———. 1969. "Introductiones Parvulorum." In Scritti di logica. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

First edition: V. Cousin, Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard, Paris, 1836, pp. 551-593, contains a partial edition of the glosses on Porphyry and on the Categories.

Full edition in M. Dal Pra, Pietro Abelardo. Scritti di Logica: Introductiones Dialecticae: Editio super Porphyrium, Glossae in Categorías, Editio super Aristotelem de Interpretatione, De Divisionibus..., second edition, 1969, pp. 1-203.

Italian translation: Introductiones Dialecticae: Editio super Porphyrium, pp. 3-42: Pietro Abelardo. I commenti all'Isagoge di Porfirio. Saggio introduttivo, traduzioni, note e apparati a cura di Simona Pollini, Milano-Udine: Mimesis 2022, testo latino pp. 177-215; traduzione italiana pp. 217-273.

Doubts on the authorship:

"Peter Abelard’s first known glosses on Isagoge, Categories, On interpretation and On division – variously referred to as the « Editiones », the « Introductiones parvulorum », or literal commentaries – were supposedly written very early in his career, probably around 1102-1104 when he was in his early twenties. Originally discovered by V. Cousin (1836, p. X-XVIII), they are found in the manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 13368, f. 128r-168r, and are edited by M. Dal Pra (1969, 1954¹). The title « Introductiones parvulorum » was given on the basis of an alleged cross-reference in Abelard’s Dialectica to such a work; as we will see, this reference is no longer accepted by scholars. Since, as will be argued here, there are important reasons to question whether these glosses form a set, and whether the attribution to Abelard is correct, I will use the neutral « editiones » to refer to them." Margaret Cameron, "Abelard’s Early Glosses: Some Questions", in Irène Rosier-Catach (éd.), Arts du langage et théologie aux confins des XIe et XIIe siècles, Torunhout: Brepols 2011, p. 647)

(...)

"Possibly none of the questions raised in this article on its own is sufficient to overturn the attribution, but taken together they raise serious difficulties for anyone who wishes to continue to defend that the editiones were written by Abelard. There do, however, seem to be extremely good reasons to break up the set of the editiones by excluding the gloss on Categories from the rest: unlike the others, it is an anonymous fragment, different in style and has required a special defence for its inclusion in the set. In what follows, I will examine each of the five pieces of evidence. I will argue that there are insufficient reasons to continue to attribute these works to Abelard or to consider that they form a set.(1)" (Margaret Cameron, op. cit., p. 648)

(1) In « A note on the Attribution of the Literal Glosses in Paris, BnF, lat. 13368 », Christopher Martin will examine the doctrinal content of the Isagoge, On interpretation and On division glosses and compare it with views Abelard is known to espouse elsewhere in his writings.

"Despite Bernhard Geyer’s well considered and very cautious admission of the glosses found in BnF, lat. 13668, into the canon of Peter Abaelard’s work there has until now been no systematic investigation of the merits of their claim for inclusion there." Christopher J. Martin, "A Note on the Attribution of the Literal Glosses(1) in Paris, BnF, lat. 13368 to Peter Abaelard", in Irène Rosier-Catach (éd.), Arts du langage et théologie aux confins des XIe et XIIe siècles, Torunhout: Brepols 2011, p. 605.

(...)

"I could go on to give more examples of the way in which the Literal Glosses fail to agree and fail to offer any trace of the philosophical positions set out by Abaelard in his Dialectic and his Logics but at this point I think that I have shown enough to at least raise very considerable doubt about the authorship of these texts. For myself, I was convinced as soon as I began to read the Literal Glosses that they are not the work of the great Peripatetic of Pallet. He was the greatest star of his day and, as Geyer surely saw, they are the product of a very much lesser light." Christopher J. Martin, op. cit., p. 646)
———. 1969. "Glossae in Categorias." In Scritti di logica, edited by Dal Pra, Mario, 43–67. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Introductiones dialecticae (Introductiones parvulorum) II.

"The Gloss on the Categories

Abelard continues his theme that logica is concerned with words rather than things in his gloss on the Categories, which he describes as dealing with “the names of all things and subjects, in whatever ways.”(26) He considers the distinction between categories “more according to the meaning of words than according to the natures of things.”(27) Aristotle had opened the Categories by discussing three types of name: equivocal or ambiguous, univocal or common, and denominative (as in grammaticus, so named from grammatica).

As part of his comment on ambiguity, Boethius had observed rather briefly that ambiguity had to be distinguished from metaphor (translatio), unless it named distinct subject things (subiectae res).

Abelard seizes on Boethius’s comment that “metaphor is not a property” to emphasize that metaphor is a type of linguistic usage. Boethius had argued that some metaphorical usages are ambiguous, as when a word such as “charioteer” (auriga), which normally refers to one thing, is transferred to another thing, such as the captain of a ship. Abelard develops this comment to explain that words have a distinct meaning through metaphor (per translationem)." (Constant C. Mews, Abelard and Heloise, New York: Oxford University Press 2005, pp. 85-86)
———. 1969. "Editio super Aristotelem De interpretatione." In Scritti di logica, edited by Dal Pra, Mario, 69–154. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Introductiones dialecticae (Introductiones parvulorum) III.
———. 1969. "Super Topica glossae." In Scritti di logica, edited by Dal Pra, Mario, 205–330. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Logica 'ingredientibus' VII.

The commentary from Logica Ingredientibus on Boethius De topicis differentiis.

New edition: Karin Margareta Fredborg, "Abelard on Rhetoric", in Constant J. Mews, Cary J. Nederman, Rodney M. Thomson (eds.), Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100-1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Ward, Turnhout: Brepols 2003, pp. 55-80 (text on pp. 65-80).

"Even if the Arsenal manuscript can only supply us with roughly half of this digression on rhetoric, it is most welcome to have a second copy of a text otherwise only preserved in a single manuscript that, despite its orderly appearance, presents difficulties to the modem reader and editor. Still worse, Abelard’s commentary survives only as a torso. His commentary on most of Books II and in is missing in MS Paris, BnF lat. 7493, fols 168ra-183vb (s. XII).(9) The commentary on De differentiis topicis is probably from around 1120(10) and Abelard is clearly still engaged in an ongoing discussion with his former teacher, William of Champeaux {preceptor noster Willelmus eiusque sequaces), explicitly so in the section immediately following this digression on rhetoric." (p. 58)

(9) Super topica, pp. 205-330; Green-Pedersen, The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages. The Commentaries on Aristotle’s and Boethius’ ‘Topics’ (Munich: Philosophia, 1984), p. 41., p. 424. The text breaks off in the gloss on Book Il, PL 64,1184A.

(10) Green-Pedersen, Tradition of the Topics, p. 424; Mews, ‘‘On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard’, Archives d ’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 52 (1985), 73-134 p. 91 and ‘Aspects of the Evolution of Abelard’s Thought on Signification and Predication’, Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains, ed. by Jean Jolivet and Alain de Libera (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1987), pp. 15-41 (pp. 15, 25); John O. Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric in Treatise, Scholion and Commentaries, Turnhout: Brepols 1995, p. 109; John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 46-48.

"Edition

I have used the manuscript P = MS Paris, BnF lat. 7493 as my main manuscript, partly because it preserves the full text of the digression, and partly because A = MS Paris, Arsenal 910, is obviously abbreviating certain sections, particularly towards the end. A, however, occasionally supplies a better reading, as can be seen from the apparatus; all variants are indicated, except trivial details of word order and A often preferring ‘scilicet’ for P ’s ‘videlicet’, ‘id est’ for ‘hoc est’. Dal Pra followed P with a few conjectures. Where Dal Pra’s readings of P differ from my own, this is also indicated in the apparatus except for trivial misprints and misreadings ( ‘vero’ for P’s ‘ut’ in §1.2). However, Dal Pra’s insistance on lectio difficilior in the technical terminology of ‘constitutio’ and ‘iudicatio’, preferring ‘constructio’ and ‘indicio’ I have not followed. The word order and orthography follows P with its occasional use of c for t and e caudata (=ae); A never makes use of e caudata and, very occasionally, has a different word order. (p. 61(
———. 1969. "Editio super Porphyrium." In Scritti di logica, edited by Dal Pra, Mario, 3–42. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Introductiones dialecticae (Introductiones parvulorum) I.
———. 1969. "De divisionibus." In Scritti di logica, edited by Dal Pra, Mario, 155–204. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Introductiones dialecticae (Introductiones parvulorum): IV. Gloss on Boethius De divisione.

Date of composition: "One of the earliest known writings of Peter Abelard (possibly a text taken down from spoken commentary) is a set of short “literal” glosses on the Isagoge of Porphyry, the Categories and Periermeneias of Aristotle and the De divisione of Boethius. In the one manuscript in which they occur, Paris, Bibl. nat. lat. 13368, ff. 128-167v (s. xii), the glosses on Porphyry and Aristotle are each described as an Editio, perhaps in imitation of the commentaries of Boethius(6). Because Abelard is more concerned to expose the literal meaning of the text than his own opinion on individual questions of logic, these glosses are believed to date to an early period of his career, between 1102 (when he first started teaching at Corbeil) and 1113-14 (date of his return to Notre-Dame)(7). The brevity of his comment on the passage of the Isagoge about genus and species, which he used as a point of departure for his debate with William of Champeaux on the nature of universals, would suggest that this gloss was composed before the disputation, that is before 1108-9(8)." (Constant J. Mews, "On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard", Archives d'Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age, 60, 1986, pp. 74-75)

(6) There is no title to the gloss on the Categories (of which the beginning and end is missing), but one can assume it would have been titled Editio by analogy with the accompanying glosses on the Isagoge and Periermeneias. That the gloss on Boethius is titled De divisionibus in the MS, not Editio, may be a deliberate choice, reflecting a desire not to place Boethius on the same level as the other authors. The gloss on the De differentiis topicis (not part of the literal glosses), is simply titled super Thopica glose (see below n. 14).

