the medi\u00e6val imagination, was \u2018Aboilar,\u2019 supposed\n  to convey the idea that he was a dog who barks at heaven (_aboie\n  le ciel_). It was perpetrated by Hugo Metellus, a rival master.\n\nThere are several good reasons for retaining the historical\nframework of the anecdote. It is a fact that Ab\u00e9lard never mastered\nmathematics; chancing to mention arithmetic in one of his works,\nhe says, \u2018Of that art I confess myself wholly ignorant.\u2019 It was\nunfortunate for mathematics. Most probably the puerility of that\nliberal art, in its early medi\u00e6val form, repelled him. In the next\nplace, there was a distinguished master living in France of the\nname of Tirric, or Theodoric, who is said to have had a leaning to\nmathematics. He taught in the episcopal school at Chartres, long\nfamous for the lectures of his brother Bernard. Finally, a Master\nTirric (presumably the same) turns up at Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s trial in 1121,\nand boldly and caustically scourges papal legate and bishops alike.\nHowever, if we attribute so much authority to the story, it clearly\nrefers to a later date. The picture of Ab\u00e9lard, already a teacher,\nsated with knowledge, coming \u2018in private\u2019 to repair an omission in\nthe course of his studies, must be relegated to one of the intervals\nin his teaching at Paris, not, as Mr. Poole thinks, to the period\nbetween leaving Roscelin and arriving at Paris.\n\nAb\u00e9lard himself merely says that he \u2018went wherever dialectics\nflourished.\u2019 For five or six years he wandered from school to\nschool, drawn onward continually by the fame of schools and of\nmasters. Schools were plentiful, and the age was already rich in\ngreat teachers. Charlemagne had inaugurated the scholastic age two\nhundred years before with the founding of the Palace School, and had\ndirected that every monastery and every episcopal town should give\ninstruction. With periods of languor the Benedictines had sustained\nthe scholastic tradition through the soulless age that followed, and\nthe second half of the eleventh century saw a brisk development.\nThere was the great abbey of Bec, in Normandy, where St. Anselm still\ndetained crowds of pupils after the departure of Lanfranc. But at\nBec the students were not part of a \u2018great undisciplined horde,\u2019\nas Rashdall calls the students of the early Middle Ages. With its\ncareful regulations, its bare-back castigations, its expurgated\nclassics, and its ever watchful monks, it contrived at once to\ncultivate the mind (in moderation) and to guard the sanctity of\nfaith and morals. Cluny, in the south, had a similar school at its\ngates, and the same control of the scholars it lodged and fed. St.\nDenis, near Paris, had another famous Benedictine school. The forty\nmonasteries that William of Dijon had recently reformed had opened\nfree schools for the wandering pupils, and even fed the poorer youths.\n\nThen there were men of European fame teaching in the cathedral\ncloisters of the larger towns. At Chartres, good Bishop Ivo\u2014the only\nlawyer who ever lived and died in the odour of sanctity\u2014had spent\nmuch energy in the improvement of his school. Little John, or John\nof Salisbury, has left us a proud record of its life at a slightly\nlater date, when Tirric and his brother Bernard presided over it.\nAt Tournai, Master Eudes of Orleans, the peripatetic of the time,\nwalked the cloisters all day with his questioning scholars, and\ngathered them before the cathedral door of an evening to explain\nthe profound mysteries of the solid spheres that whirled overhead,\nand of the tiny, immortal fires that were set in them. Other famous\nepiscopal schools were those of Tours, Rheims, Angers, and Laon. But\nevery bishop had his master or masters for the teaching of grammar,\nrhetoric, and dialectics (the _trivium_), and in the larger towns\nwere \u2018lectors\u2019 of the other four liberal arts (the _quadrivium_),\nmusic, geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy. Theology was taught under\nthe watchful eye of the bishop and his chapter, and in time chairs\nof Hebrew, and, with the progress of the Saracenic invasion of the\nintellectual world, even of Arabic, were founded. At the abbey of\nSt. Denis, monk Baldwin, sometime physician to the King of England,\ntaught and practised the art of healing. At Chartres, also, medicine\nwas taught somewhat later; and there are stories of teachers of law.\nAnd beside all these, there were the private masters, \u2018coaches,\u2019\netc., who opened schools wherever any number of scholars forgathered.\n\nThus the historical imagination can readily picture all that is\ncontained in the brief phrase with which Ab\u00e9lard dismisses the five\nor six years of his studies. \u2018There was no regular curriculum in\nthose days,\u2019 Mr. Rashdall says, in his study of the \u2018Universities\nof Europe\u2019; but the seven liberal arts were taught, and were\ngradually arranging themselves in a series under the pressure of\ncircumstances. Music Ab\u00e9lard certainly studied; before many years\nhis songs were sung through the length and breadth of France. None\nof his contemporaries made a more eager and profitable study of what\nwas called grammar\u2014that is, not merely an exercise in the rules of\nDonatus and Priscian, but a close acquaintance with the great Latin\npoets and historians. Rhetoric and dialectics he revelled in\u2014\u2018I went\nwherever dialectics flourished.\u2019 To so good purpose did he advance\nin this work of loosening the tongue and sharpening the wit, that\nthroughout his life the proudest orators and thinkers of Christendom\nshrank in dismay from the thought of a verbal encounter with him. \u2018I\nam a child beside him,\u2019 pleaded Bernard of Clairvaux, at a time when\nFrance, and even Rome, trembled at the sound of his own voice. But we\nmust defer for a few pages the consideration of medi\u00e6val dialectics.\n\n    \u2018Illi soli patuit quicquid scibile erat,\u2019\n\nsaid an ancient epitaph; and, though the historian handles epigrams\nwith discretion, it must be admitted that Ab\u00e9lard surpassed his\ncontemporaries, not only in ability and in utterance, but also\nin erudition. There is the one exception of mathematics, but it\nseems probable that he despised what passed under that name in the\ntwelfth century. \u2018Mathematics,\u2019 he says somewhere, in a sarcastic\nparenthesis, \u2018the exercise of which is nefarious.\u2019 But in the thrust\nand parry of dialectics he found a keen delight; and so he wandered\nfrom place to place, edging his logical weapons on fellow-pupils\nand provincial masters, until one day, about the opening year\nof the twelfth century, he directed his steps towards far-famed\nParis\u2014beautiful, naughty, brilliant, seductive Paris, even in those\ndistant days.\n\nBut the Paris of the first decade of the twelfth century was wholly\ndifferent, not only from the Paris of to-day, but even from the Paris\nof Victor Hugo\u2019s famous picture.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nA BRILLIANT VICTORY\n\n\nIf you desire to see the Paris of those early days, imagine yourself\nbeside the spot where the modern Pantheon stands. It is the summit\nof what Paris called \u2018the hill\u2019 for many a century\u2014the hill of St.\nGenevieve. Save for the large monastery of secular canons beside you,\nthe abbey of St. Genevieve, there is yet little sign of the flood of\ngrimy masonry that will creep up slowly from the river valley, as the\nages advance, and foul the sweet country for miles beyond. Paris lies\ndown in the valley below, a toy city. The larger island in the Seine\nbears almost the whole weight of the capital of France. It has, it\nis true, eaten a little way into the northern bank of the river, to\nwhich it is joined by the Great Bridge. That is the Lombard Quarter,\nand Lutetian commerce is increasing rapidly. Numbers of curious\nships sail up the broad, silver bosom of the Seine, and make for\nthe port of St. Landry. The commercial quarter is already spreading\nin the direction of Montmartre, with the public butchery and bakery\nat its outskirt; but it is a mere fringe. The broad valleys and\nthe gentle hills that are one day to support Paris are now clothed\nwith vineyards and orchards and cornfields, and crowned with groves\nof olive[4] and oak. On the nearer side, too, the city has already\noverflowed the narrow limits of the island. There are houses on the\nfine stone bridge, the Little Bridge, and there is a pretty confusion\nof houses, chapels, schools, and taverns gradually stealing up the\nslope of St. Genevieve. But, here also, most of the hill is covered\nwith gardens and vineyards, from which a chapel or a relic of old\nRoman Lutetia peeps out here and there\u2014the ruins of the famous old\ntherm\u00e6 lie half-way down the hill below us\u2014; and along the valley of\nthe\n\n    \u2018... florentibus ripis amnis\u2019\n\n(to quote a poet of the time), to east and west, are broad lakes\nof fresh green colour, broken only in their sweet monotony by an\noccasional island of masonry, an abbey with a cluster of cottages\nabout it.\n\n  [4] This and other details I gather from fragments of the minor\n  poets of the time.\n\nIt is down straight below us, on the long, narrow island, that we see\nthe heart of France, the centre of its political, intellectual, and\necclesiastical life. A broad, unpaved road, running from Great Bridge\nto Little Bridge, cuts it into two. Church occupies most of the\neastern half, State most of the western; their grateful subjects pack\nthemselves as comfortably as they can in the narrow fringe that is\nleft between the royal and ecclesiastical domains and the bed of the\nriver. Each generation in turn has wondered why it was so scourged\nby \u2018the burning fire\u2019 (the plague), and resolved to be more generous\nto the Church. From the summit of St. Genevieve we see the front\nof the huge, grey, Roman cathedral, that goes back to the days of\nChildebert, and the residences of its prelates and canons bordering\nthe cloister. Over against it, to the west, is the spacious royal\ngarden, which is graciously thrown open to the people two or three\ntimes a week, with the palace of King Philip at the extremity of the\nisland. That is Paris in the year of grace 1100; and all outside\nthose narrow limits is a very dream of undulating scenery, with the\nvesture of the vine, the fir, the cypress, the oak, the olive, and\nthe fig; and the colour of the rose, the almond, the lily, and the\nviolet; and the broad, sweet Seine meandering through it; and the\npurest air that mortal could desire.\n\nTo our young philosopher Paris probably presented itself first in the\ncharacter of \u2018the city of philosophers.\u2019 Each of the great abbeys had\nits school. That of the abbey of St. Genevieve will soon be familiar\nto us. The abbey of St. Germain of Auxerre, to the north, and the\nabbey of St. Germain of the Meadow, to the west, had schools at their\ngates for all comers. St. Martin in the Fields had its school, and\nthe little priory of St. Victor, to the east, was soon to have one of\nthe most famous of all schools of theology. The royal abbey of St.\nDenis, a few miles away, had a school in which Prince Louis was then\nbeing trained, together with the illustrious Abbot Suger. A number\nof private schools were scattered about the foot of St. Genevieve.\nThe Jews had a school, and\u2014mark the liberality of the time\u2014there was,\nor had been until a very few years before, a school for women; it\nwas conducted by the wife and daughters of famous Master Manegold,\nof Alsace, women who were well versed in Scripture, and \u2018most\ndistinguished in philosophy,\u2019 says Muratori.\n\nBut Ab\u00e9lard went straight to the centre of Paris, to the cloistral\nenclosure under the shadow of old Notre Dame,[5] where was the first\nepiscopal school in the kingdom, and one of the first masters in\nChristendom. William of Champeaux was a comparatively young master,\nwho had forced his way into high places by sheer ability. He was\nheld to be the first dialectician in France, and \u2018almost the first\nroyal councillor.\u2019 In the great philosophic controversy of the period\nhe was the leader of the orthodox school. The Bishop of Paris had\nbrought him to the island-city, and vested him with the dignity of\narchdeacon of the cathedral and _scholasticus_ (chancellor or rector)\nand master of the episcopal school. So high was the repute of his\nability and his doctrine that, so Fleury says, he was called \u2018the\npillar of doctors.\u2019 From an obscure local centre of instruction he\nhad lifted the Parisian school into a commanding position, and had\nattracted scholars from many lands. And he was then in the prime of\nlife. Within a few months Ab\u00e9lard made his authority totter, and set\nhis reputation on the wane. In six or seven years he drove him, in\nshame and humiliation, from his chair, after a contest that filled\nChristendom with its echoes.\n\n  [5] The Notre Dame of to-day, like the earlier Louvre, dates from\n  the end of the twelfth century.\n\nLet us repeat that William of Champeaux was then in the prime of\nlife, or only ten years older than Ab\u00e9lard. There are those who talk\nof the \u2018venerable teacher\u2019 and the audacious, irreverent stripling.\nThis picture of the conflict is historically ridiculous. Rousselot\nand Michaud, two of the most careful students of Champeaux\u2019s\nlife, give the date of his birth as 1068 and 1070, respectively.\nHe had fought his way with early success into the first chair in\nChristendom; he cannot have been much older than Ab\u00e9lard when he\nsecured it. Ab\u00e9lard had an immeasurably greater ability; he was\nfrankly conscious of the fact; and he seems promptly to have formed\nthe perfectly legitimate design of ousting William\u2014whose philosophy\ncertainly seemed absurd to him\u2014and mounting the great chair of Notre\nDame.\n\nSuch a thought would naturally take shape during the course of the\nfollowing twelve months. The only indication that Ab\u00e9lard gives\nus is to the effect that William was well disposed towards him at\nfirst, though there is no foundation in recorded fact for the\nassertion that William invited the youth to his house, but they\nwere gradually involved in a warm dialectical encounter. Ab\u00e9lard\nwas not only a handsome and talented youth (which facts he candidly\ntells us himself), but he was a practised dialectician. The lectures\nof those untiring days lasted for hours, and might be interrupted\nat any moment by a question from a scholar. Moreover, William\nwas principally occupied with dialectics, and it would be quite\nimpossible\u2014if it were desired\u2014to instruct youths in the art of\ndisputing, without letting them exercise their powers on the hosts\nof problems which served the purpose of illustration. Hence the\nyoung Breton must have quickly brought his keen rapier into play.\nThe consciousness of power and the adolescent vanity of exhibiting\nit, both generously developed in Ab\u00e9lard, would prepare the way for\nambition. Question and answer soon led on to a personal contest.\n\nBut there was a stronger source of provocation, and here it will\nbe necessary to cast a hurried glance at the great controversy of\nthe hour. Cousin has said that the scholastic philosophy was born\nof a phrase that Boetius translated out of Porphyry. It is a good\nepigram; but it has the disadvantage of most epigrams\u2014it is false.\nThe controversy about _genera_ and _species_ is by no means of vital\nimportance to the scholastic philosophy, as Ab\u00e9lard himself has said.\nHowever, there is much truth in the assertion that this celebrated\ncontroversy, as a specific question, may be traced entirely to\nPorphyry.\n\nBoetius was the chief author read in the early medi\u00e6val schools.\nAmongst other works they had his Latin translation of Porphyry\u2019s\n_Introduction_ to Aristotle, and in one corner of this volume some\nroving scholastic had been arrested by the allusion to the old Greek\ncontroversy about _genera_ and _species_. To put it shortly: we have\nmental pictures of individual men, and we have also the idea of man\nin general, an idea which may be applied to each and all of the\nindividual men we know. The grave problem that agitated the centuries\nwas, whether not only the individual human beings who live and move\nabout us, but also this \u2018general man\u2019 or species, had an existence\noutside the mind. The modern photographer has succeeded in taking\ncomposite photographs. A number of human likenesses are super-imposed\non the same plate, so that at length individual features are blended,\nand there emerges only the vague portrait of \u2018a man.\u2019 The question\nthat vexed the medi\u00e6val soul was, whether this human type, as\ndistinct from the individual mortals we see in the flesh, had a real\nexistence.\n\nIn whatever terms the problem be stated, it is sure to appear almost\nchildish to the non-philosophical reader; as, indeed, it appeared\nto certain scholars even of that time. John of Salisbury, with\nhis British common sense and impatience of dialectical subtlety,\npetulantly spoke of it as \u2018the ancient question, in the solution of\nwhich the world has grown grey, and more time has been consumed than\nthe C\u00e6sars gave to the conquest and dominion of the globe, more money\nwasted than Cr\u0153sus counted in all his wealth.\u2019 But listen to another\nBriton, and one with the fulness of modern life outspread before him.\nArchbishop Roger Vaughan, defending the attitude of the enthusiasts\nin his _Thomas of Aquin_, says: \u2018Kill ideas, blast theories, explode\nthe archetypes of things, and the age of brute force is not far\ndistant.\u2019 And Rousselot declares, in his _Philosophie du Moyen Age_,\nthat the problem of universals is \u2018the most exalted and the most\ndifficult question in the whole of philosophy.\u2019 Poor philosophy!\nwill be the average layman\u2019s comment. However, though neither\nancient Greeks nor medi\u00e6val formalists were guilty of the confusion\nof _ideas_ and _ideals_ which Dom Vaughan betrays, the schoolmen\nhad contrived to connect the question in a curious fashion with the\nmystery of the Trinity.\n\nWhen, therefore, Jean Roscelin began to probe the question with his\ndialectical weapons, the ears of the orthodox were opened wide.\nThe only position which was thought compatible with the faith was\nrealism\u2014the notion that the species or the genus was a reality,\ndistinct from the individuals that belonged to it, and outside the\nmind that conceived it. By and by it was whispered in the schools,\nand wandering scholars bore the rumour to distant monasteries\nand bishoprics, that Roscelin denied the real existence of these\nuniversals. Indeed, in his scorn of the orthodox position, he\ncontemptuously declared them to be \u2018mere words\u2019; neither in the world\nof reality, nor in the mind itself, was there anything corresponding\nto them; they were nothing but an artifice of human speech. Europe\nwas ablaze at once. St. Anselm assailed the heretic from the\ntheological side; William of Champeaux stoutly led the opposition,\nand the defence of realism, from the side of philosophy. Such was\nthe question of the hour, such the condition of the world of thought,\nwhen Pierre Ab\u00e9lard reached the cloistral school at Paris.\n\nIf you stated the problem clearly to a hundred men and women who\nwere unacquainted with philosophic speculations, ninety-nine of them\nwould probably answer that these universals were neither mere words\nnor external realities, but general or generalised ideas\u2014composite\nphotographs, to use the interesting comparison of Mr. Galton, in\nthe camera of the mind. That was the profound discovery with which\nAb\u00e9lard shattered the authority of his master, revolutionised the\nthought of his age, and sent his fame to the ends of the earth. He\nhad introduced a new instrument into the dialectical world, common\nsense, like the little girl in the fairy tale, who was brought to\nsee the prince in his imaginary clothes.[6] This, at least, Ab\u00e9lard\nachieved, and it was a brilliant triumph for the unknown youth: he\nswept for ever out of the world of thought, in spite of almost all\nthe scholars of Christendom, that way of thinking and of speaking\nwhich is known as realism. I am familiar with the opinion of\nscholastic thinkers in this question, from the thirteenth century to\nthe present day. It differs verbally, but not substantially, from the\nconceptualism of Ab\u00e9lard. The stripling of twenty or twenty-one had\nenunciated the opinion which the world of thought was to adopt.\n\n  [6] Lest there be a suspicion of caricature, or of ignorance\n  (though I too have sat in the chair of scholastic philosophy, and\n  held grave discourse on _genera_ and _species_), let me remind\n  the reader of the theological import which was read into the\n  problem.\n\nWe still have some of the arguments with which Ab\u00e9lard assailed his\nchief\u2014but enough of philosophy, let us proceed with the story. Once\nmore the swift and animated years are condensed into a brief phrase\nby the gloomy autobiographist; though there is a momentary flash of\nthe old spirit when he says of the earlier stage that he \u2018seemed at\ntimes to have the victory in the dispute,\u2019 and when he describes the\nfinal issue in the words of Ovid,\n\n    \u2018... non sum superatus ab illo.\u2019\n\nHe soon found the weak points in William\u2019s armour, and proceeded\nto attack him with the uncalculating passion of youth. It was\nnot long before the friendly master was converted into a bitter,\nlife-long enemy; and that, he wearily writes, \u2018was the beginning of\nmy calamities.\u2019 Possibly: but it is not unlikely that he had had a\nsimilar experience at Locmenach. However that may be, it was a fatal\nvictory. Ten years afterwards we find William in closest intimacy and\ndaily intercourse with Bernard of Clairvaux.\n\nMost of the scholars at Notre Dame were incensed at the success\nof Ab\u00e9lard. In those earlier days the gathering was predominantly\nclerical; the more so, on account of William\u2019s championship of\northodoxy. But as the controversy proceeded, and rumour bore its\necho to the distant schools, the number and the diversity of the\nscholars increased. Many of the youths took the side of the handsome,\nbrilliant young noble, and encouraged him to resist. He decided to\nopen a school.\n\nThere was little organisation in the schools at that period\u2014the\nuniversity not taking shape until fully sixty years afterwards\n(Compayr\u00e9)\u2014and Ab\u00e9lard would hardly need a \u2018license\u2019 for the purpose,\noutside the immediate precincts of the cloister. But William was\nangry and powerful. It were more discreet, at least, not to create a\ndirect and flagrant opposition to him. The little group of scholars\nmoved to Melun, and raised a chair for their new master in that royal\ntown. It was thirty miles away, down the valley of the Seine; but a\nthirty mile walk was a trifle in the days when railways were unknown,\nand William soon noticed a leakage in his class. Moreover, Melun was\nan important town, the king spending several months there every year.\nWilliam made strenuous efforts to have the new academy suppressed,\nbut he seems to have quarrelled with some of the courtiers, and these\ntook up the cause of the new master of noble rank.\n\nWhen Ab\u00e9lard saw the powerlessness of the chancellor of Notre Dame,\nhe decided to come a little nearer. There was another fortified and\nroyal town, Corbeil by name, about half-way to Paris, and thither\nhe transferred his chair and his followers. The move was made, he\ntells us, for the convenience of his students. His reputation was\nalready higher than William\u2019s, and the duel of the masters had led to\na noisy conflict between their respective followers. Corbeil being\na comfortable day\u2019s walk from Paris, there was a constant stream of\nrival pupils flowing between the two. In the schools and the taverns,\non the roads and the bridges, nothing was heard but the increasing\njargon of the junior realists and conceptualists. Besides the great\nproblem, dialectics had countless lesser ones that would furnish\nargumentative material for an eternity. \u2018Whether the pig that is\nbeing driven to market is held by the man or the rope\u2019; \u2018whether\na shield that is white on one side and black on the other may be\ncalled either black or white,\u2019 and problems of that kind, are not to\nbe compared in point of depth and fecundity with such mere matters\nof fact as the origin of species. But the long and severe strain\nhad gravely impaired Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s health; he was compelled to close\nhis school, and return to Brittany. William was not the only one\nwho rejoiced. The Church was beginning to view with some alarm the\nspread of the new doctrine and the new spirit. Cynical rivals were\ncomplaining that \u2018the magician\u2019 had brought \u2018a plague of frogs\u2019 on\nthe land.\n\nAb\u00e9lard tells us that he remained \u2018for several years almost cut off\nfrom France.\u2019 R\u00e9musat thinks it was probably during this period\nthat he studied under Roscelin, but there is now little room for\ndoubt that his intercourse with the famous nominalist falls in the\nearlier years. Much more probable is it that we should assign his\nrelations to Tirric of Chartres to the later date. The substance of\nthe anecdote that was found on the margin of the Ratisbon manuscript\nseems to accord admirably with Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s circumstances in the period\nwe have now reached. The question, however, will interest few, beyond\nthe narrow circle of historical specialists. He himself is silent\nabout the few years of rest in the Breton castle, merely stating that\nhe returned to Paris when he had recovered his health. We have to\nremember that the autobiography he has left us was entitled by him\nthe \u2018Story of my Calamities.\u2019 It is not the full presentment of the\nswiftly moving drama of the life of Ab\u00e9lard. He speaks of joy only\nwhen it is the prelude to sorrow, or when some faint spark of the old\nardour leaps into life once more.\n\nWhen Ab\u00e9lard at length returned to the arena, he found a significant\nchange. William had deserted the cloistral school. In a solitary\nspot down the river, beyond the foot of the eastern slope of St.\nGenevieve, was a small priory that had belonged to the monks of St.\nVictor of Marseilles. Thither, says Franklin, William had retired\n\u2018to hide his despair and the shame of his defeat.\u2019 The controversy\nhad by no means been decided against him yet. Indeed, William\u2019s\nbiographers loyally contend that he was sincerely touched by the\nreligious spirit of the age, and adopted the monastic life from the\npurest of motives. Ab\u00e9lard, on the other hand, declares that the\ninspiration came from a hope of exchanging the chair of Notre Dame\nfor that of an episcopal see. Ab\u00e9lard is scarcely an ideal witness,\nthough the passage was written nearly thirty years afterwards, yet\nhis interpretation is probably correct; at least, if we take it as\na partial explanation. William was shrewd enough to see that his\nsupremacy in the scholastic world was doomed, and that the best\nalternative was a bishopric. He was still young (about thirty-eight,\napparently) and ambitious; in his character of archdeacon, he was\nalready only one step removed from the episcopate; and he had\ninfluence and qualifications above the average. It is scarcely\ncorrect to say, as Gervaise does, that at that time \u2018the monastery\nwas the recognised path to the episcopacy,\u2019 on account of the wide\ndegradation of the secular clergy. Their degradation was assuredly\ndeep and widespread, but so were simony and electoral corruption. We\ngenerally find, in the old chronicles, one or other of the deceased\nbishop\u2019s archdeacons ascending the vacant throne. However, William\nof Champeaux was a religious man; for the pious the surest path to\nthe episcopate passed through the monastery.\n\nWhatever be the correct analysis of the motive\u2014and it was probably a\ncomplex feeling, including all the impulses suggested, which William\nhimself scarcely cared to examine too narrowly\u2014the fact is that in\nthe year 1108 he donned the black cassock of the canon regular, and\nsettled with a few companions in the priory of St. Victor. The life\nof the canons regular was a compromise between that of the sterner\nmonks and the unascetic life of the secular canons and secular\nclergy. They followed, on the whole, the well-known rule of St.\nAugustine. They arose at midnight to chant their matins, but, unlike\nthe Cistercians, they returned to bed as soon as the \u2018office\u2019 was\nover. They ate meat three times a week, and were not restricted in\nthe taking of fish and eggs. They had linen underclothing, and much\nfriendly intercourse with each other, and they were less rigidly\nseparated from the world. Altogether, not too rough a path to higher\ndignities\u2014or to heaven\u2014and (a not unimportant point) one that did not\nlead far from Paris.\n\nSuch was the foundation of one of the most famous schools of mystic\ntheology. The abbey that William instituted, before he was removed to\nthe coveted dignity in 1113, has attained an immortality in the world\nof thought through such inmates as Richard and Hugh of St. Victor.\n\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s first impulse on hearing the news was to repair at once\nto the cloistral school. He found the chair occupied. William had\nnot, in fact, resigned his title of scholastic, and he had placed a\nsubstitute in the chair. It was a poor ruse, for there was now no\nmaster in Christendom who could long endure the swift, keen shafts\nof the ambitious Breton. Ab\u00e9lard would quickly make the chair of\nNotre Dame uncomfortable for the most pachydermatous substitute; and\nhe seems to have commenced the edifying task at once, when he heard\nthat the unfortunate William had set up a chair of rhetoric at St.\nVictor. Like a hawk, Master Peter descended on the ill-fated canon.\nThe Bishop of Mans had, it appears, stimulated William into a renewal\nof activity, and he had chosen that apparently safe section of the\ntrivium, the art of rhetoric.\n\nWith what must have been a mock humility, Ab\u00e9lard went down the river\neach day with the crowd of monks and clerks to receive instruction\nin rhetoric from the new Prior of St. Victor\u2019s. Deutsch remarks, with\nTeutonic gravity, that we do not read of a reconciliation between the\ntwo. Nor do we find that Ab\u00e9lard had been \u2018converted\u2019 to the spirit\nof Robert of Arbrissel or Bernard of Clairvaux during his retirement\nat Pallet. Ab\u00e9lard, now nearly thirty years of age, could have\ntaught William the art of rhetoric with more profit than he himself\nwas likely to derive from William\u2019s _pr\u00e6lectiones_. His obvious aim\nwas to break William\u2019s connection with Paris and with Notre Dame.\nThe high and gentle spirit of these latter days, that studies the\nfeelings of an antagonist, and casts aside an ambition that would\nlead over the fallen fame of a fellow-man, did not commend itself to\nthe medi\u00e6val mind.\n\nAnd so the contest ran on, until at length a new rumour was borne\nover the roads and into the schools of Europe. The \u2018pillar of\ndoctors\u2019 was broken\u2014had fallen beyond restoration. Guillaume de\nChampeaux had changed his doctrine on the question of universals.\nSwiftly the story ran over hill and dale\u2014they were days when the\nwords of masters outstripped the deeds of kings and the fall of\ndynasties: the champion of realism had so far yielded to Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\npressure as to modify his thesis materially. For long years he had\nheld that the universal was _essentially_ one and the same in all its\nindividuals; now he admitted that it was only _indifferently_, or\n_individually_, identical.[7] The death of King Philip was a matter\nof minor interest to a world that brooded night and day over the\nquestion of genera and species.\n\n  [7] The reader would probably not be grateful for a long\n  explanation of the meaning of the change. It amounted to a\n  considerable approach of William\u2019s position towards that of\n  Ab\u00e9lard.\n\nAb\u00e9lard felt that he need strive no longer in the hall of the poor\ncanon regular, and he turned his attention to the actual occupant of\nthe chair of Notre Dame. We need not delay in determining the name of\nthe luckless master, whether it was Robert of Melun, as some think,\nor Adam of the Little Bridge, or Peter the Eater\u2014poor man! a sad\nname to come down the ages with; it was merely an allusion to his\nvoracious reading. He had the saving grace of common-sense, whatever\nother gifts he was burdened with. As soon as he saw the collapse of\nWilliam\u2019s authority and the dispersal of his pupils, he resolved\nto decline a contest with the irresistible Breton. He voluntarily\nyielded the chair to Ab\u00e9lard, and took his place on the hay-strewn\nfloor amongst the new worshippers. Such a consummation, however, was\nnot to the taste of the angered scholastic. A substitute had, it\nseems, the power to subdelegate his license, so that the installation\nof Ab\u00e9lard in the cathedral school was correct and canonical. But\nWilliam was still scholastic of the place, and he had an obvious\nremedy. Robert, or Peter, or whoever it may have been, depended on\nhim, and he at once set to work to recall the delegation. Ab\u00e9lard\nsays that he trumped up a false and most obnoxious charge against\nthe intermediary. He did, at all events, succeed in changing the\nappointment, and thus rendering Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s subdelegated license null.\nThe new-comer was a man of different temper, so that Ab\u00e9lard only\noccupied the great chair \u2018for a few days.\u2019 He could not teach in or\nabout the episcopal school without a \u2018respondent,\u2019 and he therefore\nonce more transferred his chair to Melun.[8]\n\n  [8] To transfer a chair was frequently a physical operation in\n  those days. There is, in one of the old records, a story of\n  a dissatisfied master and his pupils removing their chair to\n  another town, higher up the river. They were not welcome, it\n  seems, and their chair was pitched into the river to find its way\n  home.\n\nThe Prior of St. Victor\u2019s had won a pyrrhic victory. Whether or\nno Ab\u00e9lard had learned a lesson from him, and began in his turn to\npractise the subtle art of diplomacy, we cannot say, but Paris was\nsoon too warm for the prior. The lawless students respected his\nauthority no longer, and clamoured for Ab\u00e9lard. The king was dead:\nlong live the king! They discovered that William\u2019s conversion was\npeculiarly incomplete. For a man who had felt an inner call to leave\nthe world, he still evinced a fairly keen interest in its concerns.\nWilliam found their \u2018ceaseless raillery\u2019 intolerable. He fled, says\nArchbishop Roger Vaughan, \u2018to hide his shame in a distant monastery.\u2019\nAb\u00e9lard merely records that \u2018he transferred his community to a\ncertain town at some distance from the city.\u2019 The path to Paris lay\nopen once more.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nPROGRESS OF THE ACADEMIC WAR\n\n\nWhen Ab\u00e9lard and his admirers returned from Melun to Paris, they\nfound William\u2019s new successor sitting resolutely in the chair of\nNotre Dame. From some manuscripts of the \u2018Story of my Calamities\u2019 it\nappears that he had won repute by his lectures on Priscian, the Latin\ngrammarian. He had thus been able to augment the little band who\nremained faithful to William and to orthodoxy with a certain number\nof personal admirers. Clearly, the episcopal school must be taken by\nstorm. And so, says Ab\u00e9lard, his pen leaping forward more quickly at\nthe recollection, twenty years afterwards, \u2018we pitched our camp on\nthe hill of St. Genevieve.\u2019\n\nDuring the century that preceded the coalescence of the schools\ninto a university, St. Genevieve was the natural home of rebellion.\nRoscelin had taught there. Joscelin the Red, another famous\nnominalist, was teaching there. The \u2018feminists\u2019 had raised their\ntabernacle there; the Jews their synagogue. From its physical\nadvantages the hill naturally presented itself to the mind of every\nmaster who had designs on the episcopal school or the episcopal\nphilosophy. Its gentle, sunny flanks offered ideal situations for\nschools, and the students were breaking away more and more from\nthe vicinity of the cloister and the subordination it expressed.\nA new town was rapidly forming at its foot, by the river, and on\nthe northern slope; a picturesque confusion of schools, chapels,\nbrothels, taverns, and hospices. It was the cradle of the famed Latin\nQuarter\u2014_very_ Latin in those days, when the taverns swung out their\nLatin signs, \u2018taverna de grangia,\u2019 \u2018ad turbotum,\u2019 \u2018apud duos cygnos,\u2019\nand so forth, and the songs that came from the latticed, vine-clothed\narbours were half French, half Celtic-Latin.\n\nAb\u00e9lard did not open a private school on \u2018the hill.\u2019 He delivered\nhis assault on \u2018the island\u2019 from the abbey of St. Genevieve at the\nsummit, the site now occupied by the Pantheon. There is nothing in\nthe least remarkable in the abbey opening its gates to one who was\nobviously bent on assailing the great ecclesiastical school, and who\nwas already regarded as the parent of a new and freer generation of\nstudents. The secular canons had little deference for authority and\nlittle love of asceticism at that period. St. Norbert had fruitlessly\ntried to reform them, and had been forced to embody his ideal in a\nnew order. Cardinal Jacques de Vitry, the classical censor of the\ntwelfth century, makes bitter comment on their hawks and horses,\ntheir jesters and singing-girls, and their warmer than spiritual\naffection for their sisters in religion, the \u2018canonesses.\u2019 It was\nnatural enough that an abbey of secular canons should welcome the\nwitty and brilliant young noble\u2014and the wealth that accompanied him.\n\nWe have little information about the abbey at that precise date, but\nhistory has much to say of its affairs some thirty or forty years\nafterwards, and thus affords a retrospective light. In the year\n1146 Innocent the Second paid a visit to Paris. The relics of St.\nGenevieve were one of the treasures of the city, and thither his\nholiness went with his retinue, and King Louis and his followers.\nIn the crush that was caused in the abbey church, the servants of\nthe canons quarrelled with those of the court, and one of them was\nunlucky enough to bring his staff down with some force on the\nroyal pate. That was a death-blow to the gay life of the abbey.\nParis, through the abbot of St. Denis, who was also the first royal\ncouncillor, quickly obtained royal and papal assent to the eviction\nof the canons, and they were soon summarily turned out on the high\nroad. They did not yield without a struggle, it is true. Many a night\nafterwards, when the canons regular who replaced them were in the\nmidst of their solemn midnight chant, the evicted broke in the doors\nof the church, and made such turmoil inside, that the chanters could\nnot hear each other across the choir. And when they did eventually\ndepart for less rigorous surroundings, they thoughtfully took\nwith them a good deal of the gold from Genevieve\u2019s tomb and other\necclesiastical treasures, which were not reclaimed until after many\nadventures.\n\nTo this abbey of St. Genevieve, then, the militant master led his\nfollowers, and he began at once to withdraw the students from Notre\nDame, as he candidly tells us. If Bishop Galo and his chapter found\ntheir cloistral school deserted, they might be induced to consider\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s gifts and influence. So the war went on merrily between the\ntwo camps. The masters fulminated against each other; the students\nran from school to school, and argued it out on the bridge and in\nthe taverns, and brought questions to their logical conclusion in\nthe Pr\u00e9-aux-clercs.[9] There was certainly, as we saw previously,\nample room for litigation in the problems of medi\u00e6val dialectics.\nJohn of Salisbury studied dialectics under Ab\u00e9lard at St. Genevieve\n(though not in the abbey) at a later date, and he tells us that when\nhe returned to Paris twelve years afterwards he found his dialectical\nfriends just where he had left them. \u2018They had not added the\nsmallest proposition,\u2019 he says contemptuously. Little John preferred\n\u2018philology,\u2019 as they called classical studies in his day.\n\n  [9] Until a comparatively recent date \u2018aller sur le Pr\u00e9\u2019 meant,\n  in the language of the Latin Quarter, to settle an affair of\n  honour.\n\nWe get a curious insight into the school-life of the period in the\n_Life of Saint Goswin_. Goswin of Douai\u2014whom we shall meet again once\nor twice\u2014was studying in the school of Master Joscelin the Red, down\nthe hill. He was a youthful saint of the regulation pattern: had\nborne the aureole from his cradle. About this time he is described as\nbrimming over with precocious zeal for righteousness, and astounded\nat the impunity with which Ab\u00e9lard poured out his novelties. Why did\nnot some one silence \u2018this dog who barked at the truth\u2019? Already, the\nauthors of the saint\u2019s life\u2014two monks of the twelfth century\u2014say,\n\u2018Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s hand was against every man, and every man\u2019s hand against\nhim,\u2019 yet no one seemed inclined \u2018to thrash him with the stick of\ntruth.\u2019 The young saint could not understand it. He went to Master\nJoscelin at length, and declared that he was going to do the work\nof the Lord himself. Joscelin is reported to have endeavoured to\ndissuade him with a feeling description of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s rhetorical\npower; we do not know, however, that Joscelin was void of all sense\nof humour. In any case the saintly youngster of \u2018modest stature\u2019 with\nthe \u2018blue-grey eyes and light air\u2019 had a good measure of courage. It\nwill be interesting, perhaps, to read the issue in the serio-comic\nlanguage of the times.\n\n\u2018With a few companions he ascended the hill of St. Genevieve,\nprepared, like David, to wage single conflict with the Goliath who\nsat there thundering forth strange novelties of opinion to his\nfollowers and ridiculing the sound doctrine of the wise.\n\n\u2018When he arrived at the battlefield\u2014that is, when he entered the\nschool\u2014he found the master giving his lecture and instilling his\nnovelties into his hearers. But as soon as he began to speak, the\nmaster cast an angry look at him; knowing himself to be a warrior\nfrom his youth, and noticing that the scholar was beginning to feel\nnervous, he despised him in his heart. The youth was, indeed, fair\nand handsome of appearance, but slender of body and short of stature.\nAnd when the proud one was urged to reply, he said: \u201cHold thy peace,\nand disturb not the course of my lecture.\u201d\u2019\n\nThe story runs, however, that Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s students represented to him\nthat the youth was of greater importance than he seemed to be, and\npersuaded him to take up the glove. \u2018Very well,\u2019 said Ab\u00e9lard, and\nit is not improbable, \u2018let him say what he has to say.\u2019 It was, of\ncourse, unfortunate for Goliath, as the young champion of orthodoxy,\naided by the Holy Spirit, completely crushed him in the midst of his\nown pupils.\n\n\u2018The strong man thus bound by him who had entered his house, the\nvictor, who had secured the Protean-changing monster with the\nunfailing cord of truth, descended the hill. When they had come to\nthe spot where their companions awaited them in the distant schools\n[_i.e._ when they had got to a safe distance from Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s pupils],\nthey burst forth in p\u00e6ans of joy and triumph: humbled was the tower\nof pride, downcast was the wall of contumacy, fallen was he that had\nscoffed at Israel, broken was the anvil of the smiter,\u2019 etc. etc.\n\nThe course of events does not seem to have been much influenced by\nthis breaking of the \u2018anvil.\u2019 Joscelin was soon compelled to seek\nfresh pastures; he also found ultimate consolation in a bishopric,\nand a share in the condemnation of Ab\u00e9lard. The commentator of\nPriscian must then have received the full force of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s keen\ndialectical skill and mordant satire. His students began to fall\naway to the rival camp in large numbers. William was informed in his\ndistant solitude, and he returned (\u2018impudenter,\u2019 says Ab\u00e9lard) in\nhaste to St. Victor\u2019s. He opened his old school in the priory, and\nfor a time Paris rang more loudly than ever with the dialectical\nbattle. But William\u2019s intervention proved fatal to his cause. The\nsubstitute had kept a handful of students about him, Ab\u00e9lard says,\nbut even they disappeared when William returned. The poor Priscianist\ncould think of nothing better than to develop \u2018a call to the monastic\nlife,\u2019 and he obeyed it with admirable alacrity. However, just as\nAb\u00e9lard was about to enter on the last stage of the conflict, he was\nrecalled to Pallet by his mother.\n\nThe eleventh century had witnessed a strong revival of the monastic\nspirit. When men came at length to feel the breath of an ideal in\ntheir souls, the sight of the fearful disorder of the age stimulated\nthem to the sternest sacrifices. They believed that he who said,\n\u2018If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to\nthe poor,\u2019 was God, that he meant what he said, and that he spoke\nthe message to all the ages. So there uprose a number of fervent\npreachers, whose voices thrilled with a strange passion, and they\nburned the Christ-message into the souls of men and women. In\nBrittany and Normandy Robert of Arbrissel and two or three others\nhad been at work years before St. Bernard began his apostolate.\nThey had broken up thousands of homes\u2014usually those which were\nhelping most to sweeten the life of the world\u2014and sent husband and\nwife to spend their days apart in monasteries and nunneries. The\nmodern world speaks of the harshness of it; in their thoughts it\nwas only a salutary separation for a time, making wholly certain\ntheir speedy reunion in a not too ethereal heaven. In the great\nabbey of Fontevraud, founded by Robert of Arbrissel in the year\n1100, there were nearly four thousand nuns, a large proportion of\nwhom were married women. Even in their own day the monastic orators\nwere strongly opposed on account of their appalling dissolution of\ndomestic ties. Roscelin attacked Robert of Arbrissel very warmly\non the ground that he received wives into his monasteries against\nthe will of their husbands, and in defiance of the command of the\nBishop of Angers to release them: he boldly repeats the charge in a\nletter to the Bishop of Paris in 1121. Not only sober thinkers and\nhonest husbands would resent the zeal of the Apostle of Brittany; the\ncourtly, and the ecclesiastical and monastic, gallants of the time\nwould be equally angry with him. We have another curious objection\nin some of the writers of the period. Answering the question why men\nwere called to the monastic life so many centuries before women,\nthey crudely affirm that the greater frailty of the women had made\nthem less competent to meet the moral dangers of the cenobitic life.\nThus from one cause or other a number of calumnies, still found in\nthe chronicles, were in circulation about Robert of Arbrissel.[10]\nIt would be interesting to know what half-truths there were at the\nroot of these charges; there may have been such, in those days, quite\nconsistently with perfect religious sincerity. In the martyrologies\nof some of the monastic orders, there are women mentioned with high\npraise who disguised themselves as men, and lived for years in\nmonasteries. It is noteworthy that medi\u00e6val folk worked none of those\nmiracles at the tomb of Robert of Arbrissel that they wrought at the\ntombs of St. Bernard and St. Norbert. He is not a canonised saint.\n\n  [10] As a mere illustration of the times\u2014no one would think\n  of taking it seriously\u2014we may quote the passage referring to\n  him in Dubois\u2019s _Historia Ecclesi\u00e6 Parisiensis_ (also found\n  in Lobineau). A monk and bishop, Gaufridus Vindoniencensis,\n  writes to remonstrate with Robert for \u2018inventing a new kind of\n  martyrdom\u2019 ... \u2018inter feminas et cum ipsis noctu frequenter\n  cubare. Hinc tibi videris, ut asseris, Domini Salvatoris digne\n  bajulare crucem, cum extinguere conaris male accensum carnis\n  ardorem.\u2019 Later he complains of Robert\u2019s partiality, treating\n  some nuns with unusual sweetness and others with excessive\n  acrimony; and amongst the punishments inflicted on the latter he\n  mentions the penance of \u2018stripping.\u2019\n\nHowever, in spite of both responsible and irresponsible opposition,\nRobert of Arbrissel, Vitalis the Norman, and other nervous orators,\nhad caused an extensive movement from the hearth to the cloister\nthroughout Brittany and Normandy, such as St. Bernard inaugurated in\nFrance later on. Home after home\u2014_ch\u00e2teau_ or _chaumi\u00e8re_\u2014was left\nto the children, and they who had sworn companionship in life and\ndeath cheerfully parted in the pathetic trust of a reunion. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nfather was touched by the sacred fire, and entered a monastery. His\nwife had to follow his example. Whatever truth there was in the words\nof Roscelin, the Church certainly commanded that the arrangement\nshould be mutual, unless the lady were of an age or a piety beyond\nsuspicion, as St. Francis puts it in his \u2018Rule.\u2019 Lucia had agreed to\ntake the veil after her husband\u2019s departure. This was the news that\nwithheld the hand of \u2018the smiter\u2019 on the point of dealing a decisive\nblow, and he hastened down to Brittany to bid farewell to his \u2018most\ndear mother.\u2019 Not only in this expression, but in the fact of his\nmaking the journey at all in the circumstances, we have evidence of\na profound affection. Since he had long ago abdicated his rights of\nprimogeniture, there cannot have been an element of business in the\nvisit to Pallet.\n\nHe was not long absent from Paris. The news reached him in Brittany\nthat the prior had at length discovered a dignified retreat\nfrom the field. Soon after Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s departure the bishopric of\nCh\u00e2lons-sur-Marne became vacant, and William was nominated for the\nsee. He bade a fond farewell to Paris and to dialectics. From that\ndate his ability was devoted to the safe extravagances of mystic\ntheology, under the safe tutorship of St. Bernard.[11] He had left\nhis pupil Gilduin to replace him at St. Victor, and the school\nquickly assumed a purely theological character; but the luckless\nchair of Notre Dame he entrusted to the care of Providence.\n\n  [11] It will interest many, however, to learn (from the pages\n  of Du Boulai\u2019s _Historia Universitatis Parisiensis_) that he is\n  charged by the querulous Gaufridus Vindoniencensis with teaching\n  that only the gravest sins were matter for obligatory confession.\n  These particularly grave transgressions are heresy, schism,\n  paganism, and Judaism\u2014all non-ethical matters!\n\nAb\u00e9lard now formed a resolution which has given rise to much\nspeculation. Instead of stepping at once into the chair of the\ncloistral school, which he admits was offered to him, he goes off\nto some distance from Paris for the purpose of studying theology.\nIt is the general opinion of students of his life that his main\nobject in doing so was to make more secure his progress towards the\nhigher ecclesiastical dignities. That he had such ambition, and was\nnot content with the mere chair and chancellorship of the cloistral\nschool, is quite clear. In his clouded and embittered age he is\nsaid, on the high authority of Peter of Cluny, to have discovered\neven that final virtue of humility. There are those who prefer him\nin the days of his frank, buoyant pride and ambition. If he had been\notherwise in the days of the integrity of his nature, he would have\nbeen an intolerable prig. He was the ablest thinker and speaker\nin France. He was observant enough to perceive it, and so little\nartificial as to acknowledge it, and act in accordance. Yet there\nwas probably more than the counsel of ambition in his resolution.\nFrom the episode of Goswin\u2019s visit to St. Genevieve it is clear that\nwhispers of faith, theology, and heresy were already breaking upon\nthe freedom of his dialectical speculations. He must have recalled\nthe fate of Scotus Erigena, of B\u00e9renger, of Roscelin, and other\nphilosophic thinkers. Philosophic thought was subtly linked with\necclesiastical dogma. He who contemplated a life of speculation and\nteaching could not afford to be ignorant of the ecclesiastical claims\non and limitations of his sphere. Such thoughts can scarcely have\nbeen unknown to him during the preceding year or two, and it seems\njust and reasonable to trace the issue of them in his resolution.\nHe himself merely says: \u2018I returned chiefly for the purpose of\nstudying divinity.\u2019 Hausrath quotes a passage from his _Introductio\nad theologiam_ with the intention of making Ab\u00e9lard ascribe his\nresolution to the suggestion of his admirers. On careful examination\nthe passage seems to refer to his purpose of writing on theology, not\nto his initial purpose of studying it.\n\nAb\u00e9lard would naturally look about for the first theological teacher\nin France. There were, in point of fact, few theological chairs at\nthat time, but there was at least one French theologian who had\na high reputation throughout Christendom. Pupil of St. Anselm of\nCanterbury at Bec, canon and dean of the town where he taught, Anselm\nof Laon counted so many brilliant scholars amongst his followers that\nhe has been entitled the \u2018doctor of doctors.\u2019 William of Champeaux,\nWilliam of Canterbury, and a large number of distinguished masters,\nsat at his feet. His _scholia_ to the Vulgate were in use in the\nschools for centuries. He and his brother Raoul had made Laon a\nmost important focus of theological activity for more countries\nthan France. England was well represented there. John of Salisbury\nfrequently has occasion to illustrate the fame and magnitude of the\ncathedral school.