SAADIAH GAON (882–942). Appointed as head (gaon) of the Talmudic academies at Babylon in 928, Saadiah ben Joseph, generally considered the father of medieval Jewish philosophy, received his early education in Egypt, where he was born, and then in Palestine. In 930, when he disagreed with a decision of the court of the head of Babylonian Jewry (the Exilarch), Saadiah had to abandon his office as gaon, which he only regained after seven years of exile in Baghdad. He contributed to practically all fields of Jewish learning, such as exegesis, law, poetry, grammar, lexicography, philosophy, theology, chronology, biblical translation (into Arabic), and commentary. He is famous for his successful role in a dispute (started in 921) concerning the Jewish calendar, when the opinion of Babylonian authorities (and Saadiah’s) prevailed over that of Palestinian authorities. As a polemicist, he devoted much energy to the defense of traditional Judaism against the Karaites (Jews accepting only the Bible as authority, not rabbinic tradition) and other religions.
Aside from Greek philosophy (including Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, and Neoplatonic ideas), Saadiah’s approach was most indebted to Muslim kalam or dialectical theology (which already used Greek ideas), specifically the Mu’tazilite school, an approach he appropriated in creating the first version of Jewish kalam. Occupied primarily with the reconciliation of reason and revelation (the characteristically medieval intellectual tension) and not with the erection of a philosophic system, Saadiah engaged in dialectical theology, using philosophical ideas to clarify revelation. It is in this sense that he is the first medieval thinker to create a Jewish philosophy, a philosophy guided by Scripture. Saadiah, like Philo of Alexandria (30 B.C.E.–40 C.E.) before him, adhered to the principle of the unity of truth, a basic principle of later medieval Jewish philosophers: disagreements between reason and revelation (and among passages of revelation), the human and divine sources of truth, are only apparent, not real. Thus, the proper approach is to interpret revelation in terms of what is most evidently true according to reason; and reason itself must likewise be guided in terms of what are most evidently the true teachings of Scripture. For example, biblical passages saying that God is eternal, all-powerful, and unlike anything of this world (which may be clarified with proper philosophical explanation) seem in contradiction with passages describing God in corporeal terms. Since divine eternity, omnipotence, and transcendence are basic principles to all revelation (and compatible with reason), passages describing God in corporeal terms must not be taken literally.
Saadiah’s central ideas can be found in his Book of Doctrines and Beliefs, reputedly the first major medieval work in Jewish philosophy and theology, as well as in his Commentary on the Book of Creation, both of which were written in Arabic and translated into Hebrew. The former (which is still a standard in Jewish thought), follows a Mu’tazilite structure. Divided into two major sections, the first on divine unity and the second on divine justice, the two central kalamic topics, it begins with a characteristically kalamic goal: proving the creation of the world. To Saadiah, proving the creation of the world (in time and ex nihilo) is proving the existence of the Creator or God, as well as some of his essential attributes (such as unity and simplicity), the topic to which he next turns. Finally, in the section on divine unity, Saadiah discusses prophecy (God’s communication with human beings) and law, dividing the commandments of the Torah into rational and traditional, the former discoverable through reason and the latter as solely dependent upon God’s will—an influential distinction subsequent thinkers either followed (e.g., Gersonides) or rejected (e.g., Moses Maimonides). Reason’s capacity to prove creation was a source of debate among medieval thinkers. Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas, for example, argued that reason could not prove creation, while others like Gersonides considered it demonstrable. The portion on divine justice deals with human action, freedom, and nature and their compatibility with divine omniscience and omnipotence, as well as with Jewish eschatology. To Saadiah, God willed human beings to have free will and his all-encompassing foreknowledge is not the trigger of human action.
The intent of the prologue to the whole work reflects the intellectual context of the author: At a time when the divergent opinions among various religious and philosophic sects resulted in confusion and even skepticism among Jews, it became necessary to strengthen Jewish belief with reason. Thus in the prologue, Saadiah argues, against skeptics, for the sources of certain truth: sense perception, self-evident first principles, inferential knowledge, and tradition based on historical evidence. Saadiah’s fundamental project, the explication and defense of traditional Judaism (demanding a synthesis of reason and revelation) is seminal for later philosophical accounts of Jewish beliefs, such as human freedom, creation, God’s existence, unity, and justice.
