Early Modern Aristotelianism and the Making of Philosophical Disciplines

Metaphysics, Ethics and Politics

Danilo Facca

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781350251441
• eBook ISBN: 9781350130234
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: European Renaissance History

Danilo Facca investigates the contribution of Aristotelianism in the emergence of a system of philosophical disciplines for schools and universities in the late Renaissance and Early Modern age. Facca charts the intellectual context of this process, focusing on the interpretation of Aristotelianism at renowned German, Italian and Polish centres of study including Milan, Padua, Altdorf, Helmstedt, Torun and Gdansk, at a time when the authority of the Aristotelian tradition was under direct threat from the dissemination of Peter Ramus' thought. Each chapter assesses engagement with and criticism of ideas from Aristotelian theoretical and practical philosophy. They bring together the writings of major figures, including Peter Ramus and Bartholomäus Keckermann, and lesser-known academics who have not received sufficient recognition in existing literature, such as Ottaviano Ferrari, Philipp Scherb, Ernst Soner and Franz Tidike. By discussing the relationship of these academics with the Aristotelian legacy, this book reveals how innovative ideas that emerged during the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries were actually formed through the reworking, and even distortion of concepts originally derived from Aristotle.

Part One

Methodus

1

The Origins and Development of the ‘Acroamatic–Exoteric’ Distinction in the Late Renaissance

Là c’est la science, ici une sagesse facile et vulgaire¹

Starting from the second half of the sixteenth century, in the rich production of school texts expounding Aristotelian philosophy as a model for secondary and university education, a motif appeared which, although not completely new in the history of the Peripatetic tradition, now returned with particular insistence. It relates to the distinction between the two forms of teaching adopted in the old Lyceum, the school that Aristotle founded and directed, dividing his path from that of the Academy of Plato and Plato’s disciples. Of these two forms, one was designed for a wider audience and the other for a more select one. The method and ideological implications of this distinction have been discussed since antiquity without actually reaching shared conclusions. After remaining in the shadows during the Middle Ages, the theme was taken up by Renaissance exegetes and, over the fifteenth century and up to the late seventeenth, became one of the points to be clarified in advance in every exposition of a given subject ad mentem Aristotelis. Therefore, it is useful to explore the genesis of this discussion and some of its most interesting episodes, to shed light on what the ‘exoteric’ Aristotle meant in the academic philosophy of the late Renaissance, before moving on to observing in the subsequent chapters the work carried out by the ‘Aristotelian’ professors in the elaboration of certain individual disciplines or groups of disciplines deriving from the texts of the Stagirite and from the Peripatetic tradition,

The ancient debate

The expression logoi exôterikoi, signifying ‘external’ discourses, appears in several passages in the works of Aristotle² and automatically implies a related or opposite category of discourses that are not external. It is not immediately clear how the adjective is to be understood, and the issue had already been addressed by the ancient doxographers of Aristotle in an attempt to resolve it. The words of Cicero and Aulus Gellius are particularly relevant, especially as regards the Renaissance tradition we are dealing with here. In the fifth book of De finibus, Cicero has the Peripatetic Piso pronounce two orders of considerations. First (4, 9), in the natural philosophy the ancient Peripatetics, that is Aristotle and Theophrastus, made recourse not only to probable arguments but also to conclusive mathematical demonstrations. Second, and more importantly (5, 12), with specific regard to the question of what is the chief good for human beings, the Peripatetics themselves produced two distinct types of work characterized by different styles and approaches. The exôterikon genre was directed at a broader public (populariter scriptum), whereas the scholarly texts (commentarii) were composed in a more scrupulous, rigorous or precise manner (limatius). Gellius, then, in his Noctes Atticae (XX, 5), introduces the question with reference to the two types of lectures that Aristotle delivered in the Lyceum after his return to Athens, one in the morning and one in the afternoon/evening. Gellius also provides several important clarifications – albeit variously interpreted – about the contents, methods and recipients of the respective types of teaching, which it is useful to briefly recall.³ He states that Aristotle conducted two types of reflections (commentationes) with his pupils, and transmitted two kinds of discipline (artes), classified respectively as akroatika, or ‘acroamatic’ and exôterika. The latter were conceived for training in rhetorical skills, subtlety of argument and knowledge of politics (quae ad rhetoricas meditationes facultatemque argutiarum civiliumque rerum notitiam conducebant). The former lessons dealt instead with a more profound and rigorous philosophy, related to the contemplation of nature and dialectic discussions (in quibus philosophia remotior subtiliorque agitabatur quaeque ad naturae contemplationes disceptationesve dialecticas pertinebant). Aristotle devoted the morning course to the acroamatic lessons, which were addressed to students specifically selected based on their natural gifts and zeal for study, as well as a certain level of preliminary knowledge (eruditionis elementa). The exoteric lessons were instead held at dusk (vesperi) and were open to all (vulgo … sine dilectu). Aristotle extended this division of the two types of course to his books too, again broken down into acroa(ma)tic and exoteric.⁴

