Mews, Constant J. 1980. "The Development of the Theologia of Peter Abelard." In Petrus Abaelardus (1079-1142). Person, Werk und Wirkung, edited by Thomas, Rudolf, 183–198. Trier: Paulinus-Verlag.

Reprinted as Essay I in: Constant J. Mews, Abelard and his Legacy, Aldershot: Ashgate 2001.

Abstract: "This treatise examines some problems concerning Abelard's De Trinitate or Theologia "Summi boni," "Theologia Christiana", and Theologia "Scholarium."

Abelard's initial discussion of the Trinity is set against the background of his interest in logic and his writings on this subject. All of these writings appear to belong to an earlier period, including the Dialectica. There is no positive evidence, but it should be noted that the criticism of the idea of the world soul in the later work shows some retraction, since there is complete compatibility with what Abelard says in the Theologia "Summi boni."

Fr. E. M. Buytaert's hypothesis concerning the relationship between the "Theologia Christiana" and Theologia "Scholarium" and their simultaneous development has been critically examined.

The mysterious abbreviated passages found in two manuscripts of the "Theologia Christiana" (Montecassino, Bib. abbaz. 176 and Tours, Bib. mun. 85), whose identical complete texts in the Theologia "Scholarium," cannot be explained as abbreviations of that work, but rather as references that were part of Abelard's personal plan for a future work. The abbreviations indicate which sections of the "Theologia Christiana" he wished to use. The various versions of the Theologia reveal how Abelard's thought process developed from an early interest in logic to a well-thought-out understanding of the nature of God and his activity in the world."

"Study of the development of the Theologia of Peter Abelard owes much to the work of a number of scholars of this century, particularly H. Ostlender, D. Van den Eynde and above all the late E. M. Buytaert(1). In this paper I would like to outline some of the outstanding problems still posed by the many different versions of the Theologia. The major issues that need to be faced concern the establishment of the correct order of the various versions of the Theologia, the degree of continuity between these versions, and the extent to which the work developed over the twenty years or so it was written and re-written.

There are three major versions of the Theologia of Abelard, the treatise De Unitate et Trinitate divina or Theologia ‘Summi boni,’ the 'Theologia Christiana' and the Theologia ‘Scholarium’. Each of these works is extant in a number of MSS., many of which themselves indicate Abelard was continually involved in correcting and expanding what he had said(2). Because almost every MS. is different from another, it is crucially important that each MS. be correctly placed within the overall development of the Theologia if a picture is to be built up of the development of his thought." (p. 183, a note omitted)

(2) There are some eighteen important MSS. of the Theologia (,,,)
———. 1985. "The Lists of Heresies Imputed to Peter Abelard." Revue bénédictine no. 95:73–110.

Reprinted as Essay IV in: Constant J. Mews, Abelard and his Legacy, Aldershot: Ashgate 2001.

"Despite the existence of at least forty-five manuscripts which list heretical capitula imputed to Peter Abelard, none appears to represent an official record of the council of Sens, held on 2 June 1140. Two lists have, from time to time, been identified with an official list, one of fourteen, known as the Capitula Haeresum XIV, the other of nineteen, most frequently found at the end of Bernard’s epistolary treatise on the errors of Abelard, Epist. 190.

(...)

Abelard defended himself against this list of nineteen capitula in his Confessio fidei ‘Universis’ and in a more detailed manner in his Apologia.(2) The most recent editor of the list of nineteen capitula, J. Leclercq, has argued that the list was not the work of Bernard of Clairvaux, but rather of the council of Sens itself. The intention of this study is to look again at all the manuscripts of these capitula, which vary considerably in number, wording and sequence, in order to establish the interrelationship between the various lists, who compiled the Capitula Haeresum XIV and the list of nineteen capitula and how these various lists entered into the corpus of Bernard’s correspondence. A new critical edition of the nineteen capitula is attached in order that the sources behind the list as well as the variations within their manuscript tradition can be seen at a glance." (pp. 73-74)

(2) Confessio fidei ‘Universis’, PL 178, 105-8; Apologia contra Bernardum ed. E.M. Buytaert, CCCM XI (Turnhout, 1969), pp. 359-68.
———. 1985. "Peter Abelard's (Theologia Christiana) and (Theologia 'Scholarium') Re-examined." Recherches de Theologie et Philosophie Médievales no. 52:109–158.

"The publication in 1969 of a critical edition, prepared by Ε. M. Buytaert, of Abelard's Theologia Christiana and of the shorter form of the Theologia 'Scholariumì marked an important contribution towards a much-needed critical edition of Abelard's Theologia(1). Unfortunately, Fr Buytaert died before completing his projected edition of the two other versions of the Theologia, the Theologia 'Summi boni' and the longer form of the Theologia 'Scholarium, scheduled to appear within an accompanying volume in the series Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaeualis(2). The intention of the present article is to review Fr Buytaert's published editions of the Theologia Christiana (TChr) and of the shorter form of the Theologia 'Scholarium' (tsch) and so provide both a guide for their use and a foundation on which edition of the remaining versions of the Theologia can proceed." (p.109)

(1) Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica ii, Corpus Chrislianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis [= CCCM] 12 (Turnhout 1969).

(2) I am indebted to the editors of Corpus Chrislianorum for allowing me access, through the mediation of Prof. D. E. Luscombe, to Buytaert's typescript editions of TSum and TSch, which remained incomplete at the time of his death in 1975. I would also like to express my gratitude for assistance given by D. E. Luscombe, C. S. F. Burnett, J. Barrow, numerous librarians throughout Europe and the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, Collegeville, Minnesota, U.S.A.
———. 1986. "Man's Knowledge of God According to Peter Abelard." In L' Homme et son univers au Moyen âge : actes du septième Congrès international de philosophie médiévale (30 août-4 september 1982). Vol. I, edited by Wenin, Christian, 419–426. Louvain-la-Neuve: Louvain-la-Neuve : Éditions de l'Institut supérieur de philosophie.

Reprinted as Essay III in C. J. Mews, Abelard and His Legacy, Aldershot: Ashgate 2001.

"In this paper I want to examine, not the frequently studied theme of Abelard’s use of the secular arts, but what he has to say about man’s knowledge of a transcendent, eternal truth — how this knowledge was gained and what were its limitations.

Although there are many different works of Abelard in which one could pursue this theme, I shall concentrate on just one, the Theologia, the treatise which came under such criticism during his lifetime. The work is of particular importance because Abelard continued to revise its text over a period of some twenty years, producing three major versions, known successively as the Theologia «Summi boni», the Theologia Christiana and the Theologia « Scholarium »(2). Although he was principally concerned in the Theologia with the nature of God and-how three persons could co-exist in—one God, Abelard was also very much concerned with the nature of man’s knowledge of the divinity and with his capacity to understand the doctrine of Trinity. It is on this aspect of the Theologia that I wish to concentrate." (p. 419)

(2) Theologia « Summi boni» (TSum), ed. H. OSTLENDER, Beiträge zur Gesch. der Philos. und Theol. des Mittelalters, XX XV, 2-3 (1939); Theologia Christiana, ed. E.M. BUYTAERT, Corpus Christianorum Cont: Med., XII, Turnhout, 1969, pp. 71-372; Theologia «Scholarium», shorter recensions (tsch), ed. E.M. BUYTAERT, op. cit., pp. 401-455; longer recension (TSch), ed. V. Cousin, P. Abaelardi Opera, Il, Paris, 1859, pp. 2-149. New editions of TSum and TSch begun by Buytaert before his death are being completed by the author. References will be to Buytaert’s edition of all three versions, with page references to the editions of Ostlender and Cousin in brackets.
———. 1986. "The Sententie of Peter Abelard." Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale no. 53:130–184.

Reprinted as Essay VI in C. J. Mews, Abelard and His Legacy, Aldershot: Ashgate 2001.

