|
In Greek education as well as in Abelard and the medieval university, the main meaning of the word and concept "dialectic" meant the presentation of one idea or proposition, then an opposed idea. The two ideas are scrutinized, for example, to show that if one leads to a contradiction or fallacious position, then the other is likely to be accepted. If both ideas or propositions pass initial scrutiny, then the creative aspect of the dialectic can come into play. The two ideas are then put up against each other. Most often, the two are fine-tuned, places of agreement emerge, they are fit together, altered for improvement, and so, the two result in a third idea or position derived from the first two and from the original thinking of the dialectician.
In a phrase, dialectic is Abelard's Sic et Non -- Yes and No -- and may result in a third, a 'Probably' or 'Certainly'. In short, thesis+antithesis=synthesis. Sometimes. It may also be that one simply trumps the other and no third 'synthesis' results. Or, the evidence may justify no conclusion, leaving both thesis and antithesis intact (as in the discussion of evolution). So the possibilities are that one thesis wins over the other, or that the two theses remain, or that a new, third synthesis emerges, or that none wins. Keep an open mind, and keep inquiring. Keep Inquiring Concerning the Letters of Abelard and Heloise, we have various questions before us -- questions of individualism (as Colin Morris has presented the case), of historical significance, of personality, His mode was the dialectic, described above. For the sake of Inquiring and Learning through the dialectic, let's establish one proposition, and an opponent, then deal with each through analysis, presentation of evidence, thinking each through logically and communicating the explanation(s). Then we can see if a synthesis is appropriate or not, and move forward from there. |
STATUS OF MEDIEVAL WOMEN: A CASE STUDY Eileen Power opened the topic. She wrote, in "The Position of Women", that medieval women found themselves 'between the pit and the pedestal,' i.e., that women were regarded either as inferior beings who brought sin into the world (with temptress Eve as the model), or as superior beings to be worshipped from afar (with Virgin Mary as the model). In the pit or on the pedestal, medieval women had little or no chance to act out a life of individualism, much less equality. Their destiny was molded in stone. Their roles in society were narrowly circumscribed. In the years since Power’s work, historians have rejected the ‘no-win situation ’ of this picture (as did Power in time), but only partially, or "theoretically", or in particular circumstances. Clanchy, in the Introduction to the Letters, pointed out how great an intellect was Heloise (e.g., pp. lxxii-lxxv), and how many have admired her as a "free spirit" and "proto-feminist" (lix). Colin Morris (p.164) repeats the doom-message concerning Western individualism (and Civilization) as he placed the writings of Abelard & Heloise in a once-flourishing culture now dying. Let's resurrect it! How can we reconcile these interpretations of women in the Middle Ages? How can we re-vitalize individualism? By knowing and applying it. Our Sherman reader introduces the topic of the status of medieval with this statement: “One the one hand, women were, in theory, spiritual equals to men... On the other hand, women were acknowledged as subordinate in various ways to men... In attitudes and in practice, the latter view of women as subject to men predominated” [p. 114]. Still, with such contradictions and various interpretations, what can we do? We can become historians! To the evidence.... Keep Inquiring. We can examine the writings of Abelard and Heloise, then place this evidence of individualism etc into the context we have already created with other primary sources and issues concerning women in historical times, then argue the case as each of us sees it. Is Heloise in the pit or on the pedestal? Did Abelard view her in those ways? Did she view herself in those ways? From your reading, does Heloise emerge as a true individual, or as a person inferior to men -- subject to male authority and to traditional roles? (For example, in Letter 6 she constructs a careful, comparative argument about the nature of virtue/excellence in terms of gender. How does she rate as a scholar? What is female excellence? In Letter 7, Abelard responds and expands on her work. What did he write?) Is her own individualism squashed by the norms of her society? Is there even a “Sic et Non” argument to be made? Do you see areas of equality? Male superiority? Or, is she superior to Abelard....? For example, in the introduction to our Letters of A & H, the implication is that she really is superior in that she "never compromises, and never wavers" in "the ethic of intention" [xxxi]. Think through both the issues and the meaning of the texts. Trust your impulses, but analyze them carefully and find evidence. Cite your evidence (page numbers), clarify your views (take notes on your thoughts), and be ready to explain them. You could argue both (or more) sides.... |
|
A schematic of method:
|
Pertinent Quotations “Once mistress, the Church does not tolerate the development of the individual. All must be resigned to becoming simple links in her long chain and to obeying the laws of her institutions.” G. Voigt, Petrarch, Boccaccio and the Debut of Humanism in Italy, 10. Jacob Burckhardt: “The Renaissance is characterized by the discovery of the world, and of the individual: This period, as we have seen, first gave the highest development to individuality, and then led the individual to the most zealous and thorough study of himself in all forms and under all conditions.” Civilization of the Italian Renaissance, 303. Étienne Gilson on the authenticity of the correspondence: “When Schmeidler has shown to his own satisfaction that the correspondence of Heloise is apocryphal, he naturally wondered who was its author. His answer is that Abelard wrote it. " Heloise and Abelard, 160. Joseph McCabe quoting Hallam’s criticism of Pope’s poetic rendering of Heloise’s First Letter, that Pope has put “the sentiments of a coarse and abandoned woman into her mouth’ and McCabe agreed in part: “Pope has given a greatly distorted version of [Heloise’s First Letter].” Peter Abelard, 225-6. Otto of Freising: Abelard was “so arrogant and confident of his own genius that he could hardly come out of the exalted heights of his own mind to hear what his masters had to say.” David Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought: The appeal of Abelard arises from his “focus of interest to many...who continue to be fascinated by the hero, or, as perhaps he might more justly be termed, the protagonist in one of the most celebrated dramas of passion in the Western world.” 106 “Abelard and Heloise would have been astonished to be told that they had lived in the Dark Ages.” M.T. Clanchy, Abelard, 17. We must come to terms with Abelard and Heloise. For example, Josef Pieper parrots Gilson, “Before...defining the Middle Ages, [one] must first find a definition of Heloise.” Scholasticism, 77. Perhaps we should include Abelard as well: How might we describe one and the other? Paranoid? Obsessed? Egotistical? Lost in the Ozone? Blinded by love? Blinded by genius? First Modern Couple? Last of the True Lovers? Creative and Original? Traditional and Conservative? |
of higher education, of conflict, love and resolution. Let's turn Abelard's own method on him and Heloise to deal with these questions. As Abelard wrote in the Sic et Non, his 