Cruelty and the Medieval Intellectual:The Case of Peter Abelard

Cruelty and the Medieval Intellectual:
The Case of Peter Abelard
GRETI DINKOVA-BRUUN
Talking about cruelty is a delicate matter. Even nowadays, when the law
and the society, as weil as our personal moral code and our experiences
are supposed to help us to define clearly what is cruel and what is not,
there are and there always will be different opinions as to what constitutes
cruelty, based on religion, occupation, personal interests, psychological
particularities, and age. The problern becomes even more complicated
when, looking back in time, we try to understand what was considered
cruel in societies with cultural, religious and economic characteristics which
cannot be compared to our own.
In this context the case of Peter Abelard is of special interest. He
was one of the leading dialecticians of the 12th century, controversial both
as a man and as a scholar. He had devoted pupils and hostile teachers,1
passionate supporters2 and fierce enemies.3 He was a well-respected logician,
convicted heretic, ardent lover, and castrated cleric. His life and love
for Heloise carries a never-fading fascination for the romantic mind. But
what I will be dealing with is not at all romantic, on the contrary, I would
1 Tbe teachers of Abelard were firstly tbe well-known dialectician, William of Cbampaux,
witb wbom Abelard argued about tbe nature of universals, tbereby causing h.im
to lose many of bis pupils, and secondly tbe tbeologian, Anselm of Laon, wbo forbade
Abelard to teach in Laon after being beaten by bim in bis own field.
2 Tbe text of Apologeticu3, written by Abelard’s pupil Berengar of Poitiers, is publisbed
in P.L. 178, 1858-1870 and V. Cousin, Petri Abaelardi Opera II (Paris 1849) 771-786.
Abelard bimself speaks in tbe Historia Calamitatum about Geoffrey, Bisbop of Cbartres,
who spoke in bis defence at tbe Council of Soisson. See also D. E. Luscombe, The Scbool
of Peter Abelard (Cambridge 1969).
3 Among otbers, Alberic of Rheims and Lotulf of Lombardy, fellow-students of Abelard
from Laon, wbo led bis prosecution for heresy at the Council of Soisson in 1121. Also
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, tbanks to wbom nineteen points from Abelard’s Theologia
were condemned as heretical at the Council of Sens in 1140.
114
rather call it drastic, and I am sure that everybody would agree with me
on this, and if not everybody, at least the men.
The event in question is the merciless and tragic castration4 of Master
Peter, which took place around 1 118-11 19 and was engineered by the
Canon Fulbert, the angry uncle of Heloise. Two people teil us what happened,
why it happened and what the consequences were: Abelard hirnself
and his friend Pulk, the prior of St Eugene at Deuil. To be sure, Heloise
also mentions the fact in the two so-called personal letters she wrote to
Abelard, but since she gives no specific details, we are left with Abelard’s
autobiographical letter, the so-called Historia Calamitatum,5 with his second
replay to Heloise,6 and with the consolatory Ietter of Fulk,7 which he
wrote to Abelard shortly after the latter’s entry into the Abbey of St Denis
in 1 1 19.
In all three of these letters, plus the short remarks of Heloise, we can
find only three sentences which say directly that the castration of Master
Peter was a cruel thing to do. Two of them are by Abelard himself, who
in the Historia Calamitatum calls the act of Fulbert and his assistants
crudelissima et pudentissima ultio, and then talks about crudelitas prodi-
4 According to Fr. Bergmann, „Origine, signification, et histoire de Ia castration, de
l’eunuchisme, et de Ia circoncision“, Archivio per lo studio delle tradizioni popolari 2
(1883) 279-280, there is a clear difference between, as he calls them in French, „castration“
and „chä.trement ou eunuchisme“. „Castration“ in his interpretation means
the complete ablation of the membrum virile, while „chä.trement“ refers to the excision
of the testicles only. We have no way of knowing which one of these two operations
was performed on Abelard, but it was probably the second one. Two facts support our
assumption: 1) The complete castration was a severe mutilation which caused the death
of almost all men who suffered it, cf. K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge
1978) 190 n. 50 who refers to an instance where 87 out of 90 boys died after castration.
Although not stated by the author it was probably a complete castration which had
been performed on the boys; Hopkins does not seem to be aware of the two ways in
which castration could be effected), while Abelard not only survived, but also pretended
that it did not hurt so much, cf. Hi􀃂toria Calamitatu.m, ed. Muckle, Mediaeval Studies
XI (1949) 207. 2) In the Hütoria Calamitatu.m, ed. Muckle, 190, Abelard tells us when
referring to his situation, that he was forbidden to enter the Church, like all eunuchs
whose testicles were amputati vel attriti.
