Chapter XXXII: I (2)

It has been said, to be sure, that the heresy of one generation becomes the orthodoxy of another; but this is true only of tendencies like those of Abaelard, which represent the gradual expansion and clearing up of scholastic processes. For the time they may be condemned, perhaps because of the vain and contentious character of the suspected thinker; but in the end they are recognized as admissible.

The Averroists constitute an apparent exception. Yet they were a philosophic and academic sect, whose heresy consisted in an implicit following of Aristotle as interpreted by Averroes. Moreover, they sought to save their orthodoxy by their doctrine of the two kinds of truth, philosophic and theological or dogmatic. It is not clear that much fruitful thought came from their school. The positions of Siger de Brabant, a prominent Averroist and contemporary of Aquinas, are referred to _post_, Chapter XXXVII. The best account of Averroism is Mandonnet’s _Siger de Brabant et l’averroisme latin au XIII{e} siècle_ (a second edition, Louvain, is in preparation). See also De Wulf, _Hist. of Medieval Philosophy_ (3rd. ed., Longmans, 1909) p. 379 _sqq._ with authorities cited.

[420] Called also his _Summa philosophica_, to distinguish it from his _Summa theologiae_.

[421] _Summa theologiae_, i. i., quaestio i. art. 1-8.

[422] _Post_, Chapter XXXVI., I.

[423] Even the Averroists were more mediaeval than Greek, inasmuch as they professed to follow Aristotle implicitly. Cf. _post_, Chapter XXXVII., at the end.

[424] A touch of “salvation,” or salvation’s need, is on Plato when his “philosophy” becomes a consideration of death (μελέτη θανάτου) and a process of growing as like to God (ὁμοίωσις θεῷ) as man can. _Phaedo_, 80 E, and _Theaetetus_, 176 A.

[425] _Historia calamitatum_, cap. 9 and 10. Cf. _post_, p. 303.

[426] _Post_, Chapter XLI.

[427] _Ante_, p. 298. I cannot avoid referring to Abaelard several times before considering the man and his work more specifically, and in the proper place; _post_, Chapter XXXVI. I.

[428] _Introductio ad theologiam_, lib. ii. (Migne 178, col. 1039).

[429] See Denifle, “Die Sentenzen Abaelard’s und die Bearbeitungen seiner Theologia,” _Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte_, i. p. 402 _sqq._ and p. 584 _sqq._ Also Picavet, “Abélard et Alexander de Hales, créateurs de la méthode scholastique,” _Bib. de l’école des hautes études, sciences religieuses_, t. vii. p. 221 _sqq._

[430] Two extracts, one from the _Sentences_ and one from the _Summa_, touching the same matter, will illustrate the stage in the scholastic process reached by Peter Lombard, about the year 1150, and that attained by Thomas Aquinas a hundred years later.

The Lombard’s _Four Books of Sentences_ are divided into _Distinctiones_, with sub-titles to the latter. Distinctio xlvi. of the first Book bears the general title: “The opinion (_sententia_) declaring that the will of God which is himself, cannot be frustrated, seems to be opposed by some opinions.” The first subdivision of the text begins: “Here the question rises. For it is said by the authorities above adduced [the preceding Distinctio had discussed “The will of God which is His essence, one and eternal”] that the will of God, which is himself, and is called His good pleasure (_beneplacitum_) cannot be frustrated, because by that will _fecit quaecumque voluit in caelo et in terra_, which--witness the Apostle--_nihil resistit_. [I leave the Scriptural quotations in Latin, so as to mark them.] It is queried, therefore, how one should understand what the Apostle says concerning the Lord, 1 Tim. 2: _Qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri_. For since all are not saved, but many are damned, that which God wills to take place, seems not to take place (become, _fieri_), the human will obstructing the will of God. The Lord also in the Gospel reproaching the wicked city, Matt, xxiii., says: _Quoties volui congregare filios tuos, sicut gallina congregat pullos suos sub alis, et noluisti_. Thus it might seem from these, that the will of God may be overcome by the will of men, and, resisted by the unwillingness of the weakest, the Most Strong may prove unable to do what He willed. Where then is that omnipotence by which in _coelo et terra_, according to the Prophet, _omnia quaecumque voluit fecit_? And how does nothing withstand His will, if He wished to gather the children of Jerusalem, and did not? For these sayings seem indeed to oppose what has been stated.”

The second paragraph proceeds: “But let us see the solution, and first hear how what the Lord said should be understood. For it was not intended to mean (as Augustine says, _Enchiridion_, c. 97, solving this question) that the Lord wished to gather the children of Jerusalem, and did not do what He willed because she would not; but rather she did not wish her children to be gathered by Him, yet in spite of her unwillingness (_qua tamen nolente_) He gathered all He willed of her children.... And the sense is: As many as I have gathered by my will, always effective, I have gathered, thou being unwilling. Hence it is evident that these words of the Lord are not opposed to the authorities referred to.”

(Paragraph 3) “Now it remains to see how the aforesaid words do not contradict what the Apostle said of the Lord: _Vult omnes homines salvos fieri_. Because of these words many have wandered from the truth, saying that God willed many things which did not come to pass. But the saying is not thus to be understood, as if God willed any to be saved, and they were not. For who can be so impiously foolish as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men to good when and where He will? Surely what is said in Psalm 113, _Quaecumque voluit fecit_, is not true, if He willed anything and did not accomplish it. Or,--(and this is still more shameful) for that reason He did not do it, because what the Omnipotent willed to come to pass, the will of man obstructed. Hence when we read in Holy Scripture _velit omnes homines salvos fieri_, we should not detract from the will of omnipotent God, but understand the text to mean that no man is saved except whom He wills to be saved: not that there is no man whom He does not will to be saved, but that no man may be saved except whom He wills should be saved.... Thus also is to be understood the text from John i.: _Illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum_; not as if there is no man who is not lighted, but that none is lighted save from Him....”

The next and fourth paragraph takes up the problem whether evil, that is sin, takes place by the will of God, or He unwilling (_eo nolente_). “As to this, divers men thinking diversely have been found in contradiction. For some say that God wills evils to be or become (_esse vel fieri_) yet does not will evils. But others say that He neither wills evils to be nor to become. Yet these and those agree in declaring that God does not will evils. Yet each with arguments as well as authorities strives to make good his assertion.” We will not follow the Lombard through this thorny problem. He cuts his way with passages from his chief patristic authority, Augustine, and in the end concludes: “Leaving this and other like foolish opinions, and favouring the sounder view, which is more fully sanctioned by the testimonies of the Saints, we may say that God neither wills evils to become, nor wills that they should not become, nor yet is He unwilling (_nolle_) that they should become. All that He wills to become, becomes, and all that He wills not to become does not become. Yet many things become which He does not will to become, as every evil.”

Thus the Lombard. Now let us see how Thomas, in his _Summa theologiae_, Pars Prima, Quaestio xix. Articulus ix. expounds the point: _utrum voluntas Dei sit malorum_.

