ceptions were based on realities: as when a multitude is conceived under the form of unity, linking together all the actual resemblances existing between the individuals. This looks so very like Realism, that M. Rousselot may be pardoned for having argued at great length the paradoxical thesis of Abelard's being a Realist; but a closer examination of the treatise from which we have just cited a long passage, proves that Abelard did not deceive himself in maintaining the Realist doctrine to be erroneous from his point of view. He maintained that genus and species were not general essences existing essentially and integrally in the individuals, whose identity admitted of no other diversity than that of individual modes, or accidents; which was the doctrine of Realism; for, if this doctrine were true, the subject of these accidents, the substance of these modes being identical, every individual would possess the same substance, and humanity would only be one man; thus Socrates being at Athens, humanity would be at Athens; but Plato being at Thebes, humanity must then either not be at Athens, or Plato must not be humanity.

Let us quit here the question of Universals, to consider the second characteristic of Abelard's philosophy. It was he who gave the form if not the subject-matter of Scholasticism. It was he who brought Logic as an independent power into the arena of theological debate; a heresy which drew the terrors of the Church upon him: Ponit in cœlum os suum et scrutatur alta Dei, said St. Bernard, writing to the Pope; and the same St. Bernard let fall the terrible accusation: "transgreditur fines quos posuerunt patres nostri-he has gone beyond the limits set by our forefathers!"-in all ages, in all nations, a mark of reprobation.

Supported, as he thought, by thousands of partisans, Abelard assumed an attitude of offence, almost of disdain. Unconscious of his real danger, he published the substance of his Lectures in a work called Introductio ad Theologiam, in which he undertook to demonstrate by Reason the dogmas of Faith, and promulgated

the then audacious opinion, that all dogmas should be presented under a rational form. That this was very far from being acceptable, may be read not only in his condemnation, but also in the passage of his Dialectica, where he says that his rivals declared it not permissible in a Christian to treat even of Dialectics, because Dialectics was not only incapable of instructing any one in the faith, but disturbed and destroyed faith by the complication of its arguments.*

This commencement, feeble though it may have been, marks a new epoch in the development of speculation. The struggle of Reason against Authority, which began with Abelard, has not yet terminated. "My disciples," he says in his Introduction, "asked me for arguments drawn from philosophy such as reason demanded, begging me to instruct them that they might understand, and not merely repeat what was taught them; since no one can believe any thing until he has first understood it; and it is ridiculous to preach to others what neither teacher nor pupil understand."

Not content with this revolutionary principle, Abelard further "transgressed the limits of his forefathers" by the composition of the treatise Sic et Non,f the object of which was to cite the passages of Scripture and the Fathers pro and con. upon every important topic: this collocation of contradictory statements given by the highest possible authorities was meant, as Abelard distinctly informs us, to train the mind to vigorous and healthy doubt, in fulfilment of the injunction, "Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." "Dubitando enim ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus; juxta quod et Veritas ipsa Quærite, inquit, invenietis; pulsate, et aperietur vobis." Whatever his intention may have been, the re

* Dialectica, p. 434.

It is printed in Cousin's edition, but with omissions. The entire work was published in Germany, 1841, under this title: Petri Abaelardi Sic e Non; primum integrum ediderunt E. L. Henke et G. S. Lindenkohl.

Page 17 of the edition just named.

sult of such a work was clearly foreseen by theological teachers, who regarded doubt as damnable, and would not tolerate it under the plausible aspects of intellectual gymnastics, or the love of seeking for truth. But theologians were unable to arrest the development of speculation. Doubt began; disputation waxed stronger; logic played like lambent flame around the most sacred subjects; Scholasticism entered every city in Europe, and filled it with subtle disputants.

During the centuries which succeeded, the question of Nominalism was constantly in debate; and besides it many others so remote, and, to modern apprehensions, so frivolous, that few historians boast of more than superficial acquaintance with mediæval philosophy, and few mention it without scorn. To name but one topic, what does the reader think of a debate, utrum Deus intelligat omnia alia a se per ideas eorum, an aliter? What does he think of men wasting their energies in trying to convince each other of the true process by which God conceived ideasdiscussing, with ardor and unmisgiving ingenuity, topics which are necessarily beyond all possible demonstration? Nevertheless, absurd as such discussions were, they have found, even in modern times, legitimate successors; and the laborious futility of the Schoolmen has been rivalled by the laborious futility of the German metaphysicians.

