ROGER BACON ON EXPERIMENT, INDUCTION AND INTELLECT IN HIS RECEPTION OF ANALYTICA POSTERIORA II 19
Pia A. Antolic-Piper*
Nowadays it is commonly acknowledged among scholars that the Cor- pus Aristotelicum had a huge influence on Latin medieval thinkers. It is equally agreed upon that the reception of the Aristotelian writings had ahistoricalpoint de départ when, in the middle of the twelfth century, translators like James of Venice (Jacobus Veneticus Graecus) or Gerard of Cremona undertook the task of translating Aristotelian texts from Greek and Arabic, which were at the time unknown to the Latin medievals. In this light, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are characterized histori- cally by the translation and the reception of almost all Aristotelian works as well as other Arabic, Greek, and Jewish sources.1 The fortunes of the Stagirite’s doctrines on being qua being and natu- ral phenomena, on man and happiness, on language and knowledge were to become quite different. Unlike the reception of Physics, De anima and Metaphysics (Met.), Posterior Analytics (APo.) had no institutional resis- tance to overcome.2 By the middle of the thirteenth century, the Aris- totelian paradigm of scientia (epistêmê) as demonstrative knowledge of reasoned facts had entered the philosophical and theological discussion. In APo. had become an integrated part of the arts-curriculum at the University of Paris.3 Nevertheless, its readers have had their diffi- culties with Aristotle’s teaching on demonstration, universals, and prin- ciples. The sceptical remarks on the understanding and applicability of
* I would like to thank Dr. Mark Thompson for his help in revising my English. 1 For the translators and the translations of the Aristotelian writings see: Dod (), –. 2 “Non legantur libri Aristotelis de methafisica et de naturali philosophiae, nec summe de eisdem, aut de doctrina magistri David de Dinant, aut Amalrici heretici, aut Mauricii hyspanii.” Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (CUP), eds. Denifle & Chate- lain (), No. , f. For the bans in the th century against Aristotle’s work see: Van Steenberghen () and Miethke (). 3 The statutum artistarum nationis anglicanae and the statutum facultatis artium de modo docendi et regendi in artibus in: CUP I, No. , – and No. , –. pia a. antolic-piper
APo.thatcanbefoundinJohnofSalisbury’sMetalogicon, a treatise from , perhaps best express the attitude and the difficulties of a whole gen- eration of scholars towards the Scientia demonstrativa:almostacentury had to pass until the first medieval scholar undertook the task of com- menting on APo.4 This diachrony in the translation and the reception of the Aristotelian writings extends over Posterior Analytics as well as Metaphysics and Physics. The finally fruitful integration of the ‘New Aris- totle’ was furthermore promoted and supported by the mediation of the newly translated Arabic tractates and commentaries on Aristotle, and the reverting to traditional Christian sources like Boethius.5 The emergence of these writings as textbooks marks a continuity, rather than a discon- tinuity, between the twelfth and thirteenth century, as well as a strong motivational and systematic continuity in regard to the development of logical and epistemological, metaphysical or psychological questions.
Following the first translation of APo. into Latin (between –) by James of Venice, it took almost a century until the first scholar under- tookthetaskofcommentingonthistextbookofLogica nova as a whole.6 Although we find “echoes” of the Posterior Analytics in the reception of Sophistici Elenchi bytheendofthethcentury,7 it was to be the later Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste (–), who first com- mented on APo. in the ’s in Oxford. By the end of the th century this literary commentary had advanced to a standard commentary.8 In the meantime we find more commentaries on APo.bymastersfromthe
4 “Posteriorum vero analecticorum subtilis quidem scientia est, et paucis ingeniis pervia. Quod quidem ex causis pluribus evenire perspicuum est. Continet enim artem demonstrandi, quae prae ceteris rationibus disserendi ardua est. Deinde haec utentium raritate iam fere in desuetudinem abiit, eo quod demonstrationis usu vix apud solos mathematicos est, et in his fere apud geometras dumtaxat.”John of Salisbury, Metalogicon, ed. Hall (), IV. , . 5 See Speer (), –. For the reception of the epistemological doctrines of Aris- totle in Dominicus Gundissalinus, a twelfth century author and translator, see Fidora (). 6 For the translatio Iacobi see: Minio-Paluello (), –; Dod (), – and the “Praefatio” in Minio-Paluell & Dod (), IX–LXXXIII. Unlike the translatio Iacobi the other two translations from the Greek by the mysterious translator Ioannes (before ) and William of Moerbeke (ca. or earlier) and the translation from the Arabic by Gerard of Cremona (before ) were rarely used. While the translatio Iacobi is extant in mss the other translations were far less circulated. 7 Ebbesen (), –. For the reception of APo. in the Middle Ages see Serene (), –; Pinborg (), –; and De Rijk (), –. 8 Robert Grosseteste, Commentarius in Posteriorum analyticorum libros, ed. Rossi (). See Ebbesen (), –; here: f.