No More Learning

poetry, and prose would be endless.
Barclay's Latin style has been lauded without limit by Grotius
and Coleridge, and severely dealt with by Scaliger, the author of
1 N. and Q. 10 S. X, 101.
17-2


## p. 260 (#282) ############################################

260
John Barclay
а
Censura Euphormionis, Scioppius and others. If we judge by a
classical standard, it is easy to smell false Latin. ' The vocabulary is
not pure. There are lapses in usage. Among his merits can scarcely
be counted 'a witty and dexterous use of the subjunctive mood. '
But, as an example of the application of Latin to modern use,
Barclay's language deserves high praise. While no Ciceronian, he
has not affiliated 'Lipsius his hopping style. ' His own is ready,
flexible and expressive, and has the inestimable merit of con-
veying the author's meaning.
To whatever degree the belief in a clavis may have contributed
to the success of Argenis, its literary merits are beyond question.
Sorel criticised it with some animosity in his Remarques sur le
Berger extravagant, but its popularity is proved by translations
into ten languages and more than one continuation!
While there is little direct imitation of Argenis, it was among
the influences that passed into the heroic novel, and separate signs
of it are frequent in the literature of the seventeenth century. We
may trace them in other Latin works of fiction, in Erythraeus's
Eudemia and in Nova Solyma. The story yielded material for
dramas in French, Spanish, Italian and German. Fénelon's
indebtedness has been doubted. Burton quotes from Argenis, as
well as from Euphormio and Icon Animorum. Crashaw translated
verses from Argenis. There are touches of it in Boyle's Par-
thenissa. Katherine Philips addresses a friend as Poliarchus.
Barclay's works were even employed for purposes of instruction.
A selection was made of his political aphorisms. In Earle's Micro-
Cosmographie, a college tutor sets his pupil an extract from
Euphormio, and the suitability of Barclay as a Latin author for
boys' reading was discussed in a school programme of Schulpforte
(1729). It has been often repeated that Argenis appealed to
Richelieu and Leibniz: we know that Rousseau read it. Cowper's
praise and Coleridge's are familiar.
Before the close of the seventeenth century, the Latin text of
Argenis was reprinted between forty and fifty times. The demand
during the next hundred years was satisfied with half-a-dozen
editions, all proceeding from Nürnberg, since the last of which no
publisher has thought it worth his while to issue it. Recently,
several monographs dealing with Barclay's life, bibliography
and chief works have appeared in France and Germany. But
published statements in the bibliographies still require some
corrections; there are important particulars in his life which have
See the bibliograpby.
1


## p. 261 (#283) ############################################

Medieval and Modern Latin Verse 261
not been exhaustively investigated; and the full influence of his
works on subsequent literature still requires to be traced in detail.
The bulk of medieval and modern Latin verse is enormously
greater than the whole of extant classical poetry. In England, during
the past century, while the art has been greatly exercised and has
formed a prominent item in higher education, the usual aim of
its adepts has been to display their ingenuity and scholarship in
devising the most appropriate equivalents by which to give a Latin
metrical dress to the thoughts and expressions of English poets.
As a rule, the renderings are of short poems or isolated extracts.
Widely different from this was the method in vogue at the time
of the renascence, when, while translation from the Greek was
not unknown, most Latin verse was an attempt on the part of
scholars and men of letters to express their own thoughts and
feelings. Some, like Petrarch, Vida, Fracastorius and Sannazarius,
aspired to produce works of permanent value; in the case of
others, such as J. C. Scaliger, verse was a conscious relaxation
from severer labours. Too often, instead of careful finish, we find
fluent improvisation. For a century and a half, Italy, France,
Germany and the Netherlands lisped in Latin numbers. In our
own country, where the effect of the renascence was less and
later, the amount of Latin verse was inferior. Still, during the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there is a succession of
Latin versifiers from Sir Thomas More to Abraham Cowley. Nor
is production confined to lighter and more occasional pieces:
poems of more ambitious scope were attempted, such as the
De Re Publica Anglorum instauranda of Sir Thomas Chaloner
the elder (1521–62), some lines of which are familiar through
Burton's quotation.
In the north, the art was cultivated with success; Buchanan
won the highest praise from J. J. Scaliger; and Arthur Jonston,
himself a Latin poet of merit, edited Delitiae Poetarum Scotorum
under the patronage of Scot of Scotstarvet, as a pendant to
Gruter's collections.
The making of Latin verses was an essential part of the
curriculum of a good English grammar school in the sixteenth
century. John Owen, both as boy and as master, must have had
plenty of experience in ‘longs and shorts. ' Leach has pointed
out, in his History of Warwick School, that the education
at Winchester when Owen was a scholar was largely devoted to
the production of Latin epigrams, and the lines on Drake,