(7) Dal Pra, Scriiti di logica, pp. xv-xvi.

(8) Ed. sup. Por. 5-6; cf. Hist. Cal. 70-100. On the chronology of Abelard’s early career, see R.-H. Bautier, Abélard en son temps, [Paris : Les Belles lettres , 1981] p. 54 (21-77).
———. 1956. Dialectica. Assen: Van Gorcum.

First edition: The Dialectica was edited incompletely for the first time by Victor Cousin in Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard, Paris 1836, pp. 173-497.

First complete edition of the Parisian manuscript with an introduction by L.M. De Rijk (Introduction CVI pages; Text pages 51-637); second revised edition 1970 (Introduction CXII; Text pages 51-669).

The beginning (and the end?) of the text is missing: "Nevertheless I commence the text on p. 51, in the case someone should be fortunate enough to find it [the beginning]" (De Rijk, note 3, p XIII).

Contents of the Introduction: 1. Peter Abailard. Life. Works on logic IX; 2. Abailard's Dialectica. The manuscript. Sources. 3. Masters mentioned in the Dialectica. Date of the Dialectica XII; 4. The content of the Dialectica XXV; 5. Inference. Consequence. Syllogism XXXI; 6. Categorical proposition. Terms. Copula. Identity theory. Inherence theory XXXVI; 7. Hypothetical proposition. Implication. Conjunction. Disjunction XLIII; 8. Supposition XLIX; 9. Truth and falsity LI; 10. Affirmation. Negation. Signum quantitatis LV; 11. Modal propositions LIX; 12. Categorical syllogism LXIII; 13. Hypothetical syllogism LXVIII; 14. Argumentation. Kinds. Locus differentia. Maxima propositio LXXV; 15. Division. Kinds. Definition. Kinds LXXXV; 16 Abailard's position in twelfth century logic. Dialecticians and Anti-dialecticians. Nominalism and Realism. The question of the universals LXXXIX; Books and Articles referred to XCV-XCVII.

"Aristotle deals with the use of speech, Abailard says (Log. Nostr. petit., 508, 32--509, 8), in his Categories, De Interpretatione and Topics, and with argumentations in his Prior and Posterior Analytics (1): Porphyry wrote an introduction to the first-mentioned treatise. Thus, the scheme of his own Dialectica is obvious: he first treats of the parts of speech (partes orationis): tractatus I; next the categorical propositions and syllogisms are dealt with: tractatus II; the treatment of the hypothetical propositions and syllogisms (tractatus IV) is preceded by that of the topics (tractatus III); the author ends his work with a treatise on division and definition: tractatus V." p. XXV.

(1) Abailard's description of the Aristotelian treatises is not wholly correct.

Date of composition: "The Dialectica is, from all the indications, a work from the first part of Abelard’s career, quite probably written before Abelard became a monk in 1117, and very probably before LI [Logica Ingredientibus] was put together, although it draws on an earlier form of the same teaching material.(113)" (p. 41)

(113) Constant Mews (1985b, 74–104) attacked earlier views, which placed Dial., or at least its final revision, in the 1130s or later. He placed the work before LI but after Abelard became a monk. Most scholars accepted his arguments, at least in so far as they established that Dial. should not be dated after LI. I argued (Marenbon 1997a, 40–43) that Mews’s dating should be pushed back even a little further, to before 1117, and Mews now (2005a, 259 n. 2 to ch. 3) accepts my view, at least for most of the work, proposing a dating between 1112 and 1117/18 (2005, 43); Chris Martin suggests an even earlier dating, in which he is ‘beginning work on the final sections of Dial. around 1112’ (2011, 622). For the historiography of dating Dial., see Marenbon 1997a, 40 n. 16.

References

Marenbon, J. 1997a. The Philosophy of Peter Abelard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, C. J. 2011. ‘A Note on the Attribution of the Literal Glosses in Paris, BNF, lat. 13368 to Peter Abelard’. In Rosier-Catach 2011, 605–46.

Mews, C. J. 1985b. ‘On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard’. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 52:73–134. Reprinted in Mews 2001.

———. 2001. Abelard and His Legacy. Aldershot: Variorum.

———2005a. Abelard and Heloise. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosier-Catach, I. ed. 2011. Arts du langage et théologie aux confins des XIe-XIIe siècles: Textes, maîtres, débats. Studia artistarum 26. Turnhout: Brepols.
———. 1919. Die Logica "Ingredientibus". 1. Glossae super Porphyrium. Edited by Geyer, Bernhard, Peter Abaelards Philosophische Schriften. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Logica 'ingredientibus' I. The commentary from Logica Ingredientibus on Porphyry's Isagoge.

Date of composition of the Logica Ingredientibus: (c. 1119, though some scholars believe that the sections on On Interpretation and De topicis differentiis might be later).

"Not long after he had finished the Dialectica, Abelard was busy preparing another comprehensive logical work - this time in the form of commentaries - based on similar material. When Abelard took up teaching logic again a little while after he entered St Denis, he probably used much the same material as he had done in Paris, but with some revision and development. This was probably what he wrote up, between about 1118 and 1120, for his new work. The Logica survives in rather less complete form than the Dialectica, and what remains must be reconstructed from three different manuscripts.(36)" John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997, p. 46)

(...)

"Despite this messy transmission, there is every reason to consider the Logica an integral work, conceived as a whole (though showing some small developments in thought during its course). Abelard has reworked his lectures carefully. His language is well chosen and usually elegant; and he is more selective here than in the Dialectica, excluding discussions of secondary importance in order to set out the main issues clearly. The surviving parts of it may give a slightly misleading impression of the Logica. From the length of the opening portion, the commentary on De topicis dtfferentiis seems as though it would have been very long. If the rest of it and the commentary on De syllogismis hypotheticis had not been lost, the emphasis of the Logica might seem much the same as that of the Dialectica. All the same, there is no denying that Abelard's interest in the wider philosophical questions raised by logic is deeper here than in the earlier work." (John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, p. 47)

(36) The commentaries on the Isagoge (= sup.Por.), Categories (= sup.Pred.) and De interpretatione {— sup.Per.) - from the Milan manuscript only, with the inauthentic ending, are edited in Phil. Schr., 1-3 (Munster, 1919-27) (BGPMA 21). The authentic ending of the De interpretatione commentary {sup.Per (M)) is edited in Minio-Paluello, Twelfth-century logic, pp. 3-108 (all these are Checklist §294). The De differentiis topicis commentary (= sup.Top.; Checklist §307) is edited in dal Pra, Scritti, pp. 205-330. Most scholars describe this set of commentaries as his Logica Ingredientibus (from the opening: 'Ingredientibus nobis logicam ...') in order to distinguish it from his later commentary on Porphyry, which they call the Logica Nostrorum Petitioni Sociorum. But since, as I shall argue, it is more accurate to call this later work the Glossulae, the simple title Logica will be used here without danger of confusion.

"The reason why the Logica can be dated firmly to 1121 or before lies in its relation to Abelard's first version of the Theologia, the Theologia Summi Boni, which was condemned at the Council of Soissons in March 1121." (John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, p. 48)

English translations:

"The Glosses of Peter Abailard on Porphyry", in Richard McKeon (ed.), Selections from Medieval Philosophers, London: Charles Scribners & Sons 1929, pp, 208-258 (translation of pp. 1-32).

"On Universals", in John F. Wippel, Allan B. Wolter (eds.), Medieval Philosophy: From St. Augustine to Nicholas of Cusa, New York: The Free Press 1969, pp. 190-203 (translation of pp. 7-30)

"From the “Glosses on Porphyry" in His Logica ‘ingredientibus’ ", in P. V. Spade (ed.), Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals, Hackett: Indianapolis 1994, pp. 26–56 (translation of pp. 7.25-32.12)

Italian translation: Pietro Abelardo. I commenti all'Isagoge di Porfirio. Saggio introduttivo, traduzioni, note e apparati a cura di Simona Pollini, Milano-Udine: Mimesis 2022, testo latino pp. 275-393; traduzione italiana pp. 395-558.
———. 1921. "Die Logica "Ingredientibus". 2. Die Glossen zu den Kategorien." In Peter Abaelards Philosophische Schriften, edited by Geyer, Bernhard, 111–305. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Logica 'ingredientibus' II. The commentary from Logica Ingredientibus on Aristotle's Categories.
———. 1933. "Die Logica "Ingredientibus". 3. Die Glossen zu Περί ἑρμηνείας." In Peter Abaelards Philosophische Schriften, edited by Geyer, Bernhard, 307–503. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Logica 'ingredientibus' II. The commentary on Aristotle's De iterpretatione (Peri hermeneias).

English translation: An abbreviated part is translated in H. Arens, Aristotle’s Theory of Language and Its Tradition: Texts from 500 to 1750, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984, pp. 231–302.
———. 1933. "Aus den anonymen Glossen des Cod. Ambr. M. 64 sup. Untersuchungen." In Peter Abaelards Philosophische Schriften, edited by Geyer, Bernhard, 581–588. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung.
———. 1933. "Die Logica "Nostrorum Petitioni Sociorum". Die Glossen zu Porphyrius." In Peter Abaelards Philosophische Schriften, edited by Geyer, Bernhard, 505–580. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung.

The Logic that begins with the words: At the request of our friends or Little Glosses on Porphyry Isagoge.

Date of composition circa 1125.

Italian translation: Pietro Abelardo. I commenti all'Isagoge di Porfirio. Saggio introduttivo, traduzioni, note e apparati a cura di Simona Pollini, Milano-Udine: Mimesis 2022, testo latino pp. 559-629; traduzione italiana pp. 631-728.
Jacobi, Klaus, and Strub, Christian, eds. 2010. Petrus Abaelardus. Glossae super Peri hermeneias. Turnhout: Brepols.

