{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43880/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43880","id":"gutenberg_43880","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43880","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Medieval/Middle Ages","Civilization, Medieval","Middle Ages","Philosophy, Medieval"],"text":"THE MEDIAEVAL MIND\n\n\n\n\n  MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n  LONDON \u00b7 BOMBAY \u00b7 CALCUTTA\n  MELBOURNE\n\n  THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n  NEW YORK \u00b7 BOSTON \u00b7 CHICAGO\n  ATLANTA \u00b7 SAN FRANCISCO\n\n  THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.\n  TORONTO\n\n\n\n\n  THE MEDIAEVAL MIND\n\n  A HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT\n  OF THOUGHT AND EMOTION\n  IN THE MIDDLE AGES\n\n\n  BY HENRY OSBORN TAYLOR\n\n\n  IN TWO VOLUMES\n\n  VOL. I\n\n\n  MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n  ST. MARTIN\u2019S STREET, LONDON\n  1911\n\n\n\n\nTO J. I. T.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe Middle Ages! They seem so far away; intellectually so preposterous,\nspiritually so strange. Bits of them may touch our sympathy, please our\ntaste; their window-glass, their sculpture, certain of their stories,\ntheir romances,--as if those straitened ages really were the time of\nromance, which they were not, God knows, in the sense commonly taken. Yet\nperhaps they were such intellectually, or at least spiritually. Their\n_terra_--not for them _incognita_, though full of mystery and pall and\nvaguer glory--was not the earth. It was the land of metaphysical\nconstruction and the land of spiritual passion. There lay their romance,\nthither pointed their veriest thinking, thither drew their utter yearning.\n\nIs it possible that the Middle Ages should speak to us, as through a\ncommon humanity? Their mask is by no means dumb: in full voice speaks the\nnoble beauty of Chartres Cathedral. Such mediaeval product, we hope, is of\nthe universal human, and therefore of us as well as of the bygone\ncraftsmen. Why it moves us, we are not certain, being ignorant, perhaps,\nof the building\u2019s formative and earnestly intended meaning. Do we care to\nget at that? There is no way save by entering the mediaeval depths,\npenetrating to the _rationale_ of the Middle Ages, learning the\n_doctrinale_, or _emotionale_, of the modes in which they still present\nthemselves so persuasively.\n\nBut if the pageant of those centuries charm our eyes with forms that seem\nso full of meaning, why should we stand indifferent to the harnessed\nprocesses of mediaeval thinking and the passion surging through the\nthought? Thought marshalled the great mediaeval procession, which moved to\nmeasures of pulsating and glorifying emotion. Shall we not press on,\nthrough knowledge, and search out its efficient causes, so that we too may\nfeel the reality of the mediaeval argumentation, with the possible\nvalidity of mediaeval conclusions, and tread those channels of mediaeval\npassion which were cleared and deepened by the thought? This would be to\nreach human comradeship with mediaeval motives, no longer found too remote\nfor our sympathy, or too fantastic or shallow for our understanding.\n\nBut where is the path through these footless mazes? Obviously, if we would\nattain, perhaps, no unified, but at least an orderly presentation of\nmediaeval intellectual and emotional development, we must avoid\nentanglements with manifold and not always relevant detail. We must not\ndrift too far with studies of daily life, habits and dress, wars and\nraiding, crimes and brutalities, or trade and craft and agriculture. Nor\nwill it be wise to keep too close to theology or within the lines of\ngrowth of secular and ecclesiastical institutions. Let the student be\nmindful of his purpose (which is my purpose in this book) to follow\nthrough the Middle Ages the development of intellectual energy and the\ngrowth of emotion. Holding this end in view, we, students all, shall not\nstray from our quest after those human qualities which impelled the\nstrivings of mediaeval men and women, informed their imaginations, and\nmoved them to love and tears and pity.\n\nThe plan and method by which I have endeavoured to realize this purpose in\nmy book may be gathered from the Table of Contents and the First Chapter,\nwhich is introductory. These will obviate the need of sketching here the\norder of presentation of the successive or co-ordinated topics forming the\nsubject-matter.\n\nYet one word as to the standpoint from which the book is written. An\nhistorian explains by the standards and limitations of the times to which\nhis people belong. He judges--for he must also judge--by his own best\nwisdom. His sympathy cannot but reach out to those who lived up to their\nbest understanding of life; for who can do more? Yet woe unto that man\nwhose mind is closed, whose standards are material and base.\n\nNot only shalt thou do what seems well to thee; but thou shalt do right,\nwith wisdom. History has laid some thousands of years of emphasis on this.\nThou shalt not only be sincere, but thou shalt be righteous, and not\niniquitous; beneficent, and not malignant; loving and lovable, and not\nhating and hateful. Thou shalt be a promoter of light, and not of\ndarkness; an illuminator, and not an obscurer. Not only shalt thou seek to\nchoose aright, but at thy peril thou shalt so choose. \u201cUnto him that hath\nshall be given\u201d--nothing is said about sincerity. The fool, the maniac, is\nsincere; the mainsprings of the good which we may commend lie deeper.\n\nSo, and at _his_ peril likewise, must the historian judge. He cannot state\nthe facts and sit aloof, impartial between good and ill, between success\nand failure, progress and retrogression, the soul\u2019s health and loveliness,\nand spiritual foulness and disease. He must love and hate, and at his\nperil love aright and hate what is truly hateful. And although his\nsympathies quiver to understand and feel as the man and woman before him,\nhis sympathies must be controlled by wisdom.\n\nWhatever may be one\u2019s beliefs, a realization of the power and import of\nthe Christian Faith is needed for an understanding of the thoughts and\nfeelings moving the men and women of the Middle Ages, and for a just\nappreciation of their aspirations and ideals. Perhaps the fittest standard\nto apply to them is one\u2019s own broadest conception of the Christian scheme,\nthe Christian scheme whole and entire with the full life of Christ\u2019s\nGospel. Every age has offered an interpretation of that Gospel and an\nattempt at fulfilment. Neither the interpretation of the Church Fathers,\nnor that of the Middle Ages satisfies us now. And by our further\nunderstanding of life and the Gospel of life, we criticize the judgment of\nmediaeval men. We have to sympathize with their best, and understand their\nlives out of their lives and the conditions in which they were passed. But\nwe must judge according to our own best wisdom, and out of ourselves offer\nour comment and contribution.\n\n  HENRY OSBORN TAYLOR.\n\n\nMany translations from mediaeval (chiefly Latin) writings will be found in\nthis work, which seeks to make the Middle Ages speak for themselves. With\na very few exceptions, mentioned in the foot-notes, these translations are\nmy own. I have tried to keep them literal, and at all events free from the\nintrusion of thoughts and suggestions not in the originals.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                      PAGE\n\n  BOOK I\n\n  THE GROUNDWORK\n\n  CHAPTER I\n\n    GENESIS OF THE MEDIAEVAL GENIUS                                      3\n\n  CHAPTER II\n\n  THE LATINIZING OF THE WEST                                            23\n\n\n  CHAPTER III\n\n    GREEK PHILOSOPHY AS THE ANTECEDENT OF THE PATRISTIC\n    APPREHENSION OF FACT                                                33\n\n  CHAPTER IV\n\n    INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS OF THE LATIN FATHERS                         61\n\n  CHAPTER V\n\n    LATIN TRANSMITTERS OF ANTIQUE AND PATRISTIC THOUGHT                 88\n\n  CHAPTER VI\n\n    THE BARBARIC DISRUPTION OF THE EMPIRE                              110\n\n  CHAPTER VII\n\n    THE CELTIC STRAIN IN GAUL AND IRELAND                              124\n\n  CHAPTER VIII\n\n    TEUTON QUALITIES: ANGLO-SAXON, GERMAN, NORSE                       138\n\n  CHAPTER IX\n\n    THE BRINGING OF CHRISTIANITY AND ANTIQUE KNOWLEDGE TO THE\n    NORTHERN PEOPLES                                                   169\n\n        I. Irish Activities; Columbanus of Luxeuil.\n\n       II. Conversion of the English; the learning of Bede and Alfred.\n\n      III. Gaul and Germany; from Clovis to St. Winifried-Boniface.\n\n\n  BOOK II\n\n  THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES\n\n  CHAPTER X\n\n    CAROLINGIAN PERIOD: THE FIRST STAGE IN THE APPROPRIATION OF\n    THE PATRISTIC AND ANTIQUE                                          207\n\n  CHAPTER XI\n\n    MENTAL ASPECTS OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: ITALY                      238\n\n        I. From Charlemagne to Hildebrand.\n\n       II. The Human Situation.\n\n      III. The Italian Continuity of Antique Culture.\n\n       IV. Italy\u2019s Intellectual Piety: Peter Damiani and St. Anselm.\n\n  CHAPTER XII\n\n    MENTAL ASPECTS OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: FRANCE                     280\n\n        I. Gerbert.\n\n       II. Odilo of Cluny.\n\n      III. Fulbert and the School of Chartres; Trivium and Quadrivium.\n\n       IV. Berengar of Tours, Roscellin, and the coming time.\n\n  CHAPTER XIII\n\n    MENTAL ASPECTS OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: GERMANY; ENGLAND           307\n\n        I. German Appropriation of Christianity and Antique Culture.\n\n       II. Othloh\u2019s Spiritual Conflict.\n\n      III. England; Closing Comparisons.\n\n  CHAPTER XIV\n\n    THE GROWTH OF MEDIAEVAL EMOTION                                    330\n\n        I. The Patristic Chart of Passion.\n\n       II. Emotionalizing of Latin Christianity.\n\n\n  BOOK III\n\n  THE IDEAL AND THE ACTUAL: THE SAINTS\n\n  CHAPTER XV\n\n    THE REFORMS OF MONASTICISM                                         353\n\n      Mediaeval Extremes; Benedict of Aniane; Cluny; Citeaux\u2019s\n      _Charta Charitatis_; the _vita contemplativa_ accepts the\n      _vita activa_.\n\n  CHAPTER XVI\n\n    THE HERMIT TEMPER                                                  368\n\n      Peter Damiani; Romuald; Dominicus Loricatus; Bruno and Guigo,\n      Carthusians.\n\n  CHAPTER XVII\n\n    THE QUALITY OF LOVE IN ST. BERNARD                                 392\n\n  CHAPTER XVIII\n\n    ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI                                              415\n\n  CHAPTER XIX\n\n    MYSTIC VISIONS OF ASCETIC WOMEN                                    442\n\n      Elizabeth of Sch\u00f6nau; Hildegard of Bingen; Mary of Ognies;\n      Liutgard of Tongern; Mechthild of Magdeburg.\n\n  CHAPTER XX\n\n    THE SPOTTED ACTUALITY                                              471\n\n      The Testimony of Invective and Satire; Archbishop Rigaud\u2019s\n      _Register_; Engelbert of Cologne; Popular Credences.\n\n  CHAPTER XXI\n\n    THE WORLD OF SALIMBENE                                             494\n\n\n  BOOK IV\n\n  THE IDEAL AND THE ACTUAL: SOCIETY\n\n  CHAPTER XXII\n\n    FEUDALISM AND KNIGHTHOOD                                           521\n\n      Feudal and Christian Origin of Knightly Virtue; the Order of\n      the Temple; Godfrey of Bouillon; St. Louis; Froissart\u2019s\n      _Chronicles_.\n\n  CHAPTER XXIII\n\n    ROMANTIC CHIVALRY AND COURTLY LOVE                                 558\n\n      From Roland to Tristan and Lancelot.\n\n  CHAPTER XXIV\n\n    PARZIVAL, THE BRAVE MAN SLOWLY WISE                                588\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I\n\nTHE GROUNDWORK\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nGENESIS OF THE MEDIAEVAL GENIUS\n\n\nThe antique civilization of the Roman Empire was followed by that\ndepression of decadence and barbarization which separates antiquity from\nthe Middle Ages. Out of the confusion of this intervening period emerged\nthe mediaeval peoples of western Europe. These, as knowledge increased\nwith them, began to manifest spiritual traits having no clear counterpart\nin the ancient sources from which they drew the matter of their thought\nand contemplation.\n\nThe past which furnished the content of mediaeval thought was twofold,\nvery dual, even carrying within itself the elements of irreconcilable\nconflict; and yet with its opposing fronts seemingly confederated, if not\nmade into one. Sprung from such warring elements, fashioned by all the\ninterests of life in heaven as well as life on earth, the traits and\nfaculties of mediaeval humanity were to make a motley company. Clearly\neach mediaeval century will offer a manifold of disparity and\nirrelationship, not to be brought to unity, any more than can be followed\nto the breast of one mighty wind-god the blasts that blow from every\nquarter over the waters of our own time. Nevertheless, each mediaeval\ncentury, and if one will, the entire Middle Ages, seen in distant\nperspective, presents a consistent picture, in which dominant mediaeval\ntraits, retaining their due pre-eminence, may afford a just conception of\nthe mediaeval genius.[1]\n\n\nI\n\nWhile complex in themselves, and intricate in their interaction, the\nelements that were to form the spiritual constituency of the Middle Ages\nof western Europe may be disentangled and regarded separately. There was\nfirst the element of the antique, which was descended from the thought and\nknowledge current in Italy and the western provinces of the Roman Empire,\nwhere Latin was the common language. In those Roman times, this fund of\nthought and knowledge consisted of Greek metaphysics, physical science,\nand ethics, and also of much that the Latins had themselves evolved,\nespecially in private law and political institutions.\n\nRome had borrowed her philosophy and the motives of her literature and art\nfrom Greece. At first, quite provincially, she drew as from a foreign\nsource; but as the great Republic extended her boundaries around the\nMediterranean world, and brought under her levelling power the Hellenized\nor still Asiatic East, and Africa and Spain and Gaul as well, Greek\nthought, as the informing principle of knowledge, was diffused throughout\nall this Roman Empire, and ceased to be alien to the Latin West. Yet the\npeoples of the West did not become Hellenized, or change their speech for\nGreek. Latin held its own against its subtle rival, and continued to\nadvance with power through the lands which had spoken other tongues before\ntheir Roman subjugation; and it was the soul of Latium, and not the soul\nof Hellas, that imbued these lands with a new homogeneity of civic order.\nThe Greek knowledge which spread through them was transmuted in Latin\nspeech or writings; while the great Latin authors who modelled Latin\nliterature upon the Greek, and did so much to fill the Latin mind with\nGreek thoughts, recast their borrowings in their own style as well as\nlanguage, and re-tempered the matter to accord with the Roman natures of\nthemselves and their countrymen. Hence only through Latin paraphrase, and\nthrough transformation in the Latin classics, Greek thought reached the\nmediaeval peoples; until the thirteenth century, when a better\nacquaintance was opened with the Greek sources, yet still through closer\nLatin translations, as will be seen.\n\nThus it was with the pagan antique as an element of mediaeval culture. Nor\nwas it very different with the patristic, or Christian antique, element.\nFor in the fourth and fifth centuries, the influence of pagan Greece on\npagan Rome tended to repeat itself in the relations between the Greek and\nthe Latin Fathers of the Church. The dogmatic formulation of Christianity\nwas mainly the work of the former. Tertullian, a Latin, had indeed been an\nearly and important contributor to the process. But, in general, the Latin\nFathers were to approve and confirm the work of Athanasius and of his\ncoadjutors and predecessors, who thought and wrote in Greek. Nevertheless,\nAugustine and other Latin Fathers ordered and made anew what had come from\ntheir elder brethren in the East, Latinizing it in form and temper as well\nas language. At the same time, they supplemented it with matter drawn from\ntheir own thinking. And so, the thoughts of the Greek Fathers having been\nwell transmuted in the writings of Ambrose, Hilary, and Augustine,\npatristic theology and the entire mass of Christianized knowledge and\nopinion came to the Middle Ages in a Latin medium.\n\nA third and vaguest factor in the evolution of the mediaeval genius\nconsisted in the diverse and manifold capacities of the mediaeval peoples:\nItalians whose ancestors had been very part of the antique; inhabitants of\nSpain and Gaul who were descended from once Latinized provincials; and\nlastly that widespread Teuton folk, whose forbears had barbarized and\nbroken the Roman Empire in those centuries when a decadent civilization\ncould no longer make Romans of barbarians. Moreover, the way in which\nChristianity was brought to the Teuton peoples and accepted by them, and\nthe manner of their introduction to the pagan culture, reduced at last to\nfollowing in the Christian train, did not cease for centuries to react\nupon the course of mediaeval development.\n\nThe distinguishing characteristics which make the Middle Ages a period in\nthe history of western Europe were the result of the interaction of the\nelements of mediaeval development working together, and did not spring\nfrom the singular nature of any one of them. Accordingly, the proper\nbeginning of the Middle Ages, so far as one may speak of a beginning,\nshould lie in the time of the conjunction of these elements in a joint\nactivity. That could not be before the barbaric disturbers of the Roman\npeace had settled down to life and progress under the action of Latin\nChristianity and the surviving antique culture. Nor may this beginning be\nplaced before the time when Gregory the Great (died 604) had refashioned\nAugustine, and much that was earlier, to the measure of the coming\ncenturies; nor before Bo\u00ebthius (died 523), Cassiodorus (died 575), and\nIsidore of Seville (died 636), had prepared the antique pabulum for the\nmediaeval stomach. All these men were intermediaries or transmitters, and\nbelong to the epoch of transition from the antique and the patristic to\nthe properly inceptive time, when new learners were beginning, in\ntypically mediaeval ways, to rehandle the patristic material and what\nremained of the antique. Contemporary with those intermediaries, or\nfollowing hard upon them, were the great missionaries or converters, who\nlaboured to introduce Christianity, with antique thought incorporated in\nit, and the squalid survival of antique education sheltered in its train,\nto Teuton peoples in Gaul, England, and Rhenish Germany. Among these was\nthe truculent Irishman, St. Columbanus (died 615), founder of Luxeuil and\nBobbio, whose disciple was St. Gall, and whose contemporary was St.\nAugustine of Canterbury, whom Gregory the Great sent to convert the\nAnglo-Saxons. A good century later, St. Winifried-Boniface is working to\nestablish Christianity in Germany.[2] Thus it will not be easy to find a\nlarge and catholic beginning for the Middle Ages until the eighth century\nis reached, and we are come on what is called the Carolingian period.\n\nLet us approach a little nearer, and consider the situation of western\nEurope, with respect to antique culture and Latin Christianity, in the\ncenturies following the disruption of the Roman Empire. The broadest\ndistinction is to be drawn between Italy and the lands north of the Alps.\nUnder the Empire, there was an Italian people. However diverse may have\nbeen its ancient stocks, this people had long since become Latin in\nlanguage, culture, sentiment and tradition. They were the heirs of the\nGreek, and the creators of the Roman literature, art, philosophy, and law.\nThey were never to become barbarians, although they suffered decadence.\nLike all great peoples, they had shown a power to assimilate foreigners,\nwhich was not lost, but only degraded and diminished, in the fourth and\nfifth centuries, when Teutonic slaves, immigrants, invaders, seemed to be\nbarbarizing the Latin order quite as much as it was Latinizing them. In\nthese and the following times the culture of Italy sank lamentably low.\nYet there was no break of civilization, but only a deep decline and then a\nre-emergence, in the course of which the Latin civilization had become\nItalian. For a lowered form of classical education had survived, and the\nbetter classes continued to be educated people according to the degraded\nstandard and lessened intellectual energies of those times.[3]\n\nUndoubtedly, in its decline this Latin civilization of Italy could no\nlonger raise barbarians to the level of the Augustan age. Yet it still was\nmaking them over into the likeness of its own weakened children. The\nVisigoths broke into Italy, then, as we are told, passed into southern\nFrance; other confused barbarians came and went, and then the Ostrogoths,\nwith Theodoric at their head, an excellent but not very numerous folk.\nThey stayed in Italy, and fought and died, or lived on, changing into\nindistinguishable Italians, save for flashes of yellow hair, appearing and\nreappearing where the Goths had lived. And then the Lombards, crueller\nthan the Goths, but better able to maintain their energies effective.\nTheir numbers also were not great, compared with the Italians. And\nthereafter, in spite of their fierceness and the tenacity of their\nGermanic customs, the succeeding Lombard generations became imbued with\nthe culture of Italy. They became North Italians, gravitating to the towns\nof Lombardy, or perhaps, farther to the south, holding together in\nsettlements of their own, or forming the nucleus of a hill-dwelling\ncountry nobility.\n\nThe Italian stock remained predominant over all the incomers of northern\nblood. It certainly needed no introduction to what had largely been its\nown creation, the Latin civilization. With weakened hands, it still held\nto the education, the culture, of its own past; it still read its ancient\nliterature, and imitated it in miserable verse. The incoming barbarians\nhad hastened the land\u2019s intellectual downfall. But all the plagues of\ninroad and pestilence and famine, which intermittently devastated Italy\nfrom the fifth to the tenth century, left some squalid continuity of\neducation. And those barbarian stocks which stayed in that home of the\nclassics, became imbued with whatever culture existed around them, and\ntended gradually to coalesce with the Italians.\n\nEvidently in its old home, where it merely had become decadent, this\nancient culture would fill a r\u00f4le quite different from any specific\ninfluence which it might exert in a country where the Latin education was\nfreshly introduced. In Italy, a general survival of Roman law and\ninstitution, custom and tradition, endured so far as these various\nelements of the Italian civilization had not been lost or dispossessed, or\nleft high and dry above the receding tide of culture and intelligence.\nChristianity had been superimposed upon paganism; and the Christian faith\nheld thoughts incompatible with antique views of life. Teutonic customs\nwere brought in, and the Lombard codes were enacted, working some specific\nsupersession of the Roman law. The tone, the sentiment, the mind of the\nItalian people had altered from the patterns presented by Cicero, or\nVirgil, or Horace, or Tacitus. Nevertheless, the antique remained as the\nsoil from which things grew, or as the somewhat turgid atmosphere breathed\nby living beings. It was not merely a form of education or vehicle of\nedifying knowledge, nor solely a literary standard. The common modes of\nthe antique were there as well, its daily habits, its urbanity and its\ndross.\n\nThe relationship toward the antique held by the peoples of the Iberian\npeninsula and the lands which eventually were to make France, was not\nquite the same as that held by the Italians. Spain, save in intractable\nmountain regions, had become a domicile of Latin culture before its\npeople were converted to Christianity. Then it became a stronghold of\nearly Catholicism. Latin and Catholic Spain absorbed its Visigothic\ninvaders, who in a few generations had appropriated the antique culture,\nand had turned from Arianism to the orthodoxy of their new home. Under\nVisigothic rule, the Spanish Church became exceptionally authoritative,\nand its Latin and Catholic learning flourished at the beginning of the\nseventh century. These conditions gave way before the Moorish conquest,\nwhich was most complete in the most thoroughly Romanized portions of the\nland. Yet the permanent Latinization of the territory where Christianity\ncontinued, is borne witness to by the languages growing from the vulgar\nLatin dialects. The endurance of Latin culture is shown by the polished\nLatinity of Theodulphus, a Spanish Goth, who left his home at the\ninvitation of Charlemagne, and died, the best Latin verse-maker of his\ntime, as Bishop of Orleans in 821. Thus the education, culture, and\nlanguages of Spain were all from the antique. Yet the genius of the land\nwas to be specifically Spanish rather than assimilated to any such\ndeep-soiled paganism as underlay the ecclesiastical Christianization of\nItaly.\n\nAs for France, in the southern part which had been Provincia, the antique\nendured in laws and institutions, in architecture and in ways of life, to\na degree second only to its dynamic continuity in Italy. And this in spite\nof the crude masses of Teutondom which poured into Provincia to be\nleavened by its culture. In northern France there were more barbarian folk\nand a less universally diffused Latinity. The Merovingian period swept\nmost of the last away, leaving a fair field to be sown afresh with the\nLatin education of the Carolingian revival. Yet the inherited discipline\nof obedience to the Roman order was not obliterated from the Gallic stock,\nand the lasting Latinization of Gaul endured in the Romance tongues, which\nwere also to be impressed upon all German invaders. Franks, Burgundians,\nor Alemanni, who came in contact with the provincials, began to be\naffected by their language, their religion, their ways of living, and by\nwhatever survival of letters there was among them. The Romance dialects\nwere to triumph, were to become French; and in the earliest extant pieces\nof this vernacular poetry, the effect of Latin verse-forms appears. Yet\nFranks and Burgundians were not Latinized in spirit; and, in truth, the\nGauls before them had only become good imitation Latins. At all events,\nfrom these mixed and intermediate conditions, a people were to emerge who\nwere not German, nor altogether Latin, in spite of their Romance speech.\nLatin culture was not quite as a foreign influence upon these Gallo-Roman,\nTeutonically re-inspirited, incipient, French. Nor were they born and bred\nto it, like the Italians. The antique was not to dominate the French\ngenius; it was not to stem the growth of what was, so to speak, Gothic or\nnorthern or Teutonic. The glass-painting, the sculpture, the architecture\nof northern France were to become their own great French selves; and while\nthe literature was to hold to forms derived from the antique and the\nRomanesque, the spirit and the contents did not come from Italy.\n\nThe office of Latin culture in Germany and England was to be more definite\nand limited. Germany had never been subdued to the Roman order; in\nAnglo-Saxon England, Roman civilization had been effaced by the Saxon\nconquest, which, like the Moorish conquest of Spain, was most complete in\nthose parts of the land where the Roman influence had been strongest. In\nneither of these lands was there any antique atmosphere, or antique pagan\nsubstratum--save as the universal human soul is pagan! Latinity came to\nGermans and Anglo-Saxons as a foreign culture, which was not to pertain to\nall men\u2019s daily living. It was matter for the educated, for the clergy.\nIts vehicle was a formal language, having no connection with the\nvernacular. And when the antique culture had obtained certain\nresting-places in England and Germany, the first benign labours of those\nGermans or Anglo-Saxons who had mastered the language consisted in the\ntranslation of edifying Latin matter into their own tongues. So Latinity\nin England and Germany was likely to remain a distinguishable influence.\nThe Anglo-Saxons and the rest in England were to become Englishmen, the\nGermans were to remain Germans; nor was either race ever to become\nLatinized, however deeply the educated people of these countries might\nimbibe Latinity, and exercise their intellects upon all that was contained\nin the antique metaphysics and natural science, literature and law.\n\nThus diverse were the situations of the young mediaeval peoples with\nrespect to the antique store. There were like differences of situation in\nregard to Latin Christianity. It had been formed (from some points of view\none might say, created) by the civilized peoples of the Roman Empire who\nhad been converted in the course of the original diffusion of the Faith.\nIt was, in fact, the product of the conversion of the Roman Empire, and,\nin Italy and the Latin provinces received its final fashioning and temper\nfrom the Latin Fathers. Thus within the Latin-speaking portions of the\nEmpire was formed the system which was to be presented to the Teutonic\nheathen peoples of the north. They had neither made it nor grown up with\nit. It was brought to the Franks, to the Anglo-Saxons, and to the Germans\neast of the Rhine, as a new and foreign faith. And the import of the fact\nthat it was introduced to them as an authoritative religion brought from\nafar, did not lessen as Christianity became a formative element in their\nnatures.\n\nOne may say that an attitude of humble inferiority before Christianity and\nLatin culture was an initial condition of mediaeval development, having\nmuch to do with setting its future lines. In Italy, men looked back to\nwhat seemed even as a greater ancestral self, while in the minds of the\nnorthern peoples the ancient Empire represented all knowledge and the\nsummit of human greatness. The formulated and ordered Latin Christianity\nevoked even deeper homage. Well it might, since besides the resistless\nGospel (its source of life) it held the intelligence and the organizing\npower of Rome, which had passed into its own last creation, the Catholic\nChurch. And when this Christianity, so mighty in itself and august through\nthe prestige of Rome, was presented as under authority, its new converts\nmight well be struck with awe.[4] It was such awe as this that\nacknowledged the claims of the Roman bishops, and made possible a Roman\nand Catholic Church--the most potent unifying influence of the Middle\nAges.\n\nStill more was the character of mediaeval progress set by the action and\neffect of these two forces. The Latin culture provided the means and\nmethod of elementary education, as well as the material for study; while\nLatin Christianity, with transforming power, worked itself into the souls\nof the young mediaeval peoples. The two were assuredly the moulding forces\nof all mediaeval development; and whatever sprang to life beyond the range\nof their action was not, properly speaking, mediaeval, even though seeing\nthe light in the twelfth century.[5] Yet one should not think of these two\ngreat influences as entities, unchanging and utterly distinct from what\nmust be called for simplicity\u2019s sake the native traits of the mediaeval\npeoples. The antique culture had never ceased to form part of the nature\nand faculties of Italians, and to some extent still made the inherited\nequipment of the Latinized or Latin-descended people of Spain and France.\nIn the same lands also, Latin Christianity had attained its form. And even\nin England and Germany, Christianity and Latin culture would be distinct\nfrom the Teuton folk only at the first moment of presentation and\nacceptance. Thereupon the two would begin to enter into and affect their\nnew disciples, and would themselves change under the process of their own\nassimilation by these Teutonic natures.\n\nNevertheless, the Latin Christianity of the Fathers and the antique fund\nof sentiment and knowledge, through their self-conserving strength,\naffected men in constant ways. Under their action the peoples of western\nEurope, from the eighth to the thirteenth century, passed through a\nhomogeneous growth, and evolved a spirit different from that of any other\nperiod of history--a spirit which stood in awe before its monitors divine\nand human, and deemed that knowledge was to be drawn from the storehouse\nof the past; which seemed to rely on everything except its sin-crushed\nself, and trusted everything except its senses; which in the actual looked\nfor the ideal, in the concrete saw the symbol, in the earthly Church\nbeheld the heavenly, and in fleshly joys discerned the devil\u2019s lures;\nwhich lived in the unreconciled opposition between the lust and vain-glory\nof earth and the attainment of salvation; which felt life\u2019s terror and its\npitifulness, and its eternal hope; around which waved concrete\ninfinitudes, and over which flamed the terror of darkness and the Judgment\nDay.\n\n\nII\n\nUnder the action of Latin Christianity and the antique culture the\nmediaeval genius developed, as it fused the constituents of its growth\ninto temperament and power. Its energies were neither to produce an\nextension of knowledge, nor originate substantial novelties either of\nthought or imaginative conception. They were rather to expend themselves\nin the creation of new forms--forms of apprehending and presenting what\nwas (or might be) known from the old books, and all that from century to\ncentury was ever more plastically felt. This principle is most important\nfor the true appreciation of the intellectual and emotional phenomena of\nthe Middle Ages.\n\nWhen a sublime religion is presented to capable but half-civilized\npeoples, and at the same time an acquaintance is opened to them with the\neducation, the knowledge, the literature of a great civilization, they\ncannot create new forms or presentations of what they have received, until\nthe same has been assimilated, and has become plastic in their minds, as\nit were, part of their faculty and feeling. Manifestly the northern\npeoples could not at once transmute the lofty and superabundant matter of\nLatin Christianity and its accompanying Latin culture, and present the\nsame in new forms. Nor in truth could Italy, involved as she was in a\ndisturbed decadence, wherein she seemed to be receding from an\nunderstanding of the nobler portions of her antique and Christian\nheritage, rather than progressing toward a vital use of one or the other.\nIn Spain and France there was some decadence among Latinized provincials;\nand the Teutonic conquerors were novices in both Christianity and\nLatinity. In these lands neither decadence nor the novelty of the matter\nwas the sole embarrassment, but both combined to hinder creativeness,\nalthough the decadence was less obvious than in Italy, and the newness of\nthe matter less utter than in Germany.\n\nThe ancient material was appropriated, and then re-expressed in new forms,\nthrough two general ways of transmutation, the intellectual and the\nemotional. Although patently distinguishable, these would usually work\ntogether, with one or the other dominating the joint progress.\n\nOf the two, the intellectual is the easier to analyze. Thinking is\nnecessarily dependent on the thinker, although it appear less intimately\npart of him than his emotions, and less expressive of his character.\nAccordingly, the mediaeval genius shows somewhat more palely in its\nintellectual productions, than in the more emotional phases of literature\nand art. Yet the former exemplify not only mediaeval capacities, but also\nthe mediaeval intellectual temperament, or, as it were, the synthetic\npredisposition of the mediaeval mind. This temperament, this intellectual\npredisposition, became in general more marked through the centuries from\nthe ninth to the twelfth. People could not go on generation after\ngeneration occupied with like topics of intellectual interest, reasoning\nupon them along certain lines of religious and ethical suggestion, without\ndeveloping or intensifying some general type of intellectual temper.\n\nFrom the Carolingian period onward, the men interested in knowledge\nlearned the patristic theology, and, in gradually expanding compass,\nacquired antique logic and metaphysics, mathematics, natural science and\njurisprudence. What they learned, they laboured to restate or expound.\nWith each succeeding generation, the subjects of mediaeval study were made\nmore closely part of the intelligence occupied with them; because the\nmatter had been considered for a longer time, and had been constantly\nrestated and restudied in terms more nearly adapted to the comprehension\nof the men who were learning and restating it. At length mediaeval men\nmade the antique and patristic material, or rather their understanding of\nit, dynamically their own. Their comprehension of it became part of their\nintellectual faculties, they could think for themselves in its terms,\nthink almost originally and creatively, and could present as their own the\nmatter of their thoughts in restatements, that is in forms, essentially\nnew.\n\nFrom century to century may be traced the process of restatement of\npatristic Christianity, with the antique material contained in it. The\nChristianity of the fifth century contained an amplitude of thought and\nlearning. To the creative work of earlier and chiefly eastern men, the\nLatin intellect finally incorporate in Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine had\nadded its further great accomplishment and ordering. The sum of dogma was\nwell-nigh made up; the Trinity was established; Christian learning had\nreached a compass beyond which it was not to pass for the next thousand\nyears; the doctrines as to the \u201csacred mysteries,\u201d as to the functions of\nthe Church and its spiritual authority, existed in substance; the\nprinciples of symbolism and allegory had been set; the great mass of\nallegorical Scriptural interpretations had been devised; the spiritual\nrelationship of man to God\u2019s ordainment, to wit, the part to be played by\nthe human will in man\u2019s salvation or damnation, had been reasoned out; and\nman\u2019s need and love of God, his nothingness apart from the Source and King\nand End of Life, had been uttered in words which men still use. Evidently\nsucceeding generations of less illumination could not add to this vast\nintellectual creation; much indeed had to be done before they could\ncomprehend and make it theirs, so as to use it as an element of their own\nthinking, or possess it as an inspiration of passionate, imaginative\nreverie.\n\nAt the darkening close of the patristic period, Gregory the Great was\nstill partially creative in his barbarizing handling of patristic\nthemes.[6] After his death, for some three centuries, theologians were to\ndevote themselves to mastering the great heritage from the Church Fathers.\nIt was still a time of racial antipathy and conflict. The disparate\nelements of the mediaeval personality were as yet unblended. How could the\nunformed intellect of such a period grasp the patristic store of thought\nin its integrity? Still less might this wavering human spirit, uncertain\nof itself and unadjusted to novel and great conceptions, transform, and so\nrenew, them with fresh life. Scarcely any proper recasting of patristic\ndoctrine will be found in the Carolingian period, but merely a shuffling\nof the matter. There were some exceptions, arising, as in the case of\nEriugena, from the extraordinary genius of this thinker; or again from the\nnarrow controversial treatment of a matter argued with rupturing\ndetachment of patristic opinions from their setting and balancing\nqualifications.[7] But the typical works of the eighth and ninth centuries\nwere commentaries upon Scripture, consisting chiefly of excerpts from the\nFathers. The flower of them all was the compendious _Glossa Ordinaria_ of\nWalafrid Strabo, a pupil of the voluminous commentator Rabanus Maurus.[8]\n\nThrough the tenth and eleventh centuries, one finds no great advance in\nthe systematic restatement of Christian doctrine.[9] Nevertheless, two\nhundred years of devotion have been put upon it; and statements of parts\nof it occur, showing that the eleventh century has made progress over the\nninth in its thoughtful and vital appropriation of Latin Christianity. A\nman like German Othloh has thought for himself within its lines;[10]\nAnselm of Canterbury has set forth pieces of it with a depth of reflection\nand intimacy of understanding which make his works creative;[11] Peter\nDamiani through intensity of feeling has become the embodiment of\nChristian asceticism and the grace of Christian tears;[12] and Hildebrand\nhas established the mediaeval papal church. Of a truth, the mediaeval man\nwas adjusting himself, and reaching his understanding of what the past had\ngiven him.\n\nThe twelfth century presents a universal progress in philosophic and\ntheological thinking. It is the century of Abaelard, of Hugo of St.\nVictor, and St. Bernard, and of Peter Lombard. The first of these\npenetrates into the logical premises of systematic thought as no mediaeval\nman had done before him; St. Bernard moves the world through his emotional\nand political comprehension of the Faith; Hugo of St. Victor offers a\nsacramental explanation of the universe and man, based upon symbolism as\nthe working principle of creation; and Peter Lombard makes or, at least,\ntypifies, the systematic advance, from the _Commentary_ to the _Books of\nSentences_, in which he presents patristic doctrine arranged according to\nthe cardinal topics of the Christian scheme. Here Abaelard\u2019s _Sic et non_\nhad been a precursor rather carping in its excessive clear-sightedness.\n\nThus, as a rule, each successive mediaeval period shows a more organic\nrestatement of the old material. Yet this principle may be impeded or\ndeflected, in its exemplifications, by social turmoil and disaster, or\neven by the use of further antique matter, demanding assimilation. For\nexample, upon the introduction of the complete works of Aristotle in the\nthirteenth century, an enormous intellectual effort was required for the\nmastery of their contents. They were not mastered at once, or by all\npeople who studied the philosopher. So the works of Hugo of St. Victor, of\nthe first half of the twelfth century, are more original in their organic\nrestatement of less vast material than are the works of Albertus Magnus,\nAristotle\u2019s prodigious expounder, one hundred years later. But Thomas\nAquinas accomplishes a final Catholic presentation of the whole enlarged\nmaterial, patristic and antique.[13]\n\nOne may perceive three stages in this chief phase of mediaeval\nintellectual progress, consisting in the appropriation of Latin\nChristianity: its first conning, its more vital appropriation, its\nre-expression, with added elements of thought. There were also three\nstages in the evolution of the outer forms of this same catholic mastery\nand re-expression of doctrine: first, the Scriptural _Commentary_;\nsecondly, the _Books of Sentences_; and thirdly, the _Summa Theologiae_,\nof which Thomas Aquinas is the final definitive creator. The philosophical\nmaterial used in its making was the substantial philosophy of Aristotle,\nmastered at length by this Christian Titan of the thirteenth century. In\nthe _Summa_, both visibly as well as more inwardly and essentially\nconsidered, the Latin Christianity of the Fathers received an organically\nnew form.\n\nQuite as impressive, more moving, and possibly more creative, than the\nintellectual recasting of the ancient patristic matter, were its emotional\ntransformations. The sequence and character of mediaeval development is\nclearly seen in the evolution of new forms of emotional, and especially of\npoetic and plastic, expression. The intellectual transformation of the\nantique and more especially the patristic matter, was accompanied by\ncurrents of desire and aversion, running with increasing definiteness and\npower. As patristic thought became more organically mediaeval, more\nintrinsically part of the intellectual faculties of men, it constituted\nwith increasing incisiveness the suggestion and the rationale of emotional\nexperiences, and set the lines accordingly of impassioned expression in\ndevotional prose and verse, and in the more serious forms of art.\nPatristic theology, the authoritative statement of the Christian faith,\ncontained men\u2019s furthest hopes and deepest fears, set forth together with\nthe divine Means by which those might be realized and these allayed. As\ngeneration after generation clung to this system as to the stay of their\nsalvation, the intellectual consideration of it became instinct with the\nemotions of desire and aversion, and with love and gratitude toward the\nsuffering means and instruments which made salvation possible--the\nCrucified, the Weeping Mother, and the martyred or self-torturing saints.\nAll these had suffered; they were sublime objects for human compassion.\nWho could think upon them without tears? Thus mediaeval religious thought\nbecame a well of emotion.\n\nEmotion breaks its way to expression; it feeds itself upon its expression,\nthereby increasing in resistlessness; it even becomes identical with its\nexpression. Surely it creates the modes of its expression, seeking\ncontinually the more facile, the more unimpeded, which is to say, the\nadequate and perfect form. Typical mediaeval emotion, which was religious,\ncast itself around the Gospel of Christ and the theology of the Fathers as\nstudied and pondered on in the mediaeval centuries. Seeking fitting forms\nof expression, which are at once modes of relief and forms of added power,\nthe passionate energy of the mediaeval genius constrained the intellectual\nfaculties to unite with it in the production of these forms. They were to\nbecome more personal and original than any mere scholastic restatement of\nthe patristic and antique thought. Yet the perfect form of the emotional\nexpression was not quickly reached. It could not outrun the intelligent\nappropriation of Latin Christianity. Its media, moreover, as in the case\nof sculpture, might present retarding difficulties, to be overcome before\nthat means of presentation could be mastered. A sequence may be observed\nin the evolution of the mediaeval emotional expression of patristic\nChristianity. One of the first attained was impassioned devotional Latin\nprose, like that of Peter Damiani or St. Anselm of Canterbury.[14] But\nprose is a halting means of emotional expression. It is too circumstantial\nand too slow. Only in the chanted strophe, winged with the power of\nrhythm, can emotion pour out its unimpeded strength. But before the\nthought can be fused in verse, it must be plastic, molten indeed. Even\nthen, the finished verse is not produced at once. The perfected mediaeval\nLatin strophe was a final form of religious emotional expression, which\nwas not attained until the twelfth century.[15]\n\nImpassioned prose may be art; the loftier forms of verse are surely art.\nAnd art is not spontaneous, but carefully intended; no babbling of a\nchild, but a mutual fitting of form and content, in which efficient unison\nthe artist\u2019s intellect has worked. Such intellectual, such artistic\nendeavour, was evinced in the long development of mediaeval plastic art.\nThe sculpture and the painted glass, which tell the Christian story in\nChartres Cathedral, set forth the patristic and antique matter in forms\nexpressive of the feeling and emotion which had gathered around the scheme\nof Latin Christianity. They were forms never to be outdone for\nappropriateness and power. Several centuries not only of spiritual growth,\nbut of mechanical and artistic endeavour, had been needed for their\nperfecting.\n\nIn these and like emotional recastings, or indeed creations, patristic and\nantique elements were transformed and transfigured. And again, in fields\nnon-religious and non-philosophical, through a combined evolution of the\nmediaeval mind and heart, novelties of sentiment and situation were\nintroduced into antique themes of fiction; new forms of romance, new\nphases of human love and devotion were evolved, in which (witness the\npoetry of chivalric love in Proven\u00e7al and Old French) the energies of\nintellect and passion were curiously blended.[16] These represented a side\nof human growth not unrelated to the supreme mediaeval achievement, the\nvital appropriation and emotional humanizing of patristic Christianity.\nFor that carried an impassioning of its teachings with love and tears, a\nfostering of them with devotion, an adorning of them with quivering\nfantasies, a translation of them into art, into poetry, into romance. With\nwhat wealth of love and terror, with what grandeur of imagination, with\nwhat power of mystery and symbolism, did the Middle Ages glorify their\nheritage, turning its precepts into spirit.\n\nOf a surety the emotional is not to be separated from the intellectual\nrecasting of Christianity. The greatest exponents of the one had their\nshare in the other. Hugo of St. Victor as well as St. Bernard were mighty\nagents of this spiritually passionate mode of apprehending Latin\nChristianity, and transfusing it with emotion, or reviving the Gospel\nelements in it. Here work, knowingly or instinctively, many men and women,\nPeter Damiani and St. Francis of Assisi, St. Hildegard of Bingen and\nMechthild of Magdeburg, who, according to their diverse temperaments,\novermasteringly and burningly loved Christ. With them the intellectual\nappropriation of dogmatic Christianity was subordinate.\n\nSuch men and women were poets and artists, even when they wrote no poetry,\nand did not carve or paint. For their lives were poems, unisons of\novermastering thoughts and the emotions inspired by them. The life of\nFrancis was a living poem. It was kin to the _Dies Irae_, the _Stabat\nMater_, the hymns of Adam of St. Victor, and in a later time, the _Divina\nCommedia_. For all these poems, in their different ways, using Christian\nthought and feeling as symbols, created imaginative presentations of\nuniversal human moods, even as the lives of Francis and many a cloistered\nsoul presented like moods in visible embodiment.\n\nSuch lives likewise close in with art. They poured themselves around the\nsymbols of the human person of Christ and its sacrificial presence in the\nEucharist; they grasped the infinite and universal through these\ntangibilities. But the poems also sprang into being through a concrete\nrealizing in mood, and a visualizing in narrative, of such symbols. And\nthe same need of grasping the infinite and universal through symbols was\nthe inspiration of mediaeval art: it built the cathedrals, painted their\nwindows, filled their niches with statues, carving prophet types, carving\nthe times and seasons of God\u2019s providence, carving the vices and virtues\nof the soul and its eternal destiny, and at the same time augmenting the\nLiturgy with symbolic words and acts. So saint and poet and\nartist-craftsman join in that appropriation of Christianity which was\nputting life into whatever had come from the Latin Fathers, by pondering\nupon it, loving it, living it, imagining it, and making it into poetry and\nart.\n\nIt is better not to generalize further, or attempt more specifically to\ncharacterize the mediaeval genius. As its manifestations pass before our\nconsideration, we shall see the complexity of thought and life within the\ninterplay of the moulding forces of mediaeval development, as they strove\nwith each other or wrought in harmony, as they were displayed in frightful\ncontrasts between the brutalities of life, and the lofty, but not less\nreal, strainings of the spirit, or again in the opposition between\ninchoately variant ideals and the endeavour for their more inclusive\nreconcilement. Various phases of the mediaeval spirit were to unfold only\ntoo diversely with popes, kings and knights, monks, nuns, and heretics,\nsatirists, troubadours and minnesingers; in emotional yearnings and\nintellectual ideals; in the literature of love and the literature of its\nsuppression; in mistress-worship, and the worship of the Virgin and the\npassion-flooded Christ of Canticles. Sublimely will this spirit show\nitself in the resistless apotheosis of symbolism, and in art and poetry\ngiving utterance to the mediaeval conceptions of order and beauty. Other\nof its phases will be evinced in the striving of earnest souls for\nspiritual certitude; in the scholastic structure and accomplishment; in\nthe ways in which men felt the spell of the Classics; and everywhere and\nuniversally in the mediaeval conflict between life\u2019s fulness and the\ninsistency of the soul\u2019s salvation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE LATINIZING OF THE WEST\n\n\nThe intellectual and spiritual life of the partly Hellenized and, at last,\nChristianized, Roman Empire furnished the contents of the intellectual and\nspiritual development of the Middle Ages.[17] In Latin forms the Christian\nand antique elements passed to the mediaeval period. Their Latinization,\ntheir continuance, and their passing on, were due to the existence of the\nEmpire as a political and social fact. Rome\u2019s equal government facilitated\nthe transmission of Greek thought through the Mediterranean west; Roman\narms, Roman qualities conquered Spain and Gaul, subdued them to the Roman\norder, opened them to Graeco-Latin influences, also to Christianity.\nIndelibly Latinized in language and temper, Spain, Gaul, and Italy present\nfirst a homogeneity of culture and civic order, and then a common\ndecadence and confusion. But decadence and confusion did not obliterate\nthe ancient elements; which painfully endured, passing down disfigured and\nbedimmed, to form the basis of mediaeval culture.\n\nThe all-important Latinization of western Europe began with the\nunification of Italy under Rome. This took five centuries of war. In\ncentral Italy, Marsians, Samnites, Umbrians, Etruscans, were slowly\nconquered; and in the south Rome stood forth at last triumphant after the\nwar against Tarentum and Pyrrhus of Epirus. With Rome\u2019s political\ndomination, the Latin language also won its way to supremacy throughout\nthe peninsula, being drastically forced, along with Roman civic\ninstitutions, upon Tarentum and the other Greek communities of Magna\nGraecia.[18] Yet in revenge, from this time on, Greek medicine and\nmanners, mythology, art, poetry, philosophy--Greek thought in every\nguise--entered the Latin pale.\n\nAt the time of which we speak, the third century before Christ, the\nnorthern boundaries of Italy were still the rivers Arno and, to the east,\nthe Aesis, which flows into the Adriatic, near Ancona. North-west of the\nArno, Ligurian highlanders held the mountain lands as far as Nice. North\nof the Aesis lay the valley of the Po. That great plain may have been\noccupied at an early time by Etruscan communities scattered through a\nCeltic population gradually settling to an agricultural life. Whatever may\nbe the facts as to the existence of these earlier Celts, other and ruder\nCeltic tribes swarmed down from the Alps[19] about 400 B.C., spread\nthrough the Po Valley, pushing the Etruscans back into Etruria, and\nfollowing them there to carry on the war. After this comes the well-known\nstory of Roman interference, leading to Roman overthrow at the river Allia\nin 390, and the capture of the city by these \u201cGauls.\u201d The latter then\nretired northward, to occupy the Po Valley; though bands of them settled\nas far south as the Aesis.\n\nTime and again, Rome was to be reminded of the Celtic peril. Between the\nfirst and second Punic wars, the Celts, reinforced from beyond the Alps,\nattacked Etruria and threatened Rome. Defeating them, the Consuls pushed\nnorth to subdue the Po Valley (222 B.C.). South of the river the Celts\nwere expelled, and their place was filled by Roman colonists. The fortress\ncities of Placentia (Piacenza) and Cremona were founded on the right and\nleft banks of the Po, and south-east of them Mutina (Modena). The\nFlaminian road was extended across the Apennines to Fanum, and thence to\nAriminum (Rimini), thus connecting the two Italian seas.\n\nHannibal\u2019s invasion of Italy brought fresh disturbance, and when the war\nwith him was over, Rome set herself to the final subjugation of the Celts\nnorth of the Po. Upon their submission the Latinization of the whole\nvalley began, and advanced apace; but the evidence is scanty. Statius\nCaecilius, a comic Latin poet, was a manumitted Insubrian Celt who had\nbeen brought to Rome probably as a prisoner of war. He died in 168 B.C.\nSome generations after him, Cornelius Nepos was born in upper Italy, and\nCatullus at Verona; Celtic blood may have flowed in their veins. In the\nmeanwhile the whole region had been organized as Gallia Cisalpina, with\nits southern boundary fixed at the Rubicon, which flows near Rimini.\n\nThe Celts of northern Italy were the first palpably non-Italian people to\nadopt the Latin language. Second in time and thoroughness to their\nLatinization was that of Spain. Military reasons led to its conquest.\nHamilcar\u2019s genius had created there a Carthaginian power, as a base for\nthe invasion of Italy. This project, accomplished by Hamilcar\u2019s son,\nbrought home to the Roman Senate the need to control the Spanish\npeninsula. The expulsion of the Carthaginians, which followed, did not\ngive mastery over the land; and two centuries of Roman persistence were\nrequired to subdue the indomitable Iberians.\n\nSo, in the end, Spain was conquered, and became a Latin country. Its\ntribal cantons were replaced with urban communities, and many Roman\ncolonies were founded, to grow to prosperous cities. These were\nstrongholds of Latin. Cordova became a very famous home of education and\nletters. Apparently the southern Spaniards had fully adopted the ways and\nspeech of Rome before Strabo wrote his _Geography_, about A.D. 20. The\nchange was slower in the mountains of Asturia, but quite rapid in the\nnorth-eastern region known as Nearer Spain, Hispania Citerior, as it was\ncalled. There, at the town of Osca (Huesca), Sertorius eighty years before\nChrist had established the first Latin school for the native Spanish\nyouth.\n\nThe reign of Augustus, and especially his two years\u2019 sojourn in Spain (26\nand 25 B.C.) brought quiet to the peninsula, and thereafter no part of the\nEmpire enjoyed such unbroken peace. Of all lands outside of Italy, with\nthe possible exception of Provincia, Spain became most completely Roman in\nits institutions, and most unequivocally Latin in its culture. It was the\nmost populous of the European provinces;[20] and no other held so many\nRoman citizens, or so many cities early endowed with Roman civic\nrights.[21] The great Augustan literature was the work of natives of\nItaly.[22] But in the Silver Age that followed, many of the chief Latin\nauthors--the elder and younger Seneca, Lucan, Quintilian--were Spaniards.\nThey were unquestioned representatives of Latin literature, with no\nprovincial twang in their writings. Then, of Rome\u2019s emperors, Trajan was\nborn in Spain, and Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were of Spanish blood.\n\nPerhaps even more completely Latinized was Narbonensis, commonly called\nProvincia. Its official name was drawn from the ancient town of Narbo\n(Narbonne), which in 118 B.C. was refounded as a Roman colony in partial\naccomplishment of the plans of Caius Gracchus. The boundaries of this\ncolony touched those of the Greek city-state Massilia (Marseilles), whose\nrights were respected until it sided against Caesar in the Civil War. Save\nfor the Massilian territory, which it later included, Provincia stretched\nfrom the eastern Pyrenees by the way of Nemausus (N\u00eemes) and the Arelate\n(Arles) north-easterly through the Rhone Valley, taking in Vienne and\nValence in the country of the Allobroges, and then onward to the edge of\nLake Geneva; thence southerly along the Maritime Alps to the sea. Many of\nits towns owed their prosperity to Caesar. In his time the country west of\nthe Rhone was already half Latin, and was filling up with men from\nItaly.[23] Two or three generations later, Pliny dubbed it _Italia verius\nquam provincia_. At all events, like northern Italy and Spain, Provincia,\nthroughout its length and breadth, had appropriated the Latin civilization\nof Rome; that civilization city-born and city-reared, solvent of cantonal\norganization and tribal custom, destructive of former ways of living and\nstandards of conduct; a civilization which was commercial as well as\nmilitary in its means, and urban in its ends; which loved the life of the\nforum, the theatre, the circus, the public bath, and seemed to gain its\nfinest essence from the instruction of the grammarian and rhetorician. The\nlanguage and literature of this civilization were those of an imperial\ncity, and were to be the language and literature of the Latin city\nuniversal, in whatever western land its walls might rise.\n\nNorth of Provincia stretched the great territory reaching from the\nAtlantic to the Rhine, and with its edges following that river northerly,\nand again westerly to the sea. This was Caesar\u2019s conquest, his _omnis\nGallia_. The resistlessness of Rome, her civic and military superiority\nover the western peoples whom she conquered, may be grasped from the\nrecord of Gallic subjugation by one in whom great Roman qualities were\nunited. Perhaps the deepest impression received by the reader of those\n_Commentaries_ is of the man behind the book, Caesar himself. The Gallic\nWar passes before us as a presentation, or medium of realization, of that\nall-compelling personality, with whom to consider was to plan, and to\nresolve was to accomplish, without hesitation or fear, by the force of\nmind. It is in the mirror of this man\u2019s contempt for restless\nirresolution, for unsteadiness and impotence, that Gallic qualities are\nshown, the reflection undisturbed either by intolerance or sympathy. The\nGauls were always anxious for change, _mobiliter celeriterque_ inflamed to\nwar or revolution, says Caesar in his memorable words; and, like all men,\nthey were by nature zealous for liberty, hating the servile state--so it\nbehoved Caesar to distribute his legions with foresight in a certain\ncrisis.[24] Thus, without shrug or smile, writes the greatest of\nrevolutionists who for himself was also seeking liberty of action, freely\nand devisingly, not hurried by impatience or any such planless\nrestlessness as, for example, drove Dumnorix the Aeduan to plot feebly,\nfutilely, without plan or policy, against fate, to wit Caesar--so he met\nhis death.[25]\n\nInstability appears as peculiarly characteristic of the Gauls. They were\nnot barbarians, but an ingenious folk, quick-witted and loquacious.[26]\nTheir domestic customs were reasonable; they had taxes and judicial\ntribunals; their religion held belief in immortality, and in other\nrespects was not below the paganism of Italy. It was directed by the\npriestly caste of Druids, who possessed considerable knowledge, and used\nthe Greek alphabet in writing. They also presided at trials, and\nexcommunicated suitors who would not obey their judicial decrees.[27]\n\nThe country was divided into about ninety states (_civitates_). Monarchies\nappear among them, but the greater number were aristocracies torn with\njealousy, and always in alarm lest some noble\u2019s overweening influence\nupset the government. The common people and poor debtors seem scarcely to\nhave counted. Factions existed in every state, village, and even\nhousehold, says Caesar,[28] headed by the rival states of the Aedui and\nSequani. Espousing, as he professed to, the Aeduan cause, Caesar could\nalways appear as an ally of one faction. At the last a general confederacy\ntook up arms against him under the noble Auvernian, Vercingetorix.[29] But\nthe instability of his authority forced the hand of this brilliant leader.\n\nIn fine, it would seem that the Gallic peoples had progressed in\ncivilization as far as their limited political capacity and self-control\nwould allow. These were the limitations set by the Gallic character. It is\na Gallic custom, says Caesar, to stop travellers, and insist upon their\ntelling what they know or have heard. In the towns the crowd will throng\naround a merchant and make him tell where he has come from and give them\nthe news. Upon such hearsay the Gauls enter upon measures of the gravest\nimportance. The states which are deemed the best governed, he adds, have a\nlaw that whenever any one has heard a report or rumour of public moment,\nhe shall communicate it to a magistrate and to none else. The magistrates\nconceal or divulge such news in their discretion. It is not permitted to\ndiscuss public affairs save in an assembly.[30]\n\nApparently Caesar is not joking in these passages, which speak of a\nstatecraft based on gossip gathered in the streets, carried straight to a\nmagistrate, and neither discussed nor divulged on the way! Quite otherwise\nwere Roman officials to govern, when Caesar\u2019s great campaigns had subdued\nthese mercurial Gauls. It was after his death that Augustus established\nthe Roman order through the land. In those famous _partes tres_ of the\n_Commentaries_ he settled it: Iberian and Celtic Aquitania, Celtic\nLugdunensis, and Celtic-Teuton Belgica, making together the three Gauls.\nIt is significant that the emperor kept them as imperial provinces, still\nneeding military administration, while he handed over Provincia to the\nSenate.\n\nProvincia had been Romanized in law and government as the \u201cThree Gauls\u201d\nnever were to be. Augustus followed Caesar in respecting the tribal and\ncantonal divisions of the latter, making only such changes as were\nnecessary. Gallic cities under the Empire show no great uniformity. Each\nappears as the continuance of the local tribe, whose life and politics\nwere focused in the town. The city (_civitas_) did not end with the town\nwalls, but included the surrounding country and perhaps many villages. A\nnumber of these cities preserved their ancient constitutions; others\nconformed to the type of Roman colonies, whose constitutions were modelled\non those of Italian cities. Colonia Claudia Agrippina (Cologne) is an\nexample. But all the cities of the \u201cThree Gauls\u201d as well as those of\nProvincia, whatever their form of government, conducted their affairs with\nsenate, magistrates and police of their choosing, had their municipal\nproperty, and controlled their internal finances. A diet was established\nfor the \u201cThree Gauls\u201d at Lyons, to which the cities sent delegates.\nWhatever were its powers, its existence tended to foster a sense of common\nGallic nationality. The Roman franchise, however, was but sparingly\nbestowed on individuals, and was not granted to any Gallic city (except\nLyons) until the time of Claudius, himself born at Lyons. He refounded\nCologne as a colony, granted the franchise to Tr\u00e8ves, and abolished the\nprovisions forbidding Gauls to hold the imperial magistracies. With the\nreorganization of the Empire under Diocletian, Tr\u00e8ves became the capital\nnot only of Gaul, but of Spain and Britain also.\n\nAlthough there was thus no violent Romanization of Gaul, Roman\ncivilization rapidly progressed under imperial fostering, and by virtue of\nits own energy. Roman roads traversed the country; bridges spanned the\nrivers; aqueducts were constructed; cities grew, trade increased,\nagriculture improved, and the vine was introduced. At the time of Caesar\u2019s\nconquest, the quick-minded Gauls were prepared to profit from a superior\ncivilization; and under the mighty peace of Rome, men settled down to the\nblessings of safe living and law regularly enforced.\n\nThe spread of the Latin tongue and the finer elements of Latin culture\nfollowed the establishment of the Roman order. One Gallic city and then\nanother adopted the new language according to its circumstances and\nsituation. Of course the cities of Provincia took the lead, largely\nItalian as they were in population. On the other hand, Latin made slow\nprogress among the hills of Auvergne. But farther north, the Roman city of\nLyons was Latin-tongued from its foundation. Thence to the remoter north\nand west and east, Latin spread by cities, the foci of affairs and\nprovincial administration. The imperial government did not demand of its\nsubjects that they should abandon their native speech, but required in\nGaul, as elsewhere, the use of Latin in the transaction of official\nbusiness. This compelled all to study Latin who had affairs in law courts\nor with officials, or hoped to become magistrates. Undoubtedly the rich\nand noble, especially in the towns, learned Latin quickly, and it soon\nbecame the vehicle of polite, as well as official, intercourse. It was\nalso the language of the schools attended by the noble Gallic youth. But\namong the rural population, the native tongues continued indefinitely.\nObviously one cannot assign any specific time for the popular and general\nchange from Celtic; but it appears to have very generally taken place\nbefore the Frankish conquest.[31]\n\nBy that time, too, those who would naturally constitute the educated\nclasses, possessed a Latin education. First in the cities of Provincia,\nN\u00eemes, Arles, Vienne, Fr\u00e9jus, Aix in Provence, then of course at Lyons and\nin Aquitaine, and later through the cities of the north-east, Tr\u00e8ves,\nMainz, Cologne, and most laggingly through the north-west Belgic lands\nlying over against the channel and the North Sea, Latin education spread.\nGrammar and rhetoric were taught, and the great Classics were explained\nand read, till the Gauls doubtless felt themselves Roman in spirit as in\ntongue.\n\nOf course they were mistaken. To be sure the Gaul was a citizen of the\nEmpire, which not only represented safety and civilization, but in fact\nwas the entire civilized world. He had no thought of revolting from that,\nany more than from his daily habits or his daily food. Often he felt\nhimself sentimentally affected toward this universal symbol of his\nwelfare. He had Latin speech; he had Roman fashions; he took his warm\nbaths and his cold, enjoyed the sports of the amphitheatre, studied Roman\nliterature, and talked of the _Respublica_ and _Aurea Roma_. Yet he was,\nafter all, merely a Romanized inhabitant of Gaul. Roman law and\ngovernment, Latin education, and the colour of the Roman spirit had been\nimparted; but the inworking, creative genius of Rome was not within her\ngift or his capacity. The Gauls, however, are the chief example of a\nmediating people. Romanized and not made Roman, their epoch, their\ngeographical situation, and their modified faculties, all made them\nintermediaries between the Roman and the Teuton.\n\nIf the Romanization of the \u201cThree Gauls\u201d was least thorough in Belgica,\nthere was even less of it across the channel. Britain, as far north as the\nClyde and Firth of Forth, was a Roman province for three or four hundred\nyears. Latin was the language of the towns; but probably never supplanted\nthe Celtic in the country. The Romanization of the Britons however,\nwhether thorough or superficial, affected a people who were to be\napparently submerged. They seem to have transmitted none of their Latin\ncivilization to their Anglo-Saxon conquerors. Yet even the latter when\nthey came to Britain were not quite untouched by Rome. They were familiar\nwith Roman wares, if not with Roman ways; and certain Latin words which\nare found in all Teutonic languages had doubtless entered Anglo-Saxon.[32]\nBut this early Roman influence was slight, compared with that which\nafterwards came with Christianity. Nor did the Roman culture, before the\nintroduction of Christianity, exert a deep effect on Germany, at least\nbeyond the neighbourhood of the large Roman or Romanized towns like\nCologne and Mainz. In many ways, indeed, the Germans were touched by Rome.\nRoman diplomacy, exciting tribe against tribe, was decimating them. Roman\ninfluence, and sojourn at Rome, had taught much to many German princes.\nRoman weapons, Roman utensils and wares of all kinds were used from the\nDanube to the Baltic. But all this did not Romanize the Germans, any more\nthan a number of Latin words, which had crept in, Latinized their\nlanguage.[33]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nGREEK PHILOSOPHY AS THE ANTECEDENT OF THE PATRISTIC APPREHENSION OF FACT\n\n\nThe Latin West afforded the _milieu_ in which the thoughts and sentiments\nof the antique and partly Christian world were held in Latin forms and\npreserved from obliteration during the fifth and succeeding centuries,\nuntil taken up by the currents of mingled decrepitude and callowness which\nmarked the coming of the mediaeval time. Latin Christianity survived, and\nmade its way across those stormy centuries, to its mediaeval harbourage.\nThe antique also was carried over, either in the ship of Latin\nChristianity, or in tenders freighted by certain Latin Christians who\ndealt in secular learning, though not in \u201cunbroken packages.\u201d Those\nunbroken packages, to wit, the Latin classics, and after many centuries\nthe Greek, also floated over. But in the early mediaeval times, men\npreferred the pagan matter rehashed, as in the _Etymologies_ of Isidore.\n\nThe great ship of Christian doctrine not only bore bits of the pagan\nantique stowed here and there, but itself was built with many a plank of\nantique timber, and there was antique adulteration in its Christian\nfreight; or, in other words, the theology of the Church Fathers was partly\nmade of Greek philosophy, and was put together in modes of Greek\nphilosophic reasoning. The Fathers lived in the Roman Empire, or in what\nwas left of it in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. Many of\nthem were born of pagan parents, and all received the common education in\ngrammar, rhetoric, and literature, which were pagan and permeated with\npagan philosophy. For philosophy did not then stand apart from life and\neducation; but had become a source of principles of conduct and \u201cdaily\nthoughts for daily needs.\u201d Many of the Fathers in their pagan, or at least\nunsanctified youth, had deeply studied it.\n\nPhilosophy held the sum of knowledge in the Empire, and from it came the\nconcepts in which all the Fathers reasoned. But the _Latin_ Fathers, who\nwere juristically and rhetorically educated, might also reason through\nconceptions, or in a terminology, taken from the Roman Law. Nevertheless,\nin the rational process of formulating Christian dogma, Greek philosophy\nwas the overwhelmingly important factor, because it furnished knowledge\nand the metaphysical concepts, and because the greater number of Christian\ntheologians were Hellenic in spirit, and wrote Greek; while the Latins\nreset in Latin, and sometimes juristic, phrase what their eastern brethren\nhad evolved.[34]\n\nObviously, for our purpose, which is to appreciate the spiritual endowment\nof the Middle Ages, it is essential to have cognizance of patristic\nthought. And in order to understand the mental processes of the Fathers,\ntheir attitude toward knowledge and their perception of fact, one must\nconsider their intellectual environment; which was, of course, made up of\nthe store of knowledge and philosophic interests prevailing in the Roman\nEmpire. So we have to gauge the intellectual interests of the pagan world,\nfirst in the earlier times when thinkers were bringing together knowledge\nand philosophic concepts, and then in the later period when its\naccumulated and somewhat altered thought made the actual environment of\nthe Church.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat race had ever a more genial appreciation of the facts of nature and\nof mortal life, than the Greeks? The older Greek philosophies had sprung\nfrom open and unprejudiced observation of the visible world. They were\nphysical inquiries. With Socrates philosophy turned, as it were, from\nfact to truth, to a consideration of the validity of human understanding.\nThereupon the Greek mind became entranced with its own creations. Man was\nthe measure of all things, for the Sophists. More irrefragably and\npregnantly, man became the measure of all things for Socrates and Plato.\nThe aphorism might be discarded; but its transcendental import was\nestablished in an imaginative dialectic whose correspondence to the\ndivinest splendours of the human mind warranted its truth. With\nPlatonists--and the world was always to be filled with them--perceptions\nof physical facts and the data of human life and history, were henceforth\nto constitute the outer actuality of a creation within the mind. Every\nobserved fact is an apparent tangibility; but its reality consists in its\nunison with the ultimate realities of rational conception. The\napprehension of the fact must be made to conform to these. For this reason\nevery fact has a secondary, nay, primary, because spiritual, meaning. Its\ntrue interpretation lies in that significance which accords with the\nmind\u2019s consistent system of conceptions, which present the fact as it must\nbe thought, and therefore as it is; it is the fact brought into right\nrelationship with spiritual and ethical verity. Of course, methods of\napprehending terrestrial and celestial phenomena as illustrations of\nideally conceived principles, were unlikely to foster habits of close\nobservation. The apparent facts of sense would probably be imaginatively\ntreated if not transformed in the process of their apprehension. Nor, with\nrespect to human story, would such methods draw fixed lines between the\nnarration of what men are pleased to call the actual occurrence, and the\nshaping of a tale to meet the exigencies of argument or illustration.\n\nAll this is obvious in Plato. The _Timaeus_ was his vision of the\nuniverse, in which physical facts became plastic material for the spirit\u2019s\npower to mould into the likeness of ideal conceptions. The creation of the\nuniverse is conformed to the structure of Platonic dialectic. If any\nmeaning be certain through the words and imagery of this dialogue, it is\nthat the world and all creatures which it contains derive such reality as\nthey have from conformity to the thoughts or ideal patterns in the divine\nmind. Visible things are real only so far as they conform to those\nperfect conceptions. Moreover, the visible creation has another value,\nthat of its ethical significance. Physical phenomena symbolize the\nconformity of humanity to its best ideal of conduct. Man may learn to\nregulate the lawless movements of his soul from the courses of the stars,\nthe noblest of created gods.\n\nThus as to natural phenomena; and likewise as to the human story, fact or\nfiction. The myth of the shadow-seers in the cave, with which the seventh\nbook of the _Republic_ opens, is just as illustratively and ideally true\nas that opening tale in the _Timaeus_ of the ancient Athenian state, which\nfought for its own and others\u2019 freedom against the people of\nAtlantis--till the earthquake ended the old Athenian race, and the\nAtlantean continent was swallowed in the sea. This story has piqued\ncuriosity for two thousand years. Was it tradition, or the creation of an\nartist dialectician? In either case its ideal and edifying truth stood or\nfell, not by reason of conformity to any basic antecedent fact, but\naccording to its harmony with the beautiful and good.\n\nPlato\u2019s method of conceiving fact might be applied to man\u2019s thoughts of\nGod, of the origin of the world and the courses of the stars; also to the\nartistic manipulation of illustrative or edifying story. Matters, large,\nremote, and mysterious, admit of idealizing ways of apprehension. But it\nmight seem idiocy, rather than idealism, to apply this method to the plain\nfacts of common life, which may be handled and looked at all around--to\nwhich there is no mysterious other side, like the moon\u2019s, for ever turned\naway. Nevertheless the method and its motives drew men from careful\nobservation of nature, and would invest biography and history with\ninterests promoting the ingenious application, rather than the close\nscrutiny, of fact.\n\nThus Platonism and its way of treating narrative could not but foster the\nallegorical interpretation of ancient tradition and literature, which was\nalready in vogue in Plato\u2019s time. It mattered not that he would have\nnothing to do with the current allegories through which men moralized or\nrationalized the old tales of the doings of the gods. He was himself a\nweaver of the loveliest allegories when it served his purpose. And after\nhim the allegorical habit entered into the interpretation of all ancient\nstory. In the course of time allegory will be applied by the Jew Philo of\nAlexandria to the Pentateuch; and one or two centuries later it will play\na great r\u00f4le in Christian polemics against Jew and then against Manichean.\nIt will become _par excellence_ the chief mode of patristic exegesis, and\npass on as a legacy of spiritual truth to the mediaeval church.\n\nAristotle strikes us as a man of different type from Plato. Whether his\nintellectual interests were broader than his teacher\u2019s is hardly for\nordinary people to say. He certainly was more actively interested in the\ninvestigation of nature. Head of an actual school (as Plato had been), and\nassisted by the co-operation of able men, he presents himself, with what\nhe accomplished, at least in threefold guise: as a metaphysician and the\nperfecter, if not creator, of formal logic; as an observer of the facts of\nnature and the institutions and arts of men; as a man of encyclopaedic\nlearning. These three phases of intellectual effort proportioned each\nother in a mind of universal power and appetition. Yet it has been thought\nthat there was more metaphysics and formal logic in Aristotle than was\ngood for his natural science.\n\nThe lost and extant writings which have been ascribed to him, embraced a\nhundred and fifty titles and amounted to four hundred books. Those which\nhave been of universal influence upon human inquiry suffice to illustrate\nthe scope of his labours. There were the treatises upon Logic and first\namong them the _Categories_ or classes of propositions, and the _De\ninterpretatione_ on the constituent parts and kinds of sentences. These\ntwo elementary treatises (the authorship of which has been questioned)\nwere the only Aristotelian writings generally used through the West until\nthe latter half of the twelfth century, when the remainder of the logical\ntreatises became known, to wit, the _Prior Analytics_, upon the syllogism;\nthe _Posterior Analytics_ upon logical demonstration; the _Topics_, or\ndemonstrations having probability; and the _Sophistical Elenchi_, upon\nfalse conclusions and their refutation. Together these constitute the\n_Organon_ or complete logical instrument, as it became known to the\nlatter half of the twelfth century, and as we possess it to-day.\n\nThe _Rhetoric_ follows, not disconnected with the logical treatises. Then\nmay be named the _Metaphysics_, and then the writings devoted to Nature,\nto wit, the _Physics_, _Concerning the Heavens_, _Concerning Genesis and\nDecay_, the _Meteorology_, the _Mechanical Problems_, the _History of\nAnimals_, the _Anatomical descriptions_, the _Psychology_, the _Parts of\nAnimals_, the _Generation of Animals_. There was a Botany, which is lost.\nFinally, one names the great works on Ethics, Politics, and Poetry.\n\nEvery one is overwhelmed by the compass of the achievement of this\nintellect. As to the transcendent value of the works on Logic,\nMetaphysics, Psychology, Rhetoric, Ethics, Politics, and Poetry, the world\nof scholarship has long been practically at one. There is a difference of\nopinion as to the quantity and quality of actual investigation represented\nby the writings on Natural History. But Aristotle is commonly regarded as\nthe founder of systematic Zoology. On the whole, perhaps one will not err\nin repeating what has been said hundreds of times, that the works ascribed\nto Aristotle, and which undoubtedly were produced by him or his\nco-labourers under his direction, represent the most prodigious\nintellectual achievement ever connected with any single name.\n\nIn the school of Aristotle, one phase or another of the master\u2019s activity\nwould be likely to absorb the student\u2019s energy and fasten his entire\nattention. Aristotle\u2019s own pupil and successor was the admirable\nTheophrastus, a man of comprehensive attainment, who nevertheless devoted\nhimself principally to carrying on his master\u2019s labours in botany, and\nother branches of natural science. A History of Physics was one of the\nmost important of his works. Another pupil of Aristotle was Eudemus of\nRhodes, who became a physicist and a historian of the three sciences of\nGeometry, Arithmetic, and Astronomy. He exhibits the learned activities\nthenceforth to characterize the Peripatetics. It would have been difficult\nto carry further the logic or metaphysics of the master. But his work in\nnatural science might be supplemented, while the body of his writings\noffered a vast field for the labours of the commentator. And so, in fact,\nPeripatetic energies in the succeeding generations were divided between\nscience and learning, the latter centring chiefly in historical and\ngrammatical labours and the exposition of the master\u2019s writing.[35]\n\nAristotelianism was not to be the philosophy of the closing pre-Christian\ncenturies, any more than it was to be the philosophy of the thousand years\nand more following the Crucifixion. During all that time, its logic held\nits own, and a number of its metaphysical principles were absorbed in\nother systems. But Aristotelianism as a system soon ceased to be in vogue,\nand by the sixth century was no longer known.\n\nYet one might find an echo of its, or some like, spirit in all men who\nwere seeking knowledge from the world of nature, from history and humane\nlearning. There were always such; and some famous examples may be drawn\neven from among the practical-minded Romans. One thinks at once of\nCicero\u2019s splendid breadth of humane and literary interest. His friend\nTerentius Varro was a more encyclopaedic personality, and an eager student\nin all fields of knowledge. Although not an investigator of nature he\nwrote on agriculture, on navigation, on geometry, as well as the Latin\ntongue, and on Antiquities, divine and human, even on philosophy.[36]\n\nAnother lover of knowledge was the elder Pliny, who died from venturing\ntoo near to observe the eruption which destroyed Pompeii. He was an\nimportant functionary under the emperor Vespasian, just as Varro had held\noffices of authority in the time of the Republic. Pliny\u2019s _Historia\nnaturalis_ was an astounding compilation, intended to cover the whole\nplain of common and uncommon knowledge. The compiler neither observed for\nhimself nor weighed the statements of others. His compilation is a happy\nharbourage for the preposterous as well as reasonable, where the\ntraveller\u2019s tale of far-off wonders takes its place beside the testimony\nof Aristotle. All is fish that comes to the net of the good Pliny, though\nit be that wonderful _piscis_, the _Echinus_, which though but a cubit\nlong has such tenacity of grip and purpose that it holds fast the largest\ngalley, and with the resistance of its fins, renders impotent the efforts\nof a hundred rowers. Fish for Pliny also are all the stories of antiquity,\nof dog-headed, one-legged, big-footed men, of the Pigmies and the Cranes,\nof the Phoenix and the Basilisk. He delights in the more intricate\ncausality of nature\u2019s phenomena, and tells how the bowels of the\nfield-mouse increase in number with the days of the moon, and the energy\nof the ant decreases as the orb of Venus wanes.[37] But this credulous\nperson was a marvel of curiosity and diligence, and we are all his debtors\nfor an acquaintance with the hearsay opinions current in the antique\nworld.\n\nVarro and Pliny were encyclopaedists. Yet before, as well as after them,\nthe men possessed by the passion for knowledge of the natural world, were\nfrequently devoted to some branch of inquiry, rather than encyclopaedic\ngleaners, or universal philosophers. Hippocrates, Socrates\u2019s contemporary,\nhad left a name rightly enduring as the greatest of physicians. In the\nthird century before Christ Euclid is a great mathematician, and\nHipparchus and Archimedes have place for ever, the one among the great\nastronomers, the other among the great terrestrial physicists. All these\nmen represent reflection and theory, as well as investigation and\nexperiment. Leaping forward to the second century A.D., we find among\nothers two great lovers of science. Galen of Pergamos was a worthy\nfollower, if not a peer, of the great physician of classic Greece; and\nPtolemy of Alexandria emulated the Alexandrian Hipparchus, whose fame he\nrevered, and whose labours (with his own) he transmitted to posterity.\nEach of these men may be regarded as advancing some portion of the\nuniversal plan of Aristotle.\n\nAnother philosophy, Stoicism, had already reached a wide acceptance. As\nfor the causes of this, doubtless the decline of Greek civic freedom\nbefore the third century B.C., had tended to throw thoughtful men back\nupon their inner life; and those who had lost their taste for the popular\nreligion, needed a philosophy to live by. Stoicism became especially\npopular among the Romans. It was ethics, a philosophy of practice rather\nthan of knowledge. The Stoic looked out upon the world from the inner\nfortress of the human will. That guarded or rather constituted his\nwell-being. He cared for such knowledge, call it instruction rather, as\nwould make good the principle that human well-being lay in the rightly\nself-directing will. He did not seriously care for metaphysics, or for\nknowledge of the natural world, save as one or the other subserved the\nends of his philosophy as a guide of life. Thus the Stoic physics, so\nimportant a part in the Stoic system, was inspired by utilitarian motives\nand deflected from unprejudiced observation by teleological considerations\nand reflections on the dispensations of Providence. Of course, some of the\nStoics show a further range of intellectual interest; Seneca, for example,\nwho was a fine moralist and wrote beautiful essays upon the conduct of\nlife. He, like a number of other people, composed a book of _Quaestiones\nnaturales_, which was chiefly devoted to the weather, a subject always\nvery close to man. But he was not a serious meteorologist. For him the\ninterest of the fact lay rather in its use or in its moral bearing. After\nSeneca the Stoic interest in fact narrows still further, as with Epictetus\nand Marcus Aurelius.\n\nLike things might be said of the school of Epicurus, a child of different\ncolour, yet birthmate of the Stoa. For in that philosophy as in Stoicism,\nall knowledge beyond ethics had a subordinate r\u00f4le. As a Stoic or\nEpicurean, a man was not likely to contribute to the advance of any branch\nof science. Yet habits of eclectic thought and common curiosity, or call\nit love of knowledge, made many nominal members of these schools eager\nstudents and compilers from the works of others.\n\nWe have yet to speak of the system most representative of latter-day\npaganism, and of enormous import for the first thousand years of Christian\nthought. Neo-Platonism was the last great creation of Greek philosophy.\nMore specifically, it was the noblest product of that latter-day paganism\nwhich was yearning somewhat distractedly, impelled by cravings which\npaganism could neither quench nor satisfy.\n\nSpirit is; it is the Real. It makes the body, thereby presenting itself in\nsensible form; it is not confined by body or dependent on body as its\ncause or necessary ground. In many ways men have expressed, and will\nexpress hereafter, the creative or causal antecedence of the spiritual\nprinciple. In many ways they have striven to establish this principle in\nGod who is Spirit, or in the Absolute One. Many also have been the\nprocesses of individualization and diverse the mediatorial means, through\nwhich philosopher, apostle, or Church Doctor has tried to bring this\nprinciple down to man, and conceive him as spirit manifesting an\nintelligible selfhood through the organs of sense. Platonism was a\nbeautiful, if elusive, expression of this endeavour, and Neo-Platonism a\nvery palpable although darkening statement of the same.\n\nAll men, except fools, have their irrational sides. Who does not believe\nwhat his reason shall labour in vain to justify? Such belief may have its\nroots spread through generalizations broader than any specific rational\nprocesses of which the man is conscious. And a man is marked by the\ncharacter of his supra-rational convictions, or beliefs or credulous\nconjectures. One thinks how Plato wove and coloured his dialectic, and\nangled with it, after those transcendencies that he well knew could never\nbe so hooked and taken. His conviction--non-dialectical--of the supreme\nand beautiful reality of spirit led him on through all his arguments, some\nof which appear as playful, while others are very earnest.\n\nLess elusive than Plato\u2019s was the supra-rationality of his distant\ndisciple, the Egyptian Plotinus (died 270), creator of Neo-Platonism. With\nhim the supra-rational represented an _\u00e9lan_, a reaching beyond the\nclearly seen or clearly known, to the Spirit itself. He had a disciple\nPorphyry, like himself a sage--and yet a different sage. Porphyry\u2019s\nsupra-rationalities hungered for many things from which his rational\nnature turned askance. But he has a disciple, Iamblicus by name, whose\nrational nature not only ceases to protest, but of its free will\nprostitutes itself in the service of unreason.\n\nThe synthetic genius of Plotinus enabled him to weave into his system\nvaluable elements from Aristotle and the Stoics. But he was above all a\nPlatonist. He presents the spiritual triad: the One, the Mind, the Soul.\nFrom the One comes the Mind, that is, the Nous, which embraces the\ntotality of the knowable or intelligible, to wit, the Cosmos of Ideas.\nFrom that, come the Soul of the World and the souls of men. Matter, which\nis no-thing, gains form and partial reality when _informed_ with soul.\nPlotinus\u2019s attitude toward knowledge of the concrete natural or historic\nfact, displays a transcendental indifference exceeding that of Plato.\nPerceptible facts with him are but half-real manifestations of the\ninforming spirit. They were quite plastic, malleable, reducible. Moreover,\nthoughts of the evil of the multiple world of sense held for Plotinus and\nhis followers a bitterness of ethical unreality which Plato was too great\nan Athenian to feel.\n\nDualistic ethics which find in matter the principle of unreality or evil,\ndiminish the human interest in physical fact. The ethics of Plotinus\nconsisted in purification and detachment from things of sense. This is\nasceticism. And Plotinus was an ascetic, not through endeavour, but from\ncontempt. He did not struggle to renounce the world, but despised it with\nthe spontaneity of a sublimated temperament. He seemed like a man ashamed\nof being in the body, Porphyry says of him. Nor did he wish to cure any\ncontemptible bodily ailments, or wash his wretched body.\n\nPlotinus\u2019s Absolute, the First or One, might not be grasped by reason. Yet\nto approach and contemplate It was the best for man. Life\u2019s crown was the\necstasy of the supra-rational and supra-intelligible vision of It. This\nPlotinean irrationality was lofty; but it was too transcendent, too\ndifficult, and too unrelated to the human heart, to satisfy other men. No\nfear but that his followers would bring it down to the level of _their_\nirrational tendencies.\n\nThe borrowed materials of this philosophy were made by its founder into a\nveritable system. It included, potentially at least, the popular beliefs,\nwhich, however, interested this metaphysical Copt very little. But in\nthose superstitious centuries, before as well as after him, these cruder\nelements were gathered and made much of by men of note. There was a\ntendency to contrast the spiritual and real with the manifold of material\nnonentity, and a cognate tendency to emphasize the opposition between the\nspiritual and good, and the material and evil, or between opposing\nspiritual principles. With less metaphysical people such opposition would\ntake more entrancing shapes in the battles of gods and demons. Probably it\nwould cause ascetic repression of the physical passions. Both tendencies\nhad shown themselves before Plotinus came to build them into his system.\nFriend Plutarch, for instance, of Chaeroneia, was a man of pleasant temper\nand catholic curiosity. His philosophy was no great matter. He was gently\ncredulous, and interested in anything marvellous and every imaginable god\nand demon. This good Greek was no ascetic, and yet had much to say of the\nstrife between the good and evil principle. Like thoughts begat asceticism\nin men of a different temperament; for instance in the once famous\nApollonius of Tyana and others, who were called Neo-Pythagoreans, whatever\nthat meant. Such men had also their irrationalities, which perhaps made up\nthe major part of their natures. They did indeed belong to those centuries\nwhen Astrology flourished at the imperial Court,[38] and every mode of\nmagic mystery drew its gaping votaries; when men were ravenously drawing\ntoward everything, except the plain concrete fact steadily viewed and\nquietly reasoned on.\n\nBut it was within the schools of Neo-Platonism, in the generations after\nPlotinus, that these tendencies flourished, beneath the shelter of his\nelastic principles. Here three kindred currents made a resistless stream:\na transcendental, fact-compelling dialectic; unveiled recognition of the\nsupreme virtue of supra-rational convictions and experiences; and an\nasceticism which contemned matter and abhorred the things of sense. What\nmore was needed to close the faculties of observation, befool the reason,\nand destroy knowledge in the end?\n\nPorphyry and Iamblicus show the turning of the tide. The first of these\nwas a Tyrian, learned, intelligent, austere. His life extends from about\nthe year 232 to the year 300. His famous _Introduction_ to the\n_Categories_ of Aristotle was a corner-stone of the early mediaeval\nknowledge of logic. He wrote a keenly rational work against the\nChristians, in which his critical acumen pointed out that the Book of\nDaniel was not composed before the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. He did\nmuch to render intelligible the writings of his master Plotinus, and made\na compend of Neo-Platonism in the form of _Sentences_. These survive, as\nwell as his work on _Abstinence from Eating Flesh_, and other treatises,\nallegorical and philosophic.\n\nHe was to Plotinus as Soul, in the Neo-Platonic system, was to Mind--Soul\nwhich somehow was darkly, passionately tangled in the body of which it was\nthe living principle. The individual soul of Porphyry wrestled with all\nthe matters which the mind of Plotinus made slight account of. Plotinus\nlived aloof in a region of metaphysics warmed with occasional ecstasy.\nPorphyry, willy nilly, was drawn down to life, and suffered all the pain\nof keen mentality when limed and netted with the anxieties of common\nsuperstitions. He was forever groping in a murky atmosphere. He could not\nclear himself of credulity, deny and argue as he might. Nor could\nasceticism pacify his mind. Philosophically he followed Plotinus\u2019s\nteachings, and understood them too, which was a marvel. Many of his own,\nor possibly reflected, thoughts are excellent. No Christian could hold a\nmore spiritual conception of sacrifice than Porphyry when thinking of the\nworship of the Mind--the Nous or Second God. Offer to it silence and\nchaste thought, which will unite us to it, and make us like itself. The\nperfect sacrifice is to disengage the soul from passions.[39] What could\nbe finer? And again says Porphyry: The body is the soul\u2019s garment, to be\nlaid aside; the wise man needs only God; evil spirits have no power over a\npure soul. But, but, but--at his last statement Porphyry\u2019s confidence\nbreaks. He is worried because it is so hard to know the good from evil\ndemons; and the latter throng the temples, and must be exorcised before\nthe true God will appear. This same man had said that God\u2019s true temple\nwas the wise man\u2019s soul! Alas! Porphyry\u2019s nature reeks with\ncontradictions. His letter to the Egyptian priest, Anebo, consists of\nsharply-put questions as to the validity of any kind of theurgy or\ndivination. How can men know anything as to these things? What reason to\nsuppose that this, that, or the other rite--all anxiously enumerated--is\nrightly directed or has effect? None! none! none! such is the answer\nexpected by the questions.\n\nBut Porphyry\u2019s own soul answers otherwise. His works--the _De abstinentia_\nfor example--teem with detailed and believing discussion of every kind of\ntheurgic practice and magic rite, whereby the divine and demonic natures\nmay be moved. He believed in oracles and sorcery. Vainly did the more\nkeenly intellectual side of his nature seek to hold such matters at arm\u2019s\nlength; his other instincts hungered for them, craved to touch and taste\nand handle, as the child hankers for what is forbidden. There is\nangel-lore, but far more devil-lore, in Porphyry, and below the earth the\ndemons have their realm, and at their head a demon-king. Thus organized,\nthese malformed devil-shapes torment the lives of men, malignant\ndeceivers, spiteful trippers-up, as they are.\n\nSuch a man beset by demons (which his intelligence declares to have no\npower over him!), such a man, austere and grim, would practise fanatically\nthe asceticism recognized so calmly by the system of Plotinus. With\nPorphyry, strenuously, anxiously, the upper grades of virtue become\nviolent purification and detachment from things of sense. Here he is in\ngrim earnest.\n\nIt is wonderful that this man should have had a critical sense of historic\nfact, as when he saw the comparatively late date of the Book of Daniel. He\ncould see the holes in others\u2019 garments. But save for some such polemic\npurpose, the bare, crude fact interests him little. He is an elaborate\nfashioner of allegory, and would so interpret the fictions of the poets.\nPlotinus, when it suited him, had played with myths, like Plato. No such\nlight hand, and scarcely concealed smile, has Porphyry. As for physical\ninvestigations, they interest him no more seriously than they did his\nmaster, and when he touches upon natural fact he is as credulous as Pliny.\n\u201cThe Arabians,\u201d says he, \u201cunderstand the speech of crows, and the\nTyrrhenians that of eagles; and perhaps we and all men would understand\nall living beings if a dragon licked our ears.\u201d[40]\n\nThese inner conflicts darkened Porphyry\u2019s life, and doubtless made some of\nthe motives which were turning his thoughts to suicide, when Plotinus\nshowed him that this was not the true way of detachment. There was no\nconflict, but complete surrender, and happy abandonment in Iamblicus the\nDivine (\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2) who when he prayed might be lifted ten cubits from the\nground--so thought his disciples--and around whose theurgic fingers,\ndabbling in a magic basin of water, Cupids played and kissed each other.\nHis life, told by the Neo-Platonic biographer, Eunapius, is as full of\nmiracle as the contemporary Life of St. Antony by Athanasius. Iamblicus\nfloats before us a beautiful and marvellously garbed priest, a dweller in\nthe recesses of temples. He frankly gave himself to theurgy, convinced\nthat the Soul needs the aid of every superhuman being--hero, god, demon,\nangel.[41] He was credulous on principle. It is of first importance, he\nwrites, that the devotee should not let the marvellous character of an\noccurrence arouse incredulity within him. He needs above all a \u201cscience\u201d\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7) which shall teach him to disbelieve nothing as to the gods.[42]\nFor the divine principle is essentially miraculous, and magic is the open\ndoor, yes, and the way up to it, the anagogic path.\n\nAll this and more besides is set forth in the _De mysteriis_, the chief\ncomposition of his school. It was the answer to that doubting letter of\nPorphyry to Anebo, and contains full proof and exposition of the occult\nart of moving god or demon. We all have an inborn knowledge (\u1f14\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)[43] of the gods. But it is not thought or contemplation that\nunites us to them; it is the power of the theurgic rite or cabalistic\nword, understood only by the gods. We cannot understand the reason of\nthese acts and their effects.[44]\n\nThere is no lower depth. Plotinus\u2019s reason-surpassing vision of the One\n(which represents in him the principle of irrationality) is at last\nbrought down to the irrational act, the occult magic deed or word. Truly\nthe worshipper needs his best credulity--which is bespoken by Iamblicus\nand by this book. The work seems to argue, somewhat obscurely, that the\nprayer or invocation or rite, does not actually draw the god to us, but\ndraws us toward the god, making our wills fit to share in his. The writer\nof such a work is likely to be confused in his statement of principles;\nbut will expand more genially when expounding the natures of demons,\nheroes, angels, and gods, and the effect of them upon humanity. Perhaps\nthe matter still seems dark; but the picturesque details are bright\nenough. For the writer describes the manifestations and apparitions of\nthese beings--their \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. The apparitions of the gods\nare \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6, simple and uniform: those of the demons are \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b1, that\nis, various and manifold; those of the angels are more simple than those\nof the demons, but inferior to those of the gods. The archangels in their\napparitions are more like the gods; while the \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, the \u201cgovernors,\u201d\nhave variety and yet order. The gods as they appear to men, are radiant\nwith divine effulgence, the archangels terrible yet kind; the demons are\nfrightful, producing perturbation and terror--on all of which the work\nenlarges. Speaking more specifically of the effect of these apparitions on\nthe thaumaturgist, the writer says that visions of the gods bring a mighty\npower, and divine love and joy ineffable; the archangels bring\nsteadfastness and power of will and intellectual contemplation; the angels\nbring rational wisdom and truth and virtue. But the vision of demons\nbrings the desires of sense and the vigour to fulfil them.\n\nSo low sank Neo-Platonism in pagan circles. Of course it did not create\nthis mass of superstitious fantasy. It merely fell in cordially, and over\nevery superstition flung the justification of its principles. In the\nprocess it changed from a philosophy to a system of theurgic practice. The\ncommon superstitions of the time, or their like, were old enough. But\nnow--and here was the portentous fact--they had wound themselves into the\nnatures of intellectual people; and Neo-Platonism represents the chief\nformal facilitation of this result.\n\nA contemporary phenomenon, and perhaps the most popular of pagan cults in\nthe third and fourth centuries, was the worship of Mithra, around which\nNeo-Platonism could throw its cloak as well as around any other form of\npagan worship. Mithraism, a partially Hellenized growth from the old\nMazdaean (even Indo-Iranian) faith, had been carried from one boundary of\nthe Empire to the other, by soldiers or by merchants who had imbibed its\ndoctrines in the East. It shot over the Empire like a flame. A warrior\ncult, the late pagan emperors gave it their adhesion. It was, in fine, the\npagan Antaeus destined to succumb in the grasp of the Christian Hercules.\n\nWith it, or after it, came Manicheism, also from the East. This was quite\nas good a philosophy as the Neo-Platonism of Iamblicus. The system called\nafter Manes was a crass dualism, containing fantastic and largely borrowed\nspeculation as to the world and man. Satan was there and all his devils.\nHe was the begetter of mankind, in Adam. But Satan himself, in previous\nstruggles with good angels, had gained some elements of light; and these\npassed into Adam\u2019s nature. Eve, however, is sensuality. After man\u2019s\nengendering, the strife begins between the good and evil spirits to\ncontrol his lot. In ethics, of course, Manicheism was dualistic and\nascetic, like Neo-Platonism, and also like the Christianity of the Eastern\nand Western Empire. Manicheism, unlike Mithraism, was not to succumb, but\nmerely to retreat before Christianity. Again and again from the East,\nthrough the lower confines of the present Russia, through Hungary, it made\nadvance. The Bogomiles were its children; likewise the Cathari in the\nnorth of Italy, and the Albigenses of Provence.[45]\n\nPlatonism, Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, Mithraism, and Manicheism, these\nnames, taken for simplicity\u2019s sake, serve to indicate the mind and temper\nof the educated world in which Christianity was spreading. Obviously the\nChristian Fathers\u2019 ways of thinking were given by all that made up their\nenvironment, their education, their second natures. They were men of\ntheir period, and as Christians their intellectual standards did not rise\nnor their understanding of fact alter, although their approvals and\ndisapprovals might be changed. Their natures might be stimulated and\nuplifted by the Faith and its polemic ardours, and yet their manner of\napproaching and apprehending facts, _its_ facts, for example, might\ncontinue substantially those of their pagan contemporaries or\npredecessors.\n\nIn the fourth century the leaders of the Church both in the East and West\nwere greater men than contemporary pagan priests or philosophers or\nrhetoricians. For the strongest minds had enlisted on the Christian side,\nand a great cause inspired their highest energies with an efficient\npurpose. There is no comparison between Athanasius, Basil, Gregory\nNazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom in the East; Ambrose, Jerome,\nand Augustine in the West; and pagans, like Libanius, the favourite of the\nEmperor Julian, or even Julian himself, or Symmachus, the opponent of St.\nAmbrose in the cause of the pagan Altar of Victory. That was a lost cause,\nand the cause of paganism was becoming more and more broken, dissipated,\nuninspiring. Nevertheless, in spite of the superiority of the Christian\ndoctors, in spite also of the mighty cause which marshalled their\nendeavours so efficiently, they present, both in their higher intelligence\nand their lower irrationalities, abundant likeness to the pagans.\n\nIt has appeared that metaphysical interests absorbed the attention of\nPlotinus, who has nevertheless his supreme irrationality atop of all.\nPorphyry also possessed a strong reasoning nature, but was drawn\nirresistibly to all the things, gods, demons, divination and theurgy, of\nwhich one half of him disapproved. Plotinus, quite in accordance with his\nphilosophic principles, has an easy contempt for physical life. With\nPorphyry this has become ardent asceticism. It was also remarked that\nPlotinus\u2019s system was a synthesis of much antecedent thought; and that its\nreceptivity was rendered extremely elastic by the Neo-Platonic principle\nthat man\u2019s ultimate approach to God lay through ecstasy and not through\nreason. Herein, rather latent and not yet sorely taxed, was a broad\njustification of common beliefs and practices. To all these Iamblicus\ngladly opened the door. Rather than a philosopher, he was a priest, a\nthaumaturgist and magician. Finally, it is obvious that neither Iamblicus\nnor Porphyry nor Plotinus was primarily or even seriously interested in\nany clear objective knowledge of material facts. Plotinus merely noticed\nthem casually in order to illustrate his principles, while Iamblicus\nlooked to them for miracles.\n\nChristianity as well as Neo-Platonism was an expression of the principle\nthat life\u2019s primordial reality is spirit. And likewise with Christians, as\nwith Neo-Platonists, phases of irrationality may be observed in ascending\nand descending order. At the summit the sublimest Christian\nsupra-rationality, the love of God, uplifts itself. From that height the\nirrational conviction grades down to credulity preoccupied with the\ndemoniacal and miraculous. Fruitful comparisons may be drawn between\nNeo-Platonists and Christian doctors.[46]\n\nOrigen (died 253), like Plotinus, of Coptic descent, and the most\nbrilliant genius of the Eastern Church, was by some fifteen years the\nsenior of the Neo-Platonist. It is not certain that either of them\ndirectly influenced the other. In intellectual power the two were peers.\nBoth were absorbed in the higher phases of their thought, but neither\nexcluded the more popular beliefs from the system which he was occupied in\nconstructing. Plotinus had no mind to shut the door against the beliefs of\npolytheism; and Origen accepted on his part the demons and angels of\ncurrent Christian credence.[47] In fact, he occupied himself with them\nmore than Plotinus did with the gods of the Hellenic pantheon. Of course\nOrigen, like every other Christian doctor, had his fundamental and saving\nirrationality in his acceptance of the Christian revelation and the risen\nChrist. This had already taken its most drastic form in the _credo quia\nabsurdum_ of Tertullian the Latin Father, who was twenty-five years his\nsenior. Herein one observes the acceptance of the miraculous on principle.\nThat the great facts of the Christian creed were beyond the proof or\ndisproof of reason was a principle definitely accepted by all the Fathers.\n\nFurther, since all Catholic Christians accepted the Scriptures as revealed\ntruth, they were obliged to accept many things which their reason,\nunaided, might struggle with in vain. Here was a large opportunity, as to\nwhich Christians would act according to their tempers, in emphasizing and\namplifying the authoritative or miraculous, _i.e._ irrational, element.\nAnd besides, outside even of these Scriptural matters and their\ninterpretations, there would be the general question of the educated\nChristian\u2019s interest in the miraculous. Great mental power and devotion to\nthe construction of dogma by no means precluded a lively interest in this,\nas may be seen in that very miraculous life of St. Anthony, written\nprobably by Athanasius himself. This biography is more preoccupied with\nthe demoniacal and miraculous than Porphyry\u2019s _Life of Plotinus_; indeed\nin this respect it is not outdone by Eunapius\u2019s _Life of Iamblicus_.\nTurning to the Latin West, one may compare with them that charming\nprototypal Vita Sancti, the _Life of St. Martin_ by Sulpicius Severus.[48]\nA glance at these writings shows a similarity of interest with Christian\nand Neo-Platonist, and in both is found the same unquestioning acceptance\nof the miraculous.\n\nThus one observes how the supernatural manifestation, the miraculous\nevent, was admitted and justified on principle in both the Neo-Platonic\nand the Christian system. In both, moreover, metaphysical or symbolizing\ntendencies had withdrawn attention from a close scrutiny of any fact,\nobserved, imagined, or reported. With both, the primary value of\nhistorical or physical fact lay in its illumination of general convictions\nor accepted principles. And with both, the supernatural fact was the fact\n_par excellence_, in that it was the direct manifestation of the divine or\nspiritual power.\n\nIamblicus had announced that man must not be incredulous as to superhuman\nbeings and their supernatural doings. On the Christian side, there was no\nbit of popular credence in miracle or magic mystery, or any notion as to\ndevils, angels, and departed saints, for which justification could not be\nfound in the writings of the great Doctors of the Church. These learned\nand intellectual men evince different degrees of interest in such matters;\nbut none stands altogether aloof, or denies _in toto_. No evidence is\nneeded here. A broad illustration, however, lies in the fact that before\nthe fourth century the chief Christian rites had become sacramental\nmysteries, necessarily miraculous in their nature and their efficacy. This\nwas true of Baptism; it was more stupendously true of the Eucharist.\nMystically, but none the less really, and above all inevitably, the bread\nand wine have miraculously become the body and the blood. The process, one\nmay say, began with Origen; with Cyril of Jerusalem it is completed;\nGregory of Nyssa regards it as a continuation of the verity of the\nIncarnation, and Chrysostom is with him.[49] One pauses to remark that the\nrelationship between the pagan and Christian mysteries was not one of\ncausal antecedence so much as one of analogous growth. A pollen of terms\nand concepts blew hither and thither, and effected a cross-fertilization\nof vigorously growing plants. The life-sap of the Christian mysteries, as\nwith those of Mithra, was the passion for a symbolism of the unknown and\nthe inexpressible.\n\nBut one must not stop here. The whole Christian Church, as well as\nPorphyry and Iamblicus, accepted angels and devils, and recognized their\nintervention or interference in human affairs. Then displacing the local\npagan divinities come the saints, and Mary above all. They are honoured,\nthey are worshipped. Only an Augustine has some gentle warning to utter\nagainst carrying these matters to excess.\n\nIn connection with all this, one may notice an illuminating point, or\nrather motive. In the third and fourth centuries the common yearning of\nthe Graeco-Roman world was for an approach to God; it was looking for the\nanagogic path, the way up from man and multiplicity to unity and God. An\nabsorbing interest was taken in the means. Neo-Platonism, the creature of\nthis time, whatever else it was, was mediatorial, a system of mediation\nbetween man and the Absolute First Principle. Passing halfway over from\npaganism to Christianity, the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius is\nalso essentially a system of mediation, which has many affinities (as well\nit might!) with the system of Plotinus.[50] Within Catholic Christianity\nthe great work of Athanasius was to establish Christ\u2019s sole and\nall-sufficient mediation. Catholicism was permanently set upon the\nmediatorship of Christ, God and man, the one God-man reconciling the\nnature which He had veritably, and not seemingly, assumed, to the divine\nsubstance which He had never ceased to be. Athanasius\u2019s struggle for this\nprinciple was bitter and hard-pressed, because within Christianity as well\nas without, men were demanding easier and more tangible stages and means\nof mediation.\n\nOf such, Catholic Christianity was to recognize a vast multitude, perhaps\nnot dogmatically as a necessary part of itself; but practically and\nuniversally. Angels, saints, the Virgin over all, are mediators between\nman and God. This began to be true at an early period, and was established\nbefore the fourth century.[51] Moreover, every bit of rite and mystery and\nmiracle, as in paganism, so in Catholicism, was essentially a means of\nmediation, a way of bringing the divine principle to bear on man and his\naffairs, and so of bringing man within the sphere of the divine\nefficiency.\n\nLet us make some further Christian comparisons with our Neo-Platonic\nfriends Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblicus. As we have adduced Origen, it\nwould also be easy to find other parallels from the Eastern Church. But as\nthe purpose is to mark the origin of the intellectual tendencies of the\nWestern Middle Ages, we may at once draw examples from the Latin Fathers.\nFor their views set the forms of mediaeval intellectual interests, and for\ncenturies directed and even limited the mediaeval capacity for\napprehending whatever it was given to the Middle Ages to set themselves to\nknow. To pass thus from the East to the West is permissible, since the\nsame pagan cults and modes of thought passed from one boundary of the\nEmpire to the other. Plotinus himself lived and taught in Rome for the\nlast twenty-five years of his life, and there wrote his _Enneads_ in\nGreek. So on the Christian side, the Catholic Church throughout the East\nand West presents a solidarity of development, both as to dogma and\norganization, and also as to popular acceptances.\n\nLet us train our attention upon some points of likeness between Plotinus\nand St. Augustine. The latter\u2019s teachings contain much Platonism; and with\nthis greatest of Latin Fathers, who did not read much Greek, Platonism was\ninextricably mingled with Neo-Platonism. It is possible to search the\nworks of Augustine and discover this, that, or the other statement\nreflecting Plato or Plotinus.[52] Yet their most interesting effect on\nAugustine will not be found in Platonic theorems consciously followed or\nabjured by the latter. Platonism was \u201cin the air,\u201d at least was in the air\nbreathed by an Augustine. Our specific bishop of Hippo knew little of\nPlato\u2019s writings. But Plato had lived: his thoughts had influenced many\ngenerations, and in their diffusion had been modified, and had lost many a\nspecific feature. Thereafter Plotinus had constructed Neo-Platonism; that\ntoo had permeated the minds of many, itself loosened in the process. These\nviews, these phases of thought and mood, were held or felt by many men,\nwho may not have known their source. And Augustine was not only part of\nall this, but in mind and temper was Platonically inclined. Thus the most\nimportant elements of Platonism and Neo-Platonism in Augustine were his\ncognate spiritual mood and his attitude toward the world of physical fact.\n\nNote the personal affinity between Augustine and Plotinus. Both are\nabsorbed in the higher pointings of their thought; neither is much\noccupied with its left-handed relationships, which, however, are by no\nmeans to be disowned. The minds and souls of both are set upon God the\nSpirit; the minds and eyes of both are closed to the knowledge of the\nnatural world. Thus neither Plotinus nor Augustine was much affected by\nthe popular beliefs of Christianity or paganism. The former cared little\nfor demon-lore or divination, and was not seriously touched by polytheism.\nNo more was the latter affected by the worship of saints and relics, or by\nother elements of Christian credulity, which when brought to his attention\npass from his mind as quickly as his duties of Christian bishop will\npermit.\n\nBut it was _half_ otherwise with Porphyry, and altogether otherwise with\nIamblicus. The first of these was drawn, repelled, and tortured by the\ncommon superstitions, especially the magic and theurgy which made men\ngape; but Iamblicus gladly sported in these mottled currents. On the\nChristian side, Jerome might be compared with them, or a later man, the\nlast of the Latin Fathers, Gregory the Great. Clear as was the temporal\nwisdom of this great pope, and heavy as were his duties during the\ntroubled times of his pontificate (590-604), still his mind was busy with\nthe miraculous and diabolic. His mind and temperament have absorbed at\nleast the fruitage of prior superstitions, whether Christian or pagan need\nnot be decided. He certainly was not influenced by Iamblicus. Nor need one\nlook upon these phases of his nature as specifically the result of the\nabsorption of pagan elements. He and his forebears had but gone the path\nof credulity and mortal blindness, thronged by both pagans and Christians.\nAnd so in Gregory the tendencies making for intellectual obliquity do\ntheir perfect work. His religious dualism is strident; his resultant\nascetism is extreme; and finally the symbolical, the allegorical, habit\nhas shut his mind to the perception of the literal (shall we say, actual)\nmeaning, when engaged with Scripture, as his great Commentary on Job bears\nwitness. The same tendencies, but usually in milder type, had shown\nthemselves with Augustine, who, in these respects, stands to Gregory as\nPlotinus to Iamblicus. Augustine can push allegory to absurdity; he can\nbe ascetic; he is dualistic. But all these things have not barbarized his\nmind, as they have Gregory\u2019s.[53] Similarly the elements, which in\nPlotinus\u2019s personality were held in innocuous abeyance, dominated the\nentire personality of Iamblicus, and made him a high priest of folly.\n\nThus we have observed the phases of thought which set the intellectual\nconditions of the later pagan times, and affected the mental processes of\nthe Latin Fathers. The matter may be summarized briefly in conclusion.\nPlatonism had created an intellectual and intelligible world, wherein a\ndissolving dialectic turned the cognition of material phenomena into a\nreflection of the mind\u2019s ideals. This was more palpable in Neo-Platonism\nthan it had been in Plato\u2019s system. Stoicism on the other hand represented\na rule of life, the sanction of which was inner peace. Its working\nprinciple was the rightly directed action of the self-controlling will.\nFundamentally ethical, it set itself to frame a corresponding conception\nof the universe. Platonism and Neo-Platonism found in material facts\nillustrations or symbols of ideal truths and principles of human life.\nStoicism was interested in them as affording a foundation for ethics. None\nof these systems was seriously interested in facts apart from their\nsymbolical exemplification of truth, or their bearing on the conduct of\nlife; and the same principles that affected the observation of nature were\napplied to the interpretation of myth, tradition, and history.\n\nIn the opening centuries of the Christian Era the world was becoming less\nself-reliant. It was tending to look to authority for its peace of mind.\nIn religion men not only sought, as formerly, for superhuman aid, but were\nreaching outward for what their own rational self-control no longer gave.\nThey needed not merely to be helped by the gods, but to be sustained and\nsaved. Consequently, prodigious interest was taken in the means of\nbringing man to the divine, and obtaining the saving support which the\ngods alone could give. The philosophic thought of the time became palpably\nmediatorial. Neo-Platonism was a system of mediation between man and the\nAbsolute First Principle; and soon its lower phases became occupied with\nsuch palpable means as divination and oracles, magic and theurgy.\n\nThe human reason has always proved unable to effect this mediation between\nman and God. The higher Neo-Platonism presented as the furthest goal a\nsupra-rational and ecstatic vision. This was its union with the divine.\nThe lower Neo-Platonism turned this lofty supra-rationality into a\nprinciple of credulity more and more agape for fascinating or helpful\nmiracles. Thus a constant looking for divine or demonic action became\ncharacteristic of the pagan intelligence.\n\nThe Gospel of Christ, in spreading throughout the pagan world, was certain\nto gather to itself the incidents of its apprehension by pagans, and take\nvarious forms, one of which was to become the dominant or Catholic.\nConversely, Christians (and we have in mind the educated people) would\nretain their methods of thinking in spite of change in the contents of\ntheir thought. This would be true even of the great and learned Christian\nleaders, the Fathers of the Church. At the same time the Faith reinspired\nand redirected their energies. Yet (be it repeated for the sake of\nemphasis) their mental processes, their ways of apprehending and\nappreciating facts, would continue those of that paganism which in them\nhad changed to Christianity.\n\nEvery phase of intellectual tendency just summarized as characteristic of\nthe pagan world, entered the modes in which the Fathers of the Latin\nChurch apprehended and built out their new religion. First of all, the\nattitude toward knowledge. No pagan philosophy, not Platonism or any\nsystem that came after it, had afforded an incentive for concentration of\ndesire equal to that presented in the person and the precepts of Jesus.\nThe desire of the Kingdom of Heaven was a master-motive such as no\nprevious idealism had offered. It would bring into conformity with itself\nnot only all the practical considerations of life, but verily the whole\nhuman desire to know. First it mastered the mind of Tertullian; and in\nspite of variance and deviation it endured through the Middle Ages as the\ncontrolling principle of intellectual effort. Its decree was this: the\nknowledge which men need and should desire is that which will help them\nto save and perfect their souls for the Kingdom of God. Some would\ninterpret this broadly, others narrowly; some would actually be\nconstrained by it, and others merely do it a polite obeisance. But\nacknowledged it was by well-nigh all men, according to their individual\ntempers and the varying times in which they lived.\n\nPlatonism was an idealistic cosmos; Stoicism a cosmos of subjective ethics\nand teleological conceptions of the physical world. The furthest outcome\nof both might be represented by Augustine\u2019s cosmos of the soul and God. As\nfor reasoning processes, inwardly inspired and then applied to the world\nof nature and history, Christianity combined the idealizing,\nfact-compelling ways of Platonic dialectic with the Stoical interest in\nmoral edification. And, more utterly than either Platonist or Stoic, the\nChristian Father lacked interest in knowledge of the concrete fact for its\nown sake. His mental glance was even more oblique than theirs, fixed as it\nwas upon the moral or spiritual--the anagogic--inference. Of course he\ncarried symbolism and allegory further than Stoic and Platonist had done,\none reason being that he was impelled by the specific motive of\nharmonizing the Old Testament with the Gospel, and thereby proving the\ndivine mission of Jesus.\n\nIdealism might tend toward dualistic ethics, and issue in asceticism, as\nwas the tendency in Stoicism and the open result with Plotinus and his\ndisciples. Such, with mightier power and firmer motive, was the outcome of\nChristian ethics, in monasticism. Christianity was not a dualistic\nphilosophy; but neither was Stoicism nor Neo-Platonism. Yet, like them, it\nwas burningly dualistic in its warfare against the world, the flesh, and\nthe devil.\n\nWe turn to other but connected matters: salvation, mediatorship, theory\nand practice. The need of salvation made men Christians; the God-man was\nthe one and sufficient mediator between man and God. Such was the high\ndogma, established with toil and pain. And the practice graded downward to\nmediatorial persons, acts, and things, marvellous, manifold, and utterly\nanalogous to their pagan kin. The mediatorial persons were the Virgin and\nthe saints; the sacraments were the magic mediatorial acts; the relic was\nthe magic mediatorial thing. And, as with Neo-Platonism, there was in\nChristianity a principle of supra-rational belief in all these matters. At\nthe top the revelation of Christ, and the high love of God which He\ninspired. This was not set on reason, but above it. And, as with\nNeo-Platonism, the supra-rational principle of Christianity was led down\nthrough conduits of credulity, resembling those we have become familiar\nwith in our descent from Plotinus to Iamblicus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nINTELLECTUAL INTERESTS OF THE LATIN FATHERS\n\n\nSo it was that the intellectual conditions of the Roman Empire affected\nthe attitude of the Church Fathers toward knowledge, and determined their\nways of apprehending fact. There was, indeed, scarcely a spiritual\ntendency or way of thinking, in the surrounding paganism, that did not\nenter their mental processes and make part of their understanding of\nChristianity. On the other hand, the militant and polemic position of the\nChurch in the Empire furnished new interests, opened new fields of effort,\nand produced new modes of intellectual energy. And every element emanating\nfrom the pagan environment was, on entering the Christian pale, reinspired\nby Christian necessities and brought into a working concord with the\nmaster-motive of the Faith.\n\nSalvation was the master Christian motive. The Gospel of Christ was a\ngospel of salvation unto eternal life. It presented itself in the\nself-sacrifice of divine love, not without warnings touching its\nrejection. It was understood and accepted according to the capacities of\nthose to whom it was offered, capacities which it should reinspire and\ndirect anew, and yet not change essentially. The young Christian\ncommunities had to adjust their tempers to the new Faith. They also fell\nunder the unconscious need of defining it, in order to satisfy their own\nintelligence and present it in a valid form to the minds of men as yet\nunconverted. Consequently, the new Gospel of Salvation drew the energies\nof Christian communities to the work of defining that which they had\naccepted, and of establishing its religious and rational validity. The\nintellectual interests of these communities were first unified by the\nmaster-motive of salvation, and then ordered and redirected according to\nthe doctrinal and polemic exigencies of this new Faith precipitated into\nthe Graeco-Roman world.\n\nThe intellectual interests of the Christian Fathers are not to be\nclassified under categories of desire to know, for the sake of knowledge,\nbut under categories of desire to be saved, and to that end possess\nknowledge in its saving forms. Their desire was less to know, than to know\nhow--how to be saved and contribute to the salvation of others. Their need\nrightly to understand the Faith, define it and maintain it, was of such\ndrastic power as to force into ancillary r\u00f4les every line of inquiry and\nintellectual effort. This need inspired those central intellectual labours\nof the Fathers which directly made for the Faith\u2019s dogmatic substantiation\nand ecclesiastical supremacy; and then it mastered all provinces of\neducation and inquiry which might seem to possess independent intellectual\ninterest. They were either to be drawn to its support or discredited as\nirrelevant distractions.\n\nThis compelling Christian need did not, in fact, impress into its service\nthe total sum of intellectual interests among Christians. Mortal curiosity\nsurvived, and the love of _belles lettres_. Yet its dominance was real.\nThe Church Fathers were absorbed in the building up of Christian doctrine\nand ecclesiastical authority. The productions of Christian authorship\nthrough the first four centuries were entirely religious, so far as the\nextant works bear witness. This is true of both the Greek and the Latin\nFathers, and affords a prodigious proof that the inspiration and the\nexigencies of the new religion had drawn into one spiritual vortex the\nenergies and interests of Christian communities.\n\nSome of the Fathers have left statements of their principles, coupled with\nmore or less intimate accounts of their own spiritual attitude. Among the\nEastern Christians Origen has already been referred to. With him\nChristianity was the sum of knowledge; and his life\u2019s endeavour was to\nrealize this view by co-ordinating all worthy forms of knowledge within\nthe scheme of salvation through Christ. His mind was imbued with a vast\ndesire to know. This he did not derive from Christianity. But his\nunderstanding of Christianity gave him the schematic principle guiding\nhis inquiries. His aim was to direct his labours with Christianity as an\nend--\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd, as he says so pregnantly. He would use\nGreek philosophy as a propaedeutic for Christianity; he would seek from\ngeometry and astronomy what might serve to explain Scripture; and so with\nall branches of learning.[54]\n\nThis was the expression of a mind of prodigious energy. For more personal\ndisclosures we may turn at once to the Latin Fathers. Hilary, Bishop of\nPoictiers (d. 367), was a foremost Latin polemicist against the Arians in\nthe middle of the fourth century. He was born a pagan; and in the\nintroductory book to his chief work, the _De Trinitate_, he tells how he\nturned, with all his intellect and higher aspirations, to the Faith.\nTaking a noble view of human nature, he makes bold to say that men usually\nspurn the sensual and material, and yearn for a more worthy life. Thus\nthey have reached patience, temperance, and other virtues, believing that\ndeath is not the end of all. He himself, however, did not rest satisfied\nwith the pagan religion or the teachings of pagan philosophers; but he\nfound doctrines to his liking in the books of Moses, and then in the\nGospel of John. It was clear to him that prophecy led up to the revelation\nof Jesus Christ, and in that at length he gained a safe harbour. Thus\nHilary explains that his better aspirations had led him on and upward to\nthe Gospel; and when he had reached that end and unification of spiritual\nyearning, it was but natural that it should thenceforth hold the sum of\nhis intellectual interests.\n\nA like result appears with greater power in Augustine. His _Confessions_\ngive the mode in which his spiritual progress presented itself to him some\ntime after he had become a Catholic Christian.[55] His whole life sets\nforth the same theme, presenting the religious passion of the man drawing\ninto itself his energies and interests. God and the Soul--these two would\nhe know, and these alone. But these alone indeed! As if they did not\nembrace all life pointed and updrawn toward its salvation. God was the\novermastering object of intellectual interest and of passionate love. All\nknowledge should direct itself toward knowing Him. By grace, within God\u2019s\nlight and love, was the Soul, knower and lover, expectant of eternal life.\nNothing that was transient could be its chief good, or its good at all\nexcept so far as leading on to its chief good of salvation, life eternal,\nin and through the Trinity. One may read Augustine\u2019s self-disclosures or\nthe passages containing statements of the ultimate religious principles\nwhereby he and all men should live, or one may proceed to examine his long\nlife and the vast entire product of his labour. The result will be the\nsame. His whole strength will be found devoted to the cause of Catholic\nChurch and Faith; and all his intellectual interests will be seen\nconverging to that end. He writes nothing save with Catholic religious\npurpose; and nothing in any of his writings had interest for the writer\nsave as it bore upon that central aim. He may be engaged in a great work\nof ultimate Christian doctrine, as in his _De Trinitate_; he may be\ninvolved in controversy with Manichean, with Donatist or Pelagian; he may\nbe offering pastoral instruction, as in his many letters; he may survey,\nas in the _Civitas Dei_, the whole range of human life and human\nknowledge; but never does his mind really bear away from its\nmaster-motive.\n\nThe justification for this centering of human interests and energies lay\nin the nature of the _summum bonum_ for man. According to the principles\nof the _City of God_, eternal life is the supreme good and eternal death\nthe supreme evil. Evidently no temporal satisfaction or happiness compares\nwith the eternal. This is good logic; but it is enforced with arguments\ndrawn from the Christian temper, which viewed earth as a vale of tears.\nThe deep Catholic pessimism toward mortal life is Augustine\u2019s in full\nmeasure: \u201cQuis enim sufficit quantovis eloquentiae flumine, vitae hujus\nmiserias explicare?\u201d Virtue itself, the best of mortal goods, does nothing\nhere on earth but wage perpetual war with vices. Though man\u2019s life is and\nmust be social, how filled is it with distress! The saints are blessed\nwith hope. And mortal good which has not that hope is a false joy and a\ngreat misery. For it lacks the real blessedness of the soul, which is the\ntrue wisdom that directs itself to the end where God shall be all in all\nin eternal certitude and perfect peace. Here our peace is with God through\nfaith; and yet is rather a _solatium miseriae_ than a _gaudium\nbeatitudinis_, as it will be hereafter. But the end of those who do not\nbelong to the City of God will be _miseria sempiterna_, which is also\ncalled the second death, since the soul alienated from God cannot be said\nto live, nor that body be said to live which is enduring eternal\npains.[56] Augustine devotes a whole book, the twenty-first, to an\nexposition of the sempiternal, non-purgatorial, punishment of the damned,\nwhom the compassionate intercession of the saints will not save, nor many\nother considerations which have been deemed eventually saving by the\nfondly lenient opinions of men. His views were as dark as those of Gregory\nthe Great. Only imaginative elaboration was needed to expand them to the\nfull compass of mediaeval fear.\n\nAugustine brought all intellectual interests into the closure of the\nChristian Faith, or discredited whatever stubbornly remained without. He\ndid the same with ethics. For he transformed the virtues into accord with\nhis Catholic conception of man\u2019s chief good. That must consist in cleaving\nto what is most blessed to cleave to, which is God. To Him we can cleave\nonly through _dilectio_, _amor_, and _charitas_. Virtue which leads us to\nthe _vita beata_ is nothing but _summus amor Dei_. So he defines the four\ncardinal virtues anew. Temperance is love keeping itself whole and\nincorrupt for God; fortitude is love easily bearing all things for God\u2019s\nsake; justice is love serving God only, and for that reason rightly ruling\nin the other matters, which are subject to man; and prudence is love well\ndiscriminating between what helps and what impedes as to God (_in\ndeum_).[57] Conversely, the heathen virtues, as the heathen had in fact\nconceived them, were vices rather than virtues to Augustine. For they\nlacked knowledge of the true God, and therefore were affected with\nfundamental ignorance, and were also tainted with pride.[58] Through his\nunique power of religious perception, Augustine discerned the\ninconsistency between pagan ethics, and the Christian thoughts of divine\ngrace moving the humbly and lovingly acceptant soul.\n\nThe treatise on Christian Doctrine clearly expresses Augustine\u2019s views as\nto the value of knowledge. He starts, in his usual way, from a fundamental\nprinciple, which is here the distinction between the use of something for\na purpose and the enjoyment of something in and for itself. \u201cTo enjoy is\nto cleave fast in the love of a thing for its own sake. But to use is to\nemploy a thing in obtaining what one loves.\u201d For an illustration he draws\nupon that Christian sentiment which from the first had made the Christian\nfeel as a sojourner on earth.[59]\n\n    \u201cIt is as if we were sojourners unable to live happily away from our\n    own country, and we wished to use the means of journeying by land and\n    sea to end our misery and return to our fatherland, which is to be\n    enjoyed. But the charm of the journey or the very movement of the\n    vehicle delighting us, we are taken by a froward sweetness and become\n    careless of reaching our own country whose sweetness would make us\n    happy. Now if, journeying through this world, away from God, we wish\n    to return to our own land where we may be happy, this world must be\n    used, not enjoyed; that the invisible things of God may be apprehended\n    through those created things before our eyes, and we may gain the\n    eternal and spiritual from the corporeal and temporal.\u201d\n\nFrom this illustration Augustine leaps at once to his final inference that\nonly the Trinity--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--is to be enjoyed.[60] It\nfollows as a corollary that the important knowledge for man is that which\nwill bring him to God surely and for eternity. Such is knowledge of Holy\nWrit and its teachings. Other knowledge is valuable as it aids us to this.\n\nProceeding from this point of view, Augustine speaks more specifically. To\nunderstand Scripture one needs to know the words and also the things\nreferred to. Knowledge of the latter is useful, because it sheds light on\ntheir figurative significance. For example, to know the serpent\u2019s habit of\npresenting its whole body to the assailant, in order to protect its head,\nhelps to understand our Lord\u2019s command to be wise as serpents, and for the\nsake of our Head, which is Christ, present our whole bodies to the\npersecutors. Again, the statement that the serpent rids itself of its skin\nby squeezing through a narrow hole, accords with the Scriptural injunction\nto imitate the serpent\u2019s wisdom, and put off the old man that we may put\non the new, and in a narrow place--Enter ye in at the strait gate, says\nthe Lord.[61] The writer gives a rule for deciding whether in any instance\na literal or figurative interpretation of Scripture should be employed, a\nrule representing a phase of the idealizing way of treating facts which\nbegan with Plato or before him, and through many channels entered the\npractice of Christian doctors. \u201cWhatever in the divine word cannot\nproperly be referred to _morum honestas_ or _fidei veritas_ is to be taken\nfiguratively. The first pertains to love of God and one\u2019s neighbour; the\nsecond to knowing God and one\u2019s neighbour.\u201d[62]\n\nAugustine then refers to matters of human invention, like the letters of\nthe alphabet, which are useful to know. History also is well, as it helps\nus to understand Scripture; and a knowledge of physical objects will help\nus to understand the Scriptural references. Likewise a moderate knowledge\nof rhetoric and dialectic enables one the better to understand and expound\nScripture. Some men have made useful vocabularies of the Scriptural Hebrew\nand Syriac words and compends of history, which throw light on Scriptural\nquestions. So, to save Christians from needless labour, I think it would\nbe well if some one would make a general description of unknown places,\nanimals, plants and minerals, and other things mentioned in Scripture; and\nthe same might be done as to the _numbers_ which Scripture uses. These\nsuggestions were curiously prophetic. Christians were soon to produce just\nsuch compends, as will be seen when noticing the labours of Isidore of\nSeville.[63] Augustine speaks sometimes in scorn and sometimes in sorrow\nof those who remain ignorant of God, and learn philosophies, or deem that\nthey achieve something great by curiously examining into that universal\nmass of matter which we call the world.[64]\n\nAugustine\u2019s word and his example sufficiently attest the fact that the\nChristian Faith constituted the primary intellectual interest with the\nFathers. While not annihilating other activities of the mind, this\ndominant interest lowered their dignity by forcing them into a common\nsubservience. Exerting its manifold energies in defining and building out\nthe Faith, in protecting it from open attack or insidious corruption, it\ndrew to its exigencies the whole strength of its votaries. There resulted\nthe perfected organization of the Catholic Church and the production of a\nvast doctrinal literature. The latter may be characterized as constructive\nof dogma, theoretically interpretative of Scripture, and polemically\ndirected against pagans, Jews, heretics or schismatics, as the case might\nbe.\n\nIt was constructive of dogma through the intellectual necessity of\napprehending the Faith in concepts and modes of reasoning accepted as\nvalid by the Graeco-Roman world. In the dogmatic treatises emanating from\nthe Hellenic East, the concepts and modes of reasoning were those of the\nlater phases of Greek philosophy. Prominent examples are the _De\nprincipiis_ of Origen or the _Orationes_ of Athanasius against the Arians.\nFor the Latin West, Tertullian\u2019s _Adversus Marcionem_ or the treatises of\nHilary and Augustine upon the Trinity serve for examples. The Western\nwritings are distinguished from their Eastern kin by the entry of the\njuristic element, filling them with a mass of conceptions from the Roman\nLaw.[65] They also develop a more searching psychology. In both of these\nrespects, Tertullian and Augustine were the great creators.\n\nSecondly, this literature, at least in theory, was interpretative or\nexpository of Scripture. Undoubtedly Origen and Athanasius and Augustine\napproached the Faith with ideas formed from philosophical study and their\nown reflections; and their metaphysical and allegorical treatment of\nScripture texts elicited a significance different from the meaning which\nwe now should draw. Yet Christianity was an authoritatively revealed\nreligion, and the letter of that revelation was Holy Scripture, to wit,\nthe gradually formed canon of the Old and New Testaments. If the reasoning\nor conclusions which resulted in the Nicene Creed were not just what\nScripture would seem to suggest, at all events they had to be and were\nconfirmed by Scripture, interpreted, to be sure, under the stress of\ncontroversy and the influence of all that had gone into the intellectual\nnatures of the Greek and Latin Fathers. And the patristic faculty of\ndoctrinal exposition, that is, of reasoning constructively along the lines\nof Scriptural interpretation, was marvellous. Such a writing as\nAugustine\u2019s Anti-Pelagian _De spiritu et littera_ is a striking example.\n\nMoreover, the Faith, which is to say, the Scriptures rightly interpreted,\ncontained the sum of knowledge needful for salvation, and indeed\neverything that men should seek to know. Therefore there was no question\npossessing valid claim upon human curiosity which the Scriptures, through\ntheir interpreters, might not be called upon to answer. For example,\nAugustine feels obliged to solve through Scriptural interpretation and\ninference such an apparently obscure question as that of the different\ndegrees of knowledge of God possessed by demons and angels.[66] Indeed,\nmany an unanswerable question had beset the ways by which Augustine\nhimself and other doctors had reached their spiritual harbourage in\nCatholic Christianity. They sought to confirm from Scripture _their_\nsolutions of their own doubts. At all events, from Scripture they were\nobliged to answer other questioners seeking instruction or needing\nrefutation.[67]\n\nThirdly, it is too well known to require more than a mere reminder, that\ndogmatic treatises commonly were controversial or polemic, directed as\nmight be against pagans or Jews, or Gnostics or Manicheans, or against\nArians or Montanists or Donatists. Practically all Christian doctrine was\nof militant growth, advancing by argumentative denial and then by\ncounter-formulation.\n\nAs already noticed at some length, the later phases of pagan philosophic\ninquiry had other motives besides the wish for knowledge. These motives\nwere connected with man\u2019s social welfare or his relations with\nsupernatural powers. The Stoical and Epicurean interest in knowledge had a\npractical incentive. And Neo-Platonism was a philosophy of saving union\nwith the divine, rather than an open-minded search for ultimate knowledge.\nBut no Hellenic or quasi-Romanized philosophy so drastically drew all\nsubjects of speculation and inquiry within the purview and dominance of a\nsingle motive at once intellectual and emotional as the Christian Faith.\n\nNaturally the surviving intellectual ardour of the Graeco-Roman world\npassed into the literature of Christian doctrine. For example, the Faith,\nwith its master-motive of salvation, drew within its work of militant\nformulation and pertinent discussion that round of intellectual interest\nand energy which had issued in Neo-Platonism. Likewise such ethical\nearnestness as had come down through Stoicism was drawn within the master\nChristian energy. And so far as any interest survived in zoology or\nphysics or astronomy, it also was absorbed in curious Christian endeavours\nto educe an edifying conformity between the statements or references of\nScripture and the round of phenomena of the natural world. Then history\nlikewise passed from heathenism to the service of the Church, and became\npolemic narrative, or filled itself with edifying tales, mostly of\nmiracles.\n\nIn fine, no branch of human inquiry or intellectual interest was left\nunsubjugated by the dominant motives of the Faith. First of all,\nphilosophy itself--the general inquiry for final knowledge--no longer had\nan independent existence. It had none with Hilary, none with Ambrose, and\nnone whatsoever with Augustine after he became a Catholic Christian.\nPatristic philosophy consisted in the formulation of Christian doctrine,\nwhich in theory was an eliciting of the truth of Scripture. It embodied\nthe substantial results, or survivals if one will, of Greek philosophy, so\nfar as it did not controvert and discard them. As for the reasoning\nprocess, the dialectic whereby such results were reached, as\ndistinguished from the results themselves, that also passed into doctrinal\nwritings. The great Christian Fathers were masters of it. Augustine\nrecognized it as a proper tool; but like other tools its value was not in\nitself but in its usefulness. As a tool, dialectic, or logic as it has\ncommonly been called, was to preserve a distinct, if not independent,\nexistence. Aristotle had devoted to it a group of special treatises.[68]\nNo one had anything to add to this Organon, or Aristotelian tool, which\nwas to be preserved in Latin by the Bo\u00ebthian translations.[69] No attempt\nwas made to supplant them with Christian treatises.\n\nSo it was with elementary education. The grammarians, Servius, Priscianus,\nand probably Donatus, were pagans. As far as concerned grammatical and\nrhetorical studies, the Fathers had to admit that the best theory and\nexamples were in pagan writings. It also happened that the book which was\nto become the common text-book of the Seven Arts was by a pagan, of\nNeo-Platonic views. This was the _De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii_, by\nMartianus Capella.[70] Possibly some good Christian of the time could have\ncomposed a worse book, or at least one somewhat more deflected from the\nnatural objects of primary education. But the _De nuptiis_ is\nastonishingly poor and dry. The writer was an unintelligent compiler, who\ntook his matter not from the original sources, but from compilers before\nhim, Varro above all. Capella talks of Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Euclid,\nPtolemy; but if he had ever read them, it was to little profit. Book VI.,\nfor example, is occupied with \u201cGeometria.\u201d The first part of it is simply\ngeography; then come nine pages[71] of geometry, consisting of\ndefinitions, with a few axioms; and then, instead of following with\ntheorems, the maid, who personifies \u201cGeometria,\u201d presents as a bridal\noffering the books of Euclid, amid great applause. Had she ever opened\nthem, one queries. Book VII., \u201cArithmetica,\u201d is even worse. It begins with\nthe current foolishness regarding the virtues and interesting qualities of\nthe first ten numbers: \u201cHow shall I commemorate thee, O Seven, always to\nbe revered, neither begotten like the other numbers, nor procreative, a\nvirgin even as Minerva?\u201d Capella never is original. From Pythagoras on,\nthe curiosities of numbers had interested the pagan mind.[72] These\nfantasies gained new power and application in the writings of the Fathers.\nFor them, the numbers used in Scripture had prefigurative significance.\nSuch notions came to Christianity from its environment, and then took on a\nnew apologetic purpose. Here an intellect like Augustine\u2019s is no whit\nabove its fellows. In arguing from Scripture numbers he is at his very\nobvious worst.[73] Fortunately the coming time was to have better\ntreatises, like the _De arithmetica_ of Bo\u00ebthius, which was quite free\nfrom mysticism. But in Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s time, as well as before and after him,\nit was the allegorical significance of numbers apologetically pointed that\naroused deepest interest.\n\nAstronomy makes one of Capella\u2019s seven _Artes_. His eighth book, a rather\nabject compilation, is devoted to it. His matter, of course, is not yet\nChristianized. But Christianity was to draw Astronomy into its service;\nand the determination of the date of Easter and other Church festivals\nbecame the chief end of what survived of astronomical knowledge.\n\nThe patristic attitude toward cosmogony and natural science plainly\nappears in the _Hexa\u00ebmeron_ of St. Ambrose.[74] This was a commentary on\nthe first chapters of Genesis, or rather an argumentative exposition of\nthe Scriptural account of the Creation, primarily directed against those\nwho asserted that the world was uncreated and eternal. As one turns the\nleaves of this writing, it becomes clear that the interest of Ambrose is\nalways religious, and that his soul is gazing beyond the works of the\nCreation to another world. He has no interest in physical phenomena,\nwhich have no laws for him except the will of God.\n\n    \u201cTo discuss the nature and position of the earth,\u201d says he, \u201cdoes not\n    help us in our hope of the life to come. It is enough to know what\n    Scripture states, \u2018that He hung up the earth upon nothing\u2019 (Job xxvi.\n    7). Why then argue whether He hung it up in air or upon the water, and\n    raise a controversy as to how the thin air could sustain the earth; or\n    why, if upon the waters, the earth does not go crashing down to the\n    bottom?... Not because the earth is in the middle, as if suspended on\n    even balance, but because the majesty of God constrains it by the law\n    of His will, does it endure stable upon the unstable and the void.\u201d\n\nThe archbishop then explains that God did not fix the earth\u2019s stability as\nan artisan would, with compass and level, but as the Omnipotent, by the\nmight of His command. If we would understand why the earth is unmoved, we\nmust not try to measure creation as with a compass, but must look to the\nwill of God: \u201cvoluntate Dei immobilis manet et stat in saeculum terra.\u201d\nAnd again Ambrose asks, Why argue as to the elements which make the\nheaven? Why trouble oneself with these physical inquiries? \u201cSufficeth for\nour salvation, not such disputation, but the verity of the precepts, not\nthe acuteness of argument, but the mind\u2019s faith, so that rather than the\ncreature, we may serve the Creator, who is God blessed forever.\u201d[75]\n\nThus with Ambrose, the whole creation springs from the immediate working\nof God\u2019s inscrutable will. It is all essentially a miracle, like those\nwhich He wrought in after times to aid or save men: they also were but\noperations of His will. God said _Fiat lux_, and there was light. Thus His\nwill creates; and nature is His work (_opus Dei natura est_). And God\nsaid, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it\ndivide the waters from the waters; and it was so. \u201cHear the word, Fiat.\nHis will is the measure of things; His word ends the work.\u201d The division\nof the waters above and beneath the firmament was a work of His will; just\nas He divided the waters of the Red Sea before the eyes of the Jews in\norder that those things might be believed which the Jews had not seen. He\ncould have saved them by another means. The fiat of God is nature\u2019s\nstrength (_virtus_) and the substance of its endurance (_diurnitatis\nsubstantia_) so long as He wishes it to continue where He has appointed\nit.[76]\n\nAccording to this reasoning, the miracle, except for its infrequency, is\nin the same category with other occurrences. Here Ambrose is fully\nsupported by Augustine. With the latter, God is the source of all\ncausation: He is the cause of usual as well as of extraordinary\noccurrences, _i.e._ miracles. The exceptional or extraordinary character\nof certain occurrences is what makes them miracles.[77]\n\nHere are fundamental principles of patristic faith. The will of God is the\none cause of all things. It is unsearchable. But we have been taught much\nregarding God\u2019s love and compassionateness, and of His desire to edify and\nsave His people. These qualities prompt His actions toward them. Therefore\nwe may expect His acts to evince edifying and saving purpose. All the\nnarratives of Scripture are for our edification. How many mighty saving\nacts do they record, from the Creation, onward through the story of\nIsrael, to the birth and resurrection of Christ! And surely God still\ncares for His people. Nor is there any reason to suppose that He has\nceased to edify and save them through signs and wonders. Shall we not\nstill look for miracles from His grace?\n\nThus in the nature of Christianity, as a miraculously founded and revealed\nreligion, lay the ground for expecting miracles, or, at least, for not\ndeeming them unlikely to occur. And to the same result from all sides\nconspired the influences which had been obscuring natural knowledge. We\nhave followed those influences in pagan circles from Plato on through\nNeo-Platonism and other systems current in the first centuries of the\nChristian era. We have seen them obliterate rational conceptions of\nnature\u2019s processes and destroy the interest that impels to unbiassed\ninvestigation. The character and exigencies of the Faith intensified the\noperation of like tendencies among Christians. Their eyes were lifted from\nthe earth. They were not concerned with its transitory things, soon to be\nconsumed. Their hope was fixed in the assurance of their Faith; their\nminds were set upon its confirmation. They and their Faith seemed to have\nno use for a knowledge of earth\u2019s phenomena save as bearing illustrative\nor confirmatory testimony to the truth of Scripture. Moreover, the\nmilitant exigencies of their situation made them set excessive store on\nthe miraculous foundation and continuing confirmation of their religion.\n\nFor these reasons the eyes of the Fathers were closed to the natural\nworld, or at least their vision was affected with an obliquity parallel to\nthe needs of doctrine. Any veritable physical or natural knowledge rapidly\ndwindled among them. What remained continued to exist because explanatory\nof Scripture and illustrative of spiritual allegories. To such an\nintellectual temper nothing seems impossible, provided it accord, or can\nbe interpreted to accord, with doctrines elicited from Scripture. Soon\nthere will cease to exist any natural knowledge sufficient to distinguish\nthe normal and possible from the impossible and miraculous. One may recall\nhow little knowledge of the physiology and habits of animals was shown in\nPliny\u2019s _Natural History_.[78] He had not even a rough idea of what was\nphysiologically possible. Personally, he may or may not have believed that\nthe bowels of the field-mouse increase in number with the waxing of the\nmoon; but he had no sufficiently clear appreciation of the causes and\nrelations of natural phenomena to know that such an idea was absurd. It\nwas almost an accident, whether he believed it or not. It is safe to say\nthat neither Ambrose nor Jerome nor Augustine had any clearer\nunderstanding of such things than Pliny. They had read far less about\nthem, and knew less than he. Pliny, at all events, had no motive for\nunderstanding or presenting natural facts in any other way than as he had\nread or been told about them, or perhaps had noticed for himself.\nAugustine and Ambrose had a motive. Their sole interest in natural fact\nlay in its confirmatory evidence of Scriptural truth. They were constantly\nimpelled to understand facts in conformity with their understanding of\nScripture, and to accept or deny accordingly. Thus Augustine denies the\nexistence of Antipodes, men on the opposite side of the earth, who walk\nwith their feet opposite to our own.[79] That did not harmonize with his\ngeneral conception of Scriptural cosmogony.\n\nFor the result, one can point to a concrete instance which is typical of\nmuch. In patristic circles the knowledge of the animal kingdom came to be\nrepresented by the curious book called the _Physiologus_. It was a series\nof descriptions of animals, probably based on stories current in\nAlexandria, and appears to have been put together in Greek early in the\nsecond century. Internal evidence has led to the supposition that it\nemanated from Gnostic circles. It soon came into common use among the\nGreek and Latin Fathers. Origen draws from it by name. In the West, to\nrefer only to the fourth and fifth centuries, Ambrose seems to use it\nconstantly, Jerome occasionally, and also Augustine.\n\nWell known as these stories are, one or two examples may be given to\nrecall their character: The Lion has three characteristics; as he walks or\nruns he brushes his footprints with his tail, so that the hunters may not\ntrack him. This signifies the secrecy of the Incarnation--of the Lion of\nthe tribe of Judah. Secondly, the Lion sleeps with his eyes open; so slept\nthe body of Christ upon the Cross, while His Godhead watched at the right\nhand of the Father. Thirdly, the Lioness brings forth her cub dead; on the\nthird day the father comes and roars in its face, and wakes it to life.\nThis signifies our Lord\u2019s resurrection on the third day.\n\nThe Pelican is distinguished by its love for its young. As these begin to\ngrow they strike at their parents\u2019 faces, and the parents strike back and\nkill them. Then the parents take pity, and on the third day the mother\ncomes and opens her side and lets the blood flow on the dead young ones,\nand they become alive again. Thus God cast off mankind after the Fall, and\ndelivered them over to death; but He took pity on us, as a mother, for by\nthe Crucifixion He awoke us with His blood to eternal life.\n\nThe _Unicorn_ cannot be taken by hunters, because of his great strength,\nbut lets himself be captured by a pure virgin. So Christ, mightier than\nthe heavenly powers, took on humanity in a virgin\u2019s womb.\n\nThe Phoenix lives in India, and when five hundred years old fills his\nwings with fragrant herbs and flies to Heliopolis, where he commits\nhimself to the flames in the Temple of the Sun. From his ashes comes a\nworm, which the second day becomes a fledgling, and on the third a\nfull-grown phoenix, who flies away to his old dwelling-place. The Phoenix\nis the symbol of Christ; the two wings filled with sweet-smelling herbs\nare the Old and New Testaments, full of divine teaching.[80]\n\nThese examples illustrate the two general characteristics of the accounts\nin the _Physiologus_: they have the same legendary quality whether the\nanimal is real or fabulous; the subjects are chosen, and the accounts are\nshaped, by doctrinal considerations. Indeed, from the first the\n_Physiologus_ seems to have been a selection of those animal stories which\nlent themselves most readily to theological application. It would be\npointless to distinguish between the actual and fabulous in such a book;\nnor did the minds of the readers make any such distinction. For Ambrose or\nAugustine the importance of the story lay in its doctrinal significance,\nor moral, which was quite careless of the truth of facts of which it was\nthe \u201cpoint.\u201d The facts were told as introductory argument.\n\nThe interest of the Fathers in physics and natural history bears analogy\nto their interest in history and biography. Looking back to classical\ntimes, one finds that historians were led by other motives than the mere\nendeavour to ascertain and state the facts. The Homeric Epos was the\nliterary forerunner of the history which Herodotus wrote of the Persian\nWars; and the latter often was less interested in the closeness of his\nfacts than in their aptness and rhetorical probability. Doubtless he\nfollowed legends when telling how Greek and Persian spoke or acted. But\nhad not legend already sifted the chaff of irrelevancy from the story,\nleaving the grain of convincing fitness, which is also rhetorical\nprobability? Likewise, Thucydides, in composing the _History of the\nPeloponnesian War_, that masterpiece of reasoned statement, was not\nover-anxious as to accuracy of actual word and fact reported. He carefully\ninquired regarding the events, in some of which he had been an actor.\nOften he knew or ascertained what the chief speakers said in those\ndramatic situations which kept arising in this war of neighbours. Yet,\ninstead of reporting actual words, he gives the sentiments which,\naccording to the laws of rhetorical probability, they must have uttered.\nSo he presents the psychology and turning-point of the matter.\n\nThis was true historical rhetoric; the historian\u2019s art of setting forth a\nsituation veritably, by presenting its intrinsic necessities. Xenophon\u2019s\n_Cyropaedia_ went a step farther; it was a historical romance, which\nneither followed fact nor proceeded according to the necessities of the\nactual situation. But it did proceed according to moral proprieties, and\nso was edifying and plausible.\n\nThe classical Latin practice accorded with the Greek. Cicero speaks of\nhistory as _opus oratorium_, that is, a work having rhetorical and\nliterary qualities. It should set forth the events and situations\naccording to their inherent necessities which constitute their rhetorical\ntruth. Then it should possess the civic and social qualities of good\noratory: morals and public utility. These are, in fact, the\ncharacteristics of the works of Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus. None of them\ntroubled himself much over an accuracy of detail irrelevant to his larger\npurpose. Tacitus is interested in memorable facts; he would relate them in\nsuch form that they might carry their lesson, and bear their part in the\neducation of the citizen, for whom it is salutary to study the past. He\ncondemns, indeed, the historians of the Empire who, under an evil emperor,\nlie from fear, and, upon his death, lie from hate. But such condemnation\nof immoral lying does not forbid the shaping of a story according to\nartistic probability and moral ends. Some shaping and adorning of fact\nmight be allowed the historian, acting with motives of public policy, or\nseeking to glorify or defend his country.[81] This quite accords with the\nview of Varro and Cicero, that good policy should sometimes outweigh\ntruth: whether or not the accounts of the gods were true, it was well for\nthe people to believe.\n\nThus the Fathers of the Church were accustomed to a historical tradition\nand practice in which facts were presented so as to conduce to worthy\nends. Various motives lie back of human interest in truth. A knowledge of\nthe world\u2019s origin, of man\u2019s creation, destiny, and relationship to God,\nmay be sought for its own sake as the highest human good; and yet it may\nbe also sought for the sake of some ulterior and, to the seeker, more\nimportant end. With the Christian Fathers that more important end was\nsalvation. To obtain a saving knowledge was the object of their most\nstrenuous inquiries. Doubtless all men take some pleasure simply in\nknowing; and, on the other hand, there are few among wisdom\u2019s most\ndisinterested lovers that have not some thought of the connection between\nknowledge and the other goods of human life, to which it may conduce. Yet\nif seekers after knowledge be roughly divided into two classes, those who\nwish to know for the sake of knowing, and those who look to another end to\nwhich true knowledge is a means, then the Fathers of the Church fall in\nthe latter class.\n\nIf truth be sought for the sake of something else, why may it not also be\nsacrificed? A work of art is achieved by shaping the story for the drama\u2019s\nsake, and if we weave fiction to suit the end, why not weave fiction with\nfact, or, still better, _see_ the fact in such guise as to suit the\nrequirements of our purpose? Many are the aspects and relationships of any\nfact; its _actuality_ is exhaustless.[82] In how many ways does a human\nlife present itself? What narrative could exhaust the actuality and\nsignificance of the assassination of Julius Caesar? Indeed, no fact has\nsuch narrow or compelling singleness of significance or actuality that all\nits truth can be put in any statement! And again, who is it that can draw\nthe line between reality and conviction?\n\nIt is clear that the limited and special interest taken by the Church\nFathers in physical and historic facts would affect their apprehension of\nthem. One may ask what was real to Plato in the world of physical\nphenomena. At all events, Christian Platonists, like Origen or Gregory of\nNyssa,[83] saw the paramount reality of such phenomena in the spiritual\nideas implicated and evinced by them. The world\u2019s reality would thus be\nresolved into the world\u2019s moral or spiritual significance, and in that\ncase its truth might be educed through moral and allegorical\ninterpretation. Of course, such an understanding of reality involves hosts\nof assumptions which were valid in the fourth century, but are not\ncommonly accepted now; and chief among them is this very assumption that\nthe deepest meaning of ancient poets, and the Scriptures above all, is\nallegorical.\n\nThis is but a central illustration of what would determine the Fathers\u2019\nconception of the truth of physical events. Again: the Creation was a\ngreat miracle; its cause, the will of God. The Cause of the Creation was\nspiritual, and spiritual was its purpose, to wit, the edification and\nsalvation of God\u2019s people; the building, preservation, and final\nconsummation of the City of God. Did not the deepest truth of the matter\nlie in this spiritual cause and purpose? And afterwards to what other end\ntended all human history? It was one long exemplification of the purpose\nof God through the ways of providence. The conception of what constituted\na fitting exemplification of that purpose would control the choice of\nfacts and shape their presentation. Then what was more natural than that\nevents should exhibit this purpose, that it might be perceived by the\npeople of God? It would clearly appear in saving interpositions or\nremarkable chronological coincidences. Such, even more palpably than the\nother links in the providential chain, were direct manifestations of the\nwill of God, and were miraculous because of their extraordinary character.\nHistory, made anew through these convictions, became a demonstration of\nthe truth of Christian doctrine--in other words, _apologetic_.\n\nThe most universal and comprehensive example of this was Augustine\u2019s _City\nof God_, already adverted to. Its subject was the ways of God with men. It\nembraced history, philosophy, and religion. It was the final Christian\napology, and the conclusive proof of Christian doctrine, _adversum\npaganos_. To this end Augustine unites the manifold topics which he\ndiscusses; and to this end his apparent digressions eventually return,\nbearing their sheaves of corroborative evidence. In no province of inquiry\ndoes his apologetic purpose appear with clearer power than in his\ntreatment of history, profane and sacred.[84] Through the centuries the\ncurrents of divine purpose are seen to draw into their dual course the\notherwise pointless eddyings of human affairs. Beneath the Providence of\nGod, a revolving succession of kingdoms fill out the destinies of the\nearthly Commonwealth of war and rapine, until the red torrents are pressed\ntogether into the terrestrial greatness of imperial Rome. No power of\nheathen gods effected this result, nor all the falsities of pagan\nphilosophy: but the will of the one true Christian God. The fortunes of\nthe heavenly City are traced through the prefigurative stories of\nantediluvian and patriarchal times, and then on through the prophetic\nhistory of the chosen people, until the end of prophecy appears--Christ\nand the Catholic Church.\n\nThe _Civitas Dei_ is the crowning example of the drastic power with which\nthe Church Fathers conformed the data of human understanding into a\nsubstantiation of Catholic Christianity.[85] At the time of its\ncomposition, the Faith needed advocacy in the world. Alaric entered Rome\nin 410; and it was to meet the cry of those who would lay that catastrophe\nat the Church\u2019s doors that Augustine began the _Civitas Dei_. Soon after,\nan ardent young Spaniard named Orosius came on pilgrimage to the great\ndoctor at Hippo, and finding favour in his eyes, was asked to write a\nprofane history proving the abundance of calamities which had afflicted\nmankind before the time of Christ. So Orosius devoted some years (417-418)\nto the compilation of a universal chronicle, using Latin sources, and\ncalling his work _Seven Books of Histories \u201cadversum paganos.\u201d_[86]\nAddressing Augustine in his prologue, he says:\n\n    \u201cThou hast commanded me that as against the vain rhetoric of those\n    who, aliens to God\u2019s Commonwealth, coming from country cross-roads and\n    villages are called pagans, because they know earthly things, who seek\n    not unto the future and ignore the past, yet cry down the present time\n    as filled with evil, just because Christ is believed and God is\n    worshipped;--thou hast commanded that I should gather from histories\n    and annals whatever mighty ills and miseries and terrors there have\n    been from wars and pestilence, from famine, earthquake, and floods,\n    from volcanic eruptions, from lightning or from hail, and also from\n    monstrous crimes in the past centuries; and that I should arrange and\n    set forth the matter briefly in a book.\u201d\n\nOrosius\u2019s story of the four great Empires--Babylonian, Macedonian,\nAfrican, and Roman--makes a red tale of carnage. He deemed \u201cthat such\nthings should be commemorated, in order that with the secret of God\u2019s\nineffable judgments partly laid open, those stupid murmurers at our\nChristian times should understand that the one God ordained the fortunes\nof Babylon in the beginning, and at the end those of Rome; understand also\nthat it is through His clemency that we live, although wretchedly because\nof our intemperance. Like was the origin of Babylon and Rome, and like\ntheir power, greatness, and their fortunes good and ill; but unlike their\ndestinies, since Babylon lost her kingdom and Rome keeps hers\u201d; and\nOrosius refers to the clemency of the barbarian victors who as Christians\nspared Christians.[87]\n\nAt the opening of his seventh book he again presents his purpose and\nconclusions:\n\n    \u201cI think enough evidence has been brought together, to prove that the\n    one and true God, made known by the Christian Faith, created the world\n    and His creature as He wished, and that He has ordered and directed it\n    through many things, of which it has not seen the purpose, and has\n    ordained it for one event, declared through One; and likewise has made\n    manifest His power and patience by arguments manifold. Whereat, I\n    perceive, straitened and anxious minds have stumbled, to think of so\n    much patience joined to so great power. For, if He was able to create\n    the world, and establish its peace, and impart to it a knowledge of\n    His worship and Himself, what was the need of so great and (as they\n    say) so hurtful patience, exerted to the end that at last, through the\n    errors, slaughters and the toils of men, there should result what\n    might rather have arisen in the beginning by His virtue, which you\n    preach? To whom I can truly reply: the human race from the beginning\n    was so created and appointed that living under religion with peace\n    without labour, by the fruit of obedience it might merit eternity; but\n    it abused the Creator\u2019s goodness, turned liberty into wilful licence,\n    and through disdain fell into forgetfulness; now the patience of God\n    is just and doubly just, operating that this disdain might not wholly\n    ruin those whom He wished to spare, but might be reduced through\n    labours; and also so that He might always hold out guidance although\n    to an ignorant creature, to whom if penitent He would mercifully\n    restore the means of grace.\u201d\n\nSuch was the point of view and such the motives of this book, which was to\nbe _par excellence_ the source of ancient history for the Middle Ages.\nBut, concerned chiefly with the Gentile nations, Orosius has few palpable\nmiracles to tell. The miracle lies in God\u2019s _ineffabilis ordinatio_ of\nevents, and especially in marvellous chronological parallels shown in the\nhistories of nations, for our edification. Likewise for mediaeval men\nthese ineffable chronological correspondences (which never existed in\nfact) were to be evidence of God\u2019s providential guidance of the world.\n\nSome thirty years after Orosius wrote, a priest of Marseilles, Salvian by\nname, composed a different sort of treatise, with a like object of\ndemonstrating the righteous validity of God\u2019s providential ordering of\naffairs, especially in those troubled times of barbarian invasion through\nwhich the Empire then was passing. The book declared its purpose in its\ntitle--_De gubernatione Dei_.[88] Its tenor is further elucidated by the\ntitle bestowed upon it by a contemporary: _De praesenti_ (_Dei_)\n_judicio_. It is famous for the pictures (doubtless overwrought) which it\ngives of the low state of morals among the Roman provincials, and of the\ncomparative decency of the barbarians.\n\nThese examples sufficiently indicate the broad apologetic purpose in the\npatristic writing of history. There was another class of composition,\nbiographical rather than historical, the object of which was to give\nedifying examples of the grace of God working in holy men. The reference,\nof course, is to the _Vitae sanctorum_ whose number from the fourth\ncentury onward becomes legion. They set forth the marvellous virtues of\nanchorites and their miracles. In the East, the prime example is the\nAthanasian Life of Anthony; Jerome also wrote, in Latin, the lives of\nAnthony\u2019s forerunner Paulus and of other saints. But for the Latin West\nthe typical example was the _Life_ of St. Martin of Tours, most popular of\nsaints, by Sulpicius Severus.\n\nTo dub this class of compositions (and there are classes within classes\nhere) uncritical, credulous, intentionally untruthful, is not warranted\nwithout a preliminary consideration of their purpose. That in general was\nto edify; the writer is telling a moral tale, illustrative of God\u2019s grace\nin the instances of holy men. But the divine grace is the real matter; the\nsaint\u2019s life is but the example. God\u2019s grace exists; it operates in this\nway. As to the illustrative details of its operation, why be over-anxious\nas to their correctness? Only the _vita_ must be interesting, to fix the\nreader\u2019s attention, and must be edifying, to improve him. These principles\nexerted sometimes a less, sometimes a greater influence; and accordingly,\nwhile perhaps none of the _vitae_ is without pious colouring, as a class\nthey range from fairly trustworthy biographies to vehicles of edifying\nmyth.[89]\n\nMiracles are never lacking. The _vita_ commonly was drawn less from\npersonal knowledge than from report or tradition. Report grows passing\nfrom mouth to mouth, and is enlarged with illustrative incidents. Since no\ndisbelief blocked the acceptance of miracles, their growth outstripped\nthat of the other elements of the story, because they interested the most\npeople. Yet there was little originality, and the _vitae_ constantly\nreproduced like incidents. Especially, Biblical prototypes were followed,\nas one sees in the _Dialogi_ of Gregory the Great, telling of the career\nof St. Benedict of Nursia. The Pope finds that the great founder of\nwestern monasticism performed many of the miracles ascribed to Scriptural\ncharacters.[90] Herein we see the working of suggestion and imitation upon\na \u201clegend\u201d; but Gregory found rather an additional wonder-striking\nfeature, that God not only had wrought miracles through Benedict, but in\nHis ineffable wisdom had chosen to conform the saint\u2019s deeds to the\npattern of Scriptural prototypes. And so, in the _Vitae sanctorum_, the\njoinder of suggestion and the will to believe literally worked marvels.\n\nUsually the Fathers of the Church were as interested in miracles as the\nuneducated laity. Ambrose, the great Archbishop of Milan, writes a long\nletter to his sister Marcellina upon finding the relics of certain\nmartyrs, and the miracles wrought by this treasure-trove.[91] As for\nJerome, of course, he is very open-minded, and none too careful in his own\naccounts. His passion for the relics of the saints appears in his polemic\n_Contra Vigilantium_. What interest, either in the writing or the hearing,\nwould men have taken in a hermit desert life that was bare of miracles?\nThe desert and the forest solitude have always been full of wonders. In\nJerome\u2019s Lives of Paulus and Hilarion, the romantic and picturesque\nelements consist exclusively in the miraculous. And again, how could any\none devote himself to the cult of an almost contemporary saint or the\nworship of a martyr, and not find abundant miracles? Sulpicius Severus\nwrote the _Vita_ of St. Martin while the saint was still alive; and there\nwould have been no reason for the worship of St. Felix, carried on through\nyears by Paulinus of Nola, if Felix\u2019s relics had not had saving power. It\nwas to this charming tender of the dead, afterwards beatified as St.\nPaulinus of Nola,[92] that Augustine addressed his moderating treatise on\nthese matters, entitled _De cura pro mortuis_. He can see no advantage in\nburying a body close to a martyr\u2019s tomb unless in order to stimulate the\nprayers of the living. How the martyrs help us surpasses my understanding,\nsays the writer; but it is known that they do help. Very few were as\ncritical as the Bishop of Hippo; and all men recognized the efficacy of\nprayers to the martyred saints, and the magic power of their relics.\n\nHaving said so much of the intellectual obliquities of the Church Fathers,\nit were well to dwell a moment on their power. Their inspiration was the\nChristian Faith, working within them and bending their strength to its\ncall. Their mental energies conformed to their understanding of the Faith\nand their interpretation of its Scriptural presentation. Their achievement\nwas Catholic Christianity consisting in the union of two complements,\necclesiastical organization and the complete and consistent organism of\ndoctrine. Here, in fact, two living organisms were united as body and\nsoul. Each was fitted to the other, and neither could have existed alone.\nIn their union they were to prove unequalled in history for coherence and\nefficiency. Great then was the energy and intellectual power of the men\nwho constructed Church and doctrine. Great was Paul; great was Tertullian;\ngreat were Origen, Athanasius, and the Greek Gregories. Great also were\nthose Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, Augustine their\nlast and greatest, who finally completed Church and doctrine for\ntransmission to the Middle Ages--the doctrine, however, destined to be\nre-adjusted as to emphasis, and barbarized in character by him whose mind\nat least is patristically recreative, but whose soul is mediaeval,\nGregorius Magnus.[93]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nLATIN TRANSMITTERS OF ANTIQUE AND PATRISTIC THOUGHT\n\n\nFor the Latin West the creative patristic epoch closes with the death of\nAugustine. There follows a period marked by the cessation of intellectual\noriginality. Men are engaged upon translations from the Greek; they are\nbusy commenting upon older writings, or are expounding with a change of\nemphasis the systematic constructions of their predecessors. Epitomes and\ncompendia appear, simplified and mechanical abstracts of the bare elements\nof inherited knowledge and current education. Compilations are made, put\ntogether of excerpts taken unshriven and unshorn into the compiler\u2019s\nwriting. Knowledge is brought down to a more barbaric level. Yet\ntemperament lingers for a while, and still appears in the results.\n\nThe representatives of this post-patristic period of translation, comment,\nand compendium, and of re-expression with temperamental change of\nemphasis, are the two contemporaries, Bo\u00ebthius and Cassiodorus; then\nGregory the Great, who became pope soon after Cassiodorus closed his eyes\nat the age of ninety or more; and, lastly, Isidore, Archbishop of Seville,\nwho died in 636, twenty-two years after Gregory. All these were Latin\nbred, and belonged to the Roman world rather than to those new peoples\nwhose barbarism was hastening the disruption of a decadent order, but\nwhose recently converted zeal was soon to help on the further diffusion of\nLatin Christianity. They appear as transmitters of antique and patristic\nthought; because, originating little, they put together matter congenial\nto their own lowering intellectual predilections, and therefore suitable\nmental pabulum for times of mingled decadence and barbarism, and also for\nthe following periods of mediaeval re-emergence which continued to hark\nback to the obvious and the easy.\n\nInstead of _transmitters_, a word indicating function, one might call\nthese men _intermediaries_, and so indicate their position as well as\nr\u00f4le. Both words, however, should be taken relatively. For all the Fathers\nheretofore considered were in some sense transmitters or intermediaries,\neven though creative in their work of systematizing, adding to, or\notherwise transforming their matter. Yet one would not dub Augustine a\ntransmitter, because he was far more of a remaker or creator. But a dark\nrefashioner indeed will Gregory the Great appear; while Bo\u00ebthius,\nCassiodorus, Isidore are rather sheer transmitters, or intermediaries, the\nlast-named worthy destined to be the most popular of them all, through his\nunerring faculty of selecting for his compilations the foolish and the\nflat.\n\nAmong them, Bo\u00ebthius alone was attached to the antique by affinity of\nsentiment and temper. Although doubtless a professing Christian, his\nsentiments were those of pagan philosophy. The _De consolatione\nphilosophiae_, which comes to us as his very self, is a work of eclectic\npagan moralizing, fused to a personal unity by the author\u2019s artistic and\nemotional nature, then deeply stirred by his imprisonment and peril. He\nhad enjoyed the favour of the great Ostrogoth, Theodoric, ruler of Italy,\nbut now was fallen under suspicion, and had been put in prison, where he\nwas executed in the year 525 at the age of forty-three. His book moves all\nreaders by its controlled and noble pathos, rendered more appealing\nthrough the romantic interest surrounding its composition. It became _par\nexcellence_ the mediaeval source of such ethical precept and consolation\nas might be drawn from rational self-control and acquiescence in the ways\nof Providence. But at present we are concerned with the range of\nBo\u00ebthius\u2019s intellectual interests and his labours for the transmission of\nlearning. He was an antique-minded man, whose love of knowledge did not\nrevolve around \u201csalvation,\u201d the patristic focus of intellectual effort.\nRather he was moved by an ardent wish to place before his Latin\ncontemporaries what was best in the classic education and philosophy. He\nis first of all a translator from Greek to Latin, and, secondly, a helpful\ncommentator on the works which he translates.\n\nHe was little over twenty years of age when he wrote his first work, the\n_De arithmetica_.[94] It was a free translation of the _Arithmetic_ of\nNichomachus, a Neo-Pythagorean who flourished about the year 100.\nBo\u00ebthius\u2019s work opens with a dedicatory _Praefatio_ to his father-in-law\nSymmachus. In that and in the first chapter he evinces a broad conception\nof education, and shows that lovers of wisdom should not despise\narithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy, the fourfold path or\n_quadrivium_, a word which he may have been the first to use in this\nsense.[95] With him arithmetic treats of quantity in and by itself; music,\nof quantity related to measure; geometry, of moveless, and astronomy, of\nmoving, quantity. He was a better Greek scholar than mathematician; and\nhis free translation ignores some of the finer points of Nichomachus\u2019s\nwork, which would have impressed one better versed in mathematics.[96]\n\nThe young scholar followed up his maiden work with a treatise on Music,\nshowing a knowledge of Greek harmonics. Then came a _De geometria_, in\nwhich the writer draws from Euclid as well as from the practical knowledge\nof Roman surveyors.[97] He composed or translated other works on\nelementary branches of education, as appears from a royal letter written\nby Cassiodorus in the name of Theodoric: \u201cIn your translations Pythagoras\nthe musician, Ptolemy the astronomer, Nichomachus the arithmetician,\nEuclid the geometer are read by Italians, while Plato the theologian and\nAristotle the logician dispute in Roman voice; and you have given back the\nmechanician Archimedes in Latin to the Sicilians.\u201d[98] Making all\nallowance for politeness, this letter indicates the large accomplishment\nof Bo\u00ebthius, who was but twenty-five years old when it was written. We\nturn to the commentated Aristotelian translations which he now\nundertook.[99] \u201cAlthough the duties of the consular office[100] prevent\nthe bestowal of our time upon these studies, it still seems a proper part\nof our care for the Republic to instruct its citizens in the learning\nwhich is gained by the labours of the lamp. Since the valour of a bygone\ntime brought dominion over other cities to this one Republic, I shall not\nmerit ill of my countrymen if I shall have instructed the manners of our\nState with the arts of Greek wisdom.\u201d[101] These sentences open the second\nbook of Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s translation of the _Categories_ of Aristotle. His plan\nof work enlarged, apparently, and grew more definite, as the years passed,\neach adding its quota of accomplishment. At all events, some time\nafterwards, when he may have been not far from thirty-five, he speaks in\nthe flush of an intellectual anticipation which the many years of labour\nstill to be counted on seemed to justify:\n\n    \u201cLabour ennobles the human race and completes it with the fruits of\n    genius; but idleness deadens the mind. Not experience, but ignorance,\n    of labour turns us from it. For what man who has made trial of labour\n    has ever forsaken it? And the power of the mind lies in keeping the\n    mind tense; to unstring it is to ruin it. My fixed intention, if the\n    potent favour of the deity will so grant, is (although others have\n    laboured in this field, yet not with satisfactory method) to translate\n    into Latin every work of Aristotle that comes to my hand, and furnish\n    it with a Latin commentary. Thus I may present, well ordered and\n    illustrated with the light of comment, whatever subtilty of logic\u2019s\n    art, whatever weight of moral experience, and whatever insight into\n    natural truth, may be gathered from Aristotle. And I mean to translate\n    all the dialogues of Plato, or reduce them in my commentary to a Latin\n    form. Having accomplished this, I shall not have despised the opinions\n    of Aristotle and Plato if I evoke a certain concord between them and\n    show in how many things of importance for philosophy they agree--if\n    only life and leisure last. But now let us return to our\n    subject.\u201d[102]\n\nOne sees a veritable love of intellectual labour and a love of the\nresulting mental increment. It is distinctly the antique, not the\npatristic, attitude towards interests of the mind. In spite of his unhappy\nsixth century way of writing, and the mental fallings away indicated by\nit, Bo\u00ebthius possessed the old pagan spirit, and shows indeed how tastes\nmight differ in the sixth century. He never translated the whole of\nAristotle and Plato; and his idea of reconciling the two evinces the\nshallow eclectic spirit of the closing pagan times. Nevertheless, he\ncarried out his purpose to the extent of rendering into Latin, with\nabundant comment, the entire _Organon_, that is, all the logical writings\nof Aristotle. First of all, and with elaborate explanation, he rendered\nPorphyry\u2019s famous Introduction to the _Categories_ of the Master. Then the\n_Categories_ themselves, likewise with abundant explanation. Then\nAristotle\u2019s _De interpretatione_, in two editions, the first with simple\ncomment suited to beginners, the second with the best elaboration of\nformal logic that he could devise or compile.