medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
>> "The myth of cistercian origins: C.H. Berman and the manuscript sources,"
Cīteaux: commentarii cistercienses, LI, 2000, pp. 299-386.
>> to my knowledge, it is not available on-line.
> And not easy to find in libraries accessible to me. Its length seems
excessive,
or, perhaps, too meticulous?
but, not having read it, perhaps you know better than i.
calling it a "review" (as i believe i may have done) is a mistake --it's a
carefully focused, meticulous critique.
he was kind enough to send me an offprint of it when it came out, which is
lost, in an archeological context, somewhere in my house.
i did read through it at the time, and thought that he exposed enough clear
mistakes in Berman's scholarship to qualify it as a fairly substantial piece
of work.
>and the place in which it is published is hardly disinterested.
yes, you're certainly right there: Cīteaux is definitely "interested" in
Cistercian history.
>(It is billed as a "Communication", so it seems unsolicited rather than a
commissioned review.
your point here being...?
the journal is, typically, organized into "Articuli," "Communicationes," and
"Recensiones" :
http://www.citeaux.org/fr/dernier2.htm
Chrysogonus' piece was more than a review, but the distinction between
Articuli and Communicationes is way too fine for a relapsed Protestant like
myself to discern.
in any case, as best i can recall (dimly), he limited himself to only one part
of Berman's work.
>The same appears to be true of the 13-page review in the same issue by B.P.
McGuire.)
among the "Recensiones," i presume.
your point here being...?
>> a summary abstract is here:
>> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13399177
> I wouldn't like to have to summarise an 88-page rant in 200 words,
yeahbut, it's o.k. for you to characterize this particular, meticulous,
detailed, point-by-point critique (which, btw, you have not even seen) as a
"rant"?
>but I certainly wouldn't have included "Just because vehicle traffic in
downtown Chicago was denser after 1950 than before does not mean that rules
governing the traffic are unlikely to have existed prior to 1950" unless that
was the strongest part of the argument.
one of the many joys of attending Chrysogonus' k'zoo presentations over a
period of more than a decade was wonderful sense of humor.
or, humour.
>> a somewhat more sympathetic reivew of Berman's thesis by John Sommerfeldt,
which takes a broader historiographic viewpoint is here
>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb050/is_4_70/ai_n28885965/
> He's basically agreeing with Berman, but keeping his head down in case he is
attacked by mouthy Trappists.
yeah, Sommerfeldt is noted for his missing head, at all of the Cistercian
sessions which he attends (and chairs) at k'zoo every year --those Trappists
can be *mean* s.o.b.s, when they are provoked.
>> he says, "Waddell concludes, 'the book, in its major theses and in many of
its details, is simply wrong'" (p. 360).
>Yes, but Waddell had to. Just as the Franciscans and Dominicans became
Inquisitors precisely because they themselves had been suspected of heresy and
they had to prove their orthodoxy, so Waddell had to lead the Cistercian
attack on Berman precisely because he had been working along
similar lines himself, and because she drew on that earlier work of his.
goodness, what a mouthful.
sounds like a mouthy Trappist.
i've got no Skin in this Game at all, and my specific knowledge of Things
Cistercian is Marginal, at best.
truth be told, i'm more a fan of Walter Map's POV about those folks, though i
did attend some of the Cistercian sessions every year at k'zoo for over a
decade, came to know many of the attendees, including Chrysogonus, and was
generally very, very impressed by the high quality of the papers delivered.
Terryl Kinder, the long-time editor of Cīteaux, is an old friend of mine from
Indiana U.; her husband, David Bell, is one of the most spectacular scholars
i've ever come across.
Chrysogonus' critique of Berman's thesis will stand or fall on the precise
points which he makes in it.
>> i don't know if Berman ever responded to Chrysogonus' review.
> She did. Cīteaux published a 5-page "Response to McGuire and Waddell" in
vol. LIII, 2002, pp.333-337, to which Waddell was allowed a 6-page "Reply"
(pp.339-344) and McGuire one of two pages (pp.345-346.)
you've read these, but not Chrysogonus' original Rant?
> She got her revenge in a dismissive review of Waddell's "Narrative and
Legislative Texts from Early Cīteaux."
where was that published?
c
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|