vicius, whose version, first printed at Venice 1490, has passed through several editions.

AVERAGE, a term used in maritime commerce to signify damages or expenses resulting from the accidents of navigation. Average is either general or particular. General average arises when sacrifices have been made, or expenditures incurred, for the preservation of the ship, cargo, and freight, from some peril of the sea, or from its effects. It implies a subsequent contribution, from all the parties concerned, ratably to the values of their respective interests, to make good the loss thus occasioned. Particular average signifies the damage or partial loss happening to the ship, goods, or freight by some fortuitous or unavoidable accident. It is borne by the parties to whose property the misfortune happens, or by their insurers. The term average originally meant what is now distinguished as general average; and the expression "particular average," although not strictly accurate, came to be afterwards used for the convenience of distinguishing those damages or partial losses for which no general contribution could be claimed. Although nothing can be more simple than the fundamental principle of general average, that a loss incurred for the advantage of all the coadventurers should be made good by them all in equitable proportion to their stakes in the adventure, the application of this principle to the varied and complicated cases which occur in the course of maritime commerce has given rise to many diversities of usage at different periods and in different countries. It is soon discovered that the principle cannot be applied in any settled or consistent manner unless by the aid of rules of a technical and sometimes of a seemingly arbitrary character. The distinctions on which these rules turn are often very refined indeed. This is the chief reason why no real progress has yet been made towards an international system of general average, notwithstanding repeated conferences and other efforts by most competent representatives from different countries, seeking to arrive at a common under-pensated in the same manner. standing as a preliminary basis for such a system. A brief summary only can be given here of the rules which have been established in Great Britain by usage, or by legal decisions, in connection with the subject.

The damage done to the cargo by means of water thrown down the hatches, or admitted into the ship by scuttling her, for the purpose of extinguishing an accidental fire, was excluded from general average by the usage of Lloyds up till 1873. In that year the courts of Queen's Bench and Exchequer Chamber expressed a strong opinion in connection with the case of Stewart v. the West India and Pacific Steamship Company, that such damage ought to be made good by average contribution. The usage has now been altered accordingly.

The amount of compensation to be made for goods sacri ficed by general average acts is determined by the net market price they would have produced on arrival at the port of destination had they not been sacrificed; but under deduction of the freight attaching to them (which is made good to the shipowners), and of the charges for duties and landing expenses which are saved.

All general average losses may be divided into two principal classes-(1), sacrifices of part of the cargo and freight, or of part of the ship, for the general safety; (2), extraordinary expenditures incurred with the same object.

We shall notice these in their order.

When a part of a cargo is thrown overboard (or jettisoned, as it is termed) to save the ship from foundering in a storm, or to float her when stranded, or to facilitate her escape from an enemy, the loss of the goods and of the freight attached to them must be mad good by average contribution. But if goods jettisoned have been originally stowed on deck, no contribution can be demanded for them, unless they are so carried according to the common usage and course of trade on the voyage for which they are shipped, or with the consent of all the parties concerned in the ship and cargo. If, instead of being thrown overboard, the goods are put into boats or lighters, and lost or damaged before reaching the shore, such loss is regarded as a virtual jettison, and gives a claim. average contribution. The same rule applies to damage occasioned by the goods being put ashore on muddy ground, or where they cannot be kept in ordinary safety. But when the goods have been conveyed to a place of ordinary safety, they cease to be at the risk of the general interest; and should they be damaged there by fire or other accidents the loss must be borne by the individual proprietors, or by thei. insurers

Damage done to the cargo by discharging it at a port of refuge in the manner and under the circumstances customary at that port, is not allowed as general average. This rule covers the case of wastage, breakage, leakage, &c., from handling the goods in the ordinary course of discharging, warehousing, and reshipping.

If goods are thrown overboard from having become, through heating or other cause peculiar to their own condition, a source of special danger to the whole interest, the loss is not recoverable in general average. So, too, if a cargo is discharged at a port of refuge from damage resulting from its own vice propre, the costs are chargeable to its

owners.

The loss of corn, salt, guano, or similar goods, arising from their being pumped up or baled out with the water in the vessel, is not recoverable by average contribution.

