|
Medieval Sourcebook:
Mediev-l Discussion of Heloise's Letters to Abelard
[Back to Heloise's First Letter to Abelard]
Note: the posts have
been arranged in some sort of topic order. The actual order is
indicated by the number of each post.
I. The Question
1. The Question
11 Dec 1997
I have recently added to the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Heloise's
First letter to Abelard, as translated by Scott Moncrieff. I seem
to recall some discussion about the genuineness of these letters,
however. Can anyone indicate what the state of play is?
Paul Halsall, ([email protected])
II. Pro Authenticity Scholarship
2. Solution: Heloise wrote the letters (Dronke cited)
11 Dec 1997
I had understood that the argument over the genuineness of the
letters was more or less over, but I could be wrong. On the "for"
side, include Peter Dronke and Etienne Gilson, along with most
feminist historians (I think). On the "against" side,
I seem to remember that D.W. Robertson Jr. was one of the main
people who argued that the letters were authored by Abelard to
be exempla of conversion (that is, Heloise's). Others will no
doubt have more opinions.
Belle S. Tuten ([email protected])
3. Solution: Heloise wrote the letters (Newman cited)
11 Dec 1997
I am convinced that the definitive last word is that issued by
Barbara Newman in an article included in her collection From
Virile Woman to Womanchrist (U of Penn). It is a resounding
defense of the authenticity of the letters. If you want to delve
backward into the controversy you could work your way into it
from Barbara's footnotes.
Jo Ann McNamara ([email protected])
7. Solution: Heloise wrote the letters (Newman cited)
Dec 13 1997
I think the question of style, in terms of Heloise's letters,
can be, and has been explained by the fact that Heloise was Abelard's
student. This much we do know. And if he was as good a teacher
as is thought, then it makes sense to me that Heloise's style
would be like his.
But I wanted to second Jo Ann MacNamara's reference to Barbara
Newman's work. Anyone who is interested in this debate needs to
read that work immediately. What impressed me the most about the
relevant chapter in From Virile Woman to WomanChrist was
not only the examination of the evidence to show that Heloise
was the author of her own letters (a position, I confess, to which
I already ascribed), but her examination of why this question
has even been posed, and the historiographical significance of
it.
It's been several months since I read it, but one of the most
compelling lines of argument in the essay (I thought) was that
writing both sets of letters, given their content, would have
demonstrated an unmatched perversity on Abelard's part. This was
an argument that has stayed with me... but I think ultimately
the historiographical questions in the essay are most significant.
It should be required reading for anyone interested in writing
about Heloise, especially anyone new to women's history. (IMHO).
Miriam T Shadis ([email protected])
9. Solution: Heloise wrote the letters (Newman cited)
Dec 13 1997
I want to add to the voices of those seconding Jo Ann McNamara's
reference to Barbara Newman's essay on Heloise. For what it is
worth, I also think it resolves the dispute over the authenticity
of the letters. If someone still doubts their authenticity after
reading Newman's essay or finds her arguments unconvincing, he
or she should publish a persuasive counter-argument.
The exact reference is the following: Barbara Newman, "Authority,
Authenticity, and the Repression of Heloise," in Virile
Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in Medieval Religion and Literature,
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), pp. 46-75."
George Dameron, ([email protected])
III. Why Raise the Question
5. Discussion of logical basis of querying authenticity: Pro-Authenticity
11 Dec 1997
In the absence of clear evidence one way or the other, isn't it
easier to assume the Heloise wrote those letters? There is certainly
no reason she couldn't have written them, but arguing that
Abelard produced them in her name seems to assume that she couldn't
have written them because she was a woman. It also violates Occam's
Razor.
As far as the general question of authenticity is concerned, isn't
the primary question whether the document is what it claims to
be? Authenticity, then, requires that the document be produced
at the time it claims, by the author it claims. This excludes
the issue of whether the document is accurate or telling the truth
about its subject matter. So a document could be authentic and
true, (like most government and legal documents), authentic but
untrue or inaccurate (like many chroniclers and letters), inauthentic
but true (later reproductions of earlier documents), or inauthentic
and untrue (like the Donation of Constantine). Is this too simplistic?
Andrew E. Larsen ([email protected])
8. Discussion of logical basis of querying authenticity:
Pro-Authenticity
Dec 13 1997
Well, if we're going to propose only one author for the letters,
why not Heloise? Why must we always search for a missing male
author? Especially in a case where we have a perfectly plausible
female author already in position and with the education to have
written the texts. stepping down from soapbox.
