medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
John
Having spent two year re-editing the NA, I am in no better position to pronounce on authorship than anyone else. I can say there is little doubt that the author is Norman and probably spent his life in Normandy and possibly in Rouen. He knew the writings of Anselm well, and may have even been well informed on Anselms's conciliar legislation. But you are correct, he seems to have minimal knowledge of English Affairs. Tract 29, where the argument against Canterbury's claim of primacy is laid out is more ecclesiological than ecclesiastical (and for paleographical and rhetorical reasons, this tract is really two tracts). He touts arguments that no one else took seriously, and it betrays a complete ignorance of the political context.
The only thing I add to the issue is that the author is very well trained as a theologian, and possibly in canon law (but I doubt he is from the "school" of Yves of Chartres). He knows the theological sources very well and his biblical hermeneutics are very sophisticated.
If you are interested, I have an article coming out in the 2011 volume of the Haskins Society Journal, on the Ecclesiology of the NA.
Jim
----------------
James R Ginther, PhD
Professor of Medieval Theology
& Director, Center for Digital Theology
Saint Louis University
This email was sent from my iPad and will have my gmail address ([log in to unmask]). You may respond with that email address or with my institutional one: [log in to unmask]
On Jan 24, 2012, at 1:43 PM, BRIGGS JOHN <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
> On 24/01/2012, James Ginther <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> For some additional documentary evidence related to the initial inquiry
>> (about the 11/12th centuries), Tract 25 of the Norman Anonymous provides a
>> very interesting apology for married priests and tract 26 takes up the
>> cause of defending ordained sons of priests. All easily accessible at
>> www.normananonymous.org. [end commercial].
>
> What is the current thinking on the authorship of Norman Anonymous? My
> interest is that he discusses the Second English Coronation Ordo,
> whereas the Third Ordo is conventionally dated to c.1100. (It is found
> in MSS of approximately that date.) For a variety of reasons, I can't
> see how the Third Ordo can possibly have been used for Henry's
> coronation, and thus would like it to have been devised for William
> Rufus's coronation in 1087 (and thus be by Lanfranc rather than
> Anselm.) If this is correct, NA can't have been well inormed on that
> issue - and one wonders about his knowledge of other matters.
>
> John Briggs
>
> **********************************************************************
> 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
**********************************************************************
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
|