Piron, Heloise's Literary Self-fashioning and the Epistolae Duorum Amantium

8/15/2019 Piron, Heloise's Literary Self-fashioning and the Epistolae Duorum Amantium

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/piron-heloises-literary-self-fashioning-and-the-epistolae-duorum-amantium 1/52

1

Heloise’s literary self-fashioning

and the Epistolae duorum amantium1

Sylvain Piron (Paris)

By addressing issues connected with memory in two collections of twelfth centuryLatin letters – the famous correspondence exchanged between Heloise and belard!

and the anonymous set of love letters "nown asEpistolae duorum amantium# – thisarticle pursues two different goals at the same time$ %n the one hand& it will beeasily recognised that such personal documentation& not often preserved from the

medieval period& offers appropriate material for observing how memories ofeducated people were constructed& sustained and expressed$ But the choice ofstudying these two collections side by side is also connected to another explicitpurpose$ Such a confrontation provides an occasion to put to the test the claim made by 'onstant ews that the two anonymous lovers are indeed Heloise and belardin the early phase of their affair* this test will eventually result in formulating a newargument in favour of this ascription$ s will gradually become clear& these twoperspectives are in fact closely related& since they are both investigating the ways inwhich literary memory is shaping personal identity at its most intimate$ +,-*.

/n both sets of documents& the women provide the richest material for ourpurpose$ oreover& the peculiarities of their literary self0fashioning1 are stri"inglysimilar& to such an extent that it ma"es sense to argue that both documents presenttwo facets of the same personal story$ 2hus& my contention is that the evolution thatthe woman undergoes throughout theEpistolae duorum amantium corresponds to theprocess the young Heloise went through in the early phase of her relationship with

belard& until reaching a decision that is reflected both by belard in theHistoria1 2he contents of this article have been discussed at great length with 'onstant ews$ 3ac4ues5alarun commented on a first version of the initial section& 5amien Bo4uet& 6rancesco Stella and

Stephen 3aeger on the whole text$ 7icole rchambeau and 'aroline Brothers provided linguisticimprovements$ / am grateful to them all$2 belard&Historia Calamitatum & ed$ 3ac4ues onfrin (Paris8 9rin& ,:;*)Lettres d’Abélard et Héloïse, ed$<ric Hic"s& transl$ <$ Hic"s& 2h$ oreau (Paris8 Le Livre de Poche& !--;)$ / will 4uote from onfrinforH' and =p$ // and /9& from Hic"s for the remaining letters$3 =wald >?nsgen&Epistolae duorum amantium: Briefe Abaelards und Heloises@ (Leiden8 Brill& ,:;*)$4 'onstant 3$ ews&The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard Per!eptions of "ialo#ue in T$elfth%Centur&'ran!e, with translations by 7$ 'hiavaroli and '$ 3$ ews (7ew Aor"8 Palgrave& ,:::)$ n additionalchapter to the second edition& forthcoming in !-- & C7ew discoveries and insights ,:::0!--D&Cpresents a number of new arguments in favour of the ascription$ y references will be to that newedition$5

2he notion is borrowed from Stephen Ereenblatt&(enaissan!e )elf%'ashionin#: from *ore to)ha+espeare ('hicago8 Fniversity of 'hicago Press& ,: -)& but used in the more restrictive sense ofshaping oneGs self out of literary models$

hashs-00418433,verson1-18Sep2009

Author manuscript, published in "Strategies of Remembrance. From Pindar to Hölderlin, Lucie Doležalová (Ed.) (2009) 102-162"

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00418433/fr/



2

!alamitatum and by herself in her later letters8 her refusal to marry& in order toremain only theami!a of the great philosopher$ close reading of the love letters

allows one to suggest that the same unusual decision was made& for the very samereasons and with the same references in mind& by the anonymous *ulier of theEpistolae duorum amantium$

Such an interpretation would enable us to tie together the events reflected in both letter collections& and therefore to identify the two pairs of writers$ /n order toma"e such a move& a series of preliminary steps is re4uired$ 2he whole field isindeed paved with traps and mines$ 2he authenticity of the letters written byHeloise in response to belardGsHistoria !alamitatum have so often been 4uestionedthat it will be necessary to defend it again& mainly by investigating its textualtransmision$ 2he next step will allow us to unearth traces of HeloiseGs earlierwritings embedded within theHistoria$ 5emonstrating that she actually wrote aletter on the issue of marriage& partly reproduced and edited by belard& will proveuseful in order to compare her personal story and her moral views on love& withthose of the young woman of theEpistolaeand to emphasi e their common feature$

1. Approaching the young Heloiselthough Heloise attracts a growing attention as a writer and a thin"er in her own

right&D there is still need to argue anew how and where her voice can be heard in thesurviving material at our disposal$ 5uring the last two centuries& a controversy hasraged over the authenticity of her famous correspondence +,-1. with belard& in aparticularly intense mode during the ,:;-s and ,: -s$ 2his is a dispute that has now been settled& as 3ohn arenbon made clear in a recapitulatory essay$; vastmaIority of researchers agree that Heloise actually wrote the three letters attributedto her within the group of documents "nown as the C'orrespondenceJ& calling bythis conventional name a literary artifact made of eight letters that begins with

belardGsHistoria !alamitatum and ends with the introductory letter to his(ule forthe Paraclete& to which the(ule itself is sometimes appended$ 2here is e4ualconsensus over the fact that the 'orrespondence underwent some form of editing

6 6or instance& see Bonnie Kheeler ed$&Listenin# to Heloise The oi!e of a T$elfth%Centur& -oman .7ewAor"8 Saint artinGs Press& !---)$7 3ohn arenbon& C uthenticity revisited&J inListenin# to Heloise & ,:0## and /d$&The Philosoph& of Peter Abelard .'ambridge8 'ambridge Fniversity Press& ,::;)& !0:#$ See also the vigorous plea by Barbara7ewman& C uthenticity& uthority and the epression of Heloise&J /ournal of *edieval and(enaissan!e )tudies !! (,::!)8 ,!,0,1;& reprinted in =ad$&irile -oman to -omanChrist8 )tudies in *edieval (eli#ion and Literature (Philadelphia8 Fniversity of Pennsylvania Press& ,::1)& *D0;1$ Some ofthe most important contributions that helped secure the ascription are those of Peter 5ron"e&especially& C belard and Heloise in edieval 2estimoniesJ (,:;D) in /d$&0ntelle!tuals and Poets in *edieval Europe ( ome8 =di ioni di Storia e Letteratura& ,::!)& !*;0!:-$

8 any editions& including Hic"sG& do not distinguish the introductory letter that ends with a formalvalediction ( alete in Christo sponse Christi & ed$ Hic"s&,# )& from the following document$




3

process at some stage$ By whom& when and to what extent are 4uestions that remainopen$ 2hey should not let any doubt on HeloiseGs authorship creep in through the

bac" door& and this is why / want to clarify this point$The te1tual transmission of the'orrespondence 3ac4ues 5alarun has recently made an important contribution to this issue&submitting to a codicological analysis the volume 2royes -! (henceforth referred toas 2) that contains the earliest copy of the 'orrespondence& and the only one inwhich the(ule is present$: Eiven the length and complexity of this important article&/ shall only stress its maIor conclusions& and discuss some issues that matter for ourpurpose$

2he core of the demonstration shows that 2 has been neatly corrected& noless than three times& against an archetype& which suggests that both manuscriptswere "ept in the same place$ Paleographically& this copy should be dated to earlierthan ,!1-& perhaps in the ,!#-Gs& instead of the last decades of the thirteenth centuryas was previously thought$ study of additional +,-D. material found after the'orrespondence leads to the suggestion that the entire volume was commissioned by Killiam of uvergne& bishop of Paris& in ,!#;$

2hese are important results that modify our perception of the textual historyof the 'orrespondence& and definitely rule out any notion of a late M///th0centuryforgery$,- 7evertheless& they leave some 4uestions open$,, 3$ 5alarun wishes toascribe the production of the archetype to the same place and period as 2& on thegrounds that a reference to the 5euteronomy found in theHistoria would reflect adevice introduced in the Bible edited at Paris Fniversity by Stephen Langton around,!!1$ Aet& as 5avid Luscombe pointed out& the same numbering was already presentin some ,!th0century Bibles$,! 2he suppression of this dating clue implies that thearchetype could have been produced earlier than the ,!#-s& and that this biblicalreference did not need being updated at any moment$ However& it is li"ely that thearchetype from which the 'orrespondence was copied in 2 was produced in Paris&under Killiam or at an earlier date$

9 3ac4ues 5alarun& C7ouveaux aperNus sur bOlard& HOlo se et le Paraclet&J'ran!ia *ittelalter #!8,(!--1)8 ,:0DD$10 2he final section of the article shows that belardGs(ule was conceived in a Cveiled disputeC with

obert dG rbrissel& of whom he "new the earlier statutes of 6ontevraud$11 / will not discuss whether 2 was produced together with a twin volume& as 3$ 5alarun contends&one being sent to the Paraclete and the other "ept in Paris$/n my view& the demonstration that onlyone codex was involved remains unchallenged& cf$ '$ 3$ ews& CLa bibliothQ4ue du Paraclet du M///esiQcle R la Ovolution&J Studia *onasti!a !; (,: 1)8 #,0D;& repr$ in /d$& eason and Belief in the A#e of(os!elin and Abelard & ( shgate8 9ariorum& !--!)$12 5avid =$ Luscombe& C6rom Paris to the Paraclete8 2he 'orrespondence of belard and Heloise &JPro!eedin#s of the British A!adem& ;* (,: )8 !*;0! #$




4

3$ 5alarun rightly stresses how important is the presence in 2& immediatelyafter the(ule & of the0nstitutiones nostre & statutes for her monastery drawn up by

Heloise after the death of belard& in which she shows little concern for his(ule2his brief document must have been sent from the Paraclete to Paris on the sameoccasion as the eight letters forming the 'orrespondence$ s a matter of fact& muchmore could have been included in the same pac"age$ 2he diffusion of belardGswritings varies a lot from one wor" to another8 his philosophical and theologicalwritings were spread around by his students across =urope,# the Collationes aremainly found in =ngland& theEthi!a in Eermany& while theH&mnarius written forthe Paraclete only circulated in +,-;. eastern 6rance$,* Aet a group of wor"s displaystraces of a diffusion from Paris after having initially been collected at the Paraclete$,1

Such is the case ofEpistola 02 & providing educational instructions for the Paracletenuns& and of theProblemata Heloissae, answering exegetical 4uestions raised by theabbess& both only preserved in a codex copied in Paris in ,**- and presented toSaint09ictor (Paris& lat$ ,*1,,)$,D 2he remaining belardian material& added later atthe beginning of the same volume& could have followed the same route$,; Li"ewise&it may not be a mere coincidence that two copies of belardGsHe1ameroncommentary& written at the re4uest of Heloise in the mid ,,#-s& also stem from7otre 5ame$, But the most impressive data comes from 7icolas de BayeGs postmortem inventory$ humanist& friend of 7icolas de 'lamanges& and an importantfigure of ParisG Parliament& 7icolas finally became a canon at 7otre 5ame in ,*,#13 Luscombe&The )!hool of Peter Abelard The 0nfluen!e of Abelard’s Thou#ht in the Earl& )!holasti! Perio('ambridge& 'ambridge Fniversity Press& ,:D:)& D-0,-!$14 3ulia Barrow& 'harles S$ 6$ Burnett and 5avid =$ Luscombe& C 'hec"list of the anuscripts'ontaining the Kritings of Peter belard and Heloise and %ther Kor"s 'losely ssociated with

belard and his School&C(evue d’Histoire des Te1tes ,*0,1 (,: *0 1)8 , #0#-!& and the review by'$ 3$ ews&)!riptorium *, (,: ;)8 #!;0##-$15 ews& CLa bibliothQ4ue du Paraclet&C andLost Love Letters & *-0*#& discusses the circulation of the'orrespondence$16 2he similarities of both incipits& that echoes one another with an intial reference to 3erome(Problemata: Beatus 0eronimus san!te *ar!elle studium 3uo tota fervebat, !ir!a 3uestiones sa!rarumlitterarum ma1ime !ommendans =p$ /M8Beatus 0eronimus in eruditione vir#inum Christi plurimumo!!upatus ) lead me to the suggestion that their disposition in this manuscript may reflect thechronological order of their composition$ fter having as"ed for information on female religious life(=p$ 9/) and obtained answers (=p$ 9//09/// and(ule)& Heloise turned to the issue of learning&insufficiently dealt with in the(ule & and raised precise exegetical 4uestions& to which belard firstresponded in details (Problemata)& before designing a more general pattern for education at theParaclete (=p$ /M)$17 Paris& lat$ ,*1,,& fol$ !0,;& contains the end ofConfessio fidei 45niversis’ &)ermo 20 &E1positio )&mboli Apostolorumand E1positio )&mboli )an!ti Athanasii$ 2hey were not present in the manuscript when'laude de Erandrue prepared his catalogue$ in ,1,*18 Luscombe&The )!hool, D;$ 2hese mss$ are now Paris& B76 ,;!1, and 9atican& B 9& 9at$ lat$ *!,*&that was sold by the chapter to nnibald de 'eccano before ,#!D& in the same way as oberto deGBardi bought the 2 codex in ,#*D$




5

and died six years later& while residing within the cloister$ t his death& his vastpersonal library contained no less than five volumes of belardGs wor"s$ 2wo of

them are described in the inventory as JepistlesJ8 a small volume on paper beginning with theHistoria & and a much larger one& in eight unbinded gatherings&starting with the(ule 2wo more are described as containing JsermonsJ$ 6inally&another large volume worth +,- . ten sol$ and probably containing as manygatherings& contained some JtreatisesJ$,: /nterestingly& this final volume started witha now lostE1hortatio ad fratres et !ommona!hos & written in the ,,!-s during the firstseason of the Paraclete& that may have been incorporated inTheolo#ia Christiana!- /nthe late M/9th century& Parisian humanists developed an interest in the personalletters of Heloise and belard&!, but 7icolas is uni4ue in his wider interest for

belard$ /t can be reasonably suggested that he had bought volumes found withinthe cathedral library$ 2his collection may have included part of the original pac"agefrom the Paraclete sent to 7otre 5ame& or the edited copies produced upon theirarrival$ 2he dispersion of 7icolasG boo"s would then account for the loss of thesevolumes$

%ut of these observations& some important points can be made$ 6irst of all&we have no documentary evidence to claim that& at any moment before the copy of2& nor afterwards& the 'orrespondence as it is canonically "nown& including the(ule & was ever conceived as an organic whole$ ll other witnesses suggest that& outof the Paraclete material sent to 7otre 5ame& the eight letters were edited andpreserved separately from the(ule$ 6or instance& a manuscript copied in Paris in,#*-& in the house of the bishop of miens& ends with a colophon that presents =p$9/// as the last of theEpistole Petri Abaielardi et Helo&se, primitus eius ami!e, postmodum

19 lexandre 2uetey&0nventaire de 6i!olas de Ba&e, !hanoine de 6otre "ame, #reffier du Parlement de Parissous Charles 0 .7879 , pré!édé d’une noti!e bio#raphi3ue .Paris& , )8 ,!,8 /tem xx cahiers en parchemincontenans les sermons Pierre balart& prisie xxiiii s$ ,#D8 /tem& les epistres Pierre balart& en papiercommenNans ou iie feuillet&ulterius & prisiOes ii$ s$ +ulterius is found inHC, ed$ onfrin& lin$ ,! . ,;:/tem& la =xortacion Pierre balard& avec aultres traictie & commenNans ou ii$e feuillet&!um uter3ue &prisiO x$ s , , /tem& les =pistres de Pierre balard et viiI cayers de luy mesmes& tenans ensemble& lepremier commenNanttripartite & prisiO viii s$ +2he(ule begins withTripartitum. , * /tem& les SermonsPierre balard& sans ays& commenNans ou ii$e feuillet&non esset & prisiO ii$ s$ +non esset features threetimes in the first pages of Sermo /& in annunciatione beatae 9irginis ariae& especially PL ,; & col$# #'& about a thousand words after the start of the sermon.$ 2hese were first noted in C 'hec"list&Cn !,!& p$ !!:$20 Theolo#ia Christiana & //$*D (''' ,!& ,1-) in which he ma"es a rhetorical appeal86um3uid ho!, fratres, ad ali3uam turpitudinem in!linandum est$ / am grateful to 'onstant ews for this indication& andfor many more hints on the transmission of belardGs wor"s$21 'f$ '$ Bo olo& CLGhumaniste Eontier 'ol et la traduction franNaise des lettres dGHOlo se et

bOlard&J(omania :1 (,:;*)8 ,::0!,1$




6

u1oris$!! s the +,-:. description of 7icolas de BayeGs library shows& the(ule rather belonged to another section of the Paraclete material present in Paris$

2he little that can confidently be said about the Paris edition of this materialconcerns the insertion of rubrics& dividing theHistoria !alamitatum into chapters& andintroducing each subse4uent letter$ 2he wording of these rubrics excludes thepossibility that they could have been formulated either by belard or Heloise& sinceit refers to them in the third person$ Such rubrics are present in a number ofmanuscripts other than 2& which means that they were inserted in their commonarchetype$!# 2he fact that the(ule is not introduced by such a rubric in 2& whichrendered it indistinguishable from =p$ 9///& can be one more sign that it was notedited together with the eight letters$

2he most important volume of the letters that also presents such rubrics isParis& lat$ !:!# ( )$ 2his famous codex was ac4uired by Petrarch between ,##; and,#*#& presumably through his friend oberto deG Bardi& canon of Paris& who later bought for himself the 2royes manuscript$!* Khile the hand of the copyist has beendescribed as being from southern 6rance& the decoration is certainly Parisian& andcan be dated to soon after ,!;-$!1 2here& the eight letters& with an initial painted letterdepicting a couple (the face of the woman being blotted out)& are followed byanother group of documents relating to belard& introduced by a picture of a manalone$ 2hese documents& comprising Berengar of PoitierGs writings (his apology for

belard& written immediately after the council of Sens in ,,*, and two other letters)&belardGs +,,-.)olilo3uium and hisConfessio fidei 45niversis’, also delivered at the

time of the council& form a unitary dossier$ 2o the exception of =p$ M/9& only presentin & the dossier is found in two more manuscripts& one of them also containing theeight letters$!D Berengar& who was able to access another letter sent by belard toHeloise and include it in his Apolo#ia,probably spent some time at the Paraclete& *-