Rebecca LR Garber, ([email protected])
10. Discussion of logical basis of querying authenticity: Pro-Authenticity
Dec 13 1997
I also thought that Newman's article was memorable for demonstrating
the perversity of assumptions that Heloise could not have been
the author of certain of the letters, and that we should look
to Abelard for their origin. I have also been interested that
noone has (yet?) mentioned the work of Peter Dronke - didn't he
do an analysis of the 'epistolary style' of Heloise and Abelard
and show significant differences between them, as well as the
more general similarities which we might expect between a teacher
and student? From memory, the discussion appears in the chapter
re Heloise in Women Writers in the Middle Ages, and I seem
to remember that he may even have suggested that Abelard was influenced
by Heloise's style, rather than the other way round! His contribution
to the authenticity debate in the W.P. Ker lecture, 'Abelard and
Heloise in Medieval Testimonies also impressed me, but
perhaps others have compelling grounds for disagreement. I would
be very glad to hear any views on this issue.
Stephanie Tarbin, ([email protected])
6. Discussion of logical basis of querying authenticity:
Querying Authenticity
Dec 13
Well, to be fair (and I take no position; I'm not familiar enough
with the material to judge, although I hope A. and H. each wrote
their "own"), the argument isn't that she COULDN'T have
written the letters, but that hers are so stylistically similar
to Abelard's that it is simplest to believe that the same person
wrote all of them -- Abelard or somebody else. Robert Benson first
proposed this on the basis of word-counts, although he later backed
off after further analysis. Still, every time somebody claims
to have laid the issue to rest, somebody else begs to differ.
On the one hand, the fact that the letters do not exist in any
contemporary or near-contemporary manuscript makes determining
their provenance difficult at best, and probably impossible with
any degree of certainty. On the other hand, the issue of whether
the letters were written by Abelard and Heloise, by Abelard, or
by a later writer has enough consequences for our interpretation
of the 12th century that I think it needs to be strenuously pursued
-- by somebody other than me, I hope, although I'll be happy to
read the results!
Robert Helmerichs ([email protected])
12. Discussion of logical basis of querying authenticity: Querying
Authenticity
The question that was asked earlier in this discussion regarding
whether the letters are "authentic" is really a non-question
since the mss of the originals apparently do not survive. In the
language of diplomatics it is necessary to have an original to
have an authentic document. Since we have no original we cannot
tell who wrote the letter, i.e. who did the writing. It is important
to know with an original who wrote, e.g. the auctor or a scribe.
If a scribe wrote it was it from a notitia of some type provided
by the auctor or was it dictated by the auctor. In either case,
the question must be asked if the auctor checked the draft. Was
the original sealed etc.
Since there are no originals, the next step is to ascertain the
nature of what does survive. Do we have a contemporary copy of
each letter or of any of the letters. Who wrote these, not who
authored them. This process must go on until one reaches the mss
one does have etc. I would hope that with regard to the texts
under discussion all of this had been done.
Someone mentioned the matter of "style" in the mss that
do survive and noted that since A was the teacher of H then it
would not be unreasonable for the two to have very similar styles.
Is this, in fact, true. What kinds of style do other of A's students
have?
In short, before getting to the content of the work in terms of
ideas or sentiments a great deal of work needs to be and I would
assume that all of this was done so that now the question of auctor
becomes a matter of the rhetorical skill of one or another proponent
of one or another position.
B.Bachrach, ([email protected])
15. Discussion of logical basis of querying authenticity: Pro
Authenticity
Robert Helmerichs wrote:
In the absence of any medieval evidence concerning the authorship
of the letters, we are left with modern arguments.
On your evidentiary presumptions, would this not be true of all
texts for which autographs do not exist? Take for example, everything
ever attributed to Roman and Ancient Greek writers -in some cases one late medieval manuscript survives. Might one then state
that "all we are left with is modern arguments" concerning
all of Cicero's letters?
On the other hand, there is indeed medieval evidence concerning
Heloise's letters: a translation in 1280 by Jean de Meun [ie circa
150 years later than the putative date] and nine Latin manuscripts
all claiming that the letters were written by her. True, Benson
argued that they were 13th century forgeries, but as Newman points
out, in a discussion of the authenticity of letters with an ascribed
author "the burden of proof rests squarely on the assailants,
not the defenders". Benson did not prove his case - according
to Newman he was unable to locate any inconsistencies in the texts
which would show forgery.
