further in denouncing all holding of property by the church and proclaiming a visionary revival of 'evangelical poverty.' The attachment of such an advocate was plainly not in Abailard's favour.
It seems that in 1139 William, once abbat of Saint Thierry near Rheims, now a humble monk at Signy, proclaimed, in a letter of passionate excitement, the horrible doctrines which he had detected in the theological works, and particularly in the new Theologia, of Abailard: Petrus enim Abaëlardus iterum nova docet, nova scribit. The letter was addressed jointly to his friend Bernard and to Geoffrey of Chartres, whose influence had nearly succeeded in rescuing Abailard at the council of Soissons, and who was now papal legate. Geoffrey perhaps had no wish to take the matter up, and Bernard delayed. After a while, however, the latter desiring with his wonted qoodness and benignity that the error should be corrected and not its author confounded, resolved to seek an interview with Abailard: so says Bernard's devoted biographer, afterwards his successor at Clairvaux, Geoffrey of Auxerre, who adds that Abailard was so much moved by the saint's temperate expostulations that he promised to amend his errors according as he should prescribe. The submission, however, if it was ever made, was shortlived. Abailard appealed to the archbishop of Sens, under whose metropolitical jurisdiction the diocese of Paris fell, and demanded an opportunity of defending his position. Geoffrey's account indeed cannot be true, for had Abailard been guilty of this tergiversation it would, as Rémusat observes, not have escaped comment when the council was actually held: but there can be little doubt that the interview decided Abailard to a resolute assertion of his integrity. The opportunity he sought was conveniently chosen, for at Whitsuntide in 1140[1] the French king
- ↑ [Whether the council was held in 1140 or 1141 has been disputed since the time of Baronius and Henschen. Deutsch, in Die Synode von Sens, pp. 50-54, Berlin 1880, argued in favour of 1141; while E. Vacandard in the Revue des Questions historiques, 50. 235-243 (1891) supported the earlier date. The words of Peter the
