blackwell companions to philosophy a companion to ... · edited by samuel guttenplan 7. a companion...
Post on 08-Nov-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Blackwell Companions to Philosophy
This outstanding student reference series offers a comprehensive and authoritative surveyof philosophy as a whole. Written by today’s leading philosophers, each volume provideslucid and engaging coverage of the key figures, terms, topics, and problems of the field.Taken together, the volumes provide the ideal basis for course use, representing an unparalleled work of reference for students and specialists alike.
Already published in the series:
1. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy(Second edition)Edited by Nicholas Bunnin and Eric Tsui-James
2. A Companion to EthicsEdited by Peter Singer
3. A Companion to AestheticsEdited by David Cooper
4. A Companion to EpistemologyEdited by Jonathan Dancy and Ernest Sosa
5. A Companion to Contemporary PoliticalPhilosophyEdited by Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit
6. A Companion to Philosophy of MindEdited by Samuel Guttenplan
7. A Companion to MetaphysicsEdited by Jaegwon Kim and Ernest Sosa
8. A Companion to Philosophy of Law andLegal TheoryEdited by Dennis Patterson
9. A Companion to Philosophy of ReligionEdited by Philip L. Quinn and Charles Taliaferro
10. A Companion to the Philosophy ofLanguageEdited by Bob Hale and Crispin Wright
11. A Companion to World PhilosophiesEdited by Eliot Deutsch and Ron Bontekoe
12. A Companion to Continental PhilosophyEdited by Simon Critchley and William Schroeder
13. A Companion to Feminist PhilosophyEdited by Alison M. Jaggar and Iris Marion Young
14. A Companion to Cognitive ScienceEdited by William Bechtel and George Graham
15. A Companion to BioethicsEdited by Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer
16. A Companion to the PhilosophersEdited by Robert L. Arrington
17. A Companion to Business EthicsEdited by Robert E. Frederick
18. A Companion to the Philosophy ofScienceEdited by W. H. Newton-Smith
19. A Companion to Environmental PhilosophyEdited by Dale Jamieson
20. A Companion to Analytic PhilosophyEdited by A. P. Martinich and David Sosa
21. A Companion to GenethicsEdited by Justine Burley and John Harris
22. A Companion to Philosophical LogicEdited by Dale Jacquette
23. A Companion to Early Modern PhilosophyEdited by Steven Nadler
24. A Companion to Philosophy in theMiddle AgesEdited by Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone
25. A Companion to African American PhilosophyEdited by Tommy L. Lott and John P. Pittman
26. A Companion to Applied EthicsEdited by R. G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman
27. A Companion to the Philosophy ofEducationEdited by Randall Curren
© 2002 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5018, USA108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK550 Swanston Street, Carlton South, Melbourne, Victoria 3053, AustraliaKurfürstendamm 57, 10707 Berlin, Germany
The right of Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone to be identified as the Authors of the Editorial Material in this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs,and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or other-wise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the priorpermission of the publisher.
First published 2002 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A companion to philosophy in the middle ages / edited by Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B.Noone.
p. cm. – (Blackwell companions to philosophy; 24)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-631-21672-3 (alk. paper)1. Philosophy, Medieval. I. Gracia, Jorge J. E. II. Noone, Timothy B. III. Series.
B721 .C54 2002189–dc21
2002066421
A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.
Set in 10/12 Ehrhardtby SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd, Hong KongPrinted and bound in the United Kingdomby T. J. International, Padstow, Cornwall
For further information onBlackwell Publishing, visit our website:http://www.blackwellpublishing.com
v
Contents
List of Contributors xiiPreface xvChronological List xviii
Philosophy in the Middle Ages: An Introduction 1Jorge J. E. Gracia
PART I: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT1 The Ancient Philosophical Legacy and its Transmission to the
