Nominalism and Theology before Abaelard: New Light on Roscelin of Compiègne CONSTANT J. MEWS .. Roscelin of Compiegne is commonly remembered as one of those modern "heretics of dialectic" who, according to St Anselm, "do not think universal substances to be anything but the puff of an utterance (flatum vocis), who cannot understand colour to be other than a body, or the wisdom of man different from the soul. "1 Anselm accused Roscelin of blindly applying to the Trinity an inane logic that denied the real existence of universals. Roscelin reportedly argued that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had to be three separate things in God if one was not to argue that the Father had become incarnate with the Son. Anselm considered such speculation both logically absurd and spiritually dangerous. Anselm's savage summary, delivered c.1093, has been instrumental in moulding subsequent perception of Roscelin as an unspiritual logician-a "maverick" in the words of Richard Southern.2 A more positive angle on his achievement was presented almost seventy years later by Otto of Freising, who remarked that Roscelin was the first person to establish the sententia vocum in logic.3 Otto was comparing Abaelard's rash application of this doctrine to theology with the pru- dent reflection of Gilbert of Poitiers on the voces of trinitarian belief. Far from criticizing Roscelin's thought, Otto supported precisely that definition of the three divine persons as three things which Anselm 1 Anselm, De incarnationeaerbi [henceforward DIII, ed. F.S. Schmitt, Anselmi Opera Omnia VI, Rome-Edinburgh 1938-68, II 9.20-10.1. For a full discussion of Anselm's writing about Roscelin, see Mews 1991, 55-97. Fuller treatment of contemporary testimony about Roscelin, as well as arguments for his authorship of various writings mentioned in this paper will be put forward in a forthcoming study. 2 Cf. Richard Southern, in Saint Anselm.A Portrait in a Landscape,Cambridge 1990, 176: "Roscelin made enemies wherever he went, but he was irrepressible, and he touched nothing that he did not exacerbate. Far more than either Berengar or Abelard, who-though they both brought execration and condemnation on their heads-were essentially sober and well-versed theologians, Roscelin was always a cause of dissension wherever he went." 3 Otto of Freising, GestaFrederici I 48, ed. G. Waitz and B. De Simson, Hannover- Leipzig 1912, 69. 4 had abhorred. In Otto's mind, Abaelard had blurred the substantial distinction between persons which he considered Gilbert to uphold. Unlike Anselm, Otto thought that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the new emphasis on voces in logic. Although John of Salisbury considered Roscelin a logician whose opinions on voces had fallen into oblivion, Otto's judgement has tended to prevail.4 His comments about Roscelin and the sententia vocum inspired Aventinus in the early sixteenth century to identify Roscelin as founder of "a new way of philosophizing" that came to include Abaelard, Ockham, Buridan, and Marsilius of Inghen. Aventinus considered medieval philosophy to have been an inane civil war between realists and nominalists, initially instigated by Roscelin, The mythology which subsequently developed around Roscelin as nominalist "hero and rebel" has shown no sign of abating, notwith- standing Fran?ois Picavet's dissection of the legend.6 In focussing on nominalism as a cohesive school of medieval thought prefiguring "modern philosophy", we are heir not only to Aventinus' reading of the history of philosophy, but perhaps to his misreading as well. Anselm never claimed that Roscelin had established a new school of dialectic, only that he was just one of a new breed of "modern" dialecticians. The author of the Historia Francica, writing in the early twelfth century, noted in a less polemical vein that Roscelin, like Robert of Paris and Arnulf of Laon, was a follower of a certain John who taught dialectic to be an ars vocalist. Robert of Paris may be the 4 MetalogiconII 17 (ed. Webb 93). 5 AnnalesDucum BoiariaeVI 3, ed. S. Riezler, Munich 1884, II 200-2 [initially pub- lished Ingolstadt 1554]. Gerald Strauss comments on his encounter with nominalist philosophers in Paris in Historian in an Age of Crisis. The Life and Workof JohannesAven- tinus 1477-1534, Cambridge Mass. 1963, 33-5. 6 See for example Heinrich Christian Meier, Macht und Wahnwitz der Begriffe.Der Ketzer Roscellinus, Aalen 1974, which adds little to Picavet's pioneering Roscelin, philosopheet théolgiend'apres la ligendeet d'apres l'histoire, Paris 19112, a much enlarged version of the 1896 edition. See too Eike-Henner W. Kluge, Roscelinand the Medieval Problemof Universals, in: Journal of the History of Philosophy, 14 (1976), 405-14. Medieval nominalism has its own not inconsiderable literature; for most recent views see Normore 1987, 201-17 and Courtenay 1991a. I am indebted to Courtenay for allowing me to see this article in typescript, as for the same reason to Yukio Iwakuma, who is preparing an article on Vocales,or early nominalists. ' Historia Francica, ed. A. Duchesne, HistoriaeFrancorum Scriptores IV, Paris 1641, 89- 90 and by M. Bouquet, Recueildes historiensdes Gauleset de la FranceXII, Paris 1781, 3: "Hoc tempore tam in divina quam in humana philosophia floruerunt Lanfrancus Cantuariorum episcopus, Guido Langobardus, Maingaudus Teutonicus, Bruno Remensis, qui postea vitam duxit heremiticam. In dialectica quoque hi potentes extiterunt sophistae: Ioannes, qui eandem artem sophisticam vocalem esse disseruit, 5 .