Scholasticism

SCHOLASTICISM. - In its broadest sense it indicates "medieval philosophy" and, in a more precise sense, that doctrinal movement which proposes a systematic conception of the world and of man in accord with Revelation and faith.

I. NOTION

In its first, chronological meaning, Scholasticism embraces that complex of doctrines which established themselves in the Christian schools of Europe in the centuries between the end of the patristic era and the beginning of the Renaissance: when this is understood as a reaction to Scholasticism and the beginning of the modern era. As for its content, Scholasticism represents the victorious establishment of Christianity in the field of human culture: first of all insofar as all the branches of knowledge cultivated by classical antiquity enter the higher schools, which are promoted by the Church, developed and transmitted to the West in particular by the flourishing Arab culture of the East and the Mediterranean; then, insofar as the entire edifice of knowledge is oriented in function of the transcendent conception of truth and life and prepares an ever greater penetration or development of theological truth. Consequently, as for method, Scholasticism establishes itself on the one hand, in philosophy, through a greater and more direct adherence to the reality of nature and to the exercise of speculative reflection as such, and on the other, in theology, through a positive assumption of the very principles and results of speculation for the presentation, formulation and defense of the revealed dogma. Therefore, with respect to classical thought, which developed outside the faith and thus remained a prisoner of the immanence of human reason, as also with regard to the patristic era, intent above all on safeguarding the integrity of dogma from the attacks of heresies, Scholasticism represents the positive terminal moment of the "reconciliation" of reason with faith.

It is this harmony of the two spheres of nature and Grace: of reason and faith, which holds the consciousness of man in tension in the historical situation created by Revelation, that constitutes the characteristic or the result of medieval culture. This harmony is in large part prepared by patristics, and therefore patristics and Scholasticism are the two complementary and continuous moments of the same Christian consciousness on its way toward a more intimate awareness of divine truth (such harmony, on the other hand, is often broken and lost in the Renaissance, only to be opposed and variously falsified by modern thought). In this sense the methodological core of scholasticism lies therefore in the "positivity" of the relationship between reason and faith, and this in a double sense: first, insofar as reason can "lead" to faith, that is, can prepare man's adherence to the object of faith and clarify the meaning of the terms of that object itself; and second, insofar as faith in turn helps reason in its most arduous moments, fills its gaps, unfolds its demands, and satisfies the aspirations that reason is unable to fulfill. It is in this sense that scholasticism sought to realize, albeit with the inevitable limits of every human work, the most complete form of Christian knowledge. The accusation of "darkness" hurled at scholasticism by the humanists and the Protestants (cf. L. Varga, Das Schlagwort vom «finsteren Mittelalter», Baden-Vienna-Leipzig-Brno 1932) has been refuted by modern historiography, which has rediscovered even in that era periods of authentic humanism (12th century), and Thomism itself has been recognized as such 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 methodical criterion, which is the harmony between reason and faith, a threefold phase can be distinguished in medieval Scholasticism: a) the (proximate) preparation, which comprises the laborious period of the 7th-12th centuries; b) the apogee, with the great systems of the 13th century; and c) the decadence, which is accomplished in the 14th-15th centuries. There follow the two revivals of Scholasticism: d) first, in the Baroque age, especially through the merit of Italy and Spain; and e) then, toward the end of the 19th century, also as a result of the encouragement of Leo XIII, who put an end to the doctrinal chaos in which a great part of the Catholic schools was floundering.

If, therefore, the term Scholasticism may seem quite vague and conventional, inasmuch as it embraces, as is clear, a great variety of schools, it nevertheless expresses an undeniable reality in the history of human culture and indicates the decisive epoch of the maturity of Christian consciousness. This does not exclude the possibility of also speaking of a Jewish Scholasticism and an Arab Scholasticism: in fact, in these two cultural worlds as well there occurred an analogous historical phenomenon of a similar search for the harmony between philosophy and religion, whose results prepared and entered, at least in part, into the more mature medieval synthesis. Nevertheless, by a legitimate restriction, because it is justified by the historical vitality and the very survival of Christian Scholasticism, the term Scholasticism is reserved for medieval Christian thought and for that which in some way still survives today and rejoins it. The restriction is all the more justified because both Islam, which limits itself to the monotheism of natural religion, and Judaism, which likewise adheres to the rigid biblical monotheism and does not accept the "fulfillment" of the Trinitarian faith and of the Redemption in Christ, either have not felt at all the tension between reason and faith (remaining therefore within the immanence of nature as such) or have barely perceived it as a problem of the encounter (or conflict) between the personality of God and the personality of man. Even granting, then, the independence that in Scholasticism reason obtains in its own sphere, the definitive meaning of this independence is bound up with the awareness of its own "limit," and this limit is precisely perceived in a definitive way with respect to Christian Revelation. Therefore the "theological moment" constitutes in Scholasticism the culminating point, toward which converge in their own way, but with a precise meaning, the moments and problems of science and of philosophy — not, however, the exclusive moment, as Hegel claims (cf. Gesch. der Philos., Werke, XV, ed. C. L. Michelet, Berlin 1844, p. 123 ff.), who does not notice the revolution brought about by the entry of Aristotle with his new concept of science. Thus the motto characteristic of Scholasticism, "philosophia ancilla theologiae," expresses, when properly understood, with exactness the spiritual situation of this current of thought that has established itself as the principal doctrinal current of Christianity; provided one keeps in mind that the equilibrium or harmony between philosophy and theology is not something fixed and determined once and for all, but is found in the various schools and in the different centuries subject to continual crises and oscillations and receives consequently different and at times even opposite solutions. In conclusion, the concept of Scholasticism, if it has first of all a predominantly historical-cultural meaning, refers in the end to a doctrinal nucleus (the harmony between reason and faith) that dominates it and serves precisely as the criterion for the differentiation of epochs and schools.

In particular, if one wishes to specify the importance of this characteristic of Scholasticism, it may be said that it involves three moments which correspond to the proper nature of philosophy (and of natural knowledge in general), of theology as such, and of their relationship, in which the ideal of medieval man is fulfilled, just as the θεορηκτικός βίος and the καλοκαλίανδός were the ideal of the Greek man. De Wulf indicates the following characteristics for the first two moments. a) In philosophy: the demand for "scientific rigor" in the ordering 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, with the adoption of his doctrines in logic, physics, metaphysics, and ethics. b) In theology: as a consequence of the progress achieved in philosophy, theology too gradually tends to present itself in scientific form according to a logical and coordinated distribution of the various treatises, following a rational procedure appropriate to the subject matter through rigorous syllogistic form and the division of the material into parts, questions, and articles that put individual problems to the test of evidence in order to clarify them in their respective conceptual transparency (cf. M. De Wulf, Hist. de la philos. médiév., 6th ed., Louvain 1938 ff.; introduction, Italian trans. by V. Miano, II, Florence 1944, p. 11 ff.). c) In man, finally, Scholasticism accomplishes, at the price of bitter struggles, the "conciliation" precisely of reason and faith; it was the particular merit of Cardinal Ehrle to have grasped this conclusive moment and to have described it in its fundamental points, which are the respective independence, each in its own field, of reason and faith (philosophy and Revelation) and the mutual encounter that led to a doctrinal expansion of both fields (Fr. Ehrle, Die Scholastik und ihre Aufgabe in unserer Zeit, Freiburg im Br. 1933, Italian trans. Turin 1935, p. 25 ff.).