[103] These elementary\nportions of the _Organon_, as transmitted in the Bo\u00ebthian translations,\nmade the logical discipline of the mediaeval schools until the latter part\nof the twelfth century. He translated also Aristotle\u2019s _Prior_ and\n_Posterior Analytics_, the _Topics_, and the _Sophistical Elenchi_. But\nsuch advanced treatises were beyond the requirements of the early\nmediaeval centuries. With the lessening of intellectual energy they passed\ninto oblivion, to re-emerge only when called for by the livelier mental\nactivities of a later time.\n\nThe list of Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s works is not yet exhausted, for he wrote some minor\nlogical treatises, and a voluminous commentary on Cicero\u2019s _Topica_. He\nwas probably the author of certain Christian theological tracts,\nthemselves less famous than the controversy which long has raged as to\ntheir authorship.[104] If he wrote them, he did but make polite obeisance\nto the ruling intellectual preoccupations of the time.\n\nBo\u00ebthius\u2019s commentaries reproduced the comments of other\ncommentators,[105] and he presents merely the logical processes of\nthought. But these, analyzed and tabulated, were just the parts of\nphilosophy to be seized by a period whose lack of mental originality was\nrapidly lowering to a barbaric frame of mind. The logical works of\nBo\u00ebthius were formal, pedantic, even mechanical. They necessarily\npresented the method rather than the substance of philosophic truth. But\ntheir study would exercise the mind, and they were peculiarly adapted to\nserve as discipline for the coming centuries, which could not become\nprogressive until they had mastered their antique inheritance, including\nthis chief method of presenting the elemental forms of truth.\n\nThe \u201clife and leisure\u201d of Bo\u00ebthius were cut off by his untimely death.\nCassiodorus, although a year or two older, outlived him by half a century.\nHe was born at Squillace, a Calabrian town which looks out south-easterly\nover the little gulf bearing the same name. His father, grandfather, and\ngreat-grandfather had been generals and high officials. He himself served\nfor forty years under Theodoric and his successors, and at last became\npraetorian praefect, the chief office in the Gothic Roman kingdom.[106]\nThrough his birth, his education, his long official career, and perhaps\nhis pliancy, he belonged to both Goths and Romans, and like the great king\nwhom he first served, stood for a policy of reconcilement and assimilation\nof the two peoples, and also for tolerance as between Arian and Catholic.\n\nSome years after Theodoric\u2019s death, when the Gothic kingdom had passed\nthrough internecine struggles and seemed at last to have fallen before the\nskill of Belisarius, Cassiodorus forsook the troubles of the world. He\nretired to his birthplace Squillace, and there in propitious situations\nfounded a pleasant cloister for coenobites and an austerer hermitage for\nthose who would lead lives of arduous seclusion. For himself, he chose the\nformer. It was the year of grace 540, three years before the death of\nBenedict of Nursia. Cassiodorus was past sixty. In retiring from the world\nhe followed the instinct of his time, yet temperately and with an\nincrement of wisdom. For he was the first influential man to recognize the\nfitness of the cloister for the labours of the pious student and copyist.\nIt is not too much to regard him as the inaugurator of the learned,\ncompiling, commenting and transcribing functions of monasticism. Not only\nas a patron, but through his own works, he was here a leader. His writings\ncomposed after his retirement represent the intellectual interests of\nwestern monasticism in the last half of the sixth century. They indicate\nthe round of study proper for monks; just the grammar, the orthography,\nand other elementary branches which they might know; just the history with\nwhich it behoved them to be acquainted; and then, outbulking all the rest,\nthose Scriptural studies to which they might well devote their lives for\nthe sake of their own and others\u2019 souls.\n\nIn passing these writings in review, it is unnecessary to pause over the\ninteresting collection of letters--_Variae epistolae_--which were the\nfruit of Cassiodorus\u2019s official life, before he shut the convent\u2019s outer\ndoor against the toils of office. He \u201cedited\u201d them near the close of his\npublic career. Before that ended he had made a wretched _Chronicon_,\ncarelessly and none too honestly compiled. He had also written his Gothic\nHistory, a far better work. It survives only in the compend of the\nignorant Jordanes, a fact the like of which will be found repeatedly\nrecurring in the sixth and following centuries, when a barbaric mentality\ncontinually prefers the compend to the larger and better original, which\ndemands greater effort from the reader. A little later Cassiodorus\ncomposed his _De anima_, a treatise on the nature, qualities, and\ndestinies of the Soul. Although made at the request of friends, it\nindicated the turning of the statesman\u2019s interest to the matters occupying\nhis latter years, during which his literary labours were guided by a\npaternal purpose. One may place it with the works coming from his pen in\nthose thirty years of retirement, when study and composition were rather\nstimulated than disturbed by care of his convent and estates, the modicum\nof active occupation needed by an old man whose life had been passed in\nthe management of State affairs. Its preface sets out the topical\narrangement in a manner prophetic of scholastic methods:\n\n    \u201cLet us first learn why it is called Anima; secondly, its definition;\n    thirdly, its substantial quality; fourthly, whether any form should be\n    ascribed to it; fifthly, what are its moral virtues; sixthly, its\n    natural powers (_virtutes naturales_) by which it holds the body\n    together; seventhly, as to its origin; eighthly, where is its especial\n    seat; ninthly, as to the body\u2019s form; tenthly, as to the properties of\n    the souls of sinners; eleventhly, as to those of the souls of the\n    just; and twelfthly, as to the resurrection.\u201d[107]\n\nThe short treatise which follows is neither original nor penetrating. It\ncloses with an encomium on the number twelve, with praise of Christ and\nwith a prayer.\n\nSoon after Cassiodorus had installed himself in Vivaria, as he called his\nconvent, from the fishponds and gardens surrounding it, he set himself to\nwork to transcribe the Scriptures, and commenced a huge Commentary on the\nPsalms. But he interrupted these undertakings in 543 in order to write for\nhis monks a syllabus of their sacred and secular education. The title of\nthe work was _Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum_.[108] In\nopening he refers to his failure to found a school of Christian teaching\nat Rome, on account of the wars. Partially to repair this want, he will\ncompose an introduction to the study of Scripture and letters. It will not\nset out his own opinions, but those of former men. Through the expositions\nof the Fathers we ascend to divine Scripture, as by a ladder. The proper\norder is for the \u201ctiros of Christ\u201d first to learn the Psalms, and then\nproceed to study the rest of Scripture in carefully corrected codices.\nWhen the \u201csoldiers of Christ\u201d have completed the reading of Scripture, and\nfixed it in their minds by constant meditation, they will begin to\nrecognize passages when cited, and be able to find them. They should also\nknow the Latin commentators, and even the Greek, who have expounded the\nvarious books.\n\nThe first book of these _Institutiones_ is strictly a guide to Scripture\nstudy, and in no way a commentary. For example, beginning with the\n\u201cOctateuch,\u201d as making up the first \u201ccodex\u201d of Scripture, Cassiodorus\ntells what Latin and what Greek Fathers have expounded it. He proceeds,\nbriefly, in the same way with the rest of the Old and New Testaments. He\nmentions the Ecumenical Councils, which had passed upon Christian\ndoctrine, and then refers to the division of Scripture by Jerome, by\nAugustine, and in the Septuagint. He states rules for preserving the\npurity of the text, exclaims over its ineffable value, and mentions famous\ndoctrinal works, like Augustine\u2019s _De Trinitate_ and the _De officiis_ of\nAmbrose. He then recommends the study of Church historians and names the\ngreat ones, who while incidentally telling of secular events have shown\nthat such hung not on chance nor on the power of the feeble gods, but\nsolely on the Creator\u2019s will. Then he shortly characterizes the great\nLatin Doctors, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, and\nmentions a convenient collection of excerpts from the works of the\nlast-named saint, made by a certain priest. Next he admonishes the student\nas to the careful reading of Scripture, and suggests convenient\nabbreviations for noting citations. He speaks of the desirability of\nknowing enough cosmography to understand when Scripture speaks of\ncountries, towns, mountains, or rivers, and then reverts to the need of an\nacquaintance with the Seven Arts; this secular wisdom, having been\noriginally pilfered from Scripture, should now be called back to its true\nservice. Those monks who lack intelligence for such studies may properly\nwork in the fields and gardens which surround Vivaria (Columella and other\nwriters on agriculture are to be found in the convent library), and to all\nthe care of the sick is recommended. The second book of the\n_Institutiones_ is a brief and unequal compend of the Seven Arts, in which\nDialectic is treated at greatest length.\n\nThe remaining works of Cassiodorus appear as special aids to the student\nin carrying out the programme of the first book of the _Institutiones_.\nSuch an aid was the bulky Commentary on the Psalms; another such was the\nfamous _Historia tripartita_, made of the Church histories of Socrates,\nSozomen, and Theodoret, translated by a friend of Cassiodorus, and crudely\nthrown together by himself into one narrative. Finally, such another work\nwas the compilation upon Latin orthography which the good old man made for\nhis monks in his ninety-third year.\n\nThis long and useful life does not display the zeal for knowledge for its\nown sake which marks the labours of Bo\u00ebthius. It is the Christian\nutilitarian view of knowledge that Cassiodorus represents, and yet not\nnarrowly, nor with a trace of that intolerance of whatever did not bear\ndirectly on salvation, which is to be found in Gregory. From Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s\nlove of philosophy, and from the practical interest of Cassiodorus in\neducation, it is indeed a change to the spiritual anxiousness and fear of\nhell besetting this great pope.[109]\n\nIn appreciating a man\u2019s opinions and his mental clarity or murkiness, one\nshould consider his temperament and the temper of his time. Gregory was\nconstrained as well as driven by temperamental yearnings and aversions,\naggravated by the humour of the century that produced Benedict of Nursia\nand was contemplating gloomily the Empire\u2019s ruin and decay, now more\nacutely borne in upon the consciousness of thoughtful people than in the\nage of Augustine. His temper drew from prevailing moods, and in turn\nimpressed its spiritual incisiveness upon the influences which it\nabsorbed; and his writings, so expressive of his own temperament and all\nthat fed it, were to work mightily upon the minds and moods of men to\ncome.\n\nBorn of a distinguished Roman family about the year 540, he was some\nthirty-five years old when Cassiodorus died. His education was the best\nthat Rome could give. In spite of disclaimer on his part, rhetorical\ntraining shows in the antithetic power of his style; for example, in that\nresounding sentence in the dedicatory letter prefixed to his _Moralia_,\nwherein he would seem to be casting grammar to the winds. Although quoted\nuntil threadbare, it is so illustrative as to justify citation: \u201cNam sicut\nhujus quoque epistolae tenor enunciat, non metacismi collisionem fugio,\nnon barbarismi confusionem devito, situs motusque et praepositionum casus\nservare contemno, quia indignum vehementer existimo, ut verba coelestis\noraculi restringam sub regulis Donati.\u201d[110] By no means will he flee the\nconcussion of the oft-repeated M, or avoid the confusing barbarism; he\nwill despise the laws of place and case, because he deems it utterly unfit\nto confine the words of the heavenly oracle beneath the rules of Donatus.\nBy all of which Gregory means that he proposes to write freely, according\nto the needs of his subject, and to disregard the artificial rules of the\nsomewhat emptied rhetoric, let us say, of Cassiodorus\u2019s epistles.\n\nIn his early manhood naturally he was called to take part in affairs, and\nwas made _Praetor urbanus_. But soon the prevalent feeling of the\ndifficulty of serving God in the world drove him to retirement. His\nfather\u2019s palace on the Coelian hill he changed to a convent, upon the site\nof which now stands the Church of San Gregorio Magno; and there he became\na monk. Passionately he loved the monk\u2019s life, for which he was to long in\nvain through most of the years to come. Soon he was dragged forth from the\ncompanionship of \u201cMary\u201d to serve with \u201cMartha.\u201d The toiling papacy could\nnot allow a man of his abilities to remain hidden. He was harnessed to its\nactive service, and sent as the papal representative to the Imperial Court\nat Constantinople; whence he returned, after several years, in 585.\nRe-entering his monastery on the Coelian, he became its abbot; but was\ndrawn out again, and made pope by acclamation and insistency in the year\n590. There is no need to speak of the efficient and ceaseless activity of\nthis pontiff, whose body was never free from pain, nor his soul released\nfrom longing for seclusion which only the grave was to bring.\n\nGregory\u2019s mind was less antique, and more barbarous and mediaeval than\nAugustine\u2019s, whose doctrine he reproduced with garbling changes of tone\nand emphasis. In the century and a half between the two, the Roman\ninstitutions had broken down, decadence had advanced, and the patristic\nmind had passed from indifference to the laws of physical phenomena to\nsomething like sheer barbaric ignorance of the same. Whatever in Ambrose,\nJerome, or Augustine represented conviction or opinion, has in Gregory\nbecome mental habit, spontaneity of acceptance, matter of course. The\nmiraculous is with him a frame of mind; and the allegorical method of\nunderstanding Scripture is no longer intended, not to say wilful, as with\nAugustine, but has become persistent unconscious habit. Augustine desired\nto know God and the Soul, and the true Christian doctrine with whatever\nmade for its substantiation. He is conscious of closing his mind to\neverything irrelevant to this. Gregory\u2019s nature has settled itself within\nthis scheme of Christian knowledge which Augustine framed. He has no\nintellectual inclinations reaching out beyond. He is not conscious of\nclosing his mind to extraneous knowledge. His mental habits and\ntemperament are so perfectly adjusted to the confines of this circle, that\nall beyond has ceased to exist for him.\n\nSo with Gregory the patristic limitation of intellectual interest,\nindifference to physical phenomena, and acceptance of the miraculous are\nno longer merely thoughts and opinions consciously entertained; they make\npart of his nature. There was nothing novel in his views regarding\nknowledge, sacred and profane. But there is a turbid force of temperament\nin his expressions. In consequence, his vehement words to Bishop\nDesiderius of Vienne[111] have been so taken as to make the great pope a\nbarbarizing idiot. He exclaims with horror at the report that the bishop\nis occupying himself teaching grammar; he is shocked that an episcopal\nmouth should be singing praises of Jove, which are unfit for a lay brother\nto utter. But Gregory is not decrying here, any more than in the sentence\nquoted from the letter prefixed to his _Moralia_, a decent command of\nLatin. He is merely declaring with temperamental vehemence that to teach\ngrammar and poetry is not the proper function of a bishop--the bishop in\nthis case of a most important see. Gregory had no more taste for secular\nstudies than Tertullian four centuries before him. For both, however,\nletters had their handmaidenly function, which they performed effectively\nin the instances of these two great rhetoricians.[112]\n\nIt is needless to say that the entire literary labour of Gregory was\nreligious. His works, as in time, so in quality, are midway between those\nof Ambrose and Augustine and those of the Carolingian rearrangers of\npatristic opinion. Gregory, who laboured chiefly as a commentator upon\nScripture, was not highly original in his thoughts, yet was no mere\nexcerpter of patristic interpretations, like Rabanus Maurus or Walafrid\nStrabo, who belong to the ninth century.[113] In studying Scripture, he\nthought and interpreted in allegories. But he was also a man experienced\nin life\u2019s exigencies, and his religious admonishings were wise and\nsearching. His prodigious Commentary upon Job has with reason been called\nGregory\u2019s _Moralia_.[114] And as the moral advice and exhortation sprang\nfrom Gregory the bishop, so the allegorical interpretations largely were\nhis own, or at least not borrowed and applied mechanically.\n\nGregory represents the patristic mind passing into a more barbarous stage.\nHe delighted in miracles, and wrote his famous _Dialogues on the Lives and\nMiracles of the Italian Saints_[115] to solace the cares of his\npontificate. The work exhibits a na\u00efve acceptance of every kind of\nmiracle, and presents the supple mediaeval devil in all his deceitful\nmetamorphoses.[116]\n\nQuite in accord with Gregory\u2019s interest in these stories is his\nelaboration of certain points of doctrine, for example, the worship of the\nsaints, whose intercession and supererogatory righteousness may be turned\nby prayer and worship to the devotee\u2019s benefit. Thus he comments upon the\neighth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of Job:\n\n    \u201cThey are wet with the showers of the mountains, and embrace the rocks\n    as a shelter. The showers of the mountains are the words of the\n    doctors. Concerning which mountains it is said with the voice of the\n    Church: \u2018I will lift up my eyes unto the hills.\u2019 The showers of the\n    mountains water these, for the streams of the holy fathers saturate.\n    We receive the \u2018shelter\u2019 as a covering of good works, by which one is\n    covered so that before the eyes of omnipotent God the filthiness of\n    his perversity is concealed. Wherefore it is written, \u2018Blessed are\n    those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered\u2019 (Ps.\n    xxxii. 1). And under the name of stones whom do we understand except\n    the strong men of the Church? To whom it is said through the first\n    shepherd: \u2018Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house\u2019 (1\n    Peter ii. 5). So those who confide in no work of their own, run to the\n    protection of the holy martyrs, and press with tears to their sacred\n    bodies, pleading to obtain pardon through their intercession.\u201d[117]\n\nAnother point of Gregorian emphasis: no delict is remitted without\npunishment.[118] To complement which principle, Gregory develops the\ndoctrine of penance in its three elements, _contritio_, _conversio\nmentis_, _satisfactio_. Our whole life should be one long penitence and\npenance, and baptism of tears; for our first baptism cannot wash out later\nsins, and cannot be repeated. In the fourth book of the _Dialogi_ he\ndevelops his cognate doctrine of Purgatory,[119] and amplifies upon the\nsituation and character of hell. These things are implicit in Augustine\nand existed before him: with Gregory they have become explicit,\nelaborated, and insisted on with recurrent emphasis. Thus Augustinianism\nis altered in form and barbarized.[120]\n\nGregory is throughout prefigurative of the Middle Ages, which he likewise\nprefigures in his greatness as a sovereign bishop and a man of\necclesiastical affairs. He is energetic and wise and temperate. The\npractical wisdom of the Catholic Church is in him and in his rightly famed\nbook of _Pastoral Rule_. The temperance and wisdom of his letters of\ninstructions to Augustine of Canterbury are admirable. The practical\nexigency seemed always to have the effect of tempering any extreme opinion\nwhich apart from it he might have expressed; as one sees, for example, in\nthose letters to this apostle to the English, or in his letter to Serenus,\nBishop of Marseilles, who had been too violent as to paintings and images.\nGregory\u2019s stand is moderate and reasonable. Likewise he opposes the use of\nforce to convert the Jews, although insisting firmly that no Jew may hold\na Christian slave.[121]\n\nThere has been occasion to remark that decadence tends to join hands with\nbarbarism on a common intellectual level. Had Bo\u00ebthius lived in a greater\nepoch, he might not have been an adapter of an elementary arithmetic and\ngeometry, and his best years would not have been devoted to the\ntranslation and illustration of logical treatises. Undoubtedly his labours\nwere needed by the times in which he lived and by the centuries which\nfollowed them in spirit as well as chronologically. He was the principal\npurveyor of the strictly speaking intellectual grist of the early Middle\nAges; and it was most apt that the great scholastic controversy as to\nuniversals should have drawn its initial text from his translation of\nPorphyry\u2019s Introduction to the _Categories_ of Aristotle.[122] Gregory, on\nthe other hand, was a purveyor of theology, the subject to which logic\nchiefly was to be applied. He purveyed matter very much to the mediaeval\ntaste; for example, his wise practical admonishments; his elaboration of\nsuch a doctrine as that of penance, so tangible that it could be handled,\nand felt with one\u2019s very fingers; and, finally, his supreme intellectual\nendeavour, the allegorical trellising of Scripture, to which the Middle\nAges were to devote their thoughts, and were to make warm and living with\nthe love and yearning of their souls. The converging currents--decadence\nand barbarism--meet and join in Gregory\u2019s powerful personality. He\nembodies the intellectual decadence which has lost all independent wish\nfor knowledge and has dropped the whole round of the mind\u2019s mortal\ninterests; which has seized upon the near, the tangible, and the ominous\nin theology till it has rooted religion in the fear of hell. All this may\nbe viewed as a decadent abandonment of the more intellectual and spiritual\ncomplement to the brute facts of sin, penance, and hell barely escaped.\nBut, on the other hand, it was also barbarization, and held the strength\nof barbaric narrowing of motives and the resistlessness of barbaric fear.\n\nSuch were the r\u00f4les of Bo\u00ebthius and Gregory in the transmission of antique\nand patristic intellectual interests into the mediaeval time. Quite\ndifferent was that of Gregory\u2019s younger contemporary, Isidore, the\nprincely and vastly influential Bishop of Seville, the primary see in that\nland of Spain, which, however it might change dynasties, was destined\nnever to be free from some kind of sacerdotal bondage. In Isidore\u2019s time,\nthe kingdom of the Visigoths had recently turned from Arianism to\nCatholicism, and wore its new priestly yoke with ardour. Bo\u00ebthius had\nprovided a formal discipline and Gregory much substance already\nmediaevalized. But the whole ground-plan of Isidore\u2019s mind corresponded\nwith the aptitudes and methods of the Carolingian period, which was to be\nthe schoolday of the Middle Ages. By reason of his own habits of study, by\nreason of the quality of his mind, which led him to select the palpable,\nthe foolish, and the mechanically correlated, by reason, in fine, of _his_\nmental faculties and interests, Isidore gathered and arranged in his\ntreatises a conglomerate of knowledge, secular and sacred, exactly suited\nto the coming centuries.\n\nIn drawing from its spiritual heritage, an age takes what it cares for;\nand if comparatively decadent or barbarized or childlike in its\nintellectual affinities, it will still manage to draw what is like itself.\nIn that case, probably it will not draw directly from the great sources,\nbut from intermediaries who have partially debased them. From these turbid\ncompositions the still duller age will continue to select the obvious and\nthe worse. This indicates the character of Isidore\u2019s work. His writings\nspeak for themselves through their titles, and are so flat, so\ntransparent, so palpably taken from the nearest authorities, that there is\nno call to analyze them. But their titles with some slight indication of\ntheir contents will show the excerpt character of Isidore\u2019s mental\nprocesses, and illustrate by anticipation the like qualities reappearing\nwith the Carolingian doctors.\n\nIsidore\u2019s _Quaestiones in vetus Testamentum_[123] is his chief work in the\nnature of a Scripture commentary. It is confined to those passages of the\nOld Testament which were deemed most pregnant with allegorical meaning.\nHis Preface discloses his usual method of procedure: \u201cWe have taken\ncertain of those incidents of the sacred history which were told or done\nfiguratively, and are filled with mystic sacraments, and have woven them\ntogether in sequence in this little work; and, collecting the opinions of\nthe old churchmen, we have made a choice of flowers as from divers\nmeadows; and briefly presenting a few matters from so many, with some\nchanges or additions, we offer them not only to studious but fastidious\nreaders who detest prolixity.\u201d Every one may feel assured that he will be\nreading the interpretations of the Fathers, and not those of Isidore--\u201cmy\nvoice is but their tongue.\u201d He states that his sources are Origen,\nVictorinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Fulgentius, Cassian, and \u201cGregory\nso distinguished for his eloquence in our own time.\u201d The spirit of the\nmediaeval commentary is in this Preface. The phrase about \u201cculling the\nopinions of the Fathers like flowers from divers meadows,\u201d will be\nrepeated hundreds of times. Such a commentary is a thing of excerpts; so\nit rests upon authority. The writer thus comforts both his reader and\nhimself; neither runs the peril of originality, and together they repose\non the broad bosom of the Fathers.\n\nThroughout his writings, Isidore commonly proceeds in this way, whether he\nsays so or not. We may name first the casual works which represent\nseparate parcels of his encyclopaedic gleanings, and then glance at his\nputting together of them, in his _Etymologiae_.[124] The muster opens with\ntwo books of Distinctions (_Differentiarum_). The first is concerned with\nthe distinctions of like-sounding and like-meaning words. It is\nalphabetically arranged. The second is concerned with the distinctions of\n_things_: it begins with God and the Creation, and passes to the physical\nparts and spiritual traits of man. No need to say that it contains nothing\nthat is Isidore\u2019s own. Now come the _Allegoriae quaedam sacrae\nScripturae_, which give in chronological order the allegorical\nsignification of all the important persons mentioned in the Old Testament\nand the New. It was one of the earliest hand-books of Scriptural\nallegories, and is a sheer bit of the Middle Ages in spirit and method.\nThe substance, of course, is taken from the Fathers. Next, a little work,\n_De ortu et obitu Patrum_, states in short paragraphs the birthplace, span\nof life, place of sepulture, and noticeable traits of Scriptural\npersonages.\n\nThere follows a collection of brief Isidorean prefaces to the books of\nScripture. Then comes a curious book, which may have been suggested to the\nwriter by the words of Augustine himself. This is the _Liber numerorum_,\nthe book of the _numbers_ occurring in the Scriptures. It tells the\nqualities and mystical significance of every number from one to sixteen,\nand of the chief ones between sixteen and sixty. These numbers were \u201cmost\nholy and most full of mysteries\u201d to Augustine,[125] and Augustine is the\nman whom Isidore chiefly draws on in this treatise--Augustine at his very\nworst. One might search far for an apter instance of an ecclesiastical\nwriter elaborately exploiting the most foolish statements that could\npossibly be found in the writings of a great predecessor.\n\nIsidore composed a polemic treatise on the Catholic Faith against the\nJews--_De fide Catholica contra Judaeos_. The good bishop had nothing to\nadd to the patristic discussion of this weighty controversy. His book is\nfilled with quotations from Scripture. It put the matter together in a way\nsuited to his epoch and the coming centuries, and at an early time was\ntranslated into the German and other vernacular tongues. Three books of\n_Sententiae_ follow, upon the contents of Christian doctrine--as to God,\nthe world, evil, the angels, man, Christ and the Church. They consist of\nexcerpts from the writings of Gregory the Great and earlier Church\nFathers.[126] A more original work is the _De ecclesiasticis officiis_,\nupon the services of the Church and the orders of clergy and laity. It\npresents the liturgical practices and ecclesiastical regulations of\nIsidore\u2019s epoch.\n\nIsidore seems to have put most pious feeling into a work called by him\n_Synonyma_, to which name was added the supplementary designation: _De\nlamentatione animae_. First the Soul pours out its lament in excruciating\niteration, repeating the same commonplace of Christian piety in synonymous\nphrases. When its lengthy plaint is ended, Reason replies with admonitions\nsynonymously reiterated in the same fashion.[127] This work combined a\ngrammatical with a pious purpose, and became very popular through its\ndoubly edifying nature, and because it strung together so many easy\ncommonplaces of Christian piety. Isidore also drew up a _Regula_ for\nmonks, and a book on the Order of Creation has been ascribed to him. This\ncompletes the sum of his extant works upon religious topics, from which we\npass to those of a secular character.\n\nThe first of these is the _De rerum natura_, written to enlighten his\nking, Sisebut, \u201con the scheme (_ratio_) of the days and months, the bounds\nof the year and the change of seasons, the nature of the elements, the\ncourses of the sun and moon and stars, and the signs of tempests and\nwinds, the position of the earth, and the ebb and flow of the sea.\u201d Of all\nof which, continues Isidore, \u201cwe have made brief note, from the writings\nof the ancients (_veteribus viris_), and especially those who were of the\nCatholic Faith. For it is not a vain knowledge (_superstitiosa scientia_)\nto know the nature of these things, if we consider them according to sound\nand sober teaching.\u201d[128] So Isidore compiles a book of secular physical\nknowledge, the substance of which is taken from the _Hexaemeron_ of\nAmbrose and the works of other Fathers, and also from the lost _Prata_ of\npagan Suetonius.[129]\n\nOf course Isidore busied himself also with history. He made a dismal\nuniversal _Chronicon_, and perhaps a History of the Kings of the Goths,\nthrough which stirs a breath of national pride; and after the model of\nJerome, he wrote a _De viris illustribus_, concerned with some fifty\nworthies of the Church flourishing between Jerome\u2019s time and his own.\n\nHere we end the somewhat dry enumeration of the various works of Isidore\noutside of his famous \u201ctwenty books of Etymologies.\u201d This work has been\naptly styled a _Konversationslexikon_, to use the excellent German word.\nIt was named _Etymologiae_, because the author always gives the etymology\nof everything which he describes or defines. Indeed the tenth book\ncontains only the etymological definitions of words alphabetically\narranged. These etymologies follow the haphazard similarities of the\nwords, and often are nonsensical. Sometimes they show a fantastic caprice\nindicating a mind steeped in allegorical interpretations, as, for example,\nwhen \u201c_Amicus_ is said to be, by derivation, _animi custos_; also from\n_hamus_, that is, chain of love, whence we say _hami_ or hooks because\nthey hold.\u201d[130] This is not ignorance so much as fancy.\n\nThe _Etymologiae_ were meant to cover the current knowledge of the time,\ndoctrinal as well as secular. But the latter predominates, as it would in\na _Konversationslexikon_. The general arrangement of the treatise is not\nalphabetical, but topical. To indicate the sources of its contents would\nbe difficult as well as tedious. Isidore drew on many previous authors and\ncompilers: to Cassiodorus and Bo\u00ebthius he went for Rhetoric and Dialectic,\nand made frequent trips to the _Prata_ of Suetonius for natural\nknowledge--or ignorance. In matters of doctrine he draws on the Church\nFathers; and for his epitome of jurisprudence in the fifth book, upon the\nFathers from Tertullian on, and (probably) upon some elementary book of\nlegal Institutes.[131] Glancing at the handling of topics in the\n_Etymologies_ one feels it to have been a huge collection of terms and\ndefinitions. The actual information conveyed is very slight. Isidore is\nunder the spell of words. Were they fetishes to him? did they carry moral\npotency? At all events the working of his mind reflects the age-long\ndominance of grammar and rhetoric in Roman education, which treated other\ntopics almost as illustrations of these chief branches.[132]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE BARBARIC DESTRUCTION OF THE EMPIRE[133]\n\n\nThe Latinizing of northern Italy, Spain, and Gaul was part of the\nexpansion of Roman dominion. Throughout these lands, alien peoples\nsubmitted to the Roman order and acquired new traits from the training of\nits discipline. Voluntarily or under compulsion they exchanged their\ninstitutions and customs for those of Roman Italy, and their native\ntongues for Latin. The education and culture of the upper classes became\nidentical with that gained in the schools about the Forum, and Roman\nliterature was the literature which they studied and produced. In a\ngreater or less degree their characters were Latinized, while their\ntraditions were abandoned for those of Rome. Yet, although Romanized and\nLatinized, these peoples were not Roman. Their culture was acquired, their\ncharacters were changed, yet with old traits surviving. In character and\nfaculties, as in geographical position, they were intermediate, and in\nr\u00f4le they were mediatorial. Much of what they had received, and what they\nhad themselves become, they perforce transmitted to the ruder humanity\nwhich, as the Empire weakened, pressed in, serving, plundering, murdering,\nand finally amalgamating with these provincials. The surviving Latin\nculture passed to the mingled populations which were turning to inchoate\nRomance nations in Italy, Spain, and Gaul. Likewise Christianity,\nRomanized, paganized, barbarized, had been accepted through these\ncountries. And now these mingled peoples, these inchoate Romance nations,\nwere to accomplish a broader mediation in extending the rudiments of\nLatin culture, along with the great new Religion, to the barbarous peoples\nbeyond the Romance pale.\n\nThe mediating r\u00f4les of the Roman provincials began with their first\nsubjection to Roman order. For barbarians were continually brought into\nthe provinces as slaves or prisoners of war. Next, they entered to serve\nas auxiliary troops, coming especially from the wavering Teutonic\noutskirts of the Empire. And during that time of misrule and military\nanarchy which came between the death of Commodus (A.D. 192) and the\naccession of Diocletian (A.D. 284), Teutonic inroads threatened the\nimperial fabric. But, apart from palpable invasions, there was a constant\nincrease in the Teutonic inflow from the close of the second century. More\nand more the Teutons tilled the fields; more and more they filled the\narmies. They became officers of the army and officials of the Government.\nSo long as the vigour of life and growth continued in the Latinized\npopulation of the Empire, and so long as the Roman law and order held, the\nassimilative power of Latin culture and Roman institutions was enormous;\nthe barbarians became Romanized. But when self-conserving strength and\ncoercive energy waned with Romans and provincials, when the law\u2019s\nprotection was no longer sure, and a dry rot infected civic institutions,\nthen Roman civilization lost some of its transforming virtue. The\nbarbarism of the Teutonic influx became more obstinate as the transmuting\nforces of civilization weakened. Evidently the decadent civilization of\nthe Empire could no longer raise these barbarians to the level of its\ngreater periods; it could at most impress them with such culture and such\norder as it still possessed. Moreover, reacting upon these disturbed and\ninfirm conditions, barbarism put forth a positive transforming energy,\ntending to barbarize the Empire, its government, its army, its\ninhabitants. The decay of Roman institutions and the grafting of Teutonic\ninstitutions upon Roman survivals were as universal as the mingling of\nraces, tempers, and traditions. The course of events may briefly be\nreviewed.\n\nIn the third century the Goths began, by land and sea, to raid the eastern\nprovinces of the undivided Roman Empire; down the Danube they sailed, and\nout upon the Euxine; then their plundering fleets spread through the\neastern Mediterranean. They were attacked, repulsed, overthrown, and\nslaughtered in hordes in the year 270. Some of the survivors remained in\nbondage, some retired north beyond the Danube. Aurelian gave up to them\nthe province of Dacia: the latest conquest of the Empire, the first to be\nabandoned. These Dacian settlers thenceforth appear as Visigoths. For a\ncentury the Empire had no great trouble from them. Dacia was the scene of\nthe career of Ulfilas (b. 311, d. 380), the Arian apostle of the Goths.\nThey became Christian in part, and in part remained fiercely heathen.\nAbout 372, harassed by the Huns, they pressed south to escape over the\nDanube. Valens permitted them to cross; then Roman treachery followed,\nanswered by desperate Gothic raids in Thrace, till at last Valens was\ndefeated and slain at Hadrianople in 378.\n\nIt was sixteen years after this that Theodosius the Great marched from the\nEast to Italy to suppress Arbogast, the overweening Frank, who had cast\nout his weak master Valentinian. The leader of the Visigothic auxiliaries\nwas Alaric. When the great emperor died, Alaric was proclaimed King of the\nVisigoths, and soon proceeded to ravage and conquer Greece. Stilicho, son\nof a Vandal chief--one sees how all the high officers are Teutons--was the\nuncertain stay of Theodosius\u2019s weakling sons, Honorius and Arcadius. In\n400 Alaric attempted to invade Italy, but was foiled by Stilicho, who five\nyears later circumvented and destroyed another horde of Goths, both men\nand women, who had penetrated Italy to the Apennines. In 408 Alaric made a\nsecond attempt to enter, and this time was successful, for Stilicho was\ndead. Thrice he besieged Rome, capturing it in 410. Then he died, his\nquick death to be a warning to Attila. The new Gothic king, Ataulf,\nconceived the plan of uniting Romans and Goths in a renewed and\nstrengthened kingdom. But this task was not for him, and in two years he\nleft Italy with his Visigoths to establish a kingdom in the south of Gaul.\n\nAttila comes next upon the scene. The eastern Empire had endured the\noppression of this terrible Turanian, and had paid him tribute for some\nyears, before he decided to march westward by a route north of the Alps,\nand attack Gaul. He penetrated to Orleans, which he besieged in vain. Many\nnations were in the two armies that were now to meet in battle on the\n\u201cCatalaunian Plains.\u201d On Attila\u2019s side, besides his Huns, were subject\nFranks, Bructeri, Thuringians, Burgundians, and the hosts of Gepidae and\nOstrogoths. Opposed were the Roman forces, Bretons, Burgundians, Alans,\nSaxons, Salian Franks, and the army of the Visigoths. Defeated, but not\noverthrown, the lion Hun withdrew across the Rhine; but the next spring,\nin 452, he descended from the eastern Alps upon Aquileia and destroyed it,\nand next sacked the cities of Venetia and the Po Valley as far as Milan.\nThen he passed eastward to the river Mincio, where he was met by a Roman\nembassy, in which Pope Leo was the most imposing figure. Before this\nembassy the Scourge of God withdrew, awed or persuaded, or in\nsuperstitious fear. The following year, upon Attila\u2019s death, his realm\nbroke up; Gepidae and Goths beat the Huns in battle, and again Teutons\nheld sway in Central Europe.\n\nThe fear of the Hun had hardly ceased when the Vandals came from Africa,\nand leisurely plundered Rome. They were Teutons, perhaps kin to the Goths.\nBut theirs had been a far migration. At the opening of the fifth century\nthey had entered Gaul and fought the Franks, then passed on to Spain,\nwhere they were broken by the Visigoths. So they crossed to Africa and\nfounded a kingdom there, whence they invaded Italy. By this time, the\nmiddle of the fifth century, the fighting and ruling energy in the western\nEmpire was barbarian. The stocks had become mixed through intermarriage\nand the confusion of wars and frequent change of sides. An illustrative\nfigure is Count Ricimer, whose father was a noble Suevian, while his\nmother was a Visigothic princess. He directed the Roman State from 456 to\n472, placing one after another of his Roman puppets on the imperial\nthrone.\n\nIn the famous year 476 the Roman army was made up of barbarians, mainly\ndrawn from lands now included in Bohemia, Austria, and Hungary. There were\nlarge contingents of Rugii and Heruli, who had flocked in bands to Italy\nas adventurers. Such troops had the status of _foederati_, that is,\nbarbarian auxiliaries or allies. Suddenly they demanded one-third of the\nlands of Italy.[134] Upon refusal of their demand, they made a king from\namong themselves, the Herulian Odoacer, and Romulus Augustulus flitted\nfrom the shadowy imperial throne. By reason of his dramatic name, rather\nthan by any marked circumstance of his deposition, he has come to typify\nwith historians the close of the line of western emperors.\n\nThe Herulian soldier-king or \u201cPatrician,\u201d Odoacer, a nondescript\ntransition personage, ruled twelve years. Then the nation of the\nOstrogoths, which had learned much from the vicissitudes of fortune in the\nEast, obtained the eastern emperor\u2019s sanction, and made its perilous way\nto the gates of Italy under the king, Theodoric. This invading people\nnumbered perhaps two hundred thousand souls; their fighting men were forty\nthousand. Odoacer was beaten on the river Isonzo; he retreated to the line\nof the Adige, and was again defeated at Verona. After standing a long\nsiege in Ravenna, he made terms with Theodoric, and was murdered by him.\n\nThe Goths were among the best of the barbarians, and Theodoric was the\ngreatest of the Goths. The eastern emperors probably regarded him as their\nrepresentative in Italy; and he coined money only with the Emperor\u2019s\nimage. But in fact he was a sovereign; and, through his sovereignty over\nboth Goths and Romans, from a Teutonic king he became an absolute monarch,\neven as his contemporary Clovis became, under analogous circumstances. He\nwas a just despot, with his subjects\u2019 welfare at heart. The Goths received\none-third of the Italian lands, in return for which their duty was to\ndefend the whole. This third may have been that previously possessed by\nOdoacer\u2019s troops. Under Theodoric the relations between Goths and \u201cRomans\u201d\nwere friendly. It was from the Code of Theodosius and other Roman sources\nthat he drew the substance of his legislation, the _Edictum_ which about\nthe year 510 he promulgated for both Goths and Romans (_barbari\nRomanique_).[135] His aim--and here the influence of his minister\nCassiodorus appears--was to harmonize the relations of the two peoples and\nassimilate the ways of the Goths to those of their more civilized\nneighbours. But if his rule brought prosperity to Italy, after his death\ncame desolating wars between the Goths under their noble kings, and\nJustinian\u2019s great generals, Belisarius and Narses. These wars ruined the\nOstrogothic nation. Only some remnants were left to reascend the Alps in\n553. Behind them Italy was a waste.\n\nAn imperial eastern Roman restoration followed. It was not to endure. For\nalready the able and savage Lombard Alboin was making ready to lead down\nhis army of Lombards, Saxons, Gepidae and unassorted Teutons, and perhaps\nSlavs. No strength was left to oppose him in plague-stricken Italy. So the\nLombard conquered easily, and set up a kingdom which, united or divided\nunder kings and dukes, endured for two hundred years. Then\nCharlemagne--his father Pippin had been before him--at the entreaty of the\nPope, invaded Italy with a host of mingled Teuton tribes, and put an end\nto the Lombard kingdom, but not to Lombard blood and Lombard traits.\n\nThe result of all these invasions was a progressive barbarization of\nItaly, which was not altogether unfortunate, because fraught with some\nrenewal of strength. The Teutons brought their customs; and at least one\nTeuton people, the Lombards, maintained them masterfully. The Ostrogoth,\nTheodoric, had preserved the Italian municipal organization, and had drawn\nhis code for all from Roman sources. But the first Lombard Code, that of\nKing Rothari, promulgated about 643, ignored Roman law, and apparently the\nvery existence of Romans. Though written in barbarous Latin, it is Lombard\nthrough and through. So, to a scarcely less degree, is the Code of King\nLiutprand, promulgated about 725.[136] Even then the Lombards looked upon\nthemselves as distinct from the \u201cRomans.\u201d Their laws were still those of\nthe Lombards, yet of Lombards settling down to urban life. Within Lombard\nterritories the \u201cRomans\u201d were subjects. In Liutprand\u2019s Code they seem to\nbe referred to under the name of _aldii_ and _aldiae_, male and female\npersons, who were not slaves and yet not free. Instead of surrendering\none-third of the land, the Romans were obliged to furnish one-third of its\nproduce. Hence their Lombard masters were interested in keeping them fixed\nto the soil, perhaps in a state of serfdom. Little is known as to the\nintermarriage of the stocks, or when the Lombards adopted a Latin\nspeech.[137]\n\nIt is difficult, either in Italy or elsewhere, to follow the changes and\nreciprocal working of Roman and Teutonic institutions through these\nobscure centuries. They wrought upon each other universally, and became\nwhat neither had been before. The Roman State was there no longer; where\nthe names of its officials survived they stood for altered functions. The\nRoman law prevailed within the dominions of the eastern Empire and the\npopes. Everywhere the crass barbarian law and the pure Roman institution\nwas passing away, or changing into something new. In Italy another\npregnant change was taking place, the passing of the functions of\ngovernment to the bishops of Rome. Its stages are marked by the names of\ngreat men upon whose shoulders fell the authority no longer held by a\nremote ruler. Leo the Great heads the embassy which turns back the Hun; a\ncentury and a half afterwards Gregory the Great leads the opposition to\nthe Lombards, still somewhat unkempt savages. Thereafter each succeeding\npope, in fact the papacy by necessity of its position and its aspirations,\nopposes the Lombards when they have ceased to be either savage or Arian.\nIt is an absent supporter that the papacy desires, and not a rival close\nat hand: Charlemagne, not Desiderius.\n\nWhen the Visigoths under Ataulf left Italy they passed into southern Gaul,\nand there established themselves with Toulouse as the centre of the\nVisigothic kingdom. They soon extended their rule to Spain, with the\nconnivance of sundry Roman rulers. Some time before them Vandals, Suevi\nand Alans, having crossed the Rhine into Gaul, had been drawn across the\nPyrenees by half-traitorous invitations of rival Roman governors. The\nVisigoths now attacked these peoples, with the result that the Suevi\nretreated to the north-west of the peninsula, and at length the restless\nVandals accepted the invitation of the traitor Count Boniface, and crossed\nto Africa. Visigothic fortunes varied under an irregular succession of\nnon-hereditary and occasionally murdered kings. Their kingdom reached its\nfarthest limit in the reign of Euric (466-486), who extended its\nboundaries northward to the Loire and southward over nearly all of\nSpain.[138]\n\nUnder the Visigoths the lot of the Latinized provincials, who with their\nancestors had long been Roman citizens, was not a hard one. The Roman\nsystem of quartering soldiers upon provincials, with a right to one-third\nof the house, afforded precedent for the manner of settlement of the\nVisigoths and other Teuton invaders after them. The Visigoths received\ntwo-thirds not only of the houses but also of the lands, which indeed were\nbare of cultivators. The municipal organization of the towns was left\nintact, and in general the nomenclature and structure of Roman officialdom\nwere preserved. As the Romans were the more numerous and the cleverer,\nthey regained their wealth and social consideration. In 506, Alaric II.\npromulgated his famous code, the _Lex Romana Visigothorum_, usually called\nthe \u201cBreviarium,\u201d for his Roman subjects. Although the next year Clovis\nbroke down the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul, and confined it to narrow\nlimits around Narbonne, this code remained in force, a lasting source of\nRoman law for the inhabitants of the south and west of Gaul.[139]\n\nThroughout Visigothic Spain there existed, in conflict if not in force, a\ncomplex mass of diverse laws and customs, written and unwritten, Roman,\nGothic, ecclesiastical. Soon after the middle of the seventh century a\ngeneral code was compiled for both Goths and Roman provincials, between\nwhom marriages were formally sanctioned. This codification was the legal\nexpression of a national unity, which however had no great political\nvigour. For what with its inheritance of intolerable taxation, of\ndwindling agriculture, of enfeebled institutions and social degeneracy,\nthe Visigothic state fell an easy victim before the Arabs in 711. It had\nbeen subject to all manner of administrative abuse. In name the government\nwas secular. But in fact the bishops of the great sees were all-powerful\nto clog, if not to administer, justice and the affairs of State within\ntheir domains; the nobles abetted them in their misgovernment. So it came\nthat instead of a united Government supported by a strong military power,\nthere was divided misrule, and an army without discipline or valour. This\nmisrule was also cruelly intolerant. The bitter persecution of the Jews,\nand the law that none but a Catholic should live in Spain, if not causes,\nwere at least symptoms, of a fatal impotence, and prophetic of like\nmeasures taken by later rulers in that chosen land of religious\npersecution.[140]\n\nIn Gaul, contact between Latinized provincials and Teutonic invaders\nproduced interesting results. Mingled peoples came into being, whose\npolity and institutions were neither Roman nor Teutonic, and whose\nliterature and intellectual achievement were to unite the racial qualities\nof both. The hybrid political and social phenomena of the Frankish period\nwere engendered by a series of events which may be outlined as follows.\nThe Franks, Salic and Ripuarian, were clustered in the region of the lower\nand middle Rhine. Like other Teutonic groups dwelling near the boundaries\nof the weakening Empire, they were alternately plunderers of Roman\nterritory and auxiliaries in the imperial army, or its independent allies\nagainst Huns or Saxons or Alans. One Childeric, whose career opens in saga\nand ends in history, was king or hereditary leader of a part of the Salian\nFranks. This active man appears in frequent relations with Aegidius, the\nhalf-independent Roman ruler of that north-western portion of Gaul which\nwas not held by Visigoths or Burgundians. If Childeric\u2019s forefathers had\noftener been enemies than allies of the Empire, he was its ally, and\nperhaps commander of the forces which helped to preserve this outlying\nportion of its territory.\n\nAegidius died in 463, and the territories ruled by him passed to his son\nSyagrius practically as an independent kingdom. Childeric in the next\neighteen years increased his power among the Salian Franks, and extended\nhis territories through victories over other Teutonic groups. Upon his\ndeath in 481 his kingdom passed to his son Chlodoweg, or, as it is easier\nto call him, Clovis, then in his sixteenth year. The next five years were\nemployed by this precocious genius of barbarian craft in strengthening his\nkingship among the Salians. At the age of twenty he attacked Syagrius, and\noverthrew his power at Soissons. The last Roman ruler of a part of Gaul\nfled to the Visigoths for refuge: their king delivered him to Clovis, who\nhad him killed. So Clovis\u2019s realm was extended first to the Seine and then\nto the Loire. The Gallo-Romans were not driven out or dispossessed, but\nreceived a new master, who on his part treated them forbearingly and\naccepted them as subjects. The royal domains of Syagrius perhaps were\nlarge enough to satisfy the cupidity of the victors.\n\nClovis was now king of Gallo-Romans as well as Salian Franks. Thus\nstrengthened he could fight other Franks with success, and carry on a\ngreat war against the Alemanni to the south-east. At the \u201cbattle of\nTolbiac,\u201d in which he finally overthrew these people, the heathen Frank\ninvoked the Christian God (so tells Gregory of Tours), and vowed to accept\nthe Faith if Christ gave him the victory. This is like the legend of\nConstantine at the battle of the Malvern Bridge, nor is the probability of\nits essential truth lessened because of this resemblance. Both Roman\nemperor and Frankish king turned from heathenism to Christianity as to the\nstronger supernatural support. And if ever man received tenfold reward in\nthis world from his faith it was this treacherous and bloody Frank.\n\nHitherto the Teuton tribes, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians\nwho had accepted Christianity, were Arians by reason of the circumstances\nof their \u201cconversion.\u201d On the other hand, the Romanized inhabitants of\nItaly, Spain, and Gaul were Catholics, and the influence of their\nArian-hating clergy was enormous. Evidently when Clovis, under the\ninfluence of Catholic bishops and a Catholic wife, became a Catholic, the\npower of the Church and the sympathy of the laity would make his power\nirresistible. For the Catholic population was greatly in the majority,\neven in the countries held by Burgundian or Visigothic kings. The\nBurgundian rulers had half turned to Catholicism, and the Visigothic\nmonarchy treated it with respect. Yet the Burgundian kings did not win the\nChurch\u2019s confidence, nor did the Visigoths disarm its active hostility.\nWith such ability as Clovis and his sons possessed, their conversion to\nCatholicism ensured victory over their rivals, and made a bond of\nfriendship between them and their Gallo-Roman subjects.[141]\n\nThe extension of Clovis\u2019s kingdom, his overthrow of the Visigothic power,\nhis partial conquest of the Burgundians, would have been even more rapid\nand decisive but for the opposing diplomacy of the great Arian ruler,\nTheodoric the Ostrogoth, whose prestige and power even the bold Frank\ndared not defy. Moreover, the Burgundians stood well with their Roman\nsubjects, whom they treated generously, and permitted to live under a code\nof Roman law. When it came to war between them and Clovis, the advantage\nrested with the latter; but possibly the fear of Theodoric, or the\npressure of war with the Alemanni, deferred the final conquest of the\nBurgundian kingdom for another generation.\n\nIn 507 Clovis attacked the Visigothic kingdom, and incorporated it with\nhis dominions in the course of the next year. Whether or not he had cried\nout, in the words of Gregory of Tours, \u201cit is a shame that these Arians\nshould hold a part of Gaul; let us attack them with God\u2019s help and take\ntheir land,\u201d at all events the war had a religious sanction, and its\nsuccessful issue was facilitated by the Catholic clergy within the\nVisigothic territory. Clovis\u2019s career was now nearing its end. In his last\nyears, by treachery, murder, and open war when needed, he made himself\nking of all the Franks, Ripuarian and Salian. The intense partisan\nsympathy of the Church for this its eldest royal Teuton son speaks in the\nwords of Gregory of Tours, concluding his recital of these deeds of\nincomparable villainy: \u201cThus day by day God cast down his (Clovis\u2019s)\nenemies before him, because he did what was right in His eyes\u201d!\n\nThe unresting sons and grandsons of Clovis not only conquered Burgundy,\nbut extended their rule far to the east, into the heart of Germany, and\nMerovingians became masters of Thuringia and Bavaria. That such a realm\nshould hold together was impossible. From Clovis to Charlemagne it was the\nregular practice to divide the realm at death among the ruler\u2019s sons, and\nfor the ablest among them to pursue and slay the others, and so unite the\nrealm again. Besides this principle of internecine conflict, differences\nof race and language and degrees of Latinization ensured eventual\ndisruption.\n\nNothing passes away, and very little quite begins, but all things change;\nand so the verity of social and political phenomena lies in the\n_becoming_, rather than in any temporary phase--as one may perceive in the\nMerovingian, later Carolingian, _regnum Francorum_. Therein Roman\ninstitutions survived either as decayed actualities or as names or\neffigies; therein were conditions and even institutions which arose and\nwere developed through the decay of previous institutions, through the\nweakening of the imperial peace and justice, the growth of abuses, and the\nneed of the weak to put themselves under the protection of the nearest\nstrong. This huge conglomerate of a government also held sturdy Teuton\nelements. There was the kingship and the strong body of personal\nfollowers, the latter an outgrowth of the _comitatus_, or rather of the\nneeds of any barbaric chieftaincy. There was _wergeld_, not so much\nexclusively a Teutonic institution, as belonging to a rough society which\nsees the need of checking feuds, and finds the means in a system of\ncompensation to the injured person or his kin, who would otherwise make\nreprisals; there was also _Sippe_, the rights and duties of kin among\nthemselves, and of the kinship as a corporate unit toward the world\nwithout; and therein, in general, was continuance of the warrior spirit of\nthe Franks and other Teutons, of their social ways and mode of dress, of\ntheir methods of warfare and their thoughts of barbaric hardihood.\n\nThese elements, and much more besides, were in process of mutual interplay\nand amalgamation. Childeric had been king of some of the Salian Franks,\nand had allied himself with the last fragment of the Roman Empire in Gaul.\nClovis, his son, is greater: he makes himself king of more Franks, and\nbecomes the head of the Roman-Frankish combination by overthrowing\nSyagrius and taking his place as lord of the Gallo-Romans. As towards them\nhe becomes even as Syagrius and the emperors before him, absolute ruler,\n_princeps_. This authority enhanced the dignity of Clovis\u2019s kingship over\nhis own Franks and the Alemanni, and his personal power increased with\neach new conquest. He became a novel sort of monarch, combining\nheterogeneous prerogatives. Hence his sovereignty and that of his\nsuccessors was not a simple development of Teutonic kingship, nor was it a\ncontinuation of Roman imperial or proconsular rule, but rather a new\ncomposite evolution. Some of its contradictions and anomalies were\nsymbolized by Clovis\u2019s acceptance of the title of Consul and stamping the\neffigies of the eastern emperors upon his coins--as if they held any power\nin the _regnum Francorum_! As between Gallo-Romans and Franks, the\nheadship had gone over to the latter; yet there was neither hatred on the\none side nor oppression from the other. A common catholicism and many\nsimilarities of condition promoted mutual sympathy and union. For example,\nthrough the decay of the imperial power, oppression had increased, and the\ncommon Gallo-Roman people were compelled to place themselves under the\npatronage of powerful personages who could give them the protection which\nthey could no longer look for from the Government. So relationships of\npersonal dependence developed, not essentially dissimilar from those\nsubsisting between the Franks and their kings, when the kings were mere\nleaders of small tribes or war bands. But the vastness of the Salian realm\nimpaired the personal relationship between king and subjects, and again\nthe latter, Frankish or Gallo-Roman, needed nearer protectors, and found\nthem in neighbouring great proprietors and functionaries, Frankish or\nGallo-Roman as the case might be.[142]\n\nThrough all the turmoil of the Merovingian period, there was doubtless\nindividual injustice and hardship everywhere, but no racial tyranny. The\nGallo-Roman kept his language and property, and continued to live under\nthe Roman law. He was not inferior to the Frank, except that the latter\nwas entitled to a higher _wergeld_ for personal injury, which, however,\nsoon was equalized. The Frank also lived under his own law, Salic or\nRipuarian. But the general mingling of peoples in the end made it\nimpossible to distinguish the law personally applicable; and thereupon,\nboth as to Franks and Gallo-Romans, the territorial law superseded the law\nof race.[143] And when, after two centuries, the Merovingian kingdom,\nthrough change of dynasty, became the Carolingian, political discrepancies\nbetween Frank and Gallo-Roman had passed away. Yet this huge colossus of a\nrealm with its shoulders of iron and its feet of clay, still included\nenough disparities of race and land, language and institution, to ensure\nits dissolution.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE CELTIC STRAIN IN GAUL AND IRELAND\n\n\nThe northern races who were to form part of the currents of mediaeval life\nare grouped under the names of Celts and Teutons.[144] The chief sections\nof the former, dwelling in northern Italy and Gaul and Spain, were\nLatinized and then Christianized long before the mediaeval period, and\nthemselves helped to create the patristic and even the antique side of the\nmediaeval patrimony. Their r\u00f4le was largely mediatorial, and\ngeographically, as well as in their time of receiving Latin culture, they\nwere intermediaries between the classic sources and the Teutons, who also\nwere to drink of these magic draughts, but not so deeply as to be\ntransformed to Latin peoples. The r\u00f4le of the Teutons in the mediaeval\nevolution was to accept Christianity and learn something of the pagan\nantique, and then to react upon what they had received and change it in\ntheir natures.\n\nCentral Europe seems to have been the early home alike of Celts and\nTeutons. Thence successive migratory groups appear to have passed\nwestwardly and southerly. Both races spoke Aryan tongues, and according to\nthe earliest notices of classic writers resembled each other\nphysically--large, blue-eyed, with yellow or tawny hair. The more\npenetrating accounts of Caesar and Tacitus disclose their distinctive\nracial traits, which contrast still more clearly in the remains of the\nearly Celtic (Irish) and Teutonic literatures. Whatever were the\nethnological affinities between Celt and Teuton, and however imperceptibly\nthese races may have shaded into each other, for example, in northern\nFrance and Belgium, their characters were different, and their opposing\nracial traits have never ceased to display themselves in the literature as\nwell as in the political and social history of western Europe.\n\nThe time and manner of the Celtic occupation of Gaul and Spain remain\nobscure.[145] It took place long before the turmoils of the second century\nB.C., when the Teutonic tribes began to assert themselves, probably in the\nnorth of the present Germany, and to press south-westwardly upon Celtic\nneighbours on both sides of the Rhine. Some of them pushed on towards\nlands held by the Belgae, and then passed southward toward Aquitania,\ndrawing Belgic and Celtic peoples with them. Afterwards turning eastwardly\nthey invaded the Roman Provincia in southern Gaul, and through their\nvictories threatened the great Republic. This was the peril of the Cimbri\nand Teutones, which Marius quelled by the waters of the Durance and then\namong the hills of Piedmont. The invasion did not change the ethnology of\nGaul, which, however, was not altogether Celtic in Caesar\u2019s time. The\nopening sentences of his _Commentaries_ indicate anything but racial\nunity. The Roman province was mainly Ligurian in blood. West of the\nprovince, between the Pyrenees and the Garonne, were the \u201cAquitani,\u201d\nchiefly of Iberian stock. The Celtae, whose western boundary was the\nocean, reached from the Garonne as far north as the Seine, and eastwardly\nacross the centre of Gaul to the head waters of the Rhine. North of them\nwere the Belgae, extending from the Seine and the British Channel to the\nlower Rhine. These Belgae also apparently were Celts, and yet, as their\nlands touched those of the Germans on the Rhine, they naturally show\nTeutonic affinities, and some of their tribes contained strains of Teuton\nblood. But it is not blood alone that makes the race; and Gaul, with its\ndominant Celtic element, was making Gauls out of all these peoples. At all\nevents a common likeness may be discerned in the picture of Gallic traits\nwhich Caesar gives.[146]\n\nGallic civilization had then advanced as far as the native political\nincapacity of the Gauls would permit. Quick-witted and intelligent, they\nwere to gain from Rome the discipline they needed. Once accustomed to the\nenforcement of a stable order, their finer qualities responded by a ready\nacceptance of the benefits of civilization and a rapid appropriation of\nLatin culture. Not a sentence of the Gallic literature survives. But that\nthis people were endowed with eloquence and possessed of a sense of form,\nwas to be shown by works in their adopted tongue.[147] Romanized and\nLatinized, they were converted to Christianity and then renewed with fresh\nTeutonic blood. So they enter upon the mediaeval period; and when, after\nthe millennial year, the voices of the Middle Ages cease simply to utter\nthe barbaric or echo the antique, it becomes clear that nowhere is there a\nhappier balance of intellectual faculty and emotional capacity than in\nthese peoples of mingled stock who long had dwelt in the country which we\nknow as France.\n\nSince the Celts of Gaul have left no witness of themselves in Gallic\ninstitutions or literature, it is necessary to turn to Ireland for clearer\nevidence of Celtic qualities. There one may see what might come of a\npredominantly Celtic people who lacked the lesson of Roman conquest and\nthe discipline of Roman order. The early history of the Irish, their\npresentation of themselves in imaginative literature, their attainment in\nlearning and accomplishment in art, are not unlike what might have been\nexpected from Caesar\u2019s Gauls under similar conditions of comparative\nisolation. Irish history displays the social turmoil and barbarism\nresulting from the insular aggravation of the Celtic weaknesses noticeable\nin Caesar\u2019s sketch; and the same are carried to burlesque excess in the\nold Irish literature. On the other hand, Irish qualities of temperament\nand mind bear such fair fruit in literature and art as might be imagined\nspringing from the Gallic stem but for the Roman graft.[148]\n\nNo trustworthy story can be put together from the myth, tradition, and\nconscious fiction which record the unprogressive turbulence of\npre-Christian Ireland. But the Irish character and capacities are clearly\nmirrored in this enormous Gaelic literature. Truculence and vanity pervade\nit, and a passion for hyperbole. A weak sense of fact and a lack of steady\nrational purpose are also conspicuous. It is as ferocious as may be. Yet,\nwithal, it keeps the charm of the Irish temperament. Its pathos is moving,\neven lovely. Some of the poetry has a mystic sensuousness; the lines fall\non the ear like the lapping of ripples on an unseen shore; the imagery has\na fantastic and romantic beauty, and the reader is wafted along on waves\nof temperament and feeling.[149]\n\nWhatever themes sprang from the pagan age, probably nothing was written\ndown before the Christian time, when Christian matter might be foisted\ninto the pagan story. The Sagas belonging to the so-called Ulster Cycle\nafford the best illustration of early Irish traits.[150] They reflect a\nsociety apparently at the \u201cHomeric\u201d stage of development, though the\nIrish heroes suffer in comparison with the Greek by reason of the\nimmeasurable inferiority of these Gaelic Sagas to the _Iliad_ and\n_Odyssey_. There is the same custom of fighting from chariots, the same\ntried charioteer, the hero\u2019s closest friend, and the same unstable\nrelationship between the chieftains and the king.[151]\n\nThe Achilles of the Ulster Cycle is Cuchulain. The Tain Bo Cuailgne\n(Englished rather improperly as the \u201cCattle-raid of Cooley\u201d) is the long\nand famous Saga that brings his glory to its height.[152] Other Sagas tell\nof his mysterious birth, his youthful deeds, his wooing, his various\nfeats, and then the moving, fateful story of his death. Loved by many\nwomen, cherished by heroes, beautiful in face and form, possessed of\nstrength, agility, and skill in arms beyond belief, uncontrolled,\nchivalric, his battle-ardour unquenchable, he is a brilliant epic hero.\nBut his story is weakened by hyperbole. Even to-day we know how\nsword-strokes and spear-thrust kill. So do great narrators, who likewise\nrealize the literary power of truth. Through the _Iliad_ there is no\ncombat between heroes where spear and sword do not pierce and kill as they\ndo in fact. So in the Sagas of the Norse, the man falls before the mortal\nblow. But in the Ulster Cycle, day after day, two heroes may mangle each\nother in every impossible and fantastic way, beyond the bounds of the\nfaintest shadow of verisimilitude.[153] In this weakness of hyperbole the\nIrish Sagas are outdone only by the monstrous doings of the epics of\nIndia.\n\nBesides hyperbole, Irish tales display another weakness, which is not\nunpleasing, although an element of failure both in the people and their\nliterature. This is the quality of non-arrival. Some old tales evince it\nin the unsteadfast purpose of the narrative, the hero quite forgetting the\ninitial motive of his action. In the _Voyage of M\u00e6ldun_, for instance, a\nson sets out upon the ocean to seek his father\u2019s murderers, a motive which\nis lost sight of amid the marvels of the voyage.[154] As may be imagined,\nqualities of vanity, truculence, irrationality, hyperbole, and non-arrival\nor lack of sequence, frequently impart an air of _bouffe_ to the Irish\nSagas, making them humorous beyond the intention of their composers.[155]\n\nYet true heroic notes are to be heard.[156] And however rare the tales\nwhich have not the makings of a brawl on every page, these truculent Sagas\nsometimes speak with power and pathos, and sweetly present the loveliness\nof nature or the charms of women; all in a manner happily indicative of\nthe impressionable Irish temperament. Examples are the moving tales of\n_The Children of Usnach_ and the _Pursuit of Diarmuid and Grainne_.[157]\nThey bring to mind the Tristram story, which grew up among a kindred\npeople. The first of them only belongs to the Ulster Cycle. Both are\nstories of a beautiful and headstrong maiden betrothed to an old king.\nEach maid rebels against union with an old man; each falls in love with a\nyoung hero, and, unabashed, asks him to flee with her. In the former tale\nthe heroine\u2019s charms win the hero, while in the latter he is overcome by\nthe violent insistence of a woman not to be gainsaid. In both stories love\nbrings the hero to his death.\n\nThe Irish genius also showed an aptitude for lyric expression, and at an\nearly period developed elaborate modes of rhymed and alliterative\nverse.[158] Peculiarly beautiful are the poems reflecting the Gaelic\nbelief in a future life. A charming description of Elysium is offered by\n_The Voyage of Bran_, a Saga of the Otherworld, dating from the seventh\ncentury. Its verse portions preponderate, the prose serving as their\nframe.[159] But it opens in prose, telling how one day, walking near his\nstronghold, Bran heard sweet music behind him, and as often as he turned\nthe music was still behind him. He fell asleep at last from the sweetness\nof the strains. When he awoke, he found by him a branch silvery with white\nblossoms. He took it to his home, where was seen a woman who sang:\n\n  \u201cA branch of the apple-tree from Emain I bring;\n   Twigs of white silver are on it,\n   Crystal boughs with blossoms.\n   There is a distant isle,\n   Around which sea-horses (waves) glisten:\u201d\n\nAnd the woman sings on, picturing \u201cMag Mell of many flowers,\u201d and of the\nhost ever rowing thither from across the sea; till at last Bran and his\npeople set forth in their boat and row on and on, till they are welcomed\nby sweet women with music and wine in island-fields of flowers and\nbird-song. There is no sad strain in the music from this Gaelic land\nbeyond the grave.\n\nIrish traits observed in poem and Saga are reflected in accounts of not\nimprobable events, and exemplified in Christian saints; for the Irish did\nnot change their spots upon conversion. How Christianity failed to affect\nthe manners of the ancient Irish is illustrated in the story of the\nCursing of Tara, where tradition says the high-kings of Ireland held sway.\nThe account is scarcely historical; yet Tara existed, and fell to decay in\nthe sixth century.[160] Its cursing was on this wise. King Dermot was\nhigh-king of Ireland. His laws were obeyed throughout the land, and over\nits length and breadth marched his spear-bearer asserting the royal\nauthority, and holding the king\u2019s spear across his body before him. Every\ntown and castle must open wide enough to let this spear pass, carried\ncrosswise. The spear-bearer comes to the strong house of \u00c6dh. He finds the\nouter palisade breached to let the spear through, but not the inner house.\nThe bearer demands that it be torn open. \u201cOrder it so as to please\nthyself,\u201d quoth \u00c6dh, as he smote off his head.\n\nKing Dermot sent his men to lay waste to \u00c6dh\u2019s land and seize his person.\n\u00c6dh flees, and at last takes refuge with St. Ruadhan. The king again sends\nmessengers, but they are foiled, till he comes himself, seizes the outlaw,\nand carries him off to hang him at Tara. Thereupon St. Ruadhan seeks St.\nBrendan of Birr and others. They proceed to Tara and demand the prisoner.\nThe king answers that the Church cannot protect law-breakers. So all the\nclergy rang their bells and chanted psalms against the king before Tara,\nand fasted on him (in order that their imprecations might be more potent),\nand he fasted on them. King and clergy fasted on each other, till one\nnight the clergy made a show of eating in sight of the town, but passed\nthe meat and ale beneath their cowls. So the king was tricked into taking\nmeat; and an evil dream came to him, by which he knew the clergy would\nsucceed in destroying his kingdom.\n\nIn the morning the king went and said to the clergy: \u201cIll have ye done to\nundo my kingdom, because I maintained the righteous cause. Be thy diocese,\nRuadhan, the first one ruined, and may thy monks desert thee.\u201d\n\nSaid the saint: \u201cMay thy kingdom droop speedily.\u201d\n\nSaid the king: \u201cThy see shall be empty, and swine shall root up thy\nchurchyards.\u201d\n\nSaid the saint: \u201cTara shall be desolate, and therein shall no dwelling be\nfor ever.\u201d\n\nIt was the custom of ancient bards to utter an imprecation or \u201csatire\u201d\nagainst those offending them.[161] The irate fasting and cursing by the\nIrish clergy was a thinly Christianized continuation of the same Irish\nhabit, inspired by the same Irish temper. There was no chasm between the\npagan bards and the Christian clergy, who loved the Sagas and preserved\nthem. They had also their predecessors in the Druids, who had performed\nthe functions of diviners, magicians, priests, and teachers, which were\nassumed by the clergy in the fifth and sixth centuries.[162] Doubtless\nmany of the Druids became monks.\n\nChristianity came to the Irish as a new ardour, effacing none of their\ncharacteristics. Irish monks and Irish saints were as irascible as Irish\nbards and Saga heroes. The Irish temper lived on in St. Columba of Iona\nand St. Columbanus of Luxeuil and Bobbio. Both of these men left Ireland\nto spread monastic Christianity, and also because, as Irishmen, they loved\nto rove, like their forefathers. Christianity furnished this Irish\npropensity with a definite aim in the mission-passion to convert the\nheathen. It likewise brought the ascetic hermit-passion, which drove these\ntravel-loving islanders over the sea in search of solitude; and so a\nyearning came on Irish monks to sail forth to some distant isle and gain\nwithin the seclusion of the sea a hermitage beyond the reach of man. There\nare many stories of these explorers. They sailed along the Hebrides, they\nsettled on the Shetland Islands, they reached the Faroes, and even brought\nback news of Iceland. But before the seventh century closed, their sea\nhermitages were harried by Norsemen who were sailing upon quite different\nventures. From an opposite direction they too had reached the Shetlands\nand the Hebrides, and had pushed on farther south among the islands off\nthe west coast of Scotland. So there come sorry tales of monks fleeing\nfrom one island to another. These harryings and flights had gone on for a\ncentury and more before the Vikings landed in Ireland, apparently for the\nfirst time, in 795.[163] There followed two centuries of fierce struggle\nwith the invaders, during which much besides blows was exchanged. Vikings\nand Irish learned from each other; Norse strains passed into Irish\nliterature, and conversely the Norse story-tellers probably obtained the\nSaga form of composition.\n\nThe r\u00f4le of the Irish in the diffusion of Christianity with its\naccompaniment of Latin culture will be noted hereafter, and a sketch of\nthe unquestionably Irish saint Columbanus will be given in illustration. A\nfew paragraphs on his almost namesake of Iona, whose career hardly\nextended beyond Celtic circles, may fitly close the present chapter on the\nCeltic genius. In him is seen the truculent Irishman and the clan-abbot of\nroyal birth, violent, dominating by his impetuosity and the strident\nfervour of his voice; also the saint, devoted, loving, to his followers.\nColum,[164] surnamed Cille, \u201cof the church,\u201d from his incessant devotions,\nand by his Latin name known as Columba, was born at Gartan, Donegal, in\nthe extreme north-west of Ireland, about the year 520. His family was\nchief in that part of the country, and through both his parents he was\ndescended from kings. He does not belong to those early Irish saints\nrepresented by Patrick and his storied coadjutors of both sexes, whose\nmissionary activities were not constrained within any ascetic rule; but to\nthe later generation who lived in those monastic communities which were so\nvery typically Irish.[165]\n\nColumba appears to have passed his youth wandering from one monastery to\nanother, and his manhood in founding them. But so strong a nature could\nnot hold aloof from the wars of his clan, which belonged to the northern\nbranch of the Hy-neill race, then maintaining its independence against the\nsouthern branch. The head of the latter was that very King Dermot (usually\ncalled Diarmaid or Diarmuid) against whom St. Ruadhan[166] and the clergy\nfasted and rang their bells. Columba appears to have had no part in the\ncursing of Tara. But Dermot was the king against whom the wars of his\nfamily were waged, and all the traditions point to the saint as their\ninstigator. The account given by Keating, the seventeenth century\nhistorian of Gaelic Ireland, is curious.[167]\n\n    \u201cDiarmuid ... King of Ireland, made the Feast of Tara, and a nobleman\n    was killed at that feast by Curran, son of Aodh; wherefore Diarmuid\n    killed him in revenge for that, because he committed murder at the\n    Feast of Tara, against the law and the sanctuary of the feast; and\n    before Curran was put to death he fled to the protection of\n    Colum-Cille, and notwithstanding the protection of Colum-Cille he was\n    killed by Diarmuid. And from that it arose that Colum-Cille mustered\n    the Clanna Neill of the North, because his own protection and the\n    protection of the sons of Earc was violated. Whereupon the battle of\n    Cul Dreimhne was gained over Diarmuid and over the Connaughtmen, so\n    that they were defeated through the prayer of Colum-Cille.\u201d\n\nKeating adds that another book relates another cause of this battle, to\nwit:\n\n    \u201c... the false judgment which Diarmuid gave against Colum-Cille when\n    he wrote the gospel out of the book of Finnian without his\n    knowledge.[168] Finnian said that it was to himself belonged the\n    son-book which was written from his book, and they both selected\n    Diarmuid as judge between them. This is the decision that Diarmuid\n    made: that to every book belongs its son-book, as to every cow belongs\n    her calf.\u201d\n\nLess consistent is the tradition that Columba left Ireland because of the\nsentence passed upon him by certain of his fellow-saints, as penance for\nthe bloodshed which he had occasioned. Indeed, for his motives one need\nhardly look beyond the desire to spread the Gospel, and the passion of the\nIrish monk _peregrinam ducere vitam_. Reaching the west of Scotland,\nColumba was granted that rugged little island then called Hy, but Iova\nafterwards, and now Iona. This was in 563, and he continued abbot of Hy\nuntil his death in 597. Not that he stayed there all these years, for he\nmoved about ceaselessly, founding churches among the Picts and Scots. Some\nthirty foundations are attributed to him, besides his thirty odd in\nIreland.\n\nAdamnan\u2019s _Vita_ largely consists of stories of the saint\u2019s miracles and\nprophecies and the interpositions of Providence in his behalf. It\nnevertheless gives a consistent picture of this man of powerful frame and\nmighty voice, restless and unrestrained, ascetically tempered, working\nalways for the spread of his religion. We see him compelling men to set\nsail with him despite the tempest, or again rushing into \u201cthe green glass\nwater up to his knees\u201d to curse a plunderer in the name of Christ. \u201cHe was\nnot a gentle hero,\u201d says an old Gaelic Eulogy. Yet if somewhat quick to\ncurse, he was still readier to bless, and if he could be masterful, his\nlife had its own humility. \u201cSurely it was great lowliness in Colomb Cille\nthat he himself used to take off his monks\u2019 sandals and wash their feet\nfor them. He often used to carry his portion of corn on his back to the\nmill, and grind it and bring it home to his house. He never used to put\nlinen or wool against his skin. His side used to come against the bare\nmould.\u201d[169]\n\nSo this impetuous life passes before our eyes filled with adventure,\ntouched with romance, its colours heightened through tradition. As it\ndraws to its close the love in it seems to exceed the wrath; and thus it\nends: as the old man was resting himself the day before his death, seated\nby the barn of the monastery, the white work-horse came and laid its head\nagainst his breast. Late the same night, reclining on his stone bed he\nspoke his last words, enjoining peace and charity among the monks. Rising\nbefore dawn, he entered the church alone, knelt beside the altar, and\nthere he died.[170]--His memory still hangs the peace of God and man over\nthe Island of Iona.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTEUTON QUALITIES: ANGLO-SAXON, GERMAN, NORSE\n\n\nThere were intellectual as well as emotional differences between the Celts\nand Teutons. A certain hard rationality and grasp of fact mark the\nmentality of the latter. On land or sea they view the situation, realize\nits opportunities, their own strength, and the opposing odds: with\ndefinite and persistent purpose they move, they fight, they labour. The\nquality of purposefulness becomes clearer as they emerge from the forest\nobscurity of their origins into the open light of history. To a definite\ngoal of conquest and settlement Theodoric led the Ostrogoths from Moesia\nwestward, and fought his way into Italy. With persistent purposefulness\nClovis and his Merovingian successors intrigued and fought. Among\nAnglo-Saxon pirates the aim of plunder quickly grew to that of conquest.\nAnd in times which were to follow, there was purpose in every voyage and\nbattle of the Vikings. The Teutons disclose more strength and persistency\nof desire than the Celts. Their feelings were slower, less impulsive; also\nless quickly diverted, more unswerving, even fiercer in their strength.\nThe general characteristic of Teutonic emotion is its close connection\nwith some motive grounded in rational purpose.\n\nCaesar\u2019s short sketch of the Germans[171] gives the impression of\nbarbarous peoples, numerous, brave, overweening. They had not reached the\nagricultural stage, but were devoted to war and hunting. There were no\nDruids among them. Their bodies were inured to hardship. They lived in\nrobust independence, and were subject to their chiefs only in war. Their\nfiercest folk, the Suevi, from boyhood would submit neither to labour nor\ndiscipline, that their strength and spirit might be unchecked. It was\ndeemed shameful for a youth to have to do with women before his twentieth\nyear.\n\nThe Roman world knew more about these Germans by the year A.D. 99 when\nTacitus composed his _Germania_. They had scarcely yet turned to\nagriculture. Respect for women appears clearly. These barbarians are most\nreluctant to give their maidens as hostages; they listen to their women\u2019s\nvoices and deem that there is something holy and prophetic in their\nnature. Upon marriage, oxen, a horse, and shield and lance make up the\nhusband\u2019s _morgengabe_ to his bride: she is to have part in her husband\u2019s\nvalour. Fornication and adultery are rare, the adulteress is ruthlessly\npunished; men and maidens marry late. The men of the tribe decide\nimportant matters, which, however, the chiefs have previously discussed\napart. The people sit down armed; the priests proclaim silence; the king\nor war-leader is listened to, and the assembly is swayed by his persuasion\nand repute. They dissent with murmurs, or assent brandishing their spears.\nThere is thus participation by the tribe, and yet deference to reputation.\nThis description discloses Teutonic freedom as different from Celtic\npolitical unrestraint. Tacitus also speaks of the Germanic _Comitatus_,\nconsisting of a chief and a band of youths drawn together by his repute,\nwho fight by his side and are disgraced if they survive him dead upon the\nfield. In time of peace they may seek another leader from a tribe at war;\nfor the Germans are impatient of peace and toil, and slothful except when\nfighting or hunting. They had further traits and customs which are\nbarbaric rather than specifically Teutonic: cruelty and faithlessness\ntoward enemies, feuds, _wergeld_, drinking bouts, gambling, slavery,\nabsence of testaments.\n\nBetween the time of Tacitus and the fifth century many changes came over\nthe Teuton tribes. Early tribal names vanished, while a regrouping into\nlarger and apparently more mobile aggregates took place. The obscure\nrevolutions occurring in Central Europe in the second, third, and fourth\ncenturies do not indicate social progress, but rather retrogression from\nan almost agricultural state toward stages of migratory unrest.[172] We\nhave already noted the fortunes of those tribes that helped to barbarize\nand disrupt the Roman Empire, and lost themselves among the Romance\npopulations of Italy, Gaul, and Spain. We are here concerned with those\nthat preserved their native speech and qualities, and as Teuton peoples\nbecame contributories to the currents of mediaeval evolution.\n\n\nI\n\nWhen the excellent Apollinaris Sidonius, writing in the middle of the\nfifth century to a young friend about to enter the Roman naval service off\nthe coasts of Gaul, characterized the Saxon pirates as the fiercest and\nmost treacherous of foes, whose way is to dash upon their prey amid the\ntempest, and for whom shipwreck is a school, he spoke truly, and also\nillustrated the difference that lies in point of view.[173] Fierce they\nwere, and hardy seamen, likewise treacherous in Roman eyes, and insatiate\nplunderers. From the side of the sea they represented the barbarian\ndisorder threatening the world. The Roman was scarcely interested in the\nfact that these men kept troth among themselves with energy and sacrifice\nof life. The Saxons, Angles, Jutes, whose homes ashore lay between the\nWeser and the Elbe and through Sleswig, Holstein, and Denmark, possessed\ninteresting qualities before they landed in Britain, where under novel\ncircumstances they were to develop their character and institutions with a\nrapidity that soon raised them above the condition of their kin who had\nstayed at home. Bands of them had touched Britain before the year 411,\nwhen the Roman legions were withdrawn. But it was only with the landing of\nHengest and Horsa in 449 that they began to come in conquering force. The\nAnglo-Saxon conquest of the island went on for two centuries. Information\nregarding it is of the scantiest; but the Britons seem to have been\nsubmerged or driven westward. There is at least no evidence of any\nfriendly mingling of the races. The invaders accepted neither Christianity\nnor Roman culture from the conquered, and Britain became a heathen\nEngland.\n\nWhile these Teuton peoples were driving through their conquest and also\nfighting fiercely with each other, their characters and institutions were\nbecoming distinctively Anglo-Saxon. Under stress of ceaseless war,\nmilitary leaders became hereditary kings, whose powers, at least in\nintervals of peace, were controlled by the Witan or Council of the Wise,\nand limited by the jurisdiction of the Hundred Court. Likewise the\ntemporary ties of the Teutonic _Comitatus_ became permanent in the body of\nking\u2019s companions (thegns, thanes), whose influence was destined to\nsupplant that of the eorls, the older nobility of blood. The _Comitatus_\nprinciple pervades Anglo-Saxon history as well as literature; it runs\nthrough the _Beowulf_ epic; Anglo-Saxon Biblical versifiers transfer it to\nthe followers of Abraham and the disciples of Christ; and every child\nknows the story of Lilla, faithful thegn, who flung himself between his\nNorthumbrian king, Edwin, and the sword of the assassin--the latter sent\nby a West Saxon king and doubtless one of _his_ faithful thegns. Their law\nconsisted mainly in the graded _wergeld_ for homicide, in an elaborate\ntariff of compensation for personal injuries, and in penalties for\ncattle-raiding. Beyond the matter of theft, property law was still\nunwritten custom, and contract law did not exist. The rules of procedure,\nfor instance in the Hundred Court, were elaborate, as is usual in a\nprimitive society where the substantial rights are simple, and the\nimportant thing is to induce the parties to submit to an adjudication.\nSimilar Teutonic customs obtained elsewhere. But the course of their\ndevelopment in Saxon England displays an ever clearer recognition of\nfundamental principles of English law: justice is public; the parties\nimmediately concerned must bring the case to court and there conduct it\naccording to rules of procedure; the court of freemen hear and determine,\nbut do not extend the inquiry beyond the evidence adduced before them; to\ninterpret and declare the law is the function of the court, not of the\nking and his officers.[174]\n\nDuring these first centuries in England, the Anglo-Saxon endowment of\ncharacter and faculty becomes clearly shown in events and expressed in\nliterature. A battle-loving people whose joy in fight flashes from their\n\u201cshield-play\u201d and \u201csword-game\u201d epithets, even as their fondness for\nseafaring is seen in such phrases as \u201cwave-floater,\u201d \u201cfoam-necked,\u201d \u201clike\na swan\u201d breasting the \u201cswan-road\u201d of the sea. But their sword-games and\nwave-floatings had purpose, a quality that became large and steady as\ngeneration after generation, unstopped by fortress, forest, or river,\npushed on the conquest of England. When that conquest had been completed,\nand these Saxons were in turn hard pressed by their Danish kin more lately\nsailing from the north, their courage still could not be overborne. It is\nreflected in the overweening mood of _Maldon_, the poem which is also\ncalled _The Death of Byrhtnoth_. The cold grey scene lies in the north of\nEngland. The Viking invaders demand rings of gold; Byrhtnoth, the Alderman\nof the East Saxons, retorts scornfully. So the fight begins with arrows\nand spear throwings across the black water. The Saxons hold the ford. The\nSea-wolves cannot force it. They call for leave to cross. In his overmood\nByrhtnoth answers: \u201cTo you this is yielded: come straightway to us; God\nonly wots who shall hold fast the place of battle.\u201d In the bitter end when\nByrhtnoth is killed, still speaks his thane: \u201cMind shall the harder be,\nheart the keener, mood the greater, as our might lessens. Here lies our\nElder hewn to death. I am old; I will not go hence. I think to lay me down\nby the side of my lord.\u201d\n\nThe spiritual gifts of the Anglo-Saxons are discernible in their language,\nwhich so adequately could render the Bible[175] and the phraseology of the\nSeven Liberal Arts. Its terms were somewhat more concrete and physical\nthan the Latin, but readily lent themselves to figurative meanings. More\npalpably the poetry with its reflection upon life shows the endowment of\nthe race. Marked is its elegiac mood. In an old poem is heard the voice of\none who sails with hapless care the exile\u2019s way, and must forego his dear\nlord\u2019s gifts: in sleep he kisses him, and again lays hands and head upon\nthose knees, as in times past. Then wakes the friendless man, and sees the\nocean\u2019s waves, the gulls spreading their wings, rime and snow falling.\nMore impersonal is the heavy tone of a meditative fragment over the ruins,\napparently, of a Roman city:\n\n  \u201cWondrous is this wall-stone,\n   fates have broken it,\n   have burst the stronghold,\n   roofs are fallen,\n   towers tottering,\n   hoar gate-towers despoiled,\n   shattered the battlements,\n   riven, fallen.\n\n    *       *       *       *\n\n   Earth\u2019s grasp holdeth\n   the mighty workmen\n   worn away, done for,\n   in the hard grip of the grave.\u201d\n\nBut the noblest presentation of character in pagan Anglo-Saxon poetry is\nafforded by the epic poem of _Beowulf_, which tells the story of a Geatic\nhero who sets out for Denmark to slay a monster, accomplishes the feat, is\nnobly rewarded by the Danish king, and returns to rule his own people\njustly for fifty winters, when his valiant and beneficent life ends in a\nlast victorious conflict with a hoard-guarding dragon. Here myth and\ntradition were not peculiarly Anglo-Saxon; but the finally recast and\nfinished work, noble in diction, sentiment, and action, expresses the\nhighest ethics of Anglo-Saxon heathendom. Beowulf does what he ought to\ndo, heroically; and finds satisfaction and reward. He does not seek his\npleasure, though that comes with gold and mead-drinking; consciousness of\ndeeds done bravely and the assurance of fame sweeten death at last.[176]\n\nA century or more after the composition of this poem, there lived an\nAnglo-Saxon whose aims were spiritualized through Christianity, whose\nvigorous mind was broadened by such knowledge and philosophy as his epoch\nhad gathered from antique sources, and whose energies were trained in\ngeneralship and the office of a king. He presents a life intrinsically\ngood and true, manifesting itself in warfare against heathen barbarism and\nin endeavour to rule his people righteously and enlarge their knowledge.\nMany of the qualities and activities of Alfred had no place in the life of\nBeowulf. Yet the heathen hero and the Christian king were hewn from the\nsame rock of Saxon manhood. Alfred\u2019s life was established upon principles\nof right conduct generically the same as those of the poem. But\nChristianity, experience, contact with learned men, and education through\nbooks, had informed him of man\u2019s spiritual nature, and taught him that\nhuman welfare depended on knowledge and intent and will. Accordingly, his\nbeneficence does not stop with the armed safe-guarding of his realm, but\nseeks to compass the instruction of those who should have knowledge in\norder the better to guide the faith and conduct of the people. \u201cHe seems\nto me a very foolish man and inexcusable, who will not increase his\nknowledge the while that he is in this world, and always wish and will\nthat he may come to the everlasting life where nothing shall be dark or\nunknown.\u201d[177]\n\n\nII\n\nIn spite of the general Teutonic traits and customs which the Germans east\nand west of the Rhine possessed in common with the Anglo-Saxons, distinct\nqualities appear in the one and the other from the moment of our nearer\nacquaintance with their separate history and literature. So scanty,\nhowever, are the literary remains of German heathendom that recourse must\nbe had to Christian productions to discover, for example, that with the\nGermans the sentiment of home and its dear relationships[178] is as marked\nas the Anglo-Saxon\u2019s elegiac meditative mood. Language bears its witness\nto the spiritual endowment of both peoples. The German dialects along the\nRhine were rich in abstract nouns ending in _ung_ and _keit_ and _schaft_\nand _tum_.[179]\n\nThere remains one piece of untouched German heathenism, the\n_Hildebrandslied_, which dates from the end of the eighth century, and may\npossibly be the sole survivor of a collection of German poems made at\nCharlemagne\u2019s command.[180] It is a tale of single combat between a father\nand son, the counterpart of which is found in the Persian, Irish, and\nNorse literatures. Such an incident might be diversely rendered; armies\nmight watch their champions engage, or the combat might occur unwitnessed\nin some mountain gorge; it might be described pathetically or in warrior\nmood, and the heroes might fight in ignorance, or one of them know well,\nwho was the man confronting him. In German, this story is a part of that\nhuge mass of legend which grew up around the memory of the terrible Hun\nAttila, and transformed him to the Atli of Norse literature, and to the\nworthy King Etzel of the _Nibelungenlied_, at whose Court the flower of\nBurgundian chivalry went down in that fierce feud in which Etzel had\nlittle part. Among his vassal kings appears the mighty exile Dietrich of\nBern, who in the _Nibelungen_ reluctantly overcomes the last of the\nBurgundian heroes. This Dietrich is none other than Theodoric the\nOstrogoth, transformed in legend and represented as driven from his\nkingdom of Italy by Odoacer, and for the time forced to take refuge with\nEtzel; for the legend was not troubled by the fact that Attila was dead\nbefore Theodoric was born. Bern is the name given to Verona, and legend\nsaw Theodoric\u2019s castle in that most beautiful of Roman amphitheatres,\nwhere the traveller still may sit and meditate on many things. It is told\nalso that Theodoric recovered his kingdom in the legendary Rabenschlacht\nfought by Ravenna\u2019s walls. Old Hildebrand was his master-at-arms, who had\nfled with him. In the _Nibelungen_ it is he that cuts down Kriemhild,\nEtzel\u2019s queen, before the monarch\u2019s eyes; for he could not endure that a\nwoman\u2019s hand had slain Gunther and Hagen, whom, exhausted at last,\nDietrich\u2019s strength had set before her helpless and bound. And now, after\nyears of absence, he has recrossed the mountains with his king come to\nclaim his kingdom, and before the armies he challenges the champion of the\nopposing host. Here the Old German poem, which is called the\n_Hildebrandslied_, takes up the story:\n\n    \u201cHildebrand spoke, the wiser man, and asked as to the other\u2019s\n    father--\u2018Or tell me of what race art thou; \u2019twill be enough; every one\n    in the realm is known to me.\u2019\n\n    \u201cHadubrand spoke, Hildebrand\u2019s son: \u2018Our people, the old and knowing\n    of them, tell me Hildebrand was my father\u2019s name; mine is Hadubrand.\n    Aforetime he fled to the east, from Otacher\u2019s hate, fled with Dietrich\n    and his knights. He left wife to mourn, and ungrown child. Dietrich\u2019s\n    need called him. He was always in the front; fighting was dear to him.\n    I do not believe he is alive.\u2019\n\n    \u201c\u2018God forbid, from heaven above, that thou shouldst wage fight with so\n    near kin.\u2019 He took from his arm the ring given by the king, lord of\n    the Huns. \u2018Lo! I give it thee graciously.\u2019\n\n    \u201cHadubrand spoke: \u2018With spear alone a man receives gift, point against\n    point. Too cunning art thou, old Hun. Beguiling me with words thou\n    wouldst thrust me with thy spear. Thou art so old--thou hast a trick\n    in store. Seafaring men have told me Hildebrand is dead.\u2019\n\n    \u201cHildebrand spoke: \u2018O mighty God, a drear fate happens. Sixty summers\n    and winters, ever placed by men among the spearmen, I have so borne\n    myself that bane got I never. Now shall my own child smite me with the\n    sword, or I be his death.\u2019\u201d\n\nThere is a break here in the poem; but the uncontrolled son evidently\ntaunted the father with cowardice. The old warrior cries:\n\n    \u201c\u2018Be he the vilest of all the East people who now would refuse thee\n    the fight thou hankerest after. Happen it and show which of us must\n    give up his armour.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe end fails, but probably the son was slain.\n\nStubborn and grim appears the Old German character. Point to point shall\nfoes exchange gifts. Such also was the way when a lord made reward; on the\nspear\u2019s point presenting the arm-ring to him who had served, he accepting\nit in like fashion, each on his guard perhaps. The _Hildebrandslied_\nexhibits other qualities of the German spirit, as its bluntness and lack\nof tact; even its clumsiness is evinced in the seventy lines of the poem,\nwhich although broken is not a fragment, but a short poem--a ballad\ngraceless and shapeless because of its stiff unvarying lines.\n\nIn a later poem, which gives the story of Walter of Aquitaine, the same\nset and stubborn mood appears, although lightened by rough banter. This\nlegend existed in Old German as well as Anglo-Saxon. In the tenth century,\nEkkehart, a monk of St. Gall, freely altering and adding to the tale, made\nof it the small Latin epic which is extant.[181] Monk as he was, he tells\na spirited story in his rugged hexameters. He had studied classic authors\nto good purpose; and his poem of Walter fleeing with his love Hildegund\nfrom the Hunnish Court (for the all-pervasive Attila is here also) is\nvivid, diversified, well-constructed--qualities which may not have been in\nthe story till he remodelled it. Its leading incidents still present\nGerman traits. Walter and Hildegund carry off a treasure in their flight;\nand it is to get this treasure that Gunther urges Hagen (for they are here\ntoo) to attack the fugitive. This is Teutonic. It was for plunder that\nTeuton tribes fought their bravest fights from the time of Alaric and\nGenseric to the Viking age, and the hoard has a great part in Teutonic\nstory. In the _Waltarius_ Gunther\u2019s driving avarice, Walter\u2019s stubborn\ndefence of his gold are Teutonic. The humour and the banter are more\ndistinctly German, and nobly German is the relationship of trust and\nhonour between Walter and the maiden who is fleeing with him. Yet the\nstory does not revolve around the woman in it, but rather around the\nshrewdly got and bravely guarded treasure.\n\nGerman traits obvious in the _Hildebrandslied_, and strong through the\nLatin of the _Waltarius_, evince themselves in the epic of the\n_Nibelungenlied_ and in the _Kudrun_, often called its companion piece.\nThe former holds the strength of German manhood and the power of German\nhate, with the edged energy of speech accompanying it. In the latter,\nGerman womanhood is at its best. Both poems, in their extant form, belong\nto the middle or latter part of the twelfth century, and are not\nunaffected by influences which were not native German.\n\nThe _Nibelungenlied_ is but dimly reminiscent of any bygone love between\nSiegfried and Brunhilde, and carries within its own narrative a sufficient\nexplanation of Brunhilde\u2019s jealous anger and Siegfried\u2019s death. Kriemhild\nis left to nurse the wrath which shall never cease to devise vengeance for\nher husband\u2019s murderers. Years afterwards, Hagen warns Gunther, about to\naccept Etzel\u2019s invitation, that Kriemhild is _lancraeche_ (long vengeful).\nThe course of that vengeance is told with power; for the constructive soul\nof a race contributed to this Volksepos. The actors in the tragedy are\nstrikingly drawn and contrasted, and are lifted in true epic fashion above\nthe common stature by intensity of feeling and the power of will to\nrealize through unswerving action the prompting of their natures. The\nfatefulness of the tale is true to tragic reality, in which the far\nresults of an ill deed involve the innocent with the guilty.\n\nA comparison of the poem with the _Hildebrandslied_ shows that the sense\nof the pathetic had deepened in the intervening centuries. There is\nscarcely any pathos in the earlier composition, although its subject is\nthe fatal combat between father and son. But the _Nibelungen_, with a\nfiercer hate, can set forth the heroic pathos of the lot of one, who,\nstruggling between fealties, is driven on to dishonour and to death. This\nis the pathos of the death of R\u00fcdiger, who had received the Burgundians\nin his castle on their way to Etzel\u2019s Court, had exchanged gifts with\nthem, and betrothed his daughter to the youngest of the three kings. He\nwas as unsuspecting as Etzel of Kriemhild\u2019s plot. But in the end Kriemhild\nforces him, on his fealty as liegeman, to outrage his heart and honour,\nand attack those whom he had sheltered and guided onward--to their death.\n\nNot much love in this tale, only hate insatiable. But the greatness of\nhate may show the passional power of the hating soul. The centuries have\nraised to high relief the elemental Teutonic qualities of hate, greed,\ncourage and devotion, and human personality has enlarged with the\nheightened power of will. The reader is affected with admiration and\nsympathy. First he is drawn to Siegfried\u2019s bright morning courage, his\nnoble masterfulness--his character appears touched with the ideals of\nchivalry.[182] After his death the interest turns to Kriemhild planning\nfor revenge. It may be that sympathy is repelled as her hate draws within\nits tide so much of guiltlessness and honour; and as the doomed Nibelungen\nheroes show themselves haughty, strong-handed, and stout-hearted to the\nend, he cheers them on, and most heartily that grim, consistent Hagen in\nwhom the old German troth and treachery for troth\u2019s sake are incarnate.\n\nThe _Kudrun_[183] is a happier story, ending in weddings instead of death.\nThere was no licentiousness or infidelity between man and wife in the\n_Nibelungen_, and through all its hate and horror no outrage is done to\nwoman\u2019s honour. That may be taken as the leading theme of the _Kudrun_. An\nardent wooer, to be sure, may seize and carry off the heroine, and his\nfather drag her by the hair on her refusal to wed his son; but her honour,\nand the honour of all women in the poem, is respected and maintained. The\nideal of womanhood is noble throughout: an old king thus bids farewell to\nhis daughter on setting forth to be married: \u201cYou shall so wear your crown\nthat I and your mother may never hear that any one hates you. Rich as you\nare, it would mar your fame to give any occasion for blame.\u201d[184]\n\nA mediaeval epic may tell of the fortunes of several generations, and the\n_Kudrun_ devotes a number of books to the heroine\u2019s ancestors, making a\nhalf-savage narrative, in which one feels a conflict between ancient\nbarbarities and a newer and more courtly order. When the venturesome\nwooing and wedded fortune of Kudrun\u2019s mother have been told, the poem\nturns to its chief heroine, who grows to stately maidenhood, and becomes\nbetrothed to a young king, Herwig. A rejected wooer, the \u201cNorman\u201d Prince\nHartmuth, by a sudden descent upon the land in the absence of its\ndefenders, carries off Kudrun and her women by force of arms, and the\nking, her father, is killed in an abortive attempt to recapture her. In\nHartmuth\u2019s castle by the sea Kudrun spends bitter years waiting for\ndeliverance. His sister, Ortrun, is kind to her, but his mother, Gerlint,\ntreats her shamefully. The maiden is steadfast. Between her and Hartmuth\nstands a double barrier: his father had killed hers; she was betrothed to\nHerwig. Hartmuth repels his wicked mother\u2019s advice to force her to his\nwill. In his absence on a foray Gerlint compels Kudrun to do unfitting\ntasks. Hartmuth, returning, asks her: \u201cKudrun, fair lady, how has it been\nwith you while I and my knights were away?\u201d\n\n\u201cHere I have been forced to serve, to your sin and my shame,\u201d[185]\nanswers Kudrun--a great answer, in its truth and self-control.\n\nAfter an interval of kind treatment the old \u201cshe-wolf\u201d Gerlint sets Kudrun\nwith her faithful Hildeburg to washing clothes in the sea. It is winter;\ntheir garments are mean, their feet are naked. They see a boat\napproaching, in which are Kudrun\u2019s brother Ortwin, and Herwig her\nbetrothed, who had come before their host as spies. A recognition follows.\nHerwig is for carrying them off; Ortwin forbids it. \u201cWith open force they\nwere taken; my hand shall not steal them back\u201d; dear as Kudrun is, he can\ntake her only _n\u00e2ch \u00earen_ (as becomes his honour). When they have gone,\nKudrun throws the clothes to be washed into the sea. \u201cNo more will I wash\nfor Gerlint; two kings have kissed me and held me in their arms.\u201d\n\nKudrun returns to the castle, which soon is stormed. She saves Hartmuth\nand his sister from the slaughter, and all sail home, where the thought is\nnow of wedding festivals.\n\nKudrun is married to Herwig; at her advice Ortwin weds Ortrun, and then\nshe thinks of Hartmuth\u2019s plight, and asks her friend Hildeburg whether she\nwill have him for a husband. Hildeburg consents. Kudrun commands that\nHartmuth be brought, and bids him be seated by the side of her dear friend\n\u201cwho had washed clothes along with her!\u201d\n\n\u201cQueen, you would reproach me with that. I grieved at the shame they put\non you. It was kept from me.\u201d\n\n\u201cI cannot let it pass. I must speak with you alone, Hartmuth.\u201d\n\n\u201cGod grant she means well with me,\u201d thought he. She took him aside and\nspoke: \u201cIf you will do as I bid, you will part with your troubles.\u201d\n\nHartmuth answered: \u201cI know you are so noble that your behest can be only\nhonourable and good. I can find nothing in my heart to keep me from doing\nyour bidding gladly, Queen.\u201d[186] The high quality of speech between these\ntwo will rarely be outdone.\n\nThere is directness and troth in all these German poems. Troth is an ideal\nwhich must carry truth within it. The more thoughtful and reflecting\nGerman spirit will evince loyalty to truth itself as an ideal. Wolfram\u2019s\npoem of _Parzival_ has this; and by virtue of this same ideal, Walter von\nder Vogelweide\u2019s judgments upon life and emperors and popes are whole and\nsteady, unveiling the sham, condemning the lie and defying the liar.[187]\nIn them dawns the spirit of Luther and the German Reformation, with its\nlove of truth stronger than its love of art.\n\n\nIII\n\nChronologically these last illustrations of German traits belong to the\nmediaeval time; and in fact the _Nibelungenlied_ and _Kudrun_, and much\nmore Wolfram\u2019s _Parzival_ and Walter\u2019s poems, are mediaeval, because to\nsome extent affected by that interplay of influences which made the\nmediaeval genius.[188] On the other hand, the almost contemporaneous Norse\nSagas and the somewhat older Eddic poems exhibit Teutonic traits in their\nnorthern integrity. For the Norse period of free and independent growth\ncontinued long after the distinctive barbarism of other Teutons had become\nmediaevalized. There resulted under the strenuous conditions of Norse life\nthat unique heightening of energy which is manifested in the deeds of the\nViking age and reflected in Norse literature.[189]\n\nThis time of extreme activity opens in the eighth century, toward the end\nof which Viking ravagers began to harry the British Isles. St. Cuthbert\u2019s\nholy island of Lindisfarne was sacked in 793, and similar raids multiplied\nwith portentous rapidity. The coasts of Ireland and Great Britain, and the\nislands lying about them, were well plundered while the ninth century was\nyoung. In Ireland permanent conquests were made near Dublin, at Waterford,\nand Limerick. The second half of this century witnesses the great Danish\nViking invasion of England. On the Continent the Vikings worried the\nskirts of the Carolingian colossus, and the Lowlands suffered before\nCharlemagne was in his grave. After his death the trouble began in\nearnest. Not only the coasts were ravaged, but the river towns trembled,\non the Elbe, the Rhine, the Somme, the Seine, the Loire. Paris foiled or\nsuccumbed to more than one fierce siege. About the middle of the ninth\ncentury the Vikings began to winter where they had plundered in the\nsummer.\n\nThe north was ruled by chiefs and petty kings until Harold Fairhair\novercame the chiefs of Norway and made himself supreme about the year 870.\nBut he established his power only after great sea-fights, and many of the\nconquered choosing exile rather than submission, took refuge in the\nOrkneys, the Faroes, and other islands. Harold pursued with his fleets,\nand forced them to further flight. It was this exodus from the islands and\nfrom Norway in the last years of the ninth century that gave Iceland the\ngreater part of its population. Thither also came other bold spirits from\nthe Norse holdings in Ireland.\n\nWhile these events were happening in the west, the Scandinavians had not\nfailed to push easterly. Some settled in Russia, by the Gulf of Finland,\nothers along the south shore of the Baltic between the Vistula and Oder.\nSo their holdings in the tenth century encircled the north of Europe; for\nbesides Sleswig, Denmark, and Scandinavia, they held the coast of Holland,\nalso Normandy, where Rollo came in 912. Of insular domain, they held\nIceland, parts of Scotland, and the islands north and west of it, some\nbits of Ireland, and much of England. Moreover, Scandinavians filled the\nVarangian corps of the Byzantine emperors, and old Runic inscriptions are\nfound on marbles at Athens. Their narrow barks traversed the eastern\nMediterranean[190] long before Norman Roger and Norman Robert conquered\nSicily and southern Italy. Such reach of conquest shows them to have been\nmoved by no passion for adventure. Their fierce valour was part of their\ngreat capacity for the strategy of war. As pirates, as invaders, as\nsettlers, they dared and fought and fended for a purpose--to get what they\nwanted, and to hold it fast. When they had mastered the foe and conquered\nhis land, they settled down, in England and Normandy and Sicily.\n\nSuch genius for fighting was in accord with shrewdness and industry in\npeace. The Vikings laboured, whether in Norway or in Iceland. In the\n_Edda_ the freeman learns to break oxen, till the ground, timber houses,\nbuild barns, make carts and ploughs.[191] So a tenth-century Viking king\nmay be found in the field directing the cutting and stacking of his corn\nand the gathering of it into barns. They were also traders and even\nmoney-lenders. The Icelanders, whom we know so intimately from the Sagas,\nwent regularly upon voyages of trade or piracy before settling down to\nfarm and wife. Sharp of speech, efficient in affairs, and often adepts in\nthe law, they eagerly took part in the meetings of the Althing and its\nsettlement of suits. If such settlement was rejected, private war or the\n_holmgang_ (an appointed single combat on a small island) was the regular\nrecourse. But it was murder to kill in the night or without previous\nnotice. Nothing should be said behind an enemy\u2019s back that the speaker\nwould not make good; and every man must keep his plighted word.\n\nMuch of the Norse wisdom consists in a shrewd wariness. Contempt for the\nchattering fool runs through the _Edda_.[192] Let a man be chary of\nspeech and in action unflinching. Eddic poetry is full of action; even its\ndidactic pieces are dramatic. The _Edda_ is as hard as steel. In the\nmythological pieces the action has the ruthlessness of the elements, while\nthe stories of conduct show elemental passions working in elemental\nstrength. The men and women are not rounded and complete; but certain\ndisengaged motives are raised to the Titanic and thrown out with power.\nNeither present anguish, nor death surely foreseen, checks the course of\nvengeance for broken faith in those famous Eddic lays of Atli, of Sigurd\nand Sigrifa, Helgi and Sigrun, Brynhild and Gudrun, out of which the\nVolsunga Saga was subsequently put together, and to which the\n_Nibelungenlied_ is kin. They seem to carry the same story, with change of\nnames and incidents. Always the hero\u2019s fate is netted by woman\u2019s vengeance\nand the curse of the Hoard. But still the women feel most; the men strike,\nor are struck. Hard and cold grey, with hidden fire, was the temper of\nthese people. Their love was not over-tender, and yet stronger than death:\ncries Brynhild\u2019s ghost riding hellward, \u201cMen and women will always be born\nto live in woe. We two, Sigurd and I, shall never part again.\u201d And the\npower of such love speaks in the deed and word of Sigrun, who answers the\nghostly call of slain Helgi from his barrow, and enters it to cast her\narms about him there: \u201cI am as glad to meet thee as are the greedy hawks\nof Odin when they scent the slain. I will kiss thee, my dead king, ere\nthou cast off thy bloody coat. Thy hair, my Helgi, is thick with rime, thy\nbody is drenched with gory dew, dead-cold are thy hands.\u201d\n\nThe characters which appear in large grey traits in the _Edda_, come\nnearer to us in the Icelandic Sagas. The _Edda_ has something of a far,\nunearthly gloom; the Saga the light of day. Saga-folk are extraordinarily\nindividual; men and women are portrayed, body and soul, with homely,\ntelling realism. Nevertheless, within a fuller round of human trait,\nEddic qualities endure. There is the same clear purpose and the strong\nresolve, and still the deed keeps pace with the intent.[193]\n\nThe period which the Sagas would delineate commences when the Norse chiefs\nsail to Iceland with kith and kin and following to be rid of Harold\nFairhair, and lasts for a century or more on through the time of King Olaf\nTryggvason who, shield over head, sprang into the sea in the year 1000,\nand the life of that other Olaf, none too rightly called the Saint, who in\n1030 perished in battle fighting against overwhelming odds. Following hard\nupon this heroic time comes the age of telling of it, telling of it at the\nmid-summer Althing, telling of it at Yuletide feasts, and otherwise\nthrough the long winter nights in Iceland. These tellings are the Sagas in\nprocess of creation; for a Saga is essentially a tale told by word of\nmouth to listeners. Thus pass another hundred years of careful telling,\nmemorizing, and retelling of these tales, kept close to the old incidents\nand deeds, yet ever with a higher truth intruding. They are becoming true\nto reality itself, in concrete types, and not simply narratives of facts\nactually occurring--if indeed facts ever occur in any such unequivocal\nsingleness of actuality and with such compelling singleness of meaning,\nthat one man shall not read them in one way and another otherwise. And the\nmore imaginative reading may be the truer.\n\nThis century of Saga-growth in memory and word of mouth came to an end,\nand men began to write them down. For still another hundred years\n(beginning about 1140) this process lasted. In its nature it was something\nof a remodelling. As oral tales to be listened to, the Sagas had come to\nthese scribe-authors, and as such the latter wrote them down, yet with\nsuch modification as would be involved in writing out for mind and eye and\near that which the ear had heard and the memory retained. In some\ninstances the scribe-author set himself the more ambitious task of casting\ncertain tales together in a single, yet composite story. Such is the\nNj\u00e1la, greatest of all Sagas; it may have been written about the year\n1220.[194]\n\nAs representative of the Norse personality, the Sagas, like all national\nliterature, bear a twofold testimony: that of their own literary\nqualities, and that of the characters which they portray. In the first\nplace, a Saga is absolute narrative: it relates deeds, incidents, and\nsayings, in the manner and order in which they would strike the eye and\near of the listener, did the matter pass before him. The narrator offers\nno analysis of motives; he inserts no reflections upon characters and\nsituations. He does not even relate the incidents from the vantage-ground\nof a full knowledge of them, but from the point of view of each instant\u2019s\nimpression upon the participants or onlookers. The result is an objective\nand vivid presentation of the story. Next, the Sagas are economical of\nincident as well as language. That incident is told which the story needs\nfor the presentation of the hero\u2019s career; those circumstances are given\nwhich the incident needs in order that its significance may be perceived;\nsuch sayings of the actors are related as reveal most in fewest words.\nThere is nothing more extraordinary in these stories than the significance\nof the small incident, and the extent of revelation carried by a terse\nremark.\n\nFor example, in the Gisli Saga, Gisli has gone out in the winter night to\nthe house of his brother Thorkel, with whom he is on good terms, and there\nhas slain Thorkel\u2019s wife\u2019s brother in his bed. In the darkness and\nconfusion he escapes unrecognized, gets back to his own house and into\nbed, where he lies as if asleep. At daybreak the dead man\u2019s friends come\npacking to Gisli\u2019s farm:\n\n    \u201cNow they come to the farm, Thorkel and Eyjolf, and go up to the\n    shut-bed where Gisli and his wife slept; but Thorkel, Gisli\u2019s brother,\n    stepped up first on to the floor, and stands at the side of the bed,\n    and sees Gisli\u2019s shoes lying all frozen and snowy. He kicked them\n    under the foot-board, so that no other man should see them.\u201d[195]\n\nThis little incident of the shoes not only shows how near was Gisli to\ndetection and death, but also discloses the way in which Thorkel meant to\nact and did act toward his brother: to wit, shield him so long as it might\nbe done without exposing himself.\n\nAnother illustration. The Nj\u00e1ls Saga opens with a sketch of the girl\nHallgerda, so drawn that it presages most of the trouble in the story.\nThere were two well-to-do brothers, Hauskuld and Hrut:\n\n    \u201cIt happened once that Hauskuld bade his friends to a feast, and his\n    brother Hrut was there, and sat next to him. Hauskuld had a daughter\n    named Hallgerda, who was playing on the floor with some other girls.\n    She was fair of face and tall of growth, and her hair was as soft as\n    silk; it was so long, too, that it came down to her waist. Hauskuld\n    called out to her, \u2018Come hither to me, daughter.\u2019 So she went up to\n    him, and he took her by the chin and kissed her; after that she went\n    away. Then Hauskuld said to Hrut, \u2018What dost thou think of this\n    maiden? Is she not fair?\u2019 Hrut held his peace. Hauskuld said the same\n    thing to him a second time, and then Hrut answered, \u2018Fair enough is\n    this maid, and many will smart for it; but this I know not, whence\n    thief\u2019s eyes have come into our race.\u2019 Then Hauskuld was wroth, and\n    for a time the brothers saw little of each other.\u201d[196]\n\nThe picture of Hallgerda will never leave the reader\u2019s mind throughout the\nstory, of which she is the evil genius. It is after she has caused the\ndeath of her first husband and is sought by a second, that she is sent for\nby her father to ask what her mind may be:\n\n    \u201cThen they sent for Hallgerda, and she came thither, and two women\n    with her. She had on a cloak of rich blue woof, and under it a scarlet\n    kirtle, and a silver girdle round her waist; but her hair came down on\n    both sides of her bosom, and she had turned the locks up under her\n    girdle. She sat down between Hrut and her father, and she greeted them\n    all with kind words, and spoke well and boldly, and asked what was the\n    news. After that she ceased speaking.\u201d\n\nThis is the woman that the girl has grown to be; and she is still at the\nbeginning of her mischief. Such narrative art discloses both in the\ntale-teller and the audience an intelligence which sees the essential fact\nand is impatient of encumbrance. It is the same intelligence that made\nthese Vikings so efficient in war, and in peace quick to seize cogent\nmeans.\n\nTruthfulness is another quality of the Sagas. Indeed their respect for\nhistorical or biographical fact sometimes hindered the evolution of a\nperfect story. They hesitated to omit or alter well-remembered incidents.\nNevertheless a certain remodelling came, as generation after generation of\nnarrators made the incidents more striking and the characters more marked,\nand, under the exigencies of storytelling, omitted details which, although\nactual, were irrelevant to the current of the story. The disadvantages\nfrom truthfulness were slight, compared with the admirable artistic\nqualities preserved by it. It kept the stories true to reality, excluding\nunreality, exaggeration, absurdity. Hence these Sagas are convincing: no\nreader can withhold belief. They contain no incredible incidents. On\noccasions they tell of portents, prescience, and second sight, but not so\nas to raise a smile. They relate a very few encounters with trolls--the\nhideous, unlaid, still embodied dead. But those accounts conform to the\nhard-wrung superstitions of a people not given to credulity. So they are\nreal. The reality of Grettir\u2019s night-wrestling with Glam, the troll, is\nhardly to be matched.[197] Truthfulness likewise characterizes their\nheroes: no man lies about his deeds, and no man\u2019s word is doubted.\n\nWhile the Saga-folk include no cowards or men of petty manners, there is\nstill great diversity of character among them. Some are lazy and some\nindustrious, some quarrelsome and some good-natured, some dangerous, some\nforbearing, gloomy or cheerful, open-minded or biassed, shrewd or stupid,\ngenerous or avaricious. Such contrasts of character abound both in the\nSagas of Icelandic life and those which handle the broader matter of\nhistory. One may note in the _Heimskringla_[198] of the Kings of Norway\nthe contrasted characters of the kings Olaf Tryggvason and St. Olaf. The\nlatter appears as a hard-working, canny ruler, a lover of order, a\nlegislator and enforcer of the laws; in person, short, thick-set, carrying\nhis head a little bent. A Viking had he been, and was a fighter, till he\nfell in his last great battle undaunted by odds.\n\nBut the other Olaf, Norway\u2019s darling hero, is epic: tall, golden-haired,\npeerless from his boyhood, beloved and hated. His marvellous physical\nmasteries are told, his cliff-climbing, his walking on the sweeping oars\nkeeping three war-axes tossing in the air. He smote well with either hand\nand cast two spears at once. He was the gladdest and gamesomest of men,\nkind and lowly-hearted, eager in all matters, bountiful of gifts, glorious\nof attire, before all men for high heart in battle, and grimmest of all\nmen in his wrath; marvellous great pains he laid upon his foes. \u201cNo man\ndurst gainsay him, and all the land was christened wheresoever he came.\u201d\nFive short years made up his reign. At the end, neither he was broken nor\nhis power. But a plot, moved by the hatred of a spurned heathen queen,\ndelivered him to unequal combat with his enemies, the Kings of Denmark and\nSweden, and Eric the great Viking Earl.\n\nOlaf is sailing home from Wendland. The hostile fleet crouches behind an\nisland. Sundry of Olaf\u2019s ships pass by. Then the kings spy a great ship\nsailing--that will be Olaf\u2019s _Long Worm_ they say; Eric says no. Anon come\nfour ships, and a great dragon amid them--the _Long Worm_? not yet. At\nlast she comes, greatest and bravest of all, and Olaf in her, standing on\nthe poop, with gilded shield and golden helm and a red kirtle over his\nmail coat. His men bade to sail on, and not fight so great a host; but\nOlaf said, \u201cNever have I fled from battle.\u201d So Olaf\u2019s ships are lashed in\nline, at the centre the _Long Worm_, its prow forward of the others\nbecause of her greater length. Olaf would have it thus in spite of the\n\u201cwindy weather in the bows\u201d predicted by her captain. The enemies\u2019 ships\nclose around them. Olaf\u2019s grapplings are too much for the Danes; they draw\nback. Their places are taken by the ships of Sweden. They fare no better.\nAt last Earl Eric lays fast his iron-beaks to Olaf\u2019s ships; Danes and\nSwedes take courage and return. It is hand to hand now, the ships laid\naboard of each other.\n\nAt last all of Olaf\u2019s ships are cleared of men and cut adrift, save the\n_Long Worm_. There fight Olaf\u2019s chosen, mad with battle. Einar, Olaf\u2019s\nstrong bowman, from the _Worm_ aft in the main hold, shot at Earl Eric;\none arrow pierced the tiller by his head, the second flew beneath his arm.\nSays the Earl to Finn, his bowman, \u201cShoot me yonder big man.\u201d Finn shot,\nand the arrow struck full upon Einar\u2019s bow as he was drawing it the third\ntime, and it broke in the middle.\n\n\u201cWhat broke there so loud?\u201d said Olaf.\n\n\u201cNorway, king, from thine hands,\u201d answered Einar.\n\n\u201cNo such crash as that,\u201d said the king; \u201ctake my bow and shoot.\u201d\n\nBut the foeman\u2019s strength was overpowering. Olaf\u2019s men were cut down\namidships. They hardly held the poop and bow. Earl Eric leads the\nboarders. The ship is full of foes. Olaf will not be taken. He leaps\noverboard. About the ship swarm boats to seize him; but he threw his\nshield over his head and sank quickly in the sea.\n\nThe private Sagas construct in powerful lines the characters of the heroes\nfrom the stories of their lives. A great example is the Saga of Egil,[199]\nwhose father was a Norse chief who had sailed to Iceland, where Egil was\nborn. As a child he was moody, intractible, and dangerous, and once killed\nan older lad who had got the better of him at ball playing. There was no\ngreat love between him and his father. When he was twelve years old his\nfather used him roughly. He entered the great hall and walked up to his\nfather\u2019s steward and slew him. Then he went to his seat. After that,\nfather and son said little to each other. The boy was bent on going\ncruising with his older brother, Thorolf. The father yields, and Egil goes\na-harrying. Fierce is his course in Norway, where they come. On the sea\nhis vessel bears him from deed to deed of blood and daring. His strength\nwon him booty and reward; he won a friend too, Arinbjorn, and there was\nalways troth between them.\n\nThorolf and Egil took service with King Athelstane, who was threatened\nwith attack from the King of the Scots. The brothers led the Vikings in\nAthelstane\u2019s force. In the battle Thorolf loses his life; but Egil hears\nthe shout when Thorolf falls. His furious valour wins the day for\nAthelstane. After the fight he buries his brother and sings staves over\nhis grave.\n\n    \u201cThen went Egil and those about him to seek King Athelstan, and at\n    once went before the king, where he sat at the drinking. There was\n    much noise of merriment. And when the king saw that Egil was come in,\n    he bade the lower bench be cleared for them, and that Egil should sit\n    in the high-seat facing the king. Egil sat down there, and cast his\n    shield before his feet. He had his helm on his head, and laid his\n    sword across his knees; and now and again he half drew it, and then\n    clashed it back into the sheath. He sat upright, but with head bent\n    forward. Egil was large-featured, broad of forehead, with large\n    eye-brows, a nose not long but very thick, lips wide and long, chin\n    exceeding broad, as was all about the jaws; thick-necked was he, and\n    big-shouldered beyond other men, hard-featured, and grim when angry.\n    He would not drink now, though the horn was borne to him, but\n    alternately twitched his brows up and down. King Athelstan sat in the\n    upper high-seat. He too laid his sword across his knees. When they had\n    sat there for a time, then the king drew his sword from the sheath,\n    and took from his arm a gold ring large and good, and placing it upon\n    the sword-point he stood up, and went across the floor, and reached it\n    over the fire to Egil. Egil stood up and drew his sword, and went\n    across the floor. He stuck the sword-point within the round of the\n    ring, and drew it to him; then he went back to his place. The king\n    sate him again in his high-seat. But when Egil was set down, he drew\n    the ring on his arm, and then his brows went back to their place. He\n    now laid down sword and helm, took the horn that they bare to him, and\n    drank it off. Then sang he:\n\n      \u2018Mailed monarch, god of battle,\n       Maketh the tinkling circlet\n       Hang, his own arm forsaking,\n           On hawk-trod wrist of mine.\n       I bear on arm brand-wielding\n       Bracelet of red gold gladly.\n       War-falcon\u2019s feeder meetly\n           Findeth such meed of praise.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThereafter Egil drank his share, and talked with others. Presently\n    the king caused to be borne in two chests; two men bare each. Both\n    were full of silver. The king said: \u2018These chests, Egil, thou shalt\n    have, and, if thou comest to Iceland, shalt carry this money to thy\n    father; as payment for a son I send it to him: but some of the money\n    thou shalt divide among such kinsmen of thyself and Thorolf as thou\n    thinkest most honourable. But thou shalt take here payment for a\n    brother with me, land or chattels, which thou wilt. And if thou wilt\n    abide with me long, then will I give thee honour and dignity such as\n    thyself mayst name.\u2019\n\n    \u201cEgil took the money, and thanked the king for his gifts and friendly\n    words. Thenceforward Egil began to be cheerful; and then he sang:\n\n      \u2018In sorrow sadly drooping\n       Sank my brows close-knitted;\n       Then found I one who furrows\n           Of forehead could smooth.\n       Fierce-frowning cliffs that shaded\n       My face a king hath lifted\n       With gleam of golden armlet:\n           Gloom leaveth my eyes.\u2019\u201d\n\nLike many of his kind in Iceland and Norway, this fierce man was a poet.\nOnce he saved his life by a poem, and poems he had made as gifts. It was\nwhen the old Viking\u2019s life was drawing to its close at his home in Iceland\nthat he composed his most moving lay. His beautiful beloved son was\ndrowned. After the burial Egil rode home, went to his bed-closet, lay down\nand shut himself in, none daring to speak to him. There he lay, silent,\nfor a day and night. At last his daughter knocks and speaks; he opens. She\nenters and beguiles him with her devotion. After a while the old man takes\nfood. And at last she prevails on him to make a poem on his son\u2019s death,\nand assuage his grief. So the song begins, and at length rises clear and\nstrong--perhaps the most heart-breaking of all old Norse poems.[200]\n\nIn the portrayal of contrasted characters no other Saga can equal the\ngreat Nj\u00e1la, a Saga large and complex, and doubtless composite; for it\nseems put together out of three stories, in all of which figured the just\nNjal, although he is the chief personage in only one of them. The story,\nwith its multitude of personages and threefold subject-matter, lacks unity\nperhaps. Yet the different parts of the Saga successively hold the\nattention. In the first part, the incomparable Gunnar is the hero; in the\nsecond, Njal and his sons engage our interest in their varied characters\nand common fate. These are great narratives. The third part is perhaps\nepigonic, excellent and yet an aftermath. Only a reading of this Saga can\nbring any realization of its power of narrative and character delineation.\nIts chief personages are as clear as the day. One can almost see the\nsunlight of Gunnar\u2019s open brow, and certainly can feel his manly heart.\nThe foil against which he is set off is his friend Njal, equally good,\nutterly different: unwarlike, wise in counsel, a great lawyer, truthful,\njust, shrewd and foreseeing. Hallgerda, of the long silken hair, is\nGunnar\u2019s wife; she has caused the deaths of two husbands already, and will\nyet prove Gunnar\u2019s bane. Little time passes before she is the enemy of\nNjal\u2019s high-minded spouse, Bergthora. Then Hallgerda beginning, Bergthora\nfollowing quick, the two push on their quarrel, instigating in\ncounter-vengeance alternate manslayings, each one a little nearer to the\nheart and honour of Gunnar and Njal. Yet their friendship is unshaken. For\nevery killing the one atones with the other; and the same blood-money\npasses to and fro between them.\n\nGunnar\u2019s friendship with the pacific Njal and his warlike sons endured\ntill Gunnar\u2019s death. That came from enmities first stirred by the thieving\nof Hallgerda\u2019s thieving thrall. She had ordered it, and in shame Gunnar\ngave her a slap in the face, the sole act of irritation recorded of this\ngenerous, forbearing, peerless Viking, who once remarked: \u201cI would like to\nknow whether I am by so much the less brisk and bold than other men,\nbecause I think more of killing men than they?\u201d At a meeting of the\nAlthing he was badgered by his ill-wishers into entering his stallion for\na horse-fight, a kind of contest usually ending in a man-fight.\nSkarphedinn, the most masterful of Njal\u2019s sons, offered to handle Gunnar\u2019s\nhorse for him:\n\n\u201cWilt thou that I drive thy horse, kinsman Gunnar?\u201d\n\n\u201cI will not have that,\u201d says Gunnar.\n\n\u201cIt wouldn\u2019t be amiss, though,\u201d says Skarphedinn; \u201cwe are hot-headed on\nboth sides.\u201d\n\n\u201cYe would say or do little,\u201d says Gunnar, \u201cbefore a quarrel would spring\nup; but with me it will take longer, though it will be all the same in the\nend.\u201d\n\nNaturally the contest ends in trouble. Gunnar\u2019s beaten and enraged\nopponent seizes his weapons, but is stopped by bystanders. \u201cThis crowd\nwearies me,\u201d said Skarphedinn; \u201cit is far more manly that men should fight\nit out with weapons.\u201d Gunnar remained quiet, the best swordsman and bowman\nof them all. But his enemies fatuously pushed on the quarrel; once they\nrode over him working in the field. So at last he fought, and killed many\nof them. Then came the suits for slaying, at the Althing. Njal is Gunnar\u2019s\ncounsellor, and atonements are made: Gunnar is to go abroad for three\nwinters, and unless he go, he may be slain by the kinsmen of those he has\nkilled. Gunnar said nothing. Njal adjured him solemnly to go on that\njourney: \u201cThou wilt come back with great glory, and live to be an old man,\nand no man here will then tread on thy heel; but if thou dost not fare\naway, and so breakest thy atonement, then thou wilt be slain here in the\nland, and that is ill knowing for those who are thy friends.\u201d\n\nGunnar said he had no mind to break the atonement, and rode home. A ship\nis made ready, and Gunnar\u2019s gear is brought down. He rides around and bids\nfarewell to his friends, thanking them for the help they had given him,\nand returns to his house. The next day he embraces the members of his\nhousehold, leaps into the saddle, and rides away. But as he is riding down\nto the sea, his horse trips and throws him. He springs from the ground,\nand says with his face to the Lithe, his home: \u201cFair is the Lithe; so fair\nthat it has never seemed to me so fair; the cornfields are white to\nharvest, and the home mead is mown; and now I will ride back home, and not\nfare abroad at all.\u201d\n\nSo he turns back--to his fate. The following summer at the Althing, his\nenemies give notice of his outlawry. Njal rides to Gunnar\u2019s home, tells\nhim of it, and offers his sons\u2019 aid, to come and dwell with him: \u201cthey\nwill lay down their lives for thy life.\u201d\n\n\u201cI will not,\u201d says Gunnar, \u201cthat thy sons should be slain for my sake, and\nthou hast a right to look for other things from me.\u201d\n\nNjal rode to his home, while Gunnar\u2019s enemies gathered and moved secretly\nto his house. His hound, struck down with an axe, gives a great howl and\nexpires. Gunnar awoke in his hall, and said: \u201cThou hast been sorely\ntreated, Sam, my fosterling, and this warning is so meant that our two\ndeaths will not be far apart.\u201d Single-handed, the beset chieftain\nmaintains himself within, killing two of his enemies and wounding eight.\nAt last, wounded, and with his bowstring cut, he turns to his wife\nHallgerda: \u201cGive me two locks of thy hair, and do thou and my mother twist\nthem into a bowstring for me.\u201d\n\n\u201cDoes aught lie on it?\u201d she says.\n\n\u201cMy life lies on it,\u201d he said; \u201cfor they will never come to close quarters\nwith me if I can keep them off with my bow.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d she says, \u201cnow I will call to thy mind that slap on the face which\nthou gavest me; and I care never a whit whether thou holdest out a long\nwhile or a short.\u201d\n\nThen Gunnar sang a stave, and said, \u201cEvery one has something to boast of,\nand I will ask thee no more for this.\u201d He fought on till spent with\nwounds, and at last they killed him.\n\nHere the Nj\u00e1la may be left with its good men and true and its evil\nplotters, all so differently shown. It has still to tell the story and\nfate of Njal\u2019s unbending sons, of Njal himself and his high-tempered dame,\nwho will abide with her spouse in their burning house, which enemies have\nsurrounded and set on fire to destroy those sons. Njal himself was offered\nsafety if he would come out, but he would not.\n\nPerhaps we have been beguiled by their unique literary qualities into\ndwelling overlong upon the Sagas. These Norse compositions belong to the\nMiddle Ages only in time; for they were uninfluenced either by\nChristianity or the antique culture, the formative elements of mediaeval\ndevelopment. They are interesting in their aloofness, and also important\nfor our mediaeval theme, because they were the ultimate as well as the\nmost admirable expression of the native Teutonic genius as yet integral,\nbut destined to have mighty part in the composite course of mediaeval\ngrowth. More specifically they are the voice of that falcon race which\ncame from the Norseland to stock England with fresh strains of Danish\nblood, to conquer Normandy, and give new courage to the\nCeltic-German-Frenchmen, and thence went on to bring its hardihood, war\ncunning, and keen statecraft to southern Italy and Sicily. In all these\ncountries the Norse nature, supple and pliant, accepted the gifts of new\nexperience, and in return imparted strength of purpose to peoples with\nwhom the Norsemen mingled in marriage as well as war.\n\nThis chapter has shown Teutonic faculties still integral and unmodified by\nLatin Christian influence. Their participation in the processes of\nmediaeval development will be seen as Anglo-Saxons and Germans become\nconverted to Latin Christianity, and apply themselves to the study of the\nprofane Latinity, to which it opened the way.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE BRINGING OF CHRISTIANITY AND ANTIQUE KNOWLEDGE TO THE NORTHERN PEOPLES\n\n      I. IRISH ACTIVITIES; COLUMBANUS OF LUXEUIL.\n\n     II. CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH; THE LEARNING OF BEDE AND ALFRED.\n\n    III. GAUL AND GERMANY; FROM CLOVIS TO ST. WINIFRIED-BONIFACE.\n\n\nThe northern peoples, Celts and Teutons for the most part as they are\ncalled, came into contact with Roman civilization as the great Republic\nbrought Gaul and Britain under its rule. Since Rome was still pagan when\nthese lands were made provinces, an unchristianized Latinity was grafted\nupon their predominantly Celtic populations. The second stage, as it were,\nof this contact between Rome and the north, is represented by that influx\nof barbarians, mostly Teutonic, which, in both senses of the word,\n_quickened_ the disruption of the Empire in the fourth and following\ncenturies. The religion called after the name of Christ had then been\naccepted; and invading Goths, Franks, Burgundians, Lombards, and the rest,\nwere introduced to a somewhat Christianized Latindom. Indeed, in the\nLatin-Christian combination, the latter was becoming dominant, and was\nsoon to be the active influence in extending even the antique culture. For\nChristianity, with Latinity in its train, was to project itself outward to\nsubjugate heathen Anglo-Saxons in England, Frisians in the Low Countries,\nand the unkempt Teutondom which roved east of the Rhine, and was ever\npressing southward over the boundaries of former provinces, now reverting\nto unrest. In past times the assimilating energy of Roman civilization had\nunited western Europe in a common social order. Henceforth Christianity\nwas to be the prime amalgamator, while the survivals of Roman\ninstitutions and the remnants of antique culture were to assist in\nsecondary r\u00f4les. With Charles Martell, with Pippin, and with Charlemagne,\nLatin Christianity is the symbol of civilized order, while heathendom and\nsavagery are identical.\n\n\nI\n\nThe conversion of the northern peoples, and their incidental introduction\nto profane knowledge, wrought upon them deeply; while their own qualities\nand the conditions of their lives affected their understanding of what\nthey received and their attitude toward the new religion. Obviously the\ndissemination of Christianity among rude peoples would be unlike that\nfirst spreading of the Gospel through the Empire, in the course of which\nit had been transformed to Greek and Latin Christianity. Italy, Spain, and\nGaul made the western region of this primary diffusion of the Faith. Of a\ndistinctly missionary character were the further labours which resulted in\nthe conversion of the fresh masses of Teutons who were breaking into the\nRoman pale, or were still moving restlessly beyond it. Moreover, between\nthe time of the first diffusion of Christianity within the Empire and that\nof its missionary extension beyond those now decayed and fallen\nboundaries, it had been formulated dogmatically, and given ecclesiastical\nembodiment in a Catholic church into which had passed the conquering and\norganizing genius of Rome. This finished system was presented to simple\npeoples, sanctioned by the authority and dowered with the surviving\nculture of the civilized world. It offered them mightier supernatural aid,\nnobler knowledge, and a better ordering of life than they had known. The\nmanner and authority of its presentation hastened its acceptance, and also\ndetermined the attitude toward it of the new converts and their children\nfor generations. Theirs was to be the attitude of ignorance before\nrecognized wisdom, and that of a docility which revered the manner and\nform as well as the substance of its lesson. The development of mediaeval\nEurope was affected by the mode and circumstances of this secondary\npropagation of Christianity. For centuries the northern peoples were to\nbe held in tutelage to the form and constitution of that which they had\nreceived: they continued to revere the patristic sources of Christian\ndoctrines, and to look with awe upon the profane culture accompanying\nthem.\n\nThus, as under authority, Christianity came to the Teutonic peoples, even\nto those who, like the Goths, were converted to the Arian creed. Likewise\nthe orthodox belief was brought to the Celtic Britons and Irish as a\nsuperior religion associated with superior culture. But the qualities or\ncircumstances of these western Celts reacted more freely upon their form\nof faith, because Ireland and Britain were the fringe of the world, and\nChristianity was hardly fixed in dogma and ritual when the conversion at\nleast of Britain began.\n\nCertain phrases of Tertullian indicate that Christianity had made some\nprogress among the Britons by the beginning of the third century. For the\nnext hundred years nothing is known of the British Church, save that it\ndid not suffer from the persecution under Diocletian in 304, and ten years\nafterwards was represented by three bishops at the Council of Arles. It\nwas orthodox, accepting the creed of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and the date of\nEaster there fixed. The fourth century seems to have been the period of\nits prosperity. It was affiliated with the Church of Gaul; nor did these\nrelations cease at once when the Roman legions were withdrawn from Britain\nin 410. But not many decades later the Saxon invasion began to cut off\nBritain from the Christian world. After a while certain divergences appear\nin rite and custom, though not in doctrine. They seem not to have been\nserious when Gildas wrote in 550. Yet when Augustine came, fifty years\nlater, the Britons celebrated Easter at a different date from that\nobserved by the Roman Catholic Church; for they followed the old\ncomputation which Rome had used before adopting the better method of\nAlexandria. Also the mode of baptism and the tonsure differed from the\nRoman.\n\nAt the close of the sixth century the British Church existed chiefly in\nWales, whither the Britons had retreated before the Saxons. Formerly there\nhad been no unwillingness to follow the Church of Rome. But now a long\nperiod had elapsed, during which Britain had been left to its misfortunes.\nThe Britons had been raided and harassed; their country invaded; and at\nlast they had been driven from the greater portion of their land. How they\nhated those Saxon conquerors! And forsooth a Roman mission appears to\nconvert those damned and hateful heathen, and a somewhat haughty summons\nissues to the expelled or downtrodden people to abandon their own\nChristian usages for those of the Roman communion, and then join this\nRoman mission in its saving work among those Saxons whom the Britons had\nmet only at the spear\u2019s point. Love of ancient and familiar customs soured\nto obstinacy in the face of such demands; a sweeping rejection was\nreturned. Yet to conform to Roman usages and join with Augustine in his\nmission to the Saxons, was the only way in which the dwindling British\nChurch could link itself to the Christian world, and save its people from\nexterminating wars. By refusing, it committed suicide.\n\nA refusal to conform, although no refusal to undertake missions to the\nSaxons, came from the Irish-Scottish Church. As Ireland had never been\ndrawn within the Roman world, its conversion was later than that of\nBritain. Yet there would seem to have been Christians in Ireland before\n431; for in that year, according to an older record quoted by Bede,\nPalladius, the first bishop (_primus episcopus_), was sent by Celestine\nthe Roman pontiff \u201cad Scottos in Christum credentes.\u201d[201] The mission of\nPalladius does not appear to have been acceptable to the Irish. Some\naccounts have confused his story with that of Patrick, the \u201cApostle of\nIreland,\u201d whose apostolic glory has not been overthrown by criticism. The\nmore authentic accounts, and above all his own _Confession_, go far to\nexplain Patrick\u2019s success. His early manhood, passed as a slave in Antrim,\ngave him understanding of the Irish; and doubtless his was a great\nmissionary capacity and zeal. The natural approach to such a people was\nthrough their tribal kings, and Patrick appears to have made his prime\nonslaught upon Druidical heathendom at Tara, the abode of the high king of\nIreland. The earliest accounts do not refer to any authority from Rome.\nPatrick seems to have acted from spontaneous inspiration; and a like\nindependence characterizes the monastic Christianity which sprang up in\nIreland and overleapt the water to Iona, to Christianize Scotland as well\nas northern Anglo-Saxon heathendom.\n\nIrish monasticism was an ascetically ordered continuance of Irish society.\nIf, like other early western monasticism, it derived suggestions from\nSyria or Egypt, it was far more the product of Irish temperament, customs,\nand conditions. One may also find a potent source in the monastic\ncommunities alleged to have existed in Ireland in the days of the Druids.\nDoubtless many members of that caste became Christian monks.\n\nThe noblest passion of Irish monastic Christianity was to _peregrinare_\nfor the sake of Christ, and spread the Faith among the heathen; the most\ninteresting episodes of its history are the wanderings and missionary\nlabours and foundations of its leaders. The careers of Columba and\nColumbanus afford grandiose examples. Something has been said of the\nformer. The monastery which he founded on the Island of Iona was the\nFaith\u2019s fountainhead for Scotland and the Saxon north of England in the\nsixth and seventh centuries. About the time of Columba\u2019s birth, men from\nDalriada on the north coast of Ireland crossed the water to found another\nDalriada in the present Argyleshire, and transfer the name of Scotia\n(Ireland) to Scotland. When Columba landed at Iona, these settlers were\nhard pressed by the heathen Picts under King Brude or Bridius. Accompanied\nby two Pictish Christians, he penetrated to Brude\u2019s dwelling, near the\nmodern Inverness, converted that monarch in 565, and averted the overthrow\nof Dalriada. For the next thirty years Columba and his monks did not cease\nfrom their labours; numbers of monasteries were founded, daughters of\nIona; and great parts of Scotland became Christian at least in name. The\nsupreme authority was the Abbot of Iona with his council of monks;\n\u201cbishops\u201d performed their functions under him. Early in the seventh\ncentury, St. Aidan was ordained bishop in Iona and sent to convert the\nAnglo-Saxons of Northumberland. The story of the Irish Church in the north\nis one of effective mission work, but unsuccessful organization, wherein\nit was inferior to the Roman Church. Its representatives suffered defeat\nat the Synod of Whitby in 664. Fifty years afterward Iona gave up its\nseparate usages and accepted the Roman Easter.[202]\n\nThe missionary labours of the Irish were not confined to Great Britain,\nbut extended far and wide through the west of Europe. In the sixth and\nseventh centuries, Irish monasteries were founded in Austrasia and\nBurgundy, Italy, Switzerland, Bavaria; they were established among\nFrisians, Saxons, Alemanni. And as centres of Latin education as well as\nChristianity, the names of Bobbio and St. Gall will occur to every one. Of\nthese, the first directly and the second through a disciple were due to\nColumbanus. With him we enter the larger avenues of Irish missions to the\nheathen, the semi-heathen, and the lax, and upon the question of their\nefficacy in the preservation of Latin education throughout the rent and\ndriven fragments of the western Roman Empire. The story of Columban\u2019s life\nis illuminating and amusing.[203]\n\nHe was born in Leinster. While yet a boy he felt the conflict between\nfleshly lusts and that counter-ascetic passion which throughout the\nChristian world was drawing thousands into monasteries. Asceticism, with\ndesire for knowledge, won the victory, and the youth entered the monastery\nof Bangor, in the extreme north-east of Ireland. There he passed years of\nlabour, study, and self-mortification. At length the pilgrim\nmission-passion came upon him (_coepit peregrinationem desiderare_) and\nhis importunity overcame the abbot\u2019s reluctance to let him depart. Twelve\ndisciples are said to have followed him across the water to the shores of\nBritain. There they hesitated in anxious doubt, till it was decided to\ncross to Gaul.\n\nThis was about the year 590. Columban\u2019s austere and commanding form, his\nfearlessness, his quick and fiery tongue, impressed the people among whom\nhe came. Reports of his holiness spread; multitudes sought his blessing.\nHe traversed the country, preaching and setting his own stern example,\nuntil he reached the land of the Burgundians, where Gontran, a grandson of\nClovis, reigned. Well received by this ruler, Columban established himself\nin an old castle. His disciples grew in numbers, and after a while Gontran\ngranted him an extensive Roman structure called Luxovium (Luxeuil)\nsituated at the confines of the Burgundian and Austrasian kingdoms.\nColumban converted this into a monastery, and it soon included many noble\nFranks and Burgundians among its monks. For them he composed a monastic\n_regula_, stern and cruel in its penalties of many stripes imposed for\ntrivial faults. \u201cWhoever may wish to know his strenuousness\n(_strenuitatem_) will find it in his precepts,\u201d writes the monk Jonas, who\nhad lived under him.\n\nThe strenuousness of this masterful and overbearing man was displayed in\nhis controversy with the Gallican clergy, upon whom he tried to impose the\nEaster day observed by the Celtic Church in the British Isles. In his\nletter to the Gallican synod, he points out their errors, and lectures\nthem on their Christian duties, asking pardon at the end for his loquacity\nand presumption. Years afterwards, entering upon another controversy, he\nwrote an extraordinary letter to Pope Boniface IV. The superscription is\nHibernian: \u201cTo the most beautiful head of all the churches of entire\nEurope, the most sweet pope, the most high president, the most reverent\ninvestigator: O marvellous! mirum dictu! nova res! rara avis!--that the\nlowest to the loftiest, the clown to the polite, the stammerer to the\nprince of eloquence, the stranger to the son of the house, the last to the\nfirst, that the Wood-pigeon (Palumbus) should dare to write to Father\nBoniface!\u201d Whereupon this Wood-pigeon writes a long letter in which\nbelligerent expostulation alternates with self-debasement. He dubs himself\n\u201cgarrulus, presumptuosus, homunculus vilissimae qualitatis,\u201d who caps his\nimpudence by writing unrequested. He implores pardon for his harsh and too\nbiting speech, while he deplores--to him who sat thereon--the _infamia_ of\nPeter\u2019s Seat, and shrills to the Pope to watch: \u201cVigila itaque, quaeso,\npapa, vigila; et iterum dico: vigila\u201d; and he marvels at the Pope\u2019s lethal\nsleep.\n\nOne who thus berated pope and clergy might be censorious of princes.\nGontran died. After various dynastic troubles, the Burgundian land came\nunder the rule nominally of young Theuderic, but actually of his imperious\ngrandmother, the famous Brunhilde. In order that no queen-wife\u2019s power\nshould supplant her own, she encouraged her grandson to content himself\nwith mistresses. The youth stood in awe of the stern old figure ruling at\nLuxeuil, who more than once reproved him for not wedding a lawful queen.\nIt happened one day when Columban was at Brunhilde\u2019s residence that she\nbrought out Theuderic\u2019s various sons for him to bless. \u201cNever shall\nsceptre be held by this brothel-brood,\u201d said he.\n\nHenceforth it was war between these two: Theuderic was the pivot of the\nstorm; the one worked upon his fears, the other played upon his lusts.\nBrunhilde prevailed. She incited the king to insist that Luxeuil be made\nopen to all, and with his retinue to push his way into the monastery. The\nsaint withstood him fiercely, and prophesied his ruin. The king drew back;\nthe saint followed, heaping reproaches on him, till the young king said\nwith some self-restraint: \u201cYou hope to win the crown of martyrdom through\nme. But I am not a lunatic, to commit such a crime. I have a better plan:\nsince you won\u2019t fall in with the ways of men of the world, you shall go\nback by the road you came.\u201d\n\nSo the king sent his retainers to seize the stubborn saint. They took him\nas a prisoner to Besan\u00e7on. He escaped, and hurried back to Luxeuil. Again\nthe king sent, this time a count with soldiers, to drive him from the\nland. They feared the sacrilege of laying hands on the old man. In the\nchurch, surrounded by his monks praying and singing psalms, he awaited\nthem. \u201cO man of God,\u201d cried the count, \u201cwe beseech thee to obey the royal\ncommand, and take thy way to the place from which thou earnest.\u201d \u201cNay, I\nwill rather please my Creator, by abiding here,\u201d returned the saint. The\ncount retired, leaving a few rough soldiers to carry out the king\u2019s will.\nThese, still fearing to use violence, begged the saint to take pity on\nthem, unjustly burdened with this evil task--to disobey their orders meant\ntheir death. The saint reiterates his determination to abide, till they\nfall on their knees, cling to his robe, and with groans implore his pardon\nfor the crime they must execute.\n\nFrom pity the saint yields at last, and a company of the king\u2019s men make\nready and escort him from the kingdom westward toward Brittany. Many\nmiracles mark the journey. They reach the Loire, and embark on it.\nProceeding down the river they come to Tours, where the saint asks to be\nallowed to land and worship at St. Martin\u2019s shrine. The leader bids the\nrowers keep the middle of the stream and row on. But the boat resistlessly\nmade its way to the landing-place. Columban passed the night at the\nshrine, and the next day was hospitably entertained by the bishop, who\ninquired why he was returning to his native land. \u201cThe dog Theuderic has\ndriven me from my brethren,\u201d answered the saint. At last Nantes was\nreached near the mouth of the Loire, where the vessel was waiting to carry\nthe exile back to Ireland. Columban wrote a letter to his monks, in which\nhe poured forth his love to them with much advice as to their future\nconduct. The letter is filled with grief--suppressed lest it unman his\nbeloved children. \u201cWhile I write, the messenger comes to say that the ship\nis ready to bear me, unwilling, to my country. But there is no guard to\nprevent my escape, and these people even seem to wish it.\u201d\n\nThe letter ends, but not the story. Columban did not sail for Ireland.\nJonas says that the vessel was miraculously impeded, and that then\nColumban was permitted to go whither he would. So the dauntless old man\ntravelled back from the sea, and went to the Neustrian Court, the people\nalong the way bringing him their children to bless. He did not rest in\nNeustria, for the desire was upon him to preach to the heathen. Making his\nway to the Rhine, he embarked near Mainz, ascended the river, and at last\nestablished himself, with his disciples, upon the lake of Constance. There\nthey preached to the heathen, and threw their idols into the lake. He had\nthe thought to preach to the Wends, but this was not to be.\n\nThe time soon came when all Austrasia fell into the hands of Brunhilde and\nTheuderic, and Columbanus decided to cross over into northern Italy,\nbreaking out in anger at his disciple Gall, who was too sick to go with\nhim. With other disciples he made the arduous journey, and reached the\nland of the Lombards. King Agilulf made him a gift of Bobbio, lying in a\ngorge of the Apennines near Genoa, and there he founded the monastery\nwhich long was to be a stronghold of letters. For himself, his career was\nwell-nigh run; he retired to a solitary spot on the banks of the river\nTrebbia, where he passed away, being, apparently, some seventy years of\nage.\n\nIt may seem surprising that this strenuous ascetic should occasionally\nhave occupied a leisure hour writing Latin poems in imitation of the\nantique. There still exists such an effusion to a friend:\n\n  \u201cAccipe, quaeso,\n   Nunc bipedali\n   Condita versu\n   Carminulorum\n   Munera parva.\u201d\n\nThe verses consist mainly of classic allusions and advice of an antique\nrather than a Christian flavour: the wise will cease to add coin to coin,\nand will despise wealth, but not the pastime of such verse as the\n\n  \u201cInclyta Vates\n   Nomine Sappho\u201d\n\nwas wont to make. \u201cNow, dear Fedolius, quit learned numbers and accept our\nsquibs--_frivola nostra_. I have dictated them oppressed with pain and old\nage: \u2018Vive, vale, laetus, tristisque memento senectae.\u2019\u201d The last is a\npagan reminiscence, which the saint\u2019s Christian soul may not have deeply\nfelt. But the poem shows the saint\u2019s classic training, which probably was\nexceptional. For there is no evidence of like knowledge in any Irishman\nbefore him; and after his time, in the seventh century, or the eighth,\nLatin education in Ireland was confined to a few monastic centres. A small\nminority studied the profanities, sometimes because they liked them, but\noftener as the means of proficiency in sacred learning.\n\nThe Irish had cleverness, facility, ardour, and energy. They did much for\nthe dissemination of Christianity and letters. Their deficiency was lack\nof organization; and they had but little capacity for ordered discipline\nhumbly and obediently accepted from others. Consequently, when the period\nof evangelization was past in western Europe, and organization was needed,\nwith united and persistent effort for order, the Irish ceased to lead or\neven to keep pace with those to whom once they had brought the Gospel. In\nAnglo-Saxon England and on the Carolingian continent they became strains\nof influence handed on. This was the fortune which overtook them as\nilluminators of manuscripts and preservers of knowledge. Their emotional\ntraits, moreover, entered the larger currents of mediaeval feeling and\nimagination. Strains of the Irish, or of a kindred Celtic temperament\npassed on into such \u201cBreton\u201d matters as the Tristan story, wherein love is\npassion unrestrained, and is more distinctly out of relationship with\nethical considerations than, for example, the equally adulterous tale of\nLancelot and Guinevere.[204]\n\n\nII\n\nThe Saxon invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries drove Christianity\nand letters from the land where the semi-Romanized Britons and their\nchurch had flourished. To reconvert and instruct anew a relapsed heathen\ncountry was the task which Gregory the Great laid on the willing\nAugustine. The story of that famous mission (A.D. 597) need not be\ntold;[205] but we may note the manner of the presentation of Christianity\nto the heathen Saxons, and the temper of its reception. Most impressive\nwas this bringing of the Faith. Augustine and his band of monks came as a\nstately embassy from Rome, the traditionary centre of imperial and\nspiritual power. Their coming was a solemn call to the English to\nassociate themselves with all that was most august and authoritative in\nheaven and earth. According to Bede, Augustine sent a messenger to\nEthelbert, the Kentish king, to announce that he had come from Rome\nbearing the best of messages, and would assure to such as hearkened,\neternal joys in heaven and dominion without end with the living and true\nGod. To Ethelbert, whose kingdom lay at the edge of the great world, the\nmessage came from this world\u2019s sovereign pontiff, who in some awful way\nrepresented its almighty God, and had authority to admit to His kingdom.\nHe was not ignorant of what lay within the hand of Rome to give. His wife\nwas a Catholic Christian, daughter of a Frankish king, and had her own\nministering bishop. Doubtless the queen had spoken with her lord. Still\nEthelbert feared the spell-craft of this awe-inspiring embassy, and would\nmeet Augustine only under the open sky. Augustine came to the meeting, a\nsilver cross borne before him as a banner, and the pictured image of\nChrist, his monks singing litanies and loudly supplicating their Lord for\nthe king\u2019s and their own salvation. Knowledge, authority, supernatural\npower, were represented here. And how could the king fail to be struck by\nthe nobility of Augustine\u2019s Gospel message, by its clear assurance, its\nlove and terror,[206] so overwhelming and convincing, so far outsoaring\nEthelbert\u2019s heathen religion? To be sure, in Christian love and\nforgiveness lay some reversal of Saxon morality, for instance of the duty\nof revenge. But this was not prominent in the Christianity of the day; and\nexperience was to show that only in isolated instances did this teaching\nimpede the acceptance of the Gospel.[207]\n\nEthelbert spoke these missionaries fair; accorded them a habitation in\nCanterbury with the privilege of celebrating their Christian rites and\npreaching to his people. There they abode, zealous in vigils and fastings,\nand preaching the word of life. Certain heathen men were converted, then\nthe king, and then his folk in multitudes--the usual way. Under the\ndirection of Gregory, Augustine proceeded with that combination of\ninsistence, dignity, and tolerance, so well understood in the Roman\nChurch. There was insistence upon the main doctrines and requirements of\nthe Faith--upon the Roman Easter day and baptism, as against the practices\nof the British Church. Tolerance was shown respecting heathen fanes and\nsacrificial feastings; the fanes should be reconsecrated as Christian\nchurches; the feasts should be continued in honour of the true God.[208]\n\nBesides zeal and knowledge and authority, miracles advanced Augustine\u2019s\nenterprise. To eliminate by any sweeping negation the miraculous element\nfrom the causes of success of such a mission is to close the eyes to the\nsituation. All men expected miracles; Gregory who sent Augustine was\ninfatuated with them. Augustine performed them, or believed he did, and\nothers believed it too. Throughout these centuries, and indeed late into\nthe mediaeval period, the power and habit of working miracles constituted\nsainthood in the hermit or the monk, thereby singled out as the special\ninstrument of God\u2019s will or the Virgin\u2019s kindness. Of course miracles were\nascribed to the great missionary apostles like Augustine or Boniface; and\nthis conviction brought many conversions.\n\nAmong the heathen English about to be converted, there was diversity of\nview and mood as to the Faith. They stood in awe of these newcomers from\nRome, fearing their spell-craft. From their old religion they had sought\nearthly victory and prosperity; and some had found it of uncertain aid.\n\u201cSee, king, how this matter stands,\u201d says Coifi, at the Northumbrian\nWitenagemot held by Edwin to decide as to the new religion: \u201cI have\nlearned of a certainty that there is no virtue or utility whatever in that\nreligion which we have been following. None of your thanes has slaved in\nthe worship of our gods more zealously than I. Yet many have had greater\nrewards and dignities from you, and in every way have prospered more. Were\nthe gods worth anything, they would wish rather to aid me, who have been\nso zealous in serving them. So if these new teachings are better and\nstronger, let us accept them at once.\u201d[209] Coifi expressed the common\nmotives of converts of all nations from the time of Constantine. No better\nthought of Christian expediency had inspired Gregory of Tours\u2019s story of\nClovis\u2019s career; and Bede in no way condemns Coifi\u2019s _verba prudentiae_,\nas he terms them. Naturally in times of adversity such converts were quick\nto abandon their new religion, proved ineffectual.[210]\n\nAmong these Angles of Northumberland, however, finer souls were looking\nfor light and certitude. Such a one was that thane who followed Coifi with\nthe wonderful illustration of man\u2019s mortal need of enlightenment, the\nthane for whom life was as the swallow flying through the warmed and\nlighted hall, from the dark cold into the dark cold: \u201cSo this life of men\ncomes into sight for a little; we are ignorant of what shall follow or\nwhat may have preceded. If this new doctrine offers anything more certain,\nI think we should follow it.\u201d The heathen poetry had given varied voice to\nthis contemplative melancholy so wont to dwell on life\u2019s untoward changes;\nand there was ghostly evidence of the other world before the coming of the\nRoman monks. Now, as those monks came with authority from the traditionary\nhome of ghostly lore, why question their knowledge of the life beyond the\ngrave? Many Anglo-Saxons were prepared to fix their gaze upon a life to\ncome and to let their fancies fill with visions of the great last\nseverance unto heaven and hell. When once impressed by the monastic\nChristianity[211] of the Roman, or the Irish, mission, they were quick to\nthrow themselves into the ascetic life which most surely opened heaven\u2019s\ndoors. So many a noble thane became an anchorite or a monk, many a noble\ndame became a nun; and Saxon kings forsook their kingdoms for the\ncloister: \u201cCenred, who for some time had reigned most nobly in Mercia,\nstill more nobly abandoned his sceptre. For he came to Rome, and there was\ntonsured and made a monk at the church of the Apostles, and continued in\nprayers and fastings and almsgiving until his last day.\u201d[212]\n\nAs might be expected, the re-expression of Christianity in Anglo-Saxon\nwritings was martial and emotional. A martial tone pervades the epic\nparaphrases of Scripture, the Anglo-Saxon _Genesis_ for example. On the\nother hand, adaptations of devotional Latin compositions[213] evince a\nrealization of Christian feeling and prevalent ascetic sentiments. The\n\u201celegiac\u201d Anglo-Saxon feeling seems to reach its height in a more original\ncomposition, the _Christ_ of Cynewulf, while the emotional fervour coming\nwith Christianity is disclosed in Bede\u2019s account of the inspiration which\nfell upon the cowherd C\u00e6dmon, in St. Hilda\u2019s monastery of Whitby, to sing\nthe story of creation.[214] A pervasive monastic atmosphere also surrounds\nthe visions of hell and purgatory, which were to continue so typically\ncharacteristic of monastic Christianity.[215]\n\nWhat knowledge, sacred and profane, came to the Anglo-Saxons with\nChristianity? Quite properly learned were Augustine and the other\norganizers of the English Church. Two generations after him, the Greek\nmonk Theodore was sent by the Pope to become Archbishop of Canterbury,\ncomplete Augustine\u2019s work, and instruct the English monks and clergy.\nTheodore was accompanied by his friend Hadrian, as learned as himself.\nTheir labours finally established Roman Christianity in England. The two\ndrew about them a band of students, and formed at Canterbury a school of\nsacred learning, where liberal studies were conducted by these foreigners\nwith a knowledge and intelligence novel in Great Britain. In the north,\nBenedict Biscop, a Northumbrian, promoted the ends of Roman Catholicism\nand learning by establishing the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow under\nthe monastic _regula_ of St. Benedict of Nursia, as modified by the\npractices of continental monasteries in the seventh century. He had been\nin Italy, and brought thence many books. It was among these books that\nBede grew up at Jarrow.\n\nThus strong currents of Roman ecclesiasticism and liberal knowledge\nreached England. On the other hand, Irish monastic Christianity had\nalready made its entry in the south-western part of Great Britain, and\nwith greater strength established itself in the north, converting\nmultitudes to the Faith and instructing such as would learn. The Irish\nteaching had been eagerly received by those groups of Anglo-Saxons who\nhenceforth were to prosecute their studies with the aid of the further\nknowledge and discipline brought from the Continent by Theodore. Some of\nthem had even journeyed to Ireland to study.\n\nFrom this dual source was drawn the education of Aldhelm. He was born in\nWessex about the year 650, and was nephew of the powerful King Ini. He\nbecame abbot of Malmesbury in 675. An Irish monk was his first teacher;\nhis second, the learned Hadrian. From the two he received a broader\neducation than any Anglo-Saxon had possessed before him. Always holding in\nview the perfecting of his sacred knowledge, he studied grammar and\nkindred topics, produced treatises himself, and as a Catholic student and\nteacher was a true forerunner of the greatest scholar among his younger\ncontemporaries, Bede.[216]\n\nBede the Venerable, and we may add the still beloved, was Aldhelm\u2019s junior\nby some twenty-five years. He was born in 673 and died in 735. He passed\nhis whole life reading, teaching, and writing in the Cloister of Jarrow\nnear where he was born, and not far from where, beneath the \u201cGalilee\u201d of\nDurham Cathedral, his bones have long reposed. Back of him was the double\ntradition of learning, the Irish and the Graeco-Roman. Through a long life\nof pious study, Bede drew into his mind, and incorporated in his writings,\npractically the total sum of knowledge then accessible in western Europe.\nHe stands between the great Latin transmitters (Bo\u00ebthius, Cassiodorus,\nGregory and Isidore) and the epoch known as the Carolingian. He was\nhimself a transmitter of knowledge to that later time. If in spirit, race,\nepoch and circumstances, Aldhelm was Bede\u2019s direct forerunner, Bede had\nalso a notable predecessor in Isidore. The writings of the Spanish bishop\ncontributed substance and suggestions of plan and method to the\nAnglo-Saxon monk, whose works embrace practically the same series of\ntopics as Isidore\u2019s, whose intellectual interests also, and attitude\ntoward the Church Fathers, appear the same. But Bede was the more genial\npersonality, and could not help imbuing his compositions with something\nfrom his own temperament. Even in his Commentaries upon the books of\nScripture, which were made up principally of borrowed allegorical\ninterpretations, there is common sense and some endeavour to present the\nactual meaning and situation.[217] But he disclaimed originality, as he\nsays in the preface to his Commentary on the Hexaemeron, addressed to\nBishop Acca of Hexham:\n\n    \u201cConcerning the beginning of Genesis where the creation of the world\n    is described, many have said much, and have left to posterity\n    monuments of their talents. Among these, as far as our feebleness can\n    learn, we may distinguish Basil of Caesarea (whom Eustathius\n    translated from Greek to Latin), Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine,\n    Bishop of Hippo. Of whom the first-named in nine books, the second\n    following his footprints in six books, the third in twelve books and\n    also in two others directed against the Manichaeans, shed floods of\n    salutary doctrine for their readers; and in them the promise of the\n    Truth was fulfilled: \u2018Whoso believeth in me, as the Scripture saith,\n    out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water....\u2019 But since\n    these works are so great that only the rich may own them, and so\n    profound that they may be fathomed only by the learned, your holiness\n    has seen fit to lay on us the task of plucking from them all, as from\n    the sweetest wide-flowering fields of paradise, what might seem to\n    meet the needs of weaklings.\u201d[218]\n\nBede was also a lovely story-teller. His literary charm and power appear\nin his Life of St. Cuthbert, and still more in his ever-famous\n_Ecclesiastical History of the English People_, so warm with love of\nmankind, and presenting so wonderful a series of dramatic stories animate\nwith vital motive and the colour of incident and circumstance. Midway\nbetween the spontaneous genius of this work and the copied Scripture\nCommentary, stand Bede\u2019s grammatical, metrical, and scientific\ncompositions, compiled with studious zeal. They evince a broad interest in\nscholarship and in nature. Still, neither material nor method was\noriginal. For instance, his _De rerum natura_ took its plan and much of\nits substance from Isidore\u2019s work of the same name. Bede has, however, put\nin further matter and made his work less of a mere shell of words than\nIsidore\u2019s. For he is interested in connecting natural occurrences with\ntheir causes, stating, for example, that the tides depend on the\nmoon.[219] In this work as in his other _opera didascalica_, like the _De\ntemporum ratione_ and his learned _De arte metrica_,[220] he shows himself\na more intelligent student than his Spanish predecessor. Yet he drew\neverything from some written source.\n\nOne need not wonder at the voluminousness of Bede\u2019s literary\nproductions.[221] Many of the writings emanating from monasteries are\ntranscriptions rather than compositions. The circumstance that books,\n_i.e._ manuscripts, were rare and costly was an impelling motive. Isidore\nand Bede made systematic compilations for general use. They and their\ncongeners would also make extracts from manuscripts, of which they might\nhave but the loan, or from unique codices in order to preserve the\ncontents. Such notes or excerpts might have the value of a treatise, and\nmight be preserved and in turn transcribed as a distinct work. Yet whether\nmade by a Bede or by a lesser man, they represent mainly the labour of a\ncopyist.\n\nBede\u2019s writings were all in Latin, and were intended for the instruction\nof monks. They played a most important r\u00f4le in the transmission of\nlearning, sacred and profane, in Latin form. For its still more popular\ndiffusion, translations into the vernacular might be demanded. Such at all\nevents were made of Scripture; and perhaps a century and a half after\nBede\u2019s death, the translation of edifying Latin books was undertaken by\nthe best of Saxon kings. King Alfred was born in 849 and closed his eyes\nin 901. In the midst of other royal labours he set himself the task of\nplacing before his people, or at least his clergy, Anglo-Saxon versions of\nsome of the then most highly regarded volumes of instruction. The wise\n_Pastoral Care_ of Gregory the Great; his _Dialogues_, less wise according\nto our views; the _Histories_ of Orosius[222] and Bede; and that\nphilosophic vade-mecum of the Middle Ages, the _De consolatione\nphilosophiae_ of Bo\u00ebthius. Of these, Alfred translated the _Pastoral Care_\nand the _De consolatione_, also Orosius; the other works appear to have\nbeen translated at his direction.[223] Alfred\u2019s translations contain his\nown reflections and other matter not in the originals. In rendering\nOrosius, he rewrote the geographical introduction, inserted a description\nof Germany and accounts of northern Europe given by two of his Norse\nliegemen, Ohthere and Wulfstan. The alertness of his mind is shown by this\ninsertion of the latest geographical knowledge. Other and more personal\npassages will disclose his purpose, and illustrate the manner in which his\nChristianized intelligence worked upon trains of thought suggested perhaps\nby the Latin writing before him.\n\nAlfred\u2019s often-quoted preface to Gregory\u2019s _Pastoral Care_ tells his\nreasons for undertaking its translation, and sets forth the condition of\nEngland. He speaks of the \u201cwise men there formerly were throughout\nEngland, both of sacred and secular orders,\u201d and of their zeal in learning\nand teaching and serving God; and how foreigners came to the land in\nsearch of wisdom and instruction. But \u201cwhen I came to the throne,\u201d so\ngeneral was the decay of learning in England \u201cthat there were very few on\nthis side of the Humber who could understand their rituals in English, or\ntranslate a letter from Latin into English; and I believe there were not\nmany beyond the Humber.... Thanks be to God Almighty that we have any\nteachers among us now.\u201d Alfred therefore commands the bishop, to whom he\nis now sending the copy, to disengage himself as often as possible from\nworldly matters, and apply the Christian wisdom God has given him. \u201cI\nremembered also how I saw, before it had been all ravaged and burnt, how\nthe churches throughout the whole of England stood filled with treasures\nand books, and there was also a great multitude of God\u2019s servants, but\nthey had very little knowledge of books, for they could not understand\nanything of them because they were not written in their own language.\u201d It\ntherefore seemed wise to me \u201cto translate some books which are most\nneedful for all men to know, into the language which we can all\nunderstand, and ... that all the youth now in England of free men, who are\nrich enough to be able to devote themselves to it, be set to learn so long\nas they are not fit for any other occupation, until that they are well\nable to read English writing: and let those be afterwards taught more in\nthe Latin language who are to continue learning and be promoted to a\nhigher rank.\u201d\n\nIn the _De consolatione_ of Bo\u00ebthius, the antique pagan thought, softened\nwith human sympathy, and in need of such comfort and assurance as was\noffered by the Faith, is found occupied with questions (like that of\nfree-will) prominent in Christianity. The book presented meditations which\nwere so consonant with Christian views that its Christian readers from\nAlfred to Dante mistook them for Christian sentiments, and added further\nmeanings naturally occurring to the Christian soul. Alfred\u2019s reflections\nin his version of the _De consolatione_ are very personal to Saxon Alfred\nand show how he took his life and kingly office:\n\n    \u201cO Philosophy, thou knowest that I never greatly delighted in\n    covetousness and the possession of earthly power, nor longed for this\n    authority\u201d--so far Bo\u00ebthius,[224] and now Alfred himself: \u201cbut I\n    desired instruments and materials to carry out the work I was set to\n    do, which was that I should virtuously and fittingly administer the\n    authority committed unto me. Now no man, as thou knowest, can get full\n    play for his natural gifts, nor conduct and administer government,\n    unless he hath fit tools, and the raw material to work upon. By\n    material I mean that which is necessary to the exercise of natural\n    powers; thus a king\u2019s raw material and instruments of rule are a\n    well-peopled land, and he must have men of prayer, men of war, and men\n    of work. As thou knowest, without these tools no king may display his\n    special talent. Further, for his materials he must have means of\n    support for the three classes above spoken of, which are his\n    instruments; and these means are land to dwell in, gifts, weapons,\n    meat, ale, clothing, and what else soever the three classes need.\n    Without these means he cannot keep his tools in order, and without\n    these tools he cannot perform any of the tasks entrusted to him. [I\n    have desired material for the exercise of government that my talents\n    and my power might not be forgotten and hidden away[225]] for every\n    good gift and every power soon groweth old and is no more heard of, if\n    Wisdom be not in them. Without Wisdom no faculty can be fully brought\n    out, for whatsoever is done unwisely can never be accounted as skill.\n    To be brief, I may say that it has ever been my desire to live\n    honourably while I was alive, and after my death to leave to them that\n    should come after me my memory in good works.\u201d\n\nThe last sentence needs no comment. But those preceding it will be\nilluminated by another passage inserted by Alfred:\n\n    \u201cTherefore it is that a man never by his authority attains to virtue\n    and excellence, but by reason of his virtue and excellence he attains\n    to authority and power. No man is better for his power, but for his\n    skill he is good, if he is good, and for his skill he is worthy of\n    power, if he is worthy of it. Study Wisdom then, and, when ye have\n    learned it, contemn it not, for I tell you that by its means ye may\n    without fail attain to power, yea, even though not desiring it.\u201d\n\nPerhaps from the teaching of his own life Alfred knew, as well as\nBo\u00ebthius, the toil and sadness of power: \u201cThough their false hope and\nimagination lead fools to believe that power and wealth are the highest\ngood, yet it is quite otherwise.\u201d And again, speaking of friendship, he\nsays that Nature unites friends in love, \u201cbut by means of these worldly\ngoods and the wealth of this life we oftener make foes than friends,\u201d\nwhich doubtless Alfred had discovered, as well as Marcus Aurelius. Perhaps\nthe Saxon king knew wherein lay peace, as he makes Wisdom say: \u201cWhen I\nrise aloft with these my servants, we look down upon the storms of this\nworld, even as the eagle does when he soars in stormy weather above the\nclouds, where no storm can harm him.\u201d The king was thinking of man\u2019s peace\nwith God.[226]\n\n\nIII\n\nChristianity came to the cities of Provincia and the chief Roman colonies\nof Gaul (Lyons, Tr\u00e8ves, Cologne) in the course of the original\ndissemination of the Faith. There were Roman, Greek, or Syrian Christians\nin these towns before the end of the second century. Early Gallic\nChristianity spoke Greek and Latin, and its rather slow advance was due\npartly to the tenacity of Celtic speech even in the cities; while outside\nof them heathen speech and practices were scarcely touched. Through Gaul\nand along the Rhine, the country in the main continued heathen in religion\nand Celtic or Germanic in speech during the fifth century.[227] The\ncomplete Latinizing of Gaul and the conversion of its rural population\nproceeded from the urban churches, and from the labours and miracles of\nanchorites and monks. In contrast with the decay of the municipal\ngovernments, the urban churches continued living institutions. Their\nbishops usually were men of energy. The episcopal office was elective, yet\nlikely to remain in the same influential family, and the bishop, the\nleading man in the town, might be its virtual ruler. He represented\nChristianity and Latin culture, and when Roman officials yielded to\nTeutonic conquerors, the bishop was left as the spokesman of the\nGallo-Roman population. Thus the Gallic churches, far from succumbing\nbefore the barbarian invasions, rescued and appropriated the derelict\nfunctions of government, and emerged aggrandized from the political and\nracial revolution. In the year 400 the city of Tr\u00e8ves was Latin in speech\nand Roman in government; in the year 500 the Roman government had been\noverthrown, and a German-speaking population predominated in what was left\nof the city, but the church went on unchanged in constitution and in\nlanguage.\n\nThere was constant intercourse between Teutons and Romans along the\nnorthern boundaries of the Empire. In the Danube regions many of the\nformer were converted. The Goths, through the labours of Ulfilas and\nothers in the fourth century, became Arian Christians; their conversion\nwas of moment to themselves and others, but destiny severed the continuity\nof its import for history. In the provinces of Rhaetia, Vindelicia, and\nNoricum there were Christians, some of them Teutons, as early as the time\nof Constantine. For the next century, when disruption of the Empire was in\nfull progress, the Life of St. Severinus by Eugippius, his disciple, gives\nthe picture.[228] Bits and fragments of Roman government endured; letters\nwere not quite quenched; but Alemanni and Rugii moved as they would,\nmarauding, besieging, and destroying. Everywhere there was uncertainty and\nconfusion, and yet civilized Roman provincials still clung to a driven\nlife. Through this mountain land, the monk Severinus went here and there,\nbarefoot even in ice and snow, austere, commanding. He encouraged the\ntownspeople to maintain decency and courage; he turned the barbarians from\nruthlessness. Clear-seeing, capable, his energies shielded the land. He\nwas an ascetic who took nothing for himself, and won men to the Faith by\nthis guarantee of disinterestedness. So he shepherded his harrowed flocks,\nand more than once averted their destruction. But his arm was too feeble;\nafter his death even his cell was plundered, while the confusion swept on.\n\nSuch were fifth-century conditions on the northern boundary of what had\nbeen the Empire, conditions amid which the culture and doctrine germane to\nChristianity went down, although the Faith still glimmered here and there.\nFarther to the west, the Burgundians had gained a domicile in a land\nsparsely tenanted by Roman and Catholic provincials. Here on the left bank\nof the Rhine, in the neighbourhood of Worms, this people accepted the\nChristianity which they found. Afterwards, in the year 430, their heathen\nkin on the right bank were baptized as a people; for they hoped, through\naid from fellow-Christians, to ward off the destruction threatening from\nthe Huns. Yet five years later they were overthrown by those savage\nriders--an overthrow out of which was to rise the _Nibelungenlied_. The\nBurgundian remnants found a new home by the Rhone.\n\nThe Christianity of Burgundians and Goths was subject to the vicissitudes\nof their fortunes. The permanent conversion to Catholicism of the great\nmasses of the Germans commenced somewhat later, when the turmoil of\nfifth-century migration was settling into contests for homes destined to\nprove more lasting. Its beginning may be dated from the baptism of Clovis\nas a Catholic on Christmas Day in the year 496. His retainers followed him\ninto the consecrated water. By reason of the king\u2019s genius for war and\npolitics, this event was the beginning of the final triumph of\nCatholicism.[229]\n\nThe baptism of Clovis and his followers was typical of early Teutonic\nconversions. King and tribal following acted as a unit. Christ gave\nvictory; He was the mightier God: such was the crude form of the motive.\nIts larger scope was grasped by the far-seeing king. Believing in\nsupernatural aid, he desired it from the mightiest source, which, he was\npersuaded, was the Christian God. It was to be obtained by such homage to\nChrist as heretofore the king had paid to Wuotan. Any doubt as to the\nsincerity of his belief presupposes a point of view impossible for a\nfifth-century barbarian. But to this sincere expectation of Christ\u2019s aid,\nto be gained through baptism, Clovis joined careful consideration of the\npolitical situation. Catholic Christianity was the religion of the\nGallo-Roman population forming the greater part of the Frankish king\u2019s\nsubjects. He knew of Arian peoples; probably attempts had been made to\ndraw him to their side. They constituted the great Teutonic powers at the\ntime; for Theodoric was the monarch of Italy, and Arian Teutons ruled in\nsouthern France, in Spain, and Africa. Nevertheless, it was of paramount\nimportance for the establishment of his kingdom that there should be no\nschism between the Franks and the Gallo-Roman people who exceeded them in\nnumber and in wealth and culture. Catholic influences surrounded Clovis;\nCatholic interests represented the wealth and prosperity of his dominions,\nand when he decided to be baptized he did not waver between the Catholic\nand the Arian belief. Thus the king attached to himself the civilized\npopulation of his realm. A common Catholic faith quickly obliterated\nracial antagonism within its boundaries and gained him the support of\nCatholic church and people in the kingdoms of his Arian rivals.