Do you think it fair, Rob, to accept this "burden of proof
on the assailants" as a reasonable rule of assessment of
evidence? Because if you do, and you admit that "modern arguments"
are not conclusive, then it would seem that, in the lack of *proof
to the contrary* you must accept, and teach, that the letters
are authentic. Since "modern arguments" have not been
conclusive, and the "burden of proof" is not equal,
"historical agnosticism", to use Newman's word, is not
an acceptable position. [Although a footnote pointing out that
there has been some contestation about the issue *might* just
be justified - Shakespearean scholars, however, seem to feel no
need, in each and every article, to refer to the extended "modern
controversy" over the authorship of his plays.]
In a context where no conclusive arguments about the authenticity
of the text have been compelling, Newman's raising of the secondary
question of why such a question was asked in the first place seems
fair enough. Since I do not want to risk loosing an argument on
the basis of the Internet "Hitler rule", I shall forgo
pointing out that it would be reasonable, before addressing the
"modern controversy" to ask *why* some German historians
in the 1930 raised questions of Christ's Jewishness; and instead
point to the "modern controversy" about the origins
of Great Zimbabwe - are we really, still, supposed to discuss
whether some Roman soldiers built it, or might it be better to
simply point to the racist presumptions of those who "raised
the question" and then move on?
Paul Halsall, ([email protected])
16. Discussion of logical basis of querying authenticity: Querying
Authenticity
13 Dec 1997
On the one hand yes, the same problem exists for any work with
a late manuscript history. And yes, I am perfectly willing to
call them the letters of Abelard and Heloise, and footnote the
contrary argument; but I am perfectly aware that by so doing,
I am going with what I want to be correct, not what I know to
be correct (because I cannot know for certain what IS correct).
I am willing to take on faith the arguments that the letters
cannot be a 13th-century forgery on linguistic grounds (on faith
because my philosophical Latin isn't good enough to fully evaluate
the argument, but nobody seems to have seriously questioned Dronke,
Janson et al. on that point). And I agree that there is something
to be said for the teacher/student argument, but that surely cannot
be definitive. All I'm trying to say is that, under the circumstances,
with NO contemporary evidence, any conclusion, no matter how forcefully
presented, must be tentative.
Robert Helmerichs ([email protected])
IV: Authenticity Assessed
by Style of Writing
7. The Issue of Style of Writing
Dec 13 1997
I think the question of style, in terms of Heloise's letters,
can be, and has been explained by the fact that Heloise was Abelard's
student. This much we do know. And if he was as good a teacher
as is thought, then it makes sense to me that Heloise's style
would be like his.
But I wanted to second Jo Ann MacNamara's reference to Barbara
Newman's work. Anyone who is interested in this debate needs to
read that work immediately. What impressed me the most about the
relevant chapter in From Virile Woman to WomanChrist was
not only the examination of the evidence to show that Heloise
was the author of her own letters (a position, I confess, to which
I already ascribed), but her examination of why this question
has even been posed, and the historiographical significance of
it.
It's been several months since I read it, but one of the most
compelling lines of argument in the essay (I thought) was that
writing both sets of letters, given their content, would have
demonstrated an unmatched perversity on Abelard's part. This was
an argument that has stayed with me... but I think ultimately
the historiographical questions in the essay are most significant.
It should be required reading for anyone interested in writing
about Heloise, especially anyone new to women's history. (IMHO).
Miriam T Shadis ([email protected])
11. The Issue of Style of Writing
There are no manuscripts of the letters before the end of the
thirteenth century. On the basis of information gleaned from Peter
Dronke (Women Writers of the Middle Ages, 1984, 108-9)
and R. W. Southern ("The Letters of Abelard and Heloise,"
in Medieval Humanism, 102-104), it appears that complete
versions of the three letters of Heloise to Abelard are present
in seven of the nine existing manuscripts of their letters. There
is also of course the French translation of the correspondence
by Jean de Meun. Southern suggests that two if not three manuscripts
of 1290-1330 all come from Paris (Troyes 802, sold to Robert dei
Bardi in 1346; Paris B. N. lat. 2923, which Petrarch owned at
least from 1344; Paris B. N. lat. 2544, which Southern observes
was in the possession of James of Ghent around 1330). Based on
textual criticism of the manuscripts, Southern concluded (echoing
the earlier scholar J. Monfrin) that the letter collection made
its way to Paris at the end of the thirteenth century from the
monastery of the Paraclete, where Heloise had lived most of her
life.