Vol. I: Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 206 (2010).

Critical edition with introduction and notes.

Table of Contents: Introduction IX; 1. Literature on the Text of the Glossae super Peri hermeneias IX; 2. The Two Manuscripts XIII; 3. Aristotle’s Text, Abelard’s Commentary, and Abelard’s Systematic Extended Analyses XXXVII; 4. The Text of Abelard’s Lecture and the Copies LIII; 5. The Dating of the Commentary and its Relationship to Abelard’s Other Logical Writings LXIII; 6. On the Vol. 1Edition LXV; 7. Acknowledgments LXXIII; Appendix I: A Complete List for albus / animal - Occurrences LXXV; Appendix II: A Complete List of the Accidental Transpositions XXXI; Appendix III: Concordance to Older Editions XCI.

Summary: "In 1927, this substantial commentary was edited by Bernhard Geyer. The edition was based on the only manuscript of the text then known to scholarship (Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana M 63 sup., fols. 45r-72r). In 1938, Martin Grabmann discovered a second manuscript of the work (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, lat. fol 624, fols. 97r-146r). As Lorenzo Minio-Paluello has shown, the final part of Abaelard’s text, which includes the long excursus on modal logic and the commentary on chapters 12-14, is accurately preserved only in this second manuscript. He edited this final part in 1958.[*]"

[*] Lorenzo Minio-Paluello, Abaelardiana inedita. Vol. 1. super Periermenias XII-XIV; 2. Sententie secundum M. Petrum, Roma, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1958.

"The following assumptions appear plausible for the Glossae super Perihermeneias on the basis of the present state of scholarship:(140) The work was written circa 1118 - 1120, after Abelard had become a monk in St. Denis.(141) In the years 1121 - 1127, in which Abelard lived in the “Paraclete” Oratorium, which soon became a school, he again gave lectures on logic for his students and adherents. One can conjecture that the text was revised at this time and expanded through new extended analyses. In the 1130’s Abelard was in Paris, and there at Mont Ste Geneviève he not only gave lectures on theology, but also, as he had done before, lectures on logic as well.(142) But by this time his main interests lay with theology and there are indications - particularly given by the commentary on On Interpretation - that in his lectures on logic he relied upon knowledge gained earlier and no longer worked out anything new.(143)" (Introduction, p. LXIV)

(140) See J. Marenbon, [The philosophy of Peter Abelard, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997] 36-53.

(141) See ibid., 46; 48.

(142) Compare ibid. 51-52.

(143) A central argument for this claim is the cursory manner in which Abelard refers in his commentary, cap. 6, 1.481-485, to the Aristotelian text of the Sophistical Refutations. In the 1130’s this text was the center of the logicians’ burning interest. Abelard obviously no longer takes the trouble to attain the level of the new scholarship. See L. M. de Rijk, Logica Modemorum I (cfr. note 14 supra), Appendix F 3, A fragment of the Perihermeneias-commentary from MS Berlin, Lat. Fol. 624; 620,27-29: Dicit Magister Petrus: “Legi et relegi Elencos; sophisma univocationis non inveni." Respondet Magister Albericus: “Bene dixisti quod non invenisti, quia non intellexisti." On this topic compare L. M. de Rijk, ibid., 60; 123; J. Marenbon, The philosophy of Peter Abelard (cfr. note 3 supra), 52-53.
Peter, Abelard. 1958. "Glosse Super Periermenias XII-XIV." In Twelfth Century Logic: Texts and Studies. Vol II: Abelardiana inedita, edited by Minio-Paluello, Lorenzo, 1–108. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.

"The present volume contains an edition of two logical texts - one certainly and the other probably by Abailard - which have not been published in print before now.(1)

The first - a section of Abailard's longer commentary on Aristotle's De interpretatione, now usually known as the third part of the Logica "Ingredientibus" - was discovered about twenty years ago by the late Martin Grabmann.(2)

The second, consisting of two sections apparently extracted from one or two otherwise lost works by Abailard (?), was seen and mentioned, though not ascribed to this author, by Bernhard Geyer(3)." (Introduction, p. XI)

(1) No other unpublished logical work ascribed to Abailard are known to exist. There are, however. a number of references to and quotations from logical writings of Abailard in unpublished texts; see e.g., below, p. XLI, and Grabmann's paper mentioned in the next note. It is possible that one or more works in cod. Orleans 266 (see below, pp. XLII-XLVI) belong to him.

(2) M. Grabmann, Kornmentare zu aristotelischen Logik aus dem 12. und 13. Jahrundert in MS lat. fol. 624 der Preusslichen Staatsbibliothek in Berlin (" Sitzungsb. d. Preuss.. Akad. d. Wissenscli." 1938, pp. 185-210).

(3) B. Geyer, Peter Abaelards Philosophische Schriften, IV, Münster 1933 (".Beitr. z. Gcsch. d. Philos. u. Theol d. Mittealt." XXL .4), p. 595 n. 3.

(...)

"Summary of the commentary on Chapters XII-XIV

The first text printed in the present volume contains the whole of Abailard's commentary on De interpretatione XII-XIV. Since A breaks off about half way through Abailard's introduction to chapters XII-XIV, our edition has a portion in common with Geyer's edition (pp. 483.30-497.20 = 3.1-29.1;). The numbers in square brackets to be found in the following summary refer to the paragraphs into which we have divided the text.

The commentary on the three chapters includes: I. a treatise on modal propositions, introductory to chapters XII and XIII; II. the commentary on these two chapters, in whim Aristotle deals with some problems arising out of modal propositions; III. the commentary on chapter XIV concerning contrary propositions." (Introduction, p. XXII)
———. 1933. "Glosae super librum Porphyrii secundo vocalem." In Testi medioevali inediti. Fontes Ambrosiani, III, edited by Ottaviano, Carmelo, 107–207. Firenze: Olschki.

"In the same year as Geyer produced his edition of LNP [Logica ‘Nostrorum Petitioni’] and two fragments of the Glossae, Carmelo Ottaviano published a complete edition of the latter work and argued that they were written by Abelard himself(9). Ottaviano based his argument on the close similarity both of the ideas and the text itself of the Glossae to those of LI [Logica “ingredientibus]; he did not, however, take into account the fact that there were other parallels between the Glossae and LNP. The intention of this study is to investigate the conflicting claims of Ottaviano and Geyer about the authorship of these Glossae secundum vocales and to establish their textual relationship to the known writings of Peter Abelard." (Constant J. Mews, "A neglected gloss on the «Isagoge» by Peter Abelard", Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Theologie, 31, 1984, p. 36)

(...)

""Conclusion

This study has been concerned with the close relationships, both textual and thematic, between the anonymous Glossae secundum vocales, found in the Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana MS. M. 63 sup., ff. 73ra-81vb, and various known writings of Abelard on logic and theology.

These anonymous glosses seem to represent a revision made by Abelard of his Logica ’Ingredientibus’, while they appear to have been themselves revised in the Logica ’Nostrorum petitioni sociorum’.
———. 1992. "Notae Super Porphyrium." Traditio no. 47:100–102.

Notae super Porphyrium. Second Appendix to Yukio Iwakuma, "Vocales, or Early Nominalists", Traditio, 47, 1992, pp. 37-111.
———. 1993. Des intellections [Tractatus de intellectibus]. Paris: Vrin.

Critical edition, French translation and commentary by Patrick Morin.

"This piece—apparently from a larger treatise—is attributed to Abelard in its only manuscript, and it has many very close parallels with LI [Logica Ingredientibus] (both the commentary on the Isagoge and especially that on On Interpretation) and some with LNPS [Logica nosatrorum petitioni sociorum](102). It does not seem, though, to be a compilation, since it gives a more thorough and nuanced treatment of the

workings of the mind and its relation to language and reality than is found in any other known work of Abelard’s.(103) The passages shared with it might, indeed, strengthen the case that LNPS is by Abelard,

but they are all from the discussion of universals, which is the part of the commentary which seems in any case to be most clearly Abelardian, though perhaps as recorded by a student." John Marenbon, Abelard in Four Dimensions, Notre Dame: Indiana University Press 2013, p. 38.

Date of composition: (probably c. 1122–25)

First editions:

Victor Cousin, Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard (1836).

Lucia Urbani Ulivi, La psicologia di Abelardo e il "Tractatus de intellectibus", Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura 1976, pp. 103-127.

Abelard's theological works

Buytaert, Eligius, Luscombe, David E., Barrow, Julia, Burnett, Charles S. F., Keats-Rohan, Katharine, Mews , Constant J., and Romig, Mary Foster, eds. 2014. Petrus Abaelardus. Opera theologica. Turnhout: Brepols.

Three volumes.

This set of three volumes includes the complete text of Peter Abelard'stheological works as published in Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis volumes 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 190.
Peter, Abelard. 1987. "Theologia 'summi boni'." In Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica III. Theologia 'summi boni'. Theologia 'scholarium', edited by Buytaert, Eligius and Mews, Constant J., 83–201. Turnhout: Brepols.

TSum = Theologia ‘Summi boni’ in both redactions.

Date of composition: c. 1120.

"Of all the theological writings produced in France in the first half of the twelfth century, none became quite so controversial as the Theologia of Peter Abaelard. An early version, the Theologia ‘Summi boni’, was burnt at the council of Soissons in March/April 1121. A much revised version, the Theologia 'Scholarium", was harshly criticized by Bernard of Clairvaux at the council of Sens, 2 June 1140, and earned its author temporary excommunication by Pope Innocent II. The reputation which the Theologia gained among Abaelard's contemporaries has tended to cloud understanding of the work itself.

