milieux where Christian thought flourishes. In the cloister, theology is studied in relation to monastic experience, a life of faith led in the monastery where religious thought and spiritual life, the pursuit of truth and the quest for perfection, must go hand in hand and permeate each other. This orientation, proper to the cloistered life, was to affect the methodology used in Christian reflection and the subject matter of this reflection.”92
We ought particularly to note here Leclercq’s typically conscientious affirmation of the flourishing of Christian thought in the scholastic context, notwithstanding his pardonable tendency, in keeping with his subject-matter and his thesis, not to mention his own vocation, to favor the monastic approach to theological activity.93
Our findings may be usefully recapitulated in terms of the following criteria: First, we have discovered that monastic theology tends to have a biblical ‘flavor,’ whereas scholastic theology, while still permeated with Scripture and oriented towards its explication, has deliberately departed from what can be characterized as the “biblical style”94 of monastic writing. Second, monastic theology tends to be poetic; more broadly, we might say that the monks are acutely attentive to aesthetic considerations.95 Scholastic theology, on the other hand, self-consciously eschews all literary artistry in favor of clarity, characteristically producing not theologically informed “poems,” but disquisitions on theological topoi.96 Third, monastic theology is erotic: in a tradition indelibly stamped by the personality and writing of St. Gregory the Great, it is not only concerned with, but fundamentally shaped by, desire—essentially, the desire for God, fueled by compunctio.97 In contrast, the whole scholastic enterprise is predicated upon the ideal of a scientific neutrality which must check the motion of the inquirer’s will at all costs: the goal is the static, indisputable (because demonstrable) proposition, not a moving target.98 Fourth, we have noted the typically “personal” character of monastic theology, where that term is to be taken in both the psychological and in the grammatical sense. Thus, the deep personal investment of the monastic author in his subject, as well as his earnest concern for the spiritual well-being of his readers, both evident in so many stylistic nuances, are made transparent through the frequent use of the first and second grammatical persons. The master of the school, on the other hand, meticulously distances himself from his text, both emotionally and linguistically speaking. Here the third person is the predominant grammatical form employed. Finally, to what has been already explicitly adduced we may add that monastic theology is characteristically “sweet,” where we understand that English word as translating at least two different Latin words: suavis and dulcis. Both of these terms, though especially the latter, can connote the most ordinary, concrete sense of sweetness to the physical palate, as well as a metaphorical spiritual sense deriving from the physical. The first term, however, has a further resonance, highly amenable to the monastic theological sensibility: this arises from its obvious etymological connection to suasion, or persuasion.99 In a connection that can be traced back to Augustine, the sweetness of God’s Word, especially his Incarnate Word, Jesus, has the ultimate power to persuade, and so to win man’s wayward heart to himself.100 By christological extension, the words (both spoken and written) produced by a member of Christ’s Body ought always, sweetly, to urge the sinner to conversion. The schoolmen, in striking contrast, seek not to sway men’s hearts with rhetoric, but through the application of logic to change men’s minds.101 The preceding criteria are intended less as an exhaustive list than as a kind of level, analogous to the carpenter’s tool, whereby, in the ensuing chapters of this dissertation, we may gauge within a single horizon, so to speak, the respective theological projects of St. Aelred of Rievaulx and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Sources
To the above framing observations, we must now add some brief notes on the use of sources by monks and schoolmen between 1110 and 1274. What follows is intended only to provide a general picture; certain precisions will need to be made in subsequent chapters, in reference to the sources used specifically by Aelred and Thomas.
Biblical
The Bible was far and away the most important source for monastic theology and remained the guiding force for scholastic theology as well, at least through the high Middle Ages, in spite of the increasing importance of Aristotle. In general, both monks and schoolmen show a thorough familiarity with the biblical text, from beginning to end, though each milieu reveals certain clear preferences for particular books or types of biblical material. Thus, the Song of Songs is perennially and by far the favorite book of the monks,102 whereas the schoolmen of the thirteenth century prefer other sapiential literature, especially Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.103 Considering the canon in its entirety, Smalley records the following order of preferences among commentators in the schools during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries:
the two favourite books for commentators were the Psalter and the Pauline Epistles, their creative energy being centred in the latter; St. Paul provided the richest nourishment to the theologian and logician. Next came the Hexaemeron, because it provided an opportunity to discuss the questions of Creation and angelology. Original work on the Law, the historical books of the Old Testaments, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Acts seems to be lacking.104
By contrast, the monks make much of both the historical and the prophetic materials, in part, at least, for reasons already discussed. As for two of the greatest Cistercians, Bernard and Aelred, they incorporate Scripture effortlessly into everything they write, skillfully interweaving passages from every book in both Testaments.105
Patristic
After the Bible, the next most-read texts in the Middle Ages are the collective works of the Church Fathers. As should be expected, availability, and hence knowledge, of the works of the Latin Fathers exceeds that of the Greek works. Nevertheless, Leclercq notes that
In the twelfth century, Latin monks took the initiative of having Greek texts translated whenever it was possible. But a considerable part of the patristic legacy inherited from the Greeks had already been translated: it was preserved and handed on, as was all that remained of ancient culture, especially in Italy and in England.106
In the peculiarly significant case of Origen, Leclercq makes the following interesting observation:
If we read the introductions to the different volumes of the critical edition of the Latin Origen, we note that almost all the manuscripts are of monastic origin and that most date from the ninth and the twelfth centuries. Other indications point to the conclusion that in every period or place where there was a monastic renewal, there was a revival of Origen. It is true of the Carolingian reform; it is even more . . . readily apparent in the monastic revival of the twelfth century.107
In contrast with this strong evidence of Origen’s influence on the monasteries, “Origen is less frequently represented in the libraries of the cathedral churches.”108 In general, however, it is reasonable to assume that such manuscripts as were at the disposal of the monasteries were at least accessible to the masters of the schools as well, and in time, the more important works inevitably became part of the universal intellectual patrimony.
As for the Western Fathers, the Latin patristic corpus diffused among the medieval monasteries is virtually complete.109 The Fathers whose works are most frequently copied, and the widest range of whose works are represented, are Sts. Ambrose,