Middle Ages 15Charles H. Lohr
2 The Patristic Background 23Stephen F. Brown
3 Philosophy in the Latin Christian West: 750–1050 32Peter King
4 The School of Chartres 36Winthrop Wetherbee
5 Religious Orders 45M. Michèle Mulchahey and Timothy B. Noone
6 Scholasticism 55Timothy B. Noone
7 The Parisian Condemnations of 1270 and 1277 65John F. Wippel
PART II: THE AUTHORS1 Adam of Wodeham 77
Rega Wood2 Adelard of Bath 86
Jeremiah Hackett3 Alan of Lille 88
John Marenbon4 Albert of Saxony 90
Edward Grant
5 Albertus Magnus 92Mechthild Dreyer
6 Albumasar (Abu Ma’shar) 102Jeremiah Hackett
7 Alexander of Hales 104Christopher M. Cullen
8 Alfarabi (Al-Farabı) 109Deborah L. Black
9 Algazali (Al-Ghazalı) 118Thérèse-Anne Druart
10 Alhacen (Al-Hasan) 127David C. Lindberg
11 Alkindi (Al-Kindi) 129Jean Jolivet
12 Alrazi (Al-Razı) 136Thérèse-Anne Druart
13 Anselm of Canterbury 138Jasper Hopkins
14 Arnaldus of Villanova 152Francisco Bertelloni
15 Augustine 154Scott MacDonald
16 Avempace (Ibn Bájjah) 172Idris Samawi Hamid
17 Avencebrol (Ibn Gabirol) 174Tamar Rudavsky
18 Averroes (Ibn Rushd) 182Richard C. Taylor
19 Avicenna (Ibn Sına) 196David B. Burrell
20 Bernard of Clairvaux 209Brian Patrick McGuire
21 Berthold of Moosburg 215Bruce Milem
22 Boethius 217John Magee
23 Boethius of Dacia 227B. Carlos Bazán
24 Bonaventure 233Andreas Speer
25 Dante Alighieri 241Timothy B. Noone
26 Denys the Carthusian 243Kent Emery, Jr.
27 Dietrich of Freiberg 245Roland J. Teske
28 Dominicus Gundissalinus 247R. E. Houser
vi
29 Durand of St. Pourçain 249Russell L. Friedman
30 Francis of Marchia 254Russell L. Friedman
31 Francis of Meyronnes 256Roberto Lambertini
32 Gabriel Biel 258Russell L. Friedman
33 Gaetano of Thiene 260Stephen E. Lahey
34 Gersonides 262Sarah Pessin
35 Gilbert of Poitiers 264John Marenbon
36 Giles of Rome 266Silvia Donati
37 Godfrey of Fontaines 272John F. Wippel
38 Gonsalvo of Spain 281A. G. Traver
39 Gregory of Rimini 283Jack Zupko
40 Guido Terrena 291Francisco Bertelloni
41 Hasdai Crescas 293Tamar Rudavsky
42 Henry of Ghent 296R. Wielockx
43 Henry of Harclay 305Mark G. Henninger
44 Hervaeus Natalis 314Roland J. Teske
45 Heymeric of Camp 316Peter J. Casarella
46 Hildegard of Bingen 318Bruce Milem
47 Hugh of St. Victor 320Michael Gorman
48 Isaac Israeli 326Sarah Pessin
49 Isidore of Seville 328Sandro D’Onofrio
50 James of Metz 330Russell L. Friedman
51 James of Viterbo 332Mark D. Gossiaux
52 Jean de la Rochelle 334Gérard Sondag
vii
53 Jerome of Prague 336Jonathan J. Sanford
54 John Baconthorpe 338Richard Cross
55 John Buridan 340Gyula Klima
56 John Capreolus 349Kevin White
57 John Dumbleton 351Edith Dudley Sylla
58 John Duns Scotus 353Stephen D. Dumont
59 John Gerson 370James B. South
60 John of Jandun 372James B. South
61 John of Mirecourt 377Mauricio Beuchot
62 John of Paris 382Russell L. Friedman
63 John Pecham 384Girard J. Etzkorn
64 John Philoponus 388James B. South
65 John of Reading 390Kimberly Georgedes
66 John of Salisbury 392C. H. Kneepkens
67 John Scotus Eriugena 397Carlos Steel and D. W. Hadley
68 John Wyclif 407John D. Kronen
69 Landulph Caracciolo 409Christopher Schabel
70 Marsilius of Inghen 411Maarten J. F. M. Hoenen
71 Marsilius of Padua 413Francisco Bertelloni
72 Martin of Dacia 421José Luis Rivera
73 Matthew of Aquasparta 423R. E. Houser
74 Maximus Confessor 432Eric D. Perl
75 Meister Eckhart 434Jan A. Aertsen
76 Michael of Massa 443Christopher Schabel
viii
77 Moses Maimonides 445Alfred L. Ivry
78 Nicholas of Autrecourt 458Mauricio Beuchot
79 Nicholas of Cusa 466Louis Dupré and Nancy Hudson
80 Nicole Oresme 475Edward Grant
81 Paul of Pergula 481Stephen E. Lahey
82 Paul of Venice 483Alan Perreiah
83 Peter Abelard 485John Marenbon
84 Peter Auriol 494Lauge Olaf Nielsen
85 Peter of Auvergne 504Robert Andrews
86 Peter of Candia 506Christopher Schabel
87 Peter Ceffons 508Christopher Schabel
88 Peter Damian 510Jonathan J. Sanford
89 Peter Helias 512C. H. Kneepkens
90 Peter Lombard 514Philipp W. Rosemann
91 Peter Olivi 516François-Xavier Putallaz
92 Peter de Rivo 524Christopher Schabel
93 Peter of Spain 526Gyula Klima
94 Peter the Venerable 532Jonathan J. Sanford
95 Philip the Chancellor 534R. E. Houser
96 Pierre d’Ailly 536Richard A. Lee, Jr.
97 Pierre de Maricourt 538José Luis Rivera
98 Pseudo-Dionysius 540Eric D. Perl
99 Radulphus Brito 550Gordon A. Wilson
100 Ralph Strode 552Kimberly Georgedes
ix
101 Ramon Lull 553Charles H. Lohr
102 Richard Brinkley 559Kimberly Georgedes
103 Richard of Campsall 561Kimberly Georgedes
104 Richard Fishacre 563R. James Long
105 Richard Fitzralph 569Kimberly Georgedes
106 Richard Kilvington 571Edith Dudley Sylla
107 Richard of Middleton 573Richard Cross
108 Richard Rufus of Cornwall 579Rega Wood
109 Richard of St. Victor 588Kent Emery, Jr.
110 Richard Swineshead 595Edith Dudley Sylla
111 Robert Grosseteste 597Neil Lewis
112 Robert of Halifax 607Kimberly Georgedes
113 Robert Holcot 609Kimberly Georgedes
114 Robert Kilwardby 611A. Broadie
115 Roger Bacon 616Jeremiah Hackett
116 Roger Marston 626Gordon A. Wilson
117 Saadiah 630Sarah Pessin
118 Siger of Brabant 632B. Carlos Bazán
119 Simon of Faversham 641John Longeway
120 Thomas Aquinas 643Brian Davies
121 Thomas Bradwardine 660Stephen E. Lahey
122 Thomas of Erfurt 662Mauricio Beuchot
123 Thomas of Sutton 664Gyula Klima
124 Thomas Wilton 666Cecilia Trifogli
x
125 Ulrich of Strassburg 668Kent Emery, Jr.
126 Vital du Four 670A. G. Traver
127 Walter Burley 672M. C. Sommers
128 Walter Chatton 674Girard J. Etzkorn
129 William of Alnwick 676Stephen D. Dumont
130 William Arnaud 678Stephen E. Lahey
131 William of Auvergne 680Roland J. Teske
132 William of Auxerre 688Jack Zupko
133 William of Champeaux 690John Marenbon
134 William Crathorn 692Robert Pasnau
135 William Heytesbury 694John Longeway
136 William of Ockham 696Timothy B. Noone
137 William of Sherwood 713John Longeway
138 William of Ware 718Richard Cross
Select Topical Bibliography 720Index of Names 725Index of Subjects 731
xi
Contributors
