The principal inscription was composed by the Academie des Inscriptions in 1766, at the instance of Marie de Roucy de Rochefoucauld, Abbess of the Paraclete, like her namesake of 1497; and it was carved at her cost upon the stone.
Nor is this all. The story of Abelard and Heloise has a literature of its own. We have no authentic portraits, if we except the fine pictures of Robert Léfèbvre engraved by Desnoyers, which rest upon I know not what of possible likeness. But the Englishman, Berington; the Germans, Brucker and Carriere and Fessler and Schlosser and Feuerbach; the Frenchmen, De Rémusat and Cousin and Guizot and Delepierre and Lamartine and Dom Gervaise; the Italian, Tòsti; the Americans, W. W. Newton, Wight, and Abby Sage Richardson, and a host of other authors and essayists and reviewers, have in one form or another told the sad, sweet legend of this love. It has never lacked its audience, and its perpetual charm has been the character of Heloise. Like the fair and unfortunate maid of Astolat, who so pathetically loved Launcelot, it may be said of her devotion that she “gave such attendance upon him, there was never a woman did more kindlyer for man than shee did.” It was a rare exhibition of that precious jewel, an unselfish, loyal, and flawless heart!
CHAPTER XX.
PETER THE VENERABLE.
It serves to illustrate the meshes which held the highest men of the twelfth century together, when we encounter Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny. His true name was Pierre Maurice de Montboisier and he was from Auvergne—“one of the noblest and most genial natures,” says Morison, “to be met with in this or in any time.” What a fine old man he was! Under him as abbot, Bernard of Cluny was prior, and the loving care of Peter prepared an epitaph for that bravest and sweetest of singers. It was he who bearded the other Bernard in his very den, and who came out of many contests against that almost invincible ecclesiast with more honor than before. Few could say this of a battle with the Abbot of Clairvaux; and to no one but Peter does Morison, the biographer of Bernard, concede any such victory.
It was also this admirable Peter who took Peter Abelard under his protection. With a large and patient generosity he developed the better nature of that headstrong, conceited, unhappy man; and when Abelard died he wrote to Heloise the really warmhearted and tender letter, with a great deal of humanity about it, which I have quoted already. And thus, to whomsoever it may fall to consider the history of France in the twelfth century; or of Abelard and the new philosophy; or of Bernard and ecclesiastical polity; or of the other Bernard and the Latin hymns, it is inevitable that the name of Peter the Venerable shall arise and stand high above the throng of those by which he is surrounded.
His mother’s name was Raingarde, and her death, long after he had attained his wide reputation, was deeply felt by him as that of one of the best of women and dearest of mothers. For Pierre de Montboisier, in those days when the stagnation and corruption of thought and morals were not felt as they were felt later on, was a man as well as a monk. But when, at last, the religious people became monks and not men; when they were stupid, uninteresting, fat-fleshed and gross in life; when they had no courage or piety; then they neither did the world any good nor made their own souls ripe for heaven. And as sportsmen tell us that the mellow “bob-o-link” ceases to sing and is only fit for slaughter when he becomes the “rice bird” of the South, so it was with them. Latin hymnology almost ceases to be interesting after this century. And Peter the Venerable, while he wrote but little himself, is too fine a factor in the arousing of others for us to forget him and his work.
He must have been born in 1092 or 1094—the earlier date being more probable; and when he was sixteen or seventeen (1109) he became a monk of Cluny. These were the “black” monks;—as the Cistercians of Citeaux and Clairvaux were the “white.” He had six brothers, most of whom took similar vows. What else indeed was there to do? You must either hack and hew your way with a battle-axe, and risk your neck and your castle, or you must become a monk. There was no middle course. Peace-loving, studious people—those who aimed to help the world up toward God—had no other choice. Nowadays we should find plenty of room for Peter; but he did what was then best, and entered Cluny.
At thirty years of age he was its abbot. This was in 1122. It happened by reason of Pontius, the former abbot, a self-sufficient and imperious man, being forced to resign his office and go on pilgrimage to Palestine; he even promised not to come back at all. Then the monks of Cluny elected another abbot; and as he died almost immediately, they were compelled to choose a third, namely Peter. But it was in a hard seat that they placed him; he had a mismanaged property, and a body of men who needed a good deal of attention.
Let us picture him to us in the fashion and habit of his appearance. He had a “happy face,” a “majestic figure,” and “plenty of those other unfailing signs of virtues” which justified his name “The Venerable.” It was such a big-hearted, big-bodied style of man who now undertook this reformation. By the help of Matthew, Prior of St. Martin in the Fields, near Paris, he effected it in about three months. Then there was a period of peace. But, all of a sudden, here comes Pontius, with soldiers at his heels, when Peter is absent, wanting his old place again. He bursts in the gates, forces the monks who remain to swear allegiance, carries off crosses and candlesticks and whatever was worth anything for melting down into money, and plays robber-baron over all the neighborhood. Peter himself tells the story: “He came in my absence.... With a motley crowd of soldiers and women rushing in together, he marched into the cloisters. He turned his hand to the sacred things.... He raided the villages and castles around the abbey, and, trying to subdue the religious places in a barbaric way, he wasted with fire and sword all that he could.” It was certainly a very serious matter.
Peter did the best he could with it—this resulting in Honorius II. despatching a legate from Rome with a great curse, ready-baked and smoking-hot, for the soul’s benefit of that “sacrilegious, schismatic, and excommunicate usurper,” Pontius. I have not read the curse; but I am positively certain that Pontius and Pontius Pilate must have been elaborately compared in its sentences. Such anathemas were supposed to dry the blood and wither the brain. Pontius trembled and restored his ill gotten gains and vanished to his own place. And Peter had peace at last.