SACRAMENTS. The Latin word “sacramentum” was a term used to signify the oath taken by soldiers binding themselves to service for their country, and it became a fit analogy to speak of the sacrament of Baptism, since the baptized become soldiers of Christ and the Church. However, the Latin term had the broader and more fundamental meaning of “consecrated” or “dedicated,” and in this way whatever is consecrated or dedicated to God could be called a sacrament. If we study the original languages further, we would discover that “sacramentum” was also a translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning “mystery.” Sacrament, when linked to mystery, focuses on God’s revelation through word and deed of his presence to his chosen people and the ritual remembrance of these divine words and actions. A sacrament in its more fundamental sense, then, is not limited to the seven sacraments of baptism, confirmation, penance, Eucharist, matrimony, holy orders, and extreme unction, named by Peter Lombard in his Sentences. Before the 12th century, and even down to today, sacrament had and has a broader meaning: any sign revealing the presence of God. In this broad sense, Christ as the supreme divine revelation is the primary sacrament. The Church, as the mystical body of Christ, is also a fundamental sacrament.
One can sense this broader meaning of the term “sacrament” also in the medieval period. Hugh of Saint-Victor’s Sacraments of the Christian Faith deals with the whole mystery of God’s relationship with the world in its creation, in its fall, and in its redemption. Yet, sacrament did take on with Hugh’s contemporary, Peter Lombard, its special meaning related to the rituals that caused God’s grace to come into man’s soul. Although the reality of baptism and Eucharist and the other five sacraments was a causal reality, Lombard was the first to use the term “cause” in his treatises describing the effects of these sacraments. The seven sacraments are unique among all the signs of God’s presence, because they cause grace in accord with their nature as signs. Baptism is a washing, and it is not only a symbol of spiritual cleansing; it actually as a grace or a gift of God cleanses the soul.
In medieval treatises on the seven sacraments what was implicitly said of these sacraments by the Scriptures and Fathers of the Church is brought out in detail and explained at greater length. Under the influence of Aristotelian models, such as the hylomorphic composition of material things, the earlier patristic language of “element” and “word” was replaced by speaking of the “matter” and “form” of each sacrament. Greater precision regarding the seven sacraments arose during the medieval period, and this improvement is quite evident in the Summa theologiae of Thomas Aquinas, when he explains the ways in which the sacraments are both signs and causes, and causes in the way they are signs.
SALERNO. See MEDICINE.
SCHOLASTICISM. This is the style of thought, principally in medieval universities, that had schoolroom qualities about it. Scholasticism comes from the word schola which means school. In a very basic sense, the method of study in the schools, even those that existed before the universities, or in the case of the Islamic and Jewish worlds, those that existed outside the university context, had set procedures. Usually, one began with the study of texts, so lectio or reading was the first step in learning. Along with the reading was an explanation every time there seemed to be a need for one, for example, when dealing with a technical term or the mention of a person in the text who might not be familiar to the student. The next step was to attempt to dig a little deeper than the surface, so quaestiones or questions were asked and they were the kinds of questions that aimed at getting more than just information. They were questions that attempted to push the student to a deeper understanding. The next or third step was to look into different understandings of the original text and see how disputes among well-informed people might take place. Seeing the disagreements pushed students to dig even deeper in an effort to find a more fundamental understanding (see INTRODUCTION, METHODS OF STUDY).
These general study procedures are well illustrated in any question of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. He asks a question and gives responses that answer “yes” and “no.” This maneuver makes one see that there is a problem or conflict. The teachers and students have to try to resolve the difficulty. Aquinas, in his works, gives the answer to the question and also provides reasons or grounds for choosing the answer he does. He then tells why the arguments favoring the opposite answer are not strong enough to convince him to hold the opposite position. He thus has an answer to the question and the arguments to back it up.
Scholasticism in a more technical sense not only is the method followed in the medieval schools and universities, but it also signifies a certain content. In general, the content has its origin in the Bible and in a philosophical text. The answer the Scholastic gives will in some way be a synthesis of what the Bible says and what the philosophers say. The most influential philosopher that Scholastics use to help answer the questions is often Aristotle, and his commentators, especially Avicenna and Averroes. One of Plato’s followers, however, might also be the philosopher of choice. A Scholastic might prefer Proclus, Plotinus, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, or another Neoplatonic author as his guide. Scholasticism, then, offers a content that will be biblical and also Aristotelian and/or Neoplatonic. The philosophy, whether from the Aristotelian or Neoplatonic traditions, is generally subordinated to the Bible. Scholasticism, then, is the method and the philosophy and theology of the universities, or the schools within or outside the university, that function in these ways.