## p. 262 (#284) ############################################

262
John Owen
composed while their author was yet a schoolboy, had the honour
of a place in Camden's Annales.
The date conventionally assigned to Owen's birth is c. 1560,
but Leach has shown from the evidence of his age when admitted
a scholar at Winchester that the right year is 1563 or 1564. This
inference is supported by the pedigree supplied by H. R. Hughes
of Kinmell, according to which Owen had three elder brothers,
the first born in 1560. Another account makes him the third son.
His father, Thomas Owen of Plas dû, was sheriff of Carnarvonshire
in 1569, and it seems certain that Hugh Owen, the conspirator,
who died at Rome in 1618, was his uncle. Whatever the truth of
the story that the poet was disinherited by an uncle because of
an epigram reflecting on the church of Rome, we learn from Hugh
Owen’s monument that his heir was his sister's son, a Gwynne.
Although several of his epigrams are earlier, Owen's first
volume did not appear till 1606, three other volumes following
within the next six years. His success was immediate and
extraordinary; his admirers hailed him as the equal, if not
the superior, of Martial; and the comparison, though too often
repeated in an uncritical fashion, undoubtedly contains some
slight element of truth. It must be confessed at once that, in
Owen, one looks in vain for the poetic side of Martial, for his
pathos and tenderness. One misses, too, the variety of metre,
above all the hendecasyllables in which Martial's hand is exceed-
ingly light, the great majority of Owen's epigrams consisting of
a single elegiac distich. Wherein, then, lies his merit? He is
the very embodiment of that 'quick venew of wit: snip, snap,
quick and home, which finds its fittest expression in the brief
compass of two Latin lines, as Latin, too, has no rival as the
language for terse inscription. If, without profanity, Owen's name
may be set by Martial's, it is because he has caught something of
the spirit of one class of Martial's epigrams—the couplets which
are all point with no room for poetry. If we apply the familiar
precept, Owen's performances possess the aculeus and are corporis
exigui, but the honey is to seek.
It was the point and brevity which captivated his auditors;
the tastes of that audience are seen in Manningham's Diary
The Epigrammata would especially be welcomed by members of
the universities and inns of court, daily conversant with Latin
enamoured of verbal quips, impresses and anagrams. They would
1 Y Cymmrodor, xvi, 177.
Archaeologia Cambrensis, vol. 10 (second series), pp. 130, 131.


## p. 263 (#285) ############################################

His Epigrams
263
find Owen singularly free from the two faults which rendered
much modern Latin verse intolerable, namely: insipidity and
tediousness. In a quatrain prefixed to Owen's second volume
(1607), Sir John Harington pays his friend the curious compliment
of saying that his verses do not make the reader sick'. This is
no faint praise. Owen is eminently readable; his very faults are
rarely associated with ineffectiveness. They are, for the most
part, due to devices for arresting the reader's attention. Among
the least satisfactory is the selection of words of similar sound,
where, without point enough for a pun, the result is a jingle-
Mars and mors; audiret and auderet; Venetiae and divitiae; A
summo sumo Principe principium. But there are times when
his mere dexterity in playing with the letter compels admiration,
as in the line describing the care of physicians and lawyers for
their clients :
Dant patienter opem, dum potiuntur opum,
We have in him a concise Latin counterpart of the punning and
alliterative titles of contemporary controversial tracts. Owen
abounds in the tricks by which a word is written backwards or
stripped of a syllable or letter. His alertness in detecting his
opportunity is only paralleled by De Morgan's prompt discovery,
when Burgon had repudiated an invitation to a public dinner,
that curt refusal was spelt by the reversal of the dean's name.
In keeping with the fashion of his age, Owen is great in anagrams,
ringing the changes to the fifth degree? There is juggling with
figures, as when he shows that the digits of prince Henry's birth
year, when added together, make up the golden number, nineteen?
In the higher paronomasia, Owen is supreme; his happiest efforts
have all the shock and the inevitableness of the famous neque
benefecit neque male fecit, sed interfecit. Hood's inexhaustible
fertility would have found in him a rival. Akin to this is the
readiness with ingenious comparisons, and the skill by which a
new and unexpected turn is given to familiar proverbs and quo-
tations, or new light shed on a familiar truth, as in the epigram
Ad Juvenem :
Quisque senectutem, mortem tibi nemo precatur ;
Optatur morbus, non medicina tibi.
It was hardly to be expected that, in his criticisms of social life,
1 Provenit ex versu nausea nulla tuo.
2 Epigrammata, lib. VI, 12. (The books are numbered consecutively, as in
Renouard's edition. )
3 V, 51. * Attributed to Porson in Facetiae Cantabrigienses (1825), p. 184.