5 Ed. Muckle, 189-190, 206-207.
6 Muckle, Mediaeval Studies (= MS) XV (1953) 88-91.
7 Epistola XVI in P.L. 178.
1 1 5
tionis illius in his second replay to Heloise. 8 The third passage is by Heloise
who says that she still accuses God of summa crudelitas because of the injustice
done to her lover.9 But along with these three cases, in the letters of
Ahelard we also find expressions such as vulneris passio, haec plaga, haec
singularis infamia, in tam misera contritione positus, corporis detrimentum,
haec proditio, corporis diminutio, 10 summa tui avunculi proditio, ll
etc. Even though these passages do not express very cheerful emotions,
they do not explicitly mention cruelty. Similar expressions are also used
by Heloise12 and even by FUlk,13 whose primary goal was to comfort his
depressed and angry friend.
There is no doubt that Ahelard was shocked by what happened to
him. He describes his feelings in details in the well-known passage of the
Historia Calamitatum and draws a vivid picture of hirnself being talked
about, laughed at, and pointed a finger at by the whole world. The fact
that two of his assailants were deprived of sight and genitals, 14 and Fulbert
of his possessions, 15 did not console him very much. It was not the physical
pain which made him suffer but the shame.16 It was not the loss of his
masculine power which depressed him but the end of his brilliant career as
8 Muckle, MS XV (1953) 82.
9 lbid., 80.
10 Hütoria Calamitatum, ed. Muckle, 190, 196, 197, 207.
ll Muckle, MS XV {1953) 89.
12 Cf. in corpu& tuum &ummae proditioni& iniuria, Muckle, MS XV (1953) 68; &umma
et ubique nota proditio, ibid., 70; tantum &celu&, ibid., 78; una corpori& plaga, ibid., 81.
13 Cf. damnum quidem in hoc tempore tui corpori& pertulüti, particularum i&ta mutilatio,
huiu& partü corpori& privatio, haec diminutio, hoc tuum vulnu& et damnum, hoc
dedecuJ, P.L. 178, 373-374; muti/u& hac corpori& parte, P.L. 178, 375.
14 Cf. Hi&toria Calamitatum, ed. Muckte, 190; also Fu!k in P.L. 178, 375. This is
an interesting detail which deserves more attention. Why did the attackers of Abe!ard
lose both eyes and genitals? They bad to lose only the latter, if it was a case of the
application of the ancient law of talion. There is one law promulgated by J ustinian
(Novellae, 142) which says that the man who dares to castrate another man shall suffer
the same as a punishment or, provided he escapes unpunished, bis possessions shall
be confiscated. This law, if it was still valid in tbe time of Abelard, explains wby bis
attackers lost their genitals and wby Fulbert was deprived of bis riches, but still does
not explain why the eyes of the assailants were put out.
15 Fulk in P.L. 178, 375.
16 Cf. Hi&toria Calamitatum, ed. Muckle, 190: multo ampliu& e:z: eorum compa&sione
116
a teacher and as a philosopher. (He thought that he had to give up teaching
in public, since he felt that nobody could take him seriously anymore,
after his castration.) On many occasions Abelard repeats this point of
view, 17 especially after he was accused of heresy for the second time and
compelled to throw his cherished book Theologia 18 into the fire with his
own hands. So we can conclude here that as a prominent intellectual,
Abelard considered the insult to his brains as a much greater personal
darnage than the mutilation of his body. At least, this is what he says
himself. The question is whether we can believe him or not. Is it not
possible to assume that he was left with no choice, and behaved like the
fox trying to reach the grapes?
There is nothing in the text which confirms such an assumption,
though. After the first shock and confusion, in the silence of the monastery,
Abelard calms down and tries to reason. The consolations of Fulk no Ionger
seem so much out of place. In his turn, Abelard seeks to comfort Heloise,
first by proving to her that everything that happened to them, and to him
in particular, was justified by their sinful behaviour,19 and secondly by
listing all the advantages that castration gives to a man seeking God. And
there are many. Reading only Abelard and Fulk, it would seem that the
best thing that can happen to a man is to be castrated. One is freed from
all temptations and carnal desires, one is cured from lust,20 one is spared
the erotic dreams and the shameful habits of the Sodomites, one does not
need to worry about the vengeance of deceived husbands, one can disrequam
ez vulnerü laederer pa33ione, et plu3 ervbe3centiam quam plagam 3entirem, et
pudore magü quam dolore afftigerer.