"What is the status of the text edited by F.H. Rheinwald under the title Petri Abaelardi Epitome Theologiae Christianae, frequently referred to as the Sententie Hermanni, and recently re-edited by S. Buzzetti under the title Sententie magistri Petri Abelardi?(1) What is its relationship to the Sententie Florianenses, Sententie Parisienses and Liber sententiarum magistri Petri, all conventionally attributed to the school of Peter Abelard?(2) How are these different sentence collections related to Abelard’s Theologia “‘Scholarium”? While the appearance of Buzzetti’s new edition of the unjustly neglected Sententie can only be welcomed, these questions remain to be answered.

Buzzetti suggests that Abelard may be the author of these Sententie, and that a pupil called Hermann later produced a revision of the work(3). He does not explain the significance of the many variations between the different manuscripts of the Sententie, or comment on its relationship either to other sentence collections or to the writings of Abelard(4).

This study, originally written quite independently of Buzzetti’s research, is not intended to be a review of the new edition, but rather to answer those questions which still need to be dealt with." (pp. 130-131)

(1) Petri Abaelardi Epitome Theologiae Christianae, Anecdota ad historiam ecclesiasticam pertinentia 2, Berlin 1835, reprinted with Rheinwald’s introduction, PL 178, 1685-1758 and in part only by V. Cousin, Petri Abaelardi Opera 2, Paris 1859, p. 567-92; S. Buzzetti, Sententie magistri Petri Abelardi (Sententie Hermanni), Florence 1983. (...)

(2) Sententiae Florianenses, ed. H. OSTLENDER, Florilegium Patristicum 19, Bonn 1929; Sententie Parisienses, ed. A. LANDGRAF, Ecrits théologiques de l’école d’Abélard, in Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. Etudes et documents 14, Louvain 1934, p. 3-60; liber sententiarum magistri Petri, ed. C.J. MEws, at the end of this study.
———. 1998. "Peter Abelard and the Enigma of Dialogue." In Beyond the Persecuting Society. Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment, edited by Laursen, John Christian and Nederman, Cary J., 25–52. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Reprinted as Essay X in C. J. Mews, Abelard and His Legacy, Aldershot: Ashgate 2001.

"His Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew anda Christian or Collationes has been seen by some as a plea for intellectual toleration.(2) Is this too idealistic a perspective? Was he rejecting a contemporary trend toward exclusion of the outsider, or did he in fact participate in that movement Anna Sapir Abulafia [*] has identified as the Christianization of reason in the twelfth century, by which Christian thinkers found reasons for proving that Jews and pagans were blind to the truth? In order to assess Abelard’s contribution to the idea and practice of religious toleration, we need to relate his Dialogus both to his other writings and to those of his contemporaries, for whom dialogue was often a technique for asserting the truth rather than for engaging in a listening exercise." (p. 25, a note omitted)

[*] Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (London: Routledge, 1995), 89-91, 124-25.
———. 2002. "The Council of Sens (1141): Abelard, Bernard, and the Fear of Social Upheaval." Speculum no. 77:342–382.

"While Bernard's suspicion of excessive reliance on reason has frequently attracted comment, the political dimension of the controversy surrounding Abelard's theology has attracted less attention. In a classic study, published in 1980, Robert Henri Bautier argued that the vicissitudes of Abelard's early career were closely related to the political fortunes of Stephen of Garlande, archdeacon of Paris, royal chancellor and seneschal of France, 1120-1127/28. (6) The political context of Abelard's later career demands similar attention. The Council of Sens needs to be seen as marking a key stage in the institutionalization of the process by which heresy was identified.(7) The circumstances surrounding the calling of the council have never been fully clear, however, in part because of uncertainty surrounding exactly when it took place." (p. 345)

(6) Robert-Henri Bautier, "Paris au temps d'Abelard," in Abéld en son temps, ed. Jean Jolivet (Paris, 1981), pp. 21-77, reprinted in Etudes sur la France capetienne: De Louis VI aux fils de Philippe le Bel (London, 1992).

Jurgen Miethke considers this theme in his "Theologenprozesse in der ersten Phase ihrer institutionellen Ausbildung: Die Verfahren gegen Peter Abaelard und Gilbert van Poitiers," Viator 6 (1975), 87-116; this theme is also implicit in the study of Peter Godman, The Silent Masters: Latin Literature and Its Censors in the High Middle Ages (Princeton, N.J., 2000).
———. 2002. "Heloise and liturgical experience at the Paraclete." Plainsong and Medieval Music no. 11:25–35.

Abstract: "This article considers Heloise’s activity as abbess of the Paraclete, examining what contribution she may have made to its liturgical practice. It relates the testimony of Peter the Venerable and Hugh Metel to Heloise as inspirational leader and author to what we can learn about her from Abelard’s preface to the Paraclete Hymnal. In particular, attention is directed to the understanding of Mary Magdalen at the Paraclete by both Abelard and Heloise. This suggests, I argue that ‘Epithalamica’ and the Easter plays are part of Heloise’s literary output, and that she exercised a major influence on Abelard."
———. 2004. "Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter Abelard and Heloise on the Definition of Love." Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia no. 60:633–660.

Abstract: "This paper examines the thinking of Bernard of Clairvaux about love in relationship to the ideas of his two famous contemporaries, Peter Abelard and Héloise.

It looks at Bernard's intellectual debt to William of Champeaux on issues of sin and grace, and to William of Saint-Thierry for ideas about how amor evolves into caritas.

Bernard makes a stronger link between amor and dilectio, and introduces use of the Song of Songs, to explain how worldly love can develop into spiritual love. The author also considers the evolution of the ideas about love of Peter Abelard, observing that he draws on the same definition of Cicero in the Sic et Non and Theologia as underpins a rather crude attempt to define love in the Epistolae duorum amantium, which the author of the article thinks to be a record of the early letters of Abelard and Héloise. Whereas Abelard always contrasts worldly and spiritual love, the effort of Héloise to connect amor and dilectio parallels that of Bernard."
———. 2006. "Faith as 'existimatio rerum non apparentium': Intellect, Imagination and Faith in the Philosophy of Peter Abelard." In Intellect et imagination dans la philosophie médiévale / Intellect and imagination in medieval philosophy / Intelecto e imaginação na filosofia medieval / Actes du XIe Congrès international de philosophie médiévale de la Société internationale pour l'Étude de la philosophie médiévale (S.I.E.P.M.): Porto, du 26 au 31 août 2002. Vol. 2, edited by Pacheco, Maria Cândida and Meirinhos, José F., 915–926. Turnhout: Brepols.

"At the outset of the Theologia ‘Scholarium ’ Peter Abelard introduces a definition of faith that some of his contemporaries found rather alarming: «Faith is estimation (existimatio) of things that do not appear, that not apparent to the bodily senses»(1).

(...)

"Faith, at least in a Christian context, is often considered to lie outside the realm of philosophical enquiry. The originality of Abelard’s definition is not examined by John Marenbon, in his otherwise very helpful analysis of the philosophy of Peter Abelard, in which he argues that there is a significant rupture between his critique of ontological realism in logic, dominant in the earlier part of his career, and the ethical interests that underpin his theological writings, composed after he became a monk at Saint-Denis in 1117/18(3). I would argue, however, that his logic is concerned not so much with ontology as with analysis of discourse, in particular with the theory of argument, and that he considered his reflection on language to be in complete continuity with his analysis of theological discourse. Abelard’s understanding of fides encapsulates the fundamental continuum between his logic and his theology." (pp. 915-916)

(1) Theologia ‘Scholarium’ [TSch] 1.1, E.-M. Buytaert and CJ. Mews (eds.), Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis [CCCM] 13, Tumhout 1987, p. 318.