\n\nAnselm had been teaching for forty years when Ab\u00e9lard, _aetat._\nthirty-four, appeared amidst the crowd of his hearers. We can\nwell conceive the fluttering of wings that must have occurred,\nbut Laon was not Paris, and Anselm was not the man to enter upon\nan argumentative conflict with the shrewd-tongued adventurer. Two\nincidents of contemporary life at Laon, in which Anselm figured, will\nbe the best means of illustrating the character of the theologian.\nAbbot Guibertus, of that period, has left us a delightful work\n\u2018_De vita sua_,\u2019 from which we learn much about Laon and Anselm.\nThe treasure of the cathedral was entrusted, it seems, to seven\nguardians\u2014four clerics and three laymen. One of these guardians, a\nCanon Anselm, was a wolf in sheep\u2019s clothing. He purloined a good\ndeal of the treasure; and when the goldsmith, his accomplice, was\ndetected, and turned king\u2019s evidence, Anselm denied the story,\nchallenged the goldsmith to the usual duel, and won.[12] The canon\nwas encouraged, and shortly set up as an expert burglar. One dark,\nstormy night he went with his \u2018ladders and machines\u2019 to a tower in\nwhich much treasure was kept, and \u2018cracked\u2019 it. There was dreadful\nado in the city next day; most horrible of all, the burglar had\nstolen a golden dove which contained some of the hair and some of\nthe milk of the Virgin Mary. In the uncertainty the sapient Master\nAnselm (no relation, apparently, of Canon Anselm Beessus, the burglar\nand cathedral treasurer) was invited to speak. His advice largely\nreveals the man. Those were the days, it must be remembered, when the\ndefects of the detective service were compensated by a willingness\nand activity of the higher powers which are denied to this sceptical\nage. When their slender police resources were exhausted, the accused\nwas handed over to a priest, to be prepared, by prayer and a sober\ndiet of bread, herbs, salt, and water, for the public ordeal. On the\nfourth day priests and people repaired to the church, and when the\nmass was over, and the vested priests had prostrated themselves in\nthe sanctuary, the accused purged himself of the charge or proved\nhis guilt by carrying or walking on a nine foot bar of heated iron,\nplunging his arms \u2018for an ell and a half\u2019 into boiling water, or\nbeing bodily immersed in a huge tank, cold, and carefully blessed and\nconsecrated.\n\n  [12] When Anselm\u2019s guilt was ultimately proved, people were\n  somewhat troubled as to the ill-success of their Providential\n  detective service, until they heard that the goldsmith, in\n  accusing the canon, had broken faith with him.\n\nThese are familiar facts. The difficulty at Laon was that there was\nno accused to operate on. The Solomon Laudunensis was therefore\ncalled into judgment, and his proposal certainly smacks of the\nthoroughness of the systematic theologian. A baby was to be taken\nfrom each parish of the town, and tried by the ordeal of immersion.\nWhen the guilty parish had been thus discovered, each family in it\nwas to purge itself by sending an infant representative to the tank.\nWhen the guilt had been thus fastened on a certain house, all its\ninmates were to be put to the ordeal.[13]\n\n  [13] Luckily the citizen-parents were wiser than their Solomon\n  for once. They proposed that the process should commence with\n  the seven treasurers. In spite of preliminary experiments in\n  private the canon was convicted. But the reader must go to the\n  pious Geoffroy\u2019s narrative (_Migne_, vol. 156, col. 1011) to\n  read how the burglar was tortured, how he obtained release for a\n  time by trickery, and how, being unable to sleep at night for a\n  miraculous dove, he finally confessed and restored.\n\nWe see Anselm in a very different light in an incident that occurred\na year or two before Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s arrival. Through the influence of the\nKing of England and the perennial power of gold a wholly unworthy\nbishop had been thrust upon the people of Laon. Illiterate, worldly,\nand much addicted to military society, he was extremely distasteful\nto Anselm and the theologians. The crisis came when the English king,\nHenry I., tried to levy a tax on the people of Laon. The bishop\nsupported his patron; Anselm and others sternly opposed the tax in\nthe name of the people. Feeling ran so high that the bishop was at\nlength brutally murdered by some of the townsfolk, and the cathedral\nwas burned to the ground. Anselm immediately, and almost alone,\nwent forth to denounce the frenzied mob, and had the unfortunate\nprelate\u2014left for the dogs to devour before his house\u2014quietly buried.\n\nSuch was the man whom Ab\u00e9lard chose as his next, and last, \u2018teacher.\u2019\nIn the circumstances revealed in the above anecdotes it would have\nbeen decidedly dangerous to attack Anselm in the manner that had\nsucceeded so well at Notre Dame. There is, however, no just reason\nfor thinking that Ab\u00e9lard had formed an intention of that kind. No\ndoubt, it is impossible to conceive Ab\u00e9lard in the attitude of one\nwho seriously expected instruction from a master. Yet it would be\nunjust to assume that he approached the class-room of the venerable,\nauthoritative theologian in the same spirit in which he had\napproached William of Champeaux\u2019s lectures on rhetoric. We do not\nfind it recorded that he made any attempt to assail directly the high\nposition of the old man. It was sufficient for the purpose we may\nascribe to him that he should be able to state in later years that he\nhad frequented the lectures of Anselm of Laon.\n\nWith whatever frame of mind the critic came to Laon, he was not long\nin discovering the defects of Anselm\u2019s teaching. Anselm had one\ngift, a good memory, and its fruit, patristic erudition. The fame\nthat was borne over seas and mountains was founded mainly on the\nmarvellous wealth of patristic opinion which he applied to every text\nof Scripture. There was no individuality, no life, in his work. To\nAb\u00e9lard the mnemonic feat was a mechanical matter; and indeed, he\nprobably cared little at that time how St. Ambrose or St. Cyril may\nhave interpreted this or that text. Little as he would be disposed to\ntrust the fame of masters after his experience, he tells us that he\nwas disappointed. He found the \u2018fig-tree to be without fruit,\u2019 fair\nand promising as it had seemed. The lamp, that was said to illumine\ntheological Christendom, \u2018merely filled the house with smoke, not\nlight.\u2019 He found, in the words of his favourite Lucan,\n\n                          \u2018magni nominis umbra,\n    Qualis frugifero quercus sublimis in agro\u2019:\n\nand he determined \u2018not to remain in this idleness under its shade\nvery long.\u2019 With his usual heedlessness he frankly expressed his\nestimate of the master to his fellow pupils.\n\nOne day when they were joking together at the end of the lecture,\nand the students were twitting him with his neglect of the class,\nhe quietly dropped a bomb to the effect that he thought masters of\ntheology were superfluous. With the text and the ordinary glosses\nany man of fair intelligence could study theology for himself. He\nwas contemptuously invited to give a practical illustration of his\ntheory. Ab\u00e9lard took the sneer seriously, and promised to lecture\non any book of Scripture they cared to choose. Continuing the joke,\nthey chose the curious piece of Oriental work that has the title\nof Ezechiel. Once more Ab\u00e9lard took them seriously, asked for the\ntext and gloss, and invited them to attend his first lecture, on the\nmost abstruse of the prophets, on the following day. Most of them\npersisted in treating the matter as a joke, but a few appeared at\nthe appointed spot (in Anselm\u2019s own territory) on the following day.\nThey listened in deep surprise to a profound lecture on the prophet\nfrom the new and self-consecrated \u2018theologus.\u2019 The next day there\nwas a larger audience; the lecture was equally astonishing. In fine,\nAb\u00e9lard was soon in full sail as a theological lector of the first\nrank, and a leakage was noticed in Anselm\u2019s lecture hall.\n\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s theological success at Laon was brief, if brilliant. Two\nof the leading scholars, Alberic of Rheims and Lotulphe of Novare,\nurged Anselm to suppress the new movement at once. Seven years\nlater we shall meet Alberic and Lotulphe playing an important part\nin the tragedy of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s life; later still Alberic is found in\nintimacy with St. Bernard. The episode of Laon must not be forgotten.\nProbably Anselm needed little urging, with the fate of William of\nChampeaux fresh in his ears. At all events he gave willing audience\nto the suggestion that a young master, without due theological\ntraining, might at any moment bring the disgrace of heresy on the\nfamous school. He \u2018had the impudence to suppress me,\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard has\nthe impudence to say. The students are said to have been much\nangered by Anselm\u2019s interference, but there was no St. Genevieve at\nLaon\u2014happily, perhaps,\u2014and Ab\u00e9lard presently departed for Paris,\nleaving the field to the inglorious \u2018Pompey the Great.\u2019\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE IDOL OF PARIS\n\n\nA new age began for Paris and for learning, when Peter Ab\u00e9lard\naccepted the chair of the episcopal school. It would be a difficult\ntask to measure the influence he had in hastening the foundation of\nthe university\u2014as difficult as to estimate the enduring effect of his\nteaching on Catholic theology. There were other streams flowing into\nthe life of the period, and they would have expanded and deepened\nit, independently of the activity of the one brilliant teacher.\nThe work of a group of less gifted, though highly gifted, teachers\nhad started a current of mental life which would have continued\nand broadened without the aid of Ab\u00e9lard. Life was entering upon a\nswifter course in all its reaches. Moreover, the slender rill of\nGreek thought, which formed the inspiration of the eleventh century,\nwas beginning to increase. Through Alexandria, through Arabia,\nthrough Spain, the broad stream of the wisdom of the Greeks had been\nslowly travelling with the centuries. In the twelfth century it was\ncrossing the Pyrenees, and stealing into the jealous schools of\nEurope. The homeless Jew was bringing the strong, swift, noble spirit\nof the \u2018infidel Moor\u2019 into a hideous world, that was blind with\nself-complacency. The higher works of Aristotle (the early Middle\nAges had only his logic), the words of Plato, and so many others,\nwere drifting into France. Christian scholars were even beginning to\nthink of going to see with their own eyes this boasted civilisation\nof the infidel.\n\nYet it is clear that Ab\u00e9lard stands for a mighty force in the story\nof development. At the end of the eleventh century Paris was an\nisland; at the end of the twelfth century it was a city of two\nhundred thousand souls, walled, paved, with several fine buildings\nand a fair organisation. At the end of the eleventh century the\nschools of Paris, scattered here and there, counted a few hundred\npupils, chiefly French; at the end of the twelfth century the\nUniversity of Paris must have numbered not far short of ten thousand\nscholars. Let us see how much of this was effected by Ab\u00e9lard.\n\nThe pupil who had left Paris when both William and Ab\u00e9lard\ndisappeared in 1113 would find a marvellous change on returning to it\nabout 1116 or 1117. He would find the lecture hall and the cloister\nand the quadrangle, under the shadow of the great cathedral, filled\nwith as motley a crowd of youths and men as any scene in France\ncould show. Little groups of French and Norman and Breton nobles\nchattered together in their bright silks and fur-tipped mantles,\nand with slender swords dangling from embroidered belts; \u2018shaven\nin front like thieves, and growing luxuriant, curly tresses at the\nback like harlots,\u2019 growls Jacques de Vitry, who saw them, vying\nwith each other in the length and crookedness of their turned-up\nshoes.[14] Anglo-Saxons looked on, in long fur-lined cloaks, tight\nbreeches, and leathern hose swathed with bands of many coloured\ncloth. Stern-faced northerners, Poles, and Germans, in fur caps and\ncoloured girdles and clumsy shoes, or with feet roughly tied up in\nthe bark of trees, waited impatiently for the announcement of \u2018Li\nMestre.\u2019 Pale-faced southerners had braved the Alps and the Pyrenees\nunder the fascination of \u2018the wizard.\u2019 Shaven and sandalled monks,\nblack-habited clerics, black canons, secular and regular, black in\nface too, some of them, heresy-hunters from the neighbouring abbey of\nSt. Victor, mingled with the crowd of young and old, grave and gay,\nbeggars and nobles, sleek citizens and bronzed peasants.\n\n  [14] The Count of Anjou had just invented them to hide the\n  enormity of his bunions. Flattering courtiers found them\n  excellent. The English king\u2019s jester had exaggerated the\n  turned-up points, and the nobles were driving the practice to\n  death, as is the aristocratic wont.\n\nCrevier and other writers say that Ab\u00e9lard had attracted five\nthousand students to Paris. Sceptics smile, and talk of Chinese\ngenealogies. Mr. Rashdall, however, has made a careful study of the\npoint, and he concludes that there were certainly five thousand, and\npossibly seven thousand, students at Paris in the early scholastic\nage, before the multiplication of important centres. He points\nout that the fabulous figures which are sometimes given\u2014Wycliffe\nsays that at one time there were sixty thousand students at\nOxford, Juvenal de Ursinis gives twenty thousand at Paris in the\nfifteenth century, Italian historians speak of fifteen thousand at\nBologna\u2014always refer to a date beyond the writer\u2019s experience, and\nfrequently betray a touch of the _laudator temporis acti_. It is,\nat all events, safe to affirm that Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s students were counted\nby thousands, if they had not \u2018come to surpass the number of the\nlaity\u2019 [ordinary citizens], as an old writer declares. Philippe\nAuguste had to direct a huge expansion of the city before the close\nof the century. There is nothing in the commercial or political\ndevelopment of Paris to explain the magnitude of this expansion. It\nwas a consequence of a vast influx of students from all quarters of\nthe globe, and the fame of Master Ab\u00e9lard had determined the course\nof the stream.\n\nOne condition reacted on another. A notable gathering of students\nattracted Jews and merchants in greater numbers. They, in turn,\ncreated innumerable \u2018wants\u2019 amongst the \u2018undisciplined horde.\u2019 The\nluxuries and entertainments of youth began to multiply. The schools\nof Paris began to look fair in the eyes of a second world\u2014a world of\nyouths and men who had not felt disposed to walk hundreds of miles\nand endure a rude life out of academic affection. The \u2018dancers of\nOrleans,\u2019 the \u2018tennis-players of Poitiers,\u2019 the \u2018lovers of Turin,\u2019\ncame to fraternise with the \u2018dirty fellows of Paris.\u2019 Over mountains\nand over seas the mingled reputation of the city and the school was\ncarried, and a remarkable stream set in from Germany, Switzerland,\nItaly (even from proud Rome), Spain, and England; even \u2018distant\nBrittany sent you its animals to be instructed,\u2019 wrote Prior Fulques\nto Ab\u00e9lard (a Breton) a year or two afterwards.\n\nAt five or six o\u2019clock each morning the great cathedral bell would\nring out the summons to work. From the neighbouring houses of the\ncanons, from the cottages of the townsfolk, from the taverns, and\nhospices, and boarding-houses, the stream of the industrious would\npour into the enclosure beside the cathedral. The master\u2019s beadle,\nwho levied a precarious tax on the mob, would strew the floor of the\nlecture-hall with hay or straw, according to the season, bring the\nMaster\u2019s text-book, with the notes of the lecture between lines or on\nthe margin, to the solitary desk, and then retire to secure silence\nin the adjoining street. Sitting on their haunches in the hay, the\nright knee raised to serve as a desk for the waxed tablets, the\nscholars would take notes during the long hours of lecture (about six\nor seven), then hurry home\u2014if they were industrious\u2014to commit them to\nparchment while the light lasted.\n\nThe lectures over, the stream would flow back over the Little\nBridge, filling the taverns and hospices, and pouring out over\nthe great playing meadow, that stretched from the island to the\npresent Champ de Mars. All the games of Europe were exhibited\non that international playground: running, jumping, wrestling,\nhurling, fishing and swimming in the Seine, tossing and thumping\nthe inflated ball\u2014a game on which some minor poet of the day has\nleft us an enthusiastic lyric\u2014and especially the great game of war,\nin its earlier and less civilised form. The nations were not yet\nsystematically grouped, and long and frequent were the dangerous\nconflicts. The undergraduate mind, though degrees had not yet\nbeen invented, had drawn up an estimate, pithy, pointed, and not\nflattering, of each nationality. The English were, it is sad to\nfind, \u2018cowardly and drunken,\u2019\u2014to the \u2018Anglophobes\u2019; the French were\n\u2018proud and effeminate\u2019; the Normans \u2018charlatans and boasters,\u2019\nthe Burgundians \u2018brutal and stupid\u2019; the Bretons \u2018fickle and\nextravagant\u2019; the Flemings \u2018blood-thirsty, thievish, and incendiary\u2019;\nthe Germans \u2018choleric, gluttonous, and dirty\u2019; the Lombards\n\u2018covetous, malicious, and no fighters\u2019; the Romans \u2018seditious,\nviolent, and slanderous.\u2019 Once those war-cries were raised, peaceable\nfolk hied them to their homes and hovels, and the governor summoned\nhis guards and archers.\n\nThe centre of this huge and novel concourse was the master of the\ncathedral school. After long years of conventual life Heloise draws a\nremarkable picture of the attitude of Paris towards its idol. Women\nran to their doors and windows to gaze at him, as he passed from\nhis house on St. Genevieve to the school. \u2018Who was there that did\nnot hasten to observe when you went abroad, and did not follow you\nwith strained neck and staring eyes as you passed along? What wife,\nwhat virgin, did not burn? What queen or noble dame did not envy my\nfortune?\u2019 And we shall presently read of a wonderful outburst of\ngrief when the news of the outrage done to Ab\u00e9lard flies through the\ncity. \u2018No man was ever more loved\u2014and more hated,\u2019 says the sober\nHausrath.\n\nIt is not difficult to understand the charm of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s teaching.\nThree qualities are assigned to it by the writers of the period, some\nof whom studied at his feet: clearness, richness in imagery, and\nlightness of touch are said to have been the chief characteristics\nof his teaching. Clearness is, indeed, a quality of his written\nworks, though they do not, naturally, convey an impression of his\noral power. His splendid gifts and versatility, supported by a\nrich voice, a charming personality, a ready and sympathetic use of\nhuman literature, and a freedom from excessive piety, gave him an\nimmeasurable advantage over all the teachers of the day. Beside most\nof them, he was as a butterfly to an elephant. A most industrious\nstudy of the few works of Aristotle and of the Roman classics that\nwere available, a retentive memory, an ease in manipulating his\nknowledge, a clear, penetrating mind, with a corresponding clearness\nof expression, a ready and productive fancy, a great knowledge of\nmen, a warmer interest in things human than in things divine, a\nlaughing contempt for authority, a handsome presence, and a musical\ndelivery\u2014these were his gifts. His only defects were defects of\ncharacter, and the circumstances of his life had not yet revealed\nthem even to himself.\n\nEven the monkish writers of the _Life of St. Goswin_, whose attitude\ntowards his person is clear, grant him \u2018a sublime eloquence.\u2019 The\nepitaphs that men raised over him, the judgments of episcopal Otto\nvon Freising and John of Salisbury, the diplomatic letter of Prior\nFulques, the references of all the chroniclers of the time, I\nrefrain from quoting. We learn his power best from his open enemies.\n\u2018Wizard,\u2019 \u2018rhinoceros,\u2019 \u2018smiter,\u2019 \u2018friend of the devil,\u2019 \u2018giant,\u2019\n\u2018Titan,\u2019 \u2018Prometheus,\u2019 and \u2018Proteus,\u2019 are a few of their compliments\nto his ability: the mellifluous St. Bernard alone would provide a\nrich vocabulary of flattering encomiums of that character: \u2018Goliath,\u2019\n\u2018Herod,\u2019 \u2018Leviathan,\u2019 \u2018bee,\u2019 \u2018serpent,\u2019 \u2018dragon,\u2019 \u2018hydra,\u2019 \u2018Absalom,\u2019\nare some of his epithets. When, later, we find St. Bernard, the first\norator and firmest power in France, shrink nervously from an oral\nencounter with him, and resort to measures which would be branded as\ndishonourable in any other man, we shall more faithfully conceive the\ncharm of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s person and the fascination of his lectures.\n\nYet no careful student of his genius will accept the medi\u00e6val\nestimate which made him the \u2018Socrates of Gaul,\u2019 the peer of Plato\nand of Aristotle. He had wonderful penetration and a rare felicity\nof oral expression, but he was far removed from the altitude of\nSocrates and Plato and the breadth of Aristotle. He had no \u2018system\u2019\nof thought, philosophical or theological; and into the physical and\nsocial world he never entered. His ideas\u2014and some of them were\nleagues beyond his intellectual surroundings\u2014came to him piecemeal.\nYet we shall see that in some of those which were most abhorrent to\nBernard\u2014who was the Church for the time being\u2014he did but anticipate\nthe judgment of mature humanity on certain ethical and intellectual\nfeatures of traditional lore. The thesis cannot be satisfactorily\nestablished until a later stage.\n\nWhen we proceed to examine the erudition which gave occasion to the\nepitaph, \u2018to him alone was made clear all that is knowable,\u2019 we must\nbear in mind the limitations of his world. When Aristotle lent his\nmind to the construction of a world system, he had the speculations\nof two centuries of Greek thinkers before him; when Thomas of Aquin\nbegan to write, he had read the thoughts of three generations\nof schoolmen after Ab\u00e9lard, and all the Arabic translations and\nincorporations of Greek thought. At the beginning of the twelfth\ncentury there was little to read beside the fathers. If we take\n\u2018all that was knowable\u2019 in this concrete and relative sense, the\nhigh-sounding epitaph is not far above the truth.\n\nHis Latin is much better than that of the great majority of\nhis contemporaries. Judged by a perfect classical standard it\nis defective; it admits some of the erroneous forms that are\ncharacteristic of the age. But it is not without elegance, and it\nexcels in clearness and elasticity. It could not well be otherwise,\nseeing his wide and familiar acquaintance with Latin literature. He\nfrequently quotes Lucan, Ovid, Horace, Vergil, and Cicero; students\nof his writings usually add an acquaintance with Juvenal, Persius,\nStatius, Suetonius, Valerius Maximus, Quintilian, and Priscian. It\nwas a frequent charge in the mouths of his enemies that he quoted\nthe lewdest books of Ovid in the course of his interpretation of\nScripture. The constant glance aside at the literature of human\npassion and the happy flash of wit were not small elements in his\nsuccess. Those who came to him from other schools had heard little\nbut the wearisome iteration of Boetius, Cassiodorus, and Martianus\nCapella. They found the new atmosphere refreshing and stimulating.\n\nHis command of Greek and Hebrew is a subject of endless dispute.\nHis pupil Heloise certainly had a knowledge of the two tongues, as\nwe shall see presently. She must have received her instruction from\nAb\u00e9lard. But it is clear that Ab\u00e9lard likes to approach a controversy\nwhich turns on the interpretation of the original text of Scripture\nthrough a third person, such as St. Jerome. He rarely approaches even\nthe easy Greek text of the New Testament directly, and he has no\nimmediate acquaintance with any Greek author. Aristotle he has read\nin the Latin translation of Boetius, through whose mediation he has\nalso read Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_. He was certainly familiar with the\n_De Interpretatione_ and the _Categories_; Cousin grants him also\nan acquaintance with the _Prior Analytics_; and Brucker and others\nwould add the _Sophistici Elenchi_ and the _Topics_. The physical\nand metaphysical works of Aristotle were proscribed at Paris long\nafter the Jewish and Arabian translations had found a way into other\nschools of France. The golden thoughts of Plato came to him through\nthe writings of the fathers; though there is said to have been a\ntranslation of the _Tim\u00e6us_ in France early in the twelfth century.\n\nHis knowledge of Hebrew must have been equally, or even more,\nelementary. Only once does he clearly approach the Hebrew text\nwithout patristic guidance; it is when, in answering one (the\nthirty-sixth) of the famous \u2018Problems of Heloise,\u2019 he adduces the\nauthority of \u2018a certain Hebrew,\u2019 whom he \u2018heard discussing the\npoint.\u2019 In this we have a clear clue to the source of his Hebrew.\nThe Jews were very numerous in Paris in the twelfth century. When\nInnocent the Second visited Paris in 1131, the Jews met him at St.\nDenis, and offered him a valuable roll of the law. By the time of\nPhilippe Auguste they are said to have owned two-thirds of the\ncity: perceiving which, Philippe recollected, or was reminded,\nthat they were the murderers of Christ, and so he banished them\nand retained their goods. Ab\u00e9lard indicates that they took part\nin the intellectual life of Paris in his day; in Spain they were\ndistinguished in every branch of higher thought; and thus the\nopportunity of learning Hebrew lay close at hand. One does not see\nwhy R\u00e9musat and others should deny him any acquaintance with it. His\nknowledge, however, must have been elementary. He does not make an\nimpressive, though a novel, use of it in deriving the name of Heloise\n(Helwide, or Helwise, or Louise) from Elohim, which he does, years\nafterwards, in the sober solitude of his abbey and the coldness of\nhis mutilation.\n\nAdd an extensive acquaintance with Scripture and the fathers, and the\ninventory is complete. Not difficult to be erudite in those days,\nmost people will reflect. Well, a phonogram may be erudite. The gifts\nof Ab\u00e9lard were of a higher order than industry and memory, though\nhe possessed both. He takes his place in history, apart from the\never-interesting drama and the deep pathos of his life, in virtue\nof two distinctions. They are, firstly, an extraordinary ability in\nimparting such knowledge as the poverty of the age afforded\u2014the facts\nof his career reveal it; and secondly, a mind of such marvellous\npenetration that it conceived great truths which it has taken\nhumanity seven or eight centuries to see\u2014this will appear as we\nproceed. It was the former of these gifts that made him, in literal\ntruth, the centre of learned and learning Christendom, the idol of\nseveral thousand eager scholars. Nor, finally, were these thousands\nthe \u2018horde of barbarians\u2019 that jealous Master Roscelin called them.\nIt has been estimated that a pope, nineteen cardinals, and more than\nfifty bishops and archbishops, were at one time among his pupils.\n\nWe are now at, or near, the year 1118. In the thirty-ninth year of\nhis age, the twenty-third year of his scholastic activity, Ab\u00e9lard\nhas reached the highest academic position in Christendom. He who\nloved so well, and so naturally, to be admired, found himself the\ncentre of a life that had not been seen since Greek sages poured out\nwisdom in the painted colonnade, and the marble baths, and the shady\ngroves of Athens. His self-esteem was flattered; his love of rule and\nof eminence was gratified. Poor as many of his pupils were, their\nnumber brought him great wealth. His refinement had ample means of\nsolacing its desires. The petty vexations of the struggle were nobly\ncompensated. Before him lay a world of fairest promise into which\nhe, seemingly, had but to enter. Then there arose one of the forces\nthat shattered his life, beginning its embodiment in an idyll, ending\nquickly in a lurid tragedy. It is the most difficult stage in the\nstory of Ab\u00e9lard. I approach it only in the spirit of the artist,\npurposing neither to excuse nor to accuse, but only to trace, if I\nmay, the development of a soul.\n\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s life had until now been purely spiritual, almost wholly\nintellectual. His defects were spiritual\u2014conceit and ambition;\nif, as men assure us, it is a defect to recognise that you have a\nsupra-normal talent, and to strive for the pre-eminence it entitles\nyou to. The idealist spirit in which he had turned away from the\ncomfort and quiet of the ch\u00e2teau had remained thus far the one fire\nthat consumed his energy. In the pretty theory of Plato, his highest\nsoul had silenced the lower, and reduced the lowest to the barest\nrequisite play of vegetative life. There are men who go through\nlife thus. The scientist would crudely\u2014it is the fashion to say\n\u2018crudely\u2019\u2014explain that the supra-normal activity of the upper part of\nthe nervous system made the action of the lower part infra-normal;\nbut let us keep on the spiritual plane. There are men whose soul is\nso absorbed in study or in contemplation that love never reaches\ntheir consciousness; or if it does, its appeal is faint, and quickly\nrejected. The condition of such a life, highly prized as it is by\nmany, is constant intellectual strain.\n\nAb\u00e9lard had now arrived at a point when the mental strain began\ninstinctively to relax. Wealth would inevitably bring more sensuous\npleasure into his life. He was not one of the \u2018purely intellectual\u2019;\nhe had a warm imagination and artistic power. No immediate purpose\ncalled for mental concentration. Sensuous enjoyment crept over the\narea of his conscious life. During a large proportion of his time,\ntoo, he was following with sympathy the quickening life of the\npassionate creations of Ovid and Vergil and Lucan. The inner judge,\nthe sterner I, is indisposed to analyse, unless education, or faith,\nor circumstance, has laid a duty of severer watchfulness upon it.\nBlending with other and not alarming sensuous feelings, veiling\nitself, and gently, subtly passing its sweet fire into the veins,\nthe coming of love is unperceived until it is already strong to\nexert a numbing influence on the mind. Ab\u00e9lard awoke one day to a\nconsciousness that a large part of the new sweetness that pervaded\nhis life was due to the birth of a new power in his soul\u2014a power as\nelusive to recognition as it is imperious in its demands. Then is the\ntrial of the soul.\n\nBefore quoting Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s confession, with respect to this\ntransformation of his character, it is necessary, out of justice to\nhim, to anticipate a little, in indicating the circumstances of the\nmaking of the confession. The long letter which Ab\u00e9lard entitled the\n\u2018Story of my Calamities\u2019 was written twelve or thirteen years after\nthese events. By that time he had not only endured a succession of\ncruel persecutions, but his outlook on life and on self had been\nentirely changed. Not only had the memory of the events faded\nsomewhat, but he had become colour-blind in an important sense.\nA frightful mutilation had distorted his physical and psychic\nnature. Partly from this cause, and partly under the stress of\nother circumstances, he had become a Puritan of the Puritans, an\nascetical hermit. As is the wont of such, he manifests a tendency to\nexaggerate the shadows cast by actions of his which he can no longer\nunderstand; for nature has withdrawn her inspiration. On the point we\nare considering he does not evince the smallest desire of concealment\nor palliation, but rather the reverse. And, finally, the letter,\nthough written ostensibly for the solace of a friend in distress,\nwas clearly written for circulation, and for the conciliation of the\ngentler of the Puritans, who knew his life well.\n\nAfter speaking of the wealth and fame he had attained, he says:\n\u2018But since prosperity ever puffs up the fool, and worldly ease\ndissolves the vigour of the mind, and quickly enervates it by carnal\nallurements; now that I thought myself to be the only philosopher\nin the world, and feared no further menace to my position, whereas\nI had hitherto lived most continently, I began to loose the rein\nto passion. And the further I had advanced in philosophy and in\nreading Holy Writ, so much the wider did I depart from philosophers\nand divines by the uncleanness of my life. It is well known to thee\nthat philosophers and divines have ever been distinguished for this\nvirtue of continence. But, whilst I was thus wholly taken up with\npride and lust, the grace of God brought me a remedy, unwilling as I\nwas, for both maladies; for lust first, and then for pride. For lust,\nby depriving me of its instrument; for pride\u2014the pride which was\nchiefly born of my knowledge of letters, according to the word of the\nApostle, \u2018knowledge puffeth up\u2019\u2014by humbling me in the burning of the\nbook by which I set such store. And now I would have thee learn the\ntruth of both these stories, from the events themselves rather than\nfrom rumour, in the order in which they befell. Since then I had ever\nabhorred the uncleanness of harlots, and I had been withheld from the\ncompany and intercourse of noble dames by the exactions of study, nor\nhad I more than a slight acquaintance with other women, evil fortune,\nsmiling on me, found an easier way to cast me down from the summit of\nmy prosperity; proud, as I was, and unmindful of divine favour, the\ngoodness of God humbled me, and won me to itself.\u2019 And the penitent\npasses on immediately to give the story of his relation to Heloise.\n\nIt is quite clear that all the vehement language with which he\nscourges himself before humanity refers exclusively to his liaison\nwith Heloise. Searching about, as he does, for charges to heap upon\nhis dead self, he yet denies that he had intercourse with women of\nany description before he knew the one woman whom he loved sincerely\nthroughout life. In a later letter to Heloise, not intended to\ncirculate abroad, he repeats the statement; recalling their embraces,\nhe says they were the more treasured \u2018since we had never known the\nlike (_ista gaudia_) before.\u2019 Moreover, he says a little later in\nthe \u2018Story\u2019 that up to the time of his liaison with Heloise he had\na \u2018repute for chastity\u2019 in the city; the events we have to follow\nprove this to have been the case. Finally, let us carefully remember\nthat there would be no advantage in concealing any earlier disorder,\nand that there is clear indication, even in the short passage I have\nquoted, of a disposition rather to magnify faults than to attenuate.\n\nI labour the point, because a writer who has introduced Ab\u00e9lard to\nmany of the present generation, and for whom and whose thoughts I\nhave otherwise a high regard, has somehow been led to lay here a very\ndamning indictment of Ab\u00e9lard. Mr. Cotter Morison was a follower of\nthe religion that worships the departed great, and should have a\nspecial care to set in light the character of those whom the Church\nhas bruised in life, and slandered after death, under a false view\nof the interest of humanity. Yet, in his _Life of St. Bernard_, he\nhas grossly added to the charge against Ab\u00e9lard, with the slenderest\nof historical bases. It were almost an injustice to Kingsley to\nsay that Cotter Morison\u2019s Ab\u00e9lard recalls the great novelist\u2019s\npitiful Hypatia. The Positivist writer thus interprets this stage\nin Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s career. After saying that his passion broke out like\na volcano, and that he felt \u2018a fierce, fiery thirst for pleasure,\nsensual and animal,\u2019 he goes on in this remarkable strain: \u2018He drank\ndeeply, wildly. He then grew fastidious and particular. He required\nsome delicacy of romance, some flavour of emotion, to remove the\ncrudity of his lust. He seduced Heloise.\u2019\n\nWas ever a graver perversion in the historical construction of\ncharacter by an impartial writer? Stranger still, Mr. Cotter Morison\nhas already warned his readers that the \u2018Story of my Calamities\u2019\nmust be shorn of some penitential _exaggeration_, if we are to give\nit historical credence. But Mr. Morison has witnesses. Prior Fulques,\nin a letter to Ab\u00e9lard, reminded him that he squandered a fortune on\nharlots. The assertion of this monk of Deuil, based, professedly,\non the reports of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s bitter enemies, the monks of St. Denis,\nand made in a letter which is wholly politic, is held by Mr. Morison\nto \u2018more than counterbalance\u2019 the solemn public affirmation of a\nmorbidly humble, self-accusing penitent. And this, after warning us\nnot to take Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s self-accusation too literally! I shall examine\nthis letter of Prior Fulques\u2019 more closely later. Not only does the\nletter itself belong to, but the charge refers to, a later period,\nand will be weighed then. There is nothing at this stage to oppose\nto the quiet and indirect claim of Ab\u00e9lard, allowed by the action\nof Fulbert, that his character was unsullied up to the date of his\nliaison with Heloise.\n\nLet us return to the accredited historical facts. Somewhere about the\nyear 1118 Ab\u00e9lard first felt the claims of love. He was wealthy and\nprosperous, and living in comparative luxury. He had those gifts of\nimagination which usually reveal an ardent temperament. Whether it\nwas Heloise who unwittingly kindled the preparing passion, or whether\nAb\u00e9lard yielded first to a vague, imperious craving, and sought one\nwhom he might love, we do not know. But we have his trustworthy\ndeclaration that he detested the rampant harlotry, and knew no woman\nuntil he felt the sweet caress of Heloise.\n\nI have now to set out with care the story of that immortal love. But\nnine readers out of ten are minded to pass judgment on the acts and\nlives of those we recall from the dead. My function is to reconstruct\nthe story as faithfully as the recorded facts allow. Yet I would make\none more digression before doing so.\n\nWhat standard of conduct shall be used in judging Ab\u00e9lard? There are\na thousand moral codes\u2014that of the Hindu and that of the Christian,\nthat of the twelfth century and that of the _twentieth_. In the\ntwelfth century even the St. Bernards thought it just that a man\nwho could not see the truth of the Church\u2019s claims should be burned\nalive, and his soul tortured for all eternity; that a Being was\njust and adorable who tortured a twelfth century babe for Adam\u2019s\nsin; that twelfth century Jews might be robbed because their remote\nancestors had put Christ to death; that the sanctity of justice\ndemanded, literally, an eye for an eye; and so forth. One may, of\ncourse, choose whatever standard of conduct one likes to measure\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s, or anybody else\u2019s, actions: Cardinal Newman, and such\nwriters, have a fancy for judging him by the perfected code of the\nnineteenth. We cannot quarrel with them; though it is well to point\nout that they are not measuring Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s subjective guilt, nor\nportraying his character, in so doing. And if any do elect to judge\nAb\u00e9lard by the moral code of the twelfth century, it must be noted\nthat this varied much, even on the point of sexual morality. St.\nBernard and his like saw an inherent moral evil in sexual union; they\nthought the sanctity of the priestly character was incompatible with\nit, and that virginity was, in itself, and by the mere abstinence\nfrom sexual commerce, something holier than marriage. Apart from\nthis, no doubt\u2014if it can be set apart in the question\u2014good men were\nagreed. But, as will appear presently, there were large bodies of\nmen, even clerks, who not only differed from them in practice, but\nalso in their deliberate moral judgment. We must approach closer\nstill. When we have to determine an individual conception of the law,\nfor the purpose of measuring real and personal guilt, we must have\na regard to the surrounding influences, the current thoughts and\nprevailing habits, which may have impaired or obscured the feeling of\nits validity in any respect. It is well, then, first to glance at the\nmorals of the time when one feels eager to measure Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s guilt.\n\nIt was a period when the dark triumph of what is called materialism,\nor animalism, was as yet relieved only by a sporadic gleam of\nidealism. There was purity in places, but over the broad face of the\nland passion knew little law. If the unlettered Greek had immoral\ngods to encourage him, the medi\u00e6val had immoral pastors. The Church\nwas just endeavouring to enforce its unfortunate law of celibacy on\nthem. With a stroke of the pen it had converted thousands of honest\nwives into concubines. The result was utter and sad demoralisation.\nIn thus converting the moral into the deeply immoral, the Church\ncould appeal to no element in the consciences of its servants; nor\neven to its basic Scriptures. Writers of the time use hyperbolic\nlanguage in speaking of the prevalent vice, and the facts given in\nthe chronicles, and embodied in the modern collections of ancient\ndocuments, fully sustain it. Speaking of the close of the eleventh\ncentury, Dubois, in his _Historia Ecclesi\u00e6 Parisiensis_, says: \u2018The\ncondition of the Church [in general] at that time was unhappy and\nwretched ... nearly all the clergy were infected with the vice of\nsimony ... lust and shameful pleasure were openly rampant.\u2019 It is\ntrue that he excepts his \u2018Church of Paris,\u2019 but his own facts show\nthat it is only a piece of foolish loyalty. Cardinal Jacques de\nVitry, who studied at Paris towards the close of the century (it must\nhave been worse in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s time), gives a clearly overdrawn, yet\ninstructive, picture of its life in his _Historia Occidentalis_. \u2018The\nclergy,\u2019 he says, probably meaning the scholars in general, of whom\nthe majority were clerics, \u2018saw no sin in simple fornication. Common\nharlots were to be seen dragging off clerics as they passed along\nto their brothels. If they refused to go, opprobrious names were\ncalled after them. School and brothel were under the same roof\u2014the\nschool above, the brothel below.... And the more freely they spent\ntheir money in vice, the more were they commended, and regarded\nby almost everybody as fine, liberal fellows.\u2019 The vice that has\never haunted educational centres and institutes was flagrant and\ngeneral. It is a fact that the authorities had at length to prohibit\nthe canons to lodge students in their houses on the island. In the\ncountry and in the other towns the same conditions were found. In\nFather Denifle\u2019s _Chartularium_ there is a document (No. V.) which\nthrows a curious light on the habits of the clergy. A priest of\nRheims was dancing in a tavern one Sunday, when some of the scholars\nlaughed at him. He pursued them to their school, took the place by\nstorm, half-murdered, and then (presumably recalling his sacerdotal\ncharacter) excommunicated them. At another time, Cardinal Jacques\ntells us, the lady of a certain manor warned the priest of the\nvillage to dismiss his concubine. He refused; whereupon the noble\ndame had the woman brought to her, and ordained her \u2018priestess,\u2019\nturning her out before the admiring villagers with a gaudy crown.\nAnother poor priest told his bishop, with many tears, that, if it\nwere a question of choosing between his church and his concubine, he\nshould have to abandon the church; the story runs that, finding his\nincome gone, the lady also departed. There is an equally dark lament\nin Ordericus Vitalis, the Norman, who lived in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s day. The\nletters and sermons of Ab\u00e9lard\u2014Ab\u00e9lard the monk, of St. Bernard, and\nof so many others, confirm the darkest features of the picture. Only\na few years previously the king had lived with the wife of one of his\nnobles, in defiance of them all; and when a council, composed of one\nhundred and twenty prelates, including two cardinals and a number of\nbishops, met at Poitiers to censure him, the Duke of Aquitaine broke\nin with his soldiers, and scattered them with the flat of his sword.\nIndeed, an ancient writer, Hugo Flaviniacensis, declares there was a\nfeeling that Pope Paschal did not, for financial reasons, approve the\ncensure passed by his legates.\n\nConsidering the enormous prevalence of simony, one could hardly\nexpect to find the Church in a better condition. The writers of\nthe time make it clear that there was an appalling traffic in\nbishoprics, abbeys, prebends, and all kinds of ecclesiastical goods\nand dignities. We have already seen one tragic illustration of\nthe evil, and we shall meet many more. A few years previously the\nking had nominated one of his favourites, \u00c9tienne de Garlande, for\nthe vacant bishopric of Beauvais; and this youth, \u2018of no letters\nand of unchaste life,\u2019 at once took even major orders, and talked\nof going to Rome \u2018to buy the curia.\u2019 But, as with regard to the\nprevious point, it is useless to give instances. Corruption was very\nprevalent; and one cannot wonder at it in view of the reputation\nwhich the papacy itself had, in spite of its occasional quashing of a\ncorrupt election. This point will be treated more fully in the sixth\nchapter.\n\nThe question of the deep and widespread corruption of the regular\nclergy must also be deferred. In his fourth letter to Heloise,\nAb\u00e9lard complains that \u2018almost all the monasteries of our day\u2019 are\ncorrupt; Jacques de Vitry affirms that no nunneries, save those of\nthe Cistercians, were fit abodes for an honest woman in his day.[15]\nIt is not a little instructive to find Abbot Ab\u00e9lard, in his latest\nand most ascetic period, telling his son (a monk), in the course\nof a number of admirable moral maxims, that: \u2018A humble harlot is\nbetter than she who is chaste and proud,\u2019 and that \u2018Far worse is the\nshrewd-tongued woman than a harlot.\u2019\n\n  [15] The condition of monasteries will be found treated more\n  fully on p. 125; that of nunneries on p. 209.\n\nFinally, mention must be made of the extreme violence of the\nage. Several illustrations have been given in the course of the\nnarrative, and it will bring many more before the reader. They were\nstill the days of the _lex talionis_, the judicial duel, the ordeal,\nand the truce of God. Murder was common in town and country. We\nhave seen the brutal murder of the Bishop of Laon in 1112; we find\nthe Bishop of Paris threatened by the relatives of his archdeacon,\nand the Prior of St. Victor\u2019s murdered by them, in 1133. But the\nstory will contain violence enough. As for \u2018the undisciplined\nstudent-hordes of the Middle Ages,\u2019 see the appalling picture of\ntheir life in Rashdall\u2019s _Universities of Europe_. Our period is\npre-university\u2014and worse: with the founding of the university came\nsome degree of control. Yet even then the documentary evidence\ndiscloses a fearful condition of violence and lawlessness. In the\nyear 1197 we find the Bishop of Paris abolishing the \u2018Feast of\nFools.\u2019 On January 1st (and also on the feast of St. Stephen), it\nseems, a carnival was held, during which the masquers had free run of\nthe cathedral and the churches, making them echo with ribald songs,\nand profaning them with bloodshed and all kinds of excess. In 1218,\nsays Crevier, we find the ecclesiastical judges of Paris complaining\nthat the students break into the houses of the citizens, and carry\noff their womenfolk. In 1200 we find a pitched battle between the\nstudents of Paris and the governor and his guards, in which several\nare killed; and the king condemns the unfortunate governor to be\ntried by ordeal; to be hanged forthwith if it proves his guilt, and\nto be imprisoned for life (in case Providence has made a mistake) if\nit absolves him. After another of these battles, when the governor\nhas hanged several students, the king forces him and his council to\ngo in their shirts to the scaffold and kiss the bodies. In another\ncase, in 1228, the king sides with the governor, and the masters\nclose the university in disgust until the students are avenged.\n\nBut of story-telling there would be no end. And, indeed, there is\nthe danger of giving a false impression of scantiness of evidence\nwhen one follows up a large assertion with a few incidents. It is,\nhowever, clear from the quoted words of accredited historians, and\nwill be made clearer in the progress of the narrative, that simony,\nunchastity, violence, cruelty, and usury were real and broad features\nof the age of Ab\u00e9lard. The reader will not forget them, when he is\nseeking to enter into the conscience of the famous master.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nDEAD SEA FRUIT\n\n\nThe great cemetery of P\u00e8re Lachaise at Paris is a city of historic\ntombs. Names of world-fame look down on you from the marble dwellings\nof the dead, as you pass along its alleys and broad avenues. Paris\nloves to wander there on Sundays; to scatter floral symbols of a\nliving memory on the youngest graves, and to hang wreaths of unfading\nhonour over the ashes of those who have fought for it and served it.\nThe memory of the dead soon fades, they say, yet you will see men and\nwomen of Paris, on many a summer\u2019s day, take flowers and wreaths in\nsolemn pity to lay on the tomb of a woman who was dust seven hundred\nyears ago. It is the grave of Heloise, and of her lover, Ab\u00e9lard.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to say that in a serious endeavour to\ndepict the historical Heloise much myth and legend must be soberly\ndeclined. Even historians have been seduced from their high duty in\nwriting her praise: witness the fond exaggeration of M. de R\u00e9musat,\nwhich would make her \u2018the first of women.\u2019 Yet it must be admitted\nthat impartial study brings us face to face with a very remarkable\npersonality. This will be easily accepted in the sequel, when we have\nfollowed the course of her life to some extent\u2014when, for instance,\nwe see the affection and the extraordinary respect with which she\ninspires the famous abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable. It is\nmore difficult to recall her at the period of her fateful meeting\nwith Ab\u00e9lard. We have, however, the sober assurance of Peter the\nVenerable that, even at this early date, she was \u2018of great repute\nthroughout the entire kingdom\u2019; and there is no reason whatever to\nresent Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s assertion that she was already distinguished for her\nknowledge.\n\nThe mythic additions to the portraiture of Heloise refer almost\nexclusively to her parentage and her beauty. Ab\u00e9lard introduces\nher to us as the niece of a canon of the cathedral chapter, named\nFulbert. It is quite clear that Ab\u00e9lard considered her such\nthroughout life, and that it was the belief of Heloise herself; but\nof her parentage neither of them speaks. In strict justice, the only\ninference we may draw from this is that she lost her parents at an\nearly age. We should never have known the parentage of Ab\u00e9lard but\nfor his own autobiography. However, the tradition that has charged\nitself with the romance of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s life found in this silence a\nconvenient pretext for weaving further romantic elements into the\nstory. There is a pretty collection of myths about Heloise\u2019s birth,\nmost of them, of course, making her illegitimate. The issue of lawful\nwedlock is ever too prosaic and ordinary for the romantic faculty\u2014in\nspite of facts. The favourite theory is that Heloise was the daughter\nof Canon Fulbert; even Hausrath thinks Fulbert\u2019s conduct points to\nthis relationship. Two other canons of Paris are severally awarded\nthe honour by various writers. On the other hand, it was inevitable\nthat she should be given a tinge of \u2018noble\u2019 blood, and this is traced\non the maternal side. Turlot makes the best effort\u2014from the romantic\npoint of view\u2014in describing her as the daughter of an abbess, who was\nthe mistress of a Montmorency, but who gave an air of respectability\nto her family matters by passing for the mistress of Fulbert. From\nthe less interesting point of view of history, we can only say that\nshe lived with her uncle, Canon Fulbert, and we must admit that we do\nnot know whether she was illegitimate or an orphan. But the former\ncategory was very much the larger one, even in those violent days.\n\nIt was also natural that tradition should endow her with a singular\nbeauty: an endowment which sober history is unable to confirm. She\nmust, it is true, have had a singular grace and charm of person. It\nis impossible to think that her mental gifts alone attracted Ab\u00e9lard.\nMoreover, in the course of the story, we shall meet several instances\nof the exercise of such personal power. But we cannot claim for her\nmore than a moderate degree of beauty. \u2018Not the least in beauty of\ncountenance,\u2019 says Ab\u00e9lard, \u2018she was supreme in her knowledge of\nletters.