412 NEW BOOKS. coq qu'il avait proruis & Esculape ' (p. 37). Wliat of the assertion (on p. 79) that the ' immortality of the soul ' is a fundamental point of Aristo- telianism made notwithstanding that M. de Wulf is aware of the variety of opinion which existed in the middle ages as to Aristotle's teaching on this subject ? What of the remark as of one correcting an essay with which Aristotle's political philosophy is dismissed (on p. 81 ), ' On soit que le Stagirite a gati- de belles pensees sur les relations familiales, en faisant 1'apologie de 1'esclavage ' ? Mistakes like epos (p. 44) and 8iai'pi;o-s (p. 45) are doubtless due to the printer ; but the explanation of 7rpa|is and Troitja-is on page 60 shows a lack of familiarity with the language of Greek philosophy. In the part of the book dealing with mediaeval philosophy there is much to which exception may be taken, and a reviewer with a larger knowledge of his own, would probably find more. The 'ontological argu- ment ' of St. Anselm is not given in the form in which he puts it ; the statement of it in M. de Wulf s text bearing indeed no close resemblance to the Latin in the note (p. 180) ; and it is quite untrue to say that Des- cartes took no notice of St. Thomas's criticisms in reviving the argument ; on the contrary, he expressly distinguishes his position from that criticised by St. Thomas in his answers to the charge of opposing the latter which his theological critics had not failed to bring against him (Ili'xp. ad l as Obj. ad Jli-ilitdtioiX's). The historical knowledge of M. de Wulf is singularly defective for one undertaking the task of a historian of mediaeval philosophy. He appar- ently thinks that Bede was an Irishman (p. 163) ; that the abbeys of Bee and, still more strangely, of St. Gall (for as to Bee the subsequent careers of its two most eminent sons might have misled him), were in England (p. 104) ; that ' Cornificius ' was the real name of the person castigated by John of Salisbury, and that he founded a sect called the Cornificians (pp. 196, 212). Where is 'le cornti- de Hales' in England, from which, according to our author, Alexander of Hales derives his name ? He states, as though there were no other account of the matter, that ' 8. Bernard fit condamner Gilbert [de la Porreej au concile de Reims en 1143. L'eveque de Poitiers retira ses propositions.' Whatever was the precise issue of that council, as to which the contemporary accounts vary, it is certain that this gives a very misleading impression, as though Gilbert was condemned in the same sense as Abelard had been. Ac- cording to the full and contemporary account in John of Salisbury's Histor'iH Ponlifivalis, he was not condemned, strictly speaking, at all ; but undertook himself to correct his commentary on Boethius de Trini- tate so that it should not disagree with certain propositions, the formula- tion of which was ultimately due to St. Bernard. John of Salisbury clearly supposes Gilbert to have really withdrawn nothing, and only by misunderstanding to have been regarded as heretical at all. Here how- ever M. de Wulf follows one account (St. Bernard's), though he would have done better to indicate that there was another. One may suppose that Paul V., on page 182, as the Pope who sent the writings of the pseudo- Dionysius to Pepin, is only a misprint for Paul I. ; and 'Les reguliers ' on page 246 is certainly no more than a slip though a serious one for ' Les seculiers '. A worse one is the confusion of the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Brethren of Common Life on page 369. Why does M. de Wulf always quote Ueberweg as Ueberwegs ? These defects are however trifling compared to that of the one-sided and partisan attitude which disqualifies M. de Wulf for the task he has undertaken. To say in a biography, however brief, of Abelard, that he was 'forci- de quitter Paris a cause era dereglement de ses moeurs' (p. 201) with no further allusion to his famous and tragic history, is puerile : to
