No More Learning

la
*
5.
;
is,
if
is
844 Mediceval Philosophy : Second Period. [Part III
was that the scholastic method with its bookish discussion of authori ties, which had now attained full perfection, controlled absolutely later as well as earlier the prosecution of science, and that the new ideas forced into this form could not unfold freely, — a phe nomenon, moreover, which continues far into the philosophy of the Renaissance. For all that, Duns Septus and Occam gave the chief impetus to the movement in which philosophy, taking- jfra p]apa beside the metaphysics whose interests ha. <l hitherto been essentially religious, made itself again a secular science of concrete, actual fact, ana placed itself with more and more definite consciousness upon the basis of empiricism. When Duns Scotus designated the hcecceitas or original individual Form, as contingent, this meant that it was to be known, not by logical deduction, but only by actual verification as fact ; and when Occam declared the individual being to be the alone truly Real, he was thereby pointing out to " real science " the way to the immediate apprehension of the actual world. But in this point the two Franciscans are under the influence of Roger Bacon, who with all his energy had called the science of his time from authorities to things, from opinions to sources, from dialectic to experience, from books to Nature. At his side in this movement stood Albert, who supported the same line of thought among the Dominicans, knew how to value the worth of original observation and experiment, and gave brilliant proof in his botanical studies of the independence of his own research. But strongly as Roger Bacon, following Arabian models, urged quantitative determinations in observation, and mathematical training, the time was not yet ripe for natural research. Attempts like those of Alexander Nekkam (about 1200), or those of Nicolaus d'Autricuria, at a later time (about 1350), passed away without effect.
The fruitful development of empiricism during this period was only in the line of psychology. Under the influence of the Arabs, especially of Avicenna and of the physiological optics of Alhacen, investigations concerning the psychical life took on a tendency directed more toward establishing and arranging the facts of expe rience. This had been begun even by Alexander of Hales, by his pupil, Johann of Rochelle, by Vincent of Beauvais, and especially by Albert; and in the system of Alfred the Englishman (Alfred de Sereshel, in the first half of the thirteenth century) we find a purely physiological psychology with all its radical consequences. These stirrings of a physiological empiricism would, however, have been repressed by the metaphysical psychology of Thomism, if they had not found their support in the Augustinian influence, which held fast to the experience which personality has of itself, as its
Chap. 2, § 27. ] Problem of Individuality : Nicolaut Ctuanut. 345
highest principle. In this attitude Henry of Ghent, especially, came forward in opposition to Thomism. He formulated sharply the standpoint of inner experience and gave it decisive value, particu larly in the investigation of the states of feeling. Just in this point, in the empirical apprehension of the life of feeling, the theory of which became thus emancipated at the same time from that of the will and that of the intellect, he met support in Roger Bacon, who, with clear insight and without the admixture of meta physical points of view, distinctly apprehended the difference in principle between outer and inner experience.
Thus the r*"Tiarkf'>'>1'> wait ""g""^, that pawly thtaMtJaal lajapoe developed inopposition to intellectualistic Thomism, and in connec- tion with the Augustinian doctrine of the self-certainty of person- altry; This self-knowledge was regarded as the most certain fact of " real science," even as it appeared among the nominalistic Mystics such as Pierre d'Ailly. Hence " real science " in the departing Middle Ages allied itself rather to active human life than to Nature ; and the beginnings of a " secular " science of the inter-relations of human society are found not only in the theories of Occam and Marsilius of Padua (cf. p. 328), not only in the rise of a richer, more living, and more " inward " writing of history, but also in an empirical consideration of the social relations, in which a Nicolas dCOresme,1 who died 1382, broke the path.
6. The divided frame of mind in which the departing Middle Ages round itself, between the original presuppositions of its thought and these beginnings of a new, experientially vigorous rtmrchj finds nowhere a more lively expression than in the phil- OBOpEy of Nicolati* Cusaniis, which is capable of so many interpre-_ tationsl Seized in every fibre of his being by the fresh impulse of the time, he nevertheless could not give up the purpose of arrang ing his new thoughts in the system of the old conception of the world.
