The main thought-currents need here only be named. First and foremost there was Pelagianism, with its questions of grace and free will, which raised the central problem of personality. More directly connected with Gaul (for its leaders were Cassian and Faustus) was Semi-Pelagianism, which sought a middle way between the predestination implied in Augustine and the free will of Pelagius. Then there were the questions about the nature of the soul—whether it was corporeal, as Faustus argued, or spiritual as Mamertus Claudianus maintained. There was also Neoplatonism, which was never strong in the West, but appears here and there in Hilary of Poitiers.[1101] How prevalent its incidental accompaniments of Daemonology and Divination were appears from the decree of Valens and Valentinian against magicians.[1102] Finally, there were minor theological questions and points of worship and church discipline, for example in the controversy between Vigilantius and Jerome. Philosophy was divided by Eucherius into three parts: ‘Sapientia mundi huius philosophiam suam in tres partes divisit: Physicam, Ethicam, Logicam’,[1103] which includes metaphysics and theology. This was the traditional division alluded to by Seneca: ‘Philosophiae tres partes esse dixerunt et maximi et plurimi actores: moralem, naturalem, rationalem.’[1104] Of these, the part called ‘ethica’ or ‘moralis’ was naturally most popular, but the sort of theological discussion that came under ‘Logica’ was most developed by the thinkers of the time. Foremost in this department stands Claudianus, Bishop of Vienne, whose work _De Statu animae_ was a real contribution to the thought of his age. ‘These ideas’, says Guizot, referring to this work, ‘are deficient neither in elevation nor in profundity: they would do honour to the philosophers of any period; seldom have the nature of the soul and its unity been investigated more clearly or described with greater precision.’[1105] This is high praise, but it is justified in the main. Claudianus was at least no mere compiler. He draws largely on Augustine and the Pythagorean authors like Philolaus, Architas, and Hippo Metapontinus (known to him, perhaps, only in extracts), whose works are now lost.[1106] Plato and the later Platonists, too, are extensively quoted. We feel that there is a great deal of vague metaphysics in his work, ‘purement négative, impuissante à pénétrer dans la nature intime des phénomènes’.[1107] As an example of this sort of thing we may quote the passage[1108] where he is referring to the work of Philolaus περὶ ῥυθμῶν καὶ μέτρων, and talks about the mystic number and the spiritual law according to which the soul enters the body, using this thesis as a satisfactory basis for argument. He is content to quote the ‘ipse dixit’ of Philolaus alone. ‘Memet’ (he declares) ‘causa auctoritatis in medium tanti testimonium philosophi iecisse sufficiet.’ There was an idea (not unnaturally) that the study