\u2019 The antithesis does not seem to be interpreted aright by\nthose writers who think it denies her any beauty. \u2018Not the least\u2019 is\na figure of rhetoric, well known to Ab\u00e9lard, which must by no means\nbe taken with Teutonic literalness.\n\nBut that \u2018repute throughout the kingdom,\u2019 which Peter the Venerable\ngrants her, was based on her precocious knowledge. It is generally\nestimated that she was in her seventeenth or eighteenth year when\nAb\u00e9lard fell in love with her. She had spent her early years at the\nBenedictine nunnery at Argenteuil, a few miles beyond St. Denis.\nHer education was then continued by her uncle. Canon Fulbert has no\nreputation for learning in the chronicles of the time; in fact, the\nonly information we have of him, from other sources than the story of\nAb\u00e9lard, is that he was the happy possessor of \u2018a whole bone\u2019 out of\nthe spine of St. Ebrulfus. However, it is indisputable that Heloise\nhad a reputation for letters even at that time. Both Ab\u00e9lard and\nPeter of Cluny are explicit on the point; the latter says to her, in\none of his admiring letters, \u2018in study you not only outstripped all\nwomen, but there were few men whom you did not surpass.\u2019 From this\nit is clear that the learning of Heloise was not distinguished only\nwhen compared with the general condition of the feminine mind. In\nfact, although Abbot Peter speaks slightingly of womanly education in\ngeneral, this was a relatively bright period. We have already seen\nthe wife and daughters of Manegold teaching philosophy at Paris with\nmuch distinction at the close of the eleventh century, and one cannot\ngo far in the chronicles of the time without meeting many instances\nof a learned correspondence in Latin between prelates and women.\n\nNevertheless, the learning of Heloise cannot have been considerable,\nabsolutely speaking. Her opportunities were even more limited than\nthe erudition of her time. That she knew Hebrew is explicitly stated\nby Ab\u00e9lard and Peter of Cluny, and also by Robert of Auxerre; but\nshe probably learned it (with Greek) from Ab\u00e9lard, and knew no more\nthan he. Her Latin is good; but it is impossible to discuss here\nher famous _Letters_, which give us our sole direct insight into\nher personality. Learned, critical, penetrative, she certainly was,\nbut R\u00e9musat\u2019s estimate is entirely inadmissible. Beside Aspasia or\nHypatia she would \u2018pale her ineffectual fire.\u2019\n\nIt is not difficult to understand how the two were brought together.\nBoth of high repute \u2018in the whole kingdom,\u2019 or, at all events, in\nParis, they could not long remain strangers. Ab\u00e9lard was soon \u2018wholly\nafire with love of the maid,\u2019 he tells us, and sought an opportunity\nof closer intercourse with her. Though Cotter Morison\u2019s theory of\nthe sated sensualist looking round for a dainty morsel is utterly at\nvariance with Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s narrative\u2014the only account of these events\nthat we have\u2014it is, nevertheless, clear that Ab\u00e9lard sought the\nintimacy of Heloise for the purpose of gaining her love. He says so\nrepeatedly; and, though we have at times to moderate the stress of\nhis words, we cannot refuse to accept their substance. Mr. Poole\nconsiders the idea of a deliberate seduction on the part of Ab\u00e9lard\n\u2018incredible.\u2019 It is strange that one who is so familiar with the\ntimes should think this. \u2018I thought it would be well to contract a\nunion of love with the maid,\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard says. From the circumstance\nthat he had to approach Fulbert (who was, however, only too willing)\nthrough the mediation of friends, it does not seem rash to infer that\nhe had had no personal intercourse with the canon and his niece. It\nwas through her fame and, perhaps, an occasional passing glance that\nhe had come to love her. He had, however, little diffidence about\nthe issue. Though between thirty-five and forty years of age, he\nlooked \u2018young and handsome,\u2019 he tells us; and we learn further from\nHeloise that he had gifts \u2018of writing poetry and of singing\u2019 which\nno female heart could resist. The \u2018Socrates of Gaul\u2019 set out on a\nlove-adventure.\n\nAnd one fine day the little world of Paris was smirking and\nchattering over the startling news that Master Peter had gone\nto live with Heloise and her uncle. The simple canon had been\ndelighted at the proposal to receive Ab\u00e9lard. Alleging the expense of\nmaintaining a separate house and the greater convenience of Fulbert\u2019s\nhouse for attending the school, Ab\u00e9lard had asked his hospitality in\nconsideration of a certain payment and the instruction of Heloise in\nleisure hours. It may or may not be true that Fulbert was avaricious,\nas Ab\u00e9lard affirms, but the honour of lodging the first master\nin Christendom and the valuable advantage to his niece are quite\nadequate to explain Fulbert\u2019s eager acceptance. \u2018Affection for his\nniece and the repute of my chastity,\u2019 says Ab\u00e9lard, blinded the canon\nto the obvious danger, if not the explicit intention. The master was\nat once established in the canon\u2019s house. One reads with pity how the\nuncle, blind, as only an erudite priest can be, to the rounded form\nand quickened pulse, child-like, gave Ab\u00e9lard even power to beat his\nniece, if she neglected her task.\n\nA tradition, which seems to have but a precarious claim to credence,\npoints out the spot where the idyll of that love was lived. In\nthe earlier part of the present century there was a house at the\ncorner of the Rue des Chantres (on the island, facing the Hotel de\nVille), which bore an inscription claiming that \u2018Heloise and Ab\u00e9lard,\nthe model of faithful spouses, dwelt in this house.\u2019 If we accept\nthe vague legend, we can easily restore in imagination the little\ncottage of Fulbert. It lay a few yards from the water\u2019s edge, and\none could look out from its narrow windows over the gently sloping\ngarden of the bank and the fresh, sweet bosom of the river; the quays\nwere beyond\u2014where the Hotel de Ville now stands\u2014and further still\noutspread the lovely panorama that encircled Paris.\n\nIn a very short time master and pupil were lovers. He did assuredly\nfulfil his promise of teaching her. Most probably it was from him\nthat she learned what Greek and Hebrew she knew; for Ab\u00e9lard, in\nlater years, not only reminds her nuns that they \u2018have a mother who\nis conversant with these tongues,\u2019 but adds also that \u2018she alone has\nattained this knowledge,\u2019 amongst the women of her time. It is also\nclear that he taught her dialectics, theology, and ethics. But it was\nnot long, he confesses, before there were \u2018more kisses than theses,\u2019\nand \u2018love was the inspirer of his tongue.\u2019 He does not hesitate to\nspeak of having \u2018corrupted\u2019 or seduced her, but it is only prejudice\nor ignorance that can accept this in the full severity and gravity of\nthe modern term. Heloise had been educated in a nunnery; but before\nmany years we find these nuns of Argenteuil turned on the street\nfor \u2018the enormity of their lives.\u2019 The charge must not be taken too\nliterally just yet, but it should make us hesitate to credit Heloise\nwith a rigorous moral education. She lived, too, in a world where,\nas we saw, such liaisons were not considered sinful. It is far from\nlikely that she would oppose any scruple to Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s desire. Indeed,\nfrom the study of her references to their love, in the letters she\nwrote long years afterwards\u2014wrote as an abbess of high repute\u2014one\nfeels disposed to think that Ab\u00e9lard would have had extreme\ndifficulty in pointing out to her the sinfulness of such a love. It\nis with an effort, even after twenty years of chaste, conventual\nlife, that she accepts the ecclesiastical view of their conduct.\nAb\u00e9lard sinned; but let us, in justice, limit his sin at least to\nits due objective proportion; its subjective magnitude I shall not\nventure to examine.\n\nIn a few months the famed philosopher appeared in a new character,\nas \u2018the first of the troubadours,\u2019 to use the words of Amp\u00e8re. \u2018\u00c0\nmesure qu\u2019on a plus d\u2019esprit les passions sont plus grandes,\u2019 said\nPascal. Of all false epigrams that is surely the falsest, but it\nwould be easily inspired by the transformation of Pierre Ab\u00e9lard. The\nsober-living man of forty, whom all had thought either never to have\nknown or long since to have passed the fever of youth, was mastered\nby a deep, tyrannical passion. The problems of dialectics were\nforgotten, the alluring difficulties of Ezechiel unheeded. Day after\nday the murmuring throng was dismissed untaught from the cloistral\nschool; whilst passers-by heard songs that were ardent with deep love\nfrom the windows of the canon\u2019s house. All Paris, even all France,\ncaught the echo, says Heloise, and \u2018every street, every house,\nresounded with my name.\u2019 The strange \u2018Story of love and learning,\u2019\nas an old ballad expressed it, was borne through the kingdom in\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s own impassioned words.[16]\n\n  [16] Not a single one of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s songs has come down to us. A\n  few songs are to be found which bear his name, but they are not\n  genuine. It is an unfortunate loss, since the religious hymns\n  of his later years convey no better impression of his true and\n  unspoiled poetic faculty than the moonlight does of the rays of\n  the sun.\n\nMonths ran on, and the purblind priest remained wholly unconscious\nof what all Paris sang nightly in its taverns. At length the truth\nwas forced upon his mind, and he at once interrupted the love-story.\nHe drove Ab\u00e9lard from the house, and raised the usual futile barriers\nto the torrent of passion. Whether the canon was really more earnest\nthan the majority of his order, and therefore sincerely shocked at\nthe thought of the liaison, or whether it had disturbed some other\nproject he had formed, it is impossible to say. Heloise herself,\nin her sober maturity, affirms that any woman in France would have\nthought her position more honourable than any marriage. However that\nmay be, Fulbert angrily forbade a continuance of the relation. Once\nmore Ab\u00e9lard must have felt the true alternative that honour placed\nbefore him: either to crush his passion and return to the school, or\nto marry Heloise and sacrifice the desire of further advancement in\necclesiastical dignity.\n\nAb\u00e9lard was not a priest at that time. He was probably a canon of\nNotre Dame, but there are very satisfactory reasons for holding\nthat he did not receive the priesthood until a much later date. In\nthe \u2018Story\u2019 he makes Heloise address him, about this time, as \u2018a\ncleric and canon,\u2019 but he is nowhere spoken of as a priest. Had\nhe been a priest, the circumstance would have afforded Heloise one\nof the most powerful objections to a marriage; in the curious and\nlengthy catalogue of such objections which we shall find her raising\npresently she does not mention the priesthood. But even if he were\na priest, it is not at all clear that he would have considered this\nin itself an impediment to marriage. From the acts of the Council of\nLondon (1102), the Council of Troyes (1107), the Council of Rheims\n(1119), and others, we find that the decree of the Church against the\nmarriage of priests, and even bishops, was far from being universally\naccepted. Indeed, we have specific reason for thinking that Ab\u00e9lard\ndid not recognise an impediment of that character. In a work which\nbears the title _Sententiae Abaelardi_, we find the thesis, more or\nless clearly stated, that the priest may marry. The work is certainly\nnot Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s own composition, but the experts regard it as a careful\nsummary of his views by some master of the period.\n\nApart from the laxer view of love-relation which Ab\u00e9lard probably\nshared, we can only find firm ground to interpret his reluctance to\nmarry in the fear of injuring his further ambition. Marriage was\nfast becoming a fatal obstacle to advancement in the ecclesiastical\nworld; a lover\u2014with wealth\u2014was not a serious difficulty. Even this\npoint, however, cannot be pressed; it looks as though his ambition\nhad become as limp and powerless as all other feelings in the new\ntyranny of love. Historians have been so eager to quarrel with\nthe man that they have, perhaps, not paid a just regard to the\nfact that Heloise herself was violently opposed to marriage, and\nconscientiously thought their earlier union more honourable. This\nwill appear presently.\n\nWhatever struggle may have distracted Ab\u00e9lard after their separation,\nhe was soon forced to take practical measures. Heloise found means\nto inform him\u2014not with the conventional tears, but, he says, \u2018with\nthe keenest joy\u2019\u2014that she was about to become a mother. Fate had cut\nthe ethical knot. He at once removed her from Fulbert\u2019s house during\nthe night, and had her conveyed, in the disguise of a nun,[17] to his\nhome at Pallet. It is not clearly stated that Ab\u00e9lard accompanied\nher, but, beside the intrinsic probability, there is a local\ntradition that Ab\u00e9lard and Heloise spent many happy months together\nat Pallet, and there is a phrase in the \u2018Story\u2019 which seems to\nconfirm it. However that may be, we find him in Paris again, after a\ntime, seeking a reconciliation with Fulbert.\n\n  [17] This detail is found in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s second letter to Heloise.\n  It is characteristic of Mr. Cotter Morison\u2019s \u2018sketch\u2019 of Ab\u00e9lard\n  that he should have missed it, and thought fit to deny it.\n  Deutsch reads him a severe lesson on the duty of accuracy in his\n  _Peter Ab\u00e4lard_.\n\nFulbert was by no means the quiet, passive recluse that one would\nimagine from his earlier action, or inaction. The discovery of\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s treachery and the removal of his niece had enkindled\nthoughts of wild and dark revenge. He feared, however, to attack\nAb\u00e9lard whilst Heloise remained at Pallet; it is a fearful commentary\non the times that Ab\u00e9lard should coolly remark that a retaliation on\nthe part of his own relatives was apprehended. Revenge was considered\na legitimate daughter of justice in those days. A compromise was at\nlength imagined by Ab\u00e9lard. He proposed to marry Heloise, if Fulbert\nand his friends would agree to keep the marriage secret. In this we\nhave a still clearer revelation of the one serious flaw in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\ncharacter\u2014weakness. No doubt, if we had had an autobiography from\nan unmaimed Ab\u00e9lard\u2014an Ab\u00e9lard who identified himself with, and\nendeavoured proudly to excuse, the lover of Heloise\u2014we should be\nreminded of many extenuating elements; the repugnance of Heloise, the\nstupid anti-matrimonialism of the hierarchy, the current estimate\nof an unconsecrated liaison, and so forth. Even as it is, Ab\u00e9lard\nperceives no selfishness, no want of resolution, in his action. \u2018Out\nof compassion for his great anxiety,\u2019 he says, he approached Fulbert\non the question of a private marriage. The canon consented, though\nsecretly retaining his intention of taking a bloody revenge, Ab\u00e9lard\nthinks; and the master hastened once more to Brittany for his bride.\n\nAb\u00e9lard probably flattered himself that he had found an admirable\noutlet from his narrow circumstances. Fulbert\u2019s conscience would be\nsalved by the Church\u2019s blessing on their love; the hierarchy would\nhave no matrimonial impediment to oppose to his advancement; Paris\nwould give an indulgent eye to what it would regard as an amiable\nfrailty, if not a grace of character. Unfortunately for his peace,\nHeloise energetically repulsed the idea of marriage. The long passage\nin which Ab\u00e9lard gives us her objections is not the least interesting\nin the \u2018Story.\u2019\n\n\u2018She asked,\u2019 he writes, \u2018what glory she would win from me, when she\nhad rendered me inglorious, and had humbled both me and her. How\ngreat a punishment the world would inflict on her if she deprived\nit of so resplendent a light: what curses, what loss to the Church,\nwhat philosophic tears, would follow such a marriage. How outrageous,\nhow pitiful it was, that he whom nature had created for the common\nblessing should be devoted to one woman, and plunged in so deep a\ndisgrace. Profoundly did she hate the thought of a marriage which\nwould prove so humiliating and so burdensome to me in every respect.\u2019\n\nThen follows an elaborate, rhetorical discourse on the disadvantages\nof matrimony, with careful division and subdivision, arguments from\nreason, from experience, from authority, and all the artifices of\nrhetoric and dialectics. That the learned Heloise did urge many\nof its curious points will scarcely be doubted, but as a careful\nand ordered piece of pleading against matrimony it has an obvious\nulterior purpose. St. Paul is the first authority quoted; then follow\nSt. Jerome, Theophrastus, and Cicero. She (or he) then draws an\nanimated picture of the domestic felicity of a philosopher, reminding\nhim of servants and cradles, infant music and the chatter of nurses,\nthe pressing throng of the family and the helplessness of the little\nones. The example of monks, of Nazarites, and of philosophers is\nimpressively urged; and if he will not hesitate, as \u2018a cleric and a\ncanon,\u2019 to commit himself \u2018irrevocably to domestic joy,\u2019 at least\nlet him remember his dignity as a philosopher. The sad fate of the\nmarried Socrates is adduced, together with the thunder and rain\nincident. Finally, she is represented as saying that it is \u2018sweeter\nto her and more honourable to him that she should be his mistress\nrather than his wife,\u2019 and that she prefers to be united to him \u2018by\nlove alone, not by the compulsion of the marriage vow.\u2019\n\nWhen the letter containing this curious passage reached Heloise,\nnearly twenty years after the event, she, an abbess of high repute\nfor holiness, admitted its correctness, with the exception that \u2018a\nfew arguments had been omitted in which she set love before matrimony\nand freedom before compulsion.\u2019 Holy abbess writing to holy abbot,\nshe calls God to witness that \u2018if the name of wife is holier, the\nname of friend, or, if he likes, mistress or concubine, is sweeter,\u2019\nand that she \u2018would rather be his mistress than the queen of a\nC\u00e6sar.\u2019 They who disregard these things in sitting in judgment on\nthat famous liaison are foredoomed to error.\n\nBut Ab\u00e9lard prevailed. \u2018Weeping and sobbing vehemently,\u2019 he says,\n\u2018she brought her discourse to an end with these words: \u201cOne thing\nalone remains for us now, we must exhibit in our common ruin a grief\nas strong as the love that has gone before.\u201d\u2019 It is an artistic\ntermination to Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s discourse, at all events.\n\nBack to Paris once more, therefore, the two proceeded. Heloise had\na strong foreboding of evil to come from the side of Fulbert; she\ndid not trust his profession of conciliation. However, she left her\nboy, whom, with a curious affectation, they had called Astrolabe\n(the name of an astronomic apparatus), in the charge of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nsister Denyse. They were married a few days after their arrival\nat Paris. The vigil was spent, according to custom, in one of the\nchurches: they remained all night in prayer, and the ceremony took\nplace after an early Mass in the morning. Their arrival in Paris had\nbeen kept secret, and only Fulbert and a few friends of both parties\nwere present at the marriage. Then they parted at the altar: the man\nweakly proceeding to follow his poor ambition in the school, the\nnoble young wife making herself a sad sacrifice to his selfishness\nand irresolution.\n\nDuring the next few dreary months they saw each other rarely and in\nsecret. Ab\u00e9lard was a man of the type that waits for the compulsion\nof events in a serious conflict of desires, or of desire and duty. He\ncould not lay aside his day-dream that somehow and some day the fates\nwould smooth out a path along which he could carry both his whole\nambition and his love. Events did decide for him once more. Fulbert,\nit seems, broke his faith with Ab\u00e9lard and divulged the marriage.\nBut when people came to Heloise for confirmation, she did more than\n\u2018lie with the sweetness of a Madonna,\u2019 in Charles Reade\u2019s approving\nphrase; she denied on oath that she was the wife of Ab\u00e9lard. Fulbert\nthen began to ill-treat her (the circumstance may be commended to\nthe notice of those historians who think he had acted from pure\naffection), and Ab\u00e9lard removed her secretly from her uncle\u2019s house.\n\nIt was to the convent at Argenteuil that Ab\u00e9lard conveyed his wife\nthis time. One passes almost the very spot in entering modern Paris\nby the western line, but the village lay at a much greater distance\nfrom the ancient island-city, a few miles beyond St. Denis, going\ndown the river. It was a convent of Benedictine nuns, very familiar\nto Heloise, who had received her early education there. In order to\nconceal Heloise more effectually, he bade her put on the habit of the\nnuns, with the exception of the veil, which was the distinguishing\nmark of the professed religious. Here she remained for some months;\nAb\u00e9lard waiting upon events, as usual, and occasionally making a\nsecret visit to Argenteuil. According to Turlot, the abbess of\nArgenteuil was the mother of Heloise. We know, at least, that\nthe nunnery was in a very lax condition, and that, beyond her\nunconquerable presentiment of evil, Heloise would suffer little\nrestraint. Indeed, Ab\u00e9lard reminds her later, in his second letter to\nher, that their conjugal relations continued whilst she was in the\nnunnery.\n\nHow long this wretched situation continued it is impossible to\ndetermine. It cannot have been many months, at the most, before\nFulbert discovered what had happened; it was probably a matter\nof weeks. Yet this is the only period in which it is possible to\nentertain the theory of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s licentiousness. We have already\nseen that Cotter Morison\u2019s notion of a licentious period before the\nliaison with Heloise is quite indefensible. The tragic event which we\nhave presently to relate puts the latest term to the possibility of\nsuch licence. Now, there are two documents on which Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s critics\nrely: a letter to him from Fulques, prior in the monastery of Deuil\nnear Paris, and a letter from his former teacher, Master Roscelin.\nPrior Fulques, however, merely says he \u2018has heard\u2019 that Ab\u00e9lard was\nreduced to poverty through \u2018the greed and avarice of harlots\u2019; and\nRoscelin explicitly states that he heard his story from the monks\nof St. Denis. Indeed, we may at once exclude Roscelin\u2019s letter; not\nmerely because it was written in a most furious outburst of temper,\nwhen a man would grasp any rumour, but also on the ground that his\nstory is absurd and impossible. He represents Ab\u00e9lard, when a monk at\nSt. Denis, later, returning to his monastery with the money earned by\nhis teaching, and marching off with it to pay a former mistress. We\nshall see, in a later chapter, that Ab\u00e9lard did not begin to teach\nuntil he had left St. Denis.\n\nIf, however, Roscelin\u2019s story is too absurd to entertain in itself,\nit is useful in casting some light on Fulques\u2019s letter. Fulques was\nwriting to Ab\u00e9lard on behalf of the monks of St. Denis. He would be\nwell acquainted with their gossip, and would, therefore, probably\nbe referring to the story which Roscelin shows to be impossible in\ngiving it more fully. It is not unlikely that the story was really\na perverse account of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s visits to Heloise at Argenteuil.\nIn any case we are reduced to the gossip of a band of monks of\nnotorious character (_teste_ St. Bernard), of indirect and uncertain\ninformation, and of bitter hostility to Ab\u00e9lard.\n\nAnd this is all the evidence which can be found in support of the\ncalumny. On the strength of this monkish gossip we are asked to\nbelieve that Ab\u00e9lard grossly deceived his young wife, and made an\nattempt, as ridiculous (if the rumour contained truth) as it was\nhypocritical, to deceive the readers of his heart-naked confession.\nWe are to suppose that \u2018the abhorrence of harlots,\u2019 of which he spoke\nearlier, entirely disappeared when he found himself united by the\nsacred bonds of both religion and love to a noble and devoted wife.\nWe are to suppose that his apparent detestation and condemnation\nof his past conduct was a mere rhetorical artifice to conceal the\nfoulest and most extraordinary episode in his career from the people\namongst whom he had lived\u2014an artifice, moreover, which would be\nutterly inconsistent with his life and character at the time he wrote\nthe \u2018Story.\u2019 It is almost impossible to take such a notion seriously.\n\nOnce more, then, we are in a period of waiting for the direction of\nevents. It came this time in tragic accents that for ever cured the\nunfortunate Breton of his listless trust in fate.\n\nFulbert learned at length that Heloise had been sent to Argenteuil,\nand had taken the habit. The canon at once inferred that this was\na preliminary step to a dissolution of the marriage. He would be\nunaware that it had been consummated, and would suppose that Ab\u00e9lard\nintended to apply to Rome for a dispensation to relieve him of an\napparent embarrassment. He decided on a fearful revenge, which should\nat least prevent Ab\u00e9lard from marrying another.\n\nAnd one early morning, a little later, Paris was in a frenzy of\nexcitement. Canons, students, and citizens, thronged the streets, and\npressed towards Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s house on St. Genevieve. \u2018Almost the entire\ncity,\u2019 says Fulques, went clamouring towards his house: \u2018women wept\nas though each one had lost her husband.\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard had been brutally\nmutilated during the night. Hirelings of Canon Fulbert had corrupted\nhis valet, and entered his room whilst he slept. They had perpetrated\nan indescribable outrage, such as was not infrequently inflicted in\nthe quarrels of the Patareni and the Nicolait\u00e6. In that dark night\nthe sunshine disappeared for ever from the life of Pierre Ab\u00e9lard.\nHenceforth we have to deal with a new man.\n\nIt is a pious theory of the autobiographist himself that this\nmutilation led indirectly to his \u2018conversion.\u2019 There is undoubtedly\nmuch truth in this notion of an indirect occasioning of better\nthoughts and of an indirect influence being cast on his mind for\nlife. Yet we of the later date, holding a truer view of the unity of\nhuman nature, and of the place that sex-influence occupies in its\nlife, can see that the \u2018conversion\u2019 was largely a direct, physical\nprocess. We have, in a very literal sense, another man to deal with\nhenceforward.\n\nAs Ab\u00e9lard lay on the bed of sickness, the conversion gradually\nworked onwards towards a critical decision. It is not clear that\nthe mutilation would prove of itself an impediment to scholastic\nhonour or ecclesiastical office, but the old life could not be faced\nagain by one with so little strength and so keen a sensibility. \u2018I\npondered on the glory I had won and on the swift chance blow that had\nobscured it, nay, wholly extinguished it: on the just judgment of\nGod by which I had been punished in the member that had sinned: on\nthe justice of treachery coming from him whom I had myself betrayed:\non the joy of my rivals at such a humiliation: on the endless sorrow\nthis wound would inflict on my family and my friends: on the speed\nwith which this deep disgrace would travel through the world. What\npath was open to me now? How could I ever walk abroad again, to be\npointed at by every finger, ridiculed by every tongue, a monstrous\nspectacle to all?... In such sorry plight as I was, the confusion of\nshame rather than a devout conversion impelled me to seek refuge in\nthe monastery.\u2019\n\nTo this natural \u2018confusion of shame\u2019 we must look for an explanation\nof, not merely the folly, but the cruelty and selfishness, of\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s proposal. It involved the burial of Heloise in a nunnery.\nNo one could shrink more feelingly from the unnatural shade of the\ncloister than did Heloise, as Ab\u00e9lard must have known, but in his\npain and despair he forgot the elementary dictates of love or of\nhonour. In any other circumstances the act would be deemed brutal.\nIndeed, he wantonly increased the suffering of his young wife by\nordering her to take the vows first. Twenty years afterwards she\nplaintively tells him the sorrow he gave her by such a command. \u2018God\nknows,\u2019 she says, \u2018I should not have hesitated, at your command, to\nprecede or to follow you to hell itself.\u2019 She was \u2018profoundly grieved\nand ashamed\u2019 at the distrust which seemed to be implied in his\ndirection. But hers was the love that \u2018is stronger than death,\u2019 and\nshe complied without a murmur, making of her sunny nature one more\nvictim on the altar of masculine selfishness.\n\nAb\u00e9lard has left us a dramatic picture of her taking the vows. It\nshows clearly that the love which impelled her to such a sacrifice\nwas not the blind, child-like affection that is wholly merged in the\nstronger loved one, but the deep, true love that sees the full extent\nof the sacrifice demanded, and accepts it with wide-opened eyes.\nAt the last moment a little group of friends surrounded her in the\nconvent-chapel. The veil, blessed by the bishop, lay on the altar\nbefore them, and they were endeavouring to dissuade her from going\nforward to take it. She waved them aside\u2014waved aside for the last\ntime the thought of her child and the vision of a sun-lit earth\u2014and\ntook the fateful step towards the altar. Then, standing on the spot\nwhere the young nun generally knelt for the final thanksgiving to\nGod, she recited with the tense fervour of a human prayer the words\nof Cornelia in Lucan:\n\n                  \u2018O spouse most great,\n    O thou whose bed my merit could not share!\n    How hath an evil fortune worked this wrong\n    On thy dear head? Why hapless did I wed,\n    If this the fruit that my affection bore?\n    Behold the penalty I now embrace\n    For thy sweet sake!\u2019\n\nAnd, weeping and sobbing, she walked quickly up the steps of the\naltar, and covered herself with the veil of the religious profession.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE MONK OF ST. DENIS\n\n\nAb\u00e9lard had now entered upon the series of blunders which were to\nmake his life a succession of catastrophes. A stronger man would have\nretired to Pallet, and remained there until the discussion of his\noutrage had abated somewhat; then boldly, and, most probably, with\ncomplete success, have confronted the scholastic world once more,\nwith his wife for fitting companion, like Manegold of Alsace. In his\ndistraction and abnormal sense of humiliation, Ab\u00e9lard grasped the\nplausible promise of the monastic life. In the second place, he, with\na peculiar blindness, chose the abbey of St. Denis for his home.\n\nThe abbey of St. Denis was not only one of the most famous\nmonasteries in Europe, but also a semi-religious, semi-secular\nmonarchical institution. It was the last monastery in the world to\nprovide that quiet seclusion which Ab\u00e9lard sought. It lay about six\nmiles from Paris, near one of the many bends of the Seine on its\njourney to the sea. Dagobert was its royal founder; its church was\nbuilt over the alleged bones of the alleged St. Denis the Areopagite,\nthe patron of France; it was the burial-place of the royal house.\nOver its altar hung the oriflamme of St. Denis, the palladium of\nthe country, which the king came to seek, with solemn rite and\nprocession, whenever the cry of \u2018St. Denis for France\u2019 rang through\nthe kingdom. Amongst its several hundred monks were the physicians\nand the tutors of kings\u2014Prince Louis of France was even then studying\nin its school.\n\nRangeard, in his history of Brittany, says, that at the beginning of\nthe twelfth century there were more irregular than regular abbeys\nin France. Ab\u00e9lard himself writes that \u2018nearly all the monasteries\u2019\nof his time were worldly. The truth is that few monasteries, beside\nthose which had been very recently reformed, led a very edifying\nlife. Hence it is not surprising, when one regards the secular\nassociations of the place, to find that the Benedictine abbey of St.\nDenis was in a very lax condition. Ab\u00e9lard soon discovered that,\nas he says, it was an abbey \u2018of very worldly and most disgraceful\nlife.\u2019 The great rhetorician has a weakness for the use of\nsuperlatives, but other witnesses are available. St. Bernard wrote of\nit, in his famed, mellifluous manner, that it was certain the monks\ngave to C\u00e6sar the things that were C\u00e6sar\u2019s, but doubtful if they gave\nto God the things that were God\u2019s. A chronicler of the following\ncentury, Guillaume de Nangis, writes that \u2018the monks scarcely\nexhibited even the appearance of religion.\u2019\n\nThe abbey had not been reformed since 994, so that human nature had\nhad a considerable period in which to assert itself. The preceding\nabbot, Ives I., was accused at Rome of having bought his dignity in a\nflagrant manner. The actual abbot, Adam, is said by Ab\u00e9lard to have\nbeen \u2018as much worse in manner of life and more notorious than the\nrest as he preceded them in dignity.\u2019 It is certainly significant\nthat the Benedictine historian of the abbey, Dom F\u00e9libien, can find\nnothing to put to the credit of Adam, in face of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s charge,\nexcept a certain generosity to the poor. Nor have later apologists\nfor the angels, de Nangis, Duchesne, etc., been more successful.\nEcclesiastical history only finds consolation in the fact that Adam\u2019s\nsuccessor was converted by Bernard in 1127, and at once set about\nthe reform of the abbey.\n\nWhen Ab\u00e9lard donned the black tunic of the Benedictine monk in it,\nprobably in 1119, the royal abbey was at the height of its gay\ncareer. St. Bernard himself gives a bright picture of its life in one\nof his letters. He speaks of the soldiers who thronged its cloisters,\nthe jests and songs that echoed from its vaulted roofs, the women\nwho contributed to its gaiety occasionally. From frequent passages\nin Ab\u00e9lard we learn that the monks often held high festival. It may\nbe noted that monastic authorities nearly always give occasion to\nthese festivities, for, even in the severest rules, one always finds\nan egg, or some other unwonted luxury, admitted on \u2018feast-days.\u2019 It\nis the consecration of a principle that no body of men and women\non earth can apply and appreciate better than monks and nuns. The\nfeasts of St. Denis rivalled those of any ch\u00e2teau in gay France.\nThe monks were skilful at mixing wine\u2014it is a well-preserved\nmonastic tradition\u2014their farmer-vassals supplied food of the best\nin abundance, and they hired plenty of conjurors, singers, dancers,\njesters, etc., to aid the task of digestion.\n\nNor was the daily life too dull and burdensome. Royal councils were\nfrequently held at the abbey, and one does not need much acquaintance\nwith monastic life to appreciate that circumstance. Then there\nwas the school of the abbey, with its kingly and noble pupils\u2014and\ncorresponding visitors: there was the continual stream of interesting\nguests to this wealthiest and most famous of all abbeys: there was\nthe town of St. Denis, which was so intimately dependent on the\nabbey. Above all, there were the country-houses, of which the abbey\nhad a large number, and from which it obtained a good deal of its\nincome. Some dying sinner would endeavour to corrupt the Supreme\nJudge by handing over a farm or a ch\u00e2teau, with its cattle, and men\nand women, and other commodities of value, to the monks of the great\nabbey. These would be turned into snug little \u2018cells\u2019 or \u2018priories,\u2018\nand important sources of revenue. Sometimes, too, they had to be\nfought for in the courts, if not by force of arms. Ab\u00e9lard complains\nthat \u2018we [monks] compel our servants to fight duels for us\u2019: he has\nalready complained of the frequent presentation to monasteries of\nboth man and maid servants. In 1111 we find some of the monks of St.\nDenis, at the head of a small army, besieging the ch\u00e2teau of Puiset,\ncapturing its lieutenant, and casting him into a monastic prison. At\nToury Abbot Adam had his important dependence armed as a fortress,\nand made a financial speculation in the opening of a public market.\nRangeard tells us, in addition, that many of the monks were expert in\ncanon law, and they travelled a good deal, journeying frequently to\nRome in connection with matrimonial and other suits.\n\nBut before Ab\u00e9lard turned his attention to the condition of the\nabbey, he was long preoccupied with the thought of revenge. Revenge\nwas a branch virtue of justice in those days, and Ab\u00e9lard duly\ndemanded the punishment of _talio_. The valet, who had betrayed\nhim, and one of the mutilators, had been captured, and had lost\ntheir eyes, in addition to suffering the same mutilation as they had\ninflicted. But Ab\u00e9lard seems to have been painfully insistent on the\npunishment of Fulbert. The matter belonged to the spiritual court,\nsince Ab\u00e9lard was a cleric, and Bishop Girbert does not seem to have\nmoved quickly enough for the new monk. Fulbert escaped from Paris,\nand all his goods were confiscated, but this did not meet Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\n(and the current) idea of justice. He began to talk of an appeal to\nRome.\n\nIn these circumstances was written the famous letter of Prior\nFulques, to which we have referred more than once. It is a\ncharacteristic piece of medi\u00e6val diplomacy. Fulques was the prior of\nDeuil, in the valley of Montmorency, a dependency of the abbey of\nSt. Florent de Saumur. He was apparently requested by the abbot of\nSt. Denis to persuade Ab\u00e9lard to let the matter rest. At all events,\nhe begins his letter with a rhetorical description of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nsuccess as a teacher, depicting Britons and Italians and Spaniards\nbraving the terrors of the sea, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, under the\nfascination of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s repute. Then, with a view to dissuading him\nfrom the threatened appeal to Rome, he reminds him of his destitution\nand of the notorious avarice of Rome. There is no reason why we\nshould hesitate to accept Fulques\u2019s assertion that Ab\u00e9lard had no\nwealth to offer the abbey when he entered it. If, as seems to be the\nmore correct proceeding, we follow the opinion that he spent the\ninterval between the first withdrawal of Heloise and the marriage\nwith her at Pallet, he cannot have earned much during the preceding\ntwo or three years. He was hardly likely to be a provident and\neconomical person. Most of whatever money he earned, after he first\nbegan to serve up stale dishes to his students in the absorption\nof his passion, would probably pass into the coffers of Fulbert\nor, later, of the nunnery at Argenteuil. There is no need whatever\nto entertain theories of licentiousness from that ground. We have,\nmoreover, already sufficiently discussed that portion of Fulques\u2019s\nletter.\n\nBut the second part of the prior\u2019s argument, the avarice of\nRome, requires a word of comment. It is characteristic of the\necclesiastical historian that in Migne\u2019s version of Fulques\u2019s\nletter the indictment of Ab\u00e9lard is given without comment, and the\nindictment of Rome is unblushingly omitted. It might be retorted that\nsuch historians as Deutsch and Hausrath insert the indictment against\nRome, and make a thousand apologies for inserting the charge against\nAb\u00e9lard. The retort would be entirely without sting, since a mass\nof independent evidence sustains the one charge, whilst the other\nis at variance with evidence. The passage omitted in Migne, which\nrefers to Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s proposal to appeal to Rome, runs as follows. \u2018O\npitiful and wholly useless proposal! Hast thou never heard of the\navarice and the impurity of Rome? Who is wealthy enough to satisfy\nthat devouring whirlpool of harlotry? Who would ever be able to fill\ntheir avaricious purses? Thy resources are entirely insufficient for\na visit to the Roman Pontiff.... For all those who have approached\nthat see in our time without a weight of gold have lost their cause,\nand have returned in confusion and disgrace.\u2019\n\nLet us, in justice, make some allowance for the exigency of diplomacy\nand the purposes of rhetoric; the substance of the charge is\nabundantly supported by other passages in Migne\u2019s own columns. For\ninstance, Abbot Suger, in his _Vita Ludovici Grossi_, says of his\ndeparture from Rome after a certain mission, \u2018evading the avarice\nof the Romans we took our leave.\u2019 The same abbot speaks of their\nastonishment at St. Denis when Paschal II. visited the abbey in 1106:\n\u2018contrary to the custom of the Romans, he not only expressed no\naffection for the gold, silver, and precious pearls of the monastery\n(about which much fear had been entertained),\u2019 but did not even\nlook at them. It may be noted, without prejudice, that Paschal was\nseeking the sympathy and aid of France in his quarrel with Germany.\nIn the apology of Berengarius, which is also found in Migne, there is\nmention of \u2018a Roman who had learned to love gold, rather than God,\nin the Roman curia.\u2019 Bernard of Cluny, a more respectable witness,\ntersely informs us that \u2018Rome gives to every one who gives Rome all\nhe has.\u2019 Matthew of Paris is equally uncomplimentary. We have spoken\nalready of the licentious young \u00c9tienne de Garlande and his proposal\nof going to Rome to buy the curia\u2019s consent to his installation in a\nbishopric; also of the rumour that Pope Paschal disapproved, out of\navarice, the censure passed on the adulterous king. Duboulai, after\ngiving Fulques\u2019s letter, is content to say that the pope feared too\ngreat an interference with the officials of the curia on account of\nthe papal schism.\n\nWhether the letter of the monastic diplomatist had any weight with\nAb\u00e9lard or no, it seems that he did desist from his plan, and\nlaid aside all thought of Fulbert. But the unfortunate monk soon\ndiscovered the disastrous error he had made in seeking peace at\nthe abbey of St. Denis. There had, in fact, been a serious mistake\non both sides. The monks welcomed one whom they only knew as a\nlively, witty, interesting associate, a master of renown, a poet and\nmusician of merit. A new attraction would accrue to their abbey,\na new distraction to their own life, by the admission of Ab\u00e9lard.\nThe diversion of the stream of scholars from Paris to St. Denis\nwould bring increased colour, animation, and wealth. The erudite\ntroubadour and brilliant scholar would be an excellent companion in\nthe refectory, when the silent meal was over, and the wine invited\nconversation.\n\nThey were rudely awakened to their error when Ab\u00e9lard began to lash\nthem with mordant irony for their \u2018intolerable uncleanness.\u2019 They\nfound that the love-inspired songster was dead. They had introduced a\nkind of Bernard of Clairvaux, a man of wormwood valleys, into their\nhappy abbey: a morose, ascetic, sternly consistent monk, who poured\nbitter scorn on the strong wines and pretty maids, the high festivals\nand pleasant excursions, with which the brothers smoothed the rough\npath to Paradise. And when the gay Latin Quarter transferred itself\nto St. Denis, and clamoured for the brilliant master, Ab\u00e9lard utterly\nrefused to teach. Abbot Adam gently remonstrated with his \u2018subject,\u2019\npointing out that he ought now to do more willingly for the honour\nof God and the sake of his brothers in religion what he had formerly\ndone out of worldly and selfish interest. Whereupon Abbot Adam was\nurgently reminded of a few truths, nearly concerning himself and\n\u2018the brothers,\u2019 which, if not new to his conscience, were at least\nnovel to his ears.\n\nSo things dragged on for a while, but Adam was forced at length to\nrid the monastery of the troublesome monk. Finding a pretext in\nthe importunity of the students, he sent Ab\u00e9lard down the country\nto erect his chair in one of the dependencies of the abbey. These\ncountry-houses have already been mentioned. Large estates were left\nto the abbey in various parts of the country. Monks had to be sent\nto these occasionally, to collect the revenue from the farmers and\nmillers, and, partly for their own convenience, partly so that\nthey might return something in spiritual service to the district,\nthey built \u2018cells\u2019 or \u2018oratories\u2019 on the estates. Frequently the\ncell became a priory; not infrequently it rebelled against the\nmother-house; nearly always, as is the experience of the monastic\norders at the present day, it was a source of relaxation and decay.\n\nThe precise locality of the \u2018cell\u2019 which was entrusted to Brother\nPeter is matter of dispute, and the question need not delay us. It\nwas somewhere on the estates of Count Theobald of Champagne, and\ntherefore not very far from Paris. Here Ab\u00e9lard consented to resume\nhis public lectures, and \u2018gathered his horde of barbarians about him\u2019\nonce more, in the jealous phrase of Canon Roscelin.\n\nOtto von Freising relates that Ab\u00e9lard had now become \u2018more subtle\nand more learned than ever.\u2019 There is no reason to doubt that he\ncontinued to advance in purely intellectual power, but it seems\ninevitable that he must have lost much of the brightness and charm\nof his earlier manner. Yet his power and his fascination were as\ngreat as ever. Maisoncelle, or whatever village it was, was soon\ntransformed into the intellectual centre of France. It is said\nby some historians that three thousand students descended upon\nthe village, like a bewildering swarm of locusts. Ab\u00e9lard says\nthe concourse was so great that \u2018the district could find neither\nhospitality nor food\u2019 for the students. One need not evolve from\nthat an army of several thousand admirers, but it seems clear that\nthere was a second remarkable gathering of students from all parts\nof Christendom. There was no teacher of ability to succeed him at\nParis; he was still the most eminent master in Europe. Even if he had\nlost a little of the sparkle of his sunny years, no other master\nhad ever possessed it. Indeed, it is not audacious to think that the\nrenewal of his early success and the sweetness of life in lovely\nChampagne may have in time quickened again such forces and graces of\nhis character as had not been physically eradicated. He began to see\na fresh potentiality of joy in life.\n\nUnfortunately for Ab\u00e9lard, his perverse destiny had sent him down to\nthe neighbourhood of Rheims. It will be remembered that Anselm of\nLaon was urged to suppress Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s early theological efforts by\ntwo of his fellow-pupils, Alberic of Rheims and Lotulphe of Novare.\nAlberic appears to have been a man of ability, and he had been made\narchdeacon of the cathedral, and head of the episcopal school, at\nRheims. He had associated Lotulphe with himself in the direction of\nthe schools, and they were teaching with great success when Ab\u00e9lard\nappeared on the near horizon. Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux\nhad gone, and the two friends were eager to earn the title of their\nsuccessors. The apparent extinction of Master Ab\u00e9lard had largely\nincreased their prestige, and had filled the school of Rheims.\nIndeed, we gather from the details of a \u2018town and gown\u2019 fight which\noccurred at Rheims about this time that the students had almost come\nto outnumber the citizens.\n\nHence it is not surprising that Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s newfound peace was soon\ndisturbed by rumours of the lodging of complaints against him in\nhigh quarters. The Archbishop of Rheims, Ralph the Green, began to\nbe assailed with charges. In the first place, he was reminded, it\nwas uncanonical for a monk to give lectures, and take up a permanent\nresidence, outside his monastery; moreover, the said monk was most\nunmonastically engaged in reading Aristotle, with a flavour of\nVergil, Ovid, and Lucan. Raoul le Vert probably knew enough about\nSt. Denis not to attempt to force Ab\u00e9lard to return to it. Then the\ngrumblers\u2014\u2018chiefly those two early intriguers,\u2019 says the victim\u2014urged\nthat Ab\u00e9lard was teaching without a \u2018respondent\u2019; but the archbishop\nstill found the pretext inadequate. Then, at length, came the second\ngreat cloud, the accusation of heresy.\n\nThe convert had now made theology his chief object of study. The\nstudents who gathered about him in his village priory loudly\ndemanded a resumption of the lectures on dialectics and rhetoric,\nbut Ab\u00e9lard had really passed to a new and wholly religious outlook.\nHe complied with the request, only with a secret intention that, as\nhe states in the \u2018Story,\u2019 philosophy should be used as a bait in the\ninterest of divinity. The religious welfare of his followers now\nseriously concerned him. It will be seen presently that he exercised\na strict control over their morals, and it was from the purest of\nmotives that he endeavoured, by a pious diplomacy, to direct their\nthoughts to the study of Holy Writ. His rivals and enemies have\nattempted to censure him for this casting of pearls before swine.\nCertainly there were dangers accompanying the practice, but these\nwere not confined to Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s school. We can easily conceive the\ndisadvantage of discussing the question, for instance, _utrum Maria\nsenserit dolorem vel delectationem in Christo concipiendo_? before a\ncrowd of twelfth century students. However, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s attitude was\nwholly reverent, and his intention as pure as that of St. Anselm.\n\nThe one characteristic feature of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s theological work\u2014the\nfeature which was constantly seized by his enemies, and which invests\nhim with so great an interest for the modern student\u2014was his concern\nto conciliate human reason. His predecessors had complacently\naffirmed that reason had no title to respect in matters of faith.\nThey insulted it with such pious absurdities as \u2018I believe in order\nthat I may understand\u2019 and \u2018Faith goeth before understanding.\u2019\nAb\u00e9lard remained until his last hour constitutionally incapable\nof adopting that attitude. He frequently attributes his obvious\nconcern to meet the questioning of reason to the desire of helping\nhis followers. This is partly a faithful interpretation of their\nthoughts\u2014for which, however, he himself was chiefly responsible\u2014and\npartly a subtle projection of his own frame of mind into his\nhearers. The development of the reasoning faculty which was involved\nin so keen a study of dialectics was bound to find expression in\nrationalism.\n\nAb\u00e9lard seems already to have written two works of a very remarkable\ncharacter for his age. One of these is entitled _A Dialogue between\na Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian_. It may have been founded\non the _Octavius_ of Minucius Felix; on the other hand it may be\nclassed with Lessing\u2019s _Nathan_. It has been called \u2018the most radical\nexpression of his rationalism,\u2019 and it would certainly seem to\nembody his attitude during the period of his highest prosperity. The\nultimate victory lies with the Christian, so far as the work goes\n(it is unfinished), but incidentally it shows more than one bold\ndeparture from traditional formul\u00e6. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s reluctance to consign\nall the heathen philosophers to Tartarus would be highly suspect\nto his pious contemporaries. It is a matter of faith in the Roman\nCatholic Church to-day that no man shall enter heaven who has not a\nbelief in a personal God, at least; many theologians add the narrower\nqualification of a literal acceptance of the Trinity. But Ab\u00e9lard\ntempered his audacity by proving that his favourite heathens _had_\nthis qualification of a knowledge of the Trinity, probably under the\ninspiration of St Augustine.\n\nThe _Dialogue_ was not much assailed by his rivals; probably it\nwas not widely circulated. It is, however, an important monument\nof Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s genius. It anticipated not merely the rationalistic\nattitude of modern theology, but also quite a number of the\nmodifications of traditional belief which modern rational and\nethical criticism has imposed. Ab\u00e9lard regards the ethical content\nof Christianity, and finds that it is only the elaboration or the\nreformation of the natural law, the true essence of religion. God has\ngiven this essential gift in every conscience and in every religion;\nthere are no outcasts from the plan of salvation; the higher\nexcellence of the Christian religion lies in its clearer formulation\nof the law of life. The popular notions of heaven and hell and\ndeity are travesties of true Christian teaching. God, as a purely\nspiritual being, is the supreme good, and heaven is an approach to\nHim by obedience; hell, isolation from Him. When we remember that\nAb\u00e9lard had before him only the works of the fathers and such recent\nspeculations as those of Anselm, we shall surely recognise the action\nof a mind of the highest order in these debates.