Eclecticism, Mysticism, Pantheism; The Summarists

Article 2. Eclecticism, Mysticism, Pantheism; The Summarists

a) Ecl ect icism. The controversy on Universals waged during the n and 12 centuries involved many philosophical problems more or less directly connected with the matter controverted. Philosophers began to give attention to these questions, and the scope of Medieval Philosophy widened in consequence. Still, no 12 century philosopher set out an orderly and systematic treatise on the whole of philosophy. Some developed eclectic systems, i. e., loosely constructed philosophies pieced out with bits of Greek philosophy, Patristic doctrines, and teachings of preceding Scholastics. Some of the Eclectics wrote Books of Sentences or summaries of doctrine, mainly theological. Of these we shall speak in a special paragraph as Summarists. Here we deal with the Eclectics who did not write such summaries, and whose doctrine is an agglomeration of elements borrowed from different sources plus some reasonings of their own. The chief Eclectics of this period were: i. John of Salisbury (about 1115-1180), who studied under Abelard in Paris. He became Bishop of Chartres in 1176. Of his writings we mention Polycraticns and Metalogicus, works which show, respectively, the value of Christian culture and the usefulness of Logic. ii. Isaac de Stella (died 1169), an Englishman, and a monk of Clairvaux. He became Abbot of the monastery of Stella. He wrote a treatise on the soul. iii. Alcherus, a monk of Clairvaux in the mid-12 century. He wrote on psychological questions. iv. Alan of Lille (Alanus ab Insulis) (about 1128-1202), was a teacher in the Schools at Paris in the mid-12 century. He was known as “The Universal Doctor.” He wrote several theological and philosophical treatises. The Eclectics, especially John of Salisbury and Alan of Lille, investigated the nature and functions of dialectic. Dialectic was used (and abused) in the war over Universals which waxed more bitter after Abelard than it had been before. Excessive importance was attached to dialectic, and many philosophers wasted time and energy in discussing logical rules in every aspect, working out the exact sense of unimportant terms, making fine and useless distinctions and subdistinctions, and in other minor bickerings, instead of getting at matters of importance. Not a few, wearied of the dialectic skirmishing, declared Logic valueless for scientific investigation. Against these John of Salisbury directed a somewhat vehement attack in the prologue of his Metalogicus, and in the body of the same work he vindicated the usefulness of Logic or Dialectic, borrowing mostly from Aristotle and Porphyry in developing his argument. Alan of Lille exemplified the proper use of syllogistic reasoning in his writings, thus giving practical proof of the usefulness of dialectic. In Metaphysics, John of Salisbury discusses the question of Universals and declares that Universals have universality in the mind, although nature is singular in the world of extramental reality. This is Moderate Realism. Yet John does not recommend this doctrine as the truer theory, but as the more convenient, because it squares better with the requirements of philosophical study. Alan of Lille treats, in his Metaphysics, of the Essence and Existence of God, and of the creation of the universe out of nothing, drawing largely from Aristotle in framing his principles. In Psychology the Eclectics made more headway than other philosophers of the 12 century. They use apt and conclusive arguments for the spirituality and immortality of the soul. They show that the soul has a knowing faculty (intellect) which apprehends spiritual things and knows material things in an immaterial manner; and they argue that such a faculty can belong only to a spiritual substance. From the spirituality of the soul they deduce its immortality. In dealing with the nature of human knowledge, they distinguish sense-knowledge (sensation) and intellectual knowledge and declare that the elements of intellectual knowledge (ideas) are formed by the intellect by abstraction from sense experiences or findings. They are, therefore, Moderate Realists, yet fail to share this character perfectly because they do not explain the manner in which intellectual abstraction takes place. They assert that the union of soul and body is natural in man, and is ordained for the good of the soul; yet they are not entirely free from Platonic dualism (i. e., the belief that the union of soul and body is accidental and not substantial). They rightly teach, however, that the soul does not exist before the body, but is created at the moment it is infused.

b) Myst icism. Mysticism trains the soul to seek and achieve union with God. Heterodox Mysticism asserts the possibility of being united with God, or assimilated unto God, by the power of intellect and will. Orthodox Mysticism admits that the perfect union with God is attained only in Heaven, where the Beatific Vision is eternally contemplated and possessed by the soul’s faculties fortified by the gift called the Light of Glory; but it seeks to cultivate the greater knowledge and love of God on the part of men on earth; it seeks to make men realize God’s presence everywhere, and to have men make their wills one with the will of God in all things. Thus Orthodox Mysticism amounts merely to true Christian culture of soul. But the Mystic, being a fallible man, is very apt to regard as useless—or even to condemn as a sinful distraction—any attention to secular studies or the development of rational science. Philosophy suffered something from such extravagances of Mystics in the 12 century. On the other hand, philosophy profited by the mysticism of the period; for the mystical movement served to check the wild cultivation of dialectic which was spoiling the proper development of true speculation. Some of the Mystics, notably St. Bernard, made invaluable contributions to theological literature. The following Mystics were the most important of their School in the 12 century. It is to be noted that they admitted the use of philosophy in so far as it can be made the preamble of the mystical life. Most of them even acknowledge that dialectic has its proper, if minor, uses. Walter of St. Victor, however, regards dialectic as the devil’s own art. i. St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) was a monk of the Cistercian Order. He was made Abbot of the Monastery of his community at Clairvaux. He strenuously opposed heretical doctrines, and stood firmly against the abuse of dialectic which was a characteristic of the philosophy of his time. He is known in History as Doctor Mellifluus,— Doctor of Sweetness. ii. Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141) was born in Saxony. He entered Religion at the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris, and taught there for the last sixteen years of his life. It will be remembered that it was in this Benedictine Monastery that William of Champeaux founded his School after his defeat at the hands of his fiery pupil, Abelard. The School became very famous under Hugh. He wrote many works of mystical theology. iii. Richard of St. Victor (died 1175) was a monk of the Abbey of St. Victor, and a pupil of Hugh. Like his master he composed many mystical writings. iv. Walter of St. Victor, pupil of Richard, wrote a denunciation of Abelard, Peter Lombard, Peter of Poitiers, and Gilbert de la Porree, calling them heretics, accusing them of treating with levity and with labyrinthine subtlety the sacred Mysteries of Faith. He calls these four men “The Four Labyrinths of France.” Dialectic he denounces as the devil’s art.

