{1. Categories = {Predicamenta.
I. Logical { {Categoriae.
treatises {2. On interpretation = {De Interpretatione.
commonly { {Peri Hermeneias.
referred to {3. Prior Analytics = Analytica Priora.
as the Organon {4. Posterior Analytics = Analytica Posteriora.
or {5. Topics = Topica.
Methodology {6. Sophistical} = Sophisticae Elenchi.
{ Refutations}
II. Moral {7. Politics.
and Practical {8. Ethics.
Philosophy {9. Rhetoric.
{10. Poetics.
{11. A Physical Discourse (Physics).
{12. On the Heavens.
{13. On Generation and Destruction.
{14. Meteorologies.
{15. Researches about Animals.
{16. On Parts of Animals.
{17. On Locomotion of Animals.
{18. On Generation of Animals.
III. Natural {19. On the Soul.
Philosophy. {20. Appendices to the work "On the Soul."
{ (_a_) On Sense and Sensible Things.
{ (_b_) On Memory and Recollection.
{ (_c_) On Sleep and Waking.
{ (_d_) On Dreams and Prophesying in Sleep.
{ (_e_) On Longevity and Shortlivedness.
{ (_f_) On Youth and Old Age.
{ (_g_) On Life and Death.
{ (_g_) On Respiration.
IV. Rational {21. Metaphysics.
Philosophy. {
This encyclopedic collection became accessible in Latin translations
only by slow degrees. Abelard knew only the first two (possibly also the
third and fourth) works of the Organon. John of Salisbury, in the next
generation, was familiar with the six treatises of the Organon, but
apparently not with the others. Little seems to have been added to these
until the beginning of the thirteenth century, when the Ethics, the
Physics, and the Metaphysics were mentioned at Paris,--the last two as
forbidden works. The great era of translation seems to have been between
1200 and 1270, when both Arabic-Latin and Greek-Latin versions were made
of most of the remaining treatises. The recovery of Aristotle thus
occupied more than a century and a half. During that period the
intellectual life of western Europe was stimulated by the influx of
hitherto unknown works of that philosopher, and weighty additions were
made to the list of available studies.
As usual, the world of scholars and the universities were slow to
recognize the worth of the new studies. This was due partly to the
natural conservatism of teachers, and partly to the fear of
ecclesiastical authorities that the study of Aristotle would give rise
to heresies. Thus in the documents of the time we meet, on the one hand,
vigorous arguments by progressive scholars in favor of Aristotle, and on
the other, university regulations prescribing what books shall or shall
not be studied.
The attitude of Abelard toward Aristotle has already been cited (see p.
19).
His pupil, John of Salisbury, devotes a considerable portion of the
_Metalogicus_ to a discussion of the utility of the various portions of
the Organon and to the defense of Aristotle, as is shown by the titles
of various chapters of that work. It is important to remember that he is
advocating the study of the _newly_ translated books, as well as those
already known:
That Logic, because it seeks the truth, takes the lead in all
Philosophy.
On the usefulness of the Categories and their appliances.
What Conception is, and the usefulness of the Periermeniae or
more correctly Periermenia. [Peri Hermeneias. On Interpretation.]
Of what the Body of Art consists; and on the usefulness of the
Topics.
Why Aristotle deserved more than others the name of philosopher.
That Aristotle erred in many ways; that he is eminent in Logic.
John of Salisbury clearly recognized the supremacy of Aristotle among
logicians. After naming Apuleius, Cicero, Porphyry, Boethius, Augustine,
and others, he adds:
But while individually they shine forth because of their own
merits, they all boast that they worship the very footsteps of
Aristotle; to such a degree, indeed, that by a sure pre-eminence
he has made peculiarly his own the common name of all
philosophers. For by Antonomy [a figure of speech] he is called
The Philosopher _par excellence_.
It is clear, however, that Aristotle had by no means attained, at the
middle of the twelfth century, the authoritative position which he held
a hundred years later. This appears in the chapter "On those who Carp at
the Works of Aristotle":
I cannot sufficiently wonder what sort of a mind they have (if,
that is, they have any) who carp at the works of Aristotle,
which, in any case, I proposed not to expound but to praise.
