Talk:Héloïse/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 00:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

16 May 1164?

Some sources have her dying on 16 May 1164. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I added that in. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Contested -- could be '63 StarTigerJLN (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fulbert's motives

A glance at the Wikipedia version en français isn't enlightening. It merely says the family of Héloïse sought vengence.

While I don't recommend removing that bit as written, I believe it should be couched as an alternative theory, unless a scholar can help us with something definitive.

Another hypothesis advanced (the first time I've seen it), is that Fulbert was actually Héloïse's father rather than her uncle. After re-reading Héloïse's letters, I'm disinclined to buy this hypothesis. For one thing, she refers to him as her 'cruel Uncle', and for another, such a notion seems at variance with the letters. Héloïse seems the kind of woman who would come out and say so.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A part of this article is at variance with other biographies regarding why Fulbert ordered Abélard castrated. What I'd been taught, confirmed with other biographies on the web, is that Fulbert was unaware they'd married and thought Abélard had abandoned Héloïse during her pregnancy. Medieval french is beyond me, but my assumption was this was taken from their letters. (Unsigned comment.)

Comments from StarTigerJLN

Regarding the issue with whether Fulbert could have been her father, he is listed as POSSIBLY her father in one very old biography as being the same as Canon John, who the source lists as her father -- this is quoted in "The Birth of Heloise" by Brenda Cooke. This is almost certainly wrong, but he could have been a relative different than mother's brother, since avunculus was used rather broadly for maternal-side older relatives. StarTigerJLN (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The letters were written in Latin, not medieval French, which I can read. Fulbert was aware of the marriage. He was angry Abelard kidnapped her from his house, since the agreement was that she would stay with him. Fulbert had become abusive to Heloise since she was continuing to insist the relationship was secret. - Heloise scholar, StarTigerJLN StarTigerJLN (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• http://www.abelardandheloise.com/Story.html
• http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aah/
• [censored link to blacklisted site]
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heloise

Further thoughts

Last year when I worked on the article, I was only a few months into studies on Abélard and Héloïse, I found problems (mentioned above), which I brought into line with historical references. One assertion that troubled me was the notion that Fulbert was Héloïse's father rather than her uncle. I can find no historical reference that supports this; in fact, I've turned up nothing outside of Wikipedia (and web references based upon Wikipedia) that mentions such an idea. Believe me, there's plenty of theories out there– modernist, feminist, post-modern feminist– name it and you can find it. It's possible the thought originated with an early wiki contributor.

It's not an unreasonable premise, but if we can't prove it, I'd like to delete it or move it to the talk page where it might be more appropriate.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal

I've removed the speculative sentence:

Some have speculated that Fulbert may have been Héloïse's father, which accounts both for the unusual manner in which Héloïse was brought up (due to a possible illegitimacy), as well as the extreme measures Fulbert took to punish Abelard.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I've put a question mark after her birth year, since a number of scholars have recently questioned this traditional date. They suggest that evidence points to Heloise being perhaps ten years older than traditionally thought. This would accord with Abelard's statement in the Historia Calamitatum that she was most renowned of all women in the kingdom, an unlikely statement about one who was still an adolescent. Dactylion (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue with date of birth is that she is said to have died at age 63 in 1164 in many of the older references, and she started schooling in Paris as a mentee in lieu of university, which would occur in teens. Simply being a female prodigy would have been enough to get renown. StarTigerJLN (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Note from User: StarTigerJLN

---

I consider the 1100-1101 birth date (where she is about 20 years younger than Abelard, about 15 to 17 when she meets him in Paris, and about 8 years younger than Peter the Venerable) most likely approximately correct. The earlier birth dates suggested (1090 etc) seem to be based entirely on the questionable if not nonsensical concept that a very young woman would not reach much acclaim in Paris, accompanied by the non-supportive claim that the monk Peter the Venerable knew about her when he was still young.

Upon consideration, there is no indication of Heloise being the same age as Peter the Venerable or being nearly as old as Peter Abelard. Students traditionally began university-level education around age 14. In lieu of university (which was unavailable to women) or the convent (which would require a religious vocation), Heloise's maternal uncle Fulbert would have obtained a tutor around this date as a substitute.

Child prodigies always gather some attention no matter the era, and Heloise's status as an un-cloistered young woman of letters would have been significant even as a very young girl. If she was born around 1100 and became renowned around age 14, Peter the Venerable would be about 22 when he became aware of her. This is well within an acceptable interpretation of Peter the Venerable's description.

(-StarTigerJLN, Jennifer Nielsen, philosophy graduate student / Abelard scholar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTigerJLN (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Authenticity of Heloise/Abelard Letters

Since the letters don't seem to have their own Wikipedia article, I thought I'd raise the issue here. I was struck by the omission of any mention in the discussion of the Heloise/Abelard letters of the extensive scholarly debate surrounding their authenticity. I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but I wondered if someone who was might opine on whether the issue is worthy of mention. The best online source I could find (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/heloisedisc1.html) suggests that the debate is over, but again, I have no idea who is and is not a credible source.Carl Wivagg (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My impression also is that the debate is settled in favor of the letters being authentic, but even if so, a few sentences addressing the dispute by someone more familiar with it than I would probably be a benefit to the article. This is my basis for viewing the matter as settled:

As both Gilson and Dronke have shown, the arguments against authenticity have little to do with textual problems, which are few and explicable; these have more to do with the refusal of critics to countenance that Heloise was a reluctant nun, or to believe her own description of herself as hypocritical and unrepentant of her love for Abelard. … For the earlier controversies see Etienne Gilson, Héloise et Abélard (Paris, 1938, 1978), English trans. L. K. Shook, Heloise and Abelard (Michigan, 1960). On the later controversies, see Peter Dronke, Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Testimonies (Glasgow, 1979), reprinted in Intellectuals and Poets in Medieval Europe (Rome, 1992), 247–94; see also the articles printed on pp. 295–342 of that volume. The lack of early sources for the letters would hardly surprise a biblical critic: the old adage posteriores non deteriores applies as much to medieval texts as to Classical.

Source: David Wulstan, "Novi modulaminis melos: the music of Heloise and Abelard," in Plainsong and Medieval Music 11, no. 1 (April 2002): 1-2. Full article pp 1-23, doi:10.1017/S0961137102002012 Liberalartist (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In literature

You have left out the novel "Heloise and Abelard" by George Moore, written in 1921. The book is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Moore_%28novelist%29). It is a very tedious read! --AlisonRJ (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Related move discussion

There is a proposal at Talk:Heloise#Requested move to make this article the primary topic at Heloise, and to have the dab content at Heloise (disambiguation). I see there's been no notice posted here, and assume those who watch this page might want some input. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this idea is a good idea, unless others object. StarTigerJLN (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Source for "d'Argenteuil"

Is there a source or other rationale for using "d'Argenteuil" as Héloïse's surname? It seems like a defensible choice, but I have not come across any author that actually uses it. Most sources, like the Britannica, seem to refer to her by just the one name, Héloïse. Liberalartist (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In several decades of awareness of this figure, I'd never seen her called by the article title. That was my argument in the naming discussion linked just above. This is one example of where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DAB guidelines come into conflict. Useful disambiguating modifiers exist for any other Heloise, but only confuse, mislead, or unduly complicate the identification of this Heloise. Unfortunately, those who were unfamiliar with Heloise and her tradition as a literary trope outnumbered the knowledgeable, and is often the case on Wikipedia, the decision was made on the basis of willful ignorance. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Given this, I looked into the question further and remain unable to find a non-Wikipedia source for "d'Argenteuil". A 2013 comment on the French Wikipedia article raised the same concern. This 2009 revision appears to have been the first use of "d'Argenteuil" in English Wikipedia, which was apparently done in deference to the French Wikipedia title. In French, the title appears to have been changed from "Héloïse" to "Héloïse d’Argenteuil" earlier in 2009.