17 Cf. Hi3toria Calamitatum, ed. Muckle, 196-197: Parvam illam ducebam proditionem
in comparatione huiu3 iniuriae (sc. the burning of the Theologia), et Ionge
amplius famae quam corporü detrimentum p/angebam. See as weil ibid., 207: Sed quod
tune forte minu3 pertuli ez vulnere, nunc ez detractione diutiu3 plector, et plus ez
detrimento famae quam corporü crucior diminutione.
18 In the Hi3toria Calamitatum the book is called De Unitate et Trinitate Divina and
is known to us as Theologia Summi Boni.
19 Abelard points out at least three major offences which in his opinion deserved an even
more severe punishment: ( 1 ) making Iove in the refectory at Argenteuil, (2) shamelessly
deceiving Fulbert, while living in his own house, and (3) the sacrilegious disguise of
Heloise as a nun, when she run away from home to Abelard’s family in Brittany upon
discovering she was pregnant; cf. Muckle, MS XV (1953) 88-89.
20 Hütoria Calamitatum, ed. Muckle, 191 and 182.
117
gard with dignity „the bunch of married women“ ( as Fulk calls them), and
have no fear of the traps of the unmarried ones. One can even save some
money wbich otherwise would have been needed to pay the prostitutes.21
To Abelard personally the castration meant two more tbings: it helped
bim to become „a true philosopher not of the world but of God“22 and it
gave him the possibility of discovering a new dimension of love: namely
that of a man and a woman united in Christ.
After all this, do we have to wonder why Abelard repeatedly calls
bis disgrace dispositio mihi saluberrima, tantum bonum, illa saluberrima
plaga, liberatio et medicina,23 and why he continually thanks God for bis
misericordia, clementia, and gratia?
But was it really so simple? The opinion of many early Christian Fathers
was that post-adolescent castrates did not actually lose their sexual
desire.24 We have the well-known passage from the treatise attributed to
St. Basil, entitled Liber de vera virginitatis integritate, in wbich the author
says that after castration men become even more intemperate in their
lust.25 We have the words of John Chrysostom who shares the opinion of
St. Basil.26 We have the statement of Origen bimself that the act of Castration
causes only disturbances in the functioning of the body27 without
helping the soul to free itself from all temptations and desires. Moreover,
holy men such as Athanasius,28 Gregory of Nazianzus,29 and Jerome30 also
assure us that the eunuchs were impious, lustful and deprived of any virtue
what so ever, as does Cyril of Alexandria whose Sermo adversus eunuchos
is a real catalogue of their shameful and perverted habits.31
21 Fulk in P.L. 178; 373-374.
22 Hütoria Calamitatum, ed. Muckle, 191.
23 Muckle, MS XV (1953) 88-89.
24 Abelard was around 40 years old when he was castrated.
25 P.G. 30, 793-796.
26 Homil. in Matthaeum LXU,3 = P.G. 58, 599-600.
27 According to Origen there are: loss of beard, headache, dizziness, hallucinations.
(cf. Comment. in Matthaeum XV, 3 = P.G. 13, 1261).
28 Hi3toria Arianorum 38 = P.G. 25, 738.
29 In laudem Athana3ii 21 = P.G. 35, 1106.
30 Adver3U3 Jovinianum 47 = P.L. 23, 287; Ep. 107, 11 = P.L. 22, 876; Comment. in
Matthaeum III, c. XIX = P.L. 26, 141.
31 P.G. 77, 1105-1109.
118
So, we are faced with an interesting paradox here. In the fourth and
fifth centuries people seemed to have believed that eunuchs were involved in
post-castration sexual activities of all kinds,32 while in the twelfth century
Abelard, Heloise and Fulk thought tha.t after castration the libido was
completely gone. If we are to believe the medical experts/3 Ahelard was
closer to the truth than his fourth and fifth century colleagues, whose prejudiced
opinion was probably influenced to a great extent by the negative
public image eunuchs had during this period.34
We have now shown that even if Ahelard took his mutilation very hard
in the beginning, in the course of time he began to consider it as something
quite positive, probably first out of desperation, but then, typically enough
for a human being, believing sincerely tha.t wha.t ha.d happened to him was
really the best thing to have happened.
