lated to the intellect; GOOD is being related to the appetite.The principle refers to the ontological good and true, andhence, does not refer directly to the moral order.

Virtus consistit in medio (Virtue is found in themean). Aristotle’s basic principle of good moral actionis to place VIRTUE between two extremes that are calledvices. Virtue is the good habit whose act avoids the ex-tremes and maintains the mean of honest living. Aristotleputs it in this way: ‘‘Virtue, then, is a state of characterconcerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e., the mean rel-ative to us, this being determined by a rational principle,and by that principle by which the man of practical wis-dom would determine it’’ (Eth. Nic. 1107a 1–3).

Bibliography: R. J. DEFERRARI et al., A Latin-English Dictio-nary of St. Thomas Aquinas Based on the Summa Theologica andSelected Passages of His Other Works, 5 fasc. (Washington1948–53). T. W. WILSON, An Index to Aristotle in English Transla-tion (Princeton, N.J. 1949). D. D. RUNES, ed., Dictionary of Philoso-phy (Ames, Iowa 1955). Enciclopedia filosofica 4.1859–62. N.SIGNORIELLO, Lexicon peripateticum philosophico-theologicum. . . (Naples 1906; Rome 1931). PETRI DE BERGOMO, Tabula aurea(Photocopy from Thomas Aquinas’s Opera Omnia, EditionesPaulinae; Rome 1960).

[R. SMITH]

SCHOLASTICISMFirst used in a derogatory sense by humanists and

early histories of philosophy in the 16th century, scholas-ticism has come to mean either a historical movement ora system of thought that was bequeathed by that move-ment.

In the historical sense described in this article, it isan intellectual movement in the history of the Church thatcan be divided into three periods: medieval, modern, andcontemporary. Medieval scholasticism arose gradually inthe 12th century from the use of Aristotelian DIALECTICSin theology, philosophy, and Canon Law; it matured inthe 13th with the assimilation of new philosophical litera-ture and consequent concentration on metaphysics; it de-clined in the succeeding period; and it passed intodesuetude with the RENAISSANCE. Modern (or middle)scholasticism, extending from 1530 to the early 19th cen-tury, witnessed a revival of metaphysics in the 16th cen-tury, a multiplicity of eclectic schools in the 17th, and anabandonment of ancient sources and method in the 18th.Contemporary scholasticism began with the rediscoveryof the works of St. Thomas Aquinas in mid-19th century,spread throughout the Catholic world under the aegis ofLeo XIII, and flourished in the 20th century, particularlyin Continental Europe and in North and South America.

As a system, scholasticism has sometimes been un-justly described as ‘‘one of the greatest plagues of the

human mind’’ (Diderot), or as ‘‘philosophy brought intoslavery to papist theology’’ (C. A. Heumann), and curtlydismissed as not meriting attention. At the other extreme,some seem to consider it a homogeneous body of doctrineproviding answers to all possible problems. The truth liesbetween these two extremes (see SCHOLASTIC METHOD;SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY).

1. MEDIEVAL SCHOLASTICISM

It is customary to trace the roots of scholasticismto the Carolingian age and to divide medieval scholasti-cism into four periods: prescholasticism (c. 800–1050),early scholasticism (1050–1200), high scholasti-cism (1200–1300 or 1350), and late scholasticism(1350–1500).

Prescholasticism. The learning of the Middle Ageshas its origins in the enactments of CHARLEMAGNE andin the vision of ALCUIN that brought about the establish-ment of episcopal and monastic schools and the gradualrevival of the trivium and quadrivium. In this early peri-od, dialectics occupied a relatively small place in the triv-ium and relied mainly on De nuptiis Mercurii etPhilologiae of Martianus Capella, the Institutiones ofCASSIODORUS, a few chapters of the Etymologiae of ISI-DORE OF SEVILLE, the Dialectica of Alcuin, and perhapssome treatises of BOETHIUS. What came to be called theold logic (logica vetus), i.e., Aristotle’s Categories andPerihermenias and Porphyry’s Isagoge, was not popular-ly known or used [J. Isaac, Le Peri Hermeneias en occi-dent de Boèce à saint Thomas (Paris 1953) 38–42].

The ‘‘new Athens’’ that Alcuin sought to build inFrance [Epist. 86; Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne, 217V., indexes 4 v. (Paris 1878–90) 100:282] was notmarked by any great philosophical revival. Alcuin him-self was content to duplicate the culture of the past; RA-BANUS MAURUS was primarily a compiler who broughtAlcuin’s program to Germany; Fredegisus (d. 834), disci-ple and successor of Alcuin, showed perhaps a wider in-terest, since his De nihilo et tenebris contains someoriginal thought; while the Dicta of CANDIDUS OF FULDAoffers the first medieval proof of the existence of Godbased on dialectics. The court of Charles II the Bald wit-nessed a discussion on the nature of the soul, its originand relation to the body, involving HINCMAR OF REIMS,RATRAMNUS OF CORBIE, and PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS.Above all, the court was famous as the home of the onetruly original thinker of this period, JOHN SCOTUS ERIU-GENA, whose De divisione naturae (c. 866) is a synthesisof theology based on Neoplatonic principles. In theologyproper, the Carolingian period was marked by controver-sies on predestination and the Real Presence, initiated byGOTTSCHALK OF ORBAIS. Neither controversy seems tohave resulted from the use of dialectics.

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 757

Early Scholasticism. The Carolingian renaissancewas of short duration. The dismemberment of the Em-pire, the coming of the Normans, frequent wars, and gen-eral political disorder were hardly favorable tointellectual pursuits. Yet the 10th century was not whollydevoid of intellectual life in some monasteries and cathe-drals; one need only consider the learning of Gerbert ofAurillac, who became Pope SYLVESTER II, and his disci-ple FULBERT OF CHARTRES. Such men prepared for the re-vival of learning in the 11th century that centered largelyon the question of dialectics. As scholasticus at Reims(973–982) Gerbert had provided a full course on the oldlogic (J. Isaac, op. cit. 44).

Less than a century later St. PETER DAMIAN com-plained of the Aristotelian subtlety that had spreadthrough the schools and of those who forgot it was buta handmaid and not the queen (Patrologia Latina,145:603). He may have had in mind his contemporary,BERENGARIUS OF TOURS, who had urged recourse to dia-lectics on all questions, since reason was the gift of God.Applying this science to the Eucharist, Berengarius con-cluded that since reason proclaims that accidents cannotexist apart from substance, the bread and wine must re-main after the Consecration. The effect of the Consecra-tion is but to add another form to the bread, that of the‘‘intellectual body’’ of Christ: an allegorical, spiritual,and symbolic rather than a real, physical presence is theresult. Berengarius remained throughout the 12th centuryan example of reason and logic intruding where it had noplace. Yet, while some reacted strongly against dialec-tics, others were quick to recognize its value if used withrestraint. ‘‘For those who examine the matter carefully,dialectics does not undermine the mysteries of God’’(Lanfranc of Bec, In 1 Corinthians 1.11; Patrologia La-tina, 150:157), and what St. Paul reproves is not the artof disputing but the perverse use some make of it (In Co-lossians 2.3; Patrologia Latina, 150:323). In this ap-proach LANFRANC prepared the way for the daring butsound metaphysical meditations on dogma of St. Anselm.

Anselm of Canterbury. The Monologium of ANSELMOF CANTERBURY is a profound prayerful study of the ex-istence and nature of God, yet professedly is based onreason and not on the authority of Scripture. In it, Anselmclearly affirmed that faith is his starting point; yet throughreason he will seek to understand what he believes.‘‘Faith seeking understanding’’ (Fides quaerens intellec-tum) was, in fact, the original title of his second greatwork, the Proslogion. Conscious of the novelty of his po-sition—he had been reproved by Lanfranc for his dar-ing—Anselm himself recommended prudence in thespread of his writings (Epist. 1.74; Patrologia Latina,158:1144).

The dialectic that Anselm fostered among his pupilsat Bec led to the systematic Sententiae and Summae ofthe 12th century. The first steps were taken by ANSELMOF LAON, pupil of St. Anselm, who for some 30 yearstaught in the episcopal school of Laon. Though his teach-ing was primarily on Scripture, he did apparently orga-nize the material of older theology in more systematicfashion. His school attracted a host of pupils who wereto become famous in 12th-century theology: GILBERT DELA PORRÉE, and ROBERT OF MELUN (HEREFORD), Albericof Reims, Lotulphus of Novara, and WILLIAM OF CHAM-PEAUX.

Peter Abelard. Of much more importance for thesystematization of theology was the work of Peter ABE-LARD. The Sic et Non produced by his school is a vastrepertoire of Biblical, patristic, and canonical material forand against specific points of doctrine. Its prologue, thework of a master dialectician, sets forth principles for thereconciliation of opposing texts through the analysis ofwords, authentication of texts, or noting changes of opin-ion on the part of an author. Perhaps the most influentialAbelardian principle was that ‘‘one can often solve a con-troversy by showing that the same words are used in dif-ferent senses by different authors’’ (Patrologia Latina,178:1344D). The dialectical method of Abelard was uti-lized by both canonists and theologians, reaching notableheights in the Decretum of Gratian, originally known asthe Concordantia discordantium canonum, and the Librisententiarum of PETER LOMBARD (see SENTENCES ANDSUMMAE; GRATIAN, DECRETUM OF).

Abelard is perhaps best known for his role in the con-troversy concerning UNIVERSALS, ‘‘which is always themost important question for those engaged in dialectics’’(Historia calamitatum 1.2). Disputing the solutions of histeachers, ROSCELIN and William of Champeaux, Abelardattributed universality to names, not things. This position,sometimes called NOMINALISM, was vastly different fromthe nominalism of the 14th century. The 11th-centurycontroversy centered on grammar and logic without theaid of Aristotle’s metaphysics and psychology.

School of Chartres. During the first half of the 12thcentury the most eminent center of learning was the ca-thedral school in Chartres. Inspired by a deep feeling forancient culture, masters such as BERNARD OF CHARTRES,THIERRY OF CHARTRES, Gilbert de la Porrée, and CLAREN-BAUD OF ARRAS cultivated an integral humanism that wasliterary as well as theological. Perhaps JOHN OF SALIS-BURY, later Bishop of Chartres, was the most eloquentspokesman of the literary humanism typical of thisschool. WILLIAM OF CONCHES, HONORIUS OF AUTUN, andBERNARD SILVESTRIS developed a Platonic cosmologyout of earlier sources. Acquainted only with Platonic

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA758

sources, apart from the Organon of Aristotle, the philoso-phy taught at Chartres was mainly an eclectic Platonism,centered on questions of God and the world, EXEMPLAR-ISM, creation, the sciences, as well as the Latin classicsand the LIBERAL ARTS. ADELARD OF BATH and otheralumni became well known translators of scientific worksfrom Arabic into Latin.

