Aristotelianism

ARISTOTELIANISM. - 1. MEDIEVAL A. - An event of primary importance in the development of medieval thought, destined to produce first-rate consequences in intellectual life, was the encounter, in the 13th century, of the masters of the University of Paris with Arabic and Jewish Aristotelian philosophy. For the first time Christendom - until then Platonizing and Augustinian, with a typically theological mentality - found itself in the presence of the formidable scientific and philosophical synthesis of Aristotle, of naturalist inspiration, which for several reasons could be said to be in contrast with its vision of life. A. constituted a true surprise for the masters of the Faith, and the appearance of its doctrine on the tranquil mirror of theological waters gave rise to one of the most painful travails that the history of culture recalls.

Around 1200 most of Aristotle's works had already been translated into Latin. Of the Organon we know that the Logica vetus had been translated by Boethius, and it was already in circulation in the 12th century. Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187) and Henry Aristippus (d. 1162) translated, the former from Arabic, the latter from Greek, almost all the Libri naturales. In the 12th century the translations of the Physica, of the De anima, and a partial one of the Metaphysica (bks. I-IV, 4: Metaphysica vetustissima) and of the Ethica nicomachea (bks. II and III: Ethica vetus) also became known. Furthermore the Isagoge of Porphyry, the commentaries of Boethius on the Categoriae and the De interpretatione, the commentaries of Themistius on the Analytica posteriora, the Distinctio super librum Aristotelis de naturali auditu of Alfarabi, the Paraphrases of Avicenna, etc., all contributed effectively to making Aristotle known.

At the beginning of the 13th century the penetration of Aristotle into the Latin world must already have been advanced, if in the Council of Paris of 1210 (Chartularium Univ. Paris, I, p. 70, n. 11) and in the ordinances of the pontifical legate Robert of Courçon of 1215 (ibid., I, pp. 78-79, n. 20) the teaching of the Libri naturales and their commentaries was forbidden. We then have a letter dated 7 July 1228 from Gregory IX, addressed to the professors of theology of the University of Paris (ibid., I, pp. 114-16, n. 59), in which the concern over the invasion of philosophy into the field of the sacred sciences is shown to be most vivid: the Pope affirms that theology is queen of all knowledge and that philosophy has, with respect to it, only an ancillary task. In 1229, on the occasion of a grave crisis that broke out within the Parisian University, the University of Toulouse was created, where, among the subjects of teaching, the Libri naturales are accepted. In a letter of 13 Apr. 1231 (ibid., I, p. 138, n. 79), Gregory IX, in the letter of the 12th to 1215 against the Libri naturales of Aristotle "quousque examinati fuerint et ab omni errorum suspitione purgati." In fact, by a letter of 23 Apr. 1231 (ibid., I, pp. 143-44, n. 87), the Pope appoints a commission charged with this correction of the Stagirite with a view to his better utilization for the purposes of Christian science. This commission cannot have brought its work to completion, if we have a letter of 22 Sept. 1245 from Innocent IV, which still prohibits the teaching of the natural books "quousque examinati fuerint" (ibid., I, pp. 185-86, n. 140).

The introduction of Aristotle into the University of Paris thus encounters difficulties until around 1245. The persistence of this distrust of the Libri naturales is perhaps also due to the arrival of Averroes' commentary which, begun to be translated by Michael Scot (cf. R. De Vaux, La première entrée d'Aristote chez les latins, in Revue des sciences philos. et théol., 27 [1933], pp. 193-245), definitively enters the philosophical library of the Latins around 1235. Averroes' translation constitutes the most important cultural event of the first half of the 13th century. Through it the Latins came into contact with a thinker of very great talent, a fanatic for Aristotle, almost the whole of whose immense scientific encyclopedia he had commented upon. Averroes emphasized certain naturalistic positions of the Stagirite, and in psychology he professed human monopsychism. This thesis, contrary to the Christian dogma of the survival of the individual soul, soon became the center of diatribes, reproaches and official interventions by ecclesiastical authority, which certainly made the acceptance of Aristotle's teaching in the schools ever more difficult (v. AVERROISM).

