Aristotle and the Renaissance by Charles B. SchmittReview by: Edward GrantIsis, Vol. 75, No. 1, Sarton, Science, and History (Mar., 1984), pp. 228-229Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/232397 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 06:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.56 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:26:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 75: 1: 276 (1984) BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 75: 1: 276 (1984)

lieves that Americans bought appliances to replace servants or thinks that housewives were scarce and expensive is not clear. His bibliography reveals at least one source of his problem: only four references published since 1935-Siegfried Giedion's Mechani- zation Takes Command, two books pub- lished in London by Lawrence Wright, and an article that appeared in McCall's Mag- azine in 1944.

It is not pleasant to report that this book is not so much a disappointment as a dis- aster. The attempt to encompass the Western world's technology during the first half of this century within four hundred pages is a formidable task, and one should be charitable toward differing interpreta- tions and unavoidable lacunae in the field. This book, however, by ignoring the social context, treating technological components instead of systems, and ignoring much of the scholarly literature of the past genera- tion, robs the history of technology of both its significance and its interest.

CARROLL W. PURSELL, JR.

* Renaissance

Charles B. Schmitt. Aristotle and the Re- naissance. (Martin Classical Lectures, 27.) viii + 187 pp., illus., bibl., index. Cam- bridge, Mass. / London: Published for Oberlin College by the Harvard University Press, 1983. $18.50.

Until relatively recently, Aristotelianism in the Renaissance (fifteenth to seventeenth centuries) has had a very bad press. By the scorn he heaped upon them, Galileo, per- haps more than anyone else, left an en- during impression that the slavish Peri- patetics of his day argued only from the au- thority of Aristotle's books while ignoring the book of nature. Not content with mere criticism, Galileo, along with Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes, replaced the au- thority of Aristotle with a new philosophy that effectively destroyed the Aristotelian world view. With the advent of neoscho- lasticism in the nineteenth century, a re- newed interest in the Middle Ages pro- duced a reasonably positive reevaluation of medieval achievements in philosophy (especially logic), natural philosophy, and science. Renaissance Aristotelianism, how- ever, fared badly because it was, and continues to be, perceived as a further de-

lieves that Americans bought appliances to replace servants or thinks that housewives were scarce and expensive is not clear. His bibliography reveals at least one source of his problem: only four references published since 1935-Siegfried Giedion's Mechani- zation Takes Command, two books pub- lished in London by Lawrence Wright, and an article that appeared in McCall's Mag- azine in 1944.

It is not pleasant to report that this book is not so much a disappointment as a dis- aster. The attempt to encompass the Western world's technology during the first half of this century within four hundred pages is a formidable task, and one should be charitable toward differing interpreta- tions and unavoidable lacunae in the field. This book, however, by ignoring the social context, treating technological components instead of systems, and ignoring much of the scholarly literature of the past genera- tion, robs the history of technology of both its significance and its interest.

CARROLL W. PURSELL, JR.

* Renaissance

Charles B. Schmitt. Aristotle and the Re- naissance. (Martin Classical Lectures, 27.) viii + 187 pp., illus., bibl., index. Cam- bridge, Mass. / London: Published for Oberlin College by the Harvard University Press, 1983. $18.50.

Until relatively recently, Aristotelianism in the Renaissance (fifteenth to seventeenth centuries) has had a very bad press. By the scorn he heaped upon them, Galileo, per- haps more than anyone else, left an en- during impression that the slavish Peri- patetics of his day argued only from the au- thority of Aristotle's books while ignoring the book of nature. Not content with mere criticism, Galileo, along with Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes, replaced the au- thority of Aristotle with a new philosophy that effectively destroyed the Aristotelian world view. With the advent of neoscho- lasticism in the nineteenth century, a re- newed interest in the Middle Ages pro- duced a reasonably positive reevaluation of medieval achievements in philosophy (especially logic), natural philosophy, and science. Renaissance Aristotelianism, how- ever, fared badly because it was, and continues to be, perceived as a further de-

generation of medieval scholastic Aris- totelianism and therefore unworthy of inde- pendent study. Galileo and his eminent seventeenth-century colleagues had done their work all too well.

