Female Monasticism in the Twelfth Century:

Peter Abelard, Heloise, and Paulos Letter to the Romans

Brenda Deen Schildgen

University Of California, Davis

1. Introduction

Abelardos Commentary on the Letter of Paul to Romans,[1] dated sometime between 1133-1139, represents the philosopheros mature work since he died approximately in 1142. This paper, rather than probing the central argument of the commentary, will discuss Abelard and Heloiseos use of Paulos Letter to the Romans in the correspondence dealing with a Rule for Nuns that Heloise requested and Abelard developed in response to her request. Like Heloise, in her third letter to Abelard, where she substantially refers to Paulos Letter to the Romans, Abelard, also uses Paul to analyze the meaning of Law to the rules that govern nuns. The letters followed the Historia Calamitatum[2] (1132), with the letters dated two to three years later.[3] Both the Commentary on Paulos Letter to the Romans and the letters thus were written during approximately the same period.

Reference to authorities was the mainstay of medieval writers, but not because of a lack of originality, as argued by later critics of the period. Rather, medieval authors developed their arguments in relationship to a traditional body of learning in which they were in continuity. They belonged, as Brian Stock and others have argued, as much to a community of texts as to a community of faith, or one could say of theologians, at least, that their community of faith was also a community of readers of texts.[4] The twelfth century Renaissance witnessed a renewed interest in classical authors as authorities. In addition, there was considerable work done on biblical commentaries. Among these can be noted Paulos Letter to the Romans, the subject of inquiry, as evidenced by Abelardos and William of Saint Thierryos commentaries. Abelard and Heloise, true to their twelfth century Renaissance classical orientation, mix both Christian and classical resources, referring to other Pauline and other biblical texts, to the Church fathers, and to a number of pagan sources including Cicero, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Seneca, Lucan, but also to late Latin works, both Christian and pagan, like Macrobius, Boethius, and Victorinus.[5] This pairing of the classical pagan world with the Judeo-Christian textual tradition, it has been argued, shows how much both authors were intellectually invested in the schoolmen of their times, rather than with monastic traditions. Nonetheless, Heloiseos interest in a Rule for women and her undertaking of an intellectual challenge to Benedictos usefulness for women is radical because it predates the interest in the Rule undertaken by the schools later in the century.[6] Although there is considerable interest in the religious rules in the century,[7] the first treatise on women in the monastic life in the High Middle Ages, the Speculum virginum dated c. 1130-1140 belongs to approximately the same period as Heloise and Abelardos correspondence,[8] and Abelardos outlining of a Rule in his letter 8.

Although it would be an overstatement to argue that Paulos Letter to the Romans is the primary focus of this correspondence, the central argument of Paul about the Law, pBecause law can bring only retribution; but where there is no law there can be no breach of lawq (Rom. 4.15), provides the foundation for the position adopted by both authors. Paul, however, is the source of proof-texts and not the text that is interrogated or interpreted.

Discussing the Rule by which nuns are to be directed, Heloise defers to Paulos position at Romans 4:15. Furthermore, she writes, pLaw intruded to multiply law-breakingq (Rom. 5:20). [9] As a nun and abbess, charged with the direction of other cenobites, Heloise concerns herself with the mandates of the Benedictine Rule, and to address this she turns to Augustine as authority to probe Paulos discussion of works and faith, concluding in her own version of Augustineos On the Good of Marriage, pit is clear that virtues alone win merit in the eyes of God.q[10] In probing Paulos notion of Law, Abelard, like Heloise, radical as their thinking may have been considered by contemporaries like Bernard of Clairvaux, turned to Paul and to Augustine as their primary authorities to probe and interrogate the efficacy of Benedictos Regula for female monastics.

2. Background

Born in a noble family in 1079 in Brittany, Abelard, according to his first letter, the famous, Historia calamitatum received his early education from his father, who was a man somewhat, by the standards of the time, skilled in letters. By 1095, he can be found at Loches following the lessons of Roscellino of Compiègne and by 1099 or 1100 he can be found in Paris, studying with William of Champeaux at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame. After an interruption of half a dozen years in which he became famous for dialectic at the school he founded in Melun, he could be found again in Paris studying once more with William of Champeaux. Failing to receive Williamos catheda when his teacher renounced it, Abelard again returned to Melun. By 1112, however, he seems to have succeeded, for he took on the cathedra at Notre-Dame where he taught philosophy and theology. People, including, for example, the future Pope Celestine II and Arnaldo of Brescia, came from throughout Europe to hear him lecture. But in 1116, having been engaged as a tutor for Heloise, the intellectually brilliant niece of Fulbert, a canon of Notre-Dame, he fell in love with his student. Finding herself pregnant, Heloise reluctantly agreed to marry Abelard in secret, but discovered by her relatives, Abelard was castrated. He then retired to the Abbey of Saint-Denis having taking on the monastic cloak. Heloise, too, retreated to her childhood convent of Argenteuil, and soon after became abbess of the Paraclete, a convent founded by Abelard. The letters between Abelard and Heloise were written after both were settled in their respective monastic communities.