The commentaries of Roger Bacon (ca. 1245) on Aristotle and on Proclus (Liber de causis) constitute the oldest document testifying to the teaching of the Physica and the Metaphysica in Paris. Officially A. enters the faculty of arts in its entirety in 1255 (statute of 19 March). Almost contemporaneously Albert the Great begins the publication of his monumental paraphrases of the various Aristotelian texts in the manner of Avicenna, which had the effect of rapidly disseminating among the Latins the vast learning of the Stagirite. The Albertine paraphrase, besides being a work of dissemination, also represents the first serious attempt to rethink Peripateticism in a Christian way. For this reason Albert must be considered the true founder of Christian [Aristotelianism].

But the most complete synthesis, the most enduring, and one that far surpasses the Albertine reworking and bears the imprint of the originality of genius, is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, a disciple of Albert. He rethought Aristotle by making use of Neoplatonic and Christian authors, ancient and contemporary, giving life to a completely new philosophical system which cannot be better designated than by the name "Thomism" (v.) in which, however, the main framework is constituted by Aristotelian and Christian elements. Thomism represents, we may also say, the most typical expression of orthodox and moderate A., while Averroism stands as the representative of its radical and heterodox current.

Heterodox A., or Averroism, suffered two condemnations from the bishop of Paris, in 1270 and in 1277. Among the theories condemned in 1277 are found certain Aristotelian propositions accepted by St. Thomas. But this was to be the last revenge that the still Platonizing masters of theology took against moderate A., because, thanks especially to the Aquinate, it was introduced into all the schools and became an integral part of the official science of the Church, both philosophical and theological (scholasticism).

Gerardo Brun

2. MODERN ARISTOTELIANISM

In this period of the evolution of A. it is no longer a question of an integral revival of it, but rather of a philosophical conception of the world, more or less systematically elaborated on the basis of certain fundamental Aristotelian elements, with the various philosophers proceeding according to different criteria and with different tasks, according to the various historical, cultural, environmental and religious exigencies.

We can distinguish various stages of this evolution, which however, from the problematic and historical-evolutionary aspect, are not strictly connected with one another: 1) the Italian neo-A. of the Renaissance with analogous (weaker) movements in France, Spain, England; 2) scholastic A.; 3) Protestant A.; 4) the Aristotelian revival in the 19th century which, in its various aspects (systematic, interpretive and historical) lasts down to the present day.

1. Italian neo-A. of the Renaissance

The motives that gave impulse to the first phase of A. can be distinguished into two categories. The first comprises the various connections, material-formal or problematic-methodological, with scholasticism. The philosophy of the Renaissance, in fact, with the intention of a new methodical foundation of the vision of the world, can in a certain sense be considered as a continuation of scholastic thought, inasmuch as it takes from it certain groups of fundamental problems (logical, criteriological, metaphysical, not so much the ontological), which demanded a profound reflection on methodological principles; an exigency that made itself felt even more in the natural sciences. To the second category of motives belong the various influences coming from contact with Eastern A. and with the lively discussions taking place among Arab philosophers on its meaning and value, especially in comparison with Platonic philosophy. It is precisely these influences that largely determine the singular polemical and syncretistic physiognomy of Renaissance A. In the wake of contacts with Eastern literature there arose the problem of a double A., that is, Averroistic and Alexandrist, which made the task of the Aristotelians of the Renaissance of discovering the genuine Aristotle quite arduous, for the translations and commentaries, reflecting the thought of one or the other tendency, did not lead to an absolute objectivity. (The principal translators of the period are: Bessarion, T. Gaza, Argyropulos, George of Trebizond, L. Bruni, E. Barbaro).

