introduction into Christianity of the three chief products of the Greek
mind—Rhetoric, Logic, and Metaphysics. I venture to claim to have shown
that a large part of what are sometimes called Christian doctrines,
and many usages which have prevailed and continue to prevail in the
Christian Church, are in reality Greek theories and Greek usages changed
in form and colour by the influence of primitive Christianity, but in
their essence Greek still. Greece lives; not only its dying life in the
lecture-rooms of Universities, but also with a more vigorous growth in
the Christian Churches. It lives there, not by virtue of the survival
within them of this or that fragment of ancient teaching, and this or
that fragment of an ancient usage, but by the continuance in them of
great modes and phases of thought, of great drifts and tendencies, of
large assumptions. Its ethics of right and duty, rather than of love
and self-sacrifice; its theology, whose God is more metaphysical than
spiritual—whose essence it is important to define; its creation of a
class of men whose main duty in life is that of moral exhortation, and
whose utterances are not the spontaneous outflow of a prophet’s soul, but
the artistic periods of a rhetorician; its religious ceremonial, with
the darkness and the light, the initiation and the solemn enactment of
a symbolic drama; its conception of intellectual assent rather than of
moral earnestness as the basis of religious society—in all these, and the
ideas that underlie them, Greece lives.
It is an argument for the divine life of Christianity that it has been
able to assimilate so much that was at first alien to it. It is an
argument for the truth of much of that which has been assimilated, that
it has been strong enough to oust many of the earlier elements. But
the question which forces itself upon our attention as the phenomena
pass before us in review, is the question of the relation of these
Greek elements in Christianity to the nature of Christianity itself.
The question is vital. Its importance can hardly be over-estimated. It
claims a foremost place in the consideration of earnest men. The theories
which rise out of it are two in number. It is possible to urge, on the
one hand, that Christianity, which began without them—which grew on a
soil whereon metaphysics never throve—which won its first victories over
the world by the simple moral force of the Sermon on the Mount, and by
the sublime influence of the life and death of Jesus Christ, may throw
off Hellenism and be none the loser, but rather stand out again before
the world in the uncoloured majesty of the Gospels. It is possible to
urge that what was absent from the early form cannot be essential, and
that the Sermon on the Mount is not an outlying part of the Gospel,
but its sum. It is possible to urge, on the other hand, that the tree
of life, which was planted by the hand of God Himself in the soil of
human society, was intended from the first to grow by assimilating to
itself whatever elements it found there. It is possible to maintain that
Christianity was intended to be a development, and that its successive
growths are for the time at which they exist integral and essential. It
is possible to hold that it is the duty of each succeeding age at once to
accept the developments of the past, and to do its part in bringing on
the developments of the future.
Between these two main views it does not seem possible to find a logical
basis for a third. The one or the other must be accepted, with the
consequences which it involves. But whether we accept the one or the
other, it seems clear that much of the Greek element may be abandoned.
On the former hypothesis, it is not essential; on the latter, it is an
incomplete development and has no claim to permanence. I believe the
consideration of this question, and practical action on the determination
of it, to be the work that lies before the theologians of our generation.
I claim for the subject which we have been considering an exceptional
importance, because it will enable us, if on the one hand we accept
the theory that the primitive should be permanent, to disentangle the
primitive from the later elements, and to trace the assumptions on
which these later elements are based; and if on the other hand we adopt
the theory of development, it will enable us, by tracing the lines
of development, to weld the new thoughts of our time with the old by
that historical continuity which in human societies is the condition
of permanence. I am not unaware that there are many who deprecate the
analysis of Christian history, and are content to accept the deposit.
