tity does not prevent corporeal form from action altogether, but prevents it from being a universal agent, inasmuch as the form is individualized, which, in matter subject to quantity, it is. Moreover, the illustration deduced from the ponderousness of bodies is not to the purpose; first, because the addition of quantity is not the cause of gravity, as is proved in the fourth book, De Cœlo and De Mundo" (we see that he quotes familiarly the physical treatises of Aristotle); "second, because it is false that ponderousness makes motion slower; on the contrary, in proportion as any thing is heavier, the more does it move with its proper motion; thirdly, because action does not take place by local motion, as Democritus asserted; but by this, that something is drawn from power into act." It does not belong to our purpose to consider either the theological or the metaphysical doctrines which form so large a portion of the treatises of the schoolmen. Perhaps it may hereafter appear, that some light is thrown on some of the questions which have occupied metaphysicians in all ages, by that examination of the history of the Progressive Sciences in which we are now engaged; but till we are able to analyze the leading controversies of this kind, it would be of little service to speak of them in detail. It may be noticed, however, that many of the most prominent of them refer to the great question, "What is the relation between actual things and general terms?” Perhaps in modern times, the actual things would be more commonly taken as the point to start from; and men would begin by considering how classes and universals are obtained from individuals. But the schoolmen, founding their speculations on the received modes of considering such subjects, to which both Aristotle and Plato had contributed, travelled in the opposite direction, and endeavored to discover how individuals were deduced from genera and species;—what was "the Principle of Individuation." This was variously stated by different reasoners. Thus Bonaventura' solves the difficulty by the aid of the Aristotelian distinction of Matter and Form. The individual derives from the Form the property of being something, and from the Matter the property of being that particular thing. Duns Scotus," the great adversary of Thomas Aquinas in theology, placed the principle of Individuation in "a certain determining positive entity," which his school called Hacceity or thisness. “Thus an individual man is Peter, because his humanity is combined with Petreity." The force of abstract terms is a curious question, and some remarkable experiments in their use had been made by the Latin Aristotelians before this time. In the same way in which we talk of the quantity and quality of a thing, they spoke of its quiddity." We may consider the reign of mere disputation as fully established at the time of which we are now speaking; and the only kind of philosophy henceforth studied was one in which no sound physical science had or could have a place. The wavering abstractions, indistinct generalizations, and loose classifications of common language, which we have already noted as the fountain of the physics of the Greek Schools of philosophy, were also the only source from which the Schoolmen of the middle ages drew their views, or rather their arguments: and though these notional and verbal relations were invested with a most complex and pedantic technicality, they did not, on that account, become at all more precise as notions, or more likely to lead to a single real truth. Instead of acquiring distinct ideas, they multiplied abstract terms; instead of real generalizations, they had recourse to verbal distinctions. The whole course of their employments tended to make them, not only ignorant of physical truth, but incapable of conceiving its nature. Having thus taken upon themselves the task of raising and discussing questions by means of abstract terms, verbal distinctions, and logical rules alone, there was no tendency in their activity to come to an end, as there was no progress. The same questions, the same answers, the same difficulties, the same solutions, the same verbal subtleties,— sought for, admired, cavilled at, abandoned, reproduced, and again admired, might recur without limit. John of Salisburys observes of the Parisian teachers, that, after several years' absence, he found them not a step advanced, and still employed in urging and parrying the same arguments; and this, as Mr. Hallam remarks,19 "was equally applicable to the period of centuries." The same knots were tied and 17 Deg. iv. 494. 18 He studied logic at Paris, at St. Geneviève, and then left them. "Duodecennium mihi elapsum est diversis studiis occupatum. Jucundum itaque visum est veteres quos reliqueram, et quos adhuc Dialectica detinebat in monte, (Sanctæ Genovefæ) revisere socios, conferre cum eis super ambiguitatibus pristinis; ut nostrum invicem collatione mutuá commetiremur profectum. Inventi sunt, qui fuerant, et ubi; neque enim ad palmam visi sunt processisse ad quæstiones pristinis dirimendas, neque propositiunculam uuam adjecerant. Quibus urgebant stimulis eisdem et ipsi urgebantur," &c. Metalogicus, lib. ii. cap. 10. 19 Middle Ages, iii. 587. The poet's cen untied; the same clouds were formed and dissipated. They stand Locked up together hand in hand The same bare path they tread, And dance like Fairies a fantastic round, But neither change their motion nor their ground. It will therefore be unnecessary to go into any detail respecting the history of the School Philosophy of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. We may suppose it to have been, during the intermediate time, such as it was at first and at last. An occasion to consider its later days will be brought before us by the course of our subject. But, even during the most entire ascendency of the scholastic doctrines, the elements of change were at work. While the doctors and the philosophers received all the ostensible homage of men, a doctrine and a philosophy of another kind were gradually forming the practical instincts of man, their impatience of tyranny, the progress of the useful arts, the promises of alchemy, were all disposing men to reject the authority and deny the pretensions of the received philosophical creed. Two antagonist forms of opinion were in existence, which for some time went on detached, and almost independent of each other; but, finally, these came into conflict, at the time of Galileo; and the war speedily extended to every part of civilized Europe. 