have just as much right to infer that William is carefully distinguishing between John and the abbats, as that he intends to identify them. It was Ingulf who first made John Scotus an abbat.
Returning then to the John, the companion of Grimbald, in the narrative of Asser, we find him described as priest and monk. Now all we know about John Scotus s clerical position from contemporary evidence is negative. Prudentius of Troyes, indeed, ridicules him for setting himself up as a disputant in a grave controversy, being barbarum et nullis ecclesiasticae dignitatis gradibus insignitum. But it is plain that his not holding any rank in the church, which is all the words need mean, does not involve the consequence that John was not ordained. Abailard, for instance, had, in all probability, only minor orders until he was in middle life ; yet he afterwards was appointed abbat. It is no doubt the fact that John is never styled priest or monk by any of his opponents : nor does he ever describe himself as such, after the prevailing fashion, in his writings. But the latter circumstance, at least, has a very natural explanation : he desired to rank as a philosopher, not as a priest. This is indeed, as Dr. Renter observes, a salient characteristic of his position in the history of Christian thought ; and it would be readily accepted by his enemies as a confirmation of their judge ment that he was a heretic. We are not to expect that, they would signalise, if they were aware of, his priestly calling.
9. On the other hand, it is a mistake to infer from the title of martyr, as to which even William of Malmesbury, m in one of his accounts, expressed a doubt, an identification with another John Scotus, who held a place in the martyrologies, at least in England and France, until 1586, when I presume it was discovered that the philosopher was unqualified for the dignity.[1] It is strange that Staudenmaier and others who repeat the statement
- ↑ Thus in Andre du Saussay’s Marty rologium Gallicanum, the name (which is given as tempore Caroli Calvi) is relegated to the appendix, vol. 2. 122(>, Paris 1637, folio.
