Part 5 (1/2)

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 ac.u.men 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 cla.s.sics. 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) const.i.tutes 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 ma.s.s of confused and contradictory statutes and legal opinions, and to furnish a standard body of laws of manageable size in place of the unwieldly ma.s.s 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 surpa.s.s 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 repet.i.tion 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 Tribonia.n.u.s, 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 pa.s.sage being left.[26]

In mediaeval university doc.u.ments 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, t.i.tle ii, Infortiatum Bks. XXIV, t.i.tle iii-x.x.xVIII, t.i.tle iii, and New Digest (Digestum Novum) Bks. x.x.xVIII, t.i.tle 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 Inst.i.tutes, 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 ma.s.s of imperial const.i.tutions (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).