Hi everyone,
In week 5 it's going to be another
bumper discussion! Lectures will be introducing us to the rise of two
important components of late medieval urban life: communes and
universities. The twelfth and thirteenth centuries saw the foundation of
some of the most famous universities in Europe, for example, these two,
which in some ways still look as though one might bump into a medieval
student around any given corner...
And in tutorials we will be discussing
universities and education in more detail. In particular, we'll use the
story of the two people pictured below
as a juicy entrée into issues related to education at the time. Think
about Abelard's
Historia Calamitatum in light of the questions in
the reading guide. What does his story tell us about intellectual and
philosophical life and thought in twelfth-century France (apart from
some pretty gory things about castration...)? If the extract whets your
appetite, or you just want to know
Heloise's side of the story (!), look for their letters which are published in various editions and
available in the library; or look for the works of Monash's own
Professor Constant Mews, who is a world expert on their correspondence.
 |
| Abelard & Heloise |
13 comments:
Can someone please explain the difference between Roman and Cannon law?
On another note I don't think Abelards troubles are sexual, they are definitely intellectual, he seemed to just want to concentrate on his studies in philosophy and the church kept interfering - I suppose because the philosophers were basing everything on the scriptures.
Hi Stacey,
The short answer is that Roman law was a secular law code inherited (even if rather indirectly) from ancient Rome; Canon law is the law of the church, which originated in the sayings and decisions of popes and prominent bishops. The two codes didn't deal with the same things, although there were some areas of overlap, and disagreements about their respective jurisdiction.
Regarding Abelard, don't forget, he's writing his Historia after he's been violently castrated and more or less forced by circumstance to enter a monastery. Let me throw it open to the group: to what extent should we assume he's constructing a justification of his actions after the fact, as opposed to representing his actual motives at the time? What might his state of mind have been like? And why would he be writing all of this down? Would assuming different motives change your conclusions about his troubles?
After reading the Historia I reread Peters' section on Abelard and Heloise, and noticed that Peters' wrote that Abelard made enemies 'as much because of his sometimes abrasive personality as because of the novelty of his thought and teaching'. After initially reading the Historia, I thought that he was blaming everyone else for his problems - they were all so jealous of him! If he was using it as a justification for his actions then he would portray his actions in a favourable light, rather than give his actual motives (but doesn’t everyone?) especially if it was written after the violent attack by Heloise’ uncle.
I think you're quite right Catherine - it's fairly natural for us all to try and put the best spin on our actions! They key is trying to use this insight to read historical texts with a critical eye. It's harder than it might seem at first - because, as we were discussing with respect to Einhard, if this is the evidence you have, then you have to figure out how to make the best of it including the fact that some of it is probably 'spin'... Basically, it's important to think broadly about what a text can tell you about the past - not just what it's claiming to tell you.
So in that light, it may interest you to know that at the time he wrote this, Abelard had managed to get himself stuck in a little 'nowhere' monastery in 'outback' Brittany. We might assume this was hardly the 'bright lights' that Abelard was (a) used to, and (b) felt his intellect warranted. Now, as we discovered a few weeks ago, once you were in a monastery, you couldn't just leave. Very serious and senior permission was required. Some scholars have put forward the idea that the Historia was written partly to try and secure that release, for example, Betty Radice, who edited the letters for Penguin in the 1970s. Do you buy this as an explanation? Would it have succeeded as a strategy, do you think?
Catharine's reference to Edward Peters' observation about Abelard's "abrasive personality" made me try to imagine this very young master who based his teaching on questioning everything in a world where tradition, especially "sacred traditon", was so important. He seemed to have no trouble attracting young scholars.Like so many original thinkers he must have seemed brash to his older contemporaries. I wonder if scholars down through the ages would have bee so interested in him if it were not for Heloise. Abelard's "History of My Troubles" is a rip-roaring read, and fresh as if he wwas writing about yesterday. But, if there had been no Heloise, would the past 800 years of scholars have paid more attention, eg, to Peter Lombard? And, sure, Professor Mews' book on Heloise's letters must join the long list of must-reads. She must be one of the greatest female intellectuals in European history.