Jan A. Aertsen Thomas Institute, University of Cologne
Robert Andrews University of Stockholm
B. Carlos Bazán University of Ottawa
Francisco Bertelloni University of Buenos Aires
Mauricio Beuchot National University of Mexico
Deborah L. Black University of Toronto
Alexander Broadie University of Glasgow
Stephen F. Brown Boston College
David B. Burrell University of Notre Dame
Peter J. Casarella The Catholic University of America
Richard Cross Oriel College, Oxford University
Christopher M. Cullen Fordham University
Brian Davies Fordham University
Silvia Donati University of Padua
Sandro D’Onofrio University of San Ignacio
Mechthild Dreyer University of Mainz
Thérèse-Anne Druart The Catholic University of America
Stephen D. Dumont University of Notre Dame
Louis Dupré Yale University
Kent Emery, Jr. University of Notre Dame
Girard J. Etzkorn Fairfield Glade, TN
Russell L. Friedman University of Copenhagen
Kimberly Georgedes Franciscan University, Steubenville
xii
Michael Gorman The Catholic University of America
Mark D. Gossiaux St. John’s University, New York
Jorge J. E. Gracia State University at Buffalo
Edward Grant Indiana University
Jeremiah Hackett South Carolina University
D. W. Hadley University of Dallas
Idris Samawi Hamid Colorado State University
Mark G. Henninger University of Detroit
Maarten J. F. M. Hoenen Catholic University, Nijmegen
Jasper Hopkins University of Minnesota
R. Edward Houser University of St. Thomas, Houston
Nancy Hudson Yale University
Alfred L. Ivry New York University
Jean Jolivet University of Paris
Elizabeth Karger Centre d’Études des Religions du Livre, CNRS
Peter King Ohio State University
Gyula Klima Fordham University
C. H. Kneepkens University of Groningen
John D. Kronen University of St. Thomas, St. Paul
Stephen E. Lahey Le Moyne College
Roberto Lambertini University of Macerata
Richard A. Lee, Jr. Pennsylvania State University
Neil Lewis Georgetown University
David C. Lindberg University of Wisconsin, Madison
Charles H. Lohr University of Freiburg
R. James Long Fairfield University
John Longeway University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Scott MacDonald Cornell University
John Magee University of Toronto
John Marenbon Cambridge University
Brian Patrick McGuire Roskilde University, Denmark
Bruce Milem State University of New York at New Paltz
xiii
M. Michèle Mulchahey Fordham University
Lauge Olaf Nielsen University of Copenhagen
Timothy B. Noone The Catholic University of America
Robert Pasnau University of Colorado
Eric D. Perl University of Dallas
Alan Perreiah University of Kentucky
Sarah Pessin University of Chicago
François-Xavier Putallaz University of Fribourg
José Luis Rivera The Catholic University of America
Philipp W. Rosemann University of Dallas
Tamar Rudavsky Ohio State University
Jonathan J. Sanford Fordham University
Christopher Schabel University of Cyprus
Mary Catherine Sommers University of St. Thomas, Houston
Gérard Sondag University Blaise-Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand
Andreas Speer University of Würzburg
James B. South Marquette University
Carlos Steel Leuven University
Edith Dudley Sylla North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Richard C. Taylor Marquette University
Roland J. Teske Marquette University
Andrew G. Traver Southeastern Louisiana University
Cecilia Trifogli Oxford University
Winthrop Wetherbee Cornell University
Kevin White The Catholic University of America
Robert Wielockx Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome
Gordon A. Wilson University of North Carolina, Asheville
John F. Wippel The Catholic University of America
Rega Wood Stanford University
Jack Zupko Emory University
xiv
Preface
The Middle Ages is not only the longest period of philosophical development in the West,but also one of the richest and more complex. Its roots go back to ancient philosophy andwe are still living with some of its consequences today. Indeed, a very large part of our philo-sophical vocabulary, whether in English, Spanish, or any other western European language,was developed in the Middle Ages, and most of the philosophical problems about which westill worry were first formulated in the version in which we know them in this period. Thehistorical importance of the Middle Ages and its influence in the subsequent history ofwestern thought is difficult to overestimate.
In spite of this, however, the study of the philosophy of the Middle Ages was, until relatively recently, rare outside Roman Catholic contexts. Secular universities, and evenChristian colleges from denominations other than Roman Catholicism, rarely offeredcourses in medieval philosophy, and their faculty seldom did research in the field. Themedieval period was mentioned in two kinds of courses: in history of philosophy sequences,the Middle Ages was usually appended to the ancient period, as an afterthought, and wasgenerally given little emphasis; in courses in the philosophy of religion, where argumentsfor the existence of God were examined, mention was usually made of Anselm’s so-calledontological argument and Aquinas’s “five ways.”
This dismal situation has been changing gradually, although it is still true that most ofthe leading philosophy departments in the English-speaking world do not yet have special-ists in the Middle Ages. Some do, however, and this has not gone unnoticed in other, lessprestigious, places. Medieval philosophy is gradually becoming respectable. First-rankpresses are publishing books on medieval philosophy, and even bringing out anthologies oftexts to be used in the classroom. Unfortunately, there is still much that needs to be done.For one thing, we do not yet have a book that contains the main facts about, and presentsthe main views on, the key figures of the period. And, indeed, this is the gap we aim to fillin part with this Companion. The idea behind it is to have, in one volume, most of the back-ground information one needs to approach medieval texts.
