1 See, for example, Curtis, M.H., Oxford and Cambridge in Transition 1558-1642 (Oxford, 1959)Google Scholar; Kearney, H., Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-Industrial Britain 1500-1700 (London, 1970)Google Scholar.

2 This transition has been obscured in the works of those intellectual historians who trace single themes in dialectic, for example, W. Risse, Die Logik der Neuzeit, Band I (Stuttgart, 1964), and Gilbert, N.W., Renaissance Concepts of Method (New York, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 I have occasionally been driven to use Oxford statute material where none exists for Cambridge, as have all historians of the university.

4 The names most closely associated with twelfth- and thirteenth-century developments of classical justifications for this particular classification, and particular emphases within it, are probably those of John of Salisbury, Dominic Gundissalinus, Robert Kilwardby, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas. On medieval classifications of knowledge and their developments see: L. Baur, ‘Dominic Gundissalinus De Divisione Philosophiae: herausgegeben und philosophiegeschichtlich untersucht nebst einer Geschichte der philosophischen Einleitung bis zum Ende der Scholastik’, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittelalters, ed. Baeumker and von Herding, Band rv, Heft 2-3 (Miinster, 1903); Weisheipl, J. A., ‘Classification of the sciences in medieval thought’, Mediaeval Studies 2 (1965), 54–90 Google Scholar. See also Kristeller, P. O., ‘The Modern System of the Arts’, Renaissance Thought II (New York, 1965), pp. 163–227 Google Scholar, sections l-IV.

5 The standard scheme of the three parts of philosophy which the Middle Ages inherited from antiquity consisted of logic, physics, and ethics. Logic was also one of the seven liberal arts, so that the two schemes overlapped. This did not bother the earlier Middle Ages, since they had no conception of philosophy as a separate teaching subject. Metaphysics acquired its place with natural and moral philosophy (and with logic) in the thirteenth century when philosophy began to be taught at the universities.

6 For an elegant account of developments in late scholastic debating exercises see Schülling, H. , Die Geschichte der axiomatischen Methode im 16. und beginnenden 17. Jahrhundert (Hildesheim, 1969)Google Scholar chapter 6. Any sixteenth-century physics or metaphysics textbook shows how closely presentation of the subject was modeled on disputational practice. See, for instance, Timpler, C., Metaphisicae systema methodicum (Hanoviae, 1606)Google Scholar. In die copy which I used in Cambridge University Library, this is bound with a collection of 'theorems’ in metaphysics proposed ‘ad disputandum’ in the university at Wittenberg (Wittebergae, 1603).

7 Aristotle's Rhetoric was treated as a part of moral philosophy in the university teaching of die thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and only became an important text in rhetoric teaching in the sixteenth century. In manuscripts of the earlier period die Rhetoric regularly appears widi the Magna moralia, Ethics, and Politics. See any of the codices containing the Ethics listed in the Aristoteles latinus (Roma, 1939). Kristeller, P. O. makes this point in ‘The Aristotelian Tradition’, Renaissance Thought (New York, 1961), pp. 24–47 Google Scholar, p. 40.

8 Gibson, S., Statuta antiqua Vniversitatis Oxoniensis (Oxford, 1931), pp. 26 Google Scholar, 200. In medieval usage the term logic itself is ambiguous. Sometimes it is synonymous with dialectic, sometimes it stands for die trivium as a whole. See Grabmann, M., Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode (Freiburg, 1900-1911), 1 Google Scholar, 254, for a medieval classification which uses ‘logic’ in die latter sense.

9 In 1581 a Peterhouse B.A., arrested during a disputation in the Logic Schools for slandering the Duke d'Anjou, pleaded in his defense that ‘he did yt for die exercise of Imitacion of Tullie’. Cooper, C.H., Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1842)Google Scholar II, 386.

10 Costello, W. T, The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth-Century Cambridge (Harvard, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholarfor instance, states: ‘That the scholastic status quo at Cambridge was undisturbed by the activities of the nonscholastic world, and that scholastic traditions were jealously to be guarded, is evidenced by the reform statutes of Elizabeth and James and by the directives of the university itself…. These reform decrees, far from showing a departure from scholastic traditions, demonstrate clearly that the authorities at Cambridge were to concern themselves not at all in changing a subscript iota of tradition but solely in improving the breed scholastic’ (pp. 7-8). Although Costello stresses the lack of change in the Cambridge curriculum, his book provides some useful material for the study of university teaching in the early seventeenth century.

