the minds "intended" towards the supernatural achieved only the
hazy mysticism of mediaeval thought. Instead of investigating
natural laws, they paid heed (as, for example, Thomas Aquinas
does in his Summa Theologia) to the "acts of angels," the
"speaking of angels," the "subordination of angels," the "deeds
of guardian angels," and the like. They disputed such important
questions as, How many angels can stand upon the point of a
needle? They argued pro and con as to whether Christ were coeval
with God, or whether he had been merely created "in the
beginning," perhaps ages before the creation of the world. How
could it be expected that science should flourish when the
greatest minds of the age could concern themselves with problems
such as these?

Despite our preconceptions or prejudices, there can be but one
answer to that question. Oriental superstition cast its blight
upon the fair field of science, whatever compensation it may or
may not have brought in other fields. But we must be on our guard
lest we overestimate or incorrectly estimate this influence.
Posterity, in glancing backward, is always prone to stamp any
given age of the past with one idea, and to desire to
characterize it with a single phrase; whereas in reality all ages
are diversified, and any generalization regarding an epoch is
sure to do that epoch something less or something more than
justice. We may be sure, then, that the ideal of ecclesiasticism
is not solely responsible for the scientific stasis of the dark
age. Indeed, there was another influence of a totally different
character that is too patent to be overlooked--the influence,
namely, of the economic condition of western Europe during this
period. As I have elsewhere pointed out,[2] Italy, the centre of