3. The Authenticity of the Letters Debate

The letters have been a source of controversy both in terms of authenticity and dating. For the purposes of this discussion, because the present author is not a textual expert, the author follows the latest trend, which is to accept that the letters are genuine. The following is offered as an overview to provide the history of the arguments and the present state of the discussion.[11]

The collection comprises eight letters preserved in Troyes ms. 802: the Historia calamitatum; letters 2, 4, and 6 from Heloise to Abelard. Letters 3, 5, 7, and 8 from Abelard to Heloise. Heloiseos third letter, which has been traditionally identified as her conversion letter, seeks direction for a religious community of women, and Abelardos letters 7 and 8 respond to this request. The Latin text of these letters, along with the works of Abelard were not published until 1616 in Paris. In 1855, Migne put this edition of the works into the Patrologia Latina (PL 178). The nine manuscripts that are still extant of the letters, one of which belonged to Petrarch, another to Roberto deo Bardi, and a third possessed by Coluccio Salutati, are all dated in the fourteenth century. This fact, combined with what has been deemed attitudes inconsistent with the twelfth century, has played the most important role in challenging the authenticity of the letters.[12]

Doubts about their authenticity began in the nineteenth century with L. Lalanne,[13] but in the first half of the twentieth century, B. Schmeidler and C. Charrier[14] added their voices to the fraudulent choir, Schmeidler arguing that all the letters were by Abelard. However, Étienne Gilson highlighted the fragility of these arguments and reasserted the authenticity of the letters, arguing that the challengers of their authenticity had not had reliable texts.[15] Richard Southern supported Gilsonos view,[16] but D.W. Robertson echoed the views of Schmeidler,[17] insisting that a medieval abbess could not have written in the style found in Heloiseos letters. In the 1950s Father Joseph Muckle published a critical edition of the letters accompanied by a textual apparatus, and exegetical and historical notes. Analyzing the evidence of the manuscripts, the literary tradition, literary form, style, unity of references and thought, alleged historical discrepancies, the character of Abelardos replies, and the Heloise of the letters in the historical context of her times, he gave the strongest evidence for those who denied the authenticity of the letters. He concluded that it was unthinkable that Peter the Venerable or Pope Adrian IV would have written to Heloise if the carnal longings as revealed in the letters had circulated. Believing Abelardos letters authentic, he suggested that Heloiseos first two letters were pworked over and perhaps expanded to some extent.q[18]

The controversy continued when in 1972 at a meeting at Cluny on the theme of Peter Abelard and Peter the Venerable, Jacques Monfrin argued for the authenticity of the letters because they dealt with Heloiseos conversion, Abelardos reaction to it, and the institution of the Paraclete.[19] But at the same meeting, John Benton insisted they were the work of forgers—a twelfth century epistolary novelist and a pthirteenth century institutional scoundrelq, who sought a new rule for the Paraclete.[20] He changed his mind in a later article published in 1980, arguing that his case seemed much weaker than it had eight years earlier.[21] However, the painstaking textual work of Peter Dronke has provided substantial proof of the authenticity of the works. D. E. Luscombe, asserting the authenticity of the letters, has added to this latter discussion by asking for newer editions of the works of Abelard, for a return to looking at the letters as history and not as simply literature, and for more focus on the history of the Paraclete for what it can tell us about female monasticism in the medieval period.[22] Pietro Zerbi,[23] Salvatore di Meglio,[24] Barbara Newman,[25] M.T. Clanchy,[26]and John Marenbon,[27] most recently, support the overwhelming majority position that the letters are genuine.

4. Heloiseos Third Letter and Paulos Letter to the Romans

As a number of scholars have suggested, Heloiseos third letter has been considered a turning point for the writer. Some have argued that the letter signals a conversion on Heloiseos part, as she turns from complaining about Abelardos emotional distance from her and from nostalgia for her lost passionate relationship. In fact, the letters have consistently been divided into two sections, the personal letters, treating of the relationship earlier shared by Heloise and Abelard, and the letters of direction, which deal with female monasticism, including its origins and the rules women, as opposed to men, might follow.[28] Letter 3 thus would begin this new direction for the collection. As Linda Georgianna succinctly points out, however, it is a mistake to follow this tradition of dividing Heloise into the ptrès sage Héloys,q the abbess of the Paraclete and pthe tragic inconsolable lover of Abelard trapped in her memories of the past,q for the third letter, in fact, psheds light on the consistency of her thought throughout the letters.q[29] Thus in the third letter, we see not a diversion from the earlier letters, but rather the conclusion to what Georgianna identifies as an pevangelical awakening,q M. D. Chenuos term[30] to describe the twelfth-century apostolic movement, that had begun with Heloiseos first letter.

