WILLIAM OF CHAMPEAUX: Schoolman and bishop of Chalons; b. at Champeaux (near Melun, 26 m. s.e. of Paris) 1070; d. 1121. He enjoyed the instruction of the philosopher Manegold, of Ansellus of Laon, and of Roscellin; became teacher of dialectics and rhetoric at Notre Dame in Paris; enjoyed the esteem of Louis VI., and became archdeacon of

362

the diocese of Paris. Abelard (q.v., I., § 1) was for a time his pupil, but later caused him no little annoyance. He attacked one of the main theses of William and forced him to give it up and attack it even himself. By this William, if the account of Abelard is to be credited, loot his reputation among the schoolmen so that almost all his pupils left him and he retired altogether from his activity as teacher. He then joined the communion of the regulars of St. Victor who beside their principal seat in Marseilles possessed a small settlement in Paris. Here William resumed his activity as teacher, swayed by the requests of students, and lectured especially on theology from 1110 to 1113. In 1113 he was elected bishop of Chalons.

It was to the first period of his life that the few literary remains of this author belong. It is probable that the De origine auimce and Dialogus . .

cuiusdam Christiani et Judcei de fide Catholics (MPL, cLYiii. 1039-1040, 1043-1045) are not his. Forty aeven fragments of his are collected in Lefevre (see bibliography). These deal with theological ques tions only, so that nothing is given of the philosophi cal views connected with William's name, for which Abelard is the authority. William, according to Abelard, had asserted that the same thing in its entirety could be essentially in different individ uals, there being no diversity in essence but variety only in the multitude of accidents; but Abelard had objected that if the whole humanity were in Socrates and in the same way also in Plato, it would be impossible for Socrates to be in Rome and Plato in Greece. From William's change of opinion it is evident that he had not the ability to discuss diffi cult questions in a thorough and convincing manner. The same appears in the theological fragments. Here, too, he avoids the discussion of difficult questions and appeals to faith or to the superior knowledge of God. Yet some ability must be granted him in order to ex plain the demands of his pupils that he continue his work as a teacher.

(S. M. Deutsch†.)

Bibliography: Hist. Zitteraire de la Prance, x. 307-316; G. A. Patru, Wilhelmi Campallensis de natura et de origine rerum placita, Paris, 1847; C. Prantl, Geschichte der Logik im Abendland, ii. 128-131, Leipsic 1861; E. Michapd, Guillaume de Champeaux et les ecoles de Paris, 2d ed., Paris, 1865; B. Hauréau, Hist. de la philosophie scolastique, i. 320-344, ib., 1872; G. Lefbvre, in Travaux et mémoires de funiversile de Lille, 1598; A. Sabatier, in Revue chrelienne, xv. 721 sqq.; Lichtenberger, ESR, v. 78B-788; KL, xii. 1599.