22 Paris B76& nouv$ ac4$ fr$ !---,& fol$ ,!va$ 2he 6rench translation found in Paris B76& fr$ :!- also hasa similar explicit$23 Paris B76& lat$ !:!# has most of the rubrics found in 2& as well as a supplementary one& at onfrined$& l$ *18"e ini!io ma#isterii sui (referring to belardGs first teaching in elun)$ Paris B76 lat$ !1**lac"s a general rubric& but has some of the chapter divisions the space reserved for the rubrics isoften not filled in because the text was too long to fit in$ 2he manuscript in a private collectionstudied by 'olette 3eudy& CFn nouveau manuscrit de la correspondance dG bOlard et HOlo se&JLatomus 1- (,::,) ;!0 ,& produced around Paris& ca$ ,#*-0,#D-& also has rubrics$ utilated at the beginning and the end& it starts withHC and brea"s off in the middle ofEp 00 $

24 Pierre de 7olhac&Pétrar3ue et l’humanisme & (EenQve8 Slat"ine& !--* first ed$ ,:-;)& t$ !& !!-0!!!& ! ;0!:!& edits and comments PetrarchGs annotations$ ews&Lost Love Letters & #-D0;& argues for a Parisianorigin of the manuscript& on account of material found in the final sections$25 3eudy& CFn nouveau manuscrit&J -& describes the decoration as Parisian$ 2he filigranescorrespond to those produced in Paris after ,!;-& cf$ Patricia Stirnemann& C6ils de la vierge$ LGinitialeR filigranes parisienne8 ,,*-0,#,*&J(evue de l’Art, :- (,::-)8 1 0;#& see fig$ *# and ** (dated around,! -)$2his date would fit in well with a renewal of interest in the personal letters& also demonstratedin the same period by 3ean de eun$




7

"ilometers north0east of Sens& soon after the council$!; Both these circumstances andthe later diffusion of the dossier leads to the suggestion that it may have been

deposited by Berengar at the Paraclete& and have later been part of the pac"age sentto Paris$/t is thus a fair guess that both the 2royes manuscript and PetrarchGs copy

have been extracted from the same collection of Paraclete material preserved at thecathedral library of Paris$ %wing to his interest in female monasticism& Killiam of

uvergne completed the eight letters with Paraclete documents of a prescriptivenature ((ule and 0nstitutiones 6ostreand other legal documents)& while the compilerof PetrarchGs manuscript rather pic"ed up documents defending belardTs personalorthodoxy$ Uuite uni4uely& 7icolas de Baye chose to read the letters in the light ofall belardian material that could be found within Paris cathedral library$ 6ollowing5alarunGs approach& +,,,. subse4uent research into the textual transmission of the'orrespondence should now concentrate on this broader material$!

2he following pages of his article (*;01#) imagine a more serious editorialintervention on the part of belard$ Khat triggers this hypothesis is the opening ofHeloiseGs first letter& mentioning that she has received theHistoria !alamitatumCbychanceJ ( forte$ 2o explain away these initial words that he considers troublesome& 3$ 5alarun contrives a much more problematic solution8 to 4uestions initiallyproposed by Heloise on religious life& both personal and institutional& belard

26 2he dossier is found with the letters in %xford& Bodleian& dd '$ !;, and without it in Paris lat$, :D$ 'f$ odney $ 2homson& C2he satirical Kor"s of Berengar of Poitiers8 an edition withintroduction&J in8 *edieval )tudies *! (,: -)8 0,# 'harles Burnett& CPeter belard)olilo3uium$ critical edition&C)tudi medievali !1 (,: *)8 1;0 :* (with more remar"s on PetrarchGs note) and /d$&CPeter belard&Confessio fidei 4universis’8 a critical edition of belardGs reply to accusations of heresy&C *edieval )tudies * (,: D)8 ,,,0,# $ 2he model out of which the letters were excerpted in Eermany inthe early M9th 'ent$ also contained the Berengar dossier& not the(ule & cf$ 5$ = Luscombe& J=xcerptsfrom the letter collection of Helo se and belard in 7otre 5ame (/ndiana) ms #-&J in $ Lievens& =$van ingroot& K$ 9erbe"e (ed$)&Pas!ua *edievalia )tudies voor Prof "r / * "e )met (Leuven8 LeuvenFniversity Press& ,: #)& p$ 1!:01**$ group of later manuscripts associate the letters with moredocuments related to the 'ouncil of Sens& including letters of Bernard of 'lairvaux8 Paris B76 lat$!1*1& lat$ ,#-1;& n$a$ lat$ , ;#& and the lost Saint09ictor manuscript EEE ,;& to which BerengarGs Apolo#& was added afterwards& cf$ Burnett& CPeter belardConfessio &C ,,1$

27 '$ 3$ ews& CFn lecteur de 3OrVme au M//e8 Pierre bOlard&J in /ér;me entre l’<!!ident et l’<rient & ed$A$ $ 5uval (Paris& ,: )& *!:0*** repr$ in /d$& Abelard and his Le#a!& ( ldershot8 9ariorum& !--,)& at**!0**#& suggests that Berengar of Poitiers acted as a secretary for belard& and may have been theone who brought theHistoria to Heloise$ t the very least& he is probably the one who brought her theConfessio fidei ad Helo&ssam & inserted into the Apolo#ia & and this latter wor" could have been writtenwhile residing at the Paraclete$28 Luscombe& C2he Letters of Heloise and belard since W'luny ,:;!G&C inPetrus Abaelardus .7=>9%778? Person, -er+ und -ir+un# & $ 2homas (ed$) (2rier8 Paulinus& ,: -) ,:0#:& at p$ !:& alreadyarrived at a similar conclusion8 Cthe supposed associations of the letter0collection with the WmonasticGcopying tradition of the Paraclete should not be over0stressed$ $$$ Paris may have proved a morefruitful centre for the "eeping and the diffusion of copies of the Letters in the thirteenth century$C




8

would have responded with appropriate answers& reorganised the exchange ofletters& and added afterwards theHistoria !alamitatumas a general prologue to the

whole se4uence$ Such an hypothesis is fraught with huge difficulties& since HeloiseGsfirst letter is nothing but a reaction and a comment to theHistoria & while each of thefollowing letters is responding to the previous one$ /n order to substantiate such aclaim& it would be necessary to delineate precisely the wording of the original lettersfrom belardGs supposed editorial intervention$!: /n the absence of such a textualanalysis& this conIecture has no grounding whatsoever$ 2he parallel with theProblemata & in which belard answered a list of 4uestions raised by Heloise& couldonly account for the relation between her letter 9/ and belardGs responses in letters9// and 9///$ Aet& 4uite differently from theProblemata & here the answers are notinserted into the initial letter& but are "ept as distinct documents$

ll apparent difficulties can be solved in a much simpler way$ 2he fact thatthe Historiahas not been preserved separately from the 'orrespondence only meansthat& since belard led a wandering life and did not edit a collection of his ownletters& the only institution that preserved theHistoriaduring +,,!. the first centuryafter it was written was the Paraclete$#- 2he choice of addressing his apology to afictional friend is a rhetorical device that allowed belard to circulate the samedocument to various audiences$ 2he abbot of Saint0Eildas de huys badly needed to Iustify the fact that he had deserted his monastery to reestablish himself as a teacherin Paris& but he also had a message to convey to people that had been close to him&presenting his own life as a theologicale1emplum$#, /t is more economical to considerthat Heloise was part of that intended audience& rather than to imagine that sheobtained theHistoria indirectly through a third party$#! %n her part& the forteshould be read as a euphemism meant to express her disappointment that the letter was notaddressed to her$ Ke "now how sensitive she was about epistolary salutations$Fpset not to be the formal recipient of a letter that was nevertheless sent to her& as a29 5alarun& C7ouveaux aperNus&C 1,& n ,DD0;& identifies such a nucleus in =p$ //& ed$ onfrin& lin$ #and ;D0 -& but these sentences are stylistically indistinguishable from the ones that surround them&and built into a rhetorical construction in which the reference to theHistoria is massively present& cf$lin$ *0# & D:0;#$30 Luscombe&The )!hool & D1$ Both remar"s that belardGs letters were not collected and edited duringhis lifetime& and that isolated documents tend to survive over a long time span only in institutions aremade by 3$ 5alarun& C7ouveaux apercusJ$31 See ews& Abelard and Heloise (%xford8 %xford Fniversity Press& !--1)& ,*:0,1,& who thin"s that

belard had Heloise in mind when devicing the unnamed friend$32 3ean de eunGs 6rench translation& based on various manuscripts& including some that are now lost&has 4uite a different opening (=ric Hic"s ed$&La vie et les epistres Pierres Abaelart et Helo&s sa fame & *1)8J9o homs mGa nouvellement monstrO vostre espitre 4ue vous envoyastes a nostre ami pourconfort$J Khile Jnostre amiJ should probably be read as Jvostre amiJ& the initial words implies thatthe letter was sent to Heloise by a servant of belard$ lthough this phrasing could be 3ean de

eunGs litterary invention& this is nevertheless the most li"ely means through which Heloise mayhave received theHistoria




10

his part or by anyone else& within the text of the eight letters$# 2he more economicalsolution is that the letters and documents were collected +,,*. one by one at the

Paraclete& and the person who was in the best position to do so was Heloise herself$#:

%rdering the extant documents& without editing them& she would have put togethera peculiar memorial for her institution& in the form of an exchange of letters in whichcould be found a tale of the foundation of the monastery& a life of the founders& anddifferent layers of prescriptions – without any attempt at solving the manycontradictions and tensions present in these documents$ 2o add another paradox tothis story& HeloiseGs obsession with sincerity and openness would then beresponsible for the endless discussion on whether she ever wrote any of thoseletters$*-

Heloise’s spee!h a#ainst marria#e%nce this first result is attained& one more step can be ta"en in the textual 4uest forthe exhumation of HeloiseGs words$ 2heHistoria !alamitatum includes a chapterentitled"ehortatio supradi!te puelle a nuptiis– a title inserted at the time of the Parisedition of the 'orrespondence – in which belard gives voice to her argumentsagainst marriage$ 2he peculiarity of this chapter is well "nown$ 7owhere else in theHistoriadoes belard give so much space to arguments presented by a third party$

fter having told of their escape to Le Pallet& where Heloise gave birth to stralabe&belard recounts the reactions of 6ulbert and his own attempt at negotiating a

solution by offering to marry Heloise& on the condition that the marriage wouldremain secret$ Eoing bac" to his native land& in order to bring her bac" to Paris forthe wedding& belard then reports a long speech of Heloise& in a se4uence thatamounts to about X of the total length of theHistoria$ /n his edition& 3ac4ues

onfrin puts in 4uotation mar"s only what is described as the peroratio of the speech

38 6ollowing von oos& CLe silence dGHOlo se et les idOologies modernes&C inPierre Abélard et Pierre leénérable (Paris8 '7 S& ,:;1)& *!10D :& at p$ *#D& 5alarun points to phrases such as ut iam supra

memini(=p$ 9) or ut iam satis alibi meminimus .(ule , as signs of an editorial intervention by belard$Aet& although both phrases could be explained away as internal references within one document (cf$Luscombe& C2he Letters of Heloise and belard&C # )& they are more evocative of a teacherGs writinghabits than of precise cross0references& as suggests Piero Yerbi& C belardo ed =loisa8 il problema di unamore e di una corrisponden a&J inLove and *arria#e in the T$elfth Centur& K$ van Hoec"e& $Kel"enhuysen (ed$) (Leuven8 Leuven Fniversity Press& ,: ,)& ,#-0D,& at p$ ,11$ /dentifying aneditorial intervention within the text of the letters would re4uire to delineate precisely theinterpolated passages& a tas" that has never been achieved successfully$39 2he suggestion that Heloise edited the collection has been made many times& as recalls von oos&CLe silence dGHOlo se&C *#D& n$ ,:$ y conclusion is not the result of wishful thin"ing& but the moli"ely outcome of a precise observation of the data$40 %n this issue& see the careful and subtle studies by Broo"e Heidenreich 6indley& CSincere Hypocrisyand the uthorial Person in the Letters of Heloise&J(oman!e notes, *1Z# (!--1)8 ! ,0!:! and C5oes theHabit a"e the 7un@ 'ase Study of HeloiseGs influence on belardGs =thical Philosophy&J

ivarium ** (!--D)8 !* 0!;1$




11

(lin$ 111011;) of which belard recognises the prophetic 4uality$ /t is legitimate toin4uire how much this discourse is reconstructed +,,1. or invented by belard and

conversely& to what extent it conveys some of HeloiseGs original words$Eiven the length of the speech and ta"ing the authorGs declarations at facevalue& my wor"ing hypothesis would be to consider that belard incorporated intohis own narration extracts of a letter written by Heloise during her stay at Le Pallet&reacting to the marriage plan$ 6or the sa"e of clarity& / will henceforth use the title"ehortatioto refer to the lost document that may have once existed& and contrast itwith its rewriting by belard within theHistoria ccording to his narrative& thespeech would have been delivered to him when they finally met in Brittany$ 2he peroratio is indeed presented after a few words referring to HeloiseGs admission thatshe failed to convince him& the young woman being described as spea"ing in tears8

!um meam defle!tere non posset stultitiam ne! me sustineret offendere, suspiravehementer et la!rimans perorationem suam tali fine terminavit : 45num’, in3uid,4ad ultimum restat ut in perditione duorum, minor non su!!edat dolor 3uam pre!essit amor ’

But when she saw that she could not prevail over my adamant stupidity nor bear the thought of committing an offence against me& she brought her case toa close in tears and sighs8 W2here is one thing left for usG& she said& Wthat in ouutter ruin the pain to come will be no less than the love that has gone before$G*,

lthough theHistoria presents the episode as the report of an actual meeting& theabove sentences could nevertheless correspond to the final section of a complexrhetorical construction – Heloise admitting in advance her inability to curb hisobstinacy& as well as her willingness not to offend him& before announcing the fatalissue$ Setting aside that 4uestion& we should now examine in what measure& up tothat point& belard reproduced within theHistoria !alamitatum a text initially written

by Heloise& that he had before his eyes$ecently& 3ohn arenbon has made a strong argument against such asupposition& remar"ing that some 4uotations used in the"ehortatio have exact literalparallels in the second boo" of belardGsTheolo#ia Christiana & expanded in or soonafter ,,!! from his earlierTheolo#ia 4)ummi boni’$*! =xposing at +,,D. great length thevirtues of the ancient philosophers& in order to support the use of their testimonies41 2rans$ Killiam Levitan& Abelard and Heloise The Letters and other $ritin#s & (/ndianapolisZ'ambridge8Hac"ett& !--;)& ,;0, $42 3ohn arenbon& C bOlard8 les exemples de philosophes et les philosophes comme exemple&J inE1empla do!ent Les e1emples des philosophes de l’anti3uité la (enaissan!e, A!tes du !ollo3ue internatio.6eu!hDtel, ? %?F o!tobre ?== & ed$ 2homas ic"lin& 5elphine 'arron et =mmanuel Babey (Paris8 9rin&!--D)& ,,:0,##$




12

in 2rinitarian discussion& the theologian includes a long section on their chastity andcontempt of marriage$ 2hat section features three examples borrowed from 3eromeGs

Contra /ovinianumthat also appear in the"ehortatio$ arenbon deems asCincroyableJ the possibility that Heloise actually raised these examples andarguments first& in a personal plea against marriage& five years or so before belardput them to use in a theoretical context$*# /n reality& what is implied here is acontradiction between HeloiseGs authorship of the"ehortatio and 3$ arenbonGsunderstanding of belardGs changing interests over time while he was merely usingthe doctrines of the philosophers before entering religious life& after that turningpoint& first at Saint05enis& and even more later on& during his teaching period at theParaclete& he began to consider them as moral examples of virtue as well$** But is itreally inconceivable that belard could have borrowed 4uotations that Heloise firstprovided& in or about ,,,;@ t the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries& 3eromeGs writings enIoyed a growing interest& especially in reformist circles$*1 Contra /ovinianum was a well circulated text& in a period when the celibacy of priests was amaIor topic$*D 2he li"elihood that belard "new it and discussed it with Heloisewhile she was his pupil is far from being null$ 2o treat the matter at the level atwhich arenbon himself discussed the authenticity of the 'orrespondence& oneshould first loo" for indications and textual evidence that could help detect whatare& if any& the original lines from Heloise& and those possibly written by belard$2he late Eiovanni %rlandi& when as"ed to define his trade& used to say that +,,;. Caphilologist is someone who reads slowly$J*; t the ris" of being dull& this is how /shall proceed$

/n matters of Ccriti4ue dGauthenticitO&J external criteria have priority overinternal ones$* /n the present case& we do possess a strong external testimony infavour of some degree of authenticity of the"ehortatio$ /t comes from Heloise

43 0bid & p$ ,!:& the reIection is expressed in one brief 4uestion8 CSi on reIette cette hypothQse& commeincroyable& 4ue faut0il conclure@J arenbon says he shares in that regard the opinion of Philippe5elhaye& CLe dossier anti0matrimonial de lG Adversus /ovinianum et son influence sur 4uel4ues Ocritslatins du M//e siQcle&J *edieval )tudies ,# (,:1,)8 D10 D& esp$ ;#0;*8 Con ne peut sGemp[cher de douterde la vOracitO du rOcit$ %n a vraiment trop lGimpression 4ue les paroles rapportOes ici ne sont pasdGHOlo se mais de lGauteur de laTheolo#ia ChristianaC$ /t is remar"able that neither 5elhaye& nor

arenbon submitted their first impressions to a precise philological in4uiry$44 arenbon& C bOlard8 les exemples&J andThe Philosoph& & ##!0##:$45 2his point is well illustrated by ews& CFn lecteur de 3OrVme&C who argues that Heloise is in someway the true author of the"ehortatio8 C/l est s\r 4uGelle avait invo4uO des arguments contre lemariage$J =tienne Eilson&Héloïse et Abélard (Paris8 9rin& ,:D* ,st ed$ ,:# )& #101*& too" for grantedthat HOlo se was the author of the discourse& but didnGt provide a demonstration$46 5elhaye& CLe dossier&J ;,$47 / am 4uoting from a seminar held in common in ilano& on theEpistolae duorum amantium & in 6eb$!--D$48 6ranNois 5olbeau& C'riti4ue dGattribution& criti4ue dGauthenticitO$ Oflexions prOliminaires&'ilolo#ia mediolatina D–; (,:::–!---)8 ##–D!$