(3) J. Marenbon, The philosophy of Peter Abelard, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
———. 2009. "William of Champeaux, Abelard, and Hugh of Saint-Victor: Platonism, theology, and Scripture in early twelfth-century France." In Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Saint-Victor zu Paris: Form und Funktion eines Grundtextes im europäischen Rahmen, edited by Berndt, Rainer, 131–163. Münster: Aschendorff.
———. 2011. "Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abelard." In A Companion to Bernard of Clairvaux, edited by McGuire, Brian Patrick, 133–168. Leiden Brill.

"The hostility that Bernard manifested towards Abelard in the years 1140/41 cannot be disassociated from political tensions first manifest in the early 12th century with the rise to influence of Abelard’s patron, Stephen de Garlande (d. c.1147), archdeacon of Paris from around 1095 and royal chancellor for much of the reign of Louis VI (1108–37).

It was through Stephen’s help that Abelard set up his own school at Melun and then Corbeil (probably c.1104–07), before retreating to his home region on the border of Brittany and Anjou, “to recover from overwork.”(7) Abelard’s decision to start teaching outside of Paris coincided with the rise to influence of a new bishop, Galo (previously successor to Ivo of Chartres as provost of Saint Quentin, Beauvais), and the promotion of William of Champeaux, sometime between 1103 and 1107, from teacher at the cathedral school to a canon of the cathedral chapter and one of its three archdeacons. As archdeacon in Paris, not replaced until 1112, William became increasingly involved in the cause of implementing ecclesiastical reform at a moment that Stephen de Garlande’s influence was in temporary abeyance. This was the cause to which Bernard was committed when he and thirty-odd companions decided to join a new monastic community at Cîteaux in 1112." (p. 136)

(7) The key influence of Stephen of Garlande in the evolution of Abelard’s career was documented by Robert-Henri Bautier, “Paris au temps d’Abélard,” in Abélard en son temps, ed. Jean Jolivet (Paris, 1981), pp. 21–77.(,,,)
———. 2013. "Patristic notions of «caritas» in the writings of Abelard and Heloise and their contemporaries." In Les receptions des Pères de l'Église au Moyen Age. Le devenir de la tradilion ecclésiale, edited by Berndt, Rainer and Fédou, Michel, 689–706. Münster: Aschendorff.

"Love can be understood in many different ways. Augustine defined caritas in consciously theological terms in the De doctrina Christiana, as a movement of the spirit to enjoy God for his own sake and one’s neighbour for the sake of God.(1) By contrast, Abelard’s mature understanding of love in the Theologia ‘Scholarium’ suggests that he preferred a definition shaped more by Ciceronian ideals of friendship. In this paper, I explore the evolution of Abelard’s understanding of love in relation to that of the Fathers, and the possible influence on him of his contemporaries, in particular of Heloise. A number of distinguished scholars have commented on the possible impact of her ideas, including Matthias Perkams in an excellent monograph on the notion of love in Abelard’s theological system. This study offers a further reflection on this theme explored not just through his theological teaching, but through his early exchanges with Heloise as well as in the thinking of some of their contemporaries.(2)" (p. 689)

(1) Augustinus De doctrina Christiana, 3, 10, p. 89 : “Caritatem uoco motum animi ad fruendum deo propter ipsum et se atque proximo propter deum; cupiditatem autem motum animi ad fruendum se et proximo et quolibet corpore non propter deum.”

(2) Gilson 1934, p. 183–189; Marenbon 1997, p. 300; Perkams 2001, p. 267–268.

References

Etienne Gilson, La théologie mystique de Saint Bernard, Paris 1934.

John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, Cambridge 1997.

Matthias Perkams, Liebe als Zentralbegriff der Ethik nach Peter Abaelard (BGPhThMA. NF 58), Münster 2001.
———. 2014. "Abelard and His Contemporaries on Faith: From the "Sic et non" to the "Theologia Scholarium" and Beyond " In Fides Virtus: The Virtue of Faith from the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century edited by Forlivesi, Marco, Quinto, Riccardo and Vecchio, Silvana, 137–150. Münster: Aschendorff.
———. 2019. "Peter Abelard, Anselm of Havelberg, and Nicholas of Cusa. Sources of an Ecumenical Tradition." In Inventing Modernity in Medieval European Thought, ca. 1100–ca. 1550, edited by Nedermann, Cary J. and Koch, Bettina, 155–170. Berlin: de Gruyter.

"Nicholas of Cusa never identifies by name Abelard, Thierry of Chartres or Anselm of Havelberg in his writing. Nonetheless, each of these three figures of the twelfth century offered ideas to Nicholas of Cusa quite different from the most widely copied theologian of the twelfth century, namely Peter Lombard. As is evident from the contents of the library at Cusa (of which Abelard’s Theologia was originally part), Nicholas was aware of the diversity of medieval thought, in particular of the twelfth century, to a much greater degree than most of his contemporaries. Yet Nicholas was also influenced by later writers, such as Ramon Lull and Meister Eckhart, that I have not touched on here. The originality of Nicholas is such that his ideas cannot be traced back to any single literary source. Nonetheless, this little glimpse into one corner of his library enables us to see that he was always fascinated by how other writers handled the same problems of diversity and concord with which he was engaged." (pp. 165-166)
———. 2020. "Imagining Heloise as Abbess of the Paraclete." Journal of Religious History no. 44:422–442.

Abstract: "This article argues that traditional presentations of Heloise focus on her image as a heroine of love rather than giving sufficient attention to her status as abbess of the Paraclete. In particular, there has been unjustified neglect of the final dossier in her exchange, known as the Institutiones nostre, written in response to Peter Abelard's Institutio, or Rule for the Paraclete. These observances were formulated to establish uniform practices at both the Paraclete and its first daughter-house at Trainel, dedicated to Mary Magdalen. This neglect of Heloise's role as an abbess encouraged a tendency in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to focus on themes of erotic rather than religious longing, as well as a subsequent tendency to question the authenticity of the letters of Heloise, without full appreciation of her role as abbess of the Paraclete. A translation of the Institutiones nostre is included as an appendix."
Mews, Constant J., and Perry, Micha J. 2011. "Peter Abelard, Heloise and Jewish Biblical Exegesis in the Twelfth Century." Journal of Ecclesiastical History no. 62:3–19.

Abstract: "This paper revisits the question of the influence of Jewish biblical exegesis on Christian scholars in twelfth-century France, by focusing in particular on Abelard’s response to a question of Heloise in her Problemata about questions raised by 1 Samuel ii.35–6 (=1 Regum ii.35–6) concerning ‘ the faithful priest ’ prophesied as Eli’s successor, the meaning of ‘ will walk before my anointed ’ and the nature of the offering his household should make. Abelard’s discussion of the views of an unnamed Jewish scholar illustrates a consistent movement evident in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries for certain Christian exegetes to approach Jewish scholars to resolve problems posed by the text of the Old Testament. While the passage in 1 Samuel was traditionally interpreted in a Christocentric fashion, Heloise implicitly supports a more historical reading of the text in the question she puts to Abelard. The Jewish scholar’s interpretation reported by Abelard is very close to that of Rashi’s twelfth-century disciples."
Mews, Constant J., and Posa, Carmel. 2015. "Heloise's engagement with the Bible: A continuing journey." In The Bible and Women: An Encyclopaedia of Exegesis and Cultural History: Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era; Volume 6.2: The High Middle Ages, edited by Borresen, Kari Elisabeth and Valerio, Adriana, 127–147. Atlanta: SBL Press.
Moos, Peter von. 2003. "Literary Aesthetics in the Latin Middle Ages: The Rhetorical Theology of Peter Abelard." In Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100-1540. Essays in Honour of John O. Ward, edited by Mews, Constant J., Nederman, Cary J. and Thomson, Rodney M., 81–98. Turnhout: Brepols.

"Abelard was also convinced that the study of philosophy led naturally to philosophical reflection on the subject matter of religious faith. His Theologia provided the sacred counterpart to what he had attempted in his Dialectica, a systematic treatise worthy of standing beside any writing by Augustine or Boethius.

