-
Robert Grosseteste: The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval
Europe by R. W. SouthernReview by: John W. BaldwinAlbion: A
Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2
(Summer, 1987),pp. 216-217Published by: The North American
Conference on British StudiesStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4050395 .Accessed: 21/06/2014 08:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
.
The North American Conference on British Studies is
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to
Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014
08:50:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
216 Albion
R.W. Southern. Robert Grosseteste: 77ze Growth of an English
Mind in Medieval Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University
Press. 1986. Pp. xii, 337. $55.00.
Robert Grosseteste, scientist, theologian, and bishop of
Lincoln, was decidedly, in the French sense, un original. Of humble
parentage and without visible patrons, he nonethe- less became
prelate of the largest diocese of England. Passing his first
fifty-five years in virtual obscurity at Lincoln and Hereford, he
emerged in 1225 as theological lecturer in the secular and
Franciscan schools at Oxford. Elected bishop at age sixty-five, he
was over eighty at his death in 1253, and vigorous to the end. His
voluminous writings, encompassing natural science, philosophy,
theology, pastoral care, and personal letters, often achieved
brilliance but sometimes were beclouded with idiosyncrasy. In
science he emphasized observation over general theory. In theology
he interpreted the Incarnation as the consequence of creation and
not of sin, unlike his English predecessor, Anslem of Canterbury.
Rooted in Latin Christendom, he learned Greek and allied himself
with the Greek fathers in theology and with Aristotle in science.
He was the first major writer to devise a system of indexing and
references for his personal reading. Lengthy and often demanding,
his writings fit uneasily into the prevailing molds of contemporary
thought, especially on the Continent. Beyond Roger Bacon of the
next generation, he founded no school in natural philosophy or
theology. Like Anselm, however, he was impractical and exasperating
as a bishop and politician. He scolded the laity, clergy, the
chapter of Lincoln, and even Pope Innocent IV, whom he called a
heretic, despite his deep respect for the papal office. His
subsequent fame attracted spurious treatises to his authorship,
thus creating future problems in authenticating his writings.
Faced with such a complex figure, recent scholars have been
tempted to dissect him and specialize in his textual, scientific,
philosophical, theological, or political compo- nents. On the
occasion of the seven-hundredth anniversary of his death, however,
Mau- rice Powicke declared that "the definitive life of
[Grosseteste] has still to be written and can only be written by a
very learned, versatile, and penetrating scholar indeed." No one
fits these qualifications better than Powicke's distinguished
disciple and successor, Rich- ard W. Southern. In contrast to
Powicke, however, Southern has minimized Grosseteste's Continental
formation and accentuated his native character to produce a hero of
whom Englishmen and Oxonians can be proud.
As with Anselm, with whom he succeeded so brilliantly, Richard
Southern's approach to Grosseteste is fundamentally biographical,
in which he seeks to understand the person as a totality. He
characterizes Grosseteste's mind as independent, reverting to
observation and textual sources, reticent to cite contemporary
authorities, and tentative in arriving at conclusions. To account
for development, Southern emphasizes chronology, tracing
Grosseteste's thought through scientific (1195-1220), theological
(1220-35) and pastoral (1235-83) phases. To fill in the yawning
gaps, he reconstructs contexts. He speculates, for example, that
Grosseteste was unable to profit from a Continental schooling and
therefore pursued the English academic pattern. To comprehend his
science, Southern situates Grosseteste in the English naturalist
tradition, beginning with Adelard of Bath, proceeding through the
bestiaries, and ending with Gerald of Wales. And to enlist pa-
tience for his politics, Southern compares the bishop of Lincoln
with the admirable Stephen Langton.
This holistic approach encourages speculation, argument, and
bold decisions. In oppo-
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014
08:50:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Reviews of Books 217
sition to James McEvoy's chronology, Southern redates almost all
of Grosseteste's scien- tific works before 1225. Against Daniel
Callus he casts doubt on the influence of Paris. Drawing attention
to other works, he neglects Grosseteste's theories of light,
perhaps because so much has been written on them. ~And
unfortunately, he ignores Leonard Boyle's exacting analysis of the
bishop's prebendal policy and objections to papal provi- sions. The
resulting portrait of Robert Grosseteste, however, is crowned with
coherence and empathy.
To review such a work requires commensurate learning and
versatility. Unable to evaluate the scientific and philosophic
themes, I shall retreat to the more limited domain of education,
theology, and ecclesiastical policy, where I would question some of
the conclusions. For example, the unpublished cartulary of
Sainte-Opportune in Paris (AN LL 584, fol. 1 Ir) contains a charter
of Master William of Auvergne, canon of Paris, attesting the
donation of a house to Sainte-Opportune by a Robertus Grossum capud
in February 1227 (N.S.). If this is indeed our Robert, it accords
well with his known friendship with William, his contemporary
actions of divestment in England, and gives him a firmer foothold
in Paris than Southern allows. Moreover, it seems to me that the
context for understanding Grosseteste's theology and ecclesiastical
policy should be ex- tended beyond Langton to Peter the Chanter. If
not a direct academic child of Peter and of Paris, Grosseteste
bears family resemblances as a grandchild. While he may have been
influenced by the English tradition of William de Montibus and
Richard of Leicester, he was nonetheless remarkably familiar with
the Chanter's direct circle, many of whom were English. The
preachers whom he remembered in France included not only Lang- ton,
but also Robert of Courson and Jacques de Vitry. In contact with
Gerald of Wales from the 1190s, he was also familiar with the work
of Robert of Flameborough and most likely of Thomas of Chobham, all
direct students of the Chanter. His later interests, exemplified by
the recent edition of the Templum Dei, concentrate on pastoral
care, which the Chanter's school debated so ardently. As a bishop
his temperament shares not only Langton's qualities, but even more
the moralistic rigor and fanaticism of Courson and the Chanter.
