Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:1
116
I. D r i n g
In the Greek tradition the scconcl Century A. D. is most important. From the dialogues of Epictetus we know that, about the
year 100 A.D., Aristotelian logic had been introduced in the
schools. We can see the result of this and the increased acquaintance
with Aristotle's scientific methods and writings in the works of the
great scientists in the middle of the second Century, especially
Ptolemy and Galen. No one can read the introductory chapter of
Ptolemy's Theory of Harmonics without observing the Aristotelian
tenor in language and methods of demonstration and definition.
In Galen's writings we frequently meet Aristotle's narne; he obviously knew the works that we possess in the Corpus Aristotelicum
very well, but his Interpretation of Aristotle's basic ideas is rather
capricious; his style and, to a certain extent, also his terminology
and methods are un-Aristotelian. It is understandable that Aristotle,
Ptolemy and Galen became the great authorities for the Arabs and
through them for the Middle Ages. Aristotle's cosmology was amalgamated with Ptolemy's mathematical and astronomical account;
some of Galen's doctrines were founded on his Interpretation of
'Hippocrates', Plato and Aristotle. When through Latin translations of the Arabic compilations this body of ideas reached the
Latin West, it was feit that the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy and
Galen constituted a complete rational System, explaining the universe and the natural phenomena s a whole in terms of natural causes.
In the early twelfth Century European scholars began to become
acquainted with Aristotle through other sources than the old Latin
tradition and the old Latin translations of the Organon. Little by
little they became aware of the gulf between the old Latin and the
new Graeco-Arabic tradition. Yet they were dependent on the
translations, and everybody who has personal knowledge of the
early Latin translations from Arabic knows how deficient they are.
Albert Magnus did not understand Greek or Arabic. He was obliged
to rely on Latin translations of Aristotle's works. It is a marvel that
he acquired such a profound knowledge of Aristotle. Yet it must
be observed that he was more interested in facts than in theories.
From my own experience of his writings I cannot say that he
showed much interest in Aristotle's philosophy of nature. But s a
naturalist, an empirical Student of natural phenomena, he is in my
opinion the greatest student of nature after Theophrastus3 and by
3
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:1
117
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
118
I. Du r i n ff
pondtilum has novv swung to the other extreme; the interest is now
focussed on the original contribuiions of the thirtecnth ancl fourteenth Century thinkers.
Broadly speaking, I think we ean still maintain that the GrecoArabie traclition transmitted to the West was a coherent System of
scientific ideas; the closeness of this System helped to preserve it,
especially after it had been digested and further systematized in
textbooks for the universities. At the average level, professors and
students used the same basic textbooks during four centuries, and
the \vorld-view propagated in these books was ultimately based on
Aristotelian cosmology: a good example is the textbook in astronomy, written about 1225 by John Holywood, latinized Sacrobosco,
used in all universities until after Galileo's time, after 1470 known
in some 250 printed editions. But if we study the great individual
thinkers of these centuries, the picture changes: none of them accepted the same system of ideas. What unites them is, s P. O. Kristeller
has said, the use of a common source material, a common terminology, a common set of definitions and problems, a common method of
discussing these problems. For this F. van Steenberghen has coined
the suitable term ,,an eclectic Aristotelianism".
As is well known, the Church intervened many times during this
Century and prohibited the study of certain of Aristotle's works.
The interventions are sometimes regarded s attacks on the freedom
of thought. Here, again, modern investigation has shed new ligth.
Thanks to a treatise by Boetius of Dacia we now know much more
about the radical and heterodox Aristotelianism, represented by
Siger of Brabant, the so-called Latin Averroism. The Church fought
against different forms of the new Aristotelianism, because the
conservative theologians did not want to sacrifice their belief in
God Almighty who can do with the world s it pleases Hirn. To
them the Aristotelian rationalism appeared s an impious attempt
to infringe God's omnipotence by pledging Hirn to obey the laws
of nature and necessity. The Church did not persecute the great
thinkers but took a firm position against the rationalism which,
relying on Aristotle, advocated the supremacy of the intellect.
R. Hooykaas has shown that this fight of the Church which culminated in Bishop Tempier's indictment from the year 1277, actually furthered the advancement of science. In the fourteenth
Century, again, the philosophy of nature inspired by the Occamist
school at Paris and Oxford attacked the scholastic Aristotelianism
from another angle. And during the whole period the followers of
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:1
119
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
120
l. I ) r i n g
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
121
It is a fact, often overlooked, that many of Aristotle's fundamental scientific ideas were never understood during the manuscript age, not even in Antiquity when the Greek texts were
available. I shall illustrate this with the following example.
Aristotle did not only record observations or propound scientific
theories in general terms; at the same time he offered a detailed
account of the mechanism by which he thought the observed
phenomena came about. He did not consider i t sufficient to develop
his theory of 'form' embodied in 'matter*. But he explained precisely
how he thought this embodiment was effected. Like many of
Aristotle's fundamental ideas his theory of form embodied in matter
and separable from it only in thought, has its roots in his biological
view and approach to problems. The question he raised was this:
a corpse has the same shape and fashion s a living body, and yet
it is not a man. A hand constituted in any and every manner like
a living hand, for instance a bronze or wooden one, is not a hand
except in name; the same applies to a physician painted on canvas,
or a flute carved in stone. What is the essence and character of the
animal itself, and how are we to find out its form () ?