SCHOOLS. After the death of the schools of antiquity in the sixth century, medieval Western schools began with Charlemagne’s effort (expressed in documents such as his Admonitio generalis or General Admonition of 789) to prepare clerics and monks for the study of Scripture and for correct liturgical practices. At some of the Carolingian ecclesiastical centers, however, there was already some tradition of studies. Prior to Charlemagne’s reform, a chief center for formal learning was the palace school. Many received their early education at the different courts, and Charlemagne’s court was the best known. The leading figure in Charlemagne’s effort to disseminate instruction, starting a growing educational tradition leading to the universities of the 13th century, was an English scholar of his palace school, Alcuin (735–804), who, together with students such as Rhabanus Maurus (776–856), compiled earlier sources for the teaching of the liberal arts. Schools, particularly of grammar, were established at different ecclesiastical centers.
This marks the beginning of the growth of palace, monastic, and cathedral schools. Originally each stressed a distinct function. Palace schools focused on training people for the diverse roles necessary for the efficient functioning of the kingdom; monastic schools centered on training for religious life and on the knowledge required for contemplation; and cathedral schools trained the various people necessary for the many functions that were under Church jurisdiction. The monastic school, a broad term designating the cultivation of learning by monks, was also the setting of what is called today monastic theology. By the 10th century monastic and cathedral schools cultivated not only grammar but the whole trivium including rhetoric and logic, and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). In the 11th and 12th centuries, monastic schools began to decline while cathedral schools flourished and benefited from the reception of previously unavailable works of classical learning. Some of the cathedral schools, notably the one at Paris, developed into universities with faculties of arts, medicine, and theology. The cathedral school at Chartres was also a leading intellectual center. Beginning with its first known master, Fulbert (ca. 970–1028), it is associated with important philosophers and theologians, such as Bernard of Chartres, William of Conches, Thierry of Chartres, and Gilbert of Poitiers.
In the 9th century, Muslim colleges originated in the everyday mosques called masjid, as opposed to the Great or Friday mosques (al-masjid al-jami). Their focus was on the Islamic disciplines (as opposed to “foreign” Greco-Roman learning), namely the Koran, law, and Arabic language and literature. In the 10th century, lodging complexes for students, usually close to the masjid, emerged. The madrasa, which flourished in the 11th century, represents the final stage of the Muslim college, combining housing and learning. Other places of Islamic learning also existed, such as study circles associated with the great mosques and with monasteries.
In Jewish communities, the school was imbedded in tradition, since according to Judaism fathers have the duty to educate their children in the Torah. Thus, various private and community-sponsored institutions of learning existed. Two predominant models of Jewish education were the Ashkenazic and the Sephardic approaches. As is to be expected, these models, though different, shared a great deal since they were both grounded in Jewish tradition. Their differences depended, in part, upon the differences between the two main cultural worlds wherein medieval Jews lived, namely Christian Europe and Islam (particularly in Spain). The Ashkenazic model was generally dominant in England and in northern Europe, as well as in various countries of eastern Europe. The Sephardic model was generally dominant in Islamic lands (and in Italy in the late Middle Ages). In addition to their different emphases concerning traditional Jewish subjects (Bible, Talmud, Hebrew grammar, etc.), the Sephardic model was distinct in its inclusion of the scientific and philosophical works of non-Jews. See also ARTS FACULTY; EXEGESIS; KARAITES; UNIVERSITIES.
SCIENCE. In the Middle Ages, the Latin term scientia (scire: to know) and its Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew counterparts had diverse connotations. Generally, it meant all learning through reason. In philosophical discussions, scientia or science had a more restricted meaning largely dependent on Aristotle (in, e.g., Nicomachean Ethics VI, 3; Posterior Analytics I, 2), referring to a distinct type of knowledge. For Aristotle, science (episteme) is demonstrative knowledge. This is necessary knowledge through causes or, in terms of logic (dialectics), a conclusion proceeding from necessary premises through valid reasoning. This Aristotelian conception of science presupposes a twofold dimension—a formal and an objective one. In the former, the term “science” emphasizes an operation and method of the mind. As such it pertains to logic, and medieval thinkers of the three religions appropriated and developed this dimension of science to the extent that they used Aristotelian logic. In the latter dimension, the term “science” emphasizes what is known, and medieval thinkers of the three religions appropriated and developed this Aristotelian dimension of science to the extent that they used Aristotelian philosophy, applying scientific methodology to different subjects (or sciences), such as ethics, politics, physics, the heavens, the soul, and so on.