Abaelard's principal intention in the Theologia is to present rational analogies and arguments which illuminate the Christian doctrine of God as a trinity of divine persons co-existing in a unity of essence. His central theme, supported by the authority of the Old Testament and of classical philosophy, is that ‘Father’, 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit' are names which signify different properties or attributes in God: his power, his wisdom and his benignity or goodness towards creation. The relationship between the three persons of the Trinity can be compared, he argues, to that between these three attributes. Implicit to his approach is an assumption that God reveals himself through human reason and that through rational reflection man can gain some understanding of his Creator.

While his argument from authority remained substantially unchanged through every version of the Theologia, his philosophical argument underwent continuous modification, not least in the face of the controversy which it aroused. His critics assumed that he was implying that the Son and Holy Spirit did not share fully in the omnipotence of the Father. Abaelard's response was to insist that he was formulating analogies rather than definitions of the Trinity, whose true identity could never be adequately captured in human speech." (p. 15, a note omiited)

ìtalian translation: Pietro Abelardo, Teologia del sommo bene, testo latino a fronte, a cura di Marco Rossini, Milano: Rusconi 1996.

French translation: Abélard, Du bien suprême, Paris: Vrin 1978.
———. 1969. "Theologia christiana." In Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica II. Theologia christiana. Theologia scholarium (recensiones breviores). Capitula haeresum Petri Abaelardi, edited by Buytaert, Eligius, 69–372. Turnhout: Brepols.

TChr = Theologia Christiana in all its forms.

Date of composition: (c.1122-26).

"The Theologia Christiana has been published, more or less completely, three times. The editio princeps is of E. Marténe and U. Durand, Thesaurus nouus anecdotorum, t. V, Paris, 1717, col. 1139-1156 (Introduction of Marténe), and 1155-1360 (text of Abelard). Marténe used the only codex known to him, viz. the one of Marmoutiers-Tours, and consequently the end of the work is missing. The editor erroneously completed TChr in a few instances. We saw that to the annotations of TChr belong parallel texts copied from TSch and indicated with some sort of an incipit and explicit only. When Marténe discovered the abbreviated parallel texts, he did not hesitate to fill the gap between the incipit and explicit by copying from the Theologia 'Scholarium' as edited by Duchesne.

The deficiencies of the edition are mainly a consequence of the fact that it is based upon only one manuscript, and then a codex in which Abelard's annotations were joined to the work according to three or four different systems. Marténe did not,— or simply could not, under the circumstances,—understand the riddle of the annotations of TChr. He even complicated the problem by omitting practically all the annotations which had been written in the margin of T, and by assigning the wrong place to a section which was already in a poor state in T, namely V, 28-35 with their annotations.

J. P. Migne, PL 178, Paris, 1855, col. 1113-1124 (Introduction of Marténe), and 1123-1330 (text of Abelard), gave a rather faithful reproduction of the editio princeps. Even the material disposition of the annotations is an imitation of Marténe. Thus Migne did not add to the confusion.

The third edition was due to V. Cousin and C. Jourdain, Petri Abaelardi opera hactenus seorsim edita, t. IL, Paris, 1859, p. 357-566 (main text as in Marténe), and p. 804-809 (fragments)." (pp. 23-24)

"TChr, then, is an original work on God triune. In its fundamental inspiration it is more ‘Christian’ than some more recent theological text-books, which in their “Tractatus de Deo uno’ seem to forget entirely that Blessed Trinity does exist. TChr is a ‘theology’ in the patristic sense of the word.

But so are TSum and TSch. Hence, the relationship between the three works must be considered. Before this is done, let it be mentioned that later in this Introduction it will beproved that TChr chronologically follows upon the second redaction of TSum, but precedes the first redaction of tsch, and that at least some annotations of the last redaction of TChr depend upon the third redaction of TSch." (p. 28)

English translation: abbreviated translation by J. R. McCallum, Abelard’s Christian Theology, Merrick, NY: Richwood 1948 (reprinted 1976).
———. 1987. "Theologia 'Scholarium'." In Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica III. Theologia 'summi boni'. Theologia 'scholarium', edited by Buytaert, Eligius and Mews, Constant J., 309–549. Turnhout: Brepols.

tsch = Theologia ‘Scholarium’, the two short redactions.

TSch = Theologia ‘Scholarium’, third, third annotated, and fourth redactions.

Date of composition: first redaction before 1130.

"The version of the Theologia most familiar to Peter Abaelard's contemporaries was the Theologia ‘Scholarium’ — also known as the Introductio ad theologiam or simply as the Theologia, the title used by Abaelard himself. (!) Attitudes to the work varied greatly. Peter Lombard quoted from it extensively (without acknowledgement) in his IV Libri sententiarum. Bernard of Clairvaux judged it to be a viper's nest of heretical doctrine.

In order to arrive at a balanced judgement of the Theologia ‘Scholarium’, it is clearly necessary to understand what Abaelard was trying to achieve in this version of his treatise. The Theologia ‘Scholarium’ contains Abaelard's most mature reflections on the nature of the Trinity and of God's action in the world. It deserves to be studied as such.

I. The work

Abaelard's principal intention in the Teología ‘Scholarium’ is to place discussion of God as a trinity of persons within the context of the faith through which human salvation can be attained. He opens the work with summary definitions of faith, charity and sacrament, the three elements which he identifies as essential to salvation. While all three need to be discussed (L 9: *de singulis diligentius agendum est"), he concentrates in the Theologia ‘Scholarium’ on faith, “the foundation of all good things", in the divine nature.

(...)

The second book of TSch opens with a long defence of Christian study of pagan writers. Abaelard appeals to the 'authority of Augustine, Jerome and Gregory, against those who use these very same authors to deprecate interest in secular wisdom (II, 1-60). He justifies the writing of a treatise about Christian faith by pointing to the many doubts and questions which the Fathers had failed to answer (II, 61).

(...)

Abaelard's major new argument in book two of the Theologia ‘Scholarium" is a suggestion that the Trinity is like the bronze seal.

The three divine persons are related to each other in the same way as are the attributes of being bronze (es), of being a thing able to seal (sigillabile) and of sealing (sigillans) in a bronze seal. This analogy has the advantage of illustrating as well the operation of divine grace. God stamps his image on man in the way that a king stamps his image onto wax. As in earlier versions of the Theologia, Abaelard holds that men and women can gain some rational understanding of the trinitarian nature of God, even if they can never comprehend it fully, through reflection on the divine power, wisdom and goodness manifest in the world.

In the third book Abaelard reflects further on the nature of God as the supreme good and as the rational basis to all creation (III, 1-17). He then analyses what is meant by God's omnipotence (18-82), his wisdom (83-116) and his goodness (117-120) in relationship to what happens in the world, above all in relation to the mystery of evil. Abaelard is convinced that there is a reason for all things, even if this reason seems to be impenetrable to human understanding." (pp. .203-204)

(1) The title Theologia ‘Scholarium’ was coined by H. Ostendler, Die Teología ‘Scholarium’ des Peter Abaelards, in Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters, BGPTMA, Supplementband 3.1, 1935, p. 263-81. Hitherto it had been known as the Introductio ad theologiam, the title applied by Duchesne in 1616; see above, p. 18-19.
———. 1969. "Theologia scholarium (recensiones breviores)." In Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica II. Theologia christiana. Theologia scholarium (recensiones breviores). Capitula haeresum Petri Abaelardi, edited by Buytaert, Eligius, 401–451. Turnhout: Brepols.

"The relations between TChr and tsch-TSch are quite different. First, tsch which corresponds to the Prologue and Book I, 1-126 of TSch, copied irregularly TChr I, 6-37, much more regularly I, 38-70 ; it took some stray elements from TChr II-IV, altogether not more than parts of six paragraphs.

As to TSch I, it was copied irregularly from TChr I, 6-37, more regularly from I, 38-136; substantial sections of TChr II-IV are to be found in TSch II, namely TChr II, 1-13 and 117-125, TChr III, 119-142, and TChr IV, 116-160. Of the same Books II-IV loose elements are to be found in TSch Prologue, and Book I. TChr V, 1-30 corresponds to TSch III, 1-29, but from there on both works go their own way. TSch, consequently, treated TChr rather freely, and by liberating itself largely from TChr III-IV, it is also quite independent of TSum II-III." (p. 28)
———. 1969. "Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos." In Opera Theologica. I. Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos; Apologia contra Bemardum, edited by Buytaert, Eligius, 41–340. Turnhout: Brepols.

"Nature of the Work

'The Commentary is divided into a Prologue and four Books.

The division into Books is rather artificial. Compared to the modern division of the Epistle to the Romans, the Commentary proper is divided as follows:

Lib. I = Rom. I, 1 - III, 18

Lib. II = Rom. III, 19 - VI, 18;

Lib. III = Rom. VI, 19 - IX, 5;

Lib. IV = Rom. IX 6 - XVI 27:

The Commentary of Abelard is a literal interpretation of the Epistle as it was understood in those days, but with a good many theological or theologico-exegetical questions interspersed. The originality of the Commentary resides more in the questions inserted than in its exegesis proper." (p. 16)

Date of composition: (1134-1138) "In summary, then, the Commentary was composed after Sermon III, after Epist. VII, and after the third redaction of the Theologia ‘Scholarium’. Some of the additions to Comm. Rom., at least, presuppose Sermon XXIV. On the other hand, the Commentary has been written before TSch III, 106-120 (the oldest section composed for the fourth redaction of the Theologia 'Scholarium'), and consequently, before the first draft of the Ethica, which presupposes the existence of TSch III, 106-120; moreover, the Comm. Rom. explicitly refers to the Ethica as to a work still in the planning stage. The Commentary was also composed before the Liber sententiarum attributed to Abelard, since this last work copied from the Comm. Rom. Possibly between the Liber and the Commentary the composition of the Tropologia took place." (p. 36)

(...)