11 For an extremely clear treatment of medieval philosophical grammars as used in universities in Germany see Heath, T., ‘Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic, and Humanism in Three German Universities’, Studies in the Renaissance 2 (1971), 9–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Heath ‘Logical Grammar’, finds the Summulae in general use in German universities in the 1520s. The textbook went through over 150 printed editions. For a list of editions and commentaries see MuUally, J. P., ed., The Summuhe Logicales of Peter of Spain (Notre Dame, 1945)Google Scholar.

13 On the medieval Aristotle corpus see Minio-Paluello, L., Opuscula: The Latin Aristotle (Amsterdam, 1972)Google Scholar.

14 On the position of the parva logicalia in Peter of Spain's manual see Boehner, P., Medieval Logic (Manchester, 1952)Google Scholar.

15 On the content of the Summulae see Boehner, op. cit.; J.P. MuUally, op. cit. Heath, ‘Logical Grammar’, pp. 41-45, gives an intelligent sketch of the content of the Summulae. There is now a critical edition of the text by De Rijk (Assen, 1972).

16 Unlike his medieval predecessors he ignores sophisticated problems associated with the predicables, like the problem of universals.

17 Risse fails sufficiently to appreciate this difference between the scope of renaissance dialectic and the scope of logic as we now understand it. He is led to devote a disproportionate amount of space to that part of dialectic which bears the closest resemblance to modern logic, namely syllogistic. See Risse, op. at. 18 Joarmis Eckii theologi in summulas Petri Hispani (Augustae Vindelicorum,.i5i6), f. Aiiir; see also Heath, ‘Logical Grammar’, pp. 49-50.

19 A syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion derived from them. The two premises share a common term (the ‘middle term’), which is eliminated in the conclusion (in the syllogism: ‘man is a rational biped; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is a rational biped’, ‘man’ is the middle term). The figure of a syllogism is determined by the relative positions in premises and conclusion of the terms: in a first-figure syllogism the middle term is on the left in the first (major) premise, on the right in the second (minor) premise, and the conclusion goes minor term, major term, as in the example above. The mood of a syllogism depends on the type of proposition making up the premises and conclusion. The types of proposition which occur are: universal affirmative propositions (‘all A are B’); universal negative propositions (‘no A are B’); particular affirmative propositions (‘some A is B’); and particular negative propositions ('some A is not B’). Representing each of these types of proposition by the vowels a, e, i, 0, respectively, the syllogism which I gave as an example above goes acta, and this fundamental syllogism (the first mood of the first figure) was assigned the mnemonic Barbara (the vowels give the mood; the consonants also have mnemonic value, but I will not bother the reader with this here). The complete scheme of figures and moods of the syllogism was reduced to mnemonic form by Peter of Spain in the following verse:

20 Enthymeme is a contracted syllogism with one premise unstated, used particularly in informal argument to persuade rather than to prove. For example: ‘It is lawful to repel force with force; therefore Clodius was lawfully killed by Milo’. Here the unstated minor premise is: ‘Milo repelled the force of Clodius’. Example is a particular illustration of a general thesis, and was sometimes regarded as an enthymeme, sometimes as a contracted induction. For example: ‘Abraham waged war for the safety of those nearest and dearest to him; therefore Christians may wage war to save their near and dear ones’. Induction establishes a universal proposition from a sequence of particular instances, and was regarded in the period as a legitimate form of inference if a complete enumeration is made of appropriate singulars, or if no counter example is to be found. The following sixteenth-century example of an induction is supposed to be an example of a perfect or valid induction: ‘Adam, a blessed and pious man, had a cross to bear; so did Abel; so did Abraham; so did Jacob; so did Christ; nor are dissimilar cases to be found. Therefore all blessed and pious men have a cross to bear’. All these examples are taken from Sarcerius, E., Dialectica (Lipsiae, 1539), pp. 80 Google Scholar, 88, and 85, respectively.