He emphasized that the propositions of the Church Fathers had to be examined like any rhetorical argument, as expressions of opinion, formulated through human imagination and intellect, rather than as dialectical statements that were either true or false. Again, Abelard’s intellectual ambitions outstripped his capacity to complete the books that he promised his readers. While writing his commentary on Romans, he reserved some matters to ‘our Ethica’, also called Scito teipsum or ‘Know thyself in the manuscript tradition.(91) We have no idea whether his promise within his commentary on Romans to consider certain matters in a forthcoming Anthropologia, perhaps a treatise on the redemption paralleling the Theologia, was ever fulfilled.(92)

Abelard’s planned Rhetorica was part of a much more ambitious project, a set of independent treatises that encompassed the spheres of both secular and sacred learning. While he did not have the physical capacity or institutional support to complete this ambitious project, he was very interested in the philosophical foundations of all kinds of argument. Understanding these principles deepened his grasp of the writings of St Paul." (p. 53)

(91) Comm. Rom., II and IV, pp. 126 and 306; Peter Abelard, Ethics, ed. by David E. Luscombe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971); this latter work has been edited afresh by Rainer Ilgner under the title, Scito te ipsum, CCCM, 190 (Tumhout: Brepols, 2001). At the outset of Book il (of which only the beginning survives), Abelard refers to Book i as ‘Superior Ethice nostre libellus’, Luscombe, p. 128, and Iligner, p. 85.

(92) Comm. Rom., Ill, p. 215; this may also be the same as ‘our Tropologia’ referred to in Comm. Rom., ii, p. 118; Abelard promised to write about the incarnation of the Word in Theologia Christiana, I. 129, p. 128 and Theologia Scholarium, I. 192, p. 401.
Muckle, Joseph Thomas. 1955. "The Letter of Heloise on Religious Life and Abelard's First Reply." Mediaeval Studies no. 17:240–281.

"I have numbered these letters, V and VI. The text of the first four letters was published in Mediaeval Studies, (XV) 1953. I also included there the text of the introduction of the first of the letters which follow since it is of a personal character. In her letter Heloise sets forth with some digressions the incongruities of the Rule of St. Benedict when applied to women, and asks Abelard to compose an adaptation of that rule for nuns. She also asks Abelard to write for her and for her community a history of religious life of women. In letter VI(1) Abelard sets forth to answer the second request. In it he would trace religious life of women back to Apostolic times. He displays no knowledge of the rise of organized religious communities of women in the East in the fourth century.

Abelard was a better dialectician than historian." (p. 240)

(1) A text of the Regula sanctimonialium, Abelard's second reply, edited by T. P. McLaughlin C.S.B., will be published in Mediaeval Studies, XVIII (1956) [pp. 241-292].
Murray, Albert Victor. 1967. Abelard and St. Bernard: A Study in Twelfth Century 'Modernism'. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

"Abelard was no apostle of pure reason; neither St Bernard nor Mr Joseph McCabe was right in thinking of him in that way.

He knew that reason could not do everything, that faith was the basis of rational inquiry just as much as it was the subject of it, and that ultimately omnia exeunt in mysterium. This too was Bernard’s belief, but whereas Bernard lived in a world in which mystery was all around us and was a transcendence of human knowledge and experience, to Abelard mystery was, as it were, a territory in which as yet reason had obtained no foothold. Accordingly, where Abelard felt baffled, Bernard felt exalted. Moreover, to Bernard God was from time to time breaking through this mystery and revealing Himself afresh in acts of grace by which men were converted and kept in the faith. To Abelard God had only to be apprehended by the human will in order that the man himself may be drawn to Him by love. It is here where the real difference arises between them.

(...)

Yet when Bernard said of Christ ‘Did he teach righteousness and not bestow it, did He exhibit love and not inspire it’ he showed one aspect of this difference, and he showed another when he said ‘it is one thing to follow Jesus, another to hold Him, and another to feed on Him’. It is the difference between the position of the man who believes that God seeks him as much as and more than he seeks God, and delivers him from sin, and that of the man who believes simply that the highest goal of life is to seek after God if haply he might find Him. It is no question of heresy, for both positions are Christian, but one of them contains the other. And this issue between an experience of God which is incomplete because too subjective, and an experience of God which is more than we can ask or think or deserve, is an issue of the twentieth century no less than of the twelfth." (pp. 162-163)
Nielsen, Lauge Olaf. 1982. Theology and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century: A Study of Gilbert Porreta’s Thinking. Leiden: Brill.

Part Two: The Theological Expositions of the Doctrine of the Incarnation during the Period 1130-1180; Peter Abelard and His School, pp. 214-242.

"In the work of the third of the great theological teachers to be found in Paris in the 1130s, Peter Abelard, the doctrine of the Incarnation is likewise dealt with.

But where both Gilbert [of Poitiers] and Hugh [of St. Victor] provide a broad and comprehensive exposition, Abelard’s formulation of the theory of the Incarnation consists in the main of fragmentary passages and short sketches, which, though suggesting wider issues, seldom draw the consequences of the fundamental points raised.

It is therefore necessary on the one hand to avoid the error of reading the systematized doctrine of the Incarnation of the Abelard school into the master’s often somewhat indeterminate explanations, while on the other hand it is just as necessary to emphasize the passages in Abelard which at once comprise what is characteristic of him and explain why the doctrine of the Incarnation assumed a very definite character in his school." (p 214)
———. 2001. "Peter Abelard and Gilbert of Poitiers." In The Medieval Theologians, edited by Evans, G. R., 102–128. Malden: Blackwell.

"In the following the lives and the literary remains of the two theologians will be outlined. After this, some of the main features in the two theologians' works will be presented. In view of the very different natures of their writings and the complexity of their thought it is not particularly meaningful to simply compare their divergent opinions on various issues of importance in theology; this would inevitably result in a rather shallow picture. Abelard's theology developed over a period of twenty years, and the detailed charting of this development is still outstanding.(4) Nonetheless, Abelard's method in theology and the overriding direction of his thought are clearly visible already in his first work of theology. Accordingly, an attempt will be made to track the main line of argument in this work.

them." (p. 103)

(...)

"Assessment of Abelard)s exposition

Abelard's Theologia «Summi Boni» reads like a single continuous argument even though it is true that the author digresses and repeats himself on more than one occasion. On the surface its goal is a fairly modest one, viz., to investigate the meaning of God's personal names. However, seen against the background of Abelard's conception of man's cognition of God and the nature of theology, the task Abelard sets himself in the Theologia «Summi Boni» takes on importance.

Human language reflects created reality and is badly suited to talk about God; for this reason, an indispensable part of theology consists in unravelling the import of statements about God, and this can be accomplished solely by way of linguistic analysis. In short, Abelard's Theologia «Summi Boni» is intended as a model of genuine theology that is not limited to merely repeating the formulas of tradition but attempts to elicit their true meaning and thus to make the faithful understand what they believe." (p. 114)

(4) Abelard's Theologia occupied him for the last twenty years of his life. Though much of the groundwork has been laid by Mews (198Sa), (1987a), and (1987b), a detailed interpretation of the intellectual development reflected in the various "redactions" of Abelard's Theologia has not been undertaken yet.

Obviously, this is not the place to try to fill this gap, and it must be granted that a presentation of Abelard's theology based onlyon the first version of the work cannot do full justice to his thought.

References

Abelard, Peter (1987a), Opera Theologica, vol. 3, cds. E. M. Buytaert and C. J. Mews. Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio MediaevaJis, vol. 13. Turnhout.

Mews, C. 1. (1985a), "Peter Abelard's (Theologia Christiana) and (Theologia 'Scholarium') Reexamined." Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, tom. 52, Louvain, pp. 109-58.