“As to the ninth articulus thus one proceeds. (1) It seems [_Videtur_, formula for stating the initial argument which will not be approved] that the will of God is [the cause] of evils. For God wills every good that becomes (_i.e._ comes into existence). But it is good that evils should come; for Augustine says in the _Enchiridion_: ‘Although those things which are evils, in so far as they are evils, are not goods; yet it is good (_bonum_) that there should be not only goods (_bona_) but evils.’ Therefore God wills evils.”

“(2) Moreover [_Praeterea_, Thomas’s regular formula for introducing the succeeding arguments, which he will not approve] Dionysius says, iv. cap. _de divinis nominibus_: ‘There will be evil making for the perfection of the whole.’ And Augustine says in the _Enchiridion_: ‘Out of all (things) the admirable beauty of the universe arises; wherein even that which is called evil, well ordered and set in its place, commends the good more highly; since the good pleases more, and is the more praiseworthy, when compared with evil.’ But God wills everything that pertains to the perfection and grace of the universe; since this is what God chiefly wills in His creation. Therefore God wills evils.”

“(3) Moreover, the occurrence and non-occurrence of evils (_mala fieri, et non fieri_) are contradictory opposites. But God does not will evils not to occur; because since some evils do occur, the will of God would not be fulfilled. Therefore God wills evils to occur.”

“_Sed contra est_ [Thomas’s formula for stating the opinion which he will approve] what Augustine says in his book of Eighty-three Questions: ‘No wise man is the author of man’s deterioration; yet God is more excellent than any wise man; much less then, is God the author of any one’s deterioration. But He is said to be the author when He is spoken of as willing anything. Therefore man becomes worse, God not willing it. But with every evil, something becomes worse. Therefore God does not will evils.’”

“_Respondeo dicendum quod_ [Thomas’s formula for commencing his elucidation] since the reason (or ground or cause, _ratio_) of the good is likewise the reason of the desirable (as discussed previously), evil is opposed to good: it is impossible that any evil, as evil, should be desired, either by the natural appetite or the animal, or the intellectual, which is will. But some evil may be desired _per accidens_, in so far as it conduces to some good. And this is apparent in any appetite. For the natural impulse (_agens naturale_) does not aim at privation or destruction (_corruptio_); but at form, to which the privation of another form may be joined (_i.e._ needed, _conjungitur_); and at the generation of one, which is the destruction of another. Thus a lion, killing a stag, aims at food, to which is joined the killing of an animal. Likewise the fornicator aims at enjoyment, to which is joined the deformity of guilt.

“Thus evil which is joined to some good, is privation of another good. Never, therefore, is evil desired, not even _per accidens_, unless the good to which the evil is joined appears greater than the good which is annulled through the evil. But God wills no good more than His goodness; yet He wills some one good more than some other good. Hence the evil of guilt, which destroys relationship to divine good (_quod privat ordinem ad bonum divinum_), God in no way wills. But the evil of natural defect, or the evil of penalty, He wills in willing some good to which such evil is joined; as, in willing righteousness He wills penalty; and in willing that the order of nature be preserved, He wills certain natural corruptions.

“_Ad primum ergo dicendum_ [Thomas’s formula for commencing his reply to the first false argument] that certain ones have said that although God does not will evils, He wills evils to be or become: because, although evils are not goods, yet it is good that evils should be or become. They said this for the reason that those things which are evil in themselves, are ordained for some good; and they deemed this ordainment involved in saying _mala esse vel fieri_. But that is not said rightly. Because evil is not ordained for good _per se_ but _per accidens_. For it is beyond the sinner’s intent, that good should come of it; just as it was beyond the intent of the tyrants that from their persecutions the patience of the martyrs should shine forth. And therefore it cannot be said that such ordainment for good is involved in saying that it is good for evil to be or become: because nothing is adjudged according to what pertains to it _per accidens_ but according to what pertains to it _per se_.”

“_Ad secundum dicendum_ that evil is not wrought for the perfection or beauty of the whole except _per accidens_, as has been shown. Hence this which Dionysius says that evil makes for the perfection of the whole may lead to an illogical conclusion.”

“_Ad tertium dicendum_ that although the occurrence and non-occurrence of evils are opposed as contradictories; yet to will the occurrence and to will the non-occurrence of evils, are not opposed as contradictories, since both one and the other may be affirmative. God therefore neither wills the occurrence nor the non-occurrence of evils; but wills to permit their occurrence. And this is good.”

[431] _Ante_, Chapter XII.

[432] _Ante_, pp. 289 _sqq._

[433] The _Speculum majus_ of Vincent of Beauvais will afford the principal example of the resulting hybrid arrangement.

[434] Ludwig Baur, _Dominicus Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae_ (Baeumker’s _Beiträge_, Münster, 1903), p. 193 _sqq._, to which I am indebted for what I have to say in the next few pages.

[435] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 64, col. 10 _sqq._

[436] These works were written near the middle of the twelfth century. Gundissalinus was Archdeacon of Segovia and drew upon Arab writings.

[437] See L. Baur, _Gundissalinus, etc._, p. 376 _sqq._

[438] The treatise is not printed. Its captions are given by L. Baur in his _Gundissalinus_, pp. 368-375, from which I have borrowed what I give of them.

[439] _Liber de praedicabilibus_ (tome 1 of Albertus’s works), which in scholastic logic means the five “universals,” genus, species, difference, property, accident, (also called the _quinque voces_) discussed in Porphyry’s Introduction to the _Categories_. The _Categories_ themselves are called _praedicamenta_.

[440] The above gives the arguments of chapters i. and ii. of the work. One notices that Albertus in this exposition of the subject of Porphyry’s treatise, is using the _method_ which Thomas brings to syllogistic perfection in his _Summa_.

[441] It was printed, more than once, in the late fifteenth century; the most readable edition is that printed at Douai in 1624, in four huge folios.

[442] Boundless as the work appears, neither in mental powers, nor learning, nor in massiveness of achievement, is its author to be compared with Albertus Magnus. The _De universo_ of Rabanus Maurus, Migne 111, col. 9-612, is in its arrangement and method a forerunner of Vincent’s _Speculum_. Later predecessors were the English Franciscan Bartolomaeus, whose encyclopaedic _De proprietatibus rerum_ was written a little before the middle of the twelfth century (see Felder, _Studien in Franciscanerorder, etc._, pp. 251-253); and Lambertus Audomarensis (St. Omer) with his _Liber floridus_, a general digest of knowledge, historical, ecclesiastical, and natural, taken from many writers, an account of which is given in Migne 163, col. 1004 _sqq._

[443] Here, of course, we have the hands of Esau, but the voice of Augustine and Orosius!

[444] The above is from cap. 9 of liber i. of the _Speculum doctrinale_.

[445] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 34, col. 246-485.

[446] _Ante_, p. 290.

