ecclesiastical authorities. While the customary attitude was one of complete dependence upon authority, and while a general view, accepted as orthodox, tended to prevail, yet there was considerable variety of opinion among the few. Though the prevalent view was that of realism, it is impossible to assign any given content of principles or dogmas as the philosophical content of scholasticism, for there can be found at least a suggestion of almost every phase of modern philosophical thought. In a similar way there are few modern theological views but found some exponent at some time within the scholastic period. Scholasticism, then, is primarily a method; the systematization of all thought according to the principles of the deductive Aristotelian logic, the subjection of all intellectual interests to the restrictions of logical form.

DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOLASTICISM. Some of the causes immediately operative in the development of scholasticism have been enumerated (pp. 292-3). The liberal thought of John Scotus Erigena, who declared the identity of true religion and true philosophy rather than the subordination of the latter, produced little effect upon his age because he was so far in advance of it. It is true that the doctrinal disputes in dialectic form, especially those concerning transubstantiation, began with Scotus and his follower Beranger (d. 1088), but then the logical and philosophical interests were wholly subordinate. During the eleventh century this conflict between realism and nominalism became definitely formulated in the discussions between Anselm (c. 1034-1109) and Roscellinus (d. 1106). Anselm, called the father of scholasticism, first as abbot of Bec and later as archbishop of Canterbury (1070-1089), expounded in a number of writings the realistic position and its application to the doctrines of the Church, especially in his "Monologue of the method in which we may account for our faith." Roscellinus, a Breton canon,

attacked these positions in regard to many of the doctrines of the Church, especially that of the Trinity, on the basis of the nominalist position. Roscellinus held that logic had to do only with the right use of words, and opposed all those views which made the traditional realism of Aristotle the basis of theological belief. These disputes were continued for a century or more in various places, especially in France, and by various Schoolmen of minor importance. The number of persons attracted by these disputations was so great that a chronicle states in regard to some "that if thou shouldst walk about the public places of the city and behold the throngs of disputants, thou wouldst say that the citizens had left off their other labors and given themselves over entirely to philosophy."

The fate of Roscellinus, who was martyred, discouraged those inclined to hold the nominalistic view, which consequently did not reappear in its extreme form until the latter part of the scholastic period. The critical work of Roscellinus was continued by one of his pupils, and one of the greatest of the Schoolmen, Abelard (Petrus Abelardus, 1079-1142), who, however, opposed the extreme nominalism of one of his teachers as he did the realism of William of Champeaux his other teacher. His philosophical position, strikingly similar to that of Aristotle a fact then unknown was the compromise view of conceptualism. According to this view universals are existent, though not independent of the phenomenal form in which they exist, save as conceptions in the divine mind before creation. Abelard's position regarding the great philosophical question was a conciliatory one; but his real influence, and his writings in general, were far from it. His most influential work, Sic et Non (p. 301), was a collection of passages from the Bible and from patristic writ ings on theological questions, designed to show the conflicting ideas or views of the religious and ecclesiastical authorities. He gave no decision concerning the solution of the conflicting

views, consequently inquiry was stimulated, the importance of research emphasized; but the general impression was that faith in the unanimity and hence the reliability of ecclesiastical authority was questioned. While the theological and philosophical positions of Abelard were less radical, his influence was far more critical and far more destructive of unquestioned obedience to authority. Reason, he held, was antecedent to faith, and much of Christian belief could be supplied by reason. At least the arrogance of ecclesiastical authority was shattered; and though the man and his writings were condemned, his life blighted by persecution, his views regarded as heretical, his influence continued to exist as one of the most powerful forces in scholastic thought during the following period.

The thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries constitute the period of the complete dominance of scholasticism. During this period philosophy and theology seem to be in complete sympathy; the widest extension is given to philosophical thought in its Christian dress; theological views are elaborated into most perfect and complicated systems; reason and faith are in fullest accord. The causes of this complete triumph of scholasticism, the perfection of its system, and the wide extension of its limits, were twofold. In the first place, most of the doctrines of the Church were formulated and established as a result of the previous controversy. Certain of these, wherein complete harmony with ancient philosophy or with reason was impossible, were held to be beyond the limits of philosophical discussion. It is in this respect that the bondage or subordination of philosophy to theology is seen; for within certain established limits, perfect freedom of discussion was given. The second of these causes was the recovery of most of the writings of Aristotle, possessed to-day. The largest number of them, however, came at that time through corrupted translations or in the form of Arabic commentaries. Of the most influential of these, the

chief work of Averroës, Renan remarked that it was "a Latin translation of a Hebraic translation of a commentary on an Arabic translation of a Syriac translation of a Greek text of Aristotle." Imperfect as were these texts, they at least allowed the Schoolmen to perfect their sysstem, for they gave them the complete system of Aristotelian logic. Besides the metaphysics of "The Master," his physics, psychology, and ethics were now introduced to furnish new material for scholastic learning. Through the modification of some Aristotelian principles, the scholastic position concerning the harmony of faith and reason prevailed throughout this period. Its educational aspect is to be discussed in connection with the universities. Mention can here be made of the names of but a few of the greatest among a host of educational leaders and writers and intellectually powerful men.

THE GREAT SCHOOLMEN. The first of the Schoolmen to be acquainted with the entire philosophy of Aristotle and to employ it in the service of theology was Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), The Irrefragable Doctor, author of Summa Theologiæ. Vincent of Bauvais (d. 1264) was an encyclopedist. Bonaventura (1221-1274), The Seraphic Doctor, a Platonist rather than an Aristotelian in his philosophy, represented as did the Victorines of the preceding century the mystical tendency in thought and education. Albertus Magnus (1193-1280), called The Universal Doctor, was the first to reproduce the philosophy of Aristotle in systematic form and with constant reference to the Arabic commentaries that constituted so large a part of the new knowledge of the times. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), The Angelic Doctor, was the most influential of all. In his great work (pp. 298-9) he represents the culmination of scholasticism, and is its authoritative exponent both in that period and in subsequent times. Joannes Duns Scotus (c. 1271-1308), The Subtle Doctor, was famous as a founder of a school of theology rival to that of

Thomas; his work, however, was rather of a critical and nega tive than of a constructive character.

The long line of great Schoolmen was closed by William of Occam (1280-1347), The Invincible Doctor, who revived again the nominalist views. His work was rather an attack upon the entire realist system than a formulation of specific doctrines. In general Occam denied that theological doctrines could be demonstrated by reason, and held that they were wholly matters of faith. He held that particulars alone were real and that universals were mere conceptions of the mind. Thus he prepared the way for the careful, concrete study of the objects of nature and of the mind. On the other hand, some more questionable results of nominalism were also evidenced in Occam's view. In opposition to the realists, who posited that the ideas of right and wrong were eternal and unchangeable because copies of ideas of right and wrong in the Divine mind, he taught that right and wrong depended merely upon the arbitrary will of God, and that "moral evil was evil only because it was prohibited." He rejected the prevailing Aristotelian psychology, holding that the mind was a unity, and that the distinction between the faculties was only formal or logical. In many further details of his philosophy and psychology he foreshadowed the views of modern schools, especially those of Locke and the sensationalists, and is responsible for the oft-quoted and expressive summary of these views, "There is nothing in the understanding that was not previously in the senses." Politically and ecclesiastically Occam represented a similar protest against the dominance of the authority of the Church, consequently with him scholasticism entered its last phase, the period of decline. Whatever was vital to the spirit of progress now lived in nominalism only, and soon passed over into the new spirit of the fifteenthcentury Renaissance. The old scholasticism persisted (p. 405), but it no longer represented the progress of intellectual life and developing educational ideas and procedures