We are not concerned here with the theological question at issue, but it may be remarked that Dungal’s reply[502] shows that he was a man of wide culture, “accomplished too in sacred literature, and at the same time trained in grammatical laws and in the classical excellence of style as will readily appear to anyone who reads his writings.”[503] Alzog informs us that the sophistical reasoning of Claudius was refuted by Jonas, bishop of Orleans, but much more ably by Dungal. He is styled an excellent theologian (theologus excellans) by a contemporary and Healy declares that Dungal’s is the first and best work that was written on the subject.[504] The many quotations from Greek and Latin poets which occur in his reply to Claudius as well as in his epistle to Charlemagne prove that Dungal had a strong love for poetry and that he was well read in classic literature.[505] Thus we see that Dungal’s education was built on a broad foundation, for he was distinguished as an astronomer and a theologian as well as a poet and a schoolmaster.
The last act of Dungal of which we have any record is his gift of books to the library of Bobbio.[506] Dungal is greatly praised by Muratori, Mabillon, Bellarmine and others for his learning and he was valued both in Italy and France for his varied attainments. Muratori, who published a catalogue[507] of the library of Bobbio, says that “Dungal carried into Italy the Scotic love of learning.” Among the books which Dungal presented to Bobbio is one which was catalogued as Psalterium but named by Muratori as the Antiphonary of Bangor,[508] a book of hymns compiled expressly for the use of the monastic community of Bangor in Co. Down (Ireland). It is written in Latin, but it contains the strongest internal evidence of its Irish origin. On the strength of the evidence furnished by the fact that Dungal possessed this book many believe that Dungal himself was a pupil of Bangor. If so, we have in Dungal an excellent example of the type of education available in this famous monastic school in the ninth century.
SEDULIUS:
Under the Emperor Lothair 840–855 there was at Liège a colony of Irish teachers and writers of whom the best known is Sedulius, sometimes called Sedulius the Younger to distinguish him from the author of the Carmen Paschale. We have already referred to the fact that he was a distinguished poet[509] and a learned grammarian.[510] He is no less famous as a scribe[511] and as a writer on other subjects.
He wrote an important treatise on the theory of government entitled De Rectoribus Christianis.[512] This work was written at Liège probably about the year 855 A.D. It is in reality the first systematic contribution of the Middle Ages to the theory of political government and should rank in importance with St. Thomas’s De Regimine Principis, with Colonna’s De Regimine Principum and with Dante’s De Monarchia.[513] As its latest editor Dr. Hellman has remarked, if this work is not drawn from exclusively Irish sources, it is drawn at least from sources which were held in high esteem by Irish writers of the Carolingian Age. This Celtic conception of the duties of a Christian ruler is of very special interest to the student of mediæval political theories. Its sources are Christian and classical, its immediate object was the direction of a Frankish ruler (probably Lothair II.), the mind that conceived it was Celtic and here we have at the beginning of mediæval speculation a combination of forces and interests which went to make up the mediæval policy.[514]
Sedulius also wrote a commentary of Porphry’s Isagoge (or Introduction to the Logic of Aristotle) for which the basis may have been the Greek text though the work was known to other Christian logicians only in the Latin translation.[515]
JOHANNES SCOTUS ERIUGENA (d. 877 A.D.):
This was by far the greatest Irish scholar of the ninth century. Indeed in many ways he was the most remarkable man of his age. Of his early life we have no details. He was born between the years 800–815 A.D. The general opinion of scholars is that he was born in Ireland as his name would indicate.[516] His learning itself is sufficient proof that he was educated in Ireland where alone he could get the benefit of such an education as the continental schools could no longer have furnished.[517]
About the middle of the ninth century he appeared at the court of King Charles the Bald by whom he was placed at the head of the Palace School. Though in some respects a worthless sovereign, Charles had at least one redeeming quality inasmuch as he emulated the example of his grandfather (Charlemagne) as a patron of letters. During his reign Irish scholars flocked in great numbers to the Continent. The monarch was fond of discussing knotty questions, and had a keen taste for the subtle disputations to which Irish dialectitians were devoted. Encouraged by his patronage the Irish monks emigrated in so great numbers to France that hostelries were built for their exclusive use.[518] The most eminent of these exiles[519] was Eriugena. No sooner had he reached France (c. 845 A.D.) than he was recognised as a remarkable linguist. Certain reputed works of Dionysius the Areopagite had been sent by Pope Paul I. to Pepin-le-Bref, and a splendid MS. of the mystical writings of the same author was subsequently presented to Louis the Pious by the Byzantine Emperor Michael. The works were of course in the Greek language and the greatest scholars of France were unable to translate them or to interpret their meaning.[520] The task was finally entrusted to Eriugena and he produced a satisfactory version. The learned Anastasius, the papal librarian, on reading the version of Eriugena, wrote to King Charles expressing his surprise that “a barbarian who hailed from the extreme confines of the world and who might have been deemed to be as ignorant of Greek as he was remote from civilization could have proved capable of comprehending the mysteries of the Greek tongue.”[521]
Great as was his fame as a linguist his reputation as a philosopher is still greater. His philosophical speculations gave rise to discussions and controversies which even to the present day occupy the attention of the greatest thinkers. In his own day his views were nothing short of sensational. In addition to his translation of the Pseudo-Dionysius already referred to, Eriugena wrote a comprehensive philosophical work De Divisione Naturae[522] and a treatise De Egressu et Regressu Animae ad Deum of which only a fragment has come down to us.[523] He also contributed a treatise De Predestinatione to a theological controversy that was waged at that time. This work seems to have given offence to both parties. His expositiones or commentaries on the Pseudo-Dionysius are helpful in determining his philosophical views. He also wrote a commentary on the work of Martianus Capella, De Nuptiis.