13

herself& in the second letter of the 'orrespondence that reacts directly to theHistoria$She ac"nowledges the fact that belard repeated some of her arguments against

their fateful marriage – but she complains that he left out the ones that matteredmore to her8

rationes nonnullas 3uibus te a !oniu#io nostro et infaustis thalamis revo!ar!onabar e1ponere non es dedi#natus, sed pleris3ue ta!itis 3uibus amorem !oniu#iolibertatem vin!ulo preferebam

Wyou did not thin" it beneath your dignity to set out at least some of thearguments / used when / tried to dissuade you from this marriage of ours andits disastrous bed$ Aou "ept silence& though& about most of the reasons why /preferred love over marriage& freedom over a chain$G*:

/ndeed& in the final parts of"ehortatio & after having briefly reported her claim thatthe name ofami!awas dearer to her& and more honest for him (lin$ 1*1011-)& belardadmits that he omits some arguments (He! et similia persuadens seu dissuadens, lin$11-011,)$ 2his theme is precisely the one she complains he discarded in his account she goes on to present it in a much more powerful way& exposing her notion ofdisinterested love in the name of which she refused marriage$ Kith all due caution&it can therefore be argued that& in Letter //& Heloise exposes the contents of the

second part of her speech& centered on the incompatibility between love andmarriage& that belard had drastically abbreviated$ /t would be absurd to claim thatshe is literally repeating what she had written years before – although&3uoad sensum &this is most probably the case& as the correct matching between these lines and thoseof the Historia shows$ 6urthermore& one should ta"e note that she is here adducinganothere1emplum from ancient philosophy& namely the advice given by spasia toMenophon and his wife& reproduced from 'iceroGs"e inventione,about SocratesGdisciple eschines& an anecdote that belard neither use inTheolo#ia Christiana norelsewhere$ 2his 4uotation shows HeloiseGs ability to illustrate her points with

examples ta"en from the classics it also +,, . suggests that& on the issue of marriage&she could have gathered a dossier of her own$ Pic"ing up a raredi!tum of spasia&the female philosopher&1- only "nown through 'icero& could be seen as a strong signof self0assertion as an intellectual in her own right$ /t is not implausible that thesame 4uotation could have been already present in the original speech$ 6or the time being& one main conclusion has been obtained from HeloiseGs reaction toHistoria$ /n

belardGs prose& she recognised the CreasonsJ with which she had resisted theproIect of marriage as dishonest for him& and she noted his s"irting round the

49 =p$ //& lin$ ,1*0,1;& trans$ Killiam Levitan& 1D$50 'f$ 7icole Loraux& C spasie& lGOtrangQre& lGintellectuelle&JClio Histoire, femmes et so!iété ,# (!--,)8 ,;0*!& reprinted in ead$&La @r !e au feminin (Paris8 Belles0Lettres& !--#)& ,##0,D*$




14

arguments that touched upon her views on love$ /f we accept that Heloise is theauthor of Letter //& we are compelled to admit that she had produced& before the

marriage& a set of articulated arguments opposing belardGs decision to marry$1,

/n order to detect whether the first part of this speech corresponds in someway to what we read inHistoria !alamitatum & the next step of this in4uiry shouldconsider the general structure of belardGs report of these arguments$ Let us firstobserve the way in which he switches bac" and forth from the direct to the indirectmode$ HeloiseGs speech is first reported with sentences introduced by a verb in thethird person (lin$ *! 0**!8 /urabat Guerebat "etestabatur Pretendebat$$$) theadvice she gave to belard are then reported by the latter in the first person (lin$** 0*1-8sus!iperem !onsulerem attenderem$$$)& apparently transposing in thesubIunctive mode verbs that would have been in the imperative in the originalspeech (sus!ipe !onsule attende)$ 2hen& after a first 4uotation of theContra /ovinianum & the discourse is presented in the first person (lin$ *D;01*18omittam in3uam ) before belard turns bac" to putting HeloiseGs words in the third personwhen summarising the final section of her discourse$ 6or the most part& this stylisticdistinction appears to follow one simple rule8 in all the sentences in which theindirect speech is used& Heloise addresses belard directly$ 2his device allows himto retain the view0point of the narrator& and to "eep the first person for himself$ %nthe other hand& the speech is reported in the direct mode when it comes to generalstatements about the inconveniences of marriage for the practice of philosophy$ Aetthis distinction is not so neatly observed throughout$ brief section& at the end ofthe part reported in the direct mode& does not follow that pattern& since Heloise ishere addressing belard (lin$ 1!D01#D83uid te preferas immer#as non !uras defende)$ /t begins with a sentence that deserves further observation8 +,,:.

Guam sobrie autem at3ue !ontinenter ipsi vi1erint, non est nostrum modo e1e1emplis !olli#ere, ne *inervam ipsam videar do!ere

y tas" is not to give examples of their sobriety and self0restraint& lest /

would seem to be teaching inerva herself$1!

6rom a strictly linguistic point of view& it would have been aw"ward to render thissentence in the indirect mode& since belard is here compared to a personification ofphilosophy$ 6or the very same reason& it sounds unli"ely that he would have chosenhimself such a turn of phrase& putting to use a Eree" proverb transmitted by 'icero&widely "nown in the period$1# 2his protestation of humility towards a more learned51 2he same point is made by ews& CFn lecteur de 3OrVme&J *#D$52 H'& lin$ 1!D01! $ Levitan& ,;& omits the use of the first person in that sentence$ / am thus adIustinghis translation to the litteral wording$53 2he Eree" proverb& transmitted by 'iceroGs A!ademi!i Libri & is used by many contemporary writers&including /vo of 'hartres or Peter the 9enerable$




15

master is typical of Heloise& and the metaphor she uses fits in with her literary tastes&as does the presence of a rhyming feature (!olli#ere do!ere)$ 2he connotations of

that sentence are noteworthy8 she refrains from adding further examples to the oneshe Iust gave& on account that he "nows what philosophy is all about much betterthan she does$ 2here are thus strong reasons to consider this sentence asauthentically coined by Heloise$ 2hat would imply& in turn& that at least some of theexamples given above were also hers$ By implication& the following lines& told in thedirect mode& would represent the strict continuation of the same speech& until thepoint where belard brea"s off and turns to the indirect mode$1*

/n order to detect who borrowed 4uotations from whom& it is necessary tocompare the"ehortatio with the portion ofTheolo#ia Christiana dealing with ancientexamples of chastity$ 2he theological treatise follows a fairly simple route$ /t firststates a general point (] ;)8 the continence of ancient philosophers demonstratesthat they were fulfilling a 'hristian command ahead of its time$ 2he followingparagraphs ( 0:#) provide the biblical foundations of that command& ending withthe virginity of ary& as well as that of the Sibylla$ 2hen& belard goes on with alitany ofe1empla & either of chaste or virginal wise men& or regarding their detestationof marriage and sex (:*0,-#)& mostly borrowed from 3eromeGsContra /ovinianum &with 9alerius aximus as an auxiliary source$ /nterestingly& the final paragraphs aredevoted to the chastity of female figures (,-*0,- )$ +,!-.

6or its part& the"ehortatio– leaving aside the first statements related to thepersonal situation of belard and Heloise – follows a much more complex structure$/t begins with the famous Pauline advice to refrain from marriage (/ 'or ;8!;0#!)& before turning to the ancient examples& starting with the case of 2heophrastus that 3erome presents as shameful for the 'hristians& followed by 'iceroGs refusal toremarry (both cases& fromContra /ovinianum & also present inTheolo#ia Christiana)$2he following paragraph offers a vivid account of the domestic complications that amarriage would entail it would not only distract from philosophy& but also re4uirethe wealth to sustain a household$ 2hese remar"s prompt a reminder that thephilosophical life implies a renunciation of all pleasures and worldly worries&illustrated by a 4uote from Seneca$ 2he speech then explains that sects of preeminentvirtuous men existed among the 3ews& the 'hristians and the Eentiles$ 2his lastgroup is illustrated by a 4uote from ugustine& referring to Pythagoras as thefounder of philosophy$ 2hen comes the disclaimer of humility that we alreadymentioned& and which serves as a transition towards the culmination of the speech8in view of all these examples& how much more should belard& a cleric and a canon&abstain from any impudence$ s a coda& emphasi ing the sordidness of domesticlife& comes thee1emplum of Socrates receiving on his head ManthippeGs pot of dirtywater (also used inTheolo#ia Christiana)$ 2his elaborated discourse is much more54 2he rubrics in 3ean de eunGs translation are also sensitive to this aspect& cf$La vie et les epistres & ,D8C%r conclut son propo la saige Heloys en eschivant le mariaige&C at H'& lin$ 1! $




16

than a simple criticism of marriage& since it also includes a general praise ofphilosophical life$ oreover& it is rhetorically built in order to point to belardGs

personal situation$2his difference in intention shows in the way in which both wor"s handle thesame examples$ 2heTheolo#ia Christianaprovides 4uotations fromContra /ovinianumin a longer form$ 2here& for instance& belard dwells at length on 2heophrastus&whereas the "ehortatio only repeats the concluding words given by 3erome$Li"ewise& the reference to Socrates and Manthippe leaves out the precedingstatement about a second wife$ %n the other hand& the remar" about 'icerocontinues with a comment not found in theTheolo#ia$ 2here is no notable textualdiscrepancy& but it should be expected that belard and Heloise were using closelyrelated versions of 3erome$ ll in all& the slightly different purpose to which thesame 4uotations are put to use& and the very distinct construction of both textsunder scrutiny do not offer sufficient indication that belard forged theCtheoreticalJ section of the"ehortatio & in order to convey ideas and ideals hedeveloped after his conversion$

/f the insertion of such examples was a sign of belardGs authorship& it should be expected that he also provided the two other 4uotations present in the"ehortatio$2he reference to Pythagoras as a founder of philosophy& ta"en from ugustine&indeed appears inTheolo#ia Christiana & but in a +,!,. different section& since it has norelevance to the 4uestion of chastity$11 %n the other hand& SenecaGs advice toLucilius& that he should devote all of his time to philosophy& has no counterpart inany other of belardGs texts$ Uuite revealingly& references to authentic writings ofSeneca are scarce in wor"s composed before theHistoria !alamitatum1D 2he mostimportant one appear in theCollationes & in an unusual positive reference to=picurus$1; His only other 4uotations from theEpistolae ad Lu!ilium feature in the(ule for the Paraclete and in the =p$ M// addressed to a regular canon$1 /n these55 Theolo#ia Christiana, //& # & ed$ =$ Buytaert& '$ 3$ ews (''' & ,!)& ,*;0,* $56 Seneca is absent fromTheolo#ia Christiana$ 2he)i! et non & (4$ ,*#& sent$ 1) ed$ Blanche Boyer& ichard

c>eon ('hicagoZLondon8 Fniversity of 'hicago Press& ,:;D) *:*& 4uotes the apocryphalProverbia)ene!ae$& as do various sermons$ %nly the final version of theTheolo#ia & refers to an authentic text&"ebenefi!iis & 1& ,& 4uoted inTheolo#ia s!holarium .//& ,!#) *D:& but the apocryphal letter to Saint Paul is4uoted more often&Commentaria in epistulam ad (omanos,ed$ =$ Buytaert (''' & ,,)& 1- andTheolo#ias!holarium & *-#$57 Petrus baelardus&Collationes, ed$ E$ %rlandi& transl$ 3$ arenbon (%xford8 'larendon Press& !--,)&,-!8 )ene!a, ille ma1imus morum aedifi!ator et !ontinentissimae2he editors suggests that theCollationeshave been written at Saint0Eildas in the years ,,!;0#!& but there is no compelling evidence that itshould be earlier than ,,#1$58 (ule, ed$ Hic"s& p$ 1,-8)ene!a, ma1imus ille paupertatis et !ontinentiae se!tator, et summus interuniversos philosophos morum aedifi!ator =pist$ M// (PL ,; & #1-B)8Han! et )ene!a ma1imus ille morum philosophus sententiam tenens, et si! philosophari Lu!ilio suo !onsulens$ =dmO enno Smits&Peter AbelardLetters 02 %20 An Edition $ith an 0ntrodu!tion .Eroningen8 Bouma& ,: #)& ,110,;!& suggest that theletter was written during the period at Saint0Eildas& after the transfer of Heloise to the Paraclete& in




17

references& as in others& Seneca is described as the greatest moral philosopherF9 & a4ualification also present in the"ehortatio %n the other hand& theEpistolae ad

Lu!ilium were a favourite boo" of Heloise$ She ma"es repeated use of it8 in Letter //&to describe the pleasure of receiving letters from friends& briefly in Letter /9& andthen again in theProblemataD- 2hus& the close analysis of 4uotations from the classicsends with a suggestion that reverses arenbonGs views8 the"ehortatio is 4uotingfrom a boo" well0"nown and dear to Heloise& and neglected& if not ignored& by

belard until a late period$ +,!!.7one of the arguments reviewed so far provide any reason to thin" that

belard forged& totally or in part& the speech he puts in HeloiseGs mouth in theHistoria stylistic anomaly can offer a final proof that the whole discourse derivesfrom a letter she had initially written$ careful reading does indeed suggest thepresence of an interpolation in the"ehortatio & which exactly covers the lines *:D01-:in onfrinGs edition$ 2he Seneca 4uotation is followed by an observation that& whatthe true mon"s are now achieving for EodGs love& the philosophers wereaccomplishing for the sa"e of philosophy (line *:#0*:1) the continuation of thisremar" is to be found at line 1,-& with the explanation – to which Pierre Hadotwould fully subscribe – that philosophy for them was not so much a science as areligious way of life$ 2he intermediary lines offer a didactic reminder of the fact that&among every people& there has always been a group of men achieving the higheststandards of virtue8 among the 3ews& the 7a arenes and other sects& among the'hristians& the mon"s& and among the Eentiles& Cas has been said&J the philosophers$2his ut di!tum est, meant to close the aside& allows the text to reverse to the originalspeech$ Such a construction suggests that we are facing an interpolation& brea"ingthe structure of a sentence that would otherwise be nicely balanced& comparingmon"s and philosophers$ 2he insertion& within an initial binary construction& of athird term representing the 3ewish heritage& can be seen as typical of belardGswillingness to put these three branches of humanity on an e4ual footing$ 2histendency is already evident inTheolo#ia Christiana$D, /t is even more so the case in theCollationes & written shortly before theHistoria & that stages a debate between threecharacters representing these respective groups$D! 2his insertion offers a clearexample of belard editing an earlier text& in order to bring it in line with views hedeveloped in the meantime$ 2he discrepancy between the two layers of text can also

,,! 0#!$59 %n top of the previous 4uotations& see Sermo MMM/// (PL ,; & 1:# )8)ene!a 3uippe ma1imus morumaedifi!ator benefi!ium$60 =p$ //& lin$ 1-01 =p$ /9& lin$ #-0#!$ See alsoProblemata8Talis animi !ompassio naturalis, sive rationalissit, sive minime, miseri!ordia proprie di!itur, teste )ene!a$ %n SenecaGs slow rise in popularity in the M//thcentury& cf$ >laus05ieter 7othdurft&)tudien um Einfluss )ene!as auf die Philosophie und Theolo#ie des

$Ilften /ahrhunderts (Leiden8 Brill& ,:D#)$61 Theolo#ia Christiana /& ,#D& p$ ,#-$62 Petrus baelardus&Collationes$




18

be argued for at a stylistic level$ 2he added passage is much less sophisticated thanthe text into which it is inserted$ /t is loaded with repetitions that were carefully

avoided in the preceding sentence& the oppositionapud nos Zin #entibus beingtransformed in the seriesapud Judeos Zapud nos Zapud #entiles$ 2he order of wordsfollows a very plain pattern& while the preceding and the following sentences offermore complex constructions$ Similar observations could be made on the basis of amore systematic comparison between the"ehortatio and the remaining parts of theHistoria if we were in need of more indications for HeloiseGs authorship$D# +,!#.