There has been a similar timidity in regard to the Bible. It seemed a
generation ago as though the whole fabric of belief depended on the
acceptance of the belief that Genesis is the work of a single author. The
timidity has virtually ceased. The recognition of the fact that the Book
of Genesis was not made, but grew, so far from having been a danger to
religion, has become a new support of the faith. So it will be with the
analysis of Christian doctrine and of Christian history; and therefore I
am earnest in urging its study. For though the Lectures are ended, the
study of the subject has only begun. I have ventured as a pioneer into
comparatively unexplored ground: I feel that I shall no doubt be found
to have made the mistakes of a pioneer; but I feel also the certainty of
a pioneer—who after wandering by devious paths through the forest and
the morass, looks out from the height which he has reached upon the fair
landscape—and speaking as one who has so stood and so looked, I am sure
that you will find the country to be in the main what I have described
it to be, and that you will find also that it is but the entrance to a
still fairer landscape beyond. For though you may believe that I am but
a dreamer of dreams, I seem to see, though it be on the far horizon—the
horizon beyond the fields which either we or our children will tread—a
Christianity which is not new but old, which is not old but new, a
Christianity in which the moral and spiritual elements will again hold
their place, in which men will be bound together by the bond of mutual
service, which is the bond of the sons of God, a Christianity which
will actually realize the brotherhood of men, the ideal of its first
communities.
FOOTNOTES
[1] πᾶσα διδασκαλία καὶ πᾶσα μάθησις διανοητικὴ ἐκ προϋπαρχούσης γένεται
γνώσεως (Arist. _Anal. post._ i. 1, P. 71). John Philoponus, in his
note on the passage, points out that emphasis is laid upon the word
διανοητική, in antithesis to sensible knowledge, ἡ γὰρ αἰσθητικὴ γνῶσις
οὐκ ἔχει προϋποκειμένην γνῶσιν (_Schol._ ed. Brandis, p. 196 _b_).
[2] Tertullian (_adv. Valentin._ c. 5) singles out four writers of the
previous generation whom he regards as standing on an equal footing:
Justin, Miltiades, Irenæus, Proculus. Of these, Proculus has entirely
perished; of Miltiades, only a few fragments remain; Justin survives
in only a single MS. (see A. Harnack, _Texte und Untersuchungen_, Bd.
i. 1, _die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten
Jahrhunderts_); and the greater part of Irenæus remains only in a Latin
translation.
[3] Marcion, in the sad tone of one who bitterly felt that every man’s
hand was against him, addresses one of his disciples as “my partner in
hate and wretchedness” (συμμισούμενον καὶ συνταλαίπωρον, Tert. _adv.
Marc._ 4. 9).
[4] Examples are the accounts of Basilides in Clement of Alexandria
and Hippolytus, compared with those in Irenæus and Epiphanius; and the
accounts of the Ophites in Hippolytus, compared with those of Irenæus and
Epiphanius. The literature of the subject is considerable: see especially
A. Hilgenfeld, _die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums_ (e.g. p. 202);
R. A. Lipsius, _zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios_; and A. Harnack, _zur
Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus_.
[5] The very names of most of the heathen opponents are lost: Lactantius
(5. 4) speaks of “plurimos et multis in locis et non modo Græcis sed
etiam Latinis litteris.” But for the ordinary student, Keim’s remarkable
restoration of the work of Celsus from the quotations of Origen, with
its wealth of illustrative notes, compensates for many losses (Th. Keim,
_Celsus’ Wahres Wort_, Zürich, 1873).
[6] This was the common view of the Stoics, probably following Anaxagoras
or his school; cf. Plutarch [Aetius], _de Plac. Philos._ 4. 3 (Diels,
_Doxographi Græci_, p. 387). It was stated by Chrysippus, οὐδὲν ἀσώματον
συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι· συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ
τῷ σώματι ... σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή (Chrysipp. _Fragm. ap. Nemes. de Nat. Hom._
33); by Zeno, in _Cic. Academ._ 1. 11. 39; by their followers, Plutarch
[Aetius], _de Plac. Philos._ 1. 11. 4 (Diels, p. 310), οἱ Στωικοὶ πάντα
τὰ αἴτια σωματικά· πνεύματα γάρ; so by Seneca, _Epist._ 117. 2, “quicquid
facit corpus est;” so among some Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian, _de
Anima_, 5.
[7] The conception underlies the whole of Tertullian’s treatise, _de
Baptismo_: it accounts for the rites of exorcism and benediction of both
the oil and the water which are found in the older Latin service-books,
e.g. in what is known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, i. 73 (in Muratori,
_Liturgia Romana vetus_, vol. i. p. 594), “exaudi nos omnipotens Deus
et _in hujus aquæ substantiam immitte virtutem_ ut abluendus per eam et
sanitatem simul et vitam mereatur æternam.” This prayer is immediately
followed by an address to the water, “exorcizo te creatura aquæ per Deum
vivum ... adjuro te per Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum dominum nostrum
ut efficiaris in eo qui in te baptizandus erit fons aquæ salientis in
vitam æternam, regenerans eum Deo Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto....”
