중세 스콜라주의 (Medieval Scholaticism)

[최영식]

중세 스콜라주의를 개관해 본 것임~

Medieval Scholasticism

CHOI, YOUNGSIK

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

 II. BASIC CONCEPT OF SCHOLASTICISM

 III. HISTORICAL FLOW OF SCHOLASTICISM

 IV. RESULTS OF SCHOLASTICISM

 V. CONCLUSION

    REFERENCES

 I. INTRODUCTION

             One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Christianity of Western Europe from 950 to 1350 was intense intellectual activity. Vital geographical spread of Christian faith, the rise of many forms of monasticism, the emergence of heretical movements, and rendering the faith dominant in all aspects of life gave rise to theological upheaval.[1] A lot of the intelligentsia directed their attention to the study of theology, “the queen of the science” at that time. The standard theological formation of the Roman Catholic Church today stands on Thomas Aquinas of the thirteen century, the greatest landmark in Scholasticism, but his position was the culmination of three centuries of discussion and debate. As orders such as Franciscan and Dominican began to reappear in the West after the centuries of invasions and cultural decay, many a brilliant monk applied his mind to the faith. They devoted themselves to the Scripture and to the scholars of the early Church with philosophical eyes trying to understand and explain their faith more deeply.

             Scholasticism is but another name for the medieval system of dogmatic. It was the product of zeal for the Catholic faith, combined with that species of mania for logical studies which seized upon the mind of Europe, and dominated her principal schools, in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries. Especially the thirteen century was for popes and schoolmen alike the golden age.[2] The scholastic doctors had a great ambition to formulate the doctrines of the Church, to arrange them into an elaborate system, to discuss and to defend them at every point. Their task was not to test the established faith, but rather to state it and to bring forward arguments in its behalf.

II. Basic Concept of Scholasticism

The origin of the word “scholastic”

             The word “scholastic” (scolastikoı) does not occur in classic Greek in the sense so familiar from its customary application to the philosophers of the Middle Age. It was not used in Aristotle’s time to signify a scholar, a student, or a schoolman. Rather it occurs four times in Aristotle always with the meaning of “idle” or “disengaged” –once in opposition to practical. It must be remembered that “school” had originally the same introduction, and that its Latin name was ludus, meaning “play.” Gradually “scholastic” came to mean “characteristic of the school,” particularly a school of rhetoric. In the fourth century it was used for “elegant,” “cultivated,” or “refined.” The predominant meaning, under the empire of Rome in the West, was a person accomplished in the studies of a school of rhetoric, whether as disciple, teacher, or graduate. As rhetorical pursuits declined and as other studies waned, while logic gradually acquired a notable predominance in the Church and in the ecclesiastical schools, as afterwards in the rising universities of Western Europe, scholasticism became identified with logic. [3]

Scholastic Method

Scholasticism is not a philosophy or theology in itself but a tool and method for learning which places emphasis on dialectical reasoning. The dialectical method involved three basic steps: the posing of a question (quaestio), followed by argument for and against answers proposed by earlier authorities (disputatio pro et contra) ending in a conclusion that is logically warranted (sententia)[4] The primary purpose of scholasticism is to find the answer to a question or to resolve a contradiction.

The scholastics would choose a book by a renowned author as a subject for study. By reading it thoroughly and critically the students learned to appreciate the theories of the author. Other document related to the book would be referenced such as Church councils, papal letters, and anything else written on the subject. The points of disagreement and contention between multiple sources would be written in individual sentences or fragment of text known as sententiae. Once the sources and sententiae had been laid out through a series of dialectics, the two sides of an argument would be made whole through philosophical analysis and logical analysis.[5]

Sources of Scholasticism

Among various sources, the chief feeders of Scholasticism were the writings of Augustine and Aristotle. The former furnished the matter, the dogmatic principles, the latter the form, the dialectic method.[6] We cay say that Augustine and Aristotle became the twin arbiters of medieval intellectualism, the former by his theology, the latter by his methodology, dialectics.

