reason. to Religion-ancilla Theologia. The whole philosophie effort was to mediate between the dogmas of faith and the demands of Scholasticism dérives its name from the schools opened by Charlemagne for the prosecution of speculative studies, which were only prosecuted in those days by the clergy, they alone having leisure or inclination for such work. Thus did the Monasteries form the cradle of Modern Philosophy.* As far as we can separate the philosophic from the theological element, it displays itself in three capital manifestations: 1st, The debate on Universals; 2d, The influence of the Arabians, especially in their introduction of the works of Aristotle; and 3d, The rebellion against Aristotle and all other authority, in the proclamation of the independence of Reason. There was no separation at all until the ninth century, when, in the person of Scotus Erigena, Philosophy timidly claimed its privilege. And even Scotus Erigena said, “There are not two studies, one of philosophy and one of religion; true philosophy is true religion, and true religion is true philosophy." In the eleventh century appeared Roscellinus, who, in advocating the philosophic doctrine of Nominalism, not only separated Philosophy from Religion, but placed it in direct antagonism with the fundamental dogma of the Trinity. To understand this we must remember that in those days there was a profound and even servile submission to the double authority of the Church and the Greek Philosophers,-a submission necessarily resulting from the teaching of the Fathers, who always combined the two. The works of Greek Philosophers were, however, but scantily known through Latin translations and commentaries; but this perhaps increased the eagerness to know them; and thus all doctrine be * Victor Cousin, Hist. de la Phil. ii. 9ème Leçon. The various historians of Philosophy, especially Ritter and Tennemann, should be consulted; but the clearest and most readable work known to me is M. Rousselot's Etudes sur la Philosophie dans le Moyen Age, 8 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1840. M. Rémusat's Abelard, 2 vols. Paris, 1845, by its analysis of Abelard's works, gives also a very good idea of Scholastic speculation. came, in fact, erudition. To interpret Aristotle was to establish philosophy. It is a common error to suppose that Aristotle at once and always reigned despotically over the philosophy of the Middle Ages. As M. Rousselot* remarks, there were two distinct characters in Aristotle then accepted: there was first the Logician, whose word was law,-magister dixit,-whose Organon was the Bible of the schools,-whose authority no one thought of questioning; and there was also the Metaphysician, who, so far from receiving the worship offered to the Logician, was persecuted, excommunicated, and burned, because his metaphysical doctrine was thought to contain the fatal heresy of the unity of substance. It was not until after Abelard, and owing to the Arabian influence, that Aristotle passed-to use M. Rémusat's happy phrase-from the consulship to the dictatorship of Philosophy. Plato taught Realism. He maintained the existence of Abstract Ideas, as Objects or Substances. Aristotle, on the contrary, taught that Abstract Ideas were nothing but abstractions; general names, not general things. Early Scholasticism adopted Realism; and when Roscellinus by subtle argumentation proved that genera and species were nothing more than logical constructions, general terms, flatus vocis, without corresponding essences, it was soon evident that he was in antagonism with the dogma of the Trinity. "That Universal which you call Trinity cannot exist; and as the relations which unite these three divine persons do not exist, the Trinity cannot exist. There is either one God or three; if there is but one, he exists in a single person; if there are three, there are three beings separate, distinct." The consequence of such heresy may be foreseen. Roscellinus was summoned before the Council of Soissons, and there forced *Etudes sur la Philos. i. 178. Jourdain, in his erudite work, Recherches sur l'âge et l'origine des Traductions d'Aristote, has placed this condemnation of Aristotle beyond a doubt. Abelard, i. 816. publicly to recant. He escaped to England, and perished in exile; but the seed he had sown fructified, and Nominalism afterwards became the reigning doctrine. The amount of verbal quibbling and idle distinctions employed on this famous question is only greater than that employed on other questions, because of its greater importance. No one can form an adequate idea of the frivolity and wearisome prolixity of these Schoolmen without opening one of their books; and even after having done so, it will remain incomprehensible how sane and earnest intellects could have contented themselves with such grinding of the air in metaphysic mills, unless we understand the error which misled them. The error was in mistaking logical constructions for truths, believing ideas to be the correlates of things, so that whatever was discernible in the mental combination was necessarily true of external facts. The Schoolmen analyzed the elements of speech and thought with the pertinacious eagerness now employed by chemists in analyzing the