The general average acts next to be considered are those which involve sacrifices of part of the ship or her materials. The same principles which regulate the case of goods thrown overboard apply also to the jettison of the ship's chains, anchors, hawsers, spars, boats, or other stores. But if water-casks are stowed on deck, or if chains and hawsers are carried on deck when the vessel is not near the land so as to render it necessary that they should be so carried, the loss arising from the jettison of these articles falls on the shipowner; and if boats are jettisoned in consequence of their having been broken adrift from their fastenings on deck by the force of the sea, they are excluded from general average, and are charged to particular average on the ship. The damage done to the ship by cutting holes to effect a jettison of the cargo, or to pour down water to a fire, or by scuttling her for that purpose, is allowed as a general average charge. The damage arising from cutting or knocking away a portion of the ship's bulwarks in order to prevent the deck from being flooded in a storm, is com

When sails or masts are cut away in order to right a ship which has been thrown on her beam-ends, or to prevent her from driving on a lee-shore, the loss is made good by average contribution; but if the object in cutting away a sail or spar be merely to save a mast, the loss is not made good in general average.

It frequently happens that masts or yards are sprung and carried away by the force of the wind, and are left entangled in the rigging, or hanging over the ship's side in what is termed " a state of wreck;" in these circumstances it becomes necessary to cut them away, with the sails and rigging attached, and to throw the whole overboard, otherwise they would impede the navigation, and endanger the ship and cargo. On this ground it is held by some authorities that the loss caused by the act of cutting them away should be made good by average contribution. But this act is the direct consequence of the previous accident, which places these articles in a situation where it is impossible to save them without imperilling the ship, cargo, and lives. It would not be reasonable to imperil these for such a purpose; whence it follows that the displaced articles are already virtually lost by means of the original accident, before the loss is actually consummated by cutting them away. This loss is accordingly excluded, by the usage of this country, from average contribution. On the same principle, no contribution can be demanded for any articles which are sacrificed as having themselves become, through previous accident, the immediate cause of danger to the whole interest.

The loss of sails or spars, in consequence of carrying a press of canvas to avoid a lee-shore, or to escape from an enemy, is not the subject of general average in this country; neither is the damage suffered by the ship from straining, under any such extraordinary press of sail.

When anchors and cables are slipped from in order to work a vessel off a lee-shore, or to avoid a collision with another ship, the loss is made good by average contribution; but if the cable is slipped in order that the vessel may join convoy, or because the anchor has become hooked to some object at the bottom and cannot be raised, the loss is borne by the shipowner.

When sails, ropes, or other materials are cut up and used at sea for the purpose of stopping leaks or to rig jury-masts, or when the common benefit requires that they should be applied to some purpose for which they were not originally intended, the loss is made good in general aver

the same time, condemns the attempts of those who tried to give demonstrative science where the mind was not capable of more than rhetoric: they harm religion by their mere negations, destroying an old sensuous creed, but cannot build up a higher and intellectual faith.

other useful and beneficent constructions, proceeded from the public zeal of the sovereign; and under the patronage of two liberal rulers, Jusuf and Jakub, science and philosophy flourished apace. It was Ibn-Tofail (Abubacer), the philosophic vizier of Jusuf, who introduced Averroes to hat prince, and Avenzoar (Ibn-Zohr), the greatest of In this spirit Averroes does not allow the fancied needs Moslem physicians, was his friend. Averroes, who was of theological reasoning to interfere with his study of Arisversed in the Malekite system of law, was made kadi of totle, whom he simply interprets as a truth-seeker. The Seville (1169), and in similar appointments the next points by which he told on Europe were all implicit in twenty-five years of his life were passed. We find him at Aristotle, but Averroes set in relief what the original had different periods in Seville, Cordova, and Marocco, prob- left obscure, and emphasized things which the Christian ably following the court of Jusuf Almansur, who took theologian passed by or misconceived. Thus Averroes pleasure in engaging him in discussions on the theories of had a double effect. He was the great interpreter of Arisphilosophy and their bearings on the faith of Islam. But totle to the later Schoolmen, worthy of a place, according science and free thought then, as now, in Islam, depended to Dante, beside the glorious sages of the heathen world. almost solely on the tastes of the wealthy and the favor of On the other hand, he came to represent those aspects of the monarch. The ignorant fanaticism of the multitude Peripateticism most alien to the spirit of Christendom; viewed speculative studies with deep dislike and distrust, and the deeply-religious Moslem gave his name to the and deemed any one a Zendik (infidel) who did not rest anti-sacerdotal party, to the materialists, skeptics, and content with the natural science of the Koran. These smoul- atheists, who defied or undermined the dominant beliefs dering hatreds burst into open flame about the year 1195. of the church. Whether, as one story ran, he had failed in conversation and in his writings to pay the customary deference to the emir, or a court intrigue had changed the policy of the moment, at any rate Averroes was accused of heretical opinions and pursuits, stripped of his honors, and banished to a place near Cordova, where his actions were closely watched. Tales have been told of the insults he had to suffer from a bigoted populace. At the same time efforts were made to stamp out all liberal culture in Andalusia, so far as it went beyond the little medicine, arithmetic, and astronomy required for practical life. But the storm soon passed, when the transient passion of the people had been satisfied, and Averroes for a brief period survived his restoration to honor. He died in the year before his patron Almansur, with whom (in 1199) the political power of the Moslems came to an end, as did the culture of liberal science with Averroes. The philosopher left several sons, some of whom became jurists like Averroes's grandfather. One of them has left an essay, expounding his father's theory of the intellect. The personal character of Averroes is known to us only in a general way, and as we can gather it from his writings. His clear, exhaustive, and dignified style of treatment evidences the rectitude and nobility of In the histories of his own nation he has little place; the renown which spread in his lifetime to the East ceased with his death, and he left no school. Yet from a note in a manuscript, we know that he had intelligent readers in Spain more than a century afterwards. His historic fame came from the Christian Schoolmen, whom he almost initiated into the system of Aristotle, and who, but vaguely discerning the expositors who preceded, admired in his commentaries the accumulated results of two centuries of labors.