We are not here to follow step by step the long course of mediæval speculation, but may pass at once to the Arabian Philosophy as illustrated in Algazzāli.

§ III. ALGAZZALI.

In our ignorance of Arabian history, it would be presumptuous to assert that, until the Greeks became known to them, the Arabs had no philosophy at all of their own; but whatever they may have had, we are only repeating their own avowal in asserting, that after their acquaintance with the Grecian systems, all philosophical energy was devoted to the mastery and development of those systems. The history of their philosophy is divided into

two parts the first comprising the period of ancient thinkers, the Greeks; the second comprising the efforts of the Mussulman schools. The Greek schools were divided into two series, those which preceded and those which succeeded Aristotle.* In the first series there is scarcely a name familiar to our ears which was not familiar to the Arabian philosophers, Orpheus and Homer included. The Seven Sages are constantly alluded to. Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, in short all the great thinkers, are expounded and commented on, not, according to M. Schmölders, with any historical or critical accuracy, but at any rate sufficiently to show their acquaintance with Greek books. In the series succeeding Aristotle they are more at home. They translated every work they could procure, and studied with servile ingenuity to appropriate all the doctrines of the Stagirite. Thus it is that Arabian Philosophy lies beside the sphere of European development; although the Arabians played an important part in the development of European culture during the Middle Ages, and Averroes and Avicenna were long regarded as magistri, no sooner did Europe possess the originals from which the Arabs learned, than they neglected these interpreters, and interpreted for themselves.

The work which will form the basis of the present Section is one which has the attraction of being entirely original-the history of a mind developing amid Arabian influences, and not the mere reflex of Grecian thought. It is probably owing to the originality of this treatise that it was never translated during the Middle Ages, the translators of those days caring only for Greek Philosophy; and thus, in spite of the high reputation of Algazzāli, the work was a closed book to all but Arabian scholars, until 1842, when a learned German reprinted it with a translation into French.t Algazzāli, the Light of Islam and Pillar of the Mosque, who

* Schmölders, Essai sur les Ecoles Philosophiques chez les Arabes, p. 96. Essai sur les Ecoles Philosophiques chez les Arabes. Par M. Schmölders. Paris, 1842. From my notice of this work in the Edinburgh Review, April, 1847, I have incorporated many passages in the present Section.

under the names of Gazzali, Ghazail, and Algazel is frequently mentioned by writers on Arabian Philosophy, and was at one time made familiar to Europe by the attacks of his adversary Averroes, was born in the city of Tous, A. D. 1508. He was named Aboû Hâmed Mohammed, and his father was a dealer in cotton-thread (gazzāl), from whence he drew his name. Losing his father in early life, he was confided to the care of a Soufi. The nearest approach to what is meant by a Soufi, is what we mean by Mystic. The influence of this Soufi was great. No sooner had the youth finished his studies, than he was appointed professor of theology at Bagdad, where his eloquence achieved such splendid success that all the Imams became his eager partisans. So great was the admiration he inspired, that the Mussulman sometimes said, "If all Islam were destroyed, it would be but a slight loss, provided Algazzali's work on the 'Revivification of the Sciences of Religion' were preserved." It is this work which M. Schmölders has translated. It bears so remarkable a resemblance to the Discours sur la Méthode of Descartes, that, had any translation of it existed in the days of Descartes, every one would have cried out against the plagiarism.

Like Descartes, he begins with describing how he had in vain. interrogated every sect for an answer to the mysterious problems which "disturbed him with a sense of things unknown;" and how he finally resolved to discard all authority, and detach himself from the opinions which had been instilled into him during the unsuspecting years of childhood. "I said to myself," he proceeds, "My aim is simply to know the truth of things; consequently it is indispensable for me to ascertain what is knowledge. Now, it was evident to me that certain knowledge must be that which explains the object to be known, in such a manner that no doubt can remain, so that in future all error and conjecture respecting it must be impossible. Not only would the understanding then need no efforts to be convinced of certitude, but security against error is in such close connection with knowledge, that even were an apparent proof of its falsehood to be