This attempt acquires a heightened interest from the conceptions which furnished the forms in which he undertook to arrange his thoughts. The leading motive is to show that the individual, even in his metaphysical separateness, is identical with the most uni versal, the divine essence. To this end Nicolaus employs for the first time, in a thoroughly systematic way, the related conceptions of the infinite and thefinite. All antiquity had held the perfect to be that which is limited within itself and had regarded only indefinite possibility as infinite. In the Alexandrian philosophy,
Cf. concerning him W. Roncher, Ztiuxhr- f. SlaaUv>i*tt**cknn, 1863, 306 fl.
346 Mediceval Philosophy : Second Period. [Part 111
on the contrary, the highest being was stripped of all finite at tributes. In Plotinus the "One" as the all-forming power is provided with an unlimited intensity of Being on account of the infinity of matter in which it discloses itself ; and also in Christian thought the power, as well as the will and the knowledge of God, had been thought more and more as boundless. Here the main additional motive was, that the will even in the individual is felt as a restless, never quiet striving, and that this infinity of inner ex
perience was exalted to a metaphysical principle. But Nicolaus was the first to give the method of negative theology its positive ex pression by treating infinity as the essential characteristic of God in antithesis to the world. The identity of God with the world, required as well by the mystical view of the world as by the naturalistic, received, therefore, the formulation that in God the same absolute Being is contained infinitely, which in the world presents itself in finite forms.
In this was given the farther antithesis of unity and plurality. The infinite is the living and eternal unity of that which in the finite appears as extended plurality. But this plurality — and Gusanus lays special weight on this point — is also that of opposites. What in the finite world appears divided into different elements, and only by this means possible as one thing by the side of another in space, must become adjusted and harmonised in the infinitude of the divine nature. God is the unity of all opposites, the coin- cidentia oppositorum. 1 He therefore, the absolute reality in which all possibilities are eo ipso realised (possest, can-is), while each of the many finite entities in itself only possible, and real or actual only through him.
Among the oppositions which are united in God, those between him and the world, — that is, those of the infinite and the finite, and of unity and plurality, — appear as the most important. In consequence of this union the infinite at the same time finite in each of his manifestations in phenomena the unitary dens implicitus at the same time the deus explicitus poured forth into plurality
290). God the greatest (maximum) and at the same time also
Nicolaus also designates his own doctrine, in contrast with opposing sys tems, as a coincidentia oppositorum, since aims to do justice to all motives of earlier philosophy. Cf. the passages in Falckenberg, op. cit. , pp. 60 ff.
Thomas expressed the same thought as follows God the only necessary being, i. e. that which exists by virtue of its own nature thought which is to be regarded as an embodiment of Anselm's ontological argument, cf 23, 2), while in the case of all creatures, essence (or quidditas — whatness) really separate from existence in such way that the former in itself merely possible and that the latter added to as realisation. The relation of this doctrine to the fundamental Aristotelian conceptions, actus and potentia, obvious.
(cf.
is
is
a it
is
:
(a is
is
is
;
;
§
21
it
is p.
is
is
*
is,
is
Chaf. 2, § 27. ] Problem of Individuality : Nicolaus Cusanun. 847
the smallest (minimum). But, on the other hand, in consequence of this union it follows also that this smallest and finite is in its own manner participant in the infinite, and presents within itself, as does the whole, a harmonious unity of the many.
Accordingly, the universe is also infinite, not indeed in the same sense in which God is infinite, but in its own way; that unlimited in space and time (interminatum, or. privitively infinite). But a certain infinity belongs likewise to each individual thing, in the sense that in the characteristics of its essence carries within itself also the characteristics of all other individuals. All
in all: omnia ubique. In this way every individual contains within itself the universe, though in limited form peculiar to this individual alone and differing from all others. In omnibus partibua relucet totum. Every individual thing is, rightly and fully known, a mirror of the universe, — thought which had already been ex pressed incidentally by the Arabian philosopher Alkendi.