the man.

For Aristotle the reverence of Averroes was unbounded, and to expound him was his chosen task. The uncritical receptivity of his age, the defects of the Arabic versions, the emphatic theism of his creed, and the rationalizing mysticism of some Oriental thought, may have sometimes led him astray, and given prominence to the less obvious features of Aristotelianism. But in his conception of the relation between philosophy and religion, Averroes had a light which the Latins were without. The science, falsely so called, of the several theological schools, their groundless distinctions and sophistical demonstrations, he regarded as the great source of heresy and skepticism. The allegorical interpretations and metaphysics which had been imported into religion had taken men's minds away from the plain sense of the Koran, and destroyed the force of those appeals which had been spoken to the hearts and understandings of our common humanity, not to the wisdom of the "people of demonstration." God had declared a truth meet for all men, which needed no intellectual superiority to understand, in a tongue which each human soul could apprehend according to its powers and feelings. Accordingly, the expositors of religious metaphysics, Algazali included, are the enemies of true religion, because they make it a mere matter of syllogism. Averroes maintains that a return must be made to the words and teaching of the prophet; that science must not expend itself in dogmatizing on the metaphysical consequences of fragments of doctrine for popular acceptance, but must proceed to reflect upon and examine the existing things of the world. Averroes, at

On three points Averroes, like other Moslem thinkers, came specially into relation, real or supposed, with the religious creed, viz., the creation of the world, the divine knowledge of particular things, and the future of the human soul. But the collision was rather with the labored ratiocinations by which the Asharite and Motazelite theologians aimed at rationalizing dogma than with the doctrine of religion in its simplicity. True philosophy is the foster sister of religion, but is the critic of scholastic subtleties. In regard to the second charge, Averroes himself remarks that philosophy only protests against reducing the divine to the level of the created mind. But the real grandeur of Averroes is seen in his resolute prosecution of the stand-point of science in matters of this world, and in his recognition that religion is not a branch of knowledge to be reduced to propositions and systems of dogma, but a personal and inward power, an individual truth which stands distinct from, but not contradictory to, the universalities of scientific law. In his science he followed the Greeks, and to the Schoolmen he and his compatriots rightly seemed philosophers of the ancient world. He maintained alike the claim of demonstrative science with its generalities for the few who could live in that ethereal world, and the claim of religion for all,-the common life of each soul as an individual and personal consciousness. But theology, or the mixture of the two, he regarded as a source of evil to both-fostering the vain belief in a hostility of philosophers to religion, and meanwhile corrupting religion by a pseudo-science. A stand-point like this was the very antithesis of scholasticism; it was the anticipation of an adequate view which modern speculation has seldom exhibited.

