Gaul. The south of Gaul had preserved more considerable remains of Roman civilization; the character of the north was much more German. The archbishop of Lyons was the most important prelate of southern Gaul, as the archbishop of Reims was the most important of northern Gaul. The rivalry of sees became coupled with the opposition of doctrines. Compromised by his writers, Hincmar, in order to defend himself, had recourse to the arms of authority. A council, held at Kiersy, in 853, laid down, in four articles, the opinions which it pronounced orthodox upon this matter, and Gottschalk found himself condemned thereby for the second time. But the archbishop of Lyons was also able to invoke councils and to cause articles to be written; and he summoned one at Valence, in 855, and the articles of Kiersy were condemned by it in their turn. Hincmar again invoked the aid of learning and argument; but this time he determined to entrust the work to no one, and he himself, in 857 and 859, wrote two works upon predestination, of which one is lost; the other, which remains to us, is addressed to Charles le Chauve, and is divided into forty-four chapters, including six chapters of epilogue. The whole course of the controversy is herein reproduced, with a great display of theological erudition; but, in reality, the theological spirit is wanting; there is more of good sense exhibited in the general ideas than of subtlety in the argumentation; and, as theologians, properly so called, the adversaries of Hincmar had the advantage over him.

His works failed, therefore, in putting a stop to the quarrel; and the matter ended by its being carried to Rome, like all other great questions of the time. It is difficult to affirm that Nicholas the First took any positive part, or that he declared either one or other of the opinions to have been the doctrine of the church. Nevertheless, we see plainly that he inclined to the ideas of Gottschalk, and to the canons of the councils of Valence, confirmed in 889 by the council of Langres. His correspondence and his conduct in this matter are unfavorable to Hincmar.

The dispute was thus prolonged, becoming, however, cooler, until the death of Gottschalk, which happened suddenly on the 30th of October, 868 or 869. A little while before, when they saw him very ill, the monks of Hautvilliers, where he was in prison, consulted Hincmar as to what they were to do in his case: the inflexible bishop replied that it was absolutely

necessary that he should retract his opinions, and that otherwise they must refuse him confession and the sacrament. Not less inflexible than his persecutor, Gottschalk again refused to retract, and died beneath the severities which he was suf fering. Hincmar survived him only three years. He died, in his turn, on the 21st of December, 882, driven from his episcopal city by an incursion of the Normans, and still engaged in writing, at Epernay, where he had taken refuge.

It is time for me to pause; one remark will conclude my account of this great controversy. You may see three elements appearing in it; the three spirits, so to speak, of which the coexistence and the struggle for a long while constituted the intellectual history of modern Europe: 1. the logical spirit which predominated among theologians by profession, engaged exclusively in arguing, in deducing consequences from principles, which were never called into question; 2. the political spirit, peculiar, in general, to the heads of the church, who were, above all, charged with the duties of government, and were much more engaged with the practical than the logical point of view, with business than discussion; 3. finally, the philosophical spirit, existing in certain free-thinkers, who yet endeavor to regard things in themselves, and to seek for truth, independently both of practical aim and predetermined principle. The theological spirit, the political spirit, and the philosophical spirit, were all openly at work in this affair; Hincmar represented the politicians, Gottschalk the theologians, Scotus Erigena the philosophers. The last I have scarcely more than named to you; I shall treat of him at full in my next lecture.

TWENTY-NINTH LECTURE.

Object of the lecture Of the philosophical spirit in the 9th century— Scotus or Erigena-His country-Date of his birth-Tradition respecting his travels in Greece-He settles in France, at the court of Charles le Chauve-Of the School of the Palace under CharlesAncient philosophy studied there-Encouragement of Scotus Erigena His learning-Relations of Christianity with the Neoplatonism of Alexandria-Their struggle-Attempt at amalgamationHistory and pretended works of Dionysius the Areopagite-Fundamental differences of the two doctrines: 1, in the point of departure and the method; 2, in the bases of the questions-These differences occur between Scotus Erigena and the Christian theologians of the 9th century-Examination of his works: 1, De Prædestinatione; 2, De Divisione Naturæ-His celebrity and his death-Recapitulation. I REMINDED you, in the last lecture, of the two fundamental elements to which we may ascribe the intellectual development of modern Europe: Christianity, on the one part, and ancient literature on the other; Christian theology and pagan philosophy, religious polemics and classical learning; already, at the end of the eighth century, at the moment of the intellectual revival of Frankish Gaul, under Charlemagne, we have recognized the presence of these two elements in Alcuin, whom we considered as the most faithful image of the state of the mind at this epoch. In proportion as this influence developed itself, they became distinct and separate: about the middle of the ninth century, two men appeared to us as the representatives, one of the theological, the other of the philosophical element. I named to you Hincmar and John Erigena; I led you to a consideration, in the history of Hincmar, of the theological life of his time: let us now try to ascertain if any philosophical life corresponded to it; it is from the history of John Erigena that we shall learn it.