Mews, C. J. (1987a), "Petri Abaelardi Theologia 'Summi Boni'. Introduction," in Abelard (1987a), pp. 15-81.

Mews, C. J. (1987b), "Petri Abaelardi Theologia 'Scholarium'. Introduction," in Abelard (1987a), pp. 203-308.
Otten, Willemien. 1997. "The Bible and the Self in Medieval Autobiography: Otloh of St. Emmeram ( 1010-1070) and Peter Abelard ( 1079-1142)." In The Whole and Divided Self: The Bible and Theological Anthropology, edited by McCarthy, John and Aune, David E. New York: Crossroad.
———. 2002. "Fortune or failure: The problem of grace, free will, and providence in Peter Abelard." Augustiniana no. 52:353–372.

Reprinted as Chapter Five in W. Otten, From Paradise to Paradigm: A Study of Twelfth-Century Humanism, Leiden: Brlll 2004, pp.182-214.

"To us it may seem odd that a logical mind like Abelard’s would stoop to such a leap of faith. But perhaps we should turn this around and conclude that new games like speculative grammar and other experiments in medieval logic could ultimately only be played because they somehow were still part of a larger picture, the picture of remembering paradise. It fell specifically to Peter Abelard, so it seems, that when the contours of paradise began to fade, the parameters be drawn up for a new language, one which accepted its flaws as ‘given’ but not thereby ‘definitive’, as the hope for divine help in achieving humanity’s moral and intellectual improvement never left him, but increasingly inspired him to the point of complete resignation.

Somewhere in this space between ‘given’ and ‘definitive’ Abelard seems to have situated his own project. That it would soon be interpreted as scientific and hence ‘definitive’, is more an error of historical judgment than that it represents a factual situation, veiling Abelard’s intent to the point of lifting him out of his twelfth-century context. A mind too great for his surroundings, he is seen as neither monk nor scholastic. With both verdicts simultaneously true and untrue, it is evident that a fundamental ambiguity characterizes him and his age. Complementing recent studies of Peter Abelard by Michael Clanchy and John Marenbon, the two chapters devoted to him here have only meant to put him back in the context where he belongs." (p. 214)
———. 2004. From Paradise to Paradigm: A Study of Twelfth-Century Humanism. Leiden: Brill.

Chapter Four: Opening the Mind: Peter Abelard and the Makeover of Traditional Theology, pp. 129-181.
———. 2007. "The Poetics of Biblical Tragedy in Abelard’s Planctus." In Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin Christianity: The Encounter between Classical and Christian Strategies of Interpretation, edited by Otten, Willemien and Pollmann, Karla, 245–261. Leiden: Brill.

"What then is the point that he is trying to make in these laments?

As it is impossible to discuss them all individually, I see as my main task in the remainder of this essay to find out whether their complete cycle reflects the precise elaboration of one overall exegetical program

or forms an incidental collage of lyrical elegies. Whatever the final outcome of my reflection on these plaints, it is clear that despite and underneath their dramatic appeal, Abelard displays a great deal of emotional distance in them as the joint result of rhetorical skill alongside a controlled dosage of exegetical information. Rather than reading them as subjective outcries of an emotional nature, therefore, we may want to study how Abelard carefully balances his exegetical and his dramatic interests, as it is in their poetic combination that his contribution lies." (p. 253)
Perkams, Matthias. 2003. "Divine Omnipotence and Moral Theory in Abelard's Theology." Mediaeval Studies no. 65:99–116.

"One of the most provocative theses of Peter Abelard's theology is the assumption that God cannot act otherwise than he does. This thesis has been frequently discussed in recent scholarship, especially in connection with Abelard's theory of modalities and his views on predestination, both of which he discusses while developing his thoughts about God's action. The best treatment of the questions at hand is presented by John Marenbon in The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, the first really comprehensive book on the whole of Abelard's philosophical thought.(1) The present article is an attempt to address the problem from another point of view. It deals with the theological and anthropological presuppositions which led Abelard to develop such a bold theory regarding the restriction of God's omnipotence.

On the basis of a close reading of Abelard's texts, I have found that a certain set of presuppositions-the first formulations of which already appear in many cases in his logical works-underlies the whole of his thought. These fundamental assumptions deeply influence Abelard's views on very different topics. Knowing them is often necessary in order to understand the genesis of the often remarkable theories our philosopher propounds, and such knowledge offers an ideal starting point for the correct interpretation of many of his central themes." (pp. 99-100)

(1) John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard (Cambridge, 1997), 233-50; cf also Stephen F. Brown, "Abelard and the Medieval Origins of the Distinction between God's Absolute and Ordained Power," in "Ad litteram ": Authoritative Texts and Their Medieval Readers, ed. Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery, Jr., Notre Dame Conferences in Medieval Studies 3 (Notre Dame and London, 1992), 199-215; Marcia L. Colish, "Peter Lombard and Abelard: The Opinio Nominalium and Divine Transcendence," Vivarium 30 (1992): 139-56; Hermann Weidemann, "Modalitat und Konsequenz: Zur logischen Struktur eines theologischen Arguments in Peter Abaelards Dialectica," in Argumentationstheorie: Scholastische Forschungen zu den logischen und semantischen Regeln korrekten Folgerns, ed. Klaus Jacobi, Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 38 (Leiden and Cologne, 1993), 695-705.
———. 2005. "The Origins of the Trinitarian Attributes Potentia, Sapientia, Benignitas." Archa Verbi. Yearbook for the Study of Medieval Theology no. 1:23–39.

"One major theme in 12th-century theological literature is the discussion about the extent to which the Trinity can be understood by human reason. A crucial point is the explanation of the Trinity with the help of an image taken from the perfection of God’s activity as creator of the world. This had a vast influence on the medieval discussion of Trinitarian theology: the three persons of the Trinity are compared to God’s omnipotence, wisdom and benignity or goodness respectively (potentia, sapientia, benignitas or bonitas in the most usual terminology(2). This triad of concepts can be traced back to Middle Platonic philosophical discussions and was first used in a Christian context by Irenaeus of Lyon, who quotes it as δύναμις, σοφία, ἀγαθότης(3). It is, however, a difficult question, by what route the formula found its way to the medieval discussions about the Trinity: the three concepts cannot be derived directly from Irenaeus, because in the Latin translation of his work they are rendered as virtus, sapientia, bonitas. They are not found either, as one triad, in Augustine’s Trinitarian theology, which was the main source for the medieval discussion on this topic. It is hard to explain, then, why the triad appears, in the form potentia, sapientia, benignitas, around 1120 in the works of two leading theologians of this time: in Peter Abelard’s Theologia ‘Summi Boni’ and in Hugh of Saint Victor’s De tribus diebus.(4) Because neither of these contemporaries cites the other, it is not clear who was the first to introduce potentia, sapientia, benignitas in the Trinitarian context in which it became so important in the later tradition." (p. 23)

(2) On the variable terminology of Hugh cf. Poirel 2002, pp. 327–343; Abelard is generally more consistent, but he can also use caritas instead of bonitas or benignitas regarding the Holy Spirit, e.g. Tsum 1, 17, p. 92, 160f.

(3) Irenaeus Adversus haereses 4,38, 3; Whittaker 1987, pp. 282–287

(4) Tsum 1, 1–5, p. 86–88; Hugo trib. dieb. 1, pp. 4–6; with explicit regard to the Trinity: ibid. 25, p. 64, 1131f.; 27, pp. 69f.

References

Dominique Poirel: Livre de la nature et débat trinitaire au XIIe siècle. Le De tribus diebus de Hugues de Saint Victor (Bibliotheca Victorina 14), Turnhout 2002.
———. 2006. "The Trinity and the Human Mind: Analogies in Augustine and Peter Abelard." In Intellect et imagination dans la philosophie médiévale / Intellect and imagination in medieval philosophy / Intelecto e imaginação na filosofia medieval / Actes du XIe Congrès international de philosophie médiévale de la Société internationale pour l'Étude de la philosophie médiévale (S.I.E.P.M.): Porto, du 26 au 31 août 2002. Vol. 2, edited by Pacheco, Maria Cândida and Meirinhos, José F., 903–913. Turnhout: Brepols.