## p. 264 (#286) ############################################

264
John Owen
Owen would refrain from claiming the licence traditionally en-
joyed by the epigrammatist, and he has Sterne’s unedifying trick
of making a sentence in itself innocent the vehicle of an unseemly
meaning. Whatever the method employed, Owen's perpetual aim
is to startle the reader by the flash of his wit, whether the result
be reached by the soaring of a rocket or the splutter of a squib.
As befits a schoolmaster, he affords us scraps from the feast of
languages; besides Latin and English, Greek, Welsh, Hebrew,
French and Italian all have a part in his jests. Nor is learning
absent; to a hasty reader, satisfied with seeing that a point is
complete in itself, the echoes from the classics may remain un-
heard. It is not always recognised that his praise of Thomas
Neville, his patroness's son,
Qui puerum laudat, spem, non rem, laudat in illo,
Non spes, ingenium res probat ipsa tuum
is based on a saying of Cicero, quoted in Servius's commentary to
Vergil. The words Semper in incerta re tu mihi certus amicus
are suggested by a line of Ennius, quoted in De Amicitia. The
epigram on Sir Philip Sidney has been cited as 'an example of
Owen's power; it is really the versification of the younger Pliny's
panegyric on his uncle. Owen takes his profit where he finds it.
An etymology of Varro, a line of Persius, a hexameter proverb,
and an aphorism of Matthaeus Borbonius, are alike pressed into his
service. It is not always easy to distinguish between imitation and
coincidence nor to decide whether indebtedness is unconscious
or intentional. The remark on Nicholas Borbonius's Nugael has
a parallel in Joachim du Bellay: elsewhere, we meet with an appa-
rent reminiscence of Johannes Secundus. The distich obnoxious
to quotation on Peter and Simon at Rome embodies a jest pre-
sumably ancient. It may be seen in Euricius Cordus. Another
epigram of Cordus on our attitude to a physician closely resembles
one of Owen's? There are many such parallels in the vast litera-
ture of modern Latin. The remarkable instance of the lines of
Geronimo Amalteo and Passerat is given in Hallam. Similarity
of theme must often have involved similarity of treatment.
Owen's epigrams are no mere imitative exercises in Latin
style. He must pack his meaning in a small space and he feels the
difficulty of his task. Crede mihi, labor est non levis esse brevem.
He is bent on making his point and makes it often at the cost of
correctness. He is not infallible in the order of his words and
II, 42.
2 N. and Q. 10 S. XI, 21.
3 Lit. of Europe, part a, chap. 5.
1
4
1, 168.


## p. 265 (#287) ############################################

Subjects of his Epigrams 265
the modern schoolmaster would be aghast at some of his irregu-
larities in syntax. His prosody is scarcely that of the Augustan
age and he is even guilty of false quantities. In some points,
however, modern scholarship is apt to misjudge the practice of
earlier verse writers. A critic of archbishop Williams's epitaph
on the poet in old St Paul's has objected to parva statura on
the ground that Owen would not have tolerated this from a fourth
form boy. If so, to be consistent, Owen ought himself to have
submitted to the rod. The rule that a short vowel should not be
retained before sc-, sp-, or st- was no matter of common notoriety
in his day. It was left for Richard Dawes', in 1745, to point out
the general neglect of the principle, and to ask schoolmasters to
urge it on their pupils.
Owen exercises his wit on many subjects. We meet the familiar
figures of the poor author, the degenerate noble, the courtier,
the lawyer, the physician, the atheist, the hypocrite, the miser,
January and May, the uxorious husband, the cuckold. We have
a host of imaginary personages-Aulus, Cotta, Harpalus, Marcus,
Quintus, Camilla and Flora, Gellia, Pontia and Phyllis and many
another. It was the succession of general and unconnected ideas
which caused Lessing to declare that it made him dizzy to read
a book of Owen through. There are epigrams on Winchester
college, the university of Oxford, Christ Church, the Bodleian
library, Savile's edition of Chrysostom, Holland's translation of
Pliny, Sidney's Arcadia, Overbury's Perfect Wife, Joseph Hall's
Meditations and other literary topics. Many are addressed to
Welsh kinsfolk, to personal friends, to patrons actual or prospec-
tive, to prominent people of the day. Among others, are bishop
Bilson, his former headmaster at Winchester, archbishop Abbot,
archbishop Williams, Vaughan, bishop of London, Burleigh and
Salisbury, lord chancellor Ellesmere, Coke, lord Dorset, Lucy,
countess of Bedford, the earl of Pembroke, Sir Edward Herbert,
Sir Henry Wotton, Sir Henry Goodyer, Sir Henry Fanshawe, Daniel
the poet, Sir John Harington, Sir Thomas Overbury. His first
three books were dedicated to lady Mary Neville, daughter of the
earl of Dorset; his second volume, a single book, to Arabella Stuart;
the third volume to Henry prince of Wales and his brother
Charles; and the last volume to his three ‘Maecenates' Sir Edward
Noel, Sir William Sidley and Sir Roger Owen. There are touches
of sincere emotion, as in his lines to his friend, John Hoskins;
but Owen’s habitual style is hardly adapted for the finer shades
i Notes on Terentianus Maurus in his Miscellanea Critica.


