Later Medieval Philosophy (1150–1350): An Introduction by John Marenbon (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 187 Later Medieval Philosophy (1150-1350): An Introduction. By JOHN MARENBON. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. Pp. xi, 230. $35.00. Later Medieval Philosophy (LMP), the sequel to John Marenbon's 1983 Early Medieval Philosophy 480-1150 (EMP), aims to be not a historical account of later medieval philosophy but an " introduction . . . intended . . . to help " the reader " begin his own study of the subject " (p. 1). To this end "Part One examines the organization of studies in medieval universities, the forms of writing and techniques of thought, the presuppositions and aims of thirteenth- and fourteenthcntury scholars. Part Two examines in detail the way in which some important later medieval thinkers discussed a difficult and central question : the nature of intellectual knowledge" (p. 1). Marenbon justifies his two-fold approach in the "Conclusion to Part One: What is Medieval Philosophy? " (pp. 83-90). Surveying three current approaches to medieval philosophy, Marenbon notes (1) a ' separationism ' between philosophy and theology provoked by ' rationalists ' like V. Cousin and B. Haureau and preserved in Catholic philosophical circles by such exponents as Fernand von Steenberghen; (2) a view that agrees " that it is right to consider the history of medieval philosophy as a separate subject from the history of medieval theology; but it is a philosophy which, nonetheless, depends on Christian revelation and cannot be understood in abstraction from certain funda· mental tenets of the faith," viz. that of Etienne Gilson who maintains the existence of a 'Christian philosophy'; and (3) the 'modern analytic approach' advocated by Norman Kretzmann and others in the Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy ("to end the era in which it has been studied in a philosophical ghetto"). The third ap· proach de-emphasizes " the theological context " of " the particular philosophical arguments they isolate " and " the origin and literary form of texts " (p. 87) to " concentrate on the philosophical problems which they believe they share with medieval scholars " and " to translate medieval texts so far as possible into modern terms ..." (pp. 8687 ). The arguments for these three approaches, however, are "based, not on historical evidence about medieval attitudes to philosophy, hut on different conceptions of what philosophy should he" (p. 88). These hermeneutical presuppositions affect the selection and arrangement of evidence by the various sorts of historian. Marenhon offers a fourth approach: ' historical analysis ', which " aims both to bridge the distance between the interests and assumptions of a modern reader and 188 BOOK REVIEWS the writings of later medieval thinkers, and yet to take account of it " (p. 89). Two restrictions are involved; historical analysts must not make " anachronistic assumptions about the identity of the problems discussed in their texts" (p. 89) and must restrict the scope of their investigations " to a single topic (or a set of individual topics) " rather than" writing ... comprehensive Histories" (p. 90). Marenhon seems to recognize that there may he " patronizing " ways to take account of the difference between " medieval scholars " and " ourselves " hut such " limitations " are inescapable " conditions of disciplined thought " (p. 191). Fortunately Marenhon has moved away from the parochial assumption governing his Early Medieval Philosophy "that any thinker who appeared to share the methods and interests of ·modern British philosophers was a philosopher, and that all other thinkers were theologians, mystics, poets, scientists or whatever, hut not philosophers." He now holds "that there is no single, identifiable subject-' philosophy'which has been studied from Plato's time to the present day" (EMP, 1988 rev. ed., p. vii). Thus, Marenhon does not explicitly entertain the grand thesis that all or the most important forms of medieval philosophy are actually superior to all or the most important kinds of modern philosophy to justify the importance of studying medieval philosophy today (cf. Leo Strauss, Philosophie und Gesetz) . Instead Marenhon, noting that " philosophia has a wide range of reference " (LMP, p. 66) and tacitly assuming that philosophy is an important activity, focuses on the problem of intellectual knowledge. The selection of exactly this problem, however, is not incompatible with the view that the epistemological turn characteristic of modern philosophy is still taken as normative. Accordingly, Marenhon provokes in us such questions as, Is philosophy today as good as philosophy in the hands...