LECTURE
The Aristotelian Tradition .
I. The Aristotelian Tradition.
A. Aristotle.
B. The Aristotelian Corpus.
C. The Aristotelian Tradition.
II. Medieval Aristotelianism.
A. 'Questiones' & Commentaries.
B. 'Disputatio' as a Mode of Discourse.
III. Renaissance Aristotelianism.
A. 1500-1650, A Growth Industry.
B. Excessive Flexibility (Not Rigidity).
IV. The End of a 2,000-Year Tradition
[References: Bernal 1953; Colie 1954; Dillenberger 1960; Grant 1978; Hill 1965; Houghton 1942; Jardine 1974; Keller 1985; Kristeller 1979; Losee 1980; Merchant 1980;Zilsel 1942; Zilsel 1945]
I. THE ARISTOTELIAN TRADITION.
ONE OF THE PROBLEM SET OUT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS COURSE CONCERNED THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC CHANGE.
WE SPENT SOME TIME EXAMINING KUHN'S WELL-KNOWN MODEL OF CHANGE THROUGH SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.
HOWEVER, I SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING OTHER TYPES OF MODELS OF TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE.
AND I TRIED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN KUHNIAN REVOLUTIONS, WHICHCAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS ESSENTIALLY DISCIPLINARY REVOLUTIONS,AND A BIGGER SORT OF REVOLUTION THAT I CALLED A META-SCIENTIFICREVOLUTION.
A META-SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION IS THE SET OF BROAD, CULTURE-RELATED EVENTS THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR STABLE -- AND SURVIVABLE -- DISCIPLINARY REVOLUTIONS TO TAKE PLACE.
AND I SUGGESTED THAT ONE REASON WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK OF 'THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION' AS A META-SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION IS BECAUSE THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYTHING LIKE A KUHNIAN REVOLUTION BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY.
YET THERE WAS CERTAINLY SOMETHING GOING ON BEFORE 1500 THAT DESERVES TO BE CALLED 'SCIENCE'.
SO WHAT SORT OF MODELS OF SCIENTIFIC CHANGE CAN WE CALL UPON TO HELP EXPLAIN SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY BEFORE THE META-SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION?.
KUHN WOULD SEEM OF LITTLE USE SINCE WE SEEM TO HAVE THE DISCIPLINARY CONTEXT REQUIRED FOR HIS BRAND OF REVOLUTION.
SOMEWHAT SURPRISINGLY, WE FIND WE ARE LEFT TO FEND FOR OURSELVES WHEN WE ASK THE SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW DO WE DESCRIBETHE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC CHANGE BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY?.
WHILE THE PROBLEM OF THE ORGANIZATION AND TRANSFORMATION OFSCIENCE SINCE 1600 HAS ATTRACTED ABUNDANT ATTENTION, WE SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN MODELING SCIENTIFIC STABLILTY BEFORE THAT DATE.
AT BEST WE FIND A SORT OF COLLOQUIAL USAGE OF TERMS LIKE 'SCHOOL,' 'TRADITION,' AND 'PHILOSOPHY'.
THAT IS, THE LITERAURE IS FILLED WITH REFERENCES TO, AND DISCUSSIONS OF, 'THE MERTON SCHOOL' OR THE 'ARISTOTELIAN TRADITION' OR THE 'NEO-PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY'.
AND OF COURSE THERE IS A HOST OF EPONIMOUS '-ISMS' -- LIKE 'OCCAMISM,' 'NOMINALISM', 'THOMISM' AND 'NEO-PLATONISM.
NOW THE INTELLCTUAL CONTENT OF THESE TRADITIONS WE CAN USUALLY IDENTIFY QUITE CLEARLY.
BUT WE KNOW LITTLE ABOUT SOCIOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF SUCH MOVEMENTS.
WHAT EXACTLY IS A 'SCHOOL' OR A 'TRADITION' OR A 'PHILOSOPHY'?.
WHAT ARE THE SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL ELEMENTS NECESSARY FORA 'SCHOOL' TO FUNCTION AS A VEHICLE OF SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY?.