Naturally this particularly true in the case of man, and in his conception of man as microcosm Nicolaus attaches himself ingeniously to the terrainistic doctrine. The particular manner in which other things are contained in man characterised by the ideas which form in him signs for the outer world. Man mirrors the universe by his " conjectures," by the mode of mental repre sentation peculiar to him (cf. above, 343).
Thus the finite also given with and in the infinite, the individ ual with and in the universal. At the same time the infinite necessary in itself; the finite, however (following Duns Scotus), absolutely contingent, t'. e. mere fact. There no proportion between the infinite and the finite even the endless series of the finite remains incommensurable with the truly infinite. The deri vation of the world from God incomprehensible, and from the knowledge of the finite no path leads to the infinite. That which
real as an individual empirically known, its relations and the oppositions prevailing in are apprehended and distinguished
the understanding, but the perception or intuition of the infinite unity, which, exalted above all these opposites, includes them all within itself, possible only by stripping off all such finite know edge, by the mystical exaltation of the docta ignorantia. Thus tin elements which Cusanus desired to unite fall apart again, even in the very process of union. The attempt to complete the mediaeval philosophy and make perfect on all sides leads to its inner disintegration.
it
is
is
1- by
is is
it is
it is
a
a
is
is
is
;
is
p. a if
is
is
it
is,
PART IV.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE RENAISSANCE.
J. E. Erdmann, Vertuch einer unssenschaftlichen DarsMlung der Getchichtt der neueren Philotophie. 3 pts. , in 6 Tola. Riga and Leips. 1834-63.
H. Ulrici, Getchichte und Kritik der Prineipien der neueren Philotophie. 2 Tola. Leips. 1845.
Kuno Fischer, Getchichu der neueren Philotophie. 4th ed. Heidelb. 1897 ff. [Eng. tr. of Vol. L, Dttcartet and Hit School, by J. P. Gordy, N. Y. 1877. ]
Ed. Zeller, Getchichte der deuttchen Philotophie teit Leibniz. 2d ed. , Berlin, 1876.
W. Windelband, Getchichte der neueren Philotophie. 2 vols. Leips. 2d ed. 1899. K. Falckenberg, Getchichte der neueren Philotophie. Leips. 1886. [Eng. tr. by
A. C. Armstrong, N. Y. 1893. ]
J. Schaller, Getchichte der Naturphilosophie teit Bacon. 2 vols. Leips. 1811-44. J. Baumami, Die Lehren von Raum, Zeit und Mathematik in der neueren Phi
lotophie. 2 vols. Berlin, 1868 f.
F. Vorlander, Getchichte der philotophitchen Moral-, Sechtt-, und Staatslehre
der Englander und Franzoten. Marburg, 1855.
F. Jodl, Getchichte der Ethik in der neueren Philosophic. 2 vols. Stuttgart,
1882-89.
B. Punjer, Getchichte der chrittlichen Religiontphilotophie teit der Reforma
tion. 2 vols. Braunschweig, 1880-83. [Eng. tr. of Vol. I. , History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion from the Reformation to Kant, by W. Hastie, Edin. and N. Y. 1887. ]
[B. F. Burt, History of Modern Philosophy. 2 vols. Chicago, 1892. ]
The antitheses which make their appearance in mediaeval philoso phy at the time of its close have a more general significance ; they show in theoretical form the self-conscious strengthening of secular civilisation by the side of that of the Church. The undercurrent, which for a thousand years had accompanied the religious main movement of the intellectual life among the Western peoples, swelling here and there to a stronger potency, now actually forced its way to the surface, and in the centuries of transition its slowly
wrested victory makes the essential characteristic for the beginning of modern times.
Thus gradually developing and constantly progressing, modern 348
of the Renaissance. 349
science freed itself from mediaeval views, and the intricate process in which it came into being went hand in hand with the multifold activity with which modern life in its entirety began. For modern life begins everywhere with the vigorous development of details; the tense (lapidare) unity into which mediaeval life was concen trated, breaks asunder in the progress of time, and primitive vigour bursts the band of common tradition with which history had encircled the mind of the nations. Thus the new epoch announces itself by the awakening of national life; the time of the world- empire is past in the intellectual realm also, and the wealth and variety of decentralisation takes the place of the unitary concen tration in which the Middle Ages had worked. Rome and Paris
cease to be the controlling centres of Western civilisation, Latin ceases to be the sole language of the educated world.
