Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 17.djvu/724

* scholasticism:. a; consistency. In Jialoetics Aristotle hold undia- i)ut<a swav. Molaplivsiis was a lii/.arre union of Ari.-tot.Mian and Platonic ideas. From the Timaiui va.s borrowed llio theory of the principle of causality, from Aristotle the scheme of the four causes". The Platonic doctrine of ideas was broufrhl to the front together with the Aristote- lian theories of substance, nature, iierson, and the categories. Indirectly, through Saint Ambrose and Boethius, the composition of matter and form was known, though this organic doctrine of the Peripatetics plays but an insignificant jiart and was always niis'uiidcrstocid. Cosniological teach- ings show the same uncertainty. Under the inllu- ence of the Platonic theory of the world-soul, or the latum of the Stoics, an autonomous life was attributed to nature, though, on the other hand, some of the ablest of the schoolmen (Abe- lard. John of Salisbury) maintained with Aris- totle the individuality of every natural substance, two theses that it is impossible to reconcile. Up to the thirteenth century the psychology of the schools is principally Augustinian and Pla- tonic. JIan is a microcosm, a minor of the uni- verse. From Saint Augustine is taken the divi- sion of faculties and the theory of knowledge. To these studies on the psychical activities were united observations on the empirical and physio- logical life, inspired by Arabian science. On the nature of man, whatever concerned the origin and destiny of the soul was eagerly studied. The re- lation between body and soul was explained on the Platonic theorj' — the soul being held to be united to the body as the pilot to the ship, the rider to his horse. Although the Aristotelian definition of the soul as 'the ac(i(s primus of the body' was well known, the soul was not held to be the substantial form of the organism, for this, ac- cording to the conceptions of the time, would have been to regard it as a property of matter. Theodicy was always considered as one of the most important chapters in scholastic philosophy. The Fathers of the Church, the pseudo-Diony- sius, and Boethius had left long dissertations on the existence of God ; therein are found the Aris- totelian ideas on the prime mover, the Neopla- tonic conceptions of the demiurge, of a Supreme Being, and the Pythagorean traditions on num- ber. On the whole, if we except theodicy, which, fragmentary though it was, remained faithful to the true genius of scholasticism, in the philoso- phy of this period the effort to amalgamate heterogeneous and incompatible elements was the chief defect. The scholastic movement reaches its fullest mediaeval development in the thirteenth century with the great teachers of the age. Albertus Magnus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Bona- ventura, and Duns Scotus. Its dominant traits are now: (1) Comprehensiveness. Acquainted with all the problems suggested by a complete . philosophical system, the scholastics offer defi- nite solutions ready for unitive coordination. (2) Individuality of the philosophers. The thir- teenth century was a century of individualities. While all the great schoolmen agreed in a number of fundamental theories, each of them imprinted upon this common fund the mark of his person- ality. (3) The prominence given to psychologi- cal and metaphysical problems. In psychology, the genesis of knowledge and the nature of the soul ; in metaphysics, the theories of matter and form, of the nature and of the origin of sub- 4 SCHOLASTICISM. stances, of the princi]>Ie of individuation sum up- the main subjects of controversy. The intensity of Christian faith among the contemporaries* and successors of Charlemagne explains the ingress of scholastic philosophy upon the domain of theology. The dispute con- cerning predestination raised the problem of liberty and its relation to God's providence and justice; the controversy of Paschasius on the Euoharistic Presence occasioned dissertations on substance and accident; the dogma of the Trinity suggested discussions on the concepts of nature, individuality, person; the mystery of transub- stantiation "and of the divine simplicity provoked the study of physical processes. However, before long the" philosophical questions were disengaged from their theological setting. Distinction be- tween the two sciences was deduced from the diversit,v of their principles, their methods, and their special objects, a distinction which is ex- plicitly laid dowTi and developed in the first question of the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas. The decline of scholasticism followed rapidly on its maturity. The causes which led to its ruin acted slowl.v but steadily. Of these causes some are internal, the exhaustion of the move- ment itself ; others external, the decline of studies, and the progressive encroachments of anti-scholastic philosophies. Lack of originality is the first symptom of this decay. From the fourteenth century the number of those who de- voted themselves to the study of philosophy grew in colossal proportions. Universities multiplied, and thus facilitated the growth of philosophical pursuits. Entire orders engaged in the prevalent controversies. But these multitudinous philoso- phers no longer thought for themselves. They enrolled themselves with some great school, led by some illustrious thinker. As with all the writers of periods of decline, they were mere com- mentators upon the thoughts of others. As schools increased individuality decreased. The thirteenth century was marked by distinct personalities; the fourteenth and fifteenth were periods of impersonal thought. Apart from the Terminists the schoolmen after the thirteenth century discovered no new modes of speculation. But terminism was a sTOiptom of decay, for in its work is noticeable another mark of decompo- sition W'hich was not slow to invade all scholas- ticism, the deterioration in the scholastic syn- thesis. The new theories, those of Occam, for example, were at ill accord, in more than one point, with the scholastic synthesis, without, however, being in conflict with its organic princi- ples. The passionate disputes of the Terminists, Seotists, and Thomists also largely contributed to disturb the economy of scholasticism. Scholasticism itself departed further and further from the dignified and precise language of the thirteenth century. Uncouth expressions which hitherto had appeared only sporadically and for the most part in AraboLatin transla- tions multiplied rapidly from the fourteenth cen- tury; even the spelling in use with professors betrayed an unpardonable ignorance of Latin. Terminism and Scot ism must assume the greater part of the responsibility for this decadence. And as defect in form engenders confusion of ideas there appears also a deterioration in scholastic methods. Under pretext of clarity, distinctions, sub-distinctions, terms, and counter-terms were