Accordingly, the transmission of Aristotle’s works (and their commentaries) through translations was instrumental in the development of medieval science. Aristotle’s writings became especially significant (and at points controversial) in the application of methodologies to the study of Scripture and in discussions concerning the scientific status of theology. Moreover, the Aristotelian conception was adapted and developed in various ways within theologies also influenced by the Platonic tradition. Although practically all medieval thinkers adopted Aristotelian logic as a neutral tool for scientific investigation, and to this extent agreed in regard to this formal aspect of science, they differed in regard to the more properly philosophical issues of science. Depending on their philosophical and theological orientations, medieval thinkers differed in their accounts of the extent and nature of knowledge and what is knowable. See also FALSAFAH; LIBERAL ARTS; MEDICINE; OPTICS.
SCOTISM. Scotism is the intellectual movement that in varying degrees has continued, especially in the Franciscan Order, since the time of John Duns Scotus himself. This movement assimilated, developed, and defended the principal philosophical and theological positions of Scotus, especially defending his theory of the univocity of the concept of being, haecceitas (thisness) as the principle of individuation, the formal distinction between the soul and its faculties, the supremacy of God’s freedom and love, God’s love as the primary motive for the Incarnation, and the meritorious character of man’s morally good acts due to God’s acceptance of them as meritorious. Among the chief early Scotists are William of Alnwick, Antonius Andreas, Anfredus Gonteri, John of Bassolis, Landulf of Caracciola, Francis of Marchia, and Francis of Meyronnes. Scotistic resurgences occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries, culminating in the publication of Duns Scotus’s Opera omnia, which contained commentaries by Hugh Caughwell (d. 1626), Maurice O’Fihely, John Ponce (d. 1670), and Luke Wadding (d. 1657), and more recently in the 20th-century effort, begun by the Franciscan Order, to produce a critical edition of the theological and philosophical works of the Subtle Doctor.
SEMI-PELAGIANISM. See PELAGIANISM.
SENTENCES (SENTENTIAE). See COMMENTARY ON THE SENTENCES; MAGISTER; PETER LOMBARD (ca. 1095–1160).
SIGER OF BRABANT (ca. 1240–ca. 1284). The most prominent among the Latin proponents of Averroism (some were called “secular,” “heterodox,” “radical,” or “integral” Aristotelians), Siger became a master in 1266 in the Parisian Arts Faculty, where most Latin Averroists taught and studied. Their decision to pursue philosophy for its own sake turned the Arts Faculty, once a preparatory faculty for the higher studies of theology, medicine, or law, into an Aristotelian philosophy faculty. This basic attitude to seek a life and wisdom significantly independent of revelation, aside from their conclusions, made them the source of controversies. Siger’s chief goal was philosophic truth, which to him existed primarily in the genuine teachings of Aristotle and his Commentator Averroes. In regard to central issues such as the temporal creation of the world, the distinction between essence and existence, and the nature of the intellect, Siger generally followed Averroes against Avicenna (the other chief interpreter of Aristotle received by 13th-century Latin thinkers). Unlike theologians like Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, who interpreted Aristotle in light of Christian faith, Siger and other Averroists like Boethius of Dacia were pure philosophers who became convinced of the rational necessity of certain philosophical conclusions that conflicted with tenets of Christianity. This did not mean that they necessarily saw these Christian tenets as false, but rather that for them in some cases faith and reason may appear to contradict each other and that it is not always possible to resolve the conflict. Thus, the so-called theory of double truth became a feature often associated with Latin Averroism. Interestingly, for Averroes himself, reason and Muslim faith always agree.
For Siger, philosophy necessarily leads to conclusions such as the world is eternal and the intellect is unique to mankind. Since the philosopher can approach the world only as already in existence and the question of becoming only in terms of something coming to be from something, reason affirms the eternity of the world and rejects creation out of nothing. Drawing from Proclus and Averroes, Siger notes that God may be understood as Creator since as first cause he is the ultimate cause of the production of things. However, the Christian notion of creation (i.e., creation out of nothing and in time), is contradictory to philosophy, and may be affirmed only as a miracle on the basis of faith. Siger’s teaching on the intellect (also based on Averroes) implied a denial of individual afterlife, thus removing individual moral responsibility. To Siger, personal immortality can be held on the basis of faith alone. Another one of Siger’s controversial positions concerns happiness. Unlike the theologians who understood true happiness as possible only through revelation, Siger as a philosopher (like Aristotle and his own contemporary, Boethius of Dacia) maintained that beatitude consisted primarily in the life of philosophic wisdom.
