The Council of Sens in 1141 and its aftermath

For more than 800 years, historians have discussed the date of the Council of Sens and of the trial against Peter Abelard. Chroniclers as early as in the 12th century, as well as some famous ecclesiastical historians of the 16th and 17th century, disagreed about whether the council took place in 1140 or 1141. In the late 19th century, the German theologian S. M. Deutsch pleaded for 1141, giving some serious arguments, but some years later, his French colleague E. Vacandard, defending his reputation as leading expert on Bernard of Clairvaux, rejected Deutsch's arguments vehemently. The subsequent literary resonance of the 20th century preferred Vacandard's hypothesis: For more than a century, the great majority of biographers believed the date of the trial against Peter Abelard to have been in 1140. At the beginning of the new millennium, the Abelardian scholar C. Mews reconsidered the long-standing debate, alarmed by a recent finding of the Italian palaeographer R. Volpini. After having re-examined all the known sources, C. Mews published his surprising conclusions: The council's date must have been May 26, 1141, as Deutsch had once argued.

Starting from this crucial point, the following study seeks to re-examine the validity of the theories published so far as well as to add some new, hitherto neglected sources and to extend the discussion to further circumstances, e. g. the situation of the papacy. Thereby the reader should be enabled to make his own decision about the historical truth. For example, the trial against Peter Abelard is now retold from an, as it were, Italian perspective. Moreover, the lives of relevant French contemporaries like Stephen of Garlande, Stephen of Senlis, Nicholas of Montiéramey or Gilbert de la Porrée provide valuable criteria concerning how the offensive against Peter Abelard and his doctrine might have happened. These findings should help to redefine all the most important details of Abelard's last years.

• At first, the papal documents concerning Abelard's condemnation - a bull and a private juridical letter, given in July of an unnamed year in the Lateran palace in Rome - are presented in their Latin original. The variants, in which they have been handed down to us, are commented on.
   

• Some years ago, R. Volpini, the palaeographer of the Vatican, pointed to an antipathetic letter of Bernard of Clairvaux about Abelard's fatal influence on the curia in Rome. This letter was written to Cardinal Bishop Stephen of Praeneste. Having recognized that this prelate was probably appointed cardinal bishop at Easter 1141, Volpini had argued that in the first half of 1141, the lawsuit against Peter Abelard must have been in full swing. This argument, crucial for each dating theory, provokes two principal questions: Are the sources concerning Stephen of Praeneste reliable? And: Was the date of a cardinal’s appointment always identical with the beginning of his office in the papal chancellery? After a thorough examination of Pope Innocent's bulls and his general appointment practise for the suburbicarian bishoprics, we are now able to affirm both questions: Volpini's argument must indeed be seen as accurate.
   

• Furthermore, the papal Regesta show that in the “war summers” of 1138 until 1140, Pope Innocent and the curia resided exclusively outside the Lateran palace, first in Albano, then in the South near Mignano, finally in Trastevere on the right bank of the river Tiber. In this context, Pope Innocent and his chancellery always figured as an entity. Now the reader can draw another conclusion: In this period, Pope Innocent couldn’t ratify Abelard's condemnation, Datum Laterani, because he was out of town! In consequence, the theory of E. Vacandard must be severely doubted as well as another theory of 1995, which argues for a condemnation in 1138. Moreover, the fact that archbishop Rainald of Reims is named as co-signer of the papal bull in C. Baronius’ first edition from 1607 must be wrong: He died in January 1139.
   

• There is a single 12th-century document, which suggests 1141 as year of the Council of Sens: the account of a miraculous vision of St Eleutherius in Tournai. As this study shows, Bernard of Clairvaux and the people of Tournai used the miracle as a quasi-political instrument for the renewal of the bishopric of Tournai in 1141. So, even if the event itself may be doubted in its authenticity, the date mentioned turns out to be a piece of very precise and plausible information. Two other 12th-century sources, a chronicle of the convent of St Peter of Mont Blandin and a vaticinium of St Eleutherius, point to the vision’s year 1141 as well.
   

• On the other hand, Vacandard's arguments, which support Abelard's condemnation in 1140, are far from watertight: For example, neither the Continuatio Praemonstratensis (an appendix of the chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux) nor the chronicle of Vaucelles is suitable as proof, as they both confuse a lot of events, especially in the period between 1138 and 1142. Over and above, Vacandard misdated the appointment of Geoffrey of Péronne to the see of Tournai: Bernhard of Clairvaux and Pope Eugen III didn't nominate Geoffrey as candidate in early 1141 (Vacandard supposes: after the event of Sens in 1140), but in 1146!
   