[447] The three theological virtues are _fides_, _spes_, and _caritas_. They are called thus because _Deum habent pro objecto_; and because they are poured (_infunduntur_) into us by God alone. They are distinguished from the moral and intellectual virtues because their object surpasses our reason, while the object of the moral and intellectual virtues can be comprehended by human reason (_Summa_, _Pars prima secundae_, Quaestio lxii., Art. 1-4).

[448] ἕξις μετὰ λόγου ἀληθοῦς ποιητική, Arist. _Nich. Ethics_, vi. 4.

[449] One notes that these two, like many other of the vices enumerated, are vices in that they are extremes, in the Aristotelian sense.

[450] We are at Quaestio clxxi. of _Secunda secundae_.

[451] The order which Thomas would have followed in the unfinished conclusion of his _Summa theologiae_, may be inferred from the order of the last half of Book IV. of his _Contra Gentiles_, or indeed from the last part of the fourth Book of the Lombard’s _Sentences_.

[452] _Ante_, Chapter XII.

[453] There were, of course, attempts at translation, notably those of Notker the German (see _ante_, Vol. I., p. 308) and Alfred’s translation of Boëthius’s _De consolatione_. But such were made only of the popular parts of Scripture (_e.g._ the Psalms) or of very elementary profane treatises. To what extent Notker’s translations were used, is hard to say. But at all events any one really seeking learning, studied and worked and thought in the medium of Latin; for the bulk of the patristic writings never were translated; and when the works of Aristotle had at last reached the Middle Ages in the Latin tongue, they were studied in that tongue. Because of the crudeness of the vernacular tongues, the Latin classics were even more untranslatable in the tenth or eleventh century than now.

One may add, that it was fortunate for the progress of mediaeval learning that Latin was the _one_ language used by all scholars in all countries. This facilitated the diffusion of knowledge. How slow and painful would have been that diffusion if the different vernacular tongues had been used in their respective countries, for serious writing.

[454] _Ante_, Chapter XII., I.

[455] _Eruditio didascalica_, i. cap. 12 (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 176, col. 750).

[456] Cf. Abelson, _The Seven Liberal Arts_ (New York, 1906).

[457] I am speaking generally, that is to say, omitting for the present the aberrant or special or intrusive tendencies found in a man like Roger Bacon, for example. They were of importance for what was to come thereafter; but are not broadly representative of the Middle Ages.

[458] St. Anselm, _Epist._ lib. iii. 41, _ad Fulconem_ (Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 158, col. 1192). So Roscellin showed in his own case how problems primarily logical could pass over to metaphysics or theology. Likewise, although on the other side of the controversy, one, Odo of Tournai, a good contemporary realist, found realism an efficient aid in explaining the transmission of original sin; since for him all men formed but one substance, which was infected once for all by the sin of the first parents. Cf. Hauréau, _Hist. de la philosophie scholastique_, i. pp. 297-308; De Wulf, _Hist. of Medieval Philosophy_, p. 156, 3rd ed.

[459] Abaelard, _Hist. calamitatum_, chap. 2.

[460] _Ante_, Chapter XXV.

[461] _Ante_, Chapter XII., I.

[462] Abaelard’s _Dialectica_ was published by Cousin, _Ouvrages inédits d’Abélard_ (Paris, 1836). For a thorough exposition of Abaelard’s logic see Prantl, _Ges. der Logik_, ii. p. 160 _sqq._

[463] _I.e._ as positive, comparative, and superlative.

[464] Cousin, _Ouvr. inédits_, p. 175. Cf. Aristotle’s _Categories_, ii. v. 20. The opening of _Pars tertia_ of Abaelard’s _Dialectica_ (in Cousin’s edition, p. 324 _sqq._) affords an interesting example of this logical analysis and reconstruction of statement, which seems to originate in sheer grammar, and then advance beyond it.

[465] Cousin, _o.c._ pp. 190, 192.

[466] Cousin, _o.c._ p. 331.

[467] Prantl’s _Geschichte der Logik_, vol. ii., contains an exhaustive discussion of the various phases of this controversy: its language is little less difficult than that of the twelfth-century word-twisters.

[468] Cousin, _o.c._ pp. 434, 435.

[469] _Theologia Christiana_, iv. (Migne 178, col. 1284).

[470] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 178, col. 1641.

[471] _Ante_, p. 292.

[472] _Scito te ipsum_, cap. 13 (Migne 178, col. 653).

[473] _Scito te ipsum_, cap. 19 (Migne 178, col. 664).

[474] Migne 178, col. 1615.

[475] _Ante_, pp. 304 _sqq._

[476] This has been published by Stölzle: _Abaelards 1121 zu Soissons verurteilter Tractatus de Unitate et Trinitate divina_ (1891).

[477] Migne 178, col. 1123-1330; Cousin and Jourdain, _P. Abaelardi opera_, ii. pp. 357-566 (1859).

[478] Migne 178, col. 979-1114; Cousin and Jourdain, _o.c._ pp. 1-149.

[479] _Ante_, Chapter XXXV., I.

[480] Bernard, _Ep._ 338 (Migne 182, col. 542).

[481] Whose sacramental theory of the Creation has already been given at length, _ante_, Chapter XXVIII. For the incidents of Hugo’s life see the same chapter. Bibliography, note to page 61. See also Ostler, “Die Psychologie des Hugo von St. Viktor” (Baeumker’s _Beiträge_, Münster, 1906).

[482] _De script._ cap. 2 (Migne 175, col. 11).

[483] _De script._ cap. 2 (Migne 175, col. 10).

[484] _Summa sententiarum_ (Migne 176, col. 42-174); also under title of _Tractatus theologicus_, wrongly ascribed to Hildebert of Lavardin, in Migne 171, col. 1067-1150.

[485] Migne 176, col. 740-838.

[486] I think of no previous work so closely resembling the _Erud. didas._ as the _Institutiones divinarum et saecularum lectionum_ of Cassiodorus.

[487] _Erud. did._ i. 2.

[488] Here one sees the source of much that we quoted from Vincent de Beauvais, _ante_, Chapter XXXV., 1.

[489] Lib. iii. cap. 13 _sqq._

[490] _Erud. did._ iii. cap. 20. Cf. _ante_, p. 63.

[491] _Ante_, Chapter XXVIII.

[492] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 175, col. 115 _sqq._

[493] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 175, col. 923 _sqq._

[494] The following consideration of the mysticism of Christian theologians is not intended to include other forms of “mysticism” (Pantheistic, poetical, pathological, neurotic, intellectual, and sensuous) within or without the Christian pale.

[495] _Ante_, p. 42 _sqq._

[496] _Ante_, Chapter XXVIII.

[497] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 176, col. 617-680.

[498] _De arca Noe morali_, i. cap. 2 (Migne 176, col. 621).

[499] Migne 176, col. 681-703. With Hugo’s pupil, Richard of St. Victor, this constant allegory, especially the constant allegorical use of Scripture names, becomes pedantic, _precieux_, impossible. See _e.g._ his _Benjamin major_ in Migne 196, col. 64-202.

[500] _De arrha animae_, Migne 176, col. 951-970.