Influenced by Étienne Tempier’s first condemnation in 1270, as well as by opposing arguments such as Aquinas’s, Siger became orthodox in later writings, although scholars disagree as to the extent of the actual change of his views. In 1277, Tempier launched a second, more comprehensive condemnation of 219 theological and philosophical propositions, the majority of which were Aristotelian-Averroistic, and associated with Siger, Boethius of Dacia, and other Averroists (although even some of Aquinas’s Aristotelian theses were alluded to). This same year, the chief inquisitor of France summoned Siger, but he had already left France. He was eventually acquitted of heresy by Pope Nicholas III, although kept under house arrest. He died tragically at Orvieto, murdered by his secretary. Among his chief works are De aeternitate mundi [On the Eternity of the World], De anima intellectiva [On the Intellective Soul], Liber de felicitate [The Book on Happiness], and De necessitate et contingentia causarum [On the Necessity and Contingency of Causes].
SIGER OF COURTRAI (ca. 1283–1341). Siger was a Parisian master of arts in 1309 and a master of theology at Paris in 1315. From 1308–1323, he was a canon of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Courtrai. He is known especially for his Grammatica Speculativa [Speculative Grammar], and for his expanding the scope of the Perihermeneias [On Interpretation] of Aristotle to a broader consideration, namely, extending modal propositions beyond the more traditional modes of necessary, contingent, possible and impossible. He introduced research into other modal forms, due mainly to the influence of the ancient Greek commentator Ammonius, whose commentary on the Perihermeneias had recently been translated. In writing much of his Perihermeneias commentary, he follows Thomas Aquinas, whom he refers to as Commentator (the Commentator).
SIMON OF FAVERSHAM (ca. 1245–1306). Presumably born at Faversham in Kent around 1245, he appears to have been trained in theology at Oxford. His Questions on the Posterior Analytics were disputed at Paris, and since they quote Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on the “Perihermeneias” of Aristotle, Simon was probably there in the middle of the 1270s. He was a participant at the vesperies, or evening disputation that was part of a master’s inception ceremony, of the Franciscan Peter of Baldeswell in 1301. He became chancellor of the university in 1304 and held that office until 1306. His extant writings are all works in philosophy, and for the most part in logic. Simon has left Quaestiones on all the logic treatises of Aristotle, as well as on Porphyry’s Isagoge [Introduction]. He wrote a Commentary on the “Summulae logicales” of Peter of Spain. Among his nonlogic works are a number of Dictata [Lessons] on various treatises of natural philosophy that incorporate the positions of a host of ancient and medieval commentators, including Themistius, Alexander, Avicenna, Averroes, and Ghazali. These comments, however, seem to be derived from Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, not directly from the ancient and medieval commentators themselves. The main contemporary sources for his thought are Albert, Thomas, and Giles of Rome. In logic, he seems to derive help from Peter of Auvergne. Simon himself plays the role of the opponent in a number of the logical works of Radulphus Brito.
SIMON OF HINTON (ca. 1210–1262). Simon received his bachelor’s degree at Oxford in 1239. After the death of both Robert Bacon and Richard Fishacre in 1248, he became the regent master at the Dominican studium (house of studies) in Oxford, a position he held probably until 1254 when he was elected provincial of the English Dominicans. He held this title until 1261, when he and his whole definitorium (provincial council) were deposed by a general chapter of the Dominicans for refusing to accept foreign students at Oxford. Simon was deposed in 1261 and was sent to the studium generale (international house of studies) in Cologne, where he served as a successor to Albert the Great. He returned to England in 1262, and died in the same year. Simon is not known as a strong philosophical author, but more for his practical theology. He also wrote two commentaries on Scripture that survive, one on the Minor Prophets, the other on Matthew’s Gospel. Quite likely he also wrote other scriptural commentaries for beginners, one on Job and another on the whole of the Old Testament, not including the Psalms. His most widely accepted work, however, was his Summa iuniorum [Summa for the Young] written between 1250 and 1260, dealing with the articles of the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the sacraments, the virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the principal vices.
