Berengar: BERENGARII SCHOLASTICI APOLOGETICUS

Ut rideas, lector, videas: imo videas, ut irrideas quae ridicula tibi occurrent. Et quemadmodum ipse Berengarius te monet in epist. seq., si quid in personam hominis Dei (Bernardi scilicet abbatis Clar.) dixit, joco legas, non serio.

That you may laugh, reader, look; nay rather, look, so that you may deride the things ridiculous that will occur to you. And just as Berengarius himself warns you in the following epistle, if he said anything against the person of the man of God (namely Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux), read it in jest, not in earnest.

Scriptorum tuorum exemplaria, Bernarde, celebris circumquaque fama divulgat. Nec mirum scripta tua in famae pulpito collocari, cum constet ea, qualiacunque sint, a majoribus hujus temporis approbari. Mirantur homines in te, liberalium disciplinarum ignaro, tantam ubertatem facundiae, quia emissiones tuae jam cooperuerunt universam superficiem terrae.

The exemplars of your writings, Bernard, a celebrated fame everywhere divulges. Nor is it a wonder that your writings are placed on the pulpit of fame, since it is agreed that they, whatever they may be, are approved by the major figures of this time. People marvel that in you, unacquainted with the liberal disciplines, there is such a richness of eloquence, because your effusions have already covered the entire surface of the earth.

Quibus est divinitus respondendum, quia Magna opera Domini [Psal. CX]; et: Haec est mutatio dexterae Excelsi [Psal. LXXVI]. Sed nihil est cur admiratione percelli debeant.

To whom a divine answer is to be given, that Great are the works of the Lord [Psal. 110]; and: This is the change of the right hand of the Most High [Psal. 76]. But there is no reason why they ought to be smitten with admiration.

Imo magis mirandum esset te eloquii urgeri siccitate, quoniam audivimus a primis fere adolescentiae rudimentis cantiunculas mimicas et urbanos modulos fictitasse. Neque certe in incerto loquimur opinionis, sed testis est alumna tui patria nostri sermonis. Nonne id etiam tuae memoriae altius est insignitum, quod fratres tuos rhythmico certamine acutaeque inventionis versutia semper exsuperare contendebas?

Rather, it would be more to be wondered at that you are pressed by a dryness of eloquence, since we have heard that from almost the first rudiments of adolescence you forged little mimic songs and urbane modulations. Nor, assuredly, do we speak on the uncertain ground of opinion, but a witness is the offspring of your fatherland—our speech. Is it not also more deeply inscribed upon your memory, that you always strove to surpass your brothers in rhythmic contest and by the subtlety of acute invention?

Cui gravis et peracerba videbatur injuria reperire aliquem qui pari responderet protervia. Possem aliqua de nugis tuis huic opusculo ex testium probabilium astipulatione inserere, sed vereor paginam foedi commenti interpositione interpolari. Caeterum cunctis nota teste non indigent.

To whom the injury seemed grave and most bitter—to find someone who would respond with equal insolence. I could insert certain things about your trifles into this little opus with the attestation of credible witnesses, but I fear that the page may be interpolated by the interposition of a foul contrivance. Moreover, things known to all have no need of a witness.

Illum itaque commentandi et nugandi usum ad divinum saepe instrumentum accersis; et astruunt imperiti graviter et granditer dictum, quod ubertim et eloquenter effutis. Sed non sic esse ratio necessaria convincit. Frequenter enim veritas absolute et illepide profertur, et falsitas plausibilis eloquii comitate commendatur.

You therefore often call in that habit of commenting and trifling to the divine instrument; and the unskilled assert as something said gravely and grandly what you pour out copiously and eloquently. But necessary reason proves that it is not so. For frequently truth is brought forth absolutely and inelegantly, and falsehood is commended by the comity of plausible eloquence.

Similesque sunt, ut ait Augustinus, simplicitas dicendi et eloquentia vasis rusticanis et urbanis; falsitas vero et veritas, ferculis vilibus et pretiosis. Utraque autem fercula utrisque possunt vasis ministrari. Neque hoc ideo dixerim, ut te notabilem et suspectum reddam, sed ut veritatem non in omnium facundia esse simpliciter astruam.

And, as Augustine says, the simplicity of speaking and eloquence are like rustic and urban vessels; while falsity and truth are like cheap and precious dishes. Yet either kind of dish can be served in either kind of vessels. Nor do I say this in order to render you notable and suspect, but so that I may simply assert that truth does not reside in the facundity of all.

Sed super hoc hactenus; ad reliqua potius transeamus. Jamdudum sanctitudinis tuae odorem ales per orbem fama dispersit, praeconizavit merita, miracula declamavit. Felicia jactabamus moderna saecula tam corusci sideris venustata nitore, mundumque jam debitum perditioni tuis meritis subsistere putabamus.

But on this, thus far; let us rather pass to the rest. Long since the winged Fame has dispersed through the orb the odor of your sanctity, has preconized the merits, has declaimed the miracles. We were vaunting the modern ages as happy, beautified by the coruscant splendor of so shining a star, and we were thinking that the world, already owed to perdition, was standing fast by your merits.

Sperabamus in linguae tuae arbitrio coeli sitam clementiam, aeris temperiem, ubertatem terrae, fructuum benedictionem. Caput tuum nubes tangebat; et juxta vulgare proverbium, rami tui umbras montium transcendebat. Sic diu vixisti, sic Ecclesiam castis institutionibus informasti, ut ad semicinctia tua rugire daemones autumaremus, et beatulos nos tanto gloriaremur patrono.

We hoped that, at the arbitration of your tongue, the clemency of heaven, the temper of the air, the uberty of the earth, the benediction of fruits, was set. Your head was touching the clouds; and, according to the common proverb, your branches were overpassing the shadows of the mountains. Thus you lived long, thus you fashioned the Church with chaste institutions, so that we would suppose demons to roar at your cinctures, and we gloried that we were beatulous with so great a patron.

Nunc, proh dolor! patuit quod latebat, et colubri soporati tandem aculeos suscitasti. Omissis omnibus, Petrum Abaelardum quasi signum ad sagittam posuisti, in quem acerbitatis tuae virus evomeres, quem de terra viventium tolleres, quem inter mortuos collocares.

Now, alas! what lay hidden has stood revealed, and you have at last roused the stings of the slumbering serpents. With all else set aside, you set Peter Abelard as if a target for the arrow, upon whom you might vomit the virus of your acerbity, whom you would take away from the land of the living, whom among the dead you would place.

Corrogatis undecunque episcopis eum in Senonensi concilio haereticum pronuntiasti, ab utero matris Ecclesiae velut aborsum praecidisti. In via Christi ambulantem, tanquam sicarius de occulto prodiens, tunica inconsutili spoliasti. Concionabaris ad populum, ut orationem funderet ad Deum pro eo; interius autem disponebas eum proscribendum ab orbe Christiano.

Having gathered bishops from everywhere, you pronounced him a heretic in the Council of Sens, you cut him off from the womb of Mother Church like an abortus. As he was walking in the way of Christ, like a sicarius emerging from concealment, you stripped off the seamless tunic. You were preaching to the people that they should pour out prayer to God for him; but inwardly you were arranging that he be proscribed from the Christian world.

Quid vulgus faceret? quid vulgus oraret, cum pro quo esset orandum nesciret? Tu vir Dei, qui miracula feceras, qui ad pedes Jesu cum Maria sedebas [Luc.

What was the crowd to do? what was the crowd to pray, when it did not know for whom prayer ought to be offered? You, a man of God, who had wrought miracles, who sat at the feet of Jesus with Mary [Luke.

X]; qui conservabas omnia verba haec in corde tuo [Luc. II], purissimum sacrae orationis thus coram supernis obtutibus adolere deberes, ut reus tuus Petrus resipisceret, et talis efficeretur quem nulla suspicio inquinaret. Sed forsitan malebas talem, in quo reprehensionis idoneam nanciscereris occasionem.

10]; who were conserving all these words in your heart [Luke 2], you ought to burn the most pure incense of sacred oration before the supernal gazes, so that your defendant, Peter, might come to his senses, and be made such a one as no suspicion would defile. But perhaps you preferred such a man, in whom you might obtain a suitable occasion for reprehension.

Denique post prandium allatus est liber Petri, et cuidam praeceptum est ut voce clamosa Petri opuscula personaret. At ille et Petri odio animatus, et vitis germine irrigatus, non illius qui dixit: Ego sum vitis vera [Joan. XV], sed illius qui patriarcham nudum stravit in area [Gen.

At length, after dinner, Peter’s book was brought in, and someone was instructed to sound forth Peter’s opuscules with a loud voice. But he, both animated by hatred of Peter and irrigated by the shoot of the vine, not of Him who said: I am the true vine [John 15], but of him who laid the patriarch low, naked, on the threshing-floor [Gen.

IX], sonorius quam postulatum fuerat exclamavit. Post aliqua pontifices insultare, pedem pedi applaudere, ridere, nugari conspiceres, ut facile quilibet judicaret illos non Christo vota persolvere, sed Baccho. Inter haec salutantur scyphi, pocula celebrantur, laudantur vina, pontificum guttura irrigantur.

9], he shouted out more sonorously than had been requested. After a while you might have seen the pontiffs leaping about, applauding foot to foot, laughing, trifling, so that anyone might easily judge that they were paying vows not to Christ, but to Bacchus. Meanwhile goblets are saluted, cups are celebrated, wines are lauded, the throats of the pontiffs are irrigated.

Tunc aliquis Horatiano sale ludere posset:

Then someone could jest with Horatian salt:

Nullam, Vare, sacra vite prius severis arborem.
Nam illud, quod idem poeta in alio carmine promit,

Varus, plant no tree before the sacred vine.
For that, which the same poet puts forth in another poem,

Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero
Pulsanda tellus . . . . .