"...we must conclude that the Commentary was redacted not later than 1137, and after the full third redaction of the Theologia ‘Scholarium’ I-III." (p. 37)

First editions: "Of the Commentary there are three complete editions, but the last two depend solely on the first, and not directly on one or more manuscripts, not even on the manuscript of the editio princeps. They are:

1. A. Duchesne uel F. D’Amboise, Petri Abaelardi... opera, Paris, 1616, pp. 491-725. The editio princeps is really the work of Duchesne alone, as stated by both Duchesne and d’Amboise (21), and it was based on one manuscript only: the lost codex of Mont-Saint-Michel." (p. 14)

(...)

"2. J. P. Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. CLXXVIII, Paris, 1855, col. 783A-978D. Migne reproduced the editio princeps, with the following changes. He adapted the spellings to the system of the Patrologia; the marginal notes of Duchesne were either introduced into the text (references to the chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; a few corrections proposed — and printed — by Duchesne), or became footnotes; others (the marginal notes of the manuscript) were omitted." (pp. 15-16)

(...)

"3. V. Cousin, adiuuante C. Jourdain, Petri Abaelardi opera hactenus seorsim edita, vol. II, Paris, 1859, p. 152-356.

This is a second reproduction of the edition of Duchesne without the benefit of manuscripts, although done with greater care than the reprint of Migne. Again the marginal notes of Duchesne are rather footnotes here, and some citations have been identified." (p. 16)

English translation: Peter Abelard, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, translated by Steven R. Cartwright, Washington, D.C.; The Catholic University Press of America 2011.

"The major subjects of each book are as follows:

Prologue: Functions of the Old and New Testament, the purpose of the epistle, modus tractandi, question on the conversion of the Romans, the epistle’s place in the Pauline corpus.

Book I: Human and divine natures of Christ, the Trinity, circumcision, intention, reason, natural law, philosophy, Jews and Gentiles.

Book II: Righteousness, redemption, necessity of baptism, grace, circumcision, original sin, the death of Christ and his immunity from sin.

Book III: Love and charity, the nature of the law, grace, redemption, consent, concupiscence, the Holy Spirit, predestination, Christ’s incarnation and death.

Book IV: Predestination, election, grace, mercy, righteousness, faith, conscience, Jews and Gentiles, prayer, love, scripture, women in the Church." (p. 13, a note omitted)
———. 1936. "Abbreviatio commentariorum Petri Abaelardi in Epistolam ad Romanos." Bohoslavia no. 31:7–45.

First edition: Arthur M. Landgraf, ‘Petri Abaelardi Expositionis in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos Abbreviatio’, Bohoslavia, 31, 1936, pp. 7–45.

Date of composition: 1130s or later.
———. 2004. "Expositio in Hexameron." In Petri Abaelardi Opera theologica V. Expositio in Hexameron; Abbreviatio Petri Abaelardi Expositionis in Hexameron, edited by Romig, Mary Foster, Luscombe, David and Burnett, Charles S. F. Turnhout: Brepols.

Date of compositon: probably 1130s.

First critical edition: Mary Foster Romig, A Critical Edition of Peter Abelard’s “Expositio in Hexameron", unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, 1981 available at ProQuest Dissertation ref. n. DP28768.

"A rich and venerable tradition underlies Peter Abelard's Expositio in Hexameron. The hexameron as a literary genre is a commentary on the six days of creation as told in Genesis, based on either or both of the creation stories.(1) The Greek word used for these commentaries indicates their origin in the Hellenistic East where Christian hexameral writing began, following the works of Philo Judaeus and Josephus.(2) Some Syriac influence can be seen in the work of Basil, who wrote the first true hexameron.(3) Here, the commentary follows the creation story verse by verse instead of being focused on only one particular aspect such as the creation of man.

Ambrose, who wrote the first Latin hexameron, leaned heavily on Basil's work, which was later translated into Latin by Eustathius in the fifth century.(4)" (p. XII)

(1) Strictly speaking, this word should be spelled 'hexaemeron', but for reasons of economy I have Anglicized the spelling. Note also that I use the Anglicized 'Abelard' even though the inscription on MS A reads Abaelardi, to conform with recent usage. Although there are some twelfth-century poems which indicate that his name had five syllables, Luscombe has found thirty-seven different medieval forms of his name. For that reason I chose a simple and well-known spelling. See D. E. Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard (Cambridge, 1969), p. 315. For an example of the poetry, see Peter Dronke, Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Testimonies (Glasgow, 1976), pp. 50-51.

(2) 2A good survey, unfortunately weighted toward the Greek background and the earlier middle ages, is given by F. E. Robbins, The Hexameral Literature (Chicago, 1912).

A forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation by Gunar Freibergs on the medieval hexameron should remedy this deficiency. [The medieval latin hexameron from Bede to Grosseteste, University of Southern California, 1981]

(3) Basil, Hexaemeron, PG 29:3-208. (All PL and PG listings are given as volume-column.) Abelard did not appear to have been acquainted directly with the Latin paraphrase of this work made by Eustathius, PL 53:867-966.

Abelard seemed to be echoing Basil when he likened the action of the Holy Spirit 'brooding' over the waters in Gen. 1:2 to that of a hen brooding over her eggs. This similarity caused Dronke to attribute Abelard's imagery to Basil's direct influence. (See Peter Dronke, Fabula [Leiden, 1974], p. 94 and note 3.) But this same idea is imparted by Augustine in De Genesi ad litteram 1.2, ed. J. Zycha, CSEL, vol. 27, part 1, p. 27. It is paraphrased by Abelard on pages 14-15 of the present edition.

(4) Ambrose, Exaemeron, ed. C. Schenkl, CSEL, vol. 32, part 1. Ambrose did not copy Basil's Hexaemeron, but edited it and added some ideas of his own.

English translation: Peter Abelard, An Exposition on the Six-day Work, Introduction, translation and notes by Wanda Zemler-Cizewski, Turnhout: Brepols 2011.

"Summary,

In his prologue, Abelard addresses Heloise and her spiritual daughters as his intended readers, explaining that at her request,he has undertaken the difficult task of commenting on the literal sense of Genesis.

(...)

"Abelard announces at the beginning of his commentary that he will offer historical, moral, and mystical interpretations, but intends to ground his reading primarily in history, or the “truth of things done.” He then offers an accessus ad auctorem(8) in the manner current among cathedral school interpreters of ancient texts: the prophetic author is identified as Moses; the author’s intention is to entice the newly liberated Israelites into knowledge and service of God, their Creator; the subject matter or materia of the text is, in a suitable pun, the material world itself, as it is created and set in order over the course of six days." (è. 12)

(8) E. A. Quain, “The Medieval Accessus ad auctorem,” in Traditio 3, 1945, pp. 215-264.
———. 2004. "Abbreviatio Petri Abaelardi Expositionis in Hexameron." In Petri Abaelardi Opera theologica V. Expositio in Hexameron; Abbreviatio Petri Abaelardi Expositionis in Hexameron, edited by Romig, Mary Foster, Luscombe, David and Burnett, Charles S. F., 135–150. Turnhout: Brepols.

Date of composition: 1130 (?)

Summary: "These two editions present Peter Abelard's Exposition of the Biblical Hexameron and a work which is a shorter version of this and which is usually called an Abbreviation. In his Exposition, which is much influenced by the commentaries of St Augustine, Abelard gives priority to the historical and literal sense and attempts a naturalistic explanation of the process of creation while retaining symbolic and moral interpretations. Like his contemporaries, William of Conches and Thierry of Chartres, Abelard shows an especial interest in Plato's Timaeus, in chaos theory, in the four elements, and in the anima mundi. But his Exposition is also a profoundly religious work. The manuscripts and the contributions of their various scribes are closely examined in an Introduction in which the possibility is considered that one of these scribes may be Abelard himself. Additions and changes made by the scribes are printed in different types in the edition which follows. A separate Introduction assesses the nature of the Abbreviation and compares it with the Exposition. The two editions were begun by Mary Romig+ and Charles Burnett respectively. They have been prepared for publication by David Luscombe."
Burnett, Charles S. F. 1985. "Expositio Orationis Dominicae 'ultorum legimus orationes'." Revue Bénédictine no. 95:60–72.

Edited in Charles F, Burnett, The 'Expositio Orationis Dominicae 'Multorum legimus orationes', Abelard's Exposition of the Lord's Prayer?

"Abelard's authentic commentary on the Lord's Prayer, based on the text using supersubstantialem rather than cotidianum, distinct from that erroneously printed among his works." (Constant J. Mews, Peter Abelard, Aldershot: Ashgate 1985, p. 60)

First edition: A. Duchesne uel F. D’Amboise, Petri Abaelardi... opera, Paris, 1616, pp. 611-616.
———. 1986. "‘Confessio fidei ad Heloisam’ - Abelard’s Last Letter to Heloise?: a Discussion and Critical Edition of the Latin and Medieval French Versions." Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch no. 21:147–155.

First edition: A. Duchesne uel F. D’Amboise, Petri Abaelardi... opera, Paris, 1616, pp. 308-309; Quae est Petri Abailardi fidei confessio, ad Heloissam, coll. 376-378 of Migne edition.

Date of composition: 1140 (Constant J. Mews, Peter Abelard, Aldershot: Ashgate 1996, p. 62.

English translations: pp. 154-155.

Abelard Confession of Faith, in Abelard and Heloise, The Letters and Other Writings, Translated with Introduction and Notes, by William Levitan, Indianapolis: Hackett 2007, pp. 260-261.
———. 1986. "Peter Abelard, Confessio fidei Universis. A Critical Edition of Abelard's Reply to Accusations of Heresy." Mediaeval Studies no. 48:111–138.