\n\nSo under Clovis and his successors the Gallic Church became the Frankish\nChurch, and flourished exceedingly. Tithes were paid it, and gifts were\nmade by princes and nobles. Its lands increased, carrying their dependent\npopulation, until the Church became the largest landholder in the\nMerovingian realm. It was governed by Roman law, but the clergy were\nsubject to the penal jurisdiction of the king.[230] It was he that\nsummoned councils, although he did not vote, and left ecclesiastical\nmatters to the bishops, who were his liegemen and appointees.[231] They\nrecognized the king\u2019s virtually unlimited authority, which they patterned\non the absolute power of the Roman Emperors and the prerogatives of David\nand Solomon. In fine, the Merovingian Church was a national church,\nsubject to the king. Until the seventh century it was quite independent of\nthe Bishop of Rome.[232]\n\nIt is common knowledge--especially vivid with readers of the famous\n_Historia Francorum_ of Gregory of Tours--that ethically viewed, the\nconduct of the Merovingian house was cruel, treacherous, and abominable;\nand likewise the conduct of their vassals. Frankish kings and nobles\nappear as men no longer bound by the ethics of the heathenism which they\nhad foresworn, and as yet untouched by the moral precepts of the Christian\ncode. Not Christianity, however, but contact with decadent civilization,\nand rapid increase of power and wealth, had loosened their heathen\nstandards. Merovingian history leaves a unique impression of a line of\nrulers and dependents among whom mercy and truth and chastity were\nunknown. The elements of sixth-century Christianity which the Franks made\ntheir own were its rites, its magic, and its miracles, and its expectation\nof the aid of a God and His saints duly solicited. Here the customs of\nheathenism were a preparation, or themselves passed into Frankish\nChristianity. Nevertheless, the general character of Christian\nobservances--baptism, the mass, prayer, the sign of the cross, the rites\nat marriage, sickness, and death--could not fail to impress a certain tone\nand demeanour upon the people, and impart some sense of human sinfulness.\nThe general conviction that patent and outrageous crime would bring divine\nvengeance gained point and power from the terrific doctrine of the Day of\nWrath, and the system of penances imposed by the clergy proved an\nexcellent discipline with these rough Christians. Many bishops and priests\nwere little better than the nobles, yet the Church preserved Christian\nbelief and did something to improve morality. Everywhere the monk was the\nmost striking object-lesson, with his austerities, his terror-stricken\nsense of sinfulness, and conviction of the peril of the world. No martial,\ngrasping bishop, no dissolute and treacherous priest denied that the\nmonk\u2019s was the ideal Christian life; and the laity stood in awe, or\nexpectation, of the wonder-working power of his asceticism. Indeed\nmonasticism was becoming popular, and the Merovingian period witnessed the\nfoundation of numberless cloisters.\n\nIn the fifth and through part of the sixth century the Gallic monastery of\nLerins, on an island in the Mediterranean, near Fr\u00e9jus, was a chief source\nof ascetic and Christian influence for Gaul. Its monks took their\nprecepts from Syria and Egypt, and some of the zeal of St. Martin of Tours\nhad fallen on their shoulders. As the energy of this community declined,\nColumban\u2019s monastery at Luxeuil succeeded to the work. The example of\nColumbanus, his precepts and severe monastic discipline, proved a source\nof ascetic and missionary zeal. With him or following in his steps came\nother Irishmen; and heathen German lands soon looked upon the walls of\nmany an Irish monastery. But Columbanus failed, and all the Irish failed,\nin obedience, order, and effective organization. His own monastic\n_regula_, with all its rigour, contained no provisions for the government\nof the monasteries. Without due ordering, bands of monks dwelling in\nheathen communities would waver in their practices and even show a lack of\ndoctrinal stability. Sooner or later they were certain to become confused\nin habit and contaminated with the manners of the surrounding people.\nThese Irish monasteries omitted to educate a native priesthood to\nperpetuate their Christian teaching. The best of them, St. Gall (founded\nby Columbanus\u2019s disciple Gallus), might be a citadel of culture, and\nconvert the people about it, through the talents and character of its\nfounder and his successors. But other monasteries, farther to the east,\nwere tainted with heathen practices. In fine, it was not for the Irish to\nconvert the great heathen German land, or effect a lasting reform of\nexisting churches there or in Gaul.\n\nThe labours of Anglo-Saxons were fraught with more enduring results.\nThrough their abilities and zeal, their faculty of organization and\ncapacity of submitting to authority, through their consequent harmony with\nRome and the support given them by the Frankish monarchy, these\nAnglo-Saxons converted many German tribes, established permanent churches\namong them, reorganized the heterogeneous Christianity which they found in\ncertain German lands, and were a moving factor in the reform of the\nFrankish Church. The most striking features of their work on the Continent\nwere diocesan organization, the training of a native clergy, the\nestablishment of monasteries under the Benedictine constitution, union\nwith Rome, obedience to her commands, strenuous conformity to her law, and\ninsistence on like conformity in others. Their presentation of\nChristianity was orthodox, regular, and authoritative.\n\nSome of these features appear in the work of the Saxon Willibrord among\nthe Frisians, but are more largely illustrated in the career of St.\nBoniface-Winfried. Willibrord moved under the authority of Rome; the\nvarying fortunes of his labours were connected with the enterprises of\nPippin of Heristal, the father of Charles Martel. They advanced with the\npower of that Frankish potentate. But after his death, during the strife\nbetween Neustria and Austrasia, the heathen Frisian king Radbod drove back\nChristianity as he enlarged his dominion at the expense of the divided\nFranks. Later, Charles Martel conquered him, and the Frankish power\nreached (718) to the Zuyder Zee. Under its protection Willibrord at last\nfounded the bishopric of Utrecht (734). He succeeded in educating a native\nclergy; and his labours had lasting result among the Frisians who were\nsubject to the Franks, but not among the free Frisians and the Danes.\n\nEvidently there was no sharp geographical boundary between Christianity\nand heathendom. Throughout broad territories, Christian and heathen\npractices mingled. This was true of the Frisian land. It was true in\ngreater range and complexity of the still wider fields of Boniface\u2019s\ncareer. This able man surrendered his high station in his native Wessex in\norder to serve Christ more perfectly as a missionary monk among the\nheathen. He went first to Frisia and worked with Willibrord, yet refused\nto be his bishop-coadjutor and successor, because planning to carry\nChristianity into Germany.\n\nStrikingly his life exemplifies Anglo-Saxon faculties working under the\ndirecting power of Rome among heathen and partly Christian peoples. On his\nfirst visit to Rome he became imbued with the principles, and learned the\nritual, of the Roman Church. He returned to enter into relations with\nCharles Martell, and to labour in Hesse and Thuringia, and again with\nWillibrord in Frisia. Not long afterwards, at his own solicitation,\nGregory II. called him back to Rome (722), where he fed his passion for\npunctilious conformity by binding himself formally to obey the Pope,\nfollow the practices of the Roman Church, and have no fellowship with\nbishops whose ways conflicted with them. Gregory made him bishop over\nThuringia and Hesse, and sent him back there to reform Christian and\nheathen communities. Thus Gregory created a bishop within the bounds of\nthe Frankish kingdom--an unprecedented act. Nevertheless, Charles, to whom\nBoniface came with a letter from Gregory, received him favourably and\nfurnished him with a safe conduct, only exacting a recognition of his own\nauthority.\n\nBoniface set forth upon his mission. In Hesse he cut down the ancient\nheathen oak, and made a chapel of its timber; he preached and he\norganized--the land was not altogether heathen. Then he proceeded to\nThuringia. That also was a partly Christian land; many Irish-Scottish\npreachers were labouring or dwelling there. Boniface set his face against\ntheir irregularities as firmly as against heathenism. Again he dominated\nand reorganized, yet continued unfailing in energetic preaching to the\nheathen. Gregory watched closely and zealously co-operated.\n\nOn the death of the second Gregory in 731, the third Gregory succeeded to\nthe papacy and continued his predecessor\u2019s support of the Anglo-Saxon\napostle, making him archbishop with authority to ordain bishops. Many\nAnglo-Saxons, both men and holy women, came to aid their countryman, and\nbrought their education and their nobler views of life to form centres of\nChristian culture in the German lands. Cloisters for nuns, cloisters for\nmonks were founded. The year 744 witnessed the foundation of Fulda by\nSturm under the direction of Boniface, and destined to be the very apple\nof his eye and the monastic model for Germany. It was placed under the\nauthority of Rome, with the consent of Pippin, who then ruled. The\nreorganization rather than the conversion of Bavaria was Boniface\u2019s next\nachievement. The land long before had been partially Romanized, and now\nwas nominally Christian. Here again Boniface acted as representative of\nthe Pope, and not of Charles, although Bavaria was part of the Frankish\nempire.\n\nThe year 738 brought Boniface to Rome for the third time. He was now\nyearning to leave the fields already tilled, and go as missionary to the\nheathen Saxons. But Gregory sent him back to complete the reorganization\nof the Bavarian Church, and to this large field of action he added also\nAlemannia with its diocesan centre at Speyer. Here he came in conflict\nwith Frankish bishops, firm in their secular irregularities. Yet again he\nprevailed, reorganized the churches, and placed them under the authority\nof Rome. Evidently the two Gregories had in large measure turned the\nenergies of Boniface from the mission-field to the labours of reform.\n\nOn the death of Charles in 741 (and in the same year died Gregory, to be\nsucceeded by the lukewarm Zacharias) his sons Carloman and Pippin\nsucceeded to his power. The following year Carloman in German-speaking\nAustrasia called a council of his church (_Concilium Germanicum primum_)\nunder the primacy of Boniface. Its decrees confirmed the reforms for which\nthe latter had struggled:\n\n    \u201cWe Carloman, Duke and Prince of the Franks, in the year 742 of the\n    Incarnation, on the 21st of April, upon the advice of the servants of\n    God, the bishops and priests of our realm, have assembled them to take\n    counsel how God\u2019s law and the Church\u2019s discipline (fallen to ruin\n    under former princes) may be restored, and the Christian folk led to\n    salvation, instead of perishing deceived by false priests. We have set\n    up bishops in the cities, and have set over them as archbishop\n    Bonifatius, the legate of St. Peter.\u201d\n\nThe council decreed that yearly synods should be held, that the\npossessions taken from the Church should be restored, and the false\npriests deprived of their emoluments and forced to do penance. The clergy\nwere forbidden to bear arms, go to war, or hunt. Every priest should give\nyearly account of his stewardship to his bishop. Bishops, supported by the\ncount in the diocese, should suppress heathen practices. Punishments were\nset for the fleshly sins of monks and nuns and clergy, and for the\npriestly offences of wearing secular garb or harbouring women. The\nBenedictine rule was appointed for monasteries. It was easier to make\nthese decrees than carry them out against the opposition of such martial\nbishops as those of Mainz and Tr\u00e8ves, whose support was necessary to\nCarloman\u2019s government; and military conditions rendered the restoration of\nChurch lands impracticable. Yet the word was spoken, and something was\ndone.\n\nThe next year in Neustria Pippin instituted like reforms. He was aided by\nBoniface, although the latter held no ecclesiastical office there. In 747\nCarloman abdicated and retired to a monastery;[233] and Pippin became sole\nruler, and at last formally king, anointed by Boniface under the direction\nof the Pope in 752. After this, Boniface, withdrawing from the direction\nof the Church, turned once more to satisfy his heart\u2019s desire by going on\na mission among the heathen Frisians, where he crowned a great life with a\nmartyr\u2019s death.\n\nThus authoritatively, supported by Rome and the Frankish monarchy,\nChristianity was presented to the Germans. It carried suggestions of a\nbetter order and some knowledge of Latin letters. The extension of Roman\nCatholic Christianity was the aim of Boniface first and last and always.\nBut a Latin education was needed by the clergy to enable them to\nunderstand and set forth this some-what elaborated and learned scheme of\nsalvation. Boniface and his coadjutors had no aversion to the literary\nmeans by which a serviceable Latin knowledge was to be obtained, and\ntheir missionary and reorganizing labours necessarily worked some\ndiffusion of Latinity.\n\nThe Frankish secular power which had supported Boniface, advanced to\nviolent action when Charlemagne\u2019s sword bloodily constrained the Saxons to\naccept his rule and Christianity, the two inseverable objects which he\ntirelessly pursued. Nor could this ruler stay his mighty hand from the\ngovernment of the Church within his realm. With his power to appoint\nbishops, he might, if he chose, control its councils. But apparently he\nchose to rule the Church directly; and his, and his predecessors\u2019 and\nsuccessors\u2019 Capitularies (rather than Conciliar decrees) contain the chief\necclesiastical legislation for the Frankish realm.\n\nIn its temporalities and secular action the Church was the greatest and\nrichest of all subjects; it possessed the rights of lay vassals and was\naffected with like duties.[234] But in ritual, doctrine, language and\naffiliation, the Frankish Church made part of the Roman Catholic Church.\nIt used the Roman liturgy and the Latin tongue. The ordering of the clergy\nwas Roman, and the regulation of the monasteries was Romanized by the\nadoption of the Benedictine _regula_. Within the Church Rome had\ntriumphed. Prelates were vassals of the king who had now become Emperor;\nand the great corporate Church was subject to him. Nevertheless, this\ngreat corporate institution was Roman rather than Gallic or Frankish or\nGerman. It was Teuton only in those elements which represented\necclesiastical abuses, for example, the remaining irregularities of\nvarious kinds, the lay and martial habits of prelates, and even their\nappointment by the monarch. These were the elements which the Church in\nits logical Roman evolution was to eliminate. Charlemagne himself, as well\nas his lesser successors, strove just as zealously to bring the people\ninto obedience to the Church as into obedience to the lay rulers. While\nthe Carolingian rule was strong, its power was exerted on behalf of\necclesiastical authority and discipline; and when the royal administration\nweakened after Charlemagne\u2019s death, the Church was not slow to revolt\nagainst its temporal subjection to the royal power.\n\nBut the Church, in spite of Latin and Roman affinities, strove also to\ncome near the German peoples and speak to them in their own tongues. This\nis borne witness to by the many translations from Latin into Frankish,\nSaxon, or Alemannish dialects, made by the clergy. Christianity deeply\naffected the German language. Many of its words received German form, and\nthe new thoughts forced old terms to take on novel and more spiritual\nmeanings. To be sure these German dialects were there before Christianity\ncame, and the capacities of the Germans acquired in heathen times are\nattested by the sufficiency of their language to express Christian\nthought. Likewise the German character was there, and proved its range and\nquality by the very transformation of which it showed itself capable under\nChristianity. And just as Christianity was given expression in the German\nlanguage, which retained many of its former qualities, so many fundamental\ntraits of German character remained in the converted people. Yet so\nearnestly did the Germans turn to Christianity, and such draughts of its\nspirit did they draw into their nature, that the early Germanic\nre-expression of it is sincere, heartfelt, and moving, and illumined with\nunderstanding of the Faith.\n\nThese qualities may be observed in the series of Christian documents in\nthe German tongues commencing in the first years of Charlemagne\u2019s reign.\nThey consist of baptismal confessions of belief, the first of which (cir.\n769) was composed for heathen Saxons just converted by the sword, and of\ncatechisms presenting the elements of Christian precept and dogma. The\nearliest of the latter (cir. 789), coming from the monastery at\nWeissenburg in Alsace, contains the Lord\u2019s Prayer, with explanations, an\nenumeration of the deadly sins according to the fifth chapter of the\nEpistle to the Galatians, the Apostles\u2019 Creed and the Athanasian. Further,\none finds among these documents a translation of the _De fide Catholica_\nof Isidore of Seville, and of the Benedictine _regula_; also\nCharlemagne\u2019s _Exhortatio ad plebem Christianam_, which was an admonition\nto the people to learn the Creed and the Lord\u2019s Prayer. There are likewise\ngeneral confessions of sins. Less dependent on a Latin original is the\nso-called _Muspilli_, a spirited description in alliterative verse of the\nlast times and the Day of Judgment.\n\nGerman qualities, however, express themselves more fully in two Gospel\nversions, the first the famous Saxon _Heliand_ (cir. 835), (which follows\nTatian\u2019s \u201cHarmony\u201d); the second the somewhat later _Evangelienbuch_ of\nOtfrid the Frank. They were both composed in alliterative verse, though\nOtfrid also made use of rhyme.[235] The martial, Teutonic ring of the\nformer is well known. Christ is the king, the disciples are His thanes\nwhose duty is to stand by their lord to the death; He rewards them with\nthe promised riches of heaven, excelling the earthly goods bestowed by\nother kings. In the \u201cbetrayal\u201d they close around their Lord, saying: \u201cWere\nit thy will, mighty Lord of ours, that we should set upon them with the\nspear, gladly would we strike and die for our Lord.\u201d Out broke the wrath\nof the \u201cready swordsman\u201d (_snel suerdthegan_)[236] Simon Peter; he could\nnot speak for anguish to think that his lord should be bound. Angrily\nstrode the bold knight before his lord, drew his weapon, the sword by his\nside, and smote the nearest foe with might of hands. Before his fury and\nthe spurting blood the people fled fearing the sword\u2019s bite.\n\nThe _Heliand_ has also gentler qualities, as when it calls the infant\nChrist the _fridubarn_ (peace-child), and pictures Mary watching over her\n\u201clittle man.\u201d But German love of wife and child and home speak more\nclearly in Otfrid\u2019s book. Although a learned monk, his pride of Frankish\nrace rings in his oft-quoted reasons for writing _theotisce_, _i.e._ in\nGerman: Why shall not the Franks sing God\u2019s praise in Frankish tongue?\nForcible and logical it is, although not bound by grammar\u2019s rules. Yes,\nwhy should the Franks be incapable? they are brave as Romans or Greeks;\nthey are as good in field and wood; wide power is theirs, and ready are\nthey with the sword. They are rich, and possess a good land, with honour.\nThey can guard their own; what people is their equal in battle? Diligent\nare they also in the Word of God. Otfrid is quite moving in his\nsympathetic sense of the sorrow of the Last Judgment, when the mother from\nchild shall be parted, the father from son, the lord from his faithful\nthane, friend from friend--all human kind. Deep is the mystic love and\nyearning with which he realizes Heaven as one\u2019s own land: there is life\nwithout death, light without darkness, the angels and eternal bliss. We\nhave left it--that must we bewail always, banished to a strange land, poor\nmisled orphans. The antithesis between the _fremidemo lant_ (_fremdes\nland_) of earth, and the _heimat_, the _eigan lant_ of Heaven, which is\nhome, real home, is the keynote strongly felt and movingly expressed.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II\n\nTHE EARLY MIDDLE AGES\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nCAROLINGIAN PERIOD: THE FIRST STAGE IN THE APPROPRIATION OF THE PATRISTIC\nAND ANTIQUE\n\n\nWith the conversion of Teuton peoples and their introduction to the Latin\nculture accompanying the new religion, the factors of mediaeval\ndevelopment came at last into conjunction. The mediaeval development was\nto issue from their combined action, rather than from the singular nature\nof any one of them.[237] Taking up the introductory theme concerning the\nmeeting of these forces, we followed the Latinizing of the West resulting\nfrom the expansion of the Roman Republic, which represents the political\nand social preparation of the field. Then we considered the antique pagan\ngospel of philosophy and letters, which had quickened this Latin\ncivilization and was to form the spiritual environment of patristic\nChristianity. Next in order we observed the intellectual interests of the\nLatin Fathers, and then turned to the great Latin transmitters of the\nsomewhat amalgamated antique and patristic material--Bo\u00ebthius,\nCassiodorus, Gregory the Great, and Isidore of Seville--who gathered what\nthey might, and did much to reduce the same to decadent forms, suited to\nthe barbaric understanding. Then the course of the barbaric disruption of\nthe Empire was reviewed; and this led to a consideration of the qualities\nand circumstances of the Celts and Teutons, both those who to all\nappearances had been Latinized, and those who took active part in the\nbarbarization and disruption of the Roman order. And finally we closed\nthese introductory, though essential, chapters by tracing the ways in\nwhich Christianity, with the now humbled and degraded antique culture, was\npresented to this renewed and largely Teutonic barbarism.\n\nHaving now reached the epoch of conjunction of the various elements of the\nmediaeval evolution, it lies before us to consider the first stage in the\naction of true mediaeval conditions upon the two chief spiritual forces,\nthe first stage, in other words, of the mediaeval appropriation of the\npatristic and antique material. The period is what is called Carlovingian\nor Carolingian, after the great ruler Charlemagne. Intellectually\nconsidered, it may be said to have begun when Charles palpably evinced his\ninterest in sacred and liberal studies by calling Alcuin and other\nscholars to his Court about the year 781. Let us note the political and\nsocial situation.\n\nThe Merovingian kingdom created by Clovis and his house has been spoken\nof.[238] One may properly refer to it in the singular, although\nfrequently, instead of one, there were several kingdoms, since upon the\ndeath of a Merovingian monarch his realm was divided among his sons. But\nno true son of the house could leave the others unconquered or unmurdered;\nand therefore if the Merovingian kingdom constantly was divided, it also\ntended to coalesce again, coerced to unity. Constituted both of Roman and\nTeutonic elements, it operated as a mediating power between Latin\nChristendom and barbaric heathendom. Its energies were great, and were not\nwaning when its royal house was passing into insignificance before the\npower of the nobles and the chief personage among them who had become the\n_major domus_ (\u201cMayor of the palace\u201d) and virtual ruler. Moreover,\nexperience, contact with Latin civilization, membership in the Roman\nCatholic Church, were informing the Merovingian energies. They were\nbecoming just a little less barbarous and a little more instructed; in\nfine, were changing from Merovingian to Carolingian.\n\nIn the latter part of the seventh century, Pippin, called \u201cof Heristal,\u201d\nruled as _major domus_ (as one or more of his ancestors before him) in\nAustrasia, the eastern Frankish kingdom. Many were his wars, especially\nwith the Neustrian or western Frankish kingdom, under its _major domus_,\nEbroin. This somewhat unconquerable man at last was murdered, and one of\nthe two Merovingian kings being murdered likewise, Pippin about the year\n688 became _princeps regiminis ac major domus_ for the now united realm.\nFrom this date the Merovingians are but shadow kings, whose names are not\nworth recording. Pippin\u2019s rule marks the advent of his house to virtual\nsovereignty, and also the passing of the preponderance of power from\nNeustria to Austrasia. These two facts became clear after Pippin\u2019s death\n(714), when his redoubtable son Charles in a five years\u2019 struggle against\ngreat odds made himself sole _major domus_, and with his Austrasians\noverwhelmed the Neustrian army. Thenceforth this Charles, called Martell\nthe Hammer, mightily prevailed, smiting Saxons, Bavarians, and Alemanni,\nand, after much warfare in the south with Saracens, at last vindicated the\nCross against the Crescent at Tours in 732. Nine years longer he was to\nreign, increasing his power to the end, and supporting the establishment\nof Catholicism in Frisia, by the Anglo-Saxon Willibrord, and in heathen\nGerman lands by St. Boniface.[239] He died in 741, dividing what virtually\nwas his realm between his sons Carloman and Pippin: the former receiving\nAustrasia, Alemannia, Thuringia; the latter, Neustria, Burgundy, Provence.\n\nThese two sons valiantly took up their task, reforming the Church under\nthe inspiration of Boniface, and ruling their domains without conflict\nwith each other until 747, when Carloman retired and became a monk,\nleaving the entire realm to Pippin. The latter in 751 at Soissons, with\nuniversal approval and the consent of the Pope, was crowned king, and\nanointed by the hand of Boniface. This able and energetic sovereign\npursued the course of his father and grandfather, but on still larger\nscale; aiding the popes and reducing the Lombard power in Italy, carrying\non wars around the borders of his realm, bringing Aquitania to full\nsubmission, and expelling the Saracens from Narbonne and other fortress\ntowns. In 768 he died, again dividing his vast realm between his two sons\nCarloman and Charles.\n\nThese bore each other little love; but fortunately the former died (771)\nbefore an open breach occurred. So Charles was left to rule alone, and\nprove himself, all things considered, the greatest of mediaeval\nsovereigns. Having fought his many wars of conquest and subjugation\nagainst Saracens, Saxons, Avars, Bavarians, Slavs, Danes, Lombards; having\nconquered much of Italy and freed the Pope from neighbouring domination;\nhaving been crowned and anointed emperor in the year 800; having restored\nletters, uplifted the Church, issued much wise legislation, and\nChristianized with iron hand the stubborn heathen; and above all, having\nadministered his vast realm with never-failing energy, he died in\n814--just one hundred years after the time when his grandfather Charles\nwas left to fight so doughtily for life and power.\n\nPoetry and history have conspired to raise the fame of Charlemagne. In\nmore than one _chanson de geste_, the old French _\u00e9pop\u00e9e_ has put his name\nwhere that of Pippin, Charles Martell, or perhaps that of some Merovingian\nshould have been.[240] Sober history has not thus falsified its matter,\nand yet has over-dramatized the incidents of its hero\u2019s reign. For\nexample, every schoolboy has been told of the embassy to Charlemagne from\nHarun al Raschid, Caliph of Bagdad. But not so many schoolboys know that\nPippin had sent an embassy to a previous caliph, which was courteously\nentertained for three years in Bagdad;[241] and Pippin, like his son,\nreceived embassies from the Greek emperor. The careers of Charles Martell\nand Pippin have not been ignored; and yet historical convention has\nfocused its attention and its phrases upon \u201cthe age of Charlemagne.\u201d One\nshould not forget that this exceedingly great man stood upon the shoulders\nof the great men to whose achievement he succeeded.\n\nNeither politically, socially, intellectually, nor geographically[242] was\nthere discontinuity or break or sudden change between the Merovingian and\nthe Carolingian periods.[243] The character of the monarchy was scarcely\naffected by the substitution of the house of Pippin of Heristal for the\nhouse of Clovis. The baleful custom of dividing the realm upon a monarch\u2019s\ndeath survived; but Fortune rendered it innocuous through one strong\ncentury, during which (719-814) the realm was free from internecine war,\nwhile the tossing streams of humanity were driven onward by three great\nsuccessive rulers.\n\nThe Carolingian, like the Merovingian, realm included many different\npeoples who were destined never to become one nation; and the whole\nCarolingian system of government virtually had existed in the Merovingian\nperiod. Before, as well as after, the dynastic change, the government\nthroughout the realm was administered by _Counts_. Likewise the famous\n_missi dominici_, or royal legates, are found in Merovingian times; but\nthey were employed more effectively by Charles Martell, Pippin, and,\nfinally, by Charlemagne, who enlarged their sphere of action. He\nelaborately defined their functions in a famous Capitulary of the year\n802. It was set forth that the emperor had chosen these legates from among\nhis best and greatest (_ex optimatibus suis_), and had authorized them to\nreceive the new oaths of allegiance, and supervise the observance of the\nlaws, the execution of justice, the maintenance of the military and fiscal\nrights of the emperor. They were given power to see that the permanent\nfunctionaries (the counts and their subordinates) duly administered the\nlaw as written or recognized. The _missi_ had jurisdiction over\necclesiastical as well as lay officials; and many of them were entrusted\nwith special powers and duties in the particular instance.\n\nThus Charlemagne developed the functions of these ancient officers.\nLikewise his Court and royal council, the synods and assemblies of his\nreign, the military service, modes of holding land, methods of collecting\nrevenue, were not greatly changed from Merovingian prototypes. Yet the old\ninstitutions had been renewed and bettered. A vast misjoined and unrelated\nrealm was galvanized into temporary unity. And, most impressive and\nportentous thing of all, an _Empire_--the _Holy_ Roman Empire--was\nresurrected for a time in fact and verity: the same was destined to endure\nin endeavour and contemplation.\n\nSo there was no break politically or socially between the Carolingian\nEmpire and its antecedents, which had made it possible. Likewise there was\nno discontinuity spiritually and intellectually between the earlier time\nand that epoch which begins with Charlemagne\u2019s first endeavours to restore\nknowledge, and extends through the ninth and, if one will, even the tenth\ncentury.[244] Western Europe (except Scandinavia) had become nominally\nChristian, and had been made acquainted with Latin education to the extent\nindicated in the preceding chapter, the purpose of which was to tell how\nChristianity and the antique culture were brought to the northern peoples.\nThe present chapter, on the other hand, seeks to describe how the eighth\nand ninth centuries proceeded to learn and consider and react upon this\nnewly introduced Christianity and antique culture, out of which the\nspiritual destinies of the Middle Ages were to be forged. The task of\nCarolingian scholars was to learn what had been brought to them. They\nscarcely excelled even the later intermediaries through whom this\nknowledge had been transmitted. One need not look among them for better\nscholarship than was possessed by Bede, who died in 735, the birth year of\nAlcuin who drew so much from him, and was to be the chief luminary of the\npalace school of Charlemagne. Undoubtedly, Charlemagne\u2019s exertions caused\na revival of sacred and profane studies through the region of the present\nFrance and Rhenish Germany. His primary motive was the purification and\nextension of Catholic Christianity. Here Charles Martell and Pippin (with\nhis brother Carloman) had done much, as their support of Boniface bears\nwitness to. But Charlemagne\u2019s efforts went beyond those of his\npredecessors. More clearly than they he understood the need of education,\nand he was himself intensely interested in knowledge. Hence his\nendeavours, primarily to uplift the Faith, brought a revival of learning\nand a literary productivity, consisting mostly in reproduction or\nrearrangement of old material, doctrinal or profane.[245]\n\nAnother preliminary consideration may help us to appreciate the\nintellectual qualities of the period before us. Charlemagne was primarily\na ruler in the largest sense, conqueror, statesman, law-giver, one who\nrealized the needs of the time, and met or forestalled them. His monarchy,\nwith its powers inherited, as well as radiating from his own personality,\nprovided an imperial government for western Europe. The chief activities\nof this ruler and his epoch were practical, to wit, political and\nmilitary. In laws, in institutions, and in deeds, he and his Empire\nrepresent creativeness and progress; although, to be sure, that\nconglomerate empire of his had itself to fall in pieces before there could\ntake place a more lasting and national evolution of States. And, of\ncourse, Carolingian political creativeness included the conservation of\nexisting social, political, and, above all, ecclesiastical, institutions.\nIn fine, this period was creative and progressive in its practical\nenergies. The factors were the pressing needs and palpable opportunities,\nwhich were met or availed of. And to the same effective treatment of\nproblems ecclesiastical and doctrinal was due the modicum of originality\nin the Carolingian literature. Aside from this, the period\u2019s intellectual\naccomplishment, in religious as well as secular studies, shows merely a\ndiligent learning and imitation of pagan letters, and a rehandling and\narrangement of the work of the Church Fathers and their immediate\nsuccessors. Its efforts were exhausted in rearranging the heritage of\nChristian teaching coming from the Church Fathers, or in endeavours to\nacquire the transmitted antique culture and imitate the antique in phrase\nand metre. The combined task, or occupation, absorbed the minds of men.\nThe whole period was at school, where it needed to be: at school to the\nChurch Fathers, at school to the transmitters of antique culture. Its task\nwas one of adjustment of its materials to itself, and of itself to its\nmaterials.\n\nThe reinvigoration of studies marking the life-time of Charlemagne did not\nextend to Italy, where letters, although decayed, had never ceased, nor to\nAnglo-Saxon England, where Bede had taught and whence Alcuin had come. The\nrevival radiated, one may say, from the palace school attached to the\nCourt, which had its least intermittent domicile at Aix-la-Chapelle. It\nextended to the chief monastic centres of Gaul and Germany, and to\ncathedral schools where such existed. From many lands scholars were drawn\nby that great hand so generous in giving, so mighty to protect. Some came\non invitation more or less compelling, and many of their own free will.\nThe first and most famous of them all was the Anglo-Saxon, Alcuin of York.\nCharles first saw him at Parma in the year 781, and ever after kept him in\nhis service as his most trusted teacher and director of studies. Love of\nhome drew Alcuin back, once at least, to England. In 796 Charles permitted\nhim to leave the Court, and entrusted him with the re-establishment of the\nAbbey of St. Martin at Tours and its schools. There he lived and laboured\ntill his death in 804.\n\nAnother scholar was Peter of Pisa, a grammarian, who seems to have shared\nwith Alcuin the honourable task of instructing the king. Of greater note\nwas Paulus Diaconus, who, like Alcuin himself, was to sigh for the pious\nor scholarly quiet which the seething, half-barbarous, and loose-mannered\nCourt did not afford. Paulus at last gained Charles\u2019s consent to retire\nto Monte Cassino. He was of the Lombard race, like another favourite of\nCharles, Paulinus of Aquileia. From Spain, apparently, came Theodulphus,\nby descent a Goth, and reputed the most elegant Latin versifier of his\ntime. Charles made him Bishop of Orleans. A little later, Einhart the\nFrank appears, who was to be the emperor\u2019s secretary and biographer.\nLikewise came certain sons of Erin, among them such a problematic poet as\nhe who styled himself \u201cHibernicus Exul\u201d--not the first or last of his\nline!\n\nThese belonged to the generation about the emperor. Belonging to the next\ngeneration, and for the most part pupils of the older men, were Abbot\nSmaragdus, grammarian and didactic writer; the German, Rabanus Maurus,\nAbbot of Fulda and, against his will, Archbishop of Mainz, an\nencyclopaedic excerpter and educator, _primus praeceptor Germaniae_; his\npupil was Walafrid Strabo, the cleverest putter-together of the excerpt\ncommentary, and a pleasing poet. In Lorraine at the same time flourished\nthe Irishman, Sedulius Scotus, and in the West that ardent classical\nscholar, Servatus Lupus, Abbot of Ferri\u00e8res, and Agobard, Bishop of Lyons,\na man practical and hard-headed, with whom one may couple Claudius, Bishop\nof Turin, the opponent of relic-worship. One might also mention those\ntheological controversialists, Radbertus Paschasius and Ratramnus,\nHincmar, the great Archbishop of Rheims, and Gottschalk, the unhappy monk,\never recalcitrant; at the end John Scotus Eriugena should stand, the\nsomewhat too intellectual Neo-Platonic Irishman, translator of\nPseudo-Dionysius, and announcer of various rationalizing propositions for\nwhich men were to look on him askance.\n\nThere will be occasion to speak more particularly of a number of these\nmen. They were all scholars, and interested in the maintenance of\nelementary Latin education as well as in theology. They wished to write\ngood Latin, and sometimes tried for a classical standard, as Einhart did\nin his _Vita Caroli_. Few of them refrained from verse, for they were\naddicted to metrical compositions made of borrowed classic phrase and\noften of reflected classic sentiment, sometimes prettily composed, but\nusually insipid, and in the mass, which was great, exceptionally\nuninspired. Such metrical effort, quite as much as Einhart\u2019s consciously\nclassicizing Latin prose, represents a survival of the antique excited to\nrecrudescence in forms which, if they were not classical, at least had not\nbecome anything else. Stylistically, and perhaps temperamentally, it\nrepresented the ending of what had nearly passed away, rather than the\nbeginning of the more organic development which was to come.[246]\n\nAmong these men, Alcuin and Rabanus broadly represent at once the\nintellectual interests of the period and the first stage in the process of\nthe mediaeval appropriation of the patristic and antique material. The\naffectionate and sympathetic personality of the former[247] appears\nthroughout his voluminous correspondence with Charles and others, which\nshows, among other matters, the interest of the time in elementary points\nof Latinity, and the alertness of the mind of the great king, who put so\nmany questions to his genial instructor upon grammar, astronomy, and such\nlike knowledge. An examination of the works of Alcuin will indicate the\nrange and character of the educational and more usual intellectual\ninterests of the epoch. In fact, they are outlined in a simple fashion\nsuited to youthful minds in his treatise upon Grammar.[248] Its opening\ncolloquy presents a sort of programme and justification of elementary\nsecular studies.\n\n\u201cWe have heard you saying,\u201d begins Discipulus, \u201cthat philosophy is the\nteacher (_magistra_) of all virtues, and that she alone of secular riches\nhas never left the possessor miserable. Lend a hand, good Master,\u201d--and\nthe pupil becomes self-deprecatory. \u201cFlint has fire within, which comes\nout only when struck; so the light of knowledge exists by nature in human\nminds, but a teacher is needed to knock it out.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is easy,\u201d responds the Master, \u201cto show you wisdom\u2019s path, if only you\nwill pursue it for the sake of God, for the sake of the soul\u2019s purity and\nto learn the truth, and also for its own sake, and not for human praise\nand honour.\u201d\n\nWe confess, answers little Discipulus, that we love happiness, but know\nnot whether it can exist in this world. And the dialogue rambles on in\ndiscursive comment upon the superiority of the lasting over the\ntransitory, with some feeble echoing of notes from Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s _De\nconsolatione_. There is talk to show that man, a rational animal, the\nimage of his Creator, and immortal in his better part, should seek what is\ntruly of himself, and not what is alien, the abiding and not the fugitive.\nIn fine, one should adorn the soul, which is eternal, with wisdom, the\nsoul\u2019s true lasting dignity. There is some coy demurring over the\nsteepness of the way; but the pupil is ardent, and the Master confident\nthat with the aid of Divine Grace they will ascend the seven grades of\nphilosophy, by which philosophers have gained honour brighter than that of\nkings, and the holy doctors and defenders of our Catholic Faith have\ntriumphed over all heresiarchs. \u201cThrough these paths, dearest son, let\nyour youth run its daily course, until its completed years and\nstrengthened mind shall attain to the heights of the Holy Scriptures upon\nwhich you and your like shall become armed defenders of the Faith and\ninvincible assertors of its truth.\u201d This means, of course, that the\nLiberal Arts are the proper preparation for the study of Scripture, that\nis, theology. But Alcuin\u2019s discourse seems to tarry with those studies as\nif detained by some love of them for their own sake.\n\nThe body of this treatise is in form a disputation between two youthful\npupils, a Frank and a Saxon. A _Magister_ makes a third interlocutor, and\nsets the subject of the argument. These _personae_ discuss letters and\nsyllables in definitions taken from Donatus, Priscian, or Isidore; and\nwhenever Alcuin permits any one of them to stray from the words of those\nauthorities, the language shows at once his own confused ideas regarding\nthe parts of speech. He uses terms without adequately comprehending them,\nand thus affords one of the myriad examples of how, under decadent or\nbarbarized conditions, phrases may outlive an intelligent understanding of\ntheir meaning. \u201cGrammar,\u201d says the _Magister_, when solicited to define\nit, \u201cis the science of letters, and the guardian of correct speech and\nwriting. It rests on nature, reason, authority, and custom.\u201d \u201cIn how many\nspecies is it divided?\u201d \u201cIn twenty-six: words, letters, syllables,\nclauses, dictions, speeches, definitions, feet, accent, punctuation,\nsigns, spelling, analogies, etymologies, glosses, differences, barbarism,\nsolecism, faults, metaplasm, schemata, tropes, prose, metre, fables and\nhistories.\u201d[249] The actual treatise does not cover these twenty-six\ntopics, but confines itself to the division of grammar commonly called\nEtymology.\n\nThough the mental processes of an individual preserve a working harmony,\nsome of them appear more rational than others. Such disparities may be\nglaring in men who enter upon the learning of a higher civilization\nwithout proper pilotage. How are they to discriminate between the valuable\nand the foolish? The common sense, which they apply to familiar matters,\ncontrasts with their childlike lucubrations upon novel topics of education\nor philosophy. And if that higher culture to which such pupils are\nintroduced be in part decadent, it will itself contain disparities between\nthe stronger thinking held in the surviving writings of a prior time and\nthe later degeneracies which are declining to the level, it may be, of\nthese new learners.\n\nThere would naturally be disparities in the mental processes of an\nAnglo-Saxon like Alcuin introduced to the debris of Latin education and\nthe writings of the Fathers; and his state would typify the character of\nthe studies at the palace school of Charlemagne and at monastic schools\nthrough his northern realm. This newly stimulated scholarship held the\nsame disparities that appear in the writings of Alcuin. He may seem to be\nadapting his teaching to barbaric needs, but it is evident that his matter\naccords with his own intellectual tastes, as, for example, when he\nintroduces into his educational writings the habit of riddling in\nmetaphors, so dear to the Anglo-Saxon.[250] The sound but very elementary\nportions of his teaching were needed by the ignorance of his scholars. For\ninstance, no information regarding Latin orthography could come amiss in\nthe eighth century. And Alcuin in his treatise on that subject[251] took\nmany words commonly misspelled and contrasted them with those which\nsounded like them, but were quite different in meaning and derivation. One\nshould not, for example, confuse _habeo_ with _abeo_; or _bibo_ and\n_vivo_. Such warnings were valuable. The use of the vulgar Romance-forms\nof Latin spoken through a large part of Charles\u2019s dominions implied no\nknowledge of correct Latinity. Even among the clergy, there was almost\nuniversal ignorance of Latin orthography and grammar.\n\nAs a companion to his _Grammar_ and _Orthography_, Alcuin composed a _De\nrhetorica et virtutibus_,[252] in the form of a dialogue between Charles\nand himself. The king desired such instruction to equip him for the civil\ndisputes (_civiles quaestiones_) which were brought before him from all\nparts of his realm. And Alcuin proceeded to furnish him with a compend of\nthe _scientia bene dicendi_, which is Rhetoric. This crude epitome was\nbased chiefly on Cicero\u2019s _De inventione_, but indicates a use of other of\nhis oratorical writings, and has bits here and there which apparently have\nfiltered through from the _Rhetoric_ of Aristotle. Some illustrations are\ntaken from Scripture. The work is most successful in showing the\ndifference between Cicero and Alcuin. The genius, the spirit, the art of\nthe great orator\u2019s treatises are lost; a naked skeleton of statement\nremains. We have words, terms, definitions, even rules; and Alcuin is not\nconscious that beyond them there is the living spirit of discourse.\n\nA more complete descent from substance to a clatter of words and\ndefinitions is exhibited by Alcuin\u2019s _De dialectica_.[253] In logical\nstudies _facilis descensus_! Others had illustrated this before him. His\ntreatise is again a dialogue, with Charlemagne for questioner. Opening\nwith the stock definitions and divisions of philosophy, it arrives at\nlogic, which is composed (as Isidore and Cassiodorus said) of dialectic\nand rhetoric, \u201cthe shut and open fist,\u201d a simile which had come down from\nVarro. Says Charles: \u201cWhat are the _species_ of dialectic?\u201d Answers\nAlcuin: \u201cFive principal ones: Isagogae, categories, forms of syllogisms\nand definitions, topics, periermeniae.\u201d What a classification!\nIntroductions, categories, syllogisms, topics, _De interpretatione_-s! It\nis not a classification but in reality an enumeration of the treatises\nwhich had served as sources for those men from whom Alcuin drew! Evidently\nthis excerpter is not really thinking in the terms and categories of his\nsubject. His work shows no intelligence beyond Isidore\u2019s, from whose\n_Etymologies_ it is largely taken. And the genius of our author for\nmetaphysics may be perceived from the definition which he offers Charles\nof substance--_substantia_ or _usia_ (_i.e._ \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1): it is that which is\ndiscerned by corporeal sense; while _accidens_ is that which changes\nfrequently and is apprehended by the mind. _Substantia_ is the underlying,\nthe _subjacens_, in which the _accidentia_ are said to be.[254] One\nobserves the crassness and inconsistency of these statements.\n\nThere are illustrations of the knowledge and methods shown in the\neducational writings of the man who, next to Charles himself, was the\nguiding spirit of the intellectual revival. No mention has been made of\nthose of his works that were representative of the chief intellectual\nlabour of the period--that of exploiting the Patristic material. Here\nAlcuin contributed a compend of Augustine\u2019s doctrines on the Trinity,[255]\nand a book on the Vices and Virtues, drawn chiefly from Augustine\u2019s\nsermons.[256] Like most of his learned contemporaries, he also compiled\nCommentaries upon Scripture, the method of which is prettily told in a\nprefatory epistle placed by him before his Commentary on the Gospel of\nJohn, and addressed to two pious women:\n\n    \u201cDevoutly searching the pantries of the holy Fathers, I let you taste\n    whatever I have been able to find in them. Nor did I deem it fitting\n    to cull the blossoms from any meadow of my own, but with humble heart\n    and head bowed low, to search through the flowering fields of many\n    Fathers, and thus safely satisfy your pious pleasure. First of all I\n    seek the suffrage of Saint Augustine, who laboured with such zeal upon\n    this Gospel; then I draw something from the tracts of the most holy\n    doctor Saint Ambrose; nor have I neglected the homilies of Father\n    Gregory the pope, or those of the blessed Bede, nor, in fact, the\n    works of others of the holy Fathers. I have cited their\n    interpretations, as I found them, preferring to use their meanings and\n    their words, than trust to my own presumption.\u201d[257]\n\nIn the next generation, a most industrious compiler of such Commentaries\nwas Alcuin\u2019s pupil, Rabanus Maurus.[258] More deeply learned than his\nmaster, his conception of the purposes of study has not changed\nessentially. Like Alcuin, he sets forth a proper intellectual programme\nfor the instruction of the clergy: \u201cThe foundation, the state, and the\nperfection, of wisdom is knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.\u201d The Seven Arts\nare the ancillary _disciplinae_; the first three constitute that\ngrammatical, rhetorical, and logical training which is needed for an\nunderstanding of the holy texts and their interpretation. Likewise\narithmetic and the rest of the quadrivium have place in the cleric\u2019s\neducation. A knowledge of pagan philosophy need not be avoided: \u201cThe\nphilosophers, especially the Platonists, if perchance they have spoken\ntruths accordant with our faith, are not to be shunned, but their truths\nappropriated, as from unjust possessors.\u201d[259] And Rabanus continues with\nthe never-failing metaphor of Moses despoiling the Egyptians.\n\nRaban, however, had somewhat larger thoughts of education than his master.\nFor example, he takes a broader view of grammar, which he regards as the\n_scientia_ of interpreting the poets and historians, and the _ratio_ of\ncorrect speech and writing.[260] Likewise he treats _Dialectica_ more\nseriously. With him it is the \u201c_disciplina_ of rational investigation, of\ndefining and discussing, and distinguishing the true from the false. It is\ntherefore the _disciplina disciplinarum_. It teaches how to teach and how\nto learn; in this same study, reason itself demonstrates what it is and\nwhat it wills. This art alone knows how to know, and is willing and able\nto make knowers. Reasoning in it, we learn what we are, and whence, and\nalso to know Creator and creature; through it we trace truth and detect\nfalsity, we argue and discover what is consequent and what inconsequent,\nwhat is contrary to the nature of things, what is true, what is probable,\nand what is intrinsically false in disputations. Wherefore the clergy\nought to know this noble art, and have its laws in constant meditation, so\nthat subtly they may discern the wiles of heretics, and confute their\npoisoned sayings with the conclusions of the syllogism.\u201d[261]\n\nThis somewhat extravagant but not novel view of logic\u2019s function was\nprophetic of the coming scholastic reliance upon it as the means and\ninstrument of truth. Rabanus had no hesitancy in commending this edged\ntool to his pupils. But the operations of his mind were predominantly\nCarolingian, which is to say that ninety-nine per cent of the contents of\nhis _opera_ consist of material extracted from prior writers. His\nCommentaries upon Scripture outbulk all his other works taken together,\nand are compiled in this manner. So is his encyclopaedic compilation, _De\nuniverso libri XXII._,[262] two books more than those of Isidore\u2019s\n_Etymologies_, from which he chiefly drew; but he changed the arrangement,\nand devoted a larger part of his parchment to religious topics; and he\nadded further matter gleaned from the Church Fathers, from whom he had\ndrawn his Commentaries. This further matter consisted of the mystical\ninterpretations of things, which he subjoined to their \u201cnatural\u201d\nexplanations. He says, in his Praefatio, addressed to King Louis:\n\n    \u201cMuch is set forth in this work concerning the natures of things and\n    the meanings of words, and also as to the mystical signification of\n    things. Accordingly I have arranged my matter so that the reader may\n    find the historical and mystical explanations of each thing set\n    together--_continuatim positam_; and may be able to satisfy his desire\n    to know both significations.\u201d\n\nThese allegorical elaborations accorded with the habits of this compiler\nof allegorical comment upon Scripture.[263]\n\nRabanus was a full Teutonic personality, a massive scholar for his time,\nuntiring in labour and intrinsically honest. Except when involved in the\nfoolishness of the mystic qualities of numbers, or following the\nwill-o\u2019-wisps of allegory, he evinces much sound wisdom. He abhors the\npretence of teaching what one has not first diligently learned; and his\ngood sense is shown in his admonition to teachers to use words which their\npupils or audience will understand. His views upon profane knowledge were\nliberal: one should use the treasured experience and accumulated wisdom of\nthe ancients, for that is still the mainstay of human society; but one\nshould shun their vain as well as pernicious idolatries and\nsuperstitions.[264] Let us by all means preserve their sound educational\nlearning and the elements of their philosophy which accord with the\nverities of Christian doctrine. Raban also realized the sublimity of the\nstudy of Astronomy, which he deemed \u201ca worthy argument for the religious\nand a torment for the curious. If pursued with chaste and sober mind, it\nfloods our thoughts with immense love. How admirable to mount the heavens\nin spirit, and with inquiring reason consider that whole celestial fabric,\nand from every side gather in the mind\u2019s reflective heights what those\nvast recesses veil.\u201d[265] He then rebukes the folly of those who vainly\nwould draw auguries from the stars.[266]\n\nRaban\u2019s mental activities were commonly constrained by the need felt by\nhim and his pious contemporaries to master the works of the Latin Fathers.\nPerhaps more than any other one man (though here his pupil Walafrid Strabo\nmade a skilful second) he contributed to what necessarily was the first\nstage in this mediaeval achievement of appropriating patristic\nChristianity, to wit, the preliminary task of rearranging the doctrinal\nexpositions of the Fathers conveniently, and for the most part in\nCommentaries following verse and chapter of the canonical books of\nScripture. But, like many of his contemporaries, Raban, when compelled by\ncontroversial exigencies, would think for himself if the situation could\nnot be met with matter taken from a Father. Accordingly, individual and\npersonal views are vigorously put in some of his writings, as in his\n_Liber de oblatione puerorum_,[267] directed against the attempt of the\ninteresting Saxon, Gottschalk, to free himself from the vows made by those\nwho dedicated him in boyhood as an _oblatus_ at the monastery of Fulda, of\nwhich Raban was abbot. Raban\u2019s tract maintained that the monastic vows\nmade upon such dedication of children could not be broken by the latter on\nreaching years of discretion.\n\nThis same Gottschalk was the centre of the storm, which he indeed blew up,\nover Predestination; and again Raban was his fierce opponent. This\ncontroversy, with that relating to the Eucharist, will serve to illustrate\nthe doctrinal interests of the time, and also to exemplify the\nquasi-originality of its controversial productions.\n\nOf course Predestination and the Eucharist had been exhaustively discussed\nby the Latin Fathers. No man of the ninth century could really add\nanything to the arguments touching the former set forth in the works of\nAugustine and his Pelagian adversaries. And the substance of the\ndiscussion as to the eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ had permeated\ncountless tomes, both Greek and Latin, from the time of Irenaeus, Bishop\nof Lyons (d. 202); and yet neither as to the impossible topic of\nPredestination, nor as to the distinctly Christian mystery of the\nEucharist, had the Latin Church authoritatively and finally fixed doctrine\nin dogma or put together the arguments. The ninth century with its lack of\nelastic thinking, and its greater need of tangible authority, was\ncompelled by its mental limitations to attempt in each of these matters to\ndrag a definite conclusion from out of its entourage of argument, and\nstrip it of its decently veiling obscurities. Thereupon, and with its\njustifying and balanced foundation of reasons and considerations knocked\nfrom under, the conclusion had to sustain itself in mid air, just at the\nlevel of the common eye.\n\nSuch, obviously, was the result of the Eucharistic or Paschal controversy.\nThe symbol, all indecision brushed away, hardened into the tangible\nmiraculous reality. Radbertus, Abbot of Corbie, who was so rightly named\nPaschasius, was the chief agent in the process. His method of procedure,\njust as the result which he obtained, was what the time required. The\nmethod was almost a bit of creation in itself: he put the matter in a\nseparate monograph, _De corpore et sanguine Domini_,[268] the first work\nexclusively devoted to the subject. This was needed as a matter of\narrangement and presentation. Men could not endure to look here and\nthither among many books on many subjects, for arguments one way and the\nother. That was too distraught. There was call for a compendium, a manual\nof the matter; and in providing it Paschasius was a master mechanic for\nhis time. Inevitably the discussion and the conclusion took on a new\ndefiniteness. It is impossible to glean and gather arguments and matter\nfrom all sides, and bring them together into a single composition, without\nmaking the thesis more organic, tangible, definite. Thus Paschasius\npresented the scattered, wavering discussion--the victorious side of\nit--as a clear dogma reached at last. And whatever qualification of\ncounter-doctrine there was in his grouped arguments, there was none in the\nconclusion; and the definite conclusion was what men wanted.\n\nAnd practically for the whole western Church, clergy and laity, the\nconclusion was but one, and accorded with what was already the current\nacceptance of the matter. Radbert\u2019s arguments embraced the spiritual\nrealism of Augustine, according to which the ultra reality of the\neucharistic elements consisted in the _virtus sacramenti_, that is in\ntheir miraculous and real, but invisible, transformation into the\nveritable substance of Christ\u2019s veritable body. This took place through\npriestly consecration, and existed only for believers. For the brute to\neat the elements was nothing more than to consume other similar natural\nsubstances. For the misbeliever it was not so simple. He indeed ate not\nChrist\u2019s body, but his own _judicium_, his own deeper damnation. Here lay\nthe terror, which made more anxious, more poignant, the believer\u2019s hope,\nthat he was faithful and humbled, and was eating the veritable Christ-body\nto his sure salvation. For the Eucharist could not fail, though the\npartaker might.\n\nOut of all of this emerged the one clear thing, the point, the practical\nconclusion, which was transubstantiation, though the word was not yet\nmade. Here it is in Paschasius; says he: \u201cThat body and blood veritably\ncome into existence (_fiat_) by the consecration of the Mystery, no one\ndoubts who believes the divine words; hence Truth says, \u2018For my flesh\nverily is food, and my blood verily is drink\u2019 (John vi. 55). And that it\nshould be clearer to the disciples who did not rightly understand of what\nflesh He spoke, or of what blood, He added, to make this plain, \u2018Whoso\neateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him\u2019\n(_ibid._ 56). Therefore, if it is veritably food, it is veritable flesh;\nand if it is veritably drink, it also is veritable blood. Otherwise how\ncould He have said, \u2018The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life\nof the world\u2019 (_ibid._ 52)?\u201d\n\nCould anything be more positive and simplified? At first sight it is a\nmarvel how Paschasius, even though treading in the steps of so many who\nhad gone before, could give a literal interpretation to words which\nChrist seems to have used as figuratively as when He said, \u201cI am the vine,\nye are the branches.\u201d A marvel indeed, when we think that Paschasius and\nall of his generation, as well as those who went before, had abandoned\nthemselves to the most wonderful and far-fetched allegorical\ninterpretations of every historical and literal statement in the\nScriptures. And this same Paschasius, and all the rest too, do not\nhesitate to interpret and explain by allegory the significance of every\naccompanying act and circumstance of the mass. This might seem the climax\nof the marvel, but it is a step toward explaining it. For the literal\ninterpretation of the phrases which Paschasius quotes was followed for the\nsake of the more absolute miracle, the deeper mystery, the fuller\nflorescence of encompassing allegorical meaning. Only thus could be\nbrought about the transformation of the palpable symbol into the\nmiraculous reality; and only _then_ could that bread and wine be what\nCyril of Alexandria and others, five hundred years before Paschasius, had\ncalled it: \u201cthe drug of immortality.\u201d Only through the miraculous and real\nidentity of the elements of the Eucharist with the body and blood of\nChrist could they save the souls of the partakers.\n\nIn partial disagreement with these hard and fast conclusions, Ratramnus,\nalso of Corbie,[269] and others might still try to veil the matter, with\nutterances capable of more equivocal meaning; might try to make it all\nmore dim, and therefore more possibly reasonable. That was not what the\nCarolingian time, or the centuries to come, wanted; but rather the\ndefinite tangible statement, which they could grasp as readily as they\ncould see and touch the elements before their eyes. In disenveloping the\nquestion and conclusion from every wavering consideration and veiling\nambiguity, the Carolingian period was creative in this Paschal\ncontroversy. New propositions were not devised; but the old, such of them\nas fitted, were put together and given the unity and force of a\nprojectile.\n\nIt was the same and yet different with the Predestination strife.\nGottschalk, who raised the storm, stated doctrines of Augustine. But he\nset them out naked and alone, with nothing else as counterpoise, as\nAugustine had not done. Thus to draw a single doctrine out from the\ntotality of a man\u2019s work and the demonstrative suggestiveness of all the\nrest of his teachings, whether that man be Paul or Augustine, is to\npresent it so as to make it something else. For thereby it is left naked\nand alone, and unadjusted with the connected and mitigating considerations\nyielded by the rest of the man\u2019s opinions. Such a procedure is a garbling,\nat least in spirit. It is almost like quoting the first half of a sentence\nand leaving off everything following the author\u2019s \u201cbut\u201d in the middle of\nit.\n\nAt all events the hard and fast, complete and twin (_gemina_), divine\npredestination, unto hell as well as heaven, was too unmitigated for the\nCarolingian Church. This doctrine, and his own intractible temper, immured\nthe unhappy announcer of it in a monastic dungeon till he died. It was\nmonstrous, as monstrous as transubstantiation, for example! But\ntransubstantiation saved; and while the Church could stand the doctrine of\nthe election of the Elect to salvation, it revolted from the\ncounter-inference, of the election of the damned to hell, which\ncontradicted too drastically the sweet and lovely teaching that Christ\ndied for all. The theologians of one and more generations were drawn into\nthe strife, which was to have a less definitive result than the Paschal\ncontroversy. Even to-day the adjustment of human free-will with omnipotent\nforeknowledge has not been made quite clear.[270]\n\nThere was one man who was drawn into the Predestination strife, although\nfor him it lacked cardinal import. For the Neo-Platonic principles of John\nScotus Eriugena scarcely permitted him to see in evil more than\nnon-existence, and led him to trace all phases of reality downward from\nthe primal Source. His intellectual attitude, interests, and faculties\nwere exceptional, and yet nevertheless partook of the characteristics of\nhis time, out of which not even an Eriugena could lift himself. He was an\nIrishman, who came to the Court of Charles the Bald on invitation, and\nfor many years, until his orthodoxy became too suspect, was the head of\nthe palace school. He may have died about the year 877.\n\nEriugena was in the first place a man of learning, widely read in the\nworks of the Greek Fathers. From the _Celestial Hierarchy_ of\nPseudo-Dionysius and other sources, he had absorbed huge draughts of\nNeo-Platonism. One must not think of him always as an original thinker. A\nlarge part of his literary labours correspond with those of\ncontemporaries. He was a translator of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, for\nhe knew Greek. Then he composed or compiled Commentaries upon those\nwritings. He cared supremely for the fruits of those faculties with which\nhe was pre-eminently endowed. He, the man of acquisitive powers, loved\nlearning; and he, the man with a faculty of constructive reason, loved\nrational truth and the labour of its systematic and syllogistic\npresentation. He ascribed primal validity to what was true by force of\nlogic, and in his soul set reason above authority. Certain of his\ncontemporaries, with a discernment springing from repugnance, perceived\nhis self-reliant intellectual mood. The same ground underlay their\ndetestation, which centuries after underlay St. Bernard\u2019s, for Abaelard.\nThat Abaelard should deem himself to be something! here was the root of\nthe saint\u2019s abhorrence. And, similarly, good Deacon Florus of Lyons wrote\na vituperative polemic quite as much against the man Eriugena as against\nhis detestable views of Predestination. Eriugena, forsooth, would be\ndisputing with human argument, which he draws from philosophy, and for\nwhich he would be accountable to none. He proffers no authority from the\nFathers, \u201cas if daring to define with his own presumption what should be\nheld and followed.\u201d[271] Such was not the way that Carolingian Churchmen\nliked to argue, but rather with attested sentences from Augustine or\nGregory. Manifestly Eriugena was not one of them.\n\nHad his works been earlier understood, they would have been earlier\ncondemned. But people did not realize what sort of Neo-Platonic,\npantheistic and emanational, principles this Irishman from over the sea\nwas setting forth. St. Denis, the great saint who was becoming St. Denis\nof France, had been authoritatively (and most preposterously) identified\nwith Dionysius the Areopagite who heard Paul preach, and, according to the\ngrowing legend, won a martyr\u2019s crown not far from Paris. This was set\nforth in his Life by Abbot Hilduin;[272] this was confirmed by Hincmar,\nthe great Archbishop of Rheims, who said, closing his discussion of the\nmatter: \u201cveritas saepius agitata magis splendescit in lucem!\u201d[273]\nEriugena seemed to be a translator of his holy writings, and might be\nregarded as a setter forth of his exceptionally resplendent truths. He\ncould use the Fathers\u2019 language too. So in his book on Predestination he\nquotes Augustine as saying, Philosophy, which is the study of wisdom, is\nnot other than religion.[274] But he was not going to keep meaning what\nAugustine meant. He slowly extends his talons in the following sentences\nwhich do _not_ stand at the _beginning_ of his great work _De divisione\nnaturae_.\n\nSays the Magister, for the work is in dialogue form: \u201cYou are aware, I\nsuppose, that what is prior by nature is of greater dignity than what is\nprior in time.\u201d\n\nAnswers Discipulus: \u201cThis is known to almost all.\u201d\n\nContinues Magister: \u201cWe learn that reason is prior by nature, but\nauthority prior in time. For although nature was created at the same\nmoment with time, authority did not begin with the beginning of time and\nnature. But reason sprang with nature and time from the beginning of\nthings.\u201d\n\nDiscipulus clenches the matter: \u201cReason itself teaches this. Authority\nsometimes proceeds from reason; but reason never from authority. For all\nauthority which is not approved by true reason seems weak. But true\nreason, since it is stablished in its own strength, needs to be\nstrengthened by the assent of no authority.\u201d[275]\n\nNo doubt of the talons here! Reason superior to authority--is it not also\nprior to faith? Eriugena does not press that reversal of the Christian\nposition. But his _De divisione naturae_ was a reasoned construction,\nalthough of course the materials were not his own. It was no loosely\ncompiled encyclopaedia, such as Isidore or Bede or Rabanus would have\npresented under such a title. It did not describe every object in nature\nknown to the writer; but it discussed Nature metaphysically, and presented\nits lengthy exposition as a long argument in linked syllogistic form. Yet\nit respected its borrowed materials, and preserved their\ncharacteristics--with the exception of Scripture, which Eriugena\nrecognized as supreme authority! That he interpreted figuratively of\ncourse; so had every one else done. But he differed from other\ncommentators and from the Church Fathers, in degree if not in kind. For\nhis interpretation was a systematic moulding of Scriptural phrase to suit\nhis system. He transformed the meaning with as clear a purpose as once\nPhilo of Alexandria had done. The pre-Christian Jew changed the\nPentateuch--holding fast, of course, to its authority!--into a Platonic\nphilosophy; and so, likewise by figurative interpretations, Eriugena\nturned Scripture into a semi-Christianized Neo-Platonic scheme.[276] The\nlogical nature of the man was strong within him, so strong, indeed, that\nin its working it could not but present all topics as component parts of a\nsyllogistic and systematized philosophy.[277] If he borrowed his\nmaterials, he also made them his own with power. He appears as the one man\nof his time that really could build with the material received from the\npast.\n\nEven beyond the range of such acute theological polemics as we have been\nconsidering, the pressing exigencies of political or ecclesiastical\ncontroversy might cause a capable man to think for himself even in the\nninth century. Such a man was Claudius, Bishop of Turin, the foe of image\nand relic-worship, and of other superstitions too crass for one who was a\nfollower of Augustine.[278] And another such a one even more palpably was\nAgobard, Archbishop of Lyons (d. 840), a brave and energetic man,\nclear-seeing and enlightened, and incessantly occupied with questions of\nliving interest, to which his nature responded more quickly than to\ntheologic lore. Absorbed in the affairs of his diocese, of the Church at\nlarge, and of the Empire, he expresses views which he has made his own.\nPractical issues, operating upon his mind, evoked a personal originality\nof treatment. His writings are clear illustrations of the originality\nwhich actual issues aroused in the Carolingian epoch. They were directed\nagainst common superstitions and degraded religious opinion, or against\nthe Jews whose aggressive prosperity in the south of France disturbed him;\nor they were political. In fine, they were the fruit of the living issue.\nFor example, his so often-cited pamphlet, \u201cAgainst the silly opinion of\nthe crowd as to hail and thunder,\u201d[279] was doubtless called forth by the\nintolerable conditions stated in the first sentence:\n\n    \u201cIn these parts almost all men, noble and common, city folk and\n    country folk, old and young, think that hail storms and thunder can be\n    brought about at the pleasure of men. People say when they hear\n    thunder and see lightning \u2018_Aura levatitia est_.\u2019 When asked what\n    _aura levatitia_ may be, some are ashamed or conscience-stricken,\n    while others, with the boldness of ignorance, assert that the air is\n    raised (_levata_) by the incantations of men called Tempestarii, and\n    so is called \u2018raised air.\u2019\u201d\n\nAgobard does not marshal physical explanations against this folly, but\ntexts of Scripture showing that God alone can raise and lay the storms.\nPerhaps he thought such texts the best arguments for those who needed any.\nThe manner of the writing is reasonable, and the reader perceives that the\nclear-headed archbishop, apart from his Scriptural arguments, deemed these\nnotions ridiculous, as well as harmful.[280]\n\nIn like spirit Agobard argued against trials by combat and ordeal.\nUndoubtedly, God might thus announce His righteous judgment, but one\nshould not expect to elicit it in modes so opposed to justice and\nScripture; again, he cites many texts while also considering the matter\nrationally.[281] On the other hand, his book against image-worship is made\nup of extracts from Augustine and other Church authorities. There was no\ncall for originality here, when the subject seemed to have been so\nexhaustively and authoritatively treated.[282]\n\nOne cannot follow Agobard so comfortably in his rancorous tracts against\nthe Jews. Doubtless this subject also presented itself to him as an\nexigency requiring handling, and he was just in his contention that\nheathen slaves belonging to Jews might be converted and baptized, and then\nshould not be given back to their former masters, but a money equivalent\nbe made instead. The question was important from its frequency. Yet one\nwould be loath to approve his arguments, unoriginal as they are. He gives\ncurrency to the common slanders against the Jews, and then at great length\ncites passages from the Church Fathers, to show in what detestation they\nheld that people. Then he sets forth the abominable opinions of the hated\nrace, and ransacks Scripture to prove that the Jews are therein\nauthoritatively and incontestably condemned.[283]\n\nThe years of Agobard\u2019s maturity belong to the troubled time which came\nwith the accession of the incompetent Louis, in 814, to the throne of his\nfather Charlemagne. In the contentions and wars that followed, Agobard\nproved himself an apt political partisan and writer. His political tracts,\nnotwithstanding their constant citation of Scripture, are his own, and\nevince an originality evoked by the situation which they were written to\ninfluence.\n\nSomething of the originality which the pressing political exigency\nimparted to these tracts of Agobard might be transmitted to such history\nas was occupied with contemporary events. As long as the historian was a\nmere excerpting chronicler extracting his dry summaries from the writings\nof former men, his work would not rouse him to independence of conception\nor presentation. That would have come with criticism upon the old\nauthorities. But criticism had scarcely begun to murmur among the\nCarolingians, too absorbed with the task of grasping their inherited\nmaterial to weigh it, and too overawed by the authority of the past to\nquestion the truth of its transmitted statements. Excerpts, however, could\nnot be made to tell the stirring events of the period in which the\nCarolingian historian lived. He would have to set forth his own perception\nand understanding of them, and in manner and language which to a less or\ngreater extent were his own: to a less extent with those feebly beginning\nAnnals, or Year-books, which set down the occurrences of cloister life or\nthe larger happenings of which the report penetrated from the outer\nworld;[284] to a greater extent, however, with a more veritable history of\nsome topic of living and coherent interest. In the latter case the writer\nmust present his conception of events, and therewith something of\nhimself.[285]\n\nAn example of this necessitated originality in the writing of contemporary\nhistory is the work of Count Nithard. He was the son of Charlemagne\u2019s\ndaughter Bertha and of Angilbert, the emperor\u2019s counsellor and lifelong\nfriend. His parents were not man and wife, because Charles would not let\nhis daughters marry, from reasons of policy; but the relationship between\nthem was open, and apparently approved by the lady\u2019s sire. Angilbert\nstudied in the palace school with Charlemagne, and became himself a writer\nof Latin verse. He was often his sovereign\u2019s ambassador, and continued\nactive in affairs until his closing years, when he became the lay-abbot of\na rich monastery in Picardy, and received his emperor and virtual\nfather-in-law as his guest. He died the same year with Charles.\n\nLike his father, Nithard was educated at the palace school, perhaps with\nhis cousin who was to become Charles the Bald. His loyalty continued\nstaunch to that king, whose tried confidant he became. He was a\ndiplomatist and a military leader in the wars following the death of Louis\nthe Pious; and he felt impelled to present from his side the story of the\nstrife among the sons of Louis, in \u201cfour books of histories\u201d as they grew\nto be.[286] Involved with his king in that same hurricane (_eodem\nturbine_) he describes those stormy times which they were fighting out\ntogether even while he was writing. This man of action could not but\npresent himself, his views, his temperament, in narrating the events he\nmoved in. Throughout, one perceives the pen of the participant, in this\ncase an honest partisan of his king, and the enemy of those whose conduct\nhad given the divided realm over to rapine. So the vigorous narrative of\nthis noble Frank partakes of the originality which inheres in the writings\nof men of action when their literary faculty is sufficient to enable them\nto put themselves into their compositions.\n\nEngaged, as we have been, with the intellectual or scholarly interests of\nthe Carolingian period, we should not forget how slender in numbers were\nthe men who promoted them, and how few were the places where they throve.\nThere was the central group of open-minded laymen and Churchmen about the\npalace school, or following the Court in its journeyings, which were far\nand swift. Then there were monastic or episcopal centres of education as\nat Tours, or Rheims, or Fulda. The scholars carried from the schools their\nprecious modicum of knowledge, and passed on through life as educated men\nliving in the world, or dwelt as learned compilers, reading in the\ncloister. But scant were the rays of their enlightening influence amidst\nthat period\u2019s vast encompassing ignorance.\n\nTo have classified the Carolingian intellectual interests according to\ntopics would have been misleading, since that would have introduced a\nfictitious element of individual preference and aptitude, as if the\nCarolingian scholar of his spontaneous volition occupied himself with\nmathematical studies rather than grammar, or with astronomy rather than\ntheology. In general, all was a matter of reading and learning from such\nbooks as Isidore\u2019s _Origines_, which handled all topics indiscriminately,\nor from Bede, or from the works of Augustine or Gregory, in which every\ntopic did but form part of the encyclopaedic presentation of the\nrelationship between the soul and God, and the soul\u2019s way to salvation.\n\nWhat then did these men care for? Naturally, first of all, for the\nelements of their primary education, their studies in the Seven Arts. They\ndid what they might with Grammar and Rhetoric, and with Dialectic, which\nsometimes was Rhetoric and formal Logic joined. Logic, for those who\nstudied it seriously, was beginning to form an important mental\ndiscipline. The four branches of the quadrivium were pursued more\ncasually. Knowledge of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy (one may\nthrow in medicine as a fifth) was as it might be in the individual\ninstance--always rudimentary, and usually rather less than more.\n\nAll of this, however, and it was not very much, was but the preparation,\nif the man was to be earnest in his pursuit of wisdom. Wisdom lay chiefly\nin Theology, to wit, the whole saving contents of Scripture as understood\nand interpreted by Gregory and Augustine. There was little mortal\nknowledge which this range of Scriptural interpretation might not include.\nIt compassed such knowledge of the physical world as would enable one to\nunderstand the work of Creation set forth in Genesis; it embraced all that\ncould be known of man, of his physical nature, and assuredly of his\nspiritual part. Here Christian truth might call on the better pagan\nphilosophy for illustration and rational corroboration, so far as that did\ncorroborate. When it did not, it was pernicious falsity.\n\nSo Christian piety viewed the matter. But the pious commonly have their\ntemporal fancies, sweet as stolen fruit. These Carolingian scholars, the\nman in orders and the man without, studied the Latin poets, historians,\nand orators. And in their imaginative or poetic moods, as they followed\nclassic metre, so they reproduced classic phrase and sentiment in their\nverses. The men who made such--it might be Alcuin, or Theodulphus, or\nWalafrid Strabo--chose what they would as the subject of their poems; but\nthe presentation took form and phrase from Virgil and other old poets. The\nantique influence so strong in the Carolingian period, included much more\nthan matters of elegant culture, like poetry and art, or even rhetoric and\ngrammar. It held the accumulated experience in law and institution, which\nstill made part of the basis of civic life. Rabanus Maurus recognized it\nthus broadly. And, thus largely taken, the antique survives in the\nCarolingian time as a co-ordinate dominant, with Latin Christianity.\nNeither, as yet, was affected by the solvent processes of transmutation\ninto new human faculty and power. None the less, this same antique\nsurvival was destined to pass into modes and forms belonging quite as much\nto the Middle Ages as to antiquity; and, thus recast, it was to become a\nbroadening and informing element in the mediaeval personality.\n\nLikewise with the patristic Christianity which had been transmitted to the\nCarolingian time, to be then and there not only conned and studied, but\nalso rearranged by these painful students, so that they and their\nsuccessors might the better comprehend it. It was not for them to change\nthe patristic forms organically, by converting them into the modes of\nmediaeval understanding of the same. These would be devised, or rather\nachieved, by later men, living in centuries when the patristic heritage of\ndoctrine, long held and cherished, had permeated the whole spiritual\nnatures of mediaeval men and women, and had been itself transmuted in what\nit had transformed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: ITALY\n\n      I. FROM CHARLEMAGNE TO HILDEBRAND.\n\n     II. THE HUMAN SITUATION.\n\n    III. THE ITALIAN CONTINUITY OF ANTIQUE CULTURE.\n\n     IV. ITALY\u2019S INTELLECTUAL PIETY: PETER DAMIANI AND ST. ANSELM.\n\n\nI\n\nThe Empire of Charlemagne could not last. Two obvious causes, among\nothers, were enough to prevent it. No single government (save when\ntemporarily energized by some extraordinary ruler) could control such\nenormous and widely separated regions, which included much of the present\nGermany and Austria, the greater part of Italy, France, and the Low\nCountries. Large portions of this Empire were almost trackless, and\nnowhere were there good roads and means of transportation. Then, as the\nsecond cause, within these diverse and ununited lands dwelt or moved many\npeoples differing from each other in blood and language, in conditions of\nlife and degrees of civilization or barbarism. No power existed that could\neither hold them in subjection or make them into proper constituents of an\nEmpire.[287]\n\nThere were other, more particular, causes of dissolution: the Frankish\ncustom of partitioning the realm brought war between Louis the Pious and\nhis sons, and then among the latter; no scion of the Carolingian house was\nequal to the situation; under the ensuing turbulence, the royal power\nweakened, and local protection, or oppression, took its place; constant\nwar exhausted the strength of the Empire, and particularly of Austrasia,\nwhile from without Norsemen, Slavs, and Saracens were attacking, invading,\nplundering everywhere. These marauders still were heathen, or obstinate\nfollowers of the Prophet; while Christianity was the bond of unity and\nempire. Charlemagne and his strong predecessors had been able thus to view\nand use the Church; but the weaker successors, beginning with Louis the\nPious, too eager for the Church\u2019s aid and condonation, found their\nsubservience as a reed that broke and pierced the hand.\n\nThese causes quickly brought about the Empire\u2019s actual dissolution. On the\nother hand, a potent conception had been revived in western Europe. Louis\nthe Pious, himself made emperor in Charlemagne\u2019s lifetime, associated his\neldest son with him as co-emperor, and made his two younger sons kings,\nhoping thus to preserve the Empire\u2019s unity. If that unity forthwith became\na name, it was a name to conjure with; and the corresponding imperial fact\nwas to be again made actual by the first Saxon Otto, a man worthy to reach\nback across the years and clasp the hand of the great Charles.\n\nThat intervening century and a half preceding the year 962 when Otto was\ncrowned emperor, carried political and social changes. To the West, in the\nold Neustrian kingdom which was to form the nucleus of mediaeval France,\nthe Carolingian line ran out in degenerates surnamed the Pious, the Bald,\nthe Stammerer, the Simple, and the Fat. The Counts of Paris, Odo, Robert,\nHugh the Great, and, finally, Hugh Capet, playing something like the old\nr\u00f4le of the palace mayors, were becoming the actual rulers, although not\ntill 987 was the last-named Hugh formally elected and anointed king.\n\nOther great houses also had arisen through the land of France, which was\nvery far from being under the power of the last Carolingians or the first\nCapetians. The year 911 saw the treaty between Norman Rollo and Charles\nthe Simple, and may be taken to symbolize the settling down of Norsemen\nfrom freebooters to denizens, with a change of faith. Rollo received the\nland between the Epte and the sea, to the borders of Brittany, along with\ntemporary privileges, granted by the same Simple Charles, of sack and\nplunder over the latter. But a generation later the valiant Count Alan of\nthe Twisted Beard drove out the plunderers, and established the feudal\nduchy long to bear the name of Brittany. Likewise, aided by the need of\nprotection against invading plunderers, feudal principalities were formed\nin Flanders, Champagne, Burgundy, Aquitaine, Languedoc.\n\nAt the time when Hugh Capet drew near his royal destiny, his brother was\nDuke of Burgundy, the Dukes of Normandy and Aquitaine were his\nbrothers-in-law, and Adalberon, Archbishop of Rheims, was his partisan. As\na king elected by his peers, his royal rights were only such as sprang\nfrom the feudal homage and fidelity which they tendered him. Yet he, with\nthe clergy, deemed that his consecration by the Church gave him the\nprerogatives of Frankish sovereigns, which were patterned on those of\nRoman emperors and Old Testament kings. It was to be the long endeavour of\nthe Capetian line to make good these higher claims against the\ncounter-assumptions of feudal vassals, who individually might be stronger\nthan the king.[288]\n\nAustrasia, the eastern Frankish kingdom, formed the centre of those\nportions of the Carolingian Empire which were to remain German. Throughout\nthese lands, as in the West, feudal disintegration was progressing. The\ngreat territorial divisions were set by differences of race or _stamm_.\nSaxons, Franks, Bavarians, Suabians, had never been one people. In the\ntenth century each of these _stamms_, with the land it dwelt in, made a\ndukedom; and there were besides marks or frontier lordships, each under\nits markgrave, upon whom lay the duty of repelling outer foes. These\ndivisions, fixed in differences of law, language, and blood, were\ndestined to prevent the formation of a strong kingdom like that of France.\n\nYet what was to prove a veritable German royalty sprang from the ducal\nSaxon house. Upon the failure of the German Carolingian branch in 911,\nConrad, Duke of Franconia, was elected king, the Saxons and Suabians\nconsenting. After struggling a few years, mainly against the power of the\nSaxon duke Henry, Conrad at his death in 918 pronounced in favour of his\nstronger rival. Thereupon Henry, called by later legend \u201cThe Fowler,\u201d\nbecame king, and having maintained his royal authority against\nrecalcitrants, and fought successfully with Hungarians and Bohemians, he\ndied in 936, naming his son Otto as his successor.\n\nThe latter\u2019s reign was to be a long and great one. He was consecrated at\nAix-la-Chapelle in Charlemagne\u2019s basilica, thus at the outset showing what\nand whom he had in mind. Then and thereafter all manner of internal\nopposition had to be suppressed. His own competing brothers were, first of\nall, to be put down; and with them the Dukes of Bavaria, Franconia, and\nLorraine, whom Otto conquered and replaced with men connected with him by\nties of blood or marriage. Far to the West he made his power felt,\nsettling affairs between Louis and Hugh the Great. Hungarians and Slavs\nattacked his realm in vain. New _marks_ were established to hold them in\ncheck, and new bishoprics were founded, fonts of missionary Christianity\nand fortresses of defence.\n\nThereupon Otto looked southward, over the Alps. To say that Italy was sick\nwith turmoil and corruption, and exposed to the attack of every foe, is to\ngive but the negative and least interesting side. She held more of\ncivilized life and of education than any northern land; she differed from\nthe north in her politics and institutions. Feudalism did not fix itself\nwidely there, although the Roman barons, who made and unmade popes,\nrepresented it; and in many regions, as later among the Normans in the\nsouth, there was to be a feudal land-holding nobility. But in Italy, it\nwas the city, whether under civic or episcopal government, or in a\ndespot\u2019s grip, that took the lead, and was to keep the life of the\npeninsula predominantly urban, as it had been in the Roman time.\n\nTenth-century Italy contained enough claimants to the royal, even the\nimperial, title. Rome reeked with faction; and the papal power was nearly\nsnuffed out. Pope followed pope, to reign or be dragged from his\nthrone--eight of them between 896 and 904. Then began at Rome the\ndomination of the notorious, but virile, Theodora and her daughter\nMarozia, makers and perhaps mistresses of popes, and leaders in feudal\nviolence. Marozia married a certain valiant Alberic, \u201cmarkgrave of\nCamerino\u201d and forerunner of many a later Italian soldier and tyrant of\nfortune. When he fell, she married again, and overthrew Pope John X., who\nhad got the better of her first husband. In 931 she made her son pope as\nJohn XI. For yet a third husband she took a certain King Hugo, a\nBurgundian; but another son of hers, a second Alberic, roused the city,\ndrove him out, and proclaimed himself \u201cPrince and Senator of all the\nRomans.\u201d\n\nIt was in this Italy that Otto intervened, in 951, drawn perhaps by the\nwrongs of Queen Adelaide, widow of Hugo\u2019s son, Lothaire, a landless king,\nsince Markgrave Berengar had ousted him from his Italian holdings. This\nBerengar now persecuted and imprisoned the queen-widow. She escaped; Otto\ndescended from the Alps, and married her; Lombardy submitted; Berengar\nfled. This time Otto did not advance to Rome, being impeded by many\nthings--Alberic\u2019s refusal to admit him, and behind his back in Germany the\nrebellion of his own son Liudolf aided by the Archbishop of Mainz, and\nlater by those whom Otto left in Italy to represent him as he hurried\nnorth. These were straitened times for the king, and the Hungarians poured\nover the boundaries to take advantage of the confusion. But Otto\u2019s star\ntriumphed over both rebels and Hungarians--a bloody star for the latter,\nas the plains of Lech might testify, where they were so handled that they\nnever ravaged German lands again.\n\nOtto\u2019s power now reached its zenith. He reordered the German dukedoms,\nfilled the archbishoprics with faithful servants, bound the German clergy\nto himself with gifts and new foundations, and ruled them like another\nCharlemagne. It was his time to become emperor, an emperor like\nCharlemagne, and not like later weaklings. In 961 he again entered Italy,\nto be greeted with universal acclaim as by men longing for a deliverer. He\nwas crowned king in Pavia; the levies of the once more hostile Berengar\ndispersed before him. In February 962 he was anointed emperor at Rome by\nJohn XII., son of that second Alberic who had refused to open the gates,\nbut whose debauched son had called for aid upon the mighty German. Once\nmore the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans was refounded to endure a while\nwith power, and continue a titular existence for eight centuries.\n\nThe power of the first Otto was so overwhelming that the papacy could not\nescape the temporary subjection which its vile state deserved. And the\nEmpire was its honest patron, for the good of both. So on through the\nreigns of Otto II., who died in 983, aged twenty-eight, and his son Otto\nIII., who died in 1002, at the age of twenty-two, a dreamer and would-be\nuniversal potentate. Then came the practical-minded rule of the second\nHenry (1002-1024), who still aided and humbly ruled the Church. Conrad\nII., of Franconia, followed, faithful to the imperial tradition.[289] He\nwas succeeded in 1039 by his son Henry III., beneficent and prosperous, if\nnot far-seeing, who again cared for both Church and State, and imperially\nconstrained the papacy, itself impotent in the grip of the Roman barons\nand the Counts of Tusculum. Henry did not hesitate to clear away at once\nthree rival popes (1046) and name a German, Clement II. It was this worthy\nman, but still more another German, his successor, Leo IX. (1049-1054),\nwho lifted the papacy from its Italian mire, and launched it full on its\ncourse toward an absolute spiritual supremacy that was to carry the\ntemporal control of kings and princes. But the man already at the helm was\na certain deacon Hildebrand, who was destined to guide the papal policy\nthrough the reigns of successive popes until he himself was hailed as\nGregory VII. (1073-1085).[290]\n\nWith Hildebrand\u2019s pontificate, which in truth began before he sat in\nPeter\u2019s chair, the reforming spirits among the clergy, aroused to his keen\npolicy, set themselves to the uplifting of their order. In all countries\nthe Church, heavy with its possessions, seemed about to become feudal and\nsecular. Bishops and abbots were appointed by kings and the great\nfeudatories, and were by them _invested_ with their lands as fiefs, for\nwhich the clerical appointee did homage, and undertook to perform feudal\nduties. Church fiefs failed to become hereditary only because bishops and\nabbots could not marry; yet in fact great numbers of the lower clergy\nlived in a state of marriage or \u201cconcubinage.\u201d Evidently the celibacy of\nthe clergy was a vital issue in Church reform; and so were investitures\nand the matter of simony. Under mediaeval conditions, the most open form\nof this \u201cheresy\u201d called after Simon Magus, was the large gift from the new\nincumbent to his feudal lord who had invested him with abbey or bishopric.\nSuch simony was not wrong from the feudal point of view, and might\nproperly represent the duty of bishop or abbot to his lord.\n\nObviously, for the reform and emancipation of the Church, and in order\nthat it should become a world-power, and not remain a semi-secular local\ninstitution in each land, it was necessary that the three closely\nconnected corruptions of simony, lay investitures, and clerical\nconcubinage should be destroyed. To this enormous task the papacy\naddressed itself under the leadership of Hildebrand.[291] In his\npontificate the struggle with the supreme representative of secular power,\nto wit, the Empire, came to a head touching investitures. Gregory\u2019s\nsecular opponent was Henry IV., of tragic and unseemly fame; for whom the\nconflict proved to be the road by which he reached Canossa, dragged by the\nPope\u2019s anathema, and also driven to this shame by a rebellious Germany\n(1076, 1077). Henry was conquered, although a revulsion of the\nlong-swaying war drove Gregory from Rome, to die an exile for the cause\nwhich he deemed that of righteousness.\n\nBetween the papacy and the secular power represented in this struggle by\nthe Empire, a peaceful co-equality could not exist. The superiority of the\nspiritual and eternal over the carnal and temporal had to be vindicated;\nand in terms admitting neither limit nor condition, Hildebrand maintained\nthe Church\u2019s universal jurisdiction upon earth. The authority granted by\nChrist to Peter and his successors, the popes, was absolute for eternity.\nShould it not include the passing moment of mortal life, important only\nbecause determining man\u2019s eternal lot? The divine grant was made without\nqualification or exception _in saeculo_ as well as for the life to come.\nIf spiritual men are under the Pope\u2019s jurisdiction, shall he not also\nconstrain secular folk from their wickedness?[292] Were kings excepted\nwhen the Lord said, Thou art Peter?[293] Nay; the salvation of souls\ndemands that the Pope shall have full authority _in terra_ to suppress the\nwaves of pride with the arms of humility. The _dictatus papae_ of the year\n1075 make the Pope the head of the Christian world: the Roman Church was\nfounded by God alone; the Roman pontiff alone by right is called\n_universal_; he alone may use the imperial insignia; his feet alone shall\nbe kissed by all princes; he may depose emperors and release subjects from\nfealty; and he can be judged by no man.[294]\n\nIn the century and a half following Gregory\u2019s reign the papacy well-nigh\nattained the realization of the claims made by this great upbuilder of its\npower.[295] Constantine\u2019s forged donation was outdone, in fact; and the\nfurthest hopes of Leo I. and the first, second, and third Gregories were\nmore than realized.\n\n\nII\n\nOne might liken the Carolingian period to a vessel at her dock, taking on\nher cargo, casks of antique culture and huge crates of patristic theology.\nThen western Europe in the eleventh century would be the same vessel\ngetting under way, well started on the mediaeval ocean.\n\nThis would be one way of putting the matter. A closer simile already used\nis the likening of the Carolingian period to the lusty schoolboy learning\nhis lessons, thinking very little for himself. By the eleventh century he\nwill have left school, though still impressionable, still with much to\nlearn; but he has begun to turn his conned lessons over in his mind, and\nto think a little, in the terms, of what he has acquired--has even begun\nto select therefrom tentatively, and still under the mastery of the whole.\nHe perceives the charm of the antique culture, of the humanly inspiring\nliterature, so exhaustless in its profane fascinations; he is realizing\nthe spiritual import of the patristic share of his instruction, and\nalready feels the power of emotion which lay implicit in the Latin\nformulation of the Christian Faith. Withal he is beginning to evolve an\nindividuality of his own.\n\nSpeaking more explicitly, it should be said that instead of one such\nhopeful youth there are several, or rather groups of them, differing\nwidely from each other. The forefathers of certain of these groups were\ncivilized and educated men, at home in the antique and patristic\ncurriculum with which our youths are supposed to have been busy. The\nforefathers of other groups were rustics, or rude herdsmen and hunters,\nhard-hitting warriors, who once had served, but more latterly had rather\nlorded it over, the cultivated forbears of the others. Still, again, the\nforefathers of other numerous groups had been partly cultivated and partly\nrude. Evidently these groups of youths are diverse in blood and in\nancestral traits; evidently also the antique and patristic curriculum is\nquite a new thing to some of them, while others had it at their fathers\u2019\nknees.\n\nOur different youthful groups represent Italians, Germans, and the\ninhabitants of France and the British Isles. One may safely speak of the\nninth-century Germans as schoolboys just brought face to face with\nChristianity and the antique culture. So with the Saxon stock in England.\nThe propriety is not so clear as to the Italians; for they are not newly\nintroduced to these matters. Yet their household affairs have been\ndisturbed, and they themselves have slackened in their study. So they too\nhave much to learn anew, and may be regarded as truants, dirtied and\nmuddied, and perhaps refreshed, by the scrambles of their time of truancy,\nand now returning to lessons which they have pretty well forgotten.\n\nObviously, in considering the intellectual condition of western Europe in\nthe tenth and eleventh centuries, it will be convenient to regard each\ncountry in turn: and, besides, a geographical is more appropriate than a\ntopical arrangement, because there was still little choice of one branch\nof discipline rather than another. The majority still were conning\nindiscriminately what had come from the past, studying heterogeneous\nmatters in the same books, the same forlorn compendia. They read the\n_Etymologies_ of Isidore or the corresponding works of Bede, and followed\nas of course the Trivium and Quadrivium. In sacred learning they might\nread the Scriptural Commentaries of Rabanus Maurus or Walafrid Strabo, or\nstudy the works of Augustine. This was still the supreme study, and all\nelse, properly viewed, was ancillary to it. Nevertheless, as between\nsacred study and profane literature, an even violent divergence of choice\nexisted. Everywhere there were men who loved the profanities in\nthemselves, and some who felt that for their souls\u2019 sake they must abjure\nthem.\n\nFor further diverging lines of preference, one should wait for the twelfth\ncentury. Many men will then be found absorbed in religious study, while\nothers cultivate logic and metaphysics, with the desire to know more\nactive in them than the fear of hell. Still others will study \u201cgrammar\u201d\nand the classics, or, again, with conscious specializing choice, devote\ntheir energies to the civil or the canon law. In later chapters, and\nmainly with reference to this culminating mediaeval time which includes\nthe twelfth, the thirteenth, and at least, for Dante\u2019s sake, the first\npart of the fourteenth, century, we shall review these various branches of\nintellectual endeavour in topical order. But for the earlier time which\nstill enshrouds us, we pass from land to land as on a tour of intellectual\ninspection.\n\n\nIII\n\nWe start with Italy. There was no break between her antique civilization\nand her mediaeval development, but only a period of depression and decay.\nNotwithstanding the change from paganism to Christianity and the influx of\nbarbarians, both a race-continuity and a continuity of culture persisted.\nThe Italian stock maintained its numerical preponderance, as well as the\npower of transforming newcomers to the likeness of itself. The natural\nqualities of the country, and the existence of cities and antique\nconstructions, assisted in the Italianizing of Goth, Lombard, German,\nNorman. Latin civic reminiscence, tradition, custom, permeated society,\nand prevented the growth of feudalism. Italy remained urban, and continued\nto reflect the ancient time. \u201cConsuls\u201d and \u201ctribunes\u201d long survived the\npassing of their antique functions, and the fame endured of antique\nheroes, mythical and historical. Florence honoured Mars and Caesar; Padua\nhad Antenor, Cremona Hercules. Such names remained veritably eponymous.\nOther cities claimed the birthplace of Pliny, of Ovid, of Virgil. An altar\nmight no longer be dedicated to a pagan hero, yet the town would preserve\nhis name upon monuments, would adorn his fancied tomb, stamp his effigy on\ncoins or keep it in the communal seal. Of course the figments of the\nTrojan Saga were current through the land, which, however divided, was\nconscious of itself as Italy. _Te Italia plorabit_ writes an\neleventh-century Pisan poet of a young Pisan noble fallen in Africa.\n\nIn Italy, as in no other country, the currents of antique education,\ndisturbed yet unbroken, carried clear across that long period of\ninvasions, catastrophes, and reconstructions, which began with the time of\nAlaric. Under the later pagan emperors, and under Constantine and his\nsuccessors, the private schools of grammar and rhetoric had tended to\ndecline. There were fewer pupils with inclination and ability to pay. So\nthe emperors established municipal schools in the towns of Italy and the\nprovinces. The towns tried to shirk the burden, and the teachers, whose\npay came tardily, had to look to private pupils for support. In Italy\nthere was always some demand for instruction in grammar and law. The\nsupply rose and fell with the happier or the more devastated condition of\nthe land. Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, re-established municipal schools\nthrough his dominion. After him further troubles came, for example from\nthe Lombards, until they too became gentled by Italian conditions, and\ntheir kings and nobles sought to encourage and acquire the education and\nculture which their coming had disturbed. In the seventh and eighth\ncenturies the grade of instruction was very low; but there is evidence of\nthe unintermitted existence of lay schools, private or municipal, in all\nthe important towns, from the eighth century to the tenth, the eleventh,\nand so on and on. These did not give religious instruction, but taught\ngrammar and the classic literature, law and the art of drawing documents\nand writing letters. The former branches of study appear singularly\nprofane in Italy. The literature exemplifying the principles of grammar\nwas pagan and classical, and the fictitious themes on which the pupils\nexercised their eloquence continued such as might have been orated on in\nthe time of Quintilian. Intellectually the instruction was\npoverty-stricken, but the point to note is, that in Italy there never\nceased to be schools conducted by laymen for laymen, where instruction in\nmatters profane and secular was imparted and received for the sake of its\nprofane and secular value, without regard to its utility for the saving of\nsouls. There was no barbaric contempt for letters, nor did the laity fear\nthem as a spiritual peril. Gerbert before the year 1000 had found Italy\nthe field for the purchase of books;[296] and about 1028 Wipo, a native of\nBurgundy and chaplain of the emperor Conrad II., contrasts the ignorance\nof Germany with Italy, where \u201cthe entire youth (_tota juventus_) is sent\nto sweat in the schools\u201d;[297] and about the middle of the twelfth\ncentury, Otto of Freising suggests a like contrast between the Italy and\nGermany of his time.[298]\n\nIn Italy the study of grammar, with all that it included, was established\nin tradition, and also was regarded as a necessary preparation for the\nstudy both of law and medicine. Even in the eleventh century these\nprofessions were followed by men who were \u201cgrammarians,\u201d a term to be\ntaken to mean for the early Middle Ages the profession of letters. In the\neleventh century, a lawyer or notary in Italy (where there were always\nsuch, and some study of law and legal forms) needed education in a\nLatinity different from the vulgar Latin which was turning into Italian. A\nlittle later, Irnerius, the founder of the Bologna school, was a teacher\nof \u201cgrammar\u201d before he became a teacher of law.[299] As for medicine, that\nappears always to have been cultivated at least in southern Italy; and a\nknowledge of grammar, even of logic, was required for its study.[300]\n\nThe survival of medical knowledge in Italy did not, in means and manner,\ndiffer from the survival of the rest of the antique culture. Some\nacquaintance had continued with the works of Galen and other ancient\nphysicians; but more use was made of compendia, the matter of which may\nhave been taken from Galen, but was larded with current superstitions\nregarding disease. Such compendia began to appear in the fifth century,\nand through these and other channels a considerable medical knowledge\nfound its way to a congenial home in Salerno. There are references to this\ntown as a medical community as early as the ninth century. By the\neleventh, it was famous for its medicine. About the year 1060 a certain\nConstantine seems to have brought there novel and stimulating medical\nknowledge which he had gained in Africa from Arabian (ultimately Greek)\nsources. Nevertheless, translations from the Arabic seem scarcely to have\nexerted much influence upon medicine for yet another hundred years.[301]\n\nThus in Italy the antique education never stopped, antique reminiscence\nand tradition never passed away, and the literary matter of the pagan past\nnever faded from the consciousness of the more educated among the laity\nand clergy. Some understanding of the classic literature, as well as a\ndaily absorption of the antique from its survival in habits, laws, and\ninstitutions, made part of the capacities and temperament of Italians.\nGrammarians, lawyers, doctors, monks even, might think and produce under\nthe influence of that which never had quite fallen from the life of Italy.\nAnd just as the ancient ways of civic life and styles of building became\nrude and impoverished, and yet passed on without any abrupt break into the\ntenth and the eleventh centuries, so was it with the literature of Italy,\nor at least with those productions which were sheer literature, and not\ndeflected from traditional modes of expression by any definite business or\nby the distorting sentiments of Christian asceticism. This literature\nproper was likely to take the form of verse in the eleventh century. A\npractical matter would be put in prose; but the effervescence of the\nsoul, or the intended literary effort, would fall into rhyme or resort to\nmetre.\n\nWe have an example of the former in those often-cited tenth-century verses\nexhorting the watchers on the walls of Modena:\n\n  \u201cO tu qui servas armis ista moenia,\n   Noli dormire, moneo, sed vigila.\n   Dum Hector vigil extitit in Troia,\n   Non eam cepit fraudulenta Graecia.\n\n  \u201cVigili voce avis anser candida\n   Fugavit Gallos ex arce Romulea.\u201d\n\nThe antique reminiscence fills this jingle, as it does the sensuous\n\n  \u201cO admirabile Veneris ydolum\n   Cuius materiae nichil est frivolum:\n   Archos te protegat, qui stellas et polum\n   Fecit et maria condidit et solum.\u201d[302]\n\nAnd so on from century to century. At the beginning of the twelfth, a\nPisan poet celebrates Pisa\u2019s conquest of the Balearic Isles:\n\n  \u201cInclytorum Pisanorum scripturus historiam,\n   Antiquorum Romanorum renovo memoriam,\n   Nam ostendit modo Pisa laudem admirabilem,\n   Quam olim recepit Roma vincendo Carthaginem.\u201d\n\nFor an eleventh-century example of more literary verse, one may turn to\nthe metres of Alphanus, a noble Salernian, lover of letters, pilgrim\ntraveller, archbishop of his native town, and monk of Monte Cassino, the\nparent Benedictine monastery, which had been the cultured retreat of\nPaulus Diaconus in the time of Charlemagne. It was destroyed by the\nSaracens in 884. Learning languished in the calamitous decades which\nfollowed. But the convent was rebuilt, and some care for learning\nrecommences there under the abbot Theobald (1022-1035). The monastery\u2019s\ntroubles were not over; but it re-entered upon prosperity under the\nenergetic rule of the German Richer (1038-1055).[303] Shortly after his\ndeath two close friends were received among its monks, Alphanus and\nDesiderius. The latter was of princely Lombard stock, from Beneventum. He\nmet Alphanus at Salerno, and there they became friends. Afterwards both\nsaw something of the world and experienced its perils. Desiderius was born\nto be monk, abbot, and at last pope (Victor III.) against his will.\nAlphanus, always a man of letters, was drawn by his friend to monastic\nlife. Long after, when Archbishop of Salerno, he gave a refuge and a tomb\nto the outworn Hildebrand.\n\nThe rebuilding and adorning of Monte Cassino by Desiderius with the aid of\nGreek artists is a notable episode in the history of art.[304] Under the\nlong rule of this great abbot (1058-1087) the monastery reached the summit\nof its repute and influence. It was the home of theology and\necclesiastical policy. There law and medicine were studied. Likewise\n\u201cgrammar\u201d and classic literature, the latter not too broadly, as would\nappear from the list of manuscripts copied under Desiderius--Virgil, Ovid,\nTerence, Seneca, Cicero\u2019s _De natura deorum_. But then there was the whole\nhost of early Christian poets, historians, and theologians. Naturally,\nChristian studies were dominant within those walls.\n\nAlphanus did not spend many of his years there. But his loyalty to the\ngreat monastery never failed, nor his intercourse with its abbot and\nmonks. He has left an enthusiastic poem descriptive of the place and the\nsplendour of its building.[305] A general and interesting feature of his\npoetry is the naturalness of its classical reminiscence and its feeling\nfor the past, which is even translated into the poet\u2019s sentiments toward\nhis contemporaries and toward life. In his metrical verses _ad\nHildebrandum archidiaconum Romanum_, his stirring praise of that statesman\nis imbued with pagan sentiment.\n\n    \u201cHow great the glory which so often comes to those defending the\n    republic, has not escaped thy knowledge, Hildebrand. The Via Sacra\n    and the Via Latina recall the same, and the lofty crown of the\n    Capitol, that mighty seat of empire.... The hidden poison of envy\n    implants its infirmity in wretched affairs, and brings overthrow only\n    to such. That thou shouldst be envied, and not envy, beseems thy\n    skill.... How great the power of the anathema! Whatever Marius and\n    Julius wrought with the slaughter of soldiers, thou dost with thy\n    small voice.... What more does Rome owe to the Scipios and the other\n    Quirites than to thee?\u201d\n\nPerhaps the glyconic metre of this poem was too much for Alphanus. His\nawkward constructions, however, constantly reflect classic phrases. And\nhow naturally his mind reproduced the old pagan--or fundamental\nhuman--views of life, appears again in his admiring sapphics to Romuald,\nchief among Salerno\u2019s lawyers:\n\n  \u201cDulcis orator, vehemens gravisque,\n   Inter omnes causidicos perennem\n   Gloriam juris tibi, Romoalde,\n       Prestitit usus.\u201d\n\nFurther stanzas follow on Romuald\u2019s wealth, station, and mundane felicity.\nThen comes the sudden turn, and Romuald is praised for having spurned them\nall:\n\n  \u201cCumque sic felix, ut in orbe sidus\n   Fulseris, mundum roseo jacentem\n   Flore sprevisti....\u201d\n\nApparently Romuald had become a monk:\n\n  \u201cRite fecisti, potiore vita\n        Perfruiturus.\u201d[306]\n\nThis turn of sentiment curiously accorded with the poet\u2019s own fortune and\nway of life; for Alphanus, with all his love of antique letters, was also\na monk and an ascetic, of whom a contemporary chronicler tells that in\nLent he ate but twice a week and never slept on a bed. Yet monk, and\noccasional ascetic, as he was, the ordinary antique-descended education\nand inherited strains of antique feeling made the substratum of his\nnature, and this although he could inveigh against the philosophic and\ngrammatical studies flourishing in a neighbouring monastery, and advise\none of its studious youths to turn from such:\n\n  \u201cSi, Transmunde, mihi credis, amice,\n   His uti studiis desine tandem;\n   Fac cures monachi scire professum,\n   Ut vere sapiens esse puteris.\u201d[307]\n\nEleventh-century Italian \u201cversificatores\u201d were interested in a variety of\nthings. Some of them gave the story of a saint\u2019s or bishop\u2019s life, or were\noccupied with an ecclesiastic theme. Others sang the fierce struggle\nbetween rival cities, or some victory over Saracens, or made an idyl of\nvery human love with mythological appurtenances. The verse-forms either\nfollowed the antique metres or were accentual deflections from them with\nthe new added element of rhyme; the ways of expression copied antique\nphrase and simile, except when the matter and sentiment of the poem\ncompelled another choice. In that case the Latin becomes freer, more\nmediaeval, ruder, if one will; and still antique turns of expression and\nbits of sentences show how naturally it came to these men to construct\ntheir verses out of ancient phrases. Yet borrowed phrases and the\nconstraint of metre impeded spontaneity, and these feeble versifiers could\nhardly create in modes of the antique. A fresher spirit breathes in\ncertain anonymous poems, which have broken with metre, while they give\nvoice to sentiments quite after the feeling of the old Italian paganism.\nIn one of these, from Ivrea, the poet meets a nymph by the banks of the\nPo, and in leonine elegiacs bespeaks her love, with all the paraphernalia\nof antique reference, assuring her that his verse shall make her immortal,\na perfectly pagan sentiment--or affectation:\n\n  \u201cSum sum sum vates, musarum servo penates,\n     Subpeditante Clio queque futura scio.\n   Me minus extollo, quamvis mihi cedit Apollo,\n     Invidet et cedit, scire Minerva dedit.\n   Laude mea vivit mihi se dare queque cupivit,\n     Immortalis erit, ni mea Musa perit.\u201d[308]\n\nIt is obvious that in the tenth and eleventh centuries there were Italians\nwhose sentiments and intellectual interests were profane, humanistic in a\nword. These men might even be high ecclesiastics, like Liutprand, Bishop\nof Cremona (d. 972).[309] He was of Lombard stock, and yet a genuine\nItalian, bred in an atmosphere of classical reminiscence and contemporary\ngossip and misdeed. Politically, at least, the Italy of John XII. was not\nso much better than its pope; and the _Antapodosis_ of Liutprand goes\nalong in its easy, and often dramatic way, telling of crime and perfidy,\nand showing scant horror. It was a general history of the historian\u2019s\ntimes, written while in exile in Germany; for Liutprand had been driven\nout of Italy by King Berengar, whom he had once served. He hated Berengar\nand his wife, and although well received at the Court of the great Otto,\nhe did not love his place of exile.[310]\n\nIn exile Liutprand wrote his book to requite Berengar. The work had also a\nbroader purpose, yet one just as consolatory to the writer. It should\nacknowledge and show the justice of the divine judgments exemplified in\nhistory. Herein lay a fuller, although less Italian, consolation for his\nexile than in Berengar\u2019s requital. Liutprand keeps in mind Bo\u00ebthius and\nhis _De consolatione_, and regards his own work as a Consolation of\nHistory, as that of Bo\u00ebthius was a Consolation of Philosophy. The paths of\nLiutprand\u2019s Consolation are as broad as the justice and power of the\nTrinity, \u201cwhich casts down these for their wicked deeds and raises up\nthose for their merits\u2019 sake.\u201d[311]\n\nQuite explicitly he explains the title and reason of his work at the\nopening of its third book:\n\n    \u201cSince it will show the deeds of famous men, why call it Antapodosis?\n    I reply: Its object is to set forth and cry aloud the acts of this\n    Berengar who at this moment does not reign but tyrannize in Italy, and\n    of his wife Willa, who for the boundlessness of her tyranny should be\n    called a second Jezebel, and Lamia for her insatiate rapines. Me and\n    my house, my family and kin, have they harassed with so many javelins\n    of lies, so many spoliations, so many essays of wickedness, that\n    neither tongue nor pen can avail to set them forth. May then these\n    pages be to them an antapodosis, that is retribution, to make their\n    wickedness naked before men living and unborn. None the less may it\n    prove an antapodosis for the benefits conferred on me by holy and\n    happy men.\u201d[312]\n\nLiutprand\u2019s narrative is breezy and interspersed with ribald tales. The\nwriter meant to amuse his readers and himself. These literary qualities\ngive picturesqueness to his well-known _Embassy to Constantinople_, where\nhe was sent by Otto the Great, for purposes of peace and to ask the hand\nof the Byzantine princess for Otto II. The highly coloured ceremonial life\nof the Greek Court, the chicane and contemptuous treatment met with, the\nspirited words of Liutprand, and the rancour of this same thwarted envoy,\nall appear vividly in his report.[313]\n\nThere were also many laymen occupied with Latin studies. Such a one was\nGunzo of Novara, a curiously vain grammarian of the second half of the\ntenth century. According to his own story, the fame of his learning\nincited Otto the Great to implore his presence in Germany. So he\ncondescended to cross the Alps, with all his books, perhaps in the year\n965. On his way he stopped with the monks of St. Gall, themselves proud of\ntheir learning, and perhaps jealous of the southern scholar. As the weary\nGunzo was lifted, half frozen, from his horse at the convent door, and the\nbrethren stood about, a young monk caught at a slip in grammar, and made a\nskit on him--because, forsooth, he had used an accusative when it should\nhave been an ablative.\n\nGunzo neither forgave nor forgot. Passing on to the rival congregation of\nReichenau, he composed a long and angry epistle of pedantic excuse and\nsatirical invective, addressed to his former hosts.[314] In it he parades\nhis wide knowledge of classic authors, justifies what the monks of St.\nGall had presumed to mock as a ridiculous barbarism, and closes with a\nprayer for them in hexameters. His letter contains the interesting avowal,\nthat, although the monk of St. Gall had wrongly deemed him ignorant of\ngrammar, his Latin sometimes was impeded by the \u201cusu nostrae vulgaris\nlinguae, quae latinitati vicina est.\u201d So a slip would be due not to\nunfamiliarity with Latin, but to an excessive colloquial familiarity with\nthe vulgar tongue which had scarcely ceased to be Latin--an excuse no\nGerman monk could have given. It is amusing to see an Italian grammarian\nof this early period enter the lists to defend his reputation and assuage\nhis wounded vanity. Later, such learned battles became frequent.[315]\n\nGunzo died as the tenth century closed. Other Italians of his time and\nafter him crossed the Alps to learn and teach and play the orator. From\nthe early eleventh century comes a satirical sketch of one. The subject\nwas a certain Benedict, Prior of the Abbey of St. Michael of Chiusa, and\nnephew of its abbot--therefore doubtless born to wealth and position. At\nall events as a youth he had moved about for nine years \u201cper multa loca in\nLongobardia et Francia propter grammaticam,\u201d spending the huge sum of two\nthousand gold soldi. His pride was unmeasured. \u201cI have two houses full of\nbooks; there is no book on the earth that I do not possess. I study them\nevery day. I can discourse on letters. There is no instruction to be had\nin Aquitaine, and but little in Francia. Lombardy, where I learned most,\nis the cradle of knowledge.\u201d So the satire makes Benedict speak of\nhimself. Then it makes a monk sketch Benedict\u2019s sojourn at a convent in\nAngoul\u00eame: \u201cHe knows more than any man I ever saw. We have heard his\nchatter the whole day. _O quam loquax est!_ He is never tired. Wherever he\nmay be, standing, sitting, walking, lying, words pour from his mouth like\nwater from the Tigris. He orders the whole convent about as if he were\nAbbot. Monks, laity, clergy, do nothing without his nod. A multitude of\nthe people, knights too, were always hastening to hear him, as the goal of\ntheir desires. Untired, hurling words the entire day, he sends them off\nworn out. And they depart, saying: Never have we seen sic eloquentem\ngrammaticum.\u201d[316]\n\nAnother of these early wandering Italian humanists won kinder notice, a\ncertain Lombard Guido, who died where he was teaching in Auxerre, in 1095,\nand was lamented in leonine hexameters: \u201cAlas, famous man, so abounding,\nso diligent, so praised, so venerated through many lands--\n\n  \u201cFilius Italiae, sed alumnus Philosophiae.\n\nLet Gaul grieve, and thou Philosophy who nourished him: Grieve Grammar,\nthou. With his death the words of Plato died, the work of Cicero is\nblotted out, Maro is silent and the muse of Naso stops her song.\u201d[317]\n\nA final instance to close our examples. In the middle of the eleventh\ncentury flourished Anselm the Peripatetic, a rhetorician and humanist of\nBesate (near Milan). In his _Rhetorimachia_ he tells of a dream in which\nhe finds himself in Heaven, surrounded and embraced by saintly souls.\nTheir spiritual kisses were still on his lips when three virgins of\nanother ilk appear, to reproach him with forsaking them. These are\nDialectic and Rhetoric and Grammar--we have met them before! Now the\nembraces of the saints seem cold! and to the protests of the blessed\nthrong that Anselm is theirs, the virgins make reply that he is altogether\ntheir own fosterling. Anselm gives up the saints and departs with the\nthree.[318] This was his humanistic choice.\n\nThis rather pleasant dream discloses the conflict between Letters and the\ncall of piety, which might harass the learned and the holy in Italy.\nDistrust of the enticements of pagan letters might transform itself to\ndiabolic visions. Such a tale comes from the neighbourhood of Ravenna, in\nthe late tenth century. It is of one Vilgard, a grammarian, who became\ninfatuated with the great pagan poets, till their figures waved through\nhis dreams and he heard their thanks and assurances that he should\nparticipate in their glory. He foolishly began to teach matters contrary\nto the Faith, and in the end was condemned as a heretic. Others were\ninfected with his opinions, and perished by the sword and fire.[319]\n\nEvidently Vilgard\u2019s profane studies made him a heretic. But, ordinarily,\nthe Italians with their antique descended temperament were not troubled in\nthe observance and the expression of their Faith by the paganism of their\nintellectual tastes. Such tastes did not produce open heretics in Italy in\nthe eleventh century any more than in the fifteenth. A pagan disposition\nseldom prevented an Italian from being a good Catholic.\n\nYet the monastic spirit in Italy, as elsewhere, in the eleventh century\ndefied and condemned the pagan literature, and in fact all Latin studies\nbeyond the elements of grammar. The protest of the monk or hermit might\nrepresent his individual ignorance of classic literature; or, as in the\ncase of Peter Damiani, the ascetic soul is horrified at the seductive\nnature of the pagan sweets which it knows too well. Peter indeed could say\nin his sonorous Latin: \u201cOlim mihi Tullius dulcescebat, blandiebantur\ncarmina poetarum, philosophi verbis aureis insplendebant, et Sirenes usque\nin exitium dulces meum incantaverunt intellectum.\u201d[320] So a few decades\nafter Peter\u2019s death, Rangerius, Bishop of Lucca, writes the life of an\nepiscopal predecessor in elegiacs which show considerable knowledge of\ngrammar and prosody; and yet he protests against liberal\nstudies--philosophy, astronomy, grammar--with pithy commonplace:\n\n  \u201cEt nos ergo scholas non spectamus inanes\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n   Scire Deum satis est, quo nulla scientia maior.\u201d[321]\n\nSo with the Italians the antique never was an influence brought from\nwithout, but always an element of their temperament and faculties. We have\nnot seen that they recast it into novel and interesting forms in the\neleventh century; yet they used it familiarly as something of their own,\nbeing quite at home with it. As one may imagine some grand old Roman\ngarden, planned and constructed by rich and talented ancestors, and still\nremaining as a home and heritage to descendants whose wealth and\ncapacities have shrunken. The garden is somewhat ruinous, and fallen to\ndecay; yet these sons are still at home in it, their daily steps pursue\nits ancient avenues; they still recline upon the marble seats by the\nfountains where perhaps scant water runs. Fauns and satyrs--ears gone and\nnoses broken--with even an occasional god, still haunt the courts and\nsylvan paths, while everywhere, above and about these lazy sons, the\nlights still chase the shadows, and anon the shadows darken the green and\nyellow flashes. Perhaps nothing in the garden has become so subtly in and\nof the race as this play of light and shade. And when the Italian genius\nshall revive again, and children\u2019s children find themselves with power,\nstill within this ancient garden the great vernacular poems will be\ncomposed; great paintings will be painted in its light and shade and under\nthe influence of its formal beauties; and Italian buildings will never\nescape the power of the ruined structures found therein.\n\n\nIV\n\nIn the tenth and eleventh centuries, as remarked already, studiously\ninclined people made no particular selection of one study rather than\nanother. But men discriminated sharply between religious devotion and all\nprofane pursuits. Energies which were regarded as religious might have a\npolitical-ecclesiastical character, and be devoted to the purification and\nupbuilding of the Church; or they might be intellectual and aloof; or\nascetic and emotional. All three modes might exist together in\nreligious-minded men; but usually one form would dominate, and mark the\nman\u2019s individuality. Hildebrand, for example, was a monk, fervent and\nascetic; but his strength was devoted to the discipline of the clergy and\nthe elevation of the papal power. In the great Hildebrandine Church which\nwas his more than any other man\u2019s achievement, the organizing and\npolitical genius of Rome re-emerges, and Rome becomes again the seat of\nEmpire.[322]\n\nEminent examples of Italians who illustrate the ascetic-emotional and the\nintellectual mode of religious devotion are the two very different saints,\nPeter Damiani and Anselm. The former, to whom we shall again refer when\nconsidering the ideals of the hermit life, was born in Ravenna not long\nafter the year 1000. His parents, who were poor, seem to have thought him\nan unwelcome addition to their already burdensome family. His was a hard\nlot until he reached the age of ten, when his elder brother Damianus was\nmade an archpresbyter in Ravenna and took Peter to live with him, to\neducate the gifted boy. From his brother\u2019s house the youth proceeded in\nsearch of further instruction, first to Faenza, then to Parma. He became\nproficient in the secular knowledge comprised in the Seven Liberal Arts,\nand soon began to teach. A growing reputation brought many pupils, who\npaid such fees that Peter had amassed considerable property when he\ndecided upon a change of life. For some years he had been fearful of the\nworld, and he now turned from secular to religious studies. He put on\nhaircloth underneath the gentler garb in which he was seen of men, and\nbecame earnest in vigils, fasts, and prayers. In the night-time he quelled\nthe lusts of the flesh by immersing himself in flowing water; he overcame\nthe temptations of avarice and pride by lavishly giving to the poor, and\ntending them at his own table. Still he felt unsafe, and yearned to escape\nthe dangers of worldly living. A number of hermits dwelt in a community\nknown as the Hermitage of the Holy Cross of Fonte Avellana, near Faenza;\nPeter became one of them shortly before his thirtieth year. They lived\nascetically, two in a cell together, spending their time in watching,\nfasting, and prayer: thus they fought the Evil One. Damiani was not\nsatisfied merely with following the austerities practised at Fonte\nAvellana. Quickly he surpassed all his fellows, except a certain mail-clad\nDominic, whose scourgings he could not equal. His chief asceticism lay in\nthe temper of his soul.\n\nFrom this congenial community (the hermits had made him their prior)\nDamiani was drawn forth to serve the Church more actively, sorely against\nhis will, and was made Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia by Pope Stephen IX. in\n1058. It was indeed the hand of Hildebrand, already directing the papal\npolicy, that had fastened on this unwilling yet serviceable tool. Peter\nfeared and also looked askance upon the relentless spirit, whom he called\nSanctus Satanas, not deeming him to be altogether of the kingdom of\nheaven. He deprecates his censure upon one occasion: \u201cI humbly beg that my\nSaint Satan may not rage so cruelly against me, and that his worshipful\npride may not destroy me with long-reaching rods; rather, may it,\nappeased, quiet to a calm around his servant.\u201d In this same letter, which\nis addressed to the two conspiring souls, Pope Alexander II. and\nArchdeacon Hildebrand, he sarcastically likens them to the Wind and the\nSun of Aesop\u2019s fable, who contended as to which could the sooner strip the\nTraveller of his cloak.[323] Peter\u2019s tongue was sharp enough, and apt to\nindulge in epigram:\n\n  \u201cWilt thou live in Rome, cry aloud:\n   The Pope\u2019s lord more than the Pope I obey.\u201d\n\nAnd another squib he writes on Hildebrand:\n\n  \u201cPapam rite colo, sed te prostratus adoro;\n   Tu facis hunc dominum, te facit iste deum.\u201d[324]\n\nIt was, however, for his own soul that Damiani feared, while in the\nservice of the Curia. To Desiderius, Abbot of Monte Cassino, he exclaims:\n\u201cHe errs, Father, errs indeed, who imagines he can be a monk and at the\nsame time serve the Curia. Ill he bargains, who presumes to desert the\ncloister, that he may take up the warfare of the world.\u201d[325]\n\nAlbeit against his will, Damiani became a soldier of the Church in the\nfields of her secular militancy against the world. He was sent on more\nthan one important mission--to Milan, to crush the married priests and\nestablish the Pope\u2019s authority, or to Mainz, there to quell a rebellious\narchbishop and a youthful German king. Such missions and others he might\naccomplish with holy strenuousness; his more spontaneous zeal, however,\nwas set upon the task of cleansing the immoralities of monks and clergy.\nIn spite of his enforced relations with the powers of the world, he was a\nfiery reforming ascetic, a scourge of his time\u2019s wickedness, rather than a\nstatesman of the Church. His writings were a vent for the outcries of his\nhorror-stricken soul. The corruption of the clergy filled his nostrils:\nthey were rotten, like the loin-cloth of Jeremiah, hidden by the\nEuphrates; their bellies were full of drunkenness and lust.[326] As for\nthe apostolic see:\n\n  \u201cHeu! sedes apostolica,\n   Orbis olim gloria,\n   Nunc, proh dolor! efficeris\n   Officina Simonis.\u201d[327]\n\nThese, with other verses written in tears, relate to schisms of pope and\nantipope which so often rent the papacy in Peter\u2019s lifetime.[328] He never\nceased to cry out against monks and clergy, denouncing their simony and\navarice, their luxury, intemperance and vile unchastity, their viciousness\nof every kind. Such denunciations fill his letters, while many of his\nother writings chiefly consist of them.[329] They culminate in his\nhorrible _Liber Gomorrhianus_, which was issued with the approval of one\npope, to be suppressed by another as too unspeakable.\n\nNaturally over so foul a world, flame and lower the terrors of the Day of\nJudgment. For Damiani it was near at hand. He writes to a certain judge:\n\n    \u201cTherefore, most dear brother now while the world smiles for thee,\n    while thy body glows in health, while the prosperity of earth is sweet\n    and fair, think upon those things which are to come. Deem whatever is\n    transitory to be but as the illusion of a dream. And that terrible day\n    of the last Judgment keep ever present to thy sight, and brood with\n    quaking bowels over the sudden coming of such majesty--nor think it to\n    be far off!\u201d[330]\n\nBeware of penitence postponed!\n\n    \u201cO how full of grief and dole is that late unfruitful repentance, when\n    the sinful soul, about to be loosed from its dungeon of flesh, looks\n    behind it, and then directs its gaze into the future. It sees behind\n    it that little stadium of mortal life, already traversed; it sees\n    before it the range of endless aeons. That flown moment which it has\n    lived it perceives to be an instant; it contemplates the infinite\n    length of time to come.\u201d[331]\n\nFrom Damiani\u2019s stricken thoughts upon the wickedness of the age, we may\nturn to the more personal disclosures of one who wrote himself _Petrus\npeccator monachus_. There is one tell-tale letter of confession to his\nbrother Damianus, whom he loved and revered:\n\n    \u201cTo my lord Damianus, my best loved brother, Peter, sinner and monk,\n    his servant and son.\n\n    \u201cI would not have it hid from thee, my sweetest father and lord in\n    Christ, that my mind is cast down with sadness while it contemplates\n    its own exit which is so near. For I count now many long years that I\n    wait to be thrown to dogs; and I notice that in whatever monastery I\n    come nearly all are younger than myself. When I consider this, I\n    ponder upon death alone, I meditate upon my tomb; I do not withdraw\n    the eyes of my mind from my tomb. Nor is my mind content to limit its\n    fear and its consideration to the death of the body; for it is at once\n    haled to judgment, and meditates with terror upon what might be its\n    plea and defence. Wretched me! with what fountains of tears must I\n    lament! I who have done every evil, and through my long life have\n    fulfilled scarce one commandment of the divine law. For what evil have\n    not I, miserable man, committed? Where are the vices, where are the\n    crimes in which I am not implicated; I confess my life has fallen in a\n    lake of misery; my soul is taken in its iniquities. Pride, lust,\n    anger, impatience, malice, envy, gluttony, drunkenness, concupiscence,\n    robbery, lying, perjury, idle talking, scurrility, ignorance,\n    negligence, and other pests have overthrown me, and all the vices like\n    ravening beasts have devoured my soul. My heart and my lips are\n    defiled. I am contaminate in sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch.\n    And in every way, in cogitation, in speech or action, I am lost. All\n    these evils have I done; and alas! alas! I have brought forth no fruit\n    meet for repentance.\n\n    \u201cOne pernicious fault, among others, I acknowledge: scurrility has\n    been my besetting sin; it has never really left me. For howsoever I\n    have fought against this monster, and broken its wicked teeth with the\n    hammer of austerity, and at times repelled it, I have never won the\n    full victory. When, in the ways of spiritual gladness, I wish to show\n    myself cheerful to the brethren, I drop into words of vanity; and when\n    as it were discreetly for the sake of brotherly love, I think to throw\n    off my severity, then indiscreetly my tongue unbridled utters\n    foolishness. If the Lord said: \u2018Blessed are they that mourn, for they\n    shall be comforted,\u2019 what judgment hangs over those who not only are\n    slack at weeping, but act like buffoons with laughter and vain\n    giggling. Consolation is due to those who weep, not to those who\n    rejoice; what consolation may be expected from that future Judge by\n    those who now are given to foolish mirth and vain jocularity? If the\n    Truth says: \u2018Woe unto ye who laugh, for ye shall weep,\u2019 what fearful\n    judgment shall be theirs who not only laugh themselves, but with\n    scurrilities drag laughter from their listeners?\u201d\n\nThe penitent saint then shows from Scripture how that our hearts ought to\nbe vessels of tears, and concludes with casting himself at the feet of his\nbeloved \u201cfather\u201d in entreaty that he would interpose the shield of his\nholy prayers between his petitioner and that monster, and exorcise its\nserpentine poison, and also that he would ever pour forth prayers to God,\nand beseech the divine mercy in behalf of all the other vices confessed in\nthis letter.[332]\n\nA strange confession this--or, indeed, is it strange? This cowled Peter\nDamiani who passes from community to community, seeing more keenly than\nothers may, denouncing, execrating every vice existent or imagined, who\nwears haircloth, goes barefoot, lives on bread and water, scourges himself\nwith daily flagellations, urging others to do likewise,--this Peter\nDamiani is yet unable quite to scourge out the human nature from him, and\nevidently cannot always refrain from that jocularity and _inepta laetitia_\nfor which the Abbess Hildegard also saw sundry souls in hell.[333]\nPerhaps, with Peter, revulsions from the strain of austerity took the form\nof sudden laughter. His imagination was fine, his wit too quick for his\nsoul\u2019s safety. His confession was no matter of mock humility, nor did he\ndeem laughter vulgar or in bad taste. He feared to imperil his soul\nthrough it. Of course, in accusing himself of other, and as we should\nthink more serious crimes--drunkenness, robbery, perjury--Peter was merely\ncarrying to an extreme the monkish conventions of self-vilification.\n\nIf it appears from this letter that Damiani had been unable quite to\nscourge his wit out of him, another letter, to a young countess, will show\nmore touchingly that he had been unable quite to fast out of him his human\nheart.\n\n    \u201cTo Guilla, most illustrious countess, Peter, monk and sinner, [sends]\n    the instancy of prayer.\n\n    \u201cSince of a thing out of which will issue conflict it is better to\n    have ignorance without cost, than with dear-bought forgetting wage\n    hard war, we prudently accord to young women, whose aspect we fear,\n    audience by letter. Certainly I, who now am an old man, may safely\n    look upon the seared and wrinkled visage of a blear-eyed crone. Yet\n    from sight of the more comely and adorned I guard my eyes as boys from\n    fire. Alas my wretched heart which cannot hold Scriptural mysteries\n    read through a hundred times, and will not lose the memory of a form\n    seen but once! There where the divine law remains not, no oblivion\n    blurs vanity\u2019s image. But of this another time. Here I have not to\n    write of what is hurtful to me but of what may be salutary for thee.\u201d\n\nPeter then continues with excellent advice for the young noblewoman,\nexhorting her to deeds of mercy and kindness, and warning her against the\nenjoyment of revenues wrung from the poor.[334] Indeed Damiani\u2019s writings\ncontain much that still is wise. His advice to the great and noble of the\nworld was admirable,[335] and though couched in austere phrase, it\ndemanded what many men feel bound to fulfil in the twentieth century. His\nlittle work on Almsgiving[336] contains sentences which might be spoken\nto-day. He has been pointing out that no one can be exercising the ascetic\nvirtues all the time: no one can be always praying and fasting, washing\nfeet and subjecting the body to pain. Some people, moreover, shun such\nself-castigation. But one can always be benevolent; and, though fearing to\nafflict the body, can stretch forth his hand in charity: \u201cThose then who\nare rich should seek to be dispensers rather than possessors. They ought\nnot to regard what they have as their own: for they did not receive this\ntransitory wealth in order to revel in luxury, but that they should\nadminister it so long as they continue in their stewardship. Whoever gives\nto the poor does not distribute his own but restores another\u2019s.\u201d[337]\n\nThis sounds modern--it also sounds like Seneca.[338] Yet Damiani was no\nmodern man, nor was he antique, but very fearful of the classics. Having\nbeen a rhetorician and grammarian, when he became a hermit-monk he made\nChrist his grammar (_mea grammatica Christus est_).[339] Horror-stricken\nat the world, and writhing under his own contamination, he cast body and\nsoul into the ascetic life. That was the harbour of escape from the carnal\ntemptations which threatened the soul\u2019s hope of pardon from the Judge at\nthe Last Day. Therefore Peter is fierce in execration of all lapses from\nthe hermit-life, so rapturously praised with its contrition, its\npenitence, and tears. His ascetic rhapsodies, with which, as a poet might,\nhe delighted or relieved his soul, are eloquent illustrations of the\nmonastic ideal.[340]\n\nOther men in Italy less intelligent than Damiani, but equally picturesque,\nwere held by like ascetic and emotional obsession. Intellectual interest,\nhowever, in theology was less prominent, because the Italian concern with\nreligion was either emotional or ecclesiastical, which is to say,\npolitical. The philosophic or dialectical treatment of the Faith was to\nrun its course north of the Alps; and those men of Italian birth--Anselm,\nPeter Lombard, Bonaventura, and Aquinas--who contributed to Christian\nthought, early left their native land, and accomplished their careers\nunder intellectual conditions which did not obtain in Italy. Nevertheless,\nAnselm and Bonaventura at least did not lose their Italian qualities; and\nit is as representative of what might come out of Italy in the eleventh\ncentury that the former may detain us here.\n\nThe story of Anselm is told well and lovingly by his companion\nEadmer.[341] His life, although it was drawn within the currents of\naffairs, remained intellectual and aloof, a meditation upon God. It opens\nwith a dream of climbing the mountain to God\u2019s palace-seat. For Anselm\u2019s\nboyhood was passed at Aosta, within the shadows of the Graian Alps.[342]\nSurely the heaven rested upon them. Might he not then go up to the hall\nwhere God, above in the heaven, as the boy\u2019s mother taught, ruled and held\nall?\n\n    \u201cSo one night it seemed he must ascend to the summit of the mountains,\n    and go to the hall of the great King. In the plain at the first\n    slopes, he saw women, the servants of the King, reaping grain\n    carelessly and idly. He would accuse them to their Lord. He went up\n    across the summit and came to the King\u2019s hall. He found Him there\n    alone with His seneschal, for it was autumn and He had sent His\n    servants to gather the harvest. The Lord called the boy as he entered;\n    and he went and sat at His feet. The Lord asked kindly (_jucunda\n    affabilitate_) whence he came and what he wished. He replied just as\n    he knew the thing to be (_juxta quod rem esse sciebat_). Then, at the\n    Lord\u2019s command, the Seneschal brought him bread of the whitest, and he\n    was there refreshed in His presence. In the morning he verily believed\n    that he had been in Heaven and had been refreshed with the bread of\n    the Lord.\u201d\n\nA pious mother had been the boy\u2019s first teacher. Others taught him\nLetters, till he became proficient, and beloved by those who knew him. He\nwished to be made a monk, but a neighbouring abbot refused his request,\nfearing the displeasure of Anselm\u2019s father, of whom the biographer has\nnothing good to say. The youth fell sick, but with returning health the\njoy of living drew his mind from study and his pious purpose. Love for his\nmother held him from over-indulgence in pastimes. She died, and with this\nsheet-anchor lost, Anselm\u2019s ship was near to drifting out on the world\u2019s\nslippery flood. But here the impossible temper of the father wrought as\nGod\u2019s providence, and Anselm, unable to stay with him, left his home, and\nset out across Mount Senis attended by one clericus. For three years he\nmoved through Burgundy and Francia, till Lanfranc\u2019s repute drew him to\nBec. Day and night he studied beneath that master, and also taught. The\ndesire to be a monk returned; and he began to direct his purpose toward\npleasing God and spurning the world.\n\nBut where? At either Cluny or Bec he feared to lose the fruit of his\nstudies; for at Cluny there was the strictness of the rule,[343] and at\nBec Lanfranc\u2019s eminent learning would \u201cmake mine of little value.\u201d Anselm\nsays that he was not yet subdued, nor had the contempt of the world become\nstrong in him. Then the thought came: \u201cIs this to be a monk to wish to be\nset before others and magnified above them? Nay,--become a monk where, for\nthe sake of God, you will be put after all and be held viler than all.\nAnd where can this be? Surely at Bec. I shall be of no weight while he is\nhere, whose wisdom and repute are enough for all. Here then is my rest,\nhere God alone will be my purpose, here the single love of Him will be my\nthought, and here the constant remembrance of Him will be a happy\nconsolation.\u201d\n\nScripture bade him: Do all things with counsel. Whom but Lanfranc should\nhe consult? So he laid three plans before him--to become a monk, a hermit,\nor (his father being dead) for the sake of God administer his patrimony\nfor the poor. Lanfranc persuaded Anselm to refer the decision to the\nvenerable Archbishop of Rouen. Together they went to him, and such, says\nthe biographer, was Anselm\u2019s reverence for Lanfranc, that on the way,\npassing through the wood near Bec, had Lanfranc bade him stay in that\nwood, he would not have left it all his days.\n\nThe archbishop decided for the monastic life. So Anslem took the vows of a\nmonk at Bec, being twenty-seven years of age. Lanfranc was then Prior, but\nsoon left to become Abbot of St. Stephen\u2019s at Caen.[344] Made Prior in his\nplace, Anselm devoted himself in gentleness and wisdom to the care of the\nmonks and to meditation upon God and the divine truths. He was especially\nconsiderate of the younger monks, whose waywardness he guided and whose\nlove he won. The envy of cavillers was stilled. Yet the business of office\nharassed one whose thoughts dwelled more gladly in the blue heaven with\nGod. Again he sought the counsel of the archbishop; for Herluin, the first\nAbbot and founder of Bec, still lived on, old and unlettered, and\napparently no great fount of wisdom. The archbishop commanded him _per\nsanctam obedientiam_ not to renounce his office, nor refuse if called to a\nhigher one. So, sad but resolute, he returned to the convent, and resumed\nhis burdens in such wise as to be held by all as a loved father. It was at\nthis period that he wrote several treatises upon the high doctrinal themes\nwhich filled his thoughts. Gradually his mind settled to the search after\nsome single proof of that which is believed concerning God--that He\nexists, and is eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, just, and pitying, and is\ntruth and goodness. This thing caused him great difficulty. Not only it\nkept him from food and drink and sleep, but what weighed upon him more, it\ninterfered with his devotion to God\u2019s service. Reflecting thus, and unable\nto reach a valid conclusion, he decided that such speculation was a\ntemptation of the devil, and tried to drive it from his thoughts. But the\nmore he struggled, the more it beset him. And one night, at the time of\nthe nocturnal vigils, the grace of God shed light in his heart, and the\nargument was clear to his mind, and filled his inmost being with an\nimmense jubilation. All the more now was he confirmed in the love of God\nand the contempt of the world, of which one night he had a vision as of a\ntorrent filled with obscene filth, and carrying in its flood the countless\nhost of people of the world, while apart and aloof from its slime rose the\nsweet cloister, with its walls of silver, surrounded by silvery herbage,\nall delectable beyond conception.\n\nIn the year 1078 old Herluin died. Anselm long had guided the convent, and\nwith one voice the brethren chose him Abbot. He reasoned and argued, but\ncould not dissuade them, and in his anxiety he knew not what to do. Some\ndays passed. He had recourse to entreaties; with tears he flung himself\nprostrate before them all, praying and protesting in the name of God, and\nbeseeching them, if they had any bowels of compassion, to permit him to\nremain free from this great burden. But they only cast themselves upon the\nearth, and prayed that he would rather commiserate them, and not disregard\nthe convent\u2019s good. At length he yielded, for the command of the\narchbishop came to his mind. Such a scene occurs often in monastic\nhistory. None the less is it moving when the participants are in earnest,\nas Anselm was, and his monks.\n\nSo Anselm\u2019s life opened; so it sought counsel, gathered strength, and\ncentred to its purpose, pursuing as its goal the thought of God. Anselm\nhad love and gentleness for his fellows; he drew their love and reverence.\nYet, aloof, he lived within his spirit. Did he open its hidden places even\nto Lanfranc? Although one who in his humility always desired counsel,\nperhaps neither Lanfranc nor Eadmer, the friend whom the Pope gave him for\nan adviser, knew the meditations of his heart. We at all events should\ndiscern little of them by following the outer story of his life. It might\neven be fruitless to sail with him across the channel to visit Lanfranc,\nnow Primate of England. The biographer has nothing to tell of the converse\nbetween the two, although quite rightly impressed at the meeting between\nhim who was pre-eminent in _auctoritas_ and _scientia_ and him who\nexcelled in _sanctitas_ and _sapientia Dei_. Nor would it enlighten us to\nfollow Anselm\u2019s archiepiscopal career, save so far as to realize that he\nwho lives in the thought of God will fear no brutal earthly majesty, such\nas that of William Rufus, to admonish whom Anselm once more crossed the\nChannel after Lanfranc\u2019s death. Whatever this despoiler of bishoprics then\nthought, he fell sick afterwards, and, being terrified, named Anselm\narchbishop, this being in the year 1093. One may imagine the unison\nbetween them! and how little the Red King\u2019s ways would turn the enskied\nsteadfastness of Anselm\u2019s soul. But the king had the power, and could keep\nthe archbishop in trouble and in peril. Anselm asked and asked again for\nleave to go to Rome, and the king refused. After more than one stormy\nscene--the storm being always on the Red King\u2019s part--Anselm made it plain\nthat he would obey God rather than man in the matter. At the very last he\nwent in to the king and his Court, and seating himself quietly at the\nking\u2019s right he said: \u201cI, my lord, shall go, as I have determined. But\nfirst, if you do not decline it, I will give you my blessing.\u201d So the king\nacquiesced.\n\nThe archbishop went first to Canterbury, to comfort and strengthen his\nmonks, and spoke to them assembled together:\n\n    \u201cDearly beloved brothers and sons, I am, as you know, about to leave\n    this kingdom. The contention with our lord the king as to Christian\n    discipline, has reached this pass that I must either do what is\n    contrary to God and my own honour, or leave the realm. Gladly I go,\n    hoping through the mercy of God that my journey may advance the\n    Church\u2019s liberty hereafter. I am moved to pity you, upon whom greater\n    tribulations will come in my absence. Even with me here you have not\n    been unoppressed, yet I think I have given you more peace than you\n    have had since the death of our Father Lanfranc. I think those who\n    molest you will rage the more with me away. You, however, are not\n    undisciplined in the school of the Lord. Nevertheless I will say\n    something, because, since you have come together within the close of\n    this monastery to fight for God, you should always have before your\n    eyes how you should fight.\n\n    \u201cAll retainers do not fight in the same way either for an earthly\n    prince, or for God whose are all things that are. The angels\n    established in eternal beatitude wait upon Him. He has also men who\n    serve Him for earthly benefits, like hired knights. He has also some\n    who, cleaving to His will, contend to reach the kingdom of heaven,\n    which they have forfeited through Adam\u2019s fault. Observe the knights\n    who are in God\u2019s pay. Many you see leading a secular life and cleaving\n    to the household of God for the good things which they gain in His\n    service. But when, by God\u2019s judgment, trial comes to them, and\n    disaster, they fly from His love and accuse Him of injustice. We\n    monks--would that we were such as not to be like them! For those who\n    cannot stand to their professed purpose unless they have all things\n    comfortable, and do not wish to suffer destitution for God, how shall\n    they not be held like to these? And shall such be heirs of the kingdom\n    of heaven? Faithfully I say, No, never, unless they repent.\n\n    \u201cHe who truly contends toward recovering the kingdom of life, strives\n    to cleave to God through all; no adversity draws him from God\u2019s\n    service, no pleasure lures him from the love of Him. _Per dura et\n    aspera_ he treads the way of His commands, and from hope of the reward\n    to come, his heart is aflame with the ardour of love, and sings with\n    the Psalmist, Great is the glory of the Lord. Which glory he tastes in\n    this pilgrimage, and tasting, he desires, and desiring, salutes as\n    from afar. Supported by the hope of attaining, he is consoled amid the\n    perils of the world and gladly sings, Great is the glory of the Lord.\n    Know that this one will in no way be defrauded of that glory of the\n    Lord, since all that is in him serves the Lord, and is directed to\n    winning this reward. But I see that there is no need to say to you\n    another word. My brothers, since we are separated now in grief, I\n    beseech you so to strive that hereafter we may be united joyfully\n    before God. Be ye those who truly wish to be made heirs of God.\u201d\n\nThe clarity and gentle love of this high argument is Anselm. Now the story\nfollows of Anselm and Eadmer and another monk travelling on, sometimes\nunknown, sometimes acclaimed, through France to Italy and Rome. Anselm\u2019s\nface inspired reverence in those who did not know him, and the peace of\nhis countenance attracted even Saracens. Had he been born and bred in\nEngland, he might have managed better with the Red King. He never got an\nEnglish point of view, but remained a Churchman with Italian-Hildebrandine\nconvictions. Of course, two policies were clashing then in England, where\nit happened that there was on one side an able and rapacious tyrant, while\nthe other was represented by a man with the countenance and temperament of\nan angel. But we may leave Anselm now in Italy, where he is beyond the Red\nKing\u2019s molestation, and turn to his writings.\n\nTheir choice and treatment of subject was partly guided by the needs of\nhis pupils and friends at Bec and elsewhere in Normandy or Francia or\nEngland. For he wrote much at their solicitation; and the theological\nproblems of which solutions were requested, suggest the intellectual\ntemper of those regions, rather than of Italy. In a way Anselm\u2019s works,\ntreating of separate and selected Christian questions, are a proper\ncontinuation of those composed by northern theologians in the ninth\ncentury on Predestination and the Eucharist.[345] Only Anselm\u2019s were not\nevoked by the exigency of actual controversy as much as by the insistency\nof the eleventh-century mind, and the need it felt of some adjustment\nregarding certain problems. Anselm\u2019s theological and philosophic\nconsciousness is clear and confident. His faculties are formative and\ncreative, quite different from the compiling instincts of Alcuin or\nRabanus. The matter of his argument has become his own; it has been remade\nin his thinking, and is presented as from himself--and God. He no longer\nconceives himself as one searching through the \u201cpantries\u201d of the Fathers\nor culling the choice flowers of their \u201cmeadows.\u201d He will set forth the\nmatter as God has deigned to disclose it to him. In the _Cur Deus homo_ he\nbegins by saying that he has been urged by many, verbally and by letter,\nto consider the reasons why God became man and suffered, and then,\nassenting, says: \u201cAlthough, from the holy Fathers on, what should suffice\nhas been said, yet concerning this question I will endeavour to set forth\nfor my inquirers what God shall deign to disclose to me.\u201d[346]\n\nCertain works of Anselm, the _Monologion_, for instance, present the dry\nand the formal method of reasoning which was to make its chief home in\nFrance; others, like the _Proslogion_, seem to be Italian in a certain\nbeautiful emotionalism. The feeling is very lofty, even lifted out of the\nhuman, very skyey, even. The _Proslogion_, the _Meditationes_, do not\nthrob with the red blood of Augustine\u2019s _Confessions_, the writing which\ninfluenced them most. The quality of their feeling suggests rather Dante\u2019s\n_Paradiso_; and sometimes with Anselm a sense of formal beauty and\nperfection seems to disclose the mind of Italy. Moreover, Anselm\u2019s Latin\nstyle appears Italian. It is elastic, even apparently idiomatic, and\nvaries with the temper and character of his different works. Throughout,\nit shows in Latin the fluency and simple word-order natural to an author\nwhose _vulgaris eloquentia_ was even closer to Latin in the time of Anselm\nthan when Dante wrote.\n\nSo Anselm\u2019s writings were intimately part of their author, and very part\nof his life-long meditation upon God. Led by the solicitations of others,\nas well as impelled by the needs of his own faculties and nature, he takes\nup one Christian problem after another, and sets forth his understanding\nof it with his conclusion. He is devout, an absolute believer; and he is\nwonderfully metaphysical. He is a beautiful, a sublimated, and idealizing\nreasoner, convinced that a divine reality must exist in correspondence\nwith his thought, which projects itself aloft to evoke from the blue an\nanswering reality. The inspiration, the radiating point of Anselm\u2019s\nintellectual interest, is clearly given--to understand that which he first\nbelieves. It is a spontaneous intellectual interest, not altogether\nspringing from a desire to know how to be saved. It does not seek to\nunderstand in order to believe; but seeks the happiness of knowing and\nunderstanding that which it believes and loves. Listen to some sentences\nfrom the opening of the _Proslogion_:\n\n    \u201cCome now, mannikin, flee thy occupations for a little, and hide from\n    the confusion of thy cares. Be vacant a little while for God, and for\n    a little rest in Him.... Now, O Lord my God, teach my heart where and\n    how to seek thee, where and how to find thee. Lord, Lord, illuminate\n    us; show us thyself. Pity us labouring toward thee, impotent without\n    thee.... Teach me to seek thee, and show thyself to my search; for I\n    cannot seek thee unless thou dost teach, nor find thee unless thou\n    dost show thyself.... I make no attempt, Lord, to penetrate thy\n    depths, for my intellect has no such reach; but I desire to understand\n    some measure of thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. I do not\n    seek to know in order that I may believe; but I believe, that I may\n    know. For I believe this also, that unless I shall have believed, I\n    shall not understand.\u201d[347]\n\nSo Anselm is first a believer, then a theologian; and his reason devotes\nitself to the elucidation of his faith. Faith prescribes his intellectual\ninterests, and sets their bounds. His thought does not occupy itself with\nmatters beyond. But it takes a pure intellectual delight in reasoning upon\nthe God which his faith presents and his heart cleaves to. The motive is\nthe intellectual and loving delight which his mind takes in this pursuit.\nHis faith was sure and undisturbed, and ample for his salvation. His\nintellect, affected by no motive beyond its own strength and joy, delights\nin reasoning upon the matter of his faith.[348]\n\nWe may still linger for a moment to observe how closely part of Anselm\u2019s\nnature was his proof of the existence of God.[349] It sprang directly from\nhis saintly soul and the compelling idealism of his reason. In the\n_Monologion_ Anselm ranged his many arguments concerning the nature and\nattributes of the _summum bonum_ which is God. Its chain of inductions\nfailed to satisfy him and his pupils. So he set his mind to seek a sole\nand unconditioned proof (as Eadmer states in the _Vita_) of God\u2019s\nexistence and the attributes which faith ascribes to Him. Anselm says the\nsame in the Preface to the _Proslogion_:\n\n    \u201cConsidering that the prior work was woven out of a concatenation of\n    many arguments, I set to seek within myself (_mecum_) whether I might\n    not discover one argument which needed nothing else than itself alone\n    for its proof; and which by itself might suffice to show that God\n    truly exists, and that He is the _summum bonum_ needing nothing else,\n    but needed by all things in order that they may exist and have\n    well-being (_ut sint et bene sint_); and whatever we believe\n    concerning the divine substance.\u201d\n\nThe famous proof which at length flashed upon him is substantially this:\nBy very definition the word _God_ means the greatest conceivable being.\nThis conception exists even in the atheist\u2019s mind, for he knows what is\nmeant by the words, the absolutely greatest. But the greatest cannot be in\nthe intellect alone, for then conceivably there would be a greater which\nwould exist in reality as well. And since, by definition, God is the\nabsolutely greatest, He must exist in reality as well as in the mind.[350]\nCarrying out the scholia to this argument, Anselm then proves that God\npossesses the various attributes ascribed to Him by the Christian Faith.\n\nThat from a definition one may not infer the existence of the thing\ndefined, was pointed out by a certain monk Gaunilo almost as soon as the\n_Proslogion_ appeared. Anselm answered him that the argument applied only\nto the greatest conceivable being. Since that time Anselm\u2019s proof has been\nupheld and disproved many times. It was at all events a great dialectic\nleap; but likely one may not with such a bound cross the chasm from\ndefinition to existence--at least one will be less bold to try when he\nrealizes that this chasm is there. Temperamentally, at least, this proof\nwas the summit of Anselm\u2019s idealism: he could not but conceive things to\nexist in correspondence to the demands of his conceptions. He never made\nanother so palpable leap from conception to conviction as in this proof of\nGod\u2019s existence; yet his theology proceeded through like processes of\nthought. For example, he is sure of God\u2019s omnipotence, and also sure that\nGod can do nothing which would detract from the perfection of His nature:\nGod cannot lie: \u201cFor it does not follow, if God wills to lie that it is\njust to lie; but rather that He is not God. For only that will can will to\nlie in which truth is corrupted, or rather which is corrupted by forsaking\ntruth. Therefore when one says \u2018if God wills to lie,\u2019 he says in\nsubstance, \u2018if God is of such a nature as to will to lie.\u2019\u201d[351]\n\nAnselm\u2019s other famous work was the _Cur Deus homo_, upon the problem why\nGod became man to redeem mankind. It was connected with his view of sin,\nand the fall of the angels, as set forth chiefly in his dialogue _De casu\nDiaboli_. One may note certain cardinal points in his exposition: Man\ncould be redeemed only by God; for he would have been the bond-servant of\nwhoever redeemed him, and to have been the servant of any one except God\nwould not have restored him to the dignity which would have been his had\nhe not sinned.[352] Or again: The devil had no rights over man, which he\nlost by unjustly slaying God. For man was not the devil\u2019s, nor does the\ndevil belong to himself but to God.[353] Evidently Anselm frees himself\nfrom the conception of any ransom paid to the devil, or any trickery put\non him--thoughts which had lowered current views of the Atonement.\nAnselm\u2019s arguments (which are too large, and too interwoven with his views\nupon connected subjects, to be done justice to by any casual statement)\nare free from degrading foolishness. His reasonings were deeply felt, as\none may see in his _Meditationes_, where thought and feeling mutually\nsupport and enhance each other. So he recalls Augustine, the great model\nand predecessor whom he followed and revered. And still the feeling in\nAnselm\u2019s _Meditationes_, as in the _Proslogion_, is somewhat sublimated\nand lifted above human heart-throbs. Perhaps it may seem rhetorical, and\nintentionally stimulated in order to edify. Even in the _Meditationes_\nupon the humanity and passion of Jesus, Anselm is not very close to the\nquivering tenderness of St. Bernard, and very far from the impulsive and\npassionate love of Francis of Assisi. One thinks that his feelings rarely\ndistorted his countenance or wet it with tears.[354]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: FRANCE\n\n      I. GERBERT.\n\n     II. ODILO OF CLUNY.\n\n    III. FULBERT AND THE SCHOOL OF CHARTRES; TRIVIUM AND QUADRIVIUM.\n\n     IV. BERENGAR OF TOURS, ROSCELLIN, AND THE COMING TIME.\n\n\nI\n\nIt appeared in the last chapter that Anselm\u2019s choice of topic was not\nuninfluenced by his northern domicile at Bec in Normandy, from which, one\nmay add, it was no far cry to the monastery (Marmoutier) of Anselm\u2019s sharp\ncritic Gaunilo. These places lay within the confines of central and\nnorthern France, the home of the most originative mediaeval development.\nFor this region, the renewed studies of the Carolingian period were the\nproper antecedents of the efforts of the eleventh century. The topics of\nstudy still remained substantially the same; yet the later time represents\na further stage in the appropriation of the antique and patristic\nmaterial, and its productions show the genius of the authors more clearly\nthan Carolingian writings, which were taken piecemeal from patristic\nsources or made of borrowed antique phrase.\n\nThe difference is seen in the personality and writings of Gerbert of\nAurillac,[355] the man who with such intellectual catholicity opens the\nstory of this period. One will be struck with the apparently arid crudity\nof his intellectual processes. Crude they were, and of necessity; arid\nthey were not, being an unavoidable stage in the progress of mediaeval\nthinking. Yet it is a touch of fate\u2019s irony that such an interesting\npersonality should have been afflicted with them. For Gerbert was the\nredeeming intellect of the last part of the tenth century. The cravings of\nhis mind compassed the intellectual predilections of his contemporaries in\ntheir entirety. Secular and by no means priestly they appear in him; and\nit is clear that religious motives did not dominate this extraordinary\nindividual who was reared among monks, became Abbot of Bobbio, Archbishop\nof Rheims, Archbishop of Ravenna, and pope at last.\n\nHe appears to have been born shortly before the year 950. From the\nignorance in which we are left as to his parents and the exact place of\nhis birth in Aquitaine, it may be inferred that his origin was humble.\nWhile still a boy he was received into the Benedictine monastery of St.\nGeraldus at Aurillac in Auvergne. There he studied grammar (in the\nextended mediaeval sense), under a monk named Raymund, and grew to love\nthe classics. A loyal affectionateness was a life-long trait of Gerbert,\nand more than one letter in after life bears witness to the love which he\nnever ceased to feel for the monks of Aurillac among whom his youthful\nyears were passed, and especially for this brother Raymund from whom he\nreceived his first instruction.\n\nRaymund afterwards became abbot of the convent. But it was his\npredecessor, Gerald, who had received the boy Gerbert, and was still to do\nsomething of moment in directing his career. A certain duke of the Spanish\nMarch came on a pilgrimage to Aurillac; and Gerald besought him to take\nGerbert back with him to Spain for such further instruction as the convent\ndid not afford. The duke departed, taking Gerbert, and placed him under\nthe tuition of the Bishop of Vich, a town near Barcelona. Here he studied\nmathematics. The tradition that he travelled through Spain and learned\nfrom the Arabs lacks probability. But in the course of time the duke and\nbishop set forth to pray for sundry material objects at the fountainhead\nof Catholicism, and took their _prot\u00e9g\u00e9_ with them to Rome.\n\nIn Rome, Gerbert\u2019s destiny advanced apace. His patrons, doubtless proud of\ntheir young scholar, introduced him to the Pope, John XIII., who also was\nimpressed by Gerbert\u2019s personality and learning. John told his own\nprotector, the great Otto, and informed him of Gerbert\u2019s ability to teach\nmathematics; and the two kept Gerbert in Rome, when the Spanish duke and\nbishop returned to their country. Gerbert began to teach, and either at\nthis time or later had among his pupils the young Augustus, Otto II. But\nhe was more anxious to study logic than to teach mathematics, even under\nimperial favour. He persuaded the old emperor to let him go to Rheims with\na certain archdeacon from that place, who was skilled in the science which\nhe lacked. The emperor dismissed him, with a liberal hand. In his new home\nGerbert rapidly mastered logic, and impressed all with his genius. He won\nthe love of the archbishop, Adalberon, who shortly set the now triply\naccomplished scholar at the head of the episcopal school. Gerbert\u2019s\neducation was complete, in letters, in mathematics including music, and in\nlogic. Thenceforth for ten years (972-982), the happiest of his life, he\nstudied and also taught the whole range of academic knowledge.\n\nFortune, not altogether kind, bestowed on Gerbert the favour of three\nemperors. The graciousness of the first Otto had enabled him to proceed to\nRheims. The second Otto listened to his teaching, admired the teacher, and\nearly in the year 983 made him Abbot and Count of Bobbio. Long afterwards\nthe third Otto made him Archbishop of Ravenna, and then pope.\n\nBobbio, the chief foundation of Columbanus, situated not far from Genoa,\nwas powerful and rich; but its vast possessions, scattered throughout\nItaly, had been squandered by worthless abbots or seized by lawless\nnobles. The new count-abbot, eager to fulfil the ecclesiastical and feudal\nfunctions of his position, strove to reclaim the monastery\u2019s property and\nbring back its monks to decency and learning. In vain. Now, as more than\nonce in Gerbert\u2019s later life, brute circumstances proved too strong. Otto\ndied. Gerbert was unsupported. He struggled and wrote many letters which\nserve to set forth the situation for us, though they did not win the\nbattle for their writer:\n\n    \u201cAccording to the largeness of my mind, my lord (Otto II.) has\n    enriched me with most ample honours. For what part of Italy does not\n    hold the possessions of the blessed Columbanus? So should this be,\n    from the generosity and benevolence of our Caesar. Fortune, indeed,\n    ordains it otherwise. Forsooth according to the largeness of my mind\n    she has loaded me with most ample stores of enemies. For what part of\n    Italy has not my enemies? My strength is unequal to the strength of\n    Italy! There is peace on this condition: if I, despoiled, submit, they\n    cease to strike; intractable in my vested rights, they attack with the\n    sword. When they do not strike with the sword, they thrust with\n    javelins of words.\u201d[356]\n\nWithin a year Gerbert gave up the struggle at Bobbio, and returned to\nRheims to resume his duties as head of the school, and secretary and\nintimate adviser of Adalberon. Politically the time was one of uncertainty\nand turmoil. The Carolingian house was crumbling, and the house of Capet\nwas scheming and struggling on to a royalty scarcely more considerable. In\nGermany intrigue and revolt threatened the rights of the child Otto III.\nArchbishop Adalberon, guided by Gerbert, was a powerful factor in the\ndynastic change in France; and the two were zealous for Otto. Throughout\nthese troubles Gerbert constantly appears, directing projected measures\nand divining courses of events, yet somehow, in spite of his unmatched\nintelligence, failing to control them.\n\nTime passed, and Adalberon died at the beginning of the year 989. His\nsuccessor, Arnulf, a scion of the falling Carolingian house, was\nsubsequently unseated for treason to the new-sprung house of Capet. In 991\nGerbert himself was made archbishop. But although seeming to reach his\nlonged-for goal, troubles redoubled on his head. There was rage at the\nchoice of one so lowly born for the princely dignity. The storm gathered\naround the new archbishop, and the See of Rome was moved to interfere,\nwhich it did gladly, since at Rome Gerbert was hated for the reproaches\ncast upon its ignorance and corruption by bishops at the council which\nelected him and deposed his predecessor. In that deposition and election\nRome had not acquiesced; and we read the words of the papal legate:\n\n    \u201cThe acts of your synod against Arnulf, or rather against the Roman\n    Church, astound me with their insults and blasphemies. Truly is the\n    word of the Gospel fulfilled in you, \u2018There shall be many\n    anti-Christs.\u2019... Your anti-Christs say that Rome is as a temple of\n    idols, an image of stone. Because the vicars of Peter and their\n    disciples will not have as master Plato, Virgil, Terence or the rest\n    of the herd of Philosophers, ye say they are not worthy to be\n    door-keepers--because they have no part in such song.\u201d[357]\n\nThe battle went against Gerbert. Interdicted from his archiepiscopal\nfunctions, he left France for the Court of Otto III., where his intellect\nat once dominated the aspirations of the young monarch. Otto and Gerbert\nwent together to Italy, and the emperor made his friend Archbishop of\nRavenna. The next year, 999, Gregory V. died, and the archbishop became\nPope Sylvester II. For three short years the glorious young imperial\ndreamer and his peerless counsellor planned and wrought for a great united\nEmpire and Papacy on earth. Then death took first the emperor and soon\nafterwards the pope-philosopher.\n\nGerbert was the first mind of his time, its greatest teacher, its most\neager learner, and most universal scholar. His pregnant letters reflect a\nfinished man who has mastered his acquired knowledge and transformed it\ninto power. They also evince the authorship of one who had uniquely\nprofited from the power and spirit of the great minds of the pagan past,\nhad imbibed their sense of form and pertinency, and with them had become\nself-contained and self-controlled, master of himself and of all that had\nentered in and made him what he was. Notice how the personality of the\nwriter, with his capacities, tastes, and temperament, is unfolded before\nus in a letter to a close friend, abbot of a monastery at Tours:\n\n    \u201cSince you hold my memory in honour, and in virtue of relationship\n    declare great friendship, I deem that I shall be happy for your\n    opinion, if only I am one who in the judgment of so great a man is\n    found worthy to be loved. But since I am not one who, with Panetius,\n    would sometimes separate the good from the useful, but rather with\n    Tully would mingle it with everything useful, I wish these best and\n    holiest friendships never to be void of reciprocal utility. And as\n    morality and the art of speech are not to be severed from philosophy,\n    I have always joined the study of speaking well with the study of\n    living well. For although by itself living well may be nobler than\n    speaking well, and may suffice without its fellow for one absolved\n    from the direction of affairs; yet for us, busied with the State, both\n    are needed. For it is of the greatest utility to speak appositely when\n    persuading, and with mild discourse check the fury of angry men. In\n    preparing for such business, I am eagerly collecting a library; and as\n    formerly at Rome and elsewhere in Italy, so likewise in Germany and\n    Belgium, I have obtained copyists and manuscripts with a mass of\n    money, and the help of friends in those parts. Permit me likewise to\n    beg of you also to promote this end. We will append at the end of this\n    letter a list of those writers we wish copied. We have sent for your\n    disposal parchment for the scribes and money to defray the cost, not\n    unmindful of your goodness. Finally, lest by saying more we should\n    abuse epistolary _convenances_, the cause of so much trouble is\n    contempt of faithless fortune; a contempt which not nature alone has\n    given to us--as to many men--but careful study. Consequently when at\n    leisure and when busied in affairs, we teach what we know, and learn\n    where we are ignorant.\u201d[358]\n\nGerbert\u2019s letters are concise, even elliptical to the verge of obscurity.\nHe discloses himself in a few words to his old friend Raymund at the\nmonastery of Aurillac: \u201cWith what love we are bound to you, the Latins\nknow and also the barbarians,[359] who share the fruit of our studies.\nTheir vows demand your presence. Amid public cares philosophy is the sole\nsolace; and from her study we have often been the gainer, when in this\nstormy time we have thus broken the attack of fortune raging grievously\nagainst others or ourselves....\u201d[360]\n\nSave for the language, one might fancy Cicero speaking to some friend, and\nnot the future pope of the year 1000 to a monk. The sentiment is quite\nantique. And Gerbert not only uses antique phrase but is touched, like\nmany a mediaeval man, with the antique spirit. In another letter he\nwrites of friendship, and queries whether the divinity has given anything\nbetter to mortals. He refers to his prospects, and remarks: \u201csed involvit\nmundum caeca fortuna,\u201d and he is not certain whither it will cast\nhim.[361]\n\nDoubtless such antique sentiments were a matter of mood with Gerbert; he\ncan readily express others of a Christian colour, and turn again to still\nother topics very readily, as in the following letter--a curious one. It\nis to a monk:\n\n    \u201cThink not, sweetest brother, that it is through my fault I lack my\n    brethren\u2019s society. After leaving thee, I had to undertake many\n    journeys in the business of my father Columbanus.[362] The ambitions\n    of the powers, the hard and wretched times, turn right to wrong. No\n    one keeps faith. Yet since I know that all things hang on the decree\n    of God, who changes both hearts and the kingdoms of the sons of men, I\n    patiently await the end of things. I admonish and exhort thee,\n    brother, to do the same. In the meanwhile one thing I beg, which may\n    be accomplished without danger or loss to thee, and will make me thy\n    friend forever. Thou knowest with what zeal I gather books everywhere,\n    and thou knowest how many scribes there are in Italy, in town and\n    country. Come then, quietly procure me copies of Manlius\u2019s (Bo\u00ebthius)\n    _De astrologia_, Victorinus\u2019s _Rhetoric_, Demosthenes\u2019s\n    _Optalmicus_.[363] I promise thee, brother, and will keep my word, to\n    preserve a sacred silence as to thy praiseworthy compliance, and will\n    remit twofold whatever thou dost demand. Let this much be known to the\n    man, and the pay too, and cheer us more frequently with a letter; and\n    have no fear that knowledge will come to any one of any matter thou\n    mayest confide to our good faith.\u201d[364]\n\nWhen he wrote this letter, about the year 988, Gerbert was dangerously\ndeep in politics, and great was the power of this low-born titular Abbot\nof Bobbio, head of the school at Rheims and secretary to the archbishop.\nThe tortuous statecraft and startling many-sidedness of this \u201cscholar in\npolitics\u201d must have disturbed his contemporaries, and may have roused the\nsuspicions from which grew the stories, told by future men, that this\nscholar, statesman, and philosopher-pope was a magician who had learned\nfrom forbidden sources much that should be veiled. Withal, however, one\nmay deem that the most veritable inner bit of Gerbert was his love of\nknowledge and of antique literature, and that the letters disclosing this\nare the subtlest revelation of the man who was ever transmuting his\nwell-guarded knowledge into himself and his most personal moods.\n\n    \u201cFor there is nothing more noble for us in human affairs than a\n    knowledge of the most distinguished men; and may it be displayed in\n    volumes upon volumes multiplied. Go on then, as you have begun, and\n    bring the streams of Cicero to one who thirsts. Let M. Tullius thrust\n    himself into the midst of the anxieties which have enveloped us since\n    the betrayal of our city, so that in the happy eyes of men we are held\n    unhappy through our sentence. What things are of the world we have\n    sought, we have found, we have accomplished, and, as I will say, we\n    have become chief among the wicked. Lend aid, father, in order that\n    divinity, expelled by the multitude of sinners, bent by thy prayers,\n    may return, may visit us, may dwell with us--and if possible, may we\n    who mourn the absence of the blessed father Adalberon, be rejoiced by\n    thy presence.\u201d[365]\n\nSo Gerbert wrote from Rheims, himself a chief intriguer in a city full of\ntreason.\n\nGerbert was a power making for letters. The best scholars sat at his feet;\nhe was an inspiration at the Courts of the second and third Ottos, who\nloved learning and died so young; and the great school of Chartres, under\nthe headship of his pupil Fulbert, was the direct heir to his instruction.\nAt Rheims, where he taught so many years, he left to others the elementary\ninstruction in Latin. A pupil, Richer, who wrote his history, speaks of\ncourses in rhetoric and literature, to which he introduced his pupils\nafter instructing them in logic:\n\n    \u201cWhen he wished to lead them on from such studies to rhetoric, he put\n    in practice his opinion that one cannot attain the art of oratory\n    without a previous knowledge of the modes of diction which are to be\n    learned from the poets. So he brought forward those with whom he\n    thought his pupils should be conversant. He read and explained the\n    poets Virgil, Statius, and Terence, the satirists Juvenal and Persius\n    and Horace, also Lucan the historiographer. Familiarized with these,\n    and practised in their locutions, he taught his pupils rhetoric.\n    After they were instructed in this art, he brought up a sophist, to\n    practise them in disputation, so that practised in this art as well,\n    they might seem to argue artlessly, which he deemed the height of\n    oratory.\u201d[366]\n\nSo Gerbert used the classic poets in teaching rhetoric, and doubtless the\ngreat prose writers too, with whom he was familiar. Following Cicero\u2019s\nprecept that the orator should be a proficient reasoner, he prepared his\nyoung rhetoricians by a course in logic, and completed their discipline\nwith exercises in disputation.\n\nRicher also speaks of Gerbert\u2019s epoch-making mathematical knowledge.[367]\nIn arithmetic he improved the current methods of computation; in geometry\nhe taught the traditional methods of measurement descended from the Roman\nsurveyors, and compiled a work from Bo\u00ebthius and other sources. For\nastronomy he made spheres and other instruments, and in music his teaching\nwas the best obtainable. In none of these provinces was he an original\ninventor; nor did he exhaust the knowledge had by men before him. He was,\nhowever, the embodiment of mediaeval progress, in that he drew\nintelligently upon the sources within his reach, and then taught with\nunderstanding and enthusiasm. Richer\u2019s praise is unstinted:\n\n    \u201cHe began with arithmetic; then taught music, of which there had long\n    been ignorance in Gaul.... With what pains he set forth the method of\n    astronomy, it may be well to state, so that the reader may perceive\n    the sagacity and skill of this great man. This difficult subject he\n    explained by means of admirable instruments. First he illustrated the\n    world\u2019s sphere by one of solid wood, the greater by the less. He fixed\n    it obliquely as to the horizon with two poles, and near the upper pole\n    set the northern constellations, and by the lower one those of the\n    south. He determined its position by means of the circle called by the\n    Greeks _orizon_ and by the Latins _limitans_, because it divides the\n    constellations which are seen from those which are not. By his sphere\n    thus fixed, he demonstrated the rising and setting of the stars, and\n    taught his disciples to recognize them. And at night he followed their\n    courses and marked the place of their rising and setting upon the\n    different regions of his model.\u201d\n\nThe historian passes on to tell how Gerbert with ingenious devices showed\non his sphere the imaginary circles called parallels, and on another the\nmovements of the planets, and on still another marked the constellations\nof the heavens, so that even a beginner, upon having one constellation\npointed out, could find the others.[368]\n\nIn the province of philosophy, Gerbert\u2019s labours extended little beyond\nformal logic, philosophy\u2019s instrument. He could do no more than understand\nand apply as much of Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s rendering of the Aristotelian _Organon_ as\nhe was acquainted with. Yet he appears to have used more of the Bo\u00ebthian\nwritings than any man before him, or for a hundred and fifty years after\nhis death. Richer gives the list. Beyond this evidence, curious testimony\nis borne to the nature of Gerbert\u2019s dialectic by Richer\u2019s account of a\nnotable debate. The year was 980, when the fame of the brilliant young\n_scholasticus_ of Rheims had spread through Gaul and penetrated Germany. A\ncertain master of repute at Magdeburg, named Otric, sent one of his pupils\nto report on Gerbert\u2019s teaching, and especially as to his method of laying\nout the divisions of philosophy as \u201cthe science of things divine and\nhuman.\u201d The pupil returned with notes of Gerbert\u2019s classification, in\nwhich, by error or intention, it was made to appear that he subordinated\nphysics to mathematics, as species to genus, whereas, in truth, he made\nthem of equal rank. Otric thought to catch him tripping, and so managed\nthat a disputation was held between them at a time when Adalberon and\nGerbert were in Italy with the Emperor Otto II. It took place in Ravenna.\nThe emperor, then nineteen years of age, presided, there being present\nmany masters and dignitaries of the Church. Holding in his hand a tablet\nof Gerbert\u2019s alleged division of the sciences, His Majesty opened the\ndebate:\n\n    \u201cMeditation and discussion, as I think, make for the betterment of\n    human knowledge, and questions from the wise rouse our thoughtfulness.\n    Thus knowledge of things is drawn forth by the learned, or discovered\n    by them and committed to books, which remain to our great good. We\n    also may be incited by certain objects which draw the mind to a surer\n    understanding. Observe now, that I am turning over this tablet\n    inscribed with the divisions of philosophy. Let all consider it\n    carefully, and each say what he thinks. If it be complete, let it be\n    confirmed by your approbation. If imperfect, let it be rejected or\n    corrected.\n\n    \u201cThen Otric, taking it before them all, said that it was arranged by\n    Gerbert, and had been taken down from his lectures. He handed it to\n    the Lord Augustus, who read it through, and presented it to Gerbert.\n    The latter, carefully examining it, approved in part, and in part\n    condemned, asserting that the scheme had not been arranged thus by\n    him. Asked by Augustus to correct it, he said: \u2018Since, O great Caesar\n    Augustus, I see thee more potent than all these, I will, as is\n    fitting, obey thy behest. Nor shall I be concerned at the spite of the\n    malevolent, by whose instigation the very correct division of\n    philosophy recently set forth so lucidly by me, has been vitiated by\n    the substitution of a species. I say then, that mathematics, physics,\n    and theology are to be placed as equals under one genus. The genus\n    likewise has equal share in them. Nor is it possible that one and the\n    same species, in one and the same respect, should be co-ordinate with\n    another species and also be put under it as species under a genus.\u2019\u201d\n\nThen in answer to a demand from Otric for a more explicit statement of his\nclassification, he said there could be no objection to dividing philosophy\naccording to Vitruvius (Victorinus) and Bo\u00ebthius; \u201cfor philosophy is the\ngenus, of which the species are the practical and the theoretical: under\nthe practical, as species again, come _dispensativa_, _distributiva_ and\n_civilis_; under the theoretical fall _phisica naturalis_, _mathematica\nintelligibilis_, and _theologia intellectibilis_.\u201d\n\nOtric then wonders that Gerbert put mathematics immediately after physics,\nomitting physiology. To which Gerbert replies that physiology stands to\nphysics as philology to philosophy, of which it is part. Otric changes his\nattack to a flank movement, and asks Gerbert what is the _causa_ of\nphilosophy. Gerbert asks whether he means the cause by which, or the cause\nfor which, it is devised (_inventa_). Otric replies the latter. \u201cThen,\u201d\nsays Gerbert, \u201csince you make your question clear, I say that philosophy\nwas devised that from it we might understand things divine and human.\u201d\n\u201cBut why use so many words,\u201d says Otric, \u201cto designate the cause of one\nthing?\u201d \u201cBecause one word may not suffice to designate a cause. Plato uses\nthree to designate the cause of the creation of the world, to wit, the\n_bona Dei voluntas_. He could not have said _voluntas_ simply.