With this in mind, we have divided the volume into two parts, which are preceded by a brief introduction. The introduction is intended to give a general impression of thephilosophical thought of the age, whereas the first part of the volume itself provides the historical background without which medieval philosophy would be difficult to understand.The seven articles comprising the latter deal with the ancient and Patristic background ofthe period, the ninth and tenth centuries, the School of Chartres, religious orders, scholas-ticism, and the condemnations of philosophical and theological views by ecclesiastical
xv
authorities in 1270 and 1277. The second part is composed of articles of varying lengthdealing with the main authors of the age and is arranged alphabetically. There are severalreasons for this arrangement. First, in this way the volume complements, rather than com-petes with, already available books, for most of the recent histories and companions tomedieval philosophy have been organized topically or periodically. Second, it avoids theproblem of gaps and narrow perspectives. Topical organization tends to be contentious, perspectival, and controversial, whereas organization by authors is more comprehensive.Third, the use of the volume by a larger audience is enhanced, for anyone who wishes to dosomething on Aquinas, for example, might consult it regardless of the specificity of his orher interests. A topically arranged volume tends to be used only by those interested in thetopics the volume covers. Fourth, there is a matter of depth; essays devoted to particularauthors can go deeper than surveys of many authors around a topic; they can get at the heart of the thought of the authors. Finally, the present organization makes possibleoverall, original interpretations, something that would be more difficult under differentarrangements.
The approach and content of each article has been ultimately up to the contributors. Theeditors have welcomed a variety of historiographical approaches so as to illustrate the currentstate of scholarship on medieval philosophy. All the same, we have encouraged contributorsto consider a problems approach in which the articles on historical figures in particular arepresented in the context of the philosophical and theological issues they were trying toaddress.
Since we are constrained by strict limitations of space, we have had to make choices.First, it was necessary to leave some authors out; and second, we had to choose the spacedevoted to each author. This was based on our view of the relative historical and philo-sophical importance of the authors in question. Four towering figures received around10,000 words each (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William ofOckham) and four others received around 8,000 words (Anselm, Averroes, Avicenna, andMaimonides). The remaining authors were allotted articles of 5,000, 3,000, or 500 wordseach. Obviously, many authors who got only 500, 3,000, or even 5,000 words deserve more.Indeed, even those to whom we devoted larger articles deserve much more. But to give themmore space would have been impossible within the parameters imposed on the project: onephysically manageable volume that could be sold at a reasonable price. We intend this volumeto be of service to faculty, students, libraries, and persons among the general public with aninterest in medieval philosophy. A larger volume, or a multi-volume set, would have donebetter justice to the authors discussed here, but it would also have had to exclude some ofthese prospective audiences.
We particularly regret having to leave out some authors either because of the size of thevolume or because those who had agreed to compose entries for them were unable to deliverthe articles in time for inclusion. Hopefully, the damage to the volume and the inconve-nience to readers will not be too great.
We have made a special effort to be cosmopolitan and inclusive insofar as the contribu-tors are concerned. Often, works of this sort are narrowly parochial in that they includecontributors exclusively selected from the Anglo-American and British worlds, and some-times even from particular scholarly traditions. On the contrary, we have tried to be broadboth with respect to scholars working in languages other than English, in different coun-tries, and within diverse scholarly traditions. This, we hope, will make the volume repre-sentative of contemporary scholarship in medieval philosophy overall, and more attractiveto a larger community of scholars and students.
xvi
A few comments about conventions. Single quotation marks have been used only withindouble quotation marks or to indicate a linguistic term or expression that is being men-tioned rather than used. The names of Islamic and Jewish authors included in the volumehave been given in their common Latin form, although the Arabic or Hebrew forms havebeen recorded. Thus, we have chosen ‘Avicenna’ instead of ‘Ibn Sına’, ‘Alfarabi’ for ‘al-Farabı’, and so on. The bibliographies of articles on authors have been divided intoprimary sources and secondary sources. Under ‘Primary sources’ generally only works bythe author are included, although there are a couple of exceptions. The choice of works hasbeen entirely up to the authors of the articles, but we have encouraged them to includemainly recently printed or reprinted works, although in some cases in which only incun-abula or even unedited works exist, some incunabula and manuscripts have been listed. Thebibliographies on secondary sources are specific to the authors and thus usually omit generalworks on the period or on particular topics. Such works are listed in a separate topical bibliography at the end of the volume.
Putting together a volume of this sort requires the effort of many persons. In particular,we are grateful to the authors of the articles who not only delivered them in time for inclu-sion, but adapted themselves to the parameters we had specified and often were willing torevise in accordance with our suggestions. We are also grateful to Stan Grove for doing theindex, to Laura Arcilla for the translations of Mauricio Beuchot’s articles, to Thérèse-AnneDruart for helping us with spelling and bilbliographic matters concerning Arabic materi-als, and to our respective universities for their support in the form of academic leaves andsecretarial assistance. To Mary Dortch we are particularly indebted for her expert copy-editing and great patience. Gracia’s introductory essay, “Philosophy in the Middle Ages,”was first published in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, edited by Nicholas Bunninand Eric Tsui-James. We appreciate their permission to reprint it here. Finally, we are mostappreciative of the efforts by Steve Smith, of Blackwell Publishing, who not only came upwith the idea for the volume and asked us to undertake it, but also gave us a free hand whenit came to its organization and character. Without his support, the publication of the volumewould have been impossible.