             Augustine who ruled the thought of the Middle Age was the churchly, sacramentarian, anti-Manichaean, and anti-Donatist theologian. It is quite strange that the same Augustine, a might intellect, who helped to raise the structure of Scholastic divinity, should have helped the Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin who appealed Augustine for their doctrines of sin and grace, in pulling it down and building another structure which is more Scriptural and better adapted to the practical needs of life.[7]

             Aristotle regarded as “the philosopher” with surpassing esteem by Medieval Schoolmen was consider as a forerunner of Christian truth, a John the Baptist in method and knowledge of natural things. The works of Aristotle on physics and metaphysics had been previously unknown in the Latin West until about 1200. They arrived primary through the Arab world, and with them commentaries were translated by Arabic Aristotelians, notably Averroes (d.1198). The arrival of this material stimulated interest in natural science in the West, and it also had a dramatic impact upon theology. For, Averroes had developed further the materialistic basis of Aristotle’s ideas. It was difficult to see how belief in the eternity of matter could be reconciled with the biblical view of creation. The conclusion of reason now seemed contrary to the teachings of faith, and some Christian Averroists adopted the conclusion that what was true in philosophy was not necessary true in theology.[8]

A discussion about the nature of universals

The development of Scholasticism was accompanied by a discussion about the nature of universals, that is, the existence of genera and species. Three main positions were take: (1) the extreme realists, following Platonic influence, asserted that universals exist apart from and antecedent to the individual objects, i.e., the genus “man” is anterior to and determinative of the individual man. (2) the moderate realists, under the guidance of Aristotle, taught that universals exist only in connection with individual objects, and (3) the nominlaist, holding that only individual things exist, maintained that universals exist are mere words or abstract names for the resemblances of individuals and have no existence other than in thought.

It used to be held that this quarrel between realism and nominalism dominated medieval thought and was virtually synonymous with Scholasticism.[9]Though two main schools of thought about the problem of universals were those of the realists and nominalists, there were numerous grades and shades of difference within each school.[10]  Each group tended to define its position more subtly. The realists held with Plato that universals were real: the nominalists held that universal idea were “mere names” and that only the individual was real. These two system of thought affected church dogma. For example, realists contended that individual was a copy of universal. Therefore, this position supported the church hierarchy of institution. That is why the papacy flourished when realism was at its height in the 13^th century. Another example is about the doctrine of Transubstantiation. For, the bread and wine are a copy of universal, and are a real existence, realists held that bread and wine became real Jesus flesh and blood. While nominalists denied the real existence of universal, and stressed on individual. So, they held the radical doctrine of supremacy of the General Council or the right of private judgment in logical defending. Three stages can be classed in the development of Scholasticism; first period presents the two schools of thought in active conflict, the second sees realism triumphant, and the third witnessed the victory of nominalism.

III. Historical Flow of Scholasticism

There are various views on the history of scholasticism. But most of views divide it into three periods with slight differences in years. David S. Schaff also categorized the history of scholasticism with belonging scholars into three groups: the rise of scholasticism, its full bloom, and its decline.[11] But I’d like to slightly change the terms as follows: (1)the rise of scholasticism, (2)the high tide of scholasticism, and (3)the decline of scholasticism. To the first period belong Anselm (d. 1109), Roscellinus (d. about 1125), Abelard (d. 1142), Bernard (d.1153), Hugo de St. Victor (d. 1161), Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173), and Gilbert of Poictiers (d. 1154). The chief names of the second period are Peter Lombard (d. 1160), Alexander of Hales (d. 1243), Albertus Magnus (d. 1280), Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Bonaventura (d. 1274), Roger Bacon (d. 1294), and Duns Scotus (d. 1308). To the period of decline belong Durandus (d. 1334), Bradwardine (d. 1349), and Ockam (d. 1367).[12] David Schaff put Duns Scotus in the period of high tide of scholasticism, but Willston Walker categorized him in the decline era. On this paper I consider Duns Scotus as a scholar belonging to the decline period.

             On this paper I just want to briefly take a look at chief figures of each stage: Anselm of Canterbury as the main scholar in Platonic realism, Thomas Aquinas as Aristotelian moderate realist, and William of Occam as a representative of nominalistic school.

