PHILOSOPHY AND ITS BACKGROUND IN THE EARLY MEDIEVAL WEST
Philosophy and its background in the early medieval WestRosamond McKitterick and John Marenbon‘Libraries, schools and the dissemination of texts’ is by RosamondMcKitterick; the ‘Introduction’ and ‘Philosophical themes’ are by JohnMarenbon.INTRODUCTIONThe period from 800 to 1100 is even more neglected by historians ofmedieval Western philosophy than the rest of the Middle Ages. Theneglect has not, however, been total. Two figures—John Scottus Eriugena,who wrote betweenc.850 andc.870, and Anselm of Canterbury, whosewritings date from 1060 to 1100—have long been picked out for specialtreatment. But Eriugena has most usually been regarded as a solitarygenius closer to Greek late antiquity or even to nineteenth-centurycurrents of thought than to his own time, whilst Anselm has beenconveniently seen as the precursor of a twelfth-century intellectualawakening. In consequence, the attention received by these two thinkershas done little to stimulate interest in their contemporaries. Eriugenaand Anselmare,indeed, the two outstanding philosophers of the time,and their thought is discussed in detail in the following chapter. Butmany of the problems they tackled and methods they used were commonto their contemporaries. This chapter is designed to fill in some of thisoften forgotten background.The names of some of those besides Eriugena and Anselm whoconsidered philosophical questions in the early Middle Ages are known:for instance, Alcuin (the Englishman who became one of Charlemagne’smain advisers in the 790s, and Alcuin’s pupils Candidus Wizo andFredegisus of Tours); Ratramnus of Corbie and Gottschalk of Orbais(mid-ninth century); Remigius of Auxerre and Bovo of Corvey (lateninth and early tenth century); Abbo of Fleury, Notker of St Gall andGerbert of Aurillac (end of tenth century); Berengar, Lanfranc and PeterDamian (eleventh century). Yet much of the material from which ahistory of philosophy during this time must be constructed isanonymous, and an important part of it consists, not of independentworks or even free-standing commentaries, but of glosses written inthe margins and between the lines of the manuscripts of ancient or lateantique textbooks.Indeed, since a good deal of the philosophical activityof these centuries consisted, not in original speculation, but in absorbingthe ideas of ancient texts, the best evidence for it is often not a particularpiece of writing, but information as to which centres of learningpossessed manuscripts of what philosophical and theological works atwhich times. For these reasons, the study of manuscripts and theirtransmission is fundamental to the history of early medieval philosophy.The next section, therefore, presents an expert’s summary of the stateof knowledge in this area; it is followed by a brief survey of some ofthe outstanding philosophical themes of the period.LIBRARIES, SCHOOLS AND THE DISSEMINATION OF TEXTSSometime before 814, Archbishop Leidrad of Lyons presented acomprehensive collection of philosophical treatises to his cathedrallibrary. The manuscript, now in Rome, Casa dei padri maristi A. II. 1,is datable on palaeographical grounds to the late eighth or early ninthcentury. It contains Porphyry’sIsagoge,theTen Categories(aparaphrase-cum-commentary of Aristotle’sCategorieswronglyattributed to Augustine), pseudo-ApuleiusPerihermeniasand Boethius’first commentary on Aristotle’sOn Interpretation([5.17] 83, [5.20]417, [5.75] 52–3). It was written for Leidrad and is the oldest survivingcollection of works on dialectic. Not only does it contain the ancienttexts; it also includes Alcuin’s verses dedicating theTen CategoriestoCharlemagne. In consequence, Bischoff linked this collection to thecourt library ([5.31] 157). Similarly, the Frankish royal court in thelate eighth century and the cathedral library of Lyons are implicated inthe transmission of Plato’sTimaeus(in the translation by Calcidius).Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 2164, for example, written innorth-east Francec.800, can be connected with the group of classicalmanuscripts in the court library of Charlemagne ([5.32] 158 and [5.55]89). Its textual twin Lyons 324 also contains the commentary on theTimaeusby Calcidius and may have reached Lyons by the same routeas Bishop Leidrad’s philosophical and dialectical collection.That Lyons, famous for its participation in the antique book trade,a notable centre of learning in the seventh century and possessor ofmany fifth-, sixth- and seventh-century codices in its libraries, shouldplay a role in the transmission of ancient philosophical texts is certainlycredible.1Charlemagne’s remarkable collection of rare classical texts,moreover, is usually identified as listed on spare leaves in a late eighthcenturygrammatical collection, Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek DiezB.Sant. 66, emanating from the court circle. Such texts are now generallyregarded as the fruit of an appeal for copies of remarkable or rarebooks sent out in about 780 ([5.32] 162–6, 154–6). In the case of thebooks associated with Leidrad, and with other classical texts linkedwith the court, the extant manuscripts are copies made from bookssent to the Carolingian court, or, at a further remove, copies of thecourt transcriptions.Although not all surviving manuscripts of philosophical anddialectical works have court connections, it is certainly the case thatit is from the Carolingian period that our earliest copies of most ofthe principal works survive. We have in fact very little with which tofill the gap between late antiquity and the Carolingian period as far asany classical texts are concerned. Certainly, knowledge of ancientphilosophy was also transmitted through the medium of patristic andChristian writers such as Augustine, Maximus the Confessor andMarius Victorinus, of whose work copies survive from the fifth toeighth centuries in relative abundance. It is from Carolingian copies,however, that most witnesses to classical literature and learningdescend ([5.22], [5.31]). Nevertheless, it would be unwise to assumethat no study was made of, or interest shown in, such texts in Italy orGaul between the sixth and the late eighth centuries. In the eighth andninth centuries we see classical texts, including those concerned withlogic and philosophy, that have gained a sufficient readership andattracted enough interest for a copy or copies to be made of them. Awider intellectual context must therefore be envisaged. We maysurmise indeed that Carolingian manuscripts containing philosophicaltexts reflect not random survival but deliberate preservation. They arethe outcome of choices made in the eighth and ninth centuries inrelation to distinct intellectual preferences, even if the initial survivalof an ancient text beyond the fifth century had an element of chancein it. Thus, as Marenbon has established, the difference in popularitybetween theTen Categoriesand Aristotle’sCategoriescan beaccounted for in that the former accords better with the intellectualpreoccupations of thinkers in the ninth and tenth centuries ([5.75]and see also below, pp. 108–9).Even so, intellectual preferences and an apparent encouragement ofthis type of intellectual activity and branch of learning cannot beassumed to be the natural outcome of the Germanic groups establishingsuccessor states within the old Roman empire. Why should philosophyand logic have become a focus of scholarly interest within early medievalWestern Europe, especially in light of the prevailing scholarlypreoccupations with Christian theology and exposition of the Bible?Before attempting to answer this question, let us survey the evidence,in terms of extant manuscript distribution, firstly, that philosophy textswere more widely available throughout the eighth, ninth and tenthcenturies, and secondly, that philosophy was studied in the earlymedieval schools.In establishing the intellectual context for the study of