Thank you, John.
The only reason why I can shoot from the hip here on stuff I know nothing
about is that I know that you or some other kind soul who actually *does* know
something about whatever will jump in and gently set me straight.
It's a conspiracy, aimed at getting myself an education on the cheap,
see?
>The work contains 40 questions, which does agree with something John of
Salisbury says about one of Bernard's works, but to the best of my
recollection that's as far as the argument really goes.
Sounds like Dutton had an up-hill battle to start with, there being so little
known about the guy (Bernard) up front.
>...Paul's arguments for identifying it as Bernard's work did not meet with
unreserved acceptance by the examining board. Some, however, saw in it an
authoritative salvo against Southern's attack on the School of Chartres (which
was, of course, not ragingly popular with the Pontifical Institute to begin
with).
I've always thought that Southern's essay works wonderfully well on two
levels--one purely factual (and he *does* do a creditable job with the facts),
the other methodological.
In this latter catagory the essay is, to my mind, paradigmatic, exposing "the
confidence with which later scholars have been able to use the work of their
predecessors," as he put the nut of the problem.
The fact that some of your collegues would allow their notion of the "School
of Chartres" (yea or nea) to color or prejudice their acceptance of someone's
attribution of a work to a known luminary of that School is more than a little
illustrative of Southern's point, I'm thinking.
Funny how we get attached to ideas, fixed or otherwise.
Thanks again, John.
Best from here,
Christopher
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|