Political Science in Late Medieval Europe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
POLITICAL SCIENCE IN LATE MEDIEVAL EUROPE: THE ARISTOTELIAN PARADIGM AND HOW IT SHAPED THE STUDY OF POLITICS IN THE WEST A Dissertation by MARY ELIZABETH SULLIVAN Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2010 Major Subject: Political Science Political Science in Late Medieval Europe: The Aristotelian Paradigm and How It Shaped the Study of Politics in the West Copyright 2010 Mary Elizabeth Sullivan POLITICAL SCIENCE IN LATE MEDIEVAL EUROPE: THE ARISTOTELIAN PARADIGM AND HOW IT SHAPED THE STUDY OF POLITICS IN THE WEST A Dissertation by MARY ELIZABETH SULLIVAN Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Cary J. Nederman Committee Members, Elisabeth Ellis Erik Godwin Leah DeVun Head of Department, James Rogers August 2010 Major Subject: Political Science iii ABSTRACT Political Science in Late Medieval Europe: The Aristotelian Paradigm and How It Shaped the Study of Politics in the West. (August 2010) Mary Elizabeth Sullivan, A.B., Georgetown University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Cary J. Nederman This dissertation looks at Aristotelian political thinkers of the later Middle Ages and argues that they meet all of the criteria of a mature Kuhnian science. Scholars of medieval Europe have spent decades arguing over exactly how one should define medieval Aristotelianism and which thinkers qualify as Aristotelian. I answer this question by turning to the philosophy of science literature. By using the criteria laid out by Thomas Kuhn- a common education, a shared technical language and general agreement on problem choice- I am able to parse out a group of political thinkers who qualify as a scientific community. My dissertation then goes on to illustrate how several different medieval thinkers were able to operate within this Aristotelian paradigm. This project gives scholars of the Middle Ages a more useful lens through which to view the phenomenon of medieval Aristotelianism. For those interested in political science more broadly, I demonstrate that our field has, in fact, experienced a period of maturity, in which scholars shared a unified paradigm and proceeded with their research iv in concert. I also show some of the benefits and limitations of a common research agenda in the study of politics. v DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Mark and Marlene Sullivan, who have stood by me every step of the way. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to start out by thanking my chair, Cary Nederman, for his help both while writing my dissertation and throughout my graduate career. No one could ask for a better advisor. I would also like to thank the other members of the Texas A&M faculty, especially Lisa Ellis, Erik Godwin, Diego von Vacano, Judi Baer, and Dave Peterson (now at Iowa State) for their help and support. I would like to thank James Blythe of the University of Memphis for valuable feedback on Ptolemy of Lucca and Noah Dauber, currently at Colgate University, who provided assistance on my work with the early commentators. Thanks also go to my fellow graduate students at Texas A&M, especially Christie Maloyed, Ted Brown, Daniel Betti, Peyton Wofford, Brad Goodine, Megan Dyer, Sara Jordan, Phil Gray, Jesse Chupp, and Hassan Bashir, for reading countless chapter drafts and offering general advice and encouragement throughout this process. I would like to thank Constant Mews, John Crossley and their colleagues at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia for organizing the Communities of Learning conference in 2006 and the Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research, which provided travel funds that allowed me to attend. I would like to thank JoAnn Moran Cruz and Jennifer Paxton of Georgetown University for sparking my interest in Medieval Studies and for advising me on applying to graduate schools. I would certainly not be here today without your advice and inspiration. vii Thanks must also go to the many people who have helped me keep my sanity throughout the graduate school process. Thanks to Carrie Kilpatrick, Lou Ellen Herr, Diane Adams, and Elaine Tuttle for helping me successfully navigate the university bureaucracy with amazing patience. All of the graduate students would be lost with you. To the many friends I have made in the state of Texas over past five years: you have certainly lived up to your reputation for southern hospitality. You have made Texas feel like home, and that is a high compliment coming from a committed Jersey girl. To Ken Wong and all my friends back east, it’s good to know I have people I can always count on. You are wonderful. Last (though very far from least) I’d like to thank my family who have helped make everything possible: my aunt Judi and Uncle Robin, who always let me know that they are thinking of me, and my cousin, Alex, who has been serving his country in Iraq while I have been studying; you are my hero; to my godfather, who always believed in my potential, I know you would be proud; finally to my parents, I can’t even begin to express how grateful I am for everything you have given me. Thank you so much for all your support. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. iii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN ARISTOTELIAN IN THE MIDDLE AGES? .................................... 1 The Debate over Medieval Aristotelianism................................... 3 What These Authors Have Achieved and Where They Have Failed............................................................................................... 11 II MEDIEVAL ARISTOTELIANISM AS A KUHNIAN SCIENCE..... 15 Thomas Kuhn and the History of Science....................................... 16 Kuhn’s Theory and the Social Sciences.......................................... 21 Aristotelianism as a Political Paradigm .......................................... 29 Conclusion....................................................................................... 34 III ARISTOTLE AND THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THE POLIS...... 36 Previous Work on Aristotelian Social Science ............................... 37 Aristotle’s Politics and the Best Regime......................................... 44 How Does Aristotle Answer His Own Question?........................... 52 Other Topics Addressed in the Politics ........................................... 54 Conclusion....................................................................................... 57 ix CHAPTER Page IV THE ARISTOTELIAN TRANSITION............................................... 59 Brunetto Latini: PreHumanist and Defender of Liberty.................. 60 Li Livres dou Tresor ........................................................................ 65 Does Brunetto Latini Qualify as a Medieval Aristotelian? ............. 72 The Translation of the Politics and Its Immediate Reception......... 74 Do the Early Commentators Count as Aristotelians?...................... 77 Conclusion....................................................................................... 78 V PTOLEMY OF LUCCA: ROMAN REPUBLICANISM IN AN ARISTOTELIAN FRAMEWORK ..................................................... 81 Ptolemy of Lucca ............................................................................ 81 Modern Scholarship on Ptolemy..................................................... 83 Ptolemy’s Arguments for His Best Regime.................................... 88 Ptolemy as an Aristotelian Political Scientist ................................. 94 Conclusion: Ptolemy of Lucca and Normal Science ...................... 97 VI DANTE’S ARISTOTELIAN IMPERIALISM.................................... 100 Dante’s Life and Educational Background .................................... 101 Scholarship on Dante ...................................................................... 103 Convivio and De Monarchia ........................................................... 109 Aristotle’s Role in the Political Thought of Dante ......................... 114 VII CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH................................ 119 Was the Aristotelian Paradigm a Success? .................................... 119 Future Research............................................................................... 121 BIBLIOGRPHY........................................................................................................ 123 VITA ......................................................................................................................... 132 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN ARISTOTELIAN IN THE MIDDLE AGES? In the thirteenth century, Western political thinkers reacquainted themselves with the moral and political works of Aristotle, after nearly seven centuries of absence. Although controversial at first, Aristotle quickly became a central part of the medieval curriculum, and citations of both the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics are ubiquitous in later medieval writing.