philosophyin the early Middle Ages principal considerations are what texts wereknown and available, whether we can document the introduction ofparticular texts to a wider audience or region, and how ideas could bedisseminated. Were particular centres noted for the study of philosophyand how did they come to be in such a position? The principal texts inquestion are: Plato’sTimaeus;Boethius’On the Consolation ofPhilosophy,logical writings and the Latin translation of Aristotle’sCategories;the composite translation of theCategorieswith Boethius’lemmata;the early medieval paraphrase of theCategoriesknown astheTen Categories;pseudo-Apuleius’sPerihermenias;Macrobius’commentary on Cicero’sDream of Scipio;theTopicsof Cicero.If the Lyons philosophical collection and the LyonsTimaeushighlightthe recognizable role played by the Carolingian royal court in thedissemination of philosophical texts, other centres also played a role,apparently independently of the court. Analysis of the textual traditionof Latin versions of theTimaeus,for example, indicates a special rolefor Ferrières and Corbie for the translation by Cicero, and for Rheimsand St Amand for Calcidius’s version (see [5.56]). Such specializationof book production in terms of types of text copied is an observablephenomenon of the Carolingian period, with classical literary textsconcentrated in the Loire, Picardy and Lake Constance regions, massbooks particularly associated with St Amand, Bibles and Gospel booksof a distinctive format with Tours and a remarkable preoccupationwith Augustinian theology at Carolingian Lyons (see [5.54]).The earliest manuscripts of Boethius’ translation of theCategoriesof Aristotle, whether complete or in fragmentary form, date from thelate tenth and eleventh centuries.2They were produced at such centresas Corbie, Fleury, St Gall, Echternach and St Vaast, and werepresumably based on earlier exemplars, or, conceivably, one commonancestor. The date of these, whether sixth or ninth century, is a matterfor speculation. Three ninth-century manuscripts of the compositetranslation are extant, apparently from regions as diverse as the LakeConstance area, Picardy and northern Italy. Such distribution suggestseither originally widely-dispersed texts or else the consequence ofspecific contacts between individuals in these areas in the ninth century.TheTen Categoriessurvives in no fewer than nineteen ninth- and tenthcenturymanuscripts, many of them with extensive glosses ([5.75] 116–38, 173–206). Auxerre is an important centre of production, as is Fleury,but there are examples also from St Gall and Corbie, from as far eastas Freising and as far west as Wales, with some French and Italianrepresentatives in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Examination ofthe manuscript transmission of other key texts reveals a similar pattern.Porphyry’sIsagogein the translation by Marius Victorinus, forexample, survives in fragments, now Munich, BayerischeStaatsbibliothek Clm 6403, written at Freising. In Boethius’ translation,on the other hand, it is to be found in many copies of ninth and tenthcentury date (including Clm 6403), often coinciding with theTenCategories. It is found, moreover, in such dialectical collections as theLyons corpus belonging to Leidrad ([5.75] 173). Marenbon,furthermore, has ascertained that Ratramnus of Corbie, John ScottusEriugena, Heiric of Auxerre and Remigius of Auxerre knew theTenCategories. Thus Auxerre again figures very prominently, as indeed itdoes in all branches of intellectual life in the Carolingian world, butrepresentatives of theIsagogeandTen Categoriesare to be found inother cultural centres within the Frankish kingdoms, north and east,some of which had connections with Auxerre (see [5.24]). Again asimilar pattern emerges when the manuscript tradition of theIsagogeand logical collections and Boethius’ two commentaries on theIsagogeare considered. One ninth-century copy of the first commentary (indialogue form) is extant in BN lat. 12958 of the late ninth or earlytenth centuries used at Corbie, though not written there, in order tocompile BN lat. 13955. The commentary survives in five tenth-centurymanuscripts whose origins indicate a wide dissemination of the textthereafter, though not necessarily emanating from Corbie itself(Aristoteles Latinus1, 6–7, p. xxi). Pseudo-Apuleius’Perihermenias,too, has a largely Frankish circulation in the early Middle Ages ([5.66])while Auxerre plays a particularly important role in the transmissionof Macrobius’ commentary on Cicero’sDream of Scipio([5.22] 22–32). BN lat. 6370, moreover, although from Tours, has correctionswritten in the hands of Heiric of Auxerre and Lupus of Ferrières. Otherninth-century manuscripts of Macrobius survive also from Tours, Fleuryand Corbie with dissemination thereafter into southern Germany andsouthern Italy. Similarly, work on the ‘Leiden corpus’ of Cicero’sphilosophical works has established that Corbie, Ferrières and possiblyRheims in the ninth century as well as Monte Cassino in the eleventhare implicated in the transmission of Cicero’sTopics(see [5.25], [5.27]and [5.22] 124–30).The textual links among the Carolingian copies of the variousphilosophical works studied in the early Middle Ages and betweenthese and descendants of later date from elsewhere are sometimes strong,suggesting that individual contacts played a crucial role at some stagein the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, if not earlier. Equally, it isremarkable, within the traditions of the texts, how many independentlines of transmission there are. Although the evidence indicates a groupof centres in the early Middle Ages which concentrated much attentionon those philosophical texts, there is enough surviving from elsewhereto suggest that study of philosophy was not confined to centres such asAuxerre, Fleury or Corbie but that there were pockets of interestscattered elsewhere, notably in southern Germany. Further, althoughsome of the later centres evincing interest in these texts in the tenthand eleventh centuries are clearly connected with the older Carolingiancentres, others are not, and may therefore be the earliest extant witnessesto a far more widespread interest in and study of philosophical texts inWestern Europe in the early Middle Ages than the available evidencenow permits us to reconstruct.We may have to envisage, moreover, a considerable survival of lateantique exemplars. Traces of their existence can sometimes be deduced,as in the copy of Macrobius owned by Symmachus, whose subscriptionin his book is transmitted in no less than ten of the later copies. Otherexamples are the sixth-century geographical miscellany which travelledfrom Ravenna to Gaul and provided the exemplar for the copy (Vaticanlat. 4929, fos 79v–159r) made in the circle of Lupus of Ferrières andHeiric of Auxerre; the ancient papyrus codex of Boethius’ commentaryon theTopicsof Cicero borrowed by Lupus of Ferrières from Tours,the late antique texts of Terence and the Aratea copied at Rheims andin Lotharingia in the ninth century such as BN lat. 7899 and LeidenVoss. lat. Q79, and the famous Virgil texts thought to have beenpossessed by St Denis and Lorsch in the Carolingian period.3Certainlyif one augments the core texts denned in this chapter with texts ofrelated interest and content, as well as the evidence provided by librarycatalogues of the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, the number ofcentres possessing them is very considerably enhanced. The royal courtof the Carolingians, moreover, figures with some prominence (see [5.15]1005, [5.18], [5.53]).Thescriptoriaof the monasteries and cathedrals were, therefore,obviously active in the provision of texts. From glosses andcommentaries on philosophical texts dating from the ninth centuryonwards, moreover, it is clear that such provision was clearly relatedto, and supplied the needs of, libraries and schools (see [5.30], [5.38],[5.78]). Such specialized