\u201d \u201cBut,\u201d\nsays Otric, \u201che could have said more concisely _Dei voluntas_, for God\u2019s\nwill is always good, which he would not deny.\u201d\n\n    \u201cHere I do not contradict you,\u201d says Gerbert, \u201cbut consider: since God\n    alone is good in himself, and every creature is good only by\n    participation, the word _bona_ is added to express the quality\n    peculiar to His nature alone. However this may be, still one word will\n    not always designate a cause. What is the cause of shadow? Can you put\n    that in one word? I say, the cause of shadow is a body interposed to\n    light. It is not \u2018body\u2019 nor even \u2018body interposed.\u2019 I don\u2019t deny that\n    the causes of many things can be stated in one word, as the genera of\n    substance, quantity, or quality, which are the causes of species.\n    Others cannot so simply be expressed, as _rationale ad mortale_.\u201d\n\nThis enigmatic phrase electrifies Otric, who cries: \u201cYou put the mortal\nunder the rational? Who does not know that the rational is confined to\nGod, angels, and mankind, while the mortal embraces everything mortal, a\nlimitless mass?\u201d\n\n    \u201cTo which Gerbert: \u2018If, following Porphyry and Bo\u00ebthius, you make a\n    careful division of substance, carrying it down to individuals, you\n    will have the rational broader than the mortal as may readily be\n    shown. Since substance, admittedly the most general genus, may be\n    divided into subordinate genera and species down to individuals, it is\n    to be seen whether all these subordinates may be expressed by a single\n    word. Clearly, some are designated with one word, as _corpus_, others\n    with several, as _animatum sensibile_. With like reason, the\n    subordinate, which is _animal rationale_, may be predicated of the\n    subject that is _animal rationale mortale_. Not that _rationale_ may\n    be predicated of what is mortal simply; but _rationale_, I say, joined\n    to _animal_ is predicated of _mortale_ joined to _animal rationale_.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAt this, Augustus with a nod ended the argument, since it had lasted\n    nearly the whole day, and the audience were fatigued with the prolix\n    and unbroken disputation. He splendidly rewarded Gerbert, who set out\n    for Gaul with Adalberon.\u201d[369]\n\nEvidently Richer\u2019s account gives merely the captions of this disputation.\nThere was not the slightest originality in any of the propositions stated\nby the disputants; everything is taken from Porphyry and Bo\u00ebthius and the\ncurrent Latin translation of Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_. Yet the whole affair, the\nselection of the questions, the nature of the answers, the limitation of\nthe matter to the bare poles of logical palestrics, is most illustrative\nof the mentality and intellectual interests of the late tenth century. The\ngrowth of the mediaeval intellect lay unavoidably through such courses of\ndiscipline. And just as early mediaeval Latin had to save itself from\nbarbarism by cleaving to grammar, so the best intellect of this early\nperiod grasped at logic not only as the most obviously needed discipline\nand guide, but also with imperfect consciousness that this discipline and\nmeans did not contain the goal and plenitude of substantial knowledge.\nGrammar was then not simply a means but an end in the study of letters,\nand so was logic unconsciously. In the one case and the other, the\npalpable need of the _disciplina_ and its difficulties kept the student\nfrom realizing that the instrument was but an instrument.\n\nMoreover, upon Gerbert\u2019s time pressed the specific need to consider just\nsuch questions as the disputation affords a sample of. An enormous mass of\ntheology, philosophy, and science awaited mastering, the heritage from a\ngreater past, antique and patristic. Perhaps a true instinct guided\nGerbert and his contemporaries to problems of classification and method as\na primary essential task. Had the Middle Ages been a period when\nknowledge, however crude, was perforce advancing through experience,\ninvestigation, and discovery, the problems of classification and method\nwould not have presented themselves as preliminary. But mediaeval\ndevelopment lay through the study of what former men had won from nature\nor received from God. This was preserved in books which had to be studied\nand mastered. Hence classifications of knowledge were essential aids or\nsorely needed guides. With a true instinct the Middle Ages first of all\nlooked within this mass of knowledge for guides to its mazes, seeking a\nplan or scheme by the aid of which universal knowledge might be\nunravelled, and then reconstructed in forms corresponding to even larger\nverities.[370]\n\n\nII\n\nThe decades on either side of the year 1000 were cramped and dull. In\nBurgundy, to be sure, the energies of Cluny,[371] under its great abbots,\nwere rousing the monastic world to a sense of religious and disciplinary\ndecency. This reform, however, took little interest in culture. The monks\nof Cluny were commonly instructed in the rudiments of the Seven Arts. They\nhad a little mathematics; bits of crude physical knowledge had unavoidably\ncome to them; and just as unavoidably had they made use of extracts from\nthe pagan poets in studying Latinity.[372] But they did not follow letters\nfor their own sake, nor knowledge because they loved it and felt that love\na holy one. Monastic principles hardly justified such a love, and Cluny\u2019s\nabbots had enough to do in bringing the monastic world to decency, without\ndallying with inapplicable knowledge or the charms of pagan poetry.\n\nReligious reforms in the ninth century had helped letters in the cathedral\nand monastic schools of Gaul. The latter soon fell back to ignorance; but\namong the cathedral schools, Chartres and Rheims continued to flourish. A\nmoral ordering of life increases thoughtfulness and may stimulate study.\nHence, in the latter part of the tenth century, the Cluniac reforms, like\nthe earlier reforming movements, affected letters favourably in the\nmonasteries. Here and there an exceptional man created an exceptional\nsituation. Such a one was Abbo, Abbot of St. Benedict\u2019s at Fleury on the\nLoire, who died the year after Gerbert. He was fortunate in his excellent\npupil and biographer, Aimoin, who ascribes to him as liberal sentiments\ntoward study as were consistent with a stern monasticism:\n\n    \u201cHe admonished his hearers that having cast out the thorns of sin,\n    they should sow the little gardens of their hearts with the spices of\n    the divine virtues. The battle lay against the vices of the flesh, and\n    it was for them to consider what arms they should oppose to its\n    delights. To complete their armament, after the vows of prayer, and\n    the manly strife of fastings, he deemed that the study of letters\n    would advantage them, and especially the exercise of composition.\n    Indeed he himself, the studious man, scarcely let pass a moment when\n    he was not reading, writing, or dictating.\u201d[373]\n\nIt is curious to observe the unavoidable influence of a crude Latin\neducation upon the most strenuous of these reforming monks. In 994 Odilo\nbecame Abbot of Cluny. After a most notable and effective rule of more\nthan half a century, he died just as the year 1049 began. The closing\nscenes are typically illustrative of the passing of an early mediaeval\nsaint. The dying abbot preaches and comforts his monks, gives his\nblessing, adores the Cross, repels the devil:\n\n    \u201cI warn thee, enemy of the human race, turn from me thy plots and\n    hidden wiles, for by me is the Cross of the Lord, which I always\n    adore: the Cross my refuge, my way and virtue; the Cross,\n    unconquerable banner, the invincible weapon. The Cross repels every\n    evil, and puts darkness to flight. Through this divine Cross I\n    approach my journey; the Cross is my life--death to thee, Enemy!\u201d\n\nThe next day, \u201cin the presence of all, the Creed is read for a shield of\nfaith against the deceptions of malignant spirits and the attacks of evil\nthoughts; Augustine is brought in to expound, intently listened to, and\ndiscussed.\u201d[374]\n\nFor Odilo, the Cross is a divine, not to say magic, safeguard. His prayer\nand imprecation have something of the nature of an uttered spell. No\nantique zephyrs seem to blow in this atmosphere of faith and fear, in\nwhich he passed his life, and performed his miracles before and after\ndeath. Nevertheless the antique might mould his phrases, and perhaps\nunconsciously affect his ethical conceptions. He wrote a Life of a former\nabbot of Cluny, ascribing to him the four _cardinales disciplinas_, in\nwhich he strove to perfect himself \u201cin order that through _prudentia_ he\nmight assure the welfare of himself and those in his charge; that through\n_temperantia_ (which by another name is called _modestia_), by a proper\nmeasure of a just discretion, he might modestly discharge the spiritual\nbusiness entrusted to him; that through _fortitudo_ he might resist and\nconquer the devil and his vices; and that through _justitia_, which\npermeates all virtues and seasons them, he might live soberly and piously\nand justly, fight the good fight and finish his course.\u201d[375]\n\nThus the antique virtues shape Odilo\u2019s thoughts, as seven hundred years\nbefore him the point of view and reasoning of Ambrose\u2019s _De officiis\nministrorum_ were set by Cicero\u2019s _De officiis_.[376] The same classically\ntouched phrases, if not conceptions, pass on to Odilo\u2019s pupil and\nbiographer, the monk Jotsaldus, to whom we owe our description of Odilo\u2019s\nlast moments. He ascribes the four cardinal virtues to his hero, and then\ndefines them from the antique standpoint, but with Christian turns of\nthought:\n\n    \u201cThe philosophers define Prudence as the search for truth and the\n    thirst for fuller knowledge. In which virtue Odilo was so\n    distinguished that neither by day nor night did he cease from the\n    search for truth. The Book of the divine contemplation was always in\n    his hands, and ceaselessly he spoke of Scripture for the edification\n    of all, and prayer ever followed reading.\n\n    \u201cJustice, as the philosophers say, is that which renders each his\n    due, lays no claim to what is another\u2019s, and neglects self-advantage,\n    so as to maintain what is equitable for all.\u201d [To illustrate this\n    virtue in Odilo, the biographer gives instances of his charity, by\n    which one observes the Christian turn taken by the conception.]\n\n    \u201cFortitude is to hold the mind above the dread of danger, to fear\n    nothing save the base, and bravely bear adversity and prosperity.\n    Supported by this virtue, it is difficult to say how brave he was in\n    repelling the plots of enemies and how patient in enduring them. You\n    might observe in him this very privilege of patience; to those who\n    injured him, as another David he repaid the grace of benefit, and\n    toward those who hated him, he preserved a stronger benevolence.\u201d\n    [Again the Christian turn of thought.]\n\n    \u201cTemperance, last in the catalogue of the aforesaid virtues, according\n    to its definition maintains moderation and order in whatever is to be\n    said or done. Here he was so mighty as to hold to moderation and\n    observe propriety (_ordinem_) in all his actions and commands, and\n    show a wonderful discretion. Following the blessed Jerome, he tempered\n    fasting to the golden mean, according to the weakness or strength of\n    the body, thus avoiding fanaticism and preserving continency. Neither\n    elegance nor squalor was noticeable in his dress. He tempered gravity\n    of conduct with gaiety of countenance. He was severe in the correction\n    of vice as the occasion demanded, gracious in pardoning, in both\n    balancing an impartial scale.\u201d[377]\n\n\nIII\n\nA friend of Odilo was Gerbert\u2019s pupil Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres from\n1006 to 1028. His name is joined forever with that chief cathedral school\nof early mediaeval France, which he so firmly and so broadly\nre-established as to earn a founder\u2019s fame. It will be interesting to\nnotice its range of studies. Chartres was an ancient home of letters.\nCaesar[378] speaks of the land of the Carnuti as the centre of Druidism in\nGaul; and under the Empire, liberal studies quickly sprang up in the\nGallo-Roman city. They did not quite cease even in Merovingian times, and\nrevived with the Carolingian revival. Thenceforth they were pursued\ncontinuously at the convent school of St. Peter, if not at the school\nattached to the cathedral. For some years before he was made bishop, the\ngrave and kindly Fulbert had been the head of this cathedral school,\nwhere he did not cease to teach until his death. As bishop, widely\nesteemed and influential, he rebuilt the cathedral, aided by the kings of\nFrance and Denmark, the dukes of Aquitaine and Normandy, the counts of\nChampagne and Blois. His vast crypt still endures, a shadowy goal for\nthousands of pilgrim knees, and an ample support for the great edifice\nabove it. Admiring tradition has ascribed to him even this glory of a\nlater time.\n\nFrom near and far, pious students came to benefit by the instruction of\nthe school, of which Fulbert was the head and inspiration. Close was their\nintercourse with their \u201cVenerable Socrates\u201d in the small school buildings\nnear the cathedral. From the accounts, we can almost see him moving among\nthem, stopping to correct one here, or looking over the shoulder of\nanother engaged upon a geometric figure, and putting some new problem.\nAmong the pupils there might be rivalry, quarrels, breaches of decorum;\nbut there was the master, ever grave and steadfast, always ready to\nencourage with his sympathy, but prepared also to reprove, either silently\nby withdrawing his confidence, or in words, as when he forbade an\ninstructor to joke when explaining Donatus: \u201cspectaculum factus es\nomnibus; cave.\u201d\n\nSome of these scholars became men of sanctity and renown--Berengar of\nTours gained an unhappy fame. A fellow-student wrote to him in later years\naddressing him as foster-brother:\n\n    \u201cI have called thee foster-brother because of that sweetest common\n    life led by us while youths in the Academy of Chartres under our\n    venerable Socrates. Well we proved his saving doctrine and holy\n    living, and now that he is with God we should hope to be aided by his\n    prayers. Surely he is mindful of us, cherishing us even more than when\n    he moved a pilgrim in the body of this death, and drew us to him by\n    vows and tacit prayer, entreating us in those evening colloquies\n    (_vespertina colloquia_) in the garden by the chapel, that we should\n    tread the royal way, and cleave to the footprints of the holy\n    fathers.\u201d[379]\n\nThe cathedral school included youths receiving their first lessons, as\nwell as older scholars and instructors. They lived together under rules,\nand together celebrated the services of the cathedral, chanting the\nmatins, the hours, and the mass. The Trivium and Quadrivium made the basis\nof their studies. Text-books and courses were already some centuries old.\n\nThe first branch of the Trivium was Grammar, which included literature by\nway of illustration; and he who held the chair had the title of\n_grammaticus_. For the beginners, _Donatus_ was the text-book, and\n_Priscianus_ for the more advanced.[380] Nor was Martianus Capella\nneglected. The student annotated these works with citations from the\n_Etymologies_ of Isidore. Divers mnemotechnic processes assisted him to\ncommit the contents to memory. The grammatical course included the writing\nof compositions in prose and verse, according to rule, and the reading of\nclassic authors. For their school verses in metre the pupils used Bede\u2019s\n_De arte metrica_, an encyclopaedia of metrical forms. They also wrote\naccentual and rhymed Latin verse. Of profane authors the Library appears\nto have contained Livy, Valerius Maximus, Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Statius,\nServius the commentator on Virgil; and of writers who were Christian\nClassics in the Middle Ages, Orosius, Gregory of Tours, Fortunatus,\nSedulius, Arator, Prudentius, and Bo\u00ebthius, the last named being the most\nimportant single source of early mediaeval education. Rhetoric, the second\nbranch of the Trivium, bore that vague relationship to grammar which it\nbears in modern parlance. The rules of the rhetoricians were learned; the\nworks of profane or Christian orators were read and imitated. This study\nleft its mark on mediaeval sermons and _Vitae Sanctorum_.\n\nAs for the third branch, Dialectic, Fulbert\u2019s pupils studied the logical\ntreatises in general use in the earlier Middle Ages: to wit, the\n_Categories_ and the _De interpretatione_ of Aristotle, and Porphyry\u2019s\n_Introduction_, all in the Latin of Bo\u00ebthius. For works which might be\nregarded as commentaries upon these, the school had at its disposal the\n_Categories_ ascribed to Augustine and Apuleius\u2019s _De interpretatione_,\nCicero\u2019s _Topica_, and Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s discussion of definition, division, and\ncategorical and hypothetical syllogisms--the logical writings expounded\nby Gerbert at Rheims. The school had likewise Gerbert\u2019s own _Libellus de\nratione uti_ and Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s _De consolatione_, that chief ethical compend\nfor the early Middle Ages; also the writings of Eriugena, and Dionysius\nthe Areopagite in Eriugena\u2019s translation. Whether or not it possessed the\ncurrent Latin version of Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_, Fulbert and Berengar at all\nevents refer to Plato in terms of eulogy.\n\nPassing to the Quadrivium, we find that Fulbert had studied its four\nbranches under Gerbert. In Arithmetic the students used the treatise of\nBo\u00ebthius, and also the Abacus, a table of vertical columns, with Roman\nnumerals at the top to indicate the order of units, tens, and hundreds\naccording to the decimal system. In Geometry the students likewise fell\nback upon Bo\u00ebthius. Astronomy, the third branch of the Quadrivium, had for\nits practical object the computation of the Church\u2019s calendar. The pupils\nlearned the signs of the Zodiac and were instructed in the method of\nfinding the stars by the _Astrolabius_, a sphere (such as Gerbert had\nconstructed) representing the constellations, and turning upon a tube as\nan axis, which served to fix the polar star. Music, the fourth branch of\nthe Quadrivium, was zealously cultivated. For its theory, the treatise of\nBo\u00ebthius was studied; and Fulbert and his scholars did much to advance the\nmusic of the liturgy, composing texts and airs for organ chanting.\n\nIn addition to the Quadrivium, medicine was taught. The students learned\nreceipts and processes handed down by tradition and commonly ascribed to\nHippocrates. For more convenient memorizing, Fulbert cast them into verse.\nSuch \u201cmedicine\u201d was not founded on observation; and a mediaeval\nscholar-copyist would as naturally transcribe a medical receipt-book as\nany other work coming within the range of his stylus. One may remember\nthat in the early Middle Ages the relic was the common means of cure.\n\nThe seven _Artes_ of the Trivium and Quadrivium were the handmaids of\nTheology; and Fulbert gave elaborate instruction in this Christian queen\nof the sciences, expounding the Scriptures, explaining the Liturgy, and\ntaking up the controversies of the time. As a part of this sacred\nscience, the students apparently were taught something of Canon and Roman\nlaw and of Charlemagne\u2019s Capitularies.[381]\n\n\nIV\n\nThe Chartres Quadrivium represents the extreme compass of mathematical and\nphysical studies in France in the eleventh century, when slight interest\nwas taken in physical science--a phrase far too grand to designate the\ncrass traditional views of nature which prevailed. Indifference to natural\nknowledge was the most palpable intellectual defect of Ambrose and\nAugustine, and the most portentous. The coming centuries, which were to\nlook upon their writings as universal guides to living and knowing, found\ntherein no incentive to observe or study the natural world. Of course the\nCarolingian period evolved out of itself no such desire; nor did the\neleventh century. At the best, the general understanding of physical fact\nremained that which had been handed down. It was gleaned from the books\ncommonly read, the _Physiologus_ or the edifying stories of miracles in\nthe myriad _Vitae Sanctorum_, quite as much as from the scant information\ngiven in Isidore\u2019s _Origines_, Bede\u2019s _Liber de temporibus_, or the _De\nuniverso_ of Rabanus Maurus.\n\nSo much for natural science. In historical writing the quality of\ncomposition rarely rose above that of the tenth century.[382] No sign of\ncritical acumen had appeared, and the writers of the period show but a\nnarrow local interest. There was no France, but everywhere a parcelling of\nthe land into small sections of misrule, between which travel was\ndifficult and dangerous. The chroniclers confine their attention, as\ndoubtless their knowledge also was confined, to the region where they\nlived. To lift history over these narrow barriers, there was needed the\nrenewal of the royal power, which came with the century\u2019s close, and the\nstimulus to curiosity springing from the Crusades.[383]\n\nIn fine, the eleventh century was crude and inchoate, preparatory to the\nintellectual activity and the unleashed energies of life which mark the\nopening of the twelfth. Yet the mediaeval mind was assimilating and\nappropriating dynamically its lessons from the Fathers, as well as those\nportions of the antique heritage of thought which, so far, it had felt a\nneed of. Difficult problems were stated, but in ways presenting, as it\nwere, the apices of alternatives too narrow to hold truth, which lies less\nfrequently in warring opposites than in an inclusive and discriminating\nconciliation. This century, especially when we fix our attention upon\nFrance, appears as the threshold of mediaeval thinking, the immediate\nantecedent to mediaeval formulations of philosophic and theological\nconviction. The controversies and the different mental tendencies which\nthereafter were to move through such large and often diverging courses,\ndrew their origin from still prior times. With the coming of the eleventh\ncentury they had been sturdily cradled, and seemed safe from the danger of\ndying in infancy. Thence on through the twelfth century, through the\nthirteenth, the climacteric of mediaeval thought, opinions and convictions\nare set in multitudes of propositions, relating to many provinces of human\nmeditation.\n\nThese masses of propositions, convictions, opinions, philosophic and\nreligious, constitute the religious philosophy of the Middle\nAges--scholasticism as it commonly is called. Hereafter[384] it will be\nnecessary to consider that large matter in its continuity of development,\nwith its roots or antecedents stretching back through the eleventh century\nto the Carolingian period, and beyond. Mediaeval thinkers will then be\nseen to fall into two classes, very roughly speaking, the one tending to\nset authority above reason, and the other tending to set reason above\nauthority. Both classes appear in the ninth century, represented\nrespectively by Rabanus Maurus and Eriugena. In the eleventh they are also\nevident. St. Anselm, who came from Italy, is the most admirable\nrepresentative of the first class, being in heart and mind a theologian\nwhose philosophy revolved entire around his faith. Of him we have spoken;\nand here may mention in contrast with him two Frenchmen, Berengar of Tours\nand Roscellinus. In place and time they come within the scope of the\npresent chapter; nor were their mental processes such as to attach them to\na later period. By temperament, and in somewhat confused expression, they\nset reason above authority, save that of Scripture as they understood it.\n\nBerengar was born, apparently at Tours, and of wealthy parents, just as\nthe tenth century closed. After studying under his uncle, the Treasurer of\nSt. Martin, he came to Chartres, where Fulbert was bishop. Judging from a\ngeneral consensus of expression from men who became his opponents, but had\nbeen his fellow-pupils, he quickly aroused attention by his talents, and\nanxiety or enmity by his pride and the self-confident assertion of his\nopinions. He would neither accept with good grace the admonitions of those\nabout him, nor follow the authority of the Fathers. He was said to have\ndespised even the great grammarians and logicians, Priscian, Donatus, and\nBo\u00ebthius. Why err with everybody if everybody errs, he asked. He appears\nas a vain man eager for admiration. The report comes down that he imitated\nFulbert\u2019s manner in lecturing, first covering his visage with a hood so as\nto seem in deep meditation, and then speaking in a gentle, plaintive\nvoice. From Chartres he passed to Angers, where he filled the office of\narchdeacon, and thence he returned to Tours, was placed over the Church\nschools of St. Martin\u2019s, and in the course of time began to lecture on the\nEucharist. This was between the years 1030 and 1040.\n\nThat a man\u2019s fortunes and fame are linked to a certain doctrine or\ncontroversy may be an accident of environment. Berengar chose to adduce\nand partly follow the teachings of Eriugena, whose fame was great, but\nwhose orthodoxy was tainted. The nature of the Eucharist leant itself to\ndispute, and from the time of Ratramnus, Radbertus, and Eriugena, it was\ncommon for theologians to try their hand on it, if only in order to\ndemonstrate their adherence to the extreme doctrines accepted by the\nChurch. These were not the doctrines of Eriugena, nor were they held by\nBerengar, who would not bring himself to admit an absolute substantial\nchange in the bread and wine. Possibly his convictions were less\nirrational than the dominant doctrine. Yet he appears to have asserted\nthem, not because he had a clearer mind than others, but by reason of his\nmore self-assertive and combative temperament. He was not an original\nthinker, but a controversial and turgid reasoner, who naturally enough was\nforced into all kinds of tergiversation in order to escape condemnation as\na heretic. His self-assertiveness settled on the most obvious theological\ndispute of the time, and his self-esteem maintained the superiority of his\nown reason over the authorities adduced by his adversaries. Of course he\nnever impugned the authority of Scripture, but relied on it to\nsubstantiate his views, merely asserting that a reasonable interpretation\nwas better than a foolish one. Throughout the controversy, one may observe\nthat Berengar\u2019s understanding of fact kept somewhat closer than that of\nhis opponents\u2019 to the tangible realities of sense. But a difference of\nintellectual temperament lay at the bottom of his dissent; and had not the\nEucharist presented itself as the readiest topic of dispute, he would\ndoubtless have fallen upon some other question. As it was, his arguments\ngained adherents, the dominant view being repellent to independent minds.\nStill, it won the day, and Berengar was condemned by more than one\ncouncil, and forced into all manner of equivocal retractions, by which at\nleast he saved his life, and died in extreme old age.\n\nIt may be that a larger relative import attributed by Berengar and also\nRoscellin to the tangibilities of sense-perception, led the latter at the\nclose of the century to put forth views on the nature of universals which\nhave given him a shadowy repute as the father of nominalism. The\nEucharistic controversy pertained primarily to Christian dogmatics. That\nregarding universals, or general ideas, pertains to philosophy, and, from\nthe standpoint of formal logic, lies at the foundations of consistent\nthinking. So closely does it make part of the development of\nscholasticism, that its discussion had best be postponed; merely assuming\nfor the present that Roscellin\u2019s thinking upon the topic to which his name\nis attached was not superior in method and analysis to Berengar\u2019s upon the\nEucharist.\n\nOne cannot escape the conclusion that intellectually the eleventh century\nin France was crude. The mediaeval intellect was still but imperfectly\ndeveloped; its manifestations had not reached the zenith of their energy.\nYet doubtless the mental development of mankind proceeds at a more uniform\nrate than would appear from the brilliant phenomena which crowd the eras\nof apparent culmination, in contrast with the previous dulness. The\nprofounder constancy of growth may be discerned by scrutinizing those dumb\ncourses of gestation, from which spring the marvels of the great epoch.\nThe opening of the twelfth century was to inaugurate a brilliant\nintellectual era in France. The efficient preparation stretched back into\nthe latter half of the eleventh, whose Catholic progress heralded a period\nof awakening. The Church already was striving to accomplish its own\nreordering and regeneration, free itself from things that drag and hinder,\nfrom lay investiture and simony, abominations through which feudal\ndepotentiating principles had intruded into the ecclesiastic body; free\nitself likewise from clerical marriage and concubinage, which kept the\nclergy from being altogether clergy, and weighted the Church with the\nclaims of half-spurious priests\u2019 offspring. In France the reform of the\nmonks comes first, impelled by Cluny; and when Cluny herself becomes less\nzealous, because too great and rich, the spirit of soldiery against sin\nreincarnates itself in the Grand-Chartreuse, in Citeaux and Clairvaux. The\nreform of the secular clergy follows, with Hildebrand the veritable\nmaster; for the Church was passing from prelacy to papacy, and the Pope\nwas becoming a true monarch, instead of nominal head of an episcopal\naristocracy.\n\nThe perfected organization and unceasing purification of the Church made\none part of the general progress of the period. Another consisted in the\ndisengaging of the greater powers from out the indiscriminate anarchy of\nfeudalism, and the advance of the French monarchy, under Louis the\nSixth,[385] toward effective sovereignty, all making for a surer law and\norder throughout France. Then through the eleventh and twelfth centuries\ncame the struggle of the people, out of serfdom into some control over\ntheir own persons and fortunes. The serfs were affranchised and became\npeasants; the huddled dwellers in the squalid towns tended to become\nburghers with actual strength and chartered power to protect themselves\nagainst signorial tyranny. Their rights limited and fixed the exactions of\ntheir lords. Everywhere the population increased; old cities grew apace,\nand a multitude of new ones came into existence. Economic evolution\nprogressed, advancing with the affranchisement of industry, the\norganization of guilds, the growth of trade, the opening of new markets,\nfairs, and freer avenues of commerce: thus more wealth was diffused among\nthe many. Architecture with new civic resources was pushing on through\nRomanesque toward Gothic, while the affiliated arts of sculpture and\npainting were becoming more expressive. Then the Crusades began, and did\ntheir work of spreading knowledge through the Occident, carrying foreign\nideas and institutions across provincial barriers. The Crusades could not\nhave taken place had it not been for the freeing of social forces during\nthe half century preceding their inception in the year 1099. They were led\nup to and made possible by the advance of the papacy to domination, by the\ngrowth of chivalry, and the habit of making far pilgrimages to holy\nplaces, and by the wealth coming with more active trade and industry.\n\nThus humanity was universally bestirring itself throughout the land we\nknow as France. Such a bestirring could not fail to crown itself with a\nmightier winging of the spirit through the higher provinces of thought.\nThis was to show itself among saints and doctors of the Church in their\nphilosophies and theologies of the mind and heart; with like power it was\nto show itself among those hardier rationalists who with difficulty and\nmisgivings, or under hard compulsion, still kept themselves within the\nChurch\u2019s pale. It showed itself too with heretics who let themselves be\nburned rather than surrender their outlawed convictions. It was also to\nshow itself through things beautiful, in the strivings of art toward the\nperfect symbolical presentation of what the soul cherished or abhorred;\nand show itself too in the literature of the common tongues as well as the\nliterature of the time-honoured Latin. In fine, it was to show itself,\nthrough every heightened faculty and appetition of the universally\nstriving and desirous soul of man, in a larger, bolder understanding and\nappreciation of life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: GERMANY; ENGLAND; CONCLUSION\n\n      I. German Appropriation of Christianity and Antique Culture.\n\n     II. Othloh\u2019s Spiritual Conflict.\n\n    III. England; Closing Comparisons.\n\n\nI\n\nIn the Germans of the eleventh century one notes a strong sense of German\nselfhood, supplemented by a consciousness that Latin culture is a foreign\nmatter, introduced as a thing of great value which it were exceeding well\nfor them to make their own. They are even conscious of having been\nconverted to Latin Christianity, which on their part they are imbuing with\nGerman thoughts and feeling. They are not Romance people; they have never\nspoken Latin; it has never been and will never be their speech. They will\nmaster what they can of the antique education which has been brought to\nthem. But even as it was no part of their forefathers\u2019 lives, so it will\nnever penetrate their own personalities, so as to make them the spiritual\ndescendants of any antique Latin or Latinized people. They have never been\nand never will be Latinized; but will remain forever Germans.\n\nConsequently the appropriation of the Latin culture in Germany is a labour\nof translation: first a palpable labour of translation from the Latin\nlanguage into the German tongue, and secondly, and for always, a more\nsubtle kind of translation of the antique influence into a German\nunderstanding of the same, and gradually into informing principles made\nuse of by a strong and advancing racial genius. The German genius will be\nenlarged and developed through these foreign elements, but it will never\ncease to use the Latin culture as a means of informing and developing\nitself.\n\nNo need to say that these strong statements apply to the Germans in their\nhome north of the Alps and east of the Rhine; not to those who left the\nFatherland, and in the course of generations became Italians, for example.\nMoreover, general phrases must always be taken subject to qualification\nand rounding of the corners. No people can absorb a foreign influence\nwithout in some degree being made over into the likeness of what they are\nreceiving, and to that extent ceasing to be their unmitigated selves. In\ngeneral, however, while Latin Christianity and the antique culture both\nwere brought to Germany from abroad, the Germans were converted or\ntransformed only by the former, and merely took and used the latter--a\ntrue statement this, so far as one may separate these two great mingled\nfactors of mediaeval progress.\n\nEvidently those Germans of the opening mediaeval centuries who did most to\nadvance the civilization of their people were essentially introducers of\nforeign culture. This was manifestly true of the missionaries (chief among\nwhom was the Anglo-Saxon Boniface) who brought Christianity to Germany. It\nwas true both as to the Christian and the secular learning of Rabanus\nMaurus, who was born at Mainz, a very German.[386] With all his Latin\nlearning he kept his interest in his mother tongue, and always realized\nthat his people spoke German and not Latin. He encouraged preaching in\nGerman; and with the aid of his favourite pupil, Walafrid, he prepared\nGerman glosses and Latin-German glossaries for Scripture.\n\nBefore Rabanus\u2019s death popular translations of the Gospels had appeared,\nimbued with the Germanic spirit. The _Heliand_ and Otfrid\u2019s\n_Evangelienbuch_ are the best known of these.[387] Then, extending through\nthe last part of the tenth and the first part of the eleventh century we\nnote the labours of that most diligent of translators, Notker the German,\na monk of St. Gall, and member of the Ekkehart family, which gave so many\nexcellent abbots to that cloister. He died in 1022. Like Bede, Rabanus,\nand many other Teutonic scholars, he was an encyclopaedia of the knowledge\nafforded by his time. He was the head of a school of German translators.\nHis own translations covered part of Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s _De consolatione_,\nVirgil\u2019s _Bucolics_, Terence\u2019s _Andria_, Martianus Capella\u2019s _De nuptiis_,\nAristotle\u2019s _Categories_ and _De interpretatione_, an arithmetic, a\nrhetoric, Job, and the Psalms. He was a teacher all his life, and a German\nalways, loving his mother tongue, and occupying himself with its grammar\nand word forms. His method of translation was to give the Latin sentence,\nwith a close German rendering, accompanied by an occasional explanation of\nthe matter, also in German.[388] All the while, this foreign learning was\nbeing mastered gallantly in the leading cloisters, Fulda, St. Gall,\nReichenau, Hersfeld, and others. Within their walls this Latin culture was\nstudied and mastered, as one with resolve and perseverance masters that to\nwhich he is not born.\n\nBesides those who laboured as translators, other earnest fosterers of\nlearning in Germany appear as introducers of the same. Bruno, youngest\nbrother of Otto I., is distinguished in this r\u00f4le. He promoted letters in\nhis archiepiscopal diocese of Cologne. From many lands learned men came to\nhim, Liutprand and Ratherius among others. Otto himself loved learning,\nand drew foreign scholars to his Court, one of whom was that conceited\nGunzo, already spoken of.[389] Schools moved with the emperor (_scholae\ntranslatitiae_) also with Bruno, who though archbishop, duke, and burdened\nwith affairs, took the time to teach. A passage in his Life by Ruotger\nshows the education and accomplishments of this most worthy prince of the\nChurch and land:\n\n    \u201cThen as soon as he learned the first rudiments of the grammatic art,\n    as we have heard from himself, often pondering upon this in the glory\n    of the omnipotent God, he began to read the poet Prudentius, at the\n    instance of his master. This one, as he is catholic in faith and\n    argument, eminent for eloquence and truth, and most elegant in the\n    variety of his works and metres, with so great sweetness quickly\n    pleased the palate of his heart, that at once, with greater avidity\n    than can be expressed, he drank up not only the knowledge of the\n    foreign words, but even the marrow of the innermost meaning and most\n    liquid nectar, if I may so say. Afterwards there was almost no branch\n    of liberal study in all Greek or Latin eloquence, that escaped the\n    quickness of his genius. Nor indeed, as often happens, did the\n    multitude of riches, or the insistency of clamouring crowds, nor any\n    disgust otherwise coming over him, ever turn his mind from this noble\n    employment of leisure.... Often he seated himself as a learned arbiter\n    in the midst of the most learned Greek and Latin doctors, when they\n    argued on the sublimity of philosophy or upon some subtility of her\n    glistening discipline, and gave satisfaction to the disputants, amid\n    universal plaudits, than which he cared for nothing less.\u201d[390]\n\nOne may read between these awkward lines that all this learning was\nsomething to which Bruno had been introduced at school. Another short\npassage shows how new and strange this Latin culture seemed, and how he\napproached it with a timorous seriousness natural to one who did not well\nunderstand what it all meant:\n\n    \u201cThe buffoonery and mimic talk in comedies and tragedies, which cause\n    such laughter when recited by a number of people, he would always read\n    seriously; he took small count of the matter, but chiefly of\n    authority, in literary compositions.\u201d[391]\n\nSuch an attitude would have been impossible for an Italian cradled amid\nLatin or quasi-Latin speech and reminiscence.\n\nThe most curious if not original literary phenomenon of the time of Bruno\nand his great brother was the nun Hrotsvitha, of Gandersheim, a Saxon\ncloister supported by the royal Saxon house. A niece of Otto\u2019s was the\nAbbess, and she it was who introduced Hrotsvitha to the Latin Classics,\nafter the completion of her elementary studies under another _magistra_,\nlikewise an inmate of the convent. The account bears witness to the taste\nfor Latin reading among this group of noble Saxon dames. Hrotsvitha soon\nsurpassed the rest, at least in productivity, and became a prolific\nauthoress. She composed a number of sacred _legendae_, in leonine or\nrhymed hexameters.[392] One of them gave the legend of the Virgin, as\ndrawn from the Apocryphal Gospel of Matthew. She also wrote several\n_Passiones_ or accounts of the martyrdoms of saints, and the story of the\nFall and Repentance of Theophilus, the oldest poetic version of a compact\nwith the devil. Quite different in topic was the Deeds of Otto I. (_De\ngestis Oddonis I. imperatoris_) written between 962 and 967, likewise in\nleonine hexameters. It told the fortunes of the Saxon house as well as the\ncareer of its greatest member.\n\nPossibly more interesting were six moral dramas written in formal\nimitation of the _Comedies_ of Terence. As an antidote to the poison of\nthe latter, they were to celebrate the virtue of holy virgins in this same\nkind of composition which had flaunted the adulteries of lascivious\nwomen--so the preface explains. Again, Hrotsvitha\u2019s sources were\n_legenda_, in which Christian chastity, martyred though it be, triumphs\nwith no uncertain note of victory.[393] These pious imitations of the\nimpious Terence do not appear to have been imitated by other mediaeval\nwriters: they exerted no influence upon the later development of the\nMystery Play. They remain as evidence of the writer\u2019s courage, and of the\nstudies of certain denizens of the cloister at Gandersheim.\n\nBesides this convent for high-born women, and such monasteries as Fulda\nand St. Gall, an interesting centre of introduced learning was Hildesheim,\nfortunate in its bishops, who made it an oasis of culture in the north.\nOtwin, bishop in 954, supplied its school with books from Italy. Some\nyears after him came that great hearty man, Bernward, of princely birth,\nwho began his clerical career at an early age, and was made bishop in 992.\nFor thirty years he ruled his see with admirable piety, energy, and\njudgment; qualities which he likewise showed in affairs of State. He was a\ndiligent student of Latin letters, one \u201cwho conned not only the books in\nthe monastery, but others in divers places, from which he formed a goodly\nlibrary of codices of the divines and also the philosophers.\u201d[394] His was\na master\u2019s faculty and a master-hand, itself skilfully fashioning; for not\nonly did he build the beautiful cloister church of St. Michael at\nHildesheim, and cause it to be sumptuously adorned, but he himself carved\nand painted, and set gems. Some of the excellent works of his hand remain\nto-day. His biographer tells of that munificence and untiring zeal which\nrendered Hildesheim beautiful, as one still may see. Yet, throughout,\nBernward appears as consciously studying and gathering and bringing to his\nbeloved church an art from afar and a learning which was not of his own\npeople. The bronze work on the Bernward column in Hildesheim is thought to\nsuggest an influence of Trajan\u2019s column, while the doors of Bernward\u2019s\nchurch unquestionably follow those of St. Sabina on the Aventine. This\nshows how Bernward noticed and learned and copied during his stay at Rome\nin the year 1001, when Otto III. was imperator and Gerbert was pope.\n\nBernward\u2019s successor, Godehard, continued the good work. One of his\nletters closes with a quick appeal for books: \u201cMittite nobis librum\nHoratii et epistolas Tullii.\u201d[395] Belonging to the same generation was\nFroumundus (fl. cir. 1040), a monk of Tegernsee, where Godehard had been\nabbot before becoming bishop of Hildesheim. He was a sturdy German lover\nof the classics--very German. At one time he writes for a copy of Horace,\napparently to complete his own, and at another for a copy of Statius;\nother letters refer to Juvenal and Persius.[396] His ardour for study is\nas apparent as the fact that he is learning a literature to which he was\nnot born. His turgid hexameters sweat with effort to master the foreign\nlanguage and metre. People would have made a priest of him; not he:\n\n  \u201cCogere me certant, fatear, quod sim sapiens vir,\u201d\n\nand a good grin seems to escape him:\n\n    \u201cDiscere decrevi libros, aliosque docere:\n\n    from such work no difficulty shall repel me; be it my reward to be\n    co-operator (_synergus_) with what almighty God grants to flourish in\n    this time of Christ, or in the time of yore.\u201d[397]\n\nThe spirit is grand, the literary result awful. With diligence, the\nstudious _\u00e9lite_ of Germany applied themselves to Latin letters. And in\nthe course of time tremendous scholars were to rise among them. But the\nLatin culture remained a thing of study; its foreign tongue was never as\ntheir own; and in the eleventh century, at least, they used it with a\npainful effort that is apparent in their writings and the Germanisms\nabounding in them. There may come one like Lambert of Hersfeld, the famous\nannalist of the Hildebrandine epoch, who with exceptional gifts gains a\ngood mastery of Latin, and writes with a conscious approach to\nquasi-classical correctness. The place of his birth and the sources of his\neducation are unknown. He was thirty years old, and doubtless had obtained\nhis excellent training in Latin, when he took the cowl in the cloister of\nHersfeld in 1058. But the next year he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and\nafterwards other journeys. He wrote his _Annals_[398] in his later years,\nlaying down his pen in 1077, when he had brought the Emperor to Canossa.\nHis was a practised hand, and his style the evident result of much study\nof the classics. His work remains the best piece of Latin from an\neleventh-century German.\n\nAmong German scholars of the period, one can find no more charming\ncreature than Hermann Contractus, the lame or paralytic. His father, a\nSuabian count, brought the little cripple to the convent of Reichenau. It\nwas in the year 1020. Hermann was seven years old. There he studied and\ntaught, and loved his fellows, till his death thirty-four years later. His\nmind was as strong as his body was weak. He could not rise from the\nmovable seat on which his attendant placed him, and could scarcely sit up.\nHe enunciated with difficulty; his words were scarcely intelligible. But\nhis learning was encyclopaedic, his sympathies were broad: \u201cHomo revera\nsine querela nihil humani a se alienum putavit,\u201d says a loving pupil who\nsketched his life. Evil was foreign to his nature. Affectionate, cheerful,\nhappy, his sweet and engaging personality drew all men\u2019s love, while his\nlearning attracted pupils from afar.\n\n    \u201cAt length, after he had been labouring for ten days in a grievous\n    pleurisy, God\u2019s mercy saw fit to free his holy soul from prison. I who\n    was his familiar above the rest,\u201d says the biographer, \u201ccame to his\n    couch at dawn of day, and asked him whether he was not feeling a\n    little better. \u2018Do not ask me,\u2019 he replied, \u2018but rather listen to what\n    I have to tell you. I shall die very soon and shall not recover: so to\n    thee and all my friends I commend my sinful soul. This whole night I\n    have been rapt in ecstasy. With such complete memory as we have for\n    the Lord\u2019s Prayer, I seemed to be reading over and over Cicero\u2019s\n    _Hortensius_, and likewise to be scanning the substance and very\n    written pages of what I intended to write Concerning the Vices--just\n    as if I had it already written. I am so stirred and lifted by this\n    reading, that the earth and all pertaining to it and this mortal life\n    are despicable and tedious; while the future everlasting world and the\n    eternal life have become such an unspeakable desire and joy, that all\n    these transitory circumstances are inane--nothing at all. It wearies\n    me to live.\u2019\u201d[399]\n\nWas not this a scholar\u2019s vision? The German dwarf reads and cares for the\n_Hortensius_ even as Augustine, from whose _Confessions_ doubtless came\nthe recommendation of this classic. The barbarous Latin of the _Vita_ is\nso uncouth and unformed as to convey no certain grammatical meaning. One\ncan only sense it. The biographer cannot write Latin correctly, nor write\nit glibly and ungrammatically, like a man born to a Latinesque speech.\nHermann\u2019s own Latin is but little better. It approaches neither fluency\nnor style. But the scholar ardour was his, and his works remain--a long\nchronicle, a treatise on the Astrolabe, and one on Music; also, perhaps, a\npoem in leonine elegiacs, \u201cThe Dispute of the Sheep and the Flax,\u201d which\ngoes on for several hundred lines till one comes to a welcome _caetera\ndesunt_.[400]\n\nThus, with a heavy-footed Teutonic diligence, the Germans studied the\nTrivium and Quadrivium. They sweated at Latin grammar, reading also the\nliterature or the stock passages. Their ignorance of natural science was\nno denser than that of peoples west of the Rhine or south of the Alps.\nMany of them went to learn at Chartres or Paris. Within the mapped-out\nscheme of knowledge, there was too much for them to master to admit of\ntheir devising new provinces of study. They could not but continue for\nmany decades translators of the foreign matter into their German tongue or\nGerman selves. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries they will be\ntranslators of the French and Proven\u00e7al literatures.\n\nEven before the eleventh century Germans were at work at Logic--one\nrecalls Gerbert\u2019s opponent Otric;[401] and some of them were engaged with\ndialectic and philosophy. William, Abbot of Hirschau, crudely anticipated\nAnselm in attempting a syllogistic proof of God\u2019s existence.[402] He died\nin 1091, and once had been a monk in the convent of St. Emmeram at\nRatisbon in Bavaria, where he may have known a certain monk named Othloh,\nwho has left a unique disclosure of himself. One is sufficiently informed\nas to what the Germans and other people studied in the eleventh century;\nbut this man has revealed the spiritual conflict out of which he hardly\nbrought his soul\u2019s peace.\n\n\nII\n\nNothing is so fascinating in the life of a holy man as the struggle and\ncrisis through which his convictions are established and his peace\nattained. How diverse has been this strife--with Buddha, with Augustine,\nwith Luther, or Ignatius Loyola. Its heroes fall into two companies: in\none of them the man attains through his own thought and resolution; in the\nother he casts himself on God, and it may be that devils and angels carry\non the fight, of which his soul is the battle-ground and prize.\nNevertheless, the man himself holds the scales of victory; the choice is\nhis, and it is he who at last goes over to the devil or accepts the grace\nof God. This conflict, in which God is felt to aid, is still for men; only\nits forms and setting change. Therefore the struggle and the tears,\nthrough which souls have won their wisdom and their peace, never cease to\nmove us. Othloh, like many another mediaeval scholar, was disturbed over\nthe sinful pleasure derived from Tully and Virgil, Maro and Lucan. But his\nsoul\u2019s chief turmoil came from the doubts that sprang from his human\nsympathies and from moral grounds--can the Bible be true and God\nomnipotent when sin and misery abound? The struggle through which he\nbecame assured was the supreme experience of his life: it fixed his\nthoughts; his writings were its fruit; they reflect the struggle and the\nstruggler, and present a psychological tableau of a mediaeval German soul.\n\nHe was born in the bishopric of Freising in Bavaria not long after the\nyear 1000, and spent his youth in the monastic schools of Tegernsee and\nHersfeld. His scholarship was made evident to men about him through his\nskill in copying texts in a beautiful script, ornamented with\nilluminations. In the year 1032 he took the monk\u2019s vows in the monastery\nof St. Emmeram at Ratisbon, which had been founded long before in honour\nof this sainted Frankish missionary bishop, who had met a martyr\u2019s death\nin Bavaria in the late Merovingian period. The annals of the monastery are\nextant. When the Ottos were emperors, grammatical and theological studies\nflourished there, especially under a certain capable Wolfgang, who died\nas Bishop of Ratisbon in 994, and whose life Othloh wrote. The latter, on\nbecoming a monk, received charge of the monastery school, which he\ncontinued to direct for thirty years.[403] Then he left, because some of\nthe young monks had turned the Abbot against him; but after some years\nspent mainly at the monastery of Fulda, he returned to St Emmeram\u2019s in\n1063, where he died an old man ten or fifteen years later. From his youth\nhe had been subject to illness, even to fits of swooning, and, writing in\nthe evening of his days, he speaks of his many bodily infirmities.\n\nAs Othloh looked back over his life, his soul\u2019s crisis seemed to have been\nreached soon after he was made a monk. The wisdom brought through it came\nas the answer to those questionings which made up the diabolic side of\nthat great experience. Othloh describes it in his _Book concerning the\nTemptations of a certain Monk_.\n\n    \u201cThere was a sinful clerk, who, having often been corrected by the\n    Lord, at length turned to monastic life. In the monastery where he was\n    made a monk he found many sorts of men, some of whom were given over\n    to the reading of secular works, while some read Holy Scripture. He\n    resolved to imitate the latter. The more earnest he was in this, the\n    more was he molested by temptations of the devil; but committing\n    himself to the grace of God, he persevered; and when, after a long\n    while, he was delivered, and thought over what he had suffered, it\n    seemed that others might be edified by his temptations, as well as by\n    the passages of Holy Scripture which had come to him through divine\n    inspiration. So he began to write as follows: I wish to tell the\n    delusions of Satan which I endured sleeping and waking. His deceits\n    first confounded me with doubt as to whether I was not rash in taking\n    the vow perilous of the monastic life, without consulting parents or\n    friends, when Scripture bids us \u2018do all things with counsel.\u2019 Diabolic\n    illusion, as if sympathizing and counselling with me, brought these\n    and like thoughts. When, the grace of God resisting him, the Tempter\n    failed to have his way with me here, he tried to make me despair\n    because of my many sins. \u2018Do you think,\u2019 said he, \u2018that such a wretch\n    can expect mercy from God the Judge, when it is written, Scarcely\n    shall a righteous man be saved?\u2019 So he overwhelmed me, till I could do\n    nothing but weep, and tears were my bread day and night. I protest,\n    from my innermost heart, that save through the grace of God alone, no\n    one can overcome such delusions.\n\n    \u201cWhen the Weaver of wiles failed to cause me utterly to despair, he\n    tried with other arguments of guile to lead me to blaspheme the divine\n    justice, suggesting thoughts, as if condoling with my misery: \u2018O most\n    unhappy youth, whose grief no man deigns to consider--but men are not\n    to blame, for they do not know your trouble. God alone knows, and\n    since He can do all things, why does He not aid you in tribulation,\n    when for love of Him you have surrendered the world and now endure\n    this agony? Have done with impossible prayers and foolish grief. The\n    injustice of that Potentate will not permit all to perish.\u2019 These\n    delusions were connected with what I now wish to mention: Often I was\n    awakened by some imaginary signal, and would hasten to the oratory\n    before the time of morning prayer; also, and for a number of years,\n    though I slept at night as a man sound in body, when the hour came to\n    rise, my limbs were numb, and only with uncertain trembling step could\n    I reach the Church.\n\n    \u201cOne delusion and temptation must be spoken of, which I hardly know\n    how to describe, as I never read or heard of anything like it. By the\n    stress of my many temptations I was driven--though by God\u2019s grace I\n    was never utterly torn from faith and hope of heavenly aid--to doubt\n    as to Holy Scripture and the essence of God himself. In the struggle\n    with the other temptations there was some respite, and a refuge of\n    hope remained. In this I knew no alleviation, and when formerly I had\n    been strengthened by the sacred book and had fought against the darts\n    of death with the arms of faith and hope, now, shut round with doubt\n    and mental blindness, I doubted whether there was truth in Holy\n    Scripture and whether God was omnipotent. This broke over me with such\n    violence as to leave me neither strength of body nor strength of mind,\n    and I could not see or hear. Then sometimes it was as if a voice was\n    whispering close to my ear: \u2018Why such vain labourings? Can you not,\n    most foolish of mortals, prove by your own experience that the\n    testimony of Scripture is without sense or reason? Do you not see that\n    what the divine book says is the reverse of what the lives and habits\n    of mankind approve? Those many thousands who neither know nor care to\n    know its doctrine, do you think they err?\u2019 Troubled, I would urge, as\n    if against some one questioning and objecting: \u2018How then is there such\n    agreement among all the divinely inspired writings when they speak of\n    God the Founder and of obedience to His commands?\u2019 Then words of this\n    kind would be suggested in reply: \u2018Fool, the Scriptures on which you\n    rely for knowledge of God and religion speak double words; for the men\n    who wrote them lived as men live now. You know how all men speak well\n    and piously, and act otherwise, as advantage or frailty prompts. From\n    which you may learn how the authors of the ancient writings wrote good\n    and religious sayings, and did not live accordingly. Understand then,\n    that all the books of the divine law were so written that they have an\n    outer surface of piety and virtue, but quite another inner meaning.\n    All of which is proved by Paul\u2019s saying, The letter killeth; the\n    spirit, that is the meaning, maketh to live. So you see how perilous\n    it is to follow the precepts of these books. Likewise should one think\n    concerning the essence of God. And besides, if there existed any\n    person or power of an omnipotent God there would not be this apparent\n    confusion in everything,--nor would you yourself have had all these\n    doubts which trouble you.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe last diabolically insidious suggestion was just the one to bring\ndespair to the unaided reason seeking faith. Othloh\u2019s soul was passing\nthrough the depths; but the path now ascends, and rapidly:\n\n    \u201cI was assaulted with an incredible number of these delusions, and so\n    strange and unheard of were they that I feared to speak of them to any\n    of the brothers. At last I threw myself upon the ground groaning in\n    bitterness, and, collecting the forces of my mind, I cried with my\n    lips and from my heart: \u2018O if thou art some one, Almighty, and if thou\n    art everywhere, as I have read so often in so many books, now, I pray,\n    show me whom thou art and what thou canst do, delivering me quickly\n    from these perils; I can bear this strife no more.\u2019 I did not have to\n    wait; the grace of God scattered the whole cloud of doubt, and such a\n    light of knowledge poured into my heart that I have never since had to\n    endure the darkness of deadly doubt. I began to understand what I had\n    scarcely perceived before. Then the grace of knowledge was so\n    increased that I could no longer hide it. I was urged by ineffable\n    impulse to undertake some work of gratitude for the glory of God, and\n    it seemed that this new ardour should be devoted to composition. So I\n    wrote what I have written concerning those diabolic delusions which\n    sprang from my sins, and then it seemed reasonable to tell of the\n    divine inspiration by which my mind was enabled to repel them; so that\n    he who reads these delusions may at the same time know the workings of\n    the divine aid, and not ascribe to me a victory which was never mine,\n    or, thinking that aid was lacking in my temptation, fear lest it fail\n    in his. I remember how often, especially on rising in the mornings, it\n    was as if there was some one rising with me and walking with me, who\n    mutely warned, or gently persuaded me to amend faults which it may be\n    only the day before I was ignorantly committing and deeming of no\n    consequence.\n\n    \u201cWhen surrounded by such inspirations I would enter the Church and bow\n    down in prayer--God knows that I do not lie--it seemed as if some one\n    besought me with like earnestness of prayer, saying: \u2018As that has been\n    granted which you asked of me, it will be precious to me if you will\n    obey my entreaties. Do you not continue in those vices which I have\n    often begged you to abandon? are you not proud and carnal, neglectful\n    of God\u2019s service, hating whom you should not hate, although the\n    Scripture says, Every one who hates his brother is a murderer? Where\n    now is the patience and constancy and that perfection which you\n    promised God, if He would deliver you from perils and make you a monk?\n    God has done as you asked, why do you delay to pay your vow? You have\n    asked Him to set you in a place where you would have a store of books.\n    Lo, you have been heard; you have books--from which you may learn of\n    life eternal. Why do you dissipate your mind in vanities and do not\n    hasten to take the desired gift? You have also asked to be tried, and\n    tried you have been in temptation, and delivered. Yet you are still a\n    man unfit for peace or war, since when the battle is far off you are\n    ready for it, and when it approaches you flee. Which of the holy\n    fathers that you have read of in the Old or New Testament was so dear\n    to me that I did not seek to try him in the furnace of tribulation?\n    Blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness\u2019 sake.\n    Steep and narrow is the way; no one is crowned who has not striven\n    lawfully. When you have read these, and many more passages of\n    Scripture, why if you desire a crown of life eternal, do you wish to\n    suffer no tribulation for your sins?\u2019\u201d\n\nThen the Spirit of God, with many admonishings, shows Othloh how easy had\nbeen his lot and how needful to him were his temptations, even the very\ncarnal temptations of the flesh, which Othloh suffered in common with all\nmonks. And he is bid to consider their reason and order:\n\n    \u201cFirst you were tried with lighter trials, that gradually you might\n    gain strength for the weightier; as you progressed you ascribed to\n    your own strength what was wrought by my grace. Wherefore I subjected\n    you to the final temptation, from which you will emerge the more\n    certain of my grace the less you trust in your merits.\u201d\n\nThe \u201cwarring opposites\u201d of Othloh\u2019s spiritual struggle were, on the one\nside, evil thoughts and delusions from the devil, and, on the other, the\nstrength and enlightenment imparted by the grace of God. The nearer the\ncrisis comes, the clearer are the devil\u2019s whisperings and the warnings of\nthe instructing voice. Othloh\u2019s part in it was his choice and acceptance\nof the divine counsellor. This conflict never faded from his mind. He has\nmuch to say of the visions[404] in which parts of his enlightenment had\ncome. Once reading Lucan in the monastery, he swooned, and in his swoon\nwas beaten with many stripes by a man of terrible and threatening\ncountenance. By this he was led to abandon profane reading and other\nworldly vanities. These visionary floggings left him feeble and ill in\nbody. They were the approaches to his great spiritual conflict. His\n\u201cfourth vision\u201d is in and of the crisis. This monk, immersed in spiritual\nstruggles, had also his opinions regarding the government of the\nmonastery, and for a time refused obedience to the abbot\u2019s irregular\nrulings, and spoke harshly of him:\n\n    \u201cFor this I did penance before the abbot but not before God, against\n    whom I had greatly sinned; and after a few days I fell sick. This\n    sickness was from God, since I have always begged of His mercy, that\n    for any sin committed I might suffer sickness or tribulation, and so\n    it has come to me. On this occasion, when weakness had for some days\n    kept me in the infirmary, one evening as it was growing dark I thought\n    I should feel better if I rose and sat by my cot. Immediately the\n    house appeared to be filled with flame and smoke. Horror-stricken, my\n    wonted trust in God all scattered, I started, tottering, towards the\n    cot of the lay brother in charge, but, ashamed, I turned back and went\n    to the cot of a brother who was sick; he was asleep. Then I sank\n    exhausted on my cot, thinking how to escape the horror of that vision\n    of smoke. I had no doubt that the smoke was the work of evil spirits,\n    who, from its midst, would try to torment me. As I gradually saw that\n    it was not physical, but of the spirit, and that there was no one to\n    help me, as all were asleep, I began to sing certain psalms, and,\n    singing, went out and entered the nearest church, of St. Gallus, and\n    fell down before the altar. At once, for my sins, strength of mind and\n    body left me, and I perceived that my lips were held together by evil\n    spirits, so that I could not move them, to sing a psalm. I tried till\n    I was weary to open them with my hands.\n\n    \u201cLeaving that church, crawling rather than walking I gained the great\n    church of St. Emmeram, where I hoped for some alleviation of my agony.\n    But it was as before; I could barely utter a few words of prayer. So I\n    painfully made my way back to my bed, hoping, from sheer weariness, to\n    get some sleep. But none came, and, turn as I would, still I saw the\n    vision of smoke. Suddenly--was I asleep or awake?--I seemed to be in a\n    field well known to me, surrounded by a crowd of demons mocking me\n    with shrieks of laughter. The louder they laughed, the sadder I was,\n    seeing them gathered to destroy me. When they saw that I would not\n    laugh, they became enraged, crying, \u2018So! you won\u2019t laugh and be merry\n    with us! Since you choose melancholy you shall have enough.\u2019 Then\n    flying about me, with blows from all sides, they whirled me round and\n    round with them over vast spaces of earth, till I thought to die.\n    Suffering unspeakably, I was at length set down on the top of a peak\n    which scarcely held me; no eye could fathom its abyss. Vainly I looked\n    for a descent, and the demons kept flying about me, saying: \u2018Where now\n    is your hope in God! And where is that God of yours! Don\u2019t you know\n    that neither God is, as men say, nor is there any power in Him which\n    can prevail against us? One proof of this is that you have no help,\n    and there is no one who can deliver you from our hands. Choose now;\n    for unless you join with us you shall be cast into the abyss.\u2019 In this\n    strait, scarcely consenting or resisting, I faintly remembered that I\n    had once believed and read that God was everywhere, and so I looked\n    around to see whether He would not send some aid. Now when the demons\n    kept insisting that I should choose, and when I was well-nigh put to\n    it to promise what they wished, a man suddenly appeared, and, standing\n    by me, said: \u2018Do not do it; all that these cheats say is false. Abide\n    firm in that faith which you had in God. He knows all that you suffer,\n    and permits it for your good.\u2019 Then he vanished, and the demons\n    returned, flying about me, and saying: \u2018Miserable man, would you trust\n    one who came to deceive you? Why, he dared not wait till we came! Come\n    now, yield yourself to our power.\u2019\n\n    \u201cUttering these words with fury, they snatched me up, and whirled me,\n    sorely beaten, across plains and deserts, over heights and precipices,\n    and set me on a yet more dreadful peak, hurling at me abuse and\n    threats, to make me do their will. And, as before, I was near\n    succumbing, and was looking around for some aid from God, when that\n    same man again stood near, and heartened me. \u2018Do not yield; let your\n    heart be comforted against its besiegers.\u2019 And I replied: \u2018Lord, I can\n    no longer bear these perils. Stay with me, and aid, lest when you go\n    away they torment me still more grievously.\u2019 To which he said: \u2018Their\n    threats cannot prevail so long as you persevere in faith and hope in\n    the Lord. Be comforted; the sharper the strife, the quicker will it\n    end. If with constancy you wage the Lord\u2019s battles, you shall have\n    eternal rewards in the future, and in this world you shall be famous.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThen he vanished the second time, and the demons, who dared do\n    nothing in his presence, raged and mocked more savagely, and kept me\n    in anguish, until, the divine grace effecting it, the convent bell\n    rang for early prayer. I heard it as I lay in bed, and gradually\n    gaining my senses, I was conscious that I was living, and I no longer\n    saw the vision of smoke. With gratitude I remembered what the man in\n    my vision told me that my trial would soon be over. After this, though\n    for many days I lay sick in body and soul, my spiritual temptations\n    began to lessen; and I have learned that without the Grace of God I\n    am, and always shall be, a thing of naught.\u201d\n\nThe struggle through which faith and peace came to Othloh became the\nfountain-head of his wisdom; it fixed the point of view from which he\njudged life, and set the categories in which he ordered his knowledge; it\ndirected his thoughts and imparted purpose and unity to his writings. His\ngratitude to God incited him to write in order that others might share in\nthe light and wisdom which God\u2019s grace had granted him; and his writings\nchiefly enlarge upon those questions which the victory in his spiritual\nconflict had solved. I will refrain from drawing further from them,\nalthough they seem to me the most interesting works of a pious and\ndoctrinal nature emanating from any German of this still crude and\ninchoate intellectual period.[405]\n\n\nIII\n\nFrom the point of view of the development of mediaeval intellectual\ninterests in the eleventh century, England has little that is distinctive\nto offer. The firm rule of Canute (1016-1035) brought some reinstatement\nof order, after the times of struggle between Dane and Saxon. But his son,\nHardicanute, was a savage. The reign of Edward the Confessor (1042-1066)\nfollowed. It wears a halo because it was the end of the old order, which\nhenceforth was to be a memory. Then came the revolution of the Norman\nConquest. Letters did not thrive amid these storms. At the beginning of\nthe period, Dunstan is the sole name of note, as one who fostered letters\nin the monasteries where his energies were bringing discipline. English\npiety and learning looked then, as it had looked before and was for\ncenturies to look, to the Continent. And Dunstan promoted letters by\ncalling to his assistance Abbo of St. Fleury, of whom something has been\nsaid.[406]\n\nIn Dunstan\u2019s time Saxon men were still translating Scripture into their\ntongue--paraphrasing it rather, with a change of spirit. Such translations\nwere needed in Anglo-Saxon England, as in Germany. But after the Conquest\nthe introduction of Norman-French tended to lessen at least the\nconsciousness of such a need. That language, as compared with Anglo-Saxon,\ncame so much nearer to Latin as to reduce the chasm between the learned\ntongue and the vernacular. The Normans had (at least in speech) been\nGallicized, and yet had kept many Norse traits. England likewise took on a\nGallic veneering as Norman-French became the language of the Court and the\nnew nobility. But the people continued to speak English. The degree of\nforeign influence upon their thought and manners may be gauged by the\nproportion of foreign idiom penetrating the English language; and the fact\nthat English remained essentially and structurally English proves the same\nfor England racially. In spite of the introduction of foreign elements,\npeople and language endured and became more and more progressively\nEnglish.\n\nIn the island before the Conquest, the round of studies had been the same\nas on the Continent; and that event brought no change. The studies might\nimprove, but would have no novel source to draw upon. And in this period\nof racial turmoil and revolution, it was unlikely that the Anglo-Saxon\ntemperament would present itself as clearly as aforetime in the Saxon poem\nof _Beowulf_ or the personality of the Saxon Alfred, or in the Saxon\n_Genesis_ and the writings of Cynewulf.[407] In a word, the eleventh\ncentury in England was specifically the period when the old traits were\nbecoming obscure, and no distinct modifications had been evolved in\ncorrespondence with the new conditions. Consequently, for presentations of\nthe intellectual genius of the English people, one has to wait until the\nnext century, the time of John of Salisbury and other English minds. Even\nsuch will be found receiving their training and their knowledge in France\nand Italy. England was still intellectually as well as politically under\nforeign domination.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn every way it has been borne in upon us how radically the conditions and\nfaculties of men differed in England, Germany, France, and Italy in the\neleventh century. Very different were their intellectual qualities, and\ndifferent also was the measure of their attainment to a palpable mediaeval\ncharacter, which in Italy was not that of the ancient Latins, in France\nwas not that of the Gallic provincials, and in England and Germany was not\naltogether that of the original Celtic and Teutonic stocks. Neither in the\neleventh century nor afterwards was there an obliteration of race traits;\nyet the mediaeval modification tended constantly to evoke a general\nuniformity of intellectual interest and accepted view.\n\nThere exists a certain ancient _Chronicon Venetum_ written by a Venetian\ndiplomat and man of affairs called John the Deacon, who died apparently\nsoon after 1008.[408] He was the chaplain of the Doge, Peter Urseolus, and\nthe doge\u2019s ambassador to the emperors Otto III. and Henry II. The earlier\nparts of his _Chronicon_ were taken from Paulus Diaconus and others; the\nlater are his own, and form a facile narrative, which makes no pretence to\nphilosophic insight and has nothing to say either of miracles or God\u2019s\nChristian providence. Its interests are quite secular. John writes his\nLatin, glib, clear, and unclassical, just as he might talk his Venetian\nspeech, his _vulgaris eloquentia_. There is no effort, no struggle with\nthe medium of expression, but a pervasive quality of familiarity with his\nstory and with the language he tells it in. These characteristics, it is\nsafe to say, are not to be found, to a like degree, in the work of any\ncontemporary writer north of the Alps.\n\nThe man and his story, in fine, however mediocre they may be, have\narrived: they are not struggling or apparently tending anywhither. The\nwriting suggests no capacity in the writer as yet unreached, nor any\nimperfect blending of disparate elements in his education. One should not\ngeneralize too broadly from the qualities exemplified in this work; yet\nthey indicate that the people to which the writer belonged were possessed\nof a certain entirety of development, in which the component elements of\nculture and antecedent human growth and decadence were blended in accord.\nThis old _Chronicon_ affords an illustration of the fact that the\ntransition and early mediaeval centuries had brought nothing to Italy that\nwas new or foreign, nothing that was not in the blood, nothing to deeply\ndisturb the continuity of Italian culture and character which moved along\nwithout break, whether in ascending or descending curves.\n\nYet evidently the eleventh-century Italian is no longer a Latin of the\nEmpire. For one thing, he is more individualistic. Formerly the prodigious\npower of Roman government united citizens and subject peoples, and\nimpressed a human uniformity upon them. The surplus energies of the Latin\nrace were then absorbed in the functions of the _Respublica_, or were at\nleast directed along common channels. That great unification had long been\nbroken; and the smaller units had reasserted themselves--the civic units\nof town or district, and the individual units of human beings upon whom no\nlonger pressed the conforming influence of one great government.\n\nIn imperial times cities formed the subordinate units of the _Respublica_;\nthe Roman, like the Greek civilization, was essentially urban. This\ncondition remained. The civilization of Italy in the eleventh century was\nstill urban, but was now more distinctly the civilization of small closely\ncompacted bodies, which were no longer united. For the most part, the\nlife, the thought, of Italy was in the towns; it remained predominantly\nhumanistic, taken up with men and their mortal affairs, their joys and\nhates, and all that is developed by much daily intercourse with fellows.\nThus the intellect of Italy continued secular, interesting itself in\nmortal life, and not so much occupied with theology and the life beyond\nthe grave. This is as true of the intellectual energies of the Roman\npapacy as it is of the mental activities of the towns which served or\nopposed it, according to their politics.\n\nOn the other hand, the intense emotional nature of the Italians was apt to\nbe religious, and given to despair and tears and ecstasy; its love welled\nup and flung itself around its object, without the mediating offices of\nreason. If reflection came, it was love\u2019s ardent musing, rather than\nreligious ratiocination. One does not forget that the Italians who became\nscholastic theologians or philosophers left Italy, and subjected\nthemselves to northern spiritual influences at Paris or elsewhere. Their\ngreatest were Anselm, Peter Lombard, Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas. None of\nthese remained through life altogether Italian.\n\nThus, with Italians, religion meant either the papal government and the\ndaily conventions of observance and minor mental habits, all very secular;\nor it meant that which was a thing of ecstasy and not of\nthought--generally speaking, of course. The mediaeval Italian (in the\neleventh century only to a slightly less degree than in the twelfth or\nthirteenth) is, typically speaking, a man of urban human interests and\naffairs, a politician, a trader, a doctor, a man of law or letters, an\nartist, or a poet. If really religious, his religion is an emotion, and is\nnot occupied with dogma, nor interested in doctrinal correctness or\nreform. Such a religious character may, according to individual temper,\nresult in a Romuald[409] or a Peter Damiani; its perfected ideal is\nFrancis of Assisi.\n\nThings were already different in the country now called France. No need to\nrepeat what has been said as to the lesser strength and somewhat broken\ncontinuity of the antique there, as compared with Italy. Yet there was a\nsufficient power of antique influence and descent to keep the language\nRomanesque, and the forms of its literature partly set by antique\ntradition. But the spirit was not Latin. Perhaps it had but seemed such\nwith the Gallic provincials. At all events, the incoming Franks and other\nGermans brought a Teutonic infusion and reinspiration that forever kept\nFrance from being or becoming a northern Italy.\n\nNeither was the spirit urban. To be sure, much of the energy of French\nthought awoke and did its work in towns; and Paris was to become the\nintellectual centre. But the stress of French life was not so surely in\nthe towns, nor men\u2019s minds so characteristically urban as in Italy, and by\nno means so predominantly humanistic. Even in the eleventh century the\nlofty range of French thought, of French intellectual interests, is\napparent; for it embraces the problems of philosophy and theology, and\ndoes not find its boundary and limit in phenomenal or mortal life. Gerbert\nis almost too universal an intellect to offer as a fair example. Yet all\nthat he cared for is more than represented by other men taken together;\nfor Gerbert did not fully represent the interests of religious thought in\nFrance. His was the humanism and the thirst for all the round of knowledge\nincluded in the Seven Arts. But he scarcely reached out beyond logic to\nphilosophy; and theology seems not to have troubled him. Both philosophy\nand theology, however, made part of the intellectual interests of France;\nfor there was Berengar and Roscellinus, Gaunilo and St. Anselm, and the\nwrangling of many disputatious, although overwhelmingly orthodox, councils\nof French Churchmen. Paris also, with its great schools of theology and\nphilosophy, looms on the horizon. The intellectual matter is but inchoate,\nyet universally germinating, in the eleventh century.\n\nThus intellectual qualities of mediaeval France appear inceptively. The\nFrench mediaeval temperament needs perhaps another century for its clear\ndevelopment. Both as to temperament and intellectual interests, a line\nwill have to be drawn between the south and north; between the land of the\n_langue d\u2019oc_, the Roman law, the troubadour, and the easy, irreligious,\ngay society which jumped the life to come; and the land of the various old\nFrench dialects (among which that of the Isle de France will win to\ndominance), the land of philosophy and theology, the land of Gothic\narchitecture and religion, the hearth of the crusades against the Saracen\nor the Albigensian heretic; the land of the most distinctive mediaeval\nthought and strongest intellectual development.\n\nIn the Germany and the England of the eleventh century there is less of\ninterest from this point of view. England had scarcely become her\nmediaeval self; the time was one of desperate struggle, or, at most, of\ntumultuous settling down and shaking together. As for Germany, it was\nsurely German then, and not a medley of Saxon, Dane, and Norman-French.\nThe people were talking in their German tongues. German song and German\nepos were already heard in forms which were not to be cast aside, but\nretained and developed; of course the influence of the French poetry was\nnot yet. The Germans were still living their own sturdy and half-barbarous\nlife. Those who loved knowledge had turned with earnest purpose to the\nLatin culture; they were studying Latin and logic, and, as we have said,\ntranslating it into their German tongue or temperament. But the lessons\nwere not fully mastered--not yet transformed into German mediaeval\nintellectual capacity. And in this respect, at least, the German will\nbecome more entirely his Germanic mediaeval self in another century, when\nhe has more faculty of using the store of foreign knowledge in combination\nwith his strongly felt and honestly considered Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nTHE GROWTH OF MEDIAEVAL EMOTION\n\n     I. THE PATRISTIC CHART OF PASSION.\n\n    II. EMOTIONALIZING OF LATIN CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nThe characteristic passions of a period represent the emotionalized\nthoughts of multitudes of men and women. Mediaeval emotional development\nfollowed prevailing ideas, opinions, convictions, especially those of\nmediaeval Christianity. Its most impressive phases conformed to the tenets\nof the system which the Middle Ages had received from the Church Fathers,\nand represented the complement of passion arising from the long acceptance\nof the same. One may observe, first, the process of exclusion, inclusion,\nand enhancement, through which the Fathers formed a certain synthesis of\nemotion from the matter of their faith and the circumstances of their\nenvironment; and, secondly, the further growth of emotion in the Middle\nAges.\n\n\nI\n\nIn the centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian era\nthere took place a remarkable growth of the pathetic or emotional element\nin Greek and Roman literature. Yet during the same period Stoicism, the\nmost respected system of philosophy, kept its face as stone, and would not\nrecognize the ethical value of emotion in human life.[410] But the\nemotional elements of paganism, which were stretching out their hands like\nthe shades by Acheron, were not to be restrained by philosophic\nadmonition, or Virgilian _Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando_. And\nthough the Stoic could not consent to Juvenal\u2019s avowal that the sense of\ntears is the best part of us, Neo-Platonism soon was to uphold the\nsublimated emotion of a vision transcending reason as the highest good for\nman. Rational self-control was disintegrating in the Neo-Platonic\ndialectic which pointed beyond reason to ecstasy. That ecstasy, however,\nwas to be super-sensual, and indeed came only to those who had long\nsuppressed all cravings of the flesh. This ascetic emotionalism of the\nNeo-Platonic _summum bonum_ was strikingly analogous to the ideal of\nChristian living pressing to domination in the patristic period.\n\nNo need to say that the Gospel of Jesus was addressed to the heart as well\nas to the mind; and for times to come the Saviour on the Cross and at its\nfoot the weeping Mother were to rouse floods of tears over human sin,\nwhich caused the divine sacrifice. The words _Jesus wept_ heralded a new\ndispensation under which the heart should quicken and the mind should\nguide through reaches of humanity unknown to paganism. This Christian\nexpansion of the spirit did not, however, address itself to human\nrelationships, but uplifted itself to God, its upward impulse spurning\nmortal loves. In its mortal bearings the Christian spirit was more ascetic\nthan Neo-Platonism, and its _\u00e9lan_ of emotion might have been as\nsublimated in quality as the Neo-Platonic, but for the greater reality of\nlove and terror in the God toward whom it yearned with tears of\ncontrition, love, and fear.\n\nAnother strain very different from Neo-Platonism contributed to the sum of\nChristian emotion. This was Judaism, which recently had shown the fury of\nits energy in defence of Jerusalem against the legions of Titus.\nChristians imbibed its force of feeling from the books of the Old\nTestament. The passion of those writings was not as the humanly directed\npassions of the Greeks. Israel\u2019s desire and aversion, her scorn and\nhatred, her devotion and her love, hung on Jehovah. \u201cDo I not hate them, O\nJehovah, that hate thee?\u201d This cry of the Psalmist is echoed in Elijah\u2019s\n\u201cTake the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape.\u201d Jewish wrath was\na righteous intolerance, which would neither endure idolatrous Gentiles\nnor suffer idolaters in Israel. Moses is enraged by the sight of the\npeople dancing before the golden calf; and Isaiah\u2019s scorn hisses over\nthose daughters of Israel who have turned from Jehovah\u2019s ways of decorum:\n\u201cBecause the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth\nnecks, and wanton eyes, mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with\ntheir feet; therefore Jehovah will smite with a scab the crown of the head\nof the daughters of Zion, and Jehovah will lay bare their secret parts.\u201d\n\nDid a like scorn and anger find harbourage in Him who likened the\nPharisees to whitened sepulchres, and with a scourge of small cords drove\nthe money-changers from His Father\u2019s house? At all events a kindred hate\nfound an enduring home in the religion of Tertullian and Athanasius, and\nin the great Church that persecuted the Montanists at Augustine\u2019s\nentreaty, and thereafter poured its fury upon Jew and Saracen and heretic\nfor a thousand years.\n\nJehovah was also a great heart of love, loving His people along the ways\nof every sweet relationship understood by man. \u201cWhen Israel was a child,\nthen I loved him, and out of Egypt called my son hither.\u201d \u201cCan a woman\nforget her sucking child, so as not to yearn upon the son of her womb?\nYea, these may forget, yet will I not forget thee.\u201d Again, Jehovah is the\nhusband, and Israel the sinning wife whom He will not put away.[411]\nIsrael\u2019s responding love answers: \u201cMy soul waits on God--My heart and\nflesh cry aloud to the living God--Like as the hart panteth for the\nwater-brooks\u201d! Such passages throb obedience to Deuteronomy\u2019s great\ncommand, which Jesus said was the sum of the Law and the Prophets. No need\nto say that the Christian\u2019s love of God had its emotional antecedent in\nPsalmist and Prophet. Jehovah\u2019s purifying wrath of love also passed over\nto the Christian words, \u201cAs many as I love, I reprove and chasten.\u201d And\n\u201cthe fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom,\u201d found its climax\nin the Christian terror of the Judgment Day.\n\nThe Old Testament has its instances of human love: Isaac and Rebekah,\nJacob and Rachel. There is Jacob\u2019s love of Joseph and Benjamin, and\nJoseph\u2019s love, which yearned upon his brethren who had sold him to the\nEgyptians. The most loving man of all is David, with his love of Jonathan,\n\u201cwonderful and passing the love of women,\u201d unforgotten in the king\u2019s old\nage, when he asks, \u201cIs there yet any living of the house of Saul, that I\nmay show him kindness for Jonathan\u2019s sake?\u201d To a later time belongs the\nSong of Songs. Beautiful, orientally sensuous, too glowing perhaps for\nwestern taste, is this utterance of unchecked passion. And its fortune has\nbeen the most wonderful that ever fell to a love poem. It became the\nepithalamion of the Christian soul married to Christ, an epithalamion\nwhich was to be enlarged with passionate thought by doctor, monk, and\nsaint, through the Christian centuries. The first to construe it as the\nbridal of the Soul was one who, by an act more irrevocable than a monastic\nvow, put from him mortal bridals--Origen, the greatest thinker of the\nEastern Church. Thus the passion of the Hebrew woman for the lover that\nwas to her as a bundle of myrrh lying between her breasts, was lifted,\nstill full of desire, to the love of the God-man, by those of sterile\nflesh and fruitful souls.\n\nChristianity was not eclecticism, which, for lack of principles of its\nown, borrows whatever may seem good. But it made a synthetic adoption of\nwhat could be included under the dominance of its own motives, that is,\ncould be made to accord with its criterion of Salvation. What sort of\nsynthesis could it make of the passions and emotions of the\nGraeco-Roman-Oriental-Jewish world? That which was achieved by the close\nof the patristic period, and was to be passionately approved by the Middle\nAges, proceeded partly in the way of exclusion, and partly by adding a\nquality of boundlessness to the emotional elements admitted.\n\nWith the first conversions to the new religion, arose the problem: What\nhuman feelings, what loves and interests of this world, shall the believer\nrecognize as according with his faith, and as offering no obstacle to the\nlove of God and the attainment of eternal life? A practical answer was\ngiven by the growth of an indeterminate asceticism within the Christian\ncommunities, which in the fourth century went forth with power, and\npeopled the desert with anchorites and monks.\n\nAscetic suggestions came from many sources to the early Christians.\nStoicism was ascetic in tendency; Neo-Platonism ascetic in principle,\nholding that the soul should be purged from contamination with things of\nsense. Throughout Egypt asceticism was rife in circles interested in the\nconflict of Set and his evil host with Horus seeking vengeance for Osiris\nslain; and we know that some of the earliest Christian hermits had been\nrecluses devoted to the cult of Serapis. In Syria dwelt communities of\nJewish Essenes, living continently like monks. Nevertheless, whatever may\nhave been the effects of such examples, monasticism developed from within\nChristianity, and was not the fruit of influences from without.\n\nThe Lord had said, \u201cMy kingdom is not of this world\u201d; and soon enough\nthere came antagonism between the early Churches and the Roman Empire. The\nChurch was in a state of conflict. It behoved the Christian to keep his\nloins girded: why should he hamper himself with ephemeral domestic ties,\nwhen the coming of the Lord was at hand? Moreover, the Christian warfare\nto the death was not merely with political tyranny, but against fleshly\nlusts. Such convictions, in men and women desirous of purifying the soul\nfrom the cravings of sense, might bring the thought that even lawful\nmarriage was not as holy as the virgin state. The Christian\u2019s ascetic\nabnegation had as a further motive the love of Christ and the desire to\nhelp on His kingdom and attain to it, the motive of sacrifice for the sake\nof the Kingdom of Heaven; for which one man must be burned, another must\ngive up his goods, and a third renounce his heart\u2019s love. Ascetic acts are\nalso a natural accompaniment of penitence: the sinner, with fear of hell\nbefore him, seeks to undergo temporal in order to avoid eternal pain; or,\nbetter, stung by love of the Crucified, his heart cries for flagellation.\nWhen St. Martin came to die he would lie only upon ashes: \u201cI have sinned\nif I leave you a different example.\u201d[412] A similar strain of religious\nconviction is rendered in Jerome\u2019s \u201cYou are too pleasure-loving, brother,\nif you wish to rejoice in this world and hereafter to reign with\nChrist.\u201d[413]\n\nSo currents of ascetic living early began in Christian circles; and before\nlong the difficulty of leading lives of self-mortification within the\ncommunity was manifest. It was easier to withdraw: ascetics must become\nanchorites, \u201cthey who have withdrawn.\u201d Here was reason why the movement\nshould betake itself to the desert. But the solitary life is so difficult,\nthat association for mutual aid will soon ensue; and then regulations will\nbe needed for these newly-formed ascetic groups. So anchorites tended to\nbecome coenobites; monasticism has begun.\n\nIn both its hermit and coenobitic phases, monasticism began in the East,\nin Syria and the Thebaid. It was accepted by the Latin West, and there\nbecame impressed with Roman qualities of order, regularity, and obedience.\nThe precepts of the eastern monks were collected and arranged by Cassian,\na native of Gaul, in his _Institutes_ and _Conlocations_ between the years\n419 and 428. And about a century afterwards, western monasticism received\nits typeform in the _Regula_ of St. Benedict of Nursia (d. 543), which was\napproved by the authority of Gregory the Great (d. 604).[414]\n\nBy the close of the patristic period, monasticism had become the most\nhighly applauded practical interpretation of Christianity. Its precepts\nrepresented the requirements of the Christian criterion of Salvation\napplied to earthly life. Like all great systems which have widely\nprevailed and long endured, it was not negation, but substitution. If it\ncondemned usual modes of pleasure, this was because of their\nincompatibility with the life it inculcated. The _Regula_ of Benedict set\nforth a manner of life replete with positive demands. Its purpose was to\nprescribe for those who had taken monastic vows that way of living, that\ndaily round of occupation, that constant mode of thought and temper, which\nshould make a perfected Christian, that is, a perfect monk. And so broad\nand spiritually interwoven were its precepts that one of them could hardly\nbe obeyed without fulfilling all. Read, for example, the beautiful seventh\nchapter upon the twelve grades of humility, and it will become evident\nthat whoever achieves this virtue will gain all the rest: he will always\nhave the fear of God before his eyes, the terror of hell and the hope of\nheaven; he will cut off the desires of the flesh; he will do, not his own\nwill, but the Lord\u2019s; since Christ obeyed His Father unto death, he will\nrender absolute obedience to his superior, obeying readily and cheerfully\neven when unjustly blamed; in confession he will conceal no evil thought;\nhe will deem himself vilest of all, and will do nothing save what the\n_regula_ of the monastery or the example of the elders prescribes; he will\nkeep from laughter and from speech, except when questioned, and then he\nwill speak gently and humbly, and with gravity, in few words; he will\nstand and walk with inclined head and looks bent on the ground, feeling\nhimself unworthy to lift up his eyes to heaven: through these stairs of\nhumility he will reach that perfect love of God which banishes fear, and\nwill no longer need the fear of hell, as he will do right from habit and\nthrough the love of Christ.\n\nHaving thus pointed out the way of righteousness, Benedict\u2019s _regula_\ngives minute precepts for the monk\u2019s conduct and occupation through each\nhour of the day and night. No time, no circumstance shall be left\nunguarded, or unoccupied with those acts which lead to God. Wise was this\ngreat prototypal _regula_ in that its abundance of positive precepts kept\nthe monk busy with righteousness, so that he might have no leisure for\nsin. Its prohibitions are comparatively unemphatic, and the monk is guided\nalong the paths of righteousness rather than forbidden to go astray.\n\nThus monk and nun were consecrated to a calling which should contain their\nwhole desire, as it certainly demanded their whole strength. Was the monk\na celibate because carnal marriage was denied him? Rather he was wedded to\nChrist. If this is allegory, it is also close to literal truth. \u201cThou\nshalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and\nwith all thy mind.\u201d Is not love the better part of marriage? And how if\nthe Lord thy God has been a gracious loving figure here on earth, who\nloved thee humanly as well as divinely, and died for thee at last? Will\nnot the complete love required by the commandment become very ardent, very\nheart-filling? Shalt thou not always yearn to see Him, fall at His feet,\nconfess thy unworthiness, and touch His garment? Is there any end to the\ncompass of thy loving Him, and musing upon Him, and dwelling in His\npresence? Dost thou not live with Him in a closer communion than the\nsunderances of mortality permit among men, or between men and women? And\nif it be thou art a nun, art thou not as close to Him in tears and washing\nof those blessed feet, as ever was that other woman, who had been a\nsinner? Thou shalt keep thy virginity for Him as for a bridegroom.[415]\n\nBut the great commandment to love the Lord thy God has an adjunct--\u201cand\nthy neighbour as thyself.\u201d _As thyself_--how does the monk love himself?\nwhy, unto Christ and his own salvation. He does not love his sinful\npleasures, nor those matters of earth which might not be sins, had he not\nrealized how they conflicted with his scheme of life. His love for a\nfellow could not recognize those pleasures which he himself had cast\naway. He must love his fellow, like himself, unto the saving, not the\nundoing, of him--be his true lover, not his enemy. This vital principle of\nChristian love had to recast pagan passion and direct the affections to an\nimmortal goal. Under it these reached a new absoluteness. The Christian\nlover should always be ready to give his life for his friend\u2019s salvation,\nas for his own. So love\u2019s offices gained enlargement and an infinity of\nnew relationship, because directed toward eternal life.[416]\n\nUnquestionably in the monk\u2019s eyes passionate love between the sexes was\nmainly lust. Within the bonds of marriage it was not mortal sin; but the\nvirgin state was the best. Here, as we shall see, life was to claim its\nown and free its currents. Monasticism did not stop the human race, or\nkeep men from loving women. Such love would assert itself; and ardent\nnatures who felt its power were to find in themselves a love and passion\nsomewhat novel, somewhat raised, somewhat enlarged. In the end the love\nbetween man and woman drew new inspiration and energy from the enhancement\nof all the rest of love, which came with Christianity.\n\nEvidently the great office of Christian love in a heathen period was to\nconvert idolaters to the Faith. So it had been from the days of Paul.\nRapidly Christianity spread through all parts of the Roman Empire. Then\nthe Faith pressed beyond those crumbling boundaries into the barbarian\nworld. Hereupon, with Gregory the Great and his successors, it became\nclear that the great pope is always a missionary pope, sending out such\nChristian embassies as Gregory sent to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.\n\nIf conversion was a chief office of Christian love, the great object of\nChristian wrath was unbelief. That existed within and without Christendom:\nwithin in forms of heresy, without in the practices of heathenism.\nChristian wrath was moved by whatever opposed the true faith. The\nChristian should discriminate: hate the sin, and love the sinner unto his\nbetterment. But it was so easy, so human, from hating the sin to hate the\nobdurate sinner who could not be saved and could but harm the Church. One\nneed not recount how the disputes of the Athanasian time regarding the\nnature of Christ came to express themselves in curses; nor how the\nChristian sword began its slaughter of heretic and heathen. Persecution\nseemed justified in reason; it was very logical; broad reasons of\nChristian statecraft seemed to make for it; and often a righteous zeal\nwielded the weapon. It had moreover its apparent sanction in Jehovah\u2019s\ndestroying wrath against idolaters within and without the tribes of\nIsrael.\n\nSo the two opposites of love and wrath laid aside somewhat of grossness,\nand gained new height and compass in the Christian soul. A like change\ncame over other emotions. As life lifted itself to further heights of\nholiness, and hitherto unseen depths of evil yawned, there came a new\npower of pity and novel revulsions of aversion. The pagan pity for life\u2019s\nmortality, which filled Virgil\u2019s heart, could not but take on change.\nThere was no more mortality, but eternal joy and pain. Souls which had so\nunavailingly stretched forth their hands to fate, had now been given wings\nof faith. Yet death gained blacker terror from the Christian Hell, the\nnewly-assured alternative of the Christian Heaven. The great Christian\npity did not touch the mortal ebbing of the breath; that should be a\ntriumphant birth. But an enormous and terror-stricken pity was evoked by\nsin, and the thought of the immortal soul hanging over an eternal hell.\nAnd since all human actions were connected with the man\u2019s eternal lot,\nthey became invested with a new import. So the Christian\u2019s compassion\nwould deepen, his sympathy become more intense, although no longer stirred\nby everything that had moved his pagan self. With him fear was raised to a\nnew intensity by other terrors than had driven the blood from pagan\ncheeks. His sense of joy was deepened also; for a joy hitherto unrealized\ncame from his new love of God and the God-man, from the assurance of his\nsalvation, and the thought of loved human relationships never to end. So\nChristian joy might have an absoluteness which it never had under the\npause-giving mortal limitations of paganism.\n\nWithin the compass of pagan joyfulness there had been no deeper passion\nthan the love of beauty. That had its sensuous phases, and its far blue\nheights, where Plato saw the beauty of order, justice, and proportion. For\nthe Christian, the beauty of the flesh became a veil through which he\nlooked for the beauty of the soul. If a face testified to the beauty of\nholiness within, it was fair. Better the pale, drawn visages of monk and\nnun than the red lip too quickly smiling. Feeling as well as thought\nshould be adjusted to these sentiments. Yet Plato\u2019s realization of\nintellectual beauty found home within the Christian thoughts of God and\nholiness, indeed helped to construct them. This is clear with the Fathers.\nIn the East, Gregory of Nyssa\u2019s passion for divine beauty was Platonism\nset in Christian phrase; in the West, Augustine reached his thoughts of\nbeauty through considerations which came to him from Greek\nphilosophy.[417] \u201cLove is of the beautiful,\u201d said Plato; \u201cDo we love ought\nelse?\u201d says Augustine. Both men shape their thoughts of beauty after their\nbest ideals of perfection. Augustine\u2019s burn upward to the beauty of a God\nas loving as He is omnipotent; Plato\u2019s had been more abstract. Augustine\u2019s\nPlatonism shows the highest Greek thoughts of beauty and goodness changed\ninto attributes of a personal God, who could be loved because He was\nloving.\n\nIn these ways the loftier Christian souls suppressed, or transformed and\ngreatened, the emotions of their natures. It was thus with those possessed\nof a faith that brought the whole of life within its dominance. There were\nmany such. Yet the multitude of Christians ranged downward from such great\nobsession, through all stages of human half-heartedness and frailty, to\nthe state of those whose Christianity was but a name, or but a magic rite.\nAlways preponderant in numbers, and often in influence and power, these\nnominal and fetichistic Christians would keep alive the loves and hates,\nthe interests and tastes, the approvals and disapprovals, of paganism or\nbarbaric heathenism, as the case might be.\n\n\nII\n\nThe patristic synthesis of emotion passed on entire and authoritative to\nthe Middle Ages. It exercised enormous influence (usually in the way of\ncompulsion, but sometimes in the way of repulsion) upon emotional\nphenomena both of a religious and a secular nature. Yet it was merely the\nfoundation, or the first stage, of mediaeval emotional development. The\nsubsequent stages were dependent on the conditions under which mediaeval\nattitudes of mind arose, very dependent upon the maturing and blending of\nthe native traits of inchoate mediaeval peoples and upon their\nappropriation of Latin Christianity and the antique education.\n\nThe northern races had been introduced to a novel religion and to modes of\nthought considerably above them. Their old conceptions were discredited,\ntheir feelings somewhat distraught. Emotionally as well as intellectually\nthey were confused. Turbid feelings, arising from ideas not fully\nmastered, had to clarify and adjust themselves. From the sixth to the\neleventh century the crude mediaeval stocks, tangled but not blended,\nstrange to the religion and culture which held their destinies, were not\npossessed of clear and dominant emotions that could create their own forms\nof expression. They could not think and feel as they would when their new\nacquirements had mellowed into faculty and temperament, and unities of\ncharacter had once more emerged.\n\nChristianity and Latin culture were operative everywhere, and everywhere\ntended to produce a uniform development. Yet the peoples affected by these\ncommon influences were kept unlike each other through varieties of\nenvironment and a diversity of racial traits which still showed clearly as\nthe centuries passed. In consequence, the emotional development of these\ndifferent peoples remained marked by racial characteristics, while also\nbecoming mediaeval under the action of common influences. It proceeded in\ntwo parallel and partially mingling streams: the one of the religious\nlife, the other of earth\u2019s desires. They may be observed in turn.\n\nAugustine represents the sum of doctrine and emotion contained in the\nLatin Christianity of the fifth century. However imperfectly others might\ncomprehend his thought or feel the power of his grandly reasoned love of\nGod, he established this love for time to come as the centre and the bound\nof Christian righteousness: \u201cVirtus non est nisi diligere quod diligendum\nest.\u201d[418] He drew within this principle the array of dogma and precept\nconstituting Latin Christianity. On the other hand, the practical\nembodiment of the patristic synthesis of human interests and emotions was\nmonasticism, with its lines set by the Rule of Benedict.\n\nPope Gregory the Great[419] refashioned Augustine\u2019s teachings, and placed\nthe seal of his approval upon Benedictine monasticism as the perfect way\nof Christian living. His mind was darkened with the new ignorance and\nintellectual debasement which had come in the century and a half\nseparating him from Augustine; and his soul was filled with the fantastic\nterrors which were to constitute so large a part of the religion of the\nMiddle Ages. Devil lore, relic worship, miracles, permeate his\nconsciousness of life. The soul\u2019s ceaseless business is so to keep itself\nthat it may at last escape the sentence of the awful Judge. Love and\nterror struggle fearfully in Gregory. Christ\u2019s death had shown God\u2019s love;\nand yet the Dies Irae impends. No delict is wiped out without penitence\nand punishment, in this life or afterwards--let it be in Purgatory and not\nin Hell!\n\nThe centuries following Gregory\u2019s death rearranged the contents of Latin\nChristianity, including Gregory\u2019s teachings, to suit their own\nintellectual capacities. This (Carolingian) period of rearrangement and\npainful learning, as it was unoriginative intellectually, was likewise\nunproductive of Christian emotion. Occasionally from far-off converts,\nwho are not troubled overmuch with learning, come utterances of simple\nfeeling for the Faith (one thinks of Bede\u2019s story of C\u00e6dmon); and the\nTeuton spirit, warlike as well as intimate and sentimental, enters the\nvernacular interpretation of Christianity.[420] The Christian message\ncould not be understood at all without a stirring of the convert\u2019s nature;\nsome quickening of emotion would ensue. This did not imply a development\nof emotion corresponding to the credences of Latin Christianity, to which\nso many people had been newly introduced. That system had to be more\nvitally appropriated before it could arouse the emotional counterpart of\nits tenets, and run its course in modes of mediaeval religious passion.\n\nAccordingly one will look in vain among the Carolingian scholars for that\ntorrential feeling which becomes articulate in the eleventh century. They\nwere excerpting and rearranging patristic Christianity to suit their own\ncapacities. They could not use it as a basis for further thinking; nor, on\nthe other hand, had it become for them the ground of religious feeling.\nUndoubtedly, Alcuin and Rabanus Maurus and Walafrid Strabo were pious\nChristians, taking their Faith devoutly. But such religious emotion as was\ntheirs, was reflected rather than spontaneous. Alcuin, as well as Gregory\nthe Great, realizes the opposition between heaven and the _vana\ndelectibilia_[421] of this world. But Alcuin\u2019s words have lost the\nhorror-stricken quality of Gregory; neither do they carry the floods of\ntears which like thoughts bring to Peter Damiani in the eleventh century.\nOdo, Abbot of Cluny in the middle of the tenth century, has something of\nGregory\u2019s heavy horror; but even in him the gift of tears is not yet\nloosed.[422]\n\nFrom the eleventh century onward, the gathering religious feeling pours\nitself out in passionate utterances; and in this new emotionalizing of\nLatin Christianity lay the chief religious office of the Middle Ages,\nwherein they went far beyond the patristic authors of their faith. The\nFathers of the Latin Church from Tertullian to Gregory the Great had been\noccupied with doctrine and ecclesiastical organization. This dual\nachievement was the work of the constructive mind of the Latin West,\nfollowing, of course, what had been accomplished by the Greek Fathers. It\nstood forth mainly as the creation of those human faculties which are\ngrouped under the name of intellect. Patristic Latin Christianity hardly\npresents itself as the product of the whole man. Its principles were not\nas yet fully humanized, made matter of the heart, and imbued with love and\nfear and pity: this creature of the intellect had yet to receive a soul.\n\nIt is true that Augustine had an enormous love of God. It was fervently\nfelt; it was powerfully reasoned; it impassioned his thought. Yet it did\nnot contain that tender love of the divinely human Christ which trembles\nin the words of Bernard and makes the life of Francis a lyric poem. St.\nJerome also had even an hysterically emotional nature; Tertullian at the\nbeginning of the patristic period was no placid soul, nor Gregory the\nGreat at its close. But it does not follow that Latin Christianity was as\nyet emotionalized, or that it had become a matter of the heart because it\nwas accepted by the mind. Its dogmas and constructive principles were\nstill too new; the energies of men had been spent in devising and\nestablishing them. Not yet had they been pondered over for generation\nafter generation, and hallowed through time; they had not yet become part\nof human life, cherished in men\u2019s hopes, fondled in their affections,\nfrozen in their fears, trembled before and loved.\n\nWhat was absent from the formation of Latin Christianity constituted the\nconditions of its gradual appropriation by the Middle Ages. It had come to\nthem from a greater past, sanctioned by the saints who now reigned above.\nThrough the centuries, men had come to understand it, and had made it\ntheir own with power. Through generations its commands and promises, its\nthreats and rewards, had been feared and loved. Its persons, symbols, and\nsacraments had become animate with human quality and were endeared with\nintimate incident and association. Every one had been born to it, had been\nsuckled upon it, had adored it in childhood, youth, and age: it filled all\nlife; with hope or menace it overhung the closing hour.\n\nThe Middle Ages have been given credit for dry theologies and sublimated\nmetaphysics. Less frequently have they been credited with their great\nachievement, the imbuing of patristic Christianity with the human elements\nof love and fear and pity. Yet their religious phenomena display this\nemotionalizing of transmitted theological elements. Chapters which are to\nfollow will illustrate it from the lives of many saints of different\ntemperaments. As wide apart as life will be the phases of its\nmanifestations. The tears of Peter Damiani are not like the love of the\nGod-man in St. Bernard; St. Francis\u2019s love of Christ and love of man is\nagain different and new; and the mystic thought-shot visions of a\nHildegard of Bingen are as blue to crimson when compared with the\nsense-passion for the Bridegroom of a Mechthild of Magdeburg. Even as\nillustrated in these so different natures, it will still appear that the\nemotional humanizing of Latin Christianity in the Middle Ages shaped\nitself to the tenets of the system formulated by the Church Fathers. It\nwas an emotionalizing of that system, quite as much as a direct\nappropriation of the Gospel-heart of Christ. Christ and the heart of\nChrist were with the mediaeval saints; and yet the emotions as well as\nthoughts through which they turned to Him received their form from\npatristic Christianity.\n\nReligious art plainly tells the story. Let one call to mind the character\nof its achievements in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. That was\nthe period following the recognition of Christianity as the religion of\nthe Roman Empire. Everywhere basilicas arose.[423] Some of them may be\nseen in Rome, in Ravenna, in Constantinople. They still contain many of\nthe mural mosaics which were their glory. Numberless artists laboured in\nthe composition of those stately church decorations. There was a need,\nunprecedented and never afterwards paralleled, of creative composition.\nSpacious surfaces were to be covered with prefigurative scenes from the\nOld Testament, with scenes from the life of Christ on earth, and\nrepresentations of His apocalyptic triumph in the Resurrection. They had\nall to be composed without aid from previous designs, for there were none.\nThe artists had need to be as constructive as the Church Fathers, who\nthrough the same period were perfecting the formulation of the Faith. They\nsucceeded grandly, setting forth the subjects they were told to execute,\nin noble, balanced, and decorative compositions, which presented the facts\nand tenets of the Faith strikingly and correctly. Stylistically, these\ngreat church mosaics belonged to antique art. What did they lack? Merely\nthe human, veritably tragic, qualities of love and fear and pity, which\nhad not yet come. Like the dogmatic system, this mosaic presentation was\ntoo recently composed. Its subjects were not yet humanized through\ncenturies of contemplation, reverence, and love.[424]\n\nMany of the early compositions, repeated from century to century, in time\nwere humanized and transformed with feeling. But this was not in the\nseventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, when art was but a decadent and\nbarbarized survival of the antique Christian manner, nor in the tenth and\neleventh. One may note also that the mediaeval expression of Christian\nemotion was beginning in religious literature. This came with fulness in\nthe twelfth century, and along with it the emotionalizing, the veritable\nhumanizing, of religious art began. Yet the artists of western Europe\nstill lacked the skill requisite for delicate execution. A marked advance\ncame in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. That was the great period\nof Gothic architecture; and in the sculpture on the French cathedrals,\nstone seems to live and feel. The prophetic figures from the Old\nTestament, the scenes of man\u2019s redemption and final judgment, are\nhumanized with love and terror. Moreover, the sculptor surrounds them with\nthe myriad subsidiary detail of mortal life and changing beauty, showing\nhow closely they are knit to every human love and interest.\n\nIn Italy a like story is told in a different manner. There is sculpture,\nbut there also is mosaic, and above all there is and will be fresco.\nBefore the end of the thirteenth century, Giotto was busy with his new\ndramatic art; no need to tell what power of human feeling filled the\nworks of that chief of painters and his school. The hard materials of the\nmosaicist were also made to render emotion. If one will note the mosaics\nalong the nave in Santa Maria Maggiore, belonging to the fifth century,\nand then turn to the mosaics of the Coronation of the Virgin in the apse,\nor cross the Tiber and look at those in the lower zone of the apse of\nSanta Maria in Trastevere, which tell the Virgin\u2019s story, he will see the\nchange which was bringing love and sweetness into the stiff mosaic medium.\nTorriti executed the former in 1295; and the latter with their gentler\nfeeling were made by Giotto\u2019s pupil, Cavallini, in 1351. The art is still\nas correct and true and orthodox as in the fifth century. It conforms to\nLatin Christianity in the choice of topics and the manner of presenting\nthem, and drapes its human emotions around conceptions which the patristic\nperiod formed and delivered to the Middle Ages. Thus, in full measure, it\nhas taken to itself the emotional qualities of the mediaeval\ntransformation of Latin Christianity, and is filled with a love and tears\nand pity, which were not in the old Christian mosaics.\n\nQuite analogous to the emotionalizing of Christian art is the example\nafforded by the evolution of the Latin hymn. The earliest extant Latin\nhymns are those of St. Ambrose, written in iambic dimeters. Antique in\nphrase as in metre, they are also trenchantly correct in doctrine, as\nbehoved the compositions of the great Archbishop of Milan who commanded\nthe forces of orthodoxy in the Arian conflict. They were sung in anxious\nseasons. Yet these dignified and noble hymns are no emotional outpour\neither of anxiety or adoration. Such feeling as they carry lies in their\nstrength of trust in God and in the power of conviction of their stately\northodoxy.\n\nBetween the death of Ambrose and the tenth century, Latin hymns gradually\nsubstituted accent in the place of metrical quantity, as the dominant\nprinciple of their rhythm. With this partial change there seems to come\nincrease of feeling. The\n\n  \u201cJesu nostra redemptio,\n   Amor et desiderium.\u201d\n\nof the seventh century is different from the\n\n  \u201cTe diligat castus amor,\n   Te mens adoret sobria\u201d\n\nof Ambrose.[425] And the famous pilgrim chant of the tenth century, \u201cO\nRoma nobilis, orbis et domina,\u201d has the strength of long-deepening\nemotion.[426]\n\nThese hymns have but dropped the constraint of metre. Religious passion\nhad not yet proved its creative power, and the new verse-forms with their\nmighty rhyme, fit to voice the accumulated emotions of the Liturgy, were\nnot in existence. The eleventh and twelfth centuries witnessed the\nstrophic evolution of the Latin hymn, in which feeling, joined with art,\nat last perfected line and stanza and the passionate phrases filling\nthem.[427] Yet nothing could be more orthodox than the Latin hymn\nthroughout its course of development. Its function was liturgical. It was\ncorrect in doctrinal expressions, and followed in every way the\nauthoritative teachings of the Church; its symbolism was derived from the\nworks of learned doctors; and its feeling took form from the tenets of\nLatin Christianity. The _Dies Irae_ and the _Stabat Mater_ yield evidence\nof this.[428]\n\nFrom the religious phases of mediaeval emotion, one may pass to modes of\nfeeling which were secular and human. The antecedents were again the\nracial traits of the peoples who were to become mediaeval; the formative\ninfluences still are Christianity and the profane antique culture. The\nracial traits show clearest in vernacular compositions, some of which may\ncarry fervent feeling, such as enkindles the Crusader\u2019s song of _Hartmann\nvon Aue_:\n\n  \u201cMin fro\u00fcde wart nie sorgelos\n       Unz an die tage\n   Daz ich mir Kristes bluomen kos\n       Die ich hie trage.\n   Die kundent eine sumerz\u00ect,\n       Die als\u00f4 gar\n   In suezer augenweide lit;\n       Got helfe uns dar.\n\n  \u201cMich h\u00e2t diu werlt also gewent (gew\u00f6hnt),\n       Daz mir der muot\n   Sich z\u2019einer m\u00e2ze n\u00e2ch ir sent:\n       D\u00east mir nu guot.\n   Got hat vil wol ze mir get\u00e2n,\n       Als ez nu st\u00e2t,\n   Daz ich der sorgen bin erl\u00e2n\n       Diu manegen h\u00e2t\n   Gebunden an den fuoz,\n       Daz er bel\u00eeben muoz\n   Swenn\u2019 ich in Kristes schar\n       Mit fr\u00f6uden w\u00fcnneclichen var.\u201d[429]\n\nThe secular emotional development was connected with the religious. It was\nstimulated by the deepening of emotional capacity caused by Christianity,\nand was not unrelated to the Christian love of God, the place of which was\ntaken, in secular mediaeval passion, by an idealizing, but carnal, love of\nwoman; and instead of the terror-stricken piety which accompanied the\nChristian\u2019s love for his Maker and his Judge, the heart was glad and the\ntemper open to every joy, while also subject to the fears and hates which\nspring up among men of mortal passions.\n\nIn the romantic and utter abandonment required of its votaries, this\nearthly love may well have drawn suggestion from that boundless love of\nGod which had superseded the Greek precept of \u201cnothing in excess,\u201d\nteaching instead that no limit should be set on what was absolutely good.\nThe principle of love unrestrained was thus inaugurated, and did not\nalways turn to God. Ardent natures who felt love\u2019s power, might hold it as\nthe supreme arbiter and law of life, and the giver of strength and virtue.\nThese thoughts will shape the tale of Lancelot and myriad poems besides.\nThey also may be found incarnate in the living instance: the heart of\nHelo\u00efse held a passion for her human master which she recognized as her\nhighest law. It was such a passion as she would hardly have conceived but\nfor the existence of like categories of devotion to the Christian God. Not\nin her nature alone, but through many Christian generations whereof she\nwas the fruit, there had gone on a continual enhancement of capacities of\nfeeling, for which she was a greater woman when she grew to womanhood and\nfelt its passion. Through such heightening of her powers of loving, and\nthrough the suggestiveness of the Christian love of God, she could\nconceive and feel a like absolute devotion to a man.[430]\n\nThere were, moreover, partially humanized stages in which the love of God\nwas affiliated with loves of mortal hue. Many a mediaeval woman felt a\npassionate love for the spiritual Bridegroom. Its expression, its\nsuggestions, its training, might transmit power and passion to the love of\nvery mortal men: while from the worship of the Blessed Virgin expressions\nof passionate devotion might pass over into poems telling man\u2019s love of\nwoman. And what reaches of passion might not the Song of Songs suggest,\nalthough that imagined bridal of the Soul was never deemed a song of human\nlove?[431]\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III\n\nTHE IDEAL AND THE ACTUAL: THE SAINTS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nTHE REFORMS OF MONASTICISM\n\n    MEDIAEVAL EXTREMES; BENEDICT OF ANIANE; CLUNY; CITEAUX\u2019S _CHARTA\n    CHARITATIS_; THE _VITA CONTEMPLATIVA_ ACCEPTS THE _VITA ACTIVA_\n\n\nThe present Book and the following will set forth the higher\nmanifestations of the religious energies of the Middle Ages, and then the\ncounter ideals which knights and ladies delighted to contemplate, and\nsometimes strove to reach. In religious as well as mundane life, ideals\nadmired and striven for constitute human facts, make part of the human\nstory, quite as veritably as the spotted actuality everywhere in evidence.\nThe tale of piety is to be gathered from those efforts of the religious\npurpose which almost attain their ideal; while as a comment on them, and a\nfoil and contrast, the deflections of human frailty may be observed.\nLikewise the full reality of chivalry lies in its ideals, supplemented by\nthe illuminating contrast of failure and oppression, making what we may\ncall its actuality. The emotional element, reviewed in the last chapter,\nwill for the time be dominant.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPractice always drops below the ethical standards of a period. The\ncontrast appears in the history of Greece and Rome. Yet in neither Greece\nnor Rome could there exist the abysms of contradiction which disclose\nthemselves after the conversion of western Europe to the religion of\nChrist.\n\nAnd for the following reasons. Greek and Roman standards were finite; they\nregarded only the mortal happiness of the individual and the terrestrial\nwelfare of the State. To Greek thought the indefinite or limitless was as\nthe monstrous and unformed; and therefore abhorrent to the classic ideals\nof perfection. Again, Greek and Roman standards demanded only what Greek\nand Roman humanity could fulfil in the mortal life of earth. But the\nChristian ideal of conduct assumes the universal imperfection and infinite\nperfectibility of man. It has constant regard to immortality, and eternity\nis needed for its fulfilment. Moreover, whether or not Christ\u2019s Gospel set\nforth any inherent antagonism between the fulness of mortal life and the\nsure attainment of heaven, its historical interpretations have never\neffected a complete reconcilement. They have always presented a conflict\nbetween the finite and the eternal, unconceived and unsuspected by the\npagan ethics of Greece and Rome.\n\nThis conflict dawned in the Apostolic age. During the patristic period it\nworked itself out to a formulated opposition between the world and the\nCity of God. Of this, monasticism was the chief expression. Nevertheless,\npagan principle and feeling lived on in the reasonings and characters of\nthe Church Fathers. The Roman qualities in Ambrose, the general survival\nof antique greatness in Augustine, preserved them from the rhetorical\nhysteria of Jerome and the exaggeration of phrase which affects the\nwritings of Gregory the Great.[432] With the decadence preceding, and the\nconfusion following, the Carolingian period, antique qualities passed\naway; and when men began again to think and feel constructively, there\nremained no antique poise to restrain the strife of those mighty\nopposites--the joys of life and the terrors of the Judgment Day.\n\nThis conflict, inherent in mediaeval Christianity, was in part a struggle\nbetween temporal desires which many men approved, and their renunciation\nfor eternal joy. From this point of view it was a conflict of ideals,\nthough, to be sure, life\u2019s common cravings were on one side, and often\nunideally turned the scale. We are not immediately concerned, however,\nwith this conflict of ideals; but with the contrasts presented between\nthe actual and the ideal, between conduct and the principles which should\nhave controlled it. The opposition between this life and eternity is\nmentioned in order to make clear the tremendous demands of the Christian\nethical ideal, and the unlikelihood of its fulfilment by mediaeval\nhumanity. So one may perceive a reason why the Middle Ages were to show\nsuch extremes of contrast between principles and practices. The standards\nrecognized as holiest countered the natural lives of men; and for that\nreason could be lived up to only under transient spiritual enthusiasm or\nby exceptional people. Monasticism held the highest ideals of Christian\nliving, and its story illustrates the continual falling away of conduct\nfrom the recognized ideal.\n\nWithout regard to the contrast between the ideal and the actual, the\nMiddle Ages were a period of extremes--of extreme humility and love as\nwell as cruelty and hate. Such extremes may be traceable to a certain\nunlimited quality in Christian principles, according to which no man could\nhave too much humility or Christian love, or could too strenuously combat\nthe enemies of Christ. To be sure, an all-proportioning principle of\nconduct lay in man\u2019s love of God, answering to God\u2019s love which\nencompassed all His creatures. But such proportionment is difficult for\nsimple minds, and many of the extremes which meet us in the Middle Ages\nwere directly due to the simplicity with which mediaeval men and women\ncarried out such Christian precepts as they were taken with, in disregard\nof all else that commonly balances and conventionalizes human lives.\n\nFor this reason also the Middle Ages are picturesque and poetic. Nothing\ncould be more picturesque and more like a poem than the simple\nabsoluteness with which St. Francis interpreted and lived out his Lord\u2019s\nprinciple of love, and made universal application of his Lord\u2019s injunction\nto the rich young man, to go and sell his goods and give to the poor, and\nthen come follow Him. This particular solution of the problem of God\u2019s\nservice was taken by Francis, and by many another, as of general\napplication, and was literally carried out; just as Francis with\nexquisite simplicity carried out other precepts of his Lord in a way that\nwould be foolishness were it not so beautiful.\n\nThere was no contrast between conduct and principle in the life of\nFrancis; and in other men conduct might agree with such principles as they\nunderstood. Many a rustic layman, many a good knight, fulfilled the\nstandards of his calling. Many a parish priest did his whole duty, as he\nthought it. And many a monk and nun lived up to their monastic _regula_,\nif indeed never satisfying the inner yearning of the soul unquenchably\nstriving for perfection. Indeed, for the monk ever to have been satisfied\nwith himself would have meant a fall from humility to vainglory.\n\nThe precepts of the Gospel were for every man and woman. Nevertheless, the\nsame rules of living did not apply to all. In this regard, mediaeval\nsociety falls into the two general divisions of clergy and laity, meaning\nby the former all persons making special profession of religion or engaged\nin the service of the Church.[433] This would include anchorites and monks\n(also the _conversi_[434] or lay-brethren) and the secular clergy from the\nrank of bishop downward. To such (excepting seculars below the grade of\nsub-deacon) the rule of celibacy applied, as well as other ascetic\nprecepts dependent on the vows they had taken or the regulations under\nwhich they lived. Conversely, certain rules like those relating to the\nconduct of man and wife would touch the laity alone.\n\nA general similarity of principle pervaded the rules of conduct applying\nto all orders of the clergy, secular and regular.[435] Yet there was a\ndifference in the severity of the rules and the stringency of their\napplication. The mediaeval code of religious ethics applied in its utter\nstrenuousness only to monks and nuns. They alone had seriously undertaken\nto obey the Gospel precept, _esto perfecti_; and they alone could be\nregarded as living the life of complete Christian militancy against the\nworld, the flesh, and the devil. The trials, that is to say the\ntemptations, of this warfare could be fully known only to the monk.\n\u201cTentatio,\u201d says Caesar of Heisterbach, \u201cest militia,\u201d _i.e._ warfare; it\nis possible only for those who live humanly and rationally, after the\nspirit, which is to say, as monks; \u201cthe seculars (_i.e._ the clergy who\nwere not monks) and the carnal (_i.e._ the laity) who walk according to\nthe flesh, are improperly said to be tempted; for as soon as they feel the\ntemptation they consent, or resist lukewarmly, like the horse and the mule\nwho have no understanding.\u201d[436]\n\nWe have spoken of the inception of monasticism, and of its early\nmotives,[437] which included the fear of hell, the love of Christ, and the\nconviction of the antagonism between pleasure and that service which opens\nheaven\u2019s gates. Such sentiments were likely to develop and expand. The\nfear of hell might be inflamed and made visible by the same imagination\nthat festered over the carnality of pleasure; the heart could impassion\nand extend the love of Christ through humanity\u2019s full capacity for loving\nwhat was holiest and most lovable; and the mind could attain to an\novermastering conviction of the incompatibility of pleasure with absolute\ndevotion. Through the Middle Ages these motives developed and grew\ntogether, until they made a mode of life, and fashioned human characters\ninto accord with it. Century after century the lives of thousands\nfulfilled the monastic spirit, and often so perfectly as to belie\nhumanity\u2019s repute for frailty. Their virtues shunned encomium. Record was\nmade of those whose mind and energy organized and wrought, or whose piety\nand love of God burned so hotly that others were enkindled. But legion\nupon legion of tacit lives are registered only in the Book with seven\nseals.\n\nMonastic abuses have usually spoken more loudly than monastic regularity.\nIn Christian monasticism there is an energy of renovation which constantly\ncries against corruption. Its invective reaches us from all the mediaeval\ncenturies; while monastic regularity has more commonly been unreported. It\nis well to bear this in mind when reading of monastic vice. It always\nexisted, and judging from the fiery denunciations which it awakened, it\nwas often widely prevalent. In fact, the monastic life required such love\nof God or fear of hell, such renunciation of this world, its ambitions,\nits lusts and its lures, that monks were likely to fall below the\nprescribed standards, and then quickly into all manner of sin, from lack\nof the restraints, or outlets, of secular life.\n\nConsequently the most patent history of monasticism is the history of its\nattempts to reform and renew itself. Its heroes come before us as\nreformers or refounders, whose endeavour is to reinstitute the perfect\nway, impassion men anew to follow it, by added precepts discipline them\nfor its long ascents, and so occupy them in the practice of its virtues\nthat all distracting impulses shall perish. Their apparent endeavour (at\nleast until the day of Francis of Assisi) is to renew a life from which\ntheir contemporaries have fallen away. And yet through all there was\nunconscious innovation and progress.\n\nThe greater part of the fervent piety of the Middle Ages dwelt in\ncloisters, when not drawn forth unwillingly to serve the Lord in the\nworld. Mediaeval saints were, or yearned to be, monks or nuns.\nConsequently monastic reforms, as well as attempts to raise the condition\nof the secular clergy, emanated from within monasticism. Its own rules of\nliving had been set from within by Benedict of Nursia, and others who were\nmonks. There was much irregularity at first; but the seventh and eighth\ncenturies witnessed the conflict between different types of monastic\norganization, and then the general victory of the Benedictine _regula_.\nThis was also a victory for monastic reform; for moral looseness,\naccompanied by heathenish irregularities, easily penetrated cloisters when\nnot protected by a common and authoritative rule. As it was, the energy of\nBenedictine uniformity seemed exhausted in the contest.\n\nBut a Benedictine refounder arose. This was the high-born Witiza of\nAquitaine, the ascetic virtuosity of whose early life had won him repute.\nAssuming the name of Benedict, he established a monastery on the bank of\nthe little Aniane, in Aquitaine, in the year 779. His foundation\nflourished in righteousness and increased in numbers, till it drew the\nattention of Alcuin and Charlemagne to its abbot. Benedict was given the\ntask of reforming the monasteries of Aquitaine. Afterwards Louis the Pious\nextended his authority; till in 817 a reforming synod, over which he\npresided, was held at Aix, and the king\u2019s authority was attached to its\ndecrees. All Frankish monasteries were therein commanded to observe the\n_regula_ of Benedict of Nursia, with many further precepts set by him of\nAniane, aggravating the severity of the older rule; for example, by\nenforcing a more rigid silence among the monks when at labour, and\nrestricting their intercourse with the laity. Great stress was laid upon\nthe labours of the field. There was little novelty in the work of this\nreorganizer, with his consistent ascetic contempt for profane literature.\nHis labours were typical of those of many a monastic reformer after him,\nwho likewise sought to re-establish the strictness of the old Benedictine\nrule, and in fact added to its austerities.\n\nThe next example of reform is Cluny, founded in the year 910. Its cloister\ndiscipline followed the _regula_ of Benedict with the additions decreed by\nthe synod of Aix. Under Odo (d. 942) Majolus (d. 994) and Odilo (d. 1048)\nit rose to unprecedented power and influence. Mainly because of the\nwinning and commanding qualities of its abbots, it received the support of\nkings and popes; its authority and privileges were increased, until it\nbecame the head of more than three hundred cloisters distributed through\nFrance, Italy, Germany, and Spain. In ecclesiastical policy it stood for\ndecency and reform, but without giving extreme support to either emperor\nor pope. Balance and temperance characterized its career. It was a\nmonastic organization which by precept and example, and by the wide\nsupervising powers it received from the papacy and from temporal\nauthorities, promoted regularity and propriety of life among monks, and\nalso among the secular clergy. The \u201creforms of Cluny\u201d do not represent any\nspecific intensifying of monastic principles, but rather the general\nendeavour of the better elements in Burgundian and French monasticism to\novercome the crass secularization of the Church, within and without the\ncloister. Cluny\u2019s influence told generally against monastic degradation,\nrather than in favour of any special ascetic or ecclesiastic policy. The\nprevailing simony, the clerical concubinage, the rough and warlike ways of\nbishops and abbots were all corruptions standing in the way of any\nmonastic or ecclesiastical improvement; and Cluny opposed them, in\nmoderation however, and with considerable acquiescence in the apparently\nnecessary conditions of the time.[438]\n\nAfter the comparative strictness of its first abbots, Cluny\u2019s discipline\nmoderated almost to laxity; and the interests of the rich and magnificent\nmonastery became elegant and somewhat secular. It still maintained\nmonastic decencies while not going beyond their demands. Its face was no\nlonger set against comfortable living, nor against art and letters. And\nthe time came when fervent spirits demanded a more uncompromising attack\nupon the world and the flesh.\n\nSuch came from Citeaux (near Dijon), where a few monks founded a\nstruggling monastery in 1098. Its fortunes were small and feeble until the\ntime of its third abbot, the Englishman, Stephen Harding (1109-1134),\nwhose genius set the lines of Citeaux\u2019s larger destinies. Her great period\nbegan when, shortly after Harding\u2019s entrance on his abbacy, there arrived\na band of well-born youths, led by one Bernard. Then of a truth the\ncloister burned with ardour. Its numbers grew, and Bernard was sent with a\nCistercian band to found a daughter monastery at Clairvaux (1115).\n\nLike Stephen Harding, Bernard was an ascetic, and the Cistercian Order\nrepresents a stern tightening of the reins which Cluny left lying somewhat\nslackly upon the backs of her stall-fed monks.[439] Controversies arose\nbetween the Cluniac Benedictines and the Cistercian Benedictines insisting\non a stricter rule. Bernard himself entered into heated controversy with\nthat great temperate personality of the twelfth century, Peter the\nVenerable, Cluny\u2019s revered lord.\n\nThe original _regula_ of Benedict provided an admirable constitution for\nthe single monastery, but no plan for the supervision of one monastery by\nanother. The mediaeval advance in monastic organization consisted in the\nauthoritative supervision of subordinate or \u201cdaughter\u201d foundations by the\nsuperior or primal monastery of the Order. The Abbot of Cluny exercised\nsuch authority over Cluniac foundations, as well as over monasteries\nwhich, at the instance of the secular lord of the land, had been\nreorganized by Cluny.\n\nThe Cistercian Order represents a less monarchical, or more decentralized\nsubordination, on a plan similar to the feudal principle of\nsub-infeudation, whereby the holder of the fief owed his duties to his\nimmediate lord, who in turn owed duties to his own lord, still above him.\nThus in the Cistercian Order the visitatorial authority over each\nfoundation was vested in the immediate mother abbey, rather than in the\nprimal abbey of Citeaux, from which the intervening mother abbey had gone\nforth.\n\nThis plan was formulated by Stephen Harding\u2019s _Charta Charitatis_,[440]\nthe charter of the Cistercian Order and a monument of constructive genius.\nApparently mindful of the various privileges recognized by the feudal\nsystem, it begins by renouncing on the part of the superior monastery all\nclaim to temporal emolument from the daughter foundations: \u201cNullam\nterrenae commoditatis seu rerum temporalium exactionem imponimus.\u201d \u201cBut\nfor love\u2019s sake (_gratia-charitatis_) we desire to retain the care of\ntheir souls; so that should they swerve from the holy way and the\nobservance of the Holy Rule, they may through our solicitude return to\nrectitude of life.\u201d\n\nThen follows the command that all Cistercian foundations obey implicitly\nthe _regula_ of Benedict, as understood and practised at Citeaux, and that\nall follow the customs of Citeaux, and the same forms of chant and prayer\nand service (for we receive their monks in our cloister, and they ours),\n\u201cso that without discordant actions we may live by one love, one rule, and\nlike practices (_una charitate, una regula, similibusque vivamus\nmoribus_).\u201d A short sentence follows, forbidding all monasteries and\nindividual monks to accept from any source any privilege inconsistent with\nthe customs of the Order.\n\nSo the _Charta_ enjoined a uniformity of discipline. Wise and temperate\nprovision was made for the enforcement of the same when necessary by the\nimmediate parent monastery of the delinquent foundation. \u201cWhenever the\nAbbot of Citeaux comes to a monastery to visit it, its abbot shall make\nway for him, and he shall there hold the office of abbot. Yet let him not\npresume to order or conduct affairs against the wishes of its abbot and\nthe brethren. But if he sees that the precepts of the _Regula_ or of our\nOrder are transgressed, let him seek to correct the brethren with the\nadvice and in the presence of the abbot. If the abbot be absent, he may\nstill proceed.\u201d Once a year the Abbot of Citeaux, in person or through one\nof his co-abbots, must visit all the monasteries (coenobia) which he has\nfounded, and if more often, the brethren should the more rejoice. Likewise\nmust the four primary abbots of La Fert\u00e9, Pontigny, Clairvaux, and\nMorimond, together visit Citeaux once a year, at such time as they may\nchoose, except that set for the annual meeting of the general Chapter. At\nCiteaux also, let any visiting abbot be treated as if he were abbot there.\n\n    \u201cWhenever any of our churches (monasteries) by God\u2019s grace so\n    increases that it is able to found another brotherhood, let the same\n    relationship (_definitio_) obtain between them which obtains between\n    us and our _cofratres_, except that they may not hold an annual\n    Chapter; but rather let all abbots come without fail every year to the\n    annual Chapter at Citeaux.\n\n    \u201cAt which Chapter let them take measures for the safety of their\n    souls; if in the observance of the holy _Regula_ or the Order,\n    anything should be amended or supplemented, let them ordain it; let\n    them re-establish the bond of peace and love among themselves.\u201d\n\nThe annual Chapter is also given authority to correct any abbot and settle\ncontroversies between abbots; but when an abbot appears unworthy of his\ncharge, and the Chapter has not acted, it is the duty of the abbot of his\nmother church to admonish him, and, upon his obduracy, summon other abbots\nand move for his deposition. Thus the _Charta Charitatis_ apportioned\nauthority among the abbots of the Order, providing, as it were, a mutual\npower of enforcement in which every abbot had part. One notices also that\nthe _Charta_ is neither monarchical nor democratic, but aristocratic; for\nthe abbots (not the Abbot of Citeaux alone) manage and control the Order,\nand without any representation of the monks at the annual Chapter.[441]\nThe _Charta Charitatis_ seems a spiritual mirror of the feudal system.\n\nMediaeval monasticism, whether cloistered or sent forth into the world,\nwas predominantly coenobitic or communal. Yet through the Middle Ages the\nanchorite or hermit way of life was not unrepresented. Both monk and\nhermit existed from the beginning of Christian monasticism; they\nrecognized the same purpose, but employed different means to achieve it.\nFor their common aim was to merit the kingdom of heaven through the\nsuppression of sense-desires and devotion to spiritual righteousness. But\nthe communal system recognized the social nature of man, his essential\nweakness in isolation, and his inability to satisfy his bodily wants by\nhimself. Thus admitting the human need of fellowship and correction, it\ndeemed that man\u2019s spiritual progress could be best advanced in a way of\nlife which took account of these facts. On the other hand, anchoritism\nlooked rather to man\u2019s self-sufficiency alone with God--and the devil. It\nheld that man could best conquer his carnal nature in solitude, and in\nsolitude best meditate upon his soul and God. The society of one\u2019s\nfellows, even though they be likeminded, is a distraction and a hindrance.\nObviously, the devoted temper has its variants; and some souls will draw\nfrom solitude that strength which others gain from support and sympathy.\n\nBoth the coenobitic and the hermit life were, from the time of their\ninception, phases of the _vita contemplativa_. Yet more active duties had\nconstantly been recognized, until at last monasticism, in an ardour of\nlove for fellow-men, broke from the cloister and went abroad in the steps\nof Francis and Dominic. Even this active and uncloistered monasticism drew\nits strength from its hidden meditation, and, strengthened from within\nitself, entered upon the _vita activa_, and practised among men the\nvirtues which it had acquired through contemplation and the quiet\ndiscipline of the cloister. So if we people of the world would have\nunderstanding of the matter, we must never forget that at its source and\nin its essence the monastic life is a _vita contemplativa_, whether the\nmonastic man, as a member of a fervent community, be sustained through the\nsupport of his brethren and the counsel or command of his superior, or\nwhether, as an anchorite, he seclude himself in solitude. And the essence\nof this _vita contemplativa_ is not to do or act, but to contemplate,\nmeditate upon God and the human soul. By one line of ancestry it is a\ndescendant of Aristotle\u2019s \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. But its mightier parent was the\nSaviour\u2019s manifestation of God\u2019s love of man and man\u2019s love of God. From\nthis source came the emotional elements (and they were the predominant and\noverwhelming) of the Christian _vita contemplativa_, its terror and\ndespair, its tears and hope, and its yearning love. Through these any\nHellenic calm was transformed to storm-tossed Christian ecstasy.\n\nMonastic quietism might at any time be drafted into Christian militancy.\nIn the crises of the Church, or when there was call to go forth and\nconvert the heathen or the carnal, both monk and hermit became zealots in\nthe world. Yet important and frequent as these active functions were, they\nwere not commanded by the Benedictine _regula_, either in its original\nform or in its many modifications, Cluniac, Cistercian, or Carthusian;\nhence they were not treated as part of the monastic life. There was to\ncome a change. The _vita contemplativa_ was to take to itself the _vita\nactiva_ as a regular and not an occasional function of perfect Christian\npiety. An evangelization of monasticism, according to the more active\nspirit of the Gospel, was at hand. The monastic ideal was to become humane\nand actively loving. In principle and theory, as well as practice,\nChristian piety was no longer to find its entire end and aim in\ncontemplation, in asceticism, in purity: it was _regularly_ henceforth to\noccupy itself with a loving beneficence among men.\n\nSome of the ardent beginnings of this movement did not receive the\nsanction of the Church. The Poor of Lyons, the Humbled Folk (_Humiliati_)\nof Lombardy, the Beghards of Li\u00e9ge, were pronounced to be heretics.\nPredominantly lay and ecclesiastically somewhat bizarre, they were\nscarcely monks. Yet these irregular evangelists of the latter part of the\ntwelfth century were forerunners of that chief evangelizer of Monasticism,\nFrancis of Assisi.[442]\n\nThe life of Francis, as all men know, fulfilled the current demands of\nmonasticism. He lived and taught obedience, chastity, humility, and a more\nabsolute poverty than had been before conceived. With respect to the first\nthree virtues, it was only through his loving way of living them that\nFrancis set anything new before his brethren. As for the last, it may be\nsaid that monks had always been forbidden to own property; only the\nmonastery or the Order might. Francis\u2019s absolute acceptance of poverty\ncomes to us as inspired by the command of Christ to the rich young man: Go\nand sell all, and give to the poor, and then come follow me. But had no\nChristian soul read this before and accepted it absolutely? The Athanasian\nLife of St. Anthony, at the very beginning of Christian monasticism, has\nthe same account; he too gave up all he had on reading this passage. But\nthen he fled to the desert, while Francis, when he had given up all,\nopened his arms to mankind. In accordance with his brotherly and social\nevangelization of monasticism, Francis modified certain of its practices.\nHe removed restrictions upon intercourse among the brethren, and took away\nthe barriers, save those of holiness, between the brethren and the world.\nThen he lifted the veil of silence from the brethren\u2019s lips. They should\nthenceforth speak freely, in love of God and man. So monasticism stepped\nforth, at last uncloistered, upon its course of love and teaching in the\nworld.\n\nIn spite of the temperamental differences between Francis and Dominic, and\nin spite of the different tasks which they set before their Orders, the\nanalogy between Franciscans and Dominicans was fundamental; for the\nlatter, as well as the former, regularly undertook to evoke the _vita\nactiva_ from the _vita contemplativa_. The Dominicans were to preach and\nteach true Christian doctrine, and as veritable _Domini canes_ destroy the\nwolves of heresy menacing the Christian fold.\n\nDominic received from Pope Honorius III., in 1217, the confirmation of his\nOrder, as an Order of Canons according to the _Regula_ supposed to have\nbeen taught by Augustine. The Preaching Friars were never cloistered by\ntheir _regula_, any more than were the Minorites. Two or three years\nlater, Dominic added, or emphasized anew, the principle of voluntary\npoverty, not only in the individuals but in the Order as a corporate\nwhole. Whencesoever he derived this idea--whether from the Franciscans, or\nbecause it was rife among men--at all events it was not his originally;\nfor Dominic had accepted at an earlier period the one-sixth of the\nrevenues of the Bishop of Toulouse. This he now renounced, and instead\naccepted voluntary poverty.\n\nIt was not given to Dominic to love as Francis loved. Nor was he an\nincarnate poem. But it was in the spirit of Christian devotion that he\nundertook and laid upon his Order the performance of active duties in the\nworld, especially of preaching true doctrines for the salvation of souls.\nDominic took no personal part in the Albigensian blood-shedding; and he\nwas not the founder of the Inquisition, although his Order was so soon to\nbe identified with it. He was a theologian, a teacher, and an ardent\npreacher; a devoted man, given to tears. Almost the only words we have\nfrom him are those of his Testament: \u201cCaritatem habete, humilitatem\nservate, paupertatem voluntariam possedete.\u201d[443]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nTHE HERMIT TEMPER\n\n    PETER DAMIANI; ROMUALD; DOMINICUS LORICATUS; BRUNO AND GUIGO,\n    CARTHUSIANS\n\n\nTo contemplate goodness in God, and strain toward it in yearning love, is\nthe method of the Christian _vita contemplativa_. In this way the recluse\ncultivates humility, patience, purity, and love, and perfects his soul for\nheaven. And herein, in that it is more undistracted and more undisturbed,\nlies the superiority of the solitary life over the coenobitic.\n\nYet this conceived superiority is but the reason and the conscious motive\nfor the solitary life. The call to it is felt as well as intellectually\naccepted. It is temperament that makes the recluse; his reasons are but\nhis justification. In solitude he lives the reaches of his life; from\nsolitude he draws his utmost bliss. To leave it involves the torture of\nseparation, and then all the petty pains of unhappy labour and distasteful\nintercourse with men. \u201cWhoever would reach the summit of perfection should\nkeep within the cloister of his seclusion, cherish spiritual leisure, and\nshudder at traversing the world, as if he were about to plunge into a sea\nof blood. For the world is so filthy with vices, that any holy mind is\nbefouled even by thinking about it.\u201d[444]\n\nHere speaks the hermit temper, by the mouth of a supreme exponent. If\nHildebrand, who compelled all men to his purposes, kept Peter Damiani in\nthe world, that ascetic soul did not cease to yearn for the hermit life.\nHis skilful pen served it untiringly. Its temper, its merits, and its\ngrounds, appear with unique clarity in the writings of him who, sore\nagainst his will, was the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia.[445]\n\n    \u201cThe solitary life is the school of celestial doctrine and the divine\n    arts (_artes divinae_),\u201d says Damiani, meaning every word. \u201cFor there\n    God is the whole that is learned. He is also the way by which one\n    advances, through which one attains knowledge of the sum of\n    truth.\u201d[446] To obtain its benefits, it must be led assiduously and\n    without break or wandering abroad among men: \u201cHabit makes his cell\n    sweet to the monk, but roving makes it seem horrible.... The unbroken\n    hermit life is a cooling refreshment (_refrigerium_); but, if\n    interrupted, it seems a torment. Through continued seclusion the soul\n    is illuminated, vices are uncovered, and whatever of himself had been\n    hidden from the man, is disclosed.\u201d[447]\n\nPeter argues that the hermit life is free from temptations (!) and offers\nevery aid to victory.\n\n    \u201cThe wise man, bent on safeguarding his salvation, watches always to\n    destroy his vices; he girds his loins--and his belly--with the girdle\n    of perfect mortification. Truly that takes place when the itching\n    palate is suppressed, when the pert tongue is held in silence, the ear\n    is shut off from distractions and the eye from unpermitted sights;\n    when the hand is held from cruel striking, and the foot from vainly\n    roving; when the heart is withstood, that it may not envy another\u2019s\n    felicity, nor through avarice covet what is not its own, nor through\n    anger sever itself from fraternal love, nor vaunt itself arrogantly\n    above its fellows, nor yield to the ticklings of lust, nor\n    immoderately sink itself in grief or abandon itself wantonly to joy.\n    Since, then, the human mind has not the power to remain entirely\n    empty, and unoccupied with the love of something, it is girt around\n    with a wall of the virtues.\n\n    \u201cIn this way, then, our mind begins to be at rest in its Author and to\n    taste the sweetness of that intimacy. At once it rejects whatever it\n    deems contrary to the divine law, shrinks from what does not agree\n    with the rule of supernal righteousness. Hence true mortification is\n    born; hence it comes that man kissing the Cross of his Redeemer seems\n    dead to the world. No longer he delights in silly fables, nor is\n    content to waste his time with idle talk. But he is free for psalms\n    and hymns and spiritual songs; he seeks seclusion, he longs for a\n    hiding-place; he avoids the monastery\u2019s conversation-rooms and\n    rejoices in nooks and corners; and that he may the more freely attend\n    to the contemplation of his Creator, so far as he may he declines\n    colloquy with men.\u201d[448]\n\n    \u201cIn fine,\u201d says Damiani, in another treatise, \u201cour entire conversion,\n    and renunciation of the world, aims at nothing else than rest. This\n    rest is won through the man\u2019s prior discipline in the toils of strife,\n    in order that when the tumult of disturbance ceases, his mind, through\n    the grace of contemplation, may be translated to gaze upon the face of\n    truth. But since one attains to this rest only through labour and\n    conflict, how can one reach it who has not gone down into the strife?\n    By what right can one enter the halls of the King who has not\n    traversed the arena before the doors?\u201d[449]\n\n    \u201cIt further behoves each brother who with his whole heart has\n    abandoned the world, to unlearn and forget forever whatever is\n    injurious. He should not be disputatious as to cookery, nor clever in\n    the petty matters of the town; nor an adept in rhetoric\u2019s jinglings,\n    or in jokes or wordplay. He should love fasts and cherish penury; he\n    should flee the sight of man, restrain himself under the censorship of\n    silence, withdraw from affairs, keep his mouth from idle talk, and\n    seek the hiding-place of his soul, and in such hiding be on fire to\n    see the face of his Creator. Let him pant for tears, and implore God\n    for them by daily prayer.\u201d\n\nWith this last sentence Damiani makes his transition to the emotional side\nof the Christian _vita contemplativa_. He will now pour himself out in a\nrhapsody of praise of tears, which purify and refresh the soul, and open\nit to the love of God.\n\n    \u201cFrom the fire of divine love rises the grace of contrition (_gratia\n    compunctionis_), and again from the contrition of tears (_ex\n    compunctione lacrymarum_) the ardour of celestial yearning is\n    increased. The one hangs from the other, and each promotes the other;\n    while the contrition of tears flows from the love of God, through\n    tears again our soul burns more fervidly toward the love of God. In\n    this reciprocal and alternating action, the soul is purged of the\n    filth of its offence.\u201d[450]\n\nElsewhere Damiani suggests how the hermit may acquire the \u201cgrace of\ntears\u201d:\n\n    \u201cSeclude thyself from the turmoil of secular affairs and often even\n    from talk with thy brethren. Cut off the cares and anxieties of\n    mundane action; clear them away as a heap of rubbish which stops the\n    fountain\u2019s flow. As water in a cavern of the earth wells up from the\n    abyss, so sadness (_tristitia_) wells in a human heart from\n    contemplation of the profundity of God\u2019s Judgment, and yet will not\n    flow forth in tears if checked by the clods of earthly hindrance.\n    Sadness is the material of tears. But in order that the veins of this\n    fount may flow more abundantly, do thou clear away all obstacles of\n    secular business--and other matters also, as I know from experience.\n    Even spiritual zeal in the punishment of delinquents, and the labour\n    of preaching, and like matters, holy as they are and commanded by\n    divine authority, nevertheless are certainly obstacles to tears.\n\n    \u201cSo if you would attain the grace of tears, you must even curb the\n    exercise of spiritual duties, eliminate malice, anger, and hatred, and\n    the other pests from your heart. And do not let your own accusing\n    conscience dry up the dew of tears with the aridity of fear. Indeed\n    the confidence of holiness (_sanctitatis fiducia_) and a conscience\n    bearing witness to its own innocence, waters the pure soul with the\n    celestial rivulets of grace, softens the hardness of the impure heart,\n    and opens the floodgates of weeping.\u201d[451]\n\n    \u201cMany are the ways,\u201d says Damiani in words sounding like a final\n    reflection upon the solitary life--\u201cmany are the ways by which one\n    comes to God; diverse are the orders in the society of the faithful;\n    but among them all there is no way so straight, so sure, so unimpeded,\n    so free from obstacles which trip one\u2019s feet, as this holy life. It\n    eliminates occasions for sin; it cultivates the greatest number of\n    virtues by which God may be pleased; and thus, as it removes the\n    opportunities of delinquency, it lays upon good conduct the added\n    strength of necessity\u2019s insistence.\u201d[452]\n\nPeter Damiani, exiled from solitude, found no task more grateful than that\nof writing the Life of his older contemporary, St. Romualdus, the founder\nof Camaldoli and other hermit communities in Italy. That man had\ncompletely lived the life from which the Church\u2019s exigencies dragged his\nbiographer. Peter put himself, as well as his best literary powers, into\nthis _Vita Romualdi_, and made it one of the most vivid of mediaeval\n_Vitae sanctorum_. If Romuald was a hermit in the flesh, Damiani had the\nimagination to make the hermit spirit speak.[453]\n\n    \u201cAgainst thee, unclean world, we cry, that thou hast an intolerable\n    crowd of the foolish wise, eloquent as regards thee, mute as to God.\n    Wise are they to do evil; they know not how to do good. For behold\n    almost three _lustra_[454] have passed since the blessed Romualdus,\n    laying aside the burden of flesh, migrated to the heavenly realm, and\n    no one has arisen from these wise people to place upon the page of\n    history even a few of the lessons of that wonderful life.\u201d\n\nThe tone of this prologue suggests the kind of lessons found by the\nbiographer in the Life of Romuald. He was born of an illustrious Ravenna\nfamily about the year 950. In youth his devout mind became conscious of\nthe sinfulness of the flesh. Whenever he went hunting, as was his wont,\nand would come to a retired nook in the woods, the hermit yearning came\nover him--and in love, says Damiani, he was prescient of what he was later\nto fulfil in deed.\n\nHis father chanced to kill a neighbour in knightly brawl; and for this\nhomicide the son entered the monastery of St. Apollinaris in Classe, to do\nforty days\u2019 penance for his parent. This introduction to the cloister had\nits natural effect on such a temper. Goaded by a vision of the saint,\nRomuald became a monk. He soon showed himself no easy man. His harsh\ncensure of the brethren\u2019s laxities caused a plot to murder him, the first\nof many attempts upon his life.\n\nThree years he dwelt there. Then the yearning for perfection drove him\nforth, and, for a master, he sought out a hermit named Marinus, who lived\nin the Venetian territory, a man well meaning, but untaught as to the\nmethod of the hermit life. He and his disciple would issue from their cell\nand wander, singing together twenty psalms under one tree, and then thirty\nor forty under another. The disciple was unlettered, and the master rude.\nRomuald experienced intolerable tedium from straining his fixed eyes upon\na psalter, which he could not read. He may have betrayed his _ennui_. At\nall events Marinus, grasping his rod in his right hand, and sitting on his\ndisciple\u2019s left, continually beat him, and always on the left side of his\nhead. At length Romuald said humbly: \u201cMaster, if you please, would you\nhenceforth beat me on the right side, as I have lost the hearing of my\nleft ear.\u201d\n\nIn the neighbourhood there dwelt a duke whose rapacity had brought him\ninto peril. It happened that the abbot of a monastery situated not far\nfrom Chalons-sur-Marne in France came pilgrimaging that way, and the duke\ntook counsel of him. The two hermits were also called; and the advice to\nthe duke was to flee the world. So the whole party set forth, crossed the\nAlps, and travelled to the abbot\u2019s monastery. There the duke became a\nmonk, while Romuald and Marinus dwelt as solitaries a little way off.\n\nFrom this time Romuald increased in virtue, far outstripping all the\nbrethren. He supplied his wants by tilling the soil, and fasted\nexceedingly. He sustained continual conflicts with the devil, who was\nalways bringing into his mind the loves and hates of his former life in\nthe world.\n\n    \u201cThe devil would come striking on his cell, just as Romuald was\n    falling asleep, and then no sleep for him. Every night for nearly five\n    years the devil pressed crosses upon his feet, and weighted them with\n    the likeness of a phantom weight, so that Romuald could scarcely turn\n    on his couch. How often did the devil let loose the raging beasts of\n    the vices! and how often did Romuald put them to flight by his dire\n    threats! Hence if any of the brethren came in the silence, knocking at\n    his door, the soldier of Christ, always ready for battle, taking him\n    for the devil, would threaten and cry out: \u2018What now, wretch! what is\n    there for thee in the hermitage, outcast of heaven! Back, unclean dog!\n    Vanish, old snake!\u2019 He declared that with such words as these he gave\n    battle to malignant spirits; and with the arms of faith would go out\n    and meet the challenge of the foe in a neighbouring field.\u201d\n\nMarvellously Romuald increased his fasts and austerities, after the manner\nof the old anchorites of Egypt.[455] Miraculous powers became his. But\nnews came of his father which drew him back to Italy. That noble but\nsinful parent had entered a monastery where, under the persuasion of the\ndevil, he was soon sorry for his conversion, and sought to return to the\nworld. Romuald decided to go to his perishing father\u2019s aid. But the people\nof the region hearing of it, were distressed to lose a man of such\nspiritual might. They took counsel how to prevent his departure, and with\nimpious piety (_impia pietate_) decided to send men to kill him, thinking\nthat since they could not retain him alive, they would have his corpse as\na protection for the land (_pro patrocinio terrae_). Knowing of this,\nRomuald shaved his head, and as the murderers approached his cell in the\ndusk of morning, he began to eat ravenously. Thinking him demented, they\ndid him no injury. He then set forth, staff in hand, and walked from the\ncentre of Gaul, even to Ravenna. There finding his father still seeking to\nreturn to the world, he tied the old sinner\u2019s feet to a beam, fettered him\nwith chains, flogged him, and at length by pious severity so subjugated\nhis flesh that with God\u2019s aid he brought his mind back to a state of\nsalvation.[456]\n\nThus far Romuald\u2019s life affords striking illustration of the fact that\nprodigious austerities and the consequent repute for miracles were the\nchief elements in mediaeval sainthood; also of the fact that the saint\u2019s\ndead body might be as good as he. But while he lived, Romuald was much\nmore than a miracle-working relic. He was a strong, domineering\npersonality. It was soon after he brought his father back to the way of\nholiness that the old man saw a vision, and happily yielded up the ghost.\nThe son continued to advance in his chosen way of life and in the elements\nof character which it fostered. He became a prodigious solitary; one to\nwhom men and their ways were intolerable, and who himself was sometimes\nfound intolerable by men. Even his appearance might be exceptional:\n\n    \u201cThe venerable man dwelt for a while in a swamp (near Ferrara). At\n    length the poisonous air and the stench of the marsh drove him out;\n    and he emerged hairless, with his flesh puffed and swollen\n    (_tumefactus et depilatus_), not looking as if belonging to the _genus\n    homo_; for he was as green as a newt.\u201d[457]\n\nSuch a story displays the very extravagance of fleshly mortification. It\nhas also its local colour. But one should seek its explanation in the\ngrounds of the hermit life as set forth by Peter Damiani. Then the\nincidents of Romuald\u2019s life will appear to spring from these hermit\nmotives and from the hermit temperament, which became of terrible\nintensity with him. Also the egotism, so frequently an element of that\ntemperament, rose with him to spiritual megalomania:\n\n    \u201cOne day (apparently in the latter part of his life) some disciples\n    asked him, \u2018Master, of what age does the soul appear, and in what form\n    is it presented for Judgment?\u2019 He replied, \u2018I know a man in Christ,\n    whose soul is brought before God shining like snow, and indeed in\n    human form, with the stature of the perfect time of life.\u2019 Asked again\n    who that man might be, he would not speak for indignation. And then\n    the disciples talked it over, and recognized that he was certainly the\n    man.\u201d[458]\n\nIn another part of the _Vita_, Damiani, having told of his hero\u2019s sojourn\nwith a company of hermits who preferred their will to his, thus continues:\n\u201cRomuald, therefore, impatient of sterility, began to search with anxious\neagerness where he might find a soil fit to bear a fruitage of souls.\u201d It\nwas his passion to change men to anchorites: he yearned to convert the\nwhole world to the solitary life. Many were the hermit communities which\nhe established. But he could not endure his hermit sons for long, nor they\nhim. His intolerant soul revolted from the give and take of intercourse.\nSuch intolerance and his passion to make more converts drove him from\nplace to place. He seemed inspired with a superhuman power of drawing men\nfrom the world. Now\n\n    \u201ctherefore he sent messengers to the Counts of Camerino. When these\n    heard the name of Romuald they were beside themselves with joy, and\n    placed their possessions, mountains, woods, and fields at his\n    disposal, to select from. He chose a spot suited to the hermit way of\n    living, intrenched amid forests and mountains, and affording an ample\n    space of level fruitful ground, watered with crystal streams. The\n    place was called of old the Valley of the Camp (Vallis de Castro), and\n    a little church was there with a convent of women who had turned from\n    the world. Here having built their cells, the venerable man and his\n    disciples took up their abode.\n\n    \u201cAnd what fruitage of souls the Lord there won through him, pen cannot\n    describe nor tongue relate. From all directions men began to pour in,\n    for penance and to bequeath in pity their goods to the poor, while\n    others utterly forsook the world and with fervent spirit hastened to\n    the holy way of life. For this most blessed man was as one of the\n    Seraphim, himself burning with the flame of divine love, and kindling\n    others, wherever he went, with the fires of his holy preaching. Often,\n    while speaking, a vast contrition brought him to such floods of tears\n    that, breaking off his sermon, he would flee anywhere for refuge, like\n    one demented. And also when travelling on horseback with the brethren,\n    he followed far behind them, always singing psalms, as if he were in\n    his cell, and never ceasing to shed tears.\u201d[459]\n\nIn that age, the hopes and fears and wonderment of men looked to the\nrecluse as the perfected saint. No wonder that those Italian lands, so\nblithely sinful and so grievously penitent, were moved by this volcanic\ntempest of a man, fierce, merciless to the flesh, convulsed with scorching\ntears, famed for austerities and miracles. He lashed men from their sins;\nmen feared before one whose presence was a threat of hell. Said the\nMarquis of Tuscany: \u201cNot the emperor nor any mortal man, can put such fear\nin me as Romuald\u2019s look. Before his face I know not what to say, nor how\nto defend myself or find excuses.\u201d And the biographer adds that \u201cof a\ntruth the holy man had this grace from the divine favour, that sinners,\nand especially the great of this world, quaked in their bowels before him\nas if before the majesty of God.\u201d[460]\n\nBut some men hated, and especially those of his own persuasion who could\nnot endure his harshness. From such came attempts at murder, from such\nalso came milder outbreaks of detestation and revolt. No other founder of\nascetic communities seems to have been so rebelled against. He went from\nthe Valley of the Camp to Classe, where a simoniac abbot attempted to\nstrangle him; then he returned, but not for long, for the abbot\nestablished in his place rejected his reproofs, and maligned him with the\nlords of the land. \u201cAnd in that way,\u201d says Damiani, \u201cthe tall cedar of\nParadise was cast forth from the forest of earthly men.\u201d[461]\n\nHis next sojourn was Vallombrosa, where after his decease one of his\ndisciples was to found a famous cloister. From that nest in the Tuscan\nApennines, he went to dwell permanently on the Umbrian mount of Sytrio.\nAt this point his biographer proceeds:\n\n    \u201cWhoever hears that the holy man so often changed his habitation, must\n    not ascribe this to the vice of levity. For the cause of these changes\n    was that wherever he stayed, an almost countless crowd assembled, and\n    when he saw one place filled with converts he very properly would\n    appoint a prior and at once hasten to fill another.\n\n    \u201cIn Sytrio what insults and what indignities he endured from his\n    disciples! We will set down one instance, and omit the rest for\n    brevity. There was a disciple named Romanus, noble by birth, but\n    ignoble by deed. Him the holy man for his carnal impurity not only\n    chided by word but corrected with heavy beatings. That diabolic man\n    dared to retort with the fabrication of the same charge, and to bark\n    with sacrilegious mouth against this temple of the Holy Spirit, saying\n    forsooth that the holy man was spotted with this same infection. The\n    rage of the disciples broke out immediately against Romuald. All were\n    his enemies: some declared that the wicked old man ought to be hanged\n    from a gallows, others that he should be burned in his cell.\n\n    \u201cOne cannot understand how spiritual men could have believed such\n    wickedness of a decrepit old man, whose frigid blood and aridity of\n    attenuated frame would have forbade him, had he had the will. But\n    doubtless it is to be deemed that this scourge of adversity came upon\n    the holy man by the will of Heaven, to augment his merit. For he said\n    himself that he had foreknown it with certainty in the solitude which\n    he had left just before, and had come with alacrity to undergo this\n    shame. But that false monkish reprobate who brought the charge against\n    the holy man, afterwards became Bishop of Noceria through simony, and\n    in the first year of his occupancy, saw, as he deserved, his house\n    with his books and bells and the rest of his sacred paraphernalia\n    burned; and in the second year, the divine sentence struck him and he\n    wretchedly lost both his dignity and his life.\n\n    \u201cIn the meanwhile the disciples put a penance on the holy man as if he\n    had been guilty, and deprived him of the right to celebrate the holy\n    mysteries. He willingly accepted this false judgment, and took his\n    penance like a culprit, not presuming to approach the altar for\n    well-nigh six months. At length, as he afterwards told his disciples,\n    he was divinely commanded to celebrate mass. On the next day, when\n    proceeding with the sacrifice, he became rapt in ecstasy, and\n    continued speechless for so long a time that all present marvelled.\n    When afterwards asked the reason of his delay, he replied: \u2018Carried\n    into heaven, I was borne before God; and the divine voice commanded\n    me, that with such intelligence as God had set in me, I should write\n    and commend for use a Commentary on the Psalms. Overcome with terror,\n    I could only respond: so let it be, so let it be.\u2019 For this reason the\n    holy man made a Commentary on the whole Psalter; and although its\n    grammar was bad, its sense was sound and clear.\u201d[462]\n\nVarious attempts were made in the Middle Ages to render the hermit life\npracticable, through permitting a limited intercourse among a cluster of\nlike-minded ascetics, as well as to regulate it under the direction of a\nsuperior. In Italy, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, the picturesque\nenergy of the individual hermit is prodigious, while in the north, as in\nthe establishment of the Carthusian Order, the organization is better, the\nresult more permanent, but the imaginative and consistent extravagance of\npersonality is not there. In the hermit communities founded by Romuald\nthere was a prior or abbot, invested with some authority. Yet the\norganization was less complete than in coenobitic monasteries; for\nRomuald\u2019s hermit methods sought to minimize the intercourse among the\nbrethren, to an extent which was scarcely compatible with effective\norganization. An idea of these communities may be had from Damiani\u2019s\ndescription of one of them:\n\n    \u201cSuch was the mode of life in Sytrio, that not only in name but in\n    fact it was as another Nytria.[463] The brethren went barefoot;\n    unkempt and haggard; they were content with the barest necessaries.\n    Some were shut in with doomed doors (_damnatis januis_), seemingly as\n    dead to the world as if in a tomb. Wine was unknown, even in extreme\n    illness. The attendants of the monks (_famuli monachorum_) and those\n    who kept the cattle, fasted and preserved silence. They made\n    regulations among themselves, and laid penances for speaking.\u201d[464]\n\nFor seven years Romuald lived at Sytrio as an _inclusus_, shut up in his\ncell, and preserving unbroken silence. Yet though his tongue was dumb his\nlife was eloquent. He lived on, setting a shining example of squalor and\nausterity, eating only vile food, and handing back untouched any savoury\nmorsel. His conflicts with the devil continued; nor was he ever\nvanquished. Advancing years intensified his aversion to human society and\nhis passion for solitude. In proportion as he made his ways displeasing to\nmen, his self-approval was enhanced.[465] A solitary death kept tally with\nthe temper of a recluse life.\n\n    \u201cWhen he saw his end draw near he returned to the Valley of the Camp,\n    and had a cell with an oratory prepared, in which to immure himself\n    and keep silence until death. Twenty years before, he had foretold to\n    his disciples that there he should attain his peace; and had declared\n    his wish to breathe forth his spirit with no one standing by or\n    bestowing the last rites. When this cell of immurement (_reclusorium_)\n    was ready, the mind in Romuald was so that it scarcely could be\n    imprisoned. But his body grew heavy with the increasing ills of\n    extreme age, and the hard breathing of tussis. Yet not for this would\n    the holy man lie on a bed or relax his fasts. One day his strength\n    gradually forsook him, and he found himself sinking with fatigue. So\n    as the sun was setting he directed two brothers who stood by to go out\n    and shut the door of his cell after them. He told them that when the\n    time came for them to celebrate the matin hymns at dawn, they might\n    return. Unwillingly they went out, but did not go at once to rest; and\n    waited anxiously, concealing themselves by the master\u2019s cell. After a\n    while, as they listened intent and could hear no movement of his body\n    nor any sound of his voice, correctly conjecturing what had happened,\n    they broke open the door, rushed in and lighted the light; and there,\n    the blessed soul having been transported to heaven, they found the\n    holy corpse supine. It lay as a celestial pearl neglected, but\n    hereafter to be placed with honour in the treasury of the King.\u201d[466]\n\nThe spiritual unity which lies beneath the actions of Romuald should be\nsought in the reasons and temper of the hermit life. To perfect the soul\nfor its passage to eternity is the fundamental motive. Monastic logic\nconvinces the man that this can best be accomplished through withdrawal\nfrom the temptations of the world; and the hermit temper draws\nirresistibly to solitude. The only consistent social function left to such\na man is that of turning the steps of his fellows to his own recluse path\nof perfection. Romuald\u2019s life manifests such motives and such temper, and\nalso this one function passionately performed. We see in him no love of\nkind, but only a fiery passion for their salvation. Also we see the\nabsorption of self in self with God, the harsh intolerance of other men,\nthe fierce aversions and the passionate cravings which are germane to the\nhermit life.\n\nPhysical self-mortification is the element of the hermit life most\ndifficult for modern people to understand. Yet nothing in Romuald extorted\nmore entire admiration from his biographer than his austerities. And if\nthere was one man on earth whom Peter admired as much as he did Romuald,\nit was a certain mail-coated Dominicus, a virtuoso in self-mortification.\nHe exhibits its purging and penitential motives. Scourging purifies the\nbody from carnality; that is one motive. It also atones for sins, and\nlessens the purgatorial period after death; this is another. There is a\nthird which is rooted rather in temperament than in reason. This is\ncontrition; the contrite heart may love to flagellate itself in love of\nHim who suffered sinless.\n\nDominicus was surnamed Loricatus because he wore a coat of mail against\nthe attacks of the devil through the frailties of the too-comfortable\nflesh. In his youth, family influence had installed him in a snug\necclesiastic berth. As he reached maturity and bethought himself, the\nsense of this involuntary simoniacal contamination filled him with\nremorse. He abjured the world and became a member of the hermit community\nof Fonte Avellana, where Damiani exercised the authority of prior. Yet the\nlatter looked on Dominic as his master, whom he admired to the pitch of\nmarvel, while regretting that he lacked himself the strength and leisure\nto equal his flagellations. So Peter was enraptured with this wonder of a\nDominic, and wrote his biography, which deserved telling if, as Peter\nsays, his entire life, his _tota quippe vita_, was a preaching and an\nedification, instruction and discipline (_praedicatio, aedificatio,\ndoctrina, disciplina_).\n\nOne descriptive passage from it will suffice:\n\n    \u201cI am speaking of Dominic, my teacher and my master, whose tongue\n    indeed is rustic, but whose life is polished and accomplished\n    (_artificiosa satis et lepida_). His life indeed preaches more\n    effectively by its living actions (_vivis operibus_) than a barren\n    tongue which inanely weighs out the balanced phrases of a bespangled\n    urbanity (_phaleratae urbanitatis_). Through a long course of gliding\n    years, girt with iron mail, he has waged truceless war against the\n    wicked spirits; with cuirassed body and heart always ready for battle,\n    he marches eager warrior against the hostile array.\n\n    \u201cLikewise it is his regular and unremitting habit, with a rod in each\n    hand every day to beat time upon his naked body, and thus scourge out\n    two psalters. And this even in the slacker season. For in Lent or when\n    he has a penance to perform (and he often undertakes a penance of a\n    hundred years), each day, while he plies himself with his rods, he\n    pays off at least three psalters repeating them mentally\n    (_meditando_).\n\n    \u201cThe penance of a hundred years is performed thus: With us three\n    thousand blows satisfies a year of penance; and the chanting\n    (_modulatio_) of ten psalms, as has often been tested, admits one\n    thousand blows. Now, clearly, as the Psalter consists of one hundred\n    and fifty psalms, any one computing correctly will see that five years\n    of penance lie in chanting one psalter, with this discipline. Now,\n    whether you take five times twenty or twenty times five you have a\n    hundred. Consequently whoever chants twenty psalters, with this\n    accompanying discipline, may be confident of having performed a\n    hundred years of penance. Herein our Dominic outdid those who struck\n    with only one hand; for he, a true son of Benjamin, warred\n    indefatigably with both hands against the lawless rebels of the flesh.\n    He has told me himself that he easily accomplished a penance of a\n    hundred years in six days.\u201d[467]\n\nThis loricated Dominic was conscious of his virtuosity. We find him at the\nbeginning of a certain Lent, requesting the imposition of a penance of a\nthousand years! Again, he comes after vespers to Damiani\u2019s cell to tell\nhim that between morning and evening he has broken his record by \u201cdoing\u201d\neight psalters! And once more we read of his coming troubled to his\nmaster, saying: \u201cYou have written, as I have just heard, that in one day I\nchanted nine psalters with corporeal discipline. When I heard it, I turned\npale and groaned. \u2018Woe is me,\u2019 I said; \u2018without my knowledge, this has\nbeen written of me, and yet I do not know whether I could do it.\u2019 So I am\ngoing to try again, and I shall certainly find out.\u201d[468]\n\nDominic probably derived more pleasure than pain from his scourgings. For\nbesides the vanity of achievement, and some ecstasy of contrition, the\nflesh itself turns morbid and rejoices in its laceration. Yet such\nausterity is pre-eminently penal, and is initially impelled by fear. With\nDominic, with Romuald, with Damiani, the fear of hell entered the motives\nof the secluded life. To observe this fear writ large in panic terror, we\nturn to the old legend regarding the conversion of Bruno of Cologne, the\nfounder of the Carthusian Order. The scene is laid in Paris, where (with\nmuch improbability) Bruno is supposed to be studying in the year 1082. One\nof the most learned and pious of the doctors of theology died. His funeral\nhad been celebrated, and his body was about to be carried to the grave,\nwhen the corpse raised its head and cried aloud with a dreadful voice:\n\u201cJusto Dei judicio accusatus sum.\u201d Then the head fell back. The people,\nterror-stricken, postponed the interment to the following day, when again,\nas before, with a grievous and terrible voice the corpse raised its head\nand cried: \u201cJusto Dei judicio judicatus sum.\u201d Amid general terror the\ninterment was again postponed to the next day, when, as before, with a\nhorrible cry the corpse shrieked: \u201cJusto Dei judicio condemnatus sum.\u201d\n\nAt this, Bruno, impressed and terrified, said to his friends: \u201cBeloved,\nwhat shall we do? Unless we fly we shall all perish utterly. Let us\nrenounce the world, and, like Anthony and John the Baptist, seek the caves\nof the desert, that we may escape the wrath of the Judge, and reach the\nport of salvation.\u201d So they flee, and the Carthusian Order, with its\nterrific asceticism, begins.[469]\n\nThis story, aside from its marvellous character, does not harmonize with\nthe more authentic facts of Bruno\u2019s life. It is, however, a striking\nexpression of the ascetic fear; it also reflects psychologic truth. Who\nbut the man himself knows the naughtiness of his own heart? its\nnever-to-be disclosed vile and morbid thoughts? The modern may realize\nthis. Hamlet did. And it was just such a phase of self-consciousness as\nthe mediaeval imagination would transform into a tale of horror. Bruno\nhimself had been a learned doctor, a teacher, and the head of the\ncathedral school at Rheims; he had been a zealous soldier of the Church.\nIn all this he had not found peace. The profession of a doctor of\ntheology, even when coupled with more active belligerency for the Church,\nafforded no certain salvation. The story of the Paris doctor may have\nsymbolized the anxieties which dwelt in Bruno\u2019s breast, until under their\nstimulus the yearnings of a solitary temper gathered head and at last\nbrought him with six followers to Carthusia (_la grande Chartreuse_),\nwhich lies to the north of Grenoble. 1084 is the year of its beginning.\n\nIt was a hermit community, the brethren living two by two in isolated\ncells, but meeting for divine service in a little chapel. Camaldoli may\nhave been the model. Bruno wrote no _regula_ for his followers, and the\npractices of the Order were first formulated by Guigo, the fifth prior, in\nhis _Consuetudines Cartusiae_, about the year 1130.[470] These permit a\nlimited intercourse among the brethren, for the service of God and the\nregulation of their own lives. Yet the broader object was seclusion. Not\nonly severance from the world, but the seclusion of the brethren from each\nother, in solitary labour and contemplation, was their ideal. The\nasceticism of these _Consuetudines_ is of the strictest. And somehow it\nwould seem as if in the Carthusian Order the frailties of the spirit and\nthe lusts of the flesh were to be permanently vanquished by this set life\nof labour, meditation, and rigid asceticism. _Carthusia nunquam reformata,\nquia nunquam deformata_, remained true century after century. This long\nfreedom from corruption was partly due to the lofty and somewhat\nexclusive character of the brotherhood. Carthusia was no broad way for the\nmonastic multitude. Its monks were relatively few and holy, the select of\nGod. Men of devout piety, they must be. It was also needful that they\nshould be possessed of such intellectual endowment and meditative capacity\nas would with God\u2019s grace yield provision for a life of solitary thought.\n\nThe intellectual piety of Carthusia finds its loftiest expression in the\n_Meditationes_ of this same prior Guigo,[471] the form of which calls to\nmind the Reflections of Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus. In substance they\nreflect Augustine\u2019s intellectual devoutness and many of his thoughts. But\nthey seem Guigo\u2019s very own, fruit of his own reflection; and thus\nincidentally they afford an illustration of the general principle that by\nthe twelfth century the Middle Ages had made over into themselves what\nthey had drawn from the Fathers or from the pagan antique. Guigo\u2019s\n_Meditations_ possess spiritual calm; their logic is unhesitating; it is\nremorselessly correct, however incomplete may be its premises or its\ncomprehension of life\u2019s data. Whoever wishes to know the high\ncontemplative mind of monastic seclusion in the twelfth century may learn\nit from this work. A number of its precepts are given here for the sake of\ntheir illustrative pertinency and intrinsic merit, and because our author\nis not very widely known. He begins with general reflections upon Veritas\nand Pax:\n\n    \u201cTruth should be set in the middle, as something beautiful. Nor, if\n    any one abhors it, do thou condemn, but pity. Thou indeed, who\n    desirest to come to it, why dost thou spurn it when it chides thy\n    faults?\n\n    \u201cWithout form and comeliness and fastened to the cross, truth is to be\n    worshipped.\n\n    \u201cIf thou speakest truth not from love of truth but from wish to injure\n    another, thou wilt not gain the reward of a truthspeaker but the\n    punishment of a defamer.\n\n    \u201cTruth is life and eternal salvation. Therefore you ought to pity any\n    one whom it displeases. For to that extent he is dead and lost. But\n    you, perverse one, would not tell him the truth unless you thought it\n    bitter and intolerable to him. You do still worse when in order to\n    please men you speak a truth which delights them as much as if it\n    were lies and flattery. Not because it displeases or pleases should\n    truth be spoken, but as it profits. Yet be silent when it would do\n    harm, as light to weak eyes.\n\n    \u201cBlessed is he whose mind is moved or affected only by the perception\n    and love of truth, and whose body is moved only by his mind. Thus the\n    body, like the mind, is moved by truth alone. For if there is no\n    stirring in the mind save that of truth, and none in the body save\n    that from the mind, then also there is no stirring in the body save\n    from truth, that is from God.\n\n    \u201cThou dost all things for the sake of peace, toward which the way lies\n    through truth alone, which is thine adversary in this life. Therefore\n    either subject thee to it or it to thee. For nothing else is left\n    thee.\n\n    \u201cThe lake does not boast because it abounds in water; for that is from\n    the source. So as to thy peace. Its cause is always something else.\n    Therefore thy peace is shifting and inconstant in proportion to the\n    instability of its cause. How worthless is it when it arises from the\n    pleasingness of a human face!