• 1140 as the date of the council can be also excluded because of our knowledge of the personal situation of a suffragan bishop who was present in Sens. According to a well-dated chronicle of Marchiennes, bishop Alvisius of Arras sanctified the relics of St Rictrude in Ronchin near Lille on May 29, 1140. It is unimaginable that he joined the trial of Sens three days later, on the octave of Pentecost, because there is a distance of more than 330 kilometres between Ronchin and Sens, and the usual travelling speed of a bishop and his staff was about 30 to 50 kilometres at most, per day!
   

• On the other hand, the epistolary exchange between bishop Hatto of Troyes, another assessor at the Council of Sens, and Abbot Peter the Venerable from Cluny gives valuable chronological information: The Council of Sens must, in fact, have taken place in May 1141. This conclusion is apparently opposite to a former hypothesis of G. Constable, the editor of these letters. Constable derived some useful information from the correspondence, for example, that the courier, who took the verdict of Sens to Rome, must have been the chaplain of Troyes, Nicholas of Montiéramey. But he rejected S. M. Deutsch’s argument that Nicholas could have been in Rome twice in that year, for incomprehensible reasons. As Constable assumed a mid-winter passage over the Alps to be impossible or, at least, extremely improbable, he pleaded for 1140 as the year of Nicholas’ departure, that is after the Council of Sens. These assumptions are clearly wrong: It is the same correspondence and some additional letters of Nicholas of Montiéramey, which provide evidence that Nicholas travelled to Italy twice in 1141. First, he crossed the ice-covered Alps in winter/early spring 1141 and went to Rome, in order to ask for the Pope´s approval of some gifts of Hatto of Troyes for the Cluniacs (several churches near Sézanne-en-Brie). Nicholas was demonstrably back in France before Easter 1141; so he could attend the Council of Sens after Pentecost without any problem. On behalf of Bernhard and the bishops, he travelled to Rome for a second time immediately after the council, taking the council’s reports and the letters of Bernard with him. He arrived at the curia at the beginning of July, asking the Pope to ratify the decrees of the trial. After a delay of some weeks, Nicholas arrived at Troyes in early autumn 1141, impatiently expected by Hatto of Troyes, Geoffrey of Chartres and Bernard of Clairvaux. The intriguing cross-check for this chronological reconstruction is: The three papal bulls resp. juridical letters, treating the two requests - the gifts of Hatto for Cluny and Abelard's condemnation - were signed on the same day, the 16th of July! This chronological coincidence, which was never considered before, is the only one amongst the few summer documents of Pope Innocent II. It can be accepted as proof, even if the bulls themselves don't specify the year in which they were passed, nor bear any cardinal’s signature (so-called minor eschatacol).
  

The quintessence of these additional findings makes it possible to establish the following chronological order:

The incriminated writings and sentences of Peter Abelard were condemned at the Council of Sens, which beyond doubt must have taken place on Mai 25, 1141. Some weeks later, on July 16, Peter Abelard and his former disciple Arnold of Brescia were sentenced by Pope Innocent to live behind monastic walls, in eternal silence, separated from each other. The hearing and arbitration of this matter in Rome didn't last more than two or three weeks and must therefore be called - considering the grave accusation and the difficult theological impact - a summary trial. Berengar of Poitiers, another adherent of Peter Abelard, emphasises this superficial and somehow prejudiced procedure verbatim in his satirical apology, written against Bernard of Clairvaux. In summary, the key dates above are apparently in line with the former findings of S. M. Deutsch in 1880 and give now reason to re-examine and re-group the complete series of events which finally led to Abelard's decline.

From the huge amount of material, concerning the last years of Abelard and his conflict with French orthodoxy, the following items are worth singling out, as they provide new biographical aspects and change the traditional image of Abelard and his socio-cultural involvement:

• John of Salisbury tells that Abelard left his chair on the mount Sainte-Geneviève in 1137 or 1138 and - in another context - that he taught for a while at Saint-Hilaire, some hundred meters downhill, towards the river Seine. The underlying reasons for Abelard’s departure or move from mount Sainte-Geneviève are unknown: Perhaps Stephen of Garlande, after his ousting from secular power in 1137, couldn’t protect him any more. More likely, Abelard relocated his school for better teaching conditions at Saint-Hilaire. The chair at Saint-Hilaire belonged to the secular canons' house Saint-Marcel, situated on the Mont Cétard, some hundred meters southeast from Sainte-Geneviève. This convent is almost forgotten today. It was not as important as the neighbouring abbey of Sainte-Geneviève then, but probably it had a teaching tradition of its own. The deacon of Saint-Marcel, who fostered Abelard, might have been the famous “dialectical theologian” and colleague of Peter Abelard, Gilbert de la Porrée. This hypothesis rests on deliberations about Gilbert's situation in Paris and some hints in the contemporary charters.
   

