But we will now advance to the consideration of that great change which came over the thought of Europe, and bears the name of scholasticism. The controversy of Lanfranc with Berenger on the doctrine of the real presence, may be accepted as the point where the new method was applied to theology; from that time it became the favorite mode. But although the scholastic philosophers professed to rely upon bare reason, they appear to have instinctively felt that great want of human nature, the want of an oracle, and they found their oracle in the works of Aristotle, then in use in the university and schools of Spain, sadly perverted by being filtered through an Arabic translation. Men flew to Arabic grammars, and to Spain, to Arabic versions of Aristotle, and the Stagyrite then became the oracle of the Scholastics just as the fathers were of their opponents. But still, as is and must be the case in all religious controversies, both parties lay under the same necessity, and, after all, drew their premises from the same quarter. The defender and the opposer were alike subject to the influence of revelation; without that, the opponent would have wanted the subject of opposition, and the defender the object of his defence, so that the premises of both appear to be involved in the same thing, and in fine the Scholastics fell back also upon the fathers, as may be seen in the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the handbook of scholasticism, which is nothing but a mass of extracts from the fathers and popes, worked up together into a system of theology. In its earliest form it cannot be denied that scholasticism did good. It was a healthy revival of intellectual life, it stimulated all classes of thinkers, and created a passion for inquiry; it brought out such great minds as Abelard, Duns Scotus, and Thomas Aquinas. The very subjects upon which men debated gave an elevation to thought, and the result was an intellectual activity which has rarely been equalled. It must be remembered also that the schoolmen did not discard [{813}] the facts laid down by the fathers; they were not infidels, but their investigations turned more upon the mode of operation—they accepted the divine presence in the Eucharist, but what they wanted to ascertain was the way in which it manifested itself. They believed in the Incarnation, but they desired to know the exact mode in which that sacrifice had worked out human redemption.

But we must return to the development of English literature. After the Norman Conquest, we have already observed, the Latin tongue became once more the medium of communication for the learned, and all great works were written in that idiom, so that there were three tongues used in England: the Latin by the clergy and scholars, the Norman-French by the court and nobles, and the Saxon, which fell to the common people. The literature of that period was rich in some departments, poor in others. In philosophy, whatever we may think of its merit, it was anything but scanty, and a perfect library of scholastic writings has come down even to our times, a desert of argumentation and reasoning, but containing veins of gold, could a mortal ever be found endowed with the patience to dig deep enough, and labor long enough to open them. The Book of Sentences, by Peter the Lombard, bishop of Paris, to which we have already alluded, was one of the wonders of the twelfth century. It was divided into four parts: the first treated of the Trinity and divine attributes, the second of the Creation, the origin of angels, of the fall of man, of grace, free will, of original and actual sin; the third of the Incarnation, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of the spirit, and the commandments of God; and the fourth treated of the Sacraments, the Resurrection, the Last Judgment, and the state of the righteous in heaven. Although a great deal is borrowed from the fathers, yet there is in this work a marked tendency toward the scholastic method; he wanders into abstruse speculations and subtle investigations as to the generation of the Word, the possibility of two persons being incarnate in one, sins of the will and of the action. It did much to mould the thought of succeeding writers, and it won for its author the title of Master of Sentences; it was appealed to as an authority; what the "Master" said was a sufficient answer to an opponent. Another great work was the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, a book which excites admiration even now. Duns Scotus and Occam, also contributed voluminously to the stores of scholastic theology. The literature, however, was richer in history. Whilst the theologians were debating about questions beyond the reach of the human intellect, a band of quiet pious men devoted their time to the recording the tale of human actions. Upward of forty men lived from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, who have written the history of the country from the earliest periods down to the dawning of the sixteenth century. Probably no country in the world is richer in historical material than ourselves; and as an admirable instance of monastic diligence, and evidence of intellectual activity in what has been usually termed an age of dense ignorance, we subjoin a table of the historical writers, upon whose labors the authentic history of the country must rest. [Footnote 222]

[Footnote 222: We omit in our list the supposititious history of Croyland, by Ingulphus, which has been disposed of by Richard Palgrave, as of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, and of little historical value.]