Jorge J. E. Gracia Timothy B. Noone
xvii
Chronological List
Augustine (b. 354; d. 430)Pseudo-Dionysius (fl. ca. 500)John Philoponus (b. ca. 490; d. ca. 570)Boethius (b. ca. 480; d. 524/5)Isidore of Seville (b. ca. 560; d. 636)Maximus Confessor (b. 580; d. 662)Albumasar (b. 787; d. 886)Alkindi (d. ca. 870)John Scotus Eriugena (b. ca. 800; d. ca. 877)Isaac Israeli (b. ca. 855; d. ca. 955)Alrazi (b. ca. 865; d. ca. 925)Alfarabi (b. ca. 870; d. ca. 950)Saadiah (b. 882; d. 942)Alhacen (b. 965; d. ca. 1040)Avicenna (b. 980; d. 1037)Peter Damian (b. 1007; d. 1072)Avencebrol (b. 1021/2; d. 1057/8)William of Champeaux (fl. ca. 1100)Anselm of Canterbury (b. 1033; d. 1109)Algazali (b. 1058; d. 1111)Avempace (d. 1139)Peter Abelard (b. 1079; d. 1142)Adelard of Bath (b. ca. 1080; d. ca. 1152)Gilbert of Poitiers (b. 1085/90; d. 1154)Bernard of Clairvaux (b. 1090; d. 1153)Peter the Venerable (b. ca. 1092; d. 1156)Peter Lombard (b. 1095/1100; d. 1160)Hugh of St. Victor (b. 1097/1101; d. 1141)Hildegard of Bingen (b. 1098; d. 1179)Peter Helias (b. ca. 1100; d. after 1166)Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173)John of Salisbury (b. 1115/20; d. 1180)Dominicus Gundissalinus (fl. 1150–90)Averroes (b. ca. 1126; d. 1198)
xviii
Alan of Lille (d. 1203)Moses Maimonides (b. 1138; d. 1204)William of Auxerre (b. ca. 1140; d. 1231)Philip the Chancellor (b. 1165/85; d. 1236)Robert Grosseteste (b. ca. 1168; d. 1253)Alexander of Hales (b. ca. 1185; d. 1245)William of Auvergne (b. 1180/90; d. 1249)Jean de la Rochelle (b. 1190/1200; d. 1245)Albertus Magnus (b. ca. 1200; d. 1280)William of Sherwood (b. 1200/5; d. 1266/71)Richard Fishacre (b. ca. 1205; d. 1248)Richard Rufus of Cornwall (fl. 1231–56)William Arnaud (fl. ca. 1250)Pierre de Maricourt (fl. ca. 1267)Peter of Spain (fl. ca. 1267)Roger Bacon (b. 1214/20; d. ca. 1292)Robert Kilwardby (b. ca. 1215; d. 1279)Bonaventure (b. 1217; d. 1274)Henry of Ghent (d. 1293)Ulrich of Strassburg (b. ca. 1220; d. 1277)Thomas Aquinas (b. 1224/6; d. 1274)John Pecham (b. ca. 1230; d. 1292)Boethius of Dacia (fl. 1270–80)William of Ware (fl. 1290s)James of Metz (fl. ca. 1300)Thomas of Erfurt (fl. ca. 1300)Martin of Dacia (d. 1304)Peter of Auvergne (d. 1304)John of Paris (d. 1306)Ramon Lull (b. 1232/3; d. 1316)Roger Marston (b. ca. 1235; d. ca. 1303)Arnaldus of Villanova (b. 1238/40; d. 1311)Siger of Brabant (b. ca. 1240; d. after 1282)Matthew of Aquasparta (b. ca. 1240; d. 1302)Giles of Rome (b. 1243/7; d. 1316)Peter Olivi (b. ca. 1248; d. 1298)Richard of Middleton (b. ca. 1249; d. 1302)Godfrey of Fontaines (b. before 1250; d. 1306/9)Dietrich of Freiburg (b. ca. 1250; d. ca. 1310)Thomas of Sutton (b. ca. 1250; d. ca. 1315)Hervaeus Natalis (b. 1250/60; d. 1323)James of Viterbo (b. ca. 1255; d. 1307/8)Simon of Faversham (b. ca. 1260; d. 1306)Vital du Four (b. ca. 1260; d. 1327)Meister Eckhart (b. ca. 1260; d. 1328)Dante Alighieri (b. 1265; d. 1321)John Duns Scotus (b. ca. 1266; d. 1308)Thomas Wilton (fl. ca. 1312)
xix
Gonsalvo of Spain (d. ca. 1313)Henry of Harclay (b. ca. 1270; d. 1317)Radulphus Brito (b. ca. 1270; d. 1320)Durand of St. Pourçain (b. 1270/5; d. 1334)Walter Burley (b. 1274/5; d. in or after 1344)William of Alnwick (b. ca. 1275; d. 1333)Peter Auriol (b. ca. 1280; d. 1322)William Crathorn (fl. 1330s)Michael of Massa (d. 1337)Guido Terrena (d. 1342)Marsilius of Padua (b. 1280; d. 1343)Richard of Campsall (b. ca. 1280; d. ca. 1350)Walter Chatton (b. ca. 1285; d. 1343)John of Reading (b. ca. 1285; d. 1346)William of Ockham (b. ca. 1285; d. 1347)John of Jandun (b. 1285/9; d. 1328)Francis of Meyronnes (b. 1288; d. 1328)Gersonides (b. 1288; d. 1344)Richard Swineshead (fl. 1340–55)Francis of Marchia (b. ca. 1290; d. after 1344)John Baconthorpe (b. ca. 1290; d. 1345/8)John of Mirecourt (fl. ca. 1345)Robert Holcot (b. ca. 1290; d. 1349)Thomas Bradwardine (b. ca. 1290; d. 1349)John Buridan (b. ca. 1295; d. 1361)Peter Ceffons (fl. 1348–9)Richard Brinkley (fl. 1350–73)Nicholas of Autrecourt (b. ca. 1300; d. after 1350)Robert of Halifax (b. ca. 1300; d. after 1350)Landulph Caracciolo (d. 1351)Gregory of Rimini (b. ca. 1300; d. 1358)Richard Fitzralph (b. ca. 1300; d. 1360)Berthold of Moosburg (b. ca. 1300; d. after 1361)Adam of Wodeham (d. 1358)Richard Kilvington (b. 1302/5; d. 1361)John Dumbleton (b. ca. 1310; d. ca. 1349)Ralph Strode (fl. 1360–87)William Heytesbury (b. before 1313; d. 1372/3)Albert of Saxony (b. ca. 1316; d. 1390)Nicole Oresme (b. ca. 1320; d. 1382)John Wyclif (b. ca. 1320; d. 1384)Marsilius of Inghen (b. ca. 1340; d. 1396)Peter of Candia (b. ca. 1340; d. 1410)Hasdai Crescas (b. ca. 1340; d. 1410/11)Pierre d’Ailly (b. ca. 1350; d. 1420)John Gerson (b. 1363; d. 1429)Paul of Venice (b. 1369; d. 1429)Jerome of Prague (b. 1370/1; d. 1416)
xx
John Capreolus (b. ca. 1380; d. 1444)Paul of Pergula (d. 1455)Gaetano of Thiene (b. 1387; d. 1465)Heymeric of Camp (b. 1395; d. 1460)Nicholas of Cusa (b. 1401; d. 1464)Denys the Carthusian (b. 1402; d. 1472)Peter de Rivo (b. ca. 1420; d. 1500)Gabriel Biel (b. before 1425; d. 1495)
xxi
11
Philosophy in the Middle Ages: An Introduction
JORGE J. E. GRACIA
The concern to integrate revealed doctrine and secular learning distinguishes medievalthought from ancient, Renaissance, and modern philosophy and determines to a great extentthe philosophical problems the medievals addressed and the solutions they proposed forthose problems. This Introduction examines the way the medievals approached this maintheme and illustrates how it affected their choice of philosophical problems and how theydealt with them. In particular, it pays attention to seven problems well discussed through-out the age: the relation of faith and reason, the existence of God, the significance of namesused to speak about God, the object of theology and metaphysics, the way we know, uni-versals, and individuation.