[501] Migne 182, col. 727-808. A translation is announced by George Lewis in the Oxford Library of Translations.

[502] _De consid._ lib. ii. cap. 2.

[503] Migne 183, col. 789 _sqq._ Chapter XVII., _ante_, is devoted to Bernard, and his letters and sermons.

[504] Ed. by Willner (Baeumker’s _Beiträge_, Münster, 1903).

[505] See _ante_, Chapter XXX., 1.

[506] Bernardus Silvestris, _De mundi universitate_, i. 2 (ed. by Barach and Wrobel; Innsbrück, 1876). As to Bernard Silvestris, see Clerval, _Écoles de Chartres au moyen âge_, p. 259 _sqq._ and _passim_; also Hauréau (who confuses him with Bernard of Chartres), _Hist. de la phil. scholastique_, ii. 407 _sqq._

[507] See Hauréau, _Hist. etc._ ii. 447-472; R. L. Poole, _Illustrations of Mediaeval Thought_, chap. vi. His _Liber de sex principiis_ is printed in Migne 188, col. 1257-1270.

[508] Werner, “Die Kosmologie und Naturlehre des scholastischen Mittelalters, mit specialler Beziehung auf Wilhelm von Conches,” _Sitzungsb. K. Akad., philos. Klasse_, 1873, Bd. lxxv.; Hauréau, _Hist. etc._ i. 431-446; ibid. _Singularités littéraires, etc._

[509] _Ante_, Vol. I., p. 251.

[510] _Ante_, Chapter XXX., I.

[511] Under another title, _Moralis philosophia de honesto et utile_, it has been ascribed to Hildebert of Lavardin, Migne 171, col. 1007-1056.

[512] For examples of John’s Latin, see _ante_, p. 173.

[513] See _e.g._ his treatment of logic in Lib. III. and IV. of the _Metalogicus_ (Migne 199).

[514] _Polycraticus_, ii. 19-21 _sqq._ There is now a critical edition of this work by C. C. J. Webb (_Joannis Saresberiensis Policratici libri VIII._; Clarendon Press, 1910).

[515] _Polycraticus_, lib. vii., is devoted to a history of antique philosophy.

[516] _Polycraticus_, vii. cap. 10.

[517] _Polycrat._ vii. cap. 11.

[518] Migne 199, col. 955.

[519] _Ante_, Chapter XXIX., 11. and XXXII., 1.

[520] The works of Alanus are collected in Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 210. What follows in the text is much indebted to M. Baumgartner, “Die Philosophie des Alanus de Insulis” (Baeumker’s _Beiträge_, Münster, 1896).

[521] All this is thoroughly done by Baumgartner, _o.c._

[522] See Baumgartner, p. 76 _sqq._ and citations.

[523] What I have felt obliged to say upon the organization of mediaeval Universities, I have largely drawn from Rashdall’s _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_ (Oxford, 1895). The subject is too large and complex for independent investigation, except of the most lengthy and thorough character. Extracts from illustrative mediaeval documents, with considerable information touching mediaeval Universities, are brought together by Arthur O. Norton in his _Mediaeval Universities_ (Readings in the History of Education, Harvard University, 1909). For the Paris University, the most important source is the _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, ed. by Denifle and Chatelain (1889-1891). See also Ch. Thurot, _L’Organisation de l’enseignement dans l’Université de Paris_ (Paris, 1850), and Denifle, _Die Universitäten des Mittelalters_ (Berlin, 1885).

[524] What has been said applies to the Bologna Law University. That had been preceded by a school of Arts, and later there grew up a flourishing school of Medicine, where surgery was also taught. These schools became affiliated Universities, but never equalled the Law University in importance.

[525] The Masters who taught were called _Regentes_.

[526] Both civil and canon law were studied till 1219, when a Bull of Honorius III. forbade the study of the former at Paris.

[527] See _post_, p. 399.

[528] Mr. Rashdall’s.

[529] Rashdall, _o.c._ ii. p. 341.

[530] Oxford lay in the diocese of Lincoln.

[531] For the course of medicine and the list of books studied or lectured on, especially at Montpellier, from which we have the most complete list, see Rashdall, ii. p. 118 _sqq._ and _ibid._ p. 780. In _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_, vol. xx., 1909, C. H. Haskins publishes An unpublished List of Text-books, belonging to the close of the twelfth century, when classical studies had not as yet been overshadowed by Dialectic. See also, generally, Paetow, _The Arts Course at Medieval Universities_ (Univ. of Illinois, 1910).

[532] See generally, Carra de Vaux, _Avicenne_ (Paris, 1900); also _Gazali_, by the same author.

[533] Whoever will read the two monographs of the Baron Carra de Vaux, _Avicenne_ and _Gazali_, will be struck by the closely analogous courses of Moslem and Christian thought; each showing the parallel phases of scholastic rationalism (reliant upon reason and rational authority) and scholastic theological piety, or mysticism (reliant upon the authority of Revelation and sceptical as to the validity of human reason).

[534] See for this matter Mandonnet, O.P., _Aristote et la mouvement intellectuel du moyen âge_, contained in his _Siger de Brabant_, and printed separately; De Wulf, _History of Medieval Philosophy_, 3rd ed., pp. 243-253 and authorities; C. Marchesi, _L’ Etica Nicomachea nella tradizione medievale_ (Messina, 1904).

[535] _Ante_, Chapter V.

[536] _Constitutiones des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228_, Prologus; H. Denifle, _Archiv für Litt. und Kirchenges. des Mittelalters_, Bd i. (1885), p. 194.

[537] See Felder, _Wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franciskanerorden_, p. 24 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1904); a valuable work.

[538] See Felder, _o.c._ p. 29.

[539] _Constitutiones, etc._, cap. 28-31.

[540] Cf. Felder, _o.c._ p. 107 _sqq._

[541] Cf. Felder, _o.c._ p. 177 _sqq._

[542] From Denifle, _Universitäten des Mittelalters_, i. 99, note 192.

[543] See generally, Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’averroisme latin au moyen âge_ (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1899); Baeumker (_Beiträge_, 1898), _Die Impossibilia des Siger von Brabant_; De Wulf, _Hist. of Medieval Philosophy_, 3rd ed., p. 379 _sqq._ (Longmans, 1909).

[544] Albert was born probably in 1193, and died in 1280; Bacon was born some twenty years later, and died about 1292. Bonaventura was born in 1221, and Thomas in 1225 or 1227; they both died in 1274.

[545] So Raphael represents them in his “School of Athens.”

[546] Bonaventura, _Sermo IV._, Quaracchi edition, tome v. p. 572 (cited by De Wulf, _Hist. etc._ p. 304, note). With all their Augustinian-Platonism, the Franciscans made a good second to the Dominicans in the study of Aristotle, as is proved by the great number of commentaries upon his works by members of the former Order. See Felder, _o.c._ p. 479.

[547] _Epist. de tribus quaestionibus_, § 12.

[548] Tome v. (Quaracchi ed.) pp. 319-325.