WHAT SORT OF SCIENTIFIC CHANGE CAN TAKE PLACE WITHIN A 'TRADITION' WITHOUT DESTROYING THE TRADITION ITSELF?.
HOW DOES ONE 'TRADITION' DEFINE ITSELF IN RELATION TO OTHER TRADITIONS?.
AND HOW DOES IT PRESERVE ITS IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY IN COMPETION WITH THEM?.
HOW DO FOLLOWERS COME TO IDENTIFY WITH THE CENTRAL TENENTS OF THE MOVEMENT AND WHAT ARE THE SOCIAL BONDS THAT KEEP MEMBERS OF THE TRADITION TOGETHER?.
IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEVELOPED MODEL OF 'TRADITION,' OR OF A 'SCHOOL,' WE MUST PROCEED EMPIRICALLY AND COMPARE ONE SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL OR TRADITION TO ANOTHER IN THE HOPE OF ISOLATING THE COMMON ELEMENTS.
IN THIS WAY WE MAY BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIALELEMENTS IN THESE PRE-REVOLUTIONARY CARRIERS OF SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY.
I HAVE TRIED TO MAKE THIS STEP IN OUR ANALYSIS OF SCIENTIFIC CHANGE EASIER BY ARRANGING THE LECTURE TOPICS FOR THE SEMESTERUNDER FIVE OR SIX MAJOR CLASSICAL TRADITIONS IN SCIENCE.
WE HAVE JUST COMPLETED THE TRANSFORMATION OF ONE TRADITION; NAMELY PTOLEMAIC ASTRONOMY; WE ARE JUST BEGINNING A DISCUSSION OF A SECOND; ARISTOTELIAN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
AND WE WILL EVENTUALLY EXAMINE THE TRANSFORMATIONS IN FOUR OTHER TRADITIONS: HERMETIC PHILOSOPHY; EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY, GALENIC MEDICINE, AND THE NATURAL HISTORY OF PLINY.
WHAT ARE THE COMMON ELEMENTS IN THESE TRADITIONS; WHAT MAKE IT POSSIBBLE FOR US TO COMPARE THEM ONE WITH ANOTHER?.
1) FIRST, IN EACH CASE, AT THE HEAD OF THE TRADITION STANDS A GREAT PHILOSOPHER FROM CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY;.
2) SECOND, THAT PERSON'S INFLUENCE HAS BEEN EXERTED PRIMARILY --SOMETIMES EXCLUSIVELY -- THROUGH THE PRESERVATION OF A MORE OR LESS COHERENT BODY OF LITERATURE.
3) THIRD, WHEN WE ALLOW FOR SOME FLUCTUATION OVER TIME AND SPACE, EACH LITERARY CORPUS HAS BEEN READ, PONDERED, GLOSSED, AND ELABORATED UPON BY SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS OF SCHOLARS.
THAT IS, EACH TRADITION IS A TRADITION IN THE SENSE OF CONTINUITY AND THE CONSERVATIVE PRESERVATION OF THE PAST.
MOREOVER, THESE GENERATIONS OF SCHOLARS HAVE EMPLOYED THEIRPARTICULAR SET OF CLASSICAL TEXTS AS A FOUNDATION FOR A BROAD INTELLECTUAL PROGRAM; EITHER IN EDUCATION, PHILOSOPHY, OR SOCIAL ACTION.
THAT IS, THEY HAVE USED THESE WORKS AS GUIDES TO THOUGHT AND ACTION.
4) FOURTH, ALONG WITH--AND INSEPARABLE FROM--THE READING, PONDERING, AND ELABORATION OF THESE TEXTS, THE LIVING CARRIERS OF THESE TRADITIONS DEVELOP A STRONG SENSE OF IDENTITY WITH THE TEXTS AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE THOSE TEXTS STOOD FOR.
IN OTHER WORDS, IN ADDITION TO PURELY INTELLECTUAL INFATUATION,THERE IS ALSO A DEEP MORAL COMMITMENT TO THE TENANTS CONTAINED WITHIN THAT LITERATURE AND THUS A DEEP SENSE OF PRESERVING SACRED SYMBOLS.