The use of the expression ‘medieval philosophy’ to refer to philosophy in the MiddleAges is paradoxical because it is hard to find anyone during the period who consideredhimself a philosopher, whose concerns were purely philosophical, or who composed purelyphilosophical works. Medieval authors from the Latin West thought of themselves rather astheologians, were primarily interested in theological issues, and very seldom composedpurely philosophical works. For them, the philosophers were the ancients, Plato andAristotle, and some of the Islamic authors, like Avicenna of Baghdad (Ibn Sına, b. 980; d.1037) and Averroes of Cordoba (Ibn Rushd, b. ca. 1126; d. 1198). There are relatively fewworks produced in the period that can be classified strictly speaking as philosophical. Mostof the philosophy that we find is contained in books of theology and used to elucidate theo-logical doctrine. Whence the well-known phrase, popularized by Thomas Aquinas (b. ca.1225; d. 1274) in reference to philosophy, ancilla theologiae, servant of theology. The expres-sion ‘medieval philosophy’, moreover, has a disparaging connotation derived from the term‘Middle Ages’, used first by Renaissance humanists to refer to what they thought was a bar-baric and dark period of western history found between the two civilized and enlightenedages of classical antiquity and the Renaissance. In spite of the lack of philosophers, theabsence of purely philosophical works, and the prejudices of Renaissance humanists, theMiddle Ages is not only the longest period of philosophical development in the West, butalso one of the richest. Indeed, in intensity, sophistication, and achievement, the philo-sophical flowering in the thirteenth century could be rightly said to rival the golden age ofGreek philosophy in the fourth century .
The temporal and territorial boundaries of the Middle Ages are a subject of controversyamong scholars. No matter which dates are picked, however, it is clear that both Augustine(b. 354; d. 430) and John of St. Thomas (b. 1589; d. 1644) were engaged in the same intel-lectual program and therefore belong together. Before Augustine, the intellectual life of the
West was dominated by pagan philosophy, and Descartes (b. 1596; d. 1650), generallyregarded as the first modern philosopher, was contemporaneous with John. Territorially, we need to include not only Europe, but also the Middle East, where important GreekOrthodox, Jewish, and Islamic authors flourished.
A period that extends for more than a millennium is by no means uniform and easilybreaks down into smaller units. The first of these might be called Patristic, and began inearnest with Augustine, although its roots went back to the second century . It extendedto the seventh century, and closed with the death of Isidore of Seville (b. ca. 560; d. 636),author of the Etymologies, the first of many medieval encyclopedias. Between this time andthe Carolingian renaissance nothing of philosophical importance took place. Thanks to theefforts of Charlemagne (b. 742; d. 814) to establish schools, regularize writing, and gatherin his court all the great minds of the times in order to encourage learning and to replicatethe magnificence of Rome, there was some important intellectual activity at the end of theeighth and the beginning of the ninth centuries, which culminated in the work of John Eriugena (b. ca. 800; d. ca. 877).
This period was followed by a dark age which ended with another, more lasting, revivalof learning in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The twelfth-century renaissance, as it isoften called, produced some of the greatest of all medieval thinkers: Anselm (b. 1033; d.1109), Gilbert of Poitiers (b. 1085/90; d. 1154), Peter Abelard (b. 1079; d. 1142), and theSchool of Chartres. The period from 1150 to about 1225 is of paramount importance. Atthis time many of the works of the ancients became available to the medievals for the firsttime, thanks to the conquest of territory by Christians in Spain, and western scholarsengaged in a feverish attempt to assimilate them. Some of these works had been translatedfrom Greek into Syriac in the Middle East, and later were translated into Arabic. FromArabic, they were translated into Latin with the help of Spanish Jews. Other works wererendered into Latin directly from Greek originals by scholars working in Sicily and south-ern Italy. Prior to 1150, the medievals had a rather meager group of technical philosophi-cal works from Aristotle and his commentators, known as the logica vetus. But in a few yearsnot only the whole Organon, but most other works of Aristotle, with commentaries by Islamicauthors, and many scientific works from antiquity became available.
The renaissance of the twelfth century and the ferment created by the newly availabletexts gave rise to what is usually known as scholasticism. This is a method of teaching and learning used in various disciplines, particularly philosophy and theology. The originof the term is to be found in medieval schools, where a lecturer, particularly one who taughtthe liberal arts (trivium and quadrivium) was called scholasticus. The aim of the method was to yield knowledge concordant with both human reason and the Christian faith, a concordia discordantium of opinions which the medievals regarded as authoritative. The method was practiced in the medieval university and used Aristotelian logic as a tool.As a result, the literary genres used by scholastics reflect university activities and settings.The commentary is, generally speaking, the product of classroom lectures on texts; thequaestio is the product of university disputations; and the summae were the textbooks ofthe age.
Among the first scholastics of note were Roger Bacon (b. 1214/20; d. ca. 1492) and Albertthe Great (b. ca. 1200; d. 1280), but they were followed by a host of towering figures:Bonaventure (b. ca. 1217; d. 1274), Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus (b. 1266; d. 1308),and William of Ockham (b. ca. 1285; d. 1347). In the middle of the fourteenth century,however, scholasticism suffered a nearly irreversible setback through the Black Death (ca.1347–51), which decimated the universities of Europe. It took more than a hundred years
2
to recover and still longer to generate a second period of greatness under the leadership ofSpanish scholastics of the sixteenth century, such as Francisco Suárez (b. 1548; d. 1617) andFrancisco de Vitoria (b. ca. 1483; d. 1546).