A. The Rise of Scholasticism

Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033 or 1034 – 1109)

             Anselm won the veneration of his age both as scholar and saint. The happier part of his life was spent in the monastic community of Bec in Normandy, where as prior and then abbot. He exercised a gentle but effective sway over the minds and hearts of his monastic brethren. As the successor of Lanfranc on the archbishop of Canterbury, he had prolonged conflict with royal demands. In his thinking he was bold and subtle within the limits of the traditional level. On two subjects in particular- the proof of the Divine existence and the atonement- his speculations have had a marked influence.[13]

             Steeped in Augustine, Anselm did not slavishly reproduce the great master, but did his own thinking. He was a realist in philosophy and theology. Seeing no conflict between faith and reason, he took the familiar position of believing that he might understand and accepted through faith what was taught by the Church. But he held that the truth of what was received could be demonstrated by the processes of the intellect and could be supported by reason. Indeed, he maintained that the major tenets of Christianity such as belief in God, the nature of God, the Trinity, immortality, and the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, could be reached by reason and were the inescapable accompaniments of a rational view of the universe.[14]

             Anselm set forth what is often called the ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm held that God is that Being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist. This Being is obviously greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. God must exist in reality and not only in mans’ thought, for if he were merely a figment of the imagination, a Being which has actual being as well as being pictured in man’s mind could be conceived of as existing. To put it other words, reason demands the idea of a perfect Being, lacking nothing; the idea of a perfect Being is of necessity the idea of Being which has existence, for a Being which lacks existence would not be perfect. So God is not only that Being than which nothing greater can be conceived, bit is greater than can be conceived.[15]

Peter Abelard (1079-1142)

             Abelard reversed the Anselm’s motto in his statement, “I understand that I may believe.” He ran counter to many of the convictions of his age. His critical spirit and analytical mind seemed out of place in that time. Over against Anselm he sponsored the moral influence theory of the atonement. He upheld a doctrine of the Trinity that was virtually Sabellian and a critical view of tradition and the authorities of the past that was nothing less than heretical. The most notable contribution was his work, Yes and No, where he asserted he placed over against each other the contradictory passages of the ancient authorities. He asserted reason, not mere authority or tradition, should decide the truth of doctrine. The Middle Ages were not prepared to go the way of the historical approach for him.[16]

B. High Tide of Scholasticism

Thomas Aquinas (1224 or 1225-1274)

According to Thomas, the aim of all theological investigation is to give true knowledge of God and of humanity’s supernatural origin and destiny. Such knowledge partly comes by natural human reason which can apprehend the rational “preambles of faith”-namely the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God and the immortality of the soul. Natural reason knows nothing of those mysteries of faith such truths as the existence of God as a Holy Trinity, the incarnation of God the Son in Jesus Christ and the world’s redemption through him, the resurrection of the body and the Last Judgment, etc. Therefore, reason must be perfected by the divine revelation contained in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the only final authority of the church, though they are always to be understood in the light of the interpretations of the church fathers, the decrees of the church councils, and the papal definitions of the faith. In as short, the Scriptures are to be understood as comprehended by the reaching authority of the church. While these revealed truths lie beyond the capacity of reason, they are not opposed to reason. Reason illumined by faith ca show the inadequacy of objections to the revealed truths. Thomas was far from sharing Anselm’s conviction that all truths of Christianity are philosophically demonstrable. [17] But, he taught that since God is the origin of both nature and revelation, both reason and faith are from Him and cannot be in conflict with each other, nor can the knowledge reached through the reason contradict the truth which is given through revelation and apprehended through faith.[18]

Thomas, however, carefully distinguished between philosophy and the theology without separating them. They are two independent sciences. He argued two distinct modes of knowing which are harmonious in as much as the knowledge of God, natural theology, is common to both disciplines. Here is the famous Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason where reason, specifically Aristotelian philosophy, is granted its own integrity and authority. Yet Thomas held that natural reason must be completed by divine revelation in keeping with the fundamental Thomistic axiom that “grace does not destroy but perfects nature.”[19]

             Aquinas held that the existence of God can be demonstrated on the basis of the knowledge which we obtain through our senses and our reason. He rejected both the view that the existence of God is self-evident as Anselm had maintained, and that it cannot be proved but must be accepted on faith alone. He also taught that the attributes of God such as that He is one, good, and infinite, can be confidently affirmed partly through reason and partly through faith.[20]