Dronke argues that the letters are "substantially by Heloise"
(108), even though she might have edited the letters and someone
else might have created the collection. He notes that no one has
doubted Heloise's authorship of the Problemata or the letter to
Peter the Venerable, even though the Problemata exists in only
one manuscript dating from about 1400.
Newman reviews these and more recent views regarding the letters
in her aforementioned essay. Regarding knowledge of the story
of the love affair itself, two twelfth century chroniclers (Walter
Map and William Godel) refer to the lovers briefly, according
to Betty Radice (The Letters of the Abelard and Heloise, Penguin
1974, p. 46).
I am not a specialist in this field. Nevertheless, the evidence
for authenticity assembled by Southern, Dronke, and Newman (and
many others) seems compelling.
George Dameron, ([email protected])
13. The Issue of Style of Writing
Dec 13
B. Bachrach wrote:
In short, before getting to the content of the work in terms
of ideas or sentiments a great deal of work needs to be and I
would assume that all of this was done so that now the question
of auctor becomes a matter of the rhetorical skill of one or another
proponent of one or another positon. That is exactly the point that I kept trying to make, but you've
made it very well. In the absence of any medieval evidence concerning
the authorship of the letters, we are left with modern arguments.
I have heard a number of times Newman cited as having "solved"
the problem, but of course she does nothing of the sort. She makes
a very emotionally satisfying argument for Heloise's authorship,
but she gives not a whit of evidence not already known and used
repeatedly. I hope she's right, and I would like to think she's
right, and I am willing to believe, tentatively, in the absence
of an argument that I want to believe more, that she is right,
but there is no possible way a definitive answer can be given,
for exactly the reasons Bernie gives. And, in fact, we can expect
van Moos or Waddell or somebody to now write another article refuting
Newman, and that response will be based every bit as firmly in
the evidence as Newman -- that is to say, not much at all, there
being no evidence to begin with.
(Parenthetically, I am amused by the argument that of course Heloise
and Abelard would write in highly similar styles; she was his
student! By the same token, of course, Bernie and I are virtually
indistinguishable, so as I go on the job market, may I lay claim
to, oh, "Enforcement of the Forma Fidelitatis"?
My CV would be greatly enhanced. But that would be foolish, because
although I was indeed Bernie's student, of course nobody has mistaken
us for each other. Ever.)
So I repeat, I want to believe (shades of Fox Muldar) that Abelard
and Heloise are the authors of the letters, and by suggesting
that the opposing arguments might have merit I am not trying to
silence the voice of women in the Middle Ages or put Heloise in
her place or suggest that she could not have written the letters,
all of which I have recently been accused of. I am simply trying
to point to insurmountable evidential obstacles standing in the
way of any truly definitive conclusion to the problem.
Robert Helmerichs ([email protected])
14. The Issue of Style of Writing
Rob, I'd have to think that instruction in the rhetorical arts
or the ars dictamini in the Middle Ages was much more a
part of the instructor- student relationship than it is today,
and that consequently a teacher might very well leave a somewhat
stronger stamp on a student's rhetorical voice in the twelfth
century than would be the case now. Furthermore, would we not
expect Heloise to have absorbed much of Abelard's rhetorical style
along with his arguments in logic, since so much there depends
on the use of language?
John Parsons, ([email protected])
V: Ancillary Issues
4. Heloise as author of other texts
Might I take the opportunity to piggy-back on this thread concerning
the state of scholarship on the Heloise/Abelard correspondence
to ask who is working on Heloise scholarship at the moment? I
have done some work with a mortuary roll entry that was most likely
composed (and perhaps even entered on the roll in her own handwriting)
by Heloise when she was at the Argenteuil. It's a verse commemorating
Vital of Savigny. I'd love to discuss it further with an expert
on Heloise, since it's really a sidelight to my work with the
rolls. I'm interested in finding out, in particular, what other
work we have from Heloise, aside from her Abelard letters.
Teresa Elaine Leslie ([email protected])
Source:
This is an edited [for typos, removal of "quoted material,
and "flow"] summary of a thread on the Mediev-l [[email protected]]
discussion list on the subject of the "Authenticity of "Heloise's
Letters to Abelard" initiated when Heloise's First Letter to Abelard was first added to the Medieval Sourcebook.
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book.
The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted
texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the
document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying,
distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal
use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.
No permission is granted for commercial use.
Paul Halsall December 1997
[email protected]
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 12 April 2024 [CV]
|