The latent nominalism of Aristotle only came gradually to be emphasized through the prominence which Christianity gave to the individual life, and, apart from passing notices as in Abelard, first found clear enunciation in the school of Duns Scotus. The Arabians, on the contrary, emphasized the idealist aspect which had been adopted and promoted by the Neo-Platonist commentators. Hence, to Averroes the eternity of the world finds its true expression in the eternity of God. The ceaseless movement of growth and change, which presents matter in form after form as a continual search after a finality which in time and movement is not, and cannot be reached, represents only the aspect the world shows to the physicist and to the senses. In the eye of reason the full fruition of this desired finality is already and always attained; the actualization, invisible to the senses, is achieved now and ever, and is thus beyond the element of time. This transcendent or abstract being is that which the world of nature is always seeking. He is thought or intellect, the actuality, of which movement is but the fragmentary attainment in successive instants of time. Such a mind is not in the theological sense a creator, yet the onward movement is not the same as what some modern thinkers seem to mean by development. For the perfect and absolute, the consummation of movement is not generated at any point in the process; it is an ideal end, which guides the operations of nature, and does not wait upon them for its achievement. God is the unchanging essence of the movement, and therefore its eternal cause.

A special application of this relation between the prior

of the truth. When Frederick II. consulted a Moslem free-thinker on the mysteries of the faith, when the phrase or legend of the "Three Impostors" presented in its most offensive form the scientific survey of the three laws of Moses, Christ, and Mahomet, and when the characteristic doctrines of Averroes were misunderstood, it soon followed that his name became the badge of the scoffer and the skeptic. What had begun with the subtle disputes of the universities of Paris, went on to the materialist teachers in the medical schools and the skeptical men of the world in the cities of Northern Italy. The patricians of Venice and the lecturers of Padua made Averroism synonymous with doubt and criticism in theology, and with sarcasm against the hierarchy. Petrarch, vexed by the arrogance and overrefinements of their argumentation, and by the barbarism of their words, refuses to believe that any good thing can come out of Arabia, and speaks of Averroes as a mad dog barking against the church. In works of contemporary art Averroes is at one time the comrade of Mahomet and Antichrist; at another he lies with Arius and Sabellius, vanquished by the lance of St. Thomas.

It was in the universities of North Italy that Averroism finally settled, and there for three centuries it continued as a stronghold of Scholasticism to resist the efforts of revived antiquity and of advancing science. Padua became the seat of Averroist Aristotelianism; and, when Padua was conquered by Venice in 1405, the printers of the republic spread abroad the teaching of the professors in the university. As early as 1300, at Padua, Petrus Aponensis, a notable expositor of medical theories, had betrayed a heterodoxy in faith; and John of Jandun, one of the pamphleteers on the side of Lewis of Bavaria, was a keen follower of Averroes, whom he styles a "perfect and most glorious physicist." Urbanus of Bologna, Paul of Venice (d. 1428), and Cajetanus de Thienis (1387-1465), established by their lectures and their discussions the authority of Averroes; and a long list of manuscripts rests in the libraries of Lombardy to witness the diligence of these writers and their successors. Even a lady of Venice, Cassandra Fedele, in 1480, gained her laurels in defence of Averroist theses.