Master Theodoric, as I recall, ridiculed the Topics,--not of
Aristotle, but of Drogo. Yet he once taught those very Topics.
Certain auditors of Master Robert of Melun calumniated this work
as practically useless. All decried the Categories. Wherefore I
hesitated some time about commending them; but [there was no
question as to] the rest of his works, since they were commended
by the judgment of all; but I did not think that they should be
praised grudgingly. Yet opposition is made to the Elenchi
[Sophistical Refutations], though stupidly, because it contains
poetry; but clearly the idiom of [the Greek] language does not
lend itself readily to translation. In this respect the Analytics
seem to me preferable, because they are no less efficient for
actual use, and because by their easier comprehension they
stimulate eloquence.[18]
The slowness with which these works made their way is described by Roger
Bacon at the end of the thirteenth century.
But a part of the philosophy of Aristotle has come slowly into
the use of the Latins. For his Natural Philosophy and
Metaphysics, and the Commentaries of Averrhoes and of others,
were translated in our times, and were excommunicated at Paris
before the year of our Lord 1237 on account of [their heretical
views on] the eternity of matter and of time, and on account of
the [heresies contained in the] book on Interpretation of Dreams
(which is the third book on Sleep and Wakefulness), and on
account of the many errors in the translation. The Logicalia were
also slowly received and read, for the blessed Edmund, Archbishop
of Canterbury, was the first at Oxford, in my time, to lecture on
the book of Elenchi [Sophistical Refutations] and I saw Master
Hugo who at first read the book of Posterior Analytics, and I saw
his opinion. So there were few [books] which were considered
worth [reading] in the aforesaid philosophy of Aristotle,
considering the multitudes of Latins; nay, exceedingly few and
almost none, up to this year of our Lord 1292. So, too, the
Ethics of Aristotle has been tardily tried and has lately been
read by Masters, though only here and there. And the entire
remaining philosophy of Aristotle in a thousand volumes, in which
he treated all the knowledges, has never yet been translated and
made known to the Latins.[19]
The last sentence of the account displays an ignorance of the number of
Aristotle's extant writings which was doubtless shared by all of Bacon's
contemporaries. Earlier writers, beginning with Andronicus of Rhodes
(first century B.C.), had also placed the number at one thousand; Bacon
probably copied the statement from one of these.
The attitude of ecclesiastical authorities toward the study of Aristotle
at Paris is expressed in a series of regulations extending over nearly
half a century (1210-1254). They indicate at first a fear of certain of
the newly translated books on account of their heretical views, as is
stated by Roger Bacon (p. 44). This suspicion gradually disappears; and
by 1254 all the more important works of Aristotle are not only approved,
but prescribed for study.
In 1210 a church council held at Paris sentenced certain heretics to be
burned, condemned various theological writings, and added:
Nor shall the books of Aristotle on Natural Philosophy, and the
Commentaries [of Averrhoes on Aristotle] be read in Paris in
public or in secret; and this we enjoin under pain of
excommunication.[20]
In 1215 the statutes of the Papal Legate, Robert de Courçon, for the
University, prescribe in detail what shall, and what shall not, be
studied:
The treatises of Aristotle on Logic, both the Old and the New,
are to be read in the schools in the regular and not in the
extraordinary courses. On feast-days [holidays] nothing is to be
read except ... the Ethics, if one so chooses, and the fourth
book of the Topics. The books of Aristotle on Metaphysics or
Natural Philosophy, or the abridgments of these works, are not to
be read.[21]
In other words, the Old and New Logic are prescribed studies; the
Ethics, and Topics, Bk. IV, are optional; the Metaphysics and the
Natural Philosophy are forbidden.
