It just goes to show how
>differing views can exist side by side in the same thinker, and they don't
>necessarily have to contradict each other; though Bernard seemed to think
>otherwise. BTW, didn't Bernard also put forward a subjectivist view?
Thank you very much. I didn't know the passage from William and entirely agree
that I would probably have attributed it to Abelard. Certainly Bernard was much
to ready to condemn without having read the whole story - I don't suppose for a
moment he read the whole of the commentary on Romans. I think there were more
than doctrinal issues at stake. Abelard was somewhat careless in making enemies
of Bernard's friends. William of Champeaux, whom Abelard persecuted until
he gave
up teaching and founded the house of St Victor, was a particular friend of
Bernard
and would not have given a very favourable account of his former pupil.
Have you published your translation of the Romans commentary?
Bill.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|