Now it is time for drinking, now with the foot free
the earth must be pounded . . . . .

ibi memoriter gerebatur. Quanto salubrius audiretur suavis poetae Galli sententia luculentis admodum versibus vigilata. Ait enim

there it was conducted from memory. How much more salutary would be heard the sentiment of the sweet Gallic poet, kept watch by very luculent verses. For he says

Vina probo si pota modo, debentque probari
Si non pota modo, vina venena puto.

I approve wines if drunk in measure, and they ought to be approved;
If not drunk in measure, I consider wines poisons.

Sed lethaei potio succi pontificum corda jam sepelierat. Ecce, inquit satiricus;

But the potion of Lethean juice had already buried the hearts of the pontiffs. Behold, says the satirist;

. . . . . . inter pocula quaerunt
Pontifices saturi quid dia poemata narrent.

. . . . . . they inquire among the cups
sated pontiffs what the divine poems narrate.

Denique cum aliquid subtile divinumque sonabat, quod auribus pontificalibus erat insolitum, audientes omnes dissecabantur cordibus suis, et stridebant dentibus in Petrum. Et oculos talpae habentes in philosophum: Hoc, inquiunt, sineremus vivere monstrum? Moventesque caput quasi Judaei, Vah, inquiunt, ecce qui destruit templum Dei [Matth.

Finally, when something subtle and divine was sounding, which was unusual to pontifical ears, all the hearers were cut to the heart, and they gnashed their teeth at Peter. And having the eyes of a mole toward the philosopher: “This monster,” they say, “shall we allow to live?” And moving the head as if Jews, Vah, they say, behold the one who destroys the temple of God [Matt.

XXVII]. Sic judicant verba luminis caeci, sic virum sobrium damnant ebrii, sic contra organum Trinitatis disserunt calices facundi. Sic contra simplicem disputant cornuti. Sic sanctum canes, sic margaritas porci corrodunt.

27]. Thus the words of a blind light judge, thus the drunk condemn the sober man, thus the eloquent chalices discourse against the organ of the Trinity. Thus the horned ones dispute against the simple. Thus dogs gnaw the holy, thus swine gnaw pearls.

Sic sal terrae infatuatur. Sic legis fistula obturatur. Concionatur sapiens vir: Qui tangit picem inquinabitur ab ea [Eccli.

Thus the salt of the earth is made insipid. Thus the pipe of the Law is stopped up. The wise man preaches: He who touches pitch will be defiled by it [Eccli.

XIII], quod nos alio possumus reddere versu: Qui tangit vinum inquinabitur ab eo. Biberat episcoporum sobrietas sanguinem uvae meracissimum, cujus integritatem aqua non devirginaverat, quia secundum Martialem:

13], which we can render in another verse: Who touches wine will be defiled by it. The sobriety of the bishops had drunk the very purest blood of the grape, whose integrity water had not de-virginated, because, according to Martial:

Grande nimis scelus est sacrum jugulare Falernum,
Nec Bacchus lymphae conjugium patitur.

It is a crime too great to murder the sacred Falernian,
nor does Bacchus suffer a marriage with water.

Impleverant primates orbis philosophi turis [al. gutturis] dolia sua vini do vino. Cujus calor ita incesserat cerebris, ut in somni lethargiam oculi omnium solverentur. Inter haec sonat lector, stertit auditor.

The philosophers, primates of the world, had filled the vats of their incense [al. of their gullet] with wine upon wine. Whose heat had so invaded their brains that the eyes of all were dissolved into the lethargy of sleep. Meanwhile, amid these things, the reader sounds, the auditor snores.

Alius cubito innititur, ut det oculis suis somnum. Alius super molle cervical dormitionem palpebris suis molitur. Alius super genua caput reclinans dormitat.

Another leans on his elbow, to give sleep to his eyes. Another upon a soft pillow contrives slumber with his eyelids. Another, his head reclining upon his knees, dozes.

Cum itaque lector in Petri satis aliquod reperiret spinctum, surdis exclamabat auribus pontificum: 'Damnatis?' Tunc quidam vix ad extremam syllabam expergefacti, somnolenta voce, capite pendulo: 'Damnamus, aiebant.' Alii vero damnantium tumultu excitati, decapitata prima syllaba, ' . . . . namus inquiunt.' Vere natis, sed natatio vestra procella, natatio vestra mersio [al. immersio est]. Sic milites dormientes testimonium perhibent, quia nobis dormientibus venerunt apostoli, et tulerunt corpus [Matth. XXVIII]. Qui vigilaverat in lege Domini die ac nocte, nunc damnatur a sacerdotibus Bacchi. Sic morbidus medicum curat.

Accordingly, when the lector found in Peter some sufficiently marked point of punctuation, he shouted to the deaf ears of the pontiffs: 'Do you condemn?' Then certain men, scarcely awakened at the last syllable, with a drowsy voice, their head nodding: 'We condemn,' they were saying. Others, roused by the tumult of the condemners, with the first syllable decapitated, ' . . . . namus,' they say. Truly you are born, but your natation is a tempest, your natation is a submersion [al. immersio est]. Thus sleeping soldiers bear witness, that while we were sleeping, the apostles came and took the body [Matt. 28]. He who had kept vigil in the law of the Lord day and night is now condemned by the priests of Bacchus. Thus the morbid man treats the physician.

Sic damnat naufragus in littore constitutum. Sic arguit innocentiam qui ad furcas ducitur suspendendus. Quid agimus, anima?

Thus a shipwrecked man condemns the one stationed on the shore. Thus the one led to the gallows to be hanged pleads innocence. What shall we do, soul?

Quo nos vertimus? Excideruntne tibi praecepta rhetorum, et occupata luctu, praepedita singultibus, dicendi ordinem non tenes? Putasne veniens Filius hominis inveniet fidem super terram? [Luc.

Whither are we turning? Have the precepts of the rhetors slipped from you, and, occupied by grief, hampered by sobs, do you not hold the order of speaking? Do you think that, when he comes, the Son of Man will find faith upon the earth? [Luke.

XVIII.]Vulpes foveas habent, et volucres coeli nidos, Petrus autem non habet ubi caput suum reclinet [Matth. VIII]. Sic judicant in loco judicis sedentes rei, in loco vindicis innocentiae vexatores. Simul sunt omnia talibus judicibus, talibus actoribus depravata:

18.]Foxes have dens, and the birds of heaven nests, but Peter does not have where to lay his head [Matt. 8]. Thus the accused, sitting in the place of the judge, judge; in the place of the avenger, the vexers of innocence. At once all things are corrupted by such judges, by such prosecutors:

Hic satur, exiguo mavult turgescere somno,
Hic exporrectis ampullat verba labellis.
Hic loquitur nimis, ille tacet; hic ambulat, hic stat,
Alter amat fletus, alter crispare cachinnum.
Diversisque modis pax est vesania cunctis.

Here, sated, he prefers to grow turgid with scant sleep,
Here, with lips thrust out, he inflates his words into ampullous bombast.
Here one speaks too much, that one is silent; here one walks, here one stands,
One loves weeping, another to curl a cachinnation.
And in diverse modes insanity is peace to all.

Quid hi tales egerint, quid decreverint jurisperiti? Evangelica lectio consolatur. Collegerunt, inquit, pontifices et Pharisaei concilium, et dixerunt: Quid facimus?

What such men as these have done, what the jurists have decreed? The Evangelical reading consoles. They gathered, he says, the pontiffs and the Pharisees a council, and said: What are we to do?

quia hic homo multa signa facit. Si dimittimus eum sic, omnes credent in eum. Unus autem ex ipsis, nomine Bernardus abbas, cum esset pontifex concilii illius, prophetavit, dicens: Expedit nobis ut unus exterminetur homo a populo, et non tota gens pereat [Joan.

because this man does many signs. If we let him go on thus, all will believe in him. But one of them, named Bernard the abbot, when he was pontiff of that council, prophesied, saying: It is expedient for us that one man be exterminated from the people, and that not the whole nation perish [Joan.

XI]. Ab illo ergo die cogitaverunt condemnare eum, dicentes illud Salomonis: Tendamus insidias justo supplantemus ei gratiam labiorum [Sap. II]. Inveniamus radicem verbi contra justum [Job. XIX]. Facientes fecistis, et linguas vipereas in Abaelardum evaginastis.

11]. From that day, therefore, they thought to condemn him, saying that of Solomon: Let us lay ambushes for the just man; let us supplant for him the grace of the lips [Sap. 2]. Let us find the root of a word against the just man [Job. 19]. Doing, you have done, and you have unsheathed viperous tongues against Abaelard.

Subversi subvertistis, et vinum absorbuistis sicut qui devorat pauperem in abscondito. Inter haec Petrus orabat: Domine, libera animam meam a labiis iniquis, et a lingua dolosa [Psal. C, 2]. Interdum illud Psalmistae sedulo ruminabat: Circumdederunt me vituli multi, tauri pingues obsederunt me. Aperuerunt super me os suum [Psal.

Subverted, you have subverted, and you have absorbed wine like one who devours the poor in secret. Meanwhile Peter was praying: Lord, deliver my soul from iniquitous lips, and from a deceitful tongue [Psal. 100, 2]. At times he diligently ruminated that saying of the Psalmist: Many calves have surrounded me, fat bulls have besieged me. They have opened their mouth upon me [Psal.

XXI]. Vere pingues, quorum colla thoris adipeis incrassata liquidam sudabant ad ruinam [f. aruinam]. Nec mirum. Visitaverant enim domestici fidei neutrius lacrymas in misericordia et charitate. Sedit autem in concilio vanitatis, contra psalmi XXV decretum quidam memoriae celebris episcopus, in cujus auctoritatem plurimorum se reclamabat assensus.

XXI]. Truly fat, whose necks, thickened with fatty swellings, were sweating liquid to ruin [f. aruinam]. Nor is it a marvel. For the household of the faith had visited in mercy and charity the tears of neither party. Moreover, a certain bishop, celebrated in memory, sat in a council of vanity, against the decree of Psalm 25, on whose authority the assent of many laid its claim.

