Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 3, September 2011 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9809.2011.01074.x CARMEL POSA SGS Problemata Heloissae: Heloise’s Zeal for the Scriptures jorh_1074 337..351 Both the early love letters of Heloise and Abelard, and their later correspondence, are suffused with the biblical text. In these collections, Heloise either refers directly or indirectly to the scriptures in order to sustain her arguments with Abelard, or as in the early love letters particularly, she moves freely in and out of either direct quotation of the scriptural texts or allusion to it, with the ease of any monastic writer of her era. However, it is in the Problemata Heloissae that we find direct evidence of Heloise’s approach to the study of Scripture for her community of the Paraclete. The series of forty-two questions raised in the Problemata reflects concerns with which Heloise had been preoccupied all her life and appear consistently within all her correspondence with Abelard. These concerns stressed the ethical interpretation of the Bible and focused on the struggle to maintain a life of inner integrity in the face of sin, and the meaning of love particularly as expressed by the “freedom of the Gospel.” Heloise of the Paraclete (d. 1164) lived the better part of her life within the structure of monastic institutions, firstly at the royal Abbey of Argenteuil, where she received her initial education and later, after her tragic and brief affair with Peter Abelard (1079–1142), where she was also a nun and eventually the community’s prioress. This community was expelled by Abbot Suger of St. Denis in 1129. Heloise and many of her sisters moved to the Paraclete Oratory, founded and established by Abelard. Here she became the renowned and respected Abbess of a community which was granted papal protection in 1131 and boasted several daughter houses under its care in her lifetime. As a Benedictine nun, Heloise’s life was surrounded inevitably by the Bible through both the hearing and singing of texts within the monastic liturgy, and via the emphasis on the practice of lectio divina or holy reading (cf. RB 48).1 Indeed, both the early love letters of Heloise and Abelard, and 1. All citations from The Rule of Benedict will be designated in text by RB, followed by chapter and verse. Both the critical Latin text and English translation of the Rule of Benedict are taken from Terrence Kardong, Benedict’s Rule: A Translation and Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000). Henceforth, Kardong, Benedict’s Rule. Carmel Posa sgs is a senior lecturer in Theology at the University of Notre Dame, Australia. 337 © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association 338 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY their later correspondence are suffused with the biblical text.2 In these collections, Heloise either refers directly or indirectly to the scriptures in order to sustain her arguments with Abelard, or as in the early love letters particularly, she moves freely in and out of direct quotation of, or allusion to, the scriptural texts, with the ease of any other monastic writer of her era. It is in the Problemata Heloissae, however, that we find direct evidence of Heloise’s approach to the study of Scripture for her community of the Paraclete.3 The Problemata Heloissae includes an introductory letter from Heloise along with forty-two questions, or problems, which the study of the Scriptures had presented to her and her community. It also incorporates Abelard’s responses to each of these problems.4 The questions raised in the Problemata reflect concerns with which Heloise had been preoccupied all her life and appear consistently within all her correspondence with Abelard. These concerns stressed the ethical interpretation of the Bible and focused on the struggle to maintain a life of inner integrity in the face of sin, and the meaning of love particularly as expressed by the “freedom of the Gospel.” In Letter 6 of the main correspondence between Heloise and Abelard, Heloise makes two requests of Abelard, both of which draw him into his role as spiritual director of the Paraclete community. Briefly, she first requires a history of religious women, and secondly, as the Rule of Benedict was written specially for men, she requires a prescriptive rule of the monastic life, specifically for the needs of women, the details of which she then proceeds to describe herself.5 In both Letters 8 and 9 of Abelard’s response to Heloise’s requests of Letter 6, he exhorts the Abbess of the Paraclete community and her sisters to the study of Scripture. The aim of the monastic life to which both Abelard and Heloise had committed themselves was the transformation of the human person through the Gospel precepts of love as emphasised in the Rule of Benedict: “But as we progress in the monastic life and in faith, our hearts will swell with the unspeakable sweetness of love, enabling us to race along the way of God’s commandments.” (RB Prol. 49).6 Thus, the method of this 2. The love letters were first critically edited by Ewald Könsgen, Epistolae duorum amantium: Briefe Abaelards und Heloises? (Leiden: Brill, 1974), reprinted with a translation by Constant J. Mews and Neville Chiavaroli within Constant J. Mews, The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard, 2nd ed (New York: Palgrave, 2008), 215–313. The later correspondence can be found in Éric Hicks and Thérèse Moreau, eds, “Historia calamitatum” and “Letters 2–8,” in Lettres d’ Abélard et Héloïse (Paris: Librairie Générale Française, 2007), English trans. Betty Radice, The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, ed. Michael Clanchy (London: Penguin, 2003). Edmé Smits, ed., “Letter 9,” in Peter Abelard, Letters IX–XIV (Groningen [privately published], 1983), 231; Jan M. Ziolkowski, trans., Letters of Peter Abelard. Beyond the Personal (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 10–33. 3. Problemata Heloissae, PL 178: 677B–730B. English trans. E. M. McNamer, The Education of Heloise (Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press, 1991), 111–83. 4. Both Dronke and Ziolkowski describe the transmission of this text through the Abbey of St Victor. See Peter Dronke, “Heloise’s Problemata and Letters: Some Questions of Form and Content”, in Petrus Abaelardus (1079–1142): Person Werk und Wirkung, Trierer theologische Studien 38, ed. Rudolf Thomas (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1980), 53; and Ziolkowski, Letters of Peter Abelard, 10. 5. See Ep. 6, Hicks and Moreau, 230 (Radice, Letters, 94). 