Science, the Singular, and the Question of Theology PDF
Preview Science, the Singular, and the Question of Theology
SCIENCE,THE SINGULAR, AND THE QUESTION OF THEOLOGY THE NEW MIDDLE AGES BONNIE WHEELER,Series Editor The New Middle Agespresents transdisciplinary studies of medieval cultures.It includes both scholarly monographs and essay collections. PUBLISHED BY PALGRAVE: Women in the Medieval Islamic World:Power,Patronage,and Piety edited by Gavin R.G.Hambly The Ethics of Nature in the Middle Ages:On Boccaccio’s Poetaphysics by Gregory B.Stone Presence and Presentation:Women in the Chinese Literati Tradition by Sherry J.Mou The Lost Love Letters of Heloise and Abelard:Perceptions of Dialogue in Twelfth-Century France by Constant J.Mews Understanding Scholastic Thought with Foucault by Philipp W.Rosemann For Her Good Estate:The Life of Elizabeth de Burgh by Frances Underhill Constructions of Widowhood and Virginity in the Middle Ages edited by Cindy L.Carlson and Angela Jane Weisl Motherhood and Mothering in Anglo-Saxon England by Mary Dockray-Miller Listening to Heloise:The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman edited by Bonnie Wheeler The Postcolonial Middle Ages edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen Chaucer’s Pardoner and Gender Theory:Bodies of Discourse by Robert S.Sturges Crossing the Bridge:Comparative Essays on Medieval European and Heian Japanese Women Writers edited by Barbara Stevenson and Cynthia Ho Engaging Words:The Culture of Reading in the Later Middle Ages by Laurel Amtower Robes and Honor:The Medieval World of Investiture edited by Stewart Gordon Representing Rape in Medieval and Early Modern Literature edited by Elizabeth Robertson and Christine M.Rose Same Sex Love and Desire Among Women in the Middle Ages edited by Francesca Canadé Sautman and Pamela Sheingorn Listen Daughter:The Speculum Virginumand the Formation of Religious Women in the Middle Ages edited by Constant J.Mews SCIENCE,THE SINGULAR,AND THE QUESTION OF THEOLOGY Richard A. Lee, Jr. SCIENCE,THESINGULAR,ANDTHEQUESTIONOFTHEOLOGY © RICHARDA.LEE,2002 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2002 978-0-312-29296-6 All rights reserved.No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. First published 2002 by PALGRAVETM 175 Fifth Avenue,New York,N.Y.10010 and Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire RG21 6XS. Companies and representatives throughout the world. PALGRAVE is the new global publishing imprint of St.Martin’s Press LLC Scholarly and Reference Division and Palgrave Publishers Ltd (formerly Macmillan Press Ltd). ISBN 978-1-349-38731-1 ISBN 978-0-312-29912-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9780312299125 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lee,Richard A.,Jr. Science,the singular,and the question of theology / Richard A.Lee,Jr. p. cm.—(The new Middle Ages series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-349-38731-1 1. Theology,Doctrinal—History—Middle Ages,600–1500.Philosophy, Medieval. I. Title. II. Series. BT26.L44 2002 23’.2’0902—dc21 2001035958 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Design by Letra Libre,Inc. First edition:January 2002 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CONTENTS Preface vii Introduction Theology,Science,and Rational Ground 1 Chapter 1 The Contact of Science and Theology 7 Chapter 2 Divine Ideas,Aristotelian Science: Robert Grosseteste and the Theory of Scientia 17 Chapter 3 Aquinas and Theology as Subalternate Science 33 Chapter 4 Duns Scotus and Intuitive Knowledge 59 Chapter 5 Ockham and the Nature of Science 73 Chapter 6 Theology beyond Science 91 Chapter 7 After Ockham:Marsilius of Inghen and Pierre d’Ailly on Knowledge and the Existing Singular 107 Unconcluding Postlude 119 Notes 125 Bibliography 159 Index 171 To all my teachers, especially Fernenc Feher and Reiner Schürman, who could not live to see it. PREFACE The argument presented here appears, on its face, to be a relatively straightforward historical presentation of what happened to the ques- tion of the scientific nature of theology from Grosseteste to Ockham and his reception.Yet the argument is,in fact,constructed in reverse.Rather than attempting to tell the story as if we did not know the conclusion,the story is told precisely from the point of view of the conclusion.How can we read the history of medieval thought (especially on the question of the scientific status of theology) such that Ockham’s position appears to be a “natural”one? How do thinkers such as Aquinas and Scotus appear if we know already the problems and issues with which Ockham deals? Can we read the history of medieval thought from the perspective of