HUGH
522
HUGH
rather than helped scientific progress, and whoso fan-
tastic symbolism misled subsequent generations. A
careful examination of his works has led to a truer
appreciation of one whom Harnack (History of Dog-
ma, tr. London, 1S99, VI, 44) terms "the most in-
fluential theologian of the twelfth century ". A great
mystical writer, he was also a philosopher and a scholas-
tic theologian of the first order. Primarily, he was a
great lecturer, and that fact accounts for the early dis-
persal of his works as his hearers dispersed, their
frequent incorporation in later treatises, and the publi-
cation under his name of so many unauthentic treat-
ises. His teaching was one of the foundations of
Scholastic theology, and his influence has affected
the whole development of Scholasticism, for he was
the first who after synthesizing the dogmatic treas-
ures of the patristic age systematized them and
formed them into a coherent and complete body of
doctrine. That was the work of a genius. But his
great merit as head of the school of St. Victor is that,
when the heterodoxy and doctrinal temerity of Abe-
lard endangered the new method which was being
applied to the study of theologj', Hugh and his fol-
lowers, by their prudent moderation and unimpeach-
able orthodoxy, reassured alarmed believers and
acclimatized the new scientific method in the Catholic
schools.
The work of theological classification made great progress in the time of Abelard, and in the "Sum- ma> " were condensed encyclopedic summaries of the whole of theolog}'. Abelard's "Sic et Non " traced the lines upon which the "Summie" were built up; but they reproduced the drawbacks of the parent work in that the difficulties stated in the pros and cons were frequently left unsolved. The introduction of more strictly logical processes culminated in the fusion of patristic erudition and rational speculation in the new constructive dialectical method. After the dogma had been established by the interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers, the assistance of philos- ophy was sought to show the rational character of the dogma. That application of dialectics to theology led Abelard into heresy and theologians of the twelfth century were deeply divided as to its legitimacy. It was defended by the Abelardian and Victorian Schools, and from them is descended what is prop- erly known as Scholastic theology. The Abelardian School of theology continued to exist even after its founder's condemnation in 1141, but was influenced by the Victorian School, which in turn felt the influ- ence of the Abelardian School, but kept well within the limits of orthodoxy. Thus both contributed to the triumph of Scholasticism.
Any attempted synthesis of Hugh's teaching should be preceded by a critical examination of the authen- ticity of the treatises which have been included in the collected edition of his works, and some of the most authoritative historians of philosophy and theology have gone astray through non-observance of this elementarj- precaution. Others again have concen- trated their attention on his writings on mj'stical theology, where the supernatural reigns supreme — to attempt to appreciate an author's philosophical teaching upon data furnished by his endeavours to explain what passes in the soul possessed of perfect charity can only lead to confiision. Hugh has left us sufficient material, philosophical and theological, in which rational explanations stand side by side with revealed teaching, to enable us to form a sovmd opin- ion of his position as a philosopher, a theologian, and a mystic.
As a Philosopher, he has a clear idea, frequently emphasized, of the subject-matter of a purely rational science, different from theolog>': and the two orders of knowledge are as clearly differentiated in his writ- ings as in those of St. Thomas. By philosophy he meant the whole range of knowledge attained by
natural reason. The assigning of a definite place to
philosophy in the plan of studies was the result of a
long and gradual process; but its place above the
liberal arts and below theology is clearly defined by
Hugh in the "Eruditionis Didascaha;". Abandoning
the old outgrown framework, Hugh sets forth a new
division of knowledge: "Philosophia dividitur in
theoreticam, practicam, mechanicam et logicam.
Haec quatuor omnem continent scientiam." — "Phi-
losophy is divided into theoretical, practical, mechan-
ical, and logical. These four [divisions] comprise all
knowledge." — (Erud. Didasc, II, 2 ). This new di-
vision of knowledge into speculative science, con-
cerned with the nature and laws of things, ethics, the
products of man's activity, thoughts and words, is
well and logically thought out. The whole of his ex-
position of what is meant by knowledge, its object,
divisions, and the order in which they ought to be
dealt with, is a study unique in the Middle Ages be-
fore the second half of the twelfth century, and had
Hugh never written more than the early books of the
"Didascalia?", he would still deser\-e a place among
the philosophers of Scholasticism. It is interesting
to note that, although the question of universals in his
day filled the schools, and at St. Victor's William of
Champeaux had many faithful followers, Hugh sys-
tematically avoids the whole question, although in
places he rejects some of the principal arguments put
forward by the Realists. The markedly psychological
trend of the whole of his philosophical system has
recently been the subject of careful study by Ostler.
Hugh's teaching concerning God has been fully ana-
lysed by Kilgenstein, and givesus thekey to the whole
of his teaching: by the use of reason man can and
must arrive at the knowledge of Clod: aseilas, pure
spirituality, absolute simplicity, eternity, immensity,
immutability of being and of action — such are the
conceptions he discovers in his Maker, and which fur-
nish him with a synthetic and well-reasoned idea of
the Divine essence. At the same time he maintains
the moral necessity of revelation, so that the teach-
ing of St. Thomas, as set forth in the early chapters
of the "Contra Gentiles'
nothing to Hugh.
It is interesting to note that, following St. Anselm's
"Monologium", he takes the human soul as the first
elementof observation as to the contingence of nature,
and thence rises to God. (See P. L., CLXXVI, 824.)
.4s a Theologian. — His valuable work as a sound
thinker has already been mentioned; he had a keen
appreciation of the merits of much of Abelard's theo-
logical work and always cites him with respect; at the
same time he combated his errors. 'Thus, when
Abelard, in treating of creation, had replaced the
freedom and omnipotence of God by a most exag-
gerated Optimism, Hugh attacked the error in his
"De Sacr.", Bk. I, P. II, c. xxii. His Christological
teaching is marked by a semi-Apollinarist error in
attributing to the humanity of Christ not only the
uncreated knowledge of the Word, but omnipotence
and other Divine attributes. But he vigorously com-
bats Abelard's erroneous conceptions of the hypo-
static union which led to a revival of .Adoptionism that
troul)led the schools until its condemnation IS Feb.,
1177, by Alexander III (1164-77). Hugh's sacra-
mental teaching is of great importance in that he be-
gins the final stage in the formulation of the definition
of a .sacrament; synthesizing the scattered teaching
of St. Augustine, he set aside the Lsidorian definition
and gave a truer and more comprehensive one, which,
when perfected by the author of the "Summa Sen-
tentiarum", was adopted in the schools. His works
contain an extensive body of moral rhoctrine based
upon a solid patristic basis, in the grouping of which
the influence of Abelard is visible; Ijut in his accurate
analysis of the nature of sin, he combats Abelard's
error as to the indifferent character of all acts in them-
selves apart from the will of the doer. At the same
