Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

66 DENNIS J. BILLY
other works, he restrains himself probably because of the philosophical
nature of the work by Cicero used for his point of departure.
8 Contrary to what some might claim, his reliance on a
secular source like Cicero is not out of step with general monastic
sensitivities of his day. In most monastic circles, secular
knowledge had little value in itself and was considered useful
only to the extent that it helped the monk in his spiritual journey.
9 Aelred borrows so heavily from Cicero precisely because he
finds the pagan orator and philosopher genuinely useful for his
theological goals. Rather than merely imitating Cicero, however,
Aelred “baptizes” him by immersing him in the life-giving waters
of Scripture and the Fathers. 10
Through the dialogue form, Aelred is able to give his readers
a glimpse of a conversation among close friends in a monastic
setting. The physical location of the conversations – the monastic
cloister – should not be downplayed. Aelred writes with a
monastic (and specifically Cistercian) audience in mind, but
seems to be aware that it might eventually have a wider circulation.
11 Although the dialogue provides little by way of description,
one understands immediately when reading it that those
engaged in the dialogue are thoroughly immersed in such an environment.
Aelred conveys this sense through carefully placed
references to monastic practice and community life that, in his
day, would make sense only if the conversations were taking
place within the cloister. 12 In the dialogue, simplicity of speech,
8 In DSA, Aelred employs the allegorical interpretation of Scripture
only in his treatment of Sg 1:1 [DSA 2:21-27; CCCM 1:306-8 (155-203); SF
75-77]. He uses it extensively, however, in De Jesu puero duodenni (CCCM
1:245-78). See ROBY, “Sources of the Spiritual Friendship,” 33.
9 For the legitimate uses of reason and secular knowledge in monastic
theology, see GAYBBA, Aspects of the Medieval History of Theology, 47-52.
10 DSA “…gives the impression of a thoroughly Augustinian structure,
built on the foundation provided by Cicero. The doctrine is expressed in
scriptural and patristic terms but is no more a florilegium of the Fathers
than it is a simple copy of Cicero.” See ROBY, “Sources of the Spiritual
Friendship,” 31.
11 DSA 2:7 [CCCM 1:303(50-53); SF 71].
12 For the place of DSA in the tradition of monastic friendship, see
DOUGLASS, “Aelred in the Tradition of Monastic Friendship,” in SF 36-41.