THUS WE ARE NOT SIMPLY SPEAKING OF THE PRESERVATION OF ANCIENTLEARNING, BUT ALSO THE PERPETUATION OF A SACRED WAY OF LIFE.
OR TO PUT THIS DIFFERENTLY, ANCIENT LEARNING IS HEAVILY LADEN WITH VALUES AND IS ACTIVITY PROTECTED FROM CONTAMINATION BY IMPURE KNOWLEDGE.
5) AND FINALLY, EACH OF THESE TRADITIONS--FROM PTOLEMAIC ASTRONOMY TO HERMETICISM AND GALENIC MEDICINE UNDERWENT A PROFOUND TRANSFORMATION IN THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES.
THUS THE NOTION OF TRADITION SEEMS TO BE A USEFUL WAY NOT ONLYOF ARRANGING THE TOPICS OF OUR DISCUSSION.
IT IS ALSO USEFUL AS A MEANS OF CASTING LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC CHANGE.
FOR NOT EVERY TRADITION TRANSFORMED IN QUITE THE SAME WAY; EACH DISPLAYS PECULIARITIES.
ONE WAS MORE FULLY INSTITUTIOALIZED--AND THUS MORE FULLY LEGITIMATED--THAN ANOTHER; ONE RESTED ON A RICHER LITERARY CORPUS THAN ANOTHER; AND SO ON.
WHEN WE COMPARE THE DIFFERING CONDITIONS AND VARIOUS MODESOF TRANSFORMATION OF THIS TRADITION WITH THAT, WE MAY FIND THAT THE COMPARISONS TO BE MUTUALLY ILLUMINATING.
A. ARISTOTLE AND THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS.
WITH THESE TENTATIVE SPECULATIONS IN MIND, LET ME TURN TO WHATWAS CERTAINLY THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE ANCIENT LITERARY TRADITIONS; THAT IS, ARISTOTELIAN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
AND LETS START AT THE VERY HEAD OF THIS TRADITION; WITH ARISTOTLE HIMSELF.
AFTER ARISTOTLE'S DEATH IN 322 B.C. HE LEFT AN EXTENSIVE BODY OF WRITINGS CONSISTING OF TWO PARTS, ONE POPULAR AND ONE TECHNICAL.
A LARGE GROUP OF DIALOGUES AND POPULAR TREATISES WERE PUBLISHED DURING HIS LIFETIME AND WERE WIDELY READ UNTIL THEY WERE FINALLY LOST TOWARD END OF ANTIQUITY (CA. 6TH CENTURY A.D.).
WE ARE TOLD THE THESE POPULAR WRITINGS POSSESSED A CERTAIN LITERARY ELEGANCE AND WERE PROBABLY COMPOSED DURING HIS YOUNGER YEARS AND RESEMBLED PLATO'S WORKS IN TONE AND CONTENT.
HIS TECHNICAL WRITINGS WERE ESSENTIALLY A COLLECTION OF LECTURE COURSES HE DELIVERED AT THE 'LYCEUM' -- SCHOOL HE FOUNDED IN ATHENS.
THESE WRITINGS WERE CHARACTERIZED BY THEIR HIGHLY TECHNICAL NATURE, SYSTEMATIC AND CLOSELY REASONED ARGUMENTS, AND DETAILED PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION.
AND, AS ANY OF YOU WHO HAVE TRIED TO READ ARISTOTLE KNOW, THESE WORKS POSSESS A DENSE, DRY, AND OFTEN DIFFICULT LITERARY STYLE.
AT BOTTOM, THESE TECHNICAL TREATISES REPRESENT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONTEMPORARY PHILSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
HOWEVER, THESE WORKS WERE NOT PUBLISHED IN HIS LIFETIME.
FOR SEVERAL CENTURIES THEY WERE ONLY AVAILABLE IN THE LIBRARYOF THE 'LYCEUM', WHERE THEY COULD BE USED BY HIS STUDENTS AND FOLLOWERS, AND AT A FEW LARGE 'RESEARCH LIBRARIES' LIKE THE ONE IN ALEXANDRIA.
THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS THAT WE KNOW WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE 1ST CENTURY B.C., AND THEY SEEM NOT TO HAVE BEEN WIDELY READOR STUDIED AND EXERCISED LITTLE INFLUENCE OUTSIDE THE LYCEUM.
THUS IT SEEMS FAIR TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ARISTOTELIAN TRADITION IN ANTIQUITY WAS SIMPLY ONE AMONG SEVERAL SCHOOLS OF PHILOSOPHY.
IT EXERTED NO GREAT INFLUENCE OVER PLATO'S SUCCESSORS AT THE ACADEMY IN ATHENS, NOR AMONG STOICS, EPICUREANS, THE SKEPTICS, PHILO, OR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN THINKERS.
THE TRADITION OF COMMENTARIES, OR GLOSSES, ON THE ARISTOTELIANCORPUSBEGAN WITH ARISTOTLE'S IMMEDICATE SUCCESSORS AT THE LYCEUM.
THE MOST IMPORTANT OF WHOM WERE THEOPHRASTUS, WHO TOOK OVER THE SCHOOL AFTER ARISTOTLE'S DEATH, AND ALEXANDER, WHO LIVED AROUND 200 A.D..
HOWEVER, BY THE 3RD CENTURY A.D., ARISTOELIANISM HAD DISAPPEARED ENTIRELY AS AN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL.
YET NEO-PLATONISM, WHICH DOMINATED GREEK THOUGH FROM THE 3RD CENTURY A.D. TO THE 6TH CENTURY A.D. WAS COMMITTED TO A SYNTHESIS OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE; THUS THIS TRADITION KEPT THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS ALIVE.
AND IT WAS THIS NEO-PLATONIC VERSION OF THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUSTHAT CAME TO BE THE CORE OF ARAB SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITIONS.
OF COURSE, DURING THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES, THE LATIN WEST WAS CUT OFF FROM THE GREEK TRADITION.
HENCE THEIR KNOWLDGE OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE WAS RESTRICTED TO ROMAN SOURCES, MOSTLY OF WHICH WERE POPULAR ENCYCLOPEDIAS OF LIMITED TECHNICAL IMPORT.
AS MOST OF YOU WELL KNOW, DURING 12TH AND 13TH CENTURIES A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF GREEK TREATISES WERE TRANSLATED INTO LATIN MOSTLY FROM ARABIC, THOUGH ALSO A FEW FROM ORGINAL GREEK SOURCES.
THIS INTENSIVE PERIOD OF TRANSLATION SAW THE RECOVERY OF NEARLY THE WHOLE OF THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS, ALONG WITH SOME GREEK AND MANY ARABIC COMMENTARIES.
A NUMBER OF THINGS CAME TOGETHER IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES TOGIVE ARISTOTLE'S WORKS A MUCH GREATER AUTHORITY THAN THEY EVER POSSESSED IN ANTIQUITY.
1) FIRST, THE SYSTEMATIC CHARACTER OF ARISTOTLE'S WRITING, EACH TOPIC IS LAID OUT IN AN ORDERLY FASHION AND RELATES DIRECTLY TO SEVERAL OTHER PARTS OF HIS WORK.
2) SECOND, THE ENCYCLOPEDIC SCOPE OF THE TOPICS HE TREATS.
AND 3) THE APPARENT RELATEDNESS OF HIS IDEAS TO OTHER GREEK WRITINGS, LIKE THE TECHNICAL WORKS OF PTOLEMY IN ASTRONOMY, EUCLID IN MATHEMATICS, AND GALEN IN MEDICINE.
THE DOMINANCE OF MEDIEVAL THOUGHT BY THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS CAN ALSO BE EXPLAINED IN PART BY THE USE THE CHURCH MADE OF CERTAIN KEY ARISTOTELIAN CONCEPTS AND ALSO -- AND PERHAPS MORE SIGNIFICANTLY -- BECAUSE OF THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY.
NOW THE EMERGENCE OF THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY IS A STORY IN ITSELF, AND ONE WE CANNOT TELL HERE.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE UNIVERSITY STRUCTURE AROSE JUST SHORTLY BEFORE THE GREAT WAVE OF TRANSLATIONS OF GREEK AND ARABIC WORKS.