Hic hesternam crapulam ructans, hujusmodi in concione sermonem evomuit: 'Fratres, Christianae religionis participes, omnium [al. communi.] periculo providete. Ne fides in vobis turbetur, ne sincerus columbae oculus turgente macula obducatur. Nihil enim prodest aliarum virtutum possessio ubi fuerit fidei defectio, juxta illud Apostoli: Si linguis hominum loquar et angelorum, charitatem autem non habeam, nihil mihi prodest [I Cor.

This man, belching yesterday’s crapulence, vomited forth a speech of this sort in the assembly: 'Brothers, participants in the Christian religion, take heed against the danger of all [al. common]. Let not faith be disturbed in you, let not the sincere eye of the dove be covered over by a swelling stain. For the possession of other virtues profits nothing where there is a defect of faith, according to that of the Apostle: If I should speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but should not have charity, it profits me nothing [1 Cor.

XIII].' O Minervae lepos! o sales Attici! o eloquentia Tulliana!

13].' O Minerva's charm! o Attic wit! o Tullian eloquence!

Hanc certe caudam non vult hic asinus. Talis finis tali capiti non respondet. Unde etiam qui faverunt, pressa fronte ruborem confessi sunt.

This ass certainly does not want this tail. Such a finish does not correspond to such a head. Whence even those who had favored, with brow pressed, confessed their blush.

Placet et non immerito hanc magni nominis umbram gregi illorum communicare, de quibus dictum est: Conceperunt ventum, et telas araneae texuerunt [Isa. LIX]. Praefatus vero episcopus etiam praemissis adjungens: 'Petrus, inquit, semper turbat Ecclesiam, semper excogitat novitatem. O tempora!

It pleases, and not without merit, to communicate this shadow of a great name to the flock of those about whom it has been said: They conceived wind, and they wove spider webs [Isa. 59]. The aforesaid bishop, moreover, adding also to the things premised: 'Peter,' he says, 'always disturbs the Church, always contrives novelty. O times!'

o mores! Sic judicat de sole caecus. Sic pingit in ebore mancus.

o morals! Thus a blind man judges about the sun. Thus a maimed man paints on ivory.

Sic urbem appretiatur asinus. Sic animales episcopi judicant sic casus ventilant, sic discutiunt rationes. Sic pugnant contra eum filii matris suae.

Thus a donkey appraises a city. Thus the animal bishops judge, thus they ventilate cases, thus they discuss reasons. Thus the sons of their own mother fight against him.

Sic sues crassae adversus silentem grunniunt.'

Thus the fat sows grunt against the silent one.'

Intra tot itaque et tantas angustias deprehensus Abaelardus ad Romani examinis confugit asylum. 'Filius sum, inquit, Romanae Ecclesiae. Volo causa mea quasi impii judicetur: Caesarem appello [Act.

Thus, caught within so many and so great straits, Abaelardus fled to the asylum of Roman examination. 'I am a son,' he says, 'of the Roman Church. I wish my case to be judged as that of an impious man: I appeal to Caesar [Act.

XXV].' At Bernardus abbas, in cujus brachio fidebat praesulum multitudo, non dixit ut praeses qui tenebat Paulum in vinculis: Caesarem appellasti, ad Caesarem ibis [ibid.], sed, Caesarem appellasti, ad Caesarem non ibis. Renuntiavit enim quae gesta fuerant Apostolico, et statim a Romana sede litem damnationis in Petrum per Gallicanam Ecclesiam volaverunt. Damnatur taliter os illud promptuarium rationis, tuba fidei, hospitium Trinitatis.

25].' But Abbot Bernard, upon whose arm the multitude of prelates relied, did not say as the praeses who held Paul in chains: You have appealed to Caesar, to Caesar you shall go [ibid.], but, You have appealed to Caesar, to Caesar you shall not go. For he reported to the Apostolic what had been done, and straightway from the Roman See the suit of condemnation against Peter sped through the Gallican Church. Thus is condemned that mouth, the storehouse of reason, the trumpet of faith, the lodging of the Trinity.

Damnatur, proh dolor! absens, inauditus et inconvictus. Quid dicam?

He is condemned, alas! absent, unheard, and unconvicted. What shall I say?

quidve non dicam, Bernarde?

or what shall I not say, Bernard?

Nil opus est bello, veniam pacemque rogamus,
Porrigimus junctas ad tua lora manus.
Jura cadent rerum, vertetur sanctio legum,
Si vis, si mandas, si sic decernis agendum;
Quem penes arbitrium est, et vis et norma loquendi.

There is no need of war; we ask for pardon and peace,
We extend joined hands to your reins.
The rights of affairs will fall, the sanction of the laws will be overturned,
If you will, if you mandate, if you thus decree it to be done;
With whom lie the arbitrament, the force, and the norm of speaking.

Cujus unquam, Jesu bone, culpa tam caecos habuit judices, ut non utrinque causae latera ventilarent, ut non in quam potissimum partem jus vergeret elimarent? Isti, clausis oculis, palpant negotium, et quasi oculati rerum cognitores arcu iniquitatis intenso toxicum subito jaculantur. Quidquid intestinus odiorum furor, quidquid implacabilis amentiae turbo rotaret in Petrum, quidquid iniqua conflaret aemulatio, censurae apostolicae sobrium nunquam dormitare deberet acumen.

Whose fault ever, good Jesus, has held judges so blind that they did not on both sides ventilate the sides of the cause, that they did not refine to which part especially the right inclined? These men, with eyes shut, feel their way through the business, and, as if sharp-eyed cognitors of matters, with the bow of iniquity drawn tight they suddenly hurl poison. Whatever the intestine fury of hatreds, whatever the whirlwind of implacable insanity might whirl against Peter, whatever iniquitous emulation might kindle, the sober acumen of apostolic censure ought never to slumber.

Sed facile deviat a justitia, qui plus hominem quam Deum timet in causa. Verumque illud est quod per propheticum organum sonat: Omne caput languidum, a planta pedis usque ad cervicem, non est in eo sanitas [Isa. I].

But he easily deviates from justice who fears man more than God in the cause. And true is that which sounds through the prophetic organ: Every head is languid; from the sole of the foot up to the neck, there is no soundness in it [Isa. 1].

Sed corrigere, inquiunt fautores abbatis, Petrum volebat. Si Petrum, bone vir, ad integrum fidei statum disponebas revocare, cur ei coram populo aeternae blasphemiae characterem impingebas? Rursusque, si Petro amorem populi tollebas, quomodo corrigere disponebas?

But, say the abbot’s favorers, he wanted to correct Peter. If, good man, you were arranging to recall Peter to the integral state of faith, why were you impressing upon him before the people the character of eternal blasphemy? And again, if you were taking away from Peter the love of the people, how were you disposing to correct him?

Ex qua complexione in summam redigitur te in Petrum exarsisse non amore correctionis, sed desiderium propriae ultionis. Praeclare dictum est a Propheta: Corripiet me justus in misericordia [Psal. CXL]. Ubi enim deest misericordia non est correctio justi, sed barbaries incondita tyranni.

From this combination it is reduced, in sum, that you blazed up against Peter not from love of correction, but from a desire for your own vengeance. It has been excellently said by the Prophet: The just man will rebuke me in mercy [Ps. 140]. For where mercy is lacking, there is not the correction of the just man, but the unformed barbarity of a tyrant.

Testatur etiam rancorem animi ejus epistola ad Innocentium papam directa, in qua sic stomachatur: 'Non debet, inquit, refugium invenire apud sedem Petri, qui fidem impugnat Petri.' Parce, parce, bellator inclyte. Non decet monachum sic pugnare. Crede Salomoni: Noli, inquit, nimium esse justus, ne forte obstupescas [Eccle.

A letter directed to Pope Innocent also testifies to the rancor of his mind, in which he thus vents his spleen: 'He ought not, he says, to find refuge at the See of Peter who impugns the faith of Peter.' Spare, spare, renowned warrior. It does not befit a monk to fight thus. Believe Solomon: Do not, he says, be too just, lest perhaps you be stupefied [Eccle.

VII]. Non impugnat fidem Petri, qui fidem affirmat Petri. Debet ergo invenire refugium apud sedem Petri. Patere, quaeso, Petrum tecum esse Christianum.

7]. He does not impugn Peter’s faith who affirms Peter’s faith. He ought therefore to find refuge at the seat of Peter. Allow, I beg, that Peter be a Christian with you.

Et si vis, tecum erit Catholicus. Et si non vis, tamen erit Catholicus. Communis enim Deus est, non privatus.

And if you wish, he will be Catholic with you. And if you do not wish, nevertheless he will be Catholic. For God is common, not private.

Sed si sedet sententia cordi, pergamus pariter contemplari quomodo Petrus fidem infestat Petri. Scribit enim Petrus ad ancillam Dei Heloissam sacris litteris apprime institutam, familiarem satis epistolam, quae inter reliqua horum etiam verborum redolet continentiam:

But if the judgment sits well with the heart, let us proceed together to contemplate how Peter assails the faith of Peter. For Peter writes to the handmaid of God, Heloise, most especially instructed in sacred letters, a quite familiar letter, which among the rest also breathes the tenor of these words:

Soror mea Heloissa quondam mihi in saeculo chara, nunc in Christo charissima, etc. Vide supra, initio voluminis.

My sister Heloise, once dear to me in the world, now most dear in Christ, etc. See above, at the beginning of the volume.

Haec de epistola Petri ad verbum excerpenda putavi, ut liquidum fieret quomodo Petrus impugnaret fidem Petri. Nunc, rigide censor, adesto, et fidem Petri sincero perpende judicio. Dixisti: 'Non debet refugium invenire apud sedem Petri, qui fidem impugnat Petri.' Hoc per se dictum quoddam esset eminens et generale verum.