From this point of view, decisive from the standpoint of method and therefore of the result itself, Scholasticism carries out a complete cycle of development that patristics — which did not involve, from either the philosophical or the theological point of view, a systematic conception — could not have: Abelard, St. Anselm, Hugh of St. Victor already in the 11th-12th centuries know the magisterium of the use of reason in theology, which the 13th century would bring to perfection, and this constitutes the positive increment, not the peril, of Christian doctrine (as Fr. Overbeck claims, Vorgesch. und Jugend der mittelalterlichen Scholastik, ed. C. A. Bernoulli, Basel 1917, especially p. 226 ff.).

In modern thought, on the contrary — from the first shocks of humanism and of secular Renaissance, which took shape with the absolute immanence of the Enlightenment (v.) and of idealism (v.), down to the epigones of Marxism and of contemporary atheistic existentialism — reason absorbs theology and Revelation. Modern thought, in the heterodox development that has dominated it, knows Christianity and Revelation but interprets the one and the other "within" its own development and as an adumbration or as a (necessarily imperfect) degree of that development which has by now fulfilled its historical function. On the one hand, therefore, modern thought has a direct relationship to Scholasticism and to Christian thought in general insofar 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, p. 256 ff.); on the other hand, it is, in its fundamental positions, the explicit antithesis of it, because of the dissolution it makes of the infinite as the totality of the dialectical development of the finite. This entails the negation of that transcendent sphere dent sphere of faith, toward which, according to Scholasticism, reason leads as a propaedeutic, whereas for idealist rationalism faith and religion are a preliminary and imperfect stage, proper to the common people and to imaginative thought, in comparison with the absolute dominion of reason that is exercised in philosophy (cf. Hegel, op. cit., intr.; ed. cit., p. 7 ff.).

III. MEDIEVAL SCHOLASTICISM

It may be admitted that the rapid development and the uncontested dominance of scholasticism in medieval Europe were also the cause of its principal defects, which become more evident from the 14th century onward: the almost deliberate barbarism of language, due to the abandonment of the study of the classics; the multiplication of useless and insipid questions; the invasion of logical subtleties into metaphysical reflection; the lack of a historical-critical sense in the use of texts... This favored the proliferation of schools that battled for centuries over questions often of slight or no doctrinal importance, so that scholasticism first failed to notice the revolution that was being proclaimed by modern philosophy and then, exhausted as it was, was unable to understand it and to contain its impetus. Nevertheless, every objective researcher must also agree that when scholasticism is considered in its most salient figures, such as St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas and, for the heterodox current, Siger of Brabant..., it is to be placed among the most substantial historical realizations of the universality of Christian truth, and constitutes in its principles and in the very variety of its currents a valid point of reference for every inquiry into the fundamental problem of human existence, which is precisely the harmony between faith and reason, and offers a source, not yet exhausted, of inspiration for impelling man to scrutinize the problem of being and to clarify the enigma of his ultimate destiny. Historians agree in dividing medieval scholasticism into three periods: the preparation or "early scholasticism" (Frühscholastik), the realization or "high scholasticism" (Hochscholastik) and finally the decline or "late scholasticism" (Spätscholastik): the division has its own justification from the methodological as well as the critical and doctrinal point of view.

1. The preparation or early scholasticism

This period embraces the span of time running from the end of the ancient world (5th-6th century) to the 13th century. From the patristic era there emerge as "masters" of scholasticism St. Augustine (v.), the pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius (v.) as ecclesiastical sources; but strictly philosophical doctrinal sources also make themselves felt, such as certain Platonic dialogues (Phaedo, Meno, the fragments of the Timaeus with Calcidius's great Commentary on that same dialogue), especially Aristotle's Organon in Boethius's version and commentaries, and other minor sources such as the Neoplatonist Marius Victorinus, Porphyry, Macrobius and Apuleius (cf. M. De Wulf, op. cit., § 28: the treatment is by A. Pelzer). From this indication there emerges the character of this early scholasticism, which can be described as the prevalence of Platonism (or Neoplatonism) in content and the tendency toward the dialectical procedure of subdivisions and distinctions in method. Evidently the process is long and laborious and subject to doctrinal crises often quite grave, which have direct repercussions on dogma itself (controversies over predestination, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist), which provoke ecclesiastical intervention. In the 9th century there stands out almost suddenly as a block unto itself the Neoplatonic speculation (inspired by the pseudo-Dionysius) of John Scotus Eriugena (v.), who falls under suspicion of pantheism and is condemned for his doctrine of predestination (Denz-U, 320 ff.). In the 11th century one encounters Berengar of Tours (v.), who, trusting too much in the play of dialectic, compromises the doctrine of eucharistic transubstantiation, incurring the condemnation of various Councils (Vercelli 1050, Rome 1050, Poitiers 1074 and Bordeaux 1080; Denz-U, 355). Dialectic also runs away with Roscelin (v.) and arouses the indignation of St. Peter Damian (v.). The most notable figure of this period is St. Anselm of Aosta (v.), who is the first systematic theologian, who, starting from the data of Scripture and the ecclesiastical magisterium, proceeds to theological reflection and contemplation on a Platonist-Augustinian foundation according to the motto found in the title of the Proslogion (and it is from ch. 1: PL 158, 227 BC: ... "Credo ut intelligam"), which remained for all orthodox scholasticism: Fides quaerens intellectum. The 12th century is known for the flourishing of schools of grammar and logic and is characterized by an unsuspected and sudden development of the arts and letters of the Trivium and Quadrivium, in which there emerges the School of Chartres with Clarembald of Arras (v.), William of Conches (v.), Bernard (v.) and Theodoric of Chartres and Bernard of Tours, a contemporary of Theodoric, also called Silvestris; William of Champeaux (v.), John of Salisbury, Gilbert de la Porrée stir up the controversy over universals; finally Abelard (d. 1142) presents the first scientific methodology of Christian theology, strongly opposed by the mystic St. Bernard. At the same time, in the Parisian monastery of St. Victor the first treatises of theology and systematic mysticism take shape (Richard [v.] and Hugh of St. Victor [v.]). The end of the century displays a fervor of translations of Greek and Arabic texts, especially at Toledo, Palermo and Naples, which provide the foundations and materials for the great leap of the following century.

2. The realization or high scholasticism

In the 13th century the synthesis of reason and faith reaches its complete and definitive form in Christian thought; the first half of the century is characterized by the entry into the West, in Latin translations, of Avicenna, Averroes, Avicebron and above all of Aristotle's writings on natural philosophy and metaphysics.

