43. Hubert, “Aspects du latin philosophique,” 227–31, cited by Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 142 n. 130. The previous brief citations are from the same passage in Leclercq.
44. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 199.
45. Ibid., 200.
46. Ibid., 200–201.
47. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages, 176.
48. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 153.
49. Ibid., 153.
50. Ibid., 155.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid. For Leclercq’s citation (J. de Ghellinck) see 185 n. 10.
53. Ibid., 158. As we shall see, the theme of the universality of friendship, with men and angels, in the glorified communion of saints, is one of the hallmarks of Aelred’s theological enterprise.
54. Ibid., 220.
55. Ibid., 167.
56. Ibid., 173.
57. Chenu, Introduction à l’étude, cited in Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 173.
58. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 173.
59. Ibid., 182.
60. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages, 191.
61. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 182.
62. Cf. ibid., where Leclercq cites a work of Helinand of Froidmont as an example from the early thirteenth century.
63. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, xv.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid., 2.
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid., 54.
68. In fact, it is Smalley’s thesis that only the Victorines, particularly in the person of Hugh, conceived of a comprehensive program of biblical scholarship informed by lectio divina, a program that might have realized a kind of via media between monasticism and scholasticism—precisely congruent with their hybridized form of religious life. We have already noted a similar conviction on the part of Ivan Illich. For all its grandeur, the program was ultimately destined for failure, as Smalley recounts in her trenchant chapter, “The Victorines” (58–85; see especially, 80).
69. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 79–80.
70. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 54.
71. Prior even to other ideological concerns, David Knowles suggests that the response to dialectics was determined by a fundamental divide between the monasteries’ otherworldly concerns and the generally more utilitarian perspective of the schools. Thus: “By the second half of the eleventh century [dialectic] was becoming increasingly the province of the cathedral schools, and canon law was finding a natural home in the entourage of the bishops, and with the gradual emergence of dialectic and law, canon and civil, as the higher education of Europe and the corresponding development of the career of the professional master, the gulf grew ever wider between the meditative, literary culture of the Norman monasteries and the speculative and practical learning of the schools, which were dependent in a peculiar degree upon the personality of the master and the free play of debate among the students” (Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, 98). What is true for Normandy may be accepted as essentially valid for Europe as a whole. Note that “schools” here means cathedral schools, not the universities, which do not take clear shape for another century.
72. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 202–9.
73. Ibid., 208. The precise Gregorian source for the whole reference appears somewhat elusive, though the first half, at least, can be found in In Evangelia, 27.4. See 32, along with the corresponding nn. 51 and 52, as well as 208 n. 99.
74. Ibid., 202.
75. Ibid., 203.
76. Cf. David Knowles’s comment that “the term ‘scholastic’ cannot rightly be applied to the content, as opposed to the method, of medieval philosophy; it is essentially a term of method. If by a scholastic method we understand a method of discovering and illustrating philosophical truth by means of a dialectic based on Aristotelian logic, then ‘scholastic’ is a useful and significant term” (Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 87).
77. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 203.
78. Ibid., 204.
79. Prior, that is, to the thirteenth century.
80. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, 204.
81. Ibid., 205.