Page:Illustrations of the history of medieval thought and learning.djvu/310

292 as to suggest that they are immediately derived from him. Dr. von Prantl, therefore, maintains that if genuine they can only be placed among Rabanus's latest productions, and thinks that they have been wrongly attributed to him. Dr. von Prantl's reasoning does not appear quite decisive, and the conflict asserted to exist between the views contained in these glosses and in Rabanus's other works is not perhaps so substantial as to be fatal to their common authorship. Nor is it impossible that the former are independent of John Scotus's influence.

The next symptom of a nominalistic tendency appears in certain glosses in a Paris manuscript (now numbered Fonds Latin 12,949), of which specimens are given by Cousin and M. Hauréau. The latter, and before him Charles de Rémusat, claimed their authorship for Heric of Auxerre. Dr. von Prantl, on the contrary, considers the major part to be by another, though contemporary, writer. But he is in error in saying that the codex itself gives a different author to one section of the glosses in dispute (those on the Isagoge). It is true that the line,

stands in f. 52 b, but Iepa, which Cousin had noted with a query, is a later insertion, written over an erasure with room for about seven letters. This point was ascertained for me by the kindness of M. G. Saige.

The logical summary found in a metrical version in another Paris manuscript, to which Dr. von Prantl refers, can hardly be admitted as material for the history of the time before Roscelin, until we are better informed about its date. Cousin, who prints these hexameters, describes them as of the tenth or eleventh century, and hints the possibility that they were dedicated to a man who died