21 The list of places which Cicero gives in his Topics, for cataloguing available information connected with the subject under debate, includes ‘meaning’, ‘conjugates’, ‘genus’, ‘species’, ‘antecedents’, ‘contradictions’. This and a similar list in the De inventione (1, xxiv-xxix) form the basis for the discussion of the places in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. For a thorough treatment of Boethius’ use of the topics or places see Bird, O., ‘The Tradition of Logical Topics: Aristotle to Ockham’, Journal of the History of Ideas 2 (1962), 307–323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Wilson, T., Rule of Reason (London, 1551), f. 56r-s8vGoogle Scholar.

23 On the parva logicalia see W. and Kneale, M., The Development of Logic (Oxford, 1962), pp. 246–274 Google Scholar; Moody, E., ‘Medieval Logic’, and N. Kretzmann, ‘History of Semantics’, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York and London, 1967)Google Scholar, IV, pp. 530-532, and VII, pp. 371-373, respectively.

24 See Weisheipl, J. A., ‘Curriculum of the Faculty of Arts at Oxford in the Early Fourteenth Century’, Mediaeval Studies 2 (1964), 143–185 Google Scholar; ‘The Place of the Liberal Arts in the University Curriculum during the XlVth and XVth Centuries’, Actes du Quatrième Congrès International de Philosophic Mediévale (Montreal, 1969), pp. 209—213.

25 On changing ideas of an arts education see P. O. Kristeller, ‘Modem System’; Bolgar, R. R., ‘From Humanism to the Humanities’, Twentieth Century Studies 2 (1973)Google Scholar; C. Trinkaus, ‘Defenses of the Humanities in the Late Italian Renaissance’ (in press).

26 See M. H. Curtis, op. at., pp. 83-125; H. Kearney, op. cit.

27 ‘Primus annus rhetoricam docebit: secundus et tertius dialecticam. Quartus adjungat philosophiam’, Documents Relating to the University and Colleges of Cambridge (London, 1852), I, 459.

28 See S. Gibson, Statuta, p. 147: ‘Recens venientem a ludo literario primum excipiant mathematica. Ilia toto eo anno discet, arithmeticam nimirum geometriam et astronomiae cosmographiaeque quantum potent’.

29 Documents I, 459: ‘auditores assidue philosophicae lectionis, astronomiae, perspectivae et Graecae linguae … idque quod inchoatum antea erat sua industria perficiant’.

30 Documents I, 492: ‘In singulis collegiis magister decanus et lector publicus singulos in collegium admittendos ante primum illorum ingressum examinent, utrum perfecte teneant grammaticam necne, ut nulli in hujusmodi loca admittantur qui non in ea satis ad mathematicam et dialecticam discendam profecerint. Nemo grammaticam ullo in collegio doceat nisi in collegio Trinitatis et regio quoad choristas’.

31 See the references to Greek grammar and literature lectures in university and college statutes. A Greek grammar, Greek lexicon, and Greek New Testament occur amongst the books of almost all those members of the university, whatever their specialist field, whose inventories of decease are preserved in the Cambridge University archives. See below.

32 Documents I, 492: ‘Nemo scholaris in ullum collegium admittatur nisi quartumdecimum annum adimpleverit nee quisquam ad ullum collegium assumatur nisi instructus et praeparatus fuerit ad dialecticam discendam’.

33 Mullinger, J.B., The University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1884)Google Scholar, n, 611: ‘Nemo illorum admittatur nisi a decano seniore et primario lectore examinatus. Et si ab his habilis ad discendam in aula dialecticam reperiatur, a magistro vel vicemagistro admittatur, sin minus omnino rejidatur’.

