because he has a crowd that believes in him, and although the new
Cornificius is more senseless than the old, yet a mob of foolish
ones agrees with him. And there are in particular some of these
who, although inert and slothful, are eager to seem rather than
to be wise.
* * * * *
For my part I am not at all surprised if after being employed at
a large fee, and beating his drum a long time, he taught his
credulous hearer to know nothing. For he, too, was equally
untaught by teachers, since, without eloquence, and yet verbose,
and lacking the fruit of ideas, he continuously throws to the
wind the foliage of words ... He feeds his hearers on fables and
trifles, and if what he promises is true, he will make them
eloquent without the need of skill, and philosophers by a short
cut and without effort.... In that school of philosophizers at
that time the question whether the pig which is being led to
market is held by the man or by the string, was considered
insoluble. Also, whether he who bought the whole cloak bought the
cowl. Decidedly incongruous was the speech in which these words,
"congruous" and "incongruous argument" and "reason" did not make
a great noise, with multifold negative particles and transitions
through "esse" and "non-esse." ... A wordy clamor was enough to
secure the victory, and he who introduced anything from any
source reached the goal of his proposition.... Therefore they
suddenly became expert philosophers, for he who had come there
illiterate delayed in the schools scarcely longer than the time
within which young birds get their feathers. So the fresh
teachers from the schools and the young birds from the nests flew
off together, having lingered an equal length of time.... They
talked only of congruity or reason, and argument resounded from
the lips of all, and to give its common name to an ass, or a man,
or any of nature's works, was like a crime, or was much too
inelegant or crude, and abhorrent to a philosopher.... Hence this
seething pot of speech in which the stupid old man exults,
insulting those who revere the originators of the Arts because
when he pretends to devote his energies to them he finds nothing
useful in them.[10]
John's own training was in marked contrast to all this. Instead of
remaining in the schools "scarcely longer than the time within which
young birds get their feathers," he spent, as above noted, twelve years
in study. Instead of devoting himself to logic and disputation alone, he
received an extensive training in the classics and in theology. His
first teacher at Paris was Abelard.
When I was a very young man, I went to study in France, the year
after the death of that lion in the cause of justice, Henry [the
First], king of England. There I sought out that famous teacher
and Peripatetic philosopher of Pallet [Abelard], who at that time
presided at Mont St. Genevieve, and was the subject of admiration
to all men. At his feet I received the first rudiments of the
dialectic art [logic], and shewed the utmost avidity to pick up
and store away in my mind all that fell from his lips. When,
however, much to my regret, Abelard left us, I attended Master
Alberic, a most obstinate Dialectician, and unflinching assailant
of the Nominal Sect. Two years I stayed at Mont St. Genevieve,
under the tuition of Alberic and Master Robert de Melun.
Then follows a characterization of these teachers. The statement that
one of them went to Bologna for the further study of logic indicates
that that place was eminent for its teaching of dialectics as well as
for the study of law.
One of these teachers was scrupulous even to minutiae, and
everywhere found some subject to raise a question; for the
smoothest surface presented inequalities to him, and there was no
rod so smooth that he could not find a knot in it, and shew how
it might be got rid of. The other of the two was prompt in reply,
and never for the sake of subterfuge avoided a question that was
proposed; but he would choose the contradictory side, or by
multiplicity of words would show that a simple answer could not
be given. In all questions, therefore, he was subtle and profuse,
whilst the other in his answer was perspicuous, brief, and to the
point If two such characters could ever have been united in the
same person, he would be the best hand at disputation that our
times have produced. Both of them possessed acute wit, and an
indomitable perseverance, and I believe they would have turned
out great and distinguished men in Physical Studies, if they had
supported themselves on the great base of Literature, and more
closely followed the tracks of the ancients, instead of taking
such pride in their own discoveries.
All this is said with reference to the time during which I
attended on them. For one of them afterwards went to Bologna, and
there unlearnt what he had taught: on his return also, he
untaught it: whether the change was for the better or the worse,
I leave to the judgment of those who heard him before and after.
The other of the two was also a proficient in the more exalted
Philosophy of Divinity, wherein he obtained a distinguished name.
With these teachers I remained two years, and got so versed in
commonplaces, rules, and elements in general, which boys study,
and in which my teachers were most weighty, that I seemed to
myself to know them as well as I knew my own nails and fingers.
There was one thing which I had certainly attained to, namely, to
estimate my own knowledge much higher than it deserved. I thought
myself a young scholar, because I was ready in what I had been
taught.
Evidence external to this narrative shows that he now went to the school
at Chartres,--some sixty miles southwest of Paris,--which was one of
three great French schools of the period (see p. 10). During the first
half of the twelfth century it became famous under the teaching of the
brothers Theodoric and Bernard Sylvester, who are both mentioned in the
following passages. The school was distinguished in particular for its
devotion to Grammar, Rhetoric, and classical Latin literature; in this
respect it was in marked contrast to Paris, where Logic and Theology
were the prevailing studies.