So in the Gallican Sacramentary published by Mabillon (_de Liturgia
Gallicana libri tres_, p. 362), “exorcizo te fons aquæ perennis per
Deum sanctum et Deum verum qui te in principio ab arida separavit et
in quatuor fluminibus terram rigore præcepit: sis aqua sancta, aqua
benedicta, _abluens sordes et dimittens peccata_....”
[8] These conceptions are found in Xenophon’s account of Socrates, who
quotes more than once the Delphic oracle, ἥ τε γὰρ Πυθία νόμῳ πόλεως
ἀναιρεῖ ποιοῦντας εὐσεβῶς ἂν ποιεῖν, Xen. _Mem._ 1. 3. 1, and again 4. 3.
16: in Epictet. _Ench._ 31, σπένδειν δὲ καὶ θύειν καὶ ἀπάρχεσθαι κατὰ τὰ
πάτρια ἑκάστοις προσήκει: repeatedly in Plutarch, e.g. _de Defect. Orac._
12, p. 416, _de Comm. Notit._ 31. 1, p. 1074: in the _Aureum Carmen_ of
the later Pythagoreans, ἀθανάτους μὲν πρῶτα θεούς νόμῳ ὡς διάκεινται,
τίμα (_Frag. Philos. Græc._ i. p. 193): and in the Neoplatonist Porphyry
(_ad Marcell._ 18, p. 286, ed. Nauck), οὗτος γὰρ μέγιστος καρπὸς
εὐσεβείας τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον κατὰ τὰ πάτρια. The intellectual opponents of
Christianity laid stress upon its desertion of the ancestral religion;
e.g. Cæcilius in Minucius Felix, _Octav._ 5, “quanto venerabilius ac
melius....majorum excipere disciplinam, religiones traditas colere;” and
Celsus in Origen, _c. Cels._ 5. 25, 35; 8. 57.
[9] The following is designed to be a short account, not of all the
elements of later Greek education, but only of its more prominent and
important features: nothing has been said of those elements of the
ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία which constituted the mediæval _quadrivium_. The
works bearing on the subject will be found enumerated in K. F. Hermann,
_Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten_, Bd. iv. p. 302, 3te aufl.
ed. Blumner: the most important of them is Grasberger, _Erziehung und
Unterricht im classischen Alterthum_, Bd. i. and ii. Würzburg, 1864: the
shortest and most useful for an ordinary reader is Ussing, _Erziehung und
Jugendunterricht bei den Griechen und Römern_, Berlin, 1885.
[10] _Litteratura_ is the Latin for γραμματική: Quintil. 2. 1. 4.
[11] _Adv. Gramm._ 1. 44.
[12] γραμματιστική, which was taught by the γραμματιστής, whereas
γραμματικὴ was taught by the γραμματικός. The relation between the two
arts is indicated by the fact that in the Edict of Diocletian the fee of
the former is limited to fifty denarii, while that of the latter rises to
two hundred; _Edict. Dioclet._ ap. Haenel, _Corpus Legum_, No. 1054, p.
178.
[13] _Adv. Gramm._ 1. 91 sqq., cf. _ib._ 250. This is quoted as being
most representative of the period with which these Lectures have mainly
to do. With it may be compared the elaborate account given by Quintilian,
1. 4 sqq.
[14] 1. 10.
[15] The substance of Basil’s letter, _Ep._ 339 (146), tom. iii. p. 455.
There is a charming irony in Libanius’s answer, _Ep._ 340 (147), _ibid._
[16] προφῆτις, Sext. Emp. _adv. Gramm._ 1. 279.
[17] Strabo, 1. 2. 3, οὐ ψυχαγωγίας χάριν δήπουθεν ψιλῆς ἀλλὰ σωφρονισμοῦ.
[18] Dio Chrys. _Orat._ xxxvi. vol. ii p. 51, ed. Dind.
