Universities & Scholasticism
Excerpts from
The Medieval Record: Sources of Medieval History (1997)
edited by Alfred J. Andrea
1) Background: Translations & Universities
The period 1050 to 1300 was one of the West’s most fecund [i.e., fertile or productive] eras of cultural creativity. Intellectually and artistically, Europe proved capable of dazzling breakthroughs . . .
In the intellectual arena, European scholars applied in new ways classical Greek modes of rational analysis to their studies of theology, moral philosophy, law, and a variety of other critical subjects. Toward the end of the eleventh century, scholars were already using early sixth-century Latin translations of the elementary logical treatises of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) as the basis for testing the limits of human reason to cast light on basic religious and ethical issues. From the middle of the twelfth century onward, schoolmasters and students avidly searched for, collected, and studied Latin translations of the more advanced logical and scientific works of Aristotle, as well as commentaries on his works by Muslim and Jewish scholars. . . .
A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that the High Middle Ages was an era of tremendous intellectual and artistic flowering, and much of that efflorescence drew its initial inspiration from classical Greek and Roman models . . . [Rather] than slavishly imitating the ancients, medieval Europeans adapted Greco-Roman patterns of thought and artistic creativity to express the ideals and aspirations of a civilization that differed radically from classical antiquity.
2) Background: Reason & Revelation in the Schools of Paris
As a religious culture based on what its adherents believe to be divine revelation, Christianity has continually wrestled with the issue of the proper relationship of faith to reason. What legitimate role, if any, does human reason have in shedding light upon God’s revealed truths and the mysteries of the faith? . . . If rational studies and religious doctrine seem to contradict one another, which is to be preferred? . . .
By the late twelfth, some urban cathedral schools had evolved into Europe’s (and the world’s) first universities: chartered corporations, or guilds, of masters and students that offered standardized curricula leading to recognized teaching licenses, or degrees, in certain core disciplines, namely, the liberal arts, theology, canon and civil law, and medicine. Although we cannot date their precise beginnings, by 1200 Europe already had three universities—Bologna, Paris, and Oxford—and many more would be established within the next several
centuries . . .
Dialectic, also known as logic, is the opposition of contrary principles in order to reach hidden and deeper truths. In twelfth-century Europe, dialectic represented order and harmony to a society that was all too aware of the chaos of life . . . it is no exaggeration to state that the great theological, philosophical, and legal systems of Western Europe’s High Middle Ages were based on dialectic.
The most influential early champion of dialectic was Peter Abelard (1079-1142) a teacher of logic and theology at Paris and elsewhere, whose life and loves were filled with contradictions. Abelard was one of a handful of early twelfth-century thinkers who turned logic to the service of theology, thereby offering Western Europe a new and revolutionary approach to religious truth.
The following selection comes from the preface to a textbook that Abelard compiled sometime after 1120. Entitled Sic et Non (Yes and No), this work presented Abelard’s students with 158 theological issues, such as “Should human faith be based on reason, or no?” and “Is God the author of evil, or no?” Each of these deliberately provocative titles was followed by groups of apparently conflicting texts culled from the Bible and other authoritative sources, which seemed to support (sic) or deny (non) the proposition under consideration. Abelard’s students were then expected to apply the rules of logic and reason to resolve the apparent quandaries . . .
3) Primary Source: Preface to Sic et Non
Among the many words of the holy Fathers some sayings seem not only to differ from one another but even to contradict one another. Hence it is not presumptuous to judge concerning those by whom the world itself will be judged, as it is written, “The saints shall judge nations,”[i] and, again, “You shall sit and judge.”[ii] We do not presume to rebuke as untruthful or to denounce as erroneous those to whom the Lord said, “He who hears you hears me; he who despises you despises me.”[iii] Bearing in mind our foolishness we believe that our understanding is defective rather than the writing of those to whom the Truth Himself said, “It is not you who speak but the spirit of your Father who speaks in you.”[iv] Why should it seem surprising if we, lacking the guidance of the Holy Spirit through whom those things were written and spoken, the Spirit impressing them on the writers, fail to understand them? Our achievement of full understanding is impeded especially by unusual modes of expression and by the different significances that can be attached to one and the same word, as a word is used now in one sense, now in another . . .
We must also take special care that we are not deceived by corruptions of the text or by false attributions when sayings of the Fathers are quoted that seem to differ from the truth or to be contrary to it . . . and even the texts of divine Scripture are corrupted by the errors of scribes. That most faithful writer and true interpreter, Jerome, accordingly warned us, “Beware of apocryphal writings . . .”[v]
If in the Gospels themselves some things are corrupted by the ignorance of scribes, we should not be surprised that the same thing has sometimes happened in the writings of later Fathers who are of much less authority . . .
It is no less important . . . to ascertain whether texts quoted from the Fathers may be ones that they themselves have retracted and corrected after they came to a better understanding of the truth as the blessed Augustine did on many occasions; or whether they are giving the opinion of another rather than their own opinion . . .
Or whether, in inquiring into certain matters, they left them open to question rather than settled them with a definitive solution . . .
If, in Scripture, anything seems absurd you are not permitted to say, “The author of this book did not hold to the truth”—but rather that the codex is defective or that the interpreter erred or that you do not understand. But if anything seems contrary to truth in the works of later authors . . . the reader or auditor is free to judge, so that he may approve what is pleasing and reject what gives offense, unless the matter is established by certain reason or by canonical authority (of the Scriptures) . . .
In view of these considerations we have undertaken to collect various sayings of the Fathers that give rise to questioning because of their apparent contradictions as they occur to our memory. This questioning excites young readers to the maximum of effort in inquiring into the truth, and such inquiry sharpens their minds. Assiduous and frequent questioning is indeed the first key to wisdom. Aristotle, that most perspicacious of all philosophers, exhorted the studious to practice it eagerly . . . For by doubting we come to inquiry; through inquiring we perceive the truth, according to the Truth Himself. “Seek and you shall find,” He says, “Knock and it shall be opened to you.”[vi]
1)How does Abelard regard the Bible? Does he believe that its authors could have erred? How does he explain the apparent contradictions and errors that appear in portions of the Bible?
2)According to Abelard, what factors can contribute to one’s misunderstanding a text from scripture or the Church Fathers?
3)What does Abelard believe is the best way to educate students?
[i] The Bible, the Book of Wisdom, 3:8
[ii] The Gospel of Matthew, 19:28, and the Gospel of Luke, 22:30
[iii] The Gospel of Luke, 10:16
[iv] The Gospel of Matthew, 10:20
[v] Counterfeit texts or works wrongly ascribed to a certain author.
[vi] The Gospel of Matthew, 7:7