SCHOLASTICISM. — In its broadest sense, "scholasticism" denotes "medieval philosophy," and more precisely, that doctrinal movement which aims at a systematic conception of the world and of man in accordance with Revelation and faith.
OUTLINE:
I. Notion
II. Division and Characteristics
III. Medieval Scholasticism
IV. "Second" Scholasticism. — V. Neoscholasticism.I. NOTION
In its earliest chronological meaning, scholasticism encompasses that complex of doctrines which flourished in the Christian schools of Europe between the close of the patristic era and the beginning of the Renaissance, provided that the latter be understood as a reaction against scholasticism and the onset of the modern age. As to its content, scholasticism represents the triumph of Christianity in the realm of human culture: first, in that the higher schools promoted by the Church incorporated all branches of learning cultivated in classical antiquity, developed and transmitted to the West particularly through the flourishing Arabic culture of the East and the Mediterranean; and second, in that the entire edifice of knowledge was oriented toward a transcendent conception of truth and life, thereby preparing for an ever-deeper penetration and development of theological truth. Consequently, as regards method, scholasticism asserts itself, on the one hand in philosophy, through a more direct adherence to the reality of nature and the exercise of speculative reflection as such, and on the other in theology, through a positive appropriation of the principles and results of speculation for the presentation, formulation, and defense of revealed dogma. Thus, in contrast to classical thought, which developed outside the framework of faith and remained ensnared in the purity of human reason, and in contrast to the patristic era, which was chiefly concerned with safeguarding the integrity of dogma against heretical attacks, scholasticism represents the positive terminal moment of the "reconciliation" between reason and faith.
It is this harmony of the spheres of nature and grace, of reason and faith, which sustains the tension of human consciousness within the historical situation created by Revelation, and this constitutes the characteristic or the achievement of medieval culture. This harmony was largely prepared by the patristic era, and thus patristic thought and scholasticism are the two complementary and continuous moments of the same Christian consciousness in its journey toward a more intimate awareness of divine truth (this harmony was, however, often shattered and lost in the Renaissance, only to be opposed and variously distorted by modern thought). In this sense, the methodological core of scholasticism lies in the "positivity" of the relationship between reason and faith, and this in a twofold manner: first, in that reason can "lead" to faith, that is, prepare human assent to the object of faith and clarify the meaning of the terms of that object; and second, in that faith, in turn, assists reason in its most arduous moments, fills its gaps, explicates its exigencies, and satisfies its aspirations which reason itself is unable to fulfill. It is in this sense that scholasticism sought to realize, albeit within the inevitable limits of all human endeavor, the most complete form of Christian knowledge. The accusation leveled against scholasticism by humanists and Protestants of being a "dark age" (cf. L. Varga, *Das Schlagwort vom «finsteren Mittelalter»*, Baden-Vienna-Leipzig-Brünn 1932) has been refuted by modern historiography, which has uncovered in that epoch periods of authentic humanism (12th century) and has recognized the same in Thomism for its defense of the ontological consistency of the finite, and in particular of human intelligence and freedom.
II. DIVISION AND CHARACTERISTICS
On the basis of the principal methodological criterion, which is the harmony between reason and faith, medieval scholasticism may be divided into three phases: a) the preparatory phase (roughly 7th–12th centuries), b) its apex in the great systems of the 13th century, and c) its decline in the 14th–15th centuries. This is followed by two revivals of scholasticism: d) the first in the Baroque age, chiefly through the efforts of Italy and Spain; and e) the second toward the end of the 19th century, spurred also by the encouragement of Leo XIII, who put an end to the doctrinal chaos afflicting many Catholic schools.If, therefore, the term "scholasticism" may appear quite vague and conventional, inasmuch as it embraces, as is evident, a great variety of schools, it nonetheless expresses an undeniable reality in the history of human culture and marks the decisive epoch of the maturity of Christian consciousness. This does not preclude speaking of a Jewish and an Arabic scholasticism: for in these two cultural spheres as well, there occurred a similar historical phenomenon of a quest for harmony between philosophy and religion, whose results at least in part prepared and entered into the more mature medieval synthesis. Nevertheless, for a legitimate restriction—justified by historical vitality and the very survival of Christian scholasticism—the term "scholasticism" is reserved for medieval Christian thought and for that which, in some manner, survives to this day and is still connected with II. This restriction is all the more justified because, whether in Islam, which confines itself to the natural monotheism of religion, or in Judaism, which adheres to the strict monotheism of the Bible and does not accept the "fulfillment" of Trinitarian faith and Redemption in Christ, there is either no awareness of the tension between reason and faith (remaining thus within the immanence of nature as such) or it is perceived merely as a problem of the encounter (or conflict) between the personality of God and the personality of man. Even granting that in scholasticism reason attains a certain independence in its endeavor, the definitive meaning of such independence is grounded in an awareness of its own "limit," and this limit is precisely and definitively perceived in relation to Christian Revelation. Thus, the "theological moment" constitutes in scholasticism the culminating point toward which, in their own way but with a precise significance, converge the moments and problems of science and philosophy—though not as the exclusive moment, as Hegel claimed (cf. *Gesch. der Philos.*, Werke, XV, ed. C. L. Michelet, Berlin 1844, pp. 123 ff.), who failed to perceive the revolution effected by the introduction of Aristotle with his new concept of science. Hence, the characteristic motto of scholasticism, *"philosophia ancilla theologiae,"* when properly understood, accurately expresses the spiritual situation of that movement which established itself as the principal doctrinal current of Christianity; provided that it be borne in mind that the equilibrium or harmony between philosophy and theology is not something fixed and determined once and for all, but is subject in various schools and centuries to continual crises and oscillations, and consequently receives diverse and at times even opposing solutions.