book production facilitated study and theintellectual activity of individuals, as is evident from the occasionalindications we get of personal libraries, such as that of Gerward ofLorsch or the books added to the library of Murbach by Abbot Iskar(see [5.16], [5.21], [5.29]). Similarly the requirements of individualsor even institutions stimulated copying activity, in that the network ofcommunications between the various centres established the canon oftexts necessary for a particular library to possess as well as furnishinginformation about where exemplars of desired texts might be obtained(see [5.53]). The personal interests of Hadoardus of Corbie, Lupus ofFerrières and Murethach, Haymo, Heiric and Remigius of Auxerredetermined to a very considerable degree the direction of study at theschools and within the groups of scholars with which they wereassociated.4Other Carolingian masters elsewhere were as active. At Laon, Martinof Laon, as is evident from the number of school texts he annotated,taught script, Greek, law, history, grammar andcomputus. One of hismost famous teaching compilations, Laon Bibliothèque Municipale468, also used by his successors as masters of the school at Laon,Bernard and Adelelm, includes texts on the life of Virgil andcommentaries on Virgil, on the liberal arts and ‘On philosophers, poets,the sibylls and magicians’. The overriding emphasis of two of Martin’sother teaching manuals, Laon Bibliothèque Municipale 444 and 464,is on grammar (see [5.36], [5.38] and more generally [5.44]). AtReichenau, among the many teachers there, one, Walafrid Strabo,reveals his interests to us in his personal compilation of texts (St GallStiftsbibliothek 878) (see [5.28]). It contains a rich miscellany ofgrammatical texts, short treatises on metrics and computus, Bede’sOnthe Nature of Thingsand works on time extracts from ecclesiasticalhistories and an excerpt from a letter by Seneca. If we compare thisselection with the school texts listed at the end of the Reichenau librarycatalogue for 821, there is a similar emphasis on grammar and computus(see [5.18]). In very few Carolingian centres, notably Auxerre in theninth and tenth centuries and Rheims in the tenth century, wasphilosophy in any sense formally part of the curriculum. Gerbert ofRheims, for example, is said to have taught Porphyry’sIsagogein thetranslations of Marius Victorinus and Boethius, Aristotle’sCategoriesandOn Interpretationand Cicero’sTopicsas well as to have providedinstruction in the arts of metrics, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry andastronomy.5In the tenth century at St Gall it was Notker III Labeo (950–1022)who was the first to translate philosophical texts from the Latin intoGerman vernacular for the sake of his German-speaking pupils at theschool of St Gall. According to a letter written to Hugh, bishop ofSitten, Notker translated Boethius,On the Consolation of Philosophy,theCategoriesandOn Interpretationof Aristotle (translated fromBoethius’ Latin version) and the first two books of Martianus Capella’sOn the Marriage of Mercury and Philologyas well as theQuicumquevult,the Psalter and the Book of Job. Notker III composed one treatise,On Music,in German and wrote a number of others in Latin, such asOn the Art of Rhetoric, On the Parts of Logic, On DisputationandComputus,which were subsequently translated into German. Not allthese have survived but among those that are extant are, in the literaltranslation they provide, invaluable indications of pedagogical methodsin an early medieval school, with every assistance being offered to aidunderstanding of the text, guides to rhetorical figures and dialecticaltechniques and a wealth of miscellaneous general information aboutetymology, history, zoology and astronomy.6There are, moreover, somefascinating witnesses to the dissemination of texts from Auxerrementioned above: to these translations, notably of theOn theConsolation of Philosophyof Boethius and Martianus Capella, wereappended commentaries, some of which were based on, if not actuallytranslations of, the expositions of Remigius of Auxerre.The combination of Notker’s texts, as with the range of topicsaddressed by Walafrid Strabo, Martin of Laon, Gerbert of Rheims andother Carolingian masters, is in fact typical of the different emphaseswithin the school curriculum in the early Middle Ages. It is not feasibleto think in terms of philosophy playing a separate role within the schoolcurriciulum in the Carolingian period. Rather, elements of philosophyand the discipline of logic would develop out of the emphasis on thestructure of language and grammar and be incorporated into the generalteaching of theartesas the foundation for a deeper understanding ofscripture and the teaching of the fathers (see [5.41], [5.46]). Thus Notkertranslated texts relating to all aspects of thetrivium(grammar, dialecticand rhetoric), thequadrivium(arithmetic, geometry, astronomy andmusic) and to the Bible and liturgy.At other schools in France, Germany and Italy a similarly rich mixturewithin the school curriculum is to be observed. In the episcopal schoolsof Germany, such as those of Trier, Augsburg, Eichstätt and Utrecht,Würzburg, Regensburg, Cologne and Liège, and many more, theCarolingian school curriculum was taught, with only occasionally theinstruction in philosophy being noted (see [5.39], [5.60]). Ohtrich ofMagdeburg, for example, was noted as one of the famous philosophersof his day.7Bruno of Cologne, instructed at Utrecht under BishopBalderich, kept abreast with the newest developments in ‘history,rhetoric, poetry and philosophy’.8Even at Auxerre, where philosophyis such a major part of the intellectual activity of its leading scholars, itis important to remember that this was also the centre which producedtheDeeds of the Bishops of Auxerre, Miracula,homiliaries, biblicalexegesis of lasting importance, and lives of saints.Nevertheless it would appear, in fact, that philosophy became a moredominant part of the school curriculum in the course of the tenthcentury, and became still more important in the schools of the eleventhand twelfth centuries, at least in France. In the later ninth and tenthcenturies, moreover, there is a discernible increase in the importance ofcathedral schools in both the West and the East Frankish kingdoms,notably, by way of example, at Rheims and Liège and the Germanepiscopal schools mentioned above. The lines of institutional continuitybetween the cathedral and monastic schools of the East and WestFrankish kingdoms in the ninth and tenth centuries to the schools ofParis in the twelfth century are clear [5.60]. It is no surprise that wefind in the teaching of the schools of Laon, Chartres and Paris in theeleventh and twelfth century the same mixed curriculum, designedaccording to a similar structure, and methods of teaching which havetheir roots in the early Carolingian period. At Chartres, for example, itwas possible to study medicine, geometry, computus, music and logic;a manuscript from Fulbert of Chartres’ time, Chartres BibliothèqueMunicipale 100, was a compilation of familiar texts, namely, theIsagoge,theCategories,theTopicsof Cicero and other related texts,including a poem by Fulbert on the difference between rhetoric anddialectic [5.60]. In the glossing methods employed by Anselm of Laon,of Peter Lombard, or Hugh of St Victor, the development of distinctivelayout of text and gloss to accommodate these new developments, andin the philosophical discussion of such authors as Thierry of Chartres,we witness a similar blend of older curriculum and scholarly methodswith a response to the new influences in learning and currents ofthought, wonderfully elucidated long since by Southern ([5.63], [5.64]).No doubt this was due in part to the availability of a greater variety ofclassical texts, especially by Plato and Aristotle but to these should beadded the work of the contemporary authors, discussed in the variouschapters in this volume. The