In the religious domain this process showed itself first in the fact that Home lost its sole mastery over the Church life of fihriat-. iimjty Wittenberg, Geneva, London, and other cities became new centres of religion. The inwardness of faith, which in Mysticism had already risen in revolt against the secularisation of the life of the Church, rose to victorious deliverance, to degenerate again at once into the organisation which was indispensable for it in the outer world. But the process of splitting into various sects, which set in in connection with this external organisation, wakened all the depths of religious feeling, and stirred for the following centuries the passion and fanaticism of confessional oppositions. Just by this means, however, the dominance at the summit of scientific life of a complete and definitive religious belief was broken. What had been begun in the age of the Crusades by the contact of religions was now completed by the controversy between Christian creeds.
It is -not a matter of accident that the number of centres of scientific life in addition to Paris was also growing rapidly. While Oxford had already won an importance of its own as a seat of the Franciscan opposition, now we find first Vienna, Heidelberg, Prague, then the numerous academies of Italy, and finally the wealth of new universities of Protestant Germany, developing their independent vital forces. But at the same time, by the invention of the art of printing, literary life gained such an extension and such a widely ramifying movement that, following its inner impulse, it was able to free itself from its rigid connection with the schools, •trip off the fetters of learned tradition, and expand unconstrained in the forms shaped out for it by individual personalities.
Philosophy
_Sa philosophy in the Renaissance loses its corporate character, and
Becomes in its best achievements the free deed ot individuals; It"
350 Philosophy of the Renaissance. [Part IV
seeks its sources in the broad extent of the real world of its own time, and presents itself externally more and more in the garb of modern national languages.
In this way science became involved in a powerful fermentation. The two-thousand-year-old forms of the intellectual life seemed to have been outlived and to have become unusable. A passionate, and at the first, still unclear search for novelty filled all minds, and excited imagination gained the mastery of the movement. But, in connection with this, the whole multiplicity of interests of secular life asserted themselves in philosophy, — the powerful development of political life, the rich increase in outward civilisation, the exten sion of European civilisation over foreign parts of the world, and not least the world-joy of newly awakened art. And this fresh and living wealth of new content brought with it the result that philos ophy became pre-eminently subject to no one of these interests, but rather took them all up into itself, and with the passing of time raised itself above them again to the free work of knowing, to the ideal ot knowledge for its own sake.
The new birth of the purely theoretical spirit is the true meaning of the scientific " Renaissance," and in this consists also its kinship of spirit ivith Greek thought, which was of decisive importance for its development. The subordination to ends of practical, ethical, and religious life which had prpvailpH in Hip whole philosophy of the Hellenistic-Roman period and of the Middle Ages, decreased more and more at the beginning of the modern period, and knowledge of reality appeared again as the absolute end of scientific research. . J 11st as at the beginnings of Greek thought, so now, this theoretical impulse turned its attention essentially to natural science. modern mind, which had taken up into itself the achievements of later antiquity and of the Middle Ages, appears from the beginning as having attained a stronger self-consciousness, as internalised, and a~s~haviiig penetrated deeper Into Its OWh nature, in comparison with the ancient mind. But true as this is, its first independent intellectual activity was the return to a disinterested concej tionoiNaEuTe": —The whole philosophy of the Renaissance presse toward this end, and in this airTtlinn 'f annipvpH its greatest results.
Feeling such a relationship in its fundamental impulse, the modern spirit in its passionate search for the new seized at first upon the oldest. The knowledge of ancient philosophy brought out by the humanistic movement was eagerly taken up, and the systems of Greek philosophy were revived in violent opposition to the mediaeval tradition. But from the point of view of the whole movement of
Xne
Philosophy of the Renaissance. 351
history this return to antiquity presents itself as but the instinctive preparation for the true work of the modern spirit,1 which in this Castalian bath attained its youthful vigour.
