Schmitt C.B. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Humanism
137
much philosophical
and
scientific
literature
during
the
fifteenth
and
sixteenth centuries
and
appears even
in
authors
where
we
might least expect
it, such
as
Pomponazzi.
66
This tendency seems
to
recede
in
later
philosophical
literature,
but it is not
entirely absent
in
Descartes, Spinoza
or
Leibniz.
Finally,
if
we
view
Renaissance philosophy
and
Renaissance thought
in
the broader context
of
the history
of
western philosophy,
we may
assert
that
philosophy
for a
long-time was linked, though
not
identified, with religion
and theology,
as in the
Middle
Ages,
and
with
the
mathematical
and
natural
sciences,
as
during much
of the
last four centuries.
We
should
not be
surprised
if
philosophy during
the
Renaissance
was to
some extent allied
with
the
humanities,
that
is,
with rhetoric, poetry,
and
historical
and
classical
scholarship.
We
might even wonder whether this
may
provide
a
lesson
for the
present
and for the
future.
If
philosophers were
to pay
greater
attention
to the
humanities,
as a few
of
them have done
in our
century, this
might
be
beneficial
not
only
for the
humanities and humanist scholarship
but
also
for
philosophy
and for a
more complete
and
more balanced
understanding
of our
world
and
experience.
66. Kristeller 1966a, p. 47.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
PART
2
PHILOSOPHY
AND ITS PARTS
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
V
LOGIC
AND LANGUAGE
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
6
LOGIC
1350-1600
The
study
of Aristotle
The
Organon of Aristotle played a central role throughout the period, at
least in principle. During the medieval period, the Organon was divided into
two
parts. The Categories and the De interpretation along with Porphyry's
Isagoge formed the Logica vetus, which was already known in the twelfth
century. The Prior and Posterior Analytics, the Topics and the Sophistici elenchi
formed the Logica nova, which became known only during the twelfth
century. Both the Logica vetus and the Logica nova were firmly embedded in
the university curriculum, with the single exception
of
the Topics. It was not
included in the list
of
books
prescribed by the Vienna statutes of 1389 or in
the list
of
books
read at Erfurt in 1420, and at Greifswald in 1456 it was to be
lectured on only for the master's degree, although at all these places the
other books of the Organon were specifically mentioned as
part
of the
undergraduate course.
1
In many places, including Paris, only four books of
the Topics were to be read;
2
and it was sometimes specified
that
these books
were
to be 1, n, vi and vm.
3
An obvious result
of
humanist influence in the
sixteenth century was the renewed attention paid to the Topics, though this
interest was not to last.
There were several waves
of
commentaries during the period after 1350.
Some
of these were on individual books from the Organon, such as the
commentary on the Prior Analytics by Marsilius of Inghen, which was
published in Venice in
1516,
and the commentary on the Posterior Analytics
by
Paul of
Venice,
which had been published seven times by
1518,
nearly
1.
For
Vienna,
see
Lhotsky
1965, p. 236; for
Erfurt,
see University Records 1944, p. 297; for
Greifswald,
see Cambridge History 1982, pp. 18-19
(Kenny
and
Pinborg).
2. See, e.g., the
Paris
statutes
of 1366: University Records 1944, p. 246; and a 1419
decree
of St
Andrews:
Acta Facultatis
Artium
Sancti Andree 1964, p. 15.
3.
Freiburg
im
Breisgau
1463: Ott and
Fletcher
1964, p. 40;
Glasgow:
Durkan
and Kirk 1977, pp. 87-
8. In 1405
Bologna
specified
books
1,11, iv and vi:
Statuti
1888, p. 251.
Only
books
1, 11, in and iv
were
commented
on by
George
of
Brussels,
1504, ff.
ccxvii
ra
-xlvi
ra
;
Johannes
de
Magistris
1487,
sigs.
T
6
ra
-x
7
ra
;
Tartaretus
1503a,
fF.
ciii
va
-xvii
ra
.
143
TRADITIONAL
LOGIC
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
144
Logic
and
language
always
in
Venice.
4
In the
fifteenth century
we
find important commentaries
on both
the
Logica vetus
and the
Logica nova being produced
by the
Thomists
at
the
Bursa Montis
in
Cologne
5
and
by
Johannes Versor
in
Paris. However,
such commentaries were soon
to
disappear. Bartholomaeus Arnoldi
de
Usingen,
who
taught
at
Erfurt, seems
to be one of the
last
to
write
specifically
on the
Logica vetus
(1514)
and the
Logica nova
(1507,
1516)
as
such.
Of the
earlier medieval commentaries
the
most popular
was that on
the Logica vetus
by
Walter Burley, which
had
thirteen printed editions,
the
last
in
Venice
in
1541.
The
most prevalent form
of
commentary from
the
late fifteenth century
on
dealt with
the
entire Organon
in one
book.
The
first
commentaries
of
this sort, such
as
those
by
George
of
Brussels
and
Petrus
Tartaretus (both first published
at
Paris
in
1493) were
in a
traditional style,
but almost
at
once
the
influence
of
humanism became apparent.
In
Paris
Jacques
Lefevre
d'Etaples produced
his
Paraphrases
et
annotationes
in
libros
logicorum (eleven editions
up to
1588)
and in
Germany
in
1516—17
Johannes
Eck
published
a
complete commentary based
on the new
translations
of
Johannes Argyropulos
but
using
the
work
of
logicians
in the
medieval
tradition.
6
Eck's work
was
produced
for the
University
of
Ingolstadt,
and
was
prescribed
by the
statutes
of
1519—20;
but it
is
not
clear
how
much
it
was
actually
used.
7
There
followed
a
period
of
rapid change which
by the end of the
sixteenth century
had
produced
a
totally
new
style
of
writing
on
Aristotle.
There were several reasons
for
these changes. First,
there
was the
influence
of
new translations
of
Aristotle
and new
attitudes
to the
Greek text.
In his
preface
to a new
translation
by
Johannes Franciscus Burana, Hieronymus
Bagolinus
wrote scathingly
of
the medieval translators
who had
'presented
all
the
thoughts
of
Aristotle
as
if
they were enveloped
in a
perverted, corrupt
and noisome
fog'.
8
An
excellent example
of the new
Greek-based texts
is
4. For general information on both manuscripts and printed editions of Aristotle commentaries, see
Lohr
1967 to 1974a and 1974b to 1982.
5.
For
some
information about the Cologne commentators, see Lohr
1971,
pp.
310—12.
A 'bursa' was
a kind of college in which students lived and were taught.
6. The full title of Aristotle
1516—17
is instructive:
Dialectical
cum
quinque vocibus Porphyrii Phenicis:
Argyropilo traductore:
a
Joanne Eckio
Theologo
facili
explanatione declarata: adnotationibus compendiariis
illustrata:
ac
scholastico exercitatio explicata: videbis
0
Lector priscam Dialecticam
restitutam:
ac
Neotericorum subtilitati feliciter copulatam.
For
discussion
of Eck, see Seifert 1978.
7.
See Heath 1971, p. 59.
8. Preface to Burana 1539, sig. A ii
r
. Bagolinus begins: 'Quum superioribus annis, viri clarissimi, ac
omni scientiarum genere eminentissimi, in academia philosophantium Patavina, ad contextus
Logicae
Aristotelis cum expositoribus Graecis publice interpretandos, scholasticis annuentibus,
fuissem constitutus, ob id scilicet quod antea non
nisi
per neotericos quosdam interpretes, qui
omnia Aristotelis
sensa
depravata, corrupta, ac teterrima quadam caligine involuta legebant,
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional logic
H5
found
in the
Organon edition
of
Giulio Pace, which
was
first published
in
1584
and
appeared
in
1597 with
an
analytic commentary.
In it we
find
the
Greek
text side-by-side with
a new
translation designed
not
only
to
read
well
(as was the
humanist goal)
but
also
to
capture
the
philosophical
significance
of
Aristotle's words.
In the
margins
we
find
a
commentary
dealing
with difficult points both
of
theory
and
translation.
9
A
second
reason
for
change
was the
publication
of the
Greek commentators
on
Aristotle's
logic:
Alexander
of
Aphrodisias, Themistius, Ammonius,
Philoponus
and
Simplicius. Ample evidence
of
their influence
can be
found
in
the
commentaries
of
Agostino
Nifo.
A
third
reason
was the new
emphasis
on
Averroes, both brought about
by and
reflected
in the
great
Aristotle—Averroes
edition
of
1550—2.
10
These changes were also taken note
of
by
Bagolinus,
who
praised Burana
for his use
of
both Greek
and
Arabic
commentators, including
new
translations
of the
Arabic from
the He-
brew.
11
A
fourth,
but
more minor, reason
for
change
was the new
popularity
of
Thomas Aquinas. Even though
there
was a
rapid decline
in
the publication
of
Thomas' Aristotle commentaries after
1570,
12
the
Coimbra
commentators
in
particular were
to
make numerous references
to
'Divus
Thomas'.
At
the end of the
sixteenth century
we
find both
new
texts
and new
emphases
in the
curricula
of
various institutions. There
are
three
kinds
of
text which
are
particularly noteworthy. First,
there
are
commentaries
on
specific
works
by
Aristotle, such as Jacopo Zabarella's commentary
on the
Posterior
Analytics which, along with
his
other works,
was to be
extremely
popular
in the
first
part
of
the seventeenth century, especially
in
Germany.