a) The entry of Aristotle. - It will provoke the most important revolution of Christian thought in the Westdent, especially through the work of St. Thomas, but its beginnings were much contested. The Council of Paris of 1210, in addition to condemning the pantheism of Amalric of Bena and David of Dinant (v.), added the prohibition of reading the new works of Aristotle: « Nec libri Aristotelis de naturali philosophia nec commenta legantur Parisiis publice vel secreto, et hoc sub poena excommunicationis inhibemus ». The prohibition returns in the Statutes of the University of Paris of 1215 drawn up by Robert of Courçon, papal legate, who expressly distinguishes between the philosopher's books of logic, which are permitted, and those recently introduced, which are prohibited but without mention of excommunication: « Non legantur libri Aristotelis de metaphysica et de naturali philosophia nec summe de eisdem » (Chart. Univ. Paris., ed. Denifle-Chatelain, Paris 1889, vol. I, no. 20, p. 78 ff.). An even more important phase is found in the personal intervention of Gregory IX, who, while in two letters (7 July 1228, 13 Apr. 1231) he had renewed the previous prohibitions, ten days later (23 Apr.) established a commission of three theological members (William of Auxerre, Stephen of Provins and Simon de Alteis) to purge the incriminated books of errors: « ... et libris illis naturalibus qui ex certa causa in Concilio Provinciali prohibiti fuere, Parisiis non utantur, quousque examinati fuerint et ab omni errorum auspiciere purgati ». But the Commission, for various reasons, especially because of the death of its head G. of Auxerre (3 Nov. 1231) and because of the very complexity of the work, does not seem to have reached any result. In the meantime the situation seems to settle itself; from many indications it is clear that the new books of Aristotle are studied and commented on almost everywhere, without particular restrictions. This is attested, toward the second half of the century, in the Statuta artistarum nationis Anglicanae de artibus and by the more complete collection of the Statutum of the Faculty of Arts of 19 March 1255, where the following are listed without any reservation among the books of study: « ... physica, metaphysica, liber de animalibus, liber coeli et mundi, liber primus metherorum, liber de anima, liber de generatione, liber de sensu et sensato, liber de memoria et reminiscentia », besides, of course, the books of logic and the « Ethica quantum ad quatuor libros », that is the Ethica nova and the Ethica vetus (cf., for the question of the conciliar prohibitions, which reappeared in a letter of Pope Urban IV to the University of Paris of 13 Jan. 1263, and of their relation to the cited Statuta, M. Grabmann, I divieti ecclesiastici di Aristotele sotto Innocenzo III e Gregorio IX, Rome 1941, pp. 7 ff., 113 ff. and 132. Grabmann did not have time to complete his research and perhaps the only plausible solution so far of the conflict between the prohibitions and the Statuta remains that of Cardinal Ehrle, according to which the attitude of ecclesiastical authority in these prohibitions was one of « prudent waiting »: the ecclesiastical prohibitions ceased and lost their value through desuetude, since their purpose had ceased and the situation to which the law referred had ceased (Fr. Ehrle, L'agostinismo e l'aristotelismo nella s. del sec. XIII, in Xenia Thomistica, III, Rome 1925, pp. 521 and 538).

b) The principal schools of the high s. - The entry of Aristotle into Western Christendom provoked reactions of a different nature. Some, especially in the field of theologians and not only in the Franciscan Order but also in the early Dominican school, wary of every novelty, continue to adhere to tradition and do not intend to depart from the doctrine of St. Augustine; others instead proceed resolutely on the new path and welcome Aristotle's vision of the world into the Christian synthesis. For convenience of nomenclature it has been agreed, after the studies of Fr. Ehrle and P. Mandonnet, to designate the two contrasting tendencies with the terms Augustinianism and Aristotelianism.

Augustinianism. In this tendency St. Augustine remains the principal master, but not the exclusive source (it should also be noted that he is the common source also of the other masters of this period, except that his doctrines are incorporated into types of metaphysics of different inspiration). The metaphysics of the Augustinian tendency proceeds rather, and certainly has been able to consolidate itself, from the exaggerated realism of the Neoplatonic type, and has as its principal source the great metaphysical dialogue Fons vitae of the Arab-Jewish philosopher Avicebron (v.), translated at the end of the 12th century by the Toledan archdeacon Dominic Gundisalvi (v.), who spread its doctrines in the opuscules De Anima, De divisione philosophiae, De immortalitate animae, De processione mundi, etc. (cf. the substantial observations of E. Gilson, in Mediaeval studies, II, 1940, pp. 23-27). This doctrinal tendency is already clearly visible in the early Franciscan masters, e.g., Alexander of Hales (v.), but it consolidates itself especially through the work of St. Bonaventure and in his disciples (Matthew of Aquasparta, Vitalis of Four, Peter G. Olivi). From the letters of John Pecham, his disciple and emulator of St. Thomas in Paris, the liveliness of the opposition between the two tendencies is known, and what the principal points of controversy were: in a letter of 1 June 1285 the doctrines of St. Augustine are named (« ... ...quidquid docet Augustinus de regulis aeternis et luce incommutabili [or doctrine of illumination], de potentiis anime [identity of soul and faculties], de rationibus seminalibus inditis materie et consimlibus innumera »); in another letter of 7 Dec. 1284 the thesis that caused the greatest stir in the anti-Thomist polemic unleashed by this school is touched upon, namely the unity of the substantial form of man: « In homine existere tantummodo formam unam... », while the traditional doctrine stood firmly for the plurality of forms, which seemed necessary to explain the condition of the Body of Christ in the tomb and the diversity of the various operations of man (cf. for the complete text of the letter: M.-H. Laurent, Fontes vitae s. Thomae Ap., fasc. vi, S. Massimino Var 1937, p. 639 ff., spec. p. 644 f.). The true metaphysical origin of this last doctrine was instead the thesis, taken wholesale from Avicebron, of universal hylomorphism (v.), according to which every creature, because it is finite in its being, is composed of matter and form: bodies of « corporeal matter » and spirits of « spiritual matter » (cf. E. Kleinneidam, Das Problem der hylomorphen Zusammenetzung der geistigen Substanzen im 13. Jahrh. behandelt bis Thomas von Aquin, Lilienthal 1930, p. 7 ff.). The second Franciscan school, led by Duns Scotus (v.), remains faithful to the spirit of Augustinianism but elaborates metaphysical problems with greater adherence to the Aristotelian text, which is interpreted preferably along the lines of Avicenna (the great critical edition of the works, directed by Fr. C. Balié [Rome 1950, so far 2 vols.], will make it possible to sift the genuine thought of the « Doctor subtilis » from the additions or deductions of the disciples).

Thomist Aristotelianism. The fortune of Aristotle in the West is linked principally to the boldness and authority of Albert the Great and to the penetration of his disciple St. Thomas Aquinas. The Angelic Doctor came into direct contact with the philosopher's work early in his youth at the University of Naples, with the masters Peter of Ireland and Martin of Dacia, but he continued to deepen his study of the text throughout his life, availing himself of the work of his confrere William of Moerbeke (v.) as translator, first for the text of Aristotle himself and then for certain important commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Simplicius, Ammonius, Porphyry, Themistius, and the Elementatio theologica of Proclus. While Albert often remains wavering in his ultimate determination of Aristotle's doctrines and remains under the influence of Neoplatonism, which he in turn transmits to his direct disciples (Ulrich of Strasbourg, Berthold of Mosburg, etc.), St. Thomas digs out the Aristotelian principles in their genuine potentialities and adopts them without hesitation in interpreting the structure of reality and in elaborating theological truth. The most recent studies on the essence of Thomism have, however, warned against the simplistic interpretation that St. Thomas merely opted for Aristotelianism against Platonism and classical and patristic Neoplatonism: in reality the Angelic Doctor produced a new synthesis in which the Platonic notion of participation seems to constitute the key to the solution of fundamental problems such as creation, causality, the composition of the finite being, and analogy. Toward the end of his life St. Thomas could proclaim, by means of an exegesis unique in the whole Middle Ages and which represents the superior viewpoint he had reached, that in this perspective of participation Plato and Aristotle are in agreement (cf. the opuscule De substantia separatis seu de angelorum natura, ch. 3; ed. J. Perrier, Opuscola philosophica, I, Paris 1949, p. 133 ff.). For the development of Aristotelianism in the synthesis of St. Thomas, as for the manifold meaning of Thomism, v. TOMMASO D'AQUINO.

