SCHOLASTICISM
425
SCHOLASTICISM
but that of Aristotle. There does not seem to be any sufficient evidence of the total oblivion of Arisl>otle anil of Aristotle's dialectics at any period of the Middle Ages. The testimony of Ingulph may be spurious, but there are other indications of a meagre acquaintance with Aristotelian logic through secondary channels; and it is admitted that the version of Porphyry's Introduction, by Boethius, was known at all times. After the con- version of the pagans in the new kingdoms, and the definite establishment of the ecclesiastical ascendency of the Roman Churcli throughout, the Western empire, a fresh demand and a constant provocation for the in- tervention of scholastic procedure arose in the ever-mul- tiplying and often pernicious heresies which occupied provincial councils, and engaged the most zealous and astute minds in their promulgation, their refutation, and their defence. A very cursory perusal of the impugned opinions, whose statement opens the several articles in the Sumnia of Aquinas, or of any similar summa, will show what a countless number and endless variet}' of dogmas required to be examined and settled for the es- tablishment of the religious and ethical doctrine of the times. It was an inestimable service which was ren- dered in the long and agonizing period of the Middle Ages, in a society without other intellectual discipline or moral control, by tlie proposition, the ventilation, the discussion, the establishment, or the reprobation of the multitudinous perplexed problems in theology — often affecting government, society, and private conduct. It is not a question here whether the reasoning adopted, the arguments adduced, the conclusions drawn, or the decisions affirmed were correct or pernicious. The process was necessary, the task indispensable, for the effective development of European intelligence. The system does not accord with modern requirements, nor approve itself to modern modes of thought; but it in- augurated those requirements and bred those modes. Feudalism had to be swejit away to make room for the growth of society and its larger expansion; but feudal- ism was a blessing at a time when the imperative de- mand of society was for confirmed authoritj' and grad- uated subordination. Any "good custom will corrupt the world;" and no human custom is absolutely good or free from the taint of wrong and prospective inis- chief. The errors and the defects of scholasticism are nowadays manifest to all, and are habitually exagger- ated. The good, " that was buried with it," is not equally apparent or as willingly sought. It requires some knowledge of the schoolmen, of their works, and of their times — a transference of thought from our cir- cumstances and points of view to theirs, and dispassion- ate reflection — to estimate their difficulties, their aims, and their achievements. One inestimable result of their labors — it is only one — was the definite establish- ment of the terms of reasoning, metaphysics, and theol- ogy, and, as a consequence of their procedure, the en- forcement of logical coherence of thought and of preci- sion of language. These things were indispensable pre- liminaries for the development of modern tongues, mod- ern knowledge, modern enterprise, modern society, and modern government.
That tills explanation of the rise and progress of scho- lasticism is correct is in some measure confirmed by the exhibition of the same tendencies, under analogous cir- cumstances, in the contemporaneous speculation of the Jews and Arabs; for it is a mistake to regard scholasti- cism as either an ethnical or a theological idiosyncrasy.
In the manner stated, and by steps which can be only obscurely traced, scholasticism gradually assumed that form in which it is usually contemplated by the histori- ans of philosophy ; and acquired the fulness, abundance, energy, precision, and predominance which character- ized the scholastic philosophy in its most vigorous man- ifestation.
IV. St/stemntic Development of Scholasticism. — John Scotus Erigena, towards the close of the 9th century, is generally regarded as the first of those distinctively en-
titled schoolmen, though, as has been shown above, he should not be considered the earliest scholastic. Tlie historians of pliilosophy have variously distributed the course of scholastic philosophy into periods. Ueber- weg, who may be taken to represent the latest prevalent view, divides the scholastic age into two parts only : 1. From Scotus Erigena to Amalric, or from the 9th to the 13th century; 2. From the 13th century to the Re- naissance. He thus omits both the preliminary tenden- cies and the expiring efforts, important as the origin and the decadence of the system must be. Sir William Hamilton (Reitl, Works, Appendix, note B, p. 815) notes John Major, of St. Andrew's (14()9-1547), as "the last of the regular schoolmen ;" but the spirit survived far into the next century. Brucker does not neglect the early manifestations of scholasticism, but observes that it was conceived during the centuries extending from the 5th to the 8th ; that the 9th and 10th were the time of its gestation and formation; that it was born in the 11th; that it passed its boyhood and youth in the 12th; and that it attained full manhood in the 13th. He com- mences the treatment of what he holds to be the scho- lastic philosophy proper with the beginning of the 12th century, and divides the history into three periods: 1. From Lanfranc. or Abelard and his disciple Peter Lom- bard, to the middle of the 13th century, and to Albertus ]\Iagnus; 2. From 1220 to Duraiul of St. Pour^ain ; 3. From 1330 to (^abriel Biel and the close of the loth cen- tury.