ries. Except Erigena himself, Anselm in a few of his
works, Abelard, and a part of Aquinas, hardly anything can be found in
modern editions, and even the zealous efforts of the present Pope have
been less effectual in divulging Aquinas than those of his
predecessors were in making Amaury of Bena a mystery.[14] Yet there
has always, in generous souls who have some tincture of philosophy,
subsisted a curious kind of sympathy and yearning over the work of
these generations of mainly disinterested scholars who, whatever they
were, were thorough, and whatever they could not do, could think. And
there have even, in these latter days, been some graceless ones who
have asked whether the Science of the nineteenth century, after an
equal interval, will be of any more positive value--whether it will
not have even less comparative interest than that which appertains to
the Scholasticism of the thirteenth.

[Footnote 13: Remusat on Anselm and Cousin on Abelard long ago
smoothed the way as far as these two masters are concerned, and Dean
Church on Anselm is also something of a classic. But I know no other
recent monograph of any importance by an Englishman on Scholasticism
except Mr R.L. Poole's _Erigena_. Indeed the "Erin-born" has not had
the ill-luck of his country, for with the Migne edition accessible to
everybody, he is in much better case than most of his followers two,
three, and four centuries later.]

[Footnote 14: The Amalricans, as the followers of Amaury de Bene were
termed, were not only condemned by the Lateran Council of 1215, but
sharply persecuted; and we know nothing of the doctrines of Amaury,
David, and the other northern Averroists or Pantheists, except from
later and hostile notices.]

However this may be, the claim, modest and even meagre as it may seem
to some, which has been here once more put forward for this
Scholasticism--the claim of a far-reaching educative influence in mere
language, in mere system of arrangement and expression, will remain
valid. If, at the outset of the career of modern languages, men had
thought with the looseness of modern thought, had indulged in the
haphazard slovenliness of modern logic, had popularised theology and
vulgarised rhetoric, as we have seen both popularised and vulgarised
since, we should indeed have been in evil case. It used to be thought
clever to moralise and to felicitate mankind over the rejection of the
stays, the fetters, the prison in which its thought wa