By living itself into *■*"»■ world of Greek ideas it gained the ability to master in thought its_ own rich outer life, and thus equipped, science turned from the sub- tility ot the inner world with full vigour back to the invpstigiition of Nature, to open there new and wider paths for itself.
The history of the philosophy of the Renaissance is therefore in the main the history of the process in which the natural science mode of regarding the world is gradually worked out from the humanistic renewal of Greek philosophy. It falls, therefore, appro- pnately into two periods, the humanistic period and the natural t&eJtce period. As a boundary line between the two we may per-
■ftaps regard the year*^. 600f\ The first of these periods contains the
of mediaeval tradition by that of genuine Grecian thought, and while extremely rich in interest for the history of civilisation and in literary activity, these two centuries show from a philosophical point of view merely that shifting of earlier thoughts by which preparation is made for the new. The second period in cludes the beginnings of modern natural research which gradually conquered their independence, and following these the great meta physical systems of the seventeenth century.
The two periods form a most intimately connected whole. For the inner impelling motive in the philosophical movement of Hu manism was the same urgent demand for a radically new knowledge of the world, which ultimately found its fulfilment in the process in which natural science became established and worked out according to principles. But the manner in which this work took place, and the forms of thought in which it became complete, prove to be in all important points dependent upon the stimulus proceeding from the adoption of Greek philosophy. Modern natural science is the daughter of Humanism.
1 In this respect the course of development of science in the Renaissance ran exactly parallel to that of art. The line which leads from Giotto to Leonardo,
Kaphael, Michael Angelo, Titian, DUrer, and Rembrandt, passes gradually from the reanimation of classical forms to independent and immediate apprehension of Nature. And- Goethe is likewise proof that for us moderns tie way to Mature leads through Greece.
supplanting
CHAPTER I.
THE HUMANISTIC PERIOD.
Jac. Burckhardt, Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italic*. 4th ed. . Leipe. 1886. [The Civilisation of the Renaissance. Tr. by S. G. C. Middlemore, Lond.
1878 and 1890.
Mor. Carriere. Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit. 2d ed. ,
Leipa. 1887.
A. Stockl, GesehicJUe der Philosophic des MittelaUers. 3d vol. . Mainz, 1866. [J. A. Symoods, The Renaissance in Italy. 5 pis. in 7 vols. , 1875-86. ]
The continuity in the intellectual and spiritual development of European humanity manifests itself nowhere so remarkably as in the Renaissance. At no time perhaps has the want for something completely new, for a total and radical transformation, not only in the intellectual life, but also in the whole state of society, been felt so vigorously and expressed so variously and passionately as then, and no time has experienced so many, so adventurous, and so ambi tious attempts at innovation as did this. And yet, if we look closely, and do not allow ourselves to be deceived, either by the grotesque self-consciousness or by the naive grandiloquence which are the order of the day in this literature, it becomes evident that the wholp multiform process goes on within_ thff hnnndtn>f anrient anri_jnHirr val traditions, and strives in obscure longing toward a goal which is an object rather of premonition than of clear conception. It was nofuntilthe seventeenth century that the process of fermentation became complete, and this turbulent mixture clarifiecT
The essential ferment in this movement was FBe
between the inherited philosophy of the Middle AgesT which was already falling into dissolution, and the original works of Greek thinkers which began to be known in the fifteenth century. A new stream of culture flowed from Byzantium by the way of Florence and Rome, which once more strongly diverted the course of Western thought from its previous direction. In so far the humanistic Renaissance, the so-called re-birth of classical antiquity, appears as
a continuation and completion of that powerful process of appropri 362
opposition
Chap. 1. ]
Humanistic Period. 853
ation presented by the Middle Ages (cf. pp. 264 if. , 310 f. ) ; and if this process consisted in retracing in reverse order the ancient move ment of thought, it now reached its end, inasmuch as essentially all of the original ancient Greek literature which is accessible to-day,
now became known.