SIMON OF TOURNAI (ca. 1130–ca. 1201). Simon is one of the first theologians at Paris who benefited from new Latin translations of Greek and Arabic learning (notably those from the Arabic of Aristotle’s Physics, Metaphysics, and De Anima). Thus he stands at the beginning of that seminal encounter with Aristotle, which was to transform Christian theology in the Scholastic period. Before teaching theology, he taught the liberal arts for about 10 years and distinguished himself in dialectics, and thereafter applied it enthusiastically in theology after the manner of Peter Abelard and Gilbert of Poitiers. His works include Disputationes [Disputations], Expositio super Symbolum [Exposition on the Creed], Expositio Symboli Sancti Athanasii [Exposition on the Athanasian Creed], and Institutiones in sacra pagina [Introduction to Sacred Scripture]. The precise historical significance of his work is still to be established.
SIN. In Judaism and Islam, sin is essentially a breach of God’s law for mankind, either by omission or commission. This law was first established through God’s covenant with Abraham, and developed in the (different) legal traditions of Judaism and Islam. This concept of sin as the breach of covenantal law is also true in Christianity, although the Christian doctrine of original sin as mankind’s inherited guilt for the sin of its first parents adds a different dimension to the Christian understanding of sin. The three traditions stress man’s free will to obey or disobey God’s commands; on the basis of free will, man is held accountable for his actions. In the three traditions, there are also different categories and degrees of sin, with concomitant punishments. In medieval ethics, religious tradition and philosophy inform discussions on sin.
SINA, IBN. See AVICENNA (980–1037).
SOLOMON BEN ISAAC (RASHI) (ca. 1040–1105). Solomon was a native of Troyes. After studying at the rabbinical academies of Worms and Mainz, he returned to his native city and there dedicated his life to writing commentaries on the entire Talmud and the Bible. Rashi’s commentaries on the Talmud were so interwoven with the text that they were judged to be inseparable from it, and they were thought to be so masterful that they served as the starting point for almost all Talmudic discussions thereafter. His extensive work was left unfinished, and it was completed by his scribe and grandson, Samuel ben Meir. His commentaries on the Bible approached the same ideal, at least for the Torah (Penteteuch). They have flourished over the centuries in the liturgical role they play in the world’s synagogues on the Sabbath throughout the whole year. Solomon’s biblical commentaries were also influential on Christian exegesis, especially through the commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra.
SOLOMON BEN JUDAH IBN GABIROL. See GABIROL, IBN (AVICEBRON) (ca. 1021–1058).
SOUL. For the most part, medieval accounts of the soul, the principle of life, were generally either Platonic or Aristotelian. To medieval thinkers, Plato saw the soul as a complete and individual entity, by nature immortal, that rules the body (as may be gathered, e.g., from Plato’s Phaedo). Aristotle, on the other hand, describes it as a form or principle of actualization inseparable from the body it actualizes, although in the case of the human soul he speaks of the intellect as in a sense incorruptible (De Anima III, 5). Although Aristotle’s discussion of the immortal part of the soul is one of his most obscure passages, his meaning is most likely that the intellect is universally, not individually, immortal, since to him individuality is proper to the composite of matter (body) and form (soul), which is perishable.
Neither of these two accounts, however, strictly on their own, was satisfactory to the vast majority of medieval thinkers, who sought to account for the soul in the context of revelation, namely as something created and able to be either saved or destroyed by an all-powerful God. Accordingly, even though thinkers generally favored at a fundamental level either the Platonic or the Aristotelian approach, these approaches were often combined with each other and with revelation. Those who fundamentally followed the Platonic account revised this account to show how the soul is dependent upon God and not by nature immortal. Those who fundamentally followed the Aristotelian account revised this account to show how the soul is not by nature individually mortal, but rather capable of individual immortality through God. Averroes and those who followed him in conceiving of immortality in terms of the absorption of the human intellect into one universal intellect (i.e., monopsychism) are important exceptions to the medieval Aristotelian attitude. The approach to other issues regarding the soul, such as knowledge, freedom of the will, sense perception, and the unity between soul and body and among the levels of soul (i.e., nutritive, sentient, etc.), generally flowed from a thinker’s attitude in regard to the Aristotelian and Platonic conceptions of the nature of the soul in light of revelation. Moreover, since the soul organizes the body, medieval accounts of the body generally depend on accounts of the soul.
STOICISM (IN THE MIDDLE AGES). Stoic teachings, in the forms passed down by the Fathers of the Church and received by medieval authors, were almost exclusively focused on their ethical writings. These dicta were drawn from Epictetus, Seneca, and Cicero, or from their doctrines as reported by Varro. The Moralium dogma philosophorum [The Teachings of the Moral Philosophers], a florilegium of citations taken from Cicero, and Seneca, and from Christian adaptations of Stoic teachings found especially in the writings of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, was most likely gathered together by William of Conches. This collection, along with many of the works of Cicero and Seneca themselves, provided the core Stoic moral philosophy for medieval writers. Many of these moral and political aphorisms were employed in the Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard produced in the mid-13th century and much less in later annotations. Commentaries on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics continued to cite them, but to a lesser degree and generally in a manner subordinated to Aristotle’s moral teachings.