## p. 266 (#288) ############################################

266
John Owen
of personal feeling, nor, in an age of fulsome dedications, did he
possess the art of flattering with delicacy. James I and his family
are naturally the recipients of the grossest adulation, witness the
epigram in which the prayer is offered that the king may live
nineteen hundred years. Owen, as he reminds us, was of the
order of Fratres Minores; he makes no secret of his eagerness
to be patronised and is outspoken in his desire to receive pecuniary
help, a weakness which he shared with Martial. After ceasing to
be master at Warwick, he seems to have been in difficulties, and
it has been stated that, in the latter part of his life, he owed his
support to the kindness of his kinsman archbishop Williams.
About ten years elapsed between his last volume and the death
of 'little Owen, the epigrammaker'; but so little is known of
his career that it is impossible to say whether his silence was due
to the consciousness that he had exhausted a particular vein or
whether other causes were at work. There are signs of falling off
in his later productions, and he seems to have been aware of this.
Of the favourable impression which Owen made upon his con-
temporaries, there can be no doubt. His first volume was reissued
within a month, and, during the seventeenth century, his epigrams
were frequently reprinted in England, Holland and Germany.
Camden, in his Remains, when speaking of the poets of his day
couples Owen's name with those of Sidney, Spenser, Daniel, Holland,
Ben Jonson, Campion, Drayton, Chapman, Marston, Shakespeare,
‘and other most pregnant wits of these our times whom succeeding
ages may justly admire. ' Five English translations of the whole
or part of his epigrams appeared before 1678, the earliest by John
Vicars in 1619. The clumsiness of much in these translations
makes the merit of the original Latin more evident. The best
known of the half-dozen French versions (the latest of which
appeared in 1818), that by N. Le Brun (1709), is entirely wanting
in point and concentration. Many attempts to interpret him
were made in Germany, the most conspicuous of which is by
Valentin Löber (1653). He has also been translated into Spanish.
Any effect of Owen on subsequent Latin verse was, naturally,
confined to the epigrammatists. Caspar Barth, whose own extem-
poraneous style was ill-calculated to reproduce Owen's neatness,
frequently addresses him in his work Scioppius excellens, and in
his Amphitheatrum Seriorum Jocorum (thirty books of epigrams).
Barth, it may be noted, resents Owen's imputation of drinking
habits to the Germans. Bauhusius of Antwerp and Cabillavus,
though their style and subject matter are far other than Owen's,


## p. 267 (#289) ############################################

His Influence
267
show, in a few epigrams, distinct traces of indebtedness to him. To
take another example, Ninian Paterson, a Scotch minister whose
Epigrammaton libri octo was published at Edinburgh in 1678,
shows, amid much flatness, strong evidence of his study of Owen.
But the author whose obligations are most marked is H. Harder,
whose epigrams are included in the second volume of Rostgaard's
Deliciae Quorundam Poetarum Danorum (Lugd. Bat. 1693). In
his second and third books in especial, Owen is echoed again and
again. We find the same themes, the same points and the same
play upon words. Harder shows considerable skill in this style,
and, in many cases, if epigrams of his were inserted among Owen's,
it would require a close acquaintance with the latter's writings to
detect the imposition.
There are many references to Owen and some imitations of
his epigrams in the English literature of the century. Robert
Burton quotes him several times without acknowledgment, and
there are traces of indebtedness in such widely different authors
as Sir John Harington and the matchless Orinda. ' But the
strangest phenomenon about Owen's influence is to be found in
the German literature of the seventeenth century. At a time
when artificiality and pedantry were rampant, a whole school of
writers arose who devoted themselves to epigram, after the
manner of Owen. This singular and interesting episode of literary
history has been treated by Erich Urban, in his Owenus und
die deutschen Epigrammatiker des XVII Jahrhunderts. In the
eighteenth century, Owen's work was still alive. Lessing criticised
him with severity but paid him the sincerest form of flattery.
Cowper translated some of his epigrams. In the second year of the
French republic, one of the very first books issued from the press of
Didot, when the scarcity of compositors due to the recent troubles
came to an end, was the epigrams of Owen, edited by Renouard.
Southey's omnivorous taste did not neglect Owen.
The last edition of the epigrams appeared at Leipzig in
1824. Collected editions published after his death contain a few
posthumous epigrams, but, by a curious fate, many moral and
political distiches of Michael Verinus and an epigram of Ausonius
came also to be included, and a great number of inaccuracies
crept into the text. It is not possible that Owen should ever
again be so highly valued as in the past, but it is equally certain
that his present neglect is undeserved. It is strange that he
should be so little read at a time when some knowledge of Latin
is still an essential part of literary training.


## p. 268 (#290) ############################################

CHAPTER XIV
THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH PHILOSOPHY
а
a
.
THE English language may be said to have become for the first
time the vehicle of philosophical literature by the publication of
Bacon's Advancement of Learning, in 1605. Hooker's Ecclesias-
tical Polity, which preceded it by eleven years, belongs to theology
rather than to philosophy; and the little-known treatise of Sir
Richard Barckley, entitled A Discourse of the felicitie of man:
or his Summum bonum (1598), consists mainly of amusing or
improving anecdotes, and contains nothing of the nature of a moral
philosophy. Bacon's predecessors, whether in science or in
philosophy, used the common language of" learned men. He was
the first to write an important treatise on science or philosophy in
English ; and even he had no faith in the future of the English
language. In the Advancement, he had a special purpose in view.
he wished to obtain help and cooperation in carrying out his
plans; and he regarded the book as only preparatory to a larger
scheme. The works intended to form part of his great design for
the renewal of the sciences were written in Latin. National
characteristics are never so strongly marked in science and philo-
sophy as in other branches of literature, and their influence takes
longer in making itself felt. The English birth or residence of a
medieval philosopher is of little more than biographical interest :
it would be vain to trace its influence on the ideas or style of his
work. With the Latin language went community of audience, of
culture and of topics.
This traditional commonwealth of thought
was weakened by the forces which issued in the renascence; and,
among these forces, the increased consciousness of nationality led,
gradually, to greater differentiation in national types of culture
and to the use of the national language even for subjects which
appealed chiefly, or only, to the community of learned men. How-
ever much he may have preferred the Latin tongue as the vehicle
of his philosophy, Bacon's own action made him a leader of this
movement; and it so happened that the type of thought which he