Averroist Aristotelianism. The claim to an absolute fidelity to the Aristotelian text was certainly the program of the "Commentator" par excellence, as Averroes (v.) has been called, and from him it passed in the second half of the 13th century to a group of able masters of the Faculty of Arts of Paris who, under the pretext of interpreting Aristotle, aroused grave concerns for Catholic orthodoxy. This School took the name of "Averroism" (Averroyei, secta Averroyca) and its fortune depended in large part on having at its head a strong thinker like Siger of Brabant (v.). The principal and direct antagonist of Averroism was St. Thomas himself in the opuscule De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas (of 1270); he does not fear to qualify Averroes as a corrupter of Aristotelian thought: "... qui non tam fuit Peripateticus, quam philosophiae peripateticae depravator" (ed. L. W. Keeler, Rome 1936, p. 38). The culminating episode is the condemnation repeated by the bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, on 7 March 1277 of no fewer than 219 theses (cf. the text in M.-H. Laurent, Fontes..., ed. cit., pp. 598-614), most of them inspired by the new philosophy whose supporters nevertheless professed themselves believers, inasmuch as within the sphere of faith they submitted to revealed doctrine even if it appeared contrary to what reason demonstrated (theory of the "double truth"). The explicit appearance of Averroism does not seem to be earlier than 1265, the year in which the polemical reactions begin; its history extends throughout the Middle Ages down to the Renaissance, where the Averroist current shows itself particularly visible and represents, with the cumbersome baggage of its distinctions, the most obstinate and decadent Scholasticism (B. Nardi has identified not a few exponents of this revival of Averroism;

(Int. Enc. Catt.)
SCOLASTICA - Part III of the Moralis philosophia, by R. Bacon. End of ch. 9 and beginning of ch. 10, with the author's autograph annotations - Vatican Library, cod. Vat. lat. 4295, f. 53r (ca. 1267).

Pico della Mirandola himself, Alessandro Achillini, Tiberio Bacilieri, Antonio Mirandolano, Tagliapietra...). Siger's successor in the leadership of the movement, John of Jandun (v.), drew close in metaphysics to the Franciscan school (e.g., on the doctrine of the plurality of substantial forms; cf. In ll. XII Metaph. Quaestiones acutissimae, Venice 1560, II, q. X, col. 152). In political philosophy, Marsilius of Padua (v.) in the Defensor pacis upheld the separation of Church and State: in this way a long process of erosion of the principle of Europe's spiritual unity, which had dominated the Middle Ages through the work of scholasticism, came to an end, and the doctrine of the modern State began.

3. Decadence or the last scholasticism

This designation is historically improper because scholasticism still held sway during the 14th and 15th centuries: for the most part it is found in the anti-Thomist polemic conducted by secular masters such as Henry of Ghent (v.), but especially by the Franciscan Order, in which the old Augustinian school declined and the new one arose with Duns Scotus, who followed in the footsteps of the said Henry (cf. Io. Duns Scotus, Opera omnia, I, Rome 1950, Disquisitio historico-critica, p. 160* ff.). This struggle of Henry and Scotus against Thomism had been prepared by the Correctorium fratris Thomae of G. de la Mare, which had provoked on the part of the Dominicans the rich literature of the Correctoria corruptorii... which take their title from the first word: "Quare", "Circa", etc. Giles of Rome (v.) himself, who passed for a defender of the Angelic Doctor, attacked him on many points, especially in theology (cf. G. Bruni, Egidio Romano e la sua polemica antitomista, in Riv. di filos. neosc., 26 [1934], p. 239 ff.). But it seems that the reason for this vast opposition to Thomism is to be found, more than in motives of contingent rivalry, in the innovative nature of the Angelic Doctor's doctrines, in the face of which there was felt to be an obligation to return to the substance of the traditional positions: for this reason it does not seem inappropriate to designate the current that stems from the position of Henry and Scotus by the term "neo-Augustinianism". The term "decadence" applies to nominalism (v.) with the same reservations, that is, with respect to the abandonment of the Thomist synthesis of reason and faith, of physics and metaphysics..., in favor of the predominance of subjectivity or intuitive experience both in natural and in supernatural knowledge. In particular, not only G. Ockham (v.) but many among the theologians and philosophers, including Peter of Ailly (v.) and especially Nicholas of Autrecourt, deny the probative value of the principle of causality. This Nicholas abandoned Aristotelianism also in natural philosophy, inclining expressly toward the atomism of Democritus (v.), as emerges from the recent edition of his principal work (cf. J. Reginald O'Donnell, N. of Autricourt, in Mediaeval studies, I, New York-London 1939, p. 222 ff.; id., The philos. of N. d'A. and his appraisal of Aristotle, ibid., IV, ivi 1942, p. 97 ff.). The causal skepticism of d'Ailly was the object of ecclesiastical censure (cf. Denz-U, 553-70). Nominalism soon won the day, penetrating almost everywhere, even among the religious Orders, e.g., in the Augustinian one (Gregory of Rimini [v.]); among the Dominicans themselves R. Holkot and Durandus of St. Pourçain are noted. There was therefore in these centuries in the Church ample freedom in doctrinal orientations: in the great Universities, alongside the "cathedra Thomae" there was with equal right the chair of Scotus, of Gregory of Rimini, of Durandus. Thomism as such never gained the upper hand.

A beneficial consequence of the search for concreteness on the part of the nominalist "via moderna" (but already present in the preceding scholasticism, e.g., in R. Kilwardby; cf. M.-D. Chenu, Aux origines de la science moderne, in Rev. des sciences philos. et théol., 29 [1940], p. 206 ff.) was the ferment it aroused for scientific inquiry: G. Buridan (v.), N. Oresme and Albert of Saxony (v.) must be remembered. If observation and calculation in the modern, that is, Galilean, sense are still far off, nevertheless motion is studied from a strictly physical point of view and an important place is given to the quantitative treatment of qualities. Physical reality is seen as subject to the treatment of measurement, so that the first hints of infinitesimal and algebraic calculus are discerned, as when Oresme enunciates the principle: "Omnis res mensurabilis imaginatur ad modum quantitatis continuae" (De uniformitate, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cod. lat. 7371, fol. 18r, in M. De Gandillac, Le mouvement doctrinal du IXe au XIVe siècle, Paris 1951, p. 461). Careful investigations in this field, prompted especially through the merit of P. Duhem, have shown that the 14th century already knows the concepts of "volume" and "mass", albeit with uncertainty and fluctuations; "movement" is considered as an intensive magnitude or "variable quantity" and N. Oresme attempts a graphical exposition of it which, if it cannot yet be called the analytic geometry of Descartes, constitutes in some way a surprising anticipation and a stimulus at a distance; in Buridan there is moreover a notion of "absolute and mathematical time", that is, freed from every dependence on motion and on the thinking consciousness, as four centuries later it would be found explicitly defined by Newton (cf. A. Maier, Scholastische Diskussionen über die Wesensbestimmung der Zeit, in Scholastik, 26 [1951], p. 554). The very concept of "function", certainly not in its modern formulation which belongs only to the end of the 17th century, is clearly outlined, e.g., in the Tractatus proportionis of 1322 by T. Bradwardine (v.) and by his followers (cf. A. Maier, Der Funktionsbegriff in der Physik des 14. Jahrh., in Divus Thomas (Frib., 24 [1946], p. 147 ff.). For this reason Buridan and his school could rightly be presented as "precursors of Galileo", even if it must be recognized that this scholasticism, wholly penetrated by zeal for knowledge of the reality of experience, remains caught in the welter of individual pieces of knowledge, without rising through induction to general laws. The consequence was that the results, certainly remarkable, obtained by these scholastics fell into oblivion without any direct influence on the new physics of the 16th century, which rediscovered them anew on its own account (cf. A. Maier, Das Problem des Kontinuums in der

Philos. des 13. und 14. Jahrh., in Antonianum, 20 [1945], p. 368). In any case the path traveled was remarkable: those results, which brought Aristotelian physics into discredit, undoubtedly fermented the uneasiness that drove the science of the modern age onto the new path.