Mysticism. At Paris the Abbey of Saint-Victor,founded in 1108 by William of Champeaux for the CAN-ONS REGULAR OF ST. AUGUSTINE, became a flourishingschool of theology and mysticism under HUGH OF SAINT-VICTOR and RICHARD OF SAINT-VICTOR. To his contem-poraries, Hugh was the ‘‘new Augustine, the agent of theHoly Spirit,’’ a learned theologian famous for his theo-logical summa On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith(tr. R. J. Deferrari, Cambridge, Mass. 1951), his programfor Christian schools, the Didascalicon (tr. J. Taylor,New York 1961), and his ability to use all knowledge aspaths to union with God. Richard was the outstandingmystical writer of this school; his works were appreciatedand used especially by St. Bonaventure and St. ThomasAquinas.

Cistercian mysticism, stemming from St. BERNARDOF CLAIRVAUX, was marked by its psychological ap-proach. Almost every writer of this school of mysticismproduced a treatise on the soul as a preface and key to hisspiritual doctrine (see SOUL, HUMAN, 2; ISAAC OF STELLA;ALCHER OF CLAIRVAUX; WILLIAM OF SAINT-THIERRY).One exception to this was ALAN OF LILLE, who had taughtat Paris and Montpellier before entering monastic life. Heis known mainly for his theological works against theheretics of his day and for his attempt to reduce theologyto a more exact science.

High Scholasticism. History can never be dividedby centuries. Yet mid-13th-century Paris, with St. ALBERTTHE GREAT, ROGER BACON, St. BONAVENTURE, and St.THOMAS AQUINAS, was a far different ‘‘city of letters’’from the mid-12th-century Paris of Peter Lombard. The12th and preceding centuries had been essentially patris-tic in content, largely dominated by the doctrine and spiritof St. AUGUSTINE.

Introduction of Aristotle. Apart from his logic, Aris-totle was known only through secondary sources; and theWest little suspected that he had written anything else. Inthe 13th century scholastics were caught up in a fermentof thought as their cultural horizon was suddenly broad-ened and their allegiance to the past was deeply chal-lenged through the influx of a vast philosophical andscientific literature translated from the Greek and Arabic.For the first time they came face to face with a world-system, a Weltanschauung, which relied completely onreason and appeared almost entirely at variance with the

Christian faith. They were faced with doctrines such asthe Prime Mover, eternal motion, denial of creation andprovidence, uncertainty on the immortality and spirituali-ty of the soul, and a morality based on reason alone. Suchtheories seemed almost like a new revelation, or, formany, like intruders from an alien world. ‘‘The Christianpeople,’’ said WILLIAM OF AUVERGNE, ‘‘is plunged in as-tonishment by theories hitherto entirely unknown to it’’[De universo 1.3.31 (Paris 1674) 1:805b]. The first reac-tion on the part of traditionalists was one of distrust: thesynod at Paris in 1210 forbade the use of Aristotle’s writ-ings on natural philosophy or commentaries on them inthe schools; the University of Paris statutes of 1215 ex-tended this prohibition to the ‘‘metaphysics and naturalphilosophy, summae on them, or books on the doctrineof DAVID OF DINANT, AMALRIC OF BÈNE, or Maurice ofSpain.’’ Yet such prohibitions, renewed in 1231 by Greg-ory IX, did not exclude private study or use of suchworks, or prevent their growing popularity. In 1255 thenew statutes for the faculty of arts officially included allthe known works of Aristotle in the texts assigned forpublic lectures. As the profundity and novelty of Aristot-le’s thought was further complicated by the crudity andliteralness of the translations, scholastics were inclined toturn to AVICENNA and, after 1230, to AVERROËS as guidesin understanding the Philosopher (see ARABIAN PHILOSO-PHY). Unfortunately, Avicenna’s interpretation waslargely Neoplatonic, especially on the origin of thingsfrom God by necessary emanation, and on the nature ofthe soul (see EMANATIONISM). The acceptance of Averro-ës as the Commentator gave rise eventually to a crisis atParis.

Universities. This influx of literature clearly couldnot have produced its far-reaching effects had it not beenfor the formation and organization after 1200 of a newscholastic milieu, in the founding of the University ofPARIS, and those of OXFORD, Cambridge, Toulouse, BO-LOGNA, and others. Usually divided into four faculties oftheology, medicine, law, and arts, the universities are re-membered mostly for the work achieved in theology andin arts, which quickly became primarily a school of phi-losophy. In the theological faculty, while the older tradi-tions were maintained, new methods, inspired partly bythe ‘‘new logic’’ of Aristotle (the Analytics, Topics, andSophistical Refutations, translated about 1128 by Jamesof Venice), produced a new type of scientific theology incontrast to the scriptural studies (sacra pagina) of the12th century. Roger Bacon complained bitterly of the dis-placement of the Bible as the heart of theology by theSentences of Peter Lombard. He blamed ALEXANDER OFHALES, who as dean of the school had made the first pub-lic gloss on the Sentences (c. 1230). For better or forworse, Alexander was making use of a procedure already

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 759

in vogue in the arts faculty, of using the work of some‘‘authority’’ (e.g., Aristotle, Porphyry, Donatus) as thebasis of scholastic lectures. In arts at Paris, Roger Baconhimself seems to have been the first to undertake suchcourses on the newly discovered writings of Aristotle.

English Scholars. The Englishman Roger Bacon wasa product of the University of Paris, where he lectured inarts longer than any other master. Bacon traced his ownpreference for mathematics and mathematical methods toROBERT GROSSETESTE, one of the most original and ver-satile minds of the century. Conversant with the worksof Aristotle, some of which he had translated, Grossetestewas by inclination more Neoplatonist and Augustinian.Influenced likewise by optics and perspective, he at-tempted to deduce from the nature of light a completecosmological system, wherein the dynamic energy oflight produced the finite world and the multiplication ofindividual beings. Such scientific ideals, especially hisfaith in mathematical reason, reappeared in Bacon, whoset as his ideal the renewal of contemporary thoughtthrough a reassessment and reorganization of Christianwisdom. On the other hand, in ADAM OF BUCKFIELD onefinds a proof that Aristotle’s writings were by no meansneglected at Oxford. Yet both Dominicans, such as RICH-ARD FISHACRE and ROBERT KILWARDBY, and Francis-cans, such as THOMAS OF YORK, ROGER MARSTON, andJOHN PECKHAM, were inclined to an eclectic type of Aris-totelianism and to resist the complete acceptance of thePhilosopher in Christian schools. The trends implantedby Grosseteste retained their vitality even in the 14th cen-tury, with a renewed interest in mathematics and physicson the part of THOMAS BRADWARDINE and the MertonCollege group of physicists (see JOHN OF DUMBLETON;RICHARD OF SWYNESHED; WILLIAM OF HEYTESBURY).

Parisian Scholars. For the medieval schoolman, asfor the modern historian, scholasticism meant primarilythe University of Paris, the studium of the Church, ‘‘thecity of books and learning’’ (Gregory IX). The long tradi-tion of schools at Notre Dame, Sainte-Geneviève, Saint-Victor, gave rise about 1200 to a guild (universitas) ofmasters and scholars, which under royal patronage andpapal direction soon became the most famous and impor-tant seat of learning in the Western world. At first, mostof the masters in theology, guided by the directives ofPope Gregory IX (1228 and 1231), continued the conser-vative, so-called Augustinian, traditions of the 12th cen-tury. At the same time, the Aristotelian ideal of a sciencegradually made clear the distinction between philosophyand theology, and indeed the further distinction betweentheology as exegesis and theology as an organized bodyof knowledge (M. D. Chenu, La théologie comme scienceau xiiie siècle, Paris 1957).

Franciscan School. Alexander of Hales, who joinedthe Franciscan Order in Paris after a long and fruitfultheological career, showed very little tendency to use theworks of Aristotle; at most, he cited well-known axiomsand principles. In contrast, his associate, JOHN OF LA RO-CHELLE, depended closely on Avicenna in his Summa deanima; otherwise he remained close to traditional theolo-gy.

A much greater knowledge of the philosophers wasmanifested by St. Bonaventure, likely because when hehad studied in the arts faculty Aristotle was given moreprominence. Nonetheless, though he spoke the languageof Aristotle, considered him ‘‘the more excellent amongthe philosophers,’’ and made great use of his works, Bon-aventure can hardly be called an Aristotelian. Primarilythe theologian whose only master was Christ, Bonaven-ture regarded philosophy as a help in understanding thefaith: ‘‘As the children of Israel carried away the trea-sures of Egypt [Ex 3,22; 12, 35], so theologians maketheir own the teachings of philosophy’’ [Opera omnia(Quaracchi 1882–1902) 8:335b], ‘‘taking from philo-sophical knowledge on the nature of things what theyneed to build’’ the structure of theology and reach an un-derstanding of the things of God (ibid. 5:205a). Yet aclose examination of the philosophy thus incorporatedinto the synthesis of Christian wisdom shows relativelylittle acceptance of Aristotle. In later years, faced by theAverroist crisis, Bonaventure became vehemently criticalof Aristotelianism and of any attempt to philosophize in-dependently of the safeguards of faith. Though his disci-ples, John Peckham and MATTHEW OF AQUASPARTA,made more use of the Philosopher, they were close toBonaventure in outlook and spirit.

Dominican School. A marked contrast to the Francis-can and early Dominican school is found in St. Albert theGreat and St. Thomas Aquinas. Among the scholasticsAlbert was the first to see what riches the Greco-Arabicscience and philosophy contained for Christian thought.He was inclined to emphasize the practical separation ofphilosophy and theology, since philosophical problemsshould be handled by philosophical methods, and to es-tablish a new hierarchy of authority: ‘‘In matters of faithand morals Augustine is to be believed rather than thephilosophers, if they are not in agreement. But if onespeaks of medicine, I should rather believe Galen or Hip-pocrates; or if of the nature of things, I believe Aristotleor some other who is expert in the nature of things’’ (In2 sent. 13.2). If Albert did not succeed in building a truephilosophical synthesis from such an overwhelmingwealth of material, he did make possible the work of St.Thomas, providing as well inspiration for a school of hisown among the German Dominicans, who emphasizedthe Neoplatonism inherent in his thought (see THEODORIC

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA760

OF FREIBERG; ULRIC OF STRASSBURG; ECKHART, MEI-

STER).

