# Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought and Learning/Appendix IX

IX. Note on the Second Preface to Gilbert of La Porrée's Commentary on Boëthius.
1. John of Salisbury states that after the events of
the council at Rheims Gilbert continued to suffer from the injury then done to him by those who sought to convict him of heresy, and took means to vindicate his position. Scripsit ergo postea contra illos alterum prologum in expositionem Boëthii sui, in quo quosdam, videlicet emulos suos, assent sic hereticorum vitare nomina, ut tamen errores eorum sequantur et doceant. The date of this new preface appears not only from the words of John just quoted, but also from the fact that according to John's account it was addressed to the capitula or articles of faith which were only produced by saint Bernard at Rheims. It therefore forms a sort of summing-up of the case from Gilbert's side, and was written for his own satisfaction at some time after the controversy had come to an end.
2. This preface seems to have disappeared, but an important fragment of it has been brought to light by professor Usener of Bonn, in the fifth volume of theJahrbucher für protestantische Theologie for 1879.Dr. Usener says, 'Each of the four commentaries has its introduction, and although that to the first treatise De Trinitate is more extensive than the following ones, it is not more general in its character but is concerned with discussions raised ​by Boëthius' text:' this is the preface beginning,Omnium quae rebus percipiendis suppeditant rationum. But, says Dr. Usener, in a Vatican manuscript (Lat. 560) of the thirteenth century we find further Item alius prologus, and this also appears in a manuscript of Saint Victor. It was written,he thinks, for a second edition of Gilbert's Commentary, after the council of Paris and thus presumably in preparation for that of Rheims. The hypothesis is no doubt possible, but it is curious that Dr. Usener should be unacquainted with John of Salisbury's account, with which it is natural to connect this 'new preface.' It is more curious that the editor should not have observed that this very preface, only in a briefer form, is to be found in the very edition of Boëthius which Dr. Usener had in his hands (that of Basle 1570), prefixed not to the Commentary but to thetreatise of Boëthius itself. The preface is therefore not a discovery; it is only an enlarged edition of that identical 'general preface,' the supposed absence of which puzzled Dr. Usener.
3. The new part is however of sufficient interest to be transcribed here, especially because when printed in the midst of a mass of old matter its importance does not immediately attract attention. It is inserted, after the words scriptoribus recedamus, before the concluding sentence, exactly where we should expect such an addition to be made; and it runs as follows:
Quamvis nos ab eis dissentire garriant quidam fennii atque preconii, qui cum nichil didicerint, opinione sua nesciunt nihil, homines sine ratione philosophi, sine visione prophete, precep- tores impossibilium, indices occultorum, quorum mores plurimis notos describere nil nostra interest. Ipsi vero tanquam excussi propriis aliena negotia curant et obliti suorum satiras sati- rorum [sic] de ceteris animi ingenio et vite honestate preclaris multarum personarum fingunt comedias. Qui etiam in Deum blasphemi illos de ipso profitentur errores quorum nomina diffitentur. Nam, ut ita dicatur, hereticorum catholici in Sabellii, Donati, Pelagii, et aliorum huiusmodi pestilencium verba iurati, horum nomina (eo quod edictis publicis dampnata ​ noscuntur) cum catholicis detestantur, ut cum blasphemiarum caussis sint iuste dampnabiles, blasphemorum detestatione putentur indempnes: sed quia non tam res nominibus quam nomina rebus accommodat impositio, quibuscunque res con- veniunt, nomina non convenire non possunt. Quoniam vere sunt, recte vocantur, Sabelliani, Donatiste, Pelagiani, et huius- modi. Et bene quod novi heretici nil afferunt novi, ut ad im- probandum adinventiones novas novis sit laborandum inventis. Antiqua sunt dogmata, olim per preclari et exercitati ingenii viros evidentissimis atque necessariis rationibus improbata, quibus eadem novissimis his rediviva temporibus possunt re- fellere, quicunque recte intelligentes virorum illorum scriptis lectitandis invigilant. Sed qui neque legunt neque lecturiunt, ideoque scientiarum elementa, si qua prioribus annis attendere consueverant, post longa desuetudine desciverunt aut etiam corruptis artibus a via veritatis exorbitaverunt, has omnino rationes ignoraverunt. Quorum si forte aliqui humano errore aut potestate aliqua presunt aut prominent dignitate, pre- cipiunt ut verum falsum et falsum verum, iterumque bonum malum et malum bonum esse credatur: et quod impudentissi- mum est, ad sui magnificenciam quoslibet infames magnificant et magnificos infamant. Sed quia non tam cognitores quam cogniti resident, sepe contingit ut rerum consequentibus can- cellatis cuiuspiam boni fame aliquid illorum favor detrahat et vituperatio addat. Quod nimirum attendentes, illorum male- dicta de nostris moribus et precepta de rebus contempnimus. Nam neque mores nostros convictu neque rerum proprietates disciplina noverunt.
Then follows the concluding sentence of the printed edition, whose text I retain, appending the two variants that occur in Dr. Usener's copy:
Quae autem a nobis scripta sunt bene exercitatis lectoribus non modo rationibus firma, verum etiam scripturis autenticis adeo consona esse videntur ut nostra non tam inventa quam furta esse credantur.
4. The personal reference of the added passage is exactly in the same spirit as that answer whichJohn of Salisbury reports Gilbert to have given when Bernard suggested an
i v. supra, p, 193. ​interview. It is also a valuable specimen of the language which could be used about the saint by neither an insignificant nor an irreligious section of his contemporaries. But the addition to the preface, although partly agreeing closely with what John of Salisbury says about the 'new preface,' does not cover the whole ground which he describes. Either therefore the new preface itself is lost, or rather has been curtailed to its present dimensions, or else possibly John has mixed up with his account of it reminiscences of his conversations with Gilbert on the subject, reminiscences perhaps of his master's former lectures, or even his own independent vindication of Gilbert derived from a study of the Commentary on Boëthius.
* ↑ a
* ↑ b
* ↑ c
* ↑ d
* ↑ e
* ↑ f
* ↑ g
* ↑ h
* ↑ i