\n\nThe second work was not less remarkable. It was a collection of\nsentences from the fathers on points of dogma. So far the compilation\nwould be an admirable one, but apart from the growing accusation that\nAb\u00e9lard was wanting in reverence for the authority of the fathers,\nthere was the suspicious circumstance that he had grouped these\neighteen hundred texts in contradictory columns. Thus one hundred and\nfifty-eight questions are put by the compiler, relating to God, the\nTrinity, the Redemption, the Sacraments, and so forth. The quotations\nfrom the fathers are then arranged in two parallel columns, one\nhalf giving an affirmative, and the rest a negative, answer to the\nquestion. Such a work would be perfectly intelligible if it came from\nthe pen of a modern freethinker. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s _Sic et Non_ (Yes and No),\nas the work came to be called, has borne many interpretations. Such\ncareful and impartial students of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s work as Deutsch pronounce\nthe critical element in it to be \u2018constructive, not sceptical.\u2019\nMost probably it was the intention of the compiler to shatter the\nexcessive regard of his contemporaries for the words of the fathers,\nand thus to open the way for independent speculation on the deposit\nof revelation (to which he thought he had as much right as Jerome or\nAugustine), by making a striking exhibition of their fallibility.\n\nNeither of these works seems to have fallen into the hands of\nAlberic. Twenty years afterwards we find a theologian complaining\nof the difficulty of obtaining some of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s works, which had\nbeen kept secret. He probably refers to one or both of these works.\nHowever that may be, Ab\u00e9lard wrote a third book during his stay at\nMaisoncelle, and on this the charge of heresy was fixed.\n\nWiser than the Church of those days, and anticipating the wisdom of\nthe modern Church of Rome, Ab\u00e9lard saw the great danger to the faith\nitself of the Anselmian maxim, _Fides praecedit intellectum_. He\nargued that, as the world had somehow outlived the age of miracles,\nGod must have intended rational evidence to take its place. In any\ncase, there was an increasingly large class of youths and men who\nclamoured for \u2018human and philosophic grounds,\u2019 as he puts it, who\nwould lie to their consciences if they submitted to the current\npietism. Ab\u00e9lard believed he would render valuable service to the\nChurch if he could devise rational proofs, or at least analogies,\nof its dogmas. It was in this frame of mind, not in a spirit of\ndestructive scepticism, that he raised the standard of rationalism.\nHe at once applied his force to the most preterrational of dogmas,\nand wrote his famous _Treatise on the Unity and Trinity of God_.\n\nA manuscript of the treatise was discovered by St\u00f6lzle a few years\nago. It is unnecessary to inflict on the reader an analysis of the\nwork. It is perfectly sincere and religious in intention, but, like\nevery book that has ever been penned on the subject of the Trinity,\nit contains illustrations which can be proved to be heretical. We may\ndiscuss the point further apropos of the Council of Soissons.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE TRIAL OF A HERETIC\n\n\nThe swiftly multiplying charges seem to have impaired Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nhealth. He became much more sensitive to the accusation of heresy\nthan the mere injustice of it can explain. We have an evidence of\nhis morbid state at this period in a letter he wrote to the Bishop\nof Paris. The letter must not be regarded as a normal indication of\nthe writer\u2019s character, but, like the letter of Canon Roscelin which\nit elicited, it is not a little instructive about the age in which\nthe writers lived. There are hypercritical writers who question the\ncorrectness of attributing these letters to Ab\u00e9lard and Roscelin, but\nthe details they contain refer so clearly to the two masters that\nany doubt about their origin is, as Deutsch says, \u2018frivolous and of\nno account\u2019; he adds that we should be only too glad, for the sake\nof the writers, if there were some firm ground for contesting their\ngenuineness.\n\nA pupil of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s, coming down from Paris, brought him word\nthat Roscelin had lodged an accusation of heresy against him with\nthe bishop. As a monk of St. Denis, Ab\u00e9lard still belonged to\nBishop Girbert\u2019s jurisdiction. Roscelin had himself been condemned\nfor heresy on the Trinity at Soissons in 1092, but his was an\naccommodating rationalism; he was now an important member of the\nchapter of St. Martin at Tours. Report stated that he had discovered\nheresy in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s new work, and was awaiting the return of Girbert\nto Paris in order to submit it to him. Ab\u00e9lard immediately grasped\nthe pen, and forwarded to Girbert a letter which is a sad exhibition\nof \u2018nerves.\u2019 \u2018I have heard,\u2019 he says, after an ornate salutation of\nthe bishop and his clergy, \u2018that that ever inflated and long-standing\nenemy of the Catholic faith, whose manner of life and teaching are\nnotorious, and whose detestable heresy was proved by the fathers of\nthe Council of Soissons, and punished with exile, has vomited forth\nmany calumnies and threats against me, on account of the work I have\nwritten, which was chiefly directed against his heresy.\u2019 And so the\nviolent and exaggerated account of Roscelin\u2019s misdeeds continues.\nThe practical point of the epistle is that Ab\u00e9lard requests the\nbishop to appoint a place and time for him to meet Roscelin face\nto face and defend his work. The whole letter is marred by nervous\npassion of the most pitiful kind. It terminates with a ridiculous,\nbut characteristic, dialectical thrust at the nominalist: \u2018in that\npassage of Scripture where the Lord is said to have eaten a bit of\nbroiled fish, he [Roscelin] is compelled to say that Christ ate, not\na part of the reality, but a part of the term \u201cbroiled fish.\u201d\u2019\n\nRoscelin replied directly to Ab\u00e9lard, besides writing to Girbert.\nThe letter is no less characteristic of the time, though probably an\nequally unsafe indication of the character of the writer. \u2018If,\u2019 it\nbegins, in the gentle manner of the time, \u2018you had tasted a little of\nthat sweetness of the Christian religion which you profess by your\nhabit, you would not, unmindful of your order and your profession,\nand forgetful of the countless benefits you received from my teaching\nfrom your childhood to youth, have so far indulged in words of\nmalice against me as to disturb the brethren\u2019s peace with the sword\nof the tongue, and to contemn our Saviour\u2019s most salutary and easy\ncommands.\u2019 He accepts, with an equally edifying humility, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nfierce denunciation: \u2018I see myself in your words as in a mirror. Yet\nGod is powerful to raise up out of the very stones,\u2019 etc. But he\ncannot long sustain the unnatural tone, and he suddenly collapses\ninto depths of medi\u00e6val Latin, which for filth and indecency rival\nthe lowest productions of Billingsgate. The venerable canon returns\nagain and again, in the course of his long letter, to Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nmutilation, and with the art of a Terence or a Plautus. As to the\nproposed debate, he is only too eager for it. If Ab\u00e9lard attempts\nto shirk it at the last moment, he \u2018will follow him all over the\nworld.\u2019 He finally dies away in an outburst of childish rage which\nbeats Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s peroration. He will not continue any longer because\nit occurs to him that Ab\u00e9lard is, by the strictest force of logic, a\nnonentity. He is not a monk, for he is giving lessons; he is not a\ncleric, for he has parted with the soutane; he is not a layman, for\nhe has the tonsure; he is not even the Peter he signs himself, for\nPeter is a masculine name.\n\nThese were the two ablest thinkers of Christendom at the time.\nFortunately for both, the battle royal of the dialecticians did not\ntake place. Possibly Roscelin had not lodged the rumoured complaint\nat all. In any case Girbert was spared a painful and pitiful scene.\n\nA short time afterwards, however, Alberic and Lotulphe found an\nexcellent opportunity to take action. Some time in the year 1121\na papal legate, Conon, Bishop of Praeneste, came to Rheims. Conon\nhad been travelling in France for some years as papal legate, and\nsince it was the policy of Rome to conciliate France, in view of\nthe hostility of Germany, the legate had a general mission to make\nhimself as useful and obliging as possible. Archbishop Ralph, for his\npart, would find it a convenient means of gratifying his teachers,\nwithout incurring much personal responsibility. The outcome of their\nconferences was, therefore, that Ab\u00e9lard received from the legate a\npolite invitation to appear at a provincial synod, or council, which\nwas to be held at Soissons, and to bring with him his \u2018celebrated\nwork on the Trinity.\u2019 The simple monk was delighted at the apparent\nopportunity of vindicating his orthodoxy. It was his first trial for\nheresy.\n\nWhen the time drew near for what Ab\u00e9lard afterwards called \u2018their\nconventicle,\u2019 he set out for Soissons with a small band of friends,\nwho were to witness the chastisement of Alberic and Lotulphe. But\nthose astute masters had not so na\u00efve a view of the function of a\ncouncil. Like St. Bernard, with whom, indeed, they were already in\ncorrespondence, they relied largely on that art of ecclesiastical\ndiplomacy which is the only visible embodiment of the Church\u2019s\nsupernatural power. Moreover, they had the curious ecclesiastical\nhabit of deciding that an end\u2014in this case, the condemnation of\nAb\u00e9lard\u2014was desirable, and then piously disregarding the moral\nquality of the means necessary to attain it. How far the two masters\nhad arranged all the conditions of the council we cannot say, but\nthese certainly favoured their plans.\n\nSoissons, to begin with, was excellently suited for the holding\nof a council which was to condemn, rather than investigate. Its\ninhabitants would remember the sentence passed on Roscelin for a\nlike offence. In fact Longueval says, in his _Histoire de l\u2019\u00c9glise\nGallicane_, that the people of Soissons were religious fanatics as a\nbody, and had of their own impulse burned, or \u2018lynched,\u2019 a man who\nwas suspected of Manich\u00e6ism, only a few years previously. Alberic and\nLotulphe had taken care to revive this pious instinct, by spreading\namongst the people the information that \u2018the foreign monk,\u2019 \u2018the\neunuch of St. Denis,\u2019 who was coming to the town to be tried, had\nopenly taught the error of tri-theism. The consequence was that when\nthe Benedictine monk appeared in the streets with his few admirers,\nhe had a narrow escape of being stoned to death by the excited\ncitizens. It was a rude shock to his dream of a great dialectical\ntriumph.\n\nOn one point, however, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s simple honesty hit upon a correct\nmeasure. He went straight to Bishop Conon with his work, and\nsubmitted it for the legate\u2019s perusal and personal judgment. The\npolitician was embarrassed. He knew nothing whatever about theology,\nand would lose his way immediately in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s subtle analogies.\nHowever, he bade Ab\u00e9lard take the book to the archbishop and the two\nmasters. They in turn fumbled it in silence, Ab\u00e9lard says, and at\nlength told him that judgment would be passed on it at the end of the\ncouncil.\n\nMeantime Ab\u00e9lard had succeeded in correcting, to some extent, the\ninspired prejudice of the townsfolk. Every day he spoke and disputed\nin the streets and churches, before the council sat, and he tells us\nthat he seemed to make an impression on his hearers. Alberic, in\nfact, came one day with a number of his pupils for the purpose of\nmodifying his rival\u2019s success; though he hurriedly retreated when\nit was shown that his specially prepared difficulty had no force.\nPremising \u2018a few polite phrases,\u2019 he pointed out that Ab\u00e9lard had\ndenied that God generated himself in the Trinity; for this statement,\nhe carefully explained, he did not ask reasons, but an authority.\nAb\u00e9lard promptly turned over the page, and pointed to a quotation\nfrom St. Augustine. It was a swift and complete victory. But Ab\u00e9lard\nmust needs improve on it by accusing his accuser of heresy, and\nAlberic departed \u2018like one demented with rage.\u2019 Priests and people\nwere now openly asking whether the council had discovered the error\nto lie with itself rather than with Ab\u00e9lard. They came to the last\nday of the council.\n\nBefore the formal opening of the last session, the legate invited\nthe chief actors in the comedy (except Ab\u00e9lard) to a private\ndiscussion of the situation. Conon\u2019s position and attitude were\npurely political. He cared little about their dialectical subtleties;\nwas, in fact, quite incompetent to decide questions of personality,\nmodality, and all the rest. Still it was mainly a minor political\nsituation he had to deal with, and he shows an eagerness to get\nthrough it with as little moral damage as possible. Ralph the Green,\npresident of the council, knew no more than Conon about theology;\nhe also regarded it as a political dilemma, and the prestige of\nhis school would gain by the extinction of Ab\u00e9lard. Ralph had nine\nsuffragan bishops, but only one of these is proved to have taken part\nin the \u2018conventicle.\u2019 It was Lisiard de Crespy, Bishop of Soissons,\nwho would support his metropolitan. Joscelin, an earlier rival of\nAb\u00e9lard, was teaching in Soissons at that time, and would most\nprobably accompany his bishop. Abbot Adam of St. Denis was present;\nso were Alberic and Lotulphe. One man of a more worthy type sat with\nthem, an awkward and embarrassing spokesman of truth and justice,\nGeoffroi, Bishop of Chartres, one of the most influential and most\nhonourable members of the French episcopacy.\n\nConon at once shrewdly introduced the formal question, what heresy\nhad been discovered in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s book? After his ill-success in\nthe street-discussion, Alberic seems to have hesitated to quote\nany definite passage in the work. Indeed, we not only have two\ncontradictory charges given, but the texts which seem to have\nbeen used in this council to prove the charge of tri-theism were\nquoted by the Council of Sens in 1141 in proof of an accusation of\nSabellianism. Otto von Freising says that Ab\u00e9lard held the three\ndivine persons to be modifications of one essence (the Anselmists\nclaiming that the three were _realities_); Ab\u00e9lard himself says he\nwas accused of tri-theism. Every \u2018analogy\u2019 that has been found in\nthe natural world for the dogma of the Trinity, from the shamrock\nof St. Patrick to the triangle of P\u00e8re Lacordaire, exposes its\ndiscoverer to one or other of those charges\u2014for an obvious reason.\nAfter the death of Dr. Dale I remember seeing a passage quoted by\none of his panegyrists in illustration of his singularly sound and\nclear presentation of dogma: it was much more Sabellian than anything\nAb\u00e9lard ever wrote.\n\nHowever, the explicit demand of the legate for a specimen of\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s heresy was embarrassing. Nothing could be discovered in\nthe book to which Ab\u00e9lard could not have assigned a parallel in\nthe fathers. And when Alberic began to extort heresy by ingenious\ninterpretation Geoffroi de L\u00e8ves reminded them of the elementary\nrules of justice. In the formal proceedings of a trial for heresy no\none was condemned unheard. If they were to anticipate the trial by\nan informal decision, the requirement of justice was equally urgent.\nThey must give the accused an opportunity of defending himself. That\nwas the one course which Alberic dreaded most of all, and he so\nwell urged the magical power of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s tongue that the bishop\u2019s\nproposal was rejected. Geoffroi then complained of the smallness of\nthe council, and the injustice of leaving so grave and delicate a\ndecision to a few prelates. Let Ab\u00e9lard be given into the care of\nhis abbot, who should take him back to St. Denis and have him judged\nby an assembly of expert theologians. The legate liked the idea. The\nRheims people regarded it, for the moment, as an effective removal of\nAb\u00e9lard from their neighbourhood. The proposal was agreed to, and the\nlegate then proceeded to say the Mass of the Holy Ghost.\n\nMeantime Archbishop Ralph informed Ab\u00e9lard of the decision.\nUnsatisfactory as the delay was, he must have been grateful for an\nescape from the power of Rheims. He turned indifferently from the\nfurther session of the council. Unfortunately another conference was\neven then taking place between Alberic, Ralph, and Conon; and Ab\u00e9lard\nwas presently summoned to bring his book before the council.\n\nAlberic and Lotulphe were, on reflection, dissatisfied with the\nresult. Their influence would have no weight in a trial at Paris,\nand their ambition required the sacrifice of the famous master. They\ntherefore went to the archbishop with a complaint that people would\ntake it to be a confession of incompetency if he allowed the case\nto go before another court. The three approached the legate again,\nand now reminded him that Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s work was published without\nepiscopal permission, and could justly be condemned on that ground.\nAs ignorant of canon law as he was of theology, and seeing the\napparent friendlessness of Ab\u00e9lard, and therefore the security of a\ncondemnation, Conon agreed to their proposal.\n\nAb\u00e9lard had long looked forward to the hour of his appearance\nbefore the Council. It was to be an hour of supreme triumph. The\npapal legate and the archbishop in their resplendent robes in the\nsanctuary; the circle of bishops and abbots and canons; the crowd\nof priests, theologians, masters, and clerics; the solemn pulpit\nof the cathedral church, from which he should make his highest\neffort of dialectics and oratory; the scattered rivals, and the\ntriumphant return to his pupils. He had rehearsed it daily for a\nmonth or more. But the sad, heart-rending reality of his appearance!\nHe was brought in, condemned. He stood in the midst of the thronged\ncathedral, with the brand of heresy on his brow, he, the intellectual\nand moral master of them all. A fire was kindled there before the\nCouncil. There was no need for Geoffrey of Chartres to come, the\ntears coursing down his cheeks, to tell him his book was judged and\ncondemned. Quietly, but with a fierce accusation of God Himself in\nhis broken heart, as he afterwards said, he cast his treasured work\nin the flames.\n\nEven in that awful moment the spirit of comedy must needs assert\nits mocking presence; or is it only part of the tragedy? Whilst the\nyellow parchment crackled in the flames, some one who stood by the\nlegate muttered that one passage in it said that God the Father\nalone was omnipotent. Soulless politician as he was, the ignorant\nlegate fastened on the charge as a confirmation of the justice of his\nsentence. \u2018I could scarcely believe that even a child would fall\ninto such an error,\u2019 said the brute, with an affectation of academic\ndignity. \u2018And yet,\u2019 a sarcastic voice fell on his ear, quoting the\nAthanasian Creed, \u2018and yet there are not Three omnipotent, but One.\u2019\nThe bold speaker was Tirric, the Breton scholastic, who, as we\nhave seen, probably instructed Ab\u00e9lard in mathematics. His bishop\nimmediately began to censure him for his neat exhibition of the\nlegate\u2019s ignorance, but the teacher was determined to express his\ndisgust at the proceedings. \u2018You have condemned a child of Israel,\u2019\nhe cried, lashing the \u2018conventicle\u2019 with the scornful words of\nDaniel, \u2018without inquiry or certainty. Return ye to the judgment\nseat, and judge the judges.\u2019\n\nThe archbishop then stepped forward to put an end to the confusion.\n\u2018It is well,\u2019 he said, making a tardy concession to conscience,\n\u2018that the brother have an opportunity of defending his faith before\nus all.\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard gladly prepared to do so, but Alberic and Lotulphe\nonce more opposed the idea. No further discussion was needed, they\nurged. The council had finished its work; Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s errors had been\ndetected and corrected. If it were advisable to have a profession of\nfaith from Brother Peter, let him recite the Athanasian Creed. And\nlest Ab\u00e9lard should object that he did not know the Creed by heart,\nthey produced a copy of it. The politic prelates were easily induced\nto take their view. In point of fact the archbishop\u2019s proposal was a\nbare compliance with the canons. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s book had been condemned\non the ground that it had been issued without authorisation; nothing\nhad been determined as to the legitimacy of its contents. The canons\nstill demanded that he should be heard before he was sent out into\nthe world with an insidious stigma of heresy.\n\nBut charity and justice had no part in that pitiful conventicle.\nArchbishop and legate thought it politic to follow the ruling of\nAlberic to the end, and the parchment was handed to Ab\u00e9lard. And\npriest and prelate, monk and abbot, shamelessly stood around, whilst\nthe greatest genius of the age, devoted to religion in every gift of\nhis soul, as each one knew, faltered out the familiar symbol. \u2018Good\nJesus, where wert thou?\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard asks, long years afterwards. There\nare many who ask it to-day.\n\nSo ended the holy Council of Soissons, Provincial Synod of the\narch-diocese of Rheims, held under the \u00e6gis of a papal legate, in\nthe year of grace 1121. Its _acta_ are not found in Richard, or\nLabb\u00e9, or Hefele: they \u2018have not been preserved.\u2019 There is an earlier\necclesiastical council that earned the title of the _latrocinium_\n(\u2018rogues\u2019 council\u2019), and we must not plagiarise. Ingenious and\naudacious as the apologetic historian is, he has not attempted\nto defend the Council of Soissons. But his condemnation of it is\nmildness itself compared with his condemnation of Ab\u00e9lard.\n\nFor a crowning humiliation Ab\u00e9lard was consigned by the council to a\nlarge monastery near Soissons, which served as jail or penitentiary\nfor that ecclesiastical province. The abbot of this monastery,\nGeoffrey of the Stag\u2019s-neck, had assisted at the council, and\nDom Gervaise would have it that he had secured Ab\u00e9lard for his\nown purposes. He thinks the abbot was looking to the great legal\nadvantage, in the frequent event of a lawsuit, of having such an\norator as Ab\u00e9lard in his monastery. It is a possibility, like\nmany other details in Gervaise\u2019s _Life of Ab\u00e9lard_. In forbidding\nhis return either to Maisoncelle or to St. Denis, and definitely\nconsigning him to the abbey of St. M\u00e9dard, the council was once\nmore treating him as a legally convicted heretic. As far as it was\nconcerned, it was filling the chalice of the poor monk\u2019s bitterness.\nIt is a mere accident that Geoffrey was a man of some culture, and\nwas so far influenced by the hideous spectacle he had witnessed as to\nreceive Brother Peter with sympathy and some honour.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nCLOUD UPON CLOUD\n\n\nThe abbey of St. M\u00e9dard, to which Ab\u00e9lard accompanied his friendly\njailer, was a very large monastery on the right bank of the Aisne,\njust outside Soissons. At that time it had a community of about\nfour hundred monks. It derived a considerable revenue from its two\nhundred and twenty farms, yet it bore so high a repute for regular\ndiscipline that it had become a general \u2018reformatory school\u2019 for\nthe district. \u2018To it were sent the ignorant to be instructed, the\ndepraved to be corrected, the obstinate to be tamed,\u2019 says a work of\nthe time; though it is not clear how Herr Hausrath infers from this\nthat the abbey also served the purpose of monastic asylum. For this\ncharacter of penitentiary the place was chosen for the confinement\nof Ab\u00e9lard. Thither he retired to meditate on the joy and the wisdom\nof \u2018conversion.\u2019 \u2018God! How furiously did I accuse Thee!\u2019 he says of\nthose days. The earlier wound had been preceded, he admits, by his\nsin; this far deeper and more painful wound had been brought upon him\nby his \u2018love of our faith.\u2019\n\nWhether Abbot Geoffrey thought Ab\u00e9lard an acquisition or no, there\nwas one man in authority at St. M\u00e9dard who rejoiced with a holy joy\nat his advent. This was no other than Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s earlier acquaintance,\nSt. Goswin. The zealous student had become a monastic reformer, and\nhad recently been appointed Prior[18] of St. M\u00e9dard. In the recently\nreformed abbey, with a daily arrival of \u2018obstinate monks to be\ntrained,\u2019 and a convenient and well-appointed ascetical armoury or\nwhipping-room, the young saint was in a congenial element. Great was\nhis interest when \u2018Pope Innocent,\u2019[19] as his biographers say, \u2018sent\nAb\u00e9lard to be confined in the abbey, and, like an untamed rhinoceros,\nto be caught in the bonds of discipline.\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard was not long in the\nabbey before the tamer approached this special task that Providence\nhad set him. We can imagine Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s feelings when the obtuse monk\ntook him aside, and exhorted him \u2018not to think it a misfortune or an\ninjury that he had been sent there; he was not so much confined in a\nprison, as protected from the storms of the world.\u2019 He had only to\nlive piously, and set a good example, and all would be well. Ab\u00e9lard\nwas in no mood to see the humour of the situation. He peevishly\nretorted that \u2018there were a good many who talked about piety and did\nnot know what piety was.\u2019 Then the prior, say his biographers, saw\nthat it was not a case for leniency, but for drastic measures. \u2018Quite\ntrue,\u2019 he replied, \u2018there are many who talk about piety, and do not\nknow what it is. But if we find you saying or doing anything that is\nnot pious, we shall show you that we know how to treat its contrary,\nat all events.\u2019 The saint prevailed once more\u2014in the biography: \u2018the\nrhinoceros was cowed, and became very quiet, more patient under\ndiscipline, more fearful of the lash, and of a saner and less raving\nmind.\u2019\n\n  [18] A prior is the second in command in an abbey, or the head of\n  a priory; a priory was a small branch monastery, in those days,\n  though it may now, as with the Dominicans, be a chief house.\n\n  [19] This is erroneous; Calixtus II. filled the papal chair at\n  the time.\n\nFortunately, the boorish saint had a cultured abbot, one at least who\ndid not hold genius to be a diabolical gift, and whose judgment of\ncharacter was not wholly vitiated by the crude mystic and monastic\nideal of the good people of the period. The abbot seems to have\nsaved Ab\u00e9lard from the zeal of the prior, and possibly he found\ncompanionable souls amongst the four hundred monks of the great\nabbey, some of whom were nobles by birth. We know, at all events,\nthat in the later period he looked back on the few months spent at\nSt. M\u00e9dard with a kindly feeling.\n\nHis imprisonment did not last long. When the proceedings of the\ncouncil were made known throughout the kingdom, there was a strong\noutburst of indignation. It must not be supposed that the Council\nof Soissons illustrates or embodies the spirit of the period or the\nspirit of the Church; this feature we shall more nearly find in the\nCouncil of Sens, in 1141. The conventicle had, in truth, revealed\nsome of the evils of the time: the danger of the Church\u2019s excessively\npolitical attitude and administration, the brutality of the spirit\nit engendered with regard to heresy, the fatal predominance of dogma\nover ethic. But, in the main, the conventicle exhibits the hideous\ntriumph of a few perverse individuals, who availed themselves of all\nthat was crude and ill-advised in the machinery of the Church. When,\ntherefore, such men as Tirric, and Geoffrey of Chartres, and Geoffrey\nof the Stag\u2019s-neck, spread their story abroad, there were few who did\nnot sympathise with Ab\u00e9lard. The persecutors soon found it necessary\nto defend themselves; there was a chaos of mutual incriminations.\nEven Alberic and Lotulphe tried to cast the blame on others. The\nlegate found it expedient to attribute the whole proceeding openly to\n\u2018French malice.\u2019 He had been \u2018compelled for a time to humour their\nspleen,\u2019 as Ab\u00e9lard puts it, but he presently revoked the order of\nconfinement in St. M\u00e9dard, and gave Ab\u00e9lard permission to return to\nSt. Denis.\n\nIt was a question of Scylla or Charybdis, of Prior Goswin or Abbot\nAdam. The legate seems to have acted in good faith in granting the\npermission\u2014perhaps we should say in good policy, for he again acted\nout of discreet regard for circumstances; but when we find Ab\u00e9lard\navailing himself of what was no more than a permission to return\nto St. Denis we have a sufficient indication of the quality of his\nexperience at St. M\u00e9dard. He does indeed remark that the monks of the\nreformed abbey had been friendly towards him, though this is inspired\nby an obvious comparison with his later experience at St. Denis. But\nSt. M\u00e9dard was a prison; that sufficed to turn the scale. A removal\nfrom the penitentiary would be equivalent, in the eyes of France, to\na revocation of the censure passed on him. So with a heart that was\nhopelessly drear, not knowing whether to smile or weep, he went back,\npoor sport of the gods as he was, to the royal abbey.\n\nFor a few months Brother Peter struggled bravely with the hard task\nthe fates had set him. He was probably wise enough to refrain from\ninveighing, in season and out of season, against the \u2018intolerable\nuncleanness\u2019 of Adam and his monks. Possibly he nursed a hope\u2014or was\nnursed by a hope\u2014of having another \u2018cell\u2019 entrusted to his charge. In\nspite of the irregularity of the abbey, formal religious exercises\nwere extensively practised. All day and night the chant of the\nbreviary was heard in the monastic chapel. There was also a large\nand busy _scriptorium_; the _archivium_ of the ancient abbey was a\ntreasury of interesting old documents; and there was a relatively\ngood library. It was in the latter that Brother Peter found his next\nadventure, and one that threatened to be the most serious of all.\n\nSeeing the present futility of his theological plans, he had turned\nto the study of history. There was a copy of Bede\u2019s _History of\nthe Apostles_ in the library, and he says that he one day, \u2018by\nchance,\u2019 came upon the passage in which Bede deals with St. Denis.\nThe Anglo-Saxon historian would not admit the French tradition about\nSt. Denis. He granted the existence of a St. Denis, but said that\nhe had been Bishop of Corinth, not of Athens. The legend about the\nmartyrdom of Denis the Areopagite, with his companions Rusticus and\nEleutherius, at Paris in the first century, is now almost universally\nrejected by Roman Catholic historians, not to mention others. It is,\nhowever, still enshrined with honour in that interesting compendium\nof myths of the Christian era, the Roman breviary, and is read with\nreligious solemnity by every priest and every monastic choir in the\nCatholic world on the annual festival.\n\nHowever, the abbey of St. Denis, the monastery that owed all\nits wealth and repute to its possession of the bones of \u2018the\nAreopagite,\u2019 was the last place in the world in which to commence\na rationalistic attack on the legend. With his usual want of tact\nand foresight Brother Peter showed the passage in Bede to some of\nhis fellow-monks, \u2018in joke,\u2019 he says; he might as well have cut the\nabbot\u2019s throat, or destroyed the wine-cellar \u2018in joke.\u2019 There was a\nviolent commotion. Heresy about the Trinity was bad, but heresy about\nthe idol of the royal abbey was more touching. It is not quite clear\nthat Ab\u00e9lard came to the opinion of modern religious historians, that\nthe St. Denis of Paris was a much later personage than the Areopagite\nof the Acts of the Apostles, but he seems to hold that opinion. In\nany case, the monks felt that to be the substance of his discovery,\nand held it to be an attack on the glory of the abbey. Venerable\nBede was, they bluntly replied, a liar. One of their former abbots,\nHilduin, had made a journey to Greece for the special purpose of\nverifying the story.\n\nWhen the monks flew to Abbot Adam with the story of Brother Peter\u2019s\nlatest outbreak, Adam saw in it an opportunity of terrifying the\nrebel into submission, if not of effectually silencing him. He called\na chapter of the brethren. One\u2019s pen almost tires of describing\nthe cruel scenes to which those harsh days lent themselves. The\nvindictive abbot perched on his high chair, prior and elder brethren\nsitting beside him; the hundreds of black-robed, shaven monks lining\nthe room; on his knees in the centre the pale, nervous figure of the\nSocrates of Gaul. With a mock solemnity, Abbot Adam delivers himself\nof the sentence. Brother Peter has crowned his misdeeds, in his pride\nof mind, with an attack, not merely on the abbey that sheltered\nhim, but on the honour and the safety of France. The matter is too\nserious to be punished by even the most severe methods at the command\nof the abbey. Brother Peter is to be handed over to the king, as a\ntraitor to the honour of the country. The poor monk, now thoroughly\nalarmed, abjectly implores the abbot to deal with him in the usual\nway. Let him be scourged\u2014anything to escape the uncertain temper of\nKing Louis. No, the abbey must be rid of him. He is taken away into\nconfinement, with an injunction that he be carefully watched until it\nis convenient to send him to Paris.\n\nThere were, however, some of the monks who were disgusted at the\nsavage proceeding. A few days afterwards he was assisted to escape\nfrom the monastic dungeon during the night, and, \u2018in utter despair,\u2019\nhe fled from the abbey, with a few of his former pupils. It was, in\ntruth, a desperate move. As a deserter from the abbey, the canons\nrequired that two stalwart brothers should be sent in pursuit of him,\nand that he be reimprisoned. As a fugitive from the king\u2019s justice,\nto which he had been publicly destined, he was exposed to even\nharsher treatment. However, he made his way into Champagne once more,\nand threw himself on the mercy of his friends.\n\nOne of the friends whom he had attached to himself during his stay at\nMaisoncelle was prior of St. Ayoul, near the gates of Provins. It was\na priory belonging to the monks of Troyes, and both Hatton, Bishop of\nTroyes, and Theobald, Count of Champagne, were in sympathy with the\nfugitive. The prior, therefore, received Ab\u00e9lard into his convent,\nto afford at least time for reflection. His condition, however, was\nwholly uncanonical, and the prior, as well as the abbot of St. Peter\nof Troyes, urged him to secure some regularity for his absence from\nSt. Denis, so that they might lawfully shelter him at St. Ayoul.\nAb\u00e9lard summoned what diplomatic faculty he had, and wrote to St.\nDenis.\n\n\u2018Peter, monk by profession and sinner by his deeds, to his\ndearly beloved father, Adam, and to his most dear brethren and\nfellow-monks,\u2019 was the inscription of the epistle. Brother Peter, it\nmust be remembered, was fighting almost for life; and he was not of\nthe heroic stuff of his friend and pupil, Arnold of Brescia. There\nare critics who think he descended lower than this concession to\nmight, that he deliberately denied his conviction for the purpose\nof conciliating Adam. Others, such as Poole, Deutsch, and Hausrath,\nthink the letter does not support so grave a censure. The point of\nthe letter is certainly to convey the impression that Bede had erred,\nand that Ab\u00e9lard had no wish to urge his authority against the belief\nof the monks. In point of fact, Bede is at variance with Eusebius\nand Jerome, and it is not impossible that Ab\u00e9lard came sincerely to\nmodify the first impression he had received from Bede\u2019s words; in the\ncircumstances, and in the then state of the question, this would not\nbe unreasonable. At the same time a careful perusal of the letter\ngives one the impression that it is artistic and diplomatic; that\nAb\u00e9lard has learned tact, rather than unlearned history. It reads\nlike an effort to say something conciliatory about St. Denis, without\ndoing serious violence to the writer\u2019s conscience. Perhaps the abbot\nof St. Peter\u2019s could have thrown some light on its composition.\n\nShortly afterwards Abbot Adam came to visit Count Theobald, and\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s friends made a direct effort to conciliate him. The prior\nof St. Ayoul and Ab\u00e9lard hurried to the count\u2019s castle, and begged\nhim to prevail upon his guest to release Ab\u00e9lard from his obedience.\nThe count tried to persuade Adam to do so, but without success.\nAdam seemed determined, not so much to rid his happy convent of a\nmalcontent, as to crush Ab\u00e9lard. He found plenty of pious garbs to\ncover his vindictiveness with. At first he deprecated the idea that\nit was a matter for his personal decision. Then, after a consultation\nwith the monks who accompanied him, he gravely declared that it was\ninconsistent with the honour of the abbey to release Ab\u00e9lard; \u2018the\nbrethren had said that, whereas Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s choice of their abbey had\ngreatly redounded to its glory, his flight from it had covered them\nwith shame.\u2019 He threatened both Ab\u00e9lard and the prior of St. Ayoul\nwith the usual canonical penalties, unless the deserter returned\nforthwith to obedience.\n\nAdam\u2019s departure, after this fulmination, left Ab\u00e9lard and his\nfriends sadly perplexed. The abbot had the full force of canon law\non his side, and he was evidently determined to exact his pound of\nflesh. However, whilst they were busy framing desperate resolves,\nthey received information of the sudden death of Abbot Adam. He died\na few days after leaving Champagne, on the 19th of February 1122. The\nevent brought relief from the immediate pressure. Some time would\nelapse before it would be necessary to resume the matter with Adam\u2019s\nsuccessor, and there was room for hope that the new abbot would not\nfeel the same personal vindictiveness.\n\nThe monk who was chosen by the Benedictines of St. Denis to succeed\nAdam was one of the most remarkable characters of that curious age.\nScholar, soldier, and politician, he had an enormous influence on\nthe life of France during the early decades of the twelfth century.\nNature intended him for a minister and a great soldier: chance made\nhim a monk; worldly brothers made him an abbot, and St. Bernard\ncompleted the anomaly by \u2018converting\u2019 him in 1127. At the time we\nare speaking of he was the more active and prominent of two men whom\nBernard called \u2018the two calamities of the Church of France.\u2019 He was\nborn of poor parents, near one of the priories or dependencies of\nSt. Denis. His talent was noticed by the monks, and his \u2018vocation\u2019\nfollowed as a matter of course. He was studying in the monastic\nschool when King Philip brought his son Louis to St. Denis, and the\nabbot sent for him, and made him companion to the royal pupil. He\nthus obtained a strong influence over the less gifted prince, and\nwhen Louis came to the throne in 1108, Suger became the first royal\ncouncillor. Being only a deacon in orders, there was nothing to\nprevent him heading the troops, directing a campaign, or giving his\nwhole time to the affairs of the kingdom. He had proved so useful\na minister that, when some of the monks of St. Denis came in great\ntrepidation to tell the king they had chosen him for abbot, they\nwere angrily thrust into prison. Suger himself was in Rome at the\ntime, discharging a mission from the king, and he tells us, in his\nautobiography, of the perplexity the dilemma caused him. However,\nbefore he reached France, the king had concluded that an abbot could\nbe as useful as a prior in an accommodating age. In the sequel, St.\nDenis became more royal, and less abbatial than ever\u2014until 1127. St.\nBernard complained that it seemed to have become the \u2018war office\u2019\nand the \u2018ministry of justice\u2019 of the kingdom.\n\nAb\u00e9lard now seems to have been taken in hand by a more astute\nadmirer, Burchard, Bishop of Meaux. They went to Paris together, and\napparently did a little successful diplomacy before the arrival and\nconsecration of Suger. The newly created abbot (he had been ordained\npriest the day before his consecration) refused to undo the sentence\nof his predecessor. He was bound by the decision of the abbey, he\nsaid; in other words, there was still a strong vindictive feeling\nagainst Ab\u00e9lard in the abbey, which it was not politic to ignore. It\nis quite impossible that Suger himself took the matter seriously.\n\nBut before Suger\u2019s arrival Ab\u00e9lard and his companions had made\nfriends at court. Whether through his pupils, many of whom were\nnobles, or through his family, is unknown, but Ab\u00e9lard for the\nsecond time found influence at court when ecclesiastical favour was\ndenied. One of the leading councillors was \u00c9tienne de Garlande,\nthe royal seneschal, and means were found to interest him in the\ncase of the unfortunate monk. We have already seen that Stephen\nhad ecclesiastical ambition in his earlier years, and had become\na deacon and a canon of \u00c9tampes. But when his patron, King Philip,\nsubmitted to the Church and to a better ideal of life, Stephen\nconcluded that the path to ecclesiastical dignities would be less\nsmooth and easy for the \u2018illiterate and unchaste,\u2019 and he turned to\nsecular ambition. At the time of the events we are reviewing he and\nSuger were the virtual rulers of France; from the ecclesiastical\npoint of view he was the man whom St. Bernard associated with Suger\nas \u2018a calamity of the Church.\u2019\n\n\u2018Through the mediation of certain friends\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard had enlisted the\ninterest of this powerful personage, and the court was soon known\nto favour his suit. There are many speculations as to the motive of\nthe king and his councillors in intervening in the monastic quarrel.\nRecent German historians see in the incident an illustration of a\nprofound policy on the part of the royal council. They think the king\nwas then endeavouring to strengthen his authority by patronising\nthe common people in opposition to the tyrannical and troublesome\nnobility. Following out a parallel policy with regard to the Church,\nwhose nobles were equally tyrannical and troublesome, Stephen and\nSuger would naturally befriend the lower clergy in opposition to\nthe prelates. Hence the royal intervention on behalf of the monk of\nSt. Denis is associated with the intervention on the side of the\npeasantry a few years before.\n\nThe theory is ingenious, but hardly necessary. Ab\u00e9lard says that the\ncourt interfered because it did not desire any change in the free\nlife of the royal abbey, and consequently preferred to keep him out\nof it. That is also ingenious, and complimentary to Ab\u00e9lard. But\nit is not a little doubtful whether anybody credited him with the\nsmallest influence at St. Denis. We shall probably not be far from\nthe truth if we suppose a court intrigue on the monk\u2019s behalf which\nhis friends did not think it necessary to communicate fully to him.\nGeoffrey of Chartres and other friends of his were French nobles.\nMany of his pupils had that golden key which would at any time give\naccess to \u00c9tienne de Garlande.\n\nIn any case Stephen and Suger had a private discussion of the matter,\nand the two politicians soon found a way out of the difficulty.\nAb\u00e9lard received an order to appear before the king and his council.\nThe comedy\u2014though it was no comedy for Ab\u00e9lard\u2014probably took place\nat St. Denis. Louis the Fat presided, in robes of solemn purple,\nwith ermine border. \u00c9tienne de Garlande and the other councillors\nglittered at his side. Abbot Suger and his council were there to\ndefend the \u2018honour\u2019 of the abbey; and Brother Peter, worn with\nanxiety and suffering, came to make a plea for liberty. Louis bids\nthe abbot declare what solution of the difficulty his chapter has\ndiscovered. Suger gravely explains that the honour of their abbey\ndoes not permit them to allow the fugitive monk to join any other\nmonastery. So much to save the face of the abbey. Yet there is a\nmiddle course possible, the abbot graciously continues: Brother Peter\nmay be permitted to live a regular life in the character of a hermit.\nBrother Peter expresses his satisfaction at the decision\u2014it was\nprecisely the arrangement he desired\u2014and departs from the abbey with\nhis friends, a free man once more, never again, he thinks, to fall\ninto the power of monk or prelate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nBACK TO CHAMPAGNE\n\n\nThe scene of the next act in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s dramatic career is a bright,\nrestful valley in the heart of Champagne. It is the summer of 1122,\nand the limpid Arduzon rolls through enchantingly in its course\ntowards the Seine. In the meadow beside it are two huts and a small\noratory, rudely fashioned from the branches of trees and reeds from\nthe river, and daubed over with mud. No other sign of human presence\ncan be seen. Ab\u00e9lard and one companion are the only human beings to\nbe found for miles. And even all thought of the cities of men and the\nsordid passions they shelter is arrested by the great forests of oak\nand beech which hem in the narrow horizon and guard the restfulness\nof the valley.\n\nBy the terms of Suger\u2019s decision Ab\u00e9lard could neither lodge with\nsecular friends nor enter any cell, priory, or abbey. Probably this\ncoercion into leading an eremitical life was unnecessary. The\nexperience of the last three years had made a hermitage of his heart;\nnothing would be more welcome to him than this quiet valley. It was a\nspot he had noticed in earlier years. In his ancient chronicle Robert\nof Auxerre says that Ab\u00e9lard had lived there before; Mr. Poole thinks\nit was to the same part of Champagne that he resorted on the three\noccasions of his going to the province of Count Theobald. That would\nat least have to be understood in a very loose sense. On the two\nformer occasions he had found a home prepared, a cell and a priory,\nrespectively; he had now to build a hut with his own hands. It was a\ndeserted spot he had chosen, he tells us; and Heloise adds, in one of\nher letters, that before Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s coming it had been the haunt of\nrobbers and the home of foxes and wild boars, like the neighbouring\nforest of Fontainebleau.\n\nAb\u00e9lard must have seen this quiet side-valley in passing along the\nSeine on the road to Paris. It was some twelve miles from Troyes,\nwhere he had a number of friends; and when he expressed a desire to\nretire to it with his companion, they obtained for him the gift of\nthe meadow through which the Arduzon ran. Bishop Hatton gave them\npermission to build an oratory, and they put together a kind of mud\nhut\u2014\u2018in honour of the Blessed Trinity\u2019! Here the heavy heart began\nonce more to dream of peace. Men had tortured him with a caricature\nof the divine justice when his aim and purpose had been of the\npurest. He had left their ignorant meddlesomeness and their ugly\npassions far away beyond the forests. Alone with God and with nature\nin her fairest mood, he seemed to have escaped securely from an age\nthat could not, or would not, understand his high ideal.\n\nSo for some time no sound was heard in the valley but the song of the\nbirds and the grave talk of the two hermits and the frequent chant in\nthe frail temple of the Trinity. But Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s evil genius was never\nfar from him; it almost seems as if it only retired just frequently\nenough and long enough to let his heart regain its full power of\nsuffering. The unpractical scholar had overlooked a material point,\nthe question of sustenance. Beech-nuts and beech-leaves and roots and\nthe water of the river become monotonous. Ab\u00e9lard began to cast about\nfor some source of revenue. \u2018To dig I was not able, to beg I was\nashamed,\u2019 he says, in the familiar words. There was only one thing he\ncould do\u2014teach.\n\nProbably he began by giving quiet lessons to the sons of his\nneighbours. He had only to let his intention be known in Troyes, and\nhe would have as many pupils as he desired. But he soon found that,\nas was inevitable, he had released a torrent. The words in which he\ndescribes this third confluence of his streams of \u2018barbarians\u2019 do\nnot give us the impression that he struggled against his fate. With\nall his genius he remained a Breton\u2014short of memory and light of\nheart. The gladdening climate of mid-France and the brightness and\nbeauty of the valley of the Seine quickened his old hopes and powers.\nThe word ran through the kingdoms of Gaul, and across the sea and\nover the southern hills, that Ab\u00e9lard was lecturing once more. And\nmany hundreds, probably thousands, of youths gathered their scant\ntreasures, and turned their faces towards the distant solitude of\nNogent-sur-Seine.\n\nThen was witnessed a scene that is quite unique in the annals of\neducation. Many centuries before, the deserts of Egypt had seen a\nvast crowd of men pour out from the cities, and rush eagerly into\ntheir thankless solitude. That was under the fresh-born influence of\na new religious story, the only force thought competent to inspire\nso great an abdication. The twelfth century saw another great stream\nof men pouring eagerly into a solitude where there was no luxury but\nthe rude beauty of nature. Week by week the paths that led into the\nvalley by the Arduzon discharged their hundreds of pilgrims. The\nrough justice of nature offered no advantage to wealth. Rich and\npoor, noble and peasant, young and old, they raised their mud-cabins\nor their moss-covered earth-works, each with his own hand. Hundreds\nof these rude dwellings dotted the meadow and sheltered in the wood.\nA bundle of straw was the only bed to be found in them. Their tables\nwere primitive mounds of fresh turf; the only food a kind of coarse\npeasant-bread, with roots and herbs and a draught of sweet water from\nthe river. The meats and wines and pretty maids and soft beds of the\ncities were left far away over the hills. For the great magician had\nextended his wand once more, and the fascination of his lectures was\nas irresistible as ever.\n\nThey had built a new oratory, in wood and stone, for the loved\nmaster; and each morning, as the full blaze of the sun fell upon the\nstrangely scarred face of the valley, they arose from the hay and\nstraw, splashed or dipped in the running river, and trooped to the\nspot where Ab\u00e9lard fished for their souls with the charming bait of\nhis philosophy. Then when the master tired of reading Scripture,\nand of his pathetic task of finding analogies of the infinite in\nthe finite, they relaxed to such games and merriment as youth never\nleaves behind.\n\nDiscipline, however, was strict. There is a song, composed at the\ntime by one of the pupils, which affords an instructive glimpse of\nthe life of the strange colony. Some one seems to have informed\nAb\u00e9lard of a group of students who were addicted to the familiar\nvice. He at once banished them from the colony, threatening to\nabandon the lectures unless they retired to Quincey. The poet of the\ngroup was an English youth, named Hilary, who had come to France a\nlittle before. Amongst his _Versus et ludi_, edited by Champollion,\nwe find his poetic complaint of the falseness of the charge and\nthe cruelty of their expulsion. It is a simple, vigorous, rhymed\nverse in Latin, with a French refrain. It is obviously intended to\nbe sung in chorus, and it thus indirectly illustrates one of the\nprobable recreations of the youths who were thus thrown upon their\nown resources. Many another of Hilary\u2019s rough songs must have rung\nthrough the valley at nightfall. Perhaps Ab\u00e9lard recovered his old\ngift, and contributed to the harmless gaiety of the colony. Seared\nand scarred as he was, there was nothing sombre or sour about his\npiety, save in the moments of actual persecution. With all his keen\nand living faith and his sense of remorse, he remains a Breton, a\nchild of the sun-light, sensitive to the gladdening force of the\nworld. Not until his last year did he accept the ascetic view of\npleasures which were non-ethical. Watchful over the faith and morals\nof the colony, he would make no effort to moderate the loud song with\nwhich they responded to the warm breath of nature.\n\nThe happiness of his little world surged in the heart of the master\nfor a time, but nature gave him a capacity for, and a taste of,\nmanifold happiness, only that he might suffer the more. \u2018I had one\nenemy\u2014echo,\u2019 he says in his autobiography. He was soon made uneasily\nconscious that the echo of his teaching and the echo of the glad life\nof the colony had reached Clairvaux.\n\nThe first definite complaint that reached his ears referred to the\ndedication of his oratory. Though formally dedicated to the Trinity,\nit was especially devoted to the Holy Spirit, in the character of\nParaclete (Comforter); indeed both it and the later nunnery were\nknown familiarly as \u2018the Paraclete.\u2019 Some captious critics had, it\nappears, raised a question whether it was lawful to dedicate a chapel\nto one isolated member of the Trinity. The question was absurd, for\nthe Church frequently offers worship to the Holy Spirit, without\nmentioning the Father and the Son. The cautious Ab\u00e9lard, however,\ndefends his dedication at great length. A second attack was made\nunder the pretext of questioning the propriety of an image of the\nTrinity which was found in the oratory. Some sculptor in the colony\nhad endeavoured to give an ingenious representation of the Trinity\nin stone. He had carved three equal figures from one block of stone,\nand had cut on them inscriptions appropriate to each Person of the\nTrinity.