No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
Nearly all scholars who have studied the career of Robert Grosseteste are in agreement that he was a dominant figure in the intellectual life of thirteenth century England. Some of the ways in which this dominance was exercised are also clear: as bishop of Lincoln (1235–53) he was influential through his sermons, translations and other writings; as director of the Franciscan School at Oxford (ca. 1231–5) he set a standard of erudition which appears in such students as Thomas of York and the well known Roger Bacon. Even before this he must have had some influence upon the University of Oxford but the evidence is capable of different interpretations. This is unfortunate because he was a master as early as 1189 and thus the greater part of his early and middle life is involved in mystery. Outside of scattered items there is for this period a curious biography by a later medieval monk, Richard of Bardney, probably based in part upon an earlier biography. Then there is the very large number of writings which have been located and catalogued.
1 Recent studies of Grosseteste are by Callus, D. A., “The Oxford Career of Robert Grosseteste,” Oxoniensia X (1945), 42–72Google Scholar; Russell, J. C., “Richard of Bardney's Account of Robert Grosseteste's Early and Middle Life,” Medievalia et Humanistica II (1944), 45–54Google Scholar. The best general biography is by Stevenson, F. S. (London, 1899)Google Scholar but he presents the very poor tradition of Grosseteste's life before he became bishop.
2 Russell, op. cit. The value of the biography has been accepted by P. Grosjean, the Bollandist scholar (Analecta Bollandiana LXIV, 1946, 307). Callus (op. cit., p. 44) considers it valueless, but gives no evidence.
3 Thomson, S. H., The Writings of Robert Grosseteste (Cambridge, 1940)Google Scholar. As a result of an examination of several thousand manuscripts he lists 120 pieces besides sermons, letters and dicta. He also lists some 86 pieces attributed to Grosseteste but which he thinks are doubtful or spurious in attribution.
4 The classical account of this school is by Little, A. G., “The Franciscan School at Oxford in the Thirteenth Century,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum XIX (1926), 1–74Google Scholar.
5 Opera Ined. (Ed. Brewer), Opus Tertium, 91.
6 This Callus' assumption. “The Oxford Career,” pp. 48–9, 72.
7 This principle is well illustrated with respect to modern scholars by Woodburne, L. S., “Prospective Usefulness of Staff Members,” Association of American Colleges Bulletin XXX (1944), 335–46Google Scholar. For a medieval list see the writings of Gerald of Wales. (Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, III, 372–3). Almost any list of the works of modern scholars will illustrate the principle.
8 Russell, J. C., “The Preferments and ‘Adiutores’ of Robert Grosseteste,” Harvard Theological Review XXVI (1933), 161–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Sanford, E. M., “Honorius, Presbyter and Scholaslicus,” Speculum XXIII (1948), 398–9Google Scholar. Cf. as another case, Hunt, R. W., “English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century,” Trans. Royal Hist. Soc., 4th series, XIX (1936), 21–2.Google Scholar
10 Thomson, Writings, pp. 60, 68. See also his note on no. 11 about the one ascribed manuscript.
11 This is probably the case with the English manuscript of no. 12.
12 On the dates of these see, in general, Thomson, Writings under nos. 1–13.
13 See Thomson, Writings under numbers cited. Callus (“The Oxford Career,” pp. 56 ff) assigns to this period nos. 34, 35, 63, 67, 68, 74, 75.
14 An exception must be made for Grosseteste's unfinished Summa which was probably earlier. Cf. Callus, D. A., “The Summa Theologiae of Robert Grosseteste,” Studies in Mediaeval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford, 1948), pp. 180–208Google Scholar.
15 Callus, “The Oxford Career,” p. 52. ‘Primo fui clericus, deinde magister in theologia et presbiter, et tandem episcopus.’
The theory that Grosseteste was doctor before 1221 rests upon two hypotheses (1) that Grosseteste was chancellor of Oxford before 1221, and (2) that one had to be a doctor of theology before he was chancellor of Oxford. Both of these will be discussed later.
16 His life of Grosseteste is edited in the Anglia Sacra, II, 325–41.
17 Rotuli Hugonis de Welles (Lincoln Record Society, 1914), III, 48.
18 Callus, “The Oxford Career,” p. 52.
19 Calendar of Close Rolls, 1227–31, p. 520; ibid, 1231–4, p. 568.
20 On this problem see Russell, “Richard of Bardney's Account,” p. 48.
21 Callus, “The Oxford Career,” p. 48 citing Snappe's Formulary, p. 319. “Beatus Robertus quondam Licolniensis episcopus, qui huiusmodi officium gessit dum in Universitate predicta regebat, in principio creationis sue in episcopum dixit proximum predecessorem suum episcopum Lincolniensem non permisisse quod idem Robertus vocaretur cancellarius sed magister scholarum.”
22 On the relationship of early Oxford with contemporary schools see my “The Early Schools of Oxford and Cambridge,” The Historian V (1943), 61–76Google Scholar.
23 Callus (“The Oxford Career,” pp. 48–9) believes that this document comes from about 1218. His reasons may be compared with the above. He insists also that the Master Alard who was ‘rector’ in 1210 must have been elected before the University dispersed in 1209. Nothing seems more natural than that the ‘rump’ university of 1210 should have elected a head if the previous head had left. Medieval institutions, unlike the modern, never felt the need of delegation of power to organize from a higher authority. Their theory was that the right to organize was inherent in any body with a life of its own.
Furthermore, Callus' statement that the master of the schools had to have a doctorate of philosophy is untenable. There were scores of ‘masters of the schools’ in England then: there just were not enough doctors to go around.