THE SYSTEMATIC, COMPREHENSIVE NATURE OF THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS, AS WELL AS ITS RICHNESS OF DETAIL, HELPED MAKE IT A 'NATURAL' FOR INCLUSION IN THE ACADEMIC CANON OF MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITIES.
INDEED, THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS HELPED ESTABLISH PHILOSOPHY ASAN INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINE IN THE UNIVERSITY ALONG SIDE THE FACULTIES OF LAW, MEDICINE, AND THEOLOGY.
ARISTOTLE'S WORKS GAINED SUCH AUTHORITY IN MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITIES THAT WE OFTEN SPEAK OF SCHOLASTIC ARISTOTELIANISM AS THOUGH IT REPRESENTED THE WHOLE OF MEDIEVAL THOUGHT.
WHILE THAT MAY NOT BE LITERALLY TRUE, ARISTOTELIANISM -- AS DISTINCT FROM THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS -- HELPED DEFINE AND DIRECTMUCH OF THE INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY OF THE PERIOD.
1) FIRST AND FOREMOST, ARISTOTELIANISM WAS TIED TO A COMMON SOURCE MATERIAL; NAMELY, THE CORPUS OF TREATISES ATTRIBUTED TO ARISTOTLE AND THE ACCOMPANYING COMMENTARIES.
2) SECOND, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LATIN MIDDEL AGES, ARISTOTELIANISM ALSO REPRESENTED A COMMON SET OF IDEAS ABOUT HOW THE WORLD IS STRUCTURED AND HOW IT OPERATES.
3) THIRD, ARISTOTELIANISM SHARES A COMMON TERMINOLOGY AND A COMMON SET OF DEFINITIONS, THE MEANINGS OF WHICH ARE OSTENSIBLY CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL CORPUS.
HOWEVER, MUCH OF THE CHALLENGE OF MASTERING THE CORPUS IS IN THE CLARIFICATION AND ELUCIDATION OF THOSE MEANINGS.
4) FOURTH, ARISTOTELIANISM PROVIDES A COMMON SET OF PROBLEMS AND A COMMON SET OF METHODS FOR DISCUSSING THESE PROBLEMS.
NOW ARISTOTELIANISM, IN THE SENSE JUST DEFINED, WAS UNQUESTIONABLY THE DOMINANT INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD IN THE LATIN WEST FOR OVER450 YEARS.
IT HAD SURVIVED THE WHOLESALE TRANSMISSION FROM THE ARABIC WORLD PRETTY MUCH IN TACT.
IT HAD ADAPTED TO, AND FLOURISHED IN, THE ENTIRELY NOVEL INSTITUTIONAL SETTING PROVIDED BY THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY.
AND IT HAD REACHED A STATE OF MUTUAL ACCOMMODATION WITH THECATHOLIC CHURCH BY 1300.
ARISTOTELIANISM PREVAILED AS THE DOMINANT INTELLECTUAL TRADITION FROM THAT TIME UNTIL ITS GENERAL ABANDONMENT BETWEEN 1600 AND 1650.
GIVEN THE DEMISE OF ARISTOTELIANISM IN THE 17TH CENTURY, ONE CAN ASK EITHER OF TWO QUESTIONS:.
1) WHY DID IT SURVIVE FOR SO LONG? THAT IS, WHAT WAS THERE ABOUTMEDIEVAL ARISTOTELIANISM THAT WON IT THE ALLEGIANCE OF SO MANY GENERATIONS OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS?.
2) OR ONE CAN ASK, WHY DIDN'T IT SURVIVE LONGER? HOW COULD IT COME TO AN END?.
BECAUSE IT WAS, AFTER ALL, NOT SIMPLY AN END, IT WAS THE END.
IT WAS NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF ARISTOTELIANISM DYING OUT IN ONE CULTURE JUST AS IT WAS BEGINNING TO BE ASSIMILATED INTO ANOTHER;AS IN THE CASE OF LATE HELLENISTIC AND EARLY ARABIC ARISTOTELIANISM.
