Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science PDF
Preview Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science
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-
The list of books you might like