For Thomas Aquinas, the basic problem was to dis-cover how as a Christian scholar he could order anew thewhole structure of Christian wisdom in such a way thatpagan philosophy would be made tributary to the Chris-tian faith. For Thomas there was no need to reject or de-spise whatever pagan reason had discovered of the truth;just as grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, so sa-cred doctrine presupposes, uses, and perfects naturalknowledge (Summa theologiae 1a, 1.8 ad 2). Some truthsabout God exceed the ability of reason. But there areother truths that the natural reason of man is able to reach(C. gent. 1.3). Both come under theology because Godhas seen fit to reveal both and propose them to man forbelief (1.4), even though the second group is properly ofthe philosophical order. Both kinds of truth are incorpo-rated into the Summa contra gentiles and the Summatheologiae.

Many contemporaries took scandal at the synthesisThomas achieved, complaining that he had brought Aris-totelian naturalism and metaphysics into the heart of the-ology in speaking of the being of God and creatures, thePOTENCY of MATTER (to the abandonment of Augustine’sSEMINAL REASONS), the definition of soul as FORM, andthe rejection of any theory of ILLUMINATION in knowl-edge. Yet they apparently failed to see that the Aristotleof St. Thomas was not simply the Aristotle of Athens inLatin dress, but an Aristotle brought into captivity toChrist, whose principles found interpretations and appli-cations in problems he himself had never faced. Aboveall, the synthesis of St. Thomas is his synthesis; Thomismis not the mere evolution of Aristotelianism, but a revolu-tion born of St. Thomas’s own great intellect.

Averroist Crisis. The Angelic Doctor’s knowledgeof Aristotle and Averroës helped him meet in adequatefashion the crisis that had developed in Paris after 1255(see AVERROISM, LATIN; INTELLECT, UNITY OF). With theintroduction of the unfamiliar corpus of Aristotle into thearts curriculum, many masters turned for aid and enlight-enment to the commentaries of Averroës. Under the lat-ter’s influence some came to seek a philosophy free fromtheological control. When their teachings contradictedthe faith, they were careful to propose them merely as theconclusions of reason and philosophy. To philosophize,as SIGER OF BRABANT said, was to expound as faithfullyas possible the thought of Aristotle, in methodical ab-straction from the faith. The theologians were quick toreact. In 1267 and 1268 Bonaventure publicly rebukedand condemned errors current in the university that‘‘arose from the unbridled use of philosophical investiga-tion.’’ Yet only with the return of St. Thomas to Paris

were such brash philosophers met on their own level. At-tacked by innumerable theologians, the Averroist move-ment was formally condemned on Dec. 10, 1270, by thebishop of Paris, Étienne TEMPIER. The 13 propositionscondemned embodied the essential tenets of Latin AVER-ROISM. This condemnation seems to have had little effect;the conferences In Hexaemeron of Bonaventure in 1273witness the bitterness of his opposition to Aristotle andAverroists. After the death of Thomas Aquinas and Bona-venture in 1274, there was no theologian great enough tostem the Averroist tide in Paris. In the eyes of many, no-tably John Peckham and Robert Kilwardby, the Aristo-telianism of Aquinas was dangerously close to that of theAverroists.

Condemnation of 1277. When the Parisian unrestwas felt at the Papal Curia, Pope JOHN XXI wrote to Bish-op Tempier on Jan. 18, 1277, directing him to ascertainwhere and by whom the errors in question had beentaught or written, and to transmit to him, as soon as possi-ble, all pertinent information [Chartularium universitatisParisiensis, ed. H. Denfile and E. Chatelain, 4 v. (Paris1889–97) 1:541]. Apparently without reply or furtherconsultation with the Curia, Bishop Tempier issued amotu proprio and a condemnation of 219 propositions onMarch 7, 1277, the third anniversary of the death of Aqui-nas. In the prefatory letter, Tempier explicitly namedSiger of Brabant and BOETHIUS OF SWEDEN as propaga-tors of the errors condemned, and warned against the pre-text of teaching a proposition as true according to reason,while it may be false according to faith (ibid. 1:543; seeDOUBLE TRUTH, THEORY OF). The propositions con-demned by Tempier included Averroist doctrines alreadycondemned, multiplicity of worlds, each and every limi-tation of God’s absolute freedom of action, individuationby matter, and certain crucial teachings of St. Thomas(ibid. 1:544–555). However, no proposition touched thespecific Thomistic doctrine of the unicity of substantialform, so violently attacked by Peckham and other Augus-tinians. Consequently, Robert Kilwardby, Archbishop ofCanterbury, proceeded at Oxford on his own authority tocondemn 16 additional propositions, including 6 thattouched the unicity of form, on March 18 (ibid.1:558–559). The Paris condemnation, confirmed by thePope on April 28, was an overwhelming victory for tradi-tional Augustinianism.

In the light of the condemnation of 1277, WILLIAMDE LA MARE tried to preserve orthodox Franciscan teach-ing by drawing up a Correctorium of individual passagesin the writing of Aquinas. This Correctorium was offi-cially adopted by the Franciscan Chapter of Strasbourgin 1283; only notably intelligent lectors were allowed toread the works of Aquinas, and then only with the Cor-rectorium as a guide. Spontaneously, early supporters of

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 761

THOMISM, particularly at Oxford and Paris, where contro-versy was most intense, replied with CORRECTORIA toWilliam de la Mare’s ‘‘Corruptorium’’ [see RICHARDKNAPWELL; THOMAS OF SUTTON; JOHN (QUIDORT) OF

PARIS].

Early 14th Century. Another reaction was the nu-merous controversies that occupied the scholastic worldwell into the 14th century concerning ESSENCE AND EXIS-TENCE, the unicity and plurality of FORMS, ILLUMINA-TION, the soul and its powers, and the like, that involvedGILES OF ROME, HENRY OF GHENT, PETER THOMAE, WAL-TER OF CHATTON, and others. In the midst of this intellec-tual turmoil, faced with the skepticism of theologians onthe one hand and the audacity of philosophers on theother, John DUNS SCOTUS sought to create a new synthe-sis. In a critical yet positive spirit, he undertook to exam-ine anew the limits of reason contrasted to faith, thewhole problem of knowledge (mainly against Henry ofGhent), the object of metaphysics, and the doctrine ofbeing, giving greater emphasis to divine liberty and meta-physical proofs for God’s existence. Whether Scotus wassuccessful in weaving all these elements into a true syn-thesis is not altogether evident, but SCOTISM became athriving school of thought in later periods of scholasti-cism.

The last of the great scholastics of this period wasWILLIAM OF OCKHAM, who epitomized the spirit of criti-cism that pervaded the early 14th century. His contempo-raries called his nominalist position the ‘‘modern way’’(via moderna) in contrast to the ‘‘old way’’ (via antiqua)of Thomas and Scotus. His NOMINALISM also played asignificant role in the later development of scholasticism(see OCHKAMISM).

Late Scholasticism. After 1350 scholastic thoughtquickly moved away from the metaphysics utilized sofruitfully by the great theologians of the 13th century andwas beginning to examine new questions. To this extentit did not immediately lose its vitality. One evidence ofthis change was the 14th-century interest in speculativegrammar, that is, the philosophical analysis of language,in which metaphysics became the foundation of gram-mar. Parallel to this was the growth of logic after theSummulae logicales of Peter of Spain (JOHN XXI); WIL-LIAM OF SHERWOOD is an example of the close bond be-tween logic and metaphysics. Late scholasticism alsowitnessed the beginnings of modern physics and scientif-ic methodology. At Oxford physicists began to applymathematics to the study of nature, and to construct newtheories on space and motion. At Paris, JOHN BURIDAN,ALBERT OF SAXONY, and NICHOLAS ORESME anticipated,by their teachings on IMPETUS, gravitation, and the uni-verse, many later discoveries in physics and astronomy;

their doctrines implied radical departure from the physicsof Aristotle.

While such new ideas occupied the professors of thearts faculty, the theologians appear to have advanced lit-tle beyond the giants of the preceding period. Instead,they manifested the tendency to crystallize into schools.THOMISM, which had become the official doctrine of theDominican Order, was championed by HARVEY NEDEL-LEC, JOHN OF NAPLES, John CAPREOLUS, and later by To-masso de Vio CAJETAN. Since Scotism was not officialamong the Franciscans, more originality and indepen-dence was found in such scholastics as ANTONIUS AN-DREAS, Francis of Meyronnes, HUGH OF NEWCASTLE,Peter Thomae, and WILLIAM OF ALNWICK. Among theAugustinians, the doctrines of Giles of Rome were madeofficial even within his lifetime.

With this, Paris unfortunately became a city of con-flict and confusion. Religious-minded scholars revoltedagainst it, while the growing number of humanists soughtmeans to restore the classical concept of the liberal artsand return to the prescholastic type of culture. Since theUniversity of Paris failed to achieve a synthesis of allthese elements, old and new, one might take the foundingof the Collège de France (1530), for the study of classicsnot provided at the university, as a sign that scholasticismwas at an end. In Germany, the vitriolic attacks of MartinLUTHER on the schoolmen and on philosophy, and theravages of the Reformation, destroyed whatever scholas-ticism was in that country. There had been little scholasti-cism, as such, in Italy, and it gave way before thehumanists. Only in Spain did it show new life with therise of middle scholasticism.

Bibliography: E. GILSON, History of Christian Philosophy(New York 1955). A. A. MAURER, Medieval Philosophy, v. 2 of AHistory of Philosophy, ed. É. H. GILSON, 4 v. (New York 1962–). F.C. COPLESTONE, History of Philosophy (Westminster, Md. 1946–)v. 2–3. D. KNOWLES, The Evolution of Medieval Thought (Baltimore1962). J. PIEPER, Scholasticism, tr. R. and C. WINSTON (New York1960). P. VIGNAUX, Philosophy in the Middle Ages, tr. E. C. HALLfrom 3d French ed. (New York 1959). P. DELHAYE Medieval Chris-tian Philosophy, tr. S. J. TESTER (New York 1960). F. UEBERWEG,Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. K. PRAECHTER et al.,5 v. (11th, 12th ed. Berlin 1923–28) v. 3. A. FOREST et al., Le Mou-vement doctrinal du XIe au XIVe siècle (Histoire de l’église depuisles origines jusqu’à nos jours, eds., A. FLICHE and V. MARTIN, 13;1951). J. DE GHELLINCK Le Mouvement théologique du XIIe siècle(2d ed. Bruges 1948) B. BAZÀN, J. WIPPEL, G. FRANSEN and D. JACQ-UART, Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dansles facultés de theologie, de droit et de médecine (Turnhout 1985).L. BOYLE, Facing History: A Different Thomas Aquinas (Louvain2000). L. BIANCHI and E. RANDI, Vérités dissonantes: Aristote . . .la fin du Moyen Age (Fribourg 1990). J. WIPPEL, The MetaphysicalThought of Thomas Aquinas: From Finite Being to UncreatedBeing (Washington 2000).