The distinguishing mark of Latin philosophy in the Middle Ages is to be found in its double aim: the understanding of Christian faith and its defense against those whoattacked it. The effort at understanding produced theological works; the effort at defenseproduced apologetic works. This does not mean, however, that the medievals were not inter-ested in purely philosophical problems. They were, but most often the reason for their in-terest was that the solutions to these problems had important implications for Christiandoctrine; indeed, the solutions adopted were often governed by the doctrinal principles they wished to defend. In this sense, philosophy was generally subordinated to theology and apologetics.
This attitude separates the philosophy of the Middle Ages from both ancient and Renais-sance philosophy. The medieval approach to philosophy contrasts with that of the ancientphilosophy because both in classical Greece and in Rome, philosophy enjoyed a largely inde-pendent status and a predominant position. Philosophy was a pursuit unsubordinated to anyother intellectual activity, whose main goal was the understanding of the world and man’splace in it. On the other hand, the medieval attitude is quite distinct also from that of theRenaissance, because the humanists looked upon the classical past as a model of their activ-ity and, therefore, restored man to the center of attention and channeled their efforts to therecovery and emulation of classical learning, particularly in the philosophy of Plato. In con-trast, philosophy in the Middle Ages was subordinated to theology, and the center of intel-lectual attention was God and his revelation rather than human beings; human beings werestudied only as creatures of God made in his image and likeness. The model adopted by themedievals was not to be found in the lives and theories of ancient philosophers, but insteadin the lives of saints and their prayers.
The character of philosophy in the Middle Ages is evident in the philosophical problemsmedievals chose to address, the way they interpreted philosophical problems they found inancient texts, and the solutions they gave to most of them. Three of the most importantconcerns the medievals inherited from the ancients were the problem of how we know, theproblem of God’s existence, and the problem of universals. Four questions they raised as aresult of their theological concerns and commitments were the problem of the relationbetween faith and reason, the problem of individuation, the problem concerned with thelanguage used to talk about God, and the relation between theology and metaphysics.
Faith and reason
No other issue concerned the medievals more than the relation of faith to reason, for thesuccess of the program adopted in the age to a large extent depended in turn on the successin working out this relationship. For ancient philosophers, this had not been a concern, for most of them were not religious so there was no need to reconcile reason to faith, ortruths derived from the study of the world independently of faith to a body of revealedtruths known by faith. Under this rubric, several and different, if interrelated, issues are contained. The problem is first explicitly formulated in the second century of theChristian era, when some early Fathers of the Church questioned the merit of using secularlearning by those to whom the truth has been revealed by God. Two sides are easily iden-tifiable. Some rejected the value of secular learning altogether; this position is often called
3
fideism because of its exclusive preference for faith. Others found a place for secular learn-ing in the understanding of faith. Tertullian (b. ca. 160; d. 220) argued that there is no placefor the learning of infidels in Christianity, and he coined a phrase that has made history: “Ibelieve because it is absurd” (Credo quia ineptum). Among those who saw some merit in theuse of secular learning and tried to bring it together with revealed truth was Justin Martyr(d. ca. 165).
Augustine followed in the footsteps of Justin Martyr and provided the parameters for future discussions of this issue. For him, all truth is one, regardless of the source, so the Christian can and should make use of secular learning. However, it is only in theChristian faith that one can truly understand the world and the place of human beings init. Christian doctrine completes, illuminates, and transforms secular learning, providinganswers to the most important questions and to those for which non-Christians have noanswers. Moreover, it supplies us with an infallible criterion of truth. Anything found insecular learning that contradicts Christian doctrine is false and must be rejected; anythingconcordant with it may be used as long as it is done in the context of faith.
The controversy between the approach of those denying the value of secular learning andthose advocating its use surfaced again in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This time thefocus was upon the use of logic, known then as dialectic, in the understanding of Scriptures.Among the anti-dialecticians was Peter Damian (b. 1007; d. 1072), who went so far as toreject not just logic, but even grammar because, as he put it, the Devil became the first gram-marian when he declined the word Deus in the plural. His irrationalism was so strong, andhis faith in God’s power so great, that he argued that God could bring it about that the pastnever happened. The most outspoken dialectician was Abelard, known as the Peripateticfrom Pallet because of his use of and predilection for Aristotelian logic. In a controversialbook, entitled Sic et non (Yes and No), Abelard showed that Christian authorities contradicteach other, and therefore an understanding of Christian faith requires the use of logic. Amore moderate position was adopted by Anselm. Inspired by Augustine, he argued for ameasured use of logic, in which understanding begins with faith but is achieved when thedoctrines revealed in Scriptures are articulated in logical form. His view is encapsulated in two famous formulas: Credo ut intelligam (I believe in order that I may understand) andFides quaerens intellectum (Faith seeking understanding).
The relation between faith and reason was also of concern to Islamic and Jewish thinkersduring this period. One of the most controversial views on the topic was proposed byAverroes. Adopting a strict Aristotelian model of knowledge as demonstration, he arguedthat the understanding of Scriptures can never reach the level of knowledge, for knowledgeis based on demonstrative reasoning, and reasoning founded on premisses that are not self-evident can never be considered demonstrative. Theology does not yield knowledgeproperly speaking, and therefore must be subordinated to philosophy, which does. Averroes’position, as well as the position of those who preferred reason over faith, is usually referredto as rationalism.
In the thirteenth century, both Bonaventure and Aquinas responded to Averroes.Bonaventure rejected the universality of the Aristotelian model of knowledge, though headmitted its competence within its own sphere. Since all things in the created order are, forBonaventure, signs of the Uncreated Wisdom, each sphere of reality must be seen in itsconnection to that Wisdom. As a result, although in any one science knowledge can beacquired without appeal to revelation, each science and its subject needs to be traced back(reducere) to the Uncreated Wisdom for a proper appreciation of its role within human life and thought. Hence Bonaventure privileges Augustinian wisdom over and against
4
Aristotelian science, rejecting the latter as the highest canon of judgment regarding human knowledge.
