[2] Locmenach = locus monachorum, ‘the place of the monks.’ The older name was Moriacum. It is now called Locminé, and lies a few miles to the east of Vannes.
[3] The name occurs in a dozen different forms in the ancient records. I adopt the form which is generally used by modern French writers. D’Argentré and other historians of Brittany say that it was not unknown about Nantes in those days. We must remember that it was the period when nicknames, trade-names, etc., were passing into surnames. Another pun on the name, which greatly tickled the mediæval imagination, was ‘Aboilar,’ supposed to convey the idea that he was a dog who barks at heaven (aboie le ciel). It was perpetrated by Hugo Metellus, a rival master.
[4] This and other details I gather from fragments of the minor poets of the time.
[5] The Notre Dame of to-day, like the earlier Louvre, dates from the end of the twelfth century.
[6] Lest there be a suspicion of caricature, or of ignorance (though I too have sat in the chair of scholastic philosophy, and held grave discourse on genera and species), let me remind the reader of the theological import which was read into the problem.
[7] The reader would probably not be grateful for a long explanation of the meaning of the change. It amounted to a considerable approach of William’s position towards that of Abélard.
[8] To transfer a chair was frequently a physical operation in those days. There is, in one of the old records, a story of a dissatisfied master and his pupils removing their chair to another town, higher up the river. They were not welcome, it seems, and their chair was pitched into the river to find its way home.
[9] Until a comparatively recent date ‘aller sur le Pré’ meant, in the language of the Latin Quarter, to settle an affair of honour.
[10] As a mere illustration of the times—no one would think of taking it seriously—we may quote the passage referring to him in Dubois’s Historia Ecclesiæ Parisiensis (also found in Lobineau). A monk and bishop, Gaufridus Vindoniencensis, writes to remonstrate with Robert for ‘inventing a new kind of martyrdom’ ... ‘inter feminas et cum ipsis noctu frequenter cubare. Hinc tibi videris, ut asseris, Domini Salvatoris digne bajulare crucem, cum extinguere conaris male accensum carnis ardorem.’ Later he complains of Robert’s partiality, treating some nuns with unusual sweetness and others with excessive acrimony; and amongst the punishments inflicted on the latter he mentions the penance of ‘stripping.’
[11] It will interest many, however, to learn (from the pages of Du Boulai’s Historia Universitatis Parisiensis) that he is charged by the querulous Gaufridus Vindoniencensis with teaching that only the gravest sins were matter for obligatory confession. These particularly grave transgressions are heresy, schism, paganism, and Judaism—all non-ethical matters!