[I. C. BRADY]

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA762

2. MODERN OR MIDDLE SCHOLASTICISM

Modern or middle scholasticism extends roughlyfrom 1530 to 1830. It may be conveniently divided intothree periods: second scholasticism (1530–1650), reac-tion and adjustment (1650–1750), and crossroads andtransition (1750–1830),

General Characteristics. As a system and methodof speculative and practical thought modern scholasti-cism exhibited seven general characteristics that resultedfrom a peculiar combination of traditionalism and moder-nity in both philosophy and theology: (1) continuity withthe past; (2) orientation of philosophy to the Word ofGod; (3) systematic realism; (4) rational method; (5) ad-justment to contemporary science and modern philoso-phy; (6) concern with ideology; and (7) developmentscharacteristic of different religious orders and of Protes-tant scholasticism. At times many of these positive char-acteristics were excessive; they were frequently ridiculedand misinterpreted by nonscholastics who, using the termscholasticism in a pejorative sense, revealed some of thenegative characteristics of the system such as its antiquar-ian character and reliance on authorities in philosophy tothe detriment of legitimate speculation.

The leaders of this movement were predominantly,though not exclusively, Catholic priests and Protestantclergymen. Among members of religious orders DOMINI-CANS, FRANCISCANS, and JESUITS predominated, al-though the diocesan clergy, BENEDICTINES, CARMELITES,AUGUSTINIANS, and members of other orders also madesubstantial contributions.

The transition to modern or middle scholasticismwas necessitated by the humanists of the Renaissancewhose use of, as well as expressed contempt for, scholas-ticism exemplified its unique characteristics; those whotried to change or destroy it were themselves shaped byit, and they adapted the results of this development totheir own problems and times. Most significant were theinvention of printing (c. 1440), the fall of Constantinople(1453), the discovery of America (1490–92), and theProtestant REFORMATION. These world events changedradically the cultural milieu of early modern scholasti-cism with powerful consequences for its evolution duringsubsequent centuries. Thus modern scholasticism beganin the turmoil of the Reformation and terminated in theconfusion of the French Revolution, the dissolution ofmonasteries, the suppression of religious orders, and thediminution of scholastic writers who were forced intopractical apologetics.

Geographically, modern scholasticism flourished inBelgium, Great Britain (including Ireland and Scotland),France, Germany (together with Austria and the Nether-lands), Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Poland, and Spain, usu-

ally in the shelter of Catholic or Protestant universitiesand in religious houses of study. Scholasticism was alsotransplanted to the New World with the establishment ofreligious orders and the founding of institutions of higherlearning in North and South America and the Philippines.American colleges, such as Harvard, Yale, and Williamand Mary, reflected the scholasticism current in Protes-tant universities of the 16th century, especially Cam-bridge and Oxford, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and institutionsin Germany and the Lowlands.

Second Scholasticism. The ‘‘second scholasticism’’of the late 16th and early 17th centuries was a period ofrenewed activity after the chaos of the 14th century. Gen-erally by 1500 the various theological schools were freeto hold distinctive philosophical positions and to makeconsequent theological interpretations of revelation andchurch doctrine that became characteristic of the great re-ligious orders. Despite these variations within schools,the following core of scholastic philosophical doctrinemay be noted as common to all: (1) Thinkers agreed thatthe world is apprehended immediately as other than theindividual knowing mind and that sense and intellect aretwo different modes of knowing. (2) Natural philosophyand psychology were characterized by an advocacy ofpluralism (as opposed to monism), of a teleological dyna-mism operative within the world of nature, and of free-dom and responsibility in man, who was regarded ashaving an immortal soul. (3) The possibility of metaphys-ics was recognized, as well as that of a normative and notmerely descriptive ethics, not autonomous in the rational-ist’s sense but dependent on law and on a lawgiver know-able to man without benefit of revelation. (4) Theexistence of one God, infinite in being and power, a freeCreator who conserves the universe by His all-powerfulwill, was regarded as demonstrable. (5) Knowledge wasdivided in a way that kept the philosophical and theologi-cal orders formally distinct, yet considered Christian rev-elation an indispensable auxiliary to reason and to moralintegrity.

Three famous schools were well established at thebeginning of the modern period: the Thomist (whose var-ious interpretations are sometimes styled Thomistic todistinguish them from the original doctrine of St. Thom-as), the Scotist (and similarly, Scotistic), and the nomi-nalist. After 1600 the teaching of F. Suárez and his school(Suarezianism) was added to the traditional three. Com-mon to all scholastic and nonscholastic thinkers withinthe Church was the powerful Augustinian movement oflong standing in Christianity. Among the scholastics theresulting variety and doctrinal differences were jealouslyguarded; at times the various religious orders exploitedtheir chosen masters with a loyalty that might have beenexpressed: ‘‘my order, right or wrong.’’ Yet, out of this

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 763

welter also proceeded many outstanding scholasticworks.

Dominicans. Among the Dominicans, John CA-PREOLUS, Tommaso de Vio CAJETAN, and Francis Syl-vester FERRARIENSIS, together with JOHN OF ST. THOMAS,constituted a classical commentator tradition that soughta positive rather than an apologetical understanding of St.Thomas. At the University of Salamanca, Francisco deVITORIA instituted a new pattern of achievement in scho-lasticism on the eve of the Reformation when he took theactual text of the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas as atext in theology in place of the Sentences of Peter Lom-bard. His successor, Melchior CANO, was famous for histreatise on sources, in which he also presented a schemefor the reform of theology and philosophy. AmongCano’s pupils were the Dominicans, Bartolomé de MEDI-NA and Domingo BÁÑEZ, and the Augustinian, Fray Luisde LEÓN. The Jesuit J. MALDONATUS had been, withCano, a pupil of Vitoria. Bañez and others at the end ofthe 16th century engaged in a prolonged debate with theJesuits over theological explanations concerning humanfreedom and divine grace (see THOMISM).

Franciscans. Franciscan scholastics of the period,like Dominican and Augustinian thinkers, were rooted inthe systematic achievements of their medieval predeces-sors. St. Bonaventure or John Duns Scotus, for some, andWilliam of Ockham, for others, constituted the sourcesof speculative guidance. Franciscans were free of officialpressure to follow one master exclusively. Scotus was de-clared their doctor in 1593, although in 1550 the Capu-chins had been forbidden to follow him and wereencouraged to return to St. Bonaventure. Neither St.Thomas, declared a Doctor of the Church by Pius V in1567, nor St. Augustine was excluded, and Aristotle ap-peared often in a Scotistic context.

Outstanding interpretations of the Franciscan tradi-tion appeared early in the 16th century in works of M.O’FIHELY and Francesco Licheto (Lychetus, d. 1520),whose commentary on Lombard’s Sentences was reis-sued in 1639 by Cardinal Sarnan. Other 16th-century au-thors were A. TROMBETTA and the Capuchin theologianPeter Trigosus (Pedro Trigoso de Calatayud).

Seventeenth-century Franciscan scholastics useful ininterpreting Scotus include Hugh Cavellus (MacCaugn-well, 1571–1626), Johannes Bosco, a Belgian recollect,and B. MASTRIUS. The Italian, L. BRANCATI, with An-drew Rochmarius, a Pole (d. 1626), and AlphonsusBricero (d. 1667), called a second Duns Scotus whenteaching in Lima, Peru, exemplify the internationalspread of 17th-century Scotism. John Ponce of Cork as-sisted L. WADDING in editing the works of Scotus andwrote his own manuals, Integrum philosophiae cursum

ad mentem Scoti, together with a complete course in the-ology according to the mind of Scotus. He is also creditedwith introducing, in the 17th century, the actual formulaoften attributed to Ockham, Entia non sunt multiplicandapraeter necessitatem (Entities are not to be multiplied un-necessarily).

William van Sichem (d. 1691) produced a clear,easy-to-teach Cursus philosophicus harmonizing Scotus,St. Thomas, and Bonaventure. Mattheus Ferchius(1583–1669) and Gaudentius Bontempi (1612–72) exem-plify commentators on St. Bonaventure’s work.

An important and scholarly presentation of the theol-ogy of Duns Scotus came from the pen of C. Frassen, adoctor at the Sorbonne in 1662, whose Scotus ac-ademicus and Cursus philosophiae embody noteworthysimplicity of style, clearness of method, and subtlety ofthought; both volumes went through numerous editionsuntil late in the next century. By the middle of the 18thcentury, however, Franciscan philosophy and theologyhad suffered the general decline of modern scholasticism.In many writers of this period the original basic accordbetween Scotus and Thomas had been transposed into anirreconcilable opposition (see SCOTISM).

Augustinians. By 1530, the Augustinians (Hermits ofSt. Augustine) had a commitment to an earlier scholastictradition that fitted in with their special claim on St. Au-gustine. In 1287 a general chapter of Florence com-manded members of the order to accept and defend theposition of GILES OF ROME, one of their members whohad been a pupil of St. Thomas Aquinas, himself declareda second doctor of their order in 1560. This new synthesisavoided some disadvantages associated with the Platonicelements in Augustinianism, especially its theory ofknowledge and its absence of a dialectical method and ofan ordered system. The school flourished into the 18thcentury, with the teaching of Augustinian philosophy andtheology at Salamanca, Coimbra, Alcalá, Padua, Pisa,Naples, Oxford, Paris, Vienna, Prague, Würzburg, Erfurt,Heidelberg, Willenberg, and other centers of learning.

Bartholomaeus ARNOLDI taught Luther during hismonastic days and later was his theological opponent.Both Arnoldi and J. Altenstaig were moderni or nominal-ists in their philosophy. In the 16th-century disputesabout grace, Augustinian scholastics generally acceptedan efficacy of grace ab intrinseco, as opposed to theMolinist doctrine ab extrinseco. Cardinal H. NORIS, aLouvain theologian, and Cardinal G. L. BERTI, invited bythe general of his order, Schiaffinati, to write a methodicexposition of Augustinian theology, were involved in thedispute over grace. They confronted the ‘‘primitive’’Augustinianism of BAIUS and his followers, C. O. JAN-SEN, and J. DUVERGIER DE HAURANNE.

