Chapter XII

.

[432] _Ante_, pp. 289 _sqq._

[433] The _Speculum majus_ of Vincent of Beauvais will afford the principal example of the resulting hybrid arrangement.

[434] Ludwig Baur, _Dominicus Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae_ (Baeumker’s _Beiträge_, Münster, 1903), p. 193 _sqq._, to which I am indebted for what I have to say in the next few pages.

[435] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 64, col. 10 _sqq._

[436] These works were written near the middle of the twelfth century. Gundissalinus was Archdeacon of Segovia and drew upon Arab writings.

[437] See L. Baur, _Gundissalinus, etc._, p. 376 _sqq._

[438] The treatise is not printed. Its captions are given by L. Baur in his _Gundissalinus_, pp. 368-375, from which I have borrowed what I give of them.

[439] _Liber de praedicabilibus_ (tome 1 of Albertus’s works), which in scholastic logic means the five “universals,” genus, species, difference, property, accident, (also called the _quinque voces_) discussed in Porphyry’s Introduction to the _Categories_. The _Categories_ themselves are called _praedicamenta_.

[440] The above gives the arguments of chapters i. and ii. of the work. One notices that Albertus in this exposition of the subject of Porphyry’s treatise, is using the _method_ which Thomas brings to syllogistic perfection in his _Summa_.

[441] It was printed, more than once, in the late fifteenth century; the most readable edition is that printed at Douai in 1624, in four huge folios.

[442] Boundless as the work appears, neither in mental powers, nor learning, nor in massiveness of achievement, is its author to be compared with Albertus Magnus. The _De universo_ of Rabanus Maurus, Migne 111, col. 9-612, is in its arrangement and method a forerunner of Vincent’s _Speculum_. Later predecessors were the English Franciscan Bartolomaeus, whose encyclopaedic _De proprietatibus rerum_ was written a little before the middle of the twelfth century (see Felder, _Studien in Franciscanerorder, etc._, pp. 251-253); and Lambertus Audomarensis (St. Omer) with his _Liber floridus_, a general digest of knowledge, historical, ecclesiastical, and natural, taken from many writers, an account of which is given in Migne 163, col. 1004 _sqq._

[443] Here, of course, we have the hands of Esau, but the voice of Augustine and Orosius!

[444] The above is from cap. 9 of liber i. of the _Speculum doctrinale_.

[445] Migne, _Pat. Lat._ 34, col. 246-485.

[446] _Ante_, p. 290.

[447] The three theological virtues are _fides_, _spes_, and _caritas_. They are called thus because _Deum habent pro objecto_; and because they are poured (_infunduntur_) into us by God alone. They are distinguished from the moral and intellectual virtues because their object surpasses our reason, while the object of the moral and intellectual virtues can be comprehended by human reason (_Summa_, _Pars prima secundae_, Quaestio lxii., Art. 1-4).

[448] ἕξις μετὰ λόγου ἀληθοῦς ποιητική, Arist. _Nich. Ethics_, vi. 4.

[449] One notes that these two, like many other of the vices enumerated, are vices in that they are extremes, in the Aristotelian sense.

[450] We are at Quaestio clxxi. of _Secunda secundae_.

[451] The order which Thomas would have followed in the unfinished conclusion of his _Summa theologiae_, may be inferred from the order of the last half of Book IV. of his _Contra Gentiles_, or indeed from the last part of the fourth Book of the Lombard’s _Sentences_.

[452] _Ante_,