In the third letter, Heloise asks Abelard to teach pus how the order of nuns began and what authority there is for our profession.q Secondly, she asks that he pprescribe some Rule for us and write it down, a Rule which will be suitable for women, and also describe fully the manner and habit of our way of life, which we find was never done by the holy Fathers.q[31] Thus, noting a serious lack in the teachings of the Fathers, Heloise, is requesting a Regula for women, and specifically for her own community of nuns. As Linda Georgianna puts it, pHeloise lends urgency and force to her request by closely linking her personal and her institutional concerns.q[32] But to request a rule, she must delve into a number of issues: are women different, and if so, would their rule be the same as the one regulating men? How could the rules applied to men be adjusted for women? And what is the value of certain rules? Here of course is where many of Paulos letters become opportunities for an authoritative proof text for the inquiring abbess. So, just as in Abelardos moral theology, Paul to the Romans is an important source text for Heloise, for, she writes, pbetween the children of God and the devil love alone distinguishesq [Rom. 13.10].[33] Thus Paulos Letter to the Romans presents some central challenges to the way in which rules might be followed, applied, or even challenged.

The beginning of Heloiseos letter probes Benedictos Rule, pointing out that it is silent on women. In examining the Rule, she asks, is it suitable for women, particularly its restrictions about clothing, about guests, about drinking wine, or eating meat? It mentions children, the old, and the weak, yet it is silent on women, Heloise notes. The Rule Benedict had written could be modified for children, the old, and the weak, and fasting could be seasonally modified for work that had to be done.[34] Benedict, Heloise insists, counseled moderation, qWhat I wonder, when he adapts everything to the quality of men and seasons, so that all his regulations can be carried out by everyone without complaint--what provision would he make for women if he laid down a Rule for them like that for men?q[35] As Georgianna points out, pHeloiseos sensitivity to the particularity of Benedictos Rule, however, rather than leading her to embrace it as a tool for monastic reform, instead leads her to question its appropriateness to her own circumstances as a nun, which for her take precedence.q[36] Heloise answers her rhetorical questions with a quote from John Chrysostomos seventh sermon on the Letter to the Hebrews, which quotes from Paulos Letter to the Romans, p. . . nBe watchful in all tribulations and persevere in prayero and nGive no more thought to satisfying the bodily appetites.oq (13.14). She adds, showing her link to the Cluniacs, who allowed for a looser interpretation of Benedictos Rule, that adding the virtue of continence to the teachings of the Gospel will achieve monastic perfection. [37]

But specifically to justify a special rule for women monastics, Heloise turns again to Paul, reminding her correspondent that the Fathers had not laid down a general rule for women because women are weaker, and law might inhibit female spiritual growth, for as Paul wrote, pLaw can bring only retribution; but where there is no law there can be no breach of law.q After all, she recalls, pLaw intruded to multiply law-breakingq (Rom. 4.15; 5.20).[38]

Discussing, the drinking of wine, the eating of meat, and the clothes that women monastics might wear, Heloise insists that women must have certain dispensations from Benedictos Rule because of their gender. Again, in her conclusion to this section of the letter, in a sense dialectically opposing Paul to Benedict, even though she had used Benedict to counsel moderation in the Rule, she turns to Paulos Letter to the Romans as her justification:

Thus the same dispensations could be made for food as for clothing, so that provision could be made of what can be purchased more cheaply, and, in everything, necessity not superfluity could be our consideration. For things which do not prepare us for the Kingdom of God or commend us least to God call for no special attention. These are all outward works which are common to the damned and elect alike, as much to hypocrites as to the religious. For nothing so divides Jew from Christian as the distinction between outward and inner works, especially since between the children of God and those of the devil love alone distinguishes: what the Apostle calls the sum of the law and the object of what is commanded [Rom. 13.10]. And so he also disparages pride in works in order to set above it the righteousness of faith, and thus addresses Jewry: What room then is left for human pride? It is excluded. And on what principle? Of works? No, but through the principle of faith. For our argument is that a man is justified by faith without observances of the law [Rom. 3.27-28].[39]