The becoming known of the Greek originals, and the spread_of
humanistic culture, called out a movement of opposition to Scholas-
ticism, at rirst in Italy, then also in (jermany, France, and £ngland. J^V
\s regards subject-matter, this opposition was directed against the* jVuJLf'Cc
mxlueval interpretations of Greek metaphysics ; as regards method, against authoritative deduction from conceptions taken as assunvjv tium; an regards form, against the tasteless stiffness of monastic Latin : and with the wonderful "restoration of ancient thought, with the fresh imaginative nature of a life-loving race, with the refine
ment and wit of an artistically cultivated time for its aids this oppo sition won a swift victory.
A/V^'TL_ ( j^^a^. ^
But tris opposition was divided within itself. There were {P/q/o- (f)
nisis\ who for the most part would better be called Neo-Platonists ; there were^J ristotelians\ who, in turn, were again divided into differ- ent groups, vigorously combating one another, according to their attachment to one or another of the ancient interpreters. There, too, were the reawakened older doctrines of Greek cosmology, of the Ionians zntTlPt/thagoreans} the conception of Nature held by \pemocritu9i and yEpicuruQ rose to new vigour. yScepticism\ and the mixed popular and phUosojfhi«al\ Erlecf^isnA lived again.
While this humanistic movement was either religiously indiffer ent or even engaged together with open " heathenism " in warfare against Christian dogma, an equally violent controversy between transmitted doctrines was in progress in the life of the Church. The Catholic Church intrenched itself against the assault of thought more and more firmly behind the bulwark of Thomism, under the leadership of the Jesuits. Among the Protestants, AuQustinejraa the leading mind—-a continuation of the antagonism ubocrved in the Middle Ages. But when dogmas were thrown into philosophical form in the Protestant Church, the Reformed branch remained nearer to Augustine, while in the Lutheran Church, in consequence of the influence of Humanism, a tendency toward the original form of the Aristotelian system prevailed. In addition to these ten dencies, however, German Mysticism, with all the widely ramified
traditions which united in it (cf. § 26, 5), maintained itself in the religious need of the people, to become fruitful and efficient for the philosophy of the future, more vigorous in its life than the Church erudition that sought in vain to stifle it.
_. —'
(j>
(""Jv
_^jjr
^-^ r\/7\ *vS0 v^As)
354 Philosophy of the Renaissance. [Part I V.
The new which was being prepared in these various conflicts
wa; the consummation of that movement which had begun with Put-
Scotus at the culmination of mediaeval philosophy, viz. the separ tion of philosophy from theology. The more philosophy establiatif itself by the side ot theology as an independent secular science, tit more its peculiar task was held to be the knowledge ofNature. In tl»» result all lines of the philosophy of the Kenaissance meet, l'hilu-
phy shall be natural science, — this is the watchword of the tame. ihe carrying out of this purpose, nevertheless, necessarily mc
at first within the traditional modes of thought; these, howwt, had their common element in the inthropocentric character of ' '«r Weltanschauung, which had been tRe" consequence of the develop ment of philosophy as a theory and art of life. For this reason \b* natural philosophy of the Renaissance in all its lines takes 'ox da
^tarting-poin^ in constructing its problems, man's position '« j*e cosmosj, and the revolution in ideas which took place ia this aspect, under the influence of the changed conditions of civilisation, became of decisive importance for shaping anew the whole ' theory of th» world. At this point metaphysical imagination and fancy was moc deeply stirred, and from this point of view it produced its costnical poetry, prototypal for the future, in the doctrines of Giordano
Bruno and Jacob Boehme.
*
I
The following treat in general the revival of ancient philosophy : L'. Heeren. Geschichte der Studien der classischen Litteratnr (Gottingen, 1797-1802) ; G. Vogt, Die Wiederbelehung des classischen Alterthums (Berlin, 1880 f. ).
