The State of Scholastic Philosophy in the 15th and 16th Centuries

Chapter V — Transition to Modern Philosophy

Article 1. The State of Scholastic Philosophy in the 15th and 16th Centuries

The study of the Greek and Latin classics was never utterly extinct among Christian peoples. Many of the Fathers of the Church, notably SS. Augustine and Jerome, and many ecclesiastical writers of the Middle Ages, praised the literary monuments of antiquity and imitated their polished style in their own writings. The esteem in which the pagan classics were held was increased in Italy and throughout Europe in the 14 century by the writings of Dante Alighieri, Francesco Pe-trarca, and Giovanni Boccaccio, the “Fathers of the Italian Language.”

Now the Christian writers of the later Middle Ages, especially in centuries following the 13, allowed themselves to grow careless in their expression and to profess a contempt for the niceties of Latin style. The new and popular flair for pagan elegance struck against this indifference on the part of Christian writers, and developed a priggishness which regarded as barbarous not only the style but much of the matter contained in contemporary Christian works.

Greek literature, imperfectly known in Europe before the 13 century, was made available throughout the West during the 14 and 15 centuries. Commerce with the Greeks, the attempts of ecclesiastical powers to unite the Eastern Schismatics with Rome, and, finally, the fall of Constantinople and the settling of fugitive Greeks in Western Europe, were the occasions that led to the intemperate zeal for Greek learning that characterized this time.

Had the return to ancient elegance been kept within due bounds, it would have been a very good thing for Christianity. The truths of Faith would have the more readily won the favor of learned men by being presented with grace and ornateness. But, sad to say, the new “culture” did harm to the Faith, and this for several reasons. First, not only the elegant manner, but also the inelegant and gross matter of pagan classics came to be admired by inferior and ill-disciplined minds— always the majority in any civilization. Again, the exile of the Popes to Avignon in the 14 century, and the schism which followed a little later, lessened respect for ecclesiastical authority and reverence for the teachings of the Church itself. Laxity of morals followed as a matter of course. Christians, lay and clerical, neglected the study of sacred science and became devoted admirers of antiquity and the works of men (Humanism).

With the cult of pagan classics came the revival of the standards of pagan art. The combined revival or rebirth of ancient art and letters came to be called the Renaissance. And when the movement had reached its height, there occurred the revolution of Protestantism in the 16 century. Thus in art, letters, and religion, the minds of multitudes were turned to doctrines and ideals far removed from the articles of Faith and from Scholastic Philosophy, which was contemptuously regarded as a mere instrument of that Faith. Thus was the way prepared for modern systems of philosophy, which began to appear in the 17 century.

For these reasons the Period discussed in the present Chapter is called the Period of Transition to Modern Philosophy.

The Chapter treats of the Philosophy of the Period of Transition in the following articles:

in the fifteenth and sixteenth Centuries

As the cult of classical antiquity increased, the prestige of Scholasticism declined. The adversaries of the great Philosophy of the Golden Age were numerous and violent in their attack; while discords among the Schoolmen rendered weak and futile their efforts at defence. Scotists and Thomists, Terminists and Realists, battled and wrangled, or entertained themselves with dialectic drivel, while the fortress of true Scholastic Philosophy was being laid in ruins. Aroused at last to their dire necessity, the Scholastics made some show of unified effort. Led by the Masters of the University of Paris, earnest philosophers inaugurated a movement for the restoration of pure Scholasticism. A royal decree was passed in France forbidding the teaching of Terminism (Nominalism), and prescribing that Aristotelean Philosophy be taught in the Schools. Among commentators on Aristotle approved in the decree were Thomas and Averroes (!), Scotus, Alexander of Hales, Giles of Rome, and Bonaventure. The Dominicans—who, indeed, had never abandoned Thomism—were a great power in the work of restoration. They applied themselves ardently to the study of the Angelic Doctor, and in the mid-15 century they installed his Summae as text-books in their Schools, displacing the long enduring Sentences of Peter the Lombard. One of the greatest Dominican Scholastics of this period was Thomas de Vio, called Cajetan (1469-1534), an Italian, who, with Sylvester of Ferrara (1474-1528), led the movement for the restoration of Scholasticism in Italy and Spain.

