Skip to main content

 



(Proposed Family Tree of Heloise Du Paraclet aka Heloise d'Argenteuil)

Jennifer Lorraine Nielsen

The Paraclete records hold that Heloise's mother is named Hersinde.

Abelard refers to Heloise's foster father, Fulbert, as her "avunculus" -- her maternal uncle.

Hersende of Fontrevaud (Champigne/Champagne) lives to be too old (to at least 1114), and would have had Heloise at too advanced an age, to make a satisfying candidate for Heloise's mother. It would become difficult to justify Heloise's placement at Argenteuil, or Abelard's avoidance of directly referencing Heloise's connection to Fontrevaud.

I've fostered a suspicion for some time that Fulbert is not Heloise's biological uncle. He is too often speculated to be her real dad, or on a different line of thinking, to have had romantic interest in Heloise.
I theorized perhaps Fulbert is her "spiritual" uncle in Christ, and she the product of an ex-wife entering a convent and becoming pregnant upon participation in a scandalous dalliance. Upon entering a convent or monastic life, ties and expectations of marriage were dissolved, replaced with spiritual "brother/sister-hood" in Christ.

I became amused upon locating Fulbert in French genealogies as the proposed one time husband of a wife named Hersinde / Hersende of Chateau-Gontier, who died young and whose mother entered a convent. If Heloise's father and mother both died young, Fulbert, the morally obligated "father", could have been left as next of kin. 

While it's common for illegitimate children of men in the 12th century to be acknowledged in a morally neutral way, for a husband to be made a cuckold by his wife is still tremendously scandalous. 

Fascinatingly, in his marriage to Hersende de Chateau-Gontier, Fulbert--a relics dealer--is placed in the immediate social milieu of the Templars, with Hersinde's nephew the second Templar Grand Master.
An examination of Fulbert's family tree further establishes a connection to both the Montmorency family (which Heloise is proposed descended from) and a tentative connection to Hugues de Payens (the first Templar Grand Master) who is established as hailing from the Champagne area of France ("Payns near Troyes").

William of Champeaux, Arch-Deacon of Paris and Bishop of Chalons-en-Champagne, and Fulbert of Clairvaux, William's student and Templar founder, are further established as socially related to Fulbert via the Templars and the Champagne/Champigne background. Fulbert's mood towards Abelard may have soured via his increasing Templar-oriented participation in a complex Anti-Abelard social structure.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Two videos with Deepak Chopra in which I appear:

Quanglebits and my Hopf Fiber Obsession

Background: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hopf+fibration Project A: Towards defining a unit measure of quantum information, a quanglebit, written as a Hopf bundle over a Bloch hypersphere in complex space, which unlike the qubit is sensitive to quantum entanglement and could contain entanglement information. (There is past work to cite here that goes so far as mentioning the Bloch sphere and qubits and that the Hopf fibration is a way to redo the qubit, but does not redefine a new measure of information -- I think it is crucial at this point to redefine our measure of quantum information and get away from the limitations of the qubit structure, which is not easy to describe entanglement therewith.) Beginning date of project: 2013 (with many breaks). While hardly trivial, not a difficult project.  Project B : Redefining the fields [EM and QFT] and Schrodinger on the Hopf fiber bundle (approximate beginning date of project: June 2008). 

The Extended Mind Hypothesis: A Strong Objection and Defense - JLNielsen

Phil 860 – Topics Phil  Science   Professor John Symons   Paper # 1 – Due Sep 14  The Extended Mind Hypothesis:  Objection and Defense  Jenny Lorraine Nielsen  Introduction  In “The Extended Mind”, Andy Clark and David Chalmers (1998) present a claim that mind extends beyond brain and body into the physical world via coupling of organism and external resources in order to hold mental states (such as beliefs) “constituted partly by features of the environment” (12, 18). One strong criticism of the hypothesis comes from Ken Aizawa and Fred Adams (2001), who argue in “Defending the Bounds of Cognition” that Chalmers and Clark commit a fallacy by confusing the causal relationship between the brain and external objects with a constitutive relationship (2). They further maintain that such objects cannot make up cognition as they lack the “nature” of “what constitutes the cognitive” (2001, 3). In the sections that follow, I will explicate this objection ...