The main seat of Platonism was the Academy of Florenre, which was founded by Cosmo de' Medici, and brilliantly maintained by iiis 'successors. The impulse for this had been given by Georgius Gemistus Pletbo (. 356-1450). the author of numerous commentaries and compendium^. ' and of a treatise in Greek on the difference between the Platonic and the Aristotelian doctrine. Cf. Fr. Schultze, O. 0. P. (Jena, 1874). — Bessarion (born 1403 in Trebizond. died as Cardinal of the Roman church in Ravenna, 1472) was his influential pupil. Bessarion's main treatise, Adversus Calumniatorem Platonis, appeared at Rome, 1469. Complete Works in Migne's coll. (Paris, 1*M1). — The mmt important members of the Platonic circle were Marsillo Ficlno of Florence
(1433-1499), the translator of the works of Plato and Plotinus. and author of a Theologia Plntonira (Florence, 1482), and at a later time, Francesco Patrissl (1529-1597). who brought the natural philosophy of this movement to its completest expression in his S'ova de Universis Philosophia (Ferrara. 1591).
A similar instance of Vpo-i'l^t""'"'" alloyed with Xfo-'V'Tiremi and ancient Pythagorean motives is afforded by John Pico of Mirandola ( 1443-94).
The study of Aristotle in the original sources was promoted in Italy by Oeorglua of Trebizond (1390-1484 ; Comparatio Platonis ft Aristtirlis, Venice, 1523) and Theodoras Gaza (died 1478), in Holland and Germany by Rudolf Agricola (1442-1485), and in France by Jacques Lefevre (Faber Stapulensis, 1455-1537).
The Aristotelians of the Kenaissance (aside from the churchly -scholastic line) divided into the two parties of the Averrolata and the Alexandrisu The University of Padua, as the chief seat of Averroisin, wu also the place of the liveliest controversies between the two.
Chap. 1. ]
Humanistic Period. 355
An representatives of Averroism we mention Nicoletto Vernias (died 1409), especially Alexander Achillini of Bologna (died 1518; works, Venice, 1546); further, Augostino Nifo (1473-1546 ; main treatise, De Intelleetu et j kemonibus ; Opuscula, Paris, 1654), and the Neapolitan Zimara (died 1•">::■_').
To the Alexandrists belong Ermolao Barbaro of Venice (1454-1493 ; Compendium Sciential Naturalis ex Aristotele, Venice, 1647), and the most important Arjsl/iteliaii of the Renaissance. Pletro Pnmpnna. d (bom l41>2 in M iritua, died 1524 in Bologna. His most important writings are De Immortali-
ta'e Animas with the Defensorium against Niphus, De fato libero arbitrio prat- deftinatione providentia dei libri quinque ; cf. L. Ferri, La Psicologia di P. P. , It ne, 1877), and his pupils, Qasparo Contarini (died 1542), Simon Porta
(/'•d 1566), and Julius Cmmt Scaliger (1484-1558).
- mi ■in; the later Aristotelians, Jacopo Zabarella (1632-1689), Andreas
C. alplnus (1619-1603), Cesare Cremonlnl (1662-1631) and others seem rat In t to have adjusted the above oppositions.
<»t the renewals of other Greek philosophers, the following are especially to be in. ntioned : —
JcMt Lips (1647-1606), Manuductio ad Stoicam Philosophiam (Antwerp, 1604),iind other writings ; and Caspar Schoppe, Elementa Stoicas Philosophies M'. rali. (Mainz, 1606).
DM, Sennert (1672-1637), Physica (Wittenberg, 1618); Sebastian Basso ( Philosophia . ' ttnralit adversus ArisUitelem, (Jeneva, 1621); and Johannes Magnenus, DM oeritus Itrviriscens (Pavia, 1646).
Claude de le^rigard as renewer of the Ionic natural philosophy in his CWwH Pitani ( L'dine, 1643 ff. ).
Pierre Oassendi (1592-1656), De Vita Moribus et Doctrina Epicuri (Ley- l«-n. 1647) [works, Lyons, 1668], and lastly
Kmanuel Maignanus (1601-1671), whose Cursus Philosophicus (Toulouse, ■lefends Kmpedoclean doctrines.