## p. 269 (#291) ############################################

The Philosophy of the Middle Ages 269
expounded had affinities with the practical and positive achieve-
ments of the English mind. In this way, Bacon has come to be
regarded, not altogether correctly, as not only the beginner of
English philosophy, but also representative of the special character-
istics of the English philosophical genius.
From the end of the eighth century, when Alcuin of York was
summoned to the court of Charles the Great, down to the middle
of the fourteenth century, there was an almost constant succession
of scholars of British birth among the writers who contributed to
the development of philosophy in Europe. The most important
names in the succession are Johannes Scotus Erigena, John of
Salisbury, Alexander of Hales, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon,
Johannes Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Thomas Brad-
wardine. An account of the English scholastics has been given in
the first volume of this work. Here it must suffice to characterise
in general terms the movement of which they formed part, and
some of the directions in which their ideas exercised an influence
on later science and speculation.
The philosophy of the Middle Ages was, above all things, an
attempt at the systematisation of knowledge. The instrument for
this synthesis was found in the logical conceptions and method of
Aristotle. Its material consisted of the existing records of ancient
philosophy and science, what was learned from contemporary
experience and the teachings of the church. In the heterogeneous
mass of material thus brought together, a pre-eminent position
was assigned to religious doctrine. Philosophy came to be re-
garded as ancillary to theology; and the claims of theology were
based upon ecclesiastical authority. This feature became charac-
teristic of the scholastic method, and a frequent ground of
objection to it in its decline. Connected with this was another
and a more favourable feature. In accepting and interpreting
theological doctrine, the thought of the period recognised the
independent value of the facts of the spiritual life. What the
Scriptures and the fathers taught was confirmed by inner ex-
perience. In the laborious erudition and dialectical subtleties of
the schoolmen, there is seldom wanting a strain of this deeper
thought, which attains its full development in medieval mysticism.
Thus, in the words of a recent historian,
it dawned upon men that the spiritual world is just as much a reality as the
material world, and that in the former is man's true home. The way was
prepared for a more thorough investigation of spirit and matter than was


## p. 270 (#292) ############################################

270 The Beginnings of English Philosophy
possible to antiquity. Above all things, however, a sphere of experience was
won for human life which was, in the strictest sense, its own property, into
which no external powers could penetrate 1.
To Erigena, may be traced both medieval mysticism and the
scholastic method. He seems to have been born in Ireland about
810, and to have proceeded to France some thirty years later.
Charles the Bald appointed him to the schola palatina at Paris.
He appears to have had no further connection with Ireland or
with England, and to have died in France about 877. It was
probably owing to the protection of the king that he escaped the
graver results which usually followed a suspicion of heresy. His
works were officially condemned by papal authority in 1050 and
1255. Erigena was the predecessor of scholasticism but not him-
self one of the schoolmen. His anticipation of them consists not
only in his dialectical method, but, also, in his recognition of the
authority of the Bible and of the fathers of the church as final.
But this recognition is guarded by the assertion that it is impos-
sible for true authority and true reason really to conflict; and he
deals quite freely with the letter of a doctrine, while he interprets its
spirit in his own way. On the development of mystical thought, he
exercised an even greater influence. The fundamental conceptions
and final outcome of his great work, De Divisione Naturae, are
essentially mystical in tone; and, by his translation of the pseudo-
Dionysian writings, he made accessible the storehouse from which
medieval mystics derived many of their ideas. These writings
are first heard of distinctly in the early part of the sixth century;
even in that uncritical age they were not received without
question ; but they soon gained general acceptance as the genuine
work of Dionysius the Areopagite who'clave unto' St Paul after
the address on Mars' hill, and who was supposed to have become
bishop of Athens. The work attributed to him contains an inter-
pretation of Christian doctrine by means of Neoplatonic ideas.
It exercised a strong influence upon Erigena himself and upon
subsequent medieval thought; and this influence was powerfully
reinforced long afterwards by the study of Plato and the Neo-
platonists at the time of the revival of learning.
Erigena's work opens with a division of the whole of reality
into four classes that which creates and is not created, that which
is both created and creates, that which is created but does not
create and that which neither creates nor is created. The last
class is not mere non-existence. In general, it may be said to
1 Höffding, History of Modern Philosophy, Eng. tr. I, 6.