Latin text pp. 132-138.

"In the Confessio fidei Universis Abelard replies to each of seventeen of the capitula under which his heresies had been listed in the Capitula haeresum XIX attached to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistola 190 ad Innocentium papam, with a brief statement of the orthodoxy of his belief. A much more detailed and scholarly reply to the same capitula (in addition to the two which have been omitted in the Confessio fidei 'Universis') appears to have been the subject of Abelard's Apologia, of which we have only the opening section and fragments preserved in Thomas of Morigny's answer to that work.(3) The verbal similarities between the two works suggest that they were composed in the same circumstances.(4) In both works Abelard refutes the allegation in the Capitula haeresum xix that the propositions listed are to be found in his Theologia, his Scito te ipsum (Ethica) and his Sententiae (a work whose composition he denies). In both works also he brings together the same authorities to show that he has a right and a duty to defend himself. However, there are important differences." (pp. 111-112, a note omitted)

(1) This title has become conventional, but is not given in the earliest and best manuscripts (see below, p. 131). Lest there should be any confusion between this work and the Confessio fidei ad Heloissam (PL 178.37 5-78), the latter work will always be referred to by its full title; the word Confessio on its own, therefore, will refer only to the Confessio fidei 'Universis'.

(3) Ed. Buytaert, [Opera Theologica] I 341-68.

(4) For the parallels see the first section of the apparatus beneath the text, edited below.

Date of composition: 1140 ca.

First edition: A. Duchesne uel F. D’Amboise, Petri Abaelardi... opera, Paris, 1616, Apologia seu fidei confessio, coll. 106-108.
Peter, Abelard. "Expositio Symboli Apostolorum." In.

Edited by Victor Cousin and Charles Jourdain, Petri Abaelardi opera Vol. 1, Paris 1849, pp. 603–615.

A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed.
———. "Expositio fidei in symbolum Athanasii."

Edited by Victor Cousin and Charles Jourdain, Petri Abaelardi opera Vol. 1, Paris 1849, pp. 615–617.
———. 1969. "Apologia contra Bernardum." In Opera Theologica. I. Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos; Apologia contra Bemardum, edited by Buytaert, Eligius, 359–368. Turnhout: Brepols.

"Manuscripts of the complete Apologia are not known. We have only a codex of Munich, containing the beginning of the work, and the Disputatio contra Petrum Abaelardum of Thomas of Morigny preserved in a Budapest codex, which contains a few fragments of the Apologia, partly identical with the large fragment of Munich. Consequently, in this Introduction we must speak only of two manuscripts." (p. 343)

Date of composition: "Written before the synod of Sens, but after Thomas of Morigny settled in Paris, the Disputatio [contra Petrum Abaelardum] must have been composed around Easter, 1140, and the Apologia contra Bernardum somewhat earlier, say during the second half of 1139, of during the winter 1139-1140. It must have been sometime before Easter 1140, because it is unlikely that the Apologia went straight from the desk of Abelard to that of Thomas.

On the other hand, it must have been not earlier than the second half of 1139, since Bernard entered the fight actively only after Easter 1139 (46)" (p. 355)

(46) Cf. General Introduction, supra, XI.

First edition: "Apologia contra Bernardum, of which the incipit was known through Otto of Freising, and of which P. Ruf discovered and edited a substantial fragment, namely the first part of the Apologia. Smaller extracts, not all found in the fragment of Munich, were preserved by the Disputatio contra Petrum Abaelardum of Thomas of Morigny.(21)"

(21) New edition of both, at the end of the present volume, p. 559-368.

References

Paul Ruf, Martin Grabmann, Ein neu aufgefundenes Bruchstück der Apologia Abaelards, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1930, Heft 5.

The Work: "Upon receiving a copy of the accusations which Bernard of Clairvaux levelled against him, Abelard wanted to defend himself. Dispensing himself from writing a useless prologue, Abelard first intended to reproduce the list of accusations and subsequently to answer them (n. 1). He copied verbatim the ‘capitula’ of Bernard (n. 2), adding even the concluding phrase in which it is stated from which works of Abelard the accusations have been lifted, — to which Abelard rejoined that the phrases are not to be found in his work and that an inauthentic work had been used (n. 3). Realizing that this general refutation would not suffice to defend his reputation, Abelard mentioned that he would answer all the accusations individually, following the order of Bernard’s list (n. 4)." (pp. 350-351)

Bibliography

Rodney M Thomson, Michael Winterbottom (eds.), For and Against Abelard: The invective of Bernard of Clairvaux and Berengar of Poitiers, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, Woodbridge 2020.
Boyer, Blanche B., and McKeon, Richard, eds. 1976. Peter Abailard. Sic et Non: A Critical Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Date of composition: first draft 1121; revisions 1121-1126; final version 1127-1132.

"In 1836 Victor Cousin rescued from the obscurity which had prevailed against it for almost seven hundred years, the Sic et Non of Peter Abailard. Having discovered, in the libraries of Avranches and Tours, two manuscripts containing the work, he published brief descriptions of each and edited from them extensive portions of text.(1)

These consisted of the Prologus, questions 1 through 39 and twenty-nine others, interspersed with the titles of the rest. To the whole, Cousin appended an Index Quaestionum numbering 157(2). In a few footnotes he verified, or questioned, the attribution of citations passim and reported textual peculiarities of the manuscripts.

The latter are concrete evidence of a singular disparity in form and content which he analyzed cursorily in describing the two.” (p. 1)

(...)

"A third manuscript of the Sic et Non came to light in 1851 through the publication by Dom Luigi Tosti of Storia di Abelardo e dei suoi tempi. Emulating the procedure of Cousin, and in terms of comparison with Cousin's MSS, Tosti described a MS of Monte Cassino and printed under the caption "Alcuni capi finora inediti . . 2” nine questions, nos. 25-30 and 34-36 in the sequence of that codex. Also he drew up comparative indices of questions (Argumenta capitum . . .) as read in it and as listed by Cousin, interpolating notice of contradictions in order and matter among the 87 items of the one. and the 157 of the other.)

(...)

The first--and only--complete edition of 158 questions appeared, by regrettable coircidence, in the same year as Tosti's publication. This was based on still another MS, one which had come from the monastery of Tegernsee in 1804 to Munich, where its presence was subsequently publicized by the editor of Abailard's Epitome theologiae Christianae.(7) There was no real collation of this manuscript with any of the others, but to correct its deficiencies, the editors, Henke and Lindenkohl, referred to Cousin's printed account of the two French manuscripts." (pp. 2-3)

(1) Victor Cousin, Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard pour servir à l'histoire de la scolastique en France (Paris 1836), pp. clxxxvi-clxxxix 3-169.

(2) Cousin overlooked completely the presence of q. 127 in both MSS; in the Turonensis (ff. 114v-115r) without a heading but with a space left for the insertion of omne, whereas in the Abrincensis the title stands not in its proper place at the head of the question (ff. 190r-191r) but below the last line of text on f£. 189v. Consequently Cousin's list of 157 questions is short by one, and to all numbers after q. 126 one digit should be added. The correct numbering is here substituted for Cousin's in all references to questions following q. 126.

(7) Epitome theologiae Christianae, ed. Frid. Henr. Rheinwald, Anecdota ad historiam ecclesiasticam pertinentia, particula ii, (Berolini 1835), reprinted in Migne, Patrologia Latina 178, Praefatio, col. 1694, n. 1.

English translation: YES AND NO: Peter Abelard's SIC ET NON, translated by Priscilla Throop, Charlotte, VT: MedievalMS, 2007.

Italian translation of the Prologue: Pietro Abelardo. Pro e Contro. Il Prologo del Sic et Non, raduzione e cura di Riccardo Mazzarol, Rho (MI): Ati Editore 2011.
Peter, Abelard. 1958. "Secundum Magistrum Petrum Sententie." In Twelfth Century Logic: Texts and Studies. Vol II: Abelardiana inedita, edited by Minio-Paluello, Lorenzo, 109–122. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.

Date of composition: probably mid-1120s.

"The short text which appears under the title of " Secundum M. Petrum sententie " in a collection of logical writings originally belonging to the library of the monastery at Fleury (cod. Orleans 266, pp. 278-281) is fragmentary.

(...)

"The text clearly consists of two sections, in no way distinguished from each other in the manuscript. The first contains the analysis of a paralogism; the second, four problems arising from the use of 'totum', and their solutions. It is conceivable that the second section originated in the study of - or might even be extracted from a commentary on - Boethiu's De divisione, which is partly concerned with 'totum' and includes more than once examples referring to the part of a house. But their is nothing in the first section of the Sententie to suggest that it may belong to such a work, or indeed that it is part of the same work as the second section. There is, however, much in common between the two sections: the concepts used and the methods applied for the solution of logical difficulties arc the same: much turns, in both sections, on the distinction between the " personal " and the "ad sensum" reference of words, or, roughly speaking, between the reference to individual things and the reference to concepts. Again, much use is made of logical " regule " in both sections. These common characteristics do not necessarily point to unity of work, but rather to the interest which caused the compiler to connect these two sections in one text.