Sixteen years later (1231) the Statutes of Pope Gregory IX for the
University prohibit only the Natural Philosophy, and even these works
only until they are "purged from error":
Furthermore, we command that the Masters of Arts ... shall not
use in Paris those books on Natural Philosophy which for a
definite reason were prohibited in the provincial council [of
1210], until they have been examined and purged from every
suspicion of error.[22]
The final triumph of Aristotle in the University is indicated by the
statute of the Masters of Arts in 1254.[23] It must have had at least
the tacit approval of the pope or his delegate. The statute is too long
to quote effectively to the point. None of the works are forbidden, and
a large number are prescribed. The list of works mentioned includes--
(1) The six logical treatises of the Organon; (2) Ethics, Bks. I-IV; (3)
Physics, On the Heavens and the Earth, Meteorologics, On Generation, On
Animals, On the Soul, On Sense and Sensible Things, On Sleep and Waking,
On Memory and Recollection, On Life and Death; (4) Metaphysics. To these
are added two other works then believed to be Aristotle's,--On Plants,
and On Causes,--and numerous books by other authors (named on p. 137)
which do not concern the present discussion. A comparison of the list
above with the list on page 40 will show that nearly the whole range of
Aristotle's works is prescribed. Comparison with the statute of 1215
will show not only a change of view regarding the works then forbidden,
but also an immense broadening of the studies of the Faculty of Arts in
the course of forty years.
The foregoing details are cited to give an idea of the first stage of
the question of Aristotle in the universities. The statute of 1254 may
be taken as closing the long struggle for the recognition of his works.
The broad principle of their general acceptance had been established;
thenceforward for nearly three centuries they remained the dominant
studies of the Faculties of Arts everywhere.
These centuries include the second period of their academic history.
Their authority is now hardly questioned; and woe to the questioner!
They furnish the basis for the great structure of scholastic philosophy;
they are reconciled with Christian doctrine. Aristotle is thenceforward
"The Philosopher"--he is so styled even in modern scholastic philosophy;
he is "the forerunner of Christ in things natural," "the master of those
who know." In this period, then, academic debate concerned itself with
matters of detail. What portions of his works should be studied for the
various degrees in Arts? In what order should they be studied? What
comments should be read? What translations should be used? So late as
1519 these are the chief questions considered in the reformed plan of
studies in Arts at Leipzig. The reader will note the stress laid upon
the study of the text itself; the exclusion of frivolous comments, and
the use of the latest translations by Greek scholars.
Inasmuch as no good thing is more desirable than philosophy, as
Cicero says, and none more advantageous has been given to the
race of mortals, or granted by heaven, or will ever be given as a
gift; in order that we may possess this too, we choose as our
guide Aristotle, whom we cause to be commended for his knowledge
of facts, the number of his works, his ability in speaking, and
the acumen of his intellectual powers. Nor will we interpret the
visions and involved questions of his interpreters, since it is
characteristic of a very poor intellect to grow wise from
commentaries only, in which, neglecting Aristotle's meaning, the
Sophists dispute about empty trifles. But his works, translated
in part by Archeropylus [Argyropulos], in part by Augustus Nipho
and Hermolaus Barbarus and Theodoras Gaza, will be made clear in
the order outlined below:[24] [Then follows the list of books,
for which see p. 134].
The third stage of the debate concerning Aristotle began shortly after
1500. His works were less exclusively the subject of study: they were
being displaced by the Latin and Greek classics. They were, moreover,
the object of repeated attack. In 1536, in the University of Paris,
which had so long maintained their study, Pierre Ramus successfully
defended the startling thesis, "Everything that Aristotle taught is
false." This was only one sign of their loss of prestige. New and
improved text-books in Logic absorbed the useful portions of the
Organon; the authority of the Natural Philosophy waned with the rise of
experimental science; that of the Metaphysics yielded to the new
philosophy of Descartes. By the end of the seventeenth century they
ceased to be a potent factor in university studies.
(b) _The Roman Law_
The great compilation of the Roman Law known as the _Corpus Juris
Civilis_ (Body of Civil Law) constitutes a second important addition of
the twelfth century to the field of university studies. It was probably
more important as an influence upon the growth of universities than the
works of Aristotle.