In this splendid and informative volume Charles Schmitt, who has established him- self as the leading scholar of our generation on the history of Aristotelian thought in the Renaissance, has sought to dispel the idea of a monolithic, unprogressive Aristote- lianism. In rather brief compass-the vol- ume is an outgrowth of four lectures deliv- ered at Oberlin College-Schmitt paints a radically different picture by demonstrating four major propositions (p. 7):

(1) that the study of Aristotle during the Renais- sance was not merely a blind continuation of the Aristotelianism of the Middle Ages; (2) that the works of Aristotle and his later followers con- tinued to influence-and frequently in a positive and progressive way-some of the key forward- looking thinkers of the Renaissance; (3) that the Aristotelianism of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries had an internal develop- ment of its own, and was itself dependent upon external influences for its own continuing effi- cacy; (4) that, contrary to general opinion, there was a very great diversity of attitudes, methods, and dependence upon the corpus Aristotelicum among the Aristotelians themselves during the Renaissance.

All of these points are supported by a surprisingly large amount of detail in a volume of only 187 pages, of which ap- proximately 70 pages are given over to ap- pendixes, notes, bibliography, and index. So great was the diversity of Aristote- lianism in the Renaissance that Schmitt ti- tles his first chapter "Renaissance Aristote- lianisms" to emphasize its nonmonolithic character. Moreover, it was also receptive to other ideas and philosophies, as we learn in the fourth chapter, "Eclectic Ar- istotelianism." Diversity is also the char- acteristic feature of a chapter on the nature of Aristotelian literature, as it is in the chapter on the different concepts of trans- lation that were applied to the surprisingly large number of Renaissance translations of the works of Aristotle.

Despite his emphasis on diversity and eclecticism, Schmitt provides few exam- ples to illustrate how that diversity and eclecticism actually affected specific in- terpretations of Aristotelian philosophy and natural philosophy. For example, Schmitt reports that some Renaissance

generation of medieval scholastic Aris- totelianism and therefore unworthy of inde- pendent study. Galileo and his eminent seventeenth-century colleagues had done their work all too well.

In this splendid and informative volume Charles Schmitt, who has established him- self as the leading scholar of our generation on the history of Aristotelian thought in the Renaissance, has sought to dispel the idea of a monolithic, unprogressive Aristote- lianism. In rather brief compass-the vol- ume is an outgrowth of four lectures deliv- ered at Oberlin College-Schmitt paints a radically different picture by demonstrating four major propositions (p. 7):

(1) that the study of Aristotle during the Renais- sance was not merely a blind continuation of the Aristotelianism of the Middle Ages; (2) that the works of Aristotle and his later followers con- tinued to influence-and frequently in a positive and progressive way-some of the key forward- looking thinkers of the Renaissance; (3) that the Aristotelianism of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries had an internal develop- ment of its own, and was itself dependent upon external influences for its own continuing effi- cacy; (4) that, contrary to general opinion, there was a very great diversity of attitudes, methods, and dependence upon the corpus Aristotelicum among the Aristotelians themselves during the Renaissance.

All of these points are supported by a surprisingly large amount of detail in a volume of only 187 pages, of which ap- proximately 70 pages are given over to ap- pendixes, notes, bibliography, and index. So great was the diversity of Aristote- lianism in the Renaissance that Schmitt ti- tles his first chapter "Renaissance Aristote- lianisms" to emphasize its nonmonolithic character. Moreover, it was also receptive to other ideas and philosophies, as we learn in the fourth chapter, "Eclectic Ar- istotelianism." Diversity is also the char- acteristic feature of a chapter on the nature of Aristotelian literature, as it is in the chapter on the different concepts of trans- lation that were applied to the surprisingly large number of Renaissance translations of the works of Aristotle.