Coming chronologically between Cicero and Gellius is the testimony of Plutarch (Life of Alexander, 7), who speaks of two forms of teaching delivered by Aristotle, in this case to Alexander alone. On the one hand, ethical and political doctrines (implicitly of lower level) and, on the other, more arcane and recondite teachings (aporrhêtai kai bathuterai didaskaliai), also referred to as akroamatikai kai epoptikai, that are transmitted orally and are initiatic, that is, are intended to be kept secret. Seeing that Alexander the Great has already been called into play, the second part of Chapter 5 of Book XX of Gellius’ Noctes is also relevant. Here he reports the exchange of correspondence between Alexander and Aristotle, in which Alexander rebukes his master for having made his acroatic teachings public (quod … invulgasset) by publishing them in books. In reply, Aristotle defends himself by clarifying that these acroatic books were ‘made public and not made public’ (editos … non editos), since they could effectively be understood (cognobiles-xynetoi) only by those who had already heard his lectures and they would be incomprehensible to anyone else.

These are the main sources on the matter. We shall return later to the ulterior evolutions and other aspects of this question in the ancient world, and more specifically to the interpretations of the Neoplatonist commentators. Now we wish to move on to the sixteenth century, when the revival in the circulation of Aristotle’s works, finally, in their original language, brought this aspect of the ‘Aristotle question’ back into the limelight. As we shall see, while substantially reapplying solutions that had appeared in ancient times, the Renaissance speculation on this issue not only progressively reveals which image of Aristotle was in circulation, but also at times illustrates points of tangency with important aspects of the intellectual evolution of the time. This seems to make the reconstruction worthwhile.

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda

The circulation of the Greek originals of Aristotle’s works⁵ rapidly raised a series of questions among the humanists and philosophers about the corpus, its overall composition, the form of individual works etc. If nothing else, these questions were triggered by comparison between the accepted arrangement of the works that was in general circulation and the list of works cited by Diogenes Laertius in Book V of his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, also considering the accounts of Strabo and Plutarch on the fate of these works after their author’s death.⁶ It was in this context that, starting from the mid-sixteenth century, the question of how the expression logoi exôterikoi, ‘exoteric discourses’, should be understood began to emerge with a certain frequency. The first important contribution was made by the celebrated humanist and rhetorician Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1490–1573), who briefly took a stand on the topic in a scholium commenting his translation of Aristotle’s Politics. Having reached Book III, Ch. 4 (corresponding to Ch. 6 in current editions), Sepúlveda explains that what in his translation are the sermones externi are simply all the various books and discourses other than those which Aristotle was currently engaged with,⁷ while it is not true that this expression indicates a particular genre, as Plutarch and Cicero before him understood it, theorizing the existence of two distinct types: one popular and one more secret (reconditior). The term ‘acroamatic’, which Plutarch and Cicero use to refer to this second type, can, according to Sepúlveda, be explained by the fact that the texts of this category can be understood by the pupil only if he has previously been able to hear the explanation from the master’s own mouth⁸ (a clear reference to Aristotle’s reply to Alexander in the correspondence transmitted by Gellius). The mistake made by Plutarch and Cicero in identifying two specific and opposite types of text, continues Sepúlveda, stems from over-interpretation of the expression exôterikos, again in the light of the exchange of missives between Alexander and Aristotle, where the acroamatic books are described as hard to access without preparation and particular acumen. This leads seamlessly to the conclusion that the ‘exoteric’ books are, by contrast, easier and more accessible. However, concludes Sepúlveda, this is not consistent with the genuinely Aristotelian use of the term since, on the contrary, he often applies ‘exoteric’ to extremely difficult discourses – for instance, in Nicomachean Ethics I with reference to what is discussed in On the Soul, or in Eudemian Ethics I with reference to the ‘theological’ wisdom of the Metaphysics – not to mention the fact th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Part One Methodus
• 1 The Origins and Development of the ‘Acroamatic–Exoteric’ Distinction in the Late Renaissance
• Part Two Theoria
• 2 The Historical Significance of the Ramist Critique of Metaphysics
• 3 Ernst Soner’s Commentary on the Metaphysics and the Scholastic Tradition
• Part Three Praxis
• 4 The Aristotelians and the New Science of Politics
• 5 Franz Tidike’s Disputatio de fato and the Teaching of Moral Philosophy at the Toruń Gymnasium at the Turn of the Seventeenth Century
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index
• Copyright