STRODE, RALPH (fl. 2nd half of 14th century). Little is known about the life of this English theologian and philosopher. His most important writings are treatises from a logical collection, known as his Logica, which he prepared as a textbook for students. The logical treatises Consequentiae [Consequences] and Obligationes [Obligations] were his most influential works. They formed part of the curriculum at various universities and were published in several Renaissance editions. John Wyclif, Strode’s contemporary at Oxford, wrote a response to his criticisms, Responsiones ad Radulphum Strodum [Responses to Ralph Strode], where some of Strode’s theological positions may be gathered (e.g., against predestination), though the context demands cautious interpretation. Geoffrey Chaucer dedicated his Troylus and Cryseyde to Strode, apparently his friend, and to the poet John Gower.
STUDIUM GENERALE. Different religious orders had their houses of study. Some of these houses were for members of their own particular province, as was the studium in London or Newcastle, for the Franciscans. Other houses of study were international, attracting students from the various provinces of the particular order. Paris, Oxford, and Cologne had such general houses of study. A general studium was part of a university, which was a community of masters and students. A provincial studium was more like a school with a master. A studium generale was part of a university where there was a collection of masters with different viewpoints.
SUÁREZ, FRANCISCO (1548–1617). He joined the Society of Jesus in Salamanca in 1564, and studied philosophy and theology there until 1571, and was ordained a priest the next year. His teaching career began in Avila and Segovia, in both places teaching philosophy from 1571–1574 and theology from 1574–1580. From 1580–1585 he taught at the Collegio Romano, and then returned to Spain, teaching first at Alcalá (1585–1593), and then at Salamanca (1593–1597). In 1597, he received his doctorate in theology and was appointed to the chair of theology at Coimbra, a position he held until 1615.
Suárez’s writings are extensive and have had wide distribution—printed in Lyons, Mainz, Cologne, and Geneva before the 23-volume edition of Venice in 1747 and the 28-volume edition of Paris in 1856. While at Alcalá and Salamanca, he wrote large commentaries on Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. In Coimbra, he wrote extensive works: De religione [On Religion], De gratia [On Grace], and De legibus [On Laws]. Realizing he could not continue these long exposés, he adopted a more succinct style for his On the Triune God, On Faith, Hope, and Charity, and On Our Ultimate End. His commentaries on Aristotle’s Organon and Physics, parts of the regular routine of teaching philosophy for Jesuits at that time, have never been found. However, his Metaphysical Disputations well illustrate his strong grasp and reworking of the themes of his Scholastic predecessors. He had a wide acceptance in the newly thriving Jesuit system of education (ratio studiorum) and influenced some of its renowned students, such as René Descartes, at La Flèche.
SUBSTANCE. See ACCIDENT.
SUFISM. (Arabic: tasawwuf) The term “Sufism,” which refers to the mysticism of Islam, is etymologically derived from sufi (one who wears a woolen robe or suf), apparently because wearing wool was part of early ascetic practices. Groups of mystics began to appear in the ninth century, when they were first designated as Sufis. It was not until later, however, beginning with al-Qushiari (d. 1072), that Sufism developed a more systematic formulation of its approach to the search for God. In general terms, Islamic mysticism aims at the experience of personal union with Allah, who, according to the Koran, is unlike anything else and absolutely one. This experience consists in knowledge and is the product of illumination. Allah’s uniqueness implies transcendence, and so union with him remains at the psychic level. To achieve their goal, Sufis follow a path or discipline of mystical devotion, consisting of an ascending order of teachings, techniques, and initiations; the last stage is that of an adept. Basic to Sufism is the general idea or belief, also common in the Neoplatonic tradition, that God is the source of all and that all aims at its source, its true home and beatitude. In fact, for its formulations Sufism drew significantly from philosophy or falsafah. Mystical life and practices are meant to facilitate the soul’s search for God. Though there are differences among Sufi writers, the emptying consciousness of all but God, moral transformation, and the intuitive vision of God and of God in all things, are generally part of Sufism.