The greater part of the Corpus Juris was compiled at Constantinople,
529-533 A.D., by certain eminent jurists under the Roman Emperor,
Justinian. The purpose of the work was to reduce to order and harmony
the mass of confused and contradictory statutes and legal opinions, and
to furnish a standard body of laws of manageable size in place of the
unwieldly mass of incorrect texts commonly in use, so that "the entire
ancient law, in a state of confusion for some fourteen hundred years and
now by us made clear, may be, so to speak, enclosed within a wall and
have nothing left outside it." The jurists entrusted with this work were
also required to prepare an introductory book for students, as described
below. After the completion of the whole work Justinian issued (533-565)
many new statutes (Novellae) which were never officially collected, but
which came to be considered a part of the Corpus Juris. The main
divisions of the Body of Civil Law are--
(1) The Code, in twelve books, which contains statutes of the Emperors
from the third century A.D.
Since [says Justinian] we find the whole course of our statutes
... to be in a state of such confusion that they reach to an
infinite length and surpass the bounds of all human capacity, it
was therefore our first desire to make a beginning with the most
sacred Emperors of old times, to amend their statutes, and to put
them in a clear order, so that they might be collected together
in one book, and, being divested of all superfluous repetition
and most inequitable disagreement, might afford to all mankind
the ready resource of their unalloyed character.[25]
(2) The Digest, or Pandects, in fifty books, containing extracts from
the opinions of Roman lawyers on a great variety of legal questions.
This work was also undertaken to bring order and harmony out of the
prevailing confusion:
We have entrusted the entire task to Tribonianus, a most
distinguished man, Master of the Offices, ex-quaestor of our
sacred palace, and ex-consul, and we have laid on him the whole
service of the enterprise described, so that with other
illustrious and learned colleagues he might fulfil our desire.
[He is] to collect together and to submit to certain
modifications the very most important works of old times,
thoroughly intermixed and broken up as they may almost be called.
But in the midst of our careful researches, it was intimated to
us by the said exalted person that there were nearly two thousand
books written by the old lawyers, and more than three million
lines were left us by them, all of which it was requisite to read
and carefully consider and out of them to select whatever might
be best. [This was accomplished] so that everything of great
importance was collected into fifty books, and all ambiguities
were settled, without any refractory passage being left.[26]
In mediaeval university documents the Digest is frequently mentioned in
three divisions, which probably indicate three separate instalments in
which the MS. of the work was brought to Bologna in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries: the Old Digest (Digestum Vetus) Bks. I-XXIV, title
ii, Infortiatum Bks. XXIV, title iii-XXXVIII, title iii, and New Digest
(Digestum Novum) Bks. XXXVIII, title iv-L. The meaning of the term
Infortiatum is uncertain.
This distinction between the various parts of the Digest is
purely arbitrary.... The division must have originated in an
accidental separation of some archetypal MS.[27]
(3) The Institutes, in four books, an elementary text-book for students.
The purpose of the book was to afford a simple, clear, and trustworthy
introduction to the study of law, and to economize the student's time:
When we had arranged and brought into perfect harmony the
hitherto confused mass of imperial constitutions (i.e. the Code),
we then extended our care to the vast volumes of ancient law;
and, sailing as it were across the mid ocean, have now completed,
through the favour of heaven, a work that once seemed beyond hope
(i.e. the Digest).
When by the blessing of God this task was accomplished, we
summoned the most eminent Tribonian, master and ex-quaestor of
our palace, together with the illustrious Theophilus and
Dorotheus, professors of law, all of whom have on many occasions
proved to us their ability, legal knowledge, and obedience to our
orders; and we have specially charged them to compose, under our
authority and advice, Institutes, so that you may no more learn
the first elements of law from old and erroneous sources, but
apprehend them by the clear light of imperial wisdom; and that
your minds and ears may receive nothing that is useless or
misplaced, but only what obtains in actual practice. So that,
whereas, formerly, the junior students could scarcely, after
three years' study, read the imperial constitutions, you may now
commence your studies by reading them, you who have been thought
worthy of an honour and a happiness so great that the first and
last lessons in the knowledge of the law should issue for you
from the mouth of the emperor.
When, therefore, by the assistance of the same eminent person
Tribonian and that of other illustrious and learned men, we had
compiled the fifty books, called Digests or Pandects, in which is
collected the whole ancient law, we directed that these
Institutes should be divided into four books, which might serve
as the first elements of the whole science of law.