## p. 271 (#293) ############################################

cause,
Johannes Scotus Erigena 271
signify the potential as distinguished from the actual ; in ultimate
analysis, it is the goal or end towards which all things strive that in
it they may find rest. It is, therefore, God, as final cause, just as the
first class in the division—the uncreate creatoris God, as efficient
God is thus at once the beginning and end of all things,
from which they proceed and to which they return. From the
uncreate creator proceed the prototypes or ideas which contain the
immutable reasons or grounds of all that is to be made. The
world of ideas is created and yet eternal, and from it follows the
creation of individual things. Their primordial causes are con-
tained in the divine Logos (or Son of God), and from these, by the
power of the divine Love (or Holy Spirit), is produced the realm
of created things that cannot themselves create. God created the
world out of nothing, that is to say, out of His ineffable divine
nature, which is incomprehensible to men and angels. And the
process is eternal : in God, vision does not precede operation.
Nor can anything subsist outside God:
the creature subsists in God, and God is created in the creature in a wonderful
and ineffable manner, manifesting himself, the invisible making himself
visible, and the incomprehensible comprehensible, and the hidden plain, and
the unknown known 1.
Thus, while God, as creator and as final cause, transcends all
things, He is also in all things. He is their beginning, middle and
end. And His essence is incomprehensible; nay, 'God Himself
knows not what He is, for He is not a "what. " Hence, all ex-
pressions used of God are symbolical only. Strictly speaking, we
cannot even ascribe essence to Him: He is super-essential; nor
goodness : He is beyond good (úrepárabos).
Erigena was more influenced by Plato than by Aristotle. His
acquaintance with the latter's works was restricted to certain of
the logical treatises. The greater part of the Aristotelian writings
became known to the schoolmen at a later date and mainly by
means of Latin translations of Arabic translations of a Syriac
version. The new Aristotelian influence began to make itself dis-
tinctly felt about three centuries after Erigena's time. Alexander
of Hales is said to have been the first schoolman who knew
the whole philosophy of Aristotle and used it in the service of
Christian theology. The metaphysical and physical writings of
Aristotle were at first viewed with suspicion by the church, but
afterwards definitely adopted, and his authority in philosophy
became an article of scholastic orthodoxy. The great systems of
· De divisione nature, III, 18, ed. Schlüter, 1838, p. 238.
6
))


## p. 272 (#294) ############################################

272 The Beginnings of English Philosophy
6
the thirteenth century—especially the most lasting monument of
scholastic thought, the Summa of St Thomas Aquinas—are founded
on his teaching
But uniformity of opinion was not maintained completely or
for long, and three English schoolmen are to be reckoned among
the most (if not the most) important opponents of St Thomas.
These are Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham.
'Scotism' became the rival of Thomism' in the schools. The
effect of Duns Scotus's work was to break up the harmony of faith
and reason which had been asserted by St Thomas, and which was
of the essence of orthodox scholasticism. Scotus was not himself
heretical in religious belief, nor did he assert an antagonism
between faith and reason; but he was critical of all intellectual
arguments in the domain of theology. The leading school had not
attempted a justification by reason of such specifically Christian
doctrines as those of the Trinity or the Incarnation (as Erigena,
for instance, had done). These were accepted as mysteries of the
faith, known by revelation only. But certain doctrines—such as
the being of God, the immortality of the soul and the creation of
the world out of nothing—were held to admit of rational proof,
and thus to belong to ‘natural theology. The arguments for the
latter doctrines are subjected to criticism by Scotus. He denied
the validity of natural theology-except in so far as he recognised
that a certain vision of God may be reached by reason, although
it needs to be reinforced by revelation. In restricting the power
of intellect, Scotus exalted the significance of will. Faith is a
voluntary submission to authority, and its objective ground is the
unconditional will of God.
At the hands of Ockham, who was a pupil of Duns Scotus, the
separation between theology and philosophy, faith and reason, was
made complete. He admitted that there are probable arguments
for the existence of God, but maintained the general thesis that
whatever transcends experience belongs to faith. In this way, he
,
broke with Scotism as well as with Thomism on a fundamental
question. He denied the real existence of ideas or universals and
reverted to the doctrine known as nominalism, of which he became
the greatest exponent. Entities are not to be postulated without
necessity shown. The universal exists only as a conception in the
individual mind; though it signifies, without change of meaning,
any one of a number of things. The only reality is the individual,
and all knowledge is derived from experience. Ockham, further,
is remarkable for his political writings, in which he defended the
a


