restricted access Notes
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

209 n o t e s h one.  Abelard’s Developing Thought 1.  See the essays now collected in Mews 2001, especially Mews 1985b, and, for a synthetic view, Mews 2005a. 2. In addition to the works cited in note 3 below, cf. Jolivet 1969, Tweedale 1976 and the various articles by Peter King and Chris Martin listed in the bibliography. 3. The Stanford Encyclopedia article is by Peter King (2010). The only exceptions in the Cambridge Companion (Brower and Guilfoy 2004) are the essays by myself and Iwakuma. 4.  These antidevelopmentalist arguments with regard to Aristotle are presented most eloquently in Barnes 1995, 15–22. 5.  King 2010, sec. 1.2. 6. For an example, see Marenbon 2007a, and cf. below, chapter 2, where the development of an argument between TChr and TSch is studied. 7.  See Mews 1995, 55, for a list of the versions and suggestions about their dating. The editors’ introduction to SN (ed. Boyer and McKeon) contains a full study of the recensions and their relations. 8.  Take the case of Coll., for instance. On the one hand, Giovanni Orlandi , after very careful scrutiny of the manuscripts, concluded, not only that Abelard had revised the work, but that the revision was unsystematic: Abelard ‘came back at different times to his work, made available to him in an exemplar largely corrupted by copyists, re-reading single sections, correcting some passages, adding new materials, which in the time had occurred to him, and never revising the rest’ (Coll., ed. Marenbon and Orlandi, p. xcvi)—the sort of situation which, in King’s view, makes dating a text impossible . On the other hand (cf. Coll., pp. xxxi–xxxii), nothing of much 210  Notes to Pages 15–18 philosophical importance is added, and so these revisions do not in fact create difficulties for the developmentalist. 9.  The following section is not, of course, intended to be a biography, even a brief one; rather, it is an attempt to establish a framework of dates that might help in ordering Abelard’s writings. In Marenbon 1997a, 7–35, drawing especially on Bautier’s fundamental article (1981), I give a brief but far more substantial sketch of Abelard’s life, with full references to the primary and secondary sources. A very fine biography, though not chronologically arranged, has been written by Michael Clanchy (Clanchy 1997). The importance of Heloise, who is hardly mentioned in the discussion here, is brought out especially in Mews 2005a. 10. See e.g. Marenbon 1997a, 82–93; Clanchy 1997, 15–16; Mews 2005a, 16–18. But some eminent scholars still regard the issues as being complicated; see especially the essays collected in Von Moos 2005. 11.  The account which follows, up until Abelard’s return to Paris in the 1130s, is based on HC. The relevant line numbers are given parenthetically in the text, preceded by HC. 12.  Regarding Abelard’s birth date, a now lost Old French MS of the Paraclete cited by André Duchesne, Abelard’s first editor, says that when Abelard died (in 1142) he was sixty-three years old; see PL 178:176B and cf. Clanchy 1997, 325. 13.  A vituperative letter Roscelin wrote to Abelard circa 1120 (printed as an appendix to Reiners 1910) is the main source for this information; see Pagani 2004, n. 14, for full details and discussion. Mews (1995, 10–11) suggests that most of his training might have in fact been with Roscelin, but see Martin 2011, 616 n. 56. 14.  These are the datings suggested in Bautier 1981, followed by, for example , myself (Marenbon 1997a), and in Clanchy 1997, as in the chronological table in Pagani 2004. 15.  See Bautier 1981, 56; Mews 1985b, 97. 16.  See Miramon 2011, 76. 17.  Miramon 2011, 46–63. Miramon’s results are linked to Grondeux 2011, which studies the events following Abelard’s defeat of William over universals. 18.  Mews 2011. 19.  Mews 2011, 103. 20.  See e.g. Dial., ed. De Rijk, p. 136, line 19, p. 169, line 25, and many other passages, which show that Abelard became a close pupil of William’s, who would find lines of argument to defend his master’s position. 21.  Mews (2011, 90–91) uses a letter from a student that can be dated to the beginning of 1112 (see Miramon 2011, 75 n. 132) to date the start of this conversion, only after which, he believes, Abelard returned to Paris from Notes to Pages 19–22  211 Brittany. Miramon...


pdf