Here too, one sees Heloise equating a rigid monastic rule with the Law of Hebrew scriptures that Paul had opposed to pinner works.q pWorkq here is understood as outward signs of faith as opposed to faith presented as an inner attitude of heart. Like Paul, in the Letter to the Romans, in imagining a Rule, which itself is a new kind of Law, she reverts to an papostolic,q or New Testament version of religious practice, emphasizing pnecessity not superfluityq and faith over strict observance of rules, as modeled by Jesus himself. It is a position that finds its explicit statement in Paulos Letter to the Romans, and it resonates in Augustine and all reformers, whether in the medieval period or with later followers of Augustinian thought, like Erasmus, who we could count as belonging to the same tradition.[40]

Continuing with further textual support for her argument that regulations not become rule for the sake of rule, Heloise again enlists Paulos authority, pBut if without any work he simply puts his faith in him who makes a just man of a sinner, then his faith is indeed ncounted as righteousnesso according to Godos gracious planq [Rom.4.5]. Insisting that Paul allows Christians to eat all kinds of food (a central concern for a monastic), she quotes Paul poThe Kingdom of God,o he says, nis not eating and drinking, but justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit . . . everything is pure in itself, but anything is bad for the man who gives offense by his eating . . .oq [Rom.14.12; 20-21]. To lend support to her argument about what nuns might eat, Heloise points out that Paul does not forbid any food; he merely worries about offenses that might scandalize converted Jews when they witnessed people eating food condemned by the Law.[41] To justify her argument that outward shows of piety do not prove faithfulness, she turns to Augustineos De Bono Coniugali (On the Good of Marriage), who although he may not quote Paulos Letter to the Romans, is clearly Pauline in his argument, that pvirtues alone win merit in the eyes of God.q[42] In building to her conclusion where she exhorts Abelard as pnostrae sis religionis institutorq (director of our religious life) to provide a Rule,[43] she recalls Paulos argument that pit is not so much what things are done as the spirit in which they are done that we must consider, if we wish to please him who tests the heart and loins and sees in hidden places, nwho will judge the secrets of menoq [Rom. 2.16].[44]

In conclusion, although clearly it would be a perverse reading of Heloiseos third letter to overemphasize her indebtedness to Paulos Letter to the Romans, nonetheless, in her insistence on a Rule for women that respects the Pauline conviction that faith trumps external shows of faithfulness, she takes a dialectical position that challenges the Benedictine Regula in so far as it can be applied to women and then argues against its positions on clothing, food, drink, and guests. Further, in moving from whether the Rule of Saint Benedict is appropriate for women monastics to the Pauline notion of the role of Law in the life of a Christian, she probes the efficacy of requiring external acts for the pious life of male and female alike.[45] As Peter Dronke has written, Heloise prealizes that much of the Benedictine Rule is inept to guide the lives of women--for it was not set down with that in mind--so too is she aware that her own life--and her destiny, as it was shaped by Abelardos commands--is unique, and needs to be sustained by a guidance that cannot be found ready-made, whether in Scripture or auctoritates.q[46] Thus, she may be thoroughly deferential to the authorities, but she is fully aware of their inadequacy for her needs and those of her fellow female monastics. In this she follows the spirit of Paulos Letter to the Romans.

5. Abelardos Response to Heloiseos Request for a Rule for Female Religious

Abelardos response to Heloise is contained in two letters, the first of which gives a detailed history of the origins of female monasticism,[47] and the second, more important for this discussion, which lays out the rule for female monastics.[48] Possibly the most interesting feature of Abelardos responses to Heloiseos request is how much it picks up the language and concerns of her letter. Of course, this has been one source of the argument that he must have written her letters as well as his own. More recent critics have argued, on the contrary, that he was sensitive to her interests, respected her concerns, and responded in kind. As Georgianna has written, pAbelardos reputation as a monastic reformer rests largely on his two treatises written in response to Heloiseos letter, treatises in which Abelard frequently makes use of slightly altered versions of her arguments.q Heloiseos interrogation of the Benedictine Rule is infused with Abelardos dialectical style, and it is Abelardos moral viewpoint that directs her analysis, but pit is Heloise, not Abelard, who first applies these principles to the subject of monastic life.q [49] Others have argued that Abelard gets his ideas about religious life for women directly from Heloiseos prompts.[50]

The first letter, taking up the first half of Heloiseos request to document the origin of nuns, reviews the New Testament and the Church Fathers to show the role taken by women in the apostolic and patristic periods. Paulos Letter to the Romans does not play a huge role in this discussion, but Abelard does note that Paul commends Phoebe, a deaconess, to the Church of Rome (Rom. 16.1-2),[51] as well as recalling female followers like Rufuso mother and the sister of Nereus (Rom. 16. 13-16). He wanders throughout New Testament scriptures to find proof of the role of women in the life of faith.