## p. 273 (#295) ############################################

Roger Bacon
273
independent power of the temporal sovereign against the claims of
the pope. His philosophical doctrines had many followers and
opponents : but he is the last of the great scholastics, for his
criticisms struck at the root of the scholastic presuppositions.
Roger Bacon, the earliest in time of the three named, was also
the greatest and the most unfortunate. He lived and wrote under
the shadow of an uncongenial system then at the height of its
power. He suffered persecution and long imprisonments; his
popular fame was that of an alchemist and a wizard ; his works
were allowed to lie unprinted for centuries; and only later scholars
have been able to appreciate his significance. His learning seems
to have been unique ; he read Aristotle in Greek, and expressed
unmeasured contempt for the Latin translations then in vogue; he
was acquainted with the writings of the Arab men of science, whose
views were far in advance of all other contemporary knowledge.
He does not appear himself to have made the original scientific
discoveries with which he used to be credited, but he had thoroughly
mastered the best of the science and philosophy of his day.
There is, of course, much in his writings that may be called
scholasticism, but his views on the method of science are markedly
modern. His doctrine of method has been compared with that of
his more famous namesake Francis Bacon. He was as decided as
the latter was in rejecting all authority in matters of science; like
him, he took a comprehensive view of knowledge and attempted a
classification of the sciences; like him, also, he regarded natural
philosophy as the chief of the sciences. The differences between
the two are equally remarkable and serve to bring out the merits
of the older philosopher. He was a mathematician; and, indeed,
he looked upon mathematical proof as the sole type of demonstra-
tion. Further, he saw the importance in scientific method of two
steps that were inadequately recognised by Francis Bacon-the
deductive application of elementary laws to the facts observed,
followed by the experimental verification of the results. 'Roger
Bacon,' it has been said, 'has come very near, nearer certainly than
any preceding and than any succeeding writer until quite recent
times, to a satisfactory theory of scientific method. '
For more than two centuries after Ockham's death, only one
writer of importance can be reckoned among English philosophers.
That writer was John Wyclif, in whose case a period of philoso-
phical authorship-on scholastic lines—preceded his theological
1 R. Adamson, Roger Bacon: the Philosophy of Science in the Middle Ages (1876),
P. 33.
E. L. IV.
CH, XIV.
18


## p. 274 (#296) ############################################

274 The Beginnings of English Philosophy
and religious activity, and to whose writings reference has been
made in a previous volume. After him comes a blank of long
duration. The leaders of the renascence, both in philosophy and
in science, belonged to the continent; and, although their ideas
affected English scholarship and English literature, philosophical
writings were slow to follow. And the theological controversies
of the reformation led to no new enquiry into the grounds of
knowledge and belief. On the universities, the teaching of
Aristotle retained its hold, at least as regards logic, even after the
introduction of the new 'humanistic' studies. In the latter part
of the sixteenth century, Aristotelianism experienced an aca-
demic revival, though its supporters, in all cases, were suspected
of papistical leanings. John Case of St John's college, Oxford
(B. A. 1568), gave up his fellowship on this ground (it is said),
married and was allowed by the university to give lectures on
logic and philosophy in his house. In 1589, he took the M. D.
degree and, in the same year, became a canon of Salisbury. He
died in 1600. Between 1584 and 1599, he published seven books,
text-books of Aristotelianism_dealing with logic, ethics, politics
and economics. His Speculum moralium questionum in universam
ethicen Aristotelis (1585) was the first book printed at Oxford at
the new press presented by the earl of Leicester, chancellor of the
university. John Sanderson, fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge
(B. A. 1558), was appointed logic reader in the university in 1562, but,
in the same year, was expelled from his fellowship for suspicious
doctrine. He became a student at Douay in 1570, was ordained
priest in the Roman Catholic church and was appointed divinity
professor in the English college at Rheims. He died in 1602.
The only work of his that is known is Institutionum Dialecticarum
libri quatuor, printed at Antwerp in 1589, and at Oxford in 1594.
About the year 1580, a vigorous controversy regarding the merits
of the old logic and the new was carried on between two fellows
of Cambridge colleges, Everard Digby and William Temple. They
were both younger in academic standing than Sanderson or Case,
but they published earlier. Digby took his B. A. in the beginning
of 1571, and became fellow of St John's early in 1573, shortly
before Francis Bacon entered Trinity college as an undergraduate.
He began to give public lectures on logic soon after this date. “
It is possible—we have no evidence on the point—that Bacon
attended these lectures. If he did, they may have been the means
of arousing his interest in the question of method, and they may
also, at the same time, have awakened the spirit of criticism in
>


## p. 275 (#297) ############################################

Digby and William Temple 275
him and led to that discontent with the philosophy of Aristotle
which, according to his own account, he first acquired at
Cambridge.
Digby's career was chequered. He was suspected of 'corrupt
religion,' and he made enemies in his own society by his contempt
for the authorities. In the end of December, 1587, on the nominal
ground of an irregularity in his payments for commons, he was
deprived of his fellowship by Whitaker, master of the college and
a stern puritan. But Digby seems to have had friends in high
place. He appealed to Burghley the chancellor and to archbishop
Whitgift. By their order, a commission was appointed to enquire
into the grounds of his dismissal, and, as a result, Digby was
restored 28 May 1588. But, by the end of the same year, he seems
to have been got rid of-how, we do not knowl. Probably, the real
ground of objection to him-his lukewarm protestantism-made
it prudent for him to leave the university. Digby was famous in
his day for his eloquence as a lecturer, his skill in the disputations
of the schools and his learning. His learning, however, is much
less than appears from the mere array of authorities which he
cites. These are often taken from Reuchlin's De arte cabbalistica
(1517), the fictitious personages of this work being sometimes
referred to as actual authors. Digby wrote in the true scholastic
spirit; for him, Aristotle's doctrines were authoritative, and to
disagree with them was heresy. At the same time, his own Aristo-
telianism was coloured by a mystical theology for which he was
largely indebted to Reuchlin. Digby's chief work, Theoria ana-
lytica, viam ad monarchiam scientiarum demonstrans, was
published in 1579. This was followed next year by two books—
a criticism of Ramus entitled De duplici methodo, and a reply to
Temple's defence of the Ramist method. He was also the author
of a small treatise De arte natandi (1587), and of an English
Dissuasive from taking away the lyvings and goods of the Church
(1589).
William Temple passed from Eton to King's college, Cambridge,
in 1573; in due course, he became a fellow of the latter society,
and was soon engaged in teaching logic. From about 1582 till
about 1585, he was master of Lincoln grammar school. He then
became secretary to Sir Philip Sidney (to whom his edition of the
Dialectica of Ramus had been dedicated). After the latter's death,
he occupied various secretarial posts, and was in the service of the
| All the ascertainable facts were for the first time brought together by R. F. Scott
in The Eagle (St John's college magazine), October term, 1906, pp. 1-24.
18-2