6. Processu vero conversationis et fidei, dilatato corde inenarrabili dilectionis dulcedine curritur via mandatorum Dei. Kardong, Benedict’s Rule, 3. © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association P RO BL E M A T A H E L O I S S A E 339 transformation was through a gradual process of conforming to the Scriptures. In Letter 8, Abelard draws on Gregory the Great to underline this aim: It is agreed that Holy Scripture is a mirror of the soul, in which anyone who lives by reading and advances by understanding perceives the beauty of his own ways or discovers their ugliness, so that he may work to increase the one and remove the other. Reminding us of this mirror, St. Gregory says in the second book of his Moralia: “The Holy Scripture is set before the mind’s eye as if it were a mirror in which our inward face may be seen reflected. For there we see our beauty or recognize our hideousness, there we perceive how far we have advanced and how distant we are from advancing.”7 Abelard also acknowledged the purpose of monastic life when he drew directly from the Rule of Benedict himself in his exhortation to Heloise and her nuns: “St Benedict says: ‘Let us sing the psalms so that mind and voice may be in harmony’” (RB 19:7).8 The Rule of Benedict is inherently biblical in both its content and commentary. Thus, to understand Scripture is also to understand the Rule as Abelard himself, insists: “Finally, if the sisters have no understanding of Scripture, how will they be able to instruct each other by word, or even to explain or understand the Rule, or correct false citations from it?”9 For any faithful adherence to the monastic life, knowledge of Scripture was thus fundamental. Neither the Christian life as articulated in the Scriptures, nor the Rule that guided that life for monastics, was comprehensible without such study. In her opening letter of the Problemata, Heloise invokes the monastic tradition of women of the past and their relationship with their spiritual elders, yet again, reminding Abelard of his role as spiritual guide to the community in their pursuit of biblical knowledge. She employs the example of the Roman circle of women surrounding Jerome, particularly Marcella and Asella, and the questions they posed to him as their spiritual guide and director. Here Heloise effectively positions herself as Marcella, and Abelard as Jerome. Abelard had previous employed this same identification of himself as Jerome while comparing Heloise to another of Jerome’s famous circle of women friends, Paula. In his Historia calamitatum, he draws the parallel between the scandal existing in relationship to his own association with Heloise and the similar accusations leveled at Jerome for his association with Paula.10 In Letter 9, he uses the same parallel to bring to the fore Heloise’s own zeal for scriptural knowledge. After quoting Paula’s example from Jerome in a letter to her daughter Eustochium, he writes: 7. Speculum anime scripturam sacram constat esse, in quam quislibet legendo vivens, intelligendo proficiens,morum suorum pulcritudinem cognoscit vel deformitatem deprehendit, ut illam videlicet augere, hanc studeat removere. Hoc nobis speculum beatus commemorans Gregorius in II Moralium ait: “Scriptura sacra mentisoculis quasi quoddam speculum opponitur, ut interna nostra facies in ipsa videatur, ubi etenim feda, ibi pulcra nostra cognoscimus. Ibi sentimus quantum proficimus, ibi a profectu quam longe distamus.” Ep. 8, Hicks and Moreau, 540 (Radice, Letters, 198). 8. Quem et beatus sequens Benedictus: “Sic stemus, inquit, ad psallendum ut mens nostra concordat voci nostre.” Ep. 8, Hicks and Moreau, 544 (Radice, Letters, 200). 9. Denique, que scripture non habent intelligentiam, quomodo sermonis edificationem sibi ministrabunt, aut etiam regulam exponere vel intelligere, aut vitiose prolata corrigere valebunt? Ep. 8, Hicks and Moreau, 546 (Radice, Letters, 201). 10. See HC, Hicks and Moreau, 118, (Radice, Letters, 36). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association 340 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY Pondering this zeal for the divine Scriptures that so great a teacher and saintly women have had, I have advised and I wish unceasingly for you to bring about that, insofar as you are able and have a mother superior expert in these three sacred languages, you proceed to this completion of study so that whatever doubt may arise about different translations, a final decision can be reached by you.11 Heloise insists that just as Jerome had extolled Marcella to the study of Scripture, so too must Abelard in his role as Father and teacher of the community: “Therefore as disciples to our teacher, as daughters to our father we send certain small questions, praying and begging that you will not disdain to turn your attention to solving them at whose exhortation and command we have mainly undertaken this course of study.”12 Heloise’s concern is that their study of Scripture will be frustrated if they do not understand what they are reading. Citing Jerome’s letter to Rusticus she notes: “Love the knowledge of the Scriptures, and you shall not love the vices of the flesh.”13 Dronke suggests that Heloise’s use of this quotation is directly related to her personal struggle with the lustful thoughts so vividly expressed in her previous Letter 4 to Abelard: “The lines from Jerome suggest it is the indulgence in sensual reveries, such as Heloise describes in her second Letter, that she hopes to tame by devoting herself to scriptural study, to obey Abelard as best she can in trying to make the spiritual life an inner reality for herself.”14 Such disclosure of the interior struggle and the application of Scripture as its cure are consistent with the monastic tradition of the revelation of inner thoughts to a spiritual elder.15 The use of Jerome’s exhortation to scriptural study thus sets the tone for the underlying theme of Heloise’s questions. It is the search for full integrity in the living out of the monastic way of life that concerns her particularly throughout her later correspondence with Abelard and here again in the Problemata Heloissae. In Letter 9, Abelard expressed his confidence in Heloise’s knowledge of the scriptural languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and encourages the community to learn these languages under her guidance. It was not only Abelard who attested to Heloise’s exceptional skill in biblical languages. Her contemporary, Peter the Venerable, was similarly impressed with her skills in this regard and the later chronicler, William Godell, also confirmed this outstanding quality in the abbess of the Paraclete community.16 Whatever the rhetorical 11. Hunc zelum tanti doctoris et sanctarum feminarum in scripturis diuinis considerans monui et incessanter implere uos cupio ut dum potestis et matrem harum peritam trium linguarum habetis, ad hanc studii perfectionem feramini ut quecumque de diuersis translacionibus oborta dubitacio fuerit, per uos probacio terminari possit. Ep. 9, Smits, “Letter 9,” 231 (Ziolkowski, Letters of Peter Abelard, 25). 