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA764

Earlier in the 16th century Raffaelo Bonherba(d.1681) examined the principal controversies betweenSt. Thomas and Duns Scotus in the light of the doctrineof Giles of Rome, as did Fulgentius Schautheet about1660. Federico Nicola Gavardi (1640–1715) was one ofGiles’s most important interpreters. In the works of Jor-dan Simon (1710–76) there is a curious eclectic philoso-phy built on a foundation derived from Raymond LULL.(See AUGUSTINIANISM.)

Oratorians. In the 17th century, with the physics ofAristotle in ruins and that of Galileo in triumph, therecame a joining of Augustinianism and CARTESIANISMthrough the influence of the Congregation of the Oratory,founded in 1661 by Cardinal P. de BÉRULLE. Among theORATORIANS, the cause of Augustinianism, as a vehe-ment protest against the alleged paganization of Chris-tianity by Thomism, was advanced by THOMASSIN, R.SIMON, B. LAMY, J. B. DU HAMEL and especially N.MALEBRANCHE, of whom J. B. BOUSSUET said that hisdoctrine was ‘‘pulchra, nova, falsa.’’

Benedictines. The Order of St. Benedict bore manyattacks against Catholicism but managed to producesome of the classic works of scholarship in the modernperiod and, as with other religious orders, less distin-guished manuals and compendia. Many Benedictine au-thors took St. Thomas as their guide, but some looked toSt. Anselm of Canterbury as an intellectual father. An-dreas de la Moneda (d. 1672), a Spaniard, wrote a coursein scholastic and moral theology ‘‘according to the mindof Anselm and Thomas.’’ Probably the best work on dog-matic theology produced by a German Benedictine wasTheologia scholastica secundum viam et doctrinam diviThomae Aquinatis (Augsburg 1695, 1719) by Paul Mez-ger (1637–1702). The Philosophia Thomistica Salisbur-gensis (Augsburg 1706) of Ludwig Babenstuber(1660–1726) was in the old peripatetic tradition. CelestinPley (d. 1710) offered a synthesis of rationalism, Tho-mism, and Benedictinism in his Theoremata theologiaeangelicae Beneditino-Thomistica (Salzburg 1711). Norwas the Franciscan Doctor, Scotus, neglected, as theworks of A. C. Hermann (c. 1720) and Marianus Brockie(1687–1757), written ‘‘according to Scotus,’’ indicate.

Carmelites. Carmelite professors at Alcalá and Sala-manca early in the 17th century published their lecturesin a series of manuals of Thomistic scholastic philosophyand theology. Authors of the philosophy manuals weredesignated as COMPLUTENSES (the old Roman name ofAlcalá was Complutum) and those of the theology seriesas SALMANTICENSES. The works exhibited a high degreeof consistency in doctrine because of the discussions thatinfluenced the final form of each work. Disputes were set-tled by vote.

Later in the 17th century, attempts were made bysome to elevate to the rank of a theological school thedoctrine of John Baconthorp, a Carmelite Averroist. St.JOHN OF THE CROSS, the classic writer on ‘‘empiricalmysticism,’’ was intimately acquainted with the Summatheologiae of St. Thomas from his higher studies at Sala-manca. Carmelites engaged also in polemic writingsagainst QUIETISM, JANSENISM, GALLICANISM, Cartesian-ism in philosophy, and RATIONALISM in Scripture andhistory.

Servites. Founded in 1233 at Florence, the Order ofSERVITES originally followed Scotus. Later they turnedfrom him to Henry of Ghent, actually a secular master butmistakenly thought to be a Servite. His Augustinian phi-losophy of a Neoplatonic character was made obligatoryduring the 1600s. H. A. Borghi, at Pisa in 1627, wrote atext for students based on Henry of Ghent, as did JeromeScarpari (d. 1650) and Calistus Lodigeri (d. 1710); thelast named was said to have advocated Henry’s doctrineso strongly as almost to bring the man himself back fromthe grave. But Gerard Baldi (d. 1660) followed St. Thom-as in his Catholica monarchia Christi, a theological trea-tise, and Marc Struggl (d. 1760) followed Molinism. Atthe beginning of the 19th century, Constantine Battini (d.1830) contributed to the restoration of theological studiesin Italy that later fructified in the works of the Servite car-dinal, A. LÉPICIER.

Jesuits. Founded in 1540, some five years before thebeginning of the Council of Trent, suppressed in Europein 1773 and restored in 1814, the Society of Jesus cameinto the stream of modern scholasticism in time to con-tribute with the Dominicans to the flowering of Spanishscholasticism. St. IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA personally and inthe official documents of the Society rooted Jesuit philo-sophical and theological speculation in Aristotle and St.Thomas, a directive reiterated in the RATIO STUDIORUM.

The guidance given by St. Thomas was not taken asstrictly as among the Dominicans, however, and a certainliberty of thought independent of established masterssoon characterized Jesuit theology and philosophy. Thisappeared to some as eclecticism and to others as laxism—e.g., the teaching of PROBABILISM in problems affectingconscience. Many early Jesuits broke away from thephysics of Aristotle in favor of new scientific movements.Later, some Jesuit textbook writers departed completelyfrom metaphysics and the Thomistic synthesis, someadopting a Cartesian orientation, others the methodologyand format of C. WOLFF or modifications of the sensismof É. B. de CONDILLAC and J. LOCKE. Yet some of the pio-neers of the return to St. Thomas in the 19th century weremembers of the Society of Jesus.

Francisco de TOLEDO, first Jesuit cardinal and ‘‘fa-ther of scholastic philosophy in the Society of Jesus,’’

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 765

had held the chair of philosophy at the University of Sala-manca before becoming a Jesuit and had studied underthe Dominican Domingo de SOTO. During Bellarmine’stime at the Roman College practically all the professorswere Spaniards, e.g., Gabriel VÁZQUEZ and his rival, F.SUÁREZ. M. SA was a Portuguese from Coimbra. C. ALA-MANNI, born at Milan, studied under both Vázquez andSuárez and wrote a Summa totius philosophiae e diviniThomae Aquinatis doctrina (Padua 1618–23), which fol-lows the form of St. Thomas’s Summa theologiae. Later,following the style of the new manuals stimulated bySuárez, he published a Summa philosophica D. Thomaeex variis eius libris in ordinem cursus philosophici acco-modata (Paris 1639), which F. EHRLE reedited at Paris in1894. GREGORY OF VALENCIA, J. de LUGO, and L. LESSIUSwere also at the Roman College at some time during theircareers.

Peter da FONSECA, called the ‘‘Portuguese Aristot-le,’’ was provincial when the work of the Coimbricenseswas undertaken by the Jesuit professors of the Universityof COIMBRA. Somewhat like the project of the Carmelitesat Alcalá and Salamanca, this famous course was laterpublished at the direction of the Jesuit general, C. AC-QUAVIVA. Fonseca may also be the father of the doctrineon SCIENTIA MEDIA made famous by his pupil, L. de MOLI-NA, in his Concordia . . . (Lisbon 1588). (See SUAREZIAN-ISM; MOLINISM.)

Council of Trent. In its totality scholasticism em-braces exegesis of Scripture, patrology, and Church his-tory, as well as systematic theology and its relatedphilosophy. In all areas, but particularly in philosophyand theology, scholastics contributed to the formulationof conciliar decrees at Trent (1545–63), clarifying andmaking precise the concepts and definitions expressingthe imputation of guilt, the causal influence and effectsof supernatural grace, the reality of infused virtues, theanalogy of matter and form in the Sacraments, and thesacramental character. These decrees also exemplify themasterful use by the Church of the contributions made byvarious orders and schools through their delegates at thecouncil.

Later, in turn, scholastic philosophy was influencedby Trent in such matters as the distinction of three de-grees of CERTITUDE that appears in the manuals after1563. The discussion of certitude in the theological con-text of the Lutheran teaching on justification by faithalone and the Christian’s personal certitude of his ownstate of justification shifted the emphasis from the objec-tive to the subjective order. To be certain meant to be se-cure, although certitude had reference also to the truth ofthings. In the manuals it went through curious forms thatbear little resemblance to the teaching of the great medi-

eval scholastics [S. Harent, Dictionnaire de théologiecatholique, ed. A. Vacant et al., 15 v. (Paris 1903–50)6:211–215].

Sociopolitical and Moral Theory. Diego LAÍNEZ, aJesuit delegate to Trent, had held the doctrine that thepower to govern was delegated by the people to the sov-ereign, who was responsible to them for just rule. Anoth-er Jesuit, St. Robert BELLARMINE, for whom theDominicans, Pedro de SOTO and Domingo de SOTO, werefavorite authorities, carried on a famous controversy withJames I, King of England, and his apologist, Filmore,over the political theory on the divine right of kings.Suárez gave powerful expression to the scholastic posi-tion on the origin and nature of civil power in his Tracta-tus de legibus (Coimbra 1612). The Dominican Vitoriashared with three other Spanish theologians, Domingo deSoto, Molina, and Suárez, the creation of a body of clas-sic political theory attending to natural law and its impli-cations.

Vitoria, Soto, and Suárez may be grouped also withCajetan, Toletus, Bellarmine, and Gregory of Valentia intheir brilliant reworking of the scholastic position on war-fare. More the legalist, Suárez was interested in thesource of lawmaking and took the existence of a pluralityof individual states, each enjoying its own sovereignty asa perfect society, as a practical datum of 16th-centurylife. But Vitoria maintained that the good of the world asa whole (bonum orbis) was the care and concern of all,and he seems to have been the last scholastic internation-alist until the 19th-century Jesuit, L. TAPARELLID’AZEGLIO.

Generally in Europe, economic expansion raisedquestions in moral theology concerning just prices, mon-etary standards, and usury. Another development cen-tered around the rights of penitents and practicalstandards or rules of confessors to make equitable moraljudgments. St. Alphonsus LIGUORI, who had founded theRedemptorists at Scala in 1732, published his Annota-tiones (1744) to a classic work in moral theology by theJesuit H. BUSENBAUM. Reissued in 1753 as Theologiamoralis, after being recast in Liguori’s own classic style,it was the source of many compendia of moral theology.By 1750 CASUISTRY, or the practice of formulating casesand solving them to illustrate the right or wrong involved,had become a synonym for moral laxity; but not beforethe Dominicans had forbidden the use of probabilism totheir confessors and the Jesuits had developed a consider-able doctrine and practice of the same. The Redemptor-ists sought a balance in EQUIPROBABILISM.