I don't think Abelard seems the kind of person who would want to stay stranded and forgotten in the small monastery in Brittany! But what kind of circumstances would have granted him permission to leave? I don't quite understand how writting 'Historia' would have secured his release.
There is an obvious conflict between the ideals of Christianity and the new formation of logical thinking. Not surprisingly, although the Church was enthusiastic about education, logical analysis was not what the church approved off when it came to literary texts and ideals. It was interesting reading Anselm, as I've read about him before in a philosophy book. I love how he opened the role of reason in theological discourse despite his faith. Even Peter Abelard was also a theologian and philosopher and it was interesting how despite his deviant past, he became the most popular thinker in Europe!
The fact that the Europe in the 12th century was still being influenced by Roman literature and their legal system demonstrates how sophisticated and advanced Rome must have been. The formation of law schools and the creation of the first legal profession in Europe by late 12th century definitely demonstrates the transition of society and shows how intelligence within it was growing.
Im confused as to why the students had such trouble and risks learning before universities came about? Also, when they did come about, however didnt attain librarys, buildings or permanent residancy, what constituted a university then? was it the legal acknowledgement that these people were studying in the house of their master?
I found it so interesting reading about the developments in education and the establishment of universities. But I'm just wondering what brought about the growth and interest in higher education? The Perters article says that from the 10th century changes took place in monastic literary education, but what there something in particular that triggered the exploration of new ideas that led to this change?
The law, Authenticum Habita, issued by Emperor Frederick I Barborossa, seemed to serve as an essential turning point for the development of universities. As illustrated, students were unprotected by any sot of legal protection, consequently leaving them susceptible to ‘hostility by the inveterate localism’. This law undoubtedly aided students, teachers and the institution as a whole, providing ‘formal recognition of the status that formal study conferred.’ - something that we, as university students, can appreciate today.
I enjoyed reading Abelard's account of his life. It's always interesting hearing someone's opinion on the events of their own life. I don't suppose his teacher William had written a similar account of that time? It would have been really good to compare them if he did, for, as Catharine pointed out, when writing this account he would naturally have twisted—and even omitted—some of the details so as to portray himself in a better light.
I can also see how this text may have been referred to throughout the years as an example of how women are a curse upon men. Not that there are not several ancient texts to draw on claiming this—such as the story of Eve in Genesis and Pandora in Hesiod's 'Works and Days'. In ‘Historia’ we are told the story of a promising young philosopher who is corrupted by his pride etc.; however, his career doesn’t start to deteriorate until he falls for a young woman (whom he deliberately set out to woo, need I add) and is thus distracted from his work.
But Heloise herself seemed a most intriguing character! For, even though Abelard set out originally to seduce her—with I’m sure no other intention then a short affair—he ends up willing to risk his career by marrying her. But she turns out to be opposed to the idea! An unmarried woman with a child born out of wedlock! But, even more astonishing, apparently when she discovered that she was pregnant she was “rejoicing” the fact. I’m pretty sure that sex before marriage was not a socially accepted practice in those time, particularly for women of Heloise’s class. Or am I mistaken here?
I guess this it sort of going on from what Michael and Laura said about the influence of the Church and Rome, I found it really striking how much Medieval society was formed by its predecessors. Aside from the effect of Rome in Accursius’s Glossa Ordinaria and the Church’s Canon Law, but, it seems to me, the persistent lack of consistency across kingdoms, empires and Christiandom, originates somewhat from the lingering Germanic culture, which, similarly, wasn’t always the same from tribe to tribe, and region to region, just as Medieval law, especially in the 11th-12th centuries, differed according to lord, region and king/emperor. Also, the example from the book seemed particularly Germanic, to me, of certain cases requiring trial by combat, which played on the Germanic values of bravery and success as evidence of manhood and worth. Although, I think it’s particularly interesting how they claimed this was a way of eliciting divine intervention in the matter as a combination between this Germanic concept of fighting and glory, coupled with the Christian belief in God.
Post a Comment