The renewed Aristotelianism found support and scientific cultivation especially in Padua (with branches in Bologna, Pavia, Ferrara, Siena and Naples), where the tradition of Averroistic Aristotelianism had been preserved. The physician and philosopher Pietro d'Abano (v.) is to be regarded as the first representative of the Averroistic influence at the University of Padua. Essentially a compiler, his translations are of no importance; yet the merit is his of having introduced the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata into the Western philosophical milieu. Much used down to humanistic times was his principal work, Conciliator differentiarum philosophorum et praecipue medicorum. Pietro's relation to the fundamental ideas of Arabic philosophy (e.g., the eternity of the world and of matter) and particularly to the Averroistic theory of the unity of the intellect remains obscure.

In any case, despite all enthusiasm for the authority of Averroes, Pietro never upheld and promoted Averroistic ideas with that boldness which characterizes the leader of the Parisian Averroists, John of Jandun, and his friend Marsilius of Padua. John defends the eternity of the universe and of motion as did the Stagirite and the Arabs, and energetically affirms the principle of double truth. With Averroistic ideas he combines a skepticism that predominates without reserve in the field of metaphysical psychology. Together with Marsilius, John further developed a heterodox ethical-political Aristotelianism. Paul of Venice (d. 1429), known for his rather encyclopedic commentaries on Aristotle's Physics, also understood Averroism in John's spirit; his texts on logic (with some Ockhamist influence) were officially imposed at Padua.

A disciple of Paul of Venice, Gaetano da Thiene (d. 1465), later a professor at Padua, attempted the reconciliation of Averroism and ecclesiastical doctrine. On the same line of oscillation between reason and faith, between Aristotle and Averroes, followed A. Achillini, N. Vernia, A. Nifo, M. A. Zimara. Noteworthy is Zimara's attempt to interpret the unity of the human intellect in the sense of the unity of the universal principles of knowing.

In this period there also occurred the first printed edition of Averroes at Padua in 1472.

Meanwhile Alexandrist Aristotelianism began to arise, which linked itself to Aristotle through the Greek commentators, especially Alexander of Aphrodisias, with frankly deistic-naturalistic tendencies against the somewhat mystical-pantheistic ones of Averroism, with which, however, it agreed in denying the possibility of miracles and the immortality of the individual soul in an absolute sense. The founder of this so-called Alexandrist school was Pietro Pomponazzi (v.), to whom the greatest crisis of Averroistic Aristotelianism is due.

Pomponazzi's influence was great. Among his disciples let us recall: S. Porta, G. Contarini, later an opponent, and the Spaniard Sepúlveda. Dependent on S. Porta, but also on Nifo, is A. Cesalpino, an Aristotelian not precisely classifiable as Averroist or Alexandrist. Even the best-known Aristotelian of the Paduan school of the 16th century, G. Zabarella (v.), famous for his logical writings, is counted now among the Averroists, now among the Alexandrists. His successor in his chair, C. Cremonini ("the revived Aristotle," 1550-1631), even more explicitly than Zabarella, proclaims the autonomy of physics as a science, according to the principles of genuine Aristotelianism, and its demand to be founded exclusively on experience.

While these struggles were unfolding around Aristotle's logic, physics and method, the Poetics marks a triumph. In 1498 Giorgio Valla gives its first translation. Various editions and translations followed through the work of A. de Pazzi, F. Robertello, B. Segni, P. Vettori, L. Castelvetro, A. Piccolomini, L. Salviati.

Toward the end of the 15th century Aristotelianism had a revival in France with G. Lefèvre d'Etaples (Faber Stapulensis), a commentator on Aristotle's writings and a purifier of him from scholastic "falsifications," and with his disciple C. Bouillé, who attempted a singular fusion of Aristotle with the Neoplatonism of Cusanus.

In England a strong Aristotelian tradition always maintained itself, at least in the general questions of philosophy and metaphysics, down to the middle of the 17th century; its principal center is at Oxford with I. Sanderson, I. Case, R. Crakanthrop, T. Wilson, R. Lever; important as a metaphysician is M. Carpenter; K. Digby attempted a reconciliation of the fundamental Peripatetic metaphysical ideas with the Cartesian current and the new natural science. Even in F. Bacon the study of nature is still closely bound to the Aristotelian-scholastic horizon.