I"li»- ollowing wrote in the spirit of the ancient Scepticism: Michel de Montai-ne (1633-1692 ; Essais, Bordeaux, 1580, new editions, Paris, 1866, and Bordeaux, 1870) [Kng. tr. by Cotton, ed. by Hazlitt, Lond. 1872 ; also by Klorio, e«l by Morley, Lond. 1887], Francois Sanchez (1562-1632, a Portu guese wh > taught in Toulouse, author of the Tractatus de muttum nobili et prima uniremali scientia quod nihil scitur, Lyons, 1681 ; cf. L. (rerkrath, F. S. , Vienna, 1860), Pierre Charron (1641-1603; De la Sagesse, Bordeaux, 1601) : later Francois de la Motte le Vayer (1586-1672, Cinq Dialogues, Mons, 1673), Samuel Sorbiere (1615-1670, translator of Sextus Kmpiricus), and Simon Toucher (1644-96, author of a history of the Academic Sceptics, Paris, 1690).
The sha, pest polemic against Scholasticism proceeded from those Humanists who set agalTOl u me Koman eclectic popular pnuosopny W sound common
sense in an attractive lurln. anl EBB H
BB
«i»il. I ininnln is u> or mentioned here also, with his treatise De Intentions Dinlectica (1480).
Bffure him was Laurentiiis Va,l|a (1408-1467 ; Dialectics Disputationes contra AristoUleot, Veil! HOiM. Ladovjco Vlves (born in Valencia, 1492, died in Brugge, 1646; De Diseiplinis, Hriigge" 1631, works, Basel, 1666; cf. A. I-ange in Schmidt's Encyclopadie tier FMagogtib, Vol. IX. ), Marlus Nizolius (1498-1576; De veris principii* et vera ratinne philosophandi, Parma. 1653), finally Pierre de la Ramee (Petnis Kamus, 1516-1572, Institutions Dialer- tiar, Paris, 1543 ; cf. < h. Waddington, Paris, 1849 and 1866).
The tradition of Thomistic Scholasticism maintained itself most strongly at the Spanish universities. Among its supporters the most prominent was Francis Suarez of Granada (1648-1617 ; Disputationes Metaphysics , 1606, works, 26 vols. , Paris, 1856-66 ; cf. K. Werner, 8. und die Seholastik der Ulztm Jahrhundtrte. Regensburg, 1861) ; the collective work of the Jesuits of Coimbra, the so-called Collegium Conembricense, is also to be mentioned.
Protestantism stood from the beginning in closer relation to the humanistic movement. In Germany especially the two went frequently hand in hand ; cf. K. Hagen. Dcutschtands liltcrarisrhc und religiose Vei haltnisse im Refui ma UonMxeitalter. 3 vols. , Frankfort, 1868.
At the Protestant universities Aristoteltanism was introduced principally
"I ihi'imnni
356 The Renaissance: Humanistic Period. [Part IV.
by Philip Melancthon. In the edition of his works by Bretschneider and Bindseil the philosophical works form Vols. 13. and 16. Of chief importance among them are the text-books on logic (dialectic) and ethics. Cf. A. Ricbter, Af. 's Verdienste urn den philosophischen Unterricht (Leips. 1870); K. Hart- felder, M. als Praxeptor Germania: (Berlin, 1889).
Lather himself stood much nearer the position of Augustinianism (cf. Ch. Weisse, Die Christologie Luther's, Leips. 1852). This was still more the caae with Calvin, while Zwingli was friendlier inclined toward contemporaneous philosophy, especially the Italian Neo-Platonism. The scientific importance of all three great reformers lies, however, so exclusively In the theological field that they are to be mentioned here only as essential factors of the general intel lectual movement in the sixteenth century.
Protestant Aristotelianism found its opponents in Nicolaus Tauxellus (1647-1606, Professor in Basel and Altorf; Philosophic: Triumphus, Basel, 1673 ; Alpes Ccesce, Frankfort, 1697 ; cf. F. X. Schmidt-Schwarzenberg, N. 7", Der erste deittsche Philosoph, Erlangen, 1864), further in Socinianiam founded by Lelio Sozzini of Sienna (1526-1662) and his nephew Fausto (1639-1604 ; cf. A. Fock, Der Socinianismus, Kiel, 1847, and the article S. by Herzog in bis Theol. Enc, 2d ed. , XIV. 377 ff), and especially in the popular movement of Mysticism.