[549] This is from § 26, the last in the work. Bonaventura has already said (§ 7): “Omnes istae cognitiones ad cognitionem Sacrae Scripturae ordinantur, in ea clauduntur et in illa perficiuntur, et mediante illa ad aeternam illuminationem ordinantur.” (“All kinds of knowledge are ordained for the knowledge of Holy Scripture, are in it enclosed and thereby are perfected; and through its mediation are ordered for eternal illumination.”)

[550] It is contained in tomes i.-iv. of the Quaracchi edition.

[551] T. v. pp. 201-291.

[552] _Breviloquium_, Prologus.

[553] One feels the reality of Bonaventura’s distinctions here between theology and philosophy. They are enunciations of his religious sense, and possess a stronger validity than any elaborate attempt to distinguish by argument between the two. Thomas distinguishes them with excellent reasoning. It lacks convincingness perhaps from the fact that Thomas’s theology is so largely philosophy, as Roger Bacon said.

[554] As this chapter opens a _pars_, it begins with a recapitulation of what has preceded and a summary of what is to come. The specific topic of the chapter commences here.

[555] _I.e._ the desiderative, rational, and irascible elements in man.

[556] Bonaventura closely follows Hugo of St. Victor’s _De sacramentis_, see _ante_, Chap. XXVIII., especially p. 72.

[557] _Opera_, t. v. pp. 295-313.

[558] _Vir desideriorum_, Dan. ix. 23 (Vulgate).

[559] The _Breviloquium_ and _Itinerarium_ are conveniently edited by Hefele in a little volume (Tübingen, 1861).

[560] Albertus, _Metaphysicorum libri XIII._, lib. i. tract. 1, cap. 4.

[561] _Physic._ lib. viii. tract. 1, cap. 14.

[562] _Poster. Analyt._ lib. i. tract. 1, cap. 1. This and the previous citation are from Mandonnet’s _Siger de Brabant_.

[563] _Ethic._ lib. vi. tract. 2, cap. 25.

[564] Carus, _Ges. der Zoologie_, p. 231.

[565] Ernst Meyer, _Ges. der Botanik_, Bd. iv. p. 77.

[566] The works of Albertus were edited by the Dominican Jammy in twenty-one volumes (Lyons, 1651); they are reprinted by Borgnet (Paris, 1890 _et seq._). My references to volumes follow Jammy’s edition.

[567] See _ante_, pp. 314 _sqq._

[568] Prantl, _Ges. der Logik_, iii. 89 _sqq._, calls him an “unklarer Kopf,” incapable of consistent thinking.

[569] This is the view of A. Schneider, _Die Psychologie Alberts des Grossen_ (Baeumker’s _Beiträge_, Münster, 1903). The author presents analytically the disparate elements--Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, and theological-Augustinian, which are found in Albert’s writings.

[570] See Endriss, _Albertus Magnus als Interpret der Aristotelischen Metaphysik_ (Munich, 1886).

[571] The above is mainly drawn from E. Meyer’s _Ges. der Botanik_, Bd. iv. pp. 38-78.

[572] _Ante_, Volume I. p. 76.

[573] See Carus, _Geschichte der Zoologie_, pp. 211-239.

[574] _Sum. theol. pars prima_, tract. I, quaest. ii.

[575] _Ante_, Chapter XXXV., I.

[576] Tome xx. p. 41_a_.

[577] The _Vita_ of Thomas by Guilielmus de Thoco, _Acta sanctorum_, Martius, tome i. folio 657 _sqq._ (March 7), is wretchedly confused.

[578] _Vita_, cap. iii. § 15.

[579] One may see the truth of this by comparing the treatment of a matter in Albert’s _Summa theologiae_ with the corresponding sections in Thomas. For example, compare Albert’s _Summa theol. prima_, Tract. vii. Quaest. xxx.-xxxiii., on _generatio_, _processio_, _missio_ of the divine persons, with Thomas, _Sum. theol. prima_, Quaest. xxvii. and xliii.

[580] John of Damascus, an important Greek theologian of the eighth century, often cited by Thomas.

[581] Quaestiones are the larger divisions of the argument.

[582] _Pars prima_, Qu. xvi. Art. 3.

[583] _Pars prima_, Qu. lxxxii. Art. 3.

[584] _Prima sec._ Qu. iv. Art. 2.

[585] _Prima sec._ Qu. iv. Art. 3.

[586] _Sum. Phil. contra Gentiles_, iii. 37.

[587] One cannot avoid applying the masculine pronouns to God, and to the angels also. But, of course, this is a mere convenience of speech. Thomas ascribes no sex either to God or the angels.

[588] It will, of course, be borne in mind, that Thomas’s use of _videre_ and _visio_ to express man’s perception of God’s essential nature, does not mean a physical but an intellectual seeing.

[589] Given _ante_, pp. 290 _sqq._

[590] _Secundum quod est in actu_, _i.e._ in realized actuality as distinguished from potentiality (Aristotelian conceptions).

[591] The foregoing is taken from the thirteen _articuli_ into which Quaestio xii. is divided.

[592] _Pars prima_, Quaestio xxxii. Art. 1.

[593] _Quaestiones disputatae: De Veritate_, x. 6. Citing Rom. i. 20.

[594] Prooemium to Qu. xiv. _Pars prima_.

[595] Qu. xiv. Art. 2--a point which Thomas reasons out in interesting scholastic Aristotelian fashion, but in language too technical to translate.

[596] _Pars prima_, Qu. xiv. Art. 11.

[597] _Pars prima_, Qu. xv. Art. 1-3.

[598] _Pars prima_, Qu. xxvi. Art. 2.

[599] _Pars prima_, Qu. xliv. Art. 3.

[600] _Pars prima_, Qu. xlv. Art. 1.

[601] _Summa theol. pars prima_, Qu. l. As heretofore, I follow the exposition of the _Summa theologiae_. But Thomas began a large and almost historical treatment of angels in his unfinished _Tract. de substantiis separatis, seu de Angelorum natura_ (unfinished, in _Opuscula theol._). He has another and important tractatus, _De cognitione Angelorum, Quaestiones disput. de veritate_, viii.

[602] _Pars prima_, Qu. l. Art. 1. Thomas goes on to contradict Aristotle, in holding _quod nullum ens esset nisi corpus_.

[603] All that has been given concerning the knowledge of angels relates to what they know through their own natures as created. Further enlightenment (as with men) comes through grace as soon as they become _beati_ through turning to good. _Pars prima_, Qu. lxii. Art. 1 _sqq._

[604] _Ante_, Chapter XXXV., 1.

[605] A burning controversy between the Averroists and the orthodox schoolmen.

[606] This is the substance of Qu. lxxxix. Art. 1.

[607] _Pars prima_, Qu. xix. Art. 1.

[608] _Pars prima_, Qu. lxxxii. and lxxxiii.

[609] _Pars prima_, Qu. xx. 1.

[610] _Summa theol._, _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xvii. Art 8.