             Thomas Aquinas was not an innovator in Christian doctrine. What he whished to do was to present the historic Christian faith as held by the Catholic Church. He lived in a day when Western Europe seemed to be in danger of departing from the Christian faith. In the University of Paris, the chief center for the study of Christian theology, Averroism with its contradiction of some of the central Christian convictions was gaining in popularity. The Averroists with Aristotelian fashion were a further threat. By employing Aristotle and by presenting that faith comprehensively and clearly more than any one else of the four centuries between 950 and 1350, Aquinas provided Christianity with a firm intellectual foundation. Moreover by his use of reason and in delimiting the boundaries between reason and faith, Aquinas gave to reason an honorable place in Christian thought.[21]

C. Decline of Scholasticism

John Duns Scotus

             Although Scotus was a realist in his philosophy, his emphasis on the individual and his severe critical attitude caused him to undermine that school of thought. His contention that the doctrines of the church could not be philosophically proved started the disintegrating process within Scholasticism. His contribution to the use of the inductive method classes him with the forerunner of modern science, Roger Bacon.[22] Aquinas held that God’s will acts in accordance with reason. In contrast, Duns Scotus viewed God as being completely free and not bound by reason. As he saw it, God is not under the necessity of conforming to reason. Therefore, his acts may even be contrary to reason by implication. Yet Duns Scotus did not think of god as whimsical or as making for chaos. But it was god’s will and not His reason or His mind brought the world into being.[23] The controversy between the Scotists, followers of Scotus, and the Thomists, adherents of Aquinas, lasted until the Reformation.

William of Occam

            A symbol and a decisive contributor to the decline of scholasticism was William of Occam. He held highly unconventional views of the structure and authority of the Church. In contrast with Duns Scotus who held to a modified form of realism, he was a nominalist and a vigorous critic of realism. He maintained that none of the Christian beliefs can be proved through reason by the logic employed by the school men. Even the existence of God cannot be demonstrated, and he found inconclusive all the arguments which Aquinas had quoted to support it. He declared that we must accept the beliefs of Christianity including such basic ones as the existence of God and the immortality of the soul; because the Church teaches them and because hey are contained in the Bible.[24] In a short, doctrines were to be accepted sorely on the authority of the church.[25] They cannot be proved but are to be accepted only on faith. Here the term “faith” stands on the church’s authoritative interpretation of the Bible. Here was the complete divorce between reason and faith.

IV. Results of Scholasticism

             Scholasticism was not a much fuss about nothing. It developed an intellectual sharpness, an emphasis on systematic statement, and a desire for harmony and synthesis. The new intellectual interests made it practical for the Church to organize, systematize, and restate the religious beliefs and to bring reason to the support of faith. This new type of intellectual activity did not produce new doctrines but rather concerned itself with the systematization and organization of the faith and doctrine of the church.[26] They were of immeasurable value to the future. The Middle Ages magnified reason. When Scholasticism reigned highest we find little evidence of a piety issuing from intelligence. But the leaders in the movement sought to make piety admirable to the highest reason.

However fatal defects were embedded in the system. It was held within the meshes of theory. It was limited and determined by authority with little consideration for facts. Its field of study was narrow. It was circumscribed by its excessive worship of theology and its rigid separation of the natural and the supernatural. Its Scriptural interpretation was literalistic and of the proof-text variety. And finally, in its later stages, much energy was wasted in prolonged serious debate about trivial matters[27] such as the question as to the number of angels that could dance on the point of a needle. It was no wonder that the increasing numbers turned away from arid intellectualism to mysticism in order to find consolation for the soul.[28]

V. Conclusion

             The problem of school men was not new. From their very early days Christians had been struggling with the relation between philosophy, the search of man for truth by his rational process on the one hand, and the Gospel on the other. Could the affirmations of the Christian faith be supported by reason? Might they be reached concurrently but independently of revelation? In seeking the answer, the school men took advantage of the tools provided them by the pre-Christian Greek philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle. The answers where they arrived were varied. It is significant and sobering that the longer the scholastic method was employed the greater was the tendency to conclude that the truth of the basic Christian convictions could not be proved by the dialectical apparatus. [29]