\n\n    \u201cLet not temporal things be the cause of thy peace; for then wilt thou\n    be as worthless and fragile as they. You would have such a peace in\n    common with the brutes; let thine be that of the angels, which\n    proceeds from truth.\n\n    \u201cThe beginning of the return to truth is to be displeased with\n    falsity. Blame precedes correction.\n\n    \u201cIn the cares which engage thee for thy salvation, no service or\n    medicine is more useful than to blame and despise thyself. Whoever\n    does this for thee is thy helper.\n\n    \u201cEasy is the way to God, since it advances by laying down burdens.\n    Thou dost unburden thyself so far as thou deniest thyself.\n\n    \u201cWhen anything good is said of thee, it is but as a rumour regarding\n    which thou knowest better.\n\n    \u201cConsider the two experiences of filling and emptying (_ingestionis et\n    egestionis_); which blesses thee more? That burdens thee with useless\n    matters; this disburdens thee. To have had that is to have devoured it\n    altogether. Nothing remains for hope. So in all things of sense. They\n    perish all. And what of thee after these? Set thy love and hope on\n    what will not pass.\n\n    \u201cBestial pleasure comes from the senses of the flesh; it is diabolic,\n    a thing of arrogance, envy, and deceit; philosophic pleasure is to\n    know the creature; the angelic pleasure is to know and love God.\n\n    \u201cWhen we take our pleasure from that from which brutes draw\n    pleasure--from lust like dogs, or from gluttony like swine--our souls\n    become like theirs. Yet we do not shudder. I had rather have a dog\u2019s\n    body than his soul. It would be more tolerable if our body changed to\n    bestial shape, while our soul remained in its dignity, that is, in the\n    likeness of God.\n\n    \u201cReadily man entangles himself in love of bodies and of vanity; but,\n    willy, nilly, he is torn with fear and grief at their dissolution. For\n    the love of perishable things is as a fountain of useless fears and\n    sorrows. The Lord frees the poor man from the mighty, by loosing him\n    from the fetter of earthly love.\n\n    \u201cThe human soul is tortured in itself as long as it can be tortured,\n    that is, as long as it loves anything besides God.\n\n    \u201cThou hast been clinging to one syllable of a great song, and art\n    troubled when that wisest Singer proceeds in His singing. For the\n    syllable which alone thou wast loving is withdrawn from thee, and\n    others succeed in order. He does not sing to thee alone, nor to thy\n    will, but His. The syllables which succeed are distasteful to thee\n    because they drive on that one which thou wast loving evilly.\n\n    \u201cAll matters which are called adverse are adverse only to the wicked,\n    that is, those who love the creature instead of the Creator.\n\n    \u201cIf in any way thou art tormented by fear, or anger or hate or grief\n    of any kind, lay it to thyself, that is, to thy concupiscence,\n    ignorance, or sloth. And if any one wishes to injure thee, lay that to\n    his concupiscence. Thy distress is evidence of thy sin in loving\n    anything destructible, having dismissed God. Thou dost grieve over the\n    ruined show; lay it to thee and thine error because thou hast been\n    cleaving to things that may be broken.\n\n    \u201cHe seeks a long temptation who seeks a long life.\n\n    \u201cWhat God has not loved in His friends--power, rank, riches,\n    dignities--do not thou love in thine.\n\n    \u201cSnares thou eatest, drinkest, wearest, sleepest in; all things are\n    snares.\n\n    \u201cWe are exiles through love and wantonness and inclination, not\n    through locality; exiles in the country of defilement, of dark\n    passions, of ignorance, of wicked loves and hates.\n\n    \u201cIn so far as thou lovest thyself--that is, this temporal life--so far\n    dost thou love what is transitory.\n\n    \u201cAdverse matters do not make thee wretched, but rather show thee to\n    have been so; prosperity blinds the soul, by covering and increasing\n    misery, not by removing it.\n\n    \u201cEvery one ought to love all men. Whoever wishes another to show\n    special love toward him is a robber, and an offender against all.\n\n    \u201cMixed through this body, thou wast wretched enough; for thou wast\n    subject to all its corruptions, even to the bite of the flea or the\n    sorunculus. This did not suffice thee. Thou hast mixed thyself up with\n    other quasi bodies, the opinion of men, admiration, love, honour, fear\n    and the like. When these are harmed, pain comes to thee, as from\n    bodily hurt. Thy honour is hurt when contempt is shown thee; and so\n    with the rest. Think also thus regarding bodily forms.\n\n    \u201cUnless thou hast despised whatever men can do to thwart or aid thee,\n    thou wilt not be able to contemn their disposition toward thee, their\n    hate and love, their opinions, good or bad.\n\n    \u201cWhy dost thou wish to be loved by men?\n\n    \u201cWho rejoices in praise, loses praise.\n\n    \u201cWho is pained or angered by the loss of any temporal thing, shows\n    himself worth what he has lost.\n\n    \u201cNo thing ought to wish to be loved as good, unless it blesses its\n    lover in the very matter for which it is loved. But no thing does this\n    if it needs its lover, or is helped by loving or being loved by\n    another. Most cruel, then, is the thing which wishes another to place\n    affection and hope on it when it cannot benefit that other. The devils\n    do this, who wish men to be engrossed in their service instead of\n    God\u2019s. So cry to thy lovers, Cease, ye wretched, to admire or respect\n    or honour me; for I, miserable wretch, can neither aid myself nor you,\n    but rather need your aid.\n\n    \u201cSo far as in thee is, thou hast destroyed all men, for thou hast put\n    thyself between them and God, so that gazing on thee and ignoring God,\n    they might admire and praise thee alone. This is utterly profitless to\n    thee and them, not to say destructive.\n\n    \u201cWhatever form thou dost enjoy is as the male to thy mind. For thy\n    mind yields and lies down to it. Thou dost not assimilate it, but it\n    thee. Its image endures, like an idol in its temple, to which thou\n    dost sacrifice neither ox nor goat, but thy rational soul and thy\n    body, to wit, thy whole self, when thou enjoyest it.\n\n    \u201cSee how, as in a wine-shop, thou dost prostitute thine as a venal\n    love, and to the measure of pay weighest thyself out to men. In this\n    wine-shop he receives nothing who gives nothing. And yet thou wouldst\n    not have that which thou dost sell, unless freely from above it had\n    been given to thee who gave nothing. Therefore thou hast received thy\n    pay.\n\n    \u201cTo be empty and removed from God is to make ready for lust.\n\n    \u201cWho wishes to enjoy thee in thyself, deserves from thee the thanks of\n    flies and fleas who suck thy blood.\n\n    \u201cThis is the very sum of human depravity to forsake the better, which\n    is God, and to regard the lesser and cleave to them by delighting in\n    them--these temporalities!\n\n    \u201cThe beetle as it flies sees everything, and then selects nothing that\n    is beautiful or wholesome or durable, but settles down upon dung. So\n    thy soul in mental flight (_intuitu pervolans_) surveying heaven and\n    earth and whatever is great and precious therein, cleaves to none of\n    these, but embraces the cheap and dirty things occurring to its\n    thought. Blush for this.\n\n    \u201cWhen thou pleadest with God not to take from thee something to which\n    thou cleavest by desire, it is as if an adulteress caught by her\n    husband in the act, should not ask pardon for her crime, but beg him\n    not to interrupt her pleasure. It is not enough for thee to go\n    wantoning from God, but thou must incline Him to save and approve the\n    things in which thou takest delight to thy undoing--the forms of\n    bodies, their savours and their colours.\n\n    \u201cThe poverty of thine inner vision of God, purblind as thou art,\n    although He is there, makes thee willing to go out of doors from thine\n    own hearth, refusing to linger within thyself, as in the dark. So thou\n    hast nothing to do but go gaping after the external forms of bodies\n    and the opinions of men. Thou dost carry thyself in this world as if\n    thou hadst come hither to gaze and wonder at the forms of bodies.\n\n    \u201cMay God be gracious to thee, that the feet of thy mind may find no\n    resting-place, so that somehow, O soul, thou mayest return to the Ark,\n    like Noah\u2019s dove.\n\n    \u201cProsperity is a snare, adversity the knife that cuts it; prosperity\n    imprisons us from the love of God; adversity breaks the dungeon in\n    pieces.\n\n    \u201cSince you are taken only by pleasure, you should shun whatever gives\n    it. The Christian soul is safe only in adversity. From what thou\n    cherishest God makes thee rods.\n\n    \u201cThe only medicine for every pain and torment is contempt for whatever\n    in thee is hurt by them, and the turning of the mind to God.\n\n    \u201cAs many carnal pleasures as thou spurnest, just so many snares of the\n    devil dost thou escape. As many tribulations--especially those for\n    truth\u2019s sake--as thou dost flee, so many salutary remedies thou\n    spurnest.\n\n    \u201cIn hope thou mayest cherish the unripened grain; thus love those who\n    are not yet good, Be such toward all as the Truth has shown itself\n    toward thee. Just as it has sustained and loved thee for thy\n    betterment, so do thou sustain and love men in order to better them.\n\n    \u201cYou are set as a standard to blunt the darts of the enemy, that is,\n    to destroy evil by opposing good to it. You should never return evil\n    for evil, except very medicinally; which is not to return evil but\n    good.\n\n    \u201cIf to cleave to God is thine whole and only good, thine whole and\n    only evil is separation from Him.\n\n    \u201cWho loves all will be saved without doubt; but who is loved by men\n    will not for that reason be saved.\u201d\n\nThe unity of these _Meditations_ lies in the absolute manner in which the\nmeditating soul attaches itself to God as its whole and only good. Herein\nGuigo\u2019s thoughts are Augustinian. One notes their clear intellectual tone.\nNothing lures the thinker from his aim and goal of God. He abhors whatever\nmight distract him; and as to all except God and God\u2019s commands, he is\nindifferent. Guigo detests impermanence as keenly as did the Brahmin and\nBuddhist meditators of India. He has as high regard as any Indian or Greek\nphilosopher for a life of thought. But there are differences between the\nCarthusian prior and the Greek or Indian sage. Guigo\u2019s renunciation does\nnot (from his standpoint) penetrate life as deeply as Gotama\u2019s; for Guigo\nrenounces only things comparatively insignificant, so utterly transient\nare they, so completely they pale before the light of his goal of God.\nTherein shall lie clearer attainment than lay at the end of any Indian\nchain of reasoning. So note well, that Guigo, like other Christians, is\nnot essentially a renouncer, but one who attains and receives.\n\nThe difference between him and the Greek is also patent. The source of his\nblue lake of thought is not himself, but God. Although calm and sustained\nby reason, he is rationally the opposite of self-reliant, and so the\nopposite of the ideal Stoic or Aristotelian. God is his Creator, the\nsource of his thoughts, the loadstar of his meditations, the\nall-comprehending object of his desire.\n\nWe find in Guigo further specific elements of Christian asceticism, which\nsharpen his repugnances for the world of transient phenomena. Those\nphenomena mostly contain elements of sin: all pleasure is temptation and a\nsnare; adversity keeps the soul\u2019s wings trimmed true. So the main content\nof passing mortal life, while not evil in itself, is so charged with\ntemptation and allure, that it is worthy only of avoidance. The transient,\nthe physical, the brutal, the diabolic--one shades into the next, and\nleads on to the last. Have none of them, O soul! They are snares all.\n\nOf course, Guigo has the specific monkish horror of sexual lust, that\nchief of fleshly snares. But he goes further. With him all particular,\ndisproportionate love is wrong; love no one, and desire not to be loved,\nout of the proportionment of the common love which God has for all His\ncreatures: so love you, and not otherwise. Others, even women, attained\nthis standard. In the legend, St. Elizabeth of Hungary gives thanks that\nshe loves her own children no more than others\u2019. She is no mother, but a\nsaint. So Guigo will love all--love indeed? one queries. Thus also will he\nhave others hold themselves toward him, lest he be a stumbling-block in\ntheir or his salvation.\n\nYea, salvation! If indeed this monk shall not have attained that, of a\ntruth he would be of all men most miserable--save for the quiet,\nthought-filled calm which is his inner and his veritable life. It is a\ncalm not riven by the storms which drove the soul of Peter Damiani. God\nwas not less to Guigo; but the temperaments of the two men differed. Not\nbeyond or out of one\u2019s nature can one love or yearn, or even know the\nstress of storm.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nTHE QUALITY OF LOVE IN SAINT BERNARD\n\n\nThrough the prodigious power of his personality, St. Bernard gave new life\nto monasticism, promoted the reform of the secular clergy and the\nsuppression of heresy, ended a papal schism, set on foot the Second\nCrusade, and for a quarter of a century swayed Christendom as never holy\nman before or after him. An adequate account of his career would embrace\nthe entire history of the first half of the twelfth century.[472]\n\nThe man who was to move men with his love, and quell the proud with fear,\nhad, as a youth, a graceful figure, a sweet countenance, and manners the\nmost winning. Later in life he is spoken of as cheerfully bearing\nreproaches, but shamefaced at praise, and his gentle manners are again\nmentioned.\n\n    \u201cAs a helpmeet for his holy spirit, God made his body to conform. In\n    his flesh there was visible a certain grace, but spiritual rather than\n    of the flesh. A brightness not of earth shone in his look; there was\n    an angelic purity in his eyes, and a dove-like simplicity. The beauty\n    of the inner man was so great that it would burst forth in visible\n    tokens, and the outer man would seem bathed from the store of inward\n    purity and copious grace. His frame was of the slightest\n    (_tenuissimum_), and most spare of flesh; a blush often tinged the\n    delicate skin of his cheeks. And a certain natural heat (_quidquid\n    caloris naturalis_) was in him, arising from assiduous meditation and\n    penitent zeal. His hair was bright yellow, his beard reddish with\n    some white hairs toward the end of his life. Actually of medium\n    stature, he looked taller.\u201d[473]\n\nThis same biography says:\n\n    \u201cHe who had set him apart, from his mother\u2019s womb, for the work of a\n    preacher, had given him, with a weak body, a voice sufficiently strong\n    and clear. His speech, whatever persons he spoke to for the edifying\n    of souls, was adapted to his audience; for he knew the intelligence,\n    the habits and occupations of each and all. To country folk he spoke\n    as if born and bred in the country; and so to other classes, as it he\n    had been always occupied with their business. He was learned with the\n    erudite, and simple with the simple, and with spiritual men rich in\n    illustrations of perfection and wisdom. He adapted himself to all,\n    desiring to gain all for Christ.\u201d[474]\n\nBernard was born of noble parents at the Chateau of Fontaines, near Dijon,\nin the year 1090, and was educated in a church school at Chatillon on the\nSeine. It is an ofttold story, how, when little more than twenty years of\nage, he drew together a band formed of his own brothers, his uncle, and\nhis friends, and led them to Citeaux,[475] his ardent soul unsatisfied so\nlong as one held back. Three years later, in 1115, the Abbot, Stephen\nHarding, entrusted him with the headship of the new monastery, to be\nfounded in the domains of the Count of Troyes. Bernard set forth with\ntwelve companions, came to Clara Vallis on the river Aube, and placed his\nconvent in that austere solitude.\n\nGreat were the attractions of Clairvaux (Clara Vallis) under Bernard\u2019s\nvigorous and loving rule. Its monks increased so rapidly and so constantly\nthat during its founder\u2019s life sixty-five bands were sent forth to rear\nnew convents. Meanwhile, Bernard\u2019s activities and influence widened, till\nthey seemed to compass western Christendom. He had become a power in the\npolitics of Church and State. In 1130 he was summoned by Louis le Gros\npractically to determine the claims of the rival Popes Innocent II. and\nAnacletus II. He decided for the former, and was the chief instrument of\nhis eventual reinstatement at Rome. Before this Bernard\u2019s health had been\nbroken by his extreme austerities. Yet even the lamentable failure of the\nSecond Crusade, zealously promoted by him, did not break his power over\nEurope, which continued unimpaired until his death in 1153.\n\nThis active and masterful man was impelled by those elements of the _vita\ncontemplativa_ which formed his inner self. First and last and always he\nwas a monk. Had he not been the very monk he was, he would not have been\nthe dominator of men and situations that he proved himself to be.\nTemperament fashions the objects of contemplation, and shapes the yearning\nand aversions, of great monks. The temperamental element of love--the love\nof God and man, with its appurtenant detestations--made the heart of\nBernard\u2019s _vita contemplativa_, and impassioned and empowered his active\nfaculties. It was the keynote of his life: in his letters it speaks in\nwords of fire, while other writings of the saint analyze this great human\nquality with profundity and truth. In these he renders explicit the modes\nof affection which man may have for man and above all for God; he sets\nthem forth as the path as well as goal of life on earth, and then as the\nrapt summit of attainment in the life to come. Through all its stages, as\nit flows from self to fellow, as it rises from man to God, love still is\nlove, and forms the unifying principle among men and between them and God.\n\nLet us trace in his letters the nature and the power of Bernard\u2019s love,\nand see with what yearning he loved his fellows, seeking to withdraw them\nfrom the world; and how his love strove to be as sword and armour against\nthe flesh and the devil. By easy transition we shall pass to Bernard\u2019s\nwarning wrath, flung against those who would turn the struggling soul\naside, or threaten the Church\u2019s peace; then by more arduous, but still\nunbroken stages, we may rise to the love of Jesus, and through love of the\nGod-man to love of God. We shall realize at the close why that last\nmediaeval assessor of destinies, whose name was Dante Alighieri, selected\nSt. Bernard as the exponent of the blessed vision which is salvation\u2019s\ncrown in the paradise of God.[476]\n\nThe way of life at Clara Vallis might discourage monks of feeble zeal.\nAmong the brethren of these early days was one named Robert, a cousin of\nthe Abbot, seemingly of weak and petulant disposition. Soon he fled, to\nseek a softer cell in Cluny, the great and rich monastery to which his\nparents appear to have dedicated him in childhood. For a while Bernard\nsuppressed his grief; but the day came when he could endure no longer\nRobert\u2019s abandonment of his soul\u2019s safety and of the friend who yearned\nfor him. He stole out of the monastery, accompanied by a monk named\nWilliam. There, in the open (_sub dio_), Bernard dictated a long letter to\nbe sent to the deserter. While the two were busy, the one dictating, the\nother writing, a rainstorm broke upon them. William wished to stop. \u201cIt is\nGod\u2019s work; write and fear not,\u201d said Bernard. So William wrote on, in the\nmidst of the rain; but no drop fell on him or the parchment; for the power\nof love which dictated the letter preserved the parchment on which it was\nbeing written.[477]\n\nWhoever has read this letter in its own fervent Latin will not care to\ndispute this miracle, for which it stands first in the collection of\nBernard\u2019s correspondence. Bernard does not recriminate or argue in it; his\nlove shall bring the young monk back to him. Yes, yes, he says to all that\nthe other has urged regarding fancied slights and persecution:\n\n    \u201cQuite right; I admit it. I am not writing in order to contend, but to\n    end contention. To flee persecution is no fault in him who flees, but\n    in him who pursues; I do not deny it. I pass over what has happened; I\n    do not ask why or how it happened. I do not discuss faults, I do not\n    dispute as to the circumstances, I have no memory for injuries. I\n    speak only what is in my heart. Wretched me, that I lack thee, that I\n    do not see thee, that I am living without thee, for whom to die would\n    be to live; without whom to live, is to die. I ask not why thou hast\n    gone away; I complain only that thou dost not return. Come, and there\n    shall be peace; return, and all shall be made good.\n\n    \u201cIt was certainly my fault that thou didst go away. I was too austere\n    with thy young years, and treated thee inhumanly. So thou saidst when\n    here, and so I hear thou dost still reproach me. But that shall not be\n    imputed to thee. I never meant it harshly, I was only indiscreet. Now\n    thou wilt find me different, and I thee. Where before thou didst fear\n    the master, thou shalt now embrace the companion. Do not think that I\n    will not excuse any fault of thine. Dost thou wish to be quite free\n    from fault? then return. If thou wilt forget thy fault I will pardon\n    it; also pardon thou me, and I too will forget my fault.\u201d\n\nBernard then argues long and passionately against those who had led the\nyoung man away and received him with such blandishments at Cluny; and\npassionately he argues against the insidious softening of monastic\nprinciples.\n\n    \u201cArise, soldier of Christ, arise, shake off the dust, return to the\n    battle whence thou hast fled, and more bravely shalt thou fight and\n    more gloriously triumph. Christ has many soldiers who bravely began,\n    stood fast and conquered; He has few who have turned from flight and\n    renewed the combat. Everything rare is precious; and thou among that\n    rare company shalt the more radiantly shine.\n\n    \u201cThou art fearful? so be it; but why dost thou fear where there is no\n    fear, and why dost thou not fear where everything is to be feared?\n    Because thou hast fled from the battle-line, dost thou think to have\n    escaped the foe? It is easier for the Adversary to pursue a fugitive\n    than to bear himself against manful defence. Secure, arms cast aside,\n    thou takest thy morning slumbers, the hour when Christ will have\n    arisen! The multitude of enemies beset the house, and thou sleepest.\n    Is it safer to be caught alone and sleeping, than armed with others in\n    the field? Arouse thee, seize thy arms, and escape to thy\n    fellow-soldiers. Dost thou recoil at the weight of thy arms, O\n    delicate soldier! Before the enemy\u2019s darts the shield is no burden,\n    nor the helmet heavy. The bravest soldiers tremble when the trumpet is\n    heard before the battle is joined; but then hope of victory and fear\n    of defeat make them brave. How canst thou tremble, walled round with\n    the zeal of thy armed brethren, angels bearing aid at thy right hand,\n    and thy leader Christ? There shalt thou safely fight, secure of\n    victory. O battle, safe with Christ and for Christ! In which there is\n    no wound or defeat or circumvention so long as thou fleest not. Only\n    flight loses the victory, which death does not lose. Blessed art thou,\n    and quickly to be crowned, dying in battle. Woe for thee, if\n    recoiling, thou losest at once the victory and the crown--which may He\n    avert, my beloved son, who in the Judgment will award thee deeper\n    damnation because of this letter of mine if He finds thee to have\n    taken no amendment from it.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is God\u2019s work,\u201d said Bernard to the hesitating scribe. These words\nsuggest the character of the love which inspired this letter. He loved\nRobert as man yearns for man; but his motive was to do God\u2019s will, and win\nthe young man back to salvation. In after years this young man returned to\nClara Vallis.\n\nIt was Bernard\u2019s lot to write many letters urging procrastinators to\nfulfil their vows,[478] or appealing to those who had laid aside the arms\nof austerity, perhaps betaking themselves to the more worldly life of the\nsecular clergy. This seems to have been the case with a young canon Fulco,\nwhom an ambitious uncle sought to draw back to the world, or at least to a\ncareer of sacerdotal emolument. In fact, Fulco at last became an\narchdeacon; from which it may be inferred that in his case Bernard\u2019s\nappeal was not successful. He had poured forth his arguments in an ardent\nletter.[479] Love compels him to use words to make the recipient grieve;\nfor love would have him feel grief, that he might no longer have true\ncause for grief--good mother love, who can cherish the weak, exercise\nthose who have entered upon their course, or quell the restless, and so\nshow herself differently toward her sons, all of whom she loves. This\nletter, like the one to Robert, concludes with a burning peroration:\n\n    \u201cWhat dost thou in the city, dainty soldier? Thy fellows whom thou\n    hast deserted, fight and conquer; they storm heaven (_coelum rapiunt_)\n    and reign, and thou, sitting on thy palfrey (_ambulatorem_), clothed\n    in purple and fine linen, goest ambling about the highways!\u201d\n\nBernard also wrote letters of consolation to parents whose sons had become\nmonks, or letters of warning to those who sought to withdraw a monk from\nhis good fight. In one instance, his influence had made a monk of a youth\nof gentle birth named Godfrey, to his parents\u2019 grief. So Bernard writes to\nthem:\n\n    \u201cIf God makes your son His also, what have you lost, or he? He, from\n    rich, becomes richer, from being noble, still more illustrious, and\n    what is more than all, from a sinner he becomes a saint. It behoved\n    him to be made ready for the Kingdom prepared for him from the\n    foundation of the world, and for this reason it is well for him to\n    spend with us his short span of days, so that clean from the filth of\n    living in the world, earth\u2019s dust shaken off, he may become fit for\n    the heavenly mansion. If you love him you will rejoice that he goes to\n    his Father, and such a Father! He goes to God, but you do not lose\n    him; rather through him you gain many sons. For all of us who belong\n    to Clara Vallis have taken him to be our brother and you for our\n    parents.\n\n    \u201cPerhaps you fear this hard life for his tender body--that were to\n    fear where there is nothing to fear. Have faith and be comforted. I\n    will be a father to him and he shall be my son until from my hands the\n    Father of Mercies and God of all consolation shall receive him. Do not\n    grieve; do not weep; your Godfrey is hastening to joy, not to sorrow.\n    A father to him will I be, a mother too, a brother and a sister. I\n    will make the crooked ways straight, and the steep places plain. I\n    will so temper and provide for him that as his spirit profits, his\n    body shall not want. So shall he serve the Lord in joy and gladness,\n    and shall sing before Him, How great is the glory of the Lord.\u201d[480]\n\nYoung Godfrey was a daintily nurtured plant. For all the Abbot\u2019s eloquence\nhe did not stay in Clara Vallis. The world drew him back. It was now for\nthe saint to weep:\n\n    \u201cI grieve over thee, my son Godfrey; I grieve over thee. And with\n    reason. For who would not lament that the flower of thy youth which,\n    to the joy of angels, thou didst offer unsullied to God in the odour\n    of sweetness, is now trampled on by demons, defiled with sins, and\n    contaminated by the world. How could you, who were called by God,\n    follow the devil recalling thee? How could you, whom He had begun to\n    draw to Himself, withdraw your foot from the very entry upon glory? In\n    thee I see the truth of those words: \u2018A man\u2019s foes are they of his own\n    household.\u2019 Thy friends and neighbours drew near and stood up against\n    thee. They called thee back into the jaws of the lion and the gates of\n    death. They have set thee in darkness, like the dead; and thou art\n    nigh to go down into the belly of hell, which now is ravening to\n    devour thee.\n\n    \u201cTurn back, I say, turn back, before the abyss swallows you and the\n    pit closes its mouth, before you are engulfed whence you shall not\n    escape, before, bound hand and foot, you are cast into outer darkness\n    where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, before you are hurled\n    into darkness, shut in with the darkness of death.\n\n    \u201cPerhaps you blush to return, where you have only now fallen away.\n    Blush for flight, and not for turning to renew the combat. The\n    conflict is not ended; the hostile arrays have not withdrawn from each\n    other. We would not conquer without you, nor do we envy you your share\n    of the glory. Joyful we will run to thee, and receive thee in our\n    arms, crying: \u2018It is meet to make merry and be glad; for this our son\n    was dead and is alive again, was lost and is found.\u2019\u201d[481]\n\nWho knows whether this letter brought back the little monk? Bernard wrote\nso lovingly to him, so gently to his parents. He could write otherwise,\nand show himself insensible to this world\u2019s pestering tears. To the\nimportunate parents of a monk named Elias, who would drag him away from\nClara Vallis, Bernard writes in their son\u2019s name thus:\n\n    \u201cTo his dear parents, Ingorranus and Iveta, Elias, monk but sinner,\n    sends daily prayers.\n\n    \u201cThe only cause for which it is permitted not to obey parents is God;\n    for He said: \u2018Whoso loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy\n    of me.\u2019 If you truly love me as good and faithful parents, why do you\n    molest my endeavour to please the Father of all, and attempt to\n    withdraw me from the service of Him, to serve whom is to reign? For\n    this I ought not to obey you as parents, but regard you as enemies. If\n    you loved me, you would rejoice, because I go to my Father and yours.\n    But what is there between you and me? What have I from you save sin\n    and misery? And indeed the corruptible body which I carry I admit I\n    have from you. Is it not enough that you brought miserable me into the\n    misery of this hateful world? that you, sinners, in your sin produced\n    a sinner? and that him born in sin, in sin you nourished? Envying the\n    mercy which I have obtained from Him who desireth not the death of a\n    sinner, would you make me a child of hell?\n\n    \u201cO harsh father! savage mother! parents cruel and impious--parents!\n    rather destroyers, whose grief is the safety of the child, whose\n    consolation is the death of their son! who would drag me back to the\n    shipwreck which I, naked, escaped; who would give me again to the\n    robbers when through the good Samaritan I am a little recovering from\n    my wounds.\n\n    \u201cCease then, my parents,\u201d concludes the letter after many other\n    reproofs, \u201ccease to afflict yourselves with vain weeping and to\n    disquiet me. No messengers you send will force me to leave. Clara\n    Vallis will I never forsake. This is my rest, and here shall be my\n    habitation. Here will I pray without ceasing for my sins and yours;\n    here with constant prayer will I implore that He whose love has\n    separated us for a little while, will join us in another life happy\n    and inseparable,--in whose love we may live forever and ever.\n    Amen.\u201d[482]\n\nIf Bernard was severe toward those who threatened some loved person\u2019s\nweal, his anger burned more fiercely against those whom he deemed enemies\nof God. Heavy was his hand upon the evils of the Church: \u201cThe insolence of\nthe clergy--to which the bishop\u2019s neglect is mother--troubles the earth\nand molests the Church. The bishops give what is holy to the dogs, and\npearls to swine.\u201d[483]\n\nLikewise, fearlessly but with restraint arising from his respect for all\npower ordained of God, Bernard opposes kings. Thus he writes to Louis the\nFat, in regard to the election of a bishop, with many protests, however,\nthat he would not oppose the royal power--for which we note his reason:\n\u201cIf the whole world conspired to force me to do aught against kingly\nmajesty, yet would I fear God, and would not dare to offend the king\nordained by Him. For neither do I forget where I read that whosoever\nresisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God.\u201d But--but--but--continues\nthe letter, through many qualifyings which are also admonitions. At last\ncome the words: \u201cIt is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the\nliving God, even for thee, O king.\u201d Thereupon the saint does not fail to\nspeak his mind.[484]\n\nBernard\u2019s fiercest denunciations were reserved for heretics and\nschismatics, for Abaelard, for Arnold of Brescia, for the Antipope\nAnacletus--were they not enemies of God? Clearly the saint saw and\nunderstood these men from his point of view. Thus in a letter to Innocent\nII.[485] he sums up his attitude towards Abaelard: \u201cPeter Abaelard is\ntrying to make void the merit of Christian faith, when he deems himself\nable by human reason to comprehend God altogether. He ascends to the\nheavens and descends even to the abyss! Nothing may hide from him in the\ndepths of hell or in the heights above! The man is great in his own\neyes--this scrutinizer of Majesty and fabricator of heresies.\u201d Here was\nthe gist of the matter. That a man should be great in his own eyes, apart\nfrom God, and teach others so, stirred Bernard\u2019s bowels.[486]\n\nOf Arnold, the impetuous clerical revolutionist and pupil of Abaelard,\nBernard writes with fury: \u201cArnold of Brescia, whose speech is honey and\nwhose teaching poison, whom Brescia vomited forth, Rome abhorred, France\nrepelled, Germany abominates, Italy will not receive, is said to be with\nyou.\u201d[487] Again, Bernard rejoices with great joy when he hears that the\nanti-pope who divided Christendom was dead.[488]\n\nIt is pleasant to turn back to Bernard\u2019s lovingness and mercy. His God\nwould not condemn those who repented; and the saint can be gentle toward\nsinners possibly repentant. He urges certain monks to receive back an\nerring brother: \u201cTake him back then, you who are spiritual, in the spirit\nof gentleness; let love be confirmed in him, and let good intention excuse\nthe evil done. Receive back with joy him whom you wept as lost.\u201d[489] In\nanother letter he urges a countess to be more lenient with her\nchildren;[490] and there is a story of his begging a robber from the hands\nof the executioners, and leading him to Clara Vallis, where he became at\nlength a holy man.[491]\n\nSo one sees Bernard\u2019s severity, his gentle mercy, and the love burning\nwithin him for his fellows\u2019 good. Such were the emotions of Bernard the\nsaint. The man\u2019s human heart could also yearn, and feel bereavement in\nspite of faith. As his zeal draws him from land to land, he is home-sick\nfor Clara Vallis. From Italy, in 1137, fighting to crush the anti-pope, a\nletter carries his yearning love to his dear ones there:\n\n    \u201cSad is my soul, and not to be consoled, until I may return. For what\n    consolation save you in the Lord have I in an evil time and in the\n    place of my pilgrimage? Wherever I go, your sweet recollection does\n    not leave me; but the sweeter the memory the more vexing is the\n    absence. Alas! my wandering not only is prolonged but aggravated. Hard\n    enough is exile from the Lord, which is common to us all while we are\n    pilgrims in the body. But I endure a special exile also, compelled to\n    live away from you.\n\n    \u201cFor a third time my bowels are torn from me.[492] Those little\n    children are weaned before the time; the very ones whom I begot\n    through the Gospel I may not educate. I am forced to abandon my own,\n    and care for the affairs of others; and it is not easy to say whether\n    to be dragged from the former, or to be involved in the latter is\n    harder to bear. Thus, O good Jesus, my whole life is spent in grief\n    and my years in groaning! It is good for me, O Lord, to die, rather\n    than to live and not among my brothers, my own household, my own\n    dearest ones.\u201d[493]\n\nBernard had a younger brother, Gerard, whom he deeply loved. In 1138 he\ndied while still young, and having recently returned with Bernard from\nItaly. Bernard, dry-eyed, read the burial-service over his body; so says\nhis biographer wondering, for the saint was not wont to bury even\nstrangers without tears.[494] No other eyes were dry at that funeral.\nAfterwards he preached a sermon;[495] it began with restraint, then became\na long cry of grief.\n\nThe saint took the text from Canticles where he had left off in his\nprevious sermon--\u201cI am black, but comely, as the tents of Kedar.\u201d He\nproceeded to expound its meaning: the tents are our bodies, in which we\npilgrims dwell and carry on our war. Then he spoke of other portions of\nthe text--and suddenly deferred the whole subject till his next sermon:\nGrief ordains an end, \u201cand the calamity which I suffer.\u201d\n\n    \u201cFor why dissemble, or conceal the fire which is scorching my sad\n    breast? What have I to do with this Song, I who am in bitterness? The\n    power of grief turns my intent, and the anger of the Lord has parched\n    my spirit. I did violence to my soul and dissembled till now, lest\n    sorrow should seem to conquer faith. Others wept, but with dry eyes I\n    followed the hateful funeral, and dry-eyed stood at the tomb, until\n    all the solemnities were performed. In my priestly robes I finished\n    the prayers, and sprinkled the earth over the body of my loved one\n    about to become earth. Those who looked on, weeping, wondered that I\n    did not. With such strength as I could command, I resisted and\n    struggled not to be moved at nature\u2019s due, at the fiat of the\n    Powerful, at the decree of the Just, at the scourge of the Terrible,\n    at the will of the Lord. But though tears were pressed back, I could\n    not command my sadness; and grief, suppressed, roots deeper. I confess\n    I am beaten. My sorrow will out before the eyes of my children who\n    understand and will console.\n\n    \u201cYou know, my sons, how just is my grief. You know what a comrade has\n    left me in the path wherein I was walking. He was my brother in blood\n    and still closer by religion. I was weak in body, and he carried me;\n    faint-hearted, and he comforted me; lazy, and he spurred me;\n    thoughtless, and he admonished me. Whither art thou snatched away,\n    snatched from my hands! O bitter separation, which only death could\n    bring; for living, thou wouldst never leave me. Why did we so love,\n    and now have lost each other! Hard state, but my fortune, not his, is\n    to be pitied. For thou, dear brother, if thou hast lost dear ones,\n    hast gained those who are dearer. Me only this separation wounds.\n    Sweet was our presence to each other, sweet our consorting, sweet our\n    colloquy; I have lost these joys; thou hast but changed them. Now,\n    instead of such a worm as me, thou hast the presence of Christ. But\n    what have I in place of thee? And perhaps though thou knewest us in\n    the flesh, now that thou hast entered into the power of the Lord, thou\n    art mindful only of His righteousness, forgetting us.\n\n    \u201cI seem to hear my brother saying: \u2018Can a woman forget her sucking\n    child; even so, yet will I not forget thee.\u2019 That does not help, where\n    no hand is stretched out.\u201d\n\nBernard speaks of Gerard\u2019s unfailing helpfulness to him and every one, and\nof his piety and religious life. He feels the cares of his life and\nstation closing around him, and his brother gone. Then he justifies his\ngrief, and pours it forth unrestrained. Would any one bid him not to weep?\nas well tell him not to feel when his bowels were torn from him; he feels,\nfor his flesh is not brass; he grieves, and his grief is ever before him:\n\n    \u201cI confess my sorrow. Will some one call me carnal? Certainly I am\n    human, since I am a man. Nor do I deny being carnal, for I am, and\n    sold under sin, adjudged to death and punishment. I am not insensible\n    to punishments; I shudder at death, my own or others\u2019. Mine was\n    Gerard, mine! He is gone, and I feel, and am wounded, grievously!\n\n    \u201cPardon me, my sons; or rather lament your father\u2019s state. Pity me,\n    and think how grievously I have been requited for my sins by the hand\n    of God. Though I feel the punishment, I do not impugn the sentence.\n    This is human; that would be impious. Man must needs be affected\n    towards those dear to him, with gladness at their presence, with\n    sorrow at their absence. I grieve over thee, Gerard, my beloved, not\n    because thou art to be pitied, but because thou art taken away. May it\n    be that I have not lost thee, but sent thee on before! Be it granted\n    me some time to follow whither thou art gone; for thou hast joined the\n    company of those heavenly ones on whom in thy last hours thou didst\n    call exultingly to praise the Lord. For thee death had no sting, nor\n    any fear. Through his jaws Gerard passed to his Fatherland safe and\n    glad and exulting. When I reached his side, and he had finished the\n    psalm, looking up to heaven, he said in a clear voice: \u2018Father, into\n    thy hands I commend my spirit.\u2019 Then saying over again and again the\n    word, \u2018Father, Father,\u2019 he turned his joyful face to me, and said:\n    \u2018What great condescension that God should be father to men! What glory\n    for men to be sons of God and heirs of God!\u2019 So he rejoiced, till my\n    grief was almost turned to a song of gladness.\n\n    \u201cBut the pang of sorrow calls me back from that lovely vision, as care\n    wakens one from light slumber. I grieve, but only over myself; I\n    lament his loss to this household, to the poor, to all our Order; whom\n    did he not comfort with deed and word and example? Grievously am I\n    afflicted, because I love vehemently. And let no one blame my tears;\n    for Jesus wept at Lazarus\u2019s tomb. His tears bore witness to His\n    nature, not to His lack of faith. So these tears of mine; they show my\n    sorrow, not my faithlessness. I grieve, but do not murmur. Lord, I\n    will sing of thy mercy and righteousness. Thou gavest Gerard; thou\n    hast taken him. Though we grieve that he is gone, we thank thee for\n    the gift.\n\n    \u201cI bear in mind, O Lord, my pact and thy commiseration, that thou\n    mightest the more be justified in thy word. For when last year we were\n    in Viterbo, and he fell sick, and I was afflicted at the thought of\n    losing him in a strange land and not bringing him back to those who\n    loved him, I prayed to thee with groans and tears: \u2018Wait, O Lord,\n    until our return. When he is restored to his friends, take him, if\n    thou wilt, and I will not complain.\u2019 Thou heardest me, God; he\n    recovered; we finished the work thou hadst laid on us, and returned in\n    gladness bringing our sheaves of peace. Then I was near to forget my\n    pact, but not so thou. I shame me of these sobs, which convict me of\n    prevarication. Thou hast recalled thy loan, thou hast taken again what\n    was thine. Tears set an end to words; thou, O Lord, wilt set to them\n    limit and measure.\u201d[496]\n\nWe may now turn to Bernard\u2019s love of God, and rise with him from the\nfleshly to the spiritual, from the conditioned to the absolute. There is\nno break; love is always love. More especially the love of Christ, the\nGod-man is the mediating term: He presents the Godhead in human form; to\nlove Him is to know a love attaching to both God and man.\n\nGuigo, Prior of the \u201cGrande Chartreuse,\u201d whose _Meditations_ have been\ngiven,[497] was Bernard\u2019s friend, and wrote to him upon love. Bernard\nreplies: \u201cWhile I was reading it, I felt sparks in my breast, from which\nmy heart glowed within me as from that fire which the Lord sent upon the\nearth!\u201d He hesitates to suggest anything to Guigo\u2019s fervent spirit, as he\nwould hesitate to rouse a bride quiet in the bridegroom\u2019s arms. Yet \u201cwhat\nI do not dare, love dares; it boldly knocks at a friend\u2019s door, fearing no\nrepulse, and quite careless of disturbing your delightful ease with its\naffairs.\u201d Bernard is here speaking of love\u2019s importunate devotion; his\nwords characterize the soul\u2019s importuning of God:\n\n    \u201cI should call love undefiled because it keeps nothing of its own.\n    Indeed it has nothing of its own, for everything which it has is\n    God\u2019s. The undefiled law of the Lord is love, which seeks not what\n    profits itself but what profits many. It is called the law of the\n    Lord, either because He lives by it, or because no one possesses it\n    save by His gift. It is not irrational to speak of God as living by\n    law, that law being love. Indeed in the blessed highest Trinity what\n    preserves that highest ineffable unity, except love?\u201d\n\nSo far, Bernard has been using the word _charitas_. Now, in order to\nindicate love\u2019s desire, he begins to use the words _cupiditas_ and\n_amor_.[498] When these yearning qualities are rightly guided by God\u2019s\ngrace, what is good will be cherished for the sake of what is better, the\nbody will be loved for the soul\u2019s sake, the soul for God\u2019s sake, and God\nfor His own sake.\n\n    \u201cYet because we are of the flesh (_carnales_) and are begotten through\n    the flesh\u2019s concupiscence, our yearning love (_cupiditas vel amor\n    noster_) must begin from the flesh; yet if rightly directed, advancing\n    under the leadership of grace, it will be consummated in spirit. For\n    that which is first is not spiritual, but that which is natural\n    (_animale_); then that which is spiritual. First man loves (_diligit_)\n    himself for his own sake. For he is flesh, and is able to understand\n    nothing beyond himself. When he sees that he cannot live\n    (_subsistere_) by himself alone, he begins, as it were from necessity,\n    to seek and love God. Thus, in this second stage, he loves God, but\n    only for his own sake. Yet as his necessities lead him to cultivate\n    and dwell with God in thinking, reading, praying, and obeying, God\n    little by little becomes known and becomes sweet. Having thus tasted\n    how sweet is the Lord, he passes to the third stage, where he loves\n    God for God\u2019s sake. Whether any man in this life has perfectly\n    attained the fourth stage, where he loves himself for God\u2019s sake, I do\n    not know. Let those say who have knowledge; for myself, I confess it\n    seems impossible. Doubtless it will be so when the good and faithful\n    servant shall have entered into the joy of his Lord, and shall be\n    drunk with the flowing richness of God\u2019s house. Then oblivious to\n    himself, he will pass to God and become one spirit with Him.\u201d[499]\n\nSo one sees the stages through which love of self and lust of fellow\nbecome love of God. A responsive emotion attends each ascending step in\nthe saint\u2019s intellectual apprehension of love--as one should bear in mind\nwhile following the larger exposition of the theme in Bernard\u2019s _De\ndeligendo Deo_.[500]\n\nThe cause and reason for loving God is God; the _mode_ is to love without\nmeasure: \u201cCausa diligendi Deum, Deus est; modus, sine modo diligere.\u201d\nShould we love God because of His desert, or our advantage? For both\nreasons. On the score of His desert, because He first loved us. What stint\nshall there be to my love of Him who is my life\u2019s free giver, its\nbounteous administrator, its kind consoler, its solicitous ruler, its\nredeemer, eternal preserver and glorifier? On the other hand, \u201cGod is not\nloved without reward; but He should be loved without regard to the\nreward. _Charitas_ seeks not its own. It is affection and not a contract;\nit is not bought, nor does it buy. _Amor_ is satisfied with itself. It has\nthe reward, which is what is loved. True love demands no reward, but\nmerits one. The reward, although not sought by the lover, is due him, and\nwill be rendered if he perseveres.\u201d\n\nBernard proceeds to expound the four stages or grades (_gradus_) of love:\n\n    \u201cLove is a natural affection, one of the four.[501] As it exists by\n    nature, it should diligently serve the Author of nature first of all.\n    But as nature is frail and weak, love is compelled by necessity first\n    to serve itself. This is carnal love, whereby, above everything, man\n    loves himself for his own sake. It is not set forth by precept, but is\n    rooted in nature; for who hates his own flesh? As love becomes more\n    ready and profuse, it is not content with the channel of necessity,\n    but will pour forth and overspread the broad fields of pleasure. At\n    once the overflow is bridled by the command, \u2018Thou shalt love thy\n    neighbour as thyself.\u2019 This is just and needful, lest what is part of\n    nature should have no part in grace. A man may concede to himself what\n    he will, so long as he is mindful to provide the same for his\n    neighbour. The bridle of temperance is imposed on thee, O man, out of\n    the law of life and discipline, in order that thou shouldst not follow\n    thy desires, nor with the good things of nature serve the enemy of the\n    soul, which is lust. If thou wilt turn away from thy pleasures, and be\n    content with food and raiment, little by little it will not so burden\n    thee to keep thy love from carnal desires, which war against the soul.\n    Thy love will be temperate and righteous when what is withdrawn from\n    its own pleasures is not denied to its brother\u2019s needs. Thus carnal\n    love becomes social when extended to one\u2019s kind.\n\n    \u201cYet in order that perfect justice should exist in the love of\n    neighbour, God must be regarded (_Deum in causa haberi necesse est_).\n    How can one love his neighbour purely who does not love in God? God\n    makes Himself loved, He who makes all things good. He who founded\n    nature so made it that it should always need to be sustained by Him.\n    In order that no creature might be ignorant of this, and arrogate for\n    himself the good deeds of the Creator, the Founder wisely decreed that\n    man should be tried in tribulations. By this means, when he shall have\n    failed and God have aided, God shall be honoured by him whom He has\n    delivered. The result is that man, animal and carnal, who knew not how\n    to love any one beside himself, begins for his own sake to love God;\n    because he has found out that in God he can accomplish everything\n    profitable, and without Him can do nothing.\n\n    \u201cSo now for his own interest, he loves God--love\u2019s second grade; but\n    does not yet love God for God\u2019s sake. If, however, tribulation keeps\n    assailing him, and he continually turns to God for aid, and God\n    delivers him, will not the man so oft delivered, though he have a\n    breast of iron and a heart of stone, be drawn to cherish his\n    deliverer, and love Him not only for His aid but for Himself? Frequent\n    necessities compel man to come to God incessantly; repeatedly he\n    tastes and, by tasting, proves how sweet is the Lord. At length God\u2019s\n    sweetness, rather than human need, draws the man to love Him.\n    Thereafter it will not be hard for the man to fulfil the command to\n    love his neighbour. Truly loving God, he loves for this reason those\n    who are God\u2019s. He loves chastely, and is not oppressed through obeying\n    the chaste command; he loves justly, and willingly embraces the just\n    command. That is the third grade of love, when God is loved for\n    Himself.\n\n    \u201cHappy is he who attains to the fourth grade, where man loves himself\n    only on account of God. Thy righteousness, O God, is as the mountain\n    of God; love is that mountain, that high mountain of God. Who shall\n    ascend into the mountain of the Lord? Who will give me the wings of a\n    dove and I will fly away and be at rest. Alas! for my long-drawn\n    sojourning! When shall I gain that habitation in Zion, and my soul\n    become one spirit with God? Blessed and holy will I call him to whom\n    in this mortal life such has been given though but once. For to be\n    lost to self and not to feel thyself, and to be emptied of thyself and\n    almost to be made nothing, that pertains to heavenly intercourse, not\n    to human affection. And if any one among mortals here gain admission\n    for an instant, at once the wicked world is envious, the day\u2019s evil\n    disturbs, the body of death drags down, fleshly necessity solicits,\n    corruption\u2019s debility does not sustain, and, fiercest of all,\n    brotherly love calls back! Alas! he is dragged back to himself, and\n    forced to cry: \u2018O Lord, I suffer violence, answer thou for me\u2019 (Isa.\n    xxxviii. 14); \u2018Who will deliver me from the body of this death?\u2019 (Rom.\n    vii. 24).\n\n    \u201cYet Scripture says that God made all things for His own sake; that\n    will come to pass when the creation is in full accord with its Author.\n    Therefore we must sometime pass into that state wherein we do not wish\n    to be ourselves or anything else, except for His sake and by reason of\n    His will, not ours. Then not our need or happiness, but His will, will\n    be fulfilled in us. O holy love and chaste! O sweet affection! O pure\n    and purged intention of the will, in which nothing of its own is\n    mingled! This is it to be made God (_deificari_). As the drop of water\n    is diffused in a jar of wine, taking its taste and colour, and as\n    molten iron becomes like to fire and casts off its form, and as the\n    air transfused with sunlight is transformed into that same brightness\n    of light, so that it seems not illumined, but itself to be the light,\n    thus in the saints every human affection must in some ineffable mode\n    be liquefied of itself and transfused into the will of God. How could\n    God be all in all if in man anything of man remained? A certain\n    substance will remain, but in another form, another glory, another\n    power.\u201d\n\nHereupon St. Bernard considers how this fourth grade of love will be\nattained in the resurrection, and \u201cperpetually possessed, when God only is\nloved and we love ourselves only for His sake, that He may be the\nrecompense and aim (_praemium_) of those who love themselves, the eternal\nrecompense of those who love eternally.\u201d\n\nChrist is the universal Mediator between God and man, not only because\nreconciling them, but as forming the intervening term, the concrete\ninstance of the One suited to the comprehension of the other. Such\nthoughts and sentiments as commonly apply to man, when they are applied to\nChrist become fit to apply to God. Herein especially may be perceived the\ncontinuing identity of love, whether relating to human beings or to God.\nThe soul\u2019s love of Christ is mediatorial, and symbolic of its love of God.\nAll of which Bernard has demonstrated with conjoined power of argument and\nfeeling in his famous _Sermons on Canticles_.[502]\n\nThe human personality of Christ draws men to love Him, till their love is\npurged of carnality and exalted to a perfect love of God:\n\n    \u201cObserve that the heart\u2019s love is partly carnal; it is affected\n    through the flesh of Christ and what He said and did while in the\n    flesh. Filled with this love, the heart is readily touched by\n    discourse upon His words and acts. It hears of nothing more willingly,\n    reads nothing more carefully, recalls nothing more frequently, and\n    meditates upon nothing more sweetly. When man prays, the sacred image\n    of the God-man is with him, as He was born or suckled, as He taught or\n    died, rose from the dead or ascended to heaven. This image never fails\n    to nerve man\u2019s mind with the love of virtue, cast out the vices of the\n    flesh and quell its lusts. I deem the principal reason why the\n    invisible God wished to be seen in the flesh, and, as man, hold\n    intercourse with men, was that He might draw the affections of carnal\n    men, who could only love carnally, to a salutary love of His flesh,\n    and then on to a spiritual love.\u201d\n\nConversely, the Saviour\u2019s example teaches men how they should love Him:\n\n    \u201cHe loved sweetly, wisely, and bravely: sweetly, in that He put on\n    flesh; wisely, in that He avoided fault; bravely, in that He bore\n    death. Those, however, with whom He sojourned in the flesh, He did not\n    love carnally, but in prudence of spirit. Learn then, Christian, from\n    Christ how to love Christ.\u201d\n\nBernard shows how even the Apostles failed sometimes to love Him according\nto His perfect teaching and example:\n\n    \u201cGood, indeed, is this carnal love,\u201d he concludes, \u201cthrough which a\n    carnal life is shut out; and the world is despised and conquered. This\n    love progresses as it becomes rational, and perfected as it becomes\n    spiritual.\u201d[503]\n\nFrom his own experiences Bernard could have spoken much of the winning\npower of Jesus, and could have told how sweetly it drew him to love his\nSaviour\u2019s steps from Bethlehem to Calvary. The fifteenth sermon upon\nCanticles is on the healing power of Jesus\u2019 name.\n\n    \u201cDry is all food for the soul unless anointed with that oil. Whatever\n    you write is not to my taste unless I read Jesus there. Your talk and\n    disputation is nothing unless that name is rung. Jesus is honey in the\n    mouth, melody in the ear, joy in the heart. He is medicine as well. Is\n    any one troubled, let Jesus come into the heart and thence leap to the\n    lips, and behold! at the rising of that bright name the clouds scatter\n    and the air is again serene. If any one slips in crime, and then\n    desponds amid the snares of death, will he not, invoking that name of\n    life, regain the breath of life? In whom can hardness of heart, sloth,\n    rancour, languishment stand before that name? In whom at its\n    invocation will not the dried fount of tears burst forth more\n    abundantly and sweetly? To what fearful trembler did the power of that\n    name ever fail to bring back confidence? To what man struggling amid\n    doubts did not the clear assurance of that name, invoked, shine forth?\n    Who despairing in adversity lacked fortitude if that name sounded?\n    These are the languors and sickness of the soul, and that the\n    medicine. Nothing is as potent to restrain the attack of wrath, or\n    quell the tumour of pride, or heal envy\u2019s wound, or put out the fire\n    of lust, or temper avarice. When I name Jesus, I see before me a man\n    meek and humble of heart, benignant, sober, chaste, pitying, holy, who\n    heals me with His example and strengthens me with aid. I take example\n    from the Man, and draw aid from the Mighty One. Here hast thou, O my\n    soul, an herb of price, hidden in the vessel of that name, bringing\n    thee health surely and in thy sickness failing thee never.\u201d\n\nThis is a little illustration of Bernard\u2019s love of the Christ-man, a love\nwhich is ever taking on spiritual hues and changing to a love of the\nChrist-God. Christians, from the time of Origen, had recognized the many\noffices of Christ, the many saving potencies in which He ministered unto\neach soul according to its need. And so Bernard preaches that the sick\nsoul needs Christ as the physician, but that the saintly soul has other\nyearnings for a more perfect communion.\n\nThis perfect communion, this most complete relationship which in this\nmortal life a soul can have with Christ, with God, had been symbolized,\nlikewise ever since the time of Origen, by the words Bride and Bridegroom,\nand the Song of Songs had furnished the burning phrases. With surpassing\nspirituality Bernard uses the texts of Canticles to set forth the\nrelationship of the soul to Christ, of man to God. The texts are what they\nare, burning, sensuous, fleshly, intense, and beautiful--every one knows\nthem; but in Bernard\u2019s sermons flesh fades before the spirit\u2019s whiter\nglow.\n\n    \u201cO love (_amor_), headlong, vehement, burning, impetuous, that canst\n    think of nothing beyond thyself, detesting all else, despising all\n    else, satisfied with thyself! Thou dost confound ranks, carest for no\n    usage, knowest no measure. In thyself dost thou triumph over apparent\n    opportuneness, reason, shame, council and judgment, and leadest them\n    into captivity. Everything which the soul-bride utters resounds of\n    thee and nothing else; so hast thou possessed her heart and\n    tongue.\u201d[504]\n\nWhat Bernard here ejaculates as to the overwhelming sufficiency of love,\nhe sets forth finally in a sustained and reasoned passage, in which man\u2019s\nways of loving God are cast together in a sequence of ardent thought and\nimage. He has been explaining the soul\u2019s likeness to the Word. Although it\nbe afflicted and defiled by sin, it may yet venture to come to Him whose\nlikeness it retains, however obscured. The soul does not leave God by\nchange of place, but, in the manner of spiritual substance, by becoming\ndepraved. The return of the soul is its conversion, in which it is made\nconformable to God.\n\n    \u201cSuch conformity marries the soul to the Word, whom it is like by\n    nature, and may show itself like in will, loving as it is loved. If it\n    loves perfectly it weds. What more delightful than this conformity,\n    what more desirable than this love, through which thou, O soul,\n    faithfully drawest near to the Word, with constancy cleavest to the\n    Word, consulting Him in everything, as capable in intellect as\n    audacious in desire. Spiritual is the contracting of these holy\n    nuptials, wherein always to will the same makes one spirit out of two.\n    No fear lest the disparity of persons make but a lame concurrence of\n    wills: for love does not know respect. The name love comes from loving\n    and not from honouring. He may honour who dreads, who is struck dumb\n    with fear and wonder. Not so the lover. Love aboundeth in itself, and\n    derides and imprisons the other emotions. Wherefore she who loves,\n    loves, and knows nothing else. And He who is to be honoured and\n    marvelled at, still loves rather to be loved. Bridegroom and Bride\n    they are. And what necessity or bond is there between spouses except\n    to be loved and love?\n\n    \u201cThink also, that the Bridegroom is not only loving but very love. Is\n    He also honour? I have not so read. I have read that God is love; not\n    that He is honour, or dignity. God indeed demands to be feared as\n    Lord, to be honoured as Father, and as Bridegroom to be loved. Which\n    excels the rest? Love, surely. Without it, fear is penal, and honour\n    graceless. Fear is slavish till manumitted by love; and the honour\n    which does not rise from love is adulation. To God alone belong honour\n    and glory; but He will accept neither unless it is flavoured with\n    love\u2019s honey.\n\n    \u201cLove asks neither cause nor fruit beyond itself. I love because I\n    love; I love that I may love. A great thing is love. Among all the\n    movements, sensations, and affections of the soul, it is the only one\n    wherein the creature can make a return to its Author. If God be angry\n    with me, shall I likewise be angry with Him? Nay, I will fear and\n    tremble and beseech. If He accuse me, I will make no counter-charge,\n    but plead before Him. If He judge me, I will not judge but worship.\n    And when He saves me, He asks not to be saved by me; nor does He who\n    frees all ask to be freed of any one. Likewise if He commands, I obey,\n    and do not order Him. Now see how different it is with love. For when\n    God loves, He wishes only to be loved; He loves with no other end than\n    to be loved, knowing that those who love are blessed with love itself.\n\n\n    \u201cA great thing is love; but there are grades in it. The Bride stands\n    at the summit. Sons love, but they are thinking of their inheritance.\n    Fearing to lose that, they honour, rather than love, him from whom\n    they expect it. Love is suspect when its suffrage appears to be won by\n    hope of gain. Weak is it, if it cease or lessen with that hope\n    withdrawn. It is impure if it desires anything else. Pure love is not\n    mercenary: it gains no strength from hope, nor weakens with lack of\n    trust. This love is the Bride\u2019s, because she is what she is by love.\n    Love is the Bride\u2019s sole hope and interest. In it the Bride abounds\n    and the Bridegroom is content. He seeks nothing else, nor has she\n    ought beside. Hence he is Bridegroom and she Bride. This belongs to\n    spouses which none else, not even a son, can attain. Man is commanded\n    to honour his father and mother; but there is silence as to love.\n    Which is not because parents are not to be loved by their sons; but\n    because sons are rather moved to honour them. The honour of the King\n    loves judgment; but the Bridegroom\u2019s love--for He is love--asks only\n    love\u2019s return and faith.\n\n    \u201cRightly renouncing all other affections, the Bride reposes on love\n    alone, and returns a love reciprocal. And when she has poured her\n    whole self out in love, what is that compared with the perennial flood\n    of that fountain? Not equals in abundance are this loving one and\n    Love, the soul and the Word, the Bride and Bridegroom, creature and\n    Creator--no more than thirst equals the fount. What then? shall she\n    therefore despair, and the vow of the would-be Bride be rendered\n    empty? Shall the desire of this panting one, the ardour of this loving\n    one, the trust of this confiding one be baffled because she cannot\n    keep pace with the giant\u2019s course, in sweetness contend with honey, in\n    mildness with the Lamb, in whiteness with the Lily, in brightness with\n    the Sun, in love with Him who is love? No. For although the creature\n    loves less, because she is less, yet if she loves with her whole self,\n    nothing lacks where there is all. Wherefore, as I have said, so to\n    love is to have wedded; for no one can so love and yet be loved but\n    little, and in mutual consent stands the entire and perfect\n    marriage.\u201d[505]\n\nWho has not marvelled that the relationship of marriage should make so\nlarge a part of the symbolism through which monks and nuns expressed the\nsoul\u2019s love of God? Historically it might be traced to Paul\u2019s precept,\n\u201cHusbands love your wives, as Christ loved the Church\u201d; still more\npotently it was derived from the Song of Songs. But beyond these almost\nadventitious influences, did not the holy priest, the monk, the nun, feel\nand know that marriage was the great human relationship? So they drew from\nit the most adequate allegory of the soul\u2019s communion with its Maker:\ndifferently according to their sex, with much emotion, and even with\nunseemly imaginings, they thought and felt the love of God along the ways\nof wedded union or even bridal passion.[506]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI[507]\n\n\nTwenty-nine years after the death of St. Bernard, Francis was born in the\nUmbrian hill town of Assisi. The year was 1182. On the fourth of October\n1226, in the forty-fifth year of his age, this most loving and best\nbeloved of mediaeval saints breathed his last, in the little church of the\nPortiuncula, within the shadows of that same hill town.\n\nOf all mediaeval saints, Bernard and Francis impressed themselves most\nstrongly upon their times. Neither of them was pre-eminently an\nintellectual force--Francis especially would not have been what he was but\nfor certain childlike qualities of mind which never fell away from him.\nThe power of these men sprang from their personalities and the _vivida\nvis_ (their contemporaries would have said, the grace of God) realizing\nitself in every word and act. Bernard\u2019s power was more directly dependent\nupon the conditions of his epoch, and his influence was more limited in\nduration.\n\nThe reason is not far to seek. Both men were of the Middle Ages, even of\nthose decades in which they lived. But Bernard\u2019s strength was part of the\nmedium wherein he worked and the evil against which he fought--the\nclerical corruptions, the heresies, the schisms and political\ncontroversies, the warfare of Christ with Mahomet,--all matters of vital\nimport for his time, but which were to change and pass.\n\nFrancis, on the other hand, was occupied with none of these. He was no\nscourge of clerical corruptions, no scourge of anything; he knew nought of\nheresy or schism, nothing of politics or war; into the story of his life\nthere comes not even a far-off echo of the Albigensian Crusade or the\nconflict between pope and emperor. His life appears detached from the\nspecial conditions of his time; it is neither held within them nor\ncompelled by them, but only by its inner impulse. For it was not occupied\nwith the exigencies of Italy and Germany, or Southern France, during that\nfirst quarter of the thirteenth century, when De Montfort was hurling the\northodox and brutal north upon the fair but heretical provinces of\nLanguedoc, and when Innocent III. was excommunicating Otho IV., and\nFrederick II. was disclosing himself as the most dangerous foe the papacy\nhad yet known. The passing turmoil and danger of the time did not touch\nthis life; the man knew naught of all these things. He was not considering\nthirteenth-century Italians, Frenchmen, and Germans; he was fascinated\nwith men as men, with the dumb brutes as fellow-creatures, and even with\nplants and stones as vessels of God\u2019s loveliness or symbols of His Word;\nabove all he was absorbed in Christ, who had taken on humanity for him,\nhad suffered for him, died for him, and who now around, above, within him,\ninspired and directed his life.\n\nSo Francis\u2019s life was not compassed by its circumstances; nor was its\neffect limited to the thirteenth century. His life partook of the eternal\nand the universal, and might move men in times to come as simply and\ndirectly as it turned men\u2019s hearts to love in the years when Francis was\ntreading the rough stones of Assisi.\n\nOn the other hand, Francis was mediaeval and in a way to give concrete\nform and colour to the elements of universal manhood that were his. He was\nmediaeval in complete and finished mode; among mediaeval men he offers\nperhaps the most distinct and most perfectly consistent individuality. He\nis Francis of Assisi, born in 1182 and dying in 1226, and no one else who\never lived either there and then or elsewhere at some other time. He is\nFrancis of Assisi perfectly and always, a man presenting a complete\nartistic unity, never exhibiting act or word or motive out of character\nwith himself.\n\nFrom a slightly different point of view we may perceive how he was a\nperfect individual and at the same time a perfect mediaeval type. There\nwas no element in his character which was not assimilated and made into\nFrancis of Assisi. Anterior and external influences contributed to make\nthis Francis. But in entering him they ceased to be what they had been;\nthey changed and became Francis. For example, nothing of the antique, no\ndistinct bit of classical inheritance, appears in him; if, in any way, he\nwas touched by it--as in his joyous love of life and the world about\nhim--the influence had ceased to be anything distinct in him; it had\nbecome himself. Likewise, whatever he may have known of the Fathers and of\nall the dogmatic possession and ecclesiastical tradition of the Church,\nthis also was remade in Francis. Evidently such an all-assimilating and\ntransforming individuality could not have existed in those earlier\ncenturies when the immature mediaeval world was taking over its great\ninheritance from the pagan and Christian antique--those centuries when men\ncould but turn their heritage of thought and knowledge this way and that,\ndisturb and distort and rearrange it. Such an individuality as Francis\ncould exist only at the climax of the Middle Age, at the period of its\nfullest strength and greatest distinction, when it had masterfully changed\nafter its own heart whatever it had received from the past, and had made\nits transformed acquisitions into itself.\n\nFrancis is of this grand mediaeval climacteric. The Middle Ages were no\nlonger in a stage of transition from the antique; they had attained; they\nwere themselves. Sides of this distinctive mediaeval development and\ntemper express themselves in Francis--are Francis verily. The spirit of\nromance is incarnate in him. Roland, Oliver, Charlemagne (he of the\n_Chansons de geste_), and the knights of the Round Table, are part of\nFrancis;--his first disciples are his paladins. Again, instead of emperor\nor paladin, he is himself the _jongleour_, the _joculator Dei_ (God\u2019s\nminstrel).\n\nAnd of all that had become Francis the greatest was Christ. He had not\ntaken the theology of Augustine; he had not taken the Christ handed over\nby the transition centuries to the early Middle Ages; he had not adopted\nthe Christ of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. He took Jesus from the Gospel,\nor at least such elements of Jesus\u2019 life and teaching as he felt and\nunderstood. Francis modelled his life on his understanding of Christ and\nHis teaching. So many another saint had done; in fact, so must all\nChristians try to do. Francis accomplished it with completeness and power;\nhe created a new Christ life; a Christ life partial and reduced from the\nbreadth and balance of the original, yet veritable and living. Francis\nhimself felt that his whole life was Christ-directed and inspired, and\nthat even because of his own special insignificance Christ had chosen him\nto show forth the true Gospel life again--but chosen him indeed.[508]\n\nAlthough the life of Francis appears as if detached from the larger\npolitical and ecclesiastical movements of the time, it yields glimpses of\nthe ways and doings of the people of Assisi. We see their jealousies and\nquarrels, their war with Perugia, also their rustic readiness to jeer at\nthe unusual and incomprehensible; or we are struck with instances of the\nstupid obstinacy and intolerance often characterizing a small community.\nAgain, we see in some of those citizens an open and quick impulsiveness,\nwhich, at the sight of love, may turn to love. It would seem as if the\nharshest, most impossible man of all the town was Peter Bernardone, a\nwell-to-do merchant whose affairs took him often from Assisi, and not\ninfrequently to France.\n\nBernardone had a predilection for things French, and the child born to his\nwife while he was absent in France, he called Francis upon his return,\nalthough the mother had given it the name of John. The mother, whose name\nwas Pica, may have been of Proven\u00e7al or French blood. Apparently such\neducation as Francis received in his boyhood was as much French as\nItalian. Through all his life he never lost the habit of singing French\nsongs which he composed himself.[509]\n\nThe biographers assert that Francis was nourished in worldly vanity and\ninsolence. His temperament drew him to the former, but kept him from the\nlatter. For while he delighted in making merry with his friends, he was\nalways distinguished by a winning courtesy of manner toward poor and rich.\nAn innate generosity was also his, and he loved to spend money as he\nroamed with his companions about Assisi singing jovial choruses and\nhimself the leader of the frolic. Bernardone did not object to his son\u2019s\nsquandering some money in a way which led others to admire him and think\nhis parents rich; while Pica would keep saying that some day he would be\nGod\u2019s son through grace. A vein of sprightly fantasy runs through these\ngaieties of Francis\u2019s, which we may be sure were unstained by any gross\ndissipation. Francis\u2019s life as a saint is peculiarly free from monkish\nimpudicity, free, that is, from morbid dwelling upon things sensual; which\nshows that in him there was no reaction or need of reaction against any\nyouthful dissoluteness, and bears testimony to the purity of his\nunconverted years.[510]\n\nIn those days Francis loved to be admired and praised. He was possessed\nwith a romantic and imaginative vanity. Costly clothes delighted him as he\ndreamed of still more royal entertainment, and fancied great things to\ncome. His mind was filled with the figures of Romance; a knight would he\nbe at least; why not a paladin, whom all the world should wonder at? So he\ndreamed, and so he acted out his whim as best he might on the little stage\nof Assisi; for Francis was a poet, and a poet even more in deed than in\nwords. He was endowed with exquisite fancy, and he did its dictates never\ndoubting. His life was to prove an almost unexampled inspiration to art,\nbecause it was itself a poem by reason of its unfailing realization of the\nconceptions of a fervent and beautiful imagination.\n\nThere came war with Perugia, a very hard-hitting town; and the Assisi\ncavaliers, Francis among them, found themselves in their neighbours\u2019\ndungeons. There some desponded; but not Francis. For in these careless\ndays he was always gleeful and jocular, even as afterwards his entire\nsaintly life was glad with an invincible gaiety of spirit. So Francis\nlaughed and joked in prison till his fellow-prisoners thought him crazy,\nwhich no whit worried him, as he answered with the glad boast that some\nday he would be adored by all the world. He showed another side of his\ninborn nature when he was kind to a certain one of the captives whom the\nrest detested, and tried to reconcile his fellows with him.\n\nIt was soon after his release from this twelvemonth captivity that the\nsails of Francis\u2019s spirit began to fill with still more topping hopes, and\nthen to waver strangely. He naturally fell sick after the privations of a\nPerugia prison. As he recovered and went about with the aid of a staff,\nthe loveliness of field and vineyard failed to please him. He wondered at\nhimself, and suspected that his former pleasures were follies. But it was\nnot so easy to leave off his previous life, and Francis\u2019s thoughts were\nlured back again to this world\u2019s glory; for a certain nobleman of Assisi\nwas about to set out on an expedition to Apulia to win gain and fame, and\nFrancis was inflamed to go with him. In the night he dreamed that his\nfather\u2019s house with its heaps of cloth and other wares was filled instead\nwith swords and lances, with glittering shields, helmets and breastplates.\nHe awoke in an ecstasy of joy at the great glory portended by this dream.\nThen he fitted himself out sumptuously, with splendid garb, bright\nweapons, new armour, and accoutrements, and in due time set forth with his\nfellow-adventurers.\n\nOnce more he wavered. Before reaching Spoleto he stopped, left the\ncompany, turned back on his steps, this time impelled more strongly to\nseek those things which he was to love through life. He was about\ntwenty-three years old. It was his nature to love everything, fame and\napplause, power perhaps, and joy; but he had not yet loved worthily. Now\nhis Lord was calling him, the voice at first not very certain, and yet\nbecoming stronger. Francis seems to have seen a vision, in which the\nvanity of his attachments was made clear, and he learned that he was\nfollowing a servant instead of the Lord. So his heart replied, \u201cLord, what\nwouldst thou have me to do?\u201d and then the vision showed him that he should\nreturn, for he had misunderstood his former dream of arms. When Francis\nawoke he thought diligently on these matters.\n\nSuch spiritual experiences are incommunicable, even though the man should\ntry to tell them. But we know that as Francis had set out joyfully\nexpecting worldly glory, he now returned with exultation, to await the\nwill of the Lord, as it might be shown him. The facts and also their\nsequence are somewhat confused in the biographies.\n\nOn his return to Assisi, his comrades seem to have chosen him as lord of\ntheir revels; again he ordained a merry feast; but as they set forth\nsinging gleefully, Francis walked behind them, holding his marshal\u2019s\nstaff, in silence. Thoughts of the Lord had come again, and withdrawn his\nattention: he was thinking sweetly of the Lord, and vilely of himself.\nSoon after he is found providing destitute chapels with the requisites for\na decent service; already--in his father\u2019s absence--he is filling his\ntable with beggars; and already he has overcome his fastidious temper, has\nforced himself to exchange the kiss of peace with lepers, and has kissed\nthe livid hands in which he presses alms.[511] He appears to have made a\ntrip to St. Peter\u2019s at Rome, where, standing before the altar, it struck\nhim that the Prince of the Apostles was being honoured with mean\nofferings. So in his own princely way he flung down the contents of his\npurse, to the wonder of all. Then going without the church, he put on the\nclothes of a beggar and asked alms.\n\nIn such conduct Francis showed himself a poet and a saint. Imagination was\nrequired to conceive these extreme, these perfect acts, acts perfect in\ntheir carrying out of a lovely thought to its fulfilment, and suffering\nnothing to impede its perfect realization. So Francis flings down all he\nhas, and not a measure of his goods; he puts on beggars\u2019 clothes, and\nbegs; he kisses lepers\u2019 hands, eats from the same bowl with them--acts\nwhich were perfect in the singleness of their fulfilment of a saintly\nmotive, acts which were likewise beautiful. They are instances of\nobsession with a saintly idea of great spiritual beauty, obsession so\ncomplete that the ridiculous or hideous concomitants of the realization\nserve only to enhance the beauty of the holy thought perfectly fulfilled.\n\nOne day at Assisi, passing by the church of St. Damian, Francis was moved\nto enter for prayer. As he prayed before the Crucifix, the image seemed to\nsay, \u201cFrancis, dost thou not see my house in ruins? Rebuild it for me.\u201d\nAnd he answered, \u201cGladly, Lord,\u201d thinking that the little chapel of St.\nDamian was intended. Filled with joy, having felt the Crucified in his\nsoul, he sought the priest and gave him money to buy oil for the lamp\nbefore the Crucifix. This day was ever memorable in Francis\u2019s walk with\nGod. His way had lost its turnings; he saw his life before him clear,\nglad, and full of tears of love. \u201cFrom that hour his heart was so wounded\nand melted at the memory of his Lord\u2019s passion that henceforth while he\nlived he carried in his heart the marks of the Lord Jesus. Again he was\nseen walking near the Portiuncula, wailing aloud. And in response to the\ninquiries of a priest, he answered: \u2018I bewail the passion of my Lord Jesus\nChrist, which it should not shame me to go weeping through the world!\u2019\nOften as he rose from prayer his eyes were full of blood, because he had\nwept so bitterly.\u201d[512]\n\nIt appears to have been after this vision in St. Damian\u2019s Church that\nFrancis went on horseback to Foligno, carrying pieces of cloth, which he\nsold there, and his horse as well. He travelled back on foot, and seeking\nout St. Damian\u2019s astonished little priest, he kissed his hands devoutly\nand offered him the money. When, for fear of Bernardone, the priest would\nnot receive it, Francis threw it into a box. He prevailed on the priest,\nhowever, to let him stay there.\n\nWhat Bernardone thought of this son of his is better only guessing. The\nSt. Damian episode brought matters to a crisis between the two. He came\nlooking for his son, and Francis escaped to a cave, where he spent a month\nin tears and prayer to the Lord, that he might be freed from his father\u2019s\npursuit, so that he might fulfil his vows. Gradually courage and joy\nreturned, and he issued from his cave and took his way to the town. Former\nacquaintances of his pursued him with jeers and stones, as one demented,\nso wretched was he to look upon after his sojourn in the cave. He made no\nreply, save to give thanks to God. The hubbub reached the father, who\nrushed out and seized his son, beat him, and locked him up in the house.\nFrom this captivity he was released by his mother, in her husband\u2019s\nabsence, and again betook himself to St. Damian\u2019s.\n\nShortly afterward Bernardone returned, and would have haled Francis before\nthe magistrates of the town for squandering his patrimony; but his son\nrepudiated their jurisdiction, as being the servant of God. They were glad\nenough to turn the matter over to the bishop, who counselled Francis to\ngive back the money which was his father\u2019s. The scene which followed has\nbeen made famous by the brush of Giotto. The _Three Companions_ narrate it\nthus:\n\n    \u201cThen arose the man of God glad and comforted by the bishop\u2019s words,\n    and fetching the money said, \u2018My lord, not only the money which is his\n    I wish to return to him, but my clothes as well, and gladly.\u2019 Then\n    entering the bishop\u2019s chamber, he took off his clothes, and placing\n    the money upon them, went out again naked before them, and said: \u2018Hear\n    ye all and know. Until now I have called Pietro Bernardone my father;\n    but because I have determined to serve God, I return him the money\n    about which he was disturbed, and these clothes which I had from him,\n    wishing only to say, \u201cOur Father who art in heaven\u201d and not \u201cFather\n    Pietro Bernardone.\u201d\u2019 The man of God was found even then to have worn\n    haircloth beneath his gay garments. His father rising, incensed, took\n    the money and the clothes. As he carried them away to his house, those\n    who had seen the sight were indignant that he had left not a single\n    garment for his son, and they shed tears of pity over Francis. The\n    bishop was moved to admiration at the constancy of the man of God, and\n    embraced him and covered him with his cloak.\u201d[513]\n\nThus Francis was indeed made naked of the world. With joy he hastened back\nto St. Damian\u2019s; and there prepared himself a hermit garb, in which he\nagain set forth through the streets of the city, praising God and\nsoliciting stones to rebuild the Church. As he went he cried that whoever\ngave one stone should have one reward, and he who gave two, two rewards,\nand he who gave more as many rewards as he gave stones. Many laughed at\nhim, thinking him crazy; but others were moved to tears at the sight of\none who from such frivolity and vanity had so quickly become drunken with\ndivine love.\n\nFrancis became a beggar for the love of Christ, seeking to imitate Him\nwho, born poor, lived poor, and had no place to lay His head. Not only did\nhe beg stones to rebuild St. Damian\u2019s, but he began to go from house to\nhouse with a bowl to beg his food. Naked before them all, he had chosen\n\u201choly poverty,\u201d \u201clady poverty\u201d[514] for his bride. He was filled with the\ndesire to copy Christ and obey His words to the letter. According to the\n_Three Companions_, when the blessed Francis completed the church of St.\nDamian, his wont was to wear a hermit garb and carry a staff; he wore\nshoes on his feet and a girdle about him. But listening one day to Jesus\u2019\nwords to His disciples, as He sent them out to preach, not to take with\nthem gold, or silver, or a wallet, or bread, or a staff, or shoes, nor\nhave two cloaks, Francis said with joy: \u201cThis is what I desire to fulfil\nwith my whole strength.\u201d[515]\n\nThe literal imitation of certain particular Gospel instances, and the\nunconditional carrying out of certain of Christ\u2019s specially intended\nprecepts, mark Francis\u2019s understanding of his Lord. It is exemplified in\nthe account of the conversion of Francis\u2019s first disciple, as told by the\n_Three Companions_:\n\n    \u201cAs the truth of the blessed Francis\u2019s simple life and doctrine became\n    manifest to many, two years after his own conversion, certain men were\n    moved to penitence by his example, and were drawn to give up\n    everything and join with him in life and garb. Of these the first was\n    Bernard of saintly memory, who reflecting upon the constancy and\n    fervour of the blessed Francis in serving God, and with what labour he\n    was repairing ruined churches and leading a hard life, although\n    delicately nurtured, he determined to distribute his property among\n    the poor and cling to Francis. Accordingly one day in secret he\n    approached the man of God and disclosed his purpose, at the same time\n    requesting that on such an evening he would come to him. Having no\n    companion hitherto, the blessed Francis gave thanks to God, and\n    rejoiced greatly, especially as Messer (_dominus_) Bernard was a man\n    of exemplary life.\n\n    \u201cSo with exulting heart the blessed Francis went to his house on the\n    appointed evening and stayed all night with him. Messer Bernard said\n    among other things: \u2018If a person should have much or a little from his\n    lord, and have held it many years, how could he do with the same what\n    would be the best?\u2019 The blessed Francis replied that he should return\n    it to his lord from whom he had received it.\n\n    \u201cAnd Messer Bernard said: \u2018Therefore, brother, I wish to distribute,\n    in the way that may seem best to thee, all my worldly goods for love\n    of my Lord, who conferred them on me.\u2019\n\n    \u201cTo whom the saint said: \u2018In the morning we will go to the Church, and\n    will learn from the copy (_codex_) of the Gospels there how the Lord\n    taught His disciples.\u2019\n\n    \u201cSo rising in the morning, with a certain other named Peter, who also\n    desired to become a brother, they went to the church of St. Nicholas\n    close to the piazza of the city Assisi. And commencing to pray\n    (because they were simple men and did not know where to find the\n    Gospel text relating to the renouncing of the world) they asked the\n    Lord devoutly, that He would deign to show them His will at the first\n    opening of the Book.\n\n    \u201cWhen they had prayed, the blessed Francis taking in his hands the\n    closed book, kneeling before the altar opened it, and his eye fell\n    first upon this precept of the Lord: \u2018If thou wouldst be perfect, go,\n    sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have\n    treasure in heaven.\u2019 At which the blessed Francis was very glad and\n    gave thanks to God. But because this true observer of the Trinity\n    wished to be assured with threefold witness, he opened the Book for\n    the second and third time. The second time he read, \u2018Carry nothing for\n    the journey,\u2019 and the third time, \u2018Who wishes to come after me, let\n    him deny himself.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAt each opening of the Book, the blessed Francis gave thanks to God\n    for the divine confirmation of his purpose and long-conceived desire,\n    and then said to Bernard and Peter: \u2018Brothers, this is our life and\n    this is our rule, and the life and rule of all who shall wish to join\n    our society. Go, then, and as you have heard, so do.\u2019\n\n    \u201cMesser Bernard went away (he was very rich) and, having sold his\n    possessions and got together much money, he distributed it to the poor\n    of the town. Peter also complied with the divine admonition as best he\n    could. They both assumed the habit which Francis had adopted, and from\n    that hour lived with him after the model (_formam_) of the holy Gospel\n    shown them by the Lord. Therefore the blessed Francis has said in his\n    Testament: \u2018The Lord himself revealed to me that I should live\n    according to the model (_formam_) of the holy Gospel.\u2019\u201d[516]\n\nThe words which met the eyes of Francis on first opening this Gospel-book,\nhad nearly a thousand years before his time driven the holy Anthony to the\ndesert of the Thebaid. Still one need not think the later tale a fruit of\nimitative legend. The accounts of Francis afford other instances of his\nliteral acceptance of the Gospels.[517]\n\nAfter the step taken by Bernard and Peter, others quickly joined\nthemselves to Francis, and in short time the small company took up its\nabode in an abandoned cabin at Rivo-torto, near Assisi. In a twelvemonth\nor more they removed to the little church of Santa Maria de Portiuncula\n(Saint Mary of the little portion).[518] In the meanwhile Francis had been\nto Rome and gained papal authorization from the great Innocent III. for\nhis lowly way of life. It would be hard to describe the joyfulness of\nthese first Gospel days of the brethren: they come and go, and pray and\nlabour; all are filled with joy; _gaudium_, _jucunditas_, _laetabantur_,\nsuch words crowd each other in accounts of the early days. Their love was\ncomplete; they would gladly give their bodies to pain or death not only\nfor the love of Christ, but for the love of each other; they were founded\nand rooted in humility and love; Francis\u2019s own life was a song of joy, as\nhe went singing (always _gallice_) and abounding in love and its joyful\nprayers and tears. What joy indeed could be greater than his; he had\ngiven himself to his Lord, and had been accepted. One day he had retired\nfor contemplation, and as he prayed, \u201cGod be merciful to me a sinner,\u201d an\nineffable joy and sweetness was shed in his heart. He began to fall away\nfrom himself; the anxieties and fears which a sense of sin had set in his\nheart were dispelled, and a certitude of the remission of his sins took\npossession of him. His mind dilated and a joyful vision made him seem\nanother man when he returned and said in gladness to the brethren: \u201cBe\ncomforted, my best beloved, and rejoice in the Lord. Do not feel sad\nbecause you are so few. Let neither my simplicity nor yours abash you, for\nit has been shown me of the Lord that God will make of you a great\nmultitude, and multiply you to the confines of the earth. I saw a great\nmultitude of men coming to us, desiring to assume the habit and rule of\nour blessed religion; and the sound of them is in my ears as they come and\ngo according to the command of holy obedience; and I saw the ways filled\nwith them from every nation. Frenchmen come, and Spaniards hurry, Germans\nand English run, and a multitude speaking other tongues.\u201d[519]\n\nThus far the life of Francis was a poem, even as it was to be unto the\nend; for, although the saint\u2019s plans might be thwarted by the wisdom and\nfrailty of men, his words and actions did not cease to realize the\nexquisite conceptions of his soul. But the volume of his life, from this\ntime on, becomes too large for us to follow, embracing as it does the far\nfrom simple history of the first decades of his Order. Our object is still\nto observe his personality, and his love of God and man and creature-kind.\n\nFrancis\u2019s mind was as simple as his heart was single. He had no distinctly\nintellectual interests, as nothing appealed to his mentality alone.[520]\nIn his consciousness, everything related itself to his way of life, its\nyearnings and aversions. Whatever was unsuited to enter into this catholic\nrelationship repelled rather than interested him. Hence he was averse to\nstudies which had nothing to do with the man\u2019s closer walk with God, and\nlove of fellow. \u201cMy brothers who are led by the curiosity of knowledge\nwill find their hands empty in the day of tribulation. I would wish them\nrather to be strengthened by virtues, that when the time of tribulation\ncomes they may have the Lord with them in their straits--for such a time\nwill come when they will throw their good-for-nothing books into holes and\ncorners.\u201d[521]\n\nThe moral temper of Francis was childlike in its simple truth. He could\nnot endure in the smallest matter to seem other than as he was before God:\n\u201cAs much as a man is before God so much is he, and no more.\u201d[522] Once in\nLent he ate of cakes cooked in lard, because everything cooked in oil\nviolently disagreed with him. When Lent was over, he thus began his first\nsermon to a concourse of people: \u201cYou have come to me with great devotion,\nbelieving me to be a holy man, but I confess to God and to you that in\nthis Lent I have eaten cakes cooked in lard.\u201d[523] At another time, when\nin severe sickness he had somewhat exceeded the pittance of food which he\nallowed himself, he rose, still shaking with fever, and went and preached\nto the people. When the sermon was over, he retired a moment, and having\nfirst exacted a promise of obedience from the monks accompanying him, he\nthrew off his cloak, tied a rope around his waist, and commanded them to\ndrag him naked before the people, and there cast ashes in his face; all\nwhich was done by the weeping monks. And then he confessed his fault to\nall.[524]\n\nFrancis took joy in obedience and humility. One of his motives in\nresigning the headship of the Order was that he might have a superior to\nobey.[525] However pained by the shortcomings and corruptions of the\nChurch, he was always obedient and reverent. He had no thought of\nrevolution, but the hope of purifying all. One day certain brothers said\nto him: \u201cFather, do you not see that the bishops do not let us preach, and\nkeep us for days standing idle, before we are able to declare the word of\nGod? Would it not be better to obtain the privilege from the Pope, that\nthere might be a salvation of souls?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou, brothers Minorites,\u201d answered Francis, \u201cknow not the will of God,\nand do not permit me to convert the whole world, which is God\u2019s will; for\nI wish first through holy obedience and reverence to convert the prelates,\nwho when they see our holy life and humble reverence for them, will beg\nyou to preach and convert the people, and will call the people to hear you\nfar better than your privileges, which draw you to pride. For me, I desire\nthis privilege from the Lord that I may never have any privilege from man\nexcept to do reverence to all, and through obedience to our holy rule of\nlife convert mankind more by example than by word.\u201d[526]\n\nAnd again he said to the brothers: \u201cWe are sent to aid the clergy in the\nsalvation of souls, and what is found lacking in them should be supplied\nby us. Know, brothers, that the gain of souls is most pleasing to God, and\nthis we may win better by peace with the clergy, than by discord. If they\nhinder the salvation of the people, vengeance is God\u2019s and He will repay\nin time. So be ye subject to the prelates and take heed on your part that\nno jealousy arise. If ye are sons of peace ye shall gain both clergy and\npeople, and this will be more acceptable to God than to gain the people\nalone by scandalizing the clergy. Cover their slips, and supply their\ndeficiencies; and when ye shall have done this be ye the more\nhumble.\u201d[527]\n\nSo Francis loved _sancta obedientia_ as he called it. As a wise builder he\nset himself upon a rock, to wit, the perfect humility and poverty of the\nSon of God; and because of his own humility he called his company the\nMinorites (the \u201clesser\u201d brethren).[528] For himself, he deemed that he\nshould most rejoice when men should revile him and cast him forth in\nshame, and not when they revered and honoured him.[529]\n\nAbove all he loved his \u201clady poverty\u201d and could not say enough to impress\nhis followers with her high worth and beauty, and with the dignity and\nnobility of begging alms for the love of the Lord.[530] As a high-born\nlady, poor and beautiful, he had seen her in a vision, in the midst of a\ndesert, and worthy to be wooed by the King.[531] In the early days when\nthe brothers were a little band, Francis had gone about and begged for\nall. He loved them so that he dreaded to require what might shame them.\nBut when the labour was too great for one man, so delicate and weak, he\nsaid to them: \u201cBest beloved brothers and my children, do not be ashamed to\ngo for alms, because the Lord made Himself poor for us in this world after\nwhose example we have chosen the truest poverty. For this is our heritage,\nwhich our Lord Jesus Christ achieved and left to us and to all who, after\nHis example, wish to live in holy poverty. I tell you of a truth that many\nwise and noble of this world shall join that congregation and hold it for\nan honour and a grace to go out for alms. Therefore boldly and with glad\nheart seek alms with God\u2019s blessing; and more freely and gladly should you\nseek alms than he who offers a hundred pieces of money for one coin, since\nto those from whom you ask alms you offer the love of God, saying, \u2018Do us\nan alms for the love of the Lord God,\u2019 in comparison with which heaven and\nearth are nothing.\u201d[532]\n\nWith Francis all virtues were holy (_sancta obedientia_, _sancta\npaupertas_). Righteousness, goodness, piety, lay in imitating and obeying\nhis Lord. What joy was there in loving Christ, and being loved by Him! and\nwhat an eternity of bliss awaited the Christian soul! To do right, to\nimitate Christ and obey and love Him, is a privilege. Can it be other than\na joy? Indeed, this following of Christ is so blessed, that not to rejoice\ncontinually in it, betokens some failure in obedience and love. Many have\napproved this Christian logic; but to realize it in one\u2019s heart and\nmanifest it in one\u2019s life, was the more singular grace of Francis of\nAssisi. His heart sang always unto the Lord; his love flowed out in\ngladness to his fellows; his enchanted spirit rejoiced in every creature.\nThe gospel of this new evangelist awoke the hearts of men to love and joy.\nNothing rejoiced him more than to see his sons rejoice in the Lord; and\nnothing was more certain to draw forth his tender reproof than a sad\ncountenance.\n\n    \u201cOnce while the blessed Francis was at the Portiuncula, a certain good\n    beggar came along the way, returning from alms-begging in Assisi, and\n    he went along praising God with a high voice and great jocundity. As\n    he approached, Francis heard him, and ran out and met him in the way,\n    and joyfully kissed his shoulder where he bore the wallet containing\n    the gifts. Then he lifted the wallet, and set it on his own shoulder,\n    and so carried it within, and said to the brothers: \u2018Thus I wish to\n    have my brothers go and return with alms, joyful and glad and praising\n    God.\u2019\u201d[533]\n\n    \u201cAside from prayer and the divine service, the blessed Francis was\n    most zealous in preserving continually an inward and outward spiritual\n    gladness. And this he especially cherished in the brothers, and would\n    reprove them for sadness and depression. For he said that if the\n    servant of God would study to preserve, inwardly and outwardly, the\n    spiritual joy which rises from purity of heart, and is acquired\n    through the devotion of prayer, the devils could not harm him, for\n    they say: So long as the servant of God is joyful in tribulation and\n    prosperity, we cannot enter into him or harm him.... To our enemy and\n    his members it pertains to be sad, but to us always to rejoice and be\n    glad in the Lord.\u201d[534]\n\nThus the glad temper of his young unconverted days passed into his saintly\nlife, of which Christ was the primal source of rapture.\n\n    \u201cDrunken with the love and pity of Christ, the blessed Francis would\n    sometimes do such acts, when the sweetest melody of spirit within him\n    boiling outward gave sound in French, and the strain of the divine\n    whisper which his ear had taken secretly, broke forth in a glad French\n    song. He would pick up a stick and, holding it over his left arm,\n    would with another stick in his right hand make as if drawing a bow\n    across a violin (_viellam_), and with fitting gestures would sing in\n    French of the Lord Jesus Christ. At last this dancing would end in\n    tears, and the jubilee turn to pity for the Passion of Christ. And in\n    that he would continue, drawing sighs and groans, as, oblivious to\n    what he held in his hands, he was suspended from heaven.\u201d[535]\n\nFrancis had been a lover from his youth; naturally and always he had loved\nhis kind. But from the time when Christ held his heart and mind, his love\nof fellow-man was moulded by his thought and love of Christ. Henceforth\nthe loving acts of Francis moving among his fellows become a loving\nfollowing of Christ. He sees in every man the character and person of his\nLord, soliciting his love, commanding what he should do. He never refused,\nor permitted his followers to refuse, what was asked in Christ\u2019s name; but\nit displeased him when he heard the brothers ask lightly for the love of\nGod, and he would reprove them, saying: \u201cSo high and precious is God\u2019s\nlove that it never should be invoked save with great reverence and under\npressing need.\u201d[536]\n\nSuch a man felt strong personal affection. Pure and wise was his love for\nSanta Clara;[537] and a deep affection for one of his earliest and closest\nfollowers touches us in his letter to brother Leo. Not all of the writings\nascribed to Francis breathe his spirit; but we hear his voice in this\nletter as it closes: \u201cAnd if it is needful for thy soul or for thy\nconsolation, and thou dost wish, my Leo, to come to me, come. Farewell in\nChrist.\u201d\n\nFrancis\u2019s love was unfailing in compassionate word and deed. Although cold\nand sick, he would give his cloak away at the first demand, till his own\nappointed minister-general commanded him on his obedience not to do so\nwithout permission; and he saw that the brothers did not injure themselves\nwith fasting, though he took slight care of himself. On one occasion he\nhad them all partake of a meal, in order that one delicate brother, who\nneeded food, might not be put to shame eating while the rest fasted. And\nonce, early in the morning, he led an old and feeble brother secretly to a\ncertain vineyard, and there ate grapes before him, that he might not be\nashamed to do likewise, for his health.[538]\n\nThe effect of his sweet example melted the hearts of angry men,\nreconciling such as had been wronged to those who had wronged them, and\nleading ruffians back to ways of gentleness. His conduct on learning of\ncertain dissensions in Assisi illustrates his method of restoring peace\nand amity.\n\n    \u201cAfter the blessed Francis had composed the Lauds of the creatures,\n    which he called the Canticle of Brother Sun, it happened that great\n    dissension arose between the bishop and the podest\u00e0 of the City of\n    Assisi, so that the bishop excommunicated the podest\u00e0, and the podest\u00e0\n    made proclamation that no person should sell anything to the bishop or\n    buy from him or make any contract with him.\n\n    \u201cWhen the blessed Francis (who was now so very sick) heard this, he\n    was greatly moved with pity, since no one interposed between them to\n    make peace. And he said to his companions: \u2018It is a great shame for us\n    servants of God that the bishop and the podest\u00e0 hate each other so,\n    and none interposes to make peace.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd so for this occasion he at once made a verse in the Lauds above\n    mentioned and said:\n\n      \u2018Praised be thou, O my Lord, for those who forgive from love of thee,\n       And endure sickness and tribulation.\n       Blessed are those who shall endure in peace,\n       For by thee, Most High, shall they be crowned.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThen he called one of his companions and said to him: \u2018Go to the\n    podest\u00e0, and on my behalf tell him to come to the bishop\u2019s palace with\n    the magnates of the city and others that he may bring with him.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd as that brother went, he said to two other of his companions: \u2018Go\n    before the bishop and podest\u00e0 and the others who may be with them, and\n    sing the Canticle of Brother Sun, and I trust in the Lord that He will\n    straightway humble their hearts, and they will return to their former\n    affection and friendship.\u2019\n\n    \u201cWhen all were assembled in the piazza of the episcopate, the two\n    brothers arose, and one of them said: \u2018The blessed Francis in his\n    sickness made a Lauds of the Lord from His creatures in praise of the\n    Lord and for the edification of our neighbour. Wherefore he begs that\n    you would listen to it with great devoutness.\u2019 And then they began to\n    say and sing them.\n\n    \u201cAt once the podest\u00e0 rose, and with folded hands listened intently, as\n    if it were the Lord\u2019s gospel; this he did with the greatest devoutness\n    and with many tears, for he had great trust and devotion toward the\n    blessed Francis.\n\n    \u201cWhen the Lauds of the Lord were finished, the podest\u00e0 said before\n    them all: \u2018Truly I say to you that not only my lord-bishop, whom I\n    wish and ought to hold as my lord, but if any one had slain my brother\n    or son I would forgive him.\u2019 And so saying, he threw himself at the\n    bishop\u2019s feet, and said to him: \u2018Look, I am ready in all things to\n    make satisfaction to you as shall please you, for the love of our Lord\n    Jesus Christ and His servant the blessed Francis.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThe bishop accepting him, raised him with his hands and said:\n    \u2018Because of my office it became me to be humble, and since I am\n    naturally quick-tempered you ought to pardon me.\u2019 And so with great\n    kindness and love they embraced and kissed each other.\n\n    \u201cThe brothers were astounded and made glad when they saw fulfilled to\n    the letter the concord predicted by the blessed Francis. And all\n    others present ascribed it as a great miracle to the merits of the\n    blessed Francis, that the Lord suddenly had visited them, and out of\n    such dissension and scandal had brought such concord.\u201d[539]\n\nIt would be mistaken to refer to any single pious sentiment, the saint\u2019s\nblithe love of animals and birds and flowers, and his regard even for\nsenseless things. It is right, however, for Thomas of Celano, as a proper\nmonkish biographer, to say:\n\n    \u201cWhile hastening through this world of pilgrimage and exile that\n    traveller (Francis) rejoiced in those things which are in the world,\n    and not a little. As toward the princes of darkness he used the world\n    as a field for battle, but as toward the Lord he treated it as the\n    brightest mirror of goodness; in the fabric he commended the\n    Artificer, and what he found in created things, he referred to the\n    Maker; he exulted over all the works of the hands of the Lord, and in\n    the pleasing spectacle beheld the life-giving reason and the cause. In\n    beautiful things he perceived that which was most beautiful, as all\n    good things acclaim, He who made us is best. Through vestiges\n    impressed on things he followed his chosen, and made of all a ladder\n    by which to reach the throne. He embraced all things in a feeling of\n    unheard of devotion, speaking to them concerning the Lord and\n    exhorting them in His praise.\u201d[540]\n\nThis was true, even if it was not all the truth. Living creatures spoke to\nFrancis of their Maker, while things insensible aroused his reverence\nthrough their suggestiveness, their scriptural associations, or their\nsymbolism. But beyond these motives there was in this poet Francis a happy\nlove of nature. If nature always spoke to him of God, its loveliness\nneeded no stimulation of devotion in order to be loved by him. His feeling\nfor it found everywhere sensibility and responsiveness. He was as if\npossessed by an imaginative animism, wherein every object had a soul. His\nacts and words may appear fantastic; they never lack loveliness and\nbeauty.[541]\n\n    \u201cWrapped in the love of God, the blessed Francis perfectly discerned\n    the goodness of God not only in his own soul but in every creature.\n    Wherefore he was affected with a singular and yearning (_viscerosa_)\n    love toward creatures, and especially toward those in which was\n    figured something of God or something pertaining to religion.\n\n    \u201cWhence above all birds he loved a little bird called the lark (the\n    _lodola capellata_ of the vulgar tongue) and would say of her: \u2018Sister\n    lark has a hood like a Religious and is a humble bird, because she\n    goes willingly along the road to find for herself some grains of corn.\n    Even if she find them in dung she picks them out and eats them. In\n    flying she praises the Lord very sweetly, as the good Religious look\n    down upon earthly things, whose conversation is always in the heavens\n    and whose intent is always upon the praise of God. Her garments are\n    like earth, that is, her feathers, and set an example to the Religious\n    that they should not have delicate and gaudy garments, but such as are\n    vile in price and colour, as earth is viler than other\n    elements.\u2019\u201d[542]\n\nThe unquestionably true story of Francis preaching to the birds is known\nto all, especially to readers of the _Fioretti_. Thus Thomas of Celano\ntells it: As the blessed Father Francis was journeying through the Spoleto\nValley, he reached a place near Mevanium, where there was a multitude of\nbirds--doves, crows, and other kinds. When he saw them, for the love and\nsweet affection which he bore toward the lower creatures, he quickly ran\nto them, leaving his companions. As he came near and saw that they were\nwaiting for him, he saluted them in his accustomed way. Then wondering\nthat they did not take flight, he was very glad, and humbly begged them to\nlisten to the word of God; among other things he said to them: \u201cMy\nbrothers who fly, verily you should praise the Lord your Maker and love\nHim always, who gave you feathers to clothe you and wings to fly with and\nwhatever was necessary to you. God made you noble among creatures,\nprepared your mansion in the purity of air; and though you neither sow nor\nreap, nevertheless without any solicitude on your part, He protects and\nguides you.\u201d\n\nAt this, those little birds as he was speaking, marvellously exulting,\nbegan to stretch out their necks and spread their wings and open their\nbeaks, looking at him. He passed through their midst, sweeping their heads\nand bodies with his mantle. At length he blessed them, and with the sign\nof the cross gave them leave to fly away. Then returning gladdened to his\ncompanions, he yet blamed himself for his neglect to preach to the birds\nbefore, since they so reverently heard the word of God. And from that day\nhe ceased not to exhort all flying and creeping things, and even things\ninsensible, to the praise and love of their Creator.[543]\n\nThomas also says that above all animals Francis loved the lambs, because\nso frequently in Scripture the humility of our Lord is likened unto a\nlamb. One day, as Francis was making his way through the March of Ancona\nhe met a goat-herd pasturing his flock of goats. Among them, humbly and\nquietly, a little lamb was feeding. Francis stopped as he saw it, and,\ndeeply touched, said to the brother accompanying him: \u201cDost thou see this\nsheep walking so gently among the goats? I tell you, thus our Lord Jesus\nChrist used to walk mild and humble among Pharisees and chief priests. For\nlove of Him, then, I beg thee, my son, to buy this little sheep with me\nand lead it out from among these goats.\u201d\n\nThe brother was also moved with pity. They had nothing with them save\ntheir wretched cloaks, but a merchant chancing to come along the way, the\nmoney was obtained from him. Giving thanks to God and leading the sheep\nthey had bought, they reached the town of Osimo whither they were going;\nand entering the house of the bishop, were honourably received by him. Yet\nmy lord bishop wondered at the sheep which Francis was leading with such\ntender love. But when Francis had set forth the parable of his sermon, the\nbishop too was touched and gave thanks to God.\n\nThe following day they considered what to do with the sheep, and it was\ngiven over to the nuns of the cloister of St. Severinus, who received it\nas a great boon given them from God. Long while they cared for it, and in\nthe course of time wove a cloak from its wool, which they sent to the\nblessed Francis at the Portiuncula at the time of a Chapter meeting. The\nsaint accepted it with joy, and kissed it, and begged all the brothers to\nbe glad with him.[544]\n\nCelano also tells how Francis loved the grass and vines and stones and\nwoods, and all comely things in the fields, also the streams, and earth\nand fire and air, and called every creature \u201cbrother\u201d;[545] also how he\nwould not put out the flame of a lamp or candle, how he walked reverently\nupon stones, and was careful to injure no living thing.[546]\n\nThere are two documents which are both (the one with much reason and the\nother with certainty) ascribed to Francis. Utterly different as they are,\neach still remains a clear expression of his spirit. The one is the Lauds,\ncommonly called the Canticle of the Brother Sun, and the other is the\nsaint\u2019s last Testament. One may think of the Canticle as the closing\nstanza of a life which was an enacted poem:\n\n    Most High, omnipotent, good Lord, thine is the praise, the glory, the\n    honour and every benediction;\n\n    To thee alone, Most High, these do belong, and no man is worthy to\n    name thee.\n\n    Praised be thou, my Lord, with all thy creatures, especially milord\n    Brother Sun that dawns and lightens us;\n\n    And he, beautiful and radiant with great splendour, signifies thee,\n    Most High.\n\n    Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Moon and the stars that thou hast made\n    bright and precious and beautiful.\n\n    Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Wind, and for the air and cloud and\n    the clear sky and for all weathers through which thou givest\n    sustenance to thy creatures.\n\n    Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Water, that is very useful and humble\n    and precious and chaste.\n\n    Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Fire, through whom thou dost illumine\n    the night, and comely is he and glad and bold and strong.\n\n    Be praised, my Lord, for Sister, Our Mother Earth, that doth cherish\n    and keep us, and produces various fruits with coloured flowers and the\n    grass.\n\n    Be praised, my Lord, for those who forgive for love of thee, and\n    endure sickness and tribulation; blessed are they who endure in peace;\n    for by thee, Most High, shall they be crowned.\n\n    Be praised, my Lord, for our bodily death, from which no living man\n    can escape; woe unto those who die in mortal sin.\n\n    Blessed are they that have found thy most holy will, for the second\n    death shall do them no hurt.\n\n    Praise and bless my Lord, and render thanks, and serve Him with great\n    humility.[547]\n\nThe self-expression of the more personal parts of the Testament supplement\nthese utterances:\n\n    \u201cThus the Lord gave to me, Brother Francis, to begin to do penance:\n    because while I was in sins, it seemed too bitter to me to see lepers;\n    and the Lord himself led me among them, and I did mercy with them. And\n    departing from them, that which seemed to me bitter, was turned for me\n    into sweetness of soul and body. And a little afterwards I went out of\n    the world.\n\n    \u201cAnd the Lord gave me such faith in churches, that thus simply I\n    should pray and say: \u2018We adore thee, Lord Jesus Christ, and in all thy\n    churches which are in the whole world, and we bless thee, because\n    through thy holy cross thou hast redeemed the world.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAfterwards the Lord gave and gives me so great faith in priests who\n    live after the model of the holy Roman Church according to their\n    order, that if they should persecute me I will still turn to them. And\n    if I should have as great wisdom as Solomon had, and should have found\n    the lowliest secular priests in the parishes where they dwell, I do\n    not wish to preach contrary to their wish. And them and all others I\n    wish to fear and honour as my lords; and I do not wish to consider sin\n    in them, because I see the Son of God in them and they are my lords.\n\n    \u201cAnd the reason I do this is because corporeally I see nothing in this\n    world of that most high Son of God except His most holy body and most\n    holy blood, which they receive and which they alone administer. And I\n    wish these most holy mysteries to be honoured above all and revered,\n    and to be placed together in precious places. Wherever I shall find\n    His most holy names and His written words in unfit places, I wish to\n    collect them, and I ask that they be collected and placed in a proper\n    place; and all theologians and those who administer the most holy\n    divine words, we ought to honour and venerate, as those who administer\n    to us spirit and life.\n\n    \u201cAnd after the Lord gave me brothers, no one showed me what I ought to\n    do, but the Most High himself revealed to me that I ought to live\n    according to the model of the holy Gospel. And I in a few words and\n    simply had this written, and the lord Pope confirmed it to me. And\n    they who were coming to receive life, all that they were able to have\n    they gave to the poor; and they were content with one patched cloak,\n    with the cord and breeches; and we did not wish to have more. We who\n    were of the clergy said our office as other clergy; the lay members\n    said \u2018Our Father.\u2019 And willingly we remained in churches; and we were\n    simple (_idiotae_) and subject to all. And I laboured with my hands,\n    and I wish to labour; and I wish all other brothers to labour. Who do\n    not know how, let them learn, not from the cupidity of receiving the\n    price of labour, but on account of the example, and to repel\n    slothfulness. And when the price of labour is not given to us, we\n    resort to the table of the Lord by seeking alms from door to door.\n\n    \u201cThe Lord revealed to me a salutation that we should say: The Lord\n    give thee peace.\u201d\n\n    Francis\u2019s precepts for the brothers follow here. The last paragraph of\n    the Will is: \u201cAnd whoever shall have observed these principles, in\n    heaven may he be filled with the benediction of the most high Father,\n    and on earth may he be filled with the benediction of His beloved Son,\n    with the most holy spirit Paraclete, and with all the virtues of the\n    heavens and with everything holy. And I, Brother Francis, your very\n    little servant, so far as I am able, confirm to you within and without\n    that most holy benediction.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nMYSTIC VISIONS OF ASCETIC WOMEN\n\n    ELIZABETH OF SCH\u00d6NAU; HILDEGARD OF BINGEN; MARY OF OGNIES; LIUTGARD OF\n    TONGERN; MECHTHILD OF MAGDEBURG\n\n\nWe pass to matters of a different complexion from anything presented in\nthe last few chapters. Thus far, besides Bernard and Francis, matchless\nexamples of monastic ideals, there have been instances of contemplation\nand piety, with much emotion, and a sufficiency of experience having small\npart in reason; also hallucinations and fantastic conduct, as in the case\nof Romuald. The last class of phenomena, however, have not been prominent.\nNow for a while we shall be wrapt in visions, rational, imitative,\nfashioned with intent and plan; or, again, directly experienced,\npassionate, hallucinative. They will range from those climaxes of the\nconstructive or intuitive imagination,[548] which are of the whole man, to\npassionate or morbid delusions representing but a partial and passing\nphase of the subject\u2019s personality. Moreover, we have been occupied with\nhermits and monks, that is to say, with men. The present chapter has to do\nwith nuns; who are more prone to visions, and are occasionally subject to\nthose passionate hallucinations which are prompted by the circumstance\nthat the Christian God was incarnate in the likeness of a man.\n\nBesides the conclusions which the mind draws from the data of sense, or\nreaches through reflection, there are other modes of conviction whose\ndistinguishing mark is their apparent immediacy and spontaneity. They are\nnot elicited from antecedent processes of thought, as inferences or\ndeductions; rather they loom upon the consciousness, and are experienced.\nYet they are far from simple, and may contain a multiplicity of submerged\nreasonings, and bear relation to countless previous inferences. They are\nusually connected with emotion or neural excitement, and may even take the\nguise of sense-manifestations. Through such convictions, religious minds\nare assured of God and the soul\u2019s communion with Him.[549] While not\nissuing from argument, this assurance may be informed with reason and\ninvolve the total sum of conclusions which the reasoner has drawn from\nlife.\n\nIn devout mediaeval circles, the consciousness of communion with God, with\nthe Virgin, with angels and saints, and with the devil, often took on the\nsemblance of sense-perception. The senses seemed to be experiencing:\nstenches of hell, odours of heaven, might be smelled, or a taste infect\nthe mouth; the divine or angelic touch was felt, or the pain of blows;\nmost frequently voices were heard, and forms were seen in a vision. In\nthese apparent testimonies of sight and hearing, the entire spiritual\nnature of the man or woman might set the vision, dramatize it with his or\nher desires and aversions, and complete it from the store of knowledge at\ncommand.\n\nThe visions of an eleventh-century monk named Othloh have been observed at\nsome length.[550] Intimate and trying, they were also, so to speak, in and\nof the whole man: his tastes, his solicitudes, his acquired knowledge and\nways of reasoning, joined in these vivid experiences of God\u2019s truth and\nthe devil\u2019s onslaughts. One may be mindful of Othloh in turning to the\nmore impersonal visions of certain German nuns, which likewise issued\nfrom the entire nature and intellectual equipment of these women.[551]\n\nOn the Rhine, fifteen miles north-east of Bingen, lies the village of\nSch\u00f6nau, where in the twelfth century flourished a Benedictine monastery,\nand near it a cloister for nuns. At the latter a girl of twelve named\nElizabeth was received in the year 1141. She lived there as nun, and\nfinally as abbess, till her death in 1165. Like many other lofty souls\ndwelling in the ideal, she was a stern censor of the evils in the world\nand in the Church. The bodily infirmities from which she was never free,\nwere aggravated by austerities, and usually became most painful just\nbefore the trances that brought her visions. Masses and penances, prayer\nand meditation, made her manner of approach to these direct disclosures of\neternity, wherein the whole contents of her faith and her reflection were\nunrolled. Frequently she beheld the Saints in the nights following their\nfestivals; her larger visions were moulded by the Apocalypse. These\nexperiences were usually beatific, though sometimes she suffered insult\nfrom malignant shapes. What humility bade her conceal, the importunities\nof admirers compelled her to disclose: and so her visions have been\npreserved, and may be read in the _Vita_ written by her brother Eckbert,\nAbbot of Sch\u00f6nau.[552] Here is an example of how the saint and seeress\nspoke:\n\n    \u201cOn the Sunday night following the festival of St. James (in the year\n    1153), drawn from the body, I was borne into an ecstasy (_avocata a\n    corpore rapta sum in exstasim_). And a great flaming wheel flared in\n    the heaven. Then it disappeared, and I saw a light more splendid than\n    I was accustomed to see; and thousands of saints stood in it, forming\n    an immense circle; in front were some glorious men, having palms and\n    shining crowns and the titles of their martyrdoms inscribed upon their\n    foreheads. From these titles, as well as from their pre-eminent\n    splendour, I knew them to be the Apostles. At their right was a great\n    company having the same shining titles; and behind these were others,\n    who lacked the signs of martyrdom. At the left of the Apostles shone\n    the holy order of virgins, also adorned with the signs of martyrdom,\n    and behind them another splendid band of maidens, some crowned, but\n    without these signs. Still back of these, a company of venerable women\n    in white completed the circle. Below it was another circle of great\n    brilliancy, which I knew to be of the holy angels.\u201d\n\n    \u201cIn the midst of all was a Glory of Supreme Majesty, and its throne\n    was encircled by a rainbow. At the right of that Majesty I saw one\n    like unto the Son of Man, seated in glory; at the left was a radiant\n    sign of the Cross.... At the right of the Son of Man sat the Queen of\n    Kings and Angels on a starry throne circumfused with immense light. At\n    the left of the Cross four-and-twenty honourable men sat facing it.\n    And not far from them I saw two rams sustaining on their shoulders a\n    great shining wheel. The morning after this, at terse, one of the\n    brothers came to the window of my cell, and I asked that the mass for\n    the Holy Trinity might be celebrated.\n\n    \u201cThe next Sunday I saw the same vision, and more: for I saw the Lamb\n    of God standing before the throne, very lovable, and with a gold\n    cross, as if implanted in its back. And I saw the four Evangelists in\n    those forms which Holy Scripture ascribes to them. They were at the\n    right of the Blessed Virgin, and their faces were turned toward her.\u201d\n\nAnd Elizabeth saw the Virgin arise and advance from out the great light\ninto the lower ether, followed by a multitude of women saints, and then\nreturn amid great praise.\n\nIn another vision she saw the events of the Saviour\u2019s last days on earth:\nsaw Him riding into Jerusalem, and the multitude throwing down branches;\nsaw Him washing the disciples\u2019 feet, then the agony in the garden, the\nbetrayal, the crowning with thorns, the spitting, the Lord upon the Cross,\nand the Mother of God full of grief; she saw the piercing of His side, the\ndreadful darkness,--all as in Scripture, and then the Scriptural incidents\nfollowing the Resurrection. Upon this, her vision took another turn, and\nwords were put in her mouth to chastise the people for their sins.\n\nApparently more original was Elizabeth\u2019s vision of the _Paths of God_ (the\n_Viae Dei_). In it three paths went straight up a mountain from opposite\nsides, the first having the hyacinthine hue of the deep heaven; the second\ngreen, the third purple. At the top of the mountain was a man, clad with a\nhyacinthine tunic, his reins bound with a white girdle; his face was\nsplendid as the sun, his eyes shone as stars, and his hair was white; from\nhis mouth issued a two-edged sword; in his right hand he held a key and\nin his left a sceptre. Elizabeth interprets: the man is Christ; and the\nmountain represents the loftiness of celestial beatitude; the light at the\ntop is the brightness of eternal life; the three paths are the diverse\nways in which the elect ascend. The hyacinthine path is that of the _vita\ncontemplativa_; the green path is that of the religious _vita activa_; and\nthe purple path is the way of the blessed martyrs.\n\nThere were also other paths up the mountain, one beset with brambles until\nhalf way up, where they gave place to flowers. This is the way of married\nfolk, who pass from brambles to flowers when they abandon the pleasures of\nthe flesh; for the flowers are the virtues which adorn a life of\ncontinence. Still other ways there were, for prelates, for widows, and for\nsolitaries. And Elizabeth turns her visions into texts, and preaches\nvigorous sermons, denouncing the vices of the clergy as well as laity. In\nother visions she had seen prelates and monks and nuns in hell.\n\nThe visions of this nun appear to have been the fruit of the constructive\nimagination working upon data of the mind. Yet she is said to have seen\nthem in trances, a statement explicitly made in the account of those last\ndays when life had almost left her body. Praying devoutly in the middle of\nthe night before she died, she seemed much troubled; then she passed into\na trance (_exstasim_). Returning to herself, she murmured to the sister\nwho held her in her arms: \u201cI know not how it is with me; that light which\nI have been wont to see in the heavens is dividing.\u201d Again she passed into\na trance, and afterwards, when the sisters begged her to disclose what she\nhad seen, she said her end was at hand, for she had seen holy visions\nwhich, many years before, God\u2019s angel had told her she should not see\nagain until she came to die. On being asked whether the Lord had comforted\nher, she answered, \u201cOh! what excellent comfort have I received!\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA more imposing personality than Elizabeth was Hildegard of Bingen,[553]\nwhose career extends through nearly the whole of the twelfth century; for\nshe was born in 1099 and died in 1179. Her parents were of the lesser\nnobility, holding lands in the diocese of Mainz. A certain holy woman, one\nJutta, daughter of the Count of Spanheim, had secluded herself in a\nsolitary cell at Disenberg--the mount of St. Disibodus--near a monastery\nof Benedictine monks. Drawn by her reputation, Hildegard\u2019s parents brought\ntheir daughter to Jutta, who received her to a life like her own. The\nceremony, which took place in the presence of a number of persons, was\nthat of the last rites of the dead, performed with funeral torches.\nHildegard was buried to the world. She was eight years old. At the same\ntime a niece of Jutta also became a recluse, and afterwards others joined\nthem.\n\nOn the death of Jutta in 1136, Hildegard was compelled to take the office\nof Prioress. But when the fame of the dead Jutta began to draw many people\nto her shrine, and cause a concourse of pilgrims, Hildegard decided to\nseek greater quiet, and possibly more complete independence; for the\nauthority of the new abbot at the monastery may not have been to her\nliking. She was ever a masterful woman, better fitted to command than to\nobey. So in 1147 she and her nuns moved to Bingen, and established\nthemselves permanently near the tomb of St. Rupert. From this centre the\nenergies and influence of Hildegard, and rumours of her visions, soon\nbegan to radiate. Her advice was widely sought, and often given unasked.\nShe corresponded with the great and influential, admonishing dukes and\nkings and emperors, monks, abbots, and popes. Her epistolary manner\nsometimes reminds one of Bernard, who was himself among her\ncorrespondents. The following letter to Frederick Barbarossa would match\nsome of his:\n\n    \u201cO King, it is very needful that thou be foreseeing in thy affairs.\n    For, in mystic vision, I see thee living, small and insensate, beneath\n    the Living Eyes (of God). Thou hast still some time to reign over\n    earthly matters. Therefore beware lest the Supreme King cast thee down\n    for the blindness of thine eyes, which do not rightly see how thou\n    holdest the rod of right government in thy hand. See also to it that\n    thou art such that the grace of God may not be lacking in thee.\u201d[554]\n\nThis is the whole letter. Hildegard\u2019s communications were not wont to\nstammer. They were frequently announced as from God, and began with the\nwords \u201cLux vivens dicit.\u201d\n\nHildegard was a woman of intellectual power. She was also learned in\ntheology, and versed in the medicine and scanty natural science of an\nepoch which preceded the reopening of the great volume of Aristotelian\nknowledge in the thirteenth century. Yet she asserts her illiteracy, and\nseems always to have employed learned monks to help her express, in\nawkward Latin, the thoughts and flashing words which, as she says, were\ngiven her in visions. Her many gifts of grace, if not her learning,\nimpressed contemporaries, who wrote to her for enlightenment upon points\nof doctrine and biblical interpretation; they would wait patiently until\nshe should be enabled to answer, since her answers were not in the power\nof her own reflection, but had to be seen or heard. For instance, a monk\nnamed Guibert, who afterwards became the saint\u2019s amanuensis and\nbiographer, propounded thirty-eight questions of biblical interpretation\non behalf of the monks of the monastery of Villars. In the course of time\nHildegard replies: \u201cIn visione animae meae, haec verba vidi et audivi,\u201d\nand thereupon she gives a text from Canticles with an exposition of it,\nwhich neither she nor the monks regarded quite as hers, but as divinely\nrevealed. At the end of the letter she says that she, insignificant and\nuntaught creature, has looked to the \u201ctrue light,\u201d and through the grace\nof God has laboured upon their questions and has completed the solutions\nof fourteen of them.[555]\n\nIn some of Hildegard\u2019s voluminous writings, visions were apparently a form\nof composition; again, more veritable visions, deemed by her and by her\nfriends to have been divinely given, made the nucleus of the work at\nlength produced by the labour of her mind. Guibert recognized both\nelements, the God-given visions of the seeress and her contributory\nlabour. In letters which had elicited the answers above mentioned, he\ncalls her _speculativa anima_, and urges her to direct her talents\n(_ingenium_) to the solution of the questions. But he also addresses her\nin words just varied from Gabriel\u2019s and Elizabeth\u2019s to the Virgin:\n\n    \u201cHail--after Mary--full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art\n    thou among women, and blessed is the word of thy mouth.... In the\n    character of thy visions, the logic of thy expositions, the orthodoxy\n    of thy opinions, the Holy Spirit has marvellously illuminated thee,\n    and revealed to babes divers secrets of His wisdom.\u201d[556]\n\nIn answer to more personal inquiries from the deeply-interested Guibert,\nHildegard (who at the time was venerable in years and in repute for\nsanctity) explains how she saw her visions, and how her knowledge of\nScripture came to her:\n\n    \u201cFrom infancy, even to the present time when I am more than seventy\n    years old, my soul has always beheld this _visio_,[557] and in it my\n    soul, as God may will, soars to the summit of the firmament and into a\n    different air, and diffuses itself among divers peoples, however\n    remote they may be. Therefore I perceive these matters in my soul, as\n    if I saw them through dissolving views of clouds and other objects. I\n    do not hear them with my outer ears, nor do I perceive them by the\n    cogitations of my heart, or by any collaboration of my five senses;\n    but only in my soul, my eyes open, and not sightless as in a trance;\n    wide awake, whether by day or night, I see these things. And I am\n    perpetually bound by my infirmities and with pains so severe as to\n    threaten death, but hitherto God has raised me up.\n\n    \u201cThe brightness which I see is not limited in space, and is more\n    brilliant than the luminous air around the sun, nor can I estimate its\n    height or length or breadth. Its name, which has been given me, is\n    Shade of the living light (_umbra viventis luminis_). Just as sun,\n    moon, or stars appear reflected in the water, I see Scripture,\n    discourses, virtues and human actions shining in it.\n\n    \u201cWhatever I see or learn in this vision, I retain in my memory; and as\n    I may have seen or heard it, I recall it to mind, and at once see,\n    hear, know; in an instant I learn whatever I know. On the other hand,\n    what I do not see, that I do not know, because I am unlearned; but I\n    have had some simple instruction in letters. I write whatever I see\n    and hear in the vision, nor do I set down any other words, but tell my\n    message in the rude Latin words which I read in the vision. For I am\n    not instructed in the vision to write as the learned write; and the\n    words in the vision are not as words sounding from a human mouth, but\n    as flashing flame and as a cloud moving in clear air.\n\n    \u201cNor have I been able to perceive the form of this brightness, just as\n    I cannot perfectly see the disk of the Sun. In that brightness I\n    sometimes see another light, for which the name _Lux vivens_ has been\n    given me. When and how I see it I cannot tell; but sometimes when I\n    see it, all sadness and pain is lifted from me, and then I have the\n    ways of a simple girl and not those of an old woman.\u201d[558]\n\nThe obscure Latin of this letter gives the impression of one trying to put\nin words what was unintelligible to the writer. And the same sense of\nstruggle with the inadequacies of speech comes from the prologue of a work\nwritten many years before:\n\n    \u201cLo, in the forty-third year of my temporal course, while I, in fear\n    and trembling, was intent upon the celestial vision, I saw a great\n    splendour in which was a voice speaking to me from heaven: Frail\n    creature, dust of the dust, speak and write what thou seest and\n    hearest. But because that thou art timid of speech and unskilled in\n    writing, speak and write these things not according to human utterance\n    nor human understanding of composition; but as thou seest and hearest\n    in the heavens above, in the marvels of God, so declare, as a hearer\n    sets forth the words of his preceptor, preserving the fashion of his\n    speech, under his will, his guidance and his command. Thus thou, O man\n    (_homo_), tell those things which thou seest and hearest, and write,\n    not according to thyself or other human being, but according to the\n    will of Him who knows and sees and disposes all things in the secrets\n    of His mysteries.\n\n    \u201cAnd again, I heard a voice saying to me from heaven: Tell these\n    marvels and write them, taught in this way, and say: It happened in\n    the year one thousand one hundred and forty-one of the incarnation of\n    Jesus Christ the Son of God, when I was forty-two years old, that a\n    flashing fire of light from the clear sky transfused my brain, my\n    heart, and my whole breast as with flame; yet it did not burn but only\n    warmed me, as the sun warms an object upon which it sheds its rays.\n    And suddenly I had intelligence of the full meaning of the Psalter,\n    the Gospels, and the other books of the Old and New Testaments,\n    although I did not have the exact interpretation of the words of their\n    text, nor the division of syllables nor knowledge of cases and moods.\u201d\n\nThe writer continues with the statement:\n\n    \u201cThe visions which I saw, I did not perceive in dreams or sleeping,\n    nor in delirium, nor with the corporeal ears and eyes of the outer\n    man; but watchful and intent in mind I received them according to the\n    will of God.\u201d[559]\n\nHildegard spoke as truthfully as she could about her visions and the\nsource of her knowledge, matters hard for her to put in words, and by no\nmeans easy for others to classify in categories of seeming explanation.\nGuibert may have read the work in question. At all events, his interesting\ncorrespondence with her, and her great repute, led him to come to see for\nhimself and investigate her visions; for he realized that deceptions were\ncommon, and wished to follow the advice of Scripture to prove all things.\nSo he made the journey to Bingen, and stayed four days with Hildegard.\nThis was in 1178, about a year before her death. \u201cSo far as was possible\nin this short space of time, I observed her attentively; and I could not\nperceive in her any invention or untruth or hypocrisy, or indeed anything\nthat could offend either us or other men who follow reason.\u201d[560]\n\nSpringing from her rapt faith, the visions of this seeress and _anima\nspeculativa_ disclose the range of her knowledge and the power of her\nmind. The visions all were allegories; but while some appear as sheer\nspontaneous visions, in others the mind of Hildegard, aware of the\nintended allegorical significance, constructs the vision, and fashions its\ndetails to suit the spiritual meaning. This woman, fit sister to her\ncontemporaries Hugo of St. Victor and Bernard of Clairvaux, was ancestress\nof him who saw his _Commedia_ both as fact and allegory, and with intended\nmind laboured upon that inspiration which kept him lean for twenty years.\n\nLet us now follow these visions for ourselves, and begin with the _Book of\nthe Rewards of Life_ revealed by the Living Light through a simple\nperson.[561]\n\n    \u201cWhen I was sixty years old, I saw the strong and wonderful vision\n    wherein I toiled for five years. And I saw a Man of such size that he\n    reached from the summit of the clouds of heaven even to the Abyss.\n    From his shoulders upward he was above the clouds in the serenest\n    ether. From his shoulders down to his hips he was in a white cloud;\n    from his hips to his knees he was in the air of earth; from the knees\n    to the calves he was in the earth; and from his calves to the soles of\n    his feet he was in the waters of the Abyss, so that he stood upon the\n    Abyss. And he turned to the East. The brightness of his countenance\n    dazzled me. At his mouth was a white cloud like a trumpet, which was\n    full of all sounds sounding quickly. When he blew in it, it sent forth\n    three winds, of which one sustained above itself a fiery cloud, and\n    one a storm-cloud, and one a cloud of light. But the wind with the\n    fiery cloud above it hovered before the Man\u2019s face, while the two\n    others descended to his breast and blew there.\n\n    \u201cAnd in the fiery cloud there was a living fiery multitude all one in\n    will and life. Before them was spread a tablet covered with quills\n    (_pennae_) which flew in the precepts of God. And when the precepts of\n    God lifted up that tablet where God\u2019s knowledge had written certain of\n    its secrets, this multitude with one impulse gazed on it. And as they\n    saw the writing, God\u2019s virtue was so bestowed upon them that as a\n    mighty trumpet they gave forth in one note a music manifold.\n\n    \u201cThe wind having the storm-cloud over it, spread, with that cloud,\n    from the south to the west. In it was a multitude of the blessed, who\n    possessed the spirit of life; and their voice was as the noise of many\n    waters as they cried: We have our habitations from Him who made this\n    wind, and when shall we receive them? But the multitude that was in\n    the fiery cloud chanted responding: When God shall grasp His trumpet,\n    lightning and thunder and burning fire shall He send upon the earth,\n    and then in that trumpet shall ye have your habitation.\n\n    \u201cAnd the wind which had over it the cloud of light spread with that\n    cloud from the east to the north. But masses of darkness and thick\n    horror coming from the west, extended themselves to the light cloud,\n    yet could not pass beyond it. In that darkness was a countless crowd\n    of lost souls; and these swerved in their course whenever they heard\n    the song of those singing in the storm-cloud, as if they shunned their\n    company.\n\n    \u201cThen I saw coming from the north, a cloud barren of delight,\n    untouched by the Sun\u2019s rays. It reached towards the darkness\n    aforesaid, and was full of malignant spirits, who go about devising\n    snares for men. And I heard the old serpent saying, \u2018I will prepare my\n    men of might and will make war upon mine enemies.\u2019 And he spat forth\n    among men a spume of things impure, and inflated them with derision.\n    Then he blew up a foul mist which filled the whole earth as with black\n    smoke, out of which was heard a groaning; and in that mist I saw the\n    images of every sin.\u201d[562]\n\nThese images now speak in their own defence, and are answered by the\nvirtues, speaking from the storm-cloud, Heavenly Love replying to Love of\nthis World, Discipline answering Petulance, Shame answering Ribaldry (the\nvice of the _jongleours_) after the fashion of such mediaeval allegorical\ndebates. The virtues are simply voices; but the monstrous or bestial image\nof each sin is described:\n\n    \u201cIgnavia (cowardly sloth) had a human head, but its left ear was like\n    the ear of a hare, and so large as to cover the head. Its body and\n    limbs were worm-like, apparently without bones; and it spoke\n    trembling.\u201d[563]\n\nHildegard explains the general features of her vision: God with secret\ninquisition, reviewing the profound disposal of His will, made three ways\nof righteousness, which should advance in the three orders of the blessed.\nThese are the three winds with the three clouds above them. The first wind\nbears over it the fiery cloud, which is the glory of angels burning with\nlove of God, willing only what He wills; the wind bearing over it the\nstorm-cloud represents the works of men, stormy and various, done in\nstraits and tribulations; the third way of righteousness, through the\nIncarnation of our Lord, bears above it a white and untouched virginity,\nas a cloud of light.[564]\n\nThen Hildegard sees the punishments of those who die in their sins\nimpenitent. They were in a pit having a bottom of burning pitch, out of\nwhich crawled fiery worms; and sharp nails were driven about in that pit\nas by a wind.\n\n    \u201cI saw a well deep and broad, full of boiling pitch and sulphur, and\n    around it were wasps and scorpions, who scared but did not injure the\n    souls of those therein; which were the souls of those who had slain in\n    order not to be slain.\n\n    \u201cNear a pond of clear water I saw a great fire. In this some souls\n    were burned and others were girdled with snakes, and others drew in\n    and again exhaled the fire like a breath, while malignant spirits cast\n    lighted stones at them. And all of them beheld their punishments\n    reflected in the water, and thereat were the more afflicted. These\n    were the souls of those who had extinguished the substance of the\n    human form within them, or had slain their infants.\n\n    \u201cAnd I saw a great swamp, over which hung a black cloud of smoke,\n    which was issuing from it. And in the swamp there swarmed a mass of\n    little worms. Here were the souls of those who in the world had\n    delighted in foolish merriment (_inepta laetitia_).[565]\n\n    \u201cAnd I saw a great fire, black, red, and white, and in it horrible\n    fiery vipers spitting flame; and there the vipers tortured the souls\n    of those who had been slaves of the sin of uncharitableness\n    (_acerbitas_).\n\n    \u201cAnd I saw a fire burning in a blackness, in which were dragons, who\n    blew up the fire with their breath. And near was an icy river; and the\n    dragons passed into it from time to time and disturbed it. And a fiery\n    air was over both river and fire. Here were punished the souls of\n    liars; and for relief from the heat, they pass into the river, and\n    again, for the cold, they return to the fire, and the dragons torment\n    them. But the fiery air afflicts only those who have sworn\n    falsely.[566]\n\n    \u201cI saw a hollow mountain full of fire and vipers, with a little\n    opening; and near it a horrible cold place crawling with scorpions.\n    The souls of those guilty of envy and malice suffer here, passing for\n    relief from one place of torment to the other.\n\n    \u201cAnd I saw a thickest darkness, in which the souls of the disobedient\n    lay on a fiery pavement and were bitten by sharp-toothed worms. For\n    blind were they in life, and the fiery pavement is for their wilful\n    disobedience, and the worms because they disobeyed their prelates.\n\n    \u201cAnd I beheld at great height in the air a hail of ice and fire\n    descending. And from that height, the souls of those who had broken\n    their vows of chastity were falling, and then as by a wind were\n    whirled aloft again wrapped in a ligature of darkness, so that they\n    could not move; and the hail of cold and fire fell upon them.\n\n    \u201cAnd I saw demons with fiery scourges beating hither and thither,\n    through fires shaped like thorns and sharpened flails, the souls of\n    those who on earth had been guilty bestially.\u201d[567]\n\nAfter the vision of the punishment, Hildegard states the penance which\nwould have averted it, and usually follows with pious discourse and\nquotations from Scripture. Apparently she would have the punishments seen\nby her to be taken not as allegories, but literally as those actually in\nstore for the wicked.\n\nIt is different with her visions of Paradise. In Hildegard, as in Dante,\ndescriptions of heaven\u2019s blessedness are pale in comparison with the\nhighly-coloured happenings in hell. And naturally, since Paradise is won\nby those in whom spirit has triumphed over carnality. But flesh triumphed\nin the wicked on earth, and hell is of the flesh, though the spirit also\nbe agonized. Hildegard sees many blessed folk in Paradise, but all is much\nthe same with them: they are clad in splendid clothes, they breathe an air\nfragrant with sweetest flowers, they are adorned with jewels, and many of\nthem wear crowns. For example, she sees the blessed virgins standing in\npurest light and limpid splendour, surpassing that of the sun. They are\nclad \u201cquasi candidissima veste velut auro intexta, et quasi pretiosissimis\nlapidibus a pectore usque ad pedes, in modum dependentis zonae, ornata\ninduebantur, quae etiam maximum odorem velut aromatum de se emittebat. Sed\net cingulis, quasi auro et gemmis ac margaritis supra humanum intellectum\nornatis, circumcingebantur.\u201d\n\nThis seems a description of heavenly millinery. Are these virgins rewarded\nin the life to come with what they spurned in this? What would the saint\nhave thought of virgins had she seen them in the flesh clad in the whitest\nvestment ornamented with interwoven gold and gems, falling in alluring\nfolds from their breasts to their feet, giving out aromatic odours, and\nbelted with girdles of pearls beyond human conception? Could it be\npossible that the woman surviving in the nun took delight in contemplating\nthe blissful things forbidden here below? However this may be, the quasi-s\nand velut-s suggest the symbolical character of these marvels. This\nindication becomes stronger as Hildegard, in language wavering between the\nliteral and the symbolical, explains the appropriateness of ornaments and\nperfumes as rewards for the virtues shown by saints on earth. At last all\nis made clear: the _Lux vivens_ declares that these ornaments are\nspiritual and eternal; gold and gems, which are of the dust, are not for\nthe eternal life of celestial beings; but the elect are spiritually\nadorned by their righteous works as people are bodily adorned with costly\nornaments. So one gains the lesson that the bliss of heaven can only be\nshown in allegories, since it surpasses the understanding of men while\nheld in mortal flesh.[568]\n\nThese visions from Hildegard\u2019s _Book of the Rewards of Life_ may be\nsupplemented by one or two selected from the curious and lengthy work\nwhich she named _Scivias_, signifying _Scito vias domini_ (know the ways\nof the Lord). In this work, on which she laboured for nine years, the\nseeress shows forth the Church, in images seen in visions, and the whole\ndogmatic scheme of Christian polity. The allegories form the texts of\nexpository sermons. For example, the first vision in the first Book is of\nan iron-coloured mountain, which is at once explained as an image of the\nstability of God\u2019s eternal kingdom. The third vision is of a fiery,\negg-shaped object, very complicated in construction, and devised to\nillustrate the truth that things visible and temporal shadow forth the\ninvisible and eternal, in the polity of God.[569] In the fourth vision,\nglobes of fire are seen to enter the human form at birth, and are then\nattacked by many whirlwinds rushing in upon them. This is an allegory of\nhuman souls and their temptations, and forms the text for a long discourse\non the nature of the soul.\n\nThe fifth vision is of the Synagogue, the _Mater incarnationis Filii Dei_:\n\n    \u201cThen I saw as it were the image of a woman, pale from the top to the\n    navel, and black from the navel to the feet, and its feet were\n    blood-colour, and had about them a very white cloud. This image lacked\n    eyes, and kept its hands under its arm-pits. It stood by the Altar\n    that is before the eyes of God, but did not touch it.\u201d\n\nThe pale upper part of this image represents the prescience of the\npatriarchs and prophets, who had not the strong light of the Gospel; the\nblack lower portion represents Israel\u2019s later backslidings; and the bloody\nfeet surrounded by a white cloud, the slaying of Christ, and the Church\narising from that consummation. The image is sightless--blind to\nChrist--and stands before His altar, but will have none of it; and its\nslothful hands keep from the work of righteousness.[570]\n\nThe sixth vision is of the orders of celestial spirits, and harks back to\nthe _Celestial Hierarchy_ of Dionysius the Areopagite. In the height of\nthe celestial secrets Hildegard sees a shining company of supernal spirits\nhaving as it were wings (_pennas_) across their breasts, and bearing\nbefore them a face like the human countenance, in which the look of man\nwas mirrored. These are angels spreading as wings the desires of their\nprofound intelligence; not that they have wings, like birds; but they\nquickly do the will of God in their desires, as a man flees quickly in his\nthoughts.[571] They manifest the beauty of rationality through their\nfaces, wherein God scrutinizes the works of men. For these angels see to\nthe accomplishment of the will of God in men; and then in themselves they\nshow the actions of men.\n\nAnother celestial company was seen, also having as it were wings over\ntheir breasts, and bearing before them a face like the human countenance\nin which the image of the Son of Man shone as in a mirror. These are\narchangels contemplating the will of God in the desires of their own\nintelligences, and displaying the grace of rationality; they glorify the\nincarnate Word by figuring in their attributes the mysteries of the\nIncarnation. This vision, symbolizing the angelic intelligence, is\nconsciously and rationally constructed.\n\nPerhaps the same may be said of the second vision of the second Book:[572]\n\n    \u201cThen I saw a most glorious light and in it a human form of sapphire\n    hue, all aflame with a most gentle glowing fire; and that glorious\n    light was infused in the glowing fire, and the fire was infused in the\n    glorious light; and both light and fire transfused that human\n    form--all inter-existent as one light, one virtue, and one power.\u201d\n\nThis vision of the Trinity, in which the glorious light is the Father, the\nhuman form is the Son, and the fire is the Holy Spirit, may remind the\nreader of the closing \u201cvision\u201d of the thirty-third canto of Dante\u2019s\n_Paradiso_.\n\nThe third Book contains manifold visions of a four-sided edifice set upon\na mountain, and built with a double (_biformis_) wall. Here an infinitude\nof symbolic detail illustrates the entire Christian Faith. Observe a part\nof the symbolism of the twofold wall: the wall is double (_in duabus\nformis_). One of its formae[573] is speculative knowledge, which man\npossesses through careful and penetrating investigation of the speculation\nof his mind; so that he may be circumspect in all his ways. The other\nforma of the wall represents the _homo operans_.\n\n    \u201cThis speculative knowledge shines in the brightness of the light of\n    day, that through it men may see and consider their acts. This\n    brightness is of the human mind carefully looking about itself; and\n    this glorious knowledge appears as a white mist permeating the minds\n    of the peoples, as quickly as mist is scattered through the air; it is\n    light as the light of day, after the brightness of that most glorious\n    work which God benignly works in men, to wit, that they shun evil and\n    do the good which shines in them as the light of day.... This\n    knowledge is speculative, for it is like a mirror (_speculum_) in\n    which a man sees whether his face be fair or blotched; thus this\n    knowledge views the good and evil in the deed done.\u201d[574]\n\nThe _Scivias_ closes with visions of the Last Judgment, splendid, ordered,\ntremendous, and rendered audible in hymns rising to the Virgin and to\nChrist. Apostles, martyrs, saints chant the refrains of victory which echo\nthe past militancy of this faithful choir.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe visions of Elizabeth of Sch\u00f6nau and Hildegard of Bingen set forth\nuniversal dogmas and convictions. They show the action of the imaginative\nand rational faculties and the full use of the acquired knowledge\npossessed by the women to whom they came. Such visions spring from the\nmind--quite different are those born of love. Emotion dominates the\nlatter; their motives are subjective; they are personal experiences having\nno clear pertinency to the lives of others. If the visions of Hildegard\nwere object lessons, the blissful ecstasies of Mary of Ognies and Liutgard\nof Tongern were specifically their own, very nearly as the intimate\nconsolation of a wife from a husband, or a lady from her faithful knight,\nwould be that woman\u2019s and none other\u2019s.\n\nOne cannot say that there was no love of God before Jesus was born; still\nless that men had not conceived of God as loving them. Nevertheless in\nJesus\u2019 words God became lovable as never before, and God\u2019s love of man was\nshown anew, and was anew set forth as the perfect pattern of human love.\nIn Christ, God offered the sacrifice which afore He had demanded of\nAbraham: for \u201cGod so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.\u201d\nThat Son carried out the Father\u2019s act: \u201cGreater love hath no man than\nthis, that a man lay down his life for his friend.\u201d So men learned the\nfinal teaching: \u201cGod is love.\u201d\n\nA new love also was aroused by the personality of Jesus. Was this the love\nof God or love of man? Rather, it was such as to reveal the two as one. In\nJesus\u2019 teachings, love of God and love of man might not be severed: \u201cAs ye\nhave done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it\nunto me.\u201d And the love which He inspired for himself was at once a love of\nman and love of God.[575] Think of that love, new in the world, with\nwhich, more than with her ointment or her tears, the woman who had been a\nsinner bathed the Master\u2019s feet.\n\nThis woman saw the Master in the flesh; but the love which was hers was\nborn again in those who never looked upon His face. Through the Middle\nAges the love of Christ with which saintly women were possessed was as\nimpulsive as this sinner\u2019s, and also held much resembling human passion.\nTheir burning faith tended to liquefy to ecstatic experiences. They had\nrenounced the passionate love of man in order to devote themselves to the\nlove of Christ; and as their thoughts leapt toward the Bridegroom, the\nChurch\u2019s Spouse and Lord, their visions sometimes kept at least the colour\nof the love for knight or husband which they had abjured.[576]\n\nAt the height of the horrors of the Albigensian Crusade, in the year 1212,\nFulco, Bishop of Toulouse, was driven from his diocese by the incensed but\nheretical populace. He travelled northward through France, seeking aid\nagainst these foes of Christ, and came to the diocese of Li\u00e9ge. There he\nobserved with joy the faith and humility of those who were leading a\nreligious life, and was struck by the devotion of certain saintly women\nwhose ardour knew no bounds. It was all very different from Toulouse.\n\u201cIndeed I have heard you declare that you had gone out of Egypt--your own\ndiocese--and having passed through the desert, had reached the promised\nland--in Li\u00e9ge.\u201d\n\nJacques de Vitry is speaking. His friend the bishop had asked him to write\nof these holy women, who brought such glory to the Church in troubled\ntimes. Jacques was himself a clever Churchman, zealous for the Church\u2019s\ninterests and his own. He afterwards became Bishop and Cardinal of\nTusculum; and as papal legate consecrated the holy bones of her whom the\nChurch had decided to canonize, the blessed Mary of Ognies, the paragon of\nall these other women who rejoiced the ecclesiastical hearts of himself\nand Fulco. Jacques had known her and had been present at her pious death;\nand also had witnessed many of the matters of which he is speaking at the\ncommencement of his _Vita_ of this saint.[577]\n\nMany of these women, continues Jacques, had for Christ spurned carnal\njoys, and for Him had despised the riches of this world, in poverty and\nhumility clinging to their heavenly Spouse.\n\n    \u201cYou saw,\u201d says Jacques, again addressing Fulco, \u201csome of these women\n    dissolved with such a particular and marvellous love toward God (_tam\n    speciali et mirabili in Deum amoris affectione resolutas_) that they\n    languished with desire, and for years had rarely been able to rise\n    from their cots. They had no other infirmity, save that their souls\n    were melted with desire of Him, and, sweetly resting with the Lord, as\n    they were comforted in spirit they were weakened in body. They cried\n    in their hearts, though from modesty their lips dissimulated:\n    \u201cFulcite me floribus, stipate me malis, quia amore langueo.\u201d[578] The\n    cheeks of one were seen to waste away, while her soul was melted with\n    the greatness of her love. Another\u2019s flow of tears had made visible\n    furrows down her face. Others were drawn with such intoxication of\n    spirit that in sacred silence they would remain quiet a whole day,\n    \u2018while the King was on His couch\u2019 (_i.e._ at meat),[579] with no sense\n    or feeling for things without them, so that they could not be roused\n    by clamour or feel a blow. I saw another whom for thirty years her\n    Spouse had so zealously guarded in her cell, that she could not leave\n    it herself, nor could the hands of others drag her out. I saw another\n    who sometimes was seized with ecstasy five-and-twenty times a day, in\n    which state she was motionless, and on returning to herself was so\n    enraptured that she could not keep from displaying her inner joy with\n    movements of the body, like David leaping before the Ark. And I saw\n    still another who after she had lain for some time dead, before burial\n    was permitted by the Lord to return to the flesh, that she might on\n    earth do purgatorial penance; and long was she thus afflicted of the\n    Lord, sometimes rolling herself in the fire, and in the winter\n    standing in frozen water.\u201d[580]\n\nBut what need to say more of these, as all their graces are found in one\nprecious and pre-excellent pearl--and Jacques proceeds to tell the life of\nMary of Ognies. She was born in a village near Namur in Belgium, about the\nyear 1177. She never took part in games or foolishness with other girls;\nbut kept her soul free from vanity. Married at fourteen to a young man,\nshe burned the more to afflict her body, passing the nights in austerities\nand prayer. Her husband soon was willing to dwell with her in continence,\nhimself sustaining her in her holy life, and giving his goods to the poor\nfor Christ\u2019s sake.\n\nThere was nothing more marvellous with Mary than her gift of tears, as\nher soul dwelt in the passion of her Lord. Her tears--so says her\nbiographer--wetted the pavement of the Church or the cloth of the altar.\nHer life was one of body-destroying austerities: she went barefoot in the\nice of the winter; often she took no food through the day, and then\nwatched out the night in prayer. Her body was afflicted and wasted; her\nsoul was comforted. She had frequent visions, the gift of second sight,\nand great power over devils. Once for thirty-five days in silent trance\nshe rested sweetly with the Lord, only occasionally uttering these words:\n\u201cI desire the body of our Lord Jesus Christ\u201d (_i.e._ the Eucharist); and\nwhen she had received it, she turned again to silence.[581] Always she\nsought after her Lord: He was her meditation, and example in speech and\ndeed. She died in the year 1213, at the age of thirty-six. She was called\nMary of Ognies, from the name of the town where a church was dedicated to\nher, and where her relics were laid to rest.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEmotionally, another very interesting personality was the blessed virgin,\nLiutgard of Tongern, a younger contemporary of Mary of Ognies. In\naccordance with her heart\u2019s desire, she was providentially protected from\nthe forceful importunities of her wooers, and became a Benedictine nun.\nAfter some years, however, seeking a more strenuous rule of life, she\nentered the Cistercian convent at Aquiria, near Cambray.[582]\n\nLiutgard\u2019s experiences were sense-realizations of her faith, but chiefly\nof her love of Christ. Sometimes her senses realized the imagery of the\nApocalypse; as when singing in Church she had a vision of Christ as a\nwhite lamb. The lamb rests a foot on each of her shoulders, sets his mouth\nto hers, and draws out sweetest song. Far more frequently she realized\nwithin her heart the burning words of Canticles. Her whole being yearned\ncontinually for the Lord, and sought no other comfort. For five years she\nreceived almost daily visits from the Mother of Christ, as well as from\nthe Apostles and other saints; the angels were continually with her. Yet\nin all these she did not find perfect rest for her spirit, till she found\nthe Saint of saints, who is ineffably sweeter than them all, even as He is\ntheir sanctifier. Smitten as the bride in Canticles, she is wounded, she\nlanguishes, she pants, she arises; \u201cin the streets\u201d she seeks the Saints\nof the New Dispensation, and through \u201cthe broad places\u201d the Patriarchs of\nthe Old Testament. Little by little she passes by them \u201cbecause He is not\nfar from every one of us\u201d; she finds Him whom her soul cherishes. She\nfinds, she holds Him, because He does not send her away; she holds Him by\nfaith, happy in the seeking, more happy in the holding fast.[583]\n\nThere are three couches in Canticles:[584] the first signifies the soul\u2019s\nstate of penitence; the second its state of warfare; the third the state\nof those made perfect in the _vita contemplativa_. On the first couch the\nsoul is wounded, on the second it is wearied, on the third it is made\nglad. The saintly Liutgard sought her Beloved perfectly on the couch of\npenitence, and watered it with her tears, although she never had been\nstung by mortal sin. On the second couch she sought her Beloved, battling\nagainst the flesh with fasting and endeavour; with poverty and humility\nshe overcame the world, and cast down the devil with prayer and remedial\ntears. On the third couch, which is the couch of quiet, she perfectly\nsought her Beloved, since she did not lean upon the angels or saints, but\nthrough contemplation rested sweetly only upon the couch of the Spouse.\nThis couch is called flowery (_floridus_) from the vernal quality of its\nvirtues; and it is called \u201cours\u201d because common to husband and wife: in it\nshe may say, \u201cMy Beloved is mine and I am His,\u201d and, \u201cI am my Beloved\u2019s,\nand His desire is towards me.\u201d Why not say that? exclaims the biographer,\nquoting the lines:\n\n  \u201cNescit amor Dominum; non novit amor dominari,\n   Quamlibet altus amet, non amat absque pari.\u201d\n\nThenceforth her spirit was absorbed in God, as drops of water in a jar of\nwine. When asked how she was wont to see the visage of Christ in\ncontemplation, she answered: \u201cIn a moment there appears to me a splendour\ninconceivable, and as lightning I see the ineffable beauty of His\nglorification; the sight of which I could not endure in this present life,\ndid it not instantly pass from my view. A mental splendour remains, and\nwhen I seek in that what I saw for an instant, I do not find it.\u201d\n\nA little more than a year before her death the Lord Jesus Christ appeared\nto her, with the look as of one who applauds, and said: \u201cThe end of thy\nlabour is at hand: I do not wish thee longer to be separated from me. This\nyear I require three things of thee: first, that thou shouldst render\nthanks for all thy benefits received; secondly, that thou pour thyself out\nin prayer to the Father for my sinners; and thirdly, that, without any\nother solicitude, thou burn to come to me, panting with desire.\u201d[585]\n\nThe religious yearning which with Liutgard touches sense-realization,\nseems transformed completely into the latter in the extraordinary German\nbook of one Sister Mechthild, called of Magdeburg.[586] The authoress\nprobably was born not far from that town about the year 1212. To judge\nfrom her work, she belonged to a good family and was acquainted with the\ncourtly literature of the time. She speaks of her loving parents, from\nwhom she tore herself away at the age of twenty-three, and entered the\ntown of Magdeburg, there to begin a life of rapt religious mendicancy, for\nwhich Francis had set the resistless example. Sustained by love for her\nLord, she led a despised and homeless life of hardship and austerity for\nthirty years. At length bodily infirmities brought her to rest in a\nCistercian cloister for nuns at Helfta, near Eisleben, where ruled a wise\nand holy abbess, the noble Gertrude of Hackeborn. Here Mechthild remained\nuntil her death in 1277. For many years it had been her custom to write\ndown her experiences of the divine love in a book which she called _The\nFlowing Light of God_, in which she also wrote the prophetic\ndenunciations, revealed to her to be pronounced before men, especially in\nthe presence of those who were great in what should be God\u2019s holy\nChurch.[587]\n\n\u201cFrau Minne (Lady Love) you have taken from me the world\u2019s riches and\nhonour,\u201d cries Mechthild.[588] Love\u2019s ecstasy came upon her when she\nabandoned the world and cast herself upon God alone. Then first her soul\u2019s\neyes beheld the beautiful manhood of her Lord Jesus Christ, also the Holy\nTrinity, her own guardian angel, and the devil who tempted her through the\nvainglory of her visions and through unchaste desire. She defended herself\nwith the agony of our Lord. For Mechthild, hell is the \u201ccity whose name is\neternal hate.\u201d With her all blessedness is love, as her book will now\ndisclose.\n\nCries the Soul to Love (_Minne_) her guardian: \u201cThou hast hunted and\ntaken, bound and wounded me; never shall I be healed.\u201d\n\nLove answers: \u201cIt was my pleasure to hunt thee; to take thee captive was\nmy desire; to bind thee was my joy. I drove Almighty God from His throne\nin heaven, and took His human life from Him, and then with honour gave\nHim back to His Father; how couldst thou, poor worm, save thyself from\nme!\u201d[589]\n\nWhat then will love\u2019s omnipotence exact from this poor Soul? Merely all.\nDrawn by yearning, the Soul comes flying, like an eagle toward the sun.\n\u201cSee, how she mounts to us, she who wounded me\u201d--it is the Lord that is\nspeaking. \u201cShe has thrown away the ashes of the world, overcome lust, and\ntrodden the lion of pride beneath her feet--thou eager huntress of love,\nwhat bringest thou to me?\u201d\n\n\u201cLord, I bring thee my treasure, which is greater than mountains, wider\nthan the world, deeper than the sea, higher than the clouds, more\nbeautiful than the sun, more manifold than the stars, and outweighs the\nriches of the earth.\u201d\n\n\u201cImage of my Divinity, ennobled by my manhood, adorned by my Holy Spirit,\nhow is thy treasure called?\u201d\n\n\u201cLord, it is called my heart\u2019s desire: I have withdrawn it from the world,\nwithheld it from myself, forbidden it all creatures. I can carry it no\nfarther; Lord, where shall I lay it?\u201d\n\n\u201cThou shalt lay thy heart\u2019s desire nowhere else than in my divine heart\nand on my human breast. There only wilt thou be comforted and kissed with\nmy spirit.\u201d\n\nLove casts out fear and difference, and lifts the Soul to equality with\nthe divine Lover. Through the passion of love the Soul may pass into the\nBeloved\u2019s being, and become one with Him: \u201cHe, thy life, died from love\nfor thy sake; now love Him so that thou mayest long to die for His sake.\nThen shalt thou burn for evermore unquenched, like a shining spark in the\ngreat fire of the Living Majesty.\u201d\n\nThese are passion\u2019s vision-flights. But God himself points out the way by\nwhich the Soul that loves shall come to Him: she--the Soul--shall come,\nsurmounting the need of penitence and penance, surmounting love of the\nworld, conflicts with the devil, carnal appetite, and the promptings of\nher own will. Thereupon, exhausted, she shall yearn resistlessly for that\nbeautiful Youth (Christ). He will be moved to come to meet her. Now her\nguardians (the Senses) bid her attire herself. \u201cLove, whither shall I\nhence?\u201d she cries. The Senses make answer: \u201cWe hear the murmur; the Prince\nwill come to meet you in the dew and the sweet-bird song. Courage, Lady,\nHe will not tarry.\u201d\n\nThe Soul clothes herself in a garment of humility, and over it draws the\nwhite robe of chastity, and goes into the wood. There nightingales sing of\nunion with God, and strains of divine knowledge meet her ears. She then\nstrives to follow in festal dance (_i.e._ to imitate) the example of the\nprophets, the chaste humility of the Virgin, the virtues of Jesus, and the\npiety of His saints. Then comes the Youth and says: \u201cMaiden, thou hast\ndanced holily, even as my saints.\u201d\n\nThe Soul answers: \u201cI cannot dance unless thou leadest. If thou wouldst\nhave me spring aloft, sing thou: and I will spring--into love, and from\nlove to knowledge, and from knowledge to ecstasy, above all human sense.\u201d\n\nThe Youth speaks: \u201cMaiden, thy dance of praise is well performed. Since\nnow thou art tired, thou shalt have thy will with the Virgin\u2019s Son. Come\nto the brown shades at midday, to the couch of love, and there shalt thou\ncool thyself with Him.\u201d\n\nThen the Soul speaks to her guardians, the Senses: \u201cI am tired with the\ndance; leave me, for I must go where I may cool myself.\u201d The Senses bid\nher cool herself in the tears of love shed by St. Mary Magdalen.\n\n\u201cHush, good sirs: ye know not what I mean. Unhindered, for a little I\nwould drink the unmixed wine.\u201d\n\n\u201cLady, in the Virgin\u2019s chastity the great love is reached.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat may be--with me it is not the highest.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou, Lady, might cool yourself in martyr-blood.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have been martyred many a day.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn the counsel of Father Confessors, the pure live gladly.\u201d\n\n\u201cGood is their counsel, but it helps not here.\u201d\n\n\u201cGreat safety would you find in the Apostles\u2019 wisdom.\u201d\n\n\u201cWisdom I have myself--to choose the best.\u201d\n\n\u201cLady, bright are the angels, and lovely in love\u2019s hue; to cool yourself,\nbe lifted up with them.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe bliss of angels brings me love\u2019s woe, unless I see their lord, my\nBridegroom.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen cool you in the hard, holy life that John the Baptist showed.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have tried that painful toil; my love passes beyond that.\u201d\n\n\u201cLady, would you with love cool yourself, approach the Child in the\nVirgin\u2019s lap.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is a childish love, to quiet children with. I am a full-grown bride\nand will have my Bridegroom.\u201d\n\n\u201cLady, there we should be smitten blind. The Godhead is so fiery hot.\nHeaven\u2019s glow and all the holy lights flow from His divine breath and\nhuman mouth by the counsel of the Holy Spirit.\u201d\n\nBut the Soul feeling its nature and its affinity with God, through love,\nmakes answer boldly: \u201cThe fish cannot drown in the water, nor the bird\nsink in the air, nor gold perish in the flame, where it gains its bright\nclarity and colour. God has granted to all creatures to follow their\nnatures; how can I withstand mine? To God will I go, who is my Father by\nnature, my Brother through His humility, my Bridegroom through love, and I\nam His forever.\u201d[590] Not long after this the Soul\u2019s rapture bursts forth\nin song:\n\n  \u201cIch sturbe gern von minnen, moehte es mir geschehen,\n   Denn jenen den ich minnen, den han ich gesehen\n   Mit minen liehten ougen in miner sele stehen.\u201d[591]\n\nMechthild\u2019s book is heavy with passion--with God\u2019s passionate love for the\nSoul, and the Soul\u2019s passionate response. No speech between lovers could\noutdo the converse between them. God calls the Soul, sweet dove, dear\nheart, my queen; and with like phrase the quivering Soul responds upward,\nas it were, to the great countenance glowing above it. Throughout, there\nis passion and impatient yearning--or satisfaction. The pain of the Soul\nsevered, not yet a bride, is deeper than the abyss, bitterer than the\nworld; but her joy shall exceed that of seraphs, she, Bride of the\nTrinity.[592]\n\nThe Soul must surrender herself, and become sheer desire for God.[593]\nGod\u2019s own yearning has begotten this desire. As glorious prince, as\nknight, as emperor, God comes; also in other forms:\n\n  \u201cI come to my Beloved\n   As dew upon the flowers.\u201d[594]\n\nFor each other are these lovers wounded, for each other these lovers\nbleed, and each to the other is joy unspeakable and unforgettable. From\nthe wafer of the holy Eucharist, the Lamb looks out upon me \u201cwith such\nsweet eyes that I never can forget.\u201d\n\n  \u201cHis eyes in my eyes; His heart in my heart,\n   His soul in my soul,\n   Embraced and untroubled.\u201d[595]\n\nNo need to say that in the end love draws the Soul to heaven\u2019s gate, which\nthe Lord opens to her. All is marvellous; but, far more, all is love: the\nLord kisses her--what else than love can the soul thereafter know or\nfeel.[596]\n\nMechthild, of course, is what is called a \u201cmystic,\u201d and a forerunner\nindeed of many another--Eckhart, Suso, Tauler--of German blood. With\ndirect and utter passion she realizes God\u2019s love; also she feels and\nthinks in symbols, which, with her, never cease to be the things they\nliterally are. They remain flesh and blood, while also signifying the\nmysteries of God. Jesus was a man, Mechthild a woman. Her love not only\nuses lovers\u2019 speech, but actually holds affinity with a maid\u2019s love for\nher betrothed. If it is the Soul\u2019s love of God, it is also the woman\u2019s\nlove of Him who overhung her from the Cross.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nTHE SPOTTED ACTUALITY\n\n    THE TESTIMONY OF INVECTIVE AND SATIRE; ARCHBISHOP RIGAUD\u2019S _REGISTER_;\n    ENGELBERT OF COLOGNE; POPULAR CREDENCES\n\n\nThe preceding sketches of monastic qualities and personalities illustrate\nthe ideals of monasticism. That monastic practices should fall away,\ncorruptions enter, and when expelled inevitably return, was to be\nexpected. The cause lay in those qualities of human nature which may be\neither power or frailty. The acquisitive, self-seeking, lusting qualities\nof men lie at the base of life, and may be essential to achievement and\nadvance. Yet a higher interpretation of values will set the spiritual\nabove the earthly, and beatify the self-denial through which man\nultimately attains his highest self, under the prompting of his vision of\nthe divine. The sight of this far goal is given to few men steadily, and\nthe multitude, whether cowled or clad in fashions of the world, pursue\nmore immediate desires.\n\nSo human nature saw to it that monasticism should constantly exhibit\nfrivolity instead of earnestness, gluttony instead of fasting, avarice\ninstead of alms-giving, anger and malice instead of charity and love,\nlustfulness instead of chastity, and, instead of meekness, pride and\nvain-glory. The particular forms assumed by these corruptions depended on\nthe conditions of mediaeval life and the position in it occupied by monks.\n\nIt has already been said that the standard of conduct for the secular\nclergy was the same in principle as that for monks, though with allowance\nmade for the stress of a life of service in the cure of souls.[597] But\nalways the cloister and the hermitage were looked upon as the\nabiding-places where one stood the best chance to save one\u2019s soul: the\nlife of the layman--merchant, usurer, knight--was fraught with instant\nperil; that of the secular clergy was also perilous, especially when they\nheld high office. Dread of ecclesiastical preferment might be well\nfounded; the reluctance to be a bishop was often real. This sentiment,\nlike all feelings in the Middle Ages, took the form of a story, with the\nusual vision to certify the moral of the tale:\n\n    \u201cIt is told of a certain prior of Clairvaux, Geoffrey by name, that\n    when he had been elected Bishop of Tournai, and Pope Eugene as well as\n    the blessed Bernard, his own abbot, was urging him to take the office,\n    he cast himself down at the feet of the blessed Bernard and his\n    clergy, and lay prone in the form of a cross, and said: \u2018An expelled\n    monk I may be, if you drive me out; but I will never be a bishop.\u2019 At\n    a later time, as this same prior lay breathing his last, a monk who\n    loved him well adjured him in the name of God to bring him news of his\n    state beyond the grave, if God would permit it. Some time after, as\n    the monk was praying prostrate before the altar, his friend appeared\n    and said that it was he. When the monk asked him how he was faring,\n    \u2018Well,\u2019 he replied, \u2018by the grace of God. Yet verily it has been\n    revealed to me by the blessed Trinity, that had I been in the number\n    of bishops I should have been in the number of the reprobate and\n    damned.\u2019\u201d[598]\n\nThrough the Middle Ages, Church dignities everywhere were secularized\nthrough the vast possessions, and corresponding responsibilities,\nattaching to them. The clerical situation varied in different lands, yet\nwith a like result. The Italian clergy were secularized through\nparticipation in civic and papal business, the German through their\nestates and principalities. In France clerical secularization was most\ntypically mediaeval, because there the functions and fortunes of the\nhigher clergy were most inextricably involved in feudalism. Monasteries\nand bishoprics were as feudal fiefs: abbots as well as bishops commonly\nheld lands from an over-lord, and were themselves lords of their\nsub-vassals who held lands from them. To the former they owed rent, or\naid, or service; to the latter they owed protection. In either case they\nmight have to go or send their men to war. They also managed and guarded\ntheir own lands, like feudal nobles, _vi et armis_. When the estates of a\nmonastery, for example, lay in different places, the abbot might exercise\nauthority over them through a local potentate, and might also have such a\nprotector (_v\u00eedame_, _avou\u00e9_, _advocatus_) for the home abbey. There was\nalways a general feeling, often embodied in law or custom, that a Church\ndignitary should fight by another\u2019s sword and spear. But this did not\nprevent bishop and abbot in countless instances in France, England,\nGermany, and Spain, from riding mail-clad under their seignorial banner at\nthe head of their forces.[599]\n\nEpiscopal lands and offices were not inherited:[600] yet with rare\nexceptions the bishops came from the noble, fighting, hunting class. They\nwere noblemen first and ecclesiastics afterwards. The same was true of the\nabbots. Noble-born, they became dignitaries of the world through\ninvestiture with the broad lands of the monastery, and then administrators\nby reason of the temporal functions involved. As with the episcopal or\nmonastic heads, so with canons and monks. They, too, for the most part\nwere well-born. They also were good, bad, or indifferent, warlike or\nclerkly, devoted to study, abandoned to pleasure, or following the one and\nthe other sparingly. Many a holy meditative monk there was; and many a\nsaintly parish priest, the stay of piety and justice in his village. The\nrude times, the ceaseless murder and harrying, uncertainty and danger\neverywhere, seemed to beget such holy lives.\n\nInvectives, satires, histories, and records, bear witness to the state of\nthe clergy. All diatribes are to be taken with allowance. Whoever, for\nexample, reads Peter Damiani\u2019s _Liber Gomorrhianus_ against the foulness\nof the clergy, must bear in mind the writer\u2019s fiercely ascetic temper, the\nwarfare which the stricter element in the Church was then waging against\nsimony and priestly concubinage, and the monkish phraseology so common to\necclesiastical indictment of frivolity and vice.\n\nOne cannot quote comfortably from the _Gomorrhianus_. St. Bernard\nfurnishes more decorous denunciation:\n\n    \u201cWoe unto this generation, for its leaven of the Pharisees which is\n    hypocrisy!--if that should be called hypocrisy which cannot be hidden\n    because of its abundance, and through impudence does not seek to hide!\n    To-day, foul rottenness crawls through the whole body of the Church.\n    If a heretic foe should arise openly, he would be cast out and\n    withered; or if the enemy raged madly, the Church might hide herself\n    from him. But now whom shall she cast out, or from whom hide herself?\n    All are friends and all are foes; all necessary and all adverse; all\n    of her own household and none pacific; all are her neighbours and all\n    seek their own interest. Ministers of Christ, they serve Antichrist.\n    They go clothed in the good things of the Lord and render Him no\n    honour. Hence that _\u00e9clat_ of the courtesan which you daily see, that\n    theatric garb, that regal state. Hence the gold-trapped reins and\n    saddles and spurs--for the spurs shine brighter than the altars. Hence\n    the splendid tables laden with food and goblets; hence the feastings\n    and drunkenness, the guitars, the lyres and the flutes; hence the\n    swollen wine-presses and the storehouses heaped and running over from\n    this one into that, and the jars of perfumes, and the stuffed purses.\n    \u2019Tis for such matters that they wish to be and are the over-seers of\n    churches, deacons, archdeacons, bishops, and archbishops. For neither\n    do these offices come by merit, but through that sort of business\n    which walketh in darkness!\u201d[601]\n\nSuch rhetoric gives glimpses of the times, but also springs from that\ntemper which is always crying _hora novissima, tempora pessima_.\nInvectives of this nature have their deepest source in the religious\nsense of the ineradicable opposition between this world and the kingdom of\nheaven. Yet luxury did in fact pervade the Church of Bernard\u2019s time, and\nsimony was as wide as western Europe. This crime was the offspring of the\nentire social state; it was part and parcel of the feudal system and the\nwhole matter of lay investitures. One sees that simony was no extraneous\nstain to be washed off from the body ecclesiastic, but rather an element\nof its actual constitution. The eradication had to come through social and\necclesiastical evolution, rather than spasmodic reformation.\n\nOne may turn from the invectives of the great saint to forms of satire\nmore frankly literary. The Latin poems \u201ccommonly attributed to Walter\nMapes\u201d[602] satirize with biting ridicule, through the mouth of \u201cBishop\nGolias,\u201d the avarice and venality, the gluttony and lubricity of the\nChurch, secular and monastic. In a quite different kind of poem the satire\ndirects itself against the rapacity of Rome. She, head of the Church and\nCaput Mundi, is shown to be like Scylla and Charybdis and the Sirens.[603]\nThese powerful verses anticipate the denunciation of the Roman papacy by\nthe good Germans Walther von der Vogelweide and Freidank,[604] and, a\ncentury later, in the _Vision of Piers Ploughman_.\n\nIn this outcry against papal rapacity France was not silent. Most extreme\nis the \u201cBible\u201d of Guiot de Provens: it satirizes the entire age, \u201csi\u00e8cle\npuant et orrible.\u201d As it turns toward the papacy it cries:\n\n  \u201cHa! Rome, Rome,\n   Encor ociras tu maint home!\u201d\n\nThe cardinals are stuffed with avarice and simony and evil living; without\nfaith or religion, they sell God and His Mother, and betray us and their\nfathers. Rome sucks and devours us; Rome kills and destroys all. Guiot\u2019s\nvoice is raised against the entire Church; neither the monks nor the\nseculars escape--bishops, priests, canons, the black monks and the white,\nTemplars and Hospitallers, nuns and abbesses, all bad.[605]\n\nOne might extend indefinitely the list of these invectives, which, like\nthe corruptions denounced by them, were common to all mediaeval centuries.\nFrom the testimony of more definite accounts one perceives the rudeness\nand cruelty of mediaeval life, in which the Church likewise was involved.\nIn order to rise, it had to lift the social fabric. To this end many of\nits children struggled nobly, devoting themselves and sometimes yielding\nup their lives for the betterment of the society in which their lots were\ncast.\n\nOne of these capable children of the Church who did his duty in the high\necclesiastical station to which he was called was Eude Rigaud, or Odo\nRigaldus, Archbishop of Rouen from 1248 to 1275, the year of his death. He\nwas a scion of a noble house whose fiefs lay in the neighbourhood of\nBrie-Comte-Robert (Seine-et-Marne). In 1236 he joined the Franciscans, and\nthen studied at Paris under Alexander of Hales, one of the Order\u2019s great\ntheologians. His first fame came from his preaching. As archbishop, he was\na reformer, and abetted the endeavours of Pope Gregory IX. He was also a\ncounsellor of Saint Louis, and followed him upon that last crusade from\nwhich the king did not return alive.[606]\n\nThe good archbishop was a man of method, and kept a record of his official\nacts. This monumental document exists, the _Register_ of Rigaud\u2019s\nvisitations among the monks and secular clergy within his wide\njurisdiction, between the years 1248 and 1269.[607] Consisting of entries\nmade at the time, it is a mirror of actual conditions, presumably similar\nto those existing in other parts of France. Rigaud visited many\nmonasteries and parishes where he found nothing to reform, and merely made\na memorandum of having been there; wherever abuses were found, the entry\nexpands to a statement of them and the measures taken for their remedy.\nConsequently one may not infer that the blameworthy or abominable\nconditions recorded in the particular instance obtained universally in\nNormandy. Occasionally Rigaud records in more detail the good condition of\nsome monastery. A few instructive extracts may be given.