The second letter contains what is referred to as the Rule of the Paraclete.[52] In the prologue, Abelard explains he has taken advantage of Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and habits already in place in female monasteries to elaborate the rule that will follow. He divides the ptreatise for your instructionq into three parts pin which . . . the sum of monastic faithq rests: a life of continence, a life without personal possessions, and the observance of silence.[53] Di Meglio writes of the three parts to the letter that the first is an exposition on the fundamental presuppositions of the cloistered life: continence as a practice of chastity; poverty as a renunciation of material goods; silence as a rein on the tongue; and solitude as flight from the world. Cultivating and caring for these virtues is freely taking on the cross of the Lord.

The second part deals with the organization of the monastery in which these cloistered and converted nuns live under the guidance of their spiritual mother, an abbess. Abelard argues that this Mother superior be older than the other nuns and better educated in religious doctrine so that she might call on her charges to listen, follow, and obey. She must always give a good example with words and actions. He writes, pAnd so we rule that the abbess, whose care is for spiritual rather than material matters, must not leave her convent for any external concern, but be more solicitous for her subordinates the more active she is. Thus her appearances in public will be more highly valued for their rarity . . .q[54] The third part is concerned with a most meticulous discussion of the divine offices, and recommendations about food, clothes, and study of Sacred Scripture.[55]

Abelardos citations in this letter are less diverse than one would expect from a twelfth century humanist. Although there are a few references to Cicero, Lucan, Ovidos Metamorphosis and Amores, and to Macrobius, in fact, this letter cites the New Testament more frequently than any other text, with references outnumbering Hebrew Scriptures by at least thirty out of approximately one hundred and ninety scriptural references. I mention this rather prosaic detail because Paulos Letter to the Romans is scarcely an important source for Abelard. For obvious reasons, of the Pauline corpus, 1 Corinthians appears most frequently with seventeen citations in contrast to Romans, which Abelard cites only five times. But, what is interesting about Abelardos citations from Romans, is that he takes up the precise issues that Heloise had raised, except that he expands on her initial remarks. This suggests that they shared an intellectual interest in the theological issues that Paulos Letter to the Romans raises. For example, following Heloiseos lead, on the question of food and clothing, he quotes the entire section of Paulos letter on not judging otherso habits pbecause the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but justice, peace and joyq [Rom. 14.3, ff.].[56] Although he elaborates, like Heloise, who argues for a revision of Benedictos Rule for women, he makes the precise point she had, using the same Pauline citation.[57]

Abelard emphasizes this once more when discussing an excess of zeal, again deploying Paul to support his recommendations. He reminds Heloise that pdiscretionq is the pmother of all virtues.q To reinforce this notion, again, like Heloise, he turns to the same text from Paulos Letter to the Romans, pThe law can bring only retribution: only where there is no law can there be no breach of lawq [Rom. 4.15].[58] But Abelard expands from Heloiseos prompt, adding from Paulos recollection of how the law could undermine his faith and emphasizing that moderation should direct her approach to the Rule: pIn the absence of law, sin is dead. There was a time when, in the absence of law, I was alive, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. The commandment was meant to lead to life, but in my case it led to death, because sin found its opportunity in the commandment, seduced me, and through the commandment killed meq [Rom. 7.8, ff.].[59] He returns to this theme to emphasize his conviction that austerity is not the road to perfection, reminding his correspondent that Christ taught psweetness and light,q and Paul pextols justification by faithq and pbelittles worksq [Rom. 4.2; 9.30-32].[60]

On the issue of continence, though clearly 1 Corinthians gives Abelard his primary support, Romans also plays a role. Citing Romans 7.3, he argues that a widow may marry again, in fact, may marry as many times as she is widowed. But this text for Abelard is more important because of how it applies to food. After all, food is necessary; excess would be a problem because, following a Pauline theology, the pfood is not to blame but the appetite.q[61] This is completely consistent with the Pauline notion that pEverything is pure in itselfq [Rom. 14.19].

Finally, in the third part of the letter where he takes up the issue of scriptural reading, he uses Paulos Letter to the Romans, once more, as one of the numerous sacred texts he has at his disposal, to emphasize as Paul had, pfor all the ancient scriptures were written for our instruction, so that from the message of endurance and comfort the scriptures bring us, we may derive hope [Rom. 15.4].[62]

Examining Abelardos use of Paulos Letter to the Romans to discuss and develop a Rule for nuns, we see that Paulos views of Law provide an entry for interrogating rigid adherence to regulations. In addition, his reference to Paulos support of reading and biblical study in Romans, puts a high priority on learning as an essential feature of a nunos daily life. Abelardos understanding that moderation not austerity should direct a nunos life lays out an approach to female monasticism that puts individuals before rules and a faithful life before a public show of piety.