In these books a brief exposition is given of the ancient laws,
and of those also, which, overshadowed by disuse, have been again
brought to light by our imperial authority.
These four books of Institutes thus compiled, from all the
Institutes left us by the ancients, and chiefly from the
commentaries of our Gaius, both in his Institutes and in his work
on daily affairs, and also from many other commentaries, were
presented to us by the three learned men we have above named. We
have read and examined them and have accorded to them all the
force of our constitutions.
Receive, therefore, with eagerness, and study with cheerful
diligence, these our laws, and show yourselves persons of such
learning that you may conceive the flattering hope of yourselves
being able, when your course of legal study is completed, to
govern our empire in the different portions that may be entrusted
to your care.
Given at Constantinople on the eleventh day of the calends of
December, in the third consulate of the Emperor Justinian, ever
August (533)[28]
(4) The Novellae (Novels), or new statutes issued by Justinian between
the final edition of the Code and his death (534-565). These are really
a continuation of the Code, but they were never officially collected.
The Code and the Institutes were known and studied in Italy throughout
the Dark Ages, but the Digest, much the largest and most important part
of the Corpus Juris, was almost wholly neglected, if not unknown, until
the time of Irnerius of Bologna (_c._ 1070-1130). He and his co-laborers
collected and arranged the scattered parts of the entire Body of Civil
Law, and in particular introduced the Digest to western Europe. "Without
the Digest the study of Roman Law was in a worse position than the study
of Aristotle when he was known only from the Organon." In a most
important sense, therefore, the recovery of the Corpus Juris was a
contribution of the twelfth century to the group of available higher
studies. Hitherto Law had been taught usually as a mere branch of
Rhetoric, and as a part of a liberal education. The body of material now
made available was sufficient to occupy the student's entire time for
several years. It therefore attained standing as an independent subject,
and as a distinctly professional study.
The effect of this newly recovered body of learning upon the rise of
universities was very much like that of Abelard and his new method.
Students flocked in thousands to study law at Bologna, and toward the
close of the twelfth century the University was organized. Numerous
other universities arose directly from the same impulse, and "Law was
the leading Faculty in by far the greater number of mediaeval
universities" (Rashdall). Except for Canon Law, the Corpus Juris Civilis
remained the chief study of the Faculties of Law for more than five
centuries. Roman Law is still very generally taught in European
universities. Thus the impulse given by Irnerius and his co-laborers is
influential in university affairs of to-day.
The influence of Roman Law upon the social and political history of
Europe is far-reaching. The subject is beyond the limits of the present
work; but it is to be noted that this influence was exerted as a result
of its study in the universities (see Rashdall, Vol. II, Pt. II, pp.
708-709).
Rashdall and Denifle think that the example of Justinian inspired the
first mediaeval grant of special privileges to scholars (see p. 82). If
this is true, the Roman Law had a most important effect upon the history
of universities themselves. Two important mediaeval privileges for
masters and scholars were exemption from taxation and the right of trial
before special courts. Whether or not these were copied from the Roman
Law is a question; but the Code of Justinian, following the statutes of
earlier emperors, explicitly grants both of these privileges to
teachers. These are so often mentioned that it is worth while to present
those bearing on the subject:
THE EMPERORS LEO AND ZENO, AUGUSTI, TO EUSEBIUS, MASTER OF
OFFICES.
By this law we decree that those who serve in the individual
schools, and who, after completing the curricula of their duties,
shall have reached the rank of chiefs and through the adored
purple of our divinity have won the dignity of most illustrious
Counts, shall enjoy both the girdle and all the privileges open
to them, and hereafter to their life's end shall be subject to
the court of Your Highness only, nor shall they be compelled by
the command of any one else whomsoever to undergo civil
litigation.
Yet in criminal suits and in matters connected with public
tribute we wish the appropriate jurisdiction of the rulers of the
provinces to be recognized against even such men, lest, under the
pretext of a granted privilege, either the influence of the
wicked be increased or the public good be diminished.[29]
THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE, AUGUSTUS, TO THE PEOPLE.