Bibliographic record
Abstract
HERBERT of Bosham studied theology with Peter Lombard in the 1140s and 1150s. This training was crucial for his later employment. It also had a significant impact on his work, both as editor and author. Despite this, studies of Peter Lombard's school (or immediate sphere of influence) have often failed to take account of Herbert. The broad range of his activity and literary output has meant that those examining the theological tradition of Peter's Sententiae have looked elsewhere. At the same time, Herbert's own specialists have sometimes downplayed his intellectual formation in the school of the Lombard. Certainly the work that has received most attention recently, the commentary on the Hebraica , owes little to Peter Lombard. But other works are more informed by his training. It was not unusual for Peter's students to work in different areas, and none matched his complete commitment to the theological enterprise. Still, for Herbert, Peter remained ‘my master of pleasant memory’, and the editions he prepared of Peter's commentaries are a testament to this. Peter Lombard taught theology in Paris in the 1140s and 1150s. He was under the authority of the chancellor of the cathedral school of Notre Dame, where he was a canon himself. Neither he nor his students, however, lived in the cathedral cloisters. The growing numbers of masters and students in Paris had made that impractical. Peter held various positions in the church of Paris in this period, and ultimately retired from teaching in 1159 when he was appointed bishop. The subject he taught, theology, was considered to be advanced study. Students who had completed their training in the liberal arts could choose to progress to theology, medicine or the law. In the arts it was normal to study with different masters, often in large lecture halls. Theology was different. The numbers were smaller, and students chose to study with one master at a time. By the time of the thirteenth-century university, anyone wishing to teach theology should have studied it for at least five years. In the twelfth-century schools, the period of study seems to have been longer. William of Tyre spent ‘six years uninterrupted’ studying with Peter Lombard, but still did not consider his theological training complete when his master left the schools to become bishop of Paris. He embarked on a further year of study with Maurice of Sully.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".