"As is well known, one of the major topics of Augustine’s De trinitate is a philosophical analysis of the human mind, the aim of which is to make intelligible the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Hence books VIII to XIV are concerned with the search for triadic structures, which can be detected in reflection on the human soul, and which should help man to believe and to imagine the Trinitarian structure of the divine being.

The aim of the present paper is to compare this Augustinian discussion with the images Peter Abelard uses in his explanation of the Trinity." (p. 903)

(...)

"In the first part of what follows, I shall sketch briefly the Augustinian comparison between the human and the divine mind. Then I shall give an account of Abelard’s argumentation concerning this topic; finally, I will give an overview of the differences in terminology and in the methodological role of the analogies in both authors, and I will try to explain the historical and systematic reasons which moved them to take their different positions." (p. 904)
Pernoud, Régine. 1973. Heloise and Abelard. New York: Stein and Day.

Translated from French by Peter Wiles.

"The Abelard who emerges from the Letter to a Friend must have been exceptionally hard to get on with. He seems to have been entirely lacking in empathy and to have shown no concern for others - except perhaps his pupils, but here he was swayed by vanity and the desire to strengthen his hold over them. It is extraordinary that he should have been thrown into contact with such an extreme ‘temperamental opposite’ as Peter the Venerable, and even more extraordinary that it was Peter who - quite literally, by publicly absolving him after death - had the last word.

By the time the two met, however, Abelard had undergone an inner change which opened his heart to Peter’s loving kindness and enabled him to feel its benefits to a degree which would have been wholly impossible at the time of Peter’s earlier approach, soon after the Council of Soissons. But for the ordeals which he had suffered in the intervening years he would never have assented to the reconciliation with himself and others which Peter urged upon him." (p. 224)
Quinn, Philip L. 1993. "Abelard on Atonement: "Nothing Unintelligible, Arbitrary, Illogical, or Immoral about It." In Reasoned Faith: Essays in Philosophical Theology in Honor of Norman Kretzmann, edited by Stump, Eleonore, 281–300. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

"My conclusion is that an account along the Abelardian lines I have been laying out shows a lot of promise of enriching our understanding of the mystery of the Atonement. Part of that promise stems from the fact that such an account's emphasis on the inward transformation of sinners would be in tune with the modern inclination to explain the Atonement largely in terms of its psychological effects. Another part derives from the fact that such an account would, by virtue of highlighting the efficacy of the Atonement in improving the characters of sinners, be better balanced than satisfaction-theoretic rivals, such as those proposed by Anselm and Aquinas, which are dominated by legalistic concerns with paying debts of honor or punishment. It is not merely that, as Gunton suggests, we should not deny the subjective implications or psychological consequences of the Atonement. I would urge that we must in an Abelardian spirit acknowledge that the transformation of the sinful human subject wrought in large part by divine love channeled to us through Christ is the most important purpose the Atonement serves. Abelard's legacy is that this motif should dominate our thinking when we reflect on the benefits graciously made available to us through Christ's life, suffering, and death." (p. 300, a note omitted)

References

Colin E. Gunton, The Actuality of Atonement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1989).
Reasoner, Mark. 2005. Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Abelard, pp. 27-29,

"Abelard’s actual commentary on 3:21—26 moves efficiently over the main questions this locus raises." (p. 27)

(...)

"Abelard’s solution is that Christ exemplifies God’s love for us. Note the language of pedagogy in the long thesis sentence (60 words in Abelard’s text) of his “Solution” to the riddle of the atonement: “By this we have been justified by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God, that through this singular grace it was shown to us that his son took our nature and in it while instructing us as much by word as by example he endured to death, binding us more through love to himself, so that by such a favor, enlightened by divine grace, true love shrinks back and no longer submits to one’s own concerns.“(43) When focusing on the difficult question of how Christ’s death makes us righteous, Abelard thus finds the ransom, expiation, and redemption models inadequate and introduces Christ's death as the supreme example for humanity. The binding love that arises out of Christ’s supreme example of obedience is Abelard’s extension of Augustine's doctrine of faith working through love, now emphasized in such a radical way that the forensic and sacramental dimensions of justification are eliminated.(44)" (p. 29)

(43) Abelard, Expositio at 3:26 (Peppermüller 288.18—25).

(44) Carlson, Justification, 47-48.

References

Abelard, Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos, ed. and trans. Rolf Peppermüller, Fontes Christiani 26/1 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2000),

Charles P. Carlson Jr., Justification in Earlier Medieval Theology (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1975).
Reynolds, P. L. 1992. "The Essence, Power and Presence of God: Fragments of the History of An Idea, From Neopythagoreanism to Peter Abelard." In From Athens to Chartres: Neoplatonism and Medieval Thought, Studies in Honour of Edouard Jeauneau, edited by Westra, Hijo Jan, 351–380. Leiden: Brill.

On Abelard see p. 367-379.
Schepers, Kees. 2017. "Abelard's Exegesis of the Song of Songs in his Second Letter to Heloise." The Journal of Medieval Latin no. 27:107–132.

Abstract: "In this paper I am making the argument that the brief excursus on the Song of Songs in Abelard’s second letter to Heloise (the fifth in the Correspondence) contains exegesis of a few phrases of this biblical book that is so far out of the ordinary that it cannot be taken seriously and was not intended to be. This argument is based on the following observations: the lines presented as being from the Song of Songs are not really biblical verses; no remotely comparable exegesis of these phrases exists in earlier and contemporaneous exegesis; the literal interpretation that Abelard applies besides an allegorical reading was expressly forbidden by authorities both old and new; and finally Abelard’s alleged exegesis conflicts absolutely with his own exegesis of the same elements in authenticated works."
Schildgen, Brenda Deen. 2007. "Female Monasticism in the Twelfth Century: Peter Abelard, Heloise, and Paul's Letter to the Romans." In Medieval Readings of Romans, edited by Campbell, William S., Hawkins, Peter S. and Schildgen, Brenda Deen, 58–69. New York: T&T Clark International.

"Introduction

Abelard's Commentary on the Letter of Paul to the Romans, dated between 1133 and I 139, only a few years before his death c. 1142, represents the philosopher's mature work.

The approach adopted in this essay This essay, rather than probing the central argument of the commentary, will discuss Abelard and Heloise's use of Paul's Letter in the correspondence regarding the Rule for nuns that Heloise requested and Abelard then developed. Like Heloise in her third letter to Abelard, where she substantially refers to Romans, Abelard also uses Paul to analyze the meaning of Law to the rules that govern nuns. The letters followed the Historia Calamitatum (1132), with the correspondence dated two to three years afterward (Muckle 1953, 48). Both the Commentary on the Letter of Paul to the Romans and the letters thus were written during approximately the same period." (p 58)

References

Muckle C.S.B., J. T. (ed.) 1953. "The Personal Letters between Abelard and Heloise." Mediaeval Studies 15: 48-67.
Schrock, Chad. 2010. "The proportion of his purpose: Peter Abelard's Historia calamitatum as sacred history." Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age no. 77:29–46.

Abstract: "The narrative of the Historia calamitatum depends at a thematic level on a logical proportion that Peter Abelard announces at the beginning of his letter of consolation. Abelard proposes that the troubles suffered by the unknown reader of his letter are to Abelard's troubles as Abelard's troubles are to those of Christ and the Church Fathers. The distance between each term in this proposition measures in effect the consolation available to the sufferer."
Siekawitch, Larry. 2007–2008. "The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Atonement In the Medieval Church. Anselm, Abelard, and Aquinas." McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry no. 9:3–30.