\n\n    \u201cCalends of October (1248). We were again at Ouville (Ovilla). We\n    found that the prior wanders about when he ought to stay in the\n    cloister; he is not in the cloister one day in five. Item, he is a\n    drunkard, and of such vile drunkenness that he sometimes lies out in\n    the fields because of it. Item, he frequents feasts and drinking-bouts\n    with laymen. Item, he is incontinent, and is accused in respect to a\n    certain woman of Grainville, and also with the wife of Robertot, and\n    also with a woman of Rouen named Agnes. Item, brother Geoffrey was\n    publicly accused with respect to the wife of Walter of Esquaquelon who\n    recently had a child from him. Item, they do not keep proper accounts\n    of their revenues. We ordered that they should keep better\n    accounts.\u201d[608]\n\nSuch an entry needs no comment. But it is illuminating to observe the\nstrictness or leniency with which Rigaud treats offences. Doubtless he was\nguided by what he thought he could enforce.\n\nApparently near the Ouville priory, the archbishop was scandalized by the\npriest of St. Vedasti de Depedale, who was convicted of taking part in the\nrough ball-play, common in Normandy, in which game, as might easily\nhappen, he had injured some one. \u201cHe took oath before us that if again\nconvicted he would hold himself to have resigned from his church.\u201d[609]\nRigaud did not approve of these somewhat too merry games for his parish\npriests, who were not angels. The archbishop finds of the priest of\nLortiey \u201cthat he but rarely wears his capa, that he does not confess to\nthe _penitentiarius_, that he is gravely accused concerning two women, by\nwhom he has had many children, and he is drunken.\u201d[610]\n\nRigaud enters the cases of other parish priests as follows:\n\n    \u201cWe found that the priest of Nigella was accused as to a woman, and of\n    being engaged in trade and of treating his father despitefully, who is\n    patron of the church which he holds, and that with drawn sword he\n    fought with a certain knight, with a riotous following of relatives\n    and friends. Item, the priest of Basinval is accused as to a woman\n    whom he takes about with him to the market-places and taverns.\n    Likewise the priest of Vieux-Rouen is accused of incontinency, and\n    goes about wearing a sword in shameless garb. Likewise the priest of\n    Cotigines is a dicer and plays at quoits and frequents taverns, and is\n    incontinent, and although corrected as to these matters,\n    perseveres.\u201d[611]\n\nSometimes accusations were brought to the archbishop by the suffering\nparishioners:\n\n    \u201cCalends of August (1255). Passing through the village of Brai, the\n    parishioners of the church there accused the rector of the church in\n    our presence. They said that he went about in the night through the\n    village with arms, that he was quarrelsome and scurrilous and abusive\n    to his parishioners, and was incontinent.\u201d\n\nSummoning this priest before his ecclesiastical tribunal, the archbishop\nsays, \u201cWe admonished him to abstain from such ill-conduct; or that\notherwise we should proceed against him.\u201d[612]\n\nEither this priest or another of \u201cBrayo subtus Baudemont,\u201d named Walter,\nwas subsequently deprived of his priesthood on his own confession as\nfollows:\n\n    \u201cHe confessed that the accusation against him concerning a woman of\n    his parish, which he had denied under oath, was supported by truth;\n    item, he confessed in regard to a waxen image made to be used in\n    divining; he confessed (various other incontinencies and his\n    fatherhood of various children); item, he confessed his ill-repute for\n    usury and base gain; he admitted that he had led the dances at the\n    nuptials of a certain prostitute whom he had married.\u201d[613]\n\nRigaud continually records accusations against parish priests, commonly\nfor incontinency and drunkenness and generally unbecoming conduct, and\nsometimes for homicide.[614] But his own examinations kept out many a\nturbulent and ignorant clerk, presented by the lay patron for the\nbenefice; and so he prevented improper inductions as he might. The\n_Register_ gives a number of instances of crass illiteracy in these\ncandidates, a matter to cause no surprise, for the feudal patrons of the\nliving naturally presented their relatives. Some of these candidates\nappealed to Rome from the archbishop\u2019s refusal, probably without\nsuccess.[615]\n\nA monk might be as bad as any parish priest:\n\n    \u201cBrother Thomas ... wore gold rings. He went about in armour, by\n    night, and without any monastic habit, and kept bad company. He\n    wounded many clergy and laity at night, and was himself wounded,\n    losing a thumb. We commanded the abbot to expel him; or that otherwise\n    we should seize the place and expel the monks.\u201d[616]\n\nLife in a nunnery was the feminine counterpart of life in a monastery.\nThere were good and bad nunneries, and nuns good and bad, serious and\nfrivolous. Many had the foibles, and were addicted to the diversions,\ncomforts, or fancies of their sex: they were always wanting to keep dogs\nand birds, and have locks to their chests!\n\n    \u201cNones of May (1250). We visited the Benedictine convent of nuns of\n    St. Sauveur at Evreux. There were sixty-one nuns there. Sometimes they\n    drank, not in the refectory or infirmary, but in their chambers. They\n    kept little dogs, squirrels, and birds. We ordered that all such\n    things be removed. They do not observe the _regula_. They eat flesh\n    needlessly. They have locked chests. We directed the abbess to inspect\n    their chests often and unexpectedly, or to take off the locks. We\n    directed the abbess to take away their girdles ornamented with\n    ironwork and their fancy pouches, and the silk cushions they were\n    working.\u201d[617]\n\nAgain, the picture is more terrible:\n\n    \u201cNones of July (1249). We visited the priory of Villa Arcelli.\n    Thirty-three nuns are there and three lay sisters. They confess and\n    communicate six times a year. Only four of the nuns have taken the\n    vows according to the _regula_. Many of them had cloaks of rabbit-fur,\n    or made from the fur of hares and foxes. In the infirmary they eat\n    flesh needlessly. Silence is not observed; nor do they keep within the\n    cloister. Johanna of Aululari once went out and lived with some one,\n    by whom she had a child; and sometimes she goes out to see that child:\n    she is also suspected with a certain man named Gaillard. Isabella la\n    Treiche (?) is a fault-finder, murmuring against the prioress and\n    others. The stewardess is suspected with a man named Philip de\n    Vilarceau. The prioress is too remiss; she does not reprove. Johanna\n    de Alto Villari kept going out alone with a man named Gayllard, and\n    within a year had a child by him. The subprioress is suspected with\n    Thomas the carter; Idonia, her sister, with Crispinatus; and the Prior\n    of Gisorcium is always coming to the house for Idonia. Philippa of\n    Rouen is suspected with a priest of Suentre, of the diocese of\n    Chartres; Marguarita, the treasuress, with Richard de Genville, a\n    clerk. Agnes de Fontenei, with a priest of Guerrevile, diocese of\n    Chartres. The Tooliere (?) with Sir Andrew de Monciac, a knight. All\n    wear their hair improperly and perfume their veils. Jacqueline came\n    back pregnant from visiting a certain chaplain, who was expelled from\n    his house on account of this. Agnes de Monsec was suspected with the\n    same. Emengarde and Johanna of Alto Villari beat each other. The\n    prioress is drunk almost any night; she does not rise for matins, nor\n    eat in the refectory or correct excesses.\u201d\n\nThe archbishop thereupon issues an order, regulating this extraordinary\nconvent, and prescribing a better way of living. He threatens to lay a\nheavier hand on them if they do not obey.[618] This was what a loosely\nregulated nunnery might come to. We close with the sketch of a good\nmonastery which had an evil abbot:\n\n    \u201cNones of August (1258). Through God\u2019s grace we visited the monastery\n    of Jumi\u00e9ges. Forty-three monks were there, and twenty-one outside. All\n    of these who dwelt there, except eleven, were priests (_sacerdotes_).\n    We found, by God\u2019s grace, the convent well-ordered in its services and\n    observances, yet greatly troubled by what was said of the abbot within\n    and without its walls. For opinion was sinister regarding him, and\n    there, in full chapter, brother Peter of Neubourg, a monk of the\n    monastery, leaping up, made shameful charges against him. And he read\n    the following schedule: I, brother Peter of Neubourg, a monk of\n    Jumi\u00e9ges, in my name and in the name of the monastery and for the\n    benefit of the monastery, bring before you, Reverend Father,\n    Archbishop of Rouen, for an accusation against Richard, Abbot of\n    Jumi\u00e9ges, that he is a forger (_falsarius_) because he wrote or caused\n    to be written certain letters in the name of our convent, falsely\n    alleging our approval of them although we were absent and ignorant;\n    and secretly by night he sealed them with the convent\u2019s seal....\u201d\n\nThe letters related to an important controversy in which the monastery was\ninvolved. Monk Peter offers to prove his case. A day is set for the\nhearing. But, instead, the very next day, in order to avoid scandal, the\narchbishop called the abbot before him and his counsellors; and\n\n    \u201cWe admonished him specially regarding the following matters: To wit:\n    that he should not keep dogs and birds of chase; that he should send\n    strolling players away from his premises; that he should abstain from\n    extravagant expenses; that he should not eat in his own chambers; that\n    he should keep from consorting with women altogether; that he should\n    order his household decently; that he should lease out the farms as\n    well as might be; that he should not burden the monks unduly; that he\n    should be more in the convent with them, and bear himself more\n    soberly. He made promises as to all these matters and took oath upon\n    holy relics that if he failed to obey our admonition he should be held\n    to do whatever we should decree in the premises.\u201d[619]\n\nRigaud seems to have been lenient here, but may have known the wisest\ncourse to take.\n\nA peaceful death terminated Rigaud\u2019s long career. We may leave his diocese\nof Rouen, and travel north-easterly to the German archiepiscopal dukedom\nof Cologne for a very different example of a brave prelate who brought\ndeath upon himself.\n\nThe man who was chosen Archbishop of Cologne in 1216 was of the highest\nbirth. It was Engelbert, son of Count Engelbert of Berg. A young nobleman,\nrelated by blood to the local powers, lay and ecclesiastic, and destined\nfor Church dignities, would be quickly given benefices. Engelbert received\nsuch, and also was appointed Provost of the Cathedral. Strong of body,\nrich, he led a boisterous martial life, and took a truculent part in the\npolitical dissensions which were undoing the German realm. With his\ncousin, the Archbishop Adolph, he went over to the side of Philip of\nSuavia. For this the archbishop and his provost were deposed and\nexcommunicated by Pope Innocent III. There ensued years of turbulence and\nfighting, during which Engelbert\u2019s hand followed his passions. But with\nthe turning of events in 1208 he was reconciled to the Pope, restored to\nhis offices, and went crusading against the Albigenses in atonement for\nhis sins. He stood by the young Frederick, then favoured by Innocent, and\nafter some intervening years of proof, was, with general approval, elected\nArchbishop of Cologne. He was about thirty-one years old.\n\nThere had been power and bravery in the man from the beginning; and his\nfaculties gained poise and gathered purpose through the stormy springtime\nof his life. Now he stood forth prince-bishop, feudal duke; a man strong\nof arm and clear of vision, steadfast against the violence of his brother\nnobles who oppressed the churches and cloisters within their lordships.\nThe weak found him a rock of defence. Says his biographer, Caesar of\nHeisterbach:\n\n    \u201cHe was a defender of the afflicted and a hammer of tyrants,\n    magnanimous and meek, lofty and affable, stern and gentle, dissembling\n    for a time, and when least expected girding himself for vengeance.\n    With the bishopric he had received the spiritual sword, and the\n    material sword with the dukedom. He used either weapon against the\n    rebellious, excommunicating some and crushing some by war.\u201d\n\nUnder him archbishopric and dukedom prospered, their well-managed revenues\nincreased, palaces and churches rose. No mightier prince of the Church, no\nstronger, juster ruler could be found. Said Pope Honorius after\nEngelbert\u2019s death: \u201cAll men in Germany feared me from fear of him.\u201d From\nthe lay and German side is heard the hearty voice of Walther von der\nVogelweide, no friend of priests! \u201cWorthy Bishop of Cologne, happy should\nyou be! You have well served the realm, and served it so that your praise\nrises and waves on high. Master of princes! if your might weighs hard on\nevil cowards, deem that as nothing! King\u2019s guardian, high is your state,\nunequalled Chancellor!\u201d[620]\n\nArchbishop of Cologne, duke of its double dukedom, and Regent of the\nGerman realm, Engelbert was well-nigh Germany\u2019s greatest figure during\nthese years. If his arm was strong, his also was the spirit of counsel and\nwisdom. And although bearing himself as prince and ruler, he had within\nhim the devotion and humility of a true bishop. Said one of Engelbert\u2019s\nchaplains, speaking to the Abbot of Heisterbach: \u201cAlthough my lord seems\nas of the world, within he is not as he appears outwardly. Know that he\nhas many secret comfortings from God.\u201d\n\nThe iron course of Engelbert\u2019s life brought queryings to the monkish mind\nof his biographer. Caesar felt that it was not easy for any bishop to be\nsaved; how much harder was it for a statesman-warrior-prelate so to\nconduct himself in the warfare of this world as to attain at last \u201cthe\npeace of divine contemplation.\u201d Not thither did such a career seem to\nlead! But there was a way, or at least an exit, which surely opened upon\nheaven\u2019s gate. This was the purple steep, the _purpureum ascensum_, of\nmartyrdom. Caesar was not alone in thinking thus, as to the saving close\nof Engelbert\u2019s career; for a devout and learned priest, who in earlier\nyears had been co-canon with Engelbert, said to Caesar after the\narchbishop\u2019s murder: \u201cI do not think there was another way through which a\nman so placed (_in statu tali positus_) could have entered the door of the\nkingdom of heaven, which is narrow.\u201d\n\nCaesar tells the story of this martyrdom in all its causes and details of\nplot. That plot succeeded because it was the envenomed culmination of the\nhatred for the archbishop felt by the nobles--bishops among them too--whom\nhe restrained with his authority and unhesitating hand. Frederic, Count of\nIsenburg, a kinsman of Engelbert as well as of the former archbishop, was\nthe feudal warden of the nunnery of Essen, which he greedily oppressed.\nThe abbess turned to Engelbert, as she had to his predecessor. The\narchbishop hesitated to proceed against a relative. So the abbess appealed\nto Rome. Papal letters came back causing Engelbert to take the matter up.\nHe acted with forbearance and generosity; for he even offered to make up\nfrom his own revenues any loss the count might sustain from acting justly\ntoward the nunnery. In vain. Frederic, so we read, would have none of his\ninterference. The devil hardened his heart; and he began to incite his\nfriends and kinsmen (who were also the kin of Engelbert) to a treacherous\nattack upon the man they could not openly withstand.\n\nRumours of the plot were in the air. Said a monk of Heisterbach to his\nabbot: \u201cLord, if you have any business with the archbishop, do it quickly,\nfor his death is near.\u201d Engelbert himself was not unwarned. A letter came\nto him revealing the matter. Upon reading it, he threw it in the fire. Yet\nhe told its contents to his friend the Bishop of Minden, who was present.\nSaid the latter: \u201cHave a care for thyself, my lord, for God\u2019s sake, and\nnot for thyself alone, but for the welfare of your church and the safety\nof the whole land.\u201d\n\nThe archbishop answered: \u201cDangers are all about me, and what I should do\nthe Lord knows and not I. Woe is me, if I keep quiet! Yet if I should\naccuse them of this matter, they would complain to every one that I was\nfastening the crime of parricide on them. From this hour I commit my body\nand soul to the divine care.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThen taking the bishop alone into his chapel, he began to confess all\n    his sins from his very youth, with a shower of tears that wetted all\n    his breast, and, as we hope, washed the stains from his heart. And\n    when the Lord of Minden said: \u2018I fear there is still something on thy\n    conscience which thou hast not told me,\u2019 he answered: \u2018The Lord knows\n    that I have concealed nothing consciously.\u2019 But thinking over his sins\n    more fully, the next morning he took his confessor again into the same\n    chapel and with meek and contrite soul and floods of tears confessed\n    everything that had recurred to his mind. Then his conscience being\n    clear, he said fearlessly: \u2018Now let God\u2019s will regarding me be done.\u2019\n\n    \u201cIn the meanwhile some one was knocking at the door of the chapel. The\n    archbishop would not let it be opened because his eyes were wet with\n    tears. But the knocking continued, and it was announced that the\n    bishops of Osnabr\u00fcck and M\u00fcnster (brothers of Count Frederic) were\n    there. After he had dried his eyes and wiped his face, he allowed them\n    to be shown in, and said when they had entered: \u2018You lords both are\n    kin of mine, and I have injured you in nothing, as you know well, but\n    have advanced your interests, as I might, and your brother\u2019s also. And\n    look you, from all sides by word and letter I hear that your brother\n    Count Frederic, whom I have loved heartily and never harmed, is\n    devising ill to me and seeks to kill me.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThey protested, trembling in their deceit: \u2018Lord, may this never,\n    never, be! You need have no fear; such a thought has never entered his\n    heart. We all have been honoured and enriched and lifted up by you.\u2019\n    Which last was true.\u201d\n\nThis was after the festival of All Saints in the first days of November\n1225; and Count Frederic, the better to conceal his purpose, came and\naccepted the archbishop\u2019s terms. Together they set out from Cologne, the\ncount knowing that the now unsuspecting Engelbert would stop the next day\nto dedicate a church at Swelm. So it turned out, and the count took that\nopportunity to excuse himself and rode off to set his men in ambush. Just\nthen a widow rose up from the roadside, and demanded judgment as to a fief\nwithheld from her. At once the archbishop dismounted, and took his seat as\nduke to hear the cause. It went against the widow, and in favour of him\nwho sat as judge. But he said: \u201cLady, this fief which you demand is taken\nfrom you by decree and adjudged to me. But for the sake of God, pitying\nyour distress, I relinquish it to you.\u201d\n\nThe archbishop rode on. About midday Frederic came up again to see which\nway he was taking. Engelbert invited the count to pass the night with him.\nBut he declined on some pretext, and rode away. The archbishop and his\ncompany proceeded on their road until the hour of vespers. Vespers were\nsaid, and again the count appeared. Observing him, a nobleman in\nEngelbert\u2019s train said: \u201cMy lord, this coming and going of the count looks\nsuspicious. For the third time he is approaching, and now not as before on\nhis palfrey but on his war-horse. I advise you to mount your war-horse\ntoo.\u201d\n\nBut the archbishop said that would be too noticeable, and there was\nnothing to fear. As the count drew near, they saw that the colour had left\nhis face. The archbishop spoke to him: \u201cNow, kinsman, I am sure you will\nstay with me.\u201d He answered nothing, and they went on together. Suspicious\nand alarmed, some of the clergy and some of the knights withdrew, so that\nbut a small company remained; for a good part of the episcopal household\nwith the cooks had gone ahead to prepare the night\u2019s lodgings.\n\nIt was dusk as they drew near the place of ambush. The count grew\nagitated, and was blaming himself to his followers for planning to kill\nhis lord and kinsman, but they egged him on. Now the foot of the Gevelberg\nwas reached, and the count said as they began to ascend, \u201cMy lord, this is\nour path.\u201d \u201cMay the Lord protect us,\u201d replied Engelbert, for he was not\nwithout suspicion.\n\nThe company was entering the hollow way leading over the summit of the\nmountain, when suddenly the followers of Frederic, who were ahead, turned\non them, and others leaped from hiding, while a shrill whistle sounded,\nstartling the horses. \u201cMy lord, mount your war-horse; death is at the\ndoor,\u201d cried a knight. It was indeed. The archbishop\u2019s company made no\nresistance, except the faithful noble who first had scented danger. The\nrest fled while the murderers rushed upon Engelbert, unable to turn in the\nnarrow way, and struck at him with swords and daggers. One seized him by\nthe cloak and the two rolled together on the ground; but the strong and\nactive prelate dragged himself and his antagonist out of the roadway into\na thicket. There he was again set upon by the mad crew, urged on by the\ncount, and was hacked and stabbed to death. He breathed his last beneath\nan oak ten paces from the roadway.\n\nThere is no need to recount the finding of the gashed and stripped body,\nits solemn interment in the Cathedral Church of St. Peter\u2019s at Cologne,\nthe canonization of Engelbert, and the building of a chapel, succeeded by\na cloister, to mark the place of his martyrdom. Nor need one follow with\nCaesar the banning of the murderers, and the unhappy ways in which their\ndeaths made part atonement for the injury which their wicked deed had done\nthe German realm.[621]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe ideals and shortcomings of monasticism were closely connected with\npopular beliefs. The monastic ideal had its inception in the thought of\nsin as entailing either purgatorial or everlasting punishment, and in the\nthought of holiness as ensuring eternal bliss. Whatever other motives\nparticipated, the knot of the monastic purpose was held in the jaws of\nthis antithesis, which for itself drew form, colour, picturesqueness, from\npopular beliefs, and was made tangible in countless stories telling of\npurity and love and meekness impaired by lust and cruelty and pride, and\nof retribution avoided by some shifty supernatural adjustment of the sin.\nSuch stories might be accepted as well by the learned as by the\nilliterate. The brooding soul of the Middle Ages, with its knowledge of\nhumanity and its reaches of spiritual insight, was undisturbed by the\ncrass superstitions so queerly at odds with its deeper inspiration--a\nremark specifically applicable to thoughtful or spiritually-minded\nindividuals in the mediaeval centuries.\n\nAs we descend the spiritual scale, the crude superstitious elements become\nmore prominent or apparently the whole matter. Likewise as we descend the\nmoral scale; for the more vicious the individual, the more utterly will he\nomit the spiritual from his working faith, and the more mechanical will be\nhis methods of squaring his conduct with his fears of the supernatural.\nNevertheless, in estimating the ethical shortcomings of mediaeval\nsuperstitions, one must remember how easily in a simple mind all sorts of\nsuperstition may co-exist with a sweet religious and moral tone.\n\nSins unatoned for and uncondoned bring purgatorial or perpetual torment\nafter death, even as holiness brings eternal bliss. But how were sins\nthought to come to men and women in the Middle Ages, and especially to\nthose who were earnestly striving to escape them? Rather than fruit of the\nnaughtiness of the human heart, they came through the malicious\nsuggestions, the temptations, of a Tempter. They were in fine the\nmachinations of the devil. This was the popular view, and also the\nauthoritative doctrine, expressed, re-expressed, and enforced in myriad\nexamples, by all the saints and magnates of the Church who had lived since\nthe time when Athanasius wrote the life of Anthony in devil-fighting\nheroics.\n\nAgainst the devil, every man had staunch allies; the readiest were the\nVirgin Mary and the saints, for Christ was very high above the conflict,\nand at the Judgment Day must be its final umpire. The object of the\ncunning enemy was to trip man into hell, an object hostile alike to God\nand man. Saintly aid enabled man to overcome the devil, or if he succumbed\nto temptation and committed mortal sin, there was still a chance to\nfrustrate the devil\u2019s plot, and save the soul by wiles or force. The\nsinner may use every stratagem to defeat the devil and escape the results\nof sins committed by himself, but prompted by his enemy. This was war and\nthe ethics of war, in which man was the central struggling figure,\nattacked by the devil and defended by the saints. The latter also help\nman\u2019s earthly fortunes, and devotion to them may ensure one\u2019s welfare in\nthis very palpable and pressing life of earth.\n\nThis popular and yet authoritative view of mortal peril and saintly aid is\nillustrated in the tales from sermons and other pious writings. In them\nany uncanny or untoward experience was ascribed to the devil. So it was in\nmonkish Chronicles, _Vitae sanctorum_, _Dialogi miraculorum_, or indeed in\nany edifying writing couched in narrative form or containing illustrative\ntales. Throughout this literature the devil inspires evil thoughts,\ninstigates crimes, and causes any unhappy or immoral happening. It is just\nas much a matter of course as if one should say to-day, I have a cold, or\nJohn stole a ring, or James misbehaved with So-and-so.[622] Any man might\nmeet the devil, and if sinful, suffer physical violence from him. If any\none disappeared the devil might be supposed to have carried him off.\nDetails of the abduction might be given, or the whole matter take place\nbefore witnesses.\n\n    \u201cA rich usurer, with little fear of God in him, had dined well one\n    evening, and was in bed with his wife, when he suddenly leaped up. She\n    asked what ailed him. He replied: \u2018I was just snatched away to God\u2019s\n    judgment seat, where I heard so many accusations that I did not know\n    what to answer. And while I waited for something to happen, I heard\n    the final sentence given against me, that I should be handed over to\n    demons, who were to come and get me to-day.\u2019 Saying this, he flung on\n    a coat, and ran out of the house, for all his wife could do to stop\n    him. His servants, following, discovered him almost crazed in a church\n    where monks were saying their matins. There they kept him in custody\n    for some hours. But he made no sign of willingness to confess or make\n    restitution or repent. So after mass they led him back toward his\n    house, and as they came by a river, a boat was seen coming rapidly up\n    against the current, manned apparently by no one. But the usurer said\n    that it was full of demons, who had come to take him. The words were\n    no sooner uttered, than he was seized by them, and put in the boat,\n    which suddenly turned on its course and disappeared with its\n    prey.\u201d[623]\n\nOne observes that this usurer had received sentence at God\u2019s tribunal, and\nthe devils carried it out: the sentence gave them power. Any man may be\ntempted; but falls into his enemy\u2019s power only by sinning. His yielding is\nan act of acquiescence in the devil\u2019s will, and may be the commencement of\na state of permanent consent. With this we reach the notion of a formal\npact with the devil, of which there were many instances. But still the\npact is with the Enemy; the man is not bound beyond the letter, and may\nescape by any trick. It is still the ethics of war; we are very close to\nthe principle that a man by stratagem or narrow observance of the letter\nmay escape the eternal retribution which God decrees conditionally and the\ndevil delights in.\n\nThe sacraments prescribed by the Church were the common means of escaping\nfuture punishment. Confession is an example. The correct doctrine was that\nwithout penitence it was ineffective. But popularly the confession\nrepresented the whole fact. It was efficacious of itself, and kept the\nsoul from hell. It might even prevent retribution in this life. Caesar of\nHeisterbach has a number of illustrative stories, rather immoral as they\nseem to us. There was, for instance, a person possessed (_obsessus_) of a\ndevil who dwelt in him, and through his lips would make known the\n_unconfessed_ sins of any one brought before him; but the devil could not\nremember sins which had been confessed. A certain knight suspected (quite\ncorrectly) a priest of sinning with his wife. So he haled him before this\n_obsessus_. On the way the priest managed to elude his persecutor for an\ninstant, and, darting into a barn, confessed his sin to a layman he found\nthere. Returning, he went along with the knight, and, behold, the sin was\nobliterated from the memory of the devil in the _obsessus_, and the priest\nremained undetected.[624]\n\nMen and women sometimes escaped the wages of sin by the aid of a saint,\nbut more often through the incarnate pity of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin\nand the saints were ready to take up any cause, however desperate, against\nthe devil; which means that they were ready to intervene between the\nsinner and the impending punishment. People took kindly to these thoughts\nof irregular intervention, since everlasting torment for transient sin was\nso extreme; but a surer source of their approval lay in the incomplete\nspiritualization of the popular religion and its ethics.\n\nTo thwart the devil was the office of the Virgin and the saints. Their aid\nwas given when it was besought. Sometimes they intervened voluntarily to\nprotect a votary whose devotions had won their favour. The stories of the\npitying intervention of the Virgin to save the sinner from the wages of\nhis sin, and frustrate the devil, are among the fragrant flowers of the\nmediaeval spirit. Ethically some of them leave much to ask for; but others\nare tales of sweet forgiveness upon heart-felt repentance.\n\nJacques of Vitry has a story (scarcely fit to repeat) of a certain very\nreligious Roman widow-lady, who had an only son, with whom she sinned at\nthe devil\u2019s instigation. She was a devoted worshipper of the Virgin; and\nthe devil, fearing that she would repent, plotted to bring her to trial\nand immediate condemnation before the emperor\u2019s tribunal, for her incest.\nWhen the widow knew of her impending ruin, she went with tears to the\nconfessional, and then day and night besought the Virgin to deliver her\nfrom infamy and death. The day of trial came. Suddenly the accuser, who\nwas the devil in disguise, began to quake and groan, and could not answer\nwhen the emperor asked what ailed him. But as the woman drew near the\njudgment seat, he uttered a horrid howl, exclaiming: \u201cSee! Mary is coming\nwith the woman, holding her hand.\u201d And in a fetid whirlwind he\ndisappeared. \u201cAnd thus,\u201d says Jacques of Vitry, \u201cthe widow was set free\nthrough confession and the Virgin\u2019s aid, and afterwards persevered in the\nservice of God more cautiously.\u201d[625]\n\nSuch a tale sounds immoral; yet there is some good in saving any soul from\nhell; and here there was repentance. Caesar of Heisterbach has another, of\nthe Virgin taking the place of a sinning nun in the convent until she\nrepented and returned. Again repentance and forgiveness make the sinner\nwhole.[626]\n\nThe _Miracles de Nostre Dame_[627] are an interesting repertory of the\nVirgin\u2019s interventions. These \u201cMysteries\u201d or miracle plays in Old French\nverse are na\u00efve enough in their kindly stratagems, by which the votary is\nsaved from punishment in this life and his soul from torment in the next.\nThe first \u201cMiracle\u201d in this collection runs thus: A pious dame and her\nknightly husband, from devotion to the Virgin Mary took the not unusual\nvow of married continence. But under diabolic incitement, the knight\nover-persuaded his lady, who in her chagrin at the broken vow devoted the\noffspring to the devil. A son was born, and in due time the devil came to\nclaim it. Thereupon a huge machinery, of pope and cardinals, hermits and\narchangels, is set in motion. At last the case is brought before God,\nwhere the devils show cause on one side, and \u201cNostre Dame\u201d pleads on the\nother. Our Lady wins on the ground that the mother could not devote her\noffspring to the devil without the father\u2019s consent, which was not shown.\n\nThere is surely no harm in this pleasant drama; for the devil ought not to\nhave had the boy. But there follow quite different \u201cMiracles\u201d of Our Lady.\nThe next one is typical. An abbess sins with her clerk. Her condition is\nobserved by the nuns, and the bishop is informed. The abbess casts herself\non the mercy of Mary, who miraculously delivers her of the child and gives\nit into the care of a holy hermit. An examination of the abbess takes\nplace, after which she is declared innocent by the bishop. But she is at\nonce moved to repentance, and confesses all to him. In the bishop\u2019s mind,\nhowever, the Virgin\u2019s intervention is sufficient proof of the abbess\u2019s\nholiness. He absolves her, and goes to the hermitage and takes charge of\nthe child.[628]\n\nSuch is an example of the kindly but peculiar miracles, in which the\nVirgin saves her friends who turn to her and repent. Many other tales,\nquite lovely and unobjectionable, are told of her: how she keeps her\ntempted votaries from sinning, or helps them to repent:[629] or blesses\nand leads on to joy those who need no forgiveness. Such a one was the\nmonk-scribe who illuminated Mary\u2019s blessed name in three lovely colours\nwhenever it occurred in the works he copied, and then kissed it devoutly.\nAs he lay very ill, having received the sacraments, another brother saw in\nvision the Virgin hover above his couch and heard her say: \u201cFear not, son,\nthou shalt rejoice with the dwellers in heaven, because thou didst honour\nmy name with such care. Thine own name is written in the book of life.\nArise and come with me.\u201d Running to the infirmary the brother found his\nbrother dying blissfully.[630]\n\nThere are lovely stories too of passionate repentance, coming\nunmiraculously to those devoutly thinking on the Virgin and her infant\nSon. \u201cFor there was once a nun who forsook her convent and became a\nprostitute, but returned after many years. As she thought of God\u2019s\njudgment and the pains of hell, she despaired of ever gaining pardon; as\nshe thought of Paradise, she deemed that she, impure, could never enter\nthere; and when she thought upon the Passion, and how great ills Christ\nhad borne for her and how great sins she had committed, she still was\nwithout hope. But on the Day of the Nativity she began to think that unto\nus a Child is born, and that children are appeased easily. Before the\nimage of the Virgin she began to think of the Saviour\u2019s infancy, and, with\nfloods of passionate tears, besought the Child through the benignity of\nHis childhood to have mercy upon her. She heard a voice saying to her that\nthrough the benignity of that childhood which she had invoked, her sins\nwere forgiven.\u201d[631]\n\nBut enough of these stories. Nor is there need to enlarge upon the\nrelic-worship and other superstitions of the Middle Ages. One sees such\nmatters on every side. It was all a matter of course, and disapprovals\nwere rare. Such conceptions of sin and the devil\u2019s part in it affected the\nmorality of clergy as well as laity. The morals of the latter could not\nrise above those of their instructors; and the layman\u2019s religion of\nmasses, veneration of relics, pilgrimages, almsgiving and endowment of\nmonasteries, scarcely interfered with the cruelty and rapine to which he\nmight be addicted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI\n\nTHE WORLD OF SALIMBENE\n\n\nAt the close of this long survey of the saintly ideals and actualities of\nthe Middle Ages, it will be illuminating to look abroad over mediaeval\nlife through the half mystic but most observant eyes of a certain Italian\nFranciscan. The Middle Ages were not characterized by the open eye.\nMediaeval Chronicles and _Vitae_ rarely afford a broad and variegated\npicture of the world. As they were so largely the work of monks, obviously\nthey would set forth only what would strike the monastic eye, an eye often\nintense with its inner vision, but not wide open to the occurrences of\nlife. The monk was not a good observer, commonly from lack of sympathy and\nunderstanding. Of course there were exceptions; one of them was the\nFranciscan Salimbene, an undeniable if not too loving son of an alert\nnorth Italian city, Parma.\n\nHumanism springs from cities; and it began in Italy long before Petrarch.\nNorth of the Alps there was nothing like the city life of Italy, so quick\nand voluble, so unreticent and unrestrained, open and\nneighbourly--neighbours hate as well as love! From Cicero\u2019s time, from\nNuma\u2019s if one will, Italian life was what it never ceased to be, urban.\nThe city was the centre and the bound of human intercourse, almost of\nhuman sympathy. This was always true; as true in those devastated seventh,\neighth, and ninth centuries as before or after; certainly true of the\ntenth and eleventh centuries when the Lombards and other Teuton children\nof the waste and forest had become good urban Italians. It was still more\nabundantly true of the following centuries when life was burgeoning with\npower. Whatever other cause or source of parentage it had, humanism was a\ncity child. And as city life never ceased in Italy, that land had no\nunhumanistic period. There humanism always existed, whether we take it in\nthe narrower sense of love of humanistic, that is, antique literature, or\ntake it broadly as in the words of old Menander-Terence: \u201chomo sum, humani\nnil a me alienum.\u201d\n\nNow turn to the close of the twelfth century, and look at Francis of\nAssisi. It is his humanism and his naturalism, his interest in men and\nwomen, and in bird and beast as well, that fills this sweet lover of\nChrist with tender sympathy for them all. Through him human interest and\nlove of man drew monasticism from its cloister, and sent it forth upon an\nunhampered ministry of love. Francis (God bless him!) had not been\nFrancis, had he not been Francis _of Assisi_.\n\nA certain gifted well-born city child was five years old when Francis\ndied. It was to be his lot to paint for posterity a picture of his world\nsuch as no man had painted before; and in all his work no line suggests so\nmany reasons for the differences between Italy and the lands north of the\nAlps, and also so many why Salimbene happened to be what he was, as this\nremark, relating to his French tour: \u201cIn France _only the townspeople_\ndwell in the towns; the knights and noble ladies stay in their villas and\non their own domains.\u201d\n\nOnly the townspeople live in the towns, merchants, craftsmen,\nartisans--the unleavened bourgeoisie! In Lombardy how different! There\nknights and nobles, and their lovely ladies, have their strong dwellings\nin the towns; jostle with the townspeople, converse with them, intermarry\nsometimes, lord it over them when they can, hate them, murder them. But\nthere they are, and what variety and colour and picturesqueness and\nillumination do they not add to city life? If a Lombardy town thronged\nwith merchants and craftsmen, it was also gay and voluptuous with knights\nand ladies. How rich and fascinating its life compared with the grey towns\nbeyond the Alps. In France the townspeople made an audience for the\nFabliaux! The Italian town had also its courtly audience of knight and\ndame for the love lyrics of the troubadour, and for the romances of\nchivalry. In fact, the whole world was there, and not just workaday,\nsorry, parts of it.\n\nHad it not been for the full and varied city life in which he was born and\nbred, the quick-eyed youth would not have had that fund of human interest\nand intuition which makes him so pleasant and so different from any one\nnorth of the Alps in the thirteenth century. A city boy indeed, and what a\nfull personality! He was to be a man of human curiosity, a tireless\nsight-seer. His interest is universal; his human love quick enough--for\nthose he loved; for he was no saint, although a Minorite. His detestation\nis vivid, illuminating; it brings the hated man before us. And Salimbene\u2019s\nwide-open eyes are his own. He sees with a fresh vision; he is himself; a\nman of temperament, which lends its colours to the panorama. His own\ninterest or curiosity is paramount with him; so his narrative will na\u00efvely\nfollow his sweet will and whim, and pass from topic to topic in chase of\nthe suggestions of his thoughts.\n\nThe result is for us a unique treasure-trove. The story presents the world\nand something more; two worlds, if you will, very co-related:\n_macrocosmos_ and _microcosmos_, the world without and the very eager ego,\nSalimbene. There he is unfailingly, the writer in his world. Scarcely\nanother mediaeval penman so na\u00efvely shows the world he moves about in and\nhimself. Let us follow, for a little, his autobiographic chronicle, taking\nthe liberty which he always took, of selecting as we choose.[632]\n\nIn the year 1221 Salimbene was born at Parma, into the very centre of the\nworld of strife between popes and emperors--a world wherein also the\nrenewed Gospel was being preached by Francis of Assisi, who did not die\ntill five years later. But St. Dominic died the year of Salimbene\u2019s birth.\nInnocent III., most powerful of popes, had breathed his last five years\nbefore, leaving surviving him that viper-nursling of the papacy, Frederick\nII., an able, much-experienced youth of twenty-two. Frederick was\nafterwards crowned emperor by Honorius III., and soon showed himself the\nmost resourceful of his Hohenstaufen line of arch-enemies to the papacy.\nThis Emperor Frederick, whom Innocent III., says Salimbene, had exalted\nand named \u201cSon of the Church\u201d ... \u201cwas a man pestiferous and accursed, a\nschismatic, heretic, and epicurean, who corrupted the whole earth.\u201d[633]\n\nSalimbene\u2019s family was in high regard at Parma, and the boy naturally saw\nand perhaps met the interesting strangers coming to the town. He tells us\nthat when he was baptized the lord Balianus of Sydon, a great baron of\nFrance, a retainer of the Emperor Frederick\u2019s, \u201clifted me from the sacred\nfont.\u201d The mother was a pious dame, whom Salimbene loved none too well,\nbecause once she snatched up his infant sisters to flee from the danger of\nthe Baptistery toppling over upon their house during an earthquake, and\nleft Salimbene himself lying in his cradle! The father had been a\ncrusader, and was a man of wealth and influence.\n\nSo the youth was born into a stirring swirl of life. These vigorous\nnorthern Italian cities hated each other shrewdly in the thirteenth\ncentury. When the boy was eight years old a great fight took place between\nthe folk of Parma, Modena, and Cremona on the one side, and that big\nblustering Bologna. Hot was the battle. On the _Carrocio_ of Parma only\none man remained; for it was stripped of its defenders by the stones from\nthose novel war-engines of the Bolognese, called _manganellae_.\nNevertheless the three towns won the battle, and the Bolognese turned\ntheir backs and abandoned their own _Carrocio_. The Cremona people wanted\nto drag it within their walls; but the prudent Parma leaders prevented it,\nbecause such action would have been an insult forever, and a lasting cause\nof war with a strong enemy. But Salimbene saw the captured _manganellae_\nbrought as trophies into his city.\n\nOther scenes of more peaceful rejoicing came before his eyes; as in the\nyear 1233, he being twelve years old. That was a year of alleluia, as it\nwas afterwards called,\n\n    \u201cto wit a time of peace and quiet, of joy, jollity and merry-making,\n    of praise and jubilee; because wars were over. Horse and foot,\n    townsfolk and rustics, youths and virgins, old and young, sang songs\n    and hymns. There was such devotion in all the cities of Italy. And I\n    saw that each quarter of the city would have its banner in the\n    procession, a banner on which was painted the figure of its\n    martyr-saint. And men and women, boys and girls, thronged from the\n    villages to the city with their flags, to hear the preaching, and\n    praise God. They had branches of trees and lighted candles. There was\n    preaching morning, noon, and evening, and _stationes_ arranged in\n    churches and squares; and they lifted their hands to God to praise and\n    bless Him forever. Nor could they cease, so drunk were they with love\n    divine. There was no wrath among them, or disquiet or rancour.\n    Everything was peaceful and benign; I saw it with my eyes.\u201d[634]\n\nAnd then Salimbene tells of all the famous preachers, and the lovely\nhymns, and Ave Marias; Frater So-and-so, from Bologna; Frater So-and-so\nfrom somewhere else; Minorite and Preaching friar.\n\nOne might almost fancy himself in the Florence of Savonarola. Like enough\nthis season of soul outpour and tears and songs of joy first stirred the\nreligious temper of this quickly moved youth. These were also the great\ndays of dawning for the Friars. Dominic was not yet sainted; yet his Order\nof the Preaching Friars was growing. The blessed Francis had been\ncanonized;--sainted had he been indeed before his death! And the world was\nturning to these novel, open, sympathetic brethren who were pouring\nthemselves through Europe. Love\u2019s mendicancy, envied but not yet\ndiscredited, was before men\u2019s eyes and in men\u2019s thoughts; and what\nopportunity it offered of helping people, of saving one\u2019s own soul, and of\nseeing the world! We can guess how Salimbene\u2019s temper was drawn by it. We\nknow at least that one of these friars, Brother Girard of Modena, who\npreached at this jubilee in Parma, was the man who made petition five\nyears later for Salimbene, so that the Minister-General of the Minorites,\nBrother Elias, being then at Parma, received the seventeen-year-old boy\ninto the Order, in the year 1238.\n\nSalimbene\u2019s father was frantic at the loss of his heir. Never while he\nlived did he cease to lament it. He at once began strenuous appeals to\nhave his son returned to him. Salimbene\u2019s account of this, exhibits\nhimself, his father, and the situation.\n\n    \u201cHe complained to the emperor (Frederick II.), who had come to Parma,\n    that the brothers Minorites had taken his son from him. The emperor\n    wrote to Brother Elias that if he held his favour dear, he should\n    listen to him and return me to my father. Then my father went to\n    Assisi, where Brother Elias was, and placed in his hands the emperor\u2019s\n    letter, which began: \u2018In order to mitigate the sighs of our faithful\n    Guido de Adam,\u2019 and so forth. Brother Illuminatus, Brother Elias\u2019s\n    scribe, showed me this letter long afterwards, when I was with him in\n    the convent at Siena.\n\n    \u201cWhen the imperial letter had been read, Brother Elias wrote at once\n    to the brethren of the convent at Fano, where I dwelt, that if I\n    wished it, they should return me to my father without delay; but that\n    if I did not wish to go with my father, they should guard and keep me\n    as the pupil of his eye.\n\n    \u201cA number of knights came with my father to Fano, to see the end of my\n    affair. There was I and my salvation made the centre of the spectacle.\n    The brethren were assembled, with them of the world; and there was\n    much talk. My father produced the letter of the minister-general, and\n    showed it to the brothers. When it was read, Brother Jeremiah, who was\n    in charge of me, answered my father in the hearing of all: \u2018Lord\n    Guido, we sympathize with your distress, and are prepared to obey the\n    letter of our father. Behold, here is your son; he is old enough; let\n    him speak for himself. Ask him; if he wishes to go with you, let him\n    in God\u2019s name; if not, we cannot force him.\u2019\n\n    \u201cMy father asked me whether I wished to go with him or not. I replied,\n    No; because the Lord says, \u2018No one putting his hand to the plow and\n    looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd father said to me: \u2018Thou carest not for thy father and mother,\n    who are afflicted with many griefs for thee.\u2019\n\n    \u201cI replied: \u2018Truly I do not care, because the Lord says, Who loveth\n    father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. But of thee He also\n    says: Who loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.\n    Thou oughtest to care, father, for Him who hung on the cross for us,\n    that He might give us eternal life. For it is himself who says: I am\n    come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her\n    mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man\u2019s\n    foes are they of his household.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThe brethren wondered and rejoiced that I said such things to my\n    father. And then my father said: \u2018You have bewitched and deceived my\n    son, so that he will not mind me. I will complain again of you to the\n    emperor and to the minister-general. Now let me speak with my son\n    apart from you; and you will see him follow me without delay.\u2019\n\n    \u201cSo the brothers allowed me to talk with him alone; for they began to\n    have a little confidence in me, because of my words. Yet they listened\n    behind the wall to what we should say. For they trembled as a reed in\n    water, lest my father should alter my mind with his blandishments. And\n    not for me alone they feared, but lest my return should hinder others\n    from entering the Order.\n\n    \u201cThen my father said to me: \u2018Dear son, don\u2019t believe those nasty\n    tunics[635] who have deceived you; but come with me, and I will give\n    you all I have.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd I replied: \u2018Go away, father. As the Wise Man says in Proverbs,\n    Thou shall not hinder him to do right, who is able.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd my father answered with tears, and said to me: \u2018What then, son,\n    shall I say to thy mother, who is afflicted because of thee?\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd I say to him: \u2018Thou shalt tell her from me; thus says thy son: My\n    father and mother have forsaken me, and the Lord hath taken me up;\n    also (Jer. iii.): Thou shalt call me Father, and walk after me in my\n    steps.... It is good for a man when he has borne the yoke from his\n    youth.\u2019\n\n    \u201cHearing all these things my father, despairing of my coming out,\n    threw himself down in the presence of the brethren and the secular\n    folk who had come with him, and said: \u2018I give thee to a thousand\n    devils, cursed son, thee and thy brother here who has deceived thee.\n    My curse be on you forever, and may it commend you to the spirits of\n    hell.\u2019 And he went away excited beyond measure; while we remained\n    greatly comforted and giving thanks to our God, and saying to each\n    other, \u2018They shall curse, and thou shalt bless.\u2019 Likewise the seculars\n    retired edified at my constancy. The brethren also rejoiced seeing\n    what the Lord had wrought through me, His little boy.\u201d\n\nThis whole scene presents such a conflict as the thirteenth century\nwitnessed daily, and the twelfth, and other mediaeval centuries as well.\nThe letters of St. Bernard set forth situations quite as extreme or\noutrageous, from modern points of view. And Bernard can apply (or shall we\nsay, distort?) Scripture in the same drastic fashion. But these monks\nmeant it deeply; and from their standpoint they were in the right with\ntheir quotations. The attitude goes back to Jerome; that a man\u2019s father\nand mother, and they of his own household, may be his worst enemies, if\nthey seek to hinder his feet set toward God. Of course we can see the\nsensible, worldly, martial father of the youth leap in the air and roll on\nthe ground in rage; flesh and blood could not stand such turn of\nScripture: Tell my weeping mother (who so longs for me) that I say my\nfather and mother have forsaken me, and the Lord hath taken me up! This\ncame to the Lord Guido as a maddening gibe; but Salimbene meant simply\nthat his parents did not care for his highest welfare, and the Lord had\nreceived him into the path of salvation. It is all a scene, which should\nevoke our serious reflections--after which it may be permitted us to enjoy\nit as we will.\n\nIn his conscience Salimbene felt justified; for a dream set the seal of\ndivine approval on his conduct.\n\n    \u201cThe Blessed Virgin rewarded me that very night. For it seemed to me\n    that I was lying prostrate in prayer before her altar, as the brothers\n    are wont when they rise for matins. And I heard the voice of the\n    Blessed Virgin calling me. Lifting my face, I saw her sitting above\n    the altar in that place where is set the host and the calix. She had\n    her little boy in her lap, and she held him out to me, saying:\n    \u2018Approach without fear and kiss my son, whom yesterday thou didst\n    confess before men.\u2019 And when I was afraid, I saw that the little boy\n    gladly stretched out his arms. Trusting his innocence and the\n    graciousness of his mother, I drew near, embraced and kissed him; and\n    the benign mother gave him to me for a long while. And when I could\n    not have enough of it, the Blessed Virgin blessed me and said: \u2018Go,\n    beloved son, and lie down, lest the brothers rising from matins find\n    thee here with us.\u2019 I obeyed, and the vision disappeared; but\n    unspeakable sweetness remained in my heart. Never in the world have I\n    had such bliss.\u201d\n\nFrom this we see that Salimbene had sufficient mystic ardour to keep him a\nhappy Franciscan. It made the otherworldly part of one who also was a\nmerry gossip among his fellows. An inner power of spiritual enthusiasm\nand fantasy accompanied him through his life, giving him a double point of\nview: he looks at things as they are, with curiosity and interest, and\never and anon loses himself in transcendental dreams of Paradise and all\nat last made perfect.[636]\n\nAlthough the father had devoted his son to a thousand devils, he did not\ncease from attempts, by persuasion and even violence, to draw him back\ninto his own civic and martial world. So the young man got permission from\nthe minister-general to go and live in Tuscany, where he might be beyond\nthe reach of parental activities. \u201cThereupon I went and lived in Tuscany\nfor eight years, two of them at Lucca, two at Siena, and four at Pisa.\u201d He\ngained great comfort from converse and gossip of an edifying kind, as he\nfell in with those loving enthusiasts who had received their cloaks from\nthe hand of the blessed Francis himself. At Siena he saw much of Brother\nBernard of Quintavalle who had been the very first to receive the dress of\nthe Order from the hand of its founder. Salimbene gladly listened to his\nrecollections of Francis, who in this venerable disciple\u2019s words might\nseem once more to walk the earth.\n\nYet Salimbene, still young in heart and years, could readily take up with\nthe companionship of the ne\u2019er-do-well vagabonds who frequently attached\nthemselves, as lay brothers, to the Franciscan Order. He tells of a day\u2019s\nouting with one of whose character he is outspoken but without personal\nrepugnance:\n\n    \u201cI was a young man when I dwelt at Pisa. One day I went out begging\n    with a certain lay brother, a good-for-nothing. He was a Pisan, and\n    the same who afterwards went and lived with the brothers at Fixulus,\n    where they had to drag him out of a well which he had jumped into from\n    some foolishness or desperation. Then he disappeared, and could not be\n    found. The brothers thought the devil had carried him off. However\n    that may have been, this day at Pisa he and I went with our baskets to\n    beg bread, and chanced to enter a courtyard. Above, all about, hung a\n    thick, leafy vine, its freshness lovely to see and its shade sweet for\n    resting in. There were leopards there and other beasts from over the\n    sea, at which we gazed long, transfixed with delight, as one will at\n    the sight of the novel and beautiful. Girls were there also and boys\n    at their sweetest age, handsome and lovely, and ten times as alluring\n    for their beautiful clothes. The boys and girls held violas and\n    cytharas and other musical instruments in their hands, on which they\n    made sweet melodies, accompanied with gestures. There was no hub-bub,\n    nor did any one talk; but all listened in silence. And the song which\n    they chanted was so new and lovely in words and melody as to gladden\n    the heart exceedingly. None spoke to us, nor did we say a word to any\n    one. They did not stop singing and playing so long as we were\n    there--and long indeed we lingered and could scarcely take ourselves\n    away. God knows, I do not, who set this joyful entertainment; for we\n    had never seen anything like it before nor could we ever find its like\n    again.\u201d\n\nFrom the witchery of this cloud-dropped entertainment Salimbene was rudely\nroused as he went out upon the public way.\n\n    \u201cA man met me, whom I did not know, and said he was from Parma. He\n    seized upon me, and began to chide and revile: \u2018Away scamp, away,\u2019 he\n    cried. \u2018A crowd of servants in your father\u2019s house have bread enough\n    and meat; and you go from door to door begging bread from those\n    without it, when you have enough to give to any number of beggars! You\n    ought to be riding on a war-horse through Parma, and delighting people\n    with your skill with the lance, so that there might be a sight for the\n    ladies, and comfort for the players. Now your father is worn with\n    grief and your mother from love of you, so she despairs of God.\u2019\u201d\n\nSalimbene fended off this attack of carnal wisdom with many texts of\nScripture. Yet the other\u2019s words set him to thinking that perhaps it would\nbe hard to lead a beggar\u2019s life year after year until old age. And he lay\nawake that night, until God comforted him as before with a reassuring\ndream.\n\nPretty dreamer as he was, Salimbene can often tell a ribald tale. There\nwas rivalry, as may be imagined, between the Dominicans (_solemnes\npraedicatores_) and the Minorites. The former seem occasionally to have\nconcerted together so as to have knowledge of what their friends in other\nplaces were about. Then, when preaching, they would exhibit marvels of\nsecond sight, which on investigation proved true! A certain Brother John\nof Vicenza was a Dominican famed for preaching and miracles perhaps, and\nwith such overtopping sense of himself that he went at least a little mad.\nBologna was his tarrying-place. There a certain Florentine grammarian,\nBoncompagnus, tired of the foolery, made gibing rhymes about him and his\nadmirers, and said he would do a miracle himself, and at a certain hour\nwould fly with wings from the pinnacle of Sta. Maria in Monte. All came\ntogether at that hour to see. There he stood aloft, with his wings, ready,\nand the folk expectant, for a long time--and then he bade them disperse\nwith God\u2019s blessing, for it was enough for them to have seen him. They\nthen knew that they had been fooled!\n\nNone the less the _dementia_ of Brother John increased, so that one day at\nthe Dominican convent in Bologna he fell in a rage because when his beard\nwas cut the brothers did not preserve the hairs as relics. There came\nalong a Minorite, Brother God-save-you, a Florentine like Boncompagnus,\nand like him a great buffoon and joker. To this convent he came, but\nrefused all invitation to stay and eat unless a piece of the cloak of\nBrother John were given him, which was kept to hold relics. So they gave\nhim a piece of the cloak, and after dinner he went off and befouled it,\nfolded it up, and called for all to come and see the precious relics of\nthe sainted John, which he had lost in the latrina. So they flocked to\nsee, and were somewhat more than satisfied.[637]\n\nNo need to say that this Salimbene had a quick eye for beauty in both men\nand women; he is always speaking of so-and-so as a handsome man, and such\nand such a lady as \u201cpulcherrima domina,\u201d of pleasing ways and moderate\nstature, neither too tall nor too short. But one may win a more amusing\nside-light on the \u201ceternal womanly\u201d in his Chronicle, from the following:\n\u201cLike other popes, Nicholas III. made cardinals of many of his relatives.\nHe made a cardinal of one, Lord Latinus, of the Order of Preachers (which\nwe note with a smile, and expect something funny). He appointed him legate\nto Lombardy and Tuscany and Romagnola.\u201d Note the enactments of this\ncardinal-legate:\n\n    \u201cHe disturbed all the women with a \u2018Constitution\u2019 which he\n    promulgated, to wit, that the women should wear short dresses\n    reaching to the ground, and only so much more as a palm\u2019s breadth.\n    Formerly they wore trains, sweeping the earth for several feet (_per\n    brachium et dimidium_). A rhymer dubs them:\n\n      \u2018Et drappi longhi, ke la polver menna.\u2019\n\n      (\u2018The long cloaks that gather up the dust.\u2019)\n\n    \u201cAnd he had this to be proclaimed in the churches, and imposed it on\n    the women by command; and ordered that no priest should absolve them\n    unless they complied. The which was bitterer to the women than any\n    kind of death! For as a woman said to me familiarly, that train was\n    dearer to her than all the other clothes she wore. And further,\n    Cardinal Latinus decreed that all women, girls and young ladies,\n    matrons and widows, should wear veils. Which was again a horror for\n    them. But they found a remedy for that tribulation, as they could not\n    for their trains. For they made veils of linen and silk inwoven with\n    gold, with which they looked ten times as well, and drew the eyes of\n    men to lust all the more.\u201d\n\nThus did the cardinal-legate, the Pope\u2019s relative. And plenty of gossip\nhas Salimbene to tell of such creatures of nepotism. \u201cFlesh and blood\n_had_ revealed\u201d to the Pope that he should make cardinals of them; says he\nwith a sort of giant sneer; \u201cfor he built up Zion _in sanguinibus_,\u201d that\nis, through his blood-relatives! \u201cThere are a thousand brothers Minorites,\nmore fit, on the score of knowledge and holiness, to be cardinals than\nthey.\u201d Had not another pope, Urban IV., made chief among the cardinals a\nrelation whose only use as a student had been to fetch the other students\u2019\nmeat from market?\n\nIt was a few years after this that Salimbene returned to his native town\nof Parma, near the time when that city passed from the side of the Emperor\nto that of the Pope. This was a fatal defection for Frederick, which he\nset about to repair, by laying siege to the turn-coat city. And the war\nwent on with great devastation, and the wolves and other wild beasts\nincreased and grew bold. Salimbene throws Eccelino da Romano on the scene,\nthat regent of the emperor, and monster of cruelty, \u201cwho was feared more\nthan the devil,\u201d and had once burned to death \u201celeven thousand Paduans in\nVerona. The building holding them was set on fire; and while they burned,\nEccelino and his knights held a tournament about them (_circa eos_).... I\nverily believe that as the Son of God desired to have one special friend,\nwhom He made like to himself, to wit the blessed Francis, so the devil\nfashioned Eccelino in his likeness.\u201d[638]\n\nSalimbene tells of the siege of Parma at much length, and of the final\ndefeat of the emperor, with the destruction of the stronghold which he had\nbuilt to menace the city, and of all his curious treasures, with the\nimperial crown itself taken by the men of Parma and their allies. But\nbefore this, while the turmoil of the siege was at its height, in 1247, he\nreceived orders to leave Parma and set out for Lyons, where Innocent IV.\nat that time held his papal court, having fled from Italy, from the\nemperor, three years before. Setting out, he reached Lyons on All Saints\nDay.\n\n    \u201cAt once the Pope sent for me, and talked with me familiarly in his\n    chamber. For since my leaving Parma he had received neither messenger\n    nor letters. And he thanked me warmly and listened to my prayers, for\n    he was a courtly and liberal man; ... and he absolved me from my sins\n    and appointed me preacher!\u201d\n\nOur autobiographic chronicler was at this time twenty-six years old; his\npersonality bespoke a kind reception everywhere. He soon left Lyons, and\nwent on through the towns of Champagne to Troyes, where he found plenty of\nmerchants from Lombardy and Tuscany, for there were markets there, lasting\ntwo months. So was it also in Provins, the next halting-place; from which\nSalimbene went on to Paris. There he stayed eight days and saw much which\npleased him; and then, going back upon his tracks, he took up his journey\nto Sens, where he dwelt in the Franciscan convent, \u201cand the French\nbrethren entertained me gladly, because I was a friendly, cheerful youth,\nand spoke them fair.\u201d From Sens he went south to Auxerre, the place which\nhad been named as his destination when he left Parma. It was in the year\n1248, and as he writes (how many years after?) there comes back to him the\nmemory of the grand wines of Auxerre:\n\n    \u201cI remember when at Cremona (in 1245) Brother Gabriel of that place, a\n    Minorite, a great teacher and a man of holy life, told me that Auxerre\n    had more vines and wine than Cremona and Parma and Reggio and Modena\n    together. I wouldn\u2019t believe him. But when I came to live at Auxerre,\n    I saw that he spoke the truth. It is a large district, or bishopric,\n    and the mountains, hills, and plains are covered with vines. There\n    they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; but they send their\n    wine by river to Paris, where they sell it nobly; and live and clothe\n    themselves from the proceeds. Three times I went all about the\n    district with one or another of the brothers: once with one who was\n    preaching and affixing crosses for the Crusade of the French king (St.\n    Louis); then with another who preached to the Cistercians in a most\n    beautiful monastery; and the third time we spent Easter with a\n    countess, who set before the whole company twelve courses of food, all\n    different. And had the count been at home, there would have been a\n    still greater abundance and variety. Now in four parts of France they\n    drink beer, and in four, wine. And the three lands where the wine is\n    most abundant are La Rochelle, Beaune, and Auxerre. In Auxerre the red\n    wine is least regarded and is not as good as the Italian. But Auxerre\n    has its white or golden wines, which are fragrant and comforting and\n    good, and make every one drinking them feel happy. Some of the Auxerre\n    wine is so strong that when put in a jug, drops appear on the outside\n    (_lacrymantur exterius_). The French laugh and say that three b\u2019s and\n    seven f\u2019s go with the best wine:\n\n      \u2018Le vin bon et bel et blanc,\n       Fort et fer et fin et franc,\n       Freit et fres et fourmijant.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThe French delight in good wine--no wonder! since it \u2018gladdens God\n    and men.\u2019 Both French and English are very diligent with their\n    drinking-cups. Indeed the French have blear eyes from drinking\n    overmuch; and in the morning after a bout, they go to the priest who\n    has celebrated mass and ask him to drop a little of the water in which\n    he has washed his hands into their eyes. But Brother Bartholomew at\n    Provins has a way of saying it would be better for them if they would\n    put their water in their wine instead of in their eyes. As for the\n    English, they take a measure of wine, drink it out, and say: \u2018I have\n    drunk; now you\u2019--meaning that you should drink as much. And this is\n    their idea of politeness; and any one will take it very ill if the\n    other does not follow his precept and example.\u201d[639]\n\nWhile Salimbene was living at Auxerre, in the year 1248, a provincial\nChapter of the Franciscan Order was held at Sens, with the\nMinister-General, John of Parma, presiding. Thither went Salimbene.\n\n    \u201cThe King of France, St. Louis, was expected. And the brothers all\n    went out from the house to receive him. And Brother Rigaud,[640] of\n    the Order, Archbishop of Rouen, having put on his pontifical\n    trappings, left the house and hurried toward the king, asking all the\n    time, \u2018Where is the king? where is the king?\u2019 And I followed him; for\n    he went alone and frantically, his mitre on his head and pastoral\n    staff in hand. He had been tardy in dressing himself, so that the\n    other brothers had gone ahead, and now lined the street, with faces\n    turned from the town, straining to see the king coming. And I\n    wondered, saying to myself, that I had read that these Senonian Gauls\n    once, under Brennus, captured Rome; now their women seemed a lot of\n    servant girls. If the King of France had made a progress through Pisa\n    or Bologna, the whole _\u00e9lite_ of the ladies of the city would have met\n    him. Then I remembered the Gallic way, for the mere townsfolk to dwell\n    in the towns, while the knights and noble ladies live in their castles\n    and possessions.\n\n    \u201cThe king was slender and graceful, rather lean, of fair height, with\n    an angelic look and gracious face. And he came to the church of the\n    brothers Minorites not in regal pomp, but on foot in the habit of a\n    pilgrim, with wallet and staff, which well adorned his royal shoulder.\n    His own brothers, who were counts, followed in like humility and garb.\n    Nor did the king care as much for the society of nobles as for the\n    prayers and suffrages of the poor. Indeed he was one to be held a\n    monarch, both on the score of devotion and for his knightly deeds of\n    arms.\n\n    \u201cThus he entered the church of the brethren, with most devout\n    genuflections, and prayed before the altar. And when he left the\n    church and paused at the threshold, I was next to him. And there, on\n    behalf of the church at Sens, the warden presented him with a huge\n    live pike swimming in water in a tub made of firwood, such as they\n    bathe babies in. The pike is dear and highly prized in France. The\n    king returned thanks to the sender as well as to the presenter of the\n    gift. Then he requested audibly that no one, unless he were a knight,\n    should enter the Chapter House, except the brethren, with whom he\n    wished to speak. When we were met in Chapter, the king began to speak\n    of his actions and, devoutly kneeling, begged the prayers and\n    suffrages of the brethren for himself, his brothers, his lady mother\n    the queen, and all his companions. And certain French brothers, next\n    to me, from devotion and piety wept as if unconsolable. After the\n    king, Lord Oddo, a Roman cardinal, who once was chancellor at Paris,\n    and now was to cross the sea with the king, arose and said a few\n    words. Then on behalf of the Order, John of Parma, the\n    Minister-General, spoke fittingly, promising the prayers of the\n    brethren, and ordaining masses for the king; which, thereupon, at the\n    king\u2019s request he confirmed by a letter under his seal.\n\n    \u201cAfterwards, on that day, the king distributed alms and dined with the\n    brethren in the refectory. There were at table his three brothers, a\n    cardinal of the Roman curia, the minister-general, and Brother Rigaud,\n    Archbishop of Rouen, and many brethren. The minister-general, knowing\n    what a noble company was with the king, had no mind to thrust himself\n    forward, although he was asked to sit next the king. So to set an\n    example of courtliness and humility, he sat among the lowest. On that\n    day first we had cherries and then the very whitest bread; there was\n    wine in abundance and of the best, as befitted the regal magnificence.\n    And after the Gallic custom many reluctant ones were invited and\n    forced to drink. After that we had fresh beans cooked in milk, fish\n    and crabs, eel-pies, rice with milk of almonds and powdered cinnamon,\n    broiled eels with excellent sauce; and plenty of cakes and herbs, and\n    fruit. Everything was well served, and the service at table excellent.\n\n    \u201cThe following day the king resumed his journey, and I followed him,\n    as the Chapter was over; for I had permission to go and stay in\n    Provincia. It was easy for me to find him, as he frequently turned\n    aside to go to the hermitages of the brothers Minorites or some other\n    religious Order, to gain their prayers. And he kept this up\n    continually until he reached the sea and took ship for the Holy Land.\n\n    \u201cI remember that one day I went to a noble castle in Burgundy, where\n    the body of the Magdalene was then believed to be. The next day was\n    Sunday; and early in the morning came the king to ask the suffrages of\n    the brethren. He dismissed his retinue in the castle, from which the\n    house of the brothers was but a little way. The king took his own\n    three brothers, as was his wont, and some servants to take care of the\n    horses. And when genuflections and reverences were duly made, the\n    brothers sought benches to sit on. But the king sat on the earth in\n    the dust, as I saw with my eyes. For that church had no pavement. And\n    he called us, saying: \u2018Come to me, my sweetest brothers, and hear my\n    words.\u2019 And we made a circle about him, sitting with him on the earth;\n    and his own brothers likewise. And he asked our prayers, as I have\n    been saying. And when promise had been given him, he rose and went his\n    way.\u201d[641]\n\nIs not this a picture of St. Louis, pilgrimaging from convent to convent,\nto make sure of the divine aid, and trusting, so far as concerned the\nbusiness of the Holy Land, quite as much in the prayers of monks as in\nthe deeds of knights? We have hardly such a vivid sight of him in\nJoinville or Geoffrey of Beaulieu.[642]\n\nAfter this scene, the king proceeded on his way, to make ready for his\nvoyage, and Salimbene went to Lyons, then down the Rhone to Arles, then\naround by sea to Marseilles, and thence to Areae, the present Hy\u00e8res,\nwhich lies near the coast. Here to his joy he met with Brother Hugo of\nMontpellier whom he was seeking, the great \u201cJoachite,\u201d the great clerk,\nthe mighty preacher and resistless disputer, whom he had not forgotten\nsince the days, long before, when he had been in Hugo\u2019s company and\nlistened to his preaching at Siena. Even then, Minorites, Dominicans, and\nall men, had flocked to hear this small dark man, who seemed another Paul,\nas he descanted on the marvels of Paradise and the contempt one should\nfeel for this world; but especially those Franciscans delighted in his\npreaching who were of the \u201cspiritual\u201d party, which sought to follow\nstrictly the injunctions of the blessed Francis, and also cherished the\nprophesies of the enigmatical Joachim of Flora. To this Joachim was\nascribed that long since vanished but much-bespoken _Evangelium eternum_,\nwhich appears to have been written years after his death under the\nauspices of John of Parma, Minister-General of the Franciscan Order.[643]\n\nThere was heresy in this book, with its doctrine of a still unrevealed,\nbut everlasting Gospel of the Holy Ghost. Until its appearance the genuine\nutterances of Joachim were not prescribed, consisting as they did of\nprophecies, for example, as to the life of that monster Frederick II., and\nof denunciations of the pride and worldliness of ecclesiastics. Thus they\nfell in with the enthusiasms of the \u201cspiritual\u201d Franciscans, who still\nlived in an ecstasy of love and anticipation;--in the coming time some of\nthem were to be dubbed Fratricelli, and under that name be held as\nheretics.\n\nJohn of Parma was, of course, a \u201cJoachite\u201d; and \u201cI was intimate with him,\u201d\nsays Salimbene, \u201cfrom love and because I seemed to believe the writings of\nAbbot Joachim of the Order of the Flower.\u201d John was likewise a friend (so\nstrong a bond was the belief in the holy but over-prophetic Joachim) of\nHugo of Montpellier, of whose manner and arguments we shall now let\nSalimbene speak.\n\n    \u201cOnce Hugo came from Pisa to Lucca, where the brothers had invited him\n    to come and preach. He arrived at the hour for setting out for the\n    cathedral service. And there the whole convent was assembled to\n    accompany him and do him honour, and from desire to hear him too. And\n    he wondered, seeing the brothers assembled outside of the convent\n    door, and said: \u2018Ah God! what are they going to do?\u2019 The reply was,\n    that they were there to do him honour, and to hear him. But he said:\n    \u2018I do not need such honour, for I am not pope. If they wish to hear,\n    let them come after we have got there. I will go ahead with one\n    companion, and I will not go with that band.\u2019\u201d\n\nHugo was worshipped by his admirers, and hated by those whom he disagreed\nwith or denounced. Aside from his disputations in defence of Joachim, a\nsample of which will be given shortly, one can see what hate must have\nsprung from such invective as Salimbene reports him once to have addressed\nto a consistory of cardinals at Lyons, where the Pope then held court.\nHere is the story, quite too harsh for the respectable editors of the\nParma edition of the _Chronaca_:\n\n    \u201cThe cardinals inquired of Brother Hugo for news (_rumores_). So he\n    reviled them, as asses, saying: \u2018I have no news, but a plenitude of\n    peace in my conscience and before my God, who surpasses sense and\n    keeps my heart and mind in Christ Jesus my Lord. I know that ye seek\n    after news, and wait idle the live-long day. For ye are Athenians and\n    not disciples of Christ. Of whom Luke says in the Acts: For all the\n    Athenians and the strangers which were there had time for nothing else\n    but to tell or hear some new thing. The disciples of Christ were\n    fishers and weak men according to the world, but they converted the\n    whole earth because the hand of the Lord was with them. They set forth\n    and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them. But ye are those\n    who build up Zion in blood (_i.e._ consanguinity) and Jerusalem in\n    iniquity. For you choose your little nephews and relations for the\n    benefices and dignities of the Church, and you exalt and make rich\n    your clan, and shut out men good and fit who would be useful to the\n    Church, and you prebendate children in their cradles. As a certain\n    mountebank well has said: If with an accusative you would go to the\n    Curia, you\u2019ll take nothing if you don\u2019t start with the dative! And\n    another says, the Roman Curia cares not for a sheep without wool.\u2019\u201d\n\nAnd with such like, Hugo continues a considerable space.\n\n    \u201cHearing these things the cardinals were cut to the heart and gnashed\n    their teeth at him. But they had not the hardihood to reply; for the\n    fear of the Lord came over them and the hand of the Lord was with him.\n    Yet they wondered that he spoke to them so boldly; and finally it\n    seemed best to them to slip out and leave him, nor did they question\n    him, saying, as the Athenians to Paul: \u2018We will hear thee again of\n    this matter.\u2019\u201d[644]\n\nHugo\u2019s invective is outdone by Salimbene\u2019s closing scorn.\n\nAnd now (to return to Salimbene\u2019s journey) here at Hy\u00e8res in the year 1248\nmany notaries and judges, and physicians and other men of learning, were\nassembled to hear Brother Hugo speak of the Abbot Joachim\u2019s doctrines, and\nexpound Holy Scripture, and predict the future. \u201cAnd I was there to hear\nhim; for long before I had been instructed in these teachings.\u201d But there\ncame two Preaching friars, and abode at the Franciscan house, since the\nDominicans had no convent at Hy\u00e8res. One was Brother Peter of Apulia, a\nlearned man and a great speaker. After dinner a brother asked him what he\nthought of Abbot Joachim. He answered: \u201cI care as much for Joachim as for\nthe fifth wheel of a coach.\u201d\n\nThereupon this brother hurried to Hugo\u2019s chamber, and exclaimed in the\npresence of all the notables there: \u201cHere is a brother Preacher who does\nnot believe that doctrine at all.\u201d\n\nTo whom Brother Hugo: \u201cAnd what is it to me if he does not believe? Be it\nlaid at his door; he will see it when trouble shall enlighten him. Yet\ncall him to debate; let us hear of what he doubts.\u201d\n\nSo, called, he came, very unwillingly, because he held Joachim so cheaply,\nand besides thought there was no one in that house fit to dispute with\nhim. When Brother Hugo saw him he said: \u201cArt thou he who doubts the\ndoctrine of Joachim?\u201d\n\nBrother Peter replied: \u201cIndeed I am.\u201d\n\nThen said Brother Hugo: \u201cHast thou ever read Joachim?\u201d\n\nReplied Brother Peter: \u201cI have read and well read.\u201d\n\nTo whom Hugo: \u201cI believe thou hast read as a woman reads the Psalter, who\ndoes not remember at the end what she read at the beginning. Thus many\nread and do not understand, either because they despise what they read, or\nbecause their foolish heart is darkened. Now, therefore, tell me what thou\nwouldst hear as to Joachim, so that we may better know thy doubts.\u201d\n\nThereupon there is question back and forth regarding the Scripture proofs\nof Joachim\u2019s prophecies, for instance, those relating to Frederick\u2019s\nreign. Brother Hugo dilates on Joachim\u2019s holiness; explains the dark\nScripture references, and brings in the prophecies of Merlin, _anglicus\nvates_, and talks of the allegorical, anagogical, tropological, moral and\nmystical, senses of Scripture. The discussion waxes hot. Peter begins to\nbeat about the bush (_discurrere per ambages_), and declares it to be\nheretical to quote an infidel like Merlin. At which Hugo answers: \u201cThou\nliest, as I will prove _multipliciter_; for the writings of Balaam,\nCaiaphas, Merlin, and the Sybil are not spurned by the Church: \u2018The rose\ngives forth no thorn, although the thorn\u2019s daughter.\u2019\u201d[645]\n\nPeter then turns to the sayings of the saints and the philosophers. But as\nHugo was _doctissimus_ in these, he at once twists him up and finishes him\n(_statim involvit eum et conclusit ei_). Hereupon Peter\u2019s brother\nPreacher, an old priest and a good, sought to come to his aid. But Peter\nsaid, \u201cPeace, be still.\u201d For Peter knew himself vanquished, and began to\npraise Brother Hugo for his manifold wisdom.\n\n    \u201cAt this moment came a messenger from the ship\u2019s captain, bidding the\n    brothers Preachers hurry, and go aboard. When they had left, Brother\n    Hugo said to the learned men remaining, who had heard the debate:\n    \u2018Take it not for evil, if we have said some things which ought not to\n    have been said; for disputants often roam the fields of licence. Those\n    good men glory in their knowledge, and speak what is found in their\n    Order\u2019s fount of wisdom, which is the Word of God. They also say that\n    they travel among simple folk when they pass through the places of the\n    brothers Minorites, where they are ministered to with loving charity.\n    But by the grace of God these two shall no longer be able to say they\n    have walked among the simple.\u2019\n\n    \u201cHis auditors dispersed, edified and comforted, saying, We have heard\n    wonderful things to-day. Later, that same day, the brothers Preachers\n    returned, to our delight, for the weather proved unfit for sailing.\n    After dinner, Brother Hugo conversed with them familiarly, and Brother\n    Peter sat himself on the earth at Brother Hugo\u2019s feet; nor was any one\n    able to make him rise and sit on the bench on the same level with him,\n    not even when Brother Hugo himself besought him. So Brother Peter, no\n    longer disputing or contradicting, but meekly listening, heard honied\n    words spoken by Brother Hugo, and worthy to be set down, but omitted\n    here for brevity\u2019s sake, as I hasten to record other things.\u201d[646]\n\nSo Salimbene passes on, both in his Chronicle and in his journey, but\nthough his steps lead deviously through the cities of Provence, they bring\nhim back once more to Hy\u00e8res and Hugo, at whose feet he sits and listens\nfor a season in rapt admiration.\n\nAfter this happy season, Salimbene returned to Genoa, and from that time\non spent his life among the Franciscan brotherhoods of Italy. Henceforth\nhis Chronicle is chiefly occupied with those wretched unceasing wars of\nnorthern Italy, Imperialists against Papists, and city against city--and\nwith the affairs of the Franciscan Order. The story is now less varied,\nyet not lacking in picturesque qualities; and through it all we still see\nthe man himself, although the man, as life goes on, seems to become more\nof a Franciscan monk, and less of an observer of human life. But he\ncontinues na\u00efve. Thus he tells that one time, with some companions, he\ncame to Bobbio, that famous book-lovers\u2019 foundation of St. Columban, in\nthe mountains north of Genoa: \u201cand there we saw one of those water-pots of\nthe Lord, in which the Lord made wine from water at the marriage at Cana,\nfor it is said to be one of those: whether it is, God knows, to whom all\nthings are known and open and naked.\u201d\n\nAnd again, some one brings him news of the state of France in the year\n1251, when King Louis was a captive in Africa;[647] and thus he tells it:\n\n    \u201cIn this year a countless crowd of shepherds came together in France,\n    saying that they would cross the sea to kill the Saracens and free the\n    King of France. Many followed from divers cities of France, and no one\n    dared stop them. For their leader said it was revealed to him of God\n    that he must lead that multitude across the sea to avenge the King of\n    France. The common folk believed him, and were enraged against the\n    religious, especially the Preachers, because they had preached the\n    Crusade and had \u2018crossed\u2019 men who were sailing with the king. And the\n    people were angry at Christ, so that they dared blaspheme His blessed\n    name. And when the Minorites and Preachers came seeking alms in His\n    name, they gnashed their teeth at them and in their sight turned and\n    gave the sou to some other beggar, saying, \u2018Take this in Mahomet\u2019s\n    name, who is stronger than Christ.\u2019\u201d[648]\n\nOf those Italian wars--rather feuds, vengeances, and monstrosities of\nhate--Salimbene can tell enough. He gives a ghastly picture of the fate of\nAlberic da Romano, brother of Eccelino, and tyrant indeed of Treviso.\n\n    \u201cThere he lorded it for many years; and cruel and hard was his rule,\n    as those know who experienced it. He was a limb of the devil and a son\n    of iniquity, but he perished by an evil death with his wife and sons\n    and daughters. For those who slew them tore off the legs and arms from\n    their living bodies, in their parents\u2019 sight, and with them struck the\n    parents\u2019 faces. Then they bound the wife and daughters to stakes, and\n    burned them; they were noble, beautiful virgins, nor in any way in\n    fault. But their innocence and beauty did not save them, because of\n    the hatred for the father and mother. Terribly had these afflicted the\n    people of Treviso. So they came upon Alberic with tongs and  ----\u201d--\n\nthe sentence is too horrid for translation. But the chronicler goes on to\ntell that they destroyed his body amid gibes and insults and torments.\n\n    \u201cFor he had killed a blood-relative of this one, and that one\u2019s\n    father, son or daughter. And he had laid such taxes and exactions on\n    them, that they had to destroy their houses. The very walls and beams\n    and chests and cupboards and wine-vats they put in boats and sent to\n    Ferrara to sell them and redeem themselves. I saw those with my eyes.\n    Alberic pretended to be at war with his brother Eccelino, so as to do\n    his evil deeds more safely; and he did not hold his hand from the\n    slaughter of citizens and subjects. One day he hanged twenty-five\n    prominent men of Treviso, who had done him no ill; because he feared\n    they would! And thirty noble women, mothers, wives and daughters of\n    these, were brought there to see them hanging; and he had these women\n    stripped half naked, that those who were hanging might see them so.\n    The men were hanged quite close to the ground; and he forced these\n    women to go so close that their faces were struck by the legs and feet\n    of those who were dying in anguish.\u201d[649]\n\nSuch was the kind of devil-madness that might walk abroad in Italy in the\nMiddle Ages. Let us relieve our minds by a story our friend tells of a\ncertain boy placed in a Franciscan convent in Bologna, to become a monk.\n\n    \u201cWhen asleep he snored so mightily, that no one could have peace in\n    the same house with him, so horribly did he disturb those who slept as\n    well as those who were at their vigils. And they made him sleep in the\n    shed where wood and staves were stored, but even then the brothers\n    could not escape, so did that voice of malediction resound through the\n    whole place. And all the priests and wiseacres among the brothers met\n    in the director\u2019s chamber, to eject him from the Order because of his\n    insupportable offence: I was there. It was decided to return him to\n    his mother, who had deceived the Order, since she had known his defect\n    before letting him go. But he was not returned to his mother, for the\n    Lord performed a miracle through Brother Nicolas [a holy brother\n    through whom God had worked other miracles as well]. This brother\n    seeing that the boy was to be expelled for no fault, but for a natural\n    defect, called him at daybreak to assist at mass. When the mass was\n    finished, the boy as commanded knelt before him, back of the altar,\n    hoping to receive some grace. Brother Nicolas touched his face and\n    nose with his hands, in the wish to confer health upon him, if the\n    Lord would grant it, and commanded him to keep this secret. What more?\n    The boy at once was cured, and after that slept as quietly as a\n    dormouse without annoying any brother.\u201d[650]\n\nThus we have this Chronicle, rambling, incoherent, picturesque, with its\nglimpses of all this pretty world, for which our Salimbene, despite his\ncowl, has an uncloistered eye--its keenness for incident and circumstance\nundeflected by the inner sight with which it could also look on the\ninvisible world. When Brother Salimbene was young and an enthusiastic\nJoachite, a strong motive of his wish to live on in the flesh was to see\nwhether those prophecies regarding Frederick came true. Alas! for this\npurpose he lived too long: Frederick died before the prophecies were\nfulfilled, and with his death honest Salimbene had to put from him his\ndarling trust in the words of Abbot Joachim of the Order of the Flower.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV\n\nTHE IDEAL AND THE ACTUAL: SOCIETY\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII\n\nFEUDALISM AND KNIGHTHOOD\n\n    FEUDAL AND CHRISTIAN ORIGIN OF KNIGHTLY VIRTUE; THE ORDER OF THE\n    TEMPLE; GODFREY OF BOUILLON; ST. LOUIS; FROISSART\u2019S _CHRONICLES_\n\n\nThe world is evil! the clergy corrupt, the laity depraved! none denounces\nthem! Awake! arise! be mindful! Such ceaseless cry rises more shrilly in\ntimes of reform and progress. It was the cry of the preacher in the\ntwelfth and thirteenth centuries, when preaching was reviving with the\ngeneral advance of life.[651]\n\nSatire and pious invective struck at all classes: kings, counts and\nknights, merchants, tradesmen, artisans, even villain-serfs, came under\nits lash.[652] And properly, since every class is touched with universal\nhuman vices, besides those which are more peculiar to its special way of\nlife. All men fall below the standards of the time; and each class fails\nwith respect to its own ideals. The special shortcomings are most apparent\nwith those classes whose ideals are most definitely formulated.\n\nAmong the laity the gap between the ideal and the actual may best be\nobserved in the warrior class whose ideals accorded with the feudal\nsituation and tended to express themselves in chivalry. Not that knights\nand ladies were better or worse than other mediaeval men and women. But\nliterature contains clearer statements of their ideals. The knightly\nvirtues range before us as distinctly as the monastic; and harsh is the\ncontrast between the character they outline and the feudal actuality of\ncruelty and greed and lust. Feudalism itself presents everywhere a state\nof contrast between its principles of mutual fidelity and protection, and\nits actuality of oppression, revolt, and private war.\n\nThe feudal system was a sprawling conglomerate fact. The actual usages of\nchivalry (the term is loose and must be allowed gradually to define\nitself) were one expression of it, and varied with the period and country.\nBut chivalry had its home also in the imagination, and its most\ninteresting media are legend and romantic fiction. Still, much that was\nromantic in it sprang from the aggregate of law, custom, and sentiment,\nwhich held feudal society together. Chivalry was the fine flower of honour\ngrowing from this soil, embosomed in an abundant leafage of imagination.\n\nThe feudal system was founded on relations and sentiments arising from a\nstate of turbulence where every man needed the protection of a lord: it\ncould not fail to foster sentiments of fealty. The fief itself, the feudal\nunit of land held on condition of homage and service, symbolized the\nprinciple of mutual troth between lord and vassal. The land was part of\nmother earth; the troth, the elemental personal tie, existed from of yore.\nIn this instance it came from the German forests. But the feudal system of\nland tenure also stretched its roots back into the rural institutions of\nthe disintegrating Roman Empire. In the fifth century, for example, when\nwhat was left of the imperial rule could no longer enforce order, and\nprovincial governments were decaying with the decay of the central power\nfrom which they drew their life, men had to look about them for\nprotection. It became customary for men to hand over land and liberty to\nsome near lord, and enter into a relationship akin to serfage in return\nfor protection. Thus the Gallo-Roman population were becoming accustomed\nto personal dependence even while the Merovingians were establishing their\nkingdom.\n\nOn their side the Franks and other Teutons had inherited the institution\nof the _comitatus_, which bound the young warrior to his chief. They were\nfamiliar with exacting modes of personal retainership, which merged the\nfollower\u2019s freedom in his lord\u2019s will. If during the reigns of Pepin and\nhis prodigious son the development of local dominion and dependence was\nheld in some abeyance, on the death of Charlemagne it would proceed apace.\nAll the factors which tend to make institutions out of abuses and the\ninfractions of earlier custom, sprang at once into activity in the renewed\nconfusion. Everything served to increase the lesser man\u2019s need of defence,\nweld his dependence on his lord, and augment the latter\u2019s power. Moreover,\nlong before Charlemagne\u2019s time, not only for protection in this life, but\nfor the sake of their souls, men had been granting their lands to\nmonasteries and receiving back the use thereof--such usufruct being known\nas a _beneficium_. This custom lent the force of its example and manifest\nutility to the relations between lay lords and tenants. And finally one\nnotes the frequent grant to monasteries and individuals of immunity from\ngovernmental visitation, a grant preventing the king\u2019s officers from\nentering lands in order to exercise the king\u2019s justice, or exact fines and\nrequisitions.[653]\n\nFrom out of such conditions the feudal system gradually took form. Its\ncentral feature was the tenure of a fief by a vassal from his lord on\ncondition of rendering faithful military and other not ignoble service. As\nthe tenth century passed, fiefs tended to become hereditary. So long as\nthe vassal fulfilled his duty to his lord, the rights of the lord over the\nland were nominal; more substantial was the mutual obligation--on the part\nof the lord to protect his vassal against the violence of others, and on\nthe vassal\u2019s part to make good the homage pledged by him when he knelt and\nplaced his hands within his lord\u2019s hands and vowed himself his lord\u2019s man\nfor the fief he held. His duty was to aid his lord against enemies, yield\nhim counsel and assistance in the judgment of causes, and pay money to\nransom him from captivity, knight his eldest son, or portion his daughter.\nThe ramifications of these feudal tenures and obligations extended, with\nall manner of complications, from king and duke down to such as held the\nmeagre fief that barely kept man and war-horse from degrading labour. All\nthese made up the feudal class whose members might expect to become\nknights on reaching manhood.\n\nNeither this system of land tenure, nor the sentiments and relations\nsustaining it, drew their origin from Christianity. But the Church was\nmighty in its influence over the secular relationships of those who came\nunder its spiritual guidance. Feudal troth was to become Christianized.\nThe old regard for war-chief and war-comrade was to be broadened through\nthe Faith\u2019s solicitude for all believers; then it was raised above the\nhuman sphere to fealty toward God and His Church; and thereupon it was\ngentled through Christian meekness and mercy.\n\nThis Christianized spirit of fealty, broadening to courtesy and pity, was\nto take visible form in a universal Order into which members of the feudal\nclass were admitted when their valour had been proved, and into which\nbrave deeds might bring even a low-born man. Gradually, as the Order\u2019s\n_regula_, a code of knighthood\u2019s honour was developed, valid in its\nfundamentals throughout western Christendom; but varying details and\nchanging fancies from time to time intruded, just as subsequent phases of\nmonastic development were grafted on the common Benedictine rule.\n\nInvesting a young warrior with the arms of manhood has always in fighting\ncommunities been the normal ceremony of the youth\u2019s coming of age and his\nrecognition as a member of the clan. The binding on of the young Teuton\u2019s\nsword in the assembly of his people was an historical antecedent of the\nmaking of a knight. In all the lands of western Europe--France, Germany,\nAnglo-Saxon England, Lombard Italy, and Visigothic Spain--this ceremony\nappears to have remained a simple one through the ninth and tenth\ncenturies. As for the eleventh, one may note the following passages:\nWilliam of Malmesbury (d. 1142 cir.) speaks of William of Normandy\nreceiving the insignia of knighthood (_militiae insignia_) from the King\nof France as soon as his years permitted.[654] Henry of Huntington (d.\n1155) says that this same William the Conqueror, in the nineteenth year of\nhis reign, invested his younger son Henry with the arms of manhood\n(_virilibus induit armis_); while another chronicler says that Prince\nHenry: \u201csumpsit arma in Pentecostem\u201d--a festival at which it was customary\nto make knights. And again, Ordericus Vitalis says of the armour-bearer of\nDuke William that after five years\u2019 service he was by that same duke\nregularly invested with his arms and made a knight (_decenter est armis\nadornatus et miles effectus_).\n\nThese short references[655] do not indicate the nature of the ceremony.\nBut one notes the use of the Latin words _miles_ and _militia_ as meaning\nknight and knighthood. Like so many other classical words, _miles_ took\nvarious meanings in the Middle Ages. But it came commonly to signify\nknight, chevalier, or ritter.[656] And whatever other meanings _militia_\nand _militare_ retained or acquired, they signified knighthood and the\nperformance of its duties. Frequently they suggested the relationship of\nvassal to a lord: and in this sense _miles_ meant one who held a fief\nunder the obligation to do knightly service in return.\n\nBut how did this word _miles_ (which in classical Latin meant a soldier\nand sometimes specifically a foot-soldier as contrasted with an _eques_)\ncome to mean a knight? It was first applied to the warriors of the various\nTeutonic peoples, who for the most part fought on foot. But the wars with\nthe Saracens in the eighth century appear to have made clear the need of a\nlarge and efficient corps of horse. From the time of Charles Martel the\nwarrior class began to fight regularly on horseback;[657] and thus,\napparently, the term _miles_ began to signify primarily one of these tried\nand well-armed riders.[658] Such were the very ones who would regularly be\ninvested with their arms on reaching manhood. Many of them had inherited\nthe sentiments of fealty to a chief, and probably were vassals of some\nlord from whom they had received lands to be held on military tenure. They\nwere not all noble (an utterly loose term with reference to these early\nconfused centuries) nor were they necessarily free (another inappropriate\nterm with respect to these incipiently mediaeval social conditions).[659]\nBut their mainly military duties would naturally develop into a retainer\u2019s\nrelationship of fealty.\n\nThe ninth century passes into the tenth, the tenth into the eleventh, the\neleventh into the twelfth. Classes and orders of society become more\ndistinct. The old warrior groups have become lords and vassals, and\ncompose the feudal class whose members upon maturity are formally girt\nwith the arms of manhood, and thereupon become knights. The ceremony of\ntheir investiture has been gradually made more impressive; it has also\nbeen imbued with religious sentiment and elaborated with religious rite.\nIt now constitutes the initiation to a universally recognized fighting\nOrder which has its knightly code of honour, if not its knightly duties.\nIn a word, along with the clearer determination of its membership, and the\nelaboration of the ceremonies of entry or \u201cadoubement,\u201d knighthood has\nbecome a distinct conception and has attained existence as an Order. And\nan Order it remains, into which one is admitted, but into which no one is\nborn, though he be hereditary king or duke or count. Moreover, although\nthe candidates normally would be of the feudal class, the Order is not\nclosed against knightly merit in whomsoever found.[660] Of course there\nwas no written _regula_ or charter, except of certain special Orders. Yet\nthere was no uncertainty as to who was or was not a knight.\n\nA knight could be \u201cmade\u201d or \u201cdubbed\u201d at any time, for example, on the\nfield of battle or before the fight. But certain festivals of the Church,\nChristmas, Easter, and Pentecost, came to be regarded as peculiarly\nappropriate for the ceremony. Any knight, but no unknighted person however\nhigh his rank, could \u201cdub\u201d another knight.[661] This appears to have been\nthe universal rule, and yet it suffered infringements. For example, at a\nlate period a king might claim the right to _confirm_ the bestowal of\nknighthood, which in fact commonly was bestowed by a great lord or\nsovereign prince. On its negative side, the general rule may be said to\nhave been infringed when Church dignitaries, no longer content with\nblessing the arms of the young warrior, usurped the secular privilege of\ninvesting him with them and dubbing him a knight.[662]\n\nThe ceremony itself probably originated in the girding on of the sword. As\nthese warriors in time changed to mounted riders with elaborate arms and\narmour, it became more of an affair to invest them fully with their\nequipment. There would be the putting on of helm and coat of mail, and\nthere would be the binding on of spurs; and at some time it became\ncustomary for the youth to prepare himself by a bath. But girding on the\nsword was still the important point, although perhaps the somewhat\nenigmatical blow, given by him who conferred the dignity, and not to be\nreturned (_non repercutiendus_), became the finish to the ceremony. That\nblow existed (we find it in the _Chansons de geste_) in the twelfth\ncentury as a thwack with the fist on the young man\u2019s bare neck; then in\ncourse of years it refined itself into a gentle sword-tap on the mailed\nshoulder.[663]\n\nAt an early period the Church sought to sanctify the ceremony through\nreligious rites; for it could not remain unconcerned with the consecration\nof the warriors of Christendom, whose services were needed and whose souls\nwere to be saved. What time so apt for inculcating obedience and other\nChristian virtues as this solemn hour when the young warrior\u2019s nature was\nstirred with the pride and hopes of knighthood? And the young knight\nneeded the Church\u2019s blessing. Heathen peoples sought in every enterprise\nthe protection of their gods, usually obtained through priestly magic. And\nwhen converted to the faith of Christ, should they not call on Him who was\nmightier than Odin? Should not His power be invoked to shield the\nChristian knight? Will not the sword which the priest has blessed and has\nlaid upon Christ\u2019s miracle-working altar, more surely guard the wearer\u2019s\nlife? Better still if there be blessed relics in its hilt. The dying\nRoland speaks to his great sword:\n\n  \u201cO Durendel cum ies bele et seintisme!\u201d\n\n\u201cO Durendel how art thou fair and holy! In thy hilt what store of relics:\ntooth of St. Peter, blood of St. Basil, hairs of my lord St. Denis, cloth\nworn by the Holy Mary.\u201d[664] These relics made the \u201choliness\u201d of that\nsword, not in the way of sentiment, but through their magic power. And we\nshall not be thinking in mediaeval categories if we lose sight of the\nmagic-religious effect of the priest\u2019s blessing on the novice\u2019s sword: it\nis a protection for the future knight.\n\nDoubtless the religious features of the \u201cadoubement\u201d revert to various\nepochs. The ancient watch-nights preceding Easter and Pentecost, followed\nat daybreak by the baptism of white-robed catechumens, may have been the\noriginal of the novice\u2019s night vigil over his arms laid by the altar. His\nbath had become a symbol of purification from sin. He heard Mass in the\nearly morning, and then came the blessing of the sword, the _benedictio\nensis_, of which the oldest extant formula is found in a Roman manuscript\nof the early eleventh century: \u201cExaudi, quaeso, Domine, preces nostras, et\nhunc ensem quo hic famulus N. se circumcingi desiderat, majestatis tuae\ndextera benedicere dignare.\u201d[665]\n\nThrough the Middle Ages the fashions of feudalism did not remain\nunchanged; likewise its quintessential spirit, chivalry, was modified, and\none may say, between the ninth and the fourteenth centuries, passed from\nbarbarism to preciosity. Nevertheless the main ideals of chivalry endured,\nspringing as they did from the fundamental and but slowly-changing\nconditions of feudal society. Since that society was constantly at\nwar,[666] the first virtue of the knight was valour. Next, since life and\nproperty hung on mutual aid and troth, and a larger safety was ensured if\none lord could rely upon his neighbour\u2019s word, the virtues of\ntruth-speaking and troth-keeping took their places in the chivalric ideal.\nAnother useful quality, and means of winning men, was generosity\n(_largesse_). When coin is scarce, and stipulations for fixed pay unusual,\nhe who serves looks for liberality, which, in accordance with feudal\nconditions, made the third of the chief knightly virtues.\n\nValour, troth, largesse, had no necessary connection with Christianity.\nIt was otherwise with certain of the remaining qualities of a knight.\nAccording to Christian teaching, pride was the deadliest of sins. So\nhaughtiness, boasting, and vain-glory were to be held vices by the\nChristian knight. He should show a humble demeanour, save toward the\nmortal enemies of God; and far from boasting, he should rather depreciate\nhimself and his exploits, though never lowering the standard of his\npurpose to achieve. Humility entered knighthood\u2019s ideal from Christianity;\nand so perhaps did courtesy, its kin, a virtue which was not among the\nearliest to enter knighthood\u2019s ideal, and yet reached universal\nrecognition.\n\nChristianity also meant active charity, beneficence, and love of\nneighbour. These are virtues hard to import into a state of war. Fighting\nmeans harm-doing to an enemy; and only indirectly makes for some one\u2019s\ngood. Let there be some vindication of good in the fighting of a Christian\nknight: he shall be quick to right the wrong, succour distress, and\nquickest to bear help where no reward can come. Since knighthood\u2019s ideals\ntook form in crusading times, the slaughter of the Paynim became the\nsupreme act of knightly warfare.\n\nIf such elements of the knightly ideal were of Christian origin, others\nstill were even more closely part of mediaeval Christianity. First of\nthese was faith, orthodox faith, heresy-uprooting, infidel-destroying,\n_fides_ in the full Church sense. Without faith\u2019s sacramental\ncredentials--baptism, participation in the mass--no one could be a knight:\nand heresy degrades the recreant even before the scullion\u2019s cleaver hacks\noff his spurs.\n\nFrom faith knighthood advances to obedience to the Church, a vow expressly\nmade by every knight on taking the Cross, and also incorporated in the\nConstitutions of the crusading Orders of Templars and Hospitallers. But\ndoes the knight pass on from obedience to chastity? This virtue might or\nmight not enter knighthood\u2019s ideal. It scarcely could exist with courtly\nor chivalric love;[667] and, in fact, knights commonly were either lovers\nor married men--or both. Yet even in the Arthurian literature there is the\nmonkish Galahad, and many a sinful knight becomes a hermit in the end; and\namong real and living knights, the Templars and Hospitallers were vowed to\ncelibacy. In these crusading orders the orbits of knighthood and\nmonasticism cross; and it will not be altogether a digression to review\nthe foundation and constitution of one of them.\n\nThe Order of the Temple was founded in the year 1118 by Hugh of Payns\n(Champagne) and other French knights; who placed their hands within those\nof the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and vowed to devote themselves to the\nprotection of pilgrims in the Holy Land. Probably they also bestowed their\nlands for the support of the nascent Order. Ten years afterwards Hugh\npassed through France and England, winning new recruits and appearing at\nthe Council of Troyes. With the authority of that Council and of Pope\nHonorius II. the _Regula pauperum commilitonum Christi Templique\nSalomonici_ was promulgated. St. Bernard, to whom it is ascribed, was in\nlarge part its inspiration and its author. It still exists in some\nseventy-two chapters; but one cannot distinguish between those belonging\nto the original document of 1128 and those added somewhat later.[668]\n\nThis _regula_ with its amendments and additions was translated from Latin\ninto Old French (_par excellence_ the tongue of the Crusades), and became\napparently the earliest form of the _Regle dou Temple_, upon which was\ngrafted a mass of ordinances (_retrais et establissemens_). Apparently the\nwhole of the extant Latin regula was prior to everything contained in the\nFrench _regle_; and accordingly we shall simply regard the Latin as\ncontaining the earliest regulations of the Temple, and the French as\nexhibiting the modifications of tone and interest which came in the course\nof years.\n\nThe hand of St. Bernard ensured the dominance of the monastic temper in\nthe original _regula_; and Hugo, the first Master of the Temple, could\nnot have been the Saint\u2019s close friend without sharing his enthusiasms. So\nthe prologue opens with a true monastic note:\n\n    \u201cOur word is directed primarily to all who despise their own wills,\n    and with purity of mind desire to serve under the supreme and\n    veritable King; and with minds intent choose the noble warfare of\n    obedience, and persevere therein. We therefore exhort you who until\n    now have embraced secular knighthood (_miliciam secularem_) where\n    Christ was not the cause, and whom God in His mercy has chosen out of\n    the mass of perdition for the defence of the holy Church, to hasten to\n    associate yourselves perpetually.\u201d\n\nThis phraseology would suit the constitution of a sheer monastic order.\nAnd the first chapter exhorts these _venerabiles fratres_ who renounce\ntheir own wills and serve the King (Christ) with horses and arms,\nzealously to observe all the religious services regularly prescribed for\nmonks. The _regula_ contains the usual monastic commands. For example,\nobedience to the Master of the Order is enjoined _sine mora_ as if God\nwere commanding, which recalls the language of St. Benedict.[669] Clothes\nare regulated, and diet; habitual silence is recommended; the brethren are\nnot to go alone, nor at their own will, but as directed by the Master, so\nas to imitate Him who said, I came not to do mine own will, but His who\nsent me.[670] Again, chests with locks are forbidden the brothers, except\nunder special permission; nor may any brother, without like permission,\nreceive letters from parents or friends; and then they should be read in\nthe Master\u2019s presence.[671] Let the brethren shun idle speech, and above\nall let no brother talk with another of military exploits, \u201cfollies\nrather,\u201d achieved by him while \u201cin the world,\u201d or of his doings with\nmiserable women.[672] Let no brother hunt with hawks; such mundane\ndelectations do not befit the religious, who should be rather hearing\nGod\u2019s precepts, and at prayer, or confessing their sins with tears. Yet\nthe lion may always be hunted; for he goes seeking whom he may\ndevour.[673]\n\nThe _religio_ professed by the Templars is called, in the Latin rule,\n_religio militaris_, which the French translates \u201creligion de\nchevalerie,\u201d not incorrectly, but with somewhat different flavour.[674]\n\n    \u201cThis new _genus religionis_, as we believe, by divine providence\n    began with you in the Holy Land, a _religio_ in which you mingle\n    chivalry (_milicia_). Thus this armed religion may advance through\n    chivalry, and smite the enemy without incurring sin. Rightfully then\n    we decree that you shall be called knights of the Temple (_milites\n    Templi_) and may hold houses, lands and men, and possess serfs and\n    justly rule them.\u201d[675]\n\nThe pomp of the last sentence seems to remove from the tone of the earlier\nchapters, and suggests a later date. Another, possibly late, chapter (66)\npermits the knights to receive tithes, since they have abandoned their\nriches for _spontaneae paupertati_. Still another accords to married men a\nqualified admission to the brotherhood, but they may not wear the white\nrobe and mantle (55). The next forbids the admission of _sorores_; and the\nlast chapter of all (72) warns against the sight of women, and forbids the\nbrethren to kiss one, be she widow, virgin, mother, sister or friend.\n\nThus the Latin _regula_ formulates an order of monasticism with only the\nmodifications imperatively demanded by the exigencies of holy warfare. The\nFrench _regle_ elaborates the military organization and enhances the\nchivalric element. This begins to appear in the portions which are a\ntranslation (usually quite close) of the Latin rule. But even that\ntranslation makes changes, for example, omitting the period of probation\nrequired in the Latin text, before admitting a brother to the Order.[676]\nA striking change was made by the later French ordinances in the\ninterrogations and proceedings for admission. The Latin formula begins in\nCistercian phrase:\n\n    \u201cVis abrenunciare seculo?\n\n    \u201cVolo.\n\n    \u201cVis profiteri obedientiam secundum canonicam institutionem et\n    secundum preceptum domini papae?\n\n    \u201cVolo.\n\n    \u201cVis assumere tibi conversationem (the monastic mode and change of\n    life) fratrum nostrorum?\n\n    \u201cVolo.\u201d[677]\n\nAnd so forth.\n\nThe substance of these and other questions was retained in the far longer\nFrench formula, which exacted specific promises of compliance with all the\nOrder\u2019s ordinances. But far removed from the original are such questions\nas the following: \u201cBiau dous amis\u201d (the ordinary phrase of the chivalric\nromance) have you, or has any one for you, made any promise to any one in\nreturn for his aid in procuring your admission, which would be simony?\n\u201cEstes vos chevalier et fis de chevalier?\u201d\n\nIs the candidate a knight, and son of knight and lady, and are his \u201cperes\n... de lignage de chevaliers\u201d? This means chivalry and gentle blood; and\nif the candidate answers in the negative, he cannot be admitted as a\nknight of the Temple, although he may be as \u201csergent,\u201d or in some other\ncharacter. Most noble and courtly is the phrasing of these statutes. Their\nfrequent \u201cBeaus seignors freres\u201d is the address proper for knights rather\nthan monks.[678]\n\nUsually wherever the translation of the Latin _regula_ ends, the _Regle\ndou Temple_ passes on to provisions meeting the requirements of a\nmilitary, rather than a monastic order. We enter upon such in the chapters\ngoverning the powers and privileges of the (Grand) Master, of the\nSeneschal, of the Marshal, of the \u201cComandeor de la terre de Jerusalem.\u201d\nMany sections have to do with military discipline, with the ordering of\nthe knights and their followers on the march and in the battle; they\nforbid the knights to joust or leave the squadron without orders.[679]\nHorses, armour, and accoutrements are regulated, and, in short, full\nprovision is made for everything conducing to make the army efficient in\nwar. There is also a long list of faults and crimes for which a knight may\nbe disciplined or expelled; the latter shall be his punishment if he flee\nbefore the Saracens and forsake his standard in battle.[680]\n\nThe history of the Templars, significantly epitomized in the amendments to\ntheir _regula_, shows the necessary as well as inevitable secularization\nof a military monastic order; an order which for the purposes of this\nchapter may be placed among the chief historical examples of chivalry. For\nin this chapter we are not straying through the pleasant mazes of romantic\nliterature, but are keeping close to history, with the intention of\ndrawing from it illustrations of chivalry\u2019s ideals. We shall not, however,\nenter further upon the story of the Order of the Temple, with its valorous\nand rapacious achievements and most tragic end; but will rather look to\nthe careers of historic individuals for the illumination of our theme.\n\nReaching form and consciousness in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,\nchivalry became part of the crusading ardour of those times. All true\nknights were or might be Crusaders; and of a truth there was no purer\nincarnation of the crusading spirit than Godfrey of Bouillon, that figure\nof veritable if somewhat slender historicity, upon whom in time chronicler\nand trouv\u00e8re alike were to fasten as the true hero of the enterprise that\nwon Jerusalem. And so he was. Not that Godfrey was commander of the host.\nHe was not even its most energetic or most capable leader. Boemund of\nTarentum and Raymond of Toulouse were his superiors in power and military\nenergy. But neither Boemund, nor Tancred, nor Raymond, nor any other of\nthose princes of Christendom, was what Godfrey appears to us, the type and\nsymbol of the perfect, single-hearted, crusading knight, fighting solely\nfor the Faith, with Christian devotion and humility, and, like them all,\nwith more than Christian wrath. The First Crusade (1096-1099) was stamped\nwith hatred and slaughter: on the dreadful march, at the more dreadful\nsiege and final sack of Antioch, and finally when the holy sepulchre\u2019s\ndefilement was washed out in Saracen blood. And there was no slaughterer\nmore eager than Godfrey.\n\nThe cruelty and religious fervour of the Crusade are rendered in the\nwords of Raymond of Agiles, one of the clergy in the train of Count\nRaymond of Toulouse, and an eye-witness of the capture of Jerusalem. After\ndays of despairing struggle to effect a breach, success came as by the\nmercy of God:\n\n    \u201cAmong the first to enter was Tancred and the Duke of Lothringia\n    (Godfrey), who on that day shed quantities of blood almost beyond\n    belief. After them, the host mounted the walls, and now the Saracens\n    suffered. Yet although the city was all but in the hands of the\n    Franks, the Saracens resisted the party of Count Raymond as if they\n    were never going to be taken. But when our men had mastered the walls\n    of the city and the towers, then wonderful things were to be seen.\n    Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded--which was the easiest for them;\n    others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the towers;\n    others were slowly tortured and were burned in flames. In the streets\n    and open places of the town were seen piles of heads and hands and\n    feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses.\n    But these were small matters! Let us go to Solomon\u2019s temple, where\n    they were wont to chant their rites and solemnities. What had been\n    done there? If we speak the truth we exceed belief: let this suffice.\n    In the temple and porch of Solomon one rode in blood up to the knees\n    and even to the horses\u2019 bridles by the just and marvellous Judgment of\n    God, in order that the same place which so long had endured their\n    blasphemies against Him should receive their blood.\u201d\n\nSo the Crusaders wrought; and what joy did they feel! Raymond continues:\n\n    \u201cWhen the city was taken it was worth the whole long labour to witness\n    the devotion of the pilgrims to the sepulchre of the Lord, how they\n    clapped their hands, exulted, and sang a new song unto the Lord. For\n    their hearts presented to God, victor and triumphant, vows of praise\n    which they were unable to explain. A new day, new joy and exultation,\n    new and perpetual gladness, the consummation of toil and devotion drew\n    forth from all new words, new songs. This day, I say, glorious in\n    every age to come, turned all our griefs and toils into joy and\n    exultation.\u201d[681]\n\nSo new songs of gladness burst from the hearts of the soldiers of the\nCross. In a few days the princes made an election, and offered the kingdom\nto Count Raymond: he declined. Then Godfrey was made king; though he\nwould not be crowned, nor would he ever wear a crown where his Lord had\nworn a crown of thorns. As a servant of Christ and of His Church he fought\nand ruled some short months till his death. His fame has grown because his\nheart was pure, and because, among the knights, he represented most\nperfectly the religious impulse of this crusade which fought its way\nthrough blood, until it poured out its new song of joy over the\nblood-drenched city. He errs who thinks to find the source and power of\nthe First Crusade elsewhere than in the flaming zeal of feudal\nChristianity. There was doubtless much divergence of motive, secular and\nreligious; but over-mastering and unifying all was the passion to wrest\nthe sepulchre of Christ from paynim defilement, and thus win salvation for\nthe Crusader. Greed went with the host, but it did not inspire the\nenterprise.\n\nDoubtless the stories of returning knights awakened a spirit of romantic\nadventure, which stirred in later crusading generations. It was not so in\nthe eleventh century when the First Crusade was gathering. The romantic\nimagination was then scarcely quickened; adventure was still inarticulate,\nand the literature of adventure for the venture\u2019s sake was yet to be\ncreated. So the First Crusade, with its motive of religious zeal, is in\nsome degree distinguishable from those which followed when knighthood was\nin different flower. If not the Crusades themselves, at least the\n_Chansons_ of the trouv\u00e8res who sang of them, follow a change\ncorresponding with the changing taste of chivalry: they begin with serious\nmatters, and are occupied with the great enterprise; then they become\nadventurous in theme, romantic, till at last even romantic love is\ninfelicitously grafted upon the religious rage that won Jerusalem.\n\nThis process of change may be traced in the growth of the legends of the\nFirst Crusade and Godfrey of Bouillon. Something was added to his career\neven by the Latin Chronicles of fifty years later. But his most\nventuresome development is to be found in those French _Chansons de geste_\nwhich have been made into the \u201cCycle\u201d of the First Crusade. Two of these,\nthe _Chansons_ of _Antioche_ and _Jerusalem_, were originally composed by\na contemporary, if not a participant in the expedition. They were\nrefashioned perhaps seventy-five or a hundred years later, in the reign of\nPhilip Augustus, by another trouv\u00e8re, who still kept their old tone and\nsubstance. They remained poetic narratives of the holy war. In them the\nknights are fierce and bloody, cruel and sometimes greedy; but their whole\nemprise makes onward to the end in view, the winning of the holy city.\nThese poems are epic and not romantic: they may even be called historical.\nThe character of Godfrey is developed with legendary or epic propriety,\nthrough a heightening of his historic qualities. He equals or excels the\nother barons in fierce valour, and yet a touch of courtesy tempers his\nwrath. In Christian meekness and in modesty he surpasses all, and he\nrefuses the throne of Jerusalem until he has been commanded from on high.\nAt that he accepts the kingdom as a sacred charge in defence of which he\nis to die.\n\nIt is otherwise with a number of other _chansons_ composed in the latter\npart of the twelfth and through the thirteenth century. Some of them (the\n_Chanson des ch\u00e9tifs_, for example) had probably to do with the First\nCrusade. Others, like the various poems which tell of the Chevalier au\nCygne, were inaptly forced into connection with the family of Godfrey.\nThey have become adventurous, and are studded with irrelevant marvels,\nrather than assisted to their denouements by serious supernatural\nintervention. Monsters appear, and incongruous romantic episodes;\nGodfrey\u2019s ancestor has become the Swan-knight, and he himself duplicates\nthe exploits previously ascribed to that half-fairy person. Knightly\nmanners, from brutal have become courteous. Women throng these poems, and\nthe romantic love of women enters, although not in the finished guise in\nwhich it plays so dominant a role in the Arthurian Cycle. Such themes,\nunknown to the earlier crusading _chansons_, would have fitted ill with a\nmartial theme driving on through war and carnage (not through\n\u201cadventures\u201d) to the holy end in view.[682]\n\nThe Crusades open with the form of Godfrey of Bouillon. A century and a\nhalf elapses and they deaden to a close beneath the futile radiance of a\nsaintlike and perfect knightly personality. St. Louis of France is as\nclear a figure as any in the Middle Ages. From all sides his life is\nknown. We see him as a painstaking sovereign meting out even justice, and\nmaintaining his royal rights against feudal turbulence and also against\necclesiastical encroachment. During his reign the monarchy of France\ncontinues to advance in power and repute. And yet there was no jot of\nworldly wisdom, and scant consideration of a realm sorely needing its\nruler, in the Quixotic religious devotion which drew him twice across the\nsea on crusades unparalleled in their foolishness. For the world was\ngrowing wiser politically; and what was glorious feudal enthusiasm in the\nyear 1099, was deliberate disregard of experience in the years 1248 and\n1270.\n\nYet who would have had St. Louis wiser in his generation? The loss to\nFrance was mankind\u2019s gain, from the example of saintly king and perfect\nknight, kept bright in the narratives of men equal to the task. Louis was\nhappy in his biographers. Two among them knew him intimately and in ways\naffording special opportunities to observe the sides of his character\ncongenial to their respective tempers. One was his confessor for twenty\nyears, the Dominican Geoffrey of Beaulieu; the other was the Sire de\nJoinville. Geoffrey\u2019s _Vita_ records Louis\u2019 devotions; Joinville\u2019s\n_Histoire_ notes the king\u2019s piety; but the qualities which it illuminates\nare those of a French gentleman and knight and grand seigneur, like\nJoinville himself.\n\nThe book of the Dominican[683] is not picturesque. It opens with an\nedifying comparison between King Josiah and King Louis. Then it praises\nthe king\u2019s mother, Queen Blanche of pious memory. As for Louis, the\nconfessor has been unable to discover that he ever committed a mortal sin:\nhe sought faithful and wise counsellors; he was careful and gracious in\nspeech, never using an oath or any scurrilous expression. In earlier\nyears, when under the necessity of taking oath, he would say, \u201cIn nomine\nmei\u201d; but afterwards, hearing that some religious man had objected to\nthis, he restricted his asseverations to the \u201cest, est\u201d and \u201cnon, non\u201d of\nthe Gospel.\n\nFrom the time he first crossed the sea, he wore no scarlet raiment, but\nclothed himself in sober garments. And as such were of less value to give\nto the poor than those which he had formerly worn, he added sixty pounds a\nyear to his almsgiving; for he did not wish the poor to suffer because of\nhis humble dress. Geoffrey gives the long tale of his charities to the\npoor and to the mendicant Orders. On the Sabbaths it was the king\u2019s secret\ncustom to wash the feet of three beggars, dry them, and kiss them humbly.\nHe commanded in his will that no stately monument should be erected over\nhis grave. He treated his confessors with great respect, and, while\nconfessing, if perchance a window was to be closed or opened, he quickly\nrose and shut or opened it, and would not hear of his confessor doing it.\nIn Advent season and Lent he abstained from marital intercourse. Some\nyears before his death, if he had had his will, he would have resigned his\nkingdom to his son, and entered the Order of the Franciscans or\nDominicans. He brought up his children most religiously, and wished some\nof them to take the vows.[684]\n\nHe confessed every Friday and also between times, if something occurred to\nhim; and if he thought of anything in the night, he would send for his\nconfessor and confess before matins.[685] After confession he always took\nhis discipline from his confessor, whom he furnished with a scourge of\nfive little braided iron chains, attached to an ivory handle. This he\nwould afterwards put back into a little case, which he carried hanging to\nhis belt, but out of sight. Such little cases he sometimes presented to\nhis children or friends in secret, that they might have a convenient\ninstrument of discipline. He wore haircloth next his flesh in the holy\nseasons, a habit distressing to his tender skin, until his confessor\npersuaded him to abandon this form of penance as ill comporting with his\nstation. He replaced it by increasing his charities. His fasts were\nregular and frequent, till he lessened them upon prudent advice; for he\nwas not strong. He would have liked to hear all the canonical hours\nchanted; and twice a day he heard Mass, and daily the Office for the Dead.\nSometimes, soon after midnight, he would rise to hear matins, and then\nwould take a quiet time for prayer by his bed. Likewise he loved to hear\nsermons. On returning over the sea, when the ships suffered a long delay,\nhe had preaching three times a week, with the sermon specially adapted to\nthe sailors, a class of men who rarely hear the Word of God. He prevailed\non many of them to confess, and declared himself ready at any time to put\nhis hand to a rope, if necessary, so that a sailor while confessing might\nnot be called away by any exigency of the sea.\n\nWhile beyond the sea, this good king, hearing that a Saracen Sultan had\ncollected the books of their philosophy at his own expense for his\nsubjects\u2019 use, determined not to be outdone whenever he should return to\nParis, a purpose which he amply carried out, diligently and generously\nsupplying money for copying and renewing the writings of the Doctors. At\nenormous expense he obtained the Saviour\u2019s crown of thorns and a good part\nof the true cross, from the emperor at Constantinople, with many other\nprecious relics; all of which the king barefooted helped to carry in holy\nprocession when they were received by the clergy of Paris.\n\nThe king was very careful in the distribution of ecclesiastical patronage,\nalways seeing to it that the candidate was not already enjoying another\nbenefice. His heart exulted when it came to him to bestow a benefice upon\nsome especially holy man. He was most zealous in the suppression of\nswearing and blasphemy, and with the advice of the papal legate then in\nFrance issued an edict, providing that the lips of those guilty of this\nsin should be seared with hot irons; and when certain ones murmured, he\ndeclared that he would willingly suffer his own lips to be branded if that\nwould purge his realm of this vice.\n\nSuch were the acts and qualities of Louis which impressed his Dominican\nconfessor. They were the qualities of a saint, and would have brought\ntheir possessor to a monastery, had not his royal station held him in the\nworld. The Dominican could not know the knightly nature of his royal\npenitent, and still less reflect it in his Latin of the confessional. For\nthis there was needed the pen of a great gentleman, whose nature enabled\nhim to picture his lord in a book of such high breeding that it were hard\nto find its fellow. This book is stately with the Sire de Joinville\u2019s\nconsciousness of his position and blood, and stately through the respect\nhe bore his lord--a book with which no one would take a liberty. Yet it is\nsimple in thought and phrase, as written by one who lived through what he\ntells, and closely knew and dearly loved the king. From it one learns that\nhe who was a saint in his confessor\u2019s eyes was also a monarch from his\nsoul out to his royal manners and occasional royal insistence upon acts\nwhich others thought unwise. We also learn to know him as a knightly,\nhapless soldier of the Cross, who would not waver from his word plighted\neven to an infidel.\n\nThat St. Louis was a veritable knight is the first thing one learns from\nJoinville. The first part of my book, says that gentleman, tells how the\nking conducted his life after the way of God and the Church, and to the\nprofit of his realm; the second tells of his \u201cgranz chevaleries et de ses\ngranz faiz d\u2019armes.\u201d \u201cThe first deed (_faiz_) whereby \u2018il mist son cors en\navanture de mort\u2019 was at our arrival before Damietta, where his council\nwas of the opinion, as I have understood, that he ought to remain in his\nship until he saw what his knights (_sa chevalerie_) should do, who made a\nlanding. The reason why they so counselled him was that if he disembarked,\nand his people should be killed and he with them, the whole affair was\nlost; while if he remained in his ship he could in his own person renew\nthe attempt to conquer Egypt. And he would credit no one, but leaped into\nthe sea, all armed, his shield hanging from his neck, his lance in hand,\nand was one of the first upon the beach.\u201d\n\nThis is from Joinville\u2019s Introduction. He recommences formally:\n\n    \u201cIn the name of God the all powerful, I, John, Sire of Joinville,\n    Seneschal of Champagne, cause to be written the life of our sainted\n    king Louis, as I saw and heard of it for the space of six years while\n    I was in his company on the pilgrimage beyond the sea, and since we\n    returned. And before I tell you his great deeds and prowess\n    (_chevalerie_), I will recount what I saw and heard of his holy words\n    and good precepts, so that they may be found one after the other for\n    the improvement of those who hear.\n\n    \u201cThis holy man loved God with all his heart, and imitated His works:\n    which was evident in this, that as God died for the love which He bore\n    His people, so he (Louis) put his body in peril several times for the\n    love which he bore his people. The great love which he had for his\n    people appeared in what he said to his eldest son, Louis, when very\n    sick at Fontainebleau: \u2018Fair son,\u2019 said he, \u2018I beg thee to make\n    thyself loved by the people of thy kingdom; for indeed I should prefer\n    that a Scot from Scotland came and ruled the people of the kingdom\n    well and faithfully, rather than that thou shouldst rule them ill in\n    the sight of all.\u2019\u201d\n\nJoinville continues relating the virtues of the king, and recording his\nconversations with himself:\n\n    \u201cHe called me once and said, \u2018Seneschal, what is God?\u2019 And I said to\n    him, \u2018Sire, it is a being so good that there can be no better.\u2019\n\n    \u201c\u2018Now I ask you,\u2019 said he, \u2018which would you choose, to be a leper, or\n    to have committed a mortal sin?\u2019 And I who never lied to him replied\n    that I had rather have committed thirty than be a leper. Afterwards he\n    called me apart and made me sit at his feet and said: \u2018Why did you say\n    that to me yesterday?\u2019 And I told him that I would say it again. And\n    he: \u2018You speak like a thoughtless trifler; for you should know there\n    is no leprosy so ugly as to be in mortal sin, because the soul in\n    mortal sin is like the devil. This is why there can be no leprosy so\n    ugly. And then, of a truth, when a man dies, he is cured of the\n    leprosy of the body; but when the man who has committed a mortal sin\n    dies, he does not know, nor is it certain, that he has so repented\n    while living, that God has pardoned him; this is why he should have\n    great fear that this leprosy will last as long as God shall be in\n    paradise. So I pray you earnestly that you will train your heart, for\n    the love of God and of me, to wish rather for leprosy or any other\n    bodily evil, rather than that mortal sin should come into your soul.\u2019\n    He asked me whether I washed the feet of the poor on Holy Tuesday.\n    \u2018Sire,\u2019 said I, \u2018_quel malheur_! I will not wash those villains\u2019\n    feet.\u2019 \u2018Truly that was ill said,\u2019 said he; \u2018for you should not hold\n    in contempt what God did for our instruction. So I pray you, for the\n    love of God first, and for the love of me, to accustom yourself to\n    wash them.\u2019\u201d\n\nJoinville was some years younger than his king, who loved him well and\nwished to help him. The king also esteemed Master Robert de Sorbon[686]\nfor the high respect as a _preudom_ in which he was held, and had him eat\nat his table. One day Master Robert was seated next to Joinville.\n\n    \u201c\u2018Seneschal,\u2019 said the king, smiling, \u2018tell me the reasons why a man\n    of wisdom and valour (_preudom_, _prud\u2019homme_) is accounted better\n    than a fool.\u2019 Then began the argument between me and Master Robert;\n    and when we had disputed for a time, the king rendered his decision,\n    saying: \u2018Master Robert, I should like to have the name of _preudom_,\n    so be it that I was one, and all the rest I would leave to you; for\n    _preudom_ is such a grand and good thing that it fills the mouth just\n    to pronounce it.\u2019\u201d\n\nMaster Robert plays a not altogether happy part in another scene,\nvaricoloured and delightful:\n\n    \u201cThe holy king was at Corbeil one Pentecost, and twenty-four knights\n    with him. The king went down after dinner into the courtyard back of\n    the chapel, and was talking at the entrance with the Count of\n    Brittany, the father of the present duke, whom God preserve. Master\n    Robert de Sorbon came to seek me there, and took me by the cloak, and\n    led me to the king, and all the other gentlemen came after us. Then I\n    asked Master Robert: \u2018Master Robert, what would you?\u2019 And he said to\n    me: \u2018If the king should sit down here, and you should seat yourself\n    above him, I ask you whether you would not be to blame?\u2019 And I said,\n    Yes.\n\n    \u201cAnd he said to me: \u2018Yet you lay yourself open to blame, since you are\n    more nobly clad than the king: for you wear squirrel\u2019s fur and cloth\n    of green, which the king does not.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd I said to him: \u2018Master Robert, saving your grace, I do nothing\n    worthy of blame when I wear squirrel\u2019s fur and cloth of green; for it\n    is the clothing which my father and mother left me. But you do what is\n    to blame; for you are the son of a _vilain_ and _vilaine_, and have\n    abandoned the clothes of your father and your mother, and are clad in\n    richer cloth than the king.\u2019 And then I took the lappet of his surcoat\n    and that of the king\u2019s, and said to him: \u2018See whether I do not speak\n    truly.\u2019 And the king set himself to defend Master Robert with all his\n    might.\u201d\n\n    \u201cAfterwards Messire the king called to him Monseigneur Philippe his\n    son, the father of the present king, and the king Thibaut (of\n    Navarre), and laid his hand on the earth and said: \u2018Sit close to me,\n    so that they may not hear.\u2019\n\n    \u201c\u2018Ah Sire,\u2019 say they, \u2018we dare not sit so close to you.\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd he said to me, \u2018Seneschal, sit down here.\u2019 And so I did, so close\n    that our clothes touched. And he made them sit down by me, and said to\n    them: \u2018You have done ill, you who are my sons, who have not obeyed at\n    once all that I bade you: and see to it that this does not happen with\n    you again.\u2019 And they promised. And then he said to me, that he had\n    called us in order to confess to me that he was in the wrong in\n    defending Master Robert against me. \u2018But,\u2019 said he, \u2018I saw him so\n    dumbfounded that there was good need I should defend him. And do none\n    of you attach any importance to all I said defending Master Robert;\n    for, as the seneschal said to him, you ought to dress well and\n    becomingly, so that your wives may love you better, and your people\n    hold you in higher esteem. For the sage says that one should appear in\n    such clothes and arms that the wise of this world may not say you have\n    done too much, nor the young people say you have done too little.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe hopelessly worthy _parvenu_ was quite outside this charmed circle of\nblood and manners.\n\nAnother story of Joinville opens our eyes to Louis\u2019 views on Jews and\ninfidels. The king was telling him of a grand argument between Jews and\nChristian clergy which was to have been held at Cluny. And a certain\npoverty-stricken knight was there, who obtained leave to speak the first\nword; and he asked the head Jew whether he believed that Mary was the\nmother of God and still a virgin. And the Jew answered that he did not\nbelieve it at all. The knight replied that in that case the Jew had acted\nlike a fool to enter her monastery, and should pay for it; and with that\nhe knocked him down with his staff, and all the other Jews ran off. When\nthe abbot reproached him for his folly, he replied that the abbot\u2019s folly\nwas greater in having the argument at all. \u201cSo I tell you,\u201d said the king\non finishing his story, \u201cthat only a skilled clerk should dispute with\nmisbelievers; but a layman, when he hears any one speak ill of the\nChristian law, should defend that law with nothing but his sword, which he\nshould plunge into the defamer\u2019s belly, to the hilt if possible.\u201d\n\nWell known is the hapless outcome of St. Louis\u2019 Crusades: the first one\nleading to defeat and captivity in Egypt, the second ending in the king\u2019s\ndeath by disease at Tunis. Yet in what he sought to do in his Lord\u2019s\ncause, St. Louis was a true knight and soldier of the Cross. The spirit\nwas willing; but the flesh accomplished little. Let us take from\nJoinville\u2019s story of that first crusade a wonderfully illustrative\nchapter, giving the confused scenes occurring after the capture of\nDamietta, when the French king and his feudal host had advanced southerly\nthrough the Delta, along the eastern branch of the Nile. Joinville was\nmaking a reconnaissance with his own knights, when they came suddenly upon\na large body of Saracens. The Christians were hard pressed; here and there\na knight falls in the mel\u00e9e, among them\n\n    \u201cMonseigneur Hugues de Trichatel, the lord of Conflans, who carried my\n    banner. I and my knights spurred to deliver Monseigneur Raoul de\n    Wanou, who was thrown to the ground. As I was making my way back, the\n    Turks struck at me with their lances; my horse fell on his knees under\n    the blows, and I went over his head. I recovered myself as I might,\n    shield on neck and sword in hand; and Monseigneur Erard de Siverey\n    (whom God absolve!), who was of my people, came to my aid, and said\n    that we had better retreat to a ruined house, and there wait for the\n    king who was approaching.\u201d\n\nOne notes the high-born courtesy with which the Sire de Joinville speaks\nof the gentlemen who had the honour of serving him. The fight goes on.\n\n    \u201cMonseigneur Erard de Siverey was struck by a sword-blow in his face,\n    so that his nose hung down over his lips. And then I was minded of\n    Monseigneur Saint Jacques, whom I thus invoked: \u2018Beau Sire Saint\n    Jacques help and succour me in this need.\u2019\n\n    \u201cWhen I had made my prayer, Monseigneur Erard de Siverey said to me:\n    \u2018Sire, if you think that neither I nor my heirs would suffer reproof,\n    I would go for aid to the Count of Anjou, whom I see over there in the\n    fields.\u2019 And I said to him: \u2018Messire Erard, I think you would do\n    yourself great honour, if you now went for aid to save our lives; for\n    your own is in jeopardy.\u2019 And indeed I spoke truly, for he died of\n    that wound. He asked the advice of all our knights who were there, and\n    all approved as I had approved. And when he heard that, he requested\n    me to let him have his horse, which I was holding by the bridle with\n    the rest. And so I did.\u201d\n\nThe knightliness of this scene is perfect, with its liege fealty and its\ncarefulness as to the point of honour, its carefulness also that the\nvassal knight shall fail in no duty to his lord whereby the descent of his\nfief may be jeopardized. Monseigneur Erard (whom God absolve, we say with\nJoinville!) is very careful to have his lord\u2019s assent and the approval of\nhis fellows, before he will leave his lord in peril, and undergo still\ngreater risk to bring him succour.\n\nWell, the Count of Anjou brought such aid as created a diversion, and the\nSaracens turned to the new foe. But now the king arrives on the scene:\n\n    \u201cThere where I was on foot with my knights, wounded as already said,\n    comes the king with his whole array, and a great sound of trumpets and\n    drums. And he halted on the road on the dyke. Never saw I one so\n    bravely armed: for he showed above all his people from his shoulders\n    up, a gilded casque upon his head and a German sword in his hand.\u201d\n\nThen the king\u2019s good knights charge into the battle, and fine feats of\narms are done. The fighting is fierce and general. At length the king is\ncounselled to bear back along the river, keeping close to it on his right\nhand, so as to reunite with the Duke of Burgundy who had been left to\nguard the camp. The knights are recalled from the mel\u00e9e, and with a great\nnoise of trumpets and drums, and Saracen horns, the army is set in motion.\n\n    \u201cAnd now up comes the constable, Messire Imbert de Beaujeu, and tells\n    the king that the Count of Artois, his brother, was defending himself\n    in a house in Mansourah, and needed aid. And the king said to him:\n    \u2018Constable go before and I will follow you.\u2019 And I said to the\n    constable that I would be his knight, at which he thanked me greatly.\u201d\n\nAgain one feels the feudal chivalry. Now the affair becomes rather\ndistraught. They set out to succour the Count of Artois, but are checked,\nand it is rumoured that the king is taken; and in fact six Saracens had\nrushed upon him and seized his horse by the bridle; but he had freed\nhimself with such great strokes that all his people took courage. Yet the\nhost is driven back upon the river, and is in desperate straits. Joinville\nand his knights defend a bridge over a tributary, which helps to check the\nSaracen advance, and affords an uncertain means of safety to the French.\nBut there is no cessation of the Saracen attack with bows and spears. The\nknights seemed full of arrows. Joinville saved his life with an\narrow-proof Saracen vest, \u201cso that I was wounded by their arrows only in\nfive places\u201d! One of Joinville\u2019s own stout burgesses, bearing his lord\u2019s\nbanner on a lance, helped in the charges upon the enemy. In the mel\u00e9e up\nspeaks the good Count of Soissons, whose cousin Joinville had married. \u201cHe\njoked with me and said: \u2018Seneschal, let us whoop after this canaille; for\nby God\u2019s coif (his favourite oath) we shall be talking, you and I, about\nthis day in the chambers of the ladies.\u2019\u201d\n\nAt last, the arbalests were brought out from the camp, and the Saracens\ndrew off--fled, says the Sire de Joinville. And the king was there, and\n\n    \u201cI took off his casque, and gave him my iron cap, so that he might get\n    some air. And then comes brother Henry de Ronnay, Prevost of the\n    Hospital, to the king when he had passed the river, and kisses his\n    mailed hand. And the king asked him whether he had news of the Count\n    of Artois, his brother; and he said that he had indeed news of him,\n    for he was sure that his brother the Count of Artois was in Paradise.\n    \u2018Ha! sire,\u2019 said the Prevost, \u2018be of good cheer; for no such honour\n    ever came to a king of France as is come to you. For to fight your\n    enemies you have crossed a river by swimming, have discomfited your\n    enemies and driven them from the field, and taken their engines and\n    tents, where you will sleep this night.\u2019 And the king replied that God\n    be adored for all that He gave; and then the great tears fell from his\n    eyes.\u201d\n\nOne need not follow on to the ill ending of the campaign, when king and\nknights all had to yield themselves prisoners, in most uncertain\ncaptivity. The Saracen Emirs conspired and slew their Sultan; the\nprisoners\u2019 lives hung on a thread; and when the terms were arranging for\nthe delivery and ransom of the king, his own scruples nearly proved fatal.\nFor the Emirs, after they had made their oath, wished the king to swear,\nand put his seal to a parchment,\n\n    \u201cthat if he the king did not hold to his agreements, might he be as\n    shamed as the Christian who denied God and His Mother, and was cut off\n    from the company of the twelve Companions (apostles) and of all the\n    saints, male and female. To this the king consented. The last point of\n    the oath was this: That if the king did not keep his agreements, might\n    he be as shamed as the Christian who denied God and His law, and in\n    contempt of God spat on the Cross and trod on it. When the king heard\n    that, he said, please God, he would not make that oath.\u201d\n\nThen the trouble began, and the Emirs tortured the venerable patriarch of\nJerusalem till he besought the king to swear. How the oath was arranged I\ndo not know, says Joinville, but finally the Emirs professed themselves\nsatisfied. And after that, when the ransom was paid, the Saracens by a\nmistake accepted a sum ten thousand livres short, and Louis, in spite of\nthe protest of his counsellors, refused to permit advantage to be taken\nand insisted on full payment.\n\nMany years afterwards, when Louis was dead and canonized, a dream came to\nhis faithful Joinville who was then an old man.\n\n    \u201cIt seemed to me in my dream that I saw the king in front of my chapel\n    at Joinville; and he was, so he seemed to me, wonderfully happy and\n    glad at heart; and I also was glad at heart, because I saw him in my\n    chateau. And I said to him: \u2018Sire, when you go hence, I will prepare\n    lodging for you at my house in my village of Chevillon.\u2019 And he\n    replied, smiling, and said to me: \u2018Sire de Joinville, by the troth I\n    owe you, I do not wish so soon to go from here.\u2019 When I awoke I\n    bethought me; and it seemed to me that it would please God and the\n    king that I should provide a lodging for him in my chapel. So I have\n    placed an altar in honour of God and of him there, where there shall\n    be always chanting in his honour. And I have established a fund in\n    perpetuity to do this.\u201d\n\nGodfrey of Bouillon and St. Louis of France show knighthood as inspired by\nserious and religious motives. We pass on a hundred years after St. Louis,\nto a famous Chronicle concerning men whose knightly lives exhibit no such\nreligious, and possibly no such serious, purpose, so far at least as they\nare set forth by this delightful chronicler. His name of course is Sir\nJohn Froissart, and his chief work goes under the name of _The Chronicles\nof England, France, Spain, and the adjoining Countries_. It covers the\nperiod from the reign of Edward II. to the coronation of Henry IV. of\nEngland. Have we not all known his book as one to delight youth and age?\n\nLet us, however, open it seriously, and first of all notice the Preface,\nwith its initial sentence giving the note of the entire work: \u201cThat the\n_grans merveilles_ and the _biau fait d\u2019armes_ achieved in the great wars\nbetween England and France, and the neighbouring realms may be worthily\nrecorded, and known in the present and in the time to come, I purpose to\norder and put the same in prose, according to the true information which I\nhave obtained from valiant knights, squires, and marshals at arms, who are\nand rightly should be the investigators and reporters of such\nmatters.\u201d[687]\n\n\u201cMarvels\u201d and \u201cdeeds of arms\u201d--soon he will use the equivalent phrase\n_belles aventures_. With delicious garrulity, but never wavering from his\npoint of view, the good Sir John repeats and enlarges as he enters on his\nwork in which \u201cto encourage all valorous hearts, and to show them\nhonourable examples\u201d he proposes to \u201cpoint out and speak of each adventure\nfrom the nativity of the noble King Edward (III.) of England, who so\npotently reigned, and who was engaged in so many battles and perilous\nadventures and other feats of arms and great prowess, from the year of\ngrace 1326, when he was crowned in England.\u201d\n\nOf course Froissart says that the occasion of these wars was King Edward\u2019s\nenterprise to recover his inheritance of France, which the twelve peers\nand barons of that realm had awarded to Lord Philip of Valois, from whom\nit had passed on to his son, King Charles. This enterprise was the woof\nwhereon should hang an hundred years of knightly and romantic feats of\narms, which incidentally wrought desolation to the fair realm of France.\nYet the full opening of these matters was not yet; and Froissart begins\nwith the story of the troubles brought on Queen Isabella and the nobles\nof England through the overbearing insolence of Sir Hugh Spencer, the\nfavourite of her husband Edward II.\n\nThe Queen left England secretly, to seek aid at Paris from her brother\nKing Charles, that she might regain her rights against the upstart and her\nown weak estranged husband. King Charles received her graciously, as a\ngreat lord should receive a great dame; and richly provided for her and\nher young son Edward. Then he took counsel of the \u201cgreat lords and barons\nof his kingdom\u201d; and their advice was that he should permit her to enlist\nassistance in his realm, and yet himself appear ignorant of the matter. Of\nthis, Sir Hugh hears, and his gold is busy with these counsellors; so that\nthe Court becomes a cold place for the self-exiled queen. On she fares in\nher distress, and, as advised, seeks the aid of the great Earl of\nHainault, then at Valenciennes. But before the queen can reach that city,\nthe earl\u2019s young brother, Sir John, Lord of Beaumont, rides to meet her,\nardent to succour a great lady in distress, \u201cbeing at that time very\nyoung, and panting for glory like a knight-errant.\u201d In the evening he\nreached the house of Sir Eustace d\u2019Ambreticourt, where the queen was\nlodged. She made her lamentable complaint, at which Sir John was affected\neven to tears, and said, \u201cLady, see here your knight, who will not fail to\ndie for you, though every one else should desert you; therefore will I do\neverything in my power to conduct you and your son, and to restore you to\nyour rank in England, by the grace of God, and the assistance of your\nfriends in those parts; and I, and all those whom I can influence, will\nrisk our lives on the adventure for your sake.\u201d\n\nIs not this a chivalric beginning? And so the Chronicle goes on. King\nEdward III. is crowned, marries the Lady Philippa, daughter of the Earl of\nHainault, and afterwards sends his defiance to Philip, King of France, for\nnot yielding up to him his rightful inheritance, and this after the same\nKing Edward had, as Duke of Aquitaine, done homage to King Philip for that\ngreat duchy.\n\nSo the challenge of King Edward, and of sundry other lords, was delivered\nto the King of France; and thereupon the first bold raid is made by the\nknightliest figure of the first generation of the war, Sir Walter Manny,\na young Hainaulter who had remained in the train of Queen Philippa. The\nwar is carried on by incursions and deeds of derring-do, the larger armies\nof the kings of England and France circumspectly refraining from battle,\nwhich might have checked the martial jollity of the affair. It is all\nbeautifully pointless and adventurous, and carried out in the spirit of a\nknighthood that loves fighting and seeks honour and adventure, while\nsteadying itself with a hope of plunder and reward. There are likewise\nladies to be succoured and defended.\n\nOne of these was the lion-hearted Countess of Montfort, who with her\nhusband had become possessed of the disputed dukedom of Brittany. The Earl\nof Montfort did homage to the King of England; the rival claimant, Charles\nof Blois, sought the aid of France. He came with an army, and Montfort was\ntaken and died in prison; the duchess was left to carry on the war. She\nwas at last shut up and besieged in Hennebon on the coast; the burghers\nwere falling away, the knights discouraged; emissaries from Lord Charles\nwere working among them. His ally, Lord Lewis of Spain, and Sir Herv\u00e9 de\nLeon were the leaders of the besiegers. Sir Herv\u00e9 had an uncle, a bishop,\nSir Guy de Leon, who was on the side of the Countess of Montfort. The\nnephew won the uncle over in a conference without the walls; and the\nlatter assumed the task of persuading the Lords of Brittany who were with\nthe countess to abandon the apparently hopeless struggle. Re-entering the\ntown, the bishop was eloquent against the countess\u2019s cause, and promised\nfree pardon to the lords if they would give up the town. Now listen to\nFroissart, how he tells the story:\n\n    \u201cThe countess had strong suspicions of what was going forward, and\n    begged of the lords of Brittany, for the love of God, that they would\n    not doubt but she should receive succours before three days were over.\n    But the bishop spoke so eloquently, and made use of such good\n    arguments, that these lords were in much suspense all that night. On\n    the morrow he continued the subject, and succeeded so far as to gain\n    them over, or very nearly so, to his opinion; insomuch that Sir Herv\u00e9\n    de Leon had advanced close to the town to take possession of it, with\n    their free consent, when the countess looking out from a window of the\n    castle toward the sea, cried out most joyfully, \u2018I see the succours I\n    have so long expected and wished for coming.\u2019 She repeated this twice;\n    and the town\u2019s people ran to the ramparts and to the windows of the\n    castle, and saw a numerous fleet of great and small vessels, well\n    trimmed, making all the sail they could toward Hennebon. They rightly\n    imagined it must be the fleet from England, so long detained at sea by\n    tempests and contrary winds.\n\n    \u201cWhen the governor of Guingamp, Sir Yves de Tresiquidi, Sir Galeran de\n    Landreman, and the other knights, perceived this succour coming to\n    them, they told the bishop that he might break up his conference, for\n    they were not now inclined to follow his advice. The bishop, Sir Guy\n    de Leon, replied, \u2018My lords, then our company shall separate; for I\n    will go to him who seems to me to have the clearest right.\u2019 Upon which\n    he sent his defiance to the lady, and to all her party, and left the\n    town to inform Sir Herv\u00e9 de Leon how matters stood. Sir Herv\u00e9 was much\n    vexed at it, and immediately ordered the largest machine that was with\n    the army to be placed as near the castle as possible, strictly\n    commanding that it should never cease working day nor night. He then\n    presented his uncle to the Lord Lewis of Spain, and to the Lord\n    Charles of Blois, who both received him most courteously. The\n    countess, in the meantime, prepared and hung with tapestry halls and\n    chambers to lodge handsomely the lords and barons of England, whom she\n    saw coming, and sent out a noble company to meet them. When they were\n    landed, she went herself to give them welcome, respectfully thanking\n    each knight and squire, and led them into the town and castle that\n    they might have convenient lodging: on the morrow, she gave them a\n    magnificent entertainment. All that night, and the following day, the\n    large machine never ceased from casting stones into the town.\n\n    \u201cAfter the entertainment, Sir Walter Manny, who was captain of the\n    English, inquired of the countess the state of the town and the\n    enemy\u2019s army. Upon looking out of the window, he said, he had a great\n    inclination to destroy that large machine which was placed so near,\n    and much annoyed them, if any would help him. Sir Yves de Tresiquidi\n    replied, that he would not fail him in this his first expedition; as\n    did also the lord of Landreman. They went to arm themselves, and then\n    sallied quietly out of one of the gates, taking with them three\n    hundred archers, who shot so well, that those who guarded the machine\n    fled, and the men at arms, who followed the archers, falling upon\n    them, slew the greater part, and broke down and cut in pieces this\n    large machine. They then dashed in among the tents and huts, set fire\n    to them, and killed and wounded many of their enemies before the army\n    was in motion. After this they made a handsome retreat. When the enemy\n    were mounted and armed they galloped after them like madmen.\n\n    \u201cSir Walter Manny, seeing this, exclaimed, \u2018May I never be embraced by\n    my mistress and dear friend, if I enter castle or fortress before I\n    have unhorsed one of these gallopers.\u2019 He then turned round, and\n    pointed his spear toward the enemy, as did the two brothers of\n    Lande-Halle, le Haze de Brabant, Sir Yves de Tresiquidi, Sir Galeran\n    de Landreman, and many others, and spitted the first coursers. Many\n    legs were made to kick the air. Some of their own party were also\n    unhorsed. The conflict became very serious, for reinforcements were\n    perpetually coming from the camp; and the English were obliged to\n    retreat towards the castle, which they did in good order until they\n    came to the castle ditch; there the knights made a stand, until all\n    their men were safely returned. Many brilliant actions, captures, and\n    rescues might have been seen. Those of the town who had not been of\n    the party to destroy the large machine now issued forth, and, ranging\n    themselves upon the banks of the ditch, made such good use of their\n    bows, that they forced the enemy to withdraw, killing many men and\n    horses. The chiefs of the army, perceiving they had the worst of it,\n    and that they were losing men to no purpose, sounded a retreat, and\n    made their men retire to the camp. As soon as they were gone, the\n    townsmen re-entered, and went each to his quarters. The Countess of\n    Montfort came down from the castle to meet them, and with a most\n    cheerful countenance, kissed Sir Walter Manny, and all his companions,\n    one after the other like a noble and valiant dame.\u201d\n\nIn this manner the genial chronicler goes on through his long delightful\nramble. After a while the chief combatants close. Cressy is fought and\nPoictiers. The Black Prince, that extremest bit of knightly royalty, fills\nthe page. The place of Sir Walter Manny is taken by the larger figure of\nSir John Chandos, and, on the other side, the usually unfortunate but\nunconquerable Bertrand du Guesclin. Froissart is at his best when he tells\nof the great expedition of the Black Prince to restore the cruel Don Pedro\nof Castille to the throne from which he had been expelled by that\npicturesque bastard brother Henry, who had a poorer title but a better\nright, by virtue of being fit to rule.\n\nThis whole expedition was--as we see it in Froissart--neither politics nor\nwar, but chivalry. What interest had England, or Edward III., or the\nPrince of Wales in Don Pedro? None. He was a cruel tyrant, rightfully\nexpelled. The Prince of Wales would set him back upon his throne in the\ninterest of royal legitimacy, and because there offered a brilliant\nopportunity for fame and plunder: the Black Prince thought less of the\nlatter than the Free Companies enlisted under his banner, and less than\nhis own rapacious knights.\n\nSo in three divisions, headed by the most famous knights and in a way\ngeneralled by Sir John Chandos, the host passes through the kingdom of\nNavarre, and crosses the Pyrenees. Then begin a series of exploits. Sir\nThomas Felton and a company set out just to dare and beard the Castillian\narmy, and after entrancing feats of knight-errantry, are all captured or\nslain. Much is the prince annoyed at this; but bears on, gladdened with\nthe thought, often expressed, that the bastard Henry is a bold and hardy\nknight, and is advancing to give battle.\n\nAnd true it was. One of Henry\u2019s counsellors explains to him how easy it is\nto hem in the Black Prince in the defiles, and starve him into a\ndisastrous retreat. Perish the thought! \u201cBy the soul of my father,\u201d\nanswers King Henry, \u201cI have such a desire to see this prince, and to try\nmy strength with him, that we will never part without a battle.\u201d\n\nSo the unnecessary and resultless battle of Navaretta took place. Don\nPedro, the cruel rightful king, was knighted, with others, by the Prince\nof Wales before the fight. The tried unflinching chivalry of England and\nAquitaine conquered, although one division of King Henry\u2019s host had du\nGuesclin at its head. That knight was captured; somehow his star had a way\nof sinking before the steadier fortune of Sir John Chandos, who was here\ndu Guesclin\u2019s captor for a second time. King Henry, after valiant\nfighting, escaped. Don Pedro was re-set upon his throne; and played false\nwith the Black Prince and his army, in the matter of pay. The whole\nexpedition turned back across the Pyrenees. And not so long after, Henry\nbestirred himself, and the tardily freed du Guesclin hurried again to aid\nhim. This time there was no Black Prince and Sir John Chandos; and Don\nPedro was conquered and slain, and Henry was at last firm upon his throne.\n\nCould anything have been more chivalric, more objectless, and more\nabsolutely lacking in result? It is a beautiful story; every one should\nrefresh his childhood\u2019s memory of it by reading Froissart\u2019s delightful\npages. And then let him also read at least the subsequent story of the\ndeath of Sir John Chandos in a knightly brush at arms; he, the really wise\nand great leader, perishes through his personal rash knighthood! It is a\nfine tale of the ending of an old and mighty knight, the very flower of\nchivalry, as he was called.\n\nSo matters fare on through these Chronicles. All is charming and\ninteresting and picturesque; charming also for the knights: great fame is\nwon and fat ransoms paid to recoup knightly fortunes. Now and then--all\ntoo frequently, alas! and the only pity of it all!--some brave knight has\nthe mishap to lose his life! That is to say, the only pity of it from the\npoint of view of good Sir John. But we can see further horrors in this\npicture of chivalry\u2019s actualities: we see King Edward pillage, devastate,\ndestroy France;[688] we see the awful outcome of the general ruin in the\nrising of the vile, unhappy peasants, the Jacquerie; then in the\nindiscriminate slaughter and pillaging by the Free Companies, no longer\nwell employed by royalties; and then we see the cruel treachery of many an\nincident wrought out by such a flower of chivalry even as du\nGuesclin.[689] Indeed all the horrors of ceaseless interminable war are\neverywhere, and no more dreadful horror through the whole story than the\nbloody sack of Limoges commanded by that perfect knight, the Black Prince,\nhimself stricken with disease, and carried in a litter through the breach\nof the walls into the town, and there reposing, assuaging his cruel soul,\nwhile his men run hither and thither \u201cslaying men, women and children\naccording to their orders.\u201d[690]\n\nBut when King Edward was old, and the Prince of Wales dying with disease,\nthe French and their partisans gathered heart, and pressed back the\nEnglish party with successful captures and reprisals. Du Guesclin was made\nConstable of France; and there remained no English leader who was his\nmatch. From this second period onwards, the wars and slaughters and\npillagings become more embittered, more horrid and less relieved. The tone\nof everything is brutalized, and the good chronicler himself frequently\nanimadverts on the wanton destruction wrought, and the frightful ruin.\nAll is not as in the opening of the story, which was so fascinating, so\nknightly and almost as purely adventurous as the Arthurian romances--only\nthat there was less love of ladies and a disturbing dearth of forests\nperilous, and enchanted castles. It was then that the reader had ever and\nanon to remind himself that Froissart is not romance or legend, but a\ncontemporary chronicle; and that in spite of heightened colours and\nexpanded (if not invented) dialogues, his narrative does not belong to the\nimaginative or fictitious side of chivalry, but to its actualities.[691]\n\nFroissart\u2019s pictures of the depravity and devastation caused by the wars\nof England and France, disclose the unhappy actuality in which chivalry\nmight move and have its being. And the knights were part of the cruelty,\ntreachery, and lust. One may remark besides in Froissart a certain\nshallowness, a certain emptying, of the spirit of chivalry. One phase of\nthis lay in the expansion of form and ceremony, while life was\ndeparting;--as, for example, in the hypertrophe of heraldry, and in the\npageantry of the later tournaments, where such care was taken to prevent\ninjury to the combatants. A subtler phase of chivalry\u2019s emptying lay in\nits preciosity and in the excessive growth of fantasy and utter\nromance--of which enough will be said in the next chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII\n\nROMANTIC CHIVALRY AND COURTLY LOVE\n\n    FROM ROLAND TO TRISTAN AND LANCELOT\n\n\nThe instance of Godfrey of Bouillon showed how easy was the passage from\nknighthood in history to knighthood in legend and romance: legend\nspringing from fact, out of which it makes a story framed in a picture of\nthe time; romance unhistorical in origin, borrowing, devising, imagining\naccording to the taste of an audience and the faculty of the trouv\u00e8re. A\nboundless mediaeval literature of poetic legend and romantic fiction sets\nforth the ways of chivalry. Our attention may be confined to the Old\nFrench, the source from which German, English, and Italian literatures\nnever ceased to draw. Three branches may be selected: the _chansons de\ngeste_; the _romans d\u2019aventure_; and the Arthurian romances. The subjects\nof the three are distinct, and likewise the tone and manner of treatment.\nYet they were not unaffected by each other; for instance, the hard feudal\nspirit of the _chansons de geste_ became touched with the tastes which\nmoulded the two other groups, and there was even a borrowing of topic.\nThis was natural, as the periods of their composition over-lapped, and\ndoubtless their audiences were in part the same.\n\nThe _chansons de geste_ (_gesta_ == deeds) were epic narratives with\nhistorical facts for subjects, and commonly were composed in ten-syllable\nassonanced or (later) rhyming couplets, _laisses_ so called, the same\nfinal assonance or rhyme extending through a dozen or so lines. They told\nthe deeds of Charlemagne and his barons, or the feuds of the barons among\nthemselves, especially those of the time following the emperor\u2019s death. So\nthe subject might be national, for instance the war against the Saracens\nin Spain; or it might be more provincially feudal in every sense of the\nlatter word.[692] It is not to our purpose to discuss how these poems grew\nthrough successive generations, nor how much of Teutonic spirit they put\nin Romance forms of verse. They were composed by trouv\u00e8res or _jongleurs_.\nThe _Roland_ is the earliest of them, and in its extant form belongs to\nthe last part of the eleventh century. One or two others are nearly as\nearly; but the vast majority, as we have them, are the creations, or\nrather the _remaniements_, of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.\n\nThese _chansons_ present the feudal system in epic action. They blazon\nforth its virtues and its horrors. The heroes are called barons (_ber_)\nand also chevaliers;[693] _vassalage_ and prowess (_proecce_) are closely\njoined; the _Roland_ speaks of the _vassalage_ of Charles _le ber_\n(Charlemagne). The usages of chivalry are found:[694] a baron begins as\n_enfant_, and does his youthful feats (_enfances_); then he is girt with\nmanhood\u2019s sword and given the thwack which dubs him _chevalier_.\nNaturally, the chivalry of the _chansons_ is feudal rather than romantic.\nIt is chivalry, sometimes crusading against \u201cfelun paien,\u201d sometimes\nmaking war against emperors or rivals; always truculent, yet fighting for\nan object and not for pure adventure\u2019s sake or the love of ladies. The\nmotives of action are quite tangible, and the tales reflect actual\nsituations and conditions. They tell what knights (the chevaliers and\nbarons) really did, though, of course, the particular incidents related\nmay not be historical. Naturally they speak from the time of their\ncomposition. The _Roland_, for example, throbs with the crusading wrath\nof the eleventh century--a new fervour, and no passionate memory of the\nold obscure disaster of Roncesvalles. It does not speak from the time of\nthe great emperor. For when Charlemagne lived there was neither a \u201cdulce\nFrance\u201d nor the sentiment which enshrined it; nor was there a sharply\ndeliminated feudal Christianity set over against a world of \u201cfelun\npaien\u201d--those false paynim, who should be trusted by no Christian baron.\nThe whole poem revolves around a treason plotted by a renegade among vile\ninfidels.\n\nIn this rude poem which carries the noblest spirit of the _chansons de\ngeste_, the soul of feudal chivalry climbs to its height of loyal\nexpiation for overweening bravery. The battle-note is given in Roland\u2019s\nwords, as Oliver descries the masses of paynim closing in around that\nvaliant rear-guard.\n\nSaid Oliver: \u201cSir comrade, I think we shall have battle with these\nSaracens.\u201d\n\nReplied Roland: \u201cGod grant it! Here must we hold for our king. A man\nshould suffer for his lord, endure heat and cold, though he lose hair and\nhide. Let each one strike his best, that no evil song be sung of us. The\npaynim are in the wrong, Christians in the right!\u201d[695]\n\nThen follows Oliver\u2019s prudent solicitation, and Roland\u2019s fatal refusal to\nsound his horn and recall Charles and his host: \u201cPlease God and His holy\nangels, France shall not be so shamed through me; better death than such\ndishonour. The harder we strike the more the emperor will love us.\u201d Oliver\ncan be stubborn too; for when the fight is close to its fell end, he\nswears that Roland shall never wed his sister Aude, if, beaten, he sound\nthat horn.[696]\n\nThe paynim host is shattered and riven; but nearly all the Franks have\nfallen. Roland looks upon the mountains and the plain. Of those of France\nhe sees so many lying dead, and he laments them like a high-born knight\n(_chevaliers gentilz_). \u201c_Seigneurs barons_, may God have pity on you and\ngrant Paradise to your souls, and give them to repose on holy flowers!\nBetter vassals shall I never see; long are the years that you have served\nme, and conquered wide countries for Charles--the emperor has nurtured you\nfor an ill end! Land of France, sweet land, to-day bereft of barons of\nhigh prize! Barons of France! for me I see you dying. I cannot save or\ndefend you! God be your aid, who never lies! Oliver, brother, you I must\nnot fail. I shall die of grief, if no one slay me! Sir comrade, let us\nstrike again.\u201d[697]\n\nRoland and Oliver are almost alone, and Oliver receives a death-stroke.\nWith his last strength he slays his slayer, shouts his defiance, and calls\nRoland to his aid. He strikes on blindly as Roland comes and looks into\nhis face;--and then might you have seen Roland swoon on his horse, and\nOliver wounded to death. \u201cHe had bled so much, that his eyes were\ntroubled, and he could not see to recognize any mortal man. As he met his\ncomrade, he struck him on his helmet a blow that cut it shear in twain,\nthough the sword did not touch the head. At this Roland looked at him, and\nasked him soft and low: \u2018Sir comrade, did you mean that? It is Roland, who\nloves you well. You have not defied me.\u2019\n\n\u201cSays Oliver, \u2018Now I hear you speak; I did not see you; may the Lord God\nsee you! I have struck you; for which pardon me.\u2019\u201d\n\nRoland replied: \u201cI was not hurt. I pardon you here and before God.\u201d\n\n\u201cAt this word they bent over each other, and in such love they parted.\u201d\nOliver feels his death-anguish at hand; sight and hearing fail him: he\nsinks from his horse and lies on the earth; he confesses his sins, with\nhis two hands joined toward heaven. He prays God to grant him Paradise,\nand blesses Charles and sweet France, and his comrade Roland above all\nmen. Stretched on the ground the count lies dead.[698]\n\nA little after, when Roland and Turpin the stout archbishop have made\ntheir last charge, and the paynim have withdrawn, and the archbishop too\nlies on the ground, just breathing; then it is that Roland gathers the\nbodies of the peers and carries them one by one to lay them before the\narchbishop for his absolution. He finds Oliver\u2019s body, and tightly\nstraining it to his heart, lays it with the rest before the archbishop,\nwhose dying breath is blessing and absolving his companions. And with\ntears Roland\u2019s voice breaks \u201cSweet comrade, Oliver, son of the good count\nRenier, who held the March of Geneva; to break spear and pierce shield,\nand counsel loyally the good, and discomfit and vanquish villains, in no\nland was there better knight.\u201d[699] Knowing his own death near, Roland\ntries to shatter his great sword, and then lies down upon it with his face\ntoward Spain; he holds up his glove toward God in token of fealty; Gabriel\naccepts his glove and the angels receive his soul.\n\nThis was the best of knighthood in the best of the _chansons_: and we see\nhow close it was to what was best in life. As the fight moves on to\nOliver\u2019s blow and Roland\u2019s pardon, to Roland\u2019s last deeds of Christian\ncomradeship, and to his death, the eyes are critical indeed that do not\nswell with tears. The heroic pathos of this rough poem is great because\nthe qualities which perished at Roncesvalles were so noble and so\nknightly.\n\nThe poem passes on to the vengeance taken by the emperor upon the\nSaracens, then to his return to Aix, and the short great scene between him\nand Aude, Roland\u2019s betrothed:\n\n\u201cWhere is Roland, the chief, who vowed to take me for his wife?\u201d\n\nCharles weeps, and tears his white beard as he answers: \u201cSister, dear\nfriend, you are asking about a dead man. But I will make it good to\nthee--there is Louis my son, who holds the Marches....\u201d\n\nAude replies: \u201cStrange words! God forbid, and His saints and angels, that\nI should live after Roland.\u201d And she falls dead at the emperor\u2019s feet.\n\nAs was fitting, the poem closes with the trial of the traitor Ganelon, by\ncombat. His defence is feudal: he had defied Roland and all his\ncompanions; his treachery was proper vengeance and not treason. But his\nchampion is defeated, and Ganelon himself is torn in pieces by horses,\nwhile his relatives, pledged as hostages, are hanged. All of which is\nfeudalism, and can be matched for savagery in many a scene from the\nArthurian romances of chivalry--not always reproduced in modern versions.\n\nSo the _chansons de geste_ are a mirror of the ways and customs of feudal\nsociety in the twelfth century. The feudal virtues are there, troth to\none\u2019s liege, orthodox crusading ardour, limitless valour, truth-speaking.\nThere is also enormous brutality; and the recognized feudal vices,\ncruelty, impiousness, and treason. In the _Raoul de Cambrai_, for example,\nthe nominal hero is a paroxysm of ferocity and impiety. All crimes rejoice\nhim as he rages along his ruthless way to establish his seignorial rights\nover a fief unjustly awarded him by Louis, the weak son of Charlemagne.\nHis foil is Bernier, the natural son of one of the rightful heirs against\nwhom Raoul carries on raging feudal war. But Bernier is also Raoul\u2019s\nsquire and vassal, who had received knighthood from him, and so is bound\nto the monster by the strongest feudal tie. He is a pattern of knighthood\nand of every feudal virtue. On the day of his knighting he implored his\nlord not to enter on that fell war against his (Bernier\u2019s) family. In\nvain. The war is begun with fire and sword. Bernier must support his lord;\nsays he: \u201cRaoul, my lord, is worse (_plu fel_) than Judas; he is my lord;\nhe has given me horse and clothes, my arms and cloth of gold. I would not\nfail him for the riches of Damascus\u201d: and all cried, \u201cBernier, thou art\nright.\u201d[700]\n\nBut there is a limit. Raoul is ferociously wasting the land, and\ncommitting every impiety. He would desecrate the abbey of Origni, and set\nhis tent in the middle of the church, stabling his horse in its porch and\nmaking his bed before the altar. Bernier\u2019s mother is there as a nun; Raoul\npauses at her entreaties and those of his uncle. Then his rage breaks out\nafresh at the death of two of his men; he burns the town and abbey, and\nBernier\u2019s mother perishes with the other nuns in the flames.\n\nNow the monster is feasting on the scene of desolation--and it is Lent\nbesides! After dining, he plays chess: enter Bernier. Raoul asks for wine.\nBernier takes the cup and, kneeling, hands it to him. Raoul is surprised\nto see him, but at once renews his oath to disinherit all of Bernier\u2019s\nfamily--his father and uncles. Bernier speaks and reproaches Raoul with\nhis mother\u2019s death: \u201cI cannot bring her back to life, but I can aid my\nfather whom you unjustly follow up with war. I am your man no longer. Your\ncruelty has released me from my duties; and you will find me on the side\nof my father and uncles when you attack them.\u201d For reply, Raoul breaks his\nhead open with the butt of his spear; but then at once asks pardon and\nhumiliates himself strangely. Bernier answers that there shall be no peace\nbetween them till the blood which flowed from his head returns back whence\nit came. Yet in the final battle he still seeks to turn Raoul back before\nattacking him who had been his liege lord. Again in vain; and Raoul falls\nbeneath Bernier\u2019s sword. Here are the two sides of the picture, the\nmonster of a lord, the vassal vainly seeking to be true: a situation\nutterly tragic from the standpoint of feudal chivalry.\n\nIt is not to be supposed that a huge body of poetic narrative could remain\nutterly truculent. Other motives had to enter;--the love of women, of\nwhich the _Roland_ has its one great flash. The ladies of the _chansons_\nare not coy, and often make the first advances. Such natural lusty love is\nnot romantic; it is not _l\u2019amour courtois_; and marriage is its obvious\nend. The _chansons_ also tend to become adventurous and to fill with\nromantic episode. An interesting example of this is the _Renaud de\nMontaubon_ where Renaud and his three brothers are aided by the enchanter,\nMaugis, against the pursuing hate of Charlemagne and where the marvellous\nhorse, Bayard, is a fascinating personality. This diversified and romantic\ntale long held its own in many tongues. In the somewhat later _Huon de\nBordeaux_ we are at last in fairyland--verily at the Court of Oberon--his\nfirst known entry into literature.[701] Thus the _chansons_ tend toward\nthe tone and temper of the _romans d\u2019aventure_.\n\nThe latter have the courtly love and the purely adventurous motives of the\nArthurian romances, with which the men who fashioned them probably were\nacquainted, as were the _jongleurs_ who recast certain of the _chansons de\ngeste_ to suit a more courtly taste. Of the _romans d\u2019aventure_,\nso-called, the _Blancandrin_ or the _Amadas_ or the _Flamenca_ may be\ntaken as the type; or, if one will, _Flore et Blanchefleur_ and _Aucassin\net Nicolette_, those two enduring lovers\u2019 tales.[702] Courtly love and\nknightly ventures are the themes of these _romans_ so illustrative of\nnoble French society in the thirteenth century. They differ from the\nArthurian romances in having other than a Breton origin; and their heroes\nand heroines are sometimes of more easily imagined historicity than the\nknights and ladies of the Round Table. But they never approached the\nuniversal vogue of the Arthurian Cycle.\n\nIt goes without saying that tastes in reading (or rather listening)\ndiverged in the twelfth century, just as in the twentieth. One cannot read\nthe old _chansons de geste_ in which fighting, and not love, is the\nabsorbing topic, without feeling that the audience before whom they were\nchanted was predominantly male. One cannot but feel the contrary to have\nbeen the fact with the romances in verse and prose which constitute that\nimmense mass of literature vaguely termed Arthurian. These two huge\ngroups, the _chansons de geste_ and the Arthurian romances, overlap\nchronologically and geographically. Although the development of the\n_chansons_ was somewhat earlier, the Arthurian stories were flourishing\nbefore the _chansons_ were past their prime; and both were in vogue\nthrough central and northern France. But the Arthurian stories won\nadoptive homes in England, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere. Indeed their\nearlier stages scarcely seem attached to real localities: nor were their\nmanners and interests rooted in the special traditions of any definite\nplace.\n\nThe tone and topics of these romances suggest an audience chiefly of\nwomen, and possibly feminine authorship. Doubtless, with a few exceptions,\nmen composed and recited them. But the male authors were influenced by the\ntaste, the favour and patronage, and the sympathetic suggestive interest\nof the ladies. Prominent among the first known composers of these\n\u201cBreton\u201d lays was a woman, Marie de France as she is called, who lived in\nEngland in the reign of Henry II. (1154-1189). Her younger contemporary\nwas the facile trouv\u00e8re Chr\u00e9tien de Troies, of whose life little is\nactually known. But we know that the subject of his famous Lancelot\nromance, called the _Conte de la charrette_, was suggested to him (about\n1170) by the Countess Marie de Champagne, daughter of Louis VII. Surely\nthen he wrote to please the taste of that royal dame, whose queenly\nmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, was also a patroness of this courtly poetry.\n\nThese are instances proving the feminine influence upon the composition of\nthese romances. And the growth of this great Arthurian Cycle represents,\n_par excellence_, the entry of womanhood into the literature of chivalry.\nMen love, as well as women; but the topic engrosses them less, and they\ntalk less about it. Likewise men appreciate courtesy; but in fact it is\nwoman\u2019s influence that softens manners. And while the masculine fancy may\nbe drawn by what is fanciful and romantic, women abandon themselves to its\ncharm.\n\nOf course the origin or _provenance_ of these romances was different from\nthat of the _chansons de geste_. It was Breton--it was Welsh, it was\n_walhisch_ (the Old-German word for the same) which means that it was\n_foreign_. In fact, the beginnings of these stories floated beautifully in\nfrom a _weiss-nicht-wo_ which in the twelfth century was already hidden in\nthe clouds. When the names of known localities are mentioned, they have\nmisty import. Arthurian geography is more elusive than Homeric.\n\nIn the twelfth and thirteenth centuries these stories took form in the\nverse and prose compositions in which they still exist. Sometimes the\npoet\u2019s name is known, Chr\u00e9tien de Troies, for instance; but the source\nfrom which he drew is doubtful. It probably was Breton, and Artus once in\nGreat Britain fought the Saxons like as not. But the growth, the\ndevelopment, the further composition, of the _mati\u00e8re de Bretagne_ is\npredominantly French. In France it grows; from France it passes on across\nthe Rhine, across the Alps, then back to what may have been its old home\nacross the British Channel. With equal ease on the wings of universal\nhuman interest it surmounts the Pyrenees. It would have crossed the ocean,\nhad the New World been discovered.\n\nFar be it from our purpose to enter the bottomless swamp of critical\ndiscussion of the source and history of the Arthurian romances. Two or\nthree statements--general and probably rather incorrect--may be made.\nMarie de France, soon after the middle of the twelfth century, wrote a\nnumber of shortish narrative poems of chivalric manners and romantic love,\nwhich, as it were, touch the hem of Arthur\u2019s cloak. Chr\u00e9tien de Troies\nbetween 1160 and 1175 composed his _Tristan_ (a story originally having\nnothing to do with Arthur), and then his _Erec_ (Geraint), then _Clig\u00e9s_;\nthen his (unfinished) _Lancelot_ or the _Conte de la charrette_; then\n_Ivain_ or the _Chevalier au lion_, and at last _Perceval_ or the _Conte\ndu Graal_. How much of the matter of these poems came from Brittany--or\nindirectly from Great Britain? This is a large unsolved question! Another\nis the relation of Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poems to the subsequent Arthurian romances\nin verse and prose. And perhaps most disputed of all is the authorship\n(Beroul? Robert de Boron? Walter Mapes?) of this mass of Arthurian Old\nFrench literature which was not the work of Chr\u00e9tien. Without lengthy\n_prolegomena_ it would be fruitless to attempt to order and name these\ncompositions. The Arthurian matters were taken up by German poets of\nexcellence--Heinrich von Veldeke, Hartmann von Aue, Gottfried von\nStrassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach,--and sometimes the best existing\nversions are the work of the latter; for instance, Wolfram\u2019s _Parzival_\nand Gottfried\u2019s _Tristan_. And again the relation of these German versions\nto their French originals becomes still another problem.\n\nFor the chivalry of these romances, one may look to the poems of Chr\u00e9tien\nand to passages in the Old French prose (presumably of the early\nthirteenth century), to which the name of Robert de Boron or Walter Mapes\nis attached. Chr\u00e9tien enumerates knightly excellences in his _Clig\u00e9s_,\nand, speaking from the natural point of view of the _jongleur_, he puts\n_largesce_ (generosity) at their head. This, says he, makes one a\n_prodome_ more than _hautesce_ (high station) or _corteisie_ or _savoirs_\nor _jantillesce_ (noble birth) or _chevalerie_, or _hardemanz_ (hardihood)\nor _seignorie_, or _biautez_ (beauty).[703]\n\nSuch are the knightly virtues, which, however, reach their full worth only\nthrough the aid of that which makes perfect the Arthurian knight, the high\nlove of ladies, shortly to be spoken of. In the meanwhile let us turn from\nChr\u00e9tien to the broader tableau of the Old French prose, and note the\nbeginning of _Artus_, as he is there called. The lineage of the royal boy\nremains romantically undiscovered, till the time when he is declared to be\nthe king. It is then that he receives all kinds of riches from the lords\nof his realm. He keeps nothing for himself; but makes inquiry as to the\ncharacter and circumstances of his future knights, and distributes all\namong them according to their worth. This is the virtue of _largesce_.\n\nNow comes the ceremony of making him a knight, and then of investing him\nwith, as it were, the supreme knighthood of kingship. The archbishop, it\nis told, \u201cfist (made) Artu chevalier, et celle nuit veilla Artus a la\nmestre Eglise (the cathedral) jusques au jour.\u201d Then follows the ceremony\nof swearing allegiance to him; but Arthur has not yet finally taken his\ngreat sword. When he is arrayed for the mass, the archbishop says to him:\n\u201cAllez querre (seek) l\u2019espee et la jostise dont vos devez defendre Saincte\nEglise et la crestiante sauver.\u201d\n\n    \u201cLors alla la procession au perron, et la demanda li arcevesques a\n    Artu, se il est tiels que il osast jurer et creanter Dieu et madame\n    Sainte Marie et a tous Sains et toutes Saintes, Sainte Eglise a sauver\n    et a maintenir, et a tous povres homes et toutes povres femmes pais et\n    loiaute tenir, et conseiller tous desconseillies, et avoier (guide)\n    tous desvoies (erring), et maintenir toutes droitures et droite\n    justice a tenir, si alast avant et preist l\u2019espee dont nostre sire\n    avoit fait de lui election. Et Artus plora et dist: \u2018Ensi voirement\n    com Dieus est sire de toutes les choses, me donit-il force et povoir\n    de ce maintenir que vous avez dit.