the Johannes sophista of the latter is identical with John
Scotus, we are entitled to use this conversely as evidence
for the credibility of William of Malmesbury s account.
M. Haureau s identification has since received powerful
support from the arguments of Dr. von Prantl;[1] and
if their conclusion be accepted, it is surely reasonable to
claim this John Scotus the Sophist as the same person
with his contemporary John the Sophist, whose epitaph
William records; especially when the latter, no doubt
repeating an old tradition of the monastery, expressly
identifies this sophist with the Scot.[2] The extract in du
Boulay is therefore a piece of evidence that converges
with those in the preceding paragraphs to one centre.
We may or may not believe all that William says, but this
we may affirm, that his narrative is self-consistent and
intelligible, and that it is incompatible with, and con
tradictory to, the whole concoction with which the false
Ingulf has entrapped our modern critics. [3]
7. Mabillon and others have objected that John Scotus could hardly have visited England so late as after the year 880. But there is no reason, because he is known to have gone to France before 847, to conclude that he must have been born before 815. We may fairly presume that the young Scot came to the Frankish court when he was between twenty and thirty : he can hardly have been born much later than 825, but he may have been born as early as 815. But even should we accept an earlier date for John s birth, it does not follow as a matter of course that f since, according to Asset s account, he must have , 1 Huber 117.
- ↑ I have since read the objec- tions of Dr. Deutsch, Peter Aba- lard 100 n. 3, which, though un- doubtedly of weight, appear to me to depend too much upon consider- ations as to the character and con- tents of a chronicle which we know in fact only through du Boulay.
- ↑ [See however Mr. Stevenson’s note to Asser, 335, where the sophist is identified with Jo- hannes se wisa, whose burial at Malmesbury seems to be recorded later than 1020.]
- ↑ [Most of the foreign scholars who have discussed this subject have ignorantly treated Ingulf as a genuine authority: so Gfrorer 3. 938, and the biographers of John Scotus, Staudenmaier i. 120, 137, 140, Huber 115 sq., Christlieb 51. In the first edition of this book I dealt at some length with their various criticisms. ]