Some of the important contributors to medieval Sufi writing are al-Junayd (d. ca. 910), Ibn al-’Arabi (1165–1240), al-Farid (1181–1235), al-Ghazali, and the 13th-century Persian poets Rumi (d. 1273), Sa’di (d. ca. 1292), and Hafiz (d. ca. 1388). In the case of some Sufi thinkers, stress on union with God became controversial, in that it appeared inconsistent with the orthodox view of God’s absolute transcendence. In 922, the Persian al-Hallaj’s utterance “I am The Real” earned him execution. Also controversial was Sufism’s insight independent of revelation. Al-Ghazali, the great exponent of kalam and critic of falsafah, sought to reconcile Sufism with orthodoxy by accentuating, among other things, the contingency and dependence of creation, as well as the way in which mystical knowledge is already contained in revelation.
SUMMA and SUMMULA. For medieval philosophers and theologians the term “summa” and its diminutive “summula” had a number of meanings. At times, it might point simply to a compilation or collection of quaestiones that had some kind of unity, from the same author, or connected with a particular text, or treating the same subject matter. It might, however, also signify an abbreviation of a text. It could, likewise, and with a more elevated meaning, indicate an organized treatise centered on one theme or one subject. That the word “summa” did not necessarily mean an abbreviation or a short treatise becomes evident when we look at a work called a “brevis summa” (a brief summa), as we do in the case of William of Ockham’s Brevis summa libri Physicorum [A Brief Summa of the Book of the Physics]. As a “Brief Summa,” it is a much shorter treatise than Ockham’s Expositio in libros Physicorum [Exposition on the Book of the Physics] and much more compact than his incomplete Summula philosophiae naturalis [Summula of Natural Philosophy].
Certainly, Ockham’s Summa logicae [Summa of Logic] is not a short or abbreviated work. It is a more unified work than Peter of Spain’s Summulae logicales, which appears to be more of a compilation or collection of different treatises on various logical issues. The most famous summa is the Summa theologiae of Thomas Aquinas, which is a summa in its highest form. It is a well-organized treatise for beginning students in the Theology Faculty on all the themes of theology placed in an order that attempts as well as possible to approach the divine order of knowledge. In his explanation of the need for such a work, he criticizes the Sentences of Peter Lombard for its lack of a proper theological order, since the Sentences has repetitious questions and has questions organized at times by the order found in the Scriptures rather than in a logical order. For Aquinas, summa, in this case, expresses a methodological ideal: a unified body of knowledge that puts all its contents in the place of importance that each deserves and in a proper relation to each other.
SUSO, HEINRICH (1303–1366). This German mystic was born in Constance and entered the Dominicans there at an early age. He did his philosophical and theological studies in Constance before going to the studium generale of the Dominicans in Cologne, where along with Johannes Tauler he studied under Meister Eckhart from 1324–1327. Suso returned to Constance where he became a lector, but in the early 1330s he was removed from teaching. He was elected prior of the Dominican Priory in Dissenhofen in 1343, where he stayed until he retired to the Dominican house in Ulm in 1348. It was in Ulm that he died. He was beatified by Pope Gregory XVI in 1831.
Although he was known to have given a scholarly defense of Eckhart, Suso is better known for his mystical writings. He wrote his Little Book on Truth in German while in Cologne, a work aimed at a high spiritual level and also marked by a strong accent on asceticism and an equally strong opposition to the pantheistic tendencies in the Beghards and antinomianism of the Brethren of the Free Spirit. In 1328, back in Constance, he wrote, also in German, The Little Book on Eternal Truth, a guidebook for ordinary people with faults and noteworthy for its tempered asceticism and emphasis on detachment as the key to a richer spiritual life. This work he expanded and extended appreciably in 1334 under the Latin title Horologium sapientiae [Wisdom’s Watch upon the Hours]. His Life of the Servant is an autobiographical account of his spiritual journey, recounted to one of his spiritual charges and not meant for publication. Suso, like Johannes Tauler, worked with the religious movement Friends of God, which began in Basle around 1340 to promote religious life among all Catholics. Known as a preacher, Heinrich Suso really had his greatest impact on the restoration of religious discipline in convents through involvement in this movement and also in his spiritual direction of individuals at all level of society. His various books had enormous influence on the spiritual lives of many in the 14th and 15th centuries, and thereafter.
SUTTON, THOMAS. See THOMAS SUTTON (ca. 1250–ca. 1315).
SWINESHEAD, RICHARD. See RICHARD SWINESHEAD (fl. ca. 1344–1354).