• It may be objected that Abelard could hardly be in an advantageous position at Saint-Hilaire, as he was there under the juridical surveillance of bishop Stephen of Paris, who was well-known as hyperorthodox and supporter of the competing schools of Saint-Victor. This objection is proved wrong by the counter-argument that this obedience was a mere formalism after 1138/1139, because Stephen of Senlis, handicapped by a mental or physical illness, subsequently retired from episcopate and adjourned to Saint-Victor, long before his death on July 29, 1142. This early retirement implicated factual sedisvacance in Paris, at the latest from 1139/1140, and it might have enabled Abelard to teach at Saint-Hilaire undisturbed for a longer period. Even after his departure, his supporter Arnold of Brescia, who preached against episcopal wealth and influence with fervour, could hold his ground at Saint-Hilaire for a while. In addition, the fate of Stephen of Senlis explains why he was the only suffragan bishop of Sens - apart from the elderly bishop Fromond of Nevers -, who was absent from the trial of Sens. He should have played an important role there.
   

• As regards Stephen of Garlande, archdeacon of Paris and deacon of Sainte-Geneviève, a cliché, which could arise from a lecture of R.H. Bautier in 1979, must be given up: Most likely, Stephen of Garlande didn't support Peter Abelard’s teaching during his second career. On the contrary, until his death on June 2, 1147, he became closer and closer to the ecclesiastical reformers and the papacy. This assessment is supported by a papal bull dating from March 10, 1141, where the Pope apparently came to Stephen's defence against calumny. There is some evidence that he even gained the friendship of Abelard's persecutor, Bernard of Clairvaux, who wrote a conciliatory admonition to him. A mutual meeting is mentioned below.
   

• To obtain detailed insight into the campaign of French orthodoxy against Peter Abelard, it is worth glancing at the social unrest, emerging from the overcrowded urban centres of the Francia, and the severe political crises of 1141, which upset the royal domain, e. g. the campaign against Toulouse, the quarrels about the sees of Poitiers and Bourges and the scandalous divorce of Seneschal Raoul of Vermandois. In this regard, the meeting of the secular and ecclesiastical potentates in Sens on May 25, 1141, is somehow a turning point: Shortly after, the high ranking figures were to struggle for hegemony in France, fighting vehemently each other, partially with the ecclesiastical “weapons” of interdict and anathema, partially with sword and shield, in a virulent military conflict. Regarding the political impact, one may assume that the Council of Sens afforded, for the last time, opportunity for feudal and ecclesiastical self-portrayal and diplomatic dodges. With regard to the upcoming showdown, the discussion about Peter Abelard’s theses might have turned to a minor matter.
   

• It's not fully clear on which week-day the Council of Sens - celebrated on the octave of Pentecost - really took place, the more so as several sources reflect a two-day event. Therefore, some scholars argue that Abelard was in fact condemned on Monday, May 26. A Monday hearing was customary for general or major councils, but it must not necessarily be transferred to the regional synod of Sens, which was, at first instance, a public exhibition of relics on octave Sunday. Some formulations in the known sources point to this one-day-event. A solution for these apparent inconsistencies is provided by the medieval way of celebrating an ecclesiastical feast: Normally, the ceremony was opened in the vesper hour on the eve of Sunday (the beginning of the new day, according to proto-Christian understanding). So it seems plausible that Abelard’s controversial sentences were condemned during a banquet after the vesper mass, on Saturday, May 24, when Bernard of Clairvaux preached to the people. The condemnation may have taken place in the consistory, following the holy Mass and the relics’ exhibition, on Sunday, June 25.
   

• Abelard's subsequent appellation to the Holy See was not an emotional act, as Geoffrey of Auxerre makes us believe, but a deliberately prepared action, probably suggested by Hyacinth Bobo, first subdeacon of the Lateran and supporter of Abelard at the curia, who was present at Sens then. Shortly before, the chances for success of an appellation to the Holy See had increased enormously: Pope Innocent II, on renewing the ancient Roman law, had obliged the archbishops not to hinder appellations to the Holy See and he even didn't hesitate to punish infringement severely, for example by depositing incriminated prelates. Especially the chairman of Sens, Archbishop Henry Sanglier, had felt the Pope's anger some years before, and he had to be cautious.
   

• Bernard of Clairvaux wrote several letters to members of the curia, in order to invalidate Abelard's appeal and to assure his definitive condemnation. With regard to the subsequent short-hearing in Rome, it is possible to divide the letters into two relatively homogenous groups, analogue to their arrangement in the two historic letter collections and the time of their delivery: Partially they were written before, partially after the Council of Sens. Among the addressees, Cardinal Guy of Florence is notable, because he could have been another sympathiser of Abelard: He had pursued his dialectical and logical studies in France before 1140, most probably in Paris, together with John of Salisbury. In any case, Bernard had sent him Abelard’s “heretical” books and wrote to Guy a second time, in an adjuratory tone, because he was apparently unsure about Guy’s loyalty.
   