3. Scholastic Physics. It is difficult to give briefly any appropriate examples of the nature of the Aristotelian physics which are to be found in the works of this time. As the gravity of bodies was one of the first subjects of dispute when the struggle of the rival methods began, we may notice the mode in which it was treated.20 "Zabarella maintains that the proximate cause of the motion of elements is the form, in the Aristotelian sense of the term: but to this sentence we," says Keckerman, "cannot agree; for in all other things the form is the proximate cause, not of the act, but of the power or faculty from which the act flows. Thus in man, the rational soul is not the cause of the act of laughing, but of the risible faculty or power." Keckerman's system was at one time a work of considerable authority: it was published in 1614. By comparing and systematizing what he finds in Aristotle, he is led to state his results in the form of definitions 20 Keckerman, p. 1428. and theorems. Thus, gravity is a motive quality, arising from cold, density, and buk, by which the elements are carried downwards.” - Water is the lower, interme late element, cold and moist.” The first theorem concerning water is, "The mistness of the water is controlled by its coliness, so that it is less than the moistness of the air; though, according to the sense of the vulgar, water appears to misten more than air." It is obvious that the two properties of fluils, to have their parts easily movel, and to wet other bodies, are here confounded. I may, as a concluding specimen of this kin 1, mention those propositions or maxims concerning fluids, which were so firmly established, that, when Boyle propounded the true mechanical principles of fluid action, he was obliged to state his opinicus as "Lydrostatical paradores.” These were, that fluids do not gravitate in proprio loco; that is, that water has no gravity in or on water, since it is in its own place:that air has no gravity on water, since it is above water, which is its proper place that earth in water tends to descend, since its place is below water:—that the water rises in a pump or siphon, because nature abhors a vacuum-that some bodies have a positive levity in others, as oil in water; and the ke. 4. Authority of Aristotle among the Schoolren.-The authority of Aristotle, and the practice of making him the text and basis of the system, especially as it regarded physics, prevailed during the period of which we speak. This authority was not, however, without its flaetuations. Launoy has traced one part of its history in a book. On the various Fortune of Aristotle in the University of Paris The most material turns of this fortune depend on the bearing which the works of Aristotle were supposed to have upon theology. Several of Aristotle's works, and more especially his metaphysical writings, had been translated into Latin, and were explained in the schools of the University of Paris, as early as the beginning of the thirteenth century. At a council held at Paris in 1209, they were prohibited, as having given occasion to the heresy of Almerie (or Amauri), and because they might give occasion to other heresies not yet invented." The Logie of Aristotle recovered its credit some years after this, and was publicly taught in the University of Paris in the year 1215; but the Natural Philosophy and Metaphysics were prohibited by a decree of Gregory the Ninth, in 1231. The Emperor Frederic the Second employed a number of learned men to translate into Latin, from the Greek and ■ Mosheim, iii. 157. Arabic, certain books of Aristotle, and of other ancient sages; and we have a letter of Peter de Vineis, in which they are recommended to the attention of the University of Bologna: probably the same recommendation was addressed to other universities. Both Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas wrote commentaries on Aristotle's works; and as this was done soon after the decree of Gregory the Ninth, Launoy is much perplexed to reconcile the fact with the orthodoxy of the two doctors. Campanella, who was one of the first to cast off the authority of Aristotle, says, "We are by no means to think that St. Thomas aristotleized; he only expounded Aristotle, that he might correct his errors; and I should conceive he did this with the license of the Pope." This statement, however, by no means gives a just view of the nature of Albertus's and Aquinas's commentaries. Both have followed their authors with profound deference. For instance, Aquinas attempts to defend Aristotle's assertion, that if there were no resistance, a body would move through a space in no time; and the same defence is given by Scotus. We may imagine the extent of authority and admiration which Aristotle would attain when thus countenanced, both by the powerful and the learned. In universities, no degree could be taken without a knowledge of the philosopher. In 1452, Cardinal Totaril established this rule in the University of Paris.24 When Ramus, in 1543, published an attack upon Aristotle, it was repelled by the power of the court and the severity of the law. Francis the First published an edict, in which he states that he had appointed certain judges, who had been of opinion,25 "que le dit Ramus avoit été téméraire, arrogant et impudent; et que parcequ'en son livre des animadversions il reprenait Aristotle, estait évidemment connue et manifeste son ignorance." The books are then declared to be suppressed. It was often a complaint of pious men, that theology was corrupted by the influence of Aristotle and his commentators. Petrarch says, that one of the Italian learned men conversing with him, after expressing much contempt. for the Apostles and Fathers, exclaimed, "Utinam tu Averroen pati posses, ut videres quanto ille tuis his nugatoribus major sit!" 26 When the revival of letters began to take place, and a number of men of ardent and elegant minds, susceptible to the impressions of beauty of style and dignity of thought, were brought into contact with Greek literature, Plato had naturally greater charms for them. A 22 Deg. N. 475. 23 F. Piccolomini, ii. 835. 24 Launoy, pp. 105, 128. |