Despite his emphasis on diversity and eclecticism, Schmitt provides few exam- ples to illustrate how that diversity and eclecticism actually affected specific in- terpretations of Aristotelian philosophy and natural philosophy. For example, Schmitt reports that some Renaissance

228 228

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.56 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:26:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 75 : 1: 276 (1984) BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 75 : 1: 276 (1984)

Peripatetics-Girolamo Borro, the Coim- bra Jesuits, and others-were influenced by contemporary Neoplatonic ideas about hermeticism and the "prisca sapientia scheme for the transmission of knowledge" (p. 95). But how, if at all, such Neoplatonic ideas might actually have influenced Peri- patetic understanding of substantive as- pects of Aristotelian thought is left unspec- ified. Although significant departures were made from medieval Aristotelianism, it is important to know the extent to which these were caused by new translations, which exposed a more pristine Aristotle freed from centuries of medieval distortion, and to what extent they were the product of new ideas and currents in the Renais- sance. Schmitt seems convinced that Ar- istotelianism in the Renaissance departed considerably from its counterpart in the Middle Ages. In some areas-logic, polit- ical theory, and ethics, for example-there were indeed significant departures. But was this also true for natural philosophy and cosmology, subject areas that would be of most interest to readers of Isis? The answer is by no means obvious. The great value of Schmitt's book lies in the stimulus it provides to seek answers to these and other fundamental questions, which he ex- plicitly raises or which flow naturally from the ideas he so brilliantly explores.

All who are interested in the history of Aristotelian thought in the Middle Ages and Renaissance are indebted to Schmitt's rich, seminal work. Extensive future re- search on the many problems he raises would be a most fitting tribute to his heroic efforts.

EDWARD GRANT

William Wallace. Prelude to Galileo: Es- says on Medieval and Sixteenth-Century Sources of Galileo's Thought. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 62.) xiii + 369 pp., illus., bibl., indexes. Dor- drecht/Boston/London: D. Reidel, 1981. Dfl 95, $49.95 (cloth); Dfl 45, $23.50 (paper).

This volume will be of great interest to historians and philosophers of science. Consisting of essays written from 1967 to 1981 (some completely rewritten, others revised and reworked for the present volume), it casts much new light on Gali- leo's relation to the Aristotelian tradition,

Peripatetics-Girolamo Borro, the Coim- bra Jesuits, and others-were influenced by contemporary Neoplatonic ideas about hermeticism and the "prisca sapientia scheme for the transmission of knowledge" (p. 95). But how, if at all, such Neoplatonic ideas might actually have influenced Peri- patetic understanding of substantive as- pects of Aristotelian thought is left unspec- ified. Although significant departures were made from medieval Aristotelianism, it is important to know the extent to which these were caused by new translations, which exposed a more pristine Aristotle freed from centuries of medieval distortion, and to what extent they were the product of new ideas and currents in the Renais- sance. Schmitt seems convinced that Ar- istotelianism in the Renaissance departed considerably from its counterpart in the Middle Ages. In some areas-logic, polit- ical theory, and ethics, for example-there were indeed significant departures. But was this also true for natural philosophy and cosmology, subject areas that would be of most interest to readers of Isis? The answer is by no means obvious. The great value of Schmitt's book lies in the stimulus it provides to seek answers to these and other fundamental questions, which he ex- plicitly raises or which flow naturally from the ideas he so brilliantly explores.

All who are interested in the history of Aristotelian thought in the Middle Ages and Renaissance are indebted to Schmitt's rich, seminal work. Extensive future re- search on the many problems he raises would be a most fitting tribute to his heroic efforts.

EDWARD GRANT

William Wallace. Prelude to Galileo: Es- says on Medieval and Sixteenth-Century Sources of Galileo's Thought. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 62.) xiii + 369 pp., illus., bibl., indexes. Dor- drecht/Boston/London: D. Reidel, 1981. Dfl 95, $49.95 (cloth); Dfl 45, $23.50 (paper).

This volume will be of great interest to historians and philosophers of science. Consisting of essays written from 1967 to 1981 (some completely rewritten, others revised and reworked for the present volume), it casts much new light on Gali- leo's relation to the Aristotelian tradition,

strengthening the so-called "continuity" thesis on the one hand and on the other challenging the positivist interpretation of Galileo's theory of science.