Finally, a last question should be posed: were there some disadvantages
in being castrated, after all? Abela.rd sa.ys tha.t, besides the shame,
what made him most desperate was the fact that secundum occidentem
legis litteram the eunuchs were forhidden to enter the Church.35 However,
as it has been pointed out before,36 such an ecclesiastical law does not in
fact seem to have existed. Only men guilty of self-mutilation deserved punishment
and were rejected by the Church. 37 Those who were castrated as
a result of human treachery, which was indeed the case of Abelard, were
permitted ordination by the law.38 This explains why the mutilation of
32 There are some notions from Antiquity as weil. For the full acount see P. Guyot,
Eunuchen als Sklaven und Freigelassene in der griechisch-römischen Antike (Stuttgart
1980) chapter 3.3, „Eunuchen als Lustknaben“.
33 J. J. Bremer, Asexualisation (New York 1959) 305; G. Ross, Essentials of Human
Physiology (London 1978) 578-579.
34 See K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, (Carnbridge 1978) chapter IV „The political
power of eunuchs“.
35 Hütoria Calamitatum, ed. Muckle, 190.
36 Muckle, MS XI (1949) 190, n. 33.
37 See the first canon of the Council of Nice which was later confirmed by Canone3
Apo3tolorum c. 22-23; the second Council of Arles, c. 7; Martin of Braga, c. 2 1 ; Pope
Clement III, c. 4; and Gratian, Dist. LV, c. V ( cf. Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique
V.2, 1939, s. v. Eunuque, and Dictionnaire d’Archeologie Chretienne et de Liturgie Il.2,
1910, s. v. Castration) .
3 8 Licite ordinetur epi3copu3, qui per hominum insidia3 eunuchizatur (Gratian, Dist.
LV, c. VII).
119
Master Peter did not prevent him from being accepted as a monk in 1 119,
and why he a few years later was even made Abb ot of the monastery of St
Gildas.39 All this convinces us that the fears expressed by Abelard about
being shut out of the Church because of the monstruosum spectaculum40
which he presented, can be considered more of a stylistic exaggeration than
a real concern.
Another disadvantage which Abelard does not talk about, but Fulk
does, is the change which castration causes in the somatic state of the
castrated person. Fulk points out thr􀇫e features which make eunuchs easily
recognizable, namely, the lack of beard, wrinkled face, and extremely
pale skin.41 The description given by Fulk is not at all original. The
post-castration effects were common knowledge during Antiquity and the
Middle Ages,42 and the observations made then are generally accepted as
true nowadays.43 What can we say about Abelard in this respect? Not
a thing. There is no evidence showing how the castration affected his
body. Writing to Heloise, Peter the Venerable mentions that, during his
last days, Abelard was tortured more than usual by scabies and quaedam
corporis incommoditates;44 but there is no way of knowing whether this
had anything to do with his previous castration or was just a sign of his
approaching death.
39 In about 1125.
40 Hütoria Calamitatum, ed. Muckle, 190.
41 Fulk in P.L. 178, 375.
42 Cf. H. Herter, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum IV (1959), s. v. Effeminatus.
43 J. J. Bremer, 307.
44 Ep. XXI, P.L. 189, 351.
120
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ
SONDERBAND II
CRUDELITAS
The Politics of Cruelty
in the Ancient and Medieval World
Proceedings of the International Conference
Turku {Finland), May 1991
Edited by
Toivo Viljamaa, Asko Timonen
and Christian Krötzl
Krems 1992
Front page illustration: Martyrdom of Saint Barbara (detail),
Friedrich Pacher, Tyrolian, 1480-1490,
Neustift (Novacella), South Tyrol (Italy), Stiftsgalerie
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 1094 05 9
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems, Österreich – Druck:
KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, A-1050 Wien.
Contents
Preface 7
Andrew LINTOTT (Oxford): Cruelty in the Political Life
of the Ancient World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Maarit KAIMIO (Helsinki): Violence in Greek Tragedy 28
Toivo VILJAMAA (Thrku): „Crudelitatis odio in crudelitatem
ruitis“ . Livy’s Concept of Life and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Katarüna MUSTAKALLIO (Helsinki): The „crimen incesti“
of the Vestal Virgins and the Prodigious Pestilence
Asko TIMONEN (Thrku): Criticism ofDefense. The Blam-
56
ing of „Crudelitas“ in the „Historia Augusta“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Christer BRUUN (Helsinki): Water as a Cruel Element in
the Roman World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4
Luigi de ANNA (Thrku): Elogio della crudelta. Aspetti
della violenza nel mondo antico e medievale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Greti DINKOVA-BRUUN (Helsinki): Cruelty and the Medieval
Intellectual: The Case of Peter Abelard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Christian KRÖTZL (Tampere): „Crudeliter affiicta“ . Zur
Darstellung von Gewalt und Grausamkeit in mittelalterlichen
Mirakelberichten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5
Thomas LINDKVIST (Uppsala) : The Politics of Violence
and the Transition from Viking Age to Medieval Scandinavia
Alain DUCELLIER (Toulouse): Byzance, Juge Cruel dans
un Environnement Cruel? Notes sur le „Musulman cruel“
dans l’Empire byzantin entre Vlleme et XIIlerne siedes
Asko TIMONEN (Turku): Select Bibliography
6
139
148
181
Preface
The present volume is a collection of the papers read at the conference
which was held in May 1991 at the University of Turku on the theme
The Politics of Cruelty in the A ncient and Medieval World. The general
aim of the conference was to advance interdisciplinary and international
collaboration in the fields of humanistic studies and particularly to bring
together scholars who have common interests in the study of our past.