## p. 276 (#298) ############################################

276 The Beginnings of English Philosophy
earl of Essex when he was obliged by the favourite's fall to
leave England. He does not seem to have returned till after the
accession of king James. In 1609, he was made provost of Trinity
college, Dublin, and, a few months later, master of chancery in
Ireland. He was knighted in 1622, and died in January 1627.
Temple's important philosophical writings belong to the early
part of his career. He was a pupil of Digby at Cambridge, and
wrote in terms of warm appreciation of his master's abilities and
fame and of the new life that he had put into philosophical study
in England. But he had himself found a more excellent way of
reasoning in the logical method of Ramus, then coming to be
known in this country. When scarcely twenty years of age,
Ramus had startled the university of Paris by his strenuous op-
position to the doctrines of Aristotle ; he had allied himself to the
Calvinists; and he ended his life as a victim of St Bartholomew's eve.
The protestant schools, accordingly, tended to favour his system,
in which logic, as the art of discourse, was assimilated to rhetoric
and given a practical character. Ascham, indeed, in a letter of
1552, and, again, in his Scholemaster (1570), expressed his dis-
approval of it. But, as early as 1573, we hear of its being defended
in Cambridge'. And, in 1574, when Andrew Melville returned
from Geneva and was appointed principal of the university of
Glasgow, he 'set him wholly to teach things not heard in this
country of before? ,' and the Dialectica of Ramus took the place of
Aristotle's Organon or the scholastic manual elsewhere current
in the universities of Great Britain. By his published works,
Temple became celebrated on the continent as well as at home as
an expositor and defender of Ramist doctrine; and, doubtless, it
is to his activity that Cambridge acquired a reputation in the early
part of the seventeenth century as the leading school of Ramist
philosophy? Temple began authorship in 1580, under the pseudo-
nym of Franciscus Mildapettus Navarrenus“, with an Admonitio
to Digby in defence of the single method of Ramus. Other con-
troversial writings on the same text, against Digby and Piscator of
Strassburg, followed in 1581 and 1582. In 1584, he published an
annotated edition of Ramus's Dialectica, and, in the same year, he
6
>
* Mullinger, History of the University of Cambridge, II, p. 411.
2 James Melvill's Diary (Edinburgh, Wodrow Society, 1842), p. 49; cf. Sir A.
Grant, Story of the University of Edinburgh, 1, p. 80.
3 See Mullinger, op. cit. 11, p. 412.
• Navarrenus' proclaims the author's allegiance to Ramos, who was educated at
the Parisian collège de Navarre; ‘Franciscus' may indicate nothing more than the
French origin of the doctrine. The explanation of • Mildapettus' is obscure.


## p. 277 (#299) ############################################

William Gilbert
277
issued, with a preface by himself, a disputation against Aristotle's
doctrine concerning the generation of simple and complex bodies,
written by James Martin of Dunkeld, then a professor at Turin.
These two books must have been among the first published by the
university Press, after the restoration of its licence by Burghley,
the chancellor, in this year?
In clearness of thought and argumentative skill, Temple was
far superior to Digby. On the more special point in dispute
between them—whether the method of knowledge is twofold,
from particulars to universals and from universals to particulars,
or whether there is only one method of reasoning, that from uni-
versals—the truth was not entirely on Temple's side. Nor had
his method anything in common with the induction used in the
physical sciences. But the new logic he recommended had the
advantage of clearness and practicality, and was free from the
complicated subtleties of the traditional systems. That Bacon
was acquainted with the works of Digby and Temple is highly
probable, though it cannot be conclusively established. Their
influence upon him, however, must have consisted mainly in
stimulating his interest in the question of method : they did not
anticipate his theory of induction.
While these questions occupied the schools, William Gilbert,
fellow of St John's college, Cambridge, 1561, president of the royal
college of physicians, 1600, was engaged in the laborious and
systematic pursuit of experiments on magnetism which resulted
in the publication of the first great English work of physical science,
De Magnete, magneticisque corporibus (1600).