Robert Grosseteste: The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe by R. W.

Southern
Review by: John W. Baldwin
Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer, 1987),
pp. 216-217
Published by: The North American Conference on British Studies
Stable 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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The North American Conference on British Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend 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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

216

Albion

R.W.Southern.RobertGrosseteste:
77zeGrowthof an EnglishMindin MedievalEurope.
Oxford: ClarendonPress, Oxford University Press. 1986. Pp. xii, 337. $55.00.
Robert Grosseteste, scientist, theologian, and bishop of Lincoln, was decidedly, in the
Frenchsense, un original. Of humbleparentageand withoutvisible patrons,he nonetheless became prelateof the largest diocese of England. Passing his first fifty-five years in
virtualobscurity at Lincoln and Hereford,he emerged in 1225 as theological lecturerin
the secular and Franciscanschools 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,
encompassingnaturalscience, philosophy,theology, pastoralcare, and personal letters,
often achievedbrilliancebut sometimes were becloudedwith idiosyncrasy.In science he
emphasizedobservationover generaltheory.In theology he interpretedthe Incarnationas
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 fathersin theology and with Aristotle in science. He was the first major writer to
devise a system of indexing and referencesfor his personal reading. Lengthy and often
demanding,his writings fit uneasily into the prevailingmolds of contemporarythought,
especially on the Continent.Beyond Roger Bacon of the next generation, he foundedno
school in naturalphilosophyor theology. Like Anselm, however,he was impracticaland
exasperatingas a bishop and politician. He scolded the laity, clergy, the chapter of
Lincoln, and even Pope InnocentIV, whom he called a heretic, despite his deep respect
for the papal office. His subsequentfame attractedspurioustreatises to his authorship,
thus creatingfutureproblems in authenticatinghis writings.
Faced with such a complex figure, recent scholars have been temptedto dissect him
and specialize in his textual, scientific, philosophical, theological, or political components. On the occasion of the seven-hundredthanniversaryof his death, however,Maurice Powicke declaredthat "the definitive life of [Grosseteste]has still to be writtenand
can only be writtenby a very learned, versatile, and penetratingscholar indeed."No one
fits these qualificationsbetterthan Powicke'sdistinguisheddisciple and successor, Richard W. Southern.In contrastto Powicke, however,Southernhas minimizedGrosseteste's
Continentalformationand accentuatedhis native characterto produce a hero of whom
Englishmenand Oxonianscan be proud.
As with Anselm, with whom he succeeded so brilliantly,RichardSouthern'sapproach
to Grossetesteis fundamentallybiographical,in which he seeks to understandthe person
as a totality.He characterizesGrosseteste'smind as independent,revertingto observation
and textualsources, reticentto cite contemporaryauthorities,and tentativein arrivingat
conclusions. To account for development, Southern emphasizes chronology, tracing
Grosseteste'sthoughtthroughscientific (1195-1220), theological (1220-35) and pastoral
(1235-83) phases. To fill in the yawninggaps, he reconstructscontexts. He speculates,
for example, that Grosseteste was unable to profit from a Continental schooling and
thereforepursued the English academic pattern. To comprehendhis science, Southern
situates Grossetestein the English naturalisttradition,beginning with Adelardof Bath,
proceeding throughthe bestiaries, and ending with Gerald of Wales. And to enlist patience for his politics, Southern compares the bishop of Lincoln with the admirable
Stephen Langton.
This holistic approachencouragesspeculation,argument,and bold decisions. In oppo-

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:50:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books

217

sition to James McEvoy's chronology,Southernredatesalmost all of Grosseteste'sscientific works before 1225. Against Daniel Callus he casts doubt on the influence of Paris.
Drawing attentionto other works, he neglects Grosseteste's theories of light, perhaps
because so much has been written on them. ~Andunfortunately,he ignores Leonard
Boyle's exacting analysis of the bishop's prebendalpolicy and objections to papal provisions. The resultingportraitof RobertGrosseteste, however,is crowned with coherence
and empathy.
To review such a work requires commensuratelearning and versatility. Unable to
evaluatethe scientific and philosophicthemes, I shall retreatto the more limited domain
of education, theology, and ecclesiastical policy, where I would question some of the
conclusions. For example, the unpublishedcartularyof Sainte-Opportunein Paris (AN
LL 584, fol. 1Ir) contains a charter of Master William of Auvergne, canon of Paris,
attestingthe donation of a house to Sainte-Opportuneby a RobertusGrossumcapud in
February 1227 (N.S.). If this is indeed our Robert, it accords well with his known
friendshipwith William, his contemporaryactions of divestmentin England, and gives
him a firmer foothold in Paris than Southernallows. Moreover,it seems to me that the
context for understandingGrosseteste'stheology and ecclesiastical policy should be extendedbeyondLangtonto Peterthe Chanter.If not a direct academicchild of Peterand of
Paris, Grossetestebears family resemblancesas a grandchild.While he may have been
influenced by the English traditionof William de Montibusand Richardof Leicester, he
was nonetheless remarkablyfamiliar with the Chanter'sdirect circle, many of whom
were English. The preacherswhom he rememberedin France included not only Langton, but also Robert of Courson and Jacquesde Vitry. In contact with Gerald of Wales
from the 1190s, he was also familiarwith the work of Robertof Flameboroughand most
likely of Thomas of Chobham, all direct students of the Chanter. His later interests,
exemplified by the recent edition of the TemplumDei, concentrate on pastoral care,
which the Chanter'sschool debatedso ardently.As a bishop his temperamentshares not
only Langton'squalities, but even more the moralistic rigor and fanaticismof Courson
and the Chanter.Grosseteste'srefusal to heed the Pope immediatelyrecalls to mind the
Chanter'srefusal to obey a universalcouncil if enjoined to bless the ordeals. Finally, it
might be suggested that Grosseteste's preoccupationwith prebends in his diocese be
tested againstthe registerswhich were first drawnup by the bishops of Lincoln expressly
to supervise parochial care. Those of Hugh of Wells, Grosseteste himself, Henry of
Lexington, and Richard Gravesendwould provide a context to evaluate Grosseteste's
effectiveness and influence.
Robert Grosseteste was a towering figure on the English landscape, whose stature
Richard Southern'sbiographymatches with comparablegreatness. 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. lxxviii, 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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions