{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43881/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43881","id":"gutenberg_43881","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43881","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Medieval/Middle Ages","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","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. II\n\n\n  MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n  ST. MARTIN\u2019S STREET, LONDON\n  1911\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                      PAGE\n\n  BOOK IV\n\n  THE IDEAL AND THE ACTUAL: SOCIETY (_continued_)\n\n  CHAPTER XXV\n\n    THE HEART OF HELO\u00cfSE                                                 3\n\n  CHAPTER XXVI\n\n    GERMAN CONSIDERATIONS: WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE                   28\n\n\n  BOOK V\n\n  SYMBOLISM\n\n  CHAPTER XXVII\n\n    SCRIPTURAL ALLEGORIES IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES; HONORIUS OF AUTUN   41\n\n  CHAPTER XXVIII\n\n    THE RATIONALE OF THE VISIBLE WORLD: HUGO OF ST. VICTOR              60\n\n  CHAPTER XXIX\n\n    CATHEDRAL AND MASS; HYMN AND IMAGINATIVE POEM                       76\n\n        I. Guilelmus Durandus and Vincent of Beauvais.\n\n       II. The Hymns of Adam of St. Victor and the _Anticlaudianus_\n           of Alanus of Lille.\n\n\n  BOOK VI\n\n  LATINITY AND LAW\n\n  CHAPTER XXX\n\n    THE SPELL OF THE CLASSICS                                          107\n\n        I. Classical Reading.\n\n       II. Grammar.\n\n      III. The Effect upon the Mediaeval Man; Hildebert of Lavardin.\n\n  CHAPTER XXXI\n\n    EVOLUTION OF MEDIAEVAL LATIN PROSE                                 148\n\n  CHAPTER XXXII\n\n    EVOLUTION OF MEDIAEVAL LATIN VERSE                                 186\n\n        I. Metrical Verse.\n\n       II. Substitution of Accent for Quantity.\n\n      III. Sequence-Hymn and Student-Song.\n\n       IV. Passage of Themes into the Vernacular.\n\n  CHAPTER XXXIII\n\n    MEDIAEVAL APPROPRIATION OF THE ROMAN LAW                           231\n\n        I. The Fontes Juris Civilis.\n\n       II. Roman and Barbarian Codification.\n\n      III. The Mediaeval Appropriation.\n\n       IV. Church Law.\n\n        V. Political Theorizing.\n\n\n  BOOK VII\n\n  ULTIMATE INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS OF THE TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH CENTURIES\n\n  CHAPTER XXXIV\n\n    SCHOLASTICISM: SPIRIT, SCOPE, AND METHOD                           283\n\n  CHAPTER XXXV\n\n    CLASSIFICATION OF TOPICS; STAGES OF EVOLUTION                      311\n\n        I. Philosophic Classification of the Sciences; the\n           Arrangement of Vincent\u2019s Encyclopaedia, of the Lombard\u2019s\n           _Sentences_, of Aquinas\u2019s _Summa theologiae_.\n\n       II. The Stages of Development: Grammar, Logic, Metalogics.\n\n  CHAPTER XXXVI\n\n    TWELFTH-CENTURY SCHOLASTICISM                                      338\n\n        I. The Problem of Universals: Abaelard.\n\n       II. The Mystic Strain: Hugo and Bernard.\n\n      III. The Later Decades: Bernard Silvestris; Gilbert de la\n           Porr\u00e9e; William of Conches; John of Salisbury, and Alanus\n           of Lille.\n\n  CHAPTER XXXVII\n\n    THE UNIVERSITIES, ARISTOTLE, AND THE MENDICANTS                    378\n\n  CHAPTER XXXVIII\n\n    BONAVENTURA                                                        402\n\n  CHAPTER XXXIX\n\n    ALBERTUS MAGNUS                                                    420\n\n  CHAPTER XL\n\n    THOMAS AQUINAS                                                     433\n\n        I. Thomas\u2019s Conception of Human Beatitude.\n\n       II. Man\u2019s Capacity to know God.\n\n      III. How God knows.\n\n       IV. How the Angels know.\n\n        V. How Men know.\n\n       VI. Knowledge through Faith perfected in Love.\n\n  CHAPTER XLI\n\n    ROGER BACON                                                        484\n\n  CHAPTER XLII\n\n    DUNS SCOTUS AND OCCAM                                              509\n\n  CHAPTER XLIII\n\n    THE MEDIAEVAL SYNTHESIS: DANTE                                     525\n\n  INDEX                                                                561\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV\n\nTHE IDEAL AND THE ACTUAL: SOCIETY\n\n(_Continued_)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV\n\nTHE HEART OF HELO\u00cfSE\n\n\nThe romantic growth and imaginative shaping of chivalric love having been\nfollowed in the fortunes of its great exemplars, Tristan, Iseult,\nLancelot, Guinevere, Parzival, a different illustration of mediaeval\npassion may be had by turning from these creations of literature to an\nactual woman, whose love for a living man was thought out as keenly and as\ntragically felt as any heart-break of imagined lovers, and was impressed\nwith as entire a self-surrender as ever ravished the soul of nun panting\nwith love of the God-man.\n\nThere has never been a passion between a man and woman more famous than\nthat which brought happiness and sorrow to the lives of Abaelard and\nHelo\u00efse. Here fame is just. It was a great love, and its course was a\nperfect soul\u2019s tragedy. Abaelard was a celebrity, the intellectual glory\nof an active-minded epoch. His love-story has done as much for his\nposthumous fame as all his intellectual activities. Helo\u00efse became known\nin her time through her relations with Abaelard; in his songs her name was\nwafted far. She has come down to us as one of the world\u2019s love-heroines.\nYet few of those who have been touched by her story have known that\nHelo\u00efse was a great woman, possessed of an admirable mind, a character\nwhich proved its strength through years, and, above all, a capacity for\nloving--for loving out to the full conclusions of love\u2019s convictions, and\nfor feeling in their full range and power whatever moods and emotions\ncould arise from an unhappy situation and a passion as deeply felt as it\nwas deeply thought upon.\n\nAbaelard was not a great character--aside from his intellect. He was vain\nand inconsiderate, a man who delighted in confounding and supplanting his\nteachers, and in being a thorn in the flesh of all opponents. But he\nbecame chastened through his misfortunes and through Helo\u00efse\u2019s high and\nself-sacrificing love. In the end, perhaps, his love was worthy of the\nlove of Helo\u00efse. Yet her love from the beginning was nobler and deeper\nthan his love of her. Love was for him an incident in his experience, then\nan element in his life. Love made the life of Helo\u00efse; it remained her\nall. Moreover, in the records of their passion, Helo\u00efse\u2019s love is unveiled\nas Abaelard\u2019s is not. For all these reasons, the heart of Helo\u00efse rather\nthan the heart of Abaelard discloses the greatness of a love that wept\nitself out in the twelfth century, and it is her love rather than his that\ncan teach us much regarding the mediaeval capacity for loving. Hers is a\nstory of mediaeval womanhood, and sin, and repentance perhaps, with peace\nat last, or at least the lips shut close and further protest foregone.\n\nAbaelard\u2019s stormy intellectual career[1] and the story of the love between\nhim and the canon\u2019s niece are well known. Let us follow him in those parts\nof his narrative which disclose the depth and power of Helo\u00efse\u2019s love for\nhim. We draw from his _Historia calamitatum_, written \u201cto a friend,\u201d\napparently an open letter intended to circulate.\n\n\u201cThere was,\u201d writes he, referring to the time of his sojourn in Paris,\nwhen he was about thirty-six years old, and at the height of his fame as a\nlecturer in the schools--\n\n    \u201cThere was in Paris a young girl named Helo\u00efse, the niece of a canon,\n    Fulbert. It was his affectionate wish that she should have the best\n    education in letters that could be procured. Her face was not unfair,\n    and her knowledge was unequalled. This attainment, so rare in women,\n    had given her great reputation.\n\n    \u201cI had hitherto lived continently, but now was casting my eyes about,\n    and I saw that she possessed every attraction that lovers seek; nor\n    did I regard my success as doubtful, when I considered my fame and my\n    goodly person, and also her love of letters. Inflamed with love, I\n    thought how I could best become intimate with her. It occurred to me\n    to obtain lodgings with her uncle, on the plea that household cares\n    distracted me from study. Friends quickly brought this about, the old\n    man being miserly and yet desirous of instruction for his niece. He\n    eagerly entrusted her to my tutorship, and begged me to give her all\n    the time I could take from my lectures, authorizing me to see her at\n    any hour of the day or night, and punish her when necessary. I\n    marvelled with what simplicity he confided a tender lamb to a hungry\n    wolf. As he had given me authority to punish her, I saw that if\n    caresses would not win my object, I could bend her by threats and\n    blows. Doubtless he was misled by love of his niece and my own good\n    reputation. Well, what need to say more: we were united first by the\n    one roof above us, and then by our hearts. Our hours of study were\n    given to love. The books lay open, but our words were of love rather\n    than philosophy, there were more kisses than aphorisms; and love was\n    oftener reflected in our eyes than the lettered page. To avert\n    suspicion, I struck her occasionally--very gentle blows of love. The\n    joy of love, new to us both, brought no satiety. The more I was taken\n    up with this pleasure, the less time I gave to philosophy and the\n    schools--how tiresome had all that become! I became unproductive,\n    merely repeating my old lectures, and if I composed any verses, love\n    was their subject, and not the secrets of philosophy; you know how\n    popular and widely sung these have become. But the students! what\n    groans and laments arose from them at my distraction! A passion so\n    plain was not to be concealed; every one knew of it except Fulbert. A\n    man is often the last to know of his own shame. Yet what everybody\n    knows cannot be hid forever, and so after some months he learned all.\n    Oh how bitter was that uncle\u2019s grief! and what was the grief of the\n    separated lovers! How ashamed I was, and afflicted at the affliction\n    of the girl! And what a storm of sorrow came over her at my disgrace.\n    Neither complained for himself, but each grieved at what the other\n    must endure.\u201d\n\nAlthough Abaelard was moved at the plight of Helo\u00efse, he bitterly felt his\nown discomfiture in the eyes of the once admiring world. But the sentence\ntouching Helo\u00efse is a first true note of her devoted love: what a storm of\nsorrow (_moeroris aestus_) came over her at my disgrace. Through this\ntrouble and woe, Helo\u00efse never thought of her own pain save as it pained\nher to be the source of grief to Abaelard.\n\nAbaelard continues:\n\n    \u201cThe separation of our bodies joined our souls more closely and\n    inflamed our love. Shame spent itself and made us unashamed, so small\n    a thing it seemed compared with satisfying love. Not long afterwards\n    the girl knew that she was to be a mother, and in the greatest\n    exultation wrote and asked me to advise what she should do. One night,\n    as we agreed on, when Fulbert was away I bore her off secretly and\n    sent her to my own country, Brittany, where she stayed with my sister\n    till she gave birth to a son, whom she named Astralabius.\n\n    \u201cThe uncle, on his return to his empty house, was frantic. He did not\n    know what to do to me. If he should kill or do me some bodily injury,\n    he feared lest his niece, whom he loved, would suffer for it among my\n    people in Brittany. He could not seize me, as I was prepared against\n    all attempts. At length, pitying his anguish, and feeling remorse at\n    having caused it, I went to him as a suppliant and promised whatever\n    satisfaction he should demand. I assured him that nothing in my\n    conduct would seem remarkable to any one who had felt the strength of\n    love or would take the pains to recall how many of the greatest men\n    had been thrown down by women, ever since the world began. Whereupon I\n    offered him a satisfaction greater than he could have hoped, to wit,\n    that I would marry her whom I had corrupted, if only the marriage\n    might be kept secret so that it should not injure me in the minds of\n    men. He agreed and pledged his faith, and the faith of his friends,\n    and sealed with kisses the reconciliation which I had sought--so that\n    he might more easily betray me!\u201d\n\nIt will be remembered that Abaelard was a clerk, a _clericus_, in virtue\nof his profession of letters and theology. Never having taken orders, he\ncould marry; but while a clerk\u2019s slip could be forgotten, marriage might\nlead people to think he had slighted his vocation, and would certainly bar\nthe ecclesiastical preferment which such a famous _clericus_ might\nnaturally look forward to. Nevertheless, he at once set out to fetch\nHelo\u00efse from Brittany, to make her his wife.\n\nThe stand which she now took shows both her mind and heart:\n\n    \u201cShe strongly disapproved, and urged two reasons against the marriage,\n    to wit, the danger and the disgrace in which it would involve me. She\n    swore--and so it proved--that no satisfaction would ever appease her\n    uncle. She asked how she was to have any glory through me when she\n    should have made me inglorious, and should have humiliated both\n    herself and me. What penalties would the world exact from her if she\n    deprived it of such a luminary; what curses, what damage to the\n    Church, what lamentations of philosophers, would follow on this\n    marriage. How indecent, how lamentable would it be for a man whom\n    nature had made for all, to declare that he belonged to one woman, and\n    subject himself to such shame. From her soul, she detested this\n    marriage which would be so utterly ignominious for me, and a burden to\n    me. She expatiated on the disgrace and inconvenience of matrimony for\n    me and quoted the Apostle Paul exhorting men to shun it. If I would\n    not take the apostle\u2019s advice or listen to what the saints had said\n    regarding the matrimonial yoke, I should at least pay attention to the\n    philosophers--to Theophrastus\u2019s words upon the intolerable evils of\n    marriage, and to the refusal of Cicero to take a wife after he had\n    divorced Terentia, when he said that he could not devote himself to a\n    wife and philosophy at the same time. \u2018Or,\u2019 she continued, laying\n    aside the disaccord between study and a wife, \u2018consider what a married\n    man\u2019s establishment would be to you. What sweet accord there would be\n    between the schools and domestics, between copyists and cradles,\n    between books and distaffs, between pen and spindle! Who, engaged in\n    religious or philosophical meditations, could endure a baby\u2019s crying\n    and the nurse\u2019s ditties stilling it, and all the noise of servants?\n    Could you put up with the dirty ways of children? The rich can, you\n    say, with their palaces and apartments of all kinds; their wealth does\n    not feel the expense or the daily care and annoyance. But I say, the\n    state of the rich is not that of philosophers; nor have men entangled\n    in riches and affairs any time for the study of Scripture or\n    philosophy. The renowned philosophers of old, despising the world,\n    fleeing rather than relinquishing it, forbade themselves all\n    pleasures, and reposed in the embraces of philosophy.\u2019\u201d\n\nSpeaking thus, Helo\u00efse fortified her argument with quotations from Seneca,\nand the examples of Jewish and Gentile worthies and Christian saints, and\ncontinued:\n\n    \u201cIt is not for me to point out--for I would not be thought to instruct\n    Minerva--how soberly and continently all these men lived who,\n    according to Augustine and others, were called philosophers as much\n    for their way of life as or their knowledge. If laymen and Gentiles,\n    bound by no profession of religion, lived thus, surely you, a clerk\n    and canon, should not prefer low pleasures to sacred duties, nor let\n    yourself be sucked down by this Charybdis and smothered in filth\n    inextricably. If you do not value the privilege of a clerk, at least\n    defend the dignity of a philosopher. If reverence for God be despised,\n    still let love of decency temper immodesty. Remember, Socrates was\n    tied to a wife, and through a nasty accident wiped out this blot upon\n    philosophy, that others afterwards might be more cautious; which\n    Jerome relates in his book against Jovinianus, how once when enduring\n    a storm of Xanthippe\u2019s clamours from the floor above, he was ducked\n    with slops, and simply said, \u2018I knew such thunder would bring rain.\u2019\n\n    \u201cFinally she said that it would be dangerous for me to take her back\n    to Paris; it was more becoming to me, and sweeter to her, to be called\n    my mistress, so that affection alone might keep me hers and not the\n    binding power of any matrimonial chain; and if we should be separated\n    for a time, our joys at meeting would be the dearer for their rarity.\n    When at last with all her persuasions and dissuasions she could not\n    turn me from my folly, and could not bear to offend me, with a burst\n    of tears she ended in these words: \u2018One thing is left: in the ruin of\n    us both the grief which follows shall not be less than the love which\n    went before.\u2019 Nor did she here lack the spirit of prophecy.\u201d\n\nHelo\u00efse\u2019s reasonings show love great and true and her absolute devotion to\nAbaelard\u2019s interests. None the less striking is her clear intelligence.\nShe reasoned correctly; she was right, the marriage would do great harm to\nAbaelard and little good to her. We see this too, if we lay aside our\nsense of the ennobling purity of marriage--a sentiment not commonly felt\nin the twelfth century. Marriage was holy in the mind of Christ. But it\ndid not preserve its holiness through the centuries which saw the rise of\nmonasticism and priestly celibacy. A way of life is not pure and holy when\nanother way is holier and purer; this is peculiarly true in Christianity,\nwhich demands the ideal best with such intensity as to cast reflection on\nwhatever falls below the highest standard. From the time of the barbarian\ninroads, on through the Carolingian periods, and into the later Middle\nAges, there was enough barbarism and brutality to prevent the\npreservation, or impede the development, of a high standard of marriage.\nNot monasticism, but his own half-barbarian, lustful heart led Charlemagne\nto marry and remarry at will, and have many mistresses besides. It was the\nsame with the countless barons and mediaeval kings, rude and half\ncivilized. This was barbarous lust, not due to the influence of\nmonasticism. But, on the other hand, it was always the virgin or celibate\nstate that the Church held before the eyes of all this semi-barbarous\nlaity as the ideal for a Christian man or woman. The Church sanctioned\nmarriage, but hardly lauded it or held it up as a condition in which lives\nof holiness and purity could be led. Such were the sentiments in which\nHelo\u00efse was born and bred. They were subconscious factors in her thoughts\nregarding herself and her lover. Devoted and unselfish was her love;\nundoubtedly Helo\u00efse would have sacrificed herself for Abaelard under any\nsocial conditions. Nevertheless, with her, marriage added little to love;\nit was a mere formal and binding authorization; love was no purer for it.\nTo her mind, for a man in Abaelard\u2019s situation to be entangled in a\ntemporary _amour_ was better than to be chained to his passion, with his\ncareer irrevocably ruined, in marriage. In so far as her thoughts or\nAbaelard\u2019s were influenced by the environment of priestly thinking,\nmarriage would seem a rendering permanent of a passionate and sinful\nstate, which it were _best_ to cast off altogether. For herself, as she\nsaid truly, the marriage would bring obloquy rather than reinstatement.\nShe had been mistress to a clerk; marriage would make her the partner of\nhis abandonment of his vocation, the accomplice of broken purposes if not\nof broken vows. And finally, as there was then no line of disgrace as now\nbetween bastard and lawful issue, Helo\u00efse had no thought that the\ninterests of her son demanded that his mother should become his father\u2019s\nwife.\n\n    \u201cLeaving our son in my sister\u2019s care, we stole back to Paris, and\n    shortly after, having in the night celebrated our vigils in a certain\n    church, we were married at dawn in the presence of her uncle and some\n    of his and our friends. We left at once separately and with secrecy,\n    and afterwards saw each other only in privacy, so as to conceal what\n    we had done. But her uncle and his household began at once to announce\n    the marriage and violate his word; while she, on the contrary,\n    protested vehemently and swore that it was false. At that he became\n    enraged and treated her vilely. When I discovered this I sent her to\n    the convent of Argenteuil, near Paris, where she had been educated.\n    There I had her take the garb of a nun, except the veil. Hearing this,\n    the uncle and his relations thought that I had duped them, ridding\n    myself of Helo\u00efse by making her a nun. So having bribed my servant,\n    they came upon me by night, when I was sleeping, and took on me a\n    vengeance as cruel and irretrievable as it was vile and shameful. Two\n    of the perpetrators were pursued and vengeance taken.\n\n    \u201cIn the morning the whole town was assembled, crying and lamenting my\n    plight, especially the clerks and students; at which I was afflicted\n    with more shame than I suffered physical pain. I thought of my ruined\n    hopes and glory, and then saw that by God\u2019s just judgment I was\n    punished where I had most sinned, and that Fulbert had justly\n    avenged treachery with treachery. But what a figure I should cut in\n    public! how the world would point its finger at me! I was also\n    confounded at the thought of the Levitical law, according to which I\n    had become an abomination to the Church.[2] In this misery the\n    confusion of shame--I confess it--rather than the ardour of conversion\n    drove me to the cover of the cloister, after she had willingly obeyed\n    my command to take the veil. I became a monk in the abbey of St.\n    Denis, and she a nun in the convent of Argenteuil. Many begged her not\n    to set that yoke upon her youth; at which, amid her tears, she broke\n    out in Cornelia\u2019s lament: \u2018O great husband! undeserving of my couch!\n    Has fortune rights over a head so high? Why did I, impious, marry thee\n    to make thee wretched? Accept these penalties, which I gladly pay.\u2019[3]\n    With these words, she went straight to the altar, received the veil\n    blessed by the bishop, and took the vows before them all.\u201d\n\nAbaelard\u2019s _Historia calamitatum_ now turns to troubles having no\nconnection with Helo\u00efse: his difficulties with the monks of St. Denis,\nwith other monks, with every one, in fact, except his scholars; his\narraignment before the Council of Soissons, the public burning of his\nbook, _De Unitate et Trinitate divina_, and various other troubles, till,\nseeking a retreat, he constructed an oratory on the bank of the Ardisson.\nHe named it the Paraclete, and there he taught and lectured. He was\nafterwards elected abbot of a monastery in Brittany, where he discovered\nthat those under him were savage beasts rather than monks. Here the\n_Historia calamitatum_ was written.\n\nThe monks of St. Denis had never ceased to hate Abaelard for his assertion\nthat their great Saint was not really Dionysius the Areopagite who heard\nPaul preach. Their abbot now brought forward and proved an ancient title\nto the land where stood the convent of Argenteuil, \u201cin which,\u201d to resume\nAbaelard\u2019s account,\n\n    \u201cshe, once my wife, now my sister in Christ, had taken the veil, and\n    was at this time prioress. The nuns were rudely driven out. News of\n    this came to me as a suggestion from the Lord to bethink me of the\n    deserted Paraclete. Going thither, I invited Helo\u00efse and her nuns to\n    come and take possession. They accepted, and I gave it to them.\n    Afterward Pope Innocent II. confirmed this grant to them and their\n    successors in perpetuity. There for a time they lived in want; but\n    soon the Divine Pity showed itself the true Paraclete, and moved the\n    people of the neighbourhood to take compassion on them, and they soon\n    knew no lack. Indeed as women are the weaker sex, their need moves men\n    more readily to pity, and their virtues are the more grateful to both\n    God and man. And on our sister the Lord bestowed such favour in the\n    eyes of all, that the bishops loved her as a daughter, the abbots as a\n    sister, the laity as a mother; and all wondered at her piety, her\n    wisdom, and her gentle patience in everything. She rarely let herself\n    be seen, that she might devote herself more wholly to prayers and\n    meditations in her cell; but all the more persistently people sought\n    her spiritual counsel.\u201d\n\nWhat were those meditations and those prayers uttered or unuttered in that\ncell? They did not always refer to the kingdom of heaven, judging from the\nabbess\u2019s first letter to her former lover. After the installation of\nHelo\u00efse and her nuns, Abaelard rarely visited the Paraclete, although his\nadvice and instruction was desired there. His visits gave rise to too much\nscandal. In the course of time, however, the _Historia calamitatum_ came\ninto the hands of Helo\u00efse, and occasioned this letter, which seems to\nissue forth out of a long silence; ten years had passed since she became a\nnun. The superscription is as follows:\n\n    \u201cTo her master, rather to a father, to her husband, rather to a\n    brother, his maid or rather daughter, his wife or rather sister, to\n    Abaelard, Helo\u00efse.\n\n    \u201cYour letter, beloved, written to comfort a friend, chanced recently\n    to reach me. Seeing by its first lines from whom it was, I burned to\n    read it for the love I bear the writer, hoping also from its words to\n    recreate an image of him whose life I have ruined. Those words dropped\n    gall and absinthe as they brought back the unhappy story of our\n    intercourse and thy ceaseless crosses, O my only one. Truly the letter\n    must have convinced the friend that his troubles were light compared\n    with yours, as you showed the treachery and persecutions which had\n    followed you, the calumnies of enemies and the burning of your\n    glorious book, the machinations of false brothers, and the vile acts\n    of those worthless monks whom you call your sons. No one could read it\n    with dry eyes. Your perils have renewed my griefs; here we all despair\n    of your life and each day with trembling hearts expect news of your\n    death. In the name of Christ, who so far has somehow preserved thee\n    for himself, deign with frequent letters to let these weak servants of\n    Him and thee know of the storms overwhelming the swimmer, so that we\n    who alone remain to thee may be participators of thy pain or joy. One\n    who grieves may gain consolation from those grieving with him; a\n    burden borne by many is more lightly borne. And if this tempest\n    abates, how happy shall we be to know it. Whatever the letters may\n    contain they will show at least that we are not forgotten. Has not\n    Seneca said in his letter to Lucilius, that the letters of an absent\n    friend are sweet? When no malice can stop your giving us this much of\n    you, do not let neglect prove a bar.\n\n    \u201cYou have written that long letter to console a friend with the story\n    of your own misfortunes, and have thereby roused our grief and added\n    to our desolation. Heal these new wounds. You owe to us a deeper debt\n    of friendship than to him, for we are not only friends, but friends\n    the dearest, and your daughters. After God, you alone are the founder\n    of this place, the builder of this oratory and of this congregation.\n    This new plantation for a holy purpose is your own; the delicate\n    plants need frequent watering. He who gives so much to his enemies,\n    should consider his daughters. Or, leaving out the others here, think\n    how this is owing me from thee: what thou owest to all women under\n    vows, thou shalt pay more devotedly to thine only one. How many books\n    have the holy fathers written for holy women, for their exhortation\n    and instruction! I marvel at thy forgetfulness of these frail\n    beginnings of our conversion. Neither respect of God nor love of us\n    nor the example of the blessed fathers, has led thee by speech or\n    letter to console me, cast about, and consumed with grief. This\n    obligation was the stronger, because the sacrament of marriage joined\n    thee to me, and I--every one sees it--cling to thee with unmeasured\n    love.\n\n    \u201cDearest, thou knowest--who knows not?--how much I lost in thee, and\n    that an infamous act of treachery robbed me of thee and of myself at\n    once. The greater my grief, the greater need of consolation, not from\n    another but from thee, that thou who art alone my cause of grief may\n    be alone my consolation. It is thou alone that canst sadden me or\n    gladden me or comfort me. And thou alone owest this to me, especially\n    since I have done thy will so utterly that, unable to offend thee, I\n    endured to wreck myself at thy command. Nay, more than this, love\n    turned to madness and cut itself off from hope of that which alone it\n    sought, when I obediently changed my garb and my heart too in order\n    that I might prove thee sole owner of my body as well as of my spirit.\n    God knows, I have ever sought in thee only thyself, desiring simply\n    thee and not what was thine. I asked no matrimonial contract, I looked\n    for no dowry; not my pleasure, not my will, but thine have I striven\n    to fulfil. And if the name of wife seemed holier or more potent, the\n    word mistress (_amica_) was always sweeter to me, or even--be not\n    angry!--concubine or harlot; for the more I lowered myself before\n    thee, the more I hoped to gain thy favour, and the less I should hurt\n    the glory of thy renown. This thou didst graciously remember, when\n    condescending to point out in that letter to a friend some of the\n    reasons (but not all!) why I preferred love to wedlock and liberty to\n    a chain. I call God to witness that if Augustus, the master of the\n    world, would honour me with marriage and invest me with equal rule, it\n    would still seem to me dearer and more honourable to be called thy\n    strumpet than his empress. He who is rich and powerful is not the\n    better man: that is a matter of fortune, this of merit. And she is\n    venal who marries a rich man sooner than a poor man, and yearns for a\n    husband\u2019s riches rather than himself. Such a woman deserves pay and\n    not affection. She is not seeking the man but his goods, and would\n    wish, if possible, to prostitute herself to one still richer. Aspasia\n    put this clearly when she was trying to effect a reconciliation\n    between Xenophon and his wife: \u2018Until you come to think that there is\n    nowhere else a better man or a woman more desirable, you will be\n    continually looking for what you think to be the best, and will wish\n    to be married to the man or woman who is the very best.\u2019 This is\n    indeed a holy, rather than a philosophical sentiment, and wisdom, not\n    philosophy, speaks. This is the holy error and blessed deception\n    between man and wife, when affection perfect and unimpaired keeps\n    marriage inviolate not so much by continency of body as by chastity of\n    mind. But what with other women is an error, is, in my case, the\n    manifest truth: since what they suppose in their husbands, I--and the\n    whole world agrees--know to be in thee. My love for thee is truth,\n    being free from all error. Who among kings or philosophers can vie\n    with your fame? What country, what city does not thirst to see you?\n    Who, I ask, did not hurry to see you appearing in public and crane his\n    neck to catch a last glimpse as you departed? What wife, what maid did\n    not yearn for you absent, and burn when you were present? What queen\n    did not envy me my joys and couch? There were in you two qualities by\n    which you could draw the soul of any woman, the gift of poetry and the\n    gift of singing, gifts which other philosophers have lacked. As a\n    distraction from labour, you composed love-songs both in metre and in\n    rhyme, which for their sweet sentiment and music have been sung and\n    resung and have kept your name in every mouth. Your sweet melodies do\n    not permit even the illiterate to forget you. Because of these gifts\n    women sighed for your love. And, as these songs sung of our loves,\n    they quickly spread my name in many lands, and made me the envy of my\n    sex. What excellence of mind or body did not adorn your youth? No\n    woman, then envious, but now would pity me bereft of such delights.\n    What enemy even would not now be softened by the compassion due me?\n\n    \u201cI have brought thee evil, thou knowest how innocently. Not the result\n    of the act but the disposition of the doer makes the crime; justice\n    does not consider what happens, but through what intent it happens. My\n    intent towards thee thou only hast proved and alone canst judge. I\n    commit everything to thy weighing and submit to thy decree.\n\n    \u201cTell me one thing: why, after our conversion, commanded by thee, did\n    I drop into oblivion, to be no more refreshed by speech of thine or\n    letter? Tell me, I say, if you can, or I will say what I feel and what\n    every one suspects: desire rather than friendship drew you to me, lust\n    rather than love. So when desire ceased, whatever you were manifesting\n    for its sake likewise vanished. This, beloved, is not so much my\n    opinion as the opinion of all. Would it were only mine and that thy\n    love might find defenders to argue away my pain. Would that I could\n    invent some reason to excuse you and also cover my cheapness. Listen,\n    I beg, to what I ask, and it will seem small and very easy to you.\n    Since I am cheated of your presence, at least put vows in words, of\n    which you have a store, and so keep before me the sweetness of thine\n    image. I shall vainly expect you to be bountiful in acts if I find you\n    a miser in words. Truly I thought that I merited much from you, when I\n    had done all for your sake and still continue in obedience. When\n    little more than a girl I took the hard vows of a nun, not from piety\n    but at your command. If I merit nothing from thee, how vain I deem my\n    labour! I can expect no reward from God, as I have done nothing from\n    love of Him. Thee hurrying to God I followed, or rather went before.\n    For, as you remembered how Lot\u2019s wife turned back, you first delivered\n    me to God bound with the vow, and then yourself. That single act of\n    distrust, I confess, grieved me and made me blush. God knows, at your\n    command I would have followed or preceded you to fiery places. For my\n    heart is not with me, but with thee; and now more than ever, if not\n    with thee it is nowhere, for it cannot exist without thee. That my\n    heart may be well with thee, see to it, I beg; and it will be well if\n    it finds thee kind, rendering grace for grace--a little for much.\n    Beloved, would that thy love were less sure of me so that it might be\n    more solicitous; I have made you so secure that you are negligent.\n    Remember all I have done and think what you owe. While I enjoyed\n    carnal joy with you, many people were uncertain whether I acted from\n    love or lust. Now the end makes clear the beginning; I have cut myself\n    off from pleasure to obey thy will. I have kept nothing, save to be\n    more than ever thine. Think how wicked it were in thee where all the\n    more is due to render less, nothing almost; especially when little is\n    asked, and that so easy for you. In the name of God to whom you have\n    vowed yourself, give me that of thee which is possible, the\n    consolation of a letter. I promise, thus refreshed, to serve God more\n    readily. When of old you would call me to pleasures, you sought me\n    with frequent letters, and never failed with thy songs to keep thy\n    Helo\u00efse on every tongue; the streets, the houses re-echoed me. How\n    much fitter that you should now incite me to God than then to lust?\n    Bethink thee what thou owest; heed what I ask; and a long letter I\n    will conclude with a brief ending: farewell only one!\u201d\n\nRemarks upon this letter would seem to profane a shrine--had the man\nprofaned that shrine? He had not always worshipped there. Helo\u00efse knew\nthis, for all her love. She said it too, writing in phraseology which had\nbeen brutalized through the denouncing spirit of Latin monasticism. How\ntruly she puts the situation and how clearly she thinks withal, discerning\nas it were the beautiful and true in love and marriage. The whole letter\nis well arranged, and written in a style showing the writer\u2019s training in\nLatin mediaeval rhetoric. It was not the less deeply felt because composed\nwith care and skill. Evidently the writer is of the Middle Ages; her\noccasional prolixity was not of her sex but of her time; and she quotes\nthe ancients so naturally; what they say should be convincing. How the\nletter bares the motives of her own conduct: not for God\u2019s sake, or the\nkingdom of heaven\u2019s sake, but for Abaelard\u2019s sake she became a nun. She\nhad no inclination thereto; her letters do not indicate that she ever\nbecame really and spontaneously devoted to her calling. Abaelard was her\nGod, and as her God she held him to the end; though she applied herself to\nthe consideration of religious topics, as we shall see. Moreover, her\nposition as nun and abbess could not fail to force such topics on her\nconsideration.\n\nIs there another such love-letter, setting forth a situation so\ntriple-barred and hopeless? And the love which fills the letter, which\nthrobs and burns in it, which speaks and argues in it, how absolute is\nthis love. It is love carried out to its full conclusions; it includes the\nwhole woman and the whole of her life; whatever lies beyond its ken and\ncare is scorned and rejected. This love is extreme in its humility, and\nyet realizes its own purity and worth; it is grieved at the thought of\nrousing a feeling baser than itself. Helo\u00efse had been and still was\nHelo\u00efse, devoted and self-sacrificing in her love. But the situation has\nbecome torture; her heart is filled with all manner of pain, old and new,\ntill it is driven to assert its right at least to consolation. Thus\nHelo\u00efse\u2019s love becomes insistent and requiring. Was it possibly burdensome\nto the man who now might wish to think no more of passion? who might wish\nno longer to be loved in that way? In his reply Abaelard does not unveil\nhimself; he seems to take an attitude which may have been the most\nfaithful expression that he could devise of his changed self.\n\n    \u201cTo Helo\u00efse his beloved sister in Christ, Abaelard her brother in the\n    Same.\u201d\n\nThis superscription was a gentle reminder of their present\nrelationship--in Christ. The writer begins: his not having written since\ntheir conversion was to be ascribed not to his negligence, but to his\nconfidence in her wisdom; he did not think that she who, so full of grace,\nhad consoled her sister nuns when prioress, could as abbess need teaching\nor exhortation for the guidance of her daughters; but if, in her humility,\nshe felt the need of his instruction in matters pertaining to God, she\nmight write, and he would answer, as the Lord should grant. Thanks be to\nGod who had filled their hearts--hers and her nuns--with solicitude for\nhis perils, and had made them participators in his afflictions; through\ntheir prayers the divine pity had protected him. He had hastened to send\nthe Psalter, requested by his sister, formerly dear to him in the world\nand now most dear in Christ, to assist their prayers. The potency of\nprayer, with God and the saints, and especially the prayer of women for\nthose dear to them, is frequently declared in Scripture; he cites a number\nof passages to prove it. May these move her to pray for him. He refers\nwith affectionate gratitude to the prayers which the nuns had been\noffering for him, and encloses a short prayer for his safety, which he\nbegs and implores may be used in their daily canonical hours. If the Lord,\nhowever, delivers him into the hands of his enemies to kill him, or if he\nmeet his death in any way, he begs that his body may be brought to the\nParaclete for burial, so that the sight of his sepulchre may move his\ndaughters and sisters in Christ to pray for him; no place could be so safe\nand salutary for the soul of one bitterly repenting of his sins, as that\nconsecrated to the true Paraclete--the Comforter; nor could fitter\nChristian burial be found than among women devoted by their vows to\nChrist. He begs that the great solicitude which they now have for his\nbodily safety, they will then have for the salvation of his soul, and by\nthe suffrage of their prayer for the dead man show how they had loved him\nwhen alive. The letter closes, not with a personal word to Helo\u00efse, but\nwith this distich:\n\n  \u201cVive, vale, vivantque tuae valeantque sorores,\n   Vivite, sed Christo, quaeso, mei memores.\u201d\n\nThus as against Helo\u00efse\u2019s beseeching love, Abaelard lifted his hands,\npalms out, repelling it. His letter ignored all that filled the soul and\nthe letter of Helo\u00efse. His reply did not lack words of spiritual\naffection, and its tone was not as formal then as it now seems. When\nAbaelard asked for the prayers of Helo\u00efse and her nuns, he meant it; he\ndesired the efficacy of their prayers. Then he wished to be buried among\nthem. We are touched by this; but, again, Abaelard meant it, as he said,\nfor his soul\u2019s welfare; it was no love sentiment. The letter stirred the\nheart of Helo\u00efse to a rebellious outcry against the cruelty of God, if not\nof Abaelard, a soul\u2019s cry against life and the calm attitude of one who no\nlonger was--or at least meant to be no longer--what he had been to her.\n\n    \u201cTo her only one, next to Christ, his only one in Christ.\n\n    \u201cI wonder, my only one, that contrary to epistolary custom and the\n    natural order of things, in the salutation of your letter you have\n    placed me before you, a woman before a man, a wife before a husband, a\n    servant before her lord, a nun before a monk and priest, a deaconess\n    before an abbot. The proper order is for one writing to a superior to\n    put his own name last, but when writing to an inferior, the writer\u2019s\n    name should precede. We also marvelled, that where you should have\n    afforded us consolation, you added to our desolation, and excited the\n    tears you should have quieted. How could we restrain our tears when\n    reading what you wrote towards the end: \u2018If the Lord shall deliver me\n    into the hand of my enemies to slay me\u2019! Dearest, how couldst thou\n    think or say that? May God never forget His handmaids, to leave them\n    living when you are no more! May He never allot to us that life, which\n    would be harder than any death! It is for you to perform our obsequies\n    and commend our souls to God, and send before to God those whom you\n    have gathered for Him--that you may have no further anxiety, and\n    follow us the more gladly because assured of our safety. Refrain, my\n    lord, I beg, from making the miserable most miserable with such words;\n    destroy not our life before we die. \u2018Sufficient unto the day is the\n    evil thereof\u2019--and that day will come to all with bitterness enough.\n    \u2018What need,\u2019 says Seneca, \u2018to add to evil, and destroy life before\n    death?\u2019\n\n    \u201cThou askest, only one, that, in the event of thy death when absent\n    from us, we should have thy body brought to our cemetery, in order\n    that, being always in our memory, thou shouldst obtain greater benefit\n    from our prayers. Did you think that your memory could slip from us?\n    How could we pray, with distracted minds? What use of tongue or reason\n    would be left to us? When the mind is crazed against God it will not\n    placate Him with prayer so much as irritate Him with complaints. We\n    could only weep, pressing to follow rather than bury you. How could we\n    live after we had lost our life in you? The thought of your death is\n    death to us; what would be the actuality? God grant we shall not have\n    to pay those rites to one from whom we look for them; may we go before\n    and not follow! A heart crushed with grief is not calm, nor is a mind\n    tossed by troubles open to God. Do not, I beg, hinder the divine\n    service to which we are dedicated.\n\n    \u201cWhat remains of hope for me when thou art gone? Or what reason to\n    continue in this pilgrimage, where I have no solace save thee? and of\n    thee I have but the bare knowledge that thou dost live, since thy\n    restoring presence is not granted me. Oh!--if it is right to say\n    it--how cruel has God been to me! Inclement Clemency! Fortune has\n    emptied her quiver against me, so that others have nothing to fear! If\n    indeed a single dart were left, no place could be found in me for a\n    new wound. Fortune fears only lest I escape her tortures by death.\n    Wretched and unhappy! in thee I was lifted above all women; in thee am\n    I the more fatally thrown down. What glory did I have in thee! what\n    ruin have I now! Fortune made me the happiest of women that she might\n    make me the most miserable. The injury was the more outrageous in that\n    all ways of right were broken. While we were abandoned to love\u2019s\n    delights, the divine severity spared us. When we made the forbidden\n    lawful and by marriage wiped out fornication\u2019s stains, the Lord\u2019s\n    wrath broke on us, impatient of an unsullied bed when it long had\n    borne with one defiled. A man taken in adultery would have been amply\n    punished by what came to you. What others deserved for adultery, that\n    you got from the marriage which you thought had made amends for\n    everything. Adulteresses bring their paramours what your own wife\n    brought you. Not when we lived for pleasure, but when, separated, we\n    lived in chastity, you presiding at the Paris schools, I at thy\n    command dwelling with the nuns at Argenteuil; you devoted to study, I\n    to prayer and holy reading; it was then that you alone paid the\n    penalty for what we had done together. Alone you bore the punishment,\n    which you deserved less than I. When you had humiliated yourself and\n    elevated me and all my kin, you little merited that punishment either\n    from God or from those traitors. Miserable me, begotten to cause such\n    a crime! O womankind ever the ruin of the noblest men![4]\n\n    \u201cWell the Tempter knows how easy is man\u2019s overthrow through a wife. He\n    cast his malice over us, and the man whom he could not throw down\n    through fornication, he tried with marriage, using a good to bring\n    about an evil where evil means had failed. I thank God at least for\n    this, that the Tempter did not draw me to assent to that which became\n    the cause of the evil deed. Yet, although in this my mind absolves me,\n    too many sins had gone before to leave me guiltless of that crime. For\n    long a servant of forbidden joys, I earned the punishment which I now\n    suffer of past sins. Let the evil end be attributed to ill beginnings!\n    May my penitence be meet for what I have done, and may long remorse in\n    some way compensate for the penalty you suffered! What once you\n    suffered in the body, may I through contrition bear to the end of\n    life, that so I may make satisfaction to thee if not to God. To\n    confess the infirmities of my most wretched soul, I can find no\n    penitence to offer God, whom I never cease to accuse of utter cruelty\n    towards you. Rebellious to His rule, I offend Him with indignation\n    more than I placate Him with penitence. For that cannot be called the\n    sinner\u2019s penitence where, whatever be the body\u2019s suffering, the mind\n    retains the will to sin and still burns with the same desires. It is\n    easy in confession to accuse oneself of sins, and also to do penance\n    with the body; but hard indeed to turn the heart from the desire of\n    its greatest joys![5] Love\u2019s pleasures, which we knew together, cannot\n    be made displeasing to me nor driven from my memory. Wherever I turn,\n    they press upon me, nor do they spare my dreams. Even in the solemn\n    moments of the Mass, when prayer should be the purest, their phantoms\n    catch my soul. When I should groan for what I have done, I sigh for\n    what I have lost. Not only our acts, but times and places stick fast\n    in my mind, and my body quivers. O truly wretched me, fit only to\n    utter this cry of the soul: \u2018Wretched that I am, who shall deliver me\n    from the body of this death?\u2019 Would I could add with truth what\n    follows:--\u2018I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.\u2019 Such\n    thanksgiving, dearest, may be thine, by one bodily ill cured of many\n    tortures of the soul, and God may have been merciful where He seemed\n    against you; like a good physician who does not spare the pain needed\n    to save life. But I am tortured with passion and the fires of memory.\n    They call me chaste, who do not know me for a hypocrite. They look\n    upon purity of the flesh as virtue--which is of the soul, not of the\n    body. Having some praise from men, I merit none from God, who knows\n    the heart. I am called religious at a time when most religion is\n    hypocrisy, and when whoever keeps from offence against human law is\n    praised. Perhaps it seems praiseworthy and acceptable to God, through\n    decent conduct,--whatever the intent--to avoid scandalizing the Church\n    or causing the Lord\u2019s name to be blasphemed or the religious Order\n    discredited. Perhaps it may be of grace just to abstain from evil. But\n    the Scripture says, \u2018Refrain from evil and do good\u2019; and vainly he\n    attempts either who does not act from love of God. God knows that I\n    have always feared to offend thee more than I feared to offend Him;\n    and have desired to please thee rather than Him. Thy command, not the\n    divine love, put on me this garb of religion. What a wretched life I\n    lead if I vainly endure all this here and am to have no reward\n    hereafter. My hypocrisy has long deceived you, as it has others, and\n    therefore you desire my prayers. Have no such confidence; I need your\n    prayers; do not withdraw their aid. Do not take away the medicine,\n    thinking me whole. Do not cease to think me needy; do not think me\n    strong; do not delay your help. Cease from praising me, I beg. No one\n    versed in medicine will judge of inner disease from outward view. Thy\n    praise is the more perilous because I love it, and desire to please\n    thee always. Be fearful rather than confident regarding me, so that I\n    may have the help of your care. Do not seek to spur me on, by quoting,\n    \u2018For strength is made perfect in weakness,\u2019 or \u2018He is not crowned\n    unless he have contended lawfully.\u2019 I am not looking for the crown of\n    victory; enough for me to escape peril;--safer to shun peril than to\n    wage war! In whatever little corner of heaven God puts me, that will\n    satisfy me. Hear what Saint Jerome says: \u2018I confess my weakness; I do\n    not wish to fight for the hope of victory, lest I lose.\u2019 Why give up\n    certainties to follow the uncertain?\u201d\n\nThis letter gives a view of Helo\u00efse\u2019s mind, its strong grasp and its\ncapacity for reasoning, though its reasoning is here distraught with\npassion. Scathingly, half-blinded by her pain, she declares the\nperversities of Providence, as they glared upon her. Such a disclosure of\nthe woman\u2019s mind suggests how broadly based in thought and largely reared\nwas that great love into which her whole soul had been poured, the mind as\nwell as heart. Her love was great, unique, not only from its force of\nfeeling, but from the power and scope of thought by which passion and\nfeeling were carried out so far and fully to the last conclusions of\ndevotion. The letter also shows a woman driven by stress of misery to\nutter cries and clutch at remedies that her calmer self would have put\nby. It is not hypocrisy to conceal the desires or imaginings which one\nwould never act upon. To tell these is not true disclosure of oneself, but\nslander. Torn by pain, Helo\u00efse makes herself more vile and needy than in\nother moments she knew herself to be. Yet the letter also uncovers her,\nand in nakedness there is some truth. Doubtless her nun\u2019s garb did clothe\na hypocrite. Whatever she felt--and here we see the worst she felt--before\nthe world she had to act the nun. We shall soon see how she forced herself\nto act, or be, the nun toward Abaelard.\n\nAbaelard replied in a letter filled with religious argument and\nconsolation. It was self-controlled, firm, authoritative, and strong in\nthose arguments regarding God\u2019s mercy which have stood the test of time.\nIf they sometimes fail to satisfy the embittered soul, at least they are\nthe best that man has known. And withal, the letter is calmly and nobly\naffectionate--what place was there for love\u2019s protestations? They would\nhave increased the evil, adding fuel to Helo\u00efse\u2019s passionate misery.\n\nThe master-note is struck in the address: \u201cTo the spouse of Christ, His\nservant.\u201d The letter seeks to turn Helo\u00efse\u2019s thoughts to her nun\u2019s calling\nand her soul\u2019s salvation. It divides her expressions of complaint under\nfour heads. First, he had put her name first, because she had become his\nsuperior from the moment of her bridal with his master Christ. Jerome\nwriting to Eustochium called her Lady, when she had become the spouse of\nJerome\u2019s Lord. Abaelard shows, with citations from the Song of Songs, the\nglory of the spouse, and how her prayers should be sought by one who was\nthe servant of her Husband. Second, as to the terrors roused in her by his\nmention of his peril and possible death, he points out that in her first\nletter she had bidden him write of those perils; if they brought him\ndeath, she should deem that a kind release. She should not wish to see his\nmiseries drawn out, even for her sake. Third, he shows that his praise of\nher was justified even by her disclaimer of merit--as it is written, Who\nhumbles himself shall be exalted. He warns her against false modesty which\nmay be vanity.\n\nHe turns at last to the old and ceaseless plaint which she makes against\nGod for cruelty, when she should rather glorify Him; he had thought that\nthat bitterness had departed, so dangerous for her, so painful to him. If\nshe wished to please him, let her lay it aside; retaining it, she could\nnot please him or advance with him to blessedness; let her have this much\nreligion, not to separate herself from him hastening to God; let her take\ncomfort in their journeying to the same goal. He then shows her that his\npunishment was just as well as merciful; he had deserved it from God and\nalso from Fulbert. If she will consider, she will see in it God\u2019s justice\nand His mercy; God had saved them from shipwreck; had raised a barrier\nagainst shame and lust. For himself the punishment was purification, not\nprivation; will not she, as his inseparable comrade, participate in the\nworkings of this grace, even as she shared the guilt and its pardon? Once\nhe had thought of binding her to him in wedlock; but God found a means to\nturn them both to Him; and the Lord was continuing His mercy towards her,\ncausing her to bring forth spiritual daughters, when otherwise she would\nonly have borne children in the flesh; in her the curse of Eve is turned\nto the blessing of Mary. God had purified them both; whom God loveth He\ncorrecteth. Oh! let her thoughts dwell with the Son of God, seized,\ndragged, beaten, spit upon, crowned with thorns, hung on a vile cross. Let\nher think of Him as her spouse, and for Him let her make lament; He bought\nher with himself, He loved her. In comparison with His love, his own\n(Abaelard\u2019s) was lust, seeking the pleasure it could get from her. If he,\nAbaelard, had suffered for her, it was not willingly nor for her sake, as\nChrist had suffered, and for her salvation. Let her weep for Him who made\nher whole, not for her corrupter; for her Redeemer, not for her defiler;\nfor the Lord who died for her, not for the living servant, himself just\nfreed from the death. Let his sister accept with patience what came to her\nin mercy from Him who wounded the body to save the soul.\n\n    \u201cWe are one in Christ, as through marriage we were one flesh. Whatever\n    is thine is not alien to me. Christ is thine, because thou art His\n    spouse. And now thou hast me for a servant, who formerly was thy\n    master--a servant united to thee by spiritual love. I trust in thy\n    pleading with Him for such defence as my own prayers may not obtain.\n    That nothing may hinder this petition I have composed this prayer,\n    which I send thee: \u2018O God, who formed woman from the side of man and\n    didst sanction the sacrament of marriage; who didst bestow upon my\n    frailty a cure for its incontinence; do not despise the prayers of thy\n    handmaid, and the prayers which I pour out for my sins and those of my\n    dear one. Pardon our great crimes, and may the enormity of our faults\n    find the greatness of thy ineffable mercy. Punish the culprits in the\n    present; spare, in the future. Thou hast joined us, Lord, and hast\n    divided us, as it pleased thee. Now complete most mercifully what thou\n    hast begun in mercy; and those whom thou hast divided in this world,\n    join eternally in heaven, thou who art our hope, our portion, our\n    expectation, our consolation, Lord blessed forever. Amen.\u2019\n\n    \u201cFarewell in Christ, spouse of Christ; in Christ farewell and in\n    Christ live. Amen.\u201d\n\nIn her next letter Helo\u00efse obeys, and turns her pen if not her thoughts to\nthe topics suggested by Abaelard\u2019s admonitions. The short scholastically\nphrased address cannot be rendered in any modern fashion: \u201cDomino\nspecialiter sua singulariter.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThat you may have no further reason to call me disobedient, your\n    command shall bridle the words of unrestrained grief; in writing I\n    will moderate my language, which I might be unable to do in speech.\n    Nothing is less in our power than our heart; which compels us to obey\n    more often than it obeys us. When our affections goad us, we cannot\n    keep the sudden impulse from breaking out in words; as it is written,\n    \u2018From the fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh.\u2019 So I will withhold\n    my hand from writing whenever I am unable to control my words. Would\n    that the sorrowing heart were as ready to obey as the hand that\n    writes! You can afford some remedy to grief, even when unable to\n    dispel it quite. As one nail driven in drives out another, a new\n    thought pushes away its predecessor, and the mind is freed for a time.\n    A thought, moreover, takes the mind up and leads it from others more\n    effectually, if the subject of the thought is excellent and of great\n    importance.\u201d\n\nThe rest of this long letter shows Helo\u00efse putting her principles in\npractice. She is forcing her mind to consider and her pen to discourse\nupon topics which might properly occupy an abbess\u2019s thoughts--topics,\nmoreover, which would satisfy Abaelard and call forth long letters in\nreply. Whether she cared really for these matters or ever came to care\nfor them; or whether she turned to them to distract her mind and keep up\nsome poor makeshift of intercourse with one who would and could no longer\nbe her lover; or whether all these motives mingled, and in what\nproportion, perhaps may best be left to Him who tries the heart.\n\nThe abbess writes:\n\n    \u201cAll of us here, servants of Christ and thy daughters, make two\n    requests of thy fathership which we deem most needful. The one is,\n    that you would instruct us concerning the origins of the order of nuns\n    and the authority for our calling. The other is, that you would draw\n    up a written _regula_, suitable for women, which shall prescribe and\n    set the order and usages of our convent. We do not find any adequate\n    _regula_ for women among the works of the holy Fathers. It is a\n    manifest defect in monastic institutions that the same rules should be\n    imposed upon both monks and nuns, and that the weaker sex should bear\n    the same monastic yoke as the stronger.\u201d\n\nHelo\u00efse, having set this task for Abaelard, proceeds to show how the\nvarious monastic _regulae_, from Benedict\u2019s downward, failed to make\nsuitable provision for the habits and requirements and weaknesses of\nwomen, the _regulae_ hitherto having been concerned with the weaknesses of\nmen. She enters upon matters of clothing and diet, and everything\nconcerning the lives of nuns. She writes as one learned in Scripture and\nthe writings of the Fathers, and sets the whole matter forth, in its\ndetails, with admirable understanding of its intricacies. She concludes,\nreminding Abaelard that it is for him in his lifetime to set a _regula_\nfor them to follow forever; after God, he is their founder. They might\nthereafter have some teacher who would build in alien fashion; such a one\nmight have less care and understanding, and might not be as readily obeyed\nas himself; it is for him to speak, and they will listen. _Vale._\n\nThe first of Helo\u00efse\u2019s letters is a great expression of a great love; in\nthe second, anguish drives the writer\u2019s hand; in the third, she has gained\nself-control; she suppresses her heart, and writes a letter which is\ndiscursive and impersonal from the beginning to the little _Vale_ at the\nend.\n\nAbaelard returned a long epistle upon the Scriptural origin of the order\nof nuns, and soon followed it with another, still longer, containing\ninstruction, advice, and rules for the nuns of the Paraclete. He also\nwrote them a letter upon the study of Scripture. From this time forth he\nproved his devotion to Helo\u00efse and her nuns by the large body of writings\nwhich he composed for their edification. Helo\u00efse sent him a long list of\nquestions upon obscure phrases and knotty points of Scripture, which he\nanswered diligently in detail.[6] He then sent her a collection of hymns\nwritten or \u201crearranged\u201d by himself for the use of the nuns, accompanied by\na prefatory letter: \u201cAt thy prayers, my sister Helo\u00efse, once dear to me in\nthe world, now most dear in Christ, I have composed what in Greek are\ncalled hymns, and in Hebrew _tillim_.\u201d He then explains why, yielding to\nthe requests of the nuns, he had written hymns, of which the Church had\nsuch a store.\n\nNext he composed for them a large volume of sermons, which he also sent\nwith a letter to Helo\u00efse: \u201cHaving completed the book of hymns and\nsequences, revered in Christ and loved sister Helo\u00efse, I have hastened to\ncompose some sermons for your congregation; I have paid more attention to\nthe meaning than the language. But perhaps an unstudied style is well\nsuited to simple auditors. In composing and arranging these sermons I have\nfollowed the order of Church festivals. Farewell in the Lord, servant of\nHis, once dear to me in the world, now most dear in Christ: in the flesh\nthen my wife, now my sister in the spirit and partner in our sacred\ncalling.\u201d\n\nAt a subsequent period, when his opinions were condemned by the Council of\nSens, he sent to Helo\u00efse a confession of faith. Shortly afterward his\nstormy life found a last refuge in the monastery of Cluny. His closing\nyears (of peace?) are described in a letter to Helo\u00efse from the good and\nrevered abbot, Peter the Venerable. He writes that he had received with\njoy the letter which her affection had dictated,[7] and now took the first\nopportunity to express his recognition of her affection and his reverence\nfor herself. He refers to her keenly prosecuted studies (so rare for\nwomen) before taking the veil, and then to the glorious example of her\nsage and holy life in the nun\u2019s sacred calling--her victory over the proud\nPrince of this World. His admiration for her was deep; his expression of\nit was extreme. A learned, wise, and holy woman could not be praised more\nardently than Helo\u00efse is praised by this good man. He had spoken of the\nadvantages his monastery would have derived from her presence, and then\ncontinued:\n\n    \u201cBut although God\u2019s providence denied us this, it was granted us to\n    enjoy the presence of him--who was yours--Master Peter Abaelard, a man\n    always to be spoken of with honour as a true servant of Christ and a\n    philosopher. The divine dispensation placed him in Cluny for his last\n    years, and through him enriched our monastery with treasure richer\n    than gold. No brief writing could do justice to his holy, humble, and\n    devoted life among us. I have not seen his equal in humility of garb\n    and manner. When in the crowd of our brethren I forced him to take a\n    first place, in meanness of clothing he appeared as the last of all.\n    Often I marvelled, as the monks walked past me, to see a man so great\n    and famous thus despise and abase himself. He was abstemious in food\n    and drink, refusing and condemning everything beyond the bare\n    necessities. He was assiduous in study, frequent in prayer, always\n    silent unless compelled to answer the question of some brother or\n    expound sacred themes before us. He partook of the sacrament as often\n    as possible. Truly his mind, his tongue, his act, taught and\n    exemplified religion, philosophy, and learning. So he dwelt with us, a\n    man simple and righteous, fearing God, turning from evil, consecrating\n    to God the latter days of his life. At last, because of his bodily\n    infirmities, I sent him to a quiet and salubrious retreat on the banks\n    of the Saone. There he bent over his books, as long as his strength\n    lasted, always praying, reading, writing, or dictating. In these\n    sacred exercises, not sleeping but watching, he was found by the\n    heavenly Visitor; who summoned him to the eternal wedding-feast not as\n    a foolish but as a wise virgin, bearing his lamp filled with oil--the\n    consciousness of a holy life. When he came to pay humanity\u2019s last\n    debt, his illness was brief. With holy devotion he made confession of\n    the Catholic Faith, then of his sins. The brothers who were with him\n    can testify how devoutly he received the viaticum of that last\n    journey, and with what fervent faith he commended his body and soul to\n    his Redeemer. Thus this master, Peter, completed his days. He who was\n    known throughout the world by the fame of his teaching, entered the\n    school of Him who said, \u2018Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of\n    heart\u2019; and continuing meek and lowly he passed to Him, as we may\n    believe.\n\n    \u201cVenerable and dearest sister in the Lord, the man who was once joined\n    to thee in the flesh, and then by the stronger chain of divine love,\n    him in thy stead, or as another thee, the Lord holds in His bosom; and\n    at the day of His coming, His grace will restore him to thee.\u201d\n\nThe abbot afterwards visited the Paraclete, and on returning to Cluny\nreceived this letter from the abbess:\n\n    \u201cGod\u2019s mercy visiting us, we have been visited by the favour of your\n    graciousness. We are glad, kindest father, and we glory that your\n    greatness condescended to our insignificance. A visit from you is an\n    honour even to the great. The others may know the great benefit they\n    received from the presence of your highness. I cannot tell in words,\n    or even comprehend in thought, how beneficial and how sweet your\n    coming was to me. You, our abbot and our lord, celebrated mass with us\n    the sixteenth of the Calends of last December; you commended us to the\n    Holy Spirit; you nourished us with the Divine Word;--you gave us the\n    body of the master, and confirmed that gift from Cluny. To me also,\n    unworthy to be your servant, though by word and letter you have called\n    me sister, you gave as a pledge of sincere love the privilege of a\n    Tricenarium, to be performed by the brethren of Cluny, after my death,\n    for the benefit of my soul. You have promised to confirm this under\n    your seal. May you fulfil this, my lord. Might it please you also to\n    send to me that other sealed roll, containing the absolution of the\n    master, that I may hang it on his tomb. Remember also, for the love of\n    God, our--and your--Astralabius, to obtain for him a prebend from the\n    bishop of Paris or another. Farewell. May God preserve you, and grant\n    to us sometime your presence.\u201d\n\nThe good abbot replied with a kind and affectionate letter, confirming his\ngift of the Tricenarium, promising to do all he could for Astralabius, and\nsending with his letter the record of Abaelard\u2019s absolution, as follows:\n\n    \u201cI, Peter, Abbot of Cluny, who received Peter Abaelard to be a monk in\n    Cluny, and granted his body, secretly transported, to the Abbess\n    Helo\u00efse and the nuns of the Paraclete, absolve him, in the performance\n    of my office (_pro officio_) by the authority of the omnipotent God\n    and all the saints, from all his sins.\u201d\n\nAbaelard died in the year 1142, aged sixty-three. Twenty-one years\nafterward Helo\u00efse died at the same age, and was buried in the same tomb\nwith him at the Paraclete:\n\n  \u201cHoc tumulo abbatissa jacet prudens Helo\u00efssa.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI\n\nGERMAN CONSIDERATIONS: WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE\n\n\nA criticism of the world of feudalism, chivalry, and love may be had from\nthe impressions and temperamental reactions of a certain thinking atom\nrevolving in the same. The atom referred to was Walther von der\nVogelweide, a German, a knight, a Minnesinger, and a national poet whose\nthoughts were moved by the instincts of his caste and race.\n\nIn language, temperament, and character, the Germans east of the Rhine\nwere Germans still in the thirteenth century. They had accepted, and even\nvitally appropriated, Latin Christianity; those of them who were educated\nhad received a Latin education. Yet their natures, though somewhat\ntempered, showed largely and distinctly German. Moreover, through the\ncenturies, they had acquired--or rather they had never lost--a national\nantipathy toward those Roman papal well-springs of authority, which seemed\nto suck back German gold and lands in return for spiritual assurance and\npolitical betrayal.\n\nA different and already mediaevalized element had also become part of\nGerman culture, to wit, the matter of the French Arthurian romances and\nthe lyric fashions of Provence, which, working together, had captivated\nmodish German circles from the Rhine to the Danube. Nevertheless the\nGerman character maintained itself in the _Minnelieder_ which followed\nProven\u00e7al poetry, and in the _h\u00f6fisch_ (courtly) epics which were palpable\ntranslations from the French.[8] The distinguished group of German poets\nwhose lives fall around the year 1200, were as German as their language,\nalthough they borrowed from abroad the form and matter of their\ncompositions.\n\nThere could be no better Germans than the two most thoughtful of this\ngroup, Wolfram von Eschenbach and Walther von der Vogelweide. Most\nGermanically the former wrestled with that ancient theme, \u201cfrom suffering,\nwisdom,\u201d which he pressed into the tale of _Parzival_. His great poem,\nachieved with toil and sweat, was mighty in its climaxes, and fit to\nstrengthen the hearts of those men who through sorrow and loneliness and\ndespair\u2019s temptations were growing \u201cslowly wise.\u201d\n\nThe virtues which Wolfram praised and embodied in his hero were those\npraised in the verses, and even, one may think, strugglingly exemplified\nin the conduct, of Walther von der Vogelweide,[9] most famous of\nMinnesingers, and a power in the German lands through his _Spr\u00fcche_, or\nverses personal and political. Less is known of his life than of his whole\nand manly views, his poetic fancies, his musings, his hopes, and great\ndepressions. Many places have claimed the honour of his birth, which took\nplace somewhat before 1170. He was poor, and through his youth and manhood\nmoved about from castle to castle, and from court to court, seeking to win\nsome recompense for his excellent verses and good company. Thus he learned\nmuch of men, \u201cclimbing another\u2019s stairs,\u201d with his fellows, at the\nLandgraf Hermann\u2019s Wartburg, or at the Austrian ducal Court.\n\nWalther\u2019s _Spr\u00fcche_ render his moods most surely, and reflect his outlook\non the world. His charming _Minnelieder_ bear more conventional evidence.\nThe courtly German love-songs passing by this name were affected by the\nconceits and conventions of the Proven\u00e7al poetry upon which they were\nmodelled. A strong nature might use such with power, or break with their\ninfluence. Walther made his own the high convention of trouv\u00e8re and\ntroubadour, that love uplifts the lover\u2019s being. Besides this, and besides\nthe lighter forms and phrases current in such poetry, his _Lieder_ carry\nnatural feeling, joy, and moral levity, according to the theme; they also\nmay express Walther\u2019s convictions.\n\nTo take examples: Walther\u2019s _Tagelied_[10] imitates the Proven\u00e7al _alba_\n(dawn), in which knight and truant lady bewail the coming of the light and\nthe parting which it brings. Far more joyous, and as immoral as one\npleases, is _Unter der Linde_, most famous of his songs. Marvellously it\ngives the mood of love\u2019s joy remembered--and anticipated too. The\nimmorality is complete (if we will be serious), and is rendered most\nalluring by the utter gladness of the girl\u2019s song--no repentance, no\nregret; only joy and roguish laughter.\n\nWalther was young, he was a knight and a Minnesinger; he had doubtless\nloved, in this way! His love-songs have plenty to say of the red mouth,\ngood for kissing--I care not who knows it either. But he also realizes,\nand greatly sings, the height and breadth and worth of love the true and\nstable, the blessing and completion of two lives, which comes to a false\nheart never.[11] He seems to feel it necessary to defend love for itself,\nperhaps because _marriage_ was taken more seriously in this imitative\nGerman literature than in the French and Proven\u00e7al originals: \u201cWho says\nthat love is sin, let him consider well. Many an honour dwells with her,\nand troth and happiness. If one does ill to the other, love is grieved. I\ndo not mean false love; that were better named un-love. No friend of that,\nam I.\u201d But his thoughts turn quickly to love as a lasting union: \u201cHe happy\nman, she happy woman, whose hearts are to each other true; both lives\nincreased in price and worth; blessed their years and all their days.\u201d[12]\n\nGiving play to his caustic temper, Walther puts scorn upon the light of\nlove: \u201cFool he who cannot understand what joy and good, love brings. But\nthe light man is ever pleased with light things, as is fit!\u201d[13] This\nMinnesinger applied most earnest standards to life; lofty his praise of\nthe qualities of womanhood, which are better than beauty or riches:\n\u201cwoman\u201d is a higher word than \u201clady\u201d[14]--it took a German to say this.\n\u201cHe who carries hidden sorrow in his heart, let him think upon a good\nwoman--he is freed.\u201d[15] With a burst of patriotism, in one of his\ngreatest poems Walther praises German women as the best in all the\nworld.[16]\n\nBut even in the _Minnelieder_, Walther has his despondencies. One of the\nmost definite, and possibly conventional, was regret for love\u2019s labour\nlost, and the days of youth spent in service of an ungracious fair. The\npoet wonders how it is that he who has helped other men is tongue-tied\nbefore his lady. Again, his reflections broaden from thoughts of\nunresponsive fair ones to a conviction of life\u2019s thanklessness. \u201cI have\nwell served the World (_Frau Welt_, Society), and gladly would serve her\nmore, but for her evil thanks and her way of preferring fools to me....\nCome, World, give me better greeting--the loss is not all mine.\u201d He knows\nhis good unbending temper which will not endure to hear ill spoken of the\nupright. But he thinks, what is the use? why speak so sweetly, why sing,\nwhen virtue and beauty are so lightly held, and every one does evil,\nfearing nought? The verse which carries these reflections is tossing in\nthe squally haven of Society; soon the poet will encounter the wild sea\nwithout. Still from the windy harbour comes one grand lament over art\u2019s\ndecline: \u201cThe worst songs please, frogs\u2019 voices! Oh, I laugh from anger!\nLady World, no score of mine is on your devil\u2019s slate. Many a life of man\nand woman have I made glad--might I so have gladdened mine! Here, I make\nmy Will, and bequeath my goods--to the envious my ill-luck, my sorrows to\nthe liars, my follies to false lovers, and to the ladies my heart\u2019s\npain.\u201d[17] He makes a solemn offering of his poems: \u201cGood women, worthy\nmen, a loving greeting is my due. Forty years have I sung fittingly of\nlove; and now, take my songs which gladden, as my gift to you. Your favour\nbe my return. And with my staff I will fare on, still wooing worth with\nundisheartened work, as from my childhood. So shall I be, in lowly lot,\none of the Noble--for me enough.\u201d\n\nTo relish Walther\u2019s love-songs, one need not know whether she was dark or\nfair, kept forest-tryst or listened by some castle\u2019s hearth, or in what\nGerman land that castle stood. Likewise in his _Spr\u00fcche_, which have other\nbearing, the roll of his protesting voice carries the universal human. To\ncomprehend them it were well to know that life was then as now niggardly\nin rewarding virtue; beyond this, one needs to have the type-idea of the\nEmpire and the Papacy, those two powers which were set, somewhat\nantagonistically, on the decree of God; both claiming the world\u2019s\nheadship; the one, Roman in tradition, but in strength and temper German,\nand of this world decidedly. The other, Roman in the genius of its\norganization, and Christian in its subordination of the life below to the\nlife to come, if not in the methods of establishing this consummation;\nChristian too, but more especially mediaeval, in its formal disdain for\nwhatever belonged to earth. In Germany these two partial opposites were\nfurther antagonized, since the native resources recoiled from the foreign\ndrain upon them, and the struggling patriotism of a broken land resented\nthe pressure of a state within and above the state of duke and king and\nemperor.\n\nIn Walther\u2019s time Innocent III. swayed the nations from Peter\u2019s throne.\nJust before Innocent\u2019s accession, Germany\u2019s able emperor, Henry VI., died\nsuddenly in Sicily (September 1197), leaving an heir not two years old.\nThe queen-mother, dying the next year, bequeathed this child, Frederick,\nto the paternal care of Innocent, his feudal as well as ghostly lord,\nsince the queen, for herself and child, had accepted the Pope as the\nfeudal suzerain of their kingdom of Sicily. In Germany (using that name\nloosely and broadly) Philip Hohenstauffen, Henry\u2019s brother and Duke of\nSuabia, claimed the throne. His unequal opponent was Otto of Brunswick, of\nthe ever-rebellious house of Henry the Lion. The Pope opposed the\nHohenstauffen; but was obliged to acknowledge him when the course of the\nten years of wasting civil war in Germany decided in his\nfavour--whereupon, alack! Philip was murdered (1207). Quickly the Pope\nturned back to Otto; but the latter, after he had been crowned king and\nemperor, became intolerable to Innocent through the compulsion of his\nposition as the head of an empire inherently hostile to the papacy. To\nthwart him Innocent set up his own ward, Frederick. Soon this precocious\nyouth began to make head against pope-forsaken Otto; and then the\nexcommunicated emperor was overthrown in 1214 by Philip Augustus of\nFrance, who had intervened in Frederick\u2019s favour. So Otto passed away,\nand, some time after, Frederick was crowned German king at\nAix-la-Chapelle.[18] In the meanwhile Innocent died (1216), and amity\nfollowed between Frederick and the gentle Honorius III., who crowned\nFrederick emperor at Rome in 1220. This peace ended quickly when the\nsterner Gregory IX. ascended the papal throne on the death of Honorius in\n1227.\n\nWalther\u2019s life extended through these events. Though apparently changing\nsides under the stress of his necessities, he was patriotically German to\nthe end. First he clave to the Hohenstauffen, Philip, as the true upholder\nof German interests against Otto and the Pope. On Philip\u2019s death, he\nturned to Otto; but with all the world left him at last for Frederick. It\nis known that Walther, an easily angered man, felt himself ill-used by\nOtto and justified in turning to the open-handed Frederick, who finally\ngave him a small fief. To the last, Walther upheld him as Germany\u2019s\nsovereign. Probably the poet died in the year 1228, just as Gregory was\nsucceeding Honorius, and the death-struggle of the Empire with the Papacy\nwas opening.\n\nWith no light heart, as well may be imagined, had Walther looked about him\non the death of the emperor Henry in 1197. \u201cI sat upon a rock, crossed\nknee on knee, and with elbow so supported, chin on hand I leaned.\nAnxiously I pondered. I could see no way to win gain without loss. Honour\nand riches do not go hand in hand, both of less value than God\u2019s favour.\nWould I have them all? Alas! riches and worldly honour and God\u2019s favour\ncome not within the closure of one heart\u2019s wishes. The ways are barred;\nperfidy lurks in secret, and might walks the highroads. Peace and law are\nwounded.\u201d[19]\n\nThe personal dilemma of the poet with his fortune to make, but desirous of\ndoing right, mirrors the desperate situation of the State: \u201cWoe is thee,\nGerman tongue; ill stand thy order and thy honour!--I hear the lies of\nRome betraying two kings!\u201d And in verses of wrath Walther inveighs against\nthe Pope. The sweeping nature of his denunciation raises the question\nwhether he merely attacked the supposed treachery of the reigning pope, or\nwas opposed to the papacy as an institution hostile to the German nation.\n\nThe answer is not clear. Mediaeval denunciations of the Church range from\nindictments of particular abuses, on through more general invectives, to\nthe clear protests of heretics impugning the ecclesiastical system. It is\nnot always easy to ascertain the speaker\u2019s meaning. Usually the abuse and\nnot the system is attacked. Hostility to the latter, however sweeping the\nlanguage of satirist or preacher, is not lightly to be inferred. The\ninvectives of St. Bernard and Damiani are very broad; but where had the\nChurch more devoted sons? Even the satirists composing in Old French\nrarely intended an assault upon her spiritual authority. It would seem as\nif, at least in the Romance countries, one must look for such hostility to\nheretical circles, the Waldenses for example. And from the orthodox\nmediaeval standpoint, this was their most accursed heresy.\n\nIt would have been hard for any German to use broader language than some\nof the French satirists and Latin castigators. If there was a difference,\nit must be sought in the specific matter of the German disapproval viewed\nin connection with the political situation. Was a position ever taken\nincompatible with the Church\u2019s absolute spiritual authority? or one\nintrinsically irreconcilable with the secular power of the papacy? At any\ntime, in any country, papal claims might become irreconcilable with the\nroyal prerogative--as William the Conqueror had held those of Gregory VII.\nin England, and as, two centuries afterwards, Philip the Fair was to hold\nthose of Boniface VIII. in France. But in neither case was there such\nsheer and fundamental antagonism as men felt to exist between the Empire\nand the Papacy. Perhaps it was possible in the early thirteenth century\nfor a German whose whole heart was on the German side to dispute even the\nsacerdotal principle of papal authority. It is hard to judge otherwise of\nFreidank, the very German composer or collector of trenchant sayings in\nthe early thirteenth century. Many of these sneer at Rome and the Pope,\nand some of them strike the gist of the matter: \u201cSunde nieman mac vergeben\nwan Got alein\u201d (\u201cGod alone can forgive sins\u201d). This is the direct\nstatement; he gives its scornful converse: \u201cCould the Pope absolve me from\nmy oaths and duties, I\u2019d let other sureties go and fasten to him\nalone.\u201d[20] Such words mean denial of the Church\u2019s authority to forgive,\nand the Pope\u2019s to grant absolution from oaths of allegiance. Freidank is\nvery near rejecting the principles of the ecclesiastical system.\n\nWalther, Freidank\u2019s contemporary, is more picturesque: \u201cKing Constantine,\nhe gave so much--as I will tell you--to the Chair of Rome: spear, cross,\nand crown. At once the angels cried: \u2018Alas! Alas! Alas! Christendom before\nstood crowned with righteousness. Now is poison fallen on her, and her\nhoney turned to gall--sad for the world henceforth!\u2019 To-day the princes\nall live in honour; only their highest languishes--so works the priest\u2019s\nelection. Be that denounced to thee, sweet God! The priests would upset\nlaymen\u2019s rights: true is the angels\u2019 prophecy.\u201d[21]\n\nOn Constantine\u2019s apocryphal gift, symbolized by the emblems of Christ\u2019s\npassion, rested the secular authority of the popes, which Walther laments\nwith the angels. \u201cThe Chair of Rome was first set up by Sorcerer Gerbert!\n[Queer history this, but we see what he means.] He destroyed his own soul\nonly; but this one would bring down Christendom with him to perdition.\nWhen will all tongues call Heaven to arms, and ask God how long He will\nsleep? They bring to nought His work, distort His Word. His steward steals\nHis treasure; His judge robs here and murders there; His shepherd has\nbecome a wolf among His sheep.\u201d[22] The clergy point their fingers\nheavenward while they travel fast to hell.[23] How laughs the Pope at us,\nwhen at home with his Italians, at the way he empties our German pockets\ninto his \u201cpoor boxes.\u201d[24] Walther\u2019s hatred of the foreign Pope is roused\nat every point. And at last, in a _Spruch_ full of implied meaning, he\ndeclares that Christ\u2019s word as to the tribute money meant that the emperor\nshould receive his royal due.[25]\n\nThese utterances, considered in the light of the political and racial\nsituation, seem to deny, at least implicitly, the secular power of the\npapacy. Yet in matters of religion Walther apparently was entirely\northodox, and a pious Christian. He has left a sweet prayer to Christ,\nwith ample recognition of the angels and the saints, and a beautiful verse\nof penitent contrition, in which he confesses his sins to God very\ndirectly--how that he does the wrong, and leaves the right, and fails in\nlove of neighbour. \u201cFather, Son, may thy Spirit lighten mine; how may I\nlove him who does me ill? Ever dear to me is he who treats me well!\u201d[26]\nWalther\u2019s questing spirit also pondered over God\u2019s greatness and\nincomprehensibility.[27] His open mind is shown by the famous line: \u201cHim\n(God) Christians, Jews, and heathen serve,\u201d[28] a breadth of view shared\nby his friend Wolfram von Eschenbach, who speaks of the chaste virtue of a\nheathen lady as equal to baptism.[29]\n\nThe personal lot of this proud heart was not an easy one; homelessness\nbroke him down, and the bitterness of eating others\u2019 bread. Too well had\nhe learned of the world and all its changing ways, and how poor becomes\nthe soul that follows them. Mortality is a trite sorrow; there are worse:\n\u201cWe all complain that the old die and pass away; rather let us lament\ntaints of another hue, that troth and seemliness and honour are\ndead.\u201d[30] At the last Walther\u2019s grey memory of life and his vainly\nyearning hope took form in a great elegy. After long years he seemed, with\nheavy steps, and leaning on his wanderer\u2019s staff, to be returning to a\nhome which was changed forever: \u201cAlas! whither are they vanished, my many\nyears! Did I dream my life, or is it real? what I once deemed it, was it\nthat? And now I wake, and all the things and people once familiar,\nstrange! My playmates, dull and old! And the fields changed; only that the\nstreams still flow as then they flowed, my heart would break with thinking\non the glad days, vanished in the sea. And the young people! slow and\nmirthless! and the knights go clad as peasants! Ah! Rome! thy ban! Our\ngroans have stilled the song of birds. Fool I, to speak and so\ndespair,--and the earth looks fair! Up knights again: your swords, your\narmour! would to God I might fare with your victor band, and gain my pay\ntoo--not in lands of earth! Oh! might I win the eternal crown from that\nsweet voyage beyond the sea, then would I sing O joy! and never more,\nalas--never more, alas.\u201d[31]\n\n\n\n\nBOOK V\n\nSYMBOLISM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII\n\nSCRIPTURAL ALLEGORIES IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES; HONORIUS OF AUTUN\n\n\nWords, pictures, and other vehicles of expression are symbols of whatever\nthey are intended to designate. A certain unavoidable symbolism also\ninheres in human mental processes; for the mind in knowing \u201cturns itself\nto images,\u201d as Aquinas says following Aristotle; and every statement or\nformulation is a casting together of data in some presentable and\nrepresentative form. An example is the Apostles\u2019 Creed, called also by\nthis very name of Symbol, being a casting together, an elementary formula,\nof the essentials of the Christian Faith. In the same sense the \u201claw of\ngravitation\u201d or a moral precept is a deduction, induction, or gathering\ntogether into a representative symbol, of otherwise unassembled and\nuncorrelated experience. In the present and following chapters, however,\nthe term symbol will be used in its common acceptation to indicate a\nthing, an act, or a word invested with an adventitious representative\nsignificance. All statements or expressions (through language or by means\nof pictures) which are intended to carry, besides their palpable meaning,\nanother which is veiled and more spiritual, are symbolical or figurative,\nand more specifically are called allegories.[32]\n\nThese devices of the mind have a history as old as humanity. From\ninscrutable beginnings, in time they become recognized as makeshifts; yet\nthey remain prone to enter new stages of confusion. The mind seeking to\nexpress the transcendental, avails itself of symbols. All religions have\nteemed with them, in their primitive phases scarcely distinguishing\nbetween symbol and fact; then a difference becomes evident to\nclearer-minded men, while perhaps at the same time others are elaborately\nmaintaining that the symbol magically is, or brings to pass, that which it\nrepresents. Such obscuring mysticism existed not merely in confused Egypt\nand Brahminical India, but everywhere--in antique Greece and Rome, and\nthen afterwards through the times of the Christian Church Fathers and the\nentire Middle Ages. Fact and symbol are seen constantly closing together\nand becoming each other like the serpent-souls in the twenty-fifth canto\nof Dante\u2019s _Inferno_.\n\nAllegory properly speaking, which involves a conscious and sustained\neffort to invest concrete or material statements with more general or\nspiritual meaning, played an interesting r\u00f4le in epochs antecedent to the\npatristic and mediaeval periods. Even before Plato\u2019s time the personal\nmyths of the gods shocked the Greek ethical intellect, which thereupon\nproceeded to convert them into allegories. Greek allegorical\ninterpretation of ancient myth was apologetic to both the critical mind\nand the moral sense.\n\nWith Philo, the Hellenizing Jew of Alexandria, whose philosophy revolted\nfrom the literal text of Genesis, the motive for allegorical\ninterpretation was similar. But the document before him was most unlike\nthe _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_. Genesis contained no palpably immoral stories\nof Jehovah to be explained away. Its account of divine creation and human\nbeginnings merely needed to be invested with further ethical meaning. So\nPhilo made cardinal virtues of the four rivers of Eden, and through like\nallegorical conceits transformed the Book of Genesis into a system of\nHellenistic ethics. Not cosmogonic myths, but moral meanings, he had\ndiscovered in his document.\n\nAdvancing along the path which Philo found, Christian allegorical\ninterpretation undertook to substantiate the validity of the Gospel. To\nthis end it fixed special symbolical meanings upon the Old Testament\nnarratives, so as to make them into prefigurative testimonies to the truth\nof Christian teachings.[33] Allegory was also called on to justify, as\nagainst educated pagans, certain acts of that heroic but peccant \u201ctype\u201d of\nChrist, David, the son of Jesse. Such special apologetic needs hardly\naffected the allegorical interpretation of the Gospel itself, which began\nat an early day, and from the first was spiritual and anagogic, constantly\nstraining on to educe further salutary meaning from the text.\n\nThe Greek and Latin Church Fathers created the mass of doctrine, including\nScriptural interpretation,[34] upon which mediaeval theologians were to\nexpend their systematizing and reconstructive labours. Through the Middle\nAges, the course of allegory and symbolism strikingly illustrates the\nmediaeval way of using the patristic heritage--first painfully learning\nit, then making it their own, and at last creating by means of that which\nthey had organically appropriated. Allegory and symbolism were to impress\nthe Middle Ages as perhaps no other element of their inheritance. The\nmediaeval man thought and felt in symbols, and the sequence of his thought\nmoved as frequently from symbol to symbol as from fact to fact.\n\nThe allegorical faculty with the Fathers was dogmatic and theological;\ningenious in devising useful interpretations, but oblivious to all\nreasonable propriety in the meaning which it twisted into the text:\ncontroversial necessities readily overrode the rational and moral\nrequirements of the \u201chistorical\u201d or \u201cliteral\u201d meaning. For the deeply\nrealized allegorical significance was a law unto itself. These\ncharacteristics of patristic allegory passed over to the Middle Ages,\nwhich in the course of time were to impress human qualities upon the\npatristic material.\n\nThe Bathsheba and Uriah episode in the life of David was of course taken\nallegorically, and affords a curious example of a patristic interpretation\noriginating in the exigencies of controversy, and then becoming\nauthoritative for later periods when the echoes of the old controversy had\nlong been silent. Augustine was called upon to answer the book of the\nclever Manichaean, Faustus, the stress of whose attacks was directed\nagainst the Old Testament. Faustus declared that he did not blaspheme \u201cthe\nlaw and the prophets,\u201d but rejected merely the special Hebrew customs and\nthe vile calumnies of the Old Testament writers, imputing shameful acts to\nprophets and patriarchs. In his list of shocking narratives to be\nrejected, was the story \u201cthat David after having had such a number of\nwives, defiled the little woman of Uriah his soldier, and caused him to be\nslain in battle.\u201d[35]\n\nAugustine responds with a general exclamation at the Manichaean\u2019s failure\nto understand the sacramental symbols (_sacramenta_) of the Law and the\ndeeds of the prophets. He then speaks of certain Old Testament statements\nregarding God and His demands, and proceeds to consider the nature of sin\nand the questionable deeds of the prophets. Some of the reprehended deeds\nhe justifies, as, for instance, Abraham\u2019s intercourse with Hagar and his\ndeceit in telling Abimelech that Sara was his sister when she was his\nwife. He also declares that Sara typifies the Church, which is the secret\nspouse of Christ. Proceeding further, he does not justify, but palliates,\nthe conduct of Lot and his daughters, and then introduces its typological\nsignificance. At length he comes to David. First he gives a noble estimate\nof David\u2019s character, his righteousness, his liability to sin, and his\nquick penitence.[36] Afterwards he considers, briefly as he says, what\nDavid\u2019s sin with Bathsheba signifies prophetically.[37] The passage may be\ngiven to show what a mixture of banality and disregard of moral propriety\nin drawing analogies might emanate from the best mind among the Latin\nFathers, and be repeated by later transitional and mediaeval commentators.\n\n    \u201cThe names themselves when interpreted indicate what this deed\n    prefigured. David is interpreted \u2018Strong of hand\u2019 or \u2018Desirable.\u2019 And\n    what is stronger than that Lion of the tribe of Judah that overcame\n    the world? and what is more desirable than him of whom the prophet\n    says: \u2018The desired of all nations shall come\u2019 (Hag. ii. 7)? Bathsheba\n    means \u2018well of satiety,\u2019 or \u2018seventh well.\u2019 Whichever of these\n    interpretations we adopt will suit. For in Canticles the Bride who is\n    the Church is called a well of living water (Cant. iv. 15); and to\n    this well the name of the seventh number is joined in the sense of\n    Holy Spirit; and this because of Pentecost (the fiftieth), the day on\n    which the Holy Spirit came. For that same festival is of the weeks\n    (_de septimanis constare_) as the Book of Tobit testifies. Then to\n    forty-nine, which is seven times seven, one is added, whereby unity is\n    commended. By this spiritual, that is \u2018Seven-natured\u2019 (_septenario_)\n    gift the Church is made a well of satiety; because there is made in\n    her a well of living water springing up unto everlasting life, which\n    whoso has shall never thirst (John iv. 14). Uriah, indeed, who had\n    been her husband, what but devil does his name signify? In whose\n    vilest wedlock all those were bound whom the grace of God sets free,\n    that the Church without spot or wrinkle may be married to her own\n    Saviour. For Uriah is interpreted, \u2018My light of God\u2019; and Hittite\n    means \u2018cut off,\u2019 or he who does not stand in truth, but by the guilt\n    of pride is cut off from the supernal light which he had from God; or\n    it means, he who in falling away from his true strength which was\n    lost, nevertheless fashioneth himself into an angel of light (2 Cor.\n    xi. 14), daring to say: \u2018My light is of God.\u2019 Therefore this David\n    gravely and wickedly sinned; and God rebuked his crime through the\n    prophet with a threat; and he himself washed it away by repenting. Yet\n    likewise He, the desired of all nations, was enamoured of the Church\n    bathing upon the roof, that is cleansing herself from the filth of the\n    world, and in spiritual contemplation surmounting and trampling on her\n    house of clay; and knowledge of her having been had at their first\n    meeting, He afterwards killed the devil, apart from her, and joined\n    her to himself in perpetual marriage. Therefore we hate the sin but\n    will not quench the prophecy. Let us love that (_illum_) David, who is\n    so greatly to be loved, who through mercy freed us from the devil; and\n    let us also love that (_istum_) David who by the humility of penitence\n    healed in himself so deep a wound of sin.\u201d[38]\n\nAugustine\u2019s interpretation of the story of David and Bathsheba was\nembodied verbatim in a work upon the Old Testament by Isidore of\nSeville.[39] The voluminous commentator Rabanus Maurus took the same, also\nverbatim, either from Isidore or Augustine.[40] His pupil, Walafrid\nStrabo, in his famous _Glossa ordinaria_, cited, probably from Rabanus,\nthe first part of the passage as far as the reference to the well of\nliving water from John\u2019s Gospel. He abridged the matter somewhat, thus\nshowing the smoothing compiler\u2019s art which was to bring his _Glossa\nordinaria_ into such general use. Walafrid omitted the lines declaring\nthat Uriah signified the devil. He did cite, however, again probably from\nRabanus, part of a long passage, taken by Rabanus from Gregory the Great,\nwhere Bathsheba is declared to be the letter of the Law, united to a\ncarnal people, which David (Christ) joins to himself in a spiritual sense.\nUriah is that carnal people, to wit, the Jews.[41]\n\nThus far as to the comments on the narrative from the eleventh chapter of\nthe Second Book of Samuel, otherwise called the Second Book of Kings. When\nRabanus came to explain the sixth verse of the first chapter of\nMatthew--\u201cAnd David begat Solomon from her who was the wife of Uriah\u201d--he\nsaid: \u201cUriah indeed, that is interpreted \u2018My light of God,\u2019 signifies the\ndevil, who fashions himself into an angel of light, daring to say to God:\n\u2018My light of God,\u2019 and \u2018I will be like unto the Most High\u2019 (Isaiah\nxiv.).\u201d[42] Here pupil Walafrid follows his master, but adds: \u201cWhose\nbewedded Church Christ became enamoured of from the terrace of His\npaternal majesty and joined her, made beautiful, to himself in\nmatrimony.\u201d[43]\n\nWith Rabanus and Walafrid, as with Isidore and the Venerable Bede who were\nthe links between these Carolingians and the Fathers, the interest in\nScripture relates to its allegorical significance. Unmindful of the\nobvious and literal meaning of the text, they were unabashed by the\nincongruity of their allegorical interpretations.[44] Rabanus, for\ninstance, had unbounded enthusiasm for Exodus, because of its rich\nsymbolism:\n\n    \u201cAmong the Scriptures embraced in the Pentateuch of the Law, the Book\n    of Exodus excels in merit; in it almost all the sacraments by which\n    the present Church is founded, nourished, and ruled, are figuratively\n    set forth. For there, through the corporeal exit of the children of\n    Israel from the terrestrial Egypt, our exit from the spiritual Egypt\n    is made clear. There again, through the crossing of the Red Sea and\n    the submersion of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, the mystery of Baptism\n    and the destruction of spiritual enemies are figured. There the\n    immolation of the typifying lamb and the celebration of the Passover\n    suggest the passion of the true Lamb and our redemption. There manna\n    from heaven and drink from a rock are given in order to teach us to\n    desire the heavenly bread and the drink of life. There precepts and\n    judgments are delivered to the people of God upon a mountain in order\n    that we may learn to be subject to supernal discipline. There the\n    construction of the tabernacle and its vessels is ordered to take\n    place with worship and sacrifices, that therein the adornment of the\n    marvellous Church and the rites of spiritual sacrifices may be\n    indicated. There the perfumes of incense and anointment are prepared,\n    in order that the sanctification of the Holy Spirit and the mystery of\n    sacred prayers may be commended to us.\u201d[45]\n\nThe same commentator compiled a dictionary of allegories entitled\n_Allegoriae in universam sacram scripturam_,[46] saying in his lumbering\nPreface:\n\n    \u201cWhoever desires to arrive at an understanding of Holy Scripture\n    should consider when he should take the narrative historically, when\n    allegorically, when anagogically, and when tropologically. For these\n    four ways of understanding, to wit, history, allegory, tropology,\n    anagogy, we call the four daughters of wisdom, who cannot fully be\n    searched out without a prior knowledge of these. Through them Mother\n    Wisdom feeds her adopted children, giving to tender beginners drink in\n    the milk of history; to those advancing in faith, the food of\n    allegory; to the strenuous and sweating doers of good works, satiety\n    in the savoury refection of tropology; and finally, to those raised\n    from the depths through contempt of the earthly and through heavenly\n    desire progressing towards the summit, the sober intoxication of\n    theoretical contemplation in the wine of anagogy.... History, through\n    the ensample which it gives of perfect men, incites the reader to the\n    imitation of holiness; allegory, in the revelation of faith, leads to\n    a knowledge of truth; tropology, in the instruction of morals, to a\n    love of virtue; anagogy, in the display of everlasting joys, to a\n    desire of eternal felicity. In the house of our soul, history lays the\n    foundation, allegory erects the walls, anagogy puts on the roof, while\n    tropology provides ornament, within through the disposition, without\n    through the effect of the good work.\u201d[47]\n\nThis work, alphabetically arranged, gave the allegorical significations of\nwords used in the Vulgate, with examples; for instance:\n\n    \u201c_Ager_ (field) is the world, as in the Gospel: \u2018To the man who sowed\n    good seed in his field,\u2019 that is to Christ, who sows preaching through\n    the world.\n\n    \u201c_Amicus_ (friend) is Christ, as in Canticles: \u2018He is my friend,\n    daughters of Jerusalem,\u2019 for He loved His Church so much that He would\n    die for her....\n\n    \u201c_Ancilla_ (handmaid) is the Church, as in the Psalms: \u2018Make safe the\n    son of thine handmaid,\u2019 that is me, who am a member of the Church.\n    _Ancilla_, corruptible flesh, as in Genesis: \u2018Cast out the handmaid\n    and her son,\u2019 that is, despise the flesh and its carnal fruit.\n    _Ancilla_, preachers of the Church, as in Job: \u2018He will bind her with\n    his handmaids,\u2019[48] because the Lord through His preachers conquered\n    the devil. _Ancilla_, the effeminate minds of the Jews, as in Job:\n    \u2018Thy handmaids hold me as a stranger,\u2019 because the effeminate minds of\n    the Jews knew me through faith.[49] _Ancilla_, the lowly, as in\n    Genesis, \u2018and meal for his handmaids,\u2019 because Holy Church affords\n    spiritual refection to the lowly.\n\n    \u201c_Aqua_ is the Holy Spirit, Christ, subtle wisdom, loquacity, temporal\n    greed, baptism, the hidden speech of the prophets, the holy preaching\n    of Christ, compunction, temporal prosperity, adversity, human\n    knowledge, this world\u2019s wealth, the literal meaning carnal pleasure,\n    eternal reflection, holy angels, souls of the blessed, saints,\n    humility\u2019s lament, the devotions of the saints, sins of the elect\n    which God condones, knowledge of the heretics, persecutions, unstable\n    thoughts, the blandishments of temptations, the pleasures of the\n    wicked, the punishments of hell.\n\n    \u201c_Mons_, mountain (in the singular) the Virgin Mary, _montes_ (in the\n    plural) angels, apostles, sublime precepts, the two Testaments, inner\n    meditations, proud men, the Gentiles, evil spirits.\u201d[50]\n\nThus Rabanus dragged into his compilation every meaning that had ever been\nascribed to the words defined. In him and his contemporaries, the\nallegorical material, apart from its utility for salvation, seems void of\nhuman interest or poetic quality, as yet unstirred by a breath of life.\nThat was to enter, as allegory and all manner of symbolism began to form\nthe temper of mediaeval thought, and became a chosen vessel of the\nmediaeval spirit in poetry and art. The vital change had taken place\nbefore the twelfth century had turned its first quarter.[51]\n\nThere flourished at this time a worthy monk named Honorius of Autun, also\ncalled \u201cthe Solitary.\u201d It has been argued, and vehemently contradicted,\nthat he was of German birth. At all events, monk he was and teacher at\nAutun. Those about him sought his instruction, and also requested him to\nput his discourses into writing for their use; their request reads as if\nat that time Honorius had retired from among them.[52] This is all that is\nknown of the man who composed the most popular handbook of sermons in the\nMiddle Ages. It was called the _Speculum ecclesiae_. Honorius may never\nhave preached these sermons; but still his book exists with sermons for\nSundays, saints\u2019 days, and other Church festivals; a sermon also to be\npreached at Church dedications, and one \u201csermo generalis,\u201d very useful,\nsince it touched up all orders of society in succession, and a preacher\nmight take or omit according to his audience. Before beginning, the\npreacher is directed to make the sign of the cross and invoke the Holy\nSpirit: he is admonished first to pronounce his text of Scripture in the\nLatin tongue, and then expound it in the vernacular;[53] he is instructed\nas to what portions of certain sermons should be used under special\ncircumstances, and what parts he may omit in winter when the church is\ncold, or when in summer it is too hot; or this is left quite to his\ndiscretion: \u201cHere make an end if you wish; but if time permits, continue\nthus.\u201d\n\nMost of these sermons are short, and contain much excellent moral advice\nput simply and directly. They also make constant use of allegory, and\nevidently Honorius\u2019s chief care in their composition was to expound his\ntext allegorically and point the allegory\u2019s application to the needs of\nhis supposed audience. Neither he nor any man of his time devised many\nnovel allegorical interpretations; but the old ones had at length become\npart of the mediaeval spirit and the regular means of apprehending the\nforce and meaning of Scripture. Consequently Honorius handles his\nallegories more easily, and makes a more natural human application of\nthem, than Rabanus or Walafrid had done. Sometimes the allegory seems to\nignore the moral lesson of the literal facts; but while a smile may escape\nus in reading Honorius, the allegories in his sermons are rarely strained\nand shocking, likewise rarely dull. A general point from which he regards\nthe narratives and institutions of the Old Testament is summed up in his\nstatement, that for us Christ turned all provisions of the law into\nspiritual sacraments.[54] The whole Old Testament has pre-figurative\nsignificance and spiritual meaning; and likewise every narrative in the\nGospels is spiritual.\n\nTwo or three examples will illustrate Honorius\u2019s edifying way of using\nallegory. His sermon for the eleventh Sunday after Pentecost is typical of\nhis manner. The text is from the thirty-first[55] Psalm: \u201cBlessed is the\nman to whom the Lord will not impute sin.\u201d Opening with an exhortation to\npenitence and tears and almsgiving, the preacher turns to the\nself-righteous \u201cwhose obstinacy the Lord curbs in the Gospel for the day,\ntelling how two went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee, to\nwit, one of the Jewish clergy, the other a Publican.\u201d After proceeding for\na while with sound and obvious comment on the situation, Honorius says:\n\n    \u201cBy the two men who went up into the temple to pray, two peoples, the\n    Jewish and the Gentile, are meant. The Pharisee who went close to the\n    altar is the Jewish people, who possessed the Sanctuary and the Ark.\n    He tells aloud his merits in the temple, because in the world he\n    boasts of his observance of the law.\n\n    \u201cThe Publican who stands afar off is the Gentile people, who were far\n    off from the worship of God. He did not lift up his eyes to heaven,\n    because the Gentile was agape at the things of earth. He beat his\n    breast when he bewailed his error through penitence; and because he\n    humbled himself in confession, God exalted him through pardon. Let us\n    also, beloved, thus stand afar off, deeming ourselves unworthy of the\n    holy sacraments and the companionship of the saints. Let us not lift\n    up our eyes to heaven, but deem ourselves unworthy of it. Let us beat\n    our breasts and punish our misdeeds with tears. Let us fall prostrate\n    before God; and let us weep in the presence of the Lord who made us,\n    so that He may turn our lament to joy, rend asunder our garb of\n    mourning, and clothe us with happiness.\u201d\n\nHonorius lingers a moment with some further exhortations suggested by his\nparable, and then turns to the edification to be found in fables wisely\ncomposed by profane writers. Let not the congregation be scandalized; for\nthe children of Israel despoiled the Egyptians of gold and gems and\nprecious vesture, which they afterwards devoted to completing the\ntabernacle. Pious Christians spoil the Egyptians when they turn profane\nstudies to spiritual account. The philosophers tell of a woman bound to a\nrevolving wheel, her head now up now down. The wheel is this world\u2019s\nglory, and the woman is that fortune which depends on it. Again, they tell\nof one who tries to roll a stone to the top of a mountain; but, near the\ntop, it hurls the wretch prostrate with its weight and crashes back to the\nbottom; and again, of one whose liver is eaten by a vulture, and, when\nconsumed, grows again. The man who pushes up the stone is he who\ntoilsomely amasses dignities, to be plunged by them to hell; and he of the\nliver is the man upon whose heart lust feeds. From that pest, they say,\nMedusa sprang, with noble form exciting many to lust, but with her look\nturning them to stone. She is wantonness, who turns to stone the hearts of\nthe lewd through their lustful pleasure. Perseus slew her, covering\nhimself with his crystalline shield; for the strong man, gazing into\nvirtue\u2019s mirror, averts his heart\u2019s countenance (_i.e._ from wantonness).\nThe sword with which he kills her is the fear of everlasting fire.\n\nThen, continues Honorius, we read of a boy brought up by one of the\nFathers in a hermitage; but as he grew to youth he was tickled with lust.\nThe Father commanded him to go alone into the desert and pass forty days\nin fasting and prayer. When some twenty days had passed, there appeared a\nnaked woman foul and stinking, who thrust herself upon him, and he, unable\nto endure her stench, began to repel her. At which she asked: \u201cWhy do you\nshudder at the sight of me for whom you burned? I am the image of lust,\nwhich appears sweet to men\u2019s hearts. If you had not obeyed the Father, you\nwould have been overthrown by me as others have been.\u201d So he thanked God\nfor snatching him from the spirit of fornication. Many other examples lead\nus to the path of life.\n\nHonorius closes with the story of the \u201cThree Fools,\u201d observed by a certain\nFather: the first an Ethiopian who was unable to move a faggot of wood,\nwhich he would continually unbind and make still heavier by adding further\nsticks; the second, a man pouring water into a vase which had no bottom;\nand, thirdly, the two men who came bearing before them crosswise a beam of\nwood; as they neared the city gate neither would let the other precede him\neven a little, and so both remained without. The Ethiopian who adds to his\ninsupportable faggot is he who continually increases his weight of sin,\nadding new sins to old ones unrepented of; he who pours water into the\nvase with no bottom is he who by his uncleanness loses the merit of his\ngood acts; and the two who bear the beam crosswise are those bound by the\nyoke of Pride.[56]\n\nSuch are good examples of the queer stories to which preachers resorted.\nOne notices that whatever be the source from which Honorius draws, his\ninterest is always in the allegory found in the narratives. Another very\napt example of his manner is his treatment of the story of the Good\nSamaritan, so often depicted on Gothic church windows. For us this parable\ncarries an exhaustless wealth of direct application in human life; it was\nregarded very differently by Honorius and the glass painters, whose\nwindows are a pictorial transcription of the first half of his\nsermon.[57]\n\n\u201cBlessed is the man who walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly\u201d--this\nis the text; and Honorius proceeds:\n\n    \u201cAdam was the unhappy man who through the counsel of the wicked\n    departed from his native land of Paradise and dragged all his\n    descendants into this exile. He thus stood in the way of sinners,\n    because he remained stable in sin. He sat \u2018in the seat of the\n    scornful,\u2019 because by evil example he taught others to sin. But Christ\n    arose, the blessed man who walketh in the counsel of the Father from\n    the hall of heaven into prison after the lost servant. He did not walk\n    in the counsel of the ungodly when the devil showed Him all the\n    kingdoms of the world; He did not stand in the way of sinners, because\n    He committed no sin; He did not sit in the seat of the scornful, since\n    neither by word nor deed did He teach evil. Thus as that unhappy man\n    drew all his carnal children into death, this blessed man brought all\n    His sons to life. As He himself sets forth in the Gospel: \u2018A certain\n    man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and robbers attacked and\n    wounded him, stripped him and went away. And by chance there came that\n    way a certain priest, who seeing him half-dead, crossed to the other\n    side. Likewise a Levite passed by when he had seen him. But a\n    Samaritan coming that same way, had compassion on the poor wretch,\n    bound up his wounds and poured in oil and wine, and setting him on his\n    own beast, brought him to an inn. The next day he gave the innkeeper\n    two pence and asked that he care for him, and if more was needed He\n    promised to repay the innkeeper on His return.\u2019\n\n    \u201cSurely man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho when our first parent\n    from the joys of Paradise entered death\u2019s eclipse. For Jericho, which\n    means moon, designates the eclipse of our mortality. Whereby man fell\n    among thieves, since a swarm of demons at once surrounded the exile.\n    Wherefore also they despoiled him, since they stripped him of the\n    riches of Paradise and the garment of immortality. They gave him\n    wounds, for sins flowed in upon him. They left him half-dead, because\n    dead in soul. The priest passed down the same way, as the Order of\n    Patriarchs proceeded along the path of mortality. The priest left him\n    wounded, having no power to aid the human race while himself sore\n    wounded with sins. The Levite went that way, inasmuch as the Order of\n    Prophets also had to tread the path of death. He too passed by the\n    wounded man, because he could bear no human aid to the lost while\n    himself groaning under the wounds of sin. The wretch half-dead was\n    healed by the Samaritan, for the man set apart through Christ is made\n    whole.\n\n    \u201cSamaria was the chief city of the Israelitish kingdom whose chiefs\n    were led away to idolatry in Nineveh, and Gentiles were placed in her.\n    The Jews abhorred their fellowship, making them a byword of\n    malediction. So when reviling the Lord, they called Him a Samaritan.\n    The Lord was the true Samaritan, being called guardian (_custos_)\n    since the human race is guarded by Him. He went down this way when\n    from heaven He came into this world. He saw the wounded traveller,\n    inasmuch as He saw man held in misery and sin. He was moved with\n    compassion for him, since for man He undergoes all pains. Approaching,\n    He bound his wounds when, proclaiming eternal life, He taught man to\n    cease from sin. He bound his wounds together with the two parts of the\n    bandage when He quelled sins through two fears--the servile fear which\n    forbids through penalties, and the filial fear which exhorts the holy\n    to good works. He drew tight the lower part of the bandage when He\n    struck men\u2019s hearts with fear of hell. Their worm, He said, does not\n    die, and their fire is not quenched. He drew tight the upper part when\n    He taught the fear which belongs to the study of good. \u2018The children\n    of the kingdom,\u2019 said He, \u2018shall be cast into outer darkness, where\n    there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.\u2019 He poured in wine and oil\n    when He taught repentance and pardon. He poured in wine when He said,\n    \u2018Repent ye\u2019; He added oil when He said, \u2018for the kingdom of heaven is\n    at hand.\u2019 He set him upon His beast when He bore our sins in His body\n    on the Cross. He led him to the inn when He joined him to the supernal\n    Church. The inn, in which living beings are assembled at night, is the\n    present Church, where the just are harboured amid the darkness of this\n    life until the Day of Eternity blows and the shadows of mortality give\n    way.\n\n    \u201cThe next day He tendered the two pence. The first day was of death,\n    the next of life. The day of death began with Adam, when all die. The\n    day of life took its beginning from Christ, in whom all shall be made\n    alive. Before Christ\u2019s resurrection all men were travelling to death;\n    since His resurrection all the faithful have been rising to life. He\n    tendered the two pence the next day--when after His resurrection He\n    taught that the two Testaments were fulfilled by the two precepts of\n    love. He gave the pence to the innkeeper when He committed the\n    doctrine of the law of life to the Order of Doctors. He directed him\n    to tend the sick man when He commanded that the human race should be\n    saved from sin. The stench drove the sick man from the inn, because\n    this world\u2019s tribulation drives the righteous to seek the things\n    celestial. Two pence are given to the innkeeper when the Doctors are\n    raised on high by Scriptural knowledge and temporal honour. If they\n    should require more, He repays them on His return; for if they\n    exemplify good preaching with good works, when the true Samaritan\n    returns to judgment and leads him, aforetime wounded but now healed,\n    from the inn to the celestial mansion, He will repay the zealous\n    stewards with eternal rewards.\u201d[58]\n\nHere Honorius proceeds to expound the allegory contained in the healing of\nthe dumb man and the ten lepers, and closes his sermon with two\nnarratives, one of a poor idiot who sang the _Gloria_ without ceasing, and\nwas seen in glory after death; the other of a lay nun (_conversa_) around\nwhose last hours were shed sweet odours and a miraculous light, while\nthose present heard the chant of heavenly voices.\n\nThe parables of Christ present types which we may apply in life according\nto circumstances. In the concrete instance of the parable we find the\nuniversal, and we deem Christ meant it so. Thus we also view the parables\nas symbols, which they were. Honorius, with the vast company of mediaeval\nand patristic expounders, ordinarily directs the symbolism of the parables\nin a special mode, whereby--like the stories of the Old Testament--they\nbecome figurative of Christ and the needy soul of man, or figurative of\nthe Christian dispensation with its historical antecedents and its Day of\nJudgment at the end.\n\nThe like may be said of Honorius\u2019s allegorical interpretation of Greek\nlegends. These ancient stories have the perennial youth of human charm and\nmeaning ever new. They had been good old stories to the Greeks, and then\nacquired further intendment as later men discerned a broader symbolism in\nthem. Even in classic times, Homer\u2019s stories had been turned to\nallegories, philosophers and critics sometimes finding in them a spiritual\nsignificance not unlike that which the same tales may bear for us. But\nwith this difference: the later Greeks usually were trying to explain away\nthe somewhat untrammelled ways of the Homeric pantheon, and therefore\nmaintained that Homer\u2019s stories were composed as allegories, the wise and\nmystic poet choosing thus to veil his meaning. To-day we find the clarity\nof daybreak in Homer\u2019s tales, and if we make symbols of them we know the\nsymbolism is not his but ours. Honorius chooses to think that allegory had\nalways lain in the old story; he will not deem it the invention of himself\nor other Christian writers. Here his attitude is not unlike that of the\napologetic Greek critics. But his interpretations are apt to differ from\ntheirs as well as from our own. For his symbolism tends to abandon the\nbroadly human, and to become, like the mediaeval Biblical interpretations,\nfigurative of the tenets of the Christian Faith.\n\nThere is an interesting example of this in the sermon for Septuagesima\nSunday, which was written on a somewhat blind text from the twenty-eighth\nchapter of Job. Honorius proceeds expounding it through a number of\nstrained allegories, which he doubtless drew from Gregory\u2019s _Moralia_; for\nthat great pope was the recognized expositor of Job, and the Book of Job\nwas simply Gregory through all the Middle Ages. Perhaps Honorius felt that\nthis sermon was rather soporific. At all events he stops in the middle to\ngive a piece of advice to the supposed preacher: \u201cOften put something of\nthis kind in your sermon; for so you will relieve the tedium.\u201d And he\ncontinues thus:\n\n    \u201cBrethren, on this holy day there is much to say which I must pass\n    over in silence, lest disgusted you should wish to leave the church\n    before the end. For some of you have come far and must go a long way\n    to reach your houses. Or perhaps, some have guests at home, or crying\n    babies; or others are not swift and have to go elsewhere, while to\n    some a bodily infirmity brings uneasiness lest they expose themselves.\n    So I omit much for everybody\u2019s sake, but still would say a few words.\n\n    \u201cBecause to-day, beloved, we have laid aside the song of gladness and\n    taken up the song of sadness, I would briefly tell you something from\n    the books of the pagans, to show how you should reject the melody of\n    this world\u2019s pleasures in order that hereafter with the angels you may\n    make sweet harmonies in heaven. For one should pick up a gem found in\n    dung and set it as a kingly ornament; thus if we find anything useful\n    in pagan books we should turn it to the building up of the Church,\n    which is Christ\u2019s spouse. The wise of this world write that there were\n    three Syrens in an island of the sea, who used to chant the sweetest\n    song in divers tones. One sang, another piped, the third played upon a\n    lyre. They had the faces of women, the talons and wings of birds. They\n    stopped all passing ships with the sweetness of their song; they rent\n    the sailors heavy with sleep; they sank the ships in the brine. When a\n    certain duke, Ulysses, had to sail by their island, he ordered his\n    comrades to bind him to the mast and stuff their ears with wax. Thus\n    he escaped the peril unharmed, and plunged the Syrens in the waves.\n    These, beloved, are mysteries, although written by the enemies of\n    Christ. By the sea is to be understood this age which rolls beneath\n    the unceasing blasts of tribulations. The island is earth\u2019s joy, which\n    is intercepted by crowding pains, as the shore is beat upon by\n    crowding waves. The three Syrens who with sweet caressing song\n    overturn the navigators in sleep, are three delights which soften\n    men\u2019s hearts for vice and lead them into the sleep of death. She who\n    sings with human voice is Avarice, and to her hearers thus she tunes\n    her song: \u2018Thou shouldst get together much, so as to be able to spread\n    wide thy fame, and also visit the Lord\u2019s sepulchre and other places,\n    restore churches, aid the poor and thy relatives as well.\u2019 With such\n    baneful song she charms the miser\u2019s heart, until the sleep of death\n    oppresses him. Then she tears his flesh, the wave devours the ship,\n    and the wretch by fierce pains is waked from his riches and plunged in\n    eternal flame. She who plays upon the pipe is Vainglory (_Jactantia_),\n    and thus she pipes her lay for hers: \u2018Thou art in thy youth, and\n    noble; make thyself appear glorious. Spare no enemies, but kill them\n    all when able. Then people will call thee a good knight.\u2019 Again will\n    she chant: \u2018Thou shouldst win Jerusalem, and give great alms. Then\n    thou wilt be famous, and wilt be called good by all.\u2019 To the lay\n    brethren (_conversis_) she sings: \u2018Thou must fast and pray always,\n    singing with loud voice. Then wilt thou hear thyself lauded as a saint\n    by all.\u2019 Such song with vain heart she makes resound till the\n    whirlpool of death devours the wretch emptied of worth.\n\n    \u201cShe who sings to a lyre is Wantonness (_Luxuria_), and she chants\n    melodies like these to her parasites: \u2018Thou art in thy youth; now is\n    the time to sport with the girls--old age will do to reform in. Here\n    is one with a fine figure; this one is rich; from this one you would\n    gain much. There is plenty of time to save your soul.\u2019 In such way she\n    melts the hearts of the wanton till Cocytus\u2019s waves engulf them\n    suddenly tripped by death.\n\n    \u201cThey have the faces of women, because nothing so estranges man from\n    God as the love of women. They have wings of birds, because the desire\n    of worldlings is always unstable, their appetites now craving one\n    thing, and again their lust flying to another object. They have also\n    the talons of birds, because they tear their victims as they snatch\n    them away to the torments of hell. Ulysses is called Wise. Unharmed he\n    steers his course by the island, because the truly wise Christian\n    swims over the sea of this world, in the ship of the Church. By the\n    fear of God he binds himself to the mast of the ship, that is, to the\n    cross of Christ; with wax, that is with the incarnation of Christ, he\n    seals the ears of his comrades, that they may turn their hearts from\n    lusts and vices and yearn only for heavenly things. The Syrens are\n    submerged, because he is protected from their lusts by the strength\n    of the Spirit. Unharmed the voyagers avoid the peril, inasmuch as\n    through victory they reach the joys of the saints.\u201d[59]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII\n\nTHE RATIONALE OF THE VISIBLE WORLD: HUGO OF ST. VICTOR\n\n\nJust as the Middle Ages followed the allegorical interpretation of\nScripture elaborated by the Church Fathers, so they also accepted, and\neven made more precise, the patristic inculcation of the efficacy of such\nmost potent symbols as the water of baptism and the bread and wine\ntransubstantiated in the Eucharist.[60] Passing onward from these mighty\nbases of conviction, the mediaeval genius made fertile use of allegory in\nthe polemics of Church and State, and exalted the symbolical principle\ninto an ultimate explanation of the visible universe.\n\nNotable was the career of allegory in politics. Throughout the long\nstruggle of the Papacy with the Empire and other secular monarchies,\narguments drawn from allegory never ceased to carry weight. A very\nshibboleth was the witness of the \u201ctwo swords\u201d (Luke xxii. 38), both of\nwhich, the temporal as well as spiritual, the Church held to have been\nentrusted to her keeping for the ordering of earthly affairs, to the end\nthat men\u2019s souls should be saved. Still more fluid was the argumentative\nnostrum of mankind conceived as an Organism, or animate body (_unum\ncorpus, corpus mysticum_). This metaphor was found in more than one of the\nLatin classics; but patristic and mediaeval writers took it from the works\nof Paul.[61] The likeness of the human body to the body politic or\necclesiastic was carried out in every imaginable detail, and used acutely\nor absurdly by politicians and schoolmen from the eleventh century\nonward.[62]\n\nWe turn to the symbolical explanation of the universe. In the first half\nof the twelfth century, a profoundly meditative soul, Hugo of St. Victor\nby name, attempted a systematic exposition of the symbolical or\nsacramental plan inhering in God\u2019s scheme of creation. Of the man, as with\nso many monks and schoolmen whose names and works survive, little is known\nbeyond the presentation of his personality afforded by his writings. He\ntaught in the monastic school of St. Victor, a community that had a story,\nwith which may be connected the scanty facts of the short and happy\npilgrimage to God, which made Hugo\u2019s life on earth.[63]\n\nWhen William of Champeaux, according to Abaelard\u2019s account, was routed\nfrom his logical positions in the cathedral school of Paris,[64] he\nwithdrew from the school and from the city to the quiet of a secluded spot\non the left bank of the Seine, not far distant from Notre-Dame. Here was\nan ancient chapel dedicated to Saint-Victor, and here William, with some\ncompanions, organized themselves into a monastic community according to\nthe rule of the canons of St. Augustine. This was in 1108. If for a time\nWilliam laid aside his studies and lecturing, he soon resumed them at the\nsolicitations of his scholars, joined to those of his friend Hildebert,\nBishop of Le Mans.[65] And so the famous school of Saint-Victor began.\nWilliam remained there only four years, being made Bishop of Chalons in\n1112, and thereafter figuring prominently in Church councils, frequent in\nFrance at this epoch.\n\nUnder William\u2019s disciple and successor, Gilduin, the community flourished\nand increased. King Louis VI., whose confessor was Gilduin himself,\nendowed it liberally, and other donors were not lacking. Saint-Victor\nbecame rich, and its fame for learning and holiness spread far and\nwide.[66] Abbot Gilduin lived to see more than forty houses of monks or\nregular canons[67] flourishing as dependencies of Saint-Victor. He died in\n1155, some years after the death of the young man whose scholarship and\ngenius was the pride of the Victorine community.\n\nNotwithstanding a statement in an old manuscript, that Hugo was born near\nYpres in Flanders, the ancient tradition of Saint-Victor, confirmed by the\nrecords of the cathedral of Halberstadt, shows him to have been a son of\nthe Count of Blankemberg, and born at Hartingam in Saxony.[68] His uncle\nReinhard was Bishop of Halberstadt, where his great-uncle, named Hugo like\nhimself, was archdeacon. Reinhard had been a pupil of William of Champeaux\nat Saint-Victor, and after becoming bishop continued to cherish a profound\nesteem for him. The young Hugo renounced his inheritance and entered a\nmonastery not far from Halberstadt; but soon, in view of the disturbed\naffairs of Saxony, his uncle Reinhard urged him to go and pursue his\nstudies at Saint-Victor. The young man persuaded his great-uncle Hugo to\naccompany him. By circuitous routes, visiting various places of pious\ninterest on the way, the two reached Saint-Victor, where they were\nreceived with all honour by the abbot Gilduin. This was not far from the\nyear 1115, and Hugo was about twenty at the time. He was already an\naccomplished scholar, and doubtless it is to his previous studies that he\nrefers when he speaks as follows in his book of elementary instruction,\ncalled the _Didascalicon_:\n\n    \u201cI dare say that I never despised anything pertaining to learning, and\n    learned much that might strike others as light and vain. I practised\n    memorizing the names of everything I saw or heard of, thinking that I\n    could not properly study the nature of things unless I knew their\n    names. Daily I examined my notes of topics, that I might hold in my\n    memory every proposition, with the questions, objections, and\n    solutions. I would inform myself as to controversies and consider the\n    proper order of the argument on either side, carefully distinguishing\n    what pertained to the office of rhetoric, oratory, and sophistry. I\n    set problems of numbers; I drew figures on the pavement with charcoal,\n    and with the figure before me I demonstrated the different qualities\n    of the obtuse, the acute and the right angle, and also of the square.\n    Often I watched out the nocturnal horoscope through winter nights.\n    Often I strung my harp (_Saepe ad numerum protensum in ligno magadam\n    ducere solebam_) that I might perceive the different sounds and\n    likewise delight my mind with the sweet notes. All these were boyish\n    occupations (_puerilia_) but not useless. Nor does it burden my\n    stomach to know them now.\u201d[69]\n\nNot long after Hugo\u2019s arrival at Saint-Victor he began to teach at the\nmonastery school, and upon the death of its director, in 1133, succeeded\nto the office, which he held until his death in 1141.[70] Colourless and\ngrey are the outer facts of a monk\u2019s life, counting but little. The soul\nof a Hugo of Saint-Victor did not soil itself with any interest in the\npleasures of the world: \u201cHe is not solitary with whom is God, nor is the\npower of joy extinguished because his appetite is kept from things abject\nand vile. He rather does himself an injustice who admits to the society of\nhis joy what is disgraceful or unworthy of his love.\u201d[71]\n\nHugo belonged to the aristocracy of contemplative piety, with its scorn of\nwhatever lies without the pale of the soul\u2019s companionship with God. In\nhis independent way he followed Augustine, and Augustine\u2019s Platonism,\nwhich was so largely the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus and Porphyry. He also\nfollowed the real Plato speaking in the _Timaeus_, with which he was\nacquainted. Plato would have nothing to do with allegorical interpretation\nas a defence of Homer\u2019s gods; but he could himself make very pretty\nallegories, and his theory of ideas as at once types and creative\nintelligences lent itself to Christian systems of symbolism. In this way\nhe was a spiritual ancestor of Hugo, who found in God the type-ideas of\nall things that He created. Moreover, if not Plato, at least his spiritual\nchildren--Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Plotinus--recognized that the\nhighest truths must be known in modes transcending reason and its\nsyllogisms, although these were the necessary avenues of approach. Hugo\nlikewise regarded rational knowledge as but the path by which the soul\nascends to the plateau of contemplation. The general aspects of his\nphilosophy will be considered in a later chapter. Here he is to be viewed\nas a mediaeval symbolist, upon whom pressed a sense of the symbolism of\nall visible things. An examination of his great _De sacramentis\nChristianae fidei_ will disclose that with Hugo the material creation in\nits deepest verity is a symbol; that Scripture, besides its literal\nmeaning, is allegory from Genesis to Revelation; that the means of\nsalvation provided by the Church are sacramental, and thus essentially\nsymbolical, consisting of perfected and potent symbols which have been\nshadowed forth in the unperfected sacramental character of all God\u2019s works\nfrom the beginning.[72]\n\nHugo\u2019s little Preface (_praefatiuncula_) mentions certain requests made to\nhim to write a book on the Sacraments. In undertaking it, he proposes to\npresent in better form many things dictated from time to time rather\nnegligently. Whatever he has taken from his previous writings he has\nrevised as seemed best. Should there appear any inconsistency between what\nhe may have said elsewhere and the language of the present work, he begs\nthe reader to regard the present as the better form of statement. His\nmethod will be to treat his matter in the order of time; and to this end\nhis work is divided into two Books. The first discusses the subject from\nthe Beginning of the World until the Incarnation of the Word; the second\ncontinues it from the Incarnation to the final Consummation of all things.\nHe explains that as he has elsewhere spoken at length upon the primary or\nhistorical meaning of Holy Writ,[73] he will devote himself here rather to\nits secondary or allegorical significance.\n\nHugo further explains the subject of his treatise in a Prologue:\n\n    \u201cThe work of man\u2019s restoration is the subject-matter (_materia_) of\n    all the Scriptures. There are two works, the work of foundation and\n    the work of restoration, which include everything whatsoever. The\n    former is the creation of the world with all its elements; the latter\n    is the incarnation of the Word with all its sacraments, those which\n    went before from the beginning and those which follow even to the end\n    of the world. For the incarnate Word is our King, who came into this\n    world to fight the devil. And all the saints who were before His\n    coming, were as soldiers going before His face; and those who have\n    come and will come after, until the end of the world, are as soldiers\n    who follow their king. He is the King in the centre of His army,\n    advancing girt by His troops. And although in such a multitude divers\n    shapes of arms appear in the sacraments and observances of those who\n    precede and come after, yet all are soldiers under one king and follow\n    one banner; they pursue one enemy and with one victory are crowned. In\n    all of this may be observed the work of restoration.\n\n    \u201cScripture gives first a brief account of the work of creation. For it\n    could not aptly show how man was restored unless it had previously\n    explained how he had fallen; nor could it show how he had fallen,\n    without first showing how God had made him, for which in turn it was\n    necessary to set forth the creation of the whole world, because the\n    world was made for man. The spirit was created for God\u2019s sake; the\n    body for the spirit\u2019s sake, and the world for the body\u2019s sake, so that\n    the spirit might be subject to God, the body to the spirit, and the\n    world to the body. In this order, therefore, Holy Scripture describes\n    first the creation of the world which was made for man; then it tells\n    how man was made and set in the way of righteousness and discipline;\n    after that, how man fell; and finally how he was restored\n    (_reparatus_).\u201d\n\nIn these first little chapters of his Prologue, Hugo has grouped his\ntopics suggestively. The world was made for man, and therefore the account\nof its creation is needed in order to understand man. Moreover, that man\u2019s\nbody exists for his spirit\u2019s sake, at once suggests that a significance\nbeyond the literal meaning is likely to dwell in that account of the\nmaterial creation which enables us to understand man. The soul needs\ninstruction and guidance; and God in creating the world for man surely had\nin view his most important interests, which were not those of his mortal\nbody, but those of his soul. So the creation of the world subserves man\u2019s\nspiritual interests, and the divine account of it carries spiritual\ninstruction. The allegorical significance of the world\u2019s creation, which\nanswers to man\u2019s spiritual needs, is as veritable and real as the facts of\nthe world\u2019s material foundation, which answers to the needs of his body.\nThus symbolism is rooted in the character and purpose of the material\ncreation; it lies in the God-implanted nature of things; therefore the\nallegorical interpretation of the Scriptures corresponds to their deepest\nmeaning and the revealed plan of God.\n\nThese principles underlie Hugo\u2019s exposition of the Christian sacraments,\nwhose unperfected prototypes existed in the work of the Creation. No fact\nof sacred history, no single righteous pre-Christian observance, was\nunaffiliated with them. An adequate understanding of their nature involves\na full knowledge not only of Christian doctrine, but of all other\nknowledge profitable to men--as Hugo clearly indicates in the remaining\nportion of his Prologue:\n\n    \u201cWhence it appears how much divine Scripture in subtle profundity\n    surpasses all other writings, not only in its matter but in the way of\n    treating it. In other writings the words alone carry meaning: in\n    Scripture not only the words, but the things may mean something.\n    Wherefore just as a knowledge of the words is needed in order to know\n    what things are signified, so a knowledge of the things is needed in\n    order to determine _their_ mystical signification of other things\n    which have been or ought to be done. The knowledge of words falls\n    under two heads: expression, and the substance of their meaning.\n    Grammar relates only to expression, dialectic only to meaning, while\n    rhetoric relates to both. A knowledge of things requires a knowledge\n    of their form and of their nature. Form consists in external\n    configuration, nature in internal quality. Form is treated as number,\n    to which arithmetic applies; or as proportion, to which music applies;\n    or as dimension, to which geometry applies; or as motion, to which\n    pertains astronomy. But physics (_physica_) looks to the inner nature\n    of things.\n\n    \u201cIt follows that all the natural arts serve divine science, and the\n    lower knowledge rightly ordered leads to the higher. History, _i.e._\n    the historical meaning, is that in which words signify things, and its\n    servants, as already said, are the three sciences, grammar, dialectic,\n    and rhetoric. When, however, things signify facts mystically, we have\n    allegory; and when things mystically signify what ought to be done, we\n    have tropology. These two are served by arithmetic, music, geometry,\n    astronomy, and physics. Above and beyond all is that divine something\n    to which divine Scripture leads, either in allegory or tropology. Of\n    this the one part (which is in allegory) is right faith, and the other\n    (which is in tropology) is good conduct: in these consist knowledge of\n    truth and love of virtue, and this is the true restoration of\n    man.\u201d[74]\n\nHugo has now stated his position. The rationale of the world\u2019s creation\nlies in the nature of man. The Seven Liberal Arts, and incidentally all\nhuman knowledge, in handmaidenly manner, promote an understanding of man\nas well as of the saving teaching contained in Scripture. This was the\ncommon mediaeval view; but Hugo proves it through application of the\nprinciples of symbolism and allegorical interpretation. By these\ninstruments he orders the arts and sciences according to their value in\nhis Christian system, and makes all human knowledge subserve the\nintellectual economy of the soul\u2019s progress to God.\n\nAn exposition of the Work of the Six Days opens the body of Hugo\u2019s\ntreatise. God created all things from nothing, and at once. His creation\nwas at first unformed; not absolutely formless, but in the form of\nconfusion, out of which in the six days He wrought the form of ordered\ndisposition. The first creation included the matter of corporeal things\nand (in the angelic nature) the essence of things invisible; for the\nrational creature may be said to be unformed until it take form through\nturning unto its Creator, whereby it gains beauty and blessedness from Him\nthrough the conversion which is of love. Thus the matter of every\ncorporeal thing which God afterwards made, existed from the time of His\nfirst creation, and likewise the image of everything invisible. For\nalthough new souls are still created every day, their image existed\npreviously in the angelic spirits.\n\nThen God made light, the unformed material of which He had created in the\nbeginning.\n\n    \u201cAnd at the very moment when light was visibly and corporeally\n    separated from darkness, the good angels were invisibly set apart from\n    the wicked angels who were falling in the darkness of sin. The good\n    were illumined and converted to the light of righteousness, that they\n    might be light and not darkness. Thus we ought to perceive a\n    consonance in the works of God, the visible work conforming to the\n    issue of the invisible in such wise that the Wisdom which worked in\n    both may in the former instruct by an example and in the latter\n    execute judgment.\u201d\n\nThe severance of light from darkness is the material example of how God\nexecutes judgment in dividing the good from the evil. In this visible work\nof God a \u201csacrament\u201d is discernible, since every soul, so long as it is in\nsin, is in darkness and confusion. All the visible works of God offer\nspiritual lessons (_spiritualia praeferunt documenta_). They have\nsacramental qualities, and yet are not perfected and completed sacraments,\nas will hereafter appear from Hugo\u2019s definition.\n\nFollowing the order of creation, Hugo now speaks of the firmament which\nGod set in the midst of the waters to divide them:\n\n    \u201cHe who believes that this was made for his sake will not look for the\n    reason of it outside of himself. For it all was made in the image of\n    the world within him; the earth which is below, is the sensual nature\n    of man, and the heaven above is the purity of his intelligence\n    quickening to immortal life.\u201d\n\nThe rational and unseen are a world as well as the material and visible.\nThe sacramental quality of the material world lies in its correspondence\nto the unseen world. When Hugo speaks of the \u201csacramenta\u201d in the creation\nof light and the waters divided by the firmament, he means that in\naddition to their material nature as light and water, they are essentially\nsymbols. Their symbolism is as veritably part of their nature as the\nsymbolical character of the Eucharist is part of the nature of the\nconsecrated bread and wine. The sacraments are among the deepest verities\nof the Christian Faith. And the same representative verity that exists in\nthem, exists, in less perfected mode, throughout God\u2019s entire creation. So\nthe argument carries out the principles of the sacraments and the\nprinciples of symbolism to a full explanation of the world; and Hugo\u2019s\nwork upon the Sacraments presents his theory of the universe.\n\n    \u201cMany other mysteries,\u201d says Hugo, closing the first \u201cPart\u201d of his\n    first Book, \u201ccould be pointed out in the work of the creation. But we\n    briefly speak of these matters as a suitable approach to the subject\n    set before us. For our purpose is to treat of the sacrament of man\u2019s\n    redemption. The work of creation was completed in six days, the work\n    of restoration in six ages. The latter work we define as the\n    Incarnation of the Word and what in and through the flesh the Word\n    performed, with all His sacraments, both those which from the\n    beginning prefigured the Incarnation and those which follow to declare\n    and preach it till the end.\u201d\n\nIt is unnecessary to follow Hugo through the discussion, upon which he now\nenters, of the will, knowledge, and power of the Trinity, or through his\nconsideration of the knowledge which man may have of God. In Part V. of\nthe first Book, he considers the creation of angels, their qualities and\nnature, and the reasons why a part of them fell. With Part VI. the\ncreation of man is reached, which Hugo shows to have been causally prior,\nthough later in time, to the creation of the world which God made for man.\nFrom love God created rational creatures, the angels purely spiritual, and\nman a spirit clothed with earth.[75] Hugo considers the corporeal as well\nas the spiritual nature and qualities of man, and his condition before the\nFall. The seventh Part is devoted to the Fall itself, and discusses its\ncharacter and sinfulness.\n\nAt length, in the eighth Part, Hugo reaches the true subject of his\ntreatise, the restoration of man. Man\u2019s first sin of pride was followed by\na triple punishment, consisting in a penalty, and two entailed defects,\nthe penalty being bodily mortality, the defects carnal concupiscence and\nmental ignorance.\n\n    \u201cRegarding his reparation three matters are to be considered, the\n    time, the place, the remedy. The time is the present life, from the\n    beginning to the end of the world. The place is this world.[76] The\n    remedy is threefold, and consists in faith, the sacraments, and good\n    works. Long is the time, that man may not be taken unprepared. Hard is\n    the place, that the transgressor may be castigated. Efficacious is the\n    remedy, that the sick one may be healed.\u201d\n\nHugo then sets forth the situation, the case in court as it were, to which\nGod, the devil, and man, are the three parties. In this trial\n\n    \u201c... the devil is convicted of an injury to God in that he seduced\n    God\u2019s servant by fraud and holds him by violence. Man also is\n    convicted of an injury to God in that he despised His command and\n    wickedly gave himself to evil servitude. Likewise the devil is\n    convicted of an injury toward man, in first deceiving him and then\n    bringing evil upon him. The devil holds man unjustly, though man is\n    justly held.\u201d\n\nSince the devil\u2019s case against man was unjust, man might defeat his\nlordship; but he needed an advocate (_patronus_), which could be only God.\nGod, angry at man\u2019s sin, did not wish to undertake man\u2019s cause. He must be\nplacated; and man had no equivalent to offer for the injury he had done\nHim; for he had deserted God when rational and innocent, and could deliver\nhimself back to God only as an irrational and sinful creature. Therefore,\nin order that man might have wherewithal to placate God, God through\nmercy gave man a man whom man might give in place of him who had sinned.\nGod became man for man and as man gave himself for man. Thus He who had\nbeen man\u2019s Creator became also his Redeemer. God might have redeemed man\nin some other way, but took the way of human nature as best suited to\nman\u2019s weakness.\n\nAfter our first parent had been exiled from Paradise for his sin, the\ndevil possessed him violently. But God\u2019s providence tempered justice with\nmercy, and from the penalty itself prepared a remedy.\n\n    \u201cHe set for man as a sign the sacraments of his salvation, in order\n    that whoever would apprehend them with right faith and firm hope,\n    might, though under the yoke, have some fellowship with freedom. He\n    set His edict informing and instructing man, so that whoever should\n    elect to expect a saviour, should prove his vow of election in\n    observance of the sacraments. The devil also set his sacraments, that\n    he might know and possess his own more surely. The human race was at\n    once divided into opposite parties, some accepting the devil\u2019s\n    sacraments and some the sacraments of Christ.... Hence it is clear,\n    that from the beginning there were Christians in fact, if not in\n    name.\u201d\n\nHugo proceeds to show that the time of the institution of the sacraments\nbegan when our first parent, expelled from Paradise, was subjected to the\nexile of this mortal life, with all his posterity until the end.\n\n    \u201cAs soon as man had fallen from his first state of incorruption, he\n    began to be sick, in body through his mortality, in mind through his\n    iniquity. Forthwith God prepared the medicine of his reparation\n    through His sacraments. In divers times and places God presented these\n    for man\u2019s healing, as reason and the cause demanded, some of them\n    before the Law, some under the Law and some under grace. Though\n    different in form they had the one effect and accomplished the one\n    health. If any one inquires the period of their appointment he may\n    know that as long as there is disease so long is the time of the\n    medicine. The present life, from the beginning to the end of the\n    world, is the time of sickness and the time of the remedy. When a\n    sacrament has fulfilled its time it ceases, and others take its place,\n    to bring about that same health. These in turn have been succeeded at\n    last by others, which are not to be superseded.\u201d\n\nHaving followed Hugo\u2019s plan thus far, one sees why it is only at the\ncommencement of the ninth Part of his first Book that he reaches the\ndefinition and discussion of those final and enduring sacraments which\nfollowed the Incarnation. He has hitherto been developing his theme, and\nnow takes up its very essence. Laying out the matter scholastically, he\nsays \u201cthere are four things to consider: first, what is a sacrament;\nsecond, why they were instituted; third, what may be the material of each\nsacrament, in which it is made and sanctified; and fourth, how many\nsacraments there are. This is the definition, cause, material, and\nclassification.\u201d\n\nProceeding to the definition, he says that the doctors have briefly\ndescribed a sacrament as the token of the sacred substance (_sacrae rei\nsignum_).\n\n    \u201cFor as there is body and soul in man, and in Scripture the letter and\n    the sense, so in every sacrament there is the visible external which\n    may be handled and the invisible within, which is believed and taught.\n    The material external is the sacrament, and the invisible and\n    spiritual is the sacrament\u2019s substance (_res_) or _virtus_. The\n    external is handled and sanctified; that is the _signum_ of the\n    spiritual grace, which is the sacrament\u2019s _res_ and is invisibly\n    apprehended.\u201d\n\nHaving thus explained the old definition, Hugo objects to it on the ground\nthat not every _signum rei sacrae_ is a sacrament; the letters of the\nsacred text and the pictures of holy things are _signa rei sacrae_, and\nyet are not sacraments. He therefore offers the following definition as\nadequate:\n\n    \u201cThe sacrament is the corporeal or material element set out sensibly,\n    representing from its similitude, signifying from its institution, and\n    containing from its sanctification, some invisible and spiritual\n    grace.\u201d[77]\n\nThis, he maintains, is a perfect definition, since all sacraments possess\nthese three qualities, and whatever lacks them cannot properly be called a\nsacrament. As an example he instances the baptismal water:\n\n    \u201cThere is the visible element of water, which is the sacrament; and\n    these three are found in one: representation from similitude,\n    significance from appointment, virtue from sanctification. The\n    similitude is from creation, the appointment from dispensation, the\n    sanctification from benediction. The first is imparted to it through\n    the Creator, the second is added through the Saviour, the third is\n    given through the administrator.\u201d[78]\n\nPassing to the second consideration, Hugo finds that the sacraments were\ninstituted with threefold purpose, for man\u2019s humiliation, instruction, and\ndiscipline or exercise. The man contemning them cannot be saved. Yet God\nhas saved many without them, as Jeremiah was sanctified in the womb, and\nJohn the Baptist, and those who were righteous under the natural law. \u201cFor\nthose who under the natural law possessed the substance (_res_) of the\nsacrament in right faith and charity, did not to their damnation lack the\nsacrament.\u201d And Hugo warns whoever might take a narrower view, to beware\nlest in honouring God\u2019s sacraments, His power and goodness be made of no\navail. \u201cDost thou tell me that he who has not the sacraments of God cannot\nbe saved? I tell thee that he who has the virtue of the sacraments of God\ncannot perish. Which is greater, the sacrament or the virtue of the\nsacrament--water or faith? If thou wouldst speak truly, answer, \u2018faith.\u2019\u201d\nOne notes that the twelfth century had its broad-mindedness, as well as\nthe twentieth.\n\nWhile passing on discursively to consider the classification of the\nsacraments, Hugo considers many matters,[79] and then opens his treatment\nof the sacraments of the natural law with a recapitulation:\n\n    \u201cThe sacraments from the beginning were instituted for the restoration\n    and healing of man, some under the natural law, some under the\n    written law, and others under grace. Those which are later in time\n    will be found more worthy means of spiritual grace. For all those\n    sacraments of the former time, under the natural or the written law,\n    were signs and figures of those now appointed under grace. The\n    spiritual effect of the former in their time was wrought through the\n    virtue and sanctification drawn from the latter. If any one therefore\n    would deny that those prior sacraments were effectual for\n    sanctification, he does not seem to me to judge aright.\u201d[80]\n\nThe sacraments of the natural law were as the _umbra veritatis_; those of\nthe written law as the _imago vel figura veritatis_; but those under grace\nare the _corpus veritatis_.[81] The written law, though given fully only\nthrough Moses, began with Abraham, upon whom circumcision was enjoined as\na sacrament and sign of separation from the heathen peoples. In obedience\nto its precepts lies the merit, in its promises lies the reward, while its\nsacraments aid men to fulfil its precepts and obtain its reward. Hugo\ndiscusses the sacraments of circumcision and burnt-offerings which were\nnecessary for the remission of sins; then those which exercised the\nfaithful people in devotion--the peace-offering is an example; and again\nthose which aided the people to cultivate piety, as the tabernacle and its\nutensils.\n\nHugo\u2019s second Book, which makes the second half of his work, is devoted to\nthe \u201ctime of grace\u201d inaugurated by the Incarnation. It treats in detail\nthe Christian sacraments and other topics of the Faith, down to the Last\nJudgment, when the wicked are cast into hell, and the blessed enter upon\neternal life, where God will be seen eternally, praised without weariness,\nand loved without satiety. This blessed lot flows from the grace of the\nsalvation brought by Christ, and is dependent on the sacraments, the\nenduring means of grace. On their part, the sacraments, whatever more they\nare, are symbols, in essence and function connected with the symbolical\nnature of God\u2019s creation, with the prefigurative significance of the\nfortunes of God\u2019s chosen people until the coming of Christ, with the\nimport and symbolism of Christ\u2019s life and teachings, and with the\nsymbolism inherent in the organization and building up of Christ\u2019s holy\nChurch. Symbolism and allegory are made part of the constitution of the\nworld and man; they connect man\u2019s body and environment with his spirit,\nand link the life of this world with the life to come. Hugo has thus\ngrounded and established symbolism in the purposes of God, in the\nuniversal scheme of things, and in the nature and destinies of man.[82]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX\n\nCATHEDRAL AND MASS; HYMN AND IMAGINATIVE POEM\n\n     I. GUILELMUS DURANDUS AND VINCENT OF BEAUVAIS.\n\n    II. THE HYMNS OF ADAM OF ST. VICTOR AND THE _Anticlaudianus_ of ALANUS\n        OF LILLE.\n\n\nUnder sanction of Scriptural interpretation and the sacraments, allegory\nand symbolism became accepted principles of spiritual verity, sources of\npolitical argument, and modes of transcendental truth. They penetrated the\nLiturgy, charging every sentence and ceremonial act with saving\nsignificance and power; and as plastic influences they imparted form and\nmatter to religious art and poetry, where they had indeed been potent from\nthe beginning.\n\n\nI\n\nIn the early Church the office of the Mass, the ordination of priests, and\nthe dedication of churches were not charged with the elaborate symbolism\ncarried by these ceremonies in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,[83]\nwhen the Liturgy, or speaking more specifically, the Mass, had become\nsymbolical from the _introit_ to the last benediction; and Gothic\nsculpture and glass painting, which were its visible illustration, had\nbeen impressed with corresponding allegory. Mediaeval liturgic lore is\nsummed up by Guilelmus Durandus in his _Rationale divinorum officiorum_,\nwhich was composed in the latter part of the thirteenth century, and\ncontains much that is mirrored in the art of the French cathedrals. It is\nimpossible to review the elaborate symbolical significance of the Mass as\nset forth in the authoritative work of one who was a bishop, theologian,\njurist, and papal regent.[84] But a little of it may be given.\n\nThe office of the Mass, says Durandus, is devised with great forethought,\nso as to contain the major part of what was accomplished by and in Christ\nfrom the time when He descended from heaven to the time when He ascended\ninto heaven. In the sacrifice of the Mass all the sacrifices of the\nAncient Law are represented and superseded. It may be celebrated at the\nthird hour, because then, according to Mark, Christ ascended the cross,\nand at that hour also the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in\ntongues of fire; or at the sixth hour, when, according to Matthew, Christ\nwas crucified; or at the ninth hour, when on the cross He gave up His\nspirit.\n\nThe first part of the Mass begins with the _introit_. Its antiphonal\nchanting signifies the aspirations and deeds, the prayers and praises of\nthe patriarchs and prophets who were looking for the coming of the Son of\nGod. The chorus of chanting clergy represents this yearning multitude of\nsaints of the Ancient Law. The bishop, clad in his sacred vestments,[85]\nat the end of the procession, emerging from the sacristy and advancing to\nthe altar, represents Christ, the expected of the nations, emerging from\nthe Virgin\u2019s womb and entering the world, even as the Spouse from His\nsecret chamber. The seven lights borne before him on the chief festivals\nare the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit descending upon the head of Christ.\nThe two acolytes preceding him signify the Law and the Prophets, shown in\nMoses and Elias who appeared with Christ on Mount Tabor. The four who bear\nthe canopy are the four evangelists, declaring the Gospel. The bishop\ntakes his seat and lays aside his mitre. He is silent, as was Christ\nduring His early years. The Book of the Gospels lies closed before him.\nAround him in the company of clergy are represented the Magi and others.\n\nThe services proceed, every word and act filled with symbolic import. The\nreading of the Epistle is reached--that is the preaching of John the\nBaptist, who preaches only to the Jews; so the reader turns to the north,\nthe region of the Ancient Law. The reading ended, he bows before the\nbishop, as the Baptist humbled himself before Christ.\n\nAfter the Epistle comes the Gradual or _responsorium_, which relates to\npenitence and the works of the active life. The Baptist is still the main\nfigure, until the solemn moment when the Gospel is read, which signifies\nthe beginning of Christ\u2019s preaching. The Creed follows the Gospel, as\nfaith follows the preaching of the truth. Its twelve parts refer to the\ncalling of the twelve apostles. Then the bishop begins his sermon; that is\nto say, after the calling of the Twelve, the Word of God is preached to\nthe people, and it henceforth behoves the Church to hold fast to the Creed\nwhich has just been recited.[86]\n\nThe authoritative allegorizing of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries\nextended the symbolism of the Mass to the edifice in which it was\ncelebrated; as the _Rationale_ sets forth in its opening chapter entitled\n\u201cDe ecclesia et eius partibus.\u201d There it is shown that the corporeal\nchurch is the edifice, while the Church, spiritually taken, signifies the\nfaithful people drawn together from all sorts of men as the edifice is\nconstructed of all sorts of stones. The various names ecclesia, synagogue,\nbasilica, and tabernacle are explained; and then why the Church is called\nthe Body of Christ, and also Virgin, also Spouse, Mother, Daughter, Widow,\nand indeed Meretrix, as it shuts its bosom against no one seeking it. The\nform of the church conforms to that of Solomon\u2019s temple, in the anterior\npart of which the people heard and prayed, while the clergy prayed and\npreached, gave thanks and ministered, in the sanctuary or sacred place.\nSolomon\u2019s temple in turn was modelled on the Tabernacle of the Exodus,\nwhich, because it was constructed on a journey, is the type of the world\nwhich passes away and the lust thereof. It was made with the four colours\nof the arch of heaven, as the world consists of the four elements. Since\nGod is in the world, He is in the tabernacle (which also means the Church\nmilitant) and in the midst of the faithful congregation. The anterior part\nof the tabernacle, where the people sacrificed, is also the _Vita activa_,\nin which the laity labour in neighbourly love; and the portion where the\nLevites ministered is the _Vita contemplativa_.\n\nThe church should be erected in the following manner: the place of its\nfoundation should be made ready--well-founded is the house of the Lord\nupon a rock--and the bishop or licensed priest should sprinkle it with\nholy water to dispel the demons, and should lay the first stone, on which\nshould be carved a cross. The head of the church, that is the chancel,\nshould be set toward the rising sun at the time of the equinox. Now if the\nJews were commanded to build walls for Jerusalem, how much more ought we\nto build the walls of our churches? The material church signifies the Holy\nChurch built of living stones in heaven, with Christ the corner-stone,\nupon which are set the foundations of Apostles and Prophets. The walls\nabove are the Jews and Gentiles, who believing come to Christ from the\nfour quarters of the world. The faithful people predestined to life are\nthe stones thereof.\n\nThe mortar in which the stones are set is made of lime, sand, and water.\nLime is fervent love, which takes to itself the sand, that is, earthly\ntoil; then water, which is the Spirit, unites the lime and sand. As the\nstones of the wall would have no stability without the mortar, so men\ncannot be set in the walls of the heavenly Jerusalem without love, which\nthe Holy Spirit brings. The stones of the wall are hewn and squared, which\nmeans sanctified and made clean. Some stones are borne, but do not\nthemselves bear any burden, and these are the feeble in the Church. Other\nstones are borne, yet also bear; while still others bear, but are not\nborne, save by Christ alone, the one foundation; and the last are the\nperfect.\n\nThe Jews were subject to hostile attack while building the walls of\nJerusalem,[87] so that with one hand they set stones, while they fought\nwith the other. Likewise are we surrounded by hostile vices as we build\nthe walls of the Church; but we oppose them with the shield of faith and\nthe breastplate of righteousness, and the sword of the Word of God in our\nhands.\n\nThe church edifice is disposed like the human body. The chancel, where the\naltar is, represents the head, and the cross (transept) the arms and\nhands. The western portion (nave and aisles) is the rest of the body. But\nindeed Richard of St. Victor deems that the three parts of the edifice\nrepresent in order of sanctity, first the virgins, then the continent, and\nlastly married people.\n\nAgain, the Church is built with four walls; that is, by the teaching of\nthe four evangelists it rises broad and high into the altitude of the\nvirtues. Its length is the long-suffering with which it endures adversity;\nits breadth is love, with which it embraces its friends in God, and loves\nits enemies for His sake; its height is the hope of future reward. Again,\nin God\u2019s temple the foundation is faith, which is as to what is not seen;\nthe roof is charity, which covers a multitude of sins. The door is\nobedience--keep the commandments if thou wilt enter into life.[88] The\npavement is humility. The four walls are the four virtues, righteousness,\n(_justitia_), fortitude, prudence, and temperance. The windows are glad\nhospitality and free-handed pity.\n\nSome churches are cruciform, to teach us that we are crucified to the\nworld, or should follow the Crucified. Some are circular, which signifies\nthat the Church is spread through the circle of the world.\n\nThe apse signifies the faithful laity; the crypts, the hermits. The nave\nsignifies Christ, through whom lies the way to the heavenly Jerusalem; the\ntowers are the preachers and prelates, and the pinnacles represent the\nprelates\u2019 minds which soar on high. Also a weather-cock on top of the\nchurch signifies the preachers, who rouse the sleeping from the night of\nsin, and turning ever to the wind, resist the rebellious. The iron rod\nupholding the cock is the preacher\u2019s sermon; and because this rod is\nplaced above the cross on the church, it indicates the word of God\nfinished and confirmed, as Christ said in His passion, \u201cIt is finished.\u201d\nThe lofty dome on which the cross is set, signifies how perfect and\ninviolate should be the preaching and observance of the Catholic Faith.\n\nThe glass windows of the church are the divine Scriptures, which repel the\nwind and rain, but admit the light of the true sun, to wit God, into the\nchurch, that is, into the hearts of the faithful. The windows also signify\nthe five senses of the body.[89]\n\nThe door of the church (again) is Christ--\u201cI am the Door\u201d; the doors are\nalso the Apostles. The pillars are the bishops and doctors; their bases\nare the apostolic bishops; their capitals are the minds of the doctors and\nbishops. The pavement is the foundation of faith, and also signifies the\n\u201cpoor in spirit,\u201d also the common crowd by whose labours the church is\nupheld. The rafters are the princes and preachers in the world, who defend\nthe church by deed and word. The seats in a church are the contemplative\nin whom God rests without offence. The panels in the ceiling are also\npreachers who adorn and strengthen.\n\nThe chancel, the head of the church, by being lower than the rest,\nindicates how great should be the humility of the clergy. The screens by\nwhich the altar is separated from the choir signify the separation of\nheavenly beings from things of earth. The choir stalls indicate the body\u2019s\nneed of recreation. The pulpit is the life of the perfect. The horologe\nsignifies the diligence with which the priests should say the canonical\nhours. The tiles of the roof are the knights who protect the church from\npagans. The spiral stairways concealed within the walls are the secret\nknowledge had only by those who ascend to the heavenly places. The\nsacristy, where the holy utensils are kept and the priest puts on his\nvestments, signifies the womb of the most holy Virgin, in which Christ put\non His sacred garb of flesh. From thence the priest emerges before the\npublic, as Christ went forth from the Virgin\u2019s womb into the world. The\nlamp signifies Christ, who is the light of the world; or the lamps\nsignify the Apostles and other doctors, whose doctrine lights the church.\nMoses also made seven lights, which are the seven gifts of the Holy\nSpirit.\n\nDurandus next devotes a whole chapter to the symbolism of the altar, and\nanother to the significance and function of ornaments, pictures, and\nsculpture. The latter opens with the words: \u201cThe pictures and ornaments in\na church are the texts and scriptures (_lectiones et scripturae_) of the\nlaity.\u201d This chapter is long; it explains how Christ and the angels, also\nsaints, Apostles and others, should be represented, and describes the\nproper kinds of church ornament and utensils. Much of the detail is\nsymbolical.\n\nThus Durandus devised or brought together meanings to fit each bit of the\nchurch edifice, its materials and furnishings. In the work of a\ncontemporary are stored the allegorical meanings of the subjects of Gothic\nsculpture and painted glass. The thirteenth century had a weakness for the\nword \u201cSpeculum,\u201d and the idea it carried of a mirror or compendium of all\nhuman knowledge. The chief of mediaeval encyclopaedists was Vincent of\nBeauvais, a _prot\u00e9g\u00e9_ of the saintly King Louis IX. An analysis of his\nhuge _Speculum majus_ is given elsewhere.[90] It was made up of the Mirror\nof Nature, the Mirror of human Knowledge and Ethics, and the Mirror of\nHistory. The compiler and his assistants laboured during the best period\nof Gothic art, and from their work, industry may draw an exhaustive\ncommentary upon the series of topics presented by the sculpture and glass\nof a cathedral.[91]\n\nThe Mirror of Nature appears carved in the sculpture of Chartres or\nBourges. In rendering the work of the Six Days, the Creator is shown\n(under the form of Christ)[92] contemplating His work, or resting from\nHis toil; here and there a lion, sheep, or goat, suggests the animal\ncreation, and a few trees the vegetable world. This is the necessary\nsymbolism of the sculptor\u2019s art. But Gothic animals and plants sometimes\nhave other definite symbolic meanings, as in the instance of the\nwell-known signs of the four Evangelists, the man, the lion, the ox, the\neagle. The allegorical interpretations of Scripture were an exhaustless\nsource of symbolism for Gothic sculptors; another was the _Physiologus_\nand its progeny of Bestiaries, with their symbolic explanations of the\nlegendary attributes of animals. Intentional symbolism, however, did not\ninhere in all this carving, much of which is sheer fancy and decoration.\nSuch was the character of the splendid Gothic flora, of the birds and\nbeasts that move in it, and of the grotesque monsters. They were not out\nof place, since the Gothic cathedral was itself a Speculum or Summa, and\nshould include the whole of God\u2019s creation, not omitting even the devils\nwho beset men\u2019s souls.\n\nVincent may have drawn from Hugo of St Victor the current doctrine that\nthe arts have part in the work of man\u2019s restoration; a doctrine abundantly\njustifying the presence of the sciences and crafts (composing the Mirror\nof Knowledge) in the sculpture and painting of the cathedral. There the\nSeven Liberal Arts are rendered, through allegorical figures; and the\nmonths of the year are symbolized in the Zodiac and the labours of the\nfield which make up man\u2019s annual toil. Philosophy is shown and Fortune\u2019s\nwheel; the Virtues and Vices are represented in personifications, and even\ntheir conflict, the Psychomachia, may be shown.\n\nAt last the Mirror of History is reached. This will teach in concrete\nexamples what has been learned from the figures of the abstract Virtues\nand Vices. Its chief source is the Bible. Those Old Testament incidents\nwere selected which for centuries had been interpreted as prefigurements\nof the life of Christ; and each was presented as a pendant to the Gospel\nscene which it typified. These make the chief subjects of the coloured\nglass of Chartres and Bourges and other cathedrals where the windows are\npreserved. Here may be seen the Passion of Christ, surrounded by scenes\nfrom the Old Testament typifying it; likewise His Resurrection and its\nancient types; and other significant incidents in the life of the Saviour\nand His virgin mother.[93] The latter is typified by the burning bush, by\nthe fleece of Gideon, by the rod of Aaron, even as in the hymns of Adam of\nSaint-Victor.[94] Besides these incidents, leading personages of the Old\nTestament are presented as prefigurative of Christ, as in the great series\nof statues of Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, on the north\nportal of Chartres; while the four greater and twelve minor prophets are\nshown as types of the four Evangelists and the twelve Apostles. Christ\nhimself is depicted on a window at St. Denis, between the allegorical\nfigures of the Ancient Law and the Gospel,--figures which are allied to\nthose of the uncrowned and blinded Synagogue and the triumphant Church, so\nfrequently seen together upon cathedrals. Everywhere the tendency to\nsymbolize is strong. Parts of the Crucifixion scene are rendered\nsymbolically, and many of the parables. That of the Good Samaritan\nconstantly appears upon the windows, and is always designed so as to\nconvey the allegorical teaching drawn from it in Honorius\u2019s sermon.[95]\n\nObviously this Mirror of History was chiefly sacred history. Pagan\nantiquity was scantily suggested by the Sibyls, who stand for the dumb\npagan prophecy of Christ. Scenes from the history of Christian nations\nwere more frequent; but they always told of some victory for Christ, like\nthe baptism of Clovis, or the crusading deeds of Charlemagne, Roland or\nGodfrey of Bouillon. God\u2019s drama closed with the Last Judgment, the\ndamnation of the damned and the beatitude of the elect. The Last\nJudgments, usually over-arching the tympanums above cathedral doors, are\nknown to all--as at Rheims, at Chartres, at Bourges. They are full of\nsymbolism, and full of \u201chistoric\u201d reality as well. The treatment becomes\nentirely allegorical when the sculptor enters Paradise with the redeemed,\nand portrays in lovely personifications the beatitudes of the blessed, as\non the north portal of Chartres.\n\nThose bands of nameless men who carved the statues and designed the\ncoloured glass which were to make Gothic cathedrals speak, faithfully\npresented the teachings of the Church. They rendered the sacred drama of\nmankind\u2019s creation, fall, redemption, and final judgment unto hell or\nheaven: they rendered it in all its dogmatic symbolism, and with a plastic\nadequacy showing how completely they thought and felt in the allegorical\nmedium in which they worked. They also created matchless ideals of\nsymbolism in art. The statuary of the portals and fa\u00e7ades of Rheims and\nChartres are in their way comparable to the sculptures of the pediment of\nthe Parthenon. But unlike those masterpieces of antique idealism, these\nChristian masterpieces do not seek to set forth mortal man in his natural\nstrength and beauty and completeness. Rather they seek to show the working\nof the human spirit held within the power and grace of God. Theirs is not\nthe strength and beauty of the flesh, or the excellence of the\nunconquerable mind of man; but in them man\u2019s mind and spirit are palpably\nthe devout creatures of God\u2019s omnipotence, obedient to His will, sustained\nand redeemed by His power and grace. Attitude, form, feature, alike\ndesigned to express the sacred beauty of the soul, are not invested with\nphysical excellence for its own sake; but every physical quality of these\nstatues is a symbol of some holy and beautiful quality of spirit. These\nstatues attain a symbolic, and not a natural, ideal in art. Yet many of\nthem possess the physical beauty of form and feature, inasmuch as such may\nbe the proper envelope for the chaste and eager soul.[96]\n\nOn the other hand, in the filling out of the illustrative detail of life\non earth, of handicraft and art, the sculptor showed how he could carve\nthese actualities, and present earth\u2019s beauty in the cathedral\u2019s wealth of\nvine and flower and leaf. The level commonplace of humanity is deftly\nrendered, the daily doings of the forge and field and market-place, the\ntugging labourer, the merchant with his stuffs, the scholar with his\nscrolls. He knew life well, this artist, and had an eye for every catching\nscene, also for Nature\u2019s subtle beauties. Sometimes a certain passing show\nwas represented because a window was given by some drapers\u2019 guild,\ndesirous of seeing its craft shown in a place of honour; and the artist\nloved his scenes from busy life, as he loved his ornament from Nature.\nSuch scenes (which rarely held specific allegory) were not unconnected\nwith the rest of the drama of creation and redemption mirrored in the\ncathedral, nor was the exquisitely cut leaf and rose without its\nsuggestion of the grace incarnate in the Virgin and her Son. Daily life\nand natural ornament had at least an illustrative pertinency to the whole,\nof which they were unobtrusive and lovely elements; and since that whole\nwas primarily a visible symbol of the unseen and divine power, these\nhumble elements had part in its unutterable mystery, and were likewise\nsymbols.\n\nFinally, have not these nameless artists--even as Dante and our English\nBunyan--presented by their art a synthesis of life\u2019s realities? Their feet\nwere on the earth; with sympathy and knowledge their hands worked in the\nmedia of things seen and handled, and fashioned the little human matters\nwhich are bounded by the cradle and the grave. Such were the materials\nfrom which Dante formed his _Commedia_, and Bunyan drew the Progress of\nhis Pilgrim soul to God. Yet as with Bunyan and Dante, so with these\nartists in stone and coloured light, the mortal and the tangible were but\nthe elements through which the poem or story, or the carved or painted\npicture, was made the realizing symbol of the unseen and eternal Spirit.\n\n\nII\n\nBeneath the Abbey Church of Saint-Victor there was a crypt consecrated to\nthe Mother of God. Here a certain monk was wont to retire and compose\nhymns in her honour. One day his lips uttered the lines:\n\n  \u201cSalve, mater pietatis,\n   Et totius Trinitatis\n       Nobile triclinium;\n   Verbi tamen incarnati\n   Speciale majestati\n       Praeparans hospitium!\u201d\n\nWhereupon a flood of light filled the crypt, and the Virgin, appearing to\nhim, inclined her head.\n\nThe monk\u2019s name was Adam,[97] and he is deemed the best of Latin\nhymn-writers. Breton born, he entered Saint-Victor in his youth, about the\nyear 1130. He was favoured with the instruction of Hugo till the master\u2019s\ndeath in 1141. Adam must have been of nearly the same age as Richard of\nSaint-Victor, that other pupil of Hugo who makes the third member of the\ngreat Victorine trio. Their works have been the monastery\u2019s fairest fame.\nHugo was a Saxon; Adam a Breton; Richard was Scotch. So Saint-Victor drew\nher brilliant sons from many lands. Richard, whose writings worthily\nsupplemented those of his master Hugo,[98] died in 1173; his friend Adam\noutlived him, and died an old man as the twelfth century was closing. He\nwas buried in the cloister, and over him was placed an elegiac epitaph\nupon human vanity and sin, in part his own composition.\n\nAdam\u2019s hymns were Sequences[99] intended for church use. Their author was\nlearned in Christian doctrine, skilled in the Liturgy, and saturated with\nthe spirit of devotional symbolism. His symbolism, which his gift of verse\nmade into imagery, was that of the mediaeval church and its understanding\nof the Liturgy; he also shows the special influence of Hugo. Adam\u2019s hymns,\nwith their powerful Latin rhymes, cannot be reproduced in English; but a\ntranslation may give the contents of their symbolism. The hymn for Easter,\nbeginning \u201cZyma vetus expurgetur,\u201d[100] is an epitome of the symbolic\nprefiguration of Christ in the Old Testament. Each familiar allegorical\ninterpretation flashes in a phrase. Literally translated, or rather\nmaltreated, it is as follows:\n\n    \u201cLet the old leaven be purged away that a new resurrection may be\n    celebrated purely. This is the day of our hope; wonderful is the power\n    of this day by the testimony of the law.\n\n    \u201cThis day despoiled Egypt, and liberated the Hebrews from the fiery\n    furnace; for them in wretched straits the work of servitude was mud\n    and brick and straw.[101]\n\n    \u201cNow as praise of divine virtue, of triumph, of salvation, let the\n    voice break free! This is the day which the Lord made, the day ending\n    our grief, the day bringing salvation.\n\n    \u201cThe Law is the shadow of things to come, Christ the goal of promises,\n    who completes all. Christ\u2019s blood blunts the sword the guardians\n    removed.[102]\n\n    \u201cThe Boy, type of our laughter, in whose stead the ram was slain,\n    seals life\u2019s joy.[103] Joseph issues from the pit;[104] Christ returns\n    above after death\u2019s punishment.\n\n    \u201cThis serpent devours the serpents of Pharaoh secure from the\n    serpent\u2019s spite.[105] Whom the fire wounded, them the brazen serpent\u2019s\n    presence freed.[106]\n\n    \u201cThe hook and ring of Christ pierce the dragon\u2019s jaw;[107] the sucking\n    child puts his hand into the cockatrice\u2019s den, and the old tenant of\n    the world flees affrighted.[108]\n\n    \u201cThe mockers of Elisha ascending the house of God, feel the\n    bald-head\u2019s wrath;[109] David, feigning madness, the goat cast forth,\n    and the sparrow escape.[110]\n\n    \u201cWith a jaw-bone Samson slays a thousand and spurns the marriage of\n    his tribe. Samson bursts the bars of Gaza, and, carrying its gates,\n    scales the mountain\u2019s crest.[111]\n\n    \u201cSo the strong Lion of Judah, shattering the gates of dreadful death,\n    rises the third day; at His father\u2019s roaring voice, He carries aloft\n    His spoils to the bosom of the supernal mother.[112]\n\n    \u201cAfter three days the whale gives back from his belly\u2019s narrow house\n    Jonas the fugitive, type of the true Jonas. The grape of Cyprus[113]\n    blooms again, opens and grows apace. The synagogue\u2019s flower withers,\n    while flourishes the Church.[114]\n\n    \u201cDeath and life fought together: truly Christ arose, and with Him many\n    witnesses of glory. A new morn, a glad morn shall wipe away the tears\n    of evening: life overcame destruction; it is a time of joy.\n\n    \u201cJesu victor, Jesu life, Jesu life\u2019s beaten way, thou whose death\n    quelled death, bid us to the paschal board in trust. O Bread of life,\n    O living Wave, O true and fruitful Vine, do thou feed us, do thou\n    cleanse us, that thy grace may save us from the second death. Amen.\u201d\n\nFrom the time of that old third-century hymn ascribed to Clement of\nAlexandria,[115] hymns to Christ had been filled with symbolism, the\nsymbolism of loving personification of His attributes, as well as with the\nmore formal symbolism of His Old Testament prefigurements. Adam\u2019s\nsymbolism is of both kinds. It has feeling even when dogmatic,[116] and\nthrobs with devotion as its theme approaches the Gospel Christ. Prevailing\nmodes of thought and feeling may prescribe topics for verse which a\nsucceeding age will find curiously unpoetic. Yet if the later time have a\nsympathetic understanding for the past, it will recognize how fervid and\nhow songful was that bygone verse--the verse of Adam\u2019s hymns, for\ninstance. In one for Christmas Day, beginning:\n\n  \u201cPotestate, non natura,\n   Fit Creator creatura,\u201d[117]\n\na stanza touches on the reason why the Creator thus became creature. It\nwould be impossible to render its feeling in English, and much\ncircumlocution would be needed to express even its literal meaning in any\nlanguage but mediaeval Latin. This stanza has twelve lines:\n\n  \u201cCausam quaeris, modum rei:\n   Causa prius omnes rei,\n   Modus justum velle Dei,\n       Sed conditum gratia.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThou askest cause and _modus_ of the fact: the _causa rei_ was before\n    all, the _modus_ was God\u2019s righteous willing, but seasoned with\n    grace.\u201d\n\nThese lines are scholastic. In the next four, the feeling begins to rise,\nyet the phrases repel rather than attract us:\n\n  \u201cO quam dulce condimentum\n   Nobis mutans in pigmentum,\n   Cum aceto fel cruentum\n       Degustante Messya!\u201d\n\n    \u201cOh! how sweet the condiment changing for us into juice, as the\n    Messiah tastes the bloody gall and vinegar.\u201d\n\nThe feeling touches its climax with the four concluding lines, in which\nthe parable of the Good Samaritan is invested with the special allegorical\nsignificance set forth in the sermon of Honorius:[118]\n\n  \u201cO salubre sacramentum,\n   Quod nos ponit in jumentum\n   Plagis nostris dans unguentum\n       Ille de Samaria.\u201d\n\n    \u201cO health-giving sacrament which sets us on a beast, giving ointment\n    for our stripes,--he of Samaria.\u201d[119]\n\nTwo stanzas from another of Adam\u2019s Christmas hymns will show how\ncuriously intricate could be his symbolism. Having spoken of the ineffable\nwonder of the Incarnation, he proceeds:\n\n  \u201cFrondem, florem, nucem sicca\n   Virga profert, et pudica\n       Virgo Dei Filium.\n   Fert coelestem vellus rorem,\n   Creatura creatorem,\n       Creaturae pretium.\n\n  \u201cFrondis, floris, nucis, roris\n   Pietati Salvatoris\n       Congruunt mysteria.\n   Frons est Christus protegendo,\n   Flos dulcore, nux pascendo,\n       Ros coelesti gratia.\u201d[120]\n\n    \u201cA dry rod puts forth leafage, flower, nut,[121] and a chaste Virgin\n    brings forth the Son of God. A fleece bears heavenly dew,[122] a\n    creature the Creator, the creature\u2019s price.\n\n    \u201cThe mysteries of leafage, flower, nut, dew are suited to the\n    Saviour\u2019s tender love (_pietas_). The foliage by its protecting is\n    Christ, the flower is Christ by its sweetness, the nut as it yields\n    food, the dew by its celestial grace.\u201d\n\nOne observes that here the symbolism first touches Christ\u2019s birth, the dry\nrod and the fleece representing the Virgin. Then the leafage, flower, nut\nand dew typify His qualities. The remaining stanzas of this hymn carry out\nin further detail the symbolism of the nut.\n\nBesides the hymns devoted to the Saviour, the greater part of Adam\u2019s hymns\nare symbolical throughout. Those written for the dedication of churches\nare among the most interesting. One beginning \u201cQuam dilecta\ntabernacula\u201d[123] sketches the Old Testament facts which prefigure\nChrist\u2019s holy Church. The keynote is in the lines:\n\n  \u201cQuam decora fundamenta\n   Per concinna sacramenta\n       Umbra praecurrentia!\u201d\n\n    \u201cHow seemly the foundations through the appropriate sacraments, the\n    forerunning shadow.\u201d\n\nThe shadow is the Old Testament, and these three lines sum up the teaching\nof Hugo as to the sacramental nature of the Old Testament narratives.\nThroughout this hymn Adam follows Hugo closely.[124] In another dedicatory\nhymn[125] Adam gives the prefigurative meaning of the parts of Solomon\u2019s\ntemple. There is likewise much symbolism in the grand hymns addressed to\nthe Virgin. One for the festival of the Assumption[126] gives the figures\nof the Virgin in the Old Testament--the throne of Solomon, the fleece of\nGideon, the burning bush. Then with more feeling the metaphorical epithets\npour forth, voicing the heart\u2019s gratitude to the Virgin\u2019s saving aid to\nman. A still more splendid example of like symbolism and ardent metaphor\nis the great hymn beginning:\n\n  \u201cSalve mater Salvatoris,\n   Vas electum, vas honoris,\u201d\n\nwhich won the Virgin\u2019s greeting for the poet.[127]\n\nThe lives of Honorius, of Hugo, of Adam, from whose works we have been\ndrawing illustrations of mediaeval symbolism, vie with each other in\nobscurity; and properly enough since they were monks, for whom\nself-effacement is becoming. This personal obscurity culminates with one\nlast example to be drawn from monastic sources. The man himself was an\nimpressive figure in his time; a sight of him was not to be forgotten: he\nwas called _magnus_ and _doctor universalis_. Nevertheless it has been\nquestioned whether he lived in the twelfth or the thirteenth century, and\nwhether one man or two bore the name of Alanus de Insulis.\n\nThere was in fact but one, and he belongs to the twelfth century, dying\nalmost a centenarian, in the year 1202. The cognomen _de Insulis_ has also\nbeen an enigma. From it he has been dubbed a Sicilian, and then a Scot,\nborn on the island of Mona. But the name in reality refers to the chief\ntown of Flanders, which is called Lisle; and Alanus doubtless was a\nFleming.\n\nHe became a learned man, and lectured at Paris. That he was possessed with\nno small opinion of his talents would appear from the legend told of him\nas well as of St. Augustine. He had announced that on a certain day in a\nsingle lecture he would set forth the complete doctrine of the mystery of\nthe most Holy Trinity. The afternoon before the day appointed, he walked\nby the river, thinking how he should arrange his subject so as to include\nit all. He chanced upon a child who was dipping up the river water with a\nsnail shell and dropping it into a little trench. Smiling, he asked what\nshould be the object of this; and the child told him that he was putting\nthe whole river into his trench. As the great scholar was explaining that\nthis could not be done, he suddenly felt himself chidden and taught--how\nmuch less might he perform what he had set for the next morning. He stood\nspeechless at his presumption, and burst into tears. The next day\nascending the platform he said to the crowd of auditors, \u201cLet it suffice\nyou to have seen Alanus\u201d;[128] and with that he left them all astonished,\nand himself hastily set out for Citeaux. On arrival he asked to be\nadmitted as a _conversus_, and was given charge of the monastery\u2019s sheep.\nPatient and unknown, he long plied this humble vocation. But at length it\nchanced that the abbot took him to a council at Rome, in the capacity of\nhostler. And there he beat down the arrogance of a heretic with such\narguments that the latter cried out that he was disputing either with the\ndevil or Alanus, and would say no more.\n\nSuch is one story. By another he is made to seek the monastery of\nClairvaux, and there become a monk under St. Bernard. It is also written\nthat he became an abbot, and then a bishop, but afterwards resigned his\nbishopric. However all this may have been, he died and was buried, and was\nsubjected to many epitaphs. On what purports to be an old copy of his tomb\nat Citeaux, he is shown with St. Bernard, and called Alanus Magnus. The\ntitle _Doctor universalis_ has always clung to his memory, which will not\naltogether fade. For if Adam of Saint-Victor was the greatest of Latin\nmediaeval hymn-writers, Alanus has good claim to be called the greatest of\nmediaeval Latin poets in the field of didactic and narrative poetry.[129]\n\nThe many works ascribed to Alanus include an allegorical Commentary on\nCanticles, a treatise on the art of preaching, a book of _sententiae_,\nanother of _theologicae regulae_, sundry sermons, and a lengthy work\n\u201ccontra haereticos\u201d; also a large dictionary of Biblical allegorical\ninterpretations, entitled _Liber in distinctionibus dictionum\ntheologicalium_.[130] All these are prose. He composed besides his _Liber\nde planctu naturae_,[131] and his _Anticlaudianus_, a learned and\nprofound, and likewise highly imaginative allegorical poem upon man.[132]\nIts Preface in prose casts a curious light upon the author\u2019s enigmatical\npersonality, which combined the wonted or conventional humility of a monk\nwith the towering self-consciousness of a man of genius.\n\n    \u201cThe lightning scorns to spend its force on twigs, but breaks the\n    proud tops of exalted trees. The wind\u2019s imperious rage passes over the\n    reed and drives the assaults of its wild blasts against the highest\n    summits. Wherefore let not envy\u2019s flame strike the pinched humility of\n    my work, nor detraction\u2019s breath overwhelm the driven poverty of my\n    little book, where misery\u2019s wreck demands a port of pity, far more\n    than felicity provokes the sting of spite.\u201d\n\nMore sentences of turgid deprecation follow, and the author begs the\nreader not to approach his book with disgust and irritation, but with\npleasant anticipations of novelty (not all a monk speaks here!).\n\n    \u201cFor although the book may not bloom with the purple vestment of\n    flowering speech, nor shine with the constellated light of the\n    flashing period, still in the tenuity of the fragile reed the honey\u2019s\n    sweetness may be found, and parched thirst can be tempered with the\n    scant water of a rill. In this book let nothing be made vulgar\n    (_plebescat_) with ribaldry, nor let anything be open to biting\n    reproof, as if it smacked of the coarseness of the moderns [to whom\n    does he refer?]; but let the flower of my talent be presented, and the\n    dignity of diligence; for pigmy humility, thus raised upon a height,\n    may overtop the giant. Let not those dare to tire of this work, who\n    are squalling in the cradles of elementary instruction, sucking milk\n    from nurses\u2019 paps; nor let those seek to cry it down, who are pledged\n    to the service of the higher learning; nor those presume to discredit\n    it, who strike heaven from the top-notch of philosophy. For in this\n    work, the sweetness of the literal meaning will tickle the puerile\n    ear; moral teaching will instruct the more proficient understanding;\n    and the finer subtilty of allegory will sharpen the finished\n    intellect. Wherefore let all those be kept from ingress who, abandoned\n    to the mirrors of the senses, are not charioteered by reason, and,\n    pursuing the sense-image, have no appetite for reason\u2019s truth,--lest\n    indeed what is holy be defiled by dogs, and the pearl be trampled by\n    the feet of swine. But such as will not suffer the things of reason to\n    rest with the base images, and dare to lift their view to forms\n    divine, may thread the narrow passes of my book, while they weigh with\n    discretion\u2019s scales what is suited to the common ear, and what should\n    be buried in silence.\u201d\n\nThis Preface of strained sentence and laboured metaphor, of forced\nhumility and overweening self-consciousness, hardly augurs well for the\npoem of which it is the prelude. But prefaces are authors\u2019 pitfalls, and,\nmoreover, many writers have floundered in one medium of speech while in\nanother they have moved with ease. From the ungainly prose of the\n_Persones Tale_, no one would expect the ease and force of Chaucer\u2019s\nverse. And the reader of Alanus\u2019s Preface need not be discouraged from\nentering upon his poem. Its subject is man; its philosophic or religious\npurpose is to expound the functions of God, of Nature, of Fortune, of\nVirtue and Vice, in making man and shaping his career. The poem is an\nallegory, original in its general scheme of composition, but in many of\nits parts following earlier allegorical writings.\n\nThe opening lines tell of Nature\u2019s solicitude to bestow her gifts so that\nthe finished work may present a fair harmony: as a patient workman she\nforges, trims and files, and fashions with reason\u2019s chisel. But when she\nseeks to invest her work with qualities beyond her giving, she is obliged\nto call on the Celestial Council of her Sisters. Responding, pilgrim-like\nthe Crown of Heaven\u2019s soldiery comes from on high, brightens the earth\nwith its light, and clothes the ground with blessed footprints.\n\nLeading this galaxy, Concord advances, foster-child of Peace; then Plenty\ncomes, and Favour, and Youth with favour anointed, and Laughter, banisher\nof mental mists; then Shame and Modesty, and Reason the measure of good,\nand Honesty, Reason\u2019s happy comrade; then Dignity (_decus_) and Prudence\nbalancing her scales, and Piety and true Faith, and Virtue. Last of all\nNobility (_nobilitas_), in grace not quite the others\u2019 equal.[133]\n\nIn the midst of a great wood blessed with fountains and multitudinous\nbird-song, a cloud-kissing mountain rose with level top. Nature\u2019s palace\nwas erected here, gemmed and golden; and within was a great hall hung upon\nbronze columns. Here the painter\u2019s art had rendered the ways of men, and\ninscriptions made plain the pictured story. \u201cO new wonders of painting,\u201d\nexclaims the poet; \u201cwhat cannot be, comes into being; and painting, the\nape of truth, deluding with novel art, turns shadows to realities, and\ntransforms particular falsehood into (general) truth.\u201d[134] There might be\nseen the power of logic pressing its arguments and conquering sophistry.\nThere Aristotle was preparing his arms, and, more divinely, Plato mused on\nheaven\u2019s secrets. There Seneca moralized, and Ptolemy explained the stars\nin their times and courses. There spoke the word of Tully, while Virgil\u2019s\nmuse painted many lies, and put truth\u2019s garb on falsehood. There was also\nshown the might of Alcides and Ulysses\u2019 wisdom, Turnus\u2019s valour prodigal\nof life, and Hippolytus\u2019s shame, undone by Venus\u2019s reins.[135] Such and\nmany other tropes of things and dreams of truth, this royal art set\nforth.\n\nHere, standing in the midst of her Council, Nature, with bowed head, spoke\nher solemn words: \u201cPainfully I remake what my hand\u2019s solicitude has\nwrought. But the hand\u2019s penitence does not wipe out the flaws. The\nshortcomings of our works must be repaired by some perfect model, some man\ndivine, not smelling of the earth and earthly, but whose mind shall hold\nto heaven while his body walks the earth. Let him be the mirror in which\nwe may see what our faith, our potency, and virtue ought to be. As it is,\nour shame is over all the earth.\u201d\n\nWhen the Council had approved these words, Prudence arose in all her\nbeauty.[136] She discoursed upon man\u2019s dual nature, spirit and body.\nNature and her helpers may be the artificers of his mortal body, but the\nsoul demands its heavenly Artificer, and laughs at our rude arts. God\u2019s\nwisdom alone can create the soul, as Prudence shows by an exposition of\nits qualities.\n\nNow Reason raised his reverend form, holding his triple glass in which\nappear the causes and effects and qualities of things. He humbly\ndisclaimed the power to instruct Minerva,[137] and applauded the plan by\nwhich a new Lucifer should sojourn in the world. May he unite all the\ngifts which they can bestow, and be their champion against the Vices. Now\nlet their suppliant vows be sped to Him who alone can create the divine\nmind. A legate should be despatched above, bearing their request. For this\noffice none is so fit as Prudence, to whom the secrets of Heaven are\nknown, and whose energy and wisdom will surmount the difficulties of the\nway.\n\nPrudence at first refuses; but Concordia rises, the inspirer of chaste\nloves, she who knit the souls of David and Jonathan, Pirithous and\nTheseus, Nisus and Euryalus, Orestes and Pylades. Persuasively she speaks,\nand points out all the ills the world had suffered by disobedience to her\nbehests. Prudence is won over to the task, and now wills only as her\nsisters will. She thinks upon the means and way. Wisdom orders a chariot\nto be made, in which the sea, the stars, the heavens may be traversed. Its\nartificers are her seven daughters, wise and fair, who unite the skill and\nknowledge of all those wise ancients who had excelled in any Art. First\nGrammar (her functions and great writers being told) forms the pole which\ngoes before the axle-tree (_temo praeambulus axis_). Then Logic makes the\naxle-tree; and Rhetoric adorns the pole with gems and the axle with\nflowers. Arithmetic constructs one wheel of the chariot, and Music the\nsecond, Geometry the third, and the fourth wheel is made by\nAstronomy.[138]\n\nNow Reason, at Nature\u2019s nod, yokes to the chariot the five horses, to wit,\nthe Senses disciplined and controlled, Sight, Hearing, Smell, Taste, and\nTouch. He himself mounts as charioteer, and bids Prudence follow. Amid the\nfarewells and plaudits of all, the chariot soars aloft. As it speeds\nalong, Prudence investigates atmospheric phenomena, and then the spirits\nof evil who wander through the air. They passed on through the upper\nether, reached the citadel and fount of light, where the Sun holds sway;\nnext was reached the region where Venus and the star of Mercury sing\ntogether and Lucifer exults, the herald of the day. Then to their rapid\nflight appeared Mars\u2019 flaming palace, seething with fire and wrath. Onward\nthey passed to the glad light and unhurtful flames of Jupiter, and then to\nSaturn\u2019s sphere. At length they ascended the stellar region where the Pole\nstars contend in brightness, where are seen Hercules and Orion, Leda\u2019s\ntwins, the fiery Crab, the Lion, and the rest of the Zodiac\u2019s\nconstellations.[139]\n\nHere at heaven\u2019s entrance the chariot halted. Those five horses of the\nSenses, charioteered by Reason, could ascend no farther. But a damsel was\nseen, seated upon the summit of the Pole. She scrutinizes the hidden Cause\nand End of all things, holding scales in her right hand and in her left a\nsceptre. On her vestments a subtile point traces God\u2019s secrets, and the\nformless is figured in form. Reverently Phronesis, that is Prudence,\nsaluted this Queen of the Pole, and set forth the purpose of her journey,\ntelling of Nature\u2019s desire and her limitations. In reply Theology, for it\nis she,[140] offered herself as a companion, and bade Prudence leave her\nchariot, but keep the second courser (Hearing) to bear her on. Prudence\nnow surmounted the starry citadels, and marvelled at heaven\u2019s nodes, where\nthe four ways begin and the crystalline waters flow, shot with agreeing\nfires; for here, in universal harmony transcending Nature\u2019s laws and\nReason\u2019s power, Concord unites those elements which war below. Onward\nleads the way among those joys celestial which know no tears, where there\nis peace without hate, and light above all brightness. Here dwell the\nangel bands, the Thunderer\u2019s princes, regulators of the world; here glow\nthe seraphim, and cherubim drain draughts from the mind of God; and here\nare the Thrones whereon God balances His weighed decrees, and with His\nband of Powers conquers the tyrants.[141] Here also rest the saints, freed\nfrom earth\u2019s dross and passion, clothed in virgin white or martyr\u2019s\npurple, or wearing the Doctor\u2019s laurel. Joyful alike are they, yet diverse\nin merit, shining with unequal splendour.[142] Here finally, in honour\nsurpassing all, is the Virgin Mother, clad in the garb of our\nsalvation--Star of the Sea, Way of Life, Port of Salvation, Limit of\nPiety, Mother of Pity, Garden closed, Sealed Font, Fruitful Olive, Sweet\nParadise, Rose without Thorn, Guiltless Grace, Way of the Wanderer, Light\nof the Blind, Rest of the Tired--untold, unnumbered, and unspeakable are\nher praises.[143]\n\nPhronesis cannot bear the sight. Queen Theology calls to her sister Faith\nto aid the fainting one. Faith comes and holds her Mirror before the eyes\nof Phronesis; and in this glass her eyes can endure the shaded glory of\nthe overpowering vision. She staggers on, her trembling steps supported\nby Faith and Theology. In the glass she sees the eternal and divine, the\nenduring, moveless, sure; species unborn, celestial ideas, the forms of\nmen and principles of things, causes of causes and the course of fate, the\nThunderer\u2019s mind; why God condemns some, predestines others, prepares that\none for life and from this one withdraws His rewards; why poverty presses\nupon some and want is filled only with tears; why riches pour on others,\nwhy one is wise, another lacking, and why the worthies of the past have\nbeen endowed each with his several gifts.[144]\n\nMarvelling at all these sights, Prudence, supported by the sisters,\nreached at last the palace of the King, and fell prostrate before God\nhimself. He bade her rise, and speak. Humbly she set forth Nature\u2019s plight\nand the evil upon earth, and presented her petition. God accedes\nbenignantly. He will not destroy the earth again, but will send a human\nspirit endowed with heavenly gifts, a pilgrim to the earth, a medicine for\nthe world. Prudence worships. God summons Mind, and orders him to fashion\nthe type-form, the idea of the human mind. Mind searches among existing\nbeings for the traces of this new _idea_ or type.[145] His difficult\nsearch succeeds at last, and in the Mirror which he constructs, every\ngrace takes its abode: Joseph\u2019s form, the intelligence of Judith, the\npatience of righteous Job, the modesty of Moses, Jacob\u2019s simplicity,\nAbraham\u2019s faith, Tobias\u2019s piety. He presents this pattern-type to God, who\nsets an accordant soul therein, and then entrusts the new-made being to\nPhronesis, while Mind anoints it with an unguent against the attacks of\nthe Vices. Phronesis, with her prize, turned to the way by which she had\nascended, regained her chariot and Reason her charioteer. Together they\nsped back to the congratulations of Nature and her Council.\n\nFor this perfect soul Nature now forms a beautiful body. Concord unites\nthe two, and a new man is formed, perfect and free from flaw. Chastity and\nguardian Modesty endow him with their gifts; Reason adds his, and Honesty.\nThese Logic follows, with her gift of skill in argument; Rhetoric brings\nher stores, then Arithmetic, next Music, next Geometry, next\nAstronomy;[146] while Theology and Piety are not behind with theirs; and\nto these Faith joins her gifts of fidelity and truth. Last of all comes\nNobility, Fortune\u2019s daughter. But because she has nothing of her own to\ngive, and must receive all from her mother, she betakes herself to\nFortune\u2019s house of splendid mutability. What will Fortune give? The two\nreturn to Nature\u2019s palace, and Fortune\u2019s magnificence is proffered by her\ndaughter; but Reason, standing by, will allow only a measured\nacceptance.[147]\n\nThe report of this richly endowed creature reached Alecto. Raging she\nsummoned her pests, the chiefs of Tartarus, doers of ill, masters of every\nsin--Injury, Fraud, Perjury, Theft, Rapine, Fury and Anger, Hate, Discord,\nStrife, Disease and Melancholy, Lust, Wantonness and Need, Fear and Old\nAge. She roused them with a harangue: their rule is threatened by this\nupstart Creature, whom Parent Nature has prepared for war; but what can\nhis untried imbecility do against them in arms?\n\nAll clamour assent, and in a tumult of rage make ready for the strife. The\nhostile ranks approach. The first attack is made by Folly (_Stultitia_)\nand her comrades, Sloth, Gaming, Idle Jesting, Ease and Sleep. But\nfaithful Virtues protect the constant youth against these foes. Next\nDiscord leads its mutinous band, but only to defeat. Onslaughts follow\nfrom Poverty, next from Ill-Repute, from Old Age and Disease. Then\nGrieving advances, and is overthrown by Laughter. More deadly still are\nthe attacks of Venus and Lust; then Excess and Wantonness take up the\nfray; and at the end Impiety and Fraud and Avarice. But still the man\nconquers with the aid of his Virtues ever true.\n\nThe fight is over. The Virtues triumph and receive their Kingdoms; Vice\nsuccumbs; Love reigns instead of Discord; the man is blessed; and the\nearth, adorned with flowers in a new spring of youth, brings forth\nabundance. The Poet sums up his poem\u2019s teaching: From God must everything\nbegin and in Him end. But our genius may not stand inert; ours is the\nstrife as well, according to our strength and faculty. Let the mind attach\nitself to the things which are and do not pass, even as Plato sings, from\nthings of sense reaching on ever to the grades Angelic and Olympus\u2019s\nsteeps. Then it shall behold the universal praise of God and the true\nascription of all good to Him. He in himself is perfect, Part and likewise\nWhole, and everywhere uncircumscribed. Nothing has power in itself, but\nall would fall to nothing, did He close the flux of hidden power.\n\nAlanus, a good Christian Doctor, is also an eclectic in his thought. A\nconsistent system is hardly to be drawn from his poem. It suggests Christ.\nBut its hero is not the God-man of the Incarnation. Its figures are\nsemi-pagan. The virtue Faith, for example, is the Fides, the Good Faith,\nof the antique Roman, though it is the Christian virtue Faith as well. In\nlanguage the poem is antique; its verse has vigorous flow; its imagery\nlacks neither beauty nor sublimity. It is in fact a poem, a creation,\nhaving a scheme and unity of its own, although the author borrows\ncontinually. Martianus Capella is there and Dionysius the Areopagite;\nthere also is the _Psychomachia_ of Prudentius and its progeny of symbolic\nbattles between the Virtues and the Vices.[148] Yet Alanus has achieved;\nfor he has woven his material into a real poem and has reared his own\nlofty allegory. His work is another grand example of mediaeval symbolism.\n\nThus we see the ceaseless sweep of allegory through men\u2019s minds. They felt\nand thought and dreamed in allegories; and also spent their dry ingenuity\non allegorical constructions. It was reserved for one supreme poet to\ncreate, out of this atmosphere, a supreme poem which is as complete an\nallegory as the _Anticlaudianus_. But the _Divina Commedia_ has also the\npower of its human realities of actually experienced pain and joy, and\nhate and love. Compared with it, the _Anticlaudianus_ betrays the\nvapourings of monk and doctor, imaginative indeed, but thin. The author\u2019s\nfeet were not planted on the earth of human life.\n\nBut the Middle Ages did not demand that allegory should have its feet\nplanted on the earth, so long as its head nodded high among the clouds--or\nits sentiments wandered sweetly in fancy\u2019s gardens. In one of these dwelt\nthat lovely Rose, whose _Roman_ once had vogue. In structure the _Roman de\nla rose_ is an allegory from the beginning of the first part by De Lorris\nto the very end of that encyclopaedic sequel added by De Meun. The story\nis well known.[149] One may recall the fact that in De Lorris\u2019s poem and\nDe Meun\u2019s sequel every quality and circumstance of Love\u2019s sentiment and\nfortunes are figured in allegorical personifications--all the lover\u2019s\nhopes and fears and the wavering chances of his quest.\n\nIn this respect the poem is the courtly and romantic counterpart of such a\nphilosophical or religious allegory as the _Anticlaudianus_.\nPersonifications of the arts and sciences, the vices and virtues, current\nsince the time of Prudentius\u2019s _Psychomachia_ and Capella\u2019s _Nuptials of\nPhilology_, were all in the _Anticlaudianus_, while in the _Roman de la\nrose_ figure their secular and romantic kin: in De Lorris\u2019s part, Love,\nFair-Welcome, Danger, Reason, Franchise, Pity, Courtesy, Shame, Fear,\nIdleness, Jealousy, Wicked-Tongue; then, with De Meun, others besides:\nRichesse, False-Seeming, Hypocrisy, Nature, and Genius.[150] The figures\nof the _Roman de la rose_ have diverse antecedents scattered through the\nentire store of knowledge and classic literature possessed by the Middle\nAges; perhaps their immediate source of inspiration was the scheme of\ncourtly love which the mediaeval imagination elaborated and revelled\nin.[151] The poem of De Lorris was a veritable romantic allegory. De Meun,\nin his sequel, rather plays with the allegorical form, which he continues;\nit has become a frame for his stores of learning, his knowledge of the\nworld, his views of life, his wit and satire, and his great literary and\npoetic gifts. Yet it ends in a regular _Psychomachia_, in which Love\u2019s\nbarons are hard beset by all the foes of Love\u2019s delight, though Love has\nits will at last.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VI\n\nLATINITY AND LAW\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX\n\nTHE SPELL OF THE CLASSICS\n\n      I. CLASSICAL READING.\n\n     II. GRAMMAR.\n\n    III. THE EFFECT UPON THE MEDIAEVAL MAN; HILDEBERT OF LAVARDIN.\n\n\nI\n\nDuring all the mediaeval centuries, men approached the Classics expecting\nto learn from them. The usual attitude toward the classical heritage was\nthat of docile pupils looking for instruction. One may recall the\nantecedent reasons of this, which have already been stated at length. In\nItaly, letters survived as the most impressive legacy from an\novershadowing past. In the north, save where they lingered on from the\nantique time, they came in the train of Latin Christianity, and were\noffered to men under the same imposing conditions of a higher civilization\nauthoritatively instructing ruder peoples. Moreover, between the ancient\ntimes which produced the classic literature and the Carolingian period\nthere intervened centuries of degeneracy and transition, when the Classics\nwere used pedagogically to teach grammar and rhetoric. Then grammars were\ncomposed or revised, and other handbooks of elementary instruction. The\nClassics still were loved; but how shall men love beyond their own\nnatures? Gifted Jerome, great Augustine, loved them with an ardour\nbringing its own misgivings. Other lovers, like Ausonius and Apollinaris\nSidonius, were pedantic imitators.\n\nBoth north and south of the Alps another and obviously enduring cause\nfostered the habit of regarding the Classics as storehouses of knowledge:\nthe fact that they were such for all the mediaeval centuries. They\nincluded not only poetry and eloquence, but also history, philosophy,\nnatural knowledge, law and polity. The knowledge contained in them\nexceeded what the men of western Europe otherwise possessed. As century\nafter century passed, mediaeval men learned more for themselves, and also\ndrew more largely on the classic store. Yet it remained unexhausted. The\ntwelfth and thirteenth centuries constitute the great mediaeval epoch. Men\nwere then opening their eyes a little to observe the natural world, and\nwere thinking a little for themselves. Nevertheless the chief increase in\nknowledge issued from the gradual discovery and mastering of the works of\nAristotle. These centuries, like their predecessors, make clear that men\nwho inherit from a greater past a universal literature containing the best\nthey can conceive and more knowledge than they can otherwise attain, will\nbe likely to regard every part of this literature as in some way a source\nof knowledge, physical or metaphysical, historical or ethical. And the\nClassics merited such regard; for where they did not instruct in science,\nthey imparted knowledge of life, and norms and instances of conduct, from\nwhich men still may draw guidance. We have outlearned the physics, and\nperhaps the metaphysics of the Greeks; their knowledge of nature, in\ncomparison with ours, was but as a genial beginning; their polities and\ntheir formal ethics we have tried and tested; but we have not risen above\nthe power and inspiration of the story of Greece and Rome, and the\nexemplifications of life in the Greek and Latin Classics. It has not\nceased to be true that he who best loves the Classics, and most deeply\nfeels and glories in their unique excellence as literature, is he who\nstill draws life from them, and discipline and knowledge. Their true\nlovers, like the true lovers of all noble literature, are always in a\nstate of pupilage to the poems and the histories they love.\n\nObviously then no final word lies in the statement that through the Middle\nAges men turned to the Classics for instruction. They did indeed turn to\nthem for all kinds of knowledge, and for discipline. Often they looked for\ninstruction from Ovid or Virgil in a way to make us smile. Often they\nwere like schoolboys, dully conning words which they did not feel and so\ndid not understand. But in the tenth century, and in the twelfth, some men\nadmired and loved the Latin Classics, and drew from them, as we may,\nlessons which are learned only by those who love aright.\n\nIt would be hard to say what the men of the Middle Ages did not thus gain.\nThe pagan classical literature was one of humanity in its full range of\ninterests. This was true of the Greek; and from the Greek, the universal\nhuman passed to the Latin, which the Middle Ages were to know. In both\nliteratures, man was a denizen of earth. The laws of mortality and fate\nwere held before his eyes; and the action of the higher powers bore upon\nmortal happiness, rather than upon any life to come. When reflecting upon\nthe use and influence of the Classics through the Middle Ages, it is\nalways to be kept in mind that the antique literature was the literature\nof this life and of this world; that it was universal in its humanity, and\nstill in the Middle Ages might touch every human love and human interest\nnot directly connected with the hopes and terrors of the Judgment Day.\n\nSo whenever educated mediaeval men were drawn by the ambitions or moved by\nthe finer joys of human life, it lay in their path to seek instruction or\nsatisfaction from some antique source. If a man wished the common\neducation of a clerk, he drew it from antique text-books and their\ncommentaries. Grammar and rhetoric meant Latin grammar and Latin rhetoric;\ndialectic also was Latin and antique. Likewise the quadrivium of\narithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, could be studied only in\nLatin. These ordinary branches of education having been mastered, if then\nthe man\u2019s tastes or ambitions turned to the interests of earth (and who\nexcept the saintly recluse was not so drawn?) he would still look to the\nantique. A civilian or an ecclesiastic would need some knowledge of law,\nwhich for the most part was Roman, even when disguised as Canon law.[152]\nDid a man incline toward philosophy, and the scrutiny of life\u2019s deeper\nproblems, again the source was the antique; and when he lifted his mind to\ntheology, he would still find himself reasoning in categories of antique\ndialectic. Finally, and this was a broad field of humane inclination, if a\nclerkly educated man loved poetry, eloquence, and history, for their own\nsakes, he also would turn to the antique.\n\nThere is scarcely need to revert again to the use of the Classics in the\nearlier Middle Ages. We have seen that in Italy they never ceased to form\nthe conscious background to all intellectual life; and that in the north,\nletters came a handmaid in the train of Latin Christianity--a handmaid\nthat was apt to assert her own value, and also charm the minds of men.\nFrom the first, it was the orthodox view that Latin letters should provide\nthe education enabling men to understand the Christian religion\nadequately. This is the object set forth in Charlemagne\u2019s Capitularies\nupon education.[153] Three hundred years later Honorius of Autun says in\nhis sermonizing way:\n\n    \u201cNot only, beloved, do the sacred writings lead us to eternal life,\n    but profane letters also teach us; for edifying matter may be drawn\n    from them. In view of sacred examples no one should be scandalized at\n    this. For the children of Israel spoiled the Egyptians; they took gold\n    and silver, gems and precious vestments, which they afterwards turned\n    into God\u2019s treasury to build the tabernacle.\u201d[154]\n\nHonorius used Augustine\u2019s reference to the Egyptians, and followed this\nAugustinian view, always recognized as orthodox in the Middle Ages. It was\nnarrower than the practice among those who followed letters. Gerbert at\nthe close of the tenth century loved to teach and read the pagan writers,\nand drew from them training and discipline.[155] In the next century, the\nGerman monk Froumund of Tegernsee, with Bernward and Godehard, bishops of\nHildesheim, are instances of German love of antique letters.[156] Yet\nlofty souls might choose to limit their reading of the Classics, at least\nin theory, to the needs of their Latinity. Such a one was Hugo of\nSt.-Victor, scholar, theologian, man of genius;[157] he professed to care\nmore for the Christian ardours of the soul than for learning even as a\nmeans of righteousness, and chose to take the side of those who would\nread the classic authors only so far as the needs of education demanded:\n\n    \u201cThere are two kinds of writings, first those which are termed the\n    _artes_ proper, secondly, those which are the supplements\n    (_appendentia_) of the _artes_. _Artes_ comprise the works grouped\n    under (_supponuntur_) philosophy, those which contain some fixed and\n    determined matter of philosophy, as grammar, dialectic and the like.\n    _Appendentia artium_ are those [writings] which touch philosophy less\n    nearly and are occupied with some subject apart from it; and yet\n    sometimes offer flotsam and jetsam from the _artes_, or simply as\n    narratives smooth the road to philosophy. All the songs of poets are\n    such--tragedies, comedies, satires, heroics, and lyrics too, and\n    iambics, besides certain didactic works (_didascalica_); tales\n    likewise, and histories; also the writings of those nowadays called\n    philosophers, who extend a brief matter with lengthy circumlocution,\n    and thus darken a simple meaning.\n\n    \u201cNote then well the distinction I have drawn for thee: distinct and\n    different (_duo_) are the _artes_ and their _appenditia_, ... and\n    often from the latter the student will gain much labour and little\n    fruit. The _artes_, without their _appenditia_, may make the reader\n    perfect; but the latter, without the _artes_, can bring no whit of\n    perfection. Wherefore one should first of all devote himself to the\n    _artes_, which are so fundamental, and to the aforesaid seven above\n    all, which are the means and instruments (_instrumenta_) of all\n    philosophy. Then let the rest be read, if one has leisure, since\n    sometimes the playful mingled with the serious especially delights us,\n    and we are apt to remember a moral found in a tale.\u201d[158]\n\nTemperament affected Hugo\u2019s view. He was of the spiritual aristocracy, who\nmay be somewhat disdainful of the common means by which men get their\neducation and round out their natures. The mechanical monotony of pedagogy\ngrated on him and evoked the ironical sketch of a school-room, which he\nput in his dialogue on the Vanity of the World. The little Discipulus,\ndirected by his Magister, is surveying human things.\n\n    \u201cTurn again, and look,\u201d says the latter, \u201cand what do you see?\u201d\n\n    \u201cI see the schools of learners. There is a great crowd, and of all\n    ages, boys and youths, men young and old. They study various things.\n    Some practise their rude tongue at the alphabet and at words new to\n    them. Others listen to the inflection of words, their composition and\n    derivation; then by reciting and repeating them they try to commit\n    them to memory. Others furrow the waxen tablets with a stylus. Others,\n    guiding the calamus with learned hand, draw figures of different\n    shapes and colours on parchments. Still others with sharper zeal seem\n    to dispute on graver matters and try to trip each other with twistings\n    and impossibilities (_gryphis_?). I see some also making calculations,\n    and some producing various sounds upon a cord stretched on a frame.\n    Others, again, explain and demonstrate geometric figures; and yet\n    others with various instruments show the positions and courses of the\n    stars and the movement of the heavens. Others, finally, consider the\n    nature of plants, the constitution of men, and the properties and\n    powers of things.\u201d\n\nThe Disciple is captivated with this many-coloured show of learning; but\nthe Master declares it to be mostly foolishness, distracting the student\nfrom understanding his own nature, his Creator, and his future lot.[159]\n\nThese are examples, which might be multiplied indefinitely, of the pious\nmediaeval view that the _artes_, with a very little reading of the\n_auctores_, were proper for the educated Christian, whose need was to\nunderstand Scripture. Sometimes, stung, at least rhetorically, by fear of\nthe lust and idolatry of the antique, mediaeval souls cry out against its\nlures, even as Jerome\u2019s Christianly protesting nature dreamed that famous\ndream of exclusion from heaven as a \u201cCiceronian.\u201d Alcuin, who led the\neducational movement under Charlemagne, gently chides one whose fondness\nfor Virgil made him forget his friend--\u201cwould that the Gospels rather than\nthe _Aeneid_ filled thy breast.\u201d[160] Three hundred years later, St. Peter\nDamiani, himself a virtuoso in letters and a sometime teacher of rhetoric,\narraigns the monks for teaching grammar rather than things spiritual.[161]\nDamiani speaks with the harshness of one who fears what he loves. In\nFrance, about the same time, our worthy sermon-writer, Honorius of Autun,\nliked the profanities well enough, and drew from them apt moral tales,\nwhich preachers might introduce to rouse drowsy congregations. Yet he\ndirects his pulpit-thunder at the _cives Babyloniae_, the _superbi_, who\nafter their several tastes finger profane literature to their peril:\n\u201cThose delighting in quibbling learn Aristotle: the lovers of war have\nMaro, and the lustful idlers their Naso. Lucan and Statius incite\ndiscords, while Horace and Terence equip the pert and wanton\n(_petulantes_)--but since the names of these are blotted from the book of\nlife, I shall not commemorate them with my lips.\u201d[162]\n\nThis with the excellent Honorius was pious rhetoric. Yet the love and fear\nof antique letters caused anxiety in many a mediaeval soul, deflected by\nthem from its narrow path to the heavenly Jerusalem. Indeed the love of\nletters and of knowledge was to play its part, and might take one side or\nthe other, according to the motive of their pursuit, in the great\nmediaeval _psychomachia_ between the cravings of mortal life and the\nmilitant insistencies of the soul\u2019s salvation. This conflict, not confined\nto mediaeval monks, has its universal aspects. It echoes in the sigh of\nMichelangelo over the\n\n                  \u201caffectuosa fantasia,\n  Che l\u2019 arte si fece idolo e monarca,\u201d\n\n--which had so long drawn his heart from Eternity.[163]\n\nCommonly, however, this conflict did not greatly disturb scholars who felt\nin some degree the classic spell so manifold of delight in themes\ndelightful, of pleasure somehow drawn from clear statement and convincing\nsequence of thought, of even deeper happiness springing from the stirring\nof those faculties through which man rejoices in knowledge. To be sure,\nreaders of the Classics, who drew joy from them or satisfaction, or humane\ninstruction, were comparatively few in the mediaeval centuries, as they\nare to-day. And undoubtedly in the Middle Ages the Classics usually were\nread in unenlightened schoolboy fashion. Yet making these reservations, we\nmay be sure that letters yielded up their joys to the chosen few in every\nmediaeval century. \u201cAmor litterarum ab ipso fere initio pueritiae mihi est\ninnatus,\u201d wrote Lupus in the ninth.[164] Gerbert might have said the\nsame, and many of the men who taught at Chartres in the generations\nfollowing. So likewise might have said John of Salisbury. In studying the\nClassics he certainly looked to them for instruction. But he also loved\nthem, and found companionship and solace in them, as he says, and as\nCicero before him had said of letters.\n\nWe may ask ourselves what sort of pleasure do _we_ get from reading the\nClassics? not necessarily a light distracting of the mind, but rather a\ndeeper gratification: thought is aroused and satisfied, and our nature is\nappeased by the admirable presentation of things admirable. At the same\ntime we may be conscious of discipline and benefit. There is good reason\nto suppose that a like pleasure, or satisfaction, with discipline and\ninstruction, came to this exceedingly clever John from reading Terence,\nVirgil and Ovid, Horace, Juvenal, Lucan, Persius and Statius, Cicero,\nSeneca and Quintilian--for he read them all.[165] John is affected,\nimpressed, and trained by his classic reading; he has absorbed his\nauthors; he quotes from them as spontaneously and aptly as he quotes from\nScripture. A quotation from the one or the other may give final point to\nan argument, and have its own eloquent suggestions. Sometimes the tone of\none of his own letters--which usually are excellent in form and\nlanguage--may agree with that of the pithy antique quotation garnishing\nit. A mediaeval writer was not likely to say just what we should when\nexpressing ourselves on the same matter. Yet John makes quite clear to us\nhow he cared for antique letters, in the Prologue to his _Polycraticus_,\nhis chief work on philosophy and life; and we may take his word as to the\nsatisfaction which he drew from them, since his own writings prove his\nassiduity in their cult. This prologue is somewhat _cherch\u00e9_, and imbued\nwith a preciosity of sentiment putting one in mind of Cicero\u2019s oration\n_Pro Archia poeta_.\n\n    \u201cMost delightful in many ways, but in this especially, is the fruit of\n    letters, that banishing the reserve of intervening place and time,\n    they bring friends into each other\u2019s presence, and do not suffer\n    noteworthy things to be obliterated by dust. For the arts would have\n    perished, laws would have vanished, the offices of faith and religion\n    would have fallen away, and even the correct use of language would\n    have failed, had not the divine pity, as a remedy for human infirmity,\n    provided letters for the use of mortals. Ancient examples, which\n    incite to virtue, would have corrected and served no one, had not the\n    pious solicitude of writers transmitted them to posterity.... Who\n    would know the Alexanders and the Caesars, or admire Stoics and\n    Peripatetics, had not the monuments of writers signalized them?\n    Triumphal arches promote the glory of illustrious men from the carved\n    inscription of their deeds. Thereby the observer recognizes the\n    Liberator of his Country, the Establisher of Peace. The light of fame\n    endures for no one save through his own or another\u2019s writing. How many\n    and how great kings thinkest thou there have been, of whom there is\n    neither speech nor cogitation? Vainly have men stormed the heights of\n    glory, if their fame does not shine in the light of letters. Other\n    favour or distinction is as fabled Echo, or the plaudits of the Play,\n    ceasing the moment it has begun.\n\n    \u201cBesides all this, solace in grief, recreation in labour, cheerfulness\n    in poverty, modesty amid riches and delights, faithfully are bestowed\n    by letters. For the soul is redeemed from its vices, and even in\n    adversity refreshed with sweet and wondrous cheer, when the mind is\n    intended upon reading or writing what is profitable. Thou shalt find\n    in human life no more pleasing or more useful employment; unless\n    perchance when, with heart dilated through prayer and divine love, the\n    mind perceives and arranges within itself, as with the hand of\n    meditation, the great things of God. Believe one who has tried it,\n    that all the sweets of the world, compared with these exercises, are\n    wormwood.\u201d[166]\n\nHereupon, still addressing himself to his friend and patron, Thomas \u00e0\nBecket, John suggests that these recreations are peculiarly beneficial to\nmen in their circumstances, burdened with affairs; and he puts his\nprinciples in practice, by launching forth upon his lengthy work of\nlearned and philosophic disquisition.\n\nTo supplement this outline of John\u2019s appreciation of the Classics, it will\nbe interesting to look into the literary interpretation of a classical\npoem, from the pen of one of his contemporaries. So little is known of the\nauthor, Bernard Silvestris, that he usually has been confused with his\nmore famous fellow, Bernard of Chartres. We may refer to both of them\nagain.[167] Here our business is solely with the _Commentum Bernardi\nSilvestris super sex libros Aeneidos Virgilii_.[168] The writer draws from\nthe _Saturnalia_ of the fifth-century grammarian, Macrobius; but his\nallegorical interpretation of the _Aeneid_ seems to be his own. He finds\nin the _Aeneid_ a twofold consideration, in that its author meant to teach\nphilosophic truth, and at the same time was not inattentive to the poetic\nplot.\n\n    \u201cSince then Virgil in this poem is both philosopher and poet, we shall\n    first expound the purpose and method of the poet.... His aim is to\n    unfold the calamities of Aeneas and other Trojans, and the labours of\n    the exiles. Herein disregarding the truth of history as told by Dares\n    the Phrygian,[169] and seeking to win the favour of Augustus, he\n    adorns the facts with figments. For Virgil, greatest of Latin poets,\n    wrote in imitation of Homer, greatest of Greek poets. As Homer in the\n    _Iliad_ narrates the fall of Troy and in the _Odyssey_ the exile of\n    Ulysses; so Virgil in the second Book briefly relates the overthrow of\n    Troy, and in the rest the labours of Aeneas. Consider the twin order\n    of narration, the natural and the artistic (_artificialem_). The\n    natural is when the narrative proceeds according to the sequence of\n    events, telling first what happened first. Lucan and Statius keep to\n    this order. The artistic is when we begin in the middle of the story,\n    and thence revert to the commencement. Terence writes thus, and Virgil\n    in this work. It would have been the natural order to have described\n    first the destruction of Troy, and then brought the Trojans to Crete,\n    from Crete to Sicily, and from Sicily to Libya. But he first brings\n    them to Dido, and introduces Aeneas relating the overthrow of Troy and\n    the other things that he has suffered.[170]\n\n    \u201cUp to this point we show how he proceeds: next let us observe why he\n    does it so. With poets there is the reason of usefulness, as with a\n    satirist; the reason of pleasure, as with a writer of comedies; and\n    again these two combined, as with the historical poet. As Horace says:\n\n      \u2018Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae,\n       Aut simul et iucunda et idonea dicere vitae.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThis kind of a historical poem is shown by its figurative and\n    polished diction and in the various mischances and deeds narrated. If\n    any one will study to imitate it he will gain skill in writing. The\n    narrative also contains instances and arguments for following the\n    right and avoiding what is evil. Hence a twofold profit to the reader:\n    skill in writing, gained through imitation, and prudence in conduct,\n    drawn from example and precept. For instance, in the labours of Aeneas\n    we have an example of endurance; and one of piety, in his affection\n    for Anchises and Ascanius. From the reverence which he shows the gods,\n    from the oracles which he supplicates, from the sacrifices which he\n    offers, from the vows and prayers which he pours forth, we feel drawn\n    to religion: while through Dido\u2019s unbridled love, we are recalled from\n    desire for the forbidden.\u201d\n\nThe above is excellent, but not particularly original. It shows, however,\nthat Bernard could appreciate the _Aeneid_ in this way. His allegorical\ninterpretation is of a piece with current mediaeval methods. Yet to take a\npoem allegorically was not distinctively mediaeval; for Homer and other\npoets had been thus expounded from the days of Plato, who did not himself\napprove. With Bernard, each Book of the _Aeneid_ represents one of the\nages of man, the first Book betokening infancy, the second boyhood, and so\nforth. Allegorical etymologies are applied to the names of the personages;\nand in general the whole natural course and setting of the poem is taken\nallegorically. \u201cThe sea is the human body moved and tossed by drunkenness\nand lusts, which are represented by waves.\u201d Aeneas, to wit, the human soul\njoined to its body, comes to Carthage, the mundane city where Dido reigns,\nwhich is lust; this allegory is unfolded in detail. So the interpretation\nambles on, not more and not less jejune than such ingenuities usually are.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nClassical studies reached their zenith in the twelfth century. For in\nevery way that century surpassed its predecessors; and in classical\nstudies it excelled the thirteenth, which devoted to them a smaller\nportion of its intellectual energies. The twelfth century, to be sure, was\nprodigiously interested in dialectic and theology. Yet these had not quite\nengulfed the humanities; nor had any newly awakened interest in physical\nor experimental science distracted the eyes of men from the charms of the\nancient written page. The change took place in the thirteenth century.\nIts best intellectual efforts, north of the Alps at least, were directed\nto the study and theological appropriation of the Aristotelian\nencyclopaedia of metaphysics and universal knowledge.[171] The effect of\nAristotle was totally unliterary. And the minds of men, absorbed in\nmastering this giant mass of knowledge and argument, ceased to regard\nliterary form and the humane aspects of Latin literature.\n\nUntil the thirteenth century, dialectic and theology were not completely\nsevered from _belles lettres_. The Platonic-Augustinian theology of the\ntwelfth century had been idealizing and imaginative, not to say poetical.\nSuch an interesting exponent of it as Hugo of St. Victor appears as a\nliterary personage, despite his stinted advocacy of classical study. One\nnotes that for his time the chief single source of physical knowledge was\nthe Latin version of the _Timaeus_, certainly not a prosaic composition.\nThus, for the twelfth century, an effective cause of the continuance of\nthe study of letters lay herein: whatever branch of natural knowledge\nmight allure the student, he could not draw it bodily from a serious but\nunliterary repository, like the _Physics_ or _De animalibus_ of Aristotle,\nwhich were not yet available; he must follow his bent through the writings\nof various Latin poets as well as prose-writers. In fine, the sources of\nprofane knowledge open to the twelfth century were literary in their\nnature, and might form part of the literature which would be read by a\nstudent of grammar or rhetoric.\n\nOne sees this in John of Salisbury. There may have been a few men who knew\nmore than he did of some particular topic. But his range and readiness of\nknowledge were unique. And it is evident from his writings that his\nknowledge (except in logic) had no special or scientific source, but was\nderived from a promiscuous reading of Latin literature. As a result, he is\nhimself a literary man. One may say much the same of his younger\ncontemporary, Alanus de Insulis.[172] He too has gathered knowledge from\nliterary sources, and he himself is one of the best Latin poets of the\nMiddle Ages. Another extremely poetic philosopher was Bernard Silvestris,\nthe interpreter of Virgil. His _De mundi unitate_ is a Pantheistic\nexposition of the Universe; it is also a poem; and incidentally it affords\nanother illustration of the general fact, that before the works of\nAristotle were made known and expounded in the thirteenth century, all\nkinds of natural and quasi-philosophic knowledge were drawn from a variety\nof writings, some of them poor enough from any point of view, but none of\nthem distinctly scientific and unliterary, like the works of Aristotle.\nFormal logic or dialectic, as cultivated by Abaelard for example, appears\nas an exception. It had been specialized and more scientifically treated\nthan any branch of substantial knowledge; for indeed it was based on the\nlogical treatises of Aristotle, most of which were in use before\nAbaelard\u2019s death, and all of which were known to Thierry of Chartres and\nJohn of Salisbury.[173]\n\nThe contrast between the cathedral school of Chartres and the University\nof Paris illustrates the change from the twelfth to the thirteenth\ncentury. The former has been spoken of in a previous chapter, where its\nstory was brought down to the times of its great teachers, Bernard and\nThierry, of whom we shall have to speak in connection with the teaching of\ngrammar and the reading of classical authors. The school flourished\nexceedingly until the middle of the twelfth century.[174] By that time the\nschools of Paris had received an enormous impetus from the popularity of\nAbaelard, and scholars had begun to push thither from all quarters. But it\nwas not till the latter part of the century that the University, with its\norganization of Masters and Faculties, began visibly to emerge out of the\nantecedent cathedral school.[175] Chartres was a home of letters; and\nthere Latin literature was read enthusiastically. But in Paris Abaelard\nwas pre-eminently a dialectician; and after he died, through those decades\nwhen the University was coming into existence, the tide of study set\nirresistibly toward theology and metaphysics. Students and masters of the\nFaculty of Arts outnumbered all the other Faculties; nevertheless,\ncounting not by tumultuous numbers, but by intellectual strength, the\ngreat matter was Theology, and the majority of the Masters in the Arts\nwere students in the divine science. The Arts were regarded as a\npreparatory discipline. So through its great period, which roughly\ncoincides with the thirteenth century, the University of Paris was for all\nEurope the supreme seat of Dialectic, Metaphysics, and Theology, and yet\nno kindly nurse of _belles lettres_.\n\nThe tendencies of Oxford were not quite the same as those of Paris, yet\nLatin literature as such does not seem to have been cultivated there for\nits own fair sake. This apparently was unaffected by the fact that a\nmovement for \u201cclose\u201d or exact scholarship existed at the English\nuniversity. Grosseteste, its first great chancellor, teacher and inspirer,\nunquestionably introduced, or encouraged, the study of Greek; and his\nfamous pupil, Roger Bacon, was a serious Greek scholar, and wrote a\ngrammar of that tongue. But neither Grosseteste nor Bacon appears to have\nbeen moved by any literary interest in Greek literature; both one and the\nother urged the importance of Greek, and of Hebrew too and Arabic, in\norder to reach a surer knowledge of Scripture and Aristotle. They sought\nto open the veritable founts of theology and natural knowledge, an\nintelligent aim indeed, but quite unliterary. In spirit both these men\nbelong to the thirteenth century, not to the twelfth.[176]\n\nIn Italy, one does not find that the passage from the twelfth to the\nthirteenth century displays the decline in classical studies which is\napparent north of the Alps. The reasons seem obvious. The passion for\nmetaphysical theology did not invade this land of practical\necclesiasticism and urban living, where pagan antiquity, dumb, broken, and\ndefaced, yet everywhere surviving, was the medium of life and thought and\ntemperamental inclination in the thirteenth as well as in the twelfth\ncentury. Nor was Italy as yet becoming scientific, or greatly interested\nin physical hypothesis; although medicine was cultivated in various\ncentres, Salerno, for example, and Bologna. But for the twelfth, and for\nthe thirteenth century as well, Italy\u2019s great intellectual achievement was\nin the two closely neighbouring sciences of canon and civil law. These\nmade the University of Bologna as pre-eminent in law as Paris was in\ntheology. There had been schools of grammar and rhetoric at Bologna and\nRavenna, before the lecturing of Irnerius on the _Pandects_ drew to the\nfirst-named town the concourse of mature and seemly students who were\ngradually to organize themselves into a university.[177] Thus at Bologna\nlaw flourished and grew great, springing upward from an antecedent base of\ngrammatical if not literary studies. The study of the law never cut itself\naway from this foundation. For the exigencies of legal business demanded\ntraining in the scrivener\u2019s and notarial arts of inditing epistles and\ndrawing documents, for which the _ars dictaminis_, to wit, the art of\ncomposition was of primary utility. This _ars_, teaching as it did both\nthe general rules of composition and the more specific forms of legal or\nother formal documents, pertained to law as well as grammar. Of the latter\nstudy it was perhaps in Italy the main element, or, rather, end. But even\nwithout this hybrid link of the _dictamen_, grammar was needed for the\ninterpretation of the _Pandects_; and indeed some of the glosses of\nIrnerius and other early glossators are grammatical rather than legal\nexplanations of the text. We should bear in mind that this august body of\njurisprudential law existed not in the inflated statutory Latin of\nJustinian\u2019s time, but in the sonorous and correct language of the earlier\nempire, when the great Jurists lived, as well as Quintilian. Accordingly a\nclose study of the _Pandects_ required, as well as yielded, a knowledge of\nclassical Latinity. Thus law tended to foster, rather than repress,\ngrammar and rhetoric; and had no unfavourable effect on classical studies.\nAnd even as such studies \u201cflourished\u201d in Italy in the eleventh and twelfth\ncenturies, they did not cease to \u201cflourish,\u201d there in the thirteenth, in\nthe same general though rather dull and uncreative way. For it will\nhereafter appear that the productions of the Latin poets and rhetoricians\nof Italy were below the literary level of those composed north of the\nLoire in France, or in England.\n\n\nII\n\nFrom the days of the Roman Empire, the study of grammar was, and never\nceased to be, the basis of the conscious and rational knowledge of the\nLatin tongue. The Roman boys studied it at Rome; the Latin-speaking\nprovincials studied it, and all people of education who remained in the\nlands of western Europe which once had formed part of the Empire; its\nstudy was renewed under Charlemagne; he and Alcuin and all the scholars of\nthe ninth century were deeply interested in what to them represented\ntangible Latinity, and in fact was to be a chief means by which their\nmediaeval civilization should maintain its continuity with its source. For\ngrammar was most instrumental in preserving mediaeval Latin from violent\ndeflections, which would have left the ancient literature as the\nliterature of a forgotten tongue. Had mediaeval Latin failed to keep\nitself veritable Latin; had it instead suffered transmutation into local\nRomance dialects, the Latin classics, and all that hung from them, might\nhave become as unknown to the Middle Ages as the Greek, and even have been\nlost forever. It was the study of Latin grammar, with classic texts to\nillustrate its rules, that kept Latin Latin, and preserved standards of\nuniversal usage throughout western Europe, by which one language was read\nand spoken everywhere by educated people. From century to century this\nlanguage suffered modification, and varied according to the knowledge and\ntraining of those who used it; yet its changes were never such as to\ndestroy its identity as a language, or prevent the Latin writer of one age\nor country from understanding whatever in any land or century had been\nwritten in that perennial tongue.\n\nTherefore fortunately, as the Carolingian scholars studied Latin grammar,\nso likewise did those of all succeeding mediaeval generations, thereby\nholding themselves to at least a homogeneity, though not an unvarying\nuniformity, of usage. Evidently, however, the method of grammatical\ninstruction had to vary with the needs of the learners and the teachers\u2019\nskill. The Romans prattled Latin on their mothers\u2019 knees; and so, with\ngradually widening deflections, did the Latinized provincials. Neither\nRoman nor Provincial prattled Ciceronian periods, or used quite the\nvocabulary of Virgil; yet it was Latin that they talked. Thenceforward\nthere was to be a difference between the people who lived in countries\nwhere Romance dialects had emerged from the spoken Latin and prevailed,\nand those people who spoke a Teuton speech. Although always drawing away,\nthe natal speech of Romance peoples was so like Latin, that in learning it\nthey seemed rather to correct their vulgar tongue than to acquire a new\nlanguage. So it was in the Christian parts of Spain, in Gaul, and, above\nall, in Italy, where the vulgar dialects were tardiest in taking\ndistinctive form. Nevertheless, as the Romance dialects, for instance in\nthe country north of the Loire, developed into the various forms of what\nis called Old French, young people at school would have to learn Latin as\na quasi-foreign tongue. Across the Rhine in Germany boys ordinarily had to\nlearn it at school, as a strange language, just as they must to-day; and\nevery effort was devoted to this end.[178] It was not likely that the\ngrammars composed for Roman boys, or at least for boys who spoke Latin\nfrom their infancy, would altogether meet the needs of German, or even\nFrench, youth. Yet only gradually and slowly in the Middle Ages were\ngrammars put together to make good the insufficiencies of Donatus and\nPriscian.\n\nThe former was the teacher of St. Jerome. He composed a short work, in the\nform of questions and answers, explaining the eight parts of speech, but\ngiving no rules of gender, or forms of declension and conjugation, needed\nfor the instruction of those who, unlike the Roman youth, could not speak\nthe language. This little book went by the name of the _Ars minor_. The\nsame grammarian composed a more extensive work, the third book of which\nwas called the _Barbarismus_, after its opening chapter. It defined the\nfigures of speech (_figurae_, _locutiones_), and was much used through the\nmediaeval period.\n\nThe _Ars minor_ explained in simple fashion the elements of speech. But\nthe _Institutiones grammaticae_ of Priscian, a contemporary of\nCassiodorus, offered a mine of knowledge. Of its eighteen books the first\nsixteen were devoted to the parts of speech and their forms, considered\nunder the variations of gender, declension, and conjugation. The remaining\ntwo treated of _constructio_ or syntax. As early as the tenth century\nPriscian was separated into these two parts, which came to be known as\n_Priscianus major_ and _minor_. The Priscian manuscripts, whose name is\nlegion, usually present the former. Diffuse in language, confused in\narrangement, and overladen perhaps with its thousands of examples, it was\nberated for its labyrinthine qualities even in the Middle Ages; yet its\nsixteen books remained the chief source of etymological knowledge.\n_Priscianus minor_ was less widely used.\n\nThe grammarians of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries followed\nDonatus and Priscian, making extracts from their works, or abridgements,\nand now and then introducing examples of deviation from the ancient usage.\nThe last came usually from the Vulgate text of Scripture, which sometimes\ndeparted from the idioms or even word-forms approved by the old\nauthorities.[179] The _Ars minor_ of Donatus became enveloped in\ncommentaries; but Priscian was so formidable that in these early centuries\nhe was merely _glossed_, that is, annotated in brief marginal fashion.\n\nIt would be tedious to dwell upon mediaeval grammatical studies. But the\ntendencies characterizing them in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries may\nbe indicated briefly. The substance of the _Priscianus major_ was followed\nby mediaeval grammarians. That is to say, while admitting certain\nnovelties,[180] they adhered to its rules and examples relating to the\nforms of words, their declension and conjugation. But the _Priscianus\nminor_, although used, was departed from. In the first place its treatment\nof its subject (syntax) was confused and inadequate. There was, however, a\nbroader reason for seeking rules elsewhere. Mediaeval Latin, in its\nprogress as a living or quasi-living language, departed from the classical\nnorms far more in syntax and composition than in word-forms. The latter\ncontinued much the same as in antiquity. But the popular and so to speak\nRomance tendencies of mediaeval Latin brought radical changes of\nword-order and style, which worked back necessarily upon the rules of\nsyntax. These had been but hazily stated by the old writers, and the task\nof constructing an adequate Latin syntax remained undone. It was a task of\nvital importance for the preservation of the Latin tongue. Word-forms\nalone will not preserve the continuity of a language; it is essential that\ntheir use in speech and writing should be kept congruous through\nappropriate principles of syntax. Such were intelligently formulated by\nmediaeval grammarians. The result was not exactly what it would have been\nhad the task been carried out in the fourth century: yet it has endured in\nspite of the attacks, pseudo-attacks indeed, of the _cinquecento_; and the\nmediaeval treatment of Latin syntax is the basis of the modern treatment.\nOne may add that syntax or _constructio_ was taken broadly as embracing\nnot only the agreements of number and gender, and the governing[181] of\ncases, but also the order of words in a sentence, which had changed so\nutterly between the time of Cicero and Thomas Aquinas.\n\nThese general statements find illustration in the famous _Doctrinale_ of\nAlexander de Villa-Dei, whose author was born in Normandy in the latter\nhalf of the twelfth century. He studied at Paris, and in course of time\nwas summoned by the Bishop of Dol to instruct his _nepotes_ in grammar.\nWhile acting as their tutor, he appears to have helped their memory by\nsetting his rules in rhyme; and the bishop asked him to write a _Summa_ of\ngrammar in some such fashion. Complying, he composed the _Doctrinale_ in\nthe year 1199, putting his work into leonine or rhyming hexameter, to make\nit easier to memorize. Rarely has a school-book met with such success. It\nsoon came into use in Paris and elsewhere, and for some three hundred\nyears was the common manual of grammatical teaching throughout western\nEurope. It was then attacked and apparently driven from the field by the\nso-called Humanists, who, however, failed to offer anything better in its\nplace, and plagiarized from the work which they professed to\nexecrate.[182]\n\nThe etymological portions of the _Doctrinale_ follow the teachings of the\n_Priscianus major_; the part devoted to syntax, or _constructio_, shows\ntraces of the influence of the _Priscianus minor_. But Alexander\u2019s\ntreatment of syntax is more systematic and elaborate than Priscian\u2019s; and\nhe did not hesitate to defer to the Vulgate and other Christian Latin\nwritings. Thus he made his work conform to contemporary usage, which its\npurpose was to set forth. He did the same in the section on Prosody, in\nwhich he says that the ancient metricians distinguished a number of feet\nno longer used, and he will confine himself to six--the dactyl, spondee,\ntrochee, anapaest, iambus, and tribrach.[183] In contradiction to\nclassical usage he condemns elision;[184] and in his chapter on accent he\nthrows over the ancient rules:\n\n  \u201cAccentus normas legitur posuisse vetustas;\n   Non tamen has credo servandas tempore nostro.\u201d[185]\n\nAlexander was not really an innovator. He followed previous grammarians\nin condemning elision, and in what he says of quantity and accent. In his\nsyntax he endeavoured to set forth rules conforming to the best Latin\nusage of his time, like other mediaeval grammarians before him. He was\nindeed vehement in his advocacy of recent and Christian authors as\nstandards of writing, and he inveighed against the scholars of Orleans,\nwho read the Classics, and would have us sacrifice to the gods and observe\nthe indecent festivals of Faunus and Jove.[186] But others defended the\nOrleans school, and perhaps still regarded the Classics as the best\narbiters of grammar and eloquence. There exist thirteenth-century grammars\nwhich follow Priscian more closely than Alexander does.[187] Yet his work\nrepresents the dominant tendencies of his time.\n\nTwelfth and thirteenth century grammarians recommended to their pupils a\nvariety of reading, in which mediaeval and early Christian compositions\nheld as large a place as Virgil and Ovid. The _Doctrinale_ advocates no\nwork more emphatically than Petrus Riga\u2019s _Aurora_, a versified paraphrase\nof Scripture. Its author was a chorister in Rheims, and died in 1209.[188]\nThe works of scholastic philosophers were not cited as frequently as the\ncompositions of verse-writers; yet mediaeval grammarians were influenced\nby the language of philosophy, and drew from its training principles which\nthey applied to their own science. Grammar could not help becoming\ndialectical when the intellectual world was turning to logic and\nmetaphysics. Commencing in the twelfth century, overmasteringly in the\nthirteenth, logic penetrated grammar and compelled an application of its\nprinciples. Often grammarians might better have looked to linguistic usage\nthan to dialectic; yet if grammar was to become a rational science, it had\nto systematize itself through principles of logic, and make use of\ndialectic in its endeavour to state a reason for its rules. Those who\napplied logic to grammar at least endeavoured to distinguish between the\ntwo, not always fruitfully. But a real difference could not fail to\nassert itself inasmuch as logic was in truth of universal application,\nwhile mediaeval grammar never ceased to be the grammar of the Latin\nlanguage. Nevertheless its terminology was largely drawn from logic.[189]\n\nSo dialectic brought both good and ill, proving itself helpful in the\nregulation of syntax, but banefully affecting grammarians with the\nconviction that language was the creature of reason, and must conform to\nprinciples of logic. One likewise notes with curious interest, that, from\ntheir dialectic training apparently, grammarians first found as many\n_species_ of grammar as languages,[190] and then forsook this idea for the\nview that, in order to be a science, grammar must be universal, or, as\nthey phrased it, one, and must possess principles not applicable specially\nto Greek or Latin, but to _congruous construction in the abstract_; \u201cde\nconstructione congrua secundum quod abstrahit ab omni lingua speciali,\u201d\nare the words of the English thirteenth-century philosopher and\ngrammarian, Robert Kilwardby.[191] A like idea affected Roger Bacon, who\ncomposed a Greek grammar,[192] which appears to have been intended as the\nfirst part of a work upon the grammars of the learned languages other than\nLatin. It was adapted to afford a grounding in the elements of Greek: yet\nit touches matters in a way showing that the writer had thought deeply on\nthe affinities of languages and the common principles of grammar. Of this\nthe following passage is evidence:\n\n    \u201cTherefore, because I wish to treat of the properties of Greek\n    grammar, it should be known that there are differences in the Greek\n    language, to be hereafter noted in giving the names of these dialects\n    (_idiomata_). And I call them _idiomata_ and not _linguas_, because\n    they are not different languages, but different properties which are\n    peculiarities (_idiomata_) of the same language.[193] Wishing to set\n    forth Greek grammar, for the use of the Latins, it is necessary to\n    compare it with Latin grammar, because I commonly speak Latin myself,\n    seeing that the crowd does not know Greek; also because grammar is of\n    one and the same substance in all languages, although varying in its\n    non-essentials (_accidentaliter_), also because Latin grammar in a\n    certain special way is derived from Greek, as Priscian says, and other\n    grammarians.\u201d[194]\n\nThe dialecticizing of grammar took place in the north, under influences\nradiating from Paris, the chief dialectic centre. These did not deeply\naffect grammatical studies in Italy, or in the Midi of France, which in\nsome respects exhibited like intellectual tendencies. Grammar was\nzealously studied in Italy, but it did not there become either speculative\nor dialectical. To be sure northern manuals were used, especially the\n_Doctrinale_; but the study remained practical, an art rather than a\nscience, and its chief element, or end, was the _ars dictaminis_ or\n_dictandi_. The grammatical treatises of Italians were treatises upon this\nart of epistolary composition and the proper ways of drawing documents.\nThese works were studied also in the North, where the _ars dictaminis_ was\nby no means neglected.[195]\n\nLatin grammar, although over-dialecticized in the North, and in Italy made\nvery practical, remained of necessity the foundation of classical studies,\nand of mediaeval literary effort, in prose and verse. As the basis of\nliberal studies, it had no truer home than the cathedral school of\nChartres.[196] Contemporary writers picture the manner in which this study\nwas there made to perform its most liberal office, under favourable\nmediaeval conditions, in the first half of the twelfth century. The time\nantedates the _Doctrinale_, and one notes at once that the Chartrian\nmasters used the ancient grammatical authorities. This is shown by the\n_Eptateuchon_ of Thierry, who was headmaster (_scholasticus_) and then\nChancellor there for a number of years between 1120 and 1150. As its name\nimplies, the work was a manual, or rather an encyclopaedia, of the Seven\nArts. Thierry compiled it from the writings of the \u201cchief doctors on the\narts.\u201d He transcribed the _Ars minor_ of Donatus and then portions of his\nlarger work. Having commended this author for his conciseness and\nsubtilty, Thierry next copied out the whole of Priscian. As text-books for\nthe second branch of the Trivium, he gives Cicero\u2019s _De inventione\nrhetorica libri 2_, _Rhetoricorum ad Herennium libri 4_, _De partitione\noratoria dialogus_, and concludes with the rhetorical writings of\nMartianus Capella and J. Severianus.[197]\n\nSo much for the books. Now for the method of teaching as described by John\nof Salisbury. He gives the practice of Bernard of Chartres, Thierry\u2019s\nelder brother, who was scholasticus and Chancellor before him, in the\nfirst quarter of the twelfth century. John has been advocating the study\nof grammar as the _fundamentum atque radix_ of those exercises by which\nvirtue and philosophy are reached; and he is advising a generous reading\nof the Classics by the student, and their constant use by the professor,\nto illustrate his teaching.\n\n    \u201cThis method was followed by Bernard of Chartres, _exundissimus\n    modernis temporibus fons litterarum in Gallia_. By citations from the\n    authors he showed what was simple and regular; he brought into relief\n    the grammatical figures, the rhetorical colours, the artifices of\n    sophistry, and pointed out how the text in hand bore upon other\n    studies; not that he sought to teach everything in a single session,\n    for he kept in mind the capacity of his audience. He inculcated\n    correctness and propriety of diction, and a fitting use of congruous\n    figures. Realizing that practise strengthens memory and sharpens\n    faculty, he urged his pupils to imitate what they had heard, inciting\n    some by admonitions, others by whipping and penalties. Each pupil\n    recited the next day something from what he had heard on the\n    preceding. The evening exercise, called the _declinatio_, was filled\n    with such an abundance of grammar that any one, of fair intelligence,\n    by attending it for a year, would have at his fingers\u2019 ends the art of\n    writing and speaking, and would know the meaning of all words in\n    common use. But since no day and no school ought to be vacant of\n    religion, Bernard would select for study a subject edifying to faith\n    and morals. The closing part of this _declinatio_, or rather\n    philosophical recitation, was stamped with piety: the souls of the\n    dead were commended, a penitential Psalm was recited, and the Lord\u2019s\n    Prayer.\n\n    \u201cFor those boys who had to write exercises in prose or verse, he\n    selected the poets and orators, and showed how they should be imitated\n    in the linking of words and the elegant ending of passages. If any one\n    sewed another\u2019s cloth into his garment, he was reproved for the theft,\n    but usually was not punished. Yet Bernard gently pointed out to\n    awkward borrowers that whoever imitated the ancients (_majores_)\n    should himself become worthy of imitation by posterity. He impressed\n    upon his pupils the virtue of economy, and the values of things and\n    words: he explained where a meagreness and tenuity of diction was\n    fitting, and where copiousness or even excess should be allowed, and\n    the advantage of due measure everywhere. He admonished them to go\n    through the histories and poems with diligence, and daily to fix\n    passages in their memory. He advised them, in reading, to avoid the\n    superfluous, and confine themselves to the works of distinguished\n    authors. For, he said (quoting from Quintilian) that to follow out\n    what every contemptible person has said, is irksome and vainglorious,\n    and destructive of the capacity which should remain free for better\n    things. To the same effect he cited Augustine, and remarked that the\n    ancients thought it a virtue in a grammarian to be ignorant of\n    something. But since in school exercises nothing is more useful than\n    to practise what should be accomplished by the art, his scholars wrote\n    daily in prose and verse, and proved themselves in discussions.\u201d[198]\n\nThis passage indicates with what generous use of the _auctores_ Bernard\nexpounded grammar and explained the orators and poets; how he assigned\nportions of their works for memorizing, and with what care he corrected\nhis pupils\u2019 prose and metrical compositions, criticizing their knowledge\nand their taste. He was a man mindful of his Christian piety toward the\ndead and living, but caring greatly for the Classics, and loving study.\n\u201cThe old man of Chartres (_senex Carnotensis_),\u201d says John of Salisbury,\nmeaning Bernard, \u201cnamed wisdom\u2019s keys in a few lines, and though I am not\ntaken with the sweetness of the metre, I approve the sense:\n\n  \u2018Mens humilis, studium quaerendi, vita quieta,\n   Scrutinium tacitum, paupertas, terra aliena....\u2019\u201d[199]\n\nBernard, Thierry, and other masters and scholars of their school, as the\nadvocates of classical education, detested the men called by John of\nSalisbury _Cornificiani_, who were for shortening the academic course, as\none would say to-day, so that the student might finish it up in two or\nthree years, and proceed to the business of life. A good many in the\ntwelfth century adopted this notion, and turned from the pagan classics,\nnot as impious, but as a waste of time. Some of the good scholars of\nChartres lost heart, among them William of Conches and a certain Richard,\nboth teachers of John of Salisbury. They had followed Bernard\u2019s methods;\n\u201cbut when the time came that so many men, to the great prejudice of truth,\npreferred to seem, rather than be, philosophers and professors of the\narts, engaging to impart the whole of philosophy in less than three years,\nor even two, then my masters vanquished by the clamour of the ignorant\ncrowd, stopped. Since then, less time has been given to grammar. So it has\ncome about that those who profess to teach all the arts, both liberal and\nmechanical, are ignorant of the first of them, without which vainly will\none try to get the rest.\u201d[200]\n\nUpon these people who seemed charlatans, and yet may have represented\ntendencies of the coming time, Thierry, Gilbert de la Porr\u00e8e,[201] and\nJohn of Salisbury poured their sarcasms. The controversy may have\nclarified Bernard\u2019s consciousness of the value of classical studies and\ndeepened his sense of obligation to the ancients, until it drew from him\nperhaps the finest of mediaeval utterances touching the matter: \u201cBernard\nof Chartres used to say that we were like dwarfs seated on the shoulders\nof giants. If we see more and further than they, it is not due to our own\nclear eyes or tall bodies, but because we are raised on high and upborne\nby their gigantic bigness.\u201d[202]\n\nEchoes of this same controversy--have they ever quite died away?--are\nheard in letters of the scholarly Peter of Blois, who was educated at\nParis in the middle of the twelfth century, became a secretary of Henry\nPlantagenet and spent the greater part of his life in England, dying about\nthe year 1200. He writes to a friend:\n\n    \u201cYou greatly commend your nephew, saying that never have you found a\n    man of subtler vein: because, forsooth, skimming over grammar, and\n    skipping the reading of the classical authors, he has flown to the\n    trickeries of the logicians, where not in the books themselves but\n    from abstracts and note-books, he has learned dialectic. Knowledge of\n    letters cannot rest on such, and the subtilty you praise may be\n    pernicious. For Seneca says, nothing is more odious than subtilty when\n    it is only subtilty. Some people, without the elements of education,\n    would discuss point and line and superficies, fate, chance and\n    free-will, physics and matter and the void, the causes of things and\n    the secrets of nature and the sources of the Nile! Our tender years\n    used to be spent in rules of grammar, analogies, barbarisms,\n    solecisms, tropes, with Donatus, Priscian, and Bede, who would not\n    have devoted pains to these matters had they supposed that a solid\n    basis of knowledge could be got without them. Quintilian, Caesar,\n    Cicero, urge youths to study grammar. Why condemn the writings of the\n    ancients? it is written that _in antiquis est scientia_. You rise from\n    the darkness of ignorance to the light of science only by their\n    diligent study. Jerome glories in having read Origen; Horace boasts of\n    reading Homer over and over. It was much to my profit, when as a\n    little chap I was studying how to make verses, that, as my master bade\n    me, I took my matter not from fables but from truthful histories. And\n    I profited from the letters of Hildebert of Le Mans, with their\n    elegance of style and sweet urbanity; for as a boy I was made to learn\n    some of them by heart. Besides other books, well known in the schools,\n    I gained from keeping company with Trogus Pompeius, Josephus,\n    Suetonius, Hegesippus, Quintus Curtius, Tacitus and Livy, all of whom\n    throw into their histories much that makes for moral edification and\n    the advance of liberal science. And I read other books, which had\n    nothing to do with history--very many of them. From all of them we\n    may pluck sweet flowers, and cultivate ourselves from their urbane\n    suavity of speech.\u201d[203]\n\nIn another letter Peter writes to his bishop of Bath, as touching the\naccusation of some \u201chidden detractor,\u201d that he, Peter, is but a useless\ncompiler, who fills letters and sermons with the plunder of the ancients\nand Holy Writ:\n\n    \u201cLet him cease, or he will hear what he does not like; for I am full\n    of cracks, and can hold in nothing, as Terence says. Let him try his\n    hand at compiling, as he calls it.--But what of it! Though dogs may\n    bark and pigs may grunt, I shall always pattern on the writings of the\n    ancients; with them shall be my occupation; nor ever, while I am able,\n    shall the sun find me idle.\u201d[204]\n\nIt is evident how broadly Peter of Blois, or John of Salisbury, or the\nChartrians, were read in the Latin Classics. Peter mentions even Tacitus,\na writer not thought to have been much read in the Middle Ages. We have\nbeen looking at the matter rather in regard to poetry and\neloquence--_belles lettres_. But one may also note the same broad reading\n(among the few who read at all) on the part of those who sought for the\nethical wisdom of the ancients. This is apparent (perhaps more apparent\nthan real) with Abaelard, who is ready with a store of antique ethical\ncitations.[205] It is also borne witness to by the treatise _Moralis\nphilosophia de honesto et utili_, placed among the works of Hildebert of\nLe Mans,[206] but probably from the pen of William of Conches, grammaticus\npost Bernardum Carnotensem opulentissimus, as John of Salisbury calls\nhim.[207] In some manuscripts it is entitled _Summa moralium\nphilosophorum_, quite appropriately. One might hardly compare it for\norganic inclusiveness with the Christian _Summa_ of Thomas Aquinas; but it\nmay very well be likened to the more compact Sentences of the Lombard[208]\nwhich were so solidly put together about the same time. The Lombard drew\nhis Sentences from the writings of the Church Fathers; William\u2019s work\nconsists of moral extracts, mainly from Cicero, Seneca, Sallust, Terence,\nHorace, Lucan, and Bo\u00ebthius. The first part, _De honesto_, reviews\nPrudentia, Justitia, Fortitudo, and under these a number of particular\nvirtues in correspondence with which the extracts are arranged. The _De\nutili_ considers the adventitious goods of circumstance and fortune.\n\nThe extracts forming the substance of this work were intelligently\nselected and smoothly joined; and the treatise was much used by those who\nstudied the antique philosophy of life. It was drawn upon, for instance,\nby that truculent and well-born Welshman, Giraldus Cambrensis, in his _De\ninstructione principum_, which the author wrote partly to show how evilly\nHenry Plantagenet performed the functions of a king. This irrepressible\nclaimant of St. David\u2019s See had been long a prickly thorn for Henry\u2019s\nside.[209] But he was a scholar, and quotes from the whole range of the\nLatin Classics.\n\n\nIII\n\nWhen a man is not a mere transcriber, but puts something of himself into\nthe product of his pen, his work will reflect his personality, and may\ndisclose the various factors of his spiritual constitution. To discover\nfrom the writings of mediaeval scholars the effect of their classical\nstudies upon their characters is of greater interest than to trace from\ntheir citations the authors read by them. Such a compilation as the _Summa\nmoralium_ which has just been noticed, while plainly disclosing the latter\ninformation, tells nothing of the personality of him who strung the\nextracts together. Yet he had read writings which could hardly have failed\nto influence him. Cicero and Seneca do not leave their reader unchanged,\nespecially if he be seeking ethical instruction. And there was a work\nknown to this particular compiler which moved men in the Middle Ages. Deep\nmust have been the effect of that book so widely read and pondered on and\nloved, the _De consolatione_ of Bo\u00ebthius with its intimate consolings, its\nways of reasoning and looking upon life, its setting of the intellectual\nabove the physical, its insistence that mind rather than body makes the\nman. Imagine it brought home to a vigorous struggling personality--imagine\nAlfred reading and translating it, and adding to it from the teachings of\nhis own experience.[210] The study of such a book might form the turning\nof a mediaeval life; at least could not fail to temper the convulsions of\na soul storm-driven amid unreconcilable spiritual conflicts.\n\nOne may look back even to the time of Alfred or Charlemagne and note\nsuggestions coming from classical reading. For instance, the antique\ncivilization being essentially urban, words denoting qualities of\ndisciplined and polished men had sprung from city life, as contrasted with\nrustic rudeness. Thus the word _urbanitas_ passed over into mediaeval use\nwhen the quality itself hardly existed outside of the transmitted Latin\nliterature. For an Anglo-Saxon or a Frank to use and even partly\ncomprehend its significance meant his introduction to a new idea. Alcuin\nwrites to Charlemagne that he knows how it rejoices the latter to meet\nwith zeal for learning and church discipline, and how pleasing to him is\nanything which is seasoned with a touch of wit--_urbanitatis sale\nconditum_.[211] And again, in more curious phrase, he compliments a\ncertain worthy upon his metrical exposition of the creed, \u201cwherein I have\nfound gold-spouting whirlpools (_aurivomos gurgites_) of spiritual\nmeanings abounding with gems of scholastic wit (_scholasticae\nurbanitatis_).\u201d[212] Though doubtless this \u201cscholastic wit\u201d was flat\nenough, it was something for these men to get the notion of what was witty\nand entertaining through a word so vocalized with city life as\n_urbanitas_, a word that we have seen used quite knowingly by the more\nsophisticated scholar, Peter of Blois.\n\nAgain, it is matter of common observation that a feeling for nature\u2019s\nloveliness depends somewhat on the growth of towns. But mediaeval men\nconstantly had the idea suggested to them by the classic poetry of\ncity-dwelling poets. Here are some lines by Alcuin or one of his friends,\nexpressing sentiments which never came to them from the woods with which\nthey were disagreeably familiar:\n\n  \u201cO mea cella, mihi habitatio, dulcis, amata,\n     Semper in aeternum, o mea cella, vale.\n   Undique te cingit ramis resonantibus arbos,\n     Silvula florigeris semper onusta comis.\u201d[213]\n\nThese are little hints of the effect of the antique literature upon men\nwho still were somewhat rough-hewn. Advancing a century and a half, the\ninfluence of classic study is seen, as it were, \u201cin the round\u201d in\nGerbert.[214] It is likewise clear and full in John of Salisbury, of whom\nwe have spoken, and shall speak again.[215] For an admirable example,\nhowever, of the subtle working of the antique literature upon character\nand temperament, we may look to that scholar-prelate whose letters the\nyouthful Peter of Blois studied with profit, Hildebert of Lavardin, Bishop\nof Le Mans, and Archbishop of Tours. He shows the effect of the antique\nnot so strikingly in the knowledge which he possessed or the particular\nopinions which he entertained, as in the balance and temperance of his\nviews, and incidentally in his fine facility of scholarship.\n\nHildebert was born at Lavardin, a village near the mouth of the Loire,\nabout the year 1055. He belonged to an unimportant but gentle family.\nDubious tradition has it that one of his teachers was Berengar of Tours,\nand that he passed some time in the monastery of Cluny, of whose great\nabbot, Hugh, he wrote a life. It is more probable that he studied at Le\nMans. But whatever appears to have been the character of his early\nenvironment, Hildebert belongs essentially to the secular clergy, and\nnever was a monk. While comparatively young, he was made head of the\ncathedral school of Le Mans, and then archdeacon. In the year 1096, the\nold bishop of Le Mans died, and Hildebert, then about forty years of age,\nwas somewhat quickly chosen his successor, by the clergy and people of the\ntown, in spite of the protests of certain of the canons of the cathedral.\nThe none too happy scholar-bishop found himself at once a powerless but\nnot negligible element of a violently complicated feudal situation. There\nwas the noble Helias, Count of Maine, who was holding his domain against\nRobert de Bellesme, the latter slackly supported by William Rufus of\nEngland, who claimed the overlordship of the land. Helias reluctantly\nacquiesced in Hildebert\u2019s election. Not so Rufus, who never ceased to hate\nand persecute the man that had obtained the see which had been in the gift\nof his father, William the Conqueror. It happened soon after that Count\nHelias was taken prisoner by his opponent, and was delivered over to Rufus\nat Rouen. But Fulk of Anjou now thrust himself into this feudal _m\u00eal\u00e9e_,\nappeared at Le Mans, entered, and was acknowledged as its lord. He left a\ngarrison, and departed before the Red King reached the town. The latter\nbegan its siege, but soon made terms with Fulk, by which Le Mans was to be\ngiven to Rufus, Helias was to be set free, and many other matters were\nleft quite unsettled.\n\nNow Rufus entered the town (1098), where Hildebert nervously received him;\nHelias, set free by the King, offered to become his feudal retainer; Rufus\nwould have none of him; so Helias defied the King, and was permitted to go\nhis way by that strange man, who held his knightly honour sacred, but\notherwise might commit any atrocity prompted by rage or greed. It was well\nfor Helias that trouble with the French King now drew Rufus to the north.\nThe next year, 1099, Rufus in England heard that the Count had renewed the\nwar, and captured Le Mans, except the citadel. He hurried across the\nchannel, rushed through the land, entered Le Mans, and passed on through\nit, chasing Helias. But the war languished, and Rufus returned to Le Mans,\nor to what was left of it. Hildebert had cause to tremble. He had met the\nKing on the latter\u2019s hurried arrival from England for the war. Rufus had\nspoken him fair. But now, at Le Mans, he was accused before the monarch of\ncomplicity in the revolt. Quickly flared the King\u2019s anger against the man\nwhom he never had ceased to detest. He ordered him to pull down the towers\nof his cathedral, which rose threatening and massive over the city\u2019s ruins\nand the citadel of the King. What could the defenceless bishop do to avert\ndisgrace and the desolation of his beloved church? Words were left him,\nbut they did not prove effectual. Rufus commanded him to choose between\nimmediate compliance and going to England, there to submit himself to the\njudgment of the English bishops. He accepted the latter alternative, and\nfollowed the King, leaving his diocese ruined and his people dispersed. In\nEngland, Rufus dangled him along between fear and hope, till at last the\ndisheartened prelate returned to the Continent, having ambiguously\nconsented to pull down those towers. But instead, he set to work to repair\nthe devastation of his diocese. The reiterated mandate of the King was not\nlong in following him, and this time coupled with an accusation of\ntreason. Hildebert\u2019s state was desperate. His clergy were forbidden to\nobey him, his palace was sacked, his own property destroyed. Such were\nWilliam\u2019s methods of persuasion. Then the King proposed that the bishop\nshould purge himself by the ordeal of hot iron. Hildebert, the bishop, the\ntheologian, the scholar, was almost on the verge of taking up the\nchallenge, when a letter from Yves, the saintly Bishop of Chartres,\ndissuaded him. At this moment, with ruin for his portion, and no escape,\nan arrow ended the Red King\u2019s life in the New Forest. It was the year of\ngrace 1100.\n\nNow, what a change! Henry Beauclerc was from the first his friend, as\nWilliam Rufus to the last had been his enemy. Hitherto Hildebert has\nappeared weakly endeavouring to elude destruction, and perhaps with no\nunshaken loyalty in his bosom toward any cause except his dire\nnecessities. Henceforth, sailing a calmer sea, he repays Henry\u2019s favour\nwith adherence and admiration. He has no support to offer Anselm of\nCanterbury, still struggling with the English monarchy over investitures;\nnor has he one word of censure for the clever cold-eyed scholar King who\nkept his brother, Robert of Normandy, a prisoner for twenty-eight years\ntill he died.\n\nHildebert had still thirty years of life before him; nor were they all to\nbe untroubled. Shortly after the Red King\u2019s death, he made a voyage to\nRome, to obtain the papal benediction. To judge from his poems, he was\ndeeply impressed with the ruins of the ancient city. Returning he devoted\nhimself to the affairs of his diocese and to rebuilding the cathedral and\nother churches of Le Mans. In 1125, in spite of his unwillingness, for he\nwas seventy years old, he was enthroned Archbishop of Tours, where he was\nto be worried by disputes with Louis le Gros of France over investitures.\nBut he acquitted himself with vigour, especially through his letters. A\nfamous one relates to this struggle of his closing years:\n\n    \u201cIn adversity it is a comfort to hope for happier times. Long has this\n    hope flattered me; and as the harvest in the fields cheers the\n    countryman, the expectation of a fair season has comforted my soul.\n    But now I no longer hope for the clearing of the cloudy weather, nor\n    see where the storm-driven ship, on whose deck I sit, may gain the\n    harbour of rest.\n\n    \u201cFriends are silent; silent are the priests of Jesus Christ. And those\n    also are silent through whose prayers I thought the king would be\n    reconciled with me. I thought indeed, but in their silence the king\n    has added to the pain of my wounds. Yet it was theirs to resist the\n    injury to the canonical institutes of the Church. Theirs was it, if\n    the matter had demanded it, to raise a wall before the house of\n    Israel. Yet with the most serene king there is call for exhortation\n    rather than threat, for advice rather than command, for instruction\n    rather than the rod. By these he should have been drawn to agree, by\n    these reverently taught not to sheath his arrows in an aged priest,\n    nor make void the canonical laws, nor persecute the ashes of a church\n    already buried, ashes in which I eat the bread of grief, in which I\n    drink the cup of mourning, from which to be snatched away and escape\n    is to pass from death to life.\n\n    \u201cYet amid these dire straits, anger has never triumphed over me, that\n    I should raise a hue and cry against the anointed of the Lord, or\n    wrest peace from him with the strong hand and by the arm of the\n    Church. Suspect is the peace to which high potentates are brought not\n    by love, but by force. Easily is it broken, and sometimes the final\n    state is worse than the first. There is another way by which, Christ\n    leading, I can better reach it. I will cast my thought upon the Lord,\n    and He will give me the desire of my heart. The Lord remembered\n    Joseph, forgotten by Pharaoh\u2019s chief butler when prosperity had\n    returned to him; He remembered David abandoned by his own son. Perhaps\n    He will remember even me, and bring the tossing ship to rest on the\n    desired shore. He it is who looks upon the petition of the meek, and\n    does not spurn their prayers. He it is in whose hand the hearts of\n    kings are wax. If I shall have found grace in His eyes, I shall easily\n    obtain the grace of the king or advantageously lose it. For to offend\n    man for the sake of God is to win God\u2019s grace.\u201d[216]\n\nHildebert was a classical scholar, and in his time unmatched as a writer\nof Latin prose and verse. Many of his elegiac poems survive, some of them\nso antique in sentiment and so correct in metre as to have been taken for\nproducts of the pagan period. One of the best is an elegy on Rome\nobviously inspired by his visit to that city of ruins:\n\n  \u201cPar tibi, Roma, nihil, cum sis prope tota ruina.\u201d\n\nIts closing lines are interesting:\n\n  \u201cHic super\u00fbm formas superi mirantur et ipsi,\n     Et cupiunt fictis vultibus esse pares.\n   Non potuit natura deos hoc ore creare\n     Quo miranda de\u00fbm signa creavit homo.\n   Vultus adest his numinibus, potiusque coluntur\n     Artificum studio quam deitate sua.\n   Urbs felix, si vel dominis urbs illa careret,\n     Vel dominis esset turpe carere fide!\u201d\n\nSuch phrases, such frank admiration for the idols of pagan Rome, are\nstartling from the pen of a contemporary of St. Bernard. The spell of the\nantique lay on Hildebert, as on others of his time. \u201cThe gods themselves\nmarvel at their own images, and desire to equal their sculptured forms.\nNature was unable to make gods with such visages as man has created in\nthese wondrous images of the gods. There is a look (_vultus_) about these\ndeities, and they are worshipped for the skill of the sculptor rather than\nfor their divinity.\u201d[217] Hildebert was not only a bishop, he was a\nChristian; but the sense and feeling of ancient Rome had entered into him.\nBesides the poem just quoted, he wrote another, either in Rome or after\nhis return, Christian in thought but most antique in sympathy and turn of\nphrase.\n\n  \u201cDum simulacra mihi, dum numina vana placerent,\n     Militia, populo, moenibus alta fui;\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n                           ruit alta senatus\n   Gloria, procumbunt templa, theatra jacent.\u201d\n\nThe antique feeling of these lines is hardly balanced by the expressed\nsentiment: \u201cplus Caesare Petrus!\u201d[218] And again we hear the echo of the\nantique in\n\n  \u201cNil artes, nil pura fides, nil gloria linguae,\n     Nil fons ingenii, nil probitas sine re.\u201d[219]\n\nHildebert has also a poem \u201cOn his Exile,\u201d perhaps written while in England\nwith the Red King. Quite in antique style it sings the loss of friends and\nfields, gardens and granaries, which the writer possessed while _prospera\nfata_ smiled. Then\n\n  \u201cJurares superos intra mea vota teneri!\u201d\n\n--a very antique sentiment. But the Christian faith of the despoiled and\nexiled bishop reasserts itself as the poem closes.[220] Did Hildebert also\nwrite the still more palpably \u201cantique\u201d elegiacs on Hermaphrodite, and\nother questionable subjects?[221] That is hard to say. He may or may not\nhave been the author of a somewhat scurrilous squib against a woman who\nseems to have sent him verses:\n\n  \u201cFemina perfida, femina sordida, digna catenis.\n\n  \u201cO miserabilis, insatiabilis, insatiata,\n   Desine scribere, desine mittere, carmina blandia,\n   Carmina turpia, carmina mollia, vix memoranda,\n   Nec tibi mittere, nec tibi scribere, disposui me.\n\n  \u201cMens tua vitrea, plumbea, saxea, ferrea, nequam,\n   Fingere, fallere, prodere, perdere, rem putat aequam.\u201d[222]\n\nWith all his classical leanings, the major part of Hildebert was\nChristian. His theological writings which survive, his zeal against\ncertain riotous heretics, and in general his letters, leave no doubt of\nthis. It is from the Christian point of view that he gives his sincerest\ncounsels; it is from that that he balances the advantages of an active or\ncontemplative life, the claims of the Christian _vita activa_ and _vita\ncontemplativa_. Yet his classic tastes gave temperance to his Christian\nviews, and often drew him to sheer scholarly pleasures and to an antique\nconsideration of the incidents of life.\n\nHow sweetly the elements were mixed in him appears in a famous letter\nwritten to William of Champeaux, that Goliath of realism whom Abaelard\ndiscomfited in the Paris schools. The unhappy William retreated a little\nway across the Seine, and laid the foundations of the abbey of St. Victor\nin the years between 1108 and 1113. He sought to abandon his studies and\nhis lectures, and surrender himself to the austere salvation of his soul,\nand yet scarcely with such irrevocable purpose as would rebuff the\ntemperate advice of Hildebert\u2019s letter proffered with tactful\nunderstanding.\n\n    \u201cOver thy change of life my soul is glad and exults, that at length it\n    has come to thee to determine to philosophize. For thou hadst not the\n    true odour of a philosopher so long as thou didst not cull beauty of\n    conduct from thy philosophic knowledge. Now, as honey from the\n    honeycomb, thou hast drawn from that a worthy rule of living. This is\n    to gather all of thee within virtue\u2019s boundaries, no longer\n    huckstering with nature for thy life, but attending less to what the\n    flesh is able for, than to what the spirit wills. This is truly to\n    philosophize; to live thus is already to enter the fellowship of those\n    above. Easily shalt thou come to them if thou dost advance\n    disburdened. The mind is a burden to itself until it ceases to hope\n    and fear. Because Diogenes looked for no favour, he feared the power\n    of no one. What the cynic infidel abhorred, the Christian doctor far\n    more amply must abhor, since his profession is so much more fruitful\n    through faith. For such are stumbling-blocks of conduct, impeding\n    those who move toward virtue.\n\n    \u201cBut the report comes that you have been persuaded to abstain from\n    lecturing. Hear me as to this. It is virtue to furnish the material of\n    virtue. Thy new way of life calls for no partial sacrifice, but a\n    holocaust. Offer thyself altogether to the Lord, since so He\n    sacrificed Himself for thee. Gold shines more when scattered than when\n    locked up. Knowledge also when distributed takes increase, and unless\n    given forth, scorning the miserly possessor, it slips away. Therefore\n    do not close the streams of thy learning.\u201d[223]\n\nEventually William followed this, or other like advice. One sees\nHildebert\u2019s sympathetic point of view; he entirely approves of William\u2019s\nrenunciation of the world--a good bishop of the twelfth century might also\nhave wished to renounce its troublous honours! Yes, William has at last\nturned to the true and most disburdened way of living. But this\nabandonment of worldly ends entails no abandonment of Christian knowledge\nor surrender of the cause of Christian learning. Nay, let William resume,\nand herein give himself to God\u2019s will without reserve.\n\nSo the letter presents a temperate and noble view of the matter, a view as\nsound in the twentieth century as in the twelfth. And a like broad\nconsideration Hildebert brings to a more particular discussion of the two\nmodes of Christian living, the _vita activa_ and the _vita contemplativa_,\nLeah and Rachel, Martha and Mary. He amply distinguishes these two ways of\nserving God from any mode of life with selfish aims. It happened that a\ndevout monk and friend of Hildebert was made abbot of the monastery of St.\nVincent, in the neighbourhood of Le Mans. The administrative duties of an\nabbot might be as pressing as a bishop\u2019s, and this good man deplored his\nwithdrawal from a life of more complete contemplation. So Hildebert wrote\nhim a long discursive letter, of which our extracts will give the thread\nof argument:\n\n    \u201cYou bewail the peace of contemplation which is snatched away, and the\n    imposed burden of active responsibilities. You were sitting with Mary\n    at the feet of the Lord Jesus, when lo, you were ordered to serve with\n    Martha. You confess that those dishes which Mary receives, sitting and\n    listening, are more savoury than those which zealous Martha prepares.\n    In these, indeed, is the bread of men, in those the bread of angels.\u201d\n\nAnd Hildebert descants upon the raptures of the _vita contemplativa_, of\nwhich his friend is now bereft.\n\n    \u201cThe contemplative and the active life, my dearest brother, you\n    sometimes find in the same person, and sometimes apart. As the\n    examples of Scripture show us. Jacob was joined to both Leah and\n    Rachel; Christ teaches in the fields, anon He prays on the mountains;\n    Moses is in the tents of the people, and again speaks with God upon\n    the heights. So Peter, so Paul. Again, action alone is found, as in\n    Leah and Martha, while contemplation gleams in Mary and Rachel.\n    Martha, as I think, represents the clergy of our time, with whom the\n    press of business closes the shrine of contemplation, and dries up the\n    sacrifice of tears.\n\n    \u201cNo one can speak with the Lord while he has to prattle with the whole\n    world. Such a prattler am I, and such a priest, who when I spend the\n    livelong day caring for the herds, have not a moment for the care of\n    souls. Affairs, the enemies of my spirit, come upon me; they claim me\n    for their own, they thieve the private hour of prayer, they defraud\n    the services of the sanctuary, they irritate me with their stings by\n    day and infest my sleep; and what I can scarcely speak of without\n    tears, the creeping furtive memory of disputes follows me miserable to\n    the altar\u2019s sacraments,--all such are even as the vultures which\n    Abraham drove away from the carcases (Gen. xv. 11).\n\n    \u201cNay more, what untold loss of virtue is entailed by these occupations\n    of the captive mind! While under their power we do not even serve with\n    Martha. She ministered, but to Christ; she bustled about, but for\n    Christ. We truly, who like Martha bustle about, and, like Martha,\n    minister, neither bustle about for Christ nor minister to Him. For if\n    in such bustling ministry thou seekest to win thine own desire, art\n    taken with the gossip of the mob, or with pandering to carnal\n    pleasures, thou art neither the Martha whom thou dost counterfeit nor\n    the Mary for whom thou dost sigh.\n\n    \u201cIn that case, dearest brother, you would have just cause for grief\n    and tears. But if you do the part of Martha simply, you do well; if,\n    like Jacob, you hasten to and fro between Leah and Rachel, you do\n    better; if with Mary you sit and listen, you do best. For action is\n    good, whose pressing instancy, though it kill contemplation, draws\n    back the brother wandering from Christ. Yet it is better, sometimes\n    seated, to lay aside administrative cares, and amid the irksome nights\n    of Leah, draw fresh life from Rachel\u2019s loved embrace. From this\n    intermixture the course to the celestials becomes more inclusive, for\n    thereby the same soul now strives for the blessedness of men and anon\n    participates in that of the angels. But of the zeal single for Mary,\n    why should I speak? Is not the Saviour\u2019s word enough, \u2018Mary hath\n    chosen the best part, which shall not be taken from her.\u2019\u201d\n\nAnd in closing, Hildebert shows his friend the abbot that for him the true\ncourse is to follow Jacob interchanging Leah and Rachel; and then in the\nwatches of his pastoral duties the celestial vision shall be also\nhis.[224]\n\nCould any one adjust more fairly this contest, so insistent throughout the\nannals of mediaeval piety, between active duties and heavenly\ncontemplation? The only solution for abbot and bishop was to join Leah\nwith Rachel. And how clearly Hildebert sees the pervasive peril of the\nactive life, that the prelate be drawn to serve his pleasures and not\nChrist. Many souls of prelates had that cast into hell!\n\nIn theory Hildebert is clear as day, and altogether Christian, so far as\nwe have followed the counsels of these letters. But in fact the quiet life\nhad for him a temptation, to which he yielded himself more generously than\nto any of the grosser lures of his high prelacy. This temptation, so\nalluring and insidious, so fairly masked under the proffer of learning\nleading to fuller Christian knowledge, was of course the all too beloved\npagan literature, and the all too humanly convincing plausibilities of\npagan philosophy. Hildebert\u2019s writings evince that kind of classical\nscholarship which springs only from great study and great love. His soul\ndoes not appear to have been riven by a consciousness of sin in this\nbehoof. Sometimes he passes so gently from Christian to pagan ethics, as\nto lead one to suspect that he did not deeply feel the inconsistency\nbetween them. Or again, he seems satisfied with the moral reasonings of\npaganism, and sets them forth without a qualm. For there was the antique\npagan side of our good bishop; and how pagan thoughts and views of life\nhad become a part of Hildebert\u2019s nature, appears in a most interesting\nletter written to King Henry, consoling him upon the loss of his son and\nthe noble company so gaily sailing from Normandy in that ill-starred\n_White Ship_ in the year 1120.\n\nHildebert begins reminding the King how much more it is for a monarch to\nrule himself than others. Hitherto he has triumphed over fortune, if\nfortune be anything; now she has wounded him with her sharpest dart. Yet\nthat cannot penetrate the well-guarded mind. It is wisdom not to vaunt\noneself in prosperity, nor be overwhelmed with grief in adversity.\nHildebert then reasons on the excellence of man\u2019s nature and will; he\nspeaks of the effect of Adam\u2019s sin in loss of grace and entailment of\nmisery on the human race. He quotes from the Old Testament and from\nVirgil. Then he proceeds more specifically with his fortifying arguments.\nTheir sum is, let the breast of man abound in weapons of defence and\ncontemn the thrusts of fortune; there is nothing over which the triumphant\nsoul may not triumph.\n\n    \u201cUnhappy he who lacks this armament; and most unhappy he who besides\n    does not know it. Here Democritus found matter for laughter,\n    Demosthenes (_sic_) matter for tears. Far be it from thee that the\n    chance cast of things should affect thee so, and the loss of wisdom\n    follow the loss of offspring. Thou hast suffered on dry land more\n    grievous shipwreck than thy son in the brine, if fortune\u2019s storm has\n    wrested wisdom from the wise.\u201d\n\nAfter a while Hildebert passes on to consider what is man, and wherein\nconsists his welfare:\n\n    \u201cTo any one carefully considering what man is, nothing will seem more\n    probable than that he is a divine animal, distinguished by a certain\n    share of divinity (_numinis_). By bone and flesh he smacks of the\n    earth. By reason his affinity to God is shown. Moses, inspired,\n    certifies that by this prerogative man was created in the image of\n    God. Whence it also follows for man, that he should through reason\n    recognize and love his true good. Now reason teaches that what\n    pertains to virtue is the true good, and that it is within us. The\n    things we temporally possess are good only by opinion (_opinione_,\n    _i.e._ not _ratione_), and these are about us. What is about us is not\n    within our _jus_ but another\u2019s (_alterius juris sunt_). Chance directs\n    them; they neither come nor stand under our arbitrament. For us they\n    are at the lender\u2019s will (_precaria_), like a slave belonging to\n    another.[225] Through such, true felicity is neither had nor lost.\n    Indeed no one is happy, no one is wretched by reason of what is\n    another\u2019s. It is his own that makes a man\u2019s good or ill, and whatever\n    is not within him is not his own.\u201d\n\nThen Hildebert speaks of dignities, of wife and child, of the fruits of\nthe earth and riches--_bona vaga_, _bona sunt pennata haec omnia_. Men\nquarrel and struggle about all these things--_ecce vides quanta mundus\nlaboret insania_.[226]\n\nNo one need point out how much more natural this reasoning would have been\nfrom the lips of Seneca than from those of an archiepiscopal contemporary\nof St. Bernard. One may, however, comment on the patent fact that this\nreflection of the antique in Hildebert\u2019s ethical consolation reflects a\nmanner of reasoning rather than an emotional mood, and in this it is an\ninstance of the general fact that mediaeval methods of reasoning\nconsciously or unconsciously followed the antique; while the emotion, the\nlove and yearning, of mediaeval religion was more largely the gift of\nChristianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI\n\nEVOLUTION OF MEDIAEVAL LATIN PROSE\n\n\nClassical antiquity lay far back of the mediaeval period, while in the\nnearer background pressed the centuries of transition, the time of the\nChurch Fathers. The patristic material and a crude knowledge of the\nantique passed over to the early Middle Ages. Mediaeval progress was to\nconsist, very largely, in the mastery and appropriation of the one and the\nother.\n\nThe varied illustration of these propositions has filled a large portion\nof this work. In this and the next chapter we are concerned with\nliterature, properly speaking; and with the effect of the Classics, the\npure literary antique, upon mediaeval literary productions. The latter are\nto be viewed as literature; not considering their substance, but their\nform, their composition, style, and temperamental shading, qualities which\nshow the faculties and temper of their authors. We are to discover, if we\ncan, wherein the qualities of mediaeval literature reflect the Latin\nClassics, or in any way betray their influence.\n\nIt is an affair of dull diligence to learn what Classics were read by the\nvarious mediaeval writers; and likewise is it a dull affair to note in\nmediaeval writings the direct borrowing from the Classics of fact,\nopinion, sentiment, or phrase. Such borrowing was incessant, resorted to\nas of course wherever opportunity offered and the knowledge was at hand.\nIt would not commonly occur to a mediaeval writer to state in his own way\nwhat he could take from an ancient author, save in so far as change of\nmedium--from prose to verse, or from Latin to the vernacular--compelled\nhim. So the church builders in Rome never thought of hewing new blocks of\nstone, or making new columns, when some ancient palace or temple afforded\na quarry. The details of such spoliations offer little interest in\ncomparison with the effect of antique architecture upon later styles. So\nwe should like to discover the effect of the ancient compositions upon the\nmediaeval, and observe how far the faculties and mental processes of\nclassic authors, incorporate in their writings, were transmitted to\nmediaeval men, to become incorporate in theirs.\n\nUnless you are Virgil or Cicero, you cannot write like Virgil or Cicero.\nWriting, real writing, that is to say, creative self-expressive\ncomposition, is the personal product and closely mirrored reflex of the\nwriter\u2019s temperament and mentality. It gives forth indirectly the\ninfluences which have blended in him, education and environment, his past\nand present. His personality makes his style, his untransmittable style.\nYet a group of men affected by the same past, and living at the same time\nand place, or under like spiritual influences, may show a like faculty and\ntaste. Having more in common with one another than with men of other time,\ntheir mental processes, and therefore their ways of writing, will present\nmore common qualities. Around and above them, as well as through their\nnatal and acquired faculties, sweeps the genius of the language, itself\nthe age-long product of a like-minded race. In harmony with it, not in\nopposition and repugnancy, each writer must, if he will write that\nlanguage, shape his more personal diction.\n\nObviously the personal elements in classic writings were no more capable\nof transmission than the personal qualities of the writers. Likewise, the\ngenius of the Latin language, though one might think it fixed in approved\ncompositions, changed with the spiritual fortune of the Roman people, and\nconstantly transmitted an altered self and novel tenets of construction to\ncontrol the linguistic usages of succeeding men. None but himself could\nhave written Cicero\u2019s letters. No man of Juvenal\u2019s time could have written\nthe _Aeneid_, nor any man of the time of Diocletian the histories of\nTacitus. There were, however, common elements in these compositions, all\nof them possessing certain qualities which are associated with classical\nwriting. These may be difficult to formulate, but they become clear enough\nin contrast with the qualities of mediaeval Latin literature. The\nmediaeval man did not feel and reason like a contemporary of Virgil or\nCicero; he had not the same training in _Greek_ literature; he did not\nhave the same definitude of conception, did not care so much that a\ncomposition should have limit and the unity springing from adherence to a\nsingle topic; he did not, in fine, stand on the same level of attainment\nand faculty and taste with men of the Augustan time. He had his own\nheights and depths, his own temperament and predilections, his own\ncapacities. Reading the Classics had not transformed him into Cicero or\nSeneca, or set his feet in the Roman Forum. His feet wandered in the ways\nof the Middle Ages, and whatever he wrote in prose or verse, in Latin or\nin his own vernacular, was himself and of himself, and but indirectly due\nto the antecedent influences which had been transmuted even in entering\nhis nature and becoming part of his temper and faculty.\n\nAny consideration of the knowledge and appreciation of the Classics in the\nMiddle Ages would be followed naturally by a consideration of their effect\nupon mediaeval composition; which in turn forms part of any discussion of\nthe literary qualities of mediaeval Latin literature. But inasmuch as\nmediaeval form and diction tend to remove further and further from\nclassical standards, the whole discussion may seem a _lucus a non lucendo_\nfor all the light it throws upon the effect of the Classics on mediaeval\nliterature. Our best plan will be to note the beginnings of mediaeval\nLatinity in that post-Augustan and largely patristic diction which had\nbeen enriched and reinvigorated with many phrases from daily speech; and\nthen to follow the living if sluggish river as it moves on, receiving\nincrement along its course, its currents mottled with the silt of\nmediaeval Italy, France, Germany. We shall suppose this flood to divide in\nrivers of Latin prose and verse; and we may follow them, and see where\nthey overflow their channels, carrying antique flotsam into the ample\nmarshes of vernacular poetry.\n\nThere has always been a difference in diction between speech and\nliterature. At Rome, Cicero and Caesar, and of course the poets, did not,\nin writing, use quite the language of the people. All the words of daily\nspeech were not taken into the literary or classical vocabulary, which had\noften quite other words of its own. Moreover the writers, in forming their\nprose and verse and constructing their compositions, were affected deeply\nby their study of Greek literature.[227] If Caesar, Cicero, Virgil, and\ntheir friends spoke differently from the Roman shopkeepers, there was a\nstill greater difference between their writings and the parlance of the\ntown.\n\nNo one need be told that it was the spoken, and not the classical Latin,\nwhich in Italy, Spain, Provence, and Northern France developed into\nItalian, Spanish, Proven\u00e7al, and French. On the other hand, the descent of\nwritten mediaeval Latin from the classical diction or the popular speech,\nor both, is not so clear, or at least not so simple. It cannot be said\nthat mediaeval Latin came straight from the classical; and manifestly it\ncannot have sprung from the popular spoken Latin, like the Romance\ntongues, without other influence or admixture; because then, instead of\nremaining Latin, it would have become Romance; which it did not. Evidently\nmediaeval Latin, the literary and to some extent the spoken medium of\neducated men in the Middle Ages, must have carried classic strains, or\nhave kept itself Latin by the study of Latin grammar and a conscious\nadherence to a veritable, if not classical, Latin diction. The mediaeval\nreading of the Classics, and the earnest and constant study of Latin\ngrammar spoken of in the previous chapter, were the chief means by which\nmediaeval Latin maintained its Latinity. Nevertheless, while it kept the\nword forms and inflections of classical Latin, with most of the classical\nvocabulary, it also took up an indefinite supplement of words from the\nspoken Latin of the late imperial or patristic period.\n\nIn order to understand the genesis and qualities of mediaeval Latin, one\nmust bear in mind (as with most things mediaeval) that its immediate\nantecedents lie in the transitional fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries,\nand not in the classical period.[228] Those centuries went far toward\ndeclassicizing Latin prose, by departing from the balanced structure of\nthe classic sentences and introducing words from the spoken tongue. The\nstyle became less correct, freer, and better suited to the expression of\nthe novel thoughts and interests coming with Christianity. The change is\nseen in the works of the men to whom it was largely due, Tertullian,\nJerome, and other great patristic writers.[229] Such men knew the Classics\nwell, and regarded them as literary models, and yet wrote differently. For\na new spirit was upon them and new necessities of expression, and they\nlived when, even outside of Christian circles, the classic forms of style\nwere loosening with the falling away of the strenuous intellectual temper,\nthe poise, the self-reliance and the self-control distinguishing the\nclassical epoch.\n\nThe stylistic genius of Augustine and Jerome was not the genius of the\nformative beginnings of the Romance tongues, with, for instance, its\ninability to rely on the close logic of the case ending, and its need to\nhelp the meaning by the more explicit preposition. Yet the spirit of these\ntwo great men was turning that way. They were not classic writers, but\nstudents of the Classics, who assisted their own genius by the study of\nwhat no longer was themselves. So in the following centuries the most\ncareful Latin writers are students of the Classics, and do not study\nJerome and Augustine for style. Yet their writings carry out the\ntendencies beginning (or rather not beginning) with these two.\n\nIt was not in diction alone that the Fathers were the forerunners of\nmediaeval writers. _Classic_ Latin authors, both from themselves and\nthrough their study of Greek literature, had the sense and faculty of\nform. Their works maintain a clear sequence of thought, along with strict\npertinency to the main topic, or adherence to the central current of the\nnarrative, avoiding digression and refraining from excessive\namplification. The classic writer did not lose himself in his subject, or\nwander with it wherever it might lead him. But in patristic writings the\nsubject is apt to dominate the man, draw him after its own necessities, or\nby its casual suggestions cause him to digress. The Fathers in their\npolemic or expository works became prolix and circumstantial, intent, like\na lawyer with a brief, on proving every point and leaving no loophole to\nthe adversary. In their works literary unity and strict sequence of\nargument may be cast to the winds. Above all, as it seems to us, and as it\nwould have seemed to Caesar or Cicero or Tacitus, allegorical\ninterpretation carries them at its own errant and fantastic will into\nfootless mazes.\n\nYet whoever will understand and appreciate the writings of the Fathers and\nof the mediaeval generations after them, should beware of inelastic\nnotions. The question of unity hangs on what the writer deems the\nveritable topic of his work, and that may be the universal course of the\nprovidence of God, which was the subject of Augustine\u2019s _Civitas Dei_.\nIndeed, the infinite relationship of any Christian topic was like enough\nto break through academic limits of literary unity. Likewise, the proper\nsequence of thought depends on what constitutes the true connection\nbetween one matter and another; it must follow what with the writer are\nthe veritable relationships of his topics. If the visible facts of a man\u2019s\nenvironment and the narratives of history are to him primarily neither\nactual facts nor literal narratives, but symbols and allegories of\nspiritual things, then the true sequence of thought for him is from symbol\nto symbol and from allegory to allegory. He is justified in ignoring the\napparent connection of visible facts and the logic of the literal story,\nand in surrendering himself to that sequence of thought which follows what\nis for him the veritable significance of the matter.\n\nYet here we must apply another standard besides that of the writer\u2019s\nconception of his subject\u2019s significance. He should be wise, and not\nfoolish. Other men and later ages will judge him according to their own\nbest wisdom. And with respect to the writings of the Fathers viewed as\nliterature, the modern critic cannot fail to see them entering upon that\ncourse of prolixity which in mediaeval writings will develop into the\nendless; looking forward, he will see their errant habits resolving into\nthe mediaeval lack of determined topic, and their symbolically driven\nsequences of thought turning into the most ridiculous topical transitions,\nas the less cogent faculties of later men permit themselves to be\n_suggested_ anywhither.\n\nThe Fathers developed their distinguishing qualities of style and language\nunder the demands of the topics absorbing them, and the influence of modes\nof feeling coming with Christianity. They were compelling an established\nlanguage to express novel matter. In the centuries after them, further\nchanges were to come through the linguistic tendencies moulding the\nevolution of the Romance tongues, through the counter influence of the\nstudy of grammar and rhetoric, and also through the ignorance and\nintellectual limitations of the writers. But as with the Latin of the\nFathers, so with the Latin of the Middle Ages, the change of style and\nlanguage was intimately and spiritually dependent upon the minds and\ntemperaments of the writers and the qualities of the subjects for which\nthey were seeking an expression. A profound influence in the evolution of\nmediaeval Latin was the continual endeavour of the mediaeval genius to\nexpress the thoughts and feelings through which it was becoming itself.\nWith impressive adequacy and power the Christian writers of the Middle\nAges moulded their inherited and acquired Latin tongue to utter the varied\nmatters which moved their minds and lifted up their hearts. We marvel to\nsee a language which once had told the stately tale of Rome here lowered\nto fantastic incident and dull stupidity, then with almost gospel\nsimplicity telling the moving story of some saintly life; again sonorously\nuttering thoughts to lift men from the earth and denunciations crushing\nthem to hell; quivering with hope and fear and love, and chanting the last\nverities of the human soul.\n\nAs to the evolution of various styles of written Latin from the close of\nthe patristic period on through the following centuries, one may premise\nthe remark that there would commonly be two opposite influences upon the\nwriter; that of the genius of his native tongue, and that of his education\nin Latinity. If he lived in a land where Teutonic speech had never given\nway to the spoken Latin of the Empire, his native tongue would be so\ndifferent from the Latin which he learned at school, that while it might\nimpede, it could hardly draw to its own genius the learned language. But\nin Romance countries there was no such absolute difference between the\nvernacular and the Latin, and the analytic genius of the growing Romance\ndialects did not fail to affect the latter. Accordingly in France, for\nexample, the spoken Latin dialect, or one may say the genius that was\nforming the old French dialects to what they were to be, tends to break up\nthe ancient periods, to introduce the auxiliary verb in the place of\nelaborate inflections, and rely on prepositions instead of case endings,\nwhich were disappearing and whose force was ceasing to be felt. One result\nwas to simplify the order of words in a sentence; for it was not possible\nto move a noun with its accompanying preposition wherever it had been\nfeasible to place a noun whose relation to the rest of the sentence was\nfelt from its case ending. Gregory of Tours is the famous example of these\ntendencies, with his _Historia francorum_, an ideal forerunner of\nFroissart. He became Bishop of Tours in the year 573. In his writings he\nfollowed the instincts of the inchoate Romance tongues. He acknowledges\nand perhaps overstates his ignorance of Latin grammar and the rules of\ncomposition. Such ignorance was destined to become still blanker; and\nignorance in itself was a disintegrating influence upon written Latin, and\nalso gave freer play to the gathering tendencies of Romance speech.\n\nEvidently, had all these influences worked unchecked, they would have\nobliterated Latinity from mediaeval Latin. Grammatical and rhetorical\neducation countered them effectively, and the mighty genius of the ancient\nlanguage endured in the extant masterpieces. Nevertheless the spirit of\nclassical Latinity was never again to be a spontaneous creative power.\nThe most that men thenceforth could do was to study, and endeavour to\nimitate, the forms in which it had embodied its living self.\n\nIn brief, some of the chief influences upon the writing of Latin in the\nMiddle Ages were: the classical genius dead, leaving only its works for\nimitation; the school education in Latin grammar and rhetoric; endeavour\nto follow classic models and write correctly; inability to do so from lack\nof capacity and knowledge; conscious disregard of classicism; the spirit\nof the Teutonic tongues clogging Latinity, and that of the Romance tongues\ndeflecting it from classical constructions; and finally, the plastic\nfaculties of advancing Christian mediaeval civilization educing power from\nconfusion, and creating modes of language suited to express the thoughts\nand feelings of mediaeval men.\n\nThe life, that is to say the living development, of mediaeval Latin prose,\nwas to lie in the capacity of successive generations of educated men to\nmaintain a sufficient grammatical correctness, while at the same time\nwriting Latin, not classically, but in accordance with the necessities and\nspirit of their times. There resulted an enormous literature which was not\ndead, nor altogether living, and lacked throughout the spontaneity of\nwritings in a mother tongue; for Latin was not the speech of hearth and\nhome, nor everywhere the tongue of the market-place and camp. But it was\nthe language of mediaeval education and acquired culture; it was the\nlanguage also of the universal church, and, above all other tongues,\nexpressed the thoughts by which men were saved or damned. More profoundly\nthan any vernacular mediaeval literature, the Latin literature of the\nMiddle Ages expresses the mediaeval mind. It thundered with the authority\nthat held the keys of heaven; it was resonant with feeling, and through\nlong centuries gave voice to emotions, shattering, terror-stricken,\nconvulsively loving. When, say with the close of the eleventh century, the\nmediaeval peoples had absorbed with power the teachings of patristic\nChristianity, and had undergone some centuries of Latin schooling, and\nwhen under these two chief influences certain distinctive and homogeneous\nways of thinking, feeling, and looking upon life, had been reached; when,\nin fine, the Middle Ages had become themselves and had evolved a genius\nthat could create,--then and from that time appears the adaptability and\npower of mediaeval Latin to serve the ends of intellectual effort and the\nexpression of emotion.\n\nTo estimate the literary qualities of classical Latin is a simpler task\nthan to judge the Latinity and style of the Latin literature of the Middle\nAges. Classic Latin prose has a common likeness. In general one feels that\nwhat Cicero and Caesar would have rejected, Tacitus and Quintilian would\nnot have admitted. The syntax of these writers shows still greater\nuniformity. No such common likeness, or avoidance of stylistic aberration\nand grammatical solecism, obtains in mediaeval prose or verse. The one and\nthe other include many kinds of Latin, and vary from century to century,\ndiversified in idiom and deflected from linguistic uniformity by\ninfluences of race and native speech, of ignorance and knowledge. He who\nwould appreciate mediaeval Latin will be diffident of academic standards,\nand mistrust his classical predilections lest he see aberration and\nbarbarism where he might discover the evolution of new constructions and\nnovel styles; lest he bestow encomium upon clever imitations of classical\nmodels, and withhold it from more living creations of the mediaeval\nspirit. He will realize that to appreciate mediaeval Latin literature, he\nmust shelve his Virgil and his Cicero.[230]\n\nThe following pages do not offer themselves even as a slight sketch of\nmediaeval Latin literature. Their purpose is to indicate the stages of\ndevelopment of the prose and the phases of evolution of the verse; and to\nillustrate the way in which antique themes and antique knowledge passed\ninto vernacular poetry. Classical standards will supply us less with a\npoint of view than with a point of departure. Nothing more need be said\nof the Latin of the Church Fathers and Gregory of Tours. But one must\nrefer to the Carolingian period, in order to appreciate the Latin styles\nof the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.\n\nThe revival of education and classical scholarship under the strong rule\nand fostering care of the greatest of mediaeval monarchs has not always\nbeen rightly judged. The vision of that prodigious personality ruling,\nchristianizing, striving to civilize masses of barbarians and barbarized\ndescendants of Romans and provincials; at the same time with eager\ninterest endeavouring to revive the culture of the past, and press it into\nthe service of the Christian faith; the striking success of his\nendeavours, men of learning coming from Ireland, England, Spain, and\nItaly, creating a peripatetic centre of knowledge at the imperial court,\nand establishing schools in many a monastery and episcopal residence--all\nthis has never failed to arouse enthusiasm for the great achievement, and\nhas veiled the creative deadness of it all, a deadness which in some\nprovinces of intellectual endeavour was quite veritably moribund, while in\nothers it betokened the necessary preparation for creative epochs to\ncome.[231]\n\nCarolingian scholarship was directed to the mastery of Latin. Grammar was\ntaught, and the rules of composition. Then the scholars were bidden, or\nbade themselves, do likewise. So they wrote verse or prose according to\ntheir school lessons. They might write correctly; but they had no style of\ntheir own. This was hopelessly true as to their metrical verses;[232] it\nwas only somewhat less tangibly true of their prose. The \u201cclassic\u201d of the\nperiod, in the eyes of modern classical scholars and also in the opinion\nof the mediaeval centuries, is Einhard\u2019s _Life of Charlemagne_. Numberless\nencomiums have been passed on it, and justly too. It was an excellent\nimitation of Suetonius\u2019s _Life of Augustus_; and the writer had made a\ncareful study of Caesar and Livy.[233] There is no need to quote from a\nwriting so accessible and well known. Yet one remark may be added to what\nothers have said: if Einhard\u2019s composition was an excellent copy of\nclassical Latin it was nothing else; it has no stylistic\nindividuality.[234]\n\nTurning from this famous biography, we will illustrate our point by\nquoting from the letters of him who stands as the type of the Carolingian\nrevival, the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin. All praise to this noble educational\ncoadjutor of Charlemagne; his learning was conscientious; his work was\nimportant, his character was lovable. His affectionate nature speaks in a\nletter to his former brethren at York, where his home had been before he\nentered Charlemagne\u2019s service. Here is a sentence:\n\n    \u201cO omnium dilectissimi patres et fratres, memores mei estote; ego\n    vester ero, sive in vita, sive in morte. Et forte miserebitur mei\n    Deus, ut cujus infantiam aluistis, ejus senectutem sepeliatis.\u201d[235]\n\nIt were invidious to find fault with this Latin, in which the homesick man\nexpresses his hope of sepulture in his old home. Note also the balance of\nthe following, written to a sick friend:\n\n    \u201cGratias agamus Deo Jesu, vulneranti et medenti, flagellanti et\n    consolanti. Dolor corporis salus est animae, et infirmitas temporalis,\n    sanitas perpetua. Libenter accipiamus, patienter feramus voluntatem\n    Salvatoris nostri.\u201d[236]\n\nThis too is excellent, in language as in sentiment. So is another, and\nlast, sentence from our author, in a letter congratulating Charlemagne on\nhis final subjugation of the Huns, through which the survivors were\nbrought to a knowledge of the truth:\n\n    \u201cQualis erit tibi gloria, O beatissime rex, in die aeternae\n    retributionis, quando hi omnes qui per tuam sollicitudinem ab\n    adolatriae cultura ad cognoscendum verum Deum conversi sunt, te ante\n    tribunal Domini nostri Jesu Christi in beata sorte stantem\n    sequentur!\u201d[237]\n\nAgain, the only trouble is stylelessness. In fine, an absence of quality\ncharacterizes Carolingian prose, of which a last example may be taken from\nthe Spaniard Theodulphus, Bishop of Orleans, \u201can accomplished Latin poet,\u201d\nand an educator yielding in importance to Alcuin alone. The sentence is\nfrom an official admonition to the clergy, warning them to attach more\nvalue to salvation than to lucre:\n\n    \u201cAdmonendi sunt qui negotiis ac mercationibus rerum invigilant, ut non\n    plus terrenam quam viam cupiant sempiternam. Nam qui plus de rebus\n    terrenis quam de animae suae salute cogitat, valde a via veritatis\n    aberrat.\u201d[238]\n\nEvidently there was a good knowledge of Latin among these Carolingians,\nwho laboured for the revival of education and the preservation of the\nClassics. The nadir of classical learning falls in the succeeding period\nof break-up, confusion, and dawning re-adjustment. In the century or two\nfollowing the year 850, the writers were too unskilled in Latin and often\ntoo cumbered by it, to manifest in their writings that unhampered and\ndistinctive reflex of a personality which we term style. A rare exception\nwould appear in such a potent scholar as Gerbert, who mastered whatever he\nlearned, and made it part of his own faculties and temperament. His\nletters, consequently, have an individual style, however good or bad we\nmay be disposed to deem it.[239]\n\nAccordingly, until after the millennial year Latin prose shows little\nbeyond a clumsy heaviness resulting from the writer\u2019s insufficient mastery\nof his medium; and there are many instances of barbarism and corruption of\nthe tongue without any compensating positive qualities. A dreadful example\nis afforded by the _Chronicon_ of Benedictus, a monk of St. Andrews in\nMonte Soracte, who lived in the latter part of the tenth century. He\nrelates, as history, the fable of Charlemagne\u2019s journey to the Holy Land;\nand his own eyes may have witnessed the atrocious times of John XII., of\nwhom he speaks as follows:\n\n    \u201cInter haec non multum tempus Agapitus papa decessit (an. 956).\n    Octabianus in sede sanctissima susceptus est, et vocatus est Johannes\n    duodecimi pape. Factus est tam lubricus sui corporis, et tam audaces,\n    quantum nunc in gentilis populo solebat fieri. Habebat consuetudinem\n    sepius venandi non quasi apostolicus sed quasi homo ferus. Erat enim\n    cogitio ejus vanum; diligebat collectio feminarum, odibiles\n    aecclesiarum, amabilis juvenis ferocitantes. Tanta denique libidine\n    sui corporis exarsit, quanta nunc (non?) possumus enarrare.\u201d[240]\n\nNo need to draw further from this writing, which is characterized\nthroughout by crass ignorance of grammar and all else pertaining to Latin.\nIt has no individual qualities; it has no style. Leaving this example of\nilliteracy, let us turn to a man of more knowledge, Odo, one of the\ngreatest of the abbots of Cluny, who died in the year 943. He left lengthy\nwritings, one of them a bulky epitome of the famous _Moralia_ of Gregory\nthe Great.[241] More original were his three dull books of _Collationes_,\nor moral comments upon the Scriptures. They open with a heavy note which\ntheir author might have drawn from the dark temperament of that great pope\nwhom he so deeply admired; but the language has a leaden quality which is\nnot Gregory\u2019s, but Odo\u2019s.\n\n    \u201cAuctor igitur et judex hominum Deus, licet ab illa felicitate\n    paradisi genus nostrum juste repulerit, suae tamen bonitatis memor, ne\n    totus reus homo quod meretur incurrat, hujus peregrinationis molestias\n    multis beneficiis demulcet.\u201d\n\nAnd, again, a little further on:\n\n    \u201cOmnis vero ejusdem Scripturae intentio est, ut nos ab hujus vitae\n    pravitatibus compescat. Nam idcirco terribilibus suis sententiis cor\n    nostrum, quasi quibusdam stimulis pungit, ut homo terrore pulsatus\n    expavescat, et divina judicia quae aut voluptate carnis aut terrena\n    sollicitudine discissus oblivisci facile solet, ad memoriam\n    reducat.\u201d[242]\n\nOne feels the dull heaviness of this. Odo, like many of his\ncontemporaries, knew enough of Latin grammar, and had read some of the\nClassics. But he had not mastered what he knew, and his knowledge was not\nconverted into power. The tenth century was still painfully learning the\nlessons of its Christian and classical heritage. A similar lack of\npersonal facility may be observed in Ruotger\u2019s biography of Bruno, the\nworthy brother of the great emperor Otto I., and Archbishop of Cologne.\nBruno died in 965, and Ruotger, who had been his companion, wrote his Life\nwithout delay. It has not the didactic ponderousness of Odo\u2019s writing, but\nits language is clumsy. The following passage is of interest as showing\nBruno\u2019s education and the kind of learned man it made him.\n\n    \u201cDeinde ubi prima grammaticae artis rudimenta percepit, sicut ab ipso\n    in Dei omnipotentis gloriam hoc saepius ruminante didicimus,\n    Prudentium poetam tradente magistro legere coepit. Qui sicut est et\n    fide intentioneque catholicus, et eloquentia veritateque praecipuus,\n    et metrorum librorumque varietate elegantissimus, tanta mox dulcedine\n    palato cordis ejus complacuit, ut jam non tantum exteriorum verborum\n    scientiam, verum intimi medullam sensus, et nectar ut ita dicam\n    liquidissimum, majori quam dici possit aviditate hauriret. Postea\n    nullum penitus erat studiorum liberalium genus in omni Graeca vel\n    Latina eloquentia, quod ingenii sui vivacitatem aufugeret. Nec vero,\n    ut solet, aut divitiarum affluentia, aut turbarum circumstrepentium\n    assiduitas, aut ullum aliunde subrepens fastidium ab hoc nobili otio\n    animum ejus unquam avertit.... Saepe inter Graecorum et Latinorum\n    doctissimos de philosophiae sublimitate aut de cujuslibet in illa\n    florentis disciplinae subtilitate disputantes doctus interpres medius\n    ipse consedit, et disputantibus ad plausum omnium, quo nihil minus\n    amaverat, satisfecit.\u201d[243]\n\nThe gradual improvement in the writing of Latin in the Middle Ages, and\nthe evolution of distinctive mediaeval styles, did not result from a\nlarger acquaintance with the Classics, or a better knowledge of grammar\nand school rhetoric. The range of classical reading might extend, or from\ntime to time contract, and Donatus and Priscian were used in the ninth\ncentury as well as in the twelfth. It is true that the study of grammar\nbecame more intelligent in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and its\nteachers deferred less absolutely to the old rules and illustrations. They\nrecognized Christian standards of diction: first of all the Vulgate; next,\nearly Christian poets like Prudentius; and then gradually the mediaeval\nversifiers who wrote and won approval in the twelfth century. Thus grammar\nsought to follow current usage.[244] This endeavour culminated at the\nclose of the twelfth century in the _Doctrinale_ of Alexander of Villa\nDei.[245] Before this, much of the best mediaeval Latin prose and verse\nhad been written, and the period most devoted to the Classics had come and\nwas already waning. That period was this same twelfth century. During its\nearlier half, Latinity gained doubtless from such improvement in the\ncourses of the Trivium as took place at Chartres, for example, an\nimprovement connected with the intellectual growth of the time. But the\nincrease in the knowledge of Latin was mainly such as a mature man may\nrealize within himself, if he has kept up his Latin reading, however\nlittle he seem to have added to his knowledge since leaving his Alma\nMater.\n\nSo the development of mediaeval Latin prose (and also verse) advanced with\nthe maturing of mediaeval civilization. That which was at the same time a\nliving factor in this growth and a result of it, was the more organic\nappropriation of the classical and Christian heritages of culture and\nreligion. As intellectual faculties strengthened, and men drew power from\nthe past, they gained facility in moulding their Latin to their purposes.\nWritings begin to reflect the personalities of the writers; the diction\nceases to be that of clumsy or clever school compositions, and presents an\nevolution of tangible mediaeval styles. Henceforth, although a man be an\neager student of the Classics, like John of Salisbury for example, and try\nto imitate their excellences, he will still write mediaeval Latin, and\nwith a personal style if he be a strong personality. The classical models\nno longer trammel, but assist him to be more effectively himself on a\nhigher plane.\n\nIf mediaeval civilization is to be regarded as that which the peoples of\nwestern Europe attained under the two universal influences of Christianity\nand antique culture, then nothing more mediaeval will be seen than\nmediaeval Latin. To make it, the antique Latin had been modified and\nreinspired and loosed by the Christian energies of the Fathers; and had\nthen passed on to peoples who never had been, or no longer were, antique.\nThey barbarized the language down to the rudeness of their faculties. As\nthey themselves advanced, they brought up Latin with them, as it were,\nfrom the depths of the ninth and tenth centuries, but a Latin which in the\ncrude natures of these men had been stripped of classical quality; a Latin\nbarbarous and naked, and ready to be clothed upon with novel qualities\nwhich should make it a new creature. Throughout all this process, while\nLatin was sinking and re-emerging, it was worked upon and inspired by the\nspirit of the uses to which it was predominantly applied, which were those\nof the Roman Catholic Church and of the intimacies of the Christian soul,\npressing to expression in the learned tongue which they were transforming.\n\nIn considering the Latin writings of the Middle Ages one should bear in\nmind the differences between Italy and the North with respect to the\nancient language. These were important through the earlier Middle Ages,\nwhen modes of diction sufficiently characteristic to be called styles,\nwere forming. The men of Latin-sodden Italy might have a fluent Latin when\nthose of the North still had theirs to learn. Thus there were Italians in\nthe eleventh century who wrote quite a distinctive Latin prose.[246]\nAmong them were St. Peter Damiani, and St. Anselm of Aosta, Bec, and\nCanterbury.\n\nThe former died full of virtue in the year 1072. We have elsewhere\nobserved his character and followed his career.[247] He was, to his great\nanxiety, a classical scholar, who had earned large sums as a teacher of\nrhetoric before natural inclination and fears for his soul drove him to an\nascetic life. He was a master of the Latin which he used. His style is\nintense, eloquent, personal to himself as well as suited to his matter,\nand reflects his ardent character and keen perceptions. The following is a\nrhetorical yet beautiful description of a \u201clast leaf,\u201d taken from one of\nhis compositions in praise of the hermit way of salvation.\n\n    \u201cVideamus in arbore folium sub ipsis pruinis hiemalibus lapsabundum,\n    et consumpto autumnalis clementiae virore, jamjam pene casurum, ita ut\n    vix ramusculo, cui dependet, inhaereat, sed apertissima levis ruinae\n    signa praetendat: inhorrescunt flabra, venti furentes hic inde\n    concutiunt, brumalis horror crassi aeris rigore densatur: atque, ut\n    magis stupeas, defluentibus reliquis undique foliis terra sternitur,\n    et depositis comis arbor suo decore nudatur; cum illud solum nullo\n    manente permaneat, et velut cohaeredum superstes in fraternae\n    possessionis jura succedat. Quid autem intelligendum in hujus rei\n    consideratione relinquitur, nisi quia nec arboris folium potest\n    cadere, nisi divinum praesumat imperium?\u201d[248]\n\nAnselm\u2019s diction, in spite of its frequent cloister rhetoric, has a simple\nand modern word-order. An account has already been given of his life and\nof his thoughts, so beautifully sky-blue, unpurpled with the crimson of\nhuman passion, which made the words of Augustine more veritably\nincandescent.[249] The great African was the strongest individual\ninfluence upon Anselm\u2019s thought and language. But the latter\u2019s style has\ndeparted further from the classical sentence, and of itself indicates that\nthe writer belongs neither to the patristic period nor to the Carolingian\ntime, busied with its rearrangement of patristic thought. The following is\nfrom his _Proslogion_ upon the existence of God. Through this discourse,\nDeity and the Soul are addressed in the second person after the manner of\nAugustine\u2019s _Confessions_.\n\n    \u201cExcita nunc, anima mea, et erige totum intellectum tuum, et cogita\n    quantum potes quale et quantum sit illud bonum (_i.e._ Deus). Si enim\n    singula bona delectabilia sunt, cogita intente quam delectabile sit\n    illud bonum quod continet jucunditatem omnium bonorum; et non qualem\n    in rebus creatis sumus experti, sed tanto differentem quanto differt\n    Creator a creatura. Si enim bona est vita creata, quam bona est vita\n    creatrix! Si jucunda est salus facta, quam jucunda est salus quae\n    fecit omnem salutem! Si amabilis est sapientia in cognitione rerum\n    conditarum, quam amabilis est sapientia quae omnia condidit ex nihilo!\n    Denique, si multae et magnae delectationes sunt in rebus\n    delectabilibus, qualis et quanta delectatio est in illo qui fecit ipsa\n    delectabilia!\u201d[250]\n\nIn a more emotional passage Anselm arouses in his soul the terror of the\nJudgment. It is from a \u201cMeditatio\u201d:\n\n    \u201cTaedet animam meam vitae meae; vivere erubesco, mori pertimesco. Quid\n    ergo restat tibi, o peccator, nisi ut in tota vita tua plores totam\n    vitam tuam, ut ipsa tota se ploret totam? Sed est in hoc quoque anima\n    mea miserabiliter mirabilis et mirabiliter miserabilis, quia non\n    tantum dolet quantum se noscit; sed sic secura torpet, velut quid\n    patiatur ignoret. O anima sterilis, quid agis? quid torpes, anima\n    peccatrix? Dies judicii venit, juxta est dies Domini magnus, juxta et\n    velox nimis, _dies irae dies illa_, dies tribulationis et angustiae,\n    dies calamitatis et miseriae, dies tenebrarum et caliginis, dies\n    nebulae et turbinis, dies tubae et clangoris. O vox diei Domini amara!\n    Quid dormitas, anima tepida et digna evomi?\u201d[251]\n\nDamiani wrote in the middle of the eleventh century, Anselm in the latter\npart. The northern lands could as yet show no such characteristic\nstyles,[252] although the classically educated German, Lambert of\nHersfeld, wrote as correctly and perspicuously as either. His _Annals_\nhave won admiration for their clear and correct Latinity, modelled upon\nthe styles of Sallust and Livy. He died in 1077, the year of Canossa, his\n_Annals_ covering the conflict between Henry IV. and Hildebrand up to that\nevent. The narrative moves with spirit, as one may see by reading his\ndescription of King Henry and his consort struggling through Alpine ice\nand snow to reach that castle never to be forgotten, and gain absolution\nfrom the Pope before the ban should have completed Henry\u2019s ruin.[253]\n\nFor the North, the best period of mediaeval Latin, prose as well as\nverse, opens with the twelfth century. It was indeed the great literary\nperiod of the Middle Ages. For the vernacular literatures flourished as\nwell as the Latin. Proven\u00e7al literature began as the eleventh century\nclosed, and was stifled in the thirteenth by the Albigensian Crusade. So\nthe twelfth was its great period. Likewise with the Old French literature:\nexcept the _Roland_ which is earlier, the chief _chansons de geste_ belong\nto the twelfth century; also the romances of antiquity, to be spoken of\nhereafter; also the romances of the Round Table, and a great mass of\n_chansons_ and _fabliaux_. The Old German--or rather, _Mittel\nHochdeutsch_--literature touches its height as the century closes and the\nnext begins, in the works of Heinrich von Veldeke, Gottfried von\nStrassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach, and Walther von der Vogelweide.\n\nThe best Latin writers of the century lived, or sojourned, or were\neducated, for the most part in the France north of the Loire. Not that all\nof them were natives of that territory; for some were German born, some\nsaw the light in England, and the birthplace of many is unknown. Yet they\nseem to belong to France. Nearly all were ecclesiastics, secular or\nregular. Many of them were notables in theology, like Hugo of St. Victor,\nAbaelard, Alanus de Insulis (Lille); many were poets as well, like Alanus\nand Hildebert and John of Salisbury too; one was a thunderer on the earth,\nand a most deft politician, Bernard of Clairvaux. Some again are known\nonly as poets, sacred or profane, like Adam of St. Victor, and Walter of\nChatillon--but of these hereafter. The best Latin prose writing of this,\nor any other, mediaeval period, had its definite purpose, metaphysical,\ntheological, or pietistic; and the writers have been or will be spoken of\nin connection with their specific fields of intellectual achievement or\nreligious fervour. Here, without discussing the men or their works, some\nfavourable examples of their writing will be given.\n\nIn the last passage quoted from Anselm, the reader must have felt the\nworking of cloister rhetoric, and have noticed the antitheses and rhymes,\nto which mediaeval Latin lent itself so readily. Yet it is a slight affair\ncompared with the confounding sonorousness, the flaring pictures, and\nterrifying climaxes of St. Bernard when preaching upon the same topic--the\nJudgment Day. In one of his famous sermons on Canticles, the saint has\nbeen suggesting to his audience, the monks of Clara Vallis, that although\nthe _Father_ might ignore faults, not so the _Dominus_ and _Creator_: \u201cet\nqui parcit filio, non parcet figmento, non parcet servo nequam.\u201d Listen to\nthe carrying out and pointing of this thought:\n\n    \u201cPensa cujus sit formidinis et horroris tuum atque omnium contempsisse\n    factorem, offendisse Dominum majestatis. Majestatis est timeri, Domini\n    est timeri, et maxime hujus majestatis, hujusque Domini. Nam si reum\n    regiae majestatis, quamvis humanae, humanis legibus plecti capite\n    sancitum sit, quis finis contemnentium divinam omnipotentiam erit?\n    Tangit montes, et fumigant; et tam tremendam majestatem audet irritare\n    vilis pulvisculus, uno levi flatu mox dispergendus, et minime\n    recolligendus? Ille, ille timendus est, qui postquam acciderit corpus,\n    potestatem habet mittere et in gehennam. Paveo gehennam, paveo judicis\n    vultum, ipsis quoque tremendum angelicis potestatibus. Contremisco ab\n    ira potentis, a facie furoris ejus, a fragore ruentis mundi, a\n    conflagratione elementorum, a tempestate valida, a voce archangeli, et\n    a verbo aspero. [Feel the climax of this sentence, which tells the end\n    of the sinner.] Contremisco a dentibus bestiae infernalis, a ventre\n    inferi, a rugientibus praeparatis ad escam. Horreo vermem rodentem, et\n    ignem torrentem, fumum, et vaporem, et sulphur, et spiritum\n    procellarum; horreo tenebras exteriores. Quis dabit capiti meo aquam,\n    et oculis meis fontem lacrymarum ut praeveniam fletibus fletum, et\n    stridorem dentium, et manuum pedumque dura vincula, et pondus\n    catenarum prementium, stringentium, urentium, nec consumentium? Heu\n    me, mater mea! utquid me genuisti filium doloris, filium amaritudinis,\n    indignationis et plorationis aeternae? Cur exceptus genibus, cur\n    lactatus uberibus, natus in combustionem, et cibus ignis?\u201d[254]\n\nAs one recovers from the sound and power of this high-wrought passage, he\nnotices how readily it might be turned into the form of a Latin hymn; and\nalso how very modern is its sequence of words. Bernard\u2019s Latin could\nwhisper intimate love, as well as thunder terror. He says, preaching on\nthe _medicina_, the healing power, of Jesu\u2019s name:\n\n    \u201cHoc tibi electuarium habes, o anima mea, reconditum in vasculo\n    vocabuli hujus quod est Jesus, salutiferum, certe, quodque nulli\n    unquam pesti tuae inveniatur inefficax.\u201d[255]\n\nWith the music of this prose one may compare the sweet personal plaint of\nthe following:\n\n    \u201cFelices quos abscondit in tabernaculo suo in umbra alarum suarum\n    sperantes, donec transeat iniquitas. Caeterum ego infelix, pauper et\n    nudus, homo natus ad laborem, implumis avicula pene omni tempore\n    nidulo exsulans, vento exposita et turbini, turbatus sum et motus sum\n    sicut ebrius, et omnis conscientia mea devorata est.\u201d[256]\n\nExtracts can give no idea of Bernard\u2019s literary powers, any more than a\nsmall volume could tell the story of that life which, so to speak, was\n_magna pars_ of all contemporary history. But since he was one of the best\nof Latin letter-writers, one should not omit an example of his varied\nepistolary style, which can be known in its compass only from a large\nreading of his letters. The following is a short letter, written to win\nback to the cloister a delicately nurtured youth whose parents had lured\nhim out into the world.\n\n    \u201cDoleo super te, fili mi Gaufride, doleo super te. Et merito. Quis\n    enim non doleat florem juventutis tuae, quem laetantibus angelis Deo\n    illibatum obtuleras in odorem suavitatis, nunc a daemonibus\n    conculcari, vitiorum spurcitiis, et saeculi sordibus inquinari?\n    Quomodo qui vocatus eras a Deo, revocantem diabolum sequeris, et quem\n    Christus trahere coeperat post se, repente pedem ab ipso introitu\n    gloriae retraxisti? In te experior nunc veritatem sermonis Domini,\n    quem dixit: Inimici hominis, domestici ejus (Matt. x. 36). Amici tui\n    et proximi tui adversum te appropinquaverunt, et steterunt.\n    Revocaverunt te in fauces leonis, et in portis mortis iterum\n    collocaverunt te. Collocaverunt te in obscuris, sicut mortuos saeculi:\n    et jam parum est ut descendas in ventrem inferi; jam te deglutire\n    festinat, ac rugientibus praeparatis ad escam tradere devorandum.\n\n    \u201cRevertere, quaeso, revertere, priusquam te absorbeat profundum, et\n    urgeat super te puteus os suum; priusquam demergaris, unde ulterius\n    non emergas; priusquam ligatis manibus et pedibus projiciaris in\n    tenebras exteriores, ubi est fletus et stridor dentium; priusquam\n    detrudaris in locum tenebrosum, et opertum mortis caligine. Erubescis\n    forte redire, quia ad horam cessisti. Erubesce fugam, et non post\n    fugam reverti in proelium, et rursum pugnare. Necdum finis pugnae,\n    necdum ab invicem dimicantes acies discesserunt: adhuc victoria prae\n    manibus est. Si vis, nolumus vincere sine te, nec tuam tibi invidemus\n    gloriae portionem. Laeti occuremus tibi, laetis te recipiemus\n    amplexibus, dicemusque: Epulari et gaudere oportet, quia hic filius\n    noster mortuus fuerat, et revixit; perierat, et inventus est\u201d (Luc.\n    xv. 32).[257]\n\nThe argument of this letter is, from the standpoint of Bernard\u2019s time, as\nresistless as the style. Did it win back the little monk? Many wonderful\nexamples of loving expression could be drawn from Bernard\u2019s letters;[258]\nbut instead an instance may be given of his none too subtle way of\nuttering his hate: \u201cArnaldus de Brixia, cujus conversatio mel et doctrina\nvenenum, cui caput columbae, cauda scorpionis est, quem Brixia evomuit,\nRoma exhorruit, Francia repulit, Germania abominatur, Italia non vult\nrecipere, fertur esse vobiscum.\u201d[259] And then he proceeds to warn his\ncorrespondent of the danger of intercourse with this arch-enemy of the\nChurch.\n\nConsidering that Latin was a tongue which youths learned at school rather\nthan at their mothers\u2019 knees, such writing as Bernard\u2019s is a triumphant\nrecasting of an ancient language. One notices in him, as generally with\nmediaeval religious writers, the influence of the Vulgate, which was\nmainly in the language of St. Jerome--of Jerome when not writing as a\nliterary virtuoso, but as a scholar occupied with rendering the meaning,\nand willing to accept such linguistic innovations as served his\npurpose.[260] But beyond this influence, one sees how masterful is\nBernard\u2019s diction, quite freed from observance of classical principles,\nquite of the writer and his time, adapting itself with ease and power to\nthe topic and character of the composition, and always expressive of the\npersonality of the mighty saint.\n\nHildebert of Le Mans was a few years older than St. Bernard. As an example\nof his prose a letter may be cited, of which the translation has been\ngiven. It was written in 1128, when he was Archbishop of Tours, in protest\nagainst the encroachments of the royal power of the French king, Louis the\nFat, upon the rights of the Archiepiscopacy of Tours in the matter of\necclesiastical appointments within that diocese:\n\n    \u201cIn adversis nonnullum solatium est, tempora sperare laetiora. Diutius\n    spes haec mihi blandita est, et velut agricolam messis in herba, sic\n    animum meum prosperitatis expectatio confortavit. Caeterum jam nihil\n    est quo serenitatem nimbosi temporis exspectem, nihil est quo navis,\n    in cujus puppi sedeo, crebris agitata turbinibus, portum quietis\n    attingat.\n\n    \u201cSilent amici, silent sacerdotes Jesu Christi. Denique silent et illi\n    quorum suffragio credidi regem mecum in gratiam rediturum. Credidi\n    quidem, sed super dolorem vulnerum meorum rex, illis silentibus,\n    adjecit. Eorum tamen erat gravamini ecclesiae canonicis obviare\n    institutis. Eorum erat, si res postulasset, opponere murum pro domo\n    Israel. Verum apud serenissimum regem opus est exhortatione potius\n    quam increpatione, consilio quam praecepto, doctrina quam virga. His\n    ille conveniendus fuit, his reverenter instruendus, ne sagittas suas\n    in sene compleret sacerdote, ne sanctiones canonicas evacuaret, ne\n    persequeretur cineres Ecclesiae jam sepultae, cineres in quibus ego\n    panem doloris manduco, in quibus bibo calicem luctus, de quibus eripi\n    et evadere, de morte ad vitam transire est.\n\n    \u201cInter has tamen angustias, nunquam de me sic ira triumphavit, ut\n    aliquem super Christo Domini clamorem deponere vellem, seu pacem\n    ipsius in manu forti et brachio Ecclesiae adipisci. Suspecta est pax\n    ad quam, non amore sed vi, sublimes veniunt potestates. Ea facile\n    rescindetur, et fiunt aliquando novissima pejora prioribus. Alia est\n    via qua compendiosius ad eam Christo perducente pertingam. Jactabo\n    cogitatum meum in Domino, et ipse dabit mihi petitionem cordis mei.\n    Recordatus est Dominus Joseph, cujus pincerna Pharaonis oblitus, dum\n    prospera succederent, interveniendi pro eo curam abjecit.... Fortassis\n    recordabitur et mei, atque in desiderato littore navem sistet\n    fluctuantem. Ipse enim est qui respicit in orationem humilium, et non\n    spernit preces eorum. Ipse est in cujus manu corda regum cerea sunt.\n    Si invenero gratiam in oculis ejus, gratiam regis vel facile\n    consequar, vel utiliter amittam. Siquidem offendere hominem proper\n    Deum lucrari est gratiam Dei.\u201d[261]\n\nJohn of Salisbury (1110-1180), much younger than Hildebert and a little\nyounger than Bernard, seems to have been the best scholar of his time.\nWith the Classics he is as one in the company of friends; he cites them as\nreadily as Scripture; their _sententiae_ have become part of his views of\nlife. John was an eager humanist, who followed his studies to whatever\ntown and to the feet of whatsoever teacher they might lead him. So he\nlistened to Abaelard and many others. His writing is always lively and\noften forcible, especially when vituperating the set who despised classic\nreading. His most vivacious work, the _Metalogicus_, was directed against\ntheir unnamed prophet, whom he dubs \u201cCornificus.\u201d[262] Its opening passage\nis of interest as John\u2019s exordium, and because a somewhat consciously\nintending stylist like our John is likely to exhibit his utmost virtuosity\nin the opening sentences of an important work:\n\n    \u201cAdversus insigne donum naturae parentis et gratiae, calumniam veterem\n    et majorum nostrorum judicio condemnatam excitat improbus litigator,\n    et conquirens undique imperitiae suae solatia, sibi proficere sperat\n    ad gloriam, si multos similes sui, id est si eos viderit imperitos;\n    habet enim hoc proprium arrogantiae tumor, ut se commetiatur aliis,\n    bona sua, si qua sunt, efferens, deprimens aliena; defectumque\n    proximi, suum putet esse profectum. Omnibus autem recte sapientibus\n    indubium est quod natura, clementissima parens omnium, et\n    dispositissima moderatrix, inter caetera quae genuit animantia,\n    hominem privilegio rationis extulit, et usu eloquii insignivit: id\n    agens sedulitate officiosa, et lege dispositissima, ut homo qui\n    gravedine faeculentioris naturae et molis corporeae tarditate\n    premebatur et trahebatur ad ima, his quasi subvectus alis, ad alta\n    ascendat, et ad obtinendum verae beatitudinis bravium, omnia alia\n    felici compendio antecebat. Dum itaque naturam fecundat gratia, ratio\n    rebus perspiciendis et examinandis invigilat; naturae sinus excutit,\n    metitur fructus et efficaciam singulorum: et innatus omnibus amor\n    boni, naturali urgente se appetitu, hoc, aut solum, aut prae caeteris\n    sequitur, quod percipiendae beatitudini maxime videtur esse\n    accommodum.\u201d[263]\n\nOne perceives the effect of classical studies; yet the passage is good\ntwelfth-century Latin, quite different from the compositions of the\nCarolingian epoch, those, for example, from the pen of Alcuin, who had\nstudied the Classics like John, but unlike him had no personal style. One\ngains similar impressions from the diction of the _Polycraticus_, a\nlengthy, discursive work in which John surprises us with his classical\nequipment. Although containing many quoted passages, it is not made of\nextracts strung together; but reflects the sentiments or tells the\nopinions of ancient philosophers in the writer\u2019s own way. The following\nshows John\u2019s knowledge of early Greek philosophers, and is a fair example\nof his ordinary style:\n\n    \u201cAlterum vero philosophorum genus est, quod Ionicum dicitur et a\n    Graecis ulterioribus traxit originem. Horum princeps fuit Thales\n    Milesius, unus illorum septem, qui dicti sunt sapientes. Iste cum\n    rerum naturam scrutatus, inter caeteros emicuisset, maxime admirabilis\n    exstitit, quod astrologiae numeris comprehensis, solis et lunae\n    defectus praedicebat. Huic successit Anaximander ejus auditor, qui\n    Anaximenem discipulum reliquit et successorem. Diogenes quoque ejusdem\n    auditor exstitit, et Anaxagoras, qui omnium rerum quas videmus,\n    effectorem divinum animum docuit. Ei successit auditor ejus Archela\u00fcs,\n    cujus discipulus Socrates fuisse perhibetur, magister Platonis, qui,\n    teste Apuleio, prius Aristoteles dictus est, sed deinde a latitudine\n    pectoris Plato, et in tantam eminentiam philosophiae, et vigore\n    ingenii, et studii exercitio, et omnium morum venustate, eloquii\n    quoque suavitate et copia subvectus est, ut quasi in throno sapientiae\n    residens, praecepta quadam auctoritate visus est, tam antecessoribus\n    quam successoribus philosophis, imperare. Et primus quidem Socrates\n    universam philosophiam ad corrigendos componendosque mores flexisse\n    memoratur, cum ante illum omnes physicis, id est rebus naturalibus\n    perscrutandis, maximam operam dederint.\u201d[264]\n\nThese extracts from the writings of saints and scholars may be\nsupplemented by two extracts from compositions of another class. The\nmediaeval chronicle has not a good reputation. Its credulity and\nuncritical spirit varied with the time and man. Little can be said in\nfavour of its general form, which usually is stupidly chronological, or\nannalistic. The example of classical historical composition was lost on\nmediaeval annalists. Yet their work is not always dull; and, by the\ntwelfth century, their diction had become as mediaeval as that of the\ntheologian rhetoricians, although it rarely crystallizes to personal style\nby reason of the insignificance of the writers. A well-known work of this\nkind is the _Gesta Dei per Francos_, by Guibert of Nogent, who wrote his\naccount of the First Crusade a few years after its turmoil had passed by.\nThe following passage tells of proceedings upon the conclusion of Urban\u2019s\ngreat crusading oration at the Council of Clermont in 1099:\n\n    \u201cPeroraverat vir excellentissimus, et omnes qui se ituros voverant,\n    beati Petri potestate absolvit, eadem, ipsa apostolica auctoritate\n    firmavit, et signum satis conveniens hujus tam honestae professionis\n    instituit, et veluti cingulum militiae, vel potius militaturis Deo\n    passionis Dominicae stigma tradens, crucis figuram, ex cujuslibet\n    materiae panni, tunicis, byrris et palliis iturorum, assui mandavit.\n    Quod si quis, post hujus signi acceptionem, aut post evidentis voti\n    pollicitationem ab ista benevolentia, prava poenitudine, aut aliquorum\n    suorum affectione resileret, ut exlex perpetuo haberetur omnino\n    praecepit, nisi resipisceret; idemque quod omiserat foede repeteret.\n    Praeterea omnes illos atroci damnavit anathemate, qui eorum uxoribus,\n    filiis, aut possessionibus, qui hoc Dei iter aggrederentur, per\n    integrum triennii tempus, molestiam auderent inferre. Ad extremum,\n    cuidam viro omnimodis laudibus efferendo, Podiensis urbis episcopo,\n    cujus nomen doleo quia neque usquam reperi, nec audivi, curam super\n    eadem expeditione regenda contulit, et vices suas ipsi, super\n    Christiani populi quocunque venirent institutione, commisit. Unde et\n    manus ei, more apostolorum, data pariter benedictione, imposuit. Quod\n    ille quam sagaciter sit exsecutus, docet mirabilis operis tanti\n    exitus.\u201d[265]\n\nThis Frenchman Guibert is almost vivacious. A certain younger contemporary\nof his, of English birth, could construct his narrative quite as well.\nOrdericus Vitalis (d. 1142) is said to have been born at Wroxeter, though\nhe spent most of his life as monk of St. Evroult in Normandy. There he\nwrote his _Historia Ecclesiastica_ of Normandy and England. His account of\nthe loss of the _White Ship_ in 1120 tells the story:\n\n    \u201cThomas, filius Stephani, regem adiit, eique marcum auri offerens,\n    ait: \u2018Stephanus, Airardi filius, genitor meus fuit, et ipse in omni\n    vita sua patri tuo in mari servivit. Nam illum, in sua puppe vectum,\n    in Angliam conduxit, quando contra Haraldum pugnaturus, in Angliam\n    perrexit. Hujusmodi autem officio usque ad mortem famulando ei\n    placuit, et ab eo multis honoratus exeniis, inter contribules suos\n    magnifice floruit. Hoc feudum, domine rex, a te requiro, et vas quod\n    Candida-Navis appellatur, merito ad regalem famulatum optime\n    instructum habeo.\u2019 Cui rex ait: \u2018Gratum habeo quod petis. Mihi quidem\n    aptam navim elegi, quam non mutabo; sed filios meos, Guillelmum et\n    Richardum, quos sicut me diligo, cum multa regni mei nobilitate, nunc\n    tibi commendo.\u2019\n\n    \u201cHis auditis, nautae gavisi sunt, filioque regis adulantes, vinum ab\n    eo ad bibendum postulaverunt. At ille tres vini modios ipsis dari\n    praecepit. Quibus acceptis, biberunt, sociisque abundanter\n    propinaverunt, nimiumque potantes inebriati sunt. Jussu regis multi\n    barones cum filiis suis puppim ascenderunt, et fere trecenti, ut\n    opinor, in infausta nave fuerunt. Duo siquidem monachi Tironis, et\n    Stephanus comes cum duobus militibus, Guillelmus quoque de Rolmara, et\n    Rabellus Camerarius, Eduardus de Salesburia, et alii plures inde\n    exierunt, quia nimiam multitudinem lascivae et pompaticae juventutis\n    inesse conspicati sunt. Periti enim remiges quinquaginta ibi erant, et\n    feroces epibatae, qui jam in navi sedes nacti turgebant, et suimet\n    prae ebrietate immemores, vix aliquem reverenter agnoscebant. Heu!\n    quamplures illorum mentes pia devotione erga Deum habebant vacuas\n\n      \u2018Qui maris immodicas moderatur et aeris iras.\u2019\n\n    Unde sacerdotes, qui ad benedicendos illos illuc accesserant, aliosque\n    ministros qui aquam benedictam deferebant, cum dedecore et cachinnis\n    subsannantes abigerunt; sed paulo post derisionis suae ultionem\n    receperunt.\n\n    \u201cSoli homines, cum thesauro regis et vasis merum ferentibus, Thomae\n    carinam implebant, ipsumque ut regiam classem, quae jam aequora\n    sulcabat, summopere prosequeretur, commonebant. Ipse vero, quia\n    ebrietate desipiebat, in virtute sua, satellitumque suorum confidebat,\n    et audacter, quia omnes qui jam praecesserant praeiret, spondebat.\n    Tandem navigandi signum dedit. Porro schippae remos haud segniter\n    arripuerunt, et alia laeti, quia quid eis ante oculos penderet\n    nesciebant, armamenta coaptaverunt, navemque cum impetu magno per\n    pontum currere fecerunt. Cumque remiges ebrii totis navigarent\n    conatibus, et infelix gubernio male intenderet cursui dirigendo per\n    pelagus, ingenti saxo quod quotidie fluctu recedente detegitur et\n    rursus accessu maris cooperitur, sinistrum latus Candidae-Navis\n    vehementer illisum est, confractisque duabus tabulis, ex insperato,\n    navis, proh dolor! subversa est. Omnes igitur in tanto discrimine\n    simul exclamaverunt; sed aqua mox implente ora, pariter perierunt.\n    Duo soli virgae qua velum pendebat manus injecerunt, et magna noctis\n    parte pendentes, auxilium quodlibet praestolati sunt. Unus erat\n    Rothomagensis carnifex, nomine Beroldus, et alter generosus puer,\n    nomine Goisfredus, Gisleberti de Aquila filius.\n\n    \u201cTunc luna in signo Tauri nona decima fuit, et fere ix horis radiis\n    suis mundum illustravit, et navigantibus mare lucidum reddidit. Thomas\n    nauclerus post primam submersionem vires resumpsit, suique memor,\n    super undas caput extulit, et videns capita eorum qui ligno utcunque\n    inhaerebant, interrogavit: \u2018Filius regis quid devenit?\u2019 Cumque\n    naufragi respondissent illum cum omnibus collegis suis deperisse:\n    \u2018Miserum,\u2019 inquit, \u2018est amodo meum vivere.\u2019 Hoc dicto, male desperans,\n    maluit illic occumbere, quam furore irati regis pro pernicie prolis\n    oppetere, seu longas in vinculis poenas luere.\u201d[266]\n\nOur examples thus far belong to the twelfth century. As touching its\nsuccessor, it will be interesting to observe the qualities of two opposite\nkinds of writing, the one springing from the intellectual activities, and\nthe other from the religious awakening, of the time. In the thirteenth\ncentury, scientific and scholastic writing was of representative\nimportance, and deeply affected the development of Latin prose. Very\ndifferent in style were the Latin stories and _vitae_ of the blessed\nFrancis of Assisi and other saints, composed in Italy.\n\nRoger Bacon, of whom there will be much to say, composed most of his\nextant works about the year 1267.[267] His language is often rough and\ninvolved, from his impetuosity and eagerness to utter what was in him. But\nit is always vigorous. He took pains to say just what he meant, and what\nwas worth saying; and frequently rewrote his sentences. His writings show\nlittle rhetoric; yet they are stamped with a Baconian style, which has a\ncumulative force. The word-order is modern with scarcely a trace of the\nantique. Perhaps we may say that he wrote Latin like an Englishman of\nvehement temper and great intellect. He is powerful in continuous\nexposition; yet instances of his general, and very striking statements,\nwill illustrate his diction at its best. In the following sentence he\nrecognizes the progressiveness of knowledge, a rare idea in the Middle\nAges:\n\n    \u201cNam semper posteriores addiderunt ad opera priorum, et multa\n    correxerunt, et plura mutaverunt, sicut maxime per Aristotelem patet,\n    qui omnes sententias praecedentium discussit.\u201d[268]\n\nAgain, he animadverts upon the duty of thirteenth-century Christians to\nsupply the defects of the old philosophers:\n\n    \u201cQuapropter antiquorum defectus deberemus nos posteriores supplere,\n    quia introivimus in labores eorum, per quos, nisi simus asini,\n    possumus ad meliora excitari; quia miserrimum est semper uti inventis\n    et nunquam inveniendis.\u201d[269]\n\nSpeaking of language, he says:\n\n    \u201cImpossibile est quod proprietas unius linguae servetur in alia.\u201d[270]\n    (\u201cThe idioms of one language cannot be preserved in a translation.\u201d)\n    And again: \u201cOmnes philosophi fuerunt post patriarchas et prophetas ...\n    et legerunt libros prophetarum et patriarcharum qui sunt in sacro\n    textu.\u201d[271] (\u201cThe philosophers of Greece came after the prophets of\n    the Old Testament and read their works contained in the sacred text.\u201d)\n\nIn the first of these sentences Bacon shows his linguistic insight; in the\nsecond he reflects an uncritical view entertained since the time of the\nChurch Fathers; in both, he writes with an order of words requiring no\nchange in an English translation.\n\nIn his time, Bacon had but a sorry fame, and his works no influence. The\nwritings of his younger contemporary Thomas Aquinas exerted greater\ninfluence than those of any man after Augustine. They represent the\nculmination of scholasticism. He was Italian born, and his language,\nhowever difficult the matter, is lucidity itself. It is never rhetorical;\nbut measured, temperate, and balanced; properly proceeding from the mind\nwhich weighed every proposition in the scales of universal consideration.\nSometimes it gains a certain fervour from the clarity and import of the\nstatement which it so lucidly conveys. In article eighth, of the first\nQuestio, of Pars Prima of the _Summa theologiae_, Thomas thus decides that\nTheology is a rational (_argumentativa_) science:\n\n    \u201cRespondeo dicendum quod, sicut aliae scientiae non argumentantur ad\n    sua principia probanda, sed ex principiis argumentantur ad ostendendum\n    alia in ipsis scientiis; ita haec doctrina non argumentatur ad sua\n    principia probanda, quae sunt articuli fidei; sed ex eis procedit ad\n    aliquid aliud ostendendum; sicut Apostolus I ad Cor. xv., ex\n    resurrectione Christi argumentatur ad resurrectionem communem\n    probandam.\n\n    \u201cSed tamen considerandum est in scientiis philosophicis, quod\n    inferiores scientiae nec probant sua principia, nec contra negantem\n    principia disputant, sed hoc relinquunt superiori scientiae: suprema\n    vero inter eas, scilicet metaphysica, disputat contra negantem sua\n    principia, si adversarius aliquid concedit: si autem nihil concedit,\n    non potest cum eo disputare, potest tamen solvere rationes ipsius.\n    Unde sacra scriptura (_i.e._ Theology), cum non habeat superiorem,\n    disputat cum negante sua principia: argumentando quidem, si\n    adversarius aliquid concedat eorum quae per divinam revelationem\n    habentur; sicut per auctoritates sacrae doctrinae disputamus contra\n    hereticos, et per unum articulum contra negantes alium. Si vero\n    adversarius nihil credat eorum quae divinitus revelantur, non remanet\n    amplius via ad probandum articulos fidei per rationes, sed ad\n    solvendum rationes, si quas inducit, contra fidem. Cum enim fides\n    infallibili veritati innitatur, impossibile autem sit de vero\n    demonstrari contrarium, manifestum est probationes quae contra fidem\n    inducuntur, non esse demonstrationes, sed solubilia argumenta.\u201d[272]\n\nOf a different intellectual temperament was John of Fidanza, known as St.\nBonaventura.[273] He also was born and passed his youth in Italy. This\nsainted General of the Franciscan Order was a few years older than the\ngreat Dominican, who was his friend. Both doctors died in the year 1274.\nBonaventura\u2019s powers of constructive reasoning were excellent. His diction\nis clear and beautiful, and eloquent with a spiritual fervour whenever the\nmatter is such as to evoke it. His account of how he came to write his\nfamous little _Itinerarium mentis in Deum_ is full of temperament.\n\n    \u201cCum igitur exemplo beatissimi patris Francisci hanc pacem anhelo\n    spiritu quaererem, ego peccator, qui loco ipsius patris beatissimi\n    post eius transitum septimus in generali fratrum ministerio per omnia\n    indignus succedo; contigit, ut nutu divino circa Beati ipsius\n    transitum, anno trigesimo tertio ad montem Alvernae tanquam ad locum\n    quietum amore quaerendi pacem spiritus declinarem, ibique existens,\n    dum mente tractarem aliquas mentales ascensiones in Deum, inter alia\n    occurrit illud miraculum, quod in praedicto loco contigit ipsi beato\n    Francisco, de visione scilicet Seraph alati ad instar Crucifixi. In\n    cuius consideratione statim visum est mihi, quod visio illa\n    praetenderet ipsius patris suspensionem in contemplando et viam, per\n    quam pervenitur ad eam.\u201d[274]\n\nAnd Bonaventura at the end of his _Itinerarium_ speaks of the perfect\npassing of Francis into God through the very mystic climax of\ncontemplation, concluding thus:\n\n    \u201cSi autem quaeras, quomodo haec fiant, interroga gratiam, non\n    doctrinam; desiderium, non intellectum; gemitum orationis, non studium\n    lectionis; sponsum, non magistrum; Deum, non hominem; caliginem, non\n    claritatem; non lucem, sed ignem totaliter inflammantem et in Deum\n    excessivis unctionibus et ardentissimis affectionibus\n    transferentem.\u201d[275]\n\nBonaventura\u2019s fervent diction will serve to carry us over from the more\nunmitigated intellectuality of Bacon and Thomas to the simpler matter of\nthose personal and pious narratives from which may be drawn concluding\nillustrations of mediaeval Latin prose. Some of the authors will show the\nskill which comes from training; others are quite innocent of grammar, and\ntheir Latin has made a happy surrender to the genius of their vernacular\nspeech, which was the _lingua vulgaris_ of northern Italy.\n\nOne of the earliest biographers of St. Francis of Assisi was Thomas of\nCelano, a skilled Latinist, who was enraptured with the loveliness of\nFrancis\u2019s life. His diction is limpid and rhythmical. A well-known passage\nin his _Vita prima_ (for he wrote two Lives) tells of Francis\u2019s joyous\nassurance of the great work which God would accomplish through the simple\nband who formed the beginnings of the Order. This assurance crystallized\nin a vision of multitudes hurrying to join. Francis speaks to the\nbrethren:\n\n    \u201cConfortamini, charissimi, et gaudete in Domino, nec, quia pauci\n    videmini, efficiamini tristes. Ne vos deterreat mea, vel vestra\n    simplicitas, quoniam sicut mihi a Domino in veritate ostensum est, in\n    maximam multitudinem faciet vos crescere Deus, et usque ad fines orbis\n    multipliciter dilatabit. Vidi multitudinem magnam hominum ad nos\n    venientium, et in habitu sanctae conversationis beataeque religionis\n    regula nobiscum volentium conversari; et ecce adhuc sonitus eorum est\n    in auribus meis, euntium, et redeuntium secundum obedientiae sanctae\n    mandatum: vidique vias ipsorum multitudine plenas ex omni fere natione\n    in his partibus convenire. Veniunt Francigenae, festinant Hispani,\n    Teuthonici, et Anglici currunt, et aliarum diversarum linguarum\n    accelerat maxima multitudo.\n\n    \u201cQuod cum audissent fratres, repleti sunt gaudio Salvatoris sive\n    propter gratiam, quam dominus Deus contulerat sancto suo, sive quia\n    proximorum lucrum sitiebant ardenter, quos desiderabant ut salvi\n    essent, in idipsum quotidie augmentari.\u201d[276]\n\nWe feel the flow and rhythm, and note the agreeable balancing of clauses.\nFrancis died in 1226. The _Vita prima_ by Celano was approved by Gregory\nIX. in 1229. Already other matter touching the saint was gathering in\nanecdote and narrative. Much of it was brought together in the so-called\n_Speculum perfectionis_, which has been confidently but very questionably\nascribed to Francis\u2019s personal disciple, Brother Leo. Brother Leo, or\nwhoever may have been the narrator or compiler, was no scholar; his Latin\nis naively incorrect, and has also the simplicity of Gospel narrative.\nIndeed this Latin is as effectively \u201cvulgarized\u201d as the Greek of Matthew\u2019s\nGospel. An interesting passage tells with what loving wisdom Francis\ninterpreted a text of Scripture:\n\n    \u201cManente ipso apud Senas venit ad eum quidam doctor sacrae theologiae\n    de ordine Praedicatorum, vir utique humilis et spiritualis valde. Quum\n    ipse cum beato Francisco de verbis Domini simul aliquamdiu\n    contulissent interrogavit eum magister de illo verbo Ezechielis: _Si\n    non annuntiaveris impio impietatem suam animam ejus de manu tua\n    requiram_. Dixit enim: \u2018Multos, bone pater, ego cognosco in peccato\n    mortali quibus non annuntio impietatem eorum, numquid de manu mea\n    ipsorum animae requirentur?\u2019\n\n    \u201cCui beatus Franciscus humiliter dixit se esse idiotam et ideo magis\n    expedire sibi doceri ab eo quam super scripturae sententiam\n    respondere. Tunc ille humilis magister adjecit: \u2018Frater, licet ab\n    aliquibus sapientibus hujus verbi expositionem audiverim, tamen\n    libenter super hoc vestrum perciperem intellectum.\u2019 Dixit ergo beatus\n    Franciscus: \u2018Si verbum debeat generaliter intelligi, ego taliter\n    accipio ipsum quod servus Dei sic debet vita et sanctitate in seipso\n    ardere vel fulgere ut luce exempli et lingua sanctae conversationis\n    omnes impios reprehendat. Sic, inquam, splendor ejus et odor famae\n    ipsius annuntiabit omnibus iniquitates eorum.\u2019\n\n    \u201cPlurimum itaque doctor ille aedificatus recedens dixit sociis beati\n    Francisci: \u2018Fratres mei, theologia hujus viri puritate et\n    contemplatione subnixa est aquila volans, nostra vero scientia ventre\n    graditur super terram.\u2019\u201d[277]\n\nAnother passage has Francis breaking out in song from the joy of his love\nof Christ:\n\n    \u201cEbrius amore et compassione Christi beatus Franciscus quandoque talia\n    faciebat, nam dulcissima melodia spiritus intra se ipsum ebulliens\n    frequenter exterius gallice dabat sonum et vena divini susurrii quam\n    auris ejus suscipiebat furtive gallicum erumpebat in jubilum.\n\n    \u201cLignum quandoque colligebat de terra ipsumque sinistro brachio\n    superponens aliud lignum per modum arcus in manu dextera trahebat\n    super illud, quasi super viellam vel aliud instrumentum atque gestus\n    ad hoc idoneos faciens gallice cantabat de Domino Jesu Christo.\n    Terminabatur denique tota haec tripudiatio in lacrymas et in\n    compassionem passionis Christi hic jubilus solvebatur.\n\n    \u201cIn his trahebat continue suspiria et ingeminatis gemitibus eorum quae\n    tenebat in manibus oblitus suspendebatur ad caelum.\u201d[278]\n\nThis Latin is as childlike as the Old Italian of the _Fioretti_ of St.\nFrancis; it has a like word-order, and one might almost add, a like\nvocabulary. The simple, ignorant writer seems as if held by a direct and\npersonal inspiration from the familiar life of the sweet saint. His\nlanguage reflects that inspiration, and mirrors his own childlike\ncharacter. Hence he has a style, direct, effective, moving to tears and\njoy, like his impression of the blessed Francis.\n\nA not dissimilar kind of childlike Latin could attain to a remarkable\nsymmetry and balance. The _Legenda aurea_ is before us, written by the\nDominican Jacobus \u00e0 Voragine, by race a Genoese, and living toward the\nclose of the thirteenth century. This book was the most popular compend of\nsaints\u2019 lives in use in the later Middle Ages. Its stories are told with\nfascinating _na\u00efvet\u00e9_. We cite the opening sentences from its chapter on\nthe Annunciation, just to show the harmony and balance of its periods. The\npassage is exceptional and almost formal in these qualities:\n\n    \u201cAnnunciatio dominica dicitur, quia in tali die ab angelo adventus\n    filii Dei in carnem fuit annuntiatus, congruum enim fuit, ut\n    incarnationem praecederet angelica annuntiatio, triplici ratione.\n    Primo ratione ordinis connotandi, ut scilicet ordo reparationis\n    responderet ordini praevaricationis. Unde sicut dyabolus tentavit\n    mulierem, ut eam pertraheret ad dubitationem et per dubitationem ad\n    consensum et per consensum ad lapsum, sic angelus nuntiavit virgini,\n    ut nuntiando excitaret ad fidem et per fidem ad consensum et per\n    consensum ad concipiendum Dei filium. Secundo ratione ministerii\n    angelici, quia enim angelus est Dei minister et servus et beata virgo\n    electa erat, ut esset Dei mater, et congruum est ministrum dominae\n    famulari, conveniens fuit, ut beatae virgini annuntiatio per angelum\n    fieret. Tertio ratione lapsus angelici reparandi. Quia enim incarnatio\n    non tantum faciebat ad reparationem humani lapsus, sed etiam ad\n    reparationem ruinae angelicae, ideo angeli non debuerunt excludi. Unde\n    sicut sexus mulieris non excluditur a cognitione mysterii\n    incarnationis et resurrectionis, sic etiam nec angelicus nuntius. Imo\n    Deus utrumque angelo mediante nuntiat mulieri, scilicet incarnationem\n    virgini Mariae et resurrectionem Magdelenae.\u201d[279]\n\nThese extracts bring us far into the thirteenth century. Two hundred years\nlater, mediaeval Latin prose, if one may say so, sang its swan song in\nthat little book which is a last, sweet, and composite echo of all\nmellifluous mediaeval piety. Yet perhaps this _De imitatione Christi_ of\nThomas \u00e0 Kempis can scarcely be classed as prose, so full is it of\nassonances and rhythms fit for chanting.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII\n\nEVOLUTION OF MEDIAEVAL LATIN VERSE\n\n      I. METRICAL VERSE.\n\n     II. SUBSTITUTION OF ACCENT FOR QUANTITY.\n\n    III. SEQUENCE-HYMN AND STUDENT-SONG.\n\n     IV. PASSAGE OF THEMES INTO THE VERNACULAR.\n\n\nIn mediaeval Latin poetry the endeavour to preserve a classical style and\nthe irresistible tendency to evolve new forms are more palpably\ndistinguishable than in the prose. For there is a visible parting of the\nways between the retention of the antique metres and their fruitful\nabandonment in verses built of accentual rhyme. Moreover, this formal\ndivergence corresponds to a substantial difference, inasmuch as there was\nusually a larger survival of antique feeling and allusion in the mediaeval\nmetrical attempts than in the rhyming poems.\n\nAs in the prose, so in the poetry, the lines of development may be\nfollowed from the Carolingian time. But a difference will be found between\nItaly and the North; for in Italy the course was quicker, but a less\norganic evolution resulted in verse less excellent and less distinctly\nmediaeval. By the end of the eleventh century Latin poetry in Italy,\nrhyming or metrical, seems to have drawn itself along as far as it was\ndestined to progress; but in the North a richer growth culminates a\ncentury later. Indeed the most originative line of evolution of mediaeval\nLatin verse would seem to have been confined to the North, in the main if\nnot exclusively.\n\nThe following pages offer no history of mediaeval Latin poetry, even as\nthe previous chapter made no attempt to sketch the history of the prose.\nTheir object is to point out the general lines along which the\nverse-forms were developed, or were perhaps retarded. Three may be\ndistinguished. The first is marked by the retention of quantity and the\nendeavour to preserve the ancient measures. In the second, accent and\nrhyme gradually take the place of metre within the old verse-forms. The\nthird is that of the Sequence, wherein the accentual rhyming hymn springs\nfrom the chanted prose, which had superseded the chanting of the final _a_\nof the Alleluia.[280]\n\n\nI\n\nThe lover of classical Greek and Latin poetry knows the beautiful fitness\nof the ancient measures for the thought and feeling which they enframed.\nIf his eyes chance to fall on some twelfth-century Latin hymn, he will be\nstruck by its different quality. He will quickly perceive that classic\nforms would have been unsuited to the Christian and romantic sentiment of\nthe mediaeval period,[281] and will realize that some vehicle besides\nmetrical verse would have been needed for this thoroughly declassicized\nfeeling, even had metrical quantity remained a vital element of language,\ninstead of passing away some centuries before. Metre was but resuscitation\nand convention in the time of Charlemagne. Yet it kept its sway with\nscholars, and could not lack votaries so long as classical poetry made\npart of the _Ars grammatica_ or was read for delectation. Metrical\ncomposition did not cease throughout the Middle Ages. But it was not the\ntrue mediaeval style, and became obviously academic as accentual verse was\nperfected and made fit to carry spiritual emotion. Nevertheless the\nsimpler metres were cultivated successfully by the best scholars of the\ntwelfth century.\n\nMost of the Latin poetry of the Carolingian period was metrical, if we are\nto judge from the mass that remains. Reminiscence of the antique enveloped\neducated men, with whom the mediaeval spirit had not reached distinctness\nof thought and feeling. So the poetry resembled the contemporary sculpture\nand painting, in which the antique was still unsuperseded by any new\nstyle. Following the antique metres, using antique phrase and commonplace,\noften copying antique sentiment, this poetry was as dull as might be\nexpected from men who were amused by calling each other Homer, Virgil,\nHorace, or David. Usually the poets were ecclesiastics, and interested in\ntheology;[282] but many of the pieces are conventionally profane in topic,\nand as humanistic as the Latin poetry of Petrarch.[283] Moreover, just as\nPetrarch\u2019s Latin poetry was still-born, while his Italian sonnets live, so\nthe Carolingian poetry, when it forgets itself and falls away from metre\nto accentual verse, gains some degree of life. At this early period the\nRomance tongues were not a fit poetic vehicle, and consequently living\nthoughts, which with Dante and Petrarch found voice in Italian, in the\nninth century began to stammer in Latin verses that were freed from the\ndead rules of quantity, and were already vibrant with a vital feeling for\naccent and rhyme.[284]\n\nThrough the tenth century metrical composition became rougher, yet\nsometimes drew a certain force from its rudeness. A good example is the\nfamous _Waltarius_, or _Waltharilied_, of Ekkehart of St. Gall, composed\nin the year 960 as a school exercise.[285] The theme was a German story\nfound in vernacular poetry. Ekkehart\u2019s hexameters have a strong Teuton\nflavour, and doubtless some of the vigour of his paraphrase was due to the\nGerman original.\n\nThe metrical poems of the eleventh century have been spoken of already,\nespecially the more interesting ones written in Italy.[286] Most of the\nLatin poetry emanating from that classic land was metrical, or so\nintended. Frequently it tells the story of wars, or gives the _Gesta_ of\nnotable lives, making a kind of versified biography. One feels as if verse\nwas employed as a refuge from the dead annalistic form. This poetry was a\nsemi-barbarizing of the antique, without new formal or substantial\nelements. Italy, one may say, never became essentially and creatively\nmediaeval: the pressure of antique survival seems to have barred original\ndevelopment; Italians took little part in the great mediaeval military\nreligious movements, the Crusades; no strikingly new architecture arose\nwith them; their first vernacular poetry was an imitation or a borrowing\nfrom Provence and France; and by far the greater part of their Latin\npoetry presents an uncreative barbarizing of the antique metres.\n\nThese remarks find illustration in the principal Latin poems composed in\nItaly in the twelfth century. Among them one observes differences in\nskill, knowledge, and tendency. Some of the writers made use of leonine\nhexameters, others avoided the rhyme. But they were all akin in lack of\nexcellence and originality both in composition and verse-form. There was\nthe monk Donizo of Canossa, who wrote the _Vita_ of the great Countess\nMatilda;[287] there was William of Apulia, Norman in spirit if not in\nblood, who wrote of the Norman conquests in Apulia and Sicily;[288] also\nthe anonymous and barbarous _De bello et excidio urbis Comensis_, in\nwhich is told the destruction of Como by Milan between 1118 and 1127;[289]\nthen the metrically jingling Pisan chronicle narrating the conquest of the\nisland of Majorca, and beginning (like the _Aeneid_!) with\n\n  \u201cArma, rates, populum vindictam coelitus octam\n   Scribimus, ac duros terrae pelagique labores.\u201d[290]\n\nWe also note Peter of Ebulo, with his narrative in laudation of the\nemperor Henry VI., written about 1194; Henry of Septimella and his elegies\nupon the checkered fortunes of divers great men;[291] and lastly the more\nfamous Godfrey of Viterbo, of probable German blood, and notary or scribe\nto three successive emperors, with his cantafable _Pantheon_ or _Memoria\nsaecularum_.[292] Godfrey\u2019s poetry is rhymed after a manner of his own.\n\nIn the North, or more specifically speaking in the land of France north of\nthe Loire, the twelfth century brought better metrical poetry than in\nItaly. Yet it had something of the deadness of imitation, since the _vis\nvivida_ of song had passed over into rhyming verse. Still from the\nacademic point of view, metre was the proper vehicle of poetry; as one\nsees, for instance, in the _Ars versificatoria_ of Matthew of\nVendome,[293] written toward the close of the twelfth century. \u201cVersus est\nmetrica descriptio,\u201d says he, and then elaborates his, for the most part\nborrowed, definition: \u201cVerse is metrical description proceeding concisely\nand line by line through the comely marriage of words to flowers of\nthought, and containing nothing trivial or irrelevant.\u201d A neat conception\nthis of poetry; and the same writer denounces leonine rhyming as unseemly,\nbut praises the favourite metre of the Middle Ages, the elegiac; for he\nregards the hexameter and pentameter as together forming the perfect\nverse. It was in this metre that Hildebert wrote his almost classic elegy\nover the ruins of Rome. A few lines have been quoted from it;[294] but the\nwhole poem, which is not long, is of interest as one of the very best\nexamples of a mediaeval Latin elegy:\n\n  \u201cPar tibi, Roma, nihil, cum sis prope tota ruina;\n     Quam magni fueris integra fracta doces.\n   Longa tuos fastus aetas destruxit, et arces\n     Caesaris et superum templa palude jacent.\n   Ille labor, labor ille ruit quem dirus Araxes\n     Et stantem tremuit et cecidisse dolet;\n   Quem gladii regum, quem provida cura senatus,\n     Quem superi rerum constituere caput;\n   Quem magis optavit cum crimine solus habere\n     Caesar, quam socius et pius esse socer,\n   Qui, crescens studiis tribus, hostes, crimen, amicos\n     Vi domuit, secuit legibus, emit ope;\n   In quem, dum fieret, vigilavit cura priorum:\n     Juvit opus pietas hospitis, unda, locus.\n   Materiem, fabros, expensas axis uterque\n     Misit, se muris obtulit ipse locus.\n   Expendere duces thesauros, fata favorem,\n     Artifices studium, totus et orbis opes.\n   Urbs cecidit de qua si quicquam dicere dignum\n     Moliar, hoc potero dicere: Roma fuit.\n   Non tamen annorum series, non flamma, nec ensis\n     Ad plenum potuit hoc abolere decus.\n   Cura hominum potuit tantam componere Romam\n     Quantam non potuit solvere cura deum.\n   Confer opes marmorque novum superumque favorem,\n     Artificum vigilent in nova facta manus,\n   Non tamen aut fieri par stanti machina muro,\n     Aut restaurari sola ruina potest.\n   Tantum restat adhuc, tantum ruit, ut neque pars stans\n     Aequari possit, diruta nec refici.\n   Hic superum formas superi mirantur et ipsi,\n     Et cupiunt fictis vultibus esse pares.\n   Non potuit natura deos hoc ore creare\n     Quo miranda deum signa creavit homo.\n   Vultus adest his numinibus, potiusque coluntur\n     Artificum studio quam deitate sua.\n   Urbs felix, si vel dominis urbs illa careret,\n     Vel dominis esset turpe carere fide.\u201d[295]\n\nThe elegiac metre was used by Abaelard in his didactic poem to his son\nAstralabius,[296] and by John of Salisbury in his _Entheticus_. The\nhexameter also was a favourite measure, used, for instance, by Alanus of\nLille in the _Anticlaudianus_, perhaps the noblest of mediaeval narrative\nor allegorical poems in Latin.[297] Another excellent composition in\nhexameter was the _Alexandreis_ of Walter, born, like Alanus, apparently\nat Lille, but commonly called of Chatillon. As poets and as classical\nscholars, these two men were worthy contemporaries. Walter\u2019s poem follows,\nor rather enlarges upon the _Life of Alexander_ by Quintus Curtius.[298]\nHe is said to have written it on the challenge of Matthew of Vendome, him\nof the _Ars versificatoria_. The _Ligurinus_ of a certain Cistercian\nGunther is still another good example of a long narrative poem in\nhexameters. It sets forth the career of Frederick Barbarossa, and was\nwritten shortly after the opening of the thirteenth century. Its author,\nlike Walter and Alanus, shows himself widely read in the Classics.[299]\n\nThe sapphic was a third not infrequently attempted metre, of which the _De\nplanctu naturae_ of Alanus contains examples. This work was composed in\nthe form of the _De consolatione philosophiae_ of Bo\u00ebthius, where lyrics\nalternate with prose. The general topic was Nature\u2019s complaint over man\u2019s\ndisobedience to her laws. The author apostrophizes her in the following\nsapphics:\n\n  \u201cO Dei proles, genitrixque rerum,\n   Vinculum mundi, stabilisque nexus,\n   Gemma terrenis, speculum caducis,\n             Lucifer orbis.\n   Pax, amor, virtus, regimen, potestas,\n   Ordo, lex, finis, via, dux, origo,\n   Vita, lux, splendor, species, figura\n             Regula mundi.\n   Quae tuis mundum moderas habenis,\n   Cuncta concordi stabilita nodo\n   Nectis et pacis glutino maritas\n             Coelica terris.\n   Quae noys (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) plures recolens ideas\n   Singulas rerum species monetans,\n   Res togas formis, chlamidemque formae\n             Pollice formas.\n   Cui favet coelum, famulatur aer,\n   Quam colit Tellus, veneratur unda,\n   Cui velut mundi dominae tributum\n             Singula solvunt.\n   Quae diem nocti vicibus catenans\n   Cereum solis tribuis diei,\n   Lucido lunae speculo soporans\n             Nubila noctis.\n   Quae polum stellis variis inauras,\n   Aetheris nostri solium serenans\n   Siderum gemmis, varioque coelum\n             Milite complens.\n   Quae novis coeli faciem figuris\n   Protheans mutas aridumque vulgus\n   Aeris nostri regione donans,\n             Legeque stringis.\n   Cujus ad nutum juvenescit orbis,\n   Silva crispatur folii capillo,\n   Et tua florum tunicata veste,\n             Terra superbit.\n   Quae minas ponti sepelis, et auges,\n   Syncopans cursum pelagi furori\n   Ne soli tractum tumulare possit\n             Aequoris aestus.\u201d[300]\n\nPractically all of our examples have been taken from works composed in the\ntwelfth century, and in the land comprised under the name of France. The\npre-excellence of this period will likewise appear in accentual rhyming\nLatin poetry, which was more spontaneous and living than its loftily\ndescended relative.\n\n\nII\n\nThe academic vogue of metre in the early Middle Ages did not prevent the\ngrowth of more natural poetry. The Irish had their Gaelic poems; people\nof Teutonic speech had their rough verse based on alliteration and the\ncount of the strong syllables. The Romance tongues emerging from the\ncommon Latin were as yet poetically untried. But in the proper Latin,\nwhich had become as unquantitative and accentual as any of its vulgar\nforms, there was a tonic poetry that was no longer unequipped with rhyme.\n\nThree rhythmic elements made up this natural mode of Latin versification:\nthe succession of accented and unaccented syllables; the number of\nsyllables in a line; and that regularly recurring sameness of sound which\nis called rhyme. The source of the first of these seems obvious. Accent\nhaving driven quantity from speech, came to supersede it in verse, with\nthe accented syllable taking the place of the long syllable and the\nunaccented the place of the short. In the Carolingian period accentual\nverse followed the old metrical forms, with this exception: the metrical\nprinciple that one long is equivalent to two shorts was not adopted.\nConsequently the number of syllables in the successive lines of an\naccentual strophe would remain the same, where in the metrical antecedent\nthey might have varied. This is also sufficient to account for the second\nelement, the observance of regularity in the number of syllables. For this\nregularity seems to follow upon the acceptance of the principle that in\nrhythmic verse an accented syllable is not equal to two unaccented ones.\nThe query might perhaps be made why this Latin accentual verse did not\ntake up the principle of regularity in the number of strong syllables in a\nline, like Old High German poetry for example, where the number of\nunaccented syllables, within reasonable limits, is indifferent. A ready\nanswer is that these Latin verses were made by people of Latin speech who\nhad been acquainted with metrical forms of poetry, in which the number of\nsyllables might vary, but was never indifferent; for the metrical rule was\nrigid that one long was equivalent to two short; and to no more and no\nless. Hence the short syllables were as fixed in number as the long.[301]\n\nThe origin of the third element, rhyme, is in dispute. In some instances\nit may have passed into Greek and Latin verses from Syrian hymns.[302] But\non the other hand it had long been an occasional element in Greek and\nLatin rhetorical prose. Probably rhyme in Latin accentual verse had no\nspecific origin. It gradually became the sharpening, defining element of\nsuch verse. Accentual Latin lent itself so naturally to rhyme, that had\nnot rhyme become a fixed part of this verse, there indeed would have been\na fact to explain.\n\nThese, then, were the elements: accent, number of syllables, and rhyme.\nMost interesting is the development of verse-forms. Rhythmic Latin poetry\ncame through the substitution of accent for quantity, and probably had\nmany prototypes in the old jingles of Roman soldiers and provincials,\nwhich so far as known were accentual, rather than metrical. Christian\naccentual poetry retained those simple forms of iambic and trochaic verse\nwhich most readily submitted to the change from metre to accent, or\nperhaps one should say, had for centuries offered themselves as natural\nforms of accentual verse. Apparently the change from metre to accent\nwithin the old forms gradually took place between the sixth and the tenth\ncenturies. During this period there was slight advance in the evolution of\nnew verses; nor was the period creative in other respects, as we have\nseen. But thereafter, as the mediaeval centuries advanced from the basis\nof a mastered patristic and antique heritage, and began to create, there\nfollowed an admirable evolution of verse-forms: in some instances\napparently issuing from the old metrico-accentual forms, and in others\ndeveloping independently by virtue of the faculty of song meeting the need\nof singing.\n\nThis factor wrought with power--the human need and cognate faculty of\nsong, a need and faculty stimulated in the Middle Ages by religious\nsentiment and emotion. In the fusing of melody and words into an\nutterance of song--at last into a strophe--music worked potently, shaping\nthe composition of the lines, moulding them to rhythm, insisting upon\nsonorousness in the words, promoting their assonance and at last\ncompelling them to rhyme so as to meet the stress, or mark the ending, of\nthe musical periods. Thus the exigencies of melody helped to evoke the\nfinished verse, while the words reciprocating through their vocal\ncapabilities and through the inspiration of their meaning, aided the\nevolution of the melodies. In fine, words and melody, each quickened by\nthe other, and each moulding the other to itself, attained a perfected\nstrophic unison; and mediaeval musician-poets achieved at last the\nfinished verses of hymns or Sequences and student-songs.\n\nThere were two distinct lines of evolution of accentual Latin verse in the\nMiddle Ages; and although the faculty of song was a moving energy in both,\nit worked in one of them more visibly than in the other. Along the one\nline accentual verse developed pursuant to the ancient forms, displacing\nquantity with accent, and evolving rhyme. The other line of evolution had\nno connection with the antique. It began with phrases of sonorous prose,\nreplacing inarticulate chant. These, under the influence of music, through\nthe creative power of song, were by degrees transformed to verse. The\nevolution of the Sequence-hymn will be the chief illustration. With the\nfinished accentual Latin poetry of the twelfth century it may become\nimpossible to tell which line of rhythmic evolution holds the antecedent\nof a given poem. In truth, this final and perfected verse may often have a\ndouble ancestry, descending from the rhythms which had superseded metre,\nand being also the child of mediaeval melody. Yet there is no difficulty\nin tracing by examples the two lines of evolution.\n\nTo illustrate the strain of verse which took its origin in the\ndisplacement of metre by accent and rhyme, we must look back as far as\nFortunatus. He was born about the year 530 in northern Italy, but he\npassed his eventful life among Franks and Thuringians. A scholar and also\na poet, he had a fair mastery of metre; yet some of his poems evince the\nspirit of the coming mediaeval time both in sentiment and form. He wrote\ntwo famous hymns, one of them in the popular trochaic tetrameter, the\nother in the equally simple iambic dimeter. The first, a hymn to the\nCross, begins with the never-to-be-forgotten\n\n  \u201cPange, lingua, gloriosi proelium certaminis\u201d;\n\nand has such lines as\n\n  \u201cCrux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n   Dulce lignum, dulce clavo dulce pondus sustinens!\u201d\n\nIn these the mediaeval feeling for the Cross shows itself, and while the\nmetre is correct, it is so facile that one may read or sing the lines\naccentually. In the other hymn, also to the Cross, assonance and rhyme\nforetell the coming transformation of metre to accentual verse. Here are\nthe first two stanzas:\n\n  \u201cVexilla regis prodeunt,\n   Fulget crucis mysterium,\n   Quo carne carnis conditor\n   Suspensus est patibulo.\n\n   Confixa clavis viscera\n   Tendens manus, vestigia\n   Redemtionis gratia\n   Hic immolata est hostia.\u201d\n\nPassing to the Carolingian epoch, some lines from a poem celebrating the\nvictory of Charlemagne\u2019s son Pippin over the Avars in 796, will illustrate\nthe popular trochaic tetrameter which had become accentual, and already\ntended to rhyme:\n\n  \u201cMulta mala iam fecerunt ab antico tempore,\n   Fana dei destruxerunt atque monasteria,\n   Vasa aurea sacrata, argentea, fictilia.\u201d[303]\n\nNext we turn to a piece by the persecuted and interesting Gottschalk,\nwritten in the latter part of the ninth century. A young lad has asked for\na poem. But how can he sing, the exiled and imprisoned monk who might\nrather weep as the Jews by the waters of Babylon?[304] yet he will sing a\nhymn to the Trinity, and bewail his piteous lot before the highest\npitying Godhead. The verses have a lyric unity of mood, and are touching\nwith their sad refrain. Their rhyme, if not quite pure, is abundant and\ncatching, and their nearest metrical affinity would be a trochaic dimeter.\n\n  \u201c1. Ut quid iubes, pusiole,\n      quare mandas, filiole,\n      carmen dulce me cantare,\n      cum sim longe exul valde\n          intra mare?\n      o cur iubes canere?\n\n   2. Magis mihi, miserule,\n      fiere libet, puerule,\n      plus plorare quam cantare\n      carmen tale, iubes quale,\n          amor care,\n      o cur iubes canere?\n\n   3. Mallem scias, pusillule,\n      ut velles tu, fratercule,\n      pio corde condolere\n      mihi atque prona mente\n          conlugere.\n      o cur iubes canere?\n\n   4. Scis, divine tyruncule,\n      scis, superne clientule,\n      hic diu me exulare,\n      multa die sive nocte\n          tolerare.\n      o cur iubes canere?\n\n   5. Scis captive plebicule\n      Israheli cognomine\n      praeceptum in Babilone\n      decantare extra longe\n          fines Iude.\n      o cur iubes canere?\n\n   6. Non potuerunt utique,\n      nec debuerunt itaque\n      carmen dulce coram gente\n      aliene nostri terre\n         resonare.\n      o cur iubes canere?\n\n   7. Sed quia vis omnimode,\n      consodalis egregie,\n      canam patri filioque\n      simul atque procedente\n          ex utroque.\n      hoc cano ultronee.\n\n   8. Benedictus es, domine,\n      pater, nate, paraclite,\n      deus trine, deus une,\n      deus summe, deus pie,\n          deus iuste.\n      hoc cano spontanee.\n\n   9. Exul ego diuscule\n      hoc in mare sum, domine:\n      annos nempe duos fere\n      nosti fore, sed iam iamque\n          miserere.\n      hoc rogo humillime.\n\n  10. Interim cum pusione\n      psallam ore, psallam mente,\n      psallam voce (psallam corde),\n      psallam die, psallam nocte\n          carmen dulce\n      tibi, rex piissime.\u201d[305]\n\nGottschalk (and for this it is hard to love him) was one of the initiators\nof the leonine hexameter, in which a syllable in the middle of the line\nrhymes with the last syllable.\n\n  \u201cSepteno Augustas decimo praeeunte Kalendas\u201d\n\nis the opening hexameter in his Epistle to his friend Ratramnus.[306] To\nwhat horrid jingle such verses could attain may be seen from some leonine\nhexameter-pentameters of two or three hundred years later, on the Fall of\nTroy, beginning:\n\n  \u201cViribus, arte, minis, Danaum clara Troja ruinis,\n       Annis bis quinis fit rogus atque cinis.\u201d[307]\n\nHector and Troy, and the dire wiles of the Greeks never left the mediaeval\nimagination. A poem of the early tenth century, which bade the watchers on\nModena\u2019s walls be vigilant, draws its inspiration from that unfading\nmemory, and for us illustrates what iambics might become when accent had\nreplaced quantity. The lines throughout end in a final rhyming _a_.\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.\u201d[308]\n\nAnd from a scarcely later time, for it also is of the tenth century, rise\nthose verses to Roma, that old \u201cRoma aurea et eterna,\u201d and forever \u201ccaput\nmundi,\u201d sung by pilgrim bands as their eyes caught the first gleam of\ntower, church, and ruin:\n\n  \u201cO Roma nobilis, orbis et domina,\n   Cunctarum urbium excellentissima,\n   Roseo martyrum sanguine rubea,\n   Albis et virginum liliis candida:\n   Salutem dicimus tibi per omnia,\n   Te benedicimus: salve per secula.\u201d[309]\n\nThis verse, which still lifts the heart of whosoever hears or reads it,\nmay close our examples of mediaeval verses descended from metrical forms.\nIt will be noticed that all of them are from the early mediaeval\ncenturies; a circumstance which may be taken as a suggestion of the fact\nthat by far the greater part of the earlier accentual Latin poetry was\ncomposed in forms in which accent simply had displaced the antique\nquantity.\n\n\nIII\n\nWe turn to that other genesis of mediaeval Latin verse, arising not out of\nantique forms, but rather from the mediaeval need and faculty of song. In\nthe chief instance selected for illustration, this line of evolution took\nits inception in the exigencies and inspiration of the Alleluia chant or\njubilation. During the celebration of the Mass, as the Gradual ended in\nits last Alleluia, the choir continued chanting the final syllable of that\nword in cadences of musical exultings. The melody or cadence to which this\nfinal _a_ of the Alleluia was chanted, was called the _sequentia_. The\nwords which came to be substituted for its cadenced reiteration were\ncalled the _prosa_. By the twelfth century the two terms seem to have been\nused interchangeably. Thus arose the prose Sequence, so plastic in its\ncapability of being moulded by melody to verse. Its songful qualities lay\nin the sonorousness of the words and in their syllabic correspondence with\nthe notes of the melody to which they were sung.[310]\n\nIn the year 860, Norsemen sacked the cloister of Jumi\u00e8ges in Normandy, and\na fleeing brother carried his precious Antiphonary far away to the safe\nretreat of St. Gall. There a young monk named Notker, poring over its\ncontents, perceived that words had been written in the place of the\nrepetitions of the final _a_ of the Alleluia. Taking the cue, he set to\nwork to compose more fitting words to correspond with the notes to which\nthis final _a_ was sung. So these lines of euphonious and fitting words\nappear to have had their beginning in Notker\u2019s scanning of that fugitive\nAntiphonary, and his devising labour. Their primary purpose was a musical\none; for they were a device--mnemotechnic, if one will--to facilitate the\nchanting of cadences previously vocalized with difficulty through the\nsinging of one simple vowel sound. Notker showed his work to his master,\nIso, who rejoiced at what his gifted pupil had accomplished, and spurred\nhim on by pointing out that in his composition one syllable was still\nsometimes repeated or drawn out through several successive notes. One\nsyllable to each note was the principle which Notker now set himself to\nrealize; and he succeeded.\n\nHe composed some fifty Sequences. In his work, as well as in that of\nothers after him, the device of words began to modify and develop the\nmelodies themselves. Sometimes Notker adapted his verbal compositions to\nthose cadences or melodies to which the Alleluia had long been sung;\nsometimes he composed both melody and words; or, again, he took a current\nmelody, sacred or secular, to which the Alleluia never had been sung, and\ncomposed words for it, to be chanted as a Sequence. In these borrowed\nmelodies, as well as in those composed by Notker, the musical periods were\nmore developed than in the Alleluia cadences. Thus the musical growth of\nthe Sequences was promoted by the use of sonorous words, while the\nimproved melodies in turn drew the words on to a more perfect rhythmic\nordering.\n\nNotker died in 912. His Sequences were prose, yet with a certain\nparallelism in their construction; and, even with Notker in his later\nyears, the words began to take on assonances, chiefly in the vowel sound\nof _a_. Thereafter the melodies, seizing upon the words, as it were, by\nthe principle of their syllabic correspondence to the notation, moulded\nthem to rhythm of movement and regularity of line; while conversely with\nthe better ordering of the words for singing, the melodies in turn made\ngain and progress, and then again reacted on the words, until after two\ncenturies there emerged the finished verses of an Adam of St. Victor.\n\nThus these Sequences have become verse before our eyes, and we realize\nthat it is the very central current of the evolution of mediaeval Latin\npoetry that we have been following. How free and how spontaneous was this\nevolution of the Sequence. It was the child of the Christian Middle Ages,\nseeing the light in the closing years of the ninth century, but requiring\na long period of growth before it reached the glory of its climacteric. It\nwas born of musical chanting, and it grew as song, never unsung or\nconceived of as severable from its melody. Only as it attained its\nperfected strophic forms, it necessarily made use of trochaic and other\nrhythms which long before had changed from quantity to accent and so had\npassed on into the verse-making habitudes of the Middle Ages.[311] If\nthere be any Latin composition in virtue of origin and growth absolutely\nun-antique, it is the mediaeval Sequence, which in its final forms is so\nglorious a representative of the mediaeval Hymn. And we shall also see\nthat much popular Latin poetry, \u201cCarmina Burana\u201d and student-songs, were\ncomposed in verses and often sung to tunes taken--or parodied--from the\nSequence-hymns of the Liturgy.\n\nThere were many ways of chanting Sequences. The musical phrases of the\nmelodies usually were repeated once, except at the beginning and the\nclose; and the Sequence would be rendered by a double choir singing\nantiphonally. Ordinarily the words responded to the repetition of the\nmusical phrases with a parallelism of their own. The lines (after the\nfirst) varied in length by pairs, the second and third lines having the\nsame number of syllables, the fourth and fifth likewise equal to each\nother, but differing in length from the second and third; and so on\nthrough the Sequence, until the last line, which commonly stood alone and\ndiffered in length from the preceding pairs. The Sequence called \u201cNostra\ntuba\u201d is a good example. Probably it was composed by Notker, and in his\nlater years; for it is filled with assonances, and exhibits a regular\nparallelism of structure.\n\n              \u201cNostra tuba\n  Regatur fortissime Dei dextra et preces audiat\n  Aura placatissima et serena; ita enim nostra\n  Laus erit accepta, voce si quod canimus, canat pariter et pura\n        conscientia.\n  Et, ut haec possimus, omnes divina nobis semper flagitemus adesse\n        auxilia.\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n  O bone Rex, pie, juste, misericors, qui es via et janua,\n  Portas regni, quaesumus, nobis reseres, dimittasque facinora\n          Ut laudemus nomen nunc tuum atque per cuncta saecula.\u201d[312]\n\nHere, after the opening, the first pair has seventeen syllables, and the\nnext pair twenty-six. The last pair quoted has twenty; and the final line\nof seventeen syllables has no fellow. A further rhythmical advance seems\nreached by the following Sequence from the abbey of St. Martial at\nLimoges. It may have been written in the eleventh century. It is given\nhere with the first and second line of the couplets opposite to each\nother, as strophe and antistrophe; and the lines themselves are divided to\nshow the assonances (or rhymes) which appear to have corresponded with\npauses in the melody:\n\n                  \u201c(1) Canat omnis turba\n\n  (2a) Fonte renata               (2b) Laude jucunda\n       Spiritusque gratia              et mente perspicua\n\n  (3a) Jam restituta              (3b) Sicque jactura\n       pars est decima                 coelestis illa\n       fuerat quae culpa               completur in laude\n       perdita.                        divina.\n\n  (4a) Ecce praeclara             (4b) Enitet ampla\n       dies dominica                   per orbis spatia,\n\n  (5a) Exsultat in qua            (5b) Quia destructa\n       plebs omnis redempta,           mors est perpetua.\u201d[313]\n\nA Sequence of the eleventh century will afford a final illustration of\napproach to a regular strophic structure, and of the use of the final\none-syllable rhyme in _a_, throughout the Sequence:\n\n  1\n\n          \u201cAlleluia,\n  Turma, proclama leta;\n      Laude canora,\n  Facta prome divina,\n      Jam instituta\n  Superna disciplina,\n\n  2\n\n      Christi sacra\n      Per magnalia\n  Es quia de morte liberata\n      Ut destructa\n      Inferni claustra\n  Januaque celi patefacta!\n\n  3\n\n    Jam nunc omnia\n      Celestia\n      Terrestria\n  Virtute gubernat eterna.\n    In quibus sua\n      Judicia\n      Semper equa\n  Dat auctoritate paterna.\u201d\n\n    *       *       *       *[314]\n\nAs the eleventh century closed and the great twelfth century dawned, the\nforces of mediaeval growth quickened to a mightier vitality, and\ndistinctively mediaeval creations appeared. Our eyes, of course, are fixed\nupon the northern lands, where the Sequence grew from prose to verse, and\nwhere derivative or analogous forms of popular poetry developed also. Up\nto this time, throughout mediaeval life and thought, progress had been\nsomewhat uncrowned with palpable achievement. Yet the first brilliant\ncreations of a master-workman are the fruit of his apprentice years,\nduring which his progress has been as real as when his works begin to make\nit visible. So it was no sudden birth of power, but rather faculties\nripening through apprentice centuries, which illumine the period opening\nabout the year 1100. This period would carry no human teaching if its\naccomplishment in institutions, in philosophy, in art and poetry, had been\na heaven-blown accident, and not the fruit of antecedent discipline.\n\nThe poetic advance represented by the Sequences of Adam of St. Victor may\nrouse our admiration for the poet\u2019s genius, but should not blind our eyes\nto the continuity of development leading to it. Adam is the final artist\nand his work a veritable creation; yet his antecedents made part of his\ncreative faculty. The elements of his verses and the general idea and form\nof the sequence were given him;--all honour to the man\u2019s holy genius which\nmade these into poems. The elements referred to consisted in accentual\nmeasures and in the two-syllabled Latin rhyme which appears to have been\nfinally achieved by the close of the eleventh century.[315] In using them\nAdam was no borrower, but an artist who perforce worked in the medium of\nhis art. Trochaic and iambic rhythms then constituted the chief measures\nfor accentual verse, as they had for centuries, and do still. For,\nalthough accentual rhythms admit dactyls and anapaests, these have not\nproved generally serviceable. Likewise the inevitable progress of Latin\nverse had developed assonances into rhymes; and indeed into rhymes of two\nsyllables, for Latin words lend themselves as readily to rhymes of two\nsyllables as English words to rhymes of one.\n\nThere existed also the idea and form of the Sequence, consisting of pairs\nof lines which had reached assonance and some degree of rhythm, and varied\nin length, pair by pair, following the music of the melodies to which they\nwere sung. For the Sequence-melody did not keep to the same recurring tune\nthroughout, but varied from couplet to couplet. In consequence, a Sequence\nby Adam of St. Victor may contain a variety of verse-forms. Moreover, a\nnumber of the Sequences of which he may have been the author show\nsurvivals of the old rhythmical irregularities, and of assonance as yet\nunsuperseded by pure rhyme.\n\nBefore giving examples of Adam\u2019s poems, a tribute should be paid to his\ngreat forerunner in the art of Latin verse. Adam doubtless was familiar\nwith the hymns[316] of the most brilliant intellectual luminary of the\ndeparting generation, one Peter Abaelard, whom he may have seen in the\nflesh. Those once famous love-songs, written for Helo\u00efse, perished (so far\nas we know) with the love they sang. Another fate--and perhaps Abaelard\nwished it so--was in store for the many hymns which he wrote for his\nsisters in Christ, the abbess and her nuns. They still exist,[317] and\ndisplay a richness of verse-forms scarcely equalled even by the Sequences\nof Adam. In the development of Latin verse, Abaelard is Adam\u2019s immediate\npredecessor; his verses being, as it were, just one stage inferior to\nAdam\u2019s in sonorousness of line, in certainty of rhythm, and in purity of\nrhyme.\n\nThe \u201cprose\u201d Sequences were not the direct antecedents of Abaelard\u2019s hymns.\nYet both sprang from the freely devising spirit of melody and song; and\ntherefore those hymns are of this free-born lineage more truly than they\nare descendants of antique forms. To be sure, every possible accentual\nrhythm, built as it must be of trochees, iambics, anapaests, or dactyls,\nhas unavoidably some antique quantitative antecedent; because the antique\nmeasures exhausted the possibilities of syllabic combination. Yet\nantecedence is not source, and most of Abaelard\u2019s verses by their form and\nspirit proclaim their genesis in the creative exigencies of song as loudly\nas they disavow any antique parentage.\n\nFor example, there may be some far echo of metrical asclepiads in the\nfollowing accentual and rhyme-harnessed twelve-syllable verse:\n\n  \u201cAdvenit veritas, umbra praeteriit,\n   Post noctem claritas diei subiit,\n   Ad ortum rutilant superni luminis\n   Legis mysteria plena caliginis.\u201d\n\nBut the echo if audible is faint, and surely no antique whisper is heard\nin\n\n  \u201cEst in Rama\n   Vox audita\n   Rachel flentis\n   Super natos\n   Interfectos\n   Ejulantis.\u201d\n\nNor in\n\n  \u201cGolias prostratus est,\n   Resurrexit Dominus,\n   Ense jugulatus est\n       Hostis proprio;\n   Cum suis submersus est\n       Ille Pharao.\u201d\n\nThe variety of Abaelard\u2019s verse seems endless. One or two further examples\nmay or may not suggest any antecedents in those older forms of accentual\nverse which followed the former metres:\n\n  \u201cOrnarunt terram germina,\n   Nunc caelum luminaria.\n   Sole, luna, stellis depingitur,\n   Quorum multus usus cognoscitur.\u201d\n\nIn this verse the first two lines are accentual iambic dimeters; while the\nlast two begin each with two trochees, and close apparently with two\ndactyls. The last form of line is kept throughout in the following:\n\n  \u201cGaude virgo virginum gloria,\n   Matrum decus et mater, jubila,\n   Quae commune sanctorum omnium\n   Meruisti conferre gaudium.\u201d\n\nNext come some simple five-syllable lines, with a catching rhyme:\n\n  \u201cLignum amaras\n   Indulcat aquas\n   Eis immissum.\n   Omnes agones\n   Sunt sanctis dulces\n   Per crucifixum.\u201d\n\nIn the following lines of ten syllables a dactyl appears to follow a\ntrochee twice in each line:\n\n  \u201cTuba Domini, Paule, maxima,\n   De caelestibus dans tonitrua,\n   Hostes dissipans, cives aggrega.\n\n   Doctor gentium es praecipuus,\n   Vas in poculum factus omnibus,\n   Sapientiae plenum haustibus.\u201d\n\nThese examples of Abaelard\u2019s rhythms may close with the following\ncuriously complicated verse:\n\n  \u201cTu quae carnem edomet\n       Abstinentiam,\n   Tu quae carnem decoret\n       Continentiam,\n   Tu velle quod bonum est his ingeris\n   Ac ipsum perficere tu tribuis.\n       Instrumenta\n       Sunt his tua\n   Per quos mira peragis,\n       Et humana\n       Moves corda\n   Signis et prodigiis.\u201d\n\nIn general, one observes in these verses that Abaelard does not use a pure\ntwo-syllable rhyme. The rhyme is always pure in the last syllable, and in\nthe penult may either exist as a pure rhyme or simply as an assonance, or\nnot at all.[318]\n\nProbably Abaelard wrote his hymns in 1130, perhaps the very year when Adam\nas a youth entered the convent of St. Victor, lying across the Seine from\nParis. The latter appears to have lived until 1192. Many Sequences have\nbeen improperly ascribed to him, and among the doubtful ones are a number\nhaving affinities with the older types. These may be anterior to Adam; for\nthe greater part of his unquestionable Sequences are perfected throughout\nin their versification. Yet, on the other hand, one would expect some\nprogression in works composed in the course of a long life devoted to\nsuch composition--a life covering a period when progressive changes were\ntaking place in the world of thought beyond St. Victor\u2019s walls. We take\nthree examples of these Sequences. The first contains occasional assonance\nin place of rhyme, and uses many rhymes of one syllable. It appears to be\nan older composition improperly ascribed to Adam. The second is\nunquestionably his, in his most perfect form; the third may or may not be\nAdam\u2019s; but is given for its own sake as a lovely lyric.[319]\n\nThe first example, probably written not much later than the year 1100, was\ndesigned for the Mass at the dedication of a church. The variety in the\nsuccession of couplets and strophes indicates a corresponding variation in\nthe melody.\n\n  1\n\n  \u201cClara chorus dulce pangat voce nunc alleluia,\n   Ad aeterni regis laudem qui gubernat omnia!\n\n  2\n\n   Cui nos universalis sociat Ecclesia,\n   Scala nitens et pertingens ad poli fastigia;\n\n  3\n\n   Ad honorem cujus laeta psallamus melodia,\n   Persolventes hodiernas laudes illi debitas.\n\n  4\n\n       O felix aula, quam vicissim\n   Confrequentant agmina coelica,\n       Divinis verbis alternatim\n   Jungentia mellea cantica!\n\n  5\n\n   Domus haec, de qua vetusta sonuit historia\n   Et moderna protestatur Christum fari pagina:\n   \u2018Quoniam elegi eam thronum sine macula,\n   \u2018Requies haec erit mea per aeterna saecula.\n\n  6\n\n       Turris supra montem sita,\n   Indissolubili bitumine fundata\n       Vallo perenni munita,\n       Atque aurea columna\n       Miris ac variis lapidibus distincta,\n       Stylo subtili polita!\n\n  7\n\n   Ave, mater praeelecta,\n   Ad quam Christus fatur ita\n       Prophetae facundia:\n       \u2018Sponsa mea speciosa,\n       \u2018Inter filias formosa,\n       \u2018Supra solem splendida!\n\n  8\n\n       \u2018Caput tuum ut Carmelus\n   \u2018Et ipsius comae tinctae regis uti purpura;\n       \u2018Oculi ut columbarum,\n   \u2018Genae tuae punicorum ceu malorum fragmina!\n\n  9\n\n   \u2018Mel et lac sub lingua tua, favus stillans labia;\n   \u2018Collum tuum ut columna, turris et eburnea!\u2019\n\n  10\n\n       Ergo nobis Sponsae tuae\n   Famulantibus, o Christe, pietate solita\n       Clemens adesse dignare\n   Et in tuo salutari nos ubique visita.\n\n  11\n\n   Ipsaque mediatrice, summe rex, perpetue,\n       Voce pura\n   Flagitamus, da gaudere Paradisi gloria.\n       Alleluia!\u201d[320]\n\nThe second example is Adam\u2019s famous Sequence for St. Stephen\u2019s Day, which\nfalls on the day after Christmas. It is throughout sustained and perfect\nin versification, and in substance a splendid hymn of praise.\n\n  1\n\n  \u201cHeri mundus exultavit\n   Et exultans celebravit\n       Christi natalitia;\n   Heri chorus angelorum\n   Prosecutus est coelorum\n       Regem cum laetitia.\n\n  2\n\n   Protomartyr et levita,\n   Clarus fide, clarus vita,\n       Clarus et miraculis,\n   Sub hac luce triumphavit\n   Et triumphans insultavit\n       Stephanus incredulis.\n\n  3\n\n   Fremunt ergo tanquam ferae\n   Quia victi defecere\n       Lucis adversarii:\n       Falsos testes statuunt,\n       Et linguas exacuunt\n       Viperarum filii.\n\n  4\n\n   Agonista, nulli cede,\n   Certa certus de mercede,\n       Persevera, Stephane;\n       Insta falsis testibus,\n       Confuta sermonibus\n       Synagogam Satanae.\n\n  5\n\n   Testis tuus est in coelis,\n   Testis verax et fidelis,\n       Testis innocentiae.\n   Nomen habes coronati:\n   Te tormenta decet pati\n       Pro corona gloriae.\n\n  6\n\n   Pro corona non marcenti\n   Perfer brevis vim tormenti;\n       Te manet victoria.\n   Tibi fiet mors natalis,\n   Tibi poena terminalis\n       Dat vitae primordia.\n\n  7\n\n   Plenus Sancto Spiritu,\n   Penetrat intuitu\n   Stephanus coelestia.\n   Videns Dei gloriam,\n   Crescit ad victoriam,\n   Suspirat ad praemia.\n\n  8\n\n   En a dextris Dei stantem,\n   Jesum pro te dimicantem,\n       Stephane, considera:\n   Tibi coelos reserari,\n   Tibi Christum revelari,\n       Clama voce libera.\n\n  9\n\n   Se commendat Salvatori,\n   Pro quo dulce ducit mori\n       Sub ipsis lapidibus.\n       Saulus servat omnium\n       Vestes lapidantium,\n       Lapidans in omnibus.\n\n  10\n\n   Ne peccatum statuatur\n   His a quibus lapidatur,\n   Genu ponit, et precatur,\n       Condolens insaniae.\n   In Christo sic obdormivit,\n   Qui Christo sic obedivit,\n   Et cum Christo semper vivit,\n       Martyrum primitiae.\u201d\n\n    *       *       *       *[321]\n\n\nThe last example, in honour of St. Nicholas\u2019s Day, is a lovely poem by\nwhomsoever written. Its verses are extremely diversified. It begins with\nsomewhat formal chanting of the saint\u2019s virtues, in dignified couplets.\nSuddenly it changes to a joyful lyric, and sings of a certain sweet\nsea-miracle wrought by Nicholas. Then it spiritualizes the conception of\nhis saintly aid to meet the call of the sin-tossed soul. It closes in\nstately manner in harmony with its liturgical function.\n\n  1\n\n  \u201cCongaudentes exultemus vocali concordia\n   Ad beati Nicolai festiva solemnia!\n\n  2\n\n   Qui in cunis adhuc jacens servando jejunia\n   A papilla coepit summa promereri gaudia.\n\n  3\n\n   Adolescens amplexatur litterarum studia,\n   Alienus et immunis ab omni lascivia.\n\n  4\n\n   Felix confessor, cujus fuit dignitatis vox de coelo nuntia!\n   Per quam provectus, praesulatus sublimatur ad summa fastigia.\n\n  5\n\n   Erat in ejus animo pietas eximia,\n   Et oppressis impendebat multa beneficia.\n\n  6\n\n   Auro per eum virginum tollitur infamia,\n   Atque patris earumdem levatur inopia.\n\n  7\n\n       Quidam nautae navigantes,\n   Et contra fluctuum saevitiam luctantes,\n       Navi pene dissoluta,\n       Jam de vita desperantes,\n   In tanto positi periculo, clamantes\n       Voce dicunt omnes una:\n\n  8\n\n   \u2018O beate Nicolae,\n   Nos ad maris portum trahe\n       De mortis angustia.\n   Trahe nos ad portum maris,\n   Tu qui tot auxiliaris,\n       Pietatis gratia.\u2019\n\n  9\n\n   Dum clamarent, nec incassum,\n   \u2018Ecce\u2019 quidam dicens, \u2018assum\n     Ad vestra praesidia.\u2019\n   Statim aura datur grata\n   Et tempestas fit sedata:\n     Quieverunt maria.\n\n  10\n\n   Nos, qui sumus in hoc mundo,\n   Vitiorum in profundo\n     Jam passi naufragia,\n   Gloriose Nicolae\n   Ad salutis portum trahe,\n     Ubi pax et gloria.\n\n  11\n\n   Illam nobis unctionem\n     Impetres ad Dominum,\n     Prece pia,\n   Qua sanavit laesionem\n     Multorum peccaminum\n       In Maria.\n\n  12\n\n   Hujus festum celebrantes gaudeant per saecula,\n   Et coronet eos Christus post vitae curricula!\u201d[322]\n\nThe foregoing examples of religious poetry may be supplemented by\nillustrations of the parallel evolution of more profane if not more\npopular verse. Any priority in time, as between the two, should lie with\nthe former; though it may be the truer view to find a general synchronism\nin the secular and religious phases of lyric growth. But priority of\noriginality and creativeness certainly belongs to that line of lyric\nevolution which sprang from religious sentiments and emotions. For the\nvagrant clerkly poet of the Court, the roadside, and the inn, used the\nforms of verse fashioned by the religious muse in the cloister and the\nschool. Thus the development of secular Latin verse presents a derivative\nparallel to the essentially primary evolution of the Sequence or the hymn.\n\nIt was in Germany that the composition of Sequences was most zealously\ncultivated during the century following Notker\u2019s death; and it was in\nGermany that the Sequence, in its earlier forms, exerted most palpable\ninfluence upon popular songs.[323] In these so-called Modi (_Modus_ ==\nsong), as in the Sequence, rhythmical compositions may be seen progressing\nin the direction of regular rhythm, rhyme, and strophic form. As in the\nSequences, the tune moulded the words, which in turn influenced the\nmelody. The following is from the _Modus Ottinc_, a popular song composed\nabout the year 1000 in honour of a victory of Otto III. over the\nHungarians:\n\n  \u201cHis incensi bella fremunt, arma poscunt, hostes vocant, signa secuntur,\n        tubis canunt.\n   Clamor passim oritur et milibus centum Theutones inmiscentur.\n\n   Pauci cedunt, plures cadunt, Francus instat, Parthus fugit; vulgus\n        exangue undis obstat;\n   Licus rubens sanguine Danubio cladem Parthicam ostendebat.\u201d\n\nAnother example is the _Modus florum_ of approximately the same period, a\nsong about a king who promised his daughter to whoever could tell such a\nlie as to force the king to call him a liar. It opens as follows:\n\n  \u201cMendosam quam cantilenam ago,\n   puerulis commendatam dabo,\n   quo modulos per mendaces risum\n   auditoribus ingentem ferant.\n\n   Liberalis et decora\n   cuidam regi erat nata\n   quam sub lege hujusmodi\n   procis opponit quaerendam.\u201d\n\n    *       *       *       *[324]\n\n\nHere the rhyme still is rude and the rhythm irregular. The following\ndirge, written thirty or forty years later on the death of the German\nemperor, Henry II., shows improvement:\n\n      \u201cLamentemur nostra, Socii, peccata,\n  amentemur et ploremus! Quare tacemus?\n      Pro iniquitate corruimus late;\n  scimus coeli hinc offensum regem immensum.\n  Heinrico requiem, rex Christe, dona perennem.\u201d[325]\n\nWe may pass on into the twelfth century, still following the traces of\nthat development of popular verse which paralleled the evolution of the\nSequence. We first note some catchy rhymes of a German student setting\nout for Paris in quest of learning and intellectual novelty:\n\n    \u201cHospita in Gallia nunc me vocant studia.\n  Vadam ergo; flens a tergo socios relinquo.\n  Plangite discipuli, lugubris discidii tempore propinquo.\n        Vale, dulcis patria, suavis Suevorum Suevia!\n    Salve dilecta Francia, philosophorum curia!\n    Suscipe discipulum in te peregrinum,\n    Quem post dierum circulum remittes Socratinum.\u201d[326]\n\nThis Suabian, singing his uncouth Latin rhymes, and footing his way to\nParis, suggests the common, delocalized influences which were developing a\nmass of student-songs, \u201cCarmina Burana,\u201d or \u201cGoliardic\u201d poetry. The\nauthors belonged to that large and broad class of _clerks_ made up of any\nand all persons who knew Latin. The songs circulated through western\nEurope, and their home was everywhere, if not their origin. Some of them\nbetray, as more of them do not, the author\u2019s land and race. Frequently of\ndiabolic cleverness, gibing, amorous, convivial, they show the virtuosity\nin rhyme of their many makers. Like the hymns and later Sequences, they\nemployed of necessity those accentual measures which once had their\nquantitative prototypes in antique metres. But, again like the hymns and\nSequences, they neither imitate nor borrow, but make use of trochaic,\niambic, or other rhythms as the natural and unavoidable material of verse.\nTheir strophes are new strophes, and not imitations of anything in\nquantitative poetry. So these songs were free-born, and their development\nwas as independent of antique influence as the melodies which ever moulded\nthem to more perfect music. Many and divers were their measures. But as\nthat great strophe of Adam\u2019s _Heri mundus exultavit_ (the strophe of the\n_Stabat Mater_) was of mightiest dominance among the hymns, so for these\nstudent-songs there was also one measure that was chief. This was the\nthirteen-syllable trochaic line, with its lilting change of stress after\nthe seventh syllable, and its pure two-syllable rhyme. It is the line of\nthe _Confessio poetae_, or _Confessio Goliae_, where nests that one\nmediaeval Latin verse which everybody still knows by heart:\n\n  \u201cMeum est propositum in taberna mori,\n   Vinum sit appositum morientis ori,\n   Tunc cantabunt laetius angelorum chori,\n   \u2018Sit Deus propitius huic potatori.\u2019\u201d\n\nIt is also the line of the quite charming Phyllis and Flora of the\n_Carmina Burana_:\n\n  \u201cErant ambae virgines et ambae reginae,\n   Phyllis coma libera, Flora compto crine:\n   Non sunt formae virginum, sed formae divinae,\n   Et respondent facie luci matutinae.\u201d[327]\n\nAnother common measure is the twelve-syllable dactylic line of the famous\n_Apocalypsis Goliae Episcopi_:\n\n  \u201cIpsam Pythagorae formam aspicio,\n   Inscriptam artium schemate vario.\n   An extra corpus sit haec revelatio,\n   Utrum in corpore, Deus scit, nescio.\n   In fronte micuit ars astrologica;\n   Dentium seriem regit grammatica;\n   In lingua pulcrius vernat rhetorica,\n   Concussis aestuat in labiis logica.\u201d\n\nAn example of the not infrequent eight-syllable line is afforded by that\ntremendous satire against papal Rome, beginning:\n\n  \u201cPropter Sion non tacebo,\n   Sed ruinam Romae flebo,\n   Quousque justitia\n   Rursus nobis oriatur,\n   Et ut lampas accendatur\n   Justus in ecclesia.\u201d\n\nHere the last line of the verse has but seven syllables, as is the case in\nthe following verse of four lines:\n\n  \u201cVinum bonum et suave,\n   Bonis bonum, pravis prave,\n   Cunctis dulcis sapor, ave,\n             Mundana laetitia!\u201d\n\nBut the eight-syllable lines may be kept throughout, as in the following\nlament over life\u2019s lovely, pernicious charm, so touching in its expression\nof the mortal heartbreak of mediaeval monasticism:\n\n  \u201cHeu! Heu! mundi vita,\n   Quare me delectas ita?\n   Cum non possis mecum stare,\n   Quid me cogis te amare?\n\n    *       *       *       *\n\n   Vita mundi, res morbosa,\n   Magis fragilis quam rosa,\n   Cum sis tota lacrymosa,\n   Cur es mihi graciosa?\u201d[328]\n\n\nIV\n\nOur consideration of the different styles of mediaeval Latin prose and the\nmany novel forms of mediaeval Latin verse has shown how radical was the\ndeparture of the one and the other from Cicero and Virgil. Through such\nchanges Latin continued to prove itself a living language. Yet its\nvitality was doomed to wane before the rivalry of the vernacular tongues.\nThe _vivida vis_, the capability of growth, had well-nigh passed from\nLatin when Petrarch was born. In endeavouring to maintain its supremacy as\na literary vehicle he was to hold a losing brief, nor did he strengthen\nhis cause by attempting to resuscitate a classic style of prose and metre.\nThe victory of the vernacular was announced in Dante\u2019s _De vulgari\neloquentia_ and demonstrated beyond dispute in his _Divina Commedia_.\n\nA long and for the most part peaceful and unconscious conflict had led up\nto the victory of what might have been deemed the baser side. For Latin\nwas the sole mediaeval literature that was born in the purple, with its\nstately lineage of the patristic and the classical back of it. Latin was\nthe language of the Roman world and the vehicle of Latin Christianity. It\nwas the language of the Church and its clergy, and the language of all\neducated people. Naturally the entire contents of existing and\nprogressive Christian and antique culture were contained in the mediaeval\nLatin literature, the literature of religion and of law and government, of\neducation and of all serious knowledge. It was to be the primary\nliterature of mediaeval thought; from which passed over the chief part of\nwhatever thought and knowledge the vernacular literatures were to receive.\nFor scholars who follow, as we have tried to, the intellectual and the\ndeeper emotional life of the Middle Ages, the Latin literature yields the\nincomparably greater part of the material of our study. It has been our\nhome country, from which we have made casual excursions into the\nvernacular literatures.\n\nThese existed, however, from the earliest mediaeval periods, beginning, if\none may say so, in oral rather than written documents. We read that\nCharlemagne caused a book to be made of Germanic poems, which till then\npresumably had been carried in men\u2019s memories. The _Hildebrandslied_ is\nsupposed to have been one of them.[329] In the Norse lands, the Eddas and\nthe matter of the Sagas were repeated from generation to generation, long\nbefore they were written down. The habit, if not the art, of writing came\nwith Christianity and the Latin education accompanying it. Gradually a\nwritten literature in the Teutonic languages was accumulated. Of this\nthere was the heathen side, well represented in Anglo-Saxon and the Norse;\nwhile in Old High German the _Hildebrandslied_ remains, heathen and\nsavage. Thereafter, a popular and even national or rather racial poetry\ncontinued, developed, and grew large, notwithstanding the spread of Latin\nChristianity through Teutonic lands. Of this the _Niebelungenlied_ and the\n_Gudrun_ are great examples. But individual still famous poets, who felt\nand thought as Germans, were also composing sturdily in their\nvernacular--a lack of education possibly causing them to dictate\n(_dictieren_, _dichten_) rather than to write. Of these the greatest were\nWolfram von Eschenbach and Walther von der Vogelweide. With them and after\nthem, or following upon the _Niebelungenlied_, came a mass of secular\npoetry, some of which was popular and national, reflecting Germanic\nstory, while some of it was courtly, transcribing the courtly poetry which\nby the twelfth century flourished in Old French.\n\nThus bourgeoned the secular branches of German literature. On the other\nhand, from the time of Christianity\u2019s introduction, the Germans felt the\nneed to have the new religion presented to them in their own tongues. The\nlabour of translation begins with Ulfilas, and is continued with\nconscientious renderings of Scripture and Latin educational treatises, and\nalso with such epic paraphrase as the _Heliand_ and the more elegiac poems\nof the Anglo-Saxon Cynewulf.[330] Also, at least in Germany, there comes\ninto existence a full religious literature, not stoled or mitred, but\npopular, non-academic, and non-liturgical; of which quantities remain in\nthe Middle High German of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.[331]\n\nObviously the Romance vernacular literatures had a different commencement.\nThe languages were Latin, simply Latin, in their inception, and never\nceased to be legitimate continuations and developments of the popular or\nVulgar Latin of the Roman Empire. But as the speech of children, women,\nand unlettered people, they were not thought of as literary media. All who\ncould write understood perfectly the better Latin from which these popular\ndialects were slowly differentiating themselves. And as they progressed to\nlanguages, still their life and progress lay among peoples whose ancestral\ntongue was the proper Latin, which all educated men and women still\nunderstood and used in the serious business of life.\n\nBut sooner or later men will talk and sing and think and compose in the\nspeech which is closest to them. The Romance tongues became literary\nthrough this human need of natural expression. There always had been songs\nin the old Vulgar Latin; and such did not cease as it gradually became\nwhat one may call Romance. Moreover, the clergy might be impelled to use\nthe popular speech in preaching to the laity, or some unlearned person\nmight compose religious verses. Almost the oldest monument of Old French\nis the hymn in honour of Ste. Eulalie. Then as civilization advanced from\nthe tenth to the twelfth century, in southern and northern France for\nexample, and the _langue d\u2019oc_ and the _langue d\u2019oil_ became independent\nand developed languages, unlearned men, or men with unlearned audiences,\nwould unavoidably set themselves to composing poetry in these tongues. In\nthe North the _chansons de geste_ came into existence; in the South the\nknightly Troubadours made love-lyrics. Somehow, these poems were written\ndown, and there was literature for men\u2019s eyes as well as for men\u2019s ears.\n\nIn the twelfth century and the thirteenth, the audiences for Romance\npoetry, especially through the regions of southern and northern France,\nincreased and became diversified. They were made up of all classes, save\nthe brute serf, and of both sexes. The _chansons de geste_ met the taste\nof the feudal barons; the Arthurian Cycle charmed the feudal dames; the\ncoarse _fabliaux_ pleased the bourgeoisie; and _chansons_ of all kinds\nmight be found diverting by various people. If the religious side was less\nstrongly represented, it was because the closeness of the language to the\nclerkly and liturgical Latin left no such need of translations as was felt\nfrom the beginning among peoples of Germanic speech. Still the Gospels,\nespecially the apocryphal, were put into Old French, and _miracles de\nNotre Dame_ without number; also legends of the saints, and devout tales\nof many kinds.\n\nThe accentual verses of the Romance tongues had their source in the\npopular accentual Latin verse of the later Roman period. Their development\nwas not unrelated to the Latin accentual verse which was superseding\nmetrical composition in the centuries extending, one may say, from the\nfifth to the eleventh. Divergences between the Latin and Romance verse\nwould be caused by the linguistic evolution through which the Romance\ntongues were becoming independent languages. Nor was this divergence\nuninfluenced by the fact that Romance poetry was popular and usually\nconcerned with topics of this life, while Latin poetry in the most\nstriking lines of its evolution was liturgical; and even when secular in\ntopic tended to become learned, since it was the product of the\nacademically educated classes. Much of the vernacular (Romance as well as\nGermanic) poetry in the Middle Ages was composed by unlearned men who had\nat most but a speaking acquaintance with Latin, and knew little of the\nantique literature. This was true, generally, of the Troubadours of\nProvence, of the authors of the Old French _chansons de geste_, and of\nsuch a courtly poet as Chr\u00e9tien de Troies; true likewise of the great\nGerman Minnesingers, epic poets rather, Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram\nvon Eschenbach, and Walther von der Vogelweide.\n\nOn the other hand, vernacular poetry might be written by highly learned\nmen, of whom the towering though late example would be Dante Alighieri. An\ninstance somewhat nearer to us at present is Jean Clopinel or de Meun, the\nauthor of the second part of the _Roman de la rose_. His extraordinary\nVoltairean production embodies all the learning of the time; and its\nscholar-author was a man of genius, who incorporated his learning and the\nfruit thereof very organically in his poem.\n\nBut here, at the close of our consideration of the mediaeval appreciation\nof the Classics, and the relations between the Classics and mediaeval\nLatin literature, we are not occupied with the very loose and general\nquestion of the amount of classical learning to be found in the vernacular\nliteratures of western Europe. That was a casual matter depending on the\neducation and learning, or lack thereof, of the author of the given piece.\nBut it may be profitable to glance at the passing over of antique themes\nof story into mediaeval vernacular literature, and the manner of their\nrefashioning. This is a huge subject, but we shall not go into it deeply,\nor pursue the various antique themes through their endless propagations.\n\nAntique stories aroused and pointed the mediaeval imagination; they made\npart of the never-absent antique influence which helped to bring the\nmediaeval peoples on and evoke in them an articulate power to fashion and\ncreate all kinds of mediaeval things. But with antique story as with other\nantique material, the Middle Ages had to turn it over and absorb it, and\nalso had to become themselves with power, before they could refashion the\nantique theme or create along its lines. All this had taken place by the\nmiddle of the twelfth century. As to choice of matter, twelfth-century\nrefashioners would either select an antique theme suited to their\nhandling, or extract what appealed to them from some classic story. In the\none case as in the other they might recast, enlarge, or invent as their\nfaculties permitted.\n\nMediaeval taste took naturally to the degenerate productions of the late\nantique or transition centuries. The Greek novels seem to have been\nunknown, except the _Apollonius of Tyre_.[332] But the congenially\npreposterous story of Alexander by the Pseudo-Callisthenes was available\nin a sixth-century Latin version, and was made much of. Equally popular\nwas the debasement and intentional distortion of the Tale of Troy in the\nwork of \u201cDares\u201d and \u201cDictys\u201d; other tales were aptly presented in Ovid\u2019s\n_Metamorphoses_; and the stories of Hero and Leander, of Pyramus and\nThisbe, of Narcissus, Orpheus, Cadmus, Daedalus, were widely known and\noften told in the Middle Ages.\n\nThe mediaeval writers made as if they believed these tales. At least they\naccepted them as they would have their own audiences accept their\nrecasting, with little reflection as to whether truth or fable. But was\nthe work of the refashioners conscious fiction? Scarcely, when it simply\nrecast the old story in mediaevalizing paraphrase; but when the poet went\non and wove out of ten lines a thousand, he must have known himself\ndevising.\n\nThe mediaeval treatment of classic themes of history and epic poetry shows\nhow the Middle Ages refashioned and reinspired after their own image\nwhatever they took from the antique. If it was partly their fault, it was\nalso their unavoidable misfortune that they received these great themes in\nthe literary distortions of the transition centuries. Doubtless they\npreferred encyclopaedic dulness to epic unity; they loved fantasy rather\nthan history, and of course delighted in the preposterous, as they found\nit in the Latin version of the _Life and Deeds of Alexander_. As for the\nTale of Troy, the real Homer never reached them: and perhaps mediaeval\npeoples who were pleased, like Virgil\u2019s Romans, to draw their origins from\nTrojan heroes, would have rejected Homer\u2019s story just as \u201cDares\u201d and\n\u201cDictys,\u201d whoever they were, did.[333] The true mediaeval _rifacimenti_,\nto wit, the retellings of these tales in the vernacular, mirror the\nmediaeval mind, the mediaeval character, and the whole panorama of\nmediaeval life and fantasy.\n\nThe chief epic themes drawn from the antique were the Tales of Troy and\nThebes and the story of Aeneas. In verse and prose they were retold in the\nvernacular literatures and also in mediaeval Latin.[334] We shall,\nhowever, limit our view to the primary Old French versions, which formed\nthe basis of compositions in German, Italian, English, as well as French.\nThey were composed between 1150 and 1170 by Norman-French _trouv\u00e8res_. The\nnames of the authors of the _Roman de Thebes_ and the _Eneas_ are unknown;\nthe _Roman de Troie_ was written by Benoit de St. More.\n\nThese poems present a universal substitution of mediaeval manners and\nsentiment. For instance, one observes that the epic participation of the\npagan gods is minimized, and in the _Roman de Troie_ even discarded;\nnecromancy, on the other hand, abounds. A more interesting change is the\ntransformation of the love episode. That had become an epic adjunct in\nAlexandrian Greek literature as early as the third century before Christ.\nIt existed in the antique sources of all these mediaeval poems.\nNevertheless the romantic narratives of courtly love in the latter are\nmediaeval creations.\n\nThe _Eneas_ relates the love of Lavinia for the hero, most correctly\nreciprocated by him. The account of it fills fourteen hundred lines, and\nhas no precedent in Virgil\u2019s poem, which in other respects is followed\nclosely. Lavinia sees Aeneas from her tower, and at once understands a\nprevious discourse of her mother on the subject of love. She utters love\u2019s\nplaints, and then faints because Aeneas does not seem to notice her. After\nwhich she passes a sleepless night. The next morning she tells her mother,\nwho is furious, since she favours Turnus as a suitor. The girl falls\nsenseless, but coming to herself when alone, she recalls love\u2019s\nstratagems, and attaches a letter to an arrow which is shot so as to fall\nat Aeneas\u2019s feet. Aeneas reads the letter, and turns and salutes the fair\none furtively, that his followers may not see. Then he enters his tent and\nfalls so sick with love that he takes to his bed. The next day Lavinia\nwatches for him, and thinks him false, till at last, pale and feeble, he\nappears, and her heart acquits him; amorous glances now fly back and forth\nbetween them.[335]\n\nTo have this jaded jilt grow sick with love is a little too much for us,\nand Aeneas is absurd; but the universal human touches us quite otherwise\nin the sweet changing heart of Briseida in the _Roman de Troie_. There is\nno ground for denying to Benoit of St. More his meed of fame for creating\nthis charming person and starting her upon her career. Following \u201cDares,\u201d\nBenoit calls her Briseida; but she becomes the Griseis of Boccaccio\u2019s\n_Filostrato_; and what good man does not sigh and love her under the name\nof Cressid in Chaucer\u2019s poem, though he may deplore her somewhat brazen\nheartlessness in Shakespeare\u2019s play.\n\nIt is not given to all men, or women, in presence or absence, in life and\ndeath, to love once and forever. One has the stable heart, another\u2019s\nfancy is quickly turned. Sometimes, of course, our moral sledge-hammers\nshould be brought to bear; but a little hopeless smile may be juster, as\nwe sigh \u201cshe (it is more often \u201che\u201d) couldn\u2019t help it.\u201d Such was Briseida,\nthe sweet, loving, helpless--coquette? jilt? flirt? these words are all\ntoo belittling to tell her truly. Benoit knew better. He took her\ndry-as-dust characterization from \u201cDares\u201d; he gave it life, and then let\nhis fair creature do just the things she might, without ceasing to be she.\n\nThe abject \u201cDares\u201d (Benoit may have had a better story under that name) in\nhis catalogue of characters has this: \u201cBriseidam formosam, alta statura,\ncandidam, capillo flavo et molli, superciliis junctis, oculis venustis,\ncorpore aequali, blandam, affabilem, verecundam, animo simplici [O ye\ngods!], piam.\u201d He makes no other mention of this tall, graceful girl, with\nher lovely eyes and eyebrows meeting above, her modest, pleasant mien, and\nsimple soul; for simple she was, and therein lies the direst bit of truth\nabout her. For it is simple and uncomplex to take the colour of new scenes\nand faces, and of new proffered love when the old is far away.\n\nNow see what Benoit does with this dust: Briseida is the daughter of\nCalchas, a Trojan seer who had passed over to the Greeks, warned by\nApollo. He is in the Grecian host, but his daughter is in Troy. Benoit\nsays, she was engaging, lovelier and fairer than the _fleur de\nlis_--though her eyebrows grew rather too close together. \u201cBeaux yeux\u201d she\nhad, \u201cde grande mani\u00e8re,\u201d and charming was her talk, and faultless her\nbreeding as her dress. Much was she loved and much she loved, although her\nheart changed; and she was very loving, simple, and kind:\n\n  \u201cMolt fu am\u00e9e et molt ameit,\n   Mes sis corages li changeit;\n   Et si esteit molt amorose,\n   Simple et almosniere et pitose.\u201d[336]\n\nCalchas wants his daughter, and Priam decides to send her. There is truce\nbetween the armies. Troilus, Troy\u2019s glorious young knight, matchless in\nbeauty, in arms second only to his brother Hector, is beside himself. He\nloves Briseida, and she him. What tears and protestations, and what vows!\nBut the girl must go to her father.\n\nOn the morrow the young dame has other cares--to see to the packing of her\nlovely dresses and put on the loveliest of them; over all she threw a\nmantle inwoven with the flowers of Paradise. The Trojan ladies add their\ntears to the damsel\u2019s; for she is ready to die of grief at leaving her\nlover. Benoit assures us that she will not weep long; it is not woman\u2019s\nway, he continues somewhat mediaevally.\n\nThe brilliant cort\u00e8ge is met by one still more distinguished from the\nGrecian host. Troilus must turn back, and the lady passes to the escort of\nDiomede. She was young; he was impetuous; he looks once, and then greets\nher with a torrential declaration of love. He never loved before!! He is\nhers, body and soul and high emprize. Briseida speaks him fair:\n\n    \u201cAt this time it would be wrong for me to say a word of love. You\n    would deem me light indeed! Why, I hardly know you! and girls so often\n    are deceived by men. What you have said cannot move a heart grieving,\n    like mine, to lose my--friend, and others whom I may never see again.\n    For one of my station to speak to you of love! I have no mind for\n    that. Yet you seem of such rank and prowess that no girl under heaven\n    ought to refuse you. It is only that I have no heart to give. If I\n    had, surely I could hold none dearer than you. But I have neither the\n    thought nor power, and may God never give it to me!\u201d[337]\n\nOne need not tell the flash of joy that then was Diomede\u2019s, nor the many\ntroubles that were to be his before at last Briseida finds that her heart\nhas indeed turned to this new lover, always at hand, courting danger for\nher sake, and at last wounded almost to death by Troilus\u2019s spear. The end\nof the story is assured in her first discreetly halting words.\n\nEnough has been said to show how far Benoit was from _Omers qui fu clers\nmerveillos_, and what a story in some thirty thousand lines he has made of\nthe dry data of \u201cDares\u201d and \u201cDictys.\u201d His Briseida, with her changing\nheart, was to rival steadier-minded but not more lovable women of\nmediaeval fiction--Iseult or Guinevere. And although the far-off echo of\nBriseid\u2019s name comes from the ancient centuries, none the less she is as\nentirely a mediaeval creation as Lancelot\u2019s or Tristram\u2019s queen. Thus the\nMiddle Ages took the antique narrative, and created for themselves within\nthe altered lines of the old tale.[338]\n\nThe transformation of themes of epic story in vernacular mediaeval\nversions is paralleled by mediaeval refashionings of historical subjects\nwhich had been fictionized before the antique period closed. A chief\nexample is the romance of Alexander the Great. The antique source was the\nconqueror\u2019s _Life and Deeds_, written by one who took the name of\nAlexander\u2019s physician, Callisthenes. The author was some Egyptian Greek of\nthe first century after Christ. His work is preposterous from the\nbeginning to the end, and presents a succession of impossible marvels\nperformed by the somewhat indistinguishable heroes of the story. Its\nqualities were reflected in the Latin versions, which in turn were drawn\nupon by the Old French rhyming romancers. The latter mediaevalized and\nfeudalized the tale. Nor were they halted by any absurdity, or conscious\nof the characterlessness of the puppets of the tale.[339]\n\nFurther to pursue the fortunes of antique themes in mediaeval literature\nwould lead us beyond bounds. Yet mention should be made of the handling of\nminor narratives, as the _Metamorphoses_ of Ovid. They were very popular,\nand from the twelfth century on, paraphrases or refashionings were made of\nmany of them. These added to the old tale the interesting mediaeval\nelement of the moral or didactic allegory. The most prodigious instance of\nthis moralizing of Ovid was the work of Chr\u00e9tien L\u00e9gouais, a French\nFranciscan who wrote at the beginning of the fourteenth century. In some\nseventy thousand lines he presented the stories of the _Metamorphoses_,\nthe allegories which he discovered in them, and the moral teaching of the\nsame.[340]\n\nEqually interesting was the application of allegory to Ovid\u2019s _Ars\namatoria_. The first translators treated this frivolous production as an\nauthoritative treatise upon the art of winning love. So it was perhaps,\nonly Ovid was amusing himself by making a parable of his youthful\ndiversions. Mediaeval imitators changed the habits of the gilded youth of\nRome to suit the society of their time. But they did more, being votaries\nof courtly love. Such love in the Middle Ages had its laws which were\nprone to deduce their lineage from Ovid\u2019s verses. But its uplifted spirit\nrevelled in symbolism; and tended to change to spiritual allegory whatever\nauthority it imagined itself based upon, even though the authority were a\nbook as dissolute, when seriously considered, as the _Ars amatoria_. It is\nstrange to think of this poem as the very far off street-walking prototype\nof De Lorris\u2019s _Roman de la rose_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII\n\nMEDIAEVAL APPROPRIATION OF THE ROMAN LAW\n\n      I. THE FONTES JURIS CIVILIS.\n\n     II. ROMAN AND BARBARIAN CODIFICATION.\n\n    III. THE MEDIAEVAL APPROPRIATION.\n\n     IV. CHURCH LAW.\n\n      V. POLITICAL THEORIZING.\n\n\nClassical studies, and the gradual development of mediaeval prose and\nverse, discussed in the preceding chapters, illustrate modes of mediaeval\nprogress. But of all examples of mediaeval intellectual growth through the\nappropriation of the antique, none is more completely illuminating than\nthe mediaeval use of Roman law. As with patristic theology and antique\nphilosophy, the Roman law was crudely taken and then painfully learned,\ntill in the end, vitally and broadly mastered, it became even a means and\nmode of mediaeval thinking. Its mediaeval appropriation illustrates the\nlegal capacity of the Middle Ages and their concern with law both as a\npractical business and an intellectual interest.\n\n\nI\n\nPrimitive law is practical; it develops through the adjustment of social\nexigencies. Gradually, however, in an intelligent community which is\nprogressing under favouring influences, some definite consciousness of\nlegal propriety, utility, or justice, makes itself articulate in\nstatements of general principles of legal right and in a steady endeavour\nto adjust legal relationships and adjudicate actual controversies in\naccordance. This endeavour to formulate just and useful principles, and\ndecide novel questions in accordance with them, and enunciate new rules in\nharmony with the body of the existing law, is jurisprudence, which thus\nworks always for concord, co-ordination, and system.\n\nThere was a jurisprudential element in the early law of Rome. The Twelve\nTables are trenchant announcements of rules of procedure and substantial\nlaw. They have the form of the general imperative: \u201cThus let it be; If one\nsummons [another] to court, let him go; As a man shall have appointed by\nhis Will, so let it be; When one makes a bond or purchase,[341] as the\ntongue shall have pronounced it, so let it be.\u201d These statements of legal\nrules are far from primitive; they are elastic, inclusive, and suited to\nform the foundation of a large and free legal development. And the\nconsistency with which the law of debt was carried out to its furthest\ncruel conclusion, the permitted division of the body of the defaulting\ndebtor among several creditors,[342] gave earnest of the logic which was\nto shape the Roman law in its humaner periods. Moreover, there is\njurisprudence in the arrangement of the Laws of the Twelve Tables.\nNevertheless the jurisprudential element is still but inchoate.\n\nThe Romans were endowed with a genius for law. Under the later Republic\nand the Empire, the minds of their jurists were trained and broadened by\nGreek philosophy and the study of the laws of Mediterranean peoples; Rome\nwas becoming the commercial as well as social and political centre of the\nworld. From this happy combination of causes resulted the most\ncomprehensive body of law and the noblest jurisprudence ever evolved by a\npeople. The great jurisconsults of the Empire, working upon the prior\nlabours of long lines of older praetors and jurists, perfected a body of\nlaw of well-nigh universal applicability, and throughout logically\nconsistent with general principles of law and equity, recognized as\nfundamental. These were in part suggested by Greek philosophy, especially\nby Stoicism as adapted to the Roman temperament. They represented the best\nethics, the best justice of the time. As principles of law, however, they\nwould have hung in the air, had not the practical as well as theorizing\ngenius of the jurisconsults been equal to the task of embodying them in\nlegal propositions, and applying the latter to the decision of cases. Thus\nwas evolved a body of practical rules of law, controlled, co-ordinated,\nand, as one may say, universalized through the constant logical employment\nof sound principles of legal justice.[343]\n\nThe Roman law, broadly taken, was heterogeneous in origin, and complex in\nits modes of growth. The great jurisconsults of the Empire recognized its\ndiversity of source, and distinguished its various characteristics\naccordingly. They assumed (and this was a pure assumption) that every\ncivilized people lived under two kinds of law, the one its own, springing\nfrom some recognized law-making source within the community; the other the\n_jus gentium_, or the law inculcated among all peoples by natural reason\nor common needs.\n\nThe supposed origin of the _jus gentium_ was not simple. Back in the time\nof the Republic it had become necessary to recognize a law for the many\nstrangers in Rome, who were not entitled to the protection of Rome\u2019s _jus\ncivile_. The edict of the praetor Peregrinus covered their substantial\nrights, and sanctioned simple modes of sale and lease which did not\nobserve the forms prescribed by the _jus civile_. So this edict became the\nchief source of the _jus gentium_ so-called, to wit, of those liberal\nrules of law which ignored the peculiar formalities of the stricter law of\nRome. Probably foreign laws, that is to say, the commercial customs of the\nMediterranean world, were in fact recognized; and their study led to a\nperception of elements common to the laws of many peoples. At all events,\nin course of time the _jus gentium_ came to be regarded as consisting of\nuniversal rules of law which all peoples might naturally follow.\n\nThe recognition of these simple modes of contracting obligations, and\nperhaps the knowledge that certain rules of law obtained among many\npeoples, fostered the conception of common or natural justice, which human\nreason was supposed to inculcate everywhere. Such a conception could not\nfail to spring up in the minds of Roman jurists who were educated in\nStoical philosophy, the ethics of which had much to say of a common human\nnature. Indeed the idea _naturalis ratio_ was in the air, and the thought\nof common elements of law and justice which _naturalis ratio inter omnes\nhomines constituit_, lay so close at hand that it were perhaps a mistake\nto try to trace it to any single source. Practically the _jus gentium_\nbecame identical with _jus naturale_, which Ulpian imagined as taught by\nnature to all animals; the _jus gentium_, however, belonged to men\nalone.[344]\n\nThus rules which were conceived as those of the _jus gentium_ came to\nrepresent the principles of rational law, and impressed themselves upon\nthe development of the _jus civile_. They informed the whole growth and\napplication of Roman law with a breadth of legal reason. And conceptions\nof a _jus naturale_ and a _jus gentium_ became cognate legal fictions, by\nthe aid of which praetor and jurisconsult might justify the validity of\ninformal modes of contract. In their application, judge and jurist learned\nhow and when to disregard the formal requirements of the older and\nstricter Roman law, and found a way to the recognition of what was just\nand convenient. These fictions agreed with the supposed nature and demands\nof _aequitas_, which is the principle of progressive and discriminating\nlegal justice. Law itself (_jus_) was identical with _aequitas_ conceived\n(after Celsus\u2019s famous phrase) as the _ars boni et aequi_.\n\nThe Roman law proper, the _jus civile_, had multifarious sources. First\nthe _leges_, enacted by the people; then the _plebiscita_, sanctioned by\nthe Plebs; the _senatus consulta_, passed by the Senate; the\n_constitutiones_ and _rescripta[345] principum_, ordained by the Emperor.\nExcepting the _rescripta_, these (to cover them with a modern expression)\nwere statutory. They were laws announced at a specific time to meet some\ndefinite exigency. Under the Empire, the _constitutiones principum_ became\nthe most important, and then practically the only kind of legal enactment.\n\nTwo or three other sources of Roman law remain for mention: first, the\n_edicta_ of those judicial magistrates, especially the praetors, who had\nthe authority to issue them. In his edict the praetor announced what he\nheld to be the law and how he would apply it. The edict of each successive\npraetor was a renewal and expansion or modification of that of his\npredecessor. Papinian calls this source of law the \u201c_jus praetorium_,\nwhich the praetors have introduced to aid, supplement, or correct the _jus\ncivile_ for the sake of public utility.\u201d\n\nNext, the _responsa_ or _auctoritas jurisprudentium_, by which were\nintended the judicial decisions and the authority of the legal writings of\nthe famous jurisconsults. Imperial rescripts recognized these _responsa_\nas authoritative for the Roman courts; and some of the emperors embodied\nportions of them in formally promulgated collections, thereby giving them\nthe force of law. Justinian\u2019s _Digest_ is the great example of this method\nof codification.[346] One need scarcely add that the authoritative\nwritings and _responsa_ of the jurisconsults extended and applied the _jus\ngentium_, that is to say, the rules and principles of the best-considered\njurisprudence, freed so far as might be from the formal peculiarities of\nthe _jus civile_ strictly speaking. And the same was true of the\npraetorian edict. The Roman law also gave legal effect to _inveterata\nconsuetudo_, the law which is sanctioned by custom: \u201cfor since the laws\nbind us because established by the decision of the people, those unwritten\ncustoms which the people have approved are binding.\u201d[347]\n\nSimply naming the sources of Roman law indicates the ways in which it\ngrew, and the part taken by the jurisconsults in its development as a\nuniversal and elastic system. It was due to their labours that legal\nprinciples were logically carried out through the mass of enactments and\ndecisions; that is, it was due to their large consideration of the body of\nexisting law, that each novel decision--each case of first\nimpression--should be a true legal deduction, and not a solecism; and that\neven the new enactments should not create discordant law. And it was due\nto their labours that as rules of law were called forth, they were stated\nclearly and in terms of well-nigh universal applicability.\n\nThe Laws of the Twelve Tables showed the action of legal intelligence and\nthe result of much experience. They sanctioned a large contractual\nfreedom, if within strict forms; they stated broadly the right of\ntestamentary disposition. Many of their provisions, which commonly were\nbut authoritative recognitions, were expressions of basic legal\nprinciples, the application of which might be extended to meet the needs\nof advancing civic life. And through the enlargement of this fundamental\ncollection of law, or deviating from it in accordance with principles\nwhich it implicitly embodied, the jurists of the Republic and the first\ncenturies of the Empire formed and developed a body of private and public\nlaw from which the jurisprudence of Europe and America has never even\nsought to free itself.\n\nRoman jurisprudence was finally incorporated in Justinian\u2019s _Digest_,\nwhich opens with a statement of the most general principles, even those\nwhich would have hung in the air but for the Roman genius of logical and\npractical application to the concrete instance. \u201cJus est ars boni et\naequi\u201d--it is better to leave these words untranslated, such is the wealth\nof significance and connotation which they have acquired. \u201cJustitia est\nconstans et perpetua voluntas jus suum cuique tribuendi. Juris praecepta\nsunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.\nJurisprudentia est divinarum atque humanarum rerum notitia, justi atque\ninjusti scientia.\u201d\n\nThe first pregnant phrase is from the older jurist Celsus; the longer\npassage is by the later Ulpian, and may be taken as an expansion of the\nfirst. Both the one and the other expressed the most advanced and\nphilosophic ethics of the ancient world. They are both in the first\nchapter of the _Digest_, wherein they become enactments. An extract from\nPaulus follows: \u201c_Jus_ has different meanings; that which is always\n_aequum ac bonum_ is called _jus_, to wit, the _jus naturale_: _jus_ also\nmeans the _jus civile_, that which is expedient (_utile_) for all or most\nin any state. And in our state we have also the praetorian _jus_.\u201d This\npassage indicates the course of the development of the Roman law: the\nfundamental and ceaselessly growing core of specifically Roman law, the\n_jus civile_; its continual equitable application and enlargement, which\nwas the praetor\u2019s contribution; and the constant application of the\n_aequum ac bonum_, observed perhaps in legal rules common to many peoples,\nbut more surely existing in the high reasoning of jurists instructed in\nthe best ethics and philosophy of the ancient world, and learned and\npractised in the law.\n\nNow notice some of the still general, but distinctly legal, rather than\nethical, rules collected in the _Digest_: The laws cannot provide\nspecifically for every case that may arise; but when their intent is\nplain, he who is adjudicating a cause should proceed _ad similia_, and\nthus declare the law in the case.[348] Here is stated the general and\nimportant formative principle, that new cases should be decided\nconsistently and _eleganter_, which means logically and in accordance with\nestablished rules. Yet legal solecisms will exist, perhaps in a statute or\nin some rule of law evoked by a special exigency. Their application is\nnot to be extended. For them the rule is: \u201cWhat has been accepted _contra\nrationem juris_, is not to be drawn out (_producendum_) to its\nconsequences,\u201d[349] or again: \u201cWhat was introduced not by principle, but\nat first through error, does not obtain in like cases.\u201d[350]\n\nThese are true principles making for the consistent development of a body\nof law. Observe the scope and penetration of some other general rules:\n\u201cNuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit.\u201d[351] This goes to the legal\nroot of the whole conception of matrimony, and is still the recognized\nstarting-point of all law upon that subject. Again: \u201cAn agreement to\nperform what is impossible will not sustain a suit.\u201d[352] This is still\neverywhere a fundamental principle of the law of contracts. Again: \u201cNo one\ncan transfer to another a greater right than he would have himself,\u201d[353]\nanother principle of fundamental validity, but, of course, like all rules\nof law subject in its application to the qualifying operation of other\nlegal rules.\n\nRoman jurisprudence recognized the danger of definition: \u201cOmnis definitio\nin jure civili periculosa est.\u201d[354] Yet it could formulate admirable\nones; for example: \u201cInheritance is succession to the sum total (_universum\njus_) of the rights of the deceased.\u201d[355] This definition excels in the\ncompleteness of its legal view of the matter, and is not injured by the\nobvious omission to exclude those personal privileges and rights of the\ndeceased which terminate upon his death.\n\nThus we note the sources and constructive principles of the Roman law. We\nobserve that while certain of the former might be called \u201cstatutory,\u201d the\nchief means and method of development was the declarative edict of the\npraetor and the trained labour of the jurisconsults. In these appears the\nconsummate genius of Roman jurisprudence, a jurisprudence matchless in its\nrational conception of principles of justice which were rooted in a\nphilosophic consideration of human life; matchless also in its carrying\nthrough of such principles into the body of the law and the decision of\nevery case.\n\n\nII\n\nThe Roman law was the creation of the genius of Rome and also the product\nof the complex civilization of which Rome was the kinetic centre. As the\nRoman power crumbled, Teutonic invaders established kingdoms within\nterritories formerly subject to Rome and to her law--a law, however, which\ncommonly had been modified to suit the peoples of the provinces. Those\nterritories retained their population of provincials. The invaders,\nBurgundians, Visigoths, and Franks, planting themselves in the different\nparts of Gaul, brought their own law, under which they continued to live,\nbut which they did not force upon the provincial population. On the\ncontrary, Burgundian and Visigothic kings promulgated codes of Roman law\nfor the latter. And these represent the forms in which the Roman law first\npassed over into modes of acceptance and application no longer fully\nRoman, but partly Teutonic and incipiently mediaeval. They exemplify,\nmoreover, the fact, so many aspects of which have been already noticed, of\ntransitional and partly barbarized communities drawing from a greater past\naccording to their simpler needs.\n\nOne may say that these codes carried on processes of decline from the full\ncreative genius of Roman jurisprudence, which had irrevocably set in under\nthe Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. The decline lay in a\nweakening of the intellectual power devoted to the law and its\ndevelopment. The living growth of the praetorian edict had long since come\nto an end; and now a waning jurisprudential intelligence first ceased to\nadvance the development of law, and then failed to save from desuetude the\nachieved jurisprudence of the past. So the jurisprudential and juridical\nelements (_jus_) fell away from the law, and the imperial constitutions\n(_leges_) remained the sole legal vehicle and means of amendment. The need\nof codification was felt, and that preserving and eliminating process was\nentered upon.\n\nRoman codification never became a reformulation. The Roman _Codex_ was a\ncollection of existing constitutions. A certain jurist (\u201cGregorianus\u201d)\nmade an orderly and comprehensive collection of such as early as the close\nof Diocletian\u2019s reign; it was supplemented by the work of another jurist\n(\u201cHermogenianus\u201d) in the time of Constantine. Each compilation was the\nwork of a private person, who, without authority to restate, could but\ncompile the imperial constitutions. The same method was adopted by the\nlater codifications, which were made and promulgated under imperial\ndecree. There were two which were to be of supreme importance for the\nlegal future of western Europe, the Theodosian Code and the legislation of\nJustinian. The former was promulgated in 438 by Theodosius II. and\nValentinianus. The emperors formally announce that \u201cin imitation (_ad\nsimilitudinem_) of the Code of Gregorianus and Hermogenianus we have\ndecreed that all the Constitutions should be collected\u201d which have been\npromulgated by Constantine and his successors, including ourselves.[356]\nSo the Theodosian Code contains many laws of the emperors who decreed\nit.[357] It was thus a compilation of imperial constitutions already in\nexistence, or decreed from year to year while the codification was in\nprocess (429-438). Every constitution is given in the words of its\noriginal announcement, and with the name of the emperor. Evidently this\ncode was not a revision of the law.\n\nThe codification of Justinian began with the promulgation of the _Codex_\nin 529. That was intended to be a compilation of the constitutions\ncontained in the previous codes and still in force, as well as those which\nhad been decreed since the time of Theodosius. The compilers received\nauthority to omit, abbreviate, and supplement. The _Codex_ was revised and\npromulgated anew in 534. The constitutions which were decreed during the\nremainder of Justinian\u2019s long reign were collected after his death and\npublished as _Novellae_. So far there was nothing radically novel. But,\nunder Justinian, life and art seemed to have revived in the East; and\nTribonian, with the others who assisted in these labours, had larger views\nof legal reform and jurisprudential conservation than the men who worked\nfor Theodosius. Justinian and his coadjutors had also serious plans for\nimproving the teaching of the law, in the furtherance of which the famous\nlittle book of _Institutes_ was composed after the model, and to some\nextent in the words, of the _Institutes_ of Gaius. It was published in\n533.\n\nThe great labour, however, which Justinian and his lawyers were as by\nProvidence inspired to achieve was the encyclopaedic codification of the\njurisprudential law. Part of the emperor\u2019s high-sounding command runs\nthus:\n\n    \u201cWe therefore command you to read and sift out from the books\n    pertaining to the _jus Romanum_ composed by the ancient learned\n    jurists (_antiqui prudentes_) to whom the most sacred emperors granted\n    authority to indite and interpret the laws, so that the material may\n    all be taken from these writers, and incongruity avoided--for others\n    have written books which have been neither used nor recognized. When\n    by the favour of the Deity this material shall have been collected, it\n    should be reared with toil most beautiful, and consecrated as the own\n    and most holy temple of justice, and the whole law (_totum jus_)\n    should be arranged in fifty books under specific titles.\u201d[358]\n\nThe language of the ancient jurists was to be preserved even critically,\nthat is to say, the compilers were directed to emend apparent errors and\nrestore what seemed \u201cverum et optimum et quasi ab initio scriptum.\u201d It was\nnot the least of the providential mercies connected with the compilation\nof this great body of jurisprudential law, that Justinian and his\ncommission did not abandon the phrasing of the old jurisconsults, and\nrestate their opinions in such language as we have a sample of in the\nconstitution from which the above extract is taken. This jurisprudential\npart of Justinian\u2019s Codification was named the _Digest_ or\n_Pandects_.[359]\n\nInasmuch as Justinian\u2019s brief reconquest of western portions of the Roman\nEmpire did not extend north of the Alps, his codification was not\npromulgated in Gaul or Germany. Even in Italy his legislation did not\nmaintain itself in general dominance, especially in the north where the\nLombard law narrowed its application. Moreover, throughout the peninsula,\nthe _Pandects_ quickly became as if they were not, and fell into\ndesuetude, if that can be said of a work which had not come into use. This\nbody of jurisprudential law was beyond the legal sense of those\nmonarchically-minded and barbarizing centuries, which knew law only as the\ncommand of a royal lawgiver. The _Codex_ and the _Novellae_ were of this\nnature. They, and not the _Digest_, represent the influence upon Italy of\nJustinian\u2019s legislation until the renewed interest in jurisprudence\nbrought the _Pandects_ to the front at the close of the eleventh century.\nBut _Codex_ and _Novellae_ were too bulky for a period that needed to have\nits intellectual labours made easy. From the first, the _Novellae_ were\nchiefly known and used in the condensed form given them in the excellent\n_Epitome of Julianus_, apparently a Byzantine of the last part of\nJustinian\u2019s reign.[360] The cutting down and epitomizing of the _Codex_ is\nmore obscure; probably it began at once; the incomplete or condensed forms\nwere those in common use.[361]\n\nIt is, however, with the Theodosian Code and certain survivals of the\nworks of the great jurists that we have immediately to do. For these were\nthe sources of the codes enacted by Gothic and Burgundian kings for their\nRoman or Gallo-Roman subjects. Apparently the earliest of them was\nprepared soon after the year 502, at the command of Gondebaud, King of the\nBurgundians. This, which later was dubbed the _Papianus_,[362] was the\nwork of a skilled Roman lawyer, and seems quite as much a text-book as a\ncode. It set forth the law of the topics important for the Roman\nprovincials living in the Burgundian kingdom, not merely making extracts\nfrom its sources, but stating their contents and referring to them as\nauthorities. These sources were substantially the same as those used by\nthe Visigothic _Breviarium_, which was soon to supersede the _Papianus_\neven in Burgundy.\n\n_Breviarium_ was the popular name of the code enacted by the Visigothic\nking Alaric II. about the year 506 for his _provinciales_ in the south of\nGaul.[363] It preserved the integrity of its sources, giving the texts in\nthe same order, and with the same rubrics, as in the original. The\nprincipal source was the Theodosian Code; next in importance the\ncollections of _Novellae_ of Theodosius and succeeding emperors: a few\ntexts were taken from the Codes of \u201cGregorianus\u201d and \u201cHermogenianus.\u201d\nThese parts of the _Breviarium_ consisted of _leges_, that is, of\nconstitutions of the emperors. Two sources of quite a different character\nwere also drawn upon. One was the _Institutes_ of Gaius, or rather an old\nepitome which had been made from it. The other was the _Sententiae_ of\nPaulus, the famous \u201cFive Books of Sentences _ad filium_.\u201d This work of\nelementary jurisprudence deserved its great repute; yet its use in the\n_Breviarium_ may have been due to the special sanction which had been\ngiven it in one of the constitutions of the Theodosian Code, also taken\nover into the _Breviarium_: \u201cPauli quoque sententias semper valere\npraecipimus.\u201d[364] The same constitution confirmed the _Institutes_ of\nGaius, among other great jurisconsults. Presumably these two works were\nthe most commonly known as well as the clearest and best of elementary\njurisprudential compositions.\n\nAn interesting feature of the _Breviarium_, and destined to be of great\nimportance, was the _Interpretatio_ accompanying all its texts, except\nthose drawn from the epitome of Gaius. This was not the work of Alaric\u2019s\ncompilers, but probably represents the approved exposition of the _leges_,\nwith the exposition of the already archaic _Sentences_ of Paulus, current\nin the law schools of southern Gaul in the fifth century. The\n_Interpretatio_ thus taken into the _Breviarium_ had, like the texts, the\nforce of royal law, and soon was to surpass them in practice by reason of\nits perspicuity and modernity. Many manuscripts contain only the\n_Interpretatio_ and omit the texts.\n\nThe _Breviarium_ became the source of Roman law, indeed the Roman law _par\nexcellence_, for the Merovingian and then the Carolingian realm, outside\nof Italy. It was soon subjected to the epitomizing process, and its\nepitomes exist, dating from the eighth to the tenth century: they reduced\nit in bulk, and did away with the practical inconvenience of _lex_ and\n_interpretatio_. Further, the _Breviarium_, and even the epitomes, were\nglossed with numerous marginal or interlinear notes made by transcribers\nor students. These range from definitions of words, sometimes taken from\nIsidore\u2019s _Etymologiae_, to brief explanations of difficulties in the\ntext.[365] In like manner in Italy, the _Codex_ and _Novellae_ of\nJustinian were, as has been said, reduced to epitomes, and also equipped\nwith glosses.\n\nThese barbaric codes of Roman law mark the passage of Roman law into\nincipiently mediaeval stages. On the other hand, certain Latin codes of\nbarbarian law present the laws of the Teutons touched with Roman\nconceptions, and likewise becoming inchoately mediaeval.\n\nFreedom, the efficient freedom of the individual, belongs to civilization\nrather than to barbarism. The actual as well as imaginary perils\nsurrounding the lives of men who do not dwell in a safe society, entail a\nstate of close mutual dependence rather than of liberty. Law in a\ncivilized community has the twofold purpose of preserving the freedom of\nthe individual and of maintaining peace. With each advance in human\nprogress, the latter purpose, at least in the field of private civil law,\nrecedes a little farther, while the importance of private law, as\ncompared with penal law, constantly increases.\n\nThe law of uncivilized peoples lacks the first of these purposes. Its sole\nconscious object is to maintain, or at least provide a method of\nmaintaining peace; it is scarcely aware that in maintaining peace it is\nenhancing the freedom of every individual.\n\nThe distinct and conscious purpose of early Teutonic law was to promote\npeace within the tribe, or among the members of a warband. Thus was law\nregarded by the people--as a means of peace. Its communication or\nordainment might be ascribed to a God or a divine King. But in reality its\nchief source lay in slowly growing regulative custom.[366] The force of\nlaw, or more technically speaking the legal sanction, lay in the power of\nthe tribe to uphold its realized purpose as a tribe; for the power to\nmaintain its solidarity and organization was the final test of its\nlaw-upholding strength.\n\nPrimarily the old Teutonic law looked to the tribe and its sub-units, and\nscarcely regarded the special claims of an individual, or noticed\nmitigating or aggravating elements in his culpability--answerability\nrather. It prescribed for his peace and protection as a member of a\nfamily, or as one included within the bands of _Sippe_ (blood\nrelationship); or as one of a warband or a chief\u2019s close follower, one of\nhis _comitatus_. On the other hand, the law was stiff, narrow, and\nungeneralized in its recognized rules. The first Latin codifications of\nTeutonic law are not to be compared for breadth and elasticity of\nstatement to the Law of the Twelve Tables. And their substance was more\nprimitive.[367]\n\nThe earliest of these first codifications was the Lex Salica, codified\nunder Clovis near the year 500. Unquestionably, contact with Roman\ninstitutions suggested the idea, even as the Latin language was the\nvehicle, of this code. Otherwise the Lex Salica is un-Christian and\nun-Roman, although probably it was put together after Clovis\u2019s baptism. It\nwas not a comprehensive codification, and omitted much that was common\nknowledge at the time; which now makes it somewhat enigmatical. One finds\nin it lists of thefts of every sort of object that might be stolen, and of\nthe various injuries to the person that might be done, and the sum of\nmoney to be paid in each case as atonement or compensation. Such schedules\ndid not set light store on life and property. On the contrary, they were\nearnestly intended as the most available protection of elemental human\nrights, and as the best method of peaceful redress. The sums awarded as\nWergeld were large, and were reckoned according to the slain man\u2019s rank.\nBy committing a homicide, a man might ruin himself and even his blood\nrelatives (_Sippe_) and of course on failure to atone might incur\nservitude or death or outlawry.\n\nThe Salic law is scarcely touched by the law of Rome. From this piece of\nintact Teutonism the codes of other Teuton peoples shade off into bodies\nof law partially Romanized, that is, affected by the provincialized Roman\nlaw current in the locality where the Teutonic tribe found a home. The\ncodes of the Burgundians and the Visigoths in southern France are examples\nof this Teutonic-Romanesque commingling. On the other hand, the Lombard\ncodes, though later in time, held themselves even harshly Teutonic, as\nopposed to any influence from the law of the conquered Italian population,\nfor whom the Lombards had less regard than Burgundians and Visigoths had\nfor their subject provincials. Moreover, as the Frankish realm extended\nits power over other Gallo-Teuton states, the various Teuton laws modified\neach other and tended toward uniformity. Naturally the law of the Franks,\nfirst the Salic and then the partly derivative Ribuarian code, exerted a\ndominating influence.[368]\n\nThese Teuton peoples regarded law as pertaining to the tribe. There was\nlittle conscious intention on their part of forcing their laws on the\nconquered. When the Visigoths established their kingdom in southern France\nthey had no idea of changing the law of the Gallo-Roman provincials living\nwithin the Visigothic rule; and shortly afterwards, when the Franks\nextended their power over the still Roman parts of Gaul, and then over\nAlemanni, Burgundians, and Visigoths, they likewise had no thought of\nforcing their laws either upon Gallo-Romans or upon the Teuton people\npreviously dominant within a given territory. This remained true even of\nthe later Frankish period, when the Carolingians conquered the Lombard\nkingdom in upper Italy.\n\nIndeed, to all these Teutons and to the Roman provincials as well, it\nseemed as a matter of course that tribal or local laws should be permitted\nto endure among the peoples they belonged to. These assumptions and the\nconditions of the growing Frankish Empire evoked, as it were, a more acute\nmobilization of the principle that to each people belonged its law. For\nprovincials and Teuton peoples were mingling throughout the Frankish\nrealm, and the first obvious solution of the legal problems arising was to\nhold that provincials and Teutons everywhere should remain amenable and\nentitled to their own law, which was assumed to attend them as a personal\nappurtenance. Of course this solution became intolerable as tribal blood\nand delimitations were obscured, and men moved about through the\nterritories of one great realm. Archbishop Agobard of Lyons remarks that\none might see five men sitting together, each amenable to a different\nlaw.[369] The escape from this legal confusion was to revert to the idea\nof law and custom as applying to every one within a given territory. The\npersonal principle gradually gave way to this conception in the course of\nthe ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries.[370] In the meanwhile during the\nMerovingian, and more potently in the Carolingian period, king\u2019s law, as\ndistinguished from people\u2019s law, had been an influence making for legal\nuniformity throughout that wide conglomerate empire which acknowledged the\nauthority of the Frankish king or emperor. The king\u2019s law might emanate\nfrom the delegated authority, and arise from the practices, of royal\nfunctionaries; it was most formally promulgated in Capitularies, which\nwith Charlemagne reach such volume and importance. Some of these royal\nordinances related to a town or district only. Others were for the realm,\nand the latter not only were instances of law applying universally, but\nalso tended to promote, or suggest, the harmonizing of laws which they did\nnot modify directly.\n\n\nIII\n\nThe Roman law always existed in the Middle Ages. Provincialized and\nchanged, it was interwoven in the law and custom of the land of the\n_langue d\u2019oc_ and even in the customary law of the lands where the _langue\nd\u2019oil_ was spoken. Through the same territory it existed also in the\n_Breviarium_ and its epitomes. There was very little of it in England, and\nscarcely a trace in the Germany east of the Rhine. In Italy it was applied\nwhen not superseded by the Lombard codes, and was drawn from works based\non the _Codex_ and _Novels_ of Justinian. But the jurisprudential law\ncontained in Justinian\u2019s _Digest_ was as well forgotten in Italy as in any\nland north of the Alps, where the Codification of Justinian had never been\npromulgated. The extent to which the classic forms of Roman law were known\nor unknown, unforgotten or forgotten, was no accident as of codices or\nother writings lost accidentally. It hung upon larger conditions--whether\nsociety had reached that stage of civilized exigency demanding the\napplication of an advanced commercial law, and whether there were men\ncapable of understanding and applying it. This need and the capacity to\nunderstand would be closely joined.[371]\n\nThe history of the knowledge and understanding of Roman law in the Middle\nAges might be resolved into a consideration of the sources drawn upon, and\nthe extent and manner of their use, from century to century. In the fifth\ncentury, when the Theodosian Code was promulgated, law was thought of\nchiefly as the mandate of a ruler. The Theodosian Code was composed of\n_constitutiones principum_. Likewise the _Breviarium_, based upon it, and\nother barbarian codes of Roman law, were ordained by kings; and so were\nthe codes of Teutonic law. For law, men looked directly to the visible\nruler. The _jus_, reasoned out by the wisdom of trained jurists, had lost\nauthority and interest. To be sure, a hundred years later Justinian\u2019s\nCommission put together in the _Digest_ the body of jurisprudential law;\nbut even in Italy where his codification was promulgated, the _Digest_\nfell still-born. Never was an official compilation of less effect upon its\nown time, or of such mighty import for times to come.\n\nThe _Breviarium_ became _par excellence_ the code of Roman law for the\ncountries included in the present France. With its accompanying\n_Interpretatio_ it was a work indicating intelligence on the part of its\ncompilers, whose chief care was as to arrangement and explanation. But the\ntime was not progressive, and a gathering mental decadence was shown by\nthe manner in which the _Breviarium_ was treated and used, to wit,\nepitomized in many epitomes, and practically superseded by them. Here was\ndouble evidence of decay; for the supersession of such a work by such\nepitomes indicates a diminishing legal knowledge in the epitomizers, and\nalso a narrowing of social and commercial needs in the community, for\nwhich the original work contained much that was no longer useful.\n\nThere were, of course, epitomes and epitomes. Such a work as the _Epitome\nJuliani_, in which a good Byzantine lawyer of Justinian\u2019s time presented\nthe substance of the _Novellae_, was an excellent compendium, and deserved\nthe fame it won. Of a lower order were the later manipulations of\nJustinian\u2019s _Codex_, by which apparently the _Codex_ was superseded in\nItaly. One of these was the _Summa Perusina_ of the ninth or tenth\ncentury, a wretched work, and one of the blindest.[372]\n\nJustinian\u2019s _Codex_ and Julian\u2019s _Epitome_ were equipped with glosses,\nsome of which are as early as Justinian\u2019s time; but the greater part are\nlater. The glosses to Justinian\u2019s legislation resemble those of the\n_Breviarium_ before referred to. That is to say, as the centuries pass\ndownward toward the tenth, the glosses answer to cruder needs: they become\nlargely translations of words, often taken from Isidore\u2019s\n_Etymologiae_.[373] Indeed many of them appear to have had merely a\ngrammatical interest, as if the text was used as an aid in the study of\nthe Latin language.\n\nThe last remark indicates a way in which a very superficial acquaintance\nwith the Roman law was kept up through the centuries prior to the twelfth:\nit was commonly taught in the schools devoted to elementary instruction,\nthat is to say, to the Seven Liberal Arts. In many instances the\ninstructors had only such knowledge as they derived from Isidore, that\nfriend of every man. That is, they had no special knowledge of law, but\nimparted various definitions to their pupils, just as they might teach\nthem the names of diseases and remedies, a list of which (and nothing\nmore) they would also find in Isidore. It was all just as one might have\nexpected. Elementary mediaeval education was encyclopaedic in its childish\nway; and, in accordance with the methods and traditions of the transition\ncenturies, all branches of instruction were apt to be turned to grammar\nand rhetoric, and made linguistic, so to speak--mere subjects for curious\ndefinition. Thus it happened to law as well as medicine. Yet some of the\nteachers may have had a practical acquaintance with legal matters, with an\nunderstanding for legal documents and skill to draw them up.\n\nThe assertion also is warranted that at certain centres of learning\nsubstantial legal instruction was given; one may even speak of schools of\nlaw. Scattered information touching all the early mediaeval periods shows\nthat there was no time when instruction in Roman law could not be obtained\nsomewhere in western Europe. To refer to France, the Roman law was very\nearly taught at Narbonne; at Orleans it was taught from the time of Bishop\nTheodulphus, Charlemagne\u2019s contemporary, and probably the teaching of it\nlong continued. One may speak in the same way of Lyons; and in the\neleventh century Angers was famed for the study of law.\n\nOur information is less broken as to an Italy where through the early\nMiddle Ages more general opportunities offered for elementary education,\nand where the Roman law, with Justinian\u2019s Codification as a base, made in\ngeneral the law of the land. There is no reason to suppose that it was not\ntaught. Contemporary allusions bear witness to the existence of a school\nof law in Rome in the time of Cassiodorus and afterwards, which is\nconfirmed by a statement of the jurist Odofredus in the thirteenth\ncentury. At Pavia there was a school of law in the time of Rothari, the\nlegislating Lombard king; this reached the zenith of its repute in the\neleventh century. Legal studies also flourished at Ravenna, and succumbed\nbefore the rising star of the Bologna school at the beginning of the\ntwelfth century.[374] In these and doubtless many other cities[375]\nstudents were instructed in legal practices and formulae, and some\nsubstance of the Roman law was taught. Extant legal documents of various\nkinds afford, especially for Italy, ample evidence of the continuous\napplication of the Roman law.[376]\n\nAs for the merits and deficiencies of legal instruction in Italy and in\nFrance, an idea may be gained from the various manuals that were prepared\neither for use in the schools of law or for the practitioner. Because of\nthe uncertainty, however, of their age and provenance, it is difficult to\nconnect them with a definite _foyer_ of instruction.\n\nUntil the opening of the twelfth century, or at all events until the last\nquarter of the eleventh, the legal literature evinces scarcely any\noriginality or critical capacity. There are glosses, epitomes, and\ncollections of extracts, more or less condensed or confused from whatever\ntext the compiler had before him. Little jurisprudential intelligence\nappears in any writings which are known to precede the close of the\neleventh century; none, for instance, in the epitomes of the _Breviarium_\nand the glosses relating to that code; none in those works of Italian\norigin the material for which was drawn directly or indirectly from the\n_Codex_ or _Novels_ of Justinian, for instance the _Summa Perusina_ and\nthe _Lex Romana canonice compta_, both of which probably belong to the\nninth century. Such compilations were put together for practical use, or\nperhaps as aids to teaching.\n\nThus, so far as inference may be drawn from the extant writings, the legal\nteaching in any school during this long period hardly rose above an\nuncritical and unenlightened explanation of Roman law somewhat\nmediaevalized and deflected from its classic form and substance. There was\nalso practical instruction in current legal forms and customs. Interest in\nthe law had not risen above practical needs, nor was capacity shown for\nanything above a mechanical handling of the matter. Legal study was on a\nlevel with the other intellectual phenomena of the period.\n\nIn an opusculum[377] written shortly after the middle of the eleventh\ncentury, Peter Damiani bears unequivocal, if somewhat hostile, witness to\nthe study of law at Ravenna; and it is clear that in his time legal\nstudies were progressing in both France and Italy. It is unsafe to speak\nmore definitely, because of the difficulty in fixing the time and place of\ncertain rather famous pieces of legal literature, which show a marked\nadvance upon the productions to be ascribed with certainty to an earlier\ntime. The reference is to the _Petri exceptiones_ and the _Brachylogus_.\nThe critical questions relating to the former are too complex even to\noutline here. Both its time and place are in dispute. The ascribed dates\nrange from the third quarter of the eleventh century to the first quarter\nof the twelfth, a matter of importance, since the opening of the twelfth\ncentury is marked by the rise of the Bologna school. As for the place,\nsome scholars still adhere to the south of France, while others look to\nPavia or Ravenna. On the whole, the weight of argument seems to favour\nItaly and a date not far from 1075.[378]\n\nThe _Petrus_, as it is familiarly called, is drawn from immediately prior\nand still extant compilations. The compiler wished to give a compendious\nif not systematic presentation of law as accepted and approved in his\ntime, that is to say, of Roman law somewhat mediaevalized in tone, and\nwith certain extraneous elements from the Lombard codes. The ultimate\nRoman sources were the Codification of Justinian, and indeed all of it,\n_Digest_, _Codex_, and _Novels_, the last in the form to which they had\nbeen brought in Julian\u2019s _Epitome_. The purpose of the compilation is\ngiven in the Prologue,[379] which in substance is as follows:\n\n    \u201cSince for many divers reasons, on account of the great and manifold\n    difficulties in the laws, even the Doctors of the laws cannot without\n    pains reach a certain opinion, we, taking account of both laws, to\n    wit, the _jus civile_ and the _jus naturale_, unfold the solution of\n    controversies under plain and patent heads. Whatever is found in the\n    laws that is useless, void, or contrary to equity, we trample under\n    our feet. Whatever has been added and surely held to, we set forth in\n    its integral meaning so that nothing may appear unjust or provocative\n    of appeal from thy judgments, Odilo;[380] but all may make for the\n    vigour of justice and the praise of God.\u201d\n\nThe arrangement of topics in the _Petrus_ hardly evinces any clear design.\nThe substance, however, is well presented. If there be a question to be\nsolved, it is plainly stated, and the solution arrived at may be\ninteresting. For example, a case seems to have arisen where the son of one\nwho died intestate had seized the whole property to the exclusion of the\nchildren of two deceased daughters. The sons of one daughter acquiesced.\nThe sons of the other _per placitum et guerram_ forced their uncle to give\nup their share. Thereupon the supine cousins demanded to share in what had\nso been won. The former contestants resisted on the plea that the latter\nhad borne no aid in the contest and that they had obtained only their own\nportion. The decision was that the supine cousins might claim their\nheritage from whoever held it, and should receive their share in what the\nsuccessful contestants had won; but that the latter could by\ncounter-actions compel them to pay their share of the necessary expenses\nof the prior contest.[381]\n\nSometimes the _Petrus_ seems to draw a general rule of law from the\napparent instances of its application in Justinian\u2019s Codification. Therein\ncertain formalities were prescribed in making a testament, in adopting a\nson, or emancipating a slave. The _Petrus_ draws from them the general\nprinciple that where the law prescribes formalities, the transaction is\nnot valid if they are omitted.[382] In fine, unsystematized as is the\narrangement of topics, the work presents an advance in legal intelligence\nover mediaeval law-writings earlier than the middle of the eleventh\ncentury.\n\nIf the _Petrus_ was adapted for use in practice, the _Brachylogus_, on the\nother hand, was plainly a book of elementary instruction, formed on the\nmodel of Justinian\u2019s _Institutes_. But it made use of his entire\ncodification, the _Novels_, however, only as condensed in Julian\u2019s\n_Epitome_. The influence of the _Breviarium_ is also noticeable; which\nmight lead one to think that the treatise was written in Orleans or the\nneighbourhood, since the _Breviarium_ was not in use in Italy, while the\nCodification of Justinian was known in France by the end of the eleventh\ncentury. The beginning of the twelfth is the date usually given to the\n_Brachylogus_. It does not belong to the Bologna school of glossators, but\nrather immediately precedes them, wherever it was composed.[383]\n\nThe _Brachylogus_, as a book of Institutes, compares favourably with its\nmodel, from the language of which it departed at will. Both works are\ndivided into four _libri_; but the _libri_ of the _Brachylogus_ correspond\nbetter to the logical divisions of the law. Again, frequently the author\nof the _Brachylogus_ breaks up the chapters of Justinian\u2019s _Institutes_\nand gives the subject-matter under more pertinent headings. Sometimes the\nstatements of the older work are improved by rearrangement. The\ndefinitions of the _Brachylogus_ are pithy and concise, even to a fault.\nOften the exposition is well adapted to the purposes of an elementary\ntext-book,[384] which was meant to be supplemented by oral instruction. On\nthe whole, the work shows that the author is no longer encumbered by the\nmass or by the advanced character of his sources. He restates their\nsubstance intelligently, and thinks for himself. He is no compiler, and\nhis work has reached the rank of a treatise.\n\nThe merits of the _Brachylogus_ as an elementary text-book are surpassed\nby those of the so-called _Summa Codicis Irnerii_, a book which may mark\nthe beginning of the Bologna school of law, and may even be the\ncomposition of its founder. Many arguments are adduced for this\nauthorship.[385] The book has otherwise been deemed a production of the\nlast days of the school of law at Rome just before the school was broken\nup by some catastrophe as to which there is little information. In that\ncase the work would belong to the closing years of the eleventh century,\nwhereas the authorship of Irnerius would bring it to the beginning of the\ntwelfth. At all events, its lucid jurisprudential reasoning precludes the\nlikelihood of an earlier origin.\n\nThis _Summa_ is an exposition of Roman law, following the arrangement and\ntitles of Justinian\u2019s _Codex_, but making extensive use of the _Digest_.\nIt thus contains Roman jurisprudential law, and may be regarded as a\ncompendious text-book for law students, forming apparently the basis of a\ncourse of lectures which treated the topics more at length.[386] The\nauthor\u2019s command of his material is admirable, and his presentation\nmasterly. Whether he was Irnerius or some one else, he was a great\nteacher. His work may be also called academic, in that his standpoint is\nalways that of the Justinianean law, although he limits his exposition to\nthose topics which had living interest for the twelfth century. Private\nsubstantial law forms the chief matter, but procedure is set forth and\npenal law touched upon. The author appreciates the historical development\nof the Roman law and the character of its various sources--praetorian law,\n_constitutiones principum_, and _responsa prudentium_. He also shows\nindependence, and a regard for legal reasoning and the demands of justice.\nWhile he sets forth the _jus civile_, his exposition and approval follow\nthe dictates of the _jus naturale_.\n\n    \u201cThe established laws are to be understood benignly, so as to preserve\n    their spirit, and prevent their departure from equity; for the Judge\n    recognizes ordainments as legitimate when they conform to the\n    principles of justice (_ratio equitatis_).... Interpretation is\n    sometimes general and imperative, as when the lawgiver declares it:\n    then it must be applied not only to the matter for which it is\n    announced, but in all like cases. Sometimes an interpretation is\n    imperative, but only for the special case, like the interpretation\n    which is declared by those adjudicating a cause. It is then to be\n    accepted in that cause, but not in like instances; for not by\n    precedents, but by the laws are matters to be adjusted. There is\n    another kind of interpretation which binds no one, that made by\n    teachers explaining an ambiguous law, for although it may be\n    admissible because sound, still it compels no one. For every\n    interpretation should so be made as not to depart from justice, and\n    that all absurdity may be avoided and no door opened to fraud.\u201d[387]\n\nOne must suppose that such concise statements were explained and qualified\nin the author\u2019s lectures. But even as they stand, they afford an\nexposition of Roman principles of interpretation. Not only under the Roman\nEmpire, but subsequently in mediaeval times, the Roman lawyer or the\ncanonist did not pay the deference to adjudicated precedent which is felt\nby the English or American judge. The passage in the _Codex_ which\n\u201cIrnerius\u201d was expounding commands that the judge, in deciding a case,\nshall follow the laws and the reasoning of the great jurists, rather than\nthe decision of a like controversy.\n\nSince the author of this _Summa_ weighs the justice, the reason, and the\nconvenience of the laws, and compares them with each other, his book is a\nwork of jurisprudence. Its qualities may be observed in its discussion of\n_possession_ and the rights arising therefrom. The writer has just been\nexpounding the _usucapio_, an institution of the _jus civile_ strictly\nspeaking, whereby the law of Rome in certain instances protected and,\nafter three years, perfected, the title to property which one had in good\nfaith acquired from a vendor who was not the owner:\n\n    \u201cNow we must discuss the _ratio possessionis_. _Usucapio_ in the _jus\n    civile_ hinges on possession, and ownership by the _jus naturale_ may\n    take its origin in possession. There are many differences in the ways\n    of acquiring possession, which must be considered. And since in the\n    _constitutiones_ and _responsa prudentium_ divers reasons are adduced\n    regarding possession, my associates have begged that I would expound\n    this important and obscure subject in which is mingled the _ratio_\n    both of the civil and the natural law. So I will do my best. First one\n    must consider what possession is, how it is acquired, maintained, or\n    lost. Possession (here the author follows Paulus and Labeo in the\n    _Digest_) is as when one\u2019s feet are set upon a thing, when body\n    naturally rests on body. To acquire possession is to begin to possess.\n    Herein one considers both the fact and the right. The fact arises\n    through ourselves or our representative. It is understood differently\n    as to movables and as to land; for the movable we take in our hand,\n    but we take possession of a farm by going upon it with this intent and\n    laying hold of a sod. The intent to possess is crucial. Thus a ring\n    put in the hand of a sleeper is not possessed for lack of intent on\n    his part. You possess naturally when with mind and body (yours or\n    another\u2019s who represents you) you hold or sit upon with intent to\n    possess. Corporeal things you properly possess, and acquire possession\n    of, by your own or your agent\u2019s hand. In the same manner you retain.\n    Incorporeal things cannot be possessed properly speaking, but the\n    civil law accords a quasi possession of them.\u201d\n\nThen follows a discussion of the persons through whom another may have\npossession, and of the various modes of possessing _longa manu_ without\nactual touch:\n\n    \u201cIt is one thing when the possession begins with you, and another when\n    it is transferred to you by a prior possessor: for possession begins\n    in three ways, by occupation, accession, and transfer. You occupy the\n    thing that belongs to no one. By accession you acquire possession in\n    two ways. Thus the increment may be possessed, as the fruit of thy\n    handmaid; or the accession consists in the union with a larger thing\n    which is yours, as when alluvium is deposited on your land. Again\n    possession is transferred to you,\u201d\n\nvoluntarily or otherwise. He now discusses the various modes in which\npossession is acquired by transfer, then the nature of the _justa_ or\n_injusta causa_ with which possession may begin, and the effect on the\nrights of the possessor, and then some matters more peculiar to the time\nof Justinian. After which he passes to the loss of possession, and\nconcludes with saying that he has endeavoured to go over the whole\nsubject, and whatever is omitted or insufficiently treated, he begs that\nit be laid to the fault of _humanae imbecillitatis_. The discussion reads\nlike a carefully drawn outline which his lecture should expand.[388]\n\nThe knowledge and understanding of the Roman law in the mediaeval\ncenturies should be viewed in conjunction with the general progress of\nintellectual aptitude during the same periods. The growth of legal\nknowledge will then show itself as a part of mediaeval development, as one\nphase of the flowering of the mediaeval intellect. For the treatment of\nRoman law presents stages essentially analogous to those by which the\nMiddle Ages reached their understanding and appropriation of other\nportions of their great inheritance from classical antiquity and the\nChristianity of the Fathers. Let us recapitulate: the Roman law, adapted,\nor corrupted if one will, epitomized and known chiefly in its later\nenacted forms, was never unapplied nor the study of it quite abandoned. It\nconstituted a great part of the law of Italy and southern France; in these\ntwo regions likewise was its study least neglected. We have observed the\nsuperficial and mainly linguistic nature of the glosses which this early\nmediaeval period interlined or wrote on the margins of the source-books\ndrawn upon, also the rude and barbarous nature of the earlier summaries\nand compilations. They were helps to a crude practical knowledge of the\nlaw. Gradually the treatment seems to become more intelligent, a little\nnearer the level of the matter excerpted or made use of. Through the\neleventh century it is evident that social conditions were demanding and\nalso facilitating an increase in legal knowledge; and at that century\u2019s\nclose a by no means stupid compilation appears, the _Petri exceptiones_,\nand perhaps such a fairly intelligent manual for elementary instruction\nas the _Brachylogus_. These works indicate that the instruction in the law\nwas improving. We have also the sparse references to schools of law, at\nRome, at Ravenna, at Orleans. Then we come upon the _Summa Codicis_ called\nof Irnerius, of uncertain _provenance_, like the _Petrus_ and\n_Brachylogus_. But there is no need to be informed specifically of its\nplace and date in order to recognize its advance in legal intelligence, in\nveritable jurisprudence. The writer was a master of the law, an adept in\nits exposition, and his oral teaching must have been of a high order. With\nthis book we have unquestionably touched the level of the strong\nbeginnings of the greatest of mediaeval schools of Roman law.\n\nIts seat was Bologna, one of the chief centres of the civic and commercial\nlife of Lombardy. The Lombards themselves had shown a persistent legal\ngenius: their own Teutonic codes, enacted in Italy, had maintained\nthemselves in that land of Roman law and custom. Lombard codification had\nalmost reached a jurisprudence of its own, at Pavia, the juridical centre\nof Lombardy. The provisions of various codes had been compared and put\ntogether in a sort of _Concordia_, as early as the ninth century.[389]\nPossibly the rivalry of Lombard law might stimulate those learned in the\nlaw of Rome to sharper efforts to expound it and prove its superiority.\nMoreover, all sides of civic life and culture were flourishing in that\nregion where novel commercial relations were calling for a corresponding\nprogress in the law, and especially for a better knowledge of the Roman\nlaw which alone afforded provision for their regulation.\n\nAs some long course of human development approaches its climax, the\nadvance apparently becomes so rapid as to give the impression of something\nsuddenly happening, a sudden leap upward of the human spirit. The velocity\nof the movement seems to quicken as the summit is neared. One easily finds\nexamples, for instance the fifth century before Christ in Greek art, or\nthe fourth century in Greek philosophy, or again the excellence so quickly\nreached apparently by the Middle High German poetry just about the year\n1200. But may not the seeming suddenness of the phenomenon be due to lack\nof information as to antecedents? and the flare of the final achievement\neven darken what went before? Yet, in fact, as a movement nears its\nclimax, it may become more rapid. For, as the promoting energies and\nfavouring conditions meet in conjunction, their joint action becomes more\neffective. Forces free themselves from cumbrances and draw aid from one\nanother. Thus when the gradual growth of intellectual faculty effects a\nconjunction with circumstances which offer a fair field, and the prizes of\nlife as a reward, a rapid increase of power may evince itself in novel and\ntimely productivity.\n\nThis may suggest the manner of the apparently sudden rise of the Bologna\nschool of Roman law, which, be it noted, took place but a little before\nthe time of Gratian\u2019s achievement in the Canon law, itself contemporaneous\nwith the appearance of Peter Lombard\u2019s novel _Books of Sentences_.[390]\nThe preparation, although obscure, existed; and the school after its\ncommencement passed onward through stages of development, to its best\naccomplishment, and then into a condition of stasis, if not decline.\nIrnerius apparently was its first master; and of his life little is known.\nHe was a native of Bologna. His name as _causidicus_ is attached to a\nState paper of the year 1113. Thereafter he appears in the service of the\nGerman emperor Henry V. We have no sure trace of him after 1118, though\nthere is no reason to suppose that he did not live and labour for some\nfurther years. He had taught the Arts at Ravenna and Bologna before\nteaching, or perhaps seriously studying, the law. But his career as a\nteacher of the law doubtless began before the year 1113, when he is first\nmet with as a man of affairs. Accounts agree in ascribing to him the\nfoundation of the school.\n\nUnless the _Summa Codicis_ already mentioned, and a book of _Quaestiones_,\nbe really his, his glosses upon Justinian\u2019s _Digest_, _Codex_, and\n_Novels_, are all we have of him;[391] of the rest we know by report. The\nglosses themselves indicate that this jurist had been a grammarian, and\nused the learning of his former profession in his exposition of the law.\nHis interlinear glosses are explanations of words, and would seem to\nrepresent his earlier, more tentative, work when he was himself learning\nthe meaning of the law. But the marginal glosses are short expositions of\nthe passages to which they are attached, and perhaps belong to the time of\nhis fuller command over the legal material. They indicate, besides, a\ncritical consideration of the text, and even of the original connection\nwhich the passage in the _Digest_ held in the work of the jurisconsult\nfrom which it had been taken. Some of them show an understanding of the\nchronological sequence of the sources of the Roman law, _e.g._ that the\nlaw-making power had existed in the people and then passed to the\nemperors. These glosses of Irnerius represent a clear advance in\njurisprudence over any previous legal comment subsequent to the\n_Interpretatio_ attached to the _Breviarium_. It was also part of his plan\nto equip his manuscripts of the _Codex_ with extracts taken from the text\nof the _Novels_, and not from the _Epitome of Julian_. He appears also as\na lawyer versed in the practice of the law. For he wrote a book of forms\nfor notaries and a treatise on procedure, neither of which is extant.[392]\n\nThe accomplishment of the Bologna school may be judged more fully from the\nworks, still extant, of some of its chief representatives in the\ngenerations following Irnerius. A worthy one was Placentinus, a native of\nPiacenza. The year of his birth is unknown, but he died in 1192, after a\npresumably full span of life, passed chiefly as a student and teacher of\nthe law. He taught in Mantua and Montpellier, as well as in Bologna. He\nwas an accomplished jurist and a lover of the classic literature. His work\nentitled _De varietate actionum_ was apparently the first attempt to set\nforth the Roman law in an arrangement and form that did not follow the\nsources.[393] He opens his treatise with an allegory of a noble dame,\nhight Jurisprudentia, within the circle of whose sweet and honied\nutterances many eager youths were thronging. Placentinus drew near, and\nreceived from her the book which he now gives to others.[394] This little\nallegory savours of the _De consolatione_ of Bo\u00ebthius, or, if one will, of\nCapella\u2019s _De nuptiis Philologiae_.\n\nThe most admirable surviving work of Placentinus is his Summa of the\n_Codex_ of Justinian. His autobiographical _proemium_ shows him not\nlacking in self-esteem, and tells why he undertook the work. He had\nthought at first to complete the Summa of Rogerius, an older glossator,\nbut then decided to put that book to sleep, and compose a full Summa of\nthe _Codex_ himself, from the beginning to the end. This by the favour of\nGod he has done; it is the work of his own hands, from head to heel, and\nall the matter is his own--not borrowed. Next he wrote for beginners a\nSumma of the _Institutes_. After which he returned to his own town, and\nshortly proceeded thence to Bologna, whither he had been called. \u201cThere in\nthe citadel (_in castello_) for two years I expounded the laws to\nstudents; I brought the other teachers to the threshold of envy; I emptied\ntheir benches of students. The hidden places of the law I laid open, I\nreconciled the conflicts of enactments, I unlocked the secrets most\npotently.\u201d His success was great, and he was besought to continue his\ncourse of lectures. He complied, and remained two years more, and then\nreturned to Montpellier, in order to compose a Summa of the _Digest_.[395]\nIf indeed Placentinus speaks bombastically of his work, its excellence\nexcuses him. His well-earned reputation as a jurist and scholar long\nendured.\n\n_Quaestiones_, _Distinctiones_, _Libri disputationum_, _Summae_ of the\n_Codex_ or the _Institutions_, and other legal writings, are extant in\ngoodly bulk and number from the Bologna school. The names of the men are\nalmost legion, and many were of great repute in their day both as jurists\nand as men of affairs. We may mention Azo and Accursius, of a little\nlater time. Azo\u2019s name appears in public documents from the year 1190 to\n1220--and he may have survived the latter date by some years. His works\nwere of such compass and excellence as to supersede those of his\npredecessors. His glosses still survive, and his _Lectura_ on the _Codex_,\nhis _Summae_ of the _Codex_ and the _Institutes_, and his _Quaestiones_,\nand _Brocarda_, the last a sort of work stating general legal propositions\nand those contradicting them. Azo\u2019s glosses were so complete as to\nconstitute a continuous exposition of the entire legislation of Justinian.\nHis _Summae_ of the _Codex_ and _Institutes_ drove those of Placentinus\nout of use, which we note with a smile.[396]\n\nNone of the glossators is better known than Accursius. He comes before us\nas a Florentine, and apparently a peasant\u2019s son. He died an old man rich\nand famous, about the year 1260. Azo was his teacher. In 1252 he was\nPodesta of Bologna, which indicates the respect in which men held him.\nVillani, the Florentine historian, describes him as of martial form,\ngrave, thoughtful, even melancholy in aspect, as if always meditating; a\nman of brilliant talents and extraordinary memory, sober and chaste in\nlife, but delighting in noble vesture. His hearers drank in the laws of\nliving from his mien and manners no less than from the dissertations of\nhis mouth.[397] Late in life he retired to his villa, and there in quiet\nworked on his great _Glossa_ till he died.\n\nThis famous, perhaps all too famous, _Glossa ordinaria_ was a digest and,\nas it proved, a final one, of the glosses of his predecessors and\ncontemporaries. He drew not only from their glosses, but also on their\n_Summae_ and other writings. He added a good deal of his own. Great as was\nthe feat, the somewhat deadened talent of a compiler shows in the result,\nwhich flattened out the individual labours of so many jurists. It came at\nonce into general use in the courts and outside of them; for it was a\ncomplete commentary on the Justinianean law, so compendious and convenient\nthat there was no further need of the glosses of earlier men. This book\nmarked the turning-point of the Bologna school, after which its\nproductivity lessened. Its work was done: _Codex_, _Novels_, and above\nall the _Pandects_ were rescued from oblivion, and fully expounded, so far\nas the matter in them was still of interest. When the labours of the\nschool had been conveniently heaped together in one huge _Glossa_, there\nwas no vital inducement to do this work again. The school of the\nglossators was _functus officio_. Naturally with the lessening of the\ncall, productivity diminished. Little was left to do save to gloss the\nglosses, an epigonic labour which would not attract men of talent.\nMoreover, treating the older glosses, instead of the original text, as the\nmatter to be interpreted was unfavourable to progress in the understanding\nof the latter.\n\nYet, for a little, the breath of life was still to stir in the school of\nthe glossators. There was a man of fame, a humanist indeed, named Cino,\nwhose beautiful tomb still draws the lover of things lovely to Pistoia.\nCino was also a jurist, and it came to him to be the teacher of one whose\nname is second to none among the legists of the Middle Ages. This was\nBartolus, born probably in the year 1314 at Sassoferrato in the duchy of\nUrbino. He was a scholar, learned in geometry and Hebrew, also a man of\naffairs. He taught the law at Pisa and Perugia, and in the last-named town\nhe died in 1357, not yet forty-four years old. Bartolus wrote and compiled\nfull commentaries on the entire _Corpus juris civilis_; and yet he\nproduced no work differing in kind from works of his predecessors.\nMoreover, between him and the body of the law rose the great mass of gloss\nand comment already in existence, through which he did not always\npenetrate to the veritable _Corpus_. Yet his labours were inspired with\nthe energy of a vigorous nature, and he put fresh thoughts into his\ncommentaries.[398]\n\nThe school of glossators presented the full Roman law to Europe. The\ncareful and critical interpretation of the text of Justinian\u2019s\nCodification, of the _Digest_ above all, was their great service. In\nperforming it, these jurists also had educated themselves and developed\ntheir own intelligence. They had also put together in Summae the results\nof their own education in the law. These works facilitated legal study and\nsharpened the faculties of students and professors. Books of Quaestiones,\nlegal disputations, works upon legal process and formulae, served the same\nends.[399] These men were deficient in historical knowledge. Yet they\ncompared _Digest_, _Codex_, and _Novels_; they tried to re-establish the\npurity of the text; they weighed and they expounded. Theirs was an\nintellectual effort to master the jurisprudence of Rome: their labours\nconstituted a renaissance of jurisprudence; and the fact that they were\noften men of affairs as well as professors, kept them from ignoring the\npractical bearings of the matters which they taught.\n\nThe work of the glossators may be compared with that of the theologian\nphilosophers of the thirteenth century--Alexander of Hales, Albertus\nMagnus, Thomas Aquinas--who were winning for the world a new and\ncomprehensive knowledge of Aristotle. Both jurists and philosophers, in\ntheir different spheres, carried through a more profound study, and\nreached a more comprehensive knowledge, of a great store of antique\nthought, than previous mediaeval centuries conceived of. Moreover, the\ninterpretation of the _Corpus juris_ was quite as successful as the\ninterpretation of Aristotle. It was in fact surer, because freer from the\ndeflections of religious motive. No consideration of agreement or\ndisagreement with Scripture troubled the glossators\u2019 interpretation of the\n_Digest_, though indeed they may have been interested in finding support\nfor whatever political views they held upon the claims of emperor and\npope. But this did not disturb them as much as Aristotle\u2019s opinion that\nthe universe was eternal, worried Albertus and Aquinas.\n\n\nIV\n\nThe Church, from the time of its first recognition by the Roman Empire,\nlived under the Roman law;[400] and the constitutions safeguarding its\nauthority were large and ample before the Empire fell. Constantine, to be\nsure, never dreamed of the famous \u201cDonation of Constantine\u201d forged by a\nlater time, yet his enactments fairly launched the great mediaeval\nCatholic Church upon the career which was to bring it more domination than\nwas granted in this pseudo-charter of its power. A number of Constantine\u2019s\nenactments were preserved by the Theodosian Code, in which the powers and\nprivileges of Church and clergy were portentously set forth.\n\nThe Theodosian Code freed the property of the Church from most fiscal\nburdens, and the clergy from taxes, from public and military service, and\nfrom many other obligations which sometimes the Code groups under the head\nof _sordida munera_. The Church might receive all manner of bequests, and\nit inherited the property of such of its clergy as did not leave near\nrelatives surviving them. Its property generally was inalienable; and the\nclergy were accorded many special safeguards. Slaves might be manumitted\nin a church. The church edifices were declared asylums of refuge from\npursuers, a privilege which had passed to the churches from the heathen\nfanes and the statues of the emperors. Constitution after constitution was\nhurled against the Church\u2019s enemies. The Theodosian Code has one chapter\ncontaining sixty-six constitutions directed against heretics, the combined\nresult of which was to deprive them, if not of life and property, at least\nof protected legal existence.\n\nOf enormous import was the sweeping recognition on the Empire\u2019s part of\nthe validity of episcopal jurisdiction. No bishop might be summoned before\na secular court as a defendant, or compelled to give testimony. Falsely to\naccuse one of the clergy rendered the accuser infamous. All matters\npertaining to religion and church discipline might be brought only before\nthe bishop\u2019s court, which likewise had plenary jurisdiction over\ncontroversies among the clergy. It was also open to the laity for the\nsettlement of civil disputes. The command not to go to law before the\nheathen came down from Paul (1 Cor. vi.), and together with the severed\nand persecuted condition of the early Christian communities, may be\nregarded as the far source of the episcopal jurisdiction, which thus\ndivinely sanctioned tended to extend its arbitrament to all manner of\nlegal controversies.[401] To be sure, under the Christian Roman Empire\nthe authority of the Church as well as its privileges rested upon imperial\nlaw. Yet the emperors recognized, rather than actually created, the\necclesiastical authority. And when the Empire was shattered, there stood\nthe Church erect amid the downfall of the imperial government, and capable\nof supporting itself in the new Teutonic kingdoms.\n\nThe constitutions of Christian emperors did not from their own force and\nvalidity become Ecclesiastical or Canon law--the law relating to\nChristians as such, and especially to the Church and its functions. The\nsource of that law was God; the Church was its declarative organ.\nAcceptance on the Church\u2019s part was requisite before any secular law could\nbecome a law of the Church.\n\nCanon law may be taken to include theology, or may be limited to the law\nof the organization and functions of the Church taken in a large sense as\ninclusive of the laity in their relations to the religion of Christ.[402]\nObviously part comes from Christ directly, through the Old Testament as\nwell as New. The other part, and in bulk far greater, emanates from His\nfoundation, the Church, under the guidance of His Spirit, and may be added\nto and modified by the Church from age to age. It is expressed in custom,\nuniversal and established, and it is found in written form in the works of\nthe Fathers, in the decrees of Councils, in the decretals of the popes,\nand in the concordats and conventions with secular sovereignties. From the\nbeginning, canon law tacitly or expressly adopted the constitutions of the\nChristian emperors relating to the Church, as well as the Roman law\ngenerally, under which the Church lived in its civil relations.\n\nThe Church arose within the Roman Empire, and who shall say that its\nwonderfully efficient and complete organization at the close of the\npatristic period was not the final creation of the legal and constructive\ngenius of Rome, newly inspired by the spirit of Christianity? But the\ncentre of interest had been transferred from earth to heaven, and human\naims had been recast by the Gospel and the understanding of it reached by\nChristian doctors. Evidently since the ideals of the Church were to be\nother than those of the Roman Empire, the law which it accepted or evolved\nwould have ideals different from those of the Roman law. If the great\nRoman jurists created a legal formulation and rendering of justice\nadequate for the highly developed social and commercial needs of Roman\ncitizens, the law of the Church, while it might borrow phrases, rules, and\neven general principles, from that system, could not fail to put new\nmeaning in them. For example, the constant will to render each his due,\nwhich was _justitia_ in the Roman law, might involve different\nconsiderations where the soul\u2019s salvation, and not the just allotment of\nthe goods of this world, was the law\u2019s chief aim. Again, what new meaning\nmight attach to the _honeste vivere_ and the _alterum non laedere_ of\npagan legal ethics. _Honeste vivere_ might mean to do no sin imperilling\nthe soul; _alterum non laedere_ would acquire the meaning of doing nothing\nto another which might impede his progress toward salvation. Injuries to a\nman in his temporalities were less important.\n\nFurther, Christianity although conceived as a religion for all mankind,\nwas founded on a definite code and revelation. The primary statement was\ncontained in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. These were\nfor all men, universal in application and of irrefragable validity and\ntruth. Here was some correspondence to the conception of the _jus gentium_\nas representative of universal principles of justice and expediency, and\ntherefore as equivalent to the _jus naturale_. There was something of\nlogical necessity in the transference of this conception to the law of\nChrist. Says Gratian at the beginning of his _Decretum_: \u201cIt is _jus\nnaturae_ which is contained in the Law and the Gospel, by which every one\nis commanded to do to another as he would be done by, and forbidden to\ninflict on him what he does not wish to happen to himself.\u201d Since the Law\nand the Gospel represent the final law of life for all men, they are _par\nexcellence_ the _jus naturae_, as well as _lex divina_. Gratian quotes\nfrom Augustine: \u201cDivinum jus in scripturis divinis habemus, humanum in\nlegibus regum.\u201d[403] And then adds: \u201cBy its authority the _jus naturale_\nprevails over custom and constitution. Whatever in customs or writings is\ncontrary to the _jus naturale_ is to be held vain and invalid.\u201d Again he\nsays more explicitly: \u201cSince therefore nothing is commanded by natural law\nother than what God wills to be, and nothing is forbidden except what God\nprohibits, and since nothing may be found in the canonical Scripture\nexcept what is in the divine laws, the laws will rest divinely in nature\n(_divine leges natura consistent_). It is evident, that whatever is proved\nto be contrary to the divine will or canonical Scripture, is likewise\nopposed to natural law. Wherefore whatever should give way before divine\nwill or Scripture or the divine laws, over that ought the _jus naturale_\nto prevail. Therefore whatever ecclesiastical or secular constitutions are\ncontrary to natural law are to be shut out.\u201d[404]\n\nThe canon law is a vast sea. Its growth, its age-long agglomerate\naccretion, the systematization of its huge contents, have long been\nsubjects for controversialists and scholars. Its sources were as\nmultifarious as those of the Roman law. First the Scriptures and the early\nquasi-apostolic and pseudo-apostolic writings; then the traditions of\nprimitive Christianity and also the writings of the Fathers; likewise\necclesiastical customs, long accepted and legitimate, and finally the two\ngreat written sources, the decretals or decisions of the popes and the\ndecrees of councils. From patristic times collections were made of the\nlast. These collections from a chronological gradually acquired a topical\nand more systemic arrangement, which the compilers followed more\ncompletely after the opening of the tenth century. The decisions of the\npopes also had been collected, and then were joined to conciliar\ncompilations and arranged after the same topical plan.\n\nIn all of them there was unauthentic matter, accepted as if its\npseudo-authorship or pseudo-source were genuine. But in the stormy times\nof the ninth century following the death of Charlemagne, the method of\nargument through forged authority was exceptionally creative. It produced\ntwo masterpieces which won universal acceptance. The first was a\ncollection of false Capitularies ascribed to Charlemagne and Louis the\nPious, and ostensibly the work of a certain Benedictus Levita, deacon of\nthe Church of Mainz, who worked in the middle of the century. Far more\nfamous and important was the book of _False Decretals_, put together and\nlargely written, that is forged, about the same time, probably in the\ndiocese of Rheims, and appearing as the work of Saint Isidore of Seville.\nThis contained many forged letters of the early popes and other forged\nmatter, including the Epistle or \u201cDonation\u201d of Constantine; also genuine\npapal letters and conciliar decrees. These false collections were accepted\nby councils and popes, and formed part of subsequent compilations.\n\nFrom the tenth century onward many such compilations were made, all of\nthem uncritical as to the genuineness of the matter taken, and frequently\nill-arranged and discordant. They were destined to be superseded by the\ngreat work in which appears the better methods and more highly trained\nintelligence developing at the Bologna School in the first part of the\ntwelfth century. Its author was Gratianus, a monk of the monastery of St.\nFelix at Bologna. He was a younger contemporary of Irnerius and of Peter\nLombard. Legend made him the latter\u2019s brother, with some propriety; for\nthe compiler of those epoch-making _Sentences_ represents the same stage\nin the appropriation of the patristic theological heritage of the Middle\nAges, that Gratian represents in the handling of the canon law. The\nLombard\u2019s _Sentences_ made a systematic and even harmonizing presentation\nof the theology of the Fathers in their own language; and the equally\nimmortal _Decretum_ of Gratian accomplished a like work for the canon law.\nThis is the name by which his work is known, but not the name he gave it.\nThat appears to have been _Concordia discordantium canonum_, which\nindicates his methodical presentation of his matter and his endeavour to\nreconcile conflicting propositions.\n\nThe first part of the _Decretum_ was entitled \u201cDe jure naturae et\nconstitutionis.\u201d It presents the sources of the law, the Church\u2019s\norganization and administration, the ordination and ranking of the clergy,\nthe election and consecration of bishops, the authority of legates and\nprimates. The second part treats of the procedure of ecclesiastical\ncourts, also the law regulating the property of the Church, the law of\nmonks and the contract of marriage. The third part is devoted to the\nSacraments and the Liturgy.\n\nGratian\u2019s usual method is as follows: He will open with an authoritative\nproposition. If he finds it universally accepted, it stands as valid. But\nif there are opposing statements, he tries to reconcile them, either\npointing out the difference in date (for the law of the Church may be\nprogressive), or showing that one of the discordant rules had but local or\notherwise limited application, or that the first proposition is the rule,\nwhile the others make the exceptions. If he still fails to establish\nconcord, he searches to find which rule had been followed in the Roman\nChurch, and accepts that as authoritative. A rule being thus made certain,\nhe proceeds with subdivisions and distinctions, treating them as\ndeductions from the main rule and adjusting the supporting texts. Or he\nwill suppose a controversy (_causa_) and discuss its main and secondary\nissues. Throughout he accompanies his authoritative matter with his own\ncommentary--commonly cited as the _Dicta Gratiani_.[405] The _Decretum_\nwas characterized by sagacity of interpretation and reconcilement, by vast\nlearning, and clear ordering of the matter. Only it was uncritical as to\nthe genuineness of its materials; and a number of Gratian\u2019s own statements\nwere subsequently disapproved in papal decretals. The _Dicta Gratiani_\nnever received such formal sanction by pope or council as the writings of\nRoman jurists received by being taken into Justinian\u2019s _Digest_.\n\nThe papal decretals had become the great source of canonical law.\nGratian\u2019s work was soon supplemented by various compilations known as\n_Appendices ad Decretum_ or _Decretales extravagantes_, to wit, those\nwhich the _Decretum_ did not contain. These, however, were superseded by\nthe collection, or rather codification, made at the command of the great\ncanonist Gregory IX. and completed in the year 1234. This authoritative\nwork preserved Gratian\u2019s _Decretum_ intact, but suppressed, or abridged\nand reordered, the decretals contained in subsequent collections. Arranged\nin five books, it forms the second part of the _Corpus juris canonici_. In\n1298 Boniface VIII. promulgated a supplementary book known as the _Sextus_\nof Boniface. This with a new collection promulgated under the authority of\nClement V. in 1313, called the _Clementinae_, and the _Extravagantes_ of\nhis successor John XXII. and certain other popes, constitute the last\nportions of the _Corpus juris canonici_.[406]\n\nAccording to the law of the Empire the emperor\u2019s authority extended over\nthe Church, its doctrine, its discipline, and its property. Such authority\nwas exercised by the emperors from Constantine to Justinian. But the\nChurch had always stood upon the principle that it was better to obey God\nrather than man. This had been maintained against the power of the pagan\nEmpire, and was not to be sunned out of existence by imperial favour. It\nwas still better to obey God rather than the emperor. The Church still\nshould say who were its members and entitled to participate in the\nsalvation which it mediated. Ecclesiastical authorities could\nexcommunicate; that was their engine of coercion. These principles were\nincarnate in Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, withstanding and prohibiting\nTheodosius from Christian fellowship until he had done penance for the\nmassacre at Thessalonica. Of necessity they inhered in the Church; they\nwere of the essence of its strength to fulfil its purpose; they stood for\nthe duly constituted power of Christian resolution to uphold and advance\nthe peremptory truth of Christ.\n\nSo such principles persisted through the time of the hostile and then the\nfavouring Roman Empire. And when the Empire in fact crumbled and fell,\nwhat _de facto_ and _de jure_ authority was best fitted to take the place\nof the imperial supremacy? The Empire represented a universal secular\ndominion; the Church was also universal, and with a universality now\nreaching out beyond the Empire\u2019s shrinking boundaries. In the midst of\npolitical fragments otherwise disjoined, the Church endured as the\nuniversal unity. The power of each Teutonic king was great in fact and law\nwithin his realm. Yet he was but a local potency, while the Church existed\nthrough his and other realms. And when the power of one Teutonic line (the\nCarolingian) reached something like universal sway, the Church was also\nthere within and without. It held the learning of the time, and the\nculture which large-minded seculars respected; and quite as much as the\nempire of Charlemagne, it held the prestige of Rome. Witness the attitude\nof Charles Martel and Pippin toward Boniface the great apostle, and the\nattitude of Boniface toward the Gregories whose legate he proclaimed\nhimself, and upon whose central authority he based his claims to be\nobeyed. Through the reforms of the Frankish Church, carried out by him\nwith the support of Charles Martel and Pippin, the ecclesiastical\nsupremacy of Rome was established. Charlemagne, indeed, from the nature\nand necessities of his own transcendent power, possessed in fact the\necclesiastical authority of the Roman emperors, whom men deemed his\npredecessors. But after him the secular power fell again into fragments\nscarcely locally efficient, while the Church\u2019s universality of authority\nendured.\n\nIn the unstable fragmentation of secular rule in the ninth century, the\nIsidorean _Decretals_ presented the truth of the situation as it was to\nbe, although not as it had been in the times of the Church dignitaries\nwhose names were forged for that collection. And thereafter, as the Church\nrecovered from its tenth-century disintegration, it advanced to the\npragmatic demonstration of the validity of those false _Decretals_, on\nthrough the tempests of the age of Hildebrand to the final triumph of\nInnocent III. at the opening of the thirteenth century. Evidently the\ncanon law, whatever might be its immediate or remote source, drew its\nauthority from the sanction of the Roman Catholic Church, which enunciated\nit and made it into a body corresponding to the Church\u2019s functions. It was\nwhat the Church promulgated as the law of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and\nthe kingdom of God on earth. It should be the temporal and legal\ncounterpart of the Church\u2019s spiritual purposes. Its general tendency and\npurpose was the promotion of the Church\u2019s saving aim, which regarded all\nthings in the light of their relationship to life eternal. Therefore the\nChurch\u2019s law could not but define and consider all worldly interests, all\npersonal and property rights and secular authority, with constant regard\nto men\u2019s need of salvation. The advancement of that must be the final\nappellate standard of legal right.\n\nSuch was the event. The entire canon law might be lodged within those\npropositions which Hildebrand enunciated and Innocent III. realized. For\nthe salvation of souls, all authority on earth had been entrusted by\nChrist to Peter and his successors. Theirs was the spiritual sword;\nsecular power, the sword material, was to be exercised under the pope\u2019s\nmandate and permission. No king or emperor, no layman whatsoever, was\nexempt from the supreme authority of the pope, who also was the absolute\nhead of the Church, which had become a monarchy. \u201cThe Lord entrusted to\nPeter not only the universal Church, but the government of the whole\nworld,\u201d writes Innocent III., whose pontificate almost made this principle\na fact. In private matters no member of the clergy could be brought before\na secular court; and the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts over\nthe laity threatened to reduce the secular jurisdiction to narrow\nfunctions.[407] The property of the Church might not be taxed or levied on\nby any temporal ruler or government; nor could the Church\u2019s functions and\nauthority be controlled or limited by any secular decree. Universally\nthroughout every kingdom the Church was a sovereignty, not only in matters\nspiritual, but with respect to all the personal and material\nrelationships that might be connected in any way with the welfare of\nsouls.[408]\n\n\nV\n\nThe exposition of the _Corpus juris civilis_ in the school of the\nglossators was of great moment in the evolution of _mediaeval political\ntheory_, which in its turn yields one more example of the mediaeval\napplication of thoughts derived from antique and patristic sources.\nPolitical thinking in the Middle Ages sought its surest foundation in\ntheology; then it built itself up with concepts drawn from the philosophy\nand social theory of the antique world; and lastly it laid hold on\njurisprudence, using the substance and reasoning of the Roman and the\nCanon law.\n\nMediaeval ideas upon government and the relations between the individual\nand his earthly sovereign, started from theological premises, of patristic\norigin: _e.g._ that the universe and man were made by God, a miraculous\ncreation, springing from no other cause, and subject to no other\nfundamental law, than God\u2019s unsearchable will, which never ceases to\ndirect the whole creation to the Creator\u2019s ends. A further premise was the\nScriptural revelation of God\u2019s purpose as to man, with all the contents of\nthat revelation touching the overweening importance of man\u2019s deathless\nsoul.\n\nUnity--the unity of the creation--springs from these premises, or is one\nof them. The principle of this unity is God\u2019s will. Within the universal\nwhole, mankind also constitutes a unit, a community, specially ordained\nand ordered. The Middle Ages, following the example of the patristic time,\nwere delivered over to allegory, and to an unbridled recognition of the\ndeductions of allegorical reasoning. Mankind was a community. Mankind was\nalso an organism, the mystical body whereof the head was Christ. Here was\nan allegory potent for foolishness or wisdom. It was used to symbolize\nthe mystery of the oneness of all mankind in God, and the organic\nco-ordination of all sorts and conditions of men with one another in the\ndivine commonwealth on earth; it was also drawn out into every detail of\nbanal anthropomorphic comparison. From John of Salisbury to Nicholas\nCusanus, Occam and Dante, no point of fancied analogy between the parts\nand members of the body and the various functions of Church and State was\nleft unexploited.[409]\n\nMankind then is one community; also an organism. But within the human\norganism abides the duality of soul and body; and the Community of Mankind\non earth is constituted of two orders, the spiritual and temporal, Church\nand State.[410] There must be either co-ordination between State and\nChurch, body and soul, or subordination of the temporal and material to\nthe eternal and spiritual. To evoke an adjustment of what was felt to be\nan actually universal opposition, was the chief problem of mediaeval\npolity, and forms the warp and woof of conflicting theories. The Church\nasserted a full spiritual supremacy even in things temporal, and, to\nsupport the claim, brought sound arguments as well as foolish\nallegory--allegory pretending to be horror-stricken at the vision of an\nanimal with two heads, a bicephalic monstrosity. But does not the Church\ncomprise all mankind? Did not God found it? Is not Christ its head, and\nunder Him his vicegerent Peter and all the popes? Then shall not the pope\nwho commands the greater, which is the spiritual, much more command the\nless, the temporal? And all the argumentation of the two swords, delivered\nto Peter, comes into play. That there are two swords is but a propriety of\nadministration. Secular rulers wield the secular sword at the pope\u2019s\ncommand. They are instruments of the Church. Fundamentally the State is\nan ecclesiastical institution, and the bounds of secular law are set by\nthe law spiritual: the canon law overrides the laws of every State. True,\nin this division, the State also is ordained of God, but only as\nsubordinate. And divinely ordained though it be, the origin of the State\nlies in sin; for sin alone made government and law needful for man.[411]\n\nOn the other hand, the partisans of the State upheld co-ordination as the\ntrue principle.[412] The two swords represent distinct powers, Sacerdotium\nand Imperium. The latter as well as the former is from God; and the two\nare co-ordinates, although of course the Church which wields the spiritual\nsword is the higher. This theory creates no bicephalic monster. God is the\nuniversal head. And even as man is body as well as soul, the human\ncommunity is State as well as Church; and the State needs the emperor for\nits head, as the Church has the pope. The Roman Dominion, _imperium\nmundi_, was legitimate, and by divine appointment has passed over to the\nRoman-German emperor. Other views sustaining the scheme of co-ordination\nupheld a plurality of states, rather than one universal Imperium. Of\ncourse these opposing views of subordination or co-ordination of State and\nChurch took on every shade of diversity.\n\nAs to both Church and State, mediaeval political theory was predominantly\nmonarchical. Ideally this flowed from the thought of God as the true\nmonarch of the universe. Practically it comported with mediaeval social\nconditions. Under Innocent III., if not under Gregory VII., the Church had\nbecome a monarchy well-nigh absolute.[413] The pope\u2019s power continued\nplenary until the great schism and the age of councils evoked by it. For\nthe secular state, the common voice likewise favoured monarchy. The unity\nof the social organism is best effected by the singleness of its head.\nThomas Aquinas authoritatively reasons thus, and Dante maintains that as\nthe unifying principle is Will, the will of one man is the best means to\nrealize it.[414] But monarchy is no absolute right existing for the\nruler\u2019s benefit, rather it is an office to be righteously exercised for\nthe good of the community. The monarch\u2019s power is limited, and if his\ncommand outrages law or right, it is a nullity; his subjects need not\nobey, and the principle applies, that it is better to obey God than man.\nEven when, as in the days of the Hohenstaufen, the civil jurists claimed\nfor the emperor the _plenitudo potestatis_ of a Roman Caesar, the opposite\ndoctrine held strong, which gave him only a limited power, in its nature\nconditioned on its rightful exercise.\n\nMoreover, rights of the community were not unrecognized, and indeed were\nsupported by elaborate theories as the Middle Ages advanced to their\nclimacteric. The thought of a contract between ruler and people frequently\nappears, and reference to the contract made at Hebron between David and\nthe people of Israel (2 Sam. v. 3). The civil jurist also looked back to\nthe principle of the _jus gentium_ giving to every free people the right\nto choose a ruler; also to that famous text of the _Digest_, where,\nthrough the _lex regia_, the people were said to have conferred their\npowers upon the princeps.[415] With such thoughts of the people\u2019s rights\ncame theories of representation and of the monarch as the people\u2019s\nrepresentative; and Roman corporation law supplied the rules for mediaeval\nrepresentative assemblies, lay and clerical.[416]\n\nThe old Germanic state was a conglomerate of positive law and specific\ncustom, having no existence beyond the laws, which were its formative\nconstituents. Such a conception did not satisfy mediaeval publicists,\nimbued with antique views of the State\u2019s further aims and potency. Nor\nwere all men satisfied with the State\u2019s divinely ordered origin in human\nsinfulness. An ultimate ground for its existence was sought, commensurate\nwith its broadest aims. Such was found, not in positive, but in natural\nlaw--again an antique conception. That a veritable natural law existed,\nall men agreed; also that its source lay back of human conventions,\nsomehow in the nature of God. All admitted its absolute supremacy, binding\nalike upon popes and secular monarchs, and rendering void all acts and\npositive laws contravening it. It must be the State\u2019s ultimate constituent\nground.\n\nGod was the source of natural law. Some argued that it proceeded from His\nwill, as a command, others that its source was eternal Reason announcing\nher necessary and unalterable dictates; again its source was held to lie\nmore definitely in the Reason that was identical with God the _summa ratio\nin Deo existens_, as Aquinas puts it. From that springs the _Lex\nnaturalis_, ordained to rest on the participation of man, as a rational\ncreature, in the moral order which he perceives by the light of natural\nreason. This _lex naturalis_ (or _jus naturale_) is a true promulgated\nlaw, since God implants it for recognition in the minds of men.[417]\nAbsolute unconditional supremacy was ascribed to it, and also to the _jus\ndivinum_, which God revealed supernaturally for a supramundane end. A\ncognate supremacy was ascribed to the _jus commune gentium_, which was\ncomposed of rules of the _jus naturale_ adapted to the conditions of\nfallen human nature.\n\nSuch law was above the State, to which, on the other hand, positive law\nwas subject. Whenever the ruler was conceived as sovereign or absolute, he\nlikewise was deemed above positive law, but bound by these higher laws.\nThey were the source and sanction of the innate and indestructible rights\nof the individual, to property and liberty and life as they were\nformulated at a later period. It is evident how the recognition of such\nrights fell in with the Christian revelation of the absolute value of\nevery individual in and for himself and his immortal life. On the other\nhand, certain rights of the State, or the community, were also\nindestructible and inalienable by virtue of the nature of their source in\nnatural law.[418]\n\nThis abstract of political theory has been stated in terms generalized to\nvagueness, and with no attempt to follow the details or trace the\nhistorical development. The purpose has been to give the general flavour\nof mediaeval thought concerning Church and State, and the Individual as a\nmember of them both. One observes how the patristic and mediaeval\nChristian thought mingles with the antique; and one may assume the\nintellectual acumen applied by legist, canonist, and scholastic theologian\nto the discussion and formulation of these high arguments. The mediaeval\ngenius for abstractions is evident, and the mediaeval faculty of linking\nthem to the affairs of life; clear also is the baneful effect of mediaeval\nallegory. Even as men now-a-days are disposed to rest in the apparent\nreality of the tangible phenomenon, so the mediaeval man just as commonly\nsought for his reality in what the phenomenon might be conceived to\nsymbolize. Therefore in the higher political controversies, even as in\nother interests of the human spirit, argument through allegory was\naccepted as legitimate, if not convincing; and a proper sequence of\nthought was deemed to lie from one symbolical meaning to another, with\neven a deeper validity than from one palpable fact to that which followed\nfrom it.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VII\n\nULTIMATE INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS OF THE TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH CENTURIES\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV\n\nSCHOLASTICISM: SPIRIT, SCOPE, AND METHOD\n\n\nThe religious philosophy or theology of the Middle Ages is commonly called\nscholasticism, and its exponents are called the scholastics. The name\napplies most properly to the respectable academic thinkers. These, in the\nearly Middle Ages, usually were monks living in monasteries, like St.\nAnselm, for instance, who was Abbot of Bec in Normandy before, to his\nsorrow, he was made Archbishop of Canterbury. In the thirteenth century,\nhowever, while these respected thinkers still were monks, or rather\nmendicant friars, they were also university professors. Albertus Magnus\nand St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Dominicans, and their friend St.\nBonaventura, who became the head of the Franciscan Order, all lectured at\nthe University of Paris, the chief university of the Middle Ages in the\ndomain of philosophy and theology. Moreover, as the scholastics were\nrespectable and academic, so they were usually orthodox Churchmen, good\nRoman Catholics. The conduct or opinions of some of them, Abaelard for\nexample, became suspect to the Church authorities; yet Abaelard, although\nhis book had been condemned, kept within the Church\u2019s pale, and died a\nmonk of Cluny. There were plenty of obdurate heretics in the Middle Ages;\nbut their bizarre ideas, sometimes coming down from Manichaean sources,\nwere scarcely germane to the central lines of mediaeval thought.[419]\n\nOne hears of scholastic philosophy and scholastic theology; and assuredly\nthese mediaeval theologian-philosophers endeavoured to distinguish between\nthe one and the other phase of the matters which occupied their minds. The\ndistinction was intelligibly drawn and, in many treatises, doubtless\naffected the choice and ordering of topics. Whether it was consistently\nobserved in the handling of those topics, is another question, which\nperhaps should be answered in the negative. At all events, to attempt to\nobserve this distinction in considering the ultimate intellectual\ninterests of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, might sap the matter of\nthe human interest attaching to it, to wit, that interest and validity\npossessed by all serious effort to know--and to be saved. These were the\nmotives of the scholastics, whether they used their reason, or clung to\nrevelation, or did both, as they always did.\n\nMediaeval methods of thinking and topics of thought are no longer in\nvogue. For the time, men have turned from the discussion of universals and\nthe common unity or separate individuality of mind, and are as little\nconcerned with transubstantiation as with the old dispute over\ninvestitures. But the scholastics were men and so are we. Our humanity is\none with theirs. Men are still under the necessity of reflecting upon\ntheir own existence and the world without, and still feel the need to\nreach conclusions and the impulse to formulate consistently what seem to\nthem vital propositions. Herein we are blood kin to Gerbert and Anselm, to\nAbaelard and Hugo of St. Victor, to Thomas Aquinas as well as Roger Bacon:\nand our highest nature is one with theirs in the intellectual fellowship\nof human endeavour to think out and present that which shall appease the\nmind. Because of this kinship with the scholastics, and the sympathy which\nwe feel for the struggle which is the same in us and them, their\nintellectual endeavours, their achieved conclusions, although now\nappearing as but apt or necessitated phrases, may have for us the immortal\ninterest of the eternal human.\n\nLet us then approach mediaeval thought as man meets man, and seek in it\nfor what may still be valid, or at least real to us, because agreeing with\nwhat we find within ourselves. Being men as well as scholars, we would win\nfrom its parchment-covered tomes those elements which if they do not\nrepresent everlasting verities, are at least symbols of the permanent\nnecessities of the human mind. Whatever else there is in mediaeval\nthought, as touching us less nearly, may be considered by way of\nhistorical setting and explanation.\n\nIn different men the impulse to know bears different relationships to the\nrest of life. It sometimes seems self-impelled, and again palpably\ninspired by a motive beyond itself. In some form, however, it winds itself\ninto every action of our mental faculties, and no province of life appears\nuntouched by this craving of the mind. Nevertheless to know is not the\nwhole matter; for with knowledge comes appetition or aversion, admiration\nor contempt, love or abhorrence; and other impulses--emotional,\ndesiderative, loving--impel the human creature to realize its nature in\nstates of heightened consciousness that are not palpable modes of knowing,\nthough they may be replete with all the knowledge that the man has gained.\n\nThese ultimate cravings which we recognize in ourselves, inspired\nmediaeval thought. Its course, its progress, its various phases, its\ncontents and completed systems, all represent the operation of human\nfaculty pressing to expression and realization under the accidental or\n\u201chistorical\u201d conditions of the mediaeval period. We may be sure that many\nkinds of human craving and corresponding faculty realized themselves in\nmediaeval philosophy, theology, piety and mysticism--the last a word used\nprovisionally, until we succeed in resolving it into terms of clearer\nsignificance. And we also note that in these provinces, realization is\nexpression. Every faculty, every energy, in man seeks to function, to\nrealize its power in act. The sheer body--if there be sheer body--acts\nbodily, operates, and so makes actual its powers. But those human energies\nwhich are informed with mind, realize themselves in ardent or rational\nthought, or in uttered words, or in products of the artfully devising\nhand. All this clearly is expression, and corresponds, if it is not one\nand the same, with the passing of energy from potency to the actuality\nwhich is its end and consummation. Thus love, seeking its end, thereby\nseeks expression, through which it is enhanced, and in which it is\nrealized. Likewise, impelled by the desire to know, the faculties of\ncognition and reason realize themselves in expression; and in expression\neach part of rational knowledge is clarified, completed, rendered\naccordant with the data of observation and the laws or necessities of the\nmind.\n\nHuman faculties form a correlated whole; and this composite human nature\nseeks to act, to _function_. Thus the whole man strives to realize the\nfullest actuality of his being, and satisfy or express the whole of him,\nand not alone his reason, nor yet his emotions, or his appetites. This\nuttermost realization of human being--man\u2019s _summum bonum_ or _summa\nnecessitas_--cannot unite the incompatible within its synthesis. It must\nbe kept a consistent ideal, a possible whole. Here the demiurge is the\ndiscriminating and constructive intelligence, which builds together the\npermanent and valuable elements of being, and excludes whatever cannot\ncoexist in concord with them. Yet the intelligence does not always set its\nown rational activities as man\u2019s furthest goal of realization. It may\nplace love above reason. And, of course, its discriminating judgment will\nbe affected by current knowledge and by dominant beliefs as to man and his\ndestiny, the universe and God.\n\nManifestly whatever the thoughtful idealizing man in any period (and our\nattention may at once focus itself upon the Middle Ages) adjudges to\nbelong to the final realization of his nature, will become an object of\nintellectual interest for him; and he will deem it a proper subject for\nstudy and meditation. The rational, spiritual, or even physical elements,\nwhich may enter and compose this, his _summum bonum_, represent those\nintellectual interests which may be termed ultimate, for the very reason,\nthat they relate to what the thinker deems his beatitude. These ultimate\nintellectual interests possess an absolute sanction, for the lack of which\nwhatever lies outside of them tends to adjudge itself vain.\n\nThe philosophy, theology, and the profoundly felt and reasoned piety, of\nthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries made up that period\u2019s ultimate\nintellectual interests. We are not concerned with other matters occupying\nits attention, save as they bore on man\u2019s supreme beatitude, which was\nheld to consist in his everlasting salvation and all that might constitute\nhis bliss in that unending state. The elements of this blessedness were\nnot deemed to lie altogether in rational cognition and its processes; for\nthe conception of the soul\u2019s beatitude was catholic; and while with some\nmen the intellectual elements were dominant, with others salvation\u2019s\nsummit was attained along the paths of spiritual emotion.\n\nObviously, from the side of the emotions, there could come no large and\nlasting happiness, unless emotional desire and devotion were directed to\nthat which might also satisfy the mind, or at all events, would not\nconflict with its judgment. Hence the emotional side of the ultimate\nmediaeval ideal was pietistic; because the mediaeval dogmatic faith\nregarded the emotional impulses between one human being and another as\ndistracting, if not wicked. Such mortal impulses were so very difficult to\nharmonize with the eternal beatitude which consisted in the cognition and\nlove of God. This principle was proclaimed by monks and theologians, or\nphilosophers; it was even recognized (although not followed) in the\nliterature which glorified the love of man and woman, but in which the\nlover-knight so often ends a hermit, and the convent at last receives his\nsinful mistress. On the other hand, reason, with its practical and\nspeculative knowledge, is sterile when unmixed with piety and love. This\nis the sum of Bonaventura\u2019s fervid arguments, and is as clearly, if more\nquietly, recognized by Aquinas, with whom _fides_ without _caritas_ is\n_informis_, formless, very far indeed from its true actuality or\nrealization.\n\nThus, for the full realization of man\u2019s highest good in everlasting\nsalvation, the two complementary phases of the human spirit had to act and\nfunction in concord. Together they must realize themselves in such\ncatholic expression as should exclude only the froward or evil elements,\nnon-elements rather, of man\u2019s nature. Both represent ultimate mediaeval\ninterests and desires; and perhaps deep down and very intimately, even\ninscrutably, they may be one, even as they clearly are complementary\nphases of the human soul. Yet with certain natures who perhaps fail to\nhold the balance between them, the two phases seem to draw apart, or, at\nleast, to evince themselves in distinct expression, and indeed in all men\nthey are usually distinguishable.\n\nGenerally speaking, the conception of man\u2019s divinely mediated salvation,\nand of the elements of human being which might be carried on, and realized\nin a state of everlasting beatitude, prescribed the range of ultimate\nintellectual interests for the Middle Ages. The same had been despotically\ntrue of the patristic period. Augustine would know God and the soul;\nAmbrose expressed equally emphatic views upon the vanity of all knowledge\nthat did not contribute to an understanding of the Christian Faith. This\nview was held with temperamental and barbarizing narrowness by Gregory the\nGreat. It was admitted, as of course, throughout the Carolingian period,\nalthough humanistically-minded men played with the pagan literature. Nor\nwas it seriously disputed in the eleventh or twelfth century, when men\nbegan to delight in dialectic, and some cared for pagan literature; nor\nyet in the thirteenth when an increasing number were asking many things\nfrom philosophy and natural knowledge, which had but distant bearing on\nthe soul\u2019s salvation. One of these men was Roger Bacon, whose scientific\nstudies were pursued with ceaseless energy. But he could also state\nemphatically the principle of the worthlessness of whatever does not help\nmen to understand the divine truths by which they are saved. In Bacon\u2019s\ntime, the love of knowledge was enlarging its compass, while, really or\nnominally as the individual case might be, the criterion of relevancy to\nthe Faith still obtained, and set the topics with which men should occupy\nthemselves. All matters of philosophy or natural science had to relate\nthemselves to the _summum bonum_ of salvation in order to possess ultimate\nhuman interest. Therefore, if philosophy was to preserve the strongest\nreason for its existence, it had to remain the handmaid of theology.\nStill, to be sure, the conception of man\u2019s beatitude would become more\ncomprehensive with the expansion and variegation of the desire for\nknowledge.\n\nAs the _summum bonum_ of salvation prescribed the topics of ultimate\nintellectual interest for the Middle Ages, so the stress which it laid\nupon one topic rather than another tended to direct their ordering or\nclassification, as well as the proportion of attention devoted to each\none. Likewise the form or method of presentation was controlled by the\nauthority of the Scriptural statement of the way and means of salvation,\nand the well-nigh equally authoritative interpretation of the same by the\nbeatified Fathers. Thus the nature of the _summum bonum_ and the character\nof its Scriptural statement and patristic exposition suggested the\narrangement of topics, and set the method of their treatment in those\nworks of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which afford the most\nimportant presentations of the ultimate intellectual interests of that\ntime. Obvious examples will be Abaelard\u2019s _Sic et non_ and his\n_Theologia_, Hugo of St. Victor\u2019s _De sacramentis_, the Lombard\u2019s _Books\nof Sentences_, and the _Summa theologiae_ of Thomas Aquinas.\n\nIt will be seen in the next chapter that the arrangement of topics in\nthese comprehensive treatises differed from what would have been evolved\nthrough the requirements of a systematic presentation of human knowledge.\nAquinas sets forth the reasons why one mode of treatment is suitable to\nphilosophy and another to sacred science, and why the latter may omit\nmatters proper for the former, or treat them from another point of view.\nThe supremacy of sacred science is incidentally shown by the argument. In\nhis _Contra Gentiles_[420] chapter four, book second, bears the title:\n\u201cQuod aliter considerat de creaturis Philosophus et aliter Theologus\u201d\n(\u201cThat the philosopher views the creation in one way and the theologian in\nanother\u201d). In the text he says:\n\n    \u201cThe science (_doctrina_) of Christian faith considers creatures so\n    far as there may be in them some likeness of God, and so far as error\n    regarding them might lead to error in things divine.... Human\n    philosophy considers them after their own kind, and its parts are so\n    devised as to correspond with the different classes (_genera_) of\n    things; but the faith of Christ considers them, not after their own\n    kind, as for example, fire as fire, but as representing the divine\n    altitude.... The philosopher considers what belongs to them according\n    to their own nature; the believer (_fidelis_) regards in creatures\n    only what pertains to them in their relationship to God, as that they\n    are created by Him and subject to Him. Wherefore the science of the\n    Faith is not to be deemed incomplete, if it passes over many\n    properties of things, as the shape of the heaven or the quality of\n    motion.... It also follows that the two sciences do not proceed in the\n    same order. With philosophy, which regards creatures in themselves,\n    and from them draws on into a knowledge of God, the first\n    consideration is in regard to the creatures and the last is as to God.\n    But in the science of faith, which views creatures only in their\n    relationship to God (_in ordine ad Deum_), the first consideration is\n    of God, and next of the creatures.\u201d\n\nObviously _sacra doctrina_, which is to say, _theologia_, proceeds\ndifferently from _philosophia humana_, and evidently it has to do with\nmatters of ultimate importance, and therefore of ultimate intellectual\ninterest. The passage quoted from the _Contra Gentiles_ may be taken as\nintroductory to the more elaborate statement at the beginning of his\n_Summa theologiae_, where Thomas sets forth the principles by which _sacra\ndoctrina_ is distinguished from the _philosophicae disciplinae_, to wit,\nthe various sciences of human philosophy:\n\n    \u201cIt was necessary to human salvation that there should be a science\n    (_doctrina_) according with divine revelation, besides the\n    philosophical disciplines which are pursued by human reason. Because\n    man was formed (_ordinatur_) toward God as toward an end exceeding\n    reason\u2019s comprehension. That end should be known to men, who ought to\n    regulate their intentions and actions toward an end. Wherefore it was\n    necessary for salvation that man should know certain matters through\n    revelation, which surpass human reason.\u201d\n\nThomas now points out that, on account of many errors, it also was\nnecessary for man to be instructed through divine revelation as to those\nsaving truths concerning God which human reason was capable of\ninvestigating. He next proceeds to show that _sacra doctrina_ is science.\n\n    \u201cBut there are two kinds of sciences. There are those which proceed\n    from the principles known by the natural light of the mind, as\n    arithmetic and geometry. There are others which proceed from\n    principles known by the light of a superior science: as perspective\n    proceeds from principles made known through geometry, and music from\n    principles known through arithmetic. And _sacra doctrina_ is science\n    in this way, because it proceeds from principles known by the light of\n    a superior science or knowledge which is the knowledge belonging to\n    God and the beatified. Thus as music believes the principles delivered\n    to it by arithmetic, so sacred doctrine believes the principles\n    revealed to it from God.\u201d\n\nThe question then is raised whether _sacra doctrina_ is one science, or\nmany. And Thomas answers, that it is one, by reason of the unity of its\nformal object. For it views everything discussed by it as divinely\nrevealed; and all things which are subjects of revelation (_revelabilia_)\nhave part in the formal conception of this science; and so are\ncomprehended under _sacra doctrina_, as under one science. Nevertheless it\nextends to subjects belonging to various departments of knowledge so far\nas they are knowable through divine illumination. As some of these may be\npractical and some speculative, it follows that sacred science includes\nboth the practical and the speculative, even as God with the same\nknowledge knows himself and also the things He makes.\n\n    \u201cYet this science is more speculative than practical, because on\n    principle it treats of divine things rather than human actions, which\n    it treats in so far as man by means of them is directed (_ordinatur_)\n    to perfect cognition of God, wherein eternal beatitude consists. This\n    science in its speculative as well as practical functions transcends\n    other sciences, speculative and practical. One speculative science is\n    said to be worthier than another, by reason of its certitude, or the\n    dignity of its matter. In both respects this science surpasses other\n    speculative sciences, because the others have certitude from the\n    natural light of human reason, which may err; but this has certitude\n    from the light of the divine knowledge, which cannot be deceived;\n    likewise by reason of the dignity of its matter, because primarily it\n    relates to matters too high for reason, while other sciences consider\n    only those which are subjected to reason. It is worthier than the\n    practical sciences, which are ordained for an ulterior end; for so far\n    as this science is practical, its end is eternal beatitude, unto which\n    as an ulterior end all other ends of the practical sciences are\n    ordained (_ordinantur_).\n\n    \u201cMoreover although this science may accept something from the\n    philosophical sciences, it requires them merely for the larger\n    manifestation of the matters which it teaches. For it takes its\n    principles, not from other sciences, but immediately from God through\n    revelation. So it does not receive from them as from superiors, but\n    uses them as servants. Even so, it uses them not because of any defect\n    of its own, but because of the defectiveness of our intellect which is\n    more easily conducted (_manuducitur_) by natural reason to the things\n    above reason which this science teaches.\u201d\n\nThomas now shows, with scholastic formalism, that God is the _subjectum_\nof this science; since all things in it are treated with reference to God\n(_sub ratione Dei_), either because they are God himself, or because they\nbear relationship (_habent ordinem_) to God as toward their cause and end\n(_principium et finem_). The final question is whether this science be\n_argumentativa_, using arguments and proofs; and Thomas thus sets forth\nhis masterly solution:\n\n    \u201cI reply, it should be said that as other sciences do not prove their\n    first principles, but argue from them in order to prove other matters,\n    so this science does not argue to prove its principles, which are\n    articles of Faith, but proceeds from them to prove something else, as\n    the Apostle, in 1 Corinthians xv., argues from the resurrection of\n    Christ to prove the resurrection of us all. One should bear in mind\n    that in the philosophic sciences the lower science neither proves its\n    own first principles nor disputes with him who denies them, but leaves\n    that to a higher science. But the science which is the highest among\n    them, that is metaphysics, does dispute with him who denies its\n    principles, if the adversary will concede anything; if he concede\n    nothing it cannot thus argue with him, but can only overthrow his\n    arguments. Likewise _sacra Scriptura_ (or _doctrina_ or sacred\n    science, theology), since it owns no higher science, disputes with him\n    who denies its principles, by argument indeed, if the adversary will\n    concede any of the matters which it accepts through revelation. Thus\n    through Scriptural authorities we dispute against heretics, and adduce\n    one article against those who deny another. But if the adversary will\n    give credence to nothing which is divinely revealed, sacred science\n    has no arguments by which to prove to him the articles of faith, but\n    has only arguments to refute his reasonings against the Faith, should\n    he adduce any. For since faith rests on infallible truth, its contrary\n    cannot be demonstrated: manifestly the proofs which are brought\n    against it are not proofs, but controvertible arguments.\n\n    \u201cTo argue from authority is most appropriate to this science; for its\n    principles rest on revelation, and it is proper to credit the\n    authority of those to whom the revelation was made. Nor does this\n    derogate from the dignity of this science; for although proof from\n    authority based on human reason may be weak, yet proof from authority\n    based on divine revelation is most effective.\n\n    \u201cYet sacred science also makes use of human reason; not indeed to\n    prove the Faith, because this would take away the merit of believing;\n    but to make manifest other things which may be treated in this\n    science. For since grace does not annul nature, but perfects it,\n    natural reason should serve faith, even as the natural inclination\n    conforms itself to love (_caritas_). Hence sacred science uses the\n    philosophers also as authority, where they were able to know the truth\n    through natural reason. It uses authorities of this kind as extraneous\n    arguments having probability. But it uses the authorities of the\n    canonical Scriptures arguing from its own premises and with certainty.\n    And it uses the authorities of other doctors of the Church, as arguing\n    upon its own ground, yet only with probability. For our faith rests\n    upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets, who wrote the\n    canonical books; and not upon the revelation, if there was any, made\n    to other doctors.\u201d[421]\n\nMediaeval thought was beset behind and before by the compulsion of its\nconditions. Its mighty antecedents lived in it, and wrought as moulding\nforces. Well we know them, two in number, the one, of course, the antique\nphilosophy; the other, again of course, the dogmatic Christian Faith,\nitself shot through and through with antique metaphysics, in the terms of\nwhich it had been formulated. These two, very dual and yet joined,\nantagonistic and again united, constituted the form-giving principles of\nmediaeval thinking. They were, speaking in scholastic phrase, the\nsubstantial as well as accidental forms of mediaeval theology, philosophy,\nand knowledge. Which means that they set the lines of mediaeval theology\nor philosophy, and caused the one and the other to be what it became,\nrather than something else; and also that they supplied the knowledge\nwhich mediaeval men laboured to acquire, and attempted to adjust their\nthinking to. Thus, through the twelfth, the thirteenth, and the fourteenth\ncenturies, they remained the inworking formal causes of mediaeval thought;\nwhile, on the other hand, the moving and efficient causes (still speaking\nin scholastic-Aristotelian phrase) were the human impulses which those\nformal causes moulded, or indeed suggested, and the faculties which they\ntrained.\n\nThe patristic system of dogma with the antique philosophy, set the forms\nof mediaeval expression, fixed the distinctive qualities of mediaeval\nthought, furnished its topics, and even necessitated its problems--in two\nways: First, through the specific substance which passed over and filled\nthe mediaeval productions; and secondly, simply by reason of the existence\nof such a vast authoritative body of antique and patristic opinion,\nknowledge, dogma, which the Middle Ages had to accept and master, and\nbeyond which the substance of mediaeval thinking was hardly destined to\nadvance.\n\nThe first way is obvious enough, inasmuch as patristic and antique matter\npalpably make the substance of mediaeval theology and philosophy. The\nsecond is less obvious, but equally important. This mass of dogma,\nknowledge, and opinion, existed finished and complete. Men imperfectly\nequipped to comprehend it were brought to it by the conviction that it was\nnecessary to their salvation, and then gradually by the persuasion also\nthat it offered the only means of intellectual progress. The struggle to\nmaster such a volume of knowledge issuing from a more creative past, gave\nrise to novel problems, or promoted old ones to a novel prominence. The\nproblem of universals was taken directly from the antique dialectic. It\nplayed a monstrous r\u00f4le in the twelfth century because it was in very\nessence a fundamental problem of cognition, of knowing, and so pressed\nupon men who were driven by the need to master continually unfolding\ncontinents of thought.[422] This is an instance of a problem transmitted\nfrom the past, but blown up to extraordinary importance by mediaeval\nintellectual conditions. So throughout the whole scholastic range,\nattitude and method alike are fixed by the fact that scholasticism was\nprimarily an appropriation of transmitted propositions.\n\nIn considering the characteristics of mediaeval thought, it is well to\nbear in mind these diverse ways in which its antecedents made it what it\nwas: through their substance transmitted to it; through the receptive\nattitude forced upon men by existing accumulations of authoritative\ndoctrine, and the method entailed upon mediaeval thought by its scholastic\nrather than originative character. Also one will not omit to notice which\nelements came from the action of the patristic body of antecedents, rather\nthan from the antique group, and _vice versa_.\n\nSince the antique and patristic constituted well-nigh the whole substance\nof philosophy and theology in the Middle Ages, a separate consideration of\nwhat was thus transmitted would amount to a history of mediaeval thought\nfrom a somewhat unilluminating point of view. On the other hand, one may\nlearn much as to the qualities of mediaeval thought from observing the\nattitudes of various men in successive centuries toward Greek philosophy\nand patristic theology. The Fathers had used the concepts of the former in\nthe construction of their systems of acceptance of the Christian Faith.\nBut the spirit of inquiry from which Greek philosophy had sprung, was very\ndifferent from the spirit in which the Fathers used its concepts and\narguments, in order to substantiate what they accepted on the authority of\nScripture and tradition. It is true that Greek philosophy in the\nNeo-Platonism of Porphyry and Iamblicus was not far from the patristic\nattitude toward knowledge. But the spirit of these declining moods of\nNeo-Platonism was not the spirit which had carried the philosophy of the\nGreeks to its intellectual culmination in Plato and Aristotle, and to\nits attainment of the ethically rational in Stoicism and the system of\nEpicurus.\n\nThus patristic thinking was essentially different in purpose and method\nfrom the philosophy which it forced to serve its uses; and the two\ndiffered by every difference of method, spirit, and intent which were\ndestined to appear among the various kinds of mediaeval thinkers. But the\ndifference between Greek philosopher and Church Father was deeper than any\nthat ever could exist among mediaeval men. Some of the last might be\nconventionally orthodox and passionately pious, while others cared more\ndistinctly for the fruits of knowledge. But even these could not be as\nGreek philosophers, because they were accustomed to rely on authority, and\nbecause they who drew their knowledge from an existing store would not\nhave the independence and originality distinguishing the Greeks, who had\ncreated so much of that store from which they drew.[423] Moreover, while\nneither Plato\u2019s inquiry for truth, nor Aristotle\u2019s catholic search for\nknowledge, was isolated from its bearing on either the conduct or the\nevent of life, nevertheless with them rational inquiry was a final motive\nrepresenting in itself that which was most divinely human, and so the best\nfor man.[424] But with the philosophers of the Middle Ages, it never was\nquite so. For the need of salvation had worked in men\u2019s blood for\ngenerations. And salvation, man\u2019s highest good, did not consist in\nhumanly-attained knowledge or in virtue won by human strength; but was\ndivinely mediated and had to be accepted upon authority. Hence, even in\nthe great twelfth and thirteenth centuries, intellectual inquiry was never\nunlimbered from bands of deference, nor ever quite dispassionately\nrational or unaffected by the mortal need to attain a salvation which was\nbestowed or withheld by God according to His plan authoritatively\ndeclared.\n\nAccordingly all mediaeval variances of thought show common similitudes: to\nwit, some consciousness of need of super-rational and superhuman\nsalvation; deference to some authority; and finally a pervasive\nscholasticism, since mediaeval thought was of necessity diligent,\nacceptant, reflective, rather than original. One will be impressed with\nthe formal character of mediaeval thought. For being thus scholastic, it\nwas occupied with devising forms through which to express, or re-express,\nthe mass of knowledge proffered to it. Besides, formal logic was a\nprominent part of the transmitted contents of antique philosophy; and\nbecame a chief discipline for mediaeval students; because they accepted it\nalong with all the rest, and found its training helpful for men burdened\nwith such intellectual tasks as theirs.\n\nWithin the lines of these universal qualities wind the divergencies of\nmediaeval thought; and one will notice how they consist in leanings toward\nthe ways of Greek philosophy, or a reliance more or less complete upon the\ncontents and method of patristic theology. One common quality, of which we\nnote the variations, is that of deference to the authority of the past.\nThe mediaeval scholar could hardly read a classic poet without finding\nauthoritative statements upon every topic brushed by the poet\u2019s fancy, and\nof course the matter of more serious writings, history, logic, natural\nscience, was implicitly accepted. If the pagan learning was thus regarded,\nhow much more absolute was the deference to sacred doctrine. Here all was\nauthority. Scripture was the primary source; next came the creed, and the\ndogmas established by councils; and then the expositions of the Fathers.\nThus the meaning of the authoritative Scripture was pressed into\nauthoritative dogma, and then authoritatively systematized. The process\nhad been intellectual and rational, yet with the driven rationality of\nChurch Fathers struggling to formulate and express the accepted import of\nthe Faith delivered to the saints. Authority, faith, held the primacy, and\nin two senses, for not only was it supreme and final, but it was also\nprior in initiative efficiency. Tertullian\u2019s _certum est, quia impossibile\nest_, was an extreme paradox. But Augustine\u2019s _credimus ut cognoscamus_\nwas fundamental, and remained unshaken. Anselm lays it at the basis of his\narguments; with Bernard and many others it is _credo_ first of all, let\nthe _intelligere_ come as it may, and as it will according to the fulness\nof our faith. The same principle of faith\u2019s efficient primacy is\ntemperamentally as well as logically fundamental with Bonaventura.\n\nHere then was a first general quality of mediaeval thought: deference to\nauthority. Now for the variances. Scarcely diverging, save in emphasis,\nfrom Augustine and Bonaventura, are the greatest of the schoolmen, Albert\nand Thomas. They defer to authority and recognize the primacy of faith,\nand yet they will, with abundant use of reason, deliminate the respective\nprovinces of grace and human knowledge, and distinguish the absolute\nauthority of Scripture from the statements even of the saints, which may\nbe weighed and criticized. In secular philosophy, these two will, when\ntheir faith admits, accept the views of the philosophers--Aristotle above\nall--yet using their own reason. They are profoundly interested in\nknowledge and metaphysical dialectic, but follow it with deferential\ntempers and believing Christian souls.\n\nOutside the company of such, are men of more independent temper, whose\nattitude tends to weaken the principle of acceptance of authority in\nsacred doctrine. The first of these was Eriugena with his explicit\nstatement that reason is greater than authority; yet we may assume that he\nwas not intending to impugn Scripture. Centuries later another chief\nexample is Abaelard, whose dialectic temper leads him to wish to prove\neverything by reason. Not that he stated, or would have admitted this; yet\nthe extreme rationalizing tendency of the man is projected through such a\npassage as the following from his _Historia calamitatum_, where he alludes\nto the circumstances of the composition of his work upon the Trinity. He\nhad become a monk in the monastery of St. Denis, but students were still\nthronging to hear him, to the wrath of some of his superiors.\n\n    \u201cThen it came about that I was brought to expound the very foundation\n    of our faith by applying the analogies of human reason, and was led to\n    compose for my pupils a theological treatise on the divine Unity and\n    Trinity. They were calling for human and philosophical arguments, and\n    insisting upon something intelligible, rather than mere words, saying\n    that there had been more than enough of talk which the mind could not\n    follow; that it was impossible to believe what was not understood in\n    the first place; and that it was ridiculous for any one to set forth\n    to others what neither he nor they could rationally conceive\n    (_intellectu capere_).\u201d\n\nAnd Abaelard cites the verse from Matthew about the blind leaders of the\nblind, and goes on to tell of the success of his treatise, which pleased\neverybody, yet provoked the greater envy because of the difficulty of the\nquestions which it elucidated; and at last envy blew up the condemnation\nof his book, at the Council of Soissons, in the year of grace 1121.[425]\n\nHere one has the plain reversal. We must first understand in order to\nbelieve. Doubtless the demands of Abaelard\u2019s students to have the\nprinciples of the Christian Faith explained, that they might be understood\nand accepted rationally, echoed the master\u2019s imperative intellectual need.\nNot that Abaelard would breathe the faintest doubt of these verities; they\nwere absolute and unquestionable. He accepted them upon authority just as\nimplicitly (he might think) as St. Bernard. Herein he shows the mediaeval\nquality of deference. But he will understand with his mind the profoundest\ntruths enunciated by authority; he will explain them rationally, that the\nmind may rationally comprehend them.\n\nMen of an opposite cast of mind foresaw the outcome of this\nrationalization of dogma more surely than the subtle dialectician for whom\nthis process was both peremptory and proper. And the Church acted with a\ntrue instinct in condemning Abaelard in spite of his protestations of\nbelief, just as with a like true instinct Friar Bacon\u2019s own Franciscan\nOrder looked askance on one whose mind was suspiciously set upon\nobservation and experiment--and cavilling at others. _Celui-ci tuera\ncela!_ The ultra-scientific spirit is dangerous to faith--and Bacon\u2019s\nasseverations that no knowledge was of value save as it helped the soul\u2019s\nsalvation, was doubtless regarded as a conventional insincerity. Yet Roger\nBacon had his mediaeval deferences, as will appear.[426]\n\nNeither one extreme view nor the other was to represent the attitude of\nthoughtful and believing Christendom; not William of St. Thierry and St\nBernard, nor yet (on these points) Abaelard and Friar Bacon should\nprevail; but the all-balancing and all-considering Aquinas. He will draw\nthe lines between faith and reason, and bulwark them with arguments which\nshall seem to render unto reason the things of reason, and unto faith its\ndue. Yet it is actually Roger Bacon who accuses Thomas of making his\n_Theology_ out of dialectic and very human reasonings. It was true; and we\nare again reminded how variant views shaded into each other in the Middle\nAges, and all within certain lines of similarity. Practically all\nmediaeval thinkers defer to authority--more or less; and all hold to some\nprinciple of faith, to the necessity of _believing_ something, for the\nsoul\u2019s salvation. There is likewise some similarity in their attitudes\ntoward intellectual interests. For all recognized their propriety, and\ngave credit to the human desire to know. Likewise all saw that salvation,\nthe _summum bonum_ for man, included more than intellection; and felt that\nit held some consummation of other human impulses; that it held love--the\nlove of God along with the intellectual ardour of contemplation; and\nwell-nigh all recognized also that the faith held mystery, not to be\nsolved by reason. Thus all were rational--some more, some less; and all\nwere devotional and believing, pietistic, ardent--some more, some less;\naccording as the intellectual nature dominated over the emotional, or the\nemotions quelled the conscious exercise of reason, yet reached out and\nupward from what knowledge and reason had given as a base to spring from.\n\nThus the mediaeval spirit, variant within its lines of likeness; and of a\npiece with it was the field it worked in, which made its range and scope.\nHere as well, a saving knowledge of God and the soul was central and chief\namong all intellectual interests. None denied this. Augustine, the\nuniversal prototype of the mediaeval mind, had cried, \u201cGod and the soul,\nthese will I know, and these are all.\u201d But wide had been the scope of\n_his_ knowledge of God and the soul; and in the centuries which hung upon\nhis words, wide also was the range of knowledge subsumed under those\ncapitals. How would one know God and the soul? Might one not know God in\nall His universe, in the height and breadth thereof, and backwards and\nforwards through the reach of time? Might not one also know the soul in\nall its operations, all its queries and desires; would not it and they,\nand their activities, make up the complementary side of\nknowledge--complementary to the primal object, God, known in His eternity,\nin His temporal creation, in His everlasting governance? Wide or narrow\nmight be the intellectual interests included within a knowledge of God and\nthe soul. And while many men kept close to the centre and saving _nexus_\nof these potentially universal themes, others might become absorbed with\ndata of the creature-world, or with the manifold actions of the mind of\nman, so as to forget to keep all duly ordered and connected with the\ncentral thought.\n\nSo the search for knowledge might roam afield. Likewise as to its motive;\npractically with many men it was, in itself, a joy and end; although they\nmight continue to connect this end formally with the salvation of the\nsoul. Roger Bacon of a surety was such a one. Another was Albertus Magnus.\nThe laborious culling of twenty tomes of universal knowledge surely had\nthe joy of knowing as the active motive. And Aquinas too; no one could be\nsuch an acquisitive and reasoning genius, without the love of knowledge in\nhis soul. Yet Thomas never let this love point untrue to its goal of\nresearch and devotion, to wit, sacred doctrine, theology, the Christian\nFaith in its very widest compass, yet in its unity of saving purpose.\n\nIn Thomas Aquinas the certitude of faith, the sense of grace, the ardour\nof love, never quenched the conscious action of the reasoning and knowing\nmind; nor did reasoning quench devotion. A balance too, though perhaps\nwith one scale higher than the other, was kept by Bonaventura, whose mind\nhad reason\u2019s faculty, but whose heart burned perpetually toward God.\nAnother rationally ardent soul was Bonaventura\u2019s intellectual forerunner,\nHugo of St. Victor. In these men intellect did not outstrip the fervours\nof contemplation. But such catholic balance did not hold with Abaelard and\nBacon, who lacked the pietistic temperament. With others, conversely, the\nstrength of the pietistic and emotional nature overbore the intellect;\nthe mind was less exacting; and devotional ardour used reason solely for\nits purposes. The mightiest of these were Bernard and Francis. To the same\nkey might chime the woman, St. Hildegard of Bingen. We narrow down from\nthese to hectic souls content with a few thoughts which serve as a basis\nfor the heart\u2019s fervours.\n\nThe varying attitudes of mediaeval thinkers toward reason and authority,\nand even their different views upon the limits of the field of salutary\nknowledge, are exemplified in their methods, or rather in the variations\nof their common method. Here the factors were again authority and the\nintellect which considers the authority, and in terms of its own rational\nprocesses reacts upon the proposition under view. The intellect might\nsimply accept authority; or, on the other hand, it might, through\ndialectic, seek a conclusion of its own. But midway between a mere\nacceptance of authority, and the endeavour of dialectic for a conclusion\nof its own, there is the reasoning process which perceives divergence\namong authorities, compares, discriminates, interprets, and at last acts\nas umpire. This was the combined and catholic scholastic method. It\ncontained the two factors of its necessary duality; and its variations\n(besides the gradual perfecting of its form from one generation to\nanother) consisted in the predominant employment of one factor or the\nother.\n\nThe beginning was in the Carolingian time, when Rabanus compiled his\nauthorities from sources sacred and profane, scarcely discriminating\nexcept to maintain the pre-eminence of the sacred matter. His younger\ncontemporary, Eriugena, was a translator of his own chief source,\nPseudo-Dionysius, him of the _Hierarchies_, Celestial and Ecclesiastical.\nYet he composed also a veritable book, _De divisione naturae_, in which he\nput his matter together organically and with argument. And while\nprofessing to hold to the authority of Scripture and the Fathers, he not\nonly took upon himself to select from their statements, but propounded the\nproposition that the authority which is not confirmed by reason appears\nweak. Eriugena made his authorities yield him what his reason required.\nHis argumentative method became an independent rehandling of matter drawn\nfrom them. It was very different from the plodding excerpt-gathering of\nRabanus.\n\nWe pass down the centuries to Anselm. Contemplative and religious, his\nreverence for authority was unimpaired by any conscious need to refashion\nits meaning. Though he possessed creative intellectual powers, they were\nincited and controlled by his deep piety. Hence his works were constructed\nof original and lofty arguments, but such as did not infringe upon either\nthe efficient or the final priority of faith.\n\nWith Abaelard of many-sided fame the duality of method becomes explicit,\nand is, if one may say so, set by the ears. On the one hand, he advances\nin his constructive theological treatises toward a portentous application\nof reason to explain the contents of the Christian Faith; on the other,\nsomewhat sardonically, he devises a scheme for the employment and\npresentation of authorities upon these sacred matters, a scheme so\nobviously apt that once made known it could not but be followed and\nperfected.\n\nThe divers works of a man are likely to bear some relation and resemblance\nto each other. Abaelard was a reasoner, more specifically speaking, a\ndialectician according to the ways of Aristotelian logic. And in\ncategories of formal logic he sought to rationalize every matter\napprehended by his mind. Swayed by the master-interest of the time, he\nturned to theology; and his own nature impelled him to apply a\nconstructive dialectic to its systematic formulation. The result is\nexemplified in the extant portion of his _Theologia_ (mis-called\n_Introductio ad Theologiam_), which was condemned by the Council of Sens\nin 1141, the year before the master\u2019s death. The spirit of this work\nappears in the passage already quoted from the _Historia calamitatum_,\nreferring to what was substantially an earlier form of the\n_Theologia_.[427] The _Theologia_ argues for a free use of dialectic in\nexpounding dogma, especially in order to refute those heretics who will\nnot listen to authority, but demand reasons. Like Abaelard\u2019s previous\ntheological treatises, it is filled with citations of authority,\nprincipally Augustine; and the reader feels the author\u2019s hesitancy to\nreveal that dialectic is the architect. Nor, in fact, is the work an\nexclusively dialectic structure; yet it illustrates (if it does not always\ninculcate) the application of the arguments of human reason to the\nexposition and substantiation of the fundamental and most deeply hidden\ncontents of the Christian Faith. Obviously Abaelard was not an initiator\nhere. Augustine had devoted his life to fortifying the Faith with argument\nand explanation; Eriugena, with a far weaker realization of its contents,\nhad employed a more distorting metaphysics in its presentation; and\nsaintly Anselm had flown his veritable eagle flights of reason. But\nAbaelard\u2019s more systematic work represents a further stage in the\napplication of independent dialectic to dogma, and an innovating freedom\nin the citation of pagan philosophers to demonstrate its philosophic\nreasonableness. Nevertheless his statement that he had gathered these\ncitations from writings of the Fathers, and not from the books of the\nphilosophers (_quorum pauca novi_),[428] shows that he was only using what\nthe Fathers had made use of before him, and also indicates the slightness\nof his independent knowledge of Greek philosophy.\n\nOn the other hand, Abaelard\u2019s way of presenting authorities for and\nagainst a theological proposition was more distinctly original. He seems\nto have been the first purposefully to systematize the method of stating\nthe problem, and then giving in order the authorities on one side and the\nother--_sic et non_; as he entitled his famous work. But the trail of his\nnature lay through this apparently innocent composition, the evident\nintent of which was to emphasize, if not exaggerate, the opposition among\nthe patristic authorities, and without a counterbalancing attempt to show\nany substantial accord among them. This, of course, is not stated in the\nPrologue, which however, like everything that Abaelard wrote, discloses\nhis fatal facility of putting his hand on the raw spot in the matter;\nwhich unfortunately is likely to be the vulnerable point also. In it he\nremarks on the difficulty of interpreting Scripture, upon the corruption\nof the text (a perilous subject), and the introduction of apocryphal\nwritings. There are discrepancies even in the sacred texts, and\ncontradictions in the writings of the Fathers. With a profuse backing of\nauthority he shows that the latter are not to be read _cum credendi\nnecessitate_, but _cum judicandi libertate_. Assuredly, as to anything in\nthe canonical Scriptures, \u201cit is not permitted to say: \u2018The Author of this\nbook did not hold the truth\u2019; but rather \u2018the codex is false or the\ninterpreter errs, or thou dost not understand.\u2019 But in the works of the\nlater ones (_posteriorum_, Abaelard\u2019s inclusive designation of the\nFathers), which are contained in books without number, if passages are\ndeemed to depart from the truth, the reader is at liberty to approve or\ndisapprove.\u201d\n\nThis view was supported by Abaelard\u2019s citations from the Fathers\nthemselves; and yet, so abruptly made, it was not a pleasant statement for\nthe ears of those to whom the writings of the holy Fathers were sacred.\nNothing was sacred to the man who wrote this prologue--so it seemed to his\npious contemporaries. And who among them could approve of the Prologue\u2019s\nfinal utterance upon the method and purpose of the book?\n\n    \u201cWherefore we decided to collect the diverse statements of the holy\n    Fathers, as they might occur to our memory, thus raising an issue from\n    their apparent repugnancy, which might incite the _teneros lectores_\n    to search out the truth of the matter, and render them the sharper for\n    the investigation. For the first key to wisdom is called\n    interrogation, diligent and unceasing.... By doubting we are led to\n    inquiry; and from inquiry we perceive the truth.\u201d\n\nTo use the discordant statements of the Fathers to sharpen the wits of the\nyoung! Was not that to uncover their shame? And the character of the work\ndid not salve the Prologue\u2019s sting. Abaelard selected and arranged his\nextracts from pagan as well as Christian writers, and prepared sardonic\ntitles for the questions under which he ordered his material. Time and\nagain these titles flaunt an opposition which the citations scarcely bear\nout. For example, title iv.: \u201cQuod sit credendum in Deum solum, et\ncontra\u201d--certainly a flaming point; yet the excerpts display merely the\nverb _credere_, used in the palpably different senses borne by the word\n\u201cbelieve.\u201d There is no real repugnancy among the citations. And again, in\ntitle lviii.: \u201cQuod Adam salvatus sit, et contra\u201d--there is no citation\n_contra_. And the longest chapter in the book (cxvii.) has this bristling\ntitle: \u201cDe sacramento altaris, quod sit essentialiter ipsa veritas carnis\nChristi et sanguinis, et contra.\u201d\n\nBecause of such prickly traits the _Sic et non_ did not itself come into\ncommon use. But the suggestions of its method once made, were of too\nobvious utility to be abandoned. First, among Abaelard\u2019s own pupils the\nresult appears in _Books of Sentences_, which, in the arrangement of their\nmatter, followed the topical division not of the _Sic et non_, but of\nAbaelard\u2019s _Theologia_, with its threefold division of Theology into\n_Fides_, _Caritas_, and _Sacramentum_.[429] But the arrangement of the\n_Theologia_ was not made use of in the best and most famous of these\ncompositions, Peter Lombard\u2019s _Sententiarum libri quatuor_. This work\nemployed the method (not the arrangement) of the _Sic et non_, and\nexpounded the contents of Faith methodically, \u201cDistinctio\u201d after\n\u201cDistinctio,\u201d stating the proposition, citing the authorities bearing upon\nit, and ending with some conciliating or distinguishing statement of the\ntrue result. In canon law the same method was applied in Gratian\u2019s\n_Decretum_, of which the proper name was _Concordia discordantium\ncanonum_.\n\nThese _Books of Sentences_ have sometimes been called _Summae_, inasmuch\nas their scope embraced the entire contents of the Faith. But the term\n_Summa_ may properly be confined to those larger and still more\nencyclopaedic compositions in which this scholastic method reached its\nfinal development. The chief makers of these, the veritable _Summae\ntheologiae_, were, in order of time, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus,\nand Thomas Aquinas. The _Books of Sentences_ were books of sentences. The\n_Summa_ proceeded by the same method, or rather issued from it, as its\nconsummation and perfect logical form; thus the scholastic method arrived\nat its highest constructive energy. In the _Sentences_ one excerpted\nopinion was given and another possibly divergent, and at the end an\nadjustment was presented. This comparative formlessness attains in the\n_Summa_ a serried syllogistic structure. Thomas, who finally perfects it,\npresents his connected and successive topics divided into _quaestiones_,\nwhich are subdivided into _articuli_, whose titles give the point to be\ndiscussed. He states first, and frequently in his own syllogistic terms,\nthe successive negative arguments; and then the counter-proposition, which\nusually is a citation from Scripture or from Augustine. Then with clear\nlogic he constructs the true positive conclusion in accordance with the\nauthority which he has last adduced. He then refutes each of the adverse\narguments in turn.\n\nThus the method of the _Sentences_ is rendered dialectically organic; and\nwith the perfecting of the form of _quaestio_ and _articulus_, and the\nlogical linking of successive topics, the whole composition, from a\ncongeries, becomes a structure, organic likewise, a veritable _Summa_, and\na _Summa_ of a science which has unity and consistency. This science is\n_sacra doctrina, theologia_. Moreover, as compared with the _Sentences_,\nthe contents of the _Summa_ are enormously enlarged. For between the time\nof the Lombard and that of Thomas, there has come the whole of Aristotle,\nand what is more, the mastery of the whole of Aristotle, which Thomas\nincorporates in a complete and organic statement of the Christian scheme\nof salvation.[430]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV\n\nCLASSIFICATION OF TOPICS; STAGES OF EVOLUTION\n\n     I. PHILOSOPHIC CLASSIFICATION OF THE SCIENCES; THE ARRANGEMENT OF\n        VINCENT\u2019S ENCYCLOPAEDIA, OF THE LOMBARD\u2019S _SENTENCES_, OF\n        AQUINAS\u2019S _SUMMA THEOLOGIAE_.\n\n    II. THE STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT: GRAMMAR, LOGIC, METALOGICS.\n\n\nI\n\nHaving considered the spirit, the field, and the dual method, of mediaeval\nthought, there remain its classifications of topics. The problem of\nclassification presented itself to Gerbert as one involved in the rational\nstudy of the ancient material.[431] But as scholasticism culminated in the\ntwelfth and thirteenth centuries, the problem became one of arrangement\nand presentation of the mass of knowledge and argument which the Middle\nAges had at length made their own, and were prepared to re-express. This\nordering was influenced by a twofold principle of classification; for, as\nabundantly shown by Aquinas,[432] theology in which all is ordered with\nreference to God, will properly follow an arrangement of topics quite\nunsuitable to the natural or human sciences, which treat of things with\nrespect to themselves. But the mediaeval practice was more confused than\nthe theory; because the interest in human knowledge was apt to be touched\nby motives sounding in the need of divine salvation; and speculation could\nnot free itself of the moving principles of Christian theology. On the\nother hand, an enormous quantity of human dialectic, and a prodigious mass\nof what strikes us as profane information, or misinformation, was carried\ninto the mediaeval _Summa_, and still more into those encyclopaedias,\nwhich attempted to include all knowledge, and still were influenced in\ntheir aim by a religious purpose.[433]\n\nAs the human sciences came from the pagan antique, the accepted\nclassifications of them naturally were taken from Greek philosophy. They\nfollowed either the so-called Platonic division, into Physics, Ethics, and\nLogic,[434] or the Aristotelian division of philosophy into theoretical\nand practical. The former scheme, of which it is not certain that Plato\nwas the author, passed on through the Stoic and Epicurean systems of\nphilosophy, was recognized by the Church Fathers, and received Augustine\u2019s\napproval. It was made known to the Middle Ages through Cassiodorus,\nIsidore, Alcuin, Rabanus, Eriugena and others.\n\nNevertheless the Aristotelian division of philosophy into theoretical and\npractical was destined to prevail. It was introduced to the western Middle\nAges through Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s Commentary on Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_,[435] and\nadopted by Gerbert; later it passed over through translations of Arabic\nwritings. It was accepted by Hugo of St. Victor, by Albertus Magnus and by\nThomas, to mention only the greatest names; and was set forth in detail\nwith explanation and comment in a number of treatises, such as\nGundissalinus\u2019s _De divisione philosophiae_, and Hugo of St. Victor\u2019s\n_Eruditio didascalica_,[436] which were formal and schematic introductions\nto the study of philosophy and its various branches.\n\nThe usual subdivisions of these two general parts of philosophy were as\nfollows. Theoretica (or _Theorica_) was divided into (1) Physics, or\n_scientia naturalis_, (2) Mathematics, and (3) Metaphysics or Theology, or\n_divina scientia_, as it might be called. Physics and Mathematics were\nagain divided into more special sciences. _Practica_ was divided commonly\ninto Ethics, Economics, Politics, or into Ethics and _Artes mechanicae_.\nThere was a difference of opinion as to what to do with Logic. It had, to\nbe sure, its position in the current Trivium, along with grammar and\nrhetoric. But this was merely current, and might not approve itself on\ndeeper reflection. Gundissalinus speaks of three propaedeutic sciences,\nthe _scientiae eloquentiae_, grammar, poetics, and rhetoric, and then puts\nLogic after them as a _scientia media_ between these primary educational\nmatters and philosophy, _i.e._ the whole range of knowledge, theoretical\nand practical. Again, over against _philosophia realis_, which contains\nboth the _theoretica_ (or _speculativa_) and the _practica_, Thomas\nAquinas sets the _philosophia rationalis_, or logic; and Richard Kilwardby\nopposes _logica_, the _scientia rationalis_, to _practica_, in his\ndivision.[437]\n\nThe last-named philosopher was the pupil and then the hostile critic of\nAquinas, and also became Archbishop of Canterbury. He was the author of a\ncareful and elaborate classification of the parts of philosophy, entitled\n_De ortu et divisione philosophiae_.[438] In it, following the broad\ndistinction between _res divinae_ and _res humanae_, Kilwardby divides\nphilosophy into _speculativa_ and _practica_. _Speculativa_ is divided\ninto _naturalis_ (physics), _mathematica_, and _divina_ (metaphysics). He\ndoes not divide the first and third of these; but he divides _mathematica_\ninto those sciences which treat of quantity in continuity and separation\nrespectively (_quantitas continua_ and _quantitas discreta_). The former\nembrace geometry, astronomy and astrology, and perspective; the latter,\nmusic and arithmetic. _Practica_, which is concerned with _res humanae_,\nis divided into _activa_ and _sermocinalis_: because _res humanae_ consist\neither of _operationes_ or _locutiones_. The _activa_ embraces Ethics and\nmechanics; the _scientia sermocinalis_ embraces grammar, logic, and\nrhetoric. Such are Kilwardby\u2019s bare captions; his treatise lengthily\ntreats of the interrelations of these various branches of knowledge.\n\nAn idea of the scholastic discussion of the classification of sciences may\nbe had by following Albertus Magnus\u2019s ponderous approach to a\nconsideration of logic: whether it be a science, and, if so, what place\nshould be allotted it. We draw from the opening of his _liber_ on the\n_Predicables_,[439] that is to say, his exposition of Porphyry\u2019s\nIntroduction. Albert will consider \u201cwhat kind of a science (_qualis\nscientia_) logic may be, and whether it is any part of philosophy; what\nneed there is of it, and what may be its use; then of what it treats, and\nwhat are its divisions.\u201d The ancients seem to have disagreed, some saying\nthat logic is no science, since it is rather a _modus_ (mode, manner or\nmethod) of every science or branch of knowledge. But these, continues\nAlbertus, have not reflected that although there are many sciences, and\neach has its special _modus_, yet there is one _modus_ common to all\nsciences, pertaining to that which is common to them all: the principle,\nto wit, that through reason\u2019s inquiry, from what is known one arrives at\nknowledge of the unknown. This mode or method common to every science may\nbe considered in itself, and so may be the subject of a special science.\nAfter further balancing of the reasons and authorities _pro_ and _con_,\nAlbertus concludes:\n\n    \u201cIt is therefore clear that logic is a special science just as in\n    ironworking there is the special art of making a hammer, yet its use\n    pertains to everything made by the ironworker\u2019s craft. So this process\n    of discovering the unknown through the known, is something special,\n    and may be studied as a special art and science; yet the use of it\n    pertains to all sciences.\u201d\n\nHe next considers whether logic is a part of philosophy. Some say no,\nsince there are (as they say) only three divisions of philosophy, physics,\nmathematics, and metaphysics; others say that logic is a _modus_ of\nphilosophy and not one of its divisions. But, on the contrary, it is shown\nby others that this view of philosophy omits the practical side, for\nphilosophy\u2019s scope comprehends the truth of everything which man may\nunderstand, including the truth of that which is in ourselves, and strives\nto comprehend both truth and the process of advancing from the known to a\nknowledge of the unknown. These point out that\n\n    \u201c... the Peripatetics divided philosophy first into three parts, to\n    wit, into _physicam generaliter dictam_, and _ethicam generaliter\n    dictam_ and _rationalem_ likewise taken broadly. I call _physica\n    generaliter dicta_ that which embraces _scientia naturalis_,\n    _disciplinalis_, and _divina_ (_i.e._ physics in a narrower sense,\n    mathematics which is called _scientia disciplinalis_, and metaphysics\n    which is _scientia divina_). And I call _ethica_, that which, broadly\n    taken, contains the _scientia monastica_, _oeconomica_ and _civilis_.\n    And I call that the _scientia rationalis_, broadly taken, which\n    includes every mode of proceeding from the known to the unknown. From\n    which it is evident that logic is a part of philosophy.\u201d\n\nAnd finally it may be shown that\n\n    \u201cif anything is within the scope of philosophy it must be that without\n    which philosophy cannot reach any knowledge. He who is ignorant of\n    logic can acquire no perfect cognition of the unknown, because he is\n    ignorant of the way in which he should proceed from the known to the\n    unknown.\u201d\n\nFrom these latter arguments, approved by him and in part stated as his\nown, Albertus advances to a classification of the parts of logic, which he\nmakes to include rhetoric, poetics, and dialectic, and to be\ndemonstrative, sophistical or disputatious, according to the use to which\nlogic (broadly taken) is applied and the manner in which it may in each\ncase proceed, in advancing from the known to some farther ascertainment or\ndemonstration.[440] Soon after this, in discussing the subject of this\nscience, Albertus points out how logic differs from rhetoric and poetics,\nalthough with them it may treat of _sermo_, or speech, and be called a\n_scientia sermonalis_; for, unlike them, it treats of _sermo_ merely as a\nmeans of drawing conclusions, and not in and for itself.\n\nFrom the purely philosophical division of the sciences we pass to the\nhybrid arrangement adopted by Vincent of Beauvais, who died in 1264. This\nman was a prodigious devourer of books, and for a sufficient pabulum, St.\nLouis set before him his collection of twelve hundred volumes. Thereupon\nVincent compiled the most famous of mediaeval encyclopaedias, employing in\nthat labour enormous diligence and a number of assistants. His ponderous\n_Speculum majus_ is drawn from the most serviceable sources, including the\nworks of Albertus, his contemporary, and great scholastics like Hugo of\nSt. Victor, who were no more. It consisted of the _Speculum naturale_,\n_doctrinale_, and _historiale_; and a fourth, the _Speculum morale_, was\nadded by a later hand.[441] Turning its leaves, and reading snatches here\nand there, especially from its Prologues, we shall gain a sufficient\nillustration of the arrangement of topics followed by this writer, whose\nfaculties seem to drown in his shoreless undertaking.[442]\n\nIn his turgid _generalis prologus_ to the _Speculum naturale_, Vincent\npresents his motives for collecting in one volume\n\n    \u201c... certain flowers according to my modicum of faculty, gathered from\n    every one I have been able to read, whether of our Catholic Doctors or\n    the Gentile philosophers and poets. Especially have I drawn from them\n    what seemed to pertain either to the building up of our dogma, or to\n    moral instruction, or to the incitement of charity\u2019s devotion, or to\n    the mystic exposition of divine Scripture, or to the manifest or\n    symbolical explanation of its truth. Thus by one grand _opus_ I would\n    appease my studiousness, and perchance, by my labours, profit those\n    who, like me, try to read as many books as possible, and cull their\n    flowers. Indeed of making many books there is no end, and neither is\n    the eye of the curious reader satisfied, nor the ear of the auditor.\u201d\n\nHe then refers to the evils of false copying and the ascription of\nextracts to the wrong author. And it seems to him that Church History has\nbeen rather neglected, while men have been intent on expounding knotty\nproblems. And now considering how to proceed and group his various\nmatters, Vincent could find no better method than the one he has chosen,\n\u201cto wit, that after the order of Holy Scripture, I should treat first of\nthe Creator, next of the creation, then of man\u2019s fall and reparation, and\nthen of events (_rebus gestis_) chronologically.\u201d He proposes to give a\nsummary of titles at the end of the work. Sometimes he may state as his\nown, things he has had from his teachers or from very well-known books;\nand he admits that he did not have time to collate the _gesta martyrum_,\nand so some of the abstracts which he gives of these are not by his own\nhand, but by the hand of scribes (_notariorum_).\n\nVincent proposes to call the whole work _Speculum majus_, a Speculum\nindeed, or an _Imago mundi_, \u201ccontaining in brief whatever, from\nunnumbered books, I have been able to gather, worthy of consideration,\nadmiration, or imitation _as to things which have been made or done or\nsaid in the visible or invisible world from the beginning until the end,\nand even of things to come_.\u201d He briefly adverts to the utility of his\nwork, and then gives his motive for including history. This he thinks will\nhelp us to understand the story of Christ; and from a perusal of the wars\nwhich took place \u201cbefore the advent of our pacific King, the reader will\nperceive with what zeal we should fight against our spiritual foes, for\nour salvation and the eternal glory promised us.\u201d From the great slaughter\nof men in many wars, may be realized also the severity of God against the\nwicked, who are slain like sheep, and perish body and soul.[443]\n\nAs to nature, Vincent says:\n\n    \u201cMoreover I have diligently described the nature of things, which, I\n    think, no one will deem useless, who, in the light of grace, has read\n    of the power, wisdom and goodness of God, creator, ruler and\n    preserver, in that same book of the Creation appointed for us to\n    read.\u201d\n\nMoreover, to know about things is useful for preachers and theologians, as\nAugustine says. But Vincent is conscious of another motive also:\n\n    \u201cVerily how great is even the humblest beauty of this world, and how\n    pleasing to the eye of reason diligently considering not only the\n    modes and numbers and orders of things, so decorously appointed\n    throughout the universe, but also the revolving ages which are\n    ceaselessly uncoiled through abatements and successions, and are\n    marked by the death of what is born. I confess, sinner as I am, with\n    mind befouled in flesh, that I am moved with spiritual sweetness\n    toward the creator and ruler of this world, and honour Him with\n    greater veneration, when I behold at once the magnitude, and beauty\n    and permanence of His creation. For the mind, lifting itself from the\n    dunghill of its affections, and rising, as it is able, into the light\n    of speculation, sees as from a height the greatness of the universe\n    containing in itself infinite places filled with the divers orders of\n    creatures.\u201d\n\nHere Vincent feels it well to apologize for the limitlessness of his\nmatter, being only an excerptor, and not really knowing even a single\nscience; and he refers to the example of Isidore\u2019s _Etymologiae_. He\nproceeds to enumerate the various sources upon which he relies, and then\nto summarize the headings of his work; which in brief are as follows:\n\n    The Creator.\n\n    The empyrean heaven and the nature of angels; the state of the good,\n    and the ruin of the proud, angels.\n\n    The formless material and the making of the world, and the nature and\n    properties of each created being, according to the order of the Works\n    of the Six Days.\n\n    The state of the first man.\n\n    The nature and energies of the soul, and the senses and parts of the\n    human body.\n\n    God\u2019s rest and way of working.\n\n    The state of the first man and the felicity of Paradise.\n\n    Man\u2019s fall and punishment.\n\n    Sin.\n\n    The reparation of the Fall.\n\n    The properties of faith and other virtues in order, and the gifts of\n    the Holy Spirit, and the beatitudes.\n\n    _The number and matter of all the sciences._\n\n    _Chronological history of events in the world, and memorable sayings,\n    from the beginning to our time_, with a consideration of the state of\n    souls separated from their bodies, of the times to come, of\n    Antichrist, the end of the World, the resurrection of the dead, the\n    glorification of the saints and the punishments of the wicked.\n\nOne may stand aghast at the programme. Yet practically all of it would go\ninto a _Summa theologiae_, excepting the human history, and the matter of\nwhat we should call the arts and sciences! A programme like this might be\nhandled summarily, according to the broad captions under which it is\nstated; or it might be carried out in such detail as to include all\navailable information, or opinion, touching every part of every topic\nincluded under these universal heads. The latter is Vincent\u2019s way.\nPractically he tries to include all knowledge upon everything. The first\nof his tomes (the _Speculum naturale_) is to be devoted to a full\ndescription of the forms and species of created beings, which make up the\nvisible world. Yet it includes much relating to beings commonly invisible;\nfor Vincent begins with a treatment of the angels. He then passes to a\nconsideration of the seven heavens; and then to the physical phenomena of\nnature; then on to every known species of plant, the cultivation of trees\nand vines, and the making of wine; then to the celestial bodies, and after\nthis to living things, birds, fishes, savage beasts, reptiles, the anatomy\nof animals,--and at last comes to man. He discusses him body and soul, his\npsychology, and the phenomena of sleep and waking; then human anatomy--nor\ncan he keep from considerations touching the whole creation; then human\ngeneration, and a description of the countries and regions of the earth,\nwith a brief compendium of history until the time of Antichrist and the\nLast Judgment. Of course he is utterly uncritical, even the\npseudo-Turpin\u2019s fictions as to Charlemagne serving him for authority.\n\nVincent\u2019s Prologue to his second tome, the _Speculum doctrinale_, briefly\nmentions the topics of the _tota naturalis historia_, contained in his\nfirst giant tome. In that he had brought his matter down to God\u2019s creation\nof _humana natura, omnium rerum finis ac summa_--and its spoliation\n(_destitutio_) through sin. _Humana natura_ as constituted by God, was a\n_universitas_ of all nature or created being, corporeal and spiritual. Now\n\n    \u201cin this second part, in like fashion we propose to treat of the\n    plenary restitution of that destitute nature.... And since that\n    restitution, or restoration, is effected and perfected by _doctrina_\n    (imparted knowledge, science), this part not improperly is called the\n    _Speculum doctrinale_. For of a surety everything pertaining to\n    recovering or defending man\u2019s spiritual or temporal welfare\n    (_salutem_) is embraced under _doctrina_. In this book, the sciences\n    (_doctrinae_) and arts are treated thus: First concerning all of them\n    in general, to wit, concerning their invention, origin, and species;\n    and concerning the method of acquiring them. Then concerning the\n    singular arts and sciences in particular. And here first concerning\n    those of the Trivium, which are devoted to language (grammar,\n    rhetoric, logic); for without these, the others cannot be learned or\n    communicated. Next concerning the practical ones (_practica_), because\n    through them, the eyes of the mind being clarified, one ascends to the\n    speculative (_theorica_). Then also concerning the mechanical ones;\n    since, as they consist in making (_operatio_), they are joined by\n    affinity to the _practica_. Finally concerning the speculative\n    sciences (_theorica_), because the end and aim (_finis_) of all the\n    rest is placed by the wise in them. And since (as Jerome says) one\n    cannot know the power (_vis_) of the antidote unless the power of the\n    poison first is understood, therefore to the _reparatio doctrinalis_\n    of the human race, the subject of the book, something is prefixed as a\n    brief epilogue from the former book, concerning the fall and misery of\n    man, in which he still labours, as the penalty for his sin, in\n    lamentable exile.\u201d\n\nSo Vincent begins with the fall and misery of man; the _peccatum_ and the\n_supplicium_. Then he proceeds to discuss the goods (_bona_) which God\nbestows, like the mental powers, by which man may learn wisdom, and how to\nstrive against error and vice, and be overcome solely by the desire of the\nhighest and immutable good. He speaks also of the corporeal goods bestowed\non man, and the beauty and utility of visible things; and then of the\nprincipal evils;--ignorance which corrupts the divine image in man,\nconcupiscence which destroys the divine similitude, sickness which\ndestroys his original bodily immortality. \u201cAnd the remedies are three by\nwhich these three evils may be repelled, and the three goods restored, to\nwit, Wisdom, Virtue, and Need.\u201d\n\nHere we touch the gist of the ordering of topics in the _Speculum\ndoctrinale_, which treats of all the arts and sciences:\n\n    \u201cFor the obtaining of these three remedies every art and every\n    _disciplina_ was invented. In order to gain Wisdom, _Theorica_ was\n    devised; and _Practica_ for the sake of virtue; and for Need\u2019s sake,\n    _Mechanica_. _Theorica_ driving out ignorance, illuminates Wisdom;\n    _Practica_ shutting out vice, strengthens Virtue; _Mechanica_\n    providing against penury, tempers the infirmities of the present life.\n    _Theorica_, in all that is and that is not, chooses to investigate the\n    true. _Practica_ determines the correct way of living and the form of\n    discipline, according to the institution of the virtues. _Mechanica_\n    occupied with fleeting things, strives to provide for the needs of the\n    body. For the end and aim of all human actions and studies, which\n    reason regulates, ought to look either to the reparation of the\n    integrity of our nature or to alleviating the needs to which life is\n    subjected. The integrity of our nature is repaired by Wisdom, to which\n    _Theorica_ relates, and by Virtue, which _Practica_ cultivates. Need\n    is alleviated by the administration of temporalities, to which\n    _Mechanica_ attends. Last found of all is Logic, source of eloquence,\n    through which the wise who understand the aforesaid principal sciences\n    and disciplines, may discourse upon them more correctly, truly and\n    elegantly; more correctly, through Grammar; more truly through\n    Dialectic; more elegantly through Rhetoric.\u201d[444]\n\nThus the entire round of arts and sciences is connected with man\u2019s\ncorporeal and spiritual welfare, and is made to bear directly or\nindirectly on his salvation. All constitutes _doctrina_, and by _doctrina_\nman is saved. This is the reason for including the arts and sciences in\none tome, rightly called the _Speculum doctrinale_. We need not follow the\ndetail, but may view as from afar the long course ploughed by Vincent\nthrough his matter. He first sketches the history of antique philosophy,\nand then turns to books and language, and presents a glossary of Latin\nsynonyms. Book II. treats of Grammar, Book III. of Logic, Book IV. of\n_Practica scientia_ or _Ethica_, first giving pagan ethics and then\npassing on to the virtues of the monastic life. Book V. is a continuation\nof this subject. Book VI. concerns the _Scientia oeconomica_, treating of\ndomestic economy, then of agriculture. Books VII. and VIII. take up\nPolitica, and, having discussed political institutions, proceed to a\ntreatment of law--the law of persons, things, and actions, according to\nthe canon and the civil law. Books IX. and X. consider Crimes--simony,\nheresy, perjury, sacrilege, homicide, rape, adultery, robbery, usury. Book\nXI. is more cheerful, _De arte mechanica_, and tells of building, the\nmilitary art, navigation, alchemy, and metals. Book XII. is Medicine, and\nBooks XIII. and XIV. discuss Physics, in connection with the healing art.\nBook XV. is Natural Philosophy--animals and plants. Book XVI., _De\nmathematica_, treats of arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy, and\nmetaphysics cursorily. Book XVII. likewise thins out in a somewhat slight\ndiscussion of Theology, which was to form the topic of the tome that\nVincent did not write.\n\nBut Vincent did complete another tome, the _Speculum historiale_. It is a\nloosely chronological compilation of tradition, myth, and history, with\ndiscursions upon the literary works of the characters coming under review.\nIt would be tedious to follow its excerpted presentation of the profane\nand sacred matter.\n\nWe may leave Vincent, with the obvious reflection that his work is a\nconglomerate, both in arrangement and contents. It has the pious aim of\ncontributing to man\u2019s salvation, and yet is an attempted universal\nencyclopaedia of human knowledge, much of which is plainly secular and\nmundane. The monstrous scope and dual purpose of the work prevented any\nunity in method and arrangement. More single in aim, and better arranged\nin consequence, are the _Sentences_ of Peter Lombard and the _Summa\ntheologiae_ of Aquinas. For although their scope, at least the scope of\nthe _Summa_, is wide, all is ordered with respect to the true aim of\n_sacra doctrina_, just as Thomas explained in the passage which we have\nalready given.\n\nThe alleged principle of the Lombard\u2019s division strikes one as curious;\nyet he got it from Augustine: _Signum_ and _res_--the symbol and the\nthing: verily an age-long play of spiritual tendency lay back of these\ncontrasted concepts. Christian _doctrina_ related, perhaps chiefly, to the\nsignificance of _signa_, signs, symbols, allegories, mysteries,\nsacraments. It was not so strange that the Lombard made this antithesis\nthe ground of his arrangement. Quite as of course he begins by saying it\nis clear to any one who considers, with God\u2019s grace, that the \u201ccontents of\nthe Old and New Law are occupied either with _res_ or _signa_. For as the\neminent doctor Augustine says in his _Doctrina Christiana_, all teaching\nis of things or signs; but things also are learned through signs. Properly\nthose are called _res_ which are not employed in order to signify\nsomething; while _signa_ are those whose use is to signify.\u201d Then the\nLombard separates the sacraments from other _signa_, because they not only\nsignify, but also confer saving aid; and he points out that evidently a\n_signum_ is also some sort of a thing; but not everything is a _signum_.\nHe will treat first of _res_ and then of _signa_.\n\nAs to _res_, one must bear in mind, as Augustine says, that some things\nare to be enjoyed (_fruendum_), as from love we cleave to them for their\nown sake; and others are to be used (_utendum_) as a means; and still\nothers to be both enjoyed and used.\n\n    \u201cThose which are to be enjoyed make us blessed (_beatos_); those which\n    are to be used, aid us striving for blessedness.... We ourselves are\n    the things which are both to be enjoyed and used, and also the angels\n    and the saints.... The things which are to be enjoyed are Father, Son,\n    and Holy Spirit; and so the Trinity is _summa res_.\u201d\n\nSo the Lombard\u2019s first two Books consider _res_ in the descending order of\ntheir excellence; the third considers the Incarnation, which, if not\nitself a sacrament, and the chief and sum of all sacraments, is the source\nof those of the New Law, considered in the fourth Book. The scheme is\nsingle and orderly; the difficulty will be in actually arranging the\nvarious topics within it. Endeavouring to do so, the Lombard in Book I.\nputs together the doctrine of the Trinity, the three Persons composing it,\nand their attributes and qualities. Book II. considers in order, the\nAngels, and very briefly, the work of the Six Days down to the creation of\nman; then the Christian _doctrina_ as to man is presented: his creation\nand its reasons; the creation of his _anima_; the creation of woman; the\ncondition of man and woman before the Fall; their sin; next free-will and\ngrace. Book III. treats of the Incarnation, in all the aspects in which it\nmay be known, and of the nature of Christ, His saving merit, and the grace\nwhich was in Him; also of the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the\nseven gifts of the Spirit, and the existence of them all in Christ. Book\nIV. considers the Sacraments of the New Law: Baptism, Confirmation, the\nEucharist, penance, extreme unction, ordination to holy orders, marriage.\nIt concludes with setting forth the Resurrection and the Last Judgment.\n\nThe first chapters of Genesis were the ultimate source of the Lombard\u2019s\nactual arrangement. And the _Summa_ will follow the same order of\ntreatment. One may perceive how naturally the adoption of this order came\nto Christian theologians by glancing over Augustine\u2019s _De Genesi ad\nlitteram_.[445] This Commentary was partially constructive, and not simply\nexegetical; and afforded a _cadre_, or frame, of topical ordering, which\ncould readily be filled out with the contents of the _Sentences_ or even\nof the _Summa_: God, in His unity and trinity, the Creation, man\nespecially, his fall, the Incarnation as the saving means of his\nrestoration, and then the Sacraments, and the final Judgment unto heaven\nand hell. One may say that this was the natural and proper order of\npresenting the contents of the Christian _sacra doctrina_.\n\nSo the great _Summa theologiae_ of Thomas Aquinas adopts the same order\nwhich the Lombard had followed. The _Pars prima_ begins with defining\n_sacra doctrina_.[446] It then proceeds to consider God--whether He\nexists; then treats of His _simplicitas_ and _perfectio_; next of His\nattributes; His _bonitas_, _infinitas_, _immutabilitas_, _aeternitas_,\n_unitas_; then of our knowledge of Him; then of His knowledge, and therein\nof truth and falsity; thereupon are considered the divine will, love,\njustice, and pity; the divine providence and predestination; the divine\npower and beatitude.\n\nAll this pertains to the _unitas_ of the divine essence; and now Thomas\npasses on to the _Trinitas personarum_, or the more distinctive portions\nof Christian theology. He treats of the _processio_ and _relationes_ of\nthe _divinae Personae_, and then of themselves--Father, Son, Holy Spirit,\nand then of their essential relationship and properties. Next he discusses\nthe _missio_ of the divine Persons, and the relations between God and His\nCreation. First comes the consideration of the principle of creation, the\n_processio creaturarum a Deo_, and of the nature of created things, with\nsome discussion of evil, whether it be a thing.\n\nAmong created beings, Thomas treats first of angels, and at great length;\nthen of the physical creation, in its order--the work of the six days, but\nwith no great detail. Then man, created of spiritual and corporeal\nsubstance--his complex nature is to be analysed and fathomed to its\ndepths. Thomas discusses the union of the _anima ad corpus_; then the\npowers of the anima, _in generali_ and _in speciali_--the intellectual\nfaculties, the appetites, the will and its freedom of choice; how the\n_anima_ knows--the full Aristotelian theory of cognition is given. Next,\nmore specifically as to the creation of the soul and body of the first\nman, and the nature of the image and similitude of God within him; then as\nto man\u2019s condition and faculties while in a state of innocence; also as to\nParadise.\n\nThis closes the treatment of the _creatio et distinctio rerum_; and Thomas\npasses to their _gubernatio_, and the problem of how God conserves and\nmoves the corporeal and spiritual; then concerning the action of one\ncreature on another, and how the angels are ranged in hierarchies, and\nalthough purely spiritual beings, minister to men and guard them; then\nconcerning the action of corporeal things, concerning fate, and the action\nof men upon men.\n\nHere ends _Pars prima_. The first section of the second part (_Prima\nsecundae_) begins. In a short Prologue Thomas says:\n\n    \u201cBecause man is made in the image of God, that is, free in his thought\n    and will, and able to act through himself (_per se potestativum_),\n    after what has been said concerning the Exemplar, God, and everything\n    proceeding from the divine power according to His will, it remains for\n    us to consider His image, to wit, man, in so far as he is the source\n    or cause (_principium_) of his own works, having free-will and power\n    over them.\u201d\n\nHereupon Thomas takes up in order: the ultimate end of man; the nature of\nman\u2019s beatitude, and wherein it consists, and how it may be attained; then\nvoluntary and involuntary acts, and the nature and action of will; then\nfruition, intention, election, deliberation, consent, and actions good and\nbad, flowing from the will; then the passions; concupiscence and pleasure,\nsadness, hope and despair, fear, anger; next habits (_habitus_) and the\nvirtues, intellectual, cardinal, theological; the gifts of the Spirit, and\nthe beatitudes; the vices, and sin, and penalty. Thereupon it becomes\nproper to consider the external causes (_principia_) of acts: \u201cThe\nexternal cause (_principium_) moving toward good is God; who instructs us\nthrough law, and aids us through grace. Therefore we must speak, first of\nlaw, then of grace.\u201d So Thomas discusses: the _essentia_ of law, and the\ndifferent kinds of law--_lex aeterna_, _lex naturalis_, _lex\nhumana_--their effect and validity; then the precepts of the Old Law (of\nthe Old Testament); then as to the law of the Gospel and the need of\ngrace; and lastly, concerning grace and human merit.\n\nThe _Secunda secundae_ (the second division of the second part) opens with\na Prologue, in which the author says that, having considered generally the\nvirtues and vices, and other things pertaining to the matter of ethics, it\nis needful to consider these same matters more particularly, each in turn;\n\u201cfor general moral statements (_sermones morales universales_) are less\nuseful, inasmuch as actions are always _in particularibus_.\u201d A more\nspecial statement of moral rules may proceed in two ways: the one from the\nside of the moral material, discussing this or that virtue or vice; the\nother considers what applies to special orders (_speciales status_) of\nmen, for instance prelates and the lower clergy, or men devoted to the\nactive or contemplative religious life. \u201cWe shall, therefore, consider\nspecially, first what applies to all conditions of men, and then what\napplies to certain orders (_determinatos status_).\u201d Thomas adds that it\nwill be best to consider in each case the virtue and corresponding gift,\nand the opposing vice, together; also that \u201cvirtues are reducible to\nseven, the three theological,[447] and the four cardinal virtues. Of the\nintellectual virtues, one is Prudence, which is numbered with the cardinal\nvirtues; but ars does not pertain to morals, which relate to what is to be\ndone, while ars is the correct faculty of making things (_recta ratio\nfactibilium_).[448] The other three intellectual virtues, _sapientia_,\n_intellectus_, _et scientia_, bear the names of certain gifts of the Holy\nSpirit, and are considered with them. Moral virtues are all reducible to\nthe cardinal virtues; and therefore, in considering each cardinal virtue,\nall the virtues related to it are considered, and the opposite vices.\u201d\n\nThis classification of the virtues seems anything but clear. And perhaps\nthe weakest feature of the _Summa_ is this scarcely successful ordering,\nor combination, of the Aristotelian virtues with those more germane to the\nChristian scheme. However this may be, the author of the _Summa_ proceeds\nto consider in order: _fides_, and the gifts (_dona_) of _intellectus_ and\n_scientia_ which correspond to the virtue faith; next the opposing vices:\n_infidelitas_, _haeresis_, _apostasia_, _blasphemia_, and _caecitas\nmentis_ (spiritual blindness). Next in order come the virtue _spes_, and\nthe corresponding gift of the Spirit, _timor_, and the opposing vices of\n_desperatio_ and _praesumptio_.[449] Next, _caritas_, with its _dilectio_,\nits _gaudium_, its _pax_, its _misericordia_, its _beneficentia_ and\n_eleemosyna_, and its _correctio fraterna_; then the opposite vices,\n_odium_, _acedia_, _invidia_, _discordia_, _contentio_, _schisma_,\n_bellum_, _rixa_, _seditio_, _scandalum_. Next the _donum sapientiae_, and\nits opposite, _stultitia_; next, _prudentia_, and its correspondent gift,\n_consilium_; and its connected vices, _imprudentia_, _negligentia_, and\nits evil semblances, _dolus_ and _fraus_.\n\nSays Thomas: _Consequenter post prudentiam considerandum est de Justitia_.\nWhereupon follows a juristic treatment of _jus_, _justitia_, _judicium_,\n_restitutio_, _acceptio personarum_; then _homicide_ and other crimes\nrecognized by law. Then come the virtues, connected with _justitia_, to\nwit, _religio_, and its acts, _devotio_, _oratio_, _adoratio_,\n_sacrificium_, _oblatio_, _decimae_, _votum_, _juramentum_; then the vices\nopposed to _religio_: _superstitio_, _idolatria_, _tentatio Dei_,\n_perjurium_, _sacrilegium_, _simonia_. Next is considered the virtue of\n_pietas_; then _observantia_, with its parts, i.e. _dulia_ (service),\n_obedientia_, and its opposite, _inobedientia_. Next, _gratia_ (thanks) or\n_gratitudo_, and its opposite, _ingratitudo_; next, _vindicatio_\n(punishment); next, _veritas_, with its opposites, _hypocrisis_,\n_jactantia_ (boasting), and _ironia_; next, _amicitia_, with the vices of\n_adulatio_ and _litigium_. Next, the virtue of _liberalitas_, and its\nvices, _avaritia_ and _prodigalitas_; next, _epieikeia_ (_aequitas_).\nFinally, closing this discussion of all that is connected with _Justitia_,\nThomas speaks of its corresponding gift of the Spirit, _pietas_.\n\nNow comes the third cardinal virtue, _Fortitudo_--under which _martyrium_\nis the type of virtuous act; _intimiditas_ and _audacia_ are the two\nvices. Then the parts of _Fortitudo_, to wit, _magnanimitas_,\n_magnificentia_, _patientia_, _perseverantia_, and the obvious opposing\nvices. Next, the fourth cardinal virtue, _Temperantia_, its obvious\nopposing vices, and its parts, to wit, _verecundia_, _honestas_,\n_abstinentia_, _sobrietas_, _castitas_, _clementia_, _modestia_,\n_humilitas_, and the various appropriate acts and opposing vices related\nto these special virtues.\n\nSo far,[450] Thomas has been considering the virtues proper for all men;\nand now he comes to those specially pertaining to certain kinds of men,\naccording to their gifts of grace, their modes of life, or the diversity\nof their offices, or stations. Of the special virtues related to gifts of\ngrace, the first is _prophetia_, next _raptus_ (vision), then _gratia\nlinguarum_, and _gratia miraculorum_. After this, the _vita activa_ and\n_contemplativa_, with their appropriate virtues, are considered. And then\nThomas proceeds to speak _De officiis et statibus hominum_, and their\nrespective virtues.\n\nHere ends the _Secunda secundae_, and _Pars tertia_ opens with this\nPrologue:\n\n    \u201cInasmuch as our Saviour Jesus Christ (as witnesseth the Angel,\n    _populum suum salvum faciens a peccatis eorum_) has shown in himself\n    the way of truth, through which we are able to come to the beatitude\n    of immortal life by rising again, it is necessary, for the\n    consummation of the whole theological matter, after the consideration\n    of the final end of human life, and of the virtues and vices, that our\n    attention should be fixed upon the Saviour of all and His benefactions\n    to the human race.\n\n    \u201cAs to which, first one must consider the Saviour himself; secondly,\n    His sacraments, by which we obtain salvation; thirdly, concerning the\n    end (_finis_), immortal life, to which we come by rising again through\n    Him.\n\n    \u201cAs to the first, one has to consider the mystery of the Incarnation,\n    in which God was made man for our salvation, and then those things\n    that were done and suffered by our Saviour, that is, God incarnate.\u201d\n\nThis Prologue indicates sufficiently the order of topics in the _Pars\ntertia_ of the _Summa_, through Quaestio xc., at which point the hand of\nthe Angelic Doctor was folded to eternal rest. He was then considering\n_penance_, the fourth in his order of Sacraments. All that he had to say\nas to the person, and attributes, and acts and passion of Christ had been\nwritten; and he had considered the Sacraments of baptism, confirmation,\nand the eucharist; he was occupied with _poenitentia_; and still other\nsacraments remained, as well as his final treatment of the matters which\nlie beyond the grave. So he left his work unfinished, and, in spite of\nmany efforts, unfinishable by any of his pupils or successors.[451]\n\n\nII\n\nInasmuch as the matter of their thoughts was transmitted to the men of the\nMiddle Ages, and was not drawn from their own observation or constructive\nreasoning, the fundamental intellectual endeavour for mediaeval men was to\napprehend and make their own, and re-express. Their intellectual progress\nfollowed this process of appropriation, and falls into three\nstages--learning, organically appropriating, and re-expressing with added\nelements of thought. Logically, and generally in time, these three stages\nwere successive. Yet, of course, they overlapped, and may be observed\nprogressing simultaneously. Thus, for example, what was known of Aristotle\nat the beginning of the twelfth century was slight compared with the\nknowledge of his philosophy that was opened to western Europe in the\nlatter part of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth. And while,\nby the middle of the twelfth century, the elements of Aristotle\u2019s logic\nhad been thoroughly appropriated, the substantial Aristotelian philosophy\nhad still to be learned and mastered, before it could be reformulated and\nre-expressed as part of mediaeval thought.\n\nLooking solely to the outer form, the three stages of mediaeval thought\nare exemplified in the Scriptural Commentary of the later Carolingian\ntime, in the twelfth-century _Books of Sentences_, and at last in the more\norganic _Summa theologiae_. With this significant evolution and change of\nouter form, proceeded the more substantial evolution consisting in\nlearning, appropriating, and re-expressing the inherited material. In both\ncases, these three stages were necessitated by the greatness of the\ntransmitted matter; for the intellectual energies of the mediaeval period\nwere fully occupied with mastering the data proffered so pressingly, with\npresenting and re-presenting this superabundant material, and recasting it\nin new forms of statement, which were also expressions, or realizations,\nof the mediaeval genius. So the mediaeval product may be regarded as given\nby the past, and by the same token necessitated and controlled. But, on\nthe other hand, each stage of intellectual progress rendered possible the\nnext one.\n\nThe first stage of learning is represented by the Carolingian period,\nwhich we have considered. It was then that the patristic material was\nextracted from the writings of the Fathers, and rearranged and reapplied,\nto meet the needs of the time. The mastery of this material had scarcely\nmade such vital progress as to enable the men of the ninth and tenth and\neleventh centuries to re-express it largely in terms of their own\nthinking. In the ninth century, Eriugena affords an extraordinary\nexception with his drastic restatement of what he had drawn from\nPseudo-Dionysius and others; and at the end comes Anselm, whose genius is\nmetaphysically constructive. But Anselm touches the coming time; and the\nsprings of Eriugena\u2019s genius are hidden from us.\n\nAs for the antique thought during these Carolingian centuries, Eriugena\ndealt in his masterful way with what he knew of it through patristic and\nsemi-patristic channels. But let us rather seek it in the curriculum of\nthe Trivium and Quadrivium. What progress Gerbert made in the Quadrivium,\nthat is, in the various branches of mathematics which he taught, has been\nnoted, and to what extent his example was followed by his pupil Fulbert,\nat the cathedral school of Chartres.[452] The courses of the\nTrivium--grammar, rhetoric, logic--demand our closer attention; for they\nwere the key of the situation. We must keep in mind that we are\napproaching mediaeval thought from the side of the innate human need of\nintellectual expression--the impulse to know and the need to formulate\none\u2019s conceptions and express them consistently. For mediaeval men the\nfirst indispensable means to this end was grammar, including rhetoric, and\nthe next was logic or dialectic. The Latin language contained the sum of\nknowledge transmitted to the Middle Ages. And it had to be learned. This\nwas true even in Italy and Spain and France, where each year the current\nways of Romance speech were departing more definitely from the parent\nstock; it was more patently true in the countries of Teutonic speech.\nCenturies before, the Roman youth had studied grammar that they might\nspeak and write correctly. Now it was necessary to study Latin grammar, to\nwit, the true forms and literary usages of the Latin tongue, in order to\nacquire any branch of knowledge whatsoever, and express one\u2019s\ncorresponding thoughts. And men would not at first distinguish sharply\nbetween the mediating value of the learned tongue and the learning which\nit held.[453]\n\nThus grammar, the study of the Latin language, represented the first stage\nof knowledge for mediaeval men. This was to remain true through all the\nmediaeval centuries; since all youths who became scholars had to learn the\nlanguage before they could study what was contained in it alone. One may\nalso say, and yet not speak fantastically, that grammar, the study of the\ncorrect use of the language itself, corresponded spiritually with the main\nintellectual labour of the Carolingian period. Alcuin\u2019s attention is\ncommonly fixed upon the significance of language, Latin of course. And the\nlabours of his pupil Rabanus, and the latter\u2019s pupil Walafrid, are as it\nwere devoted to the grammar of learning. That is to say, they read and\nendeavour to understand the works of the Fathers; they compare and\ncollate, and make volumes of extracts, which they arrange for the most\npart as Scripture commentaries; commentaries, that is, upon the\nsignificance of the canonical writings which were the substance of all\nwisdom, but needed much explication. Such works were the very grammar of\nknowledge, being devoted to the exposition of the meaning of the\nScriptures and the vast burden of patristic thought. A like purpose was\nevinced in the efforts of the great emperor himself to re-establish\nschools of grammar, in order that the Scriptures might be more correctly\nunderstood, and the expositions of the holy Fathers. In fine, just as\nknowledge of the Latin tongue was the end and aim of grammar, so a correct\nunderstanding of what was contained in Latin books was the aim of the\nintellectual labours of this period. It all represented the first stage in\nthe mediaeval acquisition of knowledge, or in the presentation or\nexpression of the same; and thus the first stage in the mediaeval\nendeavour to realize the human impulse to know.\n\nThe next course of the Trivium was logic; and likewise its study will\nrepresent truly the second stage in the mediaeval realization of the human\nimpulse to know, to wit, the second stage in the appropriation and\nexpression of the knowledge transmitted from the past. We have spoken at\nsome length of the logical studies of Gerbert, and his endeavours to\nadjust his thinking and classify the branches of knowledge by means of\nformal logic.[454] Those discussions of his which seem somewhat puerile to\nus, were essential to his endeavours to formulate what he had learned, and\npresent it as rational and ordered knowledge. Logic is properly the stage\nsucceeding grammar in the formulation of rational knowledge. At least it\nwas for men of Gerbert\u2019s time, and the following centuries. Rightly\nenough they looked on logic as a _scientia sermotionalis_, which on one\nside touched sheer linguistics, and on the other, had for its field the\nfurther processes of reason. Thus Hugo of St. Victor, Abaelard\u2019s very\ngreat contemporary, says:\n\n    \u201cLogic is named from the Greek word _logos_, which has a twofold\n    interpretation. For _logos_ means either _sermo_ or _ratio_; and\n    therefore logic may be termed either a _scientia sermotionalis_ or a\n    _scientia rationalis_. _Logica rationalis_ embraces dialectic and\n    rhetoric, and is called _discretiva_ (argumentative and exercising\n    judgment); _logica sermotionalis_ is the genus which includes grammar,\n    dialectic and rhetoric, to wit, discursive science\n    (_disertiva_).\u201d[455]\n\nThe close connection between grammar and logic is evident. Logic treats of\nlanguage used in rational expression, as well as of the reasoning\nprocesses carried on in language. Its elementary chapters teach a rational\nuse of language, whereby men may reach a more deeply consistent expression\nof their thoughts than is gained from grammar. Yet grammar also is logic,\nand based on logical principles. All this is exemplified in the logical\ntreatises composing the Aristotelian _Organon_, which the Middle Ages\nused. First comes Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_, which clearly is bound up in\nlanguage. Likewise Aristotle\u2019s _Categories_ treat of the rational and\nconsistent use of language, or of what may be stated in language. Next it\nis obvious that the _De interpretatione_ treats of language used to\nexpress thought, its generic function. The more advanced treatises of the\n_Organon_, the _Prior_ and _Posterior Analytics_, the _Topics_, and\n_Sophistical Elenchi_, treat directly and elaborately of the reasoning\nprocesses themselves. So one perceives the grammatical affinities of the\nsimpler treatises in the _Organon_. The more advanced ones seem to stand\nto them as oratorical rhetoric stands to elementary grammar. For the\n_Analytics_, _Topics_, and _Sophistical Elenchi_ are a kind of _eristic_,\ntraining the student to use the processes of thought and their expression\nin order to attain an end, commonly argumentative. The prior treatises\nhave taught the elements, as it were the orthography and etymology of the\nrational expression of thought in language; the latter (even as syntax and\nrhetoric), train the student in the use of these elements. And one\nobserves a nice historical fitness in the fact that only the simpler\ntreatises of the _Organon_ were in common use in the early Middle Ages,\nsince they alone were necessary to the first stage in the appropriation of\nthe substance of patristic and antique thought. The full _Organon_ was\nrediscovered, and retaken into use in the middle or latter part of the\ntwelfth century, when men had progressed to a more organic appropriation\nof the patristic material and what they knew of the antique philosophy.\n\nThus in mediaeval education, and in the successive order of appropriating\nthe patristic and the antique, logic stood on grammar\u2019s shoulders. It was\ngrammar\u2019s rationalized stage, and treated language as the means of\nexpressing thought consistently and validly; that is, so as not to\ncontravene the necessities of that whereof it was the vehicle. And since\nlanguage thus treated was in accord with rational thought, it would accord\nwith the realities to which thought corresponds; and might be taken as\nexpressing _them_. This last reflection introduces metaphysics.\n\nAnd properly. For the three stages in the mediaeval appropriation and\nexpression of knowledge were grammar, logic, metaphysics. Logic has to do\nwith the processes of thought; with the positing of premises and the\ndrawing of the conclusion. It does not necessarily consider whether the\ncontents of its premises represent realities. This is matter for ontology,\nmetaphysics. Now mediaeval metaphysics, which were those of Greek\nphilosophy, were extremely pre-Kantian, in assuming a correspondence\nbetween the necessities or conclusions of thought and the supreme\nrealities, God and the Universe. Nor did mediaeval logic doubt that its\nprocesses could elucidate and express the veritable natures of things. So\nmediaeval logic readily wandered into the province of metaphysics, and\nignored the line between the two.\n\nYet there is little metaphysics in the _Organon_; none in its simpler\ntreatises. So there was none in the elementary logical instruction of the\nschools before the twelfth century at least.[456] One may always\ndistinguish between logic and metaphysics; and it is to our purpose to do\nso here. For as we have taken logic to represent the second stage in the\nmediaeval appropriation of knowledge, so metaphysics, poised in turn on\nlogic\u2019s shoulders, is very representative of the third stage, to wit, the\nstage of systematic and organic re-expression of the ancient matter, with\nelements added by the great schoolmen.\n\nMetaphysics was very properly the final stage. The grammatical represented\nan elementary learning of what the past had transmitted; the logical a\nfurther retrying of the matter, an attempt to understand and express it,\nformulate parts of it anew, with deeper consistency of expression. Then\nfollows the attempt for final and universal consistency: final inasmuch as\nthought penetrates to the nature of things and expresses realities and the\nrelationships of realities; and universal, in that it seeks to order and\nsystematize all its concepts, and bring them to unity in a _Summa_--a\nperfected scheme of rational presentation of God and His creation. This\nwill be, largely speaking, the final endeavour of the mediaeval man to\nease his mind, and realize _his_ impulse to know and express himself with\nuttermost consistency.\n\nSo for mediaeval men, metaphysics stood on logic\u2019s shoulders and\nrepresented the final completion of their thought, in a universal system\nand scheme of God and man and things.[457] But the first part of this\nproposition had not been true with Greek philosophy. Metaphysics is\nproperly occupied with being, in its ultimate essence and relationships;\nwith the consistent putting together of things, to wit, the presentation\nor expression of them so as not to disagree with any of the data\nrecognized as pertinent. The thinker considers profoundly, seeking to\npenetrate the ultimate reality and relationships of things, through which\na universal whole is constituted. This makes ontology, metaphysics--the\nscience of being, of causes, and so the science of the first Cause, God.\nAristotle called this the \u201cfirst\u201d philosophy, because lying at the base of\nall branches of knowledge, and depending on nothing beyond itself. Some\ntime after his death, the Peripatetics and then the Neo-Platonists called\nthis first science by the name of Metaphysics, \u201cafter\u201d or \u201cbeyond\u201d\nphysics, if one will, perhaps because of the actual order of treatment in\nthe schools.\n\nThe term Metaphysics is vague enough; either \u201cfirst\u201d philosophy or\n\u201contology\u201d is preferable. Yet as to Greek philosophy the term has apt\nhistorical suggestiveness. For it did come after physics in time, and was\nin fact evoked by the imperfect method and consequent contradictions of\nthe earlier philosophies. From the beginning, Greek philosophy drove\nstraight at the cause or origin of things--surely the central problem of\nmetaphysics. Thales and the other Ionians began with rational, though\ncrude, hypotheses as to the sources of the universe. These were first\nattempts to reach a consistent expression of its origin and nature. Each\nsucceeding philosopher considered further, from the vantage-ground of the\nrecognized inconsistencies or inadequacies in the theories of his\npredecessors. He was thus led on to consider more profoundly the essential\nrelationships of things, the very truth of their relationships, and on and\non into the problem of their being. For the verity of relations must be\naccording to the verity of being of the things related. The world about us\nconsists in relationships, of antecedents and sequences, of cause and\neffect; and our thought of it is made up of consistencies or\ncontradictions, which last we struggle to eliminate, or to transform to\nconsistencies.\n\nThese early philosophers looked only to the Aristotelian material cause\nfor the origin and cause of things; yet reflection plunged them deeper\ninto a consideration of the nature of being and relationships. The other\ncauses were evoked by Anaxagoras and then by Plato, and by them were led\ninto the arena of debate; and philosophers discussed the efficient and\nfinal cause as well as the material. Such discussions are recognized by\nPlato, and finally by Aristotle as relating to the first principles of\ncognition and being, and so as constituting metaphysics. The constant\nsearch for a deeper consistency of explanation had led on and on through a\nmanifold consideration of those palpable relationships which make up the\nvisible world; it had disclosed the series of necessary assumptions\nrequired by those visible relationships; and thus the search for causality\nand origins, and essential relationships, became one and the\nsame--metaphysics.\n\nMetaphysics was not ineptly called so, since it had in time come after the\ncruder physical hypotheses. But such was not the order of _mediaeval_\nintellectual progress. The Middle Ages passed through no preliminary\ncourse of physical hypotheses, explanatory of the universe. Not physics,\nbut logic (introduced by grammar) led up to the final construction--or\nrather adoption and reconstruction--of ultimate hypotheses as to God and\nman, led up to the all-ordering and all-compassing _Theologia_.\n_Metalogics_, rather than Metaphysics, would be the proper name for these\nfinal expressions or actualizations of the mediaeval impulse to know.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI\n\nTWELFTH-CENTURY SCHOLASTICISM\n\n      I. THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS: ABAELARD.\n\n     II. THE MYSTIC STRAIN: HUGO AND BERNARD.\n\n    III. THE LATER DECADES: BERNARD SILVESTRIS; GILBERT DE LA PORR\u00c9E;\n         WILLIAM OF CONCHES; JOHN OF SALISBURY, AND ALANUS OF LILLE.\n\n\nI\n\nFrom the somewhat elaborate general considerations which have occupied the\nlast two chapters, we turn to the representative manifestations of\nmediaeval thought in the twelfth century. These belong in part to the\nsecond or \u201clogical,\u201d and in part to the third or \u201cmeta-logical,\u201d stage of\nthe mediaeval mind. The first or \u201cgrammatical\u201d stage was represented by\nthe Carolingian period; and in reviewing the mental aspects of the\neleventh century, we entered upon the second stage, that of logic, or\ndialectic, to use the more specific mediaeval term. Toward the close of\nthe tenth century Gerbert was found strenuously occupying himself with\nlogic, and using it as a means of ordering the branches of knowledge. At\nthe end of the eleventh, Anselm has not only considered certain logical\nproblems, but has vaulted over into constructive metaphysical theology.\nLooking back over Anselm\u2019s work, from the vantage-ground of the twelfth\ncentury\u2019s further reflections, one may be conscious of a certain genial\nyouthfulness in his reliance upon single arguments, noble and beautiful\nsoarings of the spirit, which however pay little regard to the firmness of\nthe premises from which they spring, and still less to a number of\ncognate and pertinent considerations, which the twelfth century was to\nanalyze.\n\nAnselm\u2019s thoughts perhaps overleaped logic. At all events he appears only\noccasionally absorbed with its formal problems. Yet he lived in a time of\ndawning logical controversy. Roscellin was even then blowing up the\nproblem of universals, a problem occasioned by the entering of mediaeval\nthought upon the \u201clogical\u201d stage of its appropriation of the patristic and\nantique.\n\nThe problem of universals, or general ideas, from the standpoint of logic,\nlies at the basis of consistent thinking. It reverts to the time when\nAristotle\u2019s assertion of the pre-eminently real existence of individuals\nbroke away from the Platonic doctrine of Ideas. For the early mediaeval\nphilosophers, it took its rise in a famous passage in Porphyry\u2019s\nIntroduction to the _Categories_, the concluding sentence of which, as\ntranslated into Latin by Bo\u00ebthius, puts the question thus: \u201cMox de\ngeneribus et speciebus illud quidem sive subsistant sive in nudis\nintellectibus posita sint, sive subsistentia corporalia sint an\nincorporalia, et utrum separata a sensibilibus an in sensibilibus posita\net circa haec consistentia, dicere recusabo.\u201d \u201cNext as to _genera_ and\n_species_, do they actually exist or are they merely in thought; are they\ncorporeal or incorporeal existences; are they separate from sensible\nthings or only in and of them?--I refuse to answer,\u201d says Porphyry; \u201cit is\na very lofty business, unsuited to an elementary work.\u201d\n\nThus, in three pairs of crude alternatives, the question came over to the\nearly Middle Ages. The men of the Carolingian period took one position or\nanother, without sensing its difficulties, or observing how it lay athwart\nthe path of knowledge. Students were not as yet attempting such a dynamic\nappropriation of the ancient material as would evoke this veritable\nproblem of cognition. Even Gerbert at the close of the tenth century was\nstill so busy with the outer forms and figments of logic that he had no\ntime to enter on those ulterior problems where logic links itself to\nmetaphysics. One Roscellin, living and teaching apparently at Besan\u00e7on in\nthe latter part of the eleventh century, seems to have been the first to\nattack the currently accepted \u201crealism\u201d with some sense of the matter\u2019s\nthorny intricacies. With his own \u201cnominalistic\u201d position we are acquainted\nonly through his adversaries, who imputed to him views which a thoughtful\nperson could hardly have entertained--that universals were merely words\nand breath (_flatus vocis_). Roscellin seems at all events to have been a\nman strongly held by the reality of individuals, and one who found it\ndifficult to ascribe a sufficient intellectual actuality to the general\nidea as distinguished from the perception of things and the demands of the\nconcepts of their individual existences. His logical difficulties impelled\nhim to theological heresy. The unity in the Trinity became an\nimpossibility; he could only conceive of three beings, just as he might\nthink of three angels; and he would have spoken of three Gods had usage\nnot forbidden it, says St. Anselm.[458] As it was, he said enough to draw\non him the condemnation of a Council held at Soissons in 1092, before\nwhich he quailed and recanted. For the remainder of his life he so\nconstrained the expression of his thoughts as to ensure his safety.\n\nOne may say that Plato\u2019s theory of ideas was a metaphysical presentation\nof the universe, sounding in conceptions of reality. But for the Middle\nAges, the problem whether genera and species exist when abstracted from\ntheir particulars, sprang from logical controversy. It was a problem of\ncognition, cognizance, understanding: how should one understand and\nanalyze the contents of a statement, _e.g._ Socrates is a man. Moreover,\nit was a fundamental and universal problem of cognition; for it was not\nmerely occupied, like all mental processes, with bringing data to\nconsistent formulation, but pertained to those processes themselves by\nwhich any and all data are stated or formulated. It touched every\nformulation of truth, asking, in fine, how are we to think our statements?\nThe philosophers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, however, did not\nview this problem as one pertaining to the mind\u2019s processes, and as having\nto do solely with the understanding of the contents of a statement.\nRather, even as Plato had done, they approached it as if it were a problem\nof modes of existence; and for this very reason it had pushed Roscellin\ninto theological error.\n\nThe discussion was to pass through various stages; and each stage may seem\nto us to represent the point reached by the thinker in his analysis of his\nconscious meaning in stating a proposition. Moreover, each solution may be\nvalid for him who gives it, because of its correspondence to the meaning\nof his utterances so far as he has analyzed them. But mediaeval men could\nnot take it in this way. Their intellectual task lay in appropriating, and\nin their own way re-expressing, all that had come to them from an\nauthoritative past. The problem of universals had been stated by a great\nauthority, who put it as pertaining to the objective reality of genera and\nspecies. How then might mediaeval men take it otherwise, especially when\nat all events it pertained in all verity to their endeavour to grasp and\nre-express the contents of transmitted truth? It became for a while the\ncrucial problem, the answer to which might indicate the thinker\u2019s general\nintellectual attitude. Far from keeping to logic, to the _organon_ or\ninstrumental part of the mediaeval endeavour to know, it wound itself\nthrough metaphysics and theology. Obviously the thinker\u2019s answer to the\nproblem would bear relation to his thoughts upon the transcendent reality\nof spiritual essences.\n\nThe men who first became impressed with the importance of this problem,\ngave extreme answers to it, sometimes crassly denying the real existence\nof universals, but more often hailing them as antecedent and\nall-permeating realities. If Roscellinus took the former position, a pupil\nof his, William of Champeaux, held the extreme opposite view, when both he\nand the twelfth century were still young. One may, however, bear in mind\nthat as the views of the older nominalist are reported only by his\nenemies, so our knowledge of William\u2019s lucubrations comes mainly from the\nexacerbated pen of Peter Abaelard.\n\nWilliam held apparently \u201cthat the same thing, in its totality and at the\nsame time, existed in its single individuals, among which there was no\nessential difference, but merely a variety of accidents.\u201d[459] Abaelard\nappears to have performed a _reductio ad absurdum_ upon this view that the\ntotal genus exists in each individual. He pointed out that in such case\nthe total genus _homo_ would at the same time exist in Socrates and also\nin Plato, when one of them might be in Rome and the other in Athens. \u201cAt\nthis William changed his opinion,\u201d continues Abaelard, \u201cand taught that\nthe genus existed in each individual not _essentialiter_ but\n_indifferenter_ or [as some texts read] _individualiter_.\u201d Which seems to\nmean that William no longer held that the total genus existed in each\nindividual actually, but \u201cindistinguishably,\u201d or \u201cindividually.\u201d\n\nAnd the students flocked away with Abaelard, _he_ also says; and William\nfled the lecture chair. William and Peter; shall we say of them _arcades\nambo_? This would be but a harmless depreciation of Abaelard, in the face\nof the universal and correct tradition as to his epoch-making intellectual\nprogressiveness. Indeed it might be well to let the phrase sound in our\nears, just for the reminder\u2019s sake, that Abaelard was, like William, a man\nof logic, although far more expert both in manipulating the dialectic\nprocesses and in applying them to theology.\n\nBefore endeavouring briefly to reconstruct the intellectual qualities of\nAbaelard from his writings, let us see how the famous open letter to a\nfriend, in giving an apologetic story of the writer\u2019s life, discloses the\nfatalities of his character. This _Historia calamitatum suarum_ makes it\nplain enough why the crises of his life were all of them\ncatastrophes--even leaving out of view his liaison with Helo\u00efse and its\npenalty. A fatal impulse to annoy seems to drive him from fate to fate;\nthe old word of Heraclitus \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd (character is a man\u2019s\ngenius) was so patently true of him. Much that he said was to receive\northodox approval after his time. Quite true. It has often been remarked,\nthat the heresy of one age is the accepted doctrine of the next, even\nwithin the Church. But would the heretic have been _persona grata_ to the\nlater time? Perhaps not. Peter Abaelard at all events would have led\nothers and himself a life of thorns in the thirteenth century, or the\nfourteenth had he been born again, when some of his methods and opinions\nhad become accepted commonplace. Did he have an eye for logical and human\ntruth more piercing than his twelfth-century fellows? Apparently. Was his\nneed to speak out his truth so much the more imperative than theirs?\nPossibly. At all events, he was certainly possessed with an inordinate\nimpulsion to undo his rivals. He sits down before their fortress walls by\nnight, and when they see him there, they know not whether they look on\nfriend or foe--in this auditor. They will find out soon enough. He studied\ndialectic under William of Champeaux at Paris, as all men were to know. He\ngot what William had to teach, and moved on, to lecture in Melun and\nelsewhere. Then he returned and sat at William\u2019s feet awhile to learn\nrhetoric, as he announced. But quickly he rose up, and assailed his\nmaster\u2019s doctrine of universals, and overthrew him, as we have seen. The\nvictim\u2019s friends made Abaelard\u2019s eristically won lecturer\u2019s seat a prickly\none. He left Paris for a while, and then returned and taught on Mount St.\nGenevi\u00e8ve, outside the city.\n\nUp to this time he had not been known to study theology. But in 1113, at\nthe age of thirty-four, he went to Laon to listen to a famous theologian\nnamed Anselm, who himself had studied at Bec under a greater Anselm. Says\nAbaelard in his _Historia calamitatum_: \u201cSo I came to this old man, whose\nrepute was a tradition, rather than merited by talent or learning. Any one\nwho brought his uncertainties to him, went away more uncertain still! He\nwas a marvel in the eyes of his hearers, but a nobody before a questioner.\nHe had a wonderful wordflow, but the sense was contemptible and the\nreasoning abject.\u201d Well, I didn\u2019t listen to him long, Abaelard intimates;\nbut began to absent myself from his lectures, and was brought to task by\nhis auditors, to whom jokingly I said, I, too, could lecture on Scripture;\nand I was taken up. Nothing loath, the next day I lectured to them on the\npassage they had chosen from Ezekiel\u2019s obscure prophecies. So, all\nunprepared, and trusting in my genius, I began to lecture, at first to\nsparse audiences, but they quickly grew. Such is the substance of\nAbaelard\u2019s own account, and he goes on to tell how \u201cthe old man aforesaid\nwas violently moved with envy,\u201d and shortly Abaelard had to take his\nlecturings elsewhere. He returned to Paris, and we have the episode of\nHelo\u00efse, for whom, as his life went on, he evinced a devoted\naffection.[460]\n\nNow he is monk in the abbey of St. Denis; and there again he lectures, and\ntakes up certain themes against Roscellinus, whom he seems to resurrect\nfrom the quiet of old age to make a target of. This old man, too, hits\nback, and other vicious people blow up a cloud of envy, until the gifted\nlecturer finds himself an accused before the Council of Soissons, and his\nbook condemned. Untaught by the burning of his book, Abaelard returns to\nhis convent, and proceeds to unearth statements of the Venerable Bede\nshowing that Dionysius the Areopagite who heard Paul preach, was not the\nSt. Denis who became patron saint of France, and founder of the great\nabbey which even now was sheltering a certain Abaelard, and drawing power\nand revenue from the fame of its reputed almost apostolic founder. Its\nabbot and monks did not care to have the abbey walls undermined by truth,\nand Abaelard was hunted forth from among them.\n\nIt was after this that he made for himself a lonely refuge, which he named\nthe Paraclete, not far from Troyes, and thither again his pupils followed\nhim in swarms, and built their huts around him in the wilderness. But\nstill mightier foes--or their phantoms--rise against this hunted head. The\n_Historia_ seems to allude to St. Norbert and to St. Bernard. Whatever the\nstorm was, it was escaped by flight to a remote Breton convent\nwhich--still for his sins!--had chosen Abaelard its abbot. There in due\ncourse they tried to murder him, and again he fled, this time back to his\ncongenial sphere, the schools of Paris, where he lectured, now at the\nsummit of fame, to enthusiastic multitudes of students. Some years pass,\nand then the pious jackal, William of St. Thierry, rouses his lion Bernard\nto contend with Abaelard and crush him, not with dialectic, at the\nCouncil of Sens in 1141. In a year he died, a broken man, in Cluny\u2019s\nshelter. The conflict had not been of his seeking. Perhaps, had he been\nless vain, he might have avoided it. When it was upon him, the unhappy\nathlete of the schools found himself a pigmy matched against the giant of\nClairvaux--the Thor and Loki of the Church! Whether or not the unequal\nbattle raises Abaelard in our esteem, its outcome commends him to our\npity; and all our sympathy stays with him to the last days of a life that\nwas, as if physically, crushed. This accumulation of sad fortune bears\nwitness enough to the character of the man on whose neck it did not fall\nby accident. Now let us try to reconstruct him intellectually.\n\nWe have heretofore observed the genius and noted the somewhat swaddling\ndialectic categories of a certain eager intellect bearing the name of\nGerbert.[461] Abaelard\u2019s mental processes have advanced beyond such\nlogical stammerings. He and his time are in the fulness of youth, and feel\nthe strength and joyful assurance of an intellectual progress, to be\nbrought about by a new-found proficiency in dialectic. In the first half\nof the twelfth century, the intellectual genius of the time--and Abaelard\nwas its quintessence--knew itself advancing by this means in truth. A like\nintellectual consciousness had rejoiced the disputants in Plato\u2019s academy,\nunder the inspiration of that beautiful reasoner\u2019s exquisite dialectic.\nThe one time, like the other, was justified in its confidence. For in such\nepochs, language, reasoning, and knowledge advance with equal step;\nthought clears up with linguistic and logical analysis; it becomes clear\nand illuminated because more distinctly conscious of the character of its\nprocesses, and the nature of statement. There is thus a veritable\nprogress, at least in the methodology of truth.\n\nIn Abaelard\u2019s time men had already studied grammar, the grammar of the\nLatin tongue, and the quasi-grammar of rearrangement and first painful\nlearning of the knowledge which it held. They had studied logic too, its\nsimpler elements, those which consist mainly in a further clearing up of\nthe meanings of language. Some men--Anselm of Canterbury--had already\nmade sudden flights beyond grammar, and out of logic\u2019s pale. And the\nlabour of logical and organic appropriation, with some reconstruction of\nthe ancient material, was to go on in this first half of the twelfth\ncentury, when Hugo of St. Victor lived as well as Abaelard. Progress by\nmeans of dialectic controversy, and first attempts at systematic\nconstruction, mark this period intellectually. Abaelard lived and moved\nand had his being in dialectic. The further interest of Theology was lent\nhim by the spirit of his time. Through the medium of the one he reasoned\nanalytically; and in the province of the other he applied his reasoning\nconstructively, using patristic materials and the fragments of Greek\nphilosophy scattered through them. Thus Abaelard, a true man of the\ntwelfth century, passes on through logic to theology or metaphysics.\n\nFor the completeness of his logical knowledge he lived and worked twenty\nor thirty years too soon. He was unacquainted with the more elaborate\nlogical treatises of Aristotle, to wit, the _Prior_ and _Posterior\nAnalytics_, the _Topics_, and _Sophistical Elenchi_. The sources of his\nown treatises upon Dialectic are Porphyry\u2019s Introduction, Aristotle\u2019s\n_Categories_ and _De interpretatione_, and certain treatises of\nBo\u00ebthius.[462] A first result of the elementary and quasi-grammatical\ncharacter of the sources of logic upon which he drew, is that the\nconnection between logic and grammar is very plain with him. Note, for\nexample, this paragraph of his, the substance of which is drawn from\nAristotle\u2019s _Categories_:\n\n    \u201cBut neither can substances be compared,[463] since comparison relates\n    to attribute, and not to substance; so it is shown that comparison\n    lies not as to nouns, but as to their attributes. Thus we say _whiter_\n    but not _whitenesser_. Much more are substances which have no\n    attribute (_adjacentiam_) immune from comparison. More or less cannot\n    be predicated of nouns (_nomina substantiva_). For one cannot say\n    _more man_ or _less man_, as _more_ or _less white_.\u201d[464]\n\nEvidently this elementary sort of logic, whether with Aristotle or\nAbaelard, represents a clearing up of the mind on current modes of\nexpression. And sometimes from such studies men make discoveries like that\nof Moli\u00e8re\u2019s Bourgeois Gentilhomme, who discovered that he had always been\ntalking prose. Some of the points on which the minds of Abaelard\u2019s\ncontemporaries required clarification, would be foolish word-play to\nourselves, as, for instance, whether the significance of the sentence\n_homo est animal_ is contained in the subject, copula, or predicate, or\nonly in all three; and whether when a word is spoken, the very same word\nand the whole of it comes to the ears of all the hearers at the same time:\n\u201cutrum ipsa vox ad aures diversorum simul et tota aequaliter veniat.\u201d[465]\nSuch questions, as was observed regarding the problems of logical\narrangement in Gerbert\u2019s mind, may be pertinent and reasonable enough, if\nviewed in connection with the intellectual conditions of a period; just as\nmany questions now make demand on us for solution, being links in the\nchain of our knowledge, or manner of reasoning. But future men may pass\nthem by as not lying in their path to progressive knowledge of the\nuniverse and man.\n\nSo the problem of universals was still cardinal with Abaelard and his\nfellow-logicians, who through logic were advancing, as they believed,\nalong the path of objective truth. Its solution would determine the nature\nof the categories into which logic was fitting whatever might be\nenunciated or expressed. The inquiry represented an ultimate analysis of\nstatement, of the general nature of propositions; and also related to\ntheir assumed correspondence with realities. What William of Champeaux had\nunqualifiedly alleged, Abaelard tried to determine more analytically, to\nwit, the value of the proposition \u201csi aliquid sit ea res quae est species,\nid est vel homo vel equus et caetera, sit quaelibet res quae eorum genus\nest, veluti animal aut corpus aut substantia,\u201d--if species be something,\nas man, horse, and so forth, then that which is the genus of these may be\nsomething, as animal, body, or substance.[466]\n\nAbaelard\u2019s discussion of this matter is a discussion of the true content\nof propositions. His conclusion is not so clear as to have occasioned no\ndispute. One must not think of him as an Aristotelian--for he knew little\nof the substantial philosophy of Aristotle. Our dialectician had absorbed\nmore of Plato, through turbid patristic channels and the current\ntranslation of the _Timaeus_. So his solution of the question of genus and\nspecies may prove an analytic bit of eclecticism, an imagined\nreconcilement of the two great masters. The universal or general is, says\nhe, \u201cquod natum est de pluribus praedicari,\u201d that which is by its nature\nadapted to be predicated of a number of things. The universal consists\nneither in things as such nor in words as such; it consists rather in\ngeneral predicability; it is _sermo, sermo praedicabilis_, that which may\nbe stated, as a predicate, of many. As such it is not a mere word: _sermo_\nis not merely _vox_; that is not the true general predicable. On the other\nhand, one thing cannot be the predicate of another; _res de re non\npraedicatur_: therefore _sermo_ is not _res_. Yet Abaelard does not limit\nthe existence of the universal to the concept of him who thinks it. It\nsurely exists in the individuals, since _substantia specierum_ is not\ndifferent from the _essentia individuorum_. But does not the general\nconcept exist as an objective unity? Apparently Abaelard would answer:\nYes, it does thus exist as a common sameness (_consimilitudo_).\n\nAll this is anything but clear. And the various twelfth-century opinions\non universals no longer possess human interest. It is hard for us to\ndistinguish between them, or understand them clearly, or state them\nintelligibly. They are bound up in a phraseology untranslatable into\nmodern language, because the discussion no longer corresponds to modern\nways of thought. But one is interested in the human need which drove\nAbaelard and his fellows upon the horns of this problem, and in the nature\nof their endeavours to formulate their thought so as to escape those\nopposing horns--of an extreme realism which might issue in pantheism, and\nan extreme nominalism which seemed to deprive predication of substance and\nvalidity.[467]\n\nSo much for Abaelard as sheer logician, formal adjuster of the\ninstrumental processes of thinking. Dialectic was for him a first stage in\nthe actualization of the impulse to know, and bring knowledge to\nconsistent expression. It was also his way of approach to the further\nsystematic presentation of his thoughts upon God and man, human society\nand justice, divine and human.\n\n    \u201cA new calumny against me, have my rivals lately devised, because I\n    write upon the dialectic art; affirming that it is not lawful for a\n    Christian to treat of things which do not pertain to the Faith. Not\n    only they say that this science does not prepare us for the Faith, but\n    that it destroys faith by the implications of its arguments. But it is\n    wonderful if I must not discuss what is permitted them to read. If\n    they allow that the art militates against faith, surely they deem it\n    not to be science (_scientia_). For the science of truth is the\n    comprehension of things, whose _species_ is the wisdom in which faith\n    consists. Truth is not opposed to truth. For not as falsehood may be\n    opposed to falsity, or evil to evil, can the true be opposed to the\n    true, or the good to the good; but rather all good things are in\n    accord. All knowledge is good, even that which relates to evil,\n    because a righteous man must have it. Since he should guard against\n    evil, it is necessary that he should know it beforehand: otherwise he\n    could not shun it. Though an act be evil, knowledge regarding it is\n    good; though it be evil to sin, it is good to know the sin, which\n    otherwise we could not shun. Nor is the science _mathematica_ to be\n    deemed evil, whose practice (astrology) is evil. Nor is it a crime to\n    know with what services and immolations the demons may be compelled to\n    do our will, but to use such knowledge. For if it were evil to know\n    this, how could God be absolved, who knows the desires and cogitations\n    of all His creatures, and how the concurrence of demons may be\n    obtained? If therefore it is not wrong to know, but to do, the evil is\n    to be referred to the act and not to the knowledge. Hence we are\n    convinced that all knowledge, which indeed comes from God alone and\n    from His bounty, is good. Wherefore the study of every science should\n    be conceded to be good, because that which is good comes from it; and\n    especially one must insist upon the study of that _doctrina_ by which\n    the greater truth is known. This is dialectic, whose function is to\n    distinguish between every truth and falsity: as leader in all\n    knowledge it holds the primacy and rule of all philosophy. The same\n    also is shown to be needful to the Catholic Faith, which cannot\n    without its aid resist the sophistries of schismatics.\u201d[468]\n\nIn this passage the man himself is speaking, and disclosing his innermost\nconvictions. For Abaelard\u2019s nature was set upon understanding all things\nthrough reason, even the mysteries of the Faith. He does not say, or quite\nthink, that he will disbelieve whatever he cannot understand; but his\nreasoning and temper point to the conclusion. This was obviously true of\nAbaelard\u2019s ethical opinions; his enemies said it was true of his theology.\nSuch a man would naturally plead for freedom of discussion, even for\nfreedom of conclusion; but within certain bounds; for who in the twelfth\ncentury could maintain that heretics or infidels did rightly in rejecting\nthe Christian Faith? Yet Abaelard says heretics should be compelled\n(_coercendi_) by reason rather than force.[469] And he could at least\nconceive of the rejection of the Faith upon, say, imperfect rational\ngrounds. In his dialogue between Philosopher, Jew, and Christian, the\nChristian says to the Philosopher: One cannot argue against you from the\nauthority of Scripture, which you do not recognize; for no one can be\nrefuted save with arguments drawn from what he admits: _Nemo quippe argui\nnisi ex concessis potest_.[470] However this sounded in Abaelard\u2019s time,\nthe same was enunciated by Thomas Aquinas after him, in a passage already\ngiven.[471] But it is doubtful whether Thomas would have cared to follow\nAbaelard in some of the arguments of his _Ethics_ or _Book called, Know\nThyself_, in which he maintains that no act is a sin unless the actor was\nconscious of its sinfulness; and therefore that killing the martyrs could\nnot be imputed as sin to those persecutors who deemed themselves thereby\nto be doing a service acceptable to God.[472]\n\nThe titles given by Abaelard to his various treatises are indicative of\nthe critical insistency of his nature. He called his _Ethica_, _Scito te\nipsum_, _Know Thyself_: understand thy good and ill intentions, and what\nmay be vice or virtue in thee. Through the book, the discussion of right\nand wrong directs itself as pertinaciously to considerations of human\nnature as was possible in an age when theological dogma held the final\ncriteria of human conduct. And Abaelard is capable of a lofty insight\ntouching the relationship between God and man.\n\n    \u201cPenitence,\u201d says he, \u201cis truly fruitful when grief and contrition\n    proceed from love of God, regarded as benignant, rather than from fear\n    of penalties. Sin cannot endure with this groaning and contrition of\n    heart: for sin is contempt of God, or consent to evil, and the love of\n    God in inspiring our groaning, suffers no ill.\u201d[473]\n\nPossibly when reading the _Scito te ipsum_ one is conscious of a\ndialectician drawing distinctions, rather than of a moralist searching the\nheart of the matter. Everything is set forth so reasonably. Yet Abaelard\u2019s\nimpartial delight in a rational view of belief and conduct shows nowhere\nquite as obviously as in his _Dialogue_ between Philosopher and Jew and\nChristian. Each in turn is made to set forth the best arguments his\nposition admits of. The author does his best for each, and perhaps seems\ntemperamentally drawn to the position of the Philosopher, whom he permits\nto call the Jews _stultos_ and the Christians _insanos_. This philosopher\nnaturally is no Greek of Plato\u2019s or Aristotle\u2019s time, but a good Roman,\nwho regards _moralis philosophia_ as the _finis omnium disciplinarum_, and\nhangs all intellectual considerations upon a discussion of the _summum\nbonum_. His well-worn arguments are put with earnestness. He deprecates\nthe blind acceptance of beliefs by children from their fathers, and the\nnarrowness of mind which keeps men from perceiving the possible truth in\nothers\u2019 opinions:\n\n    \u201cso that whomsoever they see differing from themselves in belief, they\n    deem alien from the mercy of God. Thus condemning all others, they\n    vaunt themselves alone as blessed. Long reflecting on this blindness\n    and pride of the human race, I have unceasingly besought the Divine\n    Pity that He would deign to draw me forth from this miserable\n    Charibdian whirlpool of error, and guide me to a port of safety. So\n    you [addressing both Jew and Christian] behold me solicitous and\n    attentive as a disciple, to the documents of your arguments.\u201d[474]\n\nThe qualities cultivated by dialectic, and the impartial rational temper,\nhere displayed, reappear in the works of Abaelard devoted to sacred\ndoctrine. Enough has been said of the method and somewhat captious\nqualities of the _Sic et non_.[475] Unquestionably its manner of\npresenting the contradictory opinions of the Fathers, without any attempt\nto reconcile them, tended to bring into view the difficulties inhering in\nthe formulation of Christian belief. And indeed the book made prominent\nall the diabolic insoluble problems of the Faith, or rather of life itself\nand any view of God and man: Predestination, for example; whether God\ncauses evil; whether He is omnipotent; whether He is free. The Lombard\u2019s\n_Sentences_ and Thomas\u2019s _Summa_ considered all these questions; but they\nstrove to solve them; and Thomas did solve every one, leaving no loose\nends to his theology. More potently than Abaelard did the Angelic Doctor\nemploy dialectic in his finished scheme. With him, this propaedeutic\ndiscipline, this tool of truth, perfectly performs its task of\nconstruction. So also Abaelard intended to work with it; but his somewhat\nunconsidered use of the tool did not meet the approval of his\ncontemporaries. Accordingly, in his more constructive theological\ntreatises his impulse to know and state appears finally actualized in the\nsystematic formulation of convictions upon topics of ultimate interest, to\nwit, theology, the contents of the Christian Faith, the full relationship\nof God and man. Did he sever theology from philosophy? Nay, rather, with\nhim theology was ultimate philosophy.\n\nSeveral times Abaelard rewrote what was substantially the same general\nwork upon Theology. In one of its earliest forms it was burnt by the\nCouncil of Soissons in 1121.[476] In another form it exists under the\ntitle _Theologia Christiana_;[477] and the first part of its apparently\nfinal revision is now improperly entitled, _Introductio ad\ntheologiam_.[478]\n\nThe first Book of the _Theologia Christiana_ is an exposition of the\nTrinity, not clinched in syllogisms, but consisting mainly of an orderly\npresentation of the patristic authorities supporting the author\u2019s view of\nthe matter. The testimonies of profane writers are also given. Liber II.\nopens by saying that in the former part of the work \u201cwe have collected the\n_testimonia_ of prophets and philosophers, in support of the faith of the\nHoly Trinity.\u201d Hereupon, by the same method of adducing authorities,\nAbaelard proceeds to refute those who had blamed him for citing the pagan\nphilosophers. He marshals his supporting excerpts from the Fathers, and\nremarks: \u201cThat nothing is more needful for the defence of our faith than\nthat as against the importunities of all the infidels we should have\nwitness from themselves wherewith to refute them.\u201d Then he points to the\nmoral worth of some of the philosophers, to their true teaching of the\nsoul\u2019s immortality, and quotes Horace\u2019s\n\n  \u201cOderunt peccare boni virtutis amore.\u201d\n\nHe continues at some length setting forth their well-nigh evangelical\nvirtue, and speaks of the Gospel as _reformatio legis naturalis_.\n\nAt the beginning of Liber III. comes the statement: \u201cWe set the faith of\nthe blessed Trinity as the foundation of all good.\u201d Whereupon Abaelard\nbreaks out in a denunciation of those who misuse dialectic; but again he\npasses to a defence of the art as an art and branch of knowledge, and\nshows its need as a weapon against those wranglers who will be quieted\nneither by the authority of the saints nor the philosophers: against whom,\nhe, Abaelard, trusting in the divine aid, will turn this weapon as David\ndid the sword of Goliath. He now states the true object of his work:\n\u201cFirst then is to be set forth the theme of our whole labour, and the sum\nof faith; the unity of the divine substance and the Trinity of persons,\nwhich are in God, and are one God. Next we state the objections to our\ntheses, and then the solutions of those objections.\u201d And he gives the\nsubstance of the Athanasian Creed. From this point, his work becomes more\ndialectical and constructive, although of course continuing to quote\nauthorities. He is emboldened to discuss the deepest mysteries, the very\npenetralia of the Trinity, and in a way which might well alarm men like\nBernard, who desired acceptance of the Faith, with rhetoric, but without\ndiscussion. To be sure Abaelard pauses to justify himself by reverting to\nhis apologetic purpose: \u201cHeretics must be coerced with reason rather than\nby force.\u201d However this may be, the work henceforth shows the passing on\nof logic to the exercise of its architectonic functions in constructing a\nsystematic theological metaphysics.\n\nThe miscalled _Introductio ad theologiam_, as might be expected of a last\nrevision of the author\u2019s _Theology_, is a more organic work. In the\nPrologue, Abaelard speaks of it as a _Summa sacrae eruditionis_ or an\n_Introductio_ to Divine Scripture. And again he states the justifying\npurpose of his labour, or rather puts it into the mouths of his disciples\nwho have asked for such a work from him: \u201cSince our faith, the Christian\nFaith, seems entangled in such difficult questions, and to stand apart\nfrom human reason (_et ab humana ratione longius absistere_), it should be\nfortified by so much the stronger arguments, especially against the\nattacks of those who call themselves philosophers.\u201d Continuing, Abaelard\nprotests that if in any way, for his sins, he should deviate from the\nCatholic understanding and statement, he will on seeing his error revise\nthe same, like the blessed Augustine.\n\nThe work itself opens with a statement of its intended divisions: \u201cIn\nthree matters, as I judge, rests the sum of human salvation: _Fides_,\n_caritas_, and _sacramentum_\u201d; and he gives his definition of faith, which\nwas so obnoxious to Bernard and others, as the _existimatio rerum non\napparentium_. The three extant Books do not conclude the treatment even of\nthe first of these three topics. But one readily sees that were the work\ncomplete, its arrangement might correspond with that of Thomas\u2019s\n_Summa_.[479] One may reiterate that it was more constructively\nargumentative than the _Theologia Christiana_, even in the manner of\nusing the cited authorities. For instance, Abaelard\u2019s mind is fixed on the\nanalogy between the Neo-Platonic Trinity of _Deus_, _nous_, and _anima\nmundi_, and that of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The _nous_ fitly\nrepresents Christ, who is the _Sapientia Dei_--which Abaelard sets forth;\nbut then with even greater insistency he identifies the Holy Spirit with\nthe world-soul. Nothing gave a stronger warrant to the accusations of\nheresy brought against him than this last doctrine, with which he was\nobsessed. Yet what roused St. Bernard and his jackals was not so much any\nparticular opinion of Abaelard, as his dialectic and critical spirit,\nwhich insisted upon understanding and explaining, before believing. \u201cThe\nfaith of the righteous believes; it does not dispute. But that man,\nsuspicious of God (_Deum habens suspectum_), has no mind to believe what\nhis reason has not previously argued.\u201d[480]\n\nStill, when Bernard says that faith does not discuss, but believes, he\nstates a conviction of his mind, a conviction corresponding with an inner\nneed of his own to formulate and express his thought. Only, with Abaelard\nthe need to consider and analyse was more consciously imperative. He could\nnot avoid the constant query: How shall I think this thing--this thing,\nfor example, which is declared by revelation? Just as other questioning\nspirits in other times might be driven upon the query: How shall we think\nthese things which are disclosed by the variegated walls of our physical\nenvironment? Those yield data, or refuse them, and force the mind to put\nmany queries, and come to some adjustment. So experience presents data for\nadjustment, just as dogma, Scripture, revelation present that which reason\nmust bring within the action of its processes, and endeavour to find\nrational expression for.\n\n\nII\n\nThe greatest dialectician of the early twelfth century felt no problems\nput him by the physical world. That did not attract his inquiry; it did\nnot touch the reasonings evolved by his self-consciousness, any more than\nit impressed the fervid mind of his great adversary, St. Bernard. The\nnatural world, however, stirred the mind of Abaelard\u2019s contemporary, Hugo\nof St. Victor.[481] Its colours waved before his reveries, and its visible\nsublimities drew his mind aloft to the contemplation of God: for him its\n_things_ were all the things of God--_opus conditionis_ or _opus\nrestaurationis_;[482] the work of foundation, whereby God created the\nphysical world for the support and edification of its crowning creature\nman; and the work of restoration, to wit, the incarnation of the Word, and\nall its sacraments.\n\nHugo was a Platonic and very Christian theologian. He would reason and\nexpound, and yet was well aware that reason could not fathom the nature of\nGod, or bring man to salvation. \u201cLogic, mathematics, physics teach some\ntruth, yet do not reach that truth wherein is the soul\u2019s safety, without\nwhich whatever is is vain.\u201d[483] So Hugo was not primarily a logician,\nlike Abaelard; nor did he care chiefly for the kind of truth which might\nbe had through logic. Nevertheless the productions of his short life prove\nthe excellence of his mind and his large enthusiasm for knowledge.\n\nAs Hugo was the head of the school of St. Victor for some years before his\ndeath, certain of his works cover topics of ordinary mediaeval education,\nsecular and religious; while others advance to a more profound expression\nof the intellectual, or spiritual, interests of their author. For\nelementary religious instruction, he composed a veritable book of\n_Sentences_,[484] which preceded the Lombard\u2019s in time, but was later than\nAbaelard\u2019s _Sic et non_. Without striking features, it lucidly and amiably\ncarried out its general purpose of setting forth the authoritative\nexplanations of the elements of the Christian Faith. The writer did not\nhesitate to quote opposing views, which were not heralded, however, by\nsuch danger-signals of contradiction as flare from the chapter headings of\nthe _Sic et non_.\n\nThe corresponding treatise upon profane learning--the _Eruditio\ndidascalica_--is of greater interest.[485] It commences in elementary\nfashion, as a manual of study: \u201cThere are two things by which we gain\nknowledge, to wit, reading and meditation; reading comes first.\u201d The book\nis to be a guide to the student in the study both of secular and divine\nwritings; it teaches how to study the _artes_, and then how to study the\nScriptures.[486] Even in this manual, Hugo shows himself a meditative\nsoul, and one who seeks to base his most elementary expositions upon the\nnature and needs of man. The mind, says he, is distracted by things of\nsense, and does not know itself. It is renewed through study, so that it\nlearns again not to look without for what itself affords. Learning is\nlife\u2019s solace, which he who finds is happy, and he who makes his own is\nblessed.[487]\n\nFor Hugo, philosophy is that which investigates the _rationes_ of things\nhuman and divine, seeking ever the final wisdom, which is knowledge of the\n_primaeva ratio_: this distinguishes philosophy from the practical\nsciences, like agriculture: it follows the _ratio_, and they administer\nthe matter. Again and again, Hugo returns to the thought that the object\nof all human _actiones_ and _studia_ is to restore the integrity of our\nnature or mitigate its weaknesses, restore the image of the divine\nsimilitude in us, or minister to the needs of life. This likeness is\nrenewed by _speculatio veritatis_, or _exercitium virtutis_.[488]\n\nSuch is a pretty broad basis of theory for a high school manual. Hugo\nproceeds to set forth the scheme, rather than the substance, of the arts\nand sciences, pausing occasionally to admonish the reader to hold no\nscience vile, since knowledge always is good; and he points out that all\nknowledge hangs together in a common coherency. He sketches[489] the true\nstudent\u2019s life: Whoever seeks learning, must not neglect discipline! He\nmust be humble, and not ashamed to learn from any one; he must observe\ndecent manners, and not play the fool and make faces at lecturers on\ndivinity, for thereby he insults God. Yea, and let him mind the example of\nthe ancient sages, who for learning\u2019s sake spurned honours, rejected\nriches, rejoiced in insults, deserted the companionship of men, and gave\nthemselves up to philosophy in desert solitudes, that they might be more\nfree for meditation. Diligent search for wisdom in quietude becomes a\nscholar; and likewise poverty, and likewise exile: he is very delicate who\nclings to his fatherland; \u201cHe is brave to whom every land is home\n(_patria_); and he is perfect to whom the whole world is an exile!\u201d[490]\n\nHugo has much to say of the _pulchritudo_ and the _decor_ of the\ncreature-world. But with him the world and its beauty point to God. One\nshould observe it because of its suggestiveness, the visible suggesting\nthe invisible. Hugo has already been followed in his argument that the\nworld, in its veriest reality, is a symbol.[491] Here we follow him along\nhis path of knowledge, which leads on and upward from _cogitatio_, through\n_meditatio_, to _contemplatio_. The steps in Hugo\u2019s scheme are rational,\nthough the summit lies beyond. This path to truth, leading on from the\nvisible symbol to the unseen power, is for him the reason and\njustification of study; drawing to God it makes for man\u2019s salvation.\n\nHugo has put perhaps his most lucid exposition of the three grades of\nknowledge into the first of his _Nineteen Sermons on Ecclesiastes_.[492]\nHe is fond of certain numbers, and here his thought revolves in categories\nof the number three. Solomon composed three works, the Proverbs,\nEcclesiastes, and Canticles. In the first, he addresses his son\npaternally, admonishing him to pursue virtue and shun vice; in the second,\nhe shows the grown man that nothing in the world is stable; finally, in\nCanticles, he brings the consummate one, who has spurned the world, to the\nBridegroom\u2019s arms.\n\n    \u201cThree are the modes of cognition (_visiones_) belonging to the\n    rational soul: cogitation, meditation, contemplation. It is cogitation\n    when the mind is touched with the ideas of things, and the thing\n    itself is by its image presented suddenly, either entering the mind\n    through sense or rising from memory. Meditation is the assiduous and\n    sagacious revision of cogitation, and strives to explain the involved,\n    and penetrate the hidden. Contemplation is the mind\u2019s perspicacious\n    and free attention, diffused everywhere throughout the range of\n    whatever may be explored. There is this difference between meditation\n    and contemplation: meditation relates always to things hidden from our\n    intelligence; contemplation relates to things made manifest, either\n    according to their nature or our capacity. Meditation always is\n    occupied with some one matter to be investigated; contemplation\n    spreads abroad for the comprehending of many things, even the\n    universe. Thus meditation is a certain inquisitive power of the mind,\n    sagaciously striving to look into the obscure and unravel the\n    perplexed. Contemplation is that acumen of intelligence which, keeping\n    all things open to view, comprehends all with clear vision. Thus\n    contemplation has what meditation seeks.\n\n    \u201cThere are two kinds of contemplation: the first is for beginners, and\n    considers creatures; the kind which comes later, belongs to the\n    perfect, and contemplates the Creator. In the Proverbs, Solomon\n    proceeds as through meditation. In Ecclesiastes he ascends to the\n    first grade of contemplation. In the Song of Songs he transports\n    himself to the final grade. In meditation there is a wrestling of\n    ignorance with knowledge; and the light of truth gleams as in a fog of\n    error. So fire is kindled with difficulty in a heap of green wood; but\n    then fanned with stronger breath, the flame burns higher, and we see\n    volumes of smoke rolling up, with flame flashing through. Little by\n    little the damp is exhausted, and the leaping fire dispels the smoke.\n    Then _victrix flamma_ darting through the heap of crackling wood,\n    springs from branch to branch, and with lambent grasp catches upon\n    every twig; nor does it rest until it penetrates everywhere and draws\n    into itself all that it finds which is not flame. At length the whole\n    combustible material is purged of its own nature and passes into the\n    similitude and property of fire; then the din is hushed, and the\n    voracious fire having subdued all, and brought all into its own\n    likeness, composes itself to a high peace and silence, finding nothing\n    more that is alien or opposed to itself. First there was fire with\n    flame and smoke; then fire with flame, without smoke; and at last pure\n    fire with neither flame nor smoke.\u201d\n\nSo the _victrix flamma_ achieves the three stages of spiritual insight,\nfighting its way through the smoke of cogitation, through the smoke and\nflame of meditation, and at last through the flame of creature\ncontemplation, to the high peace of God, where all is love\u2019s ardent\nvision, without flame or smoke. It is thus through the grades of knowledge\nthat the soul reaches at last that fulness of intelligence which may be\nmade perfect and inflamed with love, in the contemplation of God. All\nknowledge is good according to its grade; only let it always lead on to\nGod, and with humility. Hugo makes his principles clear at the opening of\nhis commentary on the _Celestial Hierarchy_ of Dionysius.[493]\n\n    \u201c_The Jews seek a sign, and the Greeks wisdom._ There was a certain\n    wisdom which seemed such to them who knew not the true wisdom. The\n    world found it, and began to be puffed up, thinking itself great in\n    this. Confiding in its wisdom, it presumed, and boasted that it would\n    attain the highest wisdom.... And it made itself a ladder of the face\n    of the creation, shining toward the invisible things of the\n    Creator.... Then those things which were seen were known, and there\n    were other things which were not known; and through those which were\n    manifest they expected to reach those which were hidden; and they\n    stumbled and fell into the falsehoods of their own imaginings.... So\n    God made foolish the wisdom of this world; and He pointed out another\n    wisdom, which seemed foolishness, and was not. For it preached Christ\n    crucified, in order that truth might be sought in humility. But the\n    world despised it, wishing to contemplate the works of God, which He\n    had made to be marvelled at, and it did not wish to venerate what He\n    had set for imitation. Neither did it look to its own disease, and\n    seek a medicine with piety; but presuming on a false health, it gave\n    itself over with vain curiosity to the study of alien matters.\u201d\n\nThis study made the wisdom of the world, whereby it devised the arts and\nsciences which we still learn. But the world in its pride did not read\naright the great book of nature. It had not the knowledge of the true\nExemplar, for the sanitation of its inner vision, to wit, the flesh of the\neternal Word in the humanity of Jesus.\n\n    \u201cThere were two images (_simulacra_) set for man, in which he might\n    perceive the unseen: one consisting of nature, the other of grace. The\n    former image was the face of this world; the latter was the humanity\n    of the Word. And God is shown in both, but He is not understood in\n    both; since the appearance of nature discloses the artificer, but\n    cannot illuminate the eyes of him who contemplates it.\u201d\n\nHugo then classifies the sciences in the usual Aristotelian way, and shows\nthat Christian theology is the end of all philosophy. The first part of\n_philosophia theorica_ is mathematics, which speculates as to the visible\nforms of visible things. The second is physics, which scrutinizes the\ninvisible causes of visible things. The third, theology, alone\ncontemplates invisible substances and their invisible natures. Herein is a\ncertain progression; and the mind mounts to knowledge of the true. Through\nthe visible forms of visible things, it comes to invisible causes of\nvisible things; and through the invisible causes of visible things, it\nascends to invisible substances, and to knowing their natures. This is the\nsummit of philosophy and the perfection of truth. In this, as already\nsaid, the wise of this world were made foolish; because proceeding by the\nnatural document alone, making account only of the elements and appearance\nof the world, they missed the instructive instances of Grace: which in\nspite of humble guise afford the clearer insight into truth.\n\nThis is Hugo\u2019s scheme of knowledge; it begins with _cogitatio_, then\nproceeds through _meditatio_ to _contemplatio_ of the creature world, and\nfinally of the Creator. The arts and sciences, as well as the face of\nnature, afford a _simulacrum_ of the unseen Power; but all this knowledge\nby itself will not bring man to the perfect knowledge of God. For this he\nneeds the _exemplaria_ of Grace, shown through the incarnation of the\nWord. Only by virtue of this added means, may man attain to perfect\ncontemplation of the truth of God. That end and final summit is beyond\nreason\u2019s reach; but the attainment of rational knowledge makes part of the\npath thither. Keen as was Hugo\u2019s intellectual nature, his interest in\nreason was coupled with a deeper interest in that which reason might\nneither include nor understand. The intellect does not include the\nemotional and immediately desiderative elements of human nature; neither\ncan it comprehend the infinite which is God; and Hugo drew toward God not\nonly through his intellect, but likewise through his desiderative nature,\nwith its yearnings of religious love. That love with him was rational,\nsince its object satisfied his mind as far as his mind could comprehend\nit.\n\nSo Hugo\u2019s intellectual interests were connected with the emotional side of\nhuman nature, and also led up to what transcended reason. Thus they led to\nwhat was a mystery because too great for human reason, and they included\nthat which also was somewhat of a mystery to reason because lying partly\noutside its sphere. Hugo is an instance of the intellectual nature which\nwill not rest in reason\u2019s province, but feels equally impelled to find\nexpression for matters that either exceed the mind, or do not altogether\nbelong to it. Such an intellect is impelled to formulate its convictions\nin regard to these; its negative conviction that it cannot comprehend\nthem, and why it cannot; and its more positive conviction of their\nvalue--of the absolute worth of God, and of man\u2019s need of Him, and of the\nlove and fear by which men may come close to Him, or avoid His wrath.\n\nWhat Hugo has had to say as to cogitation, meditation, and contemplation,\nrepresents his analysis of the stages by which a sufficing sense may be\nreached of the Creator and His world of creature-kind. In this final\nwisdom and ardour of contemplation, both human reason and human love have\npart. The intellect advances along its lines, considering the world, and\ndrawing inferences as to the unseen Being who created and sustains it.\nMind\u2019s unaided power will not reach. But by the grace of God, supremely\nmanifested in the Incarnation, the man is humbled, and his heart is\ntouched and drawn to love the power of the divine pity and humility. The\nlesson of the Incarnation and its guiding grace, emboldens the heart and\nenlightens the mind; and the man\u2019s faculties are strengthened and uplifted\nto the contemplation of God, wherein the mind is satisfied and the heart\nat rest.\n\nWe have here the elements of piety, intellectual and devotional. Hugo is\nan example of their union; they also preserve their equal weight in\nAquinas. But because Hugo emphasizes the limitations of the intellect, and\nso ardently recognizes the heart\u2019s yearning and immediacy of\napperception, he is what is styled a mystic; a term which we are now in a\nposition to consider, and to some extent exchange for other phrases of\nmore definite significance.[494]\n\nQuite to avoid the term is not possible, inasmuch as the conception\ncertainly includes what is mysterious because unknowable through reason.\nFor it includes a sense of the supreme, a sense of God, who is too great\nfor human reason to comprehend, and therefore a mystery. And it includes a\nyearning toward God, the desire of Him, and the feeling of love. The last\nis also mysterious, in that it has not exclusive part with reason, but\nsprings as well from feeling. Yet the essence or nature of this spirit of\npiety which we would analyse, consists in consciousness of the reality of\nthe object of its yearning or devotion. Not altogether through induction\nor deduction, but with an irrational immediacy of conviction, it feels and\nknows its object. In place of the knowledge which is mediated through\nrational processes, is substituted a conviction upheld by yearning, love\u2019s\nconviction indeed, of the reality and presence of that which is all the\ngreater and more worthy because it baffles reason. And the final goal\nattainable by this mystic love is, even as the goal of other love, union\nwith the Beloved.\n\nThe mystic spirit is an essential part of all piety or religion, which\nrelates always and forever to the rationally unknown, and therefore\nmysterious. Without a consciousness of mystery, there can be neither piety\nnor religion. Nor can there be piety without some devotion to God, nor the\ndeepest and most ardent forms of piety, without fervent love of God. This\ndevotion and this love supply strength of conviction, creating a realness\nof communion with the divine, and an assurance of the soul\u2019s rest and\npeace therein. But that the intellect has part, Hugo abundantly\ndemonstrates. One must have perceptions, and thought\u2019s severest\nwrestlings--_cogitatio_ and _meditatio_--before reaching that first stage\nof wide and sure intelligence, which relates to the creature world, and\naffords a broad basis of assurance, whence at last the soul shall spring\nto God. Intellectual perceptions and rational knowledge, and all the\nmind\u2019s puttings together of its data in inductions and deductions and\nconstructions, form a basis for contemplation, and yield material upon\nwhich the emotional side of human nature may exercise itself in yearning\nand devotion. Herein the constructive imagination works; which is\nintellectual faculty illuminated and impelled by the emotions.\n\nThis spirit actualizes itself in the power and scope of its resultant\nconviction, by which it makes real to itself the qualities, attributes,\nand actions of its object, God, and the nature of man\u2019s relationship or\nunion with the divine. In its final energy, when only partly conscious of\nits intellectual inductions, it discards syllogisms, quite dissatisfied\nwith their devious and hesitating approach. Instead, by the power of love,\nit springs directly to its God. Nevertheless the soul which feels the\ninadequacy of reason even to voice the soul\u2019s desires, will seek means of\nexpression wherein reason still will play a submerged part. The soul is\nseeking to express what is not altogether expressible in direct and\nrational statement. It seeks adumbrations, partial unveilings of its\nsentiments, which shall perhaps make up in warmth of colour what they lack\nin definiteness of line. In fine, it seeks symbols. Such symbolism must be\nlarge and elastic, in order to shadow forth the soul\u2019s relations with the\nInfinite; it must also be capable of carrying passion, that it may satisfy\nthe soul\u2019s craving to give voice to its great love.\n\nIn Greek thought as well as in the Hellenizing Judaism of a Philo,\nsymbolism, or more specifically speaking, allegorical interpretation, was\nobviously apologetic, seeking to cloud in naturalistic interpretations the\ndoings of the rather over-human gods of Greece.[495] But it sprang also\nfrom the unresting need of man to find expression for that sense of things\nwhich will not fit definite statement. This was the need which became\ncreative, and of necessity fancifully creative, with Plato. Though he\nwould have nothing to do with falsifying apologetics, all the more he felt\nthe need of allegories, to suggest what his dialectic could not\nformulate. In the early times of the Church militant of Christ,\nallegorical interpretation was exploited to defend the Faith; in the later\npatristic period, the Faith had so far triumphed, that allegory as a sword\nof defence and attack might be sheathed, or just allowed to glitter now\nand then half-drawn. But piety\u2019s other need, with increasing energy,\ncompelled the use of symbols and articulate allegory to express the\ndirectly inexpressible. Thereafter through the Middle Ages, while the use\nof allegory as a defence against the Gentiles slumbered, so much more the\nother need of it, and the sense of the universal symbolism of material\nthings, filled the minds of men; and in age-long answer to this need,\nallegory, symbolism, became part of the very spirit of the mediaeval time.\n\nThus it became the universal vehicle of pious expression: it may be said\nalmost to have co-extended with all mediaeval piety. It was ardently\nloving, as with St. Bernard; it might be filled with scarlet passion, as\nwith Mechthild of Magdeburg; or it might be used in the self-conscious,\nand yet inspired vision-pictures of Hildegard of Bingen. And indeed with\nalmost any mediaeval man or woman, it might keep talking, as a way of\nspeech, obtrusively, conventionally, _ad nauseam_. For indeed in treatise\nafter treatise even of the better men, allegory seems on the one hand to\nbecome very foolish and perverse, banal, intolerably talking on and on\nbeyond the point; or again we sense its mechanism, hear the creaking of\nits jaws, while no living voice emerges,--and we suspect that the mystery\nof life, if it may not be compassed by direct statement, also lies deeper\nthan allegorical conventions.\n\nHugo\u2019s great _De sacramentis_ showed the equipoise of intellectual and\npietistic interests in him, and the Platonic quality of his mind\u2019s sure\nsense of the reality of the supersensual.[496] Other treatises of his show\nhis yearning piety, and the Augustinian quality of his soul, \u201cmade toward\nthee, and unquiet till it rests in thee.\u201d The _De arca Noe morali_,[497]\nthat is to say, the Ark of Noah viewed in its moral significance, is\ncharming in its spiritual refinement, and interesting in its catholic\nintellectual reflections. The Prologue presents a situation:\n\n    \u201cAs I was sitting once among the brethren, and they were asking\n    questions, and I replying, and many matters had been cited and\n    adduced, it came about that all of us at once began to marvel\n    vehemently at the unstableness and disquiet of the human heart; and we\n    began to sigh. Then they pleaded with me that I would show them the\n    cause of such whirlings of thought in the human heart; and they\n    besought me to set forth by what art or exercise of discipline this\n    evil might be removed. I indeed wished to satisfy my brethren, so far\n    as God might aid me, and untie the knot of their questions, both by\n    authority and by argument. I knew it would please them most if I\n    should compose my matter to read to them at table.\n\n    \u201cIt was my plan to show first whence arise such violent changes in\n    man\u2019s heart, and then how the mind may be led to keep itself in stable\n    peace. And although I had no doubt that this is the proper work of\n    grace, rather than of human labour, nevertheless I know that God\n    wishes us to co-operate. Besides it is well to know the magnitude of\n    our weakness and the mode of its repairing, since so much the deeper\n    will be our gratitude.\n\n    \u201cThe first man was so created, that if he had not sinned, he would\n    always have beheld in present contemplation his Creator\u2019s face, and by\n    always seeing Him, would have loved Him always, and, by loving, would\n    always have clung close to Him, and by clinging to Him who was\n    eternal, would have possessed life without end. Evidently the one true\n    good of man was perfect knowledge of his Creator. But he was driven\n    from the face of the Lord, since for his sin he was struck with the\n    blindness of ignorance, and passed from that intimate light of\n    contemplation; and he inclined his mind to earthly desires, as he\n    began to forget the sweetness of the divine. Thus he was made a\n    wanderer and fugitive over the earth. A wanderer indeed, because of\n    disordered concupiscence; and a fugitive, through guilty conscience,\n    which feels every man\u2019s hand against it. For every temptation will\n    overcome the man who has lost God\u2019s aid.\n\n    \u201cSo man\u2019s heart which had been kept secure by divine love, and one by\n    loving one, afterwards began to flow here and there through earthly\n    desires. For the mind which knows not to love its true good, is never\n    stable and never rests. Hence restlessness, and ceaseless labour, and\n    disquiet, until the man turns and adheres to Him. The sick heart\n    wavers and quivers; the cause of its disease is love of the world; the\n    remedy, the love of God.\u201d\n\nHugo\u2019s object is to give rest to the restless heart, by directing its love\nto God. One still bears in mind his three plains of knowledge, forming\nperhaps the three stages of ascent, at the top of which is found the\nknowledge that turns to divine contemplation and love. There may be a\ndirect and simple love of God for simple souls; but for the man of mind,\nknowledge precedes love.\n\n    \u201cIn two ways God dwells in the human heart, to wit, through knowledge\n    and through love; yet the dwelling is one, since every one who knows\n    Him, loves, and no one can love without knowing. Knowledge through\n    cognition of the Faith erects the structure; love through virtue,\n    paints the edifice with colour.\u201d[498]\n\nThen make a habitation for God in thy heart. This is the great matter, and\nindeed all: for this, Scripture exists, and the world was made, and God\nbecame flesh, through His humility making man sublime. The Ark of Noah is\nthe type of this spiritual edifice, as it is also the type of the Church.\n\nThe piety and allegory of this work rise as from a basis of knowledge. The\nallegory indeed is drawn out and out, until it seems to become sheer\ncircumlocution. This was the mediaeval way, and Hugo\u2019s too, alas! We will\nnot follow further in this treatise, nor take up his _De arca Noe\nmystica_,[499] which carries out into still further detail the symbolism\nof the Ark, and applies it to the Church and the people of God. Hugo has\nalso left a colloquy between man and his soul on the true love, which lies\nin spiritual meditation.[500] But it is clear that the reaches of Hugo\u2019s\nyearning are still grounded in intellectual considerations, though these\nmay be no longer present in the mind of him whose consciousness is\ntransformed to love.\n\nOne may discern the same progression, from painful thought to surer\ncontemplation, and thence to the heart\u2019s devoted communion, in him whom we\nhave called the Thor and Loki of the Church. No twelfth-century soul loved\nGod more zealously than St. Bernard. He was not strong in abstract\nreasoning. His mind needed the compulsion of the passions to move it to\nsublime conclusions. Commonly he is dubbed a mystic. But his piety and\nlove of God poise themselves on a basis of consideration before springing\nto soar on other wings. In his _De consideratione_,[501] Bernard explains\nthat word in the sense given by Hugo to _meditatio_, while he uses\n_contemplatio_ very much as Hugo does. It applies to things that have\nbecome certain to the mind, while \u201c_consideratio_ is busy investigating.\nIn this sense _contemplatio_ may be defined as the true and certain\nintuition of the mind (_intuitus animi_) regarding anything, or the sure\napprehension of the true: while _consideratio_ is thought intently\nsearching, or the mind\u2019s endeavour to track out the true.\u201d[502]\n\n_Contemplatio_, even though it forget itself in ecstasy, must be based on\nprior consideration; then it may take wings of its own, or rather (with\northodox Hugo and Bernard) wings of grace, and fly to the bosom of its\nGod. This flight is the immediacy of conviction and the ecstasy which\nfollows. One may even perceive the thinking going on during the soul\u2019s\noutpour of love. For the mind still supports the soul\u2019s ardour with\nreasonings, original or borrowed, as appears in the second sermon of that\nlong series preached by Bernard on Canticles to his own spiritual _\u00e9lite_\nof Clairvaux.[503] The saintly orator is yearning, yearning for Christ\nHimself; he will have naught of Moses or Isaiah; nor does he desire\ndreams, or care for angels\u2019 visits: _ipse, ipse me osculetur_, cries his\nsoul in the words of Canticles--let _Him_ kiss me. The phrasing seems\nsymbolical; but the yearning is direct, and at least rhetorically\novermastering. The emotion is justified by its reasons. They lie in the\npersonality of Christ and Bernard\u2019s love of Him, rising from all his\nknowledge of Him, even from his experience of Jesus\u2019 whisperings to the\nsoul. He knows how vastly Jesus surpasses the human prophets who\nprefigured or foretold Him: _ipsos longe superat Jesus meus_--the word\n_meus_ is love\u2019s very articulation. The orator cries: \u201cListen! Let the\nkissing mouth be the Word assuming flesh; and the mouth kissed be the\nflesh which is assumed; then the kiss which is consummated between them is\nthe _persona_ compacted of the two, to wit, the mediator of God and men,\nthe man Christ Jesus.\u201d\n\nThis identical allegory goes back to Origen\u2019s _Commentary on Canticles_.\nBernard has kindled it with an intimate love of Jesus, which is not\nOrigen\u2019s. But the thought explains and justifies Bernard\u2019s desire to be\nkissed by the kiss of His mouth, and so to be infolded in the divine love\nwhich \u201cgave His only-begotten Son,\u201d and also became flesh. _Os osculans_\nsignifies the Incarnation: one realizes the emotional power which that\nsaving thought would take through such a metaphor. At the end of his\nsermon, Bernard sums up the conclusion, so that his hearers may carry it\naway:\n\n    \u201cIt is plain that this holy kiss was a grace needed by the world, to\n    give faith to the weak, and satisfy the desire of the perfect. The\n    kiss itself is none other than the mediator of God and men, the man\n    Christ Jesus, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns\n    God, _per omnia saecula saeculorum_, Amen.\u201d\n\n\nIII\n\nThere is small propriety in speaking of these men of the first half of the\ntwelfth century as Platonists or Aristotelians; nor is there great\ninterest in trying to find in Plato or Aristotle or Plotinus the specific\norigin of any of their thoughts. They were apt to draw on the source\nnearest and most convenient; and one must remember that their immediate\nphilosophic antecedents were not the distinct systems of Plato and\nAristotle and Plotinus, but rather the late pagan eras of eclecticism,\nfollowed by that strongly motived syntheticism of the Church Fathers which\nselected whatever might accord with their Christian scheme. So Abaelard\nmust not be called an Aristotelian. Neither he nor his contemporaries knew\nwhat an Aristotelian was, and when they called Abaelard _Peripateticus_,\nthey meant one skilled in the logic which was derived from the simpler\ntreatises of Aristotle\u2019s _Organon_. Nor will we call Hugo a Platonist, in\nspite of his fine affinities with Plato; for many of Hugo\u2019s thoughts, his\nclassification of the sciences for example, pointed back to Aristotle.\n\nAbaelard, Hugo, St. Bernard suggest the triangulation of the epoch\u2019s\nintellectual interests. Peter Lombard, somewhat their junior, presents its\ncompend of accepted and partly digested theology. He took his method from\nAbaelard, and drew whole chapters of his work from Hugo; but his great\nsource, which was also theirs, was Augustine. The Lombard was, and was to\nbe, a representative man; for his _Sentences_ brought together the\nultimate problems which exercised the minds of the men of his time and\nafter.\n\nThe early and central decades of the twelfth century offer other persons\nwho may serve to round out our general notion of the character of the\nintellectual interests which occupied the period before the rediscovery of\nAristotle, that is, of the substantial Aristotelian encyclopaedia of\nknowledge. Among such Adelard of Bath (England) was somewhat older than\nAbaelard. His keen pursuit of knowledge made him one of its early pilgrims\nto Spain and Greece. He compiled a book of _Quaestiones naturales_, and\nanother called _De eodem et diverso_,[504] in which he struggled with the\nproblem of universals, and with palpable problems of psychology. His\ncosmology shows a genial culling from the _Timaeus_ fragment of Plato, and\nsuch other bits of Greek philosophy as he had access to.\n\nAdelard was influenced by the views of men who taught or studied at\nChartres. Bernard of Chartres, the first of the great Chartrian teachers\nof the early twelfth century,[505] wrote on Porphyry, and after his death\nwas called by John of Salisbury _perfectissimus inter Platonicos saeculi\nnostri_. He was one of those extreme realists whose teachings might bear\npantheistic fruit in his disciples; he had also a Platonistic imagination,\nleading him to see in Nature a living organism. Bernard\u2019s younger brother,\nThierry, also called of Chartres, extended his range of studies, and\ncompiled numerous works on natural knowledge, indicating his wide reading\nand receptive nature. His realism brought him very close to pantheism,\nwhich indeed flowered poetically in his admirer or pupil, Bernard\nSilvestris of Tours.\n\nIf we should analyze the contents of the latter\u2019s _De mundi universitate_,\nit might be necessary to affirm that the author was a dualistic thinker,\nin that he recognized two first principles, God and matter; and also that\nhe was a pantheist, because of the way in which he sees in God the source\nof Nature: \u201cThis mind (_nous_) of the supreme God is soul (_intellectus_),\nand from its divinity Nature is born.\u201d[506] One should not, however, drive\nthe heterogeneous thoughts of these twelfth-century people to their\nopposite conclusions. A moderate degree of historical insight should\nprevent our interpreting their gleanings from the past by formulas of our\nown greater knowledge. Doubtless their books--Hugo\u2019s as well as Thierry\u2019s\nand Bernard Silvester\u2019s--have enough of contradiction if we will probe for\nit with a spirit not their own. But if we will see with their eyes and\nperceive with their feelings, we shall find ourselves resting with each of\nthem in some unity of personal temperament; and _that_, rather than any\nhalf-borrowed thought, is Hugo or Thierry or Bernard Silvestris.\nSilvester\u2019s book, _De mundi universitate, sive Megacosmus et microcosmus_,\nis a half poem, like Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s _De consolatione_ and a number of\nmediaeval productions to which there has been occasion to allude. It is\nfruitless to dissect such a composite of prose and verse. In it Natura\nspeaks to Nous, and then Nous to Natura; the four elements come into play,\nand nine hierarchies of angels; the stars in their firmaments, and the\ngenesis of things on earth; Physics and her daughters, Theorica and\nPractica, and all the figures of Greek mythology. An analysis of such a\nbook will turn it to nonsense, and destroy the breath of that\ntwelfth-century temperament which loved to gather driftwood from the\nwreckage of the ancient world of thought. Thus perhaps they expected to\ndraw to themselves, even from the pagan flotsam, some congenial\nexplanation of the universe and man.\n\nA far more acute thinker was Gilbert de la Porr\u00e9e,[507] who taught at\nChartres for a number of years, before advancing upon Paris in 1141. He\nnext became Bishop of Poictiers, and died in 1154. Like Abaelard, he was\nprimarily a logician, and occupied himself with the problem of universals,\ntaking a position not so different from Abaelard\u2019s. Like Abaelard also,\nGilbert was brought to task before a council, in which St Bernard sought\nto be the guiding, _scilicet_, condemning spirit. But the condemnation was\nconfined to certain sentences, which when cut from their context and\npresented in distorting isolation, the author willingly sacrificed to the\nflames. He refused, some time afterwards, to discuss his views privately\nwith the Abbot of Clairvaux, saying that the latter was too inexpert a\ntheologian to understand them. Gilbert\u2019s most famous work, _De sex\nprincipiis_, attempted to complete the last six of Aristotle\u2019s ten\n_Categories_, which the philosopher had treated cursorily; it was almost\nto rival the work of the Stagirite in authority, for instance, with\nAlbertus Magnus, who wrote a Commentary upon it in the same spirit with\nwhich he commented on the logical treatises of the _Organon_.\n\nIn the same year with Gilbert (1154) died a man of different mental\ntendencies, William of Conches,[508] who likewise had been a pupil of\nBernard of Chartres. He was for a time the tutor of Henry Plantagenet.\nWilliam was interested in natural knowledge, and something of a humanist.\nHe made a Commentary on the _Timaeus_, and wrote various works on the\nphilosophy of Nature, in which he wavered around an atomistic explanation\nof the world, yet held fast to the Biblical Creation, to save his\northodoxy. He also pursued the study of medicine, which was a specialty at\nChartres; through the treatises of Constantinus Africanus[509] he had some\nknowledge of the pathological theories of Galen and Hippocrates. For his\ninterest in physical knowledge, he may be regarded as a precursor of\nRoger Bacon. On the other hand, he was a humanist in his strife against\nthose \u201cCornificiani\u201d who would know no more Latin than was needful;[510]\nand he compiled from the pagan moralists a sort of _Summa_. It is called,\nin fact, a _Summa moralium philosophorum_ (an interesting title,\nconnecting it with the Christian _Summae sententiarum_).[511] It treats\nthe virtues under the head of _de honesto_; and under that of _de utile_,\nreviews the other good things of mind, body, and estate. It also discusses\nwhether there may be a conflict between the _honestum_ and the _utile_.\n\nThese men of the first half of the twelfth century lived before the new\nrevealing of the Aristotelian philosophy and natural knowledge coming at\nthe century\u2019s close. Their muster is finally completed by two younger men,\nthe one an Englishman and the other a Lowlander. The youthful years of\nboth synchronize with the old age of the men of whom we have been\nspeaking. For John of Salisbury was born not far from the year 1115, and\ndied in 1180; and Alanus de Insulis (Lille) was probably born in 1128, and\nlived to the beginning of the next century. They are spiritually connected\nwith the older men because they were taught by them, and because they had\nsmall share in the coming encyclopaedic knowledge. But they close the\ngroup: John of Salisbury closing it by virtue of his critical estimate of\nits achievement; Alanus by virtue of his final rehandling of the body of\nintellectual data at its disposal, to which he may have made some slight\naddition. Abaelard knew and used the simpler treatises of the Aristotelian\n_Organon_ of logic. He had not studied the _Analytics_ and the _Topics_,\nand of course was unacquainted with the body of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy\noutside of logic. John of Salisbury and Alanus know the entire _Organon_;\nbut neither one nor the other knows the rest of Aristotle, which Alexander\nof Hales was the first to make large use of.\n\nJohn of Salisbury, Little John, Johannes Parvus, as he was called, was the\nbest classical scholar of his time.[512] His was an acute and active\nintellect, which never tired of hearing and weighing the views of other\nmen. He was, moreover, a man of large experience, travelling much, and\nlistening to all the teachers prominent in his youth. Also he was active\nin affairs, being at one time secretary to Thibaut, Archbishop of\nCanterbury, and then the intimate of Becket, of Henry II., and Pope Adrian\nIV.! A finished scholar, who knew not one thing, but whatever might be\nknown, and was enlightened by the training of the world, Little John\ncritically estimates the learning and philosophy of the men he learns\nfrom. Having always an independent point of view he makes acute remarks\nupon it all, and admirable contributions to the sum of current thought.\nBut chiefly he seems to us as one who looks with even eye upon whatsoever\ncomes within his vision. He knows the weaknesses of men and the\nlimitations of branches of discipline; knows, for instance, that dialectic\nis sterile by itself, but efficient as an aid to other disciplines. So, as\nto logic, John keeps his own point of view, and is always reasonable and\npractical.[513] Likewise, with open mind, he considers what there may be\nin the alleged science of the Mathematicians, _i.e._ diviners and\nastrologers. He uses such phrases as \u201c_probabilia quidem sunt haec ... sed\ntamen_ the venom lies under the honey!\u201d For this science sets a fatal\nnecessity on things, and would even intrude into the knowledge of the\nfuture reserved for God\u2019s majesty. And as John considers the order of\nevents to come, and the diviner\u2019s art, _cornua succrescunt_--the horns of\nmore than one dilemma grow.[514]\n\nJohn knew more than any man of the ancient philosophies.[515] For himself,\nof course he loved knowledge; yet he would not dissever it from its value\nin the art of living. \u201cWisdom indeed is a fountain, from which pour forth\nthe streams which water the whole earth; they fill not alone the garden of\ndelights of the divine page, but flow on to the Gentiles, and do not\naltogether fail even the Ethiopians.... It is certain that the faithful\nand wise reader, who from love keeps learning\u2019s watch, escapes vice and\ndraws near to life.\u201d[516] Philosophy is the _moderatrix omnium_ (a\nfavourite phrase with John); the true philosopher, as Plato says, is a\nlover of God: and so _philosophia_ is _amor divinitatis_. Its precept is\nto love God with all our strength, and our neighbour as ourselves: \u201cHe who\nby philosophizing has reached _charitas_, has attained philosophy\u2019s true\nend.\u201d[517] John goes on to show how deeply they err who think philosophy\nis but a thing of words and arguments: many of those who multiply words,\nby so doing burden the mind. Virtue inseparably accompanies wisdom; this\nis John\u2019s sum of the matter. Clearly he is not always, or commonly,\nwrestling with ultimate metaphysical problems; he busies himself, acutely\nbut not metaphysically, with the wisdom of life. He too can use the\nlanguage of piety and contemplation. In the sixth chapter of his _De\nseptem septenis_ (The seven Sevens) he gives the seven grades of\ncontemplation--_meditatio_, _soliloquium_, _circumspectio_, _ascensio_,\n_revelatio_, _emissio_, _inspiratio_.[518] He presents the matter\nsuccinctly, thus perhaps giving clarity to current pietistic phraseology.\n\nAlanus de Insulis was a man of renown in his life-time, and after his\ndeath won the title of Doctor Universalis. Although the fame of scholar,\nphilosopher, theologian, poet, may have uplifted him during his years of\nstrength, he died a monk at Citeaux, in the year 1202. Fame came justly to\nhim, for he was learned in the antique literature, and a gifted Latin\npoet, while as thinker and theologian he made skilful and catholic use of\nhis thorough knowledge of whatever the first half of the twelfth century\nhad achieved in thought and system. Elsewhere he has been considered as a\npoet;[519] here we merely observe his position and accomplishment in\nmatters of salvation and philosophy.[520]\n\nAlanus possessed imagination, language, and a faculty of acute exposition.\nHis sentences, especially his definitions, are pithy, suggestive, and\nvivid. He projected much thought as well as fantasy into his poem,\n_Anticlaudianus_, and his _cantafable_, _De planctu naturae_. He showed\nhimself a man of might, and insight too, in his _Contra haereticos_. His\nsuggestive pithiness of diction lends interest to his encyclopaedia of\ndefinitions, _Distinctiones dictionum theologicalium_; and his keen power\nof reasoning succinctly from axiomatic premises is evinced in his _De arte\nfidei catholicae_.\n\nThe intellectual activities of Alanus fell in the latter decades of the\ntwelfth century, when mediaeval thought seemed for the moment to be\nmending its nets, and preparing for a further cast in the new waters of\nAristotelianism. Alanus is busy with what has already been won; he is\nunconscious of the new greater knowledge, which was preparing its\nrevelations. He is not even a man of the transition from the lesser to the\ngreater intellectual estate; but is rather a final compendium of the\nlesser. Himself no epoch-making reasoner, he uses the achievements of\nAbaelard and Hugo, of Gilbert de la Porr\u00e9e and William of Conches, and\nothers. Neither do his works unify and systematize the results of his\nstudies. He is rather a re-phraser. Yet his refashioning is not a mere\nthing of words; it proceeds with the vitalizing power of the man\u2019s plastic\nand creative temperament. One may speak of him as keen and acquisitive\nintellectually, and creative through his temperament.\n\nAlanus shows a catholic receptivity for all the mingled strains of\nthought, Platonic, Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic and Pythagorean, which fed\nthe labours of his predecessors. He has studied the older sources, the\n_Timaeus_ fragment, also Apuleius and Bo\u00ebthius of course. His chief\nblunder is his misconception of Aristotle as a logician and confuser of\nwords (_verborum turbator_)--a phrase, perhaps, consciously used with\npoetic license. For he has made use of much that came originally from the\nStagirite. Within his range of opportunity, Alanus was a universal reader,\nand his writings discover traces of the men of importance from\nPseudo-Dionysius and Eriugena down to John of Salisbury and Gundissalinus.\n\nThese remarks may take the place of any specific presentation of Alanus\u2019s\nwork in logic, of his view of universals, of his notions of physics, of\nnature, of matter and form, of man\u2019s mind and body, and of the Triune\nGodhead.[521] In his cosmology, however, we may note his imaginatively\noriginal employment of the conception or personification of Nature. God is\nthe Creator, and Nature is His creature, and His vice-regent or vicarious\nmaker, working the generation and decay of things material and\nchangeable.[522] This thought, imaginatively treated, makes a good part of\nthe poetry of the _De planctu_ and the _Anticlaudianus_. The conception\nwith him is full of charming fantasy, and we look back through Bernardus\nSilvestris and other writers to Plato\u2019s divine fooling in the _Timaeus_,\nnot as the specific, but generic, origin of such imaginative views of the\ncontents and generation of the world. Such imaginings were as fantasy to\nscience, when compared with the solid and comprehensive consideration of\nthe material world which was to come a few years after Alanus\u2019s death\nthrough the encyclopaedic Aristotelian knowledge presented in the works of\nAlexander of Hales and Albertus Magnus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII\n\nTHE UNIVERSITIES, ARISTOTLE, AND THE MENDICANTS\n\n\nIntellectually, the thirteenth century in western Europe is marked by\nthree closely connected phenomena: the growth of Universities, the\ndiscovery and appropriation of Aristotle, and the activities of Dominicans\nand Franciscans. These movements were universal, in that the range of none\nof them was limited by racial or provincial boundaries. Yet a line may\nstill be drawn between Italy, where law and medicine were cultivated, and\nthe North, where theology with logic and metaphysics were supreme.\nAbsorption in these subjects produced a common likeness in the\nintellectual processes of men in France, England, and Germany, whose\nwritings were to be no longer markedly affected by racial idiosyncrasies.\nThis was true of the logical controversy regarding universals, so\nprominent in the first part of the twelfth century. It was very true of\nthe great intellectual movement of the later twelfth and the thirteenth\ncenturies, to wit, the coming of Aristotle to dominance, in spite of the\ncounter-currents of Platonic Augustinianism.\n\nThe men who followed the new knowledge had slight regard for ties of home,\nand travelled eagerly in search of learning. So, even as from far and wide\nthose who could study Roman law came to Bologna, the study of theology and\nall that philosophy included drew men to Paris. Thither came the\nkeen-minded from Italy and from England; from the Low Countries and from\nGermany; and from the many very different regions now covered by the name\nof France. Wherever born and of whatever race, the devotees of philosophy\nand theology at some period of their career reached Paris, learned and\ntaught there, and were affected by the universalizing influence of an\ninternational aggregate of scholarship. So had it been with Breton\nAbaelard, with German Hugo, and with Lombard Peter; so with English John,\nhight of Salisbury. And in the following times of culmination, Albertus\nMagnus comes in his maturity from Germany; and his marvellous pupil\nThomas, born of noble Norman stock in southern Italy, follows his master,\neventually to Paris. So Bonaventura of lowly mid-Italian birth likewise\nlearns and teaches there; and that unique Englishman, Roger Bacon, and\nafter him Duns Scotus. These few greatest names symbolize the centralizing\nof thought in the crowded and huddled lecture-rooms of the City on the\nSeine.\n\nThe origins of the great mediaeval Universities can scarcely be\naccommodated to simple statement. Their history is frequently obscure, and\nalways intricate; and the selection of a specific date or factor as\ndetermining the inception, or distinctive development, of these mediaeval\ncreations is likely to be but arbitrary. They had no antique prototype:\nnothing either in Athens or Rome ever resembled these corporations of\nmasters and students, with their authoritative privileges, their fixed\ncurriculum, and their grades of formally certified attainment. Even the\nAlexandria of the Ptolemies, with all the pedantry of its learned\nlitterateurs and their minute study of the past, has nothing to offer like\nthe scholastic obsequiousness of the mediaeval University, which sought to\nset upon one throne the antique philosophy and the Christian revelation,\nthat it might with one and the same genuflection bow down before them\nboth. It behoves us to advert to the conditions influencing the growth of\nUniversities, and give a little space to those which were chief among\nthem.\n\nThe energetic human advance distinguishing the twelfth century in western\nEurope exhibits among its most obvious phenomena an increased mobility in\nall classes of society, and a tendency to gather into larger communities\nand form strong corporate associations for profit or protection. New towns\ncame into being, and old ones grew apace. Some of them in the north of\nEurope wrested their freedom from feudal lords; and both in the north and\nsouth, municipalities attained a more complex organization, while within\nthem groups of men with common interests formed themselves into powerful\nguilds. As strangers of all kinds--merchants, craftsmen, students--came\nand went, their need of protection became pressing, and was met in various\nways.\n\nNo kind of men were more quickly touched by the new mobility than the\nthousands of youthful learners who desired to extend their knowledge, or,\nin some definite field, perfect their education. In the eleventh century,\nsuch would commonly have sought a monastery, near or far. In the twelfth\nand then in the thirteenth, they followed the human currents to the\ncities, where knowledge flourished as well as trade, and tolerable\naccommodation might be had for teachers and students. Certain towns, some\nfor more, some for less, obvious reasons, became homes of study. Bologna,\nParis, Oxford are the chief examples. Irnerius, famed as the founder of\nthe systematic study of the Roman law, and Gratian, the equally famous\norderer of the Canon law, taught or wrote at Bologna when the twelfth\ncentury was young. Their fame drew crowds of laymen and ecclesiastics, who\ndesired to equip themselves for advancement through the business of the\nlaw, civil or ecclesiastical. At the same time, hundreds, which grew to\nthousands, were attracted to the Paris schools--the school of Notre Dame,\nwhere William of Champeaux held forth; the school of St. Victor, where he\nafterwards established himself, and where Hugo taught; and the school of\nSt. Genevi\u00e8ve, where Abaelard lectured on dialectic and theology. These\nwere palpable gatherings together of material for a University. What first\nbrought masters and students to Oxford a few decades later is not so\nclear. But Oxford had been an important town long before a University\nlodged itself there.\n\nIn the twelfth century, citizenship scarcely protected one beyond the city\nwalls. A man carried but little safety with him. Only an insignificant\nfraction of the students at Bologna, and of both masters and students at\nParis and Oxford, were citizens of those towns. The rest had come from\neverywhere. Paris and Bologna held an utterly cosmopolitan, international,\nconcourse of scholar-folk. And these scholars, turbulent enough\nthemselves, and dwelling in a turbulent foreign city, needed affiliation\nthere, and protection and support. Organization was an obvious necessity,\nand if possible the erection of a _civitas_ within a _civitas_, a\nUniversity within a none too friendly town. This was the primal situation,\nand the primal need. Through somewhat different processes, and under\ndifferent circumstances, these exigencies evoked a University in Bologna,\nParis, and Oxford.[523]\n\nIn Italy, where the instincts of ancient Rome never were extinguished,\nwhere some urban life maintained itself through the early helpless\nmediaeval centuries, where during the same period an infantile humanism\ndid not cease to stammer; where \u201cgrammar\u201d was studied and taught by\nlaymen, and the \u201cars dictaminis\u201d practised men in the forms of legal\ninstruments, it was but natural that the new intellectual energies of the\ntwelfth century should address themselves to the study of the Roman law,\nwhich, although debased and barbarized, had never passed into desuetude.\nAnd inasmuch as abstract theology did not attract the Italian temperament\nor meet the conditions of papal politics in Italy, it was likewise natural\nthat ecclesiastical energies should be directed to the equally useful and\nclosely related canon law. Such studies with their practical ends could\nbest be prosecuted at some civic centre. In the first part of the twelfth\ncentury, Irnerius lectured at Bologna upon the civil law; a generation\nlater, Gratian published his _Decretum_ there. The specific reasons\ninducing the former to open his lectures in that city are not known; but a\nlarge and thrifty town set at the meeting of the great roads from central\nItaly to the north and east, was an admirable place for a civil doctor and\nhis audience, as the event proved. Gratian was a monk in a Bologna\nconvent, and may have listened to Irnerius. The publication of his\n_Decretum_ from Bologna, by that time (cir. 1142) famous for\njurisprudence, lent authority to this work, whose universal recognition\nwas to enhance in turn Bologna\u2019s reputation.\n\nFrom the time of this inception of juristic studies, the talents of the\ndoctors, and the city\u2019s fame, drew a prodigious concourse of students from\nall the lands of western Europe. The Doctors of the Civil and Canon Laws\norganized themselves into one, and subsequently into two, Colleges.\nApparently they had become an efficient association by the third quarter\nof the twelfth century. But the University of Bologna was to be\nconstituted _par excellence_, not of one or more colleges of doctors, but\nof societies of students. The persons who came for legal instruction were\nnot boys getting their first education in the Arts. They were men studying\na profession, and among them were many individuals of wealth and\nconsequence, holding perhaps civil or ecclesiastic office in the places\nwhence they came. The vast majority had this in common, that they were\nforeigners, with no civil rights in Bologna. It behoved them to organize\nfor their protection and mutual support, and for the furtherance of the\npurposes for which they had come. That a body of men in a foreign city\nshould live under the law of their own home, or the law of their own\nmaking, did not appear extraordinary in the twelfth century. It was not so\nlong since the principle that men carried the law of their home with them,\nhad been widely recognized, and in all countries the clergy still lived\nunder the law of the Church. The gains accruing from the presence of a\ngreat number of foreign students might induce the authorities of Bologna\nto permit them to organize as student guilds, and regulate their affairs\nby rules of their own, even as was done by other guilds in most Italian\ncities. At Bologna the power of Guelf and Ghibeline clubs, and of\ncraftsmen\u2019s guilds, rivalled that of the city magistrates.\n\nThere is some indirect evidence that these students first divided\nthemselves into four _Nationes_. If so, the arrangement did not last. For\nby the middle of the thirteenth century they are found organized in two\n_Universitates_, or corporations, a _Universitas Citramontanorum_ and a\n_Universitas Ultramontanorum_; each under its own _Rector_. These two\ncorporations of foreign students constituted the University. The\nProfessors did not belong to them, and therefore were not members of the\nUniversity. Indeed they fought against the recognition of this University\nof students, asserting that the students were but their pupils. But the\nstudents prevailed, strong in their numbers, and in the weapon which they\ndid not hesitate to use, that of migration to another city, which cut off\nthe incomes of the Professors and diminished the repute and revenue of\nBologna. So great became the power of the student body, that it brought\nthe Professors to complete subjection, paying them their salaries,\nregulating the time and mode of lecturing, and compelling them to swear\nobedience to the Rectors. The Professors protested, but submitted. To make\ngood its domination over them, and its independence as against the city,\nthe student University migrated to Arezzo in 1215 and to Padua in\n1222.[524]\n\nIn origin as well as organization, the University of Paris differed from\nBologna. It was the direct successor of the cathedral school of Notre\nDame. This had risen to prominence under William of Champeaux. But\nAbaelard drew to Paris thousands of students for William\u2019s hundreds (or at\nleast hundreds for William\u2019s tens); and Abaelard at the height of his\npopularity taught at the school of St. Genevi\u00e8ve, across the Seine.\nTherefore this school also, although fading out after Abaelard\u2019s time,\nshould be regarded as a causal predecessor of the Paris University. So,\nfor that matter, should the neighbouring school of St. Victor, founded by\nthe discomfited William; for its reputation under Hugo and Richard drew\ndevout students from near and far, and augmented the scholastic fame of\nParis.\n\nIt was both the privilege and duty of the Chancellor of Notre Dame to\nlicense competent Masters to open schools near the cathedral. In the\ncourse of time, these Masters formed an Association, and assumed the right\nto admit to their Society the licentiates of the Chancellor, to wit, the\nnew Masters who were about to begin to teach. In the decades following\nAbaelard\u2019s death, the Masters who lectured in the vicinity of Notre Dame\nincreased in number. They spread with their schools beyond the island, and\ntaught in houses on the bridges. They were Masters, that is, teachers, in\nthe Arts. As the twelfth century gave way to the thirteenth, interest in\nthe Arts waned before the absorbing passion for metaphysical theology.\nThis was a higher branch of study, for which the Arts had come to be\nlooked on as a preparation. So the scholars of the schools of Arts became\nimpatient to graduate, that is, to reach the grade of Master, in order to\npass on to the higher study of theology. A result was that the course of\nstudy in the Arts was shortened, while Masters multiplied in number. Their\nSociety seems to have become a definite and formal corporate body or\nguild, not later than the year 1175. Herein was the beginning of the Paris\nUniversity. It had become a _studium generale_, like Bologna, because\nthere were many Masters, and students from everywhere were admitted to\nstudy in their schools.\n\nGradually the University came to full corporate existence. From about\n1210, written statutes exist, passed by the Society of Masters; at the\nsame date a Bull of Innocent III. recognizes the Society as a Corporation.\nThen began a long struggle for supremacy, between the Masters and the\nChancellor: it was the Chancellor\u2019s function to grant the licence to\nbecome a Master; but it was the privilege of the Society to admit the\nlicentiate to membership. The action of both being thus requisite, time\nalone could tell with whom the control eventually should rest. Was the\nself-governing University to prevail, or the Chancellor of the Cathedral?\nThe former won the victory.\n\nThe Masters in Arts constituted _par excellence_ the University, because\nthey far outnumbered the Masters in the upper Faculties of Theology, Law,\nand Medicine. They were the dominant body; what they decided on, the other\nFaculties acquiesced in. These Masters in Arts, besides being numerous,\nwere young, not older than the law students at Bologna. With their still\nyounger students,[525] they made the bulk of the entire University, and\nwere the persons who most needed protection in their lawful or unlawful\nconduct. At some indeterminate period they divided themselves into the\nfour _Nationes_, French, Normans, Picards, and English. They voted by\n_Nationes_ in their meetings; but from a period apparently as early as\ntheir organization, a Rector was elected for all four _Nationes_, and not\none Rector for each. There were, however, occasional schisms or failures\nto agree. It was to be the fortune of the Rector thus elected to supplant\nthe Chancellor of the Cathedral as the real head of the University.\n\nThe vastly greater number of the Masters in Arts were actually _students_\nin the higher Faculties of Theology, Law,[526] or Medicine, for which\ngraduation in the Arts was the ordinary prerequisite. The Masters or\nDoctors of these three higher Faculties, at least from the year 1213,\ndetermined the qualifications of candidates in their departments.\nNevertheless the Rector of the Faculty of Arts continued his advance\ntoward the headship of the whole University. The oath taken by the\nBachelors in the Arts, of obedience to that Faculty and its Rector, was\nstrengthened in 1256, so as to bind the oath-taker so long as he should\ncontinue a member of the University.\n\nThe University had not obtained its privileges without insistence, nor\nwithout the protest of action as well as word. Its first charter of\nprivileges from the king was granted in 1200, upon its protests against\nthe conduct of the Provost of Paris in attacking riotous students. Next,\nin combating the jurisdiction of the Chancellor, it obtained privileges\nfrom the Pope; and in 1229, upon failure to obtain redress for an attack\nfrom the Provost\u2019s soldiers, ordered by the queen, Blanche of Castile, the\nUniversity dispersed. Thus it resorted to the weapon by which the\nUniversity of Bologna had won the confirmation of its rights. In the year\n1231 the great Papal Bull, _Parens scientiarum_, finally confirmed the\nParis University in its contentions and demands: the right to suspend\nlectures was sanctioned, whenever satisfaction for outrage had been\nrefused for fifteen days; likewise the authority of the University to\nmake statutes, and expel members for a breach of them. The Chancellor of\nNotre Dame and the Bishop of Paris were both constrained by the same Bull.\n\nA different struggle still awaited the University, in which it was its\ngood fortune not to be altogether successful; for it was contending\nagainst instruments of intellectual and spiritual renovation, to wit, the\nMendicant Orders. The details are difficult to unravel at this distance of\ntime. But the Dominicans and Franciscans, in the lifetime of their\nfounders, established themselves in Paris, and opened schools of theology.\nTheir Professors were licensed by the Chancellor, and yet seem to have\nbeen unwilling to fall in with the customs of the University, and, for\nexample, cease from teaching and disperse, when it saw fit to do so. The\ndoctors of the theological Faculty became suspicious, and opposed the\nadmission of Mendicants to the theological Faculty. The struggle lasted\nthirty years, until the Dominicans obtained two chairs in that Faculty,\nand the Franciscans perhaps the same number, on terms which looked like a\nvictory for the Orders, but in fact represented a compromise; for the\nMendicant doctors in the end apparently submitted to the statutes of the\nUniversity.[527]\n\nThe origin of Oxford University was different, and one may say more\nadventitious than that of Paris or Bologna. For Oxford was not the capital\nof a kingdom, nor is it known to have been an ancient seat of learning.\nThe city was not even a bishop\u2019s seat, a fact which had a marked effect\nupon the constitution of the University. The old town lay at the edge of\nEssex and Mercia, and its position early gave it importance politically,\nor rather strategically, and as a place of trade. How or whence came the\nnucleus of Masters and students that should grow into a University is\nunknown. An interesting hypothesis[528] is that it was a colony from\nParis, shaken off by some academic or political disturbance. This surmise\nhas been connected with the year 1167. Some evidence exists of a school\nhaving existed there before. Next comes a distinct statement from the year\n1185, of the reading of a book before the Masters and students.[529]\nAfter this date the references multiply. In 1209, one has a veritable\n\u201cdispersion,\u201d in protest against the hanging of some scholars. A charter\nfrom the papal legate in 1214 accords certain privileges, among others\nthat a clerk arrested by the town should be surrendered on demand of the\nBishop of Lincoln[530] or the Archdeacon, or the Chancellor, whom the\nBishop shall set over the scholars. This document points to the beginning\nof the chancellorship. The title probably was copied from Paris; but in\nOxford the office was to be totally different. The Paris Chancellor was\nprimarily a functionary of a great cathedral, who naturally maintained its\nprerogatives against the encroachments of university privilege. But at\nOxford there was no cathedral; the Chancellor was the head of the\nUniversity, probably chosen from its Masters, and had chiefly its\ninterests at heart.\n\nMaking allowance for this important difference in the Chancellor\u2019s office,\nthe development of the University closely resembled that of Paris. Its\nfirst extant statute, of the year 1252, prescribes that no one shall be\nlicensed in Theology who has not previously graduated in the Arts. To the\nsame year belongs a settlement of disputes between the Irish and northern\nscholars. The former were included in the _Australes_ or southerners, one\nof the two _Nationes_ composing the Faculty of Arts. The _Australes_\nincluded the natives of Ireland, Wales, and England south of the Trent;\nthe other _Natio_, the _Boreales_, embraced the English and Scotch coming\nfrom north of that river. But the division into _Nationes_ was less\nimportant than in the cosmopolitan University of Paris, and soon ceased to\nexist. The Faculty of Arts, however, continued even more dominant than at\nParis. There was no serious quarrel with the Mendicant Orders, who\nestablished themselves at Oxford--the Dominicans in 1221, and the\nFranciscans three years later.\n\nThe curriculum of studies appears much the same at both Universities, and,\nas followed in the middle of the thirteenth century, may be thus\nsummarized. For the lower degree of Bachelor of Arts, four or five years\nwere required; and three or four years more for the Master\u2019s privileges.\nThe course of study embraced grammar (Priscian), also rhetoric, and in\nlogic the entire _Organon_ of Aristotle, preceded by Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_,\nand with the _Sex principia_ of Gilbert de la Porr\u00e9e added to the course.\nThe mathematical branches of the Quadrivium also were required:\narithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. And finally a goodly part of\nthe substantial philosophy of Aristotle was studied, with considerable\nchoice permitted to the student in his selection from the works of the\nphilosopher. At Oxford he might choose between the _Physics_ or the _De\ncoelo et mundo_, or the _De anima_ or the _De animalibus_. The\n_Metaphysics_ and _Ethics_ or _Politics_ were also required before the\nBachelor could be licensed as a Master.\n\nIn Theology the course of study was extremely lengthy, especially at\nParis, where eight years made the minimum, and the degree of Doctor was\nnot given before the candidate had reached the age of thirty-five. The\nchief subjects were Scripture and the _Sentences_ of Peter Lombard.\nBesides which, the candidate had to approve himself in sermons and\ndisputations. The latter might amount to a trial of nerve and endurance,\nas well as proficiency in learning, since the candidate was expected to\n_militare in scholis_, against a succession of opponents from six in the\nmorning till six in the evening, with but an hour\u2019s refreshment at\nnoon.[531]\n\nIn spite of the many resemblances of Oxford to Paris in organization and\ncurriculum, the intellectual tendencies of the two Universities were not\naltogether similar. At Paris, speculative theology, with metaphysics and\nother branches of \u201cphilosophy,\u201d regarded as its adjuncts, were of\nabsorbing interest. At Oxford, while the same matters were perhaps\nsupreme, a closer scholarship in language or philology was cultivated by\nGrosseteste, and his pupils, Adam of Marsh and Roger Bacon. The genius of\nobservation was stirring there; and a natural science was coming into\nbeing, which was not to repose solely upon the authority of ancient books,\nbut was to proceed by the way of observation and experiment. Yet Roger\nBacon imposed upon both his philology and his natural science a certain\nultimate purpose: that they should subserve the surer ascertainment of\ndivine and saving truth, and thus still remain handmaids of theology, at\nleast in theory.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe year 1200 may be taken to symbolize the middle of a period notable for\nthe enlargement of knowledge. If one should take the time of this increase\nto extend fifty years on either side of the central point, one might say\nthat the student of the year 1250 stood to his intellectual ancestor of\nthe year 1150, as a man in the full possession and use of the\n_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ would stand toward his father who had saved up\nthe purchase money for the same. The most obvious cause of this was an\nincreasing acquaintance with the productions of the so-called Arabian\nphilosophy, and more especially with the works of Aristotle, first through\ntranslations from the Arabic, and then through translations from the\nGreek, which were made in order to obviate the insufficiency of the\nformer.\n\nIt would need a long _excursus_ to review the far from simple course of\nso-called Arabian thought, philosophic and religious. It begins in the\nEast, and follows the setting sun. Even before the Hegira (622) the Arabs\nhad rubbed up against the inhabitants of Syria, Christian in name, eastern\nor Hellenic in culture and proclivity. Then in a century or two, when the\nfirst impulsion of Mohammedan conquest was spent, the works of Aristotle\nand his later Greek commentators were translated into Arabic from Syrian\nversions, under the encouragement of the rulers of Bagdad. The Syrian\nversions, as we may imagine, were somewhat eclecticized and, more\nespecially, Neo-Platonized. So it was not the pure Aristotle that passed\non into Arabic philosophy, but the Aristotelian substance interpreted\nthrough later phases of Greek and Oriental thought. Still, Aristotle was\nthe great name, and his system furnished the nucleus of doctrine\nrepresented in this Peripatetic eclecticism which was to constitute, _par\nexcellence_, Arabic philosophy. Also Greek mathematical and medical\ntreatises were translated into Arabic from Syrian versions. El-Farabi (d.\n950) and Avicenna (980-1036) were the chief glories of the Arabic\nphilosophy of Bagdad. These two gifted men were commentators upon the\nworks of the Stagirite, and authors of many interesting lucubrations of\ntheir own.[532] Arabian philosophy declined in the East with Avicenna\u2019s\ndeath; but only to revive in Mussulman Spain. There its great\nrepresentative was Averroes, whose life filled the last three quarters of\nthe twelfth century. So great became his authority as an Aristotelian,\nwith the Scholastics, that he received the name of Commentator, _par\nexcellence_, even as Aristotle was _par excellence_, Philosophus. We need\nnot consider the ideas of these men which were their own rather than the\nStagirite\u2019s; nor discuss the pietistic and fanatical sects among the\nMussulmans, who either sought to harmonize Aristotle with the Koran, or\ndisapproved of Greek philosophy. One readily perceives that in its task of\nacquisition and interpretation, with some independent thinking, and still\nmore temperamental feeling, Arabic philosophy was the analogue of\nChristian scholasticism, of which it was, so to speak, the collateral\nancestor.[533]\n\nAnd in this wise. The Commentaries of Averroes, for example, were\ntranslated into Latin; and, throughout all the mediaeval centuries, the\nCommentary tended to supplant the work commented on, whether that work was\nHoly Scripture or a treatise of Aristotle. By the middle of the thirteenth\ncentury all the important works of Averroes had been translated into\nLatin, and he had many followers at Paris; and before then, from the\nCollege of Toledo, had come translations of the principal works of the\nother chief Arabian philosophers. Of still greater importance for the\nChristian West was the work of Jews and Christians in Spain and Provence,\nin translating the Arabic versions of Aristotle into Latin, sometimes\ndirectly, and sometimes first into Hebrew and then into Latin. They\nattempted a literal translation, which, however, frequently failed to give\nthe significance even of the Arabic version. These Arabic-Latin\ntranslations were of primary importance for the first introduction of\nAristotle to the theologian philosophers of Christian Europe.\n\nThey were not to remain the only ones. In the twelfth century, a number of\nWestern scholars made excursions into the East; and the capture of\nConstantinople by the Crusaders in 1204 enlarged their opportunities of\nstudying the Greek language and philosophy. Attempts at direct translation\ninto Latin began. One of the first translators was the sturdy Englishman,\nRobert Grosseteste. He was born in Suffolk about 1175; studied at Lincoln,\nthen at Oxford, then at Paris, whence he returned to become Chancellor of\nthe University of Oxford. He was made Bishop of Lincoln in 1236, and died\nseventeen years later. It was he who laid the foundation of the study of\nGreek at Oxford, and Roger Bacon was his pupil. But the most important and\nadequate translations were the work of two Dominicans, the Fleming,\nWilliam of Moerbeke, and Henry of Brabant, who translated the works of\nAristotle at the instance of Thomas Aquinas, possibly all working together\nat Rome, in 1263 and the years following. Aquinas recognized the\ninadequacy of the older translations, and based his own Aristotelian\nCommentaries upon these made by his collaborators, learned in the Greek\ntongue. The joint labour of translation and commentary seems to have been\nundertaken at the command of Pope Urban IV., who had renewed the former\nprohibitions put upon the use of Aristotle at the Paris University, in the\nolder, shall we say, Averroistic versions.\n\nIf these prohibitions, which did not touch the logical treatises, were\nmeant to be taken absolutely, such had been far from their effect. In 1210\nand again in 1215, an interdict was put upon the _naturalis philosophia_\nand the _methafisica_ of the Stagirite. It was not revoked, but rather\nprovisionally renewed, in 1231, until those works should be properly\nexpurgated. A Commission was appointed which accomplished nothing; and the\nold interdict still hung in the air, unrescinded, yet ignored in practice.\nSo Pope Urban referred to it as still effective--which it was not--in\n1263. For Aristotle had been more and more thoroughly exploited in the\nParis University, and by 1255 the Faculty of Arts formally placed his\nworks upon the list of books to be studied and lectured upon.[534]\n\nSo the founding of Universities and the enlarged and surer knowledge\nbrought by a study of the works of Aristotle were factors of power in the\nenormous intellectual advance which took place in the last half of the\ntwelfth and the first half of the thirteenth century. Yet these factors\ncould not have operated as they did, but for the antecedent intellectual\ndevelopment. Before the first half of the twelfth century had passed, the\npatristic material had been mastered, along with the current notions of\nantique philosophy, for the most part contained in it. Strengthened by\nthis discipline, men were prepared for an extension and solidifying of\ntheir knowledge of the universe and man. Not only had they appropriated\nwhat the available sources had to offer, but, when we think of Abaelard\nand Hugo of St. Victor, we see that organic restatements had been made of\nwhat had been acquired. Still, men really knew too little. It is very well\nto exploit logic, and construct soul-satisfying schemes of cosmogonic\nsymbolism, in order to represent the deepest truth of the material world.\nBut the evident sense-realities of things are importunate. The minds even\nof spiritual men may, in time, crave explanation of this side of their\nconsciousness. Abaelard seems to have been oblivious to natural phenomena;\nHugo recognizes them in order to elicit their spiritual meaning; and\nAlanus de Insulis, a generation and more afterwards, takes a poet\u2019s view\nof Nature. Other men had a more hard-headed interest in these phenomena;\nbut they knew too little to attempt seriously to put them together in\nsome sense-rational scheme. The natural knowledge presented by the\nwritings of the Church Fathers was little more than foolishness; the early\nschoolmen were their heirs. They observed a little for themselves; but\nvery little.\n\nThere is an abysmal difference in the amount of natural knowledge\nexhibited by any writing of the twelfth century, and the works of Albertus\nMagnus belonging say to the middle of the thirteenth. The obvious reason\nof this is, that the latter had drawn upon the great volume of natural\nobservation and hypothesis which for the preceding five hundred years had\nbeen actually closed to western Europe, and for five hundred years before\nthat had been spiritually closed, because of the ineptitude of men to read\ntherein. That volume was of course the encyclopaedic Natural Philosophy of\nAristotle, completed, and treated in its ultimate causal relationships, by\nhis Metaphysics. The Metaphysics, the First Philosophy, gave completeness\nand unity to the various provinces of natural knowledge expounded in his\nspecial treatises. For this reason, one finds in the works of Albertus a\nfund of natural knowledge solid with the solidity of the earth upon which\none may plant his feet, and totally unlike the beautiful dreaming which\ndrew its prototypal origins from the skyey mind of Plato.\n\nThe utilization of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy by the Englishman, Alexander of\nHales, who became a Franciscan near the year 1230, when he had already\nlectured for some thirty years at Paris; its far more elaborate and\ncomplete exposition by the very Teutonic Dominican, Albertus Magnus; and\nits even closer exposition and final incorporation within the sum of\nChristian doctrine, by Thomas,--this three-staged achievement is the great\nmediaeval instance of return to a genuine and chief source of Greek\nphilosophy. These three schoolmen went back of the accounts and views of\nGreek philosophy contained in the writings of the Fathers. And in so doing\nthey also went back of what was transmitted to the Middle Ages by Bo\u00ebthius\nand other \u201ctransmitters.\u201d[535]\n\nBut the achievement of these schoolmen had other import. Their work\nrepresents the culmination of the third stage of mediaeval thought: that\nof systematic and organic restatement of the substance of the patristic\nand antique, with added elements; for there can be no organic restatement\nwhich does not hold and present something from him who achieves it. The\nresult, attained at least by Thomas, was even more than this. Based upon\nthe data and assumptions of scholasticism, it was a complete and final\nstatement of the nature of God so far as that might be known, of the\ncreature world, corporeal and incorporeal, and especially of man, his\nnature, his qualities, his relationship to God and final destiny. And\nherein, in its completeness, it was satisfying. The human mind in seeking\nexplanation of the phenomena of its consciousness--presumably a reflex of\nthe universe without--tends to seek a unity of explanation. A unity of\nexplanation requires a completeness in the mental scheme of what is to be\nexplained. Thoughtful men in the Middle Ages craved a scheme of life\ncomplete even in detail, which should educe life\u2019s currents from a primal\nGodhead, and project them compacted, with none left straying or pointing\nnowhither, on toward universal fulfilment of His will.\n\nMediaeval thought had been preceded by whole views, entire schemes of\nlife. Greek philosophy had held only such from the time when Thales said\nthat water was the cause of all things. Plato\u2019s view or scheme also was\nbeautiful in its ideally pyramided structure, with the Idea of the Good at\nthe apex. For Aristotle, knowledge was to be a syllogistic, or at least\nrational and jointed, encyclopaedia, rounded, unified, complete. After the\npagan times, another whole scheme was that of Augustine, or again, that of\nGregory the Great, though barbarized and hardened. Thus as patterns for\ntheir own thinking, mediaeval men knew only of entire schemes of thought.\nTheir creed was, in every sense, a symbol of a completed scheme. And no\nmediaeval philosopher or theologian suspected himself of fragmentariness.\nYet, in fact, at first they did but select and compile. After a century\nand more of this, they began to make organic statements of parts of\nChristian doctrine. So we have Anselm\u2019s _Proslogium_ and _Cur Deus Homo_.\nAbaelard\u2019s _Theologia_ is far more complete; and so is Hugo\u2019s _De\nsacramentis_, which offers an entire scheme, symbolical, sacramental,\nChristian, of God and the world and man. Hugo\u2019s scheme might be ideally\nsatisfying; but little concrete knowledge was represented in it. And when\nin the generations following his death, the co-ordinated Aristotelian\nencyclopaedia was brought to light and studied, then and thereafter any\nwhole view of the world must take account of this new volume of argument\nand concrete knowledge. Alexander of Hales begins the labour of using it\nin a Christian _Summa_; Albertus makes prodigious advance, at least in the\nmassing and preparation of the full Aristotelian material. Both try for\nwhole views and comprehensive results. Then Thomas, most highly favoured\nin his master Albert, and gifted with a genius for acquisition and\nsynthetic exposition, incorporates Aristotle, and Aristotle\u2019s whole views,\ninto the whole view presented by the Catholic Faith.\n\nThomas\u2019s view, to be satisfying, had to be complete. It was knowledge\nunited and amalgamated into a scheme of salvation. But a scheme of\nsalvation is a chain, which can hold only in virtue of its completeness;\nbreak one link, and it snaps; leave one rivet loose, and it may also snap.\nA scheme of salvation must answer every problem put to it; a single\nunanswered problem may imperil it. The problem, for example, of God\u2019s\nforeknowledge and predestination--that were indeed an open link, which\nThomas will by no means leave unwelded. Hence for us modern men also,\nwhose views of the universe are so shamelessly partial, leaving so much\nunanswered and so much unknown, the philosophy of Thomas may be restful,\nand charm by its completeness.\n\nIt is of great interest to observe the apparently unlikely agencies by\nwhich this new volume of knowledge was made generally available. In fact,\nit was the new knowledge and the demand for it that forced these agencies\nto fulfil the mission of exploiting it. For they had been created for\nother purposes, which they also fulfilled. Verily it _happened_ that the\nchief means through which the new knowledge was gained and published were\nthe two new unmonastic Orders of monks, friars rather we may call them.\nFrancis of Assisi was born in 1182 and died in 1226; Dominic was born in\n1177 and died in 1221. The Orders of Minorites and Preachers were founded\nby them respectively in 1209 and 1215. Neither Order was founded to\npromote secular knowledge. Francis organized his Minorites that they might\nimitate the lives of Christ and His apostles, and preach repentance to the\nworld. Dominic founded his Order to save souls through preaching: \u201cFor our\nOrder is known from the beginning to have been instituted especially for\npreaching and the saving of souls, and our study (_studium nostrum_)\nshould have as the chief object of its labour to enable us to be useful to\nour neighbours\u2019 souls (_ut proximorum animabus possimus utiles\nesse_).\u201d[536]\n\nWithin an apparent similarity of aim, each Order from the first reflected\nthe temper of its founder; and the temper of Francis was not that of\nDominic. For our purpose here, the difference may perhaps be symbolized by\nthe Dominican maxim to preach the Gospel throughout the world equally by\nword and example (_verbo pariter et exemplo_); and the Franciscan maxim,\nto exhort all _plus exemplo quam verbo_.[537] A generation later St\nBonaventura puts it thus: \u201cAlii (scilicet, Praedicatores) principaliter\nintendunt speculationi ... et postea unctioni. Alii (scilicet, Minores)\nprincipaliter unctioni et postea speculationi.\u201d[538]\n\nIt is safe to say that St Francis had no thought of secular studies; and\nas for the Order of Preachers, the Constitutions of 1228 forbade the\nDominicans to study _libros gentilium and seculares scientias_. They are\nto study _libros theologicos_.[539] Francis, also, recognized the\nnecessity of Scriptural study for those Minorites who were allowed to\npreach. In these views the early Franciscans and Dominicans were not\npeculiar; but rather represented the attitude of the older monastic Orders\nand of the stricter secular clergy. The Gospel teaching of Christ had\nnothing to do with secular knowledge--explicitly. But the first centuries\nof the Church perceived that its defenders should be equipped with the\nGentile learning, into which indeed they had been born. And while Francis\nwas little of a theologian, and Dominic\u2019s personality and career remain\ncuriously obscure, one can safely say that both founders saw the need of\nsacred studies, and left no authoritative expression prohibiting their\nOrders from pursuing them to the best advantage for the cause of Christ.\nYet we are not called on to suppose that either founder, in founding his\nOrder for a definite purpose, foresaw all the means which after his death\nmight be employed to attain that purpose--or some other!\n\nThe new Order cometh, the old rusteth. So has it commonly been with\nMonasticism. Undoubtedly these uncloistered Orders embodied novel\nprinciples of efficiency for the upholding of the Faith: their soldiers\nmarched abroad evangelizing, and did not keep within their fastnesses of\nholiness. The Mendicant Orders were still young, and fresh from the\ninspiration of their founders. In those years they moved men\u2019s hearts and\ndrew them to the ideal which had been set for themselves. The result was,\nthat in the first half of the thirteenth century the greater part of\nChristian religious energy girded its loins with the cords of Francis and\nDominic.\n\nAt the commencement of that century, when the Orders of Minorites and\nPreachers were founded, the world of Western thought was prepared to make\nits own the new Aristotelian volume of knowledge and applied reason. Once\nthat was opened and its contents perceived, the old\nAugustinian-Neo-Platonic ways of thinking could no longer proceed with\ntheir idealizing constructions, ignoring the pertinence of the new data\nand their possible application to such presentations of Christian doctrine\nas Hugo\u2019s _De sacramentis_ or the Lombard\u2019s _Sentences_. The new\nknowledge, with its methods, was of such insistent import, that it had at\nonce to be considered, and either invalidated by argument, or accepted,\nand perhaps corrected, and then accommodated within an enlarged Christian\nPhilosophy.\n\nThe spiritual force animating a new religious movement attracts the\nintellectual energies of the period, and furnishes them a new reality of\npurpose. This was true of early Christianity, and likewise true of the\nfresh religious impulse which proceeded from Francis\u2019s energy of love and\nthe organizing zeal of Dominic. From the very years of their foundation,\n1209 and 1215, the rapid increase of the two Orders realized their\nfounders\u2019 visions of multitudes hurrying from among all nations to become\nMinorites or Preachers. And more and more their numbers were recruited\nfrom among the clergy. The lay members, important in the first years of\nFrancis\u2019s labours, were soon wellnigh submerged by the clericals; and the\neducated or learned element became predominant in the Franciscan Order as\nit was from the first in the Dominican.\n\nConsider for an instant the spread of the former. In 1216, Cardinal\nJacques of Vitry finds the Minorites in Lombardy, Tuscany, Apulia, and\nSicily. The next year five thousand are reported to have assembled at the\ngeneral meeting of the Order. Two years later Francis proceeds to carry\nout his plan of world-conquest by apportioning the Christian countries,\nand sending the brethren into France, Germany, Hungary, Spain, and\nthroughout Italy.[540] It was a period when in the midst of general\nignorance on the part of the clergy as well as laity, Universities\n(_generalia studia_) were rising in Italy, France, and England. The popes,\nInnocent III. (died 1216), Honorius III. (died 1221), and Gregory IX.\n(died 1241), were seeking to raise the education and even the learning of\nthe Church. Their efforts found in the zeal of the Mendicants a ready\nresponse which was not forthcoming from the secular clergy. The Mendicants\nwere zealous for the Faith, and loyal liegemen of the popes, who were\ntheir sustainers and the guarantors of their freedom from local\necclesiastical interference. What more fitting instruments could be found\nto advance the cause of sacred learning at the Universities, and enlarge\nit with the new knowledge which must either serve the Faith or be its\nenemy. If all this was not evident in the first decades of the century, it\nhad become so by the middle of it, when the Franciscan Bonaventura and\nthe Dominicans Albertus and Thomas were the intellectual glories of the\ntime. And thus, while the ardour of the new Orders drew to their ranks the\nlearning and spiritual energy of the Church, the intellectual currents of\nthe time caught up those same Brotherhoods, which had so entrusted their\nown salvation to the mission of saving other souls abroad in the world,\nwhere those currents flowed.\n\nThe Universities, above all _the_ University _par excellence_, were in the\nhands of the secular clergy; and long and intricate is the story of their\njealous endeavours to exclude the Mendicants from Professors\u2019 chairs. The\nDominicans established themselves at Paris in 1217, the Franciscans two\nyears later. The former succeeded in obtaining one chair of theology at\nthe University in 1229, and a second in 1231; and about the same time the\nFranciscans obtained their first chair, and filled it with Alexander of\nHales. When he died an old man, fifteen years later, they wrote upon his\ntomb:\n\n  \u201cGloria Doctorum, decus et flos Philosophorum,\n   Auctor scriptorum vir Alexander variorum,\u201d\n\nclosing the epitaph with the words: \u201cprimus Doctor eorum,\u201d to wit, of the\nMinorites. He was the author of the first _Summa theologiae_, in the sense\nin which that term fits the work of Albert and Thomas. And there is no\nharm in repeating that this _Summa_ of Alexander\u2019s was the first work of a\nmediaeval schoolman in which use was made of the physics, metaphysics, and\nnatural history, of Aristotle.[541] He died in 1245, when the Franciscans\nappear to have possessed two chairs at the University. One of them was\nfilled in 1248 by Bonaventura, who nine years later was taken from his\nprofessorship, to become Minister-General of his Order. It was indeed only\nin this year 1257 that the University itself had been brought by papal\ninjunctions formally to recognize as _magister_ this most eloquent of the\nFranciscans, and the greatest of the Dominicans, Thomas Aquinas. The\nlatter\u2019s master, Albert, had been recognized as _magister_ by the\nUniversity in 1245.\n\nBefore the intellectual achievements of these two men, the Franciscan fame\nfor learning paled. But that Order went on winning fame across the\nChannel, which the Dominicans had crossed before them. In 1224 they came\nto Oxford, and were received as guests by an establishment of Dominicans:\nthis was but nine years after the foundation of the preaching Order!\nPerhaps the Franciscan glories overshone the Dominican at Oxford, where\nGrosseteste belongs to them and Adam of Marsh and Roger Bacon. But\nwhichever Order led, there can be no doubt that together they included the\ngreater part of the intellectual productivity of the maturing thirteenth\ncentury. Nevertheless, in spite of the vast work of the Orders in the\nfield of secular knowledge, it will be borne in mind that the advancement\nof _sacra doctrina_, theology, the saving understanding of Scripture, was\nthe end and purpose of all study with Dominicans and Franciscans, as it\nwas universally with all orthodox mediaeval schoolmen; although for many\nthe nominal purpose seems a mere convention. Few men of the twelfth or\nthirteenth century cared to dispute the principle that the _Carmina\npoetarum_ and the _Dicta philosophorum_ \u201cshould be read not for their own\nsake, but in order that we may learn holy Scripture to the best advantage:\nI say they are to be offered as first-fruits, for we should not grow old\nin them, but spring from their thresholds to the sacred page, for whose\nsake we were studying them for a while.\u201d[542]\n\nWithin the two Orders, especially the Franciscan, men differed sharply as\nto the desirability of learning. So did their contemporaries among the\nsecular clergy, and their mediaeval and patristic predecessors as far back\nas Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. On this matter a large variance\nof opinion might exist within the compass of orthodoxy; for Catholicism\ndid not forbid men to value secular knowledge, provided they did not\ncleave to opinions contradicting Christian verity. This was heresy, and\nindeed was the sum of what was called Averroism, the chief intellectual\nheresy of the thirteenth century. It consisted in a sheer following of\nAristotle and his infidel commentator, wheresoever the opinions of the\nPhilosopher, so interpreted, might lead. They were not to be corrected in\nthe interest of Christian truth. A representative Averroist, and one so\nimportant as to draw the fire of Aquinas, as well as the censures of the\nChurch, was Siger de Brabant. He followed Aristotle and his commentator in\nmaintaining: The universal oneness of the (human) intelligence, the _anima\nintellectiva_, an opinion which involved the denial of an individual\nimmortality, with its rewards and punishments; the eternity of the visible\nworld,--uncreated and everlasting; a rational necessitarianism which\nprecluded freedom of human action and moral responsibility.\n\nIt would be hard to find theses more fundamentally opposed to the\nChristian Faith. Yet Siger may have deemed himself a Christian. With other\nAverroists, he sought to preserve his religious standing by maintaining\nthat these opinions were true according to philosophy, but not according\nto the Catholic Faith: \u201cDicunt enim ea esse vera secundum philosophiam,\nsed non secundum fidem catholicam.\u201d[543] With what sincerity Siger held\nthis untenable position is hard to say.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII\n\nBONAVENTURA\n\n\nThe range and character of the ultimate intellectual interests of the\nthirteenth century may be studied in the works of four men: St.\nBonaventura, Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas, and lastly, Roger Bacon. The\nfirst and last were as different as might be; and both were Franciscans.\nAlbertus and Thomas represent the successive stages of one achievement,\nthe greatest in the course of mediaeval thought. In some respects, their\nposition is intermediate between Bonaventura and Bacon. Bonaventura\nreflects many twelfth-century ways of thinking; Albert and Thomas embody\n_par excellence_ the intellectual movement of the thirteenth century in\nwhich they all lived; and Roger Bacon stands for much, the exceeding\nimport of which was not to be recognized until long after he was\nforgotten. The four were contemporaries, and, with the possible exception\nof Bacon, knew each other well. Thomas was Albert\u2019s pupil; Thomas and\nBonaventura taught at the same time in the Faculty of Theology at Paris,\nand stood together in the academic conflict between their Orders and the\nSeculars. Albertus and Bonaventura also must have known each other,\nteaching at the same time in the theological faculty. As for Bacon, he was\nlikewise at Paris studying and teaching, when the others were there, and\nmay have known them.[544] Albert and Thomas came of princely stock, and\nsacrificed their fortune in the world for theology\u2019s sake. Bacon\u2019s family\nwas well-to-do; Bonaventura was lowly born.\n\nJohn of Fidanza, who under the name of Bonaventura was to become\nMinister-General of his Order, Cardinal, Saint, and _Doctor Seraphicus_,\nsaw the light in the Tuscan village of Bagnorea. That he was of Italian,\nhalf Latin-speaking, stock is apparent from his own fluent Latin. Probably\nin the year 1238, when seventeen years old, he joined the Franciscan\nOrder; and four years later was sent to Paris, where he studied under\nAlexander of Hales. In 1248 he was licensed to lecture publicly, and\nthenceforth devoted himself at Paris to teaching and writing, and\ndefending his Order against the Seculars, until 1257, when, just as the\nUniversity conferred on him the title of Magister, he was chosen\nMinister-General of his Order, in the thirty-seventh year of his age. The\ngreater part of his writings were composed before the burdens of this\nprimacy drew him from his studies. He was still to become Prince of the\nChurch, for he was made Cardinal of Albano in 1273, the year before his\ndeath.\n\nFor all the Middle Ages the master in theology was Augustine. Either he\nwas studied directly in his own writings, or his views descended through\nthe more turbid channels of the works of men he influenced. Mediaeval\ntheology was overwhelmingly Augustinian until the middle of the thirteenth\ncentury; and since theology was philosophy\u2019s queen, mediaeval philosophy\nconformed to that which Augustine employed in his theology. This, if\ntraced backward to its source, should be called Platonism, or\nNeo-Platonism if we turn our mind to the modes in which Augustine made use\nof it. His Neo-Platonism was not unaffected by Peripatetic and later\nsystems of Greek philosophy; yet it was far more Platonic than Stoical or\nAristotelian.\n\nThose first teachers, who in the maturity of their powers became Brothers\nMinorites, were Augustinians in theology, and consequently Platonists, in\nso far as Platonism made part of Augustine\u2019s doctrines. Thus it was with\nthe first great teacher at the Minorites school in Oxford, Robert\nGrosseteste, and with the first great Minorite teacher at Paris, Alexander\nof Hales. Both of these men were promoters of the study of Aristotle; yet\nneither became so imbued with Aristotelianism as to revise either his\ntheological system or the Platonic doctrines which seemed germane to it.\nMoreover, in so far as we may imagine St. Francis to have had a theology,\nwe must feel that Augustine, with his hand on Plato\u2019s shoulder, would have\nbeen more congenial to him than Aristotle. And so in fact it was to be\nwith his Order. Augustine\u2019s fervent piety, his imagination and religious\ntemperament, held the Franciscans fast. Surely he was very close to the\nsoul of that eloquent Franciscan teacher, who called Alexander of Hales\n\u201cmaster and father,\u201d sat at his feet, and never thought of himself as\ndelivering new teachings. It would have been strange indeed if Bonaventura\nhad broken from the influences which had formed his soul, this Bonaventura\nwhose most congenial precursor lived and wrote and followed Augustine far\nback in the twelfth century, and bore the name of Hugo of St. Victor.