These things from Peter’s epistle I thought ought to be excerpted verbatim, so that it might become clear how Peter was impugning the faith of Peter. Now, rigid censor, be present, and weigh Peter’s faith with sincere judgment. You said: 'He who impugns the faith of Peter ought not to find refuge at the See of Peter.' This, said by itself, would be a certain eminent and general truth.

Sed quia personaliter dixisti de Petro, convinco te sentire contraria vero. Non enim Petrus arguit fidem, ad cujus lineam vitam suam disponit; nec alienus est a Christi portione, cujus se tam humiliter insignivit nomine. Deberet ergo refugium apud sedem Petri invenire, si non illecebrae tui eloquii clausissent viscera misericordiae Romanae Ecclesiae.

But because you said this personally about Peter, I convict you of feeling things contrary to the truth. For Peter does not arraign the faith, by whose line he disposes his life; nor is he alien from the portion of Christ, with whose name he has so humbly marked himself. He ought therefore to find refuge at the See of Peter, if the allurements of your eloquence had not closed the bowels of mercy of the Roman Church.

Sed, dum tu Petro clementiae ostium obstruis, conceptae vesaniae signanter impetum prodis.

But, while you bar to Peter the door of clemency, you pointedly disclose the onrush of your conceived madness.

Hic fortasse, inquies: 'Nimia super me lacessit injuria. Zelus domus Dei comedit me, eo quod lepra insanae doctrinae macularet corpus Ecclesiae. Cui obviandum in ipso statim nequitiae semine putavi, ne late serperet vis veneni.

Here perhaps, you will say: 'An excessive injury assails me. Zeal of the house of God has consumed me, because the leprosy of insane doctrine might stain the body of the Church. Which I thought must be confronted at once in the very seed of iniquity, lest the force of the poison should creep widely.

Nonne caute consulteque egi, quod foedum illud sacrilegumque dogma manuali quodam indiculo complosi, ne scilicet breviter volentibus attingere summam rei, onerosum esset ire per spatiosos saltus voluminum Abaelardi.' Ad haec ego: 'Laudo te, Pater, sed in hoc non laudo. Indiculum vidimus, in quo non Petri dogmata, sed nefandi commenti capitula legimus, quod scilicet Pater sit omnipotentia, Filius quaedam potentia, Spiritus sanctus nulla potentia; quod Spiritus sanctus, licet sit ejusdem substantiae cum Filio, non tamen est de eadem substantia; quod homo sine nova gratia possit operari; quod Deus non possit plus facere quam facit, nec melius facere quam facit, nec aliter facere quam facit; quod anima Christi non descendit ad inferos. Haec et alia indiculus tuus continet, quorum quaedam, fateor, Petrus et dixit et scripsit; quaedam vero neque protulit neque scripsit.

'Did I not act cautiously and advisedly, in that I compressed that foul and sacrilegious dogma into a certain manual little index, so that, namely, for those wishing briefly to touch the sum of the matter, it would not be burdensome to go through the spacious thickets of Abelard’s volumes?' To this I: 'I praise you, Father, but in this I do not praise. We saw the little index, in which we read not Peter’s dogmas, but the chapters of a nefarious contrivance: that, namely, the Father is omnipotence, the Son a certain power, the Holy Spirit no power; that the Holy Spirit, although he is of the same substance with the Son, nevertheless is not of the same substance; that man can act without new grace; that God cannot do more than he does, nor do better than he does, nor do otherwise than he does; that the soul of Christ did not descend to the infernal regions. These and other things your little index contains, of which some, I confess, Peter both said and wrote; but some he neither uttered nor wrote.'

Quae autem dixerit, et quae non dixerit, et quam Catholica mente ea quae dixerit senserit, secundus arrepti operis tractatus Christiana disputatione ardenter et impigre declarabit. Nam talia sunt quae dilui debent atque refelli, ut non immerito proprio reserventur volumini.' Nunc illud est acriter persequendum, cur vir sanctus, et in ore famae nominatissimus, qui quaedam perenni sepelienda silentio scriptis propriis tradidit, Petro Abaelardo haereseos crimen impegerit. Rata namque est fama et ab antiquo quasi, naturae legibus promulgata, neminem de simili crimine quempiam posse convincere.

But what he has said, and what he has not said, and with how Catholic a mind he has felt those things which he has said, the second treatise of the work undertaken will declare with Christian disputation ardently and indefatigably. For such are the matters that ought to be dispelled and refuted, that not without merit are they reserved to a volume of their own.' Now this is to be pursued sharply: why a holy man, most renowned on the lips of fame, who consigned certain things to be buried in perennial silence in his own writings, has fastened upon Peter Abaelard the charge of heresy. For the report is established, and as if from antiquity, promulgated by the laws of nature, that no one can convict anyone of a similar crime.

Quod dum fecisti, et imprudenter et impudenter egisti.

When you did this, you acted both imprudently and impudently.

Petrus erraverat: esto. Tu, quare errasti? Aut sciens aut nesciens errasti: Si sciens errasti, hostis Ecclesiae comprobaris; si nesciens errasti, quomodo es defensor Ecclesiae, qui errorem nescis discernere?

Peter had erred: be it so. You—why did you err? Either knowingly or unknowingly you erred: if you erred knowingly, you are shown an enemy of the Church; if you erred unknowingly, how are you a defender of the Church, who does not know how to discern error?

Errasti vere, dum originem animarum de coelo asseruisti esse. Quod qualiter in libro astruas, quoniam utile et facile est cognitu, sagaci lectori ab altiori cardine retexam. Est liber, quem Hebraeus Firasirim, Latinus nominat Canticum canticorum, cujus littera vigilantibus animis, divinae cujusdam intelligentiae sudat arcanum.

You truly erred, when you asserted the origin of souls to be from heaven. How you support this in a book, since it is useful and easy to know, I will unravel for the sagacious reader from a higher pivot. There is a book which the Hebrew calls Firasirim, the Latin names Canticum canticorum, whose letter, for wakeful minds, sweats forth the secret of a certain divine intelligence.

Ad hunc librum Bernardus manum expositionis applicat, ut ab hirsutis litterae opusculis egregii sensus frugem eliciat, utitur sane mediocri et temperato genere dicendi. Sed libet paululum percunctari cur Bernardus post tot illustrium virorum sudores, qui in praefato opere sua ingenia contulerunt, tam immensae majestatis volumen tentavit in lucem proferre? Nam, si majores nostri plenarie sufficienterque libri hujus latebras produxerunt in solem, miror qua fronte ausus tuos extenderis in opus elimatum ad unguem.

To this book Bernard applies the hand of exposition, so that from the hirsute opuscules of the letter he may draw out the fruit of distinguished sense; indeed he uses a mediocre and temperate manner of speaking. But it pleases me to inquire a little why Bernard, after so many labors of illustrious men who contributed their talents to the aforesaid work, attempted to bring into the light a volume of such immense majesty? For if our ancestors have fully and sufficiently brought the recesses of this book into the sun, I marvel with what face you have dared to extend your boldness into a work polished to the fingernail.

Quod si aliqua sunt tibi revelata sacramenta, quae eorum notitiam fugerint, non invideo: imo labori vehementer applaudo. Sed, cum eorum expositiones commentumque tuum studiosis revolvo manibus, nihil te novi dixisse comperio: imo sensum alienum verbis tuis vestitum deprehendo. Supervacua igitur explanatio tua esse videtur.

But if there are some sacraments revealed to you which have escaped their knowledge, I do not envy; rather I strongly applaud the labor. But, when I turn over with studious hands their expositions and your commentary, I find you have said nothing new; rather I detect an alien sense clothed in your words. Your explanation, therefore, seems superfluous.

Ac ne quis me putet improbabilia prolocutum, proferam super hunc librum quadrigam expositorum, Origenem scilicet Graecum, Ambrosium Mediolanensem, Retium Augustodunensem, Bedam Angligenam. Quorum primus cum in caeteris libris, ut ait Hieronymus, vicerit, in Canticis canticorum se ipsum vicit. Secundus vero probabili et erudito sermone Sponsi Sponsaeque firmavit amores.

And lest anyone think me to have uttered improbabilities, I will bring forward, concerning this book, a quadriga of expositors: Origen the Greek, Ambrose of Milan, Reticius of Autun, Bede the Englishman. Of whom the first, although in the other books, as Jerome says, he conquered, in the Song of Songs he conquered himself. The second, indeed, with a probable and erudite discourse, confirmed the loves of the Bridegroom and the Bride.

Tertius perplexitatem voluminis sublimi ore disseruit. Quartus autem ejusdem libri opaca septem libris absolvit Post tales itaque et tam industrios viros, Bernardus arat, quasi aliquid intentatum nostri majores reliquerint. Possemus sane lucubrationibus diserti hominis acquiescere, nisi potius tragoediam videretur quam commentarios texere.

The third discoursed upon the perplexity of the volume with a sublime utterance. The fourth, moreover, resolved the obscurities of the same book in seven books. After such and so industrious men, Bernard ploughs, as though our elders had left something unattempted. We could indeed acquiesce in the lucubrations of an eloquent man, were it not that he seemed rather to weave a tragedy than commentaries.

Patefacta namque quadam parte operis, repente mortem sui fratris inducit, in cujus funeris prosecutione duos pene quaternos consumit. Quod quam ibi discrepans et inconcinnum fuerit, paucis expediam. Liber ille Salomonis in sancti Spiritus officina conflatus, Christi et Ecclesiae sub sponsi sponsaeque typo maritat amplexus.

For, a certain part of the work having been laid open, he suddenly introduces the death of his brother, and in the prosecution of whose funeral he consumes almost two quires. How discrepant and incongruous that was there, I will explain in a few words. That book of Solomon, fused in the workshop of the Holy Spirit, weds the embraces of Christ and the Church under the type of bridegroom and bride.