The reflowering of Aristotelianism was, throughout the whole period, hindered by serious conflicts to which it finally succumbed. The representatives of Platonism strove, not without success, to demonstrate that Plato was more consonant with Christianity than Aristotle. One of the most characteristic works of this controversy is the violent libel De platonicae atque aristotelicae philosophiae differentia (written in Greek) by G. Plato (1355-1450), to which George of Trebizond responds with the Comparatio Platonis et Aristotelis (1458). Cardinal Bessarion replies, recognizing Aristotle's scientific merits but placing Plato before him in the theological-philosophical field. Other strong reactions arose later on the part of scientists against the abstractionism and the qualitative (rather than quantitative) tendency that governed the solutions of physical problems given by the Aristotelians in contrast with Galileo; bitter, for example, was F. Patrizzi (1529-97). Aristotle's logic was energetically opposed by L. Vives (1492-1550) in Spain and P. de la Ramée (1515-72) in France.

But it was not these reactions from outside that decided the fate of Renaissance Aristotelianism, but rather intrinsic deficiencies that caused its almost total disappearance at the rise of the new philosophy with Descartes. Instituting an objective examination, one cannot but observe that it was an attempt at the founding and systematization of a worldview with inadequate and insufficient means. The question of method, which imposed itself before all others, had not been resolved, despite some good seeds, e.g. in Pomponazzi; consequently one observes polemics without a valid criterion of discernment, systematic attempts without an adequate penetration of the problems and, worse still, the philosophically unworthy principle of double truth. Too great an attachment to traditions prevented the understanding of Aristotle's authentic thought, and this misunderstanding in turn was one of the principal causes for which the elaboration of a systematic doctrine of being was omitted. The Stagirite's profound metaphysical intuitions were neglected, while his physical theories, by then superseded, were increasingly emphasized. All this, together with formalism in logic and abstractionism and deductivism in the methodological aspect, excluded every possibility of a true re-strengthening of Aristotelianism.

2. Scholastic Aristotelianism

Instead of marking a beginning of progress, the great Aristotelian-Thomist synthesis historically and speculatively became a halt, perhaps because of its excessively systematic and, consequently, closed character. In fact, in orthodox Scholastics from the 14th century onward one observes, essentially, a reaffirmation of Aristotelian-Thomist thought together with the conviction of possessing genuine Aristotelianism (hence few exegetical concerns), but without notable speculative progress, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The first continuators, interested more theologically than philosophically, commented on works of Aristotle and of St. Thomas: thus Capreolus (1380-1444), Cardinal Cajetan (1486-1534), who remained faithful to Thomist Aristotelianism in the Averroistic milieu of Padua, and Sylvester of Ferrara (1474-1526); cf. C. Giacon, La seconda scolastica, part I: I grandi commentatori di s. Tommaso, Milan 1944. In the 16th century a vigorous Aristotelian-Thomist revival occurred only in Spanish Scholasticism: F. de Vitoria, M. Cano, D. Soto, D. Báñez, Fr. Toledo, G. Vásquez, faithful Thomists; L. Molina, F. Suárez, rather eclectic, are Aristotelians in logic (with Ockhamist influences) and in physics, accepting as well, particularly the latter, decisive ontological and metaphysical motifs from the thought of the Stagirite. Worthy of note are the important Commentarii collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Iesu (Coimbra, 1588-1606) on various works of Aristotle (chief deviser P. Fonseca, 1528-97). In the 17th century some Thomists of value remained faithful to traditional Aristotelianism: John of St. Thomas, Sylvester Maurus. The historical importance of this strictly Scholastic direction of Aristotelianism lies principally in having kept alive the thought of Aristotle, in having preserved a high speculative level, even while lacking, as has been said, a true advance in problems: and this made possible a vigorous revival of it in the 19th century, after a grounding and even a losing of its way, amid modern currents, for about a century and a half.

3. Protestant Aristotelianism

A picture entirely different from that of orthodox Scholasticism, which by the 16th century had become stagnant, is offered by the progressive evolution of Aristotelianism in Protestantism.