There exists amongst scholars much uncertainty respecting the date of his birth and his country. The uncertainty respecting his country appears to me not well founded: his double name indicates it clearly. John Erigena, or John Scotus, means John of Ireland. Ireland was anciently called Erin, and its people were of the same race as the population of the highlands of Scotland, the Scots. The name Erigena

points out therefore his country, that of Scotus his race and nation. All the little difficulties, all the elaborate conjectures of the learned, fall to the ground before this simple fact.

With respect to the date of the birth of John, it is more difficult to determine anything, and I will not enter upon a minute and purposeless discussion of this subject. All that can be affirmed is, that he was born in the early part of the ninth century, from the year 800 to 815. We do not know where he passed his childhood, or where he followed his first studies. The peculiarities of his knowledge, however, agreeing with natural probabilities, give rise to the belief that it was in Ireland. Of all the western countries, Ireland was, as you know, that wherein letters maintained themselves and prospered, amidst the general confusion of Europe.

A tradition which we find prevailing at an early period, attributes to John Scotus travels in the east, in Greece particularly; we read, in a manuscript deposited in the library of Oxford, a passage of his which seems to point at them:

"I quitted," said he, "no place or temple where the philosophers were accustomed to compose or deposit their secret works, without inspecting it; and there was not one amongst such scholars, as might be supposed to possess any knowledge of philosophical writings, whom I did not question.'

991

He does not indicate, you see, any place or period; yet his words seem to relate to a country where the ancient philosophers lived and labored. No other document sheds further light upon these travels; and the knowledge possessed by John Erigena of Greek literature does not appear to me a conclusive proof. However the case may have been, about the middle of the ninth century, we find him settled for life at the court of Charles le Chauve. There has also been much dispute about the date of his arrival; it has been placed as far forward as the year 870; but the error of this appears evident to me. Many documents indicate that John was connected with Saint Prudence before the latter became bishop of Troyes in 847. It was probably, therefore, between the years 840 and 847 that John Erigena went into France, perhaps attracted thither by a formal invitation from Charles le Chauve.

1 Wood's Hist. and Antiquit. Univers. Oxon., in fol. 1674, vol. i., p 15.

History gives a very false idea of this prince and his court -not certainly under the political point of view; all that it says of the weakness of the government and the falling condition of France is well founded; but under the intellectual point of view there was much more activity and liberty of spirit, much more taste for letters than is commonly supposed. The school of the Palace, so flourishing under Charlemagne, and under the teaching of Alcuin, had greatly fallen away under Louis le Debonnaire. Louis had been engaged much more with the church than with science, and much more with the religious reform of the monasteries than with the progress of study. The School of the Palace was thus a subject little considered, a sure proof of its decay; for the social state was not then such that it could subsist by itself, and without pow. erful protection. Charles le Chauve revived it; he summoned thither foreign scholars, especially Irish and AngloSaxons; he treated them with marked favor; he appreciated their works and their conversation, and lived on familiar terms with them. The School of the Palace resumed such a splendor that contemporaries were struck with it as with a novelty. To judge by the words of Herric, a monk of Saint Germain l'Auxerrois, and of Wandalbert, a monk of Prum, in the diocese of Trèves, the prosperity of the studies at those places became such that Greece might have envied the fortune of France, and that France had nothing for which to envy antiquity. There is, no doubt, great monastic emphasis in the phrase; but, at all events, the public at the time were so struck with the revival of letters in the court of Charles le Chauve, that instead of saying the School of the Palace (Schola Palatii) they said, the Palace of the School (Palatium Schola). What, then, was the direction of mind in this flourishing school? what studies were preferred? We may, I think, affirm that ancient philosophy and literature held a high place there. Of this we have abundant and apparently undeniable proofs.

The first are deducible from the works of John Erigena himself, chief of the School of the Palace, and teacher there. Of these works, ancient philosophy, as you will presently see is generally the object. Not only did the original worke which he has left emanate from this source; not only did he translate many treatises of the Neoplatonic school of Alexandria; but it appears certain that there exist in manuscript in many libraries, especially in that of Oxford, com