%riginal speech /nterpolationGuod nun! i#itur apud nos amore "ei sustinent3ui vere mona!hi di!untur, ho! desiderio philosophie 3ui nobiles in #entibus e1titerunt K

0n omni nam3ue populo, tam #entili s!ili!et3uam iudai!o sive !hristiano, ali3ui sempere1titerunt fide seu morum honestate !eteris preminentes, et se a populo ali3ua !ontinentie veabstinentie sin#ularitate se#re#antes Apud /udeos 3uidem anti3uitus 6a arei, 3ui se"omino se!undum le#em !onse!rabant, sive filii prophetarum Hel&e vel Hel&sei se!tatores, 3uosbeato attestante /heronimo mona!hos le#imus inveteri Testamento K novissime autem tres ille philosophie se!te, 3uas /osephus in libro Anti3uitatum distin#uens, alios Phariseos, alios)adu!eos, alios nominat Esseos Apud nos veromona!hi, 3ui videli!et aut !ommunemapostolorum vitam, aut priorem illam etsolitariam /ohannis imittantur Apud #entilesautem, ut di!tum est, philosophi

non enim sapientie vel philosophie nomen tamad s!ientie per!eptionem 3uam ad vitereli#ionem referebant, si!ut ab ipso etiam huiusnominis ortu didi!imus, ipsorum 3uo3uetestimonio san!torum

63 2o ta"e an easy example& the rhyming prose is more abundant in the"ehortatio than in any otherparts of theHistoria$ See for instance8 per omnia probrosum esset at3ue honerosumlibrorum sive tabularumad !olos, stilorum sive !alamorum ad fusosma1ime !ontempnentes, ne! tam relin3uentes se!ulum 3uam fu#ientesad s!ientie per!eptionem 3uam ad vite reli#ionem & etc$




20

religious life earlier on& probably ta"ing his boo"s with him$ %f course& she mayhave received later on the boo"s she needed& during her long stay in Brittany& or

have consulted them elsewhere& but it could also be the case that Heloiseconstructed her arguments and gathered her 4uotations from memory$ 2hishypothesis would suggest that she had reflected earlier& in Paris& on the topic ofmarriage she may have both made her mind in advance on that issue& and pic"edup some relevant 4uotations to that effect in her favourite authors$ /t is moredoubtful that the couple had the occasion to discuss the topic before HeloiseGspregnancy rendered a decision urgent$ Ke do not have any positive evidence as towhether belard thought it fit for a philosopher to marry before he was compelledto do so by 6ulbert& and there is no point in wondering what his initial views mayhave been$

t any rate& the ascription of a speech against marriage to Heloise throwssome rare and precious light on the discussions that went on between the lovers before their religious conversion& with regard both to their contents& and to theirhighly literate form$ Aears ago& Peter 5ron"e wrote that we should consider thecoupleGs relations as Ja literary and intellectual partnership that was not wholly one0sidedJ D1 'onstant ews and 3ohn arenbon arrived& through different means& atthe same conclusion that Heloise exerted an important influence on the formation of

belardGs views& especially in ethics$DD 2his analysis of the speech against marriage&considered as an independent text written by Heloise that belard "ept in hispersonal library& lends even more weight to that perspective$

2. The ascription of the Epistolae duorum amantium2he following step of this textual Iourney will lead us to another hotly debated issue$Khen =wald >?nsgen edited in ,:;* long excerpts from an anonymous loveepistolary found in a 'lairvaux manuscript& his conclusion was that the coupleinvolved bore strong similarities to Heloise and belard& but +,!D. he resisted theidentification$D; 2hat step was ta"en !1 years later by 'onstant ews& within a moreglobal approach to literary cross0gender dialogue in the ,!th century$D 2his

65 Peter 5ron"e&-omen -riters of the *iddle A#es (,: *)& ,,!$66 ews& Abelard and Héloise arenbon&The Philosoph& of Peter Abelard See also 6indley& C5oes theHabit a"e the 7un@C67 =wald >?nsgen&Epistolae duorum amantium : Briefe Abaelards und Heloises .Leiden& Brill8,:;*)$ 2hesubtitle was added by the publisher& not the critical editor& as he ma"es clear in C5er 7ordsternscheint auf dem Pol$ Baudolinos Liebesbriefe an Beatrix& die >aiserin – oderE1 epistolis duorumamantium,C in6ova de veteribus *ittel% und neulateinis!he )tudien fMr Paul @erhard )!hmidt & $ Bihrer&=$ Stein ed$ ( _nchen0Leip ig8 Saur& !--*) ,,,#0!,$ 2he letters will be reffered to by their number&preceded by letter for the woman ( *ulier)& 9 for the man (ir)$68 ews&The Lost Love Letters$ 2he same author developped his thesis with more arguments& mostnotably in Abelard and Heloise & C'icero and the Boundaries of 6riendship in the 2welfth 'entury&C

iator # 0! (!--;)8 #D:– *& and in a new chapter added to !-- edition of theLost Love Letters$




21

proposal has been received in various ways8 some scholars not only accepted theascription&D: but also brought forward new arguments in its favour&;- while others

have expressed their scepticism on various grounds& arguing that is impossible todecide and that the outcome doesnGt matter much&;, or Iust stating their disbelief$;!

2he number of critics mounting an argued case against '$ ewsG thesis is ratherlimited& and no one has come close +,!;. to refuting his claims;# 2hey will bediscussed in due course& along with some other important contributions that thrownew lights on some aspects of the letters without offering decisive arguments infavour or against the ascription$;*

s always with textual studies& the codicological examination has to comefirst$ /n the present case& the situation is fairly simple$ 2he epistolary is only "nownthrough extracts of ,,D letters and poems copied in ,*;, by the librarian of'lairvaux& 3ean de Ko`vre (3ohannes de 9epria)$ Khile preparing the new catalogue69 Barbara 7ewman& review of ews&The Lost Love Letters, The *edieval (evie$, !--- 5amien Bo4uet&review of ews&La voi1 d’Héloïse(6rench translation ofThe Lost Love Letters , *édiévales 1, (!--D)8, 10, =lisabeth Lalou& CGuid sit amor ,C Criti3ue;,D0;,; (!--;)8 -0:-& Iust to 4uote some favorablereviews containing interesting discussions$70 '$ Stephen 3aeger& C2heEpistolae duorum amantium and the scription to Heloise and belard&C and/d$& C eply to Eiles 'onstable&Coi!es in "ialo#ue: 6e$ Problems in (eadin# -omen’s CulturalHistor&, ed$ L$ %lson& >$ >erby06ulton (7otre 5ame Fniversity Press& 7otre 5ame8 !--1)& ,!1–DD and,;:– D 3ohn %$ Kard and 7eville 'hiavaroli& C2he Aoung Heloise and Latin hetoric8 Some

Preliminary 'omments on the WLostG Love Letters and 2heir Significance&JListenin# to Heloise

& 1#0,,:Sylvain Piron& C=n4u[te sur un texte&C& inLettres des deu1 amants, attribuées Héloïse et Abélard (Paris&Eallimard8 !--1)& ,;10!, $71 Euy Lobrichon&Héloïse, l’amour et le savoir (Paris& Eallimard8 !--1) aria 2eresa 6umagalli BeonioBrocchieri& inLettere di due amanti Attribute a Eloisa e Abelardo & trans$ 'laudio 6iocchi&( rchinto8'ollano& !--D)$ recent Eerman translation simply ignores the debate85nd $Nrst du do!h bei mir E1epistolis duorum amantium Eine mittelalterli!he Liebes#es!hi!hte in Briefen & trans$ =va 'escutti& PhilippSteger (Yurich8 anesse 9erlag& !--1)$72 3ohn arenbon& J2he ediscovery of Peter belardTs Philosophy&J /ournal of the Histor& ofPhilosoph&**0 # (!--D)8 ##,0#1,& see p$ #* 0*:$73 Eiles 'onstable& JSur lGattribution desEpistolae duorum amantium &J A!adémie des ins!riptions et belles%lettres: !omptes rendus des séan!es(!--,)8 ,D;:0:# (the original english version appeared later inoi!esin "ialo#ue KPeter 5ron"e& review ofListenin# to Heloise &0nternational /ournal of the Classi!al Tradition (!--!)8 ,#*0,#: K Peter von oos& C5ieEpistolae duorum amantiumund die Ws "ulare eligion derLiebeG8 ethoden"ritische 9or_berlegungen u einem einmaligen Ker" mittellateinischerBriefliteratur&O )tudi *edievali ** (!--#)8 ,0,,1 3an Yiol"ows"i& CLost and 7ot Aet 6ound8 Heloise&

belard& and theEpistolae duorum amantium &J /ournal of *edieval Latin ,* (!--*)8 ,;,0!-!$$74 5ron"e and %rlandi& J7ew Kor"s by belard and Heloise&J'ilolo#ia mediolatina ,! (!--1) ,!#–,;;(%nly %rlandiGs part of the article deal with theE"A) 6rancesco Stella& J nalisi informatiche dellessico e individua ione degli autori nelleEpistolae duorum amantium (M// secolo)&J in $ Kright (ed$)&Latin vul#aire latin tardif 000 A!tes du 000e !ollo3ue international sur le latin vul#aire et tardif, <1fQ 9 septembre ?==Q, (HildesheimZY_richZ7ew Aor"& %lms0Keidmann8 !-- ) /d$& JEpistolae duorumamantium8 nuovi paralleli testualiJ& forthcoming in /ournal of *edieval Latin & !-- $ Both %rlandi andStella express their scepticism at the ascription& but the results presented in their articles do not ruleout such a possibility$




22

of the abbeyGs library& the young 'istercian humanist gathered in a personal volumeexamples of epistolary art& either rare or famous& all found as he browsed through

one of the largest monastic boo" repository of Kestern =urope$;1

2he excerpting ofthe E"A was conducted in that context& for rhetorical purposes it was executed in acareful& philological mode& with obli4ue stro"es signalling all omissions in the copy$Ke are therefore in a position to realise that many letters are truncated at placeswhere one would expect to find the narration of particulars& regarding events andactions that the surviving lines refer to in vague and general terms$ 6or instance& in9 ,!& the scribe "ept a formula expressing the manGs contentment at the result of aspecific action (!erte fe!isse iuvat)& without noting the details of that action$ /n 9 #,& asentence in which the man tells how the thought of his friend helped him in certaindifficult circumstances is surrounded by two signs of omissions& indicating that thescribe didnGt care to report what these +,! . circumstances where$ 2he same type ofexcerption is repeated throughout& to the point of rendering hardly understandablethe meaning of some letters that probably had a more narrative nature& such as

,-; and ,,!$ %ut of what is left of these two letters& we can only guess that thewoman had important things to say about her personal situation$ /n the absence ofsuch concrete details& the tas" of determining the location and datation of the letters&and to identify the characters involved is highly problematic$

n analysis of the 'lairvaux manuscript allows us to ma"e a few deductions$2he title&e1 epistolis duorum amantium & was inserted by the librarian& rather thancopied from a model& as well the marginal signs and 9& indicating alternativelyletters written by the woman or the man$ 2his suggests that the apograph volumewas deprived of all editorial apparatus& such as a title and rubrics separating theletters$;D Some long letters are drastically abbreviated& but apparently only one wastotally left out$;; 2here is no reason to presume that the original collection containedmore letters$ s it stands& this is already by far the longest medieval love lettercollection$ 2he original manuscript was surely found within the library& as for theother sets of letters excerpted in the same codex$ Since the apograph does not appearin the ,*;,0;! inventory& the librarian presumably "ept it for himself$ He may havelater lent it to some friend who never returned the original manuscript$ s for theorigin of this volume& although this cannot be ta"en as a proof& it is worth notingthat mon"s of 'lairvaux were acting as confessors at the Paraclete& a situation thatcould explain how a manuscript initially in the latter abbey could have beentransferred to the 'istercian one$

75 ndrO 9ernet& 3ean06ranNois Eenest&La biblioth 3ue de lRabba&e de Clairvau1 du 200 e au 2 000 e si !le 0Catalo#ues et répertoires (Paris8 '7 S& ,:;:)$76 Piron& J=n4u[te&J ,;:0 , for a detailed demonstration$77 2he missing item would be a letter from the man& between ,,! and ,,!a& cf$ Piron& J=n4u[te&J, !0 #$




23

/s this a collection of authentic letters exchanged between a couple of lovers&as the title inserted by 'lairvauxGs librarian suggests@ =$ >?nsgen concluded that

such was the case& by stressing the contrasts between two distinct literarypersonalities$ 6rom one letter to another& the man fre4uently repeats the same turnsof phrase& a stylistic trait employed by the woman only twice$ %n a more globalscale& their vocabularies show distinct features& a fact that the statistical approach by6$ Stella confirms$; E$ %rlandiGs examination of the!ursus reveals a cleardiscrepancy between the styles of the two writers$;: %n another level& '$ ews hasmade clear a sharp contrast in their philosophical +,!:. conceptions of love&- andStephen 3aeger has stressed important differences in their characters$, cceptingthat they are extracts of authentic love letters would therefore pose no problem& if itwere not for some obIections raised by Peter von oos& who claims that thecollection is some sort of pastiche written by one or more writers& organisedaccording to a thematic order& and produced at a much later date (late ,#th or early,*th century)$! 7one of these views stand the test of criticism$ 2he thematicordering is more than elusive& and amounts in the end to nothing more than notingthe changing moods and themes appearing in letters exchanged over more than oneyear& while postulating that items not fitting with this succession of themes would be later additions inserted randomly$ /n the absence of a clear and meaningfulunderlying thematic structure& there is no ground for challenging the apparentchronological order of the collection$ 2he only exception is provided by the finalitem (9 ,,#)& which might be an earlier poem& added at the end of the collection afterthe correspondence had ceased$#

78 Stella& J nalisi informatiche del lessicoJ& 1D:8 J4uello che possiamo confermare in maniera ora direidefinitiva Q che si tratta di sue scriventi diversi& e 4uindi che si tratta effettivamente di un epistolario&probabilmente realeJ$79 5ron"e and %rlandi& J7ew Kor"sJ& ,*D0D1$80 %n top of the references 4uoted above& see also ews& CPhilosophical 2hemes in theEpistolae"uorum Amantium8 2he 6irst Letters of Heloise and belard&CListenin# to Heloise & p$ #101!$81 3aeger& C2heEpistolae duorum amantiumC82 von oos& S5ie Epistolae duorum amantium &C and the obIections raised in Piron& J=n4u[te&J !,#0,;$83 Piron& J econstitution de lGintrigueJ&Lettres des deu1 amants & !10!D$ 5ue to the lacunary status ofmost letters and to the contingent process of letter writing that rarely produces a regular alternationof messages& it is not possible to demonstrate that all letters strictly respond to one another$ Aet somethreads can be identified beyond any doubt on account of their contents& such as ,#0,*& , 0,:& !,0!;&1 0D*& ;,0;!& ;*0;D& *0 D$ 9 ; alludes to a rift that helps ma"ing sense of the exchange D:0;D and tsubse4uent reconciliation$ coherence can be found in ,-D& ,- and ,-:& as the expression of a forcedseparation& then a reunion of the couple$ %ther letters are playing with recurring phrases and images&such as 0 : or :,0:#$ lthough they lac" obvious traces that would relate them to the preceding orfollowing letters& all those that appear between the more organised moments of the correspondencefit in within the overall chronological ordering& on account of expression& mood& state of therelationship and degrees of intimacy& to the exception of 9 ,,#$




24

2he hypothesis of an artful imitation of real letters is also flawed$ s Stephen 3aeger has shown& the letters contain many private references& only intelligible to the

recipient& that rule out any other situation than that of the continuous recording of aprivate exchange$* 2he lac" of any understandable motivation for such a pastiche isproblematic$ /t is hard to conceive that a talented writer would have ta"en enormouspains to respect the stylistic +,#-. characteristics of the two personae of a fictivedialogue& over more than one hundred letter& without a specific purpose$ %n aformal level& the collection can hardly have a didactical aim& since the letters oftenfollow unusual patterns and rarely stic" to the recommended standards ofarsdi!taminis$ 7either do their contents provide a satisfactory explanation& since thecollection conveys no clear moral message and lac"s an overall unambiguousconclusion$ 2he two cases of a fictive epistolary mentionned by P$ von oos&Buoncompagno da SignaGs(ota veneris and Euillaume de achautGsoir dit & fit inrespectively with these categories theE"A do not$ s for a hypothesis that has no"nown parallel in medieval literature& the notion of gratuitous Cexercices de styleCsounds at odds with both the repetitiveness of many letters& and the gradualunfolding of a personal story$ s for the late date& the author implicitly recanted hisviews in a recent paper$1

ll serious obIections brushed aside& one should accept that the 'lairvauxmanuscript transmits remains of an authentic correspondence exchanged between awoman and a man over more than one year$ Some clues indicate that the exchangewas initially conducted on wax tablets (9 ,*& #;)& a common tool used by studentsfor ta"ing notes or doing exercises& that could provide ade4uate secrecy forcommunication between lovers$D s the exchange went on& one of the partnerscopied onto parchment the messages that he or she sent as well as those received$=vidence points that it is the woman who collected the letters$; 2heir relation isclearly that of a female student and her teacher& mutually admiring theirphilosophical excellence ( !#& *: 9 1-)$ Khile only a few of his letters reveal hisabilities as a logician& she displays throughout the exchange a rich biblical andclassical culture$ 2he man is a renowned teacher& engaged in controversies& as is

84 3aeger& C2heEpistolae duorum amantiumC85 von oos& C>ur es 7achwort u einer langen Eeschichte mit missbrauchten Liebesbriefen8Epistolae duorum amantiumC& in$&)!hrift und Liebe in der ultur des *ittelalters & E$ elville ed ( _nster&Lit 9erlag8 !--1)& !:,8 So scheint mir die genauere 5atierung dieser Briefe nach etwa ,, - und vor,*;, heute noch weitgehend offen& auch wenn ich rgumente f_r verschiedene Yeiten versuchsweise

ur 5is"ussion gestellt habe$ 2he admission of such a wide range of possible dates only means thatthe author gives up his earlier views$86 Lalou& CUuid sit amor@C87 Piron& C =n4u[te&C , *0, 1$ Such a way of collecting letters& combined with the lac" of any sign ofeditorial apparatus& implies that the chronological ordering is the most li"ely pattern of organisationof this collection




25

implied by an hymn that celebrates his triumph over a rival ( DD)$ Khat isunusual& as compared to other cases of cross0gender medieval dialogue& is that both

were apparently +,#,. living outside the cloister$ stri"ing feature of the womanGslexicon is the absence of all notions typical of monastic morality& from sin topenance$: Both of noble origin& they were living in the same town (9 ,,#)& the mangoing away for some periods ( *1)$ 2he way in which she spea"s of how heprevailed over the 6rench could mean that he was active in'ran!ia & while not beinga native ( *:)$ Both were apparently aware of their local fame& and were concerned by rumours over their relationship$ /t is difficult to assess their precise age& since both spea" about their youth in a loose way ( ,& 1& !,& 1#& ;#& 9 !D& 1-)$

2he age of the woman has fuelled a minor discussion that hinges on the wayone understands the expression6on mi!hi vetus es(9 ;1)$ P$ 5ron"e argues for anabsolute meaning of the adIectivevetus (Wyou are not old for meW) being used in arather ungallant way& it would imply that the woman was in fact not that young$:-