This evolution began with the return to Aristotle, initiated by Melanchthon (1497-1560), who, also under the influence of Italian Aristotelianism, led to a complete rebirth of Aristotelian philosophy. Around 1600 the metaphysics of Aristotle too was fitted into the new doctrinal system and subsequently gave to Protestant philosophy in the 17th century its particular stamp. One of the most important features was the growing tendency toward the autonomization of ontology. In close contact also with Scholasticism, the traditional questions of the metaphysics of being were treated and critically discussed; from certain points of view, this direction was more closely adherent to Aristotle than orthodox Scholasticism itself. This movement, whose speculative moment is even today known only in general terms and to which belonged about a hundred philosophers, some of them able and productive, predominated for the whole of the 17th century in almost all university study in Germany and, though with less exclusivity, in Holland. Among the best-known Aristotelians of this current are: D. Cramer, C. Martini, G. Gutke, V. Fromm, A. Calov, C. Timpler, O. Casmann, who also depends on Italian Aristotelianism.

Considering the aforesaid direction as a whole, one can really speak of a certain deepening of the metaphysical thought of Aristotle that merits consideration. In the 18th century, principally under the influence of Pietism as well as of the Enlightenment, the current, so promising in the second half of the 17th century, came to a halt almost at once. However, its influence is still noticeable down to the immediate predecessors of Kant. This was also the milieu in which the young Leibniz was formed (Leipzig, Jena), and the influence of it is observed in some of the philosopher's fundamental theories (entelechy, causality, finalism). Less studied is the undeniable relationship that links Spinoza and Clauberg to this branch of Scholasticism (cf. P. Petersen, Geschichte der aristot. Phil. im protestant. Deutschland, Leipzig 1921; M. Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des XVII. Jahrhunderts, Tübingen 1939. The latter also contains a complete list of the principal centers and of all the authors with their respective works, editions, etc.).

4. The Aristotelian revival of the 19th century

A new reconnection with Aristotle occurred in the 19th century, although even modern philosophy, from Descartes onward, had not managed to withdraw itself entirely from the spirit of the Stagirite. Despite the fact, however, that the indisputable greatness of Aristotle was recognized, because of an almost abysmal methodological diversity between the two currents, Aristotelian and modern, no renewal of Aristotelianism seemed realizable. Under the impulse of the new evaluation of the history of philosophical thought on the part of idealism, but also in reaction against idealism itself and against positivist superficialization, alongside the philosophical directions dominant in the 19th century a new Aristotelianism came to be formed; the magnificent critical edition of I. Bekker (Berlin 1831 ff.) also contributed to this formation. Thus there developed rather rapidly a particular fervor for Aristotelian studies, not without the participation of resurgent Scholasticism.

The forerunner of the new extra-Scholastic Aristotelian movement was F. A. Trendelenburg (1802-72). For Trendelenburg Aristotle is and must be «the essential historical basis» of every philosophical speculation: he elaborated a logic on the basis of Aristotelian principles, opposing it to the Hegelian one (Elementa logicae arist., Berlin 1836), in which tendency F. Ueberweg fully agreed with him (and to think is to represent being); in metaphysics the finalistic idea prevailed. The studies and the fundamental direction of Trendelenburg exercised a profound influence on Fr. Brentano who, knowing the Scholastics thoroughly as well, later became known for his exegetical studies on Aristotle, introduced many Aristotelian concepts into modern German philosophical culture and, together with F. Bolzano, aroused in that milieu a new interest in Aristotelian metaphysics. Among others, mention should also be made of: R. Eucken (Die Methode der arist. Forschung, Berlin 1872), Th. Waitz (ed. of the Organon, Leipzig 1844-46), C. A. Brandis and H. Bonitz (studies on Greek philosophy), F. K. A. Schweiger (Metaphysik des A., Tübingen 1847-48). This vast Aristotelian investigation, developing at first very markedly in Germany, later had strong resonance in other countries where results no less important were reached (in France: Hamelin, Ravaisson, Robin, Carteron, Tricot; in England: Jackson, Joachim, Hicks, Ross).