Second,
there
is the
extensive commentary
on
selected
parts
of the
whole
Organon, most notably
the
Commentarii
in
universam
dialecticam Aristotelis
by
the Coimbra Jesuit Sebastian Couto, which first appeared
in
1606.
It has
been described
as
presenting
a
fusion
of two
late sixteenth-century
approaches
to
Aristotle,
the
philosophical
one of
Zabarella
and the
philological
one
of
Pace.
13
Third,
there
are
numerous shorter works which
exponerentur: nec Posteriores Resolutorios ultra primi dimidium scholares degustarent: qui vero
Priores Resolutorii nuncupantur, prorsus omitterentur: eo anno, non
sine
maximis laboribus ad id
continuata lectione perveni, ut et Priores et Posteriores Resolutorios cum Alexandri, Simplicii,
Philoponi, et aliorum quorundam expositionibus Íntegros enucleaverim: nec non diebus
festis
libros Elenchorum: quos sané á millos penitus
sine
Graecorum expositione recté intelligi
posse
existimaverim. Hi enim certé sunt qui ab ipso Aristotele, Theophrasto, atque Eudemo, summis
Peripateticis, ad novissimos usque quasi haereditario quodam iure doctrinam Peripateticam
integram atque illabefactatam conservarunt.'
9. For discussion, see Schmitt 1983a, pp. 83-5. 10. See Schmitt 1984, § vm, pp.
131-140.
11.
Burana
I539>
sig. A ii
r
. 12.
Cranz
1978, p. 179. 13. Schmitt 1981, § vi, p. 170.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
146
Logic
and
language
offer
a
complete introduction
to the
logic
of
Aristotle, such
as
those
by
Toletus
and
Fonseca
(see
below,
p. 163).
So
far as the
curriculum
is
concerned,
the
most important influence
was
that
of
the Jesuits, whose constitution committed them
to
follow
Aristotle
in
logic.
The
Ratio studiorum
of
1586 refers
to
this commitment,
but
also
notes
that
material more properly belonging
to
metaphysics should
be
passed over,
as
should
the
Topics (except
for
books
1
and
11)
and the
Sophistici
elenchi,
though
the
material
of
the topics
and
fallacies should
be
presented
in
some more orderly
way.
14
These exhortations
are
shown
to be
effective
by
the brief treatment given
to the
Topics
and the
Sophistici elenchi
in the
Coimbra
commentary.
15
Other examples
of the
place
of
Aristotle
in the
curriculum
can be
found
in the
philosophy course given
by the
colleges
de
plein exercise
in
France, which was
'not so
much
a
commentary as
an
ordered
or simplified exposition
of
Aristotle's
logical works'.
16
At
Oxford,
the new
Laudian statutes
of
1636 followed
the
practice
of the
previous century
in
requiring Aristotle
to be
followed
in
logic.
17
As we
shall see, this emphasis
on Aristotle
and
Aristotle alone
was a
sixteenth-century phenomenon.
On
the other hand, neither
in
France
nor in
Oxford
is
there
much evidence
that
Aristotle
himself
was
read.
The
main teaching emphasis seems
to
have been
on introductory textbooks,
and
indeed the Jesuit Ratio studiorum
of
1586
and
again
in 1599
recommended such texts
(see
below,
p. 163).
Developments
in
medieval logic 1350—1530
In order
to
understand
the
full scope
of the
changes which took place
in
logic
during
the
sixteenth century,
it is
necessary
to
consider
the
range
of
non-Aristotelian topics treated
by
medieval logicians.
18
The
most impor-
tant
developments
in
medieval logic were presented
in the
form
of
treatises
on individual subjects. These were normally regarded
as
complete
in
themselves
and
needing no
justification
in
terms
of
Aristotelian
logic.
Only
14. Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica
1887, pp. 129—30: 'In Logica . . ., et Philosophia naturali et
morali, et Methaphysica doctrina Aristotelis sequenda est'; p. 138: 'Topicorum quoque, praeter
primum forte et secundum librum, et Elenchorum textus praetereundus est: Loci tamen et fallaciae
in commodiorem quendam ordinem redigantur, nec a Logicis ignorentur.'
15.
Collegium Conimbricense
1607, cols. 733—66.
16.
Brockliss
1981a,
p. 135. Philosophy teaching in seventeenth-century France took place at
these
colleges rather than at the universities, though there were occasional exceptions:
ibid.,
p. 131.
17.
McConica
i979> PP- 291-2, noted that Aristotle's texts had been placed at the heart of the statutory
curriculum
under Henry
VIII
and Edward VI.
18.
For analysis of various doctrines which will be referred to below, see
Cambridge History
1982 for the
period up to 1350 and Ashworth 1974a for the period from the late fifteenth to the seventeenth
century.
For a bibliography of printed primary sources, see Risse 1965.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008