Anselm had preceded on the confident conviction that through reason implemented by logic man could demonstrate at least some and perhaps all of the major tenets of Christianity. Aquinas held that some of the truths affirmed by Christianity could be supported by reason and that while others could be arrived at only by the path of faith, none was inconsistent with reason. William of Ockham taught that none of the essential features of Christian belief could be proved to the satisfaction of mans reason but that they must be accepted on the authority of the Church and of the Scriptures. To be sure, not all Catholic scholars agreed with him. Many held to those who taught the contrary, especially to Anselm and Aquinas. As the centuries passed, Aquinas was more and more honored. Yet in 1350, the trend was away from him. Here was poor preparation for meeting the intellectual challenges which the age into which Western Europe was moving posed to Christianity.[30]

As we saw, medieval scholasticism tried to explain and defend Christian doctrines by human reason. Though scholastic scholars did this job with pure heart, their use of Greek philosophical methodology had innate flaws. For, later time, scholasticism was involved so much energy on insignificant matters, it became no help for the faith of believers. Human philosophy can not match with divine revelation. So, as Reformers say, “sola Scriptura” must be also our motto in interpreting God’s will and the principle in founding our faith.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Deanesly, Margaret.  A History of the Medieval church 590-1500. London: Routledge, 1989.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott.  A History of Christianity Vol. I. New York: Harper Collins, 1975.

McManiners, John Ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Nagler, Arthur Wilford. The Church in History . New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1920.

Qualben, Lars P. A History of the Christian Church. New York: Thomas Nelson Rsons, 1936.

Schaff, David S. History of the Christian Church Vol. V. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1907.

Sheldon, Henry C.  History of Christian Church Vol. II.  New York: Hendrickson, 1985.

Strong, McClintock & James. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Eccelesisstical literature Vol IX.  Grand Rapids, IL: Baker, 1981.

Walker, Williston & Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz Robert T. Handy. A History of the Christian Church Fourth edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.orf/wiki/Scholasticism

---

[1] Kenneth Scott Latourette,  A History of Christianity Vol. I  (New York: Harper Collins, 1975), 495.

[2] Henry C. Sheldon, History of Christian Church Vol. II (New York: Hendrickson, 1985), 302-303.

[3] McClintock & James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Eccelesisstical literature Vol IX (Grand Rapids, IL: Baker, 1981), 423.

[4] Williston Walker & Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church Fourth edition (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985), 324.

[5] http://en.wikipedia.orf/wiki/Scholasticism

[6] David S. Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. V (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1907), 591.

[7] Ibid.

[8] John McManiners Ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 215-216.

[9] Williston Walker & Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church Fourth edition, 325.

[10] Margaret Deanesly, A History of the Medieval church 590-1500 (London: Routledge, 1989), 163.

[11] David S. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 592.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Henry C. Sheldon, History of Christian Church Vol. II, 304.

[14] Kenneth Scott Latourette,  A History of Christianity Vol. I, 499-500.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Arthur Wilford Nagler, The Church in History (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1920), 103.

[17] Williston Walker & Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church Fourth edition, 341.

[18] Kenneth Scott Latourette,  A History of Christianity Vol. I, 511.

[19] Williston Walker & Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church Fourth edition, 341-342.

[20] Kenneth Scott Latourette,  A History of Christianity Vol. I, 511

[21] Ibid., 513.

[22] Arthur Wilford Nagler, The Church in History (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1920), 106.

[23] Kenneth Scott Latourette,  A History of Christianity Vol. I, 516.

[24] Ibid., 517.

[25] Arthur Wilford Nagler, The Church in History , 106.

[26] Lars P. Qualben, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Thomas Nelson Rsons, 1936), 176.

[27] The sophistical speculations were mostly concerned with the angels, the Virgin Mary, the devil, the creation, and the body of the resurrection. Albertus Magnus asked whether it was harder for God to create the universe than to create man and whether the understandings of angels are brighter in the morning or in the evening. Anselm asked, “Who sinned most, Adam or Eve?” Alexander of Hales attempted to settle the hour of the day at which Adam sinned and after a long discussion concluded it was at the ninth hour, the hour at which Christ crucified. Bonavetura debated whether several angels can be in one place at the same time, whether one angel can be in several places at the same time, and whether God loved the human race more than He loved Christ.

[28] Arthur Wilford Nagler, The Church in History , 107.

[29] Kenneth Scott Latourette,  A History of Christianity Vol. I, 518-519.

[30] Ibid.