Aet the following proposition&3uotidie !ordi meo innovaris (Wevery day you arerenewed in my heartG)& strongly suggests that the verbal group should beunderstood in a progressive sense (Wyou are not growing oldG)$ dmittedly& it wouldhave been more correct to writenon veteras!is butnon vetus es may well have been bepreferred for euphonic reasons$ /n another letter (9 :D)& the man returns to the sameimage of a daily renovation of love& as opposed to the ageing of passing time$:, 2hedebated formula should be understood in the light of this latter instance$ 2his wouldthen allow us to conclude the examination of the coupleGs profile by describing themas a famous philosopher and his brilliant young student& active in Paris& 'hartres ora neighbouring city$ /n other words& and that was already =$ >?nsgenGs conclusion&the couple was more or less in the same situation and place as belard and Heloiseat the beginning of their affair$

Before deciding whether it ma"es any sense at all to discuss the li"elihood ofthe ascription of theE"A to the famous pair& it is necessary to verify whether thedate also fit$ 2he sources put to use in the letters offer the +,#!. only certainindications$ %n the one hand& the absence of any "nowledge of ristotleGsEthi!s & onthe part of people who claim to be the best moral philosophers of their days and88 %n that particular point& see the important comments by 3aeger& C2heEpistolaeC89 mong the words used in HeloiseGs letters and absent from the *ulier are those related tosexuality&!arnalis &!asta &!ulpa & forni!atio & forni!ator &lu1uria & prostituere &turpitudo &vir#ina and moregenerally to moral discipline8abstinentia &!ontinentia &!onfessio &!ontritio &in!ontinentia & penitentia, et!90 P$ 5ron"e& review ofListenin# to Heloise & ,# $ ews and 'hiavarolli&Lost love letters & ! ,& translate8Cyou are not outmoded to me$C91 See 9 :D 8 *ea verissime in te dile!tio de die in diem profi!it, ne! temporum vetustate minuitur, immo si!utsol 3uotidie novus est, ita tua suavissima dul!edo novitate sua flores!it, #erminat, et vivide !res!it$ (trad$'hiavaroli and ews& #-,8 C ost truly my love for you grows from day to day and is not diminished by the passing of time$ %n the contrary& Iust as the sun is new every day& so your most delightfulsweetness flourishes in its newness& sprouts and grows vigorouslyC)$




26

debate at length on the theory of friendship& renders a date later than ,!1- highly4uestionable& once the full translation by obert Erosseteste was available and

commented in schools$ /t is even implausible to posit a date after the first and partialtranslation& "nown as theEthi!a vetus,a text already 4uoted in Bologna around ,, *&and circulated slightly later in Paris$:! t the other end of the spectrum& the letters of both partners betray a strong literary dependence on the late ,,th0century Loire9alley poets& such as Baudri of Bourgueil and arbod of ennes$ 6$ Stella recentlyadded many borrowings or reminiscences to those initally noted by =$ >?nsgen$:#

Such indications leave us with a rather wide margin& suggesting that the letters wereexchanged at some point during the twelfth century$

/n order to reach a more precise result& a revealing test consists of tracing thepresence of rare words whose creation can be distinctively assigned to a precisecultural moment$ 2he woman delights in such rarities& to the point of coining newwords herself$ 2erms such asinepotabilis &inne1ibilis &dehortamenor vin!ulamen & notfound in any other latin writer& do not provide any clear indication of date& sinceadIectives in –bilis or substantives in –amen are too easily created$ ll other unusualwords in the womanGs letters feature in writers belonging to the same generation asHeloise& li"e Hildegard of Bingen or Bernard of 'lairvaux& or to earlier ones& such asEuibert of 7ogent or obert of LiQge ( upert von 5eut )$:* 6ollowing a similarinvestigation& 6$ Stella remar"s that belard is the writer sharing the most numerous+,##. rare turns of phrases with the woman$:1 Khat is significative for the purpose ofdating the collection is that no unusual word in theE"A ma"es its first appearancein medieval latin later than the early ,!th century$ part froms!ibilitas & first used by

belard& the very rareimmar!idus first appears in an imperial diploma of ,-! $ %nthe other hand& the woman is using words that go out of favour after the beginning

92 2he Ethi!a vetuswas already 4uoted in Bologna ca$ ,, *& cf$ Hermann >antorowic &S2he PoeticalSermon of a ediaeval 3urist8 Placentinus and His)ermo de Le#ibus &S /ournal of the -arbur# 0nstitute & !(,:# )8 !!0*,& esp$ p$ *, for the 4uote$ 2he earliest surviving manuscripts are slightly later& and thetext was not used in Paris before the early M///th 'ent& cf$Ethi!a 6i!oma!hea Translatio Anti3uissimalibr 00%000 sive REthi!a etusR & ed$ $ $ Eauthier& (Leiden0Bruxelles8 Brill05esclOe 5e Brouwer& ,:;!)$=ven if this partial translation does not contain the chapters of friendship& it brought about a rapidchange in the vocabulary of virtues that is not reflected in theE"A93 Stella& JEpistolae duorum amantium8 nuovi paralleli testualiJ$94 mong unfre4uent words& Euibert uses!ervi!ositas &dehortare(the closest one can find todehortamen , e3uipolenter &e1sa!iare &indefe!tivus &indesinens & pre!ordialis &s!ien!iola &super!iliositasHildegard hasviriditas (;, times )&!alibs & flabrum, ma#isterialis Bernard8!ervi!ositas, immar!idus,litteratorius upert8dul!ifluum &e3uipolenter &ma#isterialis, superedifi!are2hese results are based on aninterrogation of 'etedoc /ndex of Latin 6orms& Patrologia Latina 5atabase and of the files of the7ouveau 5u 'ange in Paris$95 Stella& JEpistolae duorum amantium8 nuovi paralleli testualiJ$ 2o these& / can add that that belarduses the adIectivelitteratorius (in the formlitteratorie s!ientie & precisely referring to Heloise& inHistoria &ed$ Hic"s& p$ 1D)& whileae3uipollenter is found in Berengarius& Apolo#eti!us pro Petro Abaelardo & PL ,; &, D $




27

of the twelfth century& such asdul!ifluus &:D that was not infre4uent in 'arolingiantimes& or the much rarerdul!ifer &:; both witnesses to the language of sweetness so

important in the high iddle ges emotional discourse that Barbara osenweinrecently discussed$: 2his test provides negative evidence& demonstrating that thevocabulary used by the two lovers is consistent with the lexicon available towardsthe beginning of the ,!th century$

6ocussing on the poetical parts of the collection and submitting them to asystematic comparison with the corpus of medieval latin poetry& 6$ Stella found botha confirmation of previously identified trends and some new tendencies8 stronginspiration from the Loire valley poets& similarities with 6rench or Paris0trained=nglish M//th 'ent$ poets& and a sharp decline in parallels after the end of thecentury$ His analysis also bring forth a possible obIection to the ascription theory$ series of poets active in the second part of the twelfth century are sharing groups oftwo or three words with the poems of theE"A$:: Aet one should be cautious beforedeciding how significative such findings are$ /n most cases& these authors are onlyalluding to earlier poems that are also used in theE"A$ %ther parallels of two orthree words& such asmens mea sentit (Cmy mind feelsC) can be purely accidental$ /nmy view& only +,#*. one case can seriously be considered as an actual borrowing or asource of theE"A$ /n hisEntheti!us de do#mate philosophorum & his earliest wor"&written in a poetical form& 3ohn of Salisbury uses the phrase3ui!3uid mundus habere potest (Call that the world can containC)& that is also found in the final poem of theE"A (9 ,,#) $,-- 7ow& as noted earlier& this piece stands apart in the collectioninitially written for a semi0public audience& and not directed to the woman as aprivate letter& it was added afterwards to the collection as a coda$ 2hus& it is notunthin"able that it enIoyed some circulation and that it was "nown by 3ohn& whocame to Paris in ,,#D& studying with the greatest masters of the time& starting withPeter belard$ ll in all& this discussion of the collectionGs date shows that theevidence rather points towards the first part of the ,!th century& as =wald >?nsgen96 2he Patrologia Latina 5atabase shows very few hits fordul!ifluus later than the first decades of theM//th 'ent& in theHistoria Compostelana(,,--0,,#:)& ichard of Saint09ictor and 2homas of Perseigne&while earlier usages are numerous& from 9enantius 6ortunatus to upert of 5eut or Hariulf of%udenburg$97 Present in Plautus (Pseudolus & ,!1:) or 2atuinus ( Aeni#mata *& ,)&dul!ifer is used again by lcuinusand& through him& 6roumundus of 2egernsee& (Poemata & PL ,*,& ,#--' and ,#-, )$ P$ 5ron"e& reviewofListenin# to Heloise & ,#D& ta"es this thread as evidence in favour of a Bavarian origin of the *ulier98 Barbara osenwein&Emotional !ommunities in the Earl& *iddle A#es(/thaca (7A)8 'ornell FP& !--D)&,,-0,,#$99 Stella& JEpistolae duorum amantium8 nuovi paralleli testualiJ$ 2hese various parallels should bediscussed one by one$ 6or the sa"e of brevity& / am Iumping to the conclusions of my examination ofthe important data gathered by 6rancesco Stella$100 3ohn of Salisbury&Entheti!us maior and minor, 3an van Laarhoven ed$ (Leiden8 Brill& ,: ;)& see t$ ,& p$,!1& v$ #--$ 2he editor suggests& *;01!& that the first part was written in Paris when 3ohn was still astudent$ belard himself is mentionned& p$ ,-:& v$ 1;$




28

had initially concluded by considering literary themes&,-, and as Stephen 3aegerconcurred on the basis of the cultural bac"ground of the letters$,-! Aet& there is no

proof that compels us to narrow the margin to the earlier decades of the century$2his means that the hypothesis of an ascription to Heloise and belardcannot be ruled out from the start$ /t should be ta"en all the more seriously since wedo possess external indications& provided by both of them& that the early phase oftheir affair involved the writing of numerous letters&,-# while no other "nown couplefits in so closely with the profile of the anonymous pair$ ather than repeatingarguments produced in favour of the ascription& / would li"e to show briefly thatthey have not been successfully contested so far$ 2he central argument raised by'onstant ews was his observation that the love letters are accidentally using atechnical philosophical terminology& that he considers typical of belard$ 2his claimcannot be disproved on a lexical basis& but on a doctrinal one only$ 7oting that someof these words are trivial& such asindifferenter & is not a valid obIection since whatmatters here is the use of that adverb in a certain theoretical context and not in itsundifferentiated common use$ Li"ewise& remar"ing that a term such as!ibilitas wasalso used& or rather coined anew& by lbert the Ereat or amon Lull is beside thepoint& since comparison should only be made with ,!th0century authors& none ofwhom we "now of uses this neologism$ 2he only serious obIection& which is all but arefutation& comes from 6$ Stella& who rightfully calls for a systematic survey$' ews has found positive evidence that traces of belardian +,#1. philosophysurface in theE"A – and it is not a problem if they appear mostly in the womanGsletters& since the student is hereby trying to stir a philosophical discussion with hermaster$ 2he contrasted use of the adIectivesspe!ialis and sin#ularis & by the man andthe woman& in both theE"A and the 'orrespondence& is fairly impressive$ Still& asystematic demonstration would re4uire showing that this terminology was strictly

belardian& to the exclusion of all other contemporary philosopher$ 5ue to thefragmentary& and often anonymous status of the documentation produced in ,!th0century philosophical schools& this tas" is beyond the abilities of historians$ =ven ifthey appear to some as too wea" to be a sufficient textual proof of ascription& theseindications demonstrate at least that the setting of the letters is a twelfth0century citywhere the study of dialectics was blooming& Paris being the most obvious candidate$

/n an acerbic polemical article& 3an Yiol"ows"i bases his criticism on acomparison between the manGs letters in theE"A and later belardian writings& Cinmatters of vocabulary& prose rhythm and prosody& and allusion$C,-* His observations bring forth undeniable discrepancies between these documents& although many ofhis results should be mitigated$ nalysing the fre4uency of function words that are101 >?nsgen&Epistolae & :;$102 3aeger& C2he =pistolae$C103 Historia & ed$ Hic"s& p$ 1D =p$ //& p$ ,1!$104 3$ Yiol"ows"i& CLost and 7ot Aet 6ound$C




29

supposedly used by one writer in a consistent manner& in whatever genre andcontext& is an important tool for identifying his literary productions$ But relying on a

selection of five such words& as 3$ Yiol"ows"i does& is not sufficient to draw aconvincing picture$ more global assessment& provided by 6$ Stella& shows thatstrong divergences are limited to some words (such asautem, 3uidem, vehementer ors!ili!et) while the fre4uency is comparable for other words (such asenim &si!ut &tam &or tamen) the overall data can then be described as not CparticolarmentesignificativiC$,-1 %ut of my own calculations on the vocabulary of both collections& /observe some notable proximities between the woman and the man in theE"A & aswell as between Heloise and belard in the 'orrespondence (precisely those signsthat prompted 3ohn Benton to argue for a single author theory in ,:;1)$,-D Aet thisshows primarily that people writing to each other tend to use similar vocabularies$2he fre4uency of many function words in the womanGs and HeloiseGs letters is ratherclose (for instance&enim &er#o &iam &ita &nun! & pro &si! &tam, unde)& and the mutualoverlap of their vocabulary is +,#D. notable& but certainly not strong enough to claiman identity of authorship on that sole basis$,-;

s for prose rhythm& 6$ Stella notes that E$ %rlandiGs comparison of thecursus in theE"A and the 'orrespondence can lead to very different conclusions&whether one choses to consider rough fre4uencies (in which case there are stri"ingresemblances between both pairs)& or to correct them according to the Pearson test(in which case the resemblances disappears)$,- 3$ Yiol"ows"i gives much weight toPeter 5ron"eGs impression of a stylistic difference between the woman& whoconstantly uses semi0rhyming prose& and Heloise& who uses it in a more selectivefashion in her prose& Cpassages that rhyme abundantly& not Iust in simple pairings&alternate with long stretches that have no rhymes at allC$,-: Aet letter *:& the mostelaborate one written by the woman that is preserved almost entirely& fits in ratherwell with such a description& since it displays an alternance of ryhming and non0rhyming passages& and contains at times multiple rhymes$,,- /t could also plausibly be argued that the same person gradually evolved into a more mature literary

105 6 Stella& J nalisi informatiche del lessico$J106 3ohn 6$ Benton and 6iorella Prosperetti =rcoli& C2he Style of theHistoria Calamitatum8 Preliminary2est of the uthenticity of the 'orrespondence ttributed to belard and Heloise&Jiator D (,:;1)81:0 D$107 y results slightly differ from those of 6$ Stella& since / include theProblemata in the analysisHeloiseGs vocabulary& but my conclusions exactly concur with his 8 J/nsomma la ulier assomiglia ad=loisa e i due amanti si assomigliano fra loro ben pi^ di 4uanto il 9ir somigli ad belardo$J108 6 Stella& J nalisi informatiche del lessicoJ$109 5ron"e& review ofListenin# to Heloise & ,#;$110 See for instance8 $$$!upiditates omnes refrenat, amores reprimit, #audia temperat, dolores e1tirpatK 3ue!un!ta apta, !un!ta pla!entia, !un!ta Jo!undissima sumministrat, ni!hil3ue se melius reperire valet/t can also be the case that in his drastic abbreviation of ,-; and ,,!& 3ohannes de 9epria selected the mostrhetorically appealing sentences& leaving aside non ryhming passages$




30

personality& distancing herself from the manneristic ryhming style she had beeninitally taught$ 2he same type of consideration can be opposed to the sharp

divergences noted by 3$ Yiol"ows"i regarding the poetical techni4ues of the man andthat of belard in hisCarmen ad Astralabium$ 5ifferences in genre& time and contextare such that they can easily account for such variations$ 6urthermore& the castrationand monastic conversion of belard mar" such a brea" in his life that it could haveaffected his writing habits as well& in a radical manner$ Khile there is somecontinuity in his philosophical endeavours& once he became a mon" at Saint05enis&he resolutely turned his bac" on the %vidian poet and lover he had once been$,,, /tshould come as no surprise that& when composing a didactical poem for his son orliturgical hymns for the Paraclete& he +,#;. reverted to very different techni4ues andreferences$ /n a less dramatic fashion& as soon as they became bishops& both Baudriof Bourgueil and arbod of ennes changed their writings habits and poeticalstyles$

ore generally& any attempt at a comparison between the two sets of lettersshould ta"e into consideration a series a factors$ /f they are to be ascribed to Heloiseand belard& the messages and letters excerpted by 3ohannes de 9epria would havehad to have been exchanged in ,,,*0,D& according to my rec"oning& while the'orrespondence is usually dated to around ,,#!0##$ oreover& the first messageswere written for very private purposes& in secrecy and often in a rush$ %n someoccasions& the man had to answer on the womanGs wax tablets while the servantacting as a messenger was waiting at the door$ By contrast& the letters exchangedafter theHistoria !alamitatumhad from the start a semi0public character& since thenuns of the Paraclete were included as an audience for belardGs letters to Heloise&and they were aiming as much at religious edification or reflection& as at personalcommunication$ distance of eighteen years& a radical transformation of socialpositions& and a shift in intentions can explain many changes in literary habits$ llthis being said& it has to be admitted that belardGs voice is not easily recognisable inthe E"A$ n explanation can be provided for that fact& since we ignored what

belardGs intimate voice was li"e during the first years of his relationship withHeloise$ Still& this aspect is certainly the wea"est point in defence of the ascription& but in the face of remaining evidences& / donGt perceive it as an insuperable obstacle$

s concerns literary allusions& 3$ Yiol"ows"iGs reservations are mainly due tothe fact that theE"A do not correspond to what he expected the earliercorrespondence between Heloise and belard to be$ /t may be disconcerting thatLucan is not 4uoted more& given the number of reminiscences of thePharsalia foundin later wor"s$ But this is an argumente silentio that cannot be given decisive weight&when compared to positive evidence$ /n this regard as well& the investigation should111 6or a remar"able unconscious reminiscence of theHeroides in Theolo#ia )!holarium & see nneErondeux& J2urba ruunt (%v$ Her$ / )8 histoire dTun exemple grammatical&J Ar!hivum Latinitatis *edii Aevi D, (!--#) ,;10!!!$




