Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science

271 Pages·2014·3.46 MB·English

by  Craig Martin

Subverting Aristotle
This page intentionally left blank
Subverting Aristotle
Religion, History, and Philosophy
in Early Modern Science
Craig Martin
Johns Hopkins University Press
Baltimore
This book has been brought to publication with the generous assistance
of the Lila Acheson Wallace Publication Subsidy at Villa I Tatti.
© 2014 Johns Hopkins University Press
All rights reserved. Published 2014
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
2 4 6 8 9 7 5 3 1
Johns Hopkins University Press
2715 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363
www.press.jhu.edu
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Martin, Craig, 1972–
Subverting Aristotle : religion, history, and philosophy in early modern
science / Craig Martin.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-1-4214-1316-7 (hardcover : alk. paper)
ISBN-13: 978-1-4214-1317-4 (electronic)
ISBN-10: 1-4214-1316-7 (hardcover : alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 1-4214-1317-5 (electronic)
1. Aristotle. 2. Religion and science—History. 3. Science—History.
I. Title.
B485.M267 2014
149'.91—dc23 2013031642
A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
Special discounts are available for bulk purchases of this book.
For more information, please contact Special Sales at 410-516-6936
or [email protected].
Johns Hopkins University Press uses environmentally friendly
book materials, including recycled text paper that is composed of
at least 30 percent post-consumer waste, whenever possible.
Contents
Introduction 1
1 Scholasticism, Appropriation, and Censure 11
2 Humanists’ Invectives and Aristotle’s Impiety 28
3 Renaissance Aristotle, Renaissance Averroes 51
4 Italian Aristotelianism after Pomponazzi 70
5 Religious Reform and the Reassessment of Aristotelianism 86
6 Learned Anti-Aristotelianism 102
7 History, Erudition, and Aristotle’s Past 121
8 The New Sciences, Religion, and the Struggle over Aristotle 145
Conclusion 169
Acknowledgments 179
Notes 181
Principal Primary Sources 241
Index 253
This page intentionally left blank
Subverting Aristotle
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
Even if Aristotle was not an atheist in the sense that he directly
and openly attacked the divine . . . one could say that he was one
in a broader sense, because his ideas on divinity indirectly tend to
undermine it and destroy it.
Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, Encyclopédie
The belief that Aristotle’s philosophy is incompatible with Christianity is hardly
controversial today. The conviction that his views about religion and society
might be best understood placed in the context of Greek pagan culture is not
likely to evoke strong reactions. What is true today, however, was not always the
case. For centuries, Christian culture embraced Aristotelian thought as its own,
reconciling his philosophy with theology and ecclesiastical doctrine. The image
of Aristotle as source of religious truth withered in the seventeenth century, the
same century in which he ceased being an authority for natural philosophy. The
coincidence of Aristotle’s loss of authority for theology and for natural philosophy
was not accidental. Aristotle’s transformation from ancient sage into an impious
pagan, who espoused dogmatically dubious doctrines, was part of the general
rejection of Aristotelianism that accompanied the scientific revolution.
The transformations of natural philosophy during the seventeenth century
were tied to understandings of the past. In the words of William Ashworth, “the
Scientific Revolution was, after all, itself a historical revolution.”1 Early modern
rejections of Scholasticism were also historical evaluations of ancient thought and
thinkers, most important among them Aristotle. Nearly by definition, the novel
philosophies of the seventeenth century, those traditionally identified with the
scientific revolution, shared a critical view toward Aristotelianism and its past.
Some promoters of novel philosophies were vitriolic in their hostility, even if they
borrowed terminology and concepts from the philosophy of the schools.2 Never-