Aristotle's answer is this: the , the connate
pneuma, is the primary vehicle of life and of the processes peculiar
to living organisms. The pneuma is certainly corporeal, a kind of
matter, present in the animal from the moment of conception, and
so long s the animal remains alive. It is connate, not acquired from
outside, and it is the vehicle of the soul. In his physics its analogen
is the 'first body', , the substance out of which the
celestial spheres and the heavenly bodies are made. In material
objects, whether made by art or found in nature, its analogen is the
immanent Form, 5$.
It is interesting to follow how this concept of pneuma underwent
successive changes during the process of transmission. Aristotle's
connate pneuma is an important factor in his Solutions to the
problems of reproduction and Sensation, but it must be admitted
that his account of its function is obscure and even inconsistent.6
The Stoics adopted the concept of pneuma, but in their philosophy
its connexion with observed facts is omitted: it is a rather vaguc
concept, at once the matter from which all things have original cd
and an all-pervading world-reason; the Stoics proservod the
6
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
122
I. D r i n g
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:1
123
diel not always investigate their background. Take for instance his
word , a word which in the last Century owes to Driesch
its bad reputation; or take Aristotle's definition of time s
, the foundation of his
kinematics and that which most of all distinguishes his theory of
time frorn Plato's in the Timaeus. To understand technical expressions of this kind it is necessary to follow Aristotle's own principle
of , to attempt a comprehensive explanation of a whole complex of related phenomena. Isolated and taken
out of their context these words give little or no sense.
The first, s far s I can see, to understand completely Aristotle's
theory of form embodied in matter and of the ,
was William Harvey: with his work On the Generation of Animals
he founded modern embryology. Aristotle had clearly recognized
the fundamental problems of biology: sex, heredity, nutrition,
growth, adaptation, the scala naturae, the theory of epigenesis and
so forth. It happens still to-day when a new discovery is made that
scientists look up old Aristotle in order to see 7if he has observed the
fact. Just one example: Professor Haldane tried to show that
Aristotle probably has recorded an observation of bees' dances, the
method by which hive bees communicate with one another.
As a biologist Aristotle is first and foremost philosopher, not
scientist in our sense of the word. His biology is a philosophical
biology. As observer of nature he makes many good observations,
but he is also guilty of errors of far-reaching influence, for instance
his denial of the sexuality of plants, or his assignation of the heart
s the seat of intelligence, in spite of earlier Hippocratic views.
Almost all of Aristotle's main ideas in the field of biology were
forgotten within a generation after his death. Pliny became the
great authority during 1500 years. It took the combined efforts of
the best Renaissance naturalists to drive him out, or at least to
lessen the evil he had done. It is true that Galen was greatly influenced by Aristotle, but his two main ancient authorities were
'Hippocrates' and Plato's Timaeus and many of his doctrines were
purely speculative (I have already given one example). Galen's
theory that the human body is governed physiologically by three
distinct and graded sets of organs, fluids and pneumata, and bis
theory of the 'innate forces of the body', the \'$.
7
"Aristotle's account of bee's clanrcs", .///.S 75 (1055) LM 2f>. -ordinj? t < > manv
oppononts not plausible; I too doubt that Haldano's interptvlalion is valid
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
124
I. D u r i n g
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:1
125
It is the last word in this scntence that makes the whole difference
in attitude.
Even in those branches of learning in which the scholars of the
Middle Ages were specialists we meet a profound misunderstanding
of Aristotle's thought. Here I must take an example from Aristotle's
so-called metaphysics, which few, if any, seientists today regard s
a legitimate branch of science, preferring to speak of laws, hypotheses, and using other terms. I have the highest respect for Thomas
Aquinas s an outstanding scholar in his own right. But I cannot
side with those who hold that Thomas understood and interpreted
Aristotle in a way which is still valid for us who have access to the
original Greek texts.
According to Aristotle the ultimate aim of scientific thinking is
to discover the enduring and intelligible reality behind the changing phenomena perceived through the senses: he wanted to define
what he called the , that is the existence of things, underlying
and causing all observed facts. To his mind the worid, its material
things, its living organisms, its Spiritual phenomena, was one and
the same reality. Some aspects of this reality might be revealed by
physics or natural science, others by mathematics, others again by
what Aristotle called "philosophy of first things" and we call metaphysics. The different branches of science, the , were
conceived of s roads leading to truth, ,
and the discussion of these 'roads' or is constantly carried
on parallel with the account of concrete investigation.
The concept of a unified Cosmos in which Spiritual and material
phenomena differ only s the concave and convex sides of a sphere,
and of a unified science without the modern cleavage between the
humanities and the sciences dominated the teaching in the European universities until the middle of the seventeenth Century.