I then, beginning to reflect and to measure my strength, attended
on the Grammarian William de Conches during the space of three
years; and read much at intervals: nor shall I ever regret the
way in which my time was then spent. After this I became a
follower of Richard l'Eveque, a man who was master of every kind
of learning, and whose breast contained much more than his tongue
dared give utterance to; for he had learning rather than
eloquence, truthfulness rather than vanity, virtue rather than
ostentation. With him I reviewed all that I had learned from the
others, besides certain things, which I now learnt for the first
time, relating to the Quadrivium, in which I had already acquired
some information from the German Hardewin. I also again studied
Rhetoric, which I had before learnt very superficially with some
other studies from Master Theodoric, but without understanding
what I read. Afterwards I learnt it more fully from Peter
Hely.[11]
In another chapter, which is here inserted in the narrative, John
describes in detail the teaching at Chartres. This is one of the most
complete accounts which we have of the manner and the matter of the
teaching in a twelfth-century school. He begins by a general discussion
of the importance of Grammar, which is the "foundation and root" of
reading, teaching, and reflection. Throughout this discussion he refers
constantly to Quintilian's "Institutes of Oratory." The study of
Rhetoric and of other Arts prepares one for the proper understanding of
Literature: "The greater the number of Arts with which one is imbued,
and the more fully he is imbued with them, so much the more completely
will he appreciate the elegance of the authors, and the more clearly
will he teach them."
As to the study of Literature, care should be used in selecting the best
authors. Bernard, he reports, "always said that unnecessary reading
should be avoided, and that the writings of illustrious authors were
sufficient; since to study whatever all that the most contemptible men
have ever said results in too great torture or in idle boasting, and
hinders and even overwhelms the intelligence, which is better left empty
for other writings." The reading chosen was classical Latin literature;
"in this reverent dependence upon the ancients, lies the main
peculiarity of the school of Chartres," which under Bernard and his
brother "enjoyed a peculiar distinction, continually growing until it
became almost an unapproached pre-eminence among the schools of
Gaul."[12]
This reading is in turn a preparation for Philosophy. "He who aspires to
Philosophy should understand reading, teaching and reflection, together
with practice in good works." "Search Virgil and Lucan, and there, no
matter of what philosophy you are professor, you will find it in the
making." All this is in marked contrast to the method of "Cornificius,"
who proposed to train philosophers "suddenly." John continues:
Bernard of Chartres, the most copious source of letters in Gaul
in modern times, followed this method, and in the reading of
authors showed what was simple, and fell under the ordinary
rules; the figures of grammar, the adornments of rhetoric, the
quibbles of sophistries; and where the subject of his own lesson
suggested reading related to other arts, these matters he brought
into full view, yet in such wise that he did not teach everything
about each topic but, in proportion to the capacity of his
audience, dispensed to them in due time the full scope of the
subject. And because the brilliancy of any speech depends either
on _Propriety_ (that is, the correct agreement of adjective or
verb with the substantive) or on _Metathesis_ (that is, the
transfer of the meaning of an expression for a worthy reason to
another signification), these were the things which he took every
opportunity to inculcate in the minds of his hearers.
And since the memory is strengthened by exercise and the wits are
sharpened by imitating what is heard, he urged some by warnings,
and some by floggings and punishments [to the constant practice
of memorizing and imitation]. They were individually required on
the following day to reproduce some part of what they had heard
the day before, some more, some less, for with them the following
day was the pupil of the day preceding.
Evening drill, which was called _declension_, was packed with so
much grammar that if one gave a whole year to it he would have at
his command, if he were not unusually dull, a method of speaking
and writing, and he could not be ignorant of expressions which
are in common use.... For those of the boys for whom preliminary
exercises in imitating prose or poetry were prescribed, he
announced the poets or orators and bade them imitate their
example, pointing out the way they joined their words and the
elegance of their perorations.
But if any one to make his own work brilliant had borrowed the
cloak of another he detected the theft and convicted him, though
he did not very often inflict a punishment; but he directed the
culprit thus convicted, if the poorness of his work had so
merited, to condescend with modest favor to express the exact
meaning of the author; and he made the one who imitated his
predecessors worthy of imitation by his successors.
The following matters, too, he taught among the first rudiments
and fixed them in their minds:--the value of order; what is
praiseworthy in embellishment and in [choice of] words; where
there is tenuity and, as it were, emaciation of speech; where, a
pleasing abundance; where, excess; and where, a due limit in all
things....