[20] Such devices were common in the Church, common in\nall Trinitarian religions, in fact. But Ab\u00e9lard was credited with\nintentions and interpretations in everything he did. Neither of\nthese incidents proved serious, however. It was not until Ab\u00e9lard\nheard that Alberic and Lotulphe were inciting \u2018the new apostles\u2019 to\nassail him that he became seriously alarmed. The new apostles were\nBernard of Clairvaux and Norbert of Pr\u00e9montr\u00e9.\n\n  [20] The statue was preserved in a neighbouring church until the\n  eighteenth century. It was destroyed at the Revolution.\n\nNot many leagues from the merry valley on the Arduzon was another\nvale that had been peopled by men from the cities. It was a dark,\ndepressing valley, into which the sun rarely struggled. The Valley of\nWormwood men called it, for it was in the heart of a wild, sombre,\nchilly forest. The men who buried themselves in it were fugitives,\nnot merely from the hot breath of the cities and the ugly deeds of\ntheir fellows, but even from the gentler inspiration of nature, even\nfrom its purest thrills. They had had a vision of a golden city, and\nbelieved it was to be entered by the path of self-torture. The narrow\nwindows of their monastery let in but little of the scanty light of\nthe valley. With coarse bread and herbs, and a few hours\u2019 sleep on\nboxes of dried leaves, they made a grudging concession to the law of\nliving. But a joke was a sacrilege in the Valley of Wormwood, and a\nsong a piece of supreme folly. The only sound that told the ravens\nand the owls of the presence of man was the weird, minor chant for\nhours together, that did not even seem to break the silence of the\nsombre spot. By day, the white-robed, solemn shades went about their\nwork in silence. The Great Father had made the pilgrimage to heaven\nso arduous a task that they dare not talk by the wayside.\n\nForemost among them was a frail, tense, absorbed, dominant little\nman. The face was white and worn with suffering, the form enfeebled\nwith disease and exacting nervous exaltation; but there was a light\nof supreme strength and of joy in the penetrating eyes. He was a man\nwho saw the golden city with so near, so living a vision, that he was\nwholly impatient of the trivial pleasures of earth: a man formed in\nthe mould of world-conquerors and world-politicians, in whose mind\naccident had substituted a supernatural for a natural ideal: a man of\nsuch intensity and absorption of thought that he was almost incapable\nof admitting a doubt as to the correctness of his own judgment and\npurpose and the folly of all that was opposed to it: a man in whom\nan altruistic ethic might transform, or disguise, but could never\nsuppress, the demand of the entire nature for self-assertion. This\nwas Bernard of Clairvaux, who had founded the monastery in the\ndeepest poverty ten years before. He was soon to be the most powerful\nman in Christendom. And he held that, if the instinct of reasoning\nand the impulse of love did indeed come from God and not from the\ndevil, they were of those whimsical gifts, such as the deity of the\nMiddle Ages often gave, which were given with a trust they would be\nrejected.\n\nThe other new apostle was St. Norbert, the founder of the\nPremonstratensian canons. He had fruitlessly endeavoured to reform\nthe existing order of canons, and had then withdrawn to form a kind\nof monastery of canons at Pr\u00e9montr\u00e9, not far from Laon, where he\noccasionally visited Anselm. His disciples entered zealously into\nthe task of policeing the country. No disorder in faith or morals\nescaped their notice; and although Norbert was far behind Bernard\nin political ability, the man who incurred his pious wrath was in\nan unenviable position. He had influence with the prelates of the\nChurch, on account of his reforms and the sanctity of his life; he\nhad a profound influence over the common people, not only through\nhis stirring sermons, but also through the miracles he wrought.\nAb\u00e9lard frequently bases his rationalistic work on the fact, which\nhe always assumes to be uncontroverted, that the age of miracles\nis over. Norbert, on the contrary, let it be distinctly understood\nthat he was a thaumaturgus of large practice. Ab\u00e9lard ridiculed his\npretensions, and the stories told of him. Even in his later sermons\nwe find him scornfully \u2018exposing\u2019 the miracles of Norbert and his\ncompanions. They used to slip medicaments unobserved into the food of\nthe sick, he says, and accept the glory of the miracle if the fever\nwas cured. They even attempted to raise the dead to life; and when\nthe corpse retained its hideous rigidity after they had lain long\nhours in prayer in the sanctuary, they would turn round on the simple\nfolk in the church and upbraid them for the littleness of their\nfaith. This poor trickery was the chief source of the power of the\nPremonstratensian canons over the people. Ab\u00e9lard could not repose\nand ridicule it with impunity.\n\nThese were the new apostles\u2014\u2018pseudo-apostles\u2019 Heloise calls them\u2014whom\nAlberic and Lotulphe now incited to take up the task which they\nthemselves dared pursue no longer. And so, says Ab\u00e9lard, \u2018they heaped\nshameless calumnies on me at every opportunity, and for some time\nbrought much discredit upon me in the eyes of certain ecclesiastical\nas well as secular dignitaries.\u2019 We shall find that, when Ab\u00e9lard\nstands before the ecclesiastical tribunal a second time, many of\nhis earlier friends have deserted him, and have fallen under the\nwide-reaching influence of St. Bernard.\n\nBut it is strenuously denied by prejudiced admirers of St. Bernard\nthat he had anything to do with Ab\u00e9lard at this period. Father\nHefele, for instance, thinks that Ab\u00e9lard is guilty of some\nchronological confusion in the passage quoted above; looking back on\nthe events of his life, he has unconsciously transferred the later\nactivity of Bernard to the earlier date, not clearly separating it\nin time from the work of Alberic and Norbert. Unfortunately, the\n\u2018Story of my Calamities\u2019 was written _before_ Bernard commenced his\nopen campaign against Ab\u00e9lard. We shall see later that this is beyond\ndispute. There is, then, no question of confusion.\n\nMr. Cotter Morison says it is \u2018not far short of impossible\u2019 that\nBernard showed any active hostility to Ab\u00e9lard at that time, and he\nthinks the charge springs merely from an over-excited imagination.\nMr. Morison is scarcely happier here than in his earlier passage.\nIt must be understood that this reluctance to admit the correctness\nof Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s complaint is inspired by a passage in one of Bernard\u2019s\nletters. In writing to William of St. Thierry (ep. cccxxvii. in\n_Migne_), fifteen years afterwards, he excuses his inaction with\nregard to Ab\u00e9lard (whose heresies William has put before him) on the\nground that he \u2018was ignorant of most, indeed nearly all, of these\nthings.\u2019 This is interpreted to mean that he knew little or nothing\nabout Ab\u00e9lard until 1141, and the Ab\u00e9lardists generally give a more\nor less polite intimation that it is\u2014what Mr. Poole explicitly calls\nanother statement of Bernard\u2019s\u2014a lie. Cotter Morison, however,\ninterprets \u2018these things\u2019 to mean \u2018the special details of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nheresy,\u2019 and it is therefore the more strange that he should join\nthe Bernardists in straining the historical evidence. Yet he is\nprobably nearer to the truth than the others in his interpretation of\nBernard\u2019s words. Even modern writers are too apt at times to follow\nthe practice of the Church, in judging a statement or an action, and\nput it into one or other of their rigid objective categories. In\nsuch cases as this we need a very careful psychological analysis,\nand are prone to be misled by the Church\u2019s objective moral boxes\nor classifications. Most probably Bernard wrote in that convenient\nvagueness of mind which sometimes helps even a saint out of a\ndifficulty, especially where the honour of the Church is involved,\nand which is accompanied by just a suspicion of ethical discomfort.\n\nIn reality, we may, with all sobriety, reverse Mr. Morison\u2019s\nstatement, and say it is \u2018not far short of impossible\u2019 that Bernard\nwas ignorant of, or indifferent to, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s activity at that time.\nTen years previously, when Bernard led his little band of white-robed\nmonks to their wretched barn in the Vale of Bitterness, he went to\nCh\u00e2lons to be consecrated by William of Champeaux. William conceived\na very strong affection for the young abbot, and he shortly after\nnursed him through a long and severe illness. So great was their\nintimacy and so frequent their intercourse that people said Ch\u00e2lons\nand Clairvaux had changed places. This began only twelve months\nafter William had been driven from Paris, in intense anger, by the\nheretical upstart, Peter Ab\u00e9lard. Again, Alberic was another of\nBernard\u2019s intimate friends. A year or two before Ab\u00e9lard founded\nthe Paraclete\u2014that is to say, about the time of the Council of\nSoissons\u2014we find Bernard \u2018imploring\u2019 (so even Duchesne puts it)\nthe Pope to appoint Alberic to the vacant see of Ch\u00e2lons after the\ndeath of William. He failed to obtain it, but afterwards secured for\nhim the archbishopric of Bourges. Anselm of Laon was also a friend\nof Bernard\u2019s. Moreover, Clairvaux was only about forty miles from\nTroyes, where Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s latest feat was the supreme topic.\n\nIt is thus quite impossible for any but a prejudiced apologist to\nquestion Bernard\u2019s interest in the life of the Paraclete and its\nfounder. Even were he not the heresy-hunter and universal reformer\nthat he notoriously was, we should be compelled to think that he\nhad heard all the worst charges against Ab\u00e9lard over and over\nagain before 1124. To conceive Bernard as entombed in his abbey,\nindifferent to everything in this world except the grave, is the\nreverse of the truth. Bernard had a very profound belief in what\nsome theologians call \u2018the law of secondary causes\u2019\u2014God does not\ndo directly what he may accomplish by means of human instruments.\nPrayer was necessary; but so were vigilance, diplomacy, much running\nto and fro, and a vast correspondence. He watched the Church of God\nwith the fiery zeal of a St. Paul. He knew everything and everybody:\nsmote archbishops and kings as freely as his own monks: hunted down\nevery heretic that appeared in France in his day: played even a large\npart in the politics of Rome. And we are to suppose that such a man\nwas ignorant of the presence of the gay, rationalistic colony a few\nleagues away from his abbey, and of the unique character and profound\nimportance to the Church of that vast concourse of youths; or that\nhe refrained from examining the teaching of this man who had an\nunprecedented influence over the youth of France, or from using the\nfulness of his power against him when he found that his teaching was\nthe reverse of all he held sacred and salutary.\n\nWe may take Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s statement literally. Bernard and Norbert were\ndoing the work of his rivals, and were doing it effectively. They\nwho had supported him at Soissons or afterwards were being poisoned\nagainst him. Count Theobald and Geoffrey of Chartres are probably\ntwo whom he had in mind. He feels that the net is being drawn close\nabout him through the calumnies of these ubiquitous monks and canons.\nThe peace of the valley is broken; he becomes morbidly sensitive\nand timorous. Whenever he hears that some synod or conventicle has\nbeen summoned he trembles with anxiety and expectation of another\nSoissons. The awful torture of that hour before the council comes\nback to him, and mingles with the thought of the power of his new\nenemies. He must fly from France.\n\nAway to the south, over the Pyrenees, was a land where the poor monk\nwould have found peace, justice, and honour. Spain was just then\naffording \u2018glory to God in heaven, and peace to men of good-will on\nearth\u2019: it had been snatched from the dominion of Christianity for a\ncentury or two. So tolerant and beneficent was the reign of the Moors\nthat even the Jews, crushed, as they were, by seven centuries of\npersecution, developed their finest powers under it. They were found\nin the front rank of every art and science; in every field where, not\ncunning and astuteness, but talent of the highest order and industry,\nwere needed to command success. The Moors had happily degenerated\nfrom the fierce proselytism of their religious prophet\u2014whilst the\nChristians had proportionately enlarged on that of theirs\u2014and their\nhuman character was asserting the high natural ideal which it always\ndoes when it breaks away from the confining bonds of a narrow dogma.\n\nIt was towards this land that Ab\u00e9lard turned his thoughts. It seemed\nuseless for him to exchange one Christian land for another. A few\nyears before, a small group of French monks had created a centre of\neducation in a humble barn on the banks of the Cam; but was England\nmore tolerant than France? He remembered Roscelin\u2019s experience. There\nwere famous schools in Italy; but some of his most brilliant pupils\nat the Paraclete, such as Arnold of Brescia, had little good to say\nof Italy. The evil lay in Christianity itself\u2014in that intolerance\nwhich its high claim naturally engendered.\n\nOne does not like to accept too easily this romantic proposal to find\nrefuge under the protection of the crescent, yet Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s words\ncompel us to do so. \u2018God knows,\u2019 he says, \u2018that at times I fell\ninto so deep a despair that I proposed to go forth from Christendom\nand betake me to the heathens ... to live a Christian life amid the\nenemies of Christ.\u2019 Possibly he would have done so, if he had had a\nbetter knowledge of Spain at that time. The Arabs of Spain were no\nenemies of Christ. Only a most perverse idea of their state could\nmake an able thinker and teacher thus regard a life amongst them as\na matter of ultimate and desperate resort. Had they but conquered\nEurope, materially or morally, half the problems that still harass\nit\u2014or ought to do\u2014would have been solved long ago. It is pathetic\nto find Ab\u00e9lard speculating whether the hatred of the Christians\nfor him will not make his path easier to the favour of the Arabs,\nby producing in them an impression that he had been unfaithful\nto Christian dogma. The caliphs could keep a watchful eye on the\nthoughts of professed Mohammedan philosophers, but they cared little\nabout the theories of others. Ab\u00e9lard, with his pronounced tendency\nto concentrate on natural-religious and ethical truths, would have\nfound an honoured place in Spain; and he would quickly have buried\nhis dogmas there.\n\nAb\u00e9lard was spared the trial of so desperate and dreadful a\nsecession. Far away on the coast of Brittany an abbot died in 1125,\nand Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s evil genius put it into the hearts of the monks to\noffer the vacant dignity to the famous teacher. They sent some of\ntheir number to see him at the Paraclete. It seemed a providential\noutlet from his intolerable position. There were abbeys and abbeys,\nit was true, but his Breton optimism and trust in fate closed that\navenue of speculation. Conon, Duke of Brittany, had agreed to his\ninstallation. Suger made no opposition; he probably saw the net that\nwas being drawn about him in France. Ab\u00e9lard turned sadly away from\nthe vale of the Paraclete and the devoted colony, and faced the mists\nof the west and of the future. \u2018I came not to bring peace into the\nworld but the sword.\u2019\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE TRIALS OF AN ABBOT\n\n\nAb\u00e9lard had, of course, committed another serious blunder in\naccepting the proffered \u2018dignity.\u2019 There was an error on both\nsides, as there had been in his first fatal assumption of the cowl;\nthough on this occasion the pressure behind him was greater, the\nalternative less clear, and the prospect at least uncertain. It will\nbe remembered that Ab\u00e9lard probably studied at Locmenach in his\nearly years. This was a branch monastery of the ancient abbey of St.\nGildas at Rhuys, on the coast; and it is not impossible that some\nrecollection of the monks of Locmenach entered into his decision to\nbecome abbot of St. Gildas. There were probably few abbeys in France\nat the time which were sufficiently moral and earnest in their life\nto offer a congenial home to this man who is held up to the blushes\nof the ages as a sinner, and of whom the Church only speaks in the\nlow and solemn tone that befits a great scandal. If Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s first\nand chief misfortune is that he was a Christian, his second is that\nhe was a monk.\n\nThe abbey of St. Gildas had reached the last stage of monastic\ndecay. The monks did not accept presents of pretty maid-servants,\nnor receive fine lady visitors in their abbey, like the monks of St.\nDenis; nor were they eager to have a nunnery of sisters in religion\nclose at hand, like the cloistered canons. Theirs was not a case for\nthe application of the words of Erasmus: \u2018Vocantur \u201cpatres\u201d\u2014et saepe\nsunt.\u2019 Each monk had a respectable wife and family on the monastic\nestate. The outlying farms and cottages were colonised with the women\nand the little monklings; there was no cemetery of infant bones at\nor near St. Gildas. Their monasticism consisted in the discharge of\ntheir formal religious exercises in church and choir\u2014the chant of the\nMass and of the breviary. And when the monk had done his day\u2019s work\nof seven or eight hours\u2019 chanting, he would retire, like every other\nChristian, to the bosom of his family. The half-civilised Celtic\npopulation of the district were quite content with this version of\ntheir duty, and did not refuse them the customary sustenance.\n\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s horror on discovering this state of things was equalled by\nthe surprise of the monks when they discovered his Quixotic ideas of\nmonastic life. They only knew Ab\u00e9lard as the amorous troubadour, the\nteacher who attracted crowds of gay and wealthy scholars wherever he\nwent, the object of the bitter hostility of the monastic reformers\nwhom they detested. It was the Bernardist or Norbertian Ab\u00e9lard whom\nthey had chosen for their abbot. Surprise quickly turned to disgust\nwhen the new abbot lectured them in chapter\u2014as a sexless ascetic\ncould so well do\u2014on the beauty of continence and the Rule of St.\nBenedict. They were rough, ignorant, violent men, and they soon made\nit clear that reform was hopelessly out of the question.\n\nThe very locality proved an affliction. He had exchanged the gentle\nbeauty and the mild climate of the valley of the Seine for a wild,\nbleak, storm-swept sea-shore. The abbey was built on a small\npromontory that ran out into the Bay of Biscay, a few leagues to the\nsouth of Vannes. It was perched on the edge of the steep granite\ncliffs, and Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s very pen seems to shudder as he writes of the\nconstant roar of the waves at the foot of the rocks and the sweep of\nthe ocean winds. Behind them stretched a long series of sand-hills.\nThey occupied a scarcely gracious interval between desolation and\ndesolation. For Ab\u00e9lard was not of the temperament to appreciate the\ngrandeur of an ever-restless ocean or to assimilate the strength that\nis borne on its winds. He was sadly troubled. Here he had fled, he\nsays, to the very end of the earth, the storm-tossed ocean barring\nhis further retreat, yet he finds the world no less repulsive and\ncruel.\n\nIn the character of abbot, Ab\u00e9lard was at liberty to seek what\nconsolation he could outside his abbey. He soon found that there\nwas none to be had in the vicinity of Rhuys. \u2018The whole barbarous\npopulation of the land was similarly lawless and undisciplined,\u2019\nhe says; that seems to include such other monks and priests as the\nlocality contained. Even their language was unintelligible to him,\nhe complains; for, although he was a Breton, his ear would only\nbe accustomed to Latin and to Romance French, which would differ\nconsiderably from the Celtic Bas-Breton. Whether the lord of the\ndistrict was equally wild\u2014as seems most probable\u2014or no, the way to\nhis ch\u00e2teau was barred by another difficulty. He was considered the\nbitter enemy of the abbey, for he had \u2018annexed\u2019 the lands that\nbelonged by right to the monks. Moreover he exacted a heavy tribute\nfrom them. They were frequently without food, and wandered about\nstealing all they could lay their hands on for the support of their\nwives and families. They violently urged Ab\u00e9lard to fight for their\nrights and find food for them, instead of giving them his ethereal\ndiscourses. And the abbot succeeded just far enough to embitter the\nusurper against him, without obtaining much for his lawless monks. He\nfound himself in a new dilemma. If he remained in the abbey he was\nassailed all day by the hungry clamour and the brutal violence of his\n\u2018subjects\u2019; if he went abroad the tyrannical lord threatened to have\nhim done to death by his armed retainers.\n\nFor three or four years Ab\u00e9lard sustained this miserable existence\nalmost without alleviation. In 1129, however, an event occurred\nwhich, evil as it looked at the moment, proved a source of\nconsiderable happiness to him for some years.\n\nAbbot Suger, the cowled warrior and statesman, had become monastic\nreformer after his conversion. The circumstance proved more lucrative\nto St. Denis than would be thought. In his _De rebus a se gestis_,\nSuger writes at great length of the additional possessions he\nsecured for the abbey, and amongst these is enumerated the nunnery\nof St. Mary at Argenteuil. He was not only a rigid disciplinarian,\nbut he had an unusual acquaintance with ancient records. Many of\nhis early years at St. Denis had been spent in the _archivium_, in\ndiligent scrutiny of deeds and documents relating to the earlier\nhistory of the abbey. One day when he was absorbed in this study\nhe hit upon a document from which it seemed possible to prove that\nthe convent of the Benedictine nuns at Argenteuil, two or three\nmiles away, belonged to the monks of St. Denis. It was a complicated\nquestion, the nuns dating their possession from the time of\nCharlemagne. But when Suger became abbot of St. Denis himself, and\neager to employ his political ability and influence in the service of\nthe abbey, he recollected, along with others, the document relating\nto the nunnery. When, moreover, he had been converted, he was able\nto see the licentiousness of the nuns of Argenteuil, and make it a\npretext for asserting the rights of his abbey.\n\nIn 1127, he states in his Life, he obtained from Honorius II. a bull\nwhich was supposed to legalise his seizure of the convent: \u2018both in\njustice to ourselves and on account of the enormity of life of the\nnuns who were established there, he restored the place to us with its\ndependencies, so that the religious life might be re-instituted in\nit.\u2019 In his _Vita Ludovici Grossi_ he also lays stress on the \u2018foul\nenormity\u2019 of life in the nunnery.\n\nHow far we may accept the strong language of the enterprising abbot\nit would be difficult to say. Honorius, who would be flattered by the\nrequest to pronounce on the domestics difficulties of the Church of\nFrance, would certainly not be over-exacting in the matter of proof.\nStill, he sent a legate, the Bishop of Albano, and directed him to\nhold an inquiry into the affair, together with the Archbishop of\nRheims and the Bishops of Paris, Chartres, and Soissons. The name of\nGeoffrey of Chartres is a guarantee that the inquiry was more than a\nmere cloak to cover the sanctioning of a questionable act. Although,\nwe must remember, Suger does not quote their words in the above\npassage, they must have decided that his charge was substantially\nfounded. The nuns were turned out of their convent a few months\nafterwards.\n\nThe asserted corruption of the nunnery is quite in accord with what\nwe know of the period from other sources. We have already quoted\nJacques de Vitry\u2019s observation that none of the convents of the time,\nexcept those of the Cistercians (his own order), were fit places for\nan honest woman; and he describes the \u2018thousand tricks and wicked\nartifices\u2019 by which respectable dames were sometimes induced to enter\nthem. The same Vandyke-like painter of the morals of the twelfth\ncentury elsewhere passes a comprehensive sentence on the convents of\ncanonesses. Nor was this the first Parisian nunnery to be suppressed\nin the twelfth century. There was until 1107 a convent of Benedictine\nnuns on the island, on the site of the present Rue Calende. It was\nclose to the royal palace; and the relations of the nuns to the\nnobles of the court had become so notorious that Bishop Galo had\nto intervene and put the good sisters on the street. One has only\nto read Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s sermon on \u2018Susannah\u2019 (delivered to an exemplary\ncommunity of nuns) to realise the condition of the average nunnery at\nthat time.\n\nHeloise was prioress of the convent of Argenteuil. This is, indeed,\nthe only circumstance that need make us hesitate to accept Suger\u2019s\nwords at their literal value. The Heloise of those writers who have\nbut touched the love-romance of the famous couple, without entering\ninto a deeper study of their characters, is pitifully inadequate. She\nhad all the passion that poetic or decadent admirer has ever given\nher; she had that freer, because narrower, view of the love-relation,\nwhich only regarded her own particular and exceptional case, and did\nnot extend to the thousand cases on which the broad law of matrimony\nis based; and she retained her ardent love and her particularist\nview throughout long years of conventual life. We may examine this\nmore directly in the next chapter. For the moment it reveals, when\nit is taken in conjunction with that integrity and altitude of life\nwhich none can hesitate to assign her, a strength and elevation of\ncharacter which are frequently obscured by the mere admirers of her\npassion. We know nothing whatever of the eight or nine miserable\nyears of her life at Argenteuil; but as soon as she does emerge into\nthe light of history (in 1130) she is found to be of an elevated and\ncommanding character. She was prior, not abbess, at Argenteuil. When\nshe became abbess, her community became a centre of light in France.\n\nStill, Heloise shared the fate of her sisters, if she had not shared\ntheir sin; in fact, we may see a protest against their life in her\nrefusal to follow them to a new home. Suger had been directed to find\na nunnery which would receive the evicted sisters, and most of them\nhad gone to St. Mary of Footel. Heloise had not accompanied them,\nand she was still without a canonical home in 1129, when the news of\nthese events reached the distant abbey of St. Gildas.\n\nThe finest and supreme test of love is to purge it of the last subtle\nadmixture of sexual feeling and then measure its strength. As a rule\nthis is wholly impracticable\u2014Mr. W. Platt has a remarkable paper on\nthe subject in his _Women, Love, and Life_\u2014but in the case of Ab\u00e9lard\nthe test was applied in supreme rigour, and with a satisfactory\nissue. There was indeed another consideration impelling Ab\u00e9lard,\nwhen he sought out his nun-wife. The desertion of the Paraclete had\ncost him many a heavy thought. The little estate was still his legal\nproperty, but it was insufficient to support a priest and companion\nat the oratory. He would assuage both anxieties by installing Heloise\nand such companions as she chose in his old home. But the course\nof the story will reveal more clearly the deep affection he had\nfor Heloise. It was faithfulness to the views he held since his\nconversion, faithfulness to the ideal of the best men of the time,\nas well as a dread of the ever ready tongue of the calumniator, that\nseparated him so long and so sternly from her.\n\nIn 1129, therefore, the year in which the plague ravaged Paris,\nAb\u00e9lard revisited the quiet valley of the Arduzon. Thither he invited\nHeloise and some of her companions, to whom he made over the legal\npossession of the estate. Poor Heloise must have been disappointed.\nThe ardour which she reveals in her letters was evidently met by a\ngreat restraint and formality on his side. He was severely correct\nin the necessary intercourse with his \u2018sisters in religion.\u2019 Later\nevents showed that, ridiculous as it may well seem, he had good\nreason for this deference to detractors. However, Heloise soon won\nuniversal regard and affection in Champagne. \u2018The bishops came to\nlove her as a daughter,\u2019 says Ab\u00e9lard, \u2018the abbots as a sister,\nand the laity as a mother.\u2019 They lived in deep poverty and some\nanxiety at first, but nobles and prelates soon added generously\nto the resources of the new foundation. Noble dames, too, brought\nrich dowries with them in coming to ask for the veil in Heloise\u2019s\nrespected community. The priory grew rapidly in importance and good\nrepute.\n\nIn 1131 Ab\u00e9lard sought a further favour for the new foundation, in\nhaving Heloise raised to the dignity of abbess. Innocent II. was\nmaking a journey through France, and lavishing favours (when they\ncost him nothing) generously and gratuitously on all sides, behaving\nin a manner that departed widely from papal traditions. It was\nthe second year of the great papal schism, and, Anacletus having\nbought or otherwise secured Rome, through his family, the Pierleoni,\nInnocent was making a successful bid for France, where exception\nwas taken to Pierleone\u2019s Jewish strain. Passing from Chartres to\nLi\u00e9ge, on his way to meet Lothair of Saxony, Innocent spent a day or\ntwo at the Benedictine abbey of Morigni. Ab\u00e9lard joined the crowd\nof prelates who assembled there to do homage to the pope, and he\nobtained the promise of a bull (which was duly sent), conferring the\ndignity of abbess on Heloise, and securing to her and her successors\nthe full canonical rights of their abbey. Ab\u00e9lard seems to have\nbeen received with distinction by the papal court. The chronicle of\nMorigni mentions the presence of the Abbot of St. Gildas, and adds:\n\u2018the most distinguished teacher and master in the schools, to whom\nlovers of learning flocked from almost the whole of Christendom.\u2019\nLater, too, Ab\u00e9lard boasts (so says Bernard) of his friends amongst\nthe Roman cardinals; it must have been during the stay of the papal\ncourt at Morigni that he met them. Another noteworthy personage whom\nAb\u00e9lard met there was St. Bernard. We have no details about this\nfirst meeting of the two great antagonists, but their names occur\nside by side in the chronicle as those of the most eminent teacher\nand the most distinguished preacher in France.\n\nIn the increasing bitterness of life at St. Gildas Ab\u00e9lard now\nnaturally sought consolation in the new abbey of the Paraclete. His\nrelation to Heloise personally remained marked by a reserve which\nhurt her, but his visits to the abbey became more frequent and\nprolonged. It appears that this loosened the tongues of some foolish\npeople, and Ab\u00e9lard took up the accusation, or insinuation, with\nhis usual gravity. His apology is often described as \u2018ridiculous\u2019\nand \u2018painful\u2019; and one certainly cannot take very seriously his\ndissertation on Origen\u2019s misdeed and the Oriental custom of\neunuch-guardians. More interesting is the second part, in which he\nurges many precedents of the familiarity of saintly men with women.\nHis favourite saint, Jerome, afforded a conspicuous illustration;\nand others were not wanting. It is too early in the history of\ntheology to find the example of Christ adduced. A modern apologist\ncould greatly extend the list, beginning with Francis of Assisi (and\nClare) and ending with Francis de Sales (and Madame de Chantal).\nPerhaps Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s own case is the clearest proof that even masked\nsexual feeling may be entirely absent from such attachments. Those\nwho care to analyse them will probably find the greater refinement,\ngentleness, sympathy, and admiration of women to be quite adequate to\nexplain such saintly intimacies, without any subtle research into the\npsychology of sex. However, the complaint seems to have moderated the\nabbot\u2019s fervour for a time; and indeed events soon became absorbingly\ninteresting at St. Gildas.\n\nThe frequent journeys to Champagne increased the bitterness of his\nmonks. Then he had a serious accident, nearly breaking his neck in\na fall from his horse. When he recovered, he found that his monks\nhad entered upon a most dangerous stage of conspiracy. The accident\nseems to have suggested an idea to them, and they determined to rid\nthemselves of an abbot who was worse than useless. They even put\npoison in the wine which he was to use in the Mass one morning,\nbut he discovered the fact in time. On another occasion he had\nan adventure which may have suggested an important incident in\nM. Zola\u2019s _Rome_. He had gone to Nantes to visit the count in an\nillness, and was staying with his brother Dagobert, who was a canon\nin the cathedral. When the time came for the abbot and his monastic\ncompanion to sup, Ab\u00e9lard had, providentially, lost his appetite\u2014or\nsuspected something. The monk supped\u2014and died. As Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s servant\ndisappeared after the meal, it was natural to suppose that he had\nbeen paid by the ferocious monks to poison their abbot. \u2018How many\ntimes did they try to do away with me by poison!\u2019 he exclaimed. But\nhe lived apart from them, and succeeded in frustrating the attempt.\nThen they hired robbers to apply their professional skill to the\ntask. Whenever the monks heard that he was going anywhere, they\nplanted a few cut-throats on the route.\n\nAb\u00e9lard had no great love for this Dionysiac existence, and he\nresolved to make a bold effort at reform. He summoned the monks in\nsolemn chapter, and hurled the sentence of excommunication at the\nleaders of the revolt. It sat more lightly on their shoulders than\nthe abbot anticipated, and he proceeded to call in the help of a\npapal legate. The Duke of Brittany and several neighbouring bishops\nwere invited to the function, and the sentence of excommunication\nand expulsion from the abbey was repeated with impressive ceremony.\nThe chief rebels were thus restricted to following the abbot\u2019s\nmovements without\u2014in company, apparently, of the hired assassins\nof the monks and the equally dangerous servants of the lord of the\nmanor\u2014and Ab\u00e9lard devoted his attention to reforming the remainder of\nthe community. But the old abbey was past redemption. \u2018The remaining\nmonks began to talk, not of poison, but of cutting my throat,\u2019 he\nsays. The circle of knives was drawing closer upon him, within and\nwithout, and he saw that it would be impossible to guard his life\nmuch longer. He gave up the struggle, and fled from the abbey. There\nis a local tradition which tells of a secret flight by night through\na subterranean passage leading down to the sea. Ab\u00e9lard at least\nintimates there was little dignity in his retirement, when he says:\n\u2018under the guidance of a certain noble of the district I succeeded,\nwith great difficulty, in escaping from the abbey.\u2019\n\nWhere Ab\u00e9lard found refuge from his murderous \u2018sons,\u2019 and where\nhe spent the next three or four years, it is difficult to say. He\nprobably moved from place to place, generally remaining in the\nneighbourhood of Rhuys, but occasionally journeying to Champagne\nor accepting an invitation to preach at some special festival. The\n\u2018certain noble\u2019\u2014an uncertain one, as the phrase usually implies\u2014would\nbe likely to give him immediate hospitality; and the Count of Nantes\nwas friendly, and would find Ab\u00e9lard a graceful addition at his\nboard. Then there was the family ch\u00e2teau at Pallet, and the house\nof his brother Dagobert at Nantes. We seem to find Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s boy,\nAstrolabe, under the care of this brother later on. Ab\u00e9lard would at\nall events see much of him, and assist in educating him, either at\nPallet or Nantes. The son had, apparently, not inherited the gifts of\nhis parents. An obscure mention of his death in a later _necrologium_\nmerely indicates the close of a correct but ordinary ecclesiastical\ncareer.\n\nBut though Ab\u00e9lard lacked neither wealth, nor honour, nor home, he\nspeaks of his condition as a very pitiable one. Deutsch has hazarded\nthe conjecture that the monks of St. Gildas really desired an abbot\nwho would be generally absent. It seems rather that they wanted\nan abbot who would share their comfortable theory of life and at\nthe same time have influence to enrich the abbey, discontinue the\npaying of tribute, and induce a higher authority to restrain their\ntyrannical neighbours. They were therefore naturally inflamed when\nAb\u00e9lard deserted the immediate concerns of the abbey, yet remained\nnear enough to secure his revenue out of its income. He retained his\ntitle (we find no successor appointed until after his death), and as\nhe speaks of wealth, we must suppose that he somehow continued to\nobtain his income. The Count of Nantes would probably support his\ncause as long as he remained in Brittany. But, at the same time,\nthis detained him in the constant danger of assassination. Wherever\nhe went, he apprehended bribery and corruption, poison and poniards.\n\u2018My misery grew with my wealth,\u2019 he says, and \u2018I find no place where\nI may rest or live.\u2019 His classical reading promptly suggests the\nparallel of Damocles.\n\nIt was in these circumstances that Ab\u00e9lard wrote the famous letter\nwhich he entitled the \u2018Story of my Calamities.\u2019 The passage I have\njust quoted occurs in its closing paragraph. It is an invaluable\ndocument for the purpose of the great master\u2019s biography. Without\nit, the life of Ab\u00e9lard would occupy only a score of pages. His\ncontemporaries had numbers of monastic followers and admirers who\nwere eager to write their deeds in letters of gold. The little band\nof friends who stood around Ab\u00e9lard in his final struggle were\nscattered, cowed, or murdered, by triumphant Bernardism. At the\nmention of Bernard\u2019s name Christendom crossed itself and raised its\neyes to the clouds: at the mention of the \u2018Peripatetic of Pallet\u2019 it\nclosed its pious lips, forgetful, or ignorant, of the twenty years\nof profound sorrow for the one grave delinquency of his life. If\nthe sins of youth are to leave an indelible stain, one is forced to\nrecall that Augustine had been a greater sinner, and that the Canon\nof the Church contains the names of converted prostitutes, such as\nMary of Magdala and Mary Magdalene of Pazzi. It may be thought by\nsome Catholics that, in the uncertainty of human judgment, there is\na providential criterion given in the working of miracles; but, once\nmore, even the fifth century only credited St. Augustine with two\nmiracles. And if intention to serve the Church be all-important,\nAb\u00e9lard has won high merit; or if effective service to the Church,\nthen is his merit the greater, for the thirteenth century, in its\nconstruction of that theology and philosophy which the Church even\nnow deems sufficient for the needs of the world, utterly rejected\nBernardism, and borrowed its foundation from Pierre Ab\u00e9lard.\n\nAs a piece of literature the \u2018Story\u2019 lies under the disadvantage of\nbeing written in degenerate Latin. With all his classical reading,\nAb\u00e9lard has not escaped the use of forms which gravely offend the\nclassical taste. Perhaps John of Salisbury is superior to him in\nthis respect; there have certainly been later theologians, such\nas Petavius, who have far surpassed him. But, apart from this\nlimitation in form, it is as high above the many biographies and\nautobiographies of his contemporaries as he himself was above most\nof their writers. Abbot Suger\u2019s autobiography is a piece of vulgar\nand crude self-advertisement beside it. It has not the mere chance\nimmortality which honours such works as that of Suger, and which is\nwholly due to the zeal of the modern collector of ancient documents;\nit has the germ of immortality within it\u2014the same soul that lives in\nthe _Confessions_ of Augustine: those who understand that soul will\nnot add the _Confession_ of Rousseau. And the confession of Ab\u00e9lard\nhas this singular feature: it is written by a man to whom the former\nsinful self is dead in a way which was impossible to Augustine. That\nfeature implies both advantages and disadvantages, but it at least\ngives a unique value and interest to the document.\n\nWe have throughout relied on and quoted this autobiography, so that\nan analysis of its contents would be superfluous. There remains,\nhowever, the interesting question of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s motive for writing\nit. It is ostensibly written as a letter, addressed to a friend who\nis in trouble, and merely intended to give him some consolation by a\ncomparison of the sorrows of Ab\u00e9lard. No one will seriously question\nthat this is only a rhetorical artifice. Probably it reached such\na friend, but it was obviously written for \u2018publication.\u2019 In its\nsincere acknowledgment of whatever fault lay on his conscience, only\nstriving to excuse where the intention was clearly good, that is, in\nthe matter of his theological opinions, the letter must be regarded\nas a conciliatory document. Not only its elaborate construction, but\nits care in explaining how guiltless he was in the making of most\nof his enemies\u2014Anselm, Alberic, Norbert, Bernard, and the monks of\nSt. Denis and St. Gildas\u2014impel us to think that it was intended for\ncirculation in France. In a few years we shall find him in Paris once\nmore. Deutsch believes that the \u2018Story\u2019 was written and circulated to\nprepare the way for his return, and this seems very probable. From\n\u2018the ends of the earth\u2019 his thoughts and hopes were being redirected\ntowards Paris; it had availed him nothing to fly from it. But there\nwere calumnious versions abroad of every step in his eventful life,\nand even Bernard sneered at his experience at St. Gildas. He would\nmake an effort to regain the affection of some of his old friends, or\nto create new admirers.\n\nWhatever may have been the aim of Ab\u00e9lard in writing his \u2018Story,\u2019\nit had one immediate consequence of the first literary importance.\nGreat of itself, it evoked a correspondence which is unique in the\nliterature of the world. It fell into the hands of Abbess Heloise,\nand led to the writing of her famous _Letters_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE LETTERS OF AB\u00c9LARD AND HELOISE\n\n\nThe true interest of the correspondence between the abbot husband\nand the abbess wife, which resulted from the publication of the\n\u2018Story of my Calamities,\u2019 needs to be pointed out afresh at the\nbeginning of the twentieth century. It has been obscured through\nthe eagerness of historians to indicate parallels and the tendency\nof poets and romancers to isolate features which appeal to them.\nDuring the eighteenth century the famous letters were made familiar\nto English readers by a number of translations from the French or\nfrom the original Latin. Even then there was a tendency to read\nthem apart from the lives of the writers, or at least without an\nadequate preliminary study of their characters and their fortunes.\nThose translations are read no longer. Apart from the limited number\nof readers who have appreciated the excellent French versions of\nMadame Guizot and M. Gr\u00e9ard, an idea is formed of the letters and\ntheir writers from a few ardent fragments, which are misleading in\ntheir isolation, and from the transference of the names \u2018Ab\u00e9lard\u2019\nand \u2018Heloise\u2019 to more recent characters of history or romance. The\nletters must be read anew in the light of our augmented knowledge and\nof the juster psychological analysis which it has made possible.\n\nThere are those whose sole knowledge of Heloise is derived from the\nreading of Pope\u2019s well-known poem, which is taken to be a metrical\nexposition of her first letter. With such an impression, and a few\nbroad outlines of the life of the lovers, one is well prepared to\naccept the assertion of a parallel with the _Portuguese Letters_\nand other of the _lettres amoureuses_ which were so dear to the\neighteenth century. Probably few who compare Pope with the original,\nor indeed read him without comparison, will agree with Hallam that\nhe has put \u2018the sentiments of a coarse and abandoned woman into\nher mouth.\u2019 Johnson found \u2018no crudeness of sense, no asperity of\nlanguage\u2019 in Pope\u2019s poem. Yet no one who has carefully read the\noriginal will fail to perceive that Pope has given a greatly\ndistorted version of it. French versifiers found it \u2018un amusement\nlitt\u00e9raire et galant,\u2019 as has been said of Bussy-Rabutin\u2019s version,\nto isolate the element of passion in the finer soul of Heloise, and\nthus present her as a twelfth-century Marianne Alcoforado. Pope has\nyielded somewhat to the same spirit. He does indeed introduce the\nintellectual judgment and the complex ethical feeling of Heloise\nin his poem, but he alters the proportions of the psychic elements\nin her letter, and prepares the way for a false estimate. Pope\u2019s\n_Heloise_ is framed in the eighteenth century as naturally as the\nreal _Heloise_ is in the twelfth. Still, it must be remembered that\nPope did not write from the original Latin letters. He evidently used\nsome of the so-called \u2018translations,\u2019 but really paraphrases, of his\ntime.[21]\n\n  [21] Mr. Leslie Stephen has kindly drawn my attention to Elwin\u2019s\n  theory (Pope\u2019s Works) that he followed the translation of J.\n  Hughes, author of the _Siege of Damascus_. Hughes\u2019s \u2018translation\u2019\n  was little more faithful than the current French versions; it is\n  largely a work of imagination. Careful comparison does seem to\n  show that Pope used this version, but he seems also to have used\n  some of the very misleading French paraphrases. Elwin himself\n  thinks Pope did not look at the original Latin.\n\nThe charge must also be laid, though with less insistence, against\nthe parallels which some writers have discovered, or invented, for\nHeloise. The most famous are the _Portuguese Letters_, a series of\nsingularly ardent love-letters from a Portuguese nun to a French\nnoble. The correspondents are said to have been Marianne Alcoforado\nand M. de Chamilly\u2014to look at whom, said St. Simon, you would never\nhave thought him the soul of the _Portuguese Letters_. He was\nneither talented nor handsome, and his liaison with the nun seems to\nhave been no more than the usual temporary incident in a soldier\u2019s\nlife. When he returned to France she wrote the letters which are so\nfrequently associated with those of Heloise. It is an unworthy and\na superficial comparison. There is a ground for comparison in the\ncondition of the writer and in the free and vivid expression of a\nconsuming love, but they are separated by profound differences. The\nPortuguese nun has nothing but her love; her life is being consumed\nin one flame of passion. Heloise is never so wholly lost in her\npassion; she can regard it objectively. Even were Ab\u00e9lard other\nthan he was at the time, no one who knows Heloise could conceive\nher, after her vows, to say, \u2018if it were possible for me to get out\nof this miserable cloister, I should not wait in Portugal for the\nfulfilment of your promise,\u2019 or imagine her, under any conditions,\nto talk lightheartedly to her lover of \u2018the languid pleasures your\nFrench mistresses give you,\u2019 and remind him that he only sought\nin her \u2018un plaisir grossier.\u2019 There is not a word, in any of the\n_Portuguese Letters_, of God, of religious vows, of any thought or\nfeeling above the plane of sense, of any appreciation of the literal\nsacrilege of her position, of anything but a wilful abandonment to a\nviolent passion.\n\nThere are the same defects, though they are less obtrusive, in the\nparallel which Rousseau claimed in giving the title of the _Nouvelle\nHelo\u00efse_ to his Savoyard letters. The accidental resemblance of the\nreligious costume is wanting here, but, on the other hand, there is\na greater show of character. Rousseau has confused the Heloise of\n1117 and the abbess of the letters. From another point of view, one\nwould like to know what Bussy-Rabutin or Colardeau would have thought\nof the _Nouvelle Helo\u00efse_ as the expression of an absorbing passion.\nRousseau, who held that the _Portuguese Letters_ had been written by\na man, was of the singular opinion that no woman could describe, or\neven feel, love. The letters of his Julie are pale fires beside the\nfirst and second letters of Heloise.[22]\n\n  [22] I hardly like to speak of the feeble creation of Robert\n  Buchanan in such a company, but his \u2018New Ab\u00e9lard\u2019 is a further\n  illustration. His pitiful Mr. Bradley has no earthly resemblance\n  to Ab\u00e9lard, except in a most superficial sense. It is grotesque\n  to compare him to Ab\u00e9lard for his \u2018heresy\u2019; and to say that he\n  recalls Ab\u00e9lard in his weakness (to the extent of bigamously\n  marrying and blasting the life of a noble woman) is deeply\n  unjust. Ab\u00e9lard was not a cad.\n\nIn direct opposition to the writers who find parallels for the\ncorrespondence of abbess and abbot we have a few critics who deny or\ndoubt the authenticity of the letters. It is significant that the\nrecent and critical German biographers of Ab\u00e9lard do not even mention\nthese doubts. They have, in truth, the slenderest of foundations.\nLalanne, who has endeavoured to spread this heresy in faithful\nFrance, can say little more than that he cannot reconcile the tone\nof the letters with the age and condition of the writers; he also\nsays that Ab\u00e9lard would be hardly likely to preserve such letters\nhad he received them from his wife. Orelli has tried to sow similar\ndoubts in the apparently more promising soil of German culture, but\nwith no greater success. If it seems incredible that Heloise should\nhave penned the letters which bear her name, how shall we qualify\nthe supposition that there lived, some time within the following\ncentury, a genius capable of creating them, yet utterly unknown to\nhis contemporaries? If they are the work of some admirer of Ab\u00e9lard,\nas Orelli thinks, they reveal a higher literary competency than\nRousseau shows in his _Nouvelle Helo\u00efse_. We are asked to reject\na wonder in the name of a greater wonder. Moreover, an admirer of\nAb\u00e9lard would not have written the letters which bear his name in a\nstyle that has won for him anything but the admiration of posterity.\nAnd it is quite impossible to admit one series of the letters without\nthe other.\n\nSetting apart the letters of Ab\u00e9lard, which it is idle to question\nin themselves, it must be admitted that there are features in the\nletters of Heloise which are startling to the modern mind. These are\nthe features on which her romantic admirers have concentrated; they\nwill appear in due course. But when one evades the pressure of modern\nassociations, and considers the correspondence in its twelfth-century\nsetting, there is no inherent improbability in it. Rather the\nreverse. As to the publication of letters in which husband and wife\nhad written the most sacred confidences, we need not suppose, as M.\nGr\u00e9ard does, that Heloise ever intended such a result, or built\nup her notes into letters for that purpose. Nothing compels us to\nthink that they were brought together until years after the writers\nhad been laid in a common tomb. There are obvious interpolations,\nit is true, but we shall only increase the difficulty\u2014nay, we shall\ncreate a difficulty\u2014if we look upon the most extraordinary passages\nin the letters as coming from any other source than the heart of an\nimpassioned lover.\n\nAs regards what a logician would call the external difficulty\u2014that\nwe cannot trace the letters further back than the middle of the\nthirteenth century\u2014it need not discompose us. The conditions which\nmake a negative argument of that character valid are not present\nhere. Ab\u00e9lard had been condemned and his party scattered. There are\nno writers to whom we should look for allusions to the letters before\nGuillaume de Lorris and Jehan le Meung manifestly introduce them in\nthe _Roman de la Rose_. Indeed this circumstance, and the fact that\nthe oldest manuscript we have dates from one hundred years after the\ndeath of Heloise, incline one to think that she wished the treasure\nto be preserved in a reverent privacy.\n\nTo give any large proportion of the letters here would be\nimpossible, yet we must give such extracts from them as may serve\nin the task of reconstructing character. It was an age when the\npractice, if not the art, of letter-writing greatly flourished.\nSt. Bernard\u2019s letters form a portly and a remarkable volume. The\nchroniclers of the time have preserved an immense number of the Latin\nepistles which busy couriers bore over the land. One is prepared,\ntherefore, to find much formality, much attention to the rules and\nthe conventional graces of the epistolary art, even in the letters of\nHeloise. The strong, impetuous spirit does at times break forth, in\nsplendid violence, from its self-imposed restraint, but we have, on\nthe whole, something very unlike the utter and unthinking outpouring\nof an ebullient passion which is found in the letters of the\nPortuguese nun. Arguments are rounded with quotations from classic\nwriters; dialectical forms are introduced here and there; a care for\nliterary manner and construction of the Latin periods is manifested.