Who was that, said something about memory being a sieve?
I can't remember, though I must have known him--as he surely knew me.

My thanks to Julia Barrow for the citation for the Bautier article. 

Which, of course, I had read with great enthusiam only a very few months ago, when it first came out.
I guess it just slipped my mind (though whatever little might have been 
of value in my last post was probably pilfered from his article, having been expropriated as my own brilliant ideas years ago).

Actually, as an excuse, I can say that, by 1985, I had all but given up trying to sort out the religio/politico situation in the royal domain during the middle years of Fat Louie's reign, never having come across an historical problem of such complexity, which complexity is perversely fueled largely by the rather extraordinary number of primary sources (narrative histories, letters, charters, anecdotes--you name it) which 
are available to be brought to bear. 
Reconstructing the reality <wie es eigentlich gewesen ist > would be *so* much easier were it not for this pesky plethora of sources.

Bill East suggests:
>I assume that Abelard had servants; we know that one of them was a traitor; but no doubt he had others who were loyal and who were outraged at the assault on their master. For that matter, we know that he 
attracted a large number of very devoted students, who may have taken a hand in the matter [of revenge/retribution].> 

Perhaps.

And surely we shall never know, short of new sources being unearthed.
A student riot?

Adams and Waddell's speculations on this matter--and others--which Pardon Tillinghast notes on were, I take it, little more than speculations. Perhaps Bautier…..? (But, alas, there appears to be no copy of Jolivet/Bautier for me to consult on the whole of the post-literate West Coast.)

>But your question inspires a larger one. What exactly was Abelard's 
power base? We hear a good deal about Stephen of Garlande; but is his patronage the whole answer? >

I'd put it a bit differently, probably answered (albeit in a one-dimensional fashion, according to Richard) by Bautier: what does Stephen G's support entail and imply? 

Rather like saying "Bill Clinton supports NAFTA." 
As an individual man, Bill Clinton is inconsequential (or less, some 
would say); but, as a nexus of considerable power, he attains near-iconic (if I may abuse that word on this list) proportions. 

Ditto Stephen of Garland who, despite his universally bad press at the hands of his enemies (Suger, Bernard, the Morigny chronicler), might be seen as something of an archetype of a certain kind of "Prince of the Church", at once collecting benefices (at Paris, Orleans[2], Etampes, etc. all at the Royal gift) like add-a-pearls; vigorously resisting "reform" at Paris, Orleans and the Royal monasteries; and yet being the founding patron of (what is now) the oldest above-ground ecclesiatical structure on the Isle (the little chapel of Saint-Aignan), and, of 
course, something of a champion of Abelard, the Orson Wells wunderkind of 12th c. theology.

*That's* the wild-card, it seems to me: the entry of archane, etherial theological matters into the mundane stuff of  "pure" political history. 
Not for the first time, to be sure; but the theological disputes of, say, 7th c. Ravenna are reflective of  "real" ethno-political divisions, not 
at all analogous to the situation in homogeneous the 12th c. Northern France (?). 

And, it does not seem to me that the A-B dispute was really of the "class-based" (urban non-professionals vs. Orthodox Establishment Types) variety which I take to be the High Medieval norm for "heretic" busting.

Consider the supreme irony (at least) of Ecclesiatical Fat-Cat Stephen of Garland and Scourge of the Establishment Clergy Arnold of Brescia being 
on the same side! 
What's wrong with this picture??

Brother East amplifies my previous simple point suggesting that we might be dealing in this Abelard matter with a mystery wrapped in an enigma by posing additional profound quaestios:
 
>Abelard annoys just about everyone he meets, but there are always others willing to help. He upsets Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux, and provokes a Grade A Scandal by seducing Fulbert's niece, yet the St Denis community is willing to take him on - why? he seems to make a fair mess 
of being a monk, so they offer him an abbacy - why? (and who?) Abelard is in disgrace with the world, has been condemned by the Pope, and yet Peter the Venerable takes him in - why? At every stage (and I have left out a few stages), there are people> [from quite diverse backgrounds and power centers, I would argue, pedantically] >who evidently think that Abelard must at all costs be supported, that he is too valuable [yes, but in what way, valuable?]to be allowed to stew in his own juice. >

Then, he spoils it all (IMHO) with the conclusion:

>Would that I inspired such feelings! 

Inspiration?

Charisma?

The conspiracy theorist in me rebels at the thought.

And yet… can the ole Oriens be on to something here? An historical 
Ockam's razor which eliminates all the superfluous explanations. 
Hard to thread all these disperate pearls on a single 
historical/factional string, for sure; but A. so *theologically* valuable that he "must at all costs be supported"??  

Enough to go out on such political limbs?? And yet…. he was.

What is this, the Middle Ages we're talking about? Where Theology reigns supreme??

And Richard Landes suggests that Bautier won't be much help here:
>[B]autier is not famous for [h]is understanding of religious nuance, nor his appreciation for "free agents" among whom i wd certainly include both abelard and bernard. >

Have to confess, I don't know what a "free agent" might be in this context, as opposed to, say, a human being acting within the confines of his/her own life's karma. 
But the question is perhaps more theological than historical--which I suppose is why such a curious suggestion was posted to this list rather than Mediev-L. 

As for Bautier's reputed lack of understanding of religious nuance--being theologically challenged, I can relate to that.

Although, Bautier's command and exploitation of  "purely" historical sources seems to me to be quite fordmidable and a wonder to behold.

In any event, when, last summer, I started going through the new _Catalogue des actes de Louis VI_ I recall being not at all surprised at the remarkably high level of scholarship there and associating it with a previously held opinion (perhaps gained from the "Paris/Abelard" article) of Bautier , "under whose direction" the _Catalogue_ was done; though I suppose the real kudos should go to the main author, Jean (?) Dufour. (Quite a piece of work, whoever's responsible for it.)

>Wish someone would do the same for Hildegard of Bingen. 

Hildegard of Bingen??

Now wait, she was just an ivory-tower mystic and a visionary with an acetylsalicylic acid deficiency. 

Surely *she* had nothing to do with worldly politics.

Say it ain't so, Julia.

Best to all from here,

Christopher








____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%