\nBonaventura\u2019s writings did much to fix Augustinianism upon his Order;\nrivalry with the Dominicans doubtless helped to make it fast; for the\nlatter were following another system under the dominance of their two\nTitan leaders, who had themselves come to maturity with the new\nAristotelian influences, whereof they were _magna pars_.\n\nBut just as Grosseteste and Alexander made use of what they knew of\nAristotle, so Bonaventura had no thought of misprizing him who was\nbecoming in western Europe \u201cthe master of those who know.\u201d In specific\npoints this wise Augustinian might prefer Aristotle to Plato. For example,\nhe chose to stand, with the former, upon the _terra firma_ of sense\nperception, rather than keep ever on the wing in the upper region of ideal\nconcepts.\n\n    \u201cAlthough the _anima_, according to Augustine, is linked to eternal\n    principles (_legibus aeternis_), since somehow it does reach the light\n    of the higher reason, still it is unquestionable, as the Philosopher\n    says, that cognition originates in us by the way of the senses, of\n    memory, and of experience, out of which the universal is deduced,\n    which is the beginning of art and knowledge (_artis et scientiae_).\n    Hence, since Plato referred all certain cognition to the intelligible\n    or ideal world, he was rightly criticized by Aristotle. Not because he\n    spoke ill in saying that there are _ideas_ and eternal _rationes_; but\n    because, despising the world of sense, he wished to refer all certain\n    cognition to those Ideas. And thus, although Plato seems to make firm\n    the path of wisdom (_sapientiae_) which proceeds according to the\n    eternal _rationes_, he destroys the way of knowledge, which proceeds\n    according to the _rationes_ of created things (_rationes creatas_). So\n    it appears that, among philosophers, the word of wisdom (_sermo\n    sapientiae_) was given to Plato, and the word of knowledge\n    (_scientiae_) to Aristotle. For that one chiefly looked to the things\n    above, and this one considered things below.[545] But both the word of\n    wisdom and of knowledge, through the Holy Spirit, was given to\n    Augustine, as the pre-eminent declarer of the entire Scripture.\u201d[546]\n\nSo there is Aristotelian ballast in Bonaventura\u2019s Platonic-Augustinian\ntheology. His chief divergence from Albert and Thomas (who, of course,\nlikewise held Augustine in honour, and drew on Plato when they chose) is\nto be found in his temperamental attitude, toward life, toward God, or\ntoward theology and learning. His Augustinian soul held to the\npre-eminence of the _good_ above the _true_, and tended to shape the\nsecond to the first. So he maintained the primacy of _willing_ over\nknowing. Man attains God through goodness of will and through love. The\nway of knowledge is less prominent with Bonaventura than with Aquinas.\nSurely the latter, and his master Albert, saw the main sanction of secular\nknowledge in its ministry to _sacra doctrina_; but their hearts may seem\nto tarry with the handmaid. Bonaventura\u2019s position is the same; but his\nheart never tarries with the handmaid; for with him heart and mind are\never constant to the queen, Theology. Yet he recognizes the queen\u2019s need\nof the handmaid. Holy Writ is not for babes; the fulness of knowledge is\nneeded for its understanding: \u201cNon potest intelligi sacra Scriptura sine\naliarum scientiarum peritia.\u201d[547] And without philosophy many matters of\nthe Faith cannot be intelligently discussed. There is no knowledge which\nmay not be sanctified to the purpose of understanding Scripture; only let\nthis purpose really guide the mind\u2019s pursuits.\n\nBonaventura wrote a short treatise to emphasize these universally admitted\nprinciples, and to show how every form of human knowledge conformed to the\nsupreme illumination afforded by Scripture, and might be reduced to the\nterms and methods of Theology, which is Scripture rightly understood. He\nnamed the tract _De reductione artium ad theologiam_[548] (The leading\nback of the Arts to Theology).\n\n    \u201c\u2018Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the\n    Father of lights,\u2019 says James. This indicates the source of all\n    illumination, and the streaming of all enlightenment from that fontal\n    light. While every illumination is inner knowledge (_omnis illuminatio\n    cognitio interna sit_) we may distinguish the external light, (_lumen\n    exterius_), to wit, the light of mechanical art; the lower light, to\n    wit, the light of sense perception; the interior light, to wit, the\n    light of philosophical cognition; the superior light, to wit, the\n    light of grace and Holy Scripture. The first illuminates as to the\n    arts and crafts; the second as to natural form; the third as to\n    intellectual truth; the fourth as to saving truth.\u201d\n\nHe enumerates the mechanical arts, drawing from Hugo of St. Victor; then\nhe follows with Augustine\u2019s explanation of the second _lumen_, as that\nwhich discerns corporeal things. He next speaks of the third _lumen_ which\nlightens us to the investigation of truths intelligible, scrutinizing the\ntruth of words (Logic), or the truth of things (Physics), or the truth of\nmorals (Ethics). The fourth _lumen_, of Holy Scripture, comes not by\nseeking, but descends through inspiration from the Father of lights. It\nincludes the literal, the spiritual, moral and anagogic signification of\nScripture, teaching the eternal generation and incarnation of Christ, the\nway to live, and the union of God and the soul. The first of these\nbranches pertains to faith, the second to morals, and the third to the aim\nand end of both.\n\n\u201cLet us see,\u201d continues Bonaventura, \u201chow the other illuminations have to\nbe reduced to the light of Holy Scripture. And first as to the\nillumination from sense cognition, as to which we consider its means, its\nexercise, and its delight (_oblectamentum_).\u201d Its means is the Word\neternally generated, and incarnated in time; its exercise is in the sense\nperception of an ordered way of living, following the suitable and\navoiding the nocuous; and as for its object of delight, as every sense\npursues that which delights it, so the sense of our heart should seek the\nbeautiful, harmonious, and sweet-smelling. In this way divine wisdom\ndwells hidden in sense cognition.\n\nNext, as to the illumination of mechanical art, which is concerned with\nthe production of the works of craft. Herein likewise may be observed\nanalogies with the light from Holy Scripture, which reveals the Word, the\norder of living, and the union of God and the soul. No creature proceeds\nfrom the great Artificer, save through the Word; and the human artificer\nworks to produce a beautiful, useful, and enduring work; which corresponds\nto the Scriptural order of living. Each human artificer makes his work\nthat it may bring him praise or use or delight; as God made the rational\nsoul, to praise and serve and take delight in Him, through love.\n\nBy similar methods of reasoning Bonaventura next \u201creduces,\u201d or leads back,\nLogic, and Natural and Moral Philosophy to the ways and purposes of\nTheology, and shows how \u201cthe multiform wisdom of God, which is set forth\nlucidly by Scripture, lies hidden in every cognition, and in every nature.\nIt is also evident that all kinds of knowledge minister to Theology; and\nthat Theology takes illustrations, and uses phrases, pertaining to every\nkind of knowledge (_cognitionis_). It is also plain how ample is the\nilluminating path, and how in every thing that is sensed or perceived, God\nhimself lies concealed.\u201d[549]\n\nWays of reasoning change, while conclusions sometimes endure.\nBonaventura\u2019s reasoning in the above treatise is for us abstruse and\nfanciful; yet many will agree with the conclusion, that all kinds of\nknowledge may minister to our thought of God, and of man\u2019s relationship to\nHim. And with Bonaventura, all his knowledge, his study of secular\nphilosophy, his logic and powers of presentation, had theology unfailingly\nin view, and ministered to the satisfaction, the actualization (to use\nour old word) of his religious nature. He belongs among those\nintellectually gifted men--Augustine, Anselm, Hugo of St. Victor--whose\nmental and emotional powers draw always to God, and minister to the\nconception of the soul\u2019s union with the living spring of its being. The\nlife, the labours of Bonaventura were as the title of the little book we\nhave just been worrying with, a _reductio artium ad theologiam_, a\nconstant adapting of all knowledge and ways of meditation, to the sense of\nGod and the soul\u2019s inclusion in the love divine. No one should expect to\nfind among his compositions any independent treatment of secular knowledge\nfor its own sake. Rather throughout his writings the reasonings of\nphilosophy are found always ministering to the sovereign theme.\n\nThe most elaborate of Bonaventura\u2019s doctrinal works was his Commentary\nupon the Lombard\u2019s _Sentences_. In form and substance it was a _Summa\ntheologiae_.[550] He also made a brief and salutary theological compend,\nwhich he called the _Breviloquium_.[551] The note of devotional piety is\nstruck by the opening sentence, taken from the Epistle to the Ephesians,\nand is held throughout the work:\n\n    \u201c\u2018I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom\n    the whole fatherhood in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant\n    you according to the riches of His glory to be strengthened by His\n    Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts through\n    faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to\n    comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth and length and height\n    and depth; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge,\n    that ye might be filled in all the fulness of God.\u2019 The great doctor\n    of the Gentiles discloses in these words the source, progress, and\n    state (_ortus_, _progressus_, _status_) of Holy Scripture, which is\n    called Theology; indicating that the _source_ is to be thought upon\n    according to the grace (_influentiam_) of the most blessed Trinity;\n    the _progress_ with reference to the needs of human capacity; and the\n    _state_ or fruit with respect to the superabundance of a superplenary\n    felicity.\n\n    \u201cFor the _Source_ lies not in human investigation, but in divine\n    revelation, which flows from the Father of lights, from whom all\n    fatherhood in heaven and earth is named, from whom, through His Son\n    Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit flows in us; and through the Holy Spirit\n    bestowing, as He wills, gifts on each, faith is given, and through\n    faith Christ dwells in our hearts. This is the knowledge of Jesus\n    Christ, from which, as from a source, comes the certitude and\n    understanding of the whole Scripture. Wherefore it is impossible that\n    any one should advance in its knowledge, unless he first has Christ\n    infused in him....\n\n    \u201cThe _Progress_ of Holy Scripture is not bound to the laws of\n    reasonings and definitions, like the other sciences; but, conformably\n    to supernatural light, proceeds to give to man the wayfarer (_homini\n    viatori_) a knowledge of things sufficing for his salvation, by plain\n    words in part, and in part mystically: it presents the contents of the\n    universe as in a _Summa_, in which is observed the _breadth_; it\n    describes the descent (from above) in which is considered the\n    _length_; it describes the goodness of the saved, in which is\n    considered the _height_; it describes the misery of the damned, in\n    which consists the _depth_ not only of the universe itself but of the\n    divine judgment....\n\n    \u201cThe _State_ or fruit of Holy Scripture is the plentitude of eternal\n    felicity. For the Book containing words of eternal life was written\n    not only that we might believe, but that we might have eternal life,\n    in which we shall see, we shall love, and all our desires shall be\n    filled, whereupon we shall know the love which passeth knowledge, and\n    be filled in all the fulness of God....\n\n    \u201cAs to the _progress_ of Scripture, first is to be considered the\n    _breadth_, which consists in the multitude of parts.... Rightly is\n    Holy Scripture divided into the Old and New Testament, and not in\n    _theorica_ and _practica_, like philosophy; because since Scripture is\n    founded on the knowledge of faith, which is a virtue and the basis of\n    morals, it is not possible to separate in Scripture the knowledge of\n    things, or of what is to be believed, from the knowledge of morals. It\n    is otherwise with philosophy, which handles not only the truth of\n    morals, but the true, speculatively considered. Then as Holy Scripture\n    is knowledge (_notitia_) moving to good and recalling from evil,\n    through fear and love, so it is divided into two Testaments, whose\n    difference, briefly, is fear and love....\n\n    \u201cHoly Scripture has also _length_, which consists in the description\n    of times and ages from the beginning to the day of Judgment.... The\n    progress of the whole world is described by Scripture, as in a\n    beautiful poem, wherein one may follow the descent of time, and\n    contemplate the variety, manifoldness, equity, order, righteousness,\n    and beauty of the multitude of divine judgments proceeding from the\n    wisdom of God ruling the world: and as with a poem, so with this\n    ordering of the world, one cannot see its beauty save by considering\n    the whole....\n\n    \u201cNo less has Sacred Scripture _height_ (_sublimitatem_), consisting\n    in description of the ranged hierarchies, the ecclesiastical,\n    angelic, and divine.... Even as things have _being_ in matter or\n    nature, they have also being in the _anima_ through its acquired\n    knowledge; they have also _being_ in the _anima_ through grace, also\n    through glory; and they have also being in the way of the eternal--in\n    _arte aeterna_. Philosophy treats of things as they are in nature, or\n    in the _anima_ according to the knowledge which is naturally implanted\n    or acquired. But theology as a science (_scientia_) founded upon faith\n    and revealed by the Holy Spirit, treats of those matters which belong\n    to grace and glory and to the eternal wisdom. Whence placing\n    philosophic cognition beneath itself, and drawing from nature (_de\n    naturis rerum_) as much as it may need to make a mirror yielding a\n    reflection of things divine, it constructs a ladder which presses the\n    earth at the base, and touches heaven at the top: and all this through\n    that one hierarch Jesus Christ, who through his assumption of human\n    nature, is hierarch not in the ecclesiastical hierarchy alone, but\n    also in the angelic; and is the medial person in the divine hierarchy\n    of the most blessed Trinity.\u201d[552]\n\nThe _depth_ (_profunditas_) of Scripture consists in its manifold mystic\nmeanings. It reveals these meanings of the creature world for the\nedification of man journeying to his fatherland. Scripture throughout its\n_breadth_, _length_, _height_, and _depth_ uses narrative, threat,\nexhortation, and promise all for one end. \u201cFor this _doctrina_ exists in\norder that we may become good and be saved, which comes not through naked\nconsideration, but rather through inclination of the will.... Here\nexamples have more effect than arguments, promises are more moving than\nratiocinations, and devotion is better than definition.\u201d Hence Scripture\ndoes not follow the method and divisions of other sciences, but uses its\nown diverse means for its saving end. The Prologue closes with rules of\nScriptural interpretation.[553]\n\nIn our plan of following what is of human interest in mediaeval philosophy\nor theology, prologues and introductions are sometimes of more importance\nthan the works which they preface; for they disclose the writer\u2019s intent\nand purpose, and the endeavour within him, which may be more intimately\nhimself, than his performance. So more space has been given to\nBonaventura\u2019s Prologue than the body of the treatise will require. The\norder of topics is that of the Lombard\u2019s _Sentences_ or Aquinas\u2019s _Summa_.\nSeven successive _partes_ consider the Trinity, the creation, the\ncorruption from sin, the Incarnation, the grace of the Holy Spirit, the\nsacramental medicine, and the Last Judgment. Each _pars_ is divided into\nchapters setting forth some special topic. Bonaventura\u2019s method, pursued\nin every chapter, is to state first the scriptural or dogmatic\npropositions, and then give their reason, which he introduces with such\nwords as: _Ratio autem ad praedictorum intelligentiam haec est_. The work\nis a complete systematic compend of Christian theology; its conciseness\nand lucidity of statement are admirable. For an example of its method and\nquality, the first chapter of the sixth part may be given, upon the origin\nof Sacraments.\n\n    \u201cHaving treated of the Trinity of God, of the creation of the world,\n    the corruption of sin, the incarnation of the Word, and the grace of\n    the Holy Spirit, it is time to treat of the sacramental medicine,\n    regarding which there are seven matters to consider: the origin of the\n    sacraments, their variation, distinction, appointment, dispensation,\n    repetition, and the integrity of each.\n\n    \u201cConcerning[554] the origin of the Sacraments this is to be held, that\n    sacraments are sensible signs divinely appointed as medicaments, in\n    which under cover of things sensible, divine virtue secretly operates;\n    also that from likeness they represent, from appointment they signify,\n    from sanctification they confer, some spiritual grace, through which\n    the soul is healed from the infirmities of vice; and for this as their\n    final end they are ordained; yet they avail for humility, instruction,\n    and exercise as for a subsidiary end.\n\n    \u201cThe reason and explanation of the aforesaid is this: The reparative\n    principle (_principium_), is Christ crucified, to wit, the Word\n    incarnate, that directs all things most compassionately because\n    divine, and most compassionately heals because divinely incarnate. It\n    must repair, heal, and save the sick human race, in a way suited to\n    the sick one, the sickness and the occasion of it, and the cure of the\n    sickness. The physician is the incarnate Word, to wit, God invisible\n    in a visible nature. The sick man is not simply spirit, nor simply\n    flesh, but spirit in mortal flesh. The disease is original sin, which\n    through ignorance infects the mind, and through concupiscence\n    infects the flesh. While the origin of this fault primarily lay in\n    reason\u2019s consent, yet its occasion came from the senses of the body.\n    Consequently, in order that the medicine should correspond to these\n    conditions, it should be not simply spiritual, but should have\n    somewhat of sensible signs; for as things sensible were the occasion\n    of the soul\u2019s falling, they should be the occasion of its rising\n    again. Yet since visible signs of themselves have no efficiency\n    ordained for grace, although representative of its nature, it was\n    necessary that they should by the author of grace be appointed to\n    signify and should be blessed in order to sanctify; so that there\n    should be a representation from natural likeness, a signification from\n    appointment, and a sanctification and preparedness for grace from the\n    added benediction, through which our soul may be cured and made whole.\n\n    \u201cAgain, since curative grace is not given to the puffed up, the\n    unbelieving, and disdainful, so these sensible signs divinely given,\n    ought to be such as not only would sanctify and confer grace, and\n    heal, but also would instruct by their signification, humble by their\n    acceptance, and exercise through their diversity; that thus through\n    exercise despondency (_acedia_) should be shut out from the\n    desiderative [nature], through instruction ignorance be shut out from\n    the rational [nature], through humiliation pride be shut out from the\n    irascible [nature], and the whole soul become _curable_ by the grace\n    of the Holy Spirit, which remakes us according to these three\n    capacities (_potentias_)[555] into the image of the Trinity and\n    Christ. Finally, whereas the grace of the Holy Spirit is received\n    through these sensible signs divinely appointed, it is found in them\n    as an accident. Hence sacraments of this kind are called the vessels\n    and cause of grace: not that grace is of their substance or produced\n    by them as by a cause; for its place is in the soul, and it is infused\n    by God alone; but because it is ordained by divine decree, that in\n    them and through them we shall draw the grace of cure from the supreme\n    physician, Christ; although God has not fettered His grace to the\n    sacraments.[556]\n\n    \u201cFrom the premises, therefore, appears not only what may be the origin\n    of the sacraments, but also the use and fruit. For their origin is\n    Christ the Lord; their use is the act which exercises, teaches, and\n    humbles; their fruit is the cure and salvation of men. It is also\n    evident that the efficient cause of the sacraments is the divine\n    appointment; their material cause is the figurement of the sensible\n    sign; their formal cause the sanctification by grace; their final\n    cause the medicinal healing of men. And because they are named from\n    their form and end they are called sacraments, as it were\n    _medicamenta sanctificantia_. Through them the soul is led back from\n    the filth of vice to perfect sanctification. And so, although\n    corporeal and sensible, they are medicinal, and to be venerated as\n    holy because they signify holy mysteries, and make ready for the holy\n    gifts (_charismata_) given by most holy God; and they are divinely\n    consecrated by holy institution and benediction for the holiest\n    worship of God appointed in holy church, so that rightly they should\n    be called sacraments.\u201d\n\nThe _Breviloquium_ was Bonaventura\u2019s rational compendium of Christian\ntheology. It offered in brief compass as complete a system as the bulkiest\n_Summa_ could carry out to doctrinal elaboration. Quite different in\nmethod and intent was his equally famous _Itinerarium mentis in\nDeum_,[557] the praise of which, according to the great Chancellor Gerson,\ncould not fitly be uttered by mortal mouth. We have seen how in the\n_Reductio artium ad theologiam_ Bonaventura conformed all modes of\nperception and knowledge to the uses and modes of theology; the final end\nof which is man\u2019s salvation, consisting in the union of the soul with God,\nthrough every form of enlightenment and all the power of love. The\n_Breviloquium_ has given the sum of Christian doctrine, an intelligent and\nheart-felt understanding of which leads to salvation. And now the\n_Itinerarium_--well, it is best to let Bonaventura tell how he came to\ncompose it, and of its purpose and character.\n\n    \u201cSince, after the example of our most blessed father Francis, I pant\n    in spirit for the peace which he preached in the manner of our Lord\n    Jesus Christ, I a sinner who am the seventh, all unworthy,\n    Minister-General of the Brethren,--it happened that by God\u2019s will in\n    the thirty-third year after our blessed father\u2019s death, I turned aside\n    to the mountain of Alverna, as to a quiet place, seeking the spirit\u2019s\n    peace. While I lingered there my mind dwelt on the ascensions of the\n    spirit, and, among others, on the miracle which in that very spot came\n    to blessed Francis, when he saw the winged Seraph in the likeness of\n    the Crucified. And it seemed to me his vision represented the\n    suspension of our father in contemplation, and the way by which he\n    came to it. For by those six wings may be understood the suspensions\n    of the six illuminations, by which the soul, as by steps and journeys,\n    through ecstatic outpourings of Christian wisdom, is prepared to pass\n    beyond to peace. For the way lies only through love of the\n    Crucified, which so transformed Paul carried to the third heaven, that\n    he could say: \u2018I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet\n    not I, but Christ liveth in me.\u2019 So the image of the six seraph\u2019s\n    wings represents the six rungs of illumination, which begin with the\n    creatures and lead on to God, to whom no one can come save through the\n    Crucified....\n\n    \u201cFor one is not prepared for the divine contemplations, which lead to\n    the rapt visions of the mind, unless he be with Daniel, a man of\n    desires.[558] Desires are stirred within us by the cry of prayer and\n    the bright light of speculation. I shall invite the reader first to\n    the sighings of prayer through Christ crucified, lest perchance he\n    believe that study might suffice without unction, or diligence without\n    piety, knowledge without charity, zeal without divine grace, or the\n    mirror (_speculum_) without the wisdom divinely inspired. Then to\n    those humble and devout ones, to whom grace first has come, to those\n    lovers of the divine wisdom, who burn with desire of it, and are\n    willing to be still, for the magnifying of God, I shall propose\n    pertinent speculations, showing how little or nothing is it to turn\n    the mirror outward unless the mirror of our mind be rubbed and\n    polished.\u201d\n\nThus Bonaventura writes his prologue to this devotional tract, which will\nalso hold \u201cpertinent speculations.\u201d Remarkable is the intellectuality and\ncompacted thought which he fuses in emotional expression. He will write\nseven chapters, on the seven steps, or degrees, in the ascent to God,\nwhich is the mind\u2019s true _itinerarium_. Since we cannot by ourselves lift\nourselves above ourselves, prayer is the very mother and source of our\nupward struggle. Prayer opens our eyes to the steps in the ascent. Placed\nin the universe of things, we find in it the corporeal and temporal\nfootprint (_vestigium_) leading into the way of God. Then we enter our\nmind, which is the everlasting and spiritual image of God; and this is to\nenter the truth of God. Whereupon we should rise above us to the eternal\nmost spiritual first cause; and this is to rejoice in the knowledge of\nGod\u2019s majesty. This is the threefold illumination, by which we recognise\nthe triple existence of things, in matter, in the intelligence, and in the\ndivine way--_in arte divina_. And likewise our mind has three outlooks,\none upon the corporeal world without, which is called sense, another into\nand within itself, which is called _spiritus_, and a third above itself,\nwhich is called _mens_. By means of all three, man should set himself to\nrising toward God, and love Him with the whole mind, and heart, and soul.\n\nThen Bonaventura makes further analysis of his triple illumination into\n\n    \u201csix degrees or powers of the soul, to wit, sense, imagination,\n    reason, intellect, intelligence, and _apex mentis seu synteresis\n    scintilla_. These degrees are planted within us by nature, deformed\n    through fault, reformed through grace, purged through righteousness,\n    exercised through knowledge, perfected through wisdom.... Whoever\n    wishes to ascend to God should shun the sins which deform nature, and\n    stretch forth his natural powers, in prayer, toward reforming grace,\n    in mode of life, toward purifying righteousness, in meditation, toward\n    illuminating knowledge, in contemplation toward the wisdom which makes\n    perfect. For as no one reaches wisdom except through grace,\n    righteousness, and knowledge, so no one reaches contemplation, except\n    through meditation, a holy life, and devout prayer.\u201d\n\nChapter one closes with little that is novel; for we seem to be retracing\nthe thoughts of Hugo of St. Victor. The second chapter is on the\n\u201cContemplation of God in His Footprints in the Sensible World.\u201d This is\nthe next grade of speculation, because we shall now contemplate God not\nonly through His footprints, but in them also, so far as He is in them\nthrough essence, power, or presence. The sensible world, the macrocosmus,\nenters the microcosmus, which is the _anima_, through the gates of the\nfive senses. The author sketches the processes of sense-perception,\nthrough which outer facts are apprehended according to their species, and\ndelighted in if pleasing, and then adjudged according to the _ratio_ of\ntheir delightfulness, to wit, their beauty, sweetness, salubrity, and\nproportion. Such are the footprints in which we may contemplate our God.\nAll things knowable possess the quality of generating their species in our\nminds, through the medium of our perceptions; and thus we are led to\ncontemplate the eternal generation of the Word--image and Son--from the\nFather. Likewise sweetness and beauty point on to their fontal source. And\nfrom speculation on the local, the temporal, and mutable, our reason\ncarries us to the thought of the immutable, the uncircumscribed and\neternal. Then from the beauty and delightfulness of things, we pass to\nthe thought of number and proportion, and judge of their irrefragable\nlaws, wherein are God\u2019s wisdom and power.\n\n    \u201cThe creatures of this sensible world signify the invisible things of\n    God; in part because God is the source and exemplar and end of every\n    creature; in part through their proper likeness; in part from their\n    prophetic prefiguring; in part from angelic operations; and in part\n    through superadded ordainment. For every creature by nature is an\n    effigy of the eternal wisdom; especially whatever creature in\n    Scripture is taken by the spirit of prophecy as a type of the\n    spiritual; but more especially those creatures in the likeness of\n    which God willed to appear by an angelic minister; and most especially\n    that creature which he chose to mark as a sacrament.\u201d\n\nFrom these first grades of speculation, which contemplate the footprints\nof God in the world, we are led to contemplate the divine image in the\nnatural powers of our minds. We find the image of the most blessed Trinity\nin our memory, our rational intelligence, and our will; the joint action\nof which leads on to the desire of the _summum bonum_. Next we contemplate\nthe divine image in our minds remade by the gifts of grace upon which we\nmust enter by the door of the faith, hope, and love of the Mediator of God\nand men, Jesus Christ. As philosophy helped us to see the image of God in\nthe natural qualities of our mind, so Scripture now is needed to bring us\nto these three theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), which enable\nthe mind of fallen man to be repaired and made anew through grace.\n\nFrom this fourth grade, in which God is still contemplated in his image,\nwe rise to consider God as pure being, wherein there is neither privation,\nnor bound, nor particularity; and next in his goodness, the highest\ncommunicability (_summam communicabilitatem_) of which may be\ncontemplated, but not comprehended, in the mystery of the most blessed\nTrinity. \u201cIn whom [the persons of the Trinity] it is necessary because of\nthe _summa bonitas_ that there should be the _summa communicabilitas_, and\nbecause of the latter, the _summa consubstantialitas_, and because of this\nthe _summa configurabilitas_, and from these the _summa coaequalitas_, and\nthrough this the _summa coaeternitas_, and from all the preceding the\n_summa cointimitas_, by which each is in the other, and one works with the\nother through every conceivable indivisibility (_indivisionem_) of the\nsubstance, virtue, and operation of the same most blessed Trinity....\u201d\n\u201cAnd when thou contemplatest this,\u201d adds Bonaventura, \u201cdo not think to\ncomprehend the incomprehensible.\u201d\n\nFrom age to age the religious soul finds traces of its God in nature and\nin its inmost self. Its ways of finding change, varying with the\nprevailing currents of knowledge; yet still it ever finds these\n_vestigia_, which represent the widest deductions of its reasoning, the\nultimate resultants of its thought, and its own brooding peace. Therefore\nmay we not follow sympathetically the _Itinerarium_ of Bonaventura\u2019s mind\nas it traces the footprints of its God? Thus far the way has advanced by\nreason, uplifted by grace, and yet still reason. This reason has\ncomprehended what it might comprehend of the traces and evidences of God\nin the visible creation and the soul of man; it has sought to apprehend\nthe being of God, but has humbly recognized its inability to penetrate the\nmarvels of his goodness in the mystery of the most blessed Trinity. There\nit stops at the sixth grade of contemplation; yet not baffled, or rendered\nvain, for it has performed its function and brought the soul on to where\nshe may fling forth from reason\u2019s steeps, and find herself again, buoyant\nand blissful, in a medium of super-rational contemplation. This makes the\nlast chapter of the mind\u2019s _Itinerarium_; it is the _apex mentis_, the\nsummit of all contemplations in which the mind has rest. Henceforth\n\n    \u201cChrist is the way and door, the ladder and the vehicle, as the\n    propitiation placed on the Ark of God, and the sacrament hidden from\n    the world. He who looks on this propitiation, with his look full fixed\n    on him who hangs upon the cross, through faith, hope, and charity, and\n    all devotion, he makes his Passover, and through the rod of the cross\n    shall pass through the Red Sea, out of Egypt entering the desert, and\n    there taste the hidden manna, and rest with Christ in the tomb, dead\n    to all without; and shall realize, though as one still on the way, the\n    word of Christ to the believing thief: \u2018To-day thou shalt be with me\n    in Paradise.\u2019 Which was also revealed to the blessed Francis when in\n    ecstasy of contemplation on the high mountain, the Seraph with six\n    wings, nailed on a cross, appeared to him. There, as we have heard\n    from his companion, he passed into God through ecstasy of\n    contemplation, and was set as an exemplar of perfect contemplation,\n    whereby God should invite all truly spiritual men to this transit and\n    ecstasy, by example rather than by word. In this passing over, if it\n    be perfect, all the ways of reason are relinquished, and the _apex\n    affectus_ is transferred and transformed into God. This is the mystic\n    secret known by no one who does not receive it, and received by none\n    who does not desire it, and desired only by him whose heart\u2019s core is\n    aflame from the fire of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent on earth....\n    Since then nature avails nothing here, and diligence but little, we\n    should give ourselves less to investigation and more to unction;\n    little should be given to speech, and most to inner gladness; little\n    to the written word, and all to God\u2019s gift the Holy Spirit; little or\n    nothing is to be ascribed to the creature, and all to the creative\n    essence, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.\u201d\n\nHere Bonaventura loses himself in an untranslatable extract from\nEriugena\u2019s version of the _Areopagite_, and then proceeds:\n\n    \u201cIf thou askest how may these things be, interrogate grace and not\n    doctrine, desire and not knowledge, the groaning of prayer rather than\n    study, the Spouse rather than the teacher, God and not man, mist\n    rather than clarity, not light but fire all aflame and bearing on to\n    God by devotion and glowing affection. Which fire is God, and the man\n    Christ kindles it in the fervour of his passion, as only he perceives\n    who says: \u2018My soul chooseth strangling and my bones, death.\u2019 He who\n    loves this death shall see God. Then let us die and pass into\n    darkness, and silence our solicitudes, our desires, and phantasies;\n    let us pass over with Christ crucified from this world to the Father;\n    that the Father shown us, we may say with Philip: \u2018it sufficeth us.\u2019\n    Let us hear with Paul: \u2018My grace is sufficient for thee.\u2019 Let us exult\n    with David, saying: \u2018Defecit caro mea et cor meum, Deus cordis mei et\n    pars mea Deus in aeternum\u2019.\u201d[559]\n\nIt is best to leave the saint and doctor here, and not follow in other\ntreatises the current of his yearning thought till it divides in\nstreamlets which press on their tortuous ways through allegory and the\nadumbration of what the mind disclaims the power to express directly.\nThose more elaborate treatises of his, which are called mystic, are\ndifficult for us to read. As with Hugo of St. Victor, from whom he drew so\nlargely, Bonaventura\u2019s expression of his religious yearnings may\ninterest and move us; but one needs perhaps the cloister\u2019s quiet to follow\non through the allegorical elaboration of this pietism. Bonaventura\u2019s\n_Soliloquium_ might weary us after the _Itinerarium_, and we should read\nhis _De septem itineribus aeternitatis_ with no more pleasure than Hugo\u2019s\n_Mystic Ark of Noah_. It is enough to witness the spiritual attitude of\nthese men without tracking them through the \u201cselva oscura\u201d to their lairs\nof meditation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX\n\nALBERTUS MAGNUS\n\n\nAlbert the Great was prodigious in the mass of his accomplishment. Therein\nlay his importance for the age he lived in; therein lies his interest for\nus. For him, substantial philosophy, as distinguished from the\ninstrumental r\u00f4le of logic, had three parts, set by nature, rather than\ndevised by man; they are physics, mathematics, and metaphysics. \u201cIt is our\nintention,\u201d says Albert at the beginning of his exposition of Aristotle\u2019s\n_Physics_, \u201cto make all the said parts intelligible to the Latins.\u201d _And\nhe did._ Perhaps the world has had no greater purveyor of a knowledge not\nhis own. He is comparable with Bo\u00ebthius, who gave the Latin world the\nAristotelian _Organon_, a gift but half availed of for many centuries.\nAlbert gave his Latin world the rest of Aristotle, the _philosophia\nrealis_. His world was as ready to receive this great donation, as the\ntime of Bo\u00ebthius was unready to profit by any intellectual gift demanding\nmental energies for its assimilation. Bo\u00ebthius stood alone in his\nundertaking; if his hand failed there was none to take up his task. Fate\nstayed his hand; and the purpose that was his, to render the whole of\nPlato and Aristotle intelligible to the Latin world, perished with him,\nthe Latin world being by no means eager for the whole of Aristotle and\nPlato, and unfit to receive it had it been proffered. But Albert\u2019s time\nwas eager; it was importunate for the very enlargement of knowledge which\nAlbert, more than any other man, was bringing it. An age obtains what it\ndemands. Albert had fellow-labourers, some preceding, some assisting, and\nothers following him, to perfect the knowledge in which he worked, and\nbuild it into the scholastic Christian scheme. But in this labour of\npurveyorship he overtopped the rest, the giant of them all.\n\nHe was born Count of Bollstadt, in Suabia, probably in the year 1193.\nWhether his youth was passed in the profession of arms, or in study, is\nnot quite clear. But while still young he began his years of studious\ntravel, and at Padua in 1223 he joined the Dominican Order. He became a\nmiracle of learning, reputed also as one who could explain the phenomena\nof nature. From 1228 to 1245 he taught in German cities, chiefly at\nCologne. Then the scene changed to Paris, where he lectured and won fame\nfrom 1245 to 1248. With this period begins the publication of his\nphilosophical encyclopaedia. Perhaps it was first completed in 1256. But\nAlbert kept supplementing and revising it until his death. In 1248 he was\nremanded to Cologne to establish a school there. His life continued\ndevoted to study and teaching, yet with interruptions. For he filled the\noffice of Provincial of his Order for Germany from 1254 to 1257, and was\ncompelled to be Bishop of Regensburg from 1260 to 1262. Then he insisted\non resigning, and retired to a cloister at Cologne. Naturally he was\nengaged in a number of learned controversies, and was burdened with\nnumerous ecclesiastical affairs. In 1277 for the last time he set his face\ntoward Paris, to defend the doctrines and memory of his great pupil, who\nhad died three years before. His own illustrious life closed at Cologne on\nthe fifteenth of November, 1280. Albert was a man of piety, conforming\nstrictly to the rules of his Order. It is said that he refused to own even\nthe manuscripts which he indited; and as Dominican Provincial of Germany\nhe walked barefoot on his journeys through the vast territory set under\nhis supervision. Tradition has him exceeding small of stature.\n\nAlbert\u2019s labours finally put within reach of his contemporaries the sum of\nphilosophy and science contained in the works of Aristotle, and his\nancient, as well as Arabian, commentators. The undertaking was grandly\nconceived; it was carried out with tireless energy and massive learning.\nLet us observe the principles which informed the mind of this mighty\nTeuton scholar. He transcribed approvingly the opinion expressed by\nAristotle at the opening of the _Metaphysics_, that the love of knowledge\nis natural to man; and he recognized the pleasure arising from knowledge\nof the sensible world, apart from considerations of utility.[560] He took\nthis thought from Aristotle; but the proof that he made it his own with\npower lay in those fifty years of intellectual toil which produced the\ngreatest of all mediaeval storehouses of knowledge.\n\nIn his reliance on his sources, Albert is mediaeval; his tendency is to\naccept the opinion which he is reproducing, especially when it is the\nopinion of Aristotle. Yet he protested against regarding even him as\ninfallible. \u201cHe who believes that Aristotle was God, ought to believe that\nhe never erred. If one regards him as a man, then surely he may err as\nwell as we.\u201d[561] Albert was no Averroist to adhere to all the views of\nthe Philosopher; he pointedly differed from him where orthodoxy demanded\nit, maintaining, for instance, the creation of the world in time, contrary\nto the opinion of the Peripatetics. Albert, and with him Aquinas, had not\naccepted merely the task of expounding Aristotle, but also that of\ncorrecting him where Truth (with a large Christian capital) required it.\nAlbert held that Aristotle might err, and that he did not know everything.\nThe development of science was not closed by his death: \u201cDicendum quod\nscientiae demonstrativae non omnes factae sunt, sed plures restant adhuc\ninveniendae.\u201d[562] This is not Roger Bacon speaking, but Albertus; and\nstill more might one think to hear the voice of the recalcitrant\nFranciscan in the words: \u201cOportet experimentum non in uno modo, sed\nsecundum omnes circumstantias probare.\u201d[563] Yet these words too are\nAlbert\u2019s, and he is speaking of the observation of nature\u2019s phenomena;\nregarding which one shall not simply transcribe the ancient statement; but\nobserve with his own eyes and mind.\n\nThis was in the spirit of Aristotle; Albert recognizes and approves. But\ndid he make the experimental principle his own with power, as he did the\nthought that the desire to know is inborn? This is a fundamental question\nas to Albert. No one denies his learning, his enormous book-diligence. But\nwas he also an observer of natural phenomena? One who sought to test from\nhis own observation the statements of the books he read? It is best here\nto avoid either a categorical affirmation or denial. The standard by which\none shapes one\u2019s answer is important. Are we to compare Albert with a St.\nBernard, whose meditations shut his eyes to mountains, lakes, and woods?\nOr are we to apply the standards of a natural science which looks always\nto the tested results of observation? There is sufficient evidence in\nAlbert\u2019s writings to show that he kept his eyes open, and took notice of\ninteresting phenomena, seen, for instance, on his journeys. But, on the\nother hand, it is absurd to imagine that he dreamed of testing the written\nmatter which he paraphrased, or of materially adding to it, by systematic\nobservation of nature. Accounts of his observations do not always raise\nour opinion of his science. He transcribes the description of certain\nworms, and says that they may come from horse-hairs, for he has seen\nhorse-hairs, in still water, turning into worms.[564] The trouble was that\nAlbert had no general understanding of the processes of nature.\nConsequently, in his _De animalibus_ for instance, he gives the fabulous\nas readily as the more reasonable. Nevertheless let no one think that\nnatural knowledge did not really interest and delight him. His study of\nplants has led the chief historian of botany to assert that Albert was the\nfirst real botanist, after the ancient Theophrastus, inasmuch as he\nstudied for the sake of learning the nature of plants, irrespective of\ntheir medical or agricultural uses.[565]\n\nThe writings of Albertus Magnus represent, perhaps more fully than those\nof any other man, the round of knowledge and intellectual interest\nattracting the attention of western Europe in the thirteenth century. At\nfirst glance they seem to separate into those which in form and substance\nare paraphrases of Aristotelian treatises, or borrowed expositions of\nAristotelian topics; and those which are more independent compositions.\nYet the latter, like the _Summa de creaturis_, for example, will be found\nto consist largely of borrowed material; the matter is rearranged, and\npresented in some new connection, or with a purpose other than that of its\nsource.\n\nIn his Aristotelian paraphrases, which were thickly sown with digressive\nexpositions, Albert\u2019s method, as he states at the beginning of the\n_Physica_, is \u201cto follow the order and opinions of Aristotle, and to give\nin addition whatever is needed in the way of explanation and support; yet\nwithout reproducing Aristotle\u2019s text (_tamen quod textus eius nulla fiat\nmentio_). And we shall also compose _digressiones_ to expound whatever is\nobscure.\u201d The titles of the chapters will indicate whether their substance\nis from Aristotle. Thus instead of giving the Aristotelian text, with an\nattached commentary, Albert combines paraphrase and supplementary\nexposition. Evidently the former method would have presented Aristotle\u2019s\nmeaning more surely, and would have thus subserved a closer scholarship.\nBut for this the Aristotelian commentaries of Aquinas must be awaited.\n\nThe compass of Albert\u2019s achievement as a purveyor of ancient knowledge may\nbe seen from a cursory survey of his writings; which will likewise afford\nan idea of the quality of his work, and how much there was of Albert in\nit.[566] To begin with, he sets forth with voluminous exposition the\nentire Aristotelian _Organon_. The preliminary questions as to the nature\nof logic were treated in the _De praedicabilibus_,[567] which expanded the\nsubstance of Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_. In this treatise Albert expounds his\nconclusions as to universals, the universal being that which is in one yet\nis fit (_aptum_) to be in many, and is predicable of many. \u201cEt hoc modo\nprout ratio est praedicabilitatis, ad logicam pertinet de universali\ntractare; quamvis secundum quod est natura quaedam et differentia entis,\ntractare de ipso pertineat ad metaphysicam.\u201d That is to say, It pertains\nto logic to treat of the universal in respect to its predicability; but in\nso far as the question relates to the nature and differences of essential\nbeing, it pertains to metaphysics. This sentence is an example of Albert\u2019s\nawkward Latin; but it shows how firmly he distinguishes between the\nlogical and the metaphysical material. His treatment of logic is\nexhaustive, rather than acutely discriminating. He works constantly with\nthe material of others, and the result is more inclusive than\norganic.[568] In his ponderous treatment of logical themes, no possible\nconsideration is omitted.\n\nThe _De praedicabilibus_ is followed by the _De praedicamentis_, Albert\u2019s\ntreatise on the _Categories_. Next comes his _Liber de sex principiis_,\nwhich is a paraphrasing exposition of the work of Gilbert de la Porr\u00e9e.\nThen comes his _Perihermenias_, which keeps the Greek title of the _De\ninterpretatione_. These writings are succeeded by elaborate expositions of\nthe more advanced logical treatises of Aristotle, all of them, of course,\n_Analytics_ (_Prior_ and _Posterior_), _Topics_, and _Elenchi_. The total\nproduction is detailed, exhaustive, awful; it is _ingens_ truly, only not\nquite _informis_; and Teutonically painstaking and conscientious.\n\nThus logic makes Tome I. of the twenty-one tomes of Albert\u2019s _Opera_. Tome\nII. contains his expository paraphrases of Aristotle\u2019s _Physics_ and\nlesser treatises upon physical topics, celestial and terrestrial. From the\nopening chapter we have already taken the programme of his large intention\nto make known all Aristotle to the Latins. In this chapter likewise he\nproceeds to lay out the divisions of _philosophia realis_ into\nAristotelian conceptions of _metaphysica_, _mathematica_, and _physica_.\nWith chapter two he falls into the first of his interminable digressions,\ntaking up what were called \u201cthe objections of Heracleitus\u201d to any science\nof physics. Another digressive chapter considers the proper subject of\nphysical science, to wit, _corpus mobile_, and another considers its\ndivisions. After a while he takes up the opinions of the ancients upon the\nbeginnings (_principia_) of things, and then reasons out the true opinion\nin the matter. Liber II. of his _Physica_ is devoted to _Natura_,\nconsidered in many ways, but chiefly as the _principium intrinsecum omnium\neorum quae naturalia sunt_. It is the principle of motion in the mobile\nsubstance. Next he passes to a discussion of causes; and in the succeeding\nbooks he considers movement, place, time, and eternity. Albert\u2019s\nparaphrase is replete with logical forms of thinking; it seems like formal\nlogic applied in physical science. The world about us still furnishes, or\n_is_, data for our thoughts; and we try to conceive it consistently, so as\nto satisfy our thinking; so did Aristotle and Albertus. But they avowedly\nworked out their conceptions of the external world according to the laws\ndetermining the consistency of their own mental processes; and deemed this\na proper way of approach to natural science. Yet the work of Aristotle\nrepresents a real consideration of the universe, and a tremendous mass of\nnatural knowledge. The achievement of Albertus in rendering it available\nto the scholar-world of the thirteenth century was an extension of\nknowledge which seems the more prodigious as we note its enormous range.\nThis continues to impress us as we turn over Albert\u2019s next treatises,\nparaphrasing those of Aristotle, as their names indicate: _De coelo et\nmundo_; _De generatione et corruptione_; _Libri IV. meteorum_; _De\nmineralibus_, which ends Tome II. and the physical treatises proper.\n\nTome III. introduces us to another region, opening with Albert\u2019s\nexhaustive paraphrase, _De anima_. It is placed here because the _scientia\nde anima_ is a part of _naturalis scientia_, and comes after minerals and\nother topics of physics, but precedes the science of animate\nbodies--_corporum animatorum_; for the last cannot be known except through\nknowing their _animae_. In this, as well as in other works of Albert,\npsychological material is gathered from many sources. One may hardly speak\nof the psychology of Albertus Magnus, since his matter has no organic\nunity. It is largely Aristotelian, with the thoughts of Arab commentators\ntaken into it, as in Albert\u2019s Aristotelian paraphrases generally. But it\nis also Augustinian, and Platonic and Neo-Platonic. Albert is capable of\ndefending opposite views in the same treatise; and in spite of best\nintentions, he does not succeed in harmonizing what he draws from\nAristotle, with what he takes from Augustine. Hence his works nowhere\npresent a system of psychology which might be called Albert\u2019s, either\nthrough creation or consistent selection. But at least he has gathered,\nand bestowed somewhere, all the accessible material.[569]\n\nTome III. of Albert\u2019s _Opera_ contains also his Aristotelian paraphrase,\n_Metaphysicorum libri XIII._ In this _vera sapientia philosophiae_, he\nfollows Aristotle closely, save where orthodoxy compels deviation.[570]\nTome IV. contains his paraphrasing expositions, _Ethica_ and _In octo\nlibros politicorum Aristotelis commentarii_. Tome V. contains paraphrases\nof Aristotle\u2019s minor natural treatises,--_parva naturalia_; to wit, the\n_Liber de sensu et sensato_, treating problems of sense-perception; next\nthe _Liber de memoria et reminiscentia_, in which the two are thus\ndistinguished: \u201cMemoria motus continuus est in rem, et uniformis.\nReminiscibilitas autem est motus quasi interceptus et abscissus per\noblivionem.\u201d Treatises follow: _De somno et vigilia_; _De motibus\nanimalium_; _De aetate, sive de juventute et senectute_; _De spiritu et\nrespiratione_; _De morte et vita_; _De nutrimento et nutribile_; _De\nnatura et origine animae_; _De unitate intellectus contra Averroem_ (a\ncontroversial tract); _De intellectu et intelligibile_ (an important\npsychological writing); _De natura locorum_; _De causis proprietatum\nelementorum_; _De passionibus aeris, sive de vaporum impressionibus_; and\nnext and last, saving some minor tracts, Albert\u2019s chief botanical work,\n_De vegetabilibus_.\n\nAristotle\u2019s _Botany_ was lost, and Albert\u2019s work was based on the _De\nplantis_ of Nicolas of Damascus, a short compend vulgarly ascribed to\nAristotle, but really made in the first century, and passing through\nnumerous translations from one language to another, before Albert accepted\nit as the composition of the Stagirite. It consisted of two short books;\nAlbert\u2019s work contained seven long ones, and made the most important work\non botany since the times of Aristotle and his pupil Theophrastus. In\nopening, Albert says that generalities applicable to all animate things\nhave been already presented, and now it is time to consider more\nespecially and in turn, _vegetabilia_, _sensibilia_, _rationabilia_. In\nthe first eight chapters of his first book, Albert follows his supposed\nAristotelian source, and then remarks that the translation of the\nPhilosopher\u2019s treatise is so ignorantly made that he will himself take up\nin order the six problems thus far incompetently discussed. So he\nconsiders whether plants have souls; whether plant-souls feel and desire;\nwhether plants sleep; as to sex in plants; whether without sex they can\npropagate their species; and as to their hidden life.\n\nIn the second book, having again bewailed the insufficiency of his source,\nAlbert takes up the classification of plants, and proceeds with a\ndescription of their various parts, then passes on to the shape of leaves,\nthe generation and nature of flowers, their colour, odour, and shape.\nLiber III., still as an independent _digressio_, discusses seeds and\nfruit. In Liber IV. Albert returns to his unhappy source, and his matter\ndeclines in interest; but again, in Liber V., he frees himself in a\n_digressio_ on the properties and effects of plants, gathered from many\nsources, some of which are foolish enough. His sixth book is a description\nof trees and other plants in alphabetical order. The last and seventh is\ndevoted to agriculture.[571]\n\nIn the _De vegetabilibus_, Albert, as an expounder of natural knowledge,\nis at his best. A less independent and intelligent production is his\nenormous treatise _De animalibus libri XXVI._, which fills the whole of\nTome IV. of Albert\u2019s _Opera_. A certain Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9, an admiring\npupil of Albert, may have anticipated the above-named work of his teacher\nby his own compilation, _De naturis rerum_, which appears to have been\ncomposed shortly before the middle of the thirteenth century. Its\ndescriptions of animals, although borrowed and uncritical, were at least\nintended to describe them actually, and were not merely fashioned for the\nmoral\u2019s sake, after the manner of the _Physiologus_,[572] and many a\ncompilation of the early Middle Ages. Yet the work contains moralities\nenough, and plenty of the fabulous. But Thomas diligently gathered\ninformation as he might, and from Aristotle more than any other. Thus, in\nhis lesser way, he, as well as Albert, represents the tendency of the\nperiod to interest itself in the realities, as well as in the symbolisms,\nof the natural world.\n\nAlbert\u2019s work is not such an inorganic compilation as Thomas\u2019s. He has\nparaphrased the ten books of Aristotle\u2019s natural histories, his four books\non the parts of animals, and his five books on their generation. To these\nnineteen, he has added seven books on the nature of animal bodies and on\ntheir grades of perfection; and then on quadrupeds, birds, aquatic\nanimals, snakes, and small bloodless creatures. Besides Aristotle, he\ndraws on Avicenna, Galen, Ambrose (!), and others, including Thomas of\nCantimpr\u00e9. Thus, his work is made up mainly of the ancient written\nmaterial. Moreover, Albert is kept from a natural view of his subject\nthrough the need he feels to measure animals by the standards of human\ncapacity, and learn to know them through knowing man. His _digressiones_\nusually discuss abstract problems, as, for instance, whether beyond the\nfour elements, any fifth principle enters the composition of animal\nbodies. As for his anatomy, he describes the muscles, and calls the veins\nnerves, having no real knowledge of the latter. He corrects few ancient\nerrors, either anatomical or physiological; and his own observations,\noccasionally referred to in his work, scarcely win our respect. Nor does\nhe exclude fabulous stories, or the current superstitions as to the\nmedicinal or magical effect of parts of certain animals. On the whole,\nAlbert\u2019s merit in the province of Zoology lies in his introduction of the\nAristotelian data and conceptions to the mediaeval Latin West.[573]\n\nAfter Tome IV. of Albert\u2019s _Opera_, follow many portly tomes, the contents\nof which need not detain us. There are enormous commentaries on the Psalms\nand Prophets, and the Gospels (Tomes VII.-XI.); then a tome of sermons,\nthen a tome of commentaries on the Hierarchies of Pseudo-Dionysius; and\nthree tomes of commentaries on the Lombard\u2019s _Sentences_,--commentaries,\nthat is to say, upon works which stood close to Scripture in authority.\nWith these we reach the end of Albert\u2019s labours in paraphrase and\ncommentary, and pass to his more constructive work. Of course, the first\nand chief is his _Summa theologiae_, contained in Tomes XVII. and XVIII.\nof the _Opera_. With Albert, theology is a science, a branch of systematic\nknowledge, the highest indeed, and yet one among others. This science,\nsays he in the Prologue to his _Summa_,\n\n    \u201c... is of all sciences the most entitled to credence--_certissimae\n    credulitatis et fidei_. Other sciences, concerning creatures, possess\n    _rationes immobiles_, yet those _rationes_ are _mobiles_ because they\n    are in created things. But this science founded in _rationibus\n    aeternis_ is immutable both _secundum esse_ and _secundum rationem_.\n    And since it is not constituted of the sensible and imaginable, which\n    are not quite cleared of the hangings of matter, plainly it, alone or\n    supremely, is science: for the divine intellect is altogether\n    intellectual, being the light and cause of everything intelligible;\n    and from it to us is the divine science.\u201d\n\nAlbert\u2019s dialectic is turgid enough, and lacks the lucidity of his pupil.\nYet his reasoning may be weighty and even convincing. Intellect, Reason\nand its realm of that which is known through Reason, is higher than sense\nperceptions and imaginations springing from them: it affords the surest\nknowledge; the science that treats of pure reason, which is in God, is the\nsurest and noblest of sciences. Albert clearly defines the province and\nnature of theology.\n\n    \u201cIt is _scientia secundum pietatem_; it is not concerned with the\n    knowable (_scibile_) simply as such, nor with the knowable\n    universally; but only as it inclines us to Piety. Piety, as Augustine\n    says, is the worship of God, perfected by faith, hope, charity,\n    prayer, and sacrifices. Thus theology is the science of what pertains\n    to salvation; for piety conduces to salvation.\u201d[574]\n\nThe _Summa theologiae_ treats of the encyclopaedic matter of the sacred\nscience, in the order and arrangement with which we are familiar.[575] It\nis followed (Tome XIX.) by Albert\u2019s _Summa de creaturis_, a presentation\nof God\u2019s creation, omitting the special topics set forth in the _De\nvegetabilibus_ and _De animalibus_. It treats of creation, of matter, of\ntime and eternity, of the heavens and celestial bodies, of angels, their\nqualities and functions, and the hierarchies of them; of the state of the\nwicked angels, of the works of the six days, briefly; and then of man,\nsoul and body, very fully; of man\u2019s habitation and the order and\nperfection of the universe. Thus the _Summa de creaturis_ treats of the\nworld and man as God\u2019s creation; but it is not directly concerned with\nman\u2019s salvation, which is the distinguishing purpose of a _Summa\ntheologiae_, however encyclopaedic such a work may be.\n\nTwo tomes remain of Albert\u2019s opera, containing much that is very different\nfrom anything already considered. Tome XX. is devoted to the Virgin Mary,\nand is chiefly made up of two prodigious tracts: _De laudibus beatae\nMariae Virginis libri XII._, and the _Mariale, sive quaestiones super\nevangelium, Missus est angelus Gabriel_. These works--it is disputed\nwhether Albert was their author--are a glorification, indeed a\ndeification, of Mary. They are prodigious; they are astounding. The\nworship of Mary is gathered up in them, of Mary the chief and best beloved\nreligious creation of the Middle Ages; only not a creation, strictly\nspeaking, for the Divine Virgin, equipped with attribute and quality,\nsprang from the fecund matrix of the early Church. The works before us\nrepresent a simpler piety than Albert\u2019s _Summa theologiae_. They contain\nsatisfying, consoling statements, not woven of dialectic. And the end is\nall that the Mary-loving soul could wish. \u201cChrist protects the servants of\nHis genetrix:--and so does Mary, as may be read in her miracles, protect\nus from our bodily enemies, and from the seducers of souls.\u201d[576] The\npraises of Mary will seem marvellous indeed to anyone turning over the\n_tituli_ of books and chapters. There is here a whole mythology, and a\nuniversal symbolism. Symbolically, Mary is everything imaginable; she has\nevery virtue and a mass of power and privileges. She is the adorable and\nchief efficient Goddess mediating between the Trinity and the creature\nman.\n\nTome XXI., last tome of all, has a variety of writings, some of which may\nnot be Albert\u2019s. Among them is a work of sweet and simple piety, a work\nof turning to God as a little child; and one would be loath to take it\naway from this man of learning. _De adhaerendo Deo_ is its title, which\ntells the story. Albert wished at last to write something presenting man\u2019s\nultimate perfection, so far as that might be realized in this life. So he\nwrites this little tract of chamber-piety, as to how one should cling to\nChrist alone. Yet he cannot disencumber himself of his lifelong methods of\ncomposition. He might conceive and desire; but it was not for him to write\na tract to move the heart. The best he can say is that the end of all our\nstudy and discipline is _intendere et quiescere in Domino Deo intra te per\npurissimum intellectum, et devotissimum affectum sine phantasmatibus et\nimplicationibus_. The great scholar would come home at last, like a little\nchild, if he only could.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XL\n\nTHOMAS AQUINAS\n\n      I. THOMAS\u2019S CONCEPTION OF HUMAN BEATITUDE.\n\n     II. MAN\u2019S CAPACITY TO KNOW GOD.\n\n    III. HOW GOD KNOWS.\n\n     IV. HOW THE ANGELS KNOW.\n\n      V. HOW MEN KNOW.\n\n     VI. KNOWLEDGE THROUGH FAITH PERFECTED IN LOVE.\n\n\nI\n\nWith Albert it seemed most illuminating to outline the masses of his work\nof Aristotelian purveyorship and inchoate reconstruction of the Christian\nencyclopaedia in conformity with the new philosophy. Such a treatment will\nnot avail for Thomas. His achievement, even measured by its bulk, was as\ngreat as Albert\u2019s. But its size and encyclopaedic inclusiveness do not\nrepresent its integral excellences. The intellectual qualities of Thomas,\nevinced in his work, are of a higher order than those included in\nintelligent diligence, however exceptional. They must be disengaged from\nout of the vast product of their energies, in order that they may be\nbrought together, and made to appear in the organic correlation which they\nheld in the mind of the most potent genius of scholasticism.\n\nWe are pleased to find some clue to a man\u2019s genius in the race and place\nfrom which he draws his origin. So for whatever may be its explanatory\nvalue as to Thomas, one may note that he came of Teutonic stocks, which\nfor some generations had been domiciled in the form-giving Italian land.\nThe mingled blood of princely Suabian and Norman lines flowed in him; the\nnobility of his father\u2019s house, the Counts of Aquinum, was equalled by\nhis mother\u2019s lineage. Probably in 1225 he was born, in Southern Italy, not\nfar from Monte Cassino. Thither, as a child, he was sent to school to the\nmonks, and stayed with them through childhood\u2019s formative period. His\neducation did not create the mind which it may have had part in directing\nto sacred study. Near his tenth year, the extraordinary boy was returned\nto Naples, there to study the humanities and philosophy under selected\nmasters. When eighteen, he launched himself upon the intellectual currents\nof the age by joining the Dominican Order. Stories have come down of the\nviolent, but fruitless opposition of his family. In two years, with true\ninstinct, Thomas had made his way from Naples to the feet of Albert in\nCologne. Thenceforth the two were to be together, as their tasks\npermitted, and the loyal relationship between master and scholar was\nundisturbed by the latter\u2019s transcendent genius. Plato had the greatest\npupil, and Aristotle the greatest master, known to fame. That pupil\u2019s work\nwas a redirecting of philosophy. The work of pupil Thomas perfected\nfinally the matter upon which his master laboured; and the master\u2019s aged\neyes beheld the finished structure that was partly his, when the pupil\u2019s\neyes had closed. Thomas, dying, left Albert to defend the system that was\nto be called \u201cThomist,\u201d after him who constructed and finished it to its\nvery turret points, rather than \u201cAlbertist,\u201d after him who prepared the\nmaterials.\n\nTo return to the time when both still laboured. Thomas in 1245 accompanied\nhis master to Paris, and three years later went back with him to Cologne.\nThereafter their duties often separated them. We know that in 1252 Thomas\nwas lecturing at Paris, and that he there received with Bonaventura the\ntitle of _magister_ in 1257. After this he is found south of the Alps; it\nwas in the year 1263 that Urban IV. at Rome encouraged him to undertake a\ncritical commentary upon Aristotle, based on a closer rendering into Latin\nof the Greek. In 1268, at the height of his academic fame, he is once more\nat Paris; which he leaves for the last time in 1272, having been directed\nto establish a _studium generale_ at Naples. Two years later he died, on\nhis way to advise the labours of the Council assembled at Lyons.[577]\n\nThomas wrote commentaries upon the Aristotelian _De interpretatione_ and\n_Posterior Analytics_; the _Physics_, the _De coelo et mundo_, the\n_Meteorum_, the _Metaphysics_, _Ethics_, _Politics_, and certain other\nAristotelian treatises. His work shows such a close understanding of\nAristotle as the world had not known since the days of the ancient\nPeripatetics. Of course, he lectured on the _Sentences_, and the result\nremains in his Commentaries on them. He lectured, and the resulting\nCommentaries exist in many tomes, on the greater part of both the Old and\nNew Testaments. It would little help our purpose to catalogue in detail\nhis more constructive and original works, wherein he perfected a system of\nphilosophy and sacred knowledge. Chief among them were the _Summa contra\nGentiles_ and the _Summa theologiae_, the latter the most influential work\nof all western mediaeval scholasticism. Many of his more important shorter\ntreatises are included in the _Quaestiones disputatae_, and the\n_Quodlibetalia_. They treat of many matters finally put together in the\n_Summa theologiae_. _De malo in communi, de peccatis, etc._; _De anima_;\n_De virtutibus in communi, etc._; _De veritate_; _De ideis_; _De\ncognitione angelorum_; _De bono_; _De voluntate_; _De libero arbitrio_;\n_De passionibus animae_; _De gratia_;--such are titles drawn from the\n_Quaestiones_. The _Quodlibetalia_ were academic disputations held in the\ntheological faculty, upon any imaginable thesis having theological\nbearing. Some of them still appear philosophical, while many seem bizarre\nto us; for example: Whether an angel can move from one extreme to the\nother without passing through the middle. One may remember that such\nquestions had been put, and put again, from the time of the Church\nFathers. This question answered by Thomas whether an angel may pass from\none extreme to the other without traversing the middle is pertinent to the\nconception of angels as completely immaterial beings,--a conception upon\nthe elaboration of which theologians expended much ingenious thought.\n\nIn the earlier Middle Ages, when men were busy putting together the\nancient matter, the personalities of the writers may not clearly appear.\nIt is different in the twelfth century, and very different in the\nthirteenth, when the figures of at least its greater men are thrown out\nplainly by their written works. Bonaventura is seen lucidly reasoning, but\nwith his ardently envisioning piety ever reaching out beyond; the\npersonality of Albert most Teutonically wrestles itself into salience\nthrough the many-tomed results of his very visible efforts; when we come\nto Roger Bacon, we shall find wormwood, and many higher qualities of mind,\nflowing in his sentences. And the consummate fashioning faculty, the\ndevout and intellectual temperament of Thomas, are writ large in his\ntreatises. His work has unity; it is a system; it corresponds to the\nscholastically creative personality, from the efficient concord of whose\nfaculties it proceeded. The unity of Thomas\u2019s personality lay in his\nconception of man\u2019s _summum bonum_, which sprang from his Christian faith,\nbut was constructed by reason from foundation to pinnacle; and it is\nevinced in the compulsion of an intellectual temperament that never let\nthe pious reasoner\u2019s energies or appetitions stray loitering or aberrant\nfrom that goal. Likewise the unity of his system consists in its purpose,\nwhich is to present that same _summum bonum_, credited by faith,\nempowered, if not empassioned, by piety, and constructed by reason. To\nfulfil this purpose in its utmost compass, reason works with the material\nof all pertinent knowledge; fashioning the same to complete logical\nconsistency of expression.\n\nTherefore, it is from his conception of this _summum bonum_ as from a\ncentre of illumination, that we may trace the characteristic qualities\nalike of Thomas and his work. His faith, his piety, and his intellectual\nnature are revealed in his thought of supreme felicity. Man\u2019s chief good\nbeing the ground of the system, the thought and study which Thomas puts\nupon the created universe and upon God, regarded both as Creator and in\nthe relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, conduce to make large\nand sure and ample this same chief good of man. To it likewise conduce the\nIncarnation, and the Sacraments springing therefrom; in accord with it,\nThomas accepts or constructs his metaphysics, his psychology, his entire\nthought of human capacity and destiny, and sets forth how nearly man\u2019s\nreason may bring him to this goal, and where there is need of divine\ngrace. In this goal, moreover, shall be found the sanction of human\nknowledge, and the justification of the right enjoyment of human\nfaculties; it determines what elements of mortal life may be gathered up\nand carried on, to form part of the soul\u2019s eternal beatitude.\n\nThomas\u2019s intellectual powers work together in order to set his thought of\nman\u2019s _summum bonum_ on its surest foundations, and make clear its scope:\nhis faculty of arrangement, and serious and lucid presentation; his\ncareful reasoning, which never trips, never overlooks, and never either\nhurries or is taken unprepared; his marvellous unforgetfulness of\neverything which might remotely bear on the subject; his intellectual\npoise, and his just weighing of every matter that should be taken into the\nscales of his determination. Observing these, we may realize how he seemed\nto his time a new intellectual manifestation of God\u2019s illuminating grace.\nThere was in him something unknown before; his argument, his exposition,\nwas new in power, in interest, in lucidity. On the quality of newness the\nwretched old biographer rings his reiteration:\n\n    \u201cFor in his lectures he put out _new_ topics (_articulos_), inventing\n    a _new_ and clear way of drawing conclusions and bringing _new_\n    reasons into them, so that no one, who had heard him teach _new_\n    doubts and allay them by _new_ arguments, would have doubted that God\n    had illumined with rays of _new_ light one who became straightway of\n    such sure judgment, that he did not hesitate to teach and write _new_\n    opinions, which God had deigned _newly_ to inspire.\u201d[578]\n\nHis biographer\u2019s view is justified. Thomas was the greatest of the\nschoolmen. His way of teaching, his translucent exposition, came to his\nhearers as a new inspiration. Only Bonaventura (likewise Italian-born) may\nbe compared with him for clearness of exposition--of solution indeed; and\nThomas is more judicial, more supremely intellectual; his way of treatment\nwas a stronger incitement and satisfaction to at least the minds of his\nauditors. Albert, with his mass of but half-conquered material, could not\nfail to show, whether he would or not, the doubt-breeding difficulties of\nthe new philosophy, which was yet to be worked into Christian theology.\nThomas exposed every difficulty and revealed its depths; but then he\nsolved and adjusted everything with an argumentation from whose careful\ninclusiveness no questions strayed unshepherded. Placed with Thomas,\nAlbert shows as the Titan whose strength assembles the materials, while\nThomas is the god who erects the edifice. The material that Thomas works\nwith, and many of his thoughts and arguments, are to be found in Albert;\nand the pupil knew his indebtedness to the great master, who survived him\nto defend his doctrines. But what is not in Albert, is Thomas, Thomas\nhimself, with his disentangled reasoning, his clarity, his organic\nexposition, his final construction of the mediaeval Christian scheme.[579]\n\nIn the third book of his _Summa philosophica contra Gentiles_, and in the\nbeginning of _Pars prima secundae_ of his _Summa theologiae_, Thomas\nexpounds man\u2019s final end, _ultimus finis_, which is his supreme good or\nperfect beatitude. The exposition in the former work, dating from the\nearlier years of the author\u2019s academic activities, seems the simpler at\nfirst reading; but the other includes more surely Thomas\u2019s last reasoning,\nplaced in the setting of argument and relationship which he gave it in his\ngreatest work. We shall follow the latter, borrowing, however, from the\nformer when its phrases seem to present the matter more aptly to our\nnon-scholastic minds. The general position of the topic is the same in\nboth _Summae_; and Thomas gives the reason in the Prologus to _Pars prima\nsecundae_ of the _Summa theologiae_. His way of doing this is significant:\n\n    \u201cMan is declared to be made in the image of God in this sense (as\n    Damascenus[580] says) that by \u2018image\u2019 is meant _intellectual_, _free\n    to choose_, and _self-potent to act_. Therefore, after what has been\n    said of the Exemplar God, and of those things which proceed from the\n    divine power according to its will, there remains for us to consider\n    His image, to wit, man, in so far as he is himself the source\n    (_principium_) of his acts, possessing free will and power over them.\u201d\n\nThereupon Thomas continues, opening his first Quaestio:[581]\n\n    \u201cFirst one must consider the final end (_ultimus finis_) of human\n    life, and then those things through which man may attain this end, or\n    deviate from it. For one must accept from an end the rationale of\n    those things which are ordained to that end.\u201d\n\nAssuming the final end of human life to be beatitude, Thomas considers\nwherein man as a rational creature may properly have one final end, on\naccount of which he wills all that he wills. Quaestio ii. shows that man\u2019s\nbeatitude cannot consist in riches, honours, fame, power, pleasures of the\nbody, or in any created good, not even in the soul. Man gains his\nbeatitude _through_ the soul; but in itself the soul is not man\u2019s final\nend. The next Quaestio is devoted to the gist of the matter: what\nbeatitude is, and what is needed for it. Thomas first shows in what sense\nbeatitude is something increate (_increatum_). He has already pointed out\nthat _end_ (_finis_) has a twofold meaning: the thing itself which we\ndesire to obtain, and the fruition of it.\n\n    \u201cIn the first sense, the final end of man is an increate good, to wit\n    God, who alone with His infinite goodness can perfectly fulfil the\n    wish (_voluntas_) of man. In the second sense the final end of man is\n    something created existing in himself; which is nought else than\n    attainment or fruition (_adeptio vel fruitio_) of the final end. The\n    final end is called beatitude. If then man\u2019s beatitude is viewed as\n    cause or object, it is something increate; but if it is considered in\n    its beatific essence (_quantum ad ipsam essentiam beatitudinis_) it is\n    something created.\u201d\n\nThomas next shows:\n\n    \u201c... that inasmuch as man\u2019s beatitude is something created existing in\n    himself, it is necessary to regard it as action (_operatio_). For\n    beatitude is man\u2019s ultimate perfection. But everything is perfect in\n    so far as it is actually (_actu_, _i.e._ in realized actuality): for\n    potentiality without actuality is imperfect. Therefore beatitude\n    should consist in man\u2019s ultimate actuality. But manifestly action\n    (_operatio_) is the final actuality of the actor (_operantis_); as the\n    Philosopher shows, demonstrating that everything exists for its action\n    (_propter suam operationem_). Hence it follows of necessity that man\u2019s\n    beatitude is action.\u201d\n\nThe next point to consider is whether beatitude is the action of man\u2019s\nsenses or his intellect. Drawing distinctions, Thomas points out that\n\n    \u201cthe action of sense cannot pertain to beatitude essentially; because\n    man\u2019s beatitude essentially consists in uniting himself to the\n    increate good; to which he cannot be joined through the action of the\n    senses. Yet sense-action may pertain to beatitude as an antecedent or\n    consequence: as an antecedent, for the imperfect beatitude attainable\n    in this life, where the action of the senses is a prerequisite to the\n    action of the mind; as a consequence, in that perfect beatitude which\n    is looked for in heaven; because, after the resurrection, as Augustine\n    says, from the very beatitude of the soul, there may be a certain\n    flowing back into the body and its senses, perfecting them in their\n    actions. But not even then will the action by which the human mind is\n    joined to God depend on sense.\u201d\n\nBeatitude then is the action of man\u2019s intellectual part; and Thomas next\ninquires, whether it is an action of the intelligence or will\n(_intellectus aut voluntatis_). With this inquiry we touch the pivot of\nThomas\u2019s attitude, wherein he departs from Augustine, in apparent reliance\non the word of John: \u201cThis is eternal life that they should know thee, the\none true God.\u201d Life eternal is man\u2019s final end; and therefore man\u2019s\nbeatitude consists in knowledge of God, which is an act of mind. Thomas\nargues this at some length. He refers to the distinction between what is\nessential to the existence of beatitude, and what is joined to it _per\naccidens_, like enjoyment (_delectatio_).\n\n    \u201cI say then, that beatitude in its essence cannot consist in an act of\n    will. For it has appeared that beatitude is the obtaining\n    (_consecutio_) of the final end. But obtaining does not consist in any\n    act of will; for will attaches to the absent when one desires it, as\n    well as to the present in which one rests delighted. It is evident\n    that the desire for an end is not an obtaining of it, but a movement\n    toward it. Enjoyment attaches to will from the presence of the end;\n    but not conversely does anything become present because the will shall\n    delight in it. Therefore there must be something besides an act of\n    will, through which the end may become present to the will. This is\n    plain respecting the ends of sense (_fines sensibiles_). For if to\n    obtain money were an act of will, the miser would have obtained it\n    from the beginning. And so it comes to pass with respect to an end\n    conceived by the mind; we obtain it when it becomes present to us\n    through an act of the intellect; and then the delighted will rests in\n    the end obtained. Thus, therefore, the essence of beatitude consists\n    in an act of mind. But the delight which follows beatitude pertains to\n    will, even in the sense in which Augustine says: \u2018beatitudo est\n    gaudium de veritate,\u2019 because indeed joy is the consummation of\n    beatitude.\u201d\n\nThe supremely intellectual attitude of the Angelic Doctor, shows at once,\nand as it were universally, in his conviction of the primacy of the true\nover the good, and of knowledge over will. Sometimes he argues these\npoints directly; and again, his temperamental attitude appears in the\ncourse of argument upon other points. For example, Quaestio xvi. of _Pars\nprima_ has for its subject _Veritas_. And in the first article, which\ndiscusses whether truth is in the thing (_in re_) or only in the mind, he\nargues thus:\n\n    \u201cAs _good_ signifies that upon which desire (_appetitus_) is bent, so\n    _true_ signifies that at which understanding aims. There is this\n    difference between desire and understanding or any kind of cognition:\n    cognition exists in so far as what is known (_cognitum_) is in the\n    knower; but desire is as the desirous inclines toward the desired.\n    Thus the end (_terminus_ == _finis_) of desire, which is the _good_,\n    is in the desirable thing; but the end of knowing, which is the true,\n    is in mind itself.\u201d\n\nIn _Articulus 4_, Thomas comes to his point: that the true _secundum\nrationem_ (_i.e._ according to its formal nature) is prior to the good.\n\n    \u201cAlthough both the good and the true have been taken as convertible\n    with being, yet they differ in their conception (_ratione_); and that\n    the true is prior to the good appears from two considerations: First,\n    the true is more closely related to being, which is prior to the good;\n    for the true regards being itself, simply and directly; while the\n    ratio of the good follows being as in some way perfect, and therefore\n    desirable. Secondly, cognition naturally precedes desire. Therefore,\n    since the true regards cognition, and the good regards desire, the\n    true is prior to the good _secundum rationem_.\u201d\n\nThis argument, whatever validity it may have, is significant of its\nauthor\u2019s predominantly intellectual temperament, and consistent with his\nconception of man\u2019s supreme beatitude as the intellectual vision of God.\nObviously, moreover, the setting of the true above the good is another way\nof stating the primacy of knowledge over will, which is also maintained:\n\u201cWill and understanding (_intellectus_) mutually include each other: for\nthe understanding knows the will; and the will wills that the\nunderstanding should know.\u201d[582] Evidently all rational beings have will\nas well as understanding; God wills, the Angels will, man wills. Indeed,\nhow could knowledge progress but for the will to know? Yet of the two,\nconsidered in themselves, understanding is higher than will--\n\n    \u201cfor its object is the _ratio_, the very essential nature, of the\n    desired good, while the object of will is the desired good whose\n    _ratio_ is in the understanding.... Yet will may be the higher, if it\n    is set upon something higher than the understanding.... When the thing\n    in which is the good is nobler than the soul itself, in which is the\n    rational cognizance (_ratio intellecta_), the will, through relation\n    to that thing, is higher than the understanding. But when the thing in\n    which is the good, is lower than the soul, then in relation to that\n    thing, the understanding is higher than the will. Wherefore the love\n    of God is better than the cognizance (_cognitio_); but the cognizance\n    of corporeal things is better than the love. Yet taken absolutely, the\n    understanding is higher than the will.\u201d[583]\n\nThese positions of the Angelic Doctor were sharply opposed in his lifetime\nand afterwards. Without entering the lists, let us rather follow him on\nhis evidently Aristotelian path, which quickly brings him to his next\nconclusion: \u201cThat beatitude consists in the action of the speculative\nrather than the practical intellect, as is evident from three arguments:\n\n    \u201cFirst, if man\u2019s beatitude is action, it ought to be the man\u2019s best\n    (optima) action. But man\u2019s best action is that of his best faculty in\n    respect to the best object. The best faculty is intelligence, whose\n    best object is the divine good, which is not an object of the\n    practical, but of the speculative intelligence. Wherefore, in such\n    action, to wit, in contemplation of things divine, beatitude chiefly\n    consists. And because _every one seems to be that which is best in\n    him_, as is said in the _Ethics_, so such action is most proper to man\n    and most enjoyable.\n\n    \u201cSecondly, the same conclusion appears from this, that contemplation\n    above all is sought on account of itself. The perfection (_actus_,\n    full realization) of the practical intelligence is not sought on\n    account of itself, but for the sake of action: the actions themselves\n    are directed toward some end. Hence it is evident that the final end\n    cannot consist in the _vita activa_, which belongs to the practical\n    intelligence.\n\n    \u201cThirdly, it is plain from this, that in the _vita contemplativa_ man\n    has part with those above him, to wit, God and the Angels, unto whom\n    he is made like through beatitude; but in those matters which belong\n    to the _vita activa_, other animals, however imperfectly, have somehow\n    part with him.\n\n    \u201cAnd so the final and perfect beatitude which is looked for in the\n    life to come, in principle consists altogether in contemplation. But\n    the imperfect beatitude which may be had here, consists first and in\n    principle in contemplation, and secondly in the true operation of the\n    practical intellect directing human actions and passions, as is said\n    in the tenth book of the _Ethics_.\u201d\n\nIt being thus shown that perfect beatitude lies in the action of the\nspeculative intelligence, Thomas next shows that it cannot consist in\nconsideration of the speculative sciences--\n\n    \u201cfor the consideration of a science does not reach beyond the potency\n    (_virtus_) of the principles of that science, seeing that the whole\n    science is contained potentially (_virtualiter_) in its principles.\n    But the principles of speculative sciences are received through the\n    senses, as the Philosopher makes clear. Therefore the entire\n    consideration of the speculative sciences cannot be extended beyond\n    that to which a cognition of sense-objects (_sensibilium_) is able to\n    lead. Man\u2019s final beatitude, which is his perfection, cannot consist\n    in the cognition of sense-objects. For no thing is perfected by\n    something inferior, except as there may be in the inferior some\n    participation in a superior. Evidently the nature (_forma_) of a\n    stone, or any other sensible thing, is inferior to man, save in so far\n    as something higher than the human intelligence has part in it, like\n    the light of reason.... But since there is in sensible forms some\n    participation in the similitude of spiritual substances, the\n    consideration of the speculative sciences is, in a certain way,\n    participation in true and perfect beatitude.\u201d\n\nNeither can perfect beatitude consist in knowledge of the higher, entirely\nimmaterial, or, as Thomas calls them, separate (_separatae_) substances,\nto wit, the Angels. Because it cannot consist in that which is the\nperfection of intelligence only from participation. The object of the\nintelligence is the true. Whatever has truth only through participation in\nsomething else cannot make the contemplating intelligence perfect with a\nfinal perfection. But the angels have their being (_esse_) as they have\ntheir truth, from the participation of the divine in them. Whence it\nremains that only the contemplation of God, Who alone is truth through His\nessential being, can make perfectly blessed. \u201cBut,\u201d adds Thomas, \u201cnothing\nprecludes the expectation of some imperfect beatitude from contemplating\nthe angels, and even a higher beatitude than lies in the consideration of\nthe speculative sciences.\u201d\n\nSo the conclusion is that \u201cthe final and perfect beatitude can be only in\nthe vision of the divine essence. The proof of this lies in the\nconsideration of two matters: first, that man is not perfectly blessed\n(_beatus_) so long as there remains anything for him to desire or seek;\nsecondly, that the perfection of every capacity (_potentiae_), is adjudged\naccording to the nature (_ratio_) of its object.\u201d And a patent line of\nargument leads to the unavoidable conclusion: \u201cFor perfect beatitude it is\nnecessary that the intellect should attain to the very essence of the\nfirst cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with God\nas its object.\u201d\n\nThere are few novel thoughts in Thomas\u2019s conception of man\u2019s supreme\nbeatitude. But he has taken cognizance of all pertinent considerations,\nand put the whole matter together with stable coherency. He continues,\ndiscussing in the succeeding Quaestiones a number of important matters\nincidental to his central determination of the nature of man\u2019s supreme\ngood. Thus he shows how joy (_delectatio_) is a necessary accompaniment of\nbeatitude, which, however, in principle consists in the action of the\nmind, which is _visio_, rather than in the resulting _delectatio_. The\nlatter consists in a quieting or satisfying of the will, through the\ngoodness of that in which it is satisfied. When the will is satisfied in\nany action, that results from the goodness of the action; and the good\nlies in the action itself rather than in the quieting of the will.[584]\nHere Thomas\u2019s reasoning points to an active ideal, an ideal of energizing,\nrather than repose. But he concludes that for beatitude \u201cthere must be a\nconcurrence of _visio_, which is the perfect cognizance of the\nintelligible end; the getting it, which implies its presence; and the joy\nor fruition, which implies the quieting of that which loves in that which\nis loved.\u201d[585] Thomas also shows how rectitude of will is needed, and\ndiscusses whether a body is essential; his conclusion being that a body is\nnot required for the perfect beatitude of the life to come; yet he gives\nthe counter considerations, showing the conduciveness of the perfected\nbody to the soul\u2019s beatitude even then. Next he follows Aristotle in\npointing out how material goods may be necessary for the attainment of the\nimperfect beatitude possible on earth, while they are quite impertinent to\nthe perfect beatitude of seeing God; and likewise he shows how the society\nof friends is needed here, but not essential hereafter, and yet a\nconcomitant to our supreme felicity.\n\nThe course of argument of the Liber iii. of the _Contra Gentiles_ is not\ndissimilar. A number of preliminary chapters show how all things tend to\nan end; that the end of all is God; and that to know God is the end of\nevery intellectual being. Next, that human _felicitas_ does not consist in\nall those matters, in which the _Summa theologiae_ also shows that\n_beatitude_ does not lie; but that it consists in contemplation of God. He\nputs his argument simply:\n\n    \u201cIt remains that the ultimate felicity of man lies in contemplation of\n    truth. For this is the sole action (_operatio_) of man which is proper\n    to man alone. This alone is directed to nothing else, as an end; since\n    the contemplation of truth is sought for its own sake. Through this\n    action, likewise, man is joined to higher substances (_beings_)\n    through likeness of action, and through knowing them in some way. For\n    this action, moreover, man is most sufficient by himself, needing but\n    little external aid. To this also all other human acts seem to be\n    directed as to an end. For to the perfection of contemplation,\n    soundness of body is needed, to which all the arts of living are\n    directed. Also quiet from the disturbance of passions is required, to\n    which one comes through the moral virtues, and prudence; and quiet\n    also from tumults, to which end all rules of civil life are ordained;\n    and so, if rightly conceived, all human business seems to serve the\n    contemplation of truth. Nor is it possible for the final felicity of\n    man to consist in the contemplation which is confined to an\n    intelligence of beginnings (_principiorum_), which is most imperfect\n    and general (_universalis_), containing a knowledge of things\n    potentially: it is the beginning, not the end of human study. Nor can\n    that felicity lie in the contemplation of the sciences, which pertain\n    to the lowest things, since felicity ought to lie in the action of the\n    intelligence in relationship to the noblest intelligible verities. It\n    remains that man\u2019s final felicity consists in the contemplation of\n    wisdom pursuant to a consideration of things divine. From which it\n    also is evident by the way of induction, what was before proved by\n    arguments, that the final felicity of man consists only in\n    contemplation of God.\u201d[586]\n\nHaving reached this central conclusion of the _Contra Gentiles_, as well\nas of the _Summa theologiae_, Thomas proceeds to trim it further, so as\nclearly to differentiate that knowledge of God in which lies the ultimate\nfelicity of intelligent beings from other ways of knowing God, which do\nnot fully represent this supreme and final bliss. He first excludes the\nsort of common and confused knowledge of God, which almost all men draw\nfrom observing the natural order of things; then he shuts out the\nknowledge of God derived from logical demonstration, through which,\nindeed, one rather approaches a proper knowledge of Him;[587] next, he\nwill not admit that supreme felicity lies in the cognition of God through\nfaith; since that is still imperfect. This felicity consists in\nseeing[588] the divine essence, an impossibility in this life, when we see\nas in a glass. The supreme felicity is attainable only after death.\nHereupon Thomas continues with the very crucial discussion of the capacity\nof the rational creature to know God. But instead of following him further\nin the _Contra Gentiles_, we will rather turn to his final presentation of\nthis question in his _Summa theologiae_.\n\n\nII\n\nThe great _Summa_, having opened with an introductory consideration of the\ncharacter of _sacra doctrina_,[589] at once fixes its attention upon the\nexistence and attributes of God. These having been reviewed, Thomas begins\nQuaestio xii. by saying, that \u201cas we have now considered what God is in\nHis own nature (_secundum se ipsum_) it remains to consider what He is in\nour cognition, that is, how He is known by creatures.\u201d The first question\nis whether any created intelligence whatsoever may be able to see God _per\nessentiam_. Having stated the counter arguments, and relying on John\u2019s \u201cwe\nshall see Him as He is,\u201d Thomas proceeds with his solution thus:\n\n    \u201cSince everything may be knowable so far as it exists in\n    actuality,[590] God, who is pure actuality, without any mingling of\n    potentiality, is in Himself, most knowable. But what is most knowable\n    in itself, is not knowable to every intelligence because of the\n    exceeding greatness of that which is to be known (_propter excessum\n    intelligibilis supra intellectum_); as the sun, which is most visible,\n    may not be seen by a bat, because of the excess of light. Mindful of\n    this, some have asserted that no created intelligence could behold the\n    essential nature (_essentiam_) of God.\n\n    \u201cBut this is a solecism. For since man\u2019s final beatitude consists in\n    his highest action, which is the action of the intelligence, if the\n    created intelligence is never to be able to see the essential nature\n    of God, either it will never obtain beatitude, or its beatitude will\n    consist in something besides God: which is repugnant to the faith. For\n    the ultimate perfection of a rational creature lies in that which is\n    the source or principle (_principium_) of its being. Likewise the\n    argument is against reason. For there is in man a natural desire to\n    know the cause, when he observes the effect; and from this, wonder\n    rises in men. If then the intelligence of the rational creature is\n    incapable of attaining to the first cause of things, an inane desire\n    must be ascribed to nature.\n\n    \u201cWherefore it is simply to be conceded that the blessed may see the\n    essential nature of God.\u201d\n\nSo this general conclusion, or assumption, is based on faith, and also\nleaps, as from the head of Jove, the creature of unconquerable human\nneed, which never will admit the inaneness of its yearnings. And now,\nassuming the possibility of seeing God in his true nature, Thomas proves\nthat He cannot be seen thus through the similitude of any created thing:\nin order to behold God\u2019s essence some divine likeness must be imparted\nfrom the seeing power (_ex parte visivae potentiae_), to wit, the light of\ndivine glory (which is consummated grace) strengthening the intelligence\nthat it may see God. And he next shows that it is impossible to see God by\nthe sense of sight, or any other sense or power of man\u2019s sensible nature.\nFor God is incorporeal. Therefore He cannot be seen through the\nimagination, but only through the intelligence. Nor can any created\nintelligence through its natural faculties see the divine essence.\n\u201cCognition takes place in so far as the known is in the knower. But the\nknown is in the knower according to the mode and capacity (_modus_) of the\nknower. Whence any knower\u2019s knowledge is according to the measure of his\nnature. If then the being of the thing to be known exceeds the measure of\nthe knowing nature, knowledge of it will be beyond the nature of that\nknower.\u201d In order to see God in His essential nature, the created\nintellect needs light created by God: _In lumine tuo videbimus lumen_. And\nit may be given to one created intellect to see more perfectly than\nanother.\n\nDo those who see God _per essentiam_, comprehend Him? No.\n\n    \u201cTo comprehend God is impossible for any created intelligence. To have\n    any true thought of God is a great beatitude.... Since the created\n    light of glory received by any created intelligence, cannot be\n    infinite, it is impossible that any created intelligence should know\n    God infinitely, and comprehend Him.\u201d\n\nAgain he reasons; They who shall see God in His essence will see what they\nsee through the divine essence united to their intelligence; they will see\nwhatever they see at once, and not successively; for the contents of this\nintellectual, God-granted vision are not apprehended by means of the\nrespective species or general images, but in and through the one divine\nessence. But in this life, man may not see God in His essential nature:\n\n    \u201cThe mode of cognition conforms to the nature of the knower. But our\n    soul, so long as we live in this life, has its existence (_esse_) in\n    corporeal matter. Wherefore, by nature, it knows only things that have\n    material form, or may through such be known. Evidently the divine\n    essence cannot be known through the natures of material things. Any\n    cognition of God through any created likeness whatsoever, is not a\n    vision of His essence.... Our natural cognition draws its origin from\n    sense; it may extend itself so far as it can be conducted (_manuduci_)\n    by things of sense (_sensibilia_). But from them our intelligence may\n    not attain to seeing the divine essence.... Yet since sensible\n    creatures are effects, dependant on a cause, we know from them that\n    God exists, and that as first cause He exceeds all that He has caused.\n    From which we may learn the difference between Himself and His\n    creatures, to wit, that He is not any of those things which He has\n    caused....\n\n    \u201cThrough grace a more perfect knowledge of God is had than through\n    natural reason. For cognition through natural reason needs both images\n    (_phantasmata_) received from things of sense, and the natural light\n    of intelligence, through whose virtue we abstract intelligible\n    conceptions from them. In both respects human cognition is aided\n    through the revelation of grace. For the natural light of the\n    intellect is strengthened through the infusion of light graciously\n    given (_luminis gratuiti_); while the images in the man\u2019s imagination\n    are divinely formed so that they are expressive of things divine,\n    rather than of what naturally is received through the senses, as\n    appears from the visions of the prophets.\u201d[591]\n\nNatural reason stops with the unity of God, and can give no knowledge of\nthe Trinity of divine Persons. Says Thomas:[592]\n\n    \u201cIt has been shown that through natural reason man can know God only\n    _from His creatures_. Creatures lead to knowledge of God as effects\n    lead to some knowledge of a cause. Only that may be known of God by\n    natural reason which necessarily belongs to Him as the source of all\n    existences. The creative virtue of God is common to the whole Trinity;\n    it pertains to the unity of essence, not to the distinction of\n    persons. Through natural reason, therefore, those things concerning\n    God may be known which pertain to the unity of essence, but not those\n    which pertain to the distinction of persons.... Who strives to prove\n    the Trinity of Persons by natural reason, doubly disparages faith:\n    first as regards the dignity of faith itself, which concerns invisible\n    things surpassing human reason; secondly as derogating from its\n    efficiency in drawing men to it. For when any one in order to prove\n    the faith adduces reasons which are not cogent, he falls under the\n    derision of the faithless; for they think that we use such arguments,\n    and that we believe because of them. One shall not attempt to prove\n    things of faith save by authorities, and in discussion with those who\n    receive the authorities. With others it is enough to argue that what\n    the faith announces is not impossible.\u201d\n\nHere Thomas seems rationally to recognize the limits upon reason in\ndiscovering the divine nature. In the regions of faith, reason\u2019s feet lack\nthe material footing upon which to mount. So Thomas would assert. But will\nhe stand to his assertion? The shadowy line between reason and faith\nwavers with him. At least so it seems to us, for whom ontological\nreasoning has lost reality, and who find proofs of God not so much easier\nthan proofs of the Trinity. But Thomas and the other scholastics dwelt in\nthe region of the metaphysically ideal. To them it was not only real, but\nthe most real; and it was so natural to step across the line of faith,\ntrailing clouds of reason. The feet of such as Thomas are as firmly\nplanted on the one side of the line as on the other. And now, as it might\nalso seem, Thomas, having thus formally reserved the realm of faith,\nquickly steps across the line, to undertake a tremendous metaphysical\nexposition of the Trinity, of the distinctions between its Persons, of\ntheir properties, respective functions, and relationships; and all this is\ncarried on largely in the categories of Aristotelian philosophy. Yet is he\nnot still consistent with himself? For he surely did not conceive the\nelements of his discussion to lie in the lucubrations or discoveries of\nthe natural reason; but in the data of revelation, and their explanation\nby saintly doctors. And was not he also a vessel of their inspiration, a\nson of faith, who might humbly hope for the light of grace, to transfigure\nand glorify his natural powers in the service of revealed truth?\n\nThomas\u2019s ideal is intellectual, and yet ends in faith. His intellectual\ninterests, by faith emboldened, strengthened, and pointed heavenward, make\non toward the realisation of that intellectual beatitude which is to be\nconsummate hereafter, when the saved soul\u2019s grace-illumined eye shall\nre-awaken where it may see face to face.\n\n\nIII\n\nKnowledge, then, supplemented in this life by faith, is the primary\nelement of blessedness. We now turn our attention to the forms of\nknowledge and modes of knowing appropriate to the three rational\nsubstances: God, angel, man. The first is the absolute incorporeal being,\nthe primal mover, in whom there is no potentiality, but actuality simple\nand perfect. The second is the created immaterial or \u201cseparated\u201d\nsubstance, which is all that it is through participation in the uncreate\nbeing of its Creator. The third is the composite creature man, made of\nboth soul and body, his capacities conditioned upon the necessities of his\ndual nature, his sense-perception and imagination being as necessary to\nhis knowledge, as his rational understanding; for whom alone it is true\nthat sense-apprehension may lead to the intelligible verities of God:\n\u201cetiam sensibilia intellecta manuducunt ad intelligibilia divinorum.\u201d[593]\n\nThe earlier Quaestiones of _Pars prima_, on the nature of God, lead on to\na consideration of God\u2019s knowledge and ways of knowing. Those Quaestiones\nexpounded the qualities of God quite as far as comported with Thomas\u2019s\nrealization of the limitation of the human capacity to know God in this\nlife. Quaestio iii. upon the _Simplicitas_ of God, shows that God is not\nbody (_corpus_); that in Him there is no compositeness of form and\nmaterial; that throughout His nature, He is one and the same, and\ntherefore that He _is_ His _Deitas_, His _vita_, and whatever else may be\npredicated of Him. Next it is shown (Qu. iv.) that God is perfect; that in\nHim are the _perfectiones_ of all things, since whatever there may be of\nperfection in an effect, should be found in the effective cause; and as\nGod is self-existent being, He must contain the whole perfection of being\nin Himself (_totam perfectionem essendi in se_). Next, that God is the\ngood (_bonum_) and the _summum bonum_; He is infinite; He is in all things\n(Qu. viii. Art. 1) not as a part of their essence, but as _accidens_, and\nas the doer is in his deeds; and not only in their beginning, but so long\nas they exist; He acts upon everything immediately, and nothing is\ndistant from Him; God is everywhere: as the soul is altogether in every\npart of the body, so God entire is in all things and in each. God is in\nall things created by Him as the working cause; but He is in the rational\ncreature, through grace; as the object of action is in the actor, as the\nknown is in the knower, and the desired in the wishful. God is immutable\n(Qu. ix.); for as final actuality (_actus purus_), with no admixture of\npotentiality, He cannot change; nor can He be _moved_; since His\ninfinitude comprehends the plenitude of all perfection, there is nothing\nthat He can acquire, and no whither for Him to extend. God is eternal (Qu.\nx.); for him there is no beginning, nor any succession of time; but an\ninterminable now, an all at once (_tota simul_), which is the essence of\neternity, as distinguished from the successiveness of even infinite time.\nAnd God is One (Qu. xi.). \u201cOne does not add anything to being, save\nnegation of division. For One signifies nothing else than undivided being\n(_ens indivisum_). And from this it follows that One is convertible with\nbeing.\u201d That God is One, is proved by His _simplicitas_; by the\ninfiniteness of His perfection; and by the oneness of the world.\n\n    \u201cAfter a consideration,\u201d now says Thomas, \u201cof those matters which\n    pertain to the divine substance, we may consider those which pertain\n    to its action (_operatio_). And because certain kinds of action remain\n    in the doer, while others pass out into external effect, we first\n    treat of knowledge and will (for knowing is in the knower and willing\n    in him who wills); and then of God\u2019s power, which is regarded as the\n    source of the divine action passing out into external effect. Then,\n    since knowing is a kind of living, after considering the divine\n    knowledge, the divine life will be considered. And because knowledge\n    is of the true, there will be need to consider truth and falsity.\n    Again since every cognition is in the knower, the _rationes_ (types,\n    essential natures) of things as they are in God the Knower (_Deo\n    cognoscente_) are called ideas (_ideae_); and a consideration of these\n    will be joined to the consideration of knowledge.\u201d[594]\n\nThus clearly laying out his topic, Thomas begins his discussion of God\u2019s\nknowledge (_scientia Dei_); of the modes in which God knows and the\nknowledge which He has. In God is the most perfect knowledge. God knows\nHimself through Himself; in Him knowledge and Knower (_intellectum_ and\n_intellectus_) are the same.[595] He perfectly comprehends Himself; for He\nknows Himself so far as He is knowable; and He is absolutely knowable\nbeing utter reality (_actus purus_). Likewise He knows things other than\nHimself. For He knows Himself perfectly, which implies a knowledge of\nthose things to which His power (_virtus_) extends. Moreover, He knows all\nthings in their special natures and distinctions from each other: for the\nperfection, or perfected actuality, of everything is contained in Him; and\ntherefore God in Himself is able to know all things perfectly, and the\nspecial nature of everything exists through some manner of participation\nin the divine perfection. God knows all things in one, to wit, Himself;\nand not successively, or by means of discursive reasoning. \u201cGod\u2019s\nknowledge is the cause of things. It stands to all created beings as the\nknowledge of the artificer to the things he makes. God causes things\nthrough His knowledge, since His being is His knowing (_cum suum esse sit\nsuum intelligere_).\u201d His knowledge causes things when it has the will\njoined with it, and, in so far as it is the cause of things, is called\n_scientia approbationis_. God knows things which are not actually\n(_actu_). Whatever has been or will be, He knows by the knowledge of sight\n(_scientia visionis_, which by implication is equivalent to _scientia\napprobationis_). For God\u2019s knowing, which is His being, is measured by\neternity; and eternity includes all time, as present, and without\nsuccession; so the present vision (_intuitus_) of God embraces all time\nand all things existing at any time, as if present. As for whatever is in\nthe power of God or creature, but which never has been or will be, God\nknows it not as in vision, but simply knows it.\n\nGod also knows evil.\n\n    \u201cWhoever knows anything perfectly should know whatever might happen to\n    it. There are some good things to which it may happen to be corrupted\n    through evils: wherefore God would not know the good perfectly,\n    unless He also knew the evil. Everything is knowable so far as it\n    _is_; but the being (_esse_) of evil is the privation of good: hence\n    inasmuch as God knows good, He knows evil, as darkness is known\n    through light.\u201d\n\nThomas now takes up a point curious perhaps to us, but of importance to\nhim and Aristotle: does God know individuals (_singularia_), the\nparticular as opposed to the universal? This point might seem disposed of\nin the argument by which Thomas maintained that God knew things in their\nspecial and distinct natures. But he now proves that God knows\n_singularia_ by an argument which bears on his contention that man does\nnot know _singularia_ through the intelligence, but perceives them through\nsense; and as we shall see, that the angels have no direct knowledge of\nindividuals, being immaterial substances.\n\n    \u201cGod knows individuals (_cognoscit singularia_). For all perfections\n    found in creatures pre-exist in higher mode in God. To know\n    (_cognoscere_) individuals pertains to our perfection. Whence it\n    follows that God must know them. The Philosopher (Aristotle) holds it\n    to be illogical that anything should be known to us, and not to\n    God.... But the perfections which are divided in inferior beings,\n    exist simply and as one in God. Hence, although through one faculty we\n    know universals and what is immaterial, and through another,\n    individuals and what is material; yet God simply, through His\n    intelligence, knows both.... One must hold that since God is the cause\n    of things through His knowledge, the knowledge of God extends itself\n    as far as His causality extends. Wherefore, since God\u2019s active virtue\n    extends itself not only to forms, from which is received the _ratio_\n    of the universal, but also to matter, it is necessary that God\u2019s\n    knowledge should extend itself to individuals, which are such through\n    matter.\u201d\n\nAnd replying to a counter-argument Thomas continues:\n\n    \u201cOur intelligence abstracts the intelligible species from the\n    individuating principles. Therefore the intelligible species of our\n    intelligence cannot be the likeness of the individual principles; and,\n    for this reason, our intelligence does not know individuals. But the\n    intelligible species of the divine intelligence, which is the essence\n    of God, is not immaterial through abstraction, but through itself; and\n    exists as the principle of all principles entering the composition of\n    the thing, whether principles of species or of the individual.\n    Therefore through His essence God knows both universals and\n    individuals.\u201d[596]\n\nWith these arguments still echoing, Thomas shows that God can know\ninfinite things; also future contingencies; also whatever may be stated\n(_enuntiabilia_). His knowledge, which is His substance, does not change.\nIt is speculative knowledge, in so far as relating to His own unchangeable\nnature, and to whatever He can do, but does not; it is practical knowledge\nso far as it relates to anything which He does.\n\nThomas concludes his direct discussion of God\u2019s knowledge, by an\napplication of the Platonic theory of _ideas_, in which he mainly follows\nAugustine.\n\n    \u201cIt is necessary to place _ideas_ in the divine mind. _Idea_ is the\n    Greek for the Latin _forma_. Thus through _ideas_ are understood the\n    forms of things existing beyond the things themselves. By which we\n    mean the prototype (_exemplar_) of that of which it is called the\n    form; or the principle of its cognition, in so far as the forms of\n    things knowable are said to be in the knower.\u201d\n\nThere must be many ideas or (as Augustine phrases it) stable _rationes_ of\nthings. There is a _ratio_ in the divine mind corresponding to whatever\nGod does or knows.\n\n    \u201cIdeas were set by Plato as the principles both of the cognition and\n    the generation of things, and in both senses they are to be placed in\n    the divine mind. So far as _idea_ is the principle of the making of a\n    thing, it may be called the prototype (_exemplar_), and pertains to\n    practical knowledge (_practicam cognitionem_); but as the principle of\n    cognition (_principium cognoscitivum_), it is properly called _ratio_,\n    and may also pertain to speculative knowledge. In the signification of\n    _exemplar_, it relates to everything created at any time by God: but\n    when it means _principium cognoscitivum_, it relates to all things\n    which are known by God, although never coming into existence.\u201d[597]\n\nSuch are the divine modes of knowledge. Thomas proceeds to discuss other\naspects of the divine nature, the life and power, will and love, which may\nbe ascribed to God. He then passes on to a discussion of the Persons of\nthe Trinity. This completed, he turns to the world of created substances;\ninto which we will follow him so far as to observe the forms of knowledge\nand ways of knowing proper to angels and mankind. We shall hereafter have\nto speak of the divine and angelic love, and of man\u2019s love of God; but\nhere, as our field is intellectual, we will simply recall to mind that\nThomas applies a like intellectual conception of beatitude to both God and\nHis rational creatures:\n\n    \u201cBeatitude, as has been said, signifies the perfect good of the\n    intellectual nature; as everything desires its perfection, the\n    intellectual [substance] desires to be _beata_. That which is most\n    perfect in every intellectual nature, is the intellectual operation\n    wherein, in a measure, it grasps all things. Wherefore the beatitude\n    of any created intellectual nature consists in knowing (_in\n    intelligendo_).\u201d[598]\n\n\nIV\n\nThomas regards the creation as a _processio_, a going out of all creatures\nfrom God. Every being (_ens_) that in any manner (_quocumque modo_) is, is\nfrom God.\n\n    \u201cGod is the _prima causa exemplaris_ of all things.... For the\n    production of anything, there is needed a prototype (_exemplar_), in\n    order that the effect may follow a determined form.... The\n    determination of forms must be sought in the divine wisdom. Hence one\n    ought to say that in the divine wisdom are the _rationes_ of all\n    things: these we have called _ideas_, to wit, prototypal forms\n    existing in the divine mind. Although such may be multiplied in\n    respect to things, yet really they are not other than the divine\n    essence, according as its similitude can be participated in by divers\n    things in divers ways. Thus God Himself is the first _exemplar_ of\n    all. There may also be said to be in created things certain\n    _exemplaria_ of other things, when they are made in the likeness of\n    such others, or according to the same species or after the analogy of\n    some resemblance.\u201d[599]\n\nGod not only is the efficient and exemplary cause, but also the final\ncause of all things (_Divina bonitas est finis omnium rerum_). \u201cThe\nemanation (_emanatio_) of all being from the universal cause, which is\nGod, we call creation.\u201d[600] God alone may be said to create. The function\npertains not to any Person, but to the whole Trinity in common. And there\nis found some image of the Trinity in rational creatures in whom is\nintelligence and will; and in all creatures may be found some vestiges of\nthe creator.\n\nThomas, after a while, takes up the distinction between spiritual and\ncorporeal creatures, and considers first the purely spiritual, called\nAngels. We enter with him upon the contemplation of these conceptions,\nwhich scholasticism did not indeed create, but elaborated with marvellous\nlogic, and refined to a consistent intellectual beauty. None had larger\nshare in perfecting the logical conception of the angelic nature, as\nimmaterial and essentially intellectual, than our Angelic Doctor. A volume\nmight well be devoted to tracing the growth of these beings of the mind,\nfrom their not unmilitant career in the Old Testament and the Jewish\nApocrypha, their brief but classically beautiful mention in the Gospels,\nand their storm-red action in the Apocalypse; then through their treatment\nby the Fathers, to their hierarchic ordering by the great\nPseudo-Areopagite; and so on and on, through the earlier Scholastics, the\nLombard\u2019s _Sentences_, and Hugo of St. Victor\u2019s appreciative presentation;\nup to the gathering of all the angelic matter by Albertus Magnus, its\nfurther encyclopaedizing by Vincent of Beauvais, and finally its perfect\nintellectual disembodiment by Thomas;--while all the time the people\u2019s\nmythopoeic love went on endowing these guardian spirits with heart and\nsoul, and fashioning responsive stories of their doings. For men loved and\nfeared them, and looked to them as God\u2019s peculiar messengers. Thus they\nflash past us in the _Divina Commedia_; and their forms become lovely in\nChristian art.\n\nAs we enter upon the contemplation of the angelic nature, let us not as of\ncourse regard angels simply as imaginative conceptions of Scripture and of\nthe patristic and mediaeval mind. Thomas will show his reasons for their\nnecessary existence, which may not convince us. Yet we may believe in\nangels, inasmuch as any real conception of the world\u2019s governance by God\nrequires the fulfilling of His thoughts through media that bring them down\nto move and live and realize themselves with each of us. Who, in striving\nto express, can do more than symbolize, the ways of God? What symbols\ntruer than angels have been devised?\n\n    \u201cIt is necessary,\u201d opens Thomas,[601] \u201cto affirm (_ponere_) that there\n    are incorporeal creatures. For in created things God chiefly intends\n    the good, which consists in assimilation to Him. Perfect assimilation\n    of the effect to the cause is seen when the effect resembles the cause\n    in that through which the cause produces the effect. God produces the\n    creature through intelligence and will. Consequently the perfection of\n    the universe requires that there should be intellectual creatures. To\n    know cannot be the act (_actus_) of the body or of any corporeal\n    faculty (_virtus_); because all body is limited to here and now.\n    Therefore it is necessary, in order that the universe may be perfect,\n    that there should be incorporeal creatures.\u201d[602]\n\nThomas then argues that the intellectual substance is entirely immaterial.\n\u201cAngelic substances are above our understanding. So our understanding\ncannot attain to apprehending them as they are in themselves; but only in\nits own fashion as it apprehends composite things.\u201d These immaterial\nsubstances exist in exceeding great number, and each is a species, because\nthere cannot be several immaterial beings of one species, any more than\nthere could be separate whitenesses or many humanities. Angels in their\nnature are imperishable. For nothing is corrupted save as its form is\nseparated from its matter. But these immaterial substances are not\ncomposed of matter and form, being themselves subsisting forms and\nindestructible. Brass may have and lose a circular shape; but the circular\nshape cannot be separated from the circle, which it is.\n\nThomas next shows (_Pars prima_, Qu. li.) that angels have no bodies by\nnature joined to them. Body is not of the _ratio_ of intellectual\nsubstances. These (when perfect and not like the human soul) have no need\nto acquire knowledge through sensation. But though angels are intellectual\nsubstances, separate (_separatae_) from bodies, they sometimes assume\nbodies. In these they can perform those actions of life which have\nsomething in common with other kinds of acts; as speech, a living act, has\nsomething in common with inanimate sounds. Thus far only can physical acts\nbe performed by angels, and not when such acts essentially belong to\nliving bodies. Angels may appear as living men, but are not; neither are\nthey sentient through the organs of their assumed bodies; they do not eat\nand digest food; they move only _per accidens_, incidentally to the\ninanimate motion of their assumed bodies; they do not beget, nor do they\nreally speak; \u201cbut it is something like speech, when these bodies make\nsounds in the air like human voices.\u201d\n\nDropping the sole remark, that scholasticism has no sense of humour, we\npass on to Thomas\u2019s careful consideration of the angelic relations to\nspace or locality (Qu. lii. and liii.). \u201cEquivocally only may it be said\nthat an angel is in a place (_in loco_): through application of the\nangelic virtue to some corporeal spot, the angel may be said in some sense\nto be there.\u201d But, as angels are finite, when one is said, in this sense,\nto be in a place, he is not elsewhere too (like God). Yet the place where\nthe angel is need not be an indivisible point, but may be larger or\nsmaller, as the angel wills to apply his virtue to a larger or smaller\nbody. Two angels may not be in the same place at the same time, \u201cbecause\nit is impossible that there should be two complete immediate causes of one\nand the same thing.\u201d Angels are said, likewise equivocally, to move, in a\nsense analogous to that in which they are said to be in a place. Such\nequivocal motion may be continuous or not. If not continuous, evidently\nthe angel may pass from one place to another without traversing the\nintervening spaces. The angelic movement must take place in time; there\nmust be a before and after to it, and yet not necessarily with any period\nintervening.\n\nNow as to angelic knowledge: _De cognitione Angelorum_. Knowing is no easy\nthing for man; and we shall see that it is not a simple matter to know,\nwithout the senses to provide the data and help build up knowledge in the\nmind. The function of sense, or its absence, conditions much besides the\nmere acquisition of the elements from which men form their thoughts.\nThomas\u2019s exposition of angelic knowledge and modes of knowing is a logical\nand consistent presentation of a supersensual psychology and theory of\nknowledge.\n\nEntering upon his subject, Thomas shows (Qu. liv.) that knowing\n(_intelligere_) is not the _substantia_ or the _esse_ of an angel. Knowing\nis _actio_, which is the actuality of faculty, as being (_esse_) is the\nactuality of substance. God alone is _actus purus_ (absolute realized\nactuality), free from potentiality. His _substantia_ is His being and His\naction (_suum esse_ and _suum agere_). \u201cBut neither in an angel, nor in\nany creature, is _virtus_ or the _potentia operativa_ the same as the\ncreature\u2019s _essentia_,\u201d or its _esse_ or _substantia_. The difficult\nscholastic-Aristotelian categories of _intellectus agens_ and _possibilis_\ndo not apply to angelic cognition (for which the reader and the angels may\nbe thankful). The angels, being immaterial intelligences, have no share in\nthose faculties of the human soul, like sight or hearing, which are\nexercised through bodily organs. They possess only intelligence and will.\n\u201cIt accords with the order of the universe that the supreme intellectual\ncreature should be intelligent altogether, and not intelligent in part,\nlike our souls.\u201d\n\nQuaestio lv., concerning the _medium cognitionis angelicae_, is a\nscholastic discussion scarcely to be rendered in modern language. The\nangelic intelligence is capable of knowing all things; and therefore an\nangel does not know through the medium of his _essentia_ or _substantia_,\nwhich are limited. God alone knows all things through His _essentia_. The\nangelic intellect is made perfect for knowing by means of certain forms or\nideas (_species_). These are not received from things, but are part of the\nangelic nature (_connaturales_). The angelic intelligence (_potentia\nintellectiva_) is completed through general concepts, of the same nature\nwith itself (_species intelligibiles connaturales_). These come to angels\nfrom God at the same time with their being. Such concepts or ideas cover\neverything that they can know by nature (_naturaliter_). And Thomas proves\nthat the higher angels know through fewer and more universal concepts than\nthe lower.\n\n    \u201cIn God an entire plenitude of intellectual cognition is held _in\n    one_, to wit, in the divine essence through which God knows all\n    things. Intelligent creatures possess such cognition in inferior mode\n    and less simply. What God knows through one, inferior intelligences\n    know through many; and this many becomes more as the inferiority\n    increases. Hence the higher angel may know the sum total of the\n    intelligible (_universitatem intelligibilium_) through fewer ideas or\n    concepts (_species_); which, however, are more universal since each\n    concept extends to more [things]. We find illustration of this among\n    our fellows. Some are incapable of grasping intelligible truth, unless\n    it be set forth through particular examples. This comes from the\n    weakness of their intelligence. But others, of stronger mind, can\n    seize many things from a few statements\u201d (Qu. lv. Art. 3).\n\nThrough this argument, and throughout the rest of his exposition of the\nknowledge of God, angel, and man, we perceive that, with Thomas, knowledge\nis superior and more delightful, as it is abstract in character, and\nuniversal in applicability. By knowing the abstract and the universal we\nbecome like to God and the angels; knowledge of and through the particular\nis but a necessity of our half-material nature.\n\nThomas turns now to consider the knowledge had by angels of immaterial\nbeings, _i.e._ themselves and God (Qu. lvi.): \u201cAn angel, being immaterial,\nis a subsisting form, and therefore intelligible actually (_actu_, _i.e._\nnot potentially). Wherefore, through its form, which is its substance, it\nknows itself.\u201d Then as to knowledge of each other: God from the beginning\nimpressed upon the angelic mind the likenesses of things which He created.\nFor in Him, from the beginning, were the _rationes_ of all things, both\nspiritual and corporeal. Through the impression of these _rationes_ upon\nthe angelic mind, an angel knows other angels as well as corporeal\ncreatures. Their natures also yield them some knowledge of God. The\nangelic nature is a mirror holding the divine similitude. Yet without the\nillumination of grace the angelic nature knows not God in His essence,\nbecause no created likeness may represent that.\n\nAs for material things (Qu. lvii.), angels have knowledge of them through\nthe intelligible species or concepts impressed by God on the angelic mind.\nBut do they know particulars--_singularia_? To deny it, says Thomas,\nwould detract from the faith which accords to angels the ministration of\naffairs. This matter may be thought thus:\n\n    \u201cThings flow forth from God both as they subsist in their own natures\n    and as they are in the angelic cognition. Evidently what flowed from\n    God in things pertained not only to their universal nature, but to\n    their principles of individuation.... And as He causes, so He also\n    knows.... Likewise the angel, through the concepts (_species_) planted\n    in him by God, knows things not only according to their universal\n    nature, but also according to their singularity, in so far as they are\n    manifold representations of the one and simple essence.\u201d\n\nOne observes that the whole scholastic discussion of universals lies back\nof arguments like these.\n\nThe main principles of angelic knowledge have now been set forth; and\nThomas pauses to point out to what extent the angels know the future, the\nsecret thoughts of our hearts, and the mysteries of grace. He has still to\nconsider the mode and measure of the angelic knowledge from other points\nof view. Whatever the angels may know through their implanted natures,\nthey know perfectly (_actu_); but it may be otherwise as to what is\ndivinely revealed to them. What they know, they know without the need of\nargument. And the discussion closes with remarks on Augustine\u2019s phrase and\nconception of the _matutina_ and _vespertina_ knowledge of angels: the\nformer being the knowledge of things as they are in the Word; the latter\nbeing the knowledge of things as they are in their own natures.[603]\n\n\nV\n\nThat the abstract and the universal is the noble and delectable, we learn\nfrom this exposition of angelic knowledge. We may learn the same from\nThomas\u2019s presentation of the modes and contents of human understanding.\nThe _Summa theologiae_ follows the Scriptural order of presentation;[604]\nwhich is doubtless the reason why Thomas, instead of passing from\nimmaterial creatures to the partly immaterial creature man, considers\nfirst the creation of physical things--the Scriptural work of the six\ndays. After this he takes up the last act of the Creation--man. In the\n_Summa_ he considers man so far as his composite nature comes within the\nscope of theology. Accordingly the principal topic is the human soul\n(_anima_); and the body is regarded only in relation to the soul, its\nqualities and its fate. Thomas will follow Dionysius (Pseudo-Areopagite)\nin considering first the nature (_essentia_) of the soul, then its\nfaculties (_virtus sive potentiae_), and thirdly, its mode of action\n(_operatio_).\n\nUnder the first head he argues (_Pars prima_, Qu. lxxv.) that the soul,\nwhich is the _primum principium_ of life, is not body, but the body\u2019s\nconsummation (_actus_) and _forma_. Further, inasmuch as the soul is the\n_principium_ of mental action, it must be an incorporeal principle\nexisting by itself. It cannot properly be said to be the man; for man is\nnot soul alone, but a composite of soul and body. But the soul, being\nimmaterial and intellectual, is not a composite of form and matter. It is\nnot subject to corruption. Concerning its union with the body (Qu.\nlxxvi.), \u201cit is necessary to say that the mind (_intellectus_), which is\nthe principle of intellectual action, is the _form_ (_forma_) of the human\nbody.\u201d One and the same intellectual principle does not pertain to all\nhuman bodies: there is no common human soul, but as many souls as there\nare men.[605] Yet no man has a plurality of souls. \u201cIf indeed the _anima\nintellectiva_ were not united to the body as form, but only as _motor_ (as\nthe Platonists affirm), it would be necessary to find in man another\nsubstantial form, through which the body should be set in its being. But\nif, as we have shown, the soul is united to the body as substantial form,\nthere cannot be another substantial form beside it\u201d (Qu. lxxvi. Art. 4).\nThe human soul is fitly joined to its body; for it holds the lowest grade\namong intellectual substances, having no knowledge of truth implanted in\nit, as the angels have; it has to gather knowledge _per viam sensus_. \u201cBut\nnature never omits what is necessary. Hence the _anima intellectiva_ must\nhave not only the faculty of knowing, but the faculty of feeling\n(_sentiendi_). Sense-action can take place only through a corporeal\ninstrument. Therefore the _anima intellectiva_ ought to be united to such\na body, which should be to it a convenient organ of sense\u201d (Art. 5).\nMoreover, \u201csince the soul is united to the body as form, it is altogether\nin any and every part of the body\u201d (Art. 8).\n\nIt is a cardinal point (Qu. lxxvii.) with Thomas that the soul\u2019s\n_essentia_ is not its _potentia_: the soul is not its faculties. That is\ntrue only of God. In Him there is no diversity. There is some diversity of\nfaculty in an angel; and more in man, a creature on the confines of the\ncorporeal and spiritual creation, in whom concur the powers of both. There\nis order and priority among the powers of the soul: the _potentiae\nintellectivae_ are higher than the _potentiae sensitivae_, and control\nthem; while the latter are above the _potentiae nutritivae_. Yet the order\nof their generation is the reverse. The highest of the sensitive faculties\nis sight. The _anima_ is the subject in which are the powers of knowing\nand willing (_potentiae intellectivae_); but the subject in which are the\npowers of sensation is the combination of the soul and body. All the\npowers of the soul, whether the subject be soul alone or soul and body,\nflow from the essence of the soul, as from a source (_principium_).\n\nThomas follows (Qu. lxxviii.) Aristotle in dividing the powers of the soul\ninto vegetative, sensitive, appetitive, motor, and intellectual. In taking\nup the last, he points out (Qu. lxxix.) that intelligence (_intellectus_)\nis a power of the soul, and not the soul itself. He then follows the\nPhilosopher in showing how intelligence (_intelligere_) is to be regarded\nas a passive power, and he presents the difficult Aristotelian device of\nthe _intellectus agens_, and argues that memory and reason are not to be\nregarded as powers distinct from the intelligence (_intellectus_).\n\nHow does the soul, while united to the body (the _anima conjuncta_), (1)\nknow corporeal things which are beneath it? (2) how does it know itself\nand what is in itself? and (3) how does it know immaterial substances\nwhich are above it? The exposition of these problems is introduced by (Qu.\nlxxxiv.) a historical discussion of the _primi philosophi_ who thought\nthere was nothing but body in the world. Then came Plato, seeking \u201cto save\nsome certain cognition of truth\u201d by means of his theory of Ideas. But\nPlato seems to have erred in thinking that the form of the known must be\nin the knower as it is in the known. This is not necessary. In\nsense-perception the form of the thing is not in sense as it is in the\nthing. \u201cAnd likewise the intelligence receives the _species_ (Ideas) of\nmaterial and mobile bodies immaterially and immutably, after its own mode;\nfor the received is in the recipient after the mode of the recipient.\nHence it is to be held that the soul through the intelligence knows bodies\nby immaterial, universal, and necessary cognition.\u201d\n\nThomas sets this matter forth in a manner very illuminating as to his\ngeneral position regarding knowledge:\n\n    \u201cIt follows that material things which are known must exist in the\n    knower, not materially, but immaterially. And the reason of this is\n    that the act of cognition extends itself to those things which are\n    outside of the knower. For we know things outside of us. But through\n    matter, the form of the thing is limited to what is single (_aliquid\n    unum_). Hence it is plain that the _ratio_ (proper nature) of\n    cognition is the opposite of the _ratio_ of materiality. And therefore\n    things, like plants, which receive forms only materially, are in no\n    way _cognoscitivae_, as is said in the second book of _De anima_. The\n    more immaterially anything possesses the form of the thing known, the\n    more perfectly it knows. Wherefore the intelligence, which abstracts\n    the species (Idea) not only from matter, but also from individualizing\n    material conditions, knows more perfectly than sense, which receives\n    the form of the thing known without matter indeed, but with material\n    conditions. Among the senses themselves, sight is the most\n    _cognoscitivus_, because least material. And among intelligences, that\n    is the more perfect which is the more immaterial\u201d (Qu. lxxxiv. Art.\n    2).\n\nThen Thomas again differs from Plato, and holds with Aristotle, that the\nintelligence through which the soul knows has not its ideas written upon\nit by nature, but from the first is capable of receiving them all (sed est\nin principio in potentia ad hujusmodi species omnes). Hereupon, and with\nfurther arguments, Thomas shows \u201cthat the _species intelligibiles_, by\nwhich our soul knows, do not arise from separate forms\u201d or ideas.\n\nTo the converse question, whether intelligent cognition comes from things\nof sense, Thomas answers, following Aristotle: \u201cOne cannot say that sense\nperception is the whole cause of intellectual cognition, but rather in a\ncertain way is the matter of the cause (_materia causae_).\u201d On the other\nhand,\n\n    \u201cit is impossible that the mind, in the state of the present life,\n    wherein it is joined to the passive body (_passibili corpori_), should\n    know anything actually (_actu_) except by turning itself to images\n    (_phantasmata_). And this appears from two arguments. In the first\n    place, since the mind itself is a power (_vis_) using no bodily organ,\n    its action would not be interrupted by an injury to any bodily organ,\n    if for its action there was not needed the action of some faculty\n    using a bodily organ. Sense and imagination use a bodily organ. Hence\n    as to what the mind knows actually (_actu_), there is needed the\n    action of the imagination and other faculties, both in receiving new\n    knowledge and in using knowledge already acquired. For we see that\n    when the action of the imaginative faculty is interrupted by injury to\n    an organ, as with the delirious, the man is prevented from actually\n    knowing those things of which he has knowledge. Secondly (as any one\n    may observe in himself), whenever he attempts to know (_intelligere_)\n    anything, he forms images by way of example, in which he may\n    contemplate what he is trying to know. And whenever we wish to make\n    any one else understand, we suggest examples, from which he may make\n    for himself images to know by.\n\n    \u201cThe reason of this is that the knowing faculty is suited to the\n    knowable (_potentia cognoscitiva proportionatur cognoscibili_). The\n    appropriate object of the intelligence of an angel, who is separate\n    from all body, is intelligible immaterial substance (_substantia\n    intelligibilis a corpore separata_); through this kind of intelligible\n    he cognizes also material things. But the appropriate object of the\n    human mind, which is joined to a body, is the essence or nature\n    (_quidditas sive natura_) existing in material body; and through the\n    natures of visible things of this sort it ascends to some cognition of\n    invisible things. It belongs to the idea (_ratio_) of this nature that\n    it should exist in some individual having corporeal matter, as it is\n    of the concept (_ratio_) of the nature of stone or horse that it\n    should be in _this_ stone or _this_ horse. Hence the nature of a stone\n    or any material thing cannot be known completely and truly, unless it\n    is known as existing in some particular [instance]. We apprehend the\n    particular through sense and imagination; and so it is necessary, in\n    order that the mind should know its appropriate object, that it should\n    turn itself to images, in order to behold the universal nature\n    existing in the particular. If, indeed, the appropriate object of our\n    intelligence were the separate form, or if the form of sensible\n    things did not subsist in the particular [instances], as the\n    Platonists say, our mind in knowing would have no need always to turn\n    itself to images\u201d (Qu. lxxxiv. Art. 7).\n\nIt is next queried whether the judgment of the mind is impeded through\nbinding (_per ligamentum_) the senses. In view of the preceding argument\nthe answer is, that since \u201call that we know in our present state, becomes\nknown to us through comparison with sensible things, it is impossible that\nthere should be in us perfect mental judgment when the senses are tied,\nthrough which we take cognizance of sensible things\u201d (Qu. lxxxiv. Art. 8).\n\nThis entire argument shows in what firm Aristotelian manner,\nscholasticism, in the person of Thomas, set itself upon a basis of sense\nperception; through which it still pressed to a knowledge of the\nsupersensible and abstract. In this argument we also see, as always with\nThomas, that knowledge is perfect and blessed, the more immaterial and\nabstract are its modes. All of which will continue to impress us as we\nfollow Thomas, briefly, through his exposition of the _modus_ and _ordo_\nof knowing (_intelligendi_) (Qu. lxxxv.).\n\nThe first question is whether our mind knows corporeal things by\nabstracting the species from the images--the type from the particular.\nThere are three grades of the cognizing faculty (_virtutis\ncognoscitivae_). The lowest is sensation, which is the act of a bodily\norgan. Its appropriate object is form as existing in matter. And since\nmatter is the principle of individuation (_i.e._ the particularizing\nprinciple from which results the particular or individual), sense\nperception is confined to the particular. The highest grade of the\ncognitient faculty is that which is independent of bodily organs and\nseparate from matter, as the angelic intelligence; and its object is form\nsubsisting without matter. For though angels know material things, they\nview them only in the immaterial, to wit, themselves or God. Between the\ntwo is the human mind, which\n\n    \u201cis the _forma_ of the body. So it naturally knows form existing\n    individually in corporeal matter, and yet not as form is in such\n    matter. But to know form, which is in concrete matter, and yet know it\n    not as it is in such matter, is to abstract it from this particular\n    matter which the images represent. It follows that our intelligence\n    knows material things by abstracting them from images; and through\n    reflecting on these material abstractions we reach some cognition of\n    the immaterial, just as conversely the angels know the material\n    through the immaterial\u201d (Qu. lxxxv. Art. 1).\n\nIt is next proved that the soul, through the intelligible species or forms\nabstracted from particulars, knows things which are outside the soul. In a\nway, intellection arises from sense perception; therefore the sense\nperception of the particular precedes the intellectual knowledge of\nuniversals. But, on the other hand, the intelligence, in coming to perfect\ncognition, proceeds from the undistinguished to the distinguished, from\nthe more to the less general, and so knows _animal_ before it knows\n_homo_, and _homo_ before it knows Socrates. The next conclusion reads\nvery neatly in scholastic Latin, but is difficult to paraphrase: it is\nthat the intelligence may know many things at once (_simul_) _per modum\nunius_, but not _per modum multorum_; that is to say, the mind may grasp\nat once whatever it may grasp under one species, but cannot know a number\nof things at once which fall under different species.\n\nNext as to what our mind knows in material things (Qu. lxxxvi.). It does\nnot know the particular or singular (_singularia_) in them directly; for\nthe principle of singularity in material things is the particular matter.\nBut our mind _knows_ by abstracting from such the species, that is, the\nuniversal. This it knows directly. But it knows _singularia_ indirectly,\ninasmuch as, when it has abstracted the intelligible species, it must\nstill, in order to know completely (_actu_), turn itself to the images in\nwhich it knows the species.\n\nHow does the _anima intellectiva_ know itself, and those things which are\nin it (Qu. lxxxvii.)? Everything is knowable in so far as it is actually\n(_in actu_) and not merely potentially. So the human intelligence knows\nitself not through its essence, which is still but potential, but in so\nfar as it has actually realized itself; knows itself, that is, through its\nactuality. The permanent qualities (_habitus_) of the soul exist in a\ncondition between potentiality and actuality. The mind knows them when\nthey are actually present or operative.\n\nDoes the human intelligence know its own act--know that it knows? In God,\nknowing and being are one. Although this is not true of the angelic\nintelligence, nevertheless with an angel the prime object of knowledge is\nhis own essence. With one and the same act an angel knows that it knows,\nand knows its essence. But the primal object of the human intelligence is\nneither its knowledge (knowing, _intelligere_) nor its essence, but\nsomething extrinsic, to wit, the nature of the material thing. Hence that\nis the first object known by the human intelligence; and next is known its\nown _actus_, by which that first object is known. Likewise the human\nintelligence knows the acts of will. An act of will is nothing but a\ncertain inclination toward some form of the mind (_formam intellectam_) as\nnatural appetite is an inclination toward a natural form. The act of will\nis in the knowing mind and so is known by it.\n\nSo far as to how the soul knows material things, which are below it, and\nits own nature and qualities. It is another question whether the soul\nknows those things which are above it, to wit, the immaterial substances.\nCan the soul in the state of the present life know the angels in\nthemselves? With lengthy argument, differing from Plato and adhering to\nAristotle, Thomas proves the negative: that in the present life we cannot\nknow _substantias separatas immateriales secundum seipsas_. Nor can we\ncome to a knowledge of the angelic substances through knowing material\nthings.\n\n    \u201cFor immaterial substances are altogether of another nature (_ratio_)\n    from the whatnesses (_quidditates_) of material things; and however\n    much our intelligence abstracts from matter the essence (_quidditas_)\n    of the material thing, it will never arrive at anything like an\n    immaterial substance. And so, through material substances, we cannot\n    know immaterial substances perfectly\u201d (Qu. lxxxviii. Art. 2).\n\nMuch less can we thus know God.\n\nThe discussion hitherto has been confined to the intellectual capacities\nof souls united to their bodies. As to the knowledge which the \u201cseparated\u201d\nsoul may have, other considerations arise akin to those touching the\nknowledge possessed by the separated substances called angels. Is the\nseparated soul able to know? Thomas has shown that so long as the soul is\njoined to the body it cannot know anything except by turning itself to\nimages. If this were a mere accident of the soul, incidental to its\nexistence in the body, then with that impediment removed, it would return\nto its own nature and know simply. But if, as we suppose, this turning to\nimages is of the nature of the soul, the difficulty grows. Yet the soul\nhas one mode of existence when united to the body, and another when\nseparated, but with its nature remaining. Souls united to bodies may know\nthrough resort to images of bodies, which are in the bodily organs; but\nwhen separated, they may know by turning to that which is intelligible\nsimply, as other separate substances do. Yet still this raises doubt; for\nwhy did not God appoint a nobler way for the soul to know than that which\nis natural to it when joined to the body? The perfection of the universe\nrequired that there should be diverse grades among intellectual\nsubstances. The soul is the lowest of them. Its feeble intelligence was\nnot fit to receive perfect knowledge through universal conceptions, save\nwhen assisted by concrete examples. Without these, souls would have had\nbut a confused knowledge. Hence, for their more perfect knowledge of\nthings, they are naturally united to bodies, and so receive a knowledge\nfrom things of sense proper to their condition; just as rude men can be\nled to know only through examples. So it was for a higher end that the\nsoul was united to the body, and knows through resort to images; yet, when\nseparated, it will be capable of another way of knowing.[606]\n\nSeparated from the body, the soul can know itself through itself. It can\nknow other separated souls perfectly, but the angels, who are higher\nnatures, only imperfectly, at least through the knowledge which the\nseparated soul has from its nature; but that may be increased through\ngrace and glory. The separated soul will know natural objects through the\nspecies (ideas) received from the inflowing divine light; yet less\nperfectly than the angels. Likewise, less universally than angels, will\nseparated souls, by like means of species received from the divine light,\nknow particular things, and only such as they previously knew, or may know\nthrough some affection or aptitude or the divine decree. For the habit and\naptitude of knowledge, and the knowledge already acquired, will remain in\nthe separated soul, so far as relates to the knowledge which is in the\nintellect, and no longer in the lower perceptive faculties. Neither will\ndistance from the object affect the soul\u2019s knowledge, since it will know\nthrough the influx of forms (_species_) from the divine light.\n\n    \u201cYet through the cognition belonging to their nature, separated souls\n    do not know what is doing here below. For such souls know the\n    particular and concrete (_singularia_) only as from the traces\n    (_vestigia_) of previous cognition or affection, or by divine\n    appointment. And the souls of the dead by divine decree, and in\n    accordance with their mode of existence, are separated from the\n    intercourse of the living and joined to the society of spiritual\n    substances. Therefore they are ignorant of those things which are done\n    among us.\u201d\n\nNevertheless, it would seem, according to the opinions of Augustine and\nGregory, \u201cthat the souls of the saints who see God know all that is done\nhere. Yet, perfectly joined to the divine righteousness, they are not\ngrieved, nor do they take part in the affairs of the living, save as the\ndivine disposition requires.\u201d\n\n    \u201cStill the souls of the dead are able to care for the affairs of the\n    living, although ignorant of their condition; just as we have care for\n    the dead, though ignorant of their state, by invoking the suffrages of\n    the Church. And the souls of the dead may be informed of the affairs\n    of the living from souls lately departed hence, or through angels or\n    demons, or by the revealing spirit of God. But if the dead appear to\n    the living, it is by God\u2019s special dispensation, and to be reckoned as\n    a divine miracle\u201d (Qu. lxxxix. Art. 8).\n\n\nVI\n\nWe have thus traced Thomas\u2019s view of the faculty of knowledge, the primary\nconstituent of beatitude in God, and in angels and men. There are other\nelements which not only supplement the faculty of knowledge, but even flow\nas of necessity from a full and true conception of that faculty and its\nperfect energizing. These needful, yet supplementary, factors are the\nfaculties of will and love and natural appetite; though the last does not\nexist in God or angel or in \u201cseparated soul.\u201d The composite creature man\nshares it with brutes: it is of enormous importance, since it may affect\nhis spiritual progress in this life, and so determine his state after\ndeath. Let us observe these qualities in God, in the immaterial substances\ncalled angels, and in man.\n\nIn God there is volition as well as intelligence; for _voluntas\nintellectum consequitur_; and as God\u2019s _being_ (_esse_) is His knowing\n(_intelligere_), so likewise His being is His will (_velle_).[607]\nEssentially alike in God and man and angel are the constituents of\nspiritual beatitude and existence--knowing, willing, loving. From Creator\ndown to man, knowledge differs in mode and in degree, yet is essentially\nthe same. The like is true of will. As to love, because passion is of the\nbody, love and every mode of turning from or to an object is passionless\nin God and the angels. Yet man through love, as well as through willing\nand through knowing, may prove his kinship with angels and with God.\n\nGod is love, says John\u2019s Epistle. \u201cIt is necessary to place love in God,\u201d\nsays Thomas. \u201cFor the first movement of will and any appetitive faculty\n(_appetitivae virtutis_) is love (_amor_).\u201d It is objected that love is a\npassion; and the passionless God cannot love. Answers Thomas, \u201cLove and\njoy and delight are passions in so far as they signify acts (or\nactualities, _actus_) of the _appetitus sensitivi_; but they are not\npassions when they signify the _actus_ of the _appetitus intellectivi_;\nand thus are they placed in God\u201d (_Pars prima_, Qu. xx. Art. 1).\n\nGod loves all existences. Now all existences, in so far as they are, are\ngood. For being itself (_esse_) is in a sense the _good_ of any thing, and\nlikewise its perfection. It has been shown that God\u2019s will is the cause of\nall things; and thus it is proper that a thing should have being, or good,\nin so far as it is willed by God. God wills some good to every existent\nthing. And since to love is nothing else than to will good to something,\nit is evident that God loves all things that are, yet not in the way we\nlove. For since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but\nis moved by it as by an object, our love by which we will good to anything\nis not the cause of its goodness; but its goodness calls forth the love by\nwhich we wish to preserve and add to the good it has; and for this we\nwork. But God\u2019s love imparts and creates goodness in things.\n\nThe divine love embraces all things in one and the same act of will; but\ninasmuch as His love creates goodness, there could be no greater goodness\nin one thing than in another unless He willed greater good to one than to\nthe other: in this sense He may be said to love one creature more than\nanother; and in this way He loves the better things more. Besides love,\nthe order of the universe proves God\u2019s _justitia_; an attribute which is\nto be ascribed to Him, as Dionysius says, in that He grants to all things\nwhat is appropriate, according to the dignity of the existence of each,\nand preserves the nature of each in its own order and virtue. Likewise\n_misericordia_ is to be ascribed to God, not as if He were affected by\npitying sadness, but in that He remedies the misery or defects of others.\n\nThus far as to will and love in God. Next, as to these qualities in\nAngels. Have angels will? (_Pars prima_, Qu. lix.). Thomas argues: All\nthings proceed from the divine will, and all _per appetitum_ incline\ntoward good. In plants this is called natural appetite. Next above them\ncome those creatures who perceive the particular good as of the senses;\ntheir inclination toward it is _appetitus sensitivus_. Still above them\nare such as know the _ratio_ of the good universally, through their\nintelligence. Such are the angels; and in them inclination toward the good\nis will. Moreover, since they know the nature of the good, they are able\nto form a judgment as to it; and so they have free will: _ubicumque est\nintellectus, est liberum arbitrium_. And as their knowledge is above that\nof men, so in them free will exists more excellently.\n\nThe angels have only the _appetitus intellectivus_ which is will; they are\nnot irascible or concupiscent, since these belong to the _appetitus\nsensitivus_. Only metaphorically can _furor_ and evil concupiscence be\nascribed to demons, as anger is to God--_propter similitudinem effectus_.\nConsequently _amor_ and _gaudium_ do not exist as passions in angels. But\nin so far as these qualities signify solely an act of will, they are\nintellectual. In this sense, to love is to will good to anything, and to\nrejoice (_gaudere_) is to rest the will in a good obtained. Similarly,\n_caritas_ and _spes_, in so far as they are virtues, lie not in appetite,\nbut in will; and thus exist in angels. With man the virtues of temperance\nand fortitude may relate to things of sense; but not so with angels, who\nhave no passions to be bridled by these virtues. Temperance is ascribed to\nthem when they temper their will according to the will divine, and\nfortitude, when they firmly execute it (Qu. lix. Art. 4).\n\nIn a subsequent portion of _Pars prima_ (Qu. cx.) Thomas has occasion to\npoint out that, as in human affairs, the more particular power is governed\nby the more universal, so among the angels.\n\n    \u201cThe higher angels who preside over the lower have more universal\n    knowledge. It is likewise clear that the _virtus_ of a body is more\n    particular than the _virtus_ of a spiritual substance; for every\n    corporeal form is form particularized (_individuata_) through matter,\n    and limited to the here and now. But immaterial forms are\n    unconditioned and intelligible. And as the lower angels, who have\n    forms less universal, are ruled by the higher angels, so all corporeal\n    things are ruled by angels. And this is maintained not only by the\n    holy Doctors, but by all philosophers who have recognized incorporeal\n    substances.\u201d\n\nNext Thomas considers the action of angels upon men, and shows that men\nmay have their minds illumined by the lower orders of angels, who present\nto men _intelligibilem veritatem sub similitudinibus sensibilium_. God\nsends the angels to minister to corporeal creatures; in which mission\ntheir acts proceed from God as a cause (_principio_). They are His\ninstruments. They are sent as custodians of men, to guide and move them to\ngood. \u201cTo every man an angel is appointed for his guard: of which the\nreason is, that the guardianship (_custodia_) of the angels is an\nexecution of divine providence in regard to men.\u201d Every man, while as\n_viator_ he walks life\u2019s _via non tuta_, has his guardian angel. And the\narchangels have care of multitudes of men (Qu. cxiii.).\n\nThus Thomas\u2019s, or rather, say the Christian doctrine as to angels, becomes\na corollary necessary to Christian theism, and true at least symbolically.\nBut--and this is the last point as to these ministering spirits--do the\nangels who love without passion, grieve and suffer when those over whom\nthey minister are lost?\n\n    \u201cAngels grieve neither over the sins nor the punishment of men. For,\n    as says Augustine, sadness and grief arise only from what contravenes\n    the will. But nothing happens in the world that is contrary to the\n    will of the angels and other blessed ones. For their will is entirely\n    fixed (_totaliter inhaeret_) in the order of the divine righteousness\n    (_Justitiae_); and nothing takes place in the world, save what takes\n    place and is permitted by the same. And so, in brief, nothing takes\n    place in the world contrary to the will of the blessed\u201d (Qu. cxiii.\n    Art. 7).\n\nWe come to man. He has will, and free will or choice, as the angels have.\nWill is part of the intellectual nature: it is as the _intellectivus\nappetitus_. But man differs from the angels in possessing appetites which\nbelong to his sense-nature and do not perceive the good in its common\naspects; because sense does not apprehend the universal, but only the\nparticular.[608] Sometimes Thomas speaks of _amor_ as including every form\nof desire, intellectual or pertaining to the world of sense. \u201cThe first\nmovement of will and of any appetitive faculty (_virtus_) is amor.\u201d[609]\nSo in this most general signification _amor_ \u201cis something belonging to\nappetite; for the object of both is the good.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThe first effect of the desirable (_appetibilis_) upon the\n    _appetitus_, is called _amor_; thence follows _desiderium_, or the\n    movement toward the desirable; and at last the _quies_ which is\n    _gaudium_. Since then _amor_ consists in an effect upon the\n    _appetitus_, it is evidently _passio_; most properly speaking when it\n    relates to the yearning element (_concupiscibile_), but less properly\n    when it relates to will\u201d (_Pars prima_, Qu. xxvi. Art. 2).\n\nFurther distinguishing definitions are now in order:\n\n    \u201cFour names are applied to what pertains to the same: _amor_,\n    _dilectio_, _caritas_, _et amicitia_. Of the three first, _amor_ has\n    the broadest meaning. For all _dilectio_ or _caritas_ is _amor_; but\n    not conversely. _Dilectio_ adds to _amor_ a precedent choice\n    (_electionem praecedentem_) as its name indicates. Hence _dilectio_ is\n    not in the concupiscent nature, but in the will, and therefore in the\n    rational nature. _Caritas_ adds to _amor_ a certain _perfectionem\n    amoris_, inasmuch as what is loved, is esteemed as very precious, as\n    the name shows\u201d (_Ibid._ Art. 3).