I haven't found a citation of a source that uses "d’Argenteuil" anywhere in this. Accordingly, I've taken it out of the text of the English article and moved the page itself to Héloïse (abbess). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalartist (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment on d'Argenteuil 02/21

This is a common "created" surname, since she came to Paris from Argenteuil. It appears often in fiction and in some of the literature (especially French sources). "Du Paraclet" dates to the medieval era and was how people referred to her when she was an abbess. StarTigerJLN (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed today these surnames were added back to the article in the in Revision as of 15:27, 24 January 2021 by StarTigerJLN. If we mention them in the article, I think we should include a citation to a reliable source that uses each of these surnames. For "d'Argenteuil", it would be most persuasive to find sources from before 2009, as some sources after that seem to have gotten the name from Wikipedia.

It would be especially good to share the citations in the French Wikipedia talk section about "d'Argenteuil" at fr:Discussion:Héloïse (abbesse)#Intitulé de l'article. When I last looked into this issue in depth, Francophone editors also had no reliable source for the surname "d'Argenteuil" prior to its appearance on French Wikipedia. I looked again just now, and I see that they have renamed their page to "Héloïse (abbesse)" and do not seem to use the surname "d'Argenteuil" anywhere in the article. Likewise, they don't seem to use "du Paraclet" as a surname at all.

(I find it entirely plausible that these surnames could be used for Héloïse, but I haven't been able to find a reliable source that actually does use them. That said, my French is very limited, and my familiarity with the literature is only moderately deep.)

LiberalArtist (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a manufactured surname used in recent references to make up for the fact she has no surname, much like Du Paraclet, which is used in both French and recent literature. She is from Argenteuil and of the Paraclete, hence both of these are reasonable in place of no original surname. They both date back to the 19th century, with exception of Du Paraclet, which is used in a Vatican document but only to identify her as "of the Paraclete". StarTigerJLN (talk)

Undue weight issue re sexual abuse by Abelard

The current version of the article speaks of Ableard "telling Héloïse of instances where he had abused and raped her."

I was very surprised by this, as it is diametrically opposed to every other source I have encountered. I looked up the source, and the situation remains complicated. The only author I can find to have read interpreted these passages to refer to rape, or indeed to raise any questions about the consensuality of their relationship, is Mary Ellen Waithe, whose contribution to an edited volume is cited. She had set out the view in her only other writing about Héloïse, a profile for a volume she edited.

I have conducted a thorough search, and I can find no other author who cites either of Waithe's writings that follows her reading of the relationship as abusive or of the sex as rape. (Both volumes are cited, but on unrelated issues.) I also have been unable to find any other source that independently comes to the same conclusion.

Further complicating the matter, Waithe acknowledges that she arrived at her conclusion before the attribution (which she accepts) of the Epistolae duorum amantium to Héloïse, a development which dramatically expanded the surviving corpus of Héloïse's work and prompted a major scholarly reappraisal of status. While she does not retract her claim, Waithe in fact writes in the source cited that she has "softened the position [she] took earlier" in light of the new letters.

Especially in light of the near-unanimity of scholars against this argument, I think this source is vastly inadequate to warrant Wikipedia presenting the claim that Abelard raped and abused Héloïse as fact. My plan is to keep the claim in the article, at least until there's any discussion here, but to rewrite it to clarify that it is one scholar's interpretation of the primary sources, not a generally accepted fact. LiberalArtist (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have migrated the claim into a new section I have created on disputed issues in scholarship, which also includes a brief treatment of the debate over attribution, as suggested in an earlier section on this talk page.

My main concern about the approach I have taken is that, in attempting to avoid "undue weight," I've actually spent longer discussing the claim than was originally done. I think this is justified both because (1) allegations of rape and abuse are serious and deserve to be treated with gravity and because (2), while scholars are all but unanimous in interpreting the problematic passages in a more positive light, the plain words are such that a casual reader, unfamiliar with scholarship on the texts, could come to some of the same concerns. Thus, I've spent most of the section about the rape assertion detailing what the mainstream scholarly interpretation of the passages in question is.

