them as before, and where they were before; nor did they appear to have reached the goal in unravelling the old questions, nor had they added one jot of a proposition.  The aims that once inspired them, inspired them still:  they had progressed in one point only:  they had unlearned moderation, they knew not modesty; in such wise that one might despair of their recovery.  And thus experience taught me a manifest conclusion, that, whereas dialectic furthers other studies, so if it remain by itself it lies bloodless and barren, nor does it quicken the soul to yield fruit of philosophy, except the same conceive from elsewhere.[14]

This was doubtless one of the experiences which led John to vigorous argument on the futility of devotion to Logic alone, and on the importance of a liberal education: 

That eloquence is of no effect without wisdom is a saying that is frequent and true.  Whence it is evident that to be of effect it operates within the limits of wisdom.  Therefore eloquence is effective in proportion to the measure of wisdom which each one has acquired; for the former does harm if it is dissociated from the latter.

From this it follows that dialectic, which is the quickest and most prompt among the hand-maids of eloquence, is of use to each one in proportion to the measure of his knowledge.  For it is of most use to him who knows the most and of least use to him who knows little.  For as the sword of Hercules in the hand of a pygmy or dwarf is ineffective, while the same sword in the hand of Achilles or Hector strikes down everything like a thunderbolt, so dialectic, if it is deprived of the vigor of the other disciplines is to a certain degree crippled and almost useless.  If it is vigorous through the might of the others, it is powerful in destroying all falsehood and, to ascribe the minimum to it, it is adequate for the proper discussion of all things ...

Now it is very easy for each workman to talk about his own art; but to do skilfully what the art requires, is most difficult.  For what physician is there who does not talk often and much about elements, and humors, and complexions, and diseases, and the rest that pertain to physic?  But he who gets well on such talk could well have afforded to be even sicker.  What ethical teacher has not an abundance of rules for good living so long as they exist only on his lips?  But it is clearly a much harder task to express them in actual life.  Mechanics, individually, talk glibly about their own arts, but not one of them so lightly vies (in practice) with the architect or the boxer.  It is the same in every other line.  So it is very easy to talk about definition, arguments, or genus and the like, but to devise these same things within the limits of a single art for the purpose of performing fully the functions of the art, is far more difficult [i.e. to discuss logic in the abstract is easy, but to reason logically in any specific field of knowledge is difficult].  Therefore he who is hampered by a dearth of the disciplines will not have the power which Dialectic promises and affords.[15]

The views of John of Salisbury concerning the study of Aristotle are indicated on pages 42-44.