Introduction

        Abelard’s Sic et Non (ca. 1130) is a ringing declaration of the ‘liberating’ ethos of education.   Universities, Colleges and the Liberal Arts were being invented at that very time in order to free people's minds, and to fix a failing educational system. Abelard's own contribution was so startling, so new, so full of possibilites, that it threatened the authoritarian and tradition-based ruling classes.

        Also popular is Abelard's Autobiography, aptly named, A History of My Calamities.  After his love affair with Heloise was cut short, Abelard became a monk and Heloise a nun.  Both flourished in their separate lives and they continued to write each other.  (Penguin has published a fine volume containing the Autobiography and letters of Abelard and Heloise.)   Their story has been told many times by historians, poets and dramatists, usually with a tragic individualism at the core.

        Sic et Non is a method of uncovering knowledge by debating the 'Yes and No' of any proposition. Like a formal debate, Sic et Non assumes neither position to be more correct than the other. Unlike a formal debate, Abelard did not apply the method with conclusions but simply described it, then invited others to apply it to the most sensitive issues of the day -- clearly, a recipe for trouble in any age!

        The influence of the Sic et Non went beyond Abelard -- even to the Wasatch Front!   As my own father said, “Michael, anyone can create things.   Most of us do, often enough.   But it is better to create tools.   A single new tool can create thousands of new things.  And, a new tool can lead to other new tools....”  It only took me about 35 years to see the wisdom in this –- I hope you find a shortcut!

         One question:  How does Abelard's "Master Key to Wisdom," compare with your own past and present educational experiences? (Do more questions occur?)

Text of   Sic et Non   or   Yes and No 

        There are many differences and obscurities in the various writings of the church fathers.  To find the truth, we should not fear to evaluate these writings.  The obscurities and differences in these authorities may be discussed and explained without challenging their original intentions and abilities....

        Even  St Peter fell into serious error and was publicly corrected by the Apostle Paul [cf. Galatians 2:11ff].  None of them were infallible.  Augustine found himself mistaken in some instances and he retracted his errors publicly.  He warned readers that his writings were certainly not the Gospel truth.   So, we should accept only those things which we examine, and then, find to be true....

       We are free to critique all writings of this type. We should accept none of them unquestioningly.  If we did, it would be a roadblock to all discussion.  Then, future generations would be deprived of the excellent intellectual exercise of debating difficult questions of language and of ideas.  An exception must be made:  In the Bible, when something seems wrong, we should not say that the writer failed, but that some scribe failed in copying the manuscripts correctly, or that there is a mistaken interpretation, or that the passage is misunderstood....

        So, I brought together some writings in order to formulate questions.  These particular writings disagree with each other.  The inconsistencies will motivate students into a careful, acute inquiry of truth, which sharpens minds.  Here is    The Master Key to Wisdom  --   a persistent and frequent questioning.  As Aristotle, that most insightful philosopher, studiously advised:    "It is very difficult to reach confident conclusions without frequent discussion.  To be of a doubting mind can be very useful."   Therefore, by doubting we come to inquiry, and by inquiry, we grasp truth.   [Dubitando enim ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus.]

[note: My translation here, like Robinson's linked below, is loose and contains many ellipses. The hope with such translations is to capture the essence accurately, to present that essence in ways appropriate to modern readers, and to convey the ideas and underlying style in as few words as possible -- truly, an appetizer that might entice readers to carry their own inquiries further, and further. mm]

Second note on the last Latin word above, percipimus: it is an active verb of indicative mood, not subjunctive, so it means (from literal to figurative meanings) to lay hold of , seize; to collect, gather, harvest, gain, to feel, take in, to learn, grasp, understand. To grasp or to understand truth -- veritas -- happens for Abelard through the dialectic. This alone, I think, makes Abelard as 'The Skeptic" untenable.

A longer, more literal, translation;

Robinson's translation -- most widely used;

The original Latin text.

The original impetus of monastic asceticism

The Drive to Know (Kant's Aude Sapere) in Richer

For more on the "Tools of Learning", see the essay by Dorothy Sayers