Finally, another claim to merit of this late Scholasticism, which redeems it considerably from the label of "decadent," is the exceptional development that in the 14th-15th centuries mysticism (v.) attained in the countries of the north, especially in the Netherlands and in Germany: no differently from the turn toward physico-mathematical knowledge mentioned above, the development of mysticism too was caused by weariness with the exasperating dialectical discussions that pitted the various schools against one another, stirring up rivalry and division even in the external life of Christendom. The mystical current takes shape in all the schools of Scholasticism. The Franciscan Order had its master in St. Bonaventure himself, who gave consistency in his mystical works to the tumultuous aspiration that had manifested itself in his religious family after the death of St. Francis: in harmony with theological tradition, Franciscan mysticism is predominantly affective and directs its devotion toward the Passion of Christ. The most savory fruit of medieval mysticism, the De imitatione Christi, seems to resist every investigation aimed at discovering its author and remains outside of every school (v. IMITAZIONE DI CRISTO). Dominican mysticism develops especially in Germany with Master Eckhart (v.) and his disciples G. Tauler (v.) and Bl. Henry Suso (v.), and with Nicholas of Cusa (v.) himself, who form the so-called "Rhenish school"; in its wake it has the great Ruysbroeck (v.) and perhaps also the anonymous author of the Theologia deutsch said to be of Frankfurt ("der Frankfurter"), so dear to Luther. In this mysticism the intuitive and contemplative element prevails, of evident Neoplatonic derivation (Proclus or Pseudo-Dionysius), in the aspiration to penetrate into the boundless sea of divine wisdom: the characteristic doctrine is that of the "scintilla animae" (die Füncklein der Seele. Cf. H. Wilms, De scintilla animae, in Angelicum, 14 [1937], p. 194 ff.; H. Hof, Scintilla animae..., Lund-Bonn 1952). The polemic aroused, not so much by Eckhart's theological writings as by his preaching, is well known; it brought the speaker before the ecclesiastical tribunal, by which he was subsequently condemned with the bull In agro dominico of 27 March 1329 (Denz-U, 501-29; the critical edition in: M. H. Laurent, Autour du procès de Maître Eckhart, in Divus Thomas [Piacenza], 39 [1936], pp. 435-44). But the problem of Eckhart's orthodoxy is far from solved; and if Denifle's (v.) reduction of Eckhartian thought to pure Thomism cannot fully satisfy, because Thomism at that time had by then so many nuances, even the claim to make of Eckhart a founder of modern pantheism must be called anachronistic and exaggerated, and the citation of Hegel (Religionsphilosophie, ed. G. Lasson, Leipzig 1923, I, p. 257) is not enough to substantiate it, also because Hegel does not appear to know the Dominican's thought beyond that point (the said citation seems to be taken from Fr. v. Baader!). Even if the existence of a continuity of motifs in German spirituality were demonstrated from Eckhart and his school to the heterodox mysticism of Sebastian Franck, Valentin Weigel, Jakob Böhme (v.) and through them to idealist pantheism (cf. G. Della Volpe, Eckhart o della filosofia mistica, Rome 1952, p. 232 ff.), this at most attests to a climate of vague spiritual affinity and does not yet prove the rigorous derivation of the doctrines.

IV. THE SECOND SCHOLASTICISM

This denomination too, which is meant to indicate the scholasticism of the 16th-17th centuries, is conventional: humanism and the Renaissance do not extinguish scholasticism but limit it and restrict it for the most part to ecclesiastical and especially theological schools, not to mention that both remain attached by many threads to the problems and spiritual interests that always nourished the various systems (or viae) of scholasticism, albeit in the diversity of their orientations.

The crumbling of scholasticism reached, in the period of decadence, a veritable chaos, of which the writings of the era, which the libraries have made known through the investigations of the most expert specialists (Denifle, Ehrle, Mandonnet, Grabmann, Glorieux, Pelster, Pelzer...), are an impressive document. This confusion must undoubtedly be connected with the struggle waged against Thomism; its most characteristic theses, such as moderate realism in the question of universals (v.) with the doctrine of the agent intellect and of abstraction, the concept of potency, the distinction between essence and the act of being, were the first to be abandoned; the probative value of the demonstrations of the substantial union of soul and body, of the immortality of the soul, and of the existence of God was denied, so as to make these an exclusive object of faith. No internal force could halt the decline: only with the hurricane of the Reformation, whose connection with nominalism after Denifle's studies is generally admitted (cf. F. Vignaux, Luther commentateur des Sentences, Paris 1935), was the importance of a unification of the spiritual forces of Christendom understood.

The significance of this truly providential "rebirth" of scholasticism lies above all in the position of leadership that the thought of St. Thomas begins to assume for Catholic schools. The principal architect of this late yet dutiful recognition of the Angelic Doctor's doctrinal work was the Dominican Order; but one must also recall the doctrinal action of the Society of Jesus (then founded with the precise purpose of refuting heresy), which sent many of its best students to the Universities of Paris and Salamanca to hear the most celebrated Dominican masters. It is around these fulcrums that the new Christian spring unfolds, whose fruits ripened in the Council of Trent (1545-63).

1. The Dominican school

It may be said that, after some phases of uncertainty, which are found in the heated polemics between the Dominicans and the double front of the Scotists and the nominalists in the 14th century, the Angelic Doctor's doctrinal synthesis is affirmed within his Order with greater adherence to its original inspiration. In the first half of the 15th century appear the monumental Defensiones theologicae D. Thomae Aquinatis of the Toulouse-born G. Capreolus (v.): the peculiar value of the work lies in the knowledge it displays of almost all the writings of the Angelic Doctor and in the firmness of its polemic against the legion of adversaries of Thomism (v. the list in vol. I of the new edition edited by C. Paban-T. Pègues, Tours 1900, pp. xxiii-xxv). In the second half of the century Dominic of Flanders stands out for his great commentary on the Metaphysics (Quaestiones metaphysicales: there is an edition of Bologna 1570); in these emerge the qualities of Capreolus (who is cited there) with a marked sympathy for St. Albert the Great, which has led to the thought of a contact with the so-called "Albertist school," which flourished through the initiative of secular masters in the first half of the century (cf. G. Meersseman, Gesch. des Albertismus, fasc. 1: Die Pariser Anfänge des Kölner Albertismus, Paris 1933; fasc. 11: Die ersten Kölner Kontroversen, Rome 1935), which however had no following. Clearer seems to be the dependence of Dominic on the secular master John Versor or Versorius, who in his commentaries on Aristotle shows himself quite favorable to the doctrine of St. Thomas (cf. L. Mahieu, Dominique de Flandre. Sa métaphysique, Paris 1942, p. 23 f.). The great revival of Thomism has two centers of expansion, Italy and Spain; the greatest Italian Thomists are considered to be Card. Cajetan, Francesco Silvestro da Ferrara, called precisely Ferrariensis, and a profound but solitary spirit: C. Javelli, who struggle not only against Scotus and his school but also against Pomponazzi (especially Javelli). The Scotist school was strong in Italy with A. Andrea (d. 1320) and Trombeta (a direct adversary of Cajetan at Padua), while the Augustinian school had risen in the 15th century with Giles of Viterbo (v.) and in the first half of the 16th century with the great Seripando (v.), who played so large a part in the Council of Trent. But it seems that the largest part of this rebirth of scholasticism belongs to Spain, thanks to the Dominican masters who brought luster to Salamanca, such as Fr. de Vitoria, Mancio, Peter and Dominic Soto (v.), D. Bañez (v.) and John of St. Thomas (v.); positive theology had its master in Melchior Cano (v.) with his treatise De locis theologicis, which became a classic.

Particular mention is due (for Spain) to the work given to the rebirth of scholasticism in the Thomist direction by the Carmelite Order: whereas in the 14th and 15th centuries it had followed an eclectic orientation, choosing as its master the Englishman John of Baconthorpe, of Averroist tendencies, in the 16th century it adopted integral Thomism, producing two very extensive Cursus of philosophy and theology that reflect perhaps better than any other work of the time the character of this "second scholasticism."