Conclusion

The authority of tradition ruled medieval intellectual life. Founded on a legacy of textual resources with canonical power, this tradition included ancient works from both the Judeo-Christian and classical pagan repertoire. Writers did not launch arguments or propose ideas without considerable dependence on authorities. With the primary argument that p. . . law can bring only retribution; but where there is no law there can be no breach of lawq (Rom. 4.15), the correspondence between Abelard and Heloise on a Regula for women makes considerable use of Paulos Letter to the Romans. Both authors use Paulos idea about the Law and Augustineos corroboration to propose major modifications to Benedictos Rule. Although Heloise refers to the authority of Benedict as Abelard does in his reply to her, she actually uses Benedict as a source to adapt the Rule under the influence of Paulos position on the Law. Seizing on the fact that Benedict had nothing to say about women, Heloise finds her entry to question and probe the limits of the Rule with Paul as her authority. Both Abelardos and Heloiseos use of authorities demonstrate how these canonical source texts could be used dialectically to raise arguments and present original and new positions. By using these authorities, with Paulos Letter to the Romans as a guide to interrogating Law, Heloiseos request for a Rule for women and Abelardos response propose a monastic life that emphasizes pthat virtues alone win merit in the eyes of God.q[63]

---

[1] Peter Abelard, Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. Eligius M. Buytaert, O.F.M. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1969), 39-340.

[2][2] Peter Abelard, Historia calamitatum, texte critique avec une introduction. Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques: Textes et Commentaires, ed. J. Monfrin (Paris: J. Vrin, 1959, 1962, 1967, 1978).

[3] pThe Personal Letters Between Abelard and Heloise,q ed. J. T. Muckle, C.S.B. Mediaeval Studies 15 (1953), 48.

[4] Brian Stock made this argument in pTextual Communities: Judaism, Christianity, and the Definitional Problem,q Listening for the Text: On the Uses of the Past (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 140-58. He has further developed it in Augustine the Reader: Meditation, Self-Knowledge, and the Ethics of Interpretation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996).

[5] Salvatore di Meglio, Abelardo, LoOrigine del monachesimo femminile e la Regola (Padua: Edizione Messagero, 1988), 5-12.

[6] Linda Georgianne, poIn Any Corner of Heaveno: Heloiseos Critique of Monastic Life,q in Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth Century Woman, ed. Bonnie Wheeler (New York: St. Martinos Press, 2000), 194. This is a very important essay on Heloise and it will be evident to all who read my essay how deeply indebted I am to Professor Georgiannaos brilliant work on medieval female spirituality in general, and Heloise in particular.

[7] See Georgianna, poIn Any Corner of Heaven,oq for more on this development, 193.

[8] Speculum virginum, ed. Juta Seyfarth, CC Continuatio Mediaevalis (Turnhout: Brepols, 1990).

[9] All English translations are from the following edition unless otherwise noted, The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, trans. Betty Radice (Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Classics, 1974), 165; pLex enim iram operatur. Ubi enim non est lex nec praevaricatio. Et iterum, Lex autem subintravit ut abundaret delictumq in pThe Letter of Heloise on the Religious Life and Abelardos First Reply,q ed. J. T. Muckle, C.S.B. Mediaeval Studies 17 (1955): 245. For other editions, see The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, trans. C. K. Scott-Moncrieff (London: G. Chapman, 1925); Héloise et Abélard: Correspondence, trans. Paul Zumthor (Paris: Union Générale doÉditions, 1979).

[10] The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 174; pEx his liquide verbis colligitur solas apud Deum merita virtutes obtinere,q pThe Letter of Heloise on the Religious Life and Abelardos First Reply,q Mediaeval Studies 17 (1955), 250.

[11] For information on the textual arguments, I have relied most heavily on Di Meglio, Abelardo, 19-22; John Marenbon, pAuthenticity Revisited,q in Listening to Heloise, 19-33.

[12] See for example, Jacques Monfrin, pLe problème de loauthenticité de la correspondence doAbélard et doHéloise,q in Pierre Abélard-Pierre le Vénerable: les courants philosophiques, littéraires et artistiques en occident au milieu du XIIe siècle, Abbaye de Cluny, eds. René Louis, Jean Jolivet, and Jean Châtillon (Paris: Éditions du centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975), 419-21; John Benton, pFraud, Fiction, and Borrowing in the Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise,q in Pierre Abélard-Pierre le Vénerable, 469-512; Di Meglio, Abelardo, 18-19.

[13] Ludovic Lalanne, pQuelques doutes sur loauthenticité de la correspondance amoureuse doHéloïse et Abélard,q in La Corréspondence Littéraire 1 (1856), 27-33.

[14] Bernhard Schmeidler, pDer Briefwechsel zwischen Abälard und Heloise eine Fälschung?q in Archivum für Kulturgeschichte 11 (1913), 1-30; Charlotte Charrier, Héloïse dans loHistoire et dans la légende (Paris: Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion, 1933).