Porro nuptiis gaudia consonant. At Bernardus aut rerum obscurarum taedio victus, aut negligens Apostoli dictum suadentis gaudere cum gaudentibus [Rom. XII], mortuum suum ducit ad nuptias: Cum scriptum sit: Non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium [Marc.

Moreover, joys sound in harmony with nuptials. But Bernard, either overcome by the tedium of obscure matters, or neglecting the dictum of the Apostle urging to rejoice with those who rejoice [Rom. 12], leads his dead man to the nuptials: Since it is written: He is not the God of the dead, but of the living [Marc.

XII]. Discumbente itaque sponso in sponsae gremio, et juvenculis sponsi sponsaeque juvenculabus alterna jucunditate plaudentibus, tuba funebris subito clangit. Epulae in luctum eunt, organa vertuntur in funus. Tragoedia risum procerit nuptiarum.

12]. Accordingly, while the bridegroom reclines in the bride’s lap, and the bridegroom’s youths and the bride’s young maidens clap with alternate jocundity, the funeral trumpet suddenly blares. The banquets go into mourning, the instruments are turned into a funeral. Tragedy banishes the laughter of the nuptials.

Non discretus, non elegans citharista fuisti, qui funebres modulos regio convivio praesentasti? Quis unquam somniavit tale portentum? Solemus ridere picturas incipientes ab homine et in asinum desinentes.

You were no discreet, no elegant citharist, you who presented funereal modulations at a royal banquet? Who ever dreamed such a portent? We are accustomed to laugh at pictures beginning from a man and ending in an ass.

Revolve, quaeso, prisci super hunc librum monumenta ingenii, et nullum reperies qui in hujusmodi materia tristia laetis confoederet. Unde Retii Augustodunensis aurea sic depromit camoena: 'Mos est, inquit, generosae materiae observandus, sponsi sponsaeque tripudia festiva tuba persultent. Neque enim in funera fas distrahi animum, quoniam ad exponendum Cantica nuptiarum invitat alacritas convivarum.

Revolve, I pray, the monuments of the ancients’ ingenium concerning this book, and you will find none who in material of this kind would confederate sad things with joyful ones. Whence Retius of Augustodunum thus brings forth his golden Camena: 'It is a rule to be observed in noble subject-matter, that the festive tuba should leap about the triple-dances of bridegroom and bride. For it is not lawful that the mind be drawn off to funerals, since the alacrity of the guests invites to the expounding of the Canticles of nuptials.'

Sed, quoniam tantae facultatis ratio in nobis vel nulla est, vel admodum orba, ejus innitar gratiae, qui per Evangelium suum sonat: Sine me nihil potestis facere [Joan. XV]. Neque certe mihi deficiet transitorium verbum, cum credam in Verbum quod est in principio apud Deum [Joan. I]. O vox Catholico digna doctore!

But, since the rationale of so great a faculty in us is either none, or very bereft, I will lean upon His grace, who through His Gospel sounds: Without me you can do nothing [John 15]. Nor indeed will a transitory word fail me, since I believe in the Word which is in the beginning with God [John 1]. O voice worthy of a Catholic doctor!

o fidelis confessor gratiae! Recte perpendiculum sui judicii vir sapiens lineavit, qui moerorem a gaudio tanto interstitio sequestravit. Tu vero terminos transgrediens, quos posuerunt patres tui, Cantica in elegos, carmina in threnos sorte miserabili convertisti.

o faithful confessor of grace! Rightly the wise man drew the plumb-line of his judgment, who sequestered mourning from joy by so great an interval. But you, transgressing the boundaries which your fathers set, have converted the Canticles into elegies, the songs into threnodies, by a miserable lot.

Quod si tibi deessent ecclesiasticae scita censurae, recolere poteras etiam gentilis instituta prudentiae. Nam, cum Zeuxis pictor eximius simulacrum Helenae pinxit, non ei brachia simiae, nec chimaerae ventrem, nec caudam piscis aptavit; sed humanorum membrorum expolitione perfectum publicis usibus [f. visibus] propalavit, alioquin indecens et ridiculosa esset pictura. Unde Horatius in Arte Poetica:

But if the ecclesiastical enactments of censure were lacking to you, you could recollect even the Gentile institutes of prudence. For when Zeuxis, an eminent painter, painted a simulacrum of Helen, he did not fit to her the arms of an ape, nor the belly of a chimaera, nor the tail of a fish; but, with a polishing of human limbs, made perfect, he displayed it to public view [f. visibus], otherwise the painting would be unseemly and laughable. Whence Horace in the Art of Poetry:

Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam
Jungere si velit, et varias inducere plumas,
Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum
Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne:
Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici?

If a painter should wish to yoke an equine neck to a human head,
and to induce various plumes, with limbs collated from everywhere,
so that, shamefully, a lovely woman above should end in a black fish:
admitted to view it, friends, would you hold in your laughter?

Concedit ars quod velis incipias, sed non ut quemlibet finem coeptis tuis supponas. Unde idem poeta paulo post scripsit:

Art concedes that you may begin what you wish, but not that you should impose whatever end upon your undertakings. Whence the same poet a little later wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pictoribus atque poetis
Quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas:
Sed non ut placidis coeant immitia, non ut
Serpentes avibus generentur, tigribus agni.
Velut aegri somnia operis tui vanae species finguntur,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to painters and to poets
there has always been an equal power of daring anything whatsoever:
But not so that the fierce may cohere with the placid, not so that
serpents be generated from birds, lambs from tigers.
Just as a sick man’s dreams, the vain appearances of your work are fashioned,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ut nec pes, nec caput uni
Reddatur formae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpureus late qui splendeat, unus et alter
Assuitur pannus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so that neither foot nor head
are rendered to a single form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a purple patch, that it may shine far and wide, one and another,
is stitched on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

At ne quis fautorum tuorum obloquatur,

But lest any of your supporters speak against (you),

Scimus inurbanum lepido seponere dicto,
Legitimumque sonum digitis callemus et aure.

We know how to set apart the inurbane from the witty dictum,
and we are practiced, with fingers and ear, in the legitimate sound.

Quid plura? Tota Ars Poetica jurata contra te bella suscepit. Deberes revera ingenii tui puerperium, juxta ejusdem poetae institutionem, nonum premere in annum; ut male tornatum opus rursus liceret incudi reddere, et curare ne te lunae labor offenderet. Deberes utique festinantiam emissionis differre, cum scriptum sit:

What more? The whole Ars Poetica, sworn, has undertaken wars against you. You ought truly to press the puerperium of your genius, according to the instruction of the same poet, into the ninth year; so that it might be permitted to render an ill-turned work back again to the anvil, and to take care that the moon’s labor (eclipse) not offend you. You ought, of course, to defer the haste of emission (publication), since it is written:

. . . . nescit vox missa reverti.
Laudamus in te, Pater, venam ingenii, sed artis culpamus inscitiam. Inde est quod veteres diffinierunt ingenium esse mutilum, nisi opem artis sibi asciscat. Laudantur sales Lucilii, et tamen mordetur quod incomposito currat pede:

. . . . the voice, once sent, does not know to return.
We praise in you, Father, a vein of genius, but we blame the ignorance of art. Hence it is that the ancients defined genius to be mutilated, unless it should adopt to itself the aid of art. The witticisms of Lucilius are praised, and yet it is censured that he runs with an uncomposed foot:

Impostos versus componit et arte carentes
Ennius ingenio dives, et arte rudis.

He composes imposed verses and lacking in art
Ennius, rich in genius, and rude in art.

E quibus est ille:

Among which is this:

Omnes mortales sese laudari exoptant.

All mortals earnestly long to be praised.

Sed quoniam lippis et tonsoribus claret quod non recte lamenta epithalamio conjugasti, libet aliqua de ipso boatu tragico speculari. Inter caetera, ni fallor, oratoris nostri lugubris musa sic calculat. 'Decessit frater a vita, imo ut rectius fatear, mortem reliquit pro vita.

But since it is clear to the bleary-eyed and to the barbers that you did not rightly yoke laments to an epithalamium, I am inclined to scrutinize a few things about the tragic bellowing itself. Among other things, unless I am mistaken, the lugubrious Muse of our orator calculates thus: 'The brother departed from life—nay, to confess more correctly, he left death in place of life.'

Frater, inquam, decessit, tenor continentiae, morum speculum, vinculum religionis. Quis ulterius vegetabit me ad laborem? Quis amplius leniet moerentem?' Et post aliqua: 'Bos bovem requirit; se quod solum putat, frequenti mugitu pium testatur affectum.

Brother, I say, has departed, the tenor of continence, the mirror of morals, the bond of religion. Who further will invigorate me to labor? Who any longer will soothe the mourner?' And after some things: 'The ox seeks the ox; it, thinking itself to be alone, bears witness to its pious affection with frequent lowing.

Bos, inquam, bovem requirit, cum quo ducere collo aratra consuevit.' Pulchrum quidem est et tinnulum quod Bernardus loquitur; sed de alio sudore pretium nomenque venatur. Ambrosius enim haec verba syllabatim in querimonia illa posuit, quam de excessu Satyri amici sui mulcebri dealbatoque stylo procudit. Itaque Bernardus in hoc planctu adeo est vehemens, adeo pertinax, adeo vivus, ut legenti cuilibet constans sit eum non veros fletus edere, sed verba quibus veri questus exprimantur effundere.

The ox, I say, seeks the ox, with whom he was accustomed to draw the ploughs by the neck.' It is indeed pretty and tinkling, what Bernard speaks; but he hunts the reward and the name from another’s sweat. For Ambrose set these words syllable by syllable in that querimony which he forged on the passing of Satyrus, his friend, with a soothing and whitewashed style. Therefore Bernard in this plaint is so vehement, so pertinacious, so vivid, that to any reader it is settled that he does not emit true tears, but pours out words by which true complaints are expressed.