This text can be tentatively ascribed to Abailard. It is found in the midst of writings by Jocelyn (Goslenus) and other, anonymous, masters of the first half and middle of the twelfth century. Mention is made, in some of these texts, of Magister Petrus, Magister P ., Magister Guido, Magister Ulgerius, Magister Goslenus, Magister W., Magister Walterus, Magister Galterius. It is well known that Abailard is often referred to as " Magister Petrus ", particularly in texts of logic; and there is no evidence that any other logician of that time was being referred to in that way. Abailard is often concerned with the distinction between personal and " ad sensum " reference; some at least of the examples used for this purpose in the Sententie are used by Abailard in his commentary on the De interpretatione.(23) 'Petrus' is used as an example both in the Sententie and in Abailard's works.(24) An inexact reference to Boethius (" naturam dicit similitudinem rerum nascentium ") is found in our text and, twice, in the Logica 'Ingredientibus' .(25) There is nothing in the style of the Sententie which could easily be shown to be alien to Abailard's style." (Introduction, pp. XXXIX-XLI)

(23) E. g., "mulier quc dampnavit salvavit" is an example of double reference for relative pronouns, here (p. 118.4-5) and in the commentary on the De interpretatione (397.a Geyer); water, referred to by the

" demonstrative " pronoun " tu ", is another example in both places (119.9. 14 here, and 397.16 ff. in that commentary) ;."Socrates est quod ipse est" occurs, in similar circumstances, here (118.20-21) and there (397.23 ff).

(24) E.g. 327.21,31 Geyer; 54.s, 130.1-20 etc. De Rijlk.

(25) Pp. 57.29 and 315.21 Geyer.
———. 1929. Sententiae Florianenses, nunc primum edidit, prolegomenis, apparatu critico, notis instruxit Henricus Ostlender. Bonn: Peter Hanstein.

Date of composition: probably mid-1130s.

"It is in the teaching recorded in the collections of Sententie that he explores [the programme outlined at the beginning of the Theologia Scholarium,] systematically. Three main collections of Abelardian Sententie are known: the Sententie Abaelardi (or, as they will usually be called here for brevity, simply the Sententie; some scholars refer to them as the Sententie Hermanni)' the Sententie Florianenses and the Sententie Parisienses. The Sententie Abaelardi were printed nearly two centuries ago, but doubts about their authenticity have prevented many scholars from realizing their true value as a witness to Abelard's comprehensive theological system.

It has been thought that they were based at second-hand on a lost, much extended version of the Theologia Scholarium;(29) or, more recently, that they and also the Sententie Florianenses and Sententie Parisienses, were all derived from the (now lost) Liber sententiarum mentioned by St Bernard, which itself was taken from Abelard's oral teaching.(30) Constant Mews, however, has now demonstrated that, except for a revised version of the Sententie Abaelardi, all three collections date back to the period (c. 1132-5) when Abelard was still working to produce the first full version of his Theologia Scholarium, and that they give a direct and accurate account of his teaching.

The Liber sententiarum mentioned by St Bernard is a different, later report of Abelard's teaching. According to Mews, the Sententie Abaelardi are an official reportatio of Abelard's lectures, corrected and revised by Abelard himself, whilst the other two collections are unofficial accounts of his oral teaching. Perhaps this is, to some extent, an oversimplification; but there is little doubt that the Sententie Abaelardi give an accurate digest Abelard's teaching, whilst parts of the Sententie Parisienses preserve the give and take of discussion in Abelard's classes." (John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997, pp. 62-63, some notes omitted)

(29) Heinrrich Denifle, Die Sentenzen [Abaelards und die Bearbeitungen seiner Theologia vor Mitte des 12. Jhs.', Archiv f. Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte 1 (1885) 402-69, 584-624.[

(30) H. Ostlender, 'Die Sentenzbiicher der Schule Abaelards', Theologische Quartalschrift 117 (1936), 208-52. For Bernard's references to the Liber sententiarum, see Ep. 188 and 190, pp. 11: 15, 40: 9-10). William of St Thierry mentions what seems to be this work, without naming it, in his letter to Bernard (p. 377: 28-9). Abelard, however, writes in Conf. fid. 'Universis', 138: 5: 'nusquam liber aliquis qui sententiarum dicatur a me scriptus repperiatur'; cf. Apologia 360: 34 - 361: 43.
———. 1934. "Sententie Parisienses." Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. Etudes et documents no. 34:3–60.

Date of composition: probably mid-1130s.

"A course of theology is preserved in three versions, known as the Sententiae Florianenses, the Sententiae Parisienses and the Sententiae Abaelardi (which used to be known as the Sententiae Hermanni). These all used to be considered works by Abelard’s pupils, but they are now generally accepted as reports of Abelard’s own lectures: the Sententiae Parisienses give the impression of largely uncorrected notes, which convey the vivacity of classroom discussion, whereas the Sententiae Abaelardi seem to be a careful presentation of the teaching, perhaps corrected and authorized by Abelard himself.(31)" John Marenbon, Abelard if Four Dimensions, Notre Dame; University of Notre Dame Press 2013, p. 22)
Buzzetti, Sandro, ed. 1983. Sententie magistri Petri Abelardi (Sententie Hermanni). Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Date of composition: probably mid-1130s.

Crtical edition: Opera theologica, 6. Sententie - Liber Sententiarum, pp. 5–152, edite by D. M. Luscombe.
Peter, Abelard. 2007. "Liber sententiarum Magistri Petri [Abaelardi] (fragmenta in aliis scriptis servata)." In Petri Abaelardi Opera theologica VI. Sententie - Liber Sententiarum, edited by Luscombe, David E. and Mews , Constant J., 162–171. Turnhout Brepols.

Date of composition: (late 1130s).

A reportatio of Abelard’s theological teaching, quoted by his critics but repudiated by him. Reconstructed from works attacking Abelard. Edited by C. J. Mews.
———. 1992. "Positio vocum sententiae." Traditio no. 47:66–73.

Appendix to Yukio Iwakuma, Vocales, or Early Nominalists (pp. 37-111).

An anonymous discussion of the predication of terms, and of the nature of identity and difference.
———. 1983. "Ordinale Paraclitense." In The Old French Paraclete Ordinary and the Paraclete. Vol II, edited by Waddell, Chrysogonus. Gethsemany Abbey, Kentucky: Trappist.

The Ordinal reflects the liturgical provisions of Abelard and contains his arrangement of the Calendar and choice of scriptural readings.
———. 1987. The Paraclete Statutes. Institutiones Nostrae. Introduction, Edition, Commentary,. Getshemani Abbey, Kentucky: Trappist.

"Only one extant manuscript is known to contain the minuscule text of Institutiones nostrae. This is the almost certainly best known of all the manuscripts familiar to scholars of Abelardiana, that is, Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale, ms 802. Of those manuscripts containing the letters allegedly exchanged between Abelard and Heloise, this is the earliest (late thirteenth or. perhaps even early fourteenth century), the most complete (it alone contains the integral text of the Rule for Nuns introduced by letter VIII), and textually the best. The letters and the Rule (ff. 1r-88v) are followed by Institutiones nostrae (ff. 89r-90v) and a

series of canons and statutes dealing with women religious, and drawn from disparate sources (ff. 90v-102v). The verso of the final folio is filled out by a fifteenth- or sixteenth century transcription of epitaphs of Abelard and Heloise and of Peter the Venerable's absolution of Abelard." (p. 19)

English translation: The Letters of Heloise and Abelard: A Translation of Their Collected Correspondence and Related Wrtings, Translated and edited by Mary Martin McLaughlin with Bonnie Wheeler, New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009, pp. 313-315.
Heloise, and Peter, Abelard. "Problemata Heloisae cum Petri Abaelardi Solutionibus." In.

"Abelard’s contacts with Heloise can be used to date a further set of material. As mentioned above, when Abelard’s Historia calamitatum came into Heloise’s hands, it began a famous exchange of letters between the couple. Since the Historia must have been written in about 1132, these letters, which include a history of female monasticism (Ep. 7) and Abelard’s Rule for the Paraclete (Ep. 8), will date from the period immediately following. The correspondence makes it clear that Abelard had not been in intellectual contact with Heloise and her nuns in the period before it began, and so two other works which Abelard wrote at Heloise’s request—a commentary on the Hexaemeron and a set of answers to theological questions posed by her (Problemata Heloissae)—can be confidently dated to the period after 1132.(37) Although there is no definite latest date for them, it is probable that they were written before the Council of Sens.(38) At the time of the Council, Abelard’s immediate concern was with the accusations against him—his Apologia contra Bernardum and the two confessions of faith (one addressed to Heloise) can be dated to this period; afterwards, his health declined. Abelard also wrote sermons for the nuns of the Paraclete, and they must be dated to the period after 1132 and very probably before 1141."

(37) See Comm. Hex., ed. Romig, p. 4, lines 30–35.

(38) Mews (1985b [‘On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard’. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 52:73–134], 119–20) puts forward some reasons, which he himself acknowledges to be less than conclusive, for thinking that Abelard wrote Comm. Hex. before Comm. Rom.

"The Problemata Heloissae comprises a set of forty-two “problems” set forth by Heloise and their solutions provided by Abelard. The questions deal largely with matters of scriptural interpretation, and several echo the concerns in Heloise’s better-known letters. I focus here on the prefatory letter that introduces the Problemata, which shares stylistic similarities with Heloise’s earlier letters to Abelard. Heloise opens the letter with an invocation of Jerome’s teachings to Marcella. While her earlier epistolary overtures proffered a Senecan ethos, her citation here quite literally declares a Jeromian model, a performance of her continuing obedience to Abelard’s injunctions.. She asks, once again, that Abelard write back, but this time the request is more focused: she wants him to answer exegetical questions that have arisen for her and her sisters in the studies he commanded them to pursue. These questions “disturb” their study and cause them to be “sluggish” in their reading." (Katherine Kong, Lettering the Self in Medieval and Early Modern France, Rochester: D. S. Brower 2010, pp. 95-96, notes omitted)

First edition: Victor Cousin, Opera Petri Abelardi..., Vol, 1, pp. 237-294; also in Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. 178.

Date of composition: probably later 1130s.

English translations:

E. M. McNamer, The Education of Heloise: Methods, Content and Purpose of Education in the Twelfth Century, Lewiston: Mellen, 1991, pp. 111–183.