[19] These are printed in Walz, _Rhetores Græci_, vol. i.: the account
here followed is mainly that of the _Progymnasmata_ of Theo of Smyrna
(circ. A.D. 130). There is a letter of Dio Chrysostom, printed among his
speeches, _Orat._ xvii. περὶ λόγον ἀσκήσεως, ed. Dind. i, 279, consisting
of advice to a man who was beginning the study of Rhetoric late in life,
which, without being a formal treatise, gives as good a view as could be
found of the general course of training.
[20] _Diss._ 3. 23. 20.
[21] Philostr. _V. S._ 2. 21. 3, of Proclus.
[22] Lucian, _Dial. Mort._ 10. 10.
[23] _Hermotim._ 81.
[24] There is a good example of the former of these methods in Maximus
of Tyre, _Dissert._ 33, where § 1 is part of a student’s essay, and
the following sections are the professor’s comments; and of the latter
in Epictetus, _Diss._ 1. 10. 8, where the student is said ἀναγνῶναι,
_legere_, the professor ἐπαναγνῶναι, _prælegere_.
[25] _Enchir._ 49: see also _Diss._ 3. 21, quoted below, p. 102.
[26] _Orat._ iv. vol. i. p. 69, ed. Dind.
[27] i. 7.
[28] This higher education was not confined to Rome or Athens, but was
found in many parts of the empire: Marseilles in the time of Strabo was
even more frequented than Athens. There were other great schools at
Antioch and Alexandria, at Rhodes and Smyrna, at Ephesus and Byzantium,
at Naples and Nicopolis, at Bordeaux and Autun. The practice of resorting
to such schools lasted long. In the fourth century and among the
Christian Fathers, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine and Jerome, are
recorded to have followed it: the general recognition of Christianity did
not seriously affect the current educational system: “Through the whole
world,” says Augustine (_de utilitate credendi_, 7, vol. viii. 76, ed.
Migne), “the schools of the rhetoricians are alive with the din of crowds
of students.”
[29] There is an interesting instance, at a rather later time, of
the poverty of two students, one of whom afterwards became famous,
Prohæresius and Hephæstion: they had only one ragged gown between them,
so that while one went to lecture, the other had to stay at home in bed
(Eunap. _Prohæres._ p. 78).
[30] _Diss._ 1. 9. 19.
[31] _Ib._ 2, 21. 12; 3. 24. 54.
[32] _Ib._ 2. 21. 12, 13, 15; 3. 24. 22, 24.
[33] _Ib._ 3. 16. 14, 15.
[34] _Ib._ 1. 26. 9.
[35] _De audiendo_, 13, vol. ii. p. 45. The passage is abridged above.
[36] _Quis rer. div. heres._ 3, vol. i. p. 474.
[37] For example, Verrius Flaccus, the father of the system of “prize
essays,” who received an annual salary of 100,000 sesterces from Augustus
(Suet. _de illustr. Gramm._ 17). The inscriptions of Asia Minor furnish
several instances of teachers who had left their homes to teach in other
provinces of the Empire, and had returned rich enough to make presents to
their native cities.
[38] The evidence for the above paragraph, with ample accounts of
additional facts relative to the same subject, but unnecessary for
the present purpose, will be found in F. H. L. Ahrens, _de Athenarum
statu politico et literario inde ab Achaici fœderis interitu usque
ad Antoninorum tempora_, Göttingen, 1829; K. O. Müller, _Quam curam
respublica apud Græcos et Romanos literis doctrinisque colendis et
promovendis impenderit_, Göttingen (Programm zur Säcularfeier), 1837;
P. Seidel, _de scholarum quæ florente Romanorum imperio Athenis
exstiterunt conditione_, Glogau, 1838; C. G. Zumpt, _Ueber den Bestand
der philosophischen Schulen in Athen und die Succession der Scholarchen_,
Berlin (Abhandl. der Akademie der Wissenschaften), 1843; L. Weber,
_Commentatio de academia literaria Atheniensium_, Marburg, 1858. There is
an interesting Roman inscription of the end of the second century A.D.
which almost seems to show that the endowments were sometimes diverted
for the benefit of others besides philosophers: it is to an _athlete_,
who was at once “canon of Serapis,” and entitled to free commons at
the museum, νεωκόρον τοῦ μεγά[λου Σαράπιδ]ος καὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ
[σειτου]μένων ἀτελῶν φιλοσόφων, _Corpus Inscr. Græc._ 5914.