Grosseteste's refusal to heed the Pope immediately recalls to mind
the Chanter's refusal to obey a universal council if enjoined to
bless the ordeals. Finally, it might be suggested that
Grosseteste's preoccupation with prebends in his diocese be tested
against the registers which were first drawn up by the bishops of
Lincoln expressly to supervise parochial care. Those of Hugh of
Wells, Grosseteste himself, Henry of Lexington, and Richard
Gravesend would provide a context to evaluate Grosseteste's
effectiveness and influence.
Robert Grosseteste was a towering figure on the English
landscape, whose stature Richard Southern's biography matches with
comparable greatness. Since assessment of these two giants is still
premature, we shall still need years to take measure of their
achievements.
The Johns Hopkins University JOHN W. BALDWIN
C.R. Cheney and Bridgett E.A. Jones, editors. English Episcopal
Acta IIk Canterbury 1162-1190. London: Oxford University Press for
The British Academy. 1986. Pp. lxx- viii, 283. C.R. Cheney and Eric
John, editors. English Episcopal Acta II: Canterbury
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014
08:50:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Article Contentsp. 216p. 217
Issue Table of ContentsAlbion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned
with British Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer, 1987), pp.
163-326Front MatterThe 1986 Denis Bethell Prize Essay of the
Charles Homer Haskins SocietyEpiscopal Reluctance: Lanfranc's
Resignation Reconsidered [pp. 163-175]Evangelical Thought: John
Wesley and Jonathan Edwards [pp. 177-192]Friend to the Worker:
Social Policy at the Ministry of Agriculture between the Wars [pp.
193-208]
Reviews of BooksReview: untitled [pp. 209-210]Review: untitled
[pp. 210-211]Review: untitled [pp. 211-213]Review: untitled [pp.
213-214]Review: untitled [pp. 214-215]Review: untitled [pp.
216-217]Review: untitled [pp. 217-219]Review: untitled [pp.
219-220]Review: untitled [pp. 221-222]Review: untitled [pp.
222-223]Review: untitled [pp. 223-225]Review: untitled [pp.
225-226]Review: untitled [pp. 226-228]Review: untitled [pp.
228-230]Review: untitled [pp. 230-232]Review: untitled [pp.
232-233]Review: untitled [pp. 233-234]Review: untitled [pp.
234-236]Review: untitled [pp. 236-238]Review: untitled [pp.
238-240]Review: untitled [pp. 240-241]Review: untitled [pp.
241-242]Review: untitled [pp. 242-244]Review: untitled [pp.
244-245]Review: untitled [pp. 245-247]Review: untitled [pp.
247-248]Review: untitled [pp. 248-250]Review: untitled [pp.
250-251]Review: untitled [pp. 251-252]Review: untitled [pp.
252-253]Review: untitled [pp. 253-254]Review: untitled [pp.
254-255]Review: untitled [pp. 255-257]Review: untitled [pp.
257-258]Review: untitled [pp. 258-259]Review: untitled [pp.
260-264]Review: untitled [pp. 264-265]Review: untitled [pp.
265-266]Review: untitled [pp. 266-267]Review: untitled [pp.
267-268]Review: untitled [pp. 268-270]Review: untitled [pp.
270-272]Review: untitled [pp. 272-273]Review: untitled [p.
274]Review: untitled [pp. 275-276]Review: untitled [pp.
276-278]Review: untitled [pp. 278-279]Review: untitled [pp.
279-280]Review: untitled [pp. 280-282]Review: untitled [pp.
282-283]Review: untitled [pp. 284-285]Review: untitled [pp.
285-286]Review: untitled [pp. 286-288]Review: untitled [pp.
288-291]Review: untitled [pp. 291-293]Review: untitled [pp.
293-294]Review: untitled [pp. 295-297]Review: untitled [pp.
297-299]Review: untitled [pp. 299-300]Review: untitled [pp.
300-301]Review: untitled [pp. 301-302]Review: untitled [pp.
302-303]Review: untitled [pp. 303-305]Review: untitled [pp.
305-306]Review: untitled [pp. 306-309]Review: untitled [pp.
309-311]Review: untitled [pp. 311-312]Review: untitled [pp.
312-314]Review: untitled [pp. 314-315]Review: untitled [pp.
315-319]
Other Books Received [pp. 321-323]Communications [pp.
324-325]Back Matter [pp. 326-326]