31

be more systematic& and may bring forth new parallels$ 6or instance& '$ ews hasrecently brought to light an element that deserves consideration$ group of three

4uestions from belardGs)i! et non & discussing!aritas as the foundation of ethicallife& gather 4uotations from 'icero& ugustine and 3erome& which the lovers areusing in their theoretical debate& in letters !* and !1$,,! 2his is not a case of onecasual 4uotation found in two texts& but of a specific selection of extracts fromdifferent authors& not associated in any earlier anthology& and tied together withinan elaborate discussion on love in both documents$ 2he plausibility that thesereferences would have first appeared in a real dialogue before their +,# .incorporation into a collection of sentences is much higher than the reversepossibility$ /n such a case& belard would have inserted in his anthology of patristicopinions some sources initially provided by Heloise& another sign of thecollaboration we already hinted at with the arguments against marriage$

%ut of this brief presentation of the debate& it emerges that there is a case infavour of the ascription that has not been convincigly disproved yet$ /ts strength can be debated& not all scholars may be e4ually convinced& but it is not acceptable toreIect the theory as disdainfully as 3ean0Aves 2illiette does& by presenting it asanother chapter in the legend of Heloise and belard& CR la frontiQre de la science etdu r[veC$,,# rguably& more wor" should be done& in various directions& in order tonarrow the margins of uncertainty that remain$ /n the following pages& / wish topresent a different type of argument based on what / understand to be the personaldevelopment of both theE"A’s woman and the young Heloise$ /f the argument iscorrect& it would allow us to connect the two series of documents& and show howthey interweave as two facets of the same story$

3. Heloise’s moral philosophy/t is high time we introduced some reflections on the theme of the present volume$2he 4uestion of memory is obviously central for the understanding of both sides ofthe 'orrespondence$ belardGs narration of his disasters belongs to the genre of theapology& presenting excuses and Iustifications for his past conduct andmisadventures$ 2his is conducted by using a selective& self0conscious and morali ingmemory& that deliberately aggravates the sins he committed& especially in relation toHeloise$ %nce the tas" has been performed& the theologian showed no willingness toshare more memories with his wife he only turned bac" to it relunctantly& in histhird letter& to emphasi e the sinfulness of their behaviour in rgenteuilGs refectoryand in other circumstances$,,*

6or her part& Heloise demonstrates a very different attitude$ 2he issue thatproved to be the most problematic& or even shoc"ing& to generations of interpreters112 P$ 5ron"e& review ofListenin# to Heloise & ,#;$113 3$0A$ 2illiette& J/ntroduction&J inLettres d’Abélard et d’Héloïse & ed$ Hic"s& ,#0,*$114 =p$ 9& ed$ Hic"s& !-D$




32

confronted with her words (and it is fair to recall that they were mostly male anddevout 'hristians) is that her religious conversion was not accompanied by a denial

of her earlier memories$ She had strong moral reasons for acting in that way yetthose reasons were conflicting with each other$ 2hey can somehow be described asthe philosophical and the theological side +,#:. of HeloiseGs internal drama$ %ne wasthe sense that nothing could or should undo nor curb her love for belard herwhole self had been so totally involved in this love that renouncing it& albeit forreligious motives& would have been a self0betrayal of the worst "ind$ s shememorably puts it in her first letter& if her heart (animus) is not with belard& itcannot be anywhere else$,,1

2he other conflicting reason was her detestation of hypocrisy in the face ofEod$ Submitting herself to a merciless examination& she considered these memoriesand longings for intimacy with her lover and husband that she couldnGt part with assinful$ s Broo"e H$ 6indley has subtly pointed out& the 4uest for sinceritynecessarily implies self0denunciation for being a hypocrite$,,D 2his should not bemista"en& as has often been done& with a confession of un0'hristian feelings$ %n thecontrary& over0emphasi ing a failure to live up to the highest christian standardsentails a willingness to live up to them$ /t is in such a context that one of the mostfamous and vivid medieval expression of involuntary memory should beunderstood$ s Heloise confesses& it occurs in dreams or as a distractions of themind during the most solemn occasions& provo"ing uncontrolled gestures andutterances8

6or me& the pleasures we shared in love were sweet& so sweet they cannot displease menow& and rarely are they ever out of my mind$ Kherever / turn& they are there before myeyes& with all their old desires$ / see their images even in my sleep$ 5uring Holy ass itself&when prayer should be its purest& unholy fantasies of pleasure so enslave my wretched soulthat my devotion is to them and not to my prayer8 when / ought to groan for what / havedone& / sigh not for what / have lost$ 7ot only what we did but when and where – these areso fixed within my heart that / live through them again with you in all those times andplaces$ / have no rest from them even in sleep$ t times my thought betray themselves in a

movement of my body or even in unvoluntary words$,,;

115 =p$ //& ed$ onfrin& p$!* 0!1,86on enim me!um animus meus, sed te!um eratK sed et nun! ma1ime, site!um non est, nus3uam est: esse vero sine te ne3ua3uam potest$116 B$ H$ 6indley& CSincere Hypocrisy$C117 =p$ /9& ed$ onfrin& ,:#0!-;80n tantum vero ille 3uas pariter e1er!uimus amantium voluptates dul!esmi!hi fuerunt, ut ne! displi!ere mi!hi ne! vi1 a memoria labi possint Guo!um3ue lo!o me vertam, semper so!ulis meis !um suis in#erunt desideriis, ne! etiam dormienti suis illusionibus par!unt 0nter ipsa missarumsollempnia, ubi purior esse debet oratio, obs!ena earum voluptatum phantasmata ita sibi penitus miserrimam!aptivant animam ut turpitudinibus illis ma#is 3uam orationi va!em: 3ue !um in#emis!ere debeam de!ommissis, suspiro potius de amissis 6on solum 3ue e#imus sed lo!a pariter et tempora in 3uibus he! e#imita te!um nostro infi1a sunt animo, ut in ipsis omnia te!um a#am, ne! dormiens etiam ab his 3uies!am6onum3uam etiam ipso motu !orporis animi mei !o#itationes deprehenduntur, ne! a verbis temperantimprovisis (trans$ Levitan& ;:0 -)$




33

+,*-. ccusing herself of hypocrisy& Heloise reproaches herself with acts that

theologians would later discuss as the Cfirst movementsC of the soul& and usuallydeclare devoid of any guilt$,, belard& for one& only considered those actionsaccomplished on purpose& when the deed was rooted in a deliberate intention& asculpable$,,: /n theCarmen ad Astralabium, he recalled HeloiseGs!rebra 3uerela & herfre4uent complaint at being unable to repent and regret past pleasures$,!- /n reality&her 4uarrel against herself encompassed two different internal conflicts$ 2he first&and only one that belard could perceive& involved the religious necessity to repentand the moral demands of faithfulness towards her great human love$ 2he latterre4uirement& in turn& was anything but a peaceful one$ mong other things& itimplied a self0accusation of a different type& that of having brought miseries to herlover$

/n order to ma"e my point clear& some general considerations are needed$Khen historians approach twelfth0century emotional life& they are not confrontedwith raw feelings that could be analysed in ahistorical psychological terms$ llemotions are shaped by many social and cultural constraints that affect the gestures& behaviours& and rhetoric through which they are expressed even their perception bythe historical subIect is mediated by the available categories$,!, 2he perception andenactment of emotions are also& inevitably& connected to ethical Iudgment$ 2he claimthat love as a passion would be beyond reason and morality is in itself a verypeculiar moral stance$ 2his is why / am inclined to treat HeloiseGs views on love& both as expressed in +,*,. speculative terms and as enacted in her feelings& discourseand behaviour& as a moral philosophy of its own$ 2his philosophy has much incommon with her religious 4uest for sincerity& starting with her re4uirement fordrawing all practical conse4uences from the principles she defends$ Aet& the two doalso conflict& and they represent one vivid instance of the tension between earthlyand religious values that is anything but untypical of the first half of the twelfth118 5amien Bo4uet& C5es racines de lGOmotion 8 les prOaffects et le tournant anthropologi4ue du M//esiQcleC&Le )uJet des émotions au *o&en U#e & 5$ Bo4uet& P$ 7agy ed$& forthcoming& Paris& Beauchesne$119 arenbon&The philosoph& of Peter Abelard & !*:0!D*$120 Carmen ad Astralabium & v$ #;10# *8sunt 3uos oble!tant adeo pe!ata pera!ta V ut num3uam vere peniteantsuper his V &mmo voluptatis dul!edo tanta sit huius V ne #ravet ulla satisfa!io propter eam V Est nostre suho! Elo&se !rebra 3uerela V 3ua mi!hi 3ua se!um di!ere sepe solet V si nisi peniteat me !omississe priora V sne3ueam spes mi!hi nulla manet V dul!ia sunt adeo !omissi #audia nostri Vut memorata iuvent 3ue pla!uenimis .CAet there those who past sins still so allure them that they can never feel truly penitent$

ather& the sweetness of that bliss remains so great that no sense of atoning for it has force$ 2his is the burden of complaint of our Heloise& whereby she often says to me& as to herself8 if cannot be savedwithout repenting of what / used to commit& there is no hope for me$ 2he Ioys of what we did are stillso sweet& that after delight beyond measure& even remembering brings reliefC& trad$ P$ 5ron"e&0ntelle!tuals and Poets & !1;)$121 6or a convenient introduction to these problematics& see Piros"a 7agy& CLes Omotions et lGhistorien8de nouveaux paradigmes&CCriti3ue (;,D0;,;& !--;)8 ,-0!!$$




34

century$ 2he tas" of the final sections of this article will be to compare HeloiseGsphilosophy of love with the one exposed& in her writings and acts& by the *ulier of

the E"A$Love is& however& much more than a culturally defined emotion$ %ne of itspeculiarities is that it involves the interaction between at least two persons and theirenvironment$ 6or that reason& time& duration and memory are closely woven into it$Love can only exist and develop within a story as the dynamic unfolding of variousemotions in both partners& more often than not in contradictory and asynchronousways$ 2herefore& the cultural models chosen by or imposed on lovers have generally been found in narratives of different types& presenting a story evolving over time$Heloise and belard have captured the Kestern imagination& as early as 3ean de

eunGs rendering in the late ,#th century yet& when living their own story& theythemselves had in mind some previous models found in classical latin literature$Khen tracing her own peculiar path& Heloise was drawing her inspiration fromfeelings and ideals expressed by fictive characters in latin poetry$ 2his is preciselywhat the notion of her Cliterary self0fashioningC implies$

6rom such a perspective& one can easily understand that theE"A constitutean extraordinarily interesting historical source$ =ven in the fragmentary form inwhich we read them& they provide a uni4ue glimpse into the intimacy of a learnedcouple& reflecting on their situation& and allowing us to follow the unfolding of theirrelationship over time$ 'onstant ews has rightfully stressed the importance of thephilosophical debate going on between the partners$ Here& / am less interested intheir theories than in the way they are put to a test and sometimes contradicted bythe deeds of the lovers& and above all& in the transformations of both characters inthe course of events$ econstructing their story enables us to compare it with the oneHeloise and belard spea" about in their letters$ / should concede that such acomparison can only be made on the basis of very thin evidence& since theE"A donot provide any obvious external clue$ 6or its part& theHistoria offers only a verycursory and biased account of the period preceding HeloiseGs pregnancy& which isthe one to which theE"A would correspond& according to my reconstruction$ 2hesubse4uent letters& when tal"ing about the past& concentrate on the most dramaticevents that followed the childGs birth8 the marriage& belardGs castration& and thereligious conversion of the couple$ 2herefore& the practical +,*!. philosophy of loveexpressed by both female characters appears to be one of the most appropriateangles for a systematic comparison between both sets of documents$ crucial testwould be to detect whether anything in theE"A could correspond to the refusal ofmarriage reflected in the"ehortatio But a general confrontation of ideas present on both sides will already prove 4uite enlightening$

/n the famous volume he dedicated to the couple& despite hismisunderstanding of HeloiseGs claim to be unrepentant& =tienne Eilson ma"es anexcellent point in describing her attitude as inspired by tragic Latin heroines$ Peter




35

5ron"e summarised powerfully the same notion by saying that& in her first twoletters& Heloise Cwrites her ownHeroides$C,!! 2he comparison most aptly describes

the intensity and poignancy of these letters$ Aet& since faithfulness to her earlierideals was a maIor driving force of her writing& / assume that the same reference to%vidian heroines can also illuminate the personal choices she made at the very beginning of her relationship with belard$ s we saw earlier& he did not reproducein the Historia the second part of the"ehortatio$ fter having illustrated withexamples of male philosophers that marriage was not fitting for him& it is possiblethat she brought forward li"ewise a series of female characters in order to hammerher second point that made her prefer to remain the unmarried friend of her hero$ /tcould be an exercise for students of latin literature to gather all possible sources ofinspiration& a tas" / shall not underta"e here$

2he maIor scene that allows for such a reading& reported in theHistoria!alamitatum & has often been commented on& among other by ary 'arruthers$,!#

bout to ta"e the veil at rgenteuil& and before stepping up to the altar& Heloiserecited 'orneliaGs lament in LucanGsPharsalia,accusing herself to have caused thedefeat of Pompey& and as"ing to expiate for it$ 'ornelia& a well educated youngwoman endowed with an independent mind and a strong character& may have beenan appealing figure for her$ But it is only with belardGs castration that thisparticular passage too" on a specific personal importance$ /n the same vein& weshould thin" of Heloise as possessing& within her literary memory& a full range ofclassic wor"s out of which she was able to extract the relevant scenes& with whichshe would identify at various stages of her adventurous moral and emotional Iourney$ /n order to compare both letter collections& / shall select a few features&present in the 'orrespondence& +,*#. that stri"e me as characteristic of her moralphilosophy$ Since these texts are immensely famous and easily available& they can bepresented in a very synthetic manner$

/n the first place& no reader may have missed the tragic tone with which sheexpresses her readiness to sacrifice everything for belard$ 7ot only did she CloseherselfC& as she puts it& when entering monastic life at his command,!* a very seriousreproach& expressed in her letters& is that he didnGt trust her at that very moment&and forced her to ta"e the veil first& as if he doubted the strength of her resolution$6ifteen years later& she still has not totally forgotten it$,!1 Such a combination of122 5ron"e&-omen -riters of the *iddle A#es: a !riti!al stud& of the te1ts from Perpetua .W ?= to *ar#uerite Porete .W 7 7= ('ambridge8 'FP& ,: *)& ,-;& who focusses more precisely on the letter ofBriseis to chilles$123 ary 'arruthers&The Boo+ of *emor& A )tud& of *emor& in *edieval Culture ('ambridge8 'FP&,::-) !!!0!!; Peter von oos& C'ornelia und Heloise&CLatomus #* (,:;1)8 ,-!*0,-1:$124 =p$ //& ed$ Hic"s 8me ipsam pro iussu tuo perdere sustinerem$125 =p$ //& ed$ Hic"s& ,1-& 2rans Levitan p D,8in 3uo, fateor, uno minus te de me !onfidere vehementer doluiat3ue erubui E3ue autem, "eus s!it, ad vul!ania lo!a te properantem pre!edere vel se3ui pro Jussu tuo minimdubitarem$ (2hat you doubted me in this one thing& my love& overwhelmed me with grief and shame$




36

extreme love with a readiness to sacrifice oneself is typical of %vidian heroines&5idoGs suicide being probably the most powerful scene of all$

2he readiness to lose everything for love& including her very self& has anexact parallel in the desire not to gain anything out of love& except love itself$ 2hedoctrine of pure love is perhaps the most famous aspect of HeloiseGs views$ t itsmost poignant& it is encapsulated in a memorable line86i!hil um3uam, "eus s!it, in tenisi te re3uisiviK te pure, non tua !on!upis!ens (CEod "nows / never searched foranything in you& except yourself desiring you only& not what was yoursC)$,!D 2histheme was at the centre of the missing second part of the"ehortatio$,!; oreradically than a wish not to gain anything& it can be interpreted as a desire to vilifyher social status for the sa"e of love$ 2he famous reference to her preference for being called hismeretri1 rather than 'esarGsimperatri1,! testifies again for anidentification with mythical heroines such as Briseis$ s well as literary memories&this doctrine is grounded on philosophical sources& mostly 'iceroGs"e ami!itia & andon the theology of charity that she "new through 3erome and& among medievalwriters& possibly Kalter of ortagneGs)ententia de !aritate$,!: 2he notion of thegratuitous love of Eod& transferred to human relations& is not untypical of thetwelfth century& although it would be developped more in later decades& but itsassociation with tragic connotations is surely HeloiseGs special mar"$ +,**.