The movement for restoration bore fruit, but the force of anti-Scholasticism, aided by the Humanists and the heretics, could not be stayed. Besides, the Schoolmen were unable, on a sudden, to free their camp of all abuses; and the excessive love of dialetical subtlety, the contempt for new findings in experimental and historical sciences, the neglect of elegant letters, were things still to be corrected at the beginning of the 16 century. Hence the Scholastics had not only to revive the doctrines of the Golden Age; they had also to extend the principles of their philosophy in the interpretation of the steadily increasing data of sacred and profane learning and of the experimental sciences; and this work they neglected. Some Scholastics did, indeed, remain true to scientific ideals, trying with unflagging energy to keep abreast of the times. Chief of these was Francis de Vittoria, Italian Dominican (1480-1546), and he had numerous imitators among the Dominicans and in the newly established Society of Jesus. These men tried to teach Scholastic Philosophy in a manner suited to the times, and their efforts bore fruit throughout Europe, especially in Spain and Italy. Yet, in despite of all, the philosophy opposed to Revelation advanced in scope and influence day by day.

a) Thomism: The Thomists of the 15 century were mostly commentators trying to adapt philosophy to the needs of the hour, and, while they did some service for Scholasticism, they also wrought some harm, inasmuch as they confused the scope of philosophy and theology, and in varying degrees abandoned the form, the method, and the order of the Angelic Doctor.

The principal 15 century Thomists were:

i. Paul Socinas (died 1494);

ii. John a Lapide (died 1494);

iii. Dominic of Flanders (died 1500);

iv. Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1469-1534);

v. Francis de Sylvestris de Ferrara (1474-1528).

The Thomistic philosophers of the 16 century carried on, under the leadership of Francis de Vittoria, the work of reducing Thomism to its pure form. Chief of these philosophers were:

i. Dominicans:

Francis de Vittoria (1480-1546), who taught at Salamanca, where he began the great work and left it to his pupils (Salmanticenses) to carry on.

Dominic de Soto (1494-1560);

Melchior Canus (1509-1560);

Bartholomew of Medina (1527-1581);

Dominic Bannez (1528-1604);

John of St. Thomas (1589-1644).

ii. Jesuits:

Peter Fonseca (1528-1599);

Francis Toletus (1532-1596);

Gabriel Vasquez (1551-1604);

Louis Molina (1535-1600);

Francis Suarez (1548-1617) (cf. page 267.)

b) Terminism: Terminism waned rapidly after its condemnation by the King of France in 1474, but its influence extended into the 16 century and it bequeathed some doctrines to the anti-Scholastics of the age; these doctrines were, partially at least, transmitted to modern philosophy. Terminists of the 15 and 16 centuries within the camp of Scholasticism were:

i. Paulus Pergulensis (died 1451);

ii. Gabriel Biel (1425-1495), who was a teacher of Martin

Luther;

hi. John Major (1478-1540).

c) Scotism: The chief Scotists of the 15 and 16 centuries, all members of the Franciscan Order, were the following,

i. John Faber (end 15 century);

ii. Peter Tartaretus (end 15 century);

iii. Joannes Magistri (1432-1482);

iv. Antony Trombetta (died 1518).

d) Suarez. Of all the philosophers mentioned in the foregoing lists, perhaps the most notable, and certainly the most enduring in influence, was Francis Suarez, Jesuit (1548- 1617). Suarez denied the real distinction between essence and existence in creatures, admitting only a logical distinction with a foundation in fact (virtual distinction). He taught, in consequence, that matter and form in bodies have, neither of them, complete existence, but form a complete existence in their union. He regarded subsistence as a perfection superadded to an already existing nature. He rejected the Thomistic Principle of Individuation (quantified matter) and made this the entity of a thing considered absolutely. He taught that accidents of a body inhere in the Prime Matter and not in the composite (matter and form) body itself, making exception, however, of some accidents which are fitted to inhere in both matter and substantial form. He asserts that Prime Matter has entitative extension antecedent to its accident of quantity in bodies. He makes the direct and immediate object of intellect concrete and individual reality; teaching that the species abstracted by the agent intellect are entitatively immaterial, but representatively material and individual. From such singular or individual knowledge the intellect rises to universal concepts, or the formation of Species and Genera. In this last point Suarez is at one with Scotus. Suarez is remembered also for his doctrine on the knowledge of God, the so-called scientia media theory, which he adopted from Louis Molina, revising it, however, and expressing it in a manner not consonant with Molina. But this is rather a matter of speculative theology than of philosophy.