12. Proinde quaestiunculas quasdam discipulae doctori, filiae Patri destinantes, supplicando rogamus, rogando supplicamus, quatenus his solvendis intendere non dedigneris, cujus hortatu, imo et jussu hoc praecipue studium aggressae sumus. Problemata, PL 178: 678C (McNamer, Education, 112). 13. Ama scientiam Scripturarum, et carnis vitia non amabis. Problemata, PL 178: 678C (McNamer, Education, 112). See Jerome, Ep. 125, 11. CSEL 56, 130. 14. Dronke, “Heloise’s Problemata and Letters,” 60. 15. See Juanita Feros Ruys’ discussion of this issue in “ ‘Ut sexu sic animo’: The Resolution of Sex and Gender in the Planctus of Abelard,” Medium Aevum 75 (2006): 1–23. 16. Constant Mews and Micha J. Perry, “Peter Abelard, Heloise, and Jewish Biblical Exegesis in the Twelfth Century,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 62 (2010): 9. © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association P RO BL E M A T A H E L O I S S A E 341 exaggeration here, this high praise for both Heloise and the program of study undertaken at her monastery points to the Paraclete’s apparent emphasis on its devotion to, and knowledge of, the biblical text. Nevertheless, Heloise’s use of Jerome’s letters to the Roman women of his circle concerning their love and understanding of Scripture is not only an appeal to Abelard’s care and authority over them as their founder. By way of justifying her own authority, Heloise is also presenting her own credentials through the example of Jerome’s high opinions of women and their study of Scripture. She quotes Jerome’s description of Marcella: Certainly, so soon as I got to Rome, no sooner did she see me, that she might interrogate me somewhat concerning the Scriptures. Nor indeed, in the pythagorean manner, did she consider whatever I might respond as correct, nor did prejudged authority without reason hold any weight for her, but she questioned everything, and with a sagacious mind considered widely, so that I felt myself to have not a disciple but rather a judge.17 It is not simply that Abelard is to be the one to present “authoritative” and definitive answers to Heloise’s scriptural problems any more than Jerome was to do so for Marcella. Rather, the very nature of her inquiries reveal their own authority. She will judge for herself the veracity of Abelard’s answers just as Marcella had the authority to do so with Jerome’s responses to her questions on scriptural matters. Heloise and her community are not merely the “unlettered” sitting at their master’s feet. Heloise and her community’s position in relation to Abelard is not simply as “disciples to our teacher, as daughters to our father”18 as she would have us otherwise believe in this articulation of the questions from her community. These women hold a critical authority themselves revealed in their own devotion to the reading and study of Scripture. Heloise is equally a teacher to Abelard, just as Marcella was teacher to Jerome through her questioning. The Problemata do not present any overtly systematic approach to the study of the Scripture, rather as Heloise notes herself: “Not holding to the order of Scripture in these questions, but as they daily occurred to us, we set them down and direct that they be solved.”19 If these questions stem from the daily use and study of Scripture one can presume that the context for the emergence of such questions is that of their daily practice of lectio divina as prescribed by the holy Rule. The variety of problems presented by Heloise reveal her concerns that cover a wide assortment of issues from both the Old and the New Testaments. These issues include: literal interpretation of a text, logical contradictions within a 17. Certe cum Romae essem, nunquam tam festina me vidit, ut de Scripturis aliquid interrogaret. Neque vero, more Pythagorico, quidquid responderem rectum putabat, nec sine ratione praejudicata apud eam valebat–auctoritas; sed examinabat omnia, et sagaci mente universa pensabat, ut me sentirem non tam discipulam habere quam judicem. Problemata, PL 178: 677B (McNamer, Education, 111). 18. Discipulae doctori, filiae Patri. Problemata, PL 178: 678C (McNamer, Education, 111). 19. In quibus profecto quaestionibus, nequaquam ordinem Scripturae tenentes, prout quotidie nobis occurrunt, eas ponimus et solvendas dirigimus. Problemata, PL 178: 678C (McNamer, Education, 112). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association 342 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY text and between texts, ethical difficulties encountered in the text, explanations of Jewish customs within the text, and simple straight forward historical questions on the meaning of otherwise complex texts, for example the explanation of — the cursed fig tree in Mark 11:13 as posed by Question 26. As always, the meaning of sin occupies Heloise’s thoughts, and not insignificantly, this is the focus of the last question of this collection. Traditionally, monastics understood the knowledge of Scripture through two primary modes of interpretation: The historical interpretation, from which came practical knowledge, and the Spiritual understanding. This spiritual understanding comprised tropology, allegory, and anagogy.20 Thus, the monastic writer might choose to emphasise one or other of these approaches to understanding the scriptural text. Heloise’s questions are often concerned with the literal and historical interpretation of scripture. While this is clearly apparent, it must also be remembered that Heloise’s primary focus is on the tropological understanding of the Scriptures, that is, the moral/ethical meaning of the text. Her concern is that she and her community might be able to interpret the meaning of the text more thoroughly and more usefully for their living out of the monastic way of life. Heloise stands in the midst of an era of dynamic changes in, and experiments with, approaches to monastic life as well as intellectual endeavours. Within this ferment of ideas and thinking, the reading of Scripture, lectio divina and sacra pagina, took on a variety of different flavours, particularly with the advent and flowering of scholasticism. Heloise interweaves the rich tradition of lectio divina, with the newly acquired methods in quaestio and disputatio, in conversation with her own intensely personal experience and the experience of women in general, in her lively engagement with the text. Her questions are about their study of Scripture in order to understand it for its own sake, for the sake of their meaningful liturgical use of scripture, for their understanding in private prayer and for the formation and correction of their lives as articulated in the transformative purpose of the Rule of Benedict. The very first question presented by Heloise sets the tone for that which she wants to achieve through this set of problems presented to Abelard. This initial question concerns the meaning of the Spirit’s role as articulated by Jesus in the Gospel of John: What does it mean that the Lord in the Gospel of John promises concerning the Spirit that he would send, saying: “And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation: sin, because they do not believe in me; righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.” (John 16:8–11).21 20. See John Cassian, “Conference XIV: On Spiritual Knowledge,” in John Cassian: The Conferences, trans. Boniface Ramsey (New York: Newman Press, 1999). 