simplicity of the picture did not please might at least be pleased by the morality of Scripture.” Indeed, the work is often entitled _The Gilded Dove_ in the manuscripts. The treatise is manifestly of a religious and popular rather than scientific character. One interesting passage states that a monk should not practice medicine because “a doctor sometimes sees things which are not decent to see,” and “touches what it is improper for the religious to touch.” Furthermore, a physician “speaks of uncertain matters by means of experiments, but experience is deceitful and so often errs. But this is not fitting for a monk that he should speak aught but the truth.”[23] It is rather surprising to find free will attributed to the wild beasts, who are said to wander about at their will.[24] This passage, however, is simply copied from Isidore.[25] FOOTNOTES: [1] J. McCabe, _Peter Abelard_, New York, 1901. [2] Especially considering its date, Paris, 1838. [3] _Ibid._, p. 119. [4] Cousin, _Opera hactenus seorsim edita_ (1849-1859), I, 647-9. [5] I have, however, searched for such in vain. [6] Migne, PL 178, 409-17. [7] See above, chapter 20, page 474. [8] Cap. 4, in Migne, PL 178, 647. [9] _Speculum doctrinale_ (1472?), XVIII, 62, “Hugo Parisiensis sancti victoris canonicus religione et literarum scientia clarus et in VII liberalium artium peritia nulli sui temporis secundus fuit.” [10] CE “Hugh of St. Victor,” where is also given a good bibliography of works on Hugh’s theology, philosophy, psychology, and pedagogy. [11] I have employed the text in Migne PL vol. 176, cols. 739-812. It should be noted, however, that B. Hauréau, _Les Œuvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor, Essai critique, nouvelle edition_, Paris, 1886, demonstrated that there should be only six books of the _Didascalicon_ instead of seven as in this edition and that of 1648. This will not affect our investigation, as we shall make no use of the seventh book, but we shall have later to discuss whether a passage on magic belongs at the close of the sixth book or not. There appears to be a somewhat general impression that the edition of 1648 is the earliest edition of Hugh’s works, but the British Museum has an undated incunabulum of the “Didascolon” numbered IB. 859, fol. 254. Vincent of Beauvais in the thirteenth century speaks of the “Didascolon” as in five books (_Speculum doctrinale_, XVIII, 62) but is probably mistaken. The MSS seem uniformly to divide the work into a prologue and six books, as in the following at Oxford: New College 144, 11th (_sic_) century, folio bene exaratus et servatus, fols. 105-43, “Incipit prologus in Didascalicon.” Jesus College 35, 12th century, fol. 26- St. John’s 98, 14th century, fol. 123- Corpus Christi 223, 15th century, fol. 73- I have not noted what MSS of the _Didascalicon_ there are in the British Museum. The following MSS elsewhere may be worth listing as of early date: Grenoble 246, 12th century, fols. 99-133.