In contrast to Bonaventure, Aquinas did not reject the Aristotelian model used byAverroes, but rather argued that not all knowledge is of the same sort. Some knowledge haspremisses which are self-evident principles – as is the case with metaphysics – but somehave premisses which have been demonstrated in other branches of knowledge – as withoptics, which takes its principles from geometry. Theology is based on faith, but it can beconsidered knowledge because it rests on God’s own knowledge, which is the highest onethere can be. Aquinas, moreover, made room for both theology and philosophy in the bodyof all knowledge by arguing that some truths can be known only through faith (e.g., Christis God), some can be known only through reason (e.g., all material substances are composedof matter and form), and some can be known through either faith or reason (e.g., God exists).
In spite of the efforts of Bonaventure, Aquinas, and others, the influence of Averroes con-tinued to be felt well into the sixteenth century and prompted repeated condemnations fromvarious quarters. The most famous of these occurred in 1277, and included even some viewswhich Aquinas himself had held. The popularity of Averroes was more strongly felt in thefaculty of arts rather than theology. Among those in the thirteenth century accused of fol-lowing Averroes too closely was Siger of Brabant (b. ca. 1240; d. after 1282). He was chargedwith holding a doctrine of double truth, according to which there is a truth of faith and atruth of reason, and the truths can and often do contradict each other. Clearly, this was unac-ceptable to most medievals, for it undermined the overall program of the age, that is, theintegration of revelation and secular learning into a consistent body of doctrine.
God’s existence
Proving that God exists was important for the medievals because God’s existence is theangular stone on which the Christian faith rests. It was important in order both to lay downthe foundation of all Christian theology and to establish a base for apologetic efforts directedtoward Muslims and Jews.
The ancients had already provided some arguments for the existence of God, but it wasthe medievals who formulated these in elegant and parsimonious ways. These argumentsbreak down into two types: arguments based on the analysis of concepts and argumentsbased on experience. Of the first, the most famous are the arguments of Anselm in the Proslo-gion and John Duns Scotus in On the First Principle. Both have come to be known as ver-sions of the so-called ontological argument, a term first used by Kant to designate them. Ofthe second type, the most famous are the five ways presented in Aquinas’s Summa theolo-giae, which comprise both cosmological and teleological arguments.
Anselm’s argument derives God’s existence from the conception of God as that thanwhich a greater cannot be thought. God exists, for if he did not, than which a greater cannotbe thought would not be that than which a greater cannot be thought. Anselm assumes, inline with his Augustinian-Platonic framework, that something that exists is greater thansomething that does not, that the notion of a being that than which a greater cannot bethought is intelligible, and that logical necessity has a bearing on existence. He has beencriticized for all three assumptions. But to this day there are strong supporters of thesoundness of the argument.
Each of Aquinas’s five ways begins by taking note of a fact given in experience, such asthat some things change. From this they go on to point out, through various steps, that these
5
facts cannot be explained without recourse to a being who is ultimately responsible for them,and this being is God. The first way argues from the fact that there is change in the worldto a first cause of the change. The second argues from the efficient causality we experiencein the world to a first efficient cause. The third distinguishes between necessary and con-tingent beings, as well as between beings that are necessary in themselves and those that arenecessary through another, ultimately concluding that there must be one necessary beingwhose necessary existence is not derived from any other being. The fourth argues from thegradation found in things to a being who is both the maximum and the cause of those things.And the fifth argues that all things, intelligent or not, act for an end, and there must be anintelligent being who directs them towards their end.
The names of God
Showing that we can know God was as important to the medievals as proving that he exists.Indeed, because the latter implies knowing something about God, one might say that thetask of showing that we can know God logically precedes the task of proving he exists.
Several philosophers from antiquity had talked about God. Texts abound in Plato,Aristotle, and the Stoics that speak about a single divinity. In all these cases, however, Godseems to have been conceived as part of the world. Knowing God, then, was not essentiallydifferent from knowing anything else, even if perhaps more difficult, for the terms we useto talk about the world are in principle applicable to God as well. The Christian conceptionof God, however, changed this. If God is wholly other than creation and transcends it, thenit is questionable that the terms we use to speak about the world can also be applied to him.
The background of this controversy is found in both Augustine’s writings and ananonymous treatise, probably written by a fifth-century Syrian monk (known as Pseudo-Dionysius) who posed as Dionysius the Areopagite, entitled On the Divine Names. Contro-versy over the ways to understand divine names heats up in the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies with Moses Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon, b. 1138; d. 1204), Aquinas, andScotus. The issue concerns the application and understanding of terms that express per-fections, such as ‘good’ and ‘just’; no one held that terms expressing imperfections, such as‘bad’ and ‘unjust’, are applicable to God. If terms of the first sort do not signify anythingabout God, then it appears that when we use them we do not understand anything inparticular about God; and if they do, then it appears that we understand something aboutGod but that he is not fundamentally different from the world. The first makes Godunknowable and the Scriptures unintelligible; the second makes God part of the world andtherefore not divine. Both are unacceptable to an orthodox Muslim, Jew, or Christian.
Almost every thinker in the Middle Ages tried to find a solution to this dilemma.Maimonides argued that there are two kinds of terms applicable to God. First, terms thatstand for attributes do not signify anything about God himself, but rather are to be under-stood negatively, as denying something of God. To say that God is good is to say that he isnot evil, and to say that he is just is to say that he is not unjust. Second, terms that standfor actions do convey information, but the information they convey is not about God himselfbut about what God has done for others.
At the other extreme, Scotus argued that, in order for the language we predicate of Godto be effective in producing understanding, there must be at least one term that is used uni-vocally (i.e., with the same meaning) of God and creatures, and proposed ‘being’ as such a
6
top related