[39] The edict of Antoninus Pius is contained in L. 6, § 2, D. _de
excusat._ 27. l: the number of philosophers is not prescribed, “quia
rari sunt qui philosophantur:” and if they make stipulations about
pay, “inde iam manifesti fient non philosophantes.” The nature of the
immunities is described, _ibid._ § 8: “a ludorum publicorum regimine, ab
ædilitate, a sacerdotio, a receptione militum, ab emtione frumenti, olei,
et neque judicare neque legatos esse neque in militia numerari nolentes
neque ad alium famulatum cogi.” The immunities were sometimes further
extended to the lower classes of teachers, e.g. the _ludi magistri_
at Vipascum in Portugal: cf. Hübner and Mommsen in the _Ephemeris
Epigraphica_, vol. iii. pp. 185, 188. For the regulations of the later
empire, see _Cod. Theodos._ 14. 9, _de studiis liberalibus urbis Romæ
et Constantinopolitanæ_; and for a good popular account of the whole
subject, see G. Boissier, _L’instruction publique dans l’empire Romain_,
in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, mars 15, 1884.
[40] Lucian’s _Convivium_ is a humorous and satirical description
of such a dinner. The philosopher reads his discourse from a small,
finely-written manuscript, c. 17. The _Deipnosophistæ_ of Athenæus,
and the _Quæstiones Conviviales_ of Plutarch, are important literary
monuments of the practice.
[41] An interesting corroboration of the literary references is afforded
by the mosaic pavement of a large villa at Hammâm Grous, near Milev,
in North Africa, where “the philosopher’s apartment,” or “chaplain’s
room” (_filosophi locus_), is specially marked, and near it is a lady
(the mistress of the house?) sitting under a palm-tree. (The inscription
is given in the _Corpus Inscr. Lat._ vol. viii. No. 10890, where
reference is made to a drawing of the pavement in Rousset, _Les Bains de
Pompeianus_, Constantine, 1879).
[42] Lucian, _de merc. cond._ 32.
[43] _Ib._ 34.
[44] _Ib._ 36.
[45] _Ib._ 38.
[46] _Timon_, 50, 51.
[47] _Profiteri_, _professio_, are the Latin translations of
ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, ἐπαγγελία: the latter words are found as early as
Aristotle in connection with the idea of teaching, τὰ δὲ πολιτικὰ
ἐπαγγέλλονται μὲν διδάσκειν οἱ σοφισταὶ πράττει δ’ αὐτῶν οὐδείς, Arist.
_Eth. N._ 10. 10, p. 1180 _b_, and apparently τοὺς ἐπαγγελλομέvους is
used absolutely for “professors” in _Soph. Elench._ 13, p. 172 _a_.
The first use of _profiteri_ in an absolute sense in Latin is probably
in Pliny, e.g. _Ep._ 4. 11. 1, “audistine V. Licinianum in Sicilia
profiteri,” “is teaching rhetoric.”
[48] See note on p. 33: an early use of _prælegere_ in this sense is
Quintil. 1. 8. 13.
[49] _Facultas_ is the translation of δύναμις in its meaning of an art or
a branch of knowledge, which is found in Epictetus and elsewhere, e.g.
_Diss._ 1. 8. tit., 8, 15, chiefly of logic or rhetoric: a writer of the
end of the third century draws a distinction between δυνάμεις and τέχναι,
and classes rhetoric under the former: Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν, in
Walz, _Rhett. Gr._ vol. ix. 196.
[50] Instances of this practice are: (1) _grammaticus_, in Hispania
Tarraconensis, _Corpus Inscr. Lat._ ii. 2892, 5079; _magister artis
grammaticæ_, at Saguntum, _ibid._ 3872; _magister grammaticus Græcus_,
at Cordova, _ibid._ 2236; _grammaticus Græcus_, at Trier, _Corpus Inscr.
Rhenan._ 801: (2) _philosophus_, in Greece, _Corpus Inscr. Græc._ 1253;
in Asia Minor, _ibid._ 3163 (dated A.D. 211), 3198, 3865, _add._ 4366 _t_
2; in Egypt, _ibid._ 4817; sometimes with the name of the school added,
e.g. at Chæronea, φιλόσοφον Πλατωνικόν, _ibid._ 1628; at Brundisium,
_philosophus Epicureus_, _ibid._ 5783.
