Ratio aut auctores? Reason, Authority and the Anagogic Ascent in the Twelfth Century
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCorrect article that offers an overview of the more rationalist theologians of the turn of the twelfth century. I missed, though, a more detailed description of 1. the historiography, why and how this period has been researched, and what are the reasons for a new approach (after Haskins, Leclercq, Chenu, Speer, etc.), 2. a wider canvas of the twelfth century, with more about the ecclesiastical environment that accepted (more or less) these endeavours.
In what sense was there truly a 'radical change' (l. 653)? After all Abbo of Fleury engaged deeply with mathematics a hundred years earlier.
The main thesis that these authors represented an 'anthropological optimism' is correct but should have been expanded more. The program of 'making humans godlike' (theosis in Greek) has been a fundamental idea since Athanasius in Greek patristics.
In line 23, why is inconstans in the accusative?
In line 278 correct nominee -> nomine.
Identify ll. 612-3 as Song of songs 2, 15
Missing bibliography details:
Of A. Speer's contributions to the twelfth-century 'renaissance' only one article is listed and referred to in the paper. Why neglect all the other papers, including the book: Speer, A., Die entdeckte Natur. Untersuchungen zu Begründungsversuchen einer "scientia naturalis" im 12. Jahrhundert, Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 45 (Leiden-New York-Cologne, 1995)?
fn.66. Reference to Symphonia of Hildegard should be clarified.
The following items should be specified in the Bibliography.
Thierry of Chartres. Glosa super Boethii librum De Trinitate.
Thierry of Chartres. Abbreviato Monacensis commentum super de Trinitate Boethii.
J. Jolivet on Adelard is missing from the bibliography.
Author Response
Correct article that offers an overview of the more rationalist theologians of the turn of the twelfth century. I missed, though, a more detailed description of 1. the historiography, why and how this period has been researched, and what are the reasons for a new approach (after Haskins, Leclercq, Chenu, Speer, etc.), 2. a wider canvas of the twelfth century, with more about the ecclesiastical environment that accepted (more or less) these endeavours.
In what sense was there truly a 'radical change' (l. 653)? After all Abbo of Fleury engaged deeply with mathematics a hundred years earlier.
The main thesis that these authors represented an 'anthropological optimism' is correct but should have been expanded more. The program of 'making humans godlike' (theosis in Greek) has been a fundamental idea since Athanasius in Greek patristics.
In line 23, why is inconstans in the accusative?
In line 278 correct nominee -> nomine.
Identify ll. 612-3 as Song of songs 2, 15
Missing bibliography details:
Of A. Speer's contributions to the twelfth-century 'renaissance' only one article is listed and referred to in the paper. Why neglect all the other papers, including the book: Speer, A., Die entdeckte Natur. Untersuchungen zu Begründungsversuchen einer "scientia naturalis" im 12. Jahrhundert, Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 45 (Leiden-New York-Cologne, 1995)?
fn.66. Reference to Symphonia of Hildegard should be clarified.
The following items should be specified in the Bibliography.
Thierry of Chartres. Glosa super Boethii librum De Trinitate.
Thierry of Chartres. Abbreviato Monacensis commentum super de Trinitate Boethii.
Jolivet on Adelard is missing from the bibliography.
Response- Thanks you for your useful corrections and comments. Typos have now been taken care of. And missing texts have been added to the bibliography. Given the present word count space was limited but I have tried to add comments about the historiography of this period. Also I have tried to expand on the idea of theosis.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis valuable, meritorious and well-written contribution argues for a growing appreciation of human reason among thinkers in twelfth-century Europe. The author joins the well-known idea of a twelfth-century renaissance as a preparation for the Italian Renaissance. Adelard of Bath, William of Conches, Thierry of Chartres, Abelard, and, surprisingly, Hildegard von Bingen are discussed. A case is made for a growing opposition between reason and auctores, evidently the designation in Chartres for the authoritative writings of Christianity. Indicators of a growing appreciation of human reason are the interpretation of the Fall, an optimistic anthropology, and the question of the motive of the incarnation of Christ (curiously called: the absolute incarnation). The author guards against modern contradictions such as between philosophy and theology, or between reason and faith, and keeps in mind that all the authors mentioned are Christian and in search of an ascent to God, hence the “anagogic ascent” mentioned in the title.
The contribution seems to contain few new elements, unless it is that Hildegard von Bingen is mentioned in the same breath as the theologians of Chartres. To speak of a twelfth century renaissance is an accepted view. One point of discussion, however, is whether it is correct to conceive the soteriological views of the theologians mentioned as valuing human reason and undervaluing the consequences of the Fall. In that regard, it is noteworthy that while it is mentioned that Hildegard von Bingen regards salvation as produced by love rather than sacrifice, Abelard's views in this regard are not mentioned, while it is known that a similar view is expressed precisely by Abelard. That would be my main criticism of this contribution.
Some editorial comments:
- p. 1, title: ‘auctores’; it would be wise to explain the meaning of this expression.
- p. 1, title: ‘anagogic ascent’ suggests a type of mysticism which is not meant by the Chartres theologians.