THE 17TH CENTURY MARKS THE END NOT OF A 450-YEAR OLD WESTERN TRADITION, BUT OF A NEARLY 2000-YEAR OLD MEDITERRANEAN TRADITION.
NOR DID ARISTOTELIANISM DIE OF BENIGN NEGLECT.
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BRING SUCH A REMARKABLY ADAPTABLE, STABLE, AND SEEMINGLY SELF-PERPETUATING SYSTEM TO ITS FINAL END?.
THE EASY AND SOMEWHAT NAIVE ANSWER TO THIS SECOND SET OF QUESTION IS, 'THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION'.
WE WILL RETURN TO THIS QUESTION TOWARD THE END OF THE SEMESTER.
FOR NOW, LET'S STICK WITH THE FIRST PROBLEM; THAT IS, THE STABILITYAND LONGEVITY OF MEDIEVAL ARISTOTELIANISM.
AS I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, THE METAPHYSICAL, LOGICAL, NATURAL PHILOSOPHICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATISES OF ARISTOTLE PROVIDED THE FRAMEWORK AND MUCH OF THE DETAIL FOR MEDIEVAL SCIENCE.
IN FACT, ARISTOTELIANISM PROVIDED TWO FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS OF THE MEDIEVAL WORLDVIEW; NAMELY, THE OVERALL STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF THE COSMOS AND THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS GRAND SYSTEM OPERATED.
THE ARISTOTELIAN COSMOS WAS A FINITE, CLOSED, UNIQUE MATERIAL SPHERE FILLED EVERYWHERE WITH MATTER.
BEYOND THE EIGHTH, OR STELLAR, SPHERE NOTHING EXISTED -- NOT EVEN NOTHING SINCE ONE CANNOT SPEAK OF WHAT DOES NOT EXIST.
SEVEN ENORMOUS CONCENTRIC CRYSTALLINE SPHERES CARRIED THE PLANETS AROUND IN THEIR ORBITS.
AT THE VERY CENTER OF THE COSMOS LAY THE EARTH, COMPOSED OF THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF EARTH, WATER, AIR, AND FIRE.
THE ORBIT OF THE MOON FORMS THE LINE -- OR BETTER, THE SPHERE -- OF DEMARCATION SEPARATING THE CHANGELESS PERFECTION OF THE CELESTIAL REGION FROM THE CHANGING AND IMPERFECT TERRESTRIAL REGION.
IN THIS GRAND COSMOLOGICAL STAGE, THE CHRISTIAN DRAMA COULD RUN ITS COURSE.
THE CHRISTIAN GOD WAS ITS CREATOR AND PRIME MOVER, AND ANGELSCOULD BE CALLED UPON TO KEEP THE GREAT CRYSTALLINE SPHERES INMOTION.
AT THE CENTER OF THIS GRAND WORLD SYSTEM, HUMANKIND STRUGGLES TOWARD REDEMPTION ON A SMALL, CORRUPTIBLE EARTH, WITH HELL JUST BENEATH ITS FEET.
THERE WAS LITTLE DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE OVERALL DESIGNOF THE ARISTOTELIAN COSMOS; CONSENSUS WAS HIGH, AND THE SUBJECTS OF SCHOLASTIC DEBATES WERE DIRECTED NOT TOWARD THE MACRO-STRUCTURE OF THE ARISTOTELIAN COSMOS, BUT TOWARD ITS MICRO-OPERATIONS.
HERE THERE WAS PLENY OF ROOM FOR DISAGREEMENT, DIVERSITY OF OPINION, AND INTENSE DEBATE.
HOWEVER, WHAT IS OF GREATER INTEREST THAN THE SIMPLE STURCTURE OF THE ARISTOTELIAN COSMOS, IS THE METHOD OF INSTRUCTION; THAT IS, THE WAY ARISTOTLE WAS TAUGHT AND DISCUSSED IN THE SCHOOLS.
THE MEDEIVAL METHOD OF EXPOSITION CENTERED AROUND TWO ELEMENTS:.
THE LECTURA: THE READING ALOUD OF AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS WITH THEMASTER PROVIDING EXPOSITION.