[51] Marcus Aurelius himself nominated Theodotus to be “Regius Professor
of Rhetoric,” but he entrusted the nomination of the Professors of
Philosophy to Herodes Atticus, Philostrat. _V. S._ 2. 3, p. 245; and
Commodus nominated Polydeuces, _ibid._ 2. 12, p. 258.
[52] Lucian, _Eunuchus_, 3, after mentioning the endowment of the chairs,
says, ἔδει δὲ ἀποθανόντος ἀυτῶν τινος ἄλλον ἀντικαθίστασθαι δοκιμασθέντα
_ψήφῳ τῶν ἀρίστων_, which last words have been variously understood: see
the treatises mentioned above, note 1, p. 38, especially Ahrens, p. 74,
Zumpt, p. 28. In the case of Libanius, there was a ψήφισμα (Liban. _de
fort. sua_, vol. i. p. 59), which points to an assimilation of Athenian
usage in his time to that which is mentioned in the following note.
[53] This was fixed by a law of Julian in 362, which, however, states it
as a concession on the part of the Emperor: “quia singulis civitatibus
adesse ipse non possum, jubeo quisquis docere vult non repente nec
temere prosiliat ad hoc munus sed judicio ordinis probatus decretum
curialium mereatur, optimorum conspirante consilio,” _Cod. Theodos._
13. 3. 5; but the nomination was still sometimes left to the Emperor
or his chief officer, the prefect of the city. This has an especial
interest in connection with the history of St. Augustine: a request was
sent from Milan to the prefect of the city at Rome for the nomination of
a _magister rhetoricæ_: St. Augustine was sent, and so came under the
influence of St. Ambrose, S. Aug. _Confess._ 5. 13.
[54] This is mentioned in a law of Gordian: “grammaticos seu oratores
decreto ordinis probatos, si non se utiles studentibus præbeant, denuo
ab eodem ordine reprobari posse incognitum non est,” _Cod. Justin._
10. 52. 2. A professor was sometimes removed for other reasons besides
incompetency, e.g. Prohæresius was removed by Julian for being a
Christian, Eunap. _Prohæres._ p. 92.
[55] Alexander of Aphrodisias, _de Fato_, 1, says that he obtained his
professorship on the _testimony_, ὑπὸ τῆς μαρτυρίας, of Severus and
Caracalla.
[56] The existence of a competition appears in Lucian, _Eunuchus_, 3, 5:
the fullest account is that of Eunapius, _Prohæres._ pp. 79 sqq.
[57] Eunapius, _ibid._ p. 84.
[58] Olympiodorus, ap. Phot. _Biblioth._ 80; S. Greg. Naz. _Orat._ 43
(20). 15, vol. i. p. 782; Liban. _de fort. sua_, vol. i. p. 14. The
admission was probably the occasion of some academical sport: the novice
was marched in mock procession to the baths, whence he came out with
his gown on. It was something like initiation into a religious guild or
order. There was a law against any one who assumed the philosopher’s
dress without authority, “indebite et insolenter,” _Cod. Theodos._ 13. 3.
7.
[59] The last traces are in the Christian poets: for example, in Sidonius
Apollinaris († 482), _Carm._ xxiii. 211, ed. Luetjohann, “quicquid
rhetoricæ institutionis, quicquid grammaticalis aut palæstræ est;” in
Ennodius († 521), _Carm._ ccxxxiv. p. 182, ed. Vogel, and in _Ep._ 94,
which is a letter of thanks to a grammarian for having successfully
instructed the writer’s nephew; in Venantius Fortunatus († 603), who
speaks of himself as “Parvula grammaticæ lambens refluamina guttæ,
Rhetorici exiguum prælibans gurgitis haustum,” _V. Martini_, i. 29,
30, ed. Leo; but there are traces in the same poets of the antagonism
between classical and Christian learning which ultimately led to the
disappearance of the former, e.g. Fortunatus speaks of Martin as “doctor
apostolicus vacuans ratione sophistas,” _V. Martini_, i. 139.
[60] “La période bénédictine,” Leon Maitre, _Les écoles épiscopales et
monastiques de l’Occident_, p. 173.