• The relationship between Peter Abelard and his zealot disciple Arnold of Brescia can hardly be reconstructed from the sources. In Bernard's letters to Pope Innocent, Arnold is demonised, alongside with Peter Abelard, but a close connection between the two men can be doubted. Maybe their alliance is overemphasized today; maybe there were some programmatic differences. It is not very probable that Arnold of Brescia attended the Council of Sens at all. As Arnold left Italy after the Second Lateran Council in April 1139 and probably joined Abelard much later, in 1141, there might have been an interim stay in Zurich. This idea is supported by two sources, hitherto questioned in their chronological reliability: The Gesta Friderici of Otto of Freising and the Ligurinus of Gunther of Pairis.
   

• Although Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, had invited Peter Abelard long before his final condemnation took place, Peter Abelard, being condemned by pope Innocent, didn't take course for Cluny immediately, but first asked for asylum at Saint-Ayoul in Provins. This conjecture can be circumstantiated by the Confessio fidei ad Heloissam, which was written later, in a situation when Abelard decided to enter Cluny irreversibly, and by an aversive letter of the abbot of Montier-la-Celle, Peter of Celle, directed to Heloise, prioress of the Paraclete. Heloise had put in a good word for a fugitive then. The priory Saint-Ayoul belonged to Montier-la-Celle and had fostered Abaelard in winter 1121/1122. It was at a short distance from Heloise and the Paraclete convent.
   

• There is no evidence that Abelard intended to appeal to the papal graciousness personally. The relevant passage in a letter of Peter the Venerable, written to Pope Innocent for Abelard's amnesty after his transfer to Cluny, must not be taken literally: When abbot Peter talked about Abelard's “journey” - the exact Latin term is transitus - he consciously used an ambiguous term for Abelard's final decision: entering in Cluny. Transitus means, in a general Christian sense, “entering eternal life” as well as conversion to monastic life or transfer from an order to another.
   

• Bernard's famous sermon for the clergymen of Paris, De conversione, was an after-effect of the affair with Peter Abelard. With apocalyptical undertones, Bernard tried to enthuse the renitent sinners among the Parisian schoolmen for his monastical ideal. On denouncing the perverse attitudes of self-appointed clerics, who “claim to possess the key to science and authority, without being called”, Bernard denounced Abelard's former attitudes, but didn’t mention the philosopher by name. Bernard's performance is traditionally dated in the winter before Abelard's condemnation, but this dating is based on slender grounds. There is much more evidence that Bernard preached in spring 1142, shortly before the Council of Lagny (May 1142). At this time, Peter Abelard lay in agony. After having preached without much success, Bernard had a nervous breakdown in the chapel of an archdeacon of Paris. This lachrymose scene, portrayed in a miracles' book of Herbert of Torres, was reported by an eye witness, abbot Rainald of Foigny. One may assume that the oratorium, where Bernard rested for prayer, was the chapel Saint-Aignan, integrated in the cloisters’ wall of Paris. Heloise and Peter Abelard had probably married there, more than two decades ago. The archdeacon, who invited Bernard then, must have been Stephen of Garlande. In its historical substance, the story supports the hypothesis that Bernard of Clairvaux and Stephen of Garlande sustained friendly or at least diplomatic contacts in times of political instability. The severe estrangement between Pope Innocent II and king Louis VII in about 1142 may have led both men into an isolated situation. This could be the reason why they looked for new alliances.

The last chapter of this study tries to answer a hypothetical question: Which fact or which means would have helped to avoid Abelard's papal condemnation?

• The answer may be shocking: Money.
  
  Some Italian chronicles and comments of contemporaries shed light on an embarrassing scandal in the Holy Consistory. Hard-pressed by the costs of satisfying and placating the hungry, avaricious and seditious Romans and for courtly representation, the Pope and his cardinals willingly accepted bribes. Several documents depict this rather unchristian custom. Corruption and venality perverted curial politics esp. in the Pope’s last years. So, we must conclude: Abelard, who had acquired some fortune in Brittany (see HC), could have been bought off from the charge of heresy, if he had been able or willing to do so.

But in this context, we must keep hold of the fact that neither Peter Abelard nor Bernard of Clairvaux have ever demonstrably tried to buy any advantageous position or accreditation. This candour is a highlight in their acrimonious quarrel about the epistemological foundations of 12th century Christendom.