356. Conclusion. Lullism. -- Apart from the two theories just outlined, Lully maintained the traditional teaching of scholasticism. We find its doctrines incorporated promiscuously in novel and artificial settings invented by a fertile and uncontrolled imagination. We may mention, as an example, the Duodecim Principia Philosophiae in which Dame Philosophy complains to Lully of the injury done her by Averroïsm and presents him with her twelve constitutive principles: forma, materia, generatio, corruptio, elementativa, vegetativa, sensitiva, imaginativa, motus, intellectus, voluntas, memoria.

Lully had many admirers and disciples. He was called Doctor Illuminatus, Tuba Spiritus Sancti. His theosophy was less lasting than his Ars Magna. The automatic processes of the latter had a certain fascination for all who ever afterwards sought to build up philosophy according to the deductive, mathematical method. Giordano Bruno, Agrippa, Lavinheta and Leibnitz all speak of it with enthusiasm.

Towards 1372 the Dominican, Nicholas Eymerici, brought forward complaints against the doctrines of Lully.^{1} A process of inquiry was opened by Pope Gregory XI.; but whether it terminated in a condemnation is not known. In his Dialogus contra Lullistas and in his Directorium Inquisitionum, Eymerici published a Papal Bull of 1376, ordering the works of Lully to be withdrawn and prohibiting the latter's teaching. But the Lullists accused Eymerici of imposture, and the long-standing dispute about the authenticity of the Bull is not yet settled.

{1} The masters of the University of Paris (1310), Philip, King of France (1310) and the chancellor of Paris (1311), testify publicly that the works of Lully contain nothing contrary to faith and morals. But Denifle asks are those protestations authentic (Chartul., ii., pp. 142, 144, 149). And we have reason to doubt it when we remember that no one called the orthodoxy of the works into question at that date.