21. Quid est quod Dominus in Evangelio Joannis de Spiritu quem missurus erat promittit, dicens: Et cum venerit ille, arquet mundum de peccato, et de justitia, et de judicio: De peccato quidem, quia non crediderunt in me; de justitia vero, quia ad Patrem vado, et jam non videbitis me; de judicio autem, quia princeps mundi hujus jam judicatus est? (Joan. xvi, 8–11) Problema i, PL 178: 678D-679A (McNamer, Education, 112). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association P RO BL E M A T A H E L O I S S A E 343 Contrary to the usual naming of monasteries, Abelard’s hermitage, which later became the Paraclete community, had deliberately been given the patronage of the Holy Spirit in its title, using the Greek term, Paraclete (the Comforter), by Abelard. In highlighting the Spirit in her very first question, Heloise is not only giving Abelard an opportunity to defend his position vis-à-vis the Spirit and the naming of her community, along with his controversial teaching on the Trinity,22 she is also pressing home her own need for the community to understand their identity in terms of the Spirit’s action in the world. Heloise is effectively asking Abelard what he thinks it means for them to be the Community of the Paraclete, the community of the Comforter. Indeed, from Abelard’s own words to Heloise in Letter 3, where he encourages her community to pray for him, one could conclude that their sole role is as “comforter” to him. He ends this particular letter thus: “Finally, I ask this of you above all else: at present you are over-anxious about the danger to my body, but then your chief concern must be for the salvation of my soul, and you must show the dead man how much you loved the living by the special support of prayers chosen for him.”23 This theme of identity is central to Heloise’s concerns here as in all her previous letters.24 To have any integrity in identity for Heloise means to honestly name and deal with the contradictions one discovers within oneself. In the early love letters this theme centered around the understanding of love, and selfless love in particular. In the later correspondence it is the appeal to the consistency between the inner person and the outer person that concerns Heloise. In the Problemata, Heloise again focuses on issues of integrity, contradiction and inconsistency which she and her sisters discover in their reading of the Scriptures. These issues distract them in their study and understanding of Scripture and thus, from fulfilling their monastic purpose. Any literal interpretation of Scripture obviously produces these contradictions and inconsistencies which must be uncovered and explained in order for the deeper significance of the scriptural text to be revealed and have meaning for their lives. After setting up the identity of the Paraclete community in Question 1, Heloise immediately positions herself with this desire for integrity. She questions the possibility of keeping the law according to the dictates set out by James 2:10–11 in her second question to Abelard: “What does this mean in the Epistle of James: ‘For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has becomes guilty in respect to all of it.’”25 This is precisely the text 22. Abelard’s teaching on the nature of the Trinity was condemned at Soissons in 1121. See Michael T. Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 242–44. 23. Illud autem demum super omnia postulo ut que nunc de corporis mei periculo nimia sollicitudine laboratis, tunc precipue de salute anime sollicite, quantum dilexeritis vivum exhibeatis defuncto, orationum videlicet vestrarum speciali quodam et proprio suffragio. Ep. III, Hicks and Moreau, 166 (Radice, Letters, 62). 24. Cf. Carmel Posa, “Specialiter: The Language of the Body and Bodies in the Letters of Heloise,” Magistra: A Journal of Women’s Spirituality in History 11, No. 1 (Summer 2005): 3–25. 25. Quid est illud in Epistola Jacobi: Quicunque autem totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus? Problema ii, PL 178: 679C (McNamer, Education, 113). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association 344 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY on which Heloise had based her request for guidance in living out the Rule of Benedict in Letter 6 of their later correspondence.26 Clearly, there can be no integrity in living out this biblical command if one is to read the text literally. Dronke, suggests that Question 14 of the Problemata, on the meaning of the Beatitudes is again related to this issue of Heloise’s emphasis on the importance of integrity: “Conversely she asks (Problem 14), why do the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount sound as if each one alone were enough to make blessed?”27 The two scriptural texts, James’ injunction and Matthew’s beatitudes, both seem to contradict each other if one is to take the literal approach to the reading of Scripture. Heloise continues to press home this position throughout many of the questions in the Problemata. In Question 9, for instance, Jesus is recorded as both obeying the law and disobeying the law when he cures the leper in Matthew 8:2: “And so on this question we are moved to ask by what logic the Lord seems in this case to contradict the Law and at the same time to comply with it. For he touches the leper, which the Law forbids, and sends him to the priest to be cleansed and to offer sacrifice, as the Law commands.”28 Numerous instances of such dilemmas for her sisters in their study of the scriptural law occur in Questions 15–20, 24, and 25. Literal interpretation of the Bible obviously draws one into unreasonable positions and contradictions which are unsustainable in the living out of an integrated Gospel life. This issue will come to a climax in the final question of the Problemata. There are also issues of logical contradictions within the text, such as in Question 4, where the Gospel’s insistence that Jesus was buried for three days and three nights causes her considerable puzzlement as she notes that: “It is agreed that the Lord was taken down from the Cross and buried on Friday, and lay in the tomb on Saturday, and on the next night, in the last darkness of Sunday morning rose again. Therefore it is certain that for only one whole night preceding the Saturday, and for one whole day of Saturday itself was he in the tomb.”29 Such discrepancies still provide biblical scholars with exegetical comments to this day and although allegorical readings can account for such texts, Heloise is, as always, more concerned for historical accuracy and the tropological significance of the text because of her own personal and communal struggle with integrity. 