MONASTIC WRITERS OF ENGLISH HISTORY.

Twelfth Century.
William of Poictiers, History of Conquest—Chaplain to William I.
Ordericus Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History to
1141—Monk of St. Evroult.
Anonymous, Gesta Stephani.
William of Jumièges, History of
Normandy—Monk of Jumièges.
Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex
Chronicis to 1119—Monk of Worcestcr.
Matthew of Westminstcr, Flores
Historiarum—Doubtful.
[{814}]
William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, Historia
Novella, Gesta Pontificum, Vita Anselmi,
De Antiquitate Glastoniae—Monk of Malmesbury.
Eadmer, Historia Novorum, and others—
Monk of Canterbury.
Turgot, Confessor of Margaret, Queen of
Malcolm Canmore; wrote her Life and
History of Durham (called Simeon of Durham),
History of St. Cuthbert, De Rebus
Anglorum, and other works—Monk of Durham.
Ailred, Account of Battle of Standards—Abbot
of Rivault, York.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, British History—Monk of Monmouth.
Alfred of Beverley, Gestis Regum—Canon of
St. John's, Beverley.
Giraldus Cambrensis, Itinerarium Cambriae,
Topographia Hiberniae, De Rebus a se Gestis,
etc—Politician.
Henry of Huntingdon, Eight Books History,
Julius Caesar to 1154—Archdeacon.
Roger of Hovenden, Chronicle, 732 to 1202,
in continuation of Bede.
William of Newburgh, Hist. from Conquest to
1197—Monk of Newburgh.
Benedictus Abbas, Chronicle, 1170 to 1192
—Abbot of Peterboro'.
Ralph de Diceto, Two Chron., one 589 to
1148, and the other to 1199, Hist. of
Controversy between Henry and à Becket,
Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury to
1200, in the Anglia Sacra—Archdeacon of London.
Gervase of Canterbury, Chronicle, from 1100
to end of century, three other pieces, Contests
between Monks and Archbishop Baldwin,
History of the Archbishops, from Augustine
to Walter, 1205—Monk of Canterbury.
Thirteenth Century.
Richard of Devizes, Chron. of Reign of Richard I—Monk.
Jocelyn de Brakelond, Chron., 1173 to 1202
—Monk of St. Edmondsbury.
Roger of Wendover, Hist. to 1235—Monk of St. Albans.
Matthew Paris, Historia Major. Conq. to
1259—Monk of St. Albans.
Fourteenth Century.
William Rishanger, Continuation of M. Paris
to 1322, Wars of the Barons—Monk of St. Albans.
John of Brompton, [Footnote 223]
Chron. to 1199, from Saxons—Monk of Jerevaux.
[Footnote 223: Authorship doubtful.]
Thomas Wickes, Chron., of Salisbury to 1304
—Canon of Osney.
Walter Hemingford, Hist. Conquest to 1273
—Monk of Gisbro'.
Robert of Avesbury, Hist. Reign of Edward
III to 1356—Register of Canterbury.
Nicholas Trivet, Hist. from 1135 to 1307—Dominican.
Adam Murimuth, Chron. 1303 to 1337—Monk.
Henry Knyghton, Hist. from Edgar to Richard II—Canon of Leicester.
Thomas Stubbs, Chron. of Archbishops of
York to 1373—Monk.
William Thorne, Chron. of Abbots of St.
Augustine, 1397—Monk.
Ranulph Higden, Polychronicon [Footnote 224] to 1357—Monk.

[Footnote 224: Caxton printed it, with a continuation of his own, to 1460.]