[15] Étienne Gilson, Héloïse et Abélard. Essais doart et de philosophie (Paris: J.Vrin, 1938).

[16] Richard W. Southern, pThe Letters of Abelard and Heloise,q in Mediaeval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), 86-104.

[17] D.W. Robertson, Jr. Abelard and Heloise (London: Purnell Book Services, 1972).

[18] See pThe Personal Letters Between Abelard and Heloise,q Mediaeval Studies 15 (1953), 48-67.

[19] Monfrin, pLe problème de loauthenticité de la correspondence doAbélard et doHéloise,q 419-21.

[20] Benton, pFraud, Fiction, and Borrowing in the Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise,q 469-512.

[21] Benton, pA Reconsideration of the Authenticity of the Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise,q in Petrus Abaelardus, ed. Jean Jolivet, D. E. Luscombe, L.M. de Rijk (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1980), 41-52.

[22] D. E. Luscombe, pThe letters of Heloise and Abelard since nCluny 1972,oq in Petrus Abaelardus, 19-39.

[23] Pietro Zerbi, pUn recente dibattito sulloautenticità della Historia calamitatum e della corrispondenza fra Abelardo ed Eloisa,q in Studi di letteratura e di storia in memoria di Antonio Di Pietro (Milan: Vita e pensiero,1977), 3-43.

[24] di Meglio, Abelardo, LoOrigine del monachesimo femminile e la Regola, 22.

[25] Barbara Newman, pAuthority, Authenticity, and the Repression of Heloise,q Journal of Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 22 (1992), 121-57; rept. in Barbara Newman, From Virile Woman to Woman Christ: Studies in Mediaeval Religion and Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), 19-45.

[26] M. T. Clanchy, Abelard: A Mediaeval Life (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997).

[27] Marenbon, pAuthenticity Revisited,q in Listening to Heloise.

[28] For an overview of this tradition, see Georgianna, poIn Any Corner of Heaveno: Heloiseos Critique of Monastic Life,q 187-216 and Peggy McCracken, pThe Curse of Eve: Female Bodies and Christian Bodies in Heloiseos Third Letter,q in Listening to Heloise, 217-31.

[29] Linda Georgianna, poIn Any Corner of Heaveno: Heloiseos Critique of Monastic Life,q in Listening to Heloise, 188-89.

[30] M. D. Chenu, pThe Evangelical Awakening,q in Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century. Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, selected, ed. and trans. Jeremy Taylor and Lester K. Little (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, 1968), 239-69.

[31] The Letters of Heloise and Abelard, 159-60; pQuorum quidem alterum est ut nos instruere velis unde sanctimonialium ordo coeperit, et quae nostrae sit professionis auctoritas. Alterum vero est ut aliquam nobis regulam instituas, et scriptam dirigas quae feminarum sit propria et ex integro nostrae conversionis statum habitumque describat, quod nondum a Patribus sanctis actum esse conspeximus.q Muckle, Mediaeval Studies 17, 242.

[32] Georgianna, pIn Any Corner of Heaven,q 192.

[33] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 170; Muckle, qpraesertim cum inter filios Dei et diaboli sola caritas discernatq Muckle, Mediaeval Studies 17, 248. Also, see Georgianna, 200.

[34] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 163; Muckle, Mediaeval Studies 17, 242-43.

[35] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 163; pQuid, obsecro, ubi iste qui sic ad hominum et temporum qualitatem omnia moderatur ut ab omnibus sine murmuratione perferri queant quae instituuntur? Quid, inquam, de feminis provideret, si eis quoque pariter ut viris regulam institueret?q Muckle, Mediaeval Studies 17, 244.

[36] Georgianna, poIn any Corner of Heaven,oq 195.

[37] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 164; pVigilantes in omni patientia et oratione; cum dicit, pCarnis curam ne feceritis in concupiscentiisq Muckle, Mediaeval Studies 17, 244.

[38] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 165; pLex enim iram operatur. Ubi non est lex nec praevaricatio. Et iterum: Lex autem subintravit ut abundaret delictum,q Muckle, Mediaeval Studies 17, 245.

[39] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 170.

p . . . et sic quoque in cibis sicut in vestimentis dispensaretur, ut, quod vilius comparari posset, ministraretur, et per omnia necessitati, non superfluitati, consuleretur. Non enim magnopere sunt curanda quae nos regno Dei non praeparant, vel quae nos minime Deo commendant. Haec vero sunt omnia quae exterius geruntur, et aeque reprobis ut electis, aeque hypocritis ut religiosis communia sunt. Nihil quippe inter Iudaeos et Christianos ita separat sicut exteriorum operum et interiorum discretio, praesertim cum inter filios Dei et diaboli sola caritas discernat quam plenitudinem legis et finem praecepti Apostolus vocat. Unde et ipse hanc operum gloriam prorsus extenuans ut fidei praeferat iustitiam Iudaeum alloquens dicit: Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? Factorum? Non; sed per legem fidei. Arbitramur enim hominem iustificari per fidem sine operibus legis. Muckle, Mediaeval Studies 17, 248.

