possible, as Milman supposes, that it contributed not a little to the growth of 'Christian mythology.' William of Malmesbury, who was singularly well informed about John and his works, has a good word to say even of the Division Of Nature, which he describes as very useful for solving the difficulty of certain questions, albeit he have to be pardoned, for some matters wherein, holding his eyes fast upon the Greeks, he has deflected from the path of the Latins. The acuteness of this criticism enhances the value of William's opinion; he was well aware that John had been deemed a heretic, and he confessed that there are truly very many things in his book, the which, unless we carefully examine them, appear abhorrent from the faith of the catholics. This temperate judgement is repeated by the most popular of the encyclopaedists of the middle ages, Vincent of Beauvais. There is also evidence that the name of John Scotus was known and honoured not only at Malmesbury but also in that Saxon monastery of Corvey which preserved its Carolingian culture longer perhaps than any other: so late as the middle of the twelfth century, its abbat, Wibald, writing to Manegold of Paderborn, commemorates the philosopher as closing the line of great masters of the age which began with Bede the Venerable, and went on with Haimon of Halberstadt and Rabanus Maurus, – men most learned, who by writing and reasoning left in the church of God illustrious monuments of their genius.[1]
- ↑ Quid loquar de caeteris viris doctissimis qui post predictos in aecclesia Dei scribendo et disserendo preclara ingenii sui monimenta reliquerunt? Bedam, dico, et Ambrosium Aupertum, Heimonem, Rabanum, Iohannem Scottum, et multos preterea, quorum opera legimus; nec non illos quos vidimus, Anselmum Laudunensem, Wilhelmum Parisiensem, Albricum Remensem, Hugonem Parisiensem, et alios plurimos, quorum doctrina et scriptis mundus impletus est: Epist. clxvii, in Jaffé, Biblioth. 1. 278; 1864. See other instances in Hauréau, Hist. 2 (1) 59; 1880.