elements of bodies. This error is the fundamental error, principium et fons, of all metaphysical speculation; and with an ill grace do metaphysicians ridicule the follies of the Schoolmen, who only carried to excess the metaphysical Method of unverified Deduction. It may be true that Scholastic philosophy was for the most part a dispute about words, but it is not for metaphysicians to cast the reproach; and the defenders of Scholasticism have an easy task when they undertake to show that beneath these verbal disputes lay the deepest problems of Ontology. § II. LIFE OF ABELARD. The name of Abelard has been immortalized by association with that of a noble woman. It is because Heloise loved him, that posterity feels interested in him. M. Michelet indeed thinks that to Abelard she owes her fame: "without his misfortunes she would have remained obscure, unheard of;" and in one sense this is true; but true it also is that, without her love, Abelard would have long ago ceased to inspire any interest; for his was. essentially a shallow, selfish nature. His popularity was rapid, loud, and scandalous. He was fitted for it, lived for it. But many a greater name has faded from the memories of men; many a once noisy reputation fails to awaken a single echo in posterity. Apart from the consecration of passion and misfortune, there is little in his life to excite our sympathy. Viewed in connection with Heloise he must always interest us; viewed away from her, he presents the figure of a quick, vivacious, unscrupulous, intensely vain Frenchman. But, in several respects, he represents the philosophic struggle of the twelfth century; and in this light we may consider him. He was born in Brittany in 1079, of a noble family, named Bérenger. The name of Abelard came to him later. His master laughingly noticed his superficial manner of passing over some studies, filled as he was with others, and said, "When a dog is well filled, he can do no more than lick the bacon." The word to lick, in the corrupt Latin of that day, was bajare, and Bajolardus became the cognomen of this "bacon-licking student" among his comrades, which he converted into Habelardus, "se vantant ainsi de posséder ce qu'on l'accusait de ne pouvoir prendre." In the ancient writers the name is variously spelled, as Abailardus, Abaielardus, Abaulardus, Abbajalarius, Baalaurdus, Belardus, and in French as Abeillard, Abayelard, Abalard, Abaulard, Abaalary, Allebart, Abulard, Beillard, Baillard, Balard, and even Esbaillart; which variations seem to imply that the old French writers were as accurate in their spelling of proper names as their descendants are in their use of English and German names. Abelard's father joined to his knightly accomplishments a taste for literature, as literature was then understood; and this taste Abelard, par M. Charles de Rémusat, Paris 1845, p. 13. This valuable monograph contains the fullest biography of Abelard and the best analysis of his works yet published. Indeed, before M. Cousin published the works of Abelard, in 1836, every account of the philosophy of this thinker was necessarily meagre and erroneous. became so dominant in the mind of the youth, that he renounced the career of arms altogether for that of learning. Dialectics was the great science of that day, almost rivalling in importance the Theology which it served and disturbed by turns. It was an exercise of intellectual ingenuity, for which this youth manifested surprising aptitude. He travelled through various provinces disputing with all comers, like a knight-errant of philosophy, urged thereto by the goading desire of notoriety. This love of notoriety was his curse through life. At the age of twenty he came to Paris, hoping there to find a fitting opportunity of display-an arena for his powers as a disputant. He attended the lectures of William de Champeaux, the most renowned master of disputation, to whom students flocked from all the cities of Europe. The new pupil soon excited attention. The beauty of his person, the easy grace of his manner, his marvellous aptitude for learning, and still more marvellous facility of expression, soon distinguished him from the rest. The master grew proud of his pupil, loved him through his pride, and doubtless looked on him as a successor. But it soon became evident that the pupil, so quick at learning, did not sit there merely to learn; he was waiting for some good opportunity of display, waiting to attack his venerable master, whose secret strength and weakness he had discovered. The opportunity came; he rose up, and in the midst of all the students provoked William de Champeaux to discussion, harassed, and finally vanquished him. Rage and astonishment agitated the students; rage and terror the master. The students were indignant because they clearly saw Abelard's motive. Abelard dates the origin of all his woes from this occasion, when he created enmities which pursued him through life; and, with a sophistication common to such natures, he attributes the enmities to envy at his ability, instead of to the real causes, namely, his inordinate vanity and selfishness. For a time, indeed, the rupture with his master seemed successful. Although only two-and-twenty years of age, he established a school of Philos |