c) Pant heism.—Pantheism is that doctrine which identifies God with the world. Its chief forms are : ( i ) Emanation-ism, which teaches that all things come from God as the rays come from a candle-light, or the stream from its source; (2) Phenomenalism makes God reside in the universe as a kind of world-soul, and accounts for all individual things and happenings as the manifestations or phenomena of God, just as a wave is a manifestation of water, or wind a manifestation of air, or a smile a phenomenon and manifestation upon the face of a man; (3) Idealistic pantheism, which makes God an abstract, indefinite, and unconscious Being, slowly defining Himself and reaching concreteness by becoming aware of Himself in individual things. Pantheism, in so far as it makes all things one, may be called monism. The Pantheism of the 12 century is traced to several concurring causes or reasons : blundering and excessive Mysticism which seeks literal union of the self with God, thus identifying man and God; a revival of the doctrine of Erigena on the “Four Natures,” which is itself mystical pantheism; logical development of the theory of Ultra-Realism into its proper consequences and sequelae. The three notable 12 century Pantheists mentioned here were all trained in the ultra-realistic School of Chartres : i. Bernard of Tours (mid-12 century) wrote a treatise on the totality of the world {De Universitate Mundi) in which he professes pantheistic monism borrowed and adapted from Erigena. ii. Amalric of Chartres, also called Amaury of Bène, (second half of 12 century) was a teacher of theology in Paris, where he was condemned for teaching heresy. He identifies Creator and creature. iii. David of Dinant (later 12 century) taught that all things are substantially one. In particular he identifies God and Prime Matter. Then he makes three classifications of being : eternal substances, souls, bodies : but he says that these are essentially one. David was a student of Erigena’s doctrine, and of the contemporary Arabian philosophy of which we have yet to speak. David wrote a work, De Tomis, which was condemned in a council held at Paris in 1210.

d) The Summar ist s.—In the 12 century, Books of Sentences or summaries of theology (and, incidentally, of philosophy) began to appear. For nearly four centuries the Revival of Learning had gone on, and the need was felt of reducing to order and synthesis the fruits of its effort. Besides, there was need of a text for students of theology, and even philosophy—these sciences not being divided by a clear line of distinction. These two reasons account for the writing of the Books of Sentences (Libri Sententiarum). The method used in the Books of Sentences was that employed by Abelard in his Sic et Non, or Pros and Cons of various questions. A determinate thesis was set, and arguments for and against it were proposed. Such arguments were drawn both from reason and from authority. Sometimes, but not always, a conclusion was reached and a solution set out after the weighing of arguments pro and con. Christian theology as a science is found, in general outline, in these summaries. Philosophy has a part in them in so far as it helps to explain matters of Faith by determining the laws of valid reasoning, indicating methods of research, etc.

The chief summarists were : i. Peter the Lombard (died 1x64), a native of Lombardy, who studied in France. He was ordained priest and afterwards taught theology at Paris. About 1159 he was made Bishop of Paris. He wrote four Books of Sentences. In the first he treats of God, His Unity and Trinity; in the second book he treats of creation, of angels, of man, of original sin; in the third book he treats of the virtues, and in the fourth of the Sacraments. Peter was the most notable of the Summarists, and is known as “The Master of Sentences.” As a philosopher he is an Eclectic, and when he requires philosophical argument he takes it where he finds it with charming indifference as to the source ; nor does he concern himself with the task of harmonizing the contradictory philosophical doctrines that are found scattered through his works. But as a theologian, Peter Lombard was the first of his time ; his was an enduring fame ; and almost innumerable commentaries were written in subsequent years on his Books of Sentences. Peter deserved his fame, for he was the first to compose a systematic and approximately complete treatise on theological questions. ii. Peter of Poitiers (died 1205), master of theology at Paris, who wrote five Books of Sentences in imitation of Peter Lombard. iii. Gandulph of Bologna (mid-12 century), who wrote a Book of Sentences in which he summarized the four books of Peter Lombard.

Remarks: A positive service was rendered to philosophy by the Eclectics, who came close to Moderate Realism and advanced in psychological study. Such service was also given by the Summarists, inasmuch as they gave to their age a practical exemplification of the value of system, order, and synthesis— matters required by the philosopher above all others. The Pantheists and Mystics, especially the extravagant and partially heterodox Mystics, rendered philosophy a negative service by the fact that they aroused a healthy opposition to their doctrines which carried forward the efforts and achievements of saner philosophers.