"Abelard held to several theories of the atonement. He was not completely clear on the intricacies, but seemed to embrace a penal substitutionary version of satisfaction along with an im-parted righteousness or sanctification. His unique contribution, the exemplarist theory, had an objective and subjective com-ponent. Objectively he believed God’s love was imparted to the soul when faith was expressed. His understanding of “impartation” seemed to include the idea of imputation, though he never used this terminology. Subjectively the believer would see the love of Christ in a new way, which compelled him or her to live out this love that was imparted. He held to a mystical union or reconciliation that somehow infuses God’s love and en-courages love to grow in the believer’s heart. He also accepted the ransom theory, in which Christ’s death defeated the devil and freed the believer from the slavery of sin." (p. 17)
Stammberger, Ralf M. W. . 2002. ""De longe ueritas uidetur diuersa iudicia Parit": Hugh of Saint Victor and Peter Abelard." Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia no. 58:65–92.

Abstract: "The relations of William of Champeau.x, who began the founding of the abbey of Saint Victor in Paris, and Peter Abelard are known from the Historia calamitatum which the peripateticus palatinus wrote years after the event. We have no historical report that Abelard ever met Hugh of Saint Victor but already their contemporaries brought together their works in the manuscripts into which they copied them. A detailed analysis of their writings reveals that they had much more in common than is generally believed. They both use the terms 'potentia', 'sapientia' and 'benignitas' to refer to the three persons of the Trinity, and together with Walter of Mortagne they both deal with the wisdom ('sapientia' of the incarnated second person. Also, together with Bernard of Clairvaux they discuss the necessity of baptism for salvation. All these questions are linked to the question of universals for which Abelard is a famous protagonist and the comparison reveals that Hugh's position, to which we have only indirect access, is quite close to Abelard's in its nominalist orientation but differs because he has a different concept of how we achieve knowledge about God.

Hugh also develops a special position - not to be found in other authors of his day - on how words signify things in the Sacred Scriptures."
Vidu, Adonis. 2014. Atonement, Law, and Justice: The Cross in Historical and Cultural Contexts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Peter Abelard (1079–1142), pp. 62-69.

"Both the dramatic theory and the satisfaction theory are usually described in theology textbooks as objective understandings of the atonement. The principal benefit of the atonement consists in some good that obtains irrespective of its appropriation by believers. Both describe the work of the atonement as something that is complete and, while it does need to be appropriated in the life of the believer, can be defined without appeal to the latter’s subjectivity.

In Abelard we encounter a so-called subjective theory. One should not take these distinctions too rigidly, however. The designation is justified inasmuch as Abelard stresses the example that Christ sets as well as his moral influence.

Yet objective elements are not entirely lacking in his thinking. Indeed, there are several traditional elements present in his work, and these should not be overlooked. Moreover, all of the three theories discussed so far involve a transaction of sorts, and this entails something complete made available for reception. The dramatic theory presents a completed victory of Christ, which needs to be appropriated by the believer; the satisfaction theory adduces the merits of Christ, in which we ought to participate; finally, the moral influence theory presents the demonstrated love of Christ, with which we are to be infused." (p. 62)
Waddell, Chrysogonus. 1980. "Peter Abelard as creator of liturgical texts." In Petrus Abaelardus (1079-1142). Person, Werk und Wirkung, edited by Thomas, Rudolf, 267–286. Trier: Paulinus-Verlag.

"There is, however, at least one significant area of Master Peter’s activity which has so far escaped scholarly scrutiny. Abelard’s contributions to the liturgical life of the Abbey of the Paraclete were many and signal. Of these contributions, only the hymns have received much attention, and then almost exclusively from a purely literary point of view. Even less favored have been the sermons?. There is, however, ample evidence

pointing to the existence of a body of abelardian liturgica more considerable than anyone heretofore has surmised. True, much of this material is not yet recoverable in the present stage of research, and all that can be done in many instances is simply to add new items to the list of Abelard’s lost works. For our consolation, however, a modest amount of such material is recoverable. The purpose of this article, then, is to draw attention to Master Peter’s efforts in the field of liturgical composition, and to provide something of a prolegomenon to further research." (p. 267)
Wąsek, Damian. 2013. "The Role of Dialectics in Peter Abelard’s Concept of Theology." In Logic in Theology, edited by Brożek, Bartosz, Olszewski, Adam and Hohol, Mateusz, 139–158. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.

"The aim of this study is to present, on the basis of Abelard’s works, the multidimensionality of the term ‘dialectics’, and in consequence, the diversity of its possible applications in the creation of the theological system, as well as dangers resulting from an overemphasis on the role of dialectics in the field of faith.

The problem can be best expressed as a question: To what extent and in what dimensions – according to Abelard – can dialectics help in pursuing theology? In order to find an answer to the above question, I will outline the theological-philosophical context of Abelard’s hought, define the notion of dialectics itself and its theological implications in his concept and point to certain limitations of dialectics as a tool to explore the truths of faith." (p. 140)

(...)

"What are current tasks for logic at the point where it meets theology?

To what extent and in what dimensions can these disciplines cooperate? The analyses presented above bring to mind two fields of cooperation that seem very important from the theological point of view. The first of them is concern for the credibility of Christianity.

In order for religion – treated as a system of truths – to be credible, it must form a coherent system. Logic makes it possible to expose contradictions and find ‘weak points’ of the doctrine in terms of methodological cohesion. Dialogue with modern atheism (especially that based on empirical sciences) is the other field of cooperation between logic and theology. Logical instruments can be used to test, in terms of logical veracity, conclusions formed by atheists and their charges against the revelation, as well as to specify the competence of the secular sciences in the field of theology." (p. 158)
Wasek, Damian. 2016. "Between Similarity and Non-similarity. The Nature of Theological Language in the Thought of Peter Abelard." Theological Research no. 4:75–87.

Abstract: "The aim of this paper is to answer to the following question: How should theological propositions, originating from the language used to describe creatures, be understood so as to avoid idolatry, that is reducing God to the category of contingent entities?

Using the theory of similarities formulated by Peter Abelard, I pointed out that the risk of committing theological errors decreases when language formulas are treated as models, and their meaning is understood in a figurative way.

Such an attitude enables us to acknowledge the fact that language can be only partially adequate to the subject under discussion, and makes us aware that we describe only one aspect of a given theological phenomenon, as the chosen model may not correspond to other aspects.

Such understanding of the theological language calls for a constant reinterpretation of theological propositions. If images used in theology are linked to the structure of the world, each change in the scientific understanding of this structure brought by empirical sciences, should lead to changes in the language used by theology. Lack of such changes in the system of religious beliefs will lead to a decrease in the credibility of theology and push its truths towards the category of myths and fables."
Weingart, Richard E. 1970. The Logic of Divine Love: A Critical Analysis of Soteriology of Peter Abailard. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

"Abailard’s understanding of the theme of man’s redemption suggests the title: The Logic of Divine Love. Even though the theocentricity ofhis exposition of the meaning of the cross has generlly been slighted, his attention to the revelation of divine love has been emphasized by numerous interpreters. This part of the title is self-explanatory. The use of the term ‘logic’ is not. Logic, derived from logos, indicates both the nature of the thinking process in reflecting on various phenomena and also the inherent structure of those phenomena themselves. In the first sense logic is basic to Abailard’s legacy in the development of scholastic methodology as rational, scientifically systematic, exposition of the divine revelation. In the second sense logic refers to that which enables reflection. Thus to speak of ‘the logic of divine love’ is to signify the revelatory constitution of God’s historical manifestation in Jesus Christ for the redemption of man. For Abailard both senses of logic have a christological axis. It is, therefore, incumbent on the Christian theologian to be logical, because he is reflecting on God’s manifestation in Jesus Christ, the Logos incarnate in human history, as the concrete disclosure of the logic of divine love. Abailard’s desire is to explicate this logic." (Preface, p. VIII)

(...)

