[log in to unmask] wrote:
>I would certainly agree that the common identification of those who
>objected to the liberal arts as 'antidialecticians' must be
>reconsidered.
Dear hewill1:
While we can hardly count Hugh of St. Victor among the ranks
of the "antidialecticians", it is impossible to read his Didascalion
without sensing Hugh's awareness of and anguish over the
insufficiency of the traditional categorical domains of knoweldge for
addressing all the concerns of his own day.It was not the
skills/tools provided by those domains that concerned Hugh as much as
the hermeneutical boundaries they installed.Hence Hugh's own
reordering might well be seen as such criticism of the liberal arts,
and perhaps even at a foundational level. such "anguish over
insufficiency" was noted by Ivan Illich in In the Vineyard of the
Text: A Commentary on the Didascalion of Hugh of St. Victor.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
In addition to the Didascalion, you might chec:,
Hugonis de Sancto Victore; Opera propaedeutica, ed. Roger Baron.
Notre Dame. Univ. of N.D. Press, 1966, Publications in Medieval
Studies, 20; See esp: "Epitome Dindimi in philosophiam"
Of interest to the critical theory in formation,you might check :
Les Machines du Sens: fragments d'une sémiologie médievale. trans and
ed. Yves Delègue, Paris: Editions des cendres, 1987. Collection:
"Archives du commentaire".
I hope this helps.
Josef Gulka
>
Josef Gulka
[log in to unmask]
Tel: 215- 732-8420
Fax (215) 732-8420
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|