Advertisement

Humanism, scholasticism and the school of chartres

  • John Marenbon
Review Article

Keywords

Classical Tradition Twelfth Century Intellectual History Eleventh Century Authoritative Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    First given as a lecture in 1964, a revised version was printed in hisMedieval Humanism and other Studies (Oxford, 1970), pp. 29–60.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Printed first as ‘Humanism and the School of Chartres’, ibid.,Medieval Humanism and other Studies (Oxford, 1970), pp. 61–85.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ‘The Schools of Paris and the School of Chartres’, in:Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Oxford, 1982), pp. 113–37.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibid., ‘The Schools of Paris and the School of Chartres’, in:Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Oxford, 1982), p. 129: ‘The chief claimants for his school have been Chartres and Paris, but on present evidence neither can be strongly supported’.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Latin Rhetorical Commentaries by Thierry of Chartres, ed. K.M. Fredborg (Toronto, 1988) (Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Studies and Texts 84), p. 4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fredborg has discovered some more allusions to Chartres in William’s work and also a series of changes which indicate that he composed the first version of his commentary on Priscian in Chartres, and his second version elsewhere: see ed. cit. K.M. Fredborg (Toronto, 1988) (Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Studies and Texts 84), p. 7, nn. 35 and 36 (with further references to her own and Jeauneau’s work).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scholastic Humanism, p. 227 and cf. p. 75 (where Southern finds himself forced to introduce a qualification into the assertion he had made in 1970 [Medieval Humanism, p. 73]).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    (Cambridge, 1988). Section III, ‘Innovators’, is on pp. 255–404; it includes studies of William of Conches, Thierry and Gilbert, as well as ones of Anselm, Abelard and Hermann of Carinthia.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Southern does, indeed, include in his reprint a note of reservation (p. 80, n.27), admitting that ‘much more needs to be said about these scholars’. But if, as he goes on to say, the purpose of including the section is merely to show that there is nothing peculiarly ‘Chartrian’ in their work, should he not have rewritten it to this end?Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernard of Chartres. ‘Glosae super Platonem’, ed. Paul E. Dutton, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Studies and Texts 107 (Toronto, 1991), Introduction, p. 105 and see Appendix 3.3 (pp. 260–62).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ‘William of Conches’, in Dronke, op. cit.,Bernard of Chartres. ‘Glosae super Platonem’, ed. Paul E. Dutton, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Studies and Texts 107 (Toronto, 1991), Introduction, pp. 308–27. Since Southern’s book was published, there has been a new editon of the Latin text, and an English translation of it, in which the work’s many differences from thePhilosophia Mundi are made abundantly clear:Guillelmi de Conchis Dragmaticon, ed. I. Ronca, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis 152 (Turnhout, 1997); William of Conches,A Dialogue on Natural Philosophy (Dragmaticon Philosophiae), transl. with introduction and notes by I. Ronca and M. Curr, Notre Dame Texts in Medieval Culture 2 (Notre Dame, Ind., 1997). (A review article on these two volumes, by the present reviewer, is forthcoming in the pages of this journal [IJCT], provisionally vol. 7 [2000/2001].)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I have tried to illustrate this variety in my brief survey of twelfth-century thought inThe Routledge History of Philosophy III,Medieval Philosophy, ed. J. Marenbon (London and New York, 1998), pp. 150–87.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Southern does not take account of the important work of scholars of the Renaissance over the last fifty years or so, especially that of Paul Oskar Kristeller, which has shown that Renaissance humanism and scholasticism developed side by side: see especially Kristeller’s ‘Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance’,Byzantion 17 (1944–45), 346–74, reprinted in Kristeller,Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, Storia e Letteratura. Studi e Testi 54 (Rome, 1956), pp. 553–83 and also in Id., the ItalianRenaissance Thought. The Classic, Scholastic and Humanist Strains (New York/San Francisco/London, 1961), pp. 92–119. This collection also contains other important papers by Kristeller on this theme. The approach taken inThe Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. C.B. Schmitt and Q. Skinner (Cambridge, 1988) owes much to Kristeller’s views.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Marenbon
    • 1
  1. 1.Trinity CollegeCambridge

Personalised recommendations