24 Rotuli Chartarum, p. 185b.
25 Ibid., p. 185b.
26 Ibid., p. 193b.
27 It is doubtful if Oliver Sutton heard the tale directly from Grosseteste since items about him begin to appear regularly only about 1270. D.N.B. under Sutton, Oliver. An item of 1244 occurs so long before the rest that one doubts if it refers to him.
28 Cf. my Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth Century England (London, 1936), pp. 2–3Google Scholar for his life. On recent study of his works see Thomson, S. H., “The Works of Master Adam of Bocfeld,” Medievalia et Humanistica II (1943), 55–87Google Scholar; Callus, D. A., “Introduction of Aristotelian Learning to Oxford,” Proceedings of the British Academy (1943), p. 256Google Scholar.
29 For these men see my Dictionary, pp. 25–7, 131–2, and 130–1 respectively. On Robert Bacon see a recent and excellent article by Smalley, B., “Robert Bacon and the early Dominican School at Oxford,” Trans, of the Royal Hist. Soc., 4th series, XXX (1948), 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The possibility of the influence of Richard Poore in English intellectual circles should also be kept in mind. Before he was bishop of three English sees and a great courtier he had been a professor of theology at Paris.
30 Callus (Introduction of Aristotelian Learning, pp. 229–81 especially the last few pages) would associate the entrance of Aristotelian learning with Edmund of Abingdon about 1216–9. I should associate it with Alexander Nequam somewhat earlier and possibly with those two mysterious translators, Roger of Hereford and Alfred of Sareshal.
31 See my Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth Century England, pp. 37–8 and 144 respectively.
32 Callus believes that Edmund went to Paris with the others in 1209. However, 1204 seems a more satisfactory date since it fits in with Edmund's penance. Edmund's life was so exemplary that it seems doubtful if he would have done penance for anything but an intellectual failure. The ten years usually required for theological study would thus also have been completed by 1214 when he is thought to have returned to England.
33 For a translation of the decree see Thorndike, Lynn, University Records and Life in the Middle Ages (New York, 1944), pp. 26–7Google Scholar.
34 Russell, J. C. and Heironimus, J. P., The Shorter Latin Poems of Master Henry of Avranches relating to England (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), p. 131Google Scholar: Callus, , “Introduction of Aristotelian Learning to Oxford,” Proceedings of the British Academy (1943), pp. 12–26Google Scholar.
35 See Callus, “The Oxford Career,” pp. 49–51.
36 Anglia Sacra, II, 333. For this chapter in his life see my, “Richard of Bardney's Account,” pp. 53–4.
37 Thomson, Writings, pp. 30–2.
38 If not the decree of 1210, the still more drastic decree of 1215 must have done so. For a translation of the later decree see Thorndike, op. cit., p. 28.
39 Thomson, Writings, pp. 89–90. Keelor, Leo, “The Dependence of R. Grosseteste's De Anima on the Summa of Philip the Chancellor,” New Scholasticism VII (1933). 197–219Google Scholar.
40 Callus, “Introduction of Aristotelian Learning to Oxford,” pp. 249–50. Possibly Blund's treatise is later, however.
41 Callus, D. A., “The Summa Theologiae of Robert Grosseteste,” Studies in Mediaeval History presented to F. M. Powicke (Oxford, 1948), 180–208Google Scholar.
42 Ibid., p. 194.
43 See note 38 above. Grosseteste knew that on the question of the eternity of matter Aristotle was a heretic. Muckle, J. T., “Robert Grosseteste's Use of Greek Sources in his Hexameron,” Medievalia et Humanistica III (1945), 37Google Scholar.
44 On this interesting character see Russell, Dictionary, p. 153.
45 See Russell, , “The Many-Sided Career of Master Elias of Dereham,” Speculum V (1930), 385Google Scholar. Also Russell, “Richard of Bardney's Account,” pp. 53–4.
46 Ibid., pp. 53–4.
47 Thomson, Writings, pp. 148–9. Professor Thomson very kindly loaned me the rotographs of the manuscript containing the piece, Oxford, Trinity College, MS 18, fos. 169r–72r.
48 On the date of this charter see my “The Preferments and Adiutores of Robert Grosseteste,” Harvard Theological Review XXVI (1933), 162–3Google Scholar. In the Hereford charters before 1199 his name is translated “Grossicapite.” Since his name occurs last in the Lincoln charter he is likely to have been the writer of the charter.
49 Hunt, R. W., “English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century,” Trans. Royal Hist. Soc., 4th series, XIX (1936), 21Google Scholar.
50 Birkenmajer, A., “Le rôle joué par les médicins et les naturalistes dans la réception d'Aristote au XII-e et XIII-e siècles,” Pologne au VI-e Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Oslo, 1928 (Warsaw, 1930), pp. 1–15Google Scholar.
51 Lines 70 and 182 respectively. Altitonare cave Wesheyl nisi precipiatur. Si dicate Wesheyl responsio sit tua drincheyl
52 Lines 244–9 Providus et prudens in cunctis esto notator
discretus brevia cartas formare recepta
expensas rerum dicas; terras relavatas
debita gersumas fines scutagia missa
inbreviare; bonam simul et numerare monetam.
Expensas non diminuas que sunt ad honores.
DuCange indicates that gersuma and scutage are primarily English.
53 Lines 192–208.
54 Lines 401–3 Si pauper puer es, si dives quando senescis
dives preterite memo esto pauperiei
et te preterita memorasse forte iuvant.
55 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. Virg. A i 203.
56 Lines 148, 157, 212, 313, 144, among others.
57 In 1.61 he uses “artocopus” for “baked” apparently: it meant baker. Such words as ‘herus’ and ‘vernula’ appear very infrequently in the Middle Ages.
58 On another suggested date see Thomson, Writings, p. 153.
59 Complimented by the Earl of Gloucester. Cf. Thomson, Writings, p. 148.