34 In a footnote to his transcription of Archbishop Whitgift's accounts for pupils in his care at Trinity College, whilst Whitgift was master there, S. R. Maitland quotes the relevant passage from the 1560 Trinity Statutes as follows: ‘As to the other Lectors in Dialectic, (who were to be called Subleclores,) “Primus legat Topica Aristotelis. Secundus exponat vel Rodolphum Agricolam de Inventione, vel librum de Elenchis vel libros qui Analytici dicuntur. Tertius Praedicabilia Porphyrii, vel Praedicamenta Aristot: vel libros ejusdem de Interpretatione, prout classis ipsius postulat. Quartus et infimus interpretetur Dialecticae introductionem Johannis Setoni, sic ut classis infima commoda introductione veniat ad Porphyrium paratior.’ ‘ The British Magazine 2 (1847), 509. I have, however, been unable to locate the copy of the Trinity Statutes used by Maitland. Neither Mullinger nor any of the numerous copies of the statutes which I have looked at in Trinity College Library contain Seton's name as italicized in the quotation above. I would like to think that Maitland was using Whitgift's personal copy of the statutes (every fellow wrote out, or had written out, a copy of the statutes for his personal use) whilst he was working on Whitgift's papers at Lambeth Palace. However, Lambeth Palace Library were unable to locate a copy of the statutes amongst their manuscripts at the present time. There is no prima facie reason why Maitland should have introduced the phrase himself, nor is it likely that the insertion arises from a misreading of the text. The insertion of Seton's name in at least one fellow's transcript of the statutes suggests that his was the recognized elementary dialectic manual in the college. I am grateful to the librarian of Trinity College Library for making available to me all the many copies of the Elizabethan statutes which Trinity possesses.

35 For problems in physics arranged for disputation see Timpler, C., Physicae sen philosophiae naturalis systema methodicum (Hanoviae, 1607)Google Scholar. On the ‘textual’ way in which natural philosophy texts were used for debating purposes see Reif, P., “The Textbook Tradition in Natural Philosophy 1600-1650’, Journal of the History of Ideas 2 (1969), 17–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Mullinger, op. cit., II, 595-599.

37 Nearly 150 inventories of decease for members of the university containing itemized book lists are preserved in the Cambridge University archives for the period 1540-1590. As far as I know, no one since Sears Jayne has given these any attention, aldiough Curtis looked at them in the course of his work on Oxford book lists for the same period. See Jayne, Sears, Library Catalogues of the English Renaissance (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1956)Google Scholar; Curtis, M. H., ‘Library Catalogues and Tudor Oxford and Cambridge’, Studies in the Renaissance 2 (1958), 111–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Those book lists which refer to Cambridge printers, binders, or stationers are transcribed by G. J. Gray and Palmer, W.M., Abstracts from the Wills and Testamentary Documents of Printers, Binders, and Stationers of Cambridge, from 1504 to 1669 (London, 1915)Google Scholar. The book lists in the Cambridge archives have recendy been restored, and are now in a much more accessible form than when Sears Jayne, Curtis, Gray and Palmer handled mem (Sears Jaynes’ and Gray and Palmer's transcriptions are ramer unreliable). I hope to publish a detailed study of die textbooks to be found in the lists in die near future. I am most grateful to Miss Peek and Dr. Leedham-Green of the Cambridge University Archives for all dieir help with the inventories.

38 Of the lists I have looked at, exactly half contain one or more dialectic handbooks. Agricola's De inventione dialectica occurs twice as often as Melanchthon's textbook, and three times as often as any other dialectic text. There are five times as many dialectic handbooks as rhetoric handbooks. The complete list for Henry Crosse reads as follows

Many of the book lists contained in the inventories of decease are, of course, those of senior members of die university rather than students. Here, however, are two more lists which I take to be those of younger men engaged in B.A. Studies.

Judging from Curtis’ article on Oxford book lists, these are strictly comparable with the Cambridge lists. The list for E. Higgins, M.A., Brasenose, 1588, transcribed by Curtis, contains: paulus venetus logike, Ciceronis opera fol. 2bus volum, Rudolphi agricolae logi 4°, Sturmius in partit. orat., de imitatione, Gorshii dialectica, Chitrei rhetorica, Gerardus de inventione, Ciceronis officia, Summa orat. rhetoricarum preceptiorum, Eitzen dialectica, phregii rhetorica, logica, Rhetorike, logike Eng., Ludovici Viv. retorica, Talaei rhetorica, sillogisticon fFoxi, Casandri dialectica, logica et rhetorica phregii, melancthon logike, Erotemata dialect, melancthon per lassium, prelectiones Talaei in Rami dialect, hemingius de methodis, witchcraft [witcraft] by lever (the list runs to over 200 items).

39 The document is in Emmanuel College Library, but I have used the transcript printed by Fletcher, H.F., The Intellectual Development of John Milton (Urbana, 1961)Google Scholar. For the controversy about the date of these Directions see Curtis, Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, pp. 289-290, and Kearney's appendix (pp. cit.) It seems to be agreed that the Directions are rather old-fashioned as a study programme, which possibly explains why it fits what I have been led to expect for the 1570s or thereabouts. The tables of 2 study are as follows:

All the texts set in the synopsis of study in the Directions occur regularly in the book lists for the period 1540-1590.

40 In fact, only the original copy of the statutes, bearing Elizabeth's seal, in Trinity College Library, has the word correctly as ‘progymnasmata’. All later copies I have seen, and Mullinger, have ‘progymnastica’, or occasionally ‘progymnasia’.

41 See also Harvey, Gabriel, Ciceronianus (Londini, 1577), p. 57 Google Scholar.

42 In his published public lectures in rhetoric, Gabriel Harvey assigns to dialectic the technical study on which rhetoric is grounded. See, e.g., Rhetor (Londini, 1577), f. Eiiiiv-rir. Harvey devotes his entire second lecture to rhetorical practice—reading and analyzing classical texts, and composing orations modeled on them. He calls dialectic the 'life’ and ‘senses’ of the ‘beautiful body’ of oratory (Ciceronianus, pp. 48-49).

43 See n. 34 above.

44 ‘Et quia non tantum nobis provectiorum studiis prospicere sed et tenerae aetatis educationem quamprimis curare convenit ut et integrum efficiatur eruditorum corpus sintque et in omni literarum genere et in omnibus aetatibus qui sane et incorrupte doceant et audiant volumus ut qui in artium facilitate sunt educandi elementa dialectices rhetorices arithmetices geographiae musices et philosophiae descripta ex purissimis earum artium scriptoribus et praelectos sibi habeant Aristotelem Rodolphum Agricolam Philippum Melancthonem Trapizuntium et hujus notae homines nee aliquando corrumpi sinant illorum studia aut animos tenebris plus quam cimmeriis et frivolis quaestiunculis caecisque et obscuris glossematis Scoti Burlei Anthonii Trombetae Bricoti Bruliferii et aliorum ejus farinae hominum’. Statuta Academiae Cantabrigiensis, pp..137-138.

45 This inventory, which is in the Cambridge University archives, is reprinted in Gray and Palmer, op. cit., although the transcription is not entirely reliable.

46 Dr. Leedham-Green of the Cambridge University archives recently discovered this list. I am grateful to her for allowing me to make use of her transcription.

47 De inventione diakctica ([Colonie], 1528), pp. 152-158.

48 For scathing comments on Peter of Spain by Agricola's commentator in the edition cited above see f. a3v.

49 See n. 38.

50 According to Howell, W.S., Logic and Rhetoric in England 1500-1700 (Princeton, 1956), p. 50 Google Scholar, the Carter edition of Seton went through the following editions: 1572,1574, 1577. 1584. 1611, 1617, 1631, 1639.

51 Seton, , Dialectica (Londini, 1584)Google Scholar, f. A2r-v.

52 Ed. cit., f. Iviv-Kivv.

53 Ed. cit., f. oviv.

54 Ed. cit., f. Nviv.

55 Ed. cit., f. NVV.

56 See, for instance, the logical writings of Balduinus and Zabarella. On Balduinus and Zabarella see Papuli, G., Girolamo Balduino, ricerche sulla logica delta Scuola di Padova nel Rinascimento (Manduria, 1967)Google Scholar.

57 On Thomas Thomas, the ‘Cambridge Puritan printer’, see Mullinger, op. tit., n, 320-321; Roberts, S.C., A History of the Cambridge University Press I52i-ig2i (Cambridge, 1921), pp. 22–29 Google Scholar. Thomas’ inventory of decease, dated 1588, includes 233 copies of Temple's dialectic still on his premises at that date. Temple contributed an introduction to another book printed on the university press in 1584, Marrinus’, Iacobi Martini Scoti Dunkeldensis philosophiae professoris publiti, in Academia Taurinensi, de prima simplicium, et concretorum corporum generatione disputatio (Cantabrigiae, 1584)Google Scholar.