extant library catalogues of the twelfthcentury and the reconstruction of twelfth-century libraries such as thoseof Zwiefalten, demonstrate more clearly than any other sources theextent both of the Carolingian foundations of the school curriculumand their intellectual emphases and the innovations of the eleventhand twelfth centuries (see [5.17], [5.23]). Corbie’s library, for example,although including a large corpus of philosophical works, with manyof Boethius’ works, a commentary on Martianus Capella by JohnScottus Eriugena, theTimaeus,and the philosophical works of Williamof Conches, and the library of Cluny with its copies of theIsagoge,Martianus Capella, theCategoriesof Aristotle, Boethius’ commentaryon Cicero’sTopics,Calcidius and many more, still contain anoverwhelming preponderance of patristic texts and biblical exegesis.The primary focus of intellectual endeavour remained the Bible, butphilosophy had a secure place in the intellectual activities of many ofthe leading scholars of Europe.That learning, including the study of philosophy, enjoyed such aprominent position within the life of the monasteries and cathedrals ofWestern Europe in the early Middle Ages is a phenomenon to whichwe have become accustomed, even though the preoccupation withscholarship within a monastic context might appear anomalous (see[5.44], [5.52] 19). The acceptance of intellectual endeavour as anessential part of a society’s activity and the primary focus of its cultureis nevertheless a remarkable characteristic of early medieval cultureand merits some discussion.Let us consider, therefore, the role of the royal court signalled at thebeginning of this chapter in order to explore, first, the politicaldimensions of the promotion of education and learning and, second,the implications of patronage—royal, aristocratic, episcopal andmonastic—not only in promoting education and the study of philosophybut also in helping to shape particular cultural imperatives that becamean accepted part of a society.Within the Germanic kingdoms Lupus of Ferrières offers a clue, inthat he laments, in a letter to Einhard, the passing of Charlemagne:within your memory there has been a revival of learning,thanks to the efforts of the illustrious emperor Charles towhom letters owe an everlasting debt of gratitude. Learninghas indeed lifted up its head to some extent… In these days[c. 836] those who pursue an education are considered aburden to society…men have consequently shrunk from thisendeavour, some because they do not receive a suitablereward for their knowledge, others because they fear anunworthy reputation.9Lupus lauded the activities of Charlemagne’s grandson Charles theBald and his support of scholarship in many of his other letters. Further,such authors as Notker Balbulus of St Gall testify to the extent towhich the Carolingian rulers actively promoted scholarship.10We mayadd to this the emphasis on correct texts of the Christian liturgy, canonlaw and the Bible, education and learning in Carolingian legislationand directives from the king to his abbots and bishops, such as theAdmonitio Generalisof 789 and theDe litteris colendisofc. 800.11Although the main aim of such learning was a fuller understanding ofthe Christian faith, and the provision of an educated administrativeclass of clerics and lay magnates, sufficient latitude is provided to thoseresponsible for carrying out the wishes of the ruler with respect toteaching and the provision of correct texts for all Christian learning tobenefit. Certainly, the subsequent production and dissemination of allkinds of text, apparently in response to the ruler’s initiative, is welldocumented (see [5.54]).What should also be reckoned with is the personal interest of therulers themselves in matters of higher learning and the degree to whichthey actively promoted scholarship, the liberal arts and philosophy bymeans of patronage. From the books associated with the Carolingianrulers it is apparent how they gathered together scribes and artists,not only to produce books which reflect the personal piety and privateinterests of the king but also as a strategy of royal piety and largesse(see [5.31], [5.32], [5.43], [5.53], [5.55]). As Lupus implies in theextract from his letter to Einhard quoted above, the king’s patronageheld the promise of material reward. It is clear from the survivingevidence of scholarly activity associated with the court, and thededications of many works to the king, that many sought suchpatronage. The essential material support for learning, in other words,was provided by secular rulers as well as by the Church to satisfyparticular as well as general goals.The role of the king in creating the social imperatives that made anexercise of secular patronage in this particular sphere of activity soacceptable is all important. We are not observing merely theconsequences of personal intellectual and aesthetic predilections.Certainly the presence of early Carolingian manuscripts with courtconnections, such as the Lyons dialectical collection or Plato’sTimaeus,seems to testify to the gathering of rare classical works, and suggeststhat there are deeper motives in royal patronage to be discerned. Whatis apparent above all is the sheer organization and determination behindthe dissemination of particular texts to do with the Christian faith andlearning, and the explicit association of this activity with the exerciseof Christian kingship made by the rulers. Thus it is not simply thatKing Charles the Bald enjoyed his lessons with Walafrid Strabo andderived intellectual pleasure and stimulus from the presence of suchscholars as Manno of St Ouen, Lupus of Ferrières or John ScottusEriugena in his kingdom, or even at his court. Nor is it that scholarswho enjoyed royal patronage were thereby able to pursue theirintellectual activities; and many had considerable influence onsucceeding generations of pupils and scholars. Among them were Alcuinof Tours, Hrabanus Maurus of Fulda and Mainz, John Scottus Eriugena,or Lupus, who was part of the dynamic intellectual milieu focused onAuxerre and Fleury in the mid-ninth century. What is essential is thatintellectual activity was recognized to be a fundamental part of thespiritual and cultural goals of all Christians; the king as Christian rulertherefore had a duty to foster this as much as he enlarged the kingdom,promoted the administration of justice and the use of agreed weightsand measures or guaranteed the stability and value of the coinage.The example of the high priority given to intellectual activity andculture set by rulers to future generations, moreover, is not to beunderestimated. Of course, the Carolingians were not the first toexercise patronage in this way. Nevertheless, they were arguably thefirst to take such an effective interest in the correctness of the Christiantexts in use in the churches, chapels and monasteries of their kingdoms,and the first whose patronage was more than an occasional interest inbenefactions. The Carolingian rulers actually sustained groups of artists,scribes and craftsmen over a long period of time in order to createartefacts or carry out their particular cultural objectives (see [5.55]). Itwas an example, if not actually followed, then certainly emulated byother rulers, and by lay and ecclesiastical magnates. In Anglo-SaxonEngland, for example, Asser’sLife of King Alfredrecounts the greatinterest the king took in learning and how he himself translated, aswell as commissioning translations from others, many crucial texts,not least Boethius’On the Consolation of Philosophy(see [5.34],[5.48]). Cnut is also attested as a patron of some stature (see [5.43],[5.51]). If in the tenth and eleventh centuries on the Continent theCarolingian, Capetian and Saxon kings of the West and East Frankswere rather less active in the promotion of scholarship and patronageof learning, the baton fell above all to the bishops. The bishops ofLiège, Trier and Hildesheim are cases in