26. Quod si predicte Regule tenor a nobis impleri non potest, vereor ne illud apostoli Jacobi in nostram quoque damnationem dictum sit: “Quicumque totam Legem observaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus.” 27 (“But if we cannot observe the tenor of this Rule, I am afraid that the words of the apostle James may be quoted to condemn us also: ‘For if a man keeps the whole law but for one single point, he is guilty of breaking all of it.’”) Ep. 6, Hicks and Moreau, 232 (Radice, Letters, 95). 27. Dronke, “Heloise’s Problemata and Letters,” 60. 28. Unde super hoc quaestione movemur qua ratione Dominus in hoc facto legi contraire simul et obtemperare videatur, Leprosum quippe tetigit, quod lex prohibet, et mundatum ad sacerdotem misit, et ad offerendam hostiam, sicut lex jubet. Problema ix, PL 178: 691B (McNamer, Education, 129). 29. Constat quippe Dominum sexta feria de cruce depositum esse sepultum, et Sabbato quievisse in sepulcro, et sequenti nocte Dominicae diei resurrexisse quarta vigilia. Unde certum est per unam tantum integram noctempraecedentem Sabbatum, et per integram ipsius Sabbati diem eum in sepulcro fuisse. Problema vi, PL 178: 682C (McNamer, Education, 117). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association P RO BL E M A T A H E L O I S S A E 345 Attentive to details as always, Heloise also notes Jesus’ inaccurate quoting and use of Old Testament prophecies such as in Questions 37 and 38. For example, in Question 38 she writes: Also producing not a few questions is that quotation from the Prophet Zachariah, which the Lord brings forth from within himself in Matthew, saying, “For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed.’” (Matt. 26:31). For Zachariah seems to say this about a false prophet rather than about the Lord.30 And Heloise gives ample evidence for her claim with the extensive use of the Old Testament text.31 She also picks up on inconsistencies occurring between the Gospel accounts, such as the recording of details like the Resurrection in Questions 5, the betrayal of Jesus by Peter in Question 39, and the contradiction between the Pauline injunction concerning the Jewish cleanliness laws and eating food sacrificed to idols in the face of Jesus’ proclamation that only what comes out of a person can defile them, in her Question 24. Here, particularly, Heloise echoes the same argument she had previously put forward for an ethical stress on interior motivations, over and above any outward display of adherence to the Law or Rules. In Letter 6, for instance, in order to justify her position, she had again drawn on another instance to do with the scriptural interpretation of the Law and what it is that makes one “clean.” She forcefully exegeted the Gospel of Matthew to maximum effect in this case: We read that the apostles themselves were so simple and almost rough in their manner even when in the company of the Lord, that they were apparently forgetful of respect and propriety, and when walking through the cornfields were not ashamed to pick the ears of corn and strip and eat them like children. Nor were they careful about washing their hands before taking food; but when they were rebuked by some for what was thought an unclean habit, the Lord made excuses for them, saying that that “To eat without first washing his hands does not defile a man.” He then added the general ruling that the soul is not defiled by any outward thing but only by what proceeds from the heart, “wicked thoughts, adultery, murder” and so on.32 Some writers have identified this section of her critique of the Rule in Letter 6, as primarily focused on “the ethics of intention” and suggest that this comes about from Abelard’s direct influence on her thoughts.33 Others have suggested that it is here that Heloise has a profound influence on the development of 30. Illud quoque testimonium Zachariae prophetae, quod Dominus in Matthaeo inducit de seipso dicens: “Scriptum est enim: Percutiam pastorem, et dispergentur oves gregis” (Matth. xxvi, 31), nonullam generat questionem. Hoc enim Zacharias de pseudopropheta potius quam de Domino dicere videtur. Problema xxxviii, PL 178: 719B-C (McNamer, Education, 169). 31. See Zachariah 13:3–7. 32. Unde et ipsos legimus apostolos ita rusticane et velut inhoneste in ispo etiam Domini comitatu se habuisse, ut velut omnis reverentie atque honestatis obliti, cum per sata transirent, spicas vellere fricare et comedere more puerorum non erubescerent; nec de ipsa etiam manuum ablutione, cum cibos essent accepturi, sollicitos esse. Qui cum a nonnullis quasi de immunditia arguerentur, eos Dominus excusans, “non lotis inquit, minibus manducare, non coinquinat hominem.” Ubi et statim generaliter adjecit ex nullis exterioribus animam inquinari sed ex his tantum que de corde prodeunt; que sunt, inquit, “cogitationes, adulteria, homicidia”, etc. Ep. 6, Hicks and Moreau, 260–62 (Radice, Letters, 107–108). See Romans 9:24. 33. See Constant J. Mews, Abelard and Heloise, Great Medieval Thinkers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 179. © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association 346 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY Abelard’s own ethical concepts.34 Compelling as these positions are, Brooke Heidenreich Findley has also pointed out a pronounced and profound uniqueness to Heloise’s ethical stance: “Heloise never uses the word ‘intention’ (intentio), a term typical of Abelardian ethics; instead, she speaks about the soul or inner self and the emotions or state of mind (animus, affectus). Her focus is not on the intention that leads one to perform a specific deed, but on a certain state of being.”35 In this respect, it is equally true, though rarely acknowledged, that Heloise’s integrative approach to intention was drawing once again on the rich monastic tradition of lectio divina which she knew so well. Her desire to probe the inconsistency in the scriptural text mirrors her own struggle to maintain a life where the interior disposition aligned with the outward expression of that disposition in the living out of the Gospel life. Though she does not use the vocabulary of intentio that is more typical of a monastic writer, her understanding of the importance of interior motivation is thoroughly consistent with a monastic mind of the twelfth century.36 Alongside Heloise’s concentration on inner intentions, the subject of sin continues to loom large in her discussion of Scripture in the Problemata. Questions 2, 8, 10–13, 17, 19, 20, 24, and her very last Question 42 all deal with sin in some form or other. The struggle with sin in the human condition is at the heart of Heloise’s understanding of interior motivations throughout her letters to Abelard, and here in the Problemata, this issue is placed in the context of her community’s desire to understand the full meaning of the Scripture in their monastic life. Of particular note is Heloise’s commentary on the adulterous woman of John’s Gospel in Question 8: “There is no question that the Lord, on behalf of the adulteress who was to be set free, responded to the Jews, ‘Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her’ (Jn8:7), and thus rescued her.”37 Here Heloise questions the right of anyone to exact judgment and punishment given the ubiquity of sin in the human condition. Question 19 also focuses on this same issue in Matthew’s Gospel: “What does the following mean: ‘Stop judging that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged.’ (Matt. 7:1–2) Does this mean that if we make an unjust judgment, we will receive an unjust one in return?”38 Heloise’s own experience of sin and judgement in her life are critical here as it was the injustice of the punishment meted out against Abelard in his castration that occupied her thoughts and her own inability to come to any 34. Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life, 277–82; and Mews, Abelard and Heloise, 154–55. 35. Brooke Heidenreich Findley, “Does the Habit Make the Nun? A Case Study of Heloise’s Influence on Abelard’s Ethical Philosophy,” Vivarium 44, Nos 2–3 (2006): 271. 36. See Michael Casey, Athirst for God: Spiritual Desire in Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermon on the Song of Songs (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1988), 114–20; and Michael Casey, “Intentio Cordis (RB 52.4),” Regulae Benedicti Studia 6/7 (1980): 1–20. 37. Quod Dominus pro adultera liberanda Judaeis respondit: “Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in eam lapidem mittat” (Joan. viii, 7) et sic eam eruit, nonnihil habet quaestionis. Problema viii, PL 178: 689D (McNamer, Education, 127). 38. Quod illud est, quod sequitur: “Nolite judicare, ut non judicemini. In quo enim judicio judicaveritis, judicabimini?” (Matth, vii, 1). Quid enim si injustum fecerimus judicium? nunquid simile recipiemus? Problema xix, PL 178: 707D (McNamer, Education, 152). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association P RO BL E M A T A H E L O I S S A E 347 honest repentance for her so-called illicit love for him as evidenced in her later correspondence. In Letter 4, for example, calling on the example of Job again, she writes: How can it be called repentance for sins, however great the mortification of the flesh, If the mind still retains the will to sin and is on fire with its old desires? It is easy enough for anyone to confess his sins, to accuse himself, or even to mortify his body in outward show of penance, but it is very difficult to tear the heart away from hankering after its dearest pleasures. Quite rightly then, when the saintly Job said, “I will speak out against myself,” that is, “I will loose my tongue and open my mouth in confession to accuse myself of my sins,” he added at once, “I will speak out in bitterness of soul.”39 Heloise is not simply confessing her lack of true repentance here. Rather, in a stance of true self-knowledge and awareness, she proves herself more humble in the presence of God than those who merely feign repentance. Making Paul’s letter to the Romans her own, she cries out her desire to be free of her own honest unhappiness: “In my utter wretchedness, that cry from a suffering soul could well be mine: ‘Miserable creature that I am, who is there to rescue me out of the body doomed to this death?’ Would that I could truthfully answer: ‘The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.’”40 Dronke also points out this same emphasis in Heloise’s question 14, in relation to Christ’s injunction in Luke 15: 7: “The question of the nature of true penitence — brooded over with anguish in Heloise’s second letter — is taken up once more in her eleventh Problema: why should there be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over the ninety-nine just who do not need to?”41 In the Problemata, Heloise again addresses this same need for God’s grace through her desire to understand the scriptural warrant for repentance and forgiveness. These questions also relate directly to Heloise’s disdain for, and struggle with hypocrisy in the world, particularly in relation to the interpretation of the Law and any rules. In Letter 6, she had used this as her focus for adaptation of the Rule of Benedict for women when she noted that: “We must therefore be careful not to impose on a woman a burden under which we see nearly all men stagger and even fall.”42 Nevertheless, at the heart of this scrutiny of human actions is Heloise’s understanding of the scriptural injunction to love. Thus, for Heloise, love and intention are the objects of the spiritual life, not mere law. Love is the true meaning of scripture for Heloise and several of her questions 39. Quomodo etiam penitentia peccatorum dicitur — quantacumque sit corporis afflictio —, si mens adhuc ipsam peccandi retinet voluntatem, et pristinis estuat desideriis? Facile quidem est quemlibet confitendo peccata seipsum accusare aut etiam in exteriori satisfactione corpus affligere: difficillimum vero est a desideriis maximarum voluptatum avellere animum. Unde et merito sanctus Job cum premisisset “Dimittam adversum me eloquium meum” (id est: laxabo linguam et aperiam os per confessionem in peccatorum meorum accusationem), statim adjunxit: “Loquar in amaritudine anime mee.” Ep. 4, Hicks and Moreau, 178 (Radice, Letters, 68). See Job 10:1. 40. O vere me miseram et illa conquestione ingemiscentis anime dignissimam: “Infelix ego homo! quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus?” Utinam et quod sequitur veraciter addere queam: “Gratia Dei per Jhesum Christum Dominum nostrum” Ep. 4, Hicks and Moreau, 180 (Radice, Letters, 69). See Romans 7:24. 41. Dronke, “Heloise’s Problemata and Letters,” 60–61. 42. Providendum itaque nobis est ne id oneris femine presumamus in quo viros fere jam universos succumbere videmus, immo et deficere! Ep. 6, Hicks and Moreau, 244 (Radice, Letters, 100–1). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association 348 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY in the Problemata focus again on this centrality of love and on the relationship between law and love.43 In Questions 16, for instance, just as in Letter 4, she queries the apparent contradiction in Paul’s writings between adherence to the law, the heart of which is love, and the imperfection of the law. “How can anything be lacking to the Law for the perfection of its commandments, when the two precepts of love of God and neighbour would seem entirely to suffice, nor to lack any perfection?”44 Laws alone do not create what is good in and of themselves. Understood in the light of Heloise’s focus on “love” as the primary Gospel goal of monastic life, her particular concentration on interior motivation aligns with what Casey defines as: “the basic direction which a person allows his [her] life to assume. The intention is not merely one’s purpose in doing a particular act, it is also one’s fundamental direction in life.”45 For Heloise, this basic orientation ought to be love, the love exhorted by Christ in the Gospel. Her contemporary and admirer, Peter the Venerable, adheres to this principle too; quoting Augustine, he writes in a letter to Bernard: “Have love and do what you will.”46 Heloise’s emphasis on love is evident also in Question 12 where she comments on the sin of envy and the generosity of God: “There is not a little question about the laborers sent into the vineyard, of whom the first seem to envy the last, and to murmur against the harvestmaster, so that they incur the following response: ‘Or are you envious because I am generous?’ (Matt. 20:15).”47 Heloise comments on this question herself and her weaving of material from the pagan writers here is reminiscent of her extensive use of such literature in her earlier writings. In her answer to this question of envy, one cannot help but sense Heloise attempting to console Abelard who had previously interpreted his experience of professional persecution by his contemporaries as “envy and hatred.”48 Heloise’s last question in this collection concerning the nature of sin in relation to the words and deeds of Jesus Christ focuses and summarises all these arguments. “We inquire whether anyone can sin in doing what the Lord has permitted or even commanded.”49 In this question Heloise effectively asks: How can one sin when one’s intention is to love? This rhetorical question has already been answered by Heloise in her letters. Her motivations from the beginning have been driven by the force of love, and the freedom of Gospel love at that. What she seeks here from Abelard is the recognition of this biblical fact. 43. See Problema 12, 16, 20, and 29. 44. Quomodo ad perfectionem mandatorum deest aliquid legi, cum illa etiam duo praecepta dilectionis Dei et proximi sufficere omnino videantur, nec aliquid perfectionis deesse? Problema xvi, PL 178: 703D–794A (McNamer, Education, 147). 45. Casey, Athirst for God, 117. 46. Habe caritatem,et fac quicquid uis. Ep. 112, Giles Constable, Letters of Peter the Venerable (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 281. 47. Illud quoque nonnihil quaestionis habet quod in Matthaeo legimus de operariis in vineam missis, quorum priores tantem novissimis invidisse videntur, et adversus patremfamilias murmurasse ut tale mererentur responsum: “An oculus tuus nequam est, quia ego bonus sum?” (Matth. xx. 15) Problema xii, PL 178: 693B (McNamer, Education, 132). 48. Invidiam atque odium. HC, Hicks and Moreau, 80 (Radice, Letters, 19). 49. Utrum aliquis in eo quod facit a Domino sibi concessam, vel etiam jussum, peccare possit quaerimus. Problema xlii, PL 178: 723A (McNamer, Education, 174). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association P RO BL E M A T A H E L O I S S A E 349 Many of the Problemata are exegetical in the purely literal sense. For example, Question 41 asks simply who wrote the account of Moses’ death as although the book of the Law was thought to have been written by Moses, it was not possible for him to write about his own death unless in a prophetic way. Of note here is Heloise’s particular interest in the details surrounding the literal interpretation of Jewish ritual and customs. Question 30 seeks an explanation concerning the appointed Jewish days of worship: “What does it mean in the first book of Kings, when it says of Elkanah, ‘this man used to go up on the appointed days, to worship.’ (1 Sam. 1:3) By whom or by what were these days appointed?”50 Question 35 asks about the liturgical apparel given to Samuel by Hannah, his mother: We also ask what this could mean: “Meanwhile the boy Samuel, girt with a linen apron, was serving in the presence of the Lord. His mother used to make a little garment for him, which she would bring him on the appointed days, when she went up with her husband to offer the customary sacrifice.” (1 Sam. 18–19) For if Samuel were a Levite, as is very probable, or a priest, his boyhood age would hardly enable him to comply with the Law in his ministry so that he could minster girt with the ephod as a Levite or a priest at his tender age.51 Earlier Christian interpretation of similar texts focused primarily on allegorical and typological interpretations of such passages. Heloise’s interest is in the literal meaning.52 In Question 36, for example, Heloise poses three questions related to 1 Samuel 2:35–36; Heloise’s concerns here are with the identity of Eli’s faithful successor, the application and literal meaning of the phrase, ambulabit coram Christo meo (“He will walk in the presence of my anointed”), and the nature of the offering of the coin and bread. Finally, Heloise’s Questions 31–35 refer directly to the motherhood of Hannah in 1 Samuel. She may well be reflecting on these stories allegorically in a desire for consolation in relation to her own thwarted motherhood. Ruys notes that: “the issue of Heloise’s status and practice as mother was a topic of great contention between Heloise and Abelard throughout their monastic careers.”53 Heloise bore Abelard a child, Astrolabe, during their brief affair. This son is rarely mentioned directly by either writer; however, Heloise often alludes to her own experience of motherhood in her pleas for his consolation within their later correspondence, defending the maternal roles of women 50. Quid est illud in primo libro Regum, quod de Elcana dicitur: “Et ascendebat vir ille statutis diebus, ut adoraret?” (1 Reg. i, 3) qui, vel a quo statuti sunt dies isti? Problema xxx, PL 178: 714C (McNamer, Education, 162). 