2. The Jesuit school

If the task of investigating Thomist doctrines within the whole of their synthesis remained with the Dominicans, the masters of the Society of Jesus were the principal architects of the spread of Scholasticism in the 16th century in the main universities of Europe. The founder, St. Ignatius (v.), in his solid, though late, theological formation, had understood that the doctrine of St. Thomas constituted the strongest barrier against the error of the Reformation, and therefore he ordered that within the Order the doctrines of the Angelic Doctor be followed faithfully: "In theologia legatur Vetus et Novum Testamentum et doctrina scholastica divi Thomae" (Constitutions, part 5, ch. 5). In the Decree of the General Acquaviva (v.) the injunction returns: "Nostri omnino s. Thomam ut proprium doctorem habeant eumque in scholastica theologia teneant"; but it is followed by a declaration that would have decisive consequences for the doctrinal orientation of the Society: "Non sic tamen s. Thomae adstricti esse debere intelligantur, ut nulla prorsus in re ab eo recedere liceat, cum illi ipsi, qui se thomistas maxime profitentur, aliquando ab eo recedant" (in Fr. Ehrle, Die Scholastik..., Italian trans., Turin 1935, p. 47, n. On the position of St. Ignatius with respect to St. Thomas cf. P. Mandonnet, Sur le thomisme des premiers temps de la Compagnie de Jésus, in Rev. thomiste, 22 [1914], p. 667). The Jesuit masters who most imposed themselves and whose doctrine is by now bound up with every discussion that concerns the problems of Scholasticism are Toledo (v.), Pereira, Fonseca, Molina (v.), Vásquez (v.), Arriaga (v.), Suárez (v.), Bellarmine (v.) and Mariana (v.). The Cursus Conimbricensium of the Jesuits of Coimbra, drawn up under the direction of Fr. Fonseca, holds a notable place; in it one observes the novelty (adopted by Fonseca on his own account in the great commentary he wrote on the Metaphysics) of the Greek text of Aristotle placed at the opening of the commentary itself. If the orientation of the Jesuits can be described as "moderate Thomism," it is not difficult to point out from time to time how, in the key theses of the theory of knowledge, of metaphysics, of psychology..., these masters of the Society abandon St. Thomas in order to adhere to positions already known from his Augustinian or nominalist adversaries. Thus, although a great respect for St. Thomas cannot be denied in Suárez, his divergences from Thomist metaphysics are not few. That by which the Jesuit current distinguished itself is especially the juridical field, where Suárez, Bellarmine and Mariana brought contributions that lie at the basis of modern law. The celebrated controversy De auxiliis divinae gratiae, aroused by Molina (v.) with the Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis (1595), which set the Dominican Order and the Society in bitter strife, is in itself an evident indication of the eclectic and independent orientation assumed by the new school. Another merit of the Jesuit Ratio studiorum has been the return to the study of the Greek and Latin classics, which was effectively beneficial not only for the rebirth of "Christian humanism," but also for effectiveness and precision in the exposition of doctrines.

3. Protestant Scholasticism of the 17th-18th centuries

If Luther (v.) often breaks out into invectives against Thomism and the Scholasticism that draws its inspiration from Aristotle, alongside him Melanchthon (v.) defends the necessity of using philosophy in the defense of Christian truths and the advantage of recourse to Aristotle himself; and although he placed Cicero almost on the same level as the Philosopher, there is no doubt that his philosophy can be called a true "Aristotelianism" (cf. P. Petersen, Gesch. der aristotelischen Philos. im protestantischen Deutschland, Leipzig 1921, p. 106). Alongside Melanchthon, E. Sarzern (1501-59), Georg Major (1502-74), Giacomo Camerario (1500-74), Jodocus Willich (1501-55)... can be called supporters of Scholasticism, but the humanistic tendency still predominates. It is precisely in the following century that Protestant Scholasticism unfolds with unsuspected richness, as emerges from the most recent research of Max Wundt and H. E. Weber: at first, for example, in Cornelius Martini, who from 1592 is a professor in Helmstedt, one observes a faithful adherence to the Aristotelian text with evident Thomistic influences, while in the 18th century the influence of Suárez's Disputaciones metaphysicae becomes visible, especially in metaphysics (cf. M. Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17. Jahrh., Tübingen 1939, especially p. 171 ff.). An analogous movement took place among Lutheran Reformed theologians: for them too, as for orthodox Catholic Scholasticism, the will is preceded by the intellect and the movement of love by the knowledge of being, so that there is a speculative knowledge of God (the Theologia naturalis) that is a prerequisite for the knowledge of God's "saving will" which is given to us by Revelation. The limit that is evidently imposed on the natural knowledge of God is expressed by these Protestant theologians, as in Catholic Scholasticism, through the doctrine of analogy ([v.] cf. H. E. Weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, Gütersloh 1951, p. 19 ff.). This thematic inspired by Scholasticism has not been without influence on modern philosophy, on Descartes first of all, as Gilson has demonstrated, and then also on Spinoza, Locke and more broadly on the great Leibniz (v.) and in the Wolffian school. A methodical study of modern philosophy would show how it is often variously contained and stimulated by themes and concepts that derive from Scholasticism in its principal currents, but especially those of nominalism and mysticism.

V. NEOSCHOLASTICISM

In the period extending from the end of the 18th century through the whole first half of the 19th century, Catholic schools ran one of their most serious dangers: in France and Italy Cartesianism, Leibnizian dynamism (v.) and even Lockean sensationalism (v.) had infiltrated according to individual tastes. In Germany Romanticism had, against the Enlightenment, rediscovered the universality of medieval art and religiosity (F. Schlegel). Novalis exalted in the Catholic Middle Ages the triumph of Europe's spiritual unity, calling for, against the Protestant schism, the "renewal of a single Christendom and of a visible supranational Church" (cf. Die Christenheit oder Europa, in Ges. Werke, V, ed. C. Seelig, Zurich 1945, p. 34). But Catholic schools did not follow a precise doctrinal direction; the great A. Möhler of Tübingen began the return to the patristic sources, Staudenmeyer engaged deeply in criticism of Hegelian panlogism: but from various quarters explicit negative judgments were pronounced on scholasticism; while alarming concessions were being made to modern philosophy by, for example, Frohschammer, Hermes, Günther, Bolzano, and the Romantic Deutinger (cf. J. Fellerer, Die Stellung Martin Deutingers in der Geistesgeschichte des 19. Jahrh. als Grundlegung f. seine Auffassung vom Verhältnis von Philos. und Theol., Bonn 1940). This confusion led to the Church's condemnation of an uninterrupted series of theological and philosophical errors by Gregory XVI and Pius IX: Lamennaisianism, traditionalism (v.), ontologism (v.), with all the shades of laicism and liberalism. Among the first studies of scholastic texts, mention should be made of Cousin's (v.) studies and edition of Abelard and of A. Jourdain's monograph on the Latin translations of Aristotle (Paris 1819; 2nd ed. 1843).

The official entry of Neoscholasticism into Catholic schools is to be seen in Leo XIII's encyclical Aeterni Patris; but this decision was the ripening of many and arduous efforts. Schematically, after the studies of Masnovo (Il neotomismo in Italia, Milan 1923), its beginning can be traced to the work of the canon of Piacenza Vincenzo Buzzetti (v.), who understood the restoration of scholasticism as a return to Thomism: perhaps stimulated by some Roman priest who had fled during the Napoleonic occupation and by the former Spanish Jesuit B. Mazdeu, he had been formed especially on the celebrated manual of the Dominican Roselli and must also have known Goudin (cf. A. Masnovo, op. cit., p. 196; P. Dezza, Alle origini del tomismo, Milan 1940, p. 25). His pupils, the brothers Domenico and Serafino Sordi (v.), who later entered the Society of Jesus, attracted Fr. Taparelli d'Azeglio (v.) and several others to the new direction, arousing especially in Naples keen enthusiasm among the young: but the movement was crushed by order of higher authority, and the new direction met with opposition also at the Roman College in Rome, where Tongiorgi (v.) and Secchi (v.) dominated. The first Thomism in the Society established itself with cautious steps in the second half of the century thanks to the journal La civiltà cattolica, founded by Fr. Curci (whose Memorie are a precious source for that struggle) and to the higher school of philosophy of the Lombard-Venetian province (now the Aloisianum), which had in Fr. Mauri (1849-1923) the principal writer of the Cursus Forquidiensis of philosophy; in this second half of the 19th century must also be placed the intense activity of Fr. Matteo Liberatore (v.), who, having passed from eclecticism to Thomism (cf. A. Masnovo, op. cit., pp. 29 ff.; P. Naddeo, Le origini del neo-tomismo e la nuova scuola napoletana di G. Sanseverino, Salerno 1940, pp. 11 f.), with the reworkings of his Institutiones logicae et metaphysicae, followed by studies on knowledge and on the human composite together with his activity as a writer in La civiltà cattolica, greatly benefited the establishment of Thomism in Roman circles.

But the prince of this rebirth is undoubtedly the Neapolitan canon Gaetano Sanseverino (v.): once he had grasped the vital importance of Thomism, thanks also to Baron Vincenzo di Grazia, he planned a complete program of work that included the founding of a Thomistic academy (1846; in 1874 it became the first Academy of St. Thomas), which held regular meetings at the University of Naples, the publication of the Academy's disputations and of original studies in the journal Scienza e fede (founded by him in 1840), in which the Jesuits Sordi, Liberatore and others also wrote, and of a collection of modern works, the Biblioteca cattolica. Above all he gathered around himself in the school of the Seminary of Naples a large band of able and spirited young men who assisted him in the bold enterprise and continued his work into the first decades of our century, such as N. Signoriello, S. Calvanese, G. Portenova, G. Prisco (v.) and S. Talamo (v.). The principal fruit of this incomparable organizer was the Philosophia christiana cum antiqua et nova comparata, of which seven ample volumes appeared (beginning in 1852), representing barely half of the projected work (Signoriello published a valuable compendium [3 vols.] of the entire work, which was translated into various languages). The work, which constitutes the fruit of twenty years of tireless preparation, has no counterpart in Buzzetti's output, for the clarity and depth of its discussion, its historical information both on antiquity and on Christian scholasticism and on modern philosophy itself, with a wealth of references in the original modern languages. Pelzer rightly observes that "elle n'a pas encore été refaite dans la néo-scolastique contemporaine" (Les initiateurs du néo-tomisme contemp., offprint, Louvain 1911, p. 22). What is astonishing in this man is his vast and direct knowledge of modern English, French and German philosophy. On pp. 132 ff. of vol. I the idealism of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel is set out (of the last, the great Logica and the Enciclopedia are cited in the original text). He also knows, though it seems at second hand, the Hegelian left of Fr. Strauss, B. Bauer, L. Feuerbach and the French right of Michelet, Leroux, Quinet... (op. cit., p. 147). Sanseverino praises the work begun by La civiltà cattolica in defense of scholasticism and rejoices that in Germany too the accusations against scholasticism are being abandoned and men are arising who openly defend "philosophiam scholasticam, eo praesertim modo quo ab Aquinate exornata atque ad sacras disciplinae accomodata fuit" (op. cit., p. 153), such as Fr. Giuseppe Kleutgen (v.), Julius Stahl and Jakob Clemens. Sanseverino's work was hailed by Liberatore as the "triumph of the cause of scholasticism" (op. cit., p. 18). The flame was by now lit and was never again to be extinguished. Besides the Jesuits of La civiltà cattolica, in which Fr. Cornoldi (1822-92) played a notable part in the struggle against Rosmini (v.), scholasticism inspired by a sound Thomism was defended at Udine by Prof. Di Giorgio, at Turin by G. Audisio, at Perugia by G. Pecci (brother of Leo XIII), at Bologna by Prof. Battaglini, in France by men such as Chieco, Possé, Grandelande, Sauvé and Thuault; in Germany, along with Kleutgen, the work of Albert Stöckl (v.) imposed itself by the bulk and diligence of its historical and doctrinal research.

Even in Rome the direction willed by the Aeterni Patris (v.) overcame the last resistances in the ecclesiastical institutes. The Roman College numbers among the most active supporters of neo-Scholasticism, besides Cornoldi, M. de Maria and V. Remer (1843-1910), P. De Mandato (v.), and P. Geny, authors of valuable manuals of Thomist orientation, while the Spaniard G. Urraburu (1844-1904) wrote a monumental synthesis of philosophy inspired by Suárez; L. Billot (v.) and G. Mattiussi (v.) gave great impetus to speculative problems, whose Thomism influenced the doctrinal orientation of the Pontifical Gregorian University (its organ being the Gregorianum, 1920 ff.), continued by C. Boyer (b. 1884) and P. Dezza (b. 1901). At the Apollinare, which later became the Pontifical Lateran Athenaeum, neo-Scholasticism encountered lively opposition in Francesco Segna (later cardinal), but was decisively followed by the theologians P. R. Tabarelli (d. 1900) and L. Buonpensiere (d. 1929). Neo-Scholasticism received a vigorous impulse in the Urban Athenaeum of Propaganda Fide in theology with Fr. Satolli (v.), A. Lepicier (v.), and P. Parente (b. 1891), and in philosophy with B. Lorenzelli (1853-1915), later cardinal. The journal Euntes docere is the organ of the Faculties of theology, philosophy and missiology (1948 ff.). The glorious College of St. Thomas at the Minerva, founded in 1577, which became the Pontifical Institute Angelicum in 1909, made itself the promoter, as the vanguard of the Dominican Order's doctrinal mission in the city of Rome, of traditional Thomism, in which Cardinal T. Zigliara (v.), A. Lepidi (v.), T. Pègues (v.), E. Hugon (v.), A. Zacchi (v.), R. Garrigou-Lagrange (b. 1877), and M. Cordovani (1883-1950) distinguished themselves. The Dominican Athenaeum has as its organ the journal Angelicum (1923 ff.).

In Italy, in 1921, there arose in Milan, through the initiative of Fr. A. Gemelli, a Franciscan (b. 1878), and Dr. Vico Necchi (v.), the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, which set out to show the modern vitality of traditional thought in the face of the residual positivism and the idealism of Croce and Gentile then prevailing in Italian culture. Contributions of particular value, both in the theoretical field and in historical research, are owed to E. Chiocchetti (1880-1951), A. Masnovo (b. 1876), F. Olgiati (b. 1885), G. Bontadini (b. 1903), M. Campo (b. 1892), L. Pelloux (b. 1906), S. Vanni-Rovighi (b. 1908), and C. Mazzantini (b. 1895). The rector, Fr. Gemelli, founded and directs there the Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, which has devoted itself especially to the study of the problems of perception and of psychotechnics; it publishes the collection Contributi dei laboratori di psicologia and the Archivio di psicologia, neurologia e psichiatria (1940 ff.). Closer to the Louvain school, Msgr. G. Zamboni (v.) and U. A. Padovani (1894) in Padua promote the insertion of the philosophia perennis into modern thought, with particular contributions, on Padovani's part, to the treatment of the moral and religious problem. Inspired by the defense of Thomism is also the philosophical activity of N. Petruzzellis (b. 1910). The Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica, founded in Florence in 1909 by A. Gemelli and G. Canella (v.), was later taken over by the Catholic University of Milan and is the principal organ of Italian neo-Scholasticism; the commemorative volumes on Kant (1924), Hegel (1931), Cardinal Gaetano (1932), Spinoza (1934), Descartes (1937), Malebranche (1938), and the jubilee volume of the journal's twenty-fifth year (1934) should be noted.

Active centers for the study of neo-Scholasticism are still the Aloisianum of Gallarate, where the "Centro di studi dei filosofi cristiani" promoted by C. Giacon (b. 1900) also has its seat and holds annual conferences, and the Pontifical Salesian Athenaeum of Turin with its Faculties of theology, philosophy and pedagogy (it publishes the Salesianum, 1941 ff.). Particular mention should be made of the Collegio Alberoni of Piacenza, which oversees the publication of Divus Thomas (3rd series, 1924 ff.), which was the first journal to patronize neo-Scholasticism. In Belgium the decisive affirmation of neo-Scholasticism owes much to the work of Cardinal D. Mercier (v.), who, on the commission of Leo XIII, founded at Louvain the "Ecole de philosophie de St Thomas," which later became the "Institut supérieur de philosophie" and constituted a center of international radiation of studies especially in the field of the theory of knowledge, of psychology and philosophy of the sciences, of the history of philosophy and of the social sciences; D. Nys (1859-1927), M. De Wulf (v.), C. Sentroul (1876-1933), A. Pelzer (b. 1876), L. Noël (b. 1876), R. Kremer (1887-1934), L. de Raeymaeker (b. 1895), F. van Steenberghen (b. 1904), A. Mansion (b. 1882), and A. Michotte, who directs the Institute of Psychology, should be remembered. The organ of the Louvain School was the Rev. de philos. néos. (1898; from 1946 Rev. de philos. de Louvain). Still at Louvain, the work of Fr. J. Maréchal (v.), promoter of a bringing together of Thomist gnoseology with the principles of Kantianism, and the fruitful research on medieval thought on the part of the Benedictine abbey of Mont César under the guidance of D. O. Lottin (b. 1880), should be noted.

In Holland too neo-Scholasticism has a vigorous life: first promoted by the Thomists J. V. de Groot (1848-1922), J. T. Beysens (1864-1945) and J. H. Hoogveld (1878-1943), it now has its center in the Catholic University of Nijmegen; chairs of Scholastic philosophy have been introduced in the state universities of Amsterdam, Leiden and Utrecht. The principal organ of the activity of Dutch and Flemish neo-Scholasticism is the Tijdschrift voor Philos. (1939 ff.), published by the Flemish Dominicans at Louvain. The S. J. College of Valkenburg publishes Scholastik (1926 ff.).

In France neo-Scholasticism gradually established itself in the Catholic Faculties of Lyon (1875), Angers (1875), Toulouse (1877), Strasbourg (1875) and especially in the Catholic Institute of Paris (1875) founded by Msgr. M. d'Hulst (d. 1896), where the Thomists A. Sertillanges (v.), A. Blanche (b. 1874), Peillaube (d. 1937) and J. Maritain (b. 1882) distinguished themselves: the Institute publishes the Rev. de philos. The French Dominicans have two centers of study around their two journals, the Rev. thomiste (1893 ff.) and the Rev. des sciences philos. et théol. (1907 ff.); the French Jesuits publish the Archives de philos. (1929 ff.). In the history of Scholasticism, the research of P. Mandonnet (1858-1940), G. Théry (b. 1891) and of the academician E. Gilson (b. 1884), who founded the "Institute of Medieval Studies" in Canada, holds a place of the first rank; notable historical studies have been produced by A. Forest (b. 1898), P. de Gandillac, P. Vignaux (b. 1904), and P. Glorieux (b. 1892).

In Germany, for the theoretical part, G. Kleutgen (v.), C. Gutberlet (v.) and A. Stöckl stand out, while decisive contributions to the history of Scholasticism were brought by K. Werner (d. 1888), Cl. Baeumler, G. von Hertling (d. 1919), M. Baumgartner (v.), B. Geyer (b. 1881), J. Koch (b. 1885), M. Grabmann (v.), F. Ehrle (v.), and F. Pelster (b. 1880). A master of medieval historiography was the Dominican E. Denifle (v.), who discovered the unpublished works of Eckhart and published with E. Chatelain (1851-1933) the Chartularium Univ. Parisiensis. The principal organ of German neo-Scholasticism is the Philosophisches Jahrbuch. An important center of German neo-Scholasticism was the S. J. College of Maria-Laach (which published the Philosophia Lacensis; 1897 ff.), succeeded by the "Berchmanskolleg" of Pullach (Munich), which began the publication of the course Mensch, Welt, Gott (Freiburg im Br. 1938).

In Austria, the activity of the University of Innsbruck, which publishes the series Philosophie u. Grenzwissensch. (1929 ff.) directed by the Austrian Jesuits, should be noted. More open is the orientation of the University of Salzburg, where A. Mayer and D. Feuling taught. In natural philosophy A. Mitterer (b. 1887) distinguished himself.

In the United States of America, neo-Scholasticism has its main center in the Catholic University of Washington, which publishes The new scholasticism (1927 ff.) and promotes the American Catholic Philosophical Association, which annually publishes a volume of Proceedings. Neo-Scholasticism also inspires the teaching in the numerous American universities run by the Jesuits (Fordham, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Louis, where the journal The Schoolman is published ([1924 ff.]), while the Dominicans direct the journal The Thomist (1900 ff.).

In Spain, neo-Scholasticism is part of the program of the Faculties directed by the Dominican and Jesuit religious orders (Salamanca, Comillas...) and has a notable part in the program of the Consejo Superior de investigaciones científicas of Madrid; the Instituto Luis Vives de Filosofía, which publishes the Rev. de filosofía, depends on it.

The study of neo-Scholasticism in Switzerland is conducted within the framework of rigorous Thomism at the Catholic University of Fribourg (1889) through the work of the Dominicans who teach in those Faculties of theology and philosophy; its organ is Divus Thomas (Fribourg 1923 ff.), which continues the Jahrbuch f. Philos. u. spek. Theol., founded by Msgr. E. Commer (d. 1928).

In Latin America, neo-Scholasticism is taught in many universities of Argentina and in the Catholic universities of Brazil, Colombia and Chile. In England, mention should be made of the activity of the "Stonyhurst College" S. J. and of the Dominicans of Oxford (cf. for a general survey of contemporary neo-Scholasticism, La situation actuelle de la philos. parmi les catholiques dans les divers pays, Utrecht-Brussels n.d. [1948]).

The new period of neo-Scholasticism, having passed the phase of consolidation, is characterized by three fields of research: a) the historical study of the ancient masters of Scholasticism conducted directly on manuscript sources; b) the updating in step with the progress of science, thereby separating the genuine theoretical substance of Scholasticism from the now outdated theories of Aristotelian physics; c) the deepening of the critical problem of knowledge. The results gathered in these fields have not always found Catholic scholars fully in agreement, but certain points seem established: in history, a more precise knowledge of the differentiation of the various currents of Scholasticism, with particular regard to Thomism; in the sciences, a deeper understanding of the meaning of hylomorphic theory in relation to modern physics and biology; in the theory of knowledge, a greater understanding of the demand proper to modern philosophy concerning the spontaneity of knowledge and the contribution that the subjectivity of the finite spirit brings to the forms proper to human knowledge and thought (see also: TOMMASO D'AQUINO).

Cornelio Fabro