ponit. Liège was celebratedfor its learning under Bishops Ebrachar and Notker but they werefollowing a tradition established in the time of Bishop Hartgar, whoacted as patron and offered a refuge to the Irish scholar Sedulius Scotus(see [5.42], [5.50]). Many manuscripts, ivories and some remarkablepieces of metalwork have been associated with Egbert, bishop of Trierfrom 977 to 993, and Bernward of Hildesheim, which were producedin ateliers both in their own dioceses and elsewhere (see [5.43]). Mayr-Harting has highlighted these bishops’ acknowledgement of theirreflection of kingly rule, and the way in which they visibly manipulated,or commanded, spiritual power by commissioning book covers andreliquaries wrought in gold and studded with bright jewels, andmanuscripts resplendent with fine painting, decorated initials andbeautiful script (see [5.59] 57–97).The display of wealth that was one obvious outcome of the patronageof culture and learning was also a demonstration of power and might.It is of crucial importance for our understanding of the intellectualculture of the early Middle Ages to see that patronage operated soeffectively and constructively in the cultural as well as in the politicaland military spheres. Indeed, these various activities were seen tointerlock and to be many facets of one society. Thus social and politicalimperatives from the pinnacle of authority, displays of wealth andpower, the enhancing of authority, and the incorporation of a further,cultural, dimension within the ideals of political and social leadershiphad repercussions for the particular cultural preoccupations andintellectual aspirations of early medieval society. Patronage played acrucial role in establishing such preoccupations within the intellectualhorizons and educational traditions of Western Europe. We thus observean essential interplay between political authority, economic resourcesand intellectual endeavour.PHILOSOPHICAL THEMESThere were three main fields of philosophical activity in the early medievalperiod: the study of logic, the reading and reaction to ancient and lateantique philosophical texts and the analytical discussion of problemsabout Christian doctrine. The manuscript background to the first twohas been explored in the previous section; the following paragraphsoffer a quick sketch of some of the main themes in each area.LogicThe earliest evidence for medieval interest in and use of logicaltechniques is found in theLibri Carolini,the statement of the Westernposition on the worship of icons prepared at Charlemagne’s courtc.790, probably by Theodulf of Orleans. The longest logical passageshere borrow material from Boethius and Apuleius on semantics andon the relations between the truth-values of differently quantifiedsentences (see [5.10] IV 28, pp. 216–21). It was Alcuin, who apparentlyestablished himself as Charlemagne’s leading intellectual in the 790s,who gave early medieval logic its twist towards metaphysical andtheological concerns. In hisDe dialectica(‘On logic’), the first medievallogical textbook, Alcuin gives pride of place to the doctrine of the tencategories, as expounded in theTen Categories,attributed at this timeto Augustine. Aristotle’s discussion of the categories is less a piece oflogic than an exercise in fundamental metaphysics, an analysis of thedifferent types of entity (universal and particular substances, universaland particular accidents). Augustine had already put the doctrine totheological use in hisOn the Trinity,and Alcuin borrowed andemphasized this theme in hisOn the Faith of the Holy Trinity.12TheTen Categoriesbecame the most eagerly studied logical textbook inthe ninth and tenth centuries, and the question of whether God couldbe fitted into them, already raised by Alcuin, was taken up by his pupilsand explored in depth by Eriugena (see [5.6]; cf. [5.75] 50–3, 72–86).The glosses to theTen Categories,which vary from manuscript tomanuscript, show a definite pattern of development. The late ninthcenturyglossators tended to use the text as a springboard for Eriugenainspiredmetaphysical and theological comments, only loosely relatedto the logical subject-matter. Tenth- and eleventh-century glossatorsbecame less and less interested in such speculation and more concernedto reach an understanding of basic Aristotelian ideas such as thedistinctions between substance and accident, and between univocaland equivocal words, or the nature of space and time.13Gradually, atranslation of Aristotle’s own text came to replace the pseudo-Augustinian paraphrase, giving scholars the chance to use Boethius’commentary and, through it, to master the argument of the text andconsider the difficult problems about the status of Aristotle’s discussion(is it about words, or things, or what?) which would concern twelfthcenturylogicians.14TheIsagoge(‘Introduction’) by Porphyry, a short guide to the notionsof genus, species, differentiating property(differentia),distinguishingcharacteristic(proprium)and accident, long regarded as an introductionto Aristotle’sCategories,was also known from the time of Alcuin.Glosses to theIsagoge—at least those so far investigated—draw heavilyon Boethius’ commentaries.15Porphyry’s famous allusion to thedisputed status of universals, which became the focus for medievaldebates from the twelfth century onwards, seemed to excite nocontroversy. One of the few early medieval writers to discuss universals,Ratramnus of Corbie, exponent of a somewhat inchoate conceptualism,turned, not to theIsagoge,but the first of Boethius’ commentaries onit and also to Boethius’Theological Treatises.16Aristotle’sOnInterpretation,although known, was found forbiddingly difficult bymost logicians until the eleventh century: glosses are rare and derivative(see [5.78] 101). But, by about 1000, Abbo of Fleury, Notker of StGall and Gerbert of Aurillac included it within their teaching, andAbbo compiled his own introduction to syllogistic reasoning, drawingon Boethius’ textbooks.17Aside from Anselm’sDe grammatico,there is disappointingly littledirectevidence for logical studies for most of the eleventh century itself.18Material dating from 1100 or just before shows a sophistication indealing with theIsagoge, CategoriesandOn Interpretation,and afacility in handling syllogisms and topical inferences which cannot havebeen suddenly acquired; this is a surmise strongly supported by theconfident use in doctrinal controversy and discussion of notions fromboth theCategories(as in the dispute between Lanfranc and Berengar)andOn Interpretation(as in Anselm’sCur Deus Homoand PeterDamian’sLetter on God’s Omnipotence).19Reading Ancient PhilosophyAlthough some early medieval writers criticized logic as a distractionfrom religious devotion, no one could claim that the ancient logicaltextbooks were themselves a challenge to the faith; and, indeed, in hisTheological Treatises(much read and glossed in these centuries)Boethius had shown how logical techniques could be used against heresyin support of orthodox doctrine. By contrast, Latin texts of ancientphilosophy posed what might seem as a direct challenge to Christianbelief, by proposing a view at least in some respects incompatible withthem. Yet it was not, in fact, any of the three main pagan philosophicalbooks available from the ninth to the eleventh centuries that becamethe focus of controversy. Plato’sTimaeus(in Calcidius’ partialtranslation) was found too difficult for sustained discussion; the twointroductory books of Martianus Capella, preceding the handbooksto the individual disciplines, were too obviously an allegory to causeproblems; and Macrobius’ commentary on Cicero’sDream of Scipiotended to be looked on as a source of information about natural science,especially astronomy, to which further information of like nature shouldbe appended by glossators. And so, strangely, it was in connectionwith the work of a Christian author that scholars from the ninth to theeleventh centuries considered most carefully