The Letters of Heloise and Abelard: A Translation of Their Collected Correspondence and Related Writings, Translated and edited by Mary Martin McLaughlin with Bonnie Wheeler, New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009, pp. 213-267.

Abelard's ethical works

Peter, Abelard. 2001. Scito te ipsum [Ethica]. Turnhout: Brepols.

Critical edition with Introduction in German (pp. IX-LIX) by Rainer M. Ilgner.

Date of composition: (probably late 1130s).

Other critical edition: Peter Abelard's Ethics, an edition with introduction, English translation and notes by David E. Luscombe, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971.

"Abelard entitled his book of ethics Scito te ipsum, Know Thyself, and elsewhere he referred to this work as his Ethics.(5) The term ethica often signified in the twelfth century the rational ethics of the ethici, the pagan moralists.

(...)

Yet Abelard's Scito te ipsum is not a treatise on rational morality considered in the light of pagan doctrine. In two books, the second of which survives only in a fragment, Abelard proposed to study evil and goodness, contempt of God and obedience to God. In the first book, which is complete, Abelard considers actual, as distinct from original, sin and also the remedies for sin-penance, confession, absolution, and satisfaction. The sources cited are almost exclusively Scriptural and Patristic; pagan authorities and ideas are much less evident. Yet the title of this book is justified. Isidore of Seville had used the word ethica to indicate the four principal virtues of which prudence consisted in the profession of the true faith and in the knowledge of the Scriptures according to their historical, figurative, and spiritual senses.3 Abelard's Ethica is a theological monograph upon the moral aspects of the Christian religion. ][tis the counterpart of his Theologia, which is a theological monograph upon God and the Trinity. As for the title Scito te ipsum, it serves aptly and allusively to hint at Abelard's concern for the inner point of view in moral discussion, the attitudes of a man rather than the nature of his deeds.

The centre of interest in Abelard's Ethics is the theory of intention and the definition of sin. Abelard argued, with an abiding appeal and force, that God thinks not of what is done but in what mind it is done; merit and praise accrue to a human agent not for his actions but for his intentions." (Peter Abelard's Ethics, pp. XXX-XXXII)

(5) See below, p. 130 n. 2.

"Some idea of the remaining or at least of the projected contents of this second book of the Ethics may well be provided in two passages in Abelard's Expositio of the Epistle to the Romans. In the first (Expos. ii. 4; PL 1;8. 84rn-842A) Abelard reserves three questions for lengthier consideration in the Ethics. First, since God's gifts are of grace, in what do merits consist? Secondly, do merits consist in will alone or also in deed? Thirdly, does virtue, which is not manifested in action, suffice for beatitude? In the second passage (v. 13; PL 178. 95oc-951A) Abelard reserves to the Ethics a discussion of the duty to love one's neighbour if he is in hell or destined for hell and of the question whether one should will what is not good to be done, e.g. pray for the salvation of all although only a few will achieve salvation." (p. 130, note 2)

Other English translations:

Abailard's Ethics, Translated with an Introduction by J, Ransay McCallum. Foreword by Kenneth Kirk, Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1935.

Ethical Writings: His Ethics or “Know Yourself” and His Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew and a Christian, Translated by Paul Vincent Spade. With an Introduction by Marilyn McCord Adams, Indianapolis. Hackett 1995, pp. 1-58.
———. 2001. Collationes or Dialogus inter Philosophum, Iudaeum, et Christianum. New York: Oxford University Press.

Edited and translated by John Marenbon and Giovanni Orlandi.

"Giovanni Orlandi has been responsible for editing the Latin text, drawing up the textual apparatus and writing Section X of the Introduction (on the manuscripts and the transmission of the text).

John Marenbon has been responsible for the other parts of the Introduction, the Abstract, the English Translation, the Notes, and the Indices." (p. VI)

Date of composition: "There have, then, been four main suggested dates for the Collationes: 1025-7 (Mews's earlier view); c.1130-c.1137 (Mews' new alternative possibility); c. 1136 (Buytaert); c. 1142 (the traditional view). Which, if any, is correct?

The terminus post quem of the Collationes is easily established. In § 78, the Christian refers by name to the Theologia Christiana. Abelard used this name only for the second main version of the Theologia that which he made after the condemnation of the Theologia Summi Boni at Soissons. The Collationes could not have been written before the Theologia Christiana was ready, in 1123 at the earliest.

The terminus ante quern is far more difficult to fix. Buytaert and Mews both try to determine it by reference to the Commentary on the Hexaemeron, 32 and Mews also tries to show it by reference to the Commentary on Romans and to Scito teipsum (the 'Ethics'). (33) None of these attempts produces a conclusive result." (p. XXVIII)

(,,,)

"To summarize. The Collationes were written after 1123 and probably before c. 1135, very probably before 1140. The comparisons with Abelard's other writings which will be made in the next section suggest (but do not firmly establish) a time of composition in the middle or the second half of the 1123-35 period. Perhaps the most likely time of all for the Collationes to have been written would be Abelard's period at St Gildas, that is, between 1127 and about 1132.

This dating would fit well with the fact that, in form, the Collationes lack the links with teaching which characterize the main writings which can be dated to the period at the Paraclete and those (except the pieces composed for Heloise) of the second Paris period (c.1132-9)." (p. XXXII)

First edition: Georg Friedrich Heinrich Rheinwald (ed.), Petri Abaelardi Dialogus inter Philosophum, Judaeum et Christianum, (Anecdota ad historiam ecclesiasticam pertinentia, I, Berlin, 1831), reprinted in Patrologia Latina, clxxviii, col. 1609-82.

Main Translations:

English:

A dialogue of a philosopher with a Jew, and a Christian. translated by Pierre J. Payer, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1979.

Ethical Writings: His Ethics or "Know yourself" and His Dialogue between a philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian, translated by Paul Vincent Spade; with an introduction by Marilyn McCord Adams, Indianapolis: Hackett 1995, pp. 59-148.

French:

Œuvres choisies d'Abélard (Logique, Éthique, Dialogue entre un philosophe, un juif et un chrétien, trad. Maurice de Gandillac, Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1945; repritnt: Conférences (Dialogue d'un philosophe avec un juif et un chrétien). Connais-toi toi-même (Éthique), Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1993.

Italian:

Dialogo tra un filosofo, un giudeo e un cristiano, trad. Cristina Trovò, Introduzione di Mria Teresa Beonio Brocchieri Fumagalli, Milano, Rizzoli 1992.

Other works related to Abelard

"Capitula haeresum Petri Abaelardi." In. 1969. Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica II. Theologia christiana. Theologia scholarium (recensiones breviores). Capitula haeresum Petri Abaelardi, edited by Buytaert, Eligius, 473–480. Turnhout: Brepols.

"Turning now to the Capitula haeresum, there is no historical reason to believe that they were compiled by St Bernard. The little work must date from early in the dispute of 1139-1140, although there is no evidence that it must be put before William's [of Saint-Thierry] intervention. Its exclusive use of TSch and the spurious book of Sentences places it chronologically close to William. It must have been compiled before the list of Bernard, because in the Capitula thesis III is on its regular place (in Bernard’s list it is the 7th). Being older than Bernard’s, it would explain why in this better known list proposition 14 is out of order, although Letter 190 shows that Bernard realizes that it is to be connected with the first theses of his list. The formulation, then, of the propositions in the Capitula haeresum would have prepared the way for Bernard rather than the opposite. In other words, I believe that the have been compiled around Easter 1139.

There remains, ultimately, the question of the author of the Capitula haeresum. I think that the compilation is the work of scholars of the school of Laon, and that the last *capitulum' has been added by Walter of Mortagne. The latter, indeed, a longtime resident of Laon, had criticized a few years earlier Abelard’s first redaction of the Theologia ‘Scholarium’ for the very same doctrine which we find in thesis XIV, quoting a

text of the said redaction which corresponds to the text of proposition XIV. Abelard had taken to heart the criticism of Walter as is attested by the changes he made in the text on occasion of the second redaction of the Theologia *Scholarium’ (31), The readings of this second redaction remained the same in the third,—the one attacked by William of Saint-Thierry,—and Walter on seeing this third redaction must have

been dissatisfied with the changes made. On the other hand, among the scholars of the school of Laon Abelard had a poor reputation dating back from the time when he had belittled the eldery Anselm of Laon (32), the master of the school. As soon as they knew that Abelard was in trouble again, these scholars must have been more than willing to contribute to the downfall of the man they disliked so heartily. (33)." (pp. 466-467)

(31) Epist. ad P. Abaelardum 3; tsch 57.

(32) Hist. calam., ed. J. Monfrin, 68-70.—It might be noted that Laon belonged to the ecclesiastical province of Reims, and that William of Saint-Thierry resided at Signy in the diocese of Reims itself; moreover, that William and Walter were fellow-countrymen, William being from Liége and Walter from the vicinity of 'Tournai.
Landgraf, Artur Michael, ed. 1937. Commentarius Cantabrigiensis in epistolas Pauli e schola Petri Abaelardi. Notre Dame University of Notre Dame.

Written by a disciple of Abelard.

Table of Contents:

1. In epistolam ad Romanos. (pp. 42-223)

2. In epistolam ad Corinthios Iam et IIam, ad Galatas et ad Ephesios. (pp. 225-446)

3. In epistolam ad Philippenses [etc.] (pp. 447-651)

4. In epistolam ad Hebraeos. (pp. 653-864)
Burnett, Charles S. F., and Luscombe, David E. 2005. "A New Student for Peter Abelard: The Marginalia in British Library MS Cotton Faustina A. X." In Itinéraires de la raison: Études de philosophie médiévale offertes à Maria Candida Pacheco, edited by Meirinhos, José Francisco, 163–186. Turnhout: Brepols.

Skip to the top of page