Aiunt tamen quidam insulsi, seductorio ejus linguae moderamine seducti, qui corpus verborum diligunt, animam autem rationis spernunt, eum tam facundia sublimi in lamentis illis uti, ut nulla modernae eloquentiae facultas ei valeat exaequari. O falsi judices eloquentiae, quos projicit vocis ventus ut pulverem a facie terrae. Quaenam ibi sententiarum vis?

Yet certain insipid folk say, led astray by the seductive governance of his tongue, who love the body of words but spurn the soul of reason, that he employs so sublime an eloquence in those laments that no faculty of modern eloquence can equal him. O false judges of eloquence, whom the wind of the voice casts forth like dust from the face of the earth. What power of sentences is there?

quae pocula rationum? Totus in verbis fluctuat, et mors ridiculi syllogismi rotatur in circulo. Unde poeta: Citharoedus, inquit,

what goblets of reasons? He floats wholly in words, and the death of a ridiculous syllogism is rotated in a circle. Whence the poet: “The citharode,” he says,

Ridetur corda qui semper oberrat eadem.

He is laughed at, who always wanders over the same strings.

Laeta verborum gramina sata instrangulant sententiarum. Aut fortasse idem dicendo multipliciter, Ulyssem simulare volebat. De quo scriptum est:

The luxuriant grasses of words, when sown, strangle the sentences. Or perhaps, by saying the same thing multiply, he wished to simulate Ulysses. About whom it is written:

Ille referre alii saepe solebat idem.

He used often to repeat the same thing to someone else.

Sed non talibus instrumentis mortuus suscitatur, nec eloquentiae praestigiis vita mortuo comparatur. Unde cujusdam distichon egregie sonat:

But by no such instruments is a dead man raised, nor by the prestidigitations of eloquence is life procured for the dead. Whence a certain person’s distich sounds excellently:

Cur dantur frustra pro psalmis carmina pulchra?
Plus prodesset ei ter: 'Miserere mei.'

Why are beautiful songs given in vain in place of psalms?
Thrice 'Have mercy on me' would profit him more.

Quod si dolorem suum delinimentis facundiae remedioque carminis evaporare nolebat, cur non saltem super hoc proprium separatim opusculum condebat? Nec deerant a quibus talis materiae mutuari posset exemplar. Socrates mortem sui Alcibiadis philosophici vigoris ubertate testatur.

But if he was unwilling to let his grief evaporate by the soothings of facundity and the remedy of song, why did he not at least compose, on this matter, a separate proper opusculum of his own? Nor were there lacking those from whom he could borrow an exemplar for such material. Socrates attests the death of his Alcibiades by the uberty of philosophical vigor.

Plato Alexim puerum, cni amatorias cantiunculas composuerat, insigni titulo ducit ad tumulum. Taceo Pythagoram, Demetrium, Carneadem, Possidonium, reliquosque, quorum excellentia Graecia superbit, qui, teste Hieronymo, diversis saeculis, diversis libris diversorum lamenta minuere sunt conati; praeterea Anaxagorae laudatam semper sententiam, qui, cum ei nuntiaretur filium obisse, fletu represso: 'Sciebam, inquit, me genuisse mortalem.' Et, ut peregrina omittens, ad nostra veniam: Tullius eloquii Romani maximus auctor consolatorium de morte filii sui librum edidit, cui praeclara magnorum virorum monumenta quasi stellas micantes impressit. Hieronymus dolori, quem de morte Nepotiani conceperat, plausibili medetur eloquio.

Plato leads the boy Alexis, for whom he had composed amatory little songs, to the tomb with a distinguished title. I keep silent about Pythagoras, Demetrius, Carneades, Posidonius, and the rest, whose excellence Greece prides itself on, who, as Jerome bears witness, in diverse ages, in diverse books, tried to lessen the laments of various persons; moreover the ever-praised sententia of Anaxagoras, who, when it was announced to him that his son had died, with weeping repressed, said: “I knew that I had begotten a mortal.” And, omitting foreign examples so that I may come to our own: Tullius, the greatest author of Roman eloquence, published a consolatory book on the death of his son, upon which he impressed the illustrious monuments of great men as though twinkling stars. Jerome ministers to the sorrow which he had conceived at the death of Nepotian with praiseworthy eloquence.

Ambrosius, de quo praefatus sum, duos libros de excessu dilecti sui Satyri suavi stylo edisserit. Ad horum normam planctum tuum texere debebas, non immemor illius vulgaris proverbii:

Ambrose, of whom I have spoken by way of preface, has expounded two books on the decease of his beloved Satyrus in a suave style. According to their norm you ought to weave your plaint, not unmindful of that common proverb:

Vicini barbae propriam debes simulare.

You ought to model your own beard after your neighbor’s.

Sed quoniam super hoc satis abundeque digessimus, tempestivum est illud capitulum in eodem libro visitare, in quo animarum originem de coelis fabularis esse. Ubi sic recolo te locutum: 'Merito dixit Apostolus: Nostra conversatio est in coelis [Philip. III].' Haec verba tua subtiliter explorata, Christianae mentis palato haeresim sapiunt.

But since we have discussed this on the subject sufficiently and abundantly, it is timely to visit that chapter in the same book, in which you say that the origin of souls from the heavens is a fable. Where I thus recall you speaking: 'Rightly did the Apostle say: Our conversation is in the heavens [Philip. 3].' These words of yours, when subtly examined, to the palate of the Christian mind taste of heresy.

Si enim idcirco animae originem de coelis astruis, quia quandoque beata futura est in coelis, eadem ratione corporis origo erit in coelis, quia quandoque beatum futurum est in coelis. Sed ad hoc intimandum talia verba se non accommodant. Aut si ideo animae originem coelestem ascribis, quia olim orta, id est facta sit in coelis, quod quidem verborum talium resultat intentio, pravitatem Origenis incurris, qui in libris Periarchon Pythagoreum Platonicumque dogma secutus, originariam in coelo sedem animabus disponit.

If indeed for this reason you assert the soul’s origin to be from the heavens, because at some time it will be blessed in the heavens, by the same reasoning the body’s origin will be in the heavens, because at some time it will be blessed in the heavens. But such words do not lend themselves to intimating this. Or if for this reason you ascribe a celestial origin to the soul, because once it arose— that is, was made— in the heavens (which indeed is the drift of such words), you incur the depravity of Origen, who in the books On First Principles, following the Pythagorean and Platonic dogma, assigns to souls an original seat in heaven.

At quoniam de anima mentio se ingessit, non absurdum est commemorare quae altercationis varietas occupaverit de animarum origine. Aiunt philosophi, quorum duces sunt Plato et Pythagoras, quibus et tu ex parte maxima acquiescis, animas scilicet olim ab initio factas conditasque in thesauris Dei: indeque ob antiquum vitae contagium in corporum ergastulum lapsas, rursusque, si corpus juste gubernaverint, ad antiquae honestatis vultum meritorium vehiculo redituras ferunt. Et haeretici animam partem esse divinae substantiae contenderunt, occasionem hujus fabulae inde rapientes, quod scriptum est in Genesi: Et sufflavit Deus in faciem ejus, scilicet Adae, spiraculum vitae [Gen.

But since mention of the soul has intruded itself, it is not absurd to commemorate what variety of altercation has occupied the question concerning the origin of souls. The philosophers say—whose leaders are Plato and Pythagoras, to whom also you for the greatest part acquiesce—namely that souls, once from the beginning made and founded in the treasuries of God, and thence, on account of the ancient contagion of life, having lapsed into the ergastulum of bodies, will in turn, if they shall have justly governed the body, return by a meritorious vehicle to the countenance of ancient honor. And the heretics contended that the soul is a part of the divine substance, seizing the occasion for this fable from that which is written in Genesis: Et sufflavit Deus in faciem ejus, namely of Adam, spiraculum vitae [Gen.

II]. Contra quos intonat breviter Augustinus: 'Flatus, inquit, ille dicitur qui hominem animavit. Factus est ab ipso, non de ipso, quia nec hominis flatus hominis pars est, nec homo eum facit de seipso, sed ex aereo halitu sumpto et effuso.' Item fuerunt quidam crassis ignorantiae tenebris obvoluti, qui venire animas ex traduce delirabant: quos confutare, quodammodo est eorum ineptias roborare. His tribus naeniis [f. nodis] quasi rationi adversis orthodoxae veritatis gladio amputatis, asserunt sancti Patres noviter creatis corporibus creatas noviter animas quotidie infundi, juxta id Evangelii: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor [Joan.

2]. Against whom Augustine thunders briefly: 'That breath, he says, is called that which animated the man. It was made by him, not out of him, because neither is a man's breath a part of the man, nor does the man make it from himself, but taken from an aerial exhalation and breathed out.' Likewise there were certain persons wrapped in the thick darkness of ignorance, who raved that souls come by propagation: to refute whom is, in a way, to strengthen their follies. These three dirges [f. knots], as though adverse to reason, having been cut off by the sword of orthodox truth, the holy Fathers assert that into bodies newly created souls newly created are infused daily, according to that of the Gospel: 'My Father works until now, and I work' [Joan.

V]. Tu itaque a doctrinae salutaris tramite devius, in philosophorum scopulos ruis. Et dum dignitatem animae jactitas, originem ei sideream flore jejuni eloquii nundinaris. Quod si in Petri opusculis hujus vecordiam reperisses, non est dubium quin eam inter illa quae peperisti, capitulorum monstra locasses.

V]. You therefore, deviating from the path of salutary doctrine, rush upon the rocks of the philosophers. And while you vaunt the dignity of the soul, you peddle to it a sidereal origin with the flower of jejune eloquence. But if you had found the madness of this in Peter’s little works, there is no doubt that you would have placed it among those monsters of chapters which you have begotten.

Hinc ad alios tui ingenii fructus articulus est vertendus. Quaerit a te vir collo inflatus Romano quid sit diligendum, et quomodo. Cui sic rescribis: 'Orationes a me, Aimerice, et non quaestiones flagitare solebas;' et post pauca: 'Quaeris quid sit diligendum.