In conclusion, the concept of scholasticism, while primarily bearing a historical-cultural significance, ultimately relates to a doctrinal core (the harmony between reason and faith) which governs it and precisely serves as the criterion for differentiating epochs and schools.
In particular, to clarify the importance of this characteristic of Scholasticism, it can be said that it comprises three aspects which correspond to the nature of philosophy (and natural knowledge in general), of theology as such, and of their relationship in which the medieval ideal of man is realized—just as for Greek civilization the θεωρητικός βίος and the χαλκοκύμαθος were the ideal of the Greek man. De Wulf identifies the following characteristics for the first two aspects: a) In philosophy: the demand for "scientific rigor" in the organization of the various fields and objects of knowledge, in the determination of the methods proper to each science, and in the adequate systematization of the knowledge thus obtained. The decisive moment and the "critical point" in this regard in the development of Scholasticism was the discovery of Aristotle and the assimilation of his doctrines into logic, physics, metaphysics, and ethics. b) In theology: as a consequence of the progress made in philosophy, theology gradually tends to present itself in a scientific form according to a logical and coordinated distribution of its various treatises, following an appropriate rational procedure through rigorous syllogistic reasoning and the division of material into parts, questions, and articles that test individual problems for evidence in order to clarify them in their respective conceptual transparency (cf. M. De Wulf, Hist. de la philos. médiévo., 6th ed., Louvain 1938 ff.; introd., Italian trans. by V. Miano, II, Florence 1944, p. 11 ff.). c) Finally, in man, Scholasticism achieves, at the cost of bitter struggles, the "reconciliation" precisely of reason and faith; it was a particular merit of Cardinal Ehrle to have grasped this concluding moment and to have described it in its fundamental points, which are the respective independence, each within its own sphere, of reason and faith (philosophy and Revelation) and their mutual encounter that led to a doctrinal expansion of both fields (Fr. Ehrle, Die Scholastik und ihre Aufgabe in unserer Zeit, Freiburg in Br. 1933, Italian trans. Turin 1935, p. 25 ff.).
From this perspective, which is decisive from the methodological point of view and therefore also for the result itself, Scholasticism unfolds a complete cycle of development that Patristic thought—lacking both a philosophical and theological systematic conception—could not have achieved: Abelard, St. Anselm, Hugh of St. Victor already in the 11th–12th centuries knew the mastery of the use of reason in theology, which the 13th century would bring to perfection, and this constitutes a positive contribution, not a threat, to Christian doctrine (as Fr. Overbeck claims in Vorgesch. und Jugend der mittelalterlichen Scholastik, ed. C. A. Bernouilli, Basel 1917, especially pp. 226 ff.).
In modern thought, on the contrary—from the first tremors of Humanism and secular Renaissance, which took shape with the absolute immanence of Enlightenment (v.) and Idealism (v.) down to the epigones of Marxism and contemporary atheistic Existentialism—the reason absorbs theology and Revelation. Modern thought, in its heterodox development, knows Christianity and Revelation but interprets both "within" its own development and as a shadow or an (imperfect, of course) stage of such development, which has now fulfilled its historical function. On the one hand, therefore, modern thought has a direct relationship with Scholasticism and Christian thought in general inasmuch as it conceives the relationship of man to God in a positive form (cf. Hegel’s praise of Catholic theologians against Protestant fideism in Philos. der Religion, ed. G. Lasson, Leipzig 1925, pp. 256 ff.); on the other hand, in its fundamental positions, it is its explicit antithesis because of the dissolution it effects of the infinite as the totality of the dialectical development of the finite. This entails the negation of that