58 Cabrielis Harveii rhetor, vel duorum dierum oratio, de natura, arte et exercitatione rhetorica (Londini, 1577).

59 See, for instance, Mullinger, op. tit., II, 413.

60 P. Rami dialedicae libri duo (Cantabrigiae, 1584). Together with Thomas Blight's commentary on Scribonius’ Physics, this work was reprinted as late as 1617.

61 ‘Dialectica est ars bene disserendi, eodemque sensu Logica dicta est’ (p. l). On developments of Ramus’ dialectic see Ong, W.J., Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (Harvard, 1958)Google Scholar and Ramus and Talon Inventory (Cambridge, Mass., 1958). Ong's interpretation of Ramism is, however, to my mind eccentric. See also Vasoli, C., La dialettica e la retorica deU'Umanesimo (Milan, 1968)Google Scholar, part v.

62 See, e.g., ‘PrefaBo’ to Martinus, op. cit., f. ¶iiir-v: ‘Dialectica non est ilia quidem illis finibus circumscripta, sed fundit sese per res universas, easque inventionis lumine et facilitate iudicii tractat ac intelligit’.

63 E.g., Temple, Dialectica, p. 2.

64 See, e.g., Temple, Dialectica, pp. 3-4.

65 See, for instance, Gabriel Harvey's letter to John Young, in which he makes it clear that as far as those opposed to his proceeding to the M.A. are concerned, Ramism is synonymous with a generally avante-garde and subversive approach to learning. Letter- Book of Gabriel Harvey, ed. Scott (London, 1884), especially pp. 10-11.

66 For an actual example of what such use of dialectic would entail, see Analysis, logica epistolarum Horatii omnium, connumerato etiam libello qui inscribitur de arte poelica (Spirae Nemetum, 1595), by the Ramist J. Piscator. Piscator uses the techniques of Ramist dialectic rather loosely to give intelligent dissections of his texts, particularly of the De arte poetica, which facilitate their interpretation and appreciation. Piscator claims in his introduction that he actually used such techniques widi students, and that he read Horace's letters and selected odes ‘ut ita ipsos et linguae latinae copia atque elegantia augerem, et usum praeceptorum logicorum in illustribus hisce acutissimi et nervosissimi scriptoris exemplis ostenderem’ (p. 3).

67 Seton, ed. cit.: ‘Utilis est Ramus, quasi solus fructifer esset, / Protrudit laetos (Phoebe ridente) racemos, / Hunc exemplorum virtus, hunc finis et usus, / Hunc ars et voces omant et lucidus ordo. / Fructibus istius Rami nil dulcius esu.’ Translation is complicated by the fact mat Drant puns on Ramist terms like exempla, finis, usus, ars, voces, ordo, and, in die last line, on Ramus’ name. Howell, who claims Seton as an anti-Ramist, mistranscribes ‘dulcius’ as ‘dulcidus’, and contrives to translate the lines as a slur on Ramus and Ramism. See Howell, op. cit., pp. 55-56.

68 I hope to produce complete figures for the relative frequency with which these and other texts occur in the book lists in the Cambridge University archives in a forthcoming paper. R. R. Bolgar has produced figures for the numbers of lines read of each classical author specified in the timetables of four English grammar schools in the same period. As one might expect, these match rather closely the relative frequencies of works in the booklists, Terence and Virgil heading both. However, Bolgar does not find much in the way of dialectic studied at grammar school level. Since, as Bolgar shows, grammar schools covered fewer than 500 pages of Latin prose and 300 pages of Latin verse in the course of their schooling, it is not surprising that they continued with the same texts during their preliminary arts training at university. See Bolgar, R. R., ‘Classical Reading in Renaissance Schools’, Durham Research Review 2 (1955), 2–10 Google Scholar.

69 Kearney, op. cit.

70 Bolgar comments on the humanist programme at school level, which in practice went no farther than rather limited excerpting from and imitation of selected classical authors, that it ‘did not rise much above a mechanical and haphazard bricolage’ (‘From Humanism to the Humanities’, p. l l ).