Reaction and Adjustment. From 1650 to 1750 themultiplicity of schools, writings, changes in format, andattempts to combine the traditional with the modern

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA766

found a type of unity with the rise of the new manuals,first under the influence of Suárez and then later withLeibnizian-Wolffian developments. Allied with this wasthe growth of Protestant scholasticism and scholasti-cism’s continuing confrontation with the new science andwith modern reforms in philosophy.

New Manuals. Under the pressure of a widespreadpolemic and reflecting contemporary change in method,the four areas in which scholastics were trained becameincreasingly specialized. Theologians, despite the workof such scholars as the Benedictines of Saint-Maur, madea dialectical rather than a historical use of Scripture andthe Fathers. Texts were excerpted for the specific defenseof decrees of the Church or to ‘‘prove’’ scholastic thesesin theology. As a result of this, there appeared autono-mous manuals and compendia in dogmatic and moral the-ology that were harmful to an integral understanding andpractice of the faith.

Further, attacked as philosophers, scholastic teachersand writers attempted to counterattack as philosophersand had little time for the ponderous tomes of previouseras. Concurrently there arose a variety of courses, manu-als, and systematic disputations designed to simplify theteaching of basic matter and attempting to incorporatewhat was useful in the new sciences. In some of thesemay be detected the beginning of a more radical enter-prise, that of exploring and explaining revelation in termsof philosophies lacking roots in Greek thought. Whiletextbook commentaries declined, works that gave an en-tire course in philosophy or theology or an integral partof theology became more numerous. In physical appear-ance these manuals were reduced in size from the folioto the quarto or smaller format.

One landmark terminating this process of changewas Suárez’s Disputationes metaphysicae (Salamanca1597). Without manifesting a commitment to any one ofthe classical scholastic traditions, Suárez neverthelessstayed within the boundaries sketched by Thomas, Sco-tus, and Ockham, while incorporating his own reactionsto the philosophical concerns and achievements of non-scholastics. Among these concerns was the subject ofmetaphysics, now considered in the context of new prob-lems, one of which was the quest for an ontological prin-ciple from which everything else could be derived.According to some interpreters, Suárez’s inclusion of thepossible in the meaning of BEING (defined as ‘‘whateveris or can be’’) meant that metaphysics could be turnedinto an ontology and the way opened to working out amathesis universalis along lines proposed by G. W. LEIB-NIZ and C. WOLFF.

Soon shorter manuals appeared, displacing those ofFonseca (an excellent commentary on Aristotle) and To-

ledo. Most influential were works by the Jesuits, PedroHurtado de Mendoza (1578–1615), R. de ARRIAGA, andF. de Oviedo. The last named’s Cursus philosophicus(Antwerp 1632–39), with its notable stress on principles,perhaps foreshadowed later developments when philoso-phy would be defined as the ‘‘science of principles.’’ J.E. Mora sees Arriaga, very influential during his teachingyears at Prague, as representing the link with the scholas-ticism of Leibniz and Wolff that influenced Kant throughhis teacher, Martin Knutzen (1713–51).

Dominicans who adopted the manual method andformat include A. GOUDIN, A. PINY, and Nicholaus Arnu(1629–92). The Carmelite PHILLIP OF THE BLESSED TRIN-ITY, the Benedictines, A. Reding and Joseph Saenzd’Aguirre (1630–68), and the Theatine Z. Pascualigo,followed a similar method and doctrine.

A curious combination of theology and philosophyappeared in the works of prominent scholastic theolo-gians between 1650 and 1750 who used both the Fathersand ancient pagan author to provide historical evidencefor their non-Thomistic view that ‘‘God exists’’ is a self-evident proposition. This trend is illustrated by the Orato-rian THOMASSIN, the Portuguese Jesuit Antonio Cordeyro(1640–1722), the Sorbonne scholar H. de TOURNELY, theMinim Antoine Boucat (d. 1730), the Capuchin Thomasof Charmes (1703–65), and the Augustinian cardinal G.L. BERTI. These authors presaged positivistic practicesthat were to appear later and may also have originated themodern argument for the existence of God ex consensugentium.

Protestant Scholasticism. Luther’s personal con-tempt for Aristotle and the schoolmen was bound up withhis doctrine on the nature and effects of faith. Other fac-tors were his nominalist background in philosophy andthe influence of the Devotio Moderna exemplified inTHOMAS À KEMPIS and the Brothers of the Common Lifeat Deventer, itself a reaction to the confusions of late me-dieval scholasticism. But MELANCHTHON undertook toconstruct a Protestant theological system and introducedamong Lutherans a humanistic ARISTOTELIANISM set tothe service of religion. Also in the background of all theReformers was the scholasticism of Peter RAMUS, whoseDialecticae institutiones (1543) was an attempt to substi-tute for the logic of the schoolmen a more simple typecomposed ostensibly from Plato, Cicero, and Quintilian.In this sense Ramus was the first ‘‘scholastic’’ Protestant.But with the growing appreciation of metaphysics for es-tablishing the meanings at issue in the Christian dialogue,Ramus’s antimetaphysical logic was forbidden in theProtestant universities—at Leyden in 1591, at Helmstedtin 1597, and at Wittenberg in 1603.

Since humanistic Ramism and philosophical skepti-cism were as unsatisfactory to Dutch, German, and Bohe-

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 767

mian Protestants as they were to Catholics, the scholasticteacher of Protestant theology in Central Europe beganto rely on the work already cloned by Spanish and Portu-guese scholastic philosophers. Of the compendia,Suárez’s Disputationes metaphysicae outranked all Cath-olic scholastic literature and served as a textbook in phi-losophy for many German universities in the 17th andpart of the 18th centuries. Soon Protestant authors beganto produce their own manuals. Cornelius Martini(1568–1621) at Helmstedt, who, with Johannes Caselius(1535–1613), worked in the Italian Aristotelian traditionpioneered among Protestants by Jakob Schegk(1511–87), wrote an early work using quotations from St.Thomas and Cajetan. In 1604, after making acquaintancewith the Spanish scholastics, he printed his Metaphysicaecommentatio. Jakob Martini (1570–1649) published aTheoremata metaphysicorum (Wittenberg 1603–04)showing the influence of Suárez’s Disputationes, whichhad appeared in the Mainz edition several years earlier.

By 1617 Christoph Scheibler (1589–1653), author ofan Opus metaphysicum, was known as the ProtestantSuárez. F. P. Burgersdijck (1590–1635), author of an In-stitutiones logicae (Leyden 1626), used his own compo-sition of a kind of Suarezian compendium publishedposthumously in 1640. Burgersdijck’s pupil and succes-sor at Leyden, Adrianus Heereboort (1614–61) alsowrote a logic and metaphysics based on his teacher’swork. He taught many academic philosophers of the 17thcentury in the Netherlands, among whom were two ofLeibniz’s teachers, Jakob Tomasius (1622–84) and J. A.Scherzer (1628–83), both also influenced by DanielStrahl. B. SPINOZA, who mentions Heereboort, alsoshared the debt to Spanish scholasticism and took Bur-gersdijck’s division of the causes into his own systematicorganization of philosophy. Other prominent Protestantauthors were Bartholomew Keckermann (1571–1608);Polanus von Polansdorf (1561–1610); William Ames(1576–1633), under Ramist influence but essentiallyscholastic; and Johann Heinrich Alsted (Alstedius;1588–1638), a Protestant encyclopedist.

Across the Atlantic, the records of the Boston BookMarket together with the curricular offerings and publicdissertations at Harvard show this same scholastic influ-ence in the New World. John Harvard (1607–38) left tothe college library his copy of a popular compendium,that of the French Cistercian, Eustachius a S. Paolo,whose Summa philosophiae (preface dated 1608) wasmentioned favorably by Spinoza.

In England, the Oxford of John LOCKE likewise re-flected these manual developments. The Puritans’ con-cern for scriptural preaching alienated them from the useof scholastic matter, and yet John WESLEY and Richard

HOOKER are known for their scholastic borrowings.Works by J. Ray, W. Derham, and C. Mach and the fa-mous Natural Theology of William Paley, so disappoint-ing to Darwin, echoed as late as 1836 a scholasticismlong since strained thin and mixed with innumerableother elements. As with the Roman Catholics, Protestantscholastics experimented with the Cartesian contributionto modern philosophy. An obdurate Aristotelian amongProtestants was Georgius Agricola, who objected in 1665to the Copernican geocentric system, claiming that if theearth were a star men would all be in heaven!

Modern Science and Philosophy. In the light of sub-sequent history, the new science of mathematical physicsevolving at the hands of G. GALILEI and I. Newton wasof utmost importance. B. PASCAL confessed his inabilityto decide between the Ptolemaic, Copernican, and Tyc-honean systems, a decision involving further complexoptions concerning matters in Aristotle’s Physics. Butthis was only one of a number of areas that engaged theattention of modern scholastics. At a time when the ad-vance of knowledge with new methods and theoriescalled for quiet scholarship and balanced evaluation, thescholastic world generally was much concerned with thepolemic and ideological issues it judged crucial forhuman welfare in general.

For some, occultism helped to compensate for thedecreasing interest in philosophy and theology and wasa factor in the terrible witch trials in Europe. The non-physical atmosphere of predictive ASTROLOGY seemed toprovide a way of contending with a mechanical interpre-tation of reality that appeared to menace human values.In the 18th century this materialistic threat had becomea powerful ideology at the hands of the ENCYCLOPEDISTS,who threatened institutions and societies in conflict withtheir ideas and seemed to have the destruction of Chris-tianity as one of their avowed aims.

Moreover, polemic concern with the Reformationdistracted competent minds. Controversial theology, apreliminary form of the more developed discipline ofAPOLOGETICS, began to grow. But putting the old physicsor the new science to work for the sake of securing an ad-vantage over skeptics, atheists, and impious materialistsdid not make clear what the new physics was about in itsmethod and conclusions. Nor did Isaac Newton’s famousaffirmation of THEISM in the General Scholion appendedto the 2d edition (1713) of his Mathematical Principlesof Natural Theology help the situation.