[611] _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xxiv. Art. 8.

[612] _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xxvi. Art. 4 and 5.

[613] _Pars prima secundae_, Qu. cix. _sqq._

[614] Another reading is _delectatio_, _i.e._ enjoyment.

[615] Bacon’s _Opus majus_ was edited in incomplete form by Jebb in 1733, and reprinted in 1750 at Venice. This edition is superseded by that of Bridges, in two volumes, published with the _Moralis philosophia_ and _Multiplicatio specierum_ by the Clarendon Press in 1897. The text of this edition had many errors, which have been corrected by a third volume published in 1900 by Williams and Norgate, who are now the publishers of the three volumes. In 1859 Brewer edited the _Opus tertium_, the _Opus minus_, and _Compendium philosophiae_ for the Master of the Rolls Series.

“An unpublished Fragment of a work by Roger Bacon” was discovered by F. A. Gasquet in the Vatican Library, and published in the _English Historical Review_ for July 1897. It appears to be a letter to Clement IV., written in 1267.

In 1861 appeared the excellent monograph by Émile Charles, entitled _Roger Bacon, sa vie, ses ouvrages, ses doctrines_. To this one still must turn for extracts from the _Compendium theologiae_, and the _Communia naturalium_. The last-named work, with the _Compendium philosophiae_ and the _Multiplicatio specierum_ (which appears not to be an intrinsic part of the _Opus majus_), may have been composed as parts of what was to be the writer’s _Opus principale_. Bacon’s _Greek Grammar_ has been edited by Nolan and Hirsch (Cambridge, 1902).

[616] _Opus tertium_, chap. xxv. p. 91 (Brewer’s text).

[617] _Opus tertium_, chap. xvii. (pp. 58-59, Brewer’s ed.).

[618] Brewer, _R. Bacon, Opera inedita_, p. 1.

[619] _Opus tertium_, pp. 7 and 8.

[620] In _Opus tertium_, chap. iii. (Brewer, p. 15), Bacon plainly tells the pope the difficulties in which he had been placed by this injunction of secrecy: “The first cause of delay came through those who are over me. Since you have written nothing to them in my excuse, and I could not reveal to them your secret, they insisted with unspeakable violence that I should obey their will; but I refused, because of the bond of your mandate, which bound me to your work, notwithstanding any order from my prelates. And, of a surety, as I was not excused by you, I met with obstacles too great and many to enumerate.... And another obstacle, enough to defeat the whole business, was the lack of funds.”

[621] These are, of course, the _Opus majus_, the _Opus minus_, and the _Opus tertium_; also the _Vatican Fragment_, the position of which is not quite clear; but it is part of the writings of this year, and constitutes apparently the introductory letter to Clement.

[622] The authority for this is the _Chronica XXIV., Generalium Ordinis Minorum_; see Bridges, vol. iii. p. 158.

[623] See _Op. tertium_, p. 26 _sqq._ (Brewer).

[624] _Opus majus_, pars ii. end of chap. v. and beginning of chap. vi. (Bridges, iii. p. 49); see _Op. tertium_ (Brewer), p. 81.

[625] _Op. maj._ pars ii. chap. xv. (Bridges, iii. p. 71).

[626] _Op. tertium_, p. 39.

[627] _Op. maj._ pars ii. (Bridges, iii. pp. 69-70). Cf. _ante_, p. 180.

[628] The reference seems to be to the _Ethics_ and _Politics_.

[629] _Compendium studii_, p. 424 (Brewer).

[630] _Op. tertium_, p. 14.

[631] _Op. tertium_, p. 30.

[632] _Compendium studii phil._, p. 429 (Brewer).

[633] _Ibid._ p. 398--written in 1271.

[634] I follow the paging of Bridges, vol. iii. These four causes of error are also given in _Opus tertium_, p. 69, _Compendium studii_, p. 414 (Brewer), and the Gasquet _Fragment_, p. 504.

[635] _Op. maj._ pp. 2 and 3.

[636] P. 322 _sqq._ (Brewer).

[637] _Opus tertium_, p. 102.

[638] _Ante_, p. 128.

[639] As, _e.g._ where he says that it would have been better for the Latins “that the wisdom of Aristotle should not have been translated, than to have been translated with such perverseness and obscurity.” _Compend. studii_, p. 469, (Brewer).

[640] See _Opus majus_, pars iii.

[641] _Opus majus_, Bridges, vol. i. p. 106.

[642] Commonly called “mathematica.”

[643] _Opus majus_ (Bridges, i. p. 253). Bacon goes into this matter elaborately.

[644] Cf. S. Vogl, _Die Physik Roger Bacos_ (Erlangen, 1906). Gives Bacon’s sources.

[645] _Opus minus_, pp. 367-371.

[646] _Opus majus_, pars v. dist. iii. (Bridges, ii. p. 159 _sqq._).

[647] A contemporary of Bacon named Witelo composed a _Perspectiva_ about 1270, following an Arab source; and a few years later a Dominican, Theodoric of Freiburg, was devoted to optics, and wrote on light, colour, and the rainbow. Baeumker, “Witelo, ein Philosoph und Naturforscher des XIII. Jahrh.” (_Beiträge, etc._, Münster, 1908); Krebs, “Meister Dietrich, sein Leben, etc.” (Baeumker’s _Beiträge_, 1906).

[648] With Bacon, _experientia_ does not always mean observation; and may mean either experience or experiment.

[649] See Charles, _Roger Bacon_, pp. 17-18.

[650] _Ante_, pp. 313-315. Duns Scotus puts clearly the double aspect of logic, which Albertus Magnus approached: “It should be understood that logic is to be considered in two ways. First, in so far as it is _docens_ (instructs, holds its own school): and from its own necessary and proper principles proceeds to necessary conclusions, and is therefore a science. Secondly, in so far as we use it, by applying it to those matters in which it is used: and then it is not a science” (_Super universalia Porphyrii_, Quaestrio i., Duns Scotus, _Opera_, t. i. p. 51).

[651] The two aspects of the experimental science appear in the following statement from the Gasquet _Fragment_: “The _antepenultima_ science is called experimental; and is the mistress of those which precede it; for it excels the others in three chief prerogatives. One is that all the sciences except this either use arguments alone to prove their conclusions, like the purely speculative sciences, or possess general and imperfect experiences. But only the perfect experience (_experientia perfecta_, _i.e._ the scientific experiment or observation), sets the mind at rest in the light of truth; which is certain and is proved in that part [of my work]. Wherefore it was necessary that there should be one science which should certify for us, all the magnificent truths of the other sciences, through the truth of experience, and this is that whereof I say that it is called _scientia experimentalis_ of its own right from the truth of experience (_per autonomasiam ab experienciae veritate_); and I show by the illustration of the rainbow and other things, how this prerogative is reserved to that science.