LiberalArtist (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Most likely Abelard portrayed the story this way so as to save Heloise's reputation as an abbess and to justify the punishment which he was trying to own and live up to in a sense to please the church etc. Heloise, who I consider the important reference on this topic, does not present herself as seduced, let alone raped. Cleaned up some discussion here and contextualized it with multiple sources. It's worth including and important in our current social milieu to address the problematic line in one of his letters. StarTigerJLN (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd come back and address this again. The problematic line in the letter is that Abelard claimed to have forced Heloise to have sex with him. The only source of this idea is Abelard himself. Further complicating any hope of resolving what he meant, Heloise and Abelard present a pattern of participating in activities / fantasies which by contemporary standards would be considered "kinky" or similar to contemporary BDSM fetishist behavior. All information from Heloise suggests that her participation with Abelard was consensual. Yet, Abelard, already punished and shamed, had vested interest in maintaining Heloise's reputation and supporting her political power. It is critical to remember that open letters carried on horseback were essentially a public venue of communication, much like contemporary social media in the sense that there would be multiple readers, and Abelard and Heloise were more than aware of their celebrity status. Abelard defended her chastity and attempted to redirect her away from a romantic/sexual obsession with him, to a love of Christ. Yet their later letters offer a range of interpretations as to what their relationship has become. StarTigerJLN (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Celibacy

I modified a claim in the article that the Church was "just beginning" to impose clerical celibacy, which had been in effect since the early Middle Ages.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Bc2ovrZ_BZkC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=celibacy%20clergy%20origins&pg=PA250#v=onepage&q&f=false 23.113.53.110 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't correct -- see Mews and Clanchy for discussion. Clerical celibacy was ordered in 1123, quite long after Abelard and Heloise were married or Abelard was castrated. Also referenced here: https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church StarTigerJLN (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sexist Depictions of Heloise as "brash"

Please stop removing the scholarship section on Heloise in which her writings and perspectives and influence on Abelard are described in detail. Calling her "brash" is a crime against female scholarship. She is an erudite and intelligent and well-measured woman, not the hysterical fool represented in 17th century romances. - A professional philosopher who studies Heloise — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTigerJLN (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:V. Do you have citations to reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:VERIFY) to support this? If not it is original research (WP:NOR). --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have citations to support this. Calling her brash is absolutely original research and runs unsighted. Have reported you for repeated vandalism to this page. Stop. StarTigerJLN (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

StarTigerJLN, Omnipaedista is certainly not a vandal, and you should not be making accusations of that kind. Be aware that Wikipedia policy is that any editor may remove uncited materials at any time. Instead, it would help greatly if you could ensure that all your additions, which are welcome, are supported with exact page references, and in the case of potentially controversial claims also with brief direct quotations, either in the text or in inline citations or footnotes. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It is important to maintain a civil environment here. While Omnipaedista may have made inappropriate wholesale reverts giving vague reasons, what they did certainly is not "vandalism". Moreover, all they did was to revert to the prior version; they did not themselves insert the words you find objectionable. Reversions here are just standard procedure in the face of edits that don't meet Wikipedia standards. There's nothing inherently nefarious about such things. Teishin (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Teishan and apologies to Omnipaedista for mischaracterization. I continue to assert the reverts were a poor judgment but realize that this was not done with malice. I agree with most of his edits since our unfortunate clash and will attempt to be more friendly even if and when I strongly disagree with another editor's actions in the future. Cheers! StarTigerJLN (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Secret marriage

Heloise did not have a problem with the concept of secrecy but rather with marriage itself. She insisted the marriage was secret, and secrecy was the only way she was convinced to marry Abelard, as she did not want the marriage to inhibit his career in the church. According to Abelard in the Historia, she was beaten by Fulbert for continuing the keep the marriage a secret, which is why Abelard stole her away to Argenteuil. Mews and Clanchy must be consulted here, but the letters also stand on their own. Fulbert castrated Abelard apparently in retaliation for his stealing Heloise away from Fulbert's house. -StarTigerJLN (Jennifer Nielsen, KU)

Extreme sexism in older version

Stop removing revisions -- these are to correct an academic emergency. The "Heloise spoke brashly of marriage" is opinion not fact and blatantly sexist, demeaning her as a philosopher. Please stop re-introducing this poorly written and demeaning section which misportrays a leading medieval thinker...it is NOT OK. This is not a place to revert to "BRD". The Abelard and Heloise pages are extremely problematic right now and need bold revision.

