In the province of philosophy, Gerbert’s labours extended little beyond
formal logic, philosophy’s instrument. He could do no more than understand
and apply as much of Boëthius’s rendering of the Aristotelian _Organon_ as
he was acquainted with. Yet he appears to have used more of the Boëthian
writings than any man before him, or for a hundred and fifty years after
his death. Richer gives the list. Beyond this evidence, curious testimony
is borne to the nature of Gerbert’s dialectic by Richer’s account of a
notable debate. The year was 980, when the fame of the brilliant young
_scholasticus_ of Rheims had spread through Gaul and penetrated Germany. A
certain master of repute at Magdeburg, named Otric, sent one of his pupils
to report on Gerbert’s teaching, and especially as to his method of laying
out the divisions of philosophy as “the science of things divine and
human.” The pupil returned with notes of Gerbert’s classification, in
which, by error or intention, it was made to appear that he subordinated
physics to mathematics, as species to genus, whereas, in truth, he made
them of equal rank. Otric thought to catch him tripping, and so managed
that a disputation was held between them at a time when Adalberon and
Gerbert were in Italy with the Emperor Otto II. It took place in Ravenna.
The emperor, then nineteen years of age, presided, there being present
many masters and dignitaries of the Church. Holding in his hand a tablet
of Gerbert’s alleged division of the sciences, His Majesty opened the
debate:
“Meditation and discussion, as I think, make for the betterment of
human knowledge, and questions from the wise rouse our thoughtfulness.
Thus knowledge of things is drawn forth by the learned, or discovered
by them and committed to books, which remain to our great good. We
also may be incited by certain objects which draw the mind to a surer
understanding. Observe now, that I am turning over this tablet
inscribed with the divisions of philosophy. Let all consider it
carefully, and each say what he thinks. If it be complete, let it be
confirmed by your approbation. If imperfect, let it be rejected or
corrected.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account