how to react to ancientphilosophy. After writing his logical translations, commentaries andtranslations, and hisTheological Treatises,Boethius, in prison andawaiting execution, wrote his final work,On the Consolation ofPhilosophy. TheConsolationnot only avoids any explicit reference toChristian revelation. It also contains passages which present ancientPlatonic ideas which, taken literally, are incompatible with Christianity.In particular, the ninth metrum (or verse passage) of Book III, a prayerincanted at the very climax of the argument, is an epitome of theTimaeus,and it refers both to the idea of reincarnation and to that ofthe World Soul.What should the Christian reader make of such passages?20The mostforthright reaction was that of Bovo (d. 916), a monk of Corvey, whorecognized clearly that, although Boethius had written elsewhere onChristian doctrine, he was setting out here to present Platonic and notChristian teaching ([5.5]). Using Macrobius—he seems not to haveknown theTimaeusitself—he gives a clear explanation of the ideasbehind the compressed phrases of Boethius’ poem. Although thisapproach had its followers, it was not the most common one. At muchthe same time as Bovo, Remigius of Auxerre had composed hiscommentary ([5.14]), not just to this metrum, but to the wholeConsolation,drawing on earlier glosses (just as he would do in hisextensive commentary on Martianus Capella) but developing them inhis own way. His effort was to find an explicitly Christian meaninghidden in the apparently Platonic phrases of Boethius.21About ahundred years later, Adalbold of Utrecht pursued a similarChristianizing line in his commentary on Book III, metrum 9 ([5.1]),although he allegorized less thoroughly than Remigius and ended withan unintendedly strange amalgam of orthodox Christianity and Platonicteaching.22Twelfth-century scholars, especially William of Conches,would follow and sophisticate the approach pioneered by Remigiusand Adalbold, applying it to genuinely pagan texts as well as to theConsolation.23Problems Raised by Christian DoctrineFrom the twelfth century onwards, much of the best philosophicalthinking took place in the context of theology, the systematicinvestigation of Christian doctrine which would be typified in theuniversities by the commentaries on theSentencesof Peter the Lombard.In the ninth to eleventh centuries, it is difficult to talk of ‘theology’ inthis sense. But philosophical discussion still arose in connection withvarious types of writing concerned primarily with Christian doctrine:sermons and biblical exegesis were inclined to be unargumentative(though Eriugena’s are an exception), but other works about doctrine,stimulated by controversy or responding to particular questions, oftencontain interesting material for the historian of philosophy.One of the fiercest controversies in the ninth century was instigatedby Gottschalk, a monk first of Fulda, then Reichenau, then Orbais.24In a series of writings from the 830s onwards, Gottschalk championedthe idea, which he claimed (with some justice) to be Augustine’s, thatGod’s predestination is dual: of the good to bliss and of the wicked todamnation. He found many well-educated supporters, but others inthe Church feared that his teaching would discourage people fromtrying to act well by making them think that, regardless of anythingthey did, they were from eternity predestined to hell or to heaven. Twoimportant churchmen—Hrabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mainz andprolific scriptural exegete and encyclopaedist, and Hincmar, archbishopof Rheims—wrote against Gottschalk; and they also commissioned anattack from a scholar attached to the court of the emperor, Charles theBald; this would be John Scottus Eriugena’s first treatise, hisOnPredestination.25Although Hrabanus’ and Hincmar’s pieces (not,however, John’s) amass patristic quotations, all three involve argumentand analysis, and together they provide the earliest medieval attemptto explore notions such as free will, evil and punishment.All three writers challenged Gottschalk’s formula of dualpredestination by saying that Godpredestinesin one way alone—thegood to salvation—but heforeseesboth the salvation of the good andthe damnation of the wicked. Only those predestined to salvation canbe saved, because for salvation God’s grace is needed. Yet God cannotbe said to ‘predestine’ the wicked; rather, he fails to predestine them.Eriugena also adds the argument ([6.4] 62:27–65:123), based on thePlatonic view that evil is not a thing but a deficiency, that Godcouldnot possibly predestine anyone to a wicked life or to eternal punishmentbecause, as evils and therefore deficiencies, they have no cause. (Thislast is a particularly silly argument: the emptiness of my glass is just asclearly caused by my having drunk the wine as its fullness was causedby my having poured wine into it from the bottle!) So far all threewriters have hardly distanced themselves more than verbally fromGottschalk, since on their view people will still be damned, whateverthey do, if God fails to predestine them. Hrabanus and Hincmar areaware of this problem but try to dodge it, stressing God’s inscrutabilityor, in the case of Hincmar, suggesting that God withholds grace fromthose whose future misuse of their wills he has foreseen. Eriugena doesnot resolve the central issue: how can an individual human being beheld responsible for the evil actions which, without the help of grace,he cannot but perform? Rather, he concentrates on relieving God ofany responsibility for unjustly punishing those who are not responsiblefor their wickedness by an astonishingly bold move. He claims thatGod does not punish anybody ([6.4] 63:42–66:155). Sinners arepunished (through ignorance, or through the knowledge that they lackbeatitude, or through the frustration of their desire to become nothingat all), but not by God, who is merely the framer of just laws.There were various doctrinal controversies in the two followingcenturies which stimulated philosophical discussion, most notably thedispute in the mid-eleventh century between Lanfranc and Berengarover the eucharist.26But even more interesting for the history ofphilosophy is a work written at much the same time(c.1067), as partnot of a public controversy but of a private debate. Peter Damian wasunwilling to accept Jerome’s statement, put to him by a friend, that‘whilst God can do all things, he cannot restore a virgin after she haslost her virginity’ and he wrote hisLetter on Divine Omnipotence([5.11]) to explain why not. Damian is known as an ascetic,contemptuous of pagan philosophy, and historians have ofteninterpreted his rejection of Jerome’s position in this light: as an extrememanifestation of his anti-philosophical stance, according to which heclaims that God can undo the past, making what has happened nothave happened and thus violating the fundamental logical law of noncontradiction.On a careful reading, however, the argument of the letteris seen to be quite different.27Damian contends that, by nature, it isimpossible to restore her virginity to a virgin who has lost it. By this hemeans that there is no way of repairing the ruptured membrane. Theonly way, then, that by nature a non-virgin could become a virginwould be if the past were changed, so that her virginity never had beenlost. But, Damian goes on, this—changing the past—isimpossibleabsolutely, even for God and certainly by nature. Making a non-virgininto a virgin by repairing her virginity (not by changing the past)ispossible, however, for God, though it is impossible by nature. Here,then, Damian seems to be distinguishing between the physicallyimpossible, which is possible for God, and the logically impossible,which even for God is impossible. But, at one point ([5.11] 619A–620C), he asks whether God could make it that Rome had never existedand answers that God could. He goes on to explain that, since Godlives in an eternity which is timeless, to say that God could now makeit that Rome never existed is equivalent to saying that God could havefrom the beginning shaped a providence which did not include theexistence of Rome. Damian’s position is defensible, though whenclarified it becomes less bold than it at first seems. He makes twoarguable claims: (1) that God might have chosen a providence otherthan the one he has in fact chosen—a providence in which, for instance,Rome never existed; (2) that God’s choice of providences does nottake place at any moment in time, but in timeless eternity. (1) would beaccepted by most Christian thinkers; the meaningfulness of (2) can bequeried, but the position has had many adherents, from Boethius’ timeuntil now. Taken together, (1) and (2) lead to the conclusion that Godcould make it (tenseless) that Rome never existed. Since God existstimelessly, any verb which is applied to him is timeless: the apparentlyparadoxical ‘God is able to make it that Rome never existed’ is nodifferent in meaning from the straightforward ‘God was able to makeit that Rome never existed’.NOTES1 See Cavallo [5.35], Kleberg [5.49] 44, Lowe [5.19] and cf. Eddius Stephanus,Life of Bishop Wilfrid,Cambridge, 1985, ch. 6.2 See Minio-Paluello’s introduction to his edition of theCategoriesinAristotelesLatinus(I, 1–5), Bruges and Paris, 1961, pp. xiv, xxiii, xxxii, xxxv.3 See Reynolds [5.22] 225 and Bischoff [5.33]; for Lupus’s borrowing, see theedition of his letters by L.Levillain, Paris, 1964, pp. 214–15.4 See Bischoff [5.27] (Hadoardus), Beeson [5.25] and Gariépy [5.40] (Lupus), andon Heiric see [5.24] as well as the editions of hisCollectaneaby R.Quadri, Fribourg,1966, and of his excerpts from Valerius Maximus by D.Schullian,Memoirs of theAmerican Academy in Rome12 (1935): 155–84.5 See Marenbon [5.75] and Richer’sHistory of France,ed. R.Latouche, Paris, 1967,II, p. 46.6 See P.Piper,Die Schriften Notkers und seiner Schule,Freiburg and Tübingen,1882–3, I, pp. 859–61 for Notker’s letter, and cf. J.Knight Bostock,A Handbookon Old High German,2nd rev. edn, Oxford, 1976; see also below, Chapter 6, p.132, for Notker.7Life of St Bernward,ch. 1 in H.Kallfelz (ed.)Lebensbeschreibungen einigerBischöfe des 10.–12. Jahrhunderts,Darmstadt, 1973.8 Ruotger,Life of Bruno,ch. 5, in H.Kallfelz (ed.)Lebensbeschreibungen einigerBischöfe des 10.–12. Jahrhunderts,Darmstadt, 1973.9 Translated in G.W.Regenos,The Letters of Lupus of Ferrières,The Hague, 1966.10 Notker,Gesta Karoli,ed. H.Haefele, Berlin, 1959, 1.1.11 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Capitularia, ed. A.Boretius, Hanover, 1830, I,nos 22, 29, 30, 53, 79–81.12De dialecticais printed in [5.2] 101, cols 951–76 andOn the Faith of the HolyTrinityat cols 13–54; see esp. col. 22; cf. Marenbon [5.75] 31 and the additionsand corrections to this view in J.Marenbon, ‘Alcuin, the Council of Frankfortand the beginnings of medieval philosophy’, inDos Frankfurter Konzil van 794,ed. R.Berndt, Mainz, 1997, II, 603–15.13 [5.75] 116–38; for some additions and corrections, see Marenbon [5.78] 100.14 See L.Minio-Paluello, ‘Note sull’Aristotele latino medioevale: xv—DalleCategoriaeDecempseudo-Agostiniane (Temistiane) al testo vulgato aristotelico Boeziano’,Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica54 (1962) 137–47, reprinted in Minio-Paluello[5.83] 448–58; and, for glosses and commentaries toCategoriessee Marenbon[5.78] 82–3, 100–1, 109–10 and 26–7. A paraphrase/commentary of theIsagogeandCategoriesfrom the early eleventh century has been edited by G.d’Onofrio:Excerpta Isagogarum et Categoriarum,Turnhout, 1995 (CC c.m. 120). See alsoMarenbon [7.67].15 TheIsagogeglosses from one manuscript have been edited by C.Baeumker andB.von Walterhausen:Frühmittelalterlichn Glossen des angeblichen Jepa zur Isagogedes Porphyrius(BGPMA 24,1), Münster, 1924; for a list of glossed manuscriptsand their relations, see Marenbon [5.78] 99.16 See Ratramnus [5.12] for the text and cf. Marenbon [5.75] 67–70.17 For bibliography and further discussion of Abbo, Notker and Gerbert, see below,Chapter 6.18 For Anselm’sDe grammatico,see below, Chapter 6.19 Peter Damian’sLetteris discussed below, pp. 112–13; for the use of Aristotlehere and by Anselm, see also Marenbon [5.79].20 For a survey of the influence of theConsolation,see Courcelle [5.68]; see alsoTroncarelli [5.82], [5.83].21 Useful extracts are printed in Remigius [5.14]; cf. Courcelle [5.68] 278–90, andMarenbon [5.76] 78–9.22 See T.Gregory,Platonismo medievale: studi e ricerche(Istituto storico Italianoper 51 medioevo, studi storici 26–7), Rome, 1958, pp. 1–15.23 See below, Chapter 7, pp. 172–3.24 On Gottschalk, see esp. Jolivet [5.74]; on the predestination controversy, see Ganz[5.70] and Schrimpf [5.81]. For Gottschalk’s theological works, see [5.8].25 See also below, Chapter 6, p. 120 on the background and reaction toOnPredestination.Hrabanus puts his views in letters to Bishop Noting of Verona(MPL112, cols 1530–53) and to Count Eberhard of Friuli (MonumentaGermaniae Historica, Epistolae Karolini Aevi III, pp. 481–7). Hincmar’scontribution before Eriugena entered the controversy was a letter to hisparishioners, ed. W.Gundlach, ‘Zwei Schriften des Erzbischofs Hinkmar vonReims’,Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte10 (1889):258–309. For a full accountof Hincmar’s part in the controversy and his various writings connected with it,see J.Devisse,Hincmar, Archevêque de Reims, 845–882,Geneva, 1975–6, pp.115–79.26 This is well discussed in Holopainen [5.73] 44–118; cf. also Gibson [5.72].27 This is the reading proposed by Holopainen [5.73] 6–43. See also the discussionof the modal notions involved in this discussion in Knuuttila [1.21] 63–7.BIBLIOGRAPHYOriginal Language Editions5.1 Adalbold of Utrecht, Commentary on Book III, metrum 9 of Boethius,On theConsolation of Philosophy,in Huygens [5.9].5.2 Alcuin, Works in MPL 100–1.5.3 Anonymous glosses toTen Categories,in Marenbon [5.75] 185–206.5.4 Anonymous glosses to Boethius,Theological Treatises,in E.K.Rand,JohannesScottus,Munich, 1906.5.5 Bovo of Corvey, Commentary on Book III, metrum 9 of Boethius,On theConsolation of Philosophy,in Huygens [5.9].5.6 Candidus Wizo, Theological and philosophical passages, in Marenbon [5.75]152–70.5.7 Fredegisus of Tours,On the Substance of Nothing and on Shadows,inMonumenta Germaniae Historica,Epistolae, IV, pp. 552–5.5.8 Gottschalk of Orbais,Oeuvres théologiques et grammaticales de Godescalcd’Orbais,ed. D.C.Lambot, Louvain, 1945.5.9 Huygens, R.B.C. (ed.) ‘Mittelalterliche Kommentare zumO qui perpetua …’,Sacris Erudiri6 (1954): 373–427.5.10Libri Carolini,ed. H.Bastgen,Monumenta Germaniae Historica,Concilia II,Supplementum, Hanover and Leipzig, 1924.5.11 Peter Damian,Letter on God’s Omnipotence,ed., with French translation, byA.Cantin (Sources chrétiennes 191), Paris, 1972.5.12 Ratramnus of Corbie,Liber de anima,ed. D.C.Lambot, Namur and Lille,1952.5.13 Remigius of Auxerre,Commentary on Martianus Capella,ed. C.Lutz, Leiden,1962–5.5.14 Remigius of Auxerre, Commentary on Boethius,On the Consolation ofPhilosophy(extracts) in Appendix to E.T.Silk (ed.)Saeculi noni auctoris inBoetii consolationem philosophiae commentarius,Rome, 1935.Bibliographies, Catalogues and HandbooksA bibliography of the philosophical material is given in Marenbon [5.76] 164–91.Bibliographies for the various areas of cultural history fromc.780 toc.900 arefound in McKitterick [5.57].5.15 Becker, G.Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui,Bonn, 1885.5.16 Berschin, W. and Geith, K.E. ‘Die Bibliothekskataloge des Klosters Murbachaus dem IX. Jahrhundert’,Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte83 (1972):61–87.5.17 Delisle, L.Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale/Nationale,Paris, 1868–81.5.18 Lehmann, P.Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz,I,Die Diözesen Konstanz und Chur,Munich, 1918.5.19 Lowe, E.A.Codices Lugdunenses antiquiores,Lyons, 1924.5.20 ——Codices Latini antiquiores,IV, Oxford, 1957.5.21 Milde, W.Der Bibliothekskataloge des Klosters Murbach aus dem 9.Jahrhundert. Ausgabe und Beziehungen zu Cassiodors ‘Institutiones’,BeihefttoEuphorion, Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte4, Heidelberg, 1968.5.22 Reynolds, L.D. (ed.)Texts and Transmissions: a Survey of the Latin Classics,Oxford, 1983.5.23 von Borries-Schulten, S.Katalog der Illuminierten Handschriften derWürttemburgischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart,2,Die RomanischenHandschriften,Part I,Provenienz Zwiefalten,Stuttgart, 1987.StudiesManuscript transmission, schools and cultural background5.24 [Auxerre]Intellectuels et artistes dans l’Europe Carolingienne ix–xi siècles,Auxerre, 1990.5.25 Beeson, C.H.Lupus ofFerrières as Scribe and Text Critic,Cambridge, Mass.,1930.5.26 ——‘The Collectaneum of Hadoard’,Classical Philology40 (1945):201–22.5.27 Bischoff, B. ‘Hadoardus and the manuscripts of classical authors from Corbie’,in S.Prete (ed.)Didascaliae: Studies in Honor of Anselm A.Albareda,NewYork, 1961; repr. in German in Bischoff,Mittelalterliche Studien1, Stuttgart,1965, pp. 49–63.5.28 ——‘Eine Sammelhandschrift Walahfrid Strabos (Cod. Sangall. 878)’,Mittelalterliche Studien2, Stuttgart, 1967, pp. 34–51.5.29 ——Lorsch im Spiegel seiner Handschriften,Munich, 1974.5.30 ——‘Die Bibliothek im Dienst der Schule’, inMittelalterliche Studien3, Stuttgart,1981, pp. 213–33.5.31 ——‘Panorama der Handschriftenüberlieferung aus der Zeit Karls des Grossen’,Mittelalterliche Studien3, Stuttgart, 1981, pp. 5–38.5.32 ——‘Die Hofbibliothek Karls des Grossen’,Mittelalterliche Studien3, Stuttgart,1981, pp. 49–70.5.33 ——‘Paläographie und frühmittelalterliche Klassikerüberlieferung’, inMittelalterliche Studien3, Stuttgart, 1981, pp. 55–72.5.34 Bullough, D. ‘The educational tradition in England from Alfred to Aelfric:teachingutriusque linguae’,in hisCarolingian Renewal: Sources and Heritage,Manchester, 1991.5.35 Cavallo, G.Libri, editori e pubblico nel mondo antico: Guida storica e critica,Rome, 1977.5.36 Contreni, J.J.The Cathedral School of Laon from 850–930: its Manuscriptsand Masters,Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung,Munich, 1976.5.37 ——Codex Laudunensis 468: a Ninth-century Guide to Virgil, Sedulius andLiberal Arts,Armarium Codicum Insignium III, Turnhout, 1984.5.38 ——Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manuscripts,Aldershot, 1992.5.39 Fleckenstein, F. ‘Königshof und Bischofsschule unter Otto dem Grossen’,Archivfür Kulturgeschichte38 (1956): 38–62; repr. in J.Fleckenstein,Ordnungenund Formende Kraft des Mittelalters. Ausgewählte Beiträge,Göttingen, 1986,pp. 168–92.5.40 Gariépy, R.J. ‘Lupus of Ferrières: Carolingian scribe and text critic’,MedievalStudies30 (1976): 90–105.5.41 Glauche, G.Schullektüre im Mittelalter: Entstehung und Wandlungen desLektürekanons bis 1200 nach den Quellen dargestellt,Münchener Beiträgezur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung, Munich, 1970.5.42 Hellmann, S.Sedulius Scottus,Munich, 1906.5.43 Heslop, T.A. ‘The production ofde luxemanuscripts and the patronage ofKing Cnut and Queen Emma’,Anglo-Saxon England19 (1990): 151–95.5.44 Hildebrandt, M.M.The External School in Carolingian Society,Leiden, NewYork and Cologne, 1992.5.45 Hoffmann, H.Buchkunst und Königtum im ottonischen und frühsalischenReich(Monumenta Germaniae Historica Schriften 30), Stuttgart, 1986.5.46 Illmer, D.Formen der Erziehungs und Wissensvermittlung im frühen Mittelalter.Quellenstudien zur Frage der Kontinuität des abendländischenErziehungswesens,Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung, Munich, 1971.5.47 Iogna-Prat, D., Jeudy, C. and Lobrichon, G.L’Ecole Carolingienne d’Auxerrede Murethach à Remi 830–908,Paris, 1991.5.48 Keynes, S. and Lapidge, M.Alfred the Great,Harmondsworth, 1983.5.49 Kleberg, T.Buchhandel und Verlagswesen in der Antike,Darmstadt, 1969.5.50 Kurth, G.Notger de Liège et la civilisation au Xe siècle,Paris, 1905.5.51 Lapidge, M. ‘Artistic and literary patronage in Anglo-Saxon England’,Committenti e produzione artistico-letteraria nell-alto medioevo occidentale(Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull ’alto medioevo 39),Spoleto, 1992, pp. 137–91.5.52 Leclercq, J.The Love of Learning and the Desire for God,London, 1978.5.53 McKitterick, R.The Carolingians and the Written Word,Cambridge, 1989.5.54 ——‘Carolingian book production: some problems’,The Library,6th series12 (1990): 1–33.5.55 ——‘Royal patronage of culture in the frankish kingdoms under theCarolingians: motives and consequences’,Committenti e produzioneartisticoletteraria nell’alto medioevo occidentale(Settimane di Studio delCentro Italiano di Studi sull’alto medioevo 39), Spoleto, 1992, pp. 131–91.5.56 ——‘Knowledge of Plato’sTimaeusin the ninth century: the implications ofValenciennes Bibliothèque Municipale MS 293’, in H.J.Westra (ed.)FromAthens to Chartres, Neoplatonism and Medieval Thought: Studies in Honourof Edouard Jeauneau,Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1992.5.57 ——(ed.)Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation,Cambridge, 1993.5.58 ——(ed.)The New Cambridge Medieval History,vol. II, Cambridge, 1995.5.59 Mayr-Harting, H.Ottonian Book Illumination: an Historical Study,2 vols,London, 1992.5.60 Riché, P.Les Ecoles et l’enseignement dans l’occident chrétien de la fin du vsiècle au milieu du xi siècle,Paris, 1979.5.61La Scuola nell’Occidente Latino nell’alto medioevo,Settimane di Studio delCentro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, Spoleto, 1972.5.62 Sot, M.Haut Moyen-Âge: Culture, éducation et société,Paris, 1990.5.63 Southern, R.The Making of the Middle Ages,London, 1953.5.64 ——Medieval Humanism and Other Studies,Oxford, 1970.5.65 Sullivan, R.E. (ed.)‘The Gentle Voices of Teachers’: Aspects of Learning in theCarolingian Age,Columbia, Oh., 1955.5.66 Thomas, P. (1908)Apulei Opera quae supersuntIII, Leipzig, 1908.Philosophical studies and monographs on particular textsand authors5.67 Bouhot, J.P.Ratramne de Corbie,Paris, 1976.5.68 Courcelle, P.La Consolation de philosophie dans la tradition littéraire,Paris,1967.5.69 Delehaye, P.Une controverse sur l’âme universelle au IXe siècle,Louvain, 1950.5.70 Ganz, D. ‘The debate on predestination’, in M.Gibson and J.Nelson (eds)Charlesthe Bald. Court and Kingdom,2nd edn, London, 1990, pp. 283–302.5.71 Gibson, M. (ed.)Boethius: His Life, Thought and Influence,Oxford, 1981.5.72 ——Lanfranc of Bec,Oxford, 1978.5.73 Holopainen, T.Dialectic and Theology in the Eleventh Century(Studien undTexte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 54), Leiden, New York andCologne, 1996.5.74 Jolivet, J.Godescalc d’Orbais et la trinité,Paris, 1958.5.75 Marenbon, J.From the Circle ofAlcuin to the School of Auxerre(CambridgeStudies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd series 15), Cambridge, 1981.5.76 ——Early Medieval Philosophy (480–1150): an Introduction,2nd edn, London,1988.5.77 ——‘John Scottus and Carolingian theology: from theDe praedestinatione,itsbackground and its critics, to thePeriphyseon,in M.Gibson and J.Nelson(eds)Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom,2nd edn, London, 1990, pp.303–25.5.78 ——‘Medieval Latin commentaries and glosses on Aristotelian logical texts,before ca. 1150 AD’, in C. Burnett (ed.)Commentaries and Glosses onAristotelian Logical Texts: the Syriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin Traditions(Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 23), London, 1993, pp. 77–127.5.79 ——‘Anselm and the early medieval Aristotle’, in J.Marenbon (ed.)Aristotle inBritain during the Middle Ages,Turnhout, 1996, pp. 1–19.5.80 Minio-Paluello, L.Opuscula: the Latin Aristotle,Amsterdam, 1972.5.81 Schrimpf, G. ‘Der Beitrag des Johannes Scottus Eriugena zumPrädestinationsstreit’ in H.Löwe (ed.)Die Iren und Europa im früherenMittelalter,Stuttgart, 1982.5.82 Troncarelli, F.Boethiana aetas,Alessandria, 1987.5.83 Troncarelli, F.Tradizioni perduti,Padua, 1981.