Fifteenth Century.
Thomas Walsingham, Hist. Brevis to Hy. of
Normandy—Monk of St. Albans.
Thomas Otterbourne, Hist. to 1420—Franciscan.
John Whethamstede, Chron. 1441 to 1461—
Abbot of St. Albans.
Thomas Elmham, Life of Henry V.—Prior of Linton.
William of Worcester, Chron. 1324 to 1491—Monk.
John Rouse, Hist. Kings of England to 1490—
Chaplain to Earl of Warwick.
Monastic Registers.
Glastonbury, 63 to 1400
Melrose, 735 to 1270
Margan, 1066 to 1232
Waverly, 1066 to 1291
Ely, 156 to 1169
Abingdon, 870 to 1131
Bishops of Durham, 633 to 1214
Burton 1004 to 1263
Rochester, 1115 to 1124
Holyrood, 596 to 1163

Add to these many historical documents which have been preserved from destruction, such as the Doomsday Book, the Liber Niger, rolls and public registers, and we have a repertoire of historical materials such as scarcely any other nation in Europe can boast of. From the time when the Saxon Chronicle was commenced down to the age of printing, the pens of the monks were unwearied in recording the history of their country; and although they had their share of human weakness, and were influenced in matters of opinion frequently by the treatment shown to their order, still among such a mass of writers the truth may surely be ascertained. The severity of criticism applied to history in these [{815}] days is driving men rapidly to active research among these origines histoicae. Formerly when a man wrote a history, he framed his work upon other men's labors and his own fancy, as was instanced in the case of Robertson, who coolly tells us that he had made up his mind to write a history of something, but was undecided whether it should be a history of Greece, of Leo X., William III. and Anne, or Charles V. At last he decided upon the latter, and we may infer from a letter of his to Dr. Birch in what degree of preparation he was for the work. He says: "I never had access to any copious libraries, and do not pretend to any extensive knowledge of authors, but I have made a list of such as I thought most essential to the subject, and have put them down as I have found them mentioned in any book I happened to read." In another letter he admits: "My chief object is to adorn as far as I am capable of adorning the history of a period which deserves· to be better known." Hume was no better than Robertson, for it appears that the latter had consulted the great English historian about Mary, who sent him a version which Robertson at once used. But shortly after Hume received some MSS. from Dr. Birch, who went more deeply into these things, and in consequence he wrote to his friend Robertson to the following effect: "What I wrote to you with regard to Mary, etc., was from the printed histories and papers, but I am now sorry to tell you that by Murdin's State Papers the matter is put beyond all question. I got these papers during the holidays by Dr. Birch's means, and as soon as I read them I ran to Millar and desired him very earnestly to stop the publication of your history till I should write to you and give you an opportunity of correcting a mistake so important, but he absolutely refused compliance. He said that your book was finished; that the whole narrative of Mary's trial must be wrote over again; that it was uncertain whether the new narrative could be brought within the same compass with the old; that this change would require the cancelling a great many sheets; and that there were scattered passages through the volumes founded on your own theory." [Footnote 225]

[Footnote 225: Disraeli's Literary Miscellanies.]

We quote these letters to show how history was written in bygone times by men who until the days of Maitland and Froude have been regarded as authorities. The blind led the blind, and the History of Scotland— whole sheets of which ought to have been rewritten, and scattered passages founded upon theory erased—was given to the world, because the printer refused to disturb the press, and the author was disinclined to demolish such a fair creation. But the day for imaginative history is past, and a new light is dawning upon the world, the necessity of which is apparent from these revelations. For the future the historian must write from manuscripts or printed copies of manuscripts, or his theories and his fancies will be soon dissipated under a criticism which is becoming daily more powerful, and acquiring new compass as fast as the labors of the Record Office are being brought to light. The narrative of the most vital periods of our country's history will have to be rewritten. We are being gradually taught that the dark ages were not so dark as our conceptions of them; that some of our favorite historical villains may yet be saved; and that many of the gods we have worshipped had very few claims to divinity. The very fact of there being such a repertoire of historical materials created by the labors of those forty monks of different monasteries; the existence of a voluminous and important controversy involving the vital questions of religion, and argued with scholarship, logical acuteness, wit, and vigor; the works of piety, art, and architecture which have come down to us from that age—must convince us that, however rude the physical mode [{816}] of life may have been, the intellectual activity and mental calibre of the men of those days, when we remember their immense disadvantages, were little inferior to those of our day. We produce many things, but not many great things; but the labors of mediaeval monasticism were not multa sed multum, and they live now, and probably will live when much of this multiform literature of our times will be obliterated by the impartial, discriminating hand of time.