And since in the entire preliminary training of those who are to
be taught there is nothing more useful than to grow accustomed
to that which must needs be done with skill, they repeatedly
wrote prose and poetry every day, and trained themselves by
mutual comparisons,--a training than which nothing is more
effective for eloquence, nothing more expeditious for learning;
and it confers the greatest benefit upon life, at least, if
affection [rather than envy] rules these comparisons, if humility
is not lost in literary proficiency.[13]
John's stay at Chartres (1138-1141) made him a permanent advocate of
liberal education; but to no avail; the influence of Paris and the
rising tide of Aristotelianism gained the day. As a champion of the
newly-recovered works of Aristotle (see p. 42) he was more in accord
with the tendencies of his time.
The concluding section of the account narrates John's return to Paris,
his further studies there (1141-1148), and his visit to his old school
on the "Mount":
From hence I was withdrawn by the poverty of my condition, the
request of my companions, and the advice of my friends, that I
should undertake the office of a tutor. I obeyed their wishes;
and on my return [to Paris] after three years, finding Master
Gilbert [de la Porrée] I studied Logic and Divinity with him: but
he was very speedly removed from us, and in his place we had
Robert de Poule, a man amiable alike for his rectitude and his
attainments. Then came Simon de Poissy, who was a faithful
reader, but an obtuse disputator. These two were my teachers in
Theology only.
Twelve years having passed away, whilst I was engaged in these
various occupations, I determined to revisit my old companions,
whom I found still engaged with Logic at Mont St. Genevieve, and
to confer with them touching old matters of debate; that we might
by mutual comparison measure together our several progress. I
found them as before, and where they were before; nor did they
appear to have reached the goal in unravelling the old questions,
nor had they added one jot of a proposition. The aims that once
inspired them, inspired them still: they had progressed in one
point only: they had unlearned moderation, they knew not modesty;
in such wise that one might despair of their recovery. And thus
experience taught me a manifest conclusion, that, whereas
dialectic furthers other studies, so if it remain by itself it
lies bloodless and barren, nor does it quicken the soul to yield
fruit of philosophy, except the same conceive from elsewhere.[14]
This was doubtless one of the experiences which led John to vigorous
argument on the futility of devotion to Logic alone, and on the
importance of a liberal education:
That eloquence is of no effect without wisdom is a saying that is
frequent and true. Whence it is evident that to be of effect it
operates within the limits of wisdom. Therefore eloquence is
effective in proportion to the measure of wisdom which each one
has acquired; for the former does harm if it is dissociated from
the latter.
From this it follows that dialectic, which is the quickest and
most prompt among the hand-maids of eloquence, is of use to each
one in proportion to the measure of his knowledge. For it is of
most use to him who knows the most and of least use to him who
knows little. For as the sword of Hercules in the hand of a pygmy
or dwarf is ineffective, while the same sword in the hand of
Achilles or Hector strikes down everything like a thunderbolt, so
dialectic, if it is deprived of the vigor of the other
disciplines is to a certain degree crippled and almost useless.
If it is vigorous through the might of the others, it is powerful
in destroying all falsehood and, to ascribe the minimum to it,
it is adequate for the proper discussion of all things ...
Now it is very easy for each workman to talk about his own art;
but to do skilfully what the art requires, is most difficult. For
what physician is there who does not talk often and much about
elements, and humors, and complexions, and diseases, and the rest
that pertain to physic? But he who gets well on such talk could
well have afforded to be even sicker. What ethical teacher has
not an abundance of rules for good living so long as they exist
only on his lips? But it is clearly a much harder task to express
them in actual life. Mechanics, individually, talk glibly about
their own arts, but not one of them so lightly vies (in practice)
with the architect or the boxer. It is the same in every other
line. So it is very easy to talk about definition, arguments, or
genus and the like, but to devise these same things within the
limits of a single art for the purpose of performing fully the
functions of the art, is far more difficult [i.e. to discuss
logic in the abstract is easy, but to reason logically in any
specific field of knowledge is difficult]. Therefore he who is
hampered by a dearth of the disciplines will not have the power
which Dialectic promises and affords.[15]
The views of John of Salisbury concerning the study of Aristotle are
indicated on pages 42-44.
2. THE NEW METHOD
The new method of study and investigation, developed by Abelard, was a
second influence of importance in the growth of universities. The method
itself--later known as the scholastic method--is illustrated on pages
20, 58, 121 ff. The present section therefore merely indicates the ways
in which it influenced the course of higher education.
(_a_) The new method was one cause of the awakened interest in study
and investigation. Its effect is thus described by the most learned
historian of mediaeval universities:
Paris and Bologna experienced before all other schools, and
nearly simultaneously, at the beginning of the twelfth century,
an unexpected, almost sudden development. For in these schools
alone a definite branch of learning was treated ... by a new
method, adapted to contemporary needs, but hitherto unknown, or
insufficiently known, to other teachers of the period; and
thereby a new era of scientific investigation was inaugurated.
