ABSTRACT
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER ANY OTHER MAJOR TEXTUAL CRITIC, beyond David Fowler, ever stumbled across my first “polemic,” but I know of one, at least, who later frequently endorsed the sentiments expressed in it, and was himself not shy of polemic, as long as it was in the service of a very rigorous definition of textual truth, evidence, and probity. This man, one of the most authoritative and learned scholars of his century, was a very early supporter of the Society for Textual Scholarship: he attended and spoke at the Society's first meeting, even though it conflicted with the annual convention of the much more prestigious Medieval Academy; he became the second President of STS—after Tom Tanselle—and gave two of the most stirring addresses the Society was privileged to hear, and then published them in TEXT; he expressed his avuncular satisfaction that so many young people had been drawn into the group, at a time when he must have felt that he was entering the twilight of his own distinguished career; and I believe he would have approved of the “history of ideas” approach I took in the following essay on Bartholomaeus Anglicus, though I never had the courage to send it to him. This man was a giant whom it was my privilege to know in my role as neophyte and acolyte. I speak of Paul Oskar Kristeller.