\nBayle says her Latin is \u2018too frequently pedantic and subtile.\u2019 It is,\nat all events, much superior to the average Latinity of the time,\nthough, as in the case of Ab\u00e9lard, the characteristic defects of this\nare not entirely avoided.\n\nSome day, then, after his \u2018Story\u2019 had gone forth on its peaceful\nmission into France, Ab\u00e9lard received a folded parchment in the once\nfamiliar hand.\n\n\u2018To her lord, yea father: to her spouse, yea brother: from his\nservant, yea daughter\u2014his wife, his sister: to Ab\u00e9lard from Heloise.\u2019\n\nSo ran the superscription, a curious effort to breathe life into a\nformality of the day. Chance has brought to their abbey, she says,\na copy of the letter he has recently sent forth. The story of his\nsaddened life and of the dangers that yet multiply about him has\naffected them so deeply that they are filled with anxiety for him.\n\u2018In hourly anguish do our trembling hearts and heaving breasts await\nthe dread rumour of thy death. By Him who still extends to thee an\nuncertain protection we implore thee to inform us, His servants and\nthine, by frequent letter, of the course of the storms in which\nthou art still tossed; so that thou mayst let us at least, who have\nremained true to thee, share thy sorrow or thy joy. And if the storm\nshall have abated somewhat, so much the more speedily do thou send\nus an epistle which will bring so much joy to us.\u2019 She invokes the\nauthority of Seneca on the epistolary duties of friends, and she\nhas a holier claim than that of friend, a stronger one than that of\nwife. \u2018At thy command I would change, not merely my costume, but my\nvery soul, so entirely art thou the sole possessor of my body and\nmy spirit. Never, God is my witness, never have I sought anything\nin thee but thyself: I have sought thee, not thy gifts. I have not\nlooked to the marriage bond or dowry: I have not even yearned to\nsatisfy my own will and pleasure, but thine, as thou well knowest.\nThe name of wife may be the holier and more approved, but the name\nof friend\u2014nay, mistress or concubine, if thou wilt suffer it\u2014has\nalways been the sweeter to me. For in thus humbling myself for\nthee, I should win greater favour from thee, and do less injury to\nthy greatness. This thou hast thyself not wholly forgotten, in the\naforesaid letter thou hast written for the consolation of a friend.\nTherein also thou hast related some of the arguments with which I\nessayed to turn thee from the thought of our unhappy wedlock, though\nthou hast omitted many in which I set forth the advantage of love\nover matrimony, freedom over bondage. God is my witness that if\nAugustus, the emperor of the whole world, were to honour me with the\nthought of wedlock, and yield me the empire of the universe, I should\ndeem it more precious and more honourable to be thy mistress than to\nbe the queen of a C\u00e6sar.\u2019\n\nShe claims no merit for her devotion. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s greatness more than\njustifies her seeming extravagance. \u2018Who,\u2019 she asks, going back to\nhis golden age, \u2018who did not hasten forth to look as thou didst walk\nabroad, or did not follow thee with outstretched neck and staring\neyes? What wife, what maid, did not yearn for thee? What queen or\nnoble dame was there who did not envy my fortune?\u2019\n\nYet she would ask this measure of gratitude from him, that he write\nto her at times. He had never known refusal from her. \u2018It was not\nreligious fervour that drew me to the rigour of the conventual life,\nbut thy command. How fruitlessly have I obeyed, if this gives me no\ntitle to thy gratitude!... When thou didst hasten to dedicate thyself\nto God I followed thee\u2014nay, I went before thee. For, as if mindful of\nthe looking back of Lot\u2019s wife, thou didst devote me to God before\nthyself, by the sacred habit and vows of the monastery. Indeed it was\nin this sole circumstance that I had the sorrow and the shame of\nnoting thy lack of confidence in me. God knows that I should not have\nhesitated a moment to go before or to follow thee to the very gates\nof hell, hadst thou commanded it. My soul was not my own but thine.\u2019\n\nLet him, therefore, make this small return of a letter to relieve\nher anxiety. \u2018In earlier days, when thou didst seek worldly pleasure\nwith me, thy letters were frequent enough; thy songs put the name of\nHeloise on every lip. Every street, every house in the city, echoed\nwith my name. How juster would it be to lead me now to God than thou\nthen didst to pleasure! Think then, I beseech thee, how much thou\nowest me. With this brief conclusion I terminate my long letter.\nFarewell, beloved.\u2019\n\nIt is small wonder that the epistle placed Ab\u00e9lard in some\nperplexity. True, the devoted Heloise had spoken throughout in the\npast tense. But the ardour and the violence of her phrases betrayed\na present depth of emotion which he must regard with some dismay.\nHe had trusted that time and discipline would subdue the flame he\nhad enkindled, and here it was indirectly revealed to live still in\nwondrous strength. He could not refuse to write, nor indeed would\nsuch a neglect profit anything; but he would send her a long letter\nof spiritual direction, and endeavour to divert her meditations.\n\n\u2018To Heloise, his sister in Christ, from Ab\u00e9lard, her brother in Him,\u2019\nwas the characteristic opening of his reply. If he has not written to\nher since her conversion, he says, it is not from neglect nor want of\naffection, but from the thought that she needed neither counsel nor\nconsolation. She had been prioress at Argenteuil, the consoler and\ninstructor of others. Yet, \u2018if it seems otherwise to thy humility,\u2019\nhe will certainly write her on any point she may suggest. She has\nspoken of prayer, and so he diverges into a long dissertation on the\nexcellence of prayer, which fills nearly the whole of his pages. On\none or two occasions only does he approach that colloquy of soul to\nsoul, for which Heloise yearned so ardently. \u2018We ourselves are united\nnot only by the sanctity of our oath, but also by the identity of our\nreligious profession. I will pass over your holy community, in which\nthe prayers of so many virgins and widows ever mount up to God, and\nspeak of thee thyself, whose holiness hath much favour with God, I\ndoubt not, and remind thee what thou owest me, particularly in this\ngrievous peril of mine. Do thou remember, then, in thy prayers him\nwho is so specially thine own.\u2019 And when at length he nears the end\nof his edifying treatise, he once more bares the heart that still\nbeats within him. If, he says, they hear before long that he has\nfallen a victim to the plots of his enemies, or has by some other\nchance laid down his burden of sorrow, he trusts they will have his\nbody brought to rest in their home, his own dear Paraclete, \u2018for\nthere is no safer and more blessed spot for the rest of a sorrowing\nsoul.\u2019\n\nThe long letter is, on the whole, prudent and formal to a degree. Yet\nit is not true that Ab\u00e9lard had nothing but coldness and prudence\nto return to his wife\u2019s devotion. It is quite obvious what Ab\u00e9lard\nwould conceive to be his duty in replying to Heloise. For her sake\nand for his, for her happiness and his repute, he must moderate the\nthreatening fire. But that he had a true affection and sympathy for\nher is made clear by the occasional failure of his pious resolution.\n\u2018Sister, who wert once dear to me in the world and art now most dear\nin Christ,\u2019 he once exclaims parenthetically; and at other moments he\ncalls her \u2018dearest sister,\u2019 and even \u2018beloved.\u2019 When we remember the\ngulf that now separated them, besides his obvious duty to guide her,\nwe shall accept the contrast of their letters without using harsh\nwords of the distracted abbot. But the pathos and the humanity of his\nclosing paragraph defeated his purpose, and the whole soul of the\nabbess flames forth in her reply.\n\nIt opens with a calm and somewhat artificial quarrel with the\nsuperscription of his letter, but soon breaks out into strong\nreproach for his talk of death. \u2018How hast thou been able to frame\nsuch thoughts, dearest?\u2019 she asks; \u2018how hast thou found words to\nconvey them?\u2019 \u2018Spare me, beloved,\u2019 she says again: \u2018talk not of death\nuntil the dread angel comes near.\u2019 Moreover, she and her nuns would\nbe too distracted with grief to pray over his corpse. Seneca and\nLucan are quoted to support her. Indeed she soon lapses into words\nwhich the theologian would call blasphemous. She turns her face to\nthe heavens with that old, old cry, Where is Thy boasted justice?\nThey were untouched in the days of their sinful joy, but smitten with\na thousand sorrows as soon as their bed had the sacramental blessing.\n\u2018Oh, if I dared but call God cruel to me! Oh, most wretched of all\ncreatures that I am!\u2019 Women have ever been the ruin of men\u2014Adam,\nSolomon, Samson, Job\u2014she runs through the long category of man\u2019s\nsneaking accusations.\n\nShe wishes she could make satisfaction to God for her sin, but, \u2018if\nI must confess the true infirmity of my wretched soul, how can I\nappease Him, when I am always accusing Him of the deepest cruelty\nfor this affliction?\u2019 There is yet a further depth that she must\nlay bare to her father confessor and her spouse. How can there be\nquestion of penance \u2018when the mind still retains the thought of\nsinning, and is inflamed again with the old longing? So sweet did I\nfind the pleasures of our loving days, that I cannot bring myself to\nreject them, nor banish them from my memory. Wheresoever I go they\nthrust themselves upon my vision, and enkindle the old desire. Even\nwhen I sleep they torment me with their fancied joy. Even during the\nMass, when our prayer should be purest, the dreadful vision of those\npleasures so haunts my soul that I am rather taken up with them than\nwith prayer. I ought to be lamenting what I have done; I am rather\nlamenting what I miss. Not only our actions, but the places and the\ntimes are so bound up with the thought of thee in my mind, that night\nand day I am repeating all with thee in spirit. The movement of\nbody reveals my thoughts at times; they are betrayed in unguarded\nspeech. Oh, woe is me!... Not knowing my hypocrisy, people call me\n\u201cchaste.\u201d They deem bodily integrity a virtue, whereas virtue resides\nin the mind, not the body.\u2019 Moreover, virtue should be practised out\nof love for God, whereas \u2018God knows that in every part of my life I\nhave more dread of offending thee than Him; I have a greater desire\nto please thee than Him.\u2019 Let him not deceive himself with trust in\n_her_ prayers, but rather help her to overcome herself. And the poor\nwoman, the nobility of her soul hidden from her and crushed under the\nappalling ethical ignorance and perverse ordering of her times, ends\nwith a plaintive hope that she may yet, in spite of all, find some\ncorner in heaven that will save her from the abyss.\n\nWe have here the passages which have made Heloise an heroine in\nerotic circles for so many centuries. On these words, isolated\nfrom their context of religious horror and self-accusation,\nhave Bussy-Rabutin, and Pope, and the rest, erected their gaudy\nstructures; on them is grounded the parallel with Marianne\nAlcoforado, and Rousseau\u2019s Julie, and so many other women who have\nmeditated sin. Bayle has carried his Pyrrhonism so far as to doubt\nthat \u2018bodily integrity\u2019 which she claims for herself with so little\nboasting; Chateaubriand, with broader and truer judgment, finds in\nthe letter the mirroring of the soul of a good woman.\n\nThere can be little doubt that the optimism of Chateaubriand has\nfor once come nearer to the truth than the cynicism of Bayle. The\ndecadent admirers of Heloise forget three circumstances which should\nhave diminished their equivocal adoration: the letter is from a\nwife to her husband, from a penitent to her spiritual guide\u2014women\nsay such things every day in the confessional, even in this very\nsensitive age\u2014from a thoughtful woman to a man whom she knew to be\ndead to every breath of sensual love. There is no parallel to such a\nsituation.\n\nFurther, it is now obvious that the romancists have done injustice to\nthe soul of Heloise in their isolation of her impassioned phrases.\nShe objectifies her love: she is not wholly merged in it. She never\nloses sight of its true position in her actual life. It is an evil,\na temptation, a torment\u2014she would be free from it. Yet she is too\nrational a thinker to turn to the easy theory of an outward tempter.\nIt is part of herself, a true outgrowth of the nature God has given\nher; and between the voice of nature and the voice of conscience,\ncomplicated by the influence of conventual tradition and written law,\nher soul is rent with a terrific struggle. A modern confessor with a\nknowledge of physiology\u2014there are a few such\u2014could have led her into\npaths of peace without difficulty. There was no sin in her.\n\nIt is impossible to say that Ab\u00e9lard sails faultlessly through these\ntroubled waters, but his answer to her on this point is true and\nsound in substance. \u2018God grant that it be so in thy soul as thou hast\nwritten,\u2019 he says in his next letter. It is true that he is chiefly\nregarding her humility, and that he does not shed the kindly light of\nhuman wisdom on her soul which an earlier Ab\u00e9lard would have done;\nyet we can imagine what St. Bernard or Robert d\u2019Arbrissel would\nhave answered to such an outpouring. However, apart from the happy\nmoderation of this reply, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s third letter only increases our\nsympathy with this woman who wanders in the desert of the twelfth\ncentury of the Christian era. The wild cry of the suffering heart has\nstartled him. He becomes painfully ingenious in defending Providence\nand the monastic or Buddhistic view of life. As to his death, why\nshould she be moved so strongly? \u2018If thou hadst any trust in the\ndivine mercy towards me, the more grievous the afflictions of this\nlife seem to thee the more wouldst thou desire to see me freed from\nthem! Thou knowest of a certainty that whoever will deliver me from\nthis life will deliver me from a heavy penalty. What I may incur\nhereafter I know not, but there is no uncertainty as to that which I\nescape.\u2019 And again, when he comes to her accusations of Providence:\nif she would follow him to \u2018the home of Vulcan,\u2019 why cannot she\nfollow him quietly to heaven? As to her saying that God spared them\nin their guilt and smote them in their wedded innocence, he denies\nthe latter point. They were not innocent. Did they not have conjugal\nrelations in the holy nunnery of the Virgin at Argenteuil?[23] Did\nhe not profanely dress her in the habit of a nun when he took her\nsecretly to Pallet? Flushed with the success of his apology for\nProvidence, the unlucky abbot goes from bathos to bathos. There\nwas not merely justice but love in the divine ruling. They had\nmerited punishment, but had, \u2018on the contrary,\u2019 been rescued from\nthe \u2018vile and obscene pleasures\u2019 of matrimony, from the \u2018mud and\nmire,\u2019 and so forth. His mutilation was a skilful operation on the\npart of Providence \u2018to remove the root of all vice and sordidness\nfrom him, and make him fitter for the service of the altar.\u2019 \u2018I had\ndeserved death, and I have received life. Do thou, then, unite with\nme in thanksgiving, my inseparable companion, who hast shared both\nmy sin and my reward.\u2019 How fortunate it was that they married! \u2018For\nif thou hadst not been joined to me in matrimony, it might easily\nhave happened that thou wouldst have remained in the world\u2019\u2014the one\nthing that would have saved her from utter desolation. \u2018Oh, how dread\na loss, how lamentable an evil it had been, if in the seeking of\ncarnal pleasure thou hadst borne a few children in pain to the world,\nwhereas thou now bearest so great a progeny with joy to heaven.\u2019\nAgain the \u2018mud and mire,\u2019 and the thanksgiving. He even lends his\npen, in his spiritual ecstasy, to the writing of this fearful calumny\nagainst himself: \u2018Christ is thy true lover, not I; all that I sought\nin thee was the satisfaction of my miserable pleasure.\u2019 Her passions\nare, like the artificially stimulated ones of the deacons in Gibbon\nand of Robert d\u2019Arbrissel, a means of martyrdom. He had been spared\nall this, she had plaintively written; on the contrary, he urges, she\nwill win more merit and reward than he.\n\n  [23] The one from which the nuns had been driven \u2018on account of\n  the enormity of their life.\u2019\n\nI have given a full summary of the long epistle, because its\npsychological interest is great. We have seen the gradual\ntransformation of Ab\u00e9lard\u2014the steps in his \u2018conversion\u2019\u2014from chapter\nto chapter. This letter marks the deepest stage of his lapse into\nBernardism.[24] It offers an almost unprecedented contrast to\nthe Ab\u00e9lard of 1115. And this is the man, I may be pardoned for\nrepeating, who is held up by ecclesiastical writers (even such as\nNewman) to the blushes of the ages. Perhaps the age is not far off\nthat will sincerely blush over him\u2014not for his personal defects.\n\n  [24] At a later date one of the censures passed by the doctors\n  of the Sorbonne on this classic sinner of the twelfth century is\n  that he finds a shade of sin in legitimate conjugal relations.\n\nHeloise was silenced. Whether the pious dissertation had really\ninfluenced her, or the proud utterance of her plaint had relieved\nher, or she closed in upon her heart after such a reply, it would be\ndifficult to say. Her next letter is calm, erudite, dialectical. \u2018To\nher lord as to species, her beloved in person\u2019 is the quaint heading\nof the epistle. She will try to keep her pen within due bounds in\nfuture, but he knows the saying about \u2018the fulness of the heart.\u2019\nNevertheless, \u2018just as a nail is driven out by a new one, so it is\nwith thoughts.\u2019 He must help her to dwell on other things. She and\nher nuns beg him to write a new rule for them and a history of the\nmonastic life. There are points in the Rule of St. Benedict which are\npeculiarly masculine; she discusses them in early medi\u00e6val style. She\nwould like her nuns to be permitted to eat meat and drink wine. There\nis less danger in giving wine to women; and she na\u00efvely quotes (from\nMacrobius) Aristotle\u2019s crude speculation on the subject. Then follows\na long dissertation on wine, temperance, and intemperance, bristling\nwith proofs and weighty authorities. Briefly, she quarrels with the\nascetic view of life. She happily avoids the hard sayings in which\nChrist urges it on every page of the Gospels, and voices the eternal\ncompromise of human nature. Who may become Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s successor as\ntheir spiritual guide, she does not know. Let him appoint a rule of\nlife for them, which will guard them from unwise interference, and\nlet it concede a little in the way of soft clothing, meat, wine, and\nother suspected commodities.\n\nAb\u00e9lard complies willingly, quite entering into the spirit of\nthe nail theory. \u2018I will make a brief and succinct reply to thy\naffectionate request, dear sister,\u2019 he begins, at the head of a\nvery long and very curious sketch of the history of monasticism.\nIt is a brilliant proof of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s erudition, relatively to his\nopportunities, but at the same time an illustration of the power of\nconstructing most adequate \u2018explanations\u2019 without any reference to\nthe real agencies at work.\n\nIn a later letter Ab\u00e9lard drew up the rule of life which had been\nasked. It follows the usual principles and tendencies of such\ndocuments. It offers, however, no little psychological interest in\nconnection with the modifications which the abbess has desired.\nThe dialectician feels a logical reluctance to compromise, and the\nfervent monk cannot willingly write down half measures. Yet the human\nelement in him has a sneaking sympathy with the plea of the abbess,\nand, with much explanation and a fond acceptance of Aristotelic\ntheories, the compromise is effected. To the manuscript of this\nletter a later hand has added a smaller and more practical rule.\nThis is generally attributed to Heloise herself, and is certainly\nthe work of some early abbess of the Paraclete. It supplements\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s scheme of principles and general directions by a table of\nregulations\u2014as to beds, food, dress, visitors, scandals, etc.\u2014of a\nmore detailed character.\n\nThe closing letter of the famous series is one addressed by Ab\u00e9lard\nto \u2018the virgins of the Paraclete\u2019 on the subject of \u2018the study\nof letters.\u2019 It is from this epistle that we learn\u2014as we do also\nfrom a letter of Venerable Peter of Cluny\u2014of Heloise\u2019s linguistic\nacquirements. The nuns are urged to undertake the study of the\nScriptural tongues, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and are reminded that\nthey have \u2018a mother who is versed in these three languages.\u2019 There\nis reason to think that neither master nor pupil knew much Greek or\nHebrew.\n\nThis is followed shortly by a number of hymns and sermons. Heloise\nhad asked him to write some hymns for liturgical use, so as to avoid\na wearisome repetition and to dispense with some inappropriate ones.\nHe sent ninety-three, but they are of little literary and poetic\nvalue. The source of his old-time poetic faculty is dried up. A\nsequence for the Feast of the Annunciation, which is attributed to\nhim, won praise from, of all people, Luther. But the number of hymns\nand songs \u2018attributed\u2019 to Ab\u00e9lard is large. The sermons, of which\nthirty-four are to be found in the collection of his works, are not\ndistinguished in their order. The abbot was not an eloquent preacher.\nBut they are carefully written, erudite compositions, which were\ndelivered at St. Gildas, or the Paraclete, or by special invitation.\nSome of them have much intrinsic interest or value\u2014those on Susannah\nand John the Baptist, for instance, in connection with monastic\naffairs, and that on St. Peter in connection with his rigid loyalty\nto Rome.\n\nA more interesting appendix to the correspondence is found in the\nforty-two \u2018Problems of Heloise,\u2019 with the replies of Ab\u00e9lard. Under\nthe pretext of following out his direction, but probably with a\ngreater anxiety to prolong the intercourse, Heloise sent to him a\nlist of difficulties she had encountered in reading Scripture. The\ndaughters of Charlemagne had responded to Alcuin\u2019s exhortations with\na similar list. The little treatise is not unworthy of analysis from\nthe historico-theological point of view, but such a task cannot be\nundertaken here. The problems are, on the whole, those which have\npresented themselves to every thoughtful man and woman who has\napproached the Bible with the strictly orthodox view; the answers\nare, generally speaking, the theological artifices which served that\npurpose down to the middle of the wayward nineteenth century.\n\nWith this mild outbreak of rationalism Heloise passes out of the\npages of history, save for a brief reintroduction in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nclosing year. The interest and the force of her personality have\nbeen undoubtedly exaggerated by some of the chief biographers of\nAb\u00e9lard, but she was assuredly an able, remarkable, and singularly\ngraceful and interesting woman. Cousin once suddenly asked in the\nmiddle of a discourse: \u2018Who is the woman whose love it would have\nbeen sweetest to have shared?\u2019 Many names were suggested, though\nthere must have been a strong anticipation that he would name Mme. de\nLongueville, for he laboured at that very time under his posthumous\ninfatuation for the sister of Cond\u00e9. But he answered, Heloise,\n\u2018that noble creature who loved like a St. Theresa, wrote sometimes\nlike Seneca, and who must have been irresistibly charming, since\nshe charmed St. Bernard himself.\u2019 It was a fine phrase to deliver\nimpromptu, but an uncritical estimate. It is a characteristic paradox\nto say that she loved like a St. Theresa, and an exaggeration to say\nthat she ever wrote like Seneca. As to her charming St. Bernard\u2014the\n\u2018pseudo-apostle,\u2019 as she ungraciously calls him,\u2014they who read the\none brief letter he wrote her will have a new idea of a charmed man.\nYet with her remarkable ability, her forceful and exalted character\nin the most devitalising circumstances, and her self-realisation, she\nwould probably have written her name in the annals of France without\nthe assistance of Ab\u00e9lard. It must be remembered that she had a very\nsingular reputation, for her age, before she met Ab\u00e9lard. She might\nhave been a St. Theresa to Peter of Cluny, or, as is more probable, a\nMontmorency in the political chronicle of France.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nA RETURN TO THE ARENA\n\n\nThe literary and personal activity described in the preceding\nchapter, together with the elaboration of a new \u2018theology,\u2019 of which\nwe shall read presently, brings the story of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s life down to\n1135 or 1136. His movements during the three or four years after his\nflight from St. Gildas are very obscure. St. Bernard seems to speak\nof his presence in Paris at one time, though the passages can, and\nperhaps should, be explained away. Heloise speaks of his visits to\nthe Paraclete. On the whole he probably remained in Brittany, at\nNantes or Pallet, and devoted his time to literary work. But in 1136\nwe find him in Paris once more. Whether the monks succeeded in making\nBrittany too insecure for him, or the count failed to guarantee his\nincome, or a natural disgust with the situation and longing for the\nintellectual arena impelled him to return, we cannot say. It is only\nknown that in 1136 he was once more quickening the scholastic life of\nEurope from the familiar slope of St. Genevieve.\n\nSo swift and eventful has been the career of the great teacher that\none realises with difficulty that he is now almost an old man, a\nman in his fifty-seventh or fifty-eighth year. It is twenty years\nsince the grim termination of his early Parisian activity, and a new\ngeneration fills the schools. The ideas with which he first startled\nand conquered the intellectual world have been made familiar. The\nvigour, the freshness, the charming pertinacity of youth have\ndeparted. Yet there is no master in Christendom, young or old, that\ncan restrain the flood of \u2018barbarians\u2019 when \u2018Li mestre\u2019 reappears\nat Paris. John of Salisbury was amongst the crowd. It is from his\n_Metalogicus_ that we first learn of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s return to the arena,\nand the renewal of his old triumph. St. Bernard fully confirms the\nstory, after his fashion. Indeed, in one sense Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s triumph was\ngreater than ever, for he gathered a notable group of followers about\nhim on St. Genevieve. There was Arnold of Brescia, the scourge of the\nItalian clergy, the \u2018gad-fly\u2019 of the hierarchy. There was Gilbert de\nla Por\u00e9e, a dreaded dialectician and rationalistic theologian. There\nwas Hyacinth, the young deacon and noble from Rome, afterwards a\npower in the sacred college. There was B\u00e9renger, the caustic critic,\nwho gave Bernard many an unpleasant quarter of an hour. There were\nfuture bishops and theologians in remarkable numbers.\n\nHowever, we have no information of a definite character until five\nyears afterwards. In fact John of Salisbury complicates the situation\nby stating that Ab\u00e9lard withdrew shortly after 1136. Deutsch thinks\nthat Ab\u00e9lard left Paris for a few years; Hausrath, on the contrary,\nconjectures that he merely changed the locality of his school. John\nof Salisbury would, in that case, have followed his lectures in the\ncloistral school in 1136, and would have remained faithful to the\nabbey, following Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s successor, a Master Alberic, when Ab\u00e9lard\nwas, for some unknown reason, constrained to move his chair to the\nchapel of St. Hilary, also on the slope of St. Genevieve. According\nto the _Historia Pontificalis_ it was at St. Hilary that Bernard\nvisited him in 1141. It is an ingenious way of keeping Ab\u00e9lard\nin Paris during the five years, as most historians would prefer\nto do. Its weak point is the supposition that John of Salisbury\nwould continue to attend at the abbey of St. Genevieve with Ab\u00e9lard\nteaching a few yards away.\n\nThe difficulty may be gladly left to the chronologist. The first\ngreat fact in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s career after his return to Paris is that St.\nBernard begins to take an active interest in his teaching in the\nspring of 1141. Ten short weeks afterwards the prestige of the great\nteacher was shattered beyond recall, and he set out upon his pathetic\njourney to the tomb. It was a tense, a titanic struggle, on the side\nof Bernard.\n\nAccording to the religious story-books the episode is very clear and\nhighly honourable to Bernard. Abbot Ab\u00e9lard had rewritten, with what\nhe thought to be emendations, the theological treatise which had been\nburnt at Soissons. Under the title of the _Theologia Christiana_,\nthis rationalistic exposition and defence of the dogmas of the faith,\nespecially of the Trinity, had \u2018crossed the seas and leaped over the\nAlps,\u2019 in Bernard\u2019s vivid phraseology. With it travelled also an\n_Introductio ad theologiam_, which was written soon after it, and his\n_Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans_, of earlier date. The books\nwe have previously mentioned, the _Sic et Non_, and the _Ethics_\nor _Know Thyself_, had a more limited and secluded circulation.\nThe theological work which has the title of _Epitome Theologiae\nChristianae_ or _Sententiae Petri Abaelardi_ is considered by most\nexperts to be a collection of his opinions drawn up by some other\nmasters for scholastic use.[25]\n\n  [25] It is quite beside the writer\u2019s purpose, and probably the\n  reader\u2019s pleasure, to give an analysis of these works. I shall\n  presently treat the specific points that have relation to his\n  condemnation, and I add a supplementary chapter on his teaching\n  in general. Deutsch may be read by the curious, and Herr Hausrath\n  gives a useful shorter analysis.\n\nThe story runs that these works chanced to intrude on the pious\nmeditations of a mystic theologian of the name of William of St.\nThierry. William was very nearly a saint, and the new theology\nshocked him inexpressibly. He had been abbot of St. Thierry at\nRheims, but had been elevated from the Benedictine level to the\nCistercian under Bernard\u2019s influence, and was peacefully composing a\ncommentary on the highly mystical \u2018Song of Songs,\u2019 in the Cistercian\nmonastery at Signy, when Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s heresies reached him.[26] In his\nhorror he selected thirteen definite heretical statements from the\nbooks, and sent them, with the treatises, to his pious and powerful\nfriend, Bernard of Clairvaux, with a pressing request to examine\nthem and take action. Bernard replied that a cursory perusal of the\nbooks seemed to justify his follower\u2019s zeal. He would put the matter\naside until after Holy Week, then talk it over with William. In the\nmeantime William must bear patiently with his inactivity, since\nhe \u2018had hitherto known little or nothing of these things.\u2019 Easter\nover, and the conference having presumably taken place, Bernard was\nconvinced of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s errors. Faithful to Christ\u2019s direction, he\nwent up to Paris, and personally reproved his erring brother, without\nwitnesses. Bernard\u2019s biographer (and secretary-monk) assures that\nAb\u00e9lard promised to amend his ways. The amendment not taking place,\nBernard paid him a second brotherly visit, and, as he refused to\ncomply, Bernard followed out the evangelical direction of reproving\nhim before others. He attacked him in the presence of his students,\nwarning the latter that they must burn his heretical writings\nforthwith. It is one of the scenes in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s career which it\nwould have been interesting to have witnessed.\n\n  [26] A good idea of the man, and of the rapidly growing school he\n  belonged to, will be formed from the opening sentence of one of\n  his treatises: \u2018Rotting in the lake of misery and in the mire of\n  filth, and stuck in the mud of the abyss that has no substance,\n  and from the depths of my grief, I cry out to Thee, O Lord.\u2019 He\n  was in the midst of a similar Bernardesque composition when he\n  received Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s works.\n\nHowever, we must defer for a moment the continuation of the\nBernardist version of the encounter, and examine the course of events\nmore critically.\n\nThe theory that St. Bernard had not occupied himself with the errors\nof Ab\u00e9lard until William of St. Thierry drew his attention to them\nis a very poor and foolish composition. We could as well imagine\nthat Newman knew \u2018little or nothing\u2019 of Dr. Arnold\u2019s views in the\nearly thirties. Bernard and Ab\u00e9lard had been for many years the\nsupreme representatives of the new \u2018High\u2019 and \u2018Broad\u2019 movements of\nthe twelfth century; and Bernard had a far more intense dread of\nrationalism than Newman. Scarcely an event of moderate importance\noccurred in Church, school, or state, in France at least, that\nescaped the eye of the abbot of Clairvaux in those days. He\nwas \u2018acting-Pope\u2019 to the Church of Christ, and he felt all the\nresponsibility. And, amongst the multitudinous cares of his office,\nnone gave him greater concern than the purity of the faith and the\npurification of the disquieting scholastic activity of the day.\n\nWe have seen in a former chapter how largely antithetic his position\nwas to that of Ab\u00e9lard, and that he was a man who could not doubt\nfor a moment the truth of his own conception of religion. There was\nthe same marked antithesis at the very bases of their theological\nconceptions, in the mental soil in which those conceptions took\nroot. Bernard was more authoritative than Anselm of Laon, more\nmystic than Anselm of Canterbury. He had gone further than Anselm\non the theory that \u2018faith precedes reason\u2019; Ab\u00e9lard had gone beyond\nRoscelin with the inverse proposition. Perhaps Bernard\u2019s commentary\non the \u2018Song of Songs\u2019 furnishes the best illustration of his frame\nof mind and his outlook. Towards the close of his life he devoted\nhimself to long and profound meditation on that beautiful piece of\nOriental literature. We must not forget, of course, that the Church\nis largely responsible for his extravagance on this point. It has\nindeed taken the civilisation of the West more than two thousand\nyears to discover that its glowing verses are inspired only by the\nrounded limbs and sweet breath of a beautiful woman; and its most\nerotic passages are still solemnly applied to the Mother of Christ on\nher annual festivals. But Bernard revelled in its \u2018mystic\u2019 phrases.\nDay by day, for more than a year, he gathered his monks about him in\nthe _auditorium_ at Clairvaux, and expounded to them the profound\nspiritual meanings of the \u2018Song.\u2019 Eighty-three long sermons barely\nexhausted the first two chapters. In the end he devoted three lengthy\ndiscourses, on successive days, to the elucidation of the words: \u2018In\nmy bed at night I have longed for him whom my soul loveth.\u2019\n\nThis mystic and unreasoning attitude brought him into fundamental\nantagonism with Ab\u00e9lard. To him faith was the soul\u2019s first duty;\nreason might think itself fortunate if there were crumbs of knowledge\nin the accepted writings which it could digest. To reason, to ask\na question, was honestly incomprehensible and abhorrent to him. He\ninsisted that the rationalist told God he would not accept what he\ncould not understand; whereas the rationalist was prevented by his\nown logic from questioning the veracity of the Infinite, and merely\ninsisted that, in a world of hallucination and false pretence, it\nwere well to make sure that the proposition in question really did\ncome from God. Bernard thought reasoning about the Trinity implied\nirreverence or incredulity; Ab\u00e9lard felt it to be a high service to\ndivine truth, in preparing it for minds which were not blessed with\nthe mystic sense. Bernard believed Christ died purely and crudely\nto make amends to the Father; Ab\u00e9lard thought this would impute\nvindictiveness to God. And so on through a long list of dogmatic\npoints which were of unspeakable importance in the eyes of the\ntwelfth century.\n\nA conflict was inevitable. In Bernard\u2019s thought Ab\u00e9lard was employing\nan extraordinary ability to the grave prejudice of the honour of\nGod, the safety of the Church, and the supreme interest of humanity.\nBernard would have deserted his principles and his clear subjective\nduty if he had remained silent. If he had \u2018a quick ear\u2019 to catch\n\u2018the distant thunder roll of free inquiry,\u2019 as Cotter Morison says,\nand no one questions, he must have turned his zealous attention to\nAb\u00e9lard long ago, as we have already seen. But the rationalist had\nbeen rendered powerless in Brittany for some years. Now that he was\nteaching with great effectiveness at Paris once more, Bernard could\nnot but take action.\n\nHowever, it is a task of extreme difficulty for an impartial\nstudent to trace with confidence the early stages of that memorable\nconflict. We have seen the Bernardist version; the version of some\nof the recent biographers of Ab\u00e9lard is very different. Deutsch\nand Hausrath, able and critical scholars, believe that the letter\nfrom William of St. Thierry had been written, wholly or in part,\nby Bernard himself; that Bernard\u2019s reply was part of a comedy of\nintrigue; that a timid and treacherous conventicle of the Cistercian\nmonks, including Bernard, had deliberately drawn up in advance\nthis equivocal plan of campaign. Now, if the Catholic enthusiast\nis incapable of dealing quite impartially with such a problem,\nit is equally certain that the heretic has a similar disturbing\nelement in his natural predilection for picking holes in the coats\nof the canonised. The evidence must be examined very carefully.\nThe presumption is that a man of the exalted idealism and stern\nself-discipline of St. Bernard would not lend himself to such\nman\u0153uvres. Yet these things are not inconsistent with the dignity\nof canonisation; moreover, the object was a great and holy one\u2014and\nBernard had a mortal dread of the dialectician.\n\nIn the first place, then, it is impossible to credit Bernard with the\nwhole of the letter which bears the name of William of St. Thierry.\nMuch of it is by no means Bernardesque in style and manner; and\nthere are passages which it is quite impossible, on moral grounds,\nto conceive as having been written by Bernard himself. At the same\ntime much of it does certainly seem to have been written by Bernard.\nThere are few better judges of such a point than Deutsch. The\ncontention that William would not have dared to address such a demand\nsimultaneously to Bernard and Geoffrey without instructions is more\nprecarious.\n\nOn the other hand, the letter seems in many respects to support the\nidea of a diplomatic arrangement. It is addressed to Bernard and to\nGeoffrey of Chartres, and opens as follows: \u2018God knows that I am\nfilled with confusion, my lords and fathers, when I am constrained\nto address you, insignificant as I am, on a matter of grave urgency,\nsince you and others whose duty it is to speak remain silent.\u2019 After\na little of this strain he recounts how he \u2018lately chanced to read a\ncertain work\u2019 of the dreadful heretic he has named\u2014the _Theology of\nPeter Ab\u00e9lard_. From it he selects thirteen heretical propositions\n(we shall meet them later), which he submits to their judgment. If\nthey also condemn, he calls for prompt and effective action. \u2018God\nknows that I too have loved him\u2019 [Ab\u00e9lard], he says, \u2018and would\nremain in charity with him, but in such a cause as this I know no\nfriend or acquaintance.\u2019 Finally, he says: \u2018There are, I am told,\nother works of his, the _Sic et Non_ and the _Scito te Ipsum_, and\nothers ... but I am told that they shun the light, and cannot be\nfound.\u2019\n\nWithout straining an impressionist argument, it may be at once\npointed out that the letter betrays itself. Several of the\npropositions in the list are not found in either of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\ntheologies; they are taken from the works which William affirms he\nhas never seen. An intrigue is revealed; some other person, not at\nSigny, has had an important share in the epistle, if not in the\nactual writing of it. Again, as Neander says in his _Life of St.\nBernard_, the passage about his affection cannot be taken seriously;\nhe had been passionately devoted to Bernard for some years. The\nletter is evidently written for use or publication, and reveals a\ncurious piece of acting.\n\nBernard\u2019s reply is also clearly \u2018part of the comedy,\u2019 as Hausrath\nsays. Bernard is much addicted to _tutoyer_ his friends, even his\nlady friends.[27] His previous letters to William, written before\nhe was a \u2018son of religion\u2019 and a devoted follower, are written in\nthat familiar style. But in this brief note \u2018thou\u2019 and \u2018thine\u2019 become\n\u2018you\u2019 and \u2018your.\u2019 \u2018I consider your action both just and necessary.\nThe book itself, betraying the mouth of those that speak iniquity,\nproves that it was not idle.... But since I am not accustomed, as\nyou know well, to trust my own judgment, especially in matters of\nsuch moment,\u2019 it must wait a little. He will see William about it\nafter Easter. \u2018In the meantime be not impatient of my silence and\nforbearance in these matters; most of them, indeed nearly all of\nthem, were not known to me before (cum horum plurima et pene omnia\nhucusque nescierim).\u2019\n\n  [27] Witness his genial letter to our English Matilda.\n\nThe letter is almost incomprehensible, coming from such a man. _He_\ntake the first discovery of so influential a heretic so calmly; _he_\nnot trust his own judgment in such matters! Save for the literary\nform, which is unmistakable, the letter is wholly out of place in the\nbulky volume of Bernard\u2019s correspondence. It is part of the play;\nand its brevity and vagueness seem to indicate an unwillingness or\nethical discomfort on the part of the writer.\n\nThe closing sentence in it has given trouble even to Bernard\u2019s\nbiographers, and must disconcert every admirer of the great\nuplifter of the twelfth century. Cotter Morison says \u2018he must refer\nto the special details\u2019 of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s teaching. It is impossible to\nacquit the words of the charge of evasiveness and a half-conscious\ninaccuracy, even if they be so interpreted. We have already given\nthe general considerations which compel us to think Bernard made\nhimself fully acquainted with Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s opinions. We have already\ndiscussed the probability of his share in the driving of Ab\u00e9lard into\nBrittany. Other indications are not wanting. In 1132 Bernard was\nsent on a papal mission into Burgundy; his companion was Joscelin,\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s early rival. Bernard attacks with some spirit the errors\nof an unnamed master in his _Treatise on Baptism_; these errors are\nthe opinions of Ab\u00e9lard. On one occasion, indeed, they had a direct\ncontroversy. Bernard had visited the Paraclete, and had criticised\nthe way in which the nuns, following Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s direction, recited the\nLord\u2019s Prayer. Ab\u00e9lard had inserted \u2018supersubstantial\u2019 for \u2018daily.\u2019\nHeloise duly reported the criticism, and Ab\u00e9lard flew to arms. The\nletter was characteristic. A sweet and genial prelude, a crushing\nargumentative onslaught, and an ironical inversion of the charge.\n\u2018But let each do as he pleases,\u2019 the rhetorician concluded; \u2018I do\nnot wish to persuade any man to follow me in this. He may change the\nwords of Christ as he likes.\u2019\n\nHowever, we need not strain detailed indications. It is impossible\nto think that Bernard was unacquainted with \u2018novelties\u2019 that the\necho of a great name had borne to the ends of the earth.[28] When\nwe have seen the whole story of Bernard\u2019s share in the struggle, it\nwill be easier to understand this letter. It is puerile to think\nthat we detract anything from the moral and spiritual greatness of\nSt. Bernard in admitting an occasional approach to the common level\nof humanity. And there was present in strength that delusive ideal\nwhich has led so many good men into fields that were foreign to their\nnative grandeur\u2014the good of the Church.\n\n  [28] _Fas est et ab hoste doceri._ The Benedictine defenders of\n  Bernard (in _Migne_) say, in another connection: \u2018Was there a\n  single cardinal or cleric in Rome who was unacquainted with his\n  dogmas?\u2019\n\nThere is no record of a conference with William of St. Thierry\nafter Easter. The pupil has played his part, and he now vanishes\ncompletely from the theatre. But from the subsequent report which\nwas sent to the pope, and from the _Life of St. Bernard_, written\nby his admiring secretary, we learn that Bernard visited Ab\u00e9lard in\nprivate, and admonished him of his errors. The scene is unfortunately\nleft to the imagination; though the report we have mentioned speaks\nof a \u2018friendly and familiar admonition.\u2019 Bernard\u2019s biographer would\nhave us believe that Ab\u00e9lard was quite subdued\u2014the \u2018rhinoceros\u2019 was\ntamed again\u2014by Bernard\u2019s brotherly address, and promised to retract\nhis errors. It is possible that Ab\u00e9lard put him off with amiable\ngeneralities, but quite incredible that he made any such promise. We\nneed not speculate, with Hausrath, on the probability of interference\nfrom his more ardent students. The episcopal report to the pope\ndoes not mention any broken promise. It could have used such a\ncircumstance with great effect.\n\nThen followed Bernard\u2019s second visit and warning. It would be\ndifficult to say which dreaded the other more in these curious\ninterviews, but Bernard had convinced himself of his duty to\ncrush Ab\u00e9lard, and he was following out a very correct and\nexcellently-devised scheme. The Gospel required a twofold personal\ncorrection of an erring brother, before he was denounced to the\nsynagogue. The second one was to have witnesses. Bernard therefore\nboldly admonished Ab\u00e9lard in the presence of his students, and bade\nthem burn the works of their master. It is a thousand pities we have\nno Ab\u00e9lardist record of these proceedings.\n\nIf Ab\u00e9lard said little during the conferences, he must have known\nthat he was rapidly approaching another, perhaps a supreme, crisis\nin his life. He knew his Gospel, and he knew Bernard. The next step\nwas the denunciation to the synagogue. He had had an experience of\nsuch denunciation, and he would certainly not expect a less insidious\nattack from the abbot of Clairvaux, who had avoided his dialectical\nskill so long. He determined to checkmate the Cistercians. Very\nshortly afterwards Bernard was dismayed to receive a letter from the\nArchbishop of Sens, in which he was invited to meet the redoubtable\ndialectician at Sens in a few weeks\u2019 time, and discuss the right\nand wrong of their quarrel before the whole spiritual and temporal\nnobility of France.\n\nIt was now a question of dialectics and rhetoric versus diplomacy;\nthough indeed we must credit Ab\u00e9lard\u2014or his \u2018esquire,\u2019 as Bernard\ncalls Arnold of Brescia\u2014with a fine diplomatic move in claiming the\ndiscussion. There are several reasons for thinking that the Bishop\nof Paris was in Rome at the time, or the discussion should have\nbeen sought at Notre Dame. The next _instantia_ was the Archbishop\nof Sens, and Ab\u00e9lard continued to assail that prelate until he was\nforced to accept the petition. Not improbably it appealed to the\nsporting instinct of old \u2018Henry the Boar,\u2019 a man of noble extraction,\nand of extremely worldly life before he fell under the influence of\nthe ubiquitous Bernard. The quarrel of the two great luminaries of\nFrance was now notorious. He could not well refuse to open the lists\nfor a superb trial by combat.\n\nBut Bernard had an entirely different theory of the condemnation of a\nheretic. He trusted to his personal influence and immense epistolary\npower. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s works were available, and were sufficient for the\ngrounding of a condemnation, he said. He was not merely impatient of\nthe implied doubt of the infallibility of his judgment; he shrank\nnervously from the thought of such an encounter. He did not conceal\nfor a moment his dread of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s power. \u2018I am a boy beside him,\u2019\nhe pleaded, \u2018and he is a warrior from his youth.\u2019 On the other hand,\nif it became a question of a diplomatic struggle for a condemnation\nof the books at Rome, the positions would be exactly reversed. He\nrefused to enter the lists with Ab\u00e9lard.\n\nIn the meantime the day which the Archbishop of Sens had appointed\nwas rapidly approaching. It was the Octave of, or eighth day\nafter, Pentecost. On the Sunday after Whitsunday, now dedicated\nto the Trinity, there was to be a brilliant religious function in\nthe cathedral at Sens. It was customary to expose the relics to\nveneration on that day, and as Sens, the metropolitan church of\nParis[29] and other important towns, had a very valuable collection\nof relics, the ceremony attracted a notable gathering of lords,\nspiritual and temporal. Louis VII. was to be there, with the usual\nescort of French nobles: the curiously compounded monarch had a\nprofound veneration for relics, and something like a passion for\nthe ceremonies that accompanied their translation, veneration, and\nso forth. All the suffragans of the archbishop would be present,\nwith a number of other bishops, and abbots, clerics, and masters\ninnumerable. Quite apart from the duel between the greatest thinker\nand the greatest orator in Europe, there would be a very important\nand weighty gathering at the cathedral on that day. Ab\u00e9lard willingly\nassented. Bernard is fond of repeating in his later letters that\nAb\u00e9lard set to work \u2018to summon his friends and followers from all\nparts.\u2019 We shall see that the only noteworthy supporters of Ab\u00e9lard\nat Sens were pupils or masters from Paris, which lay at a convenient\ndistance. Bernard was shortly to lose his serenity in a sea of\nrhetoric.\n\n  [29] The see of Paris was not elevated into an archbishopric\n  until a much later date.\n\nThere is a minor quarrel as to whether Bernard reversed his decision,\nand intimated his acceptance to the archbishop before the day\narrived. Father Hefele thinks he did so. It is, however, clear that,\nin his letter to the pope afterwards, Bernard wishes to convey the\nimpression that he held out until the last moment, and only yielded\nto the entreaties of his friends in actually presenting himself.\n\nWe shall refer to this letter to Pope Innocent shortly, but it is\nworth while to notice now the edifying picture he draws of his\nown preparation in contrast with that of \u2018the dragon.\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard\nis represented as feverishly whipping up his supporters, whilst\nBernard refuses to hear of such an encounter, not only on account\nof Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s world-famed skill in debate, but also because he thinks\nit improper to discuss sacred things in this fashion. But friends\nrepresent that the Church will suffer, and the enemies of Christ\ntriumph. Wearily and \u2018without preparation\u2019\u2014trusting wholly in the\ndivine promise of inspiration\u2014he presents himself on the appointed\nday before \u2018Goliath.\u2019\n\nIn point of historical fact there is no reason for thinking that\nAb\u00e9lard made any effort to gather supporters. The few we read of\naccompanied him from Paris. He had scarcely a single friend in the\nranks of his \u2018judges.\u2019 On the other hand we _do_ know that Bernard\nhimself sent out a strong and imperious \u2018whip\u2019 to his episcopal\nsupporters. There is a brief letter, contained in the _Migne_\ncollection, which was despatched to all the French bishops on whom\nBernard could rely for sympathy and support. They have heard, he\nsays, of his summons to appear at Sens on the Octave of Pentecost.\n\u2018If the cause were a personal one,\u2019 he goes on, \u2018the child of\nyour holiness could perhaps not undeservedly look to your support\n[patrocinium]. But it is your cause, and more than yours; and so I\nadmonish you the more confidently and entreat you the more earnestly\nto prove yourselves friends in this necessity\u2014friends, I should say,\nnot of me, but of Christ.\u2019 And he goes on to prejudge the case in\nthe mind of the official judges with his rhetorical denunciation of\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s heresies. \u2018Be not surprised,\u2019 he concludes, \u2018that I summon\nyou so suddenly and with so brief a notice; this is another ruse\nof our cunning adversary, so that he might meet us unprepared and\nunarmed.\u2019\n\nThe consequence of the sending of this whip will be apparent when we\ncome to examine the composition of the gathering at Sens. It marks\nthe beginning of a period of most remarkable intrigue. The idyllic\npicture of the poor abbot making his way at the last moment to the\nassembly with a sublime trust in Providence and the righteousness of\nhis cause must be regarded again at the close of the next chapter.