unique position less to his writings than to his personal
influence as a teacher; as a teacher too not of moral but
of natural philosophy, as a master not of theology but
of statecraft. The stores of his knowledge, v were they
acquired from the Arabs during his stay in the Spamsh
march, or won by long practice and research in every library
accessible to him, were no doubt unequalled. Gerbert
was a mathematician, a natural philosopher, and a pioneer
of natural philosophers ; his learning was believed to be
universal : but, except in the domain of positive science,
he was but the ready accumulator and diffuser of what
was actually within the range of any well-read student of
his day. In theology and metaphysics he produced little
or nothing. If we exclude the necessary official productions
of a dignitary of the church, sermons and speeches addressed
to synods and similar gatherings, and these too concerned
not with theology but with ecclesiastical politics,[1] we
shall find that Gerbert composed x not one theological
work, or, it he wrote any, they have been lost; tor the
only treatise of this class which has been ascribed to him
is certainly not his.[2]
It was indeed in practical affairs that Gerbert’s interest
- ↑ It would be more accurate to say, one sermon (De inform, episc., Migne 139. 169-178) and one speech of a substantive character and of undisputed authenticity (that delivered before the council of Mouzon in 995, Man.si 19. 193 D-196 B; 1774) : see the biblio- graphy in Fabricius, Biblioth. Lat. med. et inf. Aet. 3. 43 sq., ed Florence 1858.
- ↑ The book De corpore et san- guinedomini (Migne 139. 177 sqq.), at first printed as anonymous, was reedited by Pez from a manuscript at Goettweih which bore Gerbert’s name : see the editor s dissertatio i.sagogica to his Thesaurus Anecd. noviss. 1 pp. Ixviii, Ixix; and the ascription has been generally admitted. See the Histoire lit- teraire de la France 6. 587 sq., 1742; Neander, History of the Christian Religion and Church 6. 308; Gfrorer, Kirchengeschichte 3. 1585; cf. supra, p.76, n. 24. Long ago, however, the laborious Mabillon found reason to attribute the work to Heriger abbat of Lobbes; see his preface to the Actt. SS. 0. S. B. 4 (2) pp. xxii- xxiv, Paris 1680 folio: and this opinion was favoured by Dr R. Koepke (praef. in Herigeri et Anselmi Gest. episc., Pertz 7. 146 sq.) and Dr Vogel, Ratherius 2. 46 sqq. [Neither view seems to be tenable, for Heriger s own work, which is altogether different from that printed by Pez, has been discovered in MS. 909 in the University Library at Ghent : see E. Diimmler, in the Neues Archiv 26 (1901) 755-759, and A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 3. 319 n. 2, ed. 3, 1906.]