Despite a few scholastics who were interested in sci-ence during the modern period, such as the Jesuit R. G.Boscovich and the Cistercian Juan CARAMUEL LOB-KOWITZ, the majority showed little evidence of scientificknowledge in their works. With Galileo’s defeat in his

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA768

battle for freedom from theological control, and with Co-pernicus also on the Index from 1616 to the turn of the19th century, it seemed safer to scholastic philosophersto adopt a watch-and-wait attitude that inhibited scholarlyexamination and evaluation of the new ideas. Preachersand casuists gained prominence and writers of manualsin philosophy and theology worked almost always withthe aim of apologetics in mind.

Crossroads and Transition. The last period ofmodern or middle scholasticism, roughly between 1750and 1830, may be characterized as one of crossroads andof transition. Noteworthy in this period were the develop-ment of Wolffian manuals preceding the revival of Tho-mism, the concern for ideology, and the Cartesianinfluence within the scholastic tradition.

Wolffian Manuals. In 1720, Christian WOLFF beganproducing at the Protestant University of Halle, first inGerman and then in Latin, some 40 volumes of philoso-phy according to a new method and format. Using Euclidand his geometric method as a model, he aimed to presentphilosophy systematically by reducing it to its principles.He first proposed a new division of philosophy based onthe distinction between experience and reason—a dis-tinction later to widen into the divergent streams of EM-PIRICISM and RATIONALISM and never to be closed inscholastic works of Wolffian origin. For Wolff, philoso-phy belongs to the realm of reason, as distinct from thatof experience, and its theoretical or speculative part ismetaphysics. Using a systematic breakdown into genusand species, he divides metaphysics into general meta-physics or ONTOLOGY and special metaphysics, and thelatter in turn into three parts: COSMOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY,and THEODICY (see SCIENCES, CLASSIFICATION OF).Wolff’s definition of philosophy as cognitio rationiseorum quae sunt vel fiunt then sets the tone for its laterdevelopment, which makes special use of the principlesof CONTRADICTION and of SUFFICIENT REASON. Becausesensation is radically distinct from rational knowledgeand since existence is systematically meaningless in thisconception, a philosophy understood as a science of rea-sons or rationes must be a science of essences. But theessence is the possible, and the possible is ultimately thenoncontradictory. Thus the primacy of essence for theWolffian system is practically equivalent to the primacyof logic.

For the most part, scholastic imitators of Wolffmaintained a kind of static tension between the extremesof experience (empiricism) and reason (rationalism).Many continued, as did Wolff, one of the less commend-able characteristics of postmedieval scholasticism, viz, arationalistic attitude toward reality that segregates andexalts the speculative power of man’s reason while de-

preciating his other powers. Others, however, expressedreservations over the new philosophy. Among Protestanttheologians at Wolff’s own Halle and in the Berlin Acad-emy there was criticism of his system, especially on thepoint of sufficient reason. This principle took on an ideo-logical dimension in that, if reason were understood asa determining reason, difficulties were created over thefreedom of the will and a point made in favor of fatalism.Mansuetus a S. Felice, (d. 1775), an Augustinian profes-sor of moral theology, wrote several philosophical-theological dissertations on the principle of sufficient rea-son in connection with liberty, a best possible world, andthe various aspects of grace and predestination (Cremona1775). Cardinal Hyacinthus Sigismond Gerdil of theBarnabites (1718–1802) wrote a short essay on the Mém-oires of N. de Béguelin (1714–89) that illustrated how theproblem of determinism in the moral order brought itsmetaphysical aspect to the foreground. Earlier, the Bene-dictine Anselm Desing (1699–1772) wrote Diatribacirca methodum Wolfianum (1752), using diatribe in itsoriginal Greek meaning of a study or discussion. Thispurported to show that Wolff’s approach was neither amethod nor scientific, especially for establishing the prin-ciples of natural law.

Scholastic Imitators. Scholastic imitation of Wolff’smethod and format began about 1750. German Jesuitsprincipally in Austria and Franciscan manual writers inGermany and Italy produced a body of philosophicalcompendia that, in the next two centuries, was to be mis-takenly regarded as an embodiment of the scholastic tra-dition. Often, too, the Kantian critique of Leibnizianscholasticism in its Wolffian form would be taken as acompetent demolition of genuine scholastic doctrines.

The Jesuits Joseph Redlhamer (1713–61) andBerthold Hauser (1713–62) were among the early scho-lastic imitators of Wolff. Two other prominent JesuitWolffians were Benedict Stattler (1728–97) and S. vonSTORCHENAU. Stattler made use of the principle of suffi-cient reason almost to the saturation point in his Philo-sophia methodo scientiis propria explanata (Augsburg1769–72), granting the principle an eminence that rivalsits use in Wolff and that probably was not equaled in anysubsequent scholastic work. Storchenau had taught phi-losophy at Vienna for ten years when the Jesuits weresuppressed in 1773. His Institutiones logicae (Vienna1769) and his Institutiones metaphyxicae (Vienna 1772),with its division into metaphysics, cosmology, psycholo-gy, and natural theology, went through numerous editionsuntil as late as 1833. Both Storchenau and Stattler are re-lated to Suárez in certain features of their philosophy.Stattler’s cosmology, already without any doctrine ofmatter and form to give it substance, is more of an outlineof the apologetics of miracles and a remote preparation

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 769

for ‘‘proving’’ the existence of God from the fact of lawin nature. The Austrian government in 1752 had forbid-den the teaching of Aristotelian doctrine on matter andform, and the same prohibition was requested also in Ger-many. Generally HYLOMORPHISM was held in completedisrepute among these philosophers.

Franciscan manual-writers who reflected the currentof the times were Herman Osterrieder (d. 1783) andLaurentius Altieri. The former taught philosophy to Fran-ciscan students in Ratisbon and his Metaphysica vetus etnova (Augsburg 1761) was adapted to their needs. Itcombined basic Scotistic notions with the Wolffian orderof ontology, placing the principle of sufficient reason inits accustomed place after the principle of contradictionbefore treating ‘‘the concept of being and its attributes ingeneral.’’ Giuseppe Tamagna (1747–98) published hisInstitutiones philosophicae (Rome 1778), with a secondedition in 1780 under the patronage of the minister gener-al of the Franciscans. In his logic he showed concern forthe practical aspects of criteriology and commented onWolff’s mistake of confusing the existence of sufficientreason with the ability to assign a sufficient reason. Healso tried to break out of the Wolffian logic of essencesinto the assertion of existential reality independent of de-duction.

In face of the chaotic condition of textbooks, theminister general of the Friars Minor proposed for uniformadoption a Philosophiae universae institutiones; this ap-peared anonymously in 1843 or 1844 but had the author’sname, Dionysius of St. John in Galdo, displayed on thesecond edition (Rome 1846).

Concern for Ideology. The Jesuits, Ignace Monteiro(1724–1812), Philosophia rationalis electica (Venice1770), Antonio Eximeno y Pujader (1729–1808), andJuan Andrés (1740–1817), attempted to assimilate atom-istic and sensualist philosophies in Spain and were ardentdefenders of doctrines proposed by Locke in England andCondillac in France, while repeating the strictures of An-tonio Genovesi (1713–69) and L. A. Verney (1713–92)against Aristotelian philosophy. Locke’s sensism wastaught at the Vincentian college in Piacenza for a time.Vincenzo Buzzetti (1777–1824) was influenced whilestudying theology by an exiled Spanish Jesuit, BaltasarMesdeu (1741–1820), who helped him abandon Locke.He taught the three Sordi brothers, who later entered theSociety of Jesus (restored in 1814) and worked for therestoration of scholastic and particularly Thomistic phi-losophy in their order.

The Celestine, Appiano Buonafede (1716–93), a dis-tinguished philosopher, was imbued with doctrines ofCondillac. J. BALMES in Spain and the Jesuit J. KLEUTGENin Germany were not writers of textbooks, but they

worked with an eclectic method of drawing useful matterfrom St. Thomas and opposed sensism in scholastic writ-ers.

At an opposite pole of the reaction against rational-ism were the powerful tendencies already at work in Car-tesian and Leibnizian philosophies toward various formsof IDEALISM. In these the world of matter and the experi-ence of sense knowledge, if not denied, had no systematicrelevance. Three famous scholastic theologians wholaunched positive attacks against ‘‘scholastics’’ and at-tempted a synthesis with the genuine values of criticaland idealistic philosophy were G. HERMES, A. GÜNTHER,and J. FROHSCHAMMER. Kleutgen’s defense in Germanyagainst their attacks on scholasticism did not alwaysidentify the sources and nature of the scholasticism atissue. A contemporary, J. B. Hauréau, in De la philoso-phie scolastique reduced everything to the problem ofUNIVERSALS. The crucial questions at issue in the at-tempts of these three theologians to assimilate the newphilosophy centered around the relation between beingand knowledge in the context of faith.

Less successful in confronting the new while main-taining what was valid in the old were apologists such asthe Spanish Benedictine B. J. Feijóo y Montenegro(1676–1764). Feijóo admired F. BACON and Newton fortheir work in the order of experimental truth and eulo-gized Descartes as a genius. His Teatro critico universalsopra los erroes communes (Madrid 1726–40) was notlacking in critical sharpness, unlike the work of anotherBenedictine, François LAMY, whose refutation of Spino-za, Le nouvel athéisme renversé, did not touch the issuesvery profoundly.

The Benedictine Maternus Reuss in Germany exalt-ed Kant’s philosophy and sought permission to visit thegreat German philosopher to profit from conversationswith him. Other Benedictines teaching Kantian philoso-phy about this time (c. 1788) were Placidus Muth(1753–182) and Augustinus Schelle (1742–1805). P.ZIMMER followed J. G. FICHTE, while both Zimmer andMarianus Dobmayer (1753–1805) showed evidence ofassimilating doctrine from F. W. J. SCHELLING.

J. M. SAILER, Cajetan von Weiller (1762–1826) andJacob Salat (1766–1851) attempted to use insights fromthe fideism of F. H. JACOBI and J. G. HAMANN. In Francethe Abbé Jean Marie de Prades (1720–82) was closeenough to the philosophy of the ENLIGHTENMENT to con-tribute the article on ‘‘Certitude’’ to the famous Ency-clopédie.