2he third element / would stress may appear to be a secondary conse4uenceof the previous two& but it deserves emphasis of its own$ /t concerns the exclusiveand perpetual 4ualities of this love$ 2he point is made strongly towards the end ofher first letter& when Heloise insists that the real meaning of their love will bedemonstrated by the way it ends$ /f belard doesnGt provide her with the care heshould& that would mean that he was attracted to her by concupiscence only& andnot by friendship and love$,#- lthough Heloise is here ma"ing reference to publicrumour& this is no so much a threat as a reminder of a central piece of her morals$ love that ceases& for whatever reason& has never been a true one$,#, 2his demand forconstancy and perpetuity is a maIor "ey to understanding the conflict withBut& as Eod "nows& / would have followed you to 9ulcanGs flames if you commanded it& and withouta momentGs hesitation / would have gone first)$126 =p$ //& ed$ onfrin& lin$ ,*#0*$127 H'& ed$ onfrin& lin$ 1*;0: and more clearly in HeloiseGs response& lin$ ,**0, 1$128 =p$ //& lin$ ,D,0!$129 arenbon&The Philosoph& &!: 0#--$130 =p$ //& lin$ !,;0!#8!ur post !onversionem nostram, 3uam tu solus fa!ere de!revisti, in tantam tibine#li#entiam at3ue oblivionem venerim ut ne! !ollo3uio presentis re!reer ne! absentis epistola !onsolerK din3uam, si vales, aut e#o 3uod sentio immo 3uod omnes suspi!antur di!am Con!upis!entia te mihi potiu3uam ami!itia so!iavit, libidinis ardor potius 3uam amor 5bi i#itur 3uod desiderabas !essavit, 3ui!3uid propter ho! e1ibebas pariter evanuitK lin$ !1:0D-8nun! autem finis indi!at 3uo id in!hoaverim prin!ipio$

131 2ransfered to theological debate& this is exactly the theme under which belard inserted&arguments exchanged inE"A !*0!1 in the)i! et non & 4$ ,# 8Guod !aritas semel habita nun3ua amittaturet !ontra




37

theological values$ 7o religious conversion can erase a human affection that isre4uired to be indelible$

2he fourth and final point regards the ambivalent attitude towards the lovedman that her heroic ethics imply$ %n the one hand& the tragic desire of sacrifice goestogether with total submission to her lover and master$ any passages can illustratethis point$ /t may suffice to recall the opening of her second letter& in which sheexpresses her surprise that he has mentioned her name first in the salutationformula of his letter$,#! But at the same time& her self0abnegation is also the source ofthe highest re4uirements addressed to her partner$ 2he construction of her firstletter builds on the various reasons why belard should have ta"en care of her& andhave written a letter of consolation to her rather than to his unnamed friend$ /n thefirst pages& she mentions his duty to ta"e care of the nuns he established at theParaclete then& she briefly alludes to the duties he still has towards her& as his wife but she insists much more strongly on what he owes her because of the passion shealways had for him$,## %f his three relationships to her& as founder of the Paraclete&+,*1. husband and lover& belard responded mainly according to the first& while thethird still mattered greatly to her$ /n this regard& a subtle nuance deserves to bestressed$ =ven if her love was not forsa"ing any "ind of material or social reward& itcalled for a form of reciprocity$,#* 2his ambivalence echoes one present in the%vidian heroines$ lthough generally being in a position of inferiority ordependance& as far as social position is concerned& they place themselves on a e4ualfooting when it comes to the ethical demands of love$ 2his is precisely the devicethat allows them to lament and complain about their lover& in the name of love$

uch more could be said about HeloiseGs practical moral philosophy& but this may be sufficient as far as comparison is concerned$

4. The story behind the letters, and the ethics of love in the Epistolaeduorum amantium

eading closely the succession of letters collected and excerpted by 3ohannesde 9epria , and ta"ing note of elliptic references to exterior events and meetings ofthe couple& it is possible to reconstruct something of the general outline of thepersonal story in which both partners are engaged$,#1 Since the letters are often

132 =p$ /9& lin$ !0,-$133 =p$ //& lin$ ,!#0D8!ui 3uidem tanto te maiore debito noveris obli#atum 3uanto te amplius nuptialis federesa!ramenti !onstat esse astri!tum et eo te ma#is mihi obno1ium 3uo te semper, ut omnibus patet, immoderatamore !omple1a sum$134 =p$ //& lin$ !#10;86un! vero plurimum a te me promereri !redideram, !um omnia propter te !ompleverim,nun! in tuo ma1ime perseverans obse3uio$135 See my C econstitution de lGintrigue&C inLettres des deu1 amants,,;0!;$ Kard and 'hiavaroli& C2heAoung Heloise&C #0: & present an account that differs from mine$ oland %berson&Héloïse revisitée(Paris8 Hermann& !-- )& reconstructs the events on the basis of his unproven (and unprovable)assumption that Heloise was the victim of rapes committed by her uncle 6ulbert$ /f considered as a




40

other than her decision to remain silent& after sexual intercourse too" place& in orderto avoid danger for him and scandal for her$ /t is possible that she too" the decision&

having noted his willingness not to spea" about the event that prompted him towrite& in 9 D,8 Cif you loved me& you would have said lessC$,*D /n that letter& he mayhave been refering to difficulties of a different type as a diversion& so as to avoid adirect discussion of his deeds – his victory over a rival& celebrated soon afterwards by the woman in DD& suggests that these tribulations were of an academic nature$

nyhow& her offer of reconciliation did not prove immediately successful$ /n theinterval& he had written a poem& lamenting on the fact that she loved him less thanhe did$,*; 2his declaration was the cause of a new 4uarrel ( D:& ;,)& that he attemptsto mend (9 ;!& ;*& ;1)& until she finally decrees that Cfurther conflict between usshould ceaseC ( ;D)$ /n the subse4uent letters& in which she declares the wholenessand exclusiveness of her love,* & an allusion to these inIuries surfaces again$,*:

pparently& the offence in words was more resented than the one in deed$,1-

/t is a very difficult tas" to decide on the meaning of imagery that can eitherconvey an erotic meaning or none at all$ / would argue that it is only possible todraw a distinction in relation to the context in which these images appear$ Before thecrisis& as we saw& the woman sent twice to her pressing friend sibylline advice toremain wise and virtuous$ 7o such message recurs in the second part of theexchange$ /nstead& in similar circumstances& we find brief messages that could beunderstood as expressing bliss at physical union$,1, P$ 5ron"e& on the contrary& hasinterpreted a sentence by the woman +,*:. as a sign that the liaison had not yet beenconsummated8 Cyou have manfully fought the good fight with me& but you have notyet received the pri eC$,1! Aet this reference is more complex it plays both on the145 D!8 Si! inter nos res a#atur, ne et tu peri!ulum, et e#o s!andalum in!urram$ 2wo omission signs inletter D!& afterrespondeo and li#ari & are correctly noted by >?nsgen& #1& and not reported by ews&!D:& surrounding the reference to danger and scandal$ 2hey suggest that the woman could have beenmore explicit about the source of the crisis and the solution she proposed$ /t can be reminded that inthe "ehortatio & lin$ 1*D& Heloise is also concerned about the dangers belard would incur$146 9 D,8)i me amares, minus lo!uta fuisses$147 9 ;!886un3uam er#o di1isse velim 3uod plus te amem, 3uam me amari sentiam148 / tend to give a great importance to the wish expressed in salutation of ;D8inte#errime dile!tionissummam(Cfulfilment of the most complete loveC& ! ,)$149 8Gui!3uid un3uam mi!hi iniurie intulisti, a memoria a!tenus non re!essit !ordis mei, sed nun! purea! sin!ere et pleniter tibi !ondonabo omnia, eo tenore ut dein!eps a te tali non moveatur iniuria$150 9 ;18 Ali3uanto iam tempore formosa mea de fide dile!tissimi tui dubitasti propter 3uedam verba, 3ue subitimpulsus !ontumelia, in ipso doloris !ursu di!tavi, et utinam non di!tassem, 3uia tu nimis ea memoritersi#nasti, 3ue ro#o ut a !orde deleas, et apud interiora tua radi!em non fi#ant 151 See for instance 9 ; & # (that would deserve a longer exegesis than can be underta"en here)& 9,,,& and the imagery in !$$152 8Ha!tenus me!um mansisti, me!um viriliter bonum !ertamen !ertasti, sed nondum bravium a!!episti2his certamen should be understood in relation to 9 ;!8)i! amor noster immortalis erit si uter3uenostrum feli!i et amabili !on!erta!ione preire laboret alterum, et neutri nostrum !onstet se ab altero superatumesse$




41

Pauline imagery of salvation as a Cgood fightC& and on the manGs suggestion& whentrying to repair his earlier blunder& that they were both engaged in a competition for

love& in which neither will accept in being surpassed by the other$,1#

y impressionis that she only implies here that she is still ahead of him in that regard$Khatever one may thin" of such evidence& the total silence of the *ulier on

the issue of chastity is stri"ing and contrasts with all other "nown cross0gendercorrespondence from the twelfth century$,1* 2he short anthology of love letters from2egernsee gathers extracts from more than one correspondence& roughlycontemporary to theE"A & that bear notable resemblances to it$ anytopoi presentin the 6rench collection appear as well in the Bavarian one& albeit in simplergrammatical constructions and with a less sophisticated literary and philosophical bac"ground$ nother noticeable difference is that these letters contain three lines inwhich the woman accepts the manGs love& provided it will remain chaste$,11 2hesame motif appears in most comparable medieval dialogue between men andwomen$ Khen 5ame 'onstance responds to Baudri of Bourgueil& although shedoesnGt doubt his good faith& she wouldnGt contemplate a meeting with her pen0friend without the presence of two or three companions& preferably by day and in apublic place& in order to avoid any ris" of suspicion and preserve their Ccolumbine+,1-. simplicityC$,1D 2he *ulier of the E"A, as we see her acting& was certainly notafraid of private meetings$ /t is li"ely that the initial CbondC between the pair

153 9 ;!8 )i! amor noster immortalis erit si uter3ue nostrum feli!i et amabili !on!erta!ione preire laboretalterum, et neutri nostrum !onstet se ab altero superatum esse$154 / would tend to rule out the hypothesis that such a discussion was left out by 3ohannes de 9epria&who was more intent on suppressing too overt erotic allusions& as he did in 9 ,,!& line ,;& but wecannot have any certainty$155 3_rgen >_hnel&"X bist mYn, ih bin dYn "ie lateinis!hen Liebes% .und 'reunds!hafts% Briefe des !lm 798(E?ppingen8 >ummerle& ,:;;) 1*8 Attamen si s!iero me !asto amore a te adamandam, pro pi#nus pudi!i!iemee inuiolandum, non re!uso amorem$ /n the final exchange& a man tries to obtain more than Iust wordsfrom the woman& which she energically refuses& :,8 et e1inde putatis, 3uod post mollia 3ue3ue nostradi!ta, transire non debeatis ad a!ta )i! non est ne! erit$ 2he collection is also partly edited& and translated by Peter 5ron"e& *edieval Latin and the (ise of European Love%l&ri! (%xford8 'larendon& ,:DD)& vol$ !&*;!0 !& who suggests that these letter are Cprobably contemporaryC with those of Heloise$ 2hemanuscript is dated to ,,D-0 -$156 Baudri de Bourgueil&Carmina & ed$ 3$A$ 2illiette (Paris8 Belles0Lettres& !--!) t$ !& ,#!8 At !ir!umstarent!omites mihi uel duo uel tresV Guamuis ipse suae suffi!iat fidei V 6e tamen ulla foret de suspitione 3uere)altem nobis!um sit mea fida soror V Clara dies esset ne! solos nos statuisset V Ho! fortuna lo!o sed ma#istrivio$ 'onstance further insists& ,#* 80us et le1 semper tueatur amorem V Commendet nostros uita pudi!aio!os V Er#o !olumbinam teneamus simpli!itatem$ Baudri himself express his concern about chastity inmost of his letters addressed to women& cf$ 2illiette& CHermQs amoureux& ou les mOtamorphoses de la'himQre$ Oflexions sur les!armina !-- et !-, de Baudri de Bourgueil&C *élan#es de l’E!ole franZaise de(ome &,-* (,::,)8 ,!,0,D,& at ,**0D$ / am not convinced that 'onstanceGs answer is an invention ofBaudri himself& as arguedibid & ,*-0#$ 2o the contrary& theE"A prove that highly literate cross0genderdialogue was possible& and it is not unli"ely that 'onstance "new very well both %vid and BaudriGspoetry$




42

contained a clause of chastity (implicit in the letters as we read them& but perhapsexpressed at some point in their discussions)$ Aet after this bond has been bro"en&

instead of severing all relations as she once wanted to ( D-)& she decided on herown to resume communication ( D!)$ Ke may surmise that her reasoning was thather moral involvement in this relationship was stronger than her aversion tofornication$ 2his is why she reacted so intensely to the doubts he publicly raisedabout her feelings$ %nce the 4uarrel was settled& she then too" on the tas" ofdefining a new bond – she uses the word pi#nus (pledge) in *& and wishes himCthe closeness and stability of a bondC (vi!initatem federis et stabilitatem) in –that could include sexual intercourse on the one hand& but that re4uired highdemands on the other hand$ Such would be the underlying meaning of the intensedeclarations that are proferred after the end of the crisis$ dmittedly& such areconstruction is debatable its only Iustification is that it ma"es sense ofall theelements at our disposal& leaving no word unexplained while adding no superfluoushypothesis$

/t is now time to turn to the four points of comparison presented above$ 2hemost obvious parallel regards the doctrine of pure love$ lthough there is no exactrepetition of words with HeloiseGs famous statements& letter *: display parallelviews$ /t strongly contrasts love for the sa"e of goods and pleasures with the onethat connects the lovers based on virtue& it is self0sufficient& needs no cupidities andrefrains from them all$,1; /f there is no textual identity& the doctrine expressed& basedmainly on 'iceroGs"e ami!itia & is unmista"ably similar$ long the same lines& inpoem !& she reIects +,1,. the riches of 'esar as useless& in comparison to the Ioysprovided by her friend$,1 Before deciding whether such notions and metaphors are banal& we should patiently investigate the following points of comparison$

2he second one may offer stronger evidence& since the tragic element inHeloise is rarely found in other female (or male) writers of the twelfth century$ /t istrue that& in his very first letter (9 !)& the man proclaims his willingness to die for hisfriend& but in view of what follows& this can be considered as an exagerated posture&and the woman herself moc"s him later on for such a thoughtless promise$,1:

/nstead& she ta"es on this theme in a most serious manner$ Shortly before the firstrift& declaring that only death can separate her from his love& she may still merely beusing a commonplace$,D- 2he truly distinctive note appears slightly later& once both

157 2he central sentence is 4uoted above& note ,,-$158 !8)i 3ui!3uid Cesar un3uam possedit haberem V Prodessent tante nil mi!hi divitie V @audia noun3uam te nisi dante feram(C/f / could have all that 'aesar ever owned Z Such wealth would be of nouse to me $ / will never have Ioys except those given by you$$$&C ! 1)$159 D: 8)it memor illarum mi!hi 3uas fudit la!rimarum VCum mi!hi di!ebat 3uod moriturus erat V )i tam formose non perfrueretur amore

160 * F : 5nde non est ne! erit res vel sors, 3ue tuo amore me separaret nisi sola mors




44

Cum omnia fa!tus sis mi!hi e1!epta solius dei #ra!ia$$$ (CSince you are now made allthings to me& except for the grace of Eod alone$$$C& with a reference to Paul / 'or& !!)$

However one decides to understand the mysterious couple of sentences& it is beyondany doubt that she is insisting that her love is stronger than any social convention$lthough the series of letters that follows is mainly expressing the fulfilment

of love& the tragic note is heard again$ /n the next intense declaration& *& thereadiness to die is repeated8 C7obody& except death& will ever ta"e you from me& because / would not hesitate to die for youC$,D# Later on& in what may be the onlytrace of humour in a correspondence otherwise excessively serious& the manaddresses her asmart&r mea (Cmy martyrC& 9 :D)& ma"ing fun of her tragicproclivities$ Before closing this section& it is worth noting that the woman who wrotethose letters certainly had %vidGsHeroides in mind& since she explicitly refers to themin *1& comparing her pressing attachment to her lover to that of Byblis towards'aunus& %enone towards P ris or Briseis towards chilles$,D* t the end of poem

!& %vidian in +,1#. inspiration and tragic in tone& but whose meaning isunclear&,D1 one line suffices to express this oppressive aspect of her love8 *iserere mei3uia vere !oartor dile!tione tui(CPity me& for / am truly constrained by the love ofyouC)$ 'onstant ews rightly insisted on the reasonable element of her CdilectionC&a love grounded on a choice that considers mainly the virtues and merits of thechosen one,DD but once the decision is made& it has to be sustained& and hercommitment "nows no limits$ She identifies with characters who are compelled bylove to act beyond reason& of which Byblis& irrepressibly in love with her own twin brother& provides the star"est example$ 2hese two trends& based on very differentsources of inspiration& do not contradict but rather complement each other$ Khat /find remar"able is that& under both perspectives& she had conceived what her lovewould entail and re4uire by the time she wrote *1 and *:& before the relationshipreached a critical point$ 2he letters she wrote in reaction to the two offenses shesuffered& and in their aftermath& demonstrate her ability to act along principles thatshe had settled earlier$

2he third element retained above& exclusiveness and perpetuity& is closelyconnected to the previous one& as the positive side to her tragic sense of belonging$5eclarations to that effect abound in theE"A & especially in its most intense section$

egarding exclusiveness& it may suffice to 4uote the first line of one of the mostimportant letters ( *)8163 *8te nisi mors mi!hi adimet nemo, 3uia pro te mori non differo164 *186on enim me ma#is possum ne#are tibi, 3uam Biblis Cauno, aut <enone Paridi, vel Briseis A!hilliBriseis and %enone are the alleged authors ofHeroides # and 1$ Byblis and 'aunus are characterspresented in %vidGs *etamorphoses (/M& **;0DD1 & where Byblis also writes a love letter to her brother&of which there are reminiscences in the poem !$165 9arious interpretation have been provided by 5ron"e&-omen -riters & :D0:; ews&Lost LoveLetters & ,,! 3aeger& C2heEpistolae &C ,#; Kard& 'hiavaroli& C2he Aoung Heloise&C :#$166 ews&Lost Love Letters & ,#10,#: and CPhilosophical 2hemes$C




45

C=ver since we first met and spo"e to each other& only you have pleased me above allEodGs creatures and only you have / loved$$$ / placed you before anyone else in my heartand pic"ed you alone out of thousands& in order to ma"e a pledge with youC,D;$

2he same letter& after an omission& goes on to express what she presents asher defining natural 4uality8 CBirds love the shady parts of the woods& fish hides instreams of water& stags climbs moutains& / love you with a steadfast and wholemindC (mente stabili et inte#ra)$,D /n her following letter& a +,1*. firewor"s of adverbs brings home the same point8 C2he immense strength of my love& unceasingly&incessantly& un4uestioningly and undescribably holding its own course $$$ C$,D: 2helast extract of the final long letter echoes her insistence on stability8 C/ long with

desire to have the leisure of being unfailingly devoted to you$C,;-

2here is little needto emphasi e that such declarations form the centre of gravity of these letters$ %n alexical level& it is interesting to note the predominance of adverbs and adIectives&4ualifying the actions expressed in the letters& rather than nouns$ /nstead of anarticulate reflection on faithfulness& the actual demonstration of her unmovablestability suffices$