AND THE DISPUTATIO: THE PUBLIC TESTING OF STUDENT OR SCHOLAR INWHICH SELECTED PROPOSITIONS DRAWN FROM A CLASSICAL TEXT WEREPRESENTED ORALLY AND DEBATED IN FRONT OF AN AUDIENCE OF JUDGES AND PEERS.
THESE MODES OF ORAL DISCOURSE WERE TRANSFERRED INTO WRITTEN FORM AS THE COMMENTARY, OR EXTENDED EXPOSITION OF AN AUTHORITATIVE TEXT, AND THE QUESTIONES, OR THE DETAILED MULLINGOVER OF A PARTICULAR PROBLEM FROM THE CLASSICAL CORPUS.
AND AS WILL BE CLEAR IN A MOMENT, THESE PARTICULAR MODES OF DISCOURSE NOT ONLY HELP TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REMARKABLE LONGEVITY OF THE ARISTOTELIAN WORLDVIEW, THEY ALSO HELP EXPLAIN THE INTERNAL FRAGMENTATION OF ARISTOTLIANISM IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES AND EARLY RENAISSANCE.
TYPICAL QUESTIONES WOULD BE: IS THE CELESTIAL REGION A FLUID MASS? OR IS IT SUBDIVIDED INTO SOLID SPHERES? IF SOLID SPHERES, THEN HOW MANY? WERE THEY CONTIGUOUS? HOW WERE THEY MOVED? WHAT IS THE CAUSE BY WHICH AN ELEMENT MOVED TO ITS NATURAL PLACE? WAS A RESISTANT MEDIUM REQUIRED FOR MOTION? DOES AN ELEMENT IN A COMPOUND RETAINS ELEMENTAL FORM?.
THUS MEDIEVAL OPINIONS CONCERNING THE DETAILS OF THE PHYSICALOPERATION COULD BE, AND WERE, MULTIPLIED INDEFINITELY.
THERE WERE AT LEAST THREE FORCES AT WORK THAT HELPED PRODUCED THIS PROLIFERATION OF OPINIONS.
1) FIRST, THERE WERE ARISTOTLE'S OWN OBSCURITIES AND AMBUGUITIES WHICH NO AMOUNT OF INTERPRETATION COULD RESOLVESUCCESSFULLY.
ARISTOTELIAN PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES, SUCH AS POTENTIALITY AND ACTUALITY, THE FOUR CAUSES, MATTER AND FORM, THE FOUR ELEMENTS,THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL PLACE, AND SO ON WERE SO BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE THAT THEY WERE EASILY APPLIED TO A VARIETY OF DIVERGENT AND COMPETING THEORIES.
2) SECOND, ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THESE AMBIGUITIES THROUGH THE STANDARD LITERARY TECHNIQUE OF THE COMMENTARY NOT ONLY SERVED TO ALTER SUBTLY ARISTOTLE'S ARGUMENTS, THEY ALSO GENERATED AN EVER GREATER NUMBER OF COMPETING OPINIONS.
AND OF COURSE THESE OPINIONS THEMSELVES HAD TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE NEXT GENERATION OF COMMENTATORS.
3) AND THIRD, COMMENTARIES ON ARISTOTLE ALMOST ALWAYS TOOK THE FORM OF A SERIES OF QUESTIONES; THAT IS, A SERIES OF SPECIFIC PROBLEMS FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE PRIMARY TEXT.
AND THESE PROBLEMS WERE ANALYSED INTO VERBAL ARGUMENTS PROAND CON FOLLOWED BY THE COMMENTATOR'S PREFERRED SOLUTION.
BY ITS VERY NATURE, THE QUESTIONES ENCOURAGED DIFFERENCES OF OPINION: IT WAS A VEHICLE PAR EXCELLANCE FOR DISPUTE AND ARGUMENTATION.
MEDIEVAL SCHOLASTICS DISPLAYED CONSIDERABLE INGENUITY IN INTRODUCING NEW AND SUBTLE DISTINCTIONS, WHICH, IN TURN, WOULDYIELD NEW OPINIONS.
YET NO RESOLUTION OF MOST OF THESE PROBLEMS WAS REALLY POSSIBLE.