Cartesian Influences. Finally, one of the most pow-erful influences within modern scholasticism in its laterperiod was that of Cartesian Catholic philosophy. Des-

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA770

cartes had led the way in adapting his system to scholasticneeds when, in the vain hope of having it adopted as aJesuit textbook at his Alma Mater, he cast his metaphysi-cal masterpiece, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641),into scholastic form in Principles of Philosophy (1644).(See CARTESIANISM.) Toward the end of the 17th century,however, Catholic philosophers were teaching a brand ofphilosophy that was committed to Cartesian startingpoints and methods—sometimes combined with tradi-tional scholasticism, sometimes generating systematicopposition and tensions. Antoine Le Grand (d. 1699), aFranciscan professor at Douai, the Benedictine RobertDesgabets (1620–78), the Minim Emmanuel Maignan(1601–76), and Andreas Pissini found difficulty squaringtheir Cartesian philosophy with the truths of faith. The Je-suit Honoré Fabri (1607–88) attempted to construct a sys-tem based on Aristotle that ended up not very differentfrom the atomism of P. GASSENDI. P. D. HUET began asa partisan of Cartesian philosophy but, coming to regardit as a danger to the faith, wrote Censure philosophiaecartesianae (Paris 1680), which was severe in its stric-tures and of great influence among Catholic philosophersand theologians.

Some 18th-century Cartesians whose manuals wentinto the following century include the Jesuit C. BUFFIER,whose Traité des premières veritez was edited by Lamen-nais in 1822 and influenced the Scottish philosopher, T.REID; Jean Cochet (d. 1771), who combined the CartesianCogito with the Wolffian division and method; L’AbbéPara du Phanjas (1724–97); Michael Kalus (d. 1792); andJ. V. de Decker. Claude Mey (1712–96) and AntoineMigeot (1730–94) also wrote in this tradition, all of themseeing in Descartes the savior of philosophy after its peri-patetic decadence. Migeot was also a good witness to awidespread conception that SCHOLASTIC METHOD wasidentical with that of Wolff and the geometrical ideal ingeneral.

One of the masterpieces of Cartesian manual writ-ing—which G. VENTURA DI RAULICA, a former Jesuit,onetime general of the Theatines, and a moderate tradi-tionalist in philosophy called ‘‘le cours classique du car-tésianisme’’—was the Institutiones philosophicaeauctoritate D.D. Archiepiscopi Lugdunensis. Written bya Father Joseph Valla (d. 1790), whose name does not al-ways appear on the title page of later editions, it was firstused in the Diocese of Lyons and became generallyknown as Philosophie de Lyon. Valla, as well as G. C.Ubaghs (1800–75), Belgian traditionalist, drew consider-able inspiration from Malebranche. Emphasizing the im-portance of a philosophy that conceives man as a soultemporarily confined in a body, Valla warned againstphilosophical theories that detract from the excellenceand spirituality of the mind of man. He urged a doctrine

of innate ideas, emphasizing that the philosopher mustnot conceive man’s mind as so dependent upon the or-gans of the sense as to derive its ideas from them.

Among the Sulpicians, manuals by Valla (purged ofJansenism), and L. Bailly, Theologia dogmatica et mor-alis ad usum seminariorum (Dijon 1789; 2d ed. Lyons1804), remained in use until the middle of the 19th centu-ry. But French predominated as the language of instruc-tion and Saint-Sulpice was characterized by the generalabsence of dogma in favor of apologetics and morals, thelatter quite juridical and on the rigorous side. Pierre DenisBoyer (1766–1842), one of the more original professors,developed his course on religion and the Church underthe inspiration of Bishop Jean Baptiste Duvoisin(1744–1813), a professor at the Sorbonne before theFrench revolution. But aware of the change from 18th-century hostility to 19th-century indifferentism, Boyerintroduced a thesis to show that indifferentism was ‘‘con-trary to reason, harmful to God, opposed to man’s nature,temerarius or opposed to prudence, and contrary to thewelfare of society.’’

Bibliography: General works. F. C. COPLESTONE, History ofPhilosophy (Westminster, Md. 1946–) v.3, 4, 6. G. FITZ and A. MI-CHEL, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. A. VACANT et al.,15 v. (Paris 1903–50) 14.2:1691–1728. H. S. LUCAS, The Renais-sance and the Reformation (2d ed. New York 1960). È. H. GILSON,The Unity of Philosophical Experience (New York 1937). J. QUÉTIFand J. ÉCHARD, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, 5 v. (Paris1719–23). C. SOMMERVOGEL et al., Bibliothèque de la Compagniede Jésus, 11 v. (Brussels–Paris 1890–1932). H. HURTER, Nomencla-tor literarius theologiae catholicae3, 5 v. in 6 (3d ed. Innsbruck1903–13). Second scholasticism. C. GIACON, La seconda scolastica,3 v. (Milan 1944–50). F. ROTH, History of the English Austin Friars,1249–1538, 2 v. (New York 1961). A Catalogue of RenaissancePhilosophers, 1350–1650, ed. J. O. RIEDL, (Milwaukee 1940). L.THORNDIKE, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 v.(New York 1923–58) v.5, 6. B. HAMILTON, Political Thought in Six-teenth Century Spain (New York 1964). Later developments. J. E.GURR, The Principle of Sufficient Reason in Some Scholastic Sys-tems, 1750–1900 (Milwaukee 1959). M. GRABMANN, ‘‘Die Dispu-tationes metaphysicae des Franz Suarez in ihrer methodischenEigenart und Fortwirkung,’’ Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, 3 v.(Munich 1926–56) 1:525–560. J. F. MORA, ‘‘Suárez and ModernPhilosophy,’’ Journal of the History of Ideas, 14 (1953) 528–547.É. H. GILSON, Études sur le rôle de la pensée médiévale dans la for-mation du systeme cartésien (Paris 1930); Index scolastico-cartésien (Paris 1913). G. SORTAIS, ‘‘Le Cartésianisme chez les jé-suites français au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siècle,’’ Archives dePhilosophie, 6.3 (1928) 1–93. W. J. ONG, Ramus: Method, and theDecay of Dialogue (Cambridge, Mass 1958). W. T. COSTELLO, TheScholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth Century Cambridge(Cambridge, Mass. 1958). S. E. MORISON, Harvard College in theSeventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass. 1936). M. WUNDT, Diedeutsche Schulphilosophie im Zeitalter der Aufklärung (Tübingen1945). P. DIBON, La Philosophie néerlandaise au siècle d’or (NewYork 1954–) v.1. E. A. BURTT, The Metaphysical Foundations ofModern Physical Science (rev. ed. New York 1950). J. DILLENBER-GER, Protestant Thought and Natural Science: An Historical Inter-pretation (Garden City, N.Y. 1960). R. CESSAIO, Le Thomisme et

SCHOLASTICISM

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 771

les Thomistes (Paris 1999). Jean Capreolus en son temps: Colloquede Rodez, eds., G. BEDOUELLE, R. CESSARIO and K. WHITE (Paris1997). J. F. COURTINE, Suarez et le systéme de la métaphysique(Paris 1990).

[J. E. GURR]

3. CONTEMPORARY SCHOLASTICISM

Contemporary scholasticism is predominantly a re-discovery of the thought of St. THOMAS AQUINAS thatbegan early in the 19th century, developed slowly inCatholic countries of Europe, gained momentum throughthe efforts of Leo XIII, spread to most countries of theworld, and survives today in various forms. Beginning asan ideological discovery by Catholic philosophers con-fronted with contemporary problems, it was supported byserious historical studies of the Middle Ages and of scho-lastic authors previously neglected. These historical anddoctrinal studies led to a clearer distinction betweenNEOSCHOLASTICISM AND NEOTHOMISM. Although con-temporary scholasticism includes revived SCOTISM,SUAREZIANISM, and a variety of eclectic adaptations, it ispredominantly an attempt to return to the vital thought ofSt. Thomas in a way that is relevant to contemporaryman.

Origins of the Revival. The study of St. Thomasnever entirely died out in the Dominican Order, althoughthe general chapter of 1748 had to emphasize ancient ob-ligations. In 1757 the Master General, J. T. Boxadors, re-viewed the ancient legislation and insisted that allDominicans return immediately to the solid teaching ofthe Angelic Doctor. His long letter was included in theacts of the general chapter that met in Rome in 1777[Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum historica,ed. B. M. Reichert (Rome-Stuttgart-Paris 1896–)14:344–350]. That year Salvatore ROSELLI, professor atthe College of St. Thomas in Rome (Minerva), publisheda scholarly six-volume Summa philosophica dedicated toCardinal Boxadors. Intended to renew Thomism in theorder, the Summa directly influenced all leaders of theThomistic revival in Italy, Spain, and France. Three edi-tions of this work (Rome 1777, 1783; Bologna 1857–59)and a four-volume compendium (Rome 1837) werequickly exhausted.

Italy. The prevailing philosophy in Italy was ON-TOLOGISM, promulgated principally by A. ROSMINI-SERBARI and V. GIOBERTI. The earliest pioneer of theNeothomistic movement in Piacenza was Canon Vincen-zo Buzzetti (1777–1824). Taught the philosophy of J.LOCKE and É. B. de CONDILLAC by the Vincentian Fa-thers of Collegio Alberoni, he abandoned Locke’s sens-ism under the influence of Baltasar Masdeu (1741–1820),an exiled Spanish Jesuit. Buzzetti discovered St. Thomasby reading Roselli and a smaller, simpler text by the

French Dominican Antoine GOUDIN. As professor of phi-losophy in the diocesan seminary (1804–08), Buzzettiwrote Institutiones sanae philosophiae iuxta divi Thomaeatque Aristotelis inconcussa dogmata [Enciclopedia filo-sofica, 4 v. (Venics–Rome 1957) 1:845–846]. BasicallyThomistic, this work suffered from the influence ofChristian WOLFF and an insufficient understanding of St.Thomas. Among Buzzetti’s disciples were two Sordibrothers, who later became Jesuits, and Giuseppe Pecci,brother of the future Leo XIII.

Serafino Sordi (1793–1865), the younger brother,entered the Society of Jesus (restored in 1814) and trieddesperately to revive Thomism. The general was dissuad-ed from assigning him to the Roman College (Gregori-anum) as professor of logic because of facultyopposition: ‘‘so strong are the prejudices against Fr.Sordi because he is a Thomist’’ (letter of the provincial,Oct. 2, 1827; Dezza 33). Domenico Sordi (1790–1880)followed his brother into the Society and was assignedto teach, even though he had many enemies. Among hisdisciples was the Jesuit Luigi TAPARELLI D’ AZEGLIO, au-thor of several Thomistic essays on natural law, who, onbecoming provincial of the Naples province, secured theservices of Domenico Sordi in 1831 and procuredGoudin’s Philosophia for the Jesuit College in Naples.Sordi, wishing to revive Thomism, formed a priv