Meanwhile the principal work of the aforesaid current was carried on rather in the exegetical field with the aim of ascertaining genuine Aristotelianism and led to the rehabilitation of its thought and philosophical value (Eucken, Prantl), while the properly systematic interest was aroused above all among the neo-Scholasticism of the period and those sympathetic to it (Kleutgen, Von Hertling, Baeumker, Rolfes, Mansion, Colle). In today's philosophical development, aporetic rather than systematic Aristotelianism has become an impulsive force, for example, in the ethics and ontology of Nic. Hartmann and others, who nevertheless do not neglect its great enduring intuitions, or discover them independently (for example, H. Driesch, [v.]). Jos. Geyser, in his discussions on modern and contemporary philosophy, has excellently brought out the fundamental principles of Aristotelianism.

All these historical, exegetical, systematic studies made ever more understood the importance of the problem concerning the intrinsic evolution of the philosophical thought of the Stagirite. W. Jaeger was the first to set out all the problems regarding the genesis of Aristotelian metaphysics and to seek to clarify the question of Aristotle's doctrinal evolution from initial Platonism to the personal thought of his maturity (Aristoteles. Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung, Berlin 1923, and other writings), not without criticisms on the part of other experts (cf. A. Mansion, La genèse de l'œuvre d'A. d'après les travaux récents, in Rev. Néoscolast. de phil., 29 [1927], pp. 307-41, 423-66); in Italy E. Bignone and E. Oggioni follow the direction of Jaeger somewhat.

BIBL: Manca uno studio complessivo, mentre non scarseggiano monografie, specialmente per l'a. del Rinascimento; tra i manuali di storia della filosofia è indispensabile informatore F. Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, III, 12ª ed., Berlino 1924; IV, 12ª ed., ivi 1923; I, 12ª ed., ivi 1926, per le

edizioni, traduzioni e i commenti moderni. La bibliografia generale è speciale è aggiornata in C. Carbonara, Il secolo XV, Milano 1943, pure in W. Windelband - H. Heimsoeth, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, Tübinga 1935.

Oltre gli autori ed opere già citati, tra i più rappresentativi sono da ricordarsi per la prima fase: F. Fiorentino, P. Pomponazzi, Firenze 1868; id., Bernardino Telesio, ossia studi storici sull'idea della natura nel Risorgimento italiano, Firenze 1874; id., Il risorgimento filosofico nel Giustrocento, Napoli 1885 (postumo); G. Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des klass. Altertums, 2ª ed., Berlino 1880; B. Nardi, Intorno alle dottrine filos. di Pietro d'Abamo, in Nuova Riv. Storica, 4 (1920), pp. 81-97, 464-81; 5 (1921), pp. 300-13; id., Sigieri di Brabante nel pensiero del Rinascimento italiano, Roma 1945; A. Dempf, Geisteswissenschaftliche Aufgaben der Erforschung der Renaissance-Philosophie, in Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 7 (1925), p. 4; E. Troilo, Averroismo e n. padovano, Padova 1936; E. Garin, A. e platonismo nel Rinasc., in La Rinascita, 2 (1939), pp. 651-71. Sui primi inizi dell'averroismo padovano, v. F. Ueberweg, II, 11ª ed., Berlino 1928, pp. 612-19. Sui rapporti tra scolastica e filosofia naturale del Rinascimento, v. le opere di P. Duhem e A. Maier. - Per la seconda fase, oltre l'op. cit. di C. Giacon, K. Werner, Franz Suarez und die Scholastik der letzten Jahrhunderte, 2 voll., Ratisgosa 1861 e 1880, e gli scritti di M. Lechner e B. Jansen. - Per la terza fase: E. Weber, Die philosophische Scholastik des deutschen Protestantismus im Zeitalter der Orthodoxie, Lipsia 1907. - Per la quarta fase: F. Ueberweg, IV, passim; H. Windischer, Franz Brentano und die Scholastik, Innsbruck 1936.

Novato Picard