6inally& an ambivalent attitude towards the man also appears in these letters$%n various occasions& she demonstrates her obedience and submission to the manGswill$ 2he brief !: is too elusive to be discussed& whereas the impressive opening

of ;, deserves mention 8C2errified by the LordGs Iudgement& which says& Wit is hard to "ic" against the goadG& / sendyou this unadorned letter as proof of how devoutly / submit myself to your instructions$C,;,

Kriting reluctantly& at his command& she does it according to her ownfeelings& without any salutation& in order to let her irritation show$ 2hroughout& shealso emphasi es his greater learning and philosophical abilities$ 2he whole letter

!!& the first one in which she dares to engage in a learned discussion& is mainly167 *8Post mutuam nostre visionis allo!u!ionis3ue noti!iam, tu solus mi!hi pla!ebas supra omnem dei!reaturam, te3ue solum dile1i, dili#endo 3uesivi, 3uerendo inveni, inveniendo amavi, amando optavi, optanomnibus in !orde meo preposui, te3ue solum ele#i e1 milibus, ut fa!erem te!um pi#nus168 *86emorum umbrosa dili#unt volu!res, in a3uarum rivulis latent pis!es, !ervi as!endunt montana, e#ote dili#o mente stabili et inte#ra elis, nolis, semper meus es et eris, nun3uam er#a te meum mutatur vne3ue a te animum abstraho totum169 D80mmensa vis tui amoris, indesinenter, in!essanter, indubitanter, inenarrabiliter permanens in statusui tenoris $$$ 2he same declarations are repeated in her next letter& 8Te!um permanebo fida, stabilis,immutabilis, et non fle1ibilis, et si omnes homines !apiendos in uni!os s!irem, nun3uam a te nisi vi !oa!ta, penitus e1pulsa, re!ederem 6on sum harundo vento a#itata, ne3ue me a te movebit asperitas ulla, ne! ali!uiurei molli!ia $$$170 ,,!88 tamen desiderio, desidero indefi!ienter tuo va!are studio$ 2ranslation modified$171 ; ,8 "omini!a senten!ia perterrita per 3uam di!itur 4diffi!ile est !ontra stimulum !al!itrare’, hasinornatas litteras tibi mitto, earum probans indi!io 3uam devote in omnibus me tuis pre!eptis subi!io$




47

'icero and using formulas that are parallel to some expressed in *:,;D in the sameremar"able letter& she also insists on the exclusive character of her love& and on its

everlasting 4ualities& with phrases +,1D. that echo some other letters in the 'lairvauxmanuscript$,;; Aet& nowhere in this collection is there any trace of the tragic elementsdiscussed above$ 2he notion of a virtuous friendship does not evolve into that of amore demanding form of gratuitous love& incompatible with any sort of worldly benefit$ 7or is there a shadow of the willingness to die for love$ /f the male teacherrefers to Pyramus and 2hisbe& "nown through %vidGs *etamorphoses & his femalestudent does not seem ready to identify with any of theHeroides$ ll in all& while the2egernsee and the 'lairvaux collections share a number of images& metaphors andformulas& the young woman of theE"A is certainly much closer to Heloise thananyone else$

Aet these parallels ma"e even more sense if we follow the reconstruction ofevents delineated above& that can be summarised as follows$ /n the course of theirlove affair& conducted mainly through exchanging wax tablets& the man committedsome acts that& at first& both considered reprehensible – presumably sexual relationsfor which she was not prepared$ fter wishing to 4uit& she decided to resume theirrelationship& and eventually proposed a new formulation of their bond8 she wouldremain his friend and secret lover& not as"ing for marriage in reparation& butre4uiring his full care and attention$ He accepted the offer& while declaring himselfnot perfectly up to the tas" from the very beginning (9 1)$ /ndeed& soon afterwards&fearing exposure& he began to act more prudently and put some distance betweenthem& which made her furious at him$ Aet the most obvious reason for her being sentaway for some time is that& indeed& they had been discovered$ Fpon her return& shehad important things to tell that made her happy& but provo"ed a negative reactionon his part& and which brought an end to their exchange$

2his narrative is not the fruit of any wild imagination it is merely an attemptto account for all the elements that the letters convey& without leaving out anydetail$,; /t is a different tas" to try and reconcile this with the way in which belardpresents his affair$ 6or instance& locating within theE"A the precise moment whenhe began living in 6ulbertGs house would be totally hypothetical$ Such an endeavourshould also be underta"en with a +,1;. degree of scepticism regarding his account&176 >_hnel&"X bist mYn,;-8 $$$de ami!i!ia uera 3ue nihil est melius, nihil io!undius, nihil amabilius, di!ereipse rerum ordo !on!essit Ami!i!ia uera, at testante Tullio Ci!erone, est diuinarum humanarum3ue omniumrerum, !um +aritate et beniuolentia !onsensio, 3ue etiam, ut per te didi!i, e1!ellentior est omnibus rebushumanis, !un!tis3ue aliis uirtutibus eminentior, disso!iata !on#re#ans, !on#re#ata !onservans, !onservatama#is ma#is3ue e1a##erans 2his letter& numbered /9$, by >_hnel and found a bit further in the ms clm,:*,,& is not edited by P$ 5ron"e$177 >_hnel&"X bist mYn & ;!86am a die 3ua te primum uidi, !epi dili#ere teK ;*8Tu solus e1 milibus ele!tis in te solo pendeo, in te omnem spem meam, fidu!iam3ue positam habeoK ;D8Esto se!urus, su!!essor nemo futurus, est tibi sed ne! erit, mihi ni tu nemo pla!ebit

178 6or a more detailed presentation& see my C econstitution de lGintrigue$C




48

which he may have deliberately blac"ened and exagerated$ 2heE"A do not exactlyreflect the notion of a strategy to seduce an innocent young woman& although they

donGt exclude it either& especially in the first part all in all& however& they rather givethe impression that both parties were actively and voluntarily involved$ But thedescription of an exchange of letters as a means for saying things that neitherpartner would have dared to utter in the presence of the other fits in well with thecontents of the letters$ s for sexual relations& in his third letter& belard records thathe forced her by threats and blows& while she resisted& a picture that may in factrefer only to the first occasion discussed above$,;: 2he final se4uence of theE"A & as /reconstruct it& appears to match rather well the events recorded in theHistoria$ 2hereis no indication that Heloise was sent away from Paris once 6ulbert finallydiscovered the affair& but belard alludes to a separation of the lovers$, - 2he E"Aleave little room for the scenes of immodesty depicted by belard after the affairwas disclosed& but this could be accounted for in different ways$ 6inally& theHistoriarefers to the letter in which the young woman announced her pregnancy Cwith greatexultationC8, , as 'onstant ews surmised for different reasons& / too consider thatletter ,,!& transmitted in a very fragmentary form& could very well be that letter$ 2hefinal sad message recorded as ,,!a shows that his reaction was not what sheexpected$ /f he had sent her orders to prepare and move to Brittany& as we can piecetogether from theHistoria & we should understand that this departure put an end totheir love epistolary& to which Heloise only added later the poem5r#et amor(9 ,,#)&in memory of the earlier phase of the affair$ 2he next letter she wrote& from Le Pallet&would have been the"ehortatio$, ! +,1 .

Kithout forcing the documentation& and with only a small margin ofuncertainty& the letters of the 'lairvaux manuscript can be seen as interweavingrather nicely with the account provideda posteriori by belard$ 2his& of course&cannot be ta"en as positive evidence for the ascription& but rather as a successfulcounter0examination of the hypothesis$ s far as the succession of events isconcerned& there is no maIor discrepancy between an internal reconstruction of theE"A and what was previously "nown regarding Heloise and belard& which would

179 =p$ 9& !,-86osti 3uantis turpitudinis immoderata mea libido !orpora nostra addi1erat )ed et te nolentemet, prout poteras, relu!tantem et dissuadentem, 3ue natura infirmior eras, sepius minis a! fla#ellis ad!onsensum trahebat$180 H'& ed$ Hic"s& D!8< 3uantus in ho! !o#nos!endo dolor avun!uli[ 3uantum in separatione amantium doloripsorum[181 H'& ed$ Hic"s& D!0D*86on multo autem post, puella se !on!episse !omperit, et !um summa e1ultationemi!hi super ho! ili!o s!ripsit, !onsulens 3uid de ho! ipse fa!iendum deliberarem182 / am not attempting here to examine all possible parallels between the"ehortatio and theE"A$=ven if both of the following sentences are common places& it is worth noting their similitude inphrasing$ H'& ed$ Hic"s& ;!8Tanto3ue nos ipsos ad tempus separatos #ratiora de !onventu nostro per!epere #audia, 3uanto rariora =5 & 83uanto interius plus abs!onditur, et servatur, tanto ma#is au#etur etmultipli!atur




49

render this identification impossible$ /f they are indeed the authors of theE"A & theseletters reveal episodes previously un"nown& but this fact cannot be ta"en as an

obIection against the ascription$ /t has to be expected that new materials wouldconvey new information$ 2he critical test is rather that nothing& within theE"A & isincompatible with the biographical details of the couple$ Khat / do consider as apositive evidence is the exact matching of HeloiseGs very peculiar ethics of love withthose expressed by the *ulier & while both women were confronted with a similarsituation$ /n the fragmentary form in which we read it& ;: alludes elliptically tothe impossibility of marital life$ 2his cannot be confused with an argued refusal tomarry& since the 4uestion was not explicitly raised at that point$ Aet it reveals that& atthat stage of her love affair& she had already made her mind as to the social situationthat fitted her moral expectations& and this excluded marriage$ Her notion ofdisinterested love re4uired that it would not bring her any profit& while her tragicimagination made her ready to face any potential danger$

Khat is topical for the purpose of this volume is that& 4uite exactly& she madethe most important moral decisions of her life& using examples found within herliterary memory$ s a young educated noble woman& she had ahead of her twohonourable traIectories& either marriage among the high nobility& or a religiouscareer as an abbess$ =ngaged in a passionate love affair with her philosophy teacher&and losing her virginity in the event& she decided to reIect all sources of socialhonour in order to remain the friend and lover of her master$ s some historianshave noted& the choice made by Heloise was not in total contradiction with socialconditions$ /t is true that many canons& in Paris and elsewhere& were openly livingwith their concubines$, # But this is not 4uite what the young woman appears tohave imagined for herself she rather foresaw a route for which there was no socialmodel available& and that +,1:. she could only thin" of in terms of a tragic omanheroine& ris"ing her life and humiliating her social status for the sa"e of love$

s we saw earlier& Baudri of Bourgueil was a maIor literary inspiration for the=5 & especially on the womanGs side$ 2he poet0abbot is in fact the author who didthe most to popularise %vidGsHeroides & not widely circulated at the time& notably byproducing some imitations of it, *$ 2his could be& in itself& one more clue in favour ofHeloiseGs authorship& since she had family connections with him8 her uncle 6ulbertwas once involved in BaudriGs attempt at buying the bishopric of %rlOans& while hermother may have been a close neighbour of Bourgueil$, 1 Aet& if Baudri is the channel

183 'histopher 7$L$ Broo"e&The *edieval 0dea of *arria#e (%xford8 %FP& ,: :)& ; 0 :& and :, for hisimpression on HeloiseGs social situation$, * Baudri of Bourgueil&Carmina & esp$ c$ ;$185 6ollowing a suggestion first presented by Kener obl&Heloisas Her+unft Hersendis mater ( _nchen8%l og& !--,)& '$3$ ews& C7egotiating the Boundaries of Eender in eligious Life8 obert of rbrisseland Hersende& belard and Heloise&Ciator (!--D)8 ,,#0,* & argues that HeloiseGs mother wasHersende of ontsoreau& the first prioress of 6ontevraud& who gave the piece of land on which the




50

through which she became ac4uainted with %vid& there is a huge difference in theway she handled the same source$ 6or Baudri& poetical impersonification was mostly

a ludic activity& that could be enIoyed safely within the abbeyGs wall$, D

2o thecontrary& as 5ron"e puts it& HeloiseGs relation to the mythical material is remar"ablein that she shows no Cplayful postureJ, ;$ /nstead& she engages most seriously in heridentification with the litterary models she has in mind$ /n the end& the crucialdifference between the two women voices we have been discussing is that one waspreparing herself for the eventuality of dramatic events& while the other had already been through tragedy$ 'onnecting these two voices& we can better understand the biography of her person who matters& not because she is uni4ue& but because sheilluminates a brief and uni4ue moment in history$

Con!lusion

s a conclusion& / would li"e to reflect briefly on the various types ofdemonstrative evidence that have been presented in the course of this article$ 2hecodicological examination is a necessary step& that only delimits a range ofpossibilities$ /f it is essential to reconstruct the transmission of the text& in the presentcase& it reveals little about the context of its production$ Ke only +,D,. "now that anunedited copy of the letters was present in 'lairvaux by ,*;,$ 2he conIecture thatHeloise "ept with her& all her life long& a thin volume in which she had copied hersecret correspondence with belard& left it at the Paraclete& and that a 'istercianmon"& residing there as confessor for the nuns& found it and brought it bac" to hishome abbey& at some point between the early ,#th and the mid ,1th century& has theelegance of simplicity& but it cannot be ascertained in any way$

Kith a set of documents that do not offer any explicit sign of identification&stylistic analysis is essential& in order to assess the cultural bac"ground of the writersand the period in which they where acting$ 4uantitative approach& using variousstatistical tests& can narrow the margins$ s / read them& the data gathered so farpoints towards the Parisian reception of Loire 9alley poets& in the first part of the,!th century$ Aet it is unli"ely that such calculations can suffice to uncover theidentity of the authors$ comparison with belardGs and HeloiseGs later writings ishampered on the one hand by the radical changes he went through& and on the otherone by the slimness of her "nown literary output$ / fear that a confrontation withother collections of love letters can only confirm the peculiarities of theE"A & thatdisplays a remar"able command of classic and patristic authors& as well as a

abbey was founded$ Baudri wrote obert of rbrisselGsita, D Eerald Bond&The Lovin# )ubJe!t: "esire, Elo3uen!e and Po$er in (omanes3ue 'ran!e (Philadelphia8Fniversity of Pennsylvania Press& ,::1)& *!0D:$, ;5ron"e&-omen -riters & ,- $




51

familiarity with dialectics$ Fsing only such tools& be it of a 4uantitative or 4ualitativenature& it might prove difficult to go any further than =wald >?nsgen did& when he

considered the authors as a couple resembling Heloise and belard$But the difficulty of the case is such that there is no reason to limit in4uiryto the usual tools$ 2he arguments presented by Stephen 3aeger& showing that thedialogue within the letters reflects an encounter between of two distinct styles oflearning& helps in assessing their uni4ue historical situation$ /f the letters are in partphilosophical documents& their doctrinal content should also be considered$ 2his can be attempted on a lexical and textual basis& as 'onstant ews has done$ 2heoverlapping between love letters and treatises of dialectics is predictably limited$ /tis already noticeable that some common technical vocabulary can be identified$ /t iseven more important to remar" that a set of arguments and 4uotations& found in acouple of letters& are transposed in the)i! et non$ Khat / have attempted to do herehas been to reconstruct HeloiseGs ethics& in order to compare it with those of the *ulier 5espite the many gaps that separate the 'orrespondence of Heloise and

belard from their early love letters& this is the angle under which more stability can be expected& since she claims forcefully to have remained faithful to her ideals$ 2heresult of this comparison& in my view& is conclusive it should of course be debatedand made more precise$ +,D,.

nother type of evidence that / have attempted to introduce is of a biographical nature$ 2he general agreement that this collection of letters reflects areal exchange of messages implies that flesh and blood characters stood behindthese words$ Ke are not only confronted with a text& but with actual persons livingin a specific historical setting$, 2hey interacted& not only by exchanging letters$ 2hemessages point to many meetings of the lovers& and hint at various other externalcircumstances$ Proceeding with due caution& it is legitimate to ma"e use of suchindications in order to try and reconstruct the context of the correspondence$ 2hisoperation has to be conducted in two stages& first through precise exegesis of everyletter& ta"ing into account the many lacunas indicated by the copyist then& in asecond and more speculative step& by ma"ing sense of the succession of all letters$

esorting to historical imagination at that stage is not reprehensible& provided thisoperation is controlled by a series of strict rules (ta"ing into account every singleelement available& avoiding unnecessary hypotheses& ac"nowledging the lacunas&accepting unpredicted results)$ /n this process& it should also be admitted that theletters are fragmentary in more than one sense& since they may not echo all the maIorevents that too" place during the period$ lthough there is room for discussion& myimpression is that the general outline of the story that / reconstruct fits in well withwhat we "new of Heloise and belard$

188 2he same point was made about the 'orrespondence by 3ean 3olivet& C bOlard entre chien etloup&CCahiers de !ivilisation médiévale !- (,:;;) #,-& or Barbara 7ewman& C uthenticity$C




52

ll these approaches have their legitimacy& and they also pursue their ownspecific goals – the biographical one being for instance relevant for the history of

gender relations and of emotions$ But if we wish to give a global assessment of theauthorship 4uestion& they should all be ta"en into account& and duly weighed$ /fonly one would reveal any incompatibility with the ascription to the famous couple&the hypothesis should be discarded at once$ %n the other hand& the accumulation offavourable clues gradually renders more and more li"ely this identification$ t thepresent stage of research& we are facing a set of authentic letters& written in the firsthalf of the twelfth century in 7orthern 6rance& by a philosopher and his studentwho exactly resemble belard and Heloise& displaying the same cultural bac"ground and sharing with them a few precise technical words and a set ofdistinct literary references$ /f there is no indisputable textual proof& one should bereminded that& when certainty is out of reach& historical Iudgement is often contentwith a high level of probability$ /n the present case& the li"elihood that anothercouple could have lived the same story& felt and expressed the same +,D!. ideas& insimilar circumstances& and in the same area and period& is so thin that& even in lac"of total certainty& / find it reasonable to conclude in favour of the ascription$


Piron, Heloise's Literary Self-fashioning and the Epistolae Duorum Amantium

Documents

Transcript of Piron, Heloise's Literary Self-fashioning and the Epistolae Duorum Amantium