Right now, I am working on expanding sHeloise's contributions to philosophy and women's studies, which will take some time and effort and rely on contemporary (but not solely first hand) scholarship.

- A PhD student in Philosophy and expert on Heloise (Jennifer Nielsen, KU, StarTigerJLN)

Please read WP:BRD. Please discuss before reverting to your new BOLD version. Do you have citations to reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:VERIFY) to support your claims? If not your version is original research (WP:NOR). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Credentialism has no place on Wikipedia and leads nowhere. Just for the record I am also a PhD student in philosophical logic. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Credentialism leads nowhere in terms of brag points, but credentials (formal or informal) do occasionally help parse out relevance of various discussions in an article. Kudos on your studies, and again apologies for my earlier frustrations. StarTigerJLN (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Cross-Editing "Cultural References" with Abelard (cross-posting at "Abelard" talk page)

It's important generally speaking to cross-edit most references to Heloise with the cultural references on the Abelard page, since most references to one in pop culture are relevant to the other. This will help keep both pages up to date and improve the flagged section at Abelard as well since Heloise's references section was more tidy and kept up. StarTigerJLN (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I adjusted the disambiguation to work more like Abelard's redirect. The disambiguation page for Heloise is important, but other articles about women named Heloise are not solely titled "Heloise" but "Heloise (columnist)" or "Heloise (surname)", so there is no need for the Heloise disambiguation page to be the bearer of the redirect from "Heloise". To aid scholarship, I renamed the disambigation page "Heloise (disambiguation)" and redirected Heloise to Héloïse. The diacritics are not universally used in scholarship and a redirect is necessary to "Heloise" if the surname D'Argenteuil is dropped. StarTigerJLN (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There is an ongoing move war on the main "Heloise" disambig page. I am requesting a move of that page (Heloise --> Heloise (disambiguation)). Meanwhile, I strongly suggest a redirect or move:

Requested move 7 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Héloïse → Heloise – the diacritics are not standardized and Heloise's name should be rendered ala Abelard's and disambiguated ala Abelard's -- she is a prominent twelfth century philosopher and being relegated to a disambiguation page for a primary article is questionable. StarTigerJLN (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose WP:FRMOS says that Héloïse stays at Héloïse. If you want to move dab page out and make Heloise a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Héloïse fine. But what's that reason for stripping a French name? She wasn't British or American. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:In icti oculi -- If you so desire, please join me on the Heloise page to ask for a primary redirect to this Héloïse. A primary redirect would be my first solution, but there is no support currently at the Heloise disambiguation page, which maintains itself as the primary Heloise page rather than "Heloise (disambiguation)". I will leave this discussion open until resolved with the Heloise disambiguation. StarTigerJLN (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternate solution: Redirect from "Heloise", renaming of "Heloise" to "Heloise (disambiguation)"

Copied from the Heloise talk page regarding a rename to Heloise (disambiguation) and a primary redirect to Héloïse:

Support. Per page views, it seems pretty clear that the historical figure is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 21:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Clarify -- I support this proposal as presently framed to move the disambiguation and make Heloise a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Héloïse. The move discussion at Talk:Héloïse#Requested move 7 February 2021 was raised separately from this one, although they really should have been clubbed together. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Comment from the Héloïse page: "If you want to move dab page out and make Heloise a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Héloïse fine..." In ictu oculi (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC) I myself prefer the primary redirect solution rather than moving Héloïse. However, the diacritics were not standard in medieval French or Latin (as her name was typically rendered), thus increasing the need for a redirect from Heloise without diacritics. StarTigerJLN (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk Page

The talk page shows an error if you view it from the main page. I haven't been changing other post words -- I've been trying to eliminate the error by removing bad HTML (not the words themselves). StarTigerJLN (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop removing </div><div style="clear:both;"></div>. You did it twice [1], [2]. This constitutes tampering with a closed discussion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)