Ockham’s thought? What motivates the choice of such a form of history is a relatively sim- ple issue.It has always seemed strange to me that from a certain moment in history,that is,from the moment of the condemnations of the 1270s, Aquinas could be read as a radically dangerous thinker and Ockham as the answer to that threat.To be sure,there was a certain rivalry between the mendicant orders.To be sure,Bonaventure seemed to be moving theology along a different path than Albert the Great or Aquinas.But such rivalries and traditional allegiances cannot fully explain how the Franciscans seemed to emerge victorious from the various condemnations of the 1270s.The history presented here attempts to be a history of how Ock- ham’s “nominalism”was for a time preferable to Aquinas’s “realism.”That is,this history stops at Ockham and his reception and attempts not to rush headlong into the counter-Reformation where Aquinas would once again prove himself the better.I make no claims to offering a better understand- ing of what Grosseteste, Aquinas, Scotus, or Ockham “really meant.” Rather, I simply try to show a way of reading a particular history that makes sense of the contributions of all thinkers from within that history.I attempt to read the history of this question such that Ockham appears not as a destructive radical,but rather as attempting to solve problems raised by an Aquinas who can appear to be radical.What is opened in this form of viii SCIENCE,THE SINGULAR,AND THE QUESTION OF THEOLOGY telling the story is a reading of Aquinas that no longer seems possible to us today.But unless we can reopen this way of reading Aquinas,we run the risk of misunderstanding later medieval responses to Aquinas. This points to another reason for offering a history such as this.The his- tory of reading medieval philosophy after the Middle Ages is itself an in- teresting topic for scholarly study. What are the effects of our interpretations of medieval thought in the aftermath of the counter- Reformation? The fact that Aquinas was the philosopher to whom the Catholic Church turned for a response to Luther meant that Aquinas had to be read in a different way.But for the same reason,thinkers like Scotus, Ockham,Marsilius of Inghen,Pierre d’Ailly,Robert Holcot,and others had to be reinterpreted with Aquinas serving as the standard.Aquinas’s his- torical position was thereby reversed;he now comes after Ockham and is a response to Ockham.Because of this peculiar history,Ockham’s reading of and response to Aquinas cannot be detached from the victory that Aquinas won over Luther. This study, therefore, attempts to uncover just how medieval Aris- totelian thought from before the condemnations of the 1270s might have been interpreted in the aftermath of the condemnations. I have had to avoid raising debates in Aquinas scholarship that have become standard.I do not mean to say that such debates have no merit,that such debates fun- damentally misunderstand Aquinas.Rather,I mean only to say that I am interested in how philosophers,particularly Franciscan philosophers,after 1277 could have understood and misunderstood Aquinas. The choice of presenting the story in this fashion leads to a certain way of dealing with the scholarly contributions of those giants on whose shoulders I sit.I have made a deliberate choice to attempt to refrain from pointing to the scholarly literature when I am in agreement or disagree- ment.I have made this choice for two main reasons.First,I did not want my quibbles with others’ interpretations to cloud the argument I am pursuing unless I find that the disagreement fundamentally affects that ar- gument.Second,I have traced my indebtedness to previous scholars in the bibliography and one who wishes to know the exact extent of my agreement or disagreement can certainly trace that by reading the texts referred to there. I do this more out of honor for the work of these scholars than out of the vanity of thinking that my contribution is bet- ter than theirs. I should add,perhaps,one final note of caution.I have come to the study of medieval philosophy in general and this topic in particular from an interest in contemporary “continental” philosophy. This is unusual today,but it was not always so.Hegel,Brentano,Heidegger,Arendt,and many other of the major figures in this tradition were constantly engaging PREFACE ix medieval thought.Yet today the tradition of continental philosophy and the tradition of scholarship into medieval philosophy have parted ways, neither showing particular interest in the other.Perhaps in some small way this study can be a move toward bringing these two sides of the family back into harmony.
The list of books you might like