“The second prerogative is the dignity which relates to those chief truths which, although they are to be formulated (_nominandae_) in the terms (_vocabulis_) of the other sciences, yet the other sciences cannot furnish (_procurare_) them; and of this character are the prolongation of life through remedies to counteract the lack of a hygienic regimen from infancy, or constitutional debility inherited from parents who have not followed such a regimen. I shall show how it is possible thus to prolong life to the term set by God. But men, through neglecting the rules of health, pass quickly to old age, and die before reaching that term. The art of medicine is not able to furnish (_dare_) these remedies, nor does it; but it says they are possible (_sed fatetur ea possibilia_), and so experimental science has devised remedies known to the wisest men alone, by which the ills of old age are delayed, or are mitigated when they arrive.

“The third prerogative of this science belongs to it _secundum se et absolute_; for here it leaves the two ways already touched on, and addresses itself to all things which do not concern the other sciences, save that often it requires the service of the others. As a mistress it commands the others as servants ... and orders them to do its work, and furnish the wise instruments which it uses; as navigation directs the art of carpentry, to make a ship for it; and the military art directs the forger’s art to make it a breastplate and other arms. In like manner, this science [the experimental], as a mistress, directs geometry to make it a burning-glass, which shall set on fire things near or far, one of the most sublime wonders that can come to pass through geometry. So it commands the other sciences in all the wonderful and hidden things of nature and art” (pp. 510-511).

[652] _Opus tertium_, chap. xxviii.

[653] _Opus majus_, pars vi. 1 (Bridges, ii. p. 169).

[654] _Ibid._ p. 171. Doubtless the meaning of the above is connected with Bacon’s view of the Aristotelian _intellectus agens_, which he takes to signify the direct illumination of the mind of man by God. “All the wisdom of philosophy is revealed by God and given to the philosophers, and it is Himself that illuminates the minds of men in all wisdom. That which illuminates our minds is now called by the theologians _intellectus agens_. But my position is that this _intellectus agens_ is God _principaliter_, and secondarily, the angels, who illuminate us” (_Opus tertium_, p. 74; cf. _Op. majus_, pars i. chap. v.).

[655] _Compendium studii_ (Brewer), p. 397.

[656] _De secretis operibus artis et naturae, et de nullitate magiae_, p. 533 (Brewer). Cf. Charles, _Roger Bacon_, p. 296 _sqq._

[657] The most convenient edition of the works of Joannes Duns Scotus is that published by Vives, at Paris (1891 _sqq._) in twenty-six volumes. It is little more than a reprint of Wadding’s Edition.

[658] See Seeberg, _Die Theologie des Johannes Duns Scotus_ (Leipzig, 1900), p. 8 _sqq._, a work to which the following pages owe much.

[659] Grosseteste’s philosophical or theological works are still unpublished or very difficult of access; and there is no sufficient exposition of his doctrines.

[660] Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 16 _sqq._

[661] See De Wulf, _History of Medieval Philosophy_, p. 363 _sqq._

[662] See Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 34 _sqq._

[663] The kernel of Duns’s proof is contained in the following passage, which is rather simple in its Scotian Latin: “Dicendum, quod Universale est ens, quia sub ratione non entis, nihil intelligitur: quia intelligibile movet intellectum. Cum enim intellectus sit virtus passiva (per Aristotelem 3, de Anima, cont. 5 et inde saepe), non operatur, nisi moveatur ab objecto; non ens non potest movere aliquid ut objectum; quia movere est entis in actu; ergo nihil intelligitur sub ratione non entis. Quidquid autem intelligitur, intelligitur sub ratione Universalis: ergo illa ratio non est omnino non ens” (_Super universalia Porphyrii_, Quaestio iv.).

[664] Cf. the far from clear exposition in Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 86 _sqq._ and 660 _sqq._

[665] _Miscell. quaest._ 6, 18, cited by Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 114.

[666] The last two or three pages have been drawn mainly from Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 113 _sqq._ In discussing Duns Scotus, I have given less from his writings than has been my wont with other philosophers. And for two reasons. The first, as I frankly avow, is that I have read less of him than I have of his predecessors. With the exception of such a curious treatise as the (doubtful) Grammatica _speculativa_ (tome i. of the Paris edition); and the elementary, and comparatively lucid, _De rerum principio_ (tome iv. of the Paris edition)--with these exceptions Duns is to me unreadable. My second reason for omitting excerpts from his writings, is that I wished neither to misrepresent their quality, nor to cause my reader to lay down my book, which is heavy enough anyhow! If I selected lucid and simple extracts, they would give no idea of the intricacy and prolixity of Duns. His commentary on the _Sentences_ fills thirteen tomes of the Paris edition! No short and simple extract will illustrate _that_! On the other hand, I could not bring myself by lengthy or impossible quotations to vilify Duns. It is unjust to expose a man’s worst features, nakedly and alone, to those who do not know his better side and the conditions which partly explain the rest of him.

[667] _Quodlibetalia_, i. Qu. 14, cited by De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 422.

[668] _Expos. aurea_, cited by De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 423, whose exposition of Occam’s theory I have followed here.

[669] On Occam, see Seeberg’s article in Hauck’s _Encyclopaedia_; Siebeck, “Occams Erkenntnislehre, etc.,” in _Archiv für Ges. der Philosophie_, Bd. x., Neue Folge (1897).

[670] Quoted by Seeberg.

[671] De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 425.

[672] In view of the enormous literature upon Dante, popular as well as learned, it would be absurd to give any bibliographical, biographical or historical information as to his works, himself, or his Italian circumstances.

[673] _De mon._ ii. 3.

[674] _De mon._ ii. chaps. 4, 10, 12.

[675] _De mon._ iii. 4 _sqq._

[676] All this seems supported by _Conv._ i. 1, and ii. 13, the main explanatory chapters of the work.

[677] _Conv._ iii. 12.

[678] e.g. “_benigna volontade_,” _Par._ xv. 1.

[679] Cf. A. d’Ancona, _I Precursori di Dante_ (Florence, 1874); M. Dods, _Forerunners of Dante_ (Edinburgh, 1903); A. J. Butler, _Forerunners of Dante_ (Oxford, 1910); Hettinger, _Göttliche Komödie_, p. 79 (2nd ed., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1889). Mussafia, “Monumenti antichi di dialetti italiani,” _Sitzungsber. philos. hist. Classe_ (Vienna Academy), vol. 45, 1864, p. 136 _sqq._, gives two old Italian _descriptions_, one of the heavenly Jerusalem, the other of the infernal Babylon.

[680] 2 Cor. xii. 2; _Paradiso_, i. 73-75.

[681] _Ante_, Chapter XIX.

[682] _Ante_, pp. 98-100.

[683] The coarseness of _Inf._ xxi. 137-139 is of a piece with the way of mediaeval art in making demons horrible through a grotesquely indecent rendering of their persons.

[684] e.g. _Inf._ xviii. 100 _sqq._; and _Inf._ xxviii. and xxix.

[685] _Inf._ viii. 37 _sqq._; xxxii. 97 _sqq._; xxxiii. 116 and 149.

[686] Cf. Moore, _Dante Studies_, vol. ii. pp. 266-267.