This new method had an attractive power for teachers and scholars
of various countries ... In this way the cornerstones of
permanent abodes of learning were laid. The continually growing
number of scholars brought with it the increase of teachers; the
desire of both classes for learning was awakened; and this
desire, and the combative exchange of ideas in the
disputations,--which now first became really established in the
schools as a result of the new method,--were effective forces to
keep investigation active, and the schools themselves from
decline.
In Paris, it was the cultivation of Logic, but chiefly the new
method in Theology, ... developed in various ways especially by
Abelard and other teachers, and extended by his contemporaries
and their disciples ... which caused the revolution in the
schools of that city.[16]
(_b_) The new method of Abelard established a new form of exposition,
and consequently a new mode of teaching, in Canon Law and in Theology.
The earliest university text-book in Canon Law--the "Decretum" of
Gratian--adopted this method, with some modifications. It was followed
in portions of the chief text-book in Theology,--the "Sentences" of
Peter Lombard. Variously modified, it became the method used in all
subsequent scholastic philosophy and theology. It was widely used in
connection with other university studies. In general, it was to
mediaeval education what the method of experiment is to the study and
teaching of modern natural science. A good illustration of its recent
use is Thomas Harper's "Metaphysic of the School."
(_c_) The scholastic method became the basis of one of the most
important university exercises,--the disputation or debate, which was
employed in every field of study.[17]
3. THE NEW STUDIES
During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the intellectual life of
western Europe was enriched by the addition of a group of books, old and
new, which were destined to influence profoundly the growth of the
universities, as well as the whole course of mediaeval life and thought.
Without some such addition to the stock of learning higher education
could hardly have developed at all, for the materials available for it
previous to the twelfth century were decidedly scanty. The books
presently to be described furnished a body of advanced and solid
instruction, suited to the needs of the times. They formed one of the
permanent influences which both developed and maintained centers of
higher education, for the new learning was not less potent in
attracting students than the fame of individual teachers or the new
method of study.
The greater number of the books which formed the body of university
instruction were recoveries from the mass of ancient and long-disused
Greek and Roman learning, together with a few works of Arabic and Jewish
origin. To this group belong the works of Aristotle, the body of Roman
Law, and the medical works of Galen, Hippocrates, and various Arabic and
Jewish physicians. In the main, these had been hitherto unknown in
western Europe, or at least practically for-gotten since the days of the
Roman Empire. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries they were
collected and made generally accessible to students. Those not
originally written in Latin were now translated into Latin; manuscript
copies were multiplied and widely diffused.
But the intellectual activity of the times accomplished much more than
the recovery of some fragments of ancient learning; it also created two
new fields of study,--Scholastic Philosophy and Theology, and Canon
Law,--and produced the text-books which marked them off as distinct and
professional studies. The book which established the _method_ of these
studies was Abelard's "Yes and No" (see p. 20); but the works which
furnished the substance of university instruction were, in Theology, the
"Sentences" (Sententiae) of Peter Lombard, and in Canon Law, the
"Decree" (Decretum) of Gratian, which was also known as the "Harmony of
Contradictory Canons" (Concordia Discordantium Canonum), and additions
thereto, indicated on page 56.
Thus, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the growth of
universities was stimulated by the development of a great body of
learning hitherto inaccessible or unknown. The striking nature of this
development will be clearer if we recall that no addition to the
learning of western Europe in the least degree comparable to this had
been made during the entire seven centuries preceding.
The books above mentioned did not constitute the sole resources for
higher education. Besides the already long-used text-books on the Seven
Liberal Arts there were mathematical and philosophical works of Arabic
origin, and as the revival progressed many new books were written on the
old subjects. But the books already named were fundamentally important
as furnishing not only the early intellectual impulse to the growth of
universities, but also the main body of studies in the Faculties of
Arts, Theology, Law, and Medicine down to the year 1500. Many of them
were in use at a much later date, and some--with many revisions--are
still standard text-books. No one can understand the intellectual life
of the universities who does not have some acquaintance with the titles
and contents of these works. It may be added that acquaintance with them
is essential also to the understanding of European history and
literature. This section is therefore devoted to certain details
concerning the early history of university studies.
(a) _The Works of Aristotle_
The works of Aristotle were composed in Athens, 335-322 B.C. Their
history, from the time of Aristotle's death to their appearance in Latin
translations in western Europe, fifteen hundred years later, cannot be
here detailed. The translations commonly used in the universities were
nearly all made during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The earlier
ones were made in Spain, from Arabic versions of the original Greek; the
later, directly from Greek copies found in Constantinople, and elsewhere
in the East. The Arabic-Latin translations were very poor, owing to the
two removes from the original Greek and the incapacity of the
translators. Those directly from the Greek were somewhat better, yet far
from satisfactory; and new versions were repeatedly made down to the end
of the fifteenth century. University reforms sometimes included the
adoption of these better translations (see p. 48).