"Since Abailard explicates the many facets of the New Testa¬ ment doctrine of the dignity of Christ’s person and his saving work, he offers no ‘theory’ of the atonement. No one biblical metaphor or concept is chosen as the basis for a scientifically de¬ veloped explanation of the atonement; no one statement in his writings can be designated as a presentation of his position suffi¬ cient in itself. The passage in the second book of the Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos, cited by both opponent and friend(1) as the one statement of the Abailardian theory, is but a summary and fragmentary outline ofhis understanding of Christ’s redemptive work. His exposition of the logic of divine love revealed in the work of the incarnate Lord must be studied in the framework of the themes developed throughout his writings." (pp. 201-202)

(1) For example, see Jean Rivière, Le Dogme de la redemption [au debut du moyen âge. Bibliothèque thomiste 19, Paris, 1934], pp. 113-14; Hastings Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (London, 1919), pp. 358-60; Hippolyte Gallerand, ‘La redemption dans les Merits d’Anselm et d’Abelard’, Revue de lìhistoire des religions 92 (1925), 232-3.
Williams, Thomas. 2004. "Sin, Grace, and Redemption." In The Cambridge Companion to Abelard, edited by Brower, Jeffrey E. and Guilfoy, Kevin, 258–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

"One must distinguish, however, between the doctrine of the Atonement and theories of the Atonement. Where the doctrine simply states that the Passion of Christ effects a reconciliation between God and human beings, theories of the Atonement try to explain how the Passion has such an effect. Various theories of the Atonement have been put forward, and none has ever received the kind of broad and enduring support that would entitle it to be regarded as the orthodox view. Nevertheless, some theories have better credentials than others, and Abelard got himself in trouble by revising or denying some well-credentialed twelfth-century views and – according to his detractors, at least – embracing a most unsatisfactory alternative.

The best place to look for Abelard’s theory of the Atonement is in his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. The Commentary consists of verse-by-verse exposition of the literal sense of Romans, with frequent excursuses or quaestiones on theological or exegetical issues raised by the text.(2)" (pp. 258-259)

(2) See Buytaert 1969, vol. XI, 17–20, for a catalogue of the quaestiones.

References

Buytaert, E. M. ed. 1969. Opera theologica. Corpus Christianorum. Turnholt: Brepols.
Yamazaki, Hiroko. 2006. "Anselm and Abelard on Original Sin." In Anselm and Abelard: Investigations and juxtapositions, edited by Gasper, Giles and Kohlenberger, Helmut, 172–178. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.

"Conclusion

For Anselm, original sin is the absence of required original justice. Original justice is given by God and if it is abandoned, God is dishonored. Therefore, the honor of God is the criterion for committing a sin. If order is violated, God is dishonored. One is required to keep original justice, and ever since the first parents’ sin God requires satisfaction from the sinner, because human nature has incurred corruption. Corruption means disorder.

Abelard emphasizes that consent, not action, is the criterion for committing a sin. As a result, original sin, which is not accompanied by the consent, is explained as punishment, not sin.

Anselm’s understanding of original sin is characteristic of his theology that the honor of God, keeping justice and the beauty of order are connected with each other." (p. 178)
Yolles, Julian. 2014. "Divine Omnipotence and the Liberal Arts in Peter Damian and Peter Abelard." In Rethinking Abelard: A Collection of Critical Essays edited by Hellemans, Babette, 60–83. Leiden: Brill.

Summary: "Any attempt to study Peter Abelard’s scholarly identity vis-à-vis the liberal arts is fraught with difficulty due to the complexity of his thought, the intricate ways in which he reworks existing ideas and reacts against others, and the haphazard survival of the works of his forbears and contemporaries. One way to circumvent these issues is to take a particularly well-documented line of argument in one of Abelard’s works and to compare his methodology with that of an intellectual before him. One such opportunity presents itself par excellence in the analysis of what is called ‘divine omnipotence’, that is the analysis by means of dialectic and patristic authority of the problem of what it means for God to be omnipotent, which takes place in the third book of Abelard’s Theologia ‘scholarium’. This subject was put on the map as a matter requiring careful analysis in an eleventh-century treatise in the form of a letter by Peter Damian. It is for this reason that Peter Damian will be the starting-point of our present discussion—but a caveat must be made in doing so, however: in comparing Peter Damian and Peter Abelard (and indeed any of the later thinkers who will be discussed), one must keep in mind that they were active in widely differing intellectual and social environs, and that the comparative discussion is in no way intended to suggest that the two are necessarily commensurable.

In fact, it is the hope that the present discussion will bring out both similarities and dissimilarities alike in a nuanced way in order to get a better grip on the methodological idiosyncrasies of these intellectuals, and on the cultural and intellectual environments that shaped them. First, I intend to compare Peter Damian and Peter Abelard’s approaches to the question of divine omnipotence.

Second, it will be worthwhile to explore in brief the approaches of the major theologians of the twelfth century on this matter, to see whether either of the two intellectuals under discussion had a significant impact on later treatments of this topic."
Zemler-Cizewski, Wanda. 1994. "From Metaphor to Theology: Proprium and Translatum in Cicero, Augustine, Eriugena, and Abelard." Florilegium no. 13:37–52.

"In his prologue to the Sic et non, Peter Abelard describes a series of hermeneutical problems in the interpretation of sacred texts, especially those texts that appear to be mutually contradictory although equal in antiquity and authority. A theme to which he returns repeatedly is the intractability of language, and the struggles faced by a theologian who seeks to use words with precision. Different words in the Latin language may have the same meaning, while the same word may be used in different senses, depending on the context (89). Moreover, the use of a word may vary with the intention of the speaker and the capacity of his hearers. Thus, for example, Abelard contrasts the elaborately varied vocabulary of the careful stylist with the “studied carelessness” of the impassioned orator or the classroom teacher (90).

It is my intention in the brief investigation that follows, to take up the hint offered by Peter Abelard and to trace certain variations in the history of the words proprium and translatum, key technical terms in Abelard’s theological vocabulary." (p. 37)

References

Abelard, Peter. Sic et Non. Prologue. Ed. Blanche B. Boyer and Richard McKeon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Zerbi, Pietro. 1987. "William of Saint Thierry and His Dispute with Abelard." In William, Abbot of St. Thierry: a colloquium at the Abbey of St. Thierry, 181–203. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications.

"The aim of this paper is not to present definite results, but, much more modestly, to provide a status quaestionis on this vast theme, and, at most, to suggest a few hypotheses. I hasten to warn at the outset, as will be noted later, that certain positions which seem to have been won, at least as reasonable hypotheses, are beginning to waver after closer reflexion, whereas others, once abandoned, are rising again with new vigor." (p. 181)

(...)

"The Council of Sens has been at the focus of my studies for many years. And I have not lost hope of soon being able to publish a monograph which will bring together the fruit of about twenty years of work. This explains the nature of the present contribution, as well as that of a certain number of other studies I have published during this period. Those are, so to say, fragments provisionally detached from a building under construction, In the following pages, not everything will be discussed, proven, or exhaustively established. This can only be done at the end, in the definitive work. Then there will be the possibility of a comprehensive perception and a global interpretative effort.

Let us further add that we will not be able to follow an orderly and always coherent discourse on so complex a theme, without having decided to make a few hypotheses, especially of a chronological order, even if they are only temporary. For example, did the Council take place in 1140 or in 1141? Once one has opted for one of these dates, does the Lent during which William of Saint Thierry sounded the alarm in extremely well-known letter 326 belong to the same year when on the eighth day after Pentecost the council was convened? Or does it belong to the preceding year, 1139 or 1140? I will tell you what my choices are for the moment: 1140 for the assembly at Sens, Lent of 1139 for William’s initiative." (p. 182, a note omitted)

Skip to the top of page