\n\nWhether Bernard formally accepted the summons or not, therefore,\nauthentic information was conveyed to both sides that the debate\nwould take place. It will be readily imagined how profoundly stirred\nthe kingdom of France would be over such an expectation. The bare\nqualities of the antagonists put the discussion leagues above any\nremembered or contemporary event in the scholastic world; the object\nof the debate\u2014the validity of the new thought that was rapidly\ninfecting the schools\u2014was a matter of most material concern. Deutsch\nhas a theory of the conflict which seems to be only notable as an\nillustration of the profundity of the Teutonic mind. He opines\nthere may have been a political struggle underlying the academic\ndemonstration. Louis was just beginning his struggle with Rome over\nthe vexed question of investitures, and it is conceivable that the\nAb\u00e9lardists leaned to the side of the king, in opposition to Bernard\nand the \u2018ultramontanes.\u2019 It is conceivable, but not at all probable.\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s sermon on St. Peter indicates a really ultramontane\nsentiment; moreover, he has ever kept aloof from the political side\nof life. His follower, Arnold of Brescia, would be likely enough\nto fall in with any such regal design. Arnold was a young Luther,\nof premature birth. Born in Italy at the beginning of the twelfth\ncentury, he had travelled to France, and studied under Ab\u00e9lard, at an\nearly age. He returned to Italy, and assumed the monastic habit. An\nenthusiastic idealist and a man of proportionate energy and audacity,\nhe soon entered upon a fiery crusade against the sins of the monks,\nthe clergy, and the hierarchy. He was driven from Italy in 1139, then\nfrom Switzerland, and he had just taken refuge in Paris when Bernard\nstarted his campaign. Since one of his most prominent theories was\nthat the higher clergy should be stripped of all temporal privileges\nand possessions, his place is easily determined on the question\nof investitures. However, it is most unlikely that he should have\ndragged Ab\u00e9lard into these semi-political and dangerous questions.\nAnd although Bernard most sedulously urges the association of the\nhated Arnold with Ab\u00e9lard in his letters to Rome, he never mentions\na suspicion of such a coalition as Deutsch suggests; nor, in fine,\ndoes the conduct of the secular arm give the least countenance to the\ntheory.\n\nThe conflict was inevitable, without the concurrence of any political\nintrigue. Ab\u00e9lard and Bernard were the natural representatives of\nschools which could no longer lie down in peace in the fold of the\nChurch. Ab\u00e9lard foresaw disaster to the Church in the coming age\nof restless inquiry unless its truths could be formulated in his\nintellectual manner. Bernard was honestly convinced that Ab\u00e9lard was\n\u2018preparing the way for Anti-Christ.\u2019 And it followed as a further\nconsequence that Bernard should wish to avoid the discussion to which\nAb\u00e9lard looked for salvation from the menace of the mystical school.\n\nIt will appear presently that Bernard was less concerned with the\ndetails of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s teaching than with his spirit. He, however,\ndwells on them for controversial purposes, and they are certainly\nfull of interest for the modern mind. The point will be more fully\ndeveloped in a supplementary chapter. For the moment a brief glance\nat them will be instructive enough. They differ a little in Bernard\u2019s\nletter from the list given by William of St. Thierry, but one cannot\neven glance at them without noticing how remarkably this thinker\nof the twelfth century anticipated the judgment of the nineteenth\ncentury. His theses, like the theses of the advanced theology of\nthese latter days, indicate two tendencies\u2014an intellectual tendency\nto the more rational presentment of dogma, and an ethical tendency to\nthe greater moralisation of ancient dogma.\n\nWe have already seen a good illustration of this anticipation of\nmodern tendencies in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s treatment of the traditional doctrines\nof heaven and hell respectively, and we shall see more later on.\nOf the fourteen specific points (thirteen in William\u2019s letter)\ncontained in the present indictment, we may pass over most of those\nwhich refer to the Trinity as without interest. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s phrases\nwere new, but he cordially rejected the Arianism, Nestorianism, and\nso forth, with which Bernard insisted on crediting him. In the ninth\nproposition, that the species of bread and wine remain in the air\nafter transubstantiation, and that adventurous mice only eat the\nspecies, not the Body of Christ, Ab\u00e9lard enunciated an opinion which\nhas been widely adopted by modern Catholic theologians. In his second\nproposition, that the Holy Ghost was the Platonic _anima mundi_,\nAb\u00e9lard was merely trying to save Plato from the damnation of the\nBernardists.\n\nOn the ethical side, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s theses (in their context in his works)\nare truly remarkable. Thus the third, \u2018That God can only do those\nthings which He actually does, and in the way and at the time that\nHe does them,\u2019 and the seventh, \u2018That God is not bound to prevent\nevil,\u2019 are obviously indications of an ethical attempt to save the\nsanctity of the Infinite in view of the triumph of evil. \u2018That Christ\ndid not become Man for the purpose of saving us from the yoke of\nthe devil\u2019 is an early formulation of the familiar modern conception\nof the Incarnation. \u2018That God does not do more for the elect, before\nthey accept his grace, than for the damned,\u2019 and \u2018That we have\nshared the punishment but not the guilt of Adam,\u2019 are further clear\nanticipations of the refined theology of modern times. \u2018No man can\nsin before he exists,\u2019 said Ab\u00e9lard, to Bernard\u2019s mighty indignation.\n\u2018That God alone remits sin\u2019 is heretical to the modern Catholic, but\nthe dogma was not completely born until the following century;[30]\n\u2018that evil thoughts, and even pleasure, are not of themselves\nsinful, but only the consent given to them,\u2019 and \u2018that the Jews who\ncrucified Christ in ignorance did not sin, that acts which are done\nin ignorance cannot be sinful,\u2019 express the universal opinion of even\nmodern Catholic theologians, in the sense in which Ab\u00e9lard held them.\n\n  [30] And the thesis is rejected in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s _Apology_.\n\nAnd \u2018these,\u2019 wrote Bernard, with fine contempt, to his friend, Pope\nInnocent, \u2018are the chief errors of the theology, or rather the\nstultilogy, of Peter Ab\u00e9lard.\u2019\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nTHE FINAL BLOW\n\n\nOn the 4th of June 1141, the cathedral at Sens was filled with one\nof the strangest throngs that ever gathered within its venerable\nwalls. Church and state and the schools had brought their highest\nrepresentatives and their motley thousands to witness the thrilling\nconflict of the two first thinkers and orators of France. On the\nprevious day the magnificent ceremony of the veneration of the\nrelics had taken place. At that ceremony the abbot of Clairvaux had\ndiscoursed of the meaning and potency of their act. And when the\nvast crowds of gentle and simple folk had quickened and sobbed and\nenthused at his burning words, he had ventured to ask their prayers\nfor the conversion of an unbeliever, whom he did not name.\n\nNow, on the Monday morning, the great concourse had streamed into the\ncathedral once more, an intense eagerness flashing from the eyes of\nthe majority. The red Mass of the Holy Spirit had been chanted by the\nclerics, and the clouds of incense still clung about the columns and\nthe vaulted roof of the church. King Louis sat expectant, and stupid,\non the royal throne; the Count de Nevers and a brilliant group of\nnobles and knights standing beside and behind him. Opposite them\nanother gaily apparelled group presented Henry, Archbishop of Sens,\nwith five of his suffragan bishops; beside him sat Samson, Archbishop\nof Rheims, with three suffragans. Mitred abbots added to the\nsplendour with their flash of jewels. Shaven monks, with the white\nwool of C\u00eeteaux or the black tunic of St. Benedict, mingled with the\nthrong of canons, clerics, scholastics, wandering masters, ragged,\ncosmopolitan students, and citizens of Sens and Paris in their gay\nholiday attire.\n\nIt was, at first sight, just such an assembly as Ab\u00e9lard had dreamed\nof when he threw down the gauntlet to the Cistercian. But he must\nhave looked far from happy as he stood in the midst of his small\nband of followers. As he passed into the cathedral, he had noticed\nGilbert de la Por\u00e9e in the crowd, the brilliant master who was to be\nBernard\u2019s next victim, and he whispered smilingly the line of Horace:\n\n    \u2018It is thy affair when thy neighbour\u2019s house is on fire.\u2019\n\nWith Ab\u00e9lard were the impetuous young master, B\u00e9renger of Poitiers;\nthe stern, ascetic, scornful young Italian, Arnold of Brescia,\nflashing into the eyes of the prelates the defiance that brought him\nto the stake fourteen years afterwards; and the young Roman noble,\nHyacinth, who afterwards became cardinal.\n\nBeside these, and a host of admiring nonentities, Ab\u00e9lard almost\nlooked in vain for a friendly face amidst the pressing throng. The\ntruth was that, as R\u00e9musat says, \u2018if Bernard had not prepared for\ndebate, he had made every preparation for the verdict.\u2019 The whole\ncathedral was with him. After his discourse of the preceding day,\nand the rumours that had preceded it, the priest-ridden citizens of\nSens were prepared to stone the heretic, as the people of Soissons\nhad threatened to do. The students would be divided, according to\ntheir schools. The monks longed to see the downfall of their critic.\nThe king\u2014the man who was to bear to his grave \u2018the curse of Europe\nand the blessing of St. Bernard\u2019\u2014was not likely to hesitate. The\nCount de Nevers was a pious, credulous noble, who afterwards became\na Cistercian monk. Otto of Freising says Count Theobald of Champagne\nwas present, though the report does not mention him; in any case he\nhad fallen largely under Bernard\u2019s influence since his sister had\ngone down in the _White Ship_ in 1120. The clergy of Sens were with\nBernard; their motto was: \u2018The church of Sens knows no novelties.\u2019 Of\nthe judges proper, Geoffrey, Bishop of Chartres, was almost the only\none who could be termed neutral; and even he had now become greatly\namenable to Bernard\u2019s influence. Archbishop Henry was completely in\nthe hands of Bernard, his converter, who scolded him at times as\nif he were a boy. Archbishop Samson of Rheims owed his pallium to\nBernard, in the teeth of the king\u2019s opposition; he was deprived of\nit some years afterwards. Hugo of M\u00e2con, the aged Bishop of Auxerre,\nwas a relative of Bernard\u2019s and a fellow-monk at C\u00eeteaux. Joscelin of\nVieri, Bishop of Soissons, was the former teacher of Goswin, and the\nassociate of Bernard on a papal mission a few years before. Geoffrey,\nBishop of Ch\u00e2lons, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s former friend at St. M\u00e9dard, had since\nbeen helped to a bishopric by Bernard. Hatto, Bishop of Troyes, had\nbeen won to Bernard. Alvise, Bishop of Arras, is said to have been a\nbrother of Abbot Suger and friend of Goswin. Of the only two other\nbishops present, Helias of Orleans and Manasses of Meaux, we have no\ninformation.\n\nIn such an assembly the nerve of the boldest speaker might well fail.\nBernard had preached during the Mass on the importance of the true\nfaith. Then when the critical moment came, he mounted the pulpit\nwith a copy of the writings of Ab\u00e9lard, and the dense crowd, totally\nignorant, most probably, of previous events, which were known only\nto the intimate friends of each combatant, held its breath for the\nopening of the struggle. The frail, worn, nervous figure in the\nflowing, white tunic began to read the indictment, but suddenly\nAb\u00e9lard stepped forth before the astonished judges, and, crying out:\n\u2018I will not be judged thus like a criminal; I appeal to Rome,\u2019 turned\nhis back on them and strode out of the cathedral.\n\nChroniclers have left to our imagination the confusion that followed,\nand we may leave it to that of the reader. Although the bishops\nafterwards made a show of disputing it, the appeal was quite\ncanonical, and was admitted at Rome. But it was a course which had\nnot entered into the thoughts of the most astute of them, and which\ncompletely upset their plans. They could not now touch the person\nof Ab\u00e9lard. Bernard, indeed, did not deprive the great audience of\nthe discourse he had \u2018not prepared,\u2019 although it was now quite safe\nfrom contradiction. We have it, some say, in his later letter to the\npope, a most vehement denunciation and often perversion of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nteaching. He gained an easy victory, as far as Sens was concerned.\nThe next day the prelates met together, condemned Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s teaching\nas heretical, and forwarded a report, submitting his person and his\nworks, to Rome.\n\nThe question why Ab\u00e9lard behaved in so extraordinary a manner has had\nmany answers. The answer of the godly, given by Bernard\u2019s monkish\nbiographer, is of the transcendental order. Brother Geoffrey relates\nthat Ab\u00e9lard confessed to his intimate friends that he mysteriously\nlost the use and control of his mind when Bernard began. Bishop\nOtto of Freising says that he feared \u2018a rising of the people.\u2019 He\nwould be more likely to provoke one by thus affronting their great\ncathedral and prelates. The true interpretation is that the assembly\nwas a play, covering an unworthy intrigue, and he had been secretly\ninformed of it. The bishops had drawn up their verdict, over their\ncups, on the preceding day.\n\nDesperate efforts are made, of course, to destroy an interpretation\nwhich does not leave the discredit on Ab\u00e9lard, but it has now been\nbased on incontrovertible evidence. In the first place the bishops\ningenuously confess it themselves in their eagerness to evade\na different accusation. In order to influence the judgment, or\nrather the decision, of the pope, they told him that they had found\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s teaching to be heretical. How, then, were they to reconcile\nthis with the notice of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s appeal to Rome? \u2018We had,\u2019 they say\nin their report, \u2018already condemned him on the day before he appealed\nto you.\u2019 It matters little who wrote this report\u2014whether Bernard[31]\nor Henry\u2019s secretary\u2014because it was signed by the bishops. They\nreveal their secret conclave of the Sunday evening. Henry was\nparticularly anxious to justify them, at all costs, on the charge of\ndisregarding the appeal, because he had been suspended by Innocent\nfor that offence a few years previously.\n\n  [31] It is singular that Mr. Poole, who credits Bernard with\n  writing the report, should speak of the words as a deliberate\n  \u2018lie of excuse,\u2019 especially as he adopts the witness of B\u00e9renger\n  to a previous condemnation. We are not only compelled by\n  independent evidence to take them as correct, but one imputes a\n  lesser sin to Bernard (from the Catholic point of view) in doing\n  so.\n\nAgain, in the _Historia Pontificalis_, attributed to John of\nSalisbury, there is an account of Bernard\u2019s attempt to secure the\ncondemnation of that other brilliant dialectician, Gilbert de la\nPor\u00e9e, in 1148. It is expressly stated that Bernard called the chief\npersonages together the night before the synod, and was leading them\nto pronounce on Gilbert\u2019s \u2018errors,\u2019 when an archdeacon of Ch\u00e2lons\nspoiled his strategy. Further, the writer goes on to say that the\ncardinals\u2014there were a number present for the synod\u2014were greatly\nincensed with Bernard, and \u2018said that Abbot Bernard had beaten Master\nAb\u00e9lard by a similar stratagem.\u2019 It is not unlikely that they learned\nthe story from Hyacinth, the young Roman.\n\nThe classical witness to this over-night conclave is Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\npupil, B\u00e9renger of Poitiers. Unfortunately, his narrative is marred\nby obvious exaggerations and a careless, heated temper. It occurs\nin an apology for Ab\u00e9lard, or an \u2018open letter\u2019 to Bernard, which\nhe wrote some months afterwards. After reminding Bernard of some\nof the frivolities of his early youth, and much sarcastic comment\non his actual reputation, he gives what purports to be a detailed\ndescription of the secret meeting. No one who reads it will take\nit literally. Yet when, in later years, he was run down, like\nGilbert and Arnold, by the relentless sleuthhound, he made a partial\nretractation. What he has written as to the person of \u2018the man of\nGod\u2019 must, he says, be taken as a joke. But a few lines previously\nhe has appealed to this very narrative in justification of his\nabuse of Bernard: \u2018Let the learned read my \u201cApology,\u201d and they may\njustly censure me if I have unduly blamed him [Bernard].\u2019 It is\nnot impossible that B\u00e9renger merely retracts such remarks as that\nabout Bernard\u2019s juvenile \u2018cantiunculas.\u2019 In any case, we may justly\ntranscribe a portion of the narrative, after these qualifications.\n\n\u2018At length, when the dinner was over, Peter\u2019s work was brought in,\nand some one was directed to read it aloud. This fellow, animated\nwith a hatred of Peter, and well watered with the juice of the grape,\nread in a much louder voice than he had been asked to do. After a\ntime you would have seen them knock their feet together, laugh, and\ncrack jokes; you would think they were honouring Bacchus rather than\nChrist. And all the time the cups are going, the wine is being\npraised, the episcopal throats are being moistened. The juice of the\nlethal drink had already buried their hearts.... Then, when anything\nunusually subtle and divine was read out, anything the episcopal ears\nwere not accustomed to, they hardened their hearts and ground their\nteeth against Peter. \u201cShall we let this monster live?\u201d they cried....\nThe heat of the wine at length relaxed the eyes of all in slumber.\nThe reader continues amidst their snoring. One leans on his elbow in\norder to sleep. Another gets a soft cushion. Another slumbers with\nhis head resting on his knees. So when the reader came to anything\nparticularly thorny in Peter, he shouted in the deaf ears of the\npontiffs: \u201cDo you condemn?\u201d And some of them just waking up at the\nlast syllable, would mutter: \u201cWe condemn.\u201d\u2019\n\nIt is not difficult to take off the due and considerable discount\nfrom the youthful extravagance of Master B\u00e9renger. Bernard\u2019s\nfollowers (in the _Histoire litt\u00e9raire de la France_) say he had \u2018too\nnoble a soul and too elevated a sentiment to stoop to the refutation\nof such a work.\u2019 He has never, at all events, essayed to rebut the\ncharge of procuring a verdict against Ab\u00e9lard on the day before the\nsynod. Even in our own days it is a familiar source of merriment\nin ecclesiastical and monastic circles to see a group of prelates\nfervently following the red Mass of the Holy Ghost as a preliminary\nto a discussion of points which they have notoriously settled over\ntheir cups the night before. Such a meeting of the bishops on the\nSunday would be inevitable. Bernard would inevitably be present, and\nAb\u00e9lard infallibly excluded. In any case, the evidence is too precise\nand substantial to be rejected. Indeed, the story fully harmonises\nwith our knowledge of Bernard\u2019s earlier and subsequent conduct. It\nis not ours to inquire minutely how far Bernard was consistent with\nhimself and his lofty ideals in acting thus.\n\nBernard was defeated for the moment by the unexpected appeal from\nthe verdict of the unjust judges. But he knew well that Ab\u00e9lard had\navoided Scylla only to plunge into Charybdis. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s knowledge\nof the curia was restricted to a few days\u2019 acquaintance with it in\na holiday mood at Morigni. Arnold of Brescia probably urged his\nown acquaintance with it in vain. Moreover many years had elapsed\nsince his name was inscribed by the side of that of Bernard in the\nchronicle of Morigni. Bernard, the secluded contemplative, knew the\ncuria well. He hastened home, told his secretary to prepare for a\njourney across the Alps, and sat down to write a batch of extremely\nclever epistles. The battle was fought and won before Ab\u00e9lard had\ncovered many leagues in the direction of Italy.\n\nThe first document that Bernard seems to have written is the report\nupon the synod which was sent to Innocent II. in the name of the\nArchbishop of Rheims and his suffragans. Hausrath, who is the least\nrestrained by considerations of Bernard\u2019s official sanctity of\nall Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s apologists, and others, hold that both the reports\nof the proceedings, that of Samson and that of Henry (for the two\narchbishops, with their respective suffragans, reported separately\nto the pope), were written by Bernard. It is at least clear that the\nRheims report was drawn up by him. Mr. Poole says this is admitted\neven by Father Hefele. Bernard\u2019s style is indeed unmistakable.\n\nIn this official document, therefore, the pope is informed, not so\nmuch that a dispute about Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s orthodoxy is referred to his\ncourt, as that \u2018Peter Ab\u00e9lard is endeavouring to destroy the merit\nof faith, in that he professes himself able to comprehend by his\nhuman reason the whole being of God.\u2019 From this gross calumny[32]\nthe writer passes on to assure the pope that Ab\u00e9lard \u2018is a great\nman in his own eyes, ever disputing about the faith to its undoing,\nwalking in things that are far above him, a searcher into the divine\nmajesty, a framer of heresies.\u2019 He goes on to recount that Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nbook had been condemned and burnt once before, at Soissons, \u2018because\nof the iniquity that was found in it\u2019; whereas every scholar in\nFrance knew that it was condemned on the sole ground that it had\nbeen issued without authorisation. \u2018Cursed be he who has rebuilt the\nwalls of Jericho,\u2019 fulminates the abbot of Clairvaux. Finally, he\nrepresents Ab\u00e9lard as boasting of his influence at Rome. \u2018This is\nthe boast of the man,\u2019 he says, \u2018that his book can find wherein to\nrest its head in the Roman curia. This gives strength and assurance\nto his frenzy.\u2019 The sole object of his appeal is \u2018to secure a longer\nimmunity for his iniquity. You must needs apply a swift remedy to\nthis source of contagion.\u2019 And the monstrous epistle closes with a\ntrust that Innocent will do his part, and that swiftly, as they had\ndone theirs. Thus was the pope introduced, in a handwriting he had\nso many reasons to respect, to Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s appeal for consideration.\n\n  [32] Ab\u00e9lard explicitly and very emphatically rebukes such\n  pretension in the very books which Bernard is supposed to have\n  read.\n\nThe second report, which is signed by Archbishop Henry and his\nsuffragans, and which may not have been drawn up by Bernard, is\nmore free from diplomatic turnings, but also gravely unjust to the\nappellant. It gives the pope a lengthy account of the order of events\nsince the receipt of the letter of William of St. Thierry. From it\nwe have quoted the words in which the bishops themselves confess\nthe secret conclave on the Sunday. The bishops were affronted, it\nsays, by Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s appeal, which was \u2018hardly canonical,\u2019 but they\nwere content with an examination of his doctrines (consisting of\nBernard\u2019s vehement harangue) and found them to be \u2018most manifestly\nheretical.\u2019 They therefore \u2018unanimously demand the condemnation of\nAb\u00e9lard.\u2019 To put the point quite explicitly, the pope is clearly to\nunderstand that the Church of France has already dealt with Ab\u00e9lard.\nIt is not quite so insidious as the report which Bernard wrote, and\nto which\u2014sad sign of the growing quality of the Church\u2014even Geoffrey\nof Chartres lent his venerable name.\n\nBernard\u2019s official task seemed to be at an end with the despatch of\nthe report. His profound and generous trust in the Holy Spirit would\nlead one to expect a complete withdrawal from the quarrel into which\nhe had been so unwillingly forced. But Bernard\u2019s conception of the\nactivity of the Holy Spirit, though equal in theoretical altitude,\nwas very different in practice from that of a Francis of Assisi. We\nhave amongst his works no less than three epistles that he wrote at\nthe time to Pope Innocent in his own name. One of them consists of\na few prefatory remarks to the list of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s errors. The two\nothers are of a much more personal and interesting character. It is\ndifficult to say whether, and if so, why, the two letters were sent\nto the pope, but it is not necessary to determine this. Both were\ncertainly written by Bernard for the purpose.\n\nThe first letter is addressed \u2018to his most loving father and lord,\nInnocent, Sovereign Pontiff by the grace of God, from Brother\nBernard, called the abbot of Clairvaux.\u2019 From the first line he aims\nat determining the case in the pope\u2019s mind. \u2018It is necessary that\nthere be scandals amongst us\u2014necessary, but assuredly not welcome.\u2019\nHence have the saints ever longed to be taken from this troubled\nworld. Bernard is equally tired of life. He knows not whether it\nbe expedient that he die, yet \u2018the scandals and troubles\u2019 about him\nare pressing his departure. \u2018Fool that I was to promise myself rest\nif ever the Leonine trouble[33] was quelled and peace was restored\nto the Church. That trouble is over, yet I have not found peace.\nI had forgotten that I still lingered in the vale of tears.\u2019 His\nsorrow and his tears have been renewed. \u2018We have escaped the lion\n[Pierleone], only to meet the dragon [Ab\u00e9lard], who, in his insidious\nway, is perhaps not less dangerous than the lion roaring in high\nplaces. Did I say insidious? Would indeed that his poisoned pages did\nlurk in the library, and were not read openly in the streets. His\nbooks fly in all directions; whereas they, in their iniquity, once\nshunned the light, they now emerge into it, thinking the light to be\ndarkness.... A new gospel is being made for the nations, a new faith\nis put before them.\u2019 After Pierleone it is useful to remind Innocent\nof his second great _b\u00eate noire_. \u2018The Goliath [Ab\u00e9lard] stalks along\nin his greatness, girt about with that noble panoply of his, and\npreceded by his weapon-bearer, Arnold of Brescia. Scale is joined\nto scale, so closely that not a breath can get between.[34] For the\nFrench bee [Abeille-ard] has hummed its call to the Italian bee; and\nthey have conspired together against the Lord and his anointed.\u2019 He\nmust even deny them the merit of their notoriously ascetic lives:\n\u2018Bearing the semblance of piety in their food and clothing, but void\nof its virtue, they deceive many by transforming themselves into\nangels of light\u2014whereas they are devils.\u2019 The pope must not be misled\nby rumours of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s present fervour of life; he is \u2018outwardly a\nBaptist, but inwardly a Herod,\u2019 Bernard assures him. Then follows\na passage we have already quoted. He tells the pope the edifying\nstory of the archbishop\u2019s summons, his refusal, the entreaties of\nhis friends, the gathering of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s supporters, and his final\nresolve to go: \u2018Yielding to the counsel of my friends, I presented\nmyself at the appointed time and place, unprepared and unequipped,\nsave that I had in mind the monition: \u201cTake ye no thought what and\nhow ye shall speak.\u201d\u2019 Then \u2018when his books had begun to be read [he\ndoes not say by whom], he would not listen, but went out, appealing\nfrom the judges he had chosen. These things I tell thee in my own\ndefence, lest thou mayst think I have been too impetuous or bold in\nthe matter. But thou, O successor of Peter, thou shalt decide whether\nhe who has assailed the faith of Peter should find refuge in the see\nof Peter.\u2019 In other words, do not allow Ab\u00e9lard to come to Rome, but\ncondemn him unheard, on my word. He ends with a final diplomatic\n_argumentum ad invidiam_. \u2018Hyacinth has done me much injury, but I\nhave thought well to suffer it, seeing that he did not spare you\nand your court when he was at Rome, as my friend, and indeed yours,\nNicholas, will explain more fully by word of mouth.\u2019\n\n  [33] The reference is to the anti-pope, a Pierleone. It is a\n  subtle reminder of what Pope Innocent owes to Bernard.\n\n  [34] Recalling some of the zoology of the Old Testament.\n\nThe second letter runs so largely on the same lines that it is\nthought by some to have been sent to the pope instead of the\npreceding, in which the reference to Hyacinth and the curia may have\nbeen impolitic. \u2018Weeping has the spouse of Christ wept in the night,\u2019\nit begins, \u2018and tears are upon her cheeks; there is none to console\nher out of all her friends. And in the delaying of the spouse, to\nthee, my lord, is committed the care of the Shunammite in this land\nof her pilgrimage.\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard is a \u2018domestic enemy,\u2019 an Absalom, a\nJudas. There is the same play upon the lion and the dragon, and upon\nthe scaly monster formed of Ab\u00e9lard and Arnold. \u2018They have become\ncorrupt and abominable in their aims, and from the ferment of their\ncorruptions they pervert the faith of the simple, disturb the order\nof morals, and defile the chastity of the Church.\u2019 Moreover Ab\u00e9lard\n\u2018boasts that he has opened the founts of knowledge to the cardinals\nand priests of the Roman curia, and that he has lodged his books and\nhis opinions in the hands and hearts of the Romans; and he adduces\nas patrons of his error those who should judge and condemn him.\u2019 He\nconcludes with an apostrophe to Ab\u00e9lard, which was well calculated to\nexpel the last lingering doubt from the mind of the pope. \u2018With what\nthoughts, what conscience, canst thou have recourse to the defender\nof the faith\u2014thou, its persecutor? With what eyes, what brow, wilt\nthou meet the gaze of the friend of the Spouse\u2014thou, the violator\nof His bride? Oh, if the care of the brethren did not detain me! If\nbodily infirmity did not prevent it! How I should love to see the\nfriend of the Spouse defending the bride in His absence!\u2019\n\nThe third letter, a kind of preface to Bernard\u2019s list of errors\nand commentary thereon, is of the same unworthy temper, tortuous,\ndiplomatic, misleading, and vituperative. It is not apparent on what\nground Hausrath says this commentary represents Bernard\u2019s speech at\nSens; if it does so, we have another curious commentary on Bernard\u2019s\naffirmation that he went to the synod unprepared. However that may\nbe, the letter is a singular composition, when we remember that it\naccompanied an appeal to a higher court, to which the case had been\nreserved. It opens with a declaration that \u2018the see of Peter\u2019 is the\ndue and natural tribunal to which to refer \u2018all scandals that arise\nin the Kingdom of God\u2019; a declaration which is hardly consistent with\nthe assurance, when it is necessary to defend their condemnation of\nAb\u00e9lard, that his appeal \u2018seems to us wonderful.\u2019 Then follows the\nfamiliar caricature. \u2018We have here in France an old master who has\njust turned theologian, who has played with the art of rhetoric from\nhis earliest years and now raves about the Holy Scriptures [Ab\u00e9lard\nhad been teaching Scripture and theology for the last twenty-six\nyears]. He is endeavouring to resuscitate doctrines that were\ncondemned and buried long ago, and to these he adds new errors of his\nown. A man who, in his inquiries into all there is in heaven above or\nearth below, is ignorant of nothing save the word \u201cI do not know.\u201d\nHe lifts his eyes to the heavens, and peers into the hidden things\nof God, then returns to us with discourse of things that man is not\npermitted to discuss.\u2019 This last sentence, considered as a charge by\nBernard of Clairvaux against others, is amusing. Bernard spent half\nhis time in searching the hidden things of God, and the other half in\ndiscoursing of them. But Ab\u00e9lard conceived them otherwise than he.\n\nThus was the supreme judge instructed in his part, whilst the foolish\nAb\u00e9lard lingered idly in Paris, not improbably, as Bernard says,\nboasting of his friends at the curia. It was very possible that he\nhad friends at Rome. Deutsch suspects the existence of a faction in\nthe sacred college, which was opposed to Innocent and the Chancellor\nHaymerick, and would be favourable to Ab\u00e9lard. Bernard was not the\nman to leave a single risk unchallenged\u2014or to the care of the Holy\nGhost.\n\nIn the first place, therefore, he wrote a circular letter \u2018to all my\nlords and fathers, the venerable bishops and cardinals of the curia,\nfrom the child of their holiness.\u2019 His secretary was to deliver a\ncopy to each. \u2018None will doubt,\u2019 he says, \u2018that it is your especial\nduty to remove all scandals from the kingdom of God.\u2019 The Roman\nChurch is the tribunal of the world: \u2018to it we do well to refer,\nnot questions, but attacks on the faith and dishonour of Christ:\ncontumely and contempt of the fathers: present scandals and future\ndangers. The faith of the simple is derided, the hidden things of God\nare dragged forth, questions of the most sublime mysteries are rashly\ndebated, insults are offered to the fathers.\u2019 They will see this by\nthe report. \u2018And if you think there is just ground for my agitation,\nbe ye also moved\u2019\u2014and moved to take action. \u2018Let him who has raised\nhimself to the heavens be crushed down to hell; he has sinned in\npublic, let him be punished in public.\u2019 It is the fulmination of the\nprophet of the age on the duty of the curia.\n\nThen came eight private letters to cardinals of his acquaintance, an\ninteresting study in ecclesiastical diplomacy. To the chancellor of\nthe curia, Haymerick, he speaks chiefly of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s boast of friends\nat court. He transcribes the passage from his letter to Innocent;\nand he adds the earlier allusion to the Roman deacon, Hyacinth, who\nwas evidently a thorn in the side of the officials of the curia. To\nGuido of Castello, afterwards Celestine II., who was known to be a\nfriend of Ab\u00e9lard, he writes in an entirely new strain. \u2018I should\ndo you wrong,\u2019 he begins, \u2018if I thought you so loved any man as to\nembrace his errors also in your affection.\u2019 Such a love would be\nanimal, earthly, diabolical. Others may say what they like of Guido,\nbut Bernard is a man who \u2018never judges anybody without proof,\u2019 and\nhe will not believe it. He passes to a mild complaint that \u2018Master\nPeter introduces profane novelties in his books\u2019; still \u2018it is not\nI that accuse him before the Father, but his own book.\u2019 But he\ncannot refrain from putting just a little _venenum in cauda_: \u2018It is\nexpedient for you and for the Church that silence be imposed on him\nwhose mouth is full of curses and bitterness and guile.\u2019\n\nCardinal Ivo, on the other hand, belongs to the loyal group. \u2018Master\nPeter Ab\u00e9lard,\u2019 he is told, \u2018a prelate without dependency, observes\nno order and is restrained by no order.... He is a Herod in his soul,\na Baptist in outward appearance.\u2019 However, that is not my business,\nsays the diplomatist, \u2018every man shall bear his own burden.\u2019 Bernard\nis concerned about his heresies, and his boast that he will be\nprotected by a certain faction in the curia. Ivo must do his duty\n\u2018in freeing the Church from the lips of the wicked.\u2019 A young unnamed\ncardinal is appealed to for support. \u2018Let no man despise thy youth,\u2019\nbegins the man who calls Ab\u00e9lard a \u2018slippery serpent\u2019; \u2018not grey hair\nbut a sober mind is what God looks to.\u2019 Another cardinal, who had\na custom of rising when any person entered his room, is playfully\napproached with a reminder of this: \u2018If thou art indeed a son of the\nChurch,\u2019 the note ends, \u2018defend the womb that has borne thee and the\nbreasts that have suckled thee.\u2019 Guido of Pisa receives a similar\nappeal: \u2018If thou art a son of the Church, if thou knowest the breast\nof thy mother, desert her not in her peril.\u2019 The letter to another\nCardinal Guido is particularly vicious and unworthy. \u2018I cannot but\nwrite you,\u2019 it begins, \u2018of the dishonour to Christ, the trials\nand sorrows of the Church, the misery of the helpless, and groans\nof the poor.\u2019 What is the matter? This: \u2018We have here in France a\nmonk who observes no rule, a prelate without care, an abbot without\ndiscipline, one Peter Ab\u00e9lard, who disputes with boys and busies\nhimself with women.\u2019 There is a nasty ambiguity in the last phrase.\nAgain, \u2018We have escaped the roar of the lion [Pierleone] only to hear\nthe hissing of the dragon Peter.... If the mouth of the wicked be\nnot closed, may He who alone regards our works consider and condemn.\u2019\nA similar letter is addressed to Cardinal Stephen of Praeneste. \u2018I\nfreely write to you, whom I know to be a friend of the spouse, of the\ntrials and sorrows of the spouse of Christ.\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard is \u2018an enemy\nof Christ,\u2019 as is proved, not only by his works, but by \u2018his life\nand actions.\u2019 He has \u2018sallied forth from his den like a slippery\nserpent\u2019; he is \u2018a hydra,\u2019 growing seven new heads where one has been\ncut off. He \u2018misleads the simple,\u2019 and finally \u2018boasts that he has\ninoculated the Roman curia with the poison of his novelty.\u2019\n\nA ninth letter is addressed to an abbot who was in Rome at the time,\nand who is drawn into the intrigue with many holy threats. \u2018If any\nman is for the Lord let him take his place. The truth is in danger.\nPeter Ab\u00e9lard has gone forth to prepare the way for Anti-Christ....\nMay God consider and condemn, if the mouth of the wicked be not\nclosed forthwith.\u2019\n\nThese letters were handed over, for personal delivery, to Bernard\u2019s\nmonk-secretary, Nicholas; in many of them it is expressly stated\nthat the bearer will enlarge upon the text more freely by word of\nmouth. We know enough about this monk to be assured of the more than\nfidelity with which he accomplished his task. Enjoying the full\nconfidence of Bernard at that time, a very able and well-informed\nmonk, Nicholas de Montier-Ramey was a thorough scoundrel, as Bernard\nlearned to his cost a few years afterwards. He had to be convicted\nof forging Bernard\u2019s seal and hand for felonious purposes before the\nkeen scent of the abbot discovered his utter unscrupulousness.\n\nWith Ab\u00e9lard lingering at Paris in his light-hearted way, the\nviolence and energy of Bernard swept away whatever support he might\nhave counted on at Rome. Throughout the curia Bernard had scattered\nhis caricature of Ab\u00e9lard: a lawless monk, an abbot who neglected his\nabbey, a man of immoral life, an associate of the recognised enemies\nof the papacy, already condemned for heresy, a reviver of Arius and\nNestorius and Pelagius, a teacher without reverence, a disturber of\nthe faith of the simple. The pope did not hesitate a moment; the\nletters sent to him are masterpieces of diplomatic correspondence.\nThe waverers in the curia were most skilfully worked. In mere secular\nmatters such an attempt to corrupt the judges would be fiercely\nresented. Bernard lived in a transcendental region, that Hegelian\nland in which contradictions disappear.\n\nIt was on the 4th of June that Ab\u00e9lard appealed to Rome. There\nwere no Alpine tunnels in those days, and the journey from Paris\nto Rome was a most formidable one. Yet Bernard\u2019s nervous energy\nhad infused such spirit into the work, and he had chosen so able a\nmessenger, that the whole case was ended in less than seven weeks.\nThere cannot have been a moment\u2019s hesitation at Rome. On the 16th\nof July the faithful of Rome gathered about the door of St. Peter\u2019s\nfor the solemn reading of the decree of excommunication. The pope\nwas there, surrounded by his cardinals, and it was announced, with\nthe usual impressive flourishes, that Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s works were condemned\nto the flames and his person to be imprisoned by the ecclesiastical\nauthorities. Rome has not been a model of the humane use of power,\nbut she has rarely condemned a man unheard. On the sole authority\nof Bernard the decree recognised in Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s \u2018pernicious doctrine\u2019\nthe already condemned errors of the early heresiarchs. Arnold of\nBrescia, who had not been officially indicted, was included in the\ncondemnation. It was Bernard\u2019s skilful use of his association\nwith Ab\u00e9lard which chiefly impelled the pope. Innocent replies\nto Bernard\u2019s appeal by sending back to him the decree of the\ncondemnation of his antagonist, with a private note to the effect\nthat it must not be published until after it has been read at an\napproaching synod.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nCONSUMMATUM EST\n\n\nIt was well for Bernard\u2019s cause that he succeeded in obtaining the\ndecree without delay. He had carefully represented that the whole\nof France supported him in his demand. It does seem as if some of\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s friends were puzzled for a time by his appeal, but before\nlong there came a reaction in his favour, just as had happened\nafter his condemnation at Soissons. Bernard himself may have been\nperfectly self-justified in his determined effort to prevent Ab\u00e9lard\nfrom having a fair chance of defending himself, but there are two\nways of regarding his conduct.[35] Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s followers naturally\nadopted the view which was less flattering to Bernard\u2019s reputation,\nand they seem to have had some success in enforcing it. In a letter\nof Bernard\u2019s to a certain cardinal we find him defending himself\nagainst the charge of \u2018having obtained the decree by improper means\n[_subripere_] from the pope.\u2019\n\n  [35] I abstain from commenting on St. Bernard\u2019s conduct, or\n  making the ethical and psychological analysis of it, which is so\n  imperfectly done by his biographers at this period, because they\n  do not fully state the facts, or not in their natural order. It\n  would be a fascinating task, but one beside the purpose of the\n  present work and not discreet for the present writer. I have let\n  Bernard speak for himself.\n\nOne of the chief instruments in the agitation on the Ab\u00e9lardist\nside was the apology of B\u00e9renger of Poitiers, which we have quoted\npreviously. Violent and coarse as it was, it was known to have a\nfoundation of fact; and, in the growing unpopularity of Bernard, it\nhad a wide circulation. It was not answered, as the Benedictines\nsay; yet we may gather from B\u00e9renger\u2019s qualified withdrawal of it,\nwhen he is hard pressed, that it gave Bernard and the Cistercians a\ngood deal of annoyance. Arnold of Brescia was, meanwhile, repeating\nhis fulminations at Paris against the whole hierarchical system.\nHe had taken Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s late chair in the chapel of St. Hilary on\nthe slope of St. Genevieve, and was sustaining the school until the\nmaster should return from Rome in triumph. But Arnold had no hope of\nany good being done at Rome, and rather preached rebellion against\nthe whole of the bejewelled prelates. Sternly ascetic in his life\nand ideals\u2014St. Bernard scoffingly applies to him the evangelical\ndescription of the Baptist: \u2018He ate not, neither did he drink\u2019\u2014he was\never contrasting the luxurious life of the pastors of the Church with\nthe simple ideal of early Christianity. He had not such success in\nFrance as elsewhere, and Bernard secured his expulsion a few years\nlater. But the same stern denunciation was on his noble lips when the\nsavage flames sealed them for ever, under the shadow of St. Peter\u2019s,\nin 1155.\n\nAb\u00e9lard himself seems to have taken matters with a fatal coolness,\nwhilst his adversary was moving heaven and earth to destroy him. He\nallowed a month or two to elapse before he turned in the direction\nof Rome.[36] Secure in the consciousness of the integrity of his\ncause and his own power of pleading, and presuming too much of Rome\u2019s\nproud boast that it \u2018condemned no man unheard,\u2019 he saw no occasion\nfor hurry. Late in the summer he set out upon his long journey. It\nwas his purpose to travel through Burgundy and Lyons, and to cross\nthe Alps by the pass which was soon to bear the name of his energetic\nenemy. After the fashion of all travellers of the time he rested at\nnight in the monastery nearest to the spot where he was overtaken.\nThus it came to pass that, when he arrived in the neighbourhood of\nM\u00e2con, he sought hospitality of the great and venerable Benedictine\nabbey at Cluny.\n\n  [36] He did, however, write an \u2018apology\u2019 or defence, but only a\n  few fragments of it survive.\n\nPeter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, was the second monk in France at\nthat time. A few degrees lower in the scale of neural intensity than\nhis canonised rival, he far surpassed him in the less exalted virtues\nof kindliness, humanity, and moderation. \u2018The rule of St. Benedict,\u2019\nhe once wrote to Bernard, \u2018is dependent on the sublime general law\nof charity\u2019; that was not the route to the honour of canonisation.\nHe belonged by birth to the illustrious family of the Montboissiers\nof Auvergne, and was a man of culture, fine and equable temper, high\nprinciple, gentle and humane feeling, and much practical wisdom. He\nhad had more than one controversy with the abbot of Clairvaux, and\nhis influence was understood to counterbalance that of Bernard at\ntimes in the affairs of the Church and the kingdom.\n\nIt was, therefore, one of the few fortunate accidents of his career\nthat brought Ab\u00e9lard to Cluny at that time. Abbot Peter knew that\nBernard had actually in his possession the papal decree which\nordered the imprisonment of Ab\u00e9lard and the burning of his books.\nHe had a deep sympathy for the ageing master who was seeking a new\ntriumph in Rome under such peculiarly sad circumstances. Peter knew\nwell how little the question of heresy really counted for in the\nmatter. It was a question of Church politics; and he decided to use\nhis influence for the purpose of securing a tranquil close for the\nembittered and calumniated life. Ab\u00e9lard was beginning to feel the\nexactions of his journey, and remained some days at the abbey. The\nabbot, as he afterwards informs the pope, spoke with him about his\npurpose, and at length informed him that the blow had already fallen.\nIt was the last and decisive blow. The proud head never again raised\nitself in defiance of the potent ignorance, the crafty passion, and\nthe hypocrisy that made up the world about him. He was too much\nenfeebled, too much dispirited, even to repeat the blasphemy of his\nearlier experience: \u2018Good Jesus, where art thou?\u2019 For the first and\nlast time he bowed to the mystery of the triumph of evil.\n\nAbbot Peter then undertook the task of averting the consequence\nof Bernard\u2019s triumph, and found little difficulty in directing\nthe fallen man. It was imperative, in the first place, to effect\nsome form of reconciliation between the great antagonists, so as\nto disarm the hostility of Bernard. We shortly find Raynard, the\nabbot of C\u00eeteaux, at Cluny, and Ab\u00e9lard accompanies him back to\nhis abbey. Peter has obtained from him a formal promise to correct\nanything in his works that may be \u2018offensive to pious ears,\u2019 and\non this basis Bernard is invited to a reconciliation at C\u00eeteaux. A\nfew days afterwards Ab\u00e9lard returns to Cluny with the laconic reply\nthat they \u2018had had a peaceful encounter,\u2019 as the abbot informs the\npope, to whom he immediately writes for permission to receive Ab\u00e9lard\ninto their community at Cluny, adding, with a calm contempt of the\naccusation of heresy, that \u2018Brother Peter\u2019s knowledge\u2019 will be useful\nto the brethren. The abbot of Cluny had claims upon the pope\u2019s\nconsideration. Although the anti-pope, Anacletus, had been a monk\nof Cluny, Peter had been the first to meet Innocent when he came to\nFrance for support. In pointed terms he begged that Ab\u00e9lard \u2018might\nnot be driven away or troubled by the importunity of any persons.\u2019\nHis request was granted; and thus the broken spirit was spared that\n\u2018public humiliation\u2019 in France that Bernard had demanded.\n\nThe basis of reconciliation with Bernard was probably a second and\nshorter apology which Ab\u00e9lard wrote at Cluny. It was convenient to\nregard this at the time as a retractation. In reality it is for the\nmost part a sharp rejection of Bernard\u2019s formulation of his theses\nand a new enunciation of them in more orthodox phraseology. His frame\nof mind appears in the introductory note.\n\n\u2018There is a familiar proverb that \u201cNothing is said so well that it\ncannot be perverted,\u201d and, as St. Jerome says, \u201cHe who writes many\nbooks invites many judges.\u201d I also have written a few things\u2014though\nlittle in comparison with others\u2014and have not succeeded in escaping\ncensure; albeit in those things for which I am so gravely charged I\nam conscious of no fault, nor should I obstinately defend it, if I\nwere. It may be that I have erred in my writings, but I call God to\nwitness and to judge in my soul that I have written nothing through\nwickedness or pride of those things for which I am chiefly blamed.\u2019\n\nThen, warmly denying Bernard\u2019s charge that he has ever taught a\nsecret doctrine, he passes to a detailed profession of faith on\nthe lines of Bernard\u2019s list of errors. With regard to the Trinity\nhe denies all the heresies ascribed to him; this he could do with\nperfect justice. On the other points he makes distinctions, adds\nexplanations and qualifications, and even sometimes accepts Bernard\u2019s\nthesis without remark, though one can generally see a reserve in the\nbackground. Thus, on the question of sin committed in ignorance, he\nmakes the familiar modern distinction between culpable and inculpable\nignorance: he admits that we have inherited Adam\u2019s sin, but adds\n\u2018because his sin is the source and cause of all our sins.\u2019 On the\nquestion of the prevention of evil by God, he merely says, \u2018Yes, He\noften does\u2019; and so forth. The only sentence which looks like a real\nretractation is that in which he grants \u2018the power of the keys\u2019 to\nall the clergy. In this he clearly dissociates himself from Arnold\nof Brescia, and perplexes his friends. But his earlier teaching on\nthe point is by no means so clear and categorical as that of Arnold.\nThere is nothing either very commendable or very condemnable about\nthe document. It probably represents a grudging concession to the\nabbot of Cluny\u2019s friendly pressure and counsel to withdraw from\nwhat was really only a heated quarrel with as little friction as\npossible. That Ab\u00e9lard was not in the penitent mood some writers\ndiscover in the letter is clear from the peroration. \u2018My friend [!]\nhas concluded his list of errors with the remark: \u201cThey are found\npartly in Master Peter\u2019s book of theology, partly in his _Sentences_,\nand partly in his _Scito te Ipsum_.\u201d But I have never written a book\nof _Sentences_, and therefore the remark is due to the same malice or\nignorance as the errors themselves.\u2019\n\nHowever, the document had a sufficient air of retractation about it\nto allow Bernard to withdraw. In substance and spirit it was, as its\nname indicated, an apology, not a retractation. In fact Bernard\u2019s\nzealous secretary and an unknown abbot attacked the apology, but\nAb\u00e9lard made no reply, and the discussion slowly died away. Bernard\nhad won a political triumph, and he showed a becoming willingness\nto rest content with empty assurances. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s personal force was\ndead; little eagerness was shown to pursue the seminal truths he had\nleft behind, and which were once thought so abhorrent and pernicious.\nLater Benedictines virtually admit the justice of this. Mabillon\nsays: \u2018We do not regard Ab\u00e9lard as a heretic; it is sufficient for\nthe defence of Bernard to admit that he erred in certain things.\u2019\nAnd the historian No\u00ebl Alexandre also says, \u2018He must not be regarded\nas a heretic.\u2019 Indeed, Bernard was strongly condemned at the time\nby English and German writers. Otto of Freising reproves his action\nin the cases of both Ab\u00e9lard and Gilbert, and attributes it to\ndefects of character. John of Salisbury severely criticises him in\nthe _Historia Pontificalis_; and Walter Map, another English writer,\nvoices the same widespread feeling.\n\nAnother document that Ab\u00e9lard sent out from Cluny forms the last\npage of his intercourse with Heloise. If he had wearily turned away\nfrom the strange drama of life, his affection for her survives the\ndisillusion in all its force. There is a welcome tenderness in\nhis thought of her amidst the crushing desolation that has fallen\nupon him. _She_ shall not be hurt by any unwilling impression of\npersistent calumny. He writes to her a most affectionate letter,\nand in the sanctuary of their love makes a solemn profession of the\npurity of his faith.