The choice of the subject of cruelty naturally resulted from different study
projects concerning the political and social history of late antiquity and
the Middle Ages – the Roman imperial propaganda, the conß.ict between
paganism and christianity, the history of the Vandals, the Byzantine empires,
the Medieval miracle stories, to name some of them. Perhaps also
contemporary events had an influence on the idea that cruelty could be
the theme which conveniently would unite those various interests. And
the idea emerged irrespective of considerations whether or not we should
search for models in the Ancient World or join those who, as it seems to
have been a fashion, insist on investigating what we have common with
the Middle Ages.
One might argue – and for a good reason indeed – that cruelty is
a subject for anthropologists and psychologists, not for philologists and
historians. Where does the student of history find reliable criteria for
defining the notion of cruelty in order to judge the men of the past and their
actions, to charge with cruelty not only individuals but also nations and
even ages („the crudelitas imperatorum“ , „the Dark Ages“ , „the violence of
the Vikings“, „the cruel Muslims“ )? Is it not so that the only possibility is
to adapt our modern sensibilities to the past and to use our own prejudices
in making judgements about others? The prejudices – yes, but this is just
what makes the theme interesting for the historian because our prejudices
– our conception of cruelty, for instance – are part of the heritage of past
centuries. The events of our own day – maybe more clearly than ever – have
demonstrated that we live in a historical world. When we investigate the
history of the concept of cruelty we, as it were, Iook ourselves at a mirror
and learn to understand ourselves better. The concept of cruelty has two
sides. It is a subjective concept used to define and describe those persons
7
and those acts that according to the user of the term are negative, harmful,
humiliating, harsh, inhumane, primitive and unnatural; in everyday life
it is associated with religious habits – with crude remnants of primitive
religion, it is associated with passion, an uncontrolled mental state, or with
violence and with the exercise of power without justice. On the other hand
the term is used to classify people by their ethical and social habits, to
accuse, to invalidate and injure others; therefore the accusation of cruelty
refers to basic features of ancient and also Medieval thought, to the fear of
anything foreign, to the aggressive curiosity to define and subsume others
simply by their otherness.
Such were the considerations wich gave inspiration for arranging the
„cruelty“ -seminar. The conference was accommodated by the Archipelago
Institute of the University of Turku, in the island Seili („Soul island“) , in
an environment of quiet beauty of the remote island and sad memories of
the centuries when people attacked by a cruel fate, lepers or mentally ill,
were banished there from the civilized community.
The conference was organized by the Department of Classics of the
University of Turku in collaboration with the Departments of Cultural
History and Italian language and culture of the same university. It is a
pleasure to us to be able to thank here all those who helped to make the
congress possible. We would like especially to express our gratitude to
Luigi de Anna and Hannu Laaksonen for their assistance in preparing and
carrying out the practical arrangements. The financial assistance given by
the Finnish Academy and by the Turku University Foundation was also
indispensable. Finally, we close by expressing our gratitude to Gerhard
Jaritz, the editor of the Medium Aevum Quotidianum for the Gesellschaft
fü r Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, for his kind COoperation
and for accepting this collection of papers to be published as a
supplement to the series of the studies on the Medieval everyday life. One
of the starting-points for organizing the „cruelty“ -conference was the firm
conviction that the Graeco-Roman Antiquity did not end with the beginning
of the Middle Ages, but these two eras form a continuum in many
respects, and the continuity was felt not only in the literary culture, in the
Greek and Latin languages which were still used, but also in the political,
social and religious structures of the Middle Ages. We think that this
continuity is amply demonstrated by the studies of the present volume.
Department of Classics, University of Turku, Finland
8