976 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters . 
from them are, however, very few. The “De Senectute” is al¬ 
luded to once or twice hut in a way that suggests that the 
quotations from this work were obtained from other sources. 
The “De Fato,” the “Paradoxa Stoicorum” and the “de Divina- 
tione” were quite well known in John’s day, but he uses them 
in such a vague way that it is impossible to give him credit 
for them through want of evidence. Schaarschmidt has ascribed 
a knowledge of all of these works to him but as John only men¬ 
tions them a single time and then only in an indirect man¬ 
ner such a statement cannot he justified. Of course it may 
well he that John does not quote everything which he has read, 
just as he may not know at first hand every work from which 
he quotes. Still his allusions to these works could have 
been made from any number of other sources, and his refer¬ 
ences to them do not enable the writer to credit him with a 
knowledge of the works themselves. 
His familiarity with Quintilian is more certain than with 
some of Cicero’s works. At the end of a letter to an obscure 
monk named Azo he expressly says, “Mihi autem nihil precor 
nisi ut Quintilianum quern petii scriptum et emendatum mit- 
tas” 1 and that he here refers to the “Tnstitutiones Oratoriae” 
his numerous long quotations bear ample witness. John’s edu¬ 
cational system, as described in the Metalogicus, is based al¬ 
most entirely upon Quintilian. He supports' almost every 
point which he makes with a quotation from this writer. As 
against the Cornificians’ use of Seneca as an authority against 
the liberal arts John cites Quintilian’s description of Seneca. 
His final statement of the value of grammar is made in the 
words of Quintilian. These are but instances of his vital 
intimacy with the Institutions. The “Declamationes” are 
cited but not so conclusively. Still, since they were well known 
at Chartres and through France and England, it is probable 
that he had read them, though the quotations themselves would 
not establish this. 
With the works of Seneca he seems to have been thoroughly 
conversant. He knew that there were two great Senecas and 
he makes it clear that it is the Younger from whom he quotes: 
1 Migne, p. 313. 