\n\nMoreover, _amor_ may be divided into _amor amicitiae_, whereby we wish\ngood to the _amicus_, and _amor concupiscentiae_, whereby properly we\ndesire a good to ourselves.\n\nThe Good is the object and, in that sense, the cause, of _amor_ (Qu.\nxxvii.).\n\n    \u201cBut love requires a cognition of the good which is loved. Therefore\n    the Philosopher says, that bodily sight is the cause of _amoris\n    sensitivi_. Likewise contemplation of spiritual beauty or goodness is\n    the cause of _amoris spiritualis_. Thus, therefore, cognition is the\n    cause of love, inasmuch as the good cannot be loved unless known.\u201d\n\nFrom this broad conception of _amor_ the argument rises to _amor_ in its\npurest phases, which correspond to the highest modes of knowledge man is\ncapable of. They are considered in their nature, in their causes, and\neffects. It is evident whither we are travelling in this matter.\n\n    \u201cLove (_amor_) may be perfect or imperfect. Perfect love is that by\n    which some one is loved for himself, as a man loves a friend.\n    Imperfect love is that by which some one loves a thing, not for\n    itself, but in order that that good may come to him, as a man loves\n    the thing he desires. The first love pertains to _caritas_ which\n    cleaves to God (_inhaeret Deo_) for Himself (_secundum\n    seipsum_).\u201d[610]\n\n_Caritas_ is one of the theological virtues, and as such Thomas treats it.\nTo it corresponds the \u201cgift\u201d of _sapientia_, likewise a virtue bestowed by\nGod, but more particularly regarded as the \u201cgift\u201d of the Holy Spirit.\n_Caritas_ is set not in the _appetitus sensitivus_, but in the will. Yet\nas it exceeds our natural faculties, \u201cit is not in us by nature, nor\nacquired through our natural powers; but through the infusion of the Holy\nSpirit, who is the _amor Patris et Filii_.\u201d He infuses _caritas_ according\nto His will; and it will increase as we draw near to God; nor is there any\nbound to its augmentation. May _caritas_ be perfect in this life? In one\nsense it never can be perfect, because no creature ever can love God\naccording to His infinite lovableness.\n\n    \u201cBut on the part of him who wills to love (_ex parte diligentis_),\n    _caritas_ is perfect when he loves as much as he is able. Which may be\n    taken in three ways. In one way, as the whole heart of man is always\n    borne toward God; and this is the perfection of the love of home\n    (_caritas patriae_), unattainable here, where because of this life\u2019s\n    infirmities it is impossible always actually to think upon God, and be\n    drawn toward Him by voluntary love (_dilectione_). In another way, as\n    a man may strive to keep himself free for God and things divine,\n    laying other matters aside, save as life\u2019s need requires: and that is\n    the perfection of _caritas_, possible in this life, yet not for all\n    who have _caritas_. And the third way, when any one habitually sets\n    his heart on God, so that he thinks and wills nothing that is contrary\n    to the divine love: this perfection is common to all who have\n    _caritas_.\u201d[611]\n\nThe _caritas_ with which we love God, extends to our neighbours, and even\nto our enemies, for God\u2019s sake; also to ourselves, including our bodies;\nit embraces sinners, but not their sinfulness. It embraces the angels.\nThere is order and grade in _caritas_, according to its relationship to\nGod, the source of beatitude and voluntary love (_dilectionis_). God is to\nbe loved _ex caritate_ above all; for He is loved as the cause of\nbeatitude, while our neighbour is loved as a participant with us in the\nbeatitude from God. We should love God more than ourselves; because\nbeatitude is in God as in the common and fontal source of all things that\nparticipate in beatitude.\n\n    \u201cBut, after God, man should love himself, in so far as he is spirit\n    (_secundum naturam spiritualem_), more than any one else. This is\n    plain from the very reason of loving. God is loved as the principle of\n    good, on which the _dilectio caritatis_ is based. Man loves himself\n    _ex caritate_ for the reason that he is a participator in that good.\n    He loves his neighbour because of his association (_societas_) in that\n    good.... Participation in the divine good is a stronger reason for\n    loving, than association in this participation. Therefore, man _ex\n    caritate_ should love himself more than his neighbour; and the mark\n    (_signum_) of this is, that man should not commit any sin barring his\n    participation in this beatitude, in order to free his neighbour from\n    sin.... But one should love his neighbour\u2019s salvation more than his\n    own _body_.\u201d[612]\n\nWe may love some of our neighbours more than others; for those bound to us\nby natural ties and proximity can be loved more and in more actual ways.\nThe order and grades of love will endure when our natures are perfected in\nglory.\n\nLove (_caritas_) is the supreme theological virtue. It comes to us in this\nlife through grace; it can be perfected only when grace is consummated in\nglory. Likewise the highest knowledge possible in this life comes through\ngrace, to be perfected in glory. All is from God, and that which, of all\nthe rest, seems most freely given is the divine influence disposing the\nintelligence and will toward good, and illuminating these best God-given\nfaculties. This, as _par excellence_, through the exceeding bounty of its\nfree bestowal, is called _gratia_ (grace). It is a certain habitual\ndisposition of the soul; it is not the same as _virtus_, but a divinely\nimplanted disposition, in which the virtues must be rooted; it is the\nimparted similitude of the divine nature, and perfects the nature of the\nsoul, so far as that has part in likeness to the divine: it is the medial\nstate between nature and that further consummation of the grace-illumined\nnature, which is glory; and so it is the beginning, the _inchoatio_, of\nour glorified beatitude. Clearly, grace is no part of our inborn nature,\nand does not belong to our natural faculties. It is a divinely bestowed\nincrement, directing our natural faculties toward God and uplifting them\nto higher capacities of knowing and loving.\n\nTo follow Thomas\u2019s exposition of grace a little more closely:[613] man,\nthrough his natural powers, may know truth, but not the highest; and\nwithout grace, our fallen nature cannot will all the good belonging to it\n(_connaturale_), nor love God above all else, nor merit eternal life.\n\u201cGrace is something supernatural in man coming from God.\u201d It\n\n    \u201cis not the same as virtue; and its subject (_i.e._ its possessor,\n    that in which it is set) cannot be a faculty (_potentia_) of the soul;\n    for the soul\u2019s faculties, as perfected, are conceived to be virtues.\n    Grace, which is prior to virtue, is set, not in the faculties, but in\n    the essence of the soul. Thus, as through his faculty of knowing\n    (_potentiam intellectivam_), man shares the divine knowledge by the\n    virtue of faith, and through the faculty of will shares the divine\n    love by the virtue of _caritas_, so by means of a certain similitude\n    he shares in the divine nature through some regeneration or\n    recreation\u201d (_Pars_ I. ii., Qu. cx. Art. 4).\n\nGrace may be conceived either as \u201cdivine aid, moving us to willing and\ndoing right, or as a formative and abiding (_habituale_) gift, divinely\nplaced in us\u201d (Qu. cxi. Art. 2). \u201cThe gift of grace exceeds the power of\nany created nature; and is nothing else than a sharing (_participatio_) of\nthe divine nature\u201d (Qu. cxii. Art. 1).\n\nSo it is clear that without grace man cannot rise to the highest knowledge\nand the purest love of which he is capable in this life; far less can he\nreach that final and perfected blessedness which is expected hereafter.\nFor this he must possess the virtue of Faith, which comes not without\ngrace.\n\n    \u201cThe perfection of the rational creature consists not only in that\n    which may be his, in accordance with his nature; but also in that\n    which may come to him from some supernatural sharing in the divine\n    goodness. The final beatitude of man consists in some supernatural\n    vision of God. Man can attain to that only through some mode of\n    learning from God the Teacher, and he must believe God as a disciple\n    believes his master\u201d (_Pars_ II. ii., Qu. ii. Art. 3).\n\nWithin the province of the Christian Faith \u201cit is necessary that man\nshould accept _per modum fidei_ not only what is above reason, but also\nwhat may be known through reason.\u201d (Art. 4). He must believe explicitly\nthe _prima credibilia_, that is to say, the Articles of Faith; it is\nenough if he believes other _credibilia_ implicitly, by holding his mind\nprepared to accept whatever Scripture teaches (Art. 5).\n\n    \u201cTo believe is an act of the intellect (_actus intellectus_) as moved\n    by will to assenting. It proceeds from the will and from the\n    intellect.... Yet it is the immediate act of the intellect, and\n    therefore faith is in the intellect as in a subject [_i.e._\n    possessor]\u201d (Qu. iv. Art. 2).\n\nAnd Thomas, having shown the function of will in any act of faith, passes\non by the same path to connect _fides_ with _caritas_:\n\n    \u201cVoluntary acts take their _species_ from the end which is the object\n    of volition. That from which anything receives its species, occupies\n    the place held by _form_ in material things. Hence, as it were, the\n    _form_ of any voluntary act is the end to which it is directed\n    (_ordinatur_). Manifestly, an act of faith is directed to the object\n    willed (which is the good) as to an end. But good which is the end of\n    faith, to wit, the divine good, is the proper object of _caritas_. And\n    so _caritas_ is called the _form_ of faith, in so far as through\n    _caritas_ the act of faith is perfected and given form\u201d (Qu. iv. Art.\n    3).\n\nThomas makes his conclusion more precise:\n\n    \u201cAs faith is the consummation of the intellect, that which pertains to\n    the intellect, pertains, _per se_, to faith. What pertains to will,\n    does not, _per se_, pertain to faith. The increment making the\n    difference between the faith which has form and faith which lacks it\n    (_fides formata_, _fides informis_), consists in that which pertains\n    to will, to wit, to _caritas_, and not in what pertains to intellect\u201d\n    (Qu. iv. Art. 4).\n\nOnly the _fides_ which is formed and completed in _caritas_ is a virtue\n(Art. 5). And Thomas says concisely (Qu. vi. Art. 1) what in many ways has\nbeen made evident before: For Faith, it is necessary that the _credibilia_\nshould be propounded, and then that there should be assent to them; but\nsince man, in assenting to those things which are of the Faith, is lifted\nabove his nature, his assent must proceed from a supernatural principle\nworking within him, which is God moving him through grace.\n\nIt is not hard to see why two gifts (_dona_) of the Holy Spirit should\nbelong to the virtue Faith, to wit, understanding and knowledge,\n_intellectus et scientia_. Thomas gives the reasons in an argument germane\nto his Aristotelian theory of cognition:\n\n    \u201cThe object of the knowing faculty is _that which is_.... Many kinds\n    of things lie hidden within, to which the _intellectus_ of man should\n    penetrate. Beneath the _accidens_ the substantial nature of the thing\n    lies hidden; beneath words lie their meanings; beneath similes and\n    figures, lies the figured truth--_veritas figurata_ (for things\n    intelligible are, as it were, within things sensible); and in causes\n    lie hidden the effects, and conversely. Now, since human cognition\n    begins with sense, as from without, it is clear that the stronger the\n    light of the intellect, the further it will penetrate to the inmost\n    depths. But the light of our natural intellect is of finite virtue,\n    and may reach only to what is limited. Therefore man needs the\n    supernatural light, in order to penetrate to the knowledge which\n    through the natural light he is not able to know; and that\n    supernatural light given to man is called the _donum intellectus_\u201d\n    (Qu. viii. Art. 1).\n\nThis gift follows grace. Grace is more perfect than nature. It does not\nabrogate, but perfects the natural faculties. Nor does it fail in those\nmatters in which man\u2019s natural power is competent (Qu. ix. Art. 1). So,\nbesides the _donum intellectus_, to Faith belongs the _donum scientiae_\nalso, which brings and guides knowledge of human things (Art. 2).\n\nAnd now we shall not be surprised to find _sapientia_, the very highest\ngift of the Spirit, attached to the grace-given virtue caritas. For\n_caritas_ is the informing principle of Faith, and the highest virtue of\nthe grace-illumined will. The will, be it remembered, belongs to man\u2019s\nintellectual nature; its object is the good which is known by the mind\n(_bonum intellectum_). \u201c_Sapientia_ (wisdom, right knowledge as to the\nhighest cause, which is God) signifies rectitude of judgment in accordance\nwith the _rationes divinae_,\u201d the ideas and reasons which exist in God.\nRectitude of judgment regarding things divine may arise from rational\ninquiry; in which case it pertains to the _sapientia_ which is an\nintellectual virtue. But it may also spring from affinity to those things\nthemselves; and then it is a gift of the Holy Spirit (II. ii., Qu. xlv.\nArt. 2).\n\nSays Thomas:\n\n    \u201cBy the name _beatitude_ is understood the final perfection of the\n    rational or intellectual nature. This consists for this life in such\n    contemplation as we may have here of the highest intelligible good,\n    which is God; but above this felicity is that other felicity which we\n    expect when we shall see God as He is\u201d (_Pars_ I., Qu. lxii Art 1).\n\nBut mark: the perfection of the intellectual nature does not consist\nmerely in knowing, narrowly taken. The right action of will is also\nessential, of the will directed toward the highest good, which is God: and\nthis is _caritas_, of which the corresponding gift from the Spirit is\nwisdom. In accord with this full consummation of human nature, comprising\nthe perfection of cognition and will, Thomas outlines his conception of\nthe _vita contemplativa_, the life of most perfect beatitude attainable on\nearth:\n\n    \u201cThe _vita contemplativa_ is theirs whose resolve is set upon the\n    contemplation of truth. Resolve is an act of will; because resolve is\n    with respect to the end, which is the object of will. Thus the _vita\n    contemplativa_, according to the essence of its action, is of the\n    intelligence; but so far as it pertains to what moves us to engage in\n    such action, it is of the will, which moves all the other faculties,\n    including the intelligence, to act. Appetitive energy (_vis\n    appetitiva_) moves toward contemplating something, either sensibly or\n    intellectually: sometimes from love of the thing seen, and sometimes\n    from love of the knowledge itself, which arises from contemplation.\n    And because of this, Gregory sets the _vita contemplativa_ in the love\n    of God--_in caritate Dei_--to wit, inasmuch as some one, from a\n    willing love (_dilectio_) of God burns to behold His beauty. And\n    because any one is rejoiced when he attains what he loves, the _vita\n    contemplativa_ is directed toward _dilectio_[614] which lies in affect\n    (_in affectu_); by which _amor_ also is intended\u201d (II. ii., Qu. clxxx.\n    Art. 1).\n\nThe moral virtues, continues Thomas, do not pertain _essentially_ to this\n_vita_. But they may promote it, by regulating the passions and quieting\nthe tumult of outside affairs. In principle it is fixed upon the\ncontemplation of truth, which here we see but in a glass darkly; and so we\nhelp ourselves along by contemplating the effects of the divine cause in\nthe world.\n\nThus final beatitude, and its mortal approach in the _vita contemplativa_\nof this earth, is of the mind, both in its knowledge and its love.\nImmateriality, spirituality, is with Thomas primarily intellectual. Yet\nhis beatitude is not limited to the knowing faculties. It embraces will\nand love. The grace of God and the gifts of the Holy Spirit touch love as\nwell as knowledge, raising one and both to final unison of aim. Thus far\nin this life, while in the life to come, these grace-uplifted qualities of\nknowledge, and that choosing love (_dilectio_) which rises from knowledge\nof the good, are perfected _in gloria_.\n\nFurther than this we shall not go with Thomas, nor follow him, for\nexample, through his exposition of the means of salvation--the Incarnation\nand the sacraments. Nor need we further mark the prodigious range of his\ntheology, or his metaphysics, logic, or physics. To all this many books\nhave been devoted. We are but seeking to realise his intellectual\ninterests and qualities, in such way as to bring them within the compass\nof our sympathy. A more encyclopaedic and systematic presentation of his\nteaching is proper for those who would trace, or perhaps attach themselves\nto, particular doctrines; or would find in scholasticism, even in Thomas,\nsome special authoritativeness. For us these doctrines have but the\nvalidity of all human striving after truth. Moreover, perhaps a truer view\nof Thomas, the theologian and philosopher, is gained from following a few\ntypical forms of his teaching presented in his own exposition, than by\nanalyzing his thought with later solvents which he did not apply, and\npresenting his matter classified as he would not have ordered it, and in\nmodern phrases, which have as many meanings foreign to scholasticism as\nscholasticism has thoughts not to be translated into modern ways of\nthinking.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLI\n\nROGER BACON\n\n\nOf all mediaeval men, Thomas Aquinas achieved the most organic and\ncomprehensive union of the results of human reasoning and the data of\nChristian theology. He may be regarded as the final exponent of\nscholasticism, perfected in method, universal in scope, and still integral\nin purpose. The scholastic method was soon to be impugned and the\nscholastic universality broken. The premature attack upon the method came\nfrom Roger Bacon;[615] the fatal breach in the scholastic wholeness\nresulted from the constructive, as well as critical, achievements of Duns\nScotus and Occam.\n\nBacon is a perplexing personality. With other mediaeval thinkers one\nquickly feels the point of view from which to regard them. Not so with\nthis most disparate genius of the Middle Ages. Reading his rugged\nstatements, and trying to form a coherent thought of him, we are puzzled\nat the contradictions of his mind. One may not say that he was not of his\ntime. Every man is of his time, and cannot raise himself very far out of\nthe mass of knowledge and opinion furnished by it, any more than a swimmer\ncan lift himself out of the water that sustains him. Yet personal temper\nand inclination may aline a man with less potent tendencies, which are\nobscured and hampered by the dominant intellectual interests of the\nperiod. Assuredly, through all the Middle Ages, there were men who noticed\nsuch physical phenomena as bore upon their lives, even men who cared for\nthe dumb beginnings of what eventually might lead to natural science. But\nthey were not representative of their epoch\u2019s master energies; and in the\nMiddle Ages, as always, the man of evident and great achievement will be\none who, like Aquinas, stands upon the whole attainment of his age. Roger\nBacon, on the contrary, was as one about whose loins the currents of his\ntime drag and pull; they did not aid him, and yet he could not extricate\nhimself. It was his intellectual misfortune that he was held by his time\nso fatally, so fatally, at least, for the proper doing of the work which\nwas to be his contribution to human enlightenment, a contribution well\nignored while he lived, and for long afterward.\n\nBacon accepted the dominant mediaeval convictions: the entire truth of\nScripture; the absolute validity of the revealed religion, with its\ndogmatic formulation; also (to his detriment) the universally prevailing\nview that the end of all the sciences is to serve their queen, theology.\nYet he hated the ways of mediaeval natural selection and survival of the\nmediaeval fittest, and the methods by which Albert or Thomas or Vincent of\nBeauvais were at last presenting the sum of mediaeval knowledge and\nconviction. Well might he detest those ways and methods, seeing that he\nwas Roger Bacon, one impelled by his genius to critical study, to\nobservation and experiment. He was impassioned for linguistics, for\nmathematics, for astronomy, optics, chemistry, and for an experimental\nscience which should confirm the contents of all these, and also enlarge\nthe scope of human ingenuity. Yet he was held fast, and his thinking was\nconfused, by what he took from his time. Especially he was obsessed by the\nidea that philosophy, including every branch of knowledge, must serve\ntheology, and even in that service find its justification. But what has\nchemistry to do with theology? What has mathematics? And what has the\nphysical experimental method? By maintaining the utility of these for\ntheology, Bacon saved his mediaeval orthodoxy, and it may be, his skin\nfrom the fire. But it wrecked the working of his genius. His writings\nremain, such of them as are known, astounding in their originality and\ninsight, and almost as remarkable for their inconsistencies; they are\nmarked by a confusion of method and a distortion of purpose, which sprang\nfrom the contradictions between Bacon\u2019s genius and the current views which\nhe adopted.\n\nThe career of Bacon was an intellectual tragedy, conforming to the old\nprinciples of tragic art: that the hero\u2019s character shall be large and\nnoble, but not flawless, inasmuch as the fatal consummation must issue\nfrom character, and not happen through chance. He died an old man, as in\nhis youth, so in his age, a devotee of tangible knowledge. His pursuit of\na knowledge which was not altogether learning had been obstructed by the\nOrder of which he was an unhappy and rebellious member; quite as fatally\nhis achievement was deformed from within by the principles which he\naccepted from his time. But he was responsible for his acceptance of\ncurrent opinions; and as his views roused the distrust of his brother\nFriars, his intractable temper drew their hostility (of which we know very\nlittle) on his head. Persuasiveness and tact were needed by one who would\nimpress such novel views as his upon his fellows, or, in the thirteenth\ncentury, escape persecution for their divulgence. Bacon attacked dead and\nliving worthies, tactlessly, fatuously, and unfairly. Of his life scarcely\nanything is known, save from his allusions to himself and others; and\nthese are insufficient for the construction of even a slight consecutive\nnarrative. Born; studied at Oxford; went to Paris, studied, experimented;\nis at Oxford again, and a Franciscan; studies, teaches, becomes suspect to\nhis Order, is sent back to Paris, kept under surveillance, receives a\nletter from the pope, writes, writes, writes,--his three best-known works;\nis again in trouble, confined for many years, released, and dead, so very\ndead, body and fame alike, until partly unearthed after five centuries.\n\nInference and construction may fill out this sombre outline. England was\nthe land of Bacon\u2019s birth, and Ilchester is said to have been the natal\nspot. The approximate date may be guessed at from his reference to himself\nas _senex_ in 1267, and his remark that he had then been studying forty\nyears. His family seems to have been wealthy. Besides the letter of Pope\nClement, hereafter to be quoted, there is one contemporary reference to\nhim. Mathew Paris has a story of a certain _clericus de curia, scilicet\nRogerus Bacum_, speaking up with bold wit to King Henry III. at Oxford in\n1233. Bacon when a young man studied there under Robert Grosseteste and\nAdam of Marsh. He frequently refers to both, and always with respect. His\nchief enthusiasm is for the former. For years this admirable man was\nchancellor of Oxford; until made bishop of Lincoln in 1235. Although never\na Franciscan, he was the Order\u2019s devoted friend, and lectured in its house\nat Oxford. Grosseteste founded the study of Greek at Oxford, and collected\ntreatises upon Greek grammar. Bacon, following him, wrote a Greek grammar.\nGrosseteste, before Bacon, devoted himself to physics and mathematics, and\nall that these many-branched sciences might include. Besides a taste for\nthese studies Bacon may have had from him the idea that they were useful\nfor theology. \u201cNo one,\u201d says Bacon, \u201cknew the sciences save Lord Robert,\nBishop of Lincoln, from his length of life and experience, and\nstudiousness and industry, and because he knew mathematics and optics, and\nwas able to know all things; and he knew enough of the languages to\nunderstand the saints and philosophers of antiquity; but not enough to\ntranslate them, unless towards the end of his life when he invited Greeks,\nand had books of Greek grammar gathered from Greece and elsewhere.\u201d[616]\nThere is evidence that others at Oxford, besides Grosseteste, were\ninterested in the study of Greek and natural science.\n\nFrom Oxford Bacon went to Paris, where apparently he remained for a number\nof years; he was made a doctor there, and afterwards became a Franciscan.\nSince a monk could own nothing, one may perhaps infer that Bacon did not\njoin the Order until after the lapse of certain twenty years of scientific\nresearch, in which he spent much money, as he says in 1267, in an\noften-quoted passage of the _Opus tertium_:\n\n    \u201cFor now I have laboured from my youth in the sciences and languages,\n    and for the furtherance of study, getting together much that is\n    useful. I sought the friendship of all wise men among the Latins, and\n    caused youth to be instructed in languages, and geometric figures, in\n    numbers and tables and instruments, and many needful matters. I\n    examined everything useful to the purpose, and I know how to proceed,\n    and with what means, and what are the impediments: but I cannot go on\n    for lack of the funds which are needed. Through the twenty years in\n    which I laboured specially in the study of wisdom, careless of the\n    crowd\u2019s opinion, I spent more than two thousand pounds in these\n    pursuits on occult books (_libros secretos_) and various experiments,\n    and languages and instruments, and tables and other things.\u201d[617]\n\nAfter his first stay at Paris Bacon returned to Oxford. There he doubtless\ncontinued his researches, and divulged them, or taught in some way. For he\nroused the suspicions of his Order, and in the course of time was sent or\nconducted back to Paris, where constraint seems to have been put upon his\nactions and utterances. Like the first, this second, possibly enforced,\nstay was a long one; he speaks of himself in the first chapter of the\n_Opus tertium_ as \u201cfor ten years an exile.\u201d Yet here as always, one is not\nquite certain how literally to take Bacon\u2019s personal statements, either\ntouching himself or others.\n\nA short period of elation was at hand. He had evidently been forbidden to\nwrite, or spread his ideas; he had been disciplined at times with a diet\nof bread and water. All this had failed to sweeten his temper, or conform\nhis mind to current views. In 1265, an open-minded man who had been a\njurist, a warrior, and the counsellor of a king, before becoming an\necclesiastic, was made Pope Clement IV. While living in Paris he had been\ninterested in Bacon\u2019s work. Soon after the papal election our\nsore-bestead philosopher managed to communicate with him, as appears by\nthe pope\u2019s reply, written from Viterbo, in July 1266:\n\n    \u201cTo our beloved son, Brother Roger, called Bacon, of the Order of\n    Brothers Minorites. We have received with pleasure the letter of thy\n    devotion; and we have well considered what our beloved son called\n    Bonecor, Knight, has by word of mouth set forth to us, with fidelity\n    and prudence. So then, that we may understand more clearly what thou\n    purposest, it is our will, and we command thee by our Apostolic\n    mandate that, notwithstanding the prohibition of any prelate, or any\n    constitution of thy Order, thou sendest to us speedily in good script\n    that work which, while we held a minor office, we requested thee to\n    communicate to our beloved son Raymond, of Laudunum. Also, we command\n    thee to set forth in a letter what remedies thou deemest should be\n    applied to those matters which thou didst recently speak of as fraught\n    with such peril. Do this as secretly as possible without delay.\u201d[618]\n\nPoor Bacon! The pope\u2019s letter roused him to ecstasy, then put him in a\nquandary, and elicited elaborate apologies, and the flood of persuasive\nexposition which he poured forth with tremulous haste in the eighteen\nmonths following. Delight at being solicited by the head of Christendom\nbreaks out in hyperbole, not to be wondered at: he is uplifted and cast\nprone; that his littleness and multiple ignorance, his tongue-tied mouth\nand rasping pen, and himself unlistened to by all men, a buried man\ndelivered to oblivion, should be called on by the pope\u2019s wisdom for\nwisdom\u2019s writings (_sapientales scripturas_)!\n\n    \u201cThe Saviour\u2019s vicar, the ruler of the orb, has deigned to solicit me,\n    who am scarcely to be numbered among the particles of the\n    world--_inter partes universae_! Yet, while my weakness is oppressed\n    with the glory of this mandate, I am raised above my own powers; I\n    feel a fervour of spirit; I rise up in strength. And indeed I ought to\n    overflow with gratitude since your beatitude commands what I have\n    desired, what I have worked out with sweat, and gleaned through great\n    expenditures.\u201d[619]\n\nThe word \u201cexpenditures\u201d touches one horn of Bacon\u2019s dilemma. He is a\nFranciscan; therefore penniless; and, besides that, apparently under the\nrestraining ban of his own Order. The pope has enjoined secrecy; therefore\nBacon cannot set up the papal mandate against the probable interference of\nhis own superiors. The pope has sent no funds; sitting _in culmine mundi_\nhe was too busy with high affairs to think of that.[620] And now comes the\nchief matter for Bacon\u2019s apologies: his Beatitude misapprehends, has been\nmisinformed: the work is not yet written; it is still to be composed.\n\nIn spite of these obstacles the friendless but resourceful philosopher\nsomehow obtained opportunity to write, and the means needed for the fair\ncopy. And then in those great eighteen, or perhaps but fifteen, months,\nwhat a flood of enlightenment, of reforming criticism, of plans of study\nand methods of investigation, of examples and sketches of the matter to be\nprepared or discovered, is poured forth. Four works we know of,[621] and\nthey may have made the greater part of all that Bacon ever actually wrote.\nWith variations of emphasis, of abridgement and elaboration, the four have\nthe one purpose to convince the pope of the enormous value of Bacon\u2019s\nscheme of useful and saving knowledge. To a great extent they set forth\nthe same matters; indeed the _Opus tertium_ was intended to convey the\nsubstance of the _Opus majus_, should that fail to reach the pope. So\nthere is much repetition and some disorder in these eager, hurried works,\ndefects which emphasise the dramatic situation of the impetuous genius\nwhose pent-up utterance was loosed at last. The _Opus minus_ and the\n_Vatican Fragment_ are as from a man overpowered by the eagerness to say\neverything at once, lest the night close in before he have chance of\nspeech. And when the _Opus majus_ was at last sent forth, accompanied by\nthe _Opus minus_, as a battleship by a light armed cruiser, the _Opus\ntertium_ was despatched after them, filled with the same militant\nexposition, for fear the former two should perish _en voyage_.\n\nDid they ever reach the pope? We may presume so. Did he read any one of\nthem? Here there is no information. Popes were the busiest men in Europe,\nand death was so apt to cut short their industry. Clement died the next\nyear, and so far as known, no syllable of acknowledgement from him ever\nreached the feverishly expectant philosopher.\n\nA few words will tell the rest. In 1271, apparently, Bacon wrote his\n_Compendium studii philosophiae_, taking the occasion to denounce the\ncorruptions of Church and society in unmeasured terms. He rarely measured\nhis vituperation! His life was setting on toward its long last trial. In\n1277, Jerome of Ascoli, the General of the Franciscan Order, held a\nChapter at Paris, and Bacon was condemned to imprisonment (_carceri\ncondempnatus_) because of his teachings, which contained _aliquas\nnovitates suspectas_.[622] Jerome became Pope Nicholas IV. At a Chapter of\nthe Order held in Paris in 1292, just after his death, certain prisoners\ncondemned in 1277, were set free. Roger Bacon probably was among the\nnumber. If so, it was in the year of his liberation that he wrote a tract\nentitled _Compendium theologiae_; for that was written in 1292. This is\nthe last we hear of him. But as he must now have been hard on to eighty,\nprobably he did not live much longer.\n\nThere seems to have been nothing exceptional in Bacon\u2019s attitude toward\nScripture and the doctrines of the Church. He deemed, with other mediaeval\nmen, that Scripture held, at least implicitly, the sum of knowledge useful\nor indeed possible for men. True, neither the Old Testament nor the New\ntreats of grammar, or physics, or of minerals, or plants, or animals.\nNevertheless, the statements in these revealed writings are made with\ncomplete knowledge of every topic or thing considered or referred\nto--bird, beast, and plant, the courses of the stars, the earth and its\nwaters, yea, the arts of song or agriculture, and the principles of every\nscience. Conversely (and here Bacon even gave fresh emphasis and novel\npointings to the current view) all knowledge whatsoever, every art and\nscience, is needed for the full understanding of Scripture, _sacra\ndoctrina_, in a word, theology. This opinion may hold large truth; but\nBacon\u2019s advocacy of it sometimes affects us as a _reductio ad absurdum_,\nespecially when he is proceeding on the assumption that the patriarchs and\nprophets had knowledge of all sciences, including astrology and the\nconnection between the courses of the stars and the truth of Christianity.\n\nThere was likewise nothing startling in Bacon\u2019s view of the Fathers, and\ntheir knowledge and authoritativeness. Thomas did not regard them as\ninspired. Neither did Bacon; he respects them, yet discerns limitations to\ntheir knowledge; by reason of their circumstances they may have neglected\ncertain of the sciences; but this is no reason why we should.[623]\n\nAs for the ancient philosophers, Bacon holds to their partial inspiration.\n\u201cGod illuminated their minds to desire and perceive the truths of\nphilosophy. He even disclosed the truth to them.\u201d[624] They received their\nknowledge from God, indirectly as it were, through the prophets, to whom\nGod revealed it directly. More than once and with every detail of baseless\ntradition, he sets forth the common view that the Greek philosophers\nstudied the prophets, and drew their wisdom from that source.[625] But\ntheir knowledge was not complete; and it behoves us to know much that is\nnot in Aristotle.[626]\n\n    \u201cThe study of wisdom may always increase in this life, because nothing\n    is perfect in human discoveries. Therefore, we later men ought to\n    supplement the defects of the ancients, since we have entered into\n    their labours, through which, unless we are asses, we may be incited\n    to improve upon them. It is most wretched always to be using what has\n    been attained, and never reach further for one\u2019s self.\u201d[627]\n\nIt may be that Bacon was suspected of raising the philosophers too near\nthe Christian level; and perhaps his argument that their knowledge had\ncome from the prophets may have seemed a vain excuse. Says he, for\nexample:\n\n    \u201cThere was a great book of Aristotle upon civil science,[628] well\n    agreeing with the Christian law; for the law of Aristotle has precepts\n    like the Christian law, although much is added in the latter excelling\n    all human science. The Christian law takes whatever is worthy in the\n    civil philosophical law. For God gave the philosophers all truth, as\n    the saints, and especially Augustine, declare.... And what noble\n    thoughts have they expressed upon God, the blessed Trinity, the\n    Incarnation, Christ, the blessed Virgin, and the angels.\u201d[629]\n\nPossibly one is here reminded of Abaelard, and his thought of Christianity\nas _reformatio legis naturalis_. Yet Christ had said, He came not to\ndestroy, but to fulfil; and the chief Christian theologians had followed\nAugustine in \u201cdespoiling the Egyptians\u201d as he phrased it; the very process\nwhich in fact was making the authority of Aristotle supreme in Bacon\u2019s\ntime. So there was little that was peculiar or suspicious in Bacon\u2019s\nadmiration of the philosophers.\n\nThe trouble with Bacon becomes clearer as we turn to his views upon the\nstate of knowledge in his time, and the methods of contemporary doctors in\nrendering it worse, rather than better. These doctors were largely engaged\nupon _sacra doctrina_; they were primarily theologians and expounders of\nthe truth of revelation. Bacon\u2019s criticism of their methods might\ndisparage that to which those methods were applied. His caustic\nenumeration of the four everlasting causes of error, and the seven vices\ninfecting the study of theology, will show reason enough why his\nerror-stricken and infected contemporaries wished to close his mouth. The\nanxiousness of some might sour to enmity under the acerbity of his attack;\nnor would their hearts be softened by Bacon\u2019s boasting that these various\ndoctors, of course including Albert, could not write in ten years what he\nis sending to the pope.[630] Bacon declares that there is at Paris a great\nman (was it Albert? was it Thomas?), who is set up as an authority in the\nschools, like Aristotle or Averroes; and his works display merely\n\u201cinfinite puerile vanity,\u201d \u201cineffable falsity,\u201d superfluous verbiage, and\nthe omission of the most needful parts of philosophy.[631] Bacon is not\ncontent with abusing members of the rival Dominican Order; but includes in\nhis contempt the venerable Alexander of Hales, the defunct light of the\nFranciscans. \u201c_Nullum ordinem excludo_,\u201d cries he, in his sweeping\ndenunciation of his epoch\u2019s rampant sins. As for the seculars, why, they\ncan only lecture by stealing the copy-books of the \u201cboys\u201d in the\n\u201caforesaid Orders.\u201d[632] \u201cNever,\u201d says Bacon in the _Compendium studii_\nfrom which the last phrases are taken, \u201chas there been such a show of\nwisdom, nor such prosecution of study in so many faculties through so many\nregions as in the last forty years. Doctors are spread everywhere,\nespecially in theology, in every city, castle, and burg, chiefly through\nthe two student Orders. Yet there was never so great ignorance and so much\nerror--as shall appear from this writing.\u201d[633]\n\nBacon never loses a chance of stating the four causes of the error and\nignorance about him. These causes preyed upon his mind--he would have said\nthey preyed upon the age. They are elaborately expounded in pars i. of the\n_Opus majus_:[634]\n\n    \u201cThere are four principal stumbling blocks (_offendicula_) to\n    comprehending truth, which hinder well-nigh every one: the example of\n    frail and unworthy authority, long-established custom, the sense of\n    the ignorant crowd (_vulgi sensus imperiti_), and the hiding of one\u2019s\n    own ignorance under the pretence of wisdom. In these, every man is\n    involved and every state beset. For in every act of life, or business,\n    or study, these three worst arguments are used for the same\n    conclusion: this was the way of our ancestors, this is the custom,\n    this is the common view: therefore should be held. But the opposite\n    of this conclusion follows much better from the premises, as I will\n    prove through authority, experience, and reason. If these three are\n    sometimes refuted by the glorious power of reason, the fourth is\n    always ready, as a gloss for foolishness; so that, though a man know\n    nothing of any value, he will impudently magnify it, and thus,\n    soothing his wretched folly, defeat truth. From these deadly pests\n    come all the evils of the human race; for the noblest and most useful\n    documents of wisdom are ignored, and the secrets of the arts and\n    sciences. Worse than this, men blinded by the darkness of these four\n    do not see their ignorance, but take every care to palliate that for\n    which they do not find the remedy; and what is the worst, when they\n    are in the densest shades of error, they deem themselves in the full\n    light of truth.\u201d[635]\n\nTherefore they think the true the false, and spend their time and money\nvainly, says Bacon with many strainings of phrase.\n\n\u201cThere is no remedy,\u201d continues Bacon, \u201cagainst the first three causes of\nerror save as with all our strength we set the sound authors above the\nweak ones, reason above custom, and the opinions of the wise above the\nhumours of the crowd; and do not trust in the triple argument: this has\nprecedent, this is customary, this is the common view.\u201d But the fourth\ncause of error is the worst of all. \u201cFor this is a lone and savage beast,\nwhich devours and destroys all reason,--this desire of seeming wise, with\nwhich every man is born.\u201d Bacon arraigns this cause of evil, through\nnumerous witnesses, sacred and profane. It has two sides: display of\npretended knowledge, and excusing of ignorance. Infinite are the verities\nof God and the creation: let no one boast of knowledge. It is not for man\nto glory in his wisdom; faith goes beyond man\u2019s knowledge; and still much\nis unrevealed. In forty years we learn no more than could be taught youth\nin one. I have profited more from simple men \u201cthan from all my famous\ndoctors.\u201d\n\nBacon\u2019s four universal causes of ignorance indicate his general attitude.\nMore specific criticisms upon the academic methods of his time are\ncontained in his _septem peccata studii principalis quod est theologiae_.\nThis is given in the _Opus minus_.[636] Bacon, it will be remembered, says\nagain and again that all sciences must serve theology, and find their\nvalue from that service: the science of theology includes every science,\nand should use each as a handmaid for its own ends. Accordingly, when\nBacon speaks of the seven vices of the _studium principale quod est\ntheologia_, we may expect him to point out vicious methods touching all\nbranches of study, yet with an eye to their common service of their\nmistress.\n\n    \u201cSeven are the vices of the chief study which is theology; the first\n    is that philosophy in practice dominates theology. But it ought not to\n    dominate in any province beyond itself, and surely not the science of\n    God, which leads to eternal life.... The greater part of all the\n    quaestiones in a _Summa theologiae_ is pure philosophy, with arguments\n    and solutions; and there are infinite quaestiones concerning the\n    heavens, and concerning matter and being, and concerning species and\n    the similitudes of things, and concerning cognition through such; also\n    concerning eternity and time, and how the soul is in the body, and how\n    angels move locally, and how they are in a place, and an infinitude of\n    like matters which are determined in the books of the philosophers. To\n    investigate these difficulties does not belong to theologians,\n    according to the main intent and subject of their work. They ought\n    briefly to recite these truths as they find them determined in\n    philosophy. Moreover, the other matter of the quaestiones which\n    concerns what is proper to theology, as concerning the Blessed\n    Trinity, the Incarnation, the Sacraments, is discussed principally\n    through the authorities, arguments, and distinctions of philosophy.\u201d\n\nEvidently, this first vice of theological study infected the method of\nAlbert and Thomas, and of practically all other theologians! Its\ncorrection might call for a complete reversal of method. But the reversal\ndesired by Bacon would scarcely have led back to Gospel simplicity, as may\nbe seen from what follows.\n\n    \u201cThe second vice is that the best sciences, which are those most\n    clearly pertinent to theology, are not used by theologians. I refer to\n    the grammar of the foreign tongues from which all theology comes. Of\n    even more value are mathematics, optics, moral science, experimental\n    science, and alchemy. But the cheap sciences (_scientiae viles_) are\n    used by theologians, like Latin grammar, logic, natural philosophy in\n    its baser part, and a certain side of metaphysics. In these there is\n    neither the good of the soul, nor the good of the body, nor the good\n    things of fortune. But moral philosophy draws out the good of the\n    soul, as far as philosophy may. Alchemy is experimental and, with\n    mathematics and optics, promotes the good of the body and of\n    fortune.... While the grammar of other tongues gives theology and\n    moral philosophy to the Latins.... Oh! what madness is it to neglect\n    sciences so useful for theology, and be sunk in those which are\n    impertinent!\n\n    \u201cThe third vice is that the theologians are ignorant of those four\n    sciences which they use; and therefore accept a mass of false and\n    futile propositions, taking the doubtful for certain, the obscure for\n    evident; they suffer alike from superfluity and the lack of what is\n    necessary, and so stain theology with infinite vices which proceed\n    from sheer ignorance.\u201d For they are ignorant of Greek and Hebrew and\n    Arabic, and therefore ignorant of all the sciences contained in these\n    tongues; and they have relied on Alexander of Hales and others as\n    ignorant as themselves. The fourth vice is that they study and lecture\n    on the _Sentences_ of the Lombard, instead of the text of Scripture;\n    and the lecturers on the _Sentences_ are preferred in honour, while\n    any one who would lecture on Scripture has to beg for a room and hour\n    to be set him.\n\n    \u201cThe fifth fault is greater than all the preceding. The text of\n    Scripture is horribly corrupt in the Vulgate copy at Paris.\u201d\n\nBacon goes at some length into the errors of the Vulgate, and gives a good\naccount of the various Latin versions of the Bible. Next, the \u201c_sextum\npeccatum_ is far graver than all, and may be divided into two _peccata\nmaxima_: one is that through these errors the literal sense of the Vulgate\nhas infinite falsities and intolerable uncertainties, so that the truth\ncannot be known. From this follows the other _peccatum_, that the\nspiritual sense is infected with the same doubt and error.\u201d These errors,\nfirst in the literal meaning, and thence in the spiritual or allegorical\nsignificance, spring from ignorance of the original tongues, and from\nignorance of the birds and beasts and objects of all sorts spoken of in\nthe Bible. \u201cBy far the greater cause of error, both in the literal and\nspiritual meaning, rises from ignorance of things in Scripture. For the\nliteral sense is in the natures and properties of things, in order that\nthe spiritual meaning may be elicited through convenient adaptations and\ncongruent similitudes.\u201d Bacon cites Augustine to show that we cannot\nunderstand the precept, _Estote prudentes sicut serpentes_, unless we know\nthat it is the serpent\u2019s habit to expose his body in defence of his head,\nas the Christian should expose all things for the sake of his head, which\nis Christ. Alack! is it for such ends as these that Bacon would have a\ncloser scholarship fostered, and natural science prosecuted? The text of\nthe _Opus minus_ is broken at this point, and one cannot say whether Bacon\nhad still a seventh _peccatum_ to allege, or whether the series ended with\nthe second of the vices into which he divided the sixth.\n\nBacon\u2019s strictures upon the errors of his time were connected with his\nlabours to remedy them, and win a firmer knowledge than dialectic could\nsupply. To this end he advocated the study of the ancient languages, which\nhe held to be \u201cthe first door of wisdom, and especially for the Latins,\nwho have not the text, either of theology or philosophy, except from\nforeign languages.\u201d[637] His own knowledge of Greek was sufficient to\nenable him to read passages in that tongue, and to compose a Greek\ngrammar.[638] But he shows no interest in the classical Greek literature,\nnor is there evidence of his having studied any important Greek\nphilosopher in the original. He was likewise zealous for the study of\nHebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic, the other foreign tongues which held the\nlearning so inadequately represented by Latin versions. He spoke with some\nexaggeration of the demerits of the existing translations;[639] but he\nrecognised the arduousness of the translator\u2019s task, from diversity of\nidiom and the difficulty of finding an equivalent in Latin for the\nstatements, for example, in the Greek. The Latin vocabulary often proved\ninadequate; and words had to be taken bodily from the original tongue.\nLikewise he saw, and so had others, though none had declared it so\nclearly, that the translator should not only be master of the two\nlanguages, but have knowledge of the subject treated by the work to be\ntranslated.[640]\n\nAfter the languages, Bacon urged the pursuit of the sciences, which he\nconceived to be interdependent and corroborative; the conclusions of each\nof them susceptible of proof by the methods and data of the others.\n\n    \u201cNext to languages,\u201d says Bacon in chapter xxix. of the _Opus\n    tertium_, \u201cI hold mathematics necessary in the second place, to the\n    end that we may know what may be known. It is not planted in us by\n    nature, yet is closest to inborn knowledge, of all the sciences which\n    we know through discovery and learning (_inventionem et doctrinam_).\n    For its study is easier than all other sciences, and boys learn its\n    branches readily. Besides, the laity can make diagrams, and calculate,\n    and sing, and use musical instruments. All these are the _opera_ of\n    mathematics.\u201d\n\nThus, with antique and mediaeval looseness, Bacon conceived this science.\nHe devotes to it the long _Pars quarta_ of the _Opus majus_: saying at the\nbeginning that of--\n\n    \u201cthe four great sciences the gate and key is mathematics, which the\n    saints found out (_invenerunt_) from the beginning of the world, and\n    used more than all the other sciences. Its neglect for the past thirty\n    or forty years has ruined the studies (_studium_) of the Latins. For\n    whoso is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences, nor the things\n    of this world. But knowledge of this science prepares the mind and\n    lifts it to the tested cognition (_certificatam cognitionem_) of all\n    things.\u201d\n\nBacon adduces authorities to prove the need of mathematics for the study\nof grammar and logic; he shows that its processes reach indubitable\ncertitude of truth; and \u201cif in other sciences we would reach certitude\nfree from doubt, and truth without error, we must set the foundations of\ncognition in mathematics.\u201d[641] He points out its obvious necessity in the\nstudy of the heavens, and in everything pertaining to speculative and\npractical _astrologia_; also for the study of physics and optics. Thus his\ninterest lay chiefly in its application. As human science is nought unless\nit may be applied to things divine, mathematics must find its supreme\nusefulness in its application to the matters of theology. It should aid us\nin ascertaining the position of paradise and hell, and promote our\nknowledge of Scriptural geography, and more especially, sacred chronology.\nNext it affords us knowledge of the exact forms of things mentioned in\nScripture, like the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, so that from an\naccurate ascertainment of the literal sense, the true spiritual meaning\nmay be deduced. It should not be confused with its evil namesake\nmagic,[642] yet the true science is useful in determining the influence of\nthe stars on the fortunes of states. Moreover, mathematics, through\nastrology, is of great importance in the certification of the faith,\nstrengthening it against the sect of Antichrist;[643] then in the\ncorrection of the Church\u2019s calendar; and finally, as all things and\nregions of the earth are affected by the heavens, astrology and\nmathematics are pertinent to a consideration of geography. And Bacon\nconcludes _Pars quarta_ with an elaborate description of the regions,\ncountries, and cities of the known world.\n\nBacon likewise was profoundly interested in optics, the _scientia\nperspectiva_, which he sets forth elaborately in _Pars quinta_ of the\n_Opus majus_. Much space would be needed to discuss his theories of light\nand vision, and the propagation of physical force, treated in the _De\nmultiplicatione specierum_. He knew all that was to be learned from Greek\nand Arabic sources, and, unlike Albert, who compiled much of the same\nmaterial, he used his knowledge to build with. Bacon had a genius for\nthese sciences: his _Scientia perspectiva_ is no mere compilation, and no\nwork used by him presented either a theory of force or of vision,\ncontaining as many adumbrations of later theorizing.[644] Yet he fails to\ncast off his obsession with the \u201cspiritual meaning\u201d and the utility of\nscience for theology. He discussed the composition of Adam\u2019s body while in\na state of innocence,[645] a point that may seem no more tangible than\nThomas\u2019s reasonings upon the movements of Angels, which Bacon ridicules.\nAgain in his _Optics_, after an interesting discussion of refraction and\nreflection, he cannot forego a consideration of the spiritual\nsignifications of refracted rays.[646] Even his discussion of experimental\nscience has touches of mediaevalism, which are peculiarly dissonant in\nthis most original and \u201cadvanced\u201d product of Bacon\u2019s genius, which now\nmust be considered more specifically.\n\nThe speculative intellect of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was so\nwidely absorbed with the matter and methods of the dominant scholasticism,\nthat no one is likely to think of the eminent scholastics as isolated\nphenomena. Plainly they were but as the highest peaks which somewhat\novertop the other mountains, through whose aggregation and support they\nwere lifted to their supreme altitude. But with Bacon the danger is real\nlest he seem separate and unsupported; for the influences which helped to\nmake him are not over-evident. Yet he did not make himself. The directing\nof his attention to linguistics is sufficiently accounted for by the\ninfluence of Grosseteste and others, who had inaugurated the study of\nGreek, and perhaps Hebrew at Oxford. As for physics or optics, others also\nwere interested--or there would have been no translations of Greek and\nArabic treatises for him to use;[647] and in mathematics there was a\ncertain older contemporary, Jordanus Nemorarius (not to mention Leonardo\nFibonacci), who far overtopped him. It is safe to assume that in the\nthirteenth, as in the twelfth and previous centuries, there were men who\nstudied the phenomena of nature. But they have left scant record. A period\nis remembered by those features of its main accomplishment which are not\nsuperseded or obliterated by the further advance of later times. Nothing\nhas obliterated the work of the scholastics for those who may still care\nfor such reasonings; and Aquinas to-day holds sway in the Roman Catholic\nChurch. On the other hand, the sparse footprints of the mediaeval men who\nessayed the paths of natural science have long since been trodden out by\nmyriad feet passing far beyond them, along those ways. Yet there were\nthese wayfarers, who made little stir in their own time, and have long\nbeen well forgotten. Had it not been for the letter from Pope Clement,\nBacon himself might be among them; and only his writings keep from utter\noblivion the name of an individual who, according to Bacon, carried the\npractice of \u201cexperimental science\u201d further than he could hope to do. It\nmay be fruitful to approach Bacon\u2019s presentation of this science, or\nscientific method, through his references to this extraordinary Picard,\nnamed Peter of Maharncuria, or Maricourt.\n\nIn the _Opus tertium_, Bacon has been considering optics and mathematics,\nand has spoken of this Peter as proficient in them; and thus he opens\nchapter xiii., which is devoted to the _scientia experimentalis_:\n\n    \u201cBut beyond these sciences is one more perfect than all, which all\n    serve, and which in a wonderful way certifies them all: this is called\n    the experimental science, which neglects arguments, since they do not\n    make certain, however strong they may be, unless at the same time\n    there is present the _experientia_ of the conclusion. Experimental\n    science teaches _experiri_, that is, to test, by observation or\n    experiment, the lofty conclusions of all sciences.\u201d This science none\n    but Master Peter knows.\n\nBy following the text further, we may be able to appreciate what Bacon\nwill shortly say of him:\n\n    \u201cAnother dignity of this science is that it attests these noble truths\n    in terms of the other sciences, which they cannot prove or\n    investigate: like the prolongation of human life; for this truth is in\n    terms of medicine, but the art of medicine never extends itself to\n    this truth, nor is there anything about it in medical treatises. But\n    the _fidelis experimentator_ has considered that the eagle, and the\n    stag, and the serpent, and the phoenix prolong life, and renew their\n    youth, and knows that these things are given to brutes for the\n    instruction of men. Wherefore he has thought out noble plans (_vias\n    nobiles_) with this in view, and has commanded alchemy to prepare a\n    body of like constitution (_aequalis complexionis_), that he may use\n    it.\u201d\n\nIt may be pertinent to our estimate of Bacon\u2019s experimental science to\nquery where the _experimentator_ ever observed an eagle or a phoenix\nrenewing its youth, outside of the _Physiologus_?\n\n    \u201cThe third dignity of this science is that it does not accept truths\n    in terms of the other sciences, yet uses them as handmaids.... And\n    this science attests all natural and artificial data specifically and\n    in the proper province, _per experientiam perfectam_; not through\n    arguments, like the purely speculative sciences, and not through weak\n    and imperfect _experientias_, like the operative sciences (_scientiae\n    operativae_).[648] So this is the mistress of all, and the goal of all\n    speculation. But it requires great expenditures for its prosecution;\n    Aristotle, by Alexander\u2019s authority, besides those whom he used at\n    home _in experientia_, sent many thousands of men through the world to\n    examine (_ad experiendum_) the natures and properties of all things,\n    as Pliny tells. And certainly to set on fire at any distance would\n    cost more than a thousand marks, before adequate glasses could be\n    prepared; but they would be worth an army against the Turks and\n    Saracens. For the perfect experimenter could destroy any hostile force\n    by this combustion through the sun\u2019s rays. This is a marvellous thing,\n    yet there are many other things more wonderful in this science; but\n    very few people are devoted to it, from lack of money. I know but one,\n    who deserves praise for the prosecution of its works; he cares not for\n    wordy controversies, but prosecutes the works of wisdom, and in them\n    rests. So what others as purblind men try to see, like bats in the\n    twilight, he views in the full brightness of day, because he is\n    _dominus experimentorum_. He knows natural matters _per experientiam_,\n    and those of medicine and alchemy, and all things celestial and below.\n    He is ashamed if any layman, or old woman, or knight, or rustic, knows\n    what he does not. He has studied everything in metal castings, and\n    gold and silver work, and the use of other metals and minerals; he\n    knows everything pertaining to war and arms and hunting; he has\n    examined into agriculture and surveying; also into the experiments and\n    fortune-tellings of old women, knows the spells of wizards; likewise\n    the tricks and devices of jugglers. In fine, nothing escapes him that\n    he ought to know, and he knows how to expose the frauds of magic.\u201d\n\nIt is impossible to complete philosophy, usefully and with certitude,\nwithout Peter; but he is not to be had for a price; he could have had\nevery honour from princes; and if he wished to publish his works, the\nwhole world of Paris would follow him. But he cares not a whit for honours\nor riches, though he could get them any time he chose through his wisdom.\nThis man has worked at such a burning-glass for three years, and soon will\nperfect it by the grace of God.\n\nThere is a great deal of Roger Bacon in these curious passages; much of\nhis inductive genius, much of his sanguine hopefulness, not to say\ninventive imagination; and enough of his credulity. No one ever knew or\ncould perform all he ascribes to this astounding Peter, from whom,\napparently, there is extant a certain intelligent treatise upon the\nmagnet.[649] And as for those burning-glasses, or possibly reflectors, by\nwhich distant fleets and armies should be set afire--did they ever exist?\nDid Archimedes ever burn with them the Roman ships at Syracuse? Were they\never more than a myth? It is, at all events, safe to say that no device\nfrom the hand and brain of Peter of Maharncuria ever threatened Turk or\nSaracen.\n\nIt is knowledge that gives insight. Modern critical methods amount chiefly\nto this, that we know more. Bacon did not have such knowledge of animal\nphysiology as would assure him of the absurdity of the notion that an\neagle or any animal could renew its youth. Nor did he know enough to\nrealise the vast improbability of Greek philosophers drawing their\nknowledge from the books of Hebrew prophets. And one sees how loose must\nhave been the practice, or the dreams, of his \u201cexperimental science.\u201d His\nfundamental conception seems to waver: _Scientia experimentalis_, is it a\nscience, or is it a means and method universally applicable to all\nscientific investigation? The sciences serve it as handmaids, says Bacon;\nand he also says, that it alone can test and certify, make sure and\ncertain, the conclusions of the other sciences. Perhaps he thought it the\nmaster-key fitting all the doors of knowledge; and held that all sciences,\nso far as possible, should proceed from experience, through further\nobservation and experiment. But he has not said quite this.\n\nHe is little to be blamed for his vagueness, and greatly to be admired for\nhaving reached his possibly inconsistent conception. Observation and\nexperiment were as old as human thought upon human experience. And Albert\nthe Great says that the conclusions of all sciences should be tested by\nthem. But he evinces no formal conception of either an experimental\nscience or method; though he has much to say as to logic, and ponderously\nconsiders whether it is a science or the means or method of all\nsciences.[650] Herein he is discussing consciously with respect to logic,\nthe very point as to which Bacon, in respect to experimental science,\nrather unconsciously wavers: is it a science, and almost the queen? Or is\nit the true scientific method to be followed by all sciences when\napplicable?[651] Bacon had no high regard for the study of logic, deeming\nthat the thoughts of untaught men naturally followed its laws.[652] This\nwas doubtless true, and just as true, moreover, of experimental science\nas of logic. The one and the other were built up from the ways of the\ncommon man and universal processes of thought. Yet the logic of the\ntrained mind is the surer; and so experimental science may reach out\nbeyond the crude observations of unscientific men.\n\nManifestly with Roger Bacon the _scientia experimentalis_ held the place\nwhich logic held with Albert, or queenly dialectic with Abaelard. He\nrepeats himself continually in stating its properties and prerogatives,\nyet without advancing to greater clearness of conception. _Pars sexta_ of\nthe _Opus majus_ is devoted to it: and we may take one last glance to see\nwhether the statements there throw any further light upon the matter.\n\n    \u201cThe roots of the wisdom of the Latins having been placed and set in\n    Languages, Mathematics, and Perspective, I now wish to re-examine\n    these _radices_ from the side of _scientia experimentalis_; because,\n    without _experientia_ nothing can be known adequately. There are two\n    modes of arriving at knowledge (_cognoscendi_), to wit, argument and\n    _experimentum_. Argument draws a conclusion and forces us to concede\n    it, but does not make it certain or remove doubt, so that the mind may\n    rest in the perception of truth, unless the mind find truth by the way\n    of experience.\u201d\n\nAnd Bacon says, as illustration, that you could never by mere argument\nconvince a man that fire would burn; also that \u201cin spite of the\ndemonstration of the properties of an equilateral triangle, the mind would\nnot stick to the conclusion _sine experientia_.\u201d\n\nAfter referring to Aristotle, and adducing some examples of foolish things\nbelieved by learned and common men alike, because they had not applied the\ntests of observation, he concludes: \u201cOportet ergo omnia certificari per\nviam experientiae.\u201d He continues with something unexpected:\n\n    \u201c_Sed duplex est experientia_: one is through the external senses, and\n    thus those _experimenta_ take place which are made through suitable\n    instruments in astronomy, and by the tests of observation as to things\n    below. And whatever like matters may not be observed by us, we know\n    from other wise men who have observed them. This _experientia_ is\n    human and philosophical; but it is not sufficient for man, because it\n    does not give plenary assurance as to things corporeal; and as to\n    things spiritual it reaches nothing. The intellect of man needs other\n    aid, and so the holy patriarchs and prophets, who first gave the\n    sciences to the world, received inner illuminations and did not stand\n    on sense alone. Likewise many believers after Christ. For the grace of\n    faith illuminates much, and divine inspirations, not only in spiritual\n    but corporeal things, and in the sciences of philosophy. As Ptolemy\n    says, the way of coming to a knowledge of things is duplex, one\n    through the _experientia_ of philosophy, and the other through divine\n    inspiration, which is much better.\u201d[653]\n\nAny doubt as to the religious and Christian meaning of the last passage is\nremoved by Bacon\u2019s statement of the\n\n    \u201cseven grades of this inner science: the first is through\n    _illuminationes pure scientiales_; the next consists in virtues, for\n    the bad man is ignorant; ... the third is in the seven gifts of the\n    Holy Spirit, which Isaiah enumerates; the fourth is in the beatitudes\n    which the Lord defines in the Gospel; the fifth is in the _sensibus\n    spiritualibus_; the sixth is in _fructibus_, from which is the peace\n    of God which passes _omnem sensum_; the seventh consists in raptures\n    (_in raptibus_) and their modes, as in various ways divers men have\n    been enraptured, so that they saw many things which it is not lawful\n    for man to tell. And who is diligently exercised in these experiences,\n    or some of them, can certify both to himself and others not only as to\n    spiritual things, but as to all human sciences.\u201d[654]\n\nThese utterances are religious, and bring us back to the religious, or\npractical, motive of Bacon\u2019s entire endeavour after knowledge: knowledge\nshould have its utility, its practical bearing; and the ultimate utility\nis that which promotes a sound and saving knowledge of God. The true\nmethod of research, says Bacon in the _Compendium studii_,\n\n    \u201c... is to study first what properly comes first in any science, the\n    easier before the more difficult, the general before the particular,\n    the less before the greater. The student\u2019s business should lie in\n    chosen and useful topics, because life is short; and these should be\n    set forth with clearness and certitude, which is impossible without\n    _experientia_. Because, although we know through three means,\n    authority, reason, and _experientia_, yet authority is not wise\n    unless its reason be given (_auctoritas non sapit nisi detur ejus\n    ratio_), nor does it give knowledge, but belief. We believe, but do\n    not know, from authority. Nor can reason distinguish sophistry from\n    demonstration, unless we know that the conclusion is attested by facts\n    (_experiri per opera_). Yet the fruits of study are insignificant at\n    the present time, and the secret and great matters of wisdom are\n    unknown to the crowd of students.\u201d[655]\n\nIt is as with an echo of this thought, that Bacon begins the second\nchapter of his exposition of experimental science in the sixth part of the\n_Opus majus_, from which we have but now withdrawn our attention. He\nanxiously reiterates what he has already said more than once, as to the\nproperties and prerogatives of this _scientia experimentalis_. Then he\ngives his most interesting and elaborate example of its application in the\ninvestigation of the rainbow, an example too lengthy and too difficult to\nreproduce. In stating the three prerogatives, he makes but slight change\nof phrasing; yet his restatement of the last of them:--\u201cThe third\n_dignitas_ of this science is that it investigates the secrets of nature\nby its own competency and out of its own qualities, irrespective of any\nconnection with the other sciences,\u201d--signifies an autonomous science,\nrather than a method applicable to all investigation. The illustrations\nwhich Bacon now gives, range free indeed; yet in the main relate to\n\u201cuseful discoveries\u201d as one might say: to ever-burning lamps, Greek fire,\nexplosives, antidotes for poison, and matters useful to the Church and\nState. Along these lines of discovery through experiment, Bacon lets his\nimagination travel and lead him on to surmises of inventions that long\nafter him were realised. \u201cMachines for navigating are possible without\nrowers, like great ships suited to river or ocean, going with greater\nvelocity than if they were full of rowers: likewise wagons may be moved\n_cum impetu inaestimabili_, as we deem the chariots of antiquity to have\nbeen. And there may be flying machines, so made that a man may sit in the\nmiddle of the machine and direct it by some devise: and again, machines\nfor raising great weights.\u201d[656] The modern reality has outdone this\nmediaeval dream.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLII\n\nDUNS SCOTUS AND OCCAM\n\n\nThe thirteenth century was a time of potent Church unity, when the papacy,\ntriumphant over emperors and kings, was drawing further strength from the\ndevotion of the two Orders, who were renewing the spiritual energies of\nWestern Christendom. Scholasticism was still whole and unbroken, in spite\nof Roger Bacon, who attacked its methods with weapons of his own forging,\nyet asserting loudly the single-eyed subservience of all the sciences to\ntheology. This assertion from a man of Bacon\u2019s views, was as vain as the\n_Unam sanctam_ of Pope Boniface VIII., fulminated in 1302, arrogating for\nthe papacy every power on earth. In earlier decades such pretensions had\nbeen almost acquiesced in; but the _Unam sanctam_ was a senile outcry from\na papacy vanquished by the new-grown power of the French king, sustained\nby the awakening of a French nation.\n\nThe opening years of the fourteenth century, so fatal for the papacy, were\nalso portentous for scholasticism. The _Summa_ of Thomas was impugned by\nJoannes Duns Scotus, whose entire work, constructive as well as critical,\nwas impressed with qualities of finality, signifying that in the forms of\nreasoning represented by him as well as Thomas, thought should advance no\nfarther. Bacon\u2019s attack upon scholastic methods had proved abortive from\nits tactlessness and confusion, and because men did not care for, and\nperhaps did not understand, his arguments. It was not so with the\narguments of Duns Scotus. Throughout the academic world, thought still was\nset to chords of metaphysics; and although men had never listened to quite\nsuch dialectic orchestration as Duns provided, they liked it, perceived\nits motives, and comprehended the meaning of its themes. So his generation\nunderstood and appreciated him. That he was the beginning of the end of\nthe scholastic system, could not be known until the manner of that ending\nhad disclosed itself more fully. We, however, discern the symptoms of\nscholastic dissolution in his work. His criticism of his predecessors was\ndisintegrating, even when not destructive. His own dialectic was so\nsurpassingly intricate and dizzy that, like the choir of Beauvais, it\nmight some day collapse. With Duns Scotus, scholasticism reasoned itself\nout of human reach. And with him also, the wholeness of the scholastic\npurpose finally broke. For he no longer maintained the union of\nmetaphysics and theology. The latter, to be sure, was valid absolutely;\nbut, from a speculative, it has become a practical science. It neither\ndraws its principles from metaphysics, nor subordinates the other\nsciences--all human knowledge--to its service. Although rational in\ncontent, it possesses proofs stronger than dialectic, and stands on\nrevelation.\n\nThere had always been men who maintained similar propositions. But it was\nquite another matter that the severance between metaphysics and theology\nshould be demonstrated by a prodigious metaphysical theologian after a\ndifferent view had been carried to its farthest reaches by the great\nAquinas. Henceforth philosophy and theology were set on opposite\npinnacles, only with theology\u2019s pinnacle the higher. In spite of the last\ncircumstance, the coming time showed that men cannot for long possess in\npeace two standards of truth--philosophy and revelation; but will be\ndriven to hold to the one and ignore the other. By breaking the rational\nunion of philosophy and theology, Duns Scotus prepared the way for Occam.\nThe latter also asserts vociferously the superiority of the divine truth\nover human knowledge and its reasonings. But the popes are at Avignon, and\nthe Christian world no longer bows down before those willing Babylonian\ncaptives. Under such a blasted condition of the Church, how should any\ninclusive Christian synthesis of thought and faith be maintained?\n\nDuns Scotus[657] could not have been what he was, had he not lived after\nThomas. He was indeed the pinnacle of scholasticism; set upon all the\nrest. Yet this pinnacle had its more particular supports--or antecedents.\nAnd their special line may be noted without intending thereby to suggest\nthat the influences affecting the thought of Duns Scotus did not include\nall the men he heard or read, and criticised.\n\nThat Duns Scotus was educated at Oxford, and became a Franciscan, and not\na Dominican, had done much to set the lines of thought reflected in his\ndoctrines. Anselm of Aosta, of Bec, of Canterbury, had been an\nintellectual force in England. Duns was strongly influenced by his bold\nrealism, by his emphasis upon the power and freedom of the will, and by\nhis doctrine of the atonement.[658] But Anselm also affected Scotus\nindirectly through the English worthy who stands between them.\n\nThis, of course, was Robert Grosseteste, to whom we have had occasion to\nrefer, yet, despite of his intrinsic worth, always in relation to his\neffect on others. He was a great man; in his day a many-sided force,\nstrong in the business of Church and State, strong in censuring and\nbridling the wicked, strong in the guidance of the young university of\nOxford, and a mighty friend of the Franciscan Order, then establishing\nitself there. To his pupils, and their pupils apparently, he was a\nfruitful inspiration; yet the historian of thought may be less interested\nin the master than in certain of these pupils who brought to explicit form\ndivers matters which in Grosseteste seem to have been but inchoate.[659]\nOne thinks immediately of Roger Bacon, who was his pupil; and then of\nDuns, the metaphysician, who possibly may have listened to some aged pupil\nof Grosseteste. In different ways, Duns as well as Bacon took much from\nthe master. And it is possible to see how the great teacher and bishop\nmay have incited the genius of Scotus as well as that of Bacon to perform\nits task. For Grosseteste was a rarely capable and clear-eyed man, honest\nand resolute, who with the entire strength of a powerful personality\ninsisted upon going to the heart of every proposition, and testing its\nvalidity by the surest means obtainable. By virtue of his training and\nintellectual inheritance, he was an Augustinian and a Platonist; a\nsuccessor of Anselm, rather than a predecessor of the great Dominican\nAristotelians. He was accordingly an emphatic realist, yet one who would\nco-ordinate the reality of his \u201cuniversals\u201d with the reality of\nexperience. Even had he not been an Augustinian, such a masterful\ncharacter would have realised the power of the human will, and felt the\npractical insistencies of the _art_ of human salvation, which was the\n_science_ of theology.\n\nViews like these prevailed at Oxford. They may be found clearly stated by\nRichard of Middleton, an Oxford Franciscan somewhat older than Duns\nScotus. He declares that theology is a practical science, and emphasises\nthe primacy and freedom of the will. _Voluntas est nobilissima potentia in\nanima._ Again: _Voluntas simpliciter nobilior est quam intellectus_: the\nintellect indeed goes before the Will, as the servant who carries the\ncandle before his lord. So the idea of the Good, toward which the Will\ndirects itself, is higher than that of the True, which is the object of\nthe mind; and loving is greater than knowing.[660] Roger Bacon had also\nheld that Will (_Voluntas_) was higher than the knowing faculty\n(_intellectus_); and so did Henry of Ghent,[661] a man of the Low\nCountries, _doctor solemnis_ hight, and a ruling spirit at the Paris\nUniversity in the latter part of the thirteenth century. Many of his\ndoctrines substantially resembled those of Scotus, although attacked by\nhim.\n\nSo we seem to see the pit in which Duns may have digged. This man, who was\nno mere _fossor_, but a builder, and might have deserved the name of\nPoliorcetes, as the overthrower of many bulwarks, has left few traces of\nhimself, beyond his twenty tomes of metaphysics, which contain no personal\nreferences to their author. The birthplace of Johannes Duns Scotus,\nwhether in Scotland, England or Ireland, is unknown. The commonly accepted\ndate, 1274, probably should be abandoned for an earlier year. It is known\nthat he was a Franciscan, and that the greater part of his life as student\nand teacher was passed at Oxford. In a letter of commendation, written by\nthe General of his Order in 1304, he is already termed _subtilissimus_. He\nwas then leaving for Paris, where, two or three years later, in 1307, he\nwas made a Doctor. The following year he was sent to Cologne, and there he\ndied an enigmatical death on November 8, 1308. Report has it that he was\nburied alive while in a trance.[662] Probably there was little to tell of\nthe life of Duns Scotus. His personality, as well as his career, seems\ncompletely included and exhausted in his works. Yet back of them, besides\na most acutely reasoning mind, lay an indomitable will. The man never\nfaltered in his labour any more than his reasoning wavered in its\nlabyrinthic course to its conclusions. His learning was complete: he knew\nthe Bible and the Fathers; he was a master of theology, of philosophy, of\nastronomy, and mathematics.\n\nThe constructive processes of his genius appear to issue out of the action\nof its critical energies. Duns was the most penetrating critic produced by\nscholasticism. Whatever he considered from the systems of other men he\nsubjected to tests that were apt to leave the argument in tatters. No\nlogical inconsequence escaped him. And when every point had been examined\nwith respect to its rational consistency, this dialectic genius was\ninclined to bring the matter to the bar of psychological experience. On\nthe other hand he was a churchman, holding that even as Scripture and\ndogma were above question, so were the decrees of the Church, God\u2019s\nsanctioned earthly _Civitas_.\n\nHaving thus tested whatever was presented by human reason, and accepting\nwhat was declared by Scripture or the Church, Duns proceeds to build out\nhis doctrine as the case may call for. No man ever drove either\nconstructive logic or the subtilties of critical distinctions closer to\nthe limits of human comprehension or human patience than Duns Scotus. And\nhere lies the trouble with him. The endless ramification and refinement\nof his dialectic, his devious processes of conclusion, make his work a\n_reductio ad absurdum_ of scholastic ways of reasoning. Logically,\neristically, the argumentation is inerrant. It never wanders aimlessly,\nbut winding and circling, at last it reaches a conclusion from some point\nunforeseen. Would you run a course with this master of the syllogism? If\nyou enter _his_ lists, you are lost. The right way to attack him, is to\nstand without, and laugh. That is what was done afterwards, when whoever\ncared for such reasonings was called a _Dunce_, after the name of this\nmost subtle of mediaeval metaphysicians.\n\nThus a man is judged by his form and method, and by the bulk of his\naccomplishment. Form, method, bulk of accomplishment, with Scotus were\npreposterous. When the taste or mania for such dialectics passed away,\nthis kind of form, this maze of method, this hopelessness of bulk, made an\nunfit vehicle for a philosophy of life. Men would not search it through to\nfind the living principles. Yet living principles were there; or, at\nleast, tenable and consistent views. The main positions of Duns Scotus,\nsome of which he held in opposition to Thomas, may strike us as quite\nreasonable: we may be inclined to agree with him. Perhaps it will surprise\nus to find sane doctrine so well hidden in such dialectic.\n\nHe held, for example, that there is no real difference between the soul\nand its faculties. Thomas never demonstrated the contrary quite\nsatisfactorily. Again, Duns Scotus was a realist: the Idea exists, since\nit is conceived. For the intellect is passive, and is moved by the\nintelligible. Therefore the Universal must be a something, in order to\noccasion the conception of it. Thus the reality of the concept proves the\nactuality of the Idea.[663] Duns adds further explanations and\ndistinctions regarding the actuality of universals, which are somewhat\nbeyond the comprehension of the modern mind. But one may remark that he\nreaches his views of the actuality of universals through analysis of the\nprocesses of thought. Sense-perception occasions the Idea in us; there\nmust exist some objective correspondence to our general concepts, as there\nmust also be in things some objective correspondence to our perception of\nthem as individuals, whereby they become to us this or that individual\nthing. Such individual objectivity is constituted by the _thisness_ of the\nthing, its _haecceitas_ which is to be contra-distinguished from its\ngeneral essence, to wit, its _whatness_, or _quidditas_. Duns holds that\nwe think individual things directly as we think abstract Ideas; and so\ntheir _haecceitas_ is as true an object of our thought as their\n_quidditas_. This seems a reasonable conclusion, seeing that the\nindividual and not the type is the final end of creation. So our\nconceptions prove for us the actuality both of the universal and the\nconcrete; and the proof of one and the other is rooted in\nsense-perception.\n\nNothing was of greater import with Duns than the doctrine of the primacy\nof the Will over the intellect. Duns supports it with intricate argument.\nThe soul in substance is identical with its faculties; but the latter are\nformally distinguishable from it and from each other. Knowing and willing\nare faculties or properties of the soul. The will is purely spiritual, and\nto be distinguished from sense-appetite: the will, and the will alone, is\nfree; absolutely undetermined by any cause beyond itself. Even the\nintellect, that is the knowing faculty, is determined from without.\nAlthough some cognition precedes the act of willing, the will is not\ndetermined by cognition, but uses it. So the will, being free, is higher\nthan the intellect. It is the will that constitutes man\u2019s greatness; it\nraises him above nature, and liberates him from her coercions. Not the\nintellect, but the will directs itself toward the goal of blessedness, and\nis the subject of the moral virtues. Such seems to be Duns\u2019s main\nposition; but he distinguishes and refines the matter beyond the limits of\nour comprehension.[664]\n\nAnother fundamental doctrine with Duns Scotus is that theology is not a\nspeculative, but a practical, science--a position which Duns\nunfortunately disproved with his tomes of metaphysics! But in spite of the\npersonal _reductio ad absurdum_ of his argument, the position taken by him\nbetokens the breaking up of the scholastic system. The subject of\ntheology, at least for men, is the revelation of God contained in\nScripture. \u201cHoly Scripture is a kind of knowledge (_quaedam notitia_)\ndivinely given in order to direct men to a supernatural end--_in finem\nsupernaturalem_.\u201d[665] The knowledge revealed in Scripture relates to\nGod\u2019s free will and ordainment for man; which is, that man should attain\nblessedness. Therefore the truths of Scripture are practical, having an\nend in view; they are such as are necessary for Salvation. The Church has\nauthority to declare the meaning of Scripture, and supplement it through\nits Catholic tradition.\n\nIs theology, then, properly a science? Duns will not deny it; but thinks\nit may more properly be called a _sapientia_, since according to its\nnature, it is rather a knowledge of principles than a method of\nconclusions. It consists in knowledge of God directly revealed. Therefore\nits principles are not those of the human sciences: for example, it does\nnot accept its principles from metaphysics, although that science treats\nof much that is contained in theology. Nor are the sciences--we can hardly\nsay the _other_ sciences--subordinated to it; since their province is\nnatural knowledge obtained through natural means. Theology, if it be a\nscience, is one apart from the rest. The knowledge which makes its\nsubstance is never its end, but always means to its end; which is to say,\nthat it is practical and not speculative. By virtue of its primacy as well\nas character, theology pertains to the Will, and works itself out in\npractice: practical alike are its principles and conclusions. Apparently,\nwith Duns, theology is a science only in this respect, that its substance,\nwhich is most rational, may be logically treated with a view to a complete\nand consistent understanding of it.[666]\n\nIn entire consistency with these fundamental views, Duns held that man\u2019s\nsupreme beatitude lay in the complete and perfect functioning of his will\nin accordance with the will of God. This was a strong and noble view of\nman, free to think and act and will and love, according to the will, and\naided by the Grace, of the Creator of his will and mind. The trouble lay,\nas said before, in the method by which all was set forth and proved. The\ntruly consequent person who made theology a practical matter, was such a\none as Francis of Assisi, with his ceaselessly-burning Christlike love\nactualizing itself in living act and word--or possibly such a one as\nBonaventura with his piety. But can it ever seem other than fantastic, to\nstate this principle, and then bulwark it with volumes of dialectic and a\nmetaphysics beyond the grasp of human understanding? Not from such does\none learn to do the will of God. This was scarcely the way to make good\nthe ultimate practical character of religion, as against Thomas\u2019s frankly\nintellectual view. Duns is as intellectual as Thomas; but Thomas is the\nmore consistent. And shall we say, that with Duns all makes toward God, as\nthe final end, through the strong action of the human will and love? So be\nit--Thomas said, through intellection and through love. Again one queries,\ndid the Scotian reasoning ever foster love?\n\nAnd then Duns set theology apart,--and supreme. Again, so be it. Let the\nimpulsive religion of the soul assert its primacy. But this was not the\nway of Duns. Theology and philosophy do not rest on the same principles,\nsays he; but how does he demonstrate it? By substantiating this severance\nby means of metaphysical dialectic, and using the same dialectic and the\nsame metaphysics to prove that theology can do without either. Not by\ndialectic and metaphysics can theology free itself from them, and set\nitself on other foundations.\n\nDuns Scotus exerted great influence, both directly and through the\nreaction occasioned by certain of his teachings. The next generations were\nfull of Scotists, who were proud if only they might be reputed more subtle\nthan their master. They succeeded in becoming more inane. There were other\nmen, whom the critical processes of Duns led to deny the validity of his\nconstructive metaphysics. Of those who profited by his teaching, yet\nrepresented this reaction against parts of it, the ablest was the\nFranciscan, William of Occam, a man but few years younger than Duns. He\nwas born in England, in the county of Surrey; and studied under Duns at\nParis. It is known that in 1320 he was lecturing with distinction at this\ncentre of intellectual life. Three years afterward, he quitted his chair,\nand in the controversies then rending his Order, hotly espoused the cause\nof the _Spirituales_--the Franciscans who would carry out the precepts of\nFrancis to the letter. Next, he threw himself with all the ardour of his\ntemper into the conflict with the papacy, and became the literary champion\nof the rights of the State. He was cited before the pope, and imprisoned\nat Avignon, but escaped, in 1328, and fled to the Court of the emperor,\nLouis of Bavaria, to whom, as the accounts declare, he addressed the proud\nword: _Tu me defendas gladio, ego te defendam calamo_. He died about 1347.\n\nThe succession, as it were, of Occam to Duns Scotus, is of great interest.\nIt was portentous for scholasticism. The pupil, for pupil in large measure\nhe was, profited by the critical methods and negations of the master. But\nhe denied the validity of the metaphysical constructions whereby Duns\nsought to rebuild what his criticism had cast down or shaken. Especially,\nOccam would not accept the subtle Doctor\u2019s fabrication of an external\nworld in accord with the apparent necessities of thought. For with all\nDuns\u2019s critical insistency, never did a man more unhesitatingly make a\nuniverse to fit the syllogistic processes of his reason, projected into\nthe external world. Here Occam would not follow him, as Aristotle would\nnot follow Plato.\n\nIt were well to consider more specifically these two sides of Occam\u2019s\nsuccession to Duns Scotus, shown in his acceptance and rejection of the\nmaster\u2019s teaching. He followed him, of course, in emphasising the\nfunctions of the will; and accepted the conception of theology as\npractical, and not speculative, in its ends; and, like Duns, he\ndistinguished, nay rather, severed, theology from philosophy, widening the\ncleft between them. If, with Duns, theology was still, in a sense, a\nscience; with Occam it could hardly be called one. Although Duns denied\nthat theology was to be controlled by principles drawn from metaphysics,\nhe laboured to produce a metaphysical counterfeit, wherein theology,\nfounded on revelation and church law, should present a close parallel to\nwhat it would have been, had its controlling principles been those of\nmetaphysics. Occam quite as resolutely as his master, proves the\nuntenability of current theological reasonings. More unreservedly than\nDuns, he interdicts the testing of theology by reason: and goes beyond him\nin restricting the sphere of rationally demonstrable truth, denying, for\ninstance, that reason can demonstrate God\u2019s unity, infinity, or even\nexistence. Unlike Duns, he would not attempt to erect a quasi-scientific\ntheology, in the place of the systems he rejects. To make up for this\nnegative result, Occam asserted the verity of Scripture unqualifiedly, as\nDuns also did. With Occam, Scripture, revelation, is absolutely\ninfallible, neither requiring nor admitting the proofs of reason. To be\nsure he co-ordinates with it the Law of Nature, which God has implanted in\nour minds. But otherwise theology, faith, stands alone, very isolated,\nalthough on the alleged most certain of foundations. The provinces of\nscience and faith are different. Faith\u2019s assent is not required for what\nis known through evidence; science does not depend on faith. Nor does\nfaith or theology depend on _scientia_. And since, without faith, no one\ncan assent to those verities which are to be believed (_veritatibus\ncredibilibus_), there is no _scientia proprie dicta_ respecting them. So\nthe breach in the old scholastic, Thomist, unity was made utter and\nirreparable. Theology stands on the surest of bases, but isolated,\nunsupported; philosophy, all human knowledge, extends around and below\nit, and is discredited because irrelevant to highest truth.\n\nThus far as to Occam\u2019s loyal and rebellious succession to the theology of\nDuns. In philosophy, it was much the same. He accepted his critical\nmethods, but would not follow him in his constructive metaphysics.\nAlthough the older man was pre-eminently a metaphysician, the critical\nside of his intellect drew empiric processes within the sweep of its\nenergies. Occam, unconvinced of the correspondence between the logic of\nconcepts and the facts of the external world, seeks to limit the\nprinciples of the former to the processes of the mind. Accordingly, he\nrejects the inferences of the Scotian dialectic which project themselves\noutward, as proofs of the objective existence of abstract or general\nideas. It is thus from a more thoroughgoing application of the Scotian\nanalysis of mental processes, and a more thoroughgoing testing of the\nevidence furnished by experience, that Occam refuses to recognise the\nexistence of universals save in the mind, where evidently they are\nnecessary elements of thinking. Manifestly, he is striving very earnestly\nnot to go beyond the evidence; and he is also striving to eliminate all\nunevidenced and unnecessary elements, and those chimeras of the mind,\nwhich become actual untruths when posited as realities of the outer world.\n\nSuch were the motives of Occam\u2019s far from simple theory of cognition. In\nit, mental perceptions, or cognitions, were regarded as symbols (_signa_,\n_termini_) of the objects represented by them. They are natural, as\ncontrasted with the artificial symbols of speech and writing. They fall\ninto three classes; first, sense-perception of the concrete object, and\nthirdly, so to speak, the abstract concept representative of many objects,\nor of some ideal figment or quality. Intermediate between the two, Occam\nputs _notitia intuitiva_, which relates to the existence of concrete\nthings. It serves as a basis for the cognition of their combinations and\nrelationships, and forms a necessary antecedent to abstract knowledge.\n_Notitia abstractiva praesupponit intuitivam._[667] Occam holds that\n_notitia intuitiva_ presents the concrete thing as it exists. Otherwise\nwith abstract or general concepts. They are _signa_ of mental\npresentations, or processes; and there is no ground for transferring them\nto the world of outer realities. Their existence is confined to the mind,\nwhere they are formed from the common elements of other _signa_,\nespecially those of our _notitia intuitiva_. \u201cAnd so,\u201d says Occam, \u201cthe\ngenus is not common to many things through any sameness _in them_, but\nthrough the common nature (_communitatem_) of the _signum_, by which the\nsame _signum_ is common to many things signified.\u201d[668] These universals\nfurnish predicates for our judgments, since through them we conceive of\nrealities as containing a common element of nature. They are not mere\nwords; but have a real existence in the mind, where they perform functions\nessential to thinking. Indirectly, through their bases of _notitiae\nintuitivae_, they even reflect outer realities. \u201cThe Universal is no mere\nfigment, to which there is no correspondence of anything like it (_cui non\ncorrespondet aliquod consimile_) in objective being, as that is figured in\nthe thinker.\u201d\n\nIt results from the foregoing argument, that science, ordered knowledge,\nwhich seeks co-ordination and unity, has not to do with things; but with\npropositions, its object being that which is known, rather than that which\nis. Things are singular, while science treats of general ideas, which are\nonly in the mind. \u201cIt should be understood, that any science, whether\n_realis_ or _rationalis_, is only concerned with propositions\n(_propositionibus_); because propositions alone are known.\u201d[669]\n\nIt was not so very great a leap from the realism of Duns, which ascribed a\ncertain objective existence to general ideas, to the nominalism, or rather\nconceptualism, of Occam, which denied it, yet recognised the real\nexistence and necessary functions of universals, in the mind. The\nmetaphysically proved realities of Duns were rather spectral, and Occam\u2019s\nuniversals, subjective though they were, lived a real and active life. One\nfeels that the realities of Duns\u2019s metaphysics scarcely extended beyond\nthe thinker\u2019s mind. In many respects Occam\u2019s philosophy was a strenuous\ncarrying out of Duns\u2019s teachings; and when it was not, we see the younger\nman pushed, or rather repelled, to the positions which he took, by the\nunsatisfying metaphysics of his teacher. History shows other rebounds of\nthought, which seem abrupt, and yet were consequential in the same dual\nway that Occam\u2019s doctrine followed that of Duns. Out of the Brahmin\nAbsolute came the Buddhist wheel of change; even as Parmenides was\nfollowed hard by Heraclitus. And how often Atheism steps on Pantheism\u2019s\nheels!\n\nThus, developing, revising, and changing, Occam carried out the work of\nDuns, and promulgated a theory of knowledge which pointed on to much later\nphases of thinking. In his school he came to be called _venerabilis\ninceptor_, a proper title for the man who shook loose from so much\nprevious thought, and became the source of so many novel views. He had,\nindeed, little fear of novelty. \u201cNovelties (_novitates_) are not\naltogether to be rejected; but as what is old (_vetusta_), on becoming\nburdensome, should be abolished, so novelties when, to the sound judgment,\nthey are useful, fruitful, necessary, expedient, are the more boldly to be\nembraced.\u201d[670]\n\nIt is not, however, as the inceptor of new philosophies or of novel views\non the relations between State and Papacy that we are viewing Occam here\nat the close of this long presentation of the ultimate intellectual\ninterests of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. But rather as the man\nwho represented the ways in which the old was breaking up, and embodied\nthe thoughts rending the scholastic system; who even was a factor in the\npalpable decadence of scholastic thinking that had set in before his eyes\nwere closed. For from him came a new impulse to a renewed overstudy of\nformal logic--with Thomas, for example, logic had but filled its proper\nr\u00f4le. Withdrawing from metaphysics the matter pertaining to the problem of\nuniversals and much more besides, Occam transferred the same to logic,\nwhich he called _omnium artium aptissimum instrumentum_.[671] This\nreinstatement of logic as the instrument and means of all knowledge was to\nbe the perdition of emptier-minded men, who felt no difference between\nphilosophy and the war of words. And in this respect at least the\ndecadence of scholasticism took its inception from this bold and virile\nmind which had small reverence for popes or for the idols of the schools.\nWe shall not follow the lines of this decay, but simply notice where they\nstart.\n\nIn the growth and decline of thought, things so go hand in hand that it is\nhard to say what draws and what is drawn. In the scholastic decadence, the\npreposterous use of logic was a palpable element. Yet was it cause or\neffect? Obviously both. Scholasticism was losing its grasp of life; and\nthe universities in the fourteenth century were crowded with men whose\nminds mistook words for thoughts; and because of this they gave themselves\nto hypertrophic logic. On the other hand, this windy study promoted the\nincreasing emptiness of philosophy.\n\nLikewise, as cause and effect, inextricably bound together, the other\nfactors work, and are worked upon. The number of universities increases;\nprofessors and students multiply; but there is an awful dearth of thinkers\namong them. There ceases even to be a thorough knowledge of the scholastic\nsystems; men study from compendia; and thereby remain most deeply\nignorant, and unfecundated by the thoughts of their forbears. Cause and\neffect again! We can hardly blame them, when tomes and encyclopaedias were\nbeing heaped mountain high, with life crushed beneath the monstrous pile,\nor escaping from it. But whether cause or effect, the energies of study\nslackened, and even rotted, both at the universities and generally among\nthe members of the two Student Orders, from whom had come the last\ncreators--and perhaps destroyers--of scholasticism.\n\nNext: the language of philosophy deteriorated, becoming turbid with the\nbarbarisms of hair-splitting technicalities. Likewise the method of\npresentation lost coherence and clarity. All of which was the result of\nacademic decadence, and promoted it.\n\nSo decay worked on within the system, each failing element being both\neffect and cause, in a general subsidence of merit. There were also\ncauses, as it were, from without; which possibly were likewise effects of\nthis scholastic decay As the life of the world once had gone out of\npaganism, and put on the new vigour of Christianity, so the life of the\nworld was now forsaking scholasticism, and deriding, shall we say, the\nwomb it had escaped from. Was the embryo ripe, that the womb had become\nits mephitic prison? At all events, the fourteenth century brought forth,\nand the next was filled with, these men who called the readers of Duns\nScotus _Dunces_--and the word still lives. Men had new thoughts; the power\nof the popes was shattered, and within the Church, popes and councils\nfought for supremacy; there was no longer any actual unity of the Church\nto preserve the unity of thought; Wicliffe had risen; Huss and Luther were\nclose to the horizon; a new science of observation was also stirring, and\na new humanism was abroad. The life of men had not lessened nor their\nenergies and powers of thought. Yet life and power no longer pulsed and\nwrought within the old forms; but had gone out from them, and disdainfully\nwere flouting the emptied husks.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIII\n\nTHE MEDIAEVAL SYNTHESIS: DANTE\n\n\nIt lies before us to draw the lines of mediaeval development together. We\nhave been considering the Middle Ages very largely, endeavouring to fix in\nmind the more interesting of their intellectual and emotional phenomena.\nWe have found throughout a certain spiritual homogeneity; but have also\nseen that the mediaeval period of western Europe is not to be forced to a\nfictitious unity of intellectual and emotional quality--contradicted by a\ndisparity of traits and interests existing then as now. Yet just as\ncertain ways of discerning facts and estimating their importance\ndistinguish our own time, making it an \u201cage\u201d or epoch, so in spite of\ndiversity and conflict, the same was true of the mediaeval period. From\nthe ninth to the fourteenth century, inter-related processes of thought,\nbeliefs, and standards prevailed and imparted a spiritual colour to the\ntime. While not affecting all men equally, these spiritual habits tended\nto dominate the minds and tempers of those men who were the arbiters of\nopinion, for example, the church dignitaries, or the\ntheologian-philosophers. Men who thought effectively, or upon whom it fell\nto decide for others, or to construct or imagine for them, such, whether\npleasure-loving, secularly ambitious, or immersed in contemplation of the\nlife beyond the grave, accepted certain beliefs, recognized certain\nauthoritatively prescribed ideals of conduct and well-being, and did not\nreject the processes of proof supporting them.\n\nThe causes making the Middle Ages a characterizable period in human\nhistory have been scanned. We observed the antecedent influences as they\nfinally took form and temper in the intellectual atmosphere of the\nlatter-day pagan world and the cognate mentalities of the Church Fathers.\nWe followed the pre-Christian Latinizing of Provence, Spain, Gaul, and the\ndiffusion of Christianity throughout the same countries, where, save for\nsporadic dispossession, Christianity and Latin were to continue, and\nbecome, in the course of centuries, mediaeval and Romance. As waves of\nbarbarism washed over the somewhat decadent society of Italy and her Latin\ndaughters, we saw a new ignorance setting a final seal upon the inability\nof these epigoni to emulate bygone achievements. Plainly there was need of\neffort to rescue the _disjecta membra_ of the antique and Christian\nheritages. The wreckers were famous men, young Bo\u00ebthius, old Cassiodorus,\nthe great pope Gregory, and princely Isidore. For their own people they\nwere gatherers and conservers; but they proved veritable transmitters for\nFranks, Anglo-Saxons and Germans, who were made acquainted with\nChristianity and Latinity between the sixth and the ninth centuries, the\nperiod in the course of which the Merovingian kingdoms were superseded by\nthe Carolingian Empire.\n\nWith the Carolingian period the Middles Ages unquestionably are upon us.\nThe factors and material of mediaeval development, howsoever they have\ncome into conjunction, are found in interplay. It was for the mediaeval\npeoples, now in presence of their spiritual fortunes, to grow and draw\nfrom life. Their task, as has appeared from many points of view, was to\nmaster the Christian and antique material, and change its substance into\npersonal faculty. Under different guises this task was for all, whether\nliving in Italy or dwelling where the antique had weaker root or had been\nnewly introduced.\n\nThis Carolingian time of so much sheer introduction to the teaching of the\npast presented little intellectual discrimination. That would come very\ngradually, when men had mastered their lesson and could set themselves to\nfurther study of the parts suited to their taste. Nevertheless, there was\neven in the Carolingian period another sort of discrimination, towards\nwhich men\u2019s consciences were drawn by the contrast between their antique\nand Christian heritages, and because the latter held a criterion of\nselection and rejection, touching all the elements of human life.\n\nWhoever reflects upon his life and its compass of thought, of inclination,\nof passion, action, and capacity for happiness or desolation, is likely to\nconsider how he may best harmonize its elements. He will have to choose\nand reject; and within him may arise a conflict which he must bring to\nreconcilement if he will have peace. He may need to sacrifice certain of\nhis impulses or even rational desires. As with a thoughtful individual, so\nwith thoughtful people of an epoch, among whom like standards of\ndiscrimination may be found prevailing. The ninth century received, with\npatristic Christianity, a standard of selection and rejection. In\nconformity with it, men, century after century, were to make their choice,\nand try to bring their lives to a discriminating unity and certain peace.\nYet in every mediaeval century the soul\u2019s peace was broken in ways\ndemanding other modes of reconcilement.\n\nWhat profiteth a man to gain the world and lose his eternal life? Here was\nthe Gospel basis of the matter. And, following their conception of\nChrist\u2019s teaching, the Fathers of the Church elaborated and defined the\nconditions of attainment of eternal life with God, which was salvation.\nThis was man\u2019s whole good, embracing every valid and righteous element of\nlife. Thus it had been with Christ; thus it was with Augustine; thus it\nwas with Benedict of Nursia and Gregory the Great; only in Benedict and\nGregory the salvation which represented the true and uncorrupt life of man\non earth, as well as the assured preparation for eternal life with God,\nhad shrunken from the universality of Christ, and even from the fulness of\ndesire with which Augustine sought to know God and the soul. In these\nlater men the conception of salvation had contracted through ascetic\nexclusion and barbaric fear.\n\nYet with Benedict and Gregory, in whom there was much constructive sanity,\nand indeed with all men who were not maniacally constrained, there was\nrecognition that salvation was of the mind as well as through faith and\nlove, or abhorrent fear. It is necessary to know the truth; and surely it\nis absolutely good to desire to know the truth forever, without the\ncumbrances of fleshly mortality. This desire is a true part of everlasting\nlife. Through it Origen, Hilary of Poictiers, Augustine largely, and after\nthem the great scholastics with Dante at their close, achieved salvation.\n\nBut why should one desire to know the truth utterly and forever, were not\nthe truth desirable, lovable? Naturally one loves that which through\ndesire and effort one has come to know. Love is required and also faith by\nhim who will have and know the salvation which is eternal life; the\nemotions must take active part. Yet salvation comes not through the\nunguided sense-desiderative nature. It is for reason to direct passionate\ndesire, and raise it to desire rationally approved, which is volition.\n\nThus salvation not only requires the action of the whole man, but is in\nand of his entire nature. It presents a unity primarily because of its\nagreement with the will of God, and then because of its unqualified and\nuniversal insistence that it, salvation, life eternal, be set absolutely\nfirst in man\u2019s endeavour. What indeed could be more irrational, and more\nloveless and faithless, than that any desire should prevail over the\nentire good of man and the will of God as well? Oneness and peace consist\nin singleness of purpose and endeavour for salvation. Herein lies the\nstandard of conduct and of discrimination as touching every element of\nmortal life.\n\nWith mediaeval men, the application of the criterion of salvation depended\non how the will of God for man, and man\u2019s accordant conduct, was\nconceived. What kind of conduct, what elements of the intellectual and\nemotional life were proper for the Kingdom of Heaven? What matters barred\nthe way, or were unfit for the eternal spiritual state? The history of\nChristian thought lies within these queries. An authoritative consensus of\nopinion was represented by the Church at large, holding from century to\ncentury a _juste milieu_ of doctrine, by no means lax and yet not going to\nascetic extremes. Seemingly the Church maintained varying standards of\nconduct for different orders of men. Yet in truth it was applying one\nstandard according to the responsibilities of individuals and their vows.\n\nThe Church (meaning, for our purpose, the authoritative consensus of\nmediaeval ecclesiastical or religious approvals) always upheld as the\nideal of perfect living the religious life, led under the sanction and\nguidance of some recognized monastic _regula_. So lived monks and nuns,\nand in more extreme or sporadic instances, anchorites and _reclusae_. The\nmain peril of this strait and narrow path was its forsaking, the breaking\nof its vows. Less austerely guarded and exposed to further dangers were\nthe secular clergy, living in the world, occupied with the care of lay\nsouls, and with other cares that hardly touched salvation. The world\navowedly, the flesh in reality, and the devil in all probability, beset\nthe souls of bishops and other clergy. In view of their exposed positions\n\u201cin the world,\u201d a less austerely ascetic life was expected of the\nseculars, whose lapses from absolute holiness God might--or perhaps might\nnot--condone.\n\nAround, and for the most part below, regulars and seculars were the laity\nof both sexes, of all ages, positions, and degrees of instruction or\nignorance. They had taken no vows of utter devotion to God\u2019s service, and\nwere expected to marry, beget children, fight and barter, and fend for\nthemselves amid the temptations and exigencies of affairs. Well for them\nindeed if they could live in communion with the Church, and die repentant\nand absolved, eligible for purgatory.\n\nFor all these kinds of men and women like virtues were prescribed,\nalthough their fulfilment was looked for with varying degrees of\nexpectation. For instance, the distinctly theological virtues, faith,\nhope, and charity, especially the first, could not be completely attained\nby the ignorance and imperfect consecration of laymen. The vices,\nlikewise, were the same for all, pride, anger, hypocrisy, and the rest;\nonly with married people a venial unchastity was sacramentally declared\nnot to constitute mortal sin. For this one case, human weakness, also\nmankind\u2019s necessity, was recognized; while, in practice, the Church,\nthrough its boundless opportunities for penitence and absolution,\nmercifully condoned all delinquency save obstinate pride, impenitence, and\ndisbelief.\n\nThese were the bare poles ethical of the orthodox mediaeval Christian\nscheme. How as to its intellectual and emotional inclusiveness? The\nmany-phased interest of the mind, _i.e._ the desire to know, was in\nprinciple accepted, but with the condition that the ultimate end of\nknowledge should be the attainment of salvation. It was stated and\nre-emphasized by well-nigh every type of mediaeval thinker, that Theology\nwas the queen of sciences, and her service alone justified her handmaids.\nAll knowledge should make for the knowledge of God, and enlarge the soul\u2019s\nrelationship to its Creator and Judge. \u201cHe that is not with me is against\nme.\u201d Knowledge which does not aid man to know his God and save his soul,\nall intellectual pursuits which are not loyal to this end, minister to the\nobstinacy and vainglory of man, stiff-necked, disobedient, unsubmissive to\nthe will of God. Knowledge is justified or condemned according to its\nultimate purpose. Likewise every deed, business, occupation, which can\nfill out the active life of man. As they make for Christ and salvation,\nthe functions of ruler, warrior, lawyer, artisan, priest, are justified\nand blessed--or the reverse.\n\nBut how as to the appetites and the emotions? How as to love, between the\nsexes, parent and child, among friends? The standard of discrimination is\nstill the same, though its application vary. Appetite for food, if\nunrestrained, is gluttony; it must be held from hindering the great end.\nOne must guard against love\u2019s obsession, against sense-passion, which is\nso forgetful of the ultimate good: concupiscence is sinful. Through bodily\nbegetting, the taint of original sin is transmitted; and in all carnal\ndesire, though sanctioned by the marriage sacrament, is lust and spiritual\nforgetfulness. When in fornication and adultery its acts contravene God\u2019s\nlaw, they are mortal sins which will, if unabsolved, cast the sinner into\nhell.\n\nFew men in the Middle Ages were insensible to their future lot, and\ntherefore the criterion of salvation unto eternal life would rarely be\nrejected. But often there was conflict within the soul before it\nacquiesced in what it felt compelled to recognize; and sometimes there was\nclear revolt against current convictions, or practical insistence that a\nlarger volume of the elements of human nature were fit for life eternal.\n\nConflict before acquiescence had agitated the natures of sainted Fathers\nof the Church, who marked out the path to salvation which the Middle Ages\nwere to tread. One thinks at once of Jerome\u2019s never-forgotten dream of\nexclusion from Paradise because of too great delight in classic reading.\nAnother phase was Augustine\u2019s, set forth somewhat retrospectively in his\n_Confessions_. Therein, as would seem, the drawings of the flesh were most\nimportunate. Yet not without sighs and waverings did the _mind_ of\nAugustine settle to its purpose of knowing only God and the soul. At all\nevents the chafings of mortal curiosity, the promptings of cultivated\ntaste, and the cravings of the flesh, were the moving forces of the\nPsychomachia which passed with Patristic Christianity to the Middle Ages.\nThousands upon thousands of ardent souls were to experience this conflict\nbefore convincing themselves that classic studies should be followed only\nas they led heavenward, and that carnal love was an evil thing which, even\nwhen sacramentally sanctioned, might deflect the soul.\n\nThe revolt against the authoritatively accepted standard declared itself\nalong the same lines of conflict, but did not end in acquiescence and\nrenunciation. It contended rather for a peace and reconcilement which\nshould include much that was looked upon askance. It was not always\nviolent, and might be dumb to the verge of unconsciousness, merely a tacit\ndeparture from standards more universally recognized than followed.\n\nThere were countless instances of this silent departure from the standard\nof salvation. With cultivated men, it realized itself in classical\nstudies, as with Hildebert of Le Mans or John of Salisbury. It does not\nappear that either of them experienced qualms of conscience or suffered\nrebuke from their brethren. No more did Gerbert, an earlier instance of\ncatholic interest in profane knowledge, though legends of questionable\npractices were to encircle his fame.\n\nOther men pursued knowledge, rational or physical, in such a way as to\nrouse hostile attention to its irrelevancy or repugnancy to saving faith,\nand this even in spite of formal demonstration by the investigator--Roger\nBacon is in our mind--of the advantage of his researches to the Queen\nTheology. Bacon might not have been so suspect to his brethren, and his\ndemonstration of the theological serviceableness of natural knowledge\nwould have passed, had he not put forth bristling manifestos denouncing\nthe blind acceptance of custom and authority. Moreover, the obvious\ntendencies of methods of investigation advocated by him countered methods\nof faith; for the mediaeval and patristic conception of salvation,\nwhatever collateral supports it might find in reason, was founded on the\nauthority of revelation.\n\nIndeed it was the lifting up of the standard of rational investigation\nwhich distinguished the veritable revolt from those preliminary inner\nconflicts which often strengthened final acquiescence. And it was the\nobstinate elevation of one\u2019s individual wisdom (as it appeared to the\northodox) that separated the accredited supporters of the Church among\ntheologians and philosophers, from those who were suspect. We mark the\nline of the latter reaching back through Abaelard to Eriugena. Such men,\nalthough possibly narrower in their intellectual interests than some who\nmore surely abode within the Church\u2019s pale, may be held as broader in\nprinciple. For inasmuch as they tended to set reason above authority, it\nwould seem that there was no bound to their pursuit of rational knowledge,\nwherewith to expand and fortify their reason.\n\nBut if the intellectual side of man pressed upon the absolutism of the\nstandard of salvation, more belligerent was the insistency of love--not of\nthe Crucified. To the Church\u2019s disparagement of the flesh, love made\nanswer openly, not slinking behind hedges or closed doors, nor even\nsheltering itself within wedlock\u2019s lawfulness. It, love, without regard to\npriestly sanction, proclaimed itself a counter-principle of worth. The\nlove of man for woman was to be an inspiration to high deeds and noble\nliving as well as a source of ennobling power. It presented an ideal for\nknights and poets. It could confer no immortality on lovers save that of\nundying fame: but it promised the highest happiness and worth in mortal\nlife. If only knights and ladies might not have grown old, the supremacy\nof love and its emprize would have been impregnable. But age must come,\nand the ghastly mediaeval fear of death was like to drive lover and\nmistress at the last within some convent refuge. Fear brought compunction\nand perhaps its tears. Renunciation of the joy of life seemed a fit\npenance to disarm the Judge\u2019s wrath. So at the end of life the ideal of\nlove was prone to make surrender to salvation. Asceticism even enters its\nliterature, as with the monkish Galahad. There was, however, another way\nof reconcilement between the carnal and the spiritual, the secular and the\neternal, by which the secular and carnal were transformed to symbols of\nthe spiritual and eternal--the way of the _Vita nuova_ and the _Divina\nCommedia_, as we shall see.\n\nSo in spite of conflicts or silent treasons within the natures of many who\nfought beneath the Christian banner, in spite of open mutinies of the mind\nand declared revolts of the heart, salvation remained the triumphant\nstandard of discrimination by which the elements of mediaeval life were to\nbe esteemed or rejected. What then were these elements to which this\nstandard, or deflections from it, should apply? How specify their\nmediaeval guise and character? It would be possible to pass in review\nsynoptically the contents of this work. We might return, and then once\nmore travel hitherward over the mediaeval path, the many paths and byways\nof mediaeval life. We might follow and again see applied--or\nunapplied--these standards of discrimination, salvation over all, and the\ndeviations of pretended acquiescence or subconscious departure. We might\nperhaps make one final attempt to draw the currents of mediaeval life\ntogether, or observe the angles of their divergence, and note once more\nthe disparity of taste and interest making so motley the mediaeval\npicture. But this has been done so excellently, in colours of life, and\npresented in the person of a man in whom mediaeval thought and feeling\nwere whole, organic, living--an achievement by the Artist moving the\nantecedent scheme of things which made this man Dante what he was. We\nshall find in him the conflict, the silent departures, and the\nreconcilement at last of recalcitrant elements brought within salvation as\nthe standard of universal discrimination. Dante accomplishes this\nreconcilement in personal yet full mediaeval manner by transmuting the\nmaterial to the spiritual, the mortal to the eternal, through the\ninstrumentality of symbolism. He is not merely mediaeval; he is the end of\nthe mediaeval development and the proper issue of the mediaeval genius.\n\nYes, there is unity throughout the diversity of mediaeval life; and Dante\nis the proof. For the elements of mediaeval growth combine in him,\ndemonstrating their congruity by working together in the stature of the\nfull-grown mediaeval man. When the contents of patristic Christianity and\nthe surviving antique culture had been conceived anew, and had been felt\nas well, and novel forms of sentiment evolved, at last comes Dante to\npossess the whole, to think it, feel it, visualize its sum, and make of it\na poem. He had mastered the field of mediaeval knowledge, diligently\ncultivating parts of it, like the Graeco-Arabian astronomy; he thought and\nreasoned in the terms and assumptions of scholastic (chiefly\nThomist-Aristotelian) philosophy; his intellectual interests were\nmediaeval; he felt the mediaeval reverence for the past, being impassioned\nwith the ancient greatness of Rome and the lineage of virtue and authority\nmoving from it to him and thirteenth-century Italy and the already\nshattered Holy Roman Empire. He took earnest joy in the Latin Classics,\napproaching them from mediaeval points of view, accepting their contents\nuncritically. He was affected with the preciosity of courtly or chivalric\nlove, which Italy had made her own along with the songs of the Troubadours\nand the poetry of northern France. His emotions flowed in channels of\ncurrent convention, save that they overfilled them; this was true as to\nhis early love, and true as to his final range of religious and poetic\nfeeling. His was the emotion and the cruelty of mediaeval religious\nconviction; while in his mind (so worked the genius of symbolism) every\nfact\u2019s apparent meaning was clothed with the significance of other modes\nof truth.\n\nDante was also an Italian of the period in which he lived; and he was a\nmarvellous poet. One may note in him what was mediaeval, what was\nspecifically Italian, and what, apparently, was personal. This scholar\ncould not but draw his education, his views of life and death, his\ndominant inclinations and the large currents of his purpose, from the\nantecedent mediaeval period and the still greater past which had worked\nupon it so mightily. His Italian nature and environment gave point and\npiquancy and very concrete life to these mediaeval elements; and his\npersonal genius produced from it all a supreme poetic creation.\n\nThe Italian part of Dante comes between the mediaeval and the personal, as\nspecies comes between the genus and the individual. The tremendous feeling\nwhich he discloses for the Roman past seems, in him, specifically Italian:\nchild of Italy, he holds himself a Latin and a direct heir of the\nRepublic. Yet often his attitude toward the antique will be that of\nmediaeval men in general, as in his disposition to accept ancient myth for\nfact; while his own genius appears in his beautifully apt appropriation of\nthe Virgilian incident or image; wherein he excels his \u201cMantuan\u201d master,\nwhose borrowings from Homer were not always felicitous. Frequently the\nspecifically Italian in Dante, his yearning hate of Florence, for example,\nmay scarcely be distinguished from his personal temper; but its civic\nbitterness is different from the feudal animosities or promiscuous rages\nwhich were more generically mediaeval. As a lighter example, there are\nthree lines in the fourth canto of the _Purgatorio_ which do not reflect\nthe Middle Ages, nor yet pertain to Dante\u2019s character, but are, we feel,\nItalian. They are these: \u201cThither we drew; and there were persons who were\nstaying in the shadow behind the rock, as one through indolence sets\nhimself to stay.\u201d\n\nAgain, Dante\u2019s arguments in the _De monarchia_[672] seem to be those of an\nItalian Ghibelline. Yet beyond his intense realization of Italy\u2019s direct\nsuccession to the Roman past, his reasoning is scholastic and mediaeval,\nor springs occasionally from his own reflections. The Italian contribution\nto the book tends to coalesce either with the general or the personal\nelements. Dante argues that the rewards or fruits of virtue belonged to\nthe Roman people because of the pre-eminent virtue, high lineage, and\nroyal marriage-connections, of their ancestor Aeneas.[673] Here, of\ncourse, the statements of Virgil are accepted literally, and one notes\nthat while the argument is mediaeval in its absurdity, it will be made\nItalian in its application. Likewise his further arguments making for the\nsame conclusion, however Italianized in their pointing, are mediaeval, or\npatristic, in their provenance: for example, that the Roman Empire was\ndivinely helped by miracles; that the divine arbitrament decided the\nworld-struggle or _duellum_ in its favour; and that Christ was born and\nsuffered legally to redeem mankind under the Empire\u2019s authority and\njurisdiction.[674] Moreover, in refuting the very mediaeval papal\narguments from \u201cthe keys,\u201d from \u201cthe two swords,\u201d and from the analogy of\nthe sun and moon, Dante himself reasons scholastically.[675]\n\nThe _De vulgari eloquentia_ illustrates the difference between Dante\naccepting and reproducing mediaeval views, and Dante thinking for himself.\nIn opening he speaks of mixing the stronger potions of others with the\nwater of his own talent, to make a beverage of sweetest hydromel--we have\nheard such phrases before! Then the first chapters give the current ideas\ntouching the nature and origin of speech, and describe the confusion of\nlanguage at the building of Babel: each group of workmen engaged in the\nsame sort of work found themselves speaking a new tongue understood only\nby themselves; while the sacred Hebrew speech endured with that seed of\nShem who had taken no part in the impious construction. After this\nfoolishness, the eighth chapter of Book I. becomes startlingly intelligent\nas Dante discusses the contemporary Romance tongues of Europe and takes up\nthe _idioma_ which uses the particle _si_. Out of its many dialects he\ndetaches his thought of a _volgare_, a mother tongue, which shall be the\nillustrious, noble, and courtly speech in Latium, and shall seem to be of\nevery Latian city and yet of none, and afford a standard by which the\nspeech of each city may be criticized. The mediaeval period offers no such\npenetrating linguistic observation; and in the _De Vulgari Eloquentia_, as\nin the _Convito_, Dante is deeply conscious of the worth of the Romance\nvernacular.\n\nWritten in the _volgare_, the style of the latter nondescript work bears\ncurious likeness to scientific Latin writing. The Latin scholastic thought\nshows plainly through this involved and scholastic _volgare_, while the\nscholastic substance is rendered in a scarcely altered medium. The\n_Convito_ is indeed a curious work which one need not lament that Dante\ndid not carry out to its mediaeval interminableness in fourteen books. The\nfour that he wrote suffice to show its futility and apparent confusion in\nconception and form. Besides incidentally explaining the thought of the\nidyllic _Vita nuova_, it professed to be a commentary upon fourteen of\nDante\u2019s canzone, the meaning of which had been misunderstood. Indeed they\nhad been suspected of disclosing a passion bearing a morganatic\nrelationship to the love of Beatrice. Truly understood they referred to\nthat love which is the love of knowledge, philosophy to wit; and their\ncommentary should expound that, and might properly set forth the contents\nof the Seven Liberal Arts and the higher divine reaches of knowledge. The\n_Convito_ seems also to mark a stage in Dante\u2019s life: the time perhaps\nwhen he turned, or imagined himself as turning, to philosophy for\nconsolation in youthful grief, or the time perhaps when his nature looked\ncoldly upon its early faith and sought to stay itself with rational\nknowledge. The book might thus seem a _De consolatione philosophiae_,\nafter the temper, if not the manner, of Bo\u00ebthius\u2019 work, which then was\nmuch in Dante\u2019s mind. Yet it was to be a setting forth of knowledge for\nthe ignorant, a sort of _Summa contra Gentiles_, as is hinted in the last\ncompleted chapter. These three purposes fall in with the fact that the\nwork was apparently the expression of Dante\u2019s intellectual nature, and of\nhis spiritual condition between the experience of the _Vita nuova_ and the\ntime or state of the _Commedia_.[676]\n\nCertainly the _Convito_ gives evidence touching the writer\u2019s mental\nprocesses and the interests of his mind. Except for its lofty advocacy of\nthe _volgare_ and its personal apologetic references, it contains little\nthat is not blankly mediaeval. And had it kept on to its completion, so as\nto have become no torso, but a full _Summa_ or _Tesoro_ of liberal\nknowledge, its whimsical form as a commentary upon canzone would have made\nit one of the most bizarre of mediaeval compositions. One should not take\nthis most repellent of Dante\u2019s writings as an adequate expression of the\nintellectual side of his nature; though a significant phrase may be drawn\nfrom it: \u201cPhilosophy is a loving use of wisdom (_uno amoroso uso di\nsapienza_) which chiefly is in God, since in Him is utmost wisdom, utmost\nlove, and utmost actuality.\u201d[677] A loving use of wisdom--with Dante the\npursuit of knowledge was no mere intellectual search, but a pilgrimage of\nthe whole nature, loving heart as well as knowing mind, and the working\nvirtues too. This pilgrimage is set forth in the _Commedia_, perhaps the\nsupreme creation of the Middle Ages, and a work that by reason of the\nbeautiful affinity of its speech with Latin,[678] exquisitely expressed\nthe matters which in Latin had been coming to formulation through the\nmediaeval centuries.\n\nThe _Commedia_ (_Inferno_, _Purgatorio_, _Paradiso_) is a _Summa_, a\n_Summa salvationis_, a sum of saving knowledge. It is such just as surely\nas the final work of Aquinas is a _Summa theologiae_. But Aquinas was the\nsupreme mediaeval theologian-philosopher, while Dante was the supreme\ntheologian-poet; and with both Aquinas and Dante, theology includes the\nknowledge of all things, but chiefly of man in relation to God. Such was\nthe matter of the _divina scientia_ of Thomas, and such was the subject of\nthe _Commedia_, which was soon recognized as the _Divina Commedia_ in the\nvery sense in which Theology was the divine science. The _Summa_ of Thomas\nwas _scientia_ not only in substance, but in form; the _Commedia_ was\n_scientia_, or _sapientia_, in substance, while in form it was a poem, the\nepic of man the pilgrim of salvation. In every sense, Aristotelian and\notherwise, it was a work of art; and herein if we cannot compare it with a\n_Summa_, we may certainly liken it to a Cathedral, which also was a work\nof art and a _Summa salvationis_ wrought in stone. For a Cathedral--it is\nthe great French type we have in mind--was a _Summa_ of saving knowledge,\nas well as a place for saving acts. And presenting the substance of\nknowledge in the forms of art, very true art, the matter of which had long\nbeen pondered on and loved or hated, the Cathedral in its feeling and\nbeauty, as well as in the order of its manifested thought, was a\n_Commedia_; for it too was a poem with a happy ending, at least for those\nwho should be saved.\n\nThe Cathedral had grown from dumb barrel-vaulted Romanesque to Gothic,\nspeaking in all the terms of sculpture and painted glass. It grew out of\nits antecedents. The _Commedia_ rested upon the entire evolution of the\nMiddle Ages. Therein had lain its spiritual preparation. To be sure it had\nits casual forerunners (_precursori_): narratives, real or feigned, of men\nfaring to the regions of the dead.[679] But these signified little; for\neverywhere thoughts of the other life pressed upon men\u2019s minds: fear of it\nblanched their hearts; its heavenly or hellish messengers had been seen,\nand not a few men dreamed that they had walked within those gates and\nwitnessed clanging horrors or purgatorial pain. Heaven they had more\nrarely visited.\n\nDante gave little attention to any so-called \u201cforerunners,\u201d save only two,\nPaul and Virgil. The former was a warrant for the poet\u2019s reticence as to\nthe manner of his ascent to Heaven;[680] the latter supplied much of his\nscheme of Hell. Yet there were one or two others possessed of some\naffinity of soul with the great Florentine, who perhaps knew nothing of\nthem. One of these was Hildegard of Bingen, with her vision of the spirits\nin the cloud, and her pungent sights of the bitterness of the pains of\nhell.[681] Another sort of affinity is disclosed in the allegorical\n_Anticlaudianus_ of Alanus de Insulis, in which Reason can take\n_Prudentia_ just so far upon her heavenly journey, and then gives place to\nTheology, even as Virgil, symbol of rational wisdom, gives place to\nBeatrice at the summit of the Mount of Purgatory.[682] Dante might have\ndrawn still more enlightenment from the _De sacramentis_ of Hugo of St.\nVictor, in which the rational basis of the universal scheme of things is\nshown to lie in the principle of allegorical intendment. Yet one finds few\ntraces of Hugo in Dante except through Hugo\u2019s pupil, Richard, whose works\nhe had read. That such apt forerunners should scarcely have affected him\nshows how he was taught and inspired, not by individuals, but by the\nentire Middle Ages.\n\nOne observes mediaeval characteristics in the _Commedia_ raised to a\nhigher power. The mediaeval period was marked by contrasts of quality and\nof conduct such as cannot be found in the antique or the modern age. And\nwhat other poem can vie with the _Commedia_ in contrasts of the beautiful\nand the loathsome, the heavenly and the hellish, exquisite refinement of\nexpression and lapses into the reverse,[683] love and hate, pity and\ncruelty, reverence and disdain? These contrasts not only are presented by\nthe story; they evince themselves in the character of the author. Many\nscenes of the _Inferno_ are loathsome:[684] Dante\u2019s own words and conduct\nthere may be cruel and hateful[685] or show tender pity; and every reader\nknows the poetic beauty which glorifies the _Paradiso_, renders lovely the\n_Purgatorio_, and ever and anon breaks through the gloom of Hell.\n\nAnother mediaeval quality, sublimated in Dante\u2019s poem, is that of\nelaborate plan, intended symmetry of composition, the balance of one\nincident or subject against another.[686] And finally one observes the\nmediaeval inclusiveness which belongs to the scope and purpose of the\n_Commedia_ as a _Summa_ of salvation. Dante brings in everything that can\nilluminate and fill out his theme. Even as the _Summa_ of St. Thomas, so\nthe _Commedia_ must present a whole doctrinal scheme of salvation, and\nleave no loopholes, loose ends, broken links of argument or explanation.\n\nThe substance of the _Commedia_, practically its whole content of thought,\nopinion, sentiment, had source in the mediaeval store of antique culture\nand the partly affiliated, if not partly derivative, Latin Christianity.\nThe mediaeval appreciation of the Classics, and of the contents of ancient\nphilosophy, is not to be so very sharply distinguished from the attitude\nof the fifteenth or sixteenth, nay, if one will, the eighteenth, century,\nwhen the _Federalist_ in the young inchoately United States, and many an\norator in the revolutionary assemblies of France, quoted Cicero and\nPlutarch as arbiters of civic expediency. Nevertheless, if we choose to\nrecognize deference to ancient opinion, acceptance of antique myth and\npoetry as fact,[687] unbounded admiration for a shadowy and much distorted\nancient world, as characterizing the mediaeval attitude toward whatever\nonce belonged to Rome and Greece, then we must say that such also is\nDante\u2019s attitude, scholar as he was;[688] and that in his use of the\nClassics he differed from other mediaeval men only in so far as above them\nall he was a poet.\n\nLines of illustrative examples begin with the opening canto of the\n_Inferno_, where Dante addresses Virgil as _famoso saggio_, an appellative\nstrictly corresponding with the current mediaeval view of the \u201cMantuan.\u201d\nMediaeval also is the grouping of the great poets who rise to meet Virgil,\nfirst Homer, then _Orazio satiro_, and Ovid and Lucan.[689] More narrowly\nmediaeval, that is, pertaining particularly to the thirteenth century, is\nDante\u2019s profound reverence for the authority of Aristotle, _il maestro di\ncolor che sanno_.[690] It may be that the poet\u2019s sense of the enormous,\n_elect_, importance of Aeneas,[691] and his putting Rhipeus, most\nrighteous of the Trojans, as the fifth regal spirit in the Eagle\u2019s\neye,[692] belonged more especially to Dante as the Ghibelline author of\nthe _De monarchia_. But generically mediaeval was his acceptance of\nantique myth for fact, a most curious instance of which is his referring\nto the consuming of Meleager with the consuming of the brand, to\nillustrate a point of physiological psychology.[693] Antique heroes, even\nmonsters, seem as real to him as the people of Scripture and history. It\nis not, however, his mediaevalism, but his own greatness that enables him\nto lift his treatment of them to the level of their presentation in the\nClassics. Noble as an antique demigod is the damned Jason, silent and\ntearless, among the scourged;[694] and Ulysses is as great in the tale he\ntells from out the lambent flame as he was in the palace of Alcinoos,\ntelling the tale which Dante never read.[695]\n\nThe poet, especially in the _Purgatorio_, constantly balances moral\nexamples alternately drawn from pagan and sacred story. This propensity\nwas quite mediaeval; for throughout the Middle Ages the antique authority\nwas used to fortify or parallel the Christian argument. Yet herein, as\nalways, Dante is Dante as well as a mediaeval man; and his moral examples,\nfor the aid of souls who are purging themselves for Heaven, are\ninteresting and curious enough. On the pavement of the first ledge of\nPurgatory, Lucifer is figured falling from Heaven and Briareus transfixed\nby the bolt of Jove; then Nimrod, Niobe, Saul, Arachne, Rehoboam, Eriphyle\nand Sennacherib, the Assyrians routed after Holophernes\u2019 death, and Troy\nin ashes.[696] On the third ledge, as instances of gentle forgivingness,\nhe sees in vision the Virgin Mary, and then appear Peisistratus (tyrant of\nAthens) refusing to avenge himself, and Stephen asking pardon for his\nslayers.[697] But the most wonderful instance of this combining of the\nChristian and the antique, each at its height of feeling, occurs in the\nthirtieth canto of the _Purgatorio_, where angels herald the appearance of\nBeatrice with the chant, _Benedictus qui venis_, and, as they scatter\nflowers, sing _Manibus o date lilia plenis_. This unison of the hail to\nChrist upon His sacrificial entry into Jerusalem and the Virgilian\nheartbreak over the young Marcellus, shows how Dante rose in his\ncombinings, and how potent an element of his imagination was the\nantique.[698]\n\nOf course the plan of Hell reflects the sixth Book of the _Aeneid_, and\nthroughout the whole _Commedia_ the Virgilian phrase rises aptly to the\npoet\u2019s lips. \u201cThou wouldst that I renew the desperate grief which presses\nmy heart even before I put it into words,\u201d says Ugolino, nearly as Aeneas\nspeaks to Dido.[699] And in the _Paradiso_ the power of the Dantesque\nreminiscence rouses the reader, spiritually as it were, to emulate the\nglorious ones who passed to Colchos.[700] A more desperate passage was the\nlot of those who must drop from Acheron\u2019s bank into Charon\u2019s boat;--the\nwhole scene here is quite reminiscent of Virgil. The simile:\n\n  \u201cQuam multa in silvis auctumni frigore primo\n   Lapsa cadunt folia,\u201d\n\nis even beautified and made more pregnant with significance in Dante\u2019s\n\n  \u201cCome d\u2019autunno si levan le foglie\n   L\u2019una appresso dell\u2019altra....\u201d[701]\n\nOn the other hand, the threefold attempt of Aeneas to embrace Anchises is\nstripped of its beautiful dream-simile in Dante\u2019s use.[702] A lovelier bit\nof borrowing is that of the quick springing up again of the rush, the\nsymbol of humility, _l\u2019umile pianta_, with which the poet is girt before\nproceeding up the Mount of Purgatory.[703]\n\nWith Dante the pagan antique represented much that was philosophically\ntrue, if not veritably divine. In his mind, apparently, the heathen good\nstood for the Christian good, and the conflict of the heathen deities with\nTitan monsters symbolized, if indeed it did not continue to make part of,\nthe Christian struggle against the power of sin.[704] We may be jarred by\nthe apostrophe:\n\n              \u201c... O sommo Giove,\n  Che fosti in terra per noi crucifisso.\u201d[705]\n\nBut this is a kind of Christian-antique phrase by no means unexampled in\nmediaeval poetry. And we feel the poetic breadth and beauty of the\ninvocation in which Apollo symbolizes or represents, exactly what we will\nnot presume to say, but at all events some veritable spiritual power, as\nMinerva does, apparently, in another passage.[706] In such instances the\nantique image which beautifies the poem is transfigured to a Christian\nsymbol, if it does not present actual truth.\n\nYet however universally Dante\u2019s mind was solicited by the antique matter\nand his poet\u2019s nature charmed, he was profoundly and mediaevally\nChristian. The _Commedia_ is a mediaeval Christian poem. Its fabric,\nspringing from the life of earth, enfolds the threefold quasi-other world\nof damned, of purging, and of finally purified, spirits. It is dramatic\nand doctrinal. Its drama of action and suffering, like the narratives of\nScripture, offers literal fact, moral teaching, and allegorical or\nspiritual significance. The doctrinal contents are held partly within the\npoem\u2019s dramatic action and partly in expositions which are not fused in\nthe drama. Thus whatever else it is, the poem is a _Summa_ of saving\ndoctrine, which is driven home by illustrations of the sovereign good and\nabysmal ill coming to man under the providence of God. One may perhaps\ndiscern a twofold purpose in it, since the poet works out his own\nsalvation and gives precepts and examples to aid others and help truth and\nrighteousness on earth. The subject is man as rewarded or punished\neternally by God--says Dante in the letter to Can Grande. This subject\ncould hardly be conceived as veritable, and still less could it be\nexecuted, by a poet who had no care for the effect of his poem upon men.\nDante had such care. But whether he, who was first and always a poet,\nwrote the _Commedia_ in order to lift others out of error to salvation, or\neven in order to work out his own salvation,--let him say who knows the\nmind of Dante. No divination, however, is required to trace the course of\nthe saving teaching, which, whether dramatically exemplified or expounded\nin doctrinal statement, is embodied in the great poem; nor is it hard to\nnote how Dante drew its substance from the mediaeval past.\n\nThe _Inferno_, which is the most dramatic and realistic, \u201cDantesque,\u201d part\nof the _Commedia_, and replete with terrestrial interest, is doctrinally\nthe least rich. Its doctrine chiefly lies in its scheme of punishment, or\ndivine vengeance, for different sins. Herein Dante followed no set series\nlike the seven deadly sins expiated in Purgatory. Neither the Church nor\nauthoritative writers had laid out the plan of Hell. Dante had in mind\nThomas Aquinas and Aristotle, also Cicero\u2019s _De officiis_,[707] and,\nstructurally, Virgil. His scheme also was affected by his own character,\nsituation, and aversions, and assuredly by the movement of its own\ncomposition. At the mouth of Hell the worthless nameless ones and the\nneutral angels receive their due. Then after the sad calm of the place of\nthe unbaptized and the great blameless heathen, the veritable Hell begins,\nand the series of tortures unfold, the lightest being such as punish\nincontinence, while the most awful are reserved for those fraudulent ones\nwho have betrayed a trust. Dante\u2019s power of presenting the humanly\nloathsome does not let the progress of hellish torment fail in climax even\nto the end, where Brutus, Cassius, and Judas are crunched in the dripping\nmouths of Lucifer at the bottom of the lowest pit of Hell.\n\nThe general idea of hell torments came to the poet from current beliefs\nand authoritative utterances, ranging from the \u201couter darkness\u201d of the\nGospel to the lurid oratory of St. Bernard. Dante\u2019s thoughts were drawn\ngenerically from the stores of mediaeval convictions, approvals, and\nimaginings: they were given to him by his epoch. Of necessity--innocently,\none may say--he made them into concrete realities because he was Dante.\nTerrifying phrases and crude ghastliness were raised through his dramatic\npower to living experiences. The reader goes through Hell, sees with his\nown eyes, hears with his own ears, and stifles in the choking air.\nDoubtless the narrative brought fear and contrition to the men of Dante\u2019s\ntime. But for us the disproportion of the vengeance to the crime, the\noutrage of everlasting torments for momentary, even impulsive sin, is\nshocking and preposterous.[708] The torments themselves present conditions\nwhich become unthinkable when we try to conceive them as enduring\neternally. Human flesh, or implicated spirit could not last beneath them.\nAnd as for our impulses, there is many a tortured soul with whom we would\nkeep company, for instance, with the excellent band of Sodomites--Priscian\n(!) Brunetto Latini, and those three Florentines whose \u201chonoured names\u201d\nthe poet greets with reverence and affection.[709] One might even wish to\nmake a third in the flame which enwraps Diomede and Ulysses. In fact,\nDante\u2019s dramatic genius has brought the mediaeval hell to a _reductio ad\nabsurdum_, to our minds.\n\nThe poet is of it too. He can pity those who touch his pity. And how great\nhe can be, how absolute. There is compacted in the story of Francesca all\nthat can be thought or felt over unhappy love. Yet Dante never doubts the\njustice of the punishment he describes; sometimes he calmly or cruelly\napproves. _Nel mio bel San Giovanni!_ How many thousands have quoted these\ndetached words to show the poet\u2019s love of his beautiful baptistery. But,\nin fact, he refers to the little cylindrical places where stood the\nbaptizing priests, in order to bring home to the reader the size of the\nholes in the burning rock from which protruded the quivering feet of\nSimoniacs![710] It appears that the souls of all the damned will suffer\nmore when they shall again be joined to their bodies after the\nresurrection.[711]\n\nThe _Inferno_ fully exemplifies the doctrinal statement obscurely set over\nthe gate which shut out hope: moved by justice, the Trinity, \u201cdivine\npower, supreme wisdom, primal love, created me (Hell) to endure\neternally.\u201d Dante follows this current authoritative opinion, stated by\nAquinas. Here one may repeat that Dante is the child of the Middle Ages,\nrather than a disciple of any single teacher. If he follows Aquinas more\nthan any other scholastic, he follows Bonaventura also with breadth and\nbalance. These two, however, were themselves final results of lines of\nprevious development. Both were rational and also mystically\ncontemplative, though the former quality predominates in Thomas and the\nlatter in Bonaventura. And in Dante\u2019s poem, at the end of the _Paradiso_,\nTheology, the rational apprehension of divine truth, gives place to\ncontemplation\u2019s loftier insight. Dante is kin to both these men; but when\nhe thinks, more frequently he thinks like Thomas, and the intellectual\nrealization of life is dominant with him. This was evident in the\n_Convito_; and that the intellectual vision constitutes the substance of\nthe _Commedia_, becomes luminously apparent in the _Paradiso_.[712] It is\neven suggested at the gate of Hell, within which the wretched people will\nbe seen, who have lost the good of the Intellect,[713] by which is meant\nknowledge of God.\n\nThe _Purgatorio_ presents more saving doctrine than the cantica of\ndamnation. Its Mount with the earthly paradise at the top, may have been\nhis own, but might have been taken from the Venerable Bede or Albertus\nMagnus.[714] The ante-purgatory appears as a creation of the poet,\ninfluenced by certain passages of the _Aeneid_ and by ancient disciplinary\npractices which kept the penitents waiting outside the church.[715] The\nteaching of the whole cantica relates to the purgation of pride, envy,\nanger, _accidia_ (sloth), avarice, gluttony, lust. These are the seven\ndeadly sins whose _provenance_ is early monasticism.[716] Through their\npurgation man is made pure and fit to mount to the stars.\n\nWe shall not follow Dante through the _Purgatorio_ and _Paradiso_, or\nobserve in detail the teachings set forth and the sources whence they were\nderived.[717] But a brief reference to the successive incidents and topics\nof instruction will show how the _Commedia_ touches every key of saving\ndoctrine. The soul entering Purgatory goes seeking liberty from sin,[718]\nand as a first lesson learns to detach itself from memories of the\ndamned.[719] It receives some slight suggestion of the limits of human\nreason;[720] and is told that according to the correct teaching there is\none soul in man with several faculties.[721] It learns the risk of\nrepentance in the hour of death;[722] and the efficacy of the prayers of\nothers to help souls through their purifying expiation; also, that, after\ndeath, souls can advance only by the aid of grace.[723] The symbolism of\nthe gate of Purgatory teaches the need of contrition and confession. Upon\nthe first ledge, the proud do penance, disciplined with examples of\nhumility, and through the Lord\u2019s Prayer are taught man\u2019s entire dependence\nupon God. It is fitting that Pride should be the first sin expiated, since\nit lies at the base of all sins in the Christian scheme. Much doctrine is\ninculcated by the treatment of the different sins and the appositeness of\nthe hymns sung by the penitents.[724]\n\nAscending the second ledge, Virgil, _i.e._ human reason, expounds the\nfirst principles of the doctrine of that love which is of the Good.[725]\nNext is set forth the theory of human free-will and the effect of the\nspheres in directing human inclination--all in strict accord with the\nteaching of Thomas;[726] and then, still in accord with Thomas, the fuller\nnature of love (or desire) is expounded, and the allotment of purgatorial\npains in expiation of the various modes of evil desire or failure to love\naright.[727] These fitting pains are as a solace to the soul yearning to\naccomplish its purgation.[728] Next, generation is explained, the creation\nof the soul, and the manner of its existence after separation from the\nbody, according to dominant scholastic theories.[729] In the concluding\ncantos of the _Purgatorio_, much Church doctrine is symbolically set forth\nby the Mystic Procession and the rivers of the earthly paradise, Lethe and\nEunoe--the latter representing sacramental grace through which good works,\nkilled by later sins, are made to live again.[730] The earthly paradise\nsymbolizes the perfect happiness of life in the flesh, and the state\nwherein man is fit to pass to the heavenly Paradise.\n\nBesides doctrine directly bearing on Salvation, the _Commedia_ contains\nexplanations by the way, needed to understand Dante\u2019s journey through the\nearth and heavens, and give it verisimilitude. Apparently these\nexplanations were also intended to afford a sufficient knowledge of the\nstructure of the universe. The _Paradiso_ abounds in this kind of\ninformation, largely physical and astronomical. Its first canto offers a\ngeneral statement, beautifully put, of the ordering of created things. In\nthis instance, the instruction is not exclusively astronomical or\nphysical,[731] but touches upon animated creatures, and follows Thomist\nteaching. Another interesting instance is the explanation in the second\ncanto of the spots on the moon and then of the influence of the heavens.\nHere the astronomical matter runs on into elucidations touching human\nnature, even that human nature which is to be saved through saving\ndoctrine. In this way the Christian-Thomist-Dantesque scheme of knowledge\nholds together. The _Commedia_ is the pilgrimage of the soul after all\nwisdom, and includes, implicitly at least, the matter of the _Convito_.\n\nThe _Paradiso_ contains the chief store of saving knowledge. It sets forth\nthe ultimate problems of human life and divine salvation, with due\nemphasis laid upon the limitations of human understanding. Dante,\nconscious of the strenuousness of his high argument, warns off all but the\nchosen few.\n\nA first point learned in the heavenly voyage is that no soul in Paradise\ndesires aught save what it has; since such desire would contravene the\nwill of God. Paradise is everywhere in Heaven, though the divine grace\nrains not upon all in one mode.[732] Beatified souls do not dwell in any\nparticular star, though Plato seems to say so. Scripture condescends to\nfigure the intelligible under the guise of sensible forms, as Plato may\nhave done.[733] Broken vows and their reparation are now considered. Then\nthe history of the Roman Eagle brings out the fact that Christ was\ncrucified under Tiberius and His death avenged by Titus, which leads on to\nthe explanation of the Fall and the Redemption, occupying the seventh\ncanto. The next offers comment upon the divine goodness and the diversity\nof human lots; and shows how the bitter may rise from the sweet. With deep\nconsistency the poet exclaims against the insensate toilsome reasonings\nthrough which mortals beat their wings downward, away from God.[734]\n\nIn canto thirteen the reader is enlightened regarding the wisdom of Adam,\nof Solomon, and of Christ; and then as to the existence of the beatified\nsoul before and after it is clothed with the glorified body of the\nResurrection.[735] Incidentally the justice of eternal punishment is\nadverted to.[736] The depth of the divine righteousness is next\npresented,[737] and its application to the heathen, with illustrations of\nGod\u2019s saving ways, in the instances of certain princes who loved\nrighteousness, including Trajan and the Trojan Rhipeus.[738] The\nincomprehensibility of Predestination next receives attention.\n\nNow intervenes the marvellous and illuminative beauty of canto\ntwenty-three, preceding Dante\u2019s declaration of his creed, upon\ninterrogatories from the apostles, Peter, James, and John. In this way he\nstates the dogmatic fundamentals of the Christian Faith, and the\nsubstantiating r\u00f4les of philosophic argument and authority.[739] After\nthis, the vision of the hierarchies of angels leads on to discourse upon\ntheir creation and nature, the immediate fall of those who fell, the\nexaltation of the steadfast with added grace, and the mode and measure of\ntheir knowledge. Thomas is followed in this scholastic argument.\n\nWith the vision of the Rose, rational theology gives place to mystic\ncontemplation;[740] and further visions of the divine ordering precede the\nprayer to the Virgin, with which the last canto opens--that prayer so\nbeautiful and so expressive of mediaeval thought and feeling as to the\nmost kind and blessed Lady of Heaven. This prayer or hymn is made of\nphrases which the mediaeval mind and heart had been recasting and\nperfecting for centuries. It is almost a great _cento_, like the _Dies\nIrae_. After the Lady\u2019s answering benediction, there comes to Dante, in\ngrace, the final mystic vision of the Trinity, enfolding all\nexistence--substance, accidents and their modes, bound with love in one\nvolume. Supreme dogmatic truth is set forth, and the furthest strainings\nof reason are stilled in supersensual and super-rational vision, which\nsatisfies all intellectual desire. This vision, vouchsafed through the\nVirgin\u2019s grace, assures the pilgrim soul: the goal is reached alike of\nknowledge and salvation.\n\nOne may say that the _Commedia_ begins and ends with the Virgin. It was\nshe who sent Beatrice into the gates of Hell to move Virgil--meaning human\nreason--to go to Dante\u2019s aid. The prayer which obtains her benediction,\nand the vision following, close the _Paradiso_. So the teaching of the\npoem ends in mediaeval strains. For the Virgin was the mediaeval goddess,\nbeloved and universally adored, helpful in every way, and the chief aid in\nbringing man to Heaven. But no more with Dante than with other mediaeval\nmen is she the end of worship and devotion. Her eyes are turned on God.\nSo are those of Beatrice, of Rachel, and of all the saints in Paradise. As\nfor man on earth, he is _viator_, journeying on through discipline, in\nrighteousness and beneficence, but above all in faith and hope and love of\nGod, with his eyes of knowledge and desire set on God. God is the goal,\neven of the _vita activa_, which is also training and enlightenment.\nLoving his brother whom he hath seen, man may learn to love\nGod--practising himself in love. Even Christ\u2019s parable, \u201cInasmuch as ye\ndid it unto one of the least of these,\u201d rightly interpreted, implies that\nthe end of human charity is God: the human charity is preparation,\nobedience, means of enlightenment. The brother for whom Christ died--that\nis he whom thou shalt love, and that is why thou shalt love him. In\nthemselves human relationships are disciplinary, ancillary, as all the\nsciences are ancillary to Theology. Mediaeval religion is turned utterly\ntoward God; the relationship of the soul to God is its whole matter. It is\nnot humanitarian: not human, but _divina scientia, fides, et amor_, make\nmediaeval Christianity. Thus Dante\u2019s doctrine is mediaeval. Toward God\nmoves the desire of the _viatores_ in Purgatory, though they still are\nincidentally mindful of earth\u2019s memories. In Paradise the eyes of all the\nblessed are set on Him. Because of the divine love they may for a moment\nturn the eyes of their knowledge and desire to aid a fellow-creature; the\noccasion past, they fix them again on God: thus the Virgin, thus Bernard,\nthus Beatrice.\n\nAs a son of the Middle Ages, Dante was possessed with the spirit of\nsymbolism. Allegory, with him, was not merely a way of expressing that\nwhich might transcend direct statement: it embodied a principle of truth.\nThe universally accepted allegorical interpretation of Scripture justified\nthe view that a deeper verity lay in allegorical significance than in\nliteral meaning. This principle applied to other writings also. \u201cNow since\nthe literal sense [of the first canzone] is sufficiently explained, it is\ntime to proceed to the allegorical and true interpretation.\u201d[741]\n\nIn the _Vita Nuova_ and somewhat more lifelessly in the _Convito_, Dante\nexplains that it is his way to invest his poetry with a secondary or\nallegorical sense. He proposes in the latter work to carry out the formal\nnotion of the four kinds of meaning contained in profound\nwritings--literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical.[742] He never holds\nhimself, however, to the lines of any such obsession, but is content in\npractice with the literal and the broadly allegorical sense.[743] Even\nthen the great Florentine occasionally can be jejune enough. The\nconception of the ten heavens figuring the Seven Liberal Arts along with\nmetaphysics, ethics, and theology, as a plan of composition for the\n_Convito_,[744] was on a level with the structural symbolism of the _De\nnuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii_ of Capella. Yet the likening of Ethics to\nthe _primum mobile_ and Theology to the Empyrean has bearing on Dante\u2019s,\nand the mediaeval, scheme of the sciences, among which Theology is chief.\n\nAllegory moulds the structure and permeates the substance of the\n_Commedia_. For this Dante himself vouches in the famous dedicatory letter\nto Can Grande, where his thoughts may be heard creaking scholastically, as\nhe describes the nature of his poem, and explains why he entitled it\n_Commedia_:\n\n    \u201cLiterally, the subject is the state of souls after death taken\n    simply. If, however, the work be accepted allegorically, the subject\n    is man, according as by merit or demerit through freedom of choice\n    (_arbitrii libertatem_) he is subject to Justice, rewarding or\n    punitive.\u201d\n\nThis is the positive statement emanating, in all probability, from the\npoet. Perhaps it is as well that he did not live to inaugurate the series\nof Commentaries upon his poem, which began within a few years of his death\nand show no signs of ceasing.[745] So it has been left to others to\ndetermine the metes and bounds and special features of the _Commedia\u2019s_\nallegorical intent. The task has proved hazardous, because Dante was such\na great poet, so realistic in his visualizing and so masterful in forcing\nthe different phases of his many-sided thoughts to combine in concrete\ncreations. His drama is so living that one can hardly think it an\nallegory.