\n\n\u2018My sister Heloise, once dear to me in the world, and now most dear\nin Christ, logic has brought the enmity of men upon me. For there\nare certain perverse calumniators, whose wisdom leads to perdition,\nthat say I take pre-eminence in logic but fail egregiously in the\ninterpretation of Paul; commending my ability, they would deny me the\npurity of Christian faith.... I would not rank as a philosopher if it\nimplied any error in faith; I would not be an Aristotle if it kept me\naway from Christ. For no other name is given to me under heaven in\nwhich I may find salvation. I adore Christ, sitting at the right hand\nof the Father.\u2019 Then follows a brief confession of faith on the chief\npoints of Christian belief\u2014the Trinity, the Incarnation, baptism,\npenance, and the resurrection. \u2018And that all anxiety and doubt may be\nexcluded from thy heart,\u2019 he concludes, \u2018do thou hold this concerning\nme, I have grounded my conscience on that rock on which Christ has\nbuilt His Church.\u2019\n\nIt was Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s farewell to her who had shared so much of the joy\nand the bitterness of his life. But what a different man it recalls\nthrough the mists of time from the \u2018dragon\u2019 of Bernard\u2019s letters! One\ncontrast at least we cannot fail to note between the saint and the\nsinner. We have seen Bernard\u2019s treatment of Ab\u00e9lard; in this private\nletter, evidently intended for no eye but that of his wife, we have\nthe sole recorded utterance of Ab\u00e9lard on the man who, for so little\nreason, shattered the triumph and the peace of his closing years.\n\nFor if there is a seeming peace about the few months of life that\nstill remained to the great teacher, it is the peace of the grave\u2014the\nheavy peace that shrouds a dead ambition and a broken spirit, not the\nglad peace that adorns requited labour and successful love. Ab\u00e9lard\nenters upon a third stage of his existence, and the shadow of the\ntomb is on it. He becomes a monk; he centres all his thought on the\nreligious exercises that, like the turns of the prayer wheel, write\nthe long catalogue of merit in heaven.\n\nIn the abbey of Cluny, under the administration of Peter the\nVenerable, he found all that his soul desired in its final stage.\nThe vast monastery had a community of four hundred and sixty monks.\nOlder than its rival, C\u00eeteaux, possessed of great wealth and one of\nthe finest churches in France, it was eagerly sought by monastic\naspirants. When Innocent II. came to France for support, Cluny sent\nsixty horses and mules to meet him, and entertained him and all his\nfollowers for eleven days. At an earlier date it had lodged pope,\nking, and emperor, with all their followers, without displacing\na single monk. Yet with all its wealth and magnitude the abbey\nmaintained a strict observance of the rule of St. Benedict. Peter\nwas too cultured and humanistic[37] for the Cistercians, who often\ncriticised the half-heartedness of his community. In point of fact a\nstrict order and discipline were maintained in the abbey, and Ab\u00e9lard\nentered fervently into its life. From their beds of straw the monks\nwould rise at midnight and proceed to the church, where they would\nchant their long, dirge-like matins, and remain in meditation until\ndawn. Work, study, and prayer filled up the long hours; and at night\nthey would cast themselves down, just as they were, on the bags of\nstraw, to rise again on the morrow for the same task. Such monks\u2014they\nare rare now, though far from extinct\u2014must be men of one idea\u2014heaven.\nTo that stage had Ab\u00e9lard sunk.\n\n  [37] Amongst other humane modifications we may note that he\n  raised the age of admission to the abbey to twenty-one.\n\nYears afterwards the brothers used to point out to visitors\u2014for\nAb\u00e9lard had left a repute for sanctity behind him\u2014a great lime-tree\nunder which he used to sit and read between exercises. Peter had\ngone so far as to make him prior of the studies of the brethren,\nso lightly did he hold the charge of heresy. The abbot has given\nus, in a later letter to Heloise, an enthusiastic picture, drawn\nfrom the purely Buddhist point of view, of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s closing days.\nWith a vague allusion to this letter certain ecclesiastical writers\nrepresent Ab\u00e9lard as a sinner up to the time of the Council of Sens,\nand a convert and penitent in the brief subsequent period. In point\nof fact there was little change in the soul of the fallen man, beyond\na weary resignation of his hope of cleansing the Church, involving,\nas this did, a more constant preoccupation with the world to come.\nThe abbot says, in support of his declaration, that Ab\u00e9lard had\ncast a radiance on their abbey, that \u2018not a moment passed but he\nwas either praying or reading or writing or composing\u2019; and again:\n\u2018If I mistake not I never saw his equal in lowliness of habit and\nconduct, so much so that Germain did not seem more humble nor Martin\npoorer than he to those who were of good discernment.\u2019 The \u2018good\ndiscernment\u2019 reminds us that we must not take at too literal a value\nthis letter of comfort to the widowed abbess. Ab\u00e9lard had been an\nascetic and a devout man since his frightful experience at Paris\ntwenty-five years previously. With the fading of his interest in the\nthings of earth, and in his sure consciousness of approaching death,\nhis prayers would assuredly be longer and his indifference to comfort\nand honour more pronounced.\n\nBut we have a clear indication that there was no change in his\nthoughts, even in that last year, with regard to the great work of\nhis life and the temper of his opponents. During the quiet months of\nteaching at Cluny, a certain \u2018Dagobert and his nephew\u2019 asked him for\na copy of his dialectical treatise, one of his earliest writings. It\nis impossible to say whether this Dagobert was his brother at Nantes\n(where Astrolabe also seems to have lived) or a monastic \u2018Brother\nDagobert.\u2019 Most probably it was the former, because he speaks of the\neffort it costs him, ill and weary of writing as he is, to respond\nto their \u2018affection.\u2019 He does not copy, but rewrites his dialectics,\nso that we have in the work his last attitude on his studies and his\nstruggles. It is entirely unchanged. Jealousy, hatred, and ignorance\nare the sole sources of the hostility to his work. They say he\nshould have confined himself to dialectics (as Otto von Freising said\nlater); but he points out that his enemies quarrelled even with his\nexclusive attention to dialectics, firstly because it had no direct\nrelation to faith, and secondly because it was indirectly destructive\nof faith. He has still the old enthusiasm for reason and for the\ndeepening and widening of our natural knowledge. Both knowledge and\nfaith come from God, and cannot contradict each other. It was the\nlast gleam of the dying light, but it was wholly unchanged in its\npurity.\n\nWith the approach of spring the abbot sent the doomed man to a more\nfriendly and familiar climate. Cluny had a priory outside the town\nof Chalon-sur-Sa\u00f4ne, not far from the bank of the river. It was one\nof the most pleasant situations in Burgundy, in the mild valley of\nthe Seine, which Ab\u00e9lard had learned to love. But the last struggle\nhad exhausted his strength, and the disease, variously described as a\nfever and a disease of the skin, met with little resistance. He died\non the 21st of April 1142, in the sixty-third year of his age.\n\nHow deeply he had impressed the monks of St. Marcellus during his\nbrief stay with them becomes apparent in the later history, which\nrecalls the last chapter in the lives of some of the most popular\nsaints. It will be remembered that Ab\u00e9lard had, in one of his letters\nto Heloise, asked that his body might be buried at the Paraclete,\n\u2018for he knew no place that was safer or more salutary for a sorrowing\nsoul.\u2019 Heloise informed the abbot of Cluny of the request, and he\npromised to see it fulfilled. But he found that the monks of St.\nMarcellus were violently opposed to the idea of robbing them of the\npoor body that had been hunted from end to end of France whilst the\ngreat mind yet dwelt in it. There have often been such quarrels,\nsometimes leading to bloodshed, over the bodies of the saints.\nHowever, the abbot found a means to steal the body from the monastery\nchapel in the month of November, and had it conveyed secretly, under\nhis personal conduct, to the Paraclete.\n\nWe have a letter which was written by the abbot about this time to\nHeloise. I have already quoted the portion in which he consoles her\nwith a picture of the edifying life and death of her husband. The\nfirst part of the letter is even more interesting in its testimony to\nthe gifts and character of the abbess herself. Peter the Venerable\nwas, it will be remembered, a noble of high origin, an abbot of great\nand honourable repute, a man of culture and sober judgment.\n\n\u2018For in truth,\u2019 he says, after an allusion to some gifts\u2014probably\naltar-work\u2014that she had sent him, \u2018my affection for thee is not of\nrecent growth, but of long standing. I had hardly passed the bounds\nof youth, hardly come to man\u2019s estate, when the repute, if not yet\nof thy religious fervour, at least of thy becoming and praiseworthy\nstudies, reached my ears. I remember hearing at that time of a\nwoman who, though still involved in the toils of the world, devoted\nherself to letters and to the pursuit of wisdom, which is a rare\noccurrence.... In that pursuit thou hast not only excelled amongst\nwomen, but there are few men whom thou hast not surpassed.\u2019 He passes\nto the consideration of her religious \u2018vocation,\u2019 in which, of\ncourse, he discovers a rich blessing. \u2018These things, dearest sister\nin the Lord,\u2019 he concludes, \u2018I say by way of exhortation, not of\nflattery.\u2019 Then, after much theological and spiritual discussion, he\nsays: \u2018It would be grateful to me to hold long converse with thee\non these matters, because I not only take pleasure in thy renowned\nerudition, but I am even more attracted by that piety of which so\nmany speak to me. Would that thou didst dwell at Cluny!\u2019\n\nThis is the one woman (and wife, to boot) to whom Bernard could have\nreferred in justification of his equivocal remark to a stranger\nthat Ab\u00e9lard \u2018busied himself with women.\u2019 We have, however, little\nfurther record of the life of the unfortunate Heloise. Shortly\nafter the body of her husband has been buried in the crypt of their\nconvent-chapel, we find her applying to Peter of Cluny for a written\ncopy of the absolution of Ab\u00e9lard. The abbot sent it; and for long\nyears the ashes of the great master were guarded from profanation by\nthis pitiful certificate of his orthodoxy. In the same letter Heloise\nthanks the abbot for a promise that the abbey of Cluny will chant\nthe most solemn rites of the Church when her own death is announced\nto them; she also asks Peter\u2019s favourable influence on behalf of\nAstrolabe, her son, who has entered the service of the Church.\n\nHeloise survived her husband by twenty-one years. There is a pretty\nlegend in the Chronicle of the Church of Tours that the tomb of\nAb\u00e9lard was opened at her death and her remains laid in it, and that\nthe arms of the dead man opened wide to receive her whose embrace the\nhard world had denied him in life. It seems to have been at a later\ndate that their ashes were really commingled. At the Revolution the\nParaclete was secularised, and the remains of husband and wife began\na series of removals in their great sarcophagus. In 1817 they found a\nfitting rest in P\u00e8re Lachaise.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF AB\u00c9LARD\n\n\nIf the inquirer into the influence of the famous dialectician could\ncontent himself with merely turning from the study of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s\nopinions to the towering structure of modern Catholic theology, he\nwould be tempted to exclaim, in the words of a familiar epitaph,\n\u2018Si monumentum quaeris, circumspice.\u2019 Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s most characteristic\nprinciples are now amongst the accepted foundations of dogmatic\ntheology; most, or, at all events, a large number, of the conclusions\nthat brought such wrath about him in the twelfth century are now\ncalmly taught in the schools of Rome and Louvain and Freiburg.\nBernardism has been almost banished from the courts of the temple.\nThe modern theologian could not face the modern world with the\nthoughts of the saint whose bones are treasured in a thousand\njewelled reliquaries; he must speak the thoughts of the heretic, who\nlies by the side of his beloved, amidst the soldiers and statesmen,\nthe actresses and courtesans, of Paris. The great political\norganisation that once found it expedient to patronise Bernardism has\nnow taken the spirit of Ab\u00e9lard into the very heart of its official\nteaching.\n\nThere are few in England who will read such an assertion without\na feeling of perplexity, if not incredulity. Far and wide over\nthe realm of theology has the spirit of Ab\u00e9lard breathed; and\never-widening spheres of Evangelicalism, Deism, Pantheism, and\nAgnosticism mark its growth. But it is understood that Rome has\nresisted the spirit of rationalism, and to-day, as ever, bids human\nreason bow in submission before the veiled mysteries of \u2018the deposit\nof revelation.\u2019\n\nYet the assertion involves no strain or ingenuity of interpretation\nof Catholic theology. The notion that Rome rebukes the imperious\nclaims of reason is one of a number of strangely-enduring fallacies\nconcerning that Church. The truth of our thesis can be swiftly and\nclearly established. The one essential source of the antagonism of\nSt. Bernard and Ab\u00e9lard was the question of the relations of faith\nand reason. \u2018Faith precedes intellect,\u2019 said the Cistercian; \u2018Reason\nprecedes faith,\u2019 said the Benedictine. All other quarrels were\nsecondary and were cognate to their profound and irreconcilable\nopposition on this point. M. Guizot adds a second fundamental\nopposition on the ethical side. This, however, was certainly of a\nsecondary importance. Few historians hesitate to regard the famous\nstruggle as being in the main a dispute over the rights and duties of\nreason.\n\nTurn then from the pontificate of Innocent II. to that of Pius IX.\nand of Leo XIII. Towards the close of the last century, Huet, Bishop\nof Avranches, began to meet rationalistic attacks with a belittlement\nof human reason. The idea found favour with a class of apologists.\nDe Bonald, Bonetty, Bautain, and others in France, and the Louvain\ntheologians in Belgium, came entirely to repudiate the interference\nof reason with regard to higher truths, saying that their acceptance\nwas solely a matter of faith and tradition. Well, the Church of Rome\n(to which all belonged) descended upon the new sect with a remarkable\nseverity. Phrases that were purely Bernardist in form and substance\nwere rigorously condemned. The French \u2018Traditionalists\u2019 were\nforced to subscribe to (amongst others) the following significant\nproposition: \u2018The use of reason precedes faith, and leads up to\nit, with the aid of revelation and grace.\u2019 It was the principle\nwhich Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s whole life was spent in vindicating. The Louvain\nmen wriggled for many months under the heel of Rome. They were not\nsuffered to rest until they had cast away the last diluted element of\ntheir theory.\n\nThe episode offers a very striking exhibition of the entire change of\nfront of Rome with regard to \u2018the rights of reason.\u2019 There are many\nother official utterances in the same sense. An important provincial\ncouncil, held at Cologne in 1860, and fully authorised, discussed the\nquestion at length. \u2018We have no faith,\u2019 it enacted, \u2018until we have\nseen with our reason that God is worthy of credence and that He has\nspoken to us\u2019; and again, \u2018The firmness of faith ... requires that\nhe who believes must have a preliminary _rational certitude_ of the\nexistence of God and the fact of a revelation having come from Him,\nand he must have no prudent doubt on the matter.\u2019 In the Encyclical\nof 1846 even Pius IX. insisted on the same principle: \u2018Human reason,\nto avoid the danger of deception and error, must diligently search\nout the fact of a divine revelation, and must attain a _certainty_\nthat the message comes from God, so that, as the Apostle most wisely\nordains, it may offer Him a \u201creasonable service.\u201d\u2019 The Vatican\nCouncil of 1870 was equally explicit. The modern Catholic theologian,\nin his treatise on faith, invariably defines it as an intellectual\nact, an acceptance of truths after a satisfactory rational inquiry\ninto the authority that urges them. It is official Catholic teaching\nthat faith is impossible without a previous rational certitude.\nMoreover, the theologian admits that every part and particle of the\ndogmatic system must meet the criticism of reason. In the positive\nsense it is indispensable that reason prove the existence of God,\nthe authority of God, and the divinity of the Scriptures. In the\nnegative sense, no single dogma must contain an assertion which is\nclearly opposed to a proved fact or to a clear pronouncement of human\nreason or the human conscience. These are not the speculations of\nadvanced theologians, but the current teaching in the Roman schools\nand manuals[38] of dogmatic theology.\n\n  [38] One of the most widely-used of these manuals at present\n  is that of the learned Jesuit, Father Hurter. On p. 472 of the\n  first volume one finds the Bernardist notions of faith sternly\n  rejected, and variously attributed to \u2018Protestants,\u2019 \u2018Pietists,\u2019\n  and \u2018Kantists.\u2019\n\nThus has history vindicated the heretic. The multiplication of\nchurches has made the Bernardist notion of faith wholly untenable\nand unserviceable to Rome. Reason precedes faith; reason must lead\nmen to faith, and make faith acceptable to men. That is the gospel\nthat now falls on the dead ear of the great master.\n\nAnd when we pass from this fundamental principle or attitude to a\nconsideration of special points of dogma we again meet with many\na triumph. We have already seen how Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s \u2018novelties\u2019 may be\ntraced to a twofold criticism\u2014ethical and intellectual\u2014of the form in\nwhich Christian dogmas were accepted in his day. Without explicitly\nformulating it, Ab\u00e9lard proceeded on the principle which is now\ncomplacently laid down by the Catholic theologian, and was accepted\nby the Christian world at large a century or half a century ago:\nthe principle that what is offered to us as revealed truth must be\ntested by the declarations of the mind and of the conscience. The\nintellectual criticism led him to alter the terms of the dogmas of\nthe Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, and others; the ethical\ncriticism led him to modify the current theories of original sin, the\natonement, penance, and so forth.\n\nNow, even if we confine our attention to Roman theology, we find\na large adoption of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s singularly prophetic conclusions.\nAs to the Trinity, it is now a universal and accepted practice to\nillustrate it by analogies derived from purely natural phenomena,\nwhich are always heretical if taken literally. One of the proudest\nachievements of St. Thomas and the schoolmen was the construction\nof an elaborate analogical conception of the Trinity. On the\nequally important question of Scripture Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s innovation proved\nprophetic. In that age of the doctrine of verbal inspiration he\ndrew attention to the human element in the Bible. Even the Catholic\nBible is no longer a monochrome. Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s speculation about the\n\u2018accidents\u2019 in the Eucharist\u2014that they are based on the substance of\nthe air\u2014is now widely and freely accepted by theologians. His moral\nprinciples relating to sins done in ignorance and to \u2018suggestion,\ndelectation, and consent\u2019\u2014both of which were condemned, at Bernard\u2019s\ndemand\u2014are recognised to be absolutely sound by the modern casuist.\nHis notion of heaven is the current esoteric doctrine in Rome to-day;\nhis theory of hell is widely held, in spite of a recent official\ncensure; his pleading for Plato and his fellow-heathens would be\nseconded by the average Catholic theologian of to-day.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to point out how entirely the non-Roman\ntheology of the nineteenth century has accepted Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s spirit\nand conclusions. The broadest feature of the history of theology\nduring the century has been the resumption and the development of the\nmodifying process which was started by Ab\u00e9lard eight centuries ago.\nThe world at large has taken up his speculations on the Incarnation,\nthe atonement, original sin, responsibility, inspiration, confession,\nhell and heaven, and so many other points, and given them that\ndevelopment from which the dutiful son of the Church inconsistently\nshrank.[39] A curious and striking proof of this may be taken from\nTholuck\u2019s dissertation on \u2018Ab\u00e9lard and Aquinas as interpreters of\nScripture.\u2019 The distinguished German theologian, who is the author\nof a well-known commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, says that\nwhen he read Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s commentary on that Epistle, in preparing his\nown work, he seriously hesitated whether it would not suffice to\nrepublish the forgotten work of Ab\u00e9lard instead of writing a new one.\nWhen one recollects what an epitome of theology such a commentary\nmust be, one can appreciate not only the great homage it involves to\nthe genius of the man whom Bernard scornfully calls a \u2018dabbler in\ntheology,\u2019 but the extent to which Ab\u00e9lard anticipated the mature\njudgment of theological science.\n\n  [39] A typical illustration of the perplexity and inconsistency\n  which resulted from the conflict of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s critical moral\n  sense with apparently fixed dogmas is seen in his treatment of\n  original sin in the _Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans_.\n  He finds two meanings for the word sin\u2014guilt and punishment; and\n  he strains his conscience to the point of admitting that we may\n  inherit Adam\u2019s sin in the latter sense. Then comes the question\n  of unbaptized children\u2014whom Bernard calmly consigned to Hades\u2014and\n  he has to produce the extraordinary theory that the Divine Will\n  is the standard of morality, and so cannot act unjustly. But\n  his conscience asserts itself, and he goes on to say that their\n  punishment will only be a negative one\u2014the denial of the sight\n  of God\u2014and will only be inflicted on those children who, in the\n  divine prescience, would have been wicked had they lived!\n\nIt seems, however, a superfluous task to point out the acceptance of\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s spirit, method, and results by theology in general. The\nmore interesting and important question is the acceptance of his\nideas by the Church of Rome. That we have abundantly established, and\nwe may now proceed to inquire whether, and to what extent, Ab\u00e9lard\nhad a direct influence in the abandonment of the mystic attitude and\nthe adoption of one which may be fairly entitled \u2018rationalistic.\u2019\n\nHere we have a much more difficult problem to deal with. It may at\nonce be frankly avowed that there is little evidence of a direct\ntransition of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s ideas into the accepted scheme of theology.\nSome of the most careful and patient biographers of Ab\u00e9lard, as a\ntheologian, say that we cannot claim for him any direct influence on\nthe course of theological development. Deutsch points out that his\nworks must have become rare, and the few copies secretly preserved,\nafter their condemnation by the pope; certainly few manuscripts of\nthem have survived. He had formed no theological school (as distinct\nfrom philosophical), or the beginning of one must have been crushed\nat Sens. His Roman pupils and admirers were probably not men who\nwould cultivate loyalty under unfavourable circumstances. The\nschoolmen of the following century only know Ab\u00e9lard from passages in\nHugh of St. Victor and others of his enemies. The first to reproduce\nwhat Deutsch takes to be the characteristic spirit or method of\nAb\u00e9lard is Roger Bacon; it is extremely doubtful if he had any\nacquaintance whatever with Ab\u00e9lard. The world was prepared to receive\nthe ideas of Ab\u00e9lard with some respect in the thirteenth century, but\nit had then a task which was too absorbing to allow a search for the\nmanuscripts of \u2018a certain Ab\u00e9lard,\u2019 as one later theologian put it.\nThe Arabians and Jews had reintroduced Aristotle into Europe. He had\ncome to stay; and the schoolmen were engrossed in the work of fitting\nhim with garments of Christian theology.\n\nOn the other hand there are historians, such as Reuter, who grant\nAb\u00e9lard a large measure of direct influence on the development of\ntheology. It is pointed out that a very large proportion of the\nmasters of the next generation had studied under Ab\u00e9lard. Reuter\ninstances Bernard Sylvester of Chartres and William of Conches, as\nwell as Gilbert de la Por\u00e9e. Clearer instances of direct influence\nare found in the case of Master Roland of Bologna (afterwards to\nascend the papal throne under the name of Alexander III.) and Master\nOmnebene of the same city. It is, in any case, quite clear that\nAb\u00e9lard was pre-eminently a teacher of teachers. On the other hand\nit would be incorrect to lay too much stress on the condemnation by\nPope Innocent. All the world knew that Bernard had prudently kept\nthe unexecuted Bull in his pocket, and that Ab\u00e9lard was teaching\ntheology at Cluny, with the pope\u2019s approval, a few months after the\ncondemnation.\n\nIt is best to distinguish once more between the spirit or method of\nAb\u00e9lard and his particular critical conclusions. His conclusions,\nhis suggestions for the reconstruction of certain dogmas, were\nlost to theological science. The cruder notions of the earlier\nage and of Bernard continued to be regarded as _the_ truth for\nmany centuries. Even the masters, such as Roland of Bologna, who\ndid found their theology more conspicuously on that of Ab\u00e9lard,\nprudently deviated from his opinions where they were \u2018offensive to\npious ears.\u2019 His treatment of the Trinity is, perhaps, an exception.\nNot that Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s favourite analogies\u2014that of the seal and its\nimpression, and so forth\u2014were retained, but he had set an example\nin the rationalistic or naturalistic illustration of the mystery\nwhich persisted in the schools. All the great schoolmen of the\nfollowing century accepted the Ab\u00e9lardist notion of a rationalistic\nillustration and defence of the Trinity. They constructed an\nelaborately meaningless analogy of it, and invented a \u2018virtual\u2019\ndistinction\u2014a mental distinction which might be taken to be objective\nfor apologetic purposes\u2014between the essence and the personalities.\nBut Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s penetrating and reconstructive criticisms of the\ncurrent dogmas of original sin, the Incarnation, responsibility,\nreward and punishment, inspiration, omnipotence, etc., degenerated\ninto, at the most, obscure heresies\u2014sank back into the well of truth\nuntil long after a rebellious monk had broken the bonds which held\nthe intellect of Europe.\n\nIt was far otherwise with the spirit of Ab\u00e9lard, the fundamental\nprinciple or maxim on which all else depended. The thirteenth\ncentury cordially accepted that principle, and applied itself to the\nrationalisation of theology. It wholly abandoned the mysticism of\nBernard and the school of St. Victor. The Cistercian had summed up\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s misdeeds thus in his letter to the pope: \u2018He peers into\nthe heavens and searches the hidden things of God, then, returning\nto us, he holds discourse on ineffable things of which a man may\nnot speak.\u2019 In the very sense in which this was said of Ab\u00e9lard, it\nmay be urged as a chief characteristic of the saintly schoolmen of\nthe thirteenth century. Even St. Bonaventure was no mystic in the\nanti-rational sense of Bernard; simply, he applied to theology the\nreason of Plato instead of the reason of Aristotle. Archbishop Roger\nVaughan, in his _Life of St. Thomas_, says that the schoolmen owed\nthe \u2018_probatur ratione_\u2019 in their _loci theologici_ to Ab\u00e9lard. That\nis already a most striking vindication of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s characteristic\nteaching as to the function of reason, for we know how important\nthe \u2018proofs from reason\u2019 were in the scheme of Aquinas and Scotus.\nBut they really owe far more than this to Ab\u00e9lard. If they have\ndeserted the dreamy, rambling, fruitless, and fantastic speculation\nof the mystic school for a methodical and syllogistic inquiry\nconcerning each point of faith, it is largely due to the example of\nAb\u00e9lard. The schoolmen notoriously followed Peter the Lombard. From\nthe _Sentences_ of Peter the Lombard to the _Sic et Non_ of Peter\nAb\u00e9lard\u2014through such works as the _Sentences_ of Roland and Omnebene\nof Bologna and the so-called _Sentences of Peter Ab\u00e9lard_\u2014is a short\nand easy journey. No doubt we must not lose sight of that other\nevent which so powerfully influenced the theology of the thirteenth\ncentury: the invasion of the Arab and Jew philosophers. Theirs is the\nonly influence of which the schoolmen show any consciousness in their\nelaborate fortification of dogma to meet the criticism of reason and\nconscience\u2014except for the avowed influence of the Lombard; and along\nthat line we may trace the direct influence of Ab\u00e9lard.\n\nIn the circumstances it makes little difference to the prestige\nof Ab\u00e9lard whether we succeed in proving a direct influence or no.\nThere are few who will think less of him because he was beaten by\nSt. Bernard in diplomatic manipulation of the political force of the\nChurch. The times were not ripe for the acceptance of his particular\ncriticisms, and the mystic school was the natural expression of this\nconservatism. We may even doubt if Deutsch is correct in saying that\nthe thirteenth century was prepared to receive them, but that its\nattention was diverted to Spain. Renan has said that they who study\nthe thirteenth century closely are astonished that Protestantism did\nnot arise three hundred years earlier. That is the point of view of\na logician. The Reformation was not in reality, though it seems such\nin theory to the student of the history of ideas, an intellectual\ndevelopment. No doubt it could not have succeeded without this\ndevelopment to appeal to, but it was a moral and political revolt.\nHow little the world was prepared for such a revolt at the end of\nthe thirteenth century may be gathered from a study of the life of\nthat other rebellious monk, William Occam. This success the Anselms\nand Bernards achieved: they spread, with a moral renovation, a\nspirit of docility and loyalty to the Church. The subtlety and\nintellectual activity they could not arrest came to be used up in an\neffort to restate the older dogmas in terms which should be at once\nconservative and acceptable to the new rational demand.\n\nIt is equally difficult and more interesting to determine how far\nAb\u00e9lard himself was created by predecessors. Nowadays no thought is\nrevolutionary; but some notions are more rapid in their evolution\nthan others. To what extent Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s ideas were thus borrowed\nfrom previous thinkers it is not easy to determine with precision.\nHe was far from being the first rationalist of the Middle Ages.\nScotus Erigena and B\u00e9renger (of anti-sacramental fame) were well\nremembered in his day. He himself studied under a rationalistic\nmaster\u2014Jean Roscelin, canon of Compi\u00e8gne,\u2014in his early years. We do\nnot know with certainty at what age he studied under Roscelin, and\ncannot, therefore, determine how great an influence the older master\nexercised over him. But there can be little doubt that Ab\u00e9lard must\nbe credited with a very large force of original genius. At the most,\nthe attitude of his mind towards dogma was determined by outward\ninfluences, concurring with his own temperament and character\nof mind. It is more than probable that this attitude would have\nbeen adopted by him even had there been no predisposing influence\nwhatever. His rationalism flows spontaneously and irresistibly from\nhis type of mind and character. In the development of the rationalist\nprinciple we see the exclusive action of his own intelligence.\nTo most of us in this generation such dogmatic reconstruction as\nAb\u00e9lard urged seems obvious enough; yet one needs little imagination\nto appreciate the mental power or, rather, penetration, which was\nnecessary to realise its necessity in the twelfth century.\n\nOne is tempted at times to speculate on the probable development of\nAb\u00e9lard\u2019s thoughts if that great shadow had not fallen on his life\nat so early a period. There are two Ab\u00e9lards. The older theologian,\nwho is ever watchful to arrest his thoughts when they approach\nclear, fundamental dogmas, is not the natural development of the\nfreethinking author of the _Sic et Non_. With the conversion to the\nascetic ideal had come a greater awe in approaching truths which\nwere implicitly accepted as divine. Yet we may well doubt if Ab\u00e9lard\nwould ever have advanced much beyond his actual limits. Starting\nfrom the world of ideas in which he lived, he would have needed an\nexceptional strength to proceed to any very defiant and revolutionary\nconclusions. He was not of the stuff of martyrs, of Scotus Erigena,\nor Arnold of Brescia. He had no particle of the political ability of\nLuther. But such as he is, gifted with a penetrating mind, and led by\na humanist ideal that touched few of his contemporaries, pathetically\nirresolute and failing because the fates had made him the hero of\na great drama and ironically denied him the hero\u2019s strength, he\ndeserves at least to be drawn forth from the too deep shadow of a\ncrude and unsympathetic tradition.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  Ab\u00e9lard, origin of name, 11.\n\n  Aboilar, 11.\n\n  Adam, Abbot of St. Denis, 126, 129, 134, 154, 168, 170, 174, 175.\n\n  Adam of the Little Bridge, 38.\n\n  Alberic of Rheims, 62, 137, 150, 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 167,\n    189, 195.\n\n  Alvise, Bishop of Arras, 285.\n\n  _Anima mundi_ and the Holy Ghost, 279.\n\n  Anselm Beessus, Canon of Laon, 56.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Laon, 55, 57, 58, 137, 196.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 St., 13, 27, 55.\n\n  Antagonism of Ab\u00e9lard and St. Bernard, 260, 261, 277, 330.\n\n  Anti-pope, the, 213, 314.\n\n  Apology of Ab\u00e9lard, 315.\n\n  Appeal to Rome, 285-87.\n\n  Arabic, study of, 15.\n\n  Argenteuil, nunnery of, 100, 105, 115, 207.\n\n  Aristotle, 25, 65, 73, 76.\n\n  Arnold of Brescia, 199, 254, 270, 276, 283, 291, 296, 307, 310,\n    316.\n\n  Asceticism, Heloise on, 247.\n\n  Astrolabe, son of Ab\u00e9lard, 114, 218, 323, 327.\n\n  Attempts on Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s life, 216, 217.\n\n  Aventinus, 8.\n\n\n  Bacon, Roger, and Ab\u00e9lard, 338.\n\n  Bajolard, 11.\n\n  Baldwin, monk, 15.\n\n  Bayle on Heloise, 232, 242.\n\n  Bec, 13.\n\n  Bede, Venerable, on St. Denis, 169, 173.\n\n  Benedictines, the, 13.\n\n  B\u00e9renger, father of Ab\u00e9lard, 5, 52.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Poitiers, 54, 344.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 pupil of Ab\u00e9lard, 132, 255, 283, 288-90, 310.\n\n  Bernard of Chartres, 14.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Clairvaux, St., 16, 30, 37, 49, 51, 53, 62, 73, 126, 151,\n    176, 189, 190, 193, 195-96, 214, 257, 259-78, 281, 283-310,\n    314-18, 320.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Cluny (quoted), 133.\n\n  Bible, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s opinion concerning, 335.\n\n  Boetius, 25, 76.\n\n  Breviary, Roman, the, 169.\n\n  Brittany, people of, 205.\n\n  Buchanan\u2019s (Robert) _New Abailard_, 229.\n\n  Burchard, Bishop of Meaux, 177.\n\n  Burglary, a medi\u00e6val, 57.\n\n  Burning of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s works, 158, 307.\n\n  Bussy-Rabutin on Heloise, 228.\n\n\n  Calixtus, Pope, 164.\n\n  Calumniation of Ab\u00e9lard, 85, 116, 292-305.\n\n  Cambridge, founding of University of, 199.\n\n  Canonesses, 43.\n\n  Canons, regular, 35.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 secular, 43.\n\n  Cathedral of Paris, 20, 22.\n\n  Celibacy, law of, 89, 108.\n\n  Cells, 128, 135.\n\n  Cemetery of P\u00e8re Lachaise, 96, 328.\n\n  Century of iron, the, 1.\n\n  Challenge of Bernard, 270.\n\n  Charlemagne, 13.\n\n  Chartres, 14, 15.\n\n  Chateaubriand on Heloise, 242.\n\n  Church, service to, of Ab\u00e9lard, 221.\n\n  Cistercians, the, 35, 209, 263, 321.\n\n  Clairvaux, abbey of, 189, 196.\n\n  Cluny, abbey of, 13, 312, 320.\n\n  Colardeau on Heloise, 228.\n\n  Cologne, Council of, on reason, 332.\n\n  _Commentary on Epistle to the Romans_, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s, 256, 336.\n\n  Compayr\u00e9 (quoted), 30.\n\n  Conceptualism, 29.\n\n  Condemnation of Ab\u00e9lard, first, 157.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 second, 286.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 at Rome, 307.\n\n  Confession, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s opinion concerning, 280, 316.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Champeaux\u2019s opinion concerning, 53.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Ab\u00e9lard, 81.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 Augustine, and Rousseau compared, 222.\n\n  Conon, Bishop of Praeneste, 150, 152-60, 167.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Duke of Brittany, 201, 217.\n\n  Conversion of Ab\u00e9lard, 120.\n\n  Corbeil, 31.\n\n  Corruption of monasteries, 93, 125, 203, 216.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of nunneries, 208, 209.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of the clergy, 34, 89, 90, 92.\n\n  Cotter Morison on Ab\u00e9lard, 85, 101, 109, 116, 193, 267.\n\n  Cousin (quoted), 24, 76.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 on Heloise, 251.\n\n  Crevier (quoted), 67, 94.\n\n  Crusades, the, 2.\n\n\n  Dagobert, brother of Ab\u00e9lard, 216, 218, 323.\n\n  Dark Ages, the, 6.\n\n  Death of Ab\u00e9lard, 324.\n\n  Denis, St., controversy about, 169, 173.\n\n  Denyse, sister of Ab\u00e9lard, 114.\n\n  Deutsch (quoted), 8, 37, 109, 131, 143, 146, 173, 223, 255, 263,\n    276, 338.\n\n  Development of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s ideas, 345.\n\n  _Dialectics_ of Ab\u00e9lard, 323.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 study of, 12, 14, 16, 24, 31.\n\n  _Dialogue_, the, of Ab\u00e9lard, 140.\n\n  Dubois on the corruption of the clergy, 90.\n\n  Duboulai (quoted), 133.\n\n\n  End of the world, 1.\n\n  Episcopal Schools, 14.\n\n  Eremetical life of Ab\u00e9lard, 181.\n\n  Ethical opinions of Ab\u00e9lard, 279.\n\n  _Ethics_, the, of Ab\u00e9lard, 257.\n\n  \u00c9tienne de Garlande, 92, 133, 177, 179, 180.\n\n  Eucharist, opinion of Ab\u00e9lard concerning, 279, 335.\n\n  Eudes of Orleans, 14.\n\n  Evil, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s opinion concerning, 279, 316.\n\n  Expulsion of canons, 44.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of monks, 217.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of nuns, 208, 209.\n\n  Ezechiel, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s lectures on, 62.\n\n\n  Faith, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s opinions on, 144, 261, 330.\n\n  Feast of Fools, 94.\n\n  Flight from St. Denis, 172.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 from St. Gildas, 217.\n\n  Fontevraud, abbey of, 50.\n\n  Fulbert, Canon, 97, 98, 100, 102, 107, 110, 114, 119, 129.\n\n  Fulques, Prior, 69, 72, 86, 117, 119, 130.\n\n\n  Galo, Bishop of Paris, 44, 50, 209.\n\n  Galton, Mr. (quoted), 28.\n\n  Games of Students, 70.\n\n  Gaufridus Vindoniencensis, 51, 53.\n\n  Genera and species, question of, 25.\n\n  Geoffrey, Bishop of Chartres, 154, 156, 158, 167, 179, 197, 208,\n    264, 284, 294.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of the Stag\u2019s Neck, 161, 164, 167, 284.\n\n  Gervaise, Dom. (quoted), 34, 161.\n\n  Gilbert de la Por\u00e9e, 254, 282, 288.\n\n  Gilbert, Bishop of Paris, 129, 146.\n\n  Goswin, St., 45, 164, 167.\n\n  Grammar, study of, 14, 15.\n\n  Gr\u00e9ard\u2019s translation of the _Letters_, 225, 230.\n\n  Great Bridge, the, 18.\n\n  Greek, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s knowledge of, 75.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Heloise\u2019s knowledge of, 101, 249.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 thought, influence on medi\u00e6val, 64.\n\n  Guido of Castello, 302.\n\n  Guizot, Mme. (quoted), 8, 225.\n\n\n  Hallam (quoted), 225.\n\n  Hatton, Bishop of Troyes, 172, 183, 285.\n\n  Hausrath (quoted), 55, 71, 98, 131, 163, 173, 255, 263, 265.\n\n  Haymerick, Roman Chancellor, 301, 302.\n\n  Hebrew, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s knowledge of, 76.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Heloise\u2019s knowledge of, 101, 249.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 study of, 15.\n\n  Hefele, Father (quoted), 193, 273.\n\n  Helias, Bishop of Orleans, 285.\n\n  Heloise, 71, 75, 77, 84, 87, 96-116, 121-23, 209-13, 221, 224-52,\n    267, 318, 325-28.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 home of, 104.\n\n  Henry the Boar, Archbishop of Sens, 270, 282, 284, 292.\n\n  Hilary, pupil of Ab\u00e9lard, 186.\n\n  Hoel, Duke of Brittany, 5.\n\n  Honorius, Pope, 207.\n\n  Hugo, Bishop of Auxerre, 284.\n\n  Hyacinth, pupil of Ab\u00e9lard, 255, 283, 288, 298, 302.\n\n  Hymns of Ab\u00e9lard, 249.\n\n\n  Incarnation, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s opinion concerning, 279.\n\n  Influence of Ab\u00e9lard, 329.\n\n  Innocent II., Pope, 43, 77, 213, 292-301, 307, 320.\n\n  Intolerance of Christian nations, 199.\n\n  _Introductio ad theologiam_, the, of Ab\u00e9lard, 256.\n\n  Investitures, question of, 276.\n\n  Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, 14.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Cardinal, 303.\n\n\n  Jacques de Vitry, Cardinal, 43, 66, 90, 91, 93, 209.\n\n  Jews, the, 6, 21, 42, 65, 68, 77, 342.\n\n  John of Salisbury, 14, 26, 45, 55, 72, 254, 318.\n\n  Johnson (quoted), 225.\n\n  Joscelin the Red, 41, 45, 46, 48, 154, 267, 284.\n\n\n  _Know Thyself_, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s, 257.\n\n\n  Lalanne on the _Letters_, 229.\n\n  Lanfranc, 13.\n\n  Laon, 56.\n\n  Latin Quarter, the, 42, 45.\n\n  Latinity of Ab\u00e9lard, 74, 221.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Heloise, 101, 232.\n\n  Learning of Ab\u00e9lard, 74.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Heloise, 100, 104.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of women in twelfth century, 100.\n\n  Letter of Ab\u00e9lard to Abbot Adam, 172.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 to St. Bernard, 267.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 to Roscelin, 147.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of St. Bernard to French bishops, 274.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 to St. Thierry, 194, 266.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Peter the Venerable to Heloise, 322, 325.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Roscelin to Ab\u00e9lard, 148.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of St. Thierry to Bernard, 258, 263-65.\n\n  Letters of Ab\u00e9lard and Heloise, 224-49, 318.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 authenticity of, 229.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of St. Bernard to the Pope, 292-99.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 to the Roman cardinals, 301-305.\n\n  Letter-writing in the twelfth century, 232.\n\n  Lex talionis, 94, 129.\n\n  Liaison of Ab\u00e9lard and Heloise, 84, 102-19.\n\n  Licence to teach, when necessary, 30, 39.\n\n  Licentiousness of Ab\u00e9lard, alleged, 85, 116, 131.\n\n  Lisiard de Crespy, 154.\n\n  Little Bridge, the, 19.\n\n  Locmenach, 9, 202.\n\n  Lotulphe of Novare, 62, 137, 150, 154, 167, 189.\n\n  Louis, King, 21, 43, 171, 176, 180, 272, 276, 282.\n\n  Lucan (quoted), 123.\n\n  Lucia, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s mother, 5, 49, 52.\n\n\n  Mabillon on Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s orthodoxy, 318.\n\n  Maisoncelle, 136.\n\n  Manasses, Bishop of Meaux, 285.\n\n  Manegold of Alsace, 21.\n\n  Map, Walter, on St. Bernard, 318.\n\n  Marianne Alcoforado and Heloise, 227, 241.\n\n  Marriage of Ab\u00e9lard and Heloise, 111, 114.\n\n  Married priests, 91, 203.\n\n  Mathematics, not studied by Ab\u00e9lard, 12, 16.\n\n  Melun, 30, 39.\n\n  Metellus, Hugo, 11.\n\n  Miracles exposed by Ab\u00e9lard, 192.\n\n  Monasteries, 2, 93, 125, 203, 216.\n\n  Monastic festivals, 127.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 life, history of, by Ab\u00e9lard, 248.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 rule, by Ab\u00e9lard and Heloise, 246.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 spirit, the, 49.\n\n  Moors, the, 198.\n\n  Moral classification, 195.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 codes, divergence of, 87.\n\n  Morals of the twelfth century, 89.\n\n  Moriacum, 9.\n\n  Morigni, abbey of, 213.\n\n  Muratori (quoted), 22.\n\n  Music, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s knowledge of, 15.\n\n  Mutilation of Ab\u00e9lard, 120.\n\n\n  Nations at Paris, 67, 69, 70, 130.\n\n  Neander (quoted), 265.\n\n  Nevers, Count de, 282, 284.\n\n  Newman, Cardinal, on Ab\u00e9lard, 88, 246.\n\n  Nicholas de Montier-Ramey, St. Bernard\u2019s Secretary, 305, 317.\n\n  Nobles of France and the King, 178.\n\n  No\u00ebl Alexandre on Ab\u00e9lard, 318.\n\n  Nogent-sur-Seine, 181.\n\n  Nominalism, 27.\n\n  Norbert, St., 43, 189, 191.\n\n  Notre Dame, cathedral of, 20, 22.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 cloistral school of, 22, 36, 38, 41, 53, 64, 66.\n\n  Number of Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s pupils, 67, 136, 184.\n\n  Nunneries, 50, 51, 208.\n\n\n  Occam, William, 343.\n\n  Omnebene of Bologna, 339.\n\n  Ordeal, the, 57, 95.\n\n  Orelli on the _Letters_, 229.\n\n  Original sin, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s view of, 280, 316.\n\n  Otto von Freising (quoted), 8, 72, 136, 155, 286, 318.\n\n\n  Palace school, the, 13.\n\n  Pallet, 4.\n\n  Papal court in France, 213.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 schism, 213, 296.\n\n  Paraclete, the, 183, 188, 211, 214, 267, 328.\n\n  Parentage of Ab\u00e9lard, 5.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Heloise, 97.\n\n  Paris, 18, 65, 68.\n\n  Paschal, Pope, 92, 132.\n\n  Peter the Eater, 38.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 the Lombard, 342.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 the Venerable, 97, 99, 312, 321, 325, 326.\n\n  Philip, King, death of, 38.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 palace of, 20.\n\n  Philippe Auguste, 68, 77.\n\n  Pius IX. on reason, 332.\n\n  Plato, 65, 73, 76, 80.\n\n  Poetry of Ab\u00e9lard, 102, 106, 187.\n\n  Poison, attempts on life of Ab\u00e9lard by, 216.\n\n  Poole, Mr. (quoted), 10, 12, 102, 173, 182, 194, 287.\n\n  Pope\u2019s _Heloise_, 225, 226, 241.\n\n  Porphyry, 24, 25.\n\n  _Portuguese Letters_, the, 225, 227, 228.\n\n  Pr\u00e9-aux-clercs, the, 45, 70.\n\n  Predecessors of Ab\u00e9lard, 344.\n\n  Predestination, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s opinion on, 280.\n\n  Pr\u00e9montr\u00e9, 191.\n\n  Premonstratensians, the, 191, 192.\n\n  Priest, Ab\u00e9lard as a, 107.\n\n  Priories, 128, 135.\n\n  Priscian, medi\u00e6val study of, 15, 41.\n\n  _Problems of Heloise_, the, 250.\n\n  Profession, religious, of Heloise, 122.\n\n  Pupils of Ab\u00e9lard, 78, 254.\n\n\n  Quadrivium, the, 14.\n\n  Quarrel over Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s body, 325.\n\n\n  Ralph of Laon, 55.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 the Green, 138, 150, 154.\n\n  Rashdall (quoted), 13, 67, 94.\n\n  Rationalism of Ab\u00e9lard, 140, 144, 259, 261, 324, 330, 334, 341,\n    344.\n\n  Raynard, Abbot of C\u00eeteaux, 314.\n\n  Realism, 27, 29.\n\n  Reason and faith, 140, 144, 261, 324, 330.\n\n  Reconciliation of Ab\u00e9lard and St. Bernard, 314.\n\n  Reformation, the, 341, 343.\n\n  R\u00e9musat (quoted), 32, 77, 97.\n\n  Reuter on Ab\u00e9lard, 339.\n\n  Rhetoric, study of, 14, 36.\n\n  Rhuys, 204.\n\n  Robert of Arbrissel, 37, 49, 50, 51.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Melun, 38.\n\n  Roland of Bologna, 339, 342.\n\n  _Roman de la Rose_, the, 231.\n\n  Rome, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s respect for, 276.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 avarice and corruption of, 131.\n\n  Rome and reason, 330-33.\n\n  Roscelin, Jean, 7, 9, 27, 32, 41, 50, 117, 147, 344.\n\n  Rousseau and Ab\u00e9lard, 222.\n\n  Rousseau\u2019s _Nouvelle Helo\u00efse_, 228, 230, 241.\n\n  Rousselot, 23, 26.\n\n\n  Sabellianism, charge of, 155.\n\n  Samson, Archbishop of Rheims, 282, 284, 292.\n\n  Saracens, the, in Spain, 65, 198, 342.\n\n  Scholastic philosophy, the, 25.\n\n  Scholasticus, 22.\n\n  School life, 69.\n\n  Schoolmen and Ab\u00e9lard, the, 338, 340, 341, 342.\n\n  Schools of France, the, 13.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Paris, the, 21, 65, 68.\n\n  Scotus Erigena, 344, 346.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 J. Duns, 342.\n\n  Sens, 270, 272, 283.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Council of, 155, 166, 270, 272, 281-86.\n\n  _Sententiae Abaelardi_, the, 108, 257, 317, 342.\n\n  Sermons of Ab\u00e9lard, 250.\n\n  Sexual ideas in twelfth century, 88.\n\n  _Sic et Non_, the, 143, 342.\n\n  Simony, prevalence of, 92.\n\n  Sins committed in ignorance, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s opinion on, 280, 316, 335.\n\n  Soissons, 151.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Council of, 153, 166.\n\n  _Song of Songs_ in Middle Ages, 257, 260.\n\n  St. Denis, abbey of, 13, 15, 21, 124-29, 133, 167, 168.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Genevieve, abbey of, 18, 21, 42, 43.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Germain of Auxerre, abbey of, 21.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Germain of the Meadow, abbey of, 21.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Gildas, abbey of, 9, 202-6.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Martin in the Fields, abbey of, 21.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 M\u00e9dard, abbey of, 161, 163.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Hilary, church of, 255.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Genevieve, hill of, 18, 41, 254.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Landry, port of, 19.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Ayoul, priory of, 172.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 Marcellus, priory of, 324.\n\n  St. Victor, priory of, 21, 33.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 school of, 36, 48, 53, 67, 341.\n\n  Stephen of Praeneste, Card., 305.\n\n  _Story of my calamities_, the, 81, 193, 220.\n\n  Students\u2019 life, 69, 90, 94, 185.\n\n  Suger, Abbot, 21, 44, 132, 175, 177, 180, 201, 206.\n\n\n  Teaching of Ab\u00e9lard, 71.\n\n  Theobald of Champagne, Count, 135, 172, 174, 197, 284.\n\n  _Theologia Christiana_, the, 256.\n\n  Theological opinions of Ab\u00e9lard, 278-80, 329, 336.\n\n  Theology, teaching of, 55, 61, 139.\n\n  Tholuck on Ab\u00e9lard as theologian, 336.\n\n  Thomas of Aquin, St., 74, 335, 342.\n\n  Tirricus, Master, 10, 12, 14, 32, 159.\n\n  Tournai, 14.\n\n  Traditionalism, 331.\n\n  Travelling in the twelfth century, 6.\n\n  _Treatise on Baptism_, the, of St. Bernard, 267.\n\n  Trinity, Ab\u00e9lard\u2019s works on the, 144, 279, 340.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 statue of, at the Paraclete, 188.\n\n  Tri-theism, charge of, 152, 155, 188, 316.\n\n  Trivium, the, 14.\n\n  Turlot (quoted), 98.\n\n\n  Universals, problem of, 25, 38.\n\n  University of Paris, 64, 65.\n\n\n  Vatican Council, the, on reason, 333.\n\n  Vaughan, Roger, on Ab\u00e9lard, 26, 341.\n\n  Violence of the twelfth century, 93, 110.\n\n  Vitalis the Norman, 51.\n\n\n  Weakness of Ab\u00e9lard, 109.\n\n  William of Canterbury, 55.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Champeaux, 22, 23, 27, 33, 36, 48, 52, 55, 137, 195.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of Dijon, 14.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 of St. Thierry, 194, 257.\n\n  Women and saints, 215.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 disguised as monks, 51.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 school for, 21, 42, 100.\n\n  Works of Ab\u00e9lard, 140, 256, 264.\n\n\n\n\n  Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty\n  at the Edinburgh University Press\n\n\n\n\n      *      *      *      *      *      *\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s note:\n\n  * Obvious printer errors have been silently corrected.\n\n  * Original spelling was kept, but variant spellings were made\n    consistent when a predominant usage was found.","title":"Peter Ab\u00e9lard","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":73531}