51. Obsecramus et quid illud sit: “Samuel autem ministrabat ante faciem Domini puer accinctus ephod lineo, et tunicam parvam faciebat mater sua, quam afferebat statutes diebus, ascendens cum viro suo, ut immolaret hostiam solemnem” (I Reg. i, 18). Sive enim levita, ut probabilius est, sive sacerdos Samuel fuerit, nequaquam aetas pueritiae ministerio ejus convenire secundum legem poterat, ut videlidcet ephod accinctus tanquam levita, vel sacerdos vitara tenera aetate ministraret. Problema xxxv, PL 178: 716D (McNamer, Education, 165). 52. Mews and Perry, “Peter Abelard, Heloise, and Jewish Biblical Exegesis in the Twelfth Century,” 10. 53. Juanita Feros Ruys, “Quae Maternae Immemor Naturae: The Rhetorical Struggle over the Meaning of Motherhood in the Writings of Heloise and Abelard,” in Listening to Heloise, Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman, ed. Bonnie Wheeler (New York: Martin’s Press, 2000), 323. © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association 350 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY through biblical warrant, or the use of biblical allusions to great scriptural mothers and fathers. For example, in her Letter 6, after stressing that Christianity is not meant for just monks but for layman with their wives and children as well, she employs Paul’s letter to Timothy, giving credence to the place of motherhood in the Christian vocation: “The same great preacher of continence also shows great consideration for our weakness and appears to urge the younger widows to second marriage, when he says: ‘It is my wish, therefore, that young widows shall marry again, have children and preside over a home. Then they will give no opponent occasion for slander.’”54 Within the Problemata, Heloise again draws on her own deeply personal experiences when she uses the Old Testament references to the motherhood about Hannah and her relationship with her son Samuel. As with Letter 6, it is not unreasonable to suggest that through Heloise’s monastic practice of lectio divina with these texts from 1 Samuel, life and Scripture intersected in her own personal reflections and prayer. In Questions 31–36, Heloise seems to be directly reflecting on her own story of motherhood and presenting Abelard with Hannah and Samuel as allegorical allusions directly related to her own struggles concerning her child, Astrolabe. Ruys asserts that: “In her Problemata, as in Ep 6, Heloise attempts to personalize the issue of motherhood, grounding her discussion of the scriptures in her own experience and raising the implications of the mothering of a biological son, even though that son may be separated from her due to divine will.”55 In Question 31, Heloise asks: “What does it mean that Hannah replied to Eli the Priest: ‘It isn’t that, my Lord; I am an unhappy woman. I have had neither wine or liquor; I was only pouring out my troubles to the Lord. Do not think your handmaid a daughter of Belial.’ (1 Sam. 1:15–16)”56 Deprived of motherhood, Hannah had been praying to God, with heartfelt tears in the temple. Heloise had also poured out her own troubles to Abelard in Letters 2 and 4 of the later correspondence, in the hope of consolation from him. This present question can be seen in the light of Heloise’s own experience as an unhappy woman. She is also deprived of her motherhood and she parallels her own unhappiness with that of Hannah. However, as she reflects further on the story of Hannah in 1 Samuel, she moves deeper into this allegory, for in Question 32, she finds the transformation of Hannah: “Also, what does it mean when said of Hannah: ‘And she no longer appeared downcast.’ (1 Sam. 1:18)?”57 54. Idem quoque maximus continentie predicator de infirmitate nostra plurimum confidens, et quasi ad secundas nuptias urgens juniores viduas: “Volo inquit, juniores nubere, filios procraere, matresfamilias esse, nullam occasionem dare adversario.” Ep. 6, Hicks and Moreau, 240 (Radice, Letters, 98). See 1 Timothy 5:14. 55. Ruys, “Quae Maternae Immemor Naturae,” 332. 56. Quid est postmodum, quod Anna respondit Eli sacerdoti: “Nequaquam, inquit, Domine mi; nam mulier infelix nimis ego sum, vinumque, et omne quod inebriare potest, non bibi; sed effudi animam meam in conspectus Domini. Ne reputes ancillam tuam, sicut unam de filiabus Belial? (1 Reg. i, 15)” Problema xxxi, PL 178: 714D–715A (McNamer, Education, 162). 57. Quid est etiam illud de Anna: “Vultusque illius non sunt amplius in diversa mutati?” (1 Reg, i, 18). Problema xxxii, PL 178: 715C (McNamer, Education, 163). © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association P RO BL E M A T A H E L O I S S A E 351 Heloise continues to emphasise her own hope as a mother when in Question 33 she focuses on Hannah’s prophetic canticle: And what does this mean: “Hannah prayed, and said: ‘My heart exults in the Lord,’ (1 Sam. 2:1)”? For this canticle has the words of thanksgiving or prophecy more than of prayer.58 There is no reference to the Gospel magnificat on the lips of Mary here,59 no typological interpretation in reference to Christ. Rather in the light of the questions that precede it, Heloise inserts herself and her experience in the scriptural text in order to both understand and justify her own struggle with identity and authenticity as both a mother and an abbess of a religious community. As Ruys contends, Heloise “continues to impress upon Abelard that maternal love and the act of mothering do not necessarily cease” because of her cloistered state.60 The Problemata Heloissae gives an insight in Heloise’s intense zeal for and approach to scriptural knowledge. Her approach to the biblical text flows from her monastic practice of lectio divina; however, her emphasis is consistently focused on the historical interpretation and the ethical or the tropological meaning of Scripture in preference to allegorical interpretations. An allegorical emphasis often spiritualised difficult and inconsistent texts without aligning these difficulties with the eminently human struggle to live the Gospel life, a struggle that involved inevitable contradictions and failures. Heloise’s desire to reconcile inconsistencies and contradictions within the biblical narrative are reflective of her own struggle with integrity and revulsion of hypocrisy throughout her life. As such, Heloise presents herself as a monastic woman of the twelfth century, who is discerning her own thoughts and actions using the mirror of Scripture.61 58. Quid et illud est: “Oravit Anna, et ait: Exultatvit cor meum in Domino?” etc. (1 Reg. ii, 1.) Hoc quipped canticum verba gratiarum vel porphetiae potius habet quam orationis. Problema xxxiii, PL 178: 715C (McNamer, Education, 163). 59. See Luke 1:46–55. 60. MacNamer, 331. 61. See Brooke Heidenreich Findley, “Sincere Hypocrisy and the Authorial Persona in the Letters of Heloise,” Romance Notes 45, No. 3 (2005): 281–92. © 2011 The Author Journal of Religious History © 2011 Religious History Association