[687] Any one who looks through the first volume of Tiraboschi’s great _Storia della letteratura italiana_, written in the early part of the nineteenth century, will find a generous acceptance of myth as fact; just as he would find the same in the _Histoire ancienne_ of the good Rollin, written a century or more before.

[688] Dante has frequently been spoken of as the “first scholar” of his time. I do not myself know enough regarding the scholarship of every scholar in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to confirm or deny this. Personally, I do not regard him as a Titanic scholar, like Albertus Magnus for example. He studied all the classic Latin authors available. Doubtless he had a memory corresponding to his other extraordinary powers. His also was the intellectual point of view, and the intellectual interest in knowledge and its deductions. His view of life was as intellectual as that of Aquinas. But as Dante’s powers of plastic visualization were unequalled, so also, it seems to me, were his faculties of using as a poet what he had acquired as a scholar. Regarding the extent of Dante’s use and reading of the Classics, nothing could be added to Dr. Moore’s _Studies in Dante_, First Series; though I think what Dr. Moore has to say of “Dante and Aristotle” would have cast a more direct light upon the matter, had he cited as far as possible from the Latin translation probably used by Dante, instead of from the original Greek.

[689] _Inf._ iv. 88. Cf. Moore, _Studies in Dante_, i. p. 6. The application of the term _satirist_ to Horace is peculiarly mediaeval.

[690] _Inf._ iv. 131.

[691] _Inf._ ii. 20.

[692] _Par._ xx. 68.

[693] _Purg._ xxv. 22.

[694] _Inf._ xviii. 83 _sqq._

[695] _Inf._ xxvi. 88 _sqq._

[696] _Purg._ xii.

[697] _Purg._ xv.

[698] According to Dr. Moore, Dante quotes or refers to the “Vulgate more than 500 times, to Aristotle more than 300, Virgil about 200, Ovid about 100, Cicero and Lucan about 50 each, Statius and Boëthius between 30 and 40 each, Horace, Livy, and Orosius between 10 and 20 each,”--and other scattering references.

[699] _Inf._ xxxiii. 4; _Aen._ ii. 3.

[700] _Par._ ii. 16.

[701] _Aen._ vi. 309; _Inf._ iii. 112.

[702] _Aen._ vi. 700; _Purg._ ii. 80.

[703] _Purg._ i. 135; cf. _Aen._ vi. 143 “Primo avulso non deficit alter, etc.”

[704] See _Inf._ xxxi.; _Purg._ xii. 25 _sqq._

[705] _Purg._ vi. 118: “O highest Jove that wast on earth crucified for us.”

[706] _Par._ i. 13 _sqq._; _Par._ ii. 8.

[707] The _provenance_, etc., of Dante’s classification of sins in the _Inferno_, like everything else in Dante, has been interminably discussed. The reference to the _De officiis_ of Cicero is due to Dr. Moore. See “Classification of Sins in the _Inferno_ and _Purgatorio_,” _Studies in Dante_, 2nd Series. Also cf. Hettinger, _Die göttliche Kömödie_, pp. 159-162, and notes 6 and 23 on p. 204 and 207 (2nd ed., Freiburg in Breisgau, 1889). Dante’s main statement is in _Inf._ xi.

[708] In whom does not the awful anguish of the suicides (_Inf._ xiii.) arouse grief and horror?

[709] _Inf._ xvi. 59. They are more respectable than the blessed denizens of the Heaven of Venus, _Par._ ix.

[710] _Inf._ xix.

[711] _Inf._ vi. 103 _sqq._

[712] The intellectual temperament finds voice in many great expressions, which are very Dante and also very Thomas, as _Par._ xxviii. 106-114; xxix. 17; xxx. 40-42.

[713] _Inf._ iii. 18.

[714] Hettinger, _o.c._ p. 254.

[715] _Aeneid_ vi. 327 _sqq._; Hettinger, _o.c._ p. 226.

[716] See Taylor, _Classical Heritage_, p. 162.

[717] These are pointed out in the Commentaries (_e.g._ Scartazzini’s) and in many monographs. Hettinger’s _Göttliche Kömödie_ is serviceable: also Moore’s _Studies in Dante_ and Toynbee’s _Dante Studies_.

[718] _Purg._ i. 71; John viii. 36.

[719] _Purg._ i. 89.

[720] _Purg._ iii. 34 _sqq._

[721] _Purg._ iv. 4 _sqq._

[722] _Purg._ v. 105 _sqq._

[723] _Purg._ vii. 54; iv. 133-135.

[724] Cf. _e.g._ _Purg._ xii. 109.

[725] _Purg._ xv. 40 _sqq._

[726] _Purg._ xvi. 64 _sqq._

[727] _Purg._ xvii. 85 _sqq._, and xviii.; Hettinger, _o.c._ p. 235 _sqq._, and pp. 261-264.

[728] _Purg._ xxiii. 72; xxvi. 14.

[729] _Purg._ xxv. The notes in Hettinger, _o.c._, are quite full in citations of passages from Thomas and other scholastics.

[730] Thomas, _Summa_, iii. Qu. 89, Art. 5.

[731] As it is rather in _Par._ xxvii. 76 _sqq._

[732] _Par._ iii. 52, 64, 89.

[733] _Par._ iv.

[734] _Par._ xi. 1 _sqq._

[735] _Par._ xiv.

[736] _Par._ xv. 10.

[737] _Par._ xix. 40 _sqq._

[738] _Par._ xx.

[739] _Par._ xxiv.-xxvi.

[740] Typified in St. Bernard, _Par._ xxxi. and following. Suitable reasons for this choice may be suggested by the extracts from Bernard’s _De deligendo Deo_ and _Sermons on Canticles_, _ante_, Chapter XVII.

[741] _Conv._ ii. 13. The symbolism inherent in all human mental processes seems indicated by the argument of Aquinas (_ante_, p. 466) that the mind knows “the particular through sense and imagination; ... it must turn itself to images in order to behold the universal nature existing in the particular.” This is a necessity of our half material nature.

[742] _Convito_ ii. 1. Letter to Can Grande, par. 7.

[743] In the Can Grande letter, having stated this fourfold significance, Dante does _not_ proceed to exemplify it in the interpretation which follows of the opening lines of the _Paradiso_. Possibly those lines did not admit of the fourfold interpretation; yet, in general, Dante does not try to carry it out in practice, any more than other mediaeval writers commonly.

[744] _Convito_ ii. ch. 14 and 15.

[745] Doubtless the commentator habit is fixed in the nature of man; but it was pre-eminently mediaeval. We have seen enough elsewhere of the multiplication of Commentaries on the _Sentences_ of the Lombard and other scholastic works. Dante’s friend, Guido Cavalcanti, wrote a little poem beginning _Donna mi priego_, upon which we have eight Commentaries, the first from Egidio Colonna in 1316.

[746] Yet, however obvious the meaning, tying the pole of the Chariot to the Tree of Life was a great stroke (_Purg._ xxxii. 49).