Father Wallace accomplishes his goals in Galileo interpretation not by retraversing and reconsidering the familiar materials, but by introducing an impressive amount of new evidence on the sources of Galileo's thought, especially on the sources of what we may call his "Aristotelianism." Gali- leo's Aristotelianism of course is most ob- viously and extensively present in his early writings on logic and physics. Father Wal- lace has now rather definitively identified its source in the Jesuit professors at the Collegio Romano in the late sixteenth cen- tury, and what appears in an abbreviated, truncated, and even rather crude form in Galileo's early writings can now be studied in a clearer and more complete form in these Jesuit writers. It is thus more pos- sible to determine precisely what Galileo's knowledge of the Aristotelian tradition was, and whether any of it left a permanent deposit in his mind.

Although all the essays in the volume are interesting and contribute to establishing the author's thesis, those that do most in this respect are the two entitled "Galileo and Reasoning Ex Suppositione" (pp. 129- 159) and "Galileo and the Doctores Pari- sienses" (pp. 192-252). The Aristotelian- ism of the Jesuit professors at the Colle- gio Romano Father Wallace describes as a "progressive, somewhat eclectic, scholas- tic Aristotelianism, otherwise quite Thom- istic, which, unlike the Aristotelianism in the Italian universities under Averroist influences, was sufficiently open-ended to incorporate the techniques of the Cal- culatores and the Archimedean ideal of physico-mathematical reasoning applied to the world of nature" (p. 315). Almost all of the Jesuit professors at the Collegio Romano who adhered to and taught this "progressive" Aristotelianism have been unknown to historians of philosophy and science, and include such personages as Antonius Menu, Paulus Valla, Mutius Vi- telleschi, and Ludovicus Rugerius. But if Father Wallace is right about these matters (and his evidence seems overwhelming), then he has made some highly significant discoveries that will surely have to be taken into account by Galileo scholars. The continuity question, if it was ever closed, will have to be reopened, and the new ev-

strengthening the so-called "continuity" thesis on the one hand and on the other challenging the positivist interpretation of Galileo's theory of science.

Father Wallace accomplishes his goals in Galileo interpretation not by retraversing and reconsidering the familiar materials, but by introducing an impressive amount of new evidence on the sources of Galileo's thought, especially on the sources of what we may call his "Aristotelianism." Gali- leo's Aristotelianism of course is most ob- viously and extensively present in his early writings on logic and physics. Father Wal- lace has now rather definitively identified its source in the Jesuit professors at the Collegio Romano in the late sixteenth cen- tury, and what appears in an abbreviated, truncated, and even rather crude form in Galileo's early writings can now be studied in a clearer and more complete form in these Jesuit writers. It is thus more pos- sible to determine precisely what Galileo's knowledge of the Aristotelian tradition was, and whether any of it left a permanent deposit in his mind.

Although all the essays in the volume are interesting and contribute to establishing the author's thesis, those that do most in this respect are the two entitled "Galileo and Reasoning Ex Suppositione" (pp. 129- 159) and "Galileo and the Doctores Pari- sienses" (pp. 192-252). The Aristotelian- ism of the Jesuit professors at the Colle- gio Romano Father Wallace describes as a "progressive, somewhat eclectic, scholas- tic Aristotelianism, otherwise quite Thom- istic, which, unlike the Aristotelianism in the Italian universities under Averroist influences, was sufficiently open-ended to incorporate the techniques of the Cal- culatores and the Archimedean ideal of physico-mathematical reasoning applied to the world of nature" (p. 315). Almost all of the Jesuit professors at the Collegio Romano who adhered to and taught this "progressive" Aristotelianism have been unknown to historians of philosophy and science, and include such personages as Antonius Menu, Paulus Valla, Mutius Vi- telleschi, and Ludovicus Rugerius. But if Father Wallace is right about these matters (and his evidence seems overwhelming), then he has made some highly significant discoveries that will surely have to be taken into account by Galileo scholars. The continuity question, if it was ever closed, will have to be reopened, and the new ev-

229 229

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.56 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:26:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions