Hugh of Amiens (c. 1085–1164), is not a figure widely cited in literature relating to that movement of cultural renewal often called ‘the twelfth-century Renaissance’. This monograph seeks to remedy that gap by exploring the writings of this relatively little known figure whom, Freeburn argues, has been unjustly neglected in studies of the twelfth century. After studying under Anselm of Laon in the first decade of the twelfth century, Hugh became a monk at Cluny in 1112, rising to become prior at St-Martial, Limoges, in 1114, then prior at St Pancras, Lewes, in 1122, and abbot of Reading Abbey from 1123 to 1130, prior to becoming archbishop of Rouen in 1130. Hugh's literary output is largely theological in character: a letter on the fall of the soul (to a certain Gravio) and a poetic summary of the Pentateuch while at Laon; Dialogues – a significant theological synthesis, initially written at Reading Abbey between 1123 and 1126 and revised in the early 1130s; a Life of a recent hermit, St Adjutor (1131); a commentary on Genesis (c. 1142); a treatise Contra haereticos (1144); reflections Super fide (1155–9); and a theological synthesis De memoria in the last years of his life (1160–4). The particular interest of Hugh is that he was never a master in the schools. Rather he retained the intellectual and spiritual culture of a Cluniac monk, not unlike two friends of his, Peter the Venerable and his relative, Matthew of Albano, prior of St-Martin des Champs. Because he did not contribute to the specifically Parisian style of scholastic culture that emerged in the twelfth century, his writings have tended to be forgotten. While his works were not hugely popular, they were not without influence (seven copies surviving of his Dialogues, Hugh's most important work). Above all, they remind us that Paris was not the only centre of scholastic thinking in the twelfth century.

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of Freeburn's study is its title. The phrase ‘the twelfth-century Renaissance’ was initially popularised by Charles Homer Haskins to describe the cultural renewal taking place across a wide range of disciplines other than theology. While Freeburn does compare Hugh to figures like Abelard and William of Conches who are often associated with emerging new interest in pagan authors in this period, Hugh of Amiens is a monastic traditionalist, whose writings betray little familiarity with any of the pagan classics. Someone coming to this book to find neglected testimony for the study of ancient authors in the twelfth century will be disappointed. The interest of Hugh's theological approach derives from the fact that it was never visibly shaped by any Parisian master. Rather than create a systematic treatise of sententie, however, he chose to compose three books of Dialogues in the form of continuous question and answer, without recourse to citation of patristic authority – perhaps emulating the style of St Anselm, although doctrinally more shaped by Anselm of Laon. Freeburn rightly identifies Hugh as an unjustly neglected speculative theologian, whose arguments about God as supreme simplicity and love and on Christ as assuming manhood (language derived from Anselm of Laon) deserve respect. Although Freeburn does not focus on Hugh's semantic theory, observations in the Dialogues reflect attitudes similar to those of William of Champeaux. Hugh observes, for example (PL cxcii.1188A) that voces signify ‘by naming or indicating some res, sometimes by removing some res – as when indicating the absence of something’. Even if he remained suspicious of theological approaches that focused on analysing language, in the fashion of Abelard or Gilbert, Hugh was very interested in presenting Christian teaching about the Trinity and other core doctrines in a way that was comprehensible to reason.

Freeburn is careful in his presentation of Hugh's teaching, making painstaking comparison between his treatment of a particular topic and that of his contemporaries – for example between Hugh's analysis of the opening chapters of Genesis and that of Abelard. He acknowledges that it is impossible to be certain whether Hugh was consciously seeking to counter Abelard on the Trinity or reflecting on Genesis, as he rarely identifies teachers as object of his polemic. The intriguing feature of Hugh's writing is that it is quite independent in character. Yet there can be little doubt that Hugh did feel an obligation to address many doctrinal issues of general concern. Given that his friend, Matthew of Albano, was a monk in Paris after 1110, it is quite possible that he was aware of issues being discussed in its schools. The fact that Hugh composed his Dialogues at Reading Abbey reminds us that original theological speculation was not confined to the Parisian schools. St Anselm had encouraged monks to think rationally and carefully about a range of theological questions. Hugh of Amiens continued this tradition.

Of particular interest for the study of heresy in the twelfth century is his Contra haereticos. They provide a valuable reminder about the genuine alarm felt by senior churchmen in the face of what was evidently a significant crisis within many urban centres in France: increasingly articulate lay-groups dissatisfied with the sacraments as the symbols of privilege, wielded by churchmen out of touch with their local community. Freeburn suggests that Hugh may have been responding to the same currents of religious dissent as brought Eudo (sometimes called Eon de l'Etoile) to be condemned as a heretic at Reims in 1148. Peter the Venerable reacted to similar dissenting groups in his Contra Petrobrusianos. Hugh did not reject movements of lay devotion that worked to build up the Church; his writing about the little known St Adjutor, a hermit figure active in the First Crusade, but who had had connections to the new religious community of Tiron, suggests that he was aware of the need to harness popular devotion to support the Church as an institution. Even if Hugh might seem at first sight to be a traditional theologian, Freeburn does show that in his own terms he was an independent thinker, not without interest.