perfect, and the imperfect, which it influences, is found in | Dominican school, come to be regarded as the arch-enemy the doctrine of the connection of the abstract (transcendent) intellect with man. This transcendent mind is sometimes connected with the moon, according to the theory of Aristotle, who assigned an imperishable matter to the sphere beyond the sublunary, and in general looked upon the celestial orbs as living and intelligent. Such an intellect, named active or productive, as being the author of the development of reason in man, is the permanent, eternal thought, which is the truth of the cosmic and physical movement. It is in man that the physical or sensible passes most evidently into the metaphysical and rational. Humanity is the chosen vessel in which the light of the intellect is revealed; and so long as mankind lasts there must always be some individuals destined to receive this light. "There must of necessity always be some philosopher in the race of man." What seems from the material point of view to be the acquisition of learning, study, and a moral life, is from the higher point of view the manifestation of the transcendent intellect in the individual. The preparation of the heart and faculties gives rise to a series of grades between the original predisposition and the full acquisition of actual intellect. These grades in the main resemble those given by Avicenna. But beyond these, Averroes claims as the highest bliss of the soul a union in this life with the actual intellect. The intellect, therefore, is one and continuous in all individuals, who differ only in the degree which their illumination has attained. Such was the Averroist doctrine of the unity of intellect the eternal and universal nature of true intellectual life. By his interpreters it was transformed into a theory of one soul common to all mankind, and when thus corrupted conflicted not unreasonably with the doctrines of a future life, common to Islam and Christendom. Averroes, rejected by his Moslem countrymen, found a hearing among the Jews, to whom Maimonides had shown the free paths of Greek speculation. In the cities of Languedoc and Provence, to which they had been driven by Spanish fanaticism, the Jews no longer used the learned Arabic, and translations of the works of Averroes became necessary. His writings became the text-book of Levi ben Gerson at Perpignan, and of Moses of Narbonne. Meanwhile, before 1250, Averroes became accessible to the Latin With Pomponatius, in 1495, a brilliant epoch began for Schoolmen by means of versions, accredited by the names the school of Padua. Questions of permanent and present of Michael Scot and others. William of Auvergne is the interest took the place of outworn scholastic problems. first Schoolman who criticises the doctrines of Averroes, The disputants ranged themselves under the rival commennot, however, by name. Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas tators, Alexander and Averroes; and the immortality of devote special treatises to an examination of the Averroist the soul became the battle-ground of the two parties. theory of the unity of intellect, which they labor to con- Pomponatius defended the Alexandrist doctrine of the fute in order to establish the orthodoxy of Aristotle. utter mortality of the soul, whilst Augustinus Niphus, the But as early as Egidius Romanus (1247-1316), Averroes Averroist, was entrusted by Leo X. with the task of defendhad been stamped as the patron of indifference to theo- ing the Catholic doctrine. The parties seemed to have logical dogmas, and credited with the emancipation which changed when Averroism thus took the side of the church; was equally due to wider experience and the lessons of the but the change was probably due to compulsion. Niphus Crusades. There had never been an absence of protest had edited the works of Averroes (1495-7); but his exagainst the hierarchical doctrine. Berengar had struggled pressions gave offence to the dominant theologians, and he in that interest, and with Abelard, in the 12th century, had to save himself by distinguishing his personal faith the revolt against authority in belief grew loud. The from his editorial capacity. Achillini, the persistent phildialogue between a Christian, a Jew, and a philosopher osophical adversary of Pomponatius both at Padua and suggested a comparative estimate of religions, and placed subsequently at Bologna, attempted, along with other modthe natural religion of the moral law above all positive erate but not brilliant Averroists, to accommodate their revelations. Nihilists and naturalists, who deified logic philosophical theory with the requirements of Catholicism. and science at the expense of faith, were not unknown at It was this comparatively mild Averroism, reduced to the Paris in the days of John of Salisbury. In such a critical merely explanatory activity of a commentator, which congeneration the words of Averroism found willing ears, tinued to be the official dogma at Padua during the 16th and pupils who outran their teacher. Paris became the century. Its typical representative is Marc-Antonio Zimara centre of a skeptical society, which the decrees of bishops (d. 1552), the author of a reconciliation between the tenets and councils, and the enthusiasm of the orthodox doctors of Averroes and those of Aristotle. and knight-errants of Catholicism, were powerless to extinguish. At Oxford Averroes told more as the great commentator. In the days of Roger Bacon he had become an authority. Bacon, placing him beside Aristotle and Avicenna, recommends the study of Arabic as the only way of getting the knowledge which bad versions made almost hopeless; and the student of the present day might echo his remark. In Duns Scotus, Averroes and Aristotle are the unequalled masters of the science of proof; and he pronounces distinctly the separation between Catholic and philosophical truth, which became the watchword of Averroism. By the 14th century Averroism was the common leaven of philosophy; John Baconthorpe is the chief of Averroists, and Walter Burley has similar tendencies. Meanwhile Averroism had, in the eye of the great

Meanwhile, in 1497, Aristotle was for the first time expounded in Greek at Padua. Plato had long been the favorite study at Florence; and Humanists, like Erasmus, Ludovicus Vives, and Nizolius, enamored of the popular philosophy of Cicero and Quintilian, poured out the vials of their contempt on scholastic barbarism with its "impious and thrice-accursed Averroes." The editors of Averroes complain that the popular taste had forsaken them for the Greek. Nevertheless, while Fallopius, Vesalius, and Galileo were claiming attention to their discoveries, the Professors Zabarella, Piccolomini, Pendasio, and Cremonini continued the traditions of Averroism, not without changes and additions. Cremonini, the last of them, died in 1631, after lecturing twelve years at Ferrara, and forty at Padua. The legend which tells that he laid aside his telescope