- p. 1, r. 10: understanding of the universe (insert ‘of’)
- p. 2, r. 80: ‘considerably’ should be ‘considerable.’
- p. 3, r. 117: ‘studies’ should be ‘studied.’
- p. 4, r. 179: ‘with which they all participate’, should be ‘in which they all participate’
- p. 5, r. 238 and 241: ‘Creation’ should be ‘creation’.
- p. 6, r. 272: “phase at a safe way’ should be ‘phase as a safe way’
- p. 6, r. 278: ‘nominee’ should be ‘nomine’
- p. 6, r. 297: ‘World:’ should be ‘World,’
- p. 7, r. 319: ‘conclusion omnium’ should be ‘conclusio omnium’
- p. 7, r. 333: ‘Atonement’ should be ‘atonement’
- p. 8, r. 380: ‘he was not an auctores’ should be ‘he was not an auctor’
- p. 10, r. 509: ‘cupla’ should be ‘culpa’
- p. 10, r. 512: ‘are a only’ should be ‘are only’
- p. 11, r. 544: this section is rather contradictory.
- p. 11, r. 569: ‘philosoporum’ should be ‘philosophorum’
- p. 12, r. 594: ‘noviates’ should be ‘novitates’
- p. 13, r. 672: ‘bases’ should be ‘basis’
- p. 14, n. 10: ‘Willemien’ should be ‘Otten’
Author Response
This valuable, meritorious and well-written contribution argues for a growing appreciation of human reason among thinkers in twelfth-century Europe. The author joins the well-known idea of a twelfth-century renaissance as a preparation for the Italian Renaissance. Adelard of Bath, William of Conches, Thierry of Chartres, Abelard, and, surprisingly, Hildegard von Bingen are discussed. A case is made for a growing opposition between reason and auctores, evidently the designation in Chartres for the authoritative writings of Christianity. Indicators of a growing appreciation of human reason are the interpretation of the Fall, an optimistic anthropology, and the question of the motive of the incarnation of Christ (curiously called: the absolute incarnation). The author guards against modern contradictions such as between philosophy and theology, or between reason and faith, and keeps in mind that all the authors mentioned are Christian and in search of an ascent to God, hence the “anagogic ascent” mentioned in the title.
The contribution seems to contain few new elements, unless it is that Hildegard von Bingen is mentioned in the same breath as the theologians of Chartres. To speak of a twelfth century renaissance is an accepted view. One point of discussion, however, is whether it is correct to conceive the soteriological views of the theologians mentioned as valuing human reason and undervaluing the consequences of the Fall. In that regard, it is noteworthy that while it is mentioned that Hildegard von Bingen regards salvation as produced by love rather than sacrifice, Abelard's views in this regard are not mentioned, while it is known that a similar view is expressed precisely by Abelard. That would be my main criticism of this contribution.
Thank you for your useful comments and corrections. I believe I have addressed all the typos and mistakes. I have also added something about Abelard's soteriology.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The article provides a view of some thinkers in the 12th century by highlighting their
opinion about the relationship between philosophy and theology, the pagan
understanding of nature and the Christian one. The choice of the selected authors is
good and it also provides a look to their opponents, such as Bernard of Clairvaux or
William of St Thierry. It is a good article and should be published.
Although I find the main point of the paper’s author right, sometimes her/his
statements should be balanced. She/he tries to do this, by saying that neither people as
Abelard are against faith (lines 535-43, ) nor people like Bernard are against reason (598-
604), but the contrast among Christian authors and philosophical reason is sometimes a
bit exaggerated. This controversy comes from time to time in the context of Christianity
and, although one could present it as an opposition between pure ‘reason’ and ‘science’
against ‘the authority of some Christian writers’ or ‘the authority of Scripture or of the
Dogma or of the Church’, indeed we are rather dealing with an opposition between
some authorities and other authorities, a way of reasoning and another way or
reasoning. The philosopher is not without prejudices (as contemporary philosophy
easily acknowledges) and the faithful is not without reasons. The question here is which
is the true theological method followed by the ‘fathers of the Church’ to make
theological assertions. I think that every medieval would accept that the fathers of the
Church and the Councils used the human reason in a right way. In 12th and 13th centuries
new ways of reasoning were coined and, even in the middle of a lot of controversy, these
new methods were widely accepted. At the end of the day, even if people like Bernard
criticized the philosophy or ‘natural reason’ as such, their main problem with people like
Abelard were their conclusions, not the method itself. And yes, in these centuries a new
revaluation of created nature is gaining importance, but this tendency is also
acknowledgeable in the thought of the most ‘traditional’ thinkers. For example, in the
‘The spirit of mediaeval philosophy’, Gilson shows that it is a feature of the very Christian
thought to defend a maximum role for created nature and its strengths and, at the same
time, divine grace, the mystical action of God, Redemption, and so on.
Response: Thank you for your useful corrections and observations. I have now taken car of the typos and mistakes.
I have kept Jeaneau's comment but I have qualified it- I have also removed the word horrified and given a more qualified description of William of ST's response.