\n\nEvidently certain matters, like the Mystic Procession and its apocalyptic\nappurtenances in the last cantos of the _Purgatorio_, are sheer allegory.\nSuch, while suited to suggest theological tenets, are formal and lifeless,\na little like the hieratic allegorical mosaics of the fourth and fifth\ncenturies, which were composed before Christian art had become imbued with\nChristian feeling.[746] Indeed, doffing for an instant one\u2019s reverence for\nthe great poet, one may say that from the point of view of art and life,\nDante\u2019s symbolism becomes jejune, or at least ceases to draw us, according\nas it becomes palpable allegory.[747]\n\nBeyond such incidents one recognizes that the general course of the poem,\nits more pointed occurrences, together with its chief characters and the\nscenes amid which they move, have commonly both literal and allegorical\nmeaning.[748] Usually it is wise not to press either side too rigorously.\nThe poet\u2019s mind worked in the clearly imagined setting and dramatic action\nof his poem, where fact and symbolism combined in that reality which is\nboth art and life. Surely the _Commedia_ was completed and rendered real\nand beautiful through many a touch and incident which had no allegorical\nintent. Even as in a French cathedral, the main sculptured and painted\nsubjects have doctrinal, that is to say, allegorical, significance,\nbesides their literal truth; but there is also much lovely carving of\nscroll and flowered ornament and beast and bird, which beautifies the\nbuilding.\n\nFor Dante\u2019s purpose, to set out the state of disembodied spirits after\ndeath, allegory might prove prejudicial, because of the intensity of his\nartist\u2019s vision. Much of the poem\u2019s symbolism, especially in the\n_Paradiso_, belongs to that unavoidable imagery to which every one is\ndriven when attempting to describe spiritual facts. Such symbolism,\nhowever, when constructed with the plastic power of a Dante, may become\nitself so convincing or compelling as to reduce the intended spiritual\nsignification to the terms of its concrete embodiment in the symbol. In\nview of the carnality of most sin, one is not surprised to find the place\nof punishment a converging cavity within the earth. With Dante, as with\nHildegard, the sights and torments of Hell are realistically given quite\nas of course. Perhaps Dante\u2019s Mount of Purgatory begins to give us pause,\nand its corniced _mise en sc\u00e8ne_ tends to enflesh the idea of spirit and\nmaterialize its purgation. But the limiting effect of symbolism is most\nkeenly felt in the _Paradiso_, notwithstanding the beauty of that cantica;\nfor its very concrete symbolism seems sometimes to ensphere the intended\ntruths of spirit in a sort of crystalline translucency. It is all a\nmarvellously imagined description of the state of blessed souls. Yet in\nthe final pure and glorious image of a white rose (_candida rosa_) the\ncompany of the glorified spirits is so visualized as to become, surely not\ntheatrical, but as if assembled upon the rounding tiers of seats occupied\nby an audience.[749] There are topics in which the sheer ratiocination of\nThomas is more completely spiritual than the poetic vision of Dante.\n\nDante\u2019s most admirable symbolic creation was also his dearest\nreality--Beatrice. And while this being in which he has immortalized his\nfame and hers, is eminently the creation of his genius, the elements were\ndrawn from the many-chambered mediaeval past. Some issued out of the vast\nmatter of chivalric love, with its high heart of service and sense of its\nown worth, its science, its foolish and most wise reasoning, its\npreciosity of temper--Dante and his literary friends were virtuosos in\neverything pertaining to its understanding.[750] This love was of the\nfine-reasoning mind. The first canzone of the _Vita Nuova_ does not begin\n\u201cDonne, che sentite amore,\u201d but: \u201cDonne, ch\u2019 avete intelletto d\u2019 amore.\u201d\nThrough that book love is what it never ceases to be with Dante,\n_intelligenza_:\n\n  \u201cIntelligenza nuova, che l\u2019 Amore\n   Piangendo mette in lui....\u201d\n\nThe _piangendo_, the tears, have likewise part; without them love is not\nhad or even understood. The enormous sense of love\u2019s supreme worth--that\ntoo is in Dante. It had all been with the Troubadours of Provence, with\nChr\u00e9tien de Troies, and with the great Minnesingers, and had been reasoned\non, appreciated, felt and wept over, by ladies and knights who listened to\ntheir poems. From France and Provence love and its reasonings had come to\nItaly even before Dante\u2019s eyes had opened to it and other matters.\n\nThis was one strain that entered the Beatrice of the _Vita Nuova_, of the\n_Convito_, of the _Commedia_. But Beatrice is something else: she is, or\nbecomes, Theology, the God-given science of the divine and human. Long had\nTheologia (_divina scientia_) been a queen; and even before her,\nPhilosophia, as with Bo\u00ebthius, had been a queenly woman gowned with as\nfull symbolical particularity as ever the Beatrice of Dante. Indeed from\nthe time of the _Psychomachia_ of Prudentius to the _Roman de la Rose_ of\nDe Lorris and De Meun, every human quality, and many an aspect of human\ncircumstance, had been personified, for the most part under the forms of\ngracious or seductive women. Above all of these rose, sweet, gracious, and\npotent, the Virgin Queen of Heaven. It came as of course to Dante to\nsymbolize his conception of divine wisdom in a woman\u2019s form. The\nachievement of his genius was the transfusing combination of elements of\ncourtly love, didactic allegory, and _divina scientia_, in a creature\nbefore whom the whole man Dante, heart and reason and religious faith,\ncould stand and gaze and love and worship.\n\nBeatrice was his and of him always; but with the visions and experience\nof that mature and grace-illuminated manhood, which expressed itself in\nthe _Commedia_, she comes to be much that she had not been when she lived\non earth or had just left it, and Dante was a maker of exquisite verses in\nFlorence; and much too that she had scarce become while the poet was\nconsoling himself with philosophy for his bereavement and the dulling of\nhis early faith. Beatrice lives and moves and has her ever more uplifted\nbeing as the reality as well as symbol of Dante\u2019s thoughts of life. With\nall first love\u2019s idealism, he loved a girl; then she, having passed from\nearth, becomes the inspiration and object of address of the young maker of\nsonnets and canzoni, who with such intellectual preciosity was intent on\nbuilding these verses of fine-spun sentiment. Thereafter, when he is in\ndarker mood, she does not altogether leave him, whatever variant attitudes\nhis thought and temper take. And at last the yearning self-fulfilments of\nhis renewed life draw together in the Beatrice of the _Commedia_.\n\nIt is very beautiful, and the growth, as well as work, of genius; but it\nis not strange. For there is no bound to the idealizing of the love which\nfirst transfuses a youth\u2019s nature with a mortal golden flame, and awakens\nit to new understanding. Out of whatever of experience of life and joy and\nsorrow may come to the man, this first love may still vivify itself\nanew--often in dreams--and become again living and beautiful, in tears,\nand will awaken new perceptions and disclose further vistas of the\n_intelligenza nuova_ which love never ceases to impart to him who has\nloved.\n\nDante\u2019s mind was always turning from the obvious sense-actuality of the\nfact to its symbolism; which held the truer reality. With such a man it is\nnot strange that the beloved and adored woman, the love of whom was virtue\nand enlightenment, should, when dead to earth, become that divine wisdom\nwhich opens Heaven to the lover who would follow, for all eternity,\nwhither his beloved has so surely gone. No, it was not strange, but only\nas wonderful as all the works of God, that she who while living had been\nthe spring of virtue of all kinds and meanings in the poet\u2019s breast,\nshould after death become the emblem, even the reality, of that whereby\nman is taught how to win his heavenly salvation. Passage after passage in\nthe _Purgatorio_ and _Paradiso_ show that Beatrice is this _divina\nscientia_, and yet has never ceased to be one whom the poet loves.[751]\n\nThus it is clear that mediaeval development converges at last in Dante.\nHe, or his _Commedia_, might be the final _Summa_, were not he, or rather\nit, the final poem. Man and work include the emotions and the intellectual\ninterests of the Middle Ages, embracing what had been known,--Physics,\nAstronomy, Politics, History, Pagan Mythology, Christian Theology,--all\nbent and moulded at last to the matter of the book. Not the contents of\nthe _Commedia_ is Dante\u2019s own, but the poem itself--that is his creation.\n\nYet even the poem itself was a climax long led up to. The power of its\nfeeling had been preparing in the conceptions, even in the reasonings,\nwhich through the centuries had been gaining ardour as they became part of\nthe entire natures of men and women. Thus had mediaeval thought become\nemotionalized and plastic and living in poetry and art. Otherwise, even\nDante\u2019s genius could not have fused the contents of mediaeval thought into\na poem. How many passages in the _Commedia_ illustrate this--like the\nlovely picture of Lia moving in the flowering meadow, with her fair hands\nmaking her a garland. The twenty-third canto of the _Paradiso_, telling of\nthe triumph of Christ and the Virgin, yields a larger illustration; and\nwithin it, as a very concrete lyric instance, floats that flower of\nangelic love, the song of Gabriel circling the Lady of Heaven with its\nmelody, and giving quintessential utterance to the love and adoration\nwhich the Middle Ages had intoned to the Virgin. Yes, if it be Dante\u2019s\ngenius, it is also the gathering emotion of the centuries, which lifts the\nlast cantos of the _Paradiso_ from glory to glory, and makes this closing\nsinging of the _Commedia_ such supreme poetry. Nor is it the emotional\nelement alone that reaches its final voice in Dante. Passage after passage\nof the _Paradiso_ is the apotheosis of scholastic thought and ways of\nstating it, the very apotheosis, for example, of those harnessed phrases\nin which the line of great scholastics had endeavoured to put in words\nthe universalities of substance and accident and the absolute qualities\nof God.\n\nYet one more feature of Dante\u2019s typifying inclusiveness of the past. Its\nelements exist in him at first without conscious opposition and yet not\nsubordinated one to another, the less worthy to those of eternal validity.\nThen conflict arises; the mediaeval Psychomachia awakes in Dante.\nEvidently he who wrote the _Convito_ after the _Vita Nuova_, had not\ncontinued spiritually undisturbed. Had there come dullings of his early\nfaith? Did his mind seek too exclusive satisfaction in knowledge? Had he\npossibly swerved a little from some high intention? The facts are veiled.\nDante wears neither his mind nor his heart upon his sleeve. Yet a\nreconcilement was attained by him, though perhaps he had to fetch it out\nof Hell. He achieved it in his great poem, which in its long making made\nthe poet into the likeness of itself. Fitness for salvation is the\nultimate criterion with Dante respecting the elements of mortal life, as\nit had been through the Middle Ages. And the _Commedia_--truly the _Divina\nCommedia_--while it presents the scheme of salvation for universal man, is\nthe achieved salvation of the poet.\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. 13-15,\n        =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        _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_ Greek\n        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=, 120,\n        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,\n        _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\nTHE END\n\n\n_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] See _post_, Chapter XXXVI., I.\n\n[2] Lev. xxi. 20; Deut. xxiii. 1.\n\n[3] Lucan, _Pharsalia_, viii. 94.\n\n[4] Helo\u00efse here in mediaeval fashion cites a number of examples from\nScripture showing the ills and troubles brought by women to men.\n\n[5] Again she quotes to prove this, from Job and St. Gregory and Ambrose.\n\n[6] Helo\u00efse\u2019s last _problema_ did not relate to Scripture, and may have\nbeen suggested by her own life. \u201cWe ask whether one can sin in doing what\nis permitted or commanded by the Lord?\u201d Abaelard answers with a discussion\nof what is permissible between man and wife.\n\n[7] This letter of Helo\u00efse is not extant.\n\n[8] The _Tristan_ of Gottfried von Strassburg and the _Parzival_ of\nWolfram von Eschenbach have been given. One may also refer to works of\nolder contemporaries, _e.g._ to the _Aeneid_ of Heinrich von Veldeke,\ntranslated (1184) from a French rendering of Virgil; and the two courtly\nnarrative poems, the _Erec_ and _Ivain_ (Knight of the Lion) taken from\nChr\u00e9tien of Troies by Hartmann von Aue, who flourished as the twelfth\ncentury was passing into the thirteenth.\n\n[9] On Walther von der Vogelweide, see Wilmann, _Leben und Dichtung\nWalthers, etc._ (Bonn, 1882); Sch\u00f6nbach, _Walther von der Vogelweide_ (2nd\ned., Berlin, 1895). The citations from his poems in this chapter follow\nthe Pfeiffer-Bartsch edition.\n\n[10] No. 3 in the Pfeiffer-Bartsch edition.\n\n[11] 184.\n\n[12] 33.\n\n[13] 22.\n\n[14] 14, 16, 69.\n\n[15] 18.\n\n[16] 39.\n\n[17] See _Lieder_, 46, 51, 56, 59, 61, 62, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77.\n\n[18] A lucid account of this struggle is given in Luchaire, _Innocent\nIII._, vol. iii. (\u201cLa Papaut\u00e9 et l\u2019Empire\u201d), Paris, 1906.\n\n[19] 81.\n\n[20] From \u201cFreidank in Auswahl,\u201d in Hildebrand\u2019s _Didaktik aus der Zeit\nder Kreuzz\u00fcge_, p. 336 (Deutsche Nat. Lit.).\n\n[21] 85, cf. 164.\n\n[22] 110.\n\n[23] 113, cf. 111, 112.\n\n[24] 115, 116.\n\n[25] 133. My statement of the opposition to the papacy might be much more\nanalytical, and contain further apt distinctions. But this would remove it\ntoo far from the anti-papal feeling of the common man; and the period,\nmoreover, is not yet that of Occam and Marsilius of Padua--as to whom see\nGierke, _Political Theories of the Middle Age_, trans. by Maitland\n(Cambridge, 1900).\n\n[26] 88, 137.\n\n[27] 158. Walter shared the crusading spirit. The inference that he was\nhimself a Crusader is unsafe; but he wrote stirring crusading poems, one\nopening with a line that in sudden power may be compared with Milton\u2019s\n\n  \u201cAvenge, O Lord, Thy slaughtered saints.\u201d\n\n  \u201cRich, h\u00earre, dich und dine muoter, megede kint.\u201d\n                                        167. See also 78, 79.\n\n[28] 87.\n\n[29] _Parzival_, i. 824.\n\n[30] 186.\n\n[31] 188.\n\n[32] While an allegory is a statement having another consciously intended\nmeaning, metaphor is the carrying over or deflection of a meaning from its\nprimary application. According to good usage, which has kept these terms\ndistinct, allegory implies a definite and usually a sustained intention,\nand suggests the spiritual; while metaphor suggests figures of speech and\nlinguistic changes often unconscious. Language develops through the\nmetaphorical (not allegorical) extension or modification of the meanings\nof words. The original meaning sometimes is obscured (_e.g._ in _profane_\nor _depend_), and sometimes continues to exist with the new one. In a vast\nnumber of languages, such words as _straight_, _oblique_, _crooked_, seem\nalways to have had both a direct and a metaphorical meaning. Moral and\nintellectual conceptions necessarily are expressed in phrases primarily\napplicable to physical phenomena.\n\n[33] Cf. Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, p. 97 _sqq._\n\n[34] _Ante_, Chapters IV., V.\n\n[35] _Contra Faustum_, xxii. 1-5.\n\n[36] _Contra Faustum_, xxii. 66-68.\n\n[37] Augustine\u2019s method in this twenty-second Book is first to consider\nthe actual sinfulness or justification of these deeds, and afterwards to\ntake up in succession their typological significance. So, for example, he\ndiscusses the blamefulness of Judah\u2019s conduct with Tamar in par. 61-64 and\nits typology in 83-86.\n\n[38] _Contra Faustum_, xxii. 87. St. Ambrose, in his _Apologia Prophetae\nDavid_, cap. iii. (Migne 14, col. 857), written some years before\nAugustine\u2019s treatise against Faustus, finds Bathsheba to signify the\n\u201ccongregatio nationum quae non erat Christo legitimo quodam fidei copulata\nconnubio.\u201d\n\n[39] _Quaestiones in Vet. Testam. in Regum II._ (Migne 83, col. 411).\nIsidore died A.D. 636 (_ante_, Chapter V.)\n\n[40] _Comment. in Libros IV. Regum_, in lib. ii. cap. xi.; Migne, _Pat.\nLat._ 109, col. 98 (written in 834). On Rabanus and Walafrid see _ante_,\nChapter X.\n\n[41] _Glossa ordinaria, Lib. Regum_, ii. cap. xi. (Migne 113, col. 571,\n572).\n\n[42] _Comment. in Matthaeum_ (Migne 107, col. 734).\n\n[43] Migne 114, col. 67.\n\n[44] It was the way of Bede in his commentaries to speak briefly of the\nliteral or historic meaning of the text, and then give the usual\nsymbolical interpretations, paying special attention to the significance\nof the Old Testament narratives as types of the career of Christ (see\n_e.g._ the beginning of the Commentary on Exodus, Migne 92, col. 285\n_sqq._; and Prologue to the allegorical Commentary on Samuel, Migne 92,\ncol. 501, 502). For example, in the opening of the First Book of Samuel,\nElkanah is a type of Christ, and his two wives Peninnah and Hannah\nrepresent the Synagogue and the Church. When Samuel is born to Hannah he\nalso is a type of Christ; and Bede says it need not astonish one that\nHannah\u2019s spouse and Hannah\u2019s son should both be types of Christ, since the\nMediator between God and man is at once the spouse and son of Holy Church:\nHe is her spouse as He aids her with His confidence and hope and love, and\nher son when by grace He enters the hearts of those who believe and hope\nand love. In _Samuelam_, cap. iii. (Migne 91, col. 508). Bede\u2019s monastic\nmind balked at the literal statement that Elkanah had two wives (see the\nPrologue, Migne 91, col. 499).\n\n[45] _Com. in Exodum_, Praefatio (Migne 108, col. 9).\n\n[46] Migne 112, col. 849-1088. A number of these dictionaries were\ncompiled, the earliest being the _De formulis spiritalis intellegentiae_\nof Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, who died in 450, ed. by Pauly 1884. In the\nlater Middle Ages Alanus de Insulis (_post_, Chapter XXIX.) compiled one.\n\n[47] These distinctions, not commonly observed, are frequently reiterated.\nSays Hugo of St. Victor (see _post_, Chapter XXVIII.) in the Prologue to\nhis _De sacramentis_: \u201cDivine Scripture, with threefold meaning, considers\nits matter historically, allegorically, and tropologically. History is the\nnarrative of facts, and follows the primary meaning of words; we have\nallegory when the fact which is told signifies some other fact in the\npast, present, or future; and tropology when the narrated fact signifies\nthat something should be done.\u201d Cf. Hugo\u2019s _Didascalicon_, v. cap. 2,\nwhere Hugo illustrates his meaning, and points out that this threefold\nsignificance is not to be found in every passage of Scripture. In _ibid._\nv. cap. 4, he gives seven curious rules of interpretation (Migne 176, col.\n789-793). In his _De Scripturis, etc., praenotatiunculae_, cap. 3 (Migne\n175, col. 11 _sqq._), Hugo speaks of the anagogical significance in the\nplace of the tropological.\n\n[48] Raban\u2019s Latin is \u201cLigabit earn ancillis suis\u201d--the verse in Job xl.\n24 reads \u201cLigabis earn ancillis tuis?\u201d In the English version the verse is\nJob xli. 5, \u201cWilt thou bind him for thy maidens?\u201d\n\n[49] \u201cPer fidem me cognoverunt\u201d; I surmise a _non_ is omitted.\n\n[50] The Scriptural citations are omitted. Rabanus wrote an allegorical\n_De laudibus sanctae crucis_ (Migne 107, col. 133-294), composed in metre\nwith prose explanations, which explain very little. The metrical portion\nis a puzzle consisting of twenty-eight \u201cfigures,\u201d or lineal delineations\ninterwoven in hexameter verses; the words and letters contained within\neach figure \u201cmake sense\u201d when read by themselves, and form verses in\nmetres other than hexameters. The whole is as incomprehensible in meaning\nas it is indescribable in form. Angels, cherubim and seraphim, tetragons,\nthe virtues, months, winds, elements, signs of the Zodiac, and other\ntwelvefold mysteries, the days of the year, the number seven, the five\nbooks of Moses, the four evangelists, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit,\nthe eight beatitudes, the mystery of the number forty, the sacrament shown\nby the number fifty,--all these and much besides contribute to the glory\nof the Cross, and are delineated and arranged in cruciform manner, so as\nto be included within the scope of the cross\u2019s symbolical significance.\n\n[51] Since allegory and the spirit of symbolism pervaded all mediaeval\nthought, the present and two following chapters aim only at setting forth\nthe elements (with pertinent examples) of this quite limitless subject.\n\n[52] See prefatory epistle to _Speculum ecclesiae_, Migne 172, col. 813.\nCompare the prefatory epistle to the _Gemma animae_, _ibid._ col. 541, and\nthe Preface to the _Elucidarium_, _ibid._ col. 1109. Probably Honorius\ndied about 1130.\n\n[53] We have these sermons only in Latin. Presumably a preacher using\nthem, gave them in that language or rendered them in the vernacular as he\nthought fit.\n\n[54] \u201cOmmia legalia Christus nobis convertit in sacramenta spiritualia\u201d is\nHonorius\u2019s apt phrase (which may be borrowed!), Migne 172, col. 842. His\nspecial reference is to circumcision.\n\n[55] Ps. xxxi. Vulgate; Ps. xxxii. 2, Authorized Version.\n\n[56] _Speculum ecclesiae_, \u201cDominica XI.\u201d (Migne 172, col. 1053 _sqq._).\n\n[57] Yet, curiously enough, near the time when I was making the following\ntranslation, I heard an elderly country clergyman preach substantially\nthis sermon of Honorius--wherever he may have culled it, perhaps from some\nuseful \u201cHomiletical\u201d Commentary.\n\n[58] _Speculum ecclesiae_, \u201cDominica XIII.\u201d (Migne 172, col. 1059-1061).\n\n[59] _Speculum ecclesiae_, \u201cDominica in Septuagesima\u201d (Migne 172, col.\n855-857). Honorius may have forgotten the weariness of his supposed\naudience; for his sermon goes on with further admonition as to how the\nvictory is to be won.\n\nThe allegorical interpretation of Scripture is exemplified in the whole\nlimitless mass of mediaeval sermons. Illustrations from St. Bernard\u2019s\nsermons on Canticles are given in Chapter XVII., also _post_, in Chapter\nXXXVI., II.\n\n[60] For the Eucharist in the Carolingian period see _ante_, Chapter X.\nBerengar of Tours is spoken of in Chapter XII., IV.\n\n[61] Many members in one body, one body in Christ (Rom. xii. 4, 5).\n\n[62] Cf. _post_, Chapter XXXIII., V.\n\n[63] The works of Hugo of Saint-Victor are contained in Migne\u2019s\n_Patrologia Latina_, 175-177 (Paris, 1854; the reprint of 1882 is full of\nmisprints). The Prolegomena (in French) of Mgr. Hugonin are elaborate and\nvaluable. Mignon, _Les Origines de la scholastique et Hugues de\nSaint-Victor_ (2 vols., Paris, 1895), follows Hugonin\u2019s writing and adds\nlittle of value. An exposition of Hugo\u2019s philosophy is to be found in\nSt\u00f6ckl, _Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters_, Band I. pp. 305-355\n(Mainz, 1864). On the authenticity of the writings ascribed to him see\nHaur\u00e9au, _Les \u0152uvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor_ (2nd ed., Paris, 1886).\nFor Hugo\u2019s position in the history of scholasticism and mysticism see\n_post_, Chapter XXXVI., II.\n\n[64] _Post_, Chapter XXXI., I.\n\n[65] Hildebert\u2019s letter is given _post_, Chapter XXX., III.\n\n[66] On the neighbouring schools of Notre-Dame and St. Genevieve see\n_post_, Chapter XXXVII.\n\n[67] At the opening of his _Expositio in regulam beati Augustini_, Migne\n176, col. 881, Hugo explains that the precepts under which a monastic\ncommunity lives are called the _regula_, and what we call a _regula_ is\ncalled a _canon_ by the Greeks; and those are called _canonici_ or\n_regulares_, who \u201cjuxta regularia praecepta sanctorum Patrum canonice\natque apostolice vivunt.\u201d Thus the \u201cregular canons\u201d of St. Augustine were\nmonks who lived according to the rule ascribed to that saint. In the case\nof the Victorines the rule was drawn up chiefly by Abbot Gilduin. See\nProlegomena to the works of _Hugo_, Migne 175, col. xxiv. _sqq._\n\n[68] See the Prolegomena to the works of _Hugo de Saint-Victor_, by\nHugonin, Migne 175, col. xl. _sqq._\n\n[69] _Didascalicon_, vi. 3 (Migne 176, col. 799). Other contents of this\nwork are given _post_, Chapter XXXVI., I.\n\n[70] His death is touchingly described in a letter of Osbert, the canon in\ncharge of the infirmary. See Migne 175, col. xlvii and clxi.\n\n[71] Hugo, _De arrha animae_, Migne 176, col. 954. Yet Hugo sometimes was\nstung with an irrelevant pang for the German fatherland, which he had\nleft: \u201cI have been an exile since my boyhood, and I know how the mind\ngrieves to forsake some poor hut\u2019s narrow hearth, and how easily it may\nthen despise the marble hall and fretted roof\u201d (_Didascalicon_, iii. 20;\nMigne 176, col. 778). Compare the single letter of Hugo that has a\npersonal note, _Ep._ i. (Migne 176, col. 1011).\n\n[72] The _De sacramentis Christianae fidei_ is printed in Migne 176, col.\n174-618. It is thus a lengthy work.\n\n[73] Hugo evidently refers to his _De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris\npraenotatiunculae_, and his various _Adnotationes elucidatoriae_, which\nwill be found printed in vol. 175 of Migne\u2019s _Patrologia Latina_. In chap.\nv. of the work first mentioned (Migne 175, col. 13) he speaks sensibly of\nthe folly of those who profess not to care for the literal historical\nmeaning of the sacred text, but, in ignorance, spring at once to very\ninept allegorical interpretations.\n\n[74] _De sacramentis_, Prologus (Migne 176, col. 183-185). A more\nelementary statement may be found in _De Scripturis, etc._, cap. xiii.\n(Migne 175, col. 20).\n\n[75] God is perfect and utterly good. His beatitude cannot be increased or\ndiminished, but it can be imparted. Therefore the primal cause for\ncreating rational creatures was God\u2019s wish that there should be partakers\nof His beatitude. This reasoning may be Christian; but it is also close to\nthe doctrine of Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_, which Hugo had read.\n\n[76] Hugo also takes a wider view of the \u201cplace\u201d of mankind\u2019s restoration,\nand finds that it includes (1) heaven, where the good are confirmed and\nmade perfect; (2) hell, where the bad receive their deserts; (3) the fire\nof purgatory, where there is correction and perfecting; (4) paradise the\nplace of good beginnings; and (5) the world, the place of pilgrimage for\nthose who need restoring.\n\n[77] \u201cSacramentum est corporale vel materiale elementum foris sensibiliter\npropositum ex similitudine repraesentans, et ex institutione significans,\net ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spiritalem gratiam\u201d\n(pars ix. 2; Migne 176, col. 317). In spite of Hugo the old definition\nheld its ground, being adopted by Peter Lombard and others after him.\n\n[78] Here we see clearly that the works of the Creation have the\nsacramental quality of similitude and, in a way, the quality of\ninstitution, since their similitude to spiritual things was intended by\nthe Creator for the instruction of man. They lack, however, the third\nquality of sanctification, which enables the material _signum_ to convey\nits spiritual _res_.\n\n[79] _e.g._ the material of the sacrament, which may consist in things, as\nin bread and wine, or in actions (as in making the sign of the cross), or\nin words, as in the invocation of the Trinity. He also shows how faith\nitself may be regarded as a sacrament, inasmuch as it is that whereby we\nnow see in a glass darkly and behold but an image. But we shall hereafter\nsee clearly through contemplation. Faith then is the image, _i.e._ the\nsacrament, of the future contemplation which is the sacrament\u2019s real\nverity, the _res_.\n\n[80] _De sacr._ lib. i. pars xi. cap. 1. The sacraments of the natural law\nincluded tithes, oblations, and sacrifices. Hugo also considers the good\nworks which the natural law prescribed. This period ceases with the\nwritten law given implicitly through Abraham and explicitly through Moses.\nSee _De sacr._ lib. i. pars xii. cap. i. Hugo appears to me to vary his\npoint of view regarding the natural law and its time, for sometimes he\nregards it as the law prevailing till the time of Abraham or Moses, and\nagain as the law under which pagan peoples lived, who did not know the\nMosaic law.\n\n[81] _De sacr._ lib. i. pars xi. cap. 6 (Migne 176, col. 346).\n\n[82] Whoever should wish for further illustration of Hugo\u2019s allegorical\nmethods may examine his treatises entitled _De arca No\u00eb morali_ and _De\narca No\u00eb mystica_ (Migne 176, col. 618-702), where every detail of the\nArk, which signifies the Church, is allegorically applied to the Christian\nscheme of life and salvation. With these treatises, Hugo\u2019s _De vanitate\nmundi_ (Migne 176, col. 703-740) is connected. They will be referred to\nwhen considering Hugo\u2019s position in mediaeval philosophy, _post_, Chapter\nXXXVI., II.\n\n[83] See Duchesne, _Origines du culte chr\u00e9tien_.\n\n[84] See the epitaph from his tomb in S. Maria sopra Minerva in Rome,\ngiven by Savigny, _Geschichte des R\u00f6mischen Rechts_, v. 571 _sqq._, who\nalso gives a sketch of his life. With the work of Durandus, the _Gemma\nanimae_ of Honorius of Autun (Books I. II. III.; Migne 172, col. 541\n_sqq._) should be compared, as marking a somewhat earlier stage in the\ninterpretation of the Liturgy. It also gives the symbolism of the church\nand its parts, its ministers, and services.\n\n[85] Every article worn or borne by the bishop (or celebrating priest) has\nsymbolic significance.\n\n[86] All this (which is taken from Book IV. of the _Rationale_) is but the\nfirst part of the Mass. The maze of symbolism increases in vastness and\nintricacy as the office proceeds.\n\n[87] Neh. iv.\n\n[88] Matt. xix. 17.\n\n[89] Many parts of the church have more than one significance. The windows\nwere said before to represent hospitality and pity.\n\n[90] _Post_, Chapter XXXV., I.\n\n[91] The application of Vincent\u2019s work to the sculpture and painting of a\nGothic cathedral is due to Didron, _Iconographie chr\u00e9tienne, histoire de\nDieu_, Introduction (1843). Other writers have followed him, like \u00c9mile\nMale in his _L\u2019Art religieux du XIII{e} si\u00e8cle en France_ (2nd ed., Paris,\n1902), to which the present writer is much indebted. It goes without\nsaying, that the sources from which Vincent drew (_e.g._ the works of\nAlbertus Magnus) likewise form a commentary upon the subjects of Gothic\nglass and sculpture, and may even have suggested the manner of their\npresentation.\n\n[92] The opening verses of John\u2019s Gospel account for this. Christ, or God\nin the person of Christ, is shown in Old Testament scenes as early as the\nfourth century upon sarcophagi in the Lateran at Rome.\n\n[93] These subjects illustrated the series of events celebrated in the\ncalendar of church services.\n\n[94] _Post_, pp. 86 _sqq._\n\n[95] _Ante_, Chapter XXVII.\n\n[96] So the composition and the arrangement of topics in the cathedral\nsculpture and glass have scarcely the excellence of natural grouping. The\narrangement is intended to illustrate the series of successive acts making\nup God\u2019s own artist-composition, itself symbolical of His purpose in the\ncreation and redemption of man.\n\n[97] Adam\u2019s hymns are edited with notes and an introductory essay by L.\nGautier, _\u0152uvres po\u00e9tiques d\u2019Adam de S.-Victor_ (3rd ed., Paris, 1894). A\nnumber of his hymns will be found in Migne 196, col. 1422 _sqq._; and also\nin Clement\u2019s _Carmina e poetis christianis excerpta_. On Adam\u2019s verse see\n_post_, Chapter XXXII., III.\n\n[98] Dante draws much from Richard of St. Victor.\n\n[99] See _post_, Chapter XXXII., III.\n\n[100] Gautier, _o.c._ p. 46 (Migne 196, col. 1437).\n\n[101] The Hebrews in bondage to the Egyptians are the symbol of all men in\nthe bonds of sin.\n\n[102] As Christ expires the cherubim at the gate of Eden lower the flaming\nsword, so that the men bathed with His blood may pass in.\n\n[103] Isaac was always a type of Christ; his name was interpreted laughter\n(_risus_) from Gen. xxi. 6: \u201cAnd Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so\nthat all that hear will laugh with me.\u201d\n\n[104] Joseph another type of Christ.\n\n[105] This serpent, _i.e._ Christ the rod of Aaron, safe from the devil\u2019s\nspite, consumes the false idols.\n\n[106] The Brazen Serpent, a type of Christ. Cf. John iii. 14.\n\n[107] Cf. Job xli. 1. The hook (_hamus_) is Christ\u2019s divinity, whereby He\npierces the devil\u2019s jaw.\n\n[108] Cf. Isa. xi. 8. The guiltless child is Christ, and the cockatrice is\nthe devil.\n\n[109] The children who mocked Elisha represent the Jews mocking Christ as\nHe ascended Calvary; the bear is Vespasian and Titus who destroy\nJerusalem.\n\n[110] These again are types of Christ: David feigning madness among the\nPhilistines, 1 Sam. xxi. 12-15; the goat cast forth for the people\u2019s sins,\nLev. xvi. 21, 22; and the sparrow in the rite of cleansing from leprosy,\nLev. xiv. 2-7.\n\n[111] Samson a type of Christ, will not wed a woman of his tribe (Judges\nxiv. 1-3) as Christ chooses the Gentiles; Samson bursts open Gaza\u2019s gates\nas Christ the gates of death and hell.\n\n[112] The allusion here is to the statement of mediaeval Bestiaries that\nthe lion cub, when born, lies lifeless for three days, till awakened by\nhis father\u2019s roar. The supernal mother is the Church triumphant.\n\n[113] The body of Christ, _i.e._ the Church.\n\n[114] A topic everywhere represented in church windows and cathedral\nsculpture.\n\n[115] Printed at the end of his _Paedagogus_; see Taylor, _Classical\nHeritage of the Middle Ages_, pp. 253-255, where it is translated.\n\n[116] Although the dogmas of Christianity were formulated by reason, they\nwere cradled in love and hate. Nowadays, in a time when dogmas are apt to\nbe thought useless clogs to the spirit, it is well for the\nhistorically-minded to remember the power of emotional devotion which they\nhave inspired in other times.\n\n[117] Gautier, _\u0152uvres d\u2019Adam_ (1st ed., vol. i. p. 11); Gautier (3rd ed.,\np. 269) doubts whether this hymn is Adam\u2019s. But for the purpose of\nillustrating the symbolism of the twelfth-century hymn, the question of\nauthorship is not important.\n\n[118] _Ante_, Chapter XXVII.\n\n[119] In these closing lines the \u201csalubre sacramentum\u201d is in apposition to\n\u201cIlle de Samaria\u201d--_i.e._ the \u201csacramentum\u201d is the Saviour, who is also\ntypified by the Good Samaritan. In another hymn for Christmas, Adam speaks\nof the concurrence in one _persona_ of Word, flesh, and spirit, and then\nuses the phrase \u201cTantae rei sacramentum\u201d (Gautier, _o.c._ p. 5). Here the\n_sacramentum_ designates the visible human person of Christ, which was the\nlife-giving _signum_ or symbol of so great a marvel (_tantae rei_) as the\nIncarnation. Adam has Hugo\u2019s teaching in mind, and the full significance\nof his phrase will appear by taking it in connection with Hugo\u2019s\ndefinition of the Sacrament, _ante_, Chapter XXVIII.\n\n[120] Gautier, _o.c._ p. 10.\n\n[121] The reference is to Aaron\u2019s rod in Numbers xvii.\n\n[122] The reference is to Gideon\u2019s fleece, Judges vi. 37, which is a type\nof the Virgin Mary.\n\n[123] Gautier, _o.c._ 1st ed., i. 155 (Migne 196, col. 1464). In his third\nedition, Gautier is doubtful of Adam\u2019s authorship of this hymn because of\nits irregular rhyme.\n\n[124] Cf. Gautier\u2019s notes to this hymn, Gautier, _o.c._ 1st ed., i.\n159-167.\n\n[125] Gautier, _o.c._ i. 168.\n\n[126] Gautier, _o.c._ ii. 127.\n\n[127] Gautier, 3rd ed., p. 186. This is in Migne 196, col. 1502.\n\n[128] A charlatan in Salimbene\u2019s Chronicle, _ante_, Chapter XXI., uses a\nlike phrase.\n\n[129] For the data as to Alanus see the Prolegomena to Migne, _Pat. Lat._\n210, which volume contains his works. See also Haur\u00e9au, _M\u00e9m. de l\u2019acad.\ndes inscriptions et des belles lettres_, tome 32 (1886), p. 1, etc.; also\n_Hist. lit. de France_, tome 16, p. 396, etc. On Alanus and his place in\nscholastic philosophy, see _post_, Chapter XXXVI., III.\n\n[130] Migne 210, col. 686-1012.\n\n[131] Migne 210, col. 431-481. See _post_, Chapter XXXII., I.\n\n[132] The significance of the title is not quite clear. The poem is\nwritten in hexametre, and is not far from 4700 lines in length. It is\nprinted in Migne 210, col. 486-576; also edited by Thos. Wright, Master of\nthe Rolls Series, vol. 59, ii. (1872).\n\n[133] The poem is highly imaginative in the delineation of its allegorical\nfigures.\n\n[134] These curious lines are as follows:\n\n  \u201cO nova picturae miracula, transit ad esse\n   Quod nihil esse potest! picturaque simia veri,\n   Arte nova ludens, in res umbracula rerum\n   Vertit, et in verum mendacia singula mutat.\u201d\n                            _Anticlaudianus_, i. cap. iv.\n                                  (Migne 196, col. 491.)\n\n[135] The allusion here is to the fate of Hippolytus, whose\nchariot-horses, maddened by the wiles of Venus, dashed the chariot to\npieces and caused their lord\u2019s death.\n\n[136] i. cap. vi. Her garb and attributes are elaborately told. In the\nlatter part of the poem she is usually called Phronesis.\n\n[137] A favourite commonplace; Helo\u00efse uses it.\n\n[138] The functions of these virgins, the Seven Liberal Arts, are\npoetically told. The _Anticlaudianus_ is no text-book. But the poet\napparently is following the _De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii_ of\nMartianus Capella, _ante_, Chapter IV.\n\n[139] Compare the succession of Heavens in Dante\u2019s _Paradiso_.\n\n[140] One may recall Raphael\u2019s painting of Theology on the ceiling of the\nStanza del Segnatura in the Vatican. It is impossible not to compare the\nr\u00f4les of Alan\u2019s Reason and Theology with those of Virgil and Beatrice in\nthe _Commedia_.\n\n[141] Here we are back in the _Celestial Hierarchy_ of Dionysius the\nAreopagite.\n\n[142] As in Dante\u2019s _Paradiso_.\n\n[143] Most of these epithets of the Virgin come from allegorical\ninterpretations of the text of the Vulgate.\n\n[144] Compare the final vision of Dante in _Paradiso_, xxxiii.\n\n[145] The reader will notice the Platonism and Neo-Platonism of all this.\n\n[146] Notice that the Arts are here equipping and perfecting the man for\nhis fight against sin;--which corresponds with the common mediaeval view\nof the function of education.\n\n[147] The poem gives a full description of Fortune and her house, and\nunstable splendid gifts.\n\n[148] But the different names of Alanus\u2019s Virtues and Vices, and their\nnovel antagonisms, indicate an original view of morality with him. On the\n_Psychomachia_ see Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, pp. 278 _sqq._ and 379.\nAllegorical combats and _d\u00e9bats_ (both in Latin and in the vernacular\ntongues) are frequent in mediaeval literature. Cf. _e.g._ _post_, Chapter\nXXX. Again, in certain _parabolae_ ascribed to St. Bernard (Migne 183,\ncol. 757 _sqq._) the various virtues, Prudentia, Fortitude, Discretio,\nTemperantia, Spes, Timor, Sapientia, are so naturally made to act and\nspeak, that one feels they had become personalities proper for poetry and\nart. Compare Hildegard\u2019s characterizations of the Vices, _ante_, Chapter\nXIX.\n\n[149] The English reader will derive much pleasure from F. S. Ellis\u2019s\nadmirable verse translation: _The Romance of the Rose_ (Dent and Co.,\nLondon, 1900). Each of the three little volumes of this translation has a\nconvenient synopsis of the contents. Those who would know what is known of\nthe tale and its authors should read Langlois\u2019s chapter on it, in\n_Histoire de la langue et de la litt\u00e9rature fran\u00e7aise_, edited by Petit de\nJulleville. It may be said here, for those whose memories need refreshing,\nthat William de Lorris wrote the first part, some forty-two hundred lines,\nabout the year 1237, and died leaving it unfinished; John de Meun took up\nthe poem some thirty years afterwards, and added his sequel of more than\neighteen thousand lines.\n\n[150] The names are Englished after Ellis\u2019s translation.\n\n[151] See _ante_, Chapter XXIII.; De Meun took much from the _De planctu\nnaturae_ of Alanus.\n\n[152] _Post_, Chapter XXXIII.\n\n[153] _Ante_, Vol. I. p. 213.\n\n[154] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 172, col. 1056.\n\n[155] _Ante_, Chapter XII., I.\n\n[156] _Ante_, Chapter XIII., I.\n\n[157] _Ante_, Chapter XXVIII.\n\n[158] _Didascalicon_, iii. 4 (Migne 176, col. 768-769).\n\n[159] _De vanitate mundi_, i. (Migne 176, col. 709, 710).\n\n[160] _Ep._ 169 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 100, col. 441).\n\n[161] _Opusc._ xiii.; _De perfectione monachi_, cap. xi. (Migne 144, col.\n306). See _ante_, Chapter XVI.\n\n[162] _Speculum ecclesiae_ (Migne 172, col. 1085).\n\n[163] Sonnet 56.\n\n[164] _Ep._ i. (Migne 119, col. 433).\n\n[165] John approved of reading the _auctores_, for educational purposes,\nand not confining the pupil to the _artes_. See _Metalogicus_, i. 23, 24\n(Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 199, col. 453). On John, cf. _post_, Chapter XXXI. and\nXXXVI., III.\n\n[166] _Polycraticus_, Prologus (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 199, col. 385).\n\n[167] _Post_, Chapter XXXVI., III.\n\n[168] I draw upon the extracts given in the thesis of M. Demimuid, _De\nBernardo Carnotensi grammatico professore et interprete Virgilii_ (Paris,\n1873), who, as appears by his title, confuses the two Bernards.\n\n[169] The author of a bastard epitome on the Trojan War, see _post_,\nChapter XXXII., IV.\n\n[170] The above, in substance, is taken from Macrobius.\n\n[171] _Post_, Chapter XXXVII.\n\n[172] _Ante_, Chapter XXIX., II., and _post_, Chapter XXXVI., III.\n\n[173] _Post_, Chapter XXXVI., I.\n\n[174] For a successor or friendly rival to Chartres, in the interest taken\nin grammar and classical literature, one should properly look to Orleans,\nwhere apparently those studies continued to flourish. Cf. L. Delisle, \u201cLes\n\u00c9coles d\u2019Orl\u00e9ans au douzi\u00e8me si\u00e8cle,\u201d _Annuaire-Bulletin de la Societ\u00e9 de\nl\u2019Histoire de France_, t. vii. (1869), p. 139 _sqq._ In a _Bataille des\nsepts arts_, by Henri d\u2019Andeli, of the first half of the thirteenth\ncentury, Logic, from its stronghold of Paris, vanquishes Grammar, whose\nstronghold is Orleans. In the conflict, with much symbolic truth,\nAristotle overthrows Priscian, _Histoire litt\u00e9raire de la France_, t.\nxxiii. p. 225.\n\n[175] _Post_, Chapter XXXVII.\n\n[176] See _post_, Chapter XLI. and XLII. for the work of Grosseteste.\n\n[177] Cf. _post_, Chapter XXXIII. and XXXVII.\n\n[178] Cf. Specht, _Geschichte des Unterrichtswesens in Deutschland, etc._\n(Stuttgard, 1885), p. 75 and _passim_.\n\nYet how soon and with what childish prattle youths might begin to speak\nand write Latin is touchingly shown by a boy\u2019s letter, written from a\nmonastic school, to his parents. It just asks for various little things,\nand its superscription is: \u201cParentibus suis A. agnus ablactatus pium\nbalatum\u201d: which seems to mean: \u201cTo his parents, A, a weaned lamb, sends a\nloving bah.\u201d This and other curious little letters are ascribed to one\nRobertus Metensis (_cir._ A.D. 900) (Migne 132, col. 533).\n\n[179] See Thurot, _Histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen \u00e2ge;\nNotices et extraits des MSS._ vol. 22, part 2, p. 85. For what is said in\nthe preceding and following pages the writer\u2019s obligations are deep to\nthis well-known work of Thurot, and to Reichling\u2019s edition of the\n_Doctrinale_ of Alexander de Villa-Dei (_Mon. Germ. paedagogica_, XII.,\nBerlin, 1893). Paetow\u2019s _Arts Course at Medieval Universities_ (University\nof Illinois, 1910) treats learnedly of these matters.\n\n[180] See Thurot, _o.c._ p. 204 _sqq._\n\n[181] _Regere_, a mediaeval term not used in this sense by Priscian.\n\n[182] See the _Einleitung_ to Reichling\u2019s edition of the _Doctrinale_\nalready referred to; also Thurot, _De Alexandri de Villa-Dei doctrinali_\n(Paris, 1850). The chief mediaeval rival of the _Doctrinale_ was the\n_Graecismus_ of Eberhard of Bethune, written a little later. See Paetow,\n_o.c._ p. 38.\n\n[183] _Doctrinale_, line 1561 _sqq._\n\n[184] _Doctrinale_, 1603 _sqq._\n\n[185] _Doctrinale_, 2330-2331.\n\n[186] See passage in Reichling\u2019s _Einleitung_, p. xxvii.\n\n[187] See _e.g._ _Une Grammaire latine in\u00e9dite du XIII{e} si\u00e8cle_, par Ch.\nFierville (Paris, 1886).\n\n[188] See Reichling, _o.c._ _Einleitung_, p. xix; Thurot, _Not. et extr._\nxxii. 2, p. 112 _sqq._\n\n[189] See _e.g._ Thurot, _o.c._ p. 176 _sqq._; p. 216 _sqq._\n\n[190] Thurot, _o.c._ pp. 126-127.\n\n[191] Thurot, _o.c._ p. 127.\n\n[192] _The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon_, ed. by Nolan and Hirsch\n(Cambridge, 1902).\n\n[193] Bacon defines _idioma_ \u201cas the determined peculiarity (_proprietas_)\nof language, which one _gens_ uses after its custom; and another _gens_\nuses another _idioma_ of the same language\u201d (_Greek Grammar_, p. 26).\nDialect is the modern term.\n\n[194] _Greek Grammar_, p. 27. Bacon appears to have followed Priscian\nchiefly. As to whether he used Byzantine models, or other sources, see the\nIntroduction to Nolan and Hirsch\u2019s edition of the _Greek Grammar_. These\nthoughts inspiring Bacon\u2019s _Grammar_ became a veritable metaphysics in the\n_Grammatica speculativa_ ascribed to Duns Scotus, see _post_, Chapter\nXLII.\n\n[195] Cf. L. Rockinger, \u201cDie Ars Dictandi in Italien,\u201d _Sitzungsber.\nbayerisch. Akad._, 1861, pp. 98-151. For examples of these _dictamina_,\nsee L. Delisle, \u201cDictamina Magistri Berardi de Neapoli\u201d (a papal notary\nequally versed in law and rhetoric), _Notices et extraits des MSS., etc._,\nvol. 27, part 2, p. 87 _sqq._; Ch. V. Langlois, \u201cFormulaires de lettres,\u201d\netc., _Not. et ext._ vol. 32 (2), p. 1 _sqq._; _ibid._ vol. 34 (1), p. 1\n_sqq._ and p. 305 _sqq._ and vol. 35 (2), p. 409 _sqq._\n\n[196] For the history of this school in the eleventh century, see _ante_,\nChapter XII. III.\n\n[197] The _Eptateuchon_ exists in manuscript. I have taken the above from\nClerval, _Les \u00c9coles de Chartres au moyen \u00e2ge_ (Chartres, 1895), p. 221\n_sqq._ Thierry appears to have written a commentary on Cicero\u2019s\n_Rhetoric_. See _M\u00e9langes Graux_, pp. 41-46.\n\n[198] _Metalogicus_, i. cap. xxiv. (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 199, col. 853-856).\n\n[199] _Polycraticus_, vii. 13 (Migne 199, col. 666).\n\n[200] _Metalogicus_, i. 24 (Migne 199, col. 856).\n\n[201] Cf. Clerval, _o.c._ p. 211 _sqq._ and p. 227 _sqq._\n\n[202] _Metalogicus_, iii. 4 (Migne 199, col. 900).\n\n[203] Petrus Blesensis, _Epist._ 101 (Migne 207, col. 312).\n\n[204] _Epist._ 92 (Migne 207, col. 289). These letters are cited by\nClerval.\n\n[205] See _post_, Chapter XXXVI. I.\n\n[206] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 171, col. 1007-1056.\n\n[207] _Metalogicus_, i. 5.\n\n[208] See _post_, Chapter XXXV. I.\n\n[209] The works of Giraldus Cambrensis are published in Master of Rolls\nSeries, 21, in eight volumes. The last contains the _De instructione\nprincipum_. Giraldus lived from about 1147 to 1220.\n\n[210] _Ante_, Chapter VIII.\n\n[211] Alcuin, _Ep._ 80 (Migne 100, col. 260).\n\n[212] Alcuin, _Ep._ 113, _ad Paulinum patriarcham_ (Migne 100, col. 341).\n\n[213] Traube, _Po\u00ebtae Lat. Aevi Carolini_ (_Mon. Germ._), 1, p. 243. Cf.\n\u201cVersus in laude Larii laci,\u201d by Paulus Diaconus, _ibid._ p. 42.\n\n[214] _Ante_, Chapter XII.\n\n[215] _Post_, Chapter XXXVI. III.\n\n[216] _Ep._ ii. 33 (Migne 171, col. 256). For the Latin text of this\nletter see _post_, Chapter XXXI.\n\n[217] For the entire poem, which is of interest throughout, see _post_,\nChapter XXXII. I.\n\n[218] For the poem see Haur\u00e9au, _M\u00e9langes po\u00e9tiques d\u2019Hildebert de\nLavardin_, p. 64 (Paris, 1882).\n\n[219] Haur\u00e9au, _o.c._ p. 56.\n\n[220] _Ibid._ p. 82.\n\n[221] _Ibid._ p. 144.\n\n[222] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 171, col. 1428. This volume of Migne also\ncontains the poems criticized and (some of them) edited by Haur\u00e9au in the\nbook already referred to.\n\n[223] Hildebert, _Epis._ i. 1 (Migne 171, col. 141).\n\n[224] Hildebert, _Ep._ i. 22 (Migne 171, col. 197).\n\n[225] A technical illustration from Roman law.\n\n[226] Hildeberti, _Ep._ ii. 12 (Migne 171, col. 172-177). Compare _Ep._ i.\n17, consoling a friend on loss of place and dignities. Hildebert\u2019s works\nare in vol. 171 of Migne\u2019s _Pat. Lat._ A number of his poems are more\ncarefully edited by Haur\u00e9au in _Notices et extraits des MSS., etc._, vol.\n28, ii. p. 289 _sqq._; and some of them in vol. 29, ii. p. 231 _sqq._ of\nthe same series. The matter is more conveniently given by Haur\u00e9au in his\n_M\u00e9langes po\u00e9tiques d\u2019Hildebert de Lavardin_. On the man and his writings\nsee De servillers, _Hildebert et son temps_ (Paris, 1876); Hebert\nDuperron, _De Venerabilis Hildeberti vita et scriptis_ (Bajocis, 1855);\nalso vol. xi. of _Hist. lit. de la France_; and (best of all) Dieudonn\u00e9,\n_Hildebert de Lavardin, sa vie, ses lettres, etc._ (Paris, 1898).\n\n[227] It is well known that the great Latin prose, in spite of variances\nof stylistic intent and faculty among the individual writers, was an\nartistic, not to say artificial creation, formed under the influence of\nGreek models. Cicero is the supreme example of this, and he is also the\ngreatest of all Latin prose writers. After his time some great writers\n(_e.g._ Tacitus, Quintilian) preserved a like tradition; others (_e.g._\nSeneca) paid less attention to it. And likewise on through the patristic\nperiod, and the Middle Ages too, some men endeavoured to preserve a\nclassic style, while others wrote more naturally.\n\n[228] Even as it is necessary, in order to appreciate some of the methods\nof the Latin classical poetry, to realize that their immediate antecedents\nlay in Greek Alexandrian literature rather than in the older Greek\nClassics.\n\n[229] See Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, chapter viii.\n\n[230] A palpable difficulty in judging mediaeval Latin literature is its\nbulk. The extant Latin classics could be tucked away in a small corner of\nit. Every well-equipped student of the Classics has probably read them\nall. One mortal life would hardly suffice to read a moderate part of\nmediaeval Latin. And, finally, while there are histories of the classic\nliterature in every modern tongue, there exists no general work upon\nmediaeval Latin writings regarded as literature. Ebert\u2019s indispensable\n_Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters_ ends with the tenth\ncentury. The author died. Within the scope of its purpose Dr. Sandys\u2019\n_History of Classical Scholarship_ is compact and good.\n\n[231] _Ante_, Chapter X.\n\n[232] _Post_, Chapter XXXII., I.\n\n[233] See Sandys, _History of Classical Scholarship_, i. 463-464.\n\n[234] There was no attempt at classicism in the narrative in which he\nrecounted the _Translation_ of the relics of the martyrs Marcellinus and\nPeter from Rome to his own new monastery at Seligenstadt (Migne 104, col.\n537-594). It was an entertaining story of a pious theft, and one may be\nsure that he wrote it more easily, and in a style more natural to himself\nthan that shown in his consciously imitative masterpiece.\n\n[235] _Ep._ vi. (Migne 100, col. 146).\n\n[236] _Ep._ xxxii. (Migne 100, col. 187).\n\n[237] _Ep._ xxxiii. (Migne 100, col. 187).\n\n[238] _Capitula ad Presbyteros_ (Migne 105, col. 202).\n\n[239] See _ante_, Chapter XII.\n\n[240] _Chronicon_, cap. 35 (Migne 139, col. 46). The sense is easy to\nfollow, but the impossible constructions render an exact translation quite\nimpossible. It is doubtful whether this Benedictus was an Italian. The\nItalian writing of this period, like that of Liutprand, is easier than\namong more painful students north of the Alps. But otherwise its qualities\nare rarely more pronounced. Ease is shown, however, in the _Chronicon\nVenetum_ of John the Deacon (d. cir. 1008). See _ante_, Chapter XIII.,\nIII.\n\n[241] Migne 133. This work fills four hundred columns in Migne. On Odo see\n_ante_, Chapter XII., II.\n\n[242] Odo of Cluny, _Collationes_, lib. i. cap. i. (Migne 133, col. 519\nand 520).\n\n\u201cTherefore God, Creator and Judge of mankind, although He have justly\ndriven our race from that felicity of Paradise, yet mindful of His\ngoodness, lest man all guilt should incur what he deserves, softens the\nsorrows of this pilgrimage with many benefits.... Indeed the purpose of\nthat same Scripture is to press us from the depravities of this life. For\nto that end with its dreadful utterances, as with so many goads, it pricks\nour heart, that man struck by fear may shudder, and may recall to memory\nthe divine judgments which he is wont so easily to forget, cut off by lust\nof the flesh and the solicitudes of earth.\u201d\n\n[243] Ruotgerus, _Vita Brunonis_, cap. 4 and 6; Pertz, _Mon. Germ.\nScript._ iv. p. 254, and Migne 134, col. 944 and 946. A translation of\nthis passage is given _ante_, Vol. I., p. 310. See _ibid._, p. 314, for\nthe scholarship and writings of Hermannus Contractus, an eleventh-century\nGerman. Ruotger\u2019s clumsy Latin is outdone by the linguistic involutions of\nthe _Life of Wenceslaus_, the martyr duke of Bohemia, written toward the\nclose of the tenth century by Gumpoldus, Bishop of Mantua, who seems to\nhave cultivated classical rhetoric most disastrously (Pertz, _Mon. Germ.\nScript._ iv. p. 211, and in Migne 135, col. 923 _sqq._).\n\n[244] From Thurot, _Notices et extraits, etc._, 22 (2), p. 87, and p. 341\n_sqq._, one may see that the principles of construction stated by\nmediaeval grammarians followed the usage of mediaeval writers in adopting\na simpler or more natural order than that of classical prose. An extract,\nfor example, from an eleventh-century MSS. indicates the simple order\nwhich this grammarian author approved: _e.g._ \u201cJohannes hodie venit de\ncivitate; Petrus, quem Arnulfus genuit et nutrivit, intellexit multa\u201d\n(Thurot, p. 87).\n\n[245] _Ante_, Chapter XXX., II.\n\n[246] So likewise in regard to verse, the perfected two-syllable rhyme\ncame first in Italy, and more slowly in the North, although the North was\nto produce better Latin poetry.\n\n[247] _Ante_, Chapters XI., IV., and XVI.\n\n[248] _Opusc._ xiv., _De ordine erimitarum_ (Migne 145, col. 329).\n\n\u201cWe may see upon a tree a leaf ready to succumb beneath the wintry frosts,\nand, with the sap of autumnal clemency consumed, even now about to fall,\nso that it barely cleaves to the twig it hangs from, but displays most\nevident signs of (its) light ruin. The blasts are quivering, wild winds\nstrike it from all sides, the mid-winter horror of heavy air congeals with\ncold; and that you may marvel the more, the ground is strewn with the rest\nof the leaves everywhere flowing down, and, with its locks laid low, the\ntree is stripped of its grace; yet that alone, none other remaining,\nendures, and, as the survivor of co-heirs, succeeds to the rights of the\nbrotherhood\u2019s possession. What then is left to be understood from\nconsideration of this thing, save that a leaf of a tree cannot fall unless\nit receive beforehand the divine command?\u201d\n\nThis description is rhetorically elaborated; but Damiani commonly wrote\nmore directly, as in this sentence from a letter to a nobleman, in which\nDamiani urges him not to fail in his duty to his mother through affection\nfor his wife: \u201cSed forte dices: mater mea me frequenter exasperat, duris\nverbis meum et uxoris meae corda perturbat; non possumus tot injuriarum\nprobra perferre, non valemus austeritatis ejus et severae correptionis\nmolestias tolerare\u201d (_Ep._ vii. 3; Migne 144, col. 466). This needs no\ntranslation.\n\n[249] _Ante_, Chapter XI., IV.\n\n[250] _Proslogion_, cap. 24 (Migne 158, col. 239).\n\n\u201cAwaken now, my soul, and rouse all thy mind, and consider, as thou art\nable, of what nature and how great is that Good (God). For if single goods\nare objects of delight, consider intently how delightful is that good\nwhich contains the joy of all goods; and not such as in things created we\nhave tried, but differing as greatly as differs the Creator from the\ncreature. For if life created is good, how good is the life creatrix! If\njoyful is the salvation wrought, how joyful is the salvation which wrought\nall salvation! If lovely is wisdom in the knowledge of things created, how\nlovely is the wisdom which created all from nothing. In fine, if there are\nmany and great delectations in things delightful, of what quality and\ngreatness is delectation (_i.e._ the delectation that we take) in Him who\nmade the delights themselves!\u201d\n\nThe reader may observe that the word-order of Anselm\u2019s Latin is preserved\nalmost unchanged in the translation.\n\n[251] \u201cMeditatio II.\u201d (Migne 158, col. 722).\n\n\u201cMy soul is offended with my life. I blush to live; I fear to die. What\nthen remains for thee, O sinner, save that all thy life thou weepest over\nall thy life, that it all may lament its whole self. But in this also is\nmy soul miserably wonderful and wonderfully miserable, since it does not\ngrieve as much as it knows itself (_i.e._ to the full extent of its\nself-knowledge) but secure, is listless as if it knew not what it may be\nsuffering. O barren soul, what art thou doing? why art thou drowsing,\nsinner soul? The Day of Judgment is coming, near is the great day of the\nLord, near and too swift the day of wrath, (that day!) day of tribulation\nand distress, day of calamity and misery, day of shades and darkness, day\nof cloud and whirlwind, day of the trump and the roar! O voice of the day\nof the Lord--harsh! Why sleepest thou, soul lukewarm and fit to be spewed\nout?\u201d\n\n[252] Perhaps it may seem questionable to treat Anselm as an Italian,\nsince he left Lombardy when a young man. Undoubtedly his theological\ninterests were affected by his northern environment. But his temperament\nand language, his diction, his style, seem to me more closely connected\nwith native temperament.\n\n[253] Annals for the year 1077 (Migne 146, col. 1234 _sqq._); also in\n_Mon. Germ. Script._ iii.\n\n[254] _Sermo xvi._ (Migne 183, col. 851). The power of this passage keeps\nit from being hysterical. But the monkish hysteria, without the power, may\nbe found in the writings of St. Bernard\u2019s jackal, William of St. Thierry,\nprinted in Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 180. Notice his _Meditationes_, for example;\nalso his _De contemplando Deo_, printed among St. Bernard\u2019s works (Migne\n184, col. 365 _sqq._).\n\n[255] _Sermo xv._ (Migne 183, col. 847). Translated _ante_, Vol. I., p.\n411.\n\n[256] _Ep._ xii., _ad Guigonem_ (Migne 182, col. 116).\n\n[257] Bernard, _Ep._ 112, _ad Gaufridum_ (Migne 182, col. 255). For\ntranslation see _ante_, Vol. I., p. 398.\n\n[258] _E.g._ _Ep._ i. and 144 (Migne 182, col. 70 and 300).\n\n[259] _Ep._ 196, _ad Guidonem_ (Migne 182, col. 363). Translated _ante_,\nVol. I., p. 401. See also the preceding letter, 195.\n\n[260] As to Jerome\u2019s two styles see Goelzer, _La Latinit\u00e9 de St. Jerome_,\nIntroduction.\n\n[261] _Ep._ ii. 33 (Migne 171, col. 256). Translation _ante_, Chapter\nXXX., III.\n\n[262] See _ante_, Chapter XXX., I.\n\n[263] \u201cAgainst that signal gift of parent nature and grace, a shameless\nwrangler has stirred up an old calumny, condemned by the judgment of our\nancestors; and, seeking everywhere comfort for his ignorance, he hopes to\nadvance himself toward glory, if he shall see many like himself, see them\nignorant, that is to say. For he has this special tumour of arrogance,\nthat he would be making himself the equal of others, exalting his own good\nqualities (if they exist), and depreciating those of others. And he deems\nhis neighbour\u2019s defect to be his own advancement.\n\n\u201cNow it is indubitable to all truly wise, that Nature, kindest parent of\nall, and best-ordering directress, among the other living beings which she\nbrought forth, distinguished man with the prerogative of reason and\nennobled him with the exercise of eloquence (or \u2018with the use of speech\u2019):\nexecuting this with unremitting zeal and best-ordering decree, in order\nthat man who was pressed and dragged to the lowest by the heaviness of a\nclodlike nature and the slowness of corporeal bulk, borne aloft as it were\nby these wings might ascend to the heights, and by obtaining the crown of\ntrue blessedness excel all others in happy reward. While Grace thus\nfecundates Nature, Reason watches over the matters to be inspected and\nconsidered; Nature\u2019s bosom gives forth, metes out the fruits and faculty\nof individuals; and the inborn love of good, stimulating itself by its\nnatural appetite, follows this (_i.e._ the good) either solely or before\nall else, since it seems best adapted to the bliss descried\u201d (_Metal._ i.\n1; Migne 199, col. 825). These translations are kept close to the\noriginal, in order to show the construction of the sentences.\n\n[264] \u201cThere is another class of philosophers called the Ionic, and it\ntook its origin from the more remote Greeks. The chief of these was Thales\nthe Milesian, one of those seven who were called \u2018wise.\u2019 He, when he had\nsearched out the nature of things, shone among his fellows, and especially\nstood forth as admirable because, comprehending the laws of astrology, he\npredicted eclipses of the sun and moon. To him succeeded his hearer,\nAnaximander, who (in turn) left Anaximenes as disciple and successor.\nDiogenes, likewise his hearer, arose and Anaxagoras who taught that the\ndivine mind was the author of all things that we see. To him succeeded his\npupil Archelaus, whose disciple is said to have been Socrates, the master\nof Plato, who, according to Apuleius, was first called Aristotle, but then\nPlato from his breadth of chest, and was borne aloft to such height of\nphilosophy, by vigour of genius, by assiduity of study, by graciousness in\nall his ways, and by sweetness and force of eloquence, that, as if seated\non the throne of wisdom, he has seemed to command by a certain ordained\nauthority the philosophers before and after him. And indeed Socrates is\nsaid to have been the first to have turned universal philosophy to the\nimprovement and ordering of manners; since before him all had devoted\nthemselves chiefly to physics, that is to examining the things of nature\u201d\n(_Polycraticus_, vii. 5; Migne 199, col. 643).\n\n[265] \u201cThe most excellent man concluded his oration, and by the power of\nthe blessed Peter absolved all who had taken the vow to go, and by the\nsame apostolic authority confirmed it; and he instituted a suitable sign\nof this so honourable vow; and as a badge of soldiering (or knighthood),\nor rather, of being about to soldier, for God, he took the mark of the\nLord\u2019s Passion, the figure of a cross, made from material of any kind of\ncloth, and ordered it to be sewed upon the tunics and cloaks of those\nabout to go. But if any one, after receiving this sign, or after making\nopen promise, should draw back from that good intent, by base repenting or\nthrough affection for his kin, he ordained that he should be held an\noutlaw utterly and perpetually, unless he turn and set himself again to\nthe neglected performance of his pledge.\n\n\u201cFurthermore, with terrible anathema he damned all who within the term of\nthree years should dare to do ill to the wives, children, or property of\nthose setting forth on this journey of God. And finally he committed to a\ncertain and praiseworthy man (a bishop of some city on the Po, whose name\nI am sorry never to have found or heard) the care and regulation of the\nexpedition, and conferred his own authority upon him over the tribute (?)\nof Christian people wherever they should come. Whereupon giving his\nbenediction, in the apostolic manner, he placed his hands upon him. How\nsagaciously that one executed the behest, is shown by the marvellous\noutcome of so great an undertaking\u201d (Guibert of Nogent, _Gesta Dei per\nFrancos_, ii. 2; Migne 156, col. 702).\n\n[266] _Hist. ecclesiastica_, pars iii. lib. xii. cap. 14 (Migne 188, col.\n889-892). \u201cThomas, son of Stephen, approached the king, and offering him a\nmark of gold, said: \u2018Stephen, son of Airard, was my sire, and all his life\nhe served thy father (William the Conqueror) on the sea. For him, borne on\nhis ship, he conveyed to England, when he proceeded to England in order to\nmake war on Harold. In this manner of service serving him until death he\ngave him satisfaction, and honoured with many rewards from him, he\nflourished grandly among his people. This privilege, lord king, I claim of\nthee, and the vessel which is called _White Ship_ I have ready, fitted out\nin the best manner for royal needs.\u2019 To whom the king said: \u2018I grant your\npetition. For myself indeed I have selected a proper ship, which I shall\nnot change; but my sons, William and Richard, whom I cherish as myself,\nwith much nobility of my realm, I commend now to thee.\u2019\n\n\u201cHearing these words the sailors were merry, and bowing down before the\nking\u2019s son, asked of him wine to drink. He ordered three measures of wine\nto be given them. Receiving these they drank and pledged their comrades\u2019\nhealth abundantly, and with deep potations became drunk. At the king\u2019s\norder many barons with their sons went aboard the ship, and there were\nabout three hundred, as I opine, in that fatal bark. Then two monks of\nTiron, and Count Stephen with two knights, also William of Rolmar, and\nRabellus the chamberlain, and Edward of Salisbury, and a number of others,\nwent out from it, because they saw such a crowd of wanton showy youth\naboard. And fifty tried rowers were there and insolent marines, who having\nseized seats in the ship were brazening it, forgetting themselves through\ndrunkenness, and showed respect for scarcely any one. Alas! how many of\nthem had minds void of pious devotion toward God!--\u2018Who tempers the\nexceeding rages of the sea and air.\u2019 And so the priests, who had gone up\nthere to bless them, and the other ministrants who bore the holy water,\nthey drove away with derision and loud guffaws; but soon after they paid\nthe penalty of their mocking.\n\n\u201cOnly men, with the king\u2019s treasure and the vessels holding the wine,\nfilled the keel of Thomas; and they pressed him eagerly to follow the\nroyal fleet which was already cutting the waves. And he himself, because\nhe was silly from drink, trusted in his skill and that of his satellites,\nand rashly promised to outstrip all who were now ahead of him. Then he\ngave the word to put to sea. At once the sailors snatched their oars, and\nglad for another reason because they did not know what hung before their\neyes, they adjusted their tackle, and made the ship start over the sea\nwith a great bound. Now while the drunken rowers were putting forth all\ntheir strength, and the wretched pilot was paying slack attention to\nsteering his course over the gulf, upon a great rock which daily is\nuncovered by the ebbing wave and again is covered when the sea is at\nflood, the left side of _White Ship_ struck violently, and with two\ntimbers smashed, all unexpectedly the ship, alas! was capsized. All cried\nout together in such a catastrophe; but the water quickly filling their\nmouths, they perished alike. Two only cast their hands upon the boom from\nwhich hung the sail, and clinging to it a great part of the night, waited\nfor some aid. One was a butcher of Rouen named Berold, and the other a\nwell-born lad named Geoffrey, son of Gislebert of Aquila.\n\n\u201cThe moon was then at its nineteenth in the sign of the Bull, and lighted\nthe earth for nearly nine hours with its beams, making the sea bright for\nnavigators. Captain Thomas after his first submersion regained his\nstrength, and bethinking himself, pushed his head above the waves, and\nseeing the heads of those clinging to some piece of wood, asked, \u2018What has\nbecome of the king\u2019s son?\u2019 When the shipwrecked answered that he had\nperished with all his companions, \u2018Miserable,\u2019 said he, \u2018is my life\nhenceforth.\u2019 Saying this, and evilly despairing, he chose to sink there,\nrather than meet the fury of the king enraged for the destruction of his\nchild, or undergo long punishment in chains.\u201d\n\n[267] _Post_, Chapter XLI.\n\n[268] _Opus majus_, pars i. cap. 6.\n\n[269] _Op. maj._ ii. cap. 14.\n\n[270] _Op. maj._ iii. 1.\n\n[271] _Op. maj._ ii. 14.\n\n[272] For translation see _post_, Chapter XXXIV.\n\n[273] _Post_, Chapter XXXVIII.\n\n[274] _Itinerarium mentis in Deum_, Prologus, 2.\n\n[275] _Ibid._ cap. vii. 6. For translations see _post_, Chapter XXXVIII.\n\n[276] _Vita prima_, cap. xi. Translated _ante_, Vol. I., p. 427, note 1.\n\n[277] _Spec. perfectionis_, ed. Sabatier, cap. 53. Translated _ante_, Vol.\nI., p. 427.\n\n[278] _Ibid._ cap. 93. Translated _ante_, Vol. I., p. 432.\n\n[279] Cap. li., ed. Graesse.\n\n\u201cAnnunciation Sunday (Advent) is so called, because on that day by an\nangel the advent of the Son of God in the flesh was announced, for it was\nfitting that the angelical annunciation should precede the incarnation,\nfor a threefold reason. For the first reason, of betokening the order,\nthat to wit the order of reparation should answer to the order of\ntransgression. Accordingly as the devil tempted the woman, that he should\ndraw her to doubt and through doubt to consent and through consent to\nfall, so the angel announced to the Virgin, that by announcing he should\narouse her to faith and through faith to consent and through consent to\nconceiving God\u2019s son. For the second reason, of the angelic ministry,\nbecause since the angel is God\u2019s minister and servant, and the blessed\nVirgin was chosen in order that she might be God\u2019s mother, and it is\nfitting that the minister should serve the mistress, so it was proper that\nthe annunciation to the blessed Virgin should take place through an angel.\nFor the third reason, of repairing the angelical fall. Because since the\nincarnation was made not only for the reparation of the human fall, but\nalso for the reparation of the angelical catastrophe, therefore the angels\nought not to be excluded. Accordingly as the sex of the woman does not\nexclude her from knowledge of the mystery of the incarnation and\nresurrection, so also neither the angelical messenger. Behold, God twice\nannounces to a woman by a mediating angel, to wit the incarnation to the\nVirgin Mary and the resurrection to the Magdalene.\u201d The order of the Latin\nwords is scarcely changed in the translation.\n\n[280] In order that no reader may be surprised by the absence of\ndiscussion of the antique antecedents of the more particular genres of\nmediaeval poetry (Latin and Vernacular), I would emphasize the\nimpossibility of entering upon such exhaustless topics. Probably the very\ngeneral assumption will be correct in most cases, that genres of mediaeval\npoetry (_e.g._ the Conflicts or _D\u00e9bats_ in Latin and Old French) revert\nto antecedents sufficiently marked for identification, in the antique\nLatin (or Greek) poetry, or in the (extant or lost) productions of the\n\u201clow\u201d Latin period from the third century downward. An idea of the\ndifficulty and range of such matters may be gained from Jeanroy, _Les\nOrigines de la po\u00e9sie lyrique en France au moyen \u00e2ge_ (Paris, 1889), and\nthe admirable review of this work by Gaston Paris in the _Journal des\nsavants_ for 1891 and 1892 (four articles). Cf. also Batiouchkof in\n_Romania_, xx. (1891), pages 1 _sqq._ and 513 _sqq._\n\n[281] Cf. Taylor, _Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_, chap. ix.\n\n[282] There is much verse from noted men, Alcuin, Paulus Diaconus,\nWalafrid Strabo, Rabanus Maurus, Theodulphus. It is all to be found in the\ncollection of D\u00fcmmler and Traube, _Poetae Latini aevi Carolini_ (_Mon.\nGerm._ 1880-1896).\n\n[283] It is amusing to find a poem by Walafrid Strabo turning up as a\nfavourite among sixteenth-century humanists. The poem referred to, \u201cDe\ncultura hortorum\u201d (_Poet. Lat. aev. Car._ ii. 335-350), is a poetic\ntreatment of gardening, reminiscent of the Georgics, but not imitating\ntheir structure. It has many allusions to pagan mythology.\n\n[284] _Post_, p. 193 _sqq._\n\n[285] _Ante_, Vol. I., p. 147.\n\n[286] _Ante_, Chapter XI., III.\n\n[287] The following leonine hexameters are attributed to Donizo:\n\n  \u201cChrysopolis dudum Graecorum dicitur usu,\n   Aurea sub lingua sonat haec Urbs esse Latina,\n   Scilicet Urbs Parma, quia grammatica manet alta,\n   Artes ac septem studiose sunt ibi lectae.\u201d\n                      Muratori, _Antiquitates_, iii. p. 912.\n\n[288] William was a few years older than Donizo, and died about the year\n1100. His hero is Robert Guiscard, and his poem closes with this bid for\nthe favour of his son, Roger:\n\n  \u201cNostra, Rogere, tibi cognoscis carmina scribi,\n   Mente tibi laeta studuit parere Poeta:\n   Semper et auctores hilares meruere datores;\n   Tu duce Romano Dux dignior Octaviano,\n   Sis mihi, quaeso, boni spes, ut fuit ille Maroni.\u201d\n                              Muratori, _Scriptores_, v. 247-248.\n\n[289] Muratori, _Script._ v. 407-457.\n\n[290] Muratori, _Script._ vi. 110-161; also in Migne.\n\n[291] Written at the close of the twelfth century. On these people see\nRonca, _Cultura medioevale e poesia Latina d\u2019 Italia_ (Rome, 1892).\n\n[292] Muratori, vii. pp. 349-482; Waitz, _Mon. Germ._ xxii. 1-338. Godfrey\nlived from about 1120 to the close of the century. The _Pantheon_ was\ncompleted in 1185. Cf. L. Delisle, _Instructions du comit\u00e9 des travaux\nhistoriques, etc._; _Litt\u00e9rature latine_, p. 41 (Paris, 1890).\n\n[293] _Matthaei Vindocinensis ars versificatoria_, L. Bourgain (Paris,\n1879).\n\n[294] _Ante_, Chapter XXX., III.\n\n[295] Text from Haur\u00e9au, _Les M\u00e9langes poetiques d\u2019Hildebert de Lavardin_,\np. 60: also in _Notices des manuscrits de la bib. nat._ t. 28, 2nd part\n(1878), p. 331.\n\n[296] Haur\u00e9au gives a critical text of the _Carmen ad Astralabium filium_,\nin _Notices et extraits, etc._, 34, part ii., p. 153 _sqq._ Other not\nunpleasing instances of elegiac verse are afforded by the poems of Baudri,\nAbbot of Bourgueil (d. 1130). They are occasional and fugitive\npieces--_nugae_, if we will. See L. Delisle, _Romania_, i. 22-50.\n\n[297] The substance of this poem has been given _ante_, Chapter XXIX. On\nAlanus see also _post_, Chapter XXXVI., III.\n\n[298] It is printed in Migne 209. Cf. _post_, p. 230, note 1.\n\n[299] The _Ligurinus_ is printed in tome 212 of Migne\u2019s _Patrol. Lat._ On\nits author see Pannenborg, _Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte_, Band\nii. pp. 161-301, and Band xiii. pp. 225-331 (G\u00f6ttingen, 1871 and 1873).\n\n[300] Alanus de Insulis, _De planctu naturae_ (Migne 210, col. 447). A\ntranslation of the work has been made by D. M. Moffat (New York, 1908).\nFor other examples of Sapphic and Alcaic verses see Haur\u00e9au in _Notices et\nextraits, etc._, 31 (2), p. 165 _sqq._\n\n[301] Wilhelm Meyer, a leading authority upon mediaeval Latin\nverse-structure, derives the principle of a like number of syllables in\nevery line from eastern Semitic influence upon the early Christians. See\n_Fragmenta Burana_ (Berlin, 1901), pp. 151, 166. That may have had its\neffect; but I do not see the need of any cause from afar to account for\nthe syllabic regularity of Latin accentual verse.\n\n[302] Again Wilhelm Meyer\u2019s view: see _l.c._ and the same author\u2019s\n\u201cAnf\u00e4nge der latein. und griech. rhythmischen Dichtung,\u201d _Abhand. der\nBairish. Akad. Philos., philol. Klasse_, 1886.\n\n[303] _Poet. Lat. aev. Car._ i. 116. Cf. Ebert, _Gesch. etc._ ii. 86. For\nsimilar verses see those on the battle at Fontanetum (A.D. 841), _Poet.\nLat. aev. Car._ ii. 138, and the carmen against the town of Aquilegia,\n_ibid._ p. 150.\n\n[304] Cf. _ante_, Vol. I., pp. 227, 228.\n\n[305] Traube, _Poetae Lat. aevi Car._ iii. p. 731. Cf. Ebert, _Gesch.\netc._ ii. 169 and 325.\n\n[306] _Poet. Lat. aev. Car._ iii. 733.\n\n[307] Du Meril, _Po\u00e9sies populaires latines_, i. 400.\n\nPerhaps the most successful attempt to write hexameters containing rhymes\nor assonances is the twelfth-century poem of Bernard Morlanensis, a monk\nof Cluny, beginning with the famous lines:\n\n  \u201cHora novissima, tempora pessima sunt, vigilemus.\n   Ecce minaciter imminet arbiter ille supremus.\u201d\n\nBernardi Morlanensis, _De contemptu mundi_, ed. by Thos. Wright, Master of\nthe Rolls Series, vol. 59 (ii.), 1872. Bernard says in his Preface, as to\nhis measures: \u201cId genus metri, tum dactylum continuum exceptis finalibus,\ntum etiam sonoritatem leonicam servans....\u201d\n\n[308] \u201cCarmina Mutinensia,\u201d _Poet. Lat. aev. Car._ iii. 703. The poem has\nforty-two lines, of which the above are the first four. The usual date\nassigned is 924, but Traube in _Poet. aev. Car._ has put it back to 892.\n\n[309] See further text and discussion in Traube, \u201cO Roma nobilis,\u201d\n_Abhand. Bairish. Akad. Philos., philol. Klasse_, 1891.\n\n[310] The verbal Sequence or _prosa_ was thus a species of _trope_. Tropes\nwere interpolations or additions to the older text of the Liturgy. The\nSequences were the tropes appended to the last Alleluia of the _Gradual_,\nthe psalm chanted in the celebration of the Mass, between the reading of\nthe Epistle and the Gospel. Cf. Leon Gautier, _Po\u00e9sie liturgique au moyen\n\u00e2ge_, chap. iii. (Paris, 1886); _ibid._ _\u0152uvres po\u00e9tiques d\u2019Adam de\nSaint-Victor_, p. 281 _sqq._ (3rd ed., Paris, 1894).\n\n[311] On the Sequence see Leon Gautier, _Po\u00e9sie liturgique au moyen \u00e2ge_\n(Paris, 1886), _passim_, and especially the comprehensive summary in the\nnotes from p. 154 to p. 159. Also see Schubiger, _Die S\u00e4ngerschule St.\nGallus_ (1858), in which many of Notker\u2019s Sequences are given with the\nmusic; also v. Winterfeld, \u201cDie Dichterschule St. Gallus und Reichenau,\u201d\n_Neue Jahrb\u00fccher f. d. klassisch. Altertum_, Bd. v. (1900), p. 341 _sqq._\n\nThe present writer has found Wilhelm Meyer\u2019s _Fragmenta Burana_ (Berlin,\n1901) most suggestive; and in all matters pertaining to mediaeval Latin\nverse-forms, use has been made of the same writer\u2019s exhaustive study:\n\u201cLudus de Antichristo und \u00fcber lat. Rythmen,\u201d _Sitzungsber. Bairisch.\nAkad. Philos., philol. Klasse_, 1882. See also Ch. Thurot, \u201cNotices, etc.,\nde divers MSS. latins pour servir \u00e0 l\u2019histoire des doctrines grammaticales\nau moyen \u00e2ge,\u201d in vol. xxii. (2) of _Notices et extraits des MSS._ pp.\n417-457.\n\n[312] \u201cMay our trumpet be guided mightily by God\u2019s right hand, and may He\nhear our prayers with gentle and tranquil ear: for our praise will be\naccepted if what we sing with the voice a pure conscience sings likewise.\nAnd that we may be able, let us all beseech divine aid to be always\npresent with us.... O good King, kind, just, and pitying, who art the way\nand the door, unlock the gates of the kingdom for us, we beg, and pardon\nour offences, that we may praise thy name now and through all the ages.\u201d\n\n[313] G. M. Dreves, \u201cDie Prosen der Abtei St. Martial zu Limoges,\u201d p. 59\n(vol. vii. of Dreves\u2019s _Analecta hymnica medii aevi_; Leipzig, 1889). \u201cLet\nevery band sing with fount renewed and the Spirit\u2019s grace with joyful\npraise and clear mind. Now is made good the tenth part (_i.e._ the fallen\nangels), undone by fault; and thus that celestial casting out is made good\nin divine praise. Lo! the bright day of the Lord gleams through the broad\nspaces of the world: in which all the redeemed people exult because\neverlasting death is destroyed.\u201d\n\n[314] Published by Boucherie, \u201cM\u00e9langes Latins, etc.,\u201d _Revue des langues\nromanes_, t. vii. (1875), p. 35.\n\n\u201cAlleluia! O flock, proclaim joy; with melodious praise utter deeds divine\nnow fixed by revealed doctrine. Through the great sacrifice of Christ thou\nart liberated from death; the gates of hell destroyed, opened are heaven\u2019s\ndoors. Now He rules all things celestial and terrestrial by eternal power;\nwherein by the Father\u2019s authority He gives judgment always just.\u201d\n\n[315] See Gautier, _Po\u00e9sie liturgique_, p. 147 _sqq._ It came somewhat\nearlier in Italy. See Ronca, _Cultura medioevale, etc._, p. 348 _sqq._\n(Rome, 1892).\n\n[316] While Sequences may be called hymns, all hymns are not Sequences.\nFor the hymn is the general term designating a verbal composition sung in\npraise of God or His saints. A Sequence then would be a hymn having a\npeculiar history and a certain place in the Liturgy.\n\n[317] Contained in Migne 178, col. 1771 _sqq._ They have not been properly\nedited or even fully published.\n\n[318] Reference should also be made to the six laments (_planctus_)\ncomposed by Abaelard (Migne 178, col. 1817-1823). They are powerful\nelegies, and exhibit a richness and variety of poetic measures. It may be\nmentioned that the pure two-syllable rhyme is found in hymns ascribed to\nSaint Bernard.\n\n[319] Leon Gautier, the editor of the _\u0152uvres po\u00e9tiques d\u2019Adam de\nSaint-Victor_, in his third edition of 1894, has thrown out from among\nAdam\u2019s poems our first and third examples. On Adam see _ante_, Chapter\nXXIX., II.\n\n[320] Gautier, _\u0152uvres po\u00e9tiques d\u2019Adam de Saint-Victor_, i. 174.\n\n[321] Gautier, _o.c._ 3rd edition, p. 87.\n\n[322] Gautier, _o.c._ 1st edition, i. 201.\n\n[323] Did the Sequence exert an influence upon Hrotsvitha, the tiresome\nbut unquestionably immortal nun of Gandersheim, who flourished in the\nmiddle and latter part of the tenth century? She wrote narrative poems,\nlike the _Gesta Ottonis_ (Otto I.) in leonine hexameters. Her pentameter\nlines also commonly have a word in the middle rhyming with the last\nsyllable of the line. But it is in those famous pious plays of hers,\nformed after the models of Terence, that we may look for a kind of writing\ncorresponding to that which was to progress to clearer form in the\nSequence. Without discussing to what extent the Latin of these plays may\nbe called rhythmical, one or two things are clear. It is filled with\nassonances and rude rhymes, usually of one syllable. It has no clear\nverse-structure, and the utterances of the _dramatis personae_ apparently\nobserve no regularity in the number of syllables, such as lines of verse\nrequire.\n\n[324] For these and other songs, written after the manner of Sequences,\nsee Du Meril, _Po\u00e9sies pop. lat._ i. p. 273 _sqq._ They are also printed\nby Piper in _Nachtr\u00e4ge zur \u00e4lteren deutschen Lit._ (Deutsche Nat. Lit.) p.\n206 _sqq._ and p. 234 _sqq._ See also W. Meyer, _Fragmenta Burana_, p. 174\n_sqq._ and Ebert, _Allgemeine Gesch. etc._ ii. 343 _sqq._\n\n[325] Du Meril, _ibid._ i. p. 285.\n\n[326] Wil. Meyer, _Fragmenta Burana_, p. 180.\n\n[327] The best text of the \u201cPhillidis et Florae altercatio\u201d is Haur\u00e9au\u2019s\nin _Notices et extraits_, 32 (1), p. 259 _sqq._ The same article has some\nother disputes or _causae_, e.g. _causa pauperis scholaris cum\npresbytero_, p. 289.\n\n[328] Du Meril, _Po\u00e9sies pop. lat._ ii. p. 108 _sqq._ The piece is a\ncento, and its tone changes and becomes brutal further on. The poems, from\nwhich are taken the preceding citations, are to be found in Wright\u2019s\n_Latin Poems commonly attributed to Walter Mapes_ (London, 1841, Camden\nSociety); _Carmina Burana_, ed. J. A. Schmeller; \u201cGedichte auf K.\nFriedrich I. (archipoeta),\u201d in vol. iii. of Grimm\u2019s _Kleinere Schriften_.\nCf. also Hubatsch, _Die lateinischen Vagantenlieder_ (Gorlitz, 1870). The\nbest texts of many of these and other \u201cCarmina Burana,\u201d and such like\npoems, are to be found in the contributions of Haur\u00e9au to the _Notices et\nextraits, etc._; especially in tome 29 (2), pp. 231-368; tome 31 (1), p.\n51 _sqq._\n\n[329] _Ante_, Vol. I., p. 145.\n\n[330] _Ante_, Chapter IX., II. and III.\n\n[331] For generous samples of it, see _Geistliche Lit. des Mittelalters_,\ned. P. Piper (Deutsche National Literatur).\n\n[332] For this novel, a Greek original is usually assumed; but the Middle\nAges had it only in a sixth-century Latin version. It was copied in\n_Jourdain de Blaie_, a _chanson de geste_. See Hagen, _Der Roman von K\u00f6nig\nApollonius in seinen verschiedenen Bearbeitungen_ (Berlin, 1878). The\nother Greek novels doubtless would have been as popular had the Middle\nAges known them. In fact, the _Ethiopica_ of Heliodorus, and others of\nthese novels, did become popular enough through translations in the\nsixteenth century.\n\n[333] Hugo of St. Victor says in the twelfth century: \u201cApud gentiles\nprimus Darhes Phrygius Trojanam historiam edidit, quam in foliis palmarum\nab eo scriptam esse ferunt\u201d (_Erud. didas._ iii. cap. 3; Migne 176, col.\n767).\n\nOn the Trojan origin of the Franks, Britons, and other peoples, see Joly\nin his \u201cBenoit de St. More et le Roman de Troie,\u201d pp. 606-635 (_Mem. de la\nSoc. des Antiquaires de Normandie_, vol. vii. 3{me} ser., 1869); also\nGraf, _Roma nella memoria, etc., del medio aevo_. The Trojan origin of the\nFranks was a commonplace in the early Middle Ages, see _e.g._ Aimoinus of\nFleury in beginning of his _Historia Francorum_, Migne 139, col. 637.\n\nOn Dares the Phrygian and Dictys the Cretan see \u201cDares and Dictys,\u201d N. E.\nGriffin (_Johns Hopkins Studies_, Baltimore, 1907); Taylor, _Classical\nHeritage_, pp. 40 and 360 (authorities); also, generally, L. Constans,\n\u201cL\u2019\u00c9pop\u00e9e antique,\u201d in Petit de Julleville\u2019s _Histoire de la langue et de\nla litt\u00e9rature fran\u00e7aise_, vol. i. (Paris, 1896).\n\n[334] Joseph of Exeter or de Iscano, as he is called, at the close of the\ntwelfth century composed a Latin poem in six books of hexameters entitled\n_De bello Trojano_. It is one of the best mediaeval productions in that\nmetre. The author followed Dares, but his diction shows a study of Virgil,\nOvid, Statius, and Claudian. See J. J. Jusserand, _De Josepho Exoniensi\nvel Iscano_ (Paris, 1877); A. Sarradin, _De Josepho Iscano, Belli Trojani,\netc._ (Versailles, 1878).\n\n[335] _Eneas_, ed. by Salverda de Grave (Halle, 1891), lines 7857-9262.\n\n[336] _Roman de Troie_, 5257-5270, ed. Joly; \u201cBenoit de St. More et le\nRoman de Troie, etc.,\u201d _Mem. de la Soc. des Antiquaires de Normandie_,\nvol. vii. 3{me} ser., 1869. On its sources see also L. Constans, in Petit\nde Julleville\u2019s _Hist. de la langue et de la litt. fran\u00e7aise_, vol. i. pp.\n188-220.\n\n[337] _Roman de Troie_, 13235 _sqq._\n\n[338] The _Roman de Thebes_, the third of these large poems, is temperate\nin the adaptation and extension of its theme. Its ten thousand or more\nlines of eight-syllable rhyming verse are no longer than the _Thebaid_ of\nStatius, and as a narrative make quite as interesting reading. Statius,\nwho lived under Domitian, was a poet of considerable skill, but with no\ngenius for the construction of an epic. His work reads well in patches,\nbut does not move. Several books are taken up with getting the Argive army\nin motion, and when the reader and Jove himself are wearied, it moves\non--to the next halt. And so forth through the whole twelve books. See\nNisard, _\u00c9tudes sur les po\u00e8tes latins de la d\u00e9cadence_, vol. i. p. 261\n_sqq._ (2nd ed., Paris, 1849); Pichon, _Hist. de la litt. lat._ p. 606\n(2nd ed., Paris, 1898). The _Roman de Thebes_ was not drawn directly from\nthe work of Statius, but through the channels, apparently, of intervening\nprose compendia. It also evidently drew from other works, as it contains\nmatters not found in Statius\u2019s _Thebaid_. It is easy, if not inspiring\nreading. The style is clear, and the narrative moves. Of course it\npresents a general mediaevalizing of the manners of Statius\u2019s somewhat\nfustian antique heroes; it introduces courtly love (_e.g._ the love\nbetween Parthonopeus and Antigone, lines 3793 _sqq._), mediaeval\ncommonplaces, and feudal customs. It drops the antique conception of\naccursed fate as a fundamental motive of the plot, substituting in its\nplace the varied play of romantic and chivalric sentiment.\n\nLeopold Constans has made the _Roman de Thebes_ his own. Having followed\nthe story of Oedipus through the Middle Ages in his _L\u00e9gende d\u2019\u0152dipe,\netc._ (Paris, 1881) he has corrected some of his views in his critical\nedition of the poem, \u201cLe Roman de Th\u00e8bes,\u201d 2 vols., 1890 (_Soc. des\nanciens textes fran\u00e7ais_), and has treated the same matters more popularly\nin Petit de Julleville\u2019s _Hist. de la langue et de la litt. fran\u00e7aise_,\nvol. i. pp. 170-188. These works fully discuss the sources, date, and\nlanguage of the poem, and the later redactions in prose and verse through\nEurope.\n\n[339] On Pseudo-Callisthenes see Paul Meyer, _Alexandre le Grand dans la\nlitt\u00e9rature fran\u00e7aise du moyen \u00e2ge_ (Paris, 1886); Taylor, _Classical\nHeritage, etc._, pp. 38 and 360. In the last quarter of the twelfth\ncentury Walter of Lille, called also Walter of Chatillon, wrote his\n_Alexandreis_ in ten books of easy-flowing hexameters. It is printed in\nMigne, _Pat. Lat._ 209, col. 463-572. Cf. _ante_, page 192. His work shows\nthat a mediaeval scholar-poet could reproduce a historical theme quite\nsoberly. His poem was read by other bookmen; but the Alexander of the\nMiddle Ages remained the Alexander of the fabulous vernacular versions.\n\n[340] See Gaston Paris, \u201cChr\u00e9tien L\u00e9gouais et autres imitateurs d\u2019Ovide,\u201d\n_Hist. litt. de la France_, t. xxix., pp. 455-525.\n\n[341] The words \u201cnexum mancipiumque\u201d are more formal and special than the\nEnglish given above.\n\n[342] The early law had as yet devised no execution against the debtor\u2019s\nproperty.\n\n[343] The jurisconsults whose opinions were authoritative flourished in\nthe second and third centuries. The great five were Gaius, Julian,\nPapinian, Ulpian, Paulus. Inasmuch as these jurisconsults of the Empire\nwere members of the Imperial (or, later, Praetorian) Auditory, they were\njudges in a court of last resort, and their \u201cresponsa\u201d were decisions of\nactual cases. They subsequently \u201cdigested\u201d them in their books. See Munroe\nSmith, \u201cProblems of Roman Legal History,\u201d _Columbia Law Review_, 1904, p.\n538.\n\n[344] _Dig._ i. 1 (\u201cDe Just. et jure\u201d) 1. See Savigny, _System des\nheutigen r\u00f6mischen Rechts_, i. p. 109 _sqq._ Apparently some of the\njurists (_e.g._ Gaius, _Ins._ i. 1) draw no substantial distinctions\nbetween the _jus naturale_ and the _jus gentium_. Others seem to\ndistinguish. With the latter, _jus naturale_ might represent natural or\ninstinctive principles of justice common to all men, and _jus gentium_,\nthe laws and customs which experience had led men to adopt. For instance,\n_libertas_ is _jure naturali_, while _dominatio_ or _servitus_ is\nintroduced _ex gentium jure_ (_Dig._ i. 5, 4; _Dig._ xii. 6, 64). _Jus\ngentium_ represented common expediency, but its institutions (e.g.\n_servitus_) might or might not accord with natural justice. For\n_manumissio_ as well as _servitus_ was _ex jure gentium_ (_Dig._ i. 1, 4),\nand so were common modes and principles of contract. Ulpian\u2019s notion of\nthe _jus naturale_ as pertaining to all animals, and _jus gentium_ as\nbelonging to men alone, was but a catching classification, and did not\nrepresent any commonly followed distinction.\n\n[345] _Constitutio_ is the more general term, embracing whatever the\nemperor announces in writing as a law. The term rescript properly applies\nto the emperor\u2019s written answers to questions addressed to him by\nmagistrates, and to the decisions of his Auditory rendered in his name.\n\n[346] For this whole matter, see vol. i. of Savigny\u2019s _System des heutigen\nr\u00f6mischen Rechts_; Gaius, _Institutes_, the opening paragraphs; and the\nfirst two chapters of the first Book of Justinian\u2019s _Digest_.\n\n[347] _Dig._ i. 3, 32.\n\n[348] _Dig._ i. 3, 10, and 12.\n\n[349] _Dig._ i. 3, 14.\n\n[350] _Ibid._ 39.\n\n[351] _Dig._ l. 17, 30.\n\n[352] _Dig._ l. 17, 31.\n\n[353] _Ibid._ 54.\n\n[354] _Ibid._ 202.\n\n[355] _Dig._ l. 16, 24; _Ibid._ 17, 62.\n\n[356] _Cod. Theod._ (ed. by Mommsen and Meyer) i. 1, 5.\n\n[357] With the Theodosian Code the word _lex_, _leges_, begins to be used\nfor the _constitutiones_ or other decrees of a sovereign.\n\n[358] From the constitution directing the compilation of the _Digest_,\nusually cited as _Deo auctore_.\n\n[359] The original plan of Theodosius embraced the project of a Codex of\nthe jurisprudential law. See his constitution of the year 429 in _Theod.\nC._ i. 1, 5. Had this been carried out, as it was not, Justinian\u2019s\n_Digest_ would have had a forerunner.\n\n[360] _Juliani epitome Latina Novellarum Justiniani_, ed. by G. Haenel\n(Leipzig, 1873).\n\n[361] Conrat, _Ges. der Quellen und Lit. des r\u00f6m. Rechts_, pp. 48-59, and\n161 _sqq._; Mommsen, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Rechtsges_. 21 (1900), _Roman.\nAbteilung_, pp. 150-155.\n\n[362] Ed. by Bluhme, _Mon. Germ. leges_, iii. 579-630. Cf. Tardif,\n_Sources du droit fran\u00e7ais_, 124-128. A code of Burgundian law had already\nbeen made.\n\n[363] Edited by Haenel, with the epitomes of it in parallel columns, under\nthe name of _Lex Romana Visigothorum_ (Leipzig, 1849). See Tardif, _o.c._\n129-143.\n\n[364] _Cod. Theod._ i. 4, 3; _Brev._ i. 4, 1.\n\n[365] On these epitomes and glosses see Conrat, _Ges. der Quellen, etc._,\npp. 222-252. Mention should be made of the Edict of Theodoric the\nOstrogoth, a piece of legislation contemporary with the _Breviarium_ and\nthe _Papianus_. In pursuance of Theodoric\u2019s policy of amalgamating Goths\nand Romans, the Edict was made for both (_Barbari Romanique_). Its sources\nwere substantially the same as those of the _Breviarium_, except that\nGaius was not used. The sources are not given verbatim, but their contents\nare restated, often quite bunglingly. Naturally a Teutonic influence runs\nthrough this short and incomplete code, which contains more criminal than\nprivate law. No further reference need be made to it because its influence\npractically ceased with the reconquest of Italy by Justinian. It is edited\nby Bluhme, in _Mon. Ger. leges_, v. 145-169. See as to it, Savigny,\n_Geschichte des r\u00f6m. Rechts_, ii. 172-181; Salvioli, _Storia del diritto\nitaliano_, 3rd ed., pp. 45-47.\n\n[366] Cf. Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i. p. 109 _sqq._\n\n[367] For the characteristics and elements of early Teutonic law see\nBrunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, Bd. i.\n\n[368] See Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i. p. 254 _sqq._, and\n338-340.\n\n[369] \u201cAdversus Gundobadi legem,\u201d c. 4 (_Mon. Germ. leges_, iii. 504). As\nto Agobard see _ante_, Vol. I. p. 232.\n\n[370] The matter is suggested here only in its general aspects. The\ndetails present every kind of complication (for some purposes to-day a\ncourt will apply the law of the litigant\u2019s domicile). The _professio_\n(_professus sum_ or _professa sum_), by which a man or woman formally\ndeclares by what law he or she lives, remained common in Italy for five\ncenturies after Pippin\u2019s conquest, and indicates the legal situation\nthere, especially of the Teutonic newcomers.\n\n[371] One sees an analogy in the fortunes of the Bo\u00ebthian translations of\nthe more advanced treatises of Aristotle\u2019s _Organon_. They fell into\ndisuse (or never came into use) and so were \u201clost\u201d until they came to\nlight, _i.e._ into use, in the last part of the twelfth century.\n\n[372] See Conrat, _Ges. der Quellen_, pp. 182-187.\n\n[373] See Conrat, _Ges. der Quellen, etc._, pp. 162-166, 168-182, 192-202,\n240-252.\n\n[374] See Salvioli, _Storia di diritto italiano_, 3rd ed., 1899, pp.\n84-90; ibid. _L\u2019 Istruzione pubblica in Italia nei secoli VIII. IX. X._;\nTardif, _Hist. des sources du droit fran\u00e7ais_, p. 281 _sqq._; Savigny,\n_Geschichte, etc._, iv. pp. 1-9; Fitting, \u201cZur Geschichte der\nRechtswissenschaft im Mittelalter,\u201d _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Rges. Sav. Stift.,\nRoman. Abteil._, Bd. vi., 1885, pp. 94-186; ibid. _Juristische Schriften\ndes fr\u00fcheren Mittelalters_, 108 _sqq._ (Halle, 1876).\n\n[375] A contemporary notice speaks of the enormous number of judges,\nlawyers, and notaries in Milan about the year 1000. Salvioli, _L\u2019\nIstruzione pubblica, etc._, p. 78. It is hard to imagine that no legal\ninstruction could be had there.\n\n[376] The evidence is gathered in different parts of Savigny\u2019s\n_Geschichte_.\n\n[377] _De parentelae gradibus_, see Savigny, _Geschichte_, Bd. iv. p. 1\n_sqq._\n\n[378] See Savigny, _Geschichte_, Bd. ii. pp. 134-163 (the text is\npublished in an Appendix to that volume, pp. 321-428); Conrat, _Ges. der\nQuellen, etc._, pp. 420-549; Tardif, _Hist. des sources du droit\nfran\u00e7ais_, pp. 213-246.\n\n[379] This follows the so-called T\u00fcbingen MSS., the largest immediate\nsource of the _Petrus_. As well-nigh the entire substance of the _Petrus_\nis drawn from the immediately prior compilations (which are still\nunpublished) its characteristics are really theirs.\n\n[380] Apparently the chief magistrate of Valence: \u201cValentinae civitatis\nmagistro magnifico.\u201d\n\n[381] _Petri exceptiones_, iii. 69.\n\n[382] _Petrus_, i. 66.\n\n[383] See Conrat, _Ges. der Quellen, etc._, 550-582; Tardif, _Hist. des\nsources, etc._, pp. 207-213; Fitting, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Rges._ Bd. vi. p.\n141. It is edited by Bocking (Berlin, 1829) under the title of _Corpus\nlegum sive Brachylogus juris civilis_.\n\n[384] For instance, _Brach._ ii. 12, \u201cDe juris et facti ignorantia,\u201d is\nshort and clear. It follows mainly _Digest_ xxii. 6.\n\n[385] _Summa Codicis des Irnerius_, ed. by Fitting (Berlin, 1894). See\nIntroduction, and also Fitting in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Rechtsgeschichte_, Bd.\nxvii. (1896), _Romanische Abteilung_, pp. 1-96.\n\n[386] Cf. _Summa Codicis Irnerii_, vii. 23, and vii. 31. 1.\n\n[387] _Summa Codicis Irnerii_, i. 14. The corresponding passages in\nJustinian\u2019s Codification are _Dig._ i. 3, lex 12 and 38, and _Codex_ vii.\n45, lex 13.\n\n[388] _Summa Codicis Irnerii_, vii. 22 and 23. The chief Justinianean\nsources are _Dig._ xli. 2, and _Cod._ xii. 32.\n\n[389] See Salvioli, _Manuale, etc._, pp. 65-68; ibid. _L\u2019 Istruzione\npubblica in Italia_, pp. 72-75; Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i.\np. 387 _sqq._\n\n[390] _Post_, Chapter XXXV., I.\n\n[391] The Bologna school is commonly called the school of the glossators.\nTheir work was to expound the law of Justinian; and their glosses, or\nexplanatory notes, were the part of their writings which had the most\npermanent influence. The glosses were originally written between the lines\nor on the margins of the codices of the _Digest_, _Codex_, _Novels_, and\n_Institutes_.\n\n[392] Savigny gives examples of Irnerius\u2019s glosses in an appendix to the\nfourth volume of his _Geschichte_. Pescatore (_Die Glossen des Irnerius_,\nGreifswald, 1888) maintains that Savigny overstates the difference between\nthe interlinear and the marginal glosses of Irnerius.\n\n[393] On Placentinus see Savigny, _Geschichte_, iv. pp. 244-285.\n\n[394] _Proemium_ to _De var. actionum_, given by Savigny, iv. p. 540.\n\n[395] This is from the _proemium_ attached to one old edition, and is\ngiven in Sav. _Ges._ iv. p. 245. In an appendix, p. 542, Savigny gives an\neven more florid _proemium_ to the _Summa Codicis_ from a manuscript.\n\n[396] On Azo, see Savigny, _Ges._ v. pp. 1-44.\n\n[397] Quoted by Savigny. On Accursius see Sav. _Ges._ v. pp. 262-305.\n\n[398] On Bartolus see Savigny, _Ges. etc._ vi. pp. 137-184.\n\n[399] Cf. Savigny, _Ges._ v. pp. 222-261.\n\n[400] \u201cEcclesia vivit lege Romana,\u201d _Lex Ribuaria_, 58. This was\nuniversally recognized, although the individual _clericus_ might remain\namenable to the law of his birth.\n\n[401] For these matters see primarily the sixteenth book of the Theodosian\nCode, and book i. chap. 27. Also the suspected _Constitutiones\nSirmondianae_ attached to that Code. Justinian\u2019s _Codex_ and _Novellae_\nadd much. Zorn, in his _Kirchenrecht_, p. 29 _sqq._, gives a convenient\nsynopsis of the matter.\n\n[402] One observes that the opening chapter of Justinian\u2019s _Digest_ speaks\nof _jurisprudentia_ as knowledge of divine as well as human matters.\n\n[403] _Decretum_, i. dist. viii. c. i.\n\n[404] _Decretum_, i. dist. ix. c. xi.; see _ibid._ dist. xiii., opening.\n\n[405] Tardif, _Sources du droit canonique_, p. 175 _sqq._, has been\nchiefly followed here.\n\n[406] On the above matters see (with the authorities and bibliographies\ntherein given) Maasen, _Geschichte der Quellen, etc., der canonischen\nRechts_ (Bd. i., to the middle of the ninth century); Tardif, _Sources du\ndroit canonique_ (Paris, 1887); Zorn, _Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts_\n(Stuttgart, 1888); Gerlach, _Lehrbuch des catholischen Kirchenrechts_ (5th\nedition, Paderborn, 1890); Hinschius, _Decretales pseudo-Isidorianae_\n(Leipzig, 1863); _Corpus juris canonici_, ed. by Friedberg (Leipzig,\n1879-1881).\n\n[407] Jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts embraced marriage and\ndivorce, wills and inheritance, and, by virtue of their surveillance of\nusury and vows and oaths, practically the whole relationship between\ndebtor and creditor.\n\n[408] Volume ii. of R. W. and A. J. Carlyle\u2019s _History of Mediaeval\nPolitical Theory in the West_ (1909) maintains that the statements of\npapal pretensions which were incorporated in the recognized collections of\n_Decretals_ were less extreme than those emanating from the papacy under\nstress of controversy.\n\n[409] See Gierke, _Political Theories of the Middle Ages_, trans. by\nMaitland (Cambridge, 1900), p. 22 _sqq._ and notes. I would express my\nindebtedness to this book for these pages on mediaeval political theories.\nDunning\u2019s _History of Political Theories_ is a convenient outline;\nCarlyle\u2019s _History of Mediaeval Political Theory_ gives the sources\ncarefully.\n\n[410] Occasionally _studium_ (knowledge, study, or science) is introduced\nas a third part or element of the human community or of human life. Thus\nin the famous statement of Jordanes of Osnabr\u00fcck--the Romans received the\nSacerdotium, the Germans the Imperium, the French the Studium. See Gierke,\n_Political Theories_, p. 104, note 8.\n\n[411] Cf. Gierke, _o.c._ p. 109, note 16. But compare Carlyle, _o.c._ vol.\nii. part ii. chaps. vii.-xi.\n\n[412] Even toward the close of the Middle Ages Marsilius of Padua was\nalmost alone in positing the absolute supremacy of the State, says Gierke.\n\n[413] See Gierke, _o.c._ p. 144, note 131, and compare notes 132, 133, and\n183 for attacks upon the plenary power of the pope.\n\n[414] Gierke, _o.c._ pp. 31-32, and p. 139, notes 107 and 108.\n\n[415] _Dig._ i. 4, 1; Gierke, _o.c._ p. 39 and pp. 146, 147.\n\n[416] Gierke, _o.c._ p. 64.\n\n[417] Gierke, _o.c._ p. 172, note 256. Cf. _ante_, p. 268.\n\n[418] See Gierke, _o.c._ pp. 73-86, and corresponding notes.\n\n[419] Little will be said in these pages of palpable crass heretics like\nthe Cathari, for example. The philosophic ideas of such seem gathered from\nthe flotsam and jetsam of the later antique world; their stock was not of\nthe best, and bore little interesting fruit for later times. Such\nmediaeval heresies present no continuous evolution like that of the proper\nscholasticism. Progress in philosophy and theology came through _academic_\npersonages, who at all events laid claim to orthodoxy. All lines of\nadvance leading on to later phases of philosophic, scientific, and\nreligious thought, lay within the labours of such, some of whom, however,\nwere suspected or even condemned by the Church, like Eriugena, Abaelard,\nor Roger Bacon. But these men did not stand apart from orthodox academic\ncircles, and were never cast out by the Church. Thought and learning in\nthe Middle Ages were domiciled in monastic, episcopal, or university\ncircles; and these were at least conventionally orthodox.\n\nIt has been said, to be sure, that the heresy of one generation becomes\nthe orthodoxy of another; but this is true only of tendencies like those\nof Abaelard, which represent the gradual expansion and clearing up of\nscholastic processes. For the time they may be condemned, perhaps because\nof the vain and contentious character of the suspected thinker; but in the\nend they are recognized as admissible.\n\nThe Averroists constitute an apparent exception. Yet they were a\nphilosophic and academic sect, whose heresy consisted in an implicit\nfollowing of Aristotle as interpreted by Averroes. Moreover, they sought\nto save their orthodoxy by their doctrine of the two kinds of truth,\nphilosophic and theological or dogmatic. It is not clear that much\nfruitful thought came from their school. The positions of Siger de\nBrabant, a prominent Averroist and contemporary of Aquinas, are referred\nto _post_, Chapter XXXVII. The best account of Averroism is Mandonnet\u2019s\n_Siger de Brabant et l\u2019averroisme latin au XIII{e} si\u00e8cle_ (a second\nedition, Louvain, is in preparation). See also De Wulf, _Hist. of Medieval\nPhilosophy_ (3rd. ed., Longmans, 1909) p. 379 _sqq._ with authorities\ncited.\n\n[420] Called also his _Summa philosophica_, to distinguish it from his\n_Summa theologiae_.\n\n[421] _Summa theologiae_, i. i., quaestio i. art. 1-8.\n\n[422] _Post_, Chapter XXXVI., I.\n\n[423] Even the Averroists were more mediaeval than Greek, inasmuch as they\nprofessed to follow Aristotle implicitly. Cf. _post_, Chapter XXXVII., at\nthe end.\n\n[424] A touch of \u201csalvation,\u201d or salvation\u2019s need, is on Plato when his\n\u201cphilosophy\u201d becomes a consideration of death (\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) and a\nprocess of growing as like to God (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7) as man can. _Phaedo_, 80\nE, and _Theaetetus_, 176 A.\n\n[425] _Historia calamitatum_, cap. 9 and 10. Cf. _post_, p. 303.\n\n[426] _Post_, Chapter XLI.\n\n[427] _Ante_, p. 298. I cannot avoid referring to Abaelard several times\nbefore considering the man and his work more specifically, and in the\nproper place; _post_, Chapter XXXVI. I.\n\n[428] _Introductio ad theologiam_, lib. ii. (Migne 178, col. 1039).\n\n[429] See Denifle, \u201cDie Sentenzen Abaelard\u2019s und die Bearbeitungen seiner\nTheologia,\u201d _Archiv f\u00fcr Literatur und Kirchengeschichte_, i. p. 402 _sqq._\nand p. 584 _sqq._ Also Picavet, \u201cAb\u00e9lard et Alexander de Hales, cr\u00e9ateurs\nde la m\u00e9thode scholastique,\u201d _Bib. de l\u2019\u00e9cole des hautes \u00e9tudes, sciences\nreligieuses_, t. vii. p. 221 _sqq._\n\n[430] Two extracts, one from the _Sentences_ and one from the _Summa_,\ntouching the same matter, will illustrate the stage in the scholastic\nprocess reached by Peter Lombard, about the year 1150, and that attained\nby Thomas Aquinas a hundred years later.\n\nThe Lombard\u2019s _Four Books of Sentences_ are divided into _Distinctiones_,\nwith sub-titles to the latter. Distinctio xlvi. of the first Book bears\nthe general title: \u201cThe opinion (_sententia_) declaring that the will of\nGod which is himself, cannot be frustrated, seems to be opposed by some\nopinions.\u201d The first subdivision of the text begins: \u201cHere the question\nrises. For it is said by the authorities above adduced [the preceding\nDistinctio had discussed \u201cThe will of God which is His essence, one and\neternal\u201d] that the will of God, which is himself, and is called His good\npleasure (_beneplacitum_) cannot be frustrated, because by that will\n_fecit quaecumque voluit in caelo et in terra_, which--witness the\nApostle--_nihil resistit_. [I leave the Scriptural quotations in Latin, so\nas to mark them.] It is queried, therefore, how one should understand what\nthe Apostle says concerning the Lord, 1 Tim. 2: _Qui vult omnes homines\nsalvos fieri_. For since all are not saved, but many are damned, that\nwhich God wills to take place, seems not to take place (become, _fieri_),\nthe human will obstructing the will of God. The Lord also in the Gospel\nreproaching the wicked city, Matt, xxiii., says: _Quoties volui congregare\nfilios tuos, sicut gallina congregat pullos suos sub alis, et noluisti_.\nThus it might seem from these, that the will of God may be overcome by the\nwill of men, and, resisted by the unwillingness of the weakest, the Most\nStrong may prove unable to do what He willed. Where then is that\nomnipotence by which in _coelo et terra_, according to the Prophet, _omnia\nquaecumque voluit fecit_? And how does nothing withstand His will, if He\nwished to gather the children of Jerusalem, and did not? For these sayings\nseem indeed to oppose what has been stated.\u201d\n\nThe second paragraph proceeds: \u201cBut let us see the solution, and first\nhear how what the Lord said should be understood. For it was not intended\nto mean (as Augustine says, _Enchiridion_, c. 97, solving this question)\nthat the Lord wished to gather the children of Jerusalem, and did not do\nwhat He willed because she would not; but rather she did not wish her\nchildren to be gathered by Him, yet in spite of her unwillingness (_qua\ntamen nolente_) He gathered all He willed of her children.... And the\nsense is: As many as I have gathered by my will, always effective, I have\ngathered, thou being unwilling. Hence it is evident that these words of\nthe Lord are not opposed to the authorities referred to.\u201d\n\n(Paragraph 3) \u201cNow it remains to see how the aforesaid words do not\ncontradict what the Apostle said of the Lord: _Vult omnes homines salvos\nfieri_. Because of these words many have wandered from the truth, saying\nthat God willed many things which did not come to pass. But the saying is\nnot thus to be understood, as if God willed any to be saved, and they were\nnot. For who can be so impiously foolish as to say that God cannot change\nthe evil wills of men to good when and where He will? Surely what is said\nin Psalm 113, _Quaecumque voluit fecit_, is not true, if He willed\nanything and did not accomplish it. Or,--(and this is still more shameful)\nfor that reason He did not do it, because what the Omnipotent willed to\ncome to pass, the will of man obstructed. Hence when we read in Holy\nScripture _velit omnes homines salvos fieri_, we should not detract from\nthe will of omnipotent God, but understand the text to mean that no man is\nsaved except whom He wills to be saved: not that there is no man whom He\ndoes not will to be saved, but that no man may be saved except whom He\nwills should be saved.... Thus also is to be understood the text from John\ni.: _Illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum_; not as if there is\nno man who is not lighted, but that none is lighted save from Him....\u201d\n\nThe next and fourth paragraph takes up the problem whether evil, that is\nsin, takes place by the will of God, or He unwilling (_eo nolente_). \u201cAs\nto this, divers men thinking diversely have been found in contradiction.\nFor some say that God wills evils to be or become (_esse vel fieri_) yet\ndoes not will evils. But others say that He neither wills evils to be nor\nto become. Yet these and those agree in declaring that God does not will\nevils. Yet each with arguments as well as authorities strives to make good\nhis assertion.\u201d We will not follow the Lombard through this thorny\nproblem. He cuts his way with passages from his chief patristic authority,\nAugustine, and in the end concludes: \u201cLeaving this and other like foolish\nopinions, and favouring the sounder view, which is more fully sanctioned\nby the testimonies of the Saints, we may say that God neither wills evils\nto become, nor wills that they should not become, nor yet is He unwilling\n(_nolle_) that they should become. All that He wills to become, becomes,\nand all that He wills not to become does not become. Yet many things\nbecome which He does not will to become, as every evil.\u201d\n\nThus the Lombard. Now let us see how Thomas, in his _Summa theologiae_,\nPars Prima, Quaestio xix. Articulus ix. expounds the point: _utrum\nvoluntas Dei sit malorum_.\n\n\u201cAs to the ninth articulus thus one proceeds. (1) It seems [_Videtur_,\nformula for stating the initial argument which will not be approved] that\nthe will of God is [the cause] of evils. For God wills every good that\nbecomes (_i.e._ comes into existence). But it is good that evils should\ncome; for Augustine says in the _Enchiridion_: \u2018Although those things\nwhich are evils, in so far as they are evils, are not goods; yet it is\ngood (_bonum_) that there should be not only goods (_bona_) but evils.\u2019\nTherefore God wills evils.\u201d\n\n\u201c(2) Moreover [_Praeterea_, Thomas\u2019s regular formula for introducing the\nsucceeding arguments, which he will not approve] Dionysius says, iv. cap.\n_de divinis nominibus_: \u2018There will be evil making for the perfection of\nthe whole.\u2019 And Augustine says in the _Enchiridion_: \u2018Out of all (things)\nthe admirable beauty of the universe arises; wherein even that which is\ncalled evil, well ordered and set in its place, commends the good more\nhighly; since the good pleases more, and is the more praiseworthy, when\ncompared with evil.\u2019 But God wills everything that pertains to the\nperfection and grace of the universe; since this is what God chiefly wills\nin His creation. Therefore God wills evils.\u201d\n\n\u201c(3) Moreover, the occurrence and non-occurrence of evils (_mala fieri, et\nnon fieri_) are contradictory opposites. But God does not will evils not\nto occur; because since some evils do occur, the will of God would not be\nfulfilled. Therefore God wills evils to occur.\u201d\n\n\u201c_Sed contra est_ [Thomas\u2019s formula for stating the opinion which he will\napprove] what Augustine says in his book of Eighty-three Questions: \u2018No\nwise man is the author of man\u2019s deterioration; yet God is more excellent\nthan any wise man; much less then, is God the author of any one\u2019s\ndeterioration. But He is said to be the author when He is spoken of as\nwilling anything. Therefore man becomes worse, God not willing it. But\nwith every evil, something becomes worse. Therefore God does not will\nevils.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201c_Respondeo dicendum quod_ [Thomas\u2019s formula for commencing his\nelucidation] since the reason (or ground or cause, _ratio_) of the good is\nlikewise the reason of the desirable (as discussed previously), evil is\nopposed to good: it is impossible that any evil, as evil, should be\ndesired, either by the natural appetite or the animal, or the\nintellectual, which is will. But some evil may be desired _per accidens_,\nin so far as it conduces to some good. And this is apparent in any\nappetite. For the natural impulse (_agens naturale_) does not aim at\nprivation or destruction (_corruptio_); but at form, to which the\nprivation of another form may be joined (_i.e._ needed, _conjungitur_);\nand at the generation of one, which is the destruction of another. Thus a\nlion, killing a stag, aims at food, to which is joined the killing of an\nanimal. Likewise the fornicator aims at enjoyment, to which is joined the\ndeformity of guilt.\n\n\u201cThus evil which is joined to some good, is privation of another good.\nNever, therefore, is evil desired, not even _per accidens_, unless the\ngood to which the evil is joined appears greater than the good which is\nannulled through the evil. But God wills no good more than His goodness;\nyet He wills some one good more than some other good. Hence the evil of\nguilt, which destroys relationship to divine good (_quod privat ordinem ad\nbonum divinum_), God in no way wills. But the evil of natural defect, or\nthe evil of penalty, He wills in willing some good to which such evil is\njoined; as, in willing righteousness He wills penalty; and in willing that\nthe order of nature be preserved, He wills certain natural corruptions.\n\n\u201c_Ad primum ergo dicendum_ [Thomas\u2019s formula for commencing his reply to\nthe first false argument] that certain ones have said that although God\ndoes not will evils, He wills evils to be or become: because, although\nevils are not goods, yet it is good that evils should be or become. They\nsaid this for the reason that those things which are evil in themselves,\nare ordained for some good; and they deemed this ordainment involved in\nsaying _mala esse vel fieri_. But that is not said rightly. Because evil\nis not ordained for good _per se_ but _per accidens_. For it is beyond the\nsinner\u2019s intent, that good should come of it; just as it was beyond the\nintent of the tyrants that from their persecutions the patience of the\nmartyrs should shine forth. And therefore it cannot be said that such\nordainment for good is involved in saying that it is good for evil to be\nor become: because nothing is adjudged according to what pertains to it\n_per accidens_ but according to what pertains to it _per se_.\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ad secundum dicendum_ that evil is not wrought for the perfection or\nbeauty of the whole except _per accidens_, as has been shown. Hence this\nwhich Dionysius says that evil makes for the perfection of the whole may\nlead to an illogical conclusion.\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ad tertium dicendum_ that although the occurrence and non-occurrence of\nevils are opposed as contradictories; yet to will the occurrence and to\nwill the non-occurrence of evils, are not opposed as contradictories,\nsince both one and the other may be affirmative. God therefore neither\nwills the occurrence nor the non-occurrence of evils; but wills to permit\ntheir occurrence. And this is good.\u201d\n\n[431] _Ante_, Chapter XII.\n\n[432] _Ante_, pp. 289 _sqq._\n\n[433] The _Speculum majus_ of Vincent of Beauvais will afford the\nprincipal example of the resulting hybrid arrangement.\n\n[434] Ludwig Baur, _Dominicus Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae_\n(Baeumker\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge_, M\u00fcnster, 1903), p. 193 _sqq._, to which I am\nindebted for what I have to say in the next few pages.\n\n[435] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 64, col. 10 _sqq._\n\n[436] These works were written near the middle of the twelfth century.\nGundissalinus was Archdeacon of Segovia and drew upon Arab writings.\n\n[437] See L. Baur, _Gundissalinus, etc._, p. 376 _sqq._\n\n[438] The treatise is not printed. Its captions are given by L. Baur in\nhis _Gundissalinus_, pp. 368-375, from which I have borrowed what I give\nof them.\n\n[439] _Liber de praedicabilibus_ (tome 1 of Albertus\u2019s works), which in\nscholastic logic means the five \u201cuniversals,\u201d genus, species, difference,\nproperty, accident, (also called the _quinque voces_) discussed in\nPorphyry\u2019s Introduction to the _Categories_. The _Categories_ themselves\nare called _praedicamenta_.\n\n[440] The above gives the arguments of chapters i. and ii. of the work.\nOne notices that Albertus in this exposition of the subject of Porphyry\u2019s\ntreatise, is using the _method_ which Thomas brings to syllogistic\nperfection in his _Summa_.\n\n[441] It was printed, more than once, in the late fifteenth century; the\nmost readable edition is that printed at Douai in 1624, in four huge\nfolios.\n\n[442] Boundless as the work appears, neither in mental powers, nor\nlearning, nor in massiveness of achievement, is its author to be compared\nwith Albertus Magnus. The _De universo_ of Rabanus Maurus, Migne 111, col.\n9-612, is in its arrangement and method a forerunner of Vincent\u2019s\n_Speculum_. Later predecessors were the English Franciscan Bartolomaeus,\nwhose encyclopaedic _De proprietatibus rerum_ was written a little before\nthe middle of the twelfth century (see Felder, _Studien in\nFranciscanerorder, etc._, pp. 251-253); and Lambertus Audomarensis (St.\nOmer) with his _Liber floridus_, a general digest of knowledge,\nhistorical, ecclesiastical, and natural, taken from many writers, an\naccount of which is given in Migne 163, col. 1004 _sqq._\n\n[443] Here, of course, we have the hands of Esau, but the voice of\nAugustine and Orosius!\n\n[444] The above is from cap. 9 of liber i. of the _Speculum doctrinale_.\n\n[445] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 34, col. 246-485.\n\n[446] _Ante_, p. 290.\n\n[447] The three theological virtues are _fides_, _spes_, and _caritas_.\nThey are called thus because _Deum habent pro objecto_; and because they\nare poured (_infunduntur_) into us by God alone. They are distinguished\nfrom the moral and intellectual virtues because their object surpasses our\nreason, while the object of the moral and intellectual virtues can be\ncomprehended by human reason (_Summa_, _Pars prima secundae_, Quaestio\nlxii., Art. 1-4).\n\n[448] \u1f15\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, Arist. _Nich. Ethics_, vi. 4.\n\n[449] One notes that these two, like many other of the vices enumerated,\nare vices in that they are extremes, in the Aristotelian sense.\n\n[450] We are at Quaestio clxxi. of _Secunda secundae_.\n\n[451] The order which Thomas would have followed in the unfinished\nconclusion of his _Summa theologiae_, may be inferred from the order of\nthe last half of Book IV. of his _Contra Gentiles_, or indeed from the\nlast part of the fourth Book of the Lombard\u2019s _Sentences_.\n\n[452] _Ante_, Chapter XII.\n\n[453] There were, of course, attempts at translation, notably those of\nNotker the German (see _ante_, Vol. I., p. 308) and Alfred\u2019s translation\nof Bo\u00ebthius\u2019s _De consolatione_. But such were made only of the popular\nparts of Scripture (_e.g._ the Psalms) or of very elementary profane\ntreatises. To what extent Notker\u2019s translations were used, is hard to say.\nBut at all events any one really seeking learning, studied and worked and\nthought in the medium of Latin; for the bulk of the patristic writings\nnever were translated; and when the works of Aristotle had at last reached\nthe Middle Ages in the Latin tongue, they were studied in that tongue.\nBecause of the crudeness of the vernacular tongues, the Latin classics\nwere even more untranslatable in the tenth or eleventh century than now.\n\nOne may add, that it was fortunate for the progress of mediaeval learning\nthat Latin was the _one_ language used by all scholars in all countries.\nThis facilitated the diffusion of knowledge. How slow and painful would\nhave been that diffusion if the different vernacular tongues had been used\nin their respective countries, for serious writing.\n\n[454] _Ante_, Chapter XII., I.\n\n[455] _Eruditio didascalica_, i. cap. 12 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 176, col.\n750).\n\n[456] Cf. Abelson, _The Seven Liberal Arts_ (New York, 1906).\n\n[457] I am speaking generally, that is to say, omitting for the present\nthe aberrant or special or intrusive tendencies found in a man like Roger\nBacon, for example. They were of importance for what was to come\nthereafter; but are not broadly representative of the Middle Ages.\n\n[458] St. Anselm, _Epist._ lib. iii. 41, _ad Fulconem_ (Migne, _Pat. Lat._\n158, col. 1192). So Roscellin showed in his own case how problems\nprimarily logical could pass over to metaphysics or theology. Likewise,\nalthough on the other side of the controversy, one, Odo of Tournai, a good\ncontemporary realist, found realism an efficient aid in explaining the\ntransmission of original sin; since for him all men formed but one\nsubstance, which was infected once for all by the sin of the first\nparents. Cf. Haur\u00e9au, _Hist. de la philosophie scholastique_, i. pp.\n297-308; De Wulf, _Hist. of Medieval Philosophy_, p. 156, 3rd ed.\n\n[459] Abaelard, _Hist. calamitatum_, chap. 2.\n\n[460] _Ante_, Chapter XXV.\n\n[461] _Ante_, Chapter XII., I.\n\n[462] Abaelard\u2019s _Dialectica_ was published by Cousin, _Ouvrages in\u00e9dits\nd\u2019Ab\u00e9lard_ (Paris, 1836). For a thorough exposition of Abaelard\u2019s logic\nsee Prantl, _Ges. der Logik_, ii. p. 160 _sqq._\n\n[463] _I.e._ as positive, comparative, and superlative.\n\n[464] Cousin, _Ouvr. in\u00e9dits_, p. 175. Cf. Aristotle\u2019s _Categories_, ii.\nv. 20. The opening of _Pars tertia_ of Abaelard\u2019s _Dialectica_ (in\nCousin\u2019s edition, p. 324 _sqq._) affords an interesting example of this\nlogical analysis and reconstruction of statement, which seems to originate\nin sheer grammar, and then advance beyond it.\n\n[465] Cousin, _o.c._ pp. 190, 192.\n\n[466] Cousin, _o.c._ p. 331.\n\n[467] Prantl\u2019s _Geschichte der Logik_, vol. ii., contains an exhaustive\ndiscussion of the various phases of this controversy: its language is\nlittle less difficult than that of the twelfth-century word-twisters.\n\n[468] Cousin, _o.c._ pp. 434, 435.\n\n[469] _Theologia Christiana_, iv. (Migne 178, col. 1284).\n\n[470] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 178, col. 1641.\n\n[471] _Ante_, p. 292.\n\n[472] _Scito te ipsum_, cap. 13 (Migne 178, col. 653).\n\n[473] _Scito te ipsum_, cap. 19 (Migne 178, col. 664).\n\n[474] Migne 178, col. 1615.\n\n[475] _Ante_, pp. 304 _sqq._\n\n[476] This has been published by St\u00f6lzle: _Abaelards 1121 zu Soissons\nverurteilter Tractatus de Unitate et Trinitate divina_ (1891).\n\n[477] Migne 178, col. 1123-1330; Cousin and Jourdain, _P. Abaelardi\nopera_, ii. pp. 357-566 (1859).\n\n[478] Migne 178, col. 979-1114; Cousin and Jourdain, _o.c._ pp. 1-149.\n\n[479] _Ante_, Chapter XXXV., I.\n\n[480] Bernard, _Ep._ 338 (Migne 182, col. 542).\n\n[481] Whose sacramental theory of the Creation has already been given at\nlength, _ante_, Chapter XXVIII. For the incidents of Hugo\u2019s life see the\nsame chapter. Bibliography, note to page 61. See also Ostler, \u201cDie\nPsychologie des Hugo von St. Viktor\u201d (Baeumker\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge_, M\u00fcnster,\n1906).\n\n[482] _De script._ cap. 2 (Migne 175, col. 11).\n\n[483] _De script._ cap. 2 (Migne 175, col. 10).\n\n[484] _Summa sententiarum_ (Migne 176, col. 42-174); also under title of\n_Tractatus theologicus_, wrongly ascribed to Hildebert of Lavardin, in\nMigne 171, col. 1067-1150.\n\n[485] Migne 176, col. 740-838.\n\n[486] I think of no previous work so closely resembling the _Erud. didas._\nas the _Institutiones divinarum et saecularum lectionum_ of Cassiodorus.\n\n[487] _Erud. did._ i. 2.\n\n[488] Here one sees the source of much that we quoted from Vincent de\nBeauvais, _ante_, Chapter XXXV., 1.\n\n[489] Lib. iii. cap. 13 _sqq._\n\n[490] _Erud. did._ iii. cap. 20. Cf. _ante_, p. 63.\n\n[491] _Ante_, Chapter XXVIII.\n\n[492] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 175, col. 115 _sqq._\n\n[493] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 175, col. 923 _sqq._\n\n[494] The following consideration of the mysticism of Christian\ntheologians is not intended to include other forms of \u201cmysticism\u201d\n(Pantheistic, poetical, pathological, neurotic, intellectual, and\nsensuous) within or without the Christian pale.\n\n[495] _Ante_, p. 42 _sqq._\n\n[496] _Ante_, Chapter XXVIII.\n\n[497] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 176, col. 617-680.\n\n[498] _De arca Noe morali_, i. cap. 2 (Migne 176, col. 621).\n\n[499] Migne 176, col. 681-703. With Hugo\u2019s pupil, Richard of St. Victor,\nthis constant allegory, especially the constant allegorical use of\nScripture names, becomes pedantic, _precieux_, impossible. See _e.g._ his\n_Benjamin major_ in Migne 196, col. 64-202.\n\n[500] _De arrha animae_, Migne 176, col. 951-970.\n\n[501] Migne 182, col. 727-808. A translation is announced by George Lewis\nin the Oxford Library of Translations.\n\n[502] _De consid._ lib. ii. cap. 2.\n\n[503] Migne 183, col. 789 _sqq._ Chapter XVII., _ante_, is devoted to\nBernard, and his letters and sermons.\n\n[504] Ed. by Willner (Baeumker\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge_, M\u00fcnster, 1903).\n\n[505] See _ante_, Chapter XXX., 1.\n\n[506] Bernardus Silvestris, _De mundi universitate_, i. 2 (ed. by Barach\nand Wrobel; Innsbr\u00fcck, 1876). As to Bernard Silvestris, see Clerval,\n_\u00c9coles de Chartres au moyen \u00e2ge_, p. 259 _sqq._ and _passim_; also\nHaur\u00e9au (who confuses him with Bernard of Chartres), _Hist. de la phil.\nscholastique_, ii. 407 _sqq._\n\n[507] See Haur\u00e9au, _Hist. etc._ ii. 447-472; R. L. Poole, _Illustrations\nof Mediaeval Thought_, chap. vi. His _Liber de sex principiis_ is printed\nin Migne 188, col. 1257-1270.\n\n[508] Werner, \u201cDie Kosmologie und Naturlehre des scholastischen\nMittelalters, mit specialler Beziehung auf Wilhelm von Conches,\u201d\n_Sitzungsb. K. Akad., philos. Klasse_, 1873, Bd. lxxv.; Haur\u00e9au, _Hist.\netc._ i. 431-446; ibid. _Singularit\u00e9s litt\u00e9raires, etc._\n\n[509] _Ante_, Vol. I., p. 251.\n\n[510] _Ante_, Chapter XXX., I.\n\n[511] Under another title, _Moralis philosophia de honesto et utile_, it\nhas been ascribed to Hildebert of Lavardin, Migne 171, col. 1007-1056.\n\n[512] For examples of John\u2019s Latin, see _ante_, p. 173.\n\n[513] See _e.g._ his treatment of logic in Lib. III. and IV. of the\n_Metalogicus_ (Migne 199).\n\n[514] _Polycraticus_, ii. 19-21 _sqq._ There is now a critical edition of\nthis work by C. C. J. Webb (_Joannis Saresberiensis Policratici libri\nVIII._; Clarendon Press, 1910).\n\n[515] _Polycraticus_, lib. vii., is devoted to a history of antique\nphilosophy.\n\n[516] _Polycraticus_, vii. cap. 10.\n\n[517] _Polycrat._ vii. cap. 11.\n\n[518] Migne 199, col. 955.\n\n[519] _Ante_, Chapter XXIX., 11. and XXXII., 1.\n\n[520] The works of Alanus are collected in Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 210. What\nfollows in the text is much indebted to M. Baumgartner, \u201cDie Philosophie\ndes Alanus de Insulis\u201d (Baeumker\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge_, M\u00fcnster, 1896).\n\n[521] All this is thoroughly done by Baumgartner, _o.c._\n\n[522] See Baumgartner, p. 76 _sqq._ and citations.\n\n[523] What I have felt obliged to say upon the organization of mediaeval\nUniversities, I have largely drawn from Rashdall\u2019s _Universities of Europe\nin the Middle Ages_ (Oxford, 1895). The subject is too large and complex\nfor independent investigation, except of the most lengthy and thorough\ncharacter. Extracts from illustrative mediaeval documents, with\nconsiderable information touching mediaeval Universities, are brought\ntogether by Arthur O. Norton in his _Mediaeval Universities_ (Readings in\nthe History of Education, Harvard University, 1909). For the Paris\nUniversity, the most important source is the _Chartularium Universitatis\nParisiensis_, ed. by Denifle and Chatelain (1889-1891). See also Ch.\nThurot, _L\u2019Organisation de l\u2019enseignement dans l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris_\n(Paris, 1850), and Denifle, _Die Universit\u00e4ten des Mittelalters_ (Berlin,\n1885).\n\n[524] What has been said applies to the Bologna Law University. That had\nbeen preceded by a school of Arts, and later there grew up a flourishing\nschool of Medicine, where surgery was also taught. These schools became\naffiliated Universities, but never equalled the Law University in\nimportance.\n\n[525] The Masters who taught were called _Regentes_.\n\n[526] Both civil and canon law were studied till 1219, when a Bull of\nHonorius III. forbade the study of the former at Paris.\n\n[527] See _post_, p. 399.\n\n[528] Mr. Rashdall\u2019s.\n\n[529] Rashdall, _o.c._ ii. p. 341.\n\n[530] Oxford lay in the diocese of Lincoln.\n\n[531] For the course of medicine and the list of books studied or lectured\non, especially at Montpellier, from which we have the most complete list,\nsee Rashdall, ii. p. 118 _sqq._ and _ibid._ p. 780. In _Harvard Studies in\nClassical Philology_, vol. xx., 1909, C. H. Haskins publishes An\nunpublished List of Text-books, belonging to the close of the twelfth\ncentury, when classical studies had not as yet been overshadowed by\nDialectic. See also, generally, Paetow, _The Arts Course at Medieval\nUniversities_ (Univ. of Illinois, 1910).\n\n[532] See generally, Carra de Vaux, _Avicenne_ (Paris, 1900); also\n_Gazali_, by the same author.\n\n[533] Whoever will read the two monographs of the Baron Carra de Vaux,\n_Avicenne_ and _Gazali_, will be struck by the closely analogous courses\nof Moslem and Christian thought; each showing the parallel phases of\nscholastic rationalism (reliant upon reason and rational authority) and\nscholastic theological piety, or mysticism (reliant upon the authority of\nRevelation and sceptical as to the validity of human reason).\n\n[534] See for this matter Mandonnet, O.P., _Aristote et la mouvement\nintellectuel du moyen \u00e2ge_, contained in his _Siger de Brabant_, and\nprinted separately; De Wulf, _History of Medieval Philosophy_, 3rd ed.,\npp. 243-253 and authorities; C. Marchesi, _L\u2019 Etica Nicomachea nella\ntradizione medievale_ (Messina, 1904).\n\n[535] _Ante_, Chapter V.\n\n[536] _Constitutiones des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228_, Prologus; H.\nDenifle, _Archiv f\u00fcr Litt. und Kirchenges. des Mittelalters_, Bd i.\n(1885), p. 194.\n\n[537] See Felder, _Wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franciskanerorden_, p. 24\n(Freiburg im Breisgau, 1904); a valuable work.\n\n[538] See Felder, _o.c._ p. 29.\n\n[539] _Constitutiones, etc._, cap. 28-31.\n\n[540] Cf. Felder, _o.c._ p. 107 _sqq._\n\n[541] Cf. Felder, _o.c._ p. 177 _sqq._\n\n[542] From Denifle, _Universit\u00e4ten des Mittelalters_, i. 99, note 192.\n\n[543] See generally, Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l\u2019averroisme latin au\nmoyen \u00e2ge_ (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1899); Baeumker (_Beitr\u00e4ge_, 1898),\n_Die Impossibilia des Siger von Brabant_; De Wulf, _Hist. of Medieval\nPhilosophy_, 3rd ed., p. 379 _sqq._ (Longmans, 1909).\n\n[544] Albert was born probably in 1193, and died in 1280; Bacon was born\nsome twenty years later, and died about 1292. Bonaventura was born in\n1221, and Thomas in 1225 or 1227; they both died in 1274.\n\n[545] So Raphael represents them in his \u201cSchool of Athens.\u201d\n\n[546] Bonaventura, _Sermo IV._, Quaracchi edition, tome v. p. 572 (cited\nby De Wulf, _Hist. etc._ p. 304, note). With all their\nAugustinian-Platonism, the Franciscans made a good second to the\nDominicans in the study of Aristotle, as is proved by the great number of\ncommentaries upon his works by members of the former Order. See Felder,\n_o.c._ p. 479.\n\n[547] _Epist. de tribus quaestionibus_, \u00a7 12.\n\n[548] Tome v. (Quaracchi ed.) pp. 319-325.\n\n[549] This is from \u00a7 26, the last in the work. Bonaventura has already\nsaid (\u00a7 7): \u201cOmnes istae cognitiones ad cognitionem Sacrae Scripturae\nordinantur, in ea clauduntur et in illa perficiuntur, et mediante illa ad\naeternam illuminationem ordinantur.\u201d (\u201cAll kinds of knowledge are ordained\nfor the knowledge of Holy Scripture, are in it enclosed and thereby are\nperfected; and through its mediation are ordered for eternal\nillumination.\u201d)\n\n[550] It is contained in tomes i.-iv. of the Quaracchi edition.\n\n[551] T. v. pp. 201-291.\n\n[552] _Breviloquium_, Prologus.\n\n[553] One feels the reality of Bonaventura\u2019s distinctions here between\ntheology and philosophy. They are enunciations of his religious sense, and\npossess a stronger validity than any elaborate attempt to distinguish by\nargument between the two. Thomas distinguishes them with excellent\nreasoning. It lacks convincingness perhaps from the fact that Thomas\u2019s\ntheology is so largely philosophy, as Roger Bacon said.\n\n[554] As this chapter opens a _pars_, it begins with a recapitulation of\nwhat has preceded and a summary of what is to come. The specific topic of\nthe chapter commences here.\n\n[555] _I.e._ the desiderative, rational, and irascible elements in man.\n\n[556] Bonaventura closely follows Hugo of St. Victor\u2019s _De sacramentis_,\nsee _ante_, Chap. XXVIII., especially p. 72.\n\n[557] _Opera_, t. v. pp. 295-313.\n\n[558] _Vir desideriorum_, Dan. ix. 23 (Vulgate).\n\n[559] The _Breviloquium_ and _Itinerarium_ are conveniently edited by\nHefele in a little volume (T\u00fcbingen, 1861).\n\n[560] Albertus, _Metaphysicorum libri XIII._, lib. i. tract. 1, cap. 4.\n\n[561] _Physic._ lib. viii. tract. 1, cap. 14.\n\n[562] _Poster. Analyt._ lib. i. tract. 1, cap. 1. This and the previous\ncitation are from Mandonnet\u2019s _Siger de Brabant_.\n\n[563] _Ethic._ lib. vi. tract. 2, cap. 25.\n\n[564] Carus, _Ges. der Zoologie_, p. 231.\n\n[565] Ernst Meyer, _Ges. der Botanik_, Bd. iv. p. 77.\n\n[566] The works of Albertus were edited by the Dominican Jammy in\ntwenty-one volumes (Lyons, 1651); they are reprinted by Borgnet (Paris,\n1890 _et seq._). My references to volumes follow Jammy\u2019s edition.\n\n[567] See _ante_, pp. 314 _sqq._\n\n[568] Prantl, _Ges. der Logik_, iii. 89 _sqq._, calls him an \u201cunklarer\nKopf,\u201d incapable of consistent thinking.\n\n[569] This is the view of A. Schneider, _Die Psychologie Alberts des\nGrossen_ (Baeumker\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge_, M\u00fcnster, 1903). The author presents\nanalytically the disparate elements--Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, and\ntheological-Augustinian, which are found in Albert\u2019s writings.\n\n[570] See Endriss, _Albertus Magnus als Interpret der Aristotelischen\nMetaphysik_ (Munich, 1886).\n\n[571] The above is mainly drawn from E. Meyer\u2019s _Ges. der Botanik_, Bd.\niv. pp. 38-78.\n\n[572] _Ante_, Volume I. p. 76.\n\n[573] See Carus, _Geschichte der Zoologie_, pp. 211-239.\n\n[574] _Sum. theol. pars prima_, tract. I, quaest. ii.\n\n[575] _Ante_, Chapter XXXV., I.\n\n[576] Tome xx. p. 41_a_.\n\n[577] The _Vita_ of Thomas by Guilielmus de Thoco, _Acta sanctorum_,\nMartius, tome i. folio 657 _sqq._ (March 7), is wretchedly confused.\n\n[578] _Vita_, cap. iii. \u00a7 15.\n\n[579] One may see the truth of this by comparing the treatment of a matter\nin Albert\u2019s _Summa theologiae_ with the corresponding sections in Thomas.\nFor example, compare Albert\u2019s _Summa theol. prima_, Tract. vii. Quaest.\nxxx.-xxxiii., on _generatio_, _processio_, _missio_ of the divine persons,\nwith Thomas, _Sum. theol. prima_, Quaest. xxvii. and xliii.\n\n[580] John of Damascus, an important Greek theologian of the eighth\ncentury, often cited by Thomas.\n\n[581] Quaestiones are the larger divisions of the argument.\n\n[582] _Pars prima_, Qu. xvi. Art. 3.\n\n[583] _Pars prima_, Qu. lxxxii. Art. 3.\n\n[584] _Prima sec._ Qu. iv. Art. 2.\n\n[585] _Prima sec._ Qu. iv. Art. 3.\n\n[586] _Sum. Phil. contra Gentiles_, iii. 37.\n\n[587] One cannot avoid applying the masculine pronouns to God, and to the\nangels also. But, of course, this is a mere convenience of speech. Thomas\nascribes no sex either to God or the angels.\n\n[588] It will, of course, be borne in mind, that Thomas\u2019s use of _videre_\nand _visio_ to express man\u2019s perception of God\u2019s essential nature, does\nnot mean a physical but an intellectual seeing.\n\n[589] Given _ante_, pp. 290 _sqq._\n\n[590] _Secundum quod est in actu_, _i.e._ in realized actuality as\ndistinguished from potentiality (Aristotelian conceptions).\n\n[591] The foregoing is taken from the thirteen _articuli_ into which\nQuaestio xii. is divided.\n\n[592] _Pars prima_, Quaestio xxxii. Art. 1.\n\n[593] _Quaestiones disputatae: De Veritate_, x. 6. Citing Rom. i. 20.\n\n[594] Prooemium to Qu. xiv. _Pars prima_.\n\n[595] Qu. xiv. Art. 2--a point which Thomas reasons out in interesting\nscholastic Aristotelian fashion, but in language too technical to\ntranslate.\n\n[596] _Pars prima_, Qu. xiv. Art. 11.\n\n[597] _Pars prima_, Qu. xv. Art. 1-3.\n\n[598] _Pars prima_, Qu. xxvi. Art. 2.\n\n[599] _Pars prima_, Qu. xliv. Art. 3.\n\n[600] _Pars prima_, Qu. xlv. Art. 1.\n\n[601] _Summa theol. pars prima_, Qu. l. As heretofore, I follow the\nexposition of the _Summa theologiae_. But Thomas began a large and almost\nhistorical treatment of angels in his unfinished _Tract. de substantiis\nseparatis, seu de Angelorum natura_ (unfinished, in _Opuscula theol._). He\nhas another and important tractatus, _De cognitione Angelorum, Quaestiones\ndisput. de veritate_, viii.\n\n[602] _Pars prima_, Qu. l. Art. 1. Thomas goes on to contradict Aristotle,\nin holding _quod nullum ens esset nisi corpus_.\n\n[603] All that has been given concerning the knowledge of angels relates\nto what they know through their own natures as created. Further\nenlightenment (as with men) comes through grace as soon as they become\n_beati_ through turning to good. _Pars prima_, Qu. lxii. Art. 1 _sqq._\n\n[604] _Ante_, Chapter XXXV., 1.\n\n[605] A burning controversy between the Averroists and the orthodox\nschoolmen.\n\n[606] This is the substance of Qu. lxxxix. Art. 1.\n\n[607] _Pars prima_, Qu. xix. Art. 1.\n\n[608] _Pars prima_, Qu. lxxxii. and lxxxiii.\n\n[609] _Pars prima_, Qu. xx. 1.\n\n[610] _Summa theol._, _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xvii. Art 8.\n\n[611] _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xxiv. Art. 8.\n\n[612] _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xxvi. Art. 4 and 5.\n\n[613] _Pars prima secundae_, Qu. cix. _sqq._\n\n[614] Another reading is _delectatio_, _i.e._ enjoyment.\n\n[615] Bacon\u2019s _Opus majus_ was edited in incomplete form by Jebb in 1733,\nand reprinted in 1750 at Venice. This edition is superseded by that of\nBridges, in two volumes, published with the _Moralis philosophia_ and\n_Multiplicatio specierum_ by the Clarendon Press in 1897. The text of this\nedition had many errors, which have been corrected by a third volume\npublished in 1900 by Williams and Norgate, who are now the publishers of\nthe three volumes. In 1859 Brewer edited the _Opus tertium_, the _Opus\nminus_, and _Compendium philosophiae_ for the Master of the Rolls Series.\n\n\u201cAn unpublished Fragment of a work by Roger Bacon\u201d was discovered by F. A.\nGasquet in the Vatican Library, and published in the _English Historical\nReview_ for July 1897. It appears to be a letter to Clement IV., written\nin 1267.\n\nIn 1861 appeared the excellent monograph by \u00c9mile Charles, entitled _Roger\nBacon, sa vie, ses ouvrages, ses doctrines_. To this one still must turn\nfor extracts from the _Compendium theologiae_, and the _Communia\nnaturalium_. The last-named work, with the _Compendium philosophiae_ and\nthe _Multiplicatio specierum_ (which appears not to be an intrinsic part\nof the _Opus majus_), may have been composed as parts of what was to be\nthe writer\u2019s _Opus principale_. Bacon\u2019s _Greek Grammar_ has been edited by\nNolan and Hirsch (Cambridge, 1902).\n\n[616] _Opus tertium_, chap. xxv. p. 91 (Brewer\u2019s text).\n\n[617] _Opus tertium_, chap. xvii. (pp. 58-59, Brewer\u2019s ed.).\n\n[618] Brewer, _R. Bacon, Opera inedita_, p. 1.\n\n[619] _Opus tertium_, pp. 7 and 8.\n\n[620] In _Opus tertium_, chap. iii. (Brewer, p. 15), Bacon plainly tells\nthe pope the difficulties in which he had been placed by this injunction\nof secrecy: \u201cThe first cause of delay came through those who are over me.\nSince you have written nothing to them in my excuse, and I could not\nreveal to them your secret, they insisted with unspeakable violence that I\nshould obey their will; but I refused, because of the bond of your\nmandate, which bound me to your work, notwithstanding any order from my\nprelates. And, of a surety, as I was not excused by you, I met with\nobstacles too great and many to enumerate.... And another obstacle, enough\nto defeat the whole business, was the lack of funds.\u201d\n\n[621] These are, of course, the _Opus majus_, the _Opus minus_, and the\n_Opus tertium_; also the _Vatican Fragment_, the position of which is not\nquite clear; but it is part of the writings of this year, and constitutes\napparently the introductory letter to Clement.\n\n[622] The authority for this is the _Chronica XXIV., Generalium Ordinis\nMinorum_; see Bridges, vol. iii. p. 158.\n\n[623] See _Op. tertium_, p. 26 _sqq._ (Brewer).\n\n[624] _Opus majus_, pars ii. end of chap. v. and beginning of chap. vi.\n(Bridges, iii. p. 49); see _Op. tertium_ (Brewer), p. 81.\n\n[625] _Op. maj._ pars ii. chap. xv. (Bridges, iii. p. 71).\n\n[626] _Op. tertium_, p. 39.\n\n[627] _Op. maj._ pars ii. (Bridges, iii. pp. 69-70). Cf. _ante_, p. 180.\n\n[628] The reference seems to be to the _Ethics_ and _Politics_.\n\n[629] _Compendium studii_, p. 424 (Brewer).\n\n[630] _Op. tertium_, p. 14.\n\n[631] _Op. tertium_, p. 30.\n\n[632] _Compendium studii phil._, p. 429 (Brewer).\n\n[633] _Ibid._ p. 398--written in 1271.\n\n[634] I follow the paging of Bridges, vol. iii. These four causes of error\nare also given in _Opus tertium_, p. 69, _Compendium studii_, p. 414\n(Brewer), and the Gasquet _Fragment_, p. 504.\n\n[635] _Op. maj._ pp. 2 and 3.\n\n[636] P. 322 _sqq._ (Brewer).\n\n[637] _Opus tertium_, p. 102.\n\n[638] _Ante_, p. 128.\n\n[639] As, _e.g._ where he says that it would have been better for the\nLatins \u201cthat the wisdom of Aristotle should not have been translated, than\nto have been translated with such perverseness and obscurity.\u201d _Compend.\nstudii_, p. 469, (Brewer).\n\n[640] See _Opus majus_, pars iii.\n\n[641] _Opus majus_, Bridges, vol. i. p. 106.\n\n[642] Commonly called \u201cmathematica.\u201d\n\n[643] _Opus majus_ (Bridges, i. p. 253). Bacon goes into this matter\nelaborately.\n\n[644] Cf. S. Vogl, _Die Physik Roger Bacos_ (Erlangen, 1906). Gives\nBacon\u2019s sources.\n\n[645] _Opus minus_, pp. 367-371.\n\n[646] _Opus majus_, pars v. dist. iii. (Bridges, ii. p. 159 _sqq._).\n\n[647] A contemporary of Bacon named Witelo composed a _Perspectiva_ about\n1270, following an Arab source; and a few years later a Dominican,\nTheodoric of Freiburg, was devoted to optics, and wrote on light, colour,\nand the rainbow. Baeumker, \u201cWitelo, ein Philosoph und Naturforscher des\nXIII. Jahrh.\u201d (_Beitr\u00e4ge, etc._, M\u00fcnster, 1908); Krebs, \u201cMeister Dietrich,\nsein Leben, etc.\u201d (Baeumker\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge_, 1906).\n\n[648] With Bacon, _experientia_ does not always mean observation; and may\nmean either experience or experiment.\n\n[649] See Charles, _Roger Bacon_, pp. 17-18.\n\n[650] _Ante_, pp. 313-315. Duns Scotus puts clearly the double aspect of\nlogic, which Albertus Magnus approached: \u201cIt should be understood that\nlogic is to be considered in two ways. First, in so far as it is _docens_\n(instructs, holds its own school): and from its own necessary and proper\nprinciples proceeds to necessary conclusions, and is therefore a science.\nSecondly, in so far as we use it, by applying it to those matters in which\nit is used: and then it is not a science\u201d (_Super universalia Porphyrii_,\nQuaestrio i., Duns Scotus, _Opera_, t. i. p. 51).\n\n[651] The two aspects of the experimental science appear in the following\nstatement from the Gasquet _Fragment_: \u201cThe _antepenultima_ science is\ncalled experimental; and is the mistress of those which precede it; for it\nexcels the others in three chief prerogatives. One is that all the\nsciences except this either use arguments alone to prove their\nconclusions, like the purely speculative sciences, or possess general and\nimperfect experiences. But only the perfect experience (_experientia\nperfecta_, _i.e._ the scientific experiment or observation), sets the mind\nat rest in the light of truth; which is certain and is proved in that part\n[of my work]. Wherefore it was necessary that there should be one science\nwhich should certify for us, all the magnificent truths of the other\nsciences, through the truth of experience, and this is that whereof I say\nthat it is called _scientia experimentalis_ of its own right from the\ntruth of experience (_per autonomasiam ab experienciae veritate_); and I\nshow by the illustration of the rainbow and other things, how this\nprerogative is reserved to that science.\n\n\u201cThe second prerogative is the dignity which relates to those chief truths\nwhich, although they are to be formulated (_nominandae_) in the terms\n(_vocabulis_) of the other sciences, yet the other sciences cannot furnish\n(_procurare_) them; and of this character are the prolongation of life\nthrough remedies to counteract the lack of a hygienic regimen from\ninfancy, or constitutional debility inherited from parents who have not\nfollowed such a regimen. I shall show how it is possible thus to prolong\nlife to the term set by God. But men, through neglecting the rules of\nhealth, pass quickly to old age, and die before reaching that term. The\nart of medicine is not able to furnish (_dare_) these remedies, nor does\nit; but it says they are possible (_sed fatetur ea possibilia_), and so\nexperimental science has devised remedies known to the wisest men alone,\nby which the ills of old age are delayed, or are mitigated when they\narrive.\n\n\u201cThe third prerogative of this science belongs to it _secundum se et\nabsolute_; for here it leaves the two ways already touched on, and\naddresses itself to all things which do not concern the other sciences,\nsave that often it requires the service of the others. As a mistress it\ncommands the others as servants ... and orders them to do its work, and\nfurnish the wise instruments which it uses; as navigation directs the art\nof carpentry, to make a ship for it; and the military art directs the\nforger\u2019s art to make it a breastplate and other arms. In like manner, this\nscience [the experimental], as a mistress, directs geometry to make it a\nburning-glass, which shall set on fire things near or far, one of the most\nsublime wonders that can come to pass through geometry. So it commands the\nother sciences in all the wonderful and hidden things of nature and art\u201d\n(pp. 510-511).\n\n[652] _Opus tertium_, chap. xxviii.\n\n[653] _Opus majus_, pars vi. 1 (Bridges, ii. p. 169).\n\n[654] _Ibid._ p. 171. Doubtless the meaning of the above is connected with\nBacon\u2019s view of the Aristotelian _intellectus agens_, which he takes to\nsignify the direct illumination of the mind of man by God. \u201cAll the wisdom\nof philosophy is revealed by God and given to the philosophers, and it is\nHimself that illuminates the minds of men in all wisdom. That which\nilluminates our minds is now called by the theologians _intellectus\nagens_. But my position is that this _intellectus agens_ is God\n_principaliter_, and secondarily, the angels, who illuminate us\u201d (_Opus\ntertium_, p. 74; cf. _Op. majus_, pars i. chap. v.).\n\n[655] _Compendium studii_ (Brewer), p. 397.\n\n[656] _De secretis operibus artis et naturae, et de nullitate magiae_, p.\n533 (Brewer). Cf. Charles, _Roger Bacon_, p. 296 _sqq._\n\n[657] The most convenient edition of the works of Joannes Duns Scotus is\nthat published by Vives, at Paris (1891 _sqq._) in twenty-six volumes. It\nis little more than a reprint of Wadding\u2019s Edition.\n\n[658] See Seeberg, _Die Theologie des Johannes Duns Scotus_ (Leipzig,\n1900), p. 8 _sqq._, a work to which the following pages owe much.\n\n[659] Grosseteste\u2019s philosophical or theological works are still\nunpublished or very difficult of access; and there is no sufficient\nexposition of his doctrines.\n\n[660] Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 16 _sqq._\n\n[661] See De Wulf, _History of Medieval Philosophy_, p. 363 _sqq._\n\n[662] See Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 34 _sqq._\n\n[663] The kernel of Duns\u2019s proof is contained in the following passage,\nwhich is rather simple in its Scotian Latin: \u201cDicendum, quod Universale\nest ens, quia sub ratione non entis, nihil intelligitur: quia\nintelligibile movet intellectum. Cum enim intellectus sit virtus passiva\n(per Aristotelem 3, de Anima, cont. 5 et inde saepe), non operatur, nisi\nmoveatur ab objecto; non ens non potest movere aliquid ut objectum; quia\nmovere est entis in actu; ergo nihil intelligitur sub ratione non entis.\nQuidquid autem intelligitur, intelligitur sub ratione Universalis: ergo\nilla ratio non est omnino non ens\u201d (_Super universalia Porphyrii_,\nQuaestio iv.).\n\n[664] Cf. the far from clear exposition in Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 86 _sqq._\nand 660 _sqq._\n\n[665] _Miscell. quaest._ 6, 18, cited by Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 114.\n\n[666] The last two or three pages have been drawn mainly from Seeberg,\n_o.c._ p. 113 _sqq._ In discussing Duns Scotus, I have given less from his\nwritings than has been my wont with other philosophers. And for two\nreasons. The first, as I frankly avow, is that I have read less of him\nthan I have of his predecessors. With the exception of such a curious\ntreatise as the (doubtful) Grammatica _speculativa_ (tome i. of the Paris\nedition); and the elementary, and comparatively lucid, _De rerum\nprincipio_ (tome iv. of the Paris edition)--with these exceptions Duns is\nto me unreadable. My second reason for omitting excerpts from his\nwritings, is that I wished neither to misrepresent their quality, nor to\ncause my reader to lay down my book, which is heavy enough anyhow! If I\nselected lucid and simple extracts, they would give no idea of the\nintricacy and prolixity of Duns. His commentary on the _Sentences_ fills\nthirteen tomes of the Paris edition! No short and simple extract will\nillustrate _that_! On the other hand, I could not bring myself by lengthy\nor impossible quotations to vilify Duns. It is unjust to expose a man\u2019s\nworst features, nakedly and alone, to those who do not know his better\nside and the conditions which partly explain the rest of him.\n\n[667] _Quodlibetalia_, i. Qu. 14, cited by De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 422.\n\n[668] _Expos. aurea_, cited by De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 423, whose exposition of\nOccam\u2019s theory I have followed here.\n\n[669] On Occam, see Seeberg\u2019s article in Hauck\u2019s _Encyclopaedia_; Siebeck,\n\u201cOccams Erkenntnislehre, etc.,\u201d in _Archiv f\u00fcr Ges. der Philosophie_, Bd.\nx., Neue Folge (1897).\n\n[670] Quoted by Seeberg.\n\n[671] De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 425.\n\n[672] In view of the enormous literature upon Dante, popular as well as\nlearned, it would be absurd to give any bibliographical, biographical or\nhistorical information as to his works, himself, or his Italian\ncircumstances.\n\n[673] _De mon._ ii. 3.\n\n[674] _De mon._ ii. chaps. 4, 10, 12.\n\n[675] _De mon._ iii. 4 _sqq._\n\n[676] All this seems supported by _Conv._ i. 1, and ii. 13, the main\nexplanatory chapters of the work.\n\n[677] _Conv._ iii. 12.\n\n[678] e.g. \u201c_benigna volontade_,\u201d _Par._ xv. 1.\n\n[679] Cf. A. d\u2019Ancona, _I Precursori di Dante_ (Florence, 1874); M. Dods,\n_Forerunners of Dante_ (Edinburgh, 1903); A. J. Butler, _Forerunners of\nDante_ (Oxford, 1910); Hettinger, _G\u00f6ttliche Kom\u00f6die_, p. 79 (2nd ed.,\nFreiburg im Breisgau, 1889). Mussafia, \u201cMonumenti antichi di dialetti\nitaliani,\u201d _Sitzungsber. philos. hist. Classe_ (Vienna Academy), vol. 45,\n1864, p. 136 _sqq._, gives two old Italian _descriptions_, one of the\nheavenly Jerusalem, the other of the infernal Babylon.\n\n[680] 2 Cor. xii. 2; _Paradiso_, i. 73-75.\n\n[681] _Ante_, Chapter XIX.\n\n[682] _Ante_, pp. 98-100.\n\n[683] The coarseness of _Inf._ xxi. 137-139 is of a piece with the way of\nmediaeval art in making demons horrible through a grotesquely indecent\nrendering of their persons.\n\n[684] e.g. _Inf._ xviii. 100 _sqq._; and _Inf._ xxviii. and xxix.\n\n[685] _Inf._ viii. 37 _sqq._; xxxii. 97 _sqq._; xxxiii. 116 and 149.\n\n[686] Cf. Moore, _Dante Studies_, vol. ii. pp. 266-267.\n\n[687] Any one who looks through the first volume of Tiraboschi\u2019s great\n_Storia della letteratura italiana_, written in the early part of the\nnineteenth century, will find a generous acceptance of myth as fact; just\nas he would find the same in the _Histoire ancienne_ of the good Rollin,\nwritten a century or more before.\n\n[688] Dante has frequently been spoken of as the \u201cfirst scholar\u201d of his\ntime. I do not myself know enough regarding the scholarship of every\nscholar in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to confirm or deny\nthis. Personally, I do not regard him as a Titanic scholar, like Albertus\nMagnus for example. He studied all the classic Latin authors available.\nDoubtless he had a memory corresponding to his other extraordinary powers.\nHis also was the intellectual point of view, and the intellectual interest\nin knowledge and its deductions. His view of life was as intellectual as\nthat of Aquinas. But as Dante\u2019s powers of plastic visualization were\nunequalled, so also, it seems to me, were his faculties of using as a poet\nwhat he had acquired as a scholar. Regarding the extent of Dante\u2019s use and\nreading of the Classics, nothing could be added to Dr. Moore\u2019s _Studies in\nDante_, First Series; though I think what Dr. Moore has to say of \u201cDante\nand Aristotle\u201d would have cast a more direct light upon the matter, had he\ncited as far as possible from the Latin translation probably used by\nDante, instead of from the original Greek.\n\n[689] _Inf._ iv. 88. Cf. Moore, _Studies in Dante_, i. p. 6. The\napplication of the term _satirist_ to Horace is peculiarly mediaeval.\n\n[690] _Inf._ iv. 131.\n\n[691] _Inf._ ii. 20.\n\n[692] _Par._ xx. 68.\n\n[693] _Purg._ xxv. 22.\n\n[694] _Inf._ xviii. 83 _sqq._\n\n[695] _Inf._ xxvi. 88 _sqq._\n\n[696] _Purg._ xii.\n\n[697] _Purg._ xv.\n\n[698] According to Dr. Moore, Dante quotes or refers to the \u201cVulgate more\nthan 500 times, to Aristotle more than 300, Virgil about 200, Ovid about\n100, Cicero and Lucan about 50 each, Statius and Bo\u00ebthius between 30 and\n40 each, Horace, Livy, and Orosius between 10 and 20 each,\u201d--and other\nscattering references.\n\n[699] _Inf._ xxxiii. 4; _Aen._ ii. 3.\n\n[700] _Par._ ii. 16.\n\n[701] _Aen._ vi. 309; _Inf._ iii. 112.\n\n[702] _Aen._ vi. 700; _Purg._ ii. 80.\n\n[703] _Purg._ i. 135; cf. _Aen._ vi. 143 \u201cPrimo avulso non deficit alter,\netc.\u201d\n\n[704] See _Inf._ xxxi.; _Purg._ xii. 25 _sqq._\n\n[705] _Purg._ vi. 118: \u201cO highest Jove that wast on earth crucified for\nus.\u201d\n\n[706] _Par._ i. 13 _sqq._; _Par._ ii. 8.\n\n[707] The _provenance_, etc., of Dante\u2019s classification of sins in the\n_Inferno_, like everything else in Dante, has been interminably discussed.\nThe reference to the _De officiis_ of Cicero is due to Dr. Moore. See\n\u201cClassification of Sins in the _Inferno_ and _Purgatorio_,\u201d _Studies in\nDante_, 2nd Series. Also cf. Hettinger, _Die g\u00f6ttliche K\u00f6m\u00f6die_, pp.\n159-162, and notes 6 and 23 on p. 204 and 207 (2nd ed., Freiburg in\nBreisgau, 1889). Dante\u2019s main statement is in _Inf._ xi.\n\n[708] In whom does not the awful anguish of the suicides (_Inf._ xiii.)\narouse grief and horror?\n\n[709] _Inf._ xvi. 59. They are more respectable than the blessed denizens\nof the Heaven of Venus, _Par._ ix.\n\n[710] _Inf._ xix.\n\n[711] _Inf._ vi. 103 _sqq._\n\n[712] The intellectual temperament finds voice in many great expressions,\nwhich are very Dante and also very Thomas, as _Par._ xxviii. 106-114;\nxxix. 17; xxx. 40-42.\n\n[713] _Inf._ iii. 18.\n\n[714] Hettinger, _o.c._ p. 254.\n\n[715] _Aeneid_ vi. 327 _sqq._; Hettinger, _o.c._ p. 226.\n\n[716] See Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, p. 162.\n\n[717] These are pointed out in the Commentaries (_e.g._ Scartazzini\u2019s) and\nin many monographs. Hettinger\u2019s _G\u00f6ttliche K\u00f6m\u00f6die_ is serviceable: also\nMoore\u2019s _Studies in Dante_ and Toynbee\u2019s _Dante Studies_.\n\n[718] _Purg._ i. 71; John viii. 36.\n\n[719] _Purg._ i. 89.\n\n[720] _Purg._ iii. 34 _sqq._\n\n[721] _Purg._ iv. 4 _sqq._\n\n[722] _Purg._ v. 105 _sqq._\n\n[723] _Purg._ vii. 54; iv. 133-135.\n\n[724] Cf. _e.g._ _Purg._ xii. 109.\n\n[725] _Purg._ xv. 40 _sqq._\n\n[726] _Purg._ xvi. 64 _sqq._\n\n[727] _Purg._ xvii. 85 _sqq._, and xviii.; Hettinger, _o.c._ p. 235\n_sqq._, and pp. 261-264.\n\n[728] _Purg._ xxiii. 72; xxvi. 14.\n\n[729] _Purg._ xxv. The notes in Hettinger, _o.c._, are quite full in\ncitations of passages from Thomas and other scholastics.\n\n[730] Thomas, _Summa_, iii. Qu. 89, Art. 5.\n\n[731] As it is rather in _Par._ xxvii. 76 _sqq._\n\n[732] _Par._ iii. 52, 64, 89.\n\n[733] _Par._ iv.\n\n[734] _Par._ xi. 1 _sqq._\n\n[735] _Par._ xiv.\n\n[736] _Par._ xv. 10.\n\n[737] _Par._ xix. 40 _sqq._\n\n[738] _Par._ xx.\n\n[739] _Par._ xxiv.-xxvi.\n\n[740] Typified in St. Bernard, _Par._ xxxi. and following. Suitable\nreasons for this choice may be suggested by the extracts from Bernard\u2019s\n_De deligendo Deo_ and _Sermons on Canticles_, _ante_, Chapter XVII.\n\n[741] _Conv._ ii. 13. The symbolism inherent in all human mental processes\nseems indicated by the argument of Aquinas (_ante_, p. 466) that the mind\nknows \u201cthe particular through sense and imagination; ... it must turn\nitself to images in order to behold the universal nature existing in the\nparticular.\u201d This is a necessity of our half material nature.\n\n[742] _Convito_ ii. 1. Letter to Can Grande, par. 7.\n\n[743] In the Can Grande letter, having stated this fourfold significance,\nDante does _not_ proceed to exemplify it in the interpretation which\nfollows of the opening lines of the _Paradiso_. Possibly those lines did\nnot admit of the fourfold interpretation; yet, in general, Dante does not\ntry to carry it out in practice, any more than other mediaeval writers\ncommonly.\n\n[744] _Convito_ ii. ch. 14 and 15.\n\n[745] Doubtless the commentator habit is fixed in the nature of man; but\nit was pre-eminently mediaeval. We have seen enough elsewhere of the\nmultiplication of Commentaries on the _Sentences_ of the Lombard and other\nscholastic works. Dante\u2019s friend, Guido Cavalcanti, wrote a little poem\nbeginning _Donna mi priego_, upon which we have eight Commentaries, the\nfirst from Egidio Colonna in 1316.\n\n[746] Yet, however obvious the meaning, tying the pole of the Chariot to\nthe Tree of Life was a great stroke (_Purg._ xxxii. 49).\n\n[747] There is a piece of allegory in the _Paradiso_ which almost gets on\none\u2019s nerves, _i.e._ the ceaseless whirling of the blessed spirits,\nusually in wheel formations: _e.g._ _Par._ xii. 3; xxi. 81; xxiv. 10\n_sqq._: cf. x. 145; xiii. 20.\n\n[748] One notes that all the symbolizing personages of the poem--Virgil,\nStatius, Matilda, Lia, Beatrice--have literal reality, however subtle or\nfar-reaching may be the allegorical intendment with which the poet has\ninvested them.\n\n[749] See _e.g._ _Par._ xxxi. 67.\n\n[750] Cf. De Sanctis, _Storia della letteratura italiana_, i. p. 46 _sqq._\n\n[751] Compare _Purg._ xxvii. 34 _sqq._; xxx.; xxxi.; _Par._ xviii. 13\n_sqq._; xxiii.; xxx.; xxxi.; xxxii. 8.\n\n\n\n\nWORKS ON PHILOSOPHY\n\n\nTHE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAL IDEAS. By EDWARD WESTERMARCK,\nPh.D. Two vols. 8vo. 14s. net each.\n\nA SHORT HISTORY OF ETHICS. By REGINALD A. P. ROGERS, Fellow and Tutor of\nTrinity College, Dublin. Crown 8vo. [_Spring_, 1911.\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHY OF GASSENDI. By G. S. BRETT. 8vo. 10s. net.\n\nHISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. With Especial Reference to the Formation and\nDevelopment of its Problems and Conceptions. By Dr. W. WINDELBAND.\nTranslated by J. H. TUFTS. 8vo. 17s. net.\n\nHISTORY OF THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. By PAUL JANET and GABRIEL S\u00c9AILLES.\nTranslated by ADA MONAHAN, and Edited by HENRY JONES, LL.D. Two vols. 8vo.\n10s. net. each.\n\nIDOLA THEATRI: A Criticism of Oxford Thought and Thinkers from the\nStandpoint of Personal Idealism. By HENRY STURT. 8vo. 10s. net.\n\nPERSONAL IDEALISM. Philosophical Essays. Edited by HENRY STURT. 8vo. 10s.\nnet.\n\nHUMANISM. Philosophical Essays. By F. C. S. SCHILLER, M.A., D.Sc. 8vo. 8s.\n6d. net.\n\nSTUDIES IN HUMANISM. By F. C. S. SCHILLER, M.A., D.Sc. 8vo. 10s. net.\n\nPHILOSOPHICAL REMAINS OF R. L. NETTLESHIP. Edited, with Biographical\nSketch, by Prof. A. C. BRADLEY. Second Edition. Extra Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.\nnet.\n\nLECTURES ON THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO. By R. L. NETTLESHIP. Edited by G. R.\nBENSON. Extra Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.\n\nA HANDBOOK OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY. By Rev. HENRY CALDERWOOD, LL.D. Third\nEdition. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\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 2 of 2): A History of the Development of Thought and Emotion in the Middle Ages","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":228077}