Hence the article must be turned to other fruits of your genius. A man, with his neck puffed up in Roman fashion, asks you what is to be loved, and how. To whom you thus write back: 'You were wont, Aimeric, to press me for prayers (orations), and not for questions;' and after a few words: 'You ask what is to be loved.

Cui breviter respondeo: Deus.' Homo Romanus, grossus camelus, Gallicano argumento gibbosus trans Alpes saltat, ut quid sit diligendum inquirat, quasi juxta se non habeat qui rei hujus sibi notionem infundat. Cui noster philosophus mandat non virtutem esse diligendam, ut Chrisyppus; nec voluptatem, ut Aristippus, sed Deum, ut Christianus. Acutulum sane responsum, et docto homine dignum.

Cui I briefly answer: God. A Roman man, a gross camel, humped in Gallican fashion, bounds across the Alps to inquire what is to be loved, as though he did not have beside him one who might pour into him a notion of this matter. To whom our philosopher enjoins that it is not virtue that is to be loved, as Chrysippus; nor pleasure, as Aristippus; but God, as a Christian. A very sharp little answer indeed, and worthy of a learned man.

Sed quaenam abjecta muliercula, quisnam hoc ignoret extremus idiota? Sic philosophantur in textrinis aniculae. Sic propositiones Dagani cum joco mirari solemus.

But what abject little woman—who, pray, what utter idiot—would be ignorant of this? Thus little old women philosophize in the weavers’ shops. Thus we are wont to marvel at the propositions of Daganus in jest.

De cujus propositionibus aliquas exempli gratia interseram: 'Filius, inquit, sum matris meae. Placenta est panis. Caput meum est grossius pugno meo.

Of whose propositions I will insert some by way of example: '“I am,” he says, “the son of my mother. A cake is bread. My head is thicker than my fist.

Cum meridies est, dies est.' Quis est, cui audita tam ridicula veritate, labia risu non quatiantur? Similiter et cum Bernardus dixit Deum esse diligendum, verissimum quidem dixit et venerabile verum; sed ad hoc dicendum pro nihilo aperuit os suum. Nemo enim de hoc dubitat.

When it is midday, it is day.' Who is there, upon hearing so ridiculous a truth, whose lips are not shaken with laughter? Likewise, when Bernard said that God is to be loved, he indeed spoke a most-true and venerable truth; but for saying this he opened his mouth for nothing. For no one doubts this.

Sperabat enim Romanus aliquid secreti audire, et archimandrita noster tale quid intonat, quod quilibet rusticus valeret respondere. Et tamen, dum Deum diligendum esse pronuntiat latenter, ferit Romanum, qui in curia papae non Deum didicerat amare, sed aurum. Sequitur postea de modo diligendi: 'Modus, inquit, est sine modo diligere.' Aimericum, sic enim dictus est, ad quem scribis, quasi lacteo succo pavisti, dum Deum diligendum aperte pronuntiasti.

For Romanus was hoping to hear something of a secret, and our archimandrite thunders forth such a thing that any rustic could have answered. And yet, while he covertly pronounces that God is to be loved, he strikes Romanus, who in the papal curia had learned to love not God but gold. Afterwards there follows concerning the mode of loving: 'The mode, he says, is to love without mode.' Aimeric—so indeed he is called—the one to whom you write, you nourished as if with milky juice, when you openly pronounced that God is to be loved.

Nunc eum subito ad altiora subrigens [f. suberigens] dicis quod modus diligendi Deum sit sine modo diligere. Qui quaesiverat quid esset diligendum, de quo nec pauperculus Christianus quidem haesitaret; quomodo poterit hanc subtilitatem intelligere, quod modus diligendi Deum sit sine modo diligere? In quo impossibile quiddam spondere videris.

Now, suddenly raising him to higher things [f. suberigens], you say that the measure of loving God is to love without measure. He who had asked what ought to be loved, about which not even a poor little Christian would hesitate; how will he be able to understand this subtlety, that the measure of loving God is to love without measure? In this you seem to promise something impossible.

Cum enim stabile fixumque sit Deum ea magnificentia esse praeditum, ut nequaquam nostra in illum dilectio ejus dignitati aequipollenter respondere sufficiat, quomodo sine modo diligemus, quem cum modo diligere non valemus? Quomodo, inquam, porrigetur dilectio ultra modum, cum semper remaneat citra modum? Aut si sic intellexisti 'sine modo diligere,' id est diligere quod non perveniatur ad congruum diligendi modum, ridiculam intelligentiam portendit somnium tuum.

For since it is stable and fixed that God is endowed with such magnificence that by no means does our love toward him suffice to respond equipollently to his dignity, how shall we love without measure, whom we are not able to love with measure? How, I say, will love be extended beyond measure, when it always remains short of measure? Or if you have thus understood “to love without measure,” that is, to love such that one does not arrive at a congruent mode of loving, your dream portends a ridiculous understanding.

Dum itaque rhetoricari voluisti, et obscuritatem dedisti et quiddam inopium atque impossibile confecisti, dum Deum sine modo diligendum docuisti.

Thus, while you wished to rhetoricize, you both gave obscurity and produced a certain thing impoverished and impossible, when you taught that God must be loved without measure.

Quanto rectius hic qui nil molitur inepte?

How much more rightly this man, who undertakes nothing ineptly?

Jesus Christus scilicet, qui per Evangelium suum diligendi modum exprimens: Diliges, inquit Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota mente tua, et ex omnibus viribus tuis [Matth. XXII]. Hic nullus eloquentiae fucus, sed mera tantum veritas simplici et absoluto est expressa eloquio. Hic Romanus aurem accommodet.

Jesus Christ, namely, who, expressing through his Gospel the mode of loving: Thou shalt love, he says, the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength [Matt. 22]. Here there is no cosmetic of eloquence, but mere truth alone is expressed in simple and absolute eloquy. Here let the Roman lend an ear.

Hic superbiae strumam deponat camelus, quia Jesus hic nil impossibile pronuntiat. Jesus, inquam, sententiae lucem tenebris eloquii non involvit, ut Bernardus, qui rei venerabilis majestatem exquisito quodam obnubit verborum adulterio. Vir sapiens, inquit Horatius,

Here let the camel lay aside the tumor of pride, because Jesus here pronounces nothing impossible. Jesus, I say, does not envelop the light of the sentence in the darkness of elocution, as Bernard does, who veils the majesty of a venerable thing by a certain exquisite adulteration of words. A wise man, says Horace,

Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem.
Cogitat . . . . .

Not smoke from lightning, but from smoke to give light.
He ponders . . . . .

Quod Bernardus male attendit, qui quod Jesus nudo patuloque ore, nube sermonis ab intelligentiae via secludit. Horum et his similium ludicrorum mensuram confertam et coagitatam in libellorum tuorum, Bernarde, sinum dedisti. Quod reprehendere facile poterit, quem oculatum eruditio reddidit.

This Bernard has ill attended to, who shuts off by a cloud of sermon from the way of intelligence that which Jesus with a naked and wide‑open mouth [i.e., plainly] declared. Of these and of ludicrous jests of like sort you have given a measure pressed down and shaken together into the bosom of your little books, Bernard. Which anyone whom erudition has made clear‑eyed will easily be able to reprehend.

Quae si unguetenus persequi vellem, longitudo certe dictaminis lectorem etiam repelleret diligentem.

Which things, if I wished to pursue them to the nail (that is, minutely), the length of the composition would surely repel even the diligent reader.

Cum itaque tantas trabes loquaris, cur Abaelardi festucas in trabes commutare moliris? Non est negotium misericordis culpam augere, sed minuere. Unde Psalmista cum dicturus esset: Misericordiam et judicium cantabo tibi, Domine [Psal.

Since, therefore, you speak of such great beams, why do you strive to convert Abaelard’s straws into beams? It is not the business of a merciful man to augment fault, but to lessen it. Whence the Psalmist, when he was about to say: Mercy and judgment I will sing to you, O Lord [Psal.

C], commode misericordiam praeposuit judicio, quasi diceret: Immense Deus, scio quia misericors es et justus; sed in altero mea salvatio, in altero mea damnatio: primoque misericordiae canticum libentius volo. Scriptum est in Isaia: Et convertent gladios suos in vomeres [Isa. II]. Gladii enim in vomeres convertendi sunt, non vomeres in gladios, quia et mali ad tranquillitatis bonum trahendi sunt levitate correctionis; et boni ad discordiam commonendi non sunt asperitate invectionis.

C], appropriately he prefixed mercy to judgment, as if he were saying: Immense God, I know that you are merciful and just; but in the one is my salvation, in the other my damnation: and first I more gladly desire the canticle of mercy. It is written in Isaiah: And they shall convert their swords into plowshares [Isa. 2]. For indeed swords are to be converted into plowshares, not plowshares into swords, because even the wicked are to be drawn to the good of tranquillity by the lenity of correction; and the good are not to be admonished into discord by the asperity of invective.

His et aliis delinitus exemplis, Petrum, si errore sauciatus esset, jumento tuo deberes imponere, et sic ad stabulum universalis fidei revocare. Plures Catholici quaedam culpanda dixerunt, nec tamen ob id haereticorum collegio sunt ascripti. Duo dixit Hilarius erroris expugnator, propugnator Ecclesiae, in quibus eum non audit sobrietas Ecclesiae.

Won over by these and other examples, you ought to place Peter, if he were wounded by error, upon your beast of burden, and thus call him back to the inn of the catholic faith. Many Catholics have said certain things to be blamed, and yet for that they have not been enrolled in the college of heretics. Hilary, the expugnator of error, the champion of the Church, said two things in which the sobriety of the Church does not hearken to him.