[40] Charles Bené, Érasme et Saint Augustin ou l'influence de Saint Augustin sur l'humanisme d'Érasme (Genève: Librairie Droz, 1969).

[41] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 171; pNon est, inquit, regnum Dei esca et potus, sed iustitia et pax et gaudium in Spiritu sancto . . . Omnia quidem munda sunt; sed malum est homini qui per offendiculum manducat.q Mediaeval Studies 17, 248-49.

[42] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 174; Mediaeval Studies 17, 250.

[43] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 178; Mediaeval Studies 17, 253.

[44] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 175; pNon itaque magnopere quae fiunt sed quo animo fiant pensandum est, si illi placere studemus, qui cordis et renum probator est, et in abscondito videt, qui iudicabit occulta hominum, Paulus inquit.q Mediaeval Studies 17, 251.

[45] See Georgianna, pIn Any Corner of Heaven,q 201.

[46] Peter Dronke, pHeloiseos Problemata and Letters: Some Questions of Form and Content,q in Petrus Abaelardus, 61 (53-73).

[47] pThe Letter of Heloise on the Religious Life and Abelardos First Reply,q ed. J. T. Muckle, C.S.B. Mediaeval Studies 17 (1955): 253-81.

[48] T. P. McLaughlin, C.S.B., pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18 (1956), 241-92.

[49] Again, see Georgianna, poIn Any Corner of Heaven,oq 192. This view is also shared with Morgan Powell, pListening to Heloise at the Paraclete: Of Scholarly Diversion and a Womanos nConversiono,q in Listening to Heloise, 269.

[50] See, for example, Mary Martin McLaughlin, pPeter Abelard and the Dignity of Women: Twelfth-Century nFeminismo in Theory and Practice,q in Pierre Abélard-Pierre le Vénerable: les courants philosophiques, littéraires et artistiques en occident au milieu du XIIe. siècle, eds. René Louis, Jean Jolivet, and Jean Chârillon (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherché scientifique, 1975), 287-334.

[51] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 180; Muckle, Mediaeval Studies 17, 264-65.

[52] See di Meglio, Abelardo, 30-42; Albert Willocx, Abélard, Héloïse et le Paraclet, pré Régine Pernoud (Troyes, France: Librairie Bleue, 1996).

[53] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 184; McLaughlin, pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18 (1956), 243.

[54] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 209; pStatuimus itaque ut diaconissa magis spiritalibus quam corporalibus intendens nulla exteriore cura monasterium deserat, sed circa subjectas tanto sit magis sollicita quanto magis assidua et tanto sit hominibus quoque praesentia ejus venerabilior, quanto rarior.q McLaughlin, pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18 (1956), 258.

[55] di Meglio, Abelardo, provides this elaborated overview of the organization of the letter, 31-34.

[56] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 227; McLaughlin, pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18, 268.

[57] See Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 171.

[58] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 238. pLex, inquit Apostolus, iram operatur. Ubi enim non est lex nec praevaricatio,q McLaughlin, pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18, 274. The Heloise quote is in her third letter, in Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 165; pLex enim iram operatur. Ubi enim non est lex nec praevaricatio. Et iterum, Lex autem subintravit ut abundaret delictumq

[59] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 238. pEt iterum: Sine lege enim peccatum mortuum erat. Ego autem vivebam sine lege aliquando. Sed cum venisset mandatum, peccatum revixit. Ego autem motuus sum et inventum est mihi mandatum quod erat ad vitam, hoc est ad mortem. Nam peccatum occasione accepta per mandatum seduxit me et per illud me occidit ut fiat supra modum peccans peccatum per mandatum,q McLaughlin, pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18, 274-75.

[60] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 240; McLaughlin, pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18, 276. See Heloiseos third letter, Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 171.

[61] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 230-31; McLaughlin, pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18, 269.

[62] Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 257; pQuaecumque, inquit, scripta sunt, ad nosrtam doctrinam scripta sunt, ut per patientiam et consolationem scripturarum spem habeamusq McLaughlin, pAbelardos Rule for Religious Women,q Mediaeval Studies 18, 285.

[63] The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, 174; p. . . solas apud Deum merita virtutes obtiner,q pThe Letter of Heloise on the Religious Life and Abelardos First Reply,q Mediaeval Studies 17 (1955), 250.