Dear Bill,

I thank you for the charity which infuses your response.

And for the latter's typically thought-provoking essence.

The implications of what (*if*) I understand you to be saying gave me cause to
think.

An uncommon and uncomfortable exercise, which also gives me a headache 
(but, to paraphrase the long-suffering-on-this-list and yet-to-be-identified
Sainte Fripette, "No pain, No gain").

>I don't think Bernard was so particular with regard to Abelard! 
>I think Bernard's instincts are not those of the scholar. 
>...He short-circuits the intellectual discussion altogether, and simply
reaffirms the party line. 

>Now there is something to be said for this approach when you are responsible
for the salvation of people - be they layfolk or monks - who do not have the
grey matter to follow the discussion. You don't want your flock to have their
minds confused by what St Paul calls "futile arguments." Bernard keeps his eye
on the ball; his constant intention is to teach the orthodox faith. He does
not really care whether Abelard's views can be understood in a Catholic sense,
or whether they have been misreported, or whether indeed Abelard had said them
at all. Abelard is merely a distraction from the Orthodox faith, and the
sooner Bernard can push him out of the way, the better. >


As I say, your perceptive remarks have caused me to painfully re-think a few
things (hope you're happy).

To the extent that I had thought about it at all, I suppose I have always
considered that the Abie/Bernie conflict was founded on two firm legs: 

First, a (or several) arcane theological argument(s) which, while surely
profoundly and sincerely held on both sides, was/is--by it's very
nature--somewhat rarified and of  little interest, _per se_, to even the tiny
percentage of the total population who were the *least* bit 
concerned with suchlike matters in the slightest detail. And I agree with your
implication that within this tiny minority a still very much smaller subset
actually had the grey-matter wherewithalness to be able to 
actually engage their intellects on the subject. (All of which is not in any
way to minimize the considerable contribution and influence of either thinker
on the history of theology/philosophy--a different question altogether.)

Second (and more important for mere groundlings like myself), the whole 
of Abelard's public career, perhaps from its beginnings, has always 
seemed to me to have been infused with political overtones which were *at the
time* of *much* more import to contemporaries than the (we now know) much more
weighty and infinitely (as it were) less transient Trinitarian questions
purportedly under dispute. 

E.g.: 
--Abelard tells us that two of the five men (including the servant who
betrayed him) who fixed him were themselves caught, blinded and 
castrated. 
By whom?? 
Heloise's kinsmen were certainly "connected"--her uncle being a canon of the
cathedral--but who were *his* defenders?? 
Surely not just his modest students.
The local crew of the Brittany mafia in Paris?

--At Soissons, Godfrey of Leves (St. Ivo's sucessor at Chartres, soon-to-be
Papal Legate and perhaps the most influential secular prelate of the realm)
was more than just his public champion: he was his private stratigic advisor
at the council. Saved his delicate bacon-side from the metaphysical flames
(according to A.)

Why?? 
Did not Godfrey as well have the overall well-being of his flock among 
his priorities?

And how (not whether) did  the circumstances of this council and the
"persecution" of A. play into the brewing crisis swirling around--and 
soon to come to a head at--the court of Fat Louie: the issues of the "reform"
of the chapter of Paris and (via the Victorines) of the "royal" monasteries of
which Stephen of Garlande, the royal Chancellor etc., was 
a multiple canon (as well as an archdeacon at Paris, Orleans and dogknows
wherelse) and the King's brother, Henry, was (in the next decade) to 
become multiple Abbot (and later to be recruited by B. as a Cistercian); and
the power moves of the Garlande boys at court and the faction around the
Queen? 

Byzantine intrigue was pretty thick on the ground in the Ile-de-France of the
1120's, as best I can make out. Just don't ask me what the nature of what was
going on really was. 
Perhaps someone on the list can inform me of some recent secondary work which
lays this all out in a comprehensive and convincing fashion (M. Bournazel's
just doesn't quite cut it).

I know even less about the situation in the late '30s-early '40s under Louie
the Kid, but that Arnold of Brescia fellow seems on his face to 
have been a right proper Threat to the Peace and Good Order of the (as 
you so eloquently put it) Party Line. 

Bernard vain and narrow-minded, indeed.

Clerics without property, indeed.

Fellow like that should be burned and his ashes Tiberized. 

Now, you have disturbed my peaceful little thought-world by forcing me to
consider a third aspect of the matter: Bernard was (primarily?) motivated by
his role as curate of souls--lay and ecclesiastical--and wished to simplify
these complex and all-too-esoteric theological matters to 
protect his multitudinous charges from falling into the ditch of their 
own misunderstanding.

It just hurts, is all. Having to think about all this complicated stuff.

>I think Bernard's instincts are not those of the scholar [viz. a viz.
Abelard].>

I agree completely.

Something else is afoot.

BTW, after taking a moment to refresh my wretched memory with the aid of
Abelard's text (from Paul Halsall's wonderful Sourcebook
(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/abelard-histcal.html ), it now appears
that I have slandered him by accusing him of slandering Bernard 
by saying that he (A.)  accuses B. of not having read his (A.'s) works. 
I cannon find the passage wherein he said this--directly at least--and I
appreciate your charity in not mentioning my slander. It seems I may have
mare's nested myself into a clef-stick of my own device, perhaps thinking of
A.'s characterization of the hapless Alberic of Reims. 

Of course, as an historian (to the extent that I am), I have to 
constantly remind myself that Abelard's _Historia_ is not only the 
prime primary source for virtually all of the details of the 
circumstances of his tumultous life, but also--by its very 
nature--a quite biased one. 

Almost as biased as Bernard's own letters. 

I thank you for your thought-full and thought-provoking reply.

Best to all from here,

Christopher







____________________________________________________________________
More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail


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