Primum, quod Christum nil in passione doloris sensisse asseruit. Contra quem sententiam Claudianus presbyter Lugdunensis, vir Christianissimus, et tam subtilis ad disputandum quam artifex ad loquendum, sic personat: 'Si Christus nil in passione sensit doloris, non vere passus est; et si vere non passus est .' Secundum, quod nullum incorporeum dixit esse creatum. 'Nec igitur, inquit Claudianus, anima, cum sit incorporea, est creata.

First, that he asserted that Christ felt nothing of pain in the Passion. Against which opinion Claudianus, presbyter of Lugdunum, a most Christian man, and as subtle for disputation as artful for speaking, thus declaims: 'If Christ felt nothing of pain in the Passion, he did not truly suffer; and if he did not truly suffer .' Second, that he said no incorporeal thing was created. 'Therefore, says Claudianus, the soul, since it is incorporeal, is not created.

Quod si creata non est, nec creatura Dei est.' Sed non ob hoc, ut ait idem Claudianus, scientia doctoris perdit meritum confessoris, quia Ecclesia bono filio indulsit quod humana opinio minus caute disputavit. Procul dubio si haec Petrus dixisset, eum esse lapidandum rigoris tui severitas sanxisset.

‘But if it is not created, neither is it a creature of God.’ But not on this account, as the same Claudianus says, does the science of the doctor lose the merit of the confessor, because the Church indulged to a good son what human opinion debated less cautiously. Beyond doubt, if Peter had said these things, the severity of your rigor would have decreed that he be stoned.

Beatus etiam Hieronymus in libro contra Jovinianum De nuptiis quaedam disserit. Et praecipue illo loco, ubi sententiam Apostoli inducit, quae in hunc modum se habet: Bonum est mulierem non tangere [I Cor. VII]. Cui Hieronymus subjungit: 'Si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum est ergo tangere.

Blessed Jerome also in the book against Jovinian, On Nuptials, disserts certain things. And especially in that place where he introduces the sentence of the Apostle, which holds itself in this manner: It is good not to touch a woman [1 Cor. 7]. To which Jerome subjoins: 'If it is good not to touch a woman, it is therefore an evil to touch.'

Nihil enim bono contradictorium est praeter malum.' Argumentum hoc scit esse frivolum, quisquis disputandi disciplina se profitetur imbutum. Nam similiter bonum est carnem non comedere, et vinum non bibere; nec ideo sequitur quod sit malum carnem comedere et vinum bibere. Quod quidam asserentes inter haereticos recepti sunt.

For nothing is contradictory to the good except the evil.' Anyone who professes himself imbued with the discipline of disputation knows this argument to be frivolous. For similarly, it is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine; nor does it therefore follow that it is evil to eat flesh and to drink wine. Some, asserting this, have been received among the heretics.

Sed tamen paulisper concedatur, ut malum sit, juxta Hieronymum, mulierem tangere. Ex quo quanta sequatur absurditas, nexus ipse rationis ostendit. Nam si malum est mulierem tangere, malum est cum muliere coire.

But yet let it be conceded for a little while that, according to Jerome, to touch a woman is evil. From which how great an absurdity follows, the very nexus of reason shows. For if it is evil to touch a woman, it is evil to have intercourse with a woman.

Neque enim potest fieri ut bonus sit coitus si malus est tactus. Et si malum est cum muliere coire, malum agit quisquis cum muliere coit. Peccant ergo conjugati legitime utendo coitu conjugali.

Nor indeed can it come to pass that coitus be good if the touch is evil. And if it is evil to have coitus with a woman, whoever has coitus with a woman does evil. Therefore the married sin by legitimately using conjugal coitus.

Nam etiam coeundo mulierem tangunt. Igitur ut male non agant mariti, feriabuntur ab uxoribus. Aut, si necesse erit coire, ita coeant ut mulierem non tangant.

For even in coition they touch the woman. Therefore, that husbands may not act badly, they will be given a holiday by their wives. Or, if it will be necessary to have coitus, let them come together in such a way that they do not touch the woman.

Sed hoc impossibile est fieri. Sequitur ergo conjugalis boni naufragium, quod ad remedium mortalis luxuriae superna industria praeparavit. Nam si conjugium coitum non excusat, eant mariti, certatim agant poenitentiam, eo quod cum uxoribus suis aliquando coierunt.

But this is impossible to do. Therefore there follows the shipwreck of the conjugal good, which supernal industry has prepared as a remedy for mortal lust. For if marriage does not excuse coitus, let the husbands go, let them in rivalry do penance, because they have at some time had coitus with their wives.

Alias in eodem libro Hieronymus inhumanius de nuptiis disputat super illum Apostoli locum: Melius est nubere quam uri [ibid.]. Sed si bonum est nubere, quare malo comparatur? Nemo enim ratione malum bono comparat. Uri certe malum est, et nubere mali hujus respectu bonum est.

Elsewhere in the same book Jerome argues more inhumanly about marriage upon that passage of the Apostle: It is better to marry than to burn [ibid.]. But if it is good to marry, why is it compared to an evil? For no one with reason compares an evil to a good. To be burned is certainly an evil, and to marry, with respect to this evil, is a good.

Quod autem respectu mali bonum sit, simpliciter bonum non est. Ex his Hieronymi verbis distincte colligimus nuptias non esse absolute bonas. Perit igitur nuptiale bonum.

But that which is good with respect to an evil is not simply good. From these words of Jerome we distinctly gather that nuptials are not absolutely good. Therefore the nuptial good perishes.

Nam nuptiale bonum secundum Hieronymum non est bonum, nisi quia uri est majus malum quam ipsum. Multos fideles viros, inter quos et Pamachium senatorem, scandalizavit haec effera austeraque disputatio, doloremque suum scriptis super hoc epistolis eidem Hieronymo testati sunt. Quod si Petrus tam crudeliter contra nuptias declamasset, profecto Bernardus in ejus exitium conjugatorum cohortes armasset.

For the nuptial good, according to Jerome, is not good, except in that to be burned is a greater evil than it. This savage and austere disputation scandalized many faithful men, among whom also Pammachius the senator, and they attested their grief to the same Jerome by letters written on this matter. But if Peter had declaimed so cruelly against marriages, assuredly Bernard would have armed cohorts of the married for his destruction.

Augustinus erroribus suis inimicus eos libro Retractationum purgandos committit. Lactantius, de quo ipse Augustinus asseverat quod multo auro suffarcinatus exierit de Aegypto, cum ore fulmineo contra gentes Christum deffendat, quaedam absona de dogmatibus Ecclesiae postea somniat. Longum est recensere veterum syngrapha tractatorum, quae non sunt sic ad purum excocta, ut non inveniantur in eis multa quae virga correctionis essent dignissima.

Augustine, an enemy to his own errors, entrusts them to be purged to the book of his Retractationum. Lactantius, of whom Augustine himself avers that he went out of Egypt stuffed with much gold, while with a thunderous mouth he defends Christ against the Gentiles, afterwards dreams certain dissonant things about the dogmas of the Church. It would be long to recount the syngrapha of the ancients, the tractators, which have not been so refined to the pure that there are not found in them many things that would be most worthy of the rod of correction.

Verax namque est Jacobi apostoli sententia: In multis, inquit, offendimus omnes. Si quis autem in verbo non offenderit, hic perfectus est vir [Jac. III]. Itaque si Petrus in verbo offenderat, judicandus a te, misericordiae potius blandum deberet sentire tactum quam iracundiae incentivum.

For veracious indeed is the sentence of the apostle James: “In many things,” he says, “we all offend. But if anyone does not offend in word, this man is a perfect man” [James 3]. Therefore, if Peter had offended in word, being judged by you, he ought rather to feel the gentle touch of mercy than the incitement of irascibility.

Aequum erat te reminisci quod Habacuc propheta [cap. III] Deo decantat, dicens: Cum iratus fueris, misericordiae recordaberis. Vide quid distet inter iram Dei et iram hominis. Cum homo irascitur, clementiae ab ejus pectore mentio exsulat.

It was equitable for you to remember what the prophet Habakkuk [chapter 3] chants to God, saying: When you have been angry, you will remember mercy. See how far the wrath of God differs from the wrath of man. When a man grows angry, the mention of clemency is exiled from his breast.

Cum autem Deus irascitur, per ingenitae bonitatis affluentiam misericordiae recordatur: recordatur non sine oblivione, qui irascitur sine commotione. Magnus Dominus noster, qui sic tentat summa, ut curam inferiorum non negligat. Hujus imaginem aemulari, hujus te oportebat vestigia totis conatibus amplexari, ut calculo quem forcipe tulerat angelus de altari, purgares vitium labiorum Petri.

But when God grows angry, through the affluence of inborn goodness he remembers mercy: he remembers, not without oblivion, who grows angry without commotion. Great is our Lord, who so addresses the highest things that he does not neglect care for the lower. It was fitting for you to emulate his image, to embrace his footsteps with all your efforts, that with the coal which the angel had taken with tongs from the altar you might purge the fault of Peter’s lips.

Nec ignorare jus erat te hominem esse, quem et culpae lubricum trahere ad poenam et medicus gratia reparare posset ad veniam.

Nor was it right for you to be ignorant that you are a man, whom both the slipperiness of fault could drag to punishment, and the physician by grace could repair to pardon.

His ita decursis, silentium imperat prolixitas orationis. Et quoniam vox lassata refrigerii portum jam expetit, ob recreandum lectoris fastidium debitus primo volumini terminus affigetur, ut ad ea quae promisimus enodanda secundi luctamen laboris officiosius accingatur.

With these things thus run through, the prolixity of the oration imposes silence. And since the voice, wearied, now seeks the harbor of refreshment, for the refreshing of the reader’s weariness a due terminus will be affixed to the first volume, so that, for untying the things we have promised, the wrestling of the second labor may be more dutifully girded.

Apologia Berengarii Pictavensis contra Sanctum Bernardum Claraevallensem abbatem et alios qui condemnaverunt Petrum Abaelardum.

Apology of Berengar of Poitiers against Saint Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, and others who condemned Peter Abelard.