During this time the question guiding scientific inquiry was essentially the same s it had been to Aristotle. A natural consequcnce
of this is, for instance, that Aristotle's biology and physics are
interwoven with metaphysical and ontological spcculation. Although he himself says so he never clearly distinguished descriptive
natural science, , from the inquiry into the causes and
essence of things, the . His leading idca was that "naturo
does nothing in vain". Perhaps the modern biologist is right, who
said: "Teleology is a lady without whom no biologist can live; yet
he is ashamed to show himself in public with her." Aristotle was
not ashamed; on the contrary, he was never content to ask "Wliat
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
126
I. D r i n
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:1
127
The first weU-known scholar to raise his voice against the scholastic misrepreiitation of Aristotle was Petrarch; the battle-cry
was "Aristotle is better than his translators". But with him started
the rebellion against Aristotle; really good translations from Greek
to Latin were first made by the Renaissance scholars; the importance of this fact has in my opinion not yet been sufficiently
appreciated. I agree entirely with P. O. Kristeller9 that we have
to reconsider our view of the Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is
generally believed that the upsurge of science in the beginning of
the seventeenth Century was inspired by a reaction towards Aristotle
and a renewed interest in Plato; this view can no loiiger be maintained without considerable modifications. The transmission of
Aristotle's scientific ideas to the Latin West was not completed
until the first half of the seventeenth Century.
We can illustrate this by returning to our example, the Interpretation of the so-called analogia entis. In the sixteenth Century,
when good texts and good translations were available, this doctrine
was well understood. Jean Fernel, in his Dialogue on the Hidden
Caiises of Things, a very popul r book published in 1548 and reprinted in many European countries during onehundredandfifty
years, gives an account of Aristotle's doctrine which comes very
close to the original. He recognized the interrelation between
Aristotle's notions of pneuma, (form), and . In his
preface he gives us the reason: "We have recovered the true texts
of the masterpieces of Greek wisdom; learning and the fine arts
are blooming afresh after a frost of thirteenth centuries." At the
same time it is characteristic that Fernel avoids the word 'substance'. He, like many philosophers today, associated this word
with the unfruitful speculation of the schoolmen: referring to
Aristotle's classical metaphor, "Nature works on matter, s the
sculptor works on bronze", he substituted the word 'nature'. This
is what he says: "Each animal and plant, each mineral, whatever
is in this sublunary world, contains a particular iiialterable nature,
which maintains and Orders it and its kind and combines the whole
to a universal nature. This particular nature is its form and true
being, and it is form coming to the material which makes i t the
individual thing that it is."
For Fernel 'form' was substantial over and above the elcmental
matter. Although inseparable from the individual thing, it was.
0
The Classics and Renaissance Thougtot (Martin Classical 1-crtiircs vol. XV),
Harvard UP 1965, p. 34.
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
128
I. Drintf
f/
Bring, acttially scparablc. Tliis comes very close to Aristotle's
vicw, convctly intrrprcited by thc Grcek commentators, from
Alexander of Aphrodisias to Philoponus. The Arabs did not understaiul this doc.trim and madc form and substance to qualitics and
propcrtics. Through Averrocs this doctrine was transmitted to the
Latin \\Vst and persisted for centurics s a materialistic Interpretation of Aristotle, in competition with the Thomistic doctrine.
When we look back at the period from 1200 to 1500 we are
inclincd to regard it s entirely dominated by the figure of Aristotle.
In schools and universities he is the authority; in the populr
literature and in art we meet the so-caUed Legend of Aristotle, a
curious mixture of Oriental, Greek and European fiction; manuals
in social behaviour for princes and noblemen were edited s works
of Aristotle; pseudo-Aristotelian writiiigs provided an arsenal for
the black arts. Great individuals, of course, introduced new ideas.
We may recall the names of Jean Buridan, Nicolas Oresme, Nicolas
of Cusa, Regiomontanus. But recent estimates of their work s
forerunners of a scientific revival serve rather to emphasize the
continuity of thought than to indicate a break with the past. The
impetus-theorists, for instance, were only a minority movement,
and so was the Occamist school. Their doctrines becarne known
only to a small circle. The relative scarcity of books during the
manuscript age and the limited Communications between scholars
delayed real advancement. The Situation changed drastically from
about 1450. According to Sarton the Veiietian printers alone
produced about two million printed volumes in the 15th Century10;
this is hard t o believe, but the figure given shows how quickly the
Situation must have changed. The multiplicity and cheapness of
books, the introduction of Standard texts and Standard illustrations
to which one could easily refer the importance of these material
facts can hardly be exaggerated.
But, essentially, the conception of the world remained unchanged:
two passages in Galileo's famous Dialogiie Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems teil us why. There are three Speakers, Salviati,
representing Galileo himself, Simplicio, the intelligent Aristotelian,
and Sagredo, the educated layman.
10
In the Convento de Santa Monica in Puebla, Mexico, I saw in 1947 vast and dusty
piles of incunabula and early sixteenth Century books, printed in Venice and
Holland, obviously shipped to Mexico in the early sixteenth Century. The University of Mexico was founded in 1551.
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
129
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
130
1. D r i i i K
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:1
131
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
132
l. IHirin
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14
133
Bereitgestellt von | The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (The Joh
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 28.02.12 14:14