\u2019\n\n    \u201cIl fu a genols et prit l\u2019espee a jointes mains et la leva de\n    l\u2019enclume (anvil) ausi voirement come se ele ne tenist a riens; et\n    lors, l\u2019espee toute droite, l\u2019enmenerent a l\u2019autel et la mist sus; et\n    lors il le pristrent et sacrerent et l\u2019enoindrent, et li firent\n    toutes iceles choses que l\u2019en doit faire a roi.\u201d[704]\n\nAll this is good chivalry as well as proper feudalism. And there are other\ninstances of genuine feudalism in these Romances. Such is the scene\nbetween the good knight Pharien and the bad king Claudas, where the former\nrenounces his allegiance to the latter (_je declare renoncer a vostre\nfief_) and then declares himself to be Claudas\u2019s enemy, and claims the\nright to fight or slay him; since Claudas has not kept troth with\nhim.[705]\n\nThere is perhaps nothing lovelier in all these Romances than the story of\nthe young Lancelot, reared by the tender care of the Lady of the Lake. His\ntraining supplements the genial instincts of his nature, and the result is\nthe mirror of all knighthood\u2019s qualities. He is noble, he is true, he is\nperfect in bravery, in courtesy, in modesty, the Lady imparting the\nprecepts of these virtues to his ready spirit.[706] There is no knightly\nvirtue that is not perfect in this peerless youth, as he sets forth to\nArthur\u2019s Court, there to receive knighthood and prove himself the peerless\nknight and perfect lover. In this Old French prose his career is set forth\nmost completely, and most correctly, so to speak. One or two points may be\nadverted to.\n\nLancelot is not strictly Arthur\u2019s knight. Originally he owed no fealty to\nhim; and he avoided receiving his sword from the king, in order that he\nmight receive it from Guinever, as he did. And so, from the first,\nLancelot was Guinever\u2019s knight, as he was afterwards her accepted lover.\nConsequently his relations to her broke no fealty of his to Arthur.\n\nAgain, one notices that the absolute character of Lancelot\u2019s love and\ntroth to Guinever is paralleled by the friendship of the high prince\nGalahaut to him. That has the same _pr\u00e9cieuse_ logic; it is absolute. No\nact or thought of Galahaut infringes friendship\u2019s least conceived\nrequirement; while conversely that marvellous high prince leaves undone no\nact, however extreme, which can carry out the logic of this absolute\nsingle-souled devotion. At last he dies on thinking that Lancelot is dead;\njust as the latter could not have survived the death of Guinever. In spite\nof the beauty of Galahaut\u2019s devotion, its logic and preciosity scarcely\nthrob with manhood\u2019s blood. It will not cause our eyes to swell with human\ntears, as did the blind blow and the true words which passed between\nOliver and Roland at Roncesvalles.[707]\n\nChivalry--the institution and the whole knightly character--began in the\nrough and veritable, and progressed to courtlier idealizations. Likewise\nthat knightly virtue, love of woman, displays a parallel evolution, being\npart of the chivalric whole. Beginning in natural qualities, its progress\nis romantic, logical, fantastic, even mystical.\n\nFeudal life in the earlier mediaeval centuries did not foster tender\nsentiments between betrothed or wedded couples. The chief object of every\nlandholder was by force or policy to secure his own safety and increase\nhis retainers and possessions. A ready means was for him to marry lands\nand serfs in the robust person of the daughter, or widow, of some other\nbaron. The marriage was prefaced by scant courtship; and little love was\nlikely to ensue between the rough-handed husband and high-tempered wife.\nSuch conditions, whether in Languedoc, Aquitaine, or Champagne, made it\nlikely that high-blooded men and women would satisfy their amorous\ncravings outside the bonds of matrimony. For these reasons, among others,\nthe Proven\u00e7al and Old French literature, which was the medium of\ndevelopment for the sentiment of love, did not commonly concern itself\nwith bringing lovers to the altar.\n\nIn literature, as in life, marriage is usually the goal of bliss and\nsilence for love-song and love-story: attainment quells the fictile\nelements of fear and hope. Entire classes of mediaeval poetry like the\n_aube_ (dawn) and the _pastorelle_ had no thought of marriage. The former\n_genre_ of Proven\u00e7al and Old French, as well as Old German, poetry, is a\nlyric dialogue wherein the sentiments of lover and mistress become more\ntender with the approach of the envious dawn.[708] The latter is the song\nof the merry encounter of some clerk or cavalier with a mocking or\ncomplaisant shepherdess. Yet one must beware of speaking too\ncategorically. For in mediaeval love-literature, marriage is looked\nforward to or excluded according to circumstances; and there are instances\nof romantic love where the lovers are blessed securely by the priest at\nthe beginning of their adventures. But whether the lover look to wed his\nlady, or whether he have wedded her, or whether she be but his paramour,\nis all a thing of incident, dependent on the traditional or devised plot\nof the story.[709]\n\nLike all other periods that have been articulate in literature--and those\nthat have not been, so far as one may guess--the Middle Ages experienced\nand expressed the usual ways of love. These need not detain us. For they\nwere included as elements within those interesting forms of romantic love,\nwhich were presented in the lyrics of the Troubadours and their more or\nless conscious imitators, and in the romantic narratives of chivalry. This\nliterature elaborately expresses mediaeval sentiments and also love\u2019s\npassion. Its ideals drew inspiration from Christianity and many a\nsuggestion from the antique. More especially, in its growth, at last two\ncurrents seem to meet. The one sprang from the fashions of Languedoc and\nthe courtly centres of the north; the other was the strain of fantasy and\npassion constituting the _mati\u00e8re de Bretagne_.\n\nLanguedoc had been Romanized before the Christian era, and thereafter did\nnot cease to be the home of the surviving Latin culture. By the eleventh\ncentury, castles and towns held a gay and aristocratic society, on which\nChristianity, honeycombed with heresy, sat lightly, or at least joyfully.\nThis society was inclined to luxury, and the gentle relationships between\nmen and women interested it exceedingly. Out of it as the eleventh century\ncloses, songs of the Troubadours begin to rise and give utterance to\nthoughts and feelings of chivalric love. These songs flourished during the\nwhole of the twelfth century, and then their notes were crushed by the\nAlbigensian Crusade, which destroyed the pretty life from which they\nsprang.\n\nShe whom such songs were meant to adulate or win, frequently was the wife\nof the Troubadour\u2019s lord. The song might intend nothing beyond such\nworship as the lady\u2019s spouse would sanction; or it might give subtle voice\nto a real passion, which offered and sought all. To separate the sincere\nand passionate from the fanciful in such songs is neither easy nor apt,\nsince fancy may enhance the expression of passion, or present a pleasing\nsubstitute. At all events, in this very personal poetry, passion and\nimaginative enhancings blended in verses that might move a lady\u2019s heart or\nvanity.\n\nLove, with the Troubadours and their ladies, was a source of joy. Its\ncommands and exigencies made life\u2019s supreme law. Love was knighthood\u2019s\nservice; it was loyalty and devotion; it was the noblest human giving. It\nwas also the spring of excellence, the inspiration of high deeds. This\nlove was courteous, delicately ceremonial, precise, and on the lady\u2019s part\nexacting and whimsical. A moderate knowledge of the poems and lives of the\nTroubadours and their ladies will show that love with its joys and pains,\nits passion, its fancies and subtle conclusions, made the life and\nbusiness of these men and dames.[710]\n\nIn culture and the love of pleasure the great feudal courts of Aquitaine,\nChampagne, and even Flanders, were scarcely behind the society of\nLanguedoc. And at these courts, rather than in Languedoc, courtly love\nencountered a new passionate current, and found the tales which were to\nform its chief vehicle. These were the lays and stories, as of Tristan and\nof Arthur and his knights, which from Great Britain had come to Brittany\nand Normandy. They were now attracting many listeners who had no part with\nArthur or Tristan, save the love of love and adventure. Marie de France\nhad put certain Breton lays into Old French verse. And one or two decades\nlater, a request from the great Countess Marie de Champagne led Chr\u00e9tien\nde Troies, as we have seen, to recast other Breton tales in a manner\nsomewhat transformed with thoughts of courtly love. These northern poems\nof love and chivalry were written to please the taste of high-born dames,\njust as the Troubadours had sung and still were singing to please their\nsisters in the south. The southern poems may have influenced the\nnorthern.[711]\n\nIn the courtly society of Champagne and Aquitaine diverse racial elements\nhad long been blending, and acquirements, once foreign, had turned into\npersonal qualities. Views of life had been evolved, along with faculties\nto express them. Likewise modes of feeling had developed. This society\nhad become what it was within the influence of Christianity and the\nantique educational tradition. It knew the Song of Songs, as well as\nOvid\u2019s stories, and likewise his _Ars amatoria_, which Chr\u00e9tien was the\nfirst to translate into Old French. Possibly its Christianity had learned\nof a boundless love of God, and its mortal nature might feel mortal loves\nequally resistless. And now, in the early twelfth century, there came from\nlands which were or had been Breton, an abundance of moving and catching\nstories of adventure and of passion which broke through restraint, or knew\nnone. Dames and knights and their rhymers would eagerly receive such\ntales, and not as barren vessels; for they refashioned and reinspired them\nwith their own thoughts of the joy of life and love, and with thoughts of\nlove\u2019s high service and its uplifting virtue for the lover, and again of\nits ways and the laws which should direct and guide, but never stem, it.\n\nThus it came that French trouv\u00e8res enlarged the matter of these Breton\nlays. Their romances reflected the loftiest thoughts and the most eloquent\nemotion pertaining to the earthly side of mediaeval life. In these rhyming\nand prose compositions, love was resistless in power; it absorbed the\nlover\u2019s nature; it became his sole source of joy and pain. So it sought\nnothing but its own fulfilment; it knew no honour save its own demands. It\nwas unimpeachable, for in ecstasy and grief it was accountable to no law\nexcept that of its being. This resistless love was also life\u2019s highest\nworth, and the spring of inspiration and strength for doing valorously and\nliving nobly. The trouv\u00e8re of the twelfth century created new conceptions\nof love\u2019s service, and therewith the impassioned thought that beyond what\nmen might do in the hope of love\u2019s fruition or at the dictates of its\naffection, love was itself a power strengthening and ennobling him who\nloved. Thought and feeling joined in this conviction, each helping the\nother on, in interchanging r\u00f4les of inspirer and inspired. And finally the\ntwo are one:\n\n  \u201cOltre la spera, che pi\u00f9 larga gira,\n     Passa il sospiro ch\u2019esce del mio core:\n   Intelligenza nuova, che l\u2019Amore\n     Piangendo mette in lui, pur su lo tira.\u201d\n\nNo one can separate the thought and feeling in this verse. But they were\nnot always fused. The mediaeval fancy sported with this love; the\nmediaeval mind delighted in it as a theme of argument. And the fancy might\nbe as fantastic as the reasoning was finely spun.\n\nThe literature of this love draws no sharp lines between love as\nresistless passion and love as enabling virtue; yet these two aspects are\ndistinguishable. The first was less an original creation of the Middle\nAges than the second. Antiquity had known the passion which overwhelmed\nthe stricken mortal, and had treated it as something put upon the man and\nwoman, a convulsive joy, also a bane. Antiquity had analyzed it too, and\nhad shown its effects, especially its physical symptoms. Much had been\nwritten of its fatal nature; songs had sung how it overthrew the strong\nand brought men and women to their death. Looking upon this love as\nsomething put on man and woman, antiquity pictured it mainly as an\ninsanity cast like a spell upon some one who otherwise would have been\nsane. But the Middle Ages saw love transformed into the man and woman, saw\nit constitute their will as well as passion, and perceived that it was\ntheir being. If the lover could not avoid or resist it, the reason was\nbecause it was his mightiest self, and not because it was a compulsion\nfrom without; it was his nature, not his disease.\n\nThe nature, ways, and laws of this high and ennobling love were much\npondered on and talked of. They were expounded in pedantic treatises, as\nwell as set forth in tales which sometimes have the breath of universal\nlife. Ovid\u2019s _Ars amatoria_ furnished the idea that love was an art to be\nlearned and practised. Mediaeval clerks and rhymers took his light art\nseriously, and certain of them made manuals of the rules and precepts of\nlove, devised by themselves and others interested in such fancies. An\nexample is the _Flos amoris_ or _Ars amatoria_ of Andrew the Chaplain, who\ncompiled his book not far from the year 1200.[712] He wrote with his\nobsequious head filled with a sense of the authority in love matters of\nMarie de Champagne, and other great ladies. His book contains a number of\ncurious questions which had been laid before one or the other of those\nreigning dames, and which they solved boldly in love\u2019s favour. Thus on\nsolicitation Countess Marie decided that there could be no true love\nbetween a husband and wife; and that the possession of an honoured husband\nor beautiful wife did not bar the proffer or acceptance of love from\nanother. The living literature of love was never constrained by the\nfoolishness of the first proposition, but was freely to exemplify the\nfurther conclusion which others besides the countess drew.\n\nAndrew gives a code of love\u2019s rules. He would have no one think that he\ncomposed them; but that he saw them written on a parchment attached to the\nhawk\u2019s perch, and won at Arthur\u2019s Court by the valour of a certain Breton\nknight. They read like proverbs, and undoubtedly represent the ideas of\ncourtly society upon courtly love. There are thirty-one of them--for\nexample:\n\n    (1) Marriage is not a good excuse for rejecting love.\n\n    (2) Who does not conceal, cannot love.\n\n    (3) None can love two at once. There is no reason why a woman should\n    not be loved by two men, or a man by two women.\n\n    (4) It is love\u2019s way always to increase or lessen.\n\n    (9) None can love except one who is moved by love\u2019s suasion.\n\n    (12) The true lover has no desire to embrace any one except his (or\n    her) co-lover (_co-amans_).\n\n    (13) Love when published rarely endures.\n\n    (14) Easy winning makes love despicable; the difficult is held dear.\n\n    (15) Every lover turns pale in the sight of the co-lover.\n\n    (16) The lover\u2019s heart trembles at the sudden sight of the co-lover.\n\n    (18) Prowess (_probitas_) alone makes one worthy of love.\n\n    (20) The lover is always fearful.\n\n    (23) The one whom the thought of love disturbs, eats and sleeps\n    little.\n\n    (25) The true lover finds happiness only in what he deems will please\n    his co-lover.\n\n    (28) A slight fault in the lover awakens the co-lover\u2019s suspicion.\n\n    (30) The true lover constantly, without intermission, is engrossed\n    with the image of the co-lover.\n\nThese rules were exemplified in the imaginative literature of courtly\nlove. Such love and the feats inspired by it made the chief matter of the\nArthurian romances, which became the literary property of western Europe;\nand the supreme examples of their darling theme are the careers and\nfortunes of the two most famous pairs of lovers in all this gallant cycle,\nTristan and Iseult, Lancelot and Guinevere. In the former story love is\nresistless passion; in the latter its virtue- and valour-bestowing\nqualities appear. In both, the laws forbidding its fruition are shattered:\nin the Tristan story blindly, madly, without further thought; while in the\ntale of Lancelot this conflict sometimes rises to consciousness even in\nthe lovers\u2019 hearts. How chivalric love may reach accord with Christian\nprecept will be shown hereafter in the progress of the white and scarlet\nsoul of Parzival, the brave man proving himself slowly wise.\n\nProbably there never was a better version of the story of Tristan and\nIseult than that of Gottfried of Strassburg, who transformed French\noriginals into his Middle High German poem about the year 1210.[713] The\npoet-adapter sets forth his ideas of love in an elaborate prologue. Very\nantithetically he shows its bitter sweet, its dear sorrow, its yearning\nneed; indeed to love is to yearn--an idea not strange to Plato--and\nGottfried uses the words _sene_, _senel\u00eech_, _senedaere_ (all of which are\nrelated to _sehnsucht_, which is yearning) to signify love, a lover, and\nhis pain. His poem shall be of two noble lovers:\n\n  \u201cEin senedaere, eine senedaerin.\u201d\n\nThe more love\u2019s fire burns the heart, the more one loves; this pain is\nfull of love, an ill so good for the heart that no noble nature once\nroused by it would wish to lose part therein. Who never felt love\u2019s pain\nhas never felt love:\n\n  \u201cLiep unde leit diu waren ie\n   An minnen ungescheiden.\u201d\n\nIt is good for men to hear a tale of noble love, yes, a deep good. It\nsweetens love and raises the hearer\u2019s mood; it strengthens troth, enriches\nlife. Love, troth, a constant spirit, honour, and whatever else is good,\nare never so precious as when set in a tale of love\u2019s joy and pain. Love\nis such a blessed thing, such a blessed striving, that no one without its\nteaching has worth or honour. These lovers died long ago; yet their love\nand troth, their life, their death, will still give troth and honour to\nseekers after these. Their death lives and is ever new, as we listen to\nthe tale. Evidently, in Gottfried\u2019s mind the Tristan tale of love\u2019s\nalmighty passion carried the thought of love as the inspiration of a noble\nlife. Yet that thought was not native to the legend, and finds scant\nexemplification in Gottfried\u2019s poem.\n\nThe tragic passion of the main narrative is presaged by the story of\nTristan\u2019s parents. His mother was Blancheflur, King Mark\u2019s sister, and his\nfather Prince Riwalin. She saw him in the May-Court tourney held near\nTintajoel. She took him into her thoughts; he entered her heart, and there\nwore crown and sceptre.\n\nShe greeted him; he her. She bashfully began: \u201cMy lord, may God enrich\nyour heart and courage; but I harbour something against you.\u201d\n\n\u201cSweet one, what have I done?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou have done violence to my best friend\u201d--it was her heart, she meant.\n\n\u201cBeauty, bear me no hate for that; command, and I will do your bidding.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen I will not hate you bitterly. I will see what atonement you will\nmake.\u201d\n\nHe bowed, and carried with him her image. Love\u2019s will mastered his heart,\nas he thought of Blancheflur, of her hair, her brow, her cheek, her mouth,\nher chin, and the glad Easter day that smiling lay in her eyes. Love the\nheartburner set his heart aflame, and lo! he entered upon another life;\npurpose and habit changed, he was another man.\n\nSad is the short tale of these lovers. Riwalin is killed in battle, and at\nthe news of his death Blancheflur expires, giving birth to a son. Rual the\nFaithful names the child Tristan, to symbolize the sorrow of its birth.\n\nThe story of Tristan\u2019s early years draws the reader to the accomplished,\nhappy youth. He is the delight of all; for his young manhood is\ncourtliness itself, and valour and generosity. He is loved, and\nafterwards recognized and knighted, by his uncle Mark. Then he sets out\nand avenges his father\u2019s death; after which he returns to Mark\u2019s Court,\nand vanquishes the Irish champion Morold. A fragment of Tristan\u2019s sword\nremained in Morold\u2019s head; Tristan himself received a poisoned wound,\nwhich could be healed, as the dying Morold told him, only by Ireland\u2019s\nqueen, Iseult. Very charming is the story of Tristan\u2019s first visit to\nIreland, disguised as a harper, under the name of Tantris. The queen\nhearing of his skill, has him brought to the palace, where she heals him,\nand he in return becomes the teacher of her daughter, the younger Iseult,\nwhom he instructs in letters, music and singing, French and Latin, ethics,\ncourtly arts and manners, till the girl became as accomplished as she was\nbeautiful, and could write and read, and compose and sing _pastorelles_\nand _rondeaux_ and other songs.\n\nOn his return to Cornwall he told Mark of the young Iseult, and then, at\nMark\u2019s request, set forth again to woo her for him. The Irish king has\npromised his daughter to whoever shall slay the dragon. Tristan does the\ndeed, cuts out the dragon\u2019s tongue as proof, and then falls overcome and\nfainting. The king\u2019s cupbearer comes by, breaks his lance on the dead\ndragon, and, riding on, announces that he has slain the monster; he has\nthe great head brought to the Court upon a wagon. Iseult is in despair at\nthe thought of marrying the cupbearer; her mother doubts his story, and\nbids Iseult ride out and search for the real slayer. The ladies discover\nTristan, with him the dragon\u2019s tongue. They carry him to the palace to\nheal him, and the young Iseult recognizes him as the harper Tantris, and\nredoubles her kind care. But after a while she noticed the notch in his\nsword, and saw that it fitted the fragment found in Morold\u2019s head--and is\nnot Tantris just Tristan reversed? This is the man who slew Morold, her\nmother\u2019s brother! She seizes the sword and rushes in to kill him in his\nbath. Her mother checks her, and at last she is appeased, Tristan letting\nthem see that an important mission has brought him to Ireland. There is\ntruce between them, and Tristan goes to the king with Mark\u2019s demand for\nIseult\u2019s hand. Then the cupbearer is discomfited, peace is made between\nthe Irish king and Mark, and the young Iseult, with Brangaene her cousin,\nmakes ready to sail with Tristan. The queen secretly gave a love-drink\ninto Brangaene\u2019s care, which Iseult and Mark should drink together. The\npeople followed down to the haven, and all wept and lamented that with\nfair Iseult the sunshine had left Ireland.\n\nIseult is sad. She cannot forget that it is Tristan who slew her uncle and\nis now taking her from her home. Tristan fails to comfort her. They see\nland. Tristan calls for wine to pledge Iseult. A little maid brings--the\nlove-drink! They drink together, not wine but that endless heart\u2019s pain\nwhich shall be their common death. Too late, Brangaene with a cry throws\nthe goblet into the sea. Love stole into both their hearts; gone was\nIseult\u2019s hate. They were no longer two, but one; the sinner, love, had\ndone it. They were each other\u2019s joy and pain; doubt and shame seized them.\nTristan bethought him of his loyalty and honour, struggling against love\nvainly. Iseult was like a bird caught with the fowler\u2019s lime; shame drove\nher eyes away from him; but love drew her heart. She gave over the contest\nas she looked on him, and he also began to yield. They thought each other\nfairer than before; love was conquering.\n\nThe ship sails on. Love\u2019s need conquered. They talk together of the past,\nhow he had once come in a little boat, and of the lessons: \u201cFair Iseult,\nwhat is troubling you?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat I know, that troubles me; what I see, the heaven and sea, that\nweighs on me; body and life are heavy.\u201d\n\nThey leaned toward each other; bright eyes began to fill from the heart\u2019s\nspring; her head sank, his arm sustained her;--\u201cAh! sweet, tell me, what\nis it?\u201d\n\nAnswered love\u2019s feather-play, Iseult: \u201cLove is my need, love is my pain.\u201d\n\nHe answered painfully: \u201cFair Iseult, it is the rude wind and sea.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, no, it is not wind or sea; love is my pain.\u201d\n\n\u201cBeauty, so with me! Love and you make my need. Heart\u2019s lady, dear Iseult,\nyou and the love of you have seized me. I am dazed. I cannot find myself.\nAll the world has become naught, save thee alone.\u201d\n\n\u201cSir, so is it with me.\u201d\n\nThey loved, and in each other saw one mind, one heart, one will. Their\nsilent kiss was long. In the night, love the physician brought their only\nbalm. Sweet had the voyage become; alas! that it must end.\n\nWith their landing begins the trickery and falsehood compelled by the\nsituation. The fearful Iseult plotted to murder the true Brangaene, who\nalone knew. After a while Mark\u2019s suspicion is aroused, to be lulled by\nguile. Plot and counterplot go on; the lovers win and win again; truth and\nhonour, everything save love\u2019s joy and fear and all-sufficiency, are cast\nto the winds. Even the \u201cJudgment of God\u201d is tricked; the hot iron does not\nburn Iseult swearing her false oath, literally true. Many a time Mark\u2019s\njealousy has been fiercely stirred, only to be tricked to sleep again. Yet\nhe knows that Tristan and Iseult are lovers. He calls them to him; he\ntells them he will not avenge himself, they are too dear to him. But let\nthem take each other by the hand and leave him. So, together, they\ndisappear in the forest.\n\nThen comes the wonderful, beautiful story of the love-grotto and the\nlovers\u2019 forest-life; they had the forest and they had themselves, and\nneeded no more. One morning they arose to the sweet birds\u2019 song of\ngreeting; but they heard a horn; Mark must be hunting near. So they were\nvery careful, and again prepared deception. Mark has been told of the\nlove-grotto in the wood. In the night he came and found it, looked through\nits little rustic window as the day began to dawn. There lay the lovers,\napart, a naked sword between them. A sunbeam, stealing through the window,\ntouches Iseult\u2019s cheek, touches her sweet mouth. Mark loves her anew. Then\nfearful lest the sunlight should disturb her, he covered the window with\ngrass and leaves and flowers, blessed her, and went away in tears. The\nlovers waken. They had no need to fear. The lie of the naked sword again\nhad won. Mark sends and invites them to return.\n\nInsatiable love knew no surcease or pause. The German poet is driven to a\nfew reflections on the deceits of Eve\u2019s daughters, the anxieties of\nforbidden love, and the crown of worth and joy that a true woman\u2019s love\nmay be. At last the lovers are betrayed--in each other\u2019s arms. They know\nthat Mark has seen them.\n\n\u201cHeart\u2019s lady, fair Iseult, now we must part. Let me not pass from your\nheart. Iseult must ever be in Tristan\u2019s heart. Forget me not.\u201d\n\nSays Iseult: \u201cOur hearts have been too long one ever to know forgetting.\nWhether you are near or far, nothing but Tristan enters mine. See to it\nthat no other woman parts us. Take this ring and think of me. Iseult with\nTristan has been ever one heart, one troth, one body, one life. Think of\nme as your life--Iseult.\u201d\n\nThe fateful turning of the story is not far off: Tristan has met the other\nIseult, her of the white hands. The poet Gottfried did not complete his\nwork. He died, leaving Tristan\u2019s heart struggling between the old love and\nthe new--the new and weaker love, but the more present offering to pain.\nThe story was variously concluded by different rhymers, in Gottfried\u2019s\ntime and after. The best ending is the extant fragment of the _Tristan_ by\nThomas of Brittany, the master whom Gottfried followed. In it, the wounded\nTristan dies at the false news of the black sails--the treachery of Iseult\nof the white hands. The true Iseult finds him dead; kisses him, takes him\nin her arms, and dies.\n\nFrom the time when on the ship Tristan and Iseult cast shame and honour to\nthe winds, the story tells of a love which knows no law except itself, a\nlove which is not hindered or made to hesitate and doubt by any command of\nrighteousness or honour. Love is the theme; the tale has no sympathy or\nunderstanding for anything else. It is therefore free from the consciously\nrealized inconsistencies present at least in some versions of the story of\nLancelot and Guinevere. In them two laws of life seem on the verge of\nconflict. On the one--the feebler--side, honour, troth to marriage vows,\nsome sense of right and wrong; on the other, passionate love, which is law\nand right unto itself, having its own commands and prohibitions; a love\nwhich is also an inspiration and uplifting power unto the lover; a love\nholy in itself and yet because of its high nature the more fatally\nimpeached by truth and honour trampled on. In the conflict between the two\nlaws of life in the Lancelot story, the rights and needs and power of love\nmaintain themselves; yet the end must come, and the lovers live out love\u2019s\npalinode in separate convents. For this love to be made perfect, must be\ncrowned with repentance.\n\nWho first created Lancelot, and who first made the peerless knight love\nArthur\u2019s queen? This question has not yet been answered.[714] Chr\u00e9tien de\nTroies\u2019 poem, _Le Conte de la charrette_, has for its subject an episode\nin Lancelot\u2019s long love of Guinevere.[715] Here, as in his other poems,\nChr\u00e9tien is a facile narrator, with little sense of the significance that\nmight be given to the stories which he received and cleverly remade. But\ntheir significance is shown in the Old French prose _Lancelot_, probably\ncomposed two or three decades after Chr\u00e9tien wrote. It contains the lovely\nstory of Lancelot\u2019s rearing, by the Lady of the Lake, and of his glorious\nyouth. It brings him to the Court of Arthur, and tells how he was made a\nknight--it was the queen and not the king from whom he received his sword.\nAnd he loves her--loves her and her only from the first until his death.\nHe has no thought of serving any other mistress. And he is aided in his\nlove by the \u201chaute prince Galehaut,\u201d the most high-hearted friend that\never gave himself to his friend\u2019s weal.\n\nFrom the beginning Lancelot\u2019s love is worship, it is holy; and almost from\nthe beginning it is unholy. From the beginning, too, it is the man\u2019s\ninspiration, it is his strength; it makes him the peerless knight,\npeerless in courtesy, peerless in emprise; this love gives him the single\neye, the unswerving heart, the resistless valour to accomplish those\nadventures wherein all other knights had found their shame--they were not\nperfect lovers! Only through his perfect love could Lancelot have\naccomplished that greatest adventure of the _Val des faux amants_;--_Val\nsans retour_ for all other knights.[716] Lancelot alone had always been,\nand to his death remained, a lover absolutely true in act and word and\nthought; incomparably more chastely loyal to Guinevere than her kingly\nspouse. Against the singleness of this perfect love enchantments fail, and\nswords and lances break. Yet this love, fraught with untruth and\ndishonour, must conceal itself from that king who, while breaking his own\nmarriage vows as passion led him, trusted and honoured above all men the\npeerless knight whose peerlessness was rooted in his unholy holy love for\nArthur\u2019s queen.\n\nThe first full sin between Lancelot and Guinevere was committed when\nArthur was absent on a love-adventure, which brought him to a shameful\nprison. He was delivered by Lancelot, and recognizing his deliverer, he\nsaid in royal gratitude: \u201cI yield you my land, my honour, and myself.\u201d\nLancelot blushes! Thereafter, as towards Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere\nare forced into stratagems almost as ignoble as those by which King Mark\nwas tricked. And Guinevere--she too is peerless among women; perfect in\nbeauty, perfect in courtliness, perfect in dutifulness to her\nhusband--saving her love for Lancelot! Guinevere\u2019s dutifulness to Arthur\nis not shaken by his outrageous treatment of her because of the \u201cfalse\nGuinevere,\u201d when he cast off and sought to burn his queen. She will\ncontinue to obey him though he has dishonoured her--and all the time,\nunknown to her outrageous, unjustly accusing lord, how had she cast her\nand his honour down with Lancelot! Only while she is put away from her\nlord, and under Lancelot\u2019s guard, for that time she will be true to\nmarriage vows; and Lancelot assents.[717]\n\nThe latter part of the story, when asceticism enters with Galahad,[718]\nsuggests that the peerless knight of \u201cles temps adventureux\u201d was sinful.\nBut the main body of the tale put no reproach on Lancelot for his great\nlove. It told of a love as perfect and as absolute as the author or\ncompiler could conceive; and the conduct of Lancelot was intended to be\nthat of a perfect lover, whose sentiments and actions should accord with\nthe idea of courtly love and exemplify its rules. Their underlying\nprinciple was that love should always be absolute, and that the lover\u2019s\nevery thought and act should on all occasions correspond with the most\nextreme feelings or sentiments or fancies possible for a lover. In the\nprose narrative, for example, Lancelot goes mad three times because of his\nmistress\u2019s cruelty, a cruelty which may seem to us absurd, but which\nrepresents the adored lady\u2019s insistence, under all circumstances, upon the\nmost unhesitating and utter devotion from her lover.\n\nChr\u00e9tien\u2019s _Conte de la charrette_ is a clear rendering of the idea that\nlove shall be absolute, and hesitate at nothing; it is an example of\ncourtly love carried to its furthest imagined conclusions. It displays all\nthe rules of Andrew the Chaplain in operation. In it Lancelot will do\nanything for Guinevere, will show himself a coward knight at her command,\nor perform feats of arms; he will desire the least little bit of her--a\ntress of hair--more than all else which is not she; he will throw himself\nfrom the window to be near her; engaged in deadly combat, the sight of her\nmakes him forget his enemy; at the news of her death he seeks at once to\ndie. Of course his heart loathes the thought of infringing this great love\nby the slightest fancy for another woman. On the other hand, when by\nmarvels of valour Lancelot rescues Guinevere from captivity, she will not\nspeak to him because for a single instant he had hesitated to mount a\n_charrette_, in which no knight was carried save one who was felon and\ncondemned to death. This was logical on Guinevere\u2019s part; Lancelot\u2019s love\nshould always have been so absolute as never for one instant to hesitate.\nMuch of this is extreme, and yet hardly unreal. Helo\u00efse\u2019s love for\nAbaelard never hesitated.\n\nSuch love, imperious and absolute, shuts out all laws and exigencies save\nits own;[719] it must be virtue and honour unto itself; it is careless of\nwhat ill it may do so long as that ill does not infringe love\u2019s laws.\nEvidently before it the bonds of marriage break, or pale to\ninsignificance. It is its own sanction, nor needs the faint blessing of\nthe priest. The poet--as the actual lover likewise--may even deem that\nlove can best show itself to be the principle of its own honour when\nunsustained by wedlock; thus unsustained and unobscured it stands alone,\nfairer, clearer, more interesting and romantic. Again, since mediaeval\nmarriage in high life was more often a joining of fiefs than a union of\nhearts, there would be high-born dames and courtly poets to declare that\nlove could only exist between knight and mistress, and not between husband\nand wife. Marriage shuts out love\u2019s doubts and fears; there is no need of\nfurther knightly services; and husband and wife by law are bound to render\nto each other what between lovers is gracious favour; this was the opinion\nof Marie de Champagne, it also was the opinion of Helo\u00efse. In chivalric\npoetry the lovers, when at last duly married, may continue to call each\nother _ami et amie_ rather than wife and lord;[720] or a knight may shun\nmarriage lest he settle down and lose worship, doing no more adventurous\nfeats of arms, like Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s Erec, till his wife Enide stung him by her\nspeech.[721] Some centuries later Malory has Lancelot utter a like\nsentiment: \u201cBut to be a wedded man I think never to be, for if I were,\nthen should I be bound to tarry with my wife, and leave arms and\ntournaments, battles and adventures.\u201d\n\nIf allowance be made for the difference in topic and treatment between the\nArthurian romances and Guillaume de Lorris\u2019s portion of the _Roman de la\nrose_, the latter will be seen to illustrate similar love principles. De\nLorris\u2019s poem is fancy playing with thoughts of love which had inspired\nthese tales of chivalry. Every one knows its gentle idyllic\ncharacter;--how charming, for instance, is the conflict between the\nLover-to-be and Love, who quickly overcomes the ready yielder. So he\nsurrenders unconditionally, gives himself over; Love may slay him or\ngladden him--\u201cle cuers est vostre, non pas miens,\u201d says the lover to Love,\nand you shall do with it as you will. Then Love sweetly takes his little\ngolden key, and locks the lover\u2019s heart, after which he safely may impart\nhis rules and counsels: the lover must abjure _vilanie_, and foul and\nslanderous speech--the opposite of courtesy. Pride also (_orgoil_) must be\nabandoned. He should attire himself seemingly, and show cheerfulness; he\nmust be niggardly in nothing; his heart must be given utterly to one; he\nshall undergo toils and endure griefs without complaint; in absence he\nwill always think of the beloved, sighing for her, keeping his love\naflame; he will be shameful, confused and changing colour in her presence;\nat night he will toss and weep for love of her, and dream dreams of\npassionate delight; then wakeful, he will rise and wander near her\ndwelling, but will not be seen--nor will he forget to be generous to her\nwaiting-maid. All of this will make the lover pale and lean. To aid him to\nendure these agonies, will come Hope with her gentle healings, and\nFond-thought, and Sweet-speech of the beloved with a wise confidant, and\nSweet-sight of her dwelling, maybe of herself. The _Roman de la rose_ is\nfancy, and the Arthurian romances are fiction. In the one or the other,\nimagination may take the place of passion, and the contents of the poem or\nromance afford a type and presentation of the theory of love.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV\n\nPARZIVAL, THE BRAVE MAN SLOWLY WISE\n\n\nThe instances of romantic chivalry and courtly love reviewed in the last\nchapter exemplify ideals of conduct in some respects opposed to Christian\nethics. But there is still a famous poem of chivalry in which the romantic\nideal has gained in ethical consideration and achieved a hard-won\nagreement with the teachings of mediaeval Christianity, and yet has not\nbecome monkish or lost its knightly character. This poem told of a\nstruggle toward wisdom and toward peace; and the victory when won rested\nupon the broadest mediaeval thoughts of life, and therefore necessarily\nincluded the soul\u2019s reconcilement to the saving ways of God. Yet it was\nknighthood\u2019s battle, won on earth by strength of arm, by steadfast\ncourage, and by loyalty to whatsoever through the weary years the man\u2019s\nincreasing wisdom recognized as right. A monk, seeking salvation, casts\nhimself on God; the man that battles in the world is conscious that his\nown endeavour helps, and knows that God is ally to the valiant and not to\nhim who lets his hands drop--even in the lap of God.\n\nAmong the romances presumably having a remote Breton origin, and somehow\nconnected with the Court of Arthur, was the tale of Parzival, the princely\nyouth reared in foolish ignorance of life, who learned all knighthood\u2019s\nlessons in the end, and became a perfect worshipful knight. This tale was\ntold and retold. The adventures of another knight, Gawain, were interwoven\nin it. Possibly the French poet, Chr\u00e9tien de Troies, about the year 1170,\nin his retelling, first brought into the story the conception of that\n_thing_, that magic dish, which in the course of _its_ retellings became\nthe Holy Grail. Chr\u00e9tien did not finish his poem, and after him others\ncompleted or retold the story. Among them there was one who lacked the\nsmooth facility of the French Trouv\u00e8re, yet surpassed him and all others\nin thoughtfulness and dramatic power. This was the Bavarian, Wolfram von\nEschenbach. He was a knight, and wandered from castle to castle and from\ncourt to court, and saw men. His generous patron was Hermann, Landgraf of\nTh\u00fcringen, who held court on the Wartburg, near Eisenach. There Wolfram\nmay have composed his great poem in the opening years of the thirteenth\ncentury. He was no clerk, and had no clerkly education. Probably he could\nneither read nor write. But he lived during the best period of mediaeval\nGerman poetry, and the Wartburg was the centre of gay and literary life.\nWalther von der Vogelweide was one of Wolfram\u2019s familiars in its halls.\n\nWolfram knew and disapproved of Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s version of the _Perceval_; and\nsaid the story had been far better told by a certain Kyot, a singer of\nProvence.[722] Nothing is known of the latter beyond Wolfram\u2019s praise.\nPerhaps he was an invention of Wolfram\u2019s; not infrequently mediaeval poets\nreferred to fictitious sources. At all events, Wolfram\u2019s sources were\nFrench or Proven\u00e7al. In large measure the best German mediaeval poetry was\nan adaptation of the French; a fact which did not prevent the German\nadaptations from occasionally surpassing the French works they were drawn\nfrom. In the instance of Wolfram\u2019s _Parzival_, as in that of Gottfried von\nStrassburg\u2019s _Tristan_, the German poems were the great renderings of\nthese tales.\n\nAs our author was a thoughtful German, his style is difficult and\ninvolved. Yet he had imagination, and his poem is great in the climaxes\nof the story. It is a poem of the hero\u2019s development, his spiritual\nprogress. Apparently it was Wolfram who first realized the profound\nsignificance of the Parzival legend. Both the choice of subject and the\ncontents of the poem reflect his temperament and opinions. Wolfram was a\nknight, and chose a knightly tale; for him knightly victories were the\nnatural symbols of a man\u2019s progress. He was also one living in the world,\nprizing its gifts, and entertaining merely a perfunctory approval of\nascetic renunciation. The loyal love between man and woman was to him\nearth\u2019s greatest good, and wedlock did not yield to celibacy in\nrighteousness.[723] Let fame and power and the glory of this world be\nstriven for and won in loyalty and steadfastness and truth, in service of\nthose who need aid, in mercy to the vanquished and in humility before God,\nwith assurance that He is truth and loyalty and power, and never fails\nthose who obey and serve Him.\n\n    \u201cWhile two wills (_Zvifel_, _Zweifel_ == doubt) dwell near the heart,\n    the soul is bitter. Shamed and graced the man whose dauntless mood\n    is--piebald! In him both heaven and hell have part. Black-coloured the\n    unsteadfast comrade; white the man whose thoughts keep troth. False\n    comradeship is fit for hell fire. Likewise let women heed whither they\n    carry their honour, and on whom they bestow their love, that they may\n    not rue their troth. Before God, I counsel good women to observe right\n    measure. Their fortress is shame: I cannot wish them better weal. The\n    false one gains false reward; her praise vanishes. Wide is the fame of\n    many a fair; but if her heart be counterfeit, \u2019tis a false gem set in\n    gold. The woman true to womanhood, be hers the praise--not lessened by\n    her outside hue.\n\n    \u201cShall I now prove and draw a man and woman rightly? Hear then this\n    tale of love--joy and anguish too. My story tells of faithfulness, of\n    woman\u2019s truth to womanhood, of man\u2019s to manhood, never flinching.\n    Steel was he; in strife his conquering hand still took the guerdon;\n    he, brave and slowly wise, this hero whom I greet, sweet in the eyes\n    of women, heart\u2019s malady for them as well, himself a very flight from\n    evil deed.\u201d\n\nSuch is Wolfram\u2019s Prologue. The story opens in a forest, where Queen\nHerzeloide had buried herself with her infant son after the death in\nknightly battle of Prince Gahmuret, her husband. The broken-hearted,\nfoolish mother is seeking to keep her boy in ignorance of arms and\nknights. He has made himself a bow; he shoots a bird--its song is hushed.\nThis is the child\u2019s first sorrow, and childish ignorance has been the\ncause; as afterwards youth\u2019s folly and then man\u2019s lack of wisdom will\ncause that child, grown large, more lasting anguish. Now to see a bird\nmakes his tears start. His still foolish mother orders her servants to\nkill them. The boy protests, and the mother with a quick caress declares\nthe birds shall have peace, she will no more infringe God\u2019s commands. At\nthis unknown name the boy cries out, \u201cO mother! what is God?\u201d \u201cSon, I will\ntell thee. Brighter than the day is He--who put on a human face. Pray to\nHim in need; His faithfulness helps men ever. There is another, hell\u2019s\nchief, black and false. Keep thy thoughts from him and from doubt\u2019s\nwaverings.\u201d Away springs the boy again; and in the forest he learns to\nthrow the hunting-spear and slay the stags. One day he hears the sounds of\nhoofs. He waves his spear: \u201cMay now the devil come in all his rage; I\u2019d\nstand against him. My mother speaks of him in dread; but she is just\nafraid.\u201d Three knights gallop up in glancing armour. He thinks each is a\ngod; falls on his knees before them. \u201cHelp, god, since thou canst help so\nwell!\u201d \u201cThis fool blocks our path,\u201d cries one. A fourth, their lord, rides\nup, and the boy calls him God.\n\n\u201cGod?--not I; I gladly do His behests. Thou seest four knights.\u201d\n\n\u201cKnights? what is that? If thou hast not God\u2019s power, then tell me, who\nmakes knights?\u201d\n\n\u201cYoung sir, that does King Arthur; go to him. He\u2019ll knight you--you seem\nto knighthood born.\u201d\n\nThe knights gazed on the boy, in whom God\u2019s craft showed clear. The boy\ntouches their armour, their swords. The prince speaks over him: \u201cHad I thy\nbeauty! God\u2019s gifts to thee are great--if thou wilt wisely fare. May He\nkeep sorrow from thee!\u201d The knights rode on, while the boy sped to his\nmother, to tell her what he had seen. She was speechless. The boy would go\nto Arthur\u2019s Court. So she bethought her of a silly plan, to put fool\u2019s\ngarb on him, that insult and scoff might drive him back to her. She also\ngave him counsel, wise and foolish.\n\nSo the youth is launched. He rides away; his mother dies of grief. As his\npath winds on, he finds a lady asleep in a pavilion, and following his\nmother\u2019s counsel he kisses her, and takes her ring by force; trouble came\nfrom this deed of folly. Then he meets with Sigune, mourning a dead\nknight. He stops and promises to avenge her. She was his cousin and,\nrecognizing him, called him by name, and spoke to him of his lineage. Then\nthe youth is piloted by a fisherman, till, in the neighbourhood of\nArthur\u2019s Court, he meets a knight, Ither, in red armour, who greets him,\npoints out the way, and sends a challenge to Arthur and his Round Table.\nParzival now finds himself at Arthur\u2019s thronging Court. The young Iwein\nfirst speaks to him and the fool-youth returns: \u201cGod keep thee--so my\nmother bade me say. Here I see so many Arthurs; who is it that will make\nme knight?\u201d Iwein, laughing, leads him to the royal pavilion, where he\nsays: \u201cGod keep you, gentles, especially the king and his wife--as my\nmother bade me greet--and all the honoured knights of the Round Table. But\nI cannot tell which one here is lord. To him a red knight sends a\nchallenge; I think he wants to fight. O! might the king\u2019s hand grant me\nthe Red Knight\u2019s harness!\u201d They crowd around the glorious youth. \u201cThanks,\nyoung sir, for your greeting which I shall hope to earn,\u201d said the king.\n\n\u201cWould to God!\u201d cried the young man, quivering with impatience; \u201cthe time\nseems years before I shall be knight. Give me knighthood now.\u201d\n\n\u201cGladly,\u201d returns the king. \u201cMight I grant it to you worthily. Wait till\nto-morrow that I may knight you duly and with gifts.\u201d\n\n\u201cI want no gifts--only that knight\u2019s armour. My mother can give me gifts;\nshe is a queen.\u201d\n\nArthur feared to send the raw youth against the noble Ither, but yielded\nto the malignant spurring of Sir Kay, and Parzival rode out with his\nunknightly hunting-spear. Abruptly he bade Ither give him his horse and\narmour, and on the knight\u2019s sarcastic answer, grasped his horse\u2019s bridle.\nThe angry Ither reversed his lance, and with the butt end struck down\nParzival and his sorry nag. Parzival sprang to his feet and threw his\nspear straight through the visor of the other\u2019s helmet; and the knight\nfell from his horse, dead. With brutal stupidity Parzival tried to pull\nhis armour off, not knowing how to unlace it. Iwein came and showed him\nhow to remove and wear the armour, and how to carry his shield and lance.\nSo clad in Ither\u2019s armour and mounted on the great war-horse, he bids\nIwein commend him to King Arthur, and rides off, leaving the other to care\nfor the body of the dead knight.\n\nIn the evening he reached the castle of an aged prince, who saw the\nmarvellous youth come riding, with the fool garments showing out from\nunder his armour. Courteously received, the youth enjoyed a bath, a\nrepast, and a long night\u2019s sleep. Fortunately his mother had bade him\nfollow the counsels of grey hairs; so in the morning he put on the\ngarments which his host had left in his room for him, instead of what his\nmother gave. The host first heard mass with his simple guest, and\ninstructed him as to its significance, and how to cross himself and guard\nagainst the devil\u2019s wiles. Then they breakfasted, and the old man, having\nheard Parzival\u2019s story, advised him to leave off saying \u201cMy mother bade\nme,\u201d and gave him further counsel: \u201cPreserve thy shame; the shameless man\nis worthless, and at last, wins hell. You seem a mighty lord, mind you\ntake pity on those in need; be kind and generous and humble. The worthy\nman in need is shamed to beg; anticipate his wants; this brings God\u2019s\nfavour. Yet be prudent, neither lavish nor miserly; right measure be your\nrule. Sorely you need counsel; avoid harsh conduct, do not ask too many\nquestions, nor yet refuse to answer a question fitly asked; observe and\nlisten. Let mercy temper valour. Spare him who yields, whatever wrong he\nhas done you. When you lay off your armour, wash your hands and face; make\nyourself neat; woman\u2019s eye will mark it. Be manly and gay. Hold women in\nrespect and love; this increases a young man\u2019s honour. Be constant--that\nis manhood\u2019s part. Short his praise who betrays honest love. The\nnight-thief wakes many foes; against treachery true love has its own\nwisdom and resource. Gain its disfavour and your lot is shame.\u201d\n\nThe guest thanked the host for his counsel. He spoke no more of his mother\nsave in his heart. Then his host, remarking that he had seen many a shield\nhang better on a wall than Parzival\u2019s on him, took him out into a field;\nand there in the company of other knights he instructed him in jousting,\nand found him a ready and resistless pupil. The old man looked fondly on\nhim--his daughter Liasse--she is fair--would not Parzival think so, and\nstay as a son in the now sonless house? Fair and chaste was the damsel,\nbut Parzival says: \u201cMy lord, I am not wise. If I gain knighthood\u2019s praise\nso that I may look for love--then keep Liasse for me. You shall have less\nweight of grief if I can lighten it.\u201d\n\nParzival\u2019s first experience of life and the old man\u2019s counsels had changed\nhim. He was no longer the callow boy who a few days before in the forest\ntook the knights for gods, but a young man conscious of his inexperience\nand lack of wisdom. Perhaps the change seems sudden; but the subtle\ndevelopment of character had not yet found literary expression in the\nMiddle Ages, and Wolfram here is a great pioneer.\n\nSo the young knight rode away, carrying secret thoughts of the maiden, and\na little pain, his heart lightly touched with love, and so made ready for\na mightier passion. His horse carried him on through woods and savage\nmountains, to the kingdom whose capital, Pelrapeire, was besieged, because\nit held its queen, Condwiramurs (_coin de voire amors_). Within the town\nwere famine and death, without, a knightly, cruel foe, King Clamide, who\nfought to win the queen by sack and ruin. Crossing a field and bridge\nwhere many a knight had fallen, Parzival reached a gate and knocked. A\nmaid called out, and finding that he brought aid and not enmity, she\nadmitted him. Armed men weak with hunger fill the streets, through which\nthe maid leads the knight on to the palace. His armour is removed, a\nmantle brought him. \u201cWill he see the queen, our lady?\u201d ask the attendants.\n\u201cGladly,\u201d answers Parzival. They enter the great hall--and the queen\u2019s\nfair eyes greet him. She advances surrounded by her ladies. With courtesy\nshe kisses the knight, gives him her hand, and leads him to a seat. The\nfaces of her warriors and women are sad and worn; but she--had she\ncontended with Enit and both Iseults fair, and whomsoever else men praise\nfor beauty, hers had been the prize.\n\nThe guest mused: \u201cLiasse was there--Liasse is here; God slacks my grief,\nhere is Liasse.\u201d He sat silent by the queen, mindful of the old prince\u2019s\nadvice not to ask questions. \u201cDoes this man despise me,\u201d thought she,\n\u201cbecause I am no longer lovely? No, he is the guest, the hostess I; it is\nfor me to speak.\u201d Then aloud: \u201cSir, a hostess must speak. Your greeting\nwon a kiss from me; you offered me your service--so said my maid. Rare\noffer now! Sir, whence come you?\u201d\n\n\u201cLady, I rode this very day from the house of the good, well-remembered\nhost, Prince Gurnemanz.\u201d\n\n\u201cSir, I had hardly believed this from another; the way is so long. His\nsister was my mother. Many a sad day have I and his Liasse wept together.\nSince you bear kindness for that prince, I will tell you our grievous\nplight.\u201d\n\nThe telling is deferred till some refreshment is obtained, and then\nParzival is shown to his chamber. He sleeps; but the sound of sobbing\nbreaks his slumber. The hapless queen in her need had sought out her guest\nin the solitude of night; she had cast herself on her knees by his couch;\nher tears fall--on him, and he awakes. Touched with love and pity at the\nsight, Parzival sprang up. \u201cLady! you mock me? You should kneel to God.\u201d\nIn honour they sit by each other, and the queen tells her story, how King\nClamide and his seneschal have wasted her lands, unhappy orphan, slain her\npeople, even her knightly defender, Liasse\u2019s brother--she will die rather\nthan yield herself to him.\n\nLiasse\u2019s name stirs Parzival: \u201cHow can I help you?\u201d\n\n\u201cSave me from that seneschal, who harries me and mine.\u201d\n\nParzival promises, and the queen steals away. The day is breaking, and\nParzival hears the minster bells. Mass is sung, and the young knight arms\nand goes forth--the burghers\u2019 prayers go with him--against the host led by\nthe seneschal. Parzival vanquishes him, grants him his life, and sends him\nto Arthur\u2019s Court. The townsmen receive the victor with acclaim, the\nqueen embraces him. Who but he shall be her lord? So their nuptials were\ncelebrated, although Parzival felt the reward to be too great; it were\nenough for him to touch her garment\u2019s hem. Soon King Clamide himself\nordered an assault upon the town, only to meet repulse. He challenged\nParzival, and, vanquished like his seneschal, was likewise sent to\nArthur\u2019s Court.\n\nLove was strong between Queen Condwiramurs and Parzival her husband. One\nmorning Parzival spoke to her in the presence of their people: \u201cLady,\nplease you, with your permission, I would see how my mother fares and seek\nadventures. If thus I serve and honour you, your love is ample guerdon.\u201d\n\nFrom his wife and from all those who called him Lord, Parzival rode forth\nalone. He has to learn what pain and sorrow are; the first teaching came\nnow, as longing for his wife filled his heart with grief. In the evening\nhe reached the shore of a lake, and saw a fisher in a boat, attired like a\nking.[724] The fisher directed him to a castle, promising there to be his\nhost. Following his directions, Parzival came to a marvellously great\ncastle, where, on saying that the fisher sent him, he was courteously\nreceived and his needs attended to. Sadness pervaded the great halls. The\nbanquet-room, to which he was shown, was lighted by a hundred chandeliers,\nand around the walls were ranged a hundred couches. The host entered and\nlay down on one of them, made like a stretcher; he seemed a stranger to\njoy. They covered him with furs and mantles, as a sick man. He beckoned\nParzival to sit by him. As the hall filled with people, a squire entered\ncarrying a bleeding lance, whereupon all present made lament. A procession\nof nobly clad ladies followed, bearing precious dishes, and at last among\nthem a queen, Repanse de Schoye. She bore, upon a silken cushion, the\nfulness of all good, an object called the Grail. Only a maiden pure and\ntrue might carry it. There also came six other maids bearing each a\nflashing goblet; and they set their burdens before the host. Water for the\nhands was then brought to the host and to his guest, and to the knights\nranged on the couches; and tables were placed before them all. A hundred\nsquires came and reverently took from the Grail all manner of food and\nwine, which they set before the knights, whatever each might wish.\nEverything came from the power of the Grail.\n\nParzival wondered, but kept silence, thinking of the old prince\u2019s counsel\nnot to ask many questions, and hoping to be told what all this might be. A\nsquire brought a sword to the host, who gave it to the guest: \u201cI bore this\nsword in all need, until God wounded me. Take it as amends for our sad\nhospitality. Rely on it in battle.\u201d\n\nThe gift of the sword was Parzival\u2019s opportunity to ask his host what had\nstricken him. He let it pass. The feast was solemnly removed. \u201cYour bed is\nready, whenever you will rest,\u201d said the host; and Parzival was shown to a\nbedchamber, where he was left alone. But the knight did not sleep\nuncompanioned. Coming sorrow sent her messengers. Dreams overhung him, as\na tapestry, woven of sword-strokes and deadly thrusts of lance. He was\nfighting dark, endless, battles for his life, till sweating in every limb\nhe woke. Day shone through the window. \u201cWhere are the knaves to fetch my\nclothes?\u201d He heard no sound. He sprang up. His armour lay there, and the\ntwo swords--the one which he took from Ither and the one given him by his\nhost. Thought he: \u201cI have suffered such pain in my sleep, there must be\nhard work for me to-day. Is mine host in need, I will gladly aid him and\nher too, Repanse, who gave me this mantle; yet I would not serve her for\nher love; my own wife is as beautiful.\u201d\n\nParzival passed through the castle\u2019s empty halls, calling aloud in anger.\nHe saw no one, heard no sound. In the courtyard he found his horse, and\nflung himself into the saddle. He rode through the open castle-gate, over\nthe draw-bridge, which an unseen hand drew up before his horse\u2019s hoofs had\nfairly cleared it. He looked behind him in surprise. A squire cursed him:\n\u201cMay the sun scorch you! Had you just used your mouth to ask a question of\nyour host! You missed it, goose!\u201d Parzival called for explanation, but the\ngates were swung to in his face. His joy was gone, his pain begun. By\nchance throw of the dice he had found and lost the Grail. He sees the\nground torn as by the hoofs of knights riding hard. \u201cThese,\u201d thought he,\n\u201cfight to-day for my host\u2019s honour. Their band would not have been shamed\nby me. I would not fail them in their need--so might I earn the bread I\nate and this sword which their lord gave me. I carry it unearned. They\nthink I am a coward.\u201d\n\nHe followed the hoof tracks; they led him on a way, then scattered and\ngrew faint. The day was young. Under a linden sat a lady, holding the body\nof a knight embalmed. What earthly troth compared with hers? He turned his\nhorse to her: \u201cLady, your sorrow grieves my heart. Would my service avail\nyou?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhence come you? Many a man has found death in this wood. Flee, as you\nlove your life; but, say, where did you spend the night?\u201d\n\n\u201cIn a castle not a league from here.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo not deceive. You carry stranger shield. There is no house in thirty\nleagues, save one castle high and great. Those who seek it, find it not.\nIt is only found unsought. Munsalvaesch its name. The ancient Titurel\nbequeathed it to his son Frimutel, a hero; but in the jousts he won his\ndeath from love. Of his children, one is a hermit, Trevrizent; another,\nAnfortas, is the castle\u2019s lord, and can neither ride nor walk, nor sit nor\nlie. But, sir, if you were there, may be that he is healed of his long\npain.\u201d\n\n\u201cMany marvels saw I there,\u201d he answered.\n\nShe recognized the voice: \u201cYou are Parzival. Say, then, saw you the Grail\nand the joyless lord? If his pain is stilled through you, then hail! far\nas the wind blows spreads your glory, your dominion too.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow did you know me?\u201d said Parzival.\n\n\u201cI am the maid who once before told you her grief, your kinswoman, who\nmourns her lover slain.\u201d\n\n\u201cAlas! where are thy red lips? Art thou Sigune who told me who I was?\nWhere is fled thy long brown hair, thy loveliness and colour?\u201d\n\nSigune spoke: \u201cMy only consolation were to hear that you have helped the\nhelpless man whose sword you bear. Know you its gifts? The first stroke it\nstrikes well, at the second, breaks; a word is needed that the sword may\nmake its bearer peerless. Do you know this word? If so, none can withstand\nyou--have you asked the question?\u201d\n\n\u201cI asked nothing.\u201d\n\n\u201cWoe is me that mine eyes have seen you! You asked no question! You saw\nsuch wonders there--the Grail, the noble ladies, the bloody spear.\nWretched, accursed man, what would you have from me? Yours the false\nwolf-tooth! You should have taken pity on your host, and asked his\nail--then God had worked a miracle on him. You live, but dead to\nhappiness.\u201d\n\n\u201cDear cousin, speak me fair. I will atone for any ill.\u201d\n\n\u201cAtone? nay, leave that! At Munsalvaesch your honour and your knightly\npraise vanished. You get no more from me.\u201d\n\nParzival\u2019s fault was not accident; it sprang from what he was--unwise. He\ncould atone only through becoming wise through the endurance of years of\ntrial. The unhappy knight rode on, loosing his helmet to breathe more\nfreely. Soon he chanced to overtake the lady Jesute, travelling on a mean\nhorse in wretched guise, her garments torn, her face disfigured. He\noffered aid, and she, recognizing him, said with tears that her sorrows\nall were due to him; she was the lady whose girdle and ring his fool\u2019s\nhand had taken, and now her husband Orilus treated her as a woman of\nshame. Here the proud duke himself came thundering up, to see what knight\ndared aid his cast-off wife. Parzival conquered him after a long combat;\nand the three went to a hermitage where the victor made oath that it was\nhe who took by force the ring and girdle from the blameless lady.\nReturning the ring to Orilus, he sent him with his lady, reconciled and\nhappy, to Arthur\u2019s Court. Thus Parzival\u2019s knighthood made amends for his\nfirst foolish act. He found a strong lance in the hermitage, took it, and\ndeparted.\n\nWhen Orilus and his lady had been received with honour at Arthur\u2019s Court,\nthe king with all his knights set forth towards Munsalvaesch to find the\nmighty man calling himself the Red Knight, who had sent so many conquered\npledges of his prowess; for he wished to make him a knight of the Round\nTable. It was winter. Parzival--the Red Knight--came riding from the\nopposite direction. As he drew near the encampment of the king, his eye\nlighted on three drops of blood showing clear red in the fresh-fallen\nsnow; in mid air above, a wild goose had been struck by a falcon. The\nknight paused in reverie--red and white--the colours carried his thoughts\nto his heart\u2019s queen, Condwiramurs. There he sat, as a statue on his\nhorse, with poised spear; his thoughts had flown to her whose image now\nclosed his eyes to all else. A lad spied the great knight, and ran\nbreathless to Arthur, to tell of the stranger who seemed to challenge all\nthe Round Table. Segramors gained Arthur\u2019s permission to accost him. Out\nhe rode with ready challenge; Parzival neither saw nor heard, till his\nhorse swerved at the knight\u2019s approach, so that he saw the drops no\nlonger. Then his mighty lance fell in rest, Segramors was hurled to the\nground, and took himself back discomfited, while Parzival returned to gaze\non the drops of blood, lost in reverie as before. Now Kay the quarrelsome\nrode out, and roused the hero with a rude blow. The joust is run again,\nand Kay crawls back with broken leg and arm. Again Parzival loses himself\nin reverie. And now courtly Gawain, best of Arthur\u2019s knights, rides forth,\nunarmed. Courteously he addresses Parzival, who hears nothing, and sits\nmoveless. Gawain bethinks him it is love that binds the knight. Seeing\nthat Parzival is gazing on three drops of blood, he gently covers them\nwith a silken cloth. Parzival\u2019s wits return; he moans: \u201cAlas, lady wife of\nmine, what comes between us? A cloud has hidden thee.\u201d Then, astonished,\nhe sees Gawain--a knight without lance or shield--does he come to mock?\nWith noble courtesy Gawain disclosed himself and led the way to Arthur\u2019s\nCourt, where fair ladies and the king greeted the hero whom they had come\nto seek. A festival was ordained in his honour. The fair company of\nknights and ladies are seated about the Round Table; the feast is at its\nheight, when suddenly upon a gigantic mule, a scourge in her rough hand,\ncomes riding the seeress Cundrie, harsh and unlovely. Straight she\naddresses Arthur: \u201cSon of King Uterpendragon, you have shamed yourself and\nthis high company, receiving Parzival, whom you call the Red Knight.\u201d She\nturns on Parzival: \u201cDisgrace fall on your proud form and strength! Sir\nParzival, tell me, how came it that you met that joyless fisher, and did\nnot help him? He showed you his pain, and you, false guest, had no pity\nfor him. Abhorred by all good men, marked for hell by heaven\u2019s Highest,\nyou ban of happiness and curse of joy! No leech can heal your sickened\nhonour. Greater betrayal never shamed a man so goodly. Your host gave you\na sword; you saw them bear the Grail, the silver dishes, and the bloody\nspear, and you, dishonoured Parzival, were silent. You failed to win\nearth\u2019s chiefest prize; your father had not done so--are you his son? Yes,\nfor Herzeloide was as true as he. Woe\u2019s me, that Herzeloide\u2019s child has so\nlet honour slip!\u201d Cundrie wrung her hands; her tears fell fast; she turned\nher mule and cried: \u201cWoe, woe to thee Munsalvaesch, mount of pain; here is\nno aid for thee!\u201d And bidding none farewell, she rode away, leaving\nParzival to his shame, the knights to their astonishment, the ladies to\ntheir tears.\n\nCundrie was hardly out of sight, before another shame was put on the Round\nTable. An armed knight rode in, and, accusing Gawain of murdering his king\nand cousin, summoned him to mortal combat within forty days before the\nKing of Askalon. Arthur himself was ready to do battle for Gawain, but\nthat good knight accepted the challenge with all courtesy.\n\nParzival\u2019s lineage was first known to the Court from Cundrie\u2019s calling him\nby name and speaking of his mother. Now Clamide, once Condwiramurs\u2019s cruel\nwooer, begged the hero to intercede for him with another fair one, the\nlady Cunneware. Parzival courteously complied. A heathen queen then\nsaluted him with the news that he had a great heathen half-brother,\nFeirefiz, the son of Parzival\u2019s father by a heathen queen. Thanking her,\nParzival spoke to the company: \u201cI cannot endure Cundrie\u2019s reproach;--what\nknight here does not look askance? I will seek no joy until I find the\nGrail, be the quest short or long. The worthy Gurnemanz bade me refrain\nfrom questions. Honoured knights, your favour is for me to win again, for\nI have lost it. Me yet unshamed you took into your company; I release you.\nLet sorrow be my comrade; for I forsook my happiness on Munsalvaesch. Ah!\nhelpless Anfortas! You had small help from me.\u201d\n\nKnights and ladies were grieved to see the hero depart in such sorrow, and\nmany a knight\u2019s service was offered him. The lady Cunneware took his hand;\nLord Gawain kissed him and said: \u201cI know thy way is full of strife; God\ngrant to thee good fortune, and to me the chance to serve thee.\u201d\n\n\u201cAh! what is God?\u201d answered Parzival. \u201cWere He strong He would not have\nput such shame on me and you. I was His subject from the hour I learned to\nask His favour. Now I renounce His service. If He hates me, I will bear\nit. Friend, in thine hour of strife let the love of a woman pure and true\nstrengthen thy hand. I know not when I shall see thee again; may my good\nwishes towards thee be fulfilled.\u201d\n\nThe hero\u2019s arms are brought; his horse is saddled; his grievous toil\nbegins.\n\nWhy should long sorrow come to Parzival for not asking a question, when\nhis omission was caused neither by brutality nor ill will? when, on the\ncontrary, he would gladly have served his host? The relation between his\nconduct and his fortune seems lame. Yet in life as well as in literature,\nignorance and error bring punishment. Moreover, to mediaeval romance not\nonly is there a background of sorcery and magic, but active elements of\nmagic survive in the tales.[725] And nothing is more fraught with magic\nimport and result than question and answer. Wolfram did not treat as\nmagical the effect upon his hero\u2019s lot of his failure to ask the question;\nbut he retained the palpably magic import of the act as affecting the sick\nAnfortas. It was hard that the omission should have brought Parzival to\nsorrow and despair; yet the fault was part of himself, and the man so\nignorant and unwise was sure to incur calamity, and also gain sorrow\u2019s\nlessons if he was capable of learning. So the sequence becomes ethical:\nfrom error, calamity; from calamity, grief; and from grief, wisdom. With\nWolfram, Parzival\u2019s fault was Parzival; failure to ask the question was a\nsymbol of his lack of wisdom. The poet was of his time; and mediaeval\nthought tended to symbolism, and to move, as it were, from symbol to\nsymbol, and from symbolical significance to related symbolical\nsignificance, and indeed often to treat a symbol as if it were the fact\nwhich was symbolized.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt this point Wolfram\u2019s poem devotes some cantos to the lighter-hearted\nadventures of Gawain. This valiant, courtly, loyal knight and his\nadventures are throughout a foil to the heavier lot and character of\nParzival. But when Gawain has had his due, the poet is glad to return to\nhis rightful hero. Parzival has ridden through many lands; he has sailed\nmany seas; before his lance no knight has kept his seat; his praise and\nfame are spread afar. Though he has never been overthrown, the sword given\nhim by Anfortas broke; but with magic water Parzival welded it again. In a\nforest one day he rode up to a hut, where Sigune was living as a recluse,\nfeeding her soul with thoughts of her dead lover, barring all fancies that\nmight disunite her from the dead whom she still held as her husband.\nParzival recognized her, and she him, when he removed his helm: \u201cYou are\nSir Parzival--tell me, how is it with the Grail?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt has given me sorrow enough; I left a land where I was king, a loving\nwife, fairest of women; I suffer anguish for her love, and more because of\nthat high goal of Munsalvaesch which is not reached. Cousin Sigune,\nknowing my sorrow, you do wrong to hate me.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy wrath is spent. You have lost joy enough since that time you failed to\nquestion Anfortas, your host--your happiness as well. Then that question\nwould have blessed you; now joy is denied you; your high mood halts; your\nheart is tamed by sorrow, which had stayed a stranger to it had you asked\nthe question.\u201d\n\n\u201cI acted as a luckless man. Dear cousin, counsel me--but, say, how is it\nwith you? I should bemoan your grief were not my own greater than man ever\nbore.\u201d\n\n\u201cLet His hand help you who knows all sorrow. A path might bring you yet to\nMunsalvaesch. Cundrie but now rode hence--follow her track.\u201d\n\nParzival started to follow the track of Cundrie\u2019s mule, which soon was\nlost, and with it the Grail was lost again. Without guidance he rode on.\nHe overthrew a Grail knight, and took his horse, his own having been\nwounded in the combat. How long he rode I know not, says the poet. One\nfrosty morning he met an aged knight unhelmeted, and walking barefoot with\nhis wife and daughters. The knight reproved him for riding armed on that\nholy day.\n\nParzival answered: \u201cI do not know the time of year; it is long since I\nkept count of days. Once I served Him who is called God--until He graced\nme with His mockery. He helps, men say. I have not found it so.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf you mean God who was born of a virgin,\u201d replied the old knight, \u201cand\nbelieve that He took man\u2019s nature, you do wrong to ride in armour; for\nthis is the day when He hung on the Cross for us. Sir, not far from here\ndwells a holy man, who will give you counsel; you may repent and be\nabsolved from your sins.\u201d\n\nParzival courteously took his leave. He had regarded his failure to ask\nthat question as a luckless error, had felt that God was unjust to him,\nand had also doubted His power to aid. Now came wavering thoughts: \u201cWhat\nif God might help my pain? If He ever favoured a knight, or if sword and\nshield might win His favour--if to-day is His day of help, let Him help me\nif He can. If God\u2019s craft can show the way to man and horse, I\u2019ll honour\nHim. Go then according to God\u2019s choosing.\u201d\n\nHe flung the bridle on his horse\u2019s neck, spurring him forward; and the\nhorse carried him straight to the hermitage of holy Trevrizent, who fasted\nthere to fit himself for heaven, his chastity warring with the devil.\nParzival recognized the place where he had sworn the oath to Orilus, to\nclear Jesute\u2019s honour. The hermit, seeing him, exclaimed: \u201cAlas! sir, that\nyou ride equipped in this holy season. Were you sore pressed? Another garb\nwere fitter, did your pride permit. Come by the fire. If you follow love\u2019s\nadventure, think of that afterward, and this day seek the love which this\nday gives.\u201d\n\nDismounting, Parzival stood respectfully before the hermit: \u201cSir, advise\nme; I am a man of sin.\u201d\n\nHis host promised counsel and asked how he came there. Parzival told of\nmeeting the old knight, and inquired whether his host felt no fear at\nseeing him ride up. \u201cBelieve me, no,\u201d answered the hermit; \u201cI fear no man.\nI would not boast, but in my day my heart never quailed in the fight. I\nwas a knight as you are, and had many sinful thoughts.\u201d\n\nHaving placed the horse in shelter beneath a cliff, the hermit led the\nknight into his cell. There was a fire of coals, before which Parzival was\nglad to warm himself and exchange his steel armour for a cloak; he seemed\nforest-weary. A door opened to an inner cell, where stood an altar,\nbearing the very reliquary on which Parzival had laid his hand in making\noath. He told his host of this, and of the lance which he had found there\nand taken. \u201cA friend of mine left it there, and chided with me afterwards.\nIt is four years, six months, and three days since you took that spear; I\nwill prove it to you from this Psalter.\u201d\n\n\u201cI did not know how long I had journeyed, lost and unhappy. I carry\nsorrow\u2019s weight. Sir, I will tell you more: from that time no man has seen\nme in church or minster, where they honour God. I have sought battles\nonly. I also bear a hate for God. He is my trouble\u2019s sponsor: had He borne\naid, my joy had not been buried living! My heart is sore. In reward of my\nmany fights, sorrow has set on me a crown--of thorns. I bear a grudge\nagainst that Lord of aid, that me alone He helps not.\u201d\n\nThe host sighed, and looked at him; then spoke: \u201cSir, be wise. You should\ntrust God well. He will help you, it is His office; He must help us both.\nTell me with sober wits, how did your anger against Him arise? Learn from\nme His guiltlessness before you accuse Him. His aid is never withheld.\nEven I, a layman, can read the meaning of those unlying books; man must\ncontinue steadfast in service of Him who never wearies in His steady aid\nto sinking souls. Keep troth, for God is troth. Deceit is hateful to Him.\nWe should be grateful; in our behalf His nobility took on the form of man.\nGod is called, and is, truth. He can turn from no one; teach your thoughts\nnever to turn from Him. You can force nothing from Him with your wrath.\nWhoever sees you carry hate toward Him will deem you sick of wit. Think of\nLucifer and all his comrades. Hell was their reward. When Lucifer and his\nhost had taken their hell-journey, a man was made. God made from clay the\nworthy Adam. From Adam\u2019s flesh He took Eve, who brought us calamity when\nshe listened not to her Creator, and destroyed our joy. Two sons were born\nto them. One of these in envious anger destroyed his grandmother\u2019s\nmaidenhood, by sin.\u201d\n\n\u201cSir, how could that be?\u201d\n\n\u201cThe earth was Adam\u2019s mother, and was a maiden. Adam was Cain\u2019s father,\nwho slew Abel; and the blood fell on the pure earth; its maidenhood was\nsped. Thence arose hate among men--and still endures. Nothing in the world\nis as pure as an innocent maid; God was himself a maiden\u2019s child, and took\nthe image of the first maid\u2019s fruit. With Adam\u2019s seed came sorrow and joy;\nthrough him our lineage is from God, but through him, too, we carry sin,\nfor which God took man\u2019s image, and so suffered, battling with troth\nagainst untroth. Turn to Him if you would not be lost. Plato, Sibyl the\nprophetess, foretold Him. With divine love His mighty hand plucked us from\nhell. The joyful news they tell of Him the True Lover is this: He is\nradiant light, and wavers not in His love. Men may have either His love or\nhate. The unrepentant sinner flees the divine faithfulness; he who does\npenance wins His clemency. God penetrates thought, which is hidden to the\nsun\u2019s rays and needs no castle\u2019s ward. Yet God\u2019s light passes its dark\nwall, comes stealing in, and noiselessly departs. No thought so quick but\nHe discovers it before it leaves the heart. The pure in heart He chooses.\nWoe to the man who harbours evil. What help is there in human craft for\nhim whose deeds put God to shame? You are lost if you act in His despite,\nwho is prepared for either love or hate. Now change your heart; with\ngoodness earn His thanks.\u201d\n\n\u201cSir,\u201d says Parzival, \u201cI am glad to be taught by you of Him who does not\nfail to reward both crime and virtue. With pain and struggle I have so\nborne my young life to this day that through keeping troth I have got\nsorrow.\u201d\n\nParzival still feels his innocence; perhaps the host is not so sure:\n\u201cPrithee, be open with me. I would gladly hear your troubles and your\nsins. May be I can advise you.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Grail is my chief woe and then my wife--she is beyond compare. For\nboth of these I yearn.\u201d\n\n\u201cSir, you say well. Your grief is righteous if its cause is yearning for\nyour wife. If you were cast to hell for other sins, but loyal to your\nwife, God\u2019s hand would lift you out. As for the Grail, you foolish man,\npursuit will never win it. \u2019Tis for him only who is named in heaven. I can\nsay; for I have seen it.\u201d\n\n\u201cSir, were you there?\u201d\n\n\u201cI was.\u201d\n\nParzival did not say that he had been there too; but asked about the\nGrail. His host then told him of the valiant Templars who dwelt on\nMunsalvaesch, and rode thence on adventures as penance for their sins.\n\u201cThey are nourished by a Stone of marvellous virtue; no sick man seeing it\ncould die that week; it gives youth and strength, and is called the Grail.\nTo-day, as on every Good Friday, a dove flies from heaven and lays a wafer\non the Grail, from which the Grail receives its share of every food and\nevery good the earth or Paradise affords. The name of whosoever is chosen\nfor the Grail, be it boy or girl, appears inscribed upon it, suddenly, and\nwhen read disappears. They come as children; glad the mother whose child\nis named; for taken to that company, it will be held from sin and shame,\nand be received in heaven when this life is past. Further, all those who\ntook neither side in the war between Lucifer and the Trinity, were cast\nout of heaven to earth, and here must serve the Grail.\u201d\n\nParzival spoke: \u201cIf knighthood might with shield and spear win earth\u2019s\nprize and Paradise for the soul--why I have fought wherever I found fight;\noften my hand has touched the prize. If God is wise in conflicts, He\nshould name me, that those people there may learn to know me. My hand\nnever drew back.\u201d\n\n\u201cFirst you must guard against pride, and practise modesty.\u201d The old man\npaused and then continued: \u201cThere was a Grail king named Anfortas. You and\nI should pity his sad lot which befell him through pride in youth and\nriches; he loved in the world\u2019s light way--that also goes not with the\nGrail. There came once to the castle one unnamed, a simple man; he went\naway, his sins upon his head; he never asked the host what ailed him.\nBefore that time a prince, Lahelein, approached and fought with a Grail\nknight, and slew him and took his horse. Sir, are you Lahelein? you rode a\nGrail steed hither. I know his trappings well, and the dove\u2019s crest which\nAnfortas gave his knights. The old Titurel also wore that crest, and after\nhim his son Frimutel, till he lost his life. Sir, you resemble him. Who\nare you?\u201d\n\nEach looked on the other. Parzival spoke: \u201cMy father was a knight. He lost\nhis life in combat; sir, include him in your prayers. His name was\nGamuhret. I am not Lahelein; yet in my folly once I too robbed the dead.\nMy sinful hand slew Ither. I left him dead upon the sward--and took what\nwas to take.\u201d\n\n\u201cO world! alas for thee! heart\u2019s sorrow is thy pay!\u201d the hermit cried. \u201cMy\nnephew, it was your own flesh and blood you slew; a deed which with God\nmerits death. Ither, the pattern of all knights--how can you atone? My\nsister too, your mother Herzeloide, you brought her to her death.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh no! good sir, how say you that? If I am your sister\u2019s child, oh tell\nme all.\u201d\n\n\u201cYour mother died when you left her. My other sister was Sigune\u2019s mother;\nour brother is Anfortas, who long has been the Grail\u2019s sad lord. We early\nlost our father, Frimutel; from him Anfortas, his first-born, inherited\nthe Grail crown, when still a child. As he grew a man, all too eagerly he\nfollowed the service set by love of woman, chose him a mistress and broke\nmany a spear for her. He disobeyed the Grail, which forbids its lords\nlove\u2019s service, save as it prescribes. One day, for his lady\u2019s favour, he\nran a joust with a heathen knight. He slew him, but the heathen spear\nstruck him, and broke, leaving a poisoned wound. In anguish he returned.\nNo medicine or charm can heal that wound, and yet he cannot die; that is\nthe Grail\u2019s power. I renounced knighthood, flesh, and wine, in prayer that\nGod would heal him. We knelt before the Grail, and on it read that when a\nknight should come, and, unadmonished, ask what ailed him, he should be\nsound again. That knight should then be the Grail\u2019s king, in place of\nAnfortas. Since then a knight did come--I spoke of him to you. He might as\nwell have stayed away for all the honour that he won or aid he brought us.\nHe did not ask: My lord, what brought you to this pass? Stupidity forbade\nhim.\u201d\n\nThe two made moan together. It was noon. The host said: \u201cLet us take food\nnow, and tend your horse.\u201d They went out; Parzival broke up some branches\nfor his horse, while the host gathered a repast of herbs. Then they\nreturned to the cell. \u201cDear nephew,\u201d said the hermit, \u201cdo not despise this\nfood. At least, you will not find another host who would more gladly give\nyou better.\u201d\n\n\u201cSir, may God\u2019s favour pass me by, if ever a host\u2019s care was sweeter to\nme.\u201d\n\nWhen they had eaten, they saw to the horse again, whose hungry plight\ngrieved the old man because of the saddle with Anfortas\u2019s crest. Then\nParzival spoke:\n\n\u201cLord and uncle mine, if I dare speak for shame, I should tell you all my\nunhappiness. My troth takes refuge in you. My misdeeds are so sore, that\nif you cast me off I shall go all my days unloosed from my remorse. Take\npity with good counsel on a fool. He who rode to Munsalvaesch, and saw\nthat pain, and asked no question, that was I, misfortune\u2019s child. Thus\nhave I, sir, misdone.\u201d\n\n\u201cNephew! Alas! We both may well lament--where were your five senses? Yet I\nwill not refuse thee counsel. You must not grieve overmuch, but, in lament\nand laying grief aside, follow right measure. Would that I might refresh\nand hearten you, so that you would push on, and not despair of God. You\nmight still cure your sorrow. God will not forsake you. I counsel thee\nfrom Him.\u201d\n\nHis host then told Parzival more about Anfortas\u2019s pains, and about the\nGrail people, then the story of his own life before he renounced\nknighthood, and also about Ither. \u201cIther was your kin. If your hand forgot\nthis kinship, God will not. You must do penance for this deadly sin, and\nalso for your mother\u2019s death. Repent of your misdeeds and think of death,\nso that your labour here below may bring peace to your soul above.\u201d\n\nThese two deadly sins of Parzival were done unwittingly, and unwitting\nwas his neglect to ask the question. His guilt was thoughtlessness and\nstupid ignorance. It is impossible not to think of Oedipus, and compare\nthe Christian mediaeval treatment of unwitting crimes with the classical\nGreek consideration of the same dark subject. Oedipus sinned as\nunwittingly as Parzival, and as impulsively. His ruin was complete.\nAfterwards--in the _Oedipus Coloneus_--his character gathers greatness\nthrough submission to the necessary consequences of his acts; here was his\nspiritual expiation. On the other hand, mercy, repentance, hope, the\nuplifting of the unwitting sinner, forgiveness and consolation, soften and\nglorify the Christian mediaeval story.\n\nParzival stayed some days at the hermitage. At parting the hermit spoke\nwords of comfort to him: \u201cLeave me your sins. I will be your surety with\nGod for your repentance. Perform what I have bidden you, and do not\nwaver.\u201d\n\nThe story here turns to Gawain. In the tale of his adventures there comes\na glimpse of Parzival. A proud lady, for whose love Gawain is doing\nperilous deeds, tells him, she has never met a man she could not bend to\nher will and love, save only one. That one came and overthrew her knights.\nShe offered him her land and her fair self; his answer put her to shame:\n\u201cThe glorious Queen of Pelrapeire is my wife, and I am Parzival. I will\nhave none of your love. The Grail gives me other care.\u201d\n\nGawain won this lady, and conducted her to Arthur\u2019s Court, whither his\nrival the haughty King Gramoflanz was summoned to do battle with him. On\nthe morning set for the combat Gawain rode out a little to the bank of a\nriver, to prove his horse and armour. There at the river rode a knight;\nGawain deemed it was Gramoflanz. They rush together; man and horse go down\nin the joust. The knights spring to their feet and fight on with their\nswords. Meanwhile Gramoflanz, with a splendid company, has arrived at\nArthur\u2019s Court. The lists are ready; Gramoflanz stands armed. But where is\nGawain? He was not wont to tarry. Squires hurry out in search, to find him\njust falling before the blows of the stranger. They call, Gawain! and the\nunknown knight throws away his sword with a great cry: \u201cWretched and\nworthless! Accursed is my dishonoured hand. Be mine the shame. My\nluckless arms ever--and now again--strike down my happiness. That I should\nraise my hand against noble Gawain! It is myself that I have overthrown.\u201d\n\nGawain heard him: \u201cAlas, sir, who are you that speak such love towards me?\nWould you had spoken sooner, before my strength and praise had left me.\u201d\n\n\u201cCousin, I am your cousin, ready to serve you, Parzival.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen you said true! This fool\u2019s fight of two hearts that love! Your hand\nhas overthrown us both.\u201d\n\nGawain could no longer stand. Fainting they laid him on the grass.\nGramoflanz rides up, and is grieved to find his rival in no condition to\nfight. Parzival offers to take Gawain\u2019s place; but Gramoflanz declines,\nand the combat is postponed till the morrow. Parzival is then escorted to\nArthur\u2019s Court, where Gawain would have him meet fair ladies; he holds\nback, thinking of the shame once put on him there by Cundrie. Gawain\ninsists, and ladies greet the knight. Arthur again makes Parzival one of\nthe Round Table. Early the next morning, Parzival, changing his arms,\nmeets Gramoflanz in the lists, before Gawain has arrived; and vanquishes\nhim. Then comes Gawain and offers to postpone the combat as Gramoflanz had\ndone. So the combat is again set for the next day. In the meanwhile,\nhowever, various matters come to light and explanations are had; Arthur\nsucceeds in reconciling the rival knights and adjusting their relations to\nthe ladies. So the Court becomes gay with wedding festivals, and all is\njoy.\n\nExcept with Parzival. His heart is torn with pain and yearning for his\nwife. He muses: \u201cSince I could love, how has love dealt with me! I was\nborn from love; why have I lost love? I must seek the Grail; yet how I\nyearn for the sweet arms of her from whom I parted--so long ago! It is not\nfit that I should look on this joyful festival with anguish in my heart.\u201d\nThere lay his armour: \u201cSince I have no part in this joy, and God wills\nnone for me; and the love of Condwiramurs banishes all wish for other\nhappiness--now God grant happiness to all this company. I will go forth.\u201d\nHe put his armour on, saddled his horse, took spear and shield, and fled\nfrom the joyous Court, as the day was dawning.\n\nAnd now he meets a heathen knight, approaching with a splendid following.\nThey rode a great joust; and the heathen wondered to find a knight abide\nhis lance. They fought with swords together, till their horses were blown;\nthey sprang on the ground, and there fought on. Then the heathen thought\nof his queen; the love-thought brought him strength, and he struck\nParzival a blow that brought him to his knee. Now rouse thee, Parzival;\nwhy dost thou not think on thy wife? Suddenly he thought of her, and how\nhe won her love, vanquishing Clamide before Pelrapeire. Straight her aid\ncame to him across four kingdoms, and he struck the heathen down; but his\nsword--once Ither\u2019s--broke.\n\nThe foolish evil deed of Parzival in slaying Ither seems atoned for in the\nbreaking of this sword. Had it not broken, great evil had been done. The\ngreat-hearted heathen sprang up. \u201cHero, you would have conquered had that\nsword not broken. Be peace between us while we rest.\u201d\n\nThey sat together on the grass. \u201cTell me your name,\u201d said the heathen; \u201cI\nhave never met as great a knight.\u201d\n\n\u201cIs it through fear, that I should tell my name?\u201d\n\n\u201cNay, I will name myself--Feirefiz of Anjou.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow of Anjou? that is my heritage. Yet I have heard I had a brother. Let\nme see your face. I will not attack you with your helmet off.\u201d\n\n\u201cAttack me? it is I that hold the sword; but let neither have the\nvantage.\u201d He threw his sword far from them.\n\nWith joy and tears the brothers recognized each other; and long and loving\nwas their speech. Then they rode back together to the Court. They entered\nGawain\u2019s tent. Arthur came to greet them, and with him many knights. At\nArthur\u2019s request each of the great brothers told the long list of his\nknightly victories. The next day Feirefiz was made a knight of the Round\nTable, and a grand tournament was held. Then the feast followed; and\nagain, as once before, to the great company seated at the table, Cundrie\ncame riding. She greeted the king; then turned to Parzival, and in tears\nthrew herself at his feet and begged a greeting and forgiveness. Parzival\nforgives her. She rises up and cries: \u201cHail to thee, son of\nGahmuret--Herzeloide\u2019s child. Humble thyself in gladness. The high lot is\nthine, thou crown of human blessing. Thou shalt be the Grail\u2019s lord; with\nthee thy wife Condwiramurs, and thy sons Lohengrin and Kardeiz, whom she\nbore to thee after thy going. Thy mouth shall question Anfortas--unto his\njoy. Now the planets favour thee; thy grief is spent. The Grail and the\nGrail\u2019s power shall let thee have no part in evil. When young, thou didst\nget thee sorrow, which betrayed thy joy as it came;--thou hast won thy\nsoul\u2019s peace, and in sorrow thou hast endured unto thy life\u2019s joy.\u201d\n\nTears of love sprang from Parzival\u2019s heart and fell from his eyes: \u201cLady,\nif this be true, that God\u2019s grace has granted me, sinful man, to have my\nchildren and my wife, God has been good to me. Loyally would you make good\nmy losses. Before, had I not done amiss, you would not have been angry. At\nthat time I was yet unblessed. Now tell me, when and how I shall go meet\nmy joy. Oh! let me not be stayed!\u201d\n\nThere was no more delay. Parzival was permitted to take one comrade; he\nchose Feirefiz. Cundrie guided them to the Grail castle. They entered to\nfind Anfortas calling on death to free him of his pain. Weeping, and with\nprayer to God, Parzival asked what ailed him, and the king was healed.\nThen Parzival rode again to Trevrizent. The hermit breaks out in wonder at\nthe power of God, which man cannot comprehend; let Parzival obey Him and\nkeep from evil; that any one should win the Grail by striving was unheard\nof; now this has come to Parzival, let him be humble. The hero yearns for\nhis wife--where is she? He is told; there by the meadow where he once saw\nthe drops of blood he finds her and his sons, asleep in their tent. They\nare united; Parzival is made Grail king; and the queen Repanse is given in\nmarriage to Feirefiz, who is baptized and departs with her. Lohengrin is\nnamed as Parzival\u2019s successor, while Kardeiz receives the kingdoms which\nhad been Gahmuret\u2019s and Herzeloide\u2019s.\n\n\nEND OF VOL. I\n\n\n_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n_NOTE.--Of several references to the same matter the more important are\nshown by heavy type._\n\n\n  Abaelard, Peter, career of, ii. 342-5;\n    at Paris, ii. 343, 344, 383;\n      popularity there, ii. 119;\n    love for Helo\u00efse, ii. 4-=5=, 344;\n    love-songs, ii. =13=, 207;\n    Helo\u00efse\u2019s love for, i. 585; ii. =3=, =5=, 8, 9, =15-16=;\n    early relations with Helo\u00efse, ii. 4-5;\n    suggestion of marriage opposed by her, ii. 6-9;\n    marriage, ii. 9;\n    suffers vengeance of Fulbert, ii. 9;\n    becomes a monk at St. Denis, ii. 10;\n      at the Paraclete, ii. 10, 344;\n      at Breton monastery, ii. 10;\n    St. Bernard\u2019s denunciations of, i. 229, 401; ii. =344-5=, =355=;\n    letters to, from Helo\u00efse quoted, ii. 11-15, 17-20, 23, 24;\n    letters from, to Helo\u00efse quoted, ii. 16-17, 21-3, 24-5;\n    closing years at Cluny, ii. 25, =26=, 345;\n    death of, ii. =27=, 345;\n    estimate of, ii. 4, 342;\n    rationalizing temper, i. 229; ii. =298-9=;\n    skill in dialectic, ii. 303, =345-6=, 353;\n    not an Aristotelian, ii. 369;\n    works on theology, ii. 352-5;\n      _De Unitate et Trinitate divina_, ii. 10, =298-9=, 352 _and_ _n. 3_;\n      _Theologia_, ii. =303-4=, 395;\n      _Scito te ipsum_, ii. 350-1;\n      _Sic et non_, i. 17; ii. =304-6=, =352=, 357;\n      _Dialectica_, ii. 346 _and_ _nn._, 349-50;\n      _Dialogue_ between Philosopher, Jew, and Christian, ii. 350, =351=;\n      _Historia calamitatum_, ii. =4-11=, 298-9, =343=;\n      _Carmen ad Astralabium filium_, ii. 192;\n      hymns, ii. 207-9;\n      otherwise mentioned, ii. 134, 283 _and_ _n._\n\n  Abbo, Abbot, i. =294 and n.=, 324\n\n  Abbots:\n    Armed forces, with, i. 473\n    Cistercian, position of, i. 362-3 _and_ _n._\n    Investiture of, lay, i. 244\n    Social class of, i. 473\n\n  Accursius, _Glossa ordinaria_ of, ii. 262, =263=\n\n  Adalberon, Abp. of Rheims, i. 240, =282-3=, 287\n\n  Adam of Marsh, ii. 389, 400, 487\n\n  Adam of St. Victor, editions of hymns of, ii. 87 _n. 1_;\n    examples of the hymns, ii. 87 _seqq._;\n    Latin originals, ii. 206, 209-15\n\n  Adamnan cited, i. 134 _n. 2_, 137\n\n  Adelard of Bath, ii. 370\n\n  Aedh, i. 132\n\n  Agobard, Abp. of Lyons, i. 215, =232-3=;\n    cited, ii. 247\n\n  Aidan, St., i. 174\n\n  Aimoin, _Vita Abbonis_ by, i. 294 _and_ _n._\n\n  Aix, Synod of, i. 359\n\n  Aix-la-Chapelle:\n    Chapel at, i. 212 _n._\n    School at, _see_ Carolingian period--Palace school\n\n  Alans, i. 113, 116, 119\n\n  Alanus de Insulis, career of, ii. 92-4;\n    estimate of, ii. 375-6;\n    works of, ii. 48 _n. 1_, =94=, 375 _n. 5_, 376;\n      _Anticlaudianus_, ii. =94-103=, 192, 377, 539;\n      _De planctu naturae_, ii. =192-3 and n. 1=, 376\n\n  Alaric, i. 112\n\n  Alaric II., i. =117=; ii. 243\n\n  Alberic, Card., i. 252 _n. 2_\n\n  Alberic, Markgrave of Camerino, i. 242\n\n  Alberic, son of Marozia, i. 242-3\n\n  Albertus Magnus, career of, ii. 421;\n    estimate of, ii. 298, 301, =421=;\n    estimate of work of, ii. 393, 395;\n    attitude toward Gilbert de la Porr\u00e9e, ii. 372;\n    compared with Bacon, ii. 422;\n      with Aquinas, ii. 433, =438=;\n    relations with Aquinas, ii. 434;\n    on logic, ii. 314-15;\n      method of, ii. 315 _n._;\n    edition of works, ii. 424 _n. 1_;\n    _De praedicabilibus_, ii. 314 and _n._, 315, 424-5;\n    work on the rest of Aristotle, ii. 420-1;\n    analysis of this work, ii. 424 _seqq._;\n    attitude toward the original, ii. 422;\n    _Summa theologiae_, ii. 430, 431;\n    _Summa de creaturis_, ii. 430-1;\n    _De adhaerendo Deo_, ii. 432;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 17; ii. 82 _n. 2_, 283, 312, 402, 541 _n. 2_\n\n  Albigenses, i. 49;\n    persecution of, i. 366-7, 461, 481, 572; ii. 168\n\n  Alboin the Lombard, i. 115\n\n  Alchemy, ii. 496-7\n\n  Alcuin of York, career of, i. 214;\n    works of, i. 216-21 _and_ _n. 2_;\n    extracts from letters of, ii. 159;\n    stylelessness of, ii. =159=, 174;\n    verses by, quoted, ii. 136-7;\n    on _urbanitas_, ii. 136;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 212, 240, 343; ii. 112, 312, 332\n\n  Aldhelm, i. 185\n\n  Alemanni, i. 9, 121, 122, 145 _n. 2_, 174, 192\n\n  Alemannia, Boniface\u2019s work in, i. 199\n\n  Alexander the Great, Pseudo-Callisthenes\u2019 Life of, ii. 224, 225,\n        =229-230=;\n    Walter of Lille\u2019s work on, ii. 230 _n. 1_\n\n  Alexander II., Pope, i. 262 _n._, 263 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Alexander de Villa-Dei, _Doctrinale_ of, ii. =125-7=, 163\n\n  Alexander of Hales--at Paris, i. 476; ii. =399=;\n    Bacon\u2019s attack on, ii. 494, 497;\n    estimate of work of, ii. 393, 395, 399;\n    Augustinianism of, ii. 403-4\n\n  Alfred, King of England, i. 144 _and_ _n. 2_, =187-90=\n\n  Allegory (_See also_ Symbolism):\n    Dictionaries of, ii. 47-8 _and_ _n. 1_, 49\n    Greek examples of, ii. 42, 364\n    Metaphor distinguished from, ii. 41 _n._\n    Politics, in, ii. 60-1, 275-=6=, =280=\n    _Roman de la rose_ as exemplifying, ii. 103\n    Scripture, _see under_ Scriptures\n    Two uses of, ii. 365\n\n  Almsgiving, i. 268\n\n  Alphanus, i. 253-4\n\n  _Amadas_, i. 565\n\n  Ambrose, St., Abp. of Milan, on miracles, i. 85-6;\n    attitude toward secular studies, i. 300; ii. 288;\n    _Hexa\u00ebmeron_ of, i. 72-4;\n    _De officiis_, i. 96;\n    hymns, i. 347-8;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 70, 75, 76, 104, 186, 354; ii. 45 _n._, 272\n\n  Anacletus II., Pope, i. 394\n\n  Anchorites, _see_ Hermits\n\n  Andrew the Chaplain, _Flos amoris_ of, i. 575-6\n\n  Angels:\n    Aquinas\u2019 discussion of, ii. 324-5, 435, =457 seqq.=, =469=, =473-5=\n    Dante\u2019s views on, ii. 551\n    Emotionalizing of conception of, i. 348 _n. 4_\n    Hugo of St. Victor on, ii. 68, 69\n    Symbols, regarded as, ii. 457\n    Vincent\u2019s _Speculum_ as concerning, ii. 319\n    Writings regarding, summary of, ii. 457\n\n  Angilbert, i. 234-5\n\n  Angles, i. 140\n\n  Anglo-Saxons:\n    Britain conquered by, i. 141\n    Characteristics of, i. 142, =196=\n    Christian missions by, i. 196, 197\n    Christian missions to, i. 172, 174, =180 seqq.=\n    Customs of, i. 141\n    Poetry of, i. 142-4\n    Roman influence slight on, i. 32\n\n  Aniane monastery, i. 358-9\n\n  Annals, i. 234 and _n. 1_\n\n  Anselm (at Laon), ii. 343-4\n\n  Anselm, St., Abp. of Canterbury, dream of, i. 269-70;\n    early career, i. 270;\n    at Bec, i. 271-2;\n    relations with Rufus, i. 273, 275;\n    journey to Italy, i. 275;\n    estimate of, i. 274, =276-7=; ii. =303=, 330, =338=;\n    style of, i. 276; ii. =166-7=;\n    influence of, on Duns Scotus, ii. 511;\n    works of, i. 275 _seqq._;\n    _Cur Deus homo_, i. 275, 277 _n. 1_, =279=; ii. 395;\n    _Monologion_, i. 275-7;\n    _Proslogion_, i. 276-8; ii. =166=, 395;\n    _Meditationes_, i. 276, =279=;\n    _De grammatico_, i. 277 _n. 2_;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 16, 19, 301-2; ii. 139, 283, 297, 340\n\n  Anselm of Besate, i. 259\n\n  Anthony, St., i. 365-6;\n    Life of, by Athanasius, i. 47, =52 and n.=\n\n  Antique literature, _see_ Greek thought _and_ Latin classics\n\n  Antique stories, themes of, in vernacular poetry, ii. 223 _seqq._\n\n  Apollinaris Sidonius, ii. 107\n\n  Apollonius of Tyana, i. 44\n\n  _Apollonius of Tyre_, ii. 224 _and_ _n._\n\n  Aquinas, Thomas, family of, ii. 433-4;\n    career, ii. 434-5;\n    relations with Albertus Magnus, ii. 434;\n    translations of Aristotle obtained by, ii. 391;\n    _Vita_ of, by Guilielmus de Thoco, ii. 435 _n._;\n    works of, ii. 435;\n    estimate of, and of his work, i. 17, 18; ii. 301, =436-8=, 484;\n    completeness of his philosophy, ii. 393-5;\n    pivot of his attitude, ii. 440;\n    present position of, ii. 501;\n    style, ii. 180;\n    mastery of dialectic, ii. 352;\n    compared with Eriugena, i. 231 _n. 1_;\n    with Albertus Magnus, ii. 433, =438=;\n    with Bonaventura, ii. 437;\n    with Duns, ii. 517;\n    Dante compared with and influenced by, ii. 541 _n. 2_, =547=, 549,\n        551, 555;\n    on monarchy, ii. 277;\n    on faith, ii. 288;\n    on difference between philosophy and theology, ii. 290;\n    on logic, ii. 313;\n    _Summa theologiae_, i. 17, 18; ii. =290 seqq.=;\n    style of the work, ii. 180-1;\n    Bacon\u2019s charge against it, ii. 300;\n    Peter Lombard\u2019s work contrasted with it, ii. 307-10;\n    its method, ii. 307;\n    its classification scheme, ii. 324-9;\n    analysis of the work, ii. 438 _seqq._, 447 _seqq._;\n    _Summa philosophica contra Gentiles_, ii. 290, 438, =445-6=;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 69 _n. 2_; ii. 283, 298, 300, 312, 402\n\n  Aquitaine, i. 29, 240, =573=\n\n  Arabian philosophy, ii. =389-90=, 400-1\n\n  Arabs, Spanish conquest by, i. 9, 118\n\n  Archimedes, i. 40\n\n  Architecture, Gothic:\n    Evolution of, i. 305; ii. =539=\n    Great period of, i. 346\n\n  Argenteuil convent, ii. 9, 10\n\n  Arianism:\n    Teutonic acceptance of, i. =120=, 192, 194\n    Visigothic abandonment of, i. 118 _nn._\n\n  Aristotle, estimate of, i. 37-8;\n    works of, i. 37-8;\n    unliterary character of writings of, ii. 118, 119;\n    philosophy as classified by, ii. 312;\n    attitude of, to discussions of final cause, ii. 336;\n    the _Organon_, i. =37=, 71;\n    progressive character of its treatises, ii. 333-4;\n    Bo\u00ebthius\u2019 translation of the work, i. 71, =91-2=;\n    advanced treatises \u201clost\u201d till 12th cent., ii. 248 _n._, 334;\n    Porphyry\u2019s _Introduction_ to the _Categories_, i. 45, 92, 102; ii.\n        312, =314 n.=, 333, =339=;\n    Arabian translations of works, ii. 389-90;\n    introduction of complete works, i. 17;\n    Latin translations made in 13th cent., ii. 391;\n    three stages in scholastic appropriation of the Natural Philosophy and\n        Metaphysics, ii. 393;\n    Paris University study of, ii. 391-2 _and_ _n._;\n    Albertus Magnus\u2019 work on, ii. 420-1, 424 _seqq._;\n    Aquinas\u2019 mastery of, i. 17, 18;\n    Dominican acceptance of system of, ii. 404;\n    Dante\u2019s reverence for, ii. 542\n\n  Arithmetic:\n    Abacus, the, i. 299\n    Bo\u00ebthius\u2019 work on, i. 72, =90=\n    Music in relation to, ii. 291\n    Patristic treatment of, i. 72\n    Scholastic classification of, ii. 313\n\n  Arnold of Brescia, i. 401; ii. 171\n\n  Arnulf, Abp. of Rheims, i. 283-4\n\n  Art, Christian (_For particular arts, see their names_):\n    Demons as depicted in, ii. 540 _n. 2_\n    Early, i. 345 _n._\n    Emotionalizing of, i. 345-7\n    Evolution of, i. 19-20\n    Germany, in (11th cent.), i. 312\n    Symbolism the inspiration of, i. 21; ii. 82-6\n\n  Arthur, King, story of youth of, i. 568-569;\n    relations with Lancelot and Guinevere, i. 584;\n    with Parzival, i. 592, 599-600, 612\n\n  Arthurian romances:\n    Comparison of, with _Chansons de geste_, i. 564-5\n    German culture influenced by, ii. 28\n    Origin and authorship of, question as to, i. 565-7\n    Universal vogue of, i. =565=, 573, 577\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 531, 538\n\n  Arts, the (_See also_ Latin classics):\n    Classifications of, ii. 312 _seqq._\n    Course of, shortening of, ii. =132=, 384\n    _Dictamen_, ii. =121=, =129=, 381\n    Grammar, _see that heading_\n    Masters in, at Paris and Oxford, ii. 384-5;\n      course for, ii. 388\n    Seven Liberal, _see that heading_\n\n  Asceticism:\n    Christian:\n      Carthusian, i. 384\n      Early growth of, i. 333-5\n      Manichean, i. 49\n      Women\u2019s practice of, i. 444, 462-3\n    Neo-Platonic, i. 43, 44, 46, 50, =331=, 334\n\n  Astralabius, ii. 6, 9, 27;\n    Abaelard\u2019s poem to, ii. 191-2 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Astrology, i. =44 and n.=; ii. 374:\n    Bacon\u2019s views on, ii. 499-500\n\n  Astronomy:\n    Chartres study of, i. 299\n    Gerbert\u2019s teaching of, i. 288-9\n    Patristic attitude toward, i. 72\n\n  Ataulf, i. 112, 116\n\n  Athanasius, St., estimate of work of, i. =54=, 68;\n    Life of St. Anthony by, i. 47, =52 and n.=, 84;\n    _Orationes_, i. 68\n\n  Atlantis, i. 36\n\n  Attila the Hun, i. 112-13;\n    in legend, i. 145-7\n\n  Augustine, Abp. of Canterbury, i. 6, 171, =180-2=;\n    Gregory\u2019s letters to, cited, i. 102\n\n  Augustine, St., Bp. of Hippo, Platonism of, i. 55;\n    personal affinity of, with Plotinus, i. 55-7;\n    barbarization of, by Gregory the Great, i. 98, 102;\n    compared with Gregory the Great, i. 98-9;\n    with Anselm, i. 279;\n    with Guigo, i. 385, 390;\n    overwhelming influence of, in Middle Ages, ii. 403;\n    on numbers, i. 72 _and_ _n. 2_, 105;\n    attitude toward physical science, i. 300;\n    on love of God, i. 342, 344;\n    allegorizing of Scripture by, ii. 44-5;\n    modification by, of classical Latin, ii. 152;\n    _Confessions_, i. =63=; ii. 531;\n    _De Trinitate_, i. =64=, =68=, 74, 96;\n    _Civitas Dei_, i. 64-65, 69 _n. 2_, =81-82=;\n    _De moribus Ecclesiae_, i. 65, 67-8;\n    _De doctrina Christiana_, i. 66-7;\n    classification scheme based on the _Doctrina_, ii. 322;\n    _De spiritu et littera_, i. 69;\n    _De cura pro mortuis_, i. 86;\n    _De genesi ad litteram_, ii. 324;\n    Alcuin\u2019s compends of works of, i. 220;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 5, 53, 71, 75, 82, 87, 89, 104, 186, 225, 340,\n        354, 366, 370; ii. 107, 269, 297, 312\n\n  Augustus, Emp., i. 26, 29\n\n  Aurillac monastery, i. 281\n\n  Ausonius, i. 126 _n. 2_; ii. 107\n\n  Austrasia:\n    Church organization in, i. 199\n    Feudal disintegration of, i. 240\n    Irish monasteries founded in, i. 174\n    Rise of, under Pippin, i. 209\n\n  Authority _v._ reason, _see_ Reason\n\n  Auxerre, i. 506-7\n\n  Averroes, ii. 390\n\n  Averroism, ii. 400-1\n\n  Averroists, ii. =284 n.=, 296 _n. 1_\n\n  Avicenna, ii. 390\n\n  Avitus, Bp. of Vienne, i. 126 _n. 2_\n\n  Azo, ii. 262-3\n\n\n  Bacon, Roger, career of, ii. 486-7\n    tragedy of career, ii. 486;\n    relations with Franciscan Order, ii. 299, 486, =488=, 490-1;\n    encouragement to, from Clement IV., ii. 489-90 _and_ _n. 1_;\n    estimate of, ii. 484-6;\n    estimate of work of, ii. 402;\n    style of, ii. 179-80;\n    attitude toward the classics, ii. 120;\n    predilection for physical science, ii. 289, 486-7;\n    Albertus Magnus compared with, ii. 422;\n    on four causes of ignorance, ii. 494-5;\n    on seven errors in theological study, ii. 495-8;\n    on experimental science, ii. 502-8;\n    on logic, ii. 505;\n    on faith, ii. 507;\n    editions of works of, ii. 484 _n._;\n    Greek Grammar by, ii. =128= _and_ _n. 5_, 484 _n._, 487, 498;\n    _Multiplicatio specierum_, ii. 484 _n._, 500;\n    _Opus tertium_, ii. =488=, 490 _and_ _nn._, 491, 492, 498, 499;\n    _Opus majus_, ii. 490-1, 492, =494-5=, 498, =499-500=, =506-8=;\n    _Optics_, ii. 500;\n    _Opus minus_, ii. 490-1, =495-8=;\n    _Vatican fragment_, ii. 490 _and_ _n. 2_, =505 n. 1=;\n    _Compendium studii philosophiae_, ii. 491, 493-4, 507-8;\n    _Compendium theologiae_, ii. 491;\n    otherwise mentioned, ii. 284 _n._, 335 _n._, =389=, 531-2\n\n  Bartolomaeus, _De proprietatibus rerum_ of, ii. 316 _n. 2_\n\n  Bartolus, ii. 264\n\n  Baudri, Abbot of Bourgueil, ii. 192 _n. 1_\n\n  Bavaria:\n    Irish monasteries founded in, i. 174\n    Merovingian rule in, i. 121\n    Otto\u2019s relations with, i. 241\n    Reorganization of Church in, 198-9\n\n  Bavarians, i. 145 _n. 2_, 209, 210\n\n  Beauty, love of, i. 340\n\n  Bec monastery, i. 262 _n._, 270-2\n\n  Bede, estimate of, i. 185-6;\n    allegorizing of Scripture by, ii. 47 _n. 1_;\n    _Church History of the English People_, i. 172, =186=, 234 _n. 2_;\n    _De arte metrica_, i. 187, =298=;\n    _Liber de temporibus_, 300;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 184, 212\n\n  Beghards of Li\u00e9ge, i. 365\n\n  Belgae, i. 126\n\n  Belgica, i. 29, 32\n\n  Benedict, Prior, i. 258\n\n  Benedict, St., of Nursia, i. =85 and n. 2=, 94, 100 _n. 4_;\n    _Regula_ of, _see under_ Monasticism\n\n  Benedictus, _Chronicon_ of, ii. 160-1\n\n  Benedictus Levita, Deacon, ii. 270\n\n  Benoit de St. More, _Roman de Troie_ by, ii. 225, =227-9=\n\n  Beowulf, i. 141, =143-4= _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Berengar, King, i. 256\n\n  Berengar of Tours, i. 297, 299, =302-3=; ii. 137\n\n  Bernard, Bro., of Quintavalle, i. 502\n\n  Bernard, disciple of St. Francis, i. 425-6\n\n  Bernard of Chartres, ii. 130-2, 370\n\n  Bernard, St., Abbot of Clairvaux, at Citeaux, i. 360, 393;\n    inspires Templars\u2019 _regula_, i. 531;\n    denounces and crushes Abaelard, i. 229, 401; ii. =344-5=, =355=;\n    denounces Arnold of Brescia, i. 401; ii. 171;\n    relations with Gilbert de la Porr\u00e9e, ii. 372;\n    Lives of, i. 392 _n._, 393 _n. 1_;\n    appearance and characteristics of, i. 392-3;\n    estimate of, i. 394; ii. 367-8;\n    love and tenderness of, i. 344, 345, =394 seqq.=; ii. 365;\n    severity of, i. 400-1;\n    his love of Clairvaux, i. 401-2;\n    of his brother, i. 402-4;\n    Latin style of, ii. 169-71;\n    on church corruption, i. 474;\n    on faith, ii. 298;\n    unconcerned with physics, ii. 356;\n    St. Francis compared with, i. 415-16;\n    extracts from letters of, i. 395 _seqq._; ii. 170-1;\n    _Sermons on Canticles_--cited, 337 _n._;\n    quoted, i. =409-13=; ii. =169=, 368-9;\n    _De consideratione_, ii. 368;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 17, 20, 279, 302, 472, 501; ii. 34, 168\n\n  Bernard Morlanensis, _De contemptu mundi_ by, ii. 199 _n. 3_\n\n  Bernard Silvestris, _Commentum ..._ of, ii. 116-17 _and_ _n. 2_;\n    _De mundi universitate_, ii. 119, =371 and n.=\n\n  Bernardone, Peter, i. 419, 423-4\n\n  Bernward, Bp. of Hildesheim, i. 312 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Bible, _see_ Scriptures\n\n  Biscop, Benedict, i. 184\n\n  Bishops:\n    Armed forces, with, i. 473\n    Francis of Assisi\u2019s attitude toward, i. 430\n    Gallo-Roman and Frankish, position of, i. 191-2, 194 _and_ _nn._, 198,\n        =201 n.=\n    Investiture of, lay, i. 244-5 _and_ _n. 4_; ii. 140\n    Jurisdiction and privileges of, ii. 266\n    Papacy\u2019s ascendancy over, i. 304\n    Reluctance to be consecrated, i. 472\n    Social class of, i. 473\n    Vestments of, symbolism of, ii. 77 _n. 2_\n\n  _Blancandrin_, i. 565\n\n  Bobbio monastery, i. 178, =282-3=\n\n  Bo\u00ebthius, death of, i. =89=, 93;\n    estimate of, i. 89, 92, =102=;\n    Albertus Magnus compared with, ii. 420;\n    works of, i. 90-3;\n    Gerbert\u2019s familiarity with works of, i. 289;\n    works of, studied at Chartres, i. 298-9;\n      their importance, i. 298;\n    _De arithmetica_, i. 72, =90=;\n    _De geometria_, i. 90;\n    commentary on Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_, i. =92=; ii. 312;\n    translation of the _Organon_, i. 71, =91-2=;\n    \u201closs\u201d of advanced works, ii. 248 _n._, 334;\n    _De consolatione philosophiae_, i. =89=, 188, =189-90=, 299;\n      mediaeval study of the work, i. 89; ii. 135-6\n\n  Bologna:\n    Clubs and guilds in, ii. 382\n    Fight of, against Parma, i. 497\n    Law school at, ii. =121=, 251, =259-62=, 378\n    Medical school at, ii. 121, 383 _n._\n    University, Law, inception and character of, ii. 121, =381-3=;\n      affiliated universities, ii. 383 _n._\n\n  Bonaventura, St. (John of Fidanza), career of, ii. 403;\n    at Paris, ii. 399, 403;\n    estimate of, ii. 301;\n    style of, ii. 181-2;\n    contrasted with Albertus, ii. 405;\n    compared with Aquinas, ii. 405, 437;\n    with Dante, ii. 547;\n    on faith, ii. 298;\n    on Minorites and Preachers, ii. 396;\n    attitude toward Plato and Aristotle, ii. 404-5;\n    toward Scriptures, ii. 405 _seqq._;\n    _De reductione artium ad theologiam_, ii. 406-8;\n    _Breviloquium_, ii. 408-13;\n    _Itinerarium mentis in Deum_, ii. 413-18;\n    otherwise mentioned, ii. 283, 288\n\n  Boniface, _see_ Winifried-Boniface\n\n  Boniface VIII., Pope, _Sextus_ of, ii. 272;\n    _Unam sanctam_ bull of, ii. 509\n\n  _Books of Sentences_, method of, ii. 307\n    (_See also under_ Lombard)\n\n  Botany, ii. 427-8\n\n  Bretons, i. 113\n\n  _Breviarium_, i. 117, 239, =243-4=\n\n  Britain:\n    Anglo-Saxon conquest of, i. 141\n    Antique culture in relation to, before Middle Ages, i. 10-11\n    Celts in, i. 127 _n._\n    Christianity of, i. 171-2\n    Romanization of, i. 32\n\n  Brude (Bridius), King of Picts, i. 173\n\n  Brunhilde, i. 176, 178\n\n  Bruno, Abp. of Cologne, i. 309-10, 383-4;\n    Ruotger\u2019s Life of, i. 310; ii. 162 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Burgundians:\n    Christianizing of, i. 193\n    Church\u2019s attitude toward, i. 120\n    Roman law code promulgated by (_Papianus_), ii. 239, =242=\n    Roman subjects of, i. 121\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 9-10, 113, 145\n\n  Burgundy, i. =175=, 243 _n. 1_\n\n  Byzantine architecture, 212 _n._\n\n  Byzantine Empire, _see_ Eastern Empire\n\n\n  C\u00e6dmon, i. 183, 343\n\n  Caesar, C. Julius, cited, i. =27-9=, 138, 296\n\n  Caesar of Heisterbach, Life of Engelbert by, i. 482-6 _and_ _n._;\n    _Dialogi miraculorum_, cited, i. 488 _n._, 491.\n\n  Canon law:\n    Authority of, ii. 274\n    Basis of, ii. 267-9\n    Bulk of, ii. 269\n    Conciliar decrees, collections of, ii. =269=\n    Decretals:\n      Collections of, ii. 269, =271-2=, =275= =n.=\n      False, ii. 270, 273\n    Gratian\u2019s _Decretum_, ii. 268-9, =270-1=, 306\n    _Jus naturale_ in, ii. 268-9\n    _Lex romana canonice compta_, ii. 252\n    Scope of, ii. 267\n    Sources of, ii. 269\n    Supremacy of, ii. 277\n\n  Canossa, i. 244\n\n  Cantafables, i. 157 _n. 1_\n\n  Canticles, i. 350;\n    Origen\u2019s interpretation of, 333;\n    St. Bernard\u2019s Sermons on, i. 337 _n._, =409-13=; ii. =169=, 368-9\n\n  Capella, Martianus, _De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii_ of, i. =71 and\n        n. 3=; ii. 553\n\n  _Caritas_, ii. 476-8;\n    in relation to faith, ii. 479-81;\n    to wisdom, ii. 481\n\n  Carloman, King of Austrasia, i. =199-200 and n.=, 209\n\n  Carloman (son of Pippin), i. 209-10\n\n  Carnuti, i. 296\n\n  Carolingian period:\n    _Breviarium_ epitomes current during, ii. 244, =249=\n    Continuity of, with Merovingian, i. 210-12\n    Criticism of records non-existent in, i. 234\n    Definiteness of statement a characteristic of, i. 225, =227=\n    Educational revival in, 218-19, 222, =236=; ii. 122, =158=;\n      palace school, i. =214=, 218, 229, 235\n    First stage of mediaeval learning represented by, ii. 330, 332\n    History as compiled in, i. 234-5\n    King\u2019s law in, ii. 247\n    Latin poetry of, ii. 188, 194, 197\n    Latin prose of, ii. 158\n    Originality in, circumstances evoking, i. 232-3\n    Restatement of antique and patristic matter in, i. =237=, 342-3\n\n  Carthaginians, i. 25\n\n  Carthusian Order, origin of, i. 383-4\n\n  Cassian\u2019s _Institutes_ and _Conlocations_, i. 335\n\n  Cassiodorus, life and works of, i. 93-7;\n    _Chronicon_, i. 94;\n    _Variae epistolae_, i. 94;\n    _De anima_, 94-5;\n    _Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum_, i. =95-6=; ii.\n        357 _n. 2_;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 6, 88-9, 115; ii. 312\n\n  Cathari, i. 49; ii. 283 _n._\n\n  Catullus, i. 25\n\n  Cavallini, i. 347\n\n  Celsus cited, ii. 235, 237\n\n  Celtic language, date of disuse of, i. 31 _and_ _n._\n\n  Celts:\n    Gaul, in, i. =125 and n.=, =126-7=, 129 _n. 1_\n    Goidelic and Brythonic, i. 127 _n._\n    Ireland, in, _see_ Irish\n    Italy invaded by (3rd cent. B.C.), i. 24\n    Latinized, i. 124\n    Teutons compared with, i. 125\n\n  Champagne, i. 240, =573=\n\n  Chandos, Sir John, i. 554-5\n\n  _Chanson de Roland_, i. 12 _n._, 528 _and_ _n. 2_, =559-62=\n\n  _Chansons de geste_, i. =558 seqq.=; ii. 222\n\n  Charlemagne, age of, _see_ Carolingian period;\n    estimate of, i. 213;\n    relations of, with the Church, i. =201=, 239; ii. 273;\n    relations with Angilbert, i. 234-5;\n    educational revival by, i. =213-14=; ii. 110, 122, =158=, 332;\n    book of Germanic poems compiled by order of, ii. 220;\n    Capitularies of, ii. 110, =248=;\n    open letters of, i. 213 _n._;\n    Einhard\u2019s Life of, ii. 158-9;\n    poetic fame of, i. 210;\n    false Capitularies ascribed to, ii. 270;\n    empire of, non-enduring, i. 238;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 9, 115, 153, 562; ii. 8\n\n  Charles Martel, i. 197, =198=, =209=; ii. 273\n\n  Charles II. (the Bald), King of France, i. 228, 235\n\n  Charles III. (the Simple), King of France, i. 239-40\n\n  Charles IV., King of France, i. 551\n\n  Chartres Cathedral, sculpture of, i. =20=, 297; ii. =82-5=\n\n  Chartres Schools:\n    Classics the study of, i. 298; ii. 119\n    Fulbert\u2019s work at, i. 296-7, 299\n    Grammar as studied at, ii. 129-30\n    Medicine studied at, ii. 372\n    Orleans the rival of, ii. 119 _n. 2_\n    Trivium and quadrivium at, i. =298-9=; ii. 163\n    mentioned, i. 287, 293\n\n  Chartreuse, La Grande, founding of, i. 384 (_See also_ Carthusian)\n\n  Chaucer, ii. 95\n\n  Childeric, King, i. 119, 122\n\n  Chivalry:\n    Literature of:\n      Arthurian romances, _see that heading_\n      Aube (alba) poetry, i. =571=; ii. 30\n      _Chansons de geste_, i. 558 _seqq._\n      Nature of, i. 20\n      _Pastorelle_, i. 571\n      Pietistic ideal recognized in, ii. 288, 533\n      Poems of various nations cited, i. 570 =n.=\n      Religious phraseology in love poems, i. 350 _n. 2_\n      _Romans d\u2019aventure_, i. =564-5=, 571 _n. 2_\n      Three branches of, i. 558\n    Nature of, i. 522, =570 n.=\n    Order of, evolution of, i. 524 _seqq._\n      (_See also_ Knighthood)\n\n  Chr\u00e9tien de Troies, romances by, i. 566-=7=;\n    _Tristan_, i. 567;\n    _Perceval_, i. 567, =588-9=;\n    _Erec_ (Geraint), i. 567, 586; ii. 29 _n._;\n    _Lancelot_ or _Le Conte de la charrette_, i. 567, 569-70, =582-5=;\n    _Clig\u00e9s_, i. 567, =586 n. 2=;\n    _Ivain_, i. =571 n. 2=, 586 _n. 3_; ii. 29 _n._;\n    translation of Ovid\u2019s _Ars amatoria_, i. 574\n\n  Christianity:\n    Appropriation of, by mediaeval peoples, stages in, i. 17-18\n    Aquinas\u2019 _Summa_ as concerning, ii. 324\n    Art, in, _see_ Art\n    Atonement doctrine, Anselm\u2019s views on, i. 279\n    Basis of, ii. 268\n    Britain, in, i. 171-2\n    Buddhism contrasted with, i. 390\n    Catholic Church, _see_ Church\n    Completeness of scheme of, ii. 394-5\n    Dualistic element in, i. 59\n    Eleventh century, position in, i. 16\n    Emotional elements in:\n      Fear, i. 103, 339, 342, 383\n      Hate, i. 332, 339\n      Love, i. 331, =345=\n      Synthetic treatment of, i. 333\n    Emotionalizing of, angels as regarded in, i. 348 _n. 4_\n    Eternal punishment doctrine of, i. =65=, =339=, 486\n    Faith of, _see_ Faith\n    Feudalism in relation to, i. 524, 527-=9 and n. 2=, =530=\n    Fifth century, position in, i. 15\n    Gallo-Roman, i. 191-2\n    German language affected by, i. 202\n    Greek Fathers\u2019 contribution to, i. 5\n    Greek philosophic admixture in, i. 33-4\n    Hell-fear in, i. 103, =339=, 342, =383=\n    Hymns, _see that heading_\n    Ideal _v._ actual, i. 354-5\n    Incarnation doctrine of, ii. 369\n    Irish missionaries of, _see under_ Irish\n    Latin as modified for expression of, ii. 152, =154=, 156, 164, 171\n    Marriage as regarded by, ii. 8, 529\n    Martyrs for, _see_ Martyrs\n    Mediaeval development in relation to, i. 11, 170\n    Mediation doctrine of, i. 54, 59-60\n    Militant character of, in early centuries, i. =69-70=, 75\n    Miracles, attitude toward, i. 50-1\n    Monasticism, _see that heading_\n    Neo-Platonism compared with, i. 51\n    Pagan ethics inconsistent with, i. 66\n    Pessimism of, toward mortal life, i. 64\n    Saints, _see that heading_\n    Salvation:\n      Master motive, as, i. 59, =61=, 79, 89\n      Scholasticism\u2019s main interest, as, ii. =296-7=, 300, 311\n      Standard of discrimination, as, ii. =530=, =533=, 559\n    Scriptures, _see that heading_\n    Teutonic acceptance of, _see under_ Teutons\n    Trinity doctrine of:\n      Abaelard\u2019s works on, ii. 10, =298-9=, 352-3, 355\n      Aquinas on, ii. 449-50, 456\n      Bonaventura on, ii. 416-17\n      Dante\u2019s vision, ii. 551\n      Peter Lombard\u2019s Book on, ii. 323\n      Roscellin on, ii. 340\n    Vernacular presentation of, ii. 221\n    Visions, _see that heading_\n\n  Chronicles, mediaeval, ii. 175\n\n  Chrysostom, i. 53\n\n  Church, Roman Catholic:\n    Authority of, Duns\u2019 views on, ii. 516\n    Bishops, _see that heading_\n    British Church\u2019s divergencies from, 171-2\n    Canon Law, _see that heading_\n    Charlemagne\u2019s relations with, i. =201=, 239; ii. 273\n    Classical study as regarded by, i. 260; ii. =110 seqq.=, 396-7\n    Clergy, _see that heading_\n    Confession doctrine of, i. 489\n    Constantine\u2019s relations with, ii. 266\n    Creation of, i. 11, 68, =86-7=\n    Decretals, etc., _see under_ Canon Law\n    Denunciations of, i. 474-5; ii. 34-5\n    Diocesan organization of, among Germans, i. 196\n    Doctrinal literature of, i. 68-70\n    Duns\u2019 attitude towards, ii. 513\n    East and West, solidarity of development of, i. 55\n    Empire\u2019s relations with, _see under_ Papacy\n    Eternal punishment doctrine of, i. =65=, =339=, 486; ii. 550\n    Eucharistic controversy, _see that heading_\n    Fathers of the, _see_ Greek thought, patristic; Latin Fathers; _and\n        chiefly_ Patristic thought\n    Feudalism as affected by, i. 524, 527-=9 and n. 2=, =530=\n    Feudalism as affecting, i. 244, 473\n    Frankish, _see under_ Franks\n    Gallo-Roman, i. 191-2, 194\n    Hildegard\u2019s visions regarding, i. 457\n    Intolerance of, _see subheading_ Persecutions\n    Investiture controversy, _see under_ Bishops\n    Irish Church\u2019s relations with, i. 172-4 _and_ =n. 1=\n    Isidore\u2019s treatise on liturgical practices of, i. 106\n    Knights\u2019 vow of obedience to, i. 530\n    Mass, the:\n      Alleluia chant and Sequence-hymn, ii. 196, =201 seqq.=\n      Symbolism of, ii. 77-8\n    Nicene Creed, i. 69\n    Papacy, Popes, _see those headings_\n    Paschal controversy, _see_ Eucharistic\n    Penance doctrine of, i. =101=, 195\n    Persecutions by, i. 339;\n      of Albigenses, i. 366-7, 461, 481, 572; ii. 168;\n      of Jews, i. 118, 332;\n      of Montanists, i. 332\n    Popes, _see that heading_\n    Predestination, attitude toward, i. 228\n    Property of, enactments regarding, ii. 266\n    Rationalists in, i. 305\n    Reforms in (11th cent.), i. 304\n    Roman law for, ii. 265 _and_ _n. 2_\n    Sacraments:\n      Definition of the word, ii. 72 _and_ _n. 1_\n      Hugo of St. Victor on, ii. 64, 66, 68-9, 71, =72-4=, 90 _n. 2_\n      Origin of, Bonaventura on, ii. 411-13\n      Pagan analogy with, i. 53, 59-60\n    Secularization of dignities of, i. 472\n    Simony in, i. =244=, 475\n    Spain, in, _see under_ Spain\n    Standards set by, ii. 528-9\n    Suspects to, estimate of, ii. 532\n    Synod of Aix (817), i. 359\n    Theodosian Code as concerning, ii. 266-7 _and_ _n. 1_\n    Transubstantiation doctrine of, i. 226-227\n    \u201cTruce of God\u201d promulgated by, i. 529 _n. 2_\n\n  Churches:\n    Building of, symbolism in, ii. 78-82\n    Dedication of, sequence designed for, ii. 210-11\n\n  Cicero, i. 26 _n. 3_, 39, 78, =219=\n\n  Cino, ii. 264\n\n  Cistercian Order:\n    _Charta charitatis_, i. 361-3\n    Clairvaux founded, i. 393\n    Cluniac controversies with, i. 360\n\n  Citeaux monastery:\n    Bernard at, i. 360, 393\n    Foundation and rise of, i. 360-3\n\n  Cities and towns:\n    Growth of, in 12th cent., i. 305; ii. =379-80=\n    Italian, _see under_ Italy\n\n  Cities (_civitates_) of Roman provinces, i. 29-30\n\n  Clairvaux (Clara Vallis):\n    Founding of, i. 360, 393\n    Position of, i. 362\n    St. Bernard\u2019s love of, i. 401-2\n\n  Classics, _see_ Latin classics\n\n  Claudius, Bp. of Turin, i. 215, 231-2 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Claudius, Emp., i. 30\n\n  Clement II., Pope, i. 243\n\n  Clement IV., Pope, ii. 489-91\n\n  Clement V., Pope, _Decretales Clementinae_ of, ii. 272\n\n  Clement of Alexandria, ii. 64\n\n  Clergy:\n    Accusations against, false, penalty for, ii. 266\n    Legal status of, ii. 382\n    Regular, _see_ Monasticism\n    Secular:\n      Concubinage of, i. 244\n      Francis of Assisi\u2019s attitude toward, i. 430, 440\n      Marriage of, i. 472 _n. 1_\n      Reforms of, i. 359\n      Standard of conduct for, i. 471; ii. 529\n    Term, scope of, i. 356\n\n  Clerval, Abb\u00e9, cited, i. 300 _n. 1_\n\n  Clopinel, Jean, _see_ De Meun\n\n  Clovis (Chlodoweg), i. 114, 117, =119-21=, 122, 138, =193-4=; ii. 245\n\n  Cluny monastery:\n    Abaelard at, ii. 25, =26=, 345\n    Characteristics of, i. 359-60\n    Monastic reforms accomplished by, i. =293=, 304\n\n  Cologne, i. 29, 31\n\n  Columba, St., of Iona, i. =133-7=, 173\n\n  Columbanus, St., of Luxeuil and Bobbio, i. 6, 133, =174-9=, 196;\n    Life and works of, 174 _n. 2_\n\n  Combat, trial by, i. 232\n\n  Commentaries, mediaeval:\n    Bo\u00ebthius\u2019, i. 93\n    Excerpts as characteristic of, i. 104\n    General addiction to, ii. 390, 553 _n. 4_\n    Originals supplanted by, ii. 390\n    Raban\u2019s, i. 222-3\n\n  Compends:\n    Fourteenth century use of, ii. 523\n    Mediaeval preference for, i. 94\n    Medical, in Italy, i. 251\n    Saints\u2019 lives, of (_Legenda aurea_), ii. 184\n\n  Conrad, Duke of Franconia, i. 241\n\n  Conrad II., Emp., i. 243\n\n  Constantine, Emp., ii. 266;\n    \u201cDonation\u201d of, ii. =35=, 265, 270\n\n  Constantinus Africanus, i. =251= _and_ _n._; ii. 372\n\n  Cordova, i. 25\n\n  Cornelius Nepos, i. 25\n\n  _Cornificiani_, ii. =132=, 373\n\n  Cosmogony:\n    Aquinas\u2019 theory of, ii. 456\n    Mediaeval allegorizing of, ii. 65 _seqq._\n    Patristic attitude toward, i. 72-4\n\n  Cosmology, Alan\u2019s, in _Anticlaudianus_, ii. 377\n\n  Cremona, i. 24\n\n  Cross, Christian:\n    Magic safeguard, as, i. 294-5\n    Mediaeval feeling for, ii. 197\n\n  Crusades:\n    Constantinople, capture of, as affecting Western learning, ii. 391\n    First:\n      _Chansons_ concerning, i. 537-8\n      Character of, i. 535-7\n      Guibert\u2019s account of, ii. 175\n    Hymn concerning, quoted, i. 349 _and_ _n._\n    Italians little concerned in, ii. 189\n    Joinville\u2019s account of, quoted, i. 546-9\n    Language of, i. 531\n    Results of, i. 305\n    Second, i. 394\n    Spirit of, i. 535-7\n\n  Cuchulain, i. 129 _and_ _nn. 2, 3_\n\n  Cynewulf\u2019s _Christ_, i. 183\n\n  Cyprian quoted, i. 337 _n._\n\n  Cyril of Alexandria, i. 227\n\n  Cyril of Jerusalem, i. 53\n\n\n  Da Romano, Alberic, i. 515-16\n\n  Da Romano, Eccelino, i. =505-6=, 516\n\n  Dacia, Visigoths in, i. 112\n\n  Damiani, St. Peter, Card. Bp. of Ostia, career of, i. 262-4;\n    attitude of, to the classics, i. 260; ii. 112, 165;\n    on the hermit life, i. 369-70;\n    on tears, i. 371 _and_ _n._;\n    extract illustrating Latin style of, ii. 165 _and_ _n. 3_;\n    works of, i. 263 _n. 1_;\n    writings quoted, i. 263-7;\n    _Liber Gomorrhianus_, i. 265, 474;\n    _Vita Romualdi_, i. 372 _seqq._;\n    biography of Dominicus Loricatus, i. 381-2;\n    _De parentelae gradibus_, ii. 252;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 17, 19, 20, 260, 343, 345, 391; ii. 34\n\n  Damianus, i. 262, 265\n\n  Danes, i. 142, =153=\n\n  Dante, estimate of, ii. 534-5;\n    scholarship of, ii. 541 _n. 2_;\n    possessed by spirit of allegory, ii. 552-5;\n    compared with Aquinas and influenced by him, ii. 541 _n. 2_, 547, 549,\n        551, 555;\n    compared with Bonaventura, ii. 547;\n    attitude to Beatrice, ii. 555-8;\n    on love, ii. 555-6;\n    on monarchy, ii. 278;\n    _De monarchia_, ii. 535;\n    _De vulgari eloquentia_, ii. 219, =536=;\n    _Vita nuova_, ii. =556=, 559;\n    _Convito_, ii. =537-8=, 553;\n    _Divina Commedia_, i. 12 _n._; ii. 86, 99 _n. 1_, =103=, 219;\n      commentaries on this work, ii. 553-4;\n      estimate of it, ii. 538, 540-1, 544, 553-4;\n    _Inferno_ cited, ii. 42, 541-3, =545-7=;\n    _Purgatorio_ cited, ii. 535, 542-3, =548-9=, 554, 558;\n    _Paradiso_ cited, i. 395; ii. 542-3, =549-51=, 558\n\n  Dares the Phrygian, ii. 116 _and_ _n. 3_, 224-=5 and nn.=, 226-7\n\n  _De bello et excidio urbis Comensis_, ii. 189-90\n\n  De Boron, Robert, i. 567\n\n  _De casu Diaboli_, i. 279\n\n  _De consolatione philosophiae_, _see under_ Bo\u00ebthius\n\n  De Lorris, Guillaume, _Roman de la rose_ by, i. =586-7=; ii. 103 _and_\n        _n. 1_, 104\n\n  De Meun, Jean (Clopinel), _Roman de la rose_ by, ii. 103 _and_ _n. 1_,\n        104, =223=\n\n  Denis, St., i. 230\n\n  Dermot (Diarmaid, Diarmuid), High-King of Ireland, i. =132=-3, 135, =136=\n\n  Desiderius, Bp. of Vienne, i. 99\n\n  Desiderius, Pope, i. =253=, 263\n\n  Devil, the:\n    Mediaeval beliefs and stories as to, i. 487 _seqq._\n    Romuald\u2019s conflicts with, i. =374=, 379-80\n\n  Dialectic (_See also_ Logic):\n    Abaelard\u2019s skill in, ii. 118, 119, =345-6=, 353;\n      his subjection of dogma to, ii. 304;\n      his _Dialectica_, ii. 346 _and_ _nn._, 349-50\n    Chartres study of, i. 298\n    Duns Scotus\u2019 mastery of, ii. 510, 514\n    Grammar penetrated by, ii. 127 _seqq._\n    Hugo of St. Victor on, ii. 67\n    Raban\u2019s view of, i. 222\n    Thirteenth century study of, ii. 118-20\n\n  Diarmaid (Diarmuid), _see_ Dermot\n\n  _Dictamen_, ii. =121=, =129=, 381\n\n  Dictys the Cretan, ii. 224, 225 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  _Dies irae_, i. 348\n\n  Dionysius the Areopagite, ii. 10, 102, =344=\n\n  _Divina Commedia_, _see under_ Dante\n\n  Divination, ii. 374\n\n  Dominic, St., i. =366-7=, 497; ii. 396\n\n  Dominican Order:\n    Aristotelianism of, ii. 404\n    Founding of, i. =366=; ii. 396\n    Growth of, i. 498; ii. =398=\n    Object of, ii. 396\n    Oxford University, at, ii. 387\n    Papacy, relations with, ii. =398=, 509\n    Paris University, position in, ii. =386=, 399\n\n  Dominicus Loricatus, i. 263, =381-3=\n\n  Donatus, i. 71, 297;\n    _Ars minor_ and _Barbarismus_ of, ii. 123-=4=\n\n  Donizo of Canossa, ii. 189 _and_ _n. 2_\n\n  Druids:\n    Gallic, i. =28=, 296\n    Irish, i. 133\n\n  Du Guesclin, Bertrand, Constable of France, i. 554-6, 557 _n._\n\n  Duns Scotus, education of, ii. 511;\n    career of, ii. 513;\n    estimate of, ii. 513;\n    intricacy of style of, ii. 510, 514, =516 n. 2=;\n    on logic, ii. 504 _n. 2_;\n    Occam\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 518 _seqq._;\n    editions of works of, ii. 511 _n. 1_;\n    estimate of his work, ii. 509-10, 514\n\n  Dunstan, St., Abp. of Canterbury, i. 323-4\n\n  Durandus, Guilelmus, _Rationale divinorum officiorum_ of, ii. 76 _seqq._\n\n\n  Eadmer, i. 269, 273, 277\n\n  Eastern Empire:\n    Frankish relations with, i. 123\n    Huns\u2019 relations with, i. 112-13\n    Norse mercenaries of, i. 153\n    Ostrogoths\u2019 relations with, i. 114\n    Roman restoration by, i. 115\n\n  Ebroin, i. 209\n\n  Eckbert, Abbot of Sch\u00f6nau, i. 444\n\n  Ecstasy:\n    Bernard\u2019s views on, ii. 368\n    Examples of, i. 444, 446\n\n  Eddas, ii. 220\n\n  Education:\n    Carolingian period, in, i. =213-14=, 218-19, 222, =236=; ii. 110, 122,\n        =158=, 332\n    Chartres method of, ii. 130-1\n    Grammar a chief study in, ii. 122 _seqq._, 331-2\n    Italy, in, _see under_ Italy\n    Latin culture the means and method of, i. 12; ii. =109=\n    Schools, clerical and monastic, i. =250 n. 2=, 293\n    Schools, lay, i. 249-51\n    Seven Liberal Arts, _see that heading_\n    Shortening of academic course, advocates of, ii. =132=, 373\n\n  Edward II., King of England, i. 551\n\n  Edward III., King of England, i. 550-1\n\n  Edward the Black Prince, i. 554-6\n\n  Einhard the Frank, i. 234 _n. 1_;\n    _Life of Charlemagne_ by, i. 215; ii. 158-9\n\n  Ekkehart family, i. 309\n\n  Ekkehart of St. Gall, _Waltarius_ (_Waltharilied_) by, ii. 188\n\n  El-Farabi, ii. 390\n\n  Eleventh century:\n    Characteristics of, i. 301;\n      in France, i. 301, 304, 328;\n      in Germany, i. 307-9;\n      in England, i. 324;\n      in Italy, i. 327\n    Christianity in, position of, i. 16\n\n  Elias, Minister-General of the Minorites, i. 499\n\n  Elizabeth, St., of Hungary, i. 391, =465 n. 1=\n\n  Elizabeth, St., of Sch\u00f6nau, visions of, i. 444-6\n\n  Emotional development, secular, i. 349-50 _and_ _n. 2_\n\n  Empire, the, _see_ Holy Roman Empire\n\n  Encyclopaedias, mediaeval, ii. 316 _n. 2_;\n    Vincent\u2019s _Speculum majus_, ii. 315-22\n\n  _Eneas_, ii. 225, =226=\n\n  Engelbert, Abp. of Cologne, i. 481-6;\n    estimate of, i. 482\n\n  England (_See also_ Britain):\n    Danish Viking invasion of, i. 153\n    Eleventh century conditions in, i. 324\n    Law in, principles of, i. 141-2;\n      Roman law almost non-existent in Middle Ages, ii. 248\n    Norman conquest of, linguistic result of, i. 324\n\n  English language, character of, i. 324\n\n  Epicureanism, i. =41=, 70; ii. 296, 312\n\n  Eriugena, John Scotus, estimate of, i. 215, =228-9=, =231=; ii. 330;\n    on reason _v._ authority, ii. 298, 302;\n    works of, studied at Chartres, i. 299;\n    _De divisione naturae_, i. =230-1=; ii. 302;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 16; ii. 282 _n._, 312\n\n  Essenes, i. 334\n\n  Ethelbert, King of Kent, i. 180-1\n\n  _Etymologies_ of Isidore, i. 33, 105 _and_ _n. 1_, =107-9=; ii. 318;\n    law codes glossed from, ii. 250\n\n  Eucharistic (Paschal) controversy:\n    Berengar\u2019s contribution to, i. 302-3\n    Paschasius\u2019 contribution to, i. 225-7\n\n  Eucherius, Bp. of Lyons, ii. 48 _n. 1_\n\n  Euclid, i. 40\n\n  Eudemus of Rhodes, i. 38\n\n  Eunapius, i. 47, 52\n\n  Euric, King of the Visigoths, i. 117 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Eusebius, i. 81 _n. 2_\n\n  Evil or sin:\n    Abaelard\u2019s views concerning, ii. 350\n    Eriugena\u2019s views concerning, i. 228\n    Original sin, realism in relation to, ii. 340 _n._\n    Peter Lombard and Aquinas contrasted as to, ii. 308-10\n\n  Experimental science, Bacon on, ii. 502-8\n\n\n  _Fabliaux_, i. =521 n. 2=; ii. 222\n\n  Facts, unlimited actuality of, i. 79-80\n\n  Faith:\n    Abaelard\u2019s definition of, ii. 354\n    Bacon\u2019s views on, ii. 507\n    Bernard of Clairvaux\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 355\n    _Caritas_ in relation to, ii. 479-81\n    Cognition through, Aquinas\u2019 views on, ii. 446\n    Occam\u2019s views on, ii. 519\n    Proof of matters of, Aquinas on, ii. 450\n    Will as functioning in, ii. 479\n\n  _False Decretals_, i. 104 _n._, =118 n. 1=\n\n  Fathers of the Church (_See also_ Patristic thought):\n    Greek, _see_ Greek thought, patristic\n    Latin, _see_ Latin Fathers\n\n  Faustus, ii. 44\n\n  Felix, St., i. 86\n\n  Feudalism (_See also_ Knighthood):\n    Anarchy of, modification of, i. 304\n    Austrasian disintegration by, i. 240\n    _Chansons_ regarding, i. 559 _seqq._, 569\n    Christianity in relation to, i. 524, 527-=9 and n. 2=, =530=\n    Church affected by, i. 244, 473\n    Italy not greatly under, i. 241\n    Marriage as affected by, i. 571, 586\n    Obligations of, i. 533-4\n    Origin of, 522-3\n    Principle and practice of, at variance, i. 522\n\n  Fibonacci, Leonardo, ii. 501\n\n  Finnian, i. 136\n\n  _Flamenca_, i. 565\n\n  _Flore et Blanchefleur_, i. 565\n\n  Florus, Deacon, of Lyons, i. 229 _and_ _n._\n\n  Fonte Avellana hermitage, i. =262-3=, 381\n\n  Forms, new, creation of, _see_ Mediaeval thought--Restatement\n\n  Fortunatus, Hymns by, ii. 196-7\n\n  Fourteenth century:\n    Academic decadence in, ii. 523\n    Papal position in, ii. 509-10\n\n  France (_For particular districts, towns, etc., see their names_):\n    Antique, the, in relation to, before Middle Ages, i. 9-10\n    Arthurian romances developed in, i. 566\n    Cathedrals of, ii. 539, 554-5\n    Church in, secularization of, i. 472-3\n    Eleventh century conditions in, i. 301, 304, 328\n    History of, in 11th century, i. 300\n    Hundred Years\u2019 War, i. 550 _seqq._\n    Jacquerie in (1358), i. 556\n    Language modifications in, ii. 155\n    Literary celebrities in (12th cent.), ii. 168\n    Monarchy of, advance of, i. 305\n    North and South, characteristics of, i. 328\n    Rise of, in 14th century, ii. 509\n    Town-dwellers of, i. =495=, 508\n\n  Francis, St., of Assisi, birth of, i. 415;\n    parentage, i. 419;\n    youth, i. 420-3;\n    breach with his father, i. 423-4;\n    monastic career, i. 427 _seqq._;\n    French songs sung by, i. =419 and n. 2=, 427, 432;\n    _Lives_ of, i. 415 _n._;\n    style of Thomas of Celano\u2019s _Life_, ii. 182-3;\n    _Speculum perfectionis_, i. 415 _n._, 416 _n._, =438 n. 3=; ii. =183=;\n    literal acceptance of Scripture by, i. 365, 406-=7=;\n    on Scripture interpretation, i. 427 _n. 1_; ii. 183;\n    universality of outlook, i. 417;\n    mediaevalism, i. 417;\n    Christ-influence, i. 417, =418=, =432=-3;\n    inspiration, i. =419 n. 1=, 441;\n    gaiety of spirit, i. 421, 427-8, 431-2;\n    poetic temperament, i. 422, 435;\n    love of God, man, and nature, i. 366, 428, =432-3=, =435=-7;\n    simplicity, i. 429;\n    obedience and humility, i. 365 _n._, =429-30=;\n    humanism, i. 495;\n    St. Bernard compared with, i. 415-16;\n    St. Dominic contrasted with, ii. 396;\n    _Fioretti_, ii. 184;\n    Canticle of Brother Sun, i. 433-4, =439-40=;\n    last testament of, i. 440-1;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 20, 21, 279, 344, 345, 355-6; ii. 302\n\n  Franciscan Order:\n    Attractiveness of, i. 498\n    Augustinianism of, ii. 404\n    Bacon\u2019s relations with, ii. 486, =488=, 490-=1=\n    Characteristics of, i. 366\n    Founding of, i. =427=; ii. 396\n    Grosseteste\u2019s relations, ii. =487=, 511\n    Object of, ii. 396\n    Oxford University, at, ii. 387, 400\n    Papacy, relations with, ii. =398=, 509\n    Paris University, in, ii. 386, 399\n    Rise of, ii. 398\n\n  Franconia, i. 241\n\n  Franks (_See also_ Germans):\n    Christianity as accepted by, i. 193\n    Church among:\n      Bishops, position of, i. =194 and nn.=, 198, 201 _n._\n      Charlemagne\u2019s relations with, i. =201=, 239; ii. 273\n      Clovis, under, i. 194\n      Lands held by, i. 194, 199-200;\n        immunities of, i. 201 _and_ _n._\n      Organization of, i. 199\n      Reform of, by Boniface, i. =196=; ii. 273\n      Roman character of, i. 201\n    Division of the kingdom a custom of, i. 238-9\n    Gallo-Roman relations with, i. 123\n    Language of, i. 145 _n. 2_\n    Law of, ii. 245-6\n    _Missi dominici_, i. 211\n    Ripuarian, i. 119, 121; ii. 246\n    Romanizing of, partial, i. 9-10\n    Salian, i. 113, =119=; Code, ii. 245-6\n    Saracens defeated by, i. 209-10 _n. 1_\n    Trojan origin of, belief as to, ii. 225 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Frederic, Count of Isenburg, i. 483-6\n\n  Frederick I. (Barbarossa), Emp., i. 448\n\n  Frederick II., Emp., under Innocent\u2019s guardianship, ii. 32-3;\n    crowned, ii. 33;\n    estimate of, i. 497;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 250 _n. 4_, 417, 481, 505, 510, 517\n\n  Free, meaning of term, i. 526 _n. 3_\n\n  Free Companies, i. 556\n\n  Free will:\n    Angelic, ii. 473\n    Duns Scotus on, ii. 515\n    Human, ii. 475\n    Richard of Middleton on, ii. 512\n\n  Freidank, i. 475; ii. =35=\n\n  Frescoes, i. 346-7\n\n  Friendship, chivalric, i. 561-2, 569-70, 583\n\n  Frisians, i. 169, 174;\n    missionary work among, i. =197=, 200, 209\n\n  Froissart, Sir John, _Chronicles_ of, i. 549 _seqq._;\n    estimate of the work, i. 557\n\n  Froumund of Tegernsee, i. =312-13=; ii. 110\n\n  Fulbert, Bp. of Chartres, i. 287, =296-7=, 299\n\n  Fulbert, Canon, ii. 4-6, 9\n\n  Fulco, Bp. of Toulouse, i. 461\n\n  Fulda monastery, i. =198=, 221 _n. 2_\n\n  Fulk of Anjou, ii. 138\n\n\n  Gaius, _Institutes_ of, ii. 241, 243\n\n  Galahad, i. 569-70, 583, 584 _and_ _n. 2_\n\n  Galen of Pergamos, i. =40=, 251\n\n  Gall, St., i. 6, 178, =196=\n\n  Gallo-Romans:\n    Feudal system among, i. 523\n    Frankish rule over, i. 120, 123\n    Literature of, i. 126 _n. 2_\n\n  Gandersheim cloister, i. 311\n\n  Gaul (_For particular districts, towns, etc., see their names_):\n    Celtic inhabitants of, i. =125 and n.=, =126=-7, 129 _n. 1_\n    Druidism in, i. =28=, 296\n    Ethnology of, i. 126\n    Heathenism in, late survival of, i. 191 _n. 1_\n    Latinization of, i. 9-10, =29-32=\n    Visigothic kingdom in south of, i. 112, 116, 117, 121\n\n  Gauls, characteristics and customs of, i. 27-8\n\n  Geoffrey of Beaulieu, Life of St. Louis by, i. 539-42\n\n  Gepidae, i. 113, 115\n\n  Geraldus, St., i. 281\n\n  Gerard, brother of St. Bernard, i. 402-4\n\n  Gerbert of Aurillac, _see_ Sylvester II.\n\n  German language:\n    Christianity as affecting, i. 202\n    High and Low, separation of, i. 145 _n. 2_\n    Middle High German literature, ii. 168, 221\n    Old High German poetry, ii. =194=, 220\n\n  Germans (Saxons) (_See also_ Franks):\n    Characteristics of, i. 138-40, 147, 151-2\n    Language of, _see_ German language\n    Latin as studied by, i. =307-9=; ii. =123=, 155\n    Literature of, ii. 220-1 (_See also subheading_ Poetry)\n    Marriage as regarded by, ii. 30\n    Nationalism of, in 13th cent., ii. 28\n    Poetry of:\n      _Hildebrandslied_, i. 145-7\n      _Kudrun_ (_Gudrun_), i. 148, =149=-52; ii. 220\n      _Nibelungenlied_, i. 145-6, =148-9=, 152, 193, 203 _n. 2_; ii. 220\n      _Waltarius_, i. 147 _and_ _n._, 148\n      otherwise mentioned, i. 113, 115, 119, 174, 209, 210\n\n  Germany:\n    Antique, the, in relation to, before Middle Ages, i. 10-11\n    Art in (11th cent.), i. 312\n    Church in, secularization of, i. 472\n    Italy contrasted with, as to culture, i. 249-50\n    Merovingian supremacy in, i. 121\n    Papacy as regarded by, ii. 28, 33, =34-5=\n    Sequence-composition in, ii. 215\n\n  Gertrude of Hackeborn, Abbess, i. 466\n\n  Gilbert de la Porr\u00e9e, Bp. of Poictiers, ii. 132, =372=\n\n  Gilduin, Abbot of St. Victor, ii. =62= _and_ _n. 2_\n\n  Giraldus Cambrensis, ii. 135 _and_ _n._\n\n  Girard, Bro., of Modena, i. 498\n\n  Glaber, Radulphus, _Histories_ of, i. 488 _n._\n\n  Glass-painting, ii. 82-6\n\n  Gnosticism, i. 51 _n. 1_\n\n  Gnostics, Eriugena compared with, i. 231 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Godehard, Bp. of Hildesheim, i. 312\n\n  Godfrey of Bouillon, i. 535-8\n\n  Godfrey of Viterbo, ii. 190 _and_ _n. 4_\n\n  Gondebaud, King of the Burgundians, ii. 242\n\n  Good and the true compared, ii. 441, 512\n\n  Goths (_See also_ Visigoths):\n    Christianity of, i. 192, 194\n    Roman Empire invaded by, i. 111 _seqq._\n\n  Gottfried von Strassburg, i. 567; ii. 223;\n    _Tristan_ of, i. 577-82\n\n  Gottschalk, i. 215, 221 _n. 2_, 224-5, 227-=8=;\n    verses by, ii. 197-9\n\n  Government:\n    Church _v._ State controversy, ii. 276-7\n      (_See also_ Papacy--Empire)\n    Ecclesiastical, _see_ Canon Law\n    Monarchical, ii. 277-8\n    Natural law in relation to, ii. 278-=9=\n    Representative assemblies, ii. 278\n\n  Grace, Aquinas\u2019 definition of, ii. 478-9\n\n  Grail, the, i. 589, =596-7=, =607=, 608, 613\n\n  Grammar:\n    Chartres studies in, i. =298=; ii. 129-30\n    Current usage followed by, ii. 163 _and_ _n. 1_\n    Hugo of St. Victor on, ii. 67\n    Importance and predominance of, in Middle Ages, i. 109 _and_ _n._,\n        =292=; ii. =331-2=\n    Italian study of, ii. =129=, 381\n    Language continuity preserved by, ii. =122-3=, 151, 155\n    Law studies in relation to, ii. 121\n    Logic in relation to, ii. 127 _seqq._, 333-4;\n      in Abaelard\u2019s work, ii. 346\n    Raban\u2019s view of, i. 222\n    Scholastic classification of, ii. 313\n    Syntax, connotation of term, ii. 125\n    Works on--Donatus, Priscian, Alexander, ii. 123 =seqq.=\n\n  Grammarian, meaning of term, i. 250\n\n  Gratianus, _Decretum_ of, ii. 268-9, =270-1=, 306, 380-2;\n    _dicta_, ii. 271\n\n  Greek classics, _see_ Greek thought, pagan\n\n  Greek language:\n    Oxford studies in, ii. 120, 391, =487=\n    Translations from, direct, in 13th cent., ii. 391\n\n  Greek legends, mediaeval allegorizing of, ii. 52, 56-9\n\n  Greek novels, ii. 224 _and_ _n._\n\n  Greek thought, pagan:\n    Bacon\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 492-3\n    Breadth of interest of, ii. 109\n    Christian standpoint contrasted with, i. 390; ii. 295-6\n    Church Fathers permeated by, i. 33-4\n    Completeness of schemes presented by, ii. 394\n    Limitless, the, abhorrent to, i. 353-4\n    Love as regarded by, i. 575\n    Metaphysics in, ii. 335-7\n    Scholasticism contrasted with, ii. 296\n    _Summa moralium philosophorum_, ii. 373\n    Symbolism in, ii. 42, =56=\n    Transmutation of, through Latin medium, i. 4\n\n  Greek thought, patristic (_See also_ Patristic thought):\n    Comparison of, with Latin, i. 68\n    Pagan philosophic thought contrasted with, ii. 295-6\n    Symbolism in, ii. 43\n    Transmutation of, through Latin medium, i. 5, 34 _and_ _n._\n\n  Gregorianus, ii. =240=, 243\n\n  Gregory, Bp. of Tours, i. 121;\n    _Historia Francorum_ by, i. 234 _n. 2_; ii. 155\n\n  Gregory I. (the Great), Pope, family and education of, i. 97;\n    Augustine of Hippo compared with, i. 98-9;\n    Augustinianism barbarized by, i. 98, 102;\n    sends mission to England, i. 6, 33, =180-1 and n. 1=;\n    estimate of, i. =56=, 89, =102-3=, =342=;\n    estimate of his writings, i. 354;\n    on miracles, i. 100, 182;\n    on secular studies, ii. 288;\n    letter to Theoctista cited, i. 102 _n. 1_;\n    editions of works of, i. 97 _n._;\n    works of, translated by King Alfred, i. 187;\n    _Dialogues on the Lives and Miracles of the Italian Saints_, i. 85 and\n        _n. 2_, 100;\n    _Moralia_, i. =97=, 100; ii. 57;\n    Odo\u2019s epitome of this work, ii. 161;\n    _Commentary on Kings_, i. 100 _n. 1_;\n    _Pastoral Rule_, i. =102=, 187-8;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 16 _and_ _n. 4_, 65, 87, 104, 116\n\n  Gregory II., Pope, i. 197-8; ii. 273\n\n  Gregory III., Pope, i. 198; ii. 273\n\n  Gregory VII., Pope (Hildebrand), claims of, i. =244-5=; ii. 274;\n    relations with Damiani, i. 263;\n    exile of, i. 244, 253;\n    estimate of, i. 261;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 17, 174 _n. 1_, 243, 304\n\n  Gregory IX., Pope, codification by, of Canon law, ii. 272;\n    efforts of, to improve education of the Church, ii. 398;\n    mentioned, i. 476; ii. 33\n\n  Gregory of Nyssa, i. 53, 80, 87, 340\n\n  Grosseteste, Robert, Chancellor of Oxford University and Bp. of Lincoln,\n        Greek studies promoted by, ii. =120=, =391=, 487;\n    estimate of, ii. 511-12;\n    Augustinianism of, ii. 403-4;\n    attitude toward the classics, ii. 120, 389;\n    relations with Franciscan Order, ii. =487=, 511;\n    Bacon\u2019s relations with, ii. 487\n\n  _Gudrun_ (_Kudrun_), i. 148, =149=-52; ii. 220\n\n  Guigo, Prior, estimate of, i. 390-1;\n    relations with St. Bernard, i. 405;\n    _Consuetudines Carthusiae_ by, i. 384;\n    _Meditationes_ of, i. 385-90\n\n  Guinevere, i. 569, =584= _and_ _n. 1_, 585\n\n  Guiot de Provens, \u201cBible\u201d of, i. 475-6 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Guiscard, Robert, ii. 189 _n. 2_\n\n  Gumpoldus, Bp. of Mantua, _Life of Wenceslaus_ by, ii. 162 _n. 1_\n\n  Gundissalinus, Archdeacon of Segovia, ii. 312 _and_ _n. 4_, 313\n\n  Gunther, _Ligurinus_ of, ii. 192 _and_ _n. 4_\n\n  Gunzo of Novara, i. 257-8\n\n\n  Harding, Stephen, Abbot of Citeaux, i. =360=, =361=, 393\n\n  Harold Fairhair, i. 153\n\n  _Hartmann von Aue_, i. =348-9 and n.=, 567; ii. 29 _n._\n\n  Harun al Raschid, Caliph, i. 210\n\n  Heinrich von Veldeke, i. 567; ii. 29 _n._\n\n  _Heliand_, i. =203 and nn.=, 308\n\n  Helias, Count of Maine, ii. 138\n\n  Hell:\n    Dante\u2019s descriptions of, ii. 546-7\n    Fear of, i. 103, =339=, 342, =383=\n    Visions of, i. 454-5, 456 _n._\n\n  Helo\u00efse, Abaelard\u2019s love for, ii. 4-5, 344;\n    his love-songs to, ii. =13=, 207;\n    love of, for Abaelard, i. 585; ii. =3=, =5=, 8, 9, =15-16=;\n    birth of Astralabius, ii. 6;\n    opposes marriage with Abaelard, ii. 6-9;\n    marriage, ii. 9;\n    at Argenteuil, ii. 9, 10;\n    takes the veil, ii. 10;\n    at the Paraclete, ii. 10 _seqq._;\n    letters of, to Abaelard quoted, ii. 11-15, 17-20, 23, 24;\n    Abaelard\u2019s letters to, quoted, ii. 16-17, 21-3, 24-5;\n    Peter the Venerable\u2019s letter, ii. 25-7;\n    letter of, to Peter the Venerable, ii. 27;\n    death of, ii. 27;\n    intellectual capacity of, ii. 3\n\n  Henry the Fowler, i. 241\n\n  Henry II., Emp., i. 243;\n    dirge on death of, ii. 216\n\n  Henry IV., Emp., i. 244; ii. =167=\n\n  Henry VI., Emp., ii. 32, 190\n\n  Henry I., King of England, ii. 139, 146, 176-8\n\n  Henry II., King of England, ii. 133, 135, 372\n\n  Henry of Brabant, ii. 391\n\n  Henry of Ghent, ii. 512\n\n  Henry of Huntington cited, i. 525\n\n  Henry of Septimella, ii. 190 _and_ _n. 3_\n\n  Heretics (_For particular sects, see their names_):\n    Abaelard\u2019s views on coercion of, ii. 350, 354\n    Insignificance of, in relation to mediaeval thought, ii. 283 _and_ _n._\n    Theodosian enactments against, ii. 266\n    Twelfth century, in, i. 305\n\n  Herluin, Abbot of Bec, i. 271\n\n  Hermann, Landgraf of Th\u00fcringen, i. 589; ii. 29\n\n  Hermann Contractus, i. 314-15 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Hermits:\n    Irish, i. 133\n    Motives of, i. 335, 363\n    Temper of, i. 368 _seqq._\n\n  Hermogenianus, ii. 240, 243\n\n  Herodotus, i. 77\n\n  Hesse, Boniface\u2019s work in, i. 197-8\n\n  Hilarion, St., i. 86\n\n  Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers, i. =63=, 68, 70\n\n  Hildebert of Lavardin, Bp. of Le Mans and Abp. of Tours, career of, ii.\n        137-40;\n    love of the classics, ii. =141-2=, =146=, 531;\n    letters of, quoted, ii. 140, 143, 144-5, 146-7;\n    Latin text of letter, ii. 172;\n    Latin elegy by, ii. 191;\n    otherwise mentioned, ii. 61, 134, 373 _n. 2_\n\n  Hildebrand, _see_ Gregory VII.\n\n  _Hildebrandslied_, ii. 220\n\n  Hildegard, St., Abbess of Bingen, dedication of, i. 447;\n    visions of, i. 267, =449-59=;\n    affinity of, with Dante, ii. 539;\n    correspondence of, i. 448;\n    works of, i. 446 _n._;\n    _Book of the Rewards of Life_, i. 452-6;\n    _Scivias_, i. 457-9;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 20, 345, 443; ii. 302, 365\n\n  Hildesheim, bishops of (11th cent.), i. 312\n\n  Hilduin, Abbot, i. 230\n\n  Hincmar, i. 215, 230, =233 n. 1=\n\n  Hipparchus, i. 40\n\n  Hippocrates, i. 40\n\n  History:\n    Carolingian treatment of, i. 234-5\n    Classical attitude toward, i. 77-8\n    Eleventh century treatment of, i. 300\n    _Historia tripartita_ of Cassiodorus, i. 96-7\n    Patristic attitude toward, i. 80-4\n    _Seven Books of Histories adversum paganos_ by Orosius, i. 82-3\n\n  Holy Roman Empire:\n    Burgundy added to, i. 243 _n. 1_\n    German character of, ii. 32\n    Papacy, relations with, _see under_ Papacy\n    Refounding of, by Otto, i. 243\n    Rise of, under Charlemagne, i. 212\n\n  Honorius II., Pope, i. 531\n\n  Honorius III., Pope, i. 366, 482, 497; ii. 33, 385 _n._, =398=\n\n  Honorius of Autun--on classical study, ii. 110, =112-13=;\n    _Speculum ecclesiae_ of, ii. 50 _seqq._;\n    _Gemma animae_, ii. 77 _n. 1_\n\n  Hosius, Bp. of Cordova, i. 118 _n. 1_\n\n  Hospitallers, i. 531\n\n  Hrotsvitha, i. 311 _and_ _n. 2_, ii. 215 _n. 2_\n\n  Huesca (Osca), i. 25\n\n  Hugh, Abbot of Cluny, ii. 137\n\n  Hugh Capet, i. 239-=40= _and_ _n._\n\n  Hugh the Great, Count of Paris, i. 241\n\n  Hugh of Payns, i. 531\n\n  Hugo, Archdeacon of Halberstadt, ii. 62\n\n  Hugo, Bro., of Montpellier, i. 510-14\n\n  Hugo, King, i. 242\n\n  Hugo of St. Victor, estimate of, ii. =63=, =111=, 118, 301, =356=;\n    allegorizing by, ii. 367;\n    on classical study, ii. 110-11;\n    on logic, ii. 333;\n    pupils of, ii. 87;\n    works of, ii. 61 _n. 2_;\n    _Didascalicon_, ii. 48 _n. 2_, =63=, =111=, 312, =357 and nn. 2-5=;\n    _De sacramentis Christianae fidei_, ii. 48 _n. 2_, =64 seqq.=, 365,\n        =395=, 540;\n    _Expositio in regulam beati Augustini_, ii. 62 _n. 2_;\n    _De arca No\u00eb morali_, ii. 75 _n._, =365-7=;\n    _De arca No\u00eb mystica_, ii. 367;\n    _De vanitate mundi_, ii. 75 _n._, =111-12=;\n    _Summa sententiarum_, ii. 356;\n    _Sermons on Ecclesiastes_, ii. 358-9;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 17, 20, 457; ii. 404\n\n  Humanists, ii. 126\n\n  _Humiliati_ of Lombardy, i. 365\n\n  Hungarians, i. 241-=2=\n\n  Huns, i. 112, 119, 193\n\n  _Huon de Bordeaux_, i. 564\n\n  Hy (Iona) Island, i. 136, =173=\n\n  Hymns, Christian:\n    Abaelard, by, ii. 25, =207-9=\n    Estimate of, i. 21\n    Evolution of, i. 347-9 _and_ _n._; ii. 196, =200 seqq.=\n    Hildegard\u2019s visions regarding, i. 459\n    Hugo of St. Victor, by, ii. 86 _seqq._\n    Sequences, development of, ii. 196, =201-6=;\n      Adam of St. Victor\u2019s, ii. 209-15\n\n\n  Iamblicus, i. 42, =47=, 51, 56-7; ii. 295\n\n  Iceland, Norse settlement in, i. 153\n\n  Icelanders, characteristics and customs of, i. 154\n\n  Icelandic Sagas, _see_ Sagas\n\n  Ideal _v._ actual, i. 353 _seqq._\n\n  Innocent II., Pope, i. =394=; ii. 10\n\n  Innocent III., Pope, i. 417, 481, 497; ii. =32=, =274=, 384, =398=\n\n  Innocent IV., Pope, i. 506\n\n  _Intellectus agens_, ii. 464, =507 n. 2=\n\n  Iona (Hy) Island, i. 136, =173=\n\n  Ireland:\n    Celts in, _see_ Irish\n    Church of, missionary zeal of, i. 133, 136, 172 _seqq._\n    Danish settlements in, i. 153\n    Monasteries in, i. =153 n. 1=, 173\n    Norse invasion of, i. 134\n    Scholarship in, i. =180 n.=, 184-5\n\n  Irenaeus, Bp. of Lyons, i. 225\n\n  Irish:\n    Art of, i. 128 _n. 1_\n    Characteristics of, i. =128=, 130, 133, 179\n    History of, i. 127 _and_ _n._\n    Influence of, on mediaeval feeling, i. 179 _and_ _n._\n    Literature of, i. =128 and n. 2=, =129 seqq.=, 134;\n      poetry, ii. 194\n    Missionary labours of, i. 133, 136, 172 _seqq._;\n      defect of, i. 179, 196\n    Norse harryings of, i. 133-4;\n      intercourse with, i. 152 _n. 3_\n    Oxford University, at, ii. 387\n\n  Irnerius, ii. 121, =260=, 380-1;\n    _Summa codicis_ of, ii. 255-9\n\n  Irrationality (_See also_ Miracles):\n    Neo-Platonic teaching as to, i. 42-4, 48, 52\n    Patristic doctrine as to, i. 51-3\n\n  Isabella, Queen, wife of Edward II., i. 550-1\n\n  Isidore, Abp. of Seville, estimate of, i. 89, 103, 118 _n. 1_;\n    Bede compared with, i. 185-7;\n    _False Decretals_ attributed to, i. 118 _n. 1_; ii. =270=, 273;\n    works of, i. 104-9;\n    _Etymologiae_, _see_ Etymologies of Isidore;\n    _Origines_, i. 236, 300;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 6, 88; ii. 46, 312\n\n  Italian people in relation to the antique, i. 7-8\n\n  Italy (_For particular districts, towns, etc., see their names_):\n    Celtic inroads into (3rd cent. B.C.), i. 24\n    Church in, secularization of, i. 472\n    Cities in:\n      Continuity of, through dark ages, i. 248, =494-5=; ii. 381\n      Fighting amongst, i. 497-8\n      Importance of, i. 241, 326, =494-5=\n    Continuity of culture and character in, i. =326=, 495; ii. =120-2=\n    Dante as influenced by, ii. 534-5\n    Education in--lay, persistence of, i. 249-51;\n      clerical and monastic, i. 250 _n. 2_\n    Eleventh-century conditions in, i. 327\n    Feudalism not widely fixed in, i. 241\n    Feuds in, i. 515-16\n    Grammar as studied in, i. 250 _and_ _n. 2_; ii. 129\n    Irish monasteries founded in, i. 174\n    Literature of, mediaeval, lack of originality in, ii. 189;\n      eleventh-century verse, i. 251 _seqq._; ii. 165 _n. 1_, 186\n    Lombard kingdom of (6th cent.), i. 115-16\n    Medicine studied in, i. 250 _and_ _n. 4_, =251=; ii. 121\n    Unification of, under Rome, i. 23\n\n\n  Jacobus \u00e0 Voragine, _Legenda aurea_ by, ii. 184\n\n  Jacques de Vitry, Bp. and Card. of Tusculum, i. 461 and n.;\n    Exempla of, i. 488 _n._, 490\n\n  Jerome, St., estimate of, i. 344, 354;\n    letter of, on asceticism, i. 335 _and_ =n. 1=;\n    love of the classics, ii. 107, 112, 531;\n    modification by, of classical Latin, ii. 152, 171;\n    two styles of, ii. 171 _and_ _n. 4_;\n    Life of Paulus by, i. 84, 86;\n    Life of Hilarion, i. 86;\n    _Contra Vigilantium_, i. 86;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 56, 75, 76, 104\n\n  Jerome of Ascoli (Pope Nicholas IV.), ii. 491\n\n  Jews:\n    Agobard\u2019s tracts against, i. 232-=3=\n    Gregory the Great\u2019s attitude toward, i. 102\n    Louis IX.\u2019s attitude toward, i. 545\n    Persecution of, i. 118, 332\n\n  Joachim, Abbot of Flora, _Evangelicum eternum_ of, 502 _n._, =510=,\n        =512-13=, 517\n\n  John, Bro., of Vicenza, i. 503-4\n\n  John X., Pope, i. 242\n\n  John XI., Pope, i. 242\n\n  John XII., Pope, i. 243; ii. =160-1=\n\n  John XIII., Pope, i. 282\n\n  John XXII., Pope, _Decretales extravaganes_ of, ii. 272\n\n  John of Damascus, ii. 439 _n. 1_\n\n  John of Fidanza, _see_ Bonaventura\n\n  John of Parma, Minister-General of Franciscans, i. 507, 508, =510-11=\n\n  John of Salisbury, estimate of, ii. 118, 373-4;\n    Chartres studies described by, ii. 130-2;\n    attitude of, to the classics, ii. 114, 164, =173=, 531;\n    Latin style of, ii. 173-4;\n    _Polycraticus_, ii. 114-15, 174-5;\n    _Metalogicus_, ii. 173-4;\n    _Entheticus_, ii. 192;\n    _De septem septenis_, ii. 375\n\n  John the Deacon, _Chronicon Venetum_ by, i. 325-6\n\n  Joinville, Sire de, _Histories_ of St. Louis by, i. 539, =542-9=\n\n  Jordanes, compend of Gothic history by, i. 94\n\n  Jordanes of Osnabr\u00fcck cited, ii. 276 _n. 2_\n\n  Joseph of Exeter, ii. 225 _n. 2_\n\n  Jotsaldus, Life of Odilo by, i. 295-6\n\n  Judaism, emotional elements in, i. 331-2\n\n  Julianus, _Epitome_ of, ii. 242, =249=, 254\n\n  Jumi\u00e8ges cloister, ii. 201\n\n  Jurisprudence (_See also_ Roman law):\n    Irnerius an exponent of, ii. 256, 259\n    Mediaeval renaissance of, ii. 265\n    Roman law, in, beginnings of, ii. 232\n\n  Justinian, _Codex_, _Institutes_, _Novellae_ of, _see under_ Roman law;\n    _Digest of_, _see_ Roman law--Pandects\n\n  Jutes, i. 140\n\n  Jutta, i. 447\n\n\n  Keating quoted, i. 136\n\n  Kilwardby, Richard, Abp. of Canterbury, _De ortu et divisione\n        philosophiae_ of, ii. 313\n\n  Kilwardby, Robert, ii. 128\n\n  Knighthood, order of:\n    Admission to, persons eligible for, i. 527\n    Code of, i. 524\n    Hospitallers, i. 531\n    Investiture ceremony, i. 525-8\n    Love the service of, i. 568, =573=\n    Templars, i. 531-5\n    Virtues and ideals of, i. 529-31, 567-8\n\n  Knowledge:\n    Cogitation, meditation, contemplation (Hugo\u2019s scheme), ii. 358 _seqq._\n    Forms and modes of, Aquinas on--divine, ii. 451-5;\n      angelic, ii. 459-62;\n      human, ii. 463 _seqq._\n    Grades of, Aquinas on, ii. 461, 467\n    Primacy of, over will maintained by Aquinas, ii. 440-1\n\n\n  La Fert\u00e9 Monastery, i. 362\n\n  Lambert of Hersfeld, _Annals_ of, i. 313; ii. 167\n\n  Lambertus Audomarensis, _Liber Floridus_ of, ii. 316 _n. 2_\n\n  _Lancelot of the Lake_, i. 567, 569-70, =582-5=;\n    Old French prose version of, i. 583 _seqq._\n\n  Land tenure, feudal, i. 523-4\n\n  Lanfranc, Primate of England, i. 174 _n. 1_, =261 n.=, 273\n\n  _Langue d\u2019oc_, ii. 222, 248\n\n  _Langue d\u2019oil_, ii. 222, 248\n\n  Languedoc, chivalric society of (11th and 12th centuries), i. 572\n\n  Latin classics:\n    Abaelard\u2019s reference to, ii. 353\n    Alexandrian antecedents of the verse, ii. 152 _n. 1_\n    Artificial character of the prose, ii. 151 _n._\n    Breadth of interest of, ii. 109\n    Characteristics of, ii. 153\n    Chartres a home of, i. 298; ii. 119\n    Common elements in, ii. 149, 157\n    Dante\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 541, 544;\n      his quotations from, ii. 543 _n. 1_\n    Ecclesiastical attitude toward, i. 260; ii. 110 _seqq._, 396-7\n    Familiarity with, of Damiani, i. 260; ii. 165;\n      Gerbert, i. 287-8; ii. 110;\n      John of Salisbury, ii. 114, 164, =173=, 531;\n      Bernard of Chartres, ii. 132-3;\n      Peter of Blois, ii. 133-4;\n      Hildebert, ii. =141-2=, =146=, 531\n    Knowledge-storehouses for the Middle Ages, as, ii. 108\n    Mastery of, complete, as affecting mediaeval writings, ii. 164\n    Reverential attitude of mediaevals toward, ii. 107-9\n    Scripture study as aided by study of, ii. 110, 112, 120\n    Suggestions of new ideas from, for Northern peoples, ii. 136\n    Themes of, in vernacular poetry, ii. 223 _seqq._\n    Twelfth-century study of, ii. 117-18\n\n  Latin Fathers (_See also their names and_ Patristic thought):\n    Comparison of, with Greek, i. 68\n    Style and diction of, ii. 150, 152 _seqq._\n    Symbolism in, ii. 43-6\n    Transmutation by, of Greek thought, i. 5, 34 _and_ _n._\n\n  Latin language:\n    Britain, position in, i. 10, 32\n    Children\u2019s letters in, ii. 123 _n._\n    Christianity as modifying, ii. 152, =154=, 156, 164, 171\n    Continuity of, preserved by universal study of grammar, ii. =122-3=,\n        151, 155\n    \u201cCornificiani\u201d in regard to, ii. =132=, 373\n    Educational medium as, ii. 109\n    Genius of, susceptible of change, ii. 149\n    German acquisition of, i. 10, 32, =307-8=, =313=; ii. =123=, 155\n    Grammar of, _see_ Grammar\n    Mediaeval modifications in, ii. 125, 164\n    Patristic modifications of, ii. 150, 152 _seqq._;\n      Jerome\u2019s, ii. 152, 171\n    Spelling of, mediaeval, i. 219\n    Sphere of, ii. 219-20\n    Supremacy of (during Roman conquest period), i. 4, =23-4 and n. 1=,\n        25, =30-1=\n    Translations from, scanty nature of, ii. 331 _n. 2_\n    Translations into, difficulties of, ii. 498\n    Universality of, as language of scholars, ii. 219, 331 _n. 2_\n    Vernacular, developments of, ii. 151\n    Vitality of, in relation to vernacular tongues, ii. 219\n\n  Latin prose, mediaeval:\n    Antecedents of, ii. 151 _seqq._\n    Best period of, ii. 167-8\n    Bulk of, ii. 157 _n._\n    Carolingian, ii. 158-60\n    Characteristics of, ii. 156\n    Estimation of, difficulties of, ii. 157 _and_ _n._\n    Influences upon, summary of, ii. 156\n    Prolixity and inconsequence of, ii. 154\n    Range of, ii. 154\n    Simplicity of word-order in, ii. 163 _n. 1_\n    Stages of development of, ii. 157 _seqq._\n    Style in, beginnings of, ii. 164\n    Stylelessness of, in Carolingian period, ii. 158-60\n    Thirteenth-century styles, ii. 179\n    Value of, as expressing the mediaeval mind, ii. 156, 164\n\n  Latin verse, mediaeval:\n    Accentual and rhyming compositions, ii. 194;\n      two kinds of, ii. 196\n    Antecedents of, ii. 187 _n. 1_\n    Carmina Burana (Goliardic poetry), ii. 203, =217-19 and n.=\n    Development of, stages in, ii. 187\n    Leonine hexameters, ii. 199 _and_ _n. 3_\n    Metrical composition, ii. 187 _seqq._;\n      elegiac verse, ii. 190-2 _and_ _n. 1_;\n      hexameters, ii. 192;\n      Sapphics, ii. 192-3 _and_ _n. 1_\n    Modi, ii. 215-16\n    Rhyme, development of, ii. 195, =206=\n\n  Law:\n    Barbarian, Latin codes of, ii. 244 _seqq._\n    Barbaric conception of, ii. 245, 248-9\n    _Breviarium_, _see under_ Roman law\n    Canon, _see_ Canon law\n    English, principles of, i. 141-2\n    Grammar in relation to, ii. 121\n    Lombard codes, i. =115=; ii. 242, =246=, 248, 253;\n      _Concordia_, ii. 259\n    Natural:\n      Gratian on, ii. 268-9\n      _Jus gentium_ in relation to, ii. =234 and n.=, 268\n      Occam on, ii. 519\n      Sacraments of, ii. 74 _and_ _n. 1_\n      Supremacy of, ii. 269, 279\n      Roman, _see_ Roman law\n      Salic, ii. 245-6\n      Territorial basis of, i. 123; ii. 247\n      Tribal basis of, i. 123; ii. =245-7=\n      Visigothic codification of, in Spain, i. 118\n\n  Leander, Bp. of Seville, i. 118 _n. 1_\n\n  L\u00e9gonais, Chr\u00e9tien, ii. 230 _and_ _n. 2_\n\n  Leo, Brother, _Speculum perfectionis_ by, ii. 183-4\n\n  Leo I. (the Great), Pope, i. 113, 116\n\n  Leo IX., Pope, i. 243\n\n  Leon, Sir Guy de, i. 552-3\n\n  Leon, Sir Herv\u00e9 de, i. 552-3\n\n  Leowigild, i. 117 _n. 2_, 118 _n. 1_\n\n  Lerins monastery, i. 195\n\n  Lewis, Lord, of Spain, i. 552-3\n\n  Liberal arts, _see_ Seven Liberal Arts\n\n  Liutgard of Tongern, i. 463-5\n\n  Liutprand, Bp. of Cremona i. =256-7=; ii. 161 _n. 1_\n\n  Liutprand, King of Lombards, i. 115-16\n\n  Logic (_See also_ Dialectic):\n    Albertus Magnus on, ii. =313-15=, 504, 506\n    Aristotelian, mediaeval apprehension of, ii. 329 (_See also_\n        Aristotle--_Organon_)\n    Bacon\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 505\n    Gerbert\u2019s preoccupation with, i. 282, 289, =292=\n    Grammar in relation to, ii. 127 _seqq._, 333-4;\n      in Abaelard\u2019s work, ii. 346\n    Importance of, in Middle Ages, i. 236; ii. 297\n    Nature of, ii. 333;\n      schoolmen\u2019s views on, ii. 313-15, 333\n    Occam\u2019s views on, ii. 522\n    Patristic attitude toward, i. 71\n    Raban\u2019s view of, i. 222\n    Scholastic classification of, ii. 313 _seqq._\n    Scholastic decay in relation to, ii. 523\n    Second stage of mediaeval development represented by, ii. 332-4\n    Specialisation of, in 12th cent., ii. 119\n    Theology in relation to, ii. =340 n.=, 346\n    Twofold interpretation of, ii. 333\n    Universals, problem of, ii. 339 _seqq._;\n      Abaelard\u2019s treatment of, ii. 342, =348=\n\n  Lombard, Peter, estimate of, ii. 370;\n      Gratian compared with, ii. 270;\n      Bacon\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 497;\n      _Books of Sentences_ by, i. 17, 18; ii. 134, 370;\n        method of the work, ii. 306;\n        Aquinas\u2019 _Summa_ contrasted with it, ii. 307-10;\n        its classification scheme, ii. 322-4;\n        Bonaventura\u2019s commentary on it, ii. 408\n\n  Lombards:\n    Italian kingdom of (6th cent.), i. 115-16\n    Italian influence on, i. 7, 249\n    Law codes of, _see under_ Law\n\n  Louis of Bavaria, Emp., ii. 518\n\n  Louis I. (the Pious), King of France, i. 233, 239, =359=;\n    false capitularies ascribed to, ii. 270\n\n  Louis VI. (the Fat), King of France, i. 304-5, 394, 400; ii. 62;\n    Hildebert\u2019s letter on encroachments of, ii. 140, 172\n\n  Louis IX. (the Saint), King of France, Geoffrey\u2019s _Vita_ of, i. 539-42;\n    Joinville\u2019s _Histoire of_, i. 542-9;\n    Testament of, i. 540 _n. 1_;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 476, 507-=9=, 515\n\n  Love, Aquinas on distinguishing definitions of, ii. 475-6\n\n  Love, chivalric:\n    Antique conception of love contrasted with, i. 575\n    _Chansons de geste_ as concerned with, i. 564\n    Code of, by Andrew the Chaplain, i. 575-6\n    Dante\u2019s exposition of, ii. 555-6\n    Estimate of, mediaeval, i. 568, 570\n    Literature of, _see_ Chivalry--Literature\n    Marriage in relation to, i. 571 _and_ _n. 2_\n    _Minnelieder_ as depicting, ii. 30\n    Nature of, i. 572-5, 582-7\n    Stories exemplifying--_Tristan_, i. 577 _seqq._;\n      _Lancelot_, 582 _seqq._\n\n  Love, spiritual:\n    Aquinas\u2019 discussion of, ii. 472-3, 476\n    Bernard of Clairvaux as exemplifying, i. 394 _seqq._\n\n  Lupus, Servatus, Abbot of Ferri\u00e8res, i. 215;\n    ii. 113\n\n  Luxeuil, i. 175-7\n\n  Lyons:\n    Diet of the \u201cThree Gauls\u201d at, i. 30\n    Law studies at, ii. 250\n\n\n  Macrobius, _Saturnalia_ of, ii. 116 _and_ _n. 4_\n\n  Magic, i. =46-8=; ii. 500 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Majolus, Abbot of Cluny, i. 359\n\n  Manichaeism, i. =49=; ii. =44=, 283\n\n  Manny, Sir Walter, i. 552-4\n\n  Mapes (Map), Walter, i. =475=, 567; ii. 219 _n._\n\n  Marie, Countess, de Champagne, i. 566, 573, =576=\n\n  Marie de France, i. =566=, 567, 573;\n    _Eliduc_ by, i. 571 _n. 2_\n\n  Marinus (hermit), i. 373\n\n  Marozia, i. 242\n\n  Marriage:\n    Christian attitude toward, ii. 8;\n      ecclesiastical view, ii. 529\n    Feudalism as affecting, i. 571, 586\n    German view of, ii. 30\n\n  Marsilius of Padua, ii. 277 _n. 2_\n\n  Martin, St., of Tours, i. 334;\n    Life of, i. 52 and _n._, 84, 85 _n. 2_, =86=\n\n  Martyrs:\n    Mediaeval view of, i. 483\n    Patristic attitude toward, i. 86\n\n  Mary, St., of Ognies, i. =462-3=;\n    nature of visions of, i. 459\n\n  Massilia, i. 26\n\n  Mathematics:\n    Bacon\u2019s views on, ii. 499-500\n    Gerbert\u2019s proficiency in, i. 282, =288=\n\n  Mathew Paris cited, ii. 487\n\n  Matthew of Vendome, _Ars versificatoria_ by, ii. 190 _and_ _n. 5_\n\n  Maurus, Rabanus, _see_ Rabanus\n\n  Mayors of the palace, i. 240\n\n  Mechthild of Magdeburg, i. 20, 345; ii. 365;\n    Book of, i. 465 _and_ _n. 2_-70\n\n  Mediaeval thought:\n    Abstractions, genius for, ii. 280\n    Characteristics of, i. 13\n    Commentaries characteristic of, ii. 390, 553 _n. 4_\n    Conflict inherent in, i. 22; ii. =293-4=\n    Deference of, toward the past, i. 13; ii. 534\n    Emotionalizing by, of patristic Christianity, i. 345\n    Metalogics rather than metaphysics the final stage of, ii. 337\n    Moulding forces of, i. 3, 5, 12; ii. =293-4=\n    Orthodox character of, ii. 283 _and_ _n._\n    Political theorizing, ii. 275 _seqq._\n    Problems of, origins of, ii. 294-5\n    Restatement and rearrangement of antique matter the work of, i.\n        13-15, =224=, 237, =292=, 342; ii. 297, 329, 341:\n      Culmination of third stage in, ii. 394\n      Emotional transformations of the antique, i. 18 _seqq._\n      Intellectual transformations of the antique, i. 14 _seqq._\n    Salvation the main interest of, i. =58-9=, 334; ii. =296-7=, 300\n    Scholasticism, _see that heading_\n    Superstitions accepted by, i. 487\n    Symbolism the great influence in, ii. 43, 102, 365\n    Three stages of, ii. 329 _seqq._\n    Ultimate intellectual interests of, ii. 287 _seqq._\n\n  Medicine:\n    Relics used in, i. 299\n    Smattering of, included in Arts course, ii. 250\n    Study of--in Italy, i. 250 _and_ _n. 4_, =251=; ii. 383 _n._\n      at Chartres, i. 299; ii. 372\n\n  Mendicant Orders, _see_ Dominican _and_ Franciscan\n\n  Merovingian Kingdom:\n    Character of, i. 208\n    Church under, i. 194\n    Extent of, i. 210 _n. 3_\n    German conquests of, i. 121, 138\n\n  Merovingian period:\n    Barbarism of, i. 9\n    Continuity of, with Carolingian, i. 210-12\n    King\u2019s law in, ii. 247\n\n  Merovingians, estimate of, i. 195\n\n  Metaphor distinguished from allegory, ii. 41 _n._ (_See also_ Symbolism)\n\n  Metaphysics:\n    Final stage of mediaeval development represented by, ii. 335-7\n    Logic, mediaeval, in relation to, ii. 334\n    Theology dissociated from, by Duns, ii. 510, 516, =517=\n\n  Michelangelo quoted, ii. 113\n\n  Middle Ages (_See also_ Mediaeval thought):\n    Beginning of, i. 6\n    Extremes characteristic of, i. 355\n\n  Milan, lawyers in, ii. 251 _n. 2_\n\n  _Miles_, signification of word, i. 525-6 _and_ _n. 2_\n\n  _Minnelieder_, ii. 28-31\n\n  Minorites, i. 430 (_See also_ Franciscan Order)\n\n  Miracles (_See also_ Irrationality):\n    Devil, concerned with, i. 488 _seqq._\n    _Nostre Dame, Miracles de_, i. 491-2\n    Patristic attitude toward, i. =85-6=, =100=, 182\n    Roman Empire aided by, belief as to, ii. 536\n    Salimbene\u2019s instance of, i. 516\n    Universal acceptance of, i. =74=, 182\n    _Vitae sanctorum_ in regard to, i. 85 _and_ _n. 2_\n\n  Mithraism, i. 49\n\n  Modena (Mutina), i. 24\n\n  Modi, ii. 215-16\n\n  Monasteries:\n    Immunities granted to, i. 523 _and_ _n._\n    _Regula_ of, meaning of, ii. 62\n\n  Monasticism (_For particular Monasteries, Orders, etc., see their\n        names_):\n    Abuses of, i. 357-8; Rigaud\u2019s _Register_ quoted, i. 477-481\n    Benedictine rule:\n      Adoption of--in England, i. 184;\n        among the Franks, i. 199, 201;\n        generally, i. 358\n      Papal approval of, i. 335\n    Cassiodorus a pioneer in literary functions of, i. 94\n    General mediaeval view regarding, i. =472=; ii. 529\n    Ideal _v._ actual, i. 355\n    Ireland, in, i. 135 _n. 1_\n    Lament over deprivations of, ii. 218-19\n    Modifications of, by St. Francis, i. 366\n    Motives of, i. 357\n    Nature of, i. 336-7\n    Nuns, _see_ Women--monastic life\n    Origin of, i. 335\n    Pagan literature condemned by, i. 260\n    Popularity of, in 5th and 6th centuries, i. 195-6\n    Poverty--of monks, i. 365;\n      of Orders, i. 366, =425=, =430=\n    Reforms of, i. 358 _seqq._\n    Schools, monastic, in Italy, i. 250 _n. 2_\n    Sex-relations as regarded by, i. 338\n    Studies of, in 6th cent., i. 94, 95\n    Subordinate monasteries, supervision of, i. 361\n    Uncloistered, _see_ Dominican _and_ Franciscan\n    _Vita activa_ accepted by, i. 363-6\n    _Vita contemplativa_, _see that title_\n    Women vilified by devotees of, i. =354 n.=, 521 _n. 2_, 532, =533=;\n        ii. 58\n\n  Montanists, 332\n\n  Monte Cassino, i. 250 _n. 2_, 252-3\n\n  Montfort, Countess of, i. 552-4\n\n  Moorish conquest of Spain, i. 9, 118\n\n  Morimond monastery, i. 362\n\n  Mosaics, i. 345-7\n\n  Music:\n    Arithmetic in relation to, ii. 291\n    Chartres studies in, i. 299\n    Poetry and, interaction of, ii. 195-=6=, =201-2=\n    Scholastic classification of, ii. 313\n\n  Mysticism:\n    Hugo\u2019s strain of, ii. 361-3\n    Nature of, i. 443 _n. 1_; ii. =363 and n. 4=\n    Symbolism as expressing, _see_ Symbolism\n\n\n  Narbo, i. 26\n\n  Narbonensis, _see_ Provincia\n\n  Narbonne, law studies at, ii. 250\n\n  Natural history and science, _see_ Physical science\n\n  Nemorarius, Jordanus, ii. 501\n\n  Neo-Platonism:\n    Arabian versions of Aristotle touched with, ii. 389\n    Augustinian, i. =55=; ii. 403\n    Christianity compared with, i. 51;\n      Patristic habit of mind compared, ii. 295\n    Ecstasy as regarded by, i. 331\n    Metaphysics so named by, ii. 336\n    Pseudo-Dionysian, i. 54 _and_ _n. 1_\n    Tenets and nature of, i. 41-9;\n      a mediatorial system, i. 50, 54, 57-8, 70\n    Trinity of, ii. 355\n\n  Neustria, i. 200, =209=, 239\n\n  _Nibelungenlied_, i. 145-6, =148-9=, 152, 193, 203 _n. 2_; ii. 220\n\n  Nicholas II., Pope, i. 243 _n. 2_\n\n  Nicholas III., Pope, i. 504\n\n  Nicholas IV., Pope (Jerome of Ascoli), ii. 491\n\n  Nicholas, St., sequence for festival of, ii. 213-15\n\n  Nicolas of Damascus, ii. 427\n\n  Nilus, St., Abbot of Crypta-Ferrata, i. 374 _n._\n\n  Nithard, Count, i. 234-5\n\n  Nominalism, i. 303\n\n  Norbert, ii. 344\n\n  Normandy, Norse occupation of, i. 153\n\n  Norsemen (Scandinavians, Vikings):\n    Characteristics of, i. 138, =154-5=\n    Continental and insular holdings of, i. 153\n    Eddic poems of, i. 154-5 _and_ _n. 3_\n    Irish harassed by, i. 133-4;\n      later relations, i. 152 _n. 3_\n    Jumi\u00e8ges cloister sacked by, ii. 201\n    Metal-working among, i. 152 _n. 3_\n    Ravages by, in 8th and 9th centuries, i. 152-3\n    _Sagas_ of, i. 155 _seqq._\n    Settling down of, i. 240\n\n  Notker, i. 308-9 _and_ _n. 1_; sequences of, ii. 201-2\n\n  Numbers, symbolic phantasies regarding, i. 72 _and_ _nn. 1, 2_; ii. 49\n        _n. 3_\n\n\n  Oberon, fairy king, i. 564 _and_ _n._\n\n  Occam, William of, career of, ii. 518;\n    estimate of his work, ii. 522-3;\n    attitude toward Duns, ii. 518 _seqq._;\n    on faith and reason, ii. 519;\n    on Universals, ii. 520-1\n\n  Odilo, Abbot of Cluny, i. =294-5=, 359;\n    Jotsaldus\u2019 biography of, quoted, i. 295-6\n\n  Odo, Abbot of Cluny, i. 343 _and_ _n. 3_, 359;\n    Epitome by, of Gregory\u2019s _Moralia_, i. 16 _n. 4_; ii. 161 _and_ _n. 2_;\n    Latin style of _Collationes_, ii. 161-2\n\n  Odo of Tournai, ii. 340 _n._\n\n  Odoacer, i. =114=, 145\n\n  Olaf, St., i. 156, =160-1=\n\n  Olaf Tryggvason, King, i. 156, =161-2=\n\n  Old French:\n    Formation of, ii. 155\n    Latin as studied by speakers of, ii. 123\n    Poetry, ii. 222, =225 seqq.=\n\n  Ontology, _see_ Metaphysics\n\n  Ordeal, trial by, i. 232-3 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Ordericus Vitalis, i. 525;\n    _Historia ecclesiastica_ by, ii. 176-8\n\n  _Organon_, _see under_ Aristotle\n\n  Origen, estimate of, i. 51, 62-3;\n    on Canticles, i. =333=; ii. 369;\n    _De principiis_, i. 68;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 53, 76, 80, 87, 104, 411; ii. 64\n\n  Orleans School:\n    Classical studies at, ii. 119 _n. 2_, 127\n    Law studies at, ii. 250\n    Rivalry of, with Chartres, ii. 119 _n. 2_\n\n  Orosius, i. =82= _and_ _n. 1_, 188\n\n  Ostrogoths, i. 7, 113, =114-15=, 120\n\n  Otfrid the Frank, i. =203-4=, 308\n\n  Other world:\n    Irish beliefs as to, i. 131 _and_ _n. 2_\n    Voyages to, mediaeval narratives of, i. 444 _n. 1_\n\n  Othloh, i. 315;\n    visions of, i. 443;\n    _Book concerning the Temptations of a certain Monk_, i. 316-23\n\n  Otric, i. 289-91\n\n  Otto I. (the Great), Emp., i. =241-3=, 256-7, 309\n\n  Otto II., Emp., i. 243, =282-3=, =289=\n\n  Otto III., Emp., i. =243=, 283, 284;\n    _Modus Ottinc_ in honour of, ii. 215-216\n\n  Otto IV. (of Brunswick), Emp., i. 417; ii. =32-3=\n\n  Otwin, Bp. of Hildesheim, i. 312\n\n  Ovid, _Ars amatoria_ of, i. 574-5;\n    mediaeval allegorizing of, and of _Metamorphoses_, ii. 230\n\n  Oxford University:\n    Characteristics of, ii. 388-9\n    Curriculum at, ii. 387-8\n    Foundation of, ii. 380, =386-7=\n    Franciscan fame at, ii. 400\n    Greek studies at, ii. 120, 391, 487\n\n\n  Palladius, Bp., i. 172\n\n  Pandects, _see under_ Roman law\n\n  Papacy (_See also_ Church _and_ Popes):\n    Ascendancy of, over prelacy, i. 304\n    Character of, ii. 32\n    Denunciations against, i. 475; ii. 34-5, 218\n    Empire\u2019s relations with:\n      Concordat of Worms, i. 245 _n. 4_\n      Conflict (11th cent.), i. 244;\n        (12th cent.), i. 245 _n. 4_; ii. 273;\n        (13th cent.), ii. 33, =34-5=;\n        (14th cent.), ii. 518;\n        allegory as a weapon in, ii. 60\n      Recognition of ecclesiastical authority, ii. 265-7, 272-3\n      Reforms by Otto I., i. 243\n    Gregory VII.\u2019s claims for, i. 245; ii. 274\n    Mendicant Orders\u2019 relations with, ii. =398=, 509\n    Nepotism of, i. =504-5=, 511\n    Schisms of popes and anti-popes, i. 264\n    Temporal power of, rise of, i. 116;\n      claims advanced, i. 245;\n      realized, ii. 274, 276-7\n\n  Papinian cited, ii. 235\n\n  Paraclete oratory:\n    Abaelard at, ii. 10, 344\n    Helo\u00efse at, ii. 10 _seqq._\n\n  Paradise:\n    Dante\u2019s _Paradiso_, _see under_ Dante\n    Hildegard\u2019s visions of, i. 455-6\n\n  Paris:\n    Schools:\n      Growth of, ii. 380\n      Notre Dame and St. Genevi\u00e8ve, ii. 383\n      St. Victor, ii. =61-3=, 143, 383\n    University:\n      Aristotle prohibited at, ii. 391-2\n      Authorities on, ii. 381 _n._\n      Bacon at, ii. 488\n      Bonaventura at, ii. 403\n      Curriculum at, ii. 387-8\n      Dominicans and Franciscans at, ii. 399\n      Prominence of, in philosophy and theology, ii. 283, =378-9=\n      Rise, constitution, and struggles of, ii. 119-20, 383-6\n    Viking sieges of, i. 153\n\n  Parma, i. 497, 505-6\n\n  _Parsival_:\n    Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s version of, i. 567, =588-9=\n    Wolfram\u2019s version of, i. 12 _n._, 571 _n. 2_, =589-613=; ii. =29=\n\n  Paschal controversy, _see_ Eucharistic\n\n  Paschasius, Radbertus, Abbot of Corbie i. 215, =225-7=\n\n  Patrick, St., i. 172-3\n\n  Patristic thought and doctrine (_See also_ Greek thought, patristic,\n        _and_ Latin Fathers):\n    Abaelard\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 305\n    Achievement of exponents of, i. 86-7\n    Bacon\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 492\n    Completeness of schemes presented by, ii. 394\n    Emotion as synthesized by, i. 340-2\n    Intellectual rather than emotional, i. 343-4;\n      emotionalizing of, by mediaeval thinkers, i. 345\n    Latin medium of, i. 5\n    Logic as regarded by, i. 71\n    Mediaeval attitude toward, i. 16\n    Miracle accepted by, i. 51-3, =85-6=\n    Natural knowledge as treated by, i. =61 seqq.=, =72-3=, =76-7=, 99;\n        ii. 393\n    Pagan philosophy permeating exponents of, i. =33-4=, =58=, 61\n    Philosophy as classified by, ii. 312\n    Rearrangement of, undertaken in Carolingian period, i. =224=, 237\n    Symbolism of, _see under_ Symbolism\n\n  Paulinus of Aquileia, i. 215\n\n  Paulinus, St., of Nola, i. =86=, 126 _n. 2_\n\n  Paulus--on _jus_, ii. 237:\n    _Sententiae_ of, ii. 243\n\n  Paulus, St., i. 84, 86\n\n  Paulus Diaconus, i. 214-15, 252\n\n  Pavia, law school at, ii. 251, =259=\n\n  Pedro, Don, of Castille, i. 554-5\n\n  Pelagians, i. 225\n\n  Pelagius, i. 172 _n._\n\n  Peripatetic School, i. 38-9\n    (_See also_ Aristotle)\n\n  Peter, Bro., of Apulia, i. 512-14\n\n  Peter, disciple of St. Francis, i. 426\n\n  Peter Damiani, _see_ Damiani\n\n  Peter of Blois, ii. 133-4\n\n  Peter of Ebulo, ii. 190\n\n  Peter of Maharncuria, ii. 502-4\n\n  Peter of Pisa, i. 214\n\n  Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, i. 360;\n    letter of, to Helo\u00efse, ii. 25-7\n\n  Petrarch, ii. 188, =219=\n\n  Petrus Riga, _Aurora_ of, ii. 127\n\n  Philip VI., King of France, i. 551\n\n  Philip Augustus, King of France, ii. 33\n\n  Philip Hohenstauffen, Duke of Suabia, i. 481; ii. =32=, 33\n\n  Philo, i. 37, =231=;\n    allegorizing of, ii. =42=, 364\n\n  Philosophy:\n    Division of, schemes of, ii. 312 _seqq._\n    End of:\n      Abaelard\u2019s and Hugo\u2019s views on, ii. 352, 361\n      John of Salisbury on, ii. 375\n\n  Philosophy, antique:\n    Divine source of, Bacon\u2019s view as to, ii. 507 _n. 2_\n    \u201cFirst\u201d (Aristotelian), ii. 335\n    Position of, in Roman Empire (3rd-6th cent.), i. 34 (_See also_\n        Greek thought)\n\n  Philosophy, Arabian, ii. =389-90=, 400-1\n\n  Philosophy, scholastic:\n    Completeness of, in Aquinas, ii. 395\n    Divisions of, ii. 312 _seqq._\n    Importance of, as intellectual interest, ii. 287-8\n    Physical sciences included in, _see_ Physical science\n    Theology as the end of (Abaelard\u2019s and Hugo\u2019s view), ii. 352, 361\n    Theology distinguished from, ii. 284, 288;\n    by Aquinas, ii. =290=, 311;\n    by Bonaventura, ii. 410 _and_ _n._;\n    considered as superior to, by Aquinas, ii. 289-=90=, =292=;\n    dominated by (Bacon\u2019s contention), ii. 496;\n    dissociated from, by Duns and Occam, ii. 510, =517=, 519\n\n  Physical science:\n    Albertus Magnus\u2019 attitude toward, ii. 423;\n      his works on, ii. 425-9\n    Bacon\u2019s predilection for, ii. 486-7\n    Classifications of, ii. 312 _seqq._\n    Experimental science or method, ii. 502-8\n    Mediaeval attitude toward, i. 300\n    Oxford school of, ii. 389\n    Patristic attitude toward, i. 63, 66-7, =72-3=, =76-7=, 99; ii. 393\n    Theology as subserved by, ii. =67=, 111, =289=, =486=, =492=, =496=,\n        500, 530;\n      denial of the theory--by Duns, ii. 510;\n        by Occam, ii. 519-20\n\n  _Physiologus_, i. =76-7 and n.=, 300; ii. 83\n\n  Pippin of Heristal, i. =208-9=; ii. 197\n\n  Pippin of Neustria, i. 115, =200=, =209=, 210 and _n. 1_; ii. 273\n\n  Pippin, son of Charlemagne, ii. 197\n\n  Placentia (Piacenza), i. 24\n\n  Placentinus, ii. 261-2\n\n  Plato, supra-rationalism of, i. 42;\n    allegorizing by, i. 36; ii. 364;\n    doctrine of ideas, i. =35=; ii. 339-340;\n    Aquinas on this doctrine, ii. 455, 465;\n    Augustine of Hippo as influenced by, ii. 403;\n    \u201csalvation\u201d suggestion in, ii. 296 _n. 2_;\n    _Republic_, i. 36;\n    _Timaeus_, i. =35-6=, 291; ii. 64, 69, =118=, 348, 370, 372, =377=\n\n  Platonism:\n    Alanus\u2019 _Anticlaudianus_, in, ii. 100 _n. 2_\n    Augustinian, i. 55\n    Nature of, i. =35-6=, 57, 59\n    Philosophy as classified by, ii. 312\n\n  Pliny the Elder, _Historia naturalis_ by, i. 39-40, 75\n\n  Plotinus, estimate of, i. 43, 45;\n    personal affinity of Augustine with, i. 55-7;\n    philosophic system of, i. =42=-6, 50, 51;\n    _Enneads_ of, i. 55;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 50, 51; ii. 64\n\n  Plutarch, i. 44\n\n  Poetry, mediaeval:\n    Carmina Burana (Goliardic poetry), ii. 203, =217-19 and n.=\n    Chivalric, _see_ Chivalry--Literature\n    Hymns, _see that heading_\n    Italian, of 11th cent., i. =251 seqq.=; ii. 186\n    Latin, _see_ Latin verse\n    Modi, ii. 215-16\n    Music and, interaction of, ii. 195-=6=, =201-2=\n    Old High German, ii. 194\n    Popular verse, _see sub-headings_ Carmina _and_ Modi; _also_ Vernacular\n    Prosody, Alexander de Villa-Dei on, ii. 126\n    Vernacular:\n      Germanic, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon, ii. 220-1\n      Romance, ii. 221-3, 225 _seqq._\n\n  Pontigny monastery, i. 362\n\n  Poor of Lyons (Waldenses), i. 364, =365 n.=; ii. 34\n\n  Popes (_See also_ Papacy; _and for particular popes see their names_):\n    Avignon, at, ii. 510\n    Decretals of, _see under_ Canon law\n    Degradation of (10th cent.), i. 242\n    Election of, freed from lay control, i. 243 _n. 2_\n\n  Popular rights, growth of, in 12th cent., i. 305\n\n  Porphyry, i. 42, =44-7=, 50, 51, 56; ii. 295;\n    _Isagoge_ (Introduction to the _Categories_ of Aristotle), i. 45, 92,\n        102; ii. 312, =314 n.=, 333, =339=\n\n  Preaching Friars, _see_ Dominican Order\n\n  Predestination, Gottschalk\u2019s controversy as to, i. 224-5, 227-=8=\n\n  Priscianus, i. 71; ii. 119 _n. 2_;\n    _Institutiones grammaticae_ of (_Priscianus major_ and _minor_), ii.\n        124-5\n\n  Prosper of Aquitaine, i. 106 _n. 1_\n\n  Proven\u00e7al literature, i. 571; ii. 168;\n    Alba (aube) poetry, i. 20, =571=; ii. 30\n\n  Provincia (Narbonensis):\n    Antique, the, in relation to, before Middle Ages, i. 9\n    Latinization of, i. 26-7 _and_ _n. 1_\n    Ligurian inhabitants of, i. 126\n    Teutonic invasion of, i. 125\n\n  Prudentius, ii. 63;\n    _Psychomachia_ of, ii. 102-4\n\n  Pseudo-Callisthenes, _Life and Deeds of Alexander_ by, ii. 224, 225,\n        =229-230=\n\n  Pseudo-Dionysius, ii. 302;\n    _Celestial Hierarchy_ by, i. 54 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Pseudo-Turpin, ii. 319\n\n  Ptolemy of Alexandria, i. 40\n\n  Purgatory:\n    Dante\u2019s _Purgatorio_, _see under_ Dante\n    Hildegard\u2019s visions as to, i. 456 _n._\n    Popular belief as to, i. 486\n\n\n  _Quadrivium_, _see under_ Seven Liberal Arts\n\n\n  Rabanus Maurus, Abp. of Mainz, allegorizing of Scripture by, ii. 46-7;\n    interest in the vernacular, i. 308;\n    works of, i. 222-41;\n    _De universo_, i. 300; ii. 316 _n. 2_;\n    _Allegoriae in universam sacram scripturam_, ii. 48-9;\n    _De laudibus sanctae crucis_, ii. 49 _n. 3_;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 16, 100, 215; ii. 302-303, 312, 332\n\n  Race, tests for determining, i. 124 _n._\n\n  Radbertus, _see_ Paschasius\n\n  _Raoul de Cambrai_, i. 563-4\n\n  Ratherius, i. 309 and =n. 2=\n\n  Ratramnus of Corbie, i. 215, 227; ii. 199\n\n  Ravenna:\n    Gerbert\u2019s disputation in, i. 289-91\n    Grammar and rhetoric studies at, ii. 121\n    Law studies at, ii. 251, 252\n    S. Apollinaris in Classe, i. 373, 377\n\n  Raymond of Agiles quoted, i. 536\n\n  Realism, Duns\u2019 exposition of, ii. 514 _and_ _n._\n\n  Reason _v._ authority controversy:\n    Berengar\u2019s position in, i. 302-3\n    Eriugena\u2019s contribution to, i. 229-=30=\n\n  Reccared, i. 118 _nn._\n\n  Reinhard, Bp. of Halberstadt, ii. 62\n\n  Relics of saints and martyrs:\n    Arms enshrining, i. 528\n    Curative use of, i. 299\n    Patristic attitude toward, i. 86, 101 _n._\n\n  Renaissance, misleading nature of term, i. 211 _n._\n\n  _Renaud de Montaubon_, i. 564\n\n  Rheims cathedral school, i. 293\n\n  Rhetoric:\n    Chartres study of, i. 298\n    Hugo of St. Victor on, ii. 67\n    Predominance of, i. 109 _and_ _n._\n\n  Richard, Abbot of Jumi\u00e8ges, i. 480-1\n\n  Richard of Middleton, ii. 512\n\n  Richard of St. Victor, ii. 80, =87= _and_ _n. 2_, =367 n. 2=, 540\n\n  Richer, Abbot of Monte Cassino, i. 252, 300 _n. 2_;\n    history of Gerbert by, quoted, i. 287-91\n\n  Ricimer, Count, i. 113\n\n  Riddles, didactic, i. 218-19 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n  Rigaud, Eude (Oddo Rigaldus), Abp. of Rouen, i. =476=, =508=, 509;\n    _Register_ of, quoted, i. 476-81\n\n  Robert, cousin of St. Bernard, i. 395-7\n\n  Robert of Normandy, ii. 139\n\n  Rollo, Duke, of Normandy, i. 153, 239-40\n\n  _Roman de la rose_, i. =586-7=; ii. 103 _and_ _nn._, 104, 223\n\n  _Roman de Thebes_, ii. 227, =229 n.=\n\n  Roman Empire:\n    Barbarization of, i. 5, 7, =111 seqq.=\n    Billeting of soldiers, custom as to, i. 114 _n._, 117\n    Christianity accepted by, i. 345\n    Church, relations with, ii. 265-7, 272-3\n    Cities enjoying citizenship of--in Spain, i. 26 _and_ _n. 2_;\n      in Gaul, i. 30\n    City life of, i. 27, 326\n    Clientage system under, i. 117 _n. 2_\n    Dante\u2019s views on, ii. 536\n    Decadence of, i. =84=, 97, =111=\n    Eastern, _see_ Eastern Empire\n    Enduring nature of, conditions of, i. 238 _n._\n    Greek thought diffused by, i. 4\n    Italian people under, i. 7\n    Jurisconsults of, authority and capacity of, ii. 232-3 _and_ _n._, 236\n    Latinization of Western Europe due to, i. 23 _seqq._, 110\n    Mediaeval attitude toward, i. 11\n    Scandinavians under influence of, i. 152 _n. 3_\n\n  Roman law:\n    Auditory, Imperial or Praetorian, ii. 233 _n._, 235 _n. 1_\n    Bologna famed for study of, ii. =121=, 251, =259-62=, 378\n    _Brachylogus_, ii. 254-5\n    _Breviarium_ and its _Interpretatio_, i. =117=; ii. 243-4;\n      Epitomes of, ii. 244, =249-50=;\n      _Brachylogus_ influenced by, ii. 254\n    Burgundian tolerance of, i. 121;\n      code (_Papianus_), ii. 239, =242=\n    Church under, ii. 265 _and_ _n. 2_\n    Codes of:\n      Barbaric, nature of, ii. 244\n        (_See also sub-headings_ Breviarium _and_ Burgundian)\n      Gregorianus\u2019, ii. 240, 243\n      Hermogenianus\u2019, ii. 240, 243\n      Nature of, ii. 239-40\n      Theodosian, ii. 240 _and_ _n. 2_, 241 _n. 2_, 242-3, =249=, =266-7\n        and n. 1=\n    _Codex_ of Justinian, ii. =240=, =242=, 253:\n      Azo\u2019s and Accursius\u2019 work on, ii. 263-4\n      Glosses to, ii. 249-50\n      Placentinus\u2019 _Summa_ of, ii. 262\n      _Summa Perusina_ an epitome of, ii. =249=, 252\n    _Constitutiones_ and _rescripta principum_, ii. =235 and n. 1=, 239,\n        =240=\n    Custom recognized by, ii. 236\n    Digest of, by Justinian, _see subheading_ Pandects\n    Elementary education including smattering of, ii. 250\n    Epitomes of, various, ii. 249-50;\n      _Epitome of Julianus_, ii. 242, =249=, 254\n    Glosses:\n      Accursius\u2019 _Glossa ordinaria_, ii. 263-4\n      Irnerius\u2019, ii. 261 _and_ _n. 1_\n      Justinian\u2019s _Codex_, to, ii. 249-50\n    Gothic adoption of, i. 114\n    _Institutes_ of Gaius, ii. 241, 243\n    _Institutes_ of Justinian, ii. =241=, 243, =254=:\n      Azo\u2019s _Summa_ of, ii. 263\n      Placentinus\u2019 _Summa_ of, ii. 262\n    Jurisprudential element in early stages of, ii. 232\n    _Jus_ identified with _aequitas_, ii. 235\n    _Jus civile_, ii. 237, 257\n    _Jus gentium_:\n      _Jus naturale_ in relation to, ii. 234 _and_ _n._\n      Origin of, ii. 233-4\n      Popular rights as regarded by, ii. 278\n    _Jus praetorium_, ii. 235\n    _Lex romana canonice compta_, ii. 252\n    Lombard attitude toward, i. 115\n    _Novellae_ of Justinian, ii. 240, =242=\n    Pandects (Justinian\u2019s _Digest_), ii. 235 _and_ _n. 2_, =236-8=,\n        =241=-2, 248, 253, 255:\n      Accursius\u2019 _Glossa_ on, ii. 264\n      Glossators\u2019 interpretation of, ii. 265\n    Permanence of, ii. 236\n    _Petrus_ (_Petri exceptiones_), ii. 252-4\n    Placentinus\u2019 work in, ii. 261-2\n    Principles of, examples of, ii. 237-8;\n      possession and its rights, ii. 256-8\n    Principles of interpretation of, ii. 256\n    Provincia, in, i. 27 _n. 1_\n    _Responsa_ or _auctoritas jurisprudentium_, ii. 235-6\n    Sources of, multifarious, ii. 235\n    Sphere of, ii. 248\n    Study of, centres for--in France, ii. 250;\n      in Italy, ii. =121=, 251 _and_ _n. 2_, =259-62=, 378\n    _Summa codicis Irnerii_, ii. 255\n    Theodosian Code, _see under subheading_ Codes\n    Treatises on, mediaeval, ii. 252 _seqq._\n    Twelve Tables, ii. 232, 236\n    Visigothic code of, _see subheading_ _Breviarium_\n\n  Romance, spirit of, i. 418\n\n  Romance languages (_See also_ Old French):\n    Characteristics of, ii. 152\n    Dante\u2019s attitude toward, ii. 537\n    Latin as modified by, ii. 155\n    Literature of, ii. 221-3\n      (_See also_ Proven\u00e7al literature)\n    Strength of, i. 9\n\n  Romance nations, mediatorial r\u00f4le of, i. =110-11=, 124\n\n  _Romans d\u2019aventure_, i. =564-5=, 571 _n. 2_\n\n  Rome:\n    Bishops of, _see_ Popes\n    Factions in (10th cent.), i. 242\n    Law School in, ii. 251, 255\n    Mosaics in, i. 347\n    Verses to, i. 348; ii. =200=\n\n  Romualdus, St., youth of, i. 373;\n    austerities of, i. 374, =379=, 381;\n    relations with his father, i. 374-5;\n    harshness and egotism of, i. 375-7;\n    at Vallis de Castro, i. 376-7, 380;\n    at Sytrio, i. 378-9;\n    death of, i. 372 _n. 3_, =380=;\n    Commentary of, on the Psalter, i. 379\n\n  Romulus Augustulus, Emp., i. 114\n\n  Roncesvalles, battle of, i. 559 _n. 2_-62\n\n  Roscellinus, i. 303-4; ii. 339-=40=\n\n  Rothari, King of Lombards, i. 115; ii. 251\n\n  Ruadhan, St., i. 132-3\n\n  Ruotger, Life of Abp. Bruno by, i. 310; ii. 162 _and_ _n. 1_\n\n\n  _Sacra doctrina_, _see_ Theology\n\n  Sacraments, _see under_ Church\n\n  _Sagas_, Norse:\n    Character of, i. 12 _n._, 155 _seqq._\n    _Egil_, i. 162-4\n    _Gisli_, i. 158\n    _Heimskringla_, i. 160-2 _and_ _n. 2_\n    _Njala_, i. 157 _and_ =n.=, =159=, =164-7=\n    Oral tradition of, ii. 220\n\n  St. Denis monastery, ii. 10, =344=\n\n  St. Emmeram convent (Ratisbon), i. 315, =316=\n\n  St. Gall monastery, i. 257-8;\n    Notker\u2019s work at, ii. 201-2\n\n  St. Victor monastery and school, ii. =61-3=, 143, 383\n\n  Saints:\n    Austerities of, i. 374 _and_ _n._, 375\n    Interventions of, mediaeval beliefs as to, i. 487-8, 490\n    Irish clergy so called, i. 135 _n. 2_\n    Lives of:\n      Compend. of (_Legenda Aurea_), ii. 184\n      Conventionalized descriptions in, i. 393 _n. 1_\n      Defects of, i. 494\n      Estimate of, i. =84-5 and nn.=\n      otherwise mentioned, i. 298, 300\n    Relics of, _see_ Relics\n    Visions of, i. 444-5\n    Worship of, i. 101\n\n  Salerno medical school, i. =250 n. 4=, =251=; ii. 121\n\n  Salian Franks, _see under_ Franks\n\n  Salimbene, i. 496-7, 499-500;\n    _Chronica_ of, quoted and cited, i. 498 _seqq._;\n    editions and translations of the work, i. 496 _n._\n\n  Salvation, _see under_ Christianity\n\n  Salvian, _De gubernatione Dei_ by, i. 84\n\n  Saracens:\n    Crusades against, _see_ Crusades\n    Frankish victories against, i. 209-10 _n. 1_\n    Wars with, necessitating mounted warriors, i. 525\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 239, 252, 274, 332\n\n  Saxons, _see_ Anglo-Saxons _and_ Germans\n\n  Scandinavians, _see_ Norsemen\n\n  Scholasticism:\n    Arab analogy with, ii. 390 _and_ _n. 2_\n    Aristotle\u2019s advanced works, stages of appropriation of, ii. 393-5\n    Bacon\u2019s attack on, ii. 484, =493-4=, =496=, 509\n    Classification of topics by:\n      Schemes of, various, ii. 312 _seqq._\n      Twofold principle of, ii. 311\n    Conceptualism, ii. 520-1\n    Content of, i. 301\n    Deference to authority a characteristic of, ii. 297, 300\n    Disintegration of--through Duns, ii. 510, 516;\n      through Occam, ii. 522-3\n    Elementary nature of discussions of, ii. 347\n    Evil, problem of, _see_ Evil\n    Exponents of, ii. 283 _and_ _n._\n    Final exposition of, by Aquinas, ii. 484\n    Greek thought contrasted with, ii. 296\n    Humour non-existent in, ii. 459\n    Method of, ii. =302=, =306-7=, 315 _n._;\n      prototype of, i. 95\n    Nominalism, ii. 340\n    Philosophy of, _see_ Philosophy, scholastic\n    Phraseology of, untranslatable, ii. 348, 483\n    _Praedicables_, ii. 314 _n._\n    Present interest of, ii. 285\n    Realism, ii. 340;\n      Pantheism in relation to, ii. 370\n    Salvation a main interest of, ii. =296-7=, 300, 311\n    Scriptural authority, position of, ii. 289, =291-2=\n    Secular studies as regarded by, ii. 349, 357\n    Stages of development of, ii. 333 _seqq._\n    Sympathetic study of, the key to contradictions, ii. 371\n    Theology of, _see_ Theology\n    Universals, problem of:\n      Aquinas\u2019 treatment of, ii. 462\n      Duns\u2019 treatment of, ii. 515\n      Occam\u2019s contribution toward, ii. 520-1\n      Roscellin\u2019s views on, i. 303-4\n\n  Sciences, classifications of, ii. 312 _seqq._\n    (_See also_ Physical science)\n\n  Scotland, Christianizing of, i. 173\n\n  Scriptures, Christian:\n    Allegorizing of:\n      Examples of:\n        David and Bathsheba episode, ii. 44-6\n        Exodus, Book of, ii. 47\n        Good Samaritan parable, ii. =53-6=, 84, 90\n        Hannah, story of, ii. 47 _n. 1_\n        Pharisee and Publican parable, ii. 51-2\n      Hugo of St. Victor\u2019s view of, ii. 65 _n._\n      Writers exemplifying--Philo, ii. 42-43;\n        the Fathers, ii. =43 seqq.=, 68-9 _and_ _n. 2_;\n        Rabanus, ii. 46-50;\n        Bede, ii. 47 _n. 1_;\n        Honorius of Autun, ii. 51 _seqq._;\n        Hugo of St. Victor, ii. 67 _seqq._\n    Anglo-Saxon version of, i. =142 n. 2=, 183\n    Authority of--in patristic doctrine, ii. 295;\n      acknowledged by Eriugena, i. 231;\n        by Berengar, i. 303;\n      in scholasticism, ii. 280, 291-2\n    Bacon\u2019s attitude toward, ii. =491-2=, 497\n    Bonaventura\u2019s attitude toward, and writings on, ii. 405 _seqq._\n    Canon law based on, ii. 267-9\n    Classical studies in relation to, _see subheading_ Secular\n    Classification of topics based on, ii. 317, 324\n    Commentaries on--Alcuin\u2019s, i. 220-1;\n      Raban\u2019s, i. 222-3\n    Duns\u2019 attitude toward, ii. 516\n    Francis of Assisi\u2019s literal acceptance of, i. 365, 426-=7=;\n      his realization of spirit of, i. 427 _n. 1_; ii. 183\n    Gothic version of, i. 143 _n._\n    _Heliand_, i. =203 and nn.=, 308\n    Hymns based on, ii. 88 _seqq._\n    Interpretation of--by the Fathers, i. =43 seqq.=, 68-9 _and_ _n. 2_;\n      by Eriugena, i. 231;\n      by Berengar, i. 303\n    Isidore\u2019s writings on, i. 104-5\n    Love, human, as treated in Old Testament, i. 332-3\n    Scenes from, in Gothic art, ii. 82 _seqq._\n    Secular knowledge in relation to, i. 63, =66=; ii. =110=, =112=,\n        120, 499\n    Song of Songs, _see_ Canticles\n    Study of, by monks, i. 94;\n      Cassiodorus\u2019 _Institutiones_, i. 95-6\n    Theology identified with, ii. 406, 408\n    Vulgate, the:\n      Corruption in Paris copy of, ii. 497\n      Language of, ii. 171\n\n  Sculpture, Gothic:\n    Cathedrals, evolution of, ii. 538-=9=\n    Symbolism of, i. 457 _n. 2_; ii. =82-6=\n\n  Sedulius Scotus, i. 215\n\n  Seneca, i. 26, 41\n\n  _Sentences, Books of_:\n    Isidore\u2019s, i. 106 _and_ _n. 1_\n    Paulus\u2019 _Sententiae_, ii. 243\n    Peter Lombard\u2019s, _see under_ Lombard\n    Prosper\u2019s, i. 106 _n. 1_\n\n  Sequence-hymns, development of, ii. 196, =201-6=;\n    Adam of St. Victor\u2019s, ii. 209-215\n\n  Serenus, Bp. of Marseilles, i. 102\n\n  Sermons, allegorizing:\n    Bernard of Clairvaux, by, i. 337 _n._, =409-13=; ii. =169=, 368-9\n    Honorius of Autun, by, ii. 50 _seqq._\n\n  Seven Liberal Arts (_See also separate headings_ Grammar, Logic, _etc._):\n    Alanus de Insulis on functions of, ii. 98 _n. 1_\n    Carolingian study of, i. 236\n    Clerical education in, i. 221-2\n    Compend of, by Cassiodorus, i. 96\n    _De nuptiis_ as concerned with, i. 71 _n. 3_\n    Hugo of St. Victor on function of, ii. 67, 111\n    Latin the medium for, ii. 109\n    Law smattering included with, ii. 250\n    Quadrivium:\n      Bo\u00ebthius on, i. 90 _and_ _n. 2_\n      Chartres, at, i. 299\n    Thierry\u2019s encyclopaedia of, ii. 130\n    Trivium:\n      Chartres, at, i. =298-9=; ii. 163\n      Courses of, as representing stages of mediaeval development, ii.\n        331 _seqq._\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 217; ii. 553\n\n  Severinus, St., i. 192\n\n  Severus, Sulpicius, i. 126 _n. 2_;\n    Life of St. Martin by, i. 52, 84, 85 _n. 2_, =86=\n\n  Sidonius, Apollinaris, i. 126 _n. 2_;\n    cited, i. 117 _n. 1_, 140\n\n  Siger de Brabant, ii. 401 _and_ _n._\n\n  _Sippe_, i. 122\n\n  Smaragdus, Abbot, i. 215\n\n  Socrates, i. 34-5; ii. 7\n\n  Songs, _see_ Poetry\n\n  Sophists, Greek, i. 35\n\n  Sorbon, Robert de, i. 544-5\n\n  Sorcery, i. 46\n\n  Spain:\n    Antique, the, in relation to, before Middle Ages, i. 9\n    Arabian philosophy in, ii. 390\n    Church in, i. 9, 103, =118 and n.=\n    Latinization of, i. 25-6 _and_ _n. 2_\n    Moorish conquest of, i. 9, 118\n    Visigoths in, i. 113, 116-=17 and n. 2=, 118\n\n  _Stabat Mater_, i. 348\n\n  Statius, ii. 229 _n._\n\n  Statius Caecilius, i. 25\n\n  Stephen IX., Pope, i. 263\n\n  Stephen, St., sequence for festival of, ii. 211-13\n\n  Stephen of Bourbon quoted, i. 365 _n._\n\n  Stilicho, i. 112\n\n  Stoicism:\n    Emotion as regarded by, i. 330\n    Nature of, i. =41=, 57, 59\n    Neo-Platonism contrasted with, ii. 296\n    Philosophy as classified by, ii. 312\n    Roman law as affected by, ii. 232\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 40, 70\n\n  Strabo, Walafrid, _see_ Walafrid\n\n  Suevi, i. 116-17 _and_ _n. 2_, =139=\n\n  _Summae_, method of, ii. 306-7\n    (_See also under_ Theology)\n\n  _Summum bonum_, Aquinas\u2019 discussion of, ii. 438 _seqq._, 456\n\n  Switzerland, Irish monasteries founded in, i. 174\n\n  Sylvester II., Pope (Gerbert of Aurillac), career of, i. 281-4;\n    disputation with Otric, i. 289-91;\n    estimate of, i. 281, =285-7=;\n    love of the classics, i. =287-8=; ii. 110;\n    Latin style of, ii. 160;\n    logical studies of, ii. 332, 338, 339, 345;\n    letters of, quoted, i. 283-7;\n    estimated, i. 284-5;\n    editions of works of, i. 280 _n._;\n    _Libellus de rationali et ratione uti_, i. =292 n.=, 299;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 249; ii. 35\n\n  Symbolism:\n    Alanus\u2019 _Anticlaudianus_ as exemplifying, ii. 94-103\n    Angels as symbols, ii. 457\n    Art, mediaeval, inspired by, i. 21\n    Augustine and Gregory compared as to, i. 56-7\n    Carolingian, nature and examples of, ii. 46-50\n    Church edifices, of, ii. 78-82\n    Dante permeated with, ii. 534, =552-5=\n    Greek, nature of, ii. 56-7\n    Hildegard\u2019s visions, in, i. 456 _seqq._\n    Marriage relationship, in, i. 413-14\n    Mass, of the, ii. 77-8\n    Mediaeval thought deeply impressed by, ii. =43=, 50 _n. 1_, =102=,\n        =365=\n    Mysticism in relation to, ii. 364\n    Neo-Platonic, i. 52\n    Ovid\u2019s works interpreted by, ii. 230\n    Patristic, i. =37=, =43-6=, 52, 53, 58, =80=\n    Platonic, i. 36\n    Raban\u2019s addiction to, i. 223 _and_ _n. 2_\n    _Signum et res_ classification, ii. 322-3\n    Twelfth century--in Honorius of Autun, ii. 51 _seqq._;\n      in Hugo of St. Victor, ii. 64 _seqq._\n    Universal in mental processes, ii. 41, 552 _n._\n    Universe explained by, ii. 64, 66 _seqq._\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 15, 22\n\n  Sytrio, Romualdus at, i. 378-9\n\n\n  Tacitus, i. 78; ii. 134\n\n  Tears, grace of, i. 370-1 _and_ _n._, 462, 463\n\n  Templars, i. 531-5\n\n  Tenth century, _see_ Carolingian period\n\n  Tertullian, i. 5, 58, 87, 99, 171, 332, 344, 354 _n._; ii 152;\n    paradox of, i. 51; ii. 297;\n    _Adversus Marcionem_, i. 68\n\n  Teutons (_See also_ Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Germans, Norsemen):\n    Celts compared with, i. 125\n    Characteristics of, i. 138\n    Christianizing of:\n      Manner of, i. =181-3=, =196-7=, 193;\n        results of, i. 5, =170=-1\n      Motives of converts, i. 193\n    Customs of, i. 122, 139, 141, 523\n    Law of, early, tribal nature of, ii. 245-7\n    R\u00f4le of, in mediaeval evolution, i. 125\n    Roman Empire permeated by, i. 111 _seqq._\n\n  Theodora, i. 242\n\n  Theodore, Abp. of Canterbury, i. 184\n\n  Theodoric of Freiburg, ii. 501 _n._\n\n  Theodoric the Ostrogoth, i. 89, 91 _n. 2_, 93, =114-15=, 120-1, 138, 249;\n    in legend, i. 145-6;\n    Edict of, ii. 244 _n._\n\n  Theodosius the Great, Emp., i. 112; ii. 272;\n    Code of, ii. 240 _and_ _n. 2_, 241 _n. 2_, 242, =249=, =266-7 and n. 1=\n\n  Theodulphus, Bp. of Orleans, i. =9=, 215;\n    Latin diction of, ii. 160\n\n  Theology, scholastic:\n    Abaelard\u2019s treatises on, _see under_ Abaelard\n    Aquinas\u2019 _Summa_ of, _see under_ Aquinas\n    Argumentative nature of, ii. 292-3\n    Augustinian character of, ii. 403\n    Course of study in, ii. 388\n    Importance of, as intellectual interest, ii. 287-8\n    Logic in relation to, ii. =340 n.=, 346\n    Mysticism of, ii. 363-4\n    Natural sciences, etc., as handmaids to, ii. =67=, 111, 289, =486=,\n        =492=, =496=, 500, 530;\n      denial of the theory--by Duns, ii. 510;\n      by Occam, ii. 519-520\n      (_See also_ Physical science--Patristic attitude toward)\n    Paris the centre for, ii. 283, =379=\n    Philosophy in relation to, _see under_ Philosophy\n    Practical, not speculative, regarded as, ii. 512, =515=, 519\n    Scientific nature of, as regarded by Albertus, ii. 291, 430\n    Scripture identified with, ii. 406, 408\n    _Summae_ of--by Alexander of Hales, ii. 399;\n      by Bonaventura, ii. 408;\n      by Albertus Magnus, ii. 430-1;\n      by Aquinas, _see under_ Aquinas\n    Thirteenth-century study of, ii. 118-=120=\n\n  Theophrastus, i. 38\n\n  Theresa, St., i. 443 _n. 1_\n\n  Theurgic practice, i. 46-8\n\n  Thierry, Chancellor of Chartres, ii. 119, =370-1=;\n    _Eptateuchon_ of, ii. 130 _and_ _n._\n\n  Thirteenth century:\n    Intellectual interests of, ultimate, ii. 287\n    Latin prose styles of, ii. 179\n    Papal position in, ii. 509\n    Personalities of writers emergent in, ii. 436\n    Theology and dialectic the chief studies of, ii. 118-=20=\n    Three phenomena marking, ii. 378\n\n  Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, _De imitatione Christi_ by, ii. 185\n\n  Thomas Aquinas, _see_ Aquinas\n\n  Thomas of Brittany, _Tristan_ fragment by, i. 582\n\n  Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9, ii. 428-9\n\n  Thomas of Celano, Life of St. Francis by, quoted, i. 435, 436-8;\n    style of the work, ii. 182-3\n\n  Thucydides, _History of the Peloponnesian War_ by, i. 77-8\n\n  Thuringia:\n    Boniface\u2019s work in, i. 197-8\n    Merovingian rule in, i. 121\n\n  Thuringians, language of, i. 145 _n. 2_\n\n  Torriti, i. 347\n\n  Trance, _see_ Ecstasy\n\n  Tr\u00e8ves, i. =30=, 31, 192\n\n  _Tristan_:\n    Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s version of, i. 567\n    Gottfried von Strassburg\u2019s version of, i. 577-82\n\n  Trivium, _see under_ Seven Liberal Arts\n\n  Troubadours (trouv\u00e8res), i. 572-3 _and_ _nn._\n\n  Troy, tales of, in mediaeval literature, ii. 200, =224-5 and n. 2=,\n        =227-9=\n\n  True and the good compared, ii. 441, 512\n\n  Truth, Guigo\u2019s _Meditationes_ as concerning, i. 385-6\n\n  Twelfth century:\n    Classical studies at zenith in, ii. 117-118\n    Growth in, various, i. 305-6\n    Intellectual interests of, ultimate, ii. 287\n    Literary zenith in, ii. 168, 205-6\n    Mobility increased during, ii. 379\n\n\n  Ulfilas, i. 192; ii. 221\n\n  Ulpian--on _jus naturale_ and _jus gentium_, ii. 234 _and_ _n._;\n    on _justitia_, _jus_ and _jurisprudentia_, ii. 237\n\n  Ulster Cycle, Sagas of, i. 128 _and_ _n. 2_, 129 _seqq._\n\n  Universals, _see under_ Scholasticism\n\n  Universities, mediaeval (_For particular universities see their names_):\n    Increase in (14th cent.), ii. 523\n    Rise of, ii. 379, 381 _seqq._\n    Studies at, ii. 388 _and_ _n._\n\n  Urban II., Pope, ii. 175\n\n  Urban IV., Pope, ii. 391-2, 434\n\n  Utrecht, bishopric of, i. 197\n\n\n  Vallombrosa, i. 377\n\n  Vandals, i. 112, =113=, 120\n\n  Varro, Terentius, i. 39, 71, 78\n\n  Vercingetorix, i. 28\n\n  Vernacular poetry, _see under_ Poetry\n\n  Verse, _see_ Poetry\n\n  Vikings, _see_ Danes _and_ Norsemen\n\n  Vilgard, i. 259-60\n\n  Vincent of Beauvais, _Speculum majus_ of, ii. 82 _and_ _n. 2_, 315-22\n\n  Virgil, Bernard Silvestris\u2019 _Commentum_ on, ii. 116-17 _and_ _n. 2_;\n    Dante in relation to, ii. 535, 536, 539, 543\n\n  Virgin Mary:\n    Dante\u2019s _Paradiso_ as concerning, ii. 551\n    Hymns to, by Hugo of St. Victor, ii. 86-7, 92\n    Interventions of, against the devil, i. 487, =490-2=\n    Mediaeval attitude toward, i. 53, 54 _and_ =n. 2=; ii. =431=, =551=,\n        558\n\n  Virtues:\n    Aquinas\u2019 classification of, ii. 326-8\n    Odilo\u2019s _Cardinales disciplinae_, i. 295\n\n  Virtues and vices, poetic treatment of--by Alanus, ii. 102 _n._;\n    by De Lorris and De Meun, ii. 103\n\n  Visigoths:\n    Arianism of, i. 120\n    Dacian settlement of, i. 112\n    Gaul, Southern, kingdom in, i. 7, 112, =116=;\n      Clovis\u2019 conquest of, i. 121\n    Roman law code promulgated by, _see_ Roman law--_Breviarium_\n    Spain, in, i. 9, 113, 116-=17 and n. 2=, 118\n\n  Visions:\n    Examples of, i. 444-6, 451, 452-9\n    Monastic atmosphere in, i. 184 _and_ _n. 2_\n    Nature of, i. 443, 449 and _n. 3_, =450=, 451 _and_ _n._\n\n  _Vita contemplativa_:\n    Aquinas\u2019 views on, ii. 443, =481-2=\n    Hildebert on, ii. 144-5\n\n  _Vitae sanctorum_, _see_ Saints--Lives of\n\n\n  Walafrid Strabo, i. 100, =215=; ii. =332=;\n    _Glossa ordinaria_ of, i. 16, =221 n. 2=; ii. =46=;\n    _De cultura hortorum_, ii. 188 _n. 2_\n\n  Waldenses, i. =365 n.=; ii. 34\n\n  Walter of Lille (of Chatillon), _Alexandreis_ of, ii. 192 _and_ _n. 3_,\n        230 _n. 1_\n\n  Walther von der Vogelweide, political views of, ii. 33;\n    attitude of, toward Papacy, ii. 34-6;\n    piety and crusading zeal of, ii. 36;\n    melancholy, ii. 36-7;\n    _Minnelieder_ of, ii. 29-31;\n    _Spr\u00fcche_, ii. 29, =32=, 36;\n    _Tagelied_, ii. 30;\n    _Unter der Linde_, ii. 30;\n    otherwise mentioned, i. 475, =482=, 589; ii. 223\n\n  _Wergeld_, i. =122=, 139; ii. =246=\n\n  Will, primacy of, over intellect, ii. 512, 515\n\n  William, Abbot of Hirschau, i. 315\n\n  William II. (Rufus), King of England, i. 273, 275; ii. =138-9=\n\n  William of Apulia, ii. 189 _and_ _n. 3_\n\n  William of Champeaux--worsted by Abaelard, ii. 342-3;\n    founds St. Victor, ii. 61, 143;\n    Hildebert\u2019s letter to, quoted, ii. 143\n\n  William of Conches, ii. 132;\n    studies and works of, ii. 372-3;\n    _Summa moralium philosophorum_, ii. 134-5, 373 _and_ _n. 2_\n\n  William of Malmsbury cited, i. 525\n\n  William of Moerbeke, ii. 391\n\n  William of Occam, _see_ Occam\n\n  William of St. Thierry, ii. 300, 344\n\n  Willibrord, St., i. 197\n\n  Winifried-Boniface, St., i. 6, =197-200=, 308; ii. 273\n\n  Wisdom, Aquinas on, ii. 481\n\n  Witelo, _Perspectiva_ by, ii. 501 _n._\n\n  Witiza of Aquitaine, i. 358-9\n\n  Wolfram von Eschenbach, ii. 223;\n    _Parzival_ by, i. 12 _n._, 149 _n. 1_, 152, 567, 571 _n. 2_,\n        =589-613=; ii. =36=;\n      estimate of the work, i. 588; ii. 29\n\n  Women:\n    Emotion regarding, i. 349-50\n    Emotional Christ-love experienced by, i. 442, =459 seqq.=\n    Fabliaux\u2019 tone toward, i. 521 _n. 2_\n    German prae-mediaeval attitude toward, i. 139, 150;\n      mediaeval, ii. 31\n    Monastic life, in:\n      Abuses among, i. 491-2;\n        Rigaud\u2019s _Register_ as concerning, i. 479-480\n      Consecration of, i. 337 _and_ _n._\n      Gandersheim nuns, i. 311\n      Visions of, i. 442 _seqq._, 463 _seqq._\n    Monkish vilification of, i. =354 n.=, 521 _n. 2_, 532, =533=; ii. 58\n    Romantic literature as concerned with, i. 564\n    Romantic poems for audiences of, i. 565\n    Walther von der Vogelweide on, ii. 31\n\n  Worms, Concordat of (1122), i. 245 _n. 4_\n\n\n  Xenophon\u2019s _Cyropaedia_, i. 78\n\n\n  Year-books (_Annales_), i. 234 _and_ =n. 1=\n\n  Yves, Bp. of Chartres, i. 262 _n._; ii. =139=\n\n\n  Zacharias, Pope, i. 199\n\n  Zoology:\n    Albertus Magnus\u2019 works on, ii. 429\n    Aristotle\u2019s work in, i. 38\n    _Physiologus_, i. =76-7 and n.=, 300; ii. 83\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The present work is not occupied with the brutalities of mediaeval\nlife, nor with all the lower grades of ignorance and superstition\nabounding in the Middle Ages, and still existing, in a less degree,\nthrough parts of Spain and southern France and Italy. Consequently I have\nnot such things very actively in mind when speaking of the mediaeval\ngenius. That phrase, and the like, in this book, will signify the more\ninformed and constructive spirit of the mediaeval time.\n\n[2] There will be much to say of all these men in later chapters.\n\n[3] _Post_, Chapter XI.\n\n[4] See _post_, Chapter IX., as to the manner of the coming of Augustine\nto England.\n\n[5] The Icelandic Sagas, for example, were then brought into written form.\nThey have a genius of their own; they are realistic and without a trace of\nsymbolism. They are wonderful expressions of the people among whom they\nwere composed. _Post_, Chapter VIII. But, products of a remote island,\nthey were unaffected by the moulding forces of mediaeval development, nor\ndid they exert any influence in turn. The native traits of the mediaeval\npeoples were the great complementary factor in mediaeval\nprogress--complementary, that is to say, to Latin Christianity and antique\nculture. Mediaeval characteristics sprang from the interaction of these\nelements; they certainly did not spring from any such independent and\nsevered growth of native Teuton quality as is evinced by the Sagas. One\nwill look far, however, for another instance of such spiritual aloofness.\nFor clear as are the different racial or national traits throughout the\nmediaeval period, they constantly appear in conjunction with other\nelements. They are discerned working beneath, possibly reacting against,\nand always affected by, the genius of the Middle Ages, to wit, the genius\nof the mutual interaction of the whole. Wolfram\u2019s very German _Parzival_,\nthe old French _Chanson de Roland_, and above them all the _Divina\nCommedia_, are mediaeval. In these compositions in the vernacular, racial\ntraits manifest themselves distinctly, and yet are affected by the\nmediaeval spirit.\n\n[6] See _post_, Chapter V.\n\n[7] The Predestination and Eucharistic controversies are examples; _post_,\nChapter X.\n\n[8] See _post_, Chapter X.\n\n[9] The lack of originality in the first half of the tenth century is\nillustrated by the Epitome of Gregory\u2019s _Moralia_, made by such an\nenergetic person as Odo of Cluny. It occupies four hundred columns in\nMigne\u2019s _Patrologia Latina_, 133. See _post_, Chapter XII.\n\n[10] See _post_, Chapter XIII.\n\n[11] See _post_, Chapter XI.\n\n[12] See _post_, Chapter XVI.\n\n[13] These men will be fully considered later, Chapters XXXIV.-XL.\n\n[14] See _post_, Chapter XXXI.\n\n[15] See _post_, Chapter XXXII.\n\n[16] _Post_, Chapter XXIII.\n\n[17] The term \u201cspiritual\u201d is here intended to signify the activities of\nthe mind which are emotionalized with yearning or aversion, and therefore\nmay be said to belong to the entire nature of man.\n\n[18] The history of the spread of Latin through Italy and the provinces is\nfrom the nature of the subject obscure. Budinsky\u2019s _Die Ausbreitung der\nlateinischer Sprache_ (Berlin, 1881) is somewhat unsatisfactory. See also\nMeyer-L\u00fcbke, _Die lateinische Sprache in den romanischen L\u00e4ndern_\n(Gr\u00f6ber\u2019s _Grundriss_, 1{2}, 451 _sqq._; F. G. Mohl, _Introduction \u00e0 la\nchronologie du latin vulgaire_ (1899). The statements in the text are very\ngeneral, and ignore intentionally the many difficult questions as to what\nsort of Latin--dialectal, popular, or literary--was spread through the\npeninsula. See Mohl, _o.c._ \u00a7 33 _sqq._\n\n[19] Tradition says from Gaul, but the sifted evidence points to the\nDanube north of the later province of Noricum. See Bertrand and Reinach,\n_Les Celtes dans les vall\u00e9es du P\u00f4 et du Danube_ (Paris, 1894).\n\n[20] See Beloch, _Bev\u00f6lkerung der griechisch-r\u00f6mischen Welt_, p. 507\n(Leipzig, 1886).\n\n[21] Mommsen says that in Augustus\u2019s time fifty Spanish cities had the\nfull privileges of Roman citizenship and fifty others the rights of\nItalian towns (_Roman Provinces_, i. 75, Eng. trans.). But this seems a\nmistake; as the enumeration of Beloch, _Bev\u00f6lkerung_, etc., p. 330, gives\nfifty in all, following the account of Pliny.\n\n[22] Cicero, _Pro Archia_, 10, speaks slightingly of poets born at\nCordova, but, later, Latro of Cordova was Ovid\u2019s teacher.\n\n[23] The Roman law was used throughout Provincia. In this respect a line\nis to be drawn between Provincia and the North. See _post_, Chapter\nXXXIII.\n\n[24] _Bellum Gallicum_, iii. 10.\n\n[25] _Bellum Gallicum_, v. 6.\n\n[26] Porcius Cato, in his _Origines_, written a hundred years before\nCaesar crossed the mountains, says that Gallia was devoted to the art of\nwar and to eloquence (_argute loqui_). Presumably the Gallia that Cato\nthus characterized as clever or acute of speech, was Cisalpine Gaul, to\nwit, the north of Italy; yet Caesar\u2019s transalpine Gauls were both clever\nof speech and often the fools of their own arguments. Lucian, in his\n_Hercules_ (No. 55, Dindorf\u2019s edition) has his \u201cCelt\u201d argue that Hercules\naccomplished his deeds by the power of words.\n\n[27] See, generally, Fustel de Coulanges, _Institutions politiques de\nl\u2019ancienne France_, vol. i. (_La Gaule romaine_).\n\n[28] _Bellum Gallicum_, vi. 11, 12.\n\n[29] Cf. Julian, _Vercingetorix_ (2nd ed., Paris, 1902).\n\n[30] _Bellum Gallicum_, iv. 5; vi. 20.\n\n[31] There are a number of texts from the second to the fifth century\nwhich bear on the matter. Taken altogether they are unsatisfying, if not\nblind. They have been frequently discussed. See Gr\u00f6ber, _Grundriss der\nromanischen Philologie_, i. 451 _sqq._ (2nd edition, 1904); Brunot,\n_Origines de la langue fran\u00e7aise_, which is the Introduction to Petit de\nJulleville\u2019s _Histoire de la langue et de la litt\u00e9rature fran\u00e7aise_\n(Paris, 1896); Bonnet, _Le Latin de Gr\u00e9goire de Tours_, pp. 22-30 (Paris,\n1890); Mommsen\u2019s _Provinces of the Roman Empire_, p. 108 _sqq._ of English\ntranslation; Fustel de Coulanges, _Institutions politiques_, vol. i. (_La\nGaule romaine_), pp. 125-135 (Paris, 1891); Roger, _L\u2019Enseignement des\nlettres classiques d\u2019 Ausone \u00e0 Alcuin_, p. 24 _sqq._ (Paris, 1905).\n\n[32] Such words are, _e.g._, wine, street, wall. See Toller, _History of\nthe English Language_ (Macmillan & Co., 1900), pp. 41, 42.\n\n[33] See Paul, _Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_, Band i. pp.\n305-315, (Strassburg, 1891).\n\n[34] A prime illustration is afforded by the Latin juristic word _persona_\nused in the Creed. The Latins had to render the three \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 of the\nGreeks; and \u201cthree somethings,\u201d _tria quaedam_, was too loose, as\nAugustine says (_De Trinitate_, vii. 7-12). The true and literal\ntranslation of \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 would have been _substantia_; but that word had\nbeen taken to render \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. So the legal word _persona_ was employed in\nspite of its recognized unfitness. Cf. Taylor, _Classical Heritage, etc._,\np. 116 _sqq._\n\n[35] On these Peripatetics see Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, 3rd ed.\nvol. ii. pp. 806-946.\n\n[36] See Boissier, _\u00c9tude sur M. T. Varron_ (Paris, 1861).\n\n[37] _Hist. naturalis_, ii. 41.\n\n[38] From the reign of Augustus onward, Astrology flourished as never\nbefore. See Habler, _Astrologie im Alterthum_, p. 23 _sqq._ (Zwickau,\n1879).\n\n[39] _De abstinentia_, ii. 34.\n\n[40] _De abstinentia_, iii. 4.\n\n[41] Porphyry before him had spoken of angels and archangels which he had\nfound in Jewish writings.\n\n[42] For authorities cited, see Zeller, _Ges. der Phil._, iii.{2} p. 686.\n\n[43] _De mysteriis_, i. 3.\n\n[44] _Ibid._ ii. 3, 9.\n\n[45] Cf. D\u00f6llinger, _Sektengeschichte_.\n\n[46] All my Christian examples are taken from among the representatives of\nCatholic Christianity, because it was that which triumphed, and set the\nlines of mediaeval thought. Consequently, I have not referred to the\nGnostics, not wishing to complicate an already complex spiritual\nsituation. Gnosticism was a mixture of Hellenic, oriental, and Christian\nelements. Its votaries represented one (most distorting) way in which the\nGospel was taken. But Gnosticism neither triumphed nor deserved to. It\nflourished somewhat before the time of Plotinus.\n\n[47] See Origen, _De principiis_, iii. 2.\n\n[48] The Athanasian _Vita Antonii_ is in Migne, _Patr. Graec._ 26, and\ntrans. in _Nicene Fathers_, second series, iv. The _Vita S. Martini_ is in\nHalm\u2019s ed. of Sulp. Severus (Vienna, 1866), and in Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 20,\nand trans. in _Nicene Fathers_, second series, xi.\n\n[49] See Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, ii. 413 _sqq._, especially 432 sqq.\nAlso Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, pp. 94-97.\n\n[50] In cap. iii. \u00a7 2 of the _Celestial Hierarchy_, Pseudo-Dionysius says\nthat the goal of his system is the becoming like to God and oneness with\nHim (\u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). He classifies his \u201ccelestial\nintelligences\u201d even more systematically than the _De mysteriis_ of\nIamblicus\u2019s school. His work is full of Neo-Platonism. Cf. Vacherot,\n_Histoire de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Alexandrie_, iii. 24 _sqq._\n\n[51] The cult of the Virgin and the saints was of very early growth. See\nLucius, _Die Anf\u00e4nge des Heiligen Kults in der christlichen Kirche_ (ed.\nby Anrich, T\u00fcbingen, 1904).\n\n[52] See, _e.g._, Grandgeorge, _St. Augustin et le N\u00e9oplatonisme_ (Paris,\n1896).\n\n[53] On Gregory, see _post_, Chapter V.\n\n[54] _Epistola ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum._\n\n[55] Cf. Boissier, _Fin du paganisme_.\n\n[56] _Civ. Dei_, xix. caps. 49, 20, 27, 28.\n\n[57] _De moribus Ecclesiae_, 14, 15; cf. _Epist._ 155, \u00a7\u00a7 12, 13.\n\n[58] _Civ. Dei_, xix. 25.\n\n[59] See Clement of Rome, _Ep. to the Corinthians_ (A.D. cir. 92), opening\npassage, and notes in Lightfoot\u2019s edition.\n\n[60] _De doc. Chris._ i. 4, 5.\n\n[61] _De doc. Chris._ ii. 16.\n\n[62] _De doc. Chris._ iii. cap. 10 _sqq._\n\n[63] _Post_, Chapter V.\n\n[64] _De moribus Ecclesiae_, 21; _Confessions_, v. 7; x. 54-57.\n\n[65] See Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, iii. 14 _sqq._; Taylor, _Classical\nHeritage_, p. 117 _sqq._\n\n[66] _Civ. Dei_, ix. 21, 22; cf. _Civ. Dei_, xvi. 6-9.\n\n[67] _Civ. Dei_, book xii., affords a discussion of such questions, _e.g._\nwhy was man created when he was, and not before or afterwards. All these\nmatters entered into the discussions of the mediaeval philosophers, Thomas\nAquinas, for example.\n\nBesides these dogmatic treatises, in which Scriptural texts were called\nupon at least for confirmation, the Fathers, Greek and Latin, composed an\nenormous mass of Biblical commentary, chiefly allegorical, following the\nchapter and verse of the canonical writings.\n\n[68] See _ante_, Chapter III.\n\n[69] See _post_, Chapter V.\n\n[70] The substance of Capella\u2019s book is framed in an allegorical narrative\nof the Marriage of Philology and Mercury. For a nuptial gift, the groom\npresents the bride with seven maid-servants, symbolizing the Seven Liberal\nArts--Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy,\nMusic. Cf. Taylor, _Classical Heritage, etc._, p. 49 _sqq._\n\n[71] In Eyssenhardt\u2019s edition.\n\n[72] On the symbolism of Numbers see Cantor, _Vorlesungen \u00fcber Ges. der\nMathematik_, 2nd ed. pp. 95, 96, 146, 156, 529, 531.\n\n[73] See an extraordinary example taken from the treatise against Faustus,\n_post_, Chapter XXVII. Also _De doc. Chris._ ii. 16; _De Trinitate_, iv.\n4-6.\n\n[74] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 14, col. 123-273. Written cir. 389.\n\n[75] _Hex._ i. cap. 6.\n\n[76] _Hex._ ii. caps. 2, 3.\n\n[77] Aug. _De Trinitate_, iii. 5-9.\n\n[78] _Ante_, Chapter III.\n\n[79] _Civ. Dei_, xvi. 9.\n\n[80] For the sources of these accounts see Lauchert, _Ges. des\nPhysiologus_ (Strassburg, 1889), p. 4 _sqq._ The wide use of this work is\nwell known. It was soon translated into Ethiopian, Armenian, and Syrian;\ninto Latin not later than the beginning of the fifth century; and\nsubsequently, of course with many accretions, into the various languages\nof western mediaeval Europe. See Lauchert, _o.c._ p. 79 _sqq._\n\n[81] Cf. Boissier, _Tacite_ (Paris, 1903).\n\n[82] For example, what different truths can one speak afterwards of a\nsocial dinner of men and women at which he has sat. In the first place,\nthere is the hostess, to whom he may say something pleasant and yet true.\nThen there is his congenial friend among the ladies present, to whom he\nwill impart some intimate observations, also true. Thirdly, a club friend\nwas at the dinner, and his ear shall be the receptacle of remarks on\nfeminine traits illustrated by what was said and done there. Finally,\nthere is himself, to whom in the watches of the night the dinner will\npresent itself in its permanent values as an incident in human\nintercourse, which is so fascinating, so transitory, and so suggestive of\ntopics of reflection. Here are four presentations; and if there was a\ncompany of twelve, we may multiply four by that number and imagine\nforty-eight true, although inexhaustive, accounts of that dinner which has\nnow joined the fading circle of events that are no more.\n\n[83] On Gregory of Nyssa, see Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, p. 125 _sqq._\n\n[84] Chiefly in Books III. and XV.-XVIII.\n\n[85] Like the _Civitas Dei_, the patristic writings devoted exclusively to\nhistory were all frankly apologetic, yet following different manners\naccording to the temper and circumstances of the writer. In the East, at\nthe epoch of the formal Christian triumph and the climax of the Arian\ndispute, lived Eusebius of Caesarea, the most famous of the early Church\nhistorians. He was learned, careful, capable of weighing testimony, and\npossessed the faculty of presenting salient points. He does not dwell\novermuch on miracles. His apologetic tendencies appear in his method of\nseeing and stating facts so as to uphold the truth of Christianity. If\njust then Christianity seemed no longer to demand an advocate, there was\nplace for a eulogist, and such was Eusebius in his Church History and\nfulsome _Life of Constantine_. His Church History is translated by A. C.\nMcGiffert, _Library of Nicene Fathers_, second series, vol. i. (New York,\n1890). It was translated into Latin by Rufinus, friend and then enemy of\nSt. Jerome.\n\n[86] The best edition is Zangemeister\u2019s in the Vienna _Corpus scriptorum\neccles._ (1882). Orosius ignores the classic Greek historians, of whom he\nknew little or nothing. Cf. Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, pp. 219-221.\n\n[87] _Hist._ ii. 3.\n\n[88] Best edition that of Pauly, in Vienna _Corpus scrip. eccles._ (1883).\n\n[89] An excellent statement of the nature and classes of the mediaeval\n_Vitae sanctorum_ is \u201cLes L\u00e9gendes hagiographiques,\u201d by Hipp. Delehaye,\nS.J., in _Revue des questions historiques_, t. 74 (1903), pp. 56-122. An\nEnglish translation of this article has appeared as an independent volume.\n\n[90] At Gregory\u2019s statement of the marvellous deeds of Benedict, his\ninterlocutor, the Deacon Peter, answers and exclaims: \u201cWonderful and\nastonishing is what you relate. For in the water brought forth from the\nrock (_i.e._ by Benedict) I see Moses, in the iron which returned from the\nbottom of the lake I see Elisha (2 Kings vi. 6), in the running upon the\nwater I see Peter, in the obedience of the raven I see Elijah (1 Kings\nxvii. 6), and in his grief for his dead enemy I see David (2 Sam. i. 11).\nThat man, as I consider him, was full of the spirit of all the just\u201d\n(Gregorius Magnus, _Dialogi_, ii. 8. Quoted and expanded by Odo of Cluny,\nMigne, _Pat. Lat._ 133, col. 724). The rest of the second book contains\nother miracles like those told in the Bible. The Life of a later saint may\nalso follow earlier monastic types. Francis kisses the wounds of lepers,\nas Martin of Tours had done. See Sulpicius Severus, _Vita S. Martini_. But\noften the writer of a _vita_ deliberately inserts miracles to make his\nstory edifying, or enhance the fame of his hero, perhaps in order to\nbenefit the church where he is interred.\n\n[91] Ambrose, _Ep._ 22, _ad Marcellinam_.\n\n[92] On Paulinus of Nola, see Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, pp. 272-276.\n\n[93] As this chapter has been devoted to the intellectual interests of the\nFathers, it should be supplemented by a consideration of the emotions and\npassions approved or rejected by them. But this matter may be considered\nmore conveniently in connection with the development of mediaeval emotion,\n_post_, Chapter XIV.\n\n[94] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 63, col. 1079-1167. Also edited by Friedlein\n(Leipsic, 1867).\n\n[95] I know of no earlier employment of the word to designate these four\nbranches of study. But one might infer from Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s youth at this time\nthat he received it from a teacher.\n\n[96] See Cantor, _Vorlesungen \u00fcber die Ges. der Mathematik_, i. 537-540.\n\n[97] See Cantor, _o.c._ i. 540-551.\n\n[98] Cassiodorus, _Ep. variae_, i. 45\n\n[99] Upon the dates of Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s writings, see S. Brandt,\n\u201cEntstehungszeit und zeitliche Folge der Werke des Bo\u00ebtius,\u201d _Philologus_,\nBand 62 (N.S. Bd. 16), 1903, pp. 141 _sqq._ and 234 _sqq._\n\n[100] Social position, his own abilities, and the favour of Theodoric,\nobtained the consulship for Bo\u00ebthius in 510, when he was twenty-eight or\n-nine years old.\n\n[101] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 64, col. 201.\n\n[102] _In librum de interpretatione_, editio secunda, beginning of Book\nII., Migne 64, col. 433.\n\n[103] See _De inter._ ed. prima, Book I. (Migne 64, col. 193); ed.\nsecunda, beginning of Book III. and of Book IV. (Migne 64, col. 487 and\n517). The Bo\u00ebthian translations are all in the 64th vol. of Migne\u2019s _Pat.\nLat._\n\n[104] See A. Hildebrand, _Bo\u00ebthius und seine Stellung zum Christentum_\n(Regensburg, 1885), and works therein referred to.\n\n[105] See Prantl, _Ges. der Logik_, i. 679 _sqq._\n\n[106] See his Life in Hodgkin\u2019s _Letters of Cassiodorus_; also Roger,\n_Enseignement des lettres classiques d\u2019Ausone \u00e0 Alcuin_, pp. 175-187\n(Paris, 1905).\n\n[107] Migne 70, col. 1281.\n\n[108] Migne 70, col. 1105-1219.\n\n[109] Gregory\u2019s works are printed in Migne, _Patrologia Latina_, 75-79.\nHis epistles are also published in the _Monumenta Germaniae historica_. On\nGregory, his life and times, writings and doctrines, see F. H. Dudden,\n_Gregory the Great_, etc., 2 vols. (Longmans, 1905).\n\n[110] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 75, col. 516.\n\n[111] _Ep._ xi. 54 (Migne 77, col. 1171).\n\n[112] This is the view expressed in the _Commentary on Kings_ ascribed to\nGregory, but perhaps the work of a later hand. Thus, in the allegorical\ninterpretation of 1 Kings (1 Sam.) xiii. 20, \u201cBut all the Israelites went\ndown to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter,\nand his axe.\u201d Says the commentator (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 79, col. 356): We\ngo down to the Philistines when we incline the mind to secular studies;\nChristian simplicity is upon a height. Secular books are said to be in the\nplane since they have no celestial truths. God put secular knowledge in a\nplane before us that we should use it as a step to ascend to the heights\nof Scripture. So Moses first learned the wisdom of the Egyptians that he\nmight be able to understand and expound the divine precepts; Isaiah, most\neloquent of the prophets, was _nobiliter instructus et urbanus_; and Paul\nhad sat at Gamaliel\u2019s feet before he was lifted to the height of the third\nheaven. One goes to the Philistines to sharpen his plow, because secular\nlearning is needed as a training for Christian preaching.\n\n[113] See _post_, Chapter X.\n\n[114] Migne 75, 76.\n\n[115] Migne 77, col. 149-430. The second book is devoted to Benedict of\nNursia.\n\n[116] For illustrations see Dudden, _o.c._ i. 321-366, and ii. 367-68.\nGregory\u2019s interest in the miraculous shows also in his letters. The\nEmpress Constantine had written requesting him to send her the head of St.\nPaul! He replies (_Ep._ iv. 30, _ad Constantinam Augustam_) in a wonderful\nletter on the terrors of such holy relics and their death-striking as well\nas healing powers, of which he gives instances. He says that sometimes he\nhas sent a bit of St. Peter\u2019s chain or a few filings; and when people come\nseeking those filings from the priest in attendance, sometimes they\nreadily come off, and again no effort of the file can detach anything.\n\n[117] _Moralia_ xvi. 51 (Migne 75, col. 1151). Cf. Dudden, _o.c._ ii.\n369-373.\n\n[118] _Mor._ ix. 34, 54 (Migne 75, col. 889). Cf. Dudden, _o.c._ ii.\n419-426.\n\n[119] _Dialogi_, iv. caps. 39, 55.\n\n[120] A better Augustinianism speaks in Gregory\u2019s letter to Theoctista\n(_Ep._ vii. 26), in which he says that there are two kinds of\n\u201ccompunction, the one which fears eternal punishments, the other which\nsighs for the heavenly rewards, as the soul thirsting after God is stung\nfirst by fear and then by love.\u201d\n\n[121] _Ep._ iv. 21; vi. 32; ix. 6.\n\n[122] See _post_, Chapter XXXVI., 1.\n\n[123] Migne 83, col. 207-424. No reference need be made, of course, to the\n_False Decretals_, pseudonymously connected with Isidore\u2019s name; they are\nlater than his time.\n\n[124] The _Etymologiae_ is to be found in vol. 82 of Migne, col. 73-728;\nthe other works fill vol. 83 of Migne.\n\n[125] Aug. _Quaest. in Gen._ i. 152. See _ante_, Chapter IV.\n\n[126] Isidore\u2019s _Books of Sentences_ present a topical arrangement of\nmatters more or less closely pertinent to the Christian Faith, and thus\nmay be regarded as a precursor of the _Sentences_ of Peter Lombard\n(_post_, Chapter XXXIV.). But Isidore\u2019s work is the merest compilation,\nand he does not marshal his extracts to prove or disprove a set\nproposition, and show the consensus of authority, like the Lombard. His\nchief source is Gregory\u2019s _Moralia_. Prosper of Aquitaine, a younger\ncontemporary and disciple of Augustine, compiled from Augustine\u2019s works a\nbook of Sentences, a still slighter affair than Isidore\u2019s (Migne, _Pat.\nLat._ 51, col. 427-496).\n\n[127] For example, Reason begins her reply thus: \u201cQuaeso te, anima,\nobsecro te, deprecor te, imploro te, ne quid ultra leviter agas, ne quid\ninconsulte geras, ne temere aliquid facias,\u201d etc. (Migne 83, col. 845).\n\n[128] _De rerum natura_, Praefatio (Migne 83, col. 963).\n\n[129] See Prolegomena to Becker\u2019s edition.\n\n[130] Migne 82, col. 367.\n\n[131] See K\u00fcbler, \u201cIsidorus-Studien,\u201d _Hermes_ xxv. (1890), 497, 518, and\nliterature there cited.\n\nAn analysis of the _Etymologies_ would be out of the question. But the\ncaptions of the twenty books into which it is divided will indicate the\nrange of Isidore\u2019s intellectual interests and those of his time:\n\n    I. _De grammatica._\n\n    II. _De rhetorica et dialectica._\n\n    III. _De quatuor disciplinis mathematicis._ (Thus the first three\n    books contain the Trivium and Quadrivium.)\n\n    IV. _De medicina._ (A brief hand-book of medical terms.)\n\n    V. _De legibus et temporibus._ (The latter part describes the days,\n    nights, weeks, months, years, solstices and equinoxes. It is hard to\n    guess why this was put in the same book with Law.)\n\n    VI. _De libris et officiis ecclesiasticis._ (An account of the books\n    of the Bible and the services of the Church.)\n\n    VII. _De Deo, angelis et fidelium ordinibus._\n\n    VIII. _De ecclesia et sectis diversis._\n\n    IX. _De linguis, gentibus, regnis, etc._ (Concerning the various\n    peoples of the earth and their languages, and other matters.)\n\n    X. _Vocum certarum alphabetum._ (An etymological vocabulary of many\n    Latin words.)\n\n    XI. _De homine et portentis._ (The names and definitions of the\n    various parts of the human body, the ages of life, and prodigies and\n    monsters.)\n\n    XII. _De animalibus._\n\n    XIII. _De mundo et partibus._ (The universe and its parts--atoms,\n    elements, sky, thunder, winds, waters, etc.)\n\n    XIV. _De terra et partibus._ (Geographical.)\n\n    XV. _De aedificiis et agris._ (Cities, their public constructions,\n    houses, temples, and the fields.)\n\n    XVI. _De lapidibus et metallis._ (Stones, metals, and their qualities\n    curious and otherwise.)\n\n    XVII. _De rebus rusticis._ (Trees, herbs, etc.)\n\n    XVIII. _De bello et ludis._ (On war, weapons, armour; on public games\n    and the theatre.)\n\n    XIX. _De navibus, aedificiis et vestibus._ (Ships, their parts and\n    equipment, buildings and their decoration; garments and their\n    ornament.)\n\n    XX. _De penu et instrumentis domesticis et rusticis._ (On wines and\n    provisions, and their stores and receptacles.)\n\n[132] The exaggerated growth of grammatical and rhetorical studies is\ncuriously shown by the mass of words invented to indicate the various\nkinds of tropes and figures. See the list in Bede, _De schematis_ (Migne\n90, col. 175 _sqq._).\n\n[133] Cf. Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, 8 vols.; Villari, _The\nBarbarian Invasions of Italy_, 2 vols.\n\n[134] This demand was not so extraordinary in view of the common Roman\ncustom in the provinces of billeting soldiers upon the inhabitants, with\nthe right to one-third of the house and appurtenances.\n\n[135] Cf. _post_, Chapter XXXIII., II.\n\n[136] On the Codes see Hodgkin, _o.c._ vol. vi.\n\n[137] The Lombard language was still spoken in the time of Paulus Diaconus\n(eighth century).\n\n[138] Apollinaris Sidonius, _Ep._ i. 2 (trans. by Hodgkin, _o.c._ vol. ii.\n352-358), gives a sketch of a Visigothic king, Theodoric II., son of him\nwho fell in the battle against the Huns. He ascended the throne in 453,\nhaving accomplished the murder of his brother Thorismund. In 466, he was\nhimself slain by his brother Euric. In the meanwhile he appears to have\nbeen a good half-barbaric, half-civilized king.\n\n[139] See _post_, Chapter XXXIII., II. For the Visigothic kingdom of Spain\nthe great reigns were those of Leowigild (568-586) and his son Reccared\n(586-601). In Justinian\u2019s time the \u201cRoman Empire\u201d had again made good its\nrule over the south of Spain. Leowigild pushed the Empire back to a narrow\nstrip of southern coast, where there were still important cities. Save for\nthis, he conquered all Spain, finally mastering the Suevi in the\nnorth-west. His capital was Toledo. Great as was his power, it hardly\nsufficed to hold in check the overweening nobles and landowners. Under the\ndeclining Empire there had sprung up a system of clientage and protection,\nin which the Teutons found an obstacle to the establishment of monarchies.\nIn Spain this system hastened the downfall of the Visigothic kingdom.\nAnother source of trouble for Leowigild, who was still an Arian, was the\nopposition of the powerful Catholic clergy. Reccared, his son, changed to\nthe Catholic or \u201cRoman\u201d creed, and ended the schism between the throne and\nthe bishops.\n\n[140] The Spanish Roman Church, which controlled or thwarted the destinies\nof the doomed Visigothic kingdom, was foremost among the western churches\nin ability and learning. It had had its martyrs in the times of pagan\npersecution; it had its universally venerated Hosius, Bishop of Cordova,\nand prominent at the Council of Nicaea; it had its fiercely quelled\nheresies and schisms; and it had an astounding number of councils, usually\nheld at Toledo. Its bishops were princes. Leander, Bishop of Seville, had\nbeen a tribulation to the powerful, still Arian, King Leowigild, who was\ncompelled to banish him. That king\u2019s son, Reccared, recalled him from\nbanishment, to preside at the Council of Toledo in 589, when the\nVisigothic monarchy turned to Roman Catholicism. Leander was succeeded in\nhis more than episcopal see by his younger brother Isidore (Bishop of\nSeville from 600 to 636). A princely prelate, Isidore was to have still\nwider and more lasting fame for sanctity and learning. The last\nencyclopaedic scholar belonging to the antique Christian world, he became\none of the great masters of the Middle Ages (see _ante_, Chapter V.). The\nforger and compiler of the _False Decretals_ in selecting the name of\nIsidore rather than another to clothe that collection with authority,\nacted under the universal veneration felt for this great Spanish\nChurchman.\n\n[141] Marriages between Romans and Franks were legalized as early as 497.\n\n[142] See Flach, _Les Origines de l\u2019ancienne France_, vol. i. chap. i.\n_sqq._ (Paris, 1886).\n\n[143] See _post_, Chapter XXXIII., II.\n\n[144] The physiological criterion of a race is consanguinity. But\nunfortunately racial lineage soon loses itself in obscurity. Moreover,\nduring periods as to which we have some knowledge, no race has continued\npure from alien admixture; and every people that has taken part in the\nworld\u2019s advance has been acted upon by foreign influences from its\nprehistoric beginnings throughout the entire course of its history.\nIndeed, foreign suggestions and contact with other peoples appear\nessential to tribal or national progress. For the historian there exists\nno pure and unmixed race, and even the conception of one becomes\nself-contradictory. To him a race is a group of people, presumably related\nin some way by blood, who appear to transmit from generation to generation\na common heritage of culture and like physical and spiritual traits. He\nobserves that the transmitted characteristics of such a group may weaken\nor dissipate before foreign influence, and much more as the group scatters\namong other people; or again he sees its distinguishing traits becoming\nclearer as the members draw to a closer national unity under the action of\na common physical environment, common institutions, and a common speech.\nThe historian will not accept as conclusive any single kind of evidence\nregarding race. He may attach weight to complexion, stature, and shape of\nskull, and yet find their interpretation quite perplexing when compared\nwith other evidence, historical or linguistic. He will consider customs\nand implements, and yet remember that customs may be borrowed, and\nimplements are often of foreign pattern. Language affords him the most\nenticing criterion, but one of the most deceptive. It is a matter of\nobservation that when two peoples of different tongues meet together, they\nmay mingle their blood through marriage, combine their customs, and adopt\neach other\u2019s utensils and ornaments; but the two languages will not\nstructurally unite: one will supplant the other. The language may thus be\nmore single in source than the people speaking it; though, conversely,\npeople of the same race, by reason of special circumstances, may not speak\nthe same tongue. Hence linguistic unity is not conclusive evidence of\nunity of race.\n\n[145] As to the Celts in Gaul and elsewhere, and the early non-Celtic\npopulation of Gaul, see A. Bertrand, _La Gaule avant les Gaulois_ (Paris,\n1891); _La Religion des Gaulois_ (Paris, 1897); _Les Celtes dans les\nvall\u00e9es du P\u00f4 et du Danube_ (in conjunction with S. Reinach); D\u2019Arbois de\nJubainville, _Les Premiers Habitants de l\u2019Europe_ (second edition, Paris,\n1894); Fustel de Coulanges, _Institutions politiques de l\u2019ancienne France_\n(Paris, 1891); Karl M\u00fcllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, Bde. I. and\nII.; Zupitza, \u201cKelten und Gallier,\u201d _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr keltische\nPhilologie_, 1902.\n\n[146] See _ante_, Chapter II.\n\n[147] The Latin literature produced by their descendants in the fourth\ncentury is usually good in form, whatever other qualities it lack. This\nstatement applies to the works of the nominally Christian, but really\npagan, rhetorician and poet, Ausonius, born in 310, at Bordeaux, of\nmingled Aquitanian and Aeduan blood; likewise to the poems of Paulinus of\nNola, born at the same town, in 353, and to the prose of Sulpicius\nSeverus, also born in Aquitaine a little after. In the fifth century,\nAvitus, an Auvernian, Bishop of Vienne, and Apollinaris Sidonius continue\nthe Gallo-Latin strain in literature.\n\n[148] Without hazarding a discussion of the origin of the Irish, of their\nproportion of Celtic blood, or their exact relation to the Celts of the\nContinent, it may in a general way be said, that Ireland and Great Britain\nwere inhabited by a prehistoric and pre-Celtic people. The Celts came from\nthe Continent, conquered them, and probably intermarried with them. The\nCeltic inflow may have begun in the sixth century before Christ, and\nperhaps continued until shortly before Caesar\u2019s time. Evidences of\nlanguage point to a dual Celtic stock, Goidelic and Brythonic. It may be\nsurmised that the former was the first to arrive. The Celtic dialect\nspoken by them is now represented by the Gaelic of Ireland, Man, and\nScotland. The Brythonic is still represented by the speech of Wales and\nthe Armoric dialects of Brittany. This was the language of the Britons who\nfought with Caesar, and were subdued by later Roman generals. After the\nRoman time they were either pressed back into Wales and Cornwall by\nAngles, Jutes, and Saxons, or were absorbed among these conquering\nTeutons. Probably Caesar was correct in asserting the close affinity of\nthe Britons with the Belgic tribes of the Continent. See the opening\nchapters of Rhys and Brynmor-Jones\u2019s _Welsh People_; also Rhys\u2019s _Early\nBritain_ (London, 1882); Zupitza, \u201cKelten und Gallier,\u201d _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\nkeltische Phil._, 1902; T. H. Huxley, \u201cOn some Fixed Points in British\nEthnology,\u201d _Contemporary Review_ for 1871, reprinted in Essays\n(Appleton\u2019s, 1894); Ripley, _Races of Europe_, chap. xii. (New York,\n1899).\n\n[149] The Irish art of illumination presents analogies to the literature.\nThe finesse of design and execution in the _Book of Kells_ (seventh\ncentury) is astonishing. Equally marvellous was the work of Irish\ngoldsmiths. Both arts doubtless made use of designs common upon the\nContinent, and may even have drawn suggestions from Byzantine or late\nRoman patterns. Nevertheless, illumination and the goldsmith\u2019s art in\nIreland are characteristically Irish and the very climax of barbaric\nfashions. Their forms pointed to nothing further. These astounding\nspirals, meanders, and interlacings, combined with utterly fantastic and\nimpossible drawings of the human form, required essential modification\nbefore they were suited to form part of that organic development of\nmediaeval art which followed its earlier imitative periods.\n\nIrish illumination was carried by Columba to Iona, and spread thence\nthrough many monasteries in the northern part of Britain. It was imitated\nin the Anglo-Saxon monasteries of Northumbria, and from them passed with\nAlcuin to the Court of Charlemagne. Through these transplantings the Irish\nart was changed, under the hands of men conversant with Byzantine and\nlater Roman art. The influence of the art also worked outward from Irish\nmonasteries upon the Continent, St. Gall, for example. The Irish\ngoldsmith\u2019s art likewise passed into Saxon England, into Carolingian\nFrance, and into Scandinavia. See J. H. Middleton, _Illuminated\nManuscripts_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1892), and the different view as to\nthe sources of Irish illuminating art in Muntz, _\u00c9tudes iconographiques_\n(Paris, 1887); also Kraus, _Geschichte der christlichen Kunst_, i.\n607-619; Margaret Stokes, _Early Christian Art in Ireland_ (South\nKensington Museum Art Hand-Books, 1894), vol. i. p. 32 _sqq._, and vol.\nii. pp. 73, 78; Sophus M\u00fcller, _Nordische Altertumskunde_, vol. ii. chap.\nxiv. (Strassburg, 1898).\n\n[150] The classification of ancient Irish literature is largely the work\nof O\u2019Curry, _Lectures on the Manuscript Materials of Ancient Irish\nHistory_ (Dublin, 1861, 2nd ed., 1878). See also D. Hyde, _A Literary\nHistory of Ireland_, chaps. xxi.-xxix. (London, 1899); D\u2019Arbois de\nJubainville, _Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude de la litt\u00e9rature celtique_, chap.\npr\u00e9liminaire (Paris, 1883). The tales of the Ulster Cycle, in the main,\nantedate the coming of the Norsemen in the eighth century; but the later\nredactions seem to reflect Norse customs; see Pflugk-Hartung, in _Revue\nceltique_, t. xiii. (1892), p. 170 _sqq._\n\n[151] This comparison with Homeric society might be extended so as to\ninclude the Celts of Britain and Gaul. Close affinities appear between the\nGauls and the personages of the Ulster Cycle. Several of its Sagas have to\ndo with the \u201chero\u2019s portion\u201d awarded to the bravest warrior at the feast,\na source of much pleasant trouble. Posidonius, writing in the time of\nCicero, mentions the same custom among the Celts of Gaul (Didot-M\u00fcller,\n_Fragmenta hist. Graec._ t. iii. p. 260, col. 1; D\u2019Arbois de Jubainville,\n_Introduction_, etc., pp. 297, 298).\n\n[152] Probably first written down in the seventh century. Some of the\nCuchulain Sagas are rendered by D\u2019Arbois de Jubainville, _\u00c9pop\u00e9e\nceltique_; they are given popularly in E. Hull\u2019s Cuchulain Saga (D. Nutt,\nLondon, 1898). Also to some extent in Hyde\u2019s _Lit. Hist., etc._\n\n[153] See the famous Battle of the Ford between Cuchulain and Ferdiad\n(Hyde, _Lit. Hist. of Ireland_, pp. 328-334). A more burlesque hyperbole\nis that of the three caldrons of cold water prepared for Cuchulain to cool\nhis battle-heat: when he was plunged in the first, it boiled; plunged into\nthe second, no one could hold his hand in it; but in the third, the water\nbecame tepid (D\u2019Arbois de Jubainville, _\u00c9pop\u00e9e celtique_, p. 204).\n\n[154] Certain interpolated Christian chapters at the end tell how M\u00e6ldun\nis led to forgive the murderers--an idea certainly foreign to the original\npagan story, which may perhaps have had its own ending. The tale is\ntranslated in P. W. Joyce\u2019s _Old Celtic Romances_ (London, 1894), and by\nF. Lot in D\u2019Arbois de Jubainville\u2019s _\u00c9pop\u00e9e celtique_, pp. 449-500.\n\n[155] Perhaps no one of the Ulster Sagas exhibits these qualities more\namusingly than _The Feast of Bricriu_, a tale in which contention for the\n\u201chero\u2019s portion\u201d is the leading motive. Its _personae_ are the men and\nwomen who constantly appear and reappear throughout this cycle. In this\nSaga they act and speak admirably in character, and some of the\ndescriptions bring the very man before our eyes. It is translated by\nGeorge Henderson, Vol. II. Irish Texts Society (London, 1899), and also by\nD\u2019Arbois de Jubainville in his _\u00c9pop\u00e9e celtique_ (Paris, 1892).\n\n[156] For example, in a historical Saga the great King Brian speaks,\nfighting against the Norsemen: \u201cO God ... retreat becomes us not, and I\nmyself know I shall not leave this place alive; and what would it profit\nme if I did? For Aibhell of Grey Crag came to me last night, and told me\nthat I should be killed this day.\u201d\n\n[157] \u201cDeirdre, or the Fate of the Sons of Usnach,\u201d is rendered in E.\nHull\u2019s Cuchulain Saga; Hyde, _Lit. Hist._, chap, xxv., and D\u2019Arbois de\nJubainville, _\u00c9pop\u00e9e celtique_, pp. 217-319. _The Pursuit of Diarmuid and\nGrainne_ was edited by O\u2019Duffy for the Society for the Preservation of the\nIrish Language (Dublin, Gill and Son, 1895), and less completely in\nJoyce\u2019s _Old Celtic Romances_ (London, 1894).\n\n[158] Cf. Hyde, _o.c._, chaps. xxi. xxxvi.\n\n[159] _The Voyage of Bran_, edited and translated by Kuno Meyer, with\nessays on the _Celtic Otherworld_, by Alfred Nutt (2 vols., David Nutt,\nLondon, 1895). A Saga usually is prose interspersed with lyric verses at\ncritical points of the story.\n\n[160] On Tara, see Index in O\u2019Curry\u2019s _Manners and Customs of the Ancient\nIrish_; also Hyde, _Literary History_, pp. 126-130. For this story, see\nO\u2019Grady, _Silva Gaedelica_, pp. 77-88 (London, 1892); Hyde, pp. 226-232.\n\n[161] See D\u2019Arbois de Jubainville, _Introduction \u00e0 la lit. celtique_, pp.\n259-271 (Paris, 1883).\n\n[162] See D\u2019Arbois de Jubainville, _Introduction_, etc., p. 129 _sqq._;\nBertrand, _La Religion des Gaulois_, chap. xx. (Paris, 1897). Also\nO\u2019Curry, _o.c._ _passim_.\n\n[163] For this whole story see H. Zimmer, \u201c\u00dcber die fr\u00fchesten Ber\u00fchrungen\nder Iren mit den Nordgermanen,\u201d _Sitzungsbericht der Preussischen Akad._,\n1891 (1), pp. 279-317.\n\n[164] For the life of Saint Columba the chief source is the _Vita_ by\nAdamnan, his eighth successor as abbot of Iona. It contains well-drawn\nsketches of the saint and much that is marvellous and incredible. It was\nedited with elaborate notes by Dr. W. Reeves, for the Irish Archaeological\nSociety, in 1857. His work, rearranged and with a translation of the\n_Vita_, was republished as Vol. VI. of _The Historians of Scotland_\n(Edinburgh, 1874). The _Vita_ may also be found in Migne, _Patrologia\nLatina_, 88, col. 725-776. Bede, _Ecc. Hist._ iii. 4, refers to Columba.\nThe Gaelic life from the _Book of Lismore_ is published, with a\ntranslation by M. Stokes, _Anecdota Oxoniensia_ (Oxford, Clarendon Press,\n1890). The Bodleian Eulogy, _i.e._ the _Amra Choluim chille_, was\npublished, with translation by M. Stokes, in _Revue celtique_, t. xx.\n(1899); as to its date, see _Rev. celtique_, t. xvii. p. 41. Another\n(later) Gaelic life has been published by R. Henebry in the _Zeitschrift\nf\u00fcr celtische Philologie_, 1901, and later. There is an interesting\narticle on the hymns ascribed to Columba in _Blackwood\u2019s Magazine_ for\nSeptember 1899. See also Cuissard, _Rev. celtique_, t. v. p. 207. The\nhymns themselves are in Dr. Todd\u2019s _Liber Hymnorum_. Montalembert\u2019s _Monks\nof the West_, book ix. (vol. iii. Eng. trans.), gives a long, readable,\nand uncritical account of \u201cSt. Columba, the Apostle of Caledonia.\u201d\n\n[165] The Irish monastery was ordered as an Irish clan, and indeed might\nbe a clan monastically ordered. At the head was an abbot, not elected by\nthe monks, but usually appointed by the preceding abbot from his own\nfamily; as an Irish king appointed his successor. The monks ordinarily\nbelonged to the abbot\u2019s clan. They lived in an assemblage of huts. Some\ndevoted themselves to contemplation, prayer, and writing; more to manual\nlabour. There were recluses among them. Besides the monks, other members\nof the clan living near the \u201cmonastery\u201d owed it duties and were entitled\nto its protection and spiritual ministration. The abbot might be an\nordained priest; he rarely was a bishop, though he had bishops under him\nwho at his bidding performed such episcopal functions as that of\nordination. But he was the ruler, lay as well as spiritual. Not\ninfrequently he also was a king. Although there was no common ordering of\nIrish monasteries, a head monastery might bear rule over its daughter\nfoundations, as did Columba\u2019s primal monastery of Iona over those in\nIreland or Northern Britain which owed their origin to him. Irish\nmonasteries might march with their clan on military expeditions, or carry\non a war of monastery against monastery. \u201cA.D. 763. A battle was fought at\nArgamoyn, between the fraternities of Clonmacnois and Durrow, where Dermod\nDuff, son of Donnell, was killed with 200 men of the fraternity of Durrow.\nBresal, son of Murchadh, with the fraternity of Clonmacnois, was victor\u201d\n(_Ancient Annals_). This entry is not alone, for there is another one of\nthe year 816, in which a \u201cfraternity of Colum-cille\u201d seems to have been\nworsted in battle, and then to have gone \u201cto Tara to curse\u201d the reigning\nking. See Reeve\u2019s _Adamnan\u2019s Life of Columba_, p. 255. Of course Irish\narmies felt no qualms at sacking the monasteries and slaying the monks of\nanother kingdom. The sanctuaries of Clonmacnois, Kildare, Clonard, Armagh\nwere plundered as readily by \u201cChristian\u201d Irishmen as by heathen Danes. In\nthe ninth century, Phelim, King of Munster, was an abbot and a bishop too;\nbut he sacked the sacred places of Ulster and killed their monks and\nclergy. See G. T. Stokes, _Ireland and the Celtic Church_; Killen, _Eccl.\nHist. of Ireland_, vol. i. p. 145 _sqq._\n\n[166] The title of saint is regularly given to the higher clergy of this\nperiod in Ireland.\n\n[167] _\u201cThe History of Ireland by Geoffrey Keating\u201d in the original Gaelic\nwith an English translation, by Comyn and Dineen_ (Irish Texts Society.\nDavid Nutt, London, 1902-1908).\n\n[168] This means that he copied a manuscript belonging to Finnian.\n\n[169] The Life of Colomb Cille from the _Book of Lismore_.\n\n[170] Adamnan.\n\n[171] _B.G._ iv. 1-3; vi. 21-28. For convenience I use the word _Teuton_\nas the general term and _German_ as relating to the Teutons of the lands\nstill known as German. But with reference to the times of Caesar and\nTacitus the latter word must be taken generally.\n\n[172] These views are set forth brilliantly, but with exaggeration, by\nFustel de Coulanges, in _L\u2019Invasion germanique_, vol. ii. of his\n_Institutions politiques_, etc. (revised edition, Paris, 1891).\n\n[173] Apoll. Sid. _Epist._ viii. 6 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 58, col. 697).\n\n[174] See Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_; and Pollock,\n_English Law before the Norman Conquest_, _Law Quarterly Review_.\n\n[175] The ancient Anglo-Saxon version is Anglo-Saxon through and through.\nThe considerable store of Latin (or Greek) words retained by the\n\u201cauthorized\u201d English version (for example, Scripture, Testament, Genesis,\nExodus, etc., prophet, evangelist, religion, conversion, adoption,\ntemptation, redemption, salvation, and damnation) were all translated into\nsheer Anglo-Saxon. See Toller, _Outlines of the History of the English\nLanguage_ (Macmillan & Co., 1900), pp. 90-101. Some hundreds of years\nbefore, Ulfilas\u2019s fourth century Gothic translation had shown a Teutonic\ntongue capable of rendering the thought of the Pauline epistles.\n\n[176] See the \u201cBeowulf\u201d translated in Gummere\u2019s _Oldest English Epic_\n(Macmillan & Co., 1909).\n\n[177] This is the closing sentence of Alfred\u2019s _Blossoms_, culled from\ndivers sources. Hereafter (Chapter IX.) when speaking of the introduction\nof antique and Christian culture there will be occasion to note more\nspecifically what Alfred accomplished in his attempt to increase knowledge\nthroughout his kingdom.\n\n[178] See _e.g._ in Otfried\u2019s _Evangelienbuch_, _post_, Chapter IX.\n\n[179] For example: _skidunga_ (Scheidung), _saligheit_ (Seligkeit),\n_fiantscaft_ (Feindschaft), _heidantuom_ (Heidentum). By the eighth\ncentury the High German of the Bavarians and Alemanni began to separate\nfrom the Low German of the lower Rhine, spoken by Saxons and certain of\nthe Franks. The greater part of the Frankish tribes, and the Thuringians,\noccupied intermediate sections of country and spoke dialects midway\nbetween Low German and High.\n\n[180] Text in Piper\u2019s _Die \u00e4lteste Literatur_ (Deutsche National Lit.).\n\n[181] On the Waltari poem, see Ebert, _Allgemeine Gesch. der Literatur des\nMittelalters_, Bd. iii. 264-276; also K. Strecker, \u201cProbleme in der\nWalthariusforschung,\u201d _Neue Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr klass. Altertumsgesch. und\nDeutsche Literatur_, 2te Jahrgang (Leipzig, 1899), pp. 573-594, 629-645.\nThe author is called Ekkehart I. (d. 973), being the first of the\ncelebrated monks bearing that name at St. Gall. The poem is edited by\nPeiper (Berlin, 1873), and by Scheffel and Holder (Stuttgart, 1874); it is\ntranslated into German by the latter, by San Marte (Magdeburg, 1853), and\nby Althof (Leipzig, 1902).\n\n[182] The description of Siegfried\u2019s love for Kriemhild is just touched by\nthe chivalric love, which exists in Wolfram\u2019s _Parzival_, in Gottfried\u2019s\n_Tristan_, and of course in their French models. See _post_, Chapter\nXXIII. For example, as he first sees her who was to be to him \u201cbeide lieb\nund leit,\u201d he becomes \u201cbleich unde r\u00f4t\u201d; and at her greeting, his spirit\nis lifted up: \u201cd\u00f4 wart im von dem gruoze vil wol gehoeh\u00e9t der muot.\u201d And\nthe scene is laid in May (_Nibelungenlied_, Aventiure V., stanzas 284,\n285, 292, 295).\n\n[183] A convenient edition of the _Kudrun_ is Pfeiffer\u2019s in _Deutsche\nKlassiker des Mittelalters_ (Leipzig, 1880). Under the name of _Gudrun_ it\nis translated into modern German by Simrock, and into English by M. P.\nNichols (Boston, 1899).\n\n[184] _Kudrun_, viii. 558. Whatever may have been the facts of German life\nin the Middle Ages, the literature shows respect for marriage and woman\u2019s\nvirtue. This remark applies not only to those works of the Middle High\nGerman tongue which are occupied with themes of Teutonic origin, but also\nto those--Wolfram\u2019s _Parzival_, for example--whose foreign themes do not\nforce the poet to magnify adulterous love. When, however, that is the\ntheme of the story, the German writer, as in Gottfried\u2019s _Tristan_, does\nnot fail to do it justice.\n\nWillmans, in his _Leben und Dichtung Walthers von der Vogelweide_ (Bonn,\n1882), note 1{a} on page 328, cites a number of passages from Middle High\nGerman works on the serious regard for marriage held by the Germans. Even\nthe German minnesingers sometimes felt the contradiction between the\nbroken marriage vow and the ennobling nature of chivalric love. See\nWillmans, _ibid._ p. 162 and note 7.\n\n[185] _Kudrun_, xx. 1013.\n\n[186] _Kudrun_, xxx. 1632 _sqq._\n\n[187] As to the _Parzival_, and Walter\u2019s poems, see _post_, Chapters XXIV.\nXXVI.\n\n[188] _Ante_, Chapter I.\n\n[189] It is not known when Teutons first entered Denmark and the\nScandinavian peninsula. Although non-Teutonic populations may have\npreceded them, the archaeological remains do not point clearly to a\nsuccession of races, while they do indicate ages of stone, bronze, and\niron (Sophus M\u00fcller, _Nordische Altertumskunde_). The bronze ages began in\nthe Northlands a thousand years or more before Christ. In course of time,\nbeautiful bronze weapons show what skill the race acquired in working\nmetals not found in Scandinavia, but perhaps brought there in exchange for\nthe amber of the Baltic shores. The use of iron (native to Scandinavia)\nbegins about 500 B.C. A progressive facility in its treatment is evinced\ndown to the Christian Era. Then a foreign influence appears--Rome. For\nRoman wares entered these countries where the legionaries never set foot,\nand native handicraft copied Roman models until the fourth century, when\nnorthern styles reassert themselves. The Scandinavians themselves were\nunaffected by Roman wares; but after the fifth century they began to\nprofit from their intercourse with Anglo-Saxons and Irish.\n\n[190] It is said that some twenty-five thousand Arabian coins, mostly of\nthe Viking periods, have been found in Sweden.\n\n[191] See Vigfusson and Powell, _Corpus poeticum Boreale_, i. 238.\n\n[192] There is much controversy as to the date (the Viking Age?) and place\nof origin (Norway, the Western Isles, or Iceland?) of the older Eddic\npoems; also as to the presence of Christian elements. The last are denied\nby M\u00fcllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, Bd. v., 1891) and others; while\nBugge finds them throughout the whole Viking mythology (_Home of the Eddic\nPoems_, London, D. Nutt, 1899), and Chr. Bang has endeavoured to prove\nthat the _Voluspa_, the chief Eddic mythological poem, was an imitation of\nthe Christian Sibyl\u2019s oracles (_Christiania Videnskabsselskabs\nForhanlinger_, 1879, No. 9; M\u00fcllenhoff, _o.c._ Bd. v. p. 3 _sqq._).\nSimilar views are held in Vigfusson and Powell\u2019s _Corpus poeticum Boreale_\n(i. ci.-cvii. and 427). These scholars find Celtic influences in the Eddic\npoems. The whole controversy is still far from settlement.\n\nAs for English translations of the _Edda_, that by B. Thorpe (_Edda\nSamundar_) is difficult to obtain. Those of the _Corpus poeticum Boreale_\nare literal; but the phraseology of the renderings of the mythological\npoems is shaped to the theory of Christian influence. A recent translation\n(1909) is that of Olive Bray (Viking Club), _The Elder or Poetic Edda_,\nPart I. The Mythological Poems.\n\n[193] The best account of the Sagas, in English, is the Prolegomena to\nVigfusson\u2019s edition of the Sturlunga Saga (Clarendon Press, 1878).\nDasent\u2019s Introduction to his translation of the Nj\u00e1ls Saga (Edinburgh,\n1861) is instructive as to the conditions of life in Iceland in the early\ntimes. W. P. Ker\u2019s _Epic and Romance_ (Macmillan & Co., 1897) has\nelaborate literary criticism upon the Sagas. The following is Vigfusson\u2019s:\n\u201cThe Saga proper is a kind of prose Epic. It has its fixed laws, its set\nphrases, its regular epithets and terms of expression, and though there\nis, as in all high literary form, an endless diversity of interest and\nstyle, yet there are also bounds which are never over-stepped, confining\nthe Saga as closely as the employment and restrictions of verse could do.\nIt will be best to take as the type the smaller Icelandic Saga, from which\nindeed all the later forms of composition have sprung. This is, in its\noriginal form, the story of the life of an Icelandic gentleman, living\nsome time in the tenth or eleventh centuries. It will tell first of his\nkin, going back to the settler from whom he sprung, then of his youth and\nearly promise before he left his father\u2019s house to set forth on that\nforeign career which was the fitting education of the young Northern\nchief. These _wanderjahre_ passed in trading voyages and pirate cruises,\nor in the service of one of the Scandinavian kings, as poet or henchman,\nthe hero returns to Iceland a proved man, and the main part of the story\nthus preluded begins. It recounts in fuller detail and in order of time\nhis friendships and his enmities, his exploits and renown, and finally his\ndeath; usually concluding with the revenge taken for him by his kinsmen,\nwhich fitly winds up the whole. This tale is told in an earnest,\nstraightforward way, as by a man talking, in short simple sentences,\nchanging when the interest grows into the historic present, with here and\nthere an \u2018aside\u2019 of explanation put in.... The whole composition, grouped\naround a single man and a single place, is so well balanced and so\nnaturally unfolded piece by piece, that the great art shown therein often\nat first escapes the reader.\u201d\n\n[194] The Story of Burnt Njal (Nj\u00e1ls Saga or Nj\u00e1la), trans. by Dasent (2\nvols. Edinburgh, 1861). A prose narrative interspersed with occasional\nlyric verses is the form which the Icelandic Sagas have in common with the\nIrish. In view of the mutual intercourse and undoubted mingling of Norse\nand Celtic blood both in Ireland and Iceland, it is probable that the\nNorse Saga-form was taken from the Irish. But, except in the Laxd\u00e6la Saga\n(trans. by Mrs. Press in the Temple Classics, Dent, 1899), one seems to\nfind no Celtic strain. The Sagas are the prose complement of the poetic\n_Edda_. Both are Norse absolutely: fruit of one spirit, part of one\nliterature, a possession of one people. As to racial purity of blood in\ntheir authors and fashioners, or in the men of whom the tales are told,\nthat is another matter. Who shall say that Celtic blood and inherited\nCeltic gifts of expression were not the leaven of this Norse literature?\nBut whatever entered into it and helped to create it, became Norse just as\nvitally as, ages before, every foreign suggestion adopted by a certain\ngifted Mediterranean race was Hellenized, and became Greek. In Iceland, in\nthe Orkneys and the Faroes, Viking conditions, the Viking spirit, and\nNorse blood, dominated, assimilating, transforming and doubtless using\nwhatever talents and capacities came within the vortex of Viking life.\n\nIt may be added that there is merely an accidental likeness between the\nSaga and the Cantafable. In the Saga the verses are the utterances of the\nheroes when specially moved. One may make a verse as a short death-song\nwhen his death is imminent, or as a gibe on an enemy, whom he is about to\nattack. In the Cantafable--_Aucassin and Nicolette_, for example--the\nverses are a lyric summary of the parts of the narrative following them,\nand are not spoken by the _dramatis personae_. The Cantafable (but not the\nSagas) perhaps may be traced back to such a work as Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s _De\nconsolatione_, which at least is identical in form, or Capella\u2019s _De\nnuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii_. The _De planctu naturae_ of Alanus de\nInsulis (_post_, Chapter XXXII. 1) plainly shows such antecedents.\n\n[195] Story of Gisli the outlaw, trans. by Dasent, chap. ix. (Edinburgh,\n1866).\n\n[196] The Story of Burnt Njal, chap. i., trans. by Dasent.\n\n[197] The Story of Grettir the Strong (Grettis Saga), chaps. 32-35, trans.\nby Magnusson and Morris (London, 1869). See also _ibid._ chaps. 65, 66.\nThese accounts are analogous to the story of Beowulf\u2019s fights with Grendal\nand his dam; but are more convincing.\n\n[198] The stories of the Kings of Norway, called the _Round World_\n(Heimskringla), by Snorri Sturluson, done into English by Magnusson and\nMorris (London, 1893). Snorri Sturluson (b. 1178, d. 1241) composed or put\ntogether the _Heimskringla_ from earlier writings, chiefly those of Ari\nthe Historian (b. 1067, d. 1148), \u201ca man of truthfulness, wisdom, and good\nmemory,\u201d who wrote largely from oral accounts.\n\n[199] The Story of Egil Skallagrimson, trans. by W. C. Green (London,\n1893).\n\n[200] These poems are in the Saga, and will be found translated in Mr.\nGreen\u2019s edition. They are also edited with prose translations in _C.P.B._,\nvol. i. pp. 266-280. With Egil one may compare the still more truculent,\nbut very different Grettir, hero of the Grettis Saga. The Story of Grettir\nthe Strong, trans. by Magnusson and Morris (2nd ed., London, 1869).\n\n[201] Bede, _Hist. Ecc._ i. 13. Moreover, the chief partisan of Pelagius\n(a Briton) was Coelestinus, an Irishman whose restless activity falls in\nthe thirty years preceding the mission of Palladius.\n\n[202] As for the Irish Church in Ireland, there were many differences in\nusage between it and the Church of Rome. In the matters of Easter and the\ntonsure the southern Irish were won over to the Roman customs before the\nmiddle of the seventh century, and after that the Roman Easter made its\nway to acceptance through the island. Yet still the Irish appear to have\nused their own Liturgy, and to have shown little repugnance to the\nmarriage of priests. The organization of the churches remained monastic\nrather than diocesan or episcopal, in spite of the fact that \u201cbishops,\u201d\napparently with parochial functions, existed in great numbers. Hereditary\ncustoms governed the succession of the great abbots, as at Armagh, until\nthe time of St. Malachy, a contemporary of St. Bernard. See St. Bernard\u2019s\n_Life of Malachy_, chap. x.; Migne 182, col. 1086, cited by Killen, _o.c._\nvol. i. p. 173. The exertions of Gregory VII. and Lanfranc, Archbishop of\nCanterbury, did much to bring the Irish Church into obedience to Rome.\nVarious Irish synods in the twelfth century completed a proper diocesan\nsystem; and in 1155 a bull of Adrian IV. delivered the island over to\nHenry II. Plantagenet. Cf. Killen, _Eccl. Hist. of Ireland_, vol. i. pp.\n162-222.\n\n[203] The works of St. Columbanus or Columban, usually called of Luxeuil,\nare printed in Migne\u2019s _Patrologia Latina_, 80, col. 209-296. The chief\nsource of knowledge of his life is the _Vita_ by Jonas his disciple:\nMigne, _Pat. Lat._ 87, col. 1009-1046. It has been translated by D. C.\nMunro, in vol. ii. No. 7 (series of 1895) of _Translations, etc._,\npublished by University of Pennsylvania (Phila. 1897). See also\nMontalembert, _Monks of the West_, book vii. (vol. ii. of English\ntranslation).\n\n[204] The article of H. Zimmer, \u201c\u00dcber die Bedeutung des irischen Elements\nf\u00fcr die mittelalterliche Cultur,\u201d _Preussische Jahrb\u00fccher_, Bd. 59, 1887,\npresents an interesting summary of the Irish influence. His views, and\nstill more those of Ozanam in _Civilisation chr\u00e9tienne chez les Francs_,\nchap, v., should be controlled by the detailed discussion in Roger\u2019s\n_L\u2019Enseignement des lettres classiques d\u2019Ausone \u00e0 Alcuin_ (Paris, 1905),\nchaps. vi. vii. and viii. See also G. T. Stokes, _Ireland and the Celtic\nChurch_, Lect. XI. (London, 1892, 3rd ed.); D\u2019Arbois de Jubainville,\n_Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude de la litt\u00e9rature celtique_, livre ii. chap. ix.;\nF. J. H. Jenkinson, _The Hisperica Famina_ (Cambridge and New York, 1909).\nObviously it is unjustifiable (though it has been done) to regard the\nscholarship of gifted Irishmen who lived on the Continent in the ninth\ncentury (Sedulius Scotus, Eriugena, etc.) as evidence of scholarship in\nIreland in the sixth, seventh, or eighth century. We do not know where\nthese later men obtained their knowledge; there is little reason to\nsuppose that they got it in Ireland.\n\n[205] See the narrative in Green\u2019s _History of the English People_.\n\n[206] There is no positive evidence that Augustine painted the terrors of\nthe Day of Judgment in his first preaching. But it was a chief part of the\nmediaeval Gospel, and never absent from the soul of Augustine\u2019s master,\nGregory. The latter set it forth vividly in his letter to Ethelbert after\nhis baptism (Bede, _Hist. Ecc._ i. 32).\n\n[207] Bede, _Hist. Ecc._ iii. 22, tells how a certain noble gesith slew\nhis king from exasperation with the latter\u2019s practice of forgiving his\nenemies, instead of requiting them, according to the principles of heathen\nmorality.\n\n[208] Bede, _Hist. Ecc._ i. 30. Well known are the picturesque scenes\nsurrounding the long controversy as to Easter between the Roman clergy and\nthe British and Irish. The matter bulks hugely in Bede\u2019s book, as it did\nin his mind.\n\n[209] Bede ii. 13.\n\n[210] _E.g._ as in Bede iii. 1.\n\n[211] One may bear in mind that practically all active proselytizing\nChristianity of the period was of a monastic type.\n\n[212] A.D. 709. _Hist. Ecc._ v. 19, where another instance is also given;\nand see _ibid._ v. 7.\n\n[213] See the pieces in Thorpe\u2019s _Codex Exoniensis_, _e.g._ the\n\u201cSupplication,\u201d p. 452.\n\n[214] _Ecc. Hist._ iv. 22.\n\n[215] Bede, _Hist. Ecc._ iii. 19; v. 12, 13, 14. Of these the most famous\nis the vision of Fursa, an Irishman; but others were had by Northumbrians.\nPlummer, in his edition of Bede, vol. ii. p. 294, gives a list of such\nvisions in the Middle Ages.\n\n[216] On Aldhelm see Ebert, _Allegemeine Ges. des Lit. des Mittelalters_;\nand Roger, _L\u2019Enseignement des lettres classiques_, etc., p. 288 _sqq._\n\n[217] This is noticeable in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Migne,\n_Pat. Lat._ 92, col. 633 _sqq._\n\n[218] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 91, col. 9. In another prefatory epistle to the\nsame bishop Acca, Bede intimates that he has abridged the language of the\nFathers: he says it is inconvenient always to put their names in the text.\nInstead he has inscribed the proper initials of each Father in the margin\nopposite to whatever he may have taken from him (_in Lucae Evangelium\nexpositio_, Migne 92, col. 304).\n\n[219] Migne 90, col. 258; _ibid._ col. 422. I have not observed this\nstatement in Isidore.\n\n[220] All of these are in t. 90 of Migne.\n\n[221] His writings fill about five volumes (90-95) in Migne\u2019s _Patrol.\nLatina_. A list may be found in the article \u201cBede\u201d in the _Dictionary of\nNational Biography_. _Beda der Ehrw\u00fcrdige_, by Karl Werner (Vienna, 1881),\nis a good monograph.\n\n[222] _Ante_, Chapter IV.\n\n[223] _The Works of King Alfred the Great_ are translated from Anglo-Saxon\nin the Jubilee edition of Giles (2 vols., London, 1858). The _Pastoral\nCare_ and the _Orosius_ are translated by Henry Sweet in the publications\nof the Early English Text Society. W. J. Sedgefield\u2019s translation of\nAlfred\u2019s version of the _Consolations of Bo\u00ebthius_ is very convenient from\nthe italicizing of the portions added by Alfred to Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s original.\nThe extracts given in the following pages have been taken from these\neditions.\n\n[224] Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s words, which Alfred here paraphrases and supplements are\nas follows: \u201cTum ego, scis, inquam, ipsa minimum nobis ambitionem\nmortalium rerum fuisse dominatam; sed materiam gerendis rebus optavimus,\nquo ne virtus tacita consenesceret\u201d (_De consol. phil._ ii. prosa 7).\n\n[225] The substance of this bracketed clause is in Bo\u00ebthius--the last\nwords quoted in the preceding note.\n\n[226] Toward the close of his life Alfred gathered some thoughts from\nAugustine\u2019s _Soliloquies_ and from other writings, with which he mingled\nreflections of his own. He called the book _Blossoms_. He says in his\npreface: \u201cI gathered me then staves and props, and bars, and helves for\neach of my tools, and boughs; and for each of the works that I could work,\nI took the fairest trees, so far as I might carry them away. Nor did I\never bring any burden home without longing to bring home the whole wood,\nif that might be; for in every tree I saw something of which I had need at\nhome. Wherefore I exhort every one who is strong, and has many wains, that\nhe direct his steps to the same wood where I cut the props. Let him there\nget him others, and load his wains with fair twigs, that he may weave\nthereof many a goodly wain, and set up many a noble house, and build many\na pleasant town, and dwell therein in mirth and ease, both winter and\nsummer, as I could never do hitherto. But He who taught me to love that\nwood, He may cause me to dwell more easily, both in this transitory\ndwelling ... and also in the eternal home which He has promised us\u201d\n(Translation borrowed from _The Life and Time of Alfred the Great_, by C.\nPlummer, Clarendon Press, 1902). These metaphors represent Alfred\u2019s way of\nputting what Isidore or Bede or Alcuin meant when they spoke in their\nprefaces of searching through the pantries of the Fathers or culling the\nsweetest flowers from the patristic meadows. See _e.g._ _ante_, Chapter V.\nand _post_, Chapter X.\n\n[227] Far into the Frankish period there were many heathen in northern\nGaul and along the Rhine: Hauck, _Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_, I. Kap.\ni. (second edition, Leipzig, 1898). Cf. Vacandard, \u201cL\u2019Idolatrie en Gaule\nau VI{e} et au VII{e} si\u00e8cles,\u201d _Rev. des questions historiques_, 65\n(1899), 424-454.\n\n[228] _Mon. Germ. hist. Auctores antiquissimi_, tom. i. Cf. Ebert, _Ges.\ndes Lit. des Mittelalters_, i. 452 _sqq._\n\n[229] Cf. _ante_, Chapter VI.\n\n[230] In those of its lands which were granted immunity from public\nburdens, the Church gradually acquired a jurisdiction by reason of its\nright to exact penalties, which elsewhere fell to the king.\n\n[231] The synod of 549 declared (ineffectually) for the election of\nbishops, to be followed by royal confirmation.\n\n[232] Hauck, _Kirchenges. Deutschlands_, Bd. I. Buch ii. Kap. ii.; M\u00f6ller,\n_Kirchengeschichte_, Bd. II. p. 52 _sqq._ (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1893).\n\n[233] Carloman went at first to Rome, and built a monastery, in which he\nlived for a while. But here his _contemptum regni terreni_ brought him\nmore renown than his monk\u2019s soul could endure. So, with a single\ncompanion, he fled, and came unmarked and in abject guise to Monte\nCassino. He announced himself as a murderer seeking to do penance, and was\nreceived on probation. At the end of a year he took the vows of a monk. It\nhappened that he was put to help in the kitchen, where he worked humbly\nbut none too dexterously, and was chidden and struck by the cook for his\nclumsiness. At which he said with placid countenance, \u201cMay the Lord\nforgive thee, brother, and Carloman.\u201d This occurring for the third time,\nhis follower fell on the cook and beat him. When the uproar had subsided,\nand an investigation was called before the brethren, the follower said in\nexplanation, that he could not hold back, seeing the vilest of the vile\nstrike the noblest of all. The brethren seemed contemptuous, till the\nfollower proclaimed that this monk was Carloman, once King of the Franks,\nwho had relinquished his kingdom for the love of Christ. At this the\nterrified monks rose from their seats and flung themselves at Carloman\u2019s\nfeet, imploring pardon, and pleading their ignorance. But Carloman,\nrolling on the ground before them (_in terram provolutus_) denied it all\nwith tears, and said he was not Carloman, but a common murderer.\nNevertheless, thenceforth, recognized by all, he was treated with great\nreverence (_Regino, Chronicon_, Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 132, col. 45).\n\n[234] For example, immunity (from governmental taxation and visitation)\nmight attach to the lands of bishops and abbots, as it might to the lands\nof a lay potentate. On the other hand, the lands of bishops and abbots\nowed the Government such temporal aid in war and peace as would have\nattached to them in the hands of laymen. Such dignitaries had high secular\nrank. The king did not interfere with the appointment and control of the\nlower clergy by their lords, the bishops and abbots, any more than he did\nwith the domestic or administrative appointments of great lay\nfunctionaries within their households or jurisdictions.\n\n[235] There are numerous editions of the _Heliand_: by Sievers (1878), by\nR\u00fcckert (1876). Very complete is Heyne\u2019s third edition (Paderborn, 1883).\nPortions of it are given, with modern German interlinear translation, in\nPiper\u2019s _Die \u00e4lteste Literatur_ (Deutsche Nat. Lit.), pp. 164-186.\nOtfrid\u2019s book is elaborately edited by Piper (2nd edition with notes and\nglossary, Freiburg i. B., 1882). See also Piper\u2019s _Die \u00e4lteste Literatur_,\nwhere portions of the work are given with modern German interlinear\ntranslation. Compare Ebert, _Literatur des Mittelalters_, iii. 100-117.\n\n[236] The _Heliand_ uses the epic phrases of popular poetry: they reappear\nthree centuries later in the _Nibelungenlied_.\n\n[237] _Ante_, Chapter I.\n\n[238] _Ante_, Chapter VI.\n\n[239] _Ante_, Chapter IX.\n\n[240] _E.g._ Charles Martell and Pippin drove the Saracens from\nNarbonne--not Charlemagne, to whom these _chansons_ ascribe the deed.\n\n[241] The dates are 801 and 765.\n\n[242] Historical atlases usually devote a double map to the Empire of\nCharlemagne, and little side-maps to the Merovingian realm, which included\nvast German territories, and for a time extended into Italy.\n\n[243] A part of the serious historian\u2019s task is to get rid of \u201cepochs\u201d and\n\u201crenaissances\u201d--Carolingian, Twelfth Century, or Italian. For such there\nshould be substituted a conception of historical continuity, with effect\nproperly growing out of cause. Of course, one must have convenient terms,\nlike \u201cperiods,\u201d etc., and they are legitimate; for the Carolingian period\ndid differ in degree from the Merovingian, and the twelfth century from\nthe eleventh. But it would be well to eliminate \u201crenaissance.\u201d It seems to\nhave been applied to the culture of the _quattrocento_, etc., in Italy\nsixty or seventy years ago (1845 is the earliest instance in Murray\u2019s\n_Dictionary_ of this use of the word), and carries more false notions than\ncan be contradicted in a summer\u2019s day.\n\n[244] The architecture, sculpture, and painting of the Carolingian time\ncontinued the Christian antique or Byzantine styles. Church interiors were\ncommonly painted, a custom coming from early Christian mosaic and fresco\ndecoration. Charlemagne\u2019s Capitularies provided for the renovation of the\nchurches, including their decorations. No large sculpture has survived;\nbut we see that there was little artistic originality either in the\nillumination of manuscripts or in ivory carving. The royal chapel at Aix\nwas built on the model of St. Vitale at Ravenna, and its columns appear to\nhave been taken from existing structures and brought to Aix.\n\n[245] Charlemagne\u2019s famous open letters of general admonition, _de\nlitteris colendis_ and _de emendatione librorum_, and his _admonitio\ngeneralis_ for the instruction of his legates (_missi_), show that the\nfundamental purpose of his exhortations was to advance the true\nunderstanding of Scripture: \u201cut facilius et rectius divinarum scripturarum\nmysteria valeatis penetrare.\u201d To this end he seeks to improve the Latin\neducation of monks and clergy; and to this end he would have the texts of\nScripture emended and a proper liturgy provided; and, as touching the\nlast, he refers to the efforts of his father Pippin before him. The best\nedition of these documents is by Boretius in the _Monumenta Germaniac\nhistorica_.\n\n[246] As to the stylistic qualities of Carolingian prose and metre see\n_post_, Chapters XXXI., XXXII.\n\n[247] Alcuin\u2019s works are printed conveniently in tomes 100 and 101 of\nMigne\u2019s _Patrologia Latina_. Extracts are given, _post_, Chapter XXXI., to\nindicate the place of Carolingian prose in the development of mediaeval\nLatin styles.\n\n[248] Printed in Migne 101, col. 849-902. Alcuin adopted for his _Grammar_\nthe dialogue form frequent in Anglo-Saxon literature; and from his time\nthe question and answer of _Discipulus_ and _Magister_ will not cease\ntheir cicada chime in didactic Latin writings.\n\n[249] Migne 101, col. 857. See Mullinger, _Schools of Charles the Great_,\np. 76 (an excellent book), and West\u2019s _Alcuin_, chap. v. (New York, 1892).\n\n[250] As in his _Disputatio Pippini_ (the son of Charlemagne), Migne 101,\ncol. 975-980, which is just a series of didactic riddles: What is a\nletter? The guardian of history. What is a word? The betrayer of the mind.\nWhat generates language? The tongue. What is the tongue? The whip of the\nair--and so forth.\n\n[251] _De orthographia_, Migne 101, col. 902-919.\n\n[252] Migne 101, col. 919-950. Mullinger, _o.c._ pp. 83-85.\n\n[253] Migne 101, col. 951-976.\n\n[254] Migne 101, col. 956.\n\n[255] Migne 101, col. 11-56.\n\n[256] Migne 101, col. 613-638.\n\n[257] Migne 100, cols. 737, 744.\n\n[258] An important person. He was born at Mainz about 776. Placed as a\nchild in the convent of Fulda, his talents and learning caused him to be\nsent at the age of twenty-one to Alcuin at Tours for further instruction.\nAfter Alcuin\u2019s death in 804, Rabanus returned to Fulda and was made\nPrincipal of the monastery school. In 822 he was elected Abbot. His\nlabours gained for him the title of Primus praeceptor Germaniae. Resigning\nin 842, he withdrew to devote himself to literary labours; but he was soon\ndrawn from his retreat and made Archbishop of Mainz. He died in 856. While\narchbishop, and also while abbot, Rabanus with spiteful zeal prosecuted\nthat rebellious monk, the high-born Saxon Gottschalk, who, among other\nfaults, held too harsh views upon Predestination. His works are published\nin Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 107-112.\n\nRabanus has left huge Commentaries upon the books of the Old and New\nTestaments, in which he and his pupils gathered the opinions of the\nFathers. He also added such needful comment of his own as his \u201cexiguity\u201d\nof mind permitted (Praef. to _Com. in Lib. Judicum_, Migne 108, col.\n1110). His Commentaries were superseded by the _Glossa ordinaria_ (Migne\n113 and 114) of his own pupil, Walafrid Strabo, which was systematically\nput together from Rabanus and those upon whom he drew. It was smoothly\ndone, and the writer knew how to eliminate obscurity and prolixity, and in\nfact make his work such that it naturally became the Commentary in widest\nuse for centuries. The dominant interest of these commentators is in the\nallegorical significance of Scripture, as we shall see (Chapter XXVII.).\nOn Rabanus and Walafrid, see Ebert, _Allge. Gesch. der Lit. des\nMittelalters_, ii. 120-166.\n\n[259] _De cleric. inst._ iii. 26 (Migne 107, col. 404).\n\n[260] _Ibid._ iii. 18.\n\n[261] _Ibid._ iii. 20 (Migne 107, col. 397).\n\n[262] Migne III, col. 9-614.\n\n[263] Raban\u2019s excruciating _De laudibus sanctae crucis_ shows what he\ncould do as a virtuoso in allegorical mystification (Migne 107, col.\n137-294).\n\n[264] _De cleric. inst._ iii. 16 (Migne 107, col. 392).\n\n[265] _De cleric. inst._ iii. 25 (Migne 107, col. 403).\n\n[266] Compare his _De magicis artibus_, Migne 110, col. 1095 _sqq._\n\n[267] Migne 107, col. 419 _sqq._\n\n[268] Migne 120, col. 1267-1350.\n\n[269] Ratramnus, _De corpore, etc._ (Migne 121, col. 125-170).\n\n[270] On the Carolingian controversies upon Predestination and the\nEucharist, see Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, vol. iii. chap. vi.\n\n[271] Migne 119, col. 102. Florus called his tract \u201cLibellus Flori\nadversus cuiusdam vanissimi hominis, qui cognominatur Joannes, ineptias et\nerrores de praedestinatione,\u201d etc. Florus was a contemporary of Eriugena.\n\n[272] Migne 106.\n\n[273] Hincmar, _Ep._ 23 (Migne 126, col. 153).\n\n[274] Migne 122, col. 357.\n\n[275] _De div. nat._ i. 69 (Migne 122, col. 513).\n\n[276] One may say that the work of Eriugena in presenting Christianity\ntransformed in substance as well as form, stood to the work of such a one\nas Thomas Aquinas as the work of the Gnostics in the second century had\nstood toward the dogmatic formulation of Christianity by the Fathers of\nthe Church. With the Church Fathers as with Thomas, there was earnest\nendeavour to preserve the substance of Christianity, though presenting it\nin a changed form. This cannot be said of either the Gnostics or Eriugena.\n\n[277] See Prantl, _Ges. der Logik_, ii. 20-36.\n\n[278] Claudius died about 830. His works are in tome 104 of Migne.\n\n[279] Migne 104, col. 147-158.\n\n[280] Compare Agobard\u2019s Ep. _ad Bartholomaeum_ (Migne 104, col. 179).\n\n[281] _Liber contra judicium Dei_ (Migne 104, col. 250-268). Here the\npowerful Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, is emphatically on the opposite\nside, and argues lengthily in support of the _judicium aquae frigidae_, in\n_Epist._ 26, Migne 126, col. 161. Hincmar (cir. 806-882) was a man of\nimposing eminence. He was a great ecclesiastical statesman. The compass\nand character of his writings is what might be expected from such an\narchiepiscopal man of affairs. They include edifying tracts for the use of\nthe king, an authoritative Life of St Remi, and writings theological,\npolitical, and controversial. As the writer was not a profound thinker,\nhis works have mainly that originality which was impressed upon them by\nthe nature of whatever exigency called them forth. They are contained in\nMigne 125, 126.\n\n[282] _Liber de imaginibus sanctorum_ (Migne 104, col. 199-226).\n\n[283] These writings are also in vol. 104 of Migne.\n\n[284] See Wattenbach, _Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen_, i. 130-142 (5th\ned.). Writings known as _Annales_ drew their origin from the notes made by\nmonks upon the margin of their calendars. These notes were put together\nthe following year, and subsequently might be revised, perhaps by some\nperson of larger view and literary skill. Thus the Annals found in the\ncloister of Lorsch are supposed to have been rewritten in part by Einhart.\n\n[285] There were two great earlier examples of such histories: one was the\n_Historia Francorum_ of Gregory of Tours, the author of which was of\ndistinguished Roman descent, born in 540 and dying in 594; the other was\nBede\u2019s _Church History of the English People_, which was completed shortly\nbefore its author\u2019s death in 735. In individuality and picturesqueness of\nnarrative, these two works surpass all the historical writings of the\nCarolingian time.\n\n[286] In _Mon. Germ. hist. scrip._ ii.; also Migne, vol. 116, col. 45-76;\ntrans, in German in _Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit_ (Leipzig).\nSee also Wattenbach, _Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen_, i., and Ebert,\n_Ges. der Lit._ ii. 370 _sqq._\n\n[287] In both these respects a contrary condition had made possible the\nendurance of the Roman Empire. Its territories in the main were civilized,\nand were traversed by the best of roads, while many of them lay about that\nancient common highway of peoples, the Mediterranean. Then the whole\nEmpire was leavened, and one part made capable of understanding another,\nby the Graeco-Roman culture.\n\n[288] Within his hereditary domain, Hugh had the powers of other feudal\nlords; but this domain, instead of expanding, tended to shrink under the\nreigns of the Capetians of the eleventh century.\n\n[289] In Conrad\u2019s reign \u201cBurgundy,\u201d comprising most of the eastern and\nsouthern regions of France, and with Lyons and Marseilles, as well as\nBasle and Geneva within its boundaries, was added to the Empire.\n\n[290] Papal elections were freed from lay control, and a great step made\ntoward the emancipation of the entire Church, by the decree of Nicholas\nII. in 1059, by which the election of the popes was committed to the\nconclave of cardinals.\n\n[291] For the matter of clerical celibacy, and the part played by\nmonasticism in these reforms, see _post_, Chapter XV.\n\n[292] Gregory VII., _Ep._ iv. 2 (Migne 148, col. 455).\n\n[293] _Ep._ viii. 21 (Migne 148, col. 594).\n\n[294] Migne 148, col. 407, 408. Cf. _post_, Chapter XXXIII.\n\n[295] As between the Empire and the Papacy the particular struggle over\ninvestitures was adjusted by the Concordat of Worms (1122), by which the\nChurch should choose her bishops; but the elections were to be held in the\npresence of the king, who conferred, by special investiture, the temporal\nfiefs and privileges. For translations of Gregory\u2019s Letters and other\nmatter, see J. H. Robinson\u2019s _Readings in European History_, i. 274-293.\n\n[296] See _post_, Chapter XII. The copying of manuscripts was a lucrative\nprofession in Italy.\n\n[297] Tetralogus, Pertz, _Mon. Germ, scriptores_, xi. 251.\n\n[298] The clerical schools were no less important than the lay, but less\ndistinctive because their fellows existed north of the Alps. Cathedral\nschools may be obscurely traced back to the fifth century; and there were\nschools under the direction of the parish priests. In them aspirants for\nthe priesthood were educated, receiving some Latin and some doctrinal\ninstruction. So the cathedral and parochial schools helped to preserve the\nelements of antique education; but they present no such open cultivation\nof letters for their own profane sake as may be found in the schools of\nlay grammarians. The monastic schools are better known. From the ninth\ncentury they usually consisted of an outer school (_schola exterior_) for\nthe laity and youths who wished to become secular priests, and an inner\nschool (_interior_) for those desiring to become monks. At different times\nthe monastery schools of Bobbio, Farfa, and other places rose to fame, but\nMonte Cassino outshone them all.\n\nAs to the schools and culture of Italy during the early Middle Ages, see\nOzanam, _Les \u00c9coles en Italie aux temps barbares_ (in his _Documents\nin\u00e9dits, etc._, and printed elsewhere); Giesebrecht, _De literarum studiis\napud Italos, etc._ (translated into Italian by C. Pascal, Florence, 1895,\nunder the title _L\u2019 Istruzione in Italia nei primi secoli del Medio-Evo_);\nG. Salvioli, _L\u2019 Istruzione publica in Italia nei secoli VIII._, _IX._,\n_X._ (Florence, 1898); Novati, _L\u2019 Influsso del pensiero latino sopra la\ncivilit\u00e0 italiana del Medio-Evo_ (2nd ed., Milan, 1899).\n\n[299] See _post_, Chapter XXXIII., III.\n\n[300] At Salerno, according to the Constitution of Frederick II., three\nyears\u2019 preliminary study of the _scientia logicalis_ was demanded, because\n\u201cnumquam sciri potest scientia medicinae nisi de scientia logicali aliquid\npraesciatur\u201d (cited by Novati, _L\u2019 Influsso del pensiero latino, etc._, p.\n220). Just as Law and Medical Schools in the United States may require a\ncollege diploma from applicants for admission.\n\n[301] On Constantine see W\u00fcstenfeld, \u201c\u00dcbersetzungen arabischer Werke,\u201d\netc. _Abhand. G\u00f6ttingen Gesellschaft_, vol. 22 (1877), pp. 10-20, and p.\n55 _sqq._ Also on the Salerno school, Daremberg, _Hist. des sciences\nm\u00e9dicales_, vol. i. p. 254 _sqq._\n\n[302] _Traube_, \u201cO Roma nobilis,\u201d _Abhand. philos.-philol. Classe Bayer.\nAkad._ Bd. 19, p. 301. This poem probably belongs to the tenth century.\n\u201cArchos\u201d is mediaeval Greek for \u201cThe Lord.\u201d\n\n[303] The _Rationes dictandi_, a much-used book on the art of composing\nletters, comes from the hand of one Alberic, who was a monk at Monte\nCassino in the middle of the eleventh century. He died a cardinal in 1088.\nThe _ars dictaminis_ related either to drawing legal documents or\ncomposing letters. See _post_, Chapter XXX., II.\n\n[304] See E. Bertaux, _L\u2019Art dans l\u2019Italie m\u00e9ridionale_, i. 155 _sqq._\n(Paris, 1904).\n\n[305] The poems of Alphanus are in Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 147, col. 1219-1268.\n\n[306] \u201cAd Romualdum causidicum,\u201d printed in Ozanam, _Doc. in\u00e9dits_, p.\n259.\n\n[307] Printed in Giesebrecht, _De lit. stud. etc._\n\n[308] Printed by Dummler in _Anselm der Peripatetiker_, pp. 94-102. See\nalso the rhyming colloquy between Helen and Ganymede, of the twelfth\ncentury, printed in Ozanam, _Documents in\u00e9dits, etc._, p. 19.\n\n[309] On Liutprand see Ebert, _Ges. der Lit._ iii. 414-427; Molinier,\n_Sources de l\u2019histoire de France_, i. 274. His works are in the _Monumenta\nGer._, also in 136 of Migne. The _Antapodosis_ and _Embassy to\nConstantinople_ are translated into German in the _Geschichtsschreiber der\ndeutschen Vorzeit_.\n\n[310] See _Antapod._ vi. 1 (Migne 136, col. 893).\n\n[311] _Antapod._ i. 1 (Migne 136, col. 791).\n\n[312] Migne 136, col. 837.\n\n[313] _Legatio Constantinopolitana_ (Migne 136, col. 909-937).\n\n[314] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 136, col. 1283-1302.\n\n[315] See Ebert, _Allgem. Ges._ iii. 370, etc.; Novati, _L\u2019Influsso del\npensiero latino, etc._, p. 31 _sqq._; and Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 136.\n\n[316] See Novati, _L\u2019Influsso, etc._, pp. 188-191. The passage is from the\nvituperative polemic of a certain Ademarus (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 141, col.\n107-108).\n\n[317] Dummler, \u201cGedichte aus Abdinghof,\u201d in _Neues Archiv_, v. 1 (1876),\np. 181 (cited by Novati, p. 192).\n\n[318] Dummler, _Anselm der Peripatetiker_, p. 36 _sqq._; cf. Haur\u00e9au,\n_Singularit\u00e9s historiques_, p. 179 _sqq._\n\n[319] The account is from Radolphus Glaber, _Historiarum libri_, ii. 12.\n\n[320] On Damiani\u2019s views of classical studies, see _Opusc._ xi., _Liber\nqui dicitur Dominus vobiscum_, cap. i. (Migne 145, col. 232); _Opusc._\nxlv., _De sancta simplicitate_ (_ibid._ col. 695); _Opusc._ lviii., _De\nvera felicitate et sapientia_ (_ibid._ col. 831). For the life and works\nof this interesting man see _post_, p. 262 _sqq._, and _post_, Chapter\nXVI.\n\n[321] _Vita Anselmi_, 1247 (cited by Ronca, p. 227).\n\n[322] Another great politico-ecclesiastical Italian was Lanfranc (cir.\n1005-1089), whose life was almost exactly contemporaneous with that of\nHildebrand. He was born in high station at Pavia, and educated in letters\nand the law. Seized with the desire to be a monk, he left his home and\npassed through France, sojourning on his way, until he came to the convent\nof Bec in Normandy, in the year 1042. A man of practical ability and a\ngreat teacher, it was he that made the monastery great. Men, lay and\nclerical, noble and base, came thronging to hear him: Anselm came and Ives\nof Chartres, both future saints, and one who afterwards as Pope Alexander\nII. rose before Lanfranc, then Archbishop of Canterbury, and said: \u201cThus I\nhonour, not the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the master of the school of\nBec, at whose feet I sat with other pupils.\u201d William the Conqueror made\nLanfranc Primate of England and prince-ruler of the land in the\nConqueror\u2019s absence.\n\n[323] _Petri Damiani Ep._ i. xvi. (Migne 144, col. 236). Damiani\u2019s works\nare contained in Migne 144 and 145. Alexander II. was pope from 1061 to\n1073, when he was succeeded by Hildebrand.\n\n[324] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 145, col. 961, 967.\n\n[325] _Opusculum_, xxxvi. (Migne 145, col. 595). It is also bad to be an\nabbot, as Damiani shows in plaintive and almost humorous verses:\n\n  \u201cNullus pene abbas modo\n   Valet esse monachus,\n   Dum diversum et nocivum\n   Sustinet negotium:\n   Et, quod velit sustinere,\n   Velut iniquus patitur\n\n    *       *       *\n\n  \u201cSpiritaliter abbatem\n   Volunt fratres vivere,\n   Et per causas saeculares\n   Cogunt illum pergere;\n   Per tam itaque diversa\n   Quis valet incedere?\u201d\n                        _De abbatum miseria rhythmus_\n                              (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 145, col. 972).\n\n[326] Lib. v. Ep. iv.; cf. Jer. xiii.\n\n[327] Ep. iv. 11 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 144, col. 313).\n\n[328] He died in 1072, a year before Hildebrand was made pope.\n\n[329] _Opusc._ xvii., _De coelibatu_; _Opusc._ xviii., _Contra\nintemperantes clericos_; _Opusc._ xxii., _Contra clericos aulicos_, etc.\n\n[330] Lib. iv. Ep. 5 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 144, col. 300).\n\n[331] Lib. v. Ep. 3 (Migne 144, col. 343).\n\n[332] Lib. v. Ep. 2 (Migne 144, col. 340). Damiani\u2019s _Rhythmus poenitentis\nmonachi_ (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 145, col. 971) expresses the passionate\nremorse of a sinful monk.\n\n[333] _Post_, Chapter XIX.\n\n[334] Lib. vii. Ep. 18 (Migne 144, col. 458).\n\n[335] Much is contained in the eighth book of his letters. The third\nletter of this book is addressed to a nobleman who did not treat his\nmother as Peter would have had him. The whole family situation is given in\ntwo sentences: \u201cBut you may say: \u2018My mother exasperates me often, and with\nher rasping words worries me and my wife. We cannot endure such\nreproaches, nor tolerate the burden of her severity and interference.\u2019 But\nfor this, your reward will be the richer, if you return gentleness for\ncontumely, and mollify her with humility when you are sprinkled with the\nsalt of her abuse\u201d (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 144, col. 467). Some sentences from\nthis letter are given _post_, Chapter XXXI., as examples of Latin style.\n\nThe next letter is addressed to the same nobleman and his wife on the\ndeath of their son. It gently points out to them that his migration to the\n_coelestia regna_, where among the angels he has put on the garment of\nimmortality, is cause for joy.\n\n[336] _Opusc._ ix., _De eleemosyna_ (Migne 145, col. 207 _sqq._).\n\n[337] _Opusc._ ix., _De eleemosyna_, cap. i.\n\n[338] Seneca, _De vita beata_, 20.\n\n[339] Lib. viii. Ep. 8 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 144, col. 476). Cf. _ante_, p.\n260.\n\n[340] Extracts will be given _post_, Chapter XVI., together with Damiani\u2019s\nremarkable Life of Romuald.\n\n[341] Migne 158, col. 50 _sqq._\n\n[342] Anselm was born in 1033 and died in 1109. His works are in Migne\n158, 159. See also Domet de Vorges, _S. Anselme_ (Les grands Philosophes,\n1901).\n\n[343] \u201cDistrictio ordinis,\u201d _Vita_, i. 6. This indicates that liberal\nstudies were not favoured in Cluny at this time, cir. 1060.\n\n[344] In a convent where there is an abbot, the prior is the officer\ndirectly under him.\n\n[345] _Ante_, Chapter X.\n\n[346] _Cur Deus homo_, i. 1 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 158, col. 361).\n\n[347] In the _Cur Deus homo_, i. 2, Anselm has his approved disciple state\nthe same point of view: \u201cAs the right order prescribes that we should\nbelieve the profundities of the Christian Faith, before presuming to\ndiscuss them by reason, so it seems to me neglect if after we are\nconfirmed in faith we do not study to understand what we believe.\nWherefore, since by the prevenient grace of God, I deem myself to hold the\nfaith of our redemption, so that even if I could by no reason comprehend\nwhat I believe, there is nothing that could pluck me from it, I ask from\nthee, as many ask, that thou wouldst set forth to me, as thou knowest it,\nby what necessity and reason, God, being omnipotent, should have assumed\nthe humility and weakness of human nature for its restoration.\u201d\n\n[348] There is indeed an early treatise, _De grammatico_ (Migne 158, col.\n561-581), in which Anselm seems to abandon himself to dialectic concerned\nwith an academic topic. The question is whether _grammaticus_, a\ngrammarian, is to be subsumed under the category of substance or quality;\ndialectically is a grammarian a man or an incident?\n\n[349] Cf. Kaulich, _Ges. der scholastischen Philosophie_, i. 293-332;\nHaur\u00e9au, _Histoire de la philosophie scholastique_, i. 242-288; St\u00f6ckl,\n_Philosophie des Mittelalters_, i. 151-208; De Wulf, _History of Medieval\nPhilosophy_, 3rd ed. (Longmans, 1909), p. 162 _sqq._, and authorities.\n\n[350] The _locus classicus_ is _Proslogion_, cap. 2.\n\n[351] _Cur Deus homo_, i. 12.\n\n[352] _Ibid._ i. 5.\n\n[353] _Ibid._ i. 7.\n\n[354] Examples of Anselm\u2019s prose are given _post_, Chapter XXXI.\n\n[355] On Gerbert see _Lettres de Gerbert publi\u00e9es avec une introduction,\netc._, par Julien Havet (Paris: Picard, 1889; I have cited them according\nto this edition); _\u0152uvres de Gerbert_, ed. by Olleris (Clermont and Paris,\n1867); also in Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 139; Richerus, _Historiarum libri IV._\n(especially lib. iii. cap. 55 _sqq._); _Mon. Germ. script._ iii. 561\n_sqq._; Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 138, col. 17 _sqq._ Also Picavet, _Gerbert, une\npape philosophe_ (Paris: Leroux, 1897); Cantor, _Ges. der Mathematik_, i.\n728-751 (Leipzig, 1880); Prantl, _Ges. der Logik_, ii. 53-57 (Leipzig,\n1861).\n\n[356] _Ep._ 12.\n\n[357] _Mon. Germ. scriptores_, iii. 686.\n\n[358] _Ep._ 44.\n\n[359] Presumably Gerbert\u2019s German-speaking scholars are meant.\n\n[360] _Ep._ 45, _Raimundo monacho_.\n\n[361] _Ep._ 46, _ad Geraldum Abbatem_.\n\n[362] _I.e._ on the affairs of the monastery of Bobbio.\n\n[363] A Greek doctor of Augustus\u2019s time, who wrote on the diseases of the\neye.\n\n[364] _Ep._ 130.\n\n[365] _Ep._ 167 (in Migne, _Ep._ 174).\n\n[366] Richer, _Hist._ iii. 47, 48.\n\n[367] Several of his compositions are extant.\n\n[368] Richer, _Hist._ iii. 48-53.\n\n[369] Richer, _Hist._ iii. cap. 55-65.\n\n[370] See _post_, Chapter XXXV. If one should hesitate to find a phase of\nthe veritable Gerbert in Richer\u2019s report of the disputation with Otric,\none may turn to Gerbert\u2019s own philosophic or logical _Libellus--de\nrationali et ratione uti_ (Migne 139, col. 159-168). It is addressed to\nOtto II., and the opening paragraph recalls to the emperor the disputation\nwhich we have been following. The _Libellus_ is naturally more coherent\nthan the disputation, in which Otric\u2019s questions seem intended rather to\ntrip his adversary than to lead a topic on to its proper end. It is\ndevoted, however, to a problem exactly analogous to the point taken by\nOtric, that the term rational was not as broad as the term mortal. For the\n_Libellus_ discusses whether the use of reason (_ratione uti_) can be\npredicated of the rational being (_rationale_). The concept of the\npredicate should be the broader one, but here it might seem less broad,\nsince all reasonable beings do not exercise reason. The discussion closely\nresembles the dispute in the character of the intellectual interests\ndisclosed, and its arguments are not more original than those employed\nagainst Otric. Disputation and _Libellus_ alike represent necessary\nendeavours of the mind, which has reached a certain stage of tuition and\ndevelopment, to adjust itself with problems of logical order and method.\n\n[371] _Post_, Chapter XV.\n\n[372] Cf. Sack\u00fcr, _Die Cluniacenser_, ii. 330 _sqq._; Pfister. _\u00c9tudes sur\nle r\u00e8gne de Robert le Pieux_, p. 2 _sqq._ (the latter takes an extreme\nview).\n\n[373] Aimoin\u2019s _Vita Abbonis_, cap. 7 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 139, col. 393).\nThe same volume contains most of Abbo\u2019s extant writings, and those of\nAimoin. On Abbo see Sack\u00fcr, _Die Cluniacenser_, ii. 345 _sqq._\n\nAn incredibly large number of students are said to have attended Abbo\u2019s\nlectures. His studies and teaching lay mainly in astronomy, mathematics,\nchronology, and grammar. The pupil Aimoin cultivated history and\nbiography, compiling a History of the Francs and a History of the miracles\nof St. Benedict, the latter a theme worthy of the tenth century. One\nleaves it with a sigh of relief, so barren was it save for its feat of\ngestation in giving birth to Gerbert.\n\n[374] Jotsaldus, _Vita Odilonis_ (Migne 142, col. 1037).\n\n[375] Odilo, _Vita Maioli_ (Migne 142, col. 951).\n\n[376] See Taylor, _Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_, p. 74 _sqq._\nOne may compare the influence of Cicero\u2019s _De amicitia_ on the _De\namicitia Christiana_ of Peter of Blois (cir. 1200), Migne 207, col.\n871-898.\n\n[377] _Vita Odilonis_, chaps. vi.-xiii. (Migne 142, col. 909 _sqq._).\n\n[378] _Bellum Gallicum_, vi. 13.\n\n[379] Migne 143, col. 1290.\n\n[380] For a description of these works, see _post_, Chapter XXX. II.\n\n[381] The substance of this sketch of the school of Chartres is taken\nchiefly from the Abb\u00e9 Clerval\u2019s exhaustive study, \u201cLes \u00c9coles de Chartres\nau moyen \u00e2ge,\u201d _M\u00e9moires de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 arch\u00e9ologique d\u2019Eure-et-Loir_, xi.,\n1895. For the later fortunes of this school see _post_, Chapter XXX.\n\n[382] The Histories of Gerbert\u2019s pupil Richer are somewhat better, and\nshow an imitation of Sallust.\n\n[383] Cf. Molinier, _Les Sources de l\u2019histoire de France_, v., lxix.\n\n[384] _Post_, Chapters XXXIV.-XLII.\n\n[385] Born 1078; king from 1108-1137.\n\n[386] _Ante_, Chapter X.\n\n[387] _Ante_, Chapter IX.\n\n[388] On Notker see Piper, _Die \u00e4lteste Litteratur_ (Deutsche Nat. Lit.),\npp. 337-340.\n\n[389] _Ante_, Chapter XI., where something was said of Liutprand also.\nRatherius was a restless intriguer and pamphleteer, a sort of stormy\npetrel, who was born in 890 near Li\u00e8ge. In the course of his career he was\nonce bishop of that northern city, and three times bishop of Verona, where\nhe died, an old man of angry soul and bitter tongue. Two years and more\nhad he passed in a dungeon at Pavia--a sharpening experience for one\nalready given overmuch to hate. There he compiled his rather dreary six\nbooks of _Praeloquia_ (Migne 136, col. 145-344), preparatory discourses,\nperhaps precursive of another work, but at all events containing moral\ninstruction for all orders of society. It was in the nature of a\ncompilation, and yet touched with a strain of personal plaint, which\nsometimes makes itself clearly audible in words that show this work to\nhave been its author\u2019s prison _consolatio_: \u201cThink what anguish impelled\nme to it, what calamity, what necessity showed me these paths of\nauthorship. Dread of forgetting was my first reason for writing. Buried\nunder all sorts of the rubbish of wickedness, surrounded by the darkness\nof evil, and distracted with the clamours of affairs, I feared that I\nshould forget, and was delighted to find how much I could remember. Books\nwere lacking, and friends to talk with, while sorrow gnawed the soul; so I\nused this book of mine as a friend to chat with, and was comforted by it\nas by a companion. Nor did I worry, asking who will read it; since I knew\nme for its reader, and as its lover, if it had none other\u201d (_Praeloq._ vi.\n26; Migne 136, col. 342). On Ratherius see Ebert, _Ges. der Lit._, iii.\n375 _sqq._\n\n[390] _Vita Brunonis_, caps. 4, 6.\n\n[391] _Vita Brunonis_, cap. 8.\n\n[392] Cf. _post_, Chapter XXXII., III.\n\n[393] Enough will be found regarding Hrotsvitha and her works in Ebert,\n_Allgem. Ges. der Lit._, iii. 285-329.\n\n[394] _Vita Bernwardi_, 6 (Migne 140, col. 397), by Thangmar, who was\nBernward\u2019s teacher and outlived him to write his Life.\n\n[395] Migne 141, col. 1229.\n\n[396] See Froumundus, _Ep._ 9, 11, 13 (Migne 141, col. 1288 _sqq._). A\nnumber of his poems are published by F. Seiler, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr deutsche\nPhilologie_, Bd. 14, pp. 406-442.\n\n[397] Migne 141, col. 1292. I am not sure that I have caught Froumund\u2019s\nmeaning.\n\n[398] _Mon. Ger. Scriptores_, v. 134 _sqq._ (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 146, col.\n1027 _sqq._).\n\n[399] _Vita Hermanni_ (Migne 143, col. 29).\n\n[400] The writings of Hermannus Contractus are in Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 143.\nThe poem is reprinted from Du Meril\u2019s _Po\u00e9sies populaires_; a more\ncomplete text is in Bd XI. of the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr deutsches Altertum_.\n\n[401] _Ante_, Chapter XII., 1.\n\n[402] Prantl, _Ges. Logik_, ii. 83.\n\n[403] Cf. Endres, \u201cOthloh\u2019s von St. Emmeram Verh\u00e4ltnis zu den freien\nKunsten,\u201d _Philos. Jahrbuch_, 1904.\n\n[404] _Liber visionum._\n\n[405] Othloh\u2019s works are all in tome 146 of Migne\u2019s _Patrologia Latina_.\n\n[406] _Ante_, Chapter XII. 11.\n\n[407] _Ante_, Chapters VIII., IX.\n\n[408] Printed in Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 139, col. 871 _sqq._ and elsewhere.\nFor editions see Wattenbach, _Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen_, 6th ed. i.\n485.\n\n[409] _Post_, Chapter XVI.\n\n[410] Cf. Taylor, _Ancient Ideals_, chaps. xv., xvi.; _Classical\nHeritage_, chaps. ii., iii.\n\n[411] Hosea i.-iii.\n\n[412] Sulpicius Severus, _Epist._ iii.\n\n[413] These words occur in Jerome\u2019s famous letter (_Ep._ xiv.), in which\nhe exhorts the wavering Heliodoras to sever all ties and affections: \u201cDo\nnot mind the entreaties of those dependent on you, come to the desert and\nfight for Christ\u2019s name. If they believe in Christ, they will encourage\nyou; if they do not,--let the dead bury their dead. A monk cannot be\nperfect in his own land; not to wish to be perfect is a sin; leave all,\nand come to the desert. The desert loves the naked. O desert, blooming\nwith the flowers of Christ! O solitude, whence are brought the stones of\nthe city of the Great King! O wilderness rejoicing close to God! What\nwould you, brother, in the world,--you that are greater than the world?\nHow long are the shades of roofs to oppress you? How long the dungeon of a\ncity\u2019s smoke? Believe me, I see more of light! Do you fear poverty? Christ\ncalled the poor \u201cblessed.\u201d Are you terrified at labour? No athlete without\nsweat is crowned. Do you think of food? Faith fears not hunger. Do you\ndread the naked ground for limbs consumed with fasts? The Lord lies with\nyou. Does the infinite vastness of the desert fright you? In the mind walk\nabroad in Paradise. Does your skin roughen without baths? Who is once\nwashed in Christ needs not to wash again. And in a word, hear the apostle\nanswering: The sufferings of the present time are not to be compared with\nthe glory to come which shall be revealed in us!\u201d\n\n[414] In my _Classical Heritage_, pp. 136-197, I have given an account of\nthe origins of monasticism, and of its distinctive western features. There\nI have also set out the Rule of Benedict, with sketches of the early\nmonastic character.\n\n[415] Cyprian said in the third century, addressing himself to Christian\nvirgins: \u201cDominus vester et caput Christus est ad instar ad vicem masculi\u201d\n(_De habitu virginum_, 22). To realize how near to the full human\nrelationship was this wedded love of Christ, one should read the\ncommentaries and sermons upon Canticles. Those of a later time--St.\nBernard\u2019s, for example--are the best, because they sum up so much that had\nbeen gathering fervour through the centuries. One might look further to\nthose mediaeval instances that break through mysticism to a sensuousness\nin which the man Christ becomes an almost too concrete husband for\necstatic women. See _post_, Chapter XIX.\n\n[416] The whole Christian love, first the love of God and then the love of\nman, is felt and set forth by Augustine. \u201cThou hast made us toward thee,\nand unquiet is our heart until it rests in thee.... That is the blessed\nlife to rejoice toward thee, concerning thee and because of thee.... Give\nme thyself, my God.... All my plenty which is not my God is need.\u201d With\nhis love of God his love for man accords. \u201cThis is true love, that\ncleaving to truth we may live aright; and for that reason we contemn all\nmortal things except the love of men, whereby we wish them to live aright.\nThus can we profitably be prepared even to die for our brethren, as the\nLord Jesus Christ taught us by His example.... It is love which unites\ngood angels and servants of God in the bond of holiness, joins us to them\nand them to us, and subjoins all unto God.\u201d These passages are from the\n_Confessions_ and from the _De Trinitate_.\n\n[417] Cf. _Classical Heritage_, p. 123 _sqq._\n\n[418] Augustine, _Epp._ 155, c. 13.\n\n[419] _Ante_, Chapter V.\n\n[420] _Ante_, Chapter IX.\n\n[421] Alcuin, _Ep._ 40 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 100, col. 201).\n\n[422] Cf. Odo\u2019s _Collationes_, in Migne 133, and Chapter XII. II., _ante_.\nGregory was Odo\u2019s favourite author.\n\n[423] Before Constantine\u2019s reign there had been few Christian basilicas;\nChristian art was sepulchral, drawing upon the galleries of the Catacombs,\nin meagre and monotonous designs, the symbols of the soul\u2019s deliverance\nfrom death. These designs were antique in style and poor in execution.\n\n[424] See Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, chap. x. sec. 2.\n\n[425] See _Classical Heritage_, p. 267, and cf. _ibid._ chap. ix. sec. 1.\n\n[426] See _post_, Chapter XXXII. II.\n\n[427] The account of the evolution of the hymn from the prose sequence is\ngiven _post_, Chapter XXXII. III.\n\n[428] Further illustrations of the mediaeval emotionalizing of Latin\nChristianity could be made from the history of certain Christian\nconceptions, angels for example:--the Old and New Testaments and the\nApocrypha contain the revelation of their functions; next, their natures\nare defined in the works of the Fathers and the _Celestial Hierarchy_ of\nPseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. The matter is gone over at great length,\nand their nature and functions logically perfected, by the schoolmen of\nthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries. But, all the while, religious\nfeeling, popular credences, and the imagination of poet and artist went on\ninvesting with beauty and loveliness these guardian spirits who carried\nout God\u2019s care of man. Thus angels became the realities they were felt to\nbe.\n\n[429] Hartmann belongs to that great group of courtly German poets whose\nlives surround the year 1200. He was the translator of Chr\u00e8tien de Troye\u2019s\n_Erec_ and _Ivain_. See Bech\u2019s _Hartmann von Aue_ (Deutsche klassiker).\nThe verses quoted can hardly be rendered; but the meaning is as follows:\n\n\u201cMy joys were never free from care until the day which showed me the\nflowers of Christ which I wear here (_i.e._ the Crusader\u2019s cross). They\nherald a summer-time leading to sweet pastures of delight. God help us\nthither! The world has treated me so that my spirit yearns therefor;--well\nfor me! God has been good to me, so that I am released from cares which\ntie the feet of many, chaining them here, while I in Christ\u2019s band with\nblissful joys fare on.\u201d\n\nThese lines carry that same yearning of the simple soul for heaven, _its\nhome_, which was expressed, some centuries before, in Otfried\u2019s\n_Evangelienbuch_ (_ante_, Chapter IX.). The words and their connotations\n(_augenweide_, _w\u00fcnneclich_) are utterly German. Yet the author lived in a\nliterary atmosphere of translation from the French.\n\n[430] _Post_, Chapter XXV.\n\n[431] The makers of love poems borrowed expressions from poems to the\nVirgin. Cf. Wilmanns, _Leben und Dichtung Walter\u2019s Von der Vogelweide_, p.\n179. Touches of mortal passion sometimes appear in the adoration of men\nfor the Blessed Virgin. See _Caesar of Heisterbach_, vii. 32 and 50, and\nviii. 58. Of course, many suggestions were drawn also from the antique\nliterature. See _post_, Chapter XXXII. IV. The subject of courtly and\nromantic love will come up properly for treatment in Chapter XXIII.\n\n[432] One will bear in mind that much mediaeval phraseology goes back to\nthe Fathers. For example, in monkish vilification of woman there is no\nphrase more common than _janua diaboli_, and it was Tertullian\u2019s, who died\nin the first part of the third century.\n\n[433] For the different meanings of the term _clericus_ see Du Cange,\n_Glossarium_, under that word.\n\n[434] For the meanings of this term also see Du Cange, _Glossarium_, under\nthat word.\n\n[435] Regular clergy are the monks, who live under a _regula_.\n\n[436] _Dialogus miraculorum_, ed. J. Strange, iv. i. (Cologne, 1851). Of\ncourse Caesar was a monk.\n\n[437] _Ante_, Chapter XIV.\n\n[438] See Sackur, _Die Cluniacenser, etc._, _passim_, and Bd. II. 464\n(Halle, 1892).\n\n[439] On the differences between Cluny and Citeaux see Vacandard, _Vie de\nSt Bernard_, chap. iv. (2nd ed., Paris, 1897), and Z\u00f6ckler, _Askese und\nM\u00f6nchtum_, 2nd ed. pp. 406-415 (Frankfurt a. M., 1897).\n\n[440] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 166, col. 1377-1384.\n\n[441] In fact, paragraph 15 provides that at the Chapter accusations\nagainst an abbot shall be brought only by an abbot.\n\n[442] It is interesting to observe how much of Stephen of Bourbon\u2019s\ndescription of the Poor of Lyons applies to Franciscan beginnings, and how\nmuch more of it would have applied had not St. Francis possessed the gift\nof obedience among his other virtues. Stephen was a Dominican of the first\nhalf of the thirteenth century, and himself an inquisitor. Thus he\ndescribes these misled people: \u201cThe Waldenses are called after the author\nof this heresy, whose name was Waldensis. They are also called the Poor of\nLyons, because there they first professed poverty. Likewise they call\nthemselves the Poor in Spirit, because the Lord says: \u2018Blessed are the\npoor in spirit....\u2019 Waldensis, who lived in Lyons, was a man of wealth,\nbut of little education. Hearing the Gospels, and curious to understand\ntheir meaning, he bargained with two priests that they should make a\ntranslation in the vulgar tongue. This they did, with other books of the\nBible and many precepts from the writings of the saints. When this\ntownsman had read the Gospel till he knew it by heart, he set out to\nfollow apostolic perfection, just as the Apostles themselves. So, selling\nall his goods, in contempt of the world, he tossed his money like dirt to\nthe poor. Then he presumed to usurp the office of the Apostles, and\npreached the Gospels in the open streets. He led many men and women to do\nthe same, exercising them in the Gospels. He also sent them to preach in\nthe neighbouring villages. These ignorant men and women running through\nvillages, entering houses, and preaching in the open places as well as the\nchurches, drew others to the same ways.\u201d\n\nUp to this point we are close to the Franciscans. But now the Archbishop\nof Lyons forbids these ignorant irregular evangelists to preach. Their\nleader answers for them, that they must obey God rather than man, and\nScripture says to preach the Gospel to every creature. Thus they fell into\ndisobedience, contumacy, and incurred excommunication, says Stephen\n(_Anecdotes, etc., d\u2019\u00c9tienne de Bourbon_, edited by Lecoy de la Marche\n(Soc. de l\u2019Histoire de France, Paris, 1877), cap. 342).\n\n[443] The r\u00f4le of Franciscans and Dominicans in the spread of philosophic\nknowledge in the thirteenth century will be considered _post_, Chapter\nXXXVII. Chapter XVIII., _post_, is devoted to the personal qualities of\nFrancis.\n\n[444] Peter Damiani, _De contemptu saeculi_, cap. 32 (Migne 145, col.\n287).\n\n[445] On Damiani, see _ante_, Chapter XI. IV.\n\n[446] Peter Damiani, _Opusc._ xi., _Dominus vobiscum_, cap. 19 (Migne 145,\ncol. 246).\n\n[447] Peter Damiani, _De contemptu saeculi_, cap. 25 (Migne 145, col.\n278).\n\n[448] Peter Damiani, _De perfectione monachi_, caps. 2, 3 (Migne 145, col.\n294).\n\n[449] _De perfectione monachi_, cap. 8 (Migne 145, col. 303).\n\n[450] _De perf. mon._ cap. 13 (Migne 145, col. 307).\n\n[451] _De ins. ord. eremitarum_, cap. 26 (Migne 145, col. 358). On the\ndistraction from the _vita contemplativa_ involved in an abbot\u2019s duties\nsee Damiani\u2019s verses, _De abbatum miseria_, _ante_, Chapter XI. IV.\n\nFor such as have feeling for these matters, I give the following extracts\nfrom Damiani\u2019s _Opusc._ xiii., _De perfectione monachi_, caps. 12, 13:\n\u201cLet the brother love fasting and cherish privation, let him flee the\nsight of men, withdraw from affairs, keep his mouth from vain\nconversation, seek the hiding-place of his mind wherein with his whole\nstrength he burns to see the face of his Creator; and let him pant for\ntears, and beset God for them with daily prayer. For the dew of tears\ncleanses the soul from every stain and makes fruitful the meadows of our\nhearts so that they bring forth the sprouts of virtue. For often as under\nan icy frost the wretched soul sheds its foliage, and, grace departing, it\nis left to itself barren and stripped of its shortlived blossoms. But anon\ntears given by the Tester of hearts burst forth, and this same soul is\nloosed from the cold of its slothful torpor, and becomes green again with\nthe renewed leafage of its virtues, as a tree in spring kindled by the\nsouth wind.\n\n\u201cTears, moreover, which are from God, with fidelity approach the tribunal\nof divine hearing, and quickly obtaining what they ask, assure us of the\nremission of our sins. Tears are intermediaries in concluding peace\nbetween God and men; they are the truthful and the very wisest\n(_doctissimae_) teachers in the dubiousness of human ignorance. For when\nwe are in doubt whether something may be pleasing to God, we can reach no\nbetter certitude than through prayer, weeping truthfully. We need never\nagain hesitate as to what our mind has decided on under such conditions.\n\n\u201cTears,\u201d continues Damiani, \u201cwashed the noisomeness of her guilt from the\nMagdalen, saved the Apostle who denied his Lord, restored King David after\ndeadly sin, added three years to Hezekiah\u2019s life, preserved inviolate the\nchastity of Judith, and won for her the head of Holophernes. Why mention\nthe centurion Cornelius, why mention Susanna? indeed were I to tell all\nthe deeds of tears, the day would close before my task were ended. For it\nis they that purify the sinner\u2019s soul, confirm his inconstant heart,\nprepare joy out of grief, and, breaking forth from our eyes of flesh,\nraise us to the hope of supernal beatitude. For their petition may not be\nset aside, so mighty are their voices in the Creator\u2019s ears. Before the\npious Judge they hesitate at nothing, but vindicate their claim to mercy\nas a right, and exult confident of having obtained what they implore.\n\n\u201cO ye tears, joys of the spirit, sweeter than honey, sweeter than nectar!\nwhich with a sweet and pleasant taste refresh minds lifted up to God, and\nwater consumed and arid hearts with a flood of penetrating grace from\nheaven. Weeping eyes terrify the devil; he fears the onslaught of tears\nbursting forth, as one would flee a tempest of hail driven by the fury of\nall the winds. As the torrent\u2019s rush cleanses the river-bed, the flowing\ntears purge the weeper\u2019s mind from the devil\u2019s tares and every pest of\nsin.\u201d\n\n[452] _De inst. ord. er._ cap. 1 (Migne 145, col. 337).\n\n[453] The _Vita Romualdi_ is printed in Migne 144, col. 950-1008.\n\n[454] Romuald died in 1027; _lustrum_ here may mean four years, which\nwould bring the time of writing to 1039.\n\n[455] _Vita Romualdi_, caps. 8, 9. Damiani does not say this here, but\nquite definitely suggests it in cap. 64. The lives of these eastern\nhermits were known to Romuald; hermits in Italy had imitated them; and the\nconnection with the knowledge of the Orient was not severed. See Sackur,\n_Die Cluniacenser, etc._, i. 324 _sqq._ Thus for their models these\nItalian hermits go behind the _Regula Benedicti_ to the anchorite examples\nof Cassian and the East. Cf. Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, p. 160. A good\nexample was St. Nilus, a Calabrian, perhaps of Greek stock. As Abbot of\nCrypta-Ferrata in Agro-Tusculano, he did not cease from his austerities,\nand still dwelt in a cave. He died in 1005 at the alleged age of\nninety-five. His days are thus described: from dawn to the third hour he\ncopied rapidly, filling a \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (quaternion) each day. From the third\nto the sixth hour he stood before the Cross of the Lord, reciting psalms\nand making genuflections; from the sixth to the ninth, he sat and read--no\nprofane book we may be sure. When the ninth hour was come, he addressed\nhis evening hymn to God and went out to walk and study Him in His works.\nSee his _Vita_, from the Greek, in _Acta sanctorum_, sept. t. vii. pp.\n279-343, especially page 293.\n\n[456] _Vita Romualdi_, cap. 13.\n\n[457] _Ibid._ cap. 20.\n\n[458] _Vita Romualdi_, cap. 51.\n\n[459] _Vita Romualdi_, cap. 35.\n\n[460] _Ibid._ cap. 40.\n\n[461] _Ibid._ cap. 45.\n\n[462] _Vita_, caps. 49, 50.\n\n[463] The Syrian region famous for its early anchorites.\n\n[464] _Vita Romualdi_, cap. 64.\n\n[465] Cf. Sackur, _Die Cluniacenser_, i. 328 note.\n\n[466] _Vita Romualdi_, 69.\n\n[467] Peter Damiani, _Vitae SS. Rodulphi et Dominici loricati_, cap. 8\n(Migne 144, col. 1015.)\n\n[468] _Ibid._ cap. 10 (Migne 144, col. 1017).\n\n[469] This story is told in all the early lives of Bruno, the _Vita\nantiquior_, the _Vita altera_, and the _Vita tertia_ (Migne, _Pat. Lat._\n152, col. 482, 493, and 525). These lives, especially the _Vita altera_,\nare interesting illustrations of the ascetic spirit, which, as might be\nexpected, also moulds Bruno\u2019s thoughts and his understanding of Scripture.\nAll of which appears in his long _Expositio in Psalmos_ (Migne, _Pat.\nLat._ 152). To us, for example, the note of the twenty-third (in the\nVulgate the twenty-second) psalm is love; to Bruno it is disciplinary\nguidance: the Lord guides me in the place of pasture, that is, He is my\nguide lest I go astray in the Scriptures, where the souls of the faithful\nare fed; I shall not want, that is an understanding of them shall not fail\nme. Thy rod, that is the lesser tribulation; thy staff, that is the\ngreater tribulation, correct and chastise me.\n\n[470] Guigo was born in 1083 at St. Romain near Valence, of noble family\n(like most monks of prominence). There was close sympathy between him and\nSt. Bernard, as their letters show. Cf. _post_, Chapter XVII.\n\n[471] Migne 153, col. 601-631.\n\n[472] A bibliography of what has been written on Bernard would make a\nvolume. His own writings and the _Vitae_ and _Acta_ (as edited by\nMabillon) are printed in Migne, tomes 182-185. The _Vie de Saint Bernard_,\nby the abb\u00e9 Vacandard, in two volumes, is to be recommended (2nd ed.,\nParis, 1897).\n\n[473] _Vita prima_, iii. cap. 1 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 185). This _Vita_ was\nwritten by contemporaries of the saint who knew him intimately. But one\nmust be on one\u2019s guard as to these apparently close descriptions of the\nsaints in their _vitae_; for they are commonly conventionalized. This\ndescription of Bernard, excepting perhaps the colour of his hair, would\nhave fitted Francis of Assisi.\n\n[474] _Vita prima_, iii. 3. Bernard himself said that his aim in preaching\nwas not so much to expound the words (of Scripture) as to move his\nhearers\u2019 hearts (_Sermo xvi. in Cantica canticorum_). That his preaching\nwas resistless is universally attested.\n\n[475] See, _e.g._, Vacandard, _o.c._ chap. i.\n\n[476] _Post_, Chapter XLIII.\n\n[477] _Vita prima_, i. cap. 11. This William became Abbot of St. Thierry\nand one of Bernard\u2019s biographers.\n\n[478] _E.g._ _Ep._ 107.\n\n[479] _Ep._ 2.\n\n[480] _Ep._ 110 (this is the whole letter).\n\n[481] _Ep._ 112 (the entire letter). The Latin of this letter is given\n_post_, Chapter XXXI.\n\n[482] _Ep._ 111.\n\n[483] _Ep._ 152, _ad Innocentium papam_, A.D. 1135.\n\n[484] _Ep._ 170, _ad Ludovicum_. Written in 1138.\n\n[485] _Ep._ 191.\n\n[486] Cf. _post_, Chapter XXXVI. I., regarding this instance of Bernard\u2019s\nzeal. His position is critically set out in Wilhelm Meyer\u2019s \u201cDie\nAnklages\u00e4tze des h. Bernard gegen Abaelard,\u201d _G\u00f6ttingische gelehrte\nNachrichten, philol. hist. Klasse_, 1898, pp. 397-468.\n\n[487] _Ep._ 196, _ad Guidonen_; cf. _Ep._ 195 (A.D. 1140). See for the\nLatin of this letter _post_, Chapter XXXI.\n\n[488] _Ep._ 147, to Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny (A.D. 1138).\n\n[489] _Ep._ 101, _ad religiosos_; cf. also _Ep._ 136.\n\n[490] _Ep._ 300.\n\n[491] _Vita prima_, lib. vii. cap. 15.\n\n[492] It was Bernard\u2019s third absence in Italy.\n\n[493] _Ep._ 144, _ad suos Clarae-Vallenses_.\n\n[494] _Vita prima_, lib. iii. cap. 7.\n\n[495] _Sermo xxvi. in Cantica._\n\n[496] \u201cFinem verborum indicunt lacrymae; tu illis, Domine, finem modumque\nindixeris.\u201d\n\n[497] _Ante_, Chapter XVI.\n\n[498] As Augustine before him. Cf. Taylor, _The Classical Heritage, etc._,\npp. 129-131.\n\n[499] _Ep._ 11, _ad Guigonem_. Bernard adds that when Paul says that flesh\nand blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, it is not to be understood\nthat the substance of flesh will not be there, but that every carnal\nnecessity will have ceased; the love of flesh will be absorbed in the love\nof the spirit, and our weak human affections transformed into divine\nenergies.\n\n[500] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 182, col. 973-1000.\n\n[501] Love, fear, joy, sorrow.\n\n[502] Migne 183, col. 785-1198.\n\n[503] _Sermo xx. in Cantica._\n\n[504] _Sermo lxxix. in Cantica._\n\n[505] _Sermo lxxxiii. in Cantica._ This is nearly the whole of this\nsermon. Bernard\u2019s sermons were not long. See _post_, Chapter XXXVI. II.,\nas to Bernard\u2019s use of the symbolism of the kiss.\n\n[506] _Post_, Chapter XIX.\n\n[507] The present chapter is intended as an appreciation of the\npersonality of Francis; incidents of his life are used for illustration. I\nhave endeavoured to confine myself to such as are generally accepted as\nauthentic, and to those parts of the sources which are confirmed by\ncorroborative testimony. The reader doubtless is aware that the sources of\nFranciscan history are abundant, but that there is still much critical and\neven polemic controversy touching their trustworthiness. Of the _Speculum\nperfectionis_, edited by Sabatier, I would make this remark: many of its\nnarratives contain such wisdom and human truth as seem to me to bring them\nvery close to the acts and words of some great personality, _i.e._\nFrancis. This is no sure proof of their authenticity, and yet is a fair\nreason for following their form of statement of some of the incidents in\nFrancis\u2019s life, the human value of which perhaps appears narrowed and\ndeflected in other accounts.\n\nThe chief sources for the life of St. Francis of Assisi are first his own\ncompositions, edited conveniently under the title of _Opuscula sancti\npatris Francisci Assisiensis_, by the Franciscans of Quarrachi (1904).\nThey have been translated by P. Robinson (Philadelphia, The Dolphin Press,\n1906). Next in certainty of authenticity come the two Lives by Celano,\n_i.e._ _Vita prima S. Francisci Assisiensis_, auctore B. Thoma de Celano,\nejus discipulo, Bollandi _Acta sanctorum_, tome 46 (Oct. tome 2), pp.\n683-723; also edited by Canon Amoni (Rome, 1880); _Vita secunda seu\nappendix ad Vitam primam_, ed. by Amoni (Rome, 1880). Better editions than\nAmoni\u2019s are those of Edouard d\u2019Alen\u00e7on (Rome, 1906), and H. G. Rosedale\n(Dent, London, 1904). Of great importance also is the _Legenda trium\nsociorum_ (_Leo, Rufinus, Angelus_), Bollandi _Acta sanctorum_, t. 46\n(Oct. t. 2), pp. 723-742; also ed. by Amoni (Rome, 1880). (Amoni\u2019s texts\ndiffer somewhat from those of the Bollandist.) It is also edited by\nPulignani (Foligno, 1898), and edited and hypothetically completed from\nthe problematical Italian version, by Marcellino da Civezza and Teofilo\nDomenichelli (Rome, 1899). Perhaps most vivid of all the early sources is\nthe so-called _Speculum perfectionis seu S. Francisci Assisiensis legenda\nantiquissima auctore fratre Leone_, as edited by Paul Sabatier (Paris,\n1898). It has been translated into English several times. Its date and\nauthenticity are still under violent discussion. One may conveniently\nrefer to the article \u201cFranciscan Literature\u201d in the _Edinburgh Review_ for\nJanuary 1904, and to P. Robinson\u2019s _Short Introduction to Franciscan\nLiterature_ (New York, 1907) for further references, which the student\nmust supplement for himself from the mass of recent literature in books\nand periodicals touching the life of Francis and its sources. See also\nFierens, _La Question franciscaine, etc._ (Louvain, 1909). Among modern\nLives, that of Sabatier is probably known to all readers of this note. The\nLives by Bonghi and Le Monnier may be referred to. Gebhard\u2019s _Italie\nmystique_ is interesting in connection with Francis.\n\n[508] Consciousness of direct authority from God speaks in the saint\u2019s\nunquestionably authentic Testament: \u201cAnd after the Lord gave me some\nbrothers, no one showed me what I ought to do, but the Most High himself\nrevealed to me that I ought to live according to the model of the holy\nGospel.\u201d It is also rendered with picturesque vehemence in a scene\n(_Speculum perfectionis_, ed. Sabatier, ch. 68) which may or may not be\nauthentic. At a general meeting of the Order, certain wise brethren had\npersuaded the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia to advise Francis to follow their\ncounsel, and had adduced certain examples from the monastic rule of\nBenedict and others. \u201cWhen the Cardinal had related these matters to the\nblessed Francis, in the way of admonition, the blessed Francis answered\nnothing, but took him by the hand and led him before the assembled\nbrothers, and spoke to the brothers in the fervour and power of the Holy\nSpirit, thus: \u2018My brothers, my brothers, the Lord called me in the way of\nsimplicity and humility, and showed me in truth this way for myself and\nfor those who wish to believe and imitate me. And therefore I desire that\nyou will not name any rule to me, neither the rule of St. Benedict, nor\nthat of St. Augustine or St. Bernard, or any other rule or model of living\nexcept that which was mercifully shown and given me by the Lord. And the\nLord said that He wished me to be a new covenant (_pactum_) in the world,\nand did not wish us to live by any other way save by that knowledge.\u2019\u201d\n\n[509] These songs (none of which survive) were apparently in the _langue\nd\u2019o\u00efl_ and not in the _langue d\u2019oc_. The phrases used by the biographers\nare _lingua francigena_ (1 Cel. i. 7) and _lingua gallica_ (_III. Soc._\niii.) or _gallice cantabat_ (_Spec. perf._ vii. 93).\n\n[510] In fact this is vouched for in _III. Soc._ i.\n\n[511] St. Martin of Tours had done the same.\n\n[512] _III. Soc._ v. par. 13, 14.\n\n[513] _III. Soc._ vi. par. 20.\n\n[514] \u201cSancta paupertas,\u201d \u201cdomina paupertas\u201d are the phrases. The first is\nused by St. Bernard.\n\n[515] _III. Soc._ viii.; 1 Cel. ix.\n\n[516] _III. Soc._ viii.; see 1 Cel. x. and 2 Cel. x.\n\n[517] _Spec. per._ 3, 9, 19, 122. How truly he also felt their spirit is\nseen in the story of his words, at a somewhat later period, to a certain\nDominican: \u201cWhile he was staying at Siena, a certain doctor of theology,\nof the order of the Preachers, himself an humble and spiritual man, came\nto him. When they had spoken for a while about the words of the Lord, this\nmaster interrogated him concerning this text of Ezekiel: \u2018If thou dost not\ndeclare to the wicked man his wickedness, I will require his soul of thy\nhand\u2019 (Ezek. iii. 18). And he added: \u2018I know many indeed, good father, in\nmortal sin, to whom I do not declare their wickedness. Will their souls be\nrequired at my hand?\u2019\n\n\u201cTo whom the blessed Francis humbly said that it was fitting that an\nignorant person like himself should be taught by him rather than give\nanswer upon the meaning of Scripture. Then that humble master replied:\n\u2018Brother, albeit I have heard the exposition of this text from a number of\nthe wise, still would I willingly make note of your understanding of it.\u2019\n\n\u201cSo the blessed Francis said: \u2018If the text is to be understood generally,\nI take it to mean that the servant of God ought by his life and holiness\nso to burn and shine in himself, that the light of his example and the\ntenor of his holy conversation would reprove all wicked men. Thus I say\nwill his splendour and the odour of his reputation declare their\niniquities to all,\u2019\u201d _Spec. perf._ 53; also 2 Cel. iii. 46.\n\n[518] As to the acquisition of the Portiuncula see _Spec. perf._ 55, and\non Francis\u2019s love of it see _Spec. perf._ 82-84, 124.\n\n[519] 1 Cel. xi.\n\n[520] This seems to be true of Francis\u2019s great Exemplar.\n\n[521] _Spec. perf._ 69; 2 Cel. iii. 124; _III. Soc._ 25.\n\n[522] _Francisci admonitiones_, xx.\n\n[523] _Spec. perf._ 62; 2 Cel. iii. 71.\n\n[524] _Spec. perf._ 61; see 1 Cel. 19.\n\n[525] 2 Cel. iii. 81; _Spec. perf._ 39.\n\n[526] _Spec. perf._ 50.\n\n[527] _Spec. perf._ 54; 2 Cel. iii. 84.\n\n[528] _Spec. perf._ 44.\n\n[529] _Spec. perf._ 64; _III. Soc._ 39; 2 Cel. iii. 83; cf. _Admon._ iii.\n\n[530] Cf. _Spec. perf._ 22 and 23; 2 Cel. iii. 23.\n\n[531] _III. Soc._ xii. 50, 51.\n\n[532] _Spec. perf._ 18; cf. 2 Cel. iii. 20.\n\n[533] _Spec. perf._ 25; 2 Cel. iii. 22.\n\n[534] _Spec. perf._ 95; 2 Cel. iii. 65. But Francis condemned all vain and\nfoolish words which move to laughter (_Admon._ xxi.; _Spec. perf._ 96).\n\n[535] _Spec. perf._ 93; 2 Cel. iii. 67.\n\n[536] _Spec. perf._ 34.\n\n[537] Cf. _Spec. perf._ 108; 2 Cel. 132.\n\n[538] _Spec. perf._ 27, 28, 33; cf. 2 Cel. i. 15; _ibid._ iii. 30 and 36.\n\n[539] _Spec. perf._ 101. This is one of the apparently unsupported stories\nof the _Speculum_, that none would like to doubt.\n\n[540] 2 Cel. iii. cap. 101.\n\n[541] One is tempted to amuse oneself with paradox, and say: Not he of\nVaucluse, who ascended a mountain for the view and left a record of his\nsentiments, but he of Assisi, who loved the sheep, the birds, the flowers,\nthe stones, and fire and water, was \u201cthe first modern man.\u201d But such\nstatements are foolish; there was no \u201cfirst modern man.\u201d\n\n[542] _Spec. perf._ 113.\n\n[543] 1 Cel. xxi. 58.\n\n[544] 1 Cel. cap. xxviii.\n\n[545] 1 Cel. cap. xxix.\n\n[546] 2 Cel. iii. 101. These matters are set forth more picturesquely in\nthe _Speculum perfectionis_; if authentic, they throw a vivid light on\nthis wonderful person. Here are examples:\n\n\u201cFrancis had come to the hermitage of Fonte Palumbo, near Riete, to cure\nthe infirmity of his eyes, as he was ordered on his obedience by the\nlord-cardinal of Ostia and by Brother Elias, minister-general. There the\ndoctor advised a cautery over the cheek as far as the eyebrow of the eye\nthat was in worse state. Francis wished to wait till brother Elias came,\nbut when he was kept from coming Francis prepared himself. And when the\niron was set in the fire to heat it, Francis, wishing to comfort his\nspirit, lest he be afraid, spoke to the fire: \u2018My Brother Fire, noble and\nuseful among other creatures, be courteous to me in this hour, since I\nhave loved and will love thee for the love of Him who made thee. I also\nbeseech our Creator, who made us both, that He may temper thy heat so that\nI may bear it.\u2019 And when his prayer was finished he made the sign of the\ncross over the fire.\n\n\u201cWe indeed who were with him then fled for pity and compassion, and the\ndoctor remained alone with him. When the cautery was finished, we\nreturned, and he said to us: \u2018Fearful and of little faith, why did you\nflee? I tell you truly I felt no pain, nor any heat of the fire. If it is\nnot well seared he may sear it better.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe astonished doctor assured them all that the cautery was so severe\nthat a strong man, let alone one so weak, could hardly have endured it,\nwhile Francis showed no sign of pain\u201d (_Spec. perf._ 115). \u201cThus fire\ntreated Francis courteously; for he had never failed to treat it\nreverently and respect its rights. Once his clothes caught fire, and he\nwould not put it out, and forbade a brother, saying: \u2018Nay, dearest\nbrother, do no harm to the fire.\u2019 He would never put out fire, and did not\nwish any brother to throw away a fire or push a smoking log away, but\nwished that it should be just set on the ground, out of reverence to Him\nwhose creature it is\u201d (_ibid._ 116).\n\n\u201cNext to fire he had a peculiar love for water, wherein is figured holy\npenitence and the tribulation with which the soul\u2019s uncleanness is washed\naway, and because the first washing of the soul is through the water of\nbaptism. So when he washed his hands he would choose a place where the\nwater which fell would not be trodden on. Also when he walked over rocks,\nhe walked with trembling and reverence for the love of Him who is called\nthe \u2018Rock\u2019; and whenever he repeated that psalm, \u2018Thou hast exalted me\nupon a rock,\u2019 he would say with great reverence and devotion: \u2018Under the\nfoot of the rock thou hast exalted me.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cHe directed the brother who cut and fetched the fire-wood never to cut a\nwhole tree, so that some part of it might remain untouched for the love of\nHim who was willing to work out our salvation upon the wood of the cross.\n\n\u201cLikewise he told the brother who made the garden, not to devote all of it\nto vegetables, but to have some part for flowering plants, which in their\nseasons produce Brother Flowers for love of Him who is called the \u2018Flower\nof the field and the Lily of the valley.\u2019 He said indeed that Brother\nGardener always ought to make a beautiful patch in some part of the\ngarden, and plant it with all sorts of sweet-smelling herbs and herbs that\nproduce beautiful flowers, so that in their season they may invite men\nseeing them to praise the Lord. For every creature cries aloud, \u2018God made\nme for thy sake, O man.\u2019 We that were with him saw that inwardly and\noutwardly he did so greatly rejoice in all created things, that touching\nor seeing them his spirit seemed not to be upon the earth, but in heaven\u201d\n(_ibid._ 113).\n\n\u201cAbove all things lacking reason he loved the sun and fire most\naffectionately, for he would say: \u2018In the morning when the sun rises every\nman ought to praise God who created it for our use, because by day our\neyes are illumined by it; in the evening, when night comes, every man\nought to give praise on account of Brother Fire, because by it our eyes\nare illumined by night. For all of us are blind, and the Lord through\nthose two brothers lightens our eyes; and therefore for these, and for\nother creatures which we daily use, we ought to praise the Creator.\u2019 Which\nindeed he did himself up to the day of his death\u201d (_ibid._ 119).\n\n[547] Translated from the text as given in E. Monaci\u2019s _Crestomazia\nitaliana dei primi secoli_. Substantially the same text is given in _Spec.\nperf._ 120.\n\n[548] The mediaeval term _apex mentis_ is not inapt.\n\n[549] Assurance of the soul\u2019s communion, and even union, with God is the\nchief element of what is termed mysticism, which will be discussed briefly\nin connection with scholastic philosophy, _post_, Chapter XXXVI. II. In\nthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries those who experienced the divine\nthrough visions, ecstasies, and rapt contemplation, were not as\nanalytically and autobiographically self-conscious as later mystics. Yet\nSt. Theresa\u2019s (sixteenth century) mystical analysis of self and God (for\nwhich see H. Delacroix, _\u00c9tudes d\u2019histoire et de psychologie du\nmysticisme_, Paris, 1908) might be applied to the experiences of St.\nElizabeth of Sch\u00f6nau or St. Hildegard of Bingen.\n\n[550] _Ante_, Chapter XIII. II.\n\n[551] Neither Othloh\u2019s visions, nor those to be recounted, were narratives\nof voyages to the other world. The name of these is legion. They begin in\n_Bede\u2019s Ecclesiastical History_, and continue through the Middle\nAges--until they reach their apotheosis in the _Divina Commedia_. See\n_post_, Chapter XLIII.\n\n[552] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 195.\n\n[553] The works of St. Hildegard of Bingen are published in vol. 197 of\nMigne\u2019s _Pat. Lat._ and in vol. viii. of Pitra\u2019s _Analecta sacra_, under\nthe title _Analecta Sanctae Hildegardis opera Spicilegio Solesmensi\nparata_ (1882). Certain supplementary passages to the latter volume are\npublished in _Analecta Bollandiana_, i. (Paris, 1882). These publications\nare completed by F. W. E. Roth\u2019s _Lieder und die unbekannte Sprache der h.\nHildegardis_ (Wiesbaden, 1880). The same author has a valuable article on\nHildegard in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr kirchliche Wissenschaft, etc._, 1888, pp.\n453-471. See also an article by Battandier, _Revue des questions\nhistoriques_, 33 (1883), pp. 395-425. Other literature on Hildegard in\nChevalier\u2019s _R\u00e9pertoire des sources historiques du moyen \u00e2ge_, under her\nname.\n\nHer two most interesting works, for our purposes at least, are the\n_Scivias_ (meaning _Scito vias Domini_), completed in 1151 after ten years\nof labour, and the _Liber vitae meritorum per simplicem hominem a vivente\nluce revelatorum_ (Pitra, _o.c._ pp. 1-244), begun in 1159, and finished\nsome five years later. Extracts from these are given in the text. Other\nworks show her extraordinary intellectual range. Of these the _Liber\ndivinorum operum simplicis hominis_ (Migne 197, col. 741-1038) is a vision\nof the mysteries of creation, followed by a voluminous commentary upon the\nworld and all therein, including natural phenomena, human affairs, the\nnature of man, and the functions of his mind and body. It closes with a\ndiscussion of Antichrist and the Last Times. The work was begun about\n1164, when Hildegard finished the _Liber vitae meritorum_, and was\ncompleted after seven years of labour. She also wrote a Commentary on the\nGospels, and sundry lives of saints, and there is ascribed to her quite a\nprodigious work upon natural history and the virtues of plants, the whole\nentitled: _Subtilitatum diversarum naturarum creaturarum libri IX._ (Migne\n197, col. 1118-1351); and probably she composed another work on medicine,\n_i.e._ the unpublished _Liber de causis et curis_ (see Pitra, _o.c._,\nprooemium, p. xi.). Preger\u2019s contention (_Geschichte der deutschen\nMystik_, i. pp. 13-27, 1874) that the works bearing Hildegard\u2019s name are\nforgeries, never obtained credence, and is not worth discussing since the\npublication of Pitra\u2019s volume.\n\n[554] _Analecta Sanctae Hildegardis opera Spicilegio Solesmensi parata_,\np. 523; cf. _ibid._ p. 561; also _Ep._ 27 of Hildegard in Migne 197, col.\n186.\n\n[555] These questions and Hildegard\u2019s solutions are given in Migne 197,\ncol. 1038-1054, and the letter in Pitra, _o.c._ 399-400.\n\n[556] Pitra, _o.c._ 394, 395.\n\n[557] By _visio_ as used here, Hildegard refers to the general undefined\nlight--the _umbra viventis lucis_, in which she saw her special visions.\n\n[558] Pitra, _o.c._ 332.\n\n[559] This is from the prologue to the _Scivias_, Pitra, _o.c._ 503, 504\n(Migne 197, 483, 484). Guibert in his _Vita_ speaks of Hildegard as\n_indocta_ and unable to penetrate the meaning of Scripture _nisi cum vis\ninternae aspirationis illuminans eam juvaret_, Pitra, _o.c._ 413. Compare\nHildegard\u2019s prooemium to her _Life of St. Disibodus_ (Pitra, _o.c._ 357)\nand the preface to her _Liber divinorum operum_ (Migne 197, 741, 742).\n\n[560] Guibertus to Radilfus, a monk of Villars (Pitra, _o.c._ 577)\napparently written in 1180.\n\n[561] Pitra, _o.c._ pp. 1-244.\n\n[562] Pitra, _o.c._ pp. 8-10. The translation is condensed, but is kept\nclose to the original.\n\n[563] _Ibid._ p. 13.\n\n[564] Pitra, _o.c._ p. 24.\n\n[565] _Ibid._ p. 51 _sqq._\n\n[566] Pitra, _o.c._ p. 92 _sqq._\n\n[567] _Ibid._ p. 131 _sqq._ Of course, one at once thinks of the\npunishments in Dante\u2019s _Inferno_, which in no instance are identical with\nthose of Hildegard, and yet offer common elements. Dante is not known to\nhave read the work of Hildegard.\n\n[568] Pitra, _o.c._ pp. 230-240. I am not clear as to Hildegard\u2019s ideas of\nPurgatory, for which she seems to have no separate region. In the case of\nsinners who have begun, but not completed, their penances on earth, the\npunishments described work _purgationem_, and the souls are loosed\n(_ibid._ p. 42). In Part III. of the work we are considering, the\nparagraphs describing the punishments are entitled _De superbiae_,\n_invidiae_, _inobedientiae_, _infidelitatis_, etc., _poenis purgatoriis_\n(_ibid._ p. 130). But each paragraph is followed by one entitled _De\npoenitentia superbiae_, etc., and the _poenitentia_ referred to is worked\nout with penance in this life. Consequently it is not quite clear that the\nword _purgatoriis_ attached to _poenis_ signifies temporary punishment to\nbe followed by release.\n\nIn a vision of the Last Times (_ibid._ p. 225) Hildegard sees \u201cblack\nburning darkness,\u201d in which was _gehenna_, containing every kind of\nhorrible punishment. She did not then see _gehenna_ itself, because of the\ndarkness surrounding it; but heard the frightful cries. Cf. _Aeneid_, vi.\n548 _sqq._\n\n[569] This is the view expounded so grandly by Hugo of St. Victor in his\n_De sacramentis_, _post_, Chapter XXVIII.\n\n[570] Migne 197, col. 433. All this is interesting in view of the many\nfigures of the Church and Synagogue carved on the cathedrals, most of them\nlater than Hildegard\u2019s time. The \u201cSynagogue\u201d of sculpture has her eyes\nbound, the sculpturesque expression of eyelessness. The rest of\nHildegard\u2019s symbolism was not followed in sculpture.\n\n[571] Migne 197, col. 437 _sqq._ Cf. St. Bernard, _Sermo xix. in Cantica_.\n\n[572] Migne 197, col. 449.\n\n[573] Notice the supra-terrestrial term, which can hardly be translated so\nas to fit an actual wall.\n\n[574] Migne 197, col. 583. Compare this vision with the symbolic\ninterpretation of the cathedral edifice, _post_, Chapter XXIX.\n\n[575] Cf. St. Bernard\u2019s treatment of this matter, _ante_, Chapter XVII.\n\n[576] In a Middle High German Marienleben, by Bruder Phillips (13th\ncentury) the young virgin is made herself to say to God:\n\n  \u201cDu bist min lieber priutegam (bridegroom),\n   Dir gib ich minen magetuom (maidenhood),\n   Du bist min vil schoener man.\n\n  \u201cDu bist min vriedel (lover) und min vriunt (ami);\n   Ich bin von diner minne entzundt.\u201d\n\nBobertag, _Erz\u00e4hlende Dichtungen des sp\u00e4teren Mittelalters_, p. 46\n(Deutsche Nat. Litt.).\n\n[577] _Vita B. Mariae Ogniacensis_, per Jacobum de Vitreaco, Bollandi,\n_Acta sanctorum_ t. 21 (June t. iv. pp. 636-666). Jacques had good reason\nto canonize her bones, since one of them, in his saddle-bags, had saved\nhis mule from drowning while crossing a river in Tuscany.\n\n[578] Cant. ii. 5. The translation in the English Revised Version is:\n\u201cStay me with cakes of raisins, comfort me with apples; for I am sick of\nlove.\u201d The phrases of Canticles, always in the words of the Latin Vulgate,\ncome continually into the minds of these ecstatic women and their\nbiographers. The sonorous language of the Vulgate is not always close to\nthe meaning of the Hebrew. But it was the Vulgate and not the Hebrew that\nformed the mediaeval Bible, and its language should be observed in\ndiscussing mediaeval applications of Scripture.\n\n[579] \u201cDum esset Rex in accubitu suo,\u201d Cant. i. 11, in Vulgate; Cant. i.\n12, in the English version, which renders it: \u201cWhile the King sitteth at\nHis table.\u201d\n\n[580] _Vita B. Mariae, etc._, par. 2-8. Since we are seeing these\nmediaeval religious phenomena as they impressed contemporaries, it would\nbe irrelevant to subject them to the analyses which pathological\npsychology applies to not dissimilar phenomena.\n\n[581] It is reported of St. Catharine of Siena that she would go for weeks\nwith no other food than the Eucharist.\n\n[582] I am drawing from her _Vita_ by her contemporary, Thomas of\nCantimpr\u00e9, _Acta SS._, Bollandi, t. 21 (t. 3 of June), p. 234 _sqq._\n\n[583] Cf. Canticles iii. 2; _Vita_, lib. iii. par. 42.\n\n[584] Cant. iii. 1, 7; i. 16.\n\n[585] _Vita_, lib. iii. pars. 9, 11. It is well known how great a love of\nher Lord possessed St. Elizabeth of Hungary, and how she sent her children\naway from her, that she might not be distracted from loving Him alone. The\nvision which came to her upon her expulsion from the Wartburg, after the\ndeath of her husband, King Louis of Thuringia, is given as follows, in her\nown words, according to the sworn statement of her waiting-women: \u201cI saw\nthe heaven open, and that sweet Jesus, my Lord, bending toward me and\nconsoling me in my tribulation; and when I saw Him I was glad, and\nlaughed; but when He turned His face, as if to go away, I cried. Pitying\nme, He turned His serene countenance to me a second time, saying: \u2018If thou\nwishest to be with me, I wish to be with thee.\u2019 I responded: \u2018Thou, Lord,\nthou dost wish to be with me, and I wish to be with thee, and I wish never\nto be separated from thee\u2019\u201d (_Libellus de dictis quatuor ancillarum_,\nMencken, _Scriptores Rerum Germ._ ii. 2020 A-C, Leipzig, 1728). The German\nsermon of Hermann von Fritzlar (cir. 1340) tells this vision in nearly the\nsame words, putting, however, this phrase in Elizabeth\u2019s mouth: \u201cOur Lord\nJesus Christ appeared to me, and when He turned from me, I cried, and then\nHe turned to me, and I became red (blushed?), and before I was pale\u201d\n(Hildebrand, _Didaktik aus der Zeit der Kreuzz\u00fcge_, p. 36, Deutsche Nat.\nLit.).\n\n[586] _Offenbarungen der Schwester Mechthild von Magdeburg oder das\nfliessende Licht der Gottheit_, ed. by P. G. Morel, Regensburg, 1869. See\nPreger, _Gesch. der deutschen Mystik_, i. 70, 91 _sqq._ Preger points out\nthat the High-German version of this work, which we possess, was made from\nthe Low-German original in the year 1344. Extracts from Mechthild\u2019s book\nare given by Vetter, _Lehrhafte Literatur des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts_,\npp. 192-199; and by Hildebrand, _Didaktik aus der Zeit der Kreuzz\u00fcge_, pp.\n6-10 (Deutsche Nat. Lit.).\n\n[587] We pass over these portions of Mechthild\u2019s book which exemplify the\nclose connection between ecstatic contemplation and the denunciation of\nevil in the world.\n\n[588] Mechthild constantly uses phrases from the courtly love poetry of\nher time.\n\n[589] _Das fliessende Licht, etc._, i. cap. 3. Hildebrand, _o.c._ p. 6,\ncites this apposite verse from the thoughtful and knightly Minnesinger,\nReimar von Zweter:\n\n  \u201cGot herre unuberwundenlich,\n   Wie uberwant die Minne dich!\n   Getorste ich, so spraech ich:\n   Si wart an dir so sigerich.\u201d\n\n[590] _Das fliessende Licht, etc._, i. 38-44.\n\n[591] \u201cI would gladly die of love, might that be my lot; for Him whom I\nlove I have seen with my bright eyes standing in my soul\u201d (_ibid._ ii.\ncap. 2).\n\n[592] Cf. ii. 22.\n\n[593] See i. 10; ii. 23.\n\n[594] i. 13.\n\n[595] ii. 4.\n\n[596] iii. 1, 10.\n\n[597] It is quite true that in the earliest Christian times the marriage\nof priests was recognized, and continued to be at least connived at until,\nsay, the time of Hildebrand. Yet the best thoughtfulness and piety from\nthe Patristic period onward had disapproved of priestly marriages, which\nconsequently tended to sink to the level of concubinage, until they were\nabsolutely condemned by the Church.\n\n[598] _Anecdotes, etc., d\u2019\u00c9tienne de Bourbon_, ed. by Lecoy de la Marche,\np. 249 (Soc. de l\u2019Histoire de France, t. 185, Paris, 1877). This story\nrefers to the years 1166-1171.\n\n[599] Many bishops and abbots held definite secular rank; the Archbishop\nof Rheims was a duke, and so was the Bishop of Langres and Laon; while the\nbishops of Beauvais and Noyon were counts. In Germany, the archiepiscopal\ndukes of Cologne and Mainz were among the chief princes of the land.\n\n[600] There were, however, some (naturally shocking) instances of\ninheritance, as where the Bishop of Nantes in 1049 admitted that he had\nbeen invested with the bishopric during the lifetime of his father, the\npreceding bishop. See Luchaire, in vol. ii. (2), pp. 107-117 of Lavisse\u2019s\n_Hist. de France_, for this and other examples of episcopal feudalism.\n\n[601] _Sermo in Cantica_, 33, par. 15 (Migne 183, col. 958-959). With this\npassage from St. Bernard, one may compare the far more detailed picture of\nthe luxury and dissolute ways of the secular clergy in France given in the\n_Apologia of Guido of Bazoches_ (latter part of the twelfth century). W.\nWattenbach. \u201cDie Apologie des Guido von Bazoches,\u201d _Sitzungsberichte\nPreussichen Akad._, 1893, (1), pp. 395-420.\n\n[602] Ed. by T. Wright (Camden Society, London, 1841).\n\n[603] The poem called _De ruina Romae_. It begins, \u201cPropter Syon non\ntacebo.\u201d\n\n[604] _Post_, Chapter XXVI.\n\n[605] The \u201cBible\u201d of Guiot is published in Barbazan\u2019s _Fabliaux_, t. ii.\n(Paris, 1808). It is conveniently given with other satirical or moralizing\ncompositions in Ch. V. Langlois, _La Vie en France au moyen \u00e2ge d\u2019apr\u00e8s\nquelques moralistes du temps_ (Paris, 1908).\n\n[606] Salimbene gives an amusing picture of our worthy Rigaud hurrying to\ncatch sight of the king at a Franciscan Chapter. _Post_, Chapter XXI.\n\n[607] _Regestrum visilationum archiepiscopi Rothomagensis_, ed. Bonnin\n(Rouen, 1852). It is analyzed by L. V. Delisle, in an article entitled \u201cLe\nClerg\u00e9 normand\u201d (_Bib. de l\u2019\u00c9cole des Chartes_, 2nd ser. vol. iii.).\n\n[608] _Reg. vis._ p. 9.\n\n[609] _R. V._ p. 10.\n\n[610] _R. V._ p. 18.\n\n[611] _R. V._ pp. 19-20.\n\n[612] _R. V._ p. 222.\n\n[613] _R. V._ p. 379.\n\n[614] _R. V._ p. 154.\n\n[615] See _e.g._ _R. V._ pp. 159, 162, 395-396.\n\n[616] _R. V._ p. 109.\n\n[617] _R. V._ p. 73.\n\n[618] _R. V._ pp. 43-45.\n\n[619] _R. V._ p. 607.\n\n[620] In Pfeiffer\u2019s ed. No. 159. See also _ibid._ 162.\n\n[621] The above is drawn from the \u201cVita Sancti Engelberti,\u201d by Caesar of\nHeisterbach, in Boehmer, _Fontes rerum Germanicarum_, ii. 294-329\n(Stuttgart, 1845). E. Michael, _Culturzust\u00e4nde des deutschen Volkes\nw\u00e4hrend des 13{n} Jahrhunderts_, ii. 30 _sqq._ (Freiburg im Breisgau,\n1899), has an excellent account drawn mainly from the same source.\n\n[622] The _Dialogi miraculorum_ of Caesar of Heisterbach, and the\n_Exempla_ of \u00c9tienne de Bourbon (d. 1262) and Jacques de Vitry (d. 1240)\npresent a huge collection of such stories. For the early Middle Ages, the\ndecades just before and after the year one thousand, the mechanically\nsupernatural view of any occurrence is illustrated in the five books of\n_Histories_ of Radulphus Glaber, an incontinent and wandering, but\nobserving monk, native of Burgundy. Best edition by M. Prou, in\n_Collection des textes, etc._ (Paris, Picard, 1886); also in Migne, _Pat.\nLat._ 142. An interesting study of his work by Gebhart, entitled, \u201cUn\nMoine de l\u2019an 1000,\u201d is to be found in the _Revue des deux mondes_, for\nOctober 1, 1891. Glaber\u2019s fifth book opens with some excellent devil\nstories. As there was a progressive enlightenment through the mediaeval\ncenturies, such tales gradually became less common and less crude.\n\n[623] _Anecdotes historiques d\u2019\u00c9tienne de Bourbon_, par. 422, ed. by Lecoy\nde la Marche (vol. 185 of Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de l\u2019Histoire de France), Paris, 1877;\ncf. _ibid._ par. 383.\n\n[624] _Dialogus miraculorum_, iii. 2. Similar stories are told in _ibid._\niii. 3, 15, 19.\n\n[625] _Exempla_ of Jacques de Vitry, ed. by T. F. Crane, pp. 110-111, vol.\n26 (Folk-lore Society, London, 1890).\n\n[626] _Dialogus miraculorum_, vii. 34. Caesar\u2019s seventh book has many\nsimilar tales.\n\n[627] Ed. in eight volumes by Gaston Paris and U. Robert for the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9\ndes Anciens Textes Fran\u00e7ais.\n\n[628] \u00c9tienne de Bourbon tells this same story in his Latin; _Anecdotes\nhistoriques etc._, p. 114.\n\n[629] See \u00c9tienne de Bourbon, _o.c._ pp. 109-110, 120.\n\n[630] \u00c9tienne de Bourbon, _o.c._ p. 119.\n\n[631] \u00c9tienne de Bourbon, _o.c._ p. 83.\n\n[632] The chief part of the \u201cChronica Fr. Salembenis Parmensis\u201d was\nprinted in 1857 in the _Monumenta Historica ad provincias Parmensem, etc._\nThe manner of its truncated editing has ever since been a grief to\nscholars. The portions omitted from the Parma edition, covering years\nbefore Salimbene\u2019s time, are printed by Cl\u00e9dat, as an appendix to his\nThesis, _De Fr. Salimbene, etc._ (Paris, 1878). Novati\u2019s article, \u201cLa\nCronaca di Salimbene\u201d in vol. i. (1883) of the _Giornale storico della\nletteratura italiana_, pp. 383-423, will be found enlightening as to the\nfaults of the Parma editor. A good consideration of the man and his\nchronicle is Emil Michael\u2019s _Salimbene und seine Chronik_ (Innsbruck,\n1889), with which should be read Alfred Dove\u2019s _Die Doppel Chronik von\nReggio und die Quellen Salimbene\u2019s_ (Leipzig, 1873). A short translation\nof some of the more or less autobiographical parts of Salimbene\u2019s\nnarrative, by T. L. K. Olyphant, may be found in vol. i. of the\n_Translations of the Historical Society_, pp. 449-478 (London, 1872); and\nmuch of Salimbene is translated in Coulton\u2019s _From St. Francis to Dante_\n(London, 1907).\n\n[633] Parma edition, p. 3.\n\n[634] P. 31.\n\n[635] The Latin is a little strong: \u201cNon credas istis pissintunicis, idest\nqui in tunicis mingunt.\u201d\n\n[636] These qualities led Salimbene to accept the teachings of Joachim and\nthe _Evangelium eternum_ (_post_, pp. 510 _sqq._).\n\n[637] Parma ed. pp. 37-41. This coarse story is given for illustration\u2019s\nsake; there are many worse than it in Salimbene. Novati prints some in his\narticle in the _Giornale Storico_ that are amusing, but altogether beyond\nthe pale of modern decency.\n\n[638] This in fact became the later legend of Eccelino.\n\n[639] Pp. 90-93.\n\n[640] He whose _Regesta_ we have read, _ante_ Chapter XX.\n\n[641] Parma ed. pp. 93-97.\n\n[642] _Post_, Chapter XXII.\n\n[643] Cf. Tocco, _L\u2019Eresia nel medio evo_, pp. 449-483 (Florence, 1884).\n\n[644] From Novati, _o.c._ pp. 415, 416. Cf. pp. 97 _sqq._ of the Parma ed.\n\n[645] For further interesting allusions to the prophecies of Merlin, see\nSalimbene, pp. 303, 309 _sqq._\n\n[646] Pp. 104-109.\n\n[647] Cf. Joinville\u2019s account, _post_, Chapter XXII.\n\n[648] P. 225.\n\n[649] Pp. 179, 180.\n\n[650] P. 324.\n\n[651] See Bourgain, _La Chaire fran\u00e7aise au XII{e} si\u00e8cle_; Lecoy de la\nMarche, _La Chaire fran\u00e7aise au XIII{e} si\u00e8cle_.\n\n[652] Certain kinds of literature, in nature satirical or merely gross,\nportray, doubtless with grotesque exaggeration, the ways and manners of\nclerks and merchants, craftsmen and vile serfs, as well as those of monks\nand bishops, lords and ladies. A notable example is offered by the old\nFrench _fabliaux_, which with coarse and heartless laughter, rather than\nwith any definite satirical intent, display the harshness, brutality, the\ndegradation and hardship of the ways of living coming within their range\nof interest. In them we see the brutal and deceived husband, the wily\nclerk, the merchant with his tricks of trade, the _vilain_, raised above\nthe brute, not by a better way of life as much as by a certain native wit.\nThe women were reviled as coarsely as in monkish writings; but a\nRabelaisian quality takes the place of doctrinal prurience. In weighing\nthe evidence of these fabliaux their satirical nature should be allowed\nfor. Cf. Langlois, _La Vie en France au moyen \u00e2ge d\u2019apr\u00e8s quelques\nmoralistes du temps_ (Paris, 1908); also the _Sermons_ of Jacques de\nVitry; Pitra, _Analecta novissima spicilegii Solesmensis_, t. ii., and\nHaur\u00e8au upon the same in _Journal des savants_, 1888, p. 410 _sqq._\n\n[653] Such immunities were common before Charlemagne. Cf. Brunner,\n_Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, ii. 243-302.\n\n[654] _Gesta regum Anglorum_, iii. (Migne 179, col. 1213).\n\n[655] Taken from the note to p. 274 of Gautier\u2019s _Chevalerie_.\n\n[656] See Du Cange, _Glossarium_, under \u201cMiles,\u201d etc.; where much\ninformation may be found uncritically put together.\n\n[657] Cf. Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, ii. 202-216.\n\n[658] The way that _miles_ came to mean knight, has its analogy in the\netymological history of the word \u201cknight\u201d itself. In German and French the\nwords \u201cRitter\u201d and \u201cchevalier\u201d indicate one who fought on horseback. Not\nso with the English word \u201cknight,\u201d which in its original Anglo-Saxon and\nOld-German forms (see Murray\u2019s _Dictionary_) as _cniht_ and _kneht_ might\nmean any armed follower. It lost its servile sense slowly. \u201cIn 1086 we\nread that the Conqueror _dubbade his sunu Henric to ridere_; this ... is\nthe next year Englished by _cniht_\u201d (Kington-Oliphant, _Old and Middle\nEnglish_, p. 130; Macmillan, 1878).\n\n[659] We naturally use the term \u201cfree\u201d with reference to modern\nconditions, where law and its sanctions emanate, in fact as well as\ntheory, from a stable government. But in these early feudal periods where\na man\u2019s life and property were in fact and theory protected by the power\nof his immediate lord, to whom he was bound by the strongest ties then\nrecognized, to be \u201cfree\u201d might be very close to being an unprotected\noutlaw.\n\n[660] In these respects it exhibits analogies to monkhood, which likewise\nwas recruited commonly from the upper classes of society.\n\n[661] See Gautier, _La Chevalerie_, p. 256 _sqq._; Du Cange, under the\nword \u201cMiles.\u201d\n\n[662] Cf. Gautier, _o.c._ 296-308. It must be remembered that an abbot or\na bishop might also be a knight and so could make knights. See Du Cange,\n_Glossarium_, \u201cAbbas\u201d (_abbates miletes_).\n\n[663] On this blow, called in Latin _alapa_, in French _accol\u00e9e_, in\nEnglish _accolade_, see Du Cange under \u201cAlapa,\u201d and Gautier, _o.c._ pp.\n246-247, and 270 _sqq._\n\n[664] _Chanson de Roland_, 2344 sqq. Lines 2500-2510 speak of\nCharlemagne\u2019s sword, named _Joiuse_ because of the honour it had in having\nin its hilt the iron of the lance which pierced the Saviour.\n\n[665] Gautier, _Chevalerie_, pp. 290, 297. Examples of these ceremonies\nmay be found as follows: the actual one of the knighting of Geoffrey\nPlantagenet of Anjou by Henry I. of England, at Rouen in 1129, in the\nChronicle of Johannis Turonensis, _Historiens de France_, xii. p. 520;\nGautier, _Chevalerie_, p. 275. Gautier gives many examples, and puts\ntogether a typical ceremony, as of the twelfth century, in _Chev._ p. 309\n_sqq._ Perhaps the most famous account of all is that of the poem entitled\n_Ordene de Chevalerie_ (thirteenth century), published by Barbazan,\n_Fabliaux, etc._, i. 59-82 (Paris, 1808). It relates how a captive\nChristian knight bestowed the order of chivalry, _i.e._ knighthood, upon\nSaladin. See other accounts cited in Du Cange under \u201cMiles.\u201d\n\n[666] Not war as we understand it, where with some large purpose one great\ncohesive state directs its total military power against another; but\nneighbourhood war, never permanently ended. When not actually attacking or\ndefending, men were anticipating attack, or expecting to make a raid.\nPerhaps nothing better suggests the local and neighbourly character of\nthese feudal hostilities than the most famous means devised by the Church\nto mitigate them. This was the \u201cTruce of God,\u201d promulgated in the eleventh\ncentury. It forbade hostilities from Thursday to Monday and in Lent.\nWhether this ordinance was effective or not, it indicates the nature of\nthe wars that could stop from Thursday to Monday!\n\n[667] Courtly, chivalric, or romantic, love as an element of knightly\nexcellence is so inseverably connected with its romantic literature that I\nhave kept it for the next chapter.\n\n[668] The following remarks upon the _regula_ of the Templars, and the\nextracts which are given, are based on the introduction and text of _La\nR\u00e8gle du Temple_, edited by Henri de Curzon for the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de l\u2019Histoire\nde France (Paris, 1886).\n\n[669] The phraseology of the Latin _regula_ often follows that of the\nBenedictine rule.\n\n[670] Chaps. 33, 35.\n\n[671] Chaps. 40, 41.\n\n[672] Chap. 42.\n\n[673] Chaps. 46, 48.\n\n[674] Chap. 62 Latin _regula_ and chap. 14 of French _regle_.\n\n[675] Chap. 51.\n\n[676] Chap. 58 of the Latin, chap. 11 of the French. The chapters of the\nFrench translation do not follow the order of the Latin.\n\n[677] Page 167 of de Curzon\u2019s edition.\n\n[678] See in de Curzon\u2019s edition, sections 431, 436, 448, 454, and 657\n_sqq._\n\n[679] It would seem as if military discipline, as moderns understand it,\ntook its rise in these Templars and Hospitallers.\n\n[680] See _e.g._ de Curzon\u2019s edition, sections 419, 420, 574.\n\n[681] Raimundus de Agiles, _Hist. Francorum qui ceperunt Jerusalem_, cap.\n38-39. (Migne 155, col. 659).\n\n[682] On these poems see Pigeonneau, _Le Cycle de la Croisade_ (St. Cloud,\n1877); Paulin Paris, in _Histoire litt\u00e9raire de la France_, vol. 22, pp.\n350-402, and _ibid._ vol. 25, p. 507 _sqq._; Gaston Paris, \u201cLa Naissance\ndu chevalier au Cygne,\u201d _Romania_, 19, p. 314 _sqq._ (1890).\n\n[683] \u201cVita Ludovici noni auctore Gaufrido de Belloloco\u201d (_Recueil des\nhistoriens des Gaules et de la France_, t. xx. pp. 3-26).\n\n[684] The Testament of St. Louis, written for his eldest son, is a\ncomplete rule of conduct for a Christian prince, and indicates St. Louis\u2019\nmind on the education of one. It has been printed and translated many\ntimes. Geoffrey of Beaulieu gives it in Latin (chap. xv.) and in French at\nthe end of the _Vita_. It is also in Joinville.\n\n[685] One sees here the same religious anxiety which is so well brought\nout by Salimbene\u2019s account of St. Louis, _ante_, Chapter XXI.\n\n[686] The founder of the College of the Sorbonne.\n\n[687] _Chroniques de J. Froissart_, ed. S. Luce (Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de l\u2019Histoire de\nFrance). The opening of the Prologue. It seemed desirable to render this\nsentence literally. The rest of my extracts are from Thomas Johnes\u2019s\ntranslation, for which I plead a boyhood\u2019s affection. For a brief account\nof Froissart\u2019s chief source (Jean le Bel), with excellent criticism, see\nW. P. Ker, \u201cFroissart\u201d (_Essays on Medieval Literature_, Macmillan and\nCo., 1905).\n\n[688] Froissart, i. 210.\n\n[689] Froissart, i. 220.\n\n[690] Froissart, i. 290.\n\n[691] Yet the matter was fit for legend and romance; and a late impotent\n_chanson de geste_ was formed out of the career of du Guesclin.\n\n[692] On the _chansons de geste_ see Gaston Paris, _Litt\u00e9rature fran\u00e7aise\nau moyen \u00e2ge_; Leon Gautier in Petit de Julleville\u2019s _Histoire de la\nlangue et de la litt\u00e9rature fran\u00e7aise_, vol. i.; more at length Gautier,\n_\u00c9pop\u00e9es nationales_, and Paulin Paris in vol. 22 of _L\u2019Histoire\nlitt\u00e9raire de France_; also Nyrop, _Storia dell\u2019 epopea francese nel medio\nevo_. Ample bibliographies will be found in these works.\n\n[693] On the field of Roncesvalles, Roland folds the hands of the dead\nArchbishop Turpin, and grieves over him, beginning:\n\n  \u201cE! gentilz hum chevaliers de bon aire, ...\u201d\n                      (_Roland_, line 2252).\n\n[694] Leon Gautier, in his _Chevalerie_, makes the _chansons de geste_ his\nchief source.\n\n[695] 1006-1016.\n\n[696] 1051 _sqq._ and 1700 _sqq._\n\n[697] 1851-1868.\n\n[698] 1940-2023.\n\n[699] 2164 _sqq._\n\n[700] _Raoul de Cambrai_, cited by Gautier, _Chevalerie_, p. 75.\n\n[701] Unless indeed Oberon, the fairy king, be a romantic form of the\nAlberich of the _Nibelungen_ (Gaston Paris).\n\n[702] See Gaston Paris, _Lit. fran\u00e7aise, etc._, chaps. iii. and v.; and\n\u00c9mile Littr\u00e9 in vol. 22 of the _Histoire litt\u00e9raire de la France_. For\nexamples of these _romans_, see Langlois, _La Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fran\u00e7aise au XIII{e}\nsi\u00e8cle d\u2019apr\u00e8s dix romans d\u2019aventure_ (2nd ed., Paris, 1904).\n\n[703] Chr\u00e9tien, _Clig\u00e9s_, line 201 _sqq._\n\n[704] The Old French from vol. ii. of P. Paris, _Romans de la Table\nRonde_, p. 96. One sees that the coronation is a larger knighting, and\nkingship a larger knighthood.\n\n[705] _Romans de la Table Ronde_, iii. 96. This scene closely parallels\nthat between Bernier and Raoul de Cambrai, instanced above.\n\n[706] See the first part of vol. iii. of _Romans de la Table Ronde_,\nespecially pp. 113-117.\n\n[707] It would be easy to go on drawing illustrations of the actual and\nimaginative elements in chivalry, until this chapter should grow into an\nencyclopedia. They could so easily be taken from many kinds of mediaeval\nliterature in all the mediaeval tongues. The French has barely been\ntouched upon. It affords an exhaustless store. Then in the German we might\ndraw upon the courtly epics, Gottfried of Strassburg\u2019s _Tristan_ or the\n_Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach; or on the _Nibelungenlied_, wherein\nSiegfried is a very knight. Or we might draw upon the knightly precepts\n(the Ritterlehre) of the Winsbeke and the Winsbekin (printed in\nHildebrand\u2019s _Didaktik aus der Zeit der Kreuzz\u00fcge_, Deutsche Nat. Litt.).\nAnd we might delve in the great store of Latin Chronicles which relate the\nmediaeval history of German kings and nobles. In Spanish, there would be\nthe _Cid_, and how much more besides. In Italian we should have latter-day\nromantic chivalry; Pulci\u2019s _Rotta di Roncisvalle_; Boiardo\u2019s _Orlando\ninnamorato_; Ariosto\u2019s _Orlando furioso_; still later, Tasso\u2019s\n_Gerusalemme liberata_, which takes us well out of the Middle Ages. And in\nEnglish there is much Arthurian romance; there is _Chevy Chace_; and we\nmay come down through Chaucer\u2019s _Knight\u2019s Tale_, to the sunset beauty of\nSpenser\u2019s _Fairie Queen_. This glorious poem should serve to fix in our\nminds the principle that chivalry, knighthood, was not merely a material\nfact, a ceremony and an institution; but that it also was that\nultra-reality, a spirit. And this spirit\u2019s ideal creations--the ideal\ncreations of the many phases of this spirit--accorded with actual deeds\nwhich may be read of in the old Chronicles. For final exemplification of\nthe actual and the ideally real in chivalry, the reader may look within\nhimself, and observe the inextricable mingling of the imaginative and the\nreal. He will recognize that what at one time seems part of his\nimagination, at another will prove itself the veriest reality of his life.\nEven such wavering verity of spirit was chivalry.\n\n[708] See Gaston Paris in _Journal des savants_, 1892, pp. 161-163. Of\ncourse the English reader cannot but think of the brief secret marriage\nbetween Romeo and Juliet.\n\n[709] Marriage or no marriage depends on the plot; but occasionally a\ncertain respect for marriage is shown, as in the _Eliduc_ of Marie de\nFrance, and of course far more strongly in Wolfram\u2019s _Parzival_. In\nChr\u00e9tien\u2019s _Ivain_ the hero marries early in the story; and thereafter his\nwife acts towards him with the haughty caprice of an _amie_; Ivain, at her\ndispleasure, goes mad, like an _ami_. The _romans d\u2019aventure_ afford other\ninstances of this courtly love, sometimes illicit, sometimes looking to\nmarriage. See Langlois, _La Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fran\u00e7aise au XIII{e} si\u00e8cle d\u2019apr\u00e8s\ndix romans d\u2019aventure_.\n\n[710] On Proven\u00e7al poetry see Diez, _Poesie der Troubadours_ (2nd ed. by\nBartsch, Leipzig, 1883); _id._, _Leben und Werke der Troubadours_; Justin\nH. Smith, _The Troubadours at Home_ (New York and London, 1899); Ida\nFarnell, _Lives of the Troubadours_ (London).\n\n[711] Cf. Gaston Paris, t. 30, pp. 1-18, _Hist. lit. de la France_; Paul\nMeyer, _Romania_, v. 257-268; xix. 1-62. \u201cTrouv\u00e8re\u201d is the Old French word\ncorresponding to Proven\u00e7al \u201cTroubadour.\u201d\n\n[712] On this work see Gaston Paris, _Romania_, xii. 524 _sqq._ (1883);\n_id._ in _Journal des savants_, 1888, pp. 664 _sqq._ and 727 _sqq._; also\n(for extracts) Raynouard, _Choix des po\u00e9sies des Troubadours_, ii. lxxx.\nsqq.\n\n[713] On origins and sources see, generally, Gaston Paris, _Tristan and\nIseult_ (Paris, 1894), reprinted from _Revue de Paris_ of April 15, 1894;\nW. Golther, _Die Sage von Tristan und Isolde_ (Munich, 1887).\n\n[714] Cf. generally, J. L. Weston, _The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac_\n(London, 1901, David Nutt).\n\n[715] See Gaston Paris, _Romania_, xii. 459-534.\n\n[716] Paulin Paris, _Romans de la Table Ronde_, iv. 280 _sqq._\n\n[717] See Paulin Paris, _Romans de la Table Ronde_, iv. Guinevere\u2019s\nwoman-mind is shown in the following scene. On an occasion the lovers\u2019\nsophisticated friend, the Dame de Malehaut, laughs tauntingly at Lancelot:\n\n\u201c\u2018Ah! Lancelot, Lancelot, dit-elle, je vois que le roi n\u2019a plus d\u2019autre\navantage sur vous que la couronne de Logres!\u2019\n\n\u201cEt comme il ne trouvait rien \u00e0 r\u00e9pondre de convenable, \u2018Ma ch\u00e8re\nMalehaut, dit la reine, si je suis fille de roi, il est fils de roi; si je\nsuis belle, il est beau; de plus, il est le plus preux des preux. Je n\u2019ai\ndonc pas \u00e0 rougir de l\u2019avoir choisi pour mon chevalier\u2019\u201d (Paulin Paris,\n_ibid._ iv. 58).\n\n[718] Galahad\u2019s mother was Helene, daughter of King Pelles (_roi\np\u00eacheur_), the custodian of the Holy Grail. A love-philter makes Lancelot\nmistake her for Guinevere; and so the knight\u2019s loyalty to his mistress is\nsaved. The damsel herself was without passion, beyond the wish to bear a\nson begotten by the best of knights (_Romans, etc._, v. 308 _sqq._).\n\n[719] \u201cFor what is he that may yeve a lawe to lovers? Love is a gretter\nlawe and a strengere to himself than any lawe that men may yeven\u201d\n(Chaucer, _Boece_, book iii. metre 12).\n\n[720] As in Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s _Clig\u00e9s_, 6751 _sqq._, when Clig\u00e9s is crowned\nemperor and Fenice becomes his queen, then: _De s\u2019amie a feite sa\nfame_--but he still calls her _amie et dame_, that he may not cease to\nlove her as one should an _amie_. Cf. also Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s _Erec_, 4689.\n\n[721] See also Gawain\u2019s words to _Ivain_ when the latter is married--in\nChr\u00e9tien\u2019s _Ivain_, 2484 _sqq._\n\n[722] As a matter of fact, in those parts of Wolfram\u2019s poem which are\ncovered by Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s unfinished _Perceval le Gallois_, the incidents are\nnearly identical with Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s. For the question of the relationship of\nthe two poems, and for other versions of the Grail legend, see A. Nutt,\n_Studies in the Legend of the Holy Grail_ (Folk-Lore Society Publications,\nLondon, 1888); Birch-Hirshfeld, _Die Graal Sage_; _Einleitung_ to Piper\u2019s\nedition of Wolfram von Eschenbach, Stuttgart, Deutsche Nat. Litteratur;\n_Einleitung_ to Bartch\u2019s edition in Deutsche Klassiker des Mittelalters\n(Leipzig, 1875). These two editions of the poem are furnished with modern\nGerman glossaries. There is a modern German version by Zimmrock, and an\nEnglish translation by Jessie L. Weston (London, D. Nutt, 1894).\n\n[723] In other versions of the Grail legend there is much about the virgin\nor celibate state, and also plenty of unchastity and no especial esteem\nfor marriage.\n\n[724] The Fisher King (_roi p\u00eacheur_) was the regular title of the Grail\nkings. See _e.g._ Pauline Paris, _Romans de la Table Ronde_, t. i. p. 306.\n\n[725] _E.g._ the love-potion in the tale of Tristan.\n\n\n\n\nBY THE SAME AUTHOR\n\n_Two vols. 8vo. 21s. net._\n\nANCIENT IDEALS\n\nA STUDY OF INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL\n\nGROWTH FROM EARLY TIMES TO THE\n\nESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n    _SPECTATOR._--\u201cThe American people are giving to the world some of the\n    most thoughtful and balanced studies in history and philosophy now\n    being produced. Mr. Taylor\u2019s work is an admirable example of this\n    class of writings.\u201d\n\n    _GUARDIAN._--\u201cA book which stands far above anything else of the kind\n    that we have seen. It needs something like genius to give an account\n    so sympathetic and penetrating of religions so diverse; yet the author\n    never fails to leave in the mind a perfectly definite picture of each\n    system, with its essential characteristics quite distinct, and\n    illustrated by just so much history as is needed to make the picture\n    living. Again, the book is a literary work in a sense in which few\n    histories of human thought are literary--in the sense in which\n    Froude\u2019s _Studies in Great Subjects_, or Symonds\u2019s _Studies in the\n    Greek Poets_, or Pater\u2019s _Plato and Platonism_ are literary.... A book\n    of intense interest, catholic sympathy, and perfectly balanced\n    judgment.\u201d\n\n\n_Globe 8vo. 7s. 6d. net._\n\nTHE CLASSICAL HERITAGE\n\nOF THE\n\nMIDDLE AGES\n\n    _SPECTATOR._--\u201cA volume which contains within narrow limits of space a\n    quite remarkable variety of suggestive remarks.... Mr. Taylor is\n    always readable and instructive.... We take leave of Mr. Taylor with\n    many thanks for a most interesting book.\u201d\n\n    _WESTMINSTER GAZETTE._--\u201cAn admirable short study of a subject which\n    even well-read men have for the most part left unexplored, except so\n    far as it is covered by Gibbon.... We know no better brief summary\n    than Mr. Taylor\u2019s of all the various tendencies which finally combined\n    in mediaevalism. It is sound, scholarly, well written, and obviously\n    based upon the widest reading.\u201d\n\n\n\nWORKS ON PHILOSOPHY\n\nBy Prof. HENRY SIDGWICK\n\nTHE METHODS OF ETHICS. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.\n\nOUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF ETHICS FOR ENGLISH READERS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nPHILOSOPHY. Its Scope and Relations. 8vo. 6s. 6d. net.\n\nLECTURES ON THE ETHICS OF T. H. GREEN, MR. HERBERT SPENCER, AND J.\nMARTINEAU. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.\n\nLECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF KANT, and other Philosophical Lectures and\nEssays. 8vo. 10s. net.\n\n\nBy Prof. HARALD H\u00d6FFDING\n\nA HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY. A Sketch of the History of Philosophy from\nthe close of the Renaissance to our own Day. Translated by B. E. MEYER.\nTwo vols. 8vo. 15s. net each.\n\nTHE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. Translated by GALEN M. FISHER, with a Preface\nby WILLIAM JAMES. Globe 8vo. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. Translated by B. E. MEYER. 8vo. 12s. net.\n\nOUTLINES OF PSYCHOLOGY. Translated by M. E. LOWNDES. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nPassages in bold are indicated by =bold=.